Waterways Advisory Committee - Regular Meeting

All right, good morning Good morning All right, let's call this meeting order roll call please Member mascot here member Rohana Member hi here

Member Winter. Here. Member Lancaster.

Here.

And Chair Lewandowski.

Member Woodworth.

Oh, Member Woodworth.

Here.

And Chair Lewandowski. Here.

All right, if we can stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. 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. All right, we have a new member here, George Lancaster. Welcome. And then Martin Winter, you're sort of new back again also. Welcome. All right. We need to do an election for the vice chair, so we'll need a nomination for vice chair.

I nominate Elliot.

OK. Any more nominations? Okay, all right. Let's do vote for Elliott for vice chair Oh, sorry, I second the motion.

Thank you Chair Lewandowski, yes member Rohana Member winter Member hi. Yes Member Lancaster.

Yes

Member Woodworth.

Yes.

Member Mascot.

Yes. OK. Passes. OK. So now we'll have to switch seats.

Yep.

So just for the record, that was five yes, one absent, and one no.

Correct. Can I just say something, Mr. Chairman?

Yes. You're on. I'm on? OK.

I apologize to everybody this morning for wearing this hat, but I had a little surgery this week, and I feel the hat's less distracting than the big-ass bandage, excuse me, on my head. And besides, if I don't keep the hat on, the bandage might fall off. So if you don't mind, I'm going to leave it on for the meeting. I'm not trying to be incognito or anything. So I appreciate your indulgence, everyone. Thank you.

All right. While you're getting settled, can we have a motion to approve the agenda as written? I'll make the motion to approve. Second. Second. All right. All in favor?

Aye. The agenda? Yeah. No, not without the Marco Marine Police. Yep. Got it. I would like to make that motion.

into the you know put that into the record that it's they should be there it would appear they're not here at the moment so um can we clarify what the motion's for to approve the agenda is written okay so all in favor everybody won but no one no okay all right um approval of the minutes from last meeting i have a motion I'll make a motion. Okay. Second? I second. Okay. All in favor? Aye. All right. Thank you. Okay. Moving on. Number eight, nothing for old business. Number nine, new business, proposed fertilizer changes. Member Masker?

Okay. I guess I'm up. Let me begin with, I'm not gonna try to make this into a chemistry lesson. I do have a background in horticulture, a degree in fertilizer, turf grass, ornamental plants. I'd like to just bring up, let's see if I, I just switched everything around here. Martin, if you could just bring up the first proposed change. Due to the fact that we are, We have a blackout period, which is mandated by ordinance, which is not the best when it comes to the health of a lawn or grass growth or science. But it's what we have politically because, of course, heavy rains can wash fertilizer into our waterways and cause big problems. What we're doing now, and I've mentioned this before, but I'll go into a little bit more information on it, or depth, if you will. What we're doing is we are taking the opposite of what lawns use and need We are putting fertilizer out there from November through April or May. Grass is asleep. It's not dead. It's half there, basically. It's not using the fertilizer. And there's not enough rain or watering to get it into the roots. So it sits there. It sits there through the winter. And we get rain in May and then June and July. And it washes all that unused fertilizer into our waterways. And we wonder, when we get to June, why we often get algae blooms that are worse than are in the winter. Or if we get an occasional storm in January or February, grass hasn't used it, into the water it goes. So I did a lot of research. And I'm not going to make this really technical, because this is not the place for that. What would really, with the blackout period that we have to adhere to, What I have up on the screen would be I would ban fertilizer use on Marco Island other than for what you're looking at, April 15 through May 31, and October 1 through November 1. And one of the big reasons is that we're only allowed to help that grass grow on the shoulder seasons. What it needs the fertilizer is now. Now is when it would use it. Makes the grass roots deep, healthy, and gets it through the winter without needing fertilizer. But since we can't use it because of the blackout period, because of the threat of rain and washing it into our waterways, the best we can do is what you're looking at. And what that would do would be to lightly, and again, fertilizer. One of the things I'd like to point out is, and I'm going to give you a couple of pieces of information here. No fertilizer should ever be put on a Marco Island lawn containing phosphorus. That's the middle number. You've got nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium. Those are the three big components. You've got a lot of trace elements. They don't contribute to the problems in any significant way. You must never put phosphorus on a lawn. Grass doesn't use it. It doesn't need it. What is phosphorus for? It gives you fruit on your fruit trees. It gives you flowers in your flower garden. It doesn't do any good for grass. Phosphorus is a big problem in our pollution. We should never be putting any phosphorus, whether it be from the AWT or our lawns that we put fertilizer ourselves or have our landscapers do that job so there should and I know that it is also on the ordinances that it is recommended that no phosphorus ever be put on a Marco lawn and I think that should be an absolute requirement that it is Never put there. The other issue would be the nitrogen. And of course, the nitrogen, everybody wants slow release so that it can last. But quick release, if you were to fertilize correctly, even during the rainy season, which we can't, and you were to... check with the best weather predictions you can get, like the Wink Weather app. I'm not pushing Wink, but they all have them. That's what I use. And they've been pretty right. And if you did quick release, light fertilizing, even during the rainy season, which we're not allowed to, but if you did that and you timed it and it was done properly, you would get a very good, healthy lawn that you don't need fertilizer the rest of the year. Um, I think this, with what you're looking at, is the best that we can do with the ordinance that's in place. And I'm not suggesting that everybody go throw bags of fertilizer out there during the rainy season. That's absolutely not it. I'm also not suggesting that we ever do that at any time. I can tell you this, on my own lawn, I fertilize May 31st and October 1st lightly. the minimum and I also have to water very little. Another reason there is a component here that nobody's really talking about is you've got to mow your lawn at four inches or more. If you are closer to the ground, if you are doing it shorter than that, you're needing more water and you're needing more fertilizer, particularly if you're going to have a St. Augustine flora tamelan, which is what is most unmarkable. So with that in mind, The mowing height is as critical as the fertilizer and the watering requirements. That is a horticultural fact with the lawns we have. People come down from up north. They've got Kentucky bluegrass. They mow it two inches or one inch. They say, we should do that here. It gets killing their lawn and requiring fertilizer and water. And it doesn't work. So that's that. Martin, if you'd pull up the other page here, the guidelines page. This is a little bit more involved. I'm not going to go into all of the weeds here. What I do want to do is just point out what would be probably best if we could fertilize all year long or in the summertime. And I know it's going to create a lot of controversy. This is really following the science. And if you just read through that, I'm not going to get into each issue. This will be available on review. But if we could fertilize smartly and train the lawn care professionals that come to Marco. There are 72 at last count. That would be a bit of a job, but it could be done. And to inform the public, public education. you would definitely do a better job of containing this issue on the land, on the landscape, rather than allowing it to flow into the water. Very important to monitor the weather and to know what's coming. We get a lot of dry periods in the summertime. Just take a look around here. We got some rain last night for a minute. But we definitely would have to be smart. Now, I don't know if we can trust the public to do it. I don't know that they would pay attention. And I'll just give you some anecdotes here. I talk to people. The average attitude is, I came down here. I buy some expensive property. I want it to look great. And I don't want to hear about the lawn. I just want it green. I don't want any weeds. Take care of it. And that's the attitude of the public. That's what we have. People are not interested in being horticulturalists like I am. They're interested in just having a beautiful yard. Let me divert for one more minute on one other topic. Florida Friendly is great, and I attended the beautification meeting last week, and it was an excellent, excellent meeting that they had a workshop. And some things were brought out. Florida Friendly doesn't mean you can put in Florida native plants and walk away from them and have a great looking landscape. If you take a look at what Florida looked like before man came here, it's basically jungle, woods, weeds, stuff, lots of plants. People do take a look at a freshly planted Florida landscape, like Marco and Bloom, absolutely spectacular. But that's the first month they plant it. If you have got to do a lot of work to keep it looking like that, because it's going to go its own way and look like it wants to look, which is weedy, some scraggly. It's not the Marco Island look that people come down here to expect. So what I just want to say is you've got to maintain a Florida-friendly yard with even more work in certain ways, like trimming shrubs and keeping weeds out of your mulch, or getting the right kind of ground cover. It's not the same as grass. What my proposal would be to go something like what you're looking at, with tweaks on the screen, and to incorporate Florida-friendly aspects into your landscape. There's no silver bullet, there's no perfect. And I think if Olive Marco went Florida friendly, we'd have a lot of people complaining and saying, that's not the look I want. Now, the science and the look you want are maybe two different things. But I think we have to be reasonable. And I try to approach this with a reasonable point of view. Why are we taking this time to do fertilizer and landscape? Because what happens on the land affects our waterways and our canals. One of the last things I wanted to point out is that the AWT would affect about one third of the Marco Island area. Two thirds, at least, are affected by what we do in our lawns and around our homes. And the AWT, of course, the golf course, condos, median strips, very important. But what we do is even more important in that it is a bigger territory. and more runoff. And it's very important that if we were to drop the blackout period, which I'm not necessarily saying that the public could handle, but it is an idea. And if public participation and the public cared about it, It could be a long-term benefit to cleaning up our waterways and the water surrounding Marco Island, because that would be following the science and what the grass takes up. Once again, that grass takes up that fertilizer now, fast, really fast. 48, 72 hours, you water it in. Basically, then you get a bad rain. You're not really putting very much, if you do it the right way. It's very tricky. The public is a tricky thing to deal with. But this is just what I wanted to point out. I don't want to take up this whole meeting with this topic, but I'd love to get some questions or if anybody has any issues that they'd like to bring up. I know it's controversial, but it's the best that I was able to come up with, and hopefully it's a direction we can discuss. Justin?

