The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMinutes_Bridge_04/28/2008VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA RESIDENT BRIDGE COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES APRIL 28, 2008 1. Call to Order and Roll Call The Village of Tequesta Resident Bridge Committee held a regularly scheduled meeting at the Tequesta Village Hall, 345 Tequesta Drive, Tequesta, Florida, on Monday, April 28, 2008. The meeting was called to order at 5:35 p.m. by Chair Pimentel. Village Clerk McWilliams called the roll. Present were Pete Pimentel, Michael Vaccaro, Jim Mansfield and Walt Downey. Vice-Chair Mary Hinton was absent. Also in attendance were Mayor Pat Watkins, Council Member Vince Arena, Village Manager Michael Couzzo and Village Clerk Lori McWilliams. 2. Approval of Agenda Chair Pimentel added discussion on the "Origination Study" to the agenda. MOTION: Committee Member Mansfield moved approval of the agenda as modified; Committee Member Downey seconded the motion; motion carried unanimously 5-0. 3. Presentations: • Brian Rheault -Bridge Design • Hank Deibel -Arcadis Mr. Rheault of Bridge Design provided a short summary on the previous bridge closing and noted the Village was moving towards a point where the bridge needs ongoing repair work. He explained the options were to continue to replace bridge components, raise the bridge slightly (after an analysis the bridge could be raised 12 to 18 inches), or replace the entire bridge. He noted permitting would not be required to repair; the environmental permit requirements would be minimized to raise; and significant permitting would be necessary to replace the bridge. He advised that with options one and two there were techniques that could be placed on the piles that would help service the bridge well into the future 25-30 years without problems. Mr. Deibel of Arcadis commented on the roadway design and felt the bridge could be raised approximately five feet; and if it was raised too high it would impact the surrounding properties and the site distance would be an overriding factor. Mr. Rheault commented that raising the bridge five feet would not solve the jet ski problems; and raising the bridge five feet would allow for any class of boat to pass through. He commented on the cumulative total cost to repair and did not expect the Village to have maintenance costs far a new bridge within the next 25-30 years repair; maintenance would not be necessary for 15-20 years with a repair. The Committee discussed the relocation of the power lines and it was agreed that underground placement would be the best. Resident Bridge Committee April 28, 2008 Page 2 • Mary Lindgren -Environmental Services Ms. Lindgren stated there would be two main permits required: Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and the US Army Corps of Engineers. She noted repair of the bridge could be handled under exemptions; however a replacement would require an extensive permitting process due to the aquatic preserve and estimates it would be nine to twelve months for the DEP permit. She explained the Army Corps of Engineer process would be more detailed and time intensive and would require additional agencies be brought in by the Corps of Engineers for input; she estimated a twelve to eighteen month process. She advised both permits would run simultaneously. She explained Environmental Services could perform preliminary biological assessment work to determine whether there were sea grass and could provide a better picture to determine timeframes and cost. They did a preliminary data base search and found on the DEP database there would most likely be sea grass on the east side of the shoreline and would need to confirm through surveys. Mr. Deibel advised the cost of 2.3 million could increase due to mitigation requirements. Ms. Lindgren stated the snails would not be a problem at this location; however the listed species of sea grass could require a commenting period and she has ideas to help offset the mitigation and impacts. 5. Discussion on the Origination Study Mr. Rheault commented on grants and currently the only available would be through Florida Inland Navigational District (FIND) and they would require public use. 4. Discussion and Assessment of Tequesta Bridge Repair /Replacement Mr. Downey asked if there would be any bearing on the existing pilings if the size and height was increased and was advised the design and components used would be affected. Mr. Rheault explained the bridge was low rated for different reasons, not because it could not carry the weight. Mr. Downey provided reasons to raise the bridge including the water table rising and safety of getting boats out during emergencies. Mr. Couzzo commented on the traffic origination and destination versus trip count and noted the police department had already done a trip count. This study would determine where the trips generated from and where they went. Consensus of the Committee agreed to recommend the Origination Study not be completed. Resident Bridge Committee April 28, 2008 Page 3 Chair Pimentel opened the meeting to the public for comments. Mr. Russell VonFrank, 489 Dover Road, commented on the San Francisco Bay Bridge being coated with the products Mr. Rheault mentioned. Mr. Richard Berube, 4 Country Club Circle, believed the Village could stop the process if it was too expensive and could fall back to the repair plan if necessary. Mr. Rheault stated the Village was in the three-five year time frame to consider an option for the bridge and suggested the time frame be limited to eighteen months to two years maximum to make a decision. Manager Couzzo recommended engaging the environmental engineers and enter into a contract to compile a preliminary environmental assessment. Ms. Lindgren advised they would go a 100 feet minimum outside of the estimated work zone and could work with a preliminary design. Consensus of the Committee agreed to proceed with the preliminary environmental study. Mr. Pimentel suggested contacting FPL to get a feel for what it would take to place their lines under the water; Manager Couzzo advised staff could work on this issue. Mr. Downey asked about building the bridge one span at a time to keep one side open while the build is happening. Mr. Rheault stated the challenge would be the length of the bridge; however it has been done and an issue would be maintenance of traffic and would considerably add time to the project. 6. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 6:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~~~~ Lori McWilliams, CMC Village Clerk