My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
5/5/1993
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1993
>
5/5/1993
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:03:53 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 1:03:21 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Special Joint Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
05/05/1993
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Commissioner Adams saw the reef as a complement to other <br />projects. She did not think dewatering interferes with anything, <br />but it does not fit in at this particular point in time. <br />Mayor Smith commented that with that knowledge the City staff <br />will develop an alternate list of tourist related funding requests <br />for District 1. <br />Councilman Jordan asked about the Resolution 87-133, and <br />Commissioner Macht stated that the Board does not want to revoke it <br />unilaterally; we want to do it by agreement. <br />County Attorney Vitunac stated that he has always advised the <br />Board that they can unilaterally revoke that resolution and take <br />back the sponsorship of beach management. <br />Chairman Bird directed staff to dig out the resolution and <br />place it on the agenda for discussion at the next County Commission <br />meeting. <br />Chairman Bird thought that the dewatering project will be <br />considered by the Tourist Development Council and the criteria will <br />be applied. The Council will make a recommendation to the Board, <br />and the Board will make a decision, but at this point he wanted to <br />be sure that the dewatering project does not interfere with the <br />application for federal funding and the overall beach management <br />plan as set up by the Beach and Shore Preservation Advisory <br />Committee. <br />Commissioner Adams responded that the one project does not <br />interfere with the overall plan because every piece of the beach is <br />different. <br />Councilman Grossett stated that under federal regulations, the <br />Army Corps of Engineers will not accept or fund a project for beach <br />dewatering because it is not a recognized beach erosion control <br />system. <br />Chairman Bird stated that before we agree to fund the <br />dewatering project 'he would like to be sure that it does not <br />jeopardize the application for federal and state funds. <br />Commissioner Macht thought that if we want to do the beach <br />dewatering project, we should do it and find out if it works. He <br />also did not agree with Mr. Morrison about the use of the funds <br />from tourist taxes because the statute allows beach improvement, <br />renourishment, restoration and erosion control including shoreline <br />protection, enhancement, cleanup or restoration. He felt that the <br />dewatering project is an authorized use of tourist tax revenues. <br />Commissioner Eggert explained that the Tourist Development <br />Council developed criteria at a workshop and a decision was made <br />that we would concentrate on advertising and things of that nature. <br />She thought it was a good idea for the City to present an alternate <br />11 <br />MAY ® 5 1993 BOOK 89 <br />J <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.