R2 Port Richey waterfront dredging project
What the county recorded
This item is not from the published agenda
It is a stretch of the recording that this archive identified as a separate matter — a call to order, a recess, or something taken up that the agenda does not list. There is no official title, no staff recommendation and no disposition, because the county never recorded one. Everything below is inferred.
The source document
The county’s minutes for Board of County Commissioners, May 19, 2020
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
What was said
Machine transcription of 1h 8m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 88% of 267 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.
All right, moving on to R2. R two is Waterfront Redevelopment Project, Restore City of Port Richey, improved water quality of waterways and navigatability, no funding required. And attached to that. Um Mr. Steinschneider, um AR Two.
Not den of R two. Can we not attach that to A R two or was was it to be voted on separately, sir?
I believe AR two is just more supplemental information for for R two. It's not a separate action item. Okay,
so we'll just attach obviously we are two. to R2. I don't know if you need that in the motion. And okay. And so we're gonna go ahead, um, Mike Kabala, um, I think it's your show now. And if I'm not correct, we still we also have people on the line. Um if you could explain that, Mr. Kabbalah. And just and just to be once that time comes, um
I want to make sure that you know our back and forth still goes through the chair when it comes to questioning answers for the other people on the line, okay.
Certainly, Commissioner. So Mike Carbala, Assistant County Administrator, Public Infrastructure, and we do have representatives of the city of Port Ritchie on the line. So once I complete a brief overview presentation, I will ask them for any comments and then we will uh turn it back over to you, Mr. Chair, for for any questions or discussion amongst the board if that's okay.
So that's that's fine. You can pass it on, but again, when it comes to the question, if there's question and answer between the board and them, let's make sure it just goes through to the chair. Absolutely, sir.
So the uh project is is related to the City of Port Ritchie's uh project that they submitted uh as a Restore Act project several years ago to the RAC. The original project proposal was actually broken into three phases, which were to address navigation issues, access to water, as well as water quality. They broke that down into three phases. The first phase, which was uh pretty much a dredging of commercial channels, as well as some redevelopment of their waterfront park and and waterfront areas uh
in their waterfront district, excuse me, in to include the relocation of a boat ramp from from Nick's Park over to uh their waterfront park. The uh subsequent phases, phase two and phase three, were primarily surrounding dredging to provide a water quality improvement, which was the dredging of a perimeter canal around Miller's Bayou, followed by a number of uh I will refer to them as man-made finger canals uh throughout throughout the Port Ritchie area. The original estimate for this that was presented to the Restore Committee was approximately $12.2 million. Next
slide, please. Graphically, this is what was presented. The purple line represents the commercial channels in the first phase, and the areas shaded on land represent some of the parks and waterfront district improvements. The yellow represents the perimeter canal, which was phase two. The blue lines represent the man-made canals, which were to follow in phase three. The history, go ahead and next slide, Todd. Uh the history of the approval, uh once once the RAC prioritized uh the multi-year implementation
plan elements, it was brought before the board in fiscal year 15 uh for for ultimate approval. New Port Ri uh the city of Port Richey excuse me, that a portion of their phase one project was funded to the level of six hundred and sixty-seven thousand dollars, which was primarily um that the portions were the commercial canal dredging as well as as well as a boat ramp. Other projects that were approved in that multi-year implementation plan included Orange Lake with the city of New Port Richey, Sunwest Park, and were later in later years amended to
include Key Vista as well as some school board projects. In fiscal year 18, uh, once the project was further developed, it it went before the board as a subrecipient agreement so the city of Port Ritchie could receive uh funds from the Treasury to execute the project. As we all know, in fiscal year 20, uh the bids came back and some restructuring was was required. So in November of last year, the agreement was terminated and the board director. Staff to maintain the allocation that the Restore Committee
had set aside for the project. to work with the city of Port Ritchie to resubmit the project and also explore alternative funding avenues as well. Go ahead to the next slide.
This uh more or less illustrates uh what the revised project looks like. And it's not from engineered plans, but actually the Channel 1 and 26A actually extend a little further to the south. Um probably, you know, another uh maybe another another thousand feet or so to the to the south more or less. But that's that's an illustration generally of what what the new project entails. As well as you'll notice that some of the other elements from phase one
that were not originally included in the in the first first portion of phase one, but still part of phase one, some some lighting, some uh improvements within the uh the waterfront district area. Next slide.
So the revised project does represent a reduction in scope. So the boat ramp was removed and some of the dredging was removed. However, there were other elements that were included in the original phase one project that were added back to sort of make up the difference. So with that, staff believe that the revised project does meet the eligibility criteria under the Restore Act, namely the infrastructure project. Projects benefiting the economy. It's also important to note that we did have some initial discussions with the Water Management
District. And while dredging projects from a stormwater perspective weren't necessarily looking favorable for cooperative funding, water quality type initiatives very well could. And we are currently exploring some options that that could achieve some of the goals of the city. Phase three with some some canal work there from a water quality perspective, but we are just in the initial phases of that, and we expect probably about a year or so before we start to determine the ultimate feasibility of that. With that,
uh staff would recommend that the board approve the multi-year the revised multi-year implementation plan and resubmit to Treasury to continue the um uh the project. Uh and with that, Mr. Chair, if it's all right, I'd like to rec uh recognize, if you could recognize uh some members of the city of Port Ritchie. I believe I'm not sure if they're mayor or vice mayor are on the line, but I know they wish to address the board.
Okay, so um
who was on the line from the city of Port Ritchie, Mayor or Vice Mayor? Good morning. It's uh Mayor Scott Trumblay and uh Vice Mayor William Dippers here as well. Okay, please go ahead with the presentation. Thank you. First of all, I want to appreciate you for uh everything that you've done to help us and and for all your time. Um as you guys know, this is a project that's been going on for about six years now. Um from the beginning this was uh a project that was a matching fund. We expended as a city in good faith three hundred and thirty
seven thousand dollars to set up. Um where we're at now, what we have done at this point is set up a DMMA site for spoils. We have the dredging permits in place, and we have the canals dredged to get from the main canals over to the DMMA site. So we are set up and ready to go for uh dredging projects as a city. That having been said, one of the biggest needs that we have in our community and our council has discussed is Channel 126A. Um in essence,
that is the main channel that starts where Waterfront Park is, where the beginning of our bayou is, runs uh throughout um our uh district with all our um commercial boating and then out to the river. Um and then on the south end that's where uh Nick's Park uh boat ramps also meet. Um so there's a great need in our community. To have this project complete as it will leak link the bayou to the river, allowing um our our boating public and all
our private boaters to get out of the bayou into the river. It will also allow um folks that are putting their boats in Nix Park to get out. It also allows commercial boats that we have, which are shrimping boats and boats for tourism to go. Um that having been said, because of the value of of the project, we were looking uh to add to the scope. Well as we are developing our waterfront overlay district, um the city has uh
We voted to put in two hundred thousand dollars for the improvement of the waterfront overlay district, and that will come up with CRA funding, um, which will uh include hopefully some sidewalks, road improvements, some lighting, and some other improvements in the waterfront overlay district. Also, we have a grander view as we are working on the next uh where n the boat ramps are in next park. We have some some uh great money there to improve the boat ramps and we'll be exploring some improvements in that area as
well. Um based on uh but the the crux to all this is that the main canal has to be dredged for us to really proceed with the rest of the plans that we have uh for the city.
