CAC Minutes 04/08/2004 RApril 8, 2004
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER
COUNTY COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Naples, Florida, April 8, 2004
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
of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following
members present:
CHAIRMAN:
Ron Pennington
David Roellig
John Arceri
James Snediker
Tony Pires
Bedford Biles
Graham Ginsberg
John Sorey III
William Kroeschell
(Excused)
ALSO PRESENT:
Jack Wert, Tourism Director
Maria Bemal, Tourism
Dr. John Staiger, City of Naples
Ron Hovell, Public Utilities
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING
COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
THURSDAY, APRIL 8, 2004
1:30 p.m.
Notice is hereby given that the Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee will hold a meeting
on Thursday, April 8 at 1:30 p.m. in the Board of County Commissioners chambers, located on
the third floor of the W. Harmon Turner Building, Collier County Government Center, 3301 E.
Tamiami Trail, Naples.
The agenda includes, but is not limited to, the following:
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. ROLL CALL
III. CHANGES AND APPROVAL OF AGENDA
IV. APPROVAL OF CAC MINUTES
A. Approval of minutes of March 11, 2004
V. NEW BUSINESS
A. Election of Chairman
B. Attendance Policy for Advisory Committee Board Members
C. Format of Minutes
D. Authorized Uses of Tourist Taxes
E. Sea Turtle Protection Plan Annual 2003 Report
F. Marco Island Monitoring 2004
VI. OLD BUSINESS
A. County / City of Naples Beach Renourishment Update
1. Schedule: discussion of progress and potential barriers to meeting a November 2004
construction start date
COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
April 8, 2004
Page 2
B. Hideaway Beach Renourishment Update
1. Public Access Proposal
2. Hideaway Beach major Renourishment - Permitting Work Order Amendment
3. Schedule: discussion of progress and potential barriers to meeting a November 2004
construction start date
C. Update - Status of Federal Shore Line Protection Study
D. Pressure Equalization Modules Possible Locations
VII. ANNOUNCEMENTS
VIII. AUDIENCE INPUT & DISCUSSION
IX. COMMITTEE MEMBER DISCUSSION
X. NEXT MEETING DATE/LOCATION
A. May 13, 2004, BCC Board Room
XI. ADJOURNMENT
In Regard to the Public Meeting:
All interested parties are invited to attend, and to register to speak and to submit their objections,
if any, in writing, to the board/committee prior to the meeting if applicable.
Collier County Ordinance No. 03-53, as amended, requires that all lobbyists shall, before
engaging in any lobbying activities (including, but not limited to, addressing the Board of
County Commissioners, an advisory board or quasi-judicial board), register with the Clerk to the
Board at the Board Minutes and Records Department.
If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this
proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please
contact the Collier County Facilities Management Department located at 3301 East Tamiami
Trail, Naples, FL 34112, (239) 774-8380; assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are
available in the County Commissioners' Office.
For more information, call Maria Bernal at 213-2966.
April 8, 2004
I. Meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman David Roellig at 1:30 PM.
Il. Roll Call:
Roll Call was taken with Mr. Kroeschell excused. A quorum was established.
III. Changes & Approval of Agenda:
Under New Business - Item G: Need for a County Attorney's attendance at
CAC Meetings.
Under New Business - - Item H. Vacancy on the CAC Committee
Under X - Item B - Summer Schedule
It was noted Mr. Biles and Mr. Kroeschell's terms expire in May 2004.
Mr. Arceri moved to accept the Agenda as amended. Second by Mr.
Ginsberg. Carried unanimously 7-0.
(Mr. Pires arrived at 1:31 PM.)
IV. Approval of CAC Minutes -March 11, 2004
Page 12 - Under Maura Krause's report: to do the turtle monitoring at
Hideaway would incur "no additional cost."
Page 6- The Florida Statutes quoted was 125.01.04.
Mr. Arceri moved to accept the March 11, 2004 as amended. Second by Mr.
Pennington. Carried unanimously 8-0.
Mr. Roellig expressed his gratitude for the attendance by some of the Committee
members at the Tourism Meeting.
V. NEW BUSINESS:
A. Election of Chairman:
Mr. Sorey nominated Ron Pennington for Chairman. Second by Mr. Arceri.
Hearing no other nominations from the floor, nominations were closed. It
was a unanimous vote for Mr. Pennington for Chairman 8-0.
Mr. Roellig is still the Vice Chairman.
