Loading...
CAC Minutes 11/01/2001 RNovember 1,2001 COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE November 1,2001 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee met on this date at 3:34 p.m. In REGULAR SESSION at Naples City Hall, 735 Eighth Street South, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRPERSON: Gary Galleberg David Roellig John P. Strapponi James L. Snediker Robert B. Stakich William Kroeschell Robert Gray ABSENT: Anthony P. Pires, Ashley D. Lupo ALSO PRESENT: Ron Hovell, Public Utilities, Beach Renourishment Coordinator Roy Anderson, Public Utilities, Director of Engineering Jon Staiger, City of Naples Natural Resources Director Page 1 NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE AT NAPLES CITY HALL, 735 8th Street South, NAPLES, FL 34102 AT 1:30 P.M. ON NOVEMBER 1, 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. o Roll Call Field Trip Procedures, reconvene at beach locations Additions to Agenda (time certain, 3:30 p.m.) Old Business a. Approval of Minutes for October 4, 2001 b. Potential TDC Land Purchase of Barefoot Beach Parcel c. TDC Category 'A' project status report / budget / reserves d. Rock Removal Plan for Naples and Vanderbilt e. Tigertail Beach / Sand Dollar Island New Business a. Tropical Storm Gabrielle Beach Recovery Update (10507) b. Wiggins Pass Dredging Update (10508) c. Clam Pass Dredging Update (10268) d. Request by Pelican Bay Property Owners Association for beach nourishment Audience Participation Schedule next meeting 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. November 1, 2001 CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: We're going to reconvene the November 1st, 2001, meeting of the Coastal Advisory Committee. We had recessed in order to take our field trip to three spots on the City of Naples stretch of beach. I'll note for the record that the same six members that were here at 1:30 are present; in addition, Mr. Stakich has arrived. Ms. Lupo and Mr. Pires are absent from the panel today. We've done the roll call. We've done the field trip procedures, of course. Item 3, are there any additions to the agenda from staff?. (No response.) CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: No additions? Old business, Item 4-A. That is the approval of minutes. I had noted one thing, and I know -- I think that Mr. Snediker had noted it as well. We don't have him listed as either present or absent at the October 4th meeting. You were absent; is that correct? MR. SNEDIKER: That's correct. I was absent. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Does anyone else have any other changes? MR. KROESCHELL: On page 2, the remarks attributed to me, Mr. Kroeschell, were made by Mr. Pires. I don't think I could spell geodetic. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Okay. Anything else? MR. ROELLIG: We're back on page 1. My first comment about two lines up from the end, it says end of Sanibel Beach Road. Actually, it's Vanderbilt Beach Road. It wasn't that big a field trip. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Okay. Anything else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Do we have a motion for approval? MR. KROESCHELL: Second. Page 2 November 1,2001 MR. STRAPPONI: Second. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: All in favor? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: (No response.) Mr. Stakich I believe it was. Opposed? CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: It passes unanimously. Okay. Mr. Hovell or Mr. Anderson, Item 4-B. MR. HOVELL: Okay. The -- a couple of meetings in a row now we've had some discussions about what, if any, impact might the potential land purchase of that last remaining parcel on Barefoot Beach have on our TDC budget, specifically the beach budget. At a recent Board of County Commissioners meeting, if you happened to see it, the owner of that property was present when the board voted to purchase the land. It's my understanding, although I haven't seen any documentation, that they -- that the board and the county staff have made plans to use the general fund to pay for the debt service, I think is the way they worded it, until such time as they can pursue some state grants to purchase the property. I've been told that there will -- would not be an attempt to use TDC funds, and so I think that means that we're no longer concerned about this issue. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Well, that's good from our point of view, and then we'll just keep monitoring that, with your -- with your assistance, as it develops. Any questions or comments on that item? (No response.) CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Item 4-C. MR. HOVELL: In your agenda package I have given you the five-page report that I have indicated; I think last time was the first time I handed one out. I'll just provide this monthly in the agenda Page 3 November 1, 2001 package. I won't typically have a lot to say about it other than for your information or if you have any questions. What I would point out for this particular one is the last report was, in essence, a last prior fiscal year information. This one contains all the new budget information. So this particular report, when you look under column labeled current as clear appropriation, we're now talking about the new year and the new projects. The column just to the left of that, unencumbered, unexpended, rollover from previous fiscal year, you will now see figures in that column which were carried over from September 30th, any -- any purchase orders that were open and not -- the bills hadn't been paid, I guess, is the way to put it. That amount was rolled over into the new year. And just as an example, because I know this one seems to be a rather high-interest item for now, if you turn to page 4, a little less than halfway down, Project No. 10259, the Parker Sand Web system, you'll see that that amount now is under a million dollars. That's the amount of money that had not already been paid to this -- City of Naples as reimbursement for their project. I think the original amount was more on the order of 1.1 million and some -- some change. Any difference between the grant amount and whatever the city spends ultimately on the project-- (Mr. Staiger entered the room.) MR. HOVELL: -- unless another grant application is approved would be the responsibility of the city that -- to make up the difference. Were there any other issues that this raised that anybody would like me to address? CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Questions or comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Thank you. Page 4 November 1,2001 Next we have Item 4-D, which is the rock removal plan. MR. HOVELL: Again, in your agenda package I provided a copy of the -- of the plan and cover letter that was submitted to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection on October 22nd. I can tell you I've received no feedback at this point. I've tried to touch base with some of the folks up there to see if they have any initial reaction, and they have none to provide at this point. I know I've talked to a couple of you individually about questions that you may have had prior to finalizing this, but aside from that, I don't really have anything to add unless there were questions. Mr. Snediker. MR. SNEDIKFJR: I have one question on the -- under the subject, Phase D, is we talked on the phone on around the 3/8-inch screening. To me that seems very, very fine especially when you consider having a lot of those shells out on the beach. Were any other people -- did any other people comment on that or -- MR. ROELLIG: I believe I did. MR. HOVELL: I think at least one other person did, and we actually -- A1 went to over to a testing company and got some screens, and we had a quick parking lot experiment with both wet and dry sand on 3/8-inch and 3/4-inch screens. And depending on the quantity of rocks and whatnot that might be in there, a three -- 3/8- inch screen clearly clogged up with wet sand, especially if it had any amount of rocks in it. It -- it just became almost undoable. And there was a lot of discussion about the way previous contractors have done the work. But for a lot of reasons, I was -- MR. SNEDIKF. R: It's 3/8 of an inch. MR. HOVELL: 3/8 of an inch. MR. ROELLIG: You mentioned, when I talked to you about doing some comparison samples, taking a core below the area of renourishment to see what the so-called natural beach would have Page 5 November 1,2001 been before the sand was there. Do you still plan on doing that? MR. HOVELL: Well, I think any questions I would answer relating to what we plan on doing would be under the assumption that the plan is minute the way it was submitted. And so, yes, I think if the plan is approved the way it was submitted, we would -- in an attempt to determine what the natural beach composition is, rather than go up or down the beach to some area where we perhaps not renourished, what we thought we would do is make sure we go below the -- the nourishment line and go down and pull core samples that way to pull samples rather than the, quote, unquote, old way. And so, yes, that would be our position. MR. ROELLIG: I agree with Mr. Snediker. Otherwise we've only 2 percent. We've got to be more than 2 percent shallow which would be more than 3/8. MR. SNEDIKER: We're going to -- an awful lot of shells off the beach. MR. ROELLIG: Yeah. So if the plan is to just take off the amount of background material, that's not a problem. But if we end up taking off a bank raw material, then where -- we take a lot off the beach. MR. SNEDIKER: If