Good evening. >> Yes. >> Okay. It's called West Sayville City Council Workshop Thursday, June 18th, 2026. Let's stand for the pledge. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> [snorts] >> May I ask the clerk to roll, please? >> Mayor Johnny Ercu here. >> Here. >> Vice Mayor Chris Mayor >> Here. >> Councilman Robert Hubbard >> You out there, Bob?
>> He's muted. >> You're on mute. >> [clears throat] >> Oh, now I'm not muted. I'm here. >> Councilwoman Lisa Burke >> Here. >> Councilwoman Christine Sullivan >> Here. >> Interim City Manager Sal Torre >> Here. >> Okay, thank you. First up is comments
from the general public. We have nobody in the audience, nobody online, so I'm going to bring it back. Any comments uh from the city manager? Pass it to Mr. Torre if he has any comments. >> No, not at this time. >> Okay, and moving on to council attorney. She's not present tonight, so moving along to council business item number one, review of Stantec waterway dredging
data collection and final canal selection for the dredging permit application. Uh pass it to Mr. Torre for introduction. >> Uh thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um so, tonight is a workshop to basically uh we have Matthew Starr with us from Stantec who has been working on the um
permit preparation and for our application uh to FDEP and Army Corps for the dredging project. Um he's going to go over a PowerPoint with us tonight to basically um select for us to select the channels that we want to move forward with for
the permit application. So, um I I just wanted to let everyone know is that I understand that the agenda is quite large tonight. Um that was just a way to show the public and show council, you know, all the all the work that has gone uh into this so far
by Stantec uh to get all the necessary ducks [snorts] in a row to move forward with this project. So, I'm going to turn it over to Matthew Starr. Um and he's going to go ahead and go through a PowerPoint and explain what we need to do to move forward. Go, Matthew.
>> I'm Matthew Starr, Stantec Consulting Services, Clearwater, Florida. Uh just before I start, for the folks on the Zoom call, can we just get a confirmation that they can hear me through here? >> Yeah, you all hear Matthew out there? >> Yes, I can hear him. >> Yeah, no problem.
>> Excellent. Well, we have about a 13-uh slide PowerPoint to go through that summarizes the 400 or so pages in the PDF document. Um So, as Sal mentioned, uh Stantec came on board in August of 2025 to complete
data collection and a feasibility analysis for waterways within the city of Port Richey, and we're going to talk about them here on the next slide about the data we collected. Next slide, please. So, our first task was to complete a
hydrographic survey of all the waterways and channels that council uh requested Stantec look at for this project. Uh the image on the screen shows where we surveyed, and this is
just at a high level. The more detailed graphics are in the workshop package. But, what this image shows are all of the channels and waterways proposed for the project. The color banding on the image shows
how much sediment is above minus 5 ft mean low water for dredging. What that means is to permit the project, we would propose dredging these waterways to minus 5 ft mean low water. So at low tide, these areas would have 5
ft of water for draft for vessels. The color banding shows how much material we would need to remove to get these canals or waterways down to minus 5. So the yellow areas are about >> [clears throat] >> 1 ft of material to remove. The warmer
colors, the oranges and reds, those are anywhere for two, three, or three plus feet of material to remove. So as you can see, some of these canals have quite a bit of sediment in them. And uh just from doing the field work out there, at low tide, some of these areas were
impassable by the surveyors doing the work. So they had to come back at high tide just to be able to get the survey equipment through the area to collect the data. As part of the hydrographic survey as well, we collected rock probes. Uh we know the this area in Pasco County has quite a
bit of limestone in it. So we wanted to quantify how much rock would also need to be removed to get these areas down to minus 5. Can we go to the next slide, please? >> Hey, when you said the three plus removal, um
what was or you maybe you don't know, but what was the uh I guess the most thick material? Did you see any like 5, 6 ft of material you need to remove or cuz stuff at three, I would say is curious if there was any of the really, really
>> Most of it's around three, three the the more thick areas. So you can see in this one image, which is a zoom in of the previous slide that we had up, uh some of these really dark red areas are that three plus feet of material to remove. Um some of it's three and a half in
there. So there it it's quite a bit in the throat of some of these channels. >> We haven't seen anything like 5 6 ft or something like that. We just it's pretty much all right. >> 3 to 4. Yeah, we wouldn't see anything like 6. It would have to be in the 3 to
4 range. Just based on the equipment. So what what this allowed us to do was take the waterways proposed by the city come up with a dredge template to minus 5 ft mean low water and start to define
a channel that we could permit in this area. This is the north side of of one of the canals and channels. So you can see there's there's quite a bit of material, but in the packet for the workshop
there's a zoom-in of every canal and waterway area in here. And ultimately that lets us come up with a volume of material for the project that we need for permitting. Could we go to the next slide, please? So what we did for the project for all
the canals, we came up with a dredge template that is to minus 5 ft mean low water and it has a side slope of 3 to 1 on it. We also mapped the rock in the canals.
