Waterways Advisory Committee - Regular Meeting

Good?

It's 08:30, and I call the Waterways Advisory Committee into session. I'd like to do a roll call to start. Tara?

Member Lewandowski?

Here.

Member Rowena?

Here.

Member Winter?

Here.

Vice chair High?

Here.

Member Snyder?

Here.

Member Woodworth? Here. Chair Mascoupe?

Here. Thank you. Pledge of allegiance, if we could all stand. I pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America and to the republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Thank you.

Before I call for the approval of the agenda or okay. Approval of the agenda would be first, and then I'd like to make a comment. The chair would like to submit for the approval of this agenda, if that's protocol. I did have a couple of comments, and it was approved that I make them. I just wanted to before we begin our meeting, I'd like to refer to the handbook for the boards and committees of Marco Island.

And there are two of the brief portions of it that I would like to read that I think is really important after reviewing our last meeting. Referring to Section three-three zero one, contact of members. Committee members need to be informed advocates and should contribute to the group's productivity. Members should be faithfully committed to attend scheduled meetings and to be prepared to participate in the decision process, which works very, very well. But what I would like to emphasize is that committee members shall at all times act with decorum toward the other members and the public attending the meetings.

Members should speak clearly and concisely and avoid any misunderstandings as to the intent. And members should not speak a second time on a subject until all who wish to speak have completed their comments. So I think that's important that we try to follow that. It's not going to be possible to always follow

that exactly, but I think that would be an excellent

direction of our committee. The other thing I think is very important that I want to reemphasize, section six-six zero five, the Sunshine Law. The Sunshine Law equally binds all members of governmental bodies, be they advisory board, committee members, or elected officials. Committee members should be briefed by the city attorney. And as long as I am chair, the sunshine law will be followed. Just want everybody to be aware of that to the letter. Now time to proceed. I'd like to go to approval of the minutes. Can I make

a comment on your second comment?

Sure.

As you know, for the last committee meeting, did send out a general round one way communication to the committee. Apparently, that raised some concerns by you and maybe Justin from the staff. I had extensive communications with the city manager and the city attorney about whether or not a committee member has the right to send one way communications to the committee. There have been numerous attorney general rulings in the state of Florida that in fact I do have the right to send those communications. Now the city may prefer that I do not, but I do have the right to do it.

Now my suggestion is if nobody wants to receive those from me, just tell me and I will not send them to you. But I believe I have the right to do it and the state of Florida believes, the attorney generals anyway, believes I have the right to do it. You can either throw them in the garbage, don't read them, block my emails, do whatever you want, but I'd like to get a poll of the committee whether they want them or not.

I would prefer to check with our city attorney and to know what the policy is here on Marco Island within our city council and advisory committees. And I would be inclined to follow that until told otherwise. Mr. Sher, can I add?

Certainly. So in addition to that, sending one way communications to the whole group, may be, accepted. And, I mean, it's happened, and it's just incumbent upon everyone to not respond because then that breaks the sunshine. By getting individual emails from, members, which I received two between the last meeting from Rick, that's, I believe, inappropriate because you're trying to initiate a conversation. And it was about water quality in my canal, which is a topic we discuss in our committee.

So that that, I believe, is a violation. So one way to the whole committee for educational sharing, that's, might be possible but risky if someone responds. But individual to one member is inviting a conversation. Please don't do it again with me, personally. Just prefer to not have any, involvement in something that can be construed as breaking the sunshine. And I would add my

name to that too. Respectfully. Anybody else with a comment on this before we proceed?

Yeah. One more comment on it. Waterways are an extremist. Go out there, talk to our constituents, talk to anybody, say that's a big problem. Waterways are the foundation of the city, and every opportunity within legal reason to go expand our ability to collaborate as a project team should be looked at seriously.

Sending out communications, how else do we communicate to make these two hour meetings once a month valuable, pushing the envelope to as far as we can to do that. I think it's important to exercise that right. And I also want to refer to the Sunshine Law itself. There is a carve out for advisory committees to do some of the work as a collaborative project team. People might not be aware of that carve out within the Sunshine Law.

Whether or not we embrace that and wish to use it is a different story. But there is a carve out for advisory committees to operate collaboratively without stepping over the lines. The line is both stipulated within the Sunshine Law. So there's no reason why you can't discuss it. If you don't wanna do it, that's fine. But within the Sunshine Law, people should know that there is a carve out for advisory committees to gather data and information so decision makers have information that they might not normally have just to make that comment?

My response would be, again, to go to our city attorney and see what his comment is. And, your chair is not one who tends to believe in pushing an envelope as far as it can be pushed because there is the perception in the public that we are doing what we shouldn't be doing. So that would be my response. If our city attorney says it's fine, alright. If he says no, then your chair says I would not do that. So that would be my response. Okay. I think we can go on to any other comments? Martin Winter.

I'm sorry.

So I would just like to add to that. I think with the current situation, clearly the City Council and the advisory committees, I believe I would turn them under scrutiny. We've had obviously some challenging situations for some councilors. I think that we have to uphold that sunshine law to the highest degree. Because any flexibility or whatever is just going to get everybody into hot water and I don't want to be a party of it.

That's my personal position. I think that to the point made by the gentleman on my right, I do think that we do need to have workshops. I do unfortunately think we need to most probably have more frequent meetings whether that be committees or workshops, I would vote for a workshop. But I do think this is such a critical issue that everything should be on record. That's just my personal view. I think sending out information is fine, but as soon as that information takes a stance where it's got some kind of bias in it, then I think that's where we get into tricky situations.

I appreciate your comments. Anybody else on this before we move along?

I have one more comment on the agenda.

Okay, Rick.

From the minutes from the last meeting, it indicated that two of the items that I had on my list that we did not get to in the last meeting were going to be pushed forward to this meeting and only the white paper on the aeration in canals made it not the discussion of the storm water utility district.

Right.

Did you take

that off on purpose or No.

Would be just because of time and what we have on the agenda, but we will get to it hopefully in the next meeting. But I am trying to get everything in that can possibly be gotten in. And the time limit of the two hours is very, very critical that we observe that too. So I am not trying to eliminate anything that you are trying to talk about,

Well, just, not it was in the draft meeting minutes and so I expected that it

would have moved forward. And I would have liked to have had it in there too, but because of what we have to discuss today, we need to make that, you know, we are doing all we can and I appreciate that and we will get to it. My apologies if there is any offense taken,

I am sorry.

Well, I guess then I still have one more comment.

Okay.

At the last, I mean we could discuss this either under this agenda or under the minutes from the last meeting, but we made a recommendation to send recommendation to the city council and the city manager about budgeting for enforcement of the fertilizer ordinance. Did that ever go to city council or the city?

Not yet because we going to talk about fertilizer this morning.

Even though we voted on it and agreed to send it and they had their budget meeting on Monday, they didn't have the benefit of our recommending that.

Not to the best of my knowledge. Can anybody comment on that? Is that

I I can just tell you that the meeting that we had on on Monday was not the budget workshop. Those are coming up. We have a budget workshop for operating coming up in in June and the Capital One in July. So you're still in Okay.

Here's your answer. We are going to be talking about fertilizer issue this morning too if we get time, hopefully we will. Okay. I thank you. Time now to move along if we can.

One more item, it's important on the agenda.

All right. It

reflects something that's in a minute as well. Okay. It says the proposed agenda topics for the next meeting, this meeting, pending future agenda items, once approved by city council dredging Seahawk. This request to be put on the agenda well before the Seahawk presentation. And considering that it's one of the most impactful subjects we're gonna be discussing about in many different ways, The fact that here we are three weeks past that presentation and it's not on the agenda, how does that work?

You would think that would be prime fodder to be on that agenda to discuss. It's one thing that the people don't know that much about dredging where they can jump in.

Mister chair, in interest of moving the meeting forward, we do have an an agenda item to discuss future agenda items

Right.

Later on during this meeting, which that would be appropriate.

I was about to say that. Thank you, Justin. Okay. We are going to move along. I need to get the approval of the minutes. Tara. Thank you.

We have

to approve the agenda.

Right. Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. Approval of the agenda first.

So you're looking for someone to approve?

Yes. You need a motion?

I need a motion to approve the agenda, please. So moved. Do I have a second?

Second.

Okay. The agenda is approved.

All in favor?

All in favor. I'm sorry. All in favor. Aye. Say aye. Aye. No. Opposed? No. No. Okay. Could we have an individual vote?

I think there's only two no's.

Well, I wanna I I like for that to be on record. Put it

on the record.

Yes. Okay. Put that on the record. There are two no.

Okay. Member Snyder?

Yes. Approved.

Vice chair High?

Yes.

Member Lewandowski?

Yes.

Member Rowena? No. Member Winter?

Yes.

Member Woodworth?

No.

Chair Maskep?

Yes. Motion passes five to two.

Matt the motion passes five to two. Thank you. Okay. We have approval of the agenda now. I'm sorry, approval of the minutes.

Are there any comments that the advisory committee would like to make involving minutes for approval? Motion to approve. Do I have a second? I'll second. All in favor, aye.

Aye. Aye. Opposed?

