Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
W <br />--- The following alternatives are presented: <br />ternative No. 1 <br />Allow issuance of a "Notice to Proceed" for Task 3 prior to all permits <br />being obtained. Issue "Notice to Proceed" at this time. All permits <br />should be received by April 15, 1996. The risk involved would be if <br />remaining permits are not received, the fabricated units would have <br />to be stored until installed. <br />Alternative No. 2 <br />Do not issue "Notice to Proceed", until all permits are received. If this <br />occurs, the project may be delayed until 1997/98 and a possible cost <br />increase may apply. <br />RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING <br />Since the Board has requested staff to proceed with installation this summer, staff <br />recommends Alternative No. 1. Funding to be by Tourist Tax and One Cent Sales <br />Tax Revenue. <br />The Board agreed with County Attorney Vitunac's suggestion to <br />take Item 11.G.1. now while Kevin Hennessey and Stephen Lewis of <br />Lewis, Longman and Walker, who represented the County in the recent <br />Administrative Appeal, were still present. <br />MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED BY <br />Commissioner Eggert, toproceed with installation of <br />the PEP Reef this summer as per Alternative No. 1, <br />with funding from Tourist Tax and One Cent Sales Tax <br />Revenue, and to adopt Resolution No. 96-32 to the <br />State of Florida, Department of Environmental <br />Protection giving assurances that the submerged off - <br />shore breakwater project (PEP) will be conducted in <br />accordance with the test plan. <br />Under discussion, Commissioner Bird advised that he had voted, <br />previously to proceed with the permitting phase in order to move it <br />ahead and get the results of tests; however, he still finds it <br />troublesome after reading the test results and staff's <br />recommendation. He believed other options were available for <br />creating a recreational beach. He commended and congratulated <br />Chairman Adams, staff and the Beaches & Shores Committee for their <br />work. He found it difficult to commit another $3,000,000 for the <br />project because it is so highly experimental. He hoped he was <br />wrong and that it would be successful. <br />Commissioner Eggert pointed out that the proposed PEP Reef <br />installation is different from the Palm Beach PEP Reef. She felt <br />32 <br />March 5, 1996 <br />BOOK 97 mGE 45 6 <br />I <br />