Should government bail out seawall owners?

[hi n dry]

Some private beach owners are attempting to get the legislature to legalize all seawalls. This would include even ones that are illegal and which pose a negative environmental impact and intrude onto public beaches.

State legislators, Rep. Coley, Rep. Drake, Senator Gaetz and Senator Evers are holding a delegation meeting at the south annex next Wednesday, 12/15/10, at 1:30 PM to consider this bill.

If all seawalls are legalized then taxpayers could be held accountable to pay for the mitigation of environmental damage .

There are many seawalls that were done properly according to proper standards and have been properly maintained.

However, there are also some that have used the wrong color sand, have not been completely covered in sand, block seat turtle nesting, and at least one has been built in front of a public beach.

It is not in the public’s interest to legalize all seawalls. This should be done on a case by case basis.

Please contact the county commissioners and state legislators and tell them that the state should not legalize all seawalls nor interfere in the local HCP environmental mitigation process.

See contact information below.


Backgound:

After Hurricane Dennis stuck our area in 2005 the county issued temporary permits to many beach front property owners so they could build seawalls to protect their property.

However, many of those people built permanent seawalls and some of those walls were built out onto other people’s property, built inappropriately in front of vacant lots or in one case built about 20-feet out onto our public beaches.

Currently beach front property owners are required to help pay for the the HCP environmental mitigation. There is a proposed one-time fee of $100 per linear foot of seawall.

Actually the county is paying for two thirds of the cost of the HCP through current programs so beach front property owners are only being asked to fund that last third of the cost.

Many do not want to fund the Plan. If they get this law passed they could get bailed out by the tax payers.

State legislators, Rep. Coley, Rep. Drake, Senator Gaetz and Senator Evers are holding a delegation meeting at the south annex next Wednesday, 12/15/10, at 1:30 PM to consider this bill.

That would be legislation they would take to Tallahassee for approval by the entire legislature. And if that happens the funding source for the HCP could go away.

Beachfront property owners with illegal seawalls who suddenly find themselves with seawalls that are legal are unlikely to take part in the HCP, and if they don’t, how do you think the county will fund the Plan?

Please contact the county commissioners and state legislators and tell them that the state should not legalize all seawalls nor interfere in the local HCP environmental mitigation process.

State Legislators:

Representative Marti Coley
Phone: 850-488-2873 850-488-2873
Email: <marti.coley@myfloridahouse.gov>

Senator Don Gaetz
Phone: Toll Free: 866-450-4366 866-450-4366 or 850-487-5009 850-487-5009
Email: <gaetz.don.web@flsenate.gov>

Representative Brad Drake
Phone: 850-488-4726 850-488-4726
Email: <brad.drake@myfloridahouse.gov>

Senator Greg Evers
Phone: 850-689-0556 850-689-0556
Email: <evers.greg.web@flsenate.gov>


County Commissioners:

Scott Brannon, District 1/ Vice Chairman
Phone: 850-835-4860 850-835-4860
Email: <brascott@co.walton.fl.us>

Kenneth Pridgen, District 2
Phone: 850-834-6328 850-834-6328
Email: <prikenneth@co.walton.fl.us>

Larry Jones, District 3, Chairman
Phone: 850-892-8474 850-892-8474
Email: <jonlarry@co.walton.fl.us>

Sara Comander, District 4
Phone: 850-835-4834 850-835-4834
Email: <comsara@co.walton.fl.us>

Cecilia Jones, District 5
Phone: 850-231-2978 850-231-2978
Email: <joncecilia@co.walton.fl.us>

[SWGB]

Why not make the contractors who installed them illegally or improperly liable?

[zip3]

Why not make the contractors who installed them illegally or improperly liable?

I agree.

[Andy A]

As is the case with most issues there are two sides to the story. This is the side from one beachfront owner's point of view who has not been involved in the formation of the Habitat Conservation Plan until recently.
Let me state at the outset it is probably the unanimous opinion of beachfront property owners that they have a right, and in the case of condominium owners as I am, a fiduciary responsibility, to protect their property and their investment in it. We are not all millionaires, nor as in my case, even close to it. I own one of nineteen units but it is my permanent home and where I chose to retire.

I live on the highest point between Apalachicola and Pensacola and on a morning in 2005 we awoke to find our beautiful bluff gone and the front units of our complex left without sand supporting the foundations. Many up and down Blue Mountain Beach were left in even worse shape. It was obviously an emergency situation and Walton County came to our aid by allowing us through permit to erect armoring for protection of our property and re-construction of the dune system in the area. This not only hopefully would assure future protection of our property but also re-establish habitat for wildlife as well. Somehow, that part got lost in Sharon Maxwell's letter of December 11, 2010.