Okay, thank you, Mayor. Um did you say the Vice Mayor on the line, did he have something you wanted to add? No, he said that it would be cumulative to what I've already said. Okay, great. Back to you, Mr. Kabbalah, before I answer any questions or have any questions from the board.
Uh staff has no further comments, sir.
Right. Now we're back to the board. Questions for Mr. Kabbalah or the mayor or vice mayor of Port Ritchie on this project.
Chairman Mariano, Commissioner Wells.
Uh Commissioner Weightman go ahead, sir.
Um Yeah, I just want to make sure I'm clear. Looking at the map and um
Mr. Kabala just brought up that it wasn't gonna come all the way down. From what I understand the the dredging of Channel One's gonna come all the way down a little past Nick's Park. to include t cleaning out the sand there by the where you can't get into uh Whiskey Joe's and I can tell you like Miss Virginia that is stationed just to the north of Nick's Park and just north of Hooters, at low tide they can't get out to take folks fishing. And this to me is about commerce. The shrimp boats, I know if it's it's a negative tide, they cannot get out.
So this is gonna be a good thing. But the map that you've shown us, Mike, doesn't show really it going down along the boats, going down in front of Hooters. Um in front of Next Park. I just wanna make and then down to clean out out front of Whiskey Joe's. I just wanna make sure, Mayor, that that is part of the this project that that it that will be done.
Well the only part that I'm not sure of from engineering plans, um when you get s further south past Nick's Park, there's a um There's a little bit of sand that was pushed up or debris that was pushed up from the casino boat into the channel. That is the only thing that I'm not sure is included. I think everything else is. However, the casino boat has where it's at um plenty of water to get out. Um so part of our engineering plans were were based on need. Um and it looks like that the need was was what we have engineered
at this point. Um and the only expensive
original dredge from the three hundred and thirty seven, we can get barges with the sand under the bridge and around Channel Nineteen and out. So um there's plenty of water for us to get barges in and out. I I think that um that should be sufficient in terms of need wise where we're at. Wells.
Okay, and I I just think about you know you've got the lows putting the marina in down there next to catches, I mean, which is gonna be a great thing for the city. and the county. And again, I you know I've been very clear, you know, we are a team on this, we're not separate. Same with the Nick's ramp boat ramp, as far as I'm concerned, you know, we will work together to to do improvements at Knicks Park. because I know we've discussed it, you know, eighty, ninety percent of the folks that use Nix Parker County residents, we want to be together on those improvements and we set aside the five million dollars to use for boat ramp improvements. Um
And I know that Dan's had some discussions with uh, you know, Mr. Lupo. to kind of work together on that as well. So we're we're a team here. I just want to make sure that it again the maps that we're seeing do not show it going in front of Hooters in front of Nick's Park, which again I know it's needed because I've been there where the Miss Virginia cannot get out. And we hate to see that. And we want folks to be able to get into Whiskey Joe's. I know Commissioner Starkey's talked about her boat not being able to get over the sand and it's an issue there, so it needs to be cleared out. I just wanna again, it's
it's a good project. Uh my opinion, I think we support the city and I know it was unanimous for you guys to move forward with this project, but To me it comes down to the commerce, the you know, tourism. And and we are a team, so Just want to double check on the the map, that's all.
Yes, Commissioner. And if if if the board uh likes we can achieve I'm sorry, we can get the engineering plans from the city of Port Ritchie, which would show specifics. That's just a graphical representation of of what you know the understanding of of what was submitted to us. So we can certainly provide that.
Okay. That that'll be all, Chairman. Thank you.
So thank you. And
I I'm gonna sort of jump on that one a little bit. Um And I know what Commissioner O Wells is speaking of. If between the Hooters and the dock, that sand it gets in addition to the other areas by Whiskey Joe's, it's pretty bad there. So I I I I guess I'm confused why that wouldn't be included if you're gonna dredge, man, just open this bad boy up, right?
This is Commissioner Starkey. Um yeah, we ran aground on that sand in front of Whiskey Joe's and my husband said he won't go there by boat anymore. So um I do think That That uh sandbar that I think is from the uh Unal allegedly from the gambling boat, but I think they went to court and Got a ruling that it wasn't from them. That's right. Build up definitely needs to go um for the uh betterment of that whole m waterfront
area. Thank you.
And you're right, Commissioner Starkey. Going back to what Commissioner Weight stated about some of the shrimp boats too, I don't think You stated Commissioner Weightman, if I'm not correct, it's difficult for them to get in and out. Correct?
It is. It at at like I said, when the tides are low, which is you know several days a month, they they can't get out. I mean I've been there when the p th they just can't they can't get across. Right out front of Hooters it gets very shallow. Yeah.
Yeah.
Uh Commissioner Mariano, go ahead, sir.
