Loading...
02-04-97 v l�1 CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH SPECIAL CALLED MEETING 6:00 PM - FEBRUARY, 4, 1997 6:00 PM - Call to Order 1. INTERVIEWS WITH TOP RANKING FIRMS RELATIVE TO REDESIGN OF BULL MEMORIAL PARK A. 6:05 PM - Genesis Group B. 6:25 PM - Dames& Moore C. 6:45 PM - PHK D. Selection of firm to plan and design Bull Memorial Park 2. RATIFICATION OF CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY AND NORTHEAST FLORIDA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES LOCAL 630 3. 7:15 PM - BEACH AVENUE ASSESSMENTS A. Opening Statement - Jim Jarboe B. Discussion of Individual Assessments - Jim Jacques (i) Discuss methodology of determining who is assessed (ii) Review of new assessment maps with addresses (iii) Revised estimated costs per front foot C. Legal Determinations - Alan Jensen (i) Discuss whether non-conforming lots should be assessed (ii) Discuss requests from other property owners to waive or revise assessment 4. 8:00 PM - REVIEW OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS A. Opening Statement - Jim Jarboe B. Discuss all Specific Capital Improvement Projects - Hugh Mathews/Jim Jacques (i) Review overall project maps (ii) Review status of all projects (iii) Discuss alternate funding sources for projects over budget (iv) Review schedules C. Seminole Road ditch improvement options - Hugh Mathews/Jim Jarboe MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CALLED MEETING OF ATLANTIC BEACH CITY COMMISSION HELD IN CITY HALL AT 6:00 PM ON FEBRUARY, 4, 1997. PRESENT: Lyman T. Fletcher, Mayor John S. Meserve, Commissioner Tim Reed, Commissioner Steven M. Rosenbloom, City Commissioner Suzanne Shaughnessy, City Commissioner ALSO: James R. Jarboe, City Manager Alan C. Jensen, City Attorney Maureen King, City Clerk 1. INTERVIEWS WITH TOP RANKING FIRMS RELATIVE TO REDESIGN OF BULL MEMORIAL PARK A. 6:05 PM - Genesis Group B. 6:25 PM - Dames & Moore C. 6:45 PM - PHK A. Genesis Group - Chris Flagg and Kelly Elmore presented their qualifications to plan and design upgrades to Bull Memorial Park. They listed several other projects which they had completed which were similar to Bull Memorial Park. Their presentation addressed such matters as parking, location of the memorials, the playground, walkways and landscaping. Following the presentation, Messrs. Flagg and Elmore responded to Commissioners' questions. B. Dames & Moore - Ed Czyscon presented slides of similar parks his firm had designed. He felt "parks were for people" and indicated he appreciated the public input which had been provided. He suggested the possibility of supplementing the city's budget through donations or the sale of bricks such as had been done in Town Center. He felt the memorials could be moved and relocated. He noted that parking was limited and indicated he would not rule out all parking on Seventh Street at this point. Mr. Czyscon then responded to questions. C. PHK - Gave an overview of his firm and provided pictures of other parks they had designed. Using photographs they had taken in Bull Park, they highlighted some of the best natural features of the park and presented a conceptual plan of a possible design. Mr. indicated he liked to design parks with a theme and suggested designing the park to tie in with the architectural style of the Adele Grage Community Center building or using a beach theme. Page Two Minutes of Special Called Meeting February 4, 1997 Following the presentations, discussion ensued and Commissioner Meserve felt that the park needed to be upgraded and unsafe equipment replaced. However, he cautioned the Commission against embarking on a costly redesign of the park which, he felt, the neighborhood residents did not want. Commissioner Reed felt that before the design firm moved ahead with their work, the City Commission needed to make a decision regarding the scope of the project. Commissioner Rosenbloom felt a budget should be determined at the outset. He also felt the issues of parking, memorials, and green space needed to be resolved. Using ballots provided by the City Clerk each Commissioner ranked the three firms in order of preference. The Genesis Group and PHK tied as the first choice of the City Commission. Each Commissioner was then asked to rank those two firms in order of preference and the Genesis Group was selected as first choice, and PHK was ranked second. The ballots are attached hereto as Exhibit 1 and made a part of the official record. 