So on the screen here the areas in the red boxes that are hatched, this is the material that has to come out of the dredge template to get to minus 5 ft mean low water. As you can see some of these areas do
have 3 or 4 ft of sediment that needs to come out. And in some of them also, you'll also see that there's a little bit of rock that needs to come out. The rock elevation is going to be the black line underneath the bottom of the red dredge
template. And in some of the cross-sections on the center slides, you can see where the edge and bottom of the dredge template where that rock actually hits some of the corners of it. So, that's important to know for permitting,
yes, but for construction even more so because obviously rock is a different uh construction method than sediment to remove it. But, if we look at the bottom left corner here as well, uh we can also see that the rock layer comes up pretty shallow. So, in the
bottom left cross-section, there's more rock than sediment to remove to get it down to minus five. >> Is that uh like oyster bars? >> Mhm. Th- [clears throat] This is rock in here. So, the surveyors,
they use the a jet probe, which is basically a a a half-inch pipe that they run water through, like how they jet a pile in the ground. They can blast through the sand and sediment muck. And then when they hit a a refusal layer, they record that
on their GPS. So, they know what elevation that rock is at through these canals. >> So, in this scenario here in channel 21, right? 3-00,
there's never been a 5-ft waterway through there, and this would actually create that 5-ft waterway. And how do you get rid of the rock? I mean, are you >> Uh there's a couple different methods to get rid of the rock. Um there's a hydraulic hammer
that's m- somewhat successful, but the technology we've used on recent projects for other clients is a rotary cutter drum. Um I can show you a picture of it later on, but imagine a machine about the size of this podium
with a big rotary cutter head, probably >> Like an asphalt cutting head, right? >> rotary cutter head with teeth on it. They're about 3 or 4 inches long that they just grind the rock down. >> I got you. >> So, when we give a contractor our dredge template, they know exactly where the
rock is. They can load it in their computer, go right to it, and start drilling away and grinding away to get that down. >> Okay. >> Um and we see that being more successful from the hammer. Hammer creates a lot of vibration cuz a lot of these seawalls are old uh concrete panels. Does create
a lot of vibration >> Okay. >> and the cutter head uh seems to tamper some of that down and make it a little uh less headache on the adjacent homeowners. >> Got you. Okay. Thank you. >> Absolutely. So, we went through each of the canals and waterways. Uh
there is a table on the right that shows the amount of sediment in each canal and the amount of rock in each canal. Um as you can see, each channel or canal has a has some sediment in it. Some of it has rock. Some of it has no rock. Um but between the rock and sediment, there's about
60,000 yards of material all together in the project area that we'd have to remove to get everything down to minus 5 ft mean low water. >> On that middle channel 24, that triangle, is that really how that channel is? Is
that >> That's one of the more narrow areas. So, we're just trying to show as an example on here. There's wide channels. There's narrow channels. And there's everything in between. But some of them, as you get towards the back end of the channels, they get very narrow.
>> Very narrow. Okay. That's probably what we >> And especially when once we apply a factor of safety, a 5-ft or 10-ft offset to the docks and boat lifts, that channel gets squeezed down on there. So, that's what you're seeing in the the center example on the cross sections.