It's approved. The minutes are approved. Okay. We go on now to old business, and that would be ID twenty five four four four six, white paper on canal aeration, amended summary of proposed WAC discussion items and recommendations. Member Woodworth, the floor is yours.

Okay.

I previously did send out a white paper to the advisory to the waterways committee analyzing the effectiveness of air bubbles in the canals. Have since learned that the city has issued a purchase order for a bubbler or canal aeration and they have also authorized an engineering study to study the aeration project. So at this point, even though I am not sure that is a good use of city money, it is already in play. So I am gonna make for a very short discussion and Okay. And just let it be because it is already going on.

Well, I can, well, I'll wait to hear

from Do we have any discussion on member Woodworth?

Yes. I would. I can speak to it since I spoke in front of city council on this subject once before and sent about three pages of notes on it. What I spoke to was the $90,000 issue of the waterway testing since they'd already made the purchase for putting the project in due for the middle of this year. July, I think, is supposed to go in.

I was trying to state, I guess, that are you sure you wanna put good money after bad? And, apparently, they have been pushed towards aeration by the consultant from 05/05/2022, where they had big thumbs up on aeration and counselors at the time went for it. And basically, it was ignoring some of the studies that are out there about aeration. They weren't afforded by the consultant of the failure of aeration in the testing program over in the Keys of the same saltwater tidal canals that we have. They piloted for three years every single technique for remediation of the muck, and they implemented that for well, had been going off for seven years by this time.

And the consultant didn't tell them that it failed miserably in their pilot And in the implementation of five zero four canals over in the Keys, not one of them used aeration as a technique to use all the other ones from pumping to conduits to dredging to, everyone else, including aeration. And that was what the comment was about. And I was kinda surprised they went with aeration. Okay. That's their judgment. It might have been the same had they been a knowledge of the keys. But my main point is we're not learning from others. There are there are studies in The Keys. There are studies in Indian River Lagoon, Tiger Creek, a number of places. I don't believe anybody is looking at it.

And we have to learn from history before we move on and spend $200,000 on something that well, it what I what I wrote to the city was mirroring exactly what Rick told you completely. And the message is we need to be looking at this stuff before we move on when spending big money, and that includes going on dredging. We need to learn from others, learn from experts who know this stuff. And I think that'll be my main comment on that.

Thank you, Ralph.

Ralph, you're can I interject?

Dan, go right ahead.

To summarize what you just said,

you

studied aeration pilot projects in The Keys and elsewhere, and you found that there was no measurable benefit from those projects? Is that what

Absolutely none. The one in The Keys well, actually, places are very slim. But one in The Keys, they actually stopped the full pilot. All the other seven or eight that they used continued on to the end of the three year period. This one was showing absolutely no benefit, including the as Rick mentioned, the maintenance and repair that was constantly going on.

They said, even if it worked to deploy it, it's non deployable. It wouldn't be usable. So they actually cut it off rather than continue to spend money on the pilot. And they confirmed that by not using it anywhere else. And this is multiple projects because the Keys, as you know, it's quite long in many cities doing their own piece.

I guess my my question for our adviser, Justin, is I mean, hearing Ralph's comments about aeration and, you know, it sounds compelling. And do you I mean, do you know if the city acknowledged what Ralph was presenting? And and it it seems to be pretty clear if the Keys stopped it because of no benefit that we may need to take a second look at this? Thank

you for calling me. I have a couple of things to mention on this. Number one, it's included in the nutrient source evaluation study that the city commissioned. It was one of the action items that the city has then taken up. As a result of that study, that was a 500 page study that was performed by a firm that was qualified for it and went through a qualification process, so they did recommend it.

Number two, the city then subsequently sought state legislative appropriation funding from the state and successfully received a $550,000 grant for that appropriation with a 50% match from the city. We subsequently, after that, proceeded with the protocol for it and the specifications and then went out to bid. We had bids opened. We had a low bidder. We awarded the bid.

It's under contract right now. And we most recently went out to bid for the water quality testing associated with that. So we're going to have measurable results. We're going to have the background information done prior to putting these aerators in place. We're going to have results during the aeration process.

There's two compressors on one pilot canal. And so we're going to have testing that shows us with one compressor running, with two, how many aerators, and then we're going to have before and after results shown. And then number three, on that Key study, I also looked at it, and that was primarily for air curtains to prevent flotsam from coming into the canals. It wasn't a aeration air injection I'm sorry, Oxygen, in oxygenation injection into the the canals. So and what I saw from that study is that no one single, thing that was done was the silver bullet.

There was different methods that were used. There was the adjusting of the canal bottoms, which the canal bottoms that were too deep that were filled in. Later, you had some seagrasses come in because you had the sunlight coming down. You had also circulation that was introduced. So one of those by itself wasn't the key. The key is to have a a combination of that. So when you have aeration by itself, that's not the answer. You need other things. You need to improve circulation. You need to stop the nutrients from going in.

You need to correct the canal bottoms and remove the sediment from the bottom. So we're gonna have a water quality workshop, coming up in in July at the request of council, which all these things will be discussed. But this item here to come after the fact, years after the fact, well, why are we spending money on this when, in fact, the city's, had a study that was done, and this is one of the action items from that study. The city then subsequently went and solicited and received state grant funding for it. And we've awarded contracts for it to now say, let's pull the rug out and let's not do it because we think this one instance in The Keys where they looked at this one canal with only aeration.

In my opinion, I think it's a mistake to go back and try and pull the rug from under that.

Thank you, Justin.

A comment? Yes. Justin, first and foremost, thank you for the clarification. That helps a lot. Secondly, I'm curious as to as that project moves forward, kind of when will it start? When will we have bubblers or aeration in a canal? And then how long will the project last until we have some type of result?

This summer. So later at the end of this year, we'll have some preliminary results that we can look at.

I volunteer my canal behind my house.

It's already gone through a selection process. Just for the information for this committee, it's the canal between Dan River Court and Hollyhock. So it's the Hollyhock Waterway.

Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Yes. Thank you, Justin. Great. I see also that Ralph has his light on.

Just a quick comment. Yes. It wasn't my comment was simply to learn. If you go blindly follow a consultant or study, I'm just flagging that sometimes they have their own agenda and sometimes they wanna tell a customer what he wants to hear. And we need to broaden it out so people who know about this stuff can weigh in so they can make good decisions. I mean, the time, the consultant did not tell him that there was there was a failure. And it goes beyond just the study.

It was

it was 500 pages, so it had to be correct. Really? That that's a joke.

I got it. That was a good one. You got me.

Justifies everything. 500 pages. There we go.

Okay. Rick, I see you

I just had two final comments. One, studies already in place. We might as well see what the results are. It does not take anything of the nutrients out of the water and there is approximately two fifty canals in Marco Island. I find it impossible to believe that the city would ever approve funding to put 250 bubblers in these canals and the cost to operate and maintain them would be immense.

I and I would also like to add that in all the studying I have been doing on this on these topics, we've got really two areas to examine. One is the cleanup of what's there. The other will be the ongoing maintenance to keep it clean. And I think that as we take a look at the the bubblers are one one one item. Dredging is one item.

The a the AWT is one item. And I I would like to see this committee actually separate the cleanup phase of our waterways and the maintenance phase of our waterways and discuss them in those two areas. Because I really think that just you know, talking about maintenance is great. And talking about, you know, some cleaning is also good. But I think to really get things cleaned up from the fifty, sixty years of pollution that has affected our waterways, And then to come up with a plan, including the bubblers, perhaps including whatever we talk about to go onward and to make a real, you know, consistent future difference in keeping things the way we want them to be, with healthy waterways, fish, clean water, what everybody expects Marco Island to look like.

And I think that is really the direction that we wanna go. So the bubblers, yes, absolutely something to examine and to talk about. But but I really think to keep everything to look at the broad picture of cleanup and maintenance.

So One one final comment on the agenda item.

Go right ahead, Ralph.

Since you're talking about bubblers, two items. We have a nano bubbler running that was paid for by a resident and does not seem to be much attempt to use that as a free pilot. And I think we should be looking at that. And the other thing is there has been proposed muck eating beneficial bacteria in saltwater. It's proven to work in freshwater but never saltwater.

And there's been interest from some people to say, hey, listen, for $25,000 we can pilot an entire canal and see if it works. If it did work in saltwater like it does in freshwater, it would be a wreak moment. It would be maintenance, would be minimizing invasive dredging and all that. So I would support looking at that as well as what's already ongoing as a parallel project.

Any further discussion on this topic before we move along?

I am on the speaker list. Have been for five years.

Martin, I apologize. No problem.

So I would say that when the bubble has first got discussed, I was actually on committee and it did seem something that was worthy of exploration. I think a lot of the results that have been discussed here have subsequently come in. As we all know, it takes a long time to push anything through committee, through council and get funding. So I would concur with Justin's statement that we've collected the money, we've had some supportive funding on it, we should just let the thing play out. What it will tell us is it will tell us if raising the level of oxygen in those canals significantly improves wildlife and all that stuff.