2. RATIFICATION OF CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY AND NORTHEAST FLORIDA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES LOCAL 630 Commissioner Rosenbloom moved to ratify the contract with Florida Public Employees Local 630, as presented. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Reed, and was unanimously approved. 3. 7:15 PM - BEACH AVENUE ASSESSMENTS A. Opening Statement- Jim Jarboe The City Manager explained that, at the direction of the City Commission, staff had presented additional information regarding the Beach Avenue Assessments for further consideration by the City Commission. He indicated that some of the as-built drawings which had been used by the city had been found to be incorrect and additional sewer lines had been discovered in the area which resulted in some properties being deleted from the assessment roll. The City Manager also pointed out that the city had a history of approving construction on the non-conforming lots on Beach Avenue and indicated that of the nineteen non-conforming lots, nine had residences constructed thereon. Page Three Minutes of Special Called Meeting February 4, 1997 B. Discussion of Individual Assessments - Jim Jacques (I) Discuss methodology of determining who is assessed (ii) Review of new assessment maps with addresses (iii) Revised estimated costs per front foot Jim Jacques presented revised assessment maps and a summary of Methods of Assessment Using Full and Partial Methods, which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. He explained the Full Assessment Method was determined by dividing the total cost of the project between the properties eligible to be assessed. Under this method the assessment rate would change to reflect added or deleted properties if further adjustments were made to the front footage. Under the Partial Assessment Method the city would absorb the cost of installation in front of properties not subject to assessment and the assessments would not change to reflect added or deleted properties. Following discussion of the two methods of assessment, Commissioner Meserve moved to approve assessments for Beach Avenue using the partial assessment method as set forth in Exhibit A, and include the 451 feet front footage along non-conforming lots in the assessment. The motion was seconded by Mayor Fletcher. Discussion ensued, particularly with respect to whether the non-conforming lots should be included. Concern was expressed regarding setting a precedent and how the city would handle future requests for variances on those properties. Following further discussion it was felt that a decision should not be made in this regard until the funding status of the projects was reviewed. Finance Director, Ann Meuse, distributed a handout titled Current Funding Status, attached hereto as Exhibit B, which listed the various projects along with estimated costs and the status of each project. She responded to Commissioners' questions, particularly with respect to contingency and reserve funds. The Mayor expressed concern regarding drawing from reserves and Ann Meuse explained the city had a total of$3.5 million in reserve funds and explained the type of projects which would be paid for from reserve funds and the type of projects which would be paid for from operating funds. C. Legal Determinations -Alan Jensen (I) Discuss whether non-conforming lots should be assessed The City Attorney indicated there was no reason to treat the non-conforming lots different than other lots if they were buildable. He reported the City Code addresses sub-standard lots of record and provides that permission would have to be granted by both the Community Development Board and the City Commission, but the Code provides that permits shall be issued as long as they were lots of record before 1982 and they can meet setback requirements. Page Four Minutes of Special Called Meeting February 4, 