okay so this has been on our education topic for a while so we have no problem there but if we want to go forward and and actually start to write a new ordinance for Marco is that under can we do that and submit it to the City Council

You can certainly propose. There is an existing ordinance, so you can certainly propose recommendations or changes to that ordinance to present it to city council, and then it would be ultimately city council's decision on voting on that. But you would obviously need to take a vote on that, and the majority of the committee would have to vote in favor of that.

OK. So are you looking to try to, you're trying to, try to make a change to the current ordinance that we already have, correct?

I would love to see freedom from the blackout period with definite controls over it. That's very dangerous to just take it away and to do anything you want. I'm not suggesting that. It's not where I'm coming from. I'm saying with education and with direction and with definitely the lawn care companies that come here. I think it's really important because I don't want to be misunderstood that, oh, we get rid of the blackout period, throw bags of fertilizer out there, and we're great. No, that is not it. So very carefully done. I just want to be really clear.

So I think where we're at is There's two pieces to this. One is let's go back to the education piece, and we want to do the education piece. So there is stuff out there, so maybe we should find that and then tweak that and then resubmit that. But then if you look at the ordinance.

The other one is within the ordinance, the guidelines within the ordinance, the first one I put up there, we keep the blackout period and at least, at the very least, we do what this suggests because it's going to help. Because not having all that fertilizer, I would definitely like to ban the fertilizer use in the winter, at the very least. I mean, because scientifically, that's what's indicated. I wouldn't want to see them putting fertilizer out from, say, mid-November until mid-April. It's just not needed, and it's just a problem.

Well, and I think that this whole thing goes back to the education piece, too, because the majority of the fertilizer is getting put out there by professionals. Correct. So if we go back to the licensing, whatever we call that, because you looked at that a while back. But if we go back into that and then give them an educational piece and say, here's when you can do it, what you can do, stuff like that, and maybe work on that a little better. Good question.

I had two comments, I think. If we're going to move this along at all, we need to have a specific ordinance amendment written so that we could vote on it. And then if we vote in the affirmative, that we pass it along to council to decide if the landscape or beautification committee would take it up and support that change as well. The second thing is I thought part of Elliot's comments were going to be about the landscape reform ordinance that I had proposed earlier this year that in all the turmoil that followed, we never took a vote on really to support submitting it to the beautification committee and the council. And I don't know whether they go hand-in-hand exactly because this was really dedicated to eliminating mandatory turf grass and allowing more flexibility in Florida-friendly landscaping. So I don't know if Elliot's tagging along on this or this is a completely separate issue.

Could I get comment from Justin?

Yeah. Okay. So you have an existing fertilizer ordinance. So everything you talked about fertilizer-wise as far as timing and all that, that's in the existing ordinance. So that ordinance, if this is what you'd like to do, would need to be revised. And then so you would need to do a strikethrough and an additions review. Draft that this committee would then vote on and improve in order for that to be forwarded to City Council Excuse me Separately, the things that Member Woodworth mentioned regarding the landscaping, that would be a separate stand-alone type of ordinance. Or if you're talking about just... eliminating wording concerning synthetic turf and some other things that are in the existing land development code then that would be a land development code change which would require the same type of process where you would do a strike through and additions draft And then have this committee vote on it and as member Woodworth mentioned coordinate that with the beautification and Advisory Committee and if you get support from both committees vote on it then you could forward that up to City Council for their consideration and So it would be, number one, an existing fertilizer ordinance revision, and number two, a land development code revision for the items that Member Woodworth mentioned.

Okay. I have a question about that and then a question about the other. I did get to see this, and I did read through it. And I do have some comments about it. Is it permissible to make a comment or two about what has just been brought up by Member Woodworth? Is that OK? If that's OK, I think that it's a very good direction to go minus the artificial turf. And I'll tell you why. that's basically a covering over the land. And it traps a lot of stuff underneath there that you really don't want. But that's not the biggest reason. I did some research. It'll eventually break down. And what is most of that stuff made out of? Plastics, petroleum products, things that eventually you leave it out there for enough years, it breaks down. First of all, it keeps the natural environment from being able to progress and to do its thing. The leaching of... Mr.

Chair, I'm very relevant to this point. I believe it is allowed. It's just not allowed within the right-of-ways or within public utility easements. Because I have seen applications and permits go through where single-family homes put in synthetic turf just not in the right-of-way and not in a public utility easement.