Whether it is done through bubblers or not could be discussed. I'm of the opinion that that is something that's very difficult to scale. So I think it's a good pilot. I think it will give us some useful information. Since it's already committed, we just move forward with it. To your other point, we all realize, I think we all realize on this committee, this is a very complex and complicated issue that has been underfunded for decades. And so we have various programs and projects in play and we just have

to keep pushing forward. I'm with you. Any further discussion? Okay. I think it's been quite valuable to get that out in the open.

I think if it's okay, we could be able to move along to new business. I'm not gonna take a lot of time with this, but I think I have a graphic to put on. We're gonna talk about a few months ago now, attended the Wink News Hurricane Resiliency Forum, and this will be an update on that. And it was entitled Taking the Punch Out of Powerful Hurricanes. And I think that what I learned by attending, I got to talk to Wink meteorologist Matt Ivett and got to also speak to our Collier County Emergency Management Director, Dan Summers, and also heard an absolutely fantastic report from Doctor.

Jennifer Dorado, Chief Resilience Officer and Deputy Director of Resilient environment department from Broward County. And, basically, what I wanted to talk about was the situation that affects us that we don't really talk about. And I know we know about it. Well, I hope people are aware of it. But every time you have a major a major hurricane, a flood, any kind of event happening upstate in Central Florida that drains into Lake Okeechobee from the agricultural regions of Florida and the municipalities, Orlando all the way to Lake Okeechobee, and then gets released into the Caloosahatchee River.

Now I know Swift Mud is working as hard as they can to get releases clean so that what is released into the Caloosahatchee is not going to affect us to the degree that it has. What I just wanted to talk about briefly, what I learned at this particular symposium or forum, if you will, was that every single time there is a major flood event in Central Florida that sends water into the Caloosahatchee, we've seen the devastating effects in Cape Coral area, for instance, the blue green algae. But we are not we are interconnected to the water that flows into the Gulf Of Mexico. And a lot of what has come down from Central Florida through Lake Okeechobee, the Caloosahatchee, and circulates down here toward Marco Island has, over the years, particularly beginning with Hurricane Irma in 2017, made a powerful impact on the on the water quality in the Gulf Of Mexico. And even though we're not right there at the Caloosahatchee like Cape Coral is in those communities up in the Fort Myers area, We're not as directly affected.

We are affected. And a lot of that pollution, a lot of the phosphorus there are phosphate mines in Central Florida that, you can't guarantee that that phosphorus is not coming down into Lake Okeechobee and flowing into the Gulf because it is. So what we have is a is a real a real situation. We basically think that the only problems that are coming at us are right here on Marco Island. And believe me, they are.

We had fifty years of septic tanks leaking into our waterways. A lot of that stuff is sitting there right now. On top of that, we've got two communities still doing it, Goodland and the Isle Of Capri. Someday, they're gonna be dragged kicking and screaming into doing what we had to do back in the early 2000s to convert over to septic. What I wanted to say was that we need to be aware, and we need to really, really take you know, be knowledgeable about what is coming down and affecting our water from The Gulf, from the interior part of Florida, whenever there is a flood event.

And I think the basic thing I wanted to mention was that we have got fifty or sixty years of hurricanes that have done this and helped pollute the waters of the Gulf Of Mexico and helped our situation get to where it is today, which is not that good. So I think that if anybody has any questions about this, I'd be more than happy. I don't wanna take a lot of time on this, but I think it's really important to recognize the effect when we are interconnected to what happens upstate and the pollution that comes on down in our direction. So if there's any questions, I'm prepared to answer them because it was a also, I would add that the report from Broward County, which I know that's on the other side and we don't really pay attention to a lot of what's happening on the East Coast. But they have come up with some brilliant ideas, and they are implementing them as to how to handle the effect of the hurricanes and water quality on their side and also for more resilience against hurricanes, which is not necessarily in our purview.

But I think it's all interconnected. It all affects our water. And if anybody has any questions, great. If anybody has any comments, I'll take them. Otherwise, I'd be more than happy to move on. But I think it's very important to make a notation and to always be aware when there is a major flooding event in Central Florida that we are aware of what it does to us as things stand. Any comments? Mister chair. Yes.

Kudos for going to that presentation and seeking out additional education on what affects our waterways. This earlier this month, I had the opportunity to meet with Charlotte Roman with South Florida Water Management District, a board member, to educate myself. I was unable to make some of her presentations to some of the various clubs on the island. I know the Democratic Women's Club had a presentation. I was there.

And I missed that, but, Charlotte was kind enough to actually come and do a one on one, and I'm sure she would with, anybody, especially anyone on a board or a committee, to educate ourselves on what's going on with the specifically the comprehensive Everglades planning project and how that affects Marco Island. And, you know, since, you know, being here and on the water since 2010, I personally saw the water quality conversation start after the twenty sixteen, seventeen, eighteen time frame with with based on red tide, and the blooms that were coming out of the Caloosahatchee. And there's no doubt that the discharge from the Caloosahatchee is gas on the fire for naturally occurring red tide. Red tide is naturally occurring, comes and goes, but that is water quality. Those are water quality initiatives, that are funded in the billions of dollars that affect Marco Island that that we need to pay attention to.

And actually, the funding is in question. I don't know if it's been recently secured, but there was so citizens need to understand that funding the continued comprehensive Everglades planning project, specifically the Everglades Agricultural Area Reservoir and the C 43 Reservoir And stormwater treatment Area are crucial. I mean, we can't stop the community. Marco really needs to be an advocate to our representatives, to the army corps, that continued funding for these has to happen. We've gone through a decade of planning and building, and that Okeechobee runoff is is now basically it's not like a natural lake.

It's a stormwater reservoir. So we as an island, the real effect we can have on water quality, the bigger the greater good, the bigger impact for the greater good, we're reaching out to our representatives, city council, and our state representatives to continue funding for that project. The general project slows down the discharges down the Caloosahatchee River to basically what's needed for the estuary and and no more. You know, that's the goal and send the water south through the Everglades, rehydrating the Everglades in the dry in the dry season. So, kudos for you reaching out to get that education.

I reached out to Charlotte Roman. She was kind enough to spend some time with me. I think every Mark Wallen citizen needs to go on the South Florida Water Management website, educate themselves on the comprehensive Everglades planning project that will affect Marko Island water quality. And it will reduce the blooms of red tide that are offshore and the, specifically the phosphorus that's coming down the Caloosahatchee River. The, the reservoirs and the storm water filtration features will reduce the phosphorus coming down the Caloosahatchee.

It will help. And like you're saying, it's a piece like around us. There's the septic tanks on Isaac Capri, Goodland that are affecting the water. All those things play out our water quality.

All contribute. And if I could just add that when it comes to what's coming down, people ignore the fact or they don't know about the giant phosphate mines that are upstate that are anybody really wanted to take a look and drive through that area, East Of Sarasota in the Lakeland area, I'm not sure what county, I think Polk County maybe have a lot of those mines. But that is definitely a problem that the state and the public is not is not focusing on at all. I mean, I don't see any any awareness of that in anybody I talk to. I'm one of the few people that knows about it.

But anyway, it's a pretty big thing. I would invite people to investigate that. Martin, you had a comment.

Yeah. So really just piggybacking off Dan, I was also at that presentation that Charlotte did. It was very, very informative. I would highly recommend that someone from the committee reaches out to her to maybe get her to come to Waterways and do a quick thirty minute presentation so it's accessible for all the counselors so they have a better understanding of what's going on because these are billion dollar projects and they are all about controlling the rising level of water in Oberchogee and all the runoffs and diverting it east and west And it was just very excuse me. It was very informative.

So I do actually have this. I don't know whether we wanna actually put that up because I think one of the great things about these meetings is the fact that they're televised. And I think this would be really good for the community on a whole to see and realize that a lot of stuff is being done. Obviously, it's outside the scope and I think the challenge that we have is these are statewide issues that affect us. Exactly. And we have to figure out how to leverage our city management, our city councilors to go and make sure they're attaching to and pushing these legislations they go up to Tallahassee. So that would be my build comment of your comment there, Dan.

That's my reason for bringing it up.

Yes. So I don't know if we want to just put that up on the overhead just so that people can see and it will give them the ability to read a little bit.

Can we put this up? I'd to get that. Would also like to I was going to mention thank you. You took my thunder. I would like to invite Charlotte Roman to come before our committee in the near future in the next month or two depending upon her availability. Does anybody have any problem with that? Would that

be,

I don't personally, my recommendation would be that we actually move it to it will be good to do it really quickly. Yes. But I think it's much better to push it until the September time frame because of a lot of people that are coming to the island don't come back until September, October, so later in the year. I think it gets a better audience

Okay.

Than would be my comment, but a sure decision to make as chair.

Nope. Absolutely.

I got a comment on that. Okay. Go right ahead, Dan. So when we're talking about fixing our water quality in the canals and potentially, there's the Seahawk dredging or other dredging, not to mention what Seahawk is presenting. You know, timing wise, maybe you gotta look at the big picture.

And and we have the Everglades restoration, which is, the end time line. The end date is 2035. That's when most of their major initiatives should be completed. And maybe, like, conversations about dredging every single canal on Marco. Maybe we're ten years too soon on on this conversation.