1997 The City Attorney indicated that staff had tried to establish uniform guidelines for exemptions from the assessments, i.e., if the property already had service (more than an easement for service where there was no existing sewer line), and if the property was within 100 feet of an existing sewer line. He felt, however, that the City Commission should consider the requests to waive or revise assessments on a case by case basis. Commissioner Reed inquired whether by assessing non-conforming properties, the City Commission was making future decisions regarding variances on these properties out of the hands of the Community Development Board. The City Attorney indicated, however, that approval would be required by both the Community Development Board and the City Commission. At this time the Mayor opened the floor and invited comments from the audience: Alan Potter felt that if property owners had not previously paid for a sewer line and would benefit from the new line, they should pay an assessment. Pat Pillmore, a member of the Community Development Board, indicated the CDB discouraged building on non-conforming lots. Charity Alteri, inquired whether Beach Avenue was being assessed differently from Dewees Avenue. Ms. Alteri was advised that all properties would be assessed at the same rate per front foot. Discussion ensued regarding exemptions for those within 100 feet of an existing sewer line and Commissioner Reed expressed concern regarding exemption of those lots since he felt those residents would benefit from the new line. Commissioner Rosenbloom concurred with Commissioner Reed and indicated he was under the impression that most of the properties withing the 100 ft. radius were already hooked to the city sewer. He felt that since most of those properties would eventually hook to the new line, they should be included in the assessment roll or given the option of being included in the original assessment roll, or paying an assessment. Following further discussion, Commissioner Rosenbloom offered a substitute motion as follows: Approve assessments for Beach Avenue using the partial assessment method as set forth in Exhibit A, and include in the assessment the 451 feet front footage along non- conforming lots. This will also include those lots formerly exempted by the 100 ft. radius, provided they have not previously hooked up to the sewer line within that 100 ft. radius. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Shaughnessy. The motion carried on a vote of 3 -2 with Commissioners Shaughnessy and Reed voting nay. Page Five Minutes of Special Called Meeting February 4, 1997 (ii) Discuss requests from other property owners to waive or revise assessment George Grandy, 1927 Beachside Court Part of Government Lot 3 RE #169524-0010 Mr. Grandy indicated his house was located on two lots (Lots 15 and 16, Beachside Replat) and that he had existing sewer service from Beachside Court. He also owned a small lot which abutted this property and which fronted on Beach Avenue. He indicated he had been told by the City of Jacksonville that he could not build on this lot. He requested that this lot be removed from the assessment roll. Commissioner Shaughnessy inquired whether the parcel had been replatted into one lot and Mr. Grandy indicated that it had not. While Mr. Grandy indicated he did not intend to build on this lot, the City Commission felt that a future owner may wish to build there, and if the property was replatted, by virtue of the motion which had been approved by the City Commission earlier in the meeting, the property would be exempted from assessment. Following further discussion the City Attorney indicated the owner could have the property replatted or record restrictive covenants which were perpetual, indicating that the lot would never be built upon, and that those restrictions would run with the land. Commissioner Shaughnessy inquired whether such covenants would have the same force of law and the City Attorney indicated that, for this purpose, it was probably better than replatting. Commissioner Reed moved to grant the exemption from assessment (on Mr. Grandy's lot referenced above), subject to the execution of the