Loading...
CAC Minutes 01/11/2002 RJanuary 11, 2002 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, January 11, 2002 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee met this date at 3:00 p.m. In REGULAR SESSION at the Frank E. Mackle, Jr., Community Park, 1361 Andalusia Terrace, Marco Island, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Gary Galleberg VICE CHAIRMAN: David Roellig John P. Strapponi James L. Snediker Robert B. Stakich William Kroeschell Anthony P. Pires Ashley D. Lupo ABSENT: Robert Gray ALSO PRESENT: Ron Hovell, Public Utilities, Beach Renourishment Coordinator. Roy B. Anderson, Public Utilities, Director of Engineering Jon Staiger, Ph.D., 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 FRANK E. MACKLE, JR. COMMUNITY PARK, 1361 ANDALUSIA TERRACE, MARCO ISLAND, FL 34145 AT 3:00 P.M. ON JANUARY 11, 2002. Beach visits will be made first beginning at 1:30P.M. at Tigertail Beach (Tigertail Beach parking) followed by a visit to and Hideaway Beach (South Beach Drive parking). AGENDA 2. 3. 4. Field Trip, convene at Tigertail Beach Roll Call, reconvene at Mackle Park (time certain, 3:00 p.m.) Additions to Agenda Old Business a. Approval of minutes for December 6, 2001 b. Rock Removal Plan for Naples and Vanderbilt (10507) c. Tropical Storm Gabrielle Beach Recovery Update (10507) d. TDC Category 'A' project status report / budget / reserves e. Tigertail Beach / Sand Dollar Island f. Clam Pass Dredging Update (10268) g. Wiggins Pass Dredging Update (10508) h. 10-yearPlan Development i. TDC Grant Application Annual Cycle New Business a. Future meetings schedule 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. January 11, 2002 CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: We will reconvene the meeting of the Coastal Advisory Committee. I will note for the record that we have Mr. Kroeschell, Mr. Roellig, Mr. Snediker, Mr. Stakich and Chairman Galleberg in attendance. We are missing Messrs. Gray, Strapponi, Pires and Ms. Lupo. We have conducted our field trip to Tigertail and Hideaway beaches. Mr. Anderson and Mr. Hovell, do we have any additions to the agenda? MR. ANDERSON: No, we haven't. MR. HOVELL: I just had one maybe quick update. The last time we talked about the Florida Shore and Beach Preservation Association, I just wanted to touch on that briefly. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: We can add that as a new item 54(b), then. Moving on to old business, Item 4(a), we have our minutes from the December 6th, 2001 meeting. Do we have any corrections to the minutes? Mr. Kroeschell? MR. KROESCHELL: On Page 47, my remarks, it says "people would not have to get across that area," they would have to get across there, so take the word "not" out. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Okay. Mr. Snediker, did I see you with a comment? MR. SNEDIKER: Yes. On Page 44, the second line says, "there's a tremendous amount of water rushing through there," now, but it should be "there was a tremendous amount of water rushing through there." This would be the lagoon at Tigertail. There was a tremendous amount of water, so "there's" should be changed to there was. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Okay. And I had a couple minor Page 2 January 11, 2002 changes, which I will state. On the very first page, our typical form is to note absent members and Bob Stakich was absent. On Page 12, there is a reference to Bob Stakich, but it's misspelled. Finally, I had one more, and that is on Page 24, very near the top, the word "community" should be committee. MR. HOVELL: On behalf of Mr. Pires, since he isn't here right now, he had faxed me these corrections. I think you hit the first one on Page 12, Stakich is misspelled, it should be S-t-a-k-i-c-h. On Page 28, down towards the bottom, Mr. Kelly is speaking, and the last part of his sentence is "the greatest fear for the intelligencia of this industry is that we're going to erode the downside drill," it should be fill, not drill. Page 29, sort of in the middle, when the chairman is speaking, it references the word peek, which in there is spelled p-e-e-k, but it should be p-i-q-u-e. And on Page 57, about one-third down, Chairman Galleberg is speaking, and it says Mr. Pires descended, and it should be dissented, d-i-s-s-e-n-t-e-d. (Mr. Strapponi entered the room.) CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Okay. Thank you. I will note for the record that Mr. Strapponi has just joined us. Do we have any further changes to the minutes? (No response.) CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Do we have a motion for approval? MR. ROELLIG: Move for approval. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Do we have a second? MR. KROESCHELL: Second. (Mr. Pires entered the room.) CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: We have a motion by Mr. Roellig, a second by Mr. Kroeschell to approve the minutes. All those in favor say Aye. Page 3 January 11, 2002 (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Passes eight to zero. I will note that during the vote, including the vote, Mr. Pires came in. I ask everyone who had corrections to provide them to the reporter. Pardon me, the vote was seven to zero. We are still missing two members. I will ask everyone who had those minor corrections to the minutes to provide them to the recording clerk so they can be changed. Mr. Hovell, now Item 4(b), rock removal plan for Naples and Vanderbilt. MR. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I can cover that for you. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Okay. MR. ANDERSON: Basically, we -- pursuant to the order, the consent order from the DEP, we submitted a proposed rock removal plan to the DEP and, you know, using our best judgment and engineering expertise and the state has responded -- is about to respond. We have gotten preliminary feedback from them that they are in disagreement with that plan. They actually had responded to us a little while back, about a month or so ago, basically, putting in a number of conditions, requiring us to at various junctures in the process to submit plans and specifications, to submit reports and our proposal was basically just to go in there, to give them an initial plan and then to go in there and just do it and take care of it once and for all, but yet they are coming back with a number of-- adding a number of steps to the process and we feel that this is exceeding their authority, in essence, because we're really working, you know, we're doing basic maintenance work, so it's probably going to have to lead to a meeting with the state. Page 4 January ll, 2002 We do have a new consultant on board, one of our engineering consultants, and we are going to be giving them a work order to provide us with background assistance in order to approach the state and to resolve this once and for all. So to be continued, and this affects the -- this does not affect the Park Shore area because we are able to move forward on that, but it does affect the Naples Beach and Vanderbilt area. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Does anyone have any questions? MR. PIRES: I guess the question is, do you know what their rationale might be or what the motive is behind what they are trying to push, other than that they're in the cat seat, which they probably are? MR. ANDERSON: They are very conservative. There is -- I think there is a -- I think there is a concern, you know, they are afraid of making the wrong decision, perhaps, and they want to have discussion points along the way, they want more information, and I really don't understand what their rationale is. They are just a very conservative organization, but there is a change in the administration up there now, and the indications are that they will look more rationally at, you know, the approach, but beyond that, I don't know what their rationale is. MR. PIRES: Is the concern by staff that it's so open ended because at these decision points they can make you go back and do additional items? MR. ANDERSON: That and also just the bureaucratic hurdles and the time delays. It's just one sequence after another. It could draw the process out interminably. MR. SNEDIKER: That report, the response was made by the old administration; is that correct? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. MR. SNEDIKER: The new staff is in there as of January l st? Page 5 January 11, 2002 MR. ANDERSON: That's correct. MR. SNEDIKER: There could be a substantial change, would that be fair to say? There could be? MR. ANDERSON: The letter hasn't come out yet, but it was written by the old administration and presumably the new one will be looking at it before it goes out or they just may let it go, but they will be open to a meeting. Which engineering consultant? Can you tell MR. SNEDIKER: us? MR. ANDERSON: Coastal Engineering & Planning. DR. STAIGER: Coastal Planning & Engineering. MR. ANDERSON: Coastal Planning & Engineering. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Are there any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: I have a couple questions. The first is our materials include a letter from the county attorney's office dated, I believe, December 26th, 2001. MR. ANDERSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Are you reporting on developments subsequent to that or is that the same stage of development as the letter? MR. ANDERSON: Subsequent to that. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: So they are still objecting? MR. ANDERSON: They are still objecting, correct. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: And then the second thing I wondered is has anyone developed an estimate -- I understand the plan is not formed yet, that's the whole problem, but what is the estimate of the cost of the rock removal, say, under our plan? MR. ANDERSON: I believe it's in our plan as $200,000 -- no, $400,000. MR. HOVELL: $400,000. Page 6 January 11, 2002 MR. ANDERSON: That was an early on estimate. MR. HOVELL: That was a budget estimate back in October based on some assumptions that, you know, the state does not look like they are buying into it at all, and I don't put much stock in the number, I guess, is where I am trying to head. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: You would anticipate it being a bigger number? MR. HOVELL: Yes, I guess the problem is how much bigger. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: And I know it can't be this simple, but our materials, the materials from DEP state that this rock plan is in lieu of paying a $5,000 fine. MR. ANDERSON: No, I believe that is in addition to. We have to pay that in any event. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: In addition? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. MR. HOVELL: Well, actually, the $5,000 fine, yes, is in addition to removing the rocks and whatnot, but it was also allowable to say that we would do an environmental restoration, which will be part of the proposal to say we don't want to just write a check for $5,000, we will do some kind of environmental restoration. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: And the third question is in the areas of Naples Beach and Vanderbilt Beach where we do have the rock problems, does that take the entirety of Naples Beach out? I realize Park Shore is not part of that, but does it take the entirety of Vanderbilt out or is it possible to section areas in a way that would make some renourishment fruitful in some areas that may not be as rock full as others, so we are not standing around doing nothing at all. MR. ANDERSON: That is part of the initial plan that we'll have to submit and I would envision to parcel it out, we have Vanderbilt and Naples and we can do further subdivisions of that as we move forward, but it's not an all or nothing proposition. There are Page 7 January 11, 2002 pieces that can be done. MR. HOVELL: Much like when I came to the City Council, I think it was on the 10th of December for that workshop, and the question was asked can we go just pick up rocks or not and I said well, I don't think so. Well, that is kind of at the heart or at least part of the disagreement between the way the county views things and the way the state views things. On the phone, they have continued to tell me that at least for now their interpretation is that until the plan is approved we don't do anything, and that same kind of issue relates to the question you just asked. The rock removal plan that we filed had a specific DNR reference monuments listed and it started south of R69 and goes down to R76 to do the testing and then potentially removal wherever rocks are found. Naples Beach starts up at Doctors Pass, which is north of R58, and so that's part of what I asked him on the phone here recently is there are areas that are not covered by this rock removal plan and therefore we would like to think that we could move forward with starting up by Doctors Pass, with some amount of sand renourishment and, again, their initial reaction is no, but they're willing to discuss it. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Even if their position were to hold that we can't do anything until this plan, one would think once there is a plan, there would be defined areas that didn't have a rock problem and at that point, hopefully, we'd move forward in those areas while we remove rocks in other areas. MR. HOVELL: Yes. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: The reason I ask, I have had some contact with members of the public who are wondering that, saying we are on Naples Beach, but in our particular area we really don't have rocks, are we going to be the baby thrown out with the Page 8 January ll, 2002 bath water on that? MR. ANDERSON: One of the first steps in the process would be to take samples, you know, in the transect areas, the areas going out into the water and as we go through the area, I mean, that has been our approach in this, that as we find areas that are rock free, if you will, then we can proceed to renourish those and the plan would define, you know, how big those areas can be, but it can be incremental. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Anything else? MR. ROELLIG: Yes. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Mr. Roellig? MR. ROELLIG: I have a question on the coordination with the Vanderbilt Beach people. Have you been involved with the associations up there? You know, in the past, they have been opposed to any rock removal plans. They are happy with what they have, for the most part, as I understand it. So I would recommend that you keep or get in touch with the Vanderbilt Beach Association up there to see what their feelings are on this, because in the past they have always been basically happy with what they have and they are not interested in a big rock removal plan being dumped on them. MR. SNEDIKER: But if the state requires it, then it has to be done so it's more of a case of public relations, or something, to let people know what is going on. MR. ANDERSON: I know we haven't had any meetings with them as such. MR. HOVELL: I'm not sure which association, but Dick Lyden (phonetic), I have been in touch with him by phone and when I went up to whatever yacht club up there to talk about Wiggins Pass dredging, he was there and, you know, he has reiterated numerous times and I guess he was on the previous beach committee and --- Page 9 January 11, 2002 DR. STAIGER: He was chairman. MR. HOVELL: Okay. As you pointed out, he does not agree we need to do anything, he thinks it should be left alone. He doesn't want equipment on the beach tearing it up, et cetera, which was I think part of the reason why, you know, in the county, we are under the consent order, we're trying to balance those types of interests, but you need to do something. We have been given a consent order. So what we try to do is propose something that was heavy in maintenance and a little lighter in going up and digging the whole beach and removing all the rock, but he's expressed that opinion and I think he's still the president of that association. MR. PIRES: To my knowledge, he's not the president. MR. HOVELL: I thought FI was given his name by the county manager's office when I asked for that point of contact, but I would have to double check. MR. PIRES: I think just recently they had a transition. MR. ROELLIG: I think it's important that they be apprised of any meetings you have with the state and really keep them up in the loop because I hate to see them not be aware of the controversy going on that they have no knowledge of, basically, because it doesn't get reported in the press, particularly, and sometime or another they find out that they are getting some ordinance or requirement placed upon them if they might have some political methods of avoiding. MR. ANDERSON: So, that's the primary organization, Vanderbilt Beach Association? MR. ROELLIG: Well, there are two or three of them up there. DR. STAIGER: I'm not sure, I think it's Vanderbilt Property Owners Association or something. There is Vanderbilt Beach and Bay and there is -- MR. ROELLIG: Two or three of them up there. DR. STAIGER: There are several different associations up Page 10 January 11, 2002 there. MR. ANDERSON: Okay. The point is well taken. MR. STRAPPONI: I have a question for Ron in that regard. We are required to test and make an evaluation of the stones. They are of the impression that the stones are not a problem there. More than likely, it's not, but the testing will determine that. MR. ROELLIG: Well, depends on who defines the problem. They don't see a problem but the states does. Unfortunately, the state has better hammers. MR. HOVELL: I think for the most part on any given day, even on Naples Beach, visually it usually isn't very rocky. At low tide, depending on things, you may or may not see rocks, but certainly most any day if you walk out two or three feet deep, at least on Naples Beach, you find rocks and the same is probably true on Vanderbilt and I know if you dig down in both Naples and Vanderbilt, in the right areas, you will find rocks, there is no doubt, but the issue is, yes, but which would you rather have, the occasional rocks that manage to work their way up or get washed out or the equipment on the beach for however long it takes to get rid of them, and Dick Lyden's opinion is just leave the beach alone, I think. MR. STRAPPONI: My next question would be, we know for certain that a lot of those rocks were put there with the replenishment, but how many of those rocks, if any, and I would suspect quite a few, are just roll-ins that just naturally occur? There is no standard to go by. Was any testing done prior to the renourishment? DR. STAIGER: No, but when the -- when they did this rock, there was an analysis done for the county. I think you tried to differentiate between native rock and rock that was brought in with the dredging, and you can look at some rocks and say, okay, this is obviously freshly broken, and assume it came in with the dredge, and Page 11 January 11, 2002 stuff that's very nicely rounded and heavily eroded is stuff that's rolled in, but there is a lot of rock that is sort of in between, so it's a tough call. MR. ROELLIG: But there is a potential for a fairly large percentage of the rock being native. DR. STAIGER: Yeah. Well, the native rock is shed frequently from the hard bottom -- it's not that far off shore -- and it rolls up on the beach and the only difference there is it's usually worked enough so that the edges are rounded, but the rocky area that's troublesome in the city is from about Fifth Avenue South to the pier, and that's where the stuff shows up in this runnel. It's at the low tide line and it and would be a real shame if we couldn't do something north of Fifth Avenue South all the way up to Doctors Pass. MR. KROESCHELL: Especially Lowdermilk. DR. STAIGER: Like Lowdermilk Park and that whole area. That's the issue. Because when we did the rock removal, it was done annually from '96 on, they concentrated in that area where the rock had obviously been pumped and nobody at the state said, you know, you can't do anything else on the beach, although I don't think we were putting sand anywhere else, but it's unfortunate because if they say, okay, you can't do anything until we approve this rock removal plan and then they want to look at it in various segments, we're not going to get sand on the beach for two years, so we need to argue with them about it. In my opinion, we need to take a pretty hard MR. ROELLIG: stand, too. DR. STAIGER: I agree. MR. ANDERSON: Jim Mudd has indicated from his experience that they're kind of beyond their authority and we have -- it's really beyond anything that's written anywhere and they are just being ultra conservative and it's just totally inappropriate. Page 12 January 11, 2002 CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: I know staff is working hard and hopefully when we meet next month, if not sooner -- I know we are going to discuss meeting schedules later-- we'll have better news at hand. Is there anything else on the rock removal? (No response.) CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: On to Item 4(c), which is the Tropical Storm update. MR. HOVELL: Earlier this week the state's public assistance coordinator was down. He is the one that signs off on the final project worksheets that get submitted to FEMA for funding approval. Through that process -- we were working on all four segments, Marco Island, Naples, Park Shore and Vanderbilt-- and he doesn't take away a big book, he takes away something relatively small, but he pulls like the cover page from the permit and attaches it and says we have the rest and the cover page from the surveys and attaches that and that kind of thing. Anyway, in assembling all of that and looking through it and doing the final reviews, questions arose about Marco Island's documentation and we did some research into the annual monitoring reports and ultimately he rejected any damage claim for Marco Island, so at this point the Naples, Vanderbilt and Park Shore have gone forward and it will be forwarded to FEMA fairly shortly, but we will not get any reimbursement for any damage on Marco Island. One of the things they looked at, I guess two main issues were although we did a post-storm survey in the October-November time frame, trying to document the difference between pre- and post- storm, when we went back and looked, the last time that a survey had been done on Marco Island was October of-- I guess that was 1999, so basically two years old. That was one issue, and the second issue was in the annual Page 13 January 11, 2002 monitoring reports that were published in '97, '98 and '99, which were the three most recent ones, all three years showed not erosion but accretion on basically all of Marco Island in that area where we are proposing to say we had sand loss, so between those two things, they turned down any claim for that. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: And also with this latest tropical storm we already knew going in Marco was the least hard hit anyway, wasn't it? MR. HOVELL: It was, yes. It's unfortunate that we missed that opportunity and hopefully if we are on track doing at least our annual monitoring plus any odd events like construction projects or other storms or whatnot, we'll have at least once a year surveys, but we were out of date. MR. PIRES: What kind of surveys are you talking about? MR. HOVELL: The land survey, the guy with the rod. DR. STAIGER: Elevation. MR. HOVELL: Elevation. DR. STAIGER: Elevation profiles. It's something you kind of forget about and you get a project finished and you survey for a couple years afterwards for monitoring and then it kind of slips through the cracks, but if FEMA is going to require data that are less than a year old, it just behooves you to schedule monitoring on all these segments once a year just so you have got the data. You never know when it might come in handy. MR. PIRES: Whose obligation is it to do that, would that be the county or the city's to do that? MR. HOVELL: It was a county permit and still is an open county permit that allows for renourishment for Marco Island. It wasn't that we decided not to do it in 2000. I think it was probably like a lot of things around here, because we were terminating Coastal Engineering Consultants, it just became one of those things that just Page 14 January 11, 2002 didn't get done. I think, even though a post-storm survey was done in the October-November time frame, I think we are in line under a contract to have a monitoring report published. It's just that we didn't have the surveys done at the right time. MR. SNEDIKER: The only area of Marco Island involved is the very southern tip of it, right near where the breakwaters were. If we go back to our September field meeting when we looked down, it's at the very end. It's the first 1,000 or 1,500 feet at the very end, which if there is a dredging project going on next year at Caxambas Pass -- I can never say that -- that place, then the sand will be brought up and that will be the most logical spot for it, so that area will be renourished hopefully next year when the pass is dredged. MR. HOVELL: And then we did start hauling on to Park Shore Beach as of last Friday. They worked Friday and Saturday and then all this week. We are bringing in the sand from the E.R. Yanna (phonetic) from the Ortona Sand Mine, much like we did back in April. We have had a lot of E-mail traffic about that being inappropriate sand. I don't think that's really going anywhere, but I did bring with me the sand lab reports and they are -- you know, the issue is that three or so years ago when Coastal Engineering Consultants was the coastal engineer for the county, they had developed a distribution reference size with the minimum and maximum and when you plot the E.R. Yanna sand, there is a section that goes outside of that boundary. The state never accepted that as the correct specification. They have continued to say that they are very happy with sand from the E.R. Yanna Sand Pit, but anyway, it's an issue that is kicking around. MR. SNEDIKER: That sand was very, very thoroughly looked at by the committee for a long time. There were truck loads of sand out there. People took off their shoes and ran through them, and the sand we just walked on at Hideaway Beach, the sand that we walked Page 15 January ll, 2002 out there was the same sand. It was delivered the same time last spring. MR. HOVELL: Just so you know, the claim is that the sand that you are talking about that was delivered on to Park Shore Beach and the committees were out there and feeling it and everything, that that was processed differently and it was a better mixture of grain sizes. That's the claim and there may even be some truth in it, but we have used this sand before. The turtle people seem to be happy with it, the state seems to be happy with it. MR. SNEDIKER: Anyone looked up the new sand versus the old sand? Is there a difference? MR. HOVELL: The grain size seems to be somewhat different. MR. STRAPPONI: Is that the complaint, the grain size? MR. HOVELL: It all comes down to the grain size. MR. STRAPPONI: How about the color? MR. HOVELL: Well, actually, maybe color, too, but mainly grain size. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: When you reference the E-mail traffic, do you mean from the public or MR. HOVELL: Yes. DR. STAIGER: From a public, an individual public. MR. HOVELL: The other public issue with Horizon Way is Horizon House. There is one rather outspoken resident who -- or I guess temporary resident because he lives up north someplace and he had called me a number of times by phone complaining and now that he's here he had somewhat of an altercation with A1 Mattson last evening and I believe they called the city manager's office. Anyway, not a big issue, but somebody is not happy. MR. ANDERSON: He is just concerned that the work is going on next door to him and the equipment is noisy and it's disturbing his solitude but, you know, it's our property, it's permitted. You know, if Page 16 January 11, 2002 he gives us a hard time, then we'll take appropriate action. He has threatened an injunction, but we are moving forward. We'll be done in a few days, you know, so we are done next week. MR. HOVELL: We are hoping, if everything goes well, we'll be done a week from tomorrow, I would think. We might go a little bit into the following week. MR. SNEDIKER: How many yards is that? MR. HOVELL: I'm sorry? MR. SNEDIKER: How many yards, is that 20,000? MR. HOVELL: Oh, no, we are looking in the neighborhood of eight to 10,000 yards. We're just doing the dunes and the seawalls. MR. PIRES: I take it the operation is just during daylight hours? MR. HOVELL: Yes. Because of the noise ordinance, they're not allowed to start before 7:00 a.m. And it gets dark about 6:00, but the noise ordinance says by 6:30. Usually, somewhere between 5:00 and 6:00 they shut down. MR. PIRES: Is that the county crew? MR. HOVELL: No, it's a company called Phillips & Jordan. MR. ROELLIG: I've got a question, just to make sure I understand. We are using the same sand gradation now that we used the last time; is that correct? MR. HOVELL: Yes. MR. ROELLIG: And as far as the placement, I know at the last meeting we were talking about maybe the city being involved, how did that end up? MR. HOVELL: We contracted with a company called Phillips & Jordan, and that was going to be the next part, but on the contracting side, we had gone out with a request for proposals for the sand contract and for the trucking placing and grading contract. Both of those selection committees have -- either the first or second Page 17 January 11, 2002 selection committee meeting is next week to try to move those things along, but since we have seen the pricing in the trucking R.F.P., we were able to go back and look at the proposal we got from the storm debris removal contract and realized -- and actually they proposed under this contract and realized they're very competitive with all the proposals we have gotten, so we were able to justify moving forward and calling that a reasonable price. MR. ROELLIG: So what price do we end up with, then? MR. HOVELL: I think -- boy, it didn't hit $20 a yard, but we are doing it in tons. I can't remember -- it's hard to remember all the figures, but MR. ROELLIG: It's not dramatically different than last time, then. I think the last time we were 18-something. MR. SNEDIKER: It's in order with what we had last spring. ROELLIG: Fine. SNEDIKER: Maybe a few cents more. ANDERSON: It's somewhat more than last year. HOVELL: It's about 30 to 40 percent more than we spent MR. MR. MR. MR. last time. MR. MR. MR. MR. ROELLIG: HOVELL: ROELLIG: HOVELL: It's 40 percent? Yes. It's-- It was $18 last year, I thought. Again, it gets into, you know, when you say more, are you including just the sand price or just the trucking and hauling price or adding it all together? MR. ROELLIG: All total, right. MR. HOVELL: The total price, the sand went up 15 or 20 percent and then the trucking and placing and grading is the one that went up more like 40 percent, which is why we were reluctant to do it without having some price justification, but now that we have seen that all six proposals are all right in line with this one, then we felt Page 18 January ll, 2002 comfortable doing it. MR. ROELLIG: Because 40 percent sounds like a lot until you apply it. MR. KROESCHELL: How much sand did we put in before? MR. ROELLIG: About 35. MR. KROESCHELL: That's a factor, too. MR. ROELLIG: Yeah, so that sounds right. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: What about the other 30,000 or 40,000 tons we supposedly have available? MR. HOVELL: Yes, Park Shore was due for about 30 -- whatever the survey said -- 36,000 cubic yards, I think, and that will be the issue. Over the next couple of weeks, you know, we need to decide what do we want to do for the rest of this construction season before May 1 st when the turtle season starts. Do we want to finish Park Shore and/or do we want to try and start on the north end of Naples? Do we want to try and do anything at all on Marco. I know the city had indicated that as long as we were doing the southern end and we go to the construction entrance, that it would be okay to work during tourist season, so that's kind of the thing that needs to be refined, what else do we want to try and do this year. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: We had also discussed in some depth last time trying to get a start on replacing the dune system where it's needed the most, and I left the meeting with the impression that we were going to focus on using the remaining 40,000 yards or whatever the measurement was and focus on that activity. MR. HOVELL: Unfortunately, we won't be able to do anything on Vanderbilt because pretty much all of Vanderbilt does have the rock removal issue. We are doing the dune part and the seawall part of Park Shore now and we probably will be able to do something like that at Naples. It will take a while to get through the state, so maybe that's something we can definitely plan on doing in maybe late March Page 19 January 11, 2002 or early April, depending upon how everybody feels about that. There really weren't any dunes damaged at Marco. I think the only area that is under consideration is all the way down at the south. I don't know the name of that construction site, but there is kind of a seawall all the way around it and the one part of the seawall is parallel to those three offshore breakwaters, and then there is another section that runs at about a 45 degree angle that as you are coming down the beach you can typically see if it is exposed, which at least right now part of it is. DR. STAIGER: MR. HOVELL: DR. STAIGER: MR. HOVELL: Is that Cape Marco? Is that the name of it? Yes. Okay. As Jim had mentioned before -- do you have some photos of that? MR. SNEDIKER: Yes. MR. HOVELL: The Caxambas Pass is on I guess the ten year plan, or maybe in this year's budget to have the work started to do a dredging project there, and if we are going to dredge Caxambas Pass in, let's say, November, December, that's where the sand goes. So from an aesthetics point of view, it doesn't look that great seeing the exposed seawall or some of the rocks, but from a real, you know, engineering need, I don't think there is an engineering need to try and do anything. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: But I'm thinking more, and I think this is what I gathered from our last couple meetings, I'm thinking more in terms of what if we use the sand available to rebuild dunes and then the dunes have to be planted with appropriate vegetation, we are just going to be a lot farther ahead in the long term and that's where I would like to see us focusing. That's different than a major renourishment, but that's something more than maintenance also and it just seems we will get more bang Page 20 January 11, 2002 for our buck over time and that will be cumulative. We'll both have better retention and need less sand over time, if I understand the dynamics of it properly. MR. HOVELL: I think you're right in trying to get geared up to do that for Naples, which as I said the only other area I can anticipate that we might get something done on the dunes, because there aren't any dunes to do anything with down on Marco that were destroyed by the storm. MR. SNEDIKER: Correct. MR. PIRES: Does this send a better message to DEP that you are proactive in regard to placing the sand, not just pushing it around and -- CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: There is no such thing as a good message for the DEP. MR. PIRES: -- plant around, trying to maintain their integrity? I know, just trying. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: What we are trying to do is maintain our beaches. MR. PIRES: Sometimes we try to send one. DR. STAIGER: It makes a great deal of sense to do that, though, because there isn't enough time and there isn't enough sand available to restore the Naples or Park Shore beaches to pre-Gabrielle state and there is a certain amount of recovery going on, but the damage to the dune system is significant. We put that reservoir of sand back there, get vegetation on it and irrigate it so that it grows, then you will have that buffer again. If we get a storm hit this summer or next fall, we've got that much sand back in the system to resist erosion. If we don't do anything until November, then we're stuck with all these scarped dunes with no vegetation left on them, so I think that's probably the best thing to do with what resources are there. The main thing is Page 21 January 11, 2002 going to be to get DEP to allow us to go forward with it. MR. SNEDIKER: As I recall, we only need about 30,000 yards to restore the dunes to a reasonable level, and that would include everything other than you can't do something because of the DEP restrictions, but if we can do half of that or whatever we can do, I would say we should definitely go forward and do whatever we can. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: I would think so. MR. SNEDIKER: On a very prompt basis. MR. HOVELL: As I say, the issue right now is, even though today I have a notice to proceed that says we can work on the -- you know, it was given with a gentleman's agreement that we wouldn't do Naples Beach until we get further along with the rock removal issue. I'm hoping through the process in detailed discussions with the state that they'll realize Naples Beach is a big area, the rock removal issue as compared to the whole length of the beaches is relatively small and, therefore, that we can do something, starting with dunes and seawalls and starting up by Doctors Pass. MR. SNEDIKER: How about Vanderbilt? Can we work anything up there? MR. HOVELL: No, that whole beach is all, basically, the whole beach needs to be tested and potentially dug up, depending on what we work out. MR. ROELLIG: You had better be careful about that. You're going to get a hornet's nest if you just show up there one day. MR. SNEDIKER: If the state requires it. MR. ROELLIG: Well, you know, the state, whatever they are doing now, there is always a higher authority. I never -- I can't buy this that you have got to satisfy the lowest rung and then if they say no that's the end of it. MR. SNEDIKER: You try to fight it or --- MR. ANDERSON: Exactly. Page 22 January 11, 2002 MR. ROELLIG: Just because you find a block at one level, doesn't mean you can't go around it. MR. PIRES: In respect of doing the planting and vegetation and irrigation, what is needed from your perspective to go forward to do that? Do you need any further direction? Do you think you have the direction and/or the budget to do that? Or is there a message we can send to the County Commission? MR. HOVELL: I guess I've sort of been assuming when we say let's do something about dunes, that that first means putting some sand there and then planting, but of course to put the sand there on Naples, anyway, I have to get past this rock removal issue. Is the rock removal all the way up to the MR. ROELLIG: dunes? MR. HOVELL: MR. ROELLIG: were? MR. HOVELL: Yes. So there are rocks underneath where the dunes Yes. Even, as the story goes, the vegetation line pre-Tropical Storm Gabrielle, there were rocks under there but we all were kind of in agreement, well, let's not mess with protected sea grapes and sea grass and whatnot, but when that vegetation got wiped out, then it raised the issue of, well, here is the perfect opportunity to dig up those rocks a then retix the dunes and replant them. MR. STRAPPONI: I ask the question, don't the rocks help hold that dune together? The rocks are not going to be a problem for barefoot people on the dunes. Dr. Staiger, we talked about revegetating those dunes, I would think that -- I don't know what the plans are, but I would think there are some things that would hold the dunes together better than others, as far as sea oats or --- DR. STAIGER: Sea oats is probably the best one, but you try to Page 23 January 11, 2002 plant a little variety. The sea oats root system seems to be the most effective in holding sand. The rock issue under the dune is -- it's not that much rock and it's essentially going to be covered with dune and vegetation. MR. SNEDIKER: Is the state suggesting or requiring that that rock be removed also? MR. HOVELL: In their version. DR. STAIGER: City counsel has asked for it. MR. ANDERSON: Everywhere except for Park Shore. MR. ROELLIG: So city counsel had asked for what? Rock removal -- MR. ANDERSON: Rock removal. MR. ROELLIG: -- under the dunes? CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: That's not my impression. DR. STAIGER: I thought we had direction to that effect. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: opposite. DR. STAIGER: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: I think the direction was the I'm not certain, I could be wrong here. I can speak for myself right now. I think in a lot of the cases that this rock removal has gotten way too theoretical. If you are cutting your feet and stubbing your toes, we have an issue, but rocks under a dune, I couldn't care less. MR. SNEDIKER: Right. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: So, Dr. Staiger, maybe I'm not correct, but I think we had at least four if not more, maybe five -- DR. STAIGER: There were a few who felt --- CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Probably five realists and two people who just, you know, want to spend their life talking about rocks. DR. STAIGER: Contrarians, Amen. Page 24 January 11, 2002 I personally don't see much expense in a lot of that digging. I'm of the camp that says let's take it off the surface when it shows up. MR. ROELLIG: Exactly. MR. SNEDIKER: I agree. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: For what it's worth, I think you have got a good consensus from this committee to go hard against this state to try and trim back the rock removal to the extent we can. I mean, we have acknowledged that there are areas where rock removal is important, but there are other areas where it's just guilding the lily and work to get our dune system restored. Anything else from anyone on the Tropical Storm update? (No response.) CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Item 4(d) is our TDC Category A project status report. MR. HOVELL: Were there any questions? I know last time we kind of went back and forth a little bit, but I think we agreed that I would hand these out at the meeting and if you had any questions either at the meeting or in between or at the next meeting, you would get with me, so I guess were there any questions on the December version of the report? MR. ROELLIG: Can you give us a current status report on ongoing projects such as Parker Sand Web or Doctors Pass? Maybe one sentence or something? MR. HOVELL: I could. Let me just real quick say that the differences between this report and the December report are relatively minor because of the holidays, not much really happened and-- but I would tell you that probably between this report and the next report I would anticipate that as we -- I guess somewhere in early December we got in the final results from all the sand surveys, the post-storm surveys. We know more exact quantities until the wind starts picking up, anyway, as compared to the 400,000 cubic Page 25 January 11, 2002 yard estimate that we had for storm recovery, and although we don't know the exact price for the rock removal, it would seem that the eight-and-a-half million dollars for that one restoration project may be a fair amount high, so we may try and bring that down some and put some money back in reserves. One of the first things, we'll want to put the $500,000 back on the Marco Island breakwater modification project where it came from. Then there is a number of purchase orders from last year that are starting to close out and there will be little dribs and drabs of money that will start to trickle back in and those, too, can go to the reserves. Then the other difference will be that right now there is a lot of money that's shown as budgeted, it's shown as anticipated to be encumbered but it's not shown as being encumbered. We'll start to fill that up some as we're issuing purchase orders to the Coastal engineers. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: We'll get to it in a couple items. We did have to change a larger cost than we anticipated for Clam Pass, so we can address that in its own item, but there are no other significant changes we should be aware of?. MR. HOVELL: No, and the other thing that we'll see, actually, I don't know, we probably won't have resolved it before the early February report, but in a not too distant future, we'll get our first check from the state under the $1.3 million contract we have for cost- sharing these projects. Probably early next week I will send out the final report and invoice for that, for the first payment under that contract, and it turns out they might waive it since some of this work is done, but typically they hold ten percent retainage, so it looks like we'll get somewhere in the neighborhood of $170,000 to $185,000 for this first check, so things are starting to move in that regard. MR. ANDERSON: And that's based upon the work that was Page 26 January 11, 2002 done last year in Park Shore? MR. HOVELL: Predominately the Park Shore work from April, right. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Any questions or comments on that item? MR. STRAPPONI: I would like to make a request, for my benefit, I'm not speaking for the whole committee, but maybe you could use a little larger font size -- can't be done -- on these reports? MR. ANDERSON: Last time we had a large font size we got criticized for that. MR. HOVELL: The problem is if I make the font size larger, it won't just make it longer down the page, it will make it wider, and then it won't fit on one width of one page, and then you would have to hold two pages next to each other to figure out what it is that you are looking at, and that is usually very awkward. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Right. MR. PIRES: Or use legal size. MR. HOVELL: Legal size, right. MR. STRAPPONI: I think we have had others on legal size, little larger font. MR. SNEDIKER: Would it be possible to shade the areas that are changed each month? Otherwise, to see this, you'd have to go back to last month and compare line by line or item by item. MR. ANDERSON: or--- MR. SNEDIKER: Maybe we could use a Hi-Liter, darker font Or go to a bold font. size MR. HOVELL: I could look at doing something like that part. MR. SNEDIKER: Just so we can pick up where the charges are. MR. HOVELL: I will take a look at how it might work on legal paper. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Okay, thank you. Page 27 January 11, 2002 Item 4(e) is Tigertail Beach/Sand Dollar Island. MR. HOVELL: I have kind of left this on here because it's something the committee has expressed a lot of interest in. We discussed it to some extent when we were out there for the visit, as far as the background and where some of those various ideas -- the three main ones being to put some kind of boardwalk over that lagoon being probably the most likely, filling in the lagoon being the least likely and maybe opening up what used to be a pass on the south as an intermediate possibility, and I don't know that there is really any other update that I really had. Like I say, it's been an open issue and I know the committee is very interested in it, but I think as far as how to deal with it in the future, I guess I would suggest that since we are going to the ten year plan and the budgeting process and all that, that we just agree that it will be in there someplace and not continue to have it as a separate agenda item. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Well, I think it should be in there because indeed it's new business as part of that planning process rather than an update item. MR. SNEDIKER: Has there been communication between Phil Flood from the state DEP and Marlo Ramsey, do we know, or her department, Parks and Recreation.'? MR. ANDERSON: Not that I am aware of, no. MR. SNEDIKER: It's sort of like their ball game, isn't it? It's a Parks and Recreation project. MR. HOVELL: I think so. MR. SNEDIKER: We can endorse it, but we have nothing to do with it, as I look at it. MR. STRAPPONI: Ron, I know you attend the City of Marco's beach committee and --- MR. HOVELL: Actually, I don't typically. Page 28 January 11, 2002 MR. STRAPPONI: I would be interested in seeing what their input is and their feelings with regards to Tigertail. MR. HOVELL: Mr. Snediker is the chairman of the Marco Island Beach Advisory Committee. He is very able to tell you anything like that. MR. STRAPPONI: Could we request that you supply this committee with--- MR. SNEDIKER: It's a county park so it's really not within the city's jurisdiction at all. The city, because a lot of people from the city use it because of the geographical location, they would like to see a more usable park. When we were out there today, a lot of people were using it but very few people were in the water. Virtually nobody was in the water swimming. As I recall, a couple people were walking out there, but I think, basically, the City of Marco Island would probably like to see the bridge going across. Again, it's a county park so it's not a city decision as such. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: I agree with Mr. Strapponi that even though it's technically a county beach, which you are pointing out, it would have to be a county decision, it will impact the residents and the tourists of Marco the most, so having their input I think would be helpful to us. MR. SNEDIKER: Okay. Let me get a motion and resolution passed by them. MR. STRAPPONI: We certainly value your input on that. I am sure as a member of this committee you would want that input. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: In addition, if there are other issues on the island as regarding the beaches that we might take under advisement. MR. SNEDIKER: I always give them an update as to ours, so I'll give our committee an update on theirs, although theirs is very restricted to just doing Marco Island. Page 29 January 11, 2002 CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Very good. Item 4(t). MR. ANDERSON: Clam Pass dredging update, we have let that contract and the contractor is anticipated to start this next week on Tuesday, and the job will go -- take approximately three weeks. Just for your recollection, this is going to involve dredging of the pass itself and then depositing the sand on Clam Pass Beach, and that's the existing permitted area, so that project will be starting up and be done very quickly. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Since we are not going to be doing the major beach project that we initially anticipated after the tropical storm, do we now, then, have the funds available in reserves to pay for that incremental cost or where will that money come from? Because we have gone from 400-something to 500-something, have we not? MR. HOVELL: I think you are talking about Wiggins Pass. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Oh, pardon me. MR. ANDERSON: This is Clam Pass. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Wiggins Pass is the next item. MR. ANDERSON: That's fully funded. MR. ROELLIG: Clam Pass is fully funded. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: That's fully funded, right. MR. ANDERSON: That will be the next one. MR. PIRES: As part of that, I know it's not the beach per se, but the beach facilities that are there at the park, that boardwalk ramp that got shifted off to the side and sort of cockeyed right now, is that part of Parks and Recreation, is that part of Registry or is that --- MR. ANDERSON: That would be Parks and Recreation maintenance. MR. SNEDIKER: They own it. MR. PIRES: Last time I was out there, it was not repaired, and that was a couple weeks ago. Page 30 January 11, 2002 MR. MR. MR. MR. MR. MR. ANDERSON: We can notify Marla and --- SNEDIKER: That's bad. That's a very popular boardwalk. PIRES: I was surprised, it's still --- ANDERSON: Still kind of off to an angle? PIRES: Right. ANDERSON: This is the prime season now. MR. HOVELL: My impression having been out there a couple times since the storm is they don't plan on doing anything with it. It's passable, it is at an angle, but it's passable everywhere. The safety rails are up and it's not structurally unsound. MR. SNEDIKER: It's not closed off?. MR. HOVELL: No, it's not closed off and it's being used, so --- MR. ROELLIG: But there are other ways to get on the beach. MR. HOVELL: And there are other avenues to get out there, that's true, so I sort of assume that they just don't plan on doing anything in the near future. MR. PIRES: Is it something to find out? I mean, we spend all this money to help the beach become a better facility for enjoyment and then an aspect of access has gone by the boards. MR. ANDERSON: It may not meet the building code. (Laughter) MR. PIRES: It's kind of like the leaning Tower of Pizza. MR. ANDERSON: We'll check that out. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Anything else on the Clam Pass dredging? (No response.) CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Item 4(g), Wiggins Pass. MR. HOVELL: We had included in the agenda package a copy of the executive summary that went to the Board of County Commissioners this past Tuesday to both award the contract and to do a budget amendment to fund an increased amount. Page 31 January 11, 2002 The dredge contracts, and this one in particular, are done as a unit price contract with perhaps mobilization or something as an additional item. The original dollar value estimate for the construction projects was $400,000, and I believe from looking through the inlet management plan that that was based upon about a 42,000 cubic yard sand dredging event. The survey shows that we'll be dredging closer to 55,000 cubic yards, and therefore the bids we got in were over $500,000. On a unit price basis, we're not really looking at paying anymore -- actually, I think even a little less than what was originally anticipated, but it's just the quantities have gone up almost 25 percent; therefore, the dollar value has gone up, so the normal process, I guess, if we had lots of time would have been to receive bids, wait for the next Coastal Advisory Committee meeting, get your input, wait for the next Tourist Development Counsel meeting, get their input and then go to the Board of County Commissioners, but given all the various constraints we had, we went to the earliest opportunity, directly to the board, and told them that we would come to the Coastal Advisory Committee today and the Tourist Development Counsel on Monday to advise them of what we are doing and if there are any negative comments, then we would get back to the Board of County Commissioners, but as it stands they have voted and approved it and it will go forward. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: And also Mr. Avella (phonetic) had contacted me in the interim to give us advice and my reaction was the fundamental decision was to recommend the Wiggins Pass dredging in the work schedule and the fact that our budget number wasn't exactly right didn't negate the need for the project; that the money would be found, and that leads into the question that I asked under the prior item, I was really asking about Wiggins Pass. Since I assume we have the money back in reserves, is that where the money Page 32 January 11, 2002 is going to come from? MR. HOVELL: Well, actually, we haven't moved any money into reserves, so when we did the budget amendment we said money was available in 10507, which is the one that has eight-and-a-half million dollars, so we'll show the money coming out of that project and being moved out. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Because even when we get the green light for the big renourishment that was originally considered to be recovery from Tropical Storm Gabrielle, even when and if that occurs we are going to need far less sand than we thought, so there has to be money, effectively. However you're accounting for it, effectively we must have money available in reserves for this. MR. HOVELL: Yes, that's our thought process. MR. SNEDIKER: Do you need a motion from us? MR. HOVELL: I think it would probably be best for the record to say that the committee specifically was advised and voted on it and that way if there are any negative votes we can report back to the Board of County Commissioners that there was, you know, either all agreement or negative votes, whatever. MR. ROELLIG: I will make a motion to transfer sufficient funds, I am not sure -- what is the number? MR. HOVELL: The budget amendment we asked for is $165,000. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: So we have a motion by Mr. Roellig, which in effect ratifies the decision made. Do we have a second? MR. SNEDIKER: Second. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Questions or comments? MR. ROELLIG: My only comment would be that this is more of a procurement problem than a cost problem. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Exactly. That was my reaction. Page 33 January 11, 2002 Our job is really priorities and do what we have to do to put some kind of dollar value on it, but it's really the TDC and the commission that deal with the dollars more than we do. All in favor say We have a motion and a second. Aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Pass, 7-0. Mr. Hovell, Mr. Anderson, Item 4(h) and 4(i), ten year plan development and TDC grant application cycle, together with our new business item, future meetings schedule, they are all really part and parcel of the same statement and that is really the guts of what our committee is here for, so how do you want to handle those? MR. HOVELL: I agree, if you don't mind. Just talking about them sort of interchangeably all at one time, that's probably best. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Okay. MR. ANDERSON: In terms of the actual budget cycle, the TDC, let's see, budget is finalized and we have to submit the budget to the TDC in April, the beginning of April, so that would mean that we would have to have our recommendations, you know, finalized probably at our meeting in March, regular meeting in March, let's say, with our normal schedule, which would mean if we wanted to have any workshops or meetings to discuss our priorities, we're probably looking at having them in February and we could either do that by doing it in our same meeting date in February or if we wanted to have a special -- a special meeting, special session or workshop session, different day, we could also do that or we could even have the workshop in January, if you want to do that and then have something to discuss in our meeting in February. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: I broached this topic at the last Page 34 January ll, 2002 meeting because it's the first time through this process for me, but it seems that this is the primary reason this committee exists and that we do have a lot of work to do. Mr. Roellig has been through it before, in fact, and Mr. Gray, who is on that committee as well, if I recall. MR. ROELLIG: That's correct. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Mr. Snediker, were you on it as well? MR. SNEDIKER: Yes. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Then you can lend some guidance to us. I don't think meeting one more time is going to do it. I mean, I don't even think it's going to be close to doing it. MR. ROELLIG: I think the problem you run into is it puts the onus on the county to come up with all of the various items to be considered, so there is no -- you can't schedule a January meeting if you are not ready for it, so it depends. It's kind of a cart and horse thing. You have to be ready for us and then we can analyze it. So I don't know what your schedule would be for getting these various activities put together. MR. ANDERSON: Well, we certainly have the last year's plan as the starting point and we could collect project ideas, if any, that we have received through the year and add those to those and then put something together. That could be done probably in the next --- MR. SNEDIKER: Well, there is a lot of current projects. There were about a dozen new projects this year, as I recall, plus a couple for the City of Naples, and virtually none of those are going to be completed, am I correct? A lot of them aren't even going to get started. You are just putting engineers on board now and so an awful lot may carry over. I think what we need or what would be beneficial to us, put it this way, would be a thorough update of all of those. That's going to Page 35 January 11, 2002 take a good healthy session or a couple three sessions to do that, so we are all fully on board of those for what those are that came up last spring, plus our new projects. I can visualize several hours, you know, worth of good, strong discussion on this. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: I would think so. Mr. Strapponi, you were going to say something? MR. STRAPPONI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Collier County is certainly concerned with our beaches, our coastal area and the impact it has on tourism. I think the fact that we take $8 million of the TDC money to do renourishment certainly reflects our concerns for what our beaches look like. I spent about two hours this morning walking primarily Naples Beach from about Second Avenue North up to maybe Ninth, I guess, I'm not sure, and one of the things that really bothers me and it's going to become a pet project with me is the storm drains. I don't know if this has been addressed before, maybe Dr. Staiger would know, whether or not there has ever been any attempt by the city or the county to do something to make the aesthetics of the beach better by either some means of giving a better cosmetic to the storm drains or otherwise hiding them totally, and I don't know whether or not from an engineering standpoint that could happen. I saw many tourists ask the question, are those sewer drains, and that's certainly the impression that someone from outside the area may have. I think if we're going to spend as much time, money and energy to keep these beaches renourished, we really need to address the aesthetics of the beach, which will include the cosmetic appearance of those storm drains, and I just would like to put that on the table as a new item, because it would certainly, if it becomes a project, would have to be worked into that ten year plan development. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Dr. Staiger, you commented on Page 36 January 11, 2002 that before, I think, to us, haven't you? We're more limited than one would hope, aren't we? DR. STAIGER: Actually, when we got the permit for the beach restoration project, one of the things that the state was talking about which fortunately didn't make it into the permit was a time frame for elimination of those drains, because DEP is really down on discharging anything across the beach. The problem is that we have got a series of storm drainage basins within the city and those basins all drain to the west. The area they drain is Gulf Shore Boulevard and the intersections of the cross streets and that's a lower area. You have got kind of an old beach ridge behind it and then the Gulf Shore and then you come up a little bit and out to the beach, and we don't have any way other than putting in lift stations and moving that storm water anywhere else, so it pretty much has to drain across the beach for that relatively limited area. Aesthetically, they are not very attractive. We have had one twin drain system where Fifth Avenue North would be, if it went through, where the adjacent upland property owner actually paid to have some pilings put in to kind of hid the things better, and we had to go do some kind of creative writing in the permit process to get that approved, but we did an area, but we have also had people ask us about putting rock around them to kind of hide them. Anything you do like that, DEP considers that to be a groin and they're very concerned about additional groin construction. It may be that the simplest thing to do would be to look at -- you can't really paint those pipes and have the paint stick to them very well, but it could be to see if we could get, over a period of time, replace that mixture of green and white pipes with something that was a little more appealing color. We have had people talk about putting decking or something out over them so that they could be -- people could walk out on them and fish from them, but you have got the Page 37 January ll, 2002 liability then if the structure gets damaged in a storm or somebody twists his ankle and you get sued. They really are an eyesore and the city engineering department would actually like to drain some more across the beach rather than less, so that's -- I don't know that we'll ever get permission to do that, but it might be worthwhile investigating what we could do to kind of camouflage them. The additional pilings associated with them kind of turn them into a pile cluster groin and there is nothing really wrong with those structures. They are a means of stabilizing the beach. It might be something that one or the other of the engineering firms the county has now got on board could take a look at what we, you know, what the alternative would be if we just want to deal with different color pipes, then it's a matter of scheduling, you know, jerk the stuff out that's there and replacing it with a new piece. MR. ANDERSON: Jon, is there flow in these pipes on a pretty regular basis or is it only during storm events? DR. STAIGER: It's pretty much just when it rains. There is no active pumping to them. There is one of them at Fifth Avenue that drains three lakes that are in the interior of the city and that's tidally influenced, so there is enough water flowing in and out of that to be fairly active. The only other ones that flow is when somebody is de- watering a construction site or de-watering a pool excavation or something into the storm drain system. If they are doing that, then there will be some flow out of them but they are dry except in the rainy season. MR. PIRES: Is there any possibility of any programs coming down the pike from either the state or federal government that will require the elimination of the discharge pipes? Like NPDES programs or people like that? (Ashley Lupo entered the room.) DR. STAIGER: The NPDES may or may not. We are wrestling Page 38 January 11, 2002 around with that thing right now. I think we convinced the DEP when we were permitting the beach project that there were no alternatives to these pipes because they have been there for-- the city used to just drain the water basically through drainage ditches across the beach before they put the pipe in, but it's an awkward thing. I don't know, you know, I'd like to get rid of them simply because they are maintenance headaches and an eyesore and we do get calls all the time because people do think they're sewers and you have got to explain, no, it's storm water, but there may be an alternative. MR. PIRES: Is this part of what you were talking about as far as brainstorming as to what to do in the future? Jori has come up with an issue that might be a workshop for new projects. Maybe you have three types of workshops, one for existing projects budget forecast update and another one as part of that for pending approved projects not yet started and third one just new projects. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Well, that's what I was thinking, pretty much what you are saying that we'll probably have some new ideas. That's an idea of something to look at. Whether these things end up on the final list or not is what we'll be having our workshops and our meetings off of. We have the boardwalk issue. We in various forms at various times have emphasized the rebuilding the dunes issue, I think more than has been done in the past. Maybe I am in error on that but I think that at least feels more prominent to me in our concerns and I just want us all to have time to look at those things and to look at the prior projects, not saying anything should be on the hit list, but we are a new committee and take a look at them. If they haven't, for whatever reason, permitting or funds availability or whatever, if they haven't gone forward yet to take a fresh look and I think we should -- when again do we have to have our work product done for the TDC? Page 39 January 11, 2002 MR. HOVELL: It's supposed to meet the first week in April, although you can see in January they postponed until the middle, and much like anybody else they want it about two weeks ahead of time so they can send it out to their committee, so --- CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: What I would suggest is in our normal course we would have two meetings and I don't frankly care if we call them meetings or workshops, I don't think it makes any difference, but I would propose that we add an additional meeting in February and one additional meeting in March. I think Mr. Roellig pointed out that the staff needs time to pull some of this together, perhaps in the next three weeks until our regularly scheduled February meeting. Mr. Kroeschell? MR. KROESCHELL: That is what I was going to suggest, that we've got a meeting coming up in about three weeks and that would be a good time to -- and we're going to have more time available, we're not going to the beach or anything, and we can have more time to discuss. I don't know how much time -- I would have to refer to some of the senior members here as to how much time we need to do this, but at least we could get started and at that meeting determine whether we need extra meetings, and then that would be a good time to get going on this whole plan. MR. SNEDIKER: Just play it by ear. I would want to tentatively schedule the meetings so that everyone knows the time is available, but we just progress and if we get it all done, then we don't need to have the last meeting. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Exactly, and that would give us the opportunity for four meetings, four timely meetings before the TDC needs their material and the way groups work we'll probably need four meetings, and if it should only take three, that will be great, but at least we are scheduled and planning ahead. What I would also Page 40 January 11, 2002 like to do --- DR. STAIGER: Two in February, two in March. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Yes. What I would also like to do, if the group agrees, is that our tendency under old business has been to have a report every month on active projects, and I think in the normal course that's a good thing but while we are working on this, I would like to skip those updates unless there is something truly significant to update. Groups being what they are, even if the updates are minor in substance, there are naturally questions, we spend ten or 15 minutes on that item, and I think in the next two months it would be more productive to drop those things from the agenda, barring something truly noteworthy, and to have a very small agenda item-wise but to focus on these projects and ask staff then to be ready next time to summarize in some detail for us the projects on the schedule just ending and what they need technically and so on and so forth and what might have changed in the last year, and we have at least three items that I have just mentioned that we'll want to consider as new activities, that being the boardwalk, if anything can be done with the storm drains, and the overall emphasis on dune rebuilding and dune renourishment. MR. PIRES: Just a thought also, from the standpoint of should there be proactive sort of communications with neighboring associations and civic groups of the coastal areas as well as some of the local government to solicit their input for that point in time we get to consider new projects, there might be something some other organizations have bandied about or discussed that would be worthwhile to be reviewed by this committee or they may feel worthwhile to be submitted to this committee to make recommendations to the TDC board. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: I think it would be useful. We Page 41 January 11, 2002 have mentioned that the City of Marco Island has its own beach committee, Naples and Vanderbilt to my knowledge do not, but earlier I got the impression that staff might contact a few of those more active people and active groups in the Vanderbilt area to get them tied in. I think -- Dr. Staiger, agree or disagree -- I think the City of Naples will kind of take care of itself. People are aware, people are active, they have a feel for what needs to be done and, frankly, that has been on the schedule before and probably won't change. It's things more -- that are more dynamic in terms of change from year to year, perhaps like the boardwalk and things like that? So if it would work for everyone -- did you want to say something? MR. HOVELL: I was just going to -- I guess two things from my perspective as somebody who has to kind of try and put all this together, that's why I tried to hand this out last time or I did hand this out last time as far as what we have done in the past for the ten year plan, and to a large extent, because of things like inlet management plans and permits and what-not, I think we are going to find that most of this is pretty well laid out and not overly subject to lots of changes. I mean, it's these new things that I'm really looking for help on, and I think as a committee that's a choice -- what you just discussed is a choice you need to make, how much information do you want about those things that I just called sort of business as usual. For insurance, we could at one of the future meetings, maybe even at the next meeting, just say let's just start at the beginning and let's sit down and have an overview maybe presented by the engineers, as opposed to me, of what is the inlet management plan for Wiggins Pass, you know, get to it, how often do you do it, how much do you anticipate, what is the history, you know, go through all that and therefore why are we going to budget whatever it is, every year, Page 42 January 11, 2002 every three years, whatever, and go through all the inlets and then go through all the beaches and all those major things that drive the major portion of this and then those other things that it maybe one time projects or pet projects, if you want to call them that or whatever, how we are going to approach getting them started. I can tell you very quickly that from an execution point of view, you know, here we are, we are going to go into this cycle and we are going to do a ten-year plan and we are also going to be developing next year's budget or maybe refining it is a better word, unless we are able to really change the fundamental way that the collective county does business, any projects that require engineering beyond sort of the outcome of the last year's monitoring report, like let's say it had already been on our list of things to next year say we are going to do something with these storm water outfalls, if we don't approve the money such that it doesn't become available any earlier than 1 October, we will start the engineering or any amount of engineering and then we go through a contracting process, you are pretty much guaranteed that it's going to be the year after when we actually do the work. MR. STRAPPONI: They've been there for a long time, we are looking at a 10 year plan. MR. HOVELL: I'm just trying to point out, though, that that's the nice thing about having something laid out as far as a ten year plan. If you know two years from now you want to dredge someplace, then you can pretty much say then next year let's get the engineering started so that two years from now we can do the dredging, because if you are not budgeting until the year you want it done, to start engineering on 1 October, you are not going to get it done. MR. STRAPPONI: That's the focus of what these meetings and workshops, as Tony called them, would be. Page 43 January 11, 2002 CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Also, it's understood that when I said a fresh look, it's not to reinvent the wheel. A lot of these projects do carry over and most of them were put on the list and funded for good reason. I'm not suggesting that the world has changed so dramatically, it's just that we have, for all intents and purposes, an entirely new committee and we just got started really after the process ended last year and the commission was kind enough to say would you like to ratify this and we did, but we didn't have time really to go through it in any detail and I think it's just incumbent upon us all to understand it. If there are areas where the facts on the ground have changed somewhat, you know, we need to know that. If less work is needed, we might have more funds available than we thought, considerations such as that and then bringing, at least on the fringes, perhaps some fresh perspectives or fresh emphasis from the members on this committee, because the prior committee, as we all know, just got wrapped up in what had happened in the past and hurling accusations and doing all that and I don't know that they were really planning for the future and I hope that we can do a better job for planning for the future and so does the commission. That's why they dropped the other committee and put this one into effect. MR. SNEDIKER: Being a member of the former committee, I whole-heartedly agree with those statements. I would like to see us start on the first item. Whenever we have our workshop, just go down, it might be two minutes, might be four minutes on each subject, but just so everybody is aware of each line item. Again, no big discussion, just short discussion, and just so that we have that knowledge. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: That's important to say, too, there are enough different projects that we can't do a masters thesis on all of them. It just needs to be, you know, a sense of understanding, it's Page 44 January 11, 2002 in the second year and this is a four year affair. Some items will be detailed, some will be fairly basic. We typically meet on the first Thursday of each month. Would the first and third for February and March work for everyone? MR. KROESCHELL: Same time, same day? CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Yes. MR. STRAPPONI: First and third Thursday? CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: We normally meet on the first Thursday, so in effect the third --- MR. SNEDIKER: February, you are speaking of?. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: February and March. MR. SNEDIKER: 7th and !4th. MR. ROELLIG: 7th and 21st. First and third. MR. SNEDIKER: Sorry, 7th and 2 ! st. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: All right. Do we know if we will have the commission chambers available on that Thursday? MR. HOVELL: I'd have to double check, but I know and Roy and I were talking about this before about whether we should recommend changing maybe the day of the week because it seems like the Planning Commission meets on Thursday mornings, certainly the first and I think the third. I think they are on that schedule, so we run the risk, as we got bumped that one time, we run the risk that if they run late, we are out in the hall wondering what we are going to do. I tried to get ahold of the schedule before I came to this meeting today but didn't. MR. PIRES: Maybe you can plan it for the elections office for those two days. MR. HOVELL: But if we are going to do a workshop, maybe the commission chambers really aren't the right place to do it anyway, because I think we want something more like this where I Page 45 January 11, 2002 can bring in all those reports and stack them on the table and maybe we can even spend sometime where it's relatively quiet and people are just pulling all those things and flipping through and then later on we can get into a discussion about each one or something. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: I have no idea about how many people would actually tune in, but if we're doing the guts of our planning, if we are in the commission chambers, it can be televised and people can see it, and the City, the City of Naples has television facilities. I don't know technically if it can be routed over to the county station or not, but I think the best first step would be to see what dates are available. I think you're right, sitting up on the dais may not be the most productive for this type of activity, but the commission has workshops in that room as well and they set up tables in the middle and the cameras can shoot down on all the people. MR. ANDERSON: They do. MR. HOVELL: Okay, I haven't seen that. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: They set up tables. MR. HOVELL: I just know that it's theater style seating and they are bolted to the floor, so I just didn't know how much room there was. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: They do a configuration for workshops, so if we can get that room, that would be the best. Why don't we work on than, try for the first and third Thursday, and then we'll just have to see where we go from there. MR. ROELLIG: Do you anticipate having some applications available, funding applications available for the first meeting in February? MR. HOVELL: other --- MR. ROELLIG: Probably not. That was going to be my That's why I questioned that. As I said, it's Page 46 January 11, 2002 kind of cart and horse, you have to have your applications completed, basically, and then we go over them. MR. HOVELL: I'm not sure if you have really looked at an application in much detail, but most of the grant application doesn't tell you much about the project. Most of it is --- MR. ROELLIG: Well, I know, but -- MR. PIRES: Boilerplate. MR. HOVELL: Yes. Mostly, I mean, from my perspective, I need things like titles and maybe an engineer's costs to fill out the rest of the application, so, no, I don't really anticipate having those early on in the process and I think it would be good to kind of, you know, since that's the level of detail we want to get to is to get to the management plans and the history of all these various things and then hopefully what I will try and do is by the next meeting, in the agenda package, is try and include some way of saying, okay, if we're going to have four meetings, then here are the types of things, in essence, if I set up an agenda for each meeting, because that's going to be one of the hard parts. The closer meetings get together, the harder it becomes to wait until after the meeting to say, you know, let's put together the agenda and get all the things together and mail out a package and all that kind of stuff. If we can set that relatively early on, then we just know regardless of what happens at this meeting, the next meeting the agenda is, you know, the next thing, then it's okay to start pushing them closer together. MR. STRAPPONI: Ron, I think Gary's suggestion is right on target, the agenda really isn't going to change too much. Basically, we're going to have the roll call, approval of the minutes of the previous one, and then if you look at 4(b) down through 4(g), you could probably take those and just have one five minute, you know, put them all under one item and have just a -- you know, limit it to a Page 47 January 11, 2002 five minute update and then we can go right into our business, so the agenda is only going to be this big instead of this big. MR. HOVELL: Well, it's usually the things that I try and send you with it, like meeting minutes, for instance. We'll probably fall behind on not approving the previous meeting minutes at the next meeting. We might be into April and say, here is all those meeting minutes. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: But that's not a big deal. MR. HOVELL: Right. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: That happens all the time, so that is understandable. We can appreciate that. MR. ANDERSON: So in terms of getting ready for the next meeting we can contact these other organizations and we won't bother contacting Marco because you're representing -- or Naples, so we'll do that, then, and get--- CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Well, I think it boils down into making sure that the Vanderbilt people are aware of what is going on and can give their input and, if they care, then they probably need to be there as members of the public. Okay. Anything else, then, from anyone on our future planning? (No response.) CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: I think that will work well and I hope we can do something that's useful to the other committees and the commission. We have set aside as the next item audience participation, which is a chance for the public to address us if there is anything they wish to do and we do have members of the public, quasi-public. Does anyone want to address us? (No response.) CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Our next meeting, as we have just discussed, will be the first Thursday in February, which you Page 48 January 11, 2002 indicated, Mr. Snediker, I believe, is the 7th? MR. SNEDIKER: Yes. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: February 7th at 1:30, commission chambers, subject to any change that Mr. Hovell will let us know about, and I think we'll try -- I was going to say -- to give form to the next four meetings, you were saying we need to anticipate what comes at the meeting after. I think next time it would be best to try to give us, to take, you know, certainly no more than three hours but take two or three hours, I would say, collectively, to give us some kind of report and update on the some of the existing projects and the ones that realistically that, you know, as staff members, they are going to be there, they were there last year, they can be there this year, so we understand them and we can start to consider the costs and that type of thing and then maybe leave a little time to preliminarily discuss our new ideas for the next meeting, the second meeting in February to get more into depth on what we might call our new ideas. MR. STRAPPONI: May I request that some of the sand that the people are complaining about, maybe bring samples to the next meeting? CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Good, okay. Does anyone else have anything else he would like to say? MR. HOVELL: I just wanted to, sitting here, writing down some notes, I see maybe four main subject areas that we'll probably want to hit. I think somebody had mentioned let's get in essence current project updates, which is taking that status report and just going through it. I had already mentioned about the management plan overviews, the inlet management plans, if there is such a thing as a beach management plan or at least what we have typically done on the various beaches. Page 49 January 11, 2002 Something I specifically want to show everybody at some point is how the state views funding eligibility and I borrowed the state's aerials that they have kind of marked up and kind of show you how they view what is eligible and what is not for them to participate in cost sharing and, then, finally, and probably towards the end is the actual grant applications review. After we have talked about the management plans and how things get done and whatnot, and taking into account any guidance we get, then developing the next year's individual budget grant applications and hopefully having all those available, not only the ones that I would develop but any that anyone else might be submitting for review, hopefully we can get those in on the 7th of March and if there are any questions again on the 21st of March, so that ultimately we have all of that finalized and handed over to the TDC folks in time for their meeting. CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: (No response.) CHAIRMAN GALLEBERG: Very good. Anyone else? If not, this meeting is adjourned. Don't forget to give the clerk your changes to the minutes. Page 50 January 11, 2002 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:45 p.m. COASTAL AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE GARY GALLEBERG, CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING, INC., BY JACLYN M. OUELLETTE Page 51