Awesome. We'll move on to the next slide here. And as part of the fieldwork effort, we completed a geotechnical investigation. Uh this is required by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, FDEP, and the
United States Army Corps of Engineers uh for permitting uh dredge projects. What they want to see is a series of samples within the dredge areas that we test for chemical and physical properties. Uh for this project, we tested for priority
pollutant metals, which are uh your arsenic, copper, nickel, mercury, zinc family of uh metals. Uh we also tested for uh oils, pesticides, and semi-volatile organic compounds. Uh
that's a lot there. Uh what we found in about half of the samples were elevated levels of arsenic above residential levels, but below commercial levels. Uh arsenic is naturally occurring in Florida soil and limestone.
So, what we typically see in this part of the state is that we do get uh arsenic readings can be explained cuz it's naturally occurring, but also arsenic is found in pressure-treated pilings, which are obviously used for docks and boat lifts and any structure
that's built in the water um along these channels. So, over time, that arsenic leaches out of the pilings and it is basically falls out of suspension into the sediment. Good thing about arsenic though at these levels in the in the scale of this
project, once this material is dredged out, the arsenic is basically diluted with all the clean sediment that's in here, and we fully expect once the area's dredged, dried, retest the sediment before we truck it off site to its
ultimate disposal location, that these levels will come down below residential uh soil cleanup target levels set by DEP. So, really the geotechnical investigation we expected arsenic, like I said, because there's pilings in the water. We see this in communities across
Florida. It's expected. But, we didn't see any other uh hits on there uh for anything of concern. So, that that's a positive note. Um but, we did collect about 37 samples here throughout the project area. And uh this is sufficient for permitting with the EPA and the Army Corps at this
point. Um any questions on the geotechnical work before we go on to the next slide? >> No, none for me. >> Okay. Yeah, if you have a question, just hop in. Um can we go to the next slide, please?
All righty, the this next series of slides is a total of four altogether through the project area. >> [sighs] >> As part of the permitting process as well, a submerged resource survey for benthic resources is required. Which
means we have to survey for any seagrass, oysters, or potential soft corals that may occur in the area. So, in September of 2025, Stantec's scientific dive team went out and completed their assessment
of the proposed dredging areas for the project. Uh what we found with uh is shown on this first picture here on the slide, there is some patchy uh and dense uh patchy and dense seagrass in this northern portion, uh especially near the
boat ramp on the top left of the image. As we get back into the uh inner canals, we did not find any seagrass here. Can we please go to the next slide?
Uh as we went through the Miller's Bayou area, we found a little bit of sparse to patchy seagrass near the entrance to Miller's Bayou. And we [snorts] also found a little bit near the edges of the entrance channel going in.
Uh next slide, please. As we get a little more towards the western side of the project area, we also came across some sparse seagrass as well and some medium to dense seagrass uh within some of the proposed project
areas uh that we took a look at. And our final slide for seagrass um actually did not have any seagrass on it at all, but had a small clump of oysters within it
on the uh southeast side of 19. And I will make a note here that >> Is that the little dot we see there in that? >> Yes, that is going to be the oyster clump in there. Uh um That's a discussion for maybe my final slide on here. Um when we discuss the
extensive uh wanting to permit the project. But we will come back to that. >> Okay. >> Um I will make a note here just for um just for awareness. This channel that's shown on the screen here the uh northern half of this channel
was dredged previously by the city, I believe in 2019. This is the only area of dredging that has occurred within the current proposed project limits just for awareness. The C-shape going reverse C-shape
that has not been dredged. And um there's a potential to modify the extents of the channel and possibly avoid that area. Um but we will will get to that discussion on the final slide. Um
can we go on to the next slide, please? So, as part of our scope of work and uh Sal and some of the other city staff were able to join us for a few of these meetings. We completed pre-application meetings with DEP and the Army Corps.
Purpose of this meetings are to take all the data we collected be able to sit with them and say "Hey DEP, here's what we got. How can we permit this project together? Here's what we found as far as seagrass goes, here's what the sediment looks like, here's the extent of the
project." So, we were able to have uh two meetings with DEP and one meeting with the Corps. DEP uh had very positive responses about this project because it has been previously permitted. Uh the previous project though did have
shorter project extents that did not impact any resources. One of the things the DEP told us was that we had to prove that these canals and waterways were essentially man-made back in the '60s.