You know, as far as talking about Nix Park and all, I mean part of this project initially was going to be improving waterfront park. There was some issues with that. Um that's why we're doing talk about next park. But I agree with Commissioner Weightman. If we can use the five million dollar grant or even bottom improvement funds, that's where the funding should take place to go do that. That park from what I understand from years ago, over thirty plus years ago, that was actually funded with a county park working with the city to get that done. Wasn't just on the city on its own, but we work together on a grant project with that. Um Talking about the sandbar, in
a meeting. Uh we had recently with the city, our team, our consultant, we actually talked about that whiskey joe sandbar. Um And the issue that it had out there. And we were told at that meeting, and I was been told before at the before that meeting that no, that sandbar was not included into the cleaning out of the dredge. And uh Commissioner Weightman, you are right in the money as far as and Commissioner Starkey, it is a very integral part of Whiskey Joe's to be done, to be fixed. I mean they have a parking issue there, that would have definitely helped that out. And catches
has bought the Marina next door to it, and they have clearly said that that sandbar stretches from there, goes all the way up through, and actually affects their their business with the Marine as well. So that does need to be included. I don't think they have got the permits the way they lined up for that. And if it was, it is different when I was told in separate meetings. I would like to go back to the presentation given to the Restor Committee. Now those you may know. With Five different states affected by the Gulf. uh Gulf Oil spill that was done. We're
the only state that had local control over any pots of money whatsoever. We have twenty-three counties that work together. We all work together on different things, and one of the things we talked about was improving the water quality in the Gulf of Mexico. We talked about trying to use a commitment to science-based decision making across the board to make sure we're going to do the right things for the environment every step of the way. Uh we talked about making sure we're gonna put these grants forward, but not only just put the grant forward, but look at leveraging. and all about improving the water quality. When I
look at the agenda item that was given to us on the very opening part of the background summary alternative analysis, it says what's going to be done, which Mr. Carbell has said Other items from the initial scope was submitted and approved by the U.S. Department of Treasury will not be completed. at the bottom of the same opening thing of page one of two on the uh memorandum that says Pasco County has a grant agreement with the U.S. Department of Treasury and a subrecipient agreement with the City of Port Richey request funds from Restrike to complete this
project. Amended multi-year implementation plan is required to us to change in the scope of the project from what was initially submitted. If you look at the map, Mike, if you go back to the map that you had up there with where the dredging was going to be. The amended mo uh A multi year plan that was put in in s has been changed. Part of it was the boat ramp park was going to change, and I understand why it happened, why it had to go back. But if you look at the pink lines that are up there As they go forward, The Gildog Channel
that goes all the way down there. was one that is an integral part as far as water quality goes. That would actually take stormwater out into the Gulf and create more flow into the Gulf. The other channels to above would help with water quality substantially. And Commissioner Weightmany times, and you made the comment before, as far as I am okay to do dredging with with stormwater funds and and to making sure we are dredging these canals out there, they are going to help with the with stormwater. And the Commission supported step uh the state
expenditure plan for part three for the Port Ritchie outfall. Everybody's seen the map and I want to say staff is doing a phenomenal job tying those in together working with Swift Mud. Uh in the meeting we had with David Deloche, the mayor, the manager, and our team, we talked very clearly about how the water quality would be affected and the stormwater benefits to it. Now when the presentation was done with Swift Mud from what I understand, we broke it into parts. You can break it down, you can combine it together. The benefit was probably doing one large project
all together. Having said that. Something when I look at the narrative That's being submitted to Treasury. It talks about the opening as far as having 25 severely impacted water bodies and finger canals within the city limits. Channels fourteen through eighteen will directly connect into a stormwater pond along Old Post Road. Has a connection and can be a potential connection that will definitely help with the stormwater flow. It will also help the water. With all
the properties on there, which there's been a lot of willingness for people to donate into it. dredge out those canals, which will help with water quality, which is what this thing's all about. So knowing that we are looking at twenty-five civilian impacted channels, we've got a project that abuts working with Swift MUD right now to it. And even if we can't use it with the stormwater benefit, the water quality benefit is there. And that should be looked at before we pick make this thing going forward. Um when you look at the Waterley Overlay District,
it talks about project objectives, and this is what was submitted to the original group. It talked about improved border access to the waterfront overlay district. It does some of that, but along those channels, there is eighty more. residents that are there, that would definitely be impacted in a better way for voter access. improving the water quality. It talks about the waterways in entering the Pitlesscoat Pitless Code River, but Miller's Bayou will dramatically get a benefit by doing the water quality by dredging the 14
to 18 channels. Not The the water benefit of dredging what we're going to dredge is very minimal as far as effect goes. Improving the habitats for pollution plant and f and and life in the city's waterways will be dramatically helped even more if we do those channels along the way. Disbursement of time water runoff should not even be on this list whatsoever, because there is no stormwater benefit for the runoff. Increased tidal flow, the tidal flow will go up into these canals back and forth and create a better,
a much better way uh for for tidal flow. When it talks about the purpose, uh at the bottom of the page as far as your objectives go, the project benefit provides numerous benefits to improve improved water quality. I will suggest to you I don't even know why the Gildog channel got pulled out of this. I still haven't got an explanation why. It's the one that actually affects the water quality. So I don't know if it's a political game that's being played with a manager not liking an owner or Whatever is going on in there, I don't know, I don't care, but
that channel should not have been pulled out of there. When they talk about a more aquatic ecosystem, that's by improving So Back to improve stormwater quality. On a storm surge, that water is going to come in. If you have a full gulf, it's not going out.
Pasco.
That's yeah the the pink line that the
That's on here. The guild dog channel is
on pulled it out into their new map. The new map they they submitted, they've taken that out.
This map is not correct?
This was the original presentation.
And just to go back, Commissioner Starkey, when they presented this to us, this is a $12 million project. They're saying they don't have the money. To go finish all the other projects. So we are looking at we need to go isolate what this project really is. That is what I want to kind of get to. They are looking at just this project that is taken out. So there is no water quality benefits, there is nothing to help the Gulf. And it goes completely against what was presented to the Iraq. If you look at the scoring sheet, that was that's submitted being that we're signing on because we're the we're the recipient. The
committee uh or Curtis Franklin has a submission on And on his chart. It shows all the boxes you could go with the ten criteria that are a qualifying eligible activity. That criteria right now has just one box checked on 6A, on infrastructure projects benefiting the economy or ecological resources. So out of all ten boxes where they have scored before, now they only check one box with the project in front of them. The screen that you have up the on the screen, if you look
up there, you can do that. The second project there is the Waterfront Park Revitalization Plan. Now, if you take the scoring, which could be up to five points, you can do that. The the scoring there go all the way across where the the red star is. It goes all the way over. They score points on every single category. Even to timing, if you give them a five, they're a very good score of 3195. If you take this new plan, look at the bottom screen. Just by the official chart we're submitting to Treasury. That Curtis Langston signed as part of this document is
going to go to Treasury now. We have one box checked on 6A. And even if you give 'em a perfect scroll for timing Their project is a ten. It has now gone from the near the top of the list to the very bottom of the list. Now, if you look at the documents it was given to us as well, the same thing attaches to this thing that's going to Treasury? When you look at this. On page fifty-two out of fifty-seven. Um
Component project submitted for consideration of funding via the Restore Act were screened, scored, criteria specifically developed for that funding opportunity. See attachment D. I will tell you there's no attachment D, because there's no scientific backup for this. This talks about later on how about forty projects were presented to the Iraq. which held fifteen public meetings. Including the City of Port Ritchie. The committee m member members graded the project and staff collated results. The document we're going to be sending over
has had no RAC approval for just this scope of business, and now we're on the hook because if this thing goes, as it will say, the right for the Treasury to disallow costs and recover funds on the basis of a later of other or other review. Page 17 of the thing says the Treasury determines the remaining portion of this award will not accomplish. If Treasury determines that the remaining portion of this award will not accomplish the purpose of the award, Treasury maybe, may terminate this award in its entirety.