If I could say one last thing about that, for the environment, it's not the best thing. It's not great. But the rest of that proposal is excellent, and I'd love to review it and get into it, because I think that could be a good component of what we're talking about, minus the artificial turf as being encouraged. I think permitted is one thing, encouraging it is another. So we can talk about that. The other thing is I would say then, Mr. Chair, I would like to see us talk about the proposals that I have mentioned in three different portions. One would be the shoulder season. The other would be the guidelines. And I would say the other would be involving the blackout period. So I would say there are three components there that would be something that this committee could discuss.

Yeah, I mean, I think the challenge for us, quite honestly, on all of this fertilizer stuff is not so much reworking an ordinance or doing that stuff. It's actually the enforcement of it. You know, we put through many years ago a licensing type thing for the landscapers. And there's, I guess from the numbers you just provided, 72 of them. As of now? As of now. I would wager that there's most probably more people than that that are actually putting fertilizer down. And I believe that under the Collier mandate and the Florida mandate, each individual person needs to be licensed to apply fertilizer, which is something that we're not doing. We're generally giving a truck a sticker and saying, hey, Mr. Truck, you have a sticker. And any person that's in that is doing it. I think the bigger issue is just education of people. You mentioned there's obviously an ideal time, but I don't think any landscape or any person on this island, minus maybe a few, is going to sit there and actually watch an app and go, oh, it's going to rain in two days' time. Quick, let's get out there and put the fertilizer in so that it can get watered in and sucked up by the plants. So I think that there's an enforcement issue, which is most probably the biggest thing. I mean, I see these bug guys come around with vats of some kind of chemical. I have no idea what's in it. And just spraying ad nauseum on people's lawns. So again, if we're going to try and control it, we've got to... put together with this change of ordinance some pretty good measurable enforcement actions. Otherwise, we're just going to get back to where we are now. I mean, I think it's better than it was, because clearly those people are aware that they are supposed to apply and get a license and all that good stuff. But without the enforcement piece, I think you're kind of pushing a little bit on a rope.

So then I would say then we would concentrate on the shoulder seasons. And I would definitely like to see a ban in the winter fertilizing. I mean, if what you say would be where we'd have to go. And it may be, because enforcement may be impossible.

I think you need to come back, Elliot, with a very concise, this is what I would like to propose. Because to me, I'm a bit like, this seems a little bit here, here, and here.

I think what I want to know, before we go too far, is everybody in agreement that we want to do something with the fertilizer? Let's say the ordinance part first, because there's the education piece is another piece. Is anybody against it? Let's put it that way.

No. Certainly no. I'm not against it, but I think as Martin said, we need a concise document, a precise amendment that black lines out what you want taken out and that I kind of don't.

I think the first part of what a mind change, let Elliot go. Just spell it out with red lines and let's all follow the ordinance and see how it falls.

This was just for education and initial discussion. I didn't want to get too exact because that would be more than we were actually trying to address at this time. I just wanted to get the topic explored, brought out, discussed, and then I'll be more than happy to do that.

Well, I think we have a few pieces. One is we'll have to bring code enforcement in here to talk to them and see what they say, too. But let's go back to help you write this here at this moment. You want to open up the summer but not allow April 15th to May 31st, October 1st, November 1st.

Oh, no, no. Have them bring back the red line thing because – like Rick was saying, that's just the cleanest way.

I'm just trying to save it to be two more months down the road. No, no, no. I would say April the 15th through November 1st would be when fertilizer would be applied, not in the winter.

Oh, okay, you're opening it up even longer.

Right, not in the winter, but that would involve the blackout season, and that's the controversial part.

Okay, so does anybody have an issue with fertilizing during the blackout season? If we put restrictions on there with no phosphorus... And you said a 10-foot. Yeah. Well, it was already a 10-foot minimum buffer. That's our code already. Right.

That's ours. You know, Martin, why don't you bring that up? Just for a moment, the comparison chart, just page one. Marco Island is the first one. Marco Island draft ordinance. So that people – I don't know if you'll be able to read this because it's going to be pretty small print. But – as a comparison to the city of Naples, Collier County. I've got more here on other pages, but it's not that applicable. But we can see how we compare at this time. Now, that's old, right? We've already adopted.

Right, right. That's how it is. That's what we want. So it says draft ordinance, but this has been actually adopted.

Yeah, we have. Yeah, this is in place. So I'm just clarifying it. Exactly. Yeah, it says draft ordinance. So I think that's important. I mean, a comparison is important to see what other municipalities are doing in our area.

I was intrigued at what you're proposing and a little lost in what exactly the change was. the red line change or strike through with changes would totally clarify it but also you know got a good perspective in calling some horticulturists about this and I think bringing instead of just code enforcement bringing a horticulturist in here to explain some things because you know I got a short education and it opened my eyes to to what we're doing with fertilizer and a healthy lawn protects water quality exactly so it's it's a balance it can't be and set dates you know like the Florida guidelines are not set dates because if you're licensed And that's part of the problem is, from what I'm hearing, is there's not actually licensed applicators out there. But if you're licensed, you then should be able to determine when a lawn is failing or dying or a shrub or tree is dying and be able to save it so its roots don't die. The roots... Protect our water quality the roots are the filter so when we just do a sledgehammer like cut off it doesn't account for when we have droughts and we have cold spells and when plants are having trouble in or out of that timeframe, so While we've adopted a more restrictive thing beyond what Florida recommends it's it's taking a sledgehammer to a problem and not when if you have truly licensed applicators and which is not easy to get and that's probably part of the problem is people out there applicating don't actually have the license but those people should be able to look at a plant, save it when it needs to be saved, to keep the roots healthy, to keep the filtering going on, to keep the water as clean as possible. So I think bringing a horticulturist in here to explain that better than I did would be beneficial if we do anything with this ordinance.

Let me also mention two things. You mentioned something really important. Those good, healthy grassroots, particularly the swales, when we start parking and making ruts in the swales and killing them, of the swales, they're there to take the pollutants out of the water before it gets into our waterways. And so the more we protect the swales, I'd like to see a Swale Protection Act, but that's another story I'm not trying. The other thing is, If I did get a horticulturalist or two, you're going to find a disagreement, particularly if we got the Southwest Florida Conservancy in here. They are absolutely adamant their sacred cow is you do not fertilize during the rainy season no matter what. Doesn't matter if the grass needs it, we'll use it, takes it up. If it worked, Their attitude is, you will not fertilize during the rainy season. And they will come out, and they will fight this tooth and nail. So we can get horticulture. And they've got horticulturalists on their side, too. So that's why it's controversial. But I would be more than happy to work in that direction if this committee wants it.

I think it's beneficial to bring a professional in if we're going to modify.

We probably have to bring two, or at least from each side.

To be fair. If there's defined sides. I don't, I mean, if it's science, it's science.

Well, I didn't say you see what you think.

I guess it all depends who's looking at it. Following the interpretation.

Right. Thank you. I'd like to make a motion that Elliot draft up his model ordinance, that he take it before the beautification committee, get their response and their comments, and then bring it back to this committee for further discussion.

Should we not have, should we not have a, was that a motion? Yeah. Oh, so it needs a second. I'll second it. So it, rather, I'm just saying maybe bring, have that discussion to educate even Elliot before he goes to another committee.