It is a given that not every bit of armoring done after Hurricane Dennis was done properly. Ours was. There was a multitude of meetings held regarding what should be done and how it should be done. Those meetings included representatives from Florida Dept. of Environmental Protection, Engineers, Armoring Contractors, US Fish and Wildlife and, yes, at at least one meeting, Sharon Maxwell. We were advised to do what we needed to do and our wall would be approved permanently at some point in the future. We paid all fees, hired an engineer, hired a worldwide known seawall contractor and proceeded to do what was necessary to protect our property for the future and to restore it to the best possible use for us as well as our wildlife species.

Well, it is now 2010 and our application has been at FDEP for 4 years. We have responded to every request they have issued for more information. Additionally, now we are told the HCP cannot be completed without an "Incidental Take" permit from US Fish and Wildlife. Funny, this was never mentioned by them at any of the meetings we held when considering the protection of our property and the habitat.

In regard to the turtle population and its being affected by the armoring, the 2008 nesting data shows nesting levels higher than those in 2001 through 2003. Furthermore, nesting data for 2008 and 2009 shows a nesting increase in Loggerhead turtles while the same time period for the rest of the state showed the 4th lowest number of nests since data began to be collected. Where's the "take"? By the way, I was lucky enough to be able to watch a Loggerhead lay her eggs one evening here on Blue Mountain Beach this season.

Now, a personal note but one with which I think most beachfront property owners would agree. I have always been for public beaches. I have always been considerate of the need to protect our turtles and other species of wildlife. No one who has armoring has asked for one cent in reimbursement for restoration of the habitat or for the expense of restoring our property to a useful condition. That can't be said for Katrina, Rita or the BP oil spill victims. We only seek fairness, and with the present situation we do not feel we are getting it. It is my firm belief the the US Fish and Wildlife Service is literally blackmailing the County of Walton. It quite alright for them and the Walton County Turtle Watch Association to dig up and transport over 300 turtle eggs to the East Florida coast and it not be considered a "take" but when we restore our sand so that the turtles may nest, it is a "take". Maybe, on second thought, it is time for the private beachfront property owners to consider restricting the use of their beaches until they receive some consideration for what they have done instead of knocking them for destroying the habitat.

[kurt]

[scooterbug44]

I don't have a problem with the few properly constructed seawalls (and I have repeatedly suggested that a good budget solution is getting rid of the FDEP folks in Tallahassee who set a new standard of incompetence), but I do have an issue with taxpayers footing the bill for seawalls and illegal seawalls getting a pass.

IMO the contractors/owners who improperly installed seawalls should foot the bill.

[kurt]

[kurt]

[kurt]

7/3/05 - Walton County Commissioner Ro Cuchens surveys his project and discusses matters with Walton County code enforcement coordinator Kevin Hargett and a passerby.

[kurt]

[NotDeadYet]

It is my firm belief the the US Fish and Wildlife Service is literally blackmailing the County of Walton. It quite alright for them and the Walton County Turtle Watch Association to dig up and transport over 300 turtle eggs to the East Florida coast and it not be considered a "take" but when we restore our sand so that the turtles may nest, it is a "take". Maybe, on second thought, it is time for the private beachfront property owners to consider restricting the use of their beaches until they receive some consideration for what they have done instead of knocking them for destroying the habitat.

The decision to relocate eggs last summer was made at the state and federal level. Walton County and the South Walton Turtle Watch had nothing to do with it, and the decision had nothing whatsoever to do with the seawalls. It was all about the oil spill.

You accuse USFW of blackmail, and in nearly the same breath, your last sentence sounds very like blackmail to me.

The issue here is not what was done - it was done five years ago - the present issue is how to resolve it and who is going to pay for the resolution. The thread title here is a good one, should the taxpayers bail out the seawall owners, especially now that at least one, you, is talking about restricting use of those beaches by said taxpayers?

[Andy A]

The decision to relocate eggs last summer was made at the state and federal level. Walton County and the South Walton Turtle Watch had nothing to do with it, and the decision had nothing whatsoever to do with the seawalls. It was all about the oil spill.

You accuse USFW of blackmail, and in nearly the same breath, your last sentence sounds very like blackmail to me.

The issue here is not what was done - it was done five years ago - the present issue is how to resolve it and who is going to pay for the resolution. The thread title here is a good one, should the taxpayers bail out the seawall owners, especially now that at least one, you, is talking about restricting use of those beaches by said taxpayers?