it goes through the screen -- everything is going to go through the screen. Rob, why were we -- maybe I shouldn't ask this, but why are we being forced to encourage by the expression on your face that -- to go with the 3/8 of an inch? MR. HOVELL: Let me answer that in a different way. MR. SNEDIKER: Okay. I'm not trying to embarrass you. MR. HOVELL: Regardless of the size issue, which, you know, that's an interesting one in -- in and of itself. But once you've determined, regardless of-- of the size, once you've determined that an area is outside of what you determine to be the natural percentage Page 6 November 1, 2001 of rocks as -- that occurs in there, if you then go in and screen out anything larger than that size, in theory you're going to reduce the percentage to zero. So you're going to -- the pendulum is going to swing too far the other way, and there's a lot of discussion about, you know, what's natural, what should be left when we're done. I know people who were kind of supporters of the natural beach would tend to tell you that you can find rocks -- for instance, Key Island that we were just looking at on the other side of Gordon -- Gordon Pass, you can find rocks down there, and we've never done anything down there. So where do you draw the line? I think the general intent of this plan is to maintain those areas of beaches that we previously renourished and -- and in some people's opinion caused damage and harm to by putting rocks in there. It's -- it's to -- to get away from the past of digging big deep trenches and big deep holes and attempting to sift the entire quantity and yet still have rock show up. I think the general intent of this plan is to, in essence, pick up rocks as they show up down to a certain level. But certainly over time you're going to have erosion, whatnot. So just repeatedly over the years we're going to wind up back out there resifting the top layer of sand, raking up what's exposed, going out in the trough where hard-bottom rocks maybe continue to roll in or whatnot with the idea being that those who have raised these issues about too much shell and my feet hurt when I walk in it and it's all your fault because of the -- the failed project from years ago that we'll have, at least from a user's point of view, provided a -- a nice beach on any given day. MR. SNEDIKF. R: I mean, can I ask-- the question in another-- another way, if I may? Who determines the 3/8 of an inch? MR. HOVELL: There was a meeting with a number of folks in the county, as well as some of the more local critics, of what's been done in the past. And ultimately I guess it was Jim Mudd who's now Page 7 November 1,2001 the deputy county manager who made the decision and said, you know, after hearing all the input that -- that we needed to leave the plan the way it was written. MR. SNEDIKER: I, for one, think that's overkill. The truth, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Okay. Thank you. MR. ROELLIG: I concur. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: It -- it probably is. At the same time, it is part of a larger settlement issue, so I would imagine that's how Colonel Mudd made his decision. Next on our agenda, the final item of old business, 4-E, Tigertail Beach and Sand Dollar Island. MR. HOVELL: We've been discussing this on and off for a while now. At the same time perhaps because of Mr. Snediker's suggestion or for whatever other reason, the parks and recs folks looked to organize a meeting with a member from the Department of Environmental Protection, as well as those in the local area who are interested. And when they called me and asked who might be interested, I certainly indicated that I would expect at least somebody from the Coastal Advisory Committee would be interested. The short of it is, there's a meeting scheduled for Thursday, the 8th of October at two o'clock down at Tigertail Beach. MR. KROESCHELL: The 8th of October? MR. HOVELL: I'm sorry, November. Next week, not three weeks ago. And originally I had -- I had spoken to Mr. Snediker about attending. Originally it was scheduled for tomorrow and he had planned on attending that. However, next week he's not able to make it at that particular time that they scheduled it. MR. SNEDIKER: I'm going to rearrange my schedule. I will be there. MR. HOVELL: Oh, you are going to make it? Page 8 November 1, 2001 MR. MR. MR. MR. MR. MR. MR. MR. MR. SNEDIKER: (Nodded head.) STAKICH: What day is that? HOVELL: The 8th-- the 8th of November. GALLEBERG: A week from today. HOVELL: Yeah. A week from today. SNEDIKER: Two o'clock. STAKICH: Time? HOVELL: Two o'clock. KROESCHELL: This is Tigertail Beach? MR. HOVELL: This is Tigertail Beach. And it's basically parks and recreation, myself, somebody from Department of Environmental Protection, I think probably somebody from -- where did Maura go? Maura's shaking her head yes. Maura Krause from our natural resources section; she monitors the turtles. I don't know what other folks arranged the meeting. But, anyway, that's one step to -- to attempt to kick around some ideas and take a look at what we should consider doing in the future from a maintaining the viability of the beach-front park. On the other side of the equation, I think at the last meeting I had provided a -- I think it was only one page or two pages maybe out of the only reports I could find up to that point that might help us look at the past. Just recently Harry Huber has been continuing to clean out both his office and all the boxed-up files that have been moved around as -- as he was shuffled around between the different departments. He came across a box with a lot of Sand Dollar Island paperwork in it. And it looks like it goes back to about 1990. So I'll start sifting through that and seeing if we can't find some things in there that might help us look at the past so we can help predict the future. I would just note, in general, that some of the aerial photographs I looked at were right about the 1990 time frame. And much like Page 9 November 1,2001 we're concerned now that the lagoon is going to perhaps become a little inland lake for a while, become very stagnant, that was, in fact, the case back in about the 1990 time frame. The aerial photographs showed that both ends of the opening were -- were closed. So it obviously keeps changing back and forth over time. And I think the question is how do we -- how do we best adapt our -- our beach park to the ever changing environment there. MR. GRAY: Is this -- CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Go ahead. MR. GRAY: As I recall, we started talking about this in earnest because of, I guess, the Department of Health's report of contaminated water there. And I think since -- I think they looked at it two or three times, as I recall. Since then I haven't seen anything in the paper where they've had further problems. MR. STAIGER: There haven't been any. MR. GRAY: There haven't been any? MR. STAIGER: Yeah. They -- they're still sampling, but they -- they're still sampling, but there hasn't been any problem. MR. GRAY: Okay. MR. SNEDIKER: Okay. And that's not the real reason. I think the real reason is kind of the fact that the lagoon which is now closing in, closing its head-on peninsula, as you have noted many times, Ron, and it's getting worse and worse. On the -- the health situation was -- but it did come up in the newspaper. But, you know, that's -- as far as I'm concerned, at least, from Marco Island, that's a minor point. The future Tigertail Beach which is our most popular -- as I understand, one of the most popular county park beach we have, from beach-- beachgoers' point of view, it's getting worse and worse. From an environmental point of view, that's a -- some major problems there, too, and we do not want to, you know, turn our heads Page 10 November 1,2001 away from those. The lagoon is not going to get filled in; there's no question about that. That -- that will never get done. It will never pass by -- you know, hundreds of people will turn that down who have the authority to turn it down. But we should figure out what we can do. I read in your letter dated October 12th, Ron, as a beach committee member requesting that the county come up with a study, a -- a -- call it a projection, what the Tigertail lagoon, if you will, whatever you want to call that, would be looking like two years from now and five years from now or sometime. I don't care exactly what years we're talking about. But I think something that would be very good to have, both in parks and recreation, so they can sort of forecast what their beachgoers are going to have available to them. Something that would be very difficult to forecast, we have no idea what hurricanes are going to do; we have no idea what tropical storms are going to do. But I think engineers with their background could come up with some reasonable story for that. Is that something we would want to discuss at this time? MR. HOVELL: In the normal course of events, I would say that something that isn't already in this year's budget would become a potential project for consideration for the next cycle, which would mean should it get approved in that normal cycle, we would have the money come October 1st, 2002. If you feel that that's satisfactory, then we can just make those plans. If you feel that that's too far down the road, then we would have to have some way of generating a request for consideration by the TDC at their next meeting, which I think is in January and, perhaps, getting the Board of County Commissioners to approve a budget amendment to this year's budgeted amendment. MR. SNEDIKER: I'm not talking about a big elaborate city. I'm talking about maybe a couple contour drawings and maybe a two Page 11 November 1, 2001 -- a couple-page narrative. Now, last spring we did something -- MR. HOVELL: I can't spend a dollar on this issue unless we -- we get a grant application. