CAC Minutes 05/13/2004 R
May 13,2004
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER
COUNTY COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Naples, Florida, May 13,2004
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
James Snediker
Tony Pires
Bedford Biles
Graham Ginsberg
John Sorey III
William Kroeschell
John Arceri (Excused)
ALSO PRESENT: Maria Bernal, Tourism
Dr. John Staiger, City of Naples
Ron Hovell, Utility Engineering Dept.
Shane Cox, Utilities
Heidi Ashton, Assistant County Attorney
1
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING
COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
THURSDAY, MAY 13, 2004
1 :30 p.m.
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. ROLL CALL
III. CHANGES AND APPROVAL OF AGENDA
IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS
V. APPROVAL OF CAC MINUTES
A. Approval of minutes of April 8, 2004
VI. NEW BUSINESS
A. Authorized Uses of Tourist Development Tax Funds
B. Wiggins Pass Feasibility Study / Status ofPEM Considerations
VII. OLD BUSINESS
A. County / City of Naples Beach Renourishment Update
1. Easements
2. Schedule: discussion of progress and potential barriers to meeting a November
2004 construction start date
B. Hideaway Beach Renourishment Update
1. Request for Additional Information #2
2. Plans and Specifications Work Order Proposal
3. Schedule: discussion of progress and potential barriers to meeting a November
2004 construction start date
VIII. PUBLIC COMMENTS
IX. ANNOUNCEMENTS
COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
May 13,2004
Page 2
X. COMMITTEE MEMBER DISCUSSION
XI. NEXT MEETING DATE/LOCATION
A. June 10,2004, BCC Board Room
XII. ADJOURNMENT
"-..-..--..-..-~"---.,"".-,.~.--. -
May 13, 2004
I. Meeting was called to order by Chairman Ron Pennington at 1 :31 PM.
II. Roll Call:
Roll call was taken with Mr. Arceri excused. A quorum was established.
III. Changes & Approval of Agenda: None
IV. Public Comments: None
V. Approval of CAC Minutes:
A. April 8, 2004
- Page 4, bottom Paragraph - word should be "de minimis."
- Page 5, last Paragraph - should read "were" included.
- Page 7, second Paragraph - omit the word "no" sea turtle nesting.
Mr. Sorey moved to approve the April 8, 2004 minutes as amended.
Second Mr. Roellig. Carried unanimously 8-0.
VI. New Business:
A. Authorized Uses of Tourist Development Tax Funds
Heidi Ashton - Assistant County Attorney - State Statute Section
125.01.04 Sub-Section 5 - more expansion than what Collier County has
in their Ordinance. She noted the Committee should be familiar with the
categories, but covered them briefly. "Categories" are:
· "A" - Beach Improvement Maintenance
· "B" - Advertising & Promotion - Ordinance is written to promote and
advertise County Tourism with the State of Florida nationally and
internationally. Encourages Tourism with emphasis on off season
visitors to Collier County.
· "c" - County Owned Museums and Museums owned and operated for
not-for- profit corporations and open to the Public.
· "Acquire, construct, extend etc." - one or more fishing piers which
are publicly owned and operated.
· Current distribution - Category "A" - 50% of 2% & 100% of 1 %.
Category "B" - 23.236% of the 2% tax
Category "c" - 26.764% of the 2% tax and
then broken down between County and Non-County for Museum
categories. The Fishing Piers - up to $200,000 per year.
. The percentages were adopted by Ordinance.
Questions were asked and recommendations and answers are as such:
2
May 13,2004
· Recommended if funds are going to be used to acquire property that
is not beachfront property, they suggest another Attorney
Generals opinion. AGO opinions are not binding on the courts.
· Public Access to Inland Lakes & Rivers - laws of Florida adopted by
Legislature and codified in the statute books, 87-280 added language
at the end: including shoreline protection, enhancement clean-up, or
restoration of inland lakes and rivers to which there is public access.
· The Statute with Public Access applies to Inland Lakes and Rivers.
As far as legality under the Statute, it does not require explicitly
public access for other applications.
· Inland Management and Coastal Beaches - memo referring to
Wiggins Pass by Ms. Ashton - attached a copy of Guidelines for
Development Inlet Management Plans. Maintenance of the passes
was part of the beach management program. There is a relationship
between dredging the pass and maintenance of beaches. She felt it
was sufficiently qualified for Category "A" funding.