Maybe it's you you, fix what's coming downstream first, fix what's around us, you know, in the water, the septic systems and stuff. And then in ten years, say, look. Now that all that contributing stuff is fixed or addressed to the best of our our efforts as humans with our, you know, machinery and funding, Maybe at that time, now we say, alright. Now let's clean up our little area. Or because you could be spending all this money now to clean the canals, but you still have all this nutrients coming down the Caloosahatch.

You have nutrients coming up from Isles Of Capri and Goodland. Consider waiting until those projects are done and then coming in. I mean, it's been fifty years since this sixty years since the canals are built. What's waiting ten more year I'm sorry, 2035. What's that? Ten more years?

Ten years.

Okay. What's waiting ten more years for a major project like that, which maybe even if they got started now, maybe it wouldn't even happen for ten So there's that to be considered. Good point. But just just a thought for, I know there's some city council in the audience may and and you guys are are handling these topics right now. Something to to consider.

Absolutely. I think those are some very wise words. I I would say, let's stop polluting before we clean up the pollution necessarily because if we're if even if we were to clean everything up now and we're still adding to it in ways that Your measurements would be skewed.

Right. If you're measuring and pollution is still coming in.

Yeah. If we're if if we still have our two communities that are polluting us, if we still have it coming down from the Caloosahatchee, if we still have, fertilizer ordinances that are not working or need to be tweaked, if we all these things we haven't done yet. And we're go clean up the canals with dredging at a $60,000,000 potential cost to Marco Island or who knows what it would be. And then we're still adding to it. It doesn't make a lot of sense. So I would definitely like for our audience to really, you know, take

How what you've had to do we get that message to to city council? Because that I mean, I know there's Mice them ahead. We we have some here. Two, three, four. And thank you for for attending. I know you have a lot going on your schedules. But, you know, for the benefit of the the whole council Mhmm. Is there mean, a, would we ever agree on that kind of logic as as a waterways advisory committee Good question. If we do collectively agree on something like that general strategy, you know, especially when we're looking at maybe a $50,000,000, you know, commitment.

Have a lot of money.

We're talking about now. You went to you know, we're we're getting educated as a as a committee. Would we, make a motion to, you know, have the city council consider these strategic completions happen first before considering a major or before pulling the trigger on an island wide $50,000,000 dredging project.

Regardless

if it's costing us $50,000,000 or if we're getting grant money for that, it's still money. And maybe it's best delayed ten years or studied for ten years and then initiated knowing that you have the benefit of potentially the septic being fixed around Marco and the Everglades restoration completed.

It might make a big difference. Martin, I think you're next.

Yes, am next. So fundamentally, I disagree with your comment, Dan. This issue has been going on for fifty years, we could say, subjectively, that we haven't done anything to maintain the the canals. We haven't done anything since we've put septic on Marco Island. I agree. It's a big huge big number. How that plays out for the city, we don't know. We're still in that evaluation phase. To me, kicking the can down the road for potentially ten years, after that ten year mark, then you have to get priorities in place, has to go quite frankly through state funding. That's another couple of years.

And then by the time they're actually shovel ready, that's another couple of years. So quite frankly, if we're going to take that approach, I'll be dead before we see anything. Mean, fundamentally It's

not kicking the can down the road. Sorry. Well, it is to a certain extent. It's a strategy. No, I don't want to make a motion or anything like that.

No, no, I understand.

I hear what you're saying. I just think it makes sense if I was spending money that we have a strategy and clean up around us first and

then I don't disagree that we need to clean up around us. I mean, clearly, the septic on Goodland situation is not great. Oslo Kabri not great. Old question. Although this is a lot of money, how much money was spent on putting Marco Island onto main drainage? I don't know if you know that number, Jeff, but I think it was tens of millions.

Not the exact amount, but it was roughly $150,000,000

Okay.

So really we're looking at this in the scope of things. We as a city, took the initiative and said we're going to commit to doing this. It's $150,000,000 We're still kind of paying some of that back is my understanding, although we're quite a ways down that path. So why are we looking at this any different? You know, to me it's like we've got people that are on City Council that are advocates for water quality and water cleanup.

And this is a major opportunity for us that I think we need to fully explore. And I'm not sure I'm comfortable saying, well, let's just put the brake on until all of these South Florida water management things are done. I mean, some of these South Florida management things actually look pretty shaky now from a funding perspective with a change in government. So I don't know whether they're gonna get to complete all of that, but I'm sure Charlotte can give us information on it. So I would just say that as much as I understand the rationale of that, I'm not sure I'm in full agreement with sitting back for all of that time before we actually push forward and city councils push forward with driving the initiative.

I wouldn't sit back. It's we'd drop a strategy. It would be a a plan that we monitor and we work towards. And in 2035, maybe we're actually putting a every canal is getting dredged. I mean, it would it's that's the my that's where I'm coming from, not like just ignore it for ten years.

Saying, here here are the science now. If it's if it's legit science and and makes sense, plan it in concert with these other major initiatives. And if funding falls through for something, then, yeah, then you have to change course and maybe go it on your own knowing we're doing our part. But I would advocate for a strategy that is comprehensive Everglades restoration, septic improvement, dredging Marco's intercanals. But that's just my opinion. Thank you.

Okay.

Yeah. I I mean, I again, I concur that everything has got to be done in that order. But it's it's multifaceted and just stopping and not moving forward on one just seems silly to me when we've got a motion and city council approval to really evaluate that as a project. Ralph?

Yeah. When I spoke to city council about the dredging and I first words were it was premature, which was echoed by at least one or two of the counselors that was premature. And part of the rationale was that you've got to cut off the sources and you do it at the same time or you do it before. But we don't know enough about dredging, and we're not gonna do it four minutes of constituent comments to do dredging one zero one. So a lot of information needs to get out there and needs to be understood.

I just came back Sunday night from The Keys with my contacts who are doing their various management. They're implementing it right now. None of them have been called by anybody in Marco, at least the ones that I've talked to, to learn more about it, get on their phone and says, we're doing dredging. We're thinking about it. What do think about it?

How are you doing it? They've never had a call even though I presented them with at least a study. There's a lot more to it than what I presented as a starting point that this study exists. If you talk to them, if you see some of the presentations, you get a better idea of where we should be going because they did it ten years ahead of us. So when they say premature and we've gotta do some of this other work as we as we work it or do it before, but it is premature.

Rick?

I just would echo a little bit of what Martin said that until we address the problems that are right around us, I absolutely think it maybe not crazy, but to wait ten years before analyzing other alternatives makes no sense at all to me and I would not support any kind of motion to tell the city council to wait till 2035 on anything.

Jim? Yes, just a quick comment. I have been trying to bite my tongue, but I do not do very well at that. I've been dutifully sitting on this committee, some of us longer than me for the last year and a half. I can't think of really very many meaningful things that this committee has moved forward to City Council. City Council has moved on without us. They've gone ahead, they've made the decision, they had a presentation that we never got. We never got a presentation from Seahawk. We didn't get a chance to hear it present, at least in my timeframe here, right, from that perspective. Candidly, I think City Council has gotten tired of waiting on us.

So they've gone ahead and moved forward. So I think as a committee, I think we need to decide to chase one thing at a time and figure out what it is that we're gonna do. Because I feel like we're a dog chasing its tail. We're chasing 85 different things at the same time and not coming up with anything meaningful to take the city council. Exactly.

Well put. I would like to partner. So, I

think you're absolutely on point. There are certain things that we can do and propose and vote on and move forward. And, you know, one of them was advanced water treatment. And we stood here as a committee and we voted five to two. That it was a great idea but we didn't have the funding and maybe we should focus on other things.

That now has been raised to city council to be kind of rebirth and relooked at. So I I questioned the validity of if we are here as a committee and we are really empowered to push things up to city council, they should heed, I guess, what we're we're putting forth. And if they don't, then I think we're very diluted as an advisory committee. The other thing I would say on the comment about the wait ten years. One of the things that I think we should do and we should maybe put this on the agenda for our next meeting, but we have not done a hydro depth level study of this island for twenty five years, I believe, is the number, is the last time this was fully done.

So we really have no idea what the levels have done in these canals with sediment and nutrient and all that stuff. Now, that may not solve the nutrient issue, but it would certainly address the sediment issue because there are some canals that when this island was bought, was built rather, had access to boating at the end of canals and now do not. So clearly, is sediment buildup. So I would vote that we should look at that and put that on a future agenda to does it make sense for us as a advisory to push that up to city council and say, we need to get a survey done so that we can really ascertain how much mark, how much sediment has built up on this island in the last twenty five years.

I don't

know if you could attest to when that survey was last done.

Twenty year 2005. Okay. Twenty years. And but I just want to for the committee's benefit indicate that if the dredging proposal moves forward then that will include a bathymetric survey in it. Obviously you'll need to see where the canal bottoms are before and then after the dredging to verify how much was dredged and document

that. I know we have more comments here. I just want to alert everybody, it is one hour in and we've got one hour left. We have a whole lot to cover and we've got a couple of speakers. So I'd like to kind of wrap this up in a minute. Chris, you've been waiting a while. I'd like to get your comments.