So, we were able to find uh a aerial from 1967 that shown on the screen here that proves the city was constructed in this area prior to 1970. The reason DEP wants that is because
they want to know cuz the there's an uh a state statute that says if it was constructed before this date not in before April 1970, you permit it this way. If it was designed and co- constructed after April 1970,
you have to use this permit method for it. So, as it stands right now, what DEP would let us do the upland cut canals, they would let us dredge them as maintenance dredge areas, very straightforward.
The areas that are not so clear as upland cut, they're going to make us essentially do a new permit for them. And Ashley, if we can go back to the first slide I had up on the screen
that shows the overall project area. One more. All right, awesome. Upland Cut Canal is pretty straight. They're linear. The area around Miller's Bayou that looks like a heart on the screen.
That area in the 1967 aerial does not have great resolution. So, we can't tell DEP that it was previously dredged or previously not dredged. Ashley, can you go back to the pre-app slide we just had up?
So, when we look at the historic aerial on here in the heart-shaped area Miller's Bayou, everything looks black. We had a second meeting with DEP to discuss this. They said because there's no real definition of a marked of a marked or
delineated or dredged channel, they're going to have to treat that as new dredging. So, what they would let us do >> What about that you see like that that arc along the left-hand side? That little line I'm talking about there? >> Yep. >> That that looks like something happened through there.
>> You I agree with you. We had this discussion with DEP because we couldn't prove anything more than this at this point in time. >> Cuz you can see the inlet down there along the where the >> Yep. You you can see the inlet, but that I'm
going to call it the rim the rim canal, the the edge of Miller's Bayou. There's not a real clear definition, and we had a second pre-app with DEP to discuss this. And they said cuz it's not real clear, there's no as-builts, there's no
um visual data from a resident that saw it >> Mhm. >> constructed in 1967. They're going to basically make us permit with a new permit. >> Yeah. >> Which >> Seems too cuz that that area actually
requires less material be extracted. >> Yeah, some some of it is not not a huge volume of material in the area, correct. So, what DEP would let us do is basically permit part of the project as a maintenance dredge, part of the project is a new dredge at this point in
time. Uh the maintenance dredging areas would not um would really not require any additional mitigation. The the new dredge areas where there's potential seagrass impacts
there may be mitigation required for that on the DEP side of the house. On the Army Corps side of the house, we had one pre-application meeting with them. They saw the project as previously permitted. Uh they indicated they could issue a standard permit for the project.
Regarding mitigation uh basically if US Fish and Wildlife Service when they do their review of the Army Corps permit if US Fish and Wildlife Service doesn't require mitigation then the Army Corps is not going to request it. Uh that will
not be known until permit apps are submitted though. But overall the meeting with Army Corps very positive, on board for the project, agreed with all the data we collected. They just said uh let us know when you're going to submit a permit application and we'll we'll get it in. But
the aerial on the left is from 1967. I think it's pretty cool. Um >> It's amazing the quality of that picture actually from that time frame. >> You know I can see my house >> Uh yeah. >> See it? >> Mhm. >> Yeah, [clears throat] but we did a deep dive with Florida DOT and University of
Florida and uh staff came up with this picture and uh it and it it's wider than this as well. This shows the whole extent of the city, but we're just focused on the dredging for right now. But, you know, this came in real handy for helping permit the project at, you know, this point in time.
Um >> Interestingly, so many houses were up there. >> Can we go on to the next slide? And we only have uh couple more left here. We're almost at the end. So, as part of the project, too, we uh
completed a feasibility report for the city that summarizes all this data. And we also provided cost estimates for the project. Right now, we've got the project at about 60,000 yd of material. About 55,000 of that is sediment. About 5,000
of that is is rock. So, when we take a look at the numbers all together here, to dredge the sediment, on the low side right now is about 135 a cubic yard. On the high, about 210 a cubic yard. For purposes of
this meeting and the report, we didn't do a a detailed line item cost estimate. We rolled everything into one number at this point in time for a conceptual project. So, this price is going to include your dredging, hauling,
uh dewatering. This is an all-in price for your material at this point in time. The rock right now, we're seeing about 500 to 600 dollars a cubic yard um on projects with other communities and on the west coast of Florida here.