I will tell you, we have more environmental people, all the consortium meetings, we always had environmental people there. The room was always packed with different things there. We have got a great reputation with the consortium. We're the first ones to get project through. The work that Curtis Franklin did, he led the way. He made us look great as a county across the state, across the across the the whole Gulf, because we have done things in such a great way. When we look at What was supposed to be done between the leveraging, the public input, this project being
as it is submitted, maybe it could escape through, but if it bounces back, it is going to be on us. It is going to damage our reputation. It is not going to help the water quality in the Gulf, and we are going to be looking bad going through this, and we may lose the funding. And do you think you are going to get it back from Port Ritchie? I would say no. I strongly recommend you bring us back to the table and the same. Like we tried to do with Swift Mud, because we had the meeting with Swift Mud, our consultant said there is a connection with stormwater. I have talked with the Swiftwood representative that we have, and they say if
you put the whole thing together, you'd have had a better shot. Especially if we get into construction, it's going to be cheaper to do everything in one shot. But those five canals right there will help with stormwater, they will help with storm surge issues, it will help the city in a much better way and improve the water quality of the Gulf. What you are submitting here right now does not do it. Now I just want to say this. A year and a half ago, I met with Mayor Tromblay, I met with Councilman Dittmer, writing Gildog's property with Eric, his partner, and another gay gentleman named
Chuck Buccini. We talked about how to improve the Removal of that DMA site. That D Mesai right now has got to go to our landfill, Class One. It's going to cost a fortune. Our own staff does not want us to take that 'cause it's going to take up vital Land uh landfill space. We can do a better way by combining the soils and working with it. Now granted testing has got to be done on it. But from the bid that was done a year and a half ago that we kind of extrapolated out. Uh if you'd show the bid from Aquacrete technology and the dredging cost estimates. These
avrov numbers doesn't include everything, but the numbers are very close from one year to another year. Company called Divecom. Uh guild dogs went out and actually got a price on what it would take to go dredge their channel. Now keep this in mind. Did everyone see the letter from Guild Dogs?
Did everybody s get the letter from Gild Dogs and read it?
So let me just read it to you. It's not that long. Thank you for considering the following information. My name is Eric Sojanin. I am the managing partner for Rio LLC, which holds the title. to the property. five four one nine Treadwheel Drive in Port Ritchie. This is right across from where Gildogs is. The parcel includes a The parcel includes the submerged land in Channel 18. We also also hold the title through Bayou Brothers to Argonne Parcel. Parcel numbers on there. This is a five acre parcel located
directly adjacent to Gildog in Channel 18. The purpose of this letter is to present some potential synergy in regards to Port Ritchie's effort to dredge as well as some other channels the County is studying for dredge work. My understanding is that if an owner of a property is willing to accept clean dredge spoils, and he highlights In big print, dredge spoils, clean. It eliminates a great deal of complications in government red tape. This information was provided to a gentleman named Devin Barisma, managing director for a
company called Divecom Marine. DiveCon provided provided me with a proposal to dredge Channel eighteen and permanently locate spoils on Argon Court. He did not see this any great problem, and it was his suggestion. I believe the county has a process. copy of his proposal to me and then we extrapolated out from there, got around proposal. Devin informed me that his company does major dredging projects all over the world, and he could be a good source of information for the city and the county. I have not taken the time due to the vetting of DIVECOM, but I
have no reason to doubt the legitimacy.
Point. In addition, in using Channel 18 as an access to the Argon Spoil site, which is about seventy-five yards away, as opposed to the current plan of navigating a barge under around US nineteen bridge to a small DMA site, dewatering. Waiting for it to dry before moving, then tracking it to a permitting site. could save the taxpayers a tremendous amount of money. Pumping the spoils over or possibly under across the street to through Opost through an existing drainage pipe could potentially eliminate the need for any trucking
expense. I believe Newport Ritchie built a scaffolding and rig, pumped the spoils over the street on Orange Lake Project. And by the way, Commissioner Starkey, those apartments look awesome.
Yeah, they look great.
They've done a great job there. Uh these are several other benefits of dredging Channel 18 to take in this past. Presumably quicker relief from storm surge with a deeper channel. Tourism improvements by making charter boats visible from US nineteen, More boat axis with added dockage, wet slips and boat lifts. In closing, I was involved and present at the meetings when the restored money was pledged to Port Ritchie. We had and still have very high hope for this area. The Port Ridgeie community has well over two million dollars. dollars of taxpayer money invested in the project and we need to
We we need the county's help to make sure the money has not been wasted. My family has a significant amount of money invested in Port Ritchie improvements as well. We recently lost a sale of the Aragon property, partially due to excessive fill that we would be required to raise the property to approximately six feet. Simply put we need the fill. Thank you for your consideration as exploring this further. Please make sure this letter is Included with recorded documents for the BEC B O C C meeting held today. So
with all that said I don't want to take the money away. I want to see the dredging get done, but I want to see it done right. Those channels going from the proposal that I went to the city myself with a year and a half ago, as well as my private meeting with the the two councilmen. I want to make sure that we're not going to be able to That we do this thing right. And if if we got the risk of Treasury coming back at us, we've done nothing for leveraging going in there, we can do better for the citizens of Port Richey the citizens of Pasco County. So we can go they can go t even
keep the two hundred grand and let them go to the street improvements. I don't care. We could probably even include that in when we do the underwater pass project. They can even go to do the waterfront project. We can go fund that with the boating money. But put this dredging money where it needs to go to improve the water quality, start with these channels, and you might even be able to go if you go to the original map up there. That was shown with the all the all the lines with the twenty five channels they keep on talking about?
You might even be able to go that full yellow line all the way up those channels, and who knows, you might even go further. When you have a big bid, and keep in mind this whole thing is all Prefaced on one bid coming in and the bids getting higher than expected. The shift, I don't understand the shift. There's no reason to pull the gid gidlog channel out to go add these streetscape improvements. That channel should have been left in anyway. So I'm gonna say this again and you know we have a Our staff did a great job working on this thing, and Mike Carbello for the for all that you do. I mean, you got the busiest guy on the planet. You
do a great job with the scope that was given in front of you, understand how this could have happened. But I'm gonna tell you it would be a travesty if we made this step forward. knowing we can get seven channels for the price of two and improve water quality for the Gulf of Mexico and help to get the city get the other things they want to still get done, we can still get those done. So I say we bring them back to the table. Let's go work this thing out. And not just work with stormwater, but water quality with Swift Mud. If we get the matching funds, even if that 800 grand is the number, if we get matching funds
with it, we're still at the same number. And this, I will tell you, there's a better chance to do something better. I'll explain this to you. The Restore Act money right now doesn't allow the State doesn't allow you to have matching funds. And when I say that, it's a swift mud policy. We could actually take a look and possibly push to not only get the seven uh the six hundred sixty seven for a match money, we could go look at all the money we're putting in. to the uh the Magnolia Valley project, Pubbert Chi Outfall Project, and try to tap into that. We
will be the first county to do it. Talking to Brian Brian Armstrong, CEO of Swift Mud, there is a possibility. But like he said from the get-go, submit a plan. So I'm going to motion that we cancel this project and do not approve this. That's my motion.
I think Mr Oakley, you Oh wait no, Commissioner Oakley's has his hand up for like fifteen minutes.
Let me hold my motion back until we have further discussions.
I
have my hand was burned. Guys, hold on. I have a motion.
I have a
motion
now. I need everybody to c one second, please. I have Commissioner Oakley has the floor. I have a motion on the table. I'm going to Commissioner Oakley.