necessary restrictive covenants. Following brief discussion the question was called and the motion carried unanimously. Bernice E. Morgan, 1945 Beach Avenue Lot 1, Beachside Replat RE #169542-0705 Ms. Morgan requested that the assessment on this property be waived since she had access to the existing sewer in Beachside Court by means of a 15 ft. wide private easement. A copy of Ms. Morgan's letter dated January 24, 1997, is attached hereto and made part of the official record. Commissioner Rosenbloom moved to grant exemption to assessment (on Ms. Morgan's property referenced above)with the written understanding that if at such time as the lot is built on or a Certificate of Occupancy is issued, and if the owner of the lot hooks up to the Beach Avenue sewer system, they will pay the full front footage assessment at the same rate as neighboring properties. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Shaughnessy. Page Six Minutes of Special Called Meeting February 4, 1997 Discussion ensued and Commissioner Rosenbloom felt that if the Morgans did not use the existing easement to connect to the Beachside Court sewer line, but chose instead to connect to the Beach Avenue sewer line, they should be required to pay the assessment. Commissioner Shaughnessy felt that the cost of the Beachside sewer line had been included in the cost of the property when purchased by the Morgans. Following further discussion, the question was called, and the motion carried unanimously. Sandra Martin,44 Dewees Avenue Lot 10, Ocean Grove Unit 1, Block 1 RE #169550-0000 William J. Sheppard Lot 11, Ocean Grove Unit 1, Block 1 RE #169551-0000 It was explained that these lots were located on a convex curve and while the lots were similar in size to neighboring lots, the front footage of lot 10 was 75 feet and the front footage of lot 11 was 65 feet. The property owners felt they were being unfairly assesses since neighboring lots were assessed for 50 feet. Commissioner Rosenbloom moved to take the total square footage of each lot and convert to rectangular at a 2:1 ratio, and assess on the front footage thus calculated, and use this method to calculate front footage on other pie-shaped lots. Following discussion, city staff were directed to do the calculations and bring the figures back to the City Commission at the next meeting. James H. Minter Lots 8 and 9, Ocean Grove Unit 1, Block 1 RE #169549-0000 Jim Jacques indicated that the Minter has a house on two lots located on the corner of Beach Avenue and Dewees Avenue. The assessment method used by the city established the short side of the corner lot as the lot's front footage of 65 feet; Lot 9 has a front footage of 70 feet, thus the assessment was based on 135 front feet. The Jacksonville Property Appraiser lists this property as 99 feet since the property has a Beach Avenue address and has 99 feet front footage on Beach Avenue. Ms. Minter feels she is being unfairly assessed for two lots. Commissioner Rosenbloom moved to treat this property the same as Mr. Grandy's (acted upon earlier in the meeting) and grant the exemption from assessment, subject to the Page Seven Minutes of Special Called Meeting February 4, 1997 execution of the necessary restrictive covenants to combine the lots for building purposes. The motion carried unanimously. At this time the City Manager requested confirmation of the interest rate term of the assessments. Commissioner Rosenbloom moved to confirm the 12 year term at 6% interest. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Meserve and carried unanimously. 4. 