I think what Dan was trying to put the picture as, let's do 2035 as the end date to get everything done. So yes, things need to move along. He's not saying push it off forever. But there is you start with the project at the end date, work your way back to figure out what needs to be done, but that's only part of it. So the dredging is one part, everything is one part, right. So get all those parts to work together by 2035.

Thank you, Chris. I think nobody believes that Dan suggested that we don't do anything until 2035. Okay. That's probably well put.

Thank you for clarifying that. I'm sure Yes. Was really a sound bite to come out of this.

I know. We could talk about this until this afternoon, but we do need to move along. I'm not trying to cut anybody off. Miss What is the one last thing that Ralph would like to say?

Yeah. I think what Justin mentioned and what Martin said about assessing our canals, and I spoke to it when I spoke to city council, that's the priority before moving forward with this dredging thing, not after. There are canals, as you said, showed up. You've got to dredge. That's the only way to get it down. There are some canals that are already dead that you might since you've mobilized equipment, you might want to talk about doing it. But there are some canals, quite a few of them, that are very vibrant.

I've seen

them. They're all over the You don't dredge those. You do best management practice and let mother nature heal itself. It needs an assessment because how will she know how much you want to dredge? You've got to do that before you start getting into a contract with them and you're pretty much into it and then have a bathymetric study. That's not the important part, which is part of the reason why I wanted dredging on the agenda. But I'll leave that.

I and, you know, I I personally have gone out and taken a look at at at canals. I've been like, on Edgewater Court, I see, you know, the fish, you know, jumping around. I see pretty clear water. And then you go to where they just built watermark there, around the corner. And you look at that canal, it's pretty muddy. There isn't anything going on there. It's kind of a little bit smelly. So yeah, absolutely, to your point, you've made an excellent point, Ralph. And I appreciate that. I'd really like to move along if I can because I the restoration and resilience projects, we kinda have covered that.

I'd like to move along to Flushing because Justin is going to put up an image for us or a chart, I guess a map of Flushing. I think I just wanted to mention this hydrodynamic modeling. I think it's really important that this could be something, and I know it's costly, but I have also been asked by people in the city to not concentrate on cost here. That's for the city council to do. But I think it's very important, if you will kindly look at screens, I think it's very important to realize that a big part of our problem is the fact that the water, the tides, would flush our island beautifully if it could.

But it can't because when San Marco Road was built, we did not have the necessary culverts underneath to allow the flushing to occur. And one of the big problems is that we have a situation where the tidal flow would greatly clean our canals for us. But we have blocked it. And making culverts underneath San Marco Road would make a big difference. We have some.

But we need more to adequately allow the tide to come up and then to go out. And it can't do it right now because we have it's blocked. Now I know that it's a big project now as homes have been built on San Marco Road. It's almost wall to wall homes. To put culverts underneath people's homes is very problematic. But I'd like to hand that over to Justin for a moment to make some comments because I think this is a very, very important issue that could definitely costly, but very effective when it would come to helping to clean and to keep things flowing. Justin?

Thank you. What you're looking at here is the existing culverts and that major East West Road is San Marco Road. The culvert listed as number four up until about a year and a half ago that didn't go all the way through. So when the ALF facility, assisted living facility was under construction, we approached them and, were able to secure an easement, along their west property line where there's a sidewalk there now. So underneath of that sidewalk, the city, contracted with the contractor and put in that 24 inches pipe going from San Marco up into that canal.

So now, essentially, we have four existing culverts. Although you could see that the the sizes here are either 24 or 30 inch pipes. And if you look at the volume of water that would potentially move from the South End of of Marco Island, Kaxemas Pass to Collier Creek and then the Big Marco River in the North, that's like connecting two swimming pools with straws. So it is very limited. We did have that hydrodynamic study that was commissioned by the city and it showed that with the addition of two larger diameter culverts, we would improve the tidal flushing within the two.

I don't know if Martin, if you have the the the second graphic. There we go. So if you zoom out a little bit so we can see the entire island. But what's in blue here are yeah. What's in blue here are the major Northwest Canal sis I'm sorry.

North to south or south to north canal systems in Marco Island. And they San Marco Road is the the feature that bisects that. And so if you're on the south if you're if you live South Of San Marco Road in any of those canals, you have to go out the Kaxambas Pass in your boat. And likewise, if you're North Of San Marco Road, you're going out the Big Marco River. So San Marco Road is is the is is the major feature that blocks the flow.

And so by adding a 60 inch diameter culvert on the landmark waterway, which is that wide waterway there just South of San Marco Road on the left, you improve the flushing in in that whole waterway system there on the left considerably. And likewise, if you were to add another culvert on the right, you would improve that system over there considerably. We did hire a consulting engineer. They did plans. We went out to bid.

The bids came in a lot higher than expected. As you mentioned, San Marco Road almost has no empty lots on it now. And when this was first looked at and the funding was first sought, it was a $400,000 project. Well, when we went out to bid, since there's homes there now and they're any new home now is large home and they're right up against the easements. And so you have a spacing of 12 feet between the homes.

And then you have the cantilevered slabs for generators and air conditioners that stick out of that. So it's impossible to get any excavating equipment in there. So because these homes are now built, you have to do all the construction underground. And that means micro tunneling and doing taking San Marco Road out of commission for an extended period of time, putting in all your turbidity, curtains and, sheet pilings in the canals on on the North end and South End. So that made the construction a lot more expensive to the tune of about $5,000,000.

So we had up to $2,000,000 in past allocations of funding and grants and appropriations. So we're seeking more funding now. We currently have an appropriation, request in, with the state for 750,000, and we've since hired a consultant at the request of city council to assist in obtaining some more grants, and they're currently working on that. So that's something that's in the the works, but it it all depends on the funding. And that's just one out of the two culverts that are needed. So I don't know if I covered what

Yes, wanted me to cover I do. After looking at all the possible solutions and all the possible issues, this to me, as expensive as it is, it's certainly far less expensive than the dredging project at $60,000,000 I would say that it's still very difficult to do and it is very costly to do. But I would say that of current opportunities that we could look into, this would be one that would make a huge impact on our water quality. Quality. I really do feel that way.

And I would love to see something to go to council to help to make to make turn this into a high priority, at least to see what what we can accomplish in relation to flushing, the culverts and and the situation with what could be accomplished. And I know that you have indicated, what we're already trying to do, but I'd really love to see this be a priority. I don't know how everybody else feels about it, but, you know, a brief discussion would be welcome. Martin?

I mean, I'm fully behind it. I mean, the the bottom line on the the whole issue is when this island was built, it wasn't designed to flush effectively. So it was built on the premise of how many homes, how can we keep the density to this highest level to maximize the number of lots. And people were paying a premium for a tip lot, obviously. So if we could rewrite it, yes, we would do herringbone and we'd have no right angles and we'd have no big block right across the middle of the island.

So I don't think anyone, to my knowledge, anyone on the committee would really object to continuing to push forward on this proposal. I mean, it's valid. It seems to be work. It's been modeled, pretty extensively. So we know the likely outcome of what it will look like when we get there.

But the point was raised that, again, the challenge is a 24 inches pipe on an island at six miles by three miles helps, but it's not a total cure. I mean, maybe we should buy eight to 10 houses on San Marco, demolish them, build a bridge, job done. I'm being cynical when I say that, obviously. But I don't think anyone should push back on particular effort. I think it's valid, it's funded, not fully, but we're making progress.

I

think one of the other things that we've clearly missed here is one of the things that they've done very well at The Keys is they've now done a tidal kind of boring, where they actually bore down And with that tidal flow, they can use that to flush. And that has proved to be successful. I did sit with Mike McNeese and present some of the very preliminary look at this. This might be something that we want to discuss. And the normal kind of chestnut of budget, we don't have any money, lovely idea, but we've got mediums, gymnasiums, water quality, etcetera, etcetera. So again, I would say that the thing that we should do is we should, to Ralph's point, we should look at that data because it is available, how successful that has been, and maybe add that into the mix

Absolutely.

With projects that we're looking at.

If I were if I were to to make a motion, I this would be one of the the issues that I feel would make the most amount of immediate well, you can't put them in immediately, but, to work toward, water quality improvement, I would say one of the most effective things that we could do. I would love for this to become a high priority for the city council. That would be where I would I mean, there's AWT, there's dredging, there's every there's the bubblers. This to me is a major it would be one of the things that I would put as the highest priority, one of the high

priorities Intuitively, I agree with you, but I need to see the data. I mean, from a percentage perspective, you're talking about two twenty four inches pipes and you're going to add a 60 inches pipe, but we're talking about connecting two Olympic size swimming pools with drinking straws, but we're going to add a bigger drinking straw in between the two of them. I don't know from a percentage perspective how much difference that really makes. So my question would be, it may not be three sixty inches pipes, it may be fifteen sixty inches pipes that we need to make a statistical difference. I don't know. Intuitively, agree with you, but I need to see that it's gonna work before we spend money on it.

Oh, yeah. And of course, that would be the city council's job is to determine the money

are And we

willing of of the very bottom willing of the blue there, those are actually grids. And those grids where they intersect have data points. And what they looked at was putting in trace cursors in the model and seeing how long it would take for and and how many tidal Mhmm. Cycles it would take for that water to get all the way through the system. So they did that.