I um first thing I like to say is I'm not as familiar with the waterways on the west side of our county like I should be. I've been out there and I I've thoroughly enjoyed it and it's a beautiful location area in our county that I never realized we even had. So But uh the time I've sp been there and seen I i I see the issues and boats can't get out of canals and boats and especially if you got shrimpers over there and they can't get out when they need to get out to do the commercial fishing. and others. I appreciate
um Commissioner Mariano, Commissioner Weightman Commissioner Starkey of their knowledge of those now, which I do not uh know that much about. But um a one question comes to mind. And I am for this project because we've held it up Uh Sounds like six years at least now. So I like things see things move forward rather than be held up before we move 'em, you know, forward. At the same time Uh
I guess Mike Cabella, could you answer this question uh the facts? If we're doing that first phase of that dredging, how far from that is the sandbar that they're talking about that's not part of this program?
So Commissioner, I would if it if the city of Port Ritchie is still on the line, I'd I'd like for them to clarify that. Uh we we worked off the information that that was provided and I don't have the engineering plans. So I d I don't know if the mayor or vice mayor or any of your staff are available that could answer that question specifically.
Okay, if they're not, that's okay. We can reach out and get that information. The reason I'm asking that is if it's not very far from where you're gonna dredge to it's cheaper for us to go forward and dredge that sandbar out at the same time we're dredging very close to that sandbar. So I would like to look into that as an addition to this, not adding it on now, but in the near future when we're out there actually doing the work, be able to raise the money to take care of that at the same time that
ha to me that gives you a more completed project. And um this been too long already before this past six years trying to get to this point of waiting to do something in that area for the for the voters and for our citizens in that area and the businesses out there. So I'm very much for this project and I'd like to see it go forward. Um
dropping back to go do something else again. I We can still work toward uh funding and add those on at the end of this, but this is a thing we need to be looking at to get started. Uh if we don't ever get started, we never get to the end. So I would appreciate if we we look at that situation. So I'm in favor of this project starting, not uh not setting it aside.
Thank you, Commissioner Oakley. And next um I still have a motion on the floor. I'm going to Commissioner Starkey announced she was after Commissioner Oakley.
Um uh and uh we apparently do have the Port Ritchie folks on the line here, so I do have some questions as well. Um I think I would like to see that I think it's channel eighteen. Uh the ch I'd like to know why that was dropped. I think that's a really important channel for the downtown And wondered Uh you know, I'd like to see all of this dredged obviously, but I do agree with Commissioner Oakley that we need to at least get something going. Um so I wonder about adding
channel eighteen And then Removing that sandbar in front of Whiskey Joe's. Wha what does it take to add that to this project?
So Mayor Tremblay, if you're on the line, if you could answer those questions, we'd appreciate it. I'll
do the best I can. I can tell you that when the bids originally came in, um They came in pretty close to about half million dollars per canal. And the reason being is one of the ways to cut cost, as Commissioner Mariano said, would be if we could have had a spoil site where we could have uh put our spoils. The problem is that the toxicity level of the spoils as they've been tested um put us in a class one landfill, which is quite expensive. And I know of any other way to do that
since our soil's already been scientifically tested through channel nineteen and and so we already know kind of what direction uh that is headed. Channel eighteen um is a channel that runs between Waterfront Park and uh the Gildogs, which is a business owner. Um Channel eighteen uh would have um some benefit. Um the one of the issues we ha with Waterfront Park is it's a passive park. We're not allowed to have boats with with motors on them. We're not allowed
to have boat ramps there um because of some usage restrictions to the land. That was the reason that our council decided to approve based on the limited funding that we had, which was the six sixty seven, um, which would include uh the dredging which links the bayou to, like I said, the river. Um the reason why that's important is is I know that Uh Commissioner Mariano expressed an interest in dredging all these other canals. However, dredging those canals has no benefit
to our boating public if they can't get from the bayou to the river. Um so that was the logic behind the amount of money we had, the bids, the way the bids came in. Um it it it seemed to us most logical to to dredge that uh main canal that that links the bayou to the river. Also in response to Commissioner Oakley's inquiry, all the f commercial commercial fishing boats that we have are along that channel uh one of twenty six A, which
would be part of the dredge. So it would relieve um the pressure in terms of the commercial fishing industry. Um that's where all our commercial commercial fishing boats are so it would have um a great impact on our c uh the commercial ability or the commercial impact would be great for our city. So Well it does cover that commercial area.
Let me ask you because the one time we took our boat to Whiskey Joe's and we hit that sandbar, we um tied up because we couldn't get into Whiskey Joe's. Uh I guess it would be just south of it. I think on a commercial Um peer And so there were a lot of boats commercial boats tied up on that pier, which um to me is kinda fallen apart and was kind of sketchy to even walk on. But I did Commissioner We are there not some com commercial boats south of
South of Whiskey Joe's there?
Chairman Mariano. Um Commissioner Starkey, they that's where Lowe's and you heard Commissioner Oakley talk about it, Lowe's has purchased that property. They're gonna put a marina there. I believe they've already ripped out the docks I and the mayor could answer that. I haven't been over there but but that's the plan that they're gonna redo it in order
to be in a marine. They need that sandbar gone then.
Yes, that that would be good.
So um I I I wanna I wanna move forward but I I wanna I wanna help more the waterfront there. What what kind of cost do you think it would be to bring that even if you don't dredge the whole thing, but just dredge over there in front of that new marina and Whiskey Joe's and and maybe they would help pitch in. I don't know if you've talked to them, but What how much more are we talking if you know that answer?
The answer is I don't know because it wasn't permitted. What I can tell you is The channel actually runs to the west of coming in so to get from the river under the bridge and around a channel nineteen and and up the river is not a problem. The only problem is with boats coming in and out of Whiskey Joe's. Um Which really generally are commercial boats, but they're they're recreational boats to come in and out for dinner. Um So uh The answer is I I don't
know what the cost would be to dredge that. I I can tell you that the per canal the the average cost um With disposal and and the actual dredge itself has been about a half million dollars. Um so that's why we are where we're at, um, because of the cost of the dredge.
So for a half million dollars more we could get that area done? Is that what I heard?
Yeah, I but Mike Carballas. I think you missed a key point. It's not part of the permit either. So you would have to go back and expend extend the permit. So you know if you wanna move forward now, y you need to approve this project 'cause that's what's permitted and then w you know either the city or us can work together on extending the permit to include this area. But I would I mean
I would that's what I would that would be my motion is to go forward with this permit because I I agree we need to get moving so these people can enjoy the area. And I would egg um Maybe we need to do it in stages, Jack. I I think it's tough to do everything. It's gonna take us forever to get all that done and to get the agreements with all the people pitching in. Um I think it's doable, but I think it's gonna take a long time and and I would rather not wait, but I would like to see us do um you know sta step two, step three and and step two
would be to extend that purple channel down. And actually when I look at the map here, I'm gonna ask Commissioner We Um I look at the b I look at the bridge over nineteen and I see a huge sandbar to the right of the bridge. Is it blocked there coming out of the Cody River?