· Ms. Ashton stated her task is to advise the Board whether she thinks
a funding would comply with the Statute and be legal. There are
Policy issues that are flushed out by decision makers. Cannot be
inconsistent with State law.
· Mr. Pennington mentioned a memo on 2/12/03 from AGO 87-16-
regarding Hideaway Beach Erosion Control Line - Included AGO
86-68. Cited public funds could not be used for private purposes.
Had recommended denial of request for dunes at Barefoot Beach
because it was on private property. Ms. Ashton stated the Erosion
Control line sets the boundary between private and public lands. Her
opinion was if the Board found a primary purpose for the project,
then there could be an ancillary private benefit.
· Storm Water Outlets concern - outlets on private property and
dumping water onto beaches. Ms. Ashton did not know enough
about the scenario to address it. Mr. Pennington: all within the city,
being proceeded upon as though it is a private responsibility.
(Question City Attorney relative to that, but it would be up to Dr.
Steiger if we do that)
· Mr. Pires reiterated that if the Board of County Commissioners
makes a determination that the expenditure of Public funds has a
public benefit it can have an incidental or ancillary private benefit.
· Mr. Ginsberg wanted to know how the use of the funds related to
promoting tourism. He used Hideaway Beach as an example where
there is no public transportation. How can they continue using the
funds in that situation? He referred to an attachment from the
Attorney General concerning the definition of a beach. It discussed
the connection between access and a beach. He stated in the Florida
Statutes it discussed public access relating to inland lakes and tried
to decipher whether it meant inland lakes and beaches etc. He
questioned how Ms. Ashton's office has come to the conclusion that
3
May 13, 2004
the tourists are benefiting from the expenses in that location. Ms.
Ashton responded - AGO 87-16 indicates it is a general rule of
construction that words of common usage are not specifically
defined. (Plain and ordinary meaning) F.S.125.0104(5): when the
term "beach" is not specifically defined, it (factual determination) is
up to our Legislative and Governing body ofthe County,..... BCC to
determine themselves what that definition means. She doesn't know
how the Board came to their determination, but her personal opinion
is that people come to Collier County because of the beaches. The
renourishment is related to tourism.
. Mr. Ginsberg's concern was the lack of access to the beach or
persons able to stay and enjoy the beach.
. Discussion pursued in the promoting and advertising of tourism
nationally and internationally along with the Category "c" funding.
Mr. Ginsberg asked about particular questions addressed to Ms.
Ashton's office. Ms. Ashton would like someone to discuss a voting
conflict with her office directly, but if it is a legal question, they should
be directed through staff (Maria Bernal or Ron Hovell) and staff will
contact our office (County Attorney) with their questions and we
will then provide a written memorandum.
Mr. Pires would like to have the group as a whole contact the County
Attorney's Office. The issues should be brought to the Committee and
then ask the Chairman to make inquiries of the staff.
A personal question outside the Committee was not a recommended
position of accessing answers to the County Attorneys Office. They
provide advice to the BCC and different departments and advisory
committees. They are not there for the public for persons to call and ask
questions. They do not maintain malpractice insurance and would have
to hire more attorneys to answer the many questions they may receive.
Mr. Ginsberg mentioned the feasibility study on Wiggins Pass with the
use of T -Groins and the LDC stating there should be no groins used on
any islands. Not having a background, he called the County Attorneys
Office for information.
Mr. Pennington mentioned if it has to do with the business of CAC it
should go through the Committee.
Mr. Pennington asked for a clarification ofTDC funds being available
for use of buses and boats for transportation to the beaches.
4
May 13, 2004
Ms. Ashton responded it would be appropriate as a beach park facility
and before a proposal would be forward she would like to research any
Attorney General opinions
Mr. Hovell- Utility Engineering Dept. - any beach renourishment
projects need permit requirements for additional work. Those permit
conditions are eligible for Tourist Tax Funds. Ms. Ashton agreed - they
are eligible under beach renourishment.
Mr. Ginsberg asked about funding of the turtle monitoring program.
TDC funds do not fund the entire program. They have conglomerated
the funds into one grant application.
(Ms. Ashton left at 2:07 PM)
B. Wiggins Pass Feasibility Study/Status of PEM Considerations:
Shane Cox - distributed handout and gave a visual presentation on
the feasibility study by Humiston & Moore:
· Outlined the problem of erosion along the gulf side of the beach
as well as the north side of the pass (Barefoot Beach) and
possible solutions.
