THE CITY OF MARCO ISLAND
City Council Meeting Agenda
Chairman: Michael F. Minozzi, Jr.
City Council: John A. Arceri, Heyward E. Boyce, Terri DiSciullo, Vickie Kelber, S. Jeannette K. Patterson, E. Glenn Tucker
City Manager: A. William Moss
City Clerk: Laura Litzan City Attorney: Rich Yovanovich
Regular Meeting Monday, July 21, 2003, 6:00 PM
Frank E. Mackle Jr. Community Park,1361 Andalusia Terrace
Marco Island, Florida
Notice: Formal action may be taken on any item discussed or added to this agenda. Any person who decides to appeal any decision made by the City Council with respect to any matter considered at this meeting or hearing will need a record of the proceedings and 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 heard.
1. ROLL CALL
2. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Greg Niles, Community Development Director
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
(A) Council Minutes for June 16, 2003 (Regular Meeting)
(B) Council Minutes for June 18, 2003 (Special-Called Meeting)
5. BUSINESS
(A) DISCUSSION - Collier Creek Dredging Project (Tract K).
(B) DISCUSSION - Acquisition of Glon Property on Elkcam Circle.
(C) ORDINANCE - First Reading - An Ordinance to Amend Chapter 22, Article II, Fire Prevention and Protection Code.
(D) ORDINANCE - First Reading - An Ordinance Declaring an Urban Service Area for the Provision of Water and Sewer Utility Services.
(E) DISCUSSION - An Ordinance to Amend Chapter 54, Article IV (Boat Docking Facilities) of the Marco Island City Code.
(F) DISCUSSION - Award of Contract - Mackle Park Master Plan.
(G) DISCUSSION - Revised Land Development Code Schedule of Fees.
(H) DISCUSSION - Roadside and Median Landscaping on State Road 951.
(I) DISCUSSION - Award of Contract for Engineering Services - South Collier Boulevard Improvement Design - Spruce Avenue to Winterberry.
(J) DISCUSSION - Award of Contract for Engineering Services - Intersection Improvements for San Marco Road/ Bald Eagle Drive and San Marco Road/ Heathwood Drive.
(K) DISCUSSION - Joint Project Agreement with FDOT for North Collier Boulevard Construction.
6. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS AND DISCUSSION
7. FUTURE AGENDA
8. PUBLIC COMMENT (ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA)
9. ADJOURN
We encourage our citizens to participate in the governing of Marco Island. Public comments are appreciated. We respectfully ask our citizens to be courteous, and to respect the rights of others to petition City Council and express their opinions. We also ask that Public comment be limited to four minutes.
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
Meeting Date: July 21, 2003
Agenda Item: Prepared By: Kelly Michele Smith
5(E) Date: July 15, 2003
Agenda Section: Discussion
Business:
Subject: An ordinance to amend Chapter 54, Article IV (Boat Department: Community Development
Docking Facilities) of the Marco Island City Code
BACKGROUND:
At their June 20, 2003 meeting, the Marco Island Planning Board voted 5-1 to approve the proposed boat dock ordinance upon second reading. This ordinance has been considered at several Planning Board meetings which took place between April and June 2003. Several changes to the existing boat dock ordinance have been proposed. Areas that have been modified are highlighted in the accompanying proposed boat dock ordinance and noted below:
Summary of Proposed Ordinance Amendments:
Section 54-100. Intent and Purpose
· Added language referencing reasonable access for vessel, seawall, and dock maintenance.
· Added new paragraph relating to overlay areas
Section 54-101. Definitions
· Added the following definitions: associated infrastructure, marginal dock, riparian rights, sovereign submerged lands, and sovereign submerged land lease.
· Modified the following definitions: marginal dock, riparian line, and seawall support piling.
· Updated definition of personal watercraft (PWC) to match definition in beach ordinance.
