http://hernandoright2know.org/

1} “Gregg Sutton, an assistant county engineer and the project manager for the Hernando Beach channel dredge, said Manuel was one of three landowners to volunteer their property for placing spoil. But he and County Engineer Charles Mixson said the county’s permit from the state Department of Environmental Protection will require that the spoil not be placed in wetlands.”

AND

2} “Mixson said the costs of mitigation, buying and setting aside other coastal wetlands, for example, or planting sea grasses, would make it unfeasible for individual landowners to fill wetlands.”………………………      ………… St. Pete Times October 10, 2005

YET, what Hernando County did for four years and at a cost of $ 2 million dollars was exactly what the property owner demanded (see below); what Hernando county knew would be incredibly costly and  the FL DEP would not support.

DEMAND:

“Bottom line is access is needed from the proposed subdivision to the water and the impacts to on-site wetlands must be permanent wetland impacts.” see demand e-mail

Also note: Jeopardizing the Dredge and  “To satisfy the Manuels”

$25,250.00 for violating laws: 62-770.600(11), F.A.C. and 62-770.800(3) sections 403.121(3)(g) and 403.121(4)(f)

see worksheet

The Florida Department of Environmental Protection needs a “name-clearing” hearing.

The people of Hernando County deserve an investigation into this and other conspicuous county projects.

Then I received your response letter, a pile of manure with your name signed at the bottom, and something happened. My stomach stopped churning and what was one foot barely in, became two feet solid and strong. The irony is of course that I believe that your letter had the intent to give me the opposite effect. If you had simply limited it to the first two and last sentences, the events of the last two years may have looked completely different. The mess that the county is currently in regarding this project would have paled in comparison to the implementation of a worthless permit; a permit that the county records show, our engineers conspired to get, only to have something to be able to make, “changes/ alternatives/ modifications” to later.  Many millions of dollars more would have been wasted while our residents suffered.  

The most interesting line in your letter, especially coming from an Assistant State Attorney was, “There appears to be a good argument that the use of the site may actually save money for the county.” I knew this was a totally baseless and false claim that has since been refuted many times over.  My response was The Two finger Cost study. Hernando County’s cost findings by the Clerk of Courts and our dredge consultant’s cost study are in the posting fiscal responsibility.  Your letter added, greatly, to my understanding of the workings of our government in Florida.

The Subject Permit:

“Construct a temporary spoil disposal and dewatering system for material removed during the Hernando Beach channel dredging activities.” The dredge material disposal site DMDS or containment dike (bathtub) was to be located on property surrounded on three sides by Minnow Creek and on the fourth by homes. The dredge material, known as slurry; sand, mud, and water, was to be pumped into the containment dike. The maximum permitted fill height for the dike was 5.5 ft. A control pipe, also called a weir, was located with the opening at 6.5 ft, one foot above the maximum fill height to “prevent the overtopping.” The control pipe is an emergency overflow preventer just like in your bathtub. The control pipe was connected to nearby Mullet Canal. see figure A. The only way to discharge water from the containment dike into Mullet Canal is by the emergency control pipe.

Figure A

         The Permit verbiage: “A minimum freeboard elevation of 1 ft. from the weir crest elevation of 6.5 ft. shall be maintained at all times for the maximum operating level 5.5 ft. in order to accommodate the 25 year, 24 hour storm and prevent the overtopping of the embankment. The permittee shall ensure that pumping activities temporarily shut down when the slurry approaches the 1 ft. to weir crest elevation freeboard limit. Pumping activities shall not resume until the minimum 1 ft. freeboard from the weir crest elevation is re-established.” Page 17 Hernando Beach DMDS 27-0278629-0019

Hernando County’s response to questions posed by the Petitioners (the county’s opponents in the hearing) and filed with the Department of Administrative Hearings is as follows:                                                                                                            “The subject DMDS permit is based upon the discharge of water of acceptable quality from the spoil containment dike into Mullet Canal and not upon direct percolation within the impoundment area.” Repeated: Interrogatories #11, #14, and admission #11

The Hernando County Attorney’s Office prepared for the Administrative Hearing regarding this permit for many months. It is logical and reasonable to assume that they read the permit and the responses to the questions posed by the Petitioners. Comparing the responses with the permit clearly shows a huge problem. One of the main allegations in the Petitioners case against the county’s permit was that the project would not function as it was permitted. Admissions proving the allegation of your opponent in a legal procedure ensure your loss. It is the obligation of an Attorney to advise clients, in this case the Hernando County Commissioners, of the strength of their case. It is therefore reasonable to assume that the County Commissioners knew that the permit was worthless. 

Faced with a worthless million dollar contested permit, did our County Commissioners withdraw the permit application and hold those responsible for the pursuit to account? No, they did not. They instead chose to disingenuously pursue the bogus permit themselves, at an additional cost of a million dollars to the taxpayer. And so, two million dollars later, what is left is the sad and glaring realization that the cover up included more then just the Hernando Public Works Department. 