· Showed different pictures of what it looked like in 1951 to date.
· 1995 - Consultants had a dredging plan and decided it would be
beneficial to deepen and widen the channel outside the pass to
act as a silt trap.
· Solutions by Humiston & Moore - more beach nourishment -
adding more sand. But close to channel and not economical.
Done every year or more.
· Alter dredging plan.
· Erosion control structures - t-groins (worked well)
· Shore Protection structures - sea wall, rip-rap etc. - Alternative
would be realign the channel - dredge and remove sand deposit.
· Straightening the channel will improve the inflow and outflow of
the tide preventing erosion.
· If material is beach compatible can be used in other projects
saving costs.
· Consultant recommends a slow and phased approach.
Modifications of permit. Dredge delta material out of pass.
· Need computer modeling.
Mr. Pires asked what the public benefit would be. Asked about the sea turtle nests and if
the park use isn't adversely affected, as it is the primary purpose to improve the
navigability of the channel?
Mr. Hovell responded they are trying to prevent further erosion of Barefoot Beach.
Showed pictures on the visualizer of the erosion effects. Under the policy, they
5
May 13, 2004
coordinate coastal projects at the request of Parks and Recreation. They wish to stabilize
the beach.
Marla Ramsey - Director of Parks & Recreation - mentioned the southern tip is the
State owned portion they are managing.
Mr. Hovell mentioned if they want to pursue structures, they have a Growth
Management Plan issue. State does not permit shoreline hardening structures - only
erosion control structures. In Engineering there is a difference.
Mr. Pires stated if they wanted to do that, the mechanism that gives them the finality and
certainty is the development services director. Request for interpretation under the code
would be to get the County Attorneys opinion.
Mr. Hovell stated at this point Parks & Rec is not interested in pursuing structures. If
and when any dredging occurs in the gulf the depth will be restricted. The bay side has
not been dredged. Parks & Rec would like to see straightening or dredging out the shoal
area and provide a more straight alignment and reevaluate it at a future date.
The erosion and dredging patterns were discussed from the past years. Permit
modifications would not be needed to reduce the dredging. Wiggins Pass annual
monitoring is being done and waiting for the report. Permit modification was discussed.
They have a proposal of rough costs for steps to be taken. In 2003 Humiston & Moore
proposed a number of steps - next would be preliminary design and permitting. Need to
get the permit modified.
Mr. Ginsberg asked about the rock outcrop. (8' depth) Can they request a survey of the
location of the rock outcrop?
Mr. Hovell felt in the past in surveying the area that the rock has been identified. The
current permit precludes them from dredging any of the rock. He stated Collier County
would not propose blasting out any rock.
Mr. Ginsberg stated it would help him in knowing where the rock is in the decision
making process. He asked why they aren't taking a Southwest angle to entering the inlet.
Also why are they considering dredging to 13 feet again when it should be 8 feet from the
mouth into the gulf?
The average sand has been moving to the north - not making it across the inlet and is
starting to get to the northern side.
Mr. Hovell stated it was not recommended by Humiston & Moore to be changed as the
alignment of the channel. He talked about the tides and man made dredging. The permit
for the dredging describes the existing solid rock layers. Much of the discussion was
shown in the presentation.
Mr. Ginsberg suggested another approach is to make the channel a straight section going
through navigable depths but fill in the existing channel.
6
May 13, 2004
Mr. Pennington didn't think they should redesign it but need more solid data with the
modeling.
Mr. Ginsberg asked about re-depositing sand along the ocean side.
Mr. Pennington mentioned the Florida Statutes 161 state they will deposit on the down
drift side of the first dredging. (Could go north.)
Mr. Hovell stated this is just a feasibility study and no design before them - just a
concept.
More information is needed.
SPEAKERS
John Findley - resident of Lee County and on the Board of the Estuary
Conservation Assn. in Collier County - showed pictures (1999) of how the river flows
and after heavy rains. Trying to do a natural cut and proceeding to the gulf area where
the dredging was. Showed different pictures of the past and what it looks like today.
Showed pictures and discussed the mangroves, title shoal and supporting the
straightening of the channel. Not getting the incoming tide - was always going out, so
not getting the salt water coming in and need the brackish waters for the mangroves. He
recommended they support the straightening, and believe it will increase the overall
estuary system along with the health and welfare of the system.