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Does the TDC have any contingency funds -- MR. HOVELL: Not-- CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: -- in a budget sense? MR. HOVELL: Not anymore since we moved in -- in essence -- CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: $700. MR HOVELL: Yeah. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Because I-- I would-- I think from the standpoint of practicality, we ought to not forget that issue, keep it on our list, but put it -- you know, we'll -- we'll be presenting -- I assume next year we'll be presenting a list of things we think are warranted, TDC sunds -- TDC funds for-- and let's keep that in mind. And, you know, if we feel as a group that should be on the list, put it on then because it's -- it's not -- if it's unfunded, it's not going to be done this year. MR. STAKICH: I, for one, feel that 202 is -- 2202 (sic) is too a -- long a period. I think that something should be planned and we proceed in that regard as soon as possible. I think we discussed that two meetings ago, and it was determined that you were going to look into and see what we've done in the past, what we could do now, and how soon can we move on it. I -- I would like to see that as a priority item in the future, not too far in the future. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: We're lacking a mechanism from a realistic point of view for it to happen. MR. HOVELL: The only realistic option as far as getting money available this year would be to pull it from an existing project, and the only one that has real money in it is -- is the major beach renourishment project. And perhaps given that that's next on the Page 12 November 1,2001 agenda, you would prefer to have me give the update on that, and then we can come back to this subject. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: I'd like to do that. Also, before we move on from 4-E, I wanted to ask Mr. Hovell, is this meeting, this interagency meeting, going to be a public meeting, or is it a nonpublic meeting? MR. HOVELL: No. The -- I don't think so. I think the intent was to just have, in essence, staff. And we -- that's -- I noticed everybody was writing it down. I guess that would be an issue if more than one committee member was coming. No. The intent was not to make it a public meeting. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Then I was going to suggest maybe someone would make a motion to this effect, that we appoint Mr. Snediker to go to the meeting, attend, and -- and report back at our next meeting. And I would just then remind everyone that because of Sunshine rules, we would have to have only Mr. Snediker there for it to -- to have any real purpose. MR. GRAY: So moved. MR. ROELLIG: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: All in favor? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: That passes unanimously. MR. GRAY: I would also like to add in regards to this that I'm not quite sure when -- what TDC -- what their schedule is for budgeting for next year. But if they -- if they're starting that at their January meeting, they won't be -- MR. HOVELL: No. I'm sorry. The normal TDC cycle -- since they meet four times a year, the normal cycle is for them to consider grant applications in April. And I would just think that given that's Page 13 November 1,2001 their cycle, that it has to go through this committee first. Then we'd probably want to -- and that's up for discussion. But perhaps rather than doing it at one of the normal monthly meetings, maybe we have a -- a workshop in January just to kick around ideas and -- and, you know, not necessarily make any decisions but just look at lots of different options so that as we then develop the projects in about the February, March time frame and submit them to this committee and then to TDC, I don't know that I have the exact date, but I think it's -- early April would be their meeting. MR. GRAY: Maybe Mr. Snediker could report back to us at our next meeting and then put this on the agenda to look at as something that we might want to give to T -- TDC when they start funding. MR. SNEDIKER: Okay. Maybe one thing we can do, Ron and Mr. Chairman, in my letter of October 12th to you, my request, could you come up with at our next meeting here a budget number for that? I'm guessing we're talking about a very small -- relatively speaking, a very small amount of money to do that report. It's not a big deal. We did a report on Sand Dollar Island I think very, very economically last spring and did not have to go through a lot of hoops. We might spend more time and effort approving the project than what the project is worth to do. Just come up with an idea of what I'm talking about. Are we talking about a $10,000 number? I'm talking about a $3,000 number, something. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: I was going to suggest that and just really a ballpark, you know, to the -- MR. SNEDIKER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: -- to the nearest factor of ten even. Is it a thousand, ten thousand, a hundred thousand, whatever? And if it is, indeed, in terms of effort and cost a small project also to see if it can be tucked in somewhere, legitimately tucked in to perhaps a related activity because I think it would be a worthwhile exercise. I Page 14 November 1,2001 don't think it's worthwhile to send something to TDC where we know there isn't a mechanism this year. MR. HOVELL: My understanding of the list of projects that I have -- and you -- you know, you now have that list and that project status report. Each of those grant applications, in essence, has a scope of work. None of them include anything related to doing beach-related work at Tigertail Beach, and therefore, for me to spend any money there, I think we are going to have to go to the TDC and - - and follow that up with a budget amendment if we're trying to get it this fiscal year. That's fine. I don't mind doing that. I'm just saying procedural, I think that's the way we're going to have to go. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: That answers the second half of my question. There isn't anything related such that it -- it might be -- this goal might be amended and have that tacked on. So if somebody would like to make a motion, we'll entertain a motion. However, as I've said, I personally would -- would not favor going to the TDC when -- when there isn't really an avenue to get it budgeted this year. MR. HOVELL: Well, I think-- you know, understanding that there's really no reserves to pull from but also understanding that you want to do the project and -- and that there are other projects that are approved that perhaps can't be executed this year, at least not fully, I just need the TDC approval from a authority-to-spend-money point of view. I could-- there's plenty of projects to make recommendations to say at least for this year we could pull money out of in the form of a budget amendment and then include in next year's budget enough money to actually do the work when -- when we'll then have the plans and specifications and the construction contractor all lined up to do it. So I know it's a little bit of creative financing but -- but it -- it can be done. MR. SNEDIKER: Okay. Well, let's have a meeting next week and then come up with some numbers for us, and then we can talk Page 15 November 1, 2001 about it at our next meeting. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: That sounds good. If there are no other questions or comments on that item, we'll move on to new business, 5-A, which is an update on Tropical Storm Gabriel. MR. HOVELL: This has been a real learning experience for me to -- to go through an effort to try and come up with all the plans and permits and public access points and whatnot to do 400,000 cubic yards of sand in the relatively short time frame. Between the FEMA requirements, the state permitting requirements, almost daily if you asked me where we're at and when do I think we're going to start and what do I think we're going to do first, you've probably got a different answer for me. So today I'll attempt to tell you where we are today, but I won't swear to you next week that it will look anything like it does this week. First, let me start with -- with state permits. The only reason we can even consider trucking in the quantities of sand we're talking about is because we happen to have existing permits that cover certain sections of Vanderbilt, Park Shore, Naples, and Marco Island beaches. And somewhere on my list of things to do I hoped to kind of put that on a -- on a map or a chart for you to specifically show you which areas are within our permit boundaries and which areas are not. I've attempted to describe them in words before and when we've gone out on our field trips so you have some sense of it. So within those currently permitted areas, we have a requirement to maintain the beach in the form of going out and raking it and whatnot, as well as the authority to pursue getting what they call a notice to proceed under those permits to place up to 50,000 cubic yards of sand on any given year, the idea being that over the years you will have erosion on your beaches. And in order to help defer or delay the ultimate need to do another major restoration Page 16 November 1,2001 project of-- of an