8:00 PM - REVIEW OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS A. Opening Statement - Jim Jarboe B. Discuss all Specific Capital Improvement Projects - Hugh Mathews/Jim Jacques (I) Review overall project maps (ii) Review status of all projects (iii) Discuss alternate funding sources for projects over budget (iv) Review schedules C. Seminole Road ditch improvement options - Hugh Mathews/Jim Jarboe Hugh Mathews recapped the previous discussions and actions regarding the Seminole Road ditch. He indicated the ditch drained approximately 35 acres of land on the east side of Seminole Road, some of which was only about four feet above the bottom of the ditch and he felt these properties would flood before Seminole Road. Mr. Mathews indicated their design included cleaning the ditch and regrading the ditch banks, installing erosion matting, seed and mulch, and adding a guard rail for increased safety. The estimated budget for this work was $133,000. Mr. Mathews briefly reviewed the pros and cons of piping the ditch. He estimated the cost of piping the ditch at approximately $850,000 and indicated that a swale would also be required. Discussion ensued regarding the guard rail and it was suggested that a combination of guard rail and plantings could be used to provide for both safety and aesthetics. Mr. Mathews indicated that the removal of the trees in Johansen Park would require tree mitigation elsewhere and he felt this would be a good area for such plantings. It was suggested that trees and landscaping could be used in such a way which would not be an obstruction to ditch maintenance. Discussion ensued regarding the type of guard rail which should be used and Mr. Mathews indicated the guardrail would be the standard DOT approved type. Commissioner Shaughnessy questioned whether a guard rail should be installed but Commissioner Meserve felt it was necessary for safety purposes. Former Commissioner Dezmond Waters suggested the construction of an asphalt bike path and anchor the posts for the guard rail in the asphalt, It was Page Eight Minutes of Special Called Meeting February 4, 1997 felt this may be considered at some time in the future, but that funds had not been budgeted to construct a bike path, and it would not be included as a part of this project. Following further discussion, it was the consensus of the City Commission that staff should be directed to instal a guard rail and plant trees and shrubbery to provide a buffer between the road and the ditch. The Mayor felt that questions regarding the stormwater retention areas in Johansen Park and Howell Park needed to be revisited. On the matter of Bull Memorial Park, Commissioner Meserve felt it would be difficult for the City Manager to negotiate with the design firm selected to plan Bull Park since the City Commission had not given clear direction as to what they want the park to include. There being no further business to come before the City Commission, the Mayor declared the meeting adjourned at 10:50 PM. i Lyman T. Fletcher Mayor/Presiding Officer ATTEST: 72l af Ma n King, CM 144 City Clerk EXHIBIT A February 4, 1997 BEACH AVENUE SEWER ASSESSMENTS February 4, 1997 METHODS OF ASSESSMENT USING FULL AND PARTIAL METHODS CALCULATIONS MADE ASSUMING TWO METHODS OF ASSESSMENT: 1. FULL ASSESSMENT WITH ALL SEWER COSTS DIVIDED BY REMAINING ELIGIBLE FRONT FOOTAGE WITH THE ASSESSMENT RATE VARIABLE. NOTE: UNDER FULL ASSESSMENT METHOD,ASSESSMENT RATE WILL CHANGE TO REFLECT ADDED OR DELETED FRONT FOOTAGE, AND TOTAL COSTS RECOVERED WILL REMAIN CONSTANT. 2. PARTIAL ASSESSMENT WITH AN ESTABLISHED ASSESSMENT RATE APPLIED TOWARD REMAINING ELIGIBLE FRONT FOOTAGE. NOTE: UNDER PARTIAL ASSESSMENT METHOD,ASSESSMENT RATE WILL REMAIN CONSTANT,AND TOTAL COSTS RECOVERED WILL CHANGE WITH ADDED OR DELETED FRONT FOOTAGE. FULL ASSESSMENT METHOD FRONT ASSESSMENT TOTAL COSTS FOOTAGE RATE RECOVERED TOTAL FRONT FOOTAGE ALONG STREETS WITH NEW SEWER CONSTRUCTION 7,593.69 $40.57 $308,108.70 TOTAL FRONT FOOTAGE DELETED DUE TO EXEMPTIONS 3,357.75 TOTAL FRONT FOOTAGE CURRENTLY SCHEDULED FOR ASSESSMENT 4,235.94 $72.74 $308,108.70 FRONT FOOTAGE ALONG NON-CONFORMING VACANT LOTS 451.22 REMAINING FRONT FOOTAGE SCHEDULED FOR ASSESSMENT 3,784.72 $81.41 $308,108.70 PARTIAL ASSESSMENT METHOD FRONT ASSESSMENT TOTAL COSTS FOOTAGE RATE RECOVERED TOTAL FRONT FOOTAGE CURRENTLY SCHEDULED FOR ASSESSMENT 4,235.94 $40.57 $171,870.52 FRONT FOOTAGE ALONG NON-CONFORMING VACANT LOTS 451.22 REMAINING FRONT FOOTAGE SCHEDULED FOR ASSESSMENT 3,784.72 $40.57 $153,562.59 UN-RECOVERED TOTAL SEWER COSTS UNDER PARTIAL ASSESSMENT $154,546.11 EXHIBIT B February 4, . 