In keeping with our mission statement that we are committed to the honest completion of the Hernando Beach Dredge Project, we feel that there is information that all Floridians have the right to know about this project. The Hearing would have brought the information to light, had it not been for the 10 pm oil. See the information in the EXPOSÉ that Hernando County sought to keep hidden.

Subject: Eagle Point

To: Planning and Zoning Commissioners

The Proposed Development is located in an area particularly prone to flooding. Hernando County has an entire set of ordinances that govern the development in this area in Section 13 of the County’s Municipal Code. The purpose of this chapter is “to promote the public health, safety and general welfare and to minimize public and private losses due to flood conditions in specific areas.” These ordinances have not been followed. Hernando County has a fiduciary responsibility to enforce these ordinances; simply referencing their existence does not meet the County’s obligation.

State SWFTMUD statutes require that a 25-foot buffer exist between the upland and all wetland portions of a development. The proposed private road violates that buffer requirement. The road with the necessary fill has a significant potential to alter the natural watercourse that exists in the area. Alterations of a watercourse pose an increase risk of flooding and jeopardize safety.

There is a clear conflict of interest with several engineers at the County’s Department of Public Works and this particular development. It is evidenced in the County’s own record. These individuals used public money and misinformation to facilitate and promote this private development. Their expert opinions are prejudice and were used in the review of the application, therefore the Staff recommendation must be considered tainted. Fill is not addressed in the application.

This project received an incomplete and improper review and should be denied based on the potential threat to public health, safety and general welfare.

Lisa and Doug Bambauer

It all started innocently enough when I received a beautiful notice from the Army Corp. of Engineers in September 2006. It was nineteen pages long complete with maps and diagrams of a much need dredge project in Hernando Beach. Great I thought, we really need this, but where is the dredged material going to go? Certainly it was a logical question but the answer was conspicuously absent from the notice. After investigation I found that it was going on an empty lot on my street. My heart sank. I knew that the lot was the worst place in Hernando Beach to put a dredge spoil site. You can see my concerns in the Petition for Administrative Hearing. Later I found that there are a dozen or so county ordinances that the project would also violate.

I sent concerns to the Army Corp. right away and they sent them to Hernando County. I received no information from the County for seven months. The County was busy though. Staff filled the other residents of Hernando Beach with false and misleading information about the project through monthly meetings of the Hernando County Port Authority. They included claims that “wetlands have been carefully delineated and are not allowed to be impacted,” “we are merely using the site for TEMPORARY spoil disposal. The spoil will be pumped onto the site, allowed to dewater, & then be hauled away,” the Eagle Nest site is “the most economical site that we could possibly use” and “the property must be back to the way it was;” all of these statements and more were completely false.

In May of 2007 at the Hernando County Port Authority meeting several email messages 1a and 1b were read into the record. These emails served to “prime” the group for their participation in a Home Owners Association meeting the very next day. In those emails I am described as a selfish “complainer” and “disgruntled resident.” They asserted that my selfishness and audacity to ask questions would cause delay thus “jeopardize the project funding.” I attended that homeowners meeting the next day and was greeted by some very hostile people. Now I know why. Also in attendance were two County Commissioners and staff. Staff provided the same false information that they had been spreading all along.

Feeling that there was something wrong with the project, a group of neighbors and I decided to educate ourselves about dredging, investigate the project and other disposal options. We spent thousands of hours and thousands of dollars of our own money. In the next six months we came up with several dredge disposal options. Our alternatives were cost studied, shown to be less expensive than the County’s choice, would have taken less time to complete, and were neutral or good for the environment. We even offered to pay for the duel permitting of an alternate spoil site during a meeting with the Project Manager and our County Commissioner on October 31, 2007. The county rejected our offer. For the $9 m project our alternatives ranged in price from $4 m to $5.5 m. Hernando County refused for four years to do a simple cost study on spoil site options. It was perfectly clear after that Halloween meeting that we were never going to get honest service from our county government and it got worse.

Beginning in December 2007 lasting for about six weeks Hernando County pretended to change to another spoil site. After being discovered by the local newspaper 2, the county switched tactics claiming that they were bound by an easement agreement with the property owner to pursue the Eagle Nest site. At the same time that the County was making the easement claims, the easement was determined by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) to be invalid and required the County to redo it. Avoiding public scrutiny, our Public Works Director and the property owner signed an agreement to change the easement when FDEP finished its’ review process 3. Our county officials and attorneys continued to claim that the easement was binding 4 while staff agreed to change it. These tactics gave the County the six additional months needed to finish the FDEP review.

The Eagle Nest Petitioners officially formed at about this time. I am still in awe of the strength and fortitude that these homeowners demonstrated. They never wavered from what they knew was right and true. Despite the bullying, slander, misinformation, lost business, and insurmountable odds the Petitioners persevered. As you may already know, the County did finally do a cost study and officially found what we knew two years ago; the Eagle Nest spoil site is the most expensive option by $2.5 m 5. It is important to note that our County Commissioners were ready, willing, and able to waste $2.5 m of taxpayer money to use the Eagle Nest site. The Eagle Nest Petitioners along with a common-sense County Administrator saved that money.