Showed pictures of mangrove damage and how it is changing the direction into the
beach. Stated the Engineers are actually following the way the gulf is maintaining where
it is at this time. Not cutting from the gulf side, it is cutting from the backside. Showed
where the damage is on the pictures. Funding is part of the issue, he realizes, but to stay
on plan they need to look at implementing a plan and have a maintenance plan.
Doug Fee - President of North Bay Civic Association - (handout) Important parts of
his remarks are as follows:
· Wiggins Pass issue and Estuary is vitally important to the area.
· Two important things: Preserve lands north and south of the pass. Both held by
the State of Florida internal trust.
· Florida Statute 253.034 all lands acquired in the trust shall be managed to serve
the public interest by protecting and conserving land, air, water and the States
natural resources.
· Manage with a single purpose in mind.
· Barefoot Beach & Wiggins are preserves and decisions should be made that they
remain as natural as possible.
· Designation of the Waters at the pass, as well as parts of the Estuary, are
outstanding Florida waters and needs to be kept in mind.
· Discussed the Statutes and DEP factors and read 2 of them - habitat and
navigation and flow of water.
7
May 13, 2004
· North Bay Civic Assn. - concerned the public has not had enough time to see
what is in the report and comment on it. Asked if the Parks & Rec Advisory
Committee has had a chance to receive and discuss what is in the report.
· Barefoot Beach - the southern tip has stabilized with the public being able to
enjoy all areas of the beach. This was not the case a year ago.
· The study seems to focus on navigation issues.
· Dredging to 13 feet has a direct effect on the eroding of the shoreline. The
erosion occurred after the major dredge.
· Not in support ofT-groins on the north side of Barefoot Beach. The GMP clearly
states they are not permitted.
· Many questions of dredging the S curve fledge shoal. Further erosion was
questioned.
Mr. Pennington mentioned he attended the public meeting and noted there were many
environmental and water quality concerns. Felt navigation was a minor part ofthe
meeting discussions.
Mr. Hovell stated the two choices are 1) get a consensus of which option presented to
pursue and, 2) go back to December 2003 proposal and make recommendation of an
amount "not to exceed."
The CAC has put the dredging on the 10 year plan, adopted by the Board, but at this time
no project sponsor has requested sponsorship.
The inlet management plan will be done every other year. If no action is taken to change
the permit, they can dredge to the limits of the permit which cannot be any deeper that the
permit allows but can dredge less deep. Can't exceed the 8 feet but could make it a
shallower dredge.
Mr. Pires asked about the 8 foot depth and the effectiveness ofthe maintenance
dredging. Could it have been done by Mother Nature if the emergency dredging would
not have been done?
Mr. Sorey felt they should ask staff to look at all the issues, have the Advisory Board
look at them and have staff come back to the Committee with a proposal at their next
meeting.
Marla Ramsey stated the reason for their concern is the dredging to 13 feet and seeing
many changes to the area. It is affecting Barefoot. With the feasibility study they want
to make sure there is enough information before them before dredging. They have to be
educated before making a decision. The Parks & Rec Advisory Board will see the study
next week.
Mr. Sorey moved they request staff consult with the public and Parks & Rec and
come back with a proposal at the next meeting.
8
May 13, 2004
Mr. Pennington stated there were approx. 50 people at the public meeting and wondered
if there was something else staff feels they need to investigate further before making a
recommendation.
Mr. Hovell felt there is plenty of opportunity of public input, the advisory Board
meeting, today's meeting and can receive additional comments and ask Humiston &
Moore to come up with a more detailed conceptual design.
Second by Mr. Pires.
The 10 year plan was discussed, and leaving it up to Mother Nature and letting the
channel take a natural path, along with saving the mangroves being a benefit.
Motion carried unanimously 8-0.
BREAK - 3:20 PM
RECONVENED - 3:30 PM
Mr. Hovell continued with the status of the PEM considerations. Humiston & Moore
attempted to contact engineering in Europe for feedback. The system was also presented
to the State in Tallahassee. Short term there was nothing to address the erosion on
Barefoot Beach - it would be experimental. Would need a conceptual plan and not sure
where to go with the system at this time.
Mr. Pennington found there was no experimental money available and felt unless the
Company wanted to do an experiment at their own cost; he did not feel they should
pursue it any further. He stated through research from Humiston & Moore it was found
the reports were not as conclusive as the representative indicated.
Mr. Ginsberg didn't feel the costs were enormous and if they could provide the labor or
installation, he would like to see them work with the Company.