B. Attendance Policy for Advisory Committee Board Members:
Mr. Pennington expressed his disconcert of Mr. Hovell being seated in the
audience rather than at the table as in the past.
2
April 8, 2004
Mr. Hovell - Public Utilities Engineering Dept. - responded they have moved
towards Administrative support through the Tourism office. As project
management issues are addressed with the Committee, he or someone from his
office will present them. All the new business, at the meeting, had nothing to do
with projects.
Mr. Pennington expressed his opinion of being a technical committee and felt
the engineer should be seated at the table for his expertise information.
Mr. Hovell stated he is no longer project manager on the projects and now
supervises the project managers and they will be representing any of the particular
project issues, with his support.
Maria Bernal has been appointed as the Coastal Advisory Committee and staff
liaison. There is always organizational tweaking.
Jack Weft - Tourism Director - mentioned one of the goals is to bring all the
Tourism Tax related issues under the Tourism Department. The 195 Fund was
never under their direct control, it was through Public Utilities and Engineering
Division. Mr. Hovel's time, under Administrative, has been taken away and is
strictly engineering. Maria is doing all the agendas and the items that go to the
TDC and BCC meetings - all under Tourism Department. They still need Ron's
expertise, but he will be doing all the engineering projects.
Mr. Pennington stated Mr. Hovell has all the history of the past projects etc. and
historically most of their issues evolve around the beaches. The obvious changes
taking place are not necessarily desirable. He asked the Committee if they felt
Mr. Hovell should be their prime staff person to the Committee.
Mr. Pires agreed because of the trusting and comfortable relationship they have
developed with Mr. Hovell in the past. He would be in favor of a letter to the
Board of County Commissioners and the County Manager, if appropriate, stating
their support for the staff, but also the working relationship with Mr. Hovell.
After a lengthy discussion on Mr. Hovell presenting technical projects within the
CAC, and writing a letter to the County Manager, it was decided Mr. Pennington
would meet with the County Manager and discuss their concerns first.
**The reason for the Attendance at Meetings was to remind Committee Members
the importance of attending meetings, excused and unexcused absences and
understanding the requirements.
Mr. Sorey mentioned an incident of a "no quorum" at a recent TDC meeting and
having to reschedule the meeting and schedules.
Mr. Arceri asked about being excused at meetings.
April 8, 2004
Mr. Pennington stated the County Ordinance 86-41 Section A states -
Attendance Requirement - Any Board Member shall be automatically
removed if he or she is absent from two consecutive Board Meetings without
a satisfactory excuse or if he or she is absent for more than ½ of the Boards
meetings in a given fiscal year.
Mr. Sorey responded that at the TDC meetings they are to call Mafia and let her
know if a member will be in attendance or not. Everyone agreed with that
procedure.
Also noted a member will be deemed absent if not present at 75% of the meeting.
C. Format of Minutes:
Mr. Roellig mentioned Mr. Ginsberg and Mr. Pires brought up the issue. His
understanding is that a transcript word for word is not required.
Mr. Pires understood that it is not required, but felt it would be helpful even
though costly. Technical discussions cannot always be detailed between
committee members and the presenter if not verbatim.
Mr. Wert reminded committee members the meetings are always taped and
televised, which is verbatim and can be reviewed without the expense of verbatim
minutes. It is also stated in each Agenda. Anyone that wishes to have the
minutes verbatim can hire someone if they so desire.
Mr. Pennington felt in the past they adopted Roberts Rules of Order - and
according to Roberts Rules in handling minutes there are two options:
1) Containing most of the comments made during the course of a meeting,
and
2) To only address action items. Motions made, seconded and the vote, and
identifying those voting against.
That is accepted in most cases and felt it is satisfactory. At one time he had been
asked to do a review of a draft of the minutes and provide comments before
finalization. He did not volunteer to do it again. They minimized the quantity
and extent of the minutes primarily because of having a record of everything said
on video and tape. Many people like to see their comments in print.
Mr. Pires expressed his opinion in recognizing multiple ways of taking minutes,
but merely addressing action items is diminishing and doesn't give the level of
detail that is helpful for someone to understand the issues when viewing them on
the website. He would like to have the minutes in the format of what they have
now when they have a discussion. It is easier to communicate and pass the
information onto others in a hard copy that is downloaded from the website. At a
minimum the type of minutes they have now should be maintained. He
4
April8,2004
recognized the expense of a court reporter and felt that anything less than the type
of minutes they have now would be a disservice to the community as a whole.