So, then we add it all up, uh the dredging on the low side is around 9.9 million. On the high side, about 14.6 million. Uh based on what I'm seeing lately, I would expect the cost to be more on the low side of this right now.
Um but I always like to put the the high side on there cuz we don't know what economic conditions look like in several years, inflation, marine inflation is always more than construction on land, so at least this gives an idea of what we think the costs would be for
construction. And if we go to the next slide, Ashley, on here, I also added in the 60% design, Army Corps and DEP permitting um SOW, which is the scope of work that you
have currently. And any other items needed to get this project basically ready to go. Uh have bidding and contractor procurement around 10 to 20 grand. This is a placeholder. Um basically that's how we put together bid documents with the contractor invitation
to bid, technical specifications, get a package we can put on DemandStar online so that contractors can bid on the work. Really the unknown at this point is the middle line item regarding mitigation design, permitting, and implementation
cuz we don't know if the US Fish and Wildlife Service is going to make the Army Corps require mitigation, and we don't know what extent DEP is. These numbers are really to be determined right now. Uh our Army Corps and DEP
they could make us do um basically a ratio for mitigation at at a most simplified level where if we impact a quarter acre of seagrass, we have to replant a quarter acre of seagrass. Um but until the agencies look at those numbers and tell us
we really don't know what that could be. Um and that's the unknown number on here. Um So, that is the cost at this point in time, and I believe we have one more slide, Ashley. And then the final slide after this is
just one that says questions. But really the the the intent of this workshop today is to present all the data to staff and the public of what what's been completed over the past 9 months. And decide what we want to do as far as
permit applications. Uh we've mentioned that there has been big seagrass survey that was completed. The project as proposed will have some minor seagrass impacts. Uh the mitigation required is unknown at
this time. So, we can do one of two things. We can proceed with the project as designed, scoped, and requested by council in August of 2025. Or we could look to eliminate waterway sections that have seagrass impacts. How
the previous project was permitted with all resource impacts. The difference there would be the the permitting might be a little more cost uh efficient if we avoid impacts. There's not going to be any mitigation required. And the cost to do the mitigation is
unknown at this time. So, really the workshop here is to have an open discussion on do we keep the project as proposed by by council? Or do we want to scale it back some and reduce the areas where there are
seagrass impacts for the project. >> When you talk about scaling it back, you just this project permit. Right? And that's what I do. That's the the next step is to get the permit. So, I mean that permitting cost of 106 grand, right? Which is everything.
>> That includes everything as it stands right now. If we removed canals, I would back the cost down cuz there's not going to be as many drawings and items needed for the permit. If we if we eliminate canals and waterway. >> And I would I would assume that let's say we cut it in half and say it's
down to 50,000 just for easy discussion. At some point we obviously want to want to want to go back. There would be probably a lot more than $50,000 worth of work in order to get those permits at a later date. >> If you If you eliminated those waterways now, and you wanted to go and add them
in at some point in the future, you're going to have to go back and redo your seagrass survey, your sediment sampling, your hydrographic survey. They're going to treat it as a new project, basically. >> Yeah, so I mean, based on that, my opinion would be we've invested the money. Um
I say we go full forward and get the get the permits, and then we also maintain those going forward, extend one I mean, then we have some ability to see what kind of funding we can get. I'd rather go all in and say, "Here's the entire project, give $15 million, we'll get it done."
Um and then if we don't can't get that, then we scale back what we actually execute on, but I think that I think the support would get the permits. >> And then also, if we if we get if we put the permit with all the canals, we don't have to I mean, it's going to
be years before we get to those areas of mitigation, regardless. So, we have There are a lot of canals out there that we can concentrate on first, but at least they'll all still be on the permit, so come the time that we need to address those canals that have the seagrass,
and then, you know, then we can work out what the mitigation costs are going to be, but at least they'll all be on the permit and not have to go back to back to square one. >> And based on that, too, if if a resident wanted to go ahead and do some private dredging, that permit would be in place
for use. >> Absolutely. >> Yeah, so there's a benefit there. Cuz they're permitting seawall to seawall, um if somebody wanted to do their underneath their dock and all that, the permit's ready to go. >> And one thing I want to mention about the mitigation on here,
just as Sal mentioned you, the project could potentially be phased. When the project goes to actually issue the permit, the mitigation is going to be a provision within the permit. Which means basically
for us to close out the permit, we got to do the mitigation at some point. >> Mhm. >> So, it's not like we have to do it day one. We can do it We typically do it in conjunction with the project where if we're transplanting seagrass, all right, contractor, give me a price to dredge it, give me a price to transplant seagrass.
