Government and the 3 Minute Boogie

A writer named Hugh Prather wrote that he and his wife had learned to argue long enough to learn what it was they were really arguing about. I never forgot that thought and I wonder if it might be applied to the way our town government operates.

Last Thursday I attended a special commission meeting specifically about the beach. I thought the meeting would last as long as it took the commissioners to vote on the four previously proposed referendum items. Instead what ensued was a four and a half hour ordeal where no one appeared to be listening to one another.

Particularly baffling was a three-hour monologue by the mayor attempting to convince the other commissioners that Commissioner Younger's new beach proposal was the wrong answer to the question about what to do about our beaches. I personally believe that Commissioner Younger's idea is a doable compromise between doing too little and doing too much. As the town manager put it "an ingenious" concept. It now appears the town manager is having second thoughts and is unwilling to accept a 6-1 commission vote to adopt Commissioner Younger's proposal and no other proposals.

The town manager had his beach consultants tell the commissioners that Commissioner Younger's ideas were inadequate and that only a full beach re-nourishment a year ahead of schedule would do. I felt that neither the consultant's or the mayor's words had any affect on the resolve of at least four of the commissioners.  In the end, six commissioners rejected the town manager's consultants' admonitions.

Still the mayor pressed on, hour after hour, unrelentingly, in his quest to defeat Commissioner Younger and champion the town manager's much more costly plan.

While I was watching the mayor's labored, perhaps over-labored monologue, I recalled all the times that the mayor has limited input from residents and commissioners alike to 3 minutes, when that person is talking about something that is not part of the majority agenda. I wonder if limiting dialog to 3 minutes, for all those who do not agree with the majority, serves the residents of this community well. Do as I say, not as I do it seems.

Of course the political majority of commissioners have the power to curtail input from residents and commissioners. Also there seems to be a generally accepted philosophy amongst our unpaid commissioners that commission meetings should not be allowed to "drag on". The shorter the better. I wonder if this is good for a community where the town government is faced with some truly daunting issues. Is it a good idea to allow people who have political cache, or are friends with the current majority faction of the commission, to have greater access and more time to advance their ideas, while restricting the general public and minority commissioners to only a 3 minute boogie, so to speak?

The present beach dust-up between the town manager and the majority of the commissioners, or should I say the majority of the commissioners at last count, appears to lack any sort of clearly defined parameters. Cost estimates have ranged from 7 to 50 million dollars. Sand quantities have ranged from 35 thousand to 1.5 million yards. Bond interest has ranged from 2.5 to 5 percent. Bond terms have ranged from 2 to 20 years. I doubt the commission fully understands the details of what they approved. I certainly did not and I have attended the meetings.

For the most part this has been a one-sided conversation. Opposing points of view have been limited to 3 minutes. Strangely the majority has swung a couple of times between the town manager's proposal for a high-priced replenishment to commissioners Brenner's and Younger's less ambitious plans. Nowhere have I seen a measured and balanced dialog that included commissioners and residents with differing views.

What I believe I have seen in the process that has ended up with a 6-1 commission vote to place Commissioner Younger's proposal on the March ballot, and the town manager's continuing refusal to accept that vote, is a lack of hard facts and information. Yes, the town manager's beach consultants have had many hours to advance their views. Unfortunately, no one else has been invited to the table. I think that is what commissioner Brenner is alluding to when we asks for some sort of evaluation process. I concur.

Three minutes is not enough  time to explore alternative facts and views in a multi-million dollar conversation. I hope we find a better political path into our future. Political might may not always be right.

Clouds Over Longboat Beaches

Last Monday's commission meeting turned into a lengthy forum on the town manager's proposed $56 million beach project that has the town manager recommending that the scheduled beach renourishment be moved forward a full year. Once again I state that I object to the town using the face value of bonds as opposed to the figure that appears on our tax statements which is the bond value plus interest. The bond value is in the vicinity of $45 million.