I think you should note the rest of the letter. The last sentence only said "maybe" and was considered poetic license as far as I'm concerned. On various threads in this forum, I have strongly defended and supported the public's right to use ALL the beach and that the beaches should not be "private" in Florida. We, the beach front owners, are being asked to fully pay for what all the public now uses and I don't think that is fair. If you do, you are entitled to, what I consider, your very flawed opinion. That said, I realize you are not alone. Everyone likes something that is free.

[Andy A]

Kurt, thank you for all the pictures of the construction in2005. I'm sure you are aware that some of the walls were not covered because the owners were told not to cover them. At least that is what I have been told. Please now post some pictures of what the renovated area of Blue Mt. Beach where I now live looks like.

[NotDeadYet]

The last sentence only said "maybe" and was considered poetic license as far as I'm concerned.

I see. Thank you for clarifying that.

[SWGB]

So you bought a house on a hill of sand. I assume you walked down to the beach and turned around. A hurricane, the strongest force in nature, came along and amazingly washed out the sand. Now I and everyone else in the county who thought that might be a bad idea is going to pay for it?

Let me tell you where you can put your TEA.

[Andy A]

So you bought a house on a hill of sand. I assume you walked down to the beach and turned around. A hurricane, the strongest force in nature, came along and amazingly washed out the sand. Now I and everyone else in the county who thought that might be a bad idea is going to pay for it?

Let me tell you where you can put your TEA.

"Why not make the contractors who installed them illegally or improperly liable?" Your quote not mine. Its one of the few sensible things you said lately. Also, it is too bad you don't understand how people who have really lived in the world think. Arrogant? Yes. True? Also yes. I know more about the forces of nature first hand than you could possibly learn in your internet exploring and I accept the risks of life, including living on the beach. Have a nice day.

[SWGB]

"Why not make the contractors who installed them illegally or improperly liable?" Your quote not mine. Its one of the few sensible things you said lately. Also, it is too bad you don't understand how people who have really lived in the world think. Arrogant? Yes. True? Also yes. I know more about the forces of nature first hand than you could possibly learn in your internet exploring and I accept the risks of life, including living on the beach. Have a nice day.

Just so we're clear you understand that you are socializing your decision to live in a geologically unstable area? Once again it benefits you so it's fine, but if it benefits someone else it's an evil force that must be stopped at all costs. You are beyond arrogant and selfish.

If I follow your above post then your seawall was installed illegally or improperly? Your quote of my quote.

Once again I will bow to your unbelievable life experience and move on since you will simply answer this post with the written version of this:

[John R]

So, there are those who choose to build on a moving medium, and when the moving medium moves in a way that's not to their advantage, they change the topography to protect their assets. Then they want to taxpayers to cover the costs. Is there another way to read this?

In effect, the taxpayers are paying for 'private' beaches. Isn't that illegal? And, if not, wouldn't that make the 'private' beaches public? I figure if I'm paying for one's seawall, then I have every right to sit in front of it. And if this gets approved across the board, who will make the determination over private vs public sand?

[Smiling JOe]

The tourists' tax dollars have been paying for private beaches for years. Nothing new there. eg- the TDC collects trash from the beaches on a daily basis from all beaches in South Walton, with maybe the exception of the state parks, regardless of ownership.

[SWGB]

The tourists' tax dollars have been paying for private beaches for years. Nothing new there. eg- the TDC collects trash from the beaches on a daily basis from all beaches in South Walton, with maybe the exception of the state parks, regardless of ownership.

This isn't about TDC dollars, it's about property tax dollars. Oh and don't give me that argument that without the protection the county wouldn't benefit from the tax revenue. All of this was pre to mid boom so the land would have been redeveloped into empty foreclosed condos just like many of them are now.

[TreeFrog]

On a somewhat larger scale, this is just like the owners on Eastern Lake who want the county to open the lake every time their non-floating dock is submerged.

If you buy beachfront, you should accept responsibility for the risk inherent in owning beachfront. If you can't handle it, then don't do it. This is why, in the old days, they built tiny, disposable beach houses.

[Smiling JOe]

swgb, sometimes you make up the craziest stuff.

[Andy A]

SWGB, my wife, who is much smarter than either you or I, gave me some sage advice regarding most of your posts and I paraphrase: Since so many are in the same vein as those posted by another poster which you read but regiously ignore, do the same with SWGB. He is misdirected and often has no idea of what he speaks, as you so often do. Responding to you is not debating, it is only an arguement. Therefore, I shall not respond to your superior ability to use a computer again. And when you learn what TEA really stands for you will have learned something valuable. Now, back to the subject at hand. Beach usage.