That's fine too. He can consult with as many experts as he wants before he drafts his ordinance. run it by the beautification committee, bring it back to us with the benefit of all the knowledge he's obtained, and we'll evaluate it and vote on it.

But do we need the beautification committee might want to talk to the horticulturists too?

Hey, it's up to them. I think if you're going to bring the horticulturists into this meeting, you extend an invite to the beautification people to say we're having this as a discussion topic, please show up. Yeah, invite them to show up. Two birds with one stone. Sure. Pretty straightforward stuff.

Mr. Chair, two things. One is that it shouldn't be a new ordinance. It should be a revision of an existing ordinance. So I think the motion needs to be modified to state that. And then the second item is before you take a vote, you'll need to call for public comment.

Okay. Alderman, the ordinance.

Well, do we really need a motion? That was my question. I mean, can't you just work on it and bring it back? And then I thought our motion would be if we want to push it forward to city council or to beautification.

I can do it either way, whatever this committee would like me to do.

Just trying to move this along.

Put it on a future agenda with invited guests for all of us to ask questions of. And then based on that, then go further with it.

I am perfectly willing to also find and invite opposing points of view because I don't have an agenda. I just want to go with the science the best we can with enforcement being a major part of it. So on the bottom line at the end, that's just my angle. That's all. So I'm really happy to do what you said.

I think the other comment that I would make to Elliot is if you're going forward with this, you really need to make sure that you're addressing all the stakeholders. Because I'm sure that when you reach out to the golf courses on the island and say, hey, I think that we should change the amendment to this, bearing in mind that if AWT takes hold, the product that they're going to get delivered is going to have zero nutrients. They're going to be in a different situation. Can golf course be exempted?

Unfortunately, not zero nutrients.

OK, but you're going to put those people in a position, is my understanding, that if this goes through and we change it, they're going to get a product that has less nutrients. So they're going to measure and they're going to backfill the nutrients that they need to keep the golf course the way they want it and their members want it. I think that's what happens.

Can the golf course fertilize right now in the summer?

That is a good question.

Well, not according to the law.

Not according to the ordinance that I know.

But they're getting free fertilizer anyway just by using reuse water. They got plenty.

There's plenty of it in there. Correct.

All right. So do you want to keep a motion or do you want to just come back next meeting with the revised? piece, the revised ordinance.

Why don't I come back next meeting with a revised ordinance? Now, the next meeting is only three weeks away, to the best of my knowledge, because this is a late meeting and that's going to be a regular time. May need to get this done correctly looking at September, but I'll try for, I'll talk to Justin about that.

Do you want us then, do you want to see if we can get code enforcement to come in for That would be great in August.

If you could do that. So that we know what we're dealing with because I don't want to propose anything that can't be done.

Right. So you want to keep a motion?

I'll tell you what. Let me try for August.

Okay.

Well, I made a motion because I liked it on the record and I like it formalized. I'll get it. We'll go with it. Keep wandering all over the place. Let's have a precise path. either agree on it or don't agree on it.

All right, so your motion would be to have Elliott come back next meeting with the redlined ordinance.

Draft amendment to the current ordinance. Okay, without going to beautification and all that. If he can get into beautification. And if there's somebody here from beautification and public comment that would like to make a comment, maybe we could hear from them first. But that's my motion.

I'm probably not going to be able to get speakers and people to come that quickly. But I can do the redlining of the ordinance. That I can do, yes. I'll agree to that.

All right. Yeah, we're good here. Can we do public comment?

Linda Foster?

Hi, everybody.

Lisa Foster, Marco resident. I'm going to be jumping all over the place because you guys hit a couple of topics. Just as an aside, I don't believe.

Excuse me, ma'am. So comments should be limited to the item that was discussed.

I will comment on everything that was discussed. It just wasn't very, it wasn't linear.

But if you have anything, comments for what was not discussed, there's a later public comment session.

yep gotcha so if I was queen for a day I would ban turf personal opinion I think the ordinance does currently read that you cannot install it if it's visible from the street I might not be up to speed on that but that was the last version of that that I saw if that helps clarify it at all on private on residential property But that was a while back. The ground may have shifted. As a test case, I got owls in Owlboro, and I stopped all my fertilizer and all my, you know, pesticides. And that was two years ago, and my lawn is perfectly happy. So, you know, I don't know if I've got... my my grass doesn't look lovely but you know i think we can survive without it um my recommendation would be to follow um mr woodworth's um suggestion that you know you craft a draft and because the current ordinance really isn't enforced so it's really more of an educational tool in my mind and you know not really about code enforcement because it's it's a cumbersome big thing and it requires compliance as opposed to enforcement in my opinion so I would go that way with it and it I would say do something hybrid not when you can't but also when it's recommended that you can so that the public is made aware of you know the smart windows for application opinion and And I think that that might be it. Yes. Oh, and the changes for reuse, the AWT implementation is years away. I think making allowances for what's going to happen on the golf courses when they lose that nutrient content in their reuse water, I don't really think that that's a consideration at this point because we're so far from it. And you can always make allowances for that in the future once we implement. And that's all. Thank you.

Thank you. Any more?

Roger Hull.

Good morning. Roger Hull, 1260 Osprey. I came to Marco 20 years ago. At that time we had the finest waters on the west coast. I could swim right in front of my house. I could swim, clean out the bottom of my boat. It was beautiful, pristine waterways. Then we came the STRP. I bitterly fought it. I ran for council opposing it. The STRP took us from beautiful waterways to now failed waterways. We there's a report out. I don't know why we're discussing all this fertilizer because there's a report out from the cut from the state I think we're a stage for failure some of the worst worst waterways in the in the state of Florida and It's primarily a result of the phosphates in the reuse water that we're spraying all over our resorts medians golf courses and hotels That's where the report you state came out and told us where the problem is the lots have gotten smaller the irrigate I've been The two houses on each side of me have been redeveloped 10,000 square foot houses on 11,000 square foot lots you could take a can and do the irrigation and The water, the phosphates are all coming from all this reuse water that we do not treat. And the reason we don't really treat it is gonna cost $4 million to redo the treatment plant. So that's my, it's just, you just look at the wrong end of the horse. Look at where the phosphates are coming from. They told you. You must have read the reports. Excuse me, that's it.

Just so you know, the AWT's already been to council, so that's why we don't discuss it. Any more?

Victoria Myers.