Mr. Pennington felt the minutes of their past meeting were sufficient and an
excellent job of putting them together. They have everyone's comments.
Mr. Ginsberg stated he brought this issue to everyone's attention. At a past
meeting he was a public speaker and the minutes only reflected a very short
synopsis of his presentation. He noted if the usual person reading minutes was
not in attendance, he would want to be assured that any public speakers opinions
be put in the minutes as a legal reference. He also pointed out that it is difficult
getting a tape; he has looked at verbatim minutes, which is very tedious, and
wants a balance between the two - a slight deviation of Roberts Rule of Law. Not
just verbatim, or opinion, but also all the information of the various speakers be
noted. This will give the other Advisory Boards and BCC a better understanding
of what is going on in the CAC meetings, in brief.
Mr. Pennington agreed with Mr. Ginsberg when he stated "in brief." He asked if
the minutes of the past meeting met the expectations of the Committee. The
members agreed they were very complete.
Mr. Ginsberg added, since the usual transcriptionist was not present at the
meeting when giving his presentation, he would like to be assured that the
minutes are of the caliber of last months meeting and could be her replacement if
and when needed.
Mr. Ginsberg summarized his own speech off the audiotape and would like the
minutes amended as Old Business.
They have already been approved and with the Clerk of Courts Office. It was
suggested they could be filed as a memorandum of public record, or included as
an exhibit with their present minutes as an alternative.
It was decided to make them an exhibit or attachment to the present minutes.
It was also noted they are Mr. Ginsberg's recollection of his statements
because the members have not had the opportunity to view them.
Mr. Weft also mentioned if any special or sub-committees meetings are held,
there needs to be someone officially taking minutes. The Clerk of Courts notifies
the appropriate people for that task.
**In conclusion Mr. Pennington stated it is in agreement with everyone the
minutes will be in the same detailed format as the past meeting, with his prior
review.
Dm
Authorized Uses of Tourist Taxes:
· Page 19 - County Ordinance - #4 - part of it reads: To finance beach
park facilities or beach improvement, maintenance, renourishment,
April 8, 2004
restoration, and erosion control, including shoreline protection,
enhancement, cleanup, or restoration of inland lakes and rivers to which
there is public access as those uses relate to the physical preservation of
the beach, shoreline, or inland lake or river.
In the County's Ordinance these words was included under the Category
"A" Funds.
Mr. Ginsberg stated it did not include Turtle Monitoring. He pointed out
an opinion by the Attorney General's office about beach access and would
like it submitted. Mr. Ginsberg will submit it to Maria for inclusion in
their packet at next months meeting.
Mr. Pires was intrigued with Mr. Ginsberg's comments in regards that
monitoring is not an appropriate expenditure of TDC funds. Mr. Hovell
responded he has a legal opinion stating that turtle monitoring is eligible
for Tourist Tax funds because it is the requirement of the permit that
allows beach renourishment. Otherwise the permit is violated and they do
not get any future beach renourishment permits.
It was noted any issues a member wishes on the Agenda in the future can be
brought up under Members Comments and brought before the Committee at
their next meeting.
Mr. Pires suggested at a future meeting perhaps someone from the Collier
County Attorney's Office can do a recap on the use of Tourist Taxes.
Mr. Pennington pointed out - County Ordinance on Tourist Tax - Article 3,
Division 1,2,3, and Section 126.
Mr. Sorey moved the procedure for items on the Agendas be brought
before the Committee first in which they will agree to be inserted for the
following month. If a report is referred to, it will be made part of the
packet. Second by Mr. Arceri.
Mr. Pennington will also approve the Agenda before submittal.
Carried unanimously 8-0.
Mr. Pires expressed having someone from the County Attorneys Office
address the Committee at the next meeting on the variations and uses of the
Tourist Tax.
E. Sea Turtle Protection Plan Annual 2003 Report: Maura Krause-
Environmental Services Dept. Maps and her report were given each member.
Some comments were as follows:
· The Beach lighting program, the stranding and salvage program and
the public awareness program are not in TDC funds. Funding comes
from Fund 111, Community Development Budget, because it is part of
the Land Development Code Amendments, Code Enforcement and
Grants.
6
April 8, 2004
· Nesting was up with Vanderbilt Beach with the highest number of
nests per mile with 45 nests and Marco the lowest with 10 nests per
mile. Data showed turtles had a preference for upland sand. Highest
hatching and emergence success.