[scooterbug44]

No, the issue at hand is whether all of us should pay for what you have chosen to do to your residence.

[Smiling JOe]

Maybe they should include seawall subsidies in with the 6400+ earmarks which are in the new tax bill being proposed. Hardly anyone seems to object to sending money to other states to help out particular causes, as long as it's hidden in important stuff. From my observation, they seem to push for these types of funding rather than against it.

If it doesn't fit into the tax bill, maybe it should be shoved into the health care bill, which has people in good health subsidizing the health care of those who do not lead a healthy lifestyle. Again, very few objections about paying for that.

(I'm against paying for seawalls built by others.)

[SWGB]

Maybe they should include seawall subsidies in with the 6400+ earmarks which are in the new tax bill being proposed. Hardly anyone seems to object to sending money to other states to help out particular causes, as long as it's hidden in important stuff. From my observation, they seem to push for these types of funding rather than against it.

If it doesn't fit into the tax bill, maybe it should be shoved into the health care bill, which has people in good health subsidizing the health care of those who do not lead a healthy lifestyle. Again, very few objections about paying for that.

(I'm against paying for seawalls built by others.)

SJ, you come up with the craziest things.

[hi n dry]

Below is a summary of the December 15 meeting.

Many seawall owners were present with their attorneys. They essentially want the state legislature to bail them out of their obligation to bring their walls up to DEP standards and to avoid paying environmental impact fees.

If passed this bill will give amnesty to illegal seawalls that have not met DEP standards. It could also transfer the environmental impact costs to taxpayers.

It is well documented that seawalls can interfere with natural beach re-nourishment and wild life habitat as well as potentially contributing to beach erosion.

If some of these walls are allowed to stay they may hinder public beach usage and could deflect erosion to non armored beach front properties.

It should also be pointed out that any delay in the permitting process has been contributed to by the obstructive efforts of some seawall owners and their numerous attorneys.


Defuniak Herald ? Legislators to file bill for Walton County seawalls


excerpt from below article:... “ the building department had issued the emergency armoring permits, making it clear to permittees that “these were temporary walls.” This was also stated in a brochure provided to the people obtaining permits...

...the bill fundamentally wrong to take decisions on the seawalls out of the normal review process underway with DEP. .. filing of the bill “bad policy” and “a bad precedent.”

...citizens rely on DEP to ensure that what is built on the beach complies with state regulations. ..walls found to be in compliance should remain and that the ones not meeting state standards should come down.”



Legislators to file bill for Walton County seawalls
Dec 23rd, 2010 | 0

By DOTTY NIST

Walton County’s legislative delegation has made a decision to file a bill in the Florida Legislature addressing the matter of coastal armoring or seawalls constructed along the Walton County gulf as a result of Hurricane Dennis.

During the emergency period following the July 2005 hurricane, Walton County issued permits to beach front property owners in order for the homeowners to put up temporary armoring to shore up their property.


The permits were issued with the understanding that a state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) permit would be required in order for armoring to stay in place on a permanent basis. Property owners built several miles of seawalls and other armoring in connection with the emergency county permits, much of which is still in place. However, years later, post-Dennis seawall owners have for the most part been unsuccessful in obtaining state armoring permits.

On Dec. 15, at a public hearing held by the legislation delegation in Walton County, beach front homeowner Emmett Hildreth, in the company of a group of other seawall owners, presented a bill that, if approved, would remove the requirement of a state permit for coastal armoring constructed following Hurricane Dennis, between July 1 and April 30, 2005. The proposed legislation is termed a local bill because it applies to one specific area.

Hildreth told the delegation, which included Brad Drake (R-Eucheeanna), Marti Coley (R-Marianna), Don Gaetz (R-Niceville), and Greg Evers (R-Baker), that approximately 190 properties were involved. He estimated that there were approximately 10,000 people that the legislation would “materially affect. Since paying their fees to obtain state armoring permits, the property owners have encountered “a nightmare stalemate,” Hildreth complained, adding “the Florida DEP is sitting on the permits.”

“If you cannot get a permit, you cannot sell your property,” Hildreth told the legislators. He also contended that property values had fallen as a result of the homeowners’ inability to obtain state armoring permits.

“We’re just asking you to do what is right, what is fair.” Hildreth urged. He read the bill language, and the seawall owners in attendance broke out in applause as he concluded his remarks.


Gaetz quickly made a motion for the local bill to be filed in the legislature. Evers seconded the motion.


The meeting was then opened up for public comment on both sides of the issue.

