RESTORE ACT ADVISORY COMMITTEE, PASCO COUNTY, FLORIDA ANNOTATED MINUTES OCTOBER 3, 2013 PREPARED IN THE OFFICE OF PAULA S. O NEIL, CLERK & COMPTROLLER THE MINUTES WERE PREPARED IN AGENDA ORDER AS PUBLISHED AND NOT IN THE ORDER IN WHICH THE ITEMS WERE HEARD 5:30 P.M. WEST PASCO GOVERNMENT CENTER, BOARD ROOM 8731 CITIZENS DRIVE, NEW PORT RICHEY, FLORIDA 34654 Committee Members Jack Mariano, Board of County Commissioners - ABSENT Kathryn Starkey (Alternate), Board of County Commissioners Cynthia Armstrong, School Board Representative Dr. Randy Stovall, College/University Representative To Be Determined, Science or Fisheries Representative Jeffrey Lowe, Job Creation Industry Representative - ABSENT John Hagan, Pasco Economic Development Council Representative Kristin Tonkin, Tourism Representative Bob Robertson, Citizen Representative - ABSENT Bruce Mills, West Pasco Chamber of Commerce Representative CALL TO ORDER Acting-Chairman Armstrong called the meeting to order at 5:37 p.m. INVOCATION PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Ms. Katie McCormick, Deputy Clerk, gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ROLL CALL Page 1 of 5
Ms. McCormick called the roll. All members were present except Mr. Robertson, Mr. Lowe, and Chairman Mariano. Commissioner Starkey listened to the meeting via a telephone conference call from 6:47 p.m. to 7:01 p.m. TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION Legislative Update Ms. Kristin Tonkin left the meeting at 7:27 p.m. Mr. Bill Williams, SCG Governmental Affairs, distributed and reviewed the information with the Committee Members regarding the trust fund, the Treasury Rules, the Comprehensive Plan, comments from various counties, and the estimated timeline. He noted the comment deadline would be Friday and spoke extensively regarding the processes being followed and meetings held throughout the State. Mr. Williams spoke regarding projects that had already been submitted and planned to meet with the School Board representatives to review those projects. He felt the State was very interested in environmentally based projects. He believed that the Treasury Rules and the Comprehensive Plan were the most critical issues. He indicated he would provide the information to the Committee Members and would work with Mr. Franklin to prepare the necessary comments. Acting-Chairman Armstrong asked if RESTORE Act money could be used to create the RFP. Mr. Williams stated yes, but the language was very ambiguous. He explained that each County was required to have a multi-year implementation plan which had to be approved by the Council before those expenditures could be used. Counties would be more comfortable putting the money out, if they knew it would be returned. Acting-Chairman Armstrong asked if the funds were required to come from the State budget. Mr. Williams spoke regarding the Federal Law requirements and explained that each County had a representative. At this point, no fiscal support had been offered. The Treasury Rules were not clear enough in the application process. The grant process would be very structured, but was not clear at this point. He stated he would be sending out language related to the 2011 Appropriations Bill regarding RESTORE dollars that came to the State. Mr. Williams spoke regarding the BP settlement and explained on October 11, 2013 he would provide a presentation at the State Regional Planning Council meeting and would be bringing back information to the Committee. Page 2 of 5
Presentation from Reef Makers Mr. Curtis Franklin, RESTORE Act Program Coordinator, explained that Reef Makers were not present to request money, but to discuss ideas that could be done in accordance with the RESTORE Act. Mr. Joe Weatherby, President of Reef Makers gave a presentation about his firm which built artificial reefs for tourism and economic development purposes. The company provided positive environmental impacts on jobs, revenue and educational facilities. He provided details which included the cleaning and sinking process, and aspects of fishing, diving, snorkeling, museum interests and media value. He spoke regarding prior projects and noted they had provided many different types of reefs from ships to cement items. He spoke extensively regarding the economic impacts of the reefs and explained that his reefs were environmentally safe. He introduced Mr. Chris Wojak, who was associated with his firm. Mr. Wojak stated that he was an artist, and did work for natural history museums, zoos and aquariums. He noted he was a marine science professor and had been a scuba instructor, and spoke