Section 54-102. Smokehouse Bay Overlay District
· Creates new overlay which prohibits new boatlifts, PWC lifts, boat covers and boat houses at multi-family developments within Smokehouse Bay. (This topic is discussed in further detail below)
Section 54-110.1. Conditional Use
· New section which allows new boat houses as a conditional use after October 1, 2003. (This topic is discussed in further detail below)
Section 54-111. Dimensional Standards
· Section 54-111.(a)(2): Creates the same protrusion allowance for all lots on waterways less than 100 feet in width. The current ordinance provides separate, more restrictive protrusion allowance for lots on a waterway which is less than 65 feet in width.
· Section 54-111.(a)(4): Changes the way protrusion is measured. In the current regulations, protrusion is measured from the outer edge of the seawall except for shoulder lots where protrusion is measured from the property line. The new method measures protrusion from the face of the seawall, except where the property line extends into the waterway, in which case protrusion is measured from the property line. This change was recommended by the Planning Board to address the growing number of property owners who install new vinyl seawall panels in front of an existing seawall instead of replacing the seawall entirely. Under the current regulations, this property owner would be required to
include the width of the new vinyl panel in the protrusion allowance.
· Section 54-111.(a)(5): Changes the way the width of the waterway is measured. Waterway width is currently measured from the face of the seawall to the face of the seawall across the waterway. The proposed change to the ordinance uses the platted property lines to establish the waterway width. This change was deemed appropriate by the Planning Board because of the growing trend of installing new vinyl seawall panels in front of the existing seawall instead of replacing a seawall entirely. Under the current regulations, a property owner could be penalized for the actions of the property owner across the waterway because the waterway width of a typical 100-foot wide canal would measure less
than 100 feet in this case.
· Section 54-111.(b)(1): Changes the setback requirement to a standard 15% of the seawall length except shoulder lots and adjacent riparian lines. This change clarifies the setback requirement and eliminates the need for a distinction between end-of-canal versus bends in the waterway.
· Section 54-111.(b)(1)d: Clarifies setback application pursuant to recently upheld official interpretation of setback requirement.
· Section 54-111.(c)(5): Changes the maximum height of seawall support pilings from 12 inches to 4 feet in height above the seawall cap.
Section 54-112. Additional requirements
· Section 54-112(b): Clarifies existing language.
· Section 54-112(d): Added language recognizing anchorage sites identified on official US Coast Guard navigational charts as permitted mooring locations for livaboards.
· Section 54-112(g): Added associated infrastructure.
Section 54-115. Boat dock extension
· Section 54-115(b)(1): Added requirement that the petitioner demonstrate justification (need) for the extension requested in addition to compliance with applicable review criteria. The current boat dock extension regulations only require that the Planning Board and/or City Council consider the review criteria in approving or denying a boat dock extension request.
· Section 54-115(b)(2): Added a requirement that the petitioner of a multi-family, commercial, PUD and/or DRI boat dock extension be responsible for meeting all public notification requirements.
· Section 54-115(b)(3): Clarifies the submittal requirements for a boat dock extension application and also requires a complete application package be submitted prior to the scheduling of the required public hearing.
· Section 54-115(c): Added a statement that the site plan approved for a boat dock extension is binding.
· Section 54-115(f)(2): Added a general criteria for sufficient water depth.
· Section 54-115(f)(7): New statement that relaxes this review criterion for multi-family developments and public marinas.
Section 54-116. Boathouses
· Provides review criteria for approval or denial of a conditional use petition for a new boathouse.
Detailed Discussion:
The Smokehouse Overlay was discussed in great length at several Planning Board meetings. The originally proposed language restricted the protrusion length available through a boat dock extension to a total 40-foot protrusion into the waterway and also provided additional design criteria for boat dock extensions for multi-family properties within Smokehouse Bay. These design criteria mirrored the boat dock extension recently approved for Bayfront Place. Upon further discussion, the Planning Board decided that the proposed overlay did not satisfy the concerns of the property owners in this area who spoke out at the public hearings for the Bayfront Place boat dock extension. Various versions of the overlay were discussed, however, ultimately the prohibition of boatlifts in this area was the only regulation a majority of the Planning Board felt
was appropriate. At least one Planning Board member expressed concern that the water quality of the bay would be adversely affected if boatlifts were prohibited. Staff does not support the creation of an overlay for this area because it is viewed as unnecessary. Staff is also concerned that the prohibition of boat lifts will make it difficult or impossible for these property owners to obtain the DEP permit required for new boat dock facilities or modifications to existing facilities within this waterway.