I spoke to the commission and the gist of my statements appears below followed by the town manager's rebuttal of my claims. This column represents a new paradigm in our community government in that I can now respond to the town manager's enviable position of always getting the last word. So please read to the end, because I believe you will enjoy the new and I feel improved process of governance.

Here are my comments to the commission on Monday evening:


Initial Bond $45 million

Minus $7 million for a north end jetty.

$45 million bond minus $7 million for the jetty leaves $38 million as the projected cost for sand.

Interest on $38 million sand bond at 3% for 8 years = $9.12 million.

The true cost of the project is $38 million plus interest of $9 million = $47 million.

$47 million is what appears on our taxes.

The town manager has stated that 1.2 million yards of sand will be required.

$47 million divided by 1.2 million yards of sand equals $39 dollars a yard for sand.

At $39 per yard the most we could expect to be reimbursed from Port Dolphin would be 128 thousand yards of sand. That is 1/10th the amount being used for the proposed sand renourishment. If Port Dolphin pays us money, the cap is set at $5 million which is linked to our costs for removing the sand from the Port Dolphin right-of-way. There are absolutely no guarantees the town will get a nickel from Port Dolphin.

If the beach project is advanced a year the taxpayers will lose a full year of amortization on the previous beach bond which is approximately $660.000. In addition the taxpayers will have to start paying $1.3 million annually on a new beach bond a year early. I am not even including any discussion of possibly far less costly beach maintenance technologies that will not be examined if the beach project is advanced a year.

Is Port Dolphin worth advancing the project with all the extra costs involved?

The total cost for both the sand and the jetty is $45 mil + 3% interest for 8 years equals $10.8 mil, for a grand total of $55.8 million added to our resident’s taxes.

I include here a lower cost projection in an attempt to show that even at a lower coast project that the financials still do not make sense to me.

Low end sand only estimate: $32 mil for sand bond / $7.7 mil for interest / $40 mil total / 40 divided by 1.2 = $33 per yard / 151 thousand yards reimbursed from Port Dolphin – still not worth it.

If we are going to pay between $33 and $39 a yard for sand that will be half gone in two years, I believe we need to research alternatives first. $33 - 39 a yard is simply too much to do otherwise.

Below are my responses to the three statements made by the town manager to refute the above statements.


1) The town mnager stated that each year we lose 250,000 cubic yards of our beach sand. I am assuming that is what he is saying when he stated that there is yearly loss of $4 million worth of sand from an initial renourishment of 1.8 million yards. 1.8 divided by 8 = 225,000. From what I have read and what has been stated by CP&E, there is an initial accelerated equilibrating process that occurs in the first two to three years where approximately 50% of the dry beach profile is redistributed as the beach profile approaches equilibrium.

“The time scale for profile equilibration has been examined for several projects and it has been found that the project will stabilize to one-half the equilibrium adjustment in approximately 2 to 3 years.”…NOAA quote.

The rate of sand loss in a perfect system (no storms) then decreases logarithmically each year as the dry beach comes closer to equilibrium with the greater shore profile. This would indicate that sand loss in the final year would not be 1/8th of the whole, as the town manager stated, but much less. I disagree with the town manager's assertion that waiting a year would cost an additional $4 million dollars. I do not believe the taxpayers come out ahead by early termination of the current beach project.

Sand Loss Graph: (note logarithmic loss curve - less and less sand lost over time)

2) The proposed north end jetty: The town manager rebutted that not advancing the beach project would leave no sand in the north end system for the proposed jetty, and that a jetty needs sand in the system because jetties do not produce sand. I wish to say I do not agree with that statement. Jetties are expressly designed to keep sand out of a system, in this case out of Longboat Pass. I do not believe we need to worry about not enough sand reaching the jetty. Rather we need to hope that not too much sand escapes the jetty, and is lost into Longboat Pass, which is the whole rational for a jetty in the first place. Jetties are designed to retard the loss of shore sand into an inlet.