Ulla Doose from Eco Shore International mentioned she would go back to the
company in Denmark and ask them if they would partake in an experimental process.
Providing labor would be helpful. Tallahassee recommends she find a government entity
help with permitting. She also stated it has worked in Denmark.
Additional information is always welcomed, but no further action will be taken at this
time.
VII. Old Business:
A. County/City of Naples Beach Renourishment Update:
More information is needed as per handout from DEP. They need to
answer all the questions and continue to get questions related to hard
bottom.
9
May 13, 2004
The second major area is the sand source for the City of Naples area. If
they were to remove the N-5 borrow area from the permit application,
many of the questions would go away.
Mr. Pennington stated it is his view they should abandon any intent of
using the near shore source, which is the finer sand. Plenty of sand is
there, but is an additional cost to move it further.
Mr. Hovell stated all the cost projections have been based on using the
sand from T-l.
Mr. Pennington will go before the City Council and request their
concurrence we use only the sand from Tom Hill. It will be a bit coarser
but would be difficult to distinguish. He continued to discuss the sand
SIze.
Steve Keene - Coastal Planning & Engineering - explained they were
going to use a hopper dredge - sort out the rock, but the borrow areas are
different with the silt content. He brought down the N-5 to 5.25%.
Tom's Hill is 1 Yz%. Almost all quartz sand. The silt content, sand and
hard bottom was discussed. CPE is doing a survey for final design and
could reduce the sand quantity and gain the same performance. May not
make a big difference in the budget.
Mr. Keene felt there was justification of moving north from the limits of
Park Shore and then moving south. Need to take precautions if they are to
last a minimum of six years and the areas do need width.
Dr. Staiger talked about the disruption and negative comments of traffic
with the trucking.
Mr. Hovell noted appropriate approvals from the City and the County will
be needed on the noise, work hours, easements and complete the process
of extending the erosion control line. Once the DEP accepts the permit as
being complete will then have 90 days to issue the permit. Their average
is more like 110 days. If response is done by the end of this month, and is
complete, the best case scenario is a permit at the end of September. But
on the purchasing side, you should have the permit in hand before signing
the Contract. With the timeframe presented and funding and another 30
days needed, it may not be done this winter.
Mr. Pennington felt if they get started by mid-December with a 4 month
schedule they could make the deadline - being optimistic.
Mr. Hovell cautioned everyone concerning the weather and working days
that time of year. The TDC and CAC could possibly have a joint meeting
10
May 13, 2004
mid or late August to award the Contracts - implying bids would be in
hand.
(Mr. Pires left at 4:04 PM)
Mr. Keene stated they are asking for a 10 year (State) -20 year (Federal)
permit. This is a long term permit and may want to keep the Corp process
going and curtail the State process. There is a consulting process that goes
on between the two permits.
1. Easements - there has been a 40% response so far and they have run
into mailing problems with addresses, returns and if in a Trust there
are no addresses. A public meeting was held with approx. 12-15
people in attendance. Presentations were given; it was televised live
and is now on channel 12 at various times and is now on at 3:00 AM.
Good questions were asked and all the information concerning the
project can be seen on the County's web site. www.colliergov.net
B. Hideaway Beach Renourishment Update:
1. Request for Additional Information #2
Mr. Hovell gave some of the same information as above. Need additional
information. They are questioning the sand source and still have
easements issues. State is asking if owners are agreeing with the project.
During the Special Taxing District they may get answers. Other
information needed in the RAI was discussed briefly.
Application will be complete by the end of June and permits by the end of
September. Purchasing side - breaking into two separate contracts. Sand
placement may be a couple of months behind but being done before April
15,2005 including the groins.
First Special Taxing District meeting is May 18th. Interlocal agreement is
also being worked on.
The sand source and permit applications was discussed. The $50,000
work order amendment was recently approved.
2. Plans and Specifications Work Order Proposal
Next step is to get the plans and specifications and construction estimate.
That portion of the work will be under $40,000. Permitting fees have
already been paid.
Mr. Hovell is asking the Committee to look at the portion of the letter on
Plans and Specifications and Opinion of Probable Costs for $38,580 on
page 49.
11
May 13, 2004
Mr. Snediker moved to approve the Work Order for $38,580.
There was much confusion on the amounts and the proposal. Mr. Hovell
stated on the 3 page letter from Humiston & Moore dated February 6,
2004 is the Plans and Specification and Opinion of Probable Cost. They
estimated $38,580 and he would recommend, since it is time and
materials, make it $45,000 as not to come back again. They will need to
do a Budget Amendment of$35,000 to cover the $45,000 Work Order.