Another major change to the existing boat dock ordinance is the addition of boathouses as a conditional use. In 1998 the City Council approved an ordinance prohibiting new boathouses. The current boat dock ordinance adopted in 2000 incorporated this prohibition and also provided review criteria for the approval of repair and replacement of existing boathouses. The proposed change to allow boathouses as a conditional use was requested by a few property owners who spoke in support of this change. The consensus of the Planning Board was that new boathouses should be permitted as a conditional use in instances where a boathouse does not obstruct the view to the waterway of an adjacent property owner (i.e., tip lots). The review criteria for a boathouse as a conditional use is similar to the review criteria for existing boathouses which need to be
repaired or replaced, however, new boathouses are allowed to be up to 800 square feet in size. Staff does not support this change to the ordinance.
Several other topics were discussed in great length, however no changes were recommended by the Planning Board, including the protrusion amount permitted by right, and livaboards. Following several discussions the Planning Board did not feel that any change to the current regulations relating to protrusion limits was warranted. The Planning Board also did not feel that there was a need to further relax the regulations relating to livaboards. The original draft of the boat dock ordinance also created an overlay district for Old Marco Village Subdivision. This overlay provided reduced setback requirements for properties within the Old Marco Village subdivision which contain 50 feet or less of waterfrontage. This overlay district was struck from the ordinance because the majority of the Planning Board did not feel the overlay was necessary.
Staff also did not support the Old Marco Village Subdivision Overlay because the overlay would apply to only a small number of properties (approximately 12). Further, staff felt that the overlay was not warranted as no setback variances requested for boat dock facilities within the Old Marco Village subdivision had been requested since 1998.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discussion.
Reviewed by Department Director Reviewed by City Manager
Council Action: Motion by: Second by:
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
Meeting Date: July 21, 2003
Agenda Item: Prepared By: A. William Moss, City Manager
5(D) Date: July 15, 2003
Agenda Section:
Business: Ordinance – 1st Reading
Subject: An Ordinance Declaring an Urban Service Area Department: City Manager
For the Provision of Water and Sewer Utility
Services
BACKGROUND:
The City of Marco Island is actively engaged in the acquisition of all potable and non-potable water supply, treatment, storage, and distribution systems and wastewater collection, transmission, treatment, disposal, reuse, and reclaimed water systems located in the City and the adjacent unincorporated areas of Collier County that are now owned by Florida Water Services Corporation.
Chapter 180, Florida Statutes, empowers municipalities with certain powers and authority to control and regulate municipal public works, both within and outside its corporate limits.
In order to avail itself of the provisions and benefits of Chapter 180, Florida Statutes, to provide utility services beyond its corporate limits, the Marco Island City Council is required to adopt an ordinance to create an urban service area. The attached ordinance creates the urban service area for the specific purpose of providing water, wastewater, and reuse water systems in the City and the adjacent unincorporated areas of Collier County that currently receive services from the Florida Water Services Corporation.
Collier County staff were asked to review and comment on the ordinance. Therefore, the language may be amended for the second reading.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt ordinance on first reading declaring an urban service area.
Reviewed by Department Director Reviewed by City Manager
Council Action: Motion by: Second by:
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
Meeting Date: July 21, 2003
Agenda Item: 4(B) Prepared By: A. William Moss, City Manager
Date: July 7, 2003
Agenda Section:
Business: Discussion
Subject: Acquisition of Glon Property on Elkcam Circle Department: City Council
BACKGROUND:
During the capital improvement program workshop meeting of May 9, 2003 City Council was asked to consider the purchase of property owned by Dale Glon on Elkcam Circle. City Council agreed to discuss the proposed acquisition June 2nd. Council discussed the merits of the proposed acquisition and directed that a committee be appointed to consider the proposal and report back to City Council.
The subject property is comprised of twelve parcels totaling 6.85± acres and is located on both sides of Elkcam Circle at the intersection of Lambert Drive. The property is zoned PUD as approved by Council on March 19, 2001. The PUD provides for commercial mixed-use development containing a hotel, restaurants, retail uses, offices, multi-family units, public use area, and waterfront amenities.