No, it's deep. There it's deep access then. You heard the mayor say that. I mean as far as the canal getting from there to you know the the boat ramp is good on that side. The other s the other side's the issue and f and he's correct, folks getting out of Miller's Bayou. Um the accessors folks that might want to have a bigger boat that live in Mari Miller's Bayou that have the same issue of getting out of that bayou. So
what's Jim Uh Commissioner Weightman of that idea?
Yeah. So let me stop real quick 'cause Commissioner Starkey, was that a motion you made or did you just stay in the middle of the year?
I will make that a motion. I will make that a motion.
So I have two motions on the floor.
But the motion never got a second that's on the floor.
I did not, I know it, but I still have two motions on the floor. So now I have a motion by Commissioner Starkey.
Okay.
Mr. Chairman Mariano. Mr. Chairman Mariano.
Yes, go ahead.
Commissioner Mariano, I'd like to have a f a little bit more discussion. I want to touch on the subjects that just have come up since the mayor had just spoken. When we were in the meeting and I have been in other meetings as well talking about that sandbar, it's not the first time the conversation has come up. And as Mr. Balls just said, it is a separate permit to go out and do it. Part of the reason they wanted to rush this project through and get it done so they get it done quicker, not to take the time to go get the matching money from DEP. or a Swift Mund that could have happened, but they wanted to get the project done quicker. That's what we were told. And I have been told that several times,
not just once. So as far as to try to get done quicker, it's not going to get it done quicker if you include that anyway. And if you don't include that, shame on you. Secondly, I think that's a good thing. The reason this project got held up and Commissioner Oakley. Oakley, it's it's important to mind i I I don't blame the city that it got held up, but it got held up because they had to go change the scope of the project because of Waterfront Park. Because when they finally did their work on it, they found out, you know, they couldn't close Nick Park to make it a parking lot. They had to keep it a boat ramp there. They had the waterfront park, they had the issue over there too. So because of
that, they changed scope. So it's not that they did something wrong. They were trying to do, I think, something good at the time to go change all that. Because they could put more parking over there, would have been better. But because of deed restrictions, et cetera, they were put in that situation where they had to resubmit. Now, the fault would come in, in my opinion, when they did submit, Curtis Franklin recommended do not change the scope the way you are changing it, because it's going to affect how Treasury approves it. Treasury looked at it and Treasury denied it. So amongst our
staff recommendation, they applied for it anyway because this is what they wanted to go do. Now you saw on the chart that Curtis is now gonna submit through it, it checks one box out of ten. It would score very low. This would be at the bottom of the list that we just saw up there. It wouldn't score at all. Now, if we're gonna do this, let's do it right. Let's go take the time. We had someone that was I don't know if you remember Kings Bay, they did the presentation for us. They did everything up in Kings Bay. They came in the presentation with Sand and Shore. The environmental people come in. They come
down and they looked at these channels. They thought they could put really good seagrass in there. They talked about eelgrass that they used up in Kings Bay. They were going to use that e-grass here to really help the water quality, which they thought would work. In that whole area. They said that DMA site, just like Chuck Puccini told these guys a year and a half ago, you could do a lot better with the cost involved. These guys think that if you just take that DMA site, you combine it with other dirt, cleaner dirt, you take the toxicity level down, now you can do all sorts of other things with it. I don't think it's gonna be that
much different when you start at Orange Lake. The runoff that's there. I mean, think about Orange Lake. Where's that runoff coming from? Cars, traffic, silt, et cetera. All those years it was all pumped right into there. I don't think Orange Lake would be any different than that, and I think you'd use that for a base. And if Guild Dogs can then use that for a base, guess what? You've now taken to help redevelopment goals. Now that property becomes even more valuable where you can go do something with it. If we take our time and do this right, if they listen to us. If they come to the table with DEP, we can make
this an awesome project. But what we're doing with the Mr. Why do we
make them do that, Jack? I don't know how you make another,
we're not going to sign up because we don't want the risk of being shut down by Treasury saying, because you didn't do the project the way it was, because this thing would have scored only Ten points. Out of thirty? Compared to the others? Their uh the Restaurant Committee to let them see the new revised project? They could pull the money away and then we're at risk. I mean we've got a lot of cards here to hold and I'm gonna tell ya, think about this. We talk about the boating public. I don't know why he's not thinking about the people living the canals.
Those canals are high high paying. Now, Commissioner Moore, we talked about the CRA. One of the things we talked about on this project we were talking having discussion with, when we dredge these canals and these waterfront homes, those property values go up. And they told me, Vince Lupo t said it, I want to get us off the C RA. You want to help the city get off the CRA? Go dredge those canals with the water from homes. Property values go up, water qualities go up, and you may be able to get them off that CRA, which is better for the citizens of all the Pasco
County, not just Port Ritchie. It improves everything out there. This is the way that we get this project set up is terrible because as the City tells you, they don't have money. Funds are limited. Well, this limiting of funds is not going to let them go do anything else. So we have got to look at this as a one-time, one-shot project. This money is going to be expended, and you are going to get all only all you are going to get for it is what in front of you. I will tell you, from talking to staff, Swift, my DEP, we can do so much better.
With the way the B P money was supposed to be spent?
Um And keep this in mind. In talking about leveraging funds, never mind just even Swift MUD. There's residents on those canals that are willing to pay. Guild Dogs is willing to pay. And I think if somebody has catches or whiskey joe's, they'd be willing to pay to help get more of this dredging stuff done. And it would be good for everybody in there. It would help the city who has had major issues with many, many different things, come out of this here and get the right thing done.
So I don't I don't know how to end this stalemate between your idea and their idea. I mean what what It's just like this circle and nothing ever gets done. So I I gotta ask my professional engineer standing in front of me what your thoughts are.
So the right
Sorry, Mr. I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman Mariano.
Go ahead. But we I have still I'm gonna stop for one second. Still we have I have a motion on the floor by Commissioner Oakley with no second. I have a motion on the floor by Commissioner Starkey. with no second. Go ahead and answer her question, but If we don't have any seconds in a second here, we're gonna have to uh
Mr. Chair, i if I may, uh the commissioner withdrew his in effort in an effort to get discussion. So I think really you gotta you're gonna have to start over with a new motion once this discussion is finished. Let me try another mo let me try another motion if I can. Let's hear it.
I have a question on the floor by Commissioner Starkey to the microbial. We can move on with that.
Thank you.
Yes,
thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh the the IRAC is an advisory committee to the Board of County Commissioners. It it had a process that it went through to make certain recommendations to the board. The the result of that was a multi-year implementation plan, which was submitted to Treasury. When the revised project was resubmitted to Treasury, it was rejected because it did not match the multi-year implementation plan. It is my understanding that the revised multi-year implementation plan and the new project, provided the project meets restore criteria,
which staff believes it does meet the infrastructure. Yeah. um component of the restore of the of the restore criteria that that would then set the project forward in motion under under Treasury. So how that project racks and stacks amongst the other projects is is really the purview of the board.
