CAC Minutes 08/12/2003 RAugust 12, 2003
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER
COUNTY COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Naples, Florida, August 12, 2003
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Coastal Advisory
Committee in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business
herein, met on this date at 1:30 PM in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F,
third floor, of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the
following members present:
CHAIRMAN:
Gary Galleberg
David Roellig, Vice Chair
Tony Pires
John Strapponi
Ron Pennington
James Snediker
Bedford Biles
John Arceri
ALSO PRESENT: Ron Hovell, Coastal Projects
Jon Staiger, Natural Resource Manager
Jack Wert, Tourism
Page 1
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN OF A COLLIER COUNTY COASTAL ADVISORY
COMMITTEE MEETING IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARDROOM, THIRD FLOOR, W. HARMON TURNER BUILDING
(ADMINISTRATION), AT THE COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT COMPLEX,
3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA AT 1:30 P.M. ON AUGUST 12,
2003.
AGENDA
o
6.
7.
8.
Roll Call
Additions to Agenda
New Business
a. Approval of minutes of May 8, 2003 and June 12, 2003
b. South Marco Beach (Caxambas Pass) Work Order Proposal
c. Marco Island Grading Work Order Proposal
d. County / Naples Major Renourishment Public Information Proposal
e. FDEP Beach Erosion Control Program Annual Call for Projects
f. Barefoot Beach Erosion (Wiggins Pass)
g. Wiggins Pass Navigation Markers
h. Easements for Beach Maintenance
Old Business
a. Tourist Development Tax Funding Policy for Category 'A' Projects
b. Review of Recommendations made on June 12, 2003
Audience Participation
Committee Member Comments
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.
August 12, 2003
CAC Meeting
1. Mr. Galleberg called the meeting to order: August 12th meeting of the CAC.
2. Roll Call
3. Additions to Agenda- None
4. New Business:
A) Approval of Minutes: Changes requested:
May 8th- pg 3- spelling of name "Ladrzo" was incorrect should read: Llad Ryziw (two
names, not one)
pg. 3- next to the last paragraph reads t-groin and should read "wood groin."
June 12th- page 7, para. 6, second line should read "Federal Shore Protection Project."
June 12th- page 5, reference to a handout being presented. Mr. Galleberg requested that
handouts be attached to the approved minutes.
Pennington moved to approve the minutes with changes noted. Arceri seconded.
Unanimously approved 8-0
B) South Marco Beach (Caxambas Pass) Work Order Proposal
Mr. Hovell: Discussed the work order proposal. Scope of services and cost proposal
for design and permitting services to restore Marco Island. This was the section of
Marco Island which was approved for FEMA assistance and is a follow-up to the last
meeting. There is a specific cost proposal from Taylor Engineering for $199,164.60 and
the spreadsheet is provided. This would take care of everything up to construction
including the permit applications.
Mr. Roellig: Questioned dredging. Seems similar to the Wiggins Pass dredging.
Mr. Hovell: Clarified that a separate permit is needed. There is no open permit with the
state, but there is open permit with the Federal govt. and Taylor Engineering is working
with the Army Corps to determine that. This is a one-time permit.
Mr. Roellig: Indicated that this was a lot of money for a one time permit.
Asked about the quantity of sand being brought in.
Mr. Itovell: Said it was 100,000.
Mr. Roellig: Seems that there are many unknowns. Would be more comfortable
breaking the process up into different segments to determine what is required by the
permit.
Mr. Hovell: Confirmed that most of the proposal is broken down into specific tasks.
Page 2
August 12, 2003
Mr. Arceri: Questioned when the "unknowns" will be resolved." For instance, a lot of
money could be spent before the actual project is approved. When will the project be
confirmed?
Mr. Itovell: "Uphill climb." Taylor Engineering has indicated that there is a high
probability of the project being approved and moving forward.
Mr. Pires: Questioned the "lump sum" as worded in the contract. Will the cost exceed
the $199,164.607 Should it be re-worded "not to exceed."
Mr. Hovell: Money could be recovered by the county if necessary.
Mr. Arceri: Indicated that the lump sum would not be paid if the work was modified.
After each task the work will be evaluated.
Mr. Pires: Asked about beach access.
Mr. Itovell: Said the county would provide this information.
Mr. Snediker: This project will not substantially improve navigational movement.
Mr. I-Iovell: Never received input from the City on this.
Mr. Galleberg: Discussed the navigational issue and how to improve. It should be a
project that would stand on its own merits.
Discussion continued about navigational issue and where the sand is being drawn
from. Mr. Hovell showed slide of the area in question. Pointed out the "borrow
area." Discussion of depths and realigning the markers. Check about accuracy of
drawing.