The property owner recently revealed a new development proposal for the inland portion of the property. Instead of a 172-room hotel, the owner proposes a stand-alone multi-family building with 82 units. Waterfront retail/office space totaling 35,000 square feet combined with the 10,000 to 15,000 square foot civic space allocation will meet the requirements for a mixed use development.
Vice-Chair Tucker and City Manager Moss met with the owner’s representative, Craig R. Woodward, Esquire, on June 9th to discuss purchase price and options. Mr. Woodward provided a copy of an appraisal dated April 2002 that was prepared for AmSouth Bank. The conclusion of the appraisal was that the 6.85± acres had a market value of $9,350,000. Real estate appraiser Ray Carroll of Carroll & Carroll, LLP has been asked by the City Manager to appraise the current market value of the subject property. While not available at the time of the agenda preparation, the appraisal should be received prior to the City Council meeting.
The Committee to Evaluate Purchase of Property on Elkcam Circle met on June 13, 2003. Committee members are Vice-Chair Tucker, City Manager Moss, Community Development Director Niles, Parks & Recreation Director Souza, Maury Dailey, Tom Wagor, and Sandi Johnson. The Committee agreed to forward a favorable recommendation to City Council. The Committee discussed the merits of uses for the property and agreed it would be better to identify a broad category of uses rather than making specific recommendations. The Committee agreed that the actual use of the property, if it is acquired, should be developed following a lengthy planning and community input process. The process should allow for a community consensus as to maximum benefit to Marco Island businesses, residents, and the community in general. The
Committee agreed that the area is unique to Marco Island and that its acquisition is consistent with years of planning documents that envisioned a public area within the “town center” environment. The Committee appreciated constraints caused by the spending cap and agreed that City Council should consider the acquisition as an emergency as defined by the City Charter.
A staff report, prepared by Finance Director Bill Harrison, is attached. The purpose of the report is to provide funding alternatives for the purchase of the property in the event that City Council wishes to proceed with the acquisition. The report also summarizes the implications upon the spending cap provision of the City Charter relative to emergency purchases.
Both City Council and the ad hoc committee discussed the merits of a referendum to determine the level of public support. The options are presented in an attached memorandum in the event that City Council would want to consider a referendum.
While there have been general discussions with the owner’s representative and the owner, these discussions have not focused on a specific purchase price at this time.
From a recent historic perspective, beginning with Deltona’s Master Plan through cityhood, the acquisition of a “public place” in the vicinity of the “town center” has been a clearly stated community goal. The property is the only undeveloped parcel available near Marco Island’s commercial center.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
This subject is presented for discussion and further direction.
Reviewed by Department Director Reviewed by City Manager
Council Action: Motion by: Second by:
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
Meeting Date: July 21, 2003
Agenda Item: Prepared By: A. William Moss, City Manager
5(H) Date: July 9, 2003
Agenda Section:
Business: Discussion
Subject: Roadside and Median Landscaping Department: City Manager
On State Road 951
BACKGROUND:
In 2002 the City was awarded a $130,000 Federal Surface Transportation Enhancement Grant through the Collier County Metropolitan Planning Organization. The purpose of the grant was to partially fund the installation of landscaping improvements along SR 951 between the SS Judge Jolley Bridge and the McIlvane Bay Bridge, a distance of approximately 1.3 miles. In January 2003 City Council adopted a resolution authorizing the City Manager to apply for a Highway Beautification Grant to provide additional funding for the project.
While the Highway Beautification Grant application was sufficiently ranked to allow funding to Marco Island, the FDOT announced on June 17th that because of state budget cuts none of the grant applications will receive funding. Therefore, the City will not receive an additional $194,481 to supplement the previous grant of $130,000 unless funds are later restored to the FDOT budget.
On April 25, 2003 another grant application was submitted to the MPO in the amount of $283,622. While several advisory committees recommended funding the SR 951 landscape project, the MPO board elected to fund other projects.