1997 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN PROJECTS CURRENT FUNDING STATUS February 4, 1997 TOTAL ORIGINAL ADJUSTED COSTS ALTERNATE PROJECT BOND ESTIMATED ACTUAL AND FUNDING NAME ESTIMATE COST ESTIMATED REMAINING STATUS SOURCES ATLANTIC BEACH SEWER PLANT $ 1,373,857 $ 1,288,729 $ 1,288,729 $ 0 COMPLETED SEWER MAIN REHABILITATION $ 3,200,000 $ 3,023,080 $ 3,023,080 $ 0 ON-GOING, DESIGN NEW WELL AT WATER PLANT 2 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 0 RE-BID WATER MAIN UPGRADES $ 894,000 $ 894,000 $ 1,754,333 $ (860,333) ON-GOING, CONTINGENCY $ 616,015 DESIGN W/S RESERVES $ 244,318 BEACH AVENUE WATER/SEWER $ 895,250 $ 895,250 $ 895,250 $ 0 ON-GOING CITY WATER METERS $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 0 ON-HOLD BUCCANEER SEWER PLANT $ 1,661,500 $ 1,661,500 $ 1,661,500 $ 0 DESIGN BUCCANEER WATER PLANT 3 $ 655,809 $ 622,247 $ 622,247 $ 0 COMPLETED OAK HARBOR WATER/SEWER $ 1,200,000 $ 1,095,787 $ 1,095,787 $ 0 ON-GOING STORMWATER MASTER PLAN $ 3,982,000 $ 3,982,000 $ 5,187,221 $ (1,205,221) DESIGN GAS TAX $ 870,000 (CORE CITY WORK) W/S RESERVES $ 335,221 CIP CONTINGENCY $ 274,192 $ 674,015 $ 58,000 $ 616,015 TO BE APPLIED TO WATER MAIN UPGRADES TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN PROJECTS $ 14,256,608 $ 14,256,608 $ 15,706,147 $ (1,449,539) GAS TAX $ 870,000 * WATER/SEWER RESERVES $ 579,539 * ORIGINAL BOND ESTIMATE AS OF 4/96 ADJUSTED ESTIMATED COST AS OF 1/30/97 TOTAL ALTERNATE FUNDING $1,449,539 FOR FUNDING SOURCE DESCRIPTIONS, SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT C February 4, 1997 a NON-CONFORMING LOTS ALONG BEACH AVENUE WITHIN AREA FOR NEW SEWER EXTENSIONS TYPE OF PROPERTY NUMBER FRONT FOOTAGE With House and Sewer Service 6 287.28 Vacant, Exempt from Assessment 5 179.58 With House, No Sewer Service Requires Assessment 3 201.43 Vacant, May Require Assessment * 6 451.22 TOTALS 20 1,119.51 * To Be Determined By City Commission PLANNING AND SITE DESIGN FOR BULL MEMORIAL PARK • Following interviews,please rank the three firms listed below by scoring them as follows: 3 points for your first choice; 2 points for your second choice; and 1 point for your third choice (The firm with the most points will be declared the overall first choice) GENESIS GROUP 2 DAMES & MOORE J? PHK I I Signed4/44,gx., February 4, 1997 PLANNING AND SITE DESIGN FOR BULL MEMORIAL PARK Following interviews,please rank the three firms listed below by scoring them as follows: 3 points for your first choice;?joints for your second choice; and 1point for your third choice (The firm with the most points will be declared the overall first choice) -��kO o LC - GENESIS GROUP —St t wtt,%s + 1:24C,-co p - ' = = -- No SPEA.AE1c-5 ogik PHK \ 1 Signed February 4. 1997 PLANNING AND SITE DESIGN FOR BULL MEMORIAL PARK • Following interviews,please rank the three firms listed below by scoring them as follows: 3 points for your first choice; 2 points for your second choice; and 1 point for your third choice (The firm with the most points will be declared the overall first choice) GENESIS GROUP DAMES & MOORE PHK Signed February 4. 1997 • PLANNING AND SITE DESIGN FOR BULL MEMORIAL PARK Following interviews,please rank the three firms listed below by scoring them as follows: 3 points for your first choice; 2 points for your second choice; and I point for your third choice (The firm with the most points will be declared the overall first choice) GENESIS GROUP DAMES & MOORE 1 f7' PHK ( Signed ' February 4, 1997 PLANNING AND SITE DESIGN FOR BULL MEMORIAL PARK 111 Following interviews,please rank the three firms listed below by scoring them as follows: 3 points for your first choice; 2 points for your second choice; and 1 point for your third choice (The firm with the most points will be declared the overall first choice) GENESIS GROUP DAMES & MOORE PHK , •Signed �" �a� February 4. 1997 • PLANNING AND SITE DESIGN FOR BULL MEMORIAL PARK The firms listed below were ranked by the City Commission by scoring them as follows: 3 points for your first choice; 2 points for your second choice; and 1 point for your third choice (The firm with the most points will be declared the overall first choice) TIC _ MESERVE REED ROSENBLOOM SHAUGHNESSY FLETCHER TOTAL 5Reig/CC� m• R25 F _ GENESIS GROUP A / 3 .Z 3 II z 2 i 14.! DAMES & MOORE I oZ / 3 / S PHK 3 3 a I a /1 1 2 it 2-` Signed „-N, LZuitt?4(. February 4. 