· 32,418 hatchlings made it to the Gulf of Mexico.
· Accomplishment - FPL to change out 34 beach access lights at no cost
to the County.
· They had 17,000 disorientations, 78 strandings and 4,664 interactions
with people on the beach.
· DNR Monuments are spaced every 1,000 feet with Coastal
Construction Control Line set by the State. In order for mapping they
need to know where they are in reference to the DNR Monument.
· False crawl is a non-nesting emergence.
Cannot have a beach renourishment without sea turtle monitoring. It is a permit
condition, in all the State and Federal Permits. They also maintain the beach
dunes; remove exotics and beach compaction studies are also done. Detailed
reports need to be filled out concerning many more projects not in the report.
Question on what the schedule for renourishment is in relationship to the turtle
nesting. Maura responded May 1 st to October 31 st is sea turtle season. Turtles
can start nesting earlier - April 1 lth - and by the second week of October they are
off the beach. Renourishment would be November 1st to April 15th. The State is
looking toward April 1 st. Cannot renourish any part of the beach if there is no sea
turtle nesting in a portion of the beach.
Mr. Hovell mentioned each permit from the State and Federal Government has
different dates and need to comply with each specific permit. Daily monitoring is
required.
Dr. Staiger mentioned there was a two-week extension at one time in an area
where there had been no nesting activity as there was no beach for about three
years. They worked from the May 1 to the 15th of May to finish the project.
There is no assurance of an extension even if applied for.
Question on the lower numbers on Marco but was noted they have gone up. In
1990 there were 30 nests and now 90 nests. Reasons could be the beach is very
compact, no tilling on the beach and a lot of vehicle traffic. The ground water is
close to the surface in which they will not nest and possibly the lights.
Marco Island Monitoring 2004 - Ron Hovell
· Funding approved for monitoring in 2004 - did not monitor in 2003.
· Taylor Engineering proposal in packet
· Work Order costs - $78,916
Mr. Snediker asked about studying Sand Dollar Island.
7
April8,2004
Mr. Hovell stated the report was based on historical survey data and the profile
lines matched the historical data. There is no other reference monument to take a
survey other than to establish a new monument or use different bearings.
Mr. Pennington asked what the objective was doing the survey at this time.
Mr. Hovell wasn't quite sure but had concerns with re-grading and the brown
areas with the grasses on the north end of the island.
Mr. Arceri moved to approve continuing to monitoring for 2004 on Marco
Island for $78,916. Second by Mr. Sorey.
Dr. Staiger mentioned there is a group called Coastal Data Acquisition. They set
the CCCL monument system. They also get data generated from the surveys.
They have been wrapping them around into the inlets for a better hold on the sand
volume. The Monument system is set by the state.
Motion carried unanimously 8-0.
G. County Attorney at Meetings:
Mr. Pires didn't feel it was necessary to have a County Attorney present at all
their meetings. On an "as needed basis" would be sufficient.
Mr. Pennington stated he would request a county attorney representative to
address the issues related to use of tourist development tax funds at our May
meeting.
It was suggested a "Public Records and Sunshine" presentation could be given
when there are new members on the Committee.
Maria mentioned she sends the new members a welcome letter, and has ordered a
video tape on the Sunshine workshop that will be included in the Welcome
packet.
H. Member Vacancy for CAC
One applicant has applied - Mr. David Roellig.
Mr. Pires moved to appoint Mr. David Roellig for another term to fill the
vacancy for CAC. Second by Mr. Snediker. Carried unanimously 8-0.
VI. OLD BUSINESS:
Ao
County/City of Naples Beach Renourishment Update - Ron Hovell
Emailed update on Federal Permit Application Status
· Monitoring turtles in the borrow area was discussed.
· Has responded to letter for additional information.
8
April 8, 2004
When submitting permit application it is also submitted with a disc
so they can post it to their website. Response is on the website.
· Address is: www.dep.state.fl.us
· Easement letters were sent out to beachfront property owners on
February 10th. Sent the City theirs end of March. 174 have been
sent by the County with 21 replies so far.
· Dr. Staiger will get the City's out next week.
1. Schedule: discussion of progress & potential barriers to meeting a
November 2004 construction start date.
· Plan is to start construction November 1 st. Shouldn't be a
problem.
· RFP is scheduled to go out the next day.