The estimated cost to provide median and roadside landscaping for the 1.3-mile segment of SR 951 is $433,000. Three grant applications submitted to date have resulted in a net award of $130,000. This partial funding is included in the 5-year CIP for expenditure in the year 2005.
While it has been the intent to fund the SR 951 landscape project with grants, it is apparent that the opportunities to receive grant funding have diminished significantly in the last few months. Options are:
1. Stay on course and continue to submit future grant applications;
2. Provide City funding for the remaining balance of the estimated cost ($303,000);
3. Cancel the project and request that the MPO and the FDOT reassign the previously awarded $130,000 grant to the City’s North Collier Boulevard improvement project.
Council is asked to select an alternative or otherwise provide direction.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Discussion.
Reviewed by Department Director Reviewed by City Manager
Council Action: Motion by: Second by:
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
Meeting Date: July 21, 2003
Agenda Item: Prepared By: Michael D. Murphy, Fire-Rescue Chief
5(C) Date: July 10, 2003
Agenda Section:
Business: Ordinance – 1st Reading
Subject: Ordinance Amending Chapter 22, Article II Department: Fire-Rescue Department
Fire Prevention and Protection Code
BACKGROUND:
The State of Florida has adopted a statewide Fire Prevention and Protection Code utilizing the 2000 Edition of National Fire Protection Association N.F.P.A. 1 and N.F.P.A. 101. Provisions within Section 633.025, Florida Statutes, allow the local authority having jurisdiction to adopt local amendments specific to their needs.
Collier County recently revised local amendments that are applicable to all construction within the unincorporated areas of the County. Consistent with past policy, it is recommended that the City Code be amended to mirror the Collier County Fire Code.
There are three additional recommendations specific to the City of Marco Island:
1. Page 8 (B), Chapter 1, Administration and Enforcement, Subsection 1-2.1. Reference is made to biological, chemical, and/or radioactive events to reflect the expanding role of concern with general citizen safety and potential terrorist targets.
2. Page 11, Section 1-16.16 (16)a. This section adds language that fireworks permits will not be issued for residential properties or the waterways adjacent to residential properties. The Fire-Rescue Department receives requests from residents and associations that wish to use fireworks at weddings and private events within residential areas. There is a clear safety code established for the use of fireworks, but no set defined code or permitting process other than the City Noise Ordinance that takes into consideration the potential disruption of neighbors.
3. Page 20, Subsection 3-5.5. The Fire-Rescue Department is asking that the City create a clear policy that speed humps/bumps not be allowed on fire lanes and roadways. These devices delay the response of apparatus to calls and also delay transportation of patients to hospitals. There is also inconvenience and a potential risk associated with the transportation of patients on backboards over these road impediments. This recommendation is for new construction and not retroactive to existing speed humps/bumps.
Attached for consideration is the proposed amendment to Chapter 22 of the Code of Ordinances, utilizing strike-throughs for deletions and underline for additions.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Discussion and consideration of Ordinance on first reading.
Reviewed by Department Director Reviewed by City Manager
Council Action: Motion by: Second by:
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
Meeting Date: July 21, 2003
Agenda Item: 5(G) Prepared By: K. Greg Niles
Date: July 14, 2003
Agenda Section: Discussion
Business:
Subject: LDC Schedule of Fees Department: Community Development
BACKGROUND:
The purpose of Land Development Code fees is to pass on administrative and legal costs to those requiring land development services, rather than to the taxpayer in general.
The current fee schedule for various activities regulated under the Land Development Code (LDC) is the same schedule that was applicable prior to incorporation. In recognition of the staff time devoted to application review and permitting, rising advertisement costs for public notices and letters, and preparation of thorough staff reports, ordinances and resolutions, City staff is recommending the changes to the fee schedule. Attached for Council's information and consideration is a proposed fee schedule in strike-though and underline format.
As a point of reference, Collier County has had a series of fee increases over the past five years. The latest draft of the County's Fee Schedule is attached for reference, and has been used as a guide by city staff.
This matter is presented for discussion purposes only. Staff will initiate an ordinance to amend the City's LDC to reflect the new fee schedule, with public hearings held accordingly. Staff will endeavor to have the new fee schedule effective January 1, 2004. The development community will be advised of the proposed fee changes and tentative effective date.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Discussion.