And they do that all at one point in time. So, if we had to dredge a little now or maybe we had money for mitigation now, we do it now or you know, phase it, spread it around you know, throughout the project life cycle through the permit on there. But, at the end of the day on the permit, we go to close it out,
there's a question on the certificate of compliance, almost like a CO for a house, did you complete the mitigation as required? And you got to certify and sign a seal that you did it. So, that's how they will check that you did the work and they may come out in the field and check it as well.
But, it Think about the mitigation and dredging, it's all one package that moves together through the life cycle. >> Thoughts? >> I got a lot of questions. >> Go ahead, Bob. >> Uh I'm looking at the a couple things here. I was hoping that um
>> [singing] >> that Miller's Bayou the east side of that main channel coming down through there was going to come down across the commercial property on C3 Waterfront District cuz there's some sandbars in there and it should be dredged out. Um and especially in front of uh Whiskey
Joe's. It's very shallow there. I thought that was going to be part of it and that it was going to be a little wider there in front of Waterfront Park. At least just in the state waters be dredged out for um possibly future docks or something while we're dredging out. That's not a big piece and it got I'd
hope to include that. >> Is it because that's a a >> But, I don't know. >> federal channel, I guess. Is that >> It's state waters. >> Ashley, can you tab back >> Yep. >> Um two or three slides here. One more. One more. One more.
One more. All right. I think Are we uh Are you talking about the the entrance channel to Miller's Bayou? Kind of bottom center of the screen here. >> Correct. Yeah, it's uh it it and that's
that's kind of quick for all the the boats in there to get in and out. Uh but if you have uh businesses or docks along the city along the the riverfront there, there's a lot of sandbars with the shrimpers and a lot of people run into them now and I think that should be
cleared out. It's not a lot, but it's important cuz it's a very busy district. And I'm hoping that we [clears throat] could include that and and make that a little bit wider up into Miller's Bayou closer to Waterfront Park. Um so you [clears throat] could have this this little bit wider in there just
the state waters part cuz we can't get close to the park. And talking about that that that that drainage ditch that runs between the old Gil Dog's property and Waterfront Park is a ditch. The W FTC on that doesn't allow any dredging in
there. However, it is a drainage ditch and the mouth of that is shallower than the ditch up by Old Post Road. So it needs to be cleaned maybe a foot or two toward the mouth of it so it drains better and we're going to be putting a bridge over it. So you can't get big boats in there, but if you
dredge out a couple feet at least, then smaller boats or jet skis or whatever can get up in there if they need to um without going 5 ft. I just That's They're not going to allow that. It's just not going to happen. Um but we can clean that drainage ditch out a little bit.
Another concern I have is the the channel out the very west part of uh Harbor Point. I see you got this a line right across the end of the docks. And I was hoping that would run farther west and south to go into the main
channel cuz that's where the big problem is is as you get toward the channel there, it's very shallow. I'm sure Chris knows that. >> after this. >> One slide after. >> The some of these channels the extent they go into the Cody River is limited
by where the federal channel is. Um to answer one of the questions there. And the channel limits we we did have some um discussion back and forth with city staff a couple iterations of
what areas we're going to dredge um in June, July, and August of 2025. And these were the extents that were agreed upon. We could certainly expand these areas. We would just have to collect additional
seagrass, hydrographic, and sediment data in them. Um I would say for the the purpose of timing right now, the seagrass survey that's on the screen, it's valid for 1 year. Which means we collected at the end of
September 2025. We have to get the permit application submitted by September 22nd this year for this uh to be valid. If there was additional areas that wanted to be included in the permit, what I would suggest doing
is getting this initial permit application submitted and then doing an amendment or modification to the application down the road if other areas wanted to be added. >> All right. That makes sense. So, we we discussed that just a little while ago
about including in that we have here now to get the permit started. And I'm And correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Starr, I believe that if we wanted to extend that channel up there a little bit farther just to the river, would that be a big deal?