Good morning, Victoria Myers, Bluebonnet Court. Thank you for what you do on this committee. I see you all getting along a little better today. Thank you. I am on the Beautification Committee. I'm not representing the entire Beautification Committee, but I'll just bring you up to speed of what we have been talking about. I have offered to bring Rick's white paper to the committee, and they're very interested in hearing it. We talked about it briefly about the different facets of not requiring as much lawn as is currently required. I'm not sure what that reads in the code, but I think there's a requirement. We could use maybe more plants in Florida-Friendly, and I would disagree that some Florida-Friendly and native plants can be beautifully done and can almost be self-maintaining. We're working on all that. I think we are not going to be as interested in supporting artificial turf. My personal opinion, and I am not a scientist, is I don't want to change fertilizers for microplastics. That would be where I would start, but we would need experts to help us with that. I have seen AstroTurf in front yards, so I don't know how that's happening. I appreciate you looking at this. It's a lot to get your arms around, because it does involve everybody who's putting things on the lawn, whether it be the homeowner or the professionals. I am trying to protect our neighborhood as a matter of fact across the canal from us I have seen them cut coconuts and fronds off and lawn debris and Let push them spray them and I got videos of it right into the canal and I was really upset But I thought before I go to land development or excuse me to code enforcement with this I'm gonna go talk to them so I went over took a video and Do we have a problem, ma'am? And I said, yes, we do. I explained what it was, and they left. They have been back this last month, and they have made every effort to blow only away from the canals. So I think a lot of it is education, speaking to everyone. I would like to see this go forward in a motion in both two places, in an ordinance upgrade and in the land development code. And it's going to be a lot of education. Yes, but it's worth doing So please move forward. Thank you.

Thank you

Mr.

Chair, I just realized something. So a land development code revision would actually have to go through the planning board to then city council. So that would be another step in there.

Yep. Well, right now, we're only looking at the ordinance part, correct?

Exactly. That's the instructions, to the best of my knowledge, for me to get the ordinance and to red line out what I would change and to put in the changes. And to bring it to the August meeting. That is what I understand. OK. That's the motion.

OK. All right. Ray? I second the motion. Any more discussion? No. All right. Roll call.

Member High?

Yes.

Member Lancaster?

Yes.

Member Woodworth?

Yes.

Chair Lewandowski?

Yes.

Member Winter? Yes. Vice Chair Maskew?

Yes.

Okay. Thank you. Moving on. Staff communications?

I've got two items. One, I'd like to introduce Mike Malbachan. He's a new project manager in the Public Works Department. And he's going to be attending these meetings. And ultimately, after about six months or so, he'll be your staff liaison. Mike has a PhD from Walden University in Minnesota, an MBA. He last worked in Monroe County as a mitigation administrator for sustainability and resilience. He has worked with Collier County as a grants manager. the Florida Division of Emergency Management as a project manager, and the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs as a compliance auditor. So I just wanted to introduce Mike to you, and then maybe after the meeting you can come up and say hi. Then the second item is There has been some emails over the past month or so from FWC. The three no-wakes signs that the city reinstalled in the Tigertail Lagoon Sand Dollar Island channel, we had gotten from FWC the authorization to install those a couple of years ago. but recently someone else at FWC said that well the ordinance that that the county had for that expired and so actually those are not authorized anymore so the the city has a choice of either removing the signs or STARTING A NEW APPLICATION TO PUT IN NO WAKE SIGNS AT THAT ENTRANCE CHANNEL GOING TO TIGER TAIL LAGOON. BUT SINCE THIS IS THE WATER WAYS COMMITTEE, I WANT TO BRING THAT TO YOUR ATTENTION AND YOU GUYS LOOK AT ATONS AND The question now are they saying the placement of them or just period the whole area they're saying the permit for it no longer exists, okay, so either we need to take them out or start the process of very long process of applying to get a Authorization to to install those and originally that permit was for Collier County and But since that's in an area that the city now manages, the city would have to go through that application process.

Is there a large cost to that?

Yeah with with there is because of the length of the permitting you would need consultants we would need Bath metric surveys cross-section. So that channel and all that. So yes, it would be something that would need to be budgeted for But I wanted to bring that up to this committee's Attention to see if if you wanted to support Applying for that or this is the lagoon in front of hideaway.

I

This is, yeah, between Hideaway Beach and the Tiger Tail Sand Dollar, that flow channel.

Could they put a no-wake sign on their property facing the water?

Well, Hideaway doesn't have property in the channel.

No, but he's saying on the beach. Visible from the, if you're coming in the lagoon and the beach is on the left. Like where the T-Grain signs up. Could they be, is that an option for them?

Yeah, I'll have to take a look at that to see where their property limits are, but obviously it's not going to be as visible as where they are now, which is out in the middle of the channel.

Something's better than nothing is the thought. I would propose on that mindset that we look and see if we can address that, because it sounds like the other issue is going to be very long and arduous. I don't think we have an option but to pursue it, and my question would be, how did we get to this point? How did this slip through the net?

Yeah.

Well, as I mentioned, you have FWC where we had – when Sand Dollar Island and this project was restored, you started having boat traffic go through that lagoon. You had jet skis going full speed all the way down to Tigertail Park. And so there was a lot of concern about that. The hideaway had its consultant research that. They found that there was actually permitted no wake signs there in the past, which through all the hurricanes and everything had gone away. So that consultant reached out to FWC. FWC at the time said, yes, they are. You wouldn't need to do anything except put them in and then let us know what the coordinates are because you're restoring something that was there before. Now, fast forward two years, FWC is looking at it and saying, well, no, the authorization for those expired when the county didn't renew it two years ago. So that's where we are.

So between the county handing that off to us, someone dropped the ball, didn't realize that that was going to expire in two years' time, and now we're in this.

Well, there was lots of people that didn't even know they were there before. So after some research, the consultant found out that there were some signs there, and that was the path of least resistance to put them up. We had emails from FWC saying, yes, it's okay, go ahead and do it.

But they've done a 180 So I for me personally from a waterway stance, I don't think we have any option But I mean that needs to be signposted.

Otherwise, you're gonna exactly what you just described You're gonna get people going in there on jet skis and and ripping it up when you got So if that's the consensus of the committee, I'll reach out to the Hideaways on the beach to Not the hideaway side, but the other side can we put on there too? I

It is a critical wildlife area, so that would need, essentially it would need to be permitted also.

Well, maybe they can see the concern, FWC, and see if they could add a sign to the bird.

That all depends who you ask at FWC.

Justin, why would they oppose no wake signs?

They don't oppose it. They're just saying that the permit that was there authorizing them in the past expired, is what they're saying. I'd make a motion that we support the city or just this is not an agenda item So if you'd like we can bring it back at a future Meeting where you can take a vote on it since this is just during staff communications I'm informing the committee of this so it's for you to decide if you want to Pursue Getting permits for it. Then we can put it on a future agenda. You can take a vote and And then we can forward that up to City Council to see if we can get some budgeting for it.

Why don't we not just direct it directly to City Council now? I don't think it needs our representation. I mean, just send it to City Council. Get someone to raise it as an issue on the City Council agenda.

Yeah, but it has to be put on a City Council agenda for that.

Well, I move it comes on our next agenda, unless you could figure out a way to bypass that and get it on council's agenda.

Yeah, I would suggest you've got an agenda item for upcoming topics of next meeting, and if you'd like to discuss that meeting and vote on it, then we can add it.

Okay.

Any more? That's it.

Any other staff communication?

Can I ask two more questions? Yeah. What's the status of the water testing company?

They have agreed to subcontract whatever they don't have the equipment for to a company that does. Just like they subcontracted Greenwater Labs, there's other labs that they can do that with. That is the cleanest and quickest way to address that issue. Otherwise, we would have to terminate the contract. advertise and take in proposals for replacing that company.

So they're going to subcontract, they're going to start testing again?

Yes.

Because I've looked and there's no recent tests on the website.