Stormwater outfalls were discussed.
Having a public meeting within the city was discussed and need to pick
out a date.
Mr. Hovell felt the issues to address would be - what are they doing, why
are they doing it, what are the next steps and to sign the easements.
Dr. Staiger would like to get the easement letters mailed and then get a
public meeting with the consultant in City Hall for an explanation of the
project. He would like to provide a notary asking people who are going to
be given the easement letters if they would like to have it notarized and
filed right away. He is hoping to get them out next week.
B. Hideaway Beach Renourishment Update: Mr. Arceri
Public Access Proposal - Map handed out and referred to.· Pathway will begin at Spinnaker Road and end at the Beach Point
· Pathway was approved by Hideaway Beach by 79%
· Public street - has empty lots - would be suitable for parking
and/or bathrooms.
· Showed Tigertail Beach and Sand Dollar Island on map.
· Pathway shown is shortest distance from a public street to a beach
and the least environmental issues.
· ½ mile fully eligible under the present policy as it is ½ mile from
northern boundary line of a public park. But City not asking for
renourishment of that beach. Not sure it is a swimming area.
· Clam Pass - to walk from pathway - not always fully accessible.
Suggested a bridge across the area.
· Showed the area ofrenourishment being discussed.
· Last swimming area on north shore.
9
April 8, 2004
· Coconut Island - major tourist area - but problem is island is
almost gone - many trees removed. Environmental decision.
· Bike racks talked about earlier, no need for parking or bathrooms.
· Cost sharing by residents' project.
· Residents forming a Taxing district.
· Low use designation beach
· Width of the pathway is approx. 15 feet.
· Interlocal Agreement submitted to County for review - if TDC
money is spent and pathway cannot be finished for any reason, the
money would be refunded to the County. They want to start the
project November 1st. In the agreement - if pathway is not opened
up in a reasonable time period the money would be reimbursed to
the TDC accounts from the Taxing District.
Mr. Pires referred to the yellow area on the map and whether it is able to be permitted.
He also asked where the funds would come from.
Mr. Arceri responded the funds for the study is coming from the TDC funds. If
environmentally approved they would ask permitting be from TDC funds also. There is
no contingency concerning permitting in the agreement. Only contingency is that the
pathway be built, open and available for public use.
Mr. Pires asked about the land on Spinnaker Drive. Will it be donated - is it pathway or
specific lot?
Mr. Arceri mentioned he asked to meet with Mr. Mudd on the Interlocal Agreement but
Mr. Mudd wanted to see what will happen at the BCC meeting on Tuesday first. The
ultimate decision will be made then.
Mr. Pires stated there were no provisions for bathroom facilities or parking.
He also asked the distance from the demarcation point to Tigertail Beach. Mr. Arceri
responded ¼ miles.
Mr. Sorey felt they needed to send a letter to the County recommending serious
consideration be given to acquiring the parking space. The reality is not many people
will be riding their bicycles. He thought there was a Marco Ordinance precluding
persons parking on the shoulder of one of the residential lots.
Mr. Arceri responded that is not correct. People can park in the swale areas. The
County had stated previously they would not pursue that property as it is not a high
priority area for beach access.
Mr. Pennington stated the problem is funding for purchasing the property.
Mr. Ginsberg wondered why it is not being presented to Parks & Recreation if it is a
public benefit. With the proposed Boardwalk at high tide, the water is about a foot deep
and wondered if they plan on putting sand in that area for walking.
10
April 8, 2004
Another question he had was the renourishment area from the first T-Groin (NE) being ½
mile off the access point and who would be responsible for paying for that
renourishment.
Mr. Arceri mentioned they could do that part and be fully eligible for TDC funding but
didn't think they would want to do it at this point. Maybe at a later time.
He mentioned parts of the policy again. If they put bathrooms and parking in, it would
not change the funding criteria. There would still be the first ½ mile within parking and
bathrooms eligible for 100% funding and the rest for low-use funding.
Mr. Ginsberg stated in his opinion for it to be eligible - for safe and convenient access
there be parking and some facility available on the road and a bridge, along with
sufficient sand for walking.
The question before the Committee is: does the proposed area identified, provide the
public access point from the public streets that are required in the policy.
Mr. Pires was concerned about the boardwalk, or elevated walkway, of people
meandering off a path.