Reviewed by Department Director Reviewed by City Manager
Council Action: Motion by: Second by:
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
Meeting Date: July 21, 2003
Agenda Item: Prepared By: Dana A. Souza
5(F) Date: July 15, 2003
Agenda Section:
Business:
Subject: Contract Award Department: Parks and Recreation
Mackle Park Master Plan
BACKGROUND:
The administration is requesting approval to award a contract to Goetz and Stropes, Landscape Architects, to develop a Master Plan for Mackle Park. The contract amount is $59,500.
Funding for this contract is available in the FY03 Capital Projects Budget. The budget provides funding for “Mackle Park Expansions” in the amount of $110,000. The budget funds were originally targeted for playground improvements (toddler equipment) and interior renovations in the community center. While these projects were targeted the budget narratives also state the need to complete “master site development drawing, planning, etc.”, which was targeted for funding in FY04.
Upon evaluating the desired projects for FY03, it became apparent that the Master Planning project needed to occur before any additional city monies were spent on physical improvements. Making improvements to the playground and community center did not seem prudent when broader considerations were needed for both amenities, furthermore, plans developed by Collier County between 1987 and 1998 as well as the conceptual plan for Mackle Park included in the city’s Parks, Recreation and Open Space Study present very different designs for the park that have had little or no public participation. While the city’s Open Space Study had public involvement, Mackle Park was one of many topics and locations included in the study limiting planning efforts for each park to a conceptual level. The park master plan process focuses on
comprehensively developing long term plans for Mackle Park that will have solid public support, be fiscally feasible and that build upon previous planning efforts.
After discussions among city administrators and with the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee, a Request for Proposals for a Mackle Park Master Plan was issued. Eight firms submitted proposals for this project. A Selection Committee made up of Carrie Canfield, Chair of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee; Sandi Johnson, Chair of the Beautification Committee; Bill Harrison, Finance Director; Greg Niles, Community Development Director and Dana Souza, Recreation Coordinator reviewed the proposals and selected three firms for interviews. Following interviews, the Selection Committee recommended the firm of Goetz and Stropes to complete the project.
The project scope includes: a full survey of Mackle Park, a detailed site inventory and analysis, schematic design, including an alternative design process, the development of a final plan and report which will include a maintenance management plan and construction cost estimates. The planning process includes monthly meetings with a Master Planning Committee and three public meetings. The first public meeting
to occur when the existing conditions analysis is complete. This meeting will also serve as the meeting to solicit public input for the schematic phase. A second public meeting will occur when alternative designs are complete. This meeting will provide guidance from the public on establishing improvement priorities and final plan development. The final public meeting will present the completed master plan to the public, illustrating the plan both visually and in a report format. The completed plan will then serve as the basis for future improvements and capital budgeting priorities for the next several years.
At the July 8, 2003 meeting of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee, the committee voted unanimously to support awarding a contract to Goetz and Stropes to complete the Mackle Park Master Plan.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Award a contract to Goetz and Stropes, Landscape Architects, to develop a Master Plan for Mackle Park. The contract amount is $59,500.
Reviewed by Department Director Reviewed by City Manager
Council Action: Motion by: Second by:
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
Meeting Date: July 21, 2003
Agenda Item: 5(A) Prepared By: A. William Moss, City Manager
Date: July 15, 2003
Agenda Section:
Business: Discussion
Subject: Collier Creek Dredging Project – Tract “K” Department: City Manager
BACKGROUND:
The FY03 and proposed FY04 budgets allocate $326,000 for the dredging of two channel segments in Collier Creek. Following analysis of alternatives, the alternative that is the most cost effective with the least impact on the environment is the dredging of 13,000 cubic yards and then pumped to the 11–acre parcel known as Tract “K” for dewatering and final disposal of the dredged materials. The District School Board, the property owner, was asked to allow the City to use Tract “K” for the placement of the dredged material. Following negotiations of an interlocal agreement whereby the City agreed to accept full responsibility for the project and committed to provide public information to the community and affected neighbors, City Council authorized execution of the interlocal agreement on June 16,
2003. Immediately thereafter staff and City Council received numerous calls, letters, e-mails, and petitions expressing concern and opposition to the use of Tract “K” as an upland disposal site.