Mr. Arceri made motion to approve with project being evaluated after first task- the
amount being for $19,000. Seconded by Mr. Roellig. Unanimously approved 8-0.
C) Marco Island Grading Work Order Proposal.
Mr. Itovell: Asked Taylor Engineering to give a full joint coastal permit to do major
grading of the area which may involve more than a foot of sand in any one area. Could
mean opening up the channel, or bringing in more sand. The proposal is meant to address
the long term plan and not this winter's grading.
Mr. Galleberg: Clarified what "better slope" means.
Mr. Hovell: Slowing down how the sand accumulates. Has asked Taylor to address the
situation in the proposal.
Page 3
August 12, 2003
Mr. Arceri: Questioned if this would address the "grass growing" problem and Mr.
Hovell confirmed that it would.
Discussion of Tigertail Beach. Are improvements being made to this area? Permit
to include this area.
Motion to Approve by Snediker. Seconded by Arceri. Motion passed
unanimously 8-0.
D. Coun .ty/Naples Maior Renourishment Public Information Proposal
Mr. Hovell: The proposal relates to the public information and outreach portion of the
project. How to develop a web page and how to get the public involved.
Mr. Pires: Questioned the need for outside PR firm.
Mr. Hovell: Indicated that this PR firm would only be needed for the first phase of the
project and then the county will maintain in-house from there on in.
Mr. Biles: Still questioned the need for outside consulting.
Mr. Hovell: Indicated that it was important to communicate to the public and get out the
appropriate word.
Mr. Roellig: He was familiar with the PR company as specializing in beach projects and
was confident in their ability.
Mr. Pires: Questioned the amount of $8,367. Hovell said he would clarify the amount.
Mr. Roellig made a motion to approve. Mr. Strapponi seconded. Motion opposed
by Mr. Biles.
Motion passed 7-1
E. FDEP Beach Erosion Control Program Annual Call for Proiects.
Mr. Hovell: Timeline package to be submitted by September 8th. Revised date is
towards the end of September. Mr. Hovell confirmed that he has good relationship with
this office.
Mr. Galleberg: Expressed concern about having this extension in writing.
Mr. Hovell: Money will be added to the existing contract. Contract amendment with no
formal submission.
Mr. Pennington: Asked about the probability of getting on the approved list.
Mr. Hovell: Discussed the long range budget package earmarked approx. 3 million for
this project. Talked about Federal funding (which we do not receive). The State will
Page 4
August 12, 2003
base their calculations on how we define the scope of the project. Requiring that we get
the hotel/motel manager to sign off on how many units are available to the public.
Mr. Galleberg: Discussed eligibility hurdles for grants for existing projects underway.
Also expressed concern over the letter which states that all submittals is received by
September 8. Requested that clarification be made that extension for deadline is granted
(email would be fine). They wish to grant staff authorization to submit proposals.
Mr. Galleberg made a motion to approve with the addition that a written
confirmation of deadline be made waiving the September 8 deadline. Pennington
seconded. Unanimously approved 8-0.
F. Barefoot Beach Erosion (Wiggins Pass)
Mr. Hovell: Erosion on the southern tip of Barefoot Beach pass. Concern over future of
the area and boaters are concerned with dredging issues. We should get parties together
in the late Fall and early Winter to discuss the future of this area.
Mr. Pennington: Discussed dredging Wiggins Pass and the fact that it was not that
successful. Talked about the area where erosion is taking place. Suggested that we
observe and wait until the next meeting for the engineering report.
- Coastal Planning Engineering is taking surveys and their comments will be presented at
the next meeting. Wait for their recommendation.
This topic was informational only and no motion was needed.
G. Wieeins Pass Navigation Markers
Mr. Hovell: Discussion of funding and who sponsors these projects. (i.e., environmental
services). Talked about the associated costs and monitoring in the future. This has
become a long term liability of the TDC fund. Wiggins Pass #1 and Turkey Bay #11 were
both installed in 2000 have been broken off. Waterways requested the funding to
reinstall them from Mr. Hovell. Mr. Hovell thought they should be replaced by with
whatever funding source was available to them and then put in a grant application. This
brings up the question of who owns and who sponsors these projects?
Mr. Pennington: Tax districts should pay for these. Nothing to do with the beach and
should not be eligible for TDC funds.
Dr. Steiger: Discussion of maintenance and replacement of navigational markers.
Maintained by traffic division in the engineering department and specific tax districts.
Also agreed that funds should not come from TDC.
This topic was informational only and no motion was needed.