regarding the market and possible projects such as turning the ocean floor into a gallery. Mr. Weatherby spoke extensively regarding various projects, jobs created, awards received, and explained that reefs attracted business from fishermen, snorkelers and divers, but also impacted hotels, restaurants and shops. He stated that his reefs had generated millions of dollars in free press. He spoke regarding the required guidelines for cleaning the ships to prepare them for artificial reefs and funding sources. Discussion followed between Mr. Weatherby and the Committee Members regarding navigation concerns; preparation of the ships; tourist appeal and events held; and structure types. Criterion Review for Pot 1 and 3 Projects Mr. Curtis Franklin, RESTORE Act Program Coordinator, provided the criterion review for Pot 1 and Pot 3 projects and spoke regarding the funding differences. He explained that Pot 1 and Pot 3 funds were governed by the GCRC guidelines and reviewed the differences between the Pot 1 and Pot 3 scoring sheets. He explained that projects were limited to 25% maximum for state infrastructure projects. The Treasury draft rules did not identify what was considered infrastructure. Discussion followed regarding that the State as a whole could only spend 25% for infrastructure; that each project needed to be graded on the 9 categories outlined in the Comprehensive Plan; grading the projects according to the way they related to the Restore Act and Restore Act categories; the logic in limiting infrastructure to 25%; that the State was trying to steer the projects toward restoration environmental and Page 3 of 5
economic projects, and the limit did not apply to Pot 2 funds. Acting-Chairman Armstrong asked if there had been a vote to approve the criteria for Pot 1 and Pot 3. Mr. Franklin explained no vote had been taken regarding the score sheets and criteria. He explained that projects had to be submitted through a public forum, graded and scored in order to weigh them against the guidelines and criteria of the Act. Score Sheet Review for Pot 1 and 3 Projects Mr. Franklin explained that Pot 1 and Pot 3 projects were similar with the same guidelines and scoring criteria. He recommended Pot 1 and Pot 3 be done together. He reviewed the scoring criteria, the process to be followed and spoke regarding: No. 1 Provide Restoration Protection of Natural Resources. No. 2 Mitigate Damage to Fish, Wildlife, or Natural Resources. No. 3 Implements a Federally Approved Marine or Coastal Conservation Plan. No. 4 Workforce Development and Job Creation. No. 5 Improves Impacted Coastal State Parks. No. 6a Infrastructure Projects Benefiting the Economy. No. 6b Infrastructure Projects Benefiting Ecological Resources. No. 7 Coastal Flood Protection and Related Infrastructure. No. 8 Planning Assistance. No. 9 Promotes Tourism & Recreation Fishing. No. 10 Promotes Seafood Consumption Harvested from Gulf Coast Region. No. 11 Timing Score. Acting-Chairman Armstrong stated comments would be taken during the meeting with the item being brought back to the Committee at the next meeting. Extensive discussion followed regarding the designation of land; implementation of best management practices; setting aside land in conservation areas; ways to protect natural resources; Treasury Rule requirements; coastal management plans; development of fishing areas; no growth of the fisheries; timeframes; permanent or temporary jobs; definition of impacted by the spill; impact to the State Park because of the BP oil spill; changes to the criteria; area and regional impacts; economic benefits; local impacts; distinguishing one resource from another; storm water projects; flood protection projects; the scoring criteria used; distinguishing between State or Federal projects; the ranking list; advertising; possible aquaculture facilities; harvesting and consumption; and scoring based upon the project. Mr. Franklin recommended that Staff assign the scores as was done with Pot 2. He noted he would provide clarification for the questions raised at the next meeting. Page 4 of 5
Acting-Chairman Armstrong stated at the next meeting the Committee would vote on the scoring criteria. At 6:47 p.m. Ms. Baker stated Commissioner Starkey was listening to the meeting via telephone. At 7:10 p.m. Commissioner Starkey left the conference call. PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m. RESTORE ACT ADVISORY COMMITTEE REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 3, 2013 Office of Paula S. O Neil, Clerk & Comptroller Prepared by: Katherine Willis, Records Clerk Board Records Department Page 5 of 5