And they went out to fifty six days, which is of of tidal cycles. And that's how long it would take after you do the 60 inch pipe and the other pipe. Right now, it doesn't go through. And there's in that same model, there's and it was presented to the past waterways advisory committee and city council at the time there was workshops. But it was color coded.

There's other graphics in study that show blue, green, yellow, orange, red, and the red was you don't get any flushing at all. And we still will have that no matter what we do in some of these dead end canals because they're dead end canals. And so the longer the dead end canal, also the topography of the bottom of the canal, has a lot of effect on it. But to get the maximum benefit for the island wide, and we're looking at the major flow ways, the west and the east that you see on this on this graphic up here. Those two large diameter culverts put in make a huge difference.

So it has been shown in the model. And so the minimum that we could do to answer your question is what's in that report, which is a 60 inches diameter culvert on the landmark waterway crossing, San Marco and then one on the, on that eastern,

flowway. Okay.

Thank you.

Rather than for me to make a motion on this at a council, could we get then a report as I think Jim had mentioned, know, from Justin for our next meeting to completely examine what could be done and the feasibility. Have you Or we could

just get a copy of the report for us to review on our own before the

next meeting?

We get that because I'd like to present that at the next meeting if at all possible.

It's on the Waterways Advisory Committee website.

Yes. Okay. Okay. So if we could all review that. And then I know we have a few comments. We do we're about close to forty five minutes away from the end. We have some speakers, and I do want to include them. So in the the interest of time, I'd like to get a few comments.

I'd like to make just one quick comment.

Dan is first, and then I'll I will get to you, Rick.

Thank you, mister chair. Stupid question for Justin. If you're talking like a 60 inch, could you put the other graphic up, the showing the actual locations of the interconnects? The color coded one? There we go.

And last year, we did see the actual hydrodynamic study, images, which, which would be helpful to see again. You can see where the water kinda dies out and and stops moving. And it's my understanding that if you if you did some of these, it would, have some effect. If you did others, it it would have a negative effect in some areas. So that's something to consider is, you know, doing them all versus being, you know, cheap and doing two and negatively affecting someone's canal that historically has had a lot of, you know, marine life.

So that's one comment. Second comment, the Harper report, I I remember watching the video. He's saying flushing will help. Flushing and flushing flushing. He brings it up. So, I mean, it's clear. It's it's clear. It was scientific. The Harper report 2021, it's based in science. It's presented to us. You have five locations or six locations. Would they all potentially accept a 60 inch diameter culverts in all these locations?

No. The the the report identified two, And as was mentioned in that other graphic, you have the two main north south flowways in Marco Island across San Marco. So the one on on the west or the left would be where this landmark waterway is close to where that 24 inches on the left on this graph here. And then the other one would be on the other end closer to where the 30 inches and the 36 inches are. So we have, construction plans for the one on the West and we have hard numbers now because we went out to bid on it and we just need to get the funding together.

My stupid question and I know Elliot's in a

rush to No.

We'd like to fit everything in.

If you're at 60 inches, could I know marine marine life grates are required on storm water drains, you know, coming from swales. But at 60 inches, would that be open where like snook and things could could actually swim from one side of the same market?

Fish can

get through. We would put manatee grates in there, which are just just think of them as

like But at 60 inches, could you could a manatee five feet wide, could a manatee actually go through there?

I don't know.

It could if you don't have grates. And the grates are similar to Five

five foot diameter?

Yeah. Partially?

Yeah.

I thought it was just

gonna be great if more marine life could connect across

Well, you have fish everything except manatees and large, you know, like dolphins and

I don't think those

we should discriminate. That's my only comment. Thank you.

Okay. Those would be able to go through there. So, yes, you would have fish, like you mentioned, tarpon, snook would be able to get through. And these manatee grades are similar. If you just think of a chain link fence post and you have those spaced about 12 inches apart, that would be

what it would look like.

Thank you.

Okay. Yeah. I really like for everybody, Rick, I will give you one last comment, I

just have one short quick comment. I would not support the Flushing program as a high priority for city council because it does nothing to reduce the nutrients that are feeding in the canals. I believe that it cannot hurt the island, but whether that should be a top priority for city council to consider, I would not vote in favor of that.

I appreciate that. I know you had one last what is the one last thing you wanted to say, Martin?

Final comment would be, I think the model has proven that it's beneficial to keep moving forward with it.

Okay. What I would like to do is, for everybody, if they're willing to review this on the website and to come back next meeting and be prepared to vote yes or no on whether this should be a high priority sent to counsel. Okay? That'd be what I'd like to do. Now, quickly moving along, we need to go to 7C, ID 20 Five-four449, phosphorus discussion.

It was going to be me talking about fertilizer. But we had Jeff Poteet here, and I think this was going to be I would really like for Jeff, who is the authority on Marco Island when it comes to phosphorus, treatment plant, and issues relating to it. I'd like for Jeff to have a few words and to take a few questions briefly on this topic, because I think it bears reviewing. And Jeff, the floor is yours.

Good morning, Jeff Lattice, General Manager of your Water and Sure Department. Really, I was asked to come just to answer any questions that you might have. I do want to say that, you know, from our analysis that goes to the state Florida Department of Environmental Protection. There does not seem to be any issues with phosphorus leaving the treatment plant and being applied the landscape irrigation, so through the landscape irrigation system. The amount of phosphorus leaving the treatment plant is about three, three and a half milligrams per liter.

Basically what that means is for every million pounds of water that is applied, three and a half pounds of phosphorus is applied with it. And with that, I'll answer any questions that you might have.

I just wanted to ask you if I understood it correctly. When I took the tour of the water treatment plant, it was explained that the grounds of Marco Island, the soil, is easily able to accept that minimal amount of phosphorus that does get applied and it does not leach beyond the application locations

of the

What I can tell you is, for the last two years, we've been sampling the groundwater for phosphorus, which is not a requirement through the FDP, only nitrogen is. And our sampling results yield non detectable on all monitoring wells.

Would that also include the median waterings?

It does. That is

what is applied. Also,

okay. Everything. Yeah. Okay. Questions for Jeff? Any comments?

What was the award the city received recently?

On Monday, we were recognized with the David W York award, which is the reuse plant of the year award. That that award is is given to through the Florida Water Environment Association. And the members of that particular award, the the the ones that that that scrutinize the application are members of the Department of Environmental Protection. Congratulations. Thank you. It is one of the biggest awards that you can win in the state.

That's amazing.

Yeah. And

it just goes to show the dedicated team that we have on Marco Island. The the water and and and sewer personnel really are are heavily involved in what they do. And they are always here for the community in your time of need, and we're happy to serve. So thank you.

Your department and what you do is amazing. Thank you. Very impressive. I do have one question here, because I want everybody to hear your answer. And I guess my question is, if we were to do the AWT, if that was to we're not talking about cost right now, we're talking about if it were to be done. My question to you is, what would be the true improvement of the water quality situation that we have on Marco Island in the canals and surrounding waters? What would the effect really be?

Well so the move to AWTA would would reduce the amount and and as it is right now, talked about. We're only talking about the phosphorus portion of it

Right.

Not the nitrogen portion. So it would reduce the nitrogen from about three three and a half milligrams per liter to one milligram per liter. So a reduction of 2.5 pounds per million pounds of water. And so it is my belief that that that it'll make minimal, if any, you know, negligible impact on the waterways.

Now yeah. Okay.

Does that happen if the plant was operational and discharging?

Does would

the would there be a measurable or when can we measure that?

Well, we measure

Like in the surrounding waterways?

Yeah. So we measure in the groundwater and the only meaningful amount that plant effluent could get waterways is through the groundwater. So we measure the groundwater analysis. And as it is right now, we have had zero hits on phosphorus in in in that groundwater.

In your opinion, what would be the value of doing the AWT?

As an operator, I'd be excited to do it. Okay. I think having more treatment processes. Processes. But from an environmental standpoint, I don't think there will be any measurable impact.

Okay. Any other comments, questions to Jeff, Rick?

Jeff, so what percentage of water goes to reclaim versus deep well injection?

So the only time we go to and I don't have the exact number off the top of my head. The only time that we go to deep injection well typically is during the wet weather. And then because the storage tanks are full or when there's low demand. So a small percentage, I think last year, we were able to distribute 95% of treated wastewater to reclaim. This past twelve months was a little bit less because of wet weather.

We had three hurricanes. That was very exciting and enjoyed it. And

the reclaim water is really only going to the two golf courses and most of the condos on the beach? Correct.

Well, three golf courses. There is two large golf courses, one off island. About 30% of our water that's treated is shipped off island to the Marco Shores Golf Course and Hammock Bay, Tropic Schooner, those condominiums in that area. And then we have the Island Golf Course as well as the Hideaway Beach Executive Course.

But of that most of that water even if it runs off it's not on canals it's

Well most of the, you know, Justin's map that he had up earlier really showed how far away most of the places that we irrigate are from any waterways. There are a

lot of

people think that on Swallow, we irrigate. There's very few condos on Swallow in those 2 Finger Streets that we irrigate. But along Collier Court, those are all on reclaimed irrigation. But most of the the the places that are irrigated are hundreds of of feet from from a receiving water.