Mr. Snediker's motion dies for lack of a second.
Mr. Hovell is only asking for the money that relates to the Plans and
Specifications. The rest is work that will be done in conjunction with the
construction and probably worked into the cost sharing agreement and
Special Taxing District with paying percentages.
Mr. Sorey moved to approve a time and materials Work Order, not to
exceed $45,000 and a Budget Amendment for Plans and Specifications
and Opinion of Probable Costs. Second by Mr. Roellig.
Due to more confusion and for clarification the motion referred to page
48.
Motion carried 5 yes - 2 no. Mr. Pennington and Mr. Ginsberg voting
"No."
Mr. Ginsberg voted no because of the ineligibility to get TDC funds.
3. Schedule: discussion of progress and potential barriers
to meeting a November 2004 construction start date.
Already discussed above.
VIII. Public Comments:
None
IX. Announcements:
· Mr. Hovell asked the Committee to consider a date in mid-August
that would be convenient with everyone.
· They will meet in June, no meeting in July.
· A Joint meeting ofCAC and TDC in August was discussed. TDC
meets the 23rd of August. That will be proposed to TDC.
· Mr. Arceri will not be in attendance at the June 10th meeting.
X. Committee Member Discussion:
12
May 13,2004
· Mr. Sorey - trying to understand the categories - wanted to convey issues
ongoing concerning Naples Bay. It is a key tourism destination and need to
consider funding. Received $2,090,000 to continue studying the needs for
improving the quality of the Bay.
· Mr. Ginsberg - wanted to discuss the e-mail he sent about the feasibility
reports that come out. He wondered if the information could be received
concerning the LDC.
· Mr. Hovell responded it was in the report as he responded to Mr.
Ginsberg earlier. The entire text was not there, but the reference was
there.
· Mr. Ginsberg stated there was no indication of what the legality of the
structures and is a consideration.
· Mr. Hovell and Mr. Ginsberg had a dialogue concerning the page
numbers and references of the report.
· Mr. Ginsberg was dissatisfied with the reference ofthe proposal and legality
of structures at that location.
(Mr. Sorey left at 4:51 PM)
· Mr. Pennington was asked to meet with the County Manager on the support
of the CAC at their meetings with Mr. Hovell. The County Manager also
expressed his concerns. CAC is primary a technical organization and liaison
with staff is primary with Utilities and Mr. Hovell. Mr. Mudd agreed they do
not come under the Tourism section but do receive administration support
from them. He was satisfied with the conversation with Mr. Mudd and their
concerns were resolved. Their primary liaison is Mr. Hovell.
The 10-year plan with the BCC was resolved concerning the Vanderbilt Beach
Parking Garage. Was concluded, with the Resolution of Hideaway Beach there
was $2M available to be applied to the parking garage. Cost of garage has
increased. Difference of what will be available and the required costs will be
made up from the Beach Park facilities budget.
Hideaway Beach concerns - agreement reached was that the T -groins will be
funded by Tourist Tax Funds and the renourishment funded totally by Hideaway
Beach residents. The monitoring costs will be cost shared between TDC funds
and Hideaway up to a maximum of $50,000 a year of TDC funds.
Storm Water Outfall City of Naples - number of storm water outlets extend
across the beach. Private ones dump out from sea wall onto the beach causing
13
May 13,2004
erosion. Met with Dr. Staiger, Steve Keene, the City and himself and asked
for a recommendation of what structures should take care of the issue.
Doctor's Pass - scheduled for dredging next year. In process of getting
permitting.
Mr. Biles and Mr. Kroeschell were thanked for their services on the Committee as
their terms have expired with one of the replacements being Mr. Murray Hendel
from the City of Naples and not sure of the other.
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned
by order of the Chair at 5 :03 PM.
COLLIER COUNTY COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Chairman Ron Pennington
14
Patricia L. Morgan
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Regula, Jason; Fuentes, Ana
mariabernal@colliergov.net
CAC Minutes of May 13, 2004
J{ef{o,
Pt:ease post the attacheá minutes from the c.May 13, 2004 Coasta(7lávisory onto the site. Pt:ease confirm their
p{acement.
71iank.,you,
rrrish
:Minutes a ~corás
ir~.~~'
LJ
May 13.doc