I believe the town manager has stated on several occasions that 50,000+ yards of sand are lost annually into Longboat Pass off just the most northern two thousand feet of Longboat. Without an accurate measurement of the sand crossing the inlet from Anna Maria onto Longboat, we have no way of predicting how much additional sand will pile up against the jetty. In short I cannot agree that waiting a year will in any way adversely affect the intended function of the proposed jetty.

3) The town manager's third assertion, that it will cost more for sand if we wait a year, is a more complex issue and one that has never been broached before. If one follows his reasoning we should terminate every beach project early to save money. I am reminded of Zeno’s Paradox of Achilles and the Tortoise. Accelerating a beach project also accelerates the need for the next beach project, and so-on. It is a zero-sum game. Since our sand costs have risen exponentially from project to project, I find it difficult to believe that any new sand will be less expensive than sand from a previous project.

I still maintain that there are adverse financial consequences for advancing the beach project and a total lack of any assured benefits.

Termination of the current beach project a year early adds $660,000 to the existing bond amortization schedule.

To Advance or Not to Advance

One cost of advancing the Longboat Key beach project to 2011 from the scheduled year 2012, on a $45 million bond at 3%, is $1.3 million in yearly interest on the bond a year early.

So far the town manager’s sole reason for advancing the project is the Port Dolphin sand and the possible loss of up to $5 million in payments from the pipeline company, if Port Dolphin decides to construct the pipeline.

The following considerations should be part of the cost/benefit analysis of advancing the project one year.

1. The taxpayers will receive one less year of value for the current $26 million bond or $660,000.

2. The taxpayers will have one fewer years when they are not paying for a beach bond.

3. The taxpayers will pay $1.35 million dollars interest on the new bond one year early

4. Exactly how many cu/yds of sand from the Port Dolphin borrow-sites will be used on the proposed beach project? We should know this.

5. Is there a sand transportation differential between the sand coming from the north end of Anna Maria Island and the sand coming from the more distant Port Dolphin borrow-sites?

6. How is the town reimbursed by Port Dolphin, by the yard or as a lump sum? The town manager has stated that the town may receive up to $5 million so I expect there is some sort of yard/dollar formula.

7. The beach consultants say 2 of 5 sections of the beach on Longboat Key will receive the darker courser Port Dolphin sand. If the total project is 1.8 million yards of sand, then perhaps approximately 2/5ths of that amount will be taken from the Port Dolphin sites or 720,000 yards of sand.

8. By advancing the project by 1 year, to receive possible compensation form Port Dolphin, each yard of the 720,000 yards from Port Dolphin will have an added cost of $1.80 to cover the added early interest on the $45 million bond.

9. I estimate that the town has already spent over $500,000 fighting the Port Dolphin pipeline, so there is another $1.40 added on to the cost of each yard of sand coming from the Port Dolphin sites. These are only approximations and are not represented as actual amounts. However, we should know the actual figures before we move forward.

If the Port Dolphin sand does have hidden costs in the range of $3.20 per yard, is it worth advancing the beach project one year, even if we do recive some money from the pipeline company? Remember we will be getting one less year of life from the current beach bond which makes that taxpayer transaction 14% more costly, while at the same advancing payments on the next beach bond by one year.

The Longboat Pass inlet management study may produce findings that preclude needing as much sand as projected in the currently proposed beach project. Why encumber the residents with additional taxes that may not be required after the completion of the inlet study.

The interim sand placement at the north end alleviates the necessity to act this year as all the other beaches are performing on schedule for the original 2012 beach project.

If Port Dolphin is the sole reason being advanced as the driving factor in advancing the beach project by a year, I say we should know a lot more about what we will actually receive from Port Dolphin and then run a cost/benefit analysis. Uninformed decision-making usually has its problems.