Any other questions or comments? Rick?

Sure.

Just clarify, AWT could reduce the phosphorus by about two thirds, roughly?

Well, it depends on how far down you want to go. We would have to do it by chemical. We would not be able to do any biological based on the footprint of our treatment plant. We have very limited space, so we wouldn't be able to do any anaerobic treatment, which is how you would reduce that phosphorus level.

But you just said it could go from three to one.

We, yeah, we could go from three to one, so

And you would be able to, maybe not a similar reduction, but there would be a reduction in nitrogen as well, even though that is not the topic of today's discussion.

I am not sure that that is it would depend. We could have some reduction in nitrogen, yes.

You could. Roughly, is 700,000,000 gallons of reuse water distributed on the island?

No. About 30% of that goes off island.

To those other

To golf the golf courses and condominiums out in the Marco Shores area.

Okay. But the

remainder of it would be applied on Marco.

Okay. But they are loosely connected in that they are adjacent to waterways of some sort?

They are adjacent to waterways, but the water that would be applied to Marco Shores would go out through Rookery Bay out into the Gulf Of Mexico eventually, whereas so it really wouldn't affect Marco Island.

Thank you. So what you're actually telling us is that regardless, we would not really be able to measure. If we did the AWT, it would be unmeasurable, the effect. Once it was done and paid for, we really wouldn't know an appreciable difference from what you're saying. Would that be correct?

That's what I believe. Also, I'd like to add both the Harper report and the Jacobs report talked about phosphorus and that the water surrounding Marco are saltwater and phosphorus is abundant in saltwater. And therefore, if you want to control growth through controlling nutrients, you control the nitrogen in saltwater versus Mhmm. Freshwater, you would control the phosphorus.

Yep. Okay. Now, we are coming off of the nitrogen impaired list. Is that what I am hearing?

You would have I would defer that to Justin Martin. I am not really involved in that.

Okay. But

I do understand that the latest results are very promising.

Okay. That's what I've heard. One last comment, Dan.

I'd just like to

compliment your staff. I know we have a reuse meter on our property and compliments kudos to you guys for educating us on proper use of reuse as a if we were to be a customer. And also, I know you guys are out there monitoring the sprinklers and things like that and your wet checks you do. It shows vigilance. And I know you guys are trying as hard as you can to keep up with the endless miles of irrigation pipe and sprinkler heads and to catch everyone that leaks at at any one time as soon as it leaks is almost, not possible, but you guys get to them quickly.

And, I'd just like to commend you and your staff for, or the the other city staff, whoever does that for that vigilance. Thanks. Amazing.

I I bring up a great subject. I do wanna mention one other thing that we we're doing as a department. Over the last year, year and a half, we have really upped the education portion of the reclaim program, as well as we converted one team member's responsibilities to inspecting and educating our reclaimed water customers. So we have a person on staff that's going out to all the reclaimed water users, going through their procedures on irrigation, giving them a document that shows exactly how much that particular site used in reclaim water, what that means in the amount of pounds of nitrogen and phosphorus, so that they can make educated decisions on their fertilization needs. And I think that's while the first set of inspections, I think the users were very hesitant on, oh, we're getting inspected.

It's really more of a collaboration and it's really come a long way.

Very valuable. Yeah. Jeff, I wanna thank you for your report and for what you brought to us. Thank you

so much.

Thank you.

Thank you, Jeff. Yes.

In the interest of moving along, I was going to present a fertilizer discussion. I was already with a major report here. I think in the interest of time, we're going to table that until the next meeting, if I can have that. If I can have seven d, you know, deferred until the next meeting. So I'd to request that. We've got staff communications is next. Also, have two gentlemen here who would like to address the committee. How would we proceed with that?

Well, that would be the public comment period. Right?

Right. Okay. So we just Okay. In the public comment. Okay. So let's go to to eight, staff communications.

Yeah. I don't really have much to report other than what's been discussed. I just wanted to give the the committee a reminder that the capital budget workshop is on June 16. And that will be in the afternoon just prior to the regular city council meeting that time. So that will be before your next waterways advisory committee meeting.

So if there's anything that you'd like to communicate to counsel for that budget workshop, then suggest you discuss it here and perhaps have the chair communicate that to city council prior to that budget meeting.

Okay. I appreciate that, Justin. We also have city council communication. Any Councilor Shanti? Okay.

Sorry. It's Bonita Schwann, city councilwoman. Thank you for all your input. I also saw Charlotte's presentation on the restoration, and I think it's great that you're gonna bring it before your body here too. I just wanna say one thing today. I was not aware of the sunshine issue that was going on apparently with the committee. And we, this the city of Marco Island, we follow the laws of Florida. The sunshine law, we cannot violate. There's an organization in Florida that monitors municipalities. And if they are in violation of the Sunshine Law, they can file a lawsuit against us.

If that if they win that, the city will be responsible for legal fees that they will incur. So I have none of

the particulars of what happened, but I just encourage you, and I say this to our counsel all the time, follow the laws of the state of Florida. So thank you.

Excellent. Thank you so much. And also, that also involves not pushing the envelope. Public perception is extremely important, and we must maintain. Counselor?

Yeah. Hi. I'm Rainey Champagne, the newest counselor. And I have I tend to take a business view of everything that goes on in a city council. I don't look at it as a unique government entity because in all honesty, it's a business. As a result of that kind of thinking, I'd like to clarify to this committee just my personal opinion. I'm not speaking for the council. But you're an advisory committee supposed to be giving us advice. K? If you just think that we're going to listen to this and and take action on it, that's not the case.

You need to put formal advice forward to the city council so we know what we're talking about. We have five new councilors who have less information about water quality than you folks do by a long shot. Alright. What you need to do, in my opinion, is form a strategic plan. 2025 to 2035, kind of everything you've been discussing this morning.

Short term, what in the first three years should we be looking at from a priority point of view? Then the next three years, medium term and then long term. That's how we're going to move forward as a community on water quality. And there, as you've said multiple times, there's no silver bullet on any one of these things. Unfortunately, of the reports that we've already conducted indicate offshore water is tainted and that just keeps flowing into our canals.

So until we start correcting problems like Isle Of Capri, Goodland, we're going to be suffering as well as the water coming down the Caloosahatchee. So we need you folks. Someone indicated no one's on the council's calling Key West. Uh-uh. We're never gonna be calling Key West. That's your job. You're the advisory committee. Right. Call those people. Find out what they're saying. Put a plan together. Send it to the council. If you think the council gonna do this kind of work, you're wrong. We got other issues that we have to look at. So we're gonna depend upon you folks being instrumental in telling us as a council what we should be doing.

And by the way, if you don't come to unanimous agreement, it's gonna be problematic coming to the council. So if you have four three votes on advice, you know, that doesn't that doesn't help a heck of a lot. So you need to find a way to get as close to seven zero as you can. Five two would be acceptable. Four three, I mean, that just says there's a whole debate yet to be had.

There is a city council water quality workshop coming up on July 7. It would be very instrumental if you folks would help us understand what we should be talking about. Now along with Justin, put a plan together. What topics should we really consider for discussion? And again, accepting this concept that we're going to create a strategic plan for this city, what are the first three years, second three years, last three years? Help us understand that. Don't worry about costs yet. Forget the costs. What are the projects we're talking about? Okay.

And I think that would be a big, big help. I don't think. I know that would be a big help to the council. We're we're not as informed as you folks are, and it would be you'd be doing a heck of a lot of good if you could inform us. The more detailed, the more scientific data you can provide, the better it will be. Opinions are opinions. They're not going to go very far. Okay? Any questions of me before I wrap up?

I'm not sure we can actually question you as a speaker

on Okay. The

Good. But I take on board what you said.

It's food for thought.

Yes.

Please help us on a strategic plan just for water quality. And and to the extent that you can, there's so much misinformation in this community about water quality

Mhmm.

That you got to help us put that kind of conversation to rest by getting more information out. But there's speculation that, quite frankly, doesn't make sense, and it's very, very prevalent. Everyone has an opinion. I I everyone should have an opinion, but if you can't back it up with data, then, you know, it's it's not worthwhile. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.

If I could say I will be attending that workshop, and I would love to get I would really like to get this committee on board with going in the direction that our counselor has just expressed. Absolutely. Okay. If that's all of the city council communication, I would like to go to public comment. We have only fifteen minutes left, so I'd like to get public comment, right now if we can.

We have, David Green registered.

Well, we know him.

Hello, everyone. Dave Crane, Marco Island resident. For those of you new on the committee, on your website, the water quality analysis monthly is listed there. I don't know if any of you have looked at it lately. I just looked at it yesterday and was shocked in that as far as nitrogen, we have 14 sites on island in canals that they're tested every month.

14 showed undetectable levels of nitrogen. Phosphorus. Five of the 14 undetectable levels of nitrogen, of phosphorus. Eight were well under the limits. There was only one that was over the limit which was the Landmark Basin which is to be understood because that's the deepest and the longest and no water movement there at all.