South Walton County resident Jacquee Markel, the first person to speak, expressed her opposition to the bill. Markel found it to be “fundamentally wrong” to take decisions on the seawalls out of the normal review process underway with DEP. She called the filing of the bill “bad policy” and “a bad precedent.” She told the legislators that citizens rely on DEP to ensure that what is built on the beach complies with state regulations. It was her opinion that the walls found to be in compliance should remain and that the ones not meeting state standards should come down.

Drake, serving as delegation chair, then noted that Walton County is a party of interest in connection with the legislation. He called upon Gerry Demers for his comments. Demers is currently assistant county administrator.

Demers noted that he was serving with the Walton County Building Department at the time of “the seawall incident.” He recalled that the building department had issued the emergency armoring permits, making it clear to permittees that “these were temporary walls.” This was also stated in a brochure provided to the people obtaining permits, he added.

Demers however noted that he would like to see the situation with the seawalls resolved. He suggested removing “roadblocks” to permitting now posed by state statutory language. The language sets several requirements in order for a seawall to be permitted, including proper siting, protection of an eligible structure, and the existence of vulnerability on the property, Demers explained. He suggested the removal of some or all of these requirements in order for existing post-Dennis seawalls to be permitted.

Another “roadblock,” a federal beach habitat issue raised by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), is close to being resolved with the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) close to being approved by the county, Demers noted.

Once permitted, the seawalls could then be monitored for impacts, Demers concluded.

“We do seriously want to get this issue worked out,” said Walton County Environmental Manager Billy McKee….

Read the full story in the December 23, 2010 edition of the Herald Breeze.

[30ashopper]

On a somewhat larger scale, this is just like the owners on Eastern Lake who want the county to open the lake every time their non-floating dock is submerged.

If you buy beachfront, you should accept responsibility for the risk inherent in owning beachfront. If you can't handle it, then don't do it. This is why, in the old days, they built tiny, disposable beach houses.

There are still a few of those left between here and PCB, and I wish I owned one. Beautiful little homes.

[TreeFrog]

There are still a few of those left between here and PCB, and I wish I owned one. Beautiful little homes.

Disappearing fast. The V knocked down two of them. Two more went away in Blue Mountain so they could build those two new immense places now under construction.

[scooterbug44]

Question - with all of this legislative attention, why can't they have the Florida DEP get the lead out and address the issues? Their lack of action seems to be a recurring theme as to why this issue has not been resolved.

(The monumentally stupid and incompetant FDEP folks in Tallahassee get my vote as a way for Governor Scott to cut the budget.)

[beachmouse]

Don't look for it anytime soon. The new head of DEP apparently has little to no experience in environmental fields.

[scooterbug44]

Don't look for it anytime soon. The new head of DEP apparently has little to no experience in environmental fields.

Um, then why the hail are they the new head of DEP?

[beachmouse]

Because he's going to be responsible for dismantling it and folding it into a an anti-envirnomental, pro-unregulated business growth agency:

Scott picks shipbuilding executive to head environmental protection agency - St. Petersburg Times

[scooterbug44]

And so it begins.

[Alicia Leonard]

There are still a few of those left between here and PCB, and I wish I owned one. Beautiful little homes.

I love the ones along Mexico Beach.

[miznotebook]

DEP is barred from taking any action to approve or deny permit applications for any of the post-Hurricane Dennis seawalls until July 1, 2011. This was part of the general appropriations bill passed by the legislature in the 2010 session.

[30ashopper]

I love the ones along Mexico Beach.

I have not been that far down along the coast, but I'll have to drive down and take a look since you mentioned it. Do they have white sand there? I was thinking of some of the homes I've seen on Laguna and Panama City Beach.

[30ashopper]

Well property sure as heck is cheaper down there. Dang!

[beachmouse]

It's white sand through Mexico Beach, but it starts getting marshy once you get SE of there. I really like the area, and it's about asOld Florida as you can get around here that still has a decent beach.


Cape San Blas is nice and sandy, but the prices are low because it's a very high erosion area (they've got huge concrete rip-rap in order to keep the road from washing out past the 'stumphole') and the insurance options there are supposed to be pretty much non-existing or prohibitively expensive. So you need to think cash purchases on the Cape, which limits the buyer pool. That and how they'll commonly lose a half dozen Cape beach houses during even a somewhat rockin' tropical storm that sends surge in the wrong direction.

[hi n dry]

Please see the attached January 6, 2011 Beach Breeze Article On The Proposed Walton County HCP and seawall issue .