SPEAKERS
David Sommers - General Manager Hideaway Beach - they did a preliminary
investigation of the area in question. There is a fence line in the area and would attempt
to parallel the fence line. It would be an elevated walkway. It is a 15 foot access area
with the walkway being 8 to 10 feet wide. Cost estimates would depend upon the
permitting process. It is not a navigable waterway.
Mr. Pires addressed the permitting Agencies with the Critical Waterway Area. Also
asked about emergency medical personnel with the walkway width.
There are no cost estimates at this time and funding to be worked out with the Interlocal
Agreement.
Mr. Arceri discussed the access of Tigertail Beach and Sand Dollar Island with parking
and a possible boardwalk.
Mr. Ginsberg felt without parking, there isn't any purpose for a boardwalk in the
location. There is plenty of parking at Tigertail and felt it gets a lot of use.
Mr. Pires disagreed - but is more concerned of the cost.
Mr. Pennington reiterated again if they consider an appropriate access point - public
access from a public street to the beach in accordance with the funding policy.
Mr. Pires felt they need a walkway with parking, drop off, turnaround circle or a way of
access. He is hung up on the Association paying for it because of the benefits of the
beach renourishment. He also recognizes the difficulty of permitting as a contingency.
11
April 8, 2004
The policy refers to an access point, does not require parking.
Mr. Roellig moved that Hideaway meets the funding policy of one public access
point from a public street. Second by Mr. Biles.
Mr. Pires mentioned assuming the access point exists and meets the criteria -
accumulative access point; he would be in favor of the motion.
Mr. Ginsberg can't see a beach there - could walk down a narrow strip at low tide, so
doesn't see a beach. Until there is a beach, he didn't feel they could discuss it - stated it
is a river access.
Mr. Sorey walked it and stated there is a beach there - will not be used much, but the
policy and Interlocal agreement has been discussed and not buildable so if the funds
would come back he would support the motion.
Motion carried 7-1. Mr. Ginsberg voting "no."
BREAK- 3:54 PM
RECONVENED - 4:02 PM
2. Hideaway Beach major Renourishment - Permitting Work Order
Amendment - Ron Hovell
Humiston & Moore submitted a request for time and expense for the
Request for Additional Information from the FDEP.
Mr. Roellig moved to approve the request for the work order for
$30,000. Second by Mr. Snediker. Carried unanimously 8-0.
3. Schedule: discussion of progress and potential barriers to meeting
a November 2004 construction start date - Ron Hovell
The response for the last request for additional information should be up in
the next couple of working days. They will need to respond and are
concerned about the permits from the State and Federal Government so
they can start work in the fall. They have the funding and Interlocal
agreement and easement issues. The process of easements needs to be
started. Surveys had gone out and Hideaway thought it was all taken care
of, when in fact; it is not as it is all subject to the lnterlocal agreement.
Permits and easements are the big items and now asking for additional
funding to respond to the request for Additional Information.
C. Update - Status of Federal Shore Line Protection Study - Ron Hovell
Received the congressional resolution. As soon as they received word the
resolution was done, the Board chairman sent a letter to the Congressman's
office to ask to sponsor a line item into the Army's budget orS100,000 to fund
the feasibility study. Would be in the FY 2005 Budget.
12
April8,2004
D. Pressure Equalization Modules Possible Locations - Ron Hovell
At the last meeting a presentation was given on Pressure Equalizing Modules
and requested they review potential test areas. Beaches that have need are
Barefoot, Clam Pass area and Marco South Beach north of Caxambas Pass. No
experimental funds available.
Mr. Pennington felt Barefoot Beach may be an ideal area. They are planning a
third phase of trucking sand in and have high erosion on the south end of
Wiggins Pass. If this would be done in place of trucking and would stabilize the
beach, it would be worthwhile.
Mr. Hovell mentioned they had not planned on trucking sand to Barefoot
Beach; they had applied for a permit if needed. A public meeting with
Humiston & Moore addressed approx. 55 people on the history of Wiggins Pass
and discussed options for preventing continued erosion on the bay and peninsula
sides and was asked to include the PEM.
Mr. Pennington moved to propose Barefoot be the beach of choice for the
Pressure Equalization Modules. Second by Mr. Arceri.
Carried unanimously 8-0.
VII. Announcements - None
VIII. Audience Input & Discussion - None
IX. Committee Member Discussion -
Mr. Ginsberg would like to change the minutes on a discussion he had on
November 13, 2003 concerning the depths of Hideaway (northern channel) to
be up to 20 foot. He had been challenged by a member of Hideaway and would
like to show, for the record, Humiston & Moore's survey of 4-14-98 showing
depth contours of 20 foot in the channel and approx. 300 feet from the zero
water line.