That's a good question. That's another issue. I don't know if you're aware, but anything that goes on the website has to meet ADA requirements as far as, and I remember Ohana's not here, but he ran into this issue where he wanted to put something on the website, and it has to meet ADA. ADA digital requirements for low vision and you know people with no vision so that means it has to be converted and we've reached out to the lab to do that they don't They don't have the current capability to do that, or else it's not in their contract to do. It's going to create a lot more work for them, so we can't publish those. However, if we get requests, we can respond to requests and send those out.

So I have to request copies of the reports?

Yeah, but you can just send me an email. You don't have to do a freedom of information request.

Not a FOIA request?

No, you can send me an email.

So since we're talking about the testing, have they done the testing in Alice Capri and Goodland? Because that was kind of when this all started.

Yes, but those testing sites haven't been established yet. But I would suggest here...

rather than just me picking a place you guys should deliberate and figure out where would make the most sense of where you would like to see those testing okay can i ask a follow-up question to that is the city going to fund all of this conversion process for everything that we're accustomed to seeing on the websites

No, not unless it's budgeted. You've got to be kidding me. No, what the city puts on there, we make sure that it's ADA compliant. But anything else from outside agencies, we get, you know, the lab reports are one thing. Anything we get from an outside agency that needs to be published or posted needs to be ADA compliant.

Well, since we have a couple of city councilors here, could... Somebody take that up at city council because it seems crazy to me that there were reports and documentation that were on the city's website and now because of this new ADA compliance thing, they're not going to be on the website. And what happens is when you look and you don't see them, you sort of forget that they were there. And I have talked to Joan about this and She did tell me that the mandate to make it ADA compliant was extended for another year or two, but the city already canceled the contract with the company that was converting data to put it on the website. So it's not really just a waterways committee, but I think it applies to any documents that go up on the city website. So I'm just curious. Bringing that up as a point, and then I have one final question and I'll be done. Are we obligated to give you a budget request for our budget in order that it gets incorporated into the overall city budget, or will we get the usual $10,000 that we never spend?

All right. I could talk to you offline about that, but as you're aware, the... There was an across-the-board operating budget cut of 5%, and that did affect this committee's budget.

So is it gone or reduced by 5%?

Reduced by 5,000.

So it was cut by 50%.

Correct.

Do you still need us to prepare a budget for our $5,000?

I don't need you to do that, but if you'd like to do that, that would be helpful. Thanks, Justin.

Okay, any more staff communication? Okay, city council communication?

Sorry, I have a couple questions. Sorry, go ahead. So the bathymetric survey, this keeps coming up that we're collecting this data through a third party and we need to get it overlaid onto the city information. Where are we with that process? Because this is six months, I think, down the pipe now.

Yeah, and that's the marine unit of the MIPD that's leading that effort. They're not here today. I don't have any further information on that.

But I think they're leading the effort to get the data, but at some point we've got to take, I don't think that's an MIPD task to get the overlay done. I think they're volunteered to collect as much data as they could, and we have some private individuals that are also doing that. So when we've got that database, I see that as a city task to say we've now got the data that's fresh and we got the data from 25 years ago. Can we overlay the two?

There's nothing budgeted to overlay one on the other. We can provide both, but that would take staff effort and also budget, and we don't have that.

Here's my kind of concern Justin with that is that we've been talking about this and we pushed forth the idea of like let's get someone to come in and do it and then we went down this well we have no money so we'll kind of get it done for free or a less expensive path. This is a key if we're going to really address our waterways issue that is a key data point that we need. What the waterways were 25 years ago and what they are now so that we can see what the sediment buildup is we can start taking the next steps. And if what we're saying is we don't have any money to do it, I get that. The budget is in a horrible situation. But how are we ever going to get these issues addressed?

I'll repeat what I said. We can make both available. There are no staff or resources budgeted for that. And I just want to remind the committee that the committee cannot create work for staff. That's not what advisory committees do.

Okay. So I just feel on that comment, I just feel that I've been pushing this narrative for quite some time and now we're at the point where we're like, hey, we've got some data and we've got some data and we can't put the two together because we have no money and the staff can't do anything that the advisory committees want them to do. Is that a correct read?

I'll repeat again, we can provide both. The information is available on both. The bathymetric information that was done, that's already been provided, that's over 20 years old, and you have the new stuff. The effort to combine those, overlay, that's not something in-house staff can do. We would have to outsource that, and for that to happen, that would need to be budgeted, and there's no budget right now for that.

Well, could I make a motion that we use the $10,000 that we haven't spent for this year's budget to go towards doing what Martin's talking about to pay for the cost of overlaying data.

Yeah. What I can do is have a consultant give us a proposal for that, which I can then provide to you. And if it's under that, then that's...

I thought Seakeeper was doing some of it also.

They're getting raw data for the current stuff.

I thought she had said that she was also going to look into the overlay.

Yeah, I don't know.

I'll ask and we'll find out.

They spoke in front of this committee, so your recollection is as good as mine.

But would you all support that using our $10,000 we have ever spent? to go towards that project? Well, yeah, but I don't know what it would be.

I mean, I think this is a critical, I mean, I just look at the money that has been spent. We have spent half a million dollars, half a million dollars on Harper report, Jacobs report, and now we're at the point where this could be really important to the way forward. Martin, I'm supporting it. Yeah, no, I know you are. I'm just making that point that we, historically, we've spent, and I don't know what the cost of this is. Maybe it's 10, 20 grand. I have no idea. But we've already expended a huge amount, a huge amount. And now we're saying, well, we can't go forward because of this.

Well, Martin, could you help us out and get a price?

Yeah, I was just reminded that at your last meeting here, you voted for Member Rohana to use the funds for what he was working on as far as the muck. You may recall that vote for the $10,000.

Yeah, we don't have a quote from him yet, but yeah.

So that money may be already committed unless you vote to reverse that and then commit it to this.

I was under the understanding, and I wasn't actually present at the meeting, but I was under the understanding that when that happened, it was like in order for him to, this is the, Ralph going out and doing some surveying work. Is this the point we're discussing?

Yes. He was going to get some equipment to do it. Basically do it.

I think the number that was totally around was hundreds of dollars.

$350.

I will personally write him a check for $350 to get that done, and let's take our money that we've got in the committee and use it towards this.

I agree. Let's do it. Let's move on.

What happens if Sea Keeper comes around in a week and says, here's your bath amount, you know, should we check with them?

Yeah, absolutely. I don't want to throw money away. We don't have it, clearly.

Okay, any more staff communication?

My other actual question is, what's the status, I don't know if this falls to you or not, but what's the status with the code boat? I think I heard that it was going to be delivered very shortly.

I don't have any information on that. Maybe one of the city councillors that's here can provide some information on that regarding...

They were training a person.

I know that.

Could I follow up on your question? I sent an email to the acting chief of police to follow up on the meeting that I had previously that I sent you all the notes on about how they were gonna patrol the canals and what their schedule was what they were gonna do and and obviously the acting chief had a lot on his agenda, but I have a note to follow up with him and try and schedule that, and I hope by the next meeting I'd be able to have met with him and provided you with an update.