H. Easements for Beach Maintenance
Page 5
August 12, 2003
Mr. ltovell: Referred to email in agenda package- heads up re: $500,000 in costs for
easements from beachfront property owners. Title searches, negotiating, recording, etc.
Internal charge which will be charged to the project.
Discussion of cost reduction, background work already researched. Many of the
properties have not changed ownership and the easements should be recorded.
Dates of the work should be clarified as well as cost (currently set at $56.00 per
hour.)
Make an effort to avoid duplication of work previously performed.
Discussed using outside contractor for the work.
Discussion regarding the efficiency of the project to begin in November 2004.
Clarify with the public that this project is different from the 95-96 project.
Communicate this to the public.
Discussion of permanent easements. County did not feel that anything within 10
years would be suitable.
Mr. Galleberg: Requested extra clarification on the project; the cost, the number of
hours and potential for duplication of work.
10-minute break
Meeting reconvened.
5. Old Business
A. Review of Recommendations made on June 12, 2003
Mr. Hovell:
Surf' s Edge request for reimbursement made it to the BCC and was denied.
Hideaway renourishment beach order approved by the BCC and is underway.
Draft permit applications will be presented on the 9/11 meeting.
Marco Island grading plans for selecting a consultant- Taylor.
Loudermilk Parking lot is moving forward for approval.
Grant Application for sand dune fencing- discussion about working with
Hideway. No decision has been made on this.
Work order for sand search and hard bottom mapping report with Coastal
planning and engineering was approved by the BCC and work order has been
issued and work is underway.
B. Tourist Development Tax Funding Policy for Category "A" oro|ects.
Mr. Galleberg: Mr. Arceri developed a policy paper and proposal as per the
committee's request. He requested that Mr. Arceri review the revisions to policy.
Mr. Arceri: Need to introduce criteria that is fair and simple for the public and the
councils.
Page 6
August 12, 2003
Discussion included the following topics: (See handouts for specific revisions and
recommendations to policy by Mr. Arceri and Mr. Pennington)
Adequate access points: 72 mile versus 2 miles for beaches to be eligible for some
form of funding.
Low and high use concept. Issue of usage not access.
According to Mr. Arced a beach is eligible for funding if the beach has at least
one public access point from a public street, and is within ½ mile of a beach, park
facility, hotel/motel or private residence.
A high use beach is an eligible beach segment that is within 72 mile of designated
public parking.
Low use beach is an eligible beach segment that is not within ½ mile of
designated public parking.
Submit to the TDC what is recommended. They have the budget, the committee
does not.
Mr. Pennington: Gave his comments regarding Mr. Arceri's revisions. (See handout)
Discussed eligible and ineligible beach and high and low usage.
Mr. Snediker, Mr. Pennington and Mr. Roellig discussed tide changes. A lot of
variance for how much dry beach there is. Discussed spring high tides and slope
variance. Specific elevations need to be determined by professional coastal consultants.
Look at the engineering numbers and adopt the policy to that.
Mr. Galleberg: Discussed defining the concept of what is eligible renourishment
regarding money and analyzing that data.
Discussion continued and topics addressed: - State funding versus local funding.
- Source of funds for the renourishment
- Zoning. Where is additional beach access coming from? Counties acquiring
properties for sale.
- Collier County provides a tremendous amount of public beach access and the
ability to increase access is limited.
- Sentiment of voters. People are realizing the importance of having better beach
access.
- Speculative information and the committee needs to take a stand that the will of
the voters is beach renourishment and not beach access.
- Discussion of historical tax referendum which passed in 1992. Also discussed the
straw vote.
- Discussion of tax referendum in 2000.
- At the time, residents did not feel that additional beach access was necessary.
- Erosion rates. Beach design for renourishment, minimum or enhanced. Filling
"hot spots" in the interim during the renourishment.
- Restroom issue - security problem.
- Parking issues
Page 7
August l2,2003
- Ineligible beaches: North of Wiggins Pass. Evaluated on a case basis for
determination. Lowest priority.
- Public access: Would need to be stated in the policy (i.e., walking through hotel
lobbies). Need to define this.
Mr. Itovell: Discussed specific areas for public access. Discussed where
measurements are taken from- property lines, etc.
Mr. Galleberg: Defining hotels as public as the state does is a way to provide access.
Assists Marco and Naples on a practical level. Purpose of the state funding is
different from the local funding. Need to get a logical measuring point which should
be from public access. Need to broadly define eligible beach.
- Based on information proposed in policy, all beaches would be considered
eligible beaches with the exception of Keewaydin Island and North of Wiggins
Pass.