Note: This topic will be on the Board of County Commissioners(BCC) agenda January 11 at 4pm at the court house annex.

excerpt: "...there is concern that if the legislation >to remove the requirement for post Dennis seawall owners to obtain a state permit < is approved as proposed, the motivation of these seawall owners to participate and share in funding of the county's HCP would be removed, leaving taxpayers as a whole to shoulder the cost of the plan in full."

The Walton County Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) had to be developed to resolve issues due to harm to the environment of the construction of sea walls by private property owners after the 2005 hurricane Dennis. The cost of this is $10 million dollars.

Prior to installing the seawalls the owners were informed that they would be considered temporary until permitted. In order to be permitted the seawall owners were to be required to participate in paying for the HCP.

On December 15 the seawall owners with their numerous attorneys persuaded state legislatures to introduce a law to remove the permitting requirement .

With this amnesty the seawall owners would no longer have to contribute to the cost of the HCP. This would leave the taxpayers with the multimillion dollar cost of the HCP.

I support the position of Billy McKee, county environmental manager, that seawall owners should be required to obtain a state permit for their seawalls.

McKee does favor a more simplified approval process but feels that armoring has be properly permitted ensure accountability and tracking .

Mr. McKee stated: ”We’ve got to maintain the quality and integrity of the beaches”.

Please attend this important BCC meeting January 11 at 4pm at the court house annex.

This time lets have more citizens in attendance who are concerned about the beaches and cost to taxpayers.

Also, please contact the below officials to express your opinion.

State Legislators:

Representative Marti Coley
Phone: 850-488-2873 850-488-2873
Email: <marti.coley@myfloridahouse.gov>

Senator Don Gaetz
Phone: Toll Free: 866-450-4366 866-450-4366 or 850-487-5009 850-487-5009
Email: <gaetz.don.web@flsenate.gov>

Representative Brad Drake
Phone: 850-488-4726 850-488-4726
Email: <brad.drake@myfloridahouse.gov>

Senator Greg Evers
Phone: 850-689-0556 850-689-0556
Email: <evers.greg.web@flsenate.gov>


County Commissioners:

Scott Brannon, District 1/ Vice Chairman
Phone: 850-835-4860 850-835-4860
Email: <brascott@co.walton.fl.us>

Kenneth Pridgen, District 2
Phone: 850-834-6328 850-834-6328
Email: <prikenneth@co.walton.fl.us>

Larry Jones, District 3, Chairman
Phone: 850-892-8474 850-892-8474
Email: <jonlarry@co.walton.fl.us>

Sara Comander, District 4
Phone: 850-835-4834 850-835-4834
Email: <comsara@co.walton.fl.us>

Cecilia Jones, District 5
Phone: 850-231-2978 850-231-2978
Email: <joncecilia@co.walton.fl.us>

[John R]

Hope to see you there this afternoon. A lot is riding on this.

[hi n dry]

Below is fanout from SWCC regarding BCC meeting today regarding Proposed state legislation to exempt post-Hurricane Dennis from the FDEP permitting requirements.

"As you will recall from previous emails, some gulf front property owners met with four of the local state legislators and presented a bill which provided that "no permit is required for any rigid coastal armoring structure constructed between July 1, 2005 and April 30, 2006 and such rigid coastal armoring structure may remain without the necessity of a permit and at the option of the upland property owner".

The four state delegates voted to move the proposal forward subject to working out the details. At the hearing before the legislative delegation, the gulf front property owners presenting the bill argued that the bill was necessary as the Florida Department of Environmental Protection had taken too long in processing applications for permanent armoring structures to their detriment in not being able to sell their property and otherwise have a final conclusion on the issue of a permit. It was indicated at the hearing that there were approximately 136 applications for post-Dennis seawalls.

As a brief explanation, state law requires that any proposal for a seawall must meet certain state requirements including criteria for eligibility(e.g., house built before Mar. 17, 1985) and vulnerability, design and construction standards, siting standards, etc. In applying state law to permit applications, FDEP has thus far denied some walls and approved others.

Walton County is proposing a compromise to the proposed local bill. The highlights of the proposed letter from Walton County that will be voted on at the county commission meeting are as follows:

1. The County has concerns with the proposed legislation.

2. "Allowing seawalls constructed after Hurricane Dennis to remain in place and be exempt from any permit conditions would be contrary to the overall best interest of the county in the protection and preservation of the beach and dune system".

3. FDEP seawall permit applications "should be reviewed to insure that structures were properly constructed and will not have negative consequences to adjacent properties and the dune system".

4. If the structure meets all criteria except for the "eligibility and vulnerability" standard, the county agrees that those standards can reasonably be waived and a permit issued.

5. The value of a permit on file is that "legitimizes the structure and would facilitate maintenance accountability and tracking.