Okay. Or we can get it from the Marine Unit.

You probably got to get it from the chief or the head of code enforcement. Or you could invite them to the next meeting. Let them tell us directly.

Code enforcement is part of the agenda right now. All right, any more? All right, city council communication. Any?

Good morning, Steven Gray. Thank you. Great conversation. Just a couple points of interest. If there was a Collier County permit on those no-wake signs, why wouldn't it be incumbent upon the county to go get their permit? An update that, you may contemplate that, because to me it's like all of a sudden they had a permit process, they didn't execute correctly, and now we've got to clean it up. That just, I'm not sure that's a dazzling government performance.

The management of that Tiger Tail Lagoon flow channel shifted to the city when the city permitted the ecosystem restoration project. Okay. So it's now within the city's...

So Collier County exported it to us. No, that's fine. Just in the back of my mind, boy, I really wish our Parks Foundation... footprint could be expanded so we can create more fundraising. My reaction to half this conversation, I'd love to contribute to some of these projects. I would love to get a tax deduction to be able to get us to the right outcomes. So that's something I will keep in the back of my mind. How can we channel more of the community's motivated interest into some of these projects? I really wanted to share, Elliot, loved your presentation. I think it's a great conversation. I try and track human nature. 73 fertilizer companies. My guess is that fertilizer and insecticides and pesticides is one of the better profit margins. So they want to put the stuff down whether you ask them or not. I think this comes down to really trying to enhance our communication, which was a great conversation here. The other thing, we've got a lot of people with a second home here. When do they leave? April 1st to go home and get their taxes done. When do they come back? Somewhere around November 1st. Your suggested windows are excellent, but the problem is I've just come back after six months away, and so, hey, I'm putting on my shorts and T-shirts. November 1st, I'm going to throw some fertilizer out. So I think the communication to all of our homeowners is about how do we do better stewardship and for them to be mindful of it. But I've always thought code enforcement can do more on a number of fronts, but that's a different conversation. But we've got to educate these people. I think a lot of the people would think more intelligently if they just were more aware. But thank you for the conversation.

Thank you. Thank you. Okay, no more city council. Okay, public comment?

Mr. Hall?

Yes. Roger Hall, 1260 Osprey. When I came here in 2005, Mako Island was the fishing mecca of the United States. We had the best fishery in the country. That's why I bought a home here. I'm a fly fisherman. For 10 years, beautiful waters. I could swim in my canal. I could see the bottom of my seawall six feet down. No problem. Kids came. Grandkids came. Wonderful. Starting in 2013, the water started deteriorating. I wouldn't swim in that sewer if you paid me right now. Nobody swims in the canals. We have a waterfront resort with contaminated canals that nobody can swim in. And the reason is, is the phosphates coming from all this reuse water. And as clear as a bell, if I rediddle around with all this worrying about when we put the, excuse me, fertilizer on or off, We are now a barren wasteland as a fishery. The fishing in this area has gone down precipitously. My fishing guide caught one big top in this year. He usually catches over 100. This pollution is radiating down the coast and killing the fishery south of us, and the migrating fish are now doing a bypass. We've killed this fishery and we need to restore it by getting rid of the phosphates in the reuse water. This other stuff is never gonna make any difference. Thank you. There's 10 times more phosphates in the reuse water than there is in all this other stuff you guys are talking about.

Any more public comment?

Lisa Foster.

Hi, everybody. Lisa Foster, Marco resident. I was coming to speak for your member, Rohina. He reached out to me on two parts, on the ADA compliance that was discussed earlier, and he sent a letter to council, which I'm happy to share with any of you guys if you want to give me your email as well as the documents that he gave me. um he is very much in alignment with wanting ada compliance but the way that it stands right now it is a huge barrier to any kind of volunteerism because that responsibility has been placed on anybody that wants to do a presentation be it a be it a citizen or a committee member and it's having a really chilling effect on citizen engagement and I don't understand it because, as I've heard, that compliance isn't required until 2027, and we're already seeing this forced upon us, and it's really disappointing. I'd like to see a change there. The other thing that he had was a fabulous presentation that he was going to give in June. He tried to bring me up to speed on it and I will admit I am way out of my depth and I told him I'd try and pitch it and I can't do it. I won't do it justice. He is the subject matter expert on this. I'm happy to get it for you but the point was that he was scheduled to give this in June and he planned his vacation around that And then that meeting was canceled and basically canceled his presentation permanently. So having the process, changes in the process, cancel an individual's opportunity is really disappointing. And what I would hope that you would all do at this point is either have a motion and a second and a vote to make sure that he goes on the next agenda with this presentation of the waterway assessment that he worked hard on. And I was looking forward to hearing it. Or by consensus that you direct staff that this goes on the next agenda so he can have the opportunity Because I know you all want to respect each other and you know how hard it is to create this Content and how hard it is to get it on an agenda because of the limited time and how your meetings have been truncated so far So, you know, I'm I'm a big Ralph fan So I hope you guys get a chance to see his presentation and if not, I have the documents if you'd like to read them Thank you

Any more public comment? OK. Next meeting will be the third Thursday. Everybody? Yes?

I think I was on the agenda.

No, you're under committee communications. 15. We're only at 13. Oh, sorry. OK. All good for next meeting? OK. proposed agenda job topics for next meeting I think we had already moved Ralph's presentation to next meeting already yes originally it was going to be on this meeting but when he said he wasn't available we put it on the August agenda right and then the other parts that we've talked about today would be the your fertilizer. And then the Tiger Tail Lagoon signs over there and see where we're at on that. And then let's bring up the bathymetric survey for next meeting and see where we're at. And then the testing sites for the water.

And the Marco Marine Police.

Yes, they're on the agenda. Could I add

My landscape reform ordinance, that again, because I'd like to at least get it up to a vote as to whether it gets forwarded to council or not.

Well, if it's a reform, we've got to do it redlined. No, no, this is different than Elliott's. You're talking about for land use?

So it's the planning board? This is the landscape reform ordinance proposal.

But that would be the same. You're talking about the land use one? No.

This is about the turf. About lifting, basically, the obligation to put in turf grass, which is different than fertilizer.

Is that a planning board issue?

Yes, it goes to the planning board. But that's fine. We can bring it up.

Can I just ask? I would support that with the omission of the encouragement omitting the artificial turf. That would be my... Well, when it comes up... We could talk about it.

We could talk about it. I'm flexible if that's a big deal.

And then I'd like to see if we can get code enforcement for the meeting also for the ultimate landscape ordinance.

Great. Anything else that you guys want?

That's a lot.

I do have a topic. I've got a couple of slides that I'd like to put up on the other end.

Yeah, yeah. We'll come up to you. Hold on. Sorry? For next meeting, we're talking about?

This is for a topic for next meeting.

Oh, OK. Go ahead.