Develop priorities within these beaches for high and low. If there is surplus of
funding, then everything can be funded. If not, high use beaches would have
priority.
Important to set criteria that makes sense and is practical. Perhaps break into 3
categories of beach. Eventually each beach will need to be designated as low use
or high use. (i.e. high-medium, high-low, etc, )
Clarified that the BCC has asked for a way to look at funding requests.
- CAC should be reviewing all category "A" requests.
- CAC needs to take explicit stand that renourishment needs to take priority over
access if funding is limited.
Mr. Strapponi: Priorities of the original intent of TDC has been moved. Tourist tax
funds were put into place to subsidize tourism not residents. He indicated that the BCC
needs to look at a different source of funds for meeting the needs of residents as opposed
to accomplishing what TDC funds were supposed to do- advertise and promote tourism
in the area. In terms of increasing public access, that is for the benefit of the residents.
Access needs to be addressed separately from renourishment.
Mr. Pennington: Agreed with Mr. Strapponi as a practical manner but explained that
was not the original intent.
Mr. Galleberg: State statute says beach renourishment is a "good" in and of itself.
Global intent. Does not need to be justified.
Mr. Hovell: Discussed the fact that the BCC is looking at how to fund all of it, how to
prioritize, etc.
Five Minute Break
Meeting reconvened.
Page 8
August 12, 2003
Public Speaker: David Somers, Hideaway Beach Club:
Discussed erosion control
Minimum standard for maintenance
T-groin discussion
Cost sharing issues
Waiting to see what the policy is.
Committee agreed to go though the policy page by page and make changes as a
group. Mr. Hovell made changes to the policy on the screen as the CAC proposed as
the discussion continued.
Mr. Galleberg suggested that policy eventually be reduced to one page.
Mr. Strapponi expressed concern over deadline to make this presentation. Mr.
Galleberg confirmed that it was set for August 18th but may be moved.
Some general revisions to the policy included:
- Delete "TDC" throughout the document and replace with "Tourist Tax Funding."
- Defining eligible beaches. Suggestion to revisit exact locations in thc Fall. Put
names on thc ones which are eligible and who is not- who is high, low, etc.
- Change 2 miles to V2 mile for eligible beaches. Suggest that eligible beaches shall
qualify for funding for a minimum level of beach maintenance. Define minimum
level and expand beyond that.
- Include "committee" where "county" and "staff' also appear.
Criteria for allocating additional funds. Additional funding is based on
designation of beach as high use or low use.
Definitions of high and low use established.
Discussion of cost sharing for renourishment of low usc beach: 70% from private
sources and 30% from tourist tax was suggested. David Somers (public speaker)
suggested 50/50. Gallcberg suggested 60/40 which was agreed on.
Defining access point as "public street." (Minimum threshold and built out from
that).
Defining what minimum standard of rcnourishment is. Needs to be studied
further and discussed with consultants to refine thc policy. Interim definition
would state that "renourishmcnt sufficient to provide minimum shoreline
protection for a period of at least 5 years."
- Decided on two divisions: High and Low.
- High Use: Eligible beach within V2 mile of hotel, motel or designated public
parking.
- If at least 80% of a beach is designated high use, the entire beach is classified as
high usc beach. If there arc low use segments in between they will also be
classified as high usc on a high usc beach.
- Include that TDC funds not bc used for navigational dredging. Change "fully
funded" to "funded."
- Include a paragraph under policy development that CAC will maintain a proposed
annual spending plan for submittal to the BCC. (See Mr. Pennington's draft for
language).
Page 9
Augustl2,2003
Mr. Galleberg: The policy will boil down to five points.
Motion to draft revised proposal by Mr. Snediker. Seconded by Mr.
Pennington. Unanimously approved 6-0. (Mr. Pires and Strapponi excused
before meeting ended.)
Mr. Arceri suggested lobbying members of the TDC and BCC. Assignment of
members:
Mr. Biles: Glen Tucker
Mr. Pennington: Tom Henning, Rona Saunders
Mr. Arceri: Dave Loving, Kevin Durkin, Rob Dictor
Mr. Roellig: Joe Dinunzio
Mr. Galleberg requested the following:
Progress report on three engineering firms.
Beach raking performance- revisit the problem. Not currently being addressed.
There is no accountability. Is it county or city? Mr. Pennington believes that part
of the problem may be that is split responsibility. Discussion will continue on
this.
Mr. Pennington thanked Mr. Arceri for his efforts.
Meeting adjourned at 7:30 PM.
COLLIER COUNTY COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Chairman Gary Galleberg
Page 10