offshore dredge effort that might result in something like a million cubic yards, doing the 50,000 a year was just meant to do hot-spot maintenance over those years. When I went to the state and started discussions about how we might be able to change or modify those permits or in some way, shape, or form get authority to do more than 50,000 yards in one year, I don't know if it's because it wasn't in writing or we really didn't understand each other or what, but the initial reaction from the state was, that shouldn't be too hard to modify the quantity from 50,000 to 400,000 for a one-time event in one year and then in future years you go back to 50,000 yards. Unfortunately, over the last month what I've come to find out is the only way they feel they can do this is to change the wording of the permit from 50,000 cubic yards per year to 50,000 yards periodically. And what that means is that -- and, again, I'm not sure how this is going to work out, but even if we start -- today is November l st; it's the end of turtle season. If we had all other things lined up and we started work on Park Shore today where I do, by the way, have a notice to proceed for 50,000 cubic yards on Park Shore which happens to be just enough to cover what we estimate to be the damages, I'm not sure if they would require me to get all the way to the end of that effort before they would consider issuing the next notice to proceed for 50,000, for another beach segment, or if they would consider issuing concurrent notice to proceeds at different beach sections. And part of reason I don't know is because, even though they've left me voice mails saying that they have, in fact, modified that permit to -- to use that periodically versus annually, I still haven't seen it in writing. So it's kind of hard to get past, okay, well, what does that really mean. Going back to our damage estimate, the four hundred thousand Page 17 November 1, 2001 cubic yards was split up, about forty thousand on Park Shore and about thirty or forty thousand on Marco. So both of those segments of beach would fit within a single notice to proceed, the way the state is lining things up. But both Vanderbilt and Naples become a much more interesting subject to say, how am I going to start and what am I going to ask for for only 50,000 yards at a time on those beaches when I need on Naples 200,000 yards and on Vanderbilt 120,000 yards. And, again, I'm not sure. So does that mean I -- I can ask for 50,000 yards and maybe say from Doctor's Pass to some intermediate point like maybe Lowdermilk Park or something? And, oh, by the way, concurrently, I want a notice to proceed from Lowdermilk down to the pier, or are they going to require me to do the 50,000 -- you know, get more or less to the end of that before they'd issue the next one? I mean, all of those things are unknowns to me at this point. And so it's very difficult for me to tell anybody beyond, perhaps, starting Park Shore when we might get to something, to what extent we'll be able to do anything. The other complicating factor that they acknowledge exists but they really can't tell me what they think about it is when you get to those sections of Vanderbilt and Naples beaches that are under the consent order to remove rocks, if we have to do that work first and they haven't approved our rock removal plan, it would lead me to believe that they're not going to provide notice to proceeds in those areas, if not the entire lengths of those segments of beaches. So there's still an awful lot of things up in the air related to permits, and I really have no good guesstimate of how they're going to work out at this point. From the FEMA reimbursement point of view, it -- it's also been a very confusing learning process. We had initially, as you probably recall, started down the road asking the Board of County Page 18 November 1,2001 Commissioners to waive the normal procurement rules, and we went out with requests for quotes versus the normal bid process. We were on our way to receiving those quotes when the -- the FEM -- the FEMA consulting engineers, one of which -- one of the three of which had been through this a number of times before, told me that he didn't feel that that was not only an appropriate thing to do but that it would conflict with the FEMA guidance, and that, perhaps, it would put our potential reimbursement at risk. That particular issue I was able to find in the FEMA public assistance guide that it specifically does require that you use a normal contracting process for anything other than emergency work, and their definition of work -- emergency is an imminent risk to health or human safety. And so since restoring the beaches doesn't fit that category, we -- we canceled the request for quotes and are now going through a normal contracting process. The two normal contracting processes that we have are -- are, in essence, low bids or requests for proposals where you base your selection more on a best value based on firm experience with -- with costs being one of the factors. So at this point we're expecting to receive proposals in late November to have any contractors available to do any work. MR. SNEDIKER: Is that for the sand and the trucking or just the sand? MR. HOVELL: It's both. MR. SNEDIKER: Both. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: But if we've already -- does -- the county has already determined its sand sources, how do you -- how do you bid that? MR. HOVELL: Well, that's another one of those lessons learned that we're now -- and I appreciate the question because you -- you were on the selection committee for the sand source, and we Page 19 November 1, 2001 were just in a process and have, I believe, consummated the contracts with E. R. Yanna (phonetic) and Big Island Excavating. But the scope of those contracts was based on the assumption that we would be doing the annual 50,000 cubic yards. So when we had written the request for proposals, we had anticipated a range of sand requirements in any given year. 400,000 yards falls outside of that range. And in order to get a quantity larger than about sixty or seventy thousand yards, we're going to have to resolicit and reestablish contracts based on that larger anticipated quantity. And in -- in fact, after discussing it with purchasing, we -- we realized we boxed ourselves in by putting an estimated quantity range on there. And -- and so this time we're just -- we're just going to be silent on quantity. We're just saying we want to find a sand source, regardless of-- of how much we need. And then we'll -- we'll have -- in the proposals we'll have them tell us what their production capacity is, you know, in addition to all the other geological data. And based on the number of contracts we establish, we'll have to pick and choose to -- to match our needs at the time. And I believe Mr. Strapponi's going to be on that new selection committee, assuming we continue to go through with that. That one is out on the street. I believe that the proposals are due -- well, I think with the Thanksgiving holidays, I think the proposals are due on the first Monday after Thanksgiving, on the 26th of November, if I recall correctly. And then the other piece of the FEMA issue was that because we do have some contracts that are standing contracts for things like debris removal or storm recovery, there was a lot of discussion with the FEMA reps, as well as the county staff, purchasing, and attorneys and whatnot about whether or not we could potentially make use of an existing contract in the interim of finding a hauling, placing, and grading contractor to the -- to this process that we're kicking off now. Page 20 November 1,2001 I think in the end we have determined that we do, in fact, have a storm recovery contract with a firm called Phillips & Jordan. They were selected under our request for proposal process in which price was not a factor at all for their selection. It was strictly based on experience and capability to do work related to storm recovery, up to and including assembling the paperwork to file with FEMA to potentially receive reimbursement. So I think once we get some final paperwork ironed out under that particular contract, what we're hoping to do is start on Park Shore where we happen to have a notice to proceed from the state for 50,000 cubic yards and use the Phillips & Jordan contract to haul, place, and grade onto that particular beach. And if all goes at least fairly well, I would say I hope to start that on the Monday after Thanksgiving, the 26th of November. The other beaches, whether it's Marco Island, would probably be the next most likely place that I could get everything lined up to get started on. And there's some amount of possibility if-- if, in fact, the state has made the modification to the permit and is willing to consider issuing another notice to proceed, I would think they would certainly do that well in advance of Thanksgiving. So, therefore, we may also be able to start Marco Island at that same time frame. The two that, again, are -- are very much up in the air are Naples and Vanderbilt. Because of the -- both the larger quantity being larger than 50,000 yards of exactly how to -- how to deal with that and the rock removal issue, I'm not sure where we're going to go with those two. The last piece is there was also a lot of discussion from the FEMA folks, but I -- I asked them to provide me the reference in the public assistance guide, and when I could not find it, you know, I kept going back and asking the question over again. I also asked the question of the state disaster rep. And come to find out that the initial Page 21 November 1,2001 indication that they had given me of not starting work without having had the project approved by FEMA, that does not seem to be a true requirement. So whereas maybe last week or however long ago it was we had assumed that we had to gather all the paperwork, which included finishing the surveys, the post-storm surveys, submit it all to FEMA, and wait some number of weeks or even months for the approval of that project before we could start work, that last bit of that statement does not seem to be true. I think what we can do, based on the most recent discussions, is as long as we have completed the post-storm surveys before we do any work so we would have the accurate data, then we can begin work while they process the paperwork and consider whether or not they're going to approve our projects. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: But that changes the whole equation. I was just going to ask that question. If you start before FEMA approval, you may or may not end up getting FEMA money; right? MR. HOVELL: That is part of the risk if we approach it that way. And I -- it depends on how you feel about it and -- and your particular perspective. But certainly from a budgetary point of view, when we did -- when we made the presentations about doing the budget amendment to the $7 1/2 million, I believe that's what we said going in is that amount of money would all be money that we would have to front and may or may not receive reimbursement for. I don't think this changes that. It's just a question of, would we truly do the work if we knew FEMA was going to say no for some reason and, in essence, spend all or most of that money even though we might not get reimbursed. I don't know how we want to work that into the equation of getting started, if we want to -- CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Well, ultimately that's a county commission call, and I might be wrong, but I certainly had the Page 22 November 1, 2001 impression that not just this committee but the other county boards and so forth were operating under the assumption of while we would have to spend this money in a cash-flow sense, we would end up in the end spending about a million bucks rather than the 8 1/2 out of our own coffer. MR. HOVELL: And that's -- and I don't know whose decision that is or how we're going to approach it, but it would appear that we would have all other things lined up other than the FEMA approvals. And so at some point someone will have to make that decision, so I guess we'll have to address how that process is going to work. If, in fact, we do want to wait for FEMA approval, again, because of their approval thresholds, the Marco Island and -- or Marco Island and Park Shore segments, since the estimates for those two quantities of sand are less than a million dollars, those packages only have to go to the regional office in Atlanta for approval. Anything over the million-dollar mark for an individual beach segment has to go to Washington, D.C., for the final approvals. So, again, we could find ourselves, you know, waiting some number of weeks, months down the road to get those approvals. Well, I'd like not to think -- there hasn't been anybody I've spoken to who's said that the -- that the approval took years. What they've said was it took them years to actually collect the money from FEMA. MR. SNEDIKER: Ron, wasn't there a consulting firm that you had knowledge of that had a great deal of experience with FEMA and could maybe assist you rather than you taking on this whole thing, burden yourself with a brand new task? MR. HOVELL: Well, you know, again, this -- this all -- a lot of the issues, including the one about Tigertail, a lot of these issues kind of keep getting hung up on the fact that we don't have a coastal engineer under contract with the county right now. MR. SNEDIKER: Is that a coastal engineering firm -- Page 23 November 1,2001 MR. HOVELL: Yes, yes. MR. SNEDIKER: -- that had the FEMA experience with that? MR. HOVELL: And it's -- it's made it very awkward to attempt to go out and do something. I went so far the other day as to -- as to talk to the three firms that will soon be under contract with the county about how they might feel about doing something that might sound a little strange compared to the way we normally do business with professional firms. But in reading the county procurement pol -- or purchasing policy which complies with state laws, anything under $25,000 is not subject to the same formal competitive requirements as those things that are over $25,000. And when you read the county purchasing policy, if it was -- if it was a professional services agreement for less than $25,000, one of the options is to just get 3 quotes based strictly on price, though, but just get 3 quotes and take the lowest quote and then hire them to do that work. Normally professional services firms get hired based on qualifications, and then the price is something you negotiate. I haven't quite come to grips with -- with what -- whether we do that or whether we continue to attempt to go to an existing fixed-term contract that the county has, in which case that particular contractor would have to turn around and subcontract the work out to somebody anyway and-- MR. SNEDIKER: Maybe I'm getting ahead of myself now. Are we going to be talking about the -- the three engineering firms sometime on the agenda -- the specific agenda item? MR. HOVELL: No. It's not a specific agenda item. MR. SNEDIKER: Oh. Well, would this be time to talk about -- I'm -- I'm trying -- trying to see if we could get you some help. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: We've already -- we've already made a decision on and sent it up to the commissioners o n -- MR. HOVELL: Well, let -- let me -- let me back up for a Page 24 November 1,2001 second and ask if there's any other issues related to the general subject of the beach recovery. If not, I'll be happy to -- to get into the ins and outs of-- of when we're going to have a contract with those three firms. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Are there questions or comments? MR. ROELLIG: I have a comment. You know, it's been quite awhile since I've been involved in this, but you'll never know when you're going to get the money. You know, the work will be completed. Auditors will come in. You know, you kind of go on faith unfortunately. So, I mean, you have to -- you shouldn't really feel that you may not get all you're going to get. You're -- you'll never know the final amount until the check comes in the doorway. And that may be two or three, four years later. Who knows? But that's just in a -- the odds are you'll do pretty well. But you may have to go through a lot of auditing after all the work is done. They may be ready for the next storm, but that's just the way you have to look at it. MR. GRAY: I feel pretty much the same way. It's been my experience in situations somewhat like this that if you don't bite the bullet and somehow just go on faith and do what is proper and right to serve our county, you could be sitting around three years from now and nothing would have happened. And I think when we're dealing with the federal government, especially with the situation as it is now since 9/11, there's a chance that we may never get any money. But I think we -- I think we do have the money, and we're going to have monies coming in, maybe not as much as we had thought at one time. But I would suggest that we proceed and document as much as we can and get as much as we can in the way of approvals. And that sounds like a broad brush. Maybe it is a broad brush, but -- MR. HOVELL: Well, it may help to understand how -- I think I Page 25 November 1, 2001 started all this off on this general subject of beach recovery by saying that we happen to have existing permits which we can attempt to modify the quantity on and -- and do this. Well, let me tell you how other counties are having to deal with this issue who don't happen to have existing permits that they can move forward with. And it seems to be the general expectation of the coastal engineers hired by FEMA and the disaster recovery folks from both the state and federal level that they come in and take a look at what you have. They expect that you will, in fact, go out and do your post-storm surveys and submit all your paperwork to attempt to get FEMA reimbursement, but they also sort of have a general expectation from experience in other locations that you do not have a way to go out and immediately start work. And if you're going to spend the next year or even two pursuing permits and getting plans and specs drawn up and going through a very deliberate and, you know, unfortunately slow process to ultimately restore your beaches. And some of that expectation is that once you go above -- and I won't say a specific number. But certainly once you get up into a large quantity of sand, the general expectation is that you're going to do a hydraulic dredge event to put the sand on the beach and not truck it in. They haven't said that they wouldn't approve our project based on trucking. Matter of fact, all's they've said is that they -- you know, they would review the paperwork, agree on a damage quantity of sand lost, and reimburse us for our actual costs to replace it. So if we have to truck it in, they seem to be willing to do that. But that's -- what we're proposing to do does not seem to be the ordinary method of recovering from a -- a storm. And so, again, it gives you plenty of time to, in essence -- you would know well in advance of doing a hydraulic dredge event of whether or not FEMA was, in fact, saying, yes, your project was approved. Page 26 November 1,2001 And then as a follow-on to that, a lot of counties are -- are not in the same financial position that we happen to be in either where they don't happen to have reserves available to go out and immediately do something. So from a funding standpoint, they are counting on not only the federal government but the state to cost share as well. And that program allows for -- and I forget the thresholds, but it does allow them to advance money to begin paying for the work. So what we're doing isn't that -- what they perceive as the normal process. And, therefore, when we ask questions about what we can do to accelerate it, we don't get a lot of sympathy, because this is not their general expectation of how things go. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: I think there's a general sense or has been at least that the only limiting factor really is how many trucks can we get to bring the sand to the beach. But the money -- the money was pretty much in place, and the availability of sand was there and so on and forth. And that clearly is not the situation. I think our -- our committee here, we don't really make or even necessarily advise on funding decisions. That really is up to the TDC to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners. But it's a whole different situation than I thought it was. And I -- I think realistically, we need to get -- we'll get some sand on the beach. Particularly I think we mentioned -- was it Park Shore we have the existing permit? But it seems like we'll spend the season getting paperwork done and -- and learning for the next emergency. I -- I personally think it does change the equation a great deal if it's a leap of faith on reimbursement or whether it isn't, because if we're going to deplete the entire reserves for this event, that may still be the wise thing to do, but I don't think it's a no-brainer, and I'm not sure I would consider it a wise thing to do. I thought and I think we all thought it was really more of a cash-flow issue than an ultimate issue of cost. Page 27 November 1,2001 MR. HOVELL: I don't disagree that -- that there was a general expectation that we could get that FEMA paperwork in relatively quickly. And I don't know. Different people may have had different opinions of whether they thought that unless FEMA seemed to be indicating that there was a particular reason they might not approve it that it was just a question of how much they would approve, and, therefore, we would go ahead and do what we thought was the right thing and receive some amount of reimbursement, you know, plan on receiving some amount of reimbursement. But if we -- you know, if the expectation is that we absolutely know whether or not FEMA has approved the project before we start work -- well, I would just say -- I hear some whispers, never happen. I just say given some of the self-imposed constraints related to not working January 2, March, and given that although we tend to say turtle season starts on the 1st of May, in fact, it starts whenever the water temperature reaches a certain -- a certain point. It makes it very, very difficult to even think we're going to get most of this work done before May 1st. And -- and once you lose that as a premise, it starts to raise a whole lot of other questions in -- in people's minds, I think. MR. ROELLIG: Well, I would recommend you go as quickly as possible on Park Shore. I'm quite sure that they would do partial reimbursements or at least approvals. I mean, you don't have to wait until you get all 400,000 out there. If you get a segment done, you turn it in. MR. HOVELL: Absolutely. If I wasn't clear on that point, we -- they agreed and we are willing to submit a Park Shore project, a Vanderbilt project, a Naples project, and a Marco project. And they're -- they're happy to -- to break it up that way. MR. ROELLIG: Right. MR. GRAY: When you say they, you mean FEMA? Page 28 November 1,2001 MR. HOVELL: Right. MR. GRAY: You know, doing it that way and starting out with Park Shore or wherever we start -- and let's say it is Park Shore -- that might be another tremendous learning curve for you as to how we proceed from there. And insofar as the state is concerned, I think I would get it documented by sending them a letter and having hopefully a response from them that we do have this 50,000 cubic- yard permission as needed, number one; and, number two, let -- let -- let them give us approval to segment these bigger beaches where there's more than 50,000 cubic yards required. I think if you got that documented in a letter, that would cover you there. You know, the FEMA thing, that's another matter. MR. ROELLIG: No. That's entirely different. MR. GRAY: There are three or four things there. But the state thing I would proceed like that with getting some letter guarantees about their permits. MR. HOVELL: I think once they provide the permit modification that allows for something other than just 50,000 yards a year, then I would certainly follow that up with, in essence, requesting notices to proceed for-- as muddy workers get, the very segments, and in some way breaking it up and-- and seeing if they wouldn't give me notice to proceed for, in essence, everything else. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Well, what we've got in hand right now is 50,000. MR. HOVELL: 50,00 yards for-- CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: What we have in hand right now is 50,000 yards, and that's both permitted and it's budgeted in the normal course. We do that annually. So then the question on that would remain -- the remaining question on that would be where do we put the 50,000 cubic yards. MR. HOVELL: Right now the notice to proceed says it's going Page 29 November 1,2001 on Park Shore beach only. I wouldn't disagree that if you thought we might not get much more than fifty or a hundred thousand yards done this year, do we really want to do fifty thousand on Park Shore versus perhaps come up with some other idea of restoring dunes county- wide first and then filling in the hot spots and, you know, see what we can get done before May l st? But there's so many things in the air, it's kind of-- it's kind of hard to even make a good recommendation. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Well, I think the first principle would be to get 50,000 yards somewhere this year because we know that's achievable. Not to be sloppy and about it but put priority on getting it somewhere -- if we've got the notice on Park Shore and that's the only reasonable place we can get it done, then it would be Park Shore. And I don't think -- there isn't anything really for this committee to do at this time. It's really a case of keeping us up to date, and I would think as this develops, if it does turn into a situation, that we need to make allocation choices or give our -- our views on that, we'll do that. And if it turns into a situation where the end cost of the TD funds will be significantly in excess of a million dollars, then I think that decision would be revisited by our board as well. MR. SNEDIKER: Ron, if I may add one thing, we -- you mentioned Park Shore and Marco Island. Park Shore, the -- the physical area of the beach at Park Shore where we were just at, Horizon -- Horizon Way and so on is a more popular area tourist- wise, beachgoers-wise than the area of Marco Island that-- that you planned to be doing the renourishment under this program. The area on Marco Island could be done during the winter season, January, February, March. I don't think Park Shore -- to do January, February, March there, that would be a real tough situation. There would be certainly a lot of people. Page 30 November 1,2001 So if you want -- so if you want -- as far as I'm concerned, do that first, do Marco Island during the middle of February if you want to. That way it may work out easier for -- MR. GRAY: Prob -- probably both those areas, too, from your standpoint and to get something rolling would be easier to work because we've had recent experience. We know -- we know how to work it, so to speak. And, again, I think that -- I think just get the ball rolling and doing it maybe in those two areas or the one area would be a strong learning curve for the county as to how to go from there insofar as FEMA is concerned. But unless we get the ball rolling, we're going to be setting on our duffs, and nothing is going to happen. We're not going to learn anything. We're going to be scratching our head and wondering what's going on. And I agree with Gary; there's not a whole lot we can do except listen and be sympathetic and throw in our suggestions here and there, and that's probably about all we can do at this point. MR. HOVELL: And just to follow up on Mr. Snediker's point too, that's an interesting concept of doing it during tourist season, especially given that it looks like we'll be able to work out going through that construction site to access that point, rather than having to go through Resident's Beach which would -- MR. SNEDIKER: That would be very strip -- it's a long -- long travel on the beach too. MR. HOVELL: Yeah. MR. SNEDIKER: You can go right through that point by R- I 48. That's very easy. MR. HOVELL: Yeah. Unless there's any more, the only other side issue that was left hanging was an update on the three coastal engineering firms that was sort of an offshoot of that discussion. The process is to get the short list approved by the Board of Page 31 November 1,2001 County Commissioners, which was done -- I think it was the 13th of October. Then