So this is basically an issue that I think we have that is pretty prevalent across the island, and that's sea wool. This is a seawall replacement that was done, very, very poorly installed, with no tie-in to the existing seawall on either side. And of course, what happens there is when it rains, all the soil that's behind the seawall flows out the gap into the canal. So it creates a potential dredging issue because it's putting all this stuff in there. And it's amazing to me that we basically don't regulate this. There is no city inspection that takes place, to my knowledge, when a seawall is constructed. And some of the people that are putting these seawalls in are, in my opinion, not doing a very good job from an engineer perspective. I mean, my understanding of that code and engineering stamp that goes on it is these sea walls have to be physically tied in together like a tongue and groove so that even when they put the the wheat cloth on the back of it it stops that but when they're putting these things in and actually cutting into sea walls because they don't want to put in a complete panel because of the cost um I think this needs to be addressed. It's a big issue. And we've got most probably hundreds of seawalls on the island that need replacement. This is, in rough numbers, this costs homeowners $1,000 a foot now to replace a seawall. And I just think that it's something that needs to be addressed. When people are just spraying in cans of GAP filler, which you can see in the top of this thing here, To say this is a new seawall is, in my opinion, from an engineering perspective, is pretty egregious. So I do want to bring this up as a topic for the next meeting. It's more than likely going to be a big topic. If you want to, because you've already got a very full agenda, if you want to bounce that into September, I'm fine with that. But at some point, this needs to be addressed.

And what do you want to call it, seawall?

Seawall construction inspection.

Yes, construction and inspections. Thank you.

I have a question.

department in the city would enforcement of this fall under building services they do the inspections of the issue permits for seawalls and they do inspections of of seawall permits the public works department gets involved when there's a storm sewer outfall pipe penetration through a seawall So we get copied on the seawall permits, and we look to see if there's a storm sewer pipe outfall. If there is, then we're involved in the permitting and the inspection of that, making sure, because what been happening in the past in some instances is you would have a new vinyl seawall put in front of an existing old one there was a storm sewer outfall pipe there but then they never did the penetration through through the new seawall so essentially you were plugging up the storm sewer outfall pipe so that's why Public Works is involved there but if this is put on a future agenda future meeting I can reach out to the building services department and see if they could come here to answer any questions.

That's a perfect idea, and the sooner we can do it, the better. Amen.

Might I suggest you do have seven items now. You should break that up into two meetings. Otherwise, you've run into time constraints.

Yeah, we'll work on that and see what we can do.

I'm already happy for that to get pushed into September.

Well, because Ralph still has his, and he usually goes pretty long. Okay. Any other committee communication? This is yours.

Yeah, so basically I'm on a little bit of a mission. attached to the agenda. I don't know if you want to pull it up, Martin, but I did do a very short and brief white paper as to why I think it would be very good to explore having some better access to our waterways. I mean, Marco Island, fundamentally, we are defined by our waterways. That's why people come here. And if you look at the current access that we have on the island, really, we only have Caxambas Pass, and kept samples fast. So my proposal was looking at is there some way that we can put access for people that want to kayak, people that want to paddleboard. And I identified a couple of locations. The evidence base when you start researching this, the more access that we give to our waterways, inherently the more value we give to our property owners. There are many property owners on this island that don't live on canals. I mean, a big percentage do. But even for me, having somewhere where I could launch a paddleboard easier than throwing off my seawall would be something I would enjoy. So really, the problem is current access is pretty concentrated. I'm looking for solutions for that. The two sites that I identified was Veterans Community community park but i think the one that is actually a lot better is actually the new park that we've created that currently is relatively underutilized um so this is um this is a very Oh, sorry. This is a very large water body. It would make an excellent location for people to paddleboard and kayak, and it would give access across the island from either side. There is another

Another picture of it looking the other way.

This is the water body that actually adjoins where the assisted living facility is. So seeing some activity out there on the water might be nice for the people that are actually in that assisted living. From a point of view of how would we do this, pretty much we would have to have some kind of pontoon type access. So this could be a walkway that came from the park that went onto a pontoon.

Here is an example of the kind of thing that we would need to do.

This pontoon is approximately 45 foot long, so it would allow multiple people to launch from that location. The big challenge that we've got is funding. I've already explored this. I have already people that are willing to take on the work of installing the pile-ins. I already have someone that's prepared to donate the resource of a pontoon. This is a net zero cost for the city. I'm sure if Stephen has some money and wants to throw it into the project, we could absolutely do that. So that basically is my proposal for giving some more access to people that live on the island, don't have access to water. I think it would be a great location. There is ample parking there. There is restroom facilities there. And so that was kind of my...

I can attest to the fact that park is underutilized.

Absolutely.

That is, it's a hidden gem and nobody knows it's there.

I was parking there. Very good. I mean, there's, well, one, you have to drive, at the moment, you have to drive through the assisted living to get to the parking because there's construction going on. I would say there's approximately 15 parking spaces there. It's very underutilized and it would be a great location to have, you know, the Marco Paddle Park, whatever we want to name it.

All right. Let's add that to another agenda item then. Put it in the future. What? We'll add it to agenda item so we can vote on it.

Yeah, absolutely.

So is that your white paper that's on the agenda today?

Yep.

So why don't we vote on it today?

It's not an agenda item for voting. It's just as a white paper's information. But the correct action would be to put it on an agenda for a future meeting to then notice it and to get votes on it.

Hi, Deb Henry, Marco City Council. Martin, thank you. I totally support that. But know that that did go in front of council two months ago, and the support of council was not there. I totally appreciate it, and I think it's fabulous. But you guys have so much on your plate, and you're handling so many things. I think to push it to go forward, I tried two months ago and they... Was there a reason? I don't think it ever got voted at Waterway to push forward. Yeah, but we did take it. So if you guys want to pursue it, that's great, but I just do know that I think there was only three of us that voted for something to pursue because I presented it similarly. Do you have a $0 cost?

I mean, with all due respect, I feel like... Go for it.

I just wanted to let you know because I hate for anybody to waste their time.

And I was aware of that. I would say with all due respect, we've had many items that have been raised at waterways that have been pushed up or have been rejected. AWT being a classic example. So I would like to readdress it. repackage it, put it in front of city council again, and see what happens.

I support you 100%. I just wanted to make sure everybody knew the history. Thank you.

We have a public comment on this topic. Okay. Lisa Foster.

Hi everybody, Lisa Foster again. I just want to address Martin's proposal that just so we remember with the rules of procedure if it has gone to a vote of council that it cannot be presented to council for a calendar year. Two, if this were done by the council done by the city there's a hidden demon in this and it is that the city would have to extend their insurance and their liability to that facility and if anybody got hurt it would be on the city's responsibility i feel we have plenty of water to get to And you're also going to be having those people in your backyard. You know, I think a lot of us paid up for Those houses on the canals and we would like that, you know, we appreciate that property And to not have it be a public facility even though it is, you know open water Channeling I'm sorry. Can I finish? Thanks very much um you know respecting those you know those property rights where you know did it did i did i buy by a park i didn't you know it's kind of a it's a it's a sticky spot um but the other thing is caxambis is also fully available And if it's not a commercial enterprise, then that's already available. So I wouldn't be in favor of this proposal as it also opens the door to a lot of people that want to rent those types of conveyances and use that as a profit center. So I would be mindful about all those points. Thanks very much.

Okay. Any other communications? No. All right. Then let's call a meeting adjourned.