Well I think you know I'm an alternate to the RAC, but I do believe that we had consensus there that Miller's Bayou and the Port Ritchie waterfront is very important to the whole county. And it's very important to the nineteen corridor for economic development. So I think I I'm gonna probably um just go ahead and second Commissioner Oakley's motion, but emphatically say that I believe we need to continue to look at solutions to get more
um dredging done in that in that area. And maybe it's with Swift Mud, maybe it's with our legislature, but just like we all are getting behind the Cody River uh Yeah. Bike trail. Um I think we all need to have a big plan for improving that that area and I want to see Port Richey deal with their C R A money correctly. Um and that's part of that discussion too. So I guess I'm seconding Commissioner Oakley's motion to move forward.
I thought he made a motion. I'll make the motion for to approve staff's recommendation.
I have a motion by Commissioner Starkey to provoke.
I have a motion by Commissioner Starkey. Do I have a second or not?
Her motion is to approve staff's recommendation.
I second that emotion. Ron Oakley. Further discussion, please.
I have a motion by Commissioner Starkey. I have a motion or a second by Commissioner Oakley. Further discussion by Commissioner Mariano on the motion.
All right. Commissioner Oakley and Commissioner Starkey, as far as the motion goes with study staff. If you push this through this way, you're not getting this sandbar done, which is critical. And I'm going to tell you the information that I was told in a meeting, several meetings, that the sandbar is not part of the scope. So that doesn't get done. Provided that happens. Um It's a lot. The other thing that is going on is there's residents out there willing to contribute. to possibly be able to fund that part of it or even the Guild Dog
Channel. The sec the s the second part is the businesses may be willing to contribute. The other thing is With the water quality on the Gildog Channel. You can go take other money to go fund the boat ramp. Why would you go take Ries Direct money to go fund that? You get a separate funding source. I mean you you can do so much better with what you got. And I will tell you the DMA site You can have an expert down here? Look at the soils from the tests that's already done and find out what can be done, can those soils be mixed, and can it be used to use that DMA site at Eric
Soyennis? And you might be able to get instead of two channels, you could get seven. You could get this looked at within sixty days and bring it bring it back to us. That would be a much better motion to get something done without Dilling sixty days is not going to hurt anything, but you may get seven channels instead of two and get the sandbar done.
Mr. Spokley, I see your hands up, sir.
Yeah, sir. I um My second, I I approve um Uh Commissioner Starkey's motion, but I think this gets it started. I think it goes to where we want it to go. We want to get started, get these done. Are there more things we need to do like the sandbar and there's some other canals and all? I agree there are. And I think as as a commission, we need to be looking at the rest of this whole picture of that coast and make it better for our citizens on our
own. West Coast. But let's get started and then come up with a plan of funding and all for doing all these others, because there's a lot there that can be done and needs to be done. So I stick with my second with uh Commissioner Starkey's motion.
Just just so I'm clear and and I there's three phases to this. This is phase one. There's gonna be a phase two. Could they add in the the the SAN as part of that permit for phase two, yes. Um And I I assume that's the plan and I agree with Commissioner Oriano on the other canals. It'd be nice to get them done, but we've got to get something done. We've been working on this miles since I've been a since I've been a board member. So
That's that just wanted to confirm there is three phases.
Uh uh Mr. Chairman Mariano Wills'.
Hold on. I I see see Commissioner Weightman, I see Commissioner Starkey. If we're gonna keep are we gonna keep going back and forth after a second or we somebody got a call a question?
I just want to confirm that there is and and I agree with the motion on the floor, but I just wanna make sure that that the board understands there is three phases to this project. This isn't the only phase and we're done forever. Um just
So the City of Port Ritchie has outlined a a three phase plan that is that is correct. As far as timelines and funding go, those those remain unknowns. Mr. Chairman Mariano.
No, I had my hand up. So
Commissioner Oakley had her hand up
first.
I just want to say if in phase two, Jack, we can take a lot of your ideas. um and maybe do phase two cheaper, like take those spoils and put it on that qu that Was it Arbor Court? Um and work with Swift Mud, let's work on that with phase two, but let's go ahead and get for get going with phase one.
Mr. Chairman Mariano. Mr. Mariano. Yeah. So the key thing to mind is in the the agenda item we've got, I'm going to read it again, other items from the initial scope that was submitted and approved by the U.S. Department and Treasury will not be completed. They're giving up on the rest of it. They've said it publicly. That they're not going to do phase two and three. You're looking at just getting phase one done.
Can we hear from
them on the record? He's already told you that the sandbar could be permitted whatever in in the meeting he he said it couldn't be permitted, it wouldn't be permitted by his own staff. But When you when you look at that, you've got to remember you're getting just this done. If you go through with this, they have no money to go spend anything on, you're going to lose out the chance to get matching funds from Swift MUD, from citizens and businesses that will all benefit and want to see this happen with the redevelopment of the city, which is what this is supposed to do, and get water quality. What
you're doing right now, you're taking away all that chances because there's no phase two, two and three coming from what they've got planned.
Mr. Tremblay?
I don't know. I
I have a I have a I have a second on the floor. So I mean if you're gonna pull your second
No I'm not
then continue discussing it. Then if not, we need to call call the vote. I'm calling the vote.
I have a question based on what I just heard. Yeah.
Okay. Do you want to remove does somebody want to pull their motion? I mean Urgent.
This is a lot of discussion for having a second on the floor. This is not normal.
Okay. But I think it's a very important decision we gotta make too. So
agree that I don't know why
we
have set motions and seconds. What
I understand from what they just said, they're gonna do phase one. Why are we looking at an agenda item that we e we know or somebody knows that they're only gonna do phase one and they're not Gonna try to do two or three. Why why are we looking at it like this? If that is the case. I don't understand. We're not just voting on phase one. We're voting for them to go through was phase two and three. That was my concern.
So I'll get to that one.
So uh uh Mr. Chair, I I believe I have Curtis Franklin on the line from uh from Parks who who has a deep history. I'd like to call on on Mr. Franklin to speak to the phases that are approved, and then if if the if it's the board's pleasure to probably hear from the city of Port Ritchie if they're still on the line.
Okay,
go ahead, Mr. Franklin.
Yes, sir. Curtis Franklin from Parks Wreck and Natural Resources. I just wanted to point out that only phase one was vetted and approved by the Board of County Commissioners. Only phase one went through the Restore Act Advisory Committee. So if we were to approach a phase two or a
phase three, that would be
a good thing.
Can we hold on until Commissioner Weightman? Can we Curtis can can we hang on till Commissioner Weightman? This is too big.
Can I make a comment while he's out?