The town and the taxpayers might save a lot of money if an alternative beach maintenance technology is evaluated and found to be effective in acquiring sand, at no cost through accretion, and then retaining the sand for extended periods of time.

Longboat's Looming $54 Million Gift to the Gulf

http://www.lbkbeaches.com

Let me be perfectly clear. I am 100% committed to maintaining our beautiful beaches. I believe they are key to the value of our homes and attracting tourists.

For the past 10 years my problem has been how we maintain our beaches. I have never agreed with the town manager's unwavering approach to expensive dredging projects while rejecting examination of possible alternatives suggested by numerous coastal engineering and technology companies. My question has always been how do we know what is available if we never ask. In the past the town manager has responded to this question by saying we do receive professional advice from the coastal engineering consultant the town has retained for over a decade, and that the town's consulting firm continues to advocate sand replenishment on a periodic basis.

"In 2008, the Florida Legislature passed House Bill 1427, known as the beach management bill, which contained an Inlet Management Initiative that strengthens DEP’s ability to manage sediment around the more than 60 navigational inlets located throughout the state. These inlets, which interrupt the natural flow of sand along beaches, account for more than eighty percent of Florida’s coastal erosion" - NOAA quote. Knowing this, for the past several years my question has been, why not farm the inlets on a regular basis and return the sand to the beaches from whence it came?

The town manager has asserted for the last decade that inlet management is not feasible on Longboat Key, and that dredging from more and more distant underwater sand deposits is our only viable solution. After the passage of HB 1427, the town manager finally initiated an inlet management study of Longboat Pass. I do not feel comfortable with the town manager's decision to hire the same coastal engineering company to do the inlet management study that the town uses for its sand replenishment programs. It seems reasonable and logical to seek new fresh ideas from several qualified sources.

The town manager also rejected a recently completed comprehensive Humiston & Moore study of Longboat Pass even though the H & M work had previously been funded and approved by the Florida Department of Natural Resources, the West Coast Inland Navigation District (WCIND) and the the Army Corps of Engineers in Jacksonville.


Commissioner Brenner has recently expressed his own concerns regarding our present beach management program, where half the deposited sand washes into the Gulf in the first two years "by design", followed by incremental losses in following years, until our beaches reach a depleted state and we do it all over again.

The truth of the matter is that many communities use many different means of controlling beach erosion. Coastal engineering appears to be an inexact science beset with constantly changing conditions and events. Still the time may have arrived when we need to look outside the box at what other communities are doing that works, and to see if their solutions are applicable to our island.

Further I want to know why we need to be looking at a beach bond referendum this year. If Port Dolphin has not indicated if and when they will begin their project, are we still obligated to remove sand from the impacted borrow areas by a certain date or is that date predicated on the commencement of the actual Port Dolphin project?

Second, exactly how many cubic yards of sand will be used from the Port Dolphin borrow sites in the proposed 2011 beach project, given the darker color of the sand from the Port Dolphin borrow sites? Is the town reimbursed on a yard-by-yard basis, and if so, how much money are we actually talking about coming from Port Dolphin, if they do decide to build the pipeline? What does the town get if Port Dolphin does not commence work until after our beach project is complete? Is the Port Dolphin sand the best choice at the least cost if the Port Dolphin project fails to materialize?

If we do not really need to replenish the beaches in 2011, and the north end danger is alleviated by the current project to add some sand to the north end beaches, might this not be a good time to pause and take another look at how we manage our beaches and postpone the bond question to 2012 when it was originally scheduled?

I hope we ask for opinions from a number of experts and look to see what is working for other communities.

In case you are wondering about the $54 million figure in the headline, I have always disagreed with the town's way of defining public debt (i.e. bond cost). The town never uses the true debt cost, which is the bond amount plus the interest on the bond. In the latest $40 million beach management bond proposal, the actual levy against the properties of Longboat Key is approximately $54 million. That is the amount that will be added to your yearly real estate taxes for the next decade.