Due to the discussion above, it has now been made part of the record.
Mr. Ginsberg was concerned about the depth and safety.
Mr. Ginsberg was also concerned about the timeframe of receiving their
packets.
· They are normally mailed out and received by Thursday or Friday before
the meeting dates.
· Mr. Hovell mentioned this is the busiest time of year with grants and
budgets etc.
· This month is not the normal timeframe.
Using a courier was suggested and Mr. Sorey insisted on getting the
information one week before the meeting date.
· Some members had no problem.
· Expense ofCourier was discussed.
13
April 8, 2004
· Distributed by police and faxing was mentioned.
· In the near future they will receive electronic agendas.
E-mails were discussed. Members have had many problems with e-mails with Maria's
office and talked about possibly a virus problem. This is being looking into further with
the technicians.
The Website is another way of viewing the materials.
Xe
Next Meeting Date/Location
A. May 13, 2004 - BCC Board Room - 1:30 PM
B. Summer Schedule - No meeting in July. Meet in August to get updates on
Beach Renourishment programs. Possibly the end of the month. Further
discussion at May meeting.
The Board of County Commissioners holds one meeting in July and then start
regular schedule again in September.
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was
adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:39 PM.
COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Chairman Ron Pennington
14
Correction of Minutes- Feb 12, 2004
Mr. Ginsberg showed photographs of Hideaway Beach mangroves and indicated that the mangroves had
retained the soil.
He indicated the distance to walk from Tigertail Beach public access to get to the renourished beach at
Hideaway Beach.
Mr. Ginsberg showed the renourished beach in front of private house and indicated that it took ½ hr to walk
to this beach from Tigertail Beach public access point.
He made reference to water depths of 3 foot next to mangroves prior to renourishment at this location.
Mr. Ginsberg showed T-groins and made reference to a 'no trespassing' sign at this location.
Pictures of Royal Marco showed erosion of 1 foot within 1.5 months and a steep drop-off to the waters
edge.
Mr. Ginsberg stated that mangroves protect the beaches. Cut mangroves were shown with eroded beach to
emphasize the point.
Mr. Ginsberg stated that the T-groins aren't effective in the river, which has a substantial flow rate. He
indicated the minimal sand retained around these structures and their inefficiency of saving sand on the
beach at Hideaway Beach.
A CAC member stated that their engineers knew that.
Mr. Ginsberg suggested that the Parks and Recreation be involved in the planning of beach access and that
they were the best qualified to do that.
Mr. Ginsberg stated that the pictures Mr. Hummiston presented, showed beach widths of Hideaway Beach,
going back to 1969, stayed constant, without renourishment.
Mr. Ginsberg stated that the beaches there would always erode back to their historic widths.
Mr. Ginsberg asked why we are we are trying to increase the widths of this beach.
Mr. Snediker objected to the time spent by Mr. Ginsberg.
Mr. Snediker said, that this is basic, elementary engineering as far as the coastal engineers are concerned
and that he would like to move on.
Mr. Ginsberg showed pruned trees at Royal Marco and that this will affect erosion on the beach.
Mr. Snedicker stated that the state issued a tree-pruning permit and Mr. Ginsberg should go to the state that
issued the permit and that they have nothing to do with.
~,H3
T-GROIN #2
~2 . 3 O~-'~
~T-GROIN #1 %0,Ox,,
N
SCALE FEET
100 0 100 2OO
" ~T-128 NOTE:All elevations shown are referenced to NGVD.
POST CONSTRUCTION (10-97) CONTOURS
ONSHORE SURVEYS CONDUCTED BY AGNOLI, BARBER AND BRUNDAGE (10-31-97)
OFFSHORE SURVEYS CONDUCTED BY SEA SYSTEMS CORPORATION (10-31-97)
HUMISTON
& MOORE
ENGINEERS
C OASTA L
ENGINEERING DESIGN
MARCO ISLAND-HIDEAWAY BEACH T-GROIN, 6-YEAR
POST CONSTRUCTION MONITORING
FOR: COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
DATE: 12/14/98 I FILE: 97-CON-SPNT
JOB FILE: 8002 IDATUM: NGVD
10
SCALE: 1" = 200'
FIGURE: 6