>> Um you talking I'm the what >> All the way to the the little channel all the way to the west. It just runs along the docks. >> At the very point. >> It It's possible to extend it to the intersection of the federal channel in that area.
Um but again, we would have to do additional seagrass surveys on that. >> Quick comment on that. Quick comment on that point. Cuz you said that eventually when we we have to renew a permit because of the amount of time we're doing. So, if we went ahead and did went
forward with what's here now, when we had to do renewal of a seagrass survey, can we those extensions at the time of the renewal or you when we had to renew that seagrass survey or do we still have to do the amendment? >> The
the renewal would be renewing exactly what you previously permitted. You would have to do what's called a modification to add or subtract any areas from the permit. >> Okay. >> Um Basically,
you would have to provide them a little bit additional data, a little more survey, a sediment sample or two in the area just to show everything is clean, and then they could do a permit modification, and then they could they could tack on that additional area at that point in time.
Or you know, if we wanted to look at it sooner rather than later, get this permit application in, and then during the permit review process, um update the permit drawings with them. >> Okay. I noticed Moonlit Bayou all the way down
there at the south there that was you you did extend that all the way to the river and it and we had talked about doing that. I'm glad to see you did that cuz that's those people will be very happy that that was done down there. So, I was just concerned about the people up there at the at the point
cuz that's you can see on the map it's shallow. And at low tide even at medium tide it's very difficult to get in and out with some of the boats that people have in there. One other thing was all the way up at Boggy Bay. The very northern channel up there you had you said you had corals and grass
out by the park. >> Can you tab back one more slide? One more? All right. When I So, the there is grass up here. There's not corals, but we do look for them. We are starting to see them as
Gulf temps get a little bit warmer. We're starting to see them creep up into the northern part of Pinellas County right now. So, they require us just to take a look for them, but there's there is grass in this area near the ramp and channel back to the interior canals.
>> Okay. So, my question is that was channel that was dredged out years ago. And that channel in there where the houses are and runs out there is actually deeper than the water is in Boggy Bay.
And there's no way we can dredge that from the park all the way over to the main federal channel with all the the oysters and and the grass that's in there the shells and everything that's there. I don't see the DEP allowing us to do that. That is one I mean we can put it in the
permit. I think we should put everything in in the permit. And then I think later that would be quite a cut in cost if we eliminated doing that and fighting to get those grasses and the corals cut and into the dredge later.
Does that make sense? >> That's a thought. I mean I think that's a good discussion point. Um Um You know, then I this area up here to the north is where a majority of the the grass was located. >> [clears throat] >> Would that be easy I mean, if that falls into a problem of as a permitting, we
can eliminate it if they say, "Well, you we have a problem with that." And we could eliminate that. >> Well, I think we're going to find out the answer to those questions what we can and can't do through the permitting process. >> Right. That's And that's that's what That's my point is if they if it runs into a That could be a big
state staple in in getting the permit. They may they may hold us up saying, "Well, you have these this coral up here and you have grass." And And we can back out of it and say, "Well, let's eliminate that, but we'd like to include these other areas maybe later." But I mean, that's I don't want to hold up the permit process. I don't hold anything up, to be honest with you.
I want to get this thing done just as bad as anybody else does. So, let's I'm just trying to be reasonable and and look at the facts here. >> Yeah, but just a note here, there there is no coral in this area. It's just seagrass. >> Seagrass, okay. >> So, I think one of
This could be um a discussion point with the agencies if and when it comes to that point where we can ask for everything, but they also like to see that we work with them. >> Right. Exactly. >> They call it avoidance and minimization.
I see this area as potentially a bargaining um area a bargaining chip with the agencies where we can ask for but if it becomes a a headache, we can just say we're going to we'll remove it at that point in time.