.................................................. ..
COUNTY COMMISSION AGENDA

4:00 PM
Call to Order Invocation
Pledge of Allegiance to the American Flag
Approval of Agenda – addition or deletion of items
Approval of Consent Agenda

1. Approve Expenditure Approval List (EAL)
2. Approve Minutes of December 14, 2010, Regular Meeting and December 20, 2010, Special Meeting
3. Approve to surplus several items from the Tax Collector’s Office
4. Approve to surplus several items from the Fire Rescue Department
5. Approve to surplus several items from the TDC
6. Approve the Federal Election Activities Grant for fiscal year 2010-2011 for the Supervisor of Elections
7. Accept the Division of Emergency Management Grant for Post Disaster Redevelopment Plan and County Specific Training

4:05 PM Lyle Seigler, County Administrator
1. Citizens Services
a. Request from Rebecca Pazik, Center Manager for Walton County JobsPlus, to give an update on the Non Custodial Parent/Ex-Offender Grant
b. Board and Committee Appointments (for Coastal Dune Lake Advisory Board)

2. Emergency Response
a. Bid 010-032 Portable Care Fire Simulator, permission to re-bid

3. Human Resources
a. Revision of Policy 11, Annual Leave (second reading)
b. Revision and update of Policy 16, Sick Leave, Not Job Related (second reading)

4. Public Works
a. Widening of State Road 83 (US 331)
b. BankTrust Letter of Credit No. 260, Surety for the Village at Grayton Beach Phase I
c. Purchase of GPS Tracking Software and Equipment for 7 Spray Trucks
d. Violet Lane and Trout Drive Construction management and Inspection Services Proposal

5. Administration
a. Request from Kim Kirby, DeFuniak Springs City Manager, to approve the Natural Gas Franchise Agreement
b. Draft letter to State Legislative Delegation regarding local bill concerning seawalls in Walton County

4:15 PM Dawn Moliterno, Tourist Development Council
1. LKM, Advertising Agency – Amendment to the contract
2. LKM, Advertising Agency – request to transfer funds
3. Hire a Law Firm for TDC’s BP Claim
4. Joint Resolution regarding Oil Spill Claims

4:20 PM Lynn Hoshihara, County Attorney
1. Surplus of property – Ed Brown Road
2. Property located in Darlington

4:30 PM Public Hearings

1. Approve a Resolution to amend the budget for the County Transportation Trust Fund by $1,290,940 from reserves for fiscal year 2010-2011
2. Continued Public Hearing to consider an Ordinance setting forth the County Administrator’s roles and responsibilities

4:50 PM Commissioner Cecilia Jones, District Five
1. Advertise for a Public Hearing date to consider amending the Parking Ordinance
4:55 PM Commissioner Sara Comander, District Four
5:00 PM Commissioner Kenneth Pridgen, District Two
5:05 PM Commissioner Scott Brannon, District One
5:10 PM Chairman Larry D. Jones, District Three Public

5:15 PM Comments

5:20 PM Habitat Conservation Plan – 2nd Public Hearing for adoption
1. Approve the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) and submit the document to the US Fish & Wildlife

5:30 PM Planning and Development
Quasi-Judicial Items:

1. The Grove By the Sea 3rd Addition Replat
2. Alys Beach Developers Agreement
3. 723 WHISKEY BRAVO– Project number 10-001-00023. This is a major development application submitted by Moore-Bass Consulting, consisting of a 4,300 square foot restaurant with a 1,448 square foot roof platform, a 316 square foot addition to the existing commercial building, and the renovation of the existing commercial cottages. The project is on 1.16 acres, with a future land use of NPA-RP. The site is at 3031 East C.R. 30A (parcel number 14-3S-19-25090-012-0020, 14-3S-19-25090-012-001A, 14-3S-19-25090-012-0010).

Adjourn.

Information on certain items:

Proposed state legislation to exempt post-Hurricane Dennis from the FDEP permitting requirements. As you will recall from previous emails, some gulf front property owners met with four of the local state legislators and presented a bill which provided that "no permit is required for any rigid coastal armoring structure constructed between July 1, 2005 and April 30, 2006 and such rigid coastal armoring structure may remain without the necessity of a permit and at the option of the upland property owner". The four state delegates voted to move the proposal forward subject to working out the details. At the hearing before the legislative delegation, the gulf front property owners presenting the bill argued that the bill was necessary as the Florida Department of Environmental Protection had taken too long in processing applications for permanent armoring structures to their detriment in not being able to sell their property and otherwise have a final conclusion on the issue of a permit. It was indicated at the hearing that there were approximately
136 applications for post-Dennis seawalls.