Please go ahead.
Um Jack, just because this is the only phase with restore money doesn't mean that we won't find another way to move forward with other funds. um because dredging has occurred before before there was restore. So I think this dredge is important to everybody and if the community comes together a with the county. We can find we'll look for solutions to keep on dredging. But I want to hear from the city if they're gonna work towards other to
continue to find solutions to dredge more of their waterfront.
Mr. Chairman Mariano.
Please go ahead.
If if you looked at the dredging numbers that were quoted from Dive Com and the other company. Those numbers aren't far off the one. agenda item we got in front of us right now. Streetscaping can be done any time. We could probably incorporate that into the MPO thing. Make that work. Uh you might even use EDC money if you cho if you chose to, as we talked about before, trying to make that waterfront
The boat ramp money, you don't need to put that in here. When you dredge all those projects in one shot, you get one mobilization, you got one dewatering, and if Eric's got his whole project right there, he can put all the s soils right there, providing they test out which Eric thinks they will and the and DiveCon thinks they will. You save all that money and you get seven channels instead of two. And you can get them just done just as quick because I will tell you when you get to go permit that sandbar, that's going to take some time.
I'll wait for about ten or fifteen more seconds and we're moving on.
Let's let's hear the city talk about how they're gonna uh do phase two and three. Well with the with the money coming from.
If you guys, guys, I've controlling the meeting. So we will wait for a few more seconds for see if Mr. Franklin comes. If not, we'll move on to the Mr. Franklin then the city.
Can
you hear me?
N not yet, sir. Just give me a few more seconds.
All right. He's back. He's back. Okay.
Go ahead, Mr. Franklin. And then we'll move to the city and then we're either take your pull your motion or I'm calling a vote.
I just wanted to point out, Commissioner, that only phase one was vetted for the Restore Act Advisory Committee. Only if that phase went through the process. So if we move to phase two or phase three, those would have to go through the process of going in front of the RAC and then further on going and get approved by the Board of County Commissioners.
Mr. Chairman Mariano. Yes, Commissioner Oakley. I disagree with that statement. Curtis, when when the staff looked at the pres when the RAC Look at this whole presentation was all the parts together. Matter of fact, the very first presentation the city gave They talked about the water quality. I told them go back with the proposal, go think about it, try to come back bigger. They came back back with all three phases. The biggest thing that got all the attention, and I listened to the tape. The biggest attention. Matter of fact, the whole slideshow.
That's right in here. Has got all three. That's what we approved. That's what the schools were based upon, not just this phase one. I contest that we did not have this in front of the RAC to look at just this phase one. Especially was right here because this MYP had to be pulled back when they changed the scope. The Iraq has not seen this yet. And even the chart that you have got in there shows that they just have one out of nine, out of out of the ten criteria that it's met. So I I I contest that statement.
Mm.
Commissioner Yeah. Sorry. Commissioner Oak Right, or when it was brought to the Board of County Commissioners, only phase one was submitted under the multi-year implementation plan. So when you look at the multi-year implementation plan, it only accounts for those particular parts of that plan. The other phase two and phase three, the finger canals going around, was not part of that plan. It was not pr uh under it's not set to treasury or part of that project.
Mr. Chairman Mariano.
Go ahead,
Chris Mariano.
proposal that's in front of us is just to the Commission. It hasn't been in front of the rack. Correct?
I I'm not really sure I understand a question.
The whole presentation was made to the Restore Act Advisory Committee, but there only phase one move forward with going through the moment. multi year implementation plan and being sent to Treasury.
Mr. Chairman Mariano.
Yes, sir.
So the RAC has not heard just this one phase. They were presented with all the phases. The Commission has just looked at this one phase as approving whether it goes forward. The scoring that was done by the RAC showed categories, all ten categories scored points where they scored very high. When we looked at your chart, I took your chart, extrapolated from where you said they would qualify for points, there was only one category, and I gave them the bonus for timing to be to be a five, so it would be perfect. They scored
at the very bottom of the list. The RAC has not seen this one presentation, and I asked the Board, Mr. Chairman, I will bring it to again, I think this should go back before the RAC and let the RAC look at it. Because right now you're just making a decision if this can fit into A a Treasury's decision. And I will tell you I th I still think because of the way this is presented, the way this hasn't been in front of the RAC, we could be at risk of that whole six six hundred sixty seven Treasury said, you know what? You made it sound like you went to the RAC and you didn't. We
don't think you've done the water quality. We can go pull the money back and now we're on the hook for six hundred and sixty seven grand that you've you've allocated, which the Iraq did not get to see.
Okay. I uh Mr. Franklin, do you have anything else to respond to? If not, I have the city on the line and they can speak about the timing of phase two and three. That was another question I think Commissioner Mariano or Commissioner O Starkey both had.
No, sir, I have nothing else to add. Okay.
I'm gonna go ahead and go with Mayor Tremblay. Can you speak to phase two and three? And again, folks, I wanna just remind the commissioners that I have a second on the floor. So after this and I saw Commissioner Oakley's hand up, either withdraw your motions, restate a motion, or somebody call the question. Okay. One of those three things have to happen after Commissioner Oakley goes. Go ahead, Mr. Mayor Tremble.
Well I'm gonna withdraw my second on the motion that Ms. Starkey made. And uh With that s I don't know what the motion should read, but I think we should step back and and look at it further like Mr. Mariano suggested to begin with. I'll let him make the motion.
Okay, well I'm gonna I I I called on The mayor to speak, and I was gonna go to you. So let me go back to the mayor to speak on page two and three. Since that question was asked by Commissioner Marion and Commissioner Starkey. Go
ahead. If I may, thank you. First of all, I wanted to say um everything that uh Mr. Franklin said I is is accurate from what I understand historically. Um what I can say is the city has never withdrawn its uh request. to move forward with phase two and three. Um and obviously phase one has to happen before we can get to phase two and three. As soon as phase one is complete, which is this initial dredge, which has a a great benefit. It's my intent to go
back to our council to readdress two and three. Um but I can tell you we've never withdrawn our request through the RAC to to continue on with phase two and three.
Okay, thank you, Mayor Tremblay. Um now I'm going back to you again, Commissioner Oakley. You're stating that you want to withdraw your second now.
Yes, I will withdraw my second.
So I have a still have well so there's no second of Commissioner Starkey's motion.
I'll second
Commissioner
Starkey's motion, knowing that there is a phase two and phase three. And after having Curtis and the Mayor explain things, I am comfortable with Commissioner Starkey's motion.
Read her motion again. I have a second by um Commissioner Weightman Clerk call roll.
District One, Commissioner Oakley.
Yeah.
District 3, Commissioner Starkey. Aye. District 4, Commissioner Weightman. Aye. District 5, Commissioner Mariano.
Nay.
District two, Chairman More.
Aye, motion passes three to two.
Please get to work on phase two.
That is it for the regular agenda items. We're gonna put on to miscellaneous business.