Much of the rest you know or can see in the docket of our case. I hope that my letter gives you some insight into the abuse county governments can heap upon their own citizens long before a matter ever comes before you. Maybe if you have a case like this one again, where it is clear that the Respondents hugely out gun the Petitioners; you will remember the Eagle Nest case and the honest and strong Petitioners in it.

Respectfully and sincerely,

Lisa Bambauer
Petitioner Eagle Nest Spoil Site

Attachments:
1. Emails dated May 2, 2007 Hernando County Port Authority
2. Public Needs Plain Talk About Dredge Decisions, St. Petersburg Times, January 13, 2008
3. Letter to FDEP dated February 28, 2008 from Hernando County Public Works
4. Email Garth Collier, Hernando County Attorney and Doug Bambauer, Petitioner: Beginning March 10, 2008
5. Halcrow cost estimate: Eagle Nest site and Shoal Line site 2 pages March 20, 2009.

Fiscal Responsibility a la the Hernando Beach Dredge Project:

March 2009: Financial Cost Study Results at last… two years late.

 It is now perfectly clear that the choice of the Eagle Nest spoil site was made without financial consideration, and it was made without a safety consideration, legal consideration, environmental consideration, time consideration, consideration of the interest of the citizens of our county, it was made without every logical conceivable consideration except one.

May 2008: Cost Complaint sent to Hernando County – Audit by Clerk of Court

Hernando Beach Dredge Project Report 2008-03 Report Findings:

“Conclusion: Due to a lack of support documentation, the auditor is not able to provide a reasonable level of assurance that the financial figures in the cost comparison (Provided by the Department of Public Works) are credible.”

February 2008: Hernando Today Article

“When I go to buy a gallon of milk I compare prices,” Doug Bambauer said. “I can’t believe on a $9 million project that they haven’t.”

- Dredge Spoil Site Still Opposed, February 12, 2008

February 2008: Hernando County Port Authority, Meeting Minutes

 Mr. Sutton stated that using the Eagles Nest site would require about 4000 linear feet of dredge pipe to get to the site. Using the other site will take 6500 linear feet of dredge pipe and it will require us to come down the main channel. Mr. Sutton pointed out the distance of the different sites on the map. (link TWO FINGER COST STUDY) He stated that the Eagles Nest site is the most direct site and it will be by far the most economical. He stated that he does not have an exact price for the alternative sites because we have not had to further investigate that because the Eagles Nest site is the site we are going to use.

Commissioner Rocco stated that we have tremendous public support. She advised that she has been going to dredge meetings since 2000, prior to becoming a Commissioner, and a number of situations had to be addressed. She stated that when you are involved with the DEP and the ACOE on environmental issues it’s not as simple as just push the paper through. She stated that she has to give Gregg Sutton and his staff a tremendous amount of support and respect for what they have been doing.

June 2007: Hernando County Port Authority, Meeting Minutes:

Capt. McCann stated that it was mentioned that the private property spoil site would save money on the dredge project. He stated that at the Property Owner’s Association meeting citizens asked if a cost analysis has been done on the spoil placement locations and what were the facts based on that we are saving all this money. He stated that the citizens were not given an answer. Capt. McCann stated that he looked at some of the proposed sites that were recommended by the public and he could not see how the measurement was that much greater. He stated that neither Mr. Sutton nor Mr. Mixson could answer the question as to why this is saving money.

also in attendance Rose Rocco and Kent Weissinger

 May 2007: Hernando Beach Property Owners Association Meeting

Residents ask Gregg Sutton for a cost analysis of dredge disposal sites justifying the continued claims that the chosen site is the “cheapest.”

 also in attendance Rose Rocco and Charles Mixson

April 2007: Florida Tax Watch

Adds Henando Beach Dredge Project to “Budget Turkey” List (no cost study)

If our county commissioners ever wonder why Residents are so angry, I suggest that they consider this project.

Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 10:01 AM

To:Verkerk, Hugh Cc: Evert, Jason [DialCordy]; Charles Mixson [HC Engineer]

Subject: RE: Hernando Dredging Project.

Hugh,

  A trip over here may not be necessary for you & Jason if you/we agree to obtain a permit for construction of a boardwalk in place of the berm we’re removing on the West side of the Manuel’s spoil site. With regard to the work above & beyond the scope of our original agreement, if you’ll prepare an amendment with a fee proposal & send it to me, I’ll process it. Have it include all work required to take us through permitting. If you have questions, please let me know.

Mr. Bambauer,
There is nothing “more to the story”. The info I gave you in my previous e-mail is still valid. The County will temporarily use the site for spoil disposal & will open up a service road to access the site. We’re not involved in what happens to the site once the dredging project is completed & we return the site to the owners.

Gregg W. Sutton, P.E.
Assistant County Engineer
Hernando County