As a brief explanation, state law requires that any proposal for a seawall must meet certain state requirements including criteria for eligibility(e.g., house built before Mar. 17, 1985) and vulnerability, design and construction standards, siting standards, etc. In applying state law to permit applications, FDEP has thus far denied some walls and approved others.

Walton County is proposing a compromise to the proposed local bill. The highlights of the proposed letter from Walton County that will be voted on at the county commission meeting are as follows:
1. The County has concerns with the proposed legislation
2. "Allowing seawalls constructed after Hurricane Dennis to remain in place and be exempt from any permit conditions would be contrary to the overall best interest of the county in the protection and preservation of the beach and dune system"
3. FDEP seawall permit applications "should be reviewed to insure that structures were properly constructed and will not have negative consequences to adjacent properties and the dune system".
4. If the structure meets all criteria except for the "eligibility and vulnerability" standard, the county agrees that those standards can reasonably be waived and a permit issued.
5. The value of a permit on file is that "legitimizes the structure and would facilitate maintenance accountability and tracking.

Establish Hearing Date for Parking Ordinance. (Commissioner Cecelia Jones) The current county Parking Ordinance encompasses such topics as no parking zones, use of mulit-use path, construction parking rules, ATV use restrictions, parking for disabled, etc. As soon as I get a copy of the proposed changes to this ordinance, I will send them to members.

Joint Resolution on Oil submitted by TDC. This is a proposal for a joint resolution supporting a "United Recovery Plan". A copy of the proposed resolution was not in the county public packet for the meeting so I cannot provide any details at this time.

The Habitat Conservation Plan. I have sent so many emails explaining this process that I will spare you the repetition. Basically, this is a proposed mitigation plan for the seawalls. Here is the latest statement from the county staff. You can view the plan on the county website as indicated below.

We are continuing to revise the HCP to incorporate all relevant changes
and will provide a summary of those changes at the January 11 meeting.
Please check our website for the revised Draft 3: Your
Government>Environmental Resources>Habitat Conservation Plan (on the
left sidebar).

Please do not hesitate to call or email if you have questions. Contact
me or Billy McKee at (850) 892-8108 (850) 892-8108 .

[scooterbug44]

Why do we need to hire an attorney for the TDC's BP spill claim?

Did they file one already and have it get denied?

[Morning Glory]

Why do we need to hire an attorney for the TDC's BP spill claim?

Did they file one already and have it get denied?

They have to give George Miller and Clay Adkinson something to do

[GoodWitch58]

on channel 7 news tonight, the TDC director said an attorney would bring other skill sets to the table, like economics...

[Smiling JOe]

That's some good lawyer money - 20% of the BP payout (on contingency -- no win, no pay), which they state is at least $1 million. They are actually trying to hire an attorney who is very experienced with the BP situation with much understanding of the entire situation and the evidence needed to win the case. I assume the reason they are hiring the attorney is due to BP not paying the TDC.

[GoodWitch58]

but didn't they get tons of BP money and they spent it on advertising and giving out gift cards from Southwest, etc.?

[scooterbug44]

on channel 7 news tonight, the TDC director said an attorney would bring other skill sets to the table, like economics...

So now we need to hire a lawyer for their economic expertise? Does the lawyer have a degree in economics? Didn't we hire people for the TDC because THEY were supposed to know the local economy?

I saw a news clip the other day and per the TDC's own survey (wonder what that cost BTW) only 50% of previous visitors stayed away because of oil concerns.

25% cited financial reasons. Maybe they should address that. Every event keeps jacking up prices and nickel and diming folks and few other prices ever go down.

[Smiling JOe]

Not for their economic expertise. For their oil disaster expertise and ability to demonstrate to a court how it affects local economies.

[kurt]

but didn't they get tons of BP money and they spent it on advertising and giving out gift cards from Southwest, etc.?

Previous money given to panhandle counties and the state of Florida was from a special fund specific to tourism marketing. Now they are talking about recouping actual bed tax losses.

So now we need to hire a lawyer for their economic expertise? Does the lawyer have a degree in economics? Didn't we hire people for the TDC because THEY were supposed to know the local economy?

I saw a news clip the other day and per the TDC's own survey (wonder what that cost BTW) only 50% of previous visitors stayed away because of oil concerns.

25% cited financial reasons. Maybe they should address that. Every event keeps jacking up prices and nickel and diming folks and few other prices ever go down.

Which is why I suggest using BP money for free gas, lodging, gift cards, discounts, etc. to entice travelers.