1997 Beach Preservation and Coastal Issues February 3, 1997 7:15 P.M Moderator: Suzanne Shaughnessy, Commissioner CHARLES STEVENS, P.E., U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District; Project Manager, Duval County Erosion Control Project • A Brief History of Erosion Control • Causes of Erosion and available Technologies to fix it o "What did we do in Duval County and why did we do it?" What is success and what is failure in terms of a project? What triggers periodic renourishment and how is it budgeted? • Future Committment: What is current Corps policy on funding existing Projects? on funding new Projects? • Coast of Florida Study; our coastline viewed as a co-dependent system SUSAN SIEGMUND, District Director: Office of the Honorable Tillie Fowler, 4th Congressional District, U.S. House of Representatives • Current (Clinton) Administration Policy on Shore Protection Projects • 4th District response to Administration Policy • What is the committment to fund the Duval County Project until 2028 • Forecast for the Future of Shore Protection Projects in general PADEN E. WOODRUFF, P.E., State of Florida, Division of Beaches and Coastal Systems, Tallahassee, Florida • Overview: State program for Shore Protection in Florida • Current funding policy; the state/local cost-share mix(who pays for what) ® FIB 103: a bill before the Legislature to create a permanent funding source for the State cost of beach management through a cruise ship tax • The Impact of Beaches on Florida's Economy-why it affects all of us ERIK OLSEN, P.E., President; Olsen & Associates, Jacksonville, Fl, and KEVIN BODGE, P.E., PhD., Olsen & Associates, Jacksonville, FL • Existing Federal Beach Erosion Control Project for Duval County • Potential Changes to the Federal Program for Shore Protection • Dedicated Funding Source for State Program • Opportunities for Enhancement of Federal Project • Inlet Management and the Port of Jacksonville o How we can speak with a unified National Voice for Coastal Issues Closing Remarks/ Questions; Commissioner Shaughnessy Please submit questions in writing. Question forms are at the table at the right(south) side of the Chambers. We will answer as many as time permits. Thank you. UNOFFICIAL MINUTES OF THE MEETING REGARDING BEACH PRESERVATION AND COASTAL ISSUES HELD IN CITY HALL, 800 SEMINOLE ROAD, AT 7:15 PM ON MONDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1997 The meeting, which was held for the purpose of raising public awareness regarding beach preservation issues, was organized and moderated by Commissioner Shaughnessy. In addition to Commissioner Shaughnessy, Mayor Fletcher, and Commissioners Meserve, Reed and Rosenbloom were in attendance. Charlie Stevens of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, presented slides and gave an overview of the beach renourishment in Duval County since 1979, and explained that renourishment was needed in many areas approximately every four to eight years. Susan Siegmund, District Director of the Office of U.S. Congresswoman Tillie Fowler, reported that Ms. Fowler and former Congressman Bennett were instrumental in developing a 50-year maintenance plan for the St. Johns River and Duval County Beaches. She indicated that Ms. Fowler strongly supported beach renourishment and suggested that if citizens were not vigilant, funds would be used for other projects. She reported that Nassau County had voted in a tax for beach renourishment and had raised $8 million. Paden Woodruff of the Florida Division of Beaches and Coastal Systems, indicated that beach erosion in the local area was caused to a large extent by the St. Johns River, and also by development in coastal areas. He felt a dedicated source of funding was needed so that beach renourishment could continue, and gave an overview of proposed legislation to create a permanent funding source through a tax on cruise ships. Kevin Bodge of Olsen& Associates, gave an in-depth explanation of the natural movement of sand and explained how this movement was affected by inlets. Following the presentations each speaker responded to audience questions. The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 PM. Maureen King City Clerk