My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
6/24/1993
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1993
>
6/24/1993
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:03:54 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 1:10:37 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Special Joint Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
06/24/1993
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
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
9 A �Q <br />BOOK 89 PAU.946 <br />that the City was a little disturbed at the distribution of the <br />tourist tax funds this year to the point that the majority of the <br />Council was on the verge of taking some action to force a <br />referendum to withdraw District #1 from the tourist tax situation. <br />He felt the City would be in favor of such a project if we could <br />come to a conceptual agreement where the City would pledge its fair <br />share of the tourist tax, whether that is two or three cents, to <br />pay off these bonds over a 20 year period. <br />Chairman Bird asked Commissioner Adams, who chairs the Beach <br />Shore Preservation Advisory Committee (BSPAC) if there is any <br />chance of getting some federal funding for the PEP reef project. <br />commissioner Adams agreed that the "Little Plan" would allow <br />us to fast track the PEP reef project. The permitting process <br />would be the same. The only stumbling block might be that the Army <br />Corps of Engineers considers this as an experimental project and <br />they don't like to fund experimental projects. That is their <br />policy problem, but she felt that we have had excellent response <br />from senators and representatives who are beginning to see the <br />damages of some of the other methods being used to protect the <br />shoreline and the stifling of energies being put into new <br />technology. The lobbying process has begun to get policy changed <br />so that all of the money Palm Beach put into the reef will be <br />refunded by the federal government. We are working towards that <br />also, and hopefully we can get a policy change and the reef project <br />can be funded just like regular sand pumping. All the members of <br />BSPAC have seen the Palm Beach reef project and feel very <br />comfortable that it will work here and that it is the best <br />technology available. From that aspect, we won't know the <br />alternatives until Mike Walther of Coastal Technology Corp. <br />finishes his report in September. There has been no argument <br />brought up for any other method. She felt if we were to levy the <br />additional one cent tourist tax, it probably would speed up the <br />process by one year with the permitting. The critical *spots are <br />the beaches in Vero Beach and Wabasso. <br />Mayor Jay Smith advised that the project would cost <br />approximately $2 -million to protect 2500 feet which would cover <br />Humiston Beach and Conn Beach with a gap by the Spires. One of the <br />benefits of the PEP reef in Palm Beach is there has been <br />substantial sand accretion to the south of the project and some to <br />the north. The Council is in agreement on allocating up to 1 or 1- <br />1/2 of District #1 money to defease a bond issue and earmarking any <br />money that is recouped from state or federal funding into an escrow <br />account, controlled by the County, for beach maintenance and future <br />beach restoration. <br />F, <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.