Miami Shores Development News

Seawall Project Decision: Balancing Cost, Time, and Durability Amidst Structural Concerns

A significant discussion occurred regarding the seawall project, which is tied to ARPA dollars and has a December 31st deadline. Engineers identified risks to the southern end of the wall, prompting a full-steam-ahead approach to fix it. The project involves constructing a new seawall and a sidewalk. Concerns were raised about the structural integrity of the existing sidewalk, which was discovered to have voids and significant soil loss, despite being designed as a 'bridge' 40 years ago to mitigate such issues. The proposed solution involves removing the existing sidewalk, filling voids with clean material, and constructing a new sidewalk. The new seawall is being built independently in front of the old seawall. The new sidewalk will rest on compacted fill and abut the new seawall, not be structurally tied to the old seawall or skirt beam/piles. The new seawall structure is designed for a 50-year lifespan, using glass fiber polymer reinforcing to prevent corrosion and is designed to accommodate future elevation raising for sea level rise. The original 'bridge' design for the sidewalk was implemented due to historical soil loss issues. The current sidewalk structure is deemed unstable due to cracks, spalling, and corrosion. Building a new bridge-like structure for the sidewalk would incur an additional cost of approximately $350,000 and cause delays, potentially jeopardizing ARPA funding and a million-dollar refund from FDEP. The current proposed solution, costing an additional $176,000 for demolition and reconstruction, is considered the best option given funding and time constraints, and is projected to last for some time, with the seawall itself designed for a longer lifespan and accommodating future sea level rise. The project must be completed by December 31st of this year due to ARPA funding requirements and a pending refund. Public input raised concerns about the new sidewalk's support structure and potential for soil loss, the reuse of demolished materials, and the longevity of the new structure compared to a full bridge rebuild. Ultimately, the council consensus leaned towards proceeding with the proposed solution, emphasizing the need to move forward due to funding and timeline constraints.