Staff elected to advance the public information process even though all required information was not available at the time. Letters were mailed to 180 households advising of a public information meeting scheduled for July 14th. The letter included an explanation of the proposed project and “questions and answers” to address many of the inquiries received.
Approximately 100 people attended the public information meeting on July 14th. The presentation panel consisted of the City Manager and Public Works Director, W. Gail Day, Chairman of the City’s Waterways Advisory Committee, and Dr. Michael Stephen and Michael Poff of Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc.
Following the staff and consultant’s presentation the public was encouraged to comment or ask questions. The vast majority of the nineteen citizens who asked questions or otherwise commented on the proposed project were in opposition, as were most of the citizens in attendance. Several spoke in favor of the project by acknowledging the necessity to dredge Collier Creek and the cost effectiveness of the proposal. Those opposed to the project provided many reasons for their opposition, which generally included: insufficient justification of need to dredge Collier Creek; no benefits to the affected neighborhood; inconvenience to the neighboring properties during the dredging period; inappropriate selection of other alternatives, even if other alternatives cost more; inadequate guarantees of health and safety; potential
flooding of neighboring properties following the increased elevation of Tract “K” with the placement of the dredge material; adverse effect on property values; and benefits accruing to a developer. Suggested options from the public included: the placement of dredge material at Smokehouse Bay; barging the dredge material to the Marco River or Gulf or to another upland disposal site; pumping the dredge material to Coconut Island.
Attached are the following:
1. Technical support memorandum prepared for the community information meeting by Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc. The report includes an 11-page narrative. Excluded from the attachment is Appendix “A” and “B” consisting of 40 pages of analytical data of the dredge materials measuring metals, general chemistry, organophosphorus compounds, organochlorine pesticides, Florida petroleum range organics, and land suitability for the deposit area. Of the 90 parameters tested, nearly all were below the detectable levels. Of the 4 detected parameters, all were below applicable criteria for soils or there is no soil criteria. As indicated above, the
laboratory data concludes that the deposit of dredge materials on Tract “K” would not create a human health concern. Exhibit “B” is a geotechnical engineering report and statement of fill suitability for land development purposes. The City’s engineer and the District School Board’s engineer have concluded that the dredge material is suitable for construction fill. Exhibit A and B are available to Council and to the public for inspection and review.
2. Questions and Answers. Distributed at the public information meeting, the forty questions and answers attempt to address questions raised by the public over the past several weeks.
3. Letter from Environmental Risk Management, Inc. The firm reviewed the laboratory analytical data from the vibracore samples taken from the proposed dredge areas. The letter concludes that, “Based on the laboratory data provided, the detected concentrations of selected parameters, and applicable soil cleanup criteria in FAC 62-777 ERMI concludes that these sediments, if placed onto an upland depository location would not create a regulatory or human health concern.”
4. Other relative information.
One fundamental question raised is the need to dredge. While experienced boaters have suggested there is no need to dredge, the City’s Waterways Advisory Committee, who have volunteered their personal time to study the navigability of waterways, suggests otherwise and has recommended the dredge project. The attached Technical Support Memorandum also addresses the need. The engineer’s determination of need was based on the size of vessels using Marco Island’s waterways, which have increased over time. The design criteria for the draft and beam of 50-foot vessels are 5 feet and 16 feet respectively. Engineers have determined that the minimum channel width required for safety and vessel controllability is determined by applying a factor of 5 to the design vessel beam, and adding buffers from the
shoreline and existing docks. For the 50-foot design vessel, this equates to 80 feet plus 10 feet on each side for buffers for a total of 100 feet. The width at channel bends must be increased to take into account turning radius and vessel maneuverability as well as future infilling from shoal growth. Based on the engineer’s experience and studies developed by the US Army Corps of Engineers this increase is typically 50 to 100 percent of the design channel width.
The attached Technical Support Memorandum discusses alternatives that were evaluated for spoil disposal and potential public and environmental impacts.
| 