So just keep that in mind. Things do change. Dan you brought up I think last month or maybe the month before how the water in your canal seemed to be better this year than in previous years. One thing I think that's happened this year is our water temperature up until now has been lower than in the past. And I think we were at 80 degrees last year at the April. So the benthic mat in my canal, April 1, it was up till November 30. This year, it's not there yet, but the water temperature in my canal is just about 80 degrees. I don't know, Doug, if is yours? No.

Started in my

Did it start?

I sent pictures to city council.

Okay. Yeah. I mean, again, Rick's on a canal that's similar to mine that there's no water movement at all. You're off of a bay, plus it's then a torturous path even to get underneath the bridge there at our field over to his canal. So there's no water movement there at all.

So that's a big issue that needs to be done. I totally agree with the counselor's statement. You guys got to get on board. Ralph, you and I spoke about what's going on in The Keys as far as the deep well injections. That for the end of the canal such as Rick's and mine is a perfect alternative if the ground below us is receptive to the water at the head similar to what they have in The Keys.

The only way I think to do that is to test and run a drill. I mean the drills are like down in The Keys it's like $40,000 for them to drill those wells. That's not much money and you figure they don't have well drillers down in The Keys, they're coming from Miami or somewhere else to go down there. So the added cost of that. So I don't know if the city has looked farther into that and talked to the people down in The Keys?

No. There's, as you mentioned, you need the porosity. And in The Keys, you have the fractured limestone and has a lot of cavities there. So there's a lot of groundwater movement in The Keys, which I'm not so sure that we have that here. And then also as far as the cost, no, we haven't looked into that, but that would need to be the staff just doesn't up and make a decision and say, let's.

No. I understand. But I think that's maybe that's something where where this board can go, hey. This looks like it has possibilities. I I did speak with one of the experts and they're not sure of of the ground underneath this whether it's porous or not. But I think the cost of this is so cheap relative to anything else that certainly the interconnects under San Marco are gonna be a huge benefit for the majority of the island but that's not gonna help the dead ends. And this is something that's very cheap compared to anything else, including aeration. So that's all for me.

Thank you. Point well made. Thank Thank you, Dan. Thank you. Any other public comment?

No? Okay. And we had two gentlemen here. Did you want to address? I think that would be under under public comment. One moment.

Good afternoon. Good morning. Nicholas Von Hoffman, the Island Country Club Chief Operating Officer. I just want to take a moment to thank you all. We are partners. We've been on the island. We were one of the first properties on the island, and this was very informative today. I applaud everyone what they're doing. I wanna thank Justin and Jeff. We've been wonderful partners, and we're gonna continue to do that. I just wanted to bring to attention that all golf courses in the state of Florida operate under Florida best management practices. My my comment to you today is, are you aware of that? Do you understand what that is? It's provided by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. It identifies irrigation water, identifies nutrients, runoff fertilizers, and everything.

And we are proud at Island Country Club to utilize those and implement those on a daily basis. So that's my comment today. I just wanna thank your time, and we look forward to continuing to partner with with the city. Thank you.

And we appreciate you. Mhmm. Thank you. Yeah. Okay. If there is no more public comment, we're ten minutes away from conclusion. So I just wanted to do number 11, next meeting confirmation and attendance. Everybody planning to attend? Everybody available?

We'll have a quorum? Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend. I'll be traveling in Europe. Okay. But is Juneteenth?

Right. I believe so.

Is Juneteenth not a public holiday? Not yet.

As far as I know.

No. I believe we will be meeting unless anybody knows anything about that. June 19. No. That being said, 12 proposed agenda topics for the next meeting. Other than for what I wanted to move on the fertilizer discussion for the next meeting and Rick Woodworth has a topic for the next meeting, which we will be sure to get in. Okay. And anybody else? Okay. Dan? For

proposed agenda topics for the next meeting, perhaps an update. We made a motion. I think we voted unanimously to address Eton's and the Hideaway Lagoon. Maybe next meeting, could we get an update on the results of that unanimous vote? And I guess that would go to Justin.

If I could add to that, I would also also like to make sure that we are doing everything possible and that our council is also doing everything possible to make sure that all eight tons are in place, that they're visible, that all channels are clearly marked. So for the safety of all boaters in the vicinity of Marco Island, everything under our control and anything that isn't that any other agencies that are involved, the county, the state, or the Army Corps of Engineers, for instance, are aware of what their responsibilities are when it comes to the Etones. And so that everything is up and running, in place, marked clearly for the safety and security of all boaters and the voting public of Marco Island. I think that's very important. So I'd like to make sure that that is, you know, an area that we discuss, and we make sure that our council is doing everything that they need to do in relation to that.

If there's other committee communications?

We didn't finish the agenda.

Oh, okay. I'm sorry.

I'm sorry. Just a quick comment.

Yes.

Dredging needs to be discussed.

Alright.

There's a lot of misinformation out there. I suspect the holdup of not having it today is because an engineer

Right.

Consultant is looking at it. But I suspect, as it normally would be the case, it's gonna be sufficiency of the proposal versus is it a good thing for us? What is the information? Whatever. I don't know. I haven't seen the work scope. So I think that should be on the agenda for sure. It's just moving ahead pretty quick.

Yes. Let us make sure that that is on the agenda. Okay? I would concur with that. Any other comments or discussion, Rick?

If you are going to make a presentation on fertilizer or phosphorus or whatever, you going to include it in the agenda so that we at least get a couple days to look at it before the meeting and don't have to study it while we are sitting here?

Okay. Yeah, it was for today's agenda and we really didn't have time to do it. So, yeah, let's make sure that that's available. I've got a ton of information. That's my whole background. That's my is my degree. So would be prepared to handle that in any way you want, but yeah, to have that available. Think it helps.

Despite what everybody said about sunshine, it can be included on the agenda for the next week.

That is true.

So to whatever extent people can get the materials ahead of time so we can at least review them, I think it makes, it helps the process and moves things along if we are educated before the meeting. Absolutely, Rick. Excellent. Excellent.

Yes. We will make that happen. Let's see. We have got Ralph, Chris, and Martin. Ralph?

Well, just we are under committee communications, I guess. Okay. Yeah. Just you made mention of the waterway workshop in July. Just a comment, if it's set up like the last town hall or the previous workshop, I think it was 2022, we're not gonna get where we need to get. I mean, it's well taken, a strategic plan as well, but also four minutes for comment, and that's it. That's not gonna get people who know what they're talking about who can contribute enough. So if there's some format where there could be back and forth versus just audience questions and that it whatever it is, needs to be looked at the format itself.

Okay.

Mean, have

to agree with Ralph on that because the last several water quality workshops, and I think I have been to most of them, I mean, the city completely controlled or dominated the workshop and the public really did not have much of a chance to do any kind of comment except for the four minutes at the end. All of the workshops went so long that the public comment period was so limited, nobody could talk.

Well, we have a new council in place and I think that from what I have heard, they are very, very willing and open to handling it in a far better manner. So I will also be in touch with them.

I appreciate the city has got a point of view and they have got a lot of knowledge and a lot of expertise, but there are people on the island that have knowledge and expertise and four minutes or squeezed out completely doesn't seem quite fair to the citizens.

Well, we can a lot of good points and a lot of good information can be made if it is done succinctly in four minutes. But I understand what you are saying. And we have Martin or I am sorry, Chris. So

moving on what Dan had said earlier and then what Renee said earlier is that, I think what we need to do is the agenda item needs to be, let's prioritize what we think we need to look at. Because what we've been doing is each individual item is one item, bubblers or whatever, right? But we're not talking about the whole picture. So I think we need to go back to what Dan was saying, if we have a 2035 plan, let's go back and look at that and actually maybe start to create some part of that plan and put that together.

Martin?

I think so one of my things with the Town Hall is, I do feel that the last Town Hall, the advisory committee wasn't particularly well informed by the councilors that set it up. It was kind of a bit of a blindside to me. Hopefully, moving forward, that's better. I would also say that the timing of it is pretty critical. I mean, doing a town hall in the afternoon is great if you're retired on the island. If you're actually working and you want to come give input, if you're a school teacher or someone who's working a regular nine to five job, you know, timing this thing, you know, one o'clock or 02:00 in the afternoon is not conducive for getting public input. And

I

think at the last meeting, I want to say there was maybe six to eight people from the general public that showed up. So if we're going to do it, I would say we need to advertise the heck out of it to get public comment and involvement from the community because there is so much misinformation, on that. So I would just question the timing of it, is July a right time because a lot of the snowboard residents are quite frankly not even here. Population is down significantly. So maybe that is something to consider.

On the agenda item for the next agenda, I think that we do need to actually whiteboard all of the different things that we have been discussing ad nauseam for a long time, whether it's AWT, whether it's septic tanks, whether it is drilling, whether it is bubblers and actually get all those onto a whiteboard and then look at these from a strategy point of view of how quickly can they be implemented, what we think is some kind of guide cost and actually use that as the first step towards forming a strategic plan. Right, exactly. Okay.

Any last comments? We will be adjourning within two minutes. Anything that anybody wants to add to that? If there are no more comments from the public or from the committee, and we're out of time. I will declare us adjourned. And I thank everybody for