purchasing works out the fee-schedule issues with the three firms. Once the fee schedules are worked out, they send them contracts to be signed. Once they return to their signed contracts, we present them to the Board of County Commissioners to get the authorization for the chairman to sign them and enter into the contract. And at this point we put it on the agenda for the 13th of November to have -- to present those to the Board of County Commissioners. So assuming all goes well, then later on that same day I could start asking some of those firms directly for proposals. But between now and then, I'm -- I'm still kind of hamstrung on exactly how to proceed. MR. SNEDIKER: Well, let-- let's say assuming all that happens. When do you -- when would you assign various projects, which is -- you've got a dozen or more projects -- to the various engineers, and when would they -- when will they receive their assignments, if that's the correct word? MR. HOVELL: I've -- I've talked to all three firms. MR. SNEDIKER: Yes. MR. HOVELL: I've given them all the project lists that's available for this year, and I've asked them all to provide comments on if they for some reason had a particular interest in -- in a specific project or if they feel they have a particular expertise that might be better suited to some projects more than others. And, in general, which I think is the right answer, they've all said, "Yeah. We can do any of the work, professional coastal engineers; that's what we're hired for." But just as an example, when I went to the shelf looking up the Wiggins Pass inlet management plan, Coastal Planning & Engineering from Boca Raton happened to do that plan back in 1995. So there may be some sense that-- barring any other input to say, Page 32 November 1,2001 well, then the next -- not this winter but maybe two years down the road or even next year when we have to do some monitoring to perhaps assign that to them since they have a lot of that data already in hand. So I think it would just be a question of divying it up based on the input, which I have not received all of it yet. And it would be my hope to -- to, in essence, ask for requests for proposals for pretty much all the projects on our list within about the first week or so of getting the contracts approved so we can get things going. The comment I was making earlier about, you know, we have an awful lot of projects that really aren't going to be executed this year is based on the fact that, you know, they're going to have to go out and -- and kick off the engineering side of this, perhaps it -- either a minor permit mod or -- or at least a notice to proceed under the existing permits before we would be allowed to do any work. And the likelihood of doing both the engineering and then all the purchasing, you know, month-plus process to get a contractor on board and then getting the work done before turtle season to me isn't the very high probability. So I've been pretty much planning on, other than a few select projects, that basically this winter we're going to be doing engineering work. This coming summer when we can't work anyway we're going to be doing all the purchasing work. And come 1 November of 2002, we're going to be very busy doing work, construction work, yes. There you go. MR. SNEDIKER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Anything else on 5-A from the committee? (No response.) CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: 5-B, which is the Wiggin -- which is the Wiggins Pass dredging update. Page 33 November 1,2001 MR. HOVELL: I just wanted to provide a quick update on that one. I'm hoping -- and maybe Ken will let us say yes to get the plans and specs in the next week or so. He says yes. And once we have those in hand, we'll put -- put it out to -- for purchasing to -- to solicit for contractors. Given the normal time frame, I would say sometime in December we'll -- we'll receive those, go through a process to -- to hire the contractors and then get on with scheduling their availability. So I would tend to say, you know, by February or March we'll be out there dredging Wiggins Pass. I've had a lot of interest from the -- I think it used to be called the Wiggins Pass Conservancy, and now it's called something else. Its letters are ECA, but I hesitate to attempt to say what that means, something about estuary and conservancy, but anyway, they're very concerned because they do have some spots where their boats are bumping or whatnot. But anyway, that's proceeding along. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: And do you have a side bet with Dr. Staiger if that one's going to finish before Doctor's Pass? MR. STAIGER: No bets. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Any questions or comments on 5-B? (No response.) CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: 5-C, Clam Pass dredging update. MR. HOVELL: As you recall at the -- let's see, how did that work? The last meeting, October 4th, it was all rather confusing because the Pelican Bay Services Division was attempting to pull what I was presenting as a -- an additional amount of money to be spent to do this project based on Tropical Storm Gabriel, d~ing a lot of work for them. We did, in fact, though on October 8th and 9th go to the TDC and the BCC and, in essence, get everybody to agree that since this project was budgeted and it's included in this year's efforts Page 34 November 1,2001 and we already had bids in hand that we would, in fact, go ahead and award the contract. It's on the 13th of November agenda for the Board of County Commissioners to award the contract to the -- I believe it was a bid, so the low bidder under that project. And so then we'll get on later in November with scheduling when they would come down and do the work. And then the only modification we'll need to make is instead of the typical way of doing it, which was -- the main interest is -- is doing the dredging, and the disposal was sort of a -- you know, yeah, just put it down there down the beach someplace. There was no real specific desire. We'll come up with a more specific plan of exactly where and how we want them to place the sand mostly to reform the dunes there on the north edge of Clam Pass Park. So that is proceeding. MR. ROELLIG: Basically, as -- as you mentioned, that the -- the work is the same. The purpose has changed. I mean, we're looking -- the original contract was to improve tidal flows, and this is basically obtaining beach-quality sand for the -- the area eroded at the county park and perhaps further south. MR. HOVELL: Yes. And -- and in the end, it was agreed that it still does improve the tidal flow. It just perhaps wasn't as necessary for only that reason. MR. ROELLIG: Now, will this be part of the FEMA reimbursement then? MR. HOVELL: No. Any beach, such as Clam Pass Park or Key Island or I guess it would be Barefoot Park and Delnor Wiggins Park, that receive sand from a dredging -- a pass dredging project, those aren't considered engineered maintained beaches. They consider that more of a matter of convenience of disposing of the dredge spoils. And so they don't -- they don't consider those for reimbursement under a storm condition. Page 35 November 1,2001 MR. ROELLIG: Well, it seems kind of unusual because it's -- I don't know how much, you know-- how much you can -- perhaps when you get the firms on award, they can get together with FEMA because it's basically a -- what you're doing is you're -- instead of trucking sand in, you're pumping it in. And I don't see the great distinction, but-- MR. HOVELL: The requirement for FEMA reimbursement for an -- for a nonengineered and maintained beach is that there be a-- an emergency related to structural damage at an adjacent facility or less than a five-year predicted storm level of protection. So if for some reason the beach was so flat that a -- something -- a storm of a predicted five-year level or less would then go and do adjacent damage, then FEMA would allow a minimal amount of restoration, even on a natural beach. In order to be classified as an engineered and maintained beach, there has to be a specific design profile, and you have to continually attempt to maintain it to that profile. Since we don't do that adjacent to passes, what we, in essence, just do is say, well, here's the amount of sand coming out of the inlet. Let's spread it around more or less evenly, and that's it. We don't maintain it to a specific level. Therefore, there's no -- there's no, quote, unquote, damage because there's not a design level to have there. And I guess we could look at -- at attempting to make more of it to provide a specific design template so that in the future we might be eligible, but in this case we are not. MR. ROELLIG: Well, I guess we're learning some things that what we want to do for the future -- obviously, we're going to have more storms -- is to get as many engineered beaches as we can, because if we're going to be looking for reimbursement, we don't want to fall into the same trap every time. MR. HOVELL: That's a great segue into the next agenda item, Page 36 November 1, 2001 if you're ready. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Do we have any more questions or comments on Clam Pass dredging? (No response.) CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Let's move on, then, to the Pelican Bay Property Owners' Association request. MR. HOVELL: I've provided in your agenda package a letter of the September 27th from the Pelican Bay Property Owners' Association to -- to Commissioner Carter requesting, in essence, consideration for taking what is currently a natural beach and beginning to maintain it. The -- the substance of the request is centered more around would there be a way for the TDC funding and/or the other county funding potentially to participate rather than strictly relying on the special taxing unit dollars to do it. But either way, it would become a -- should this project go forward and get done, it would become a -- an engineered and maintained beach, at least in certain segments that they're proposing. And, therefore, if there was another storm down the road after that was done, then -- then they would be more able to pursue FEMA dollars. But this year, again, Pelican Bay wasn't much different than -- than Park Shore or -- or -- or Vanderbilt on either side of it. And yet they are not eligible to receive any FEMA assistance this go-round. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Would you explain the background of this letter a little bit? I assume they're asking for funding to put sand on a private beach. MR. HOVELL: Well -- CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Is this stretch of north beach private? And they refer to an MSTBU which I'm not -- I know what an MSTBU is. I'm not familiar with this one. Is that the -- MR. HOVELL: I've learned a lot about this general subject but not necessarily related to Pelican Bay. It was more related to the Page 37 November 1, 2001 Lely Barefoot Beach area. But in general, it's my understanding that -- how would I put this? Because they're a special taxing unit, once they've collected those taxes, that -- I think becomes public funds, in a sense. It's just specifically designated for that area. And so although we all tend to think of Pelican Bay as a private entity, in fact, some argument could be made that -- that there's certainly a public part to it. And so when you go -- when you go out on a beach and attempt to understand where does the Pelican Bay -- and I'm not even sure which entity it is, is it the property owners or the foundation or the special taxing unit, but whoever in Pelican Bay owns property, where does that end and where does the state line begin? Well, right now because it's not an engineered and maintained beach, it's the mean high waterline that moves around over the years. If we were to go through a process and establish an erosion control line and have public funds get spent on maintaining the beach, then that would -- that would then establish that permanent property line. There would then be a state property ownership from that erosion control line down. So I'm not sure I've necessarily answered your question. But I think in -- in reading our letter and talking to the county attorneys about the way we can spend various monies, I think the gist of this letter asks not for consideration for a hundred percent but consideration for a cost share from the Tourist Development Council to participate in that. And assuming it's marrying up with other public funds, which would be the special taxing unit funds, I think it's at least -- would not be considered outside the scope of the Florida statute and the county ordinance to -- to consider. It would be a question of priorities and-- and what do you really feel -- CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: And whether or not this proposal has merit or not, much like the earlier discussion for Tigertail, we Page 38 November 1,2001 would take this up at the next budget cycle, I would think. MR. HOVELL: Oh, absolutely. If this -- this would be at least a year down the road, if not more, considering all of the permitting and whatnot that's going to be required. But long term, could it become something like -- actually, I think a way to equate it, would it become something like Hideaway Beach. The immediately adjacent property owners we all think of as private. But the beach is now a state-owned beach that the county, to some extent, maintains. And I think that's, in essence, what they're looking for here is for participation from -- from the county, whether it be, in this specific case, tourist tax money. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Okay. MR. ROELLIG: Can I just make a comment? I'm a member of the Pelican Bay Municipal Service Taxing government. We do have another-- we got a letter from Carl Mudd responding to that, or I have a copy of it anyway. And I think it's a situation where obviously all the beaches in public -- in Florida are public, but the question is how much access there is and all that sort of thing. And based on this letter dated late -- Oct -- October, I think it's something we'll be working on with the other county agencies because the Pelican Bay Service Division is actually a division of the county. But its activities are funded by the -- the residents. Now, the -- the Pelican Bay property owners is a -- strictly a private group of some of the property owners in Pelican Bay. So they -- they have no governmental function as such. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: We've learned that we have to conclude this meeting in a few minutes because there's another meeting that's -- that's booked for this room. And luckily we are pretty much done. The next item on our agenda is audience participation. I see at least one member in the audience from Marco Island, I believe. Did Page 39 November 1,2001 you want to address us? MS. RYAN: (Indicating) CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Good afternoon, and please state your name and affiliation for the record. MS. RYAN: Thank you. For the record, Nicole Ryan, Conservancy of Southwest Florida. And I just wanted to mention with reference to the meeting that is going to take place concerning Tigertail Beach and Sand Dollar Island, that land is state owned, and DEP owns it. However, it is a critical wildlife area. And that is under the management of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Now, they have been informed about the meeting, but I just wanted that in the forefront of everyone's mind that it's a critical wildlife area, and so the regional biologist for the State Fish and Wildlife Commission really needs to be a part of all of these talks. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Thank you. MR. SNEDIKER: I think that's -- they're going to be at the meeting; am I correct? MS. RYAN: Actually, I believe the regional biologist cannot make the November 8th meeting, and he has a call in to Murdo Smith. But, yes, he has been informed and in the loop on this. But I just wanted to get that on the record, that they are the ones that manage that land. MR. SNEDIKER: Right. We couldn't have an effective meeting without them. MS. RYAN: I think that it would be important to have someone from that agency, so I just wanted to point that out. Thank you. MR. SNEDIKER: All right. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Thank you. Our next scheduled meeting will be December 6th, first Thursday in December? Page 40 November 1, 2001 MR. HOVELL: (Nodded head.) CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: We had -- two meetings ago in September were rained out at the beach-going portion of Marco Island. And I think it would be beneficial to reschedule that -- that portion of the field trip. I don't know how anyone else up here feels. I certainly would like to see more -- MR. GRAY: I would like to. I don't feel like I learned too much about Marco Island at the -- MR. KROESCHELL: I learned how to avoid raindrops, I guess. I would suggest we do it like we've done this time and last time and have the field trip first and then the meeting second. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: I think that's developed into a good routine. MR. SNEDIKER: Mr. Chairman, could I -- may I interrupt for just a -- CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Sure. MR. SNEDIKER: Because there is this meeting next week or sometime soon at Tigertail Beach, which is one of the two items -- two locations to visit and we're talking about some other things, what if we postpone that until January so at December we got a chance to talk about -- our committee itself-- Tigertail Beach and then go out there the next meeting to visit the situation? CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: I think that's-- MR. SNEDIKF. R: Is that a good suggestion? CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: I think makes good sense. We will -- we will plan, then, Marco -- Marco Island for January 2002. Our next meeting, December, do we have the Board of County Commissioners' chambers or-- MR. ANDERSON: Yes, we do. Yes, we do, Mr. Chairman. We've had to tell them every month that we haven't been using it. But we have a standing request in there for it, so we'll -- we'll get that Page 41 November 1,2001 lined up. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Okay. We'll next meet, then, at the county commissioners' chambers December 6th, 1:30 p.m. Are there any questions or comments from any committee members? MR. GRAY: I'd just like to comment just in general. I appreciate the fact that we're getting an agenda and all of this information about a week before our meeting. If you-all continue that, it's-- MR. ANDERSON: We will. We will. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: It's very helpful, especially for the laymen like me who -- I learn as I go with a lot of this stuff. Okay. Thank you, everyone. We are adjourned. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:50 p.m. COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE GARY GALLEBERG, CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING, INC., BY BARBARA A. DONOVAN, RMR, CRR Page 42