But I think we should at least ask for it at first. Like let's not eliminate >> Correct. Correct. >> But let's use that as, "Okay, we'll avoid and minimize this up here to the north if you let us handle this to the south." >> Mhm. >> You know, it's it's kind of a you know, negotiating discussion back and forth
with the state and federal government. >> Yeah. Yeah, I I I I that's my intent, too. I just I'd like to see those guys out at Harbor Point have that channel cut up to the federal west. That's like 20 more feet, it looks like on a map or maybe maybe more than that, but I mean, jeez.
You're They're right there and the and the biggest problem is not isn't on this isn't on this chart. I thought it was one of the >> Chris, you heard that that folks having issues getting to the docks there? I've not heard that they had issue getting to the docks, but there's it's shallow there.
>> And Bob's right. It's definitely shallow there. >> I don't parts of it are, but I I don't know what the the route is to get back to those docks. >> I think Bob knows it better than most of the >> Yeah, I've had problems in there and I know people don't want to get a boat because they can't get in there. Um that's and that's kind of my point.
It It's You know, with high tide, you know, a lot of things aren't too bad, but it's a medium tide to lower, you're going to run you're going to run into There's a few rocks in there and it's hard hard sand. You can't You You got to lift the motor and it's very difficult to get in and out of right at
that You're dredging out there, which is great if we could just continue a few more feet to the main channel, it'd be great for everybody. That's all. That's That was just my point and that's all I'm saying. >> What's How do they go in there now? Do they go in around that peninsula and in
or do they kind of tee into it where they're coming down the river and then they kind of go perpendicular like that? >> they they go and they got a couple markers and they're it's kind of hard. If you If you know where you're going in there, they go in kind of in the middle. Uh right
towards It's hard to say. It's It's right in the middle of where that channel is marked. >> Yeah, they they go straight in. >> straight south. They go straight left up into it. >> Like the middle of that channel straight south into the main. >> Yes. >> Cuz they they don't like going across docks and reds to the to the main channel that way. And it's very
difficult to do that, though, and there's rocks in there. >> Mhm. >> And people have bent prop many times getting in and out of there when the tide's not proper. So, I just trying to make it simple and we're so close. I'm looking at it like we're right there. If we just continue a little bit there, it'd be great.
And um And other than that, like I said, I'd like to to make that that main Miller Bayou's channels a little bit stronger, a little wider, and clean out along the business district a little bit, but that's something um maybe we can work on a little bit later. I know there's no grass in there. It's just sediment cuz
it's washed up from the casino boat most of that is, so it's not I know it's not going to be a big problem, but um That's the other than that, um all looks good to me and I'm definitely want to move forward for the permit, absolutely. >> So, let me um let me propose this
discussion point for you. Um the area around Harbor Point and the I'm going to call it the casino boat area. Would you be able to define those areas on a map?
Just draw a line, a box for the casino area and on the Harbor Point area, draw the extents where you think the boaters would like that channel extended 20 or 30 ft. And I can go back to our
scientists and surveyors and see if they might have additional data in that area cuz they always go a little bit wider than they have to to make sure they get everything. >> Mhm. >> And I can see what they have and if we have data in that area, we can expand
these areas a little bit to potentially include that. But I just need to know on a figure exactly what that is so I can get with the uh the team and and look at that for you. >> Bob, could you clarify something for me? >> What? >> Could you clarify something for me?
>> Go ahead. What? >> On the Harbor Point, um when you're looking at it and you see the left-hand side of that, Uh where it kind of dead ends into the dock there. You talking about extending that dredge out to the channel? >> Correct.
>> That's not 25 or 30 ft. You'll get the houses there. Those houses are 60 ft wide. So, you're talking to get out to the channel, you're talking, you know, 180 ft. Something probably um almost half as long as what the the whole dredge is there. Am I right?
>> Okay. Well, that's what I'm saying. I'm looking looking on a computer. Looks like 20, 30 ft, but you're right. It's probably probably and it's probably about 150 ft. You're right. But I mean >> ft. Yeah. >> But if you're going to dredge that out, why would that all be deeper than the
water around it where you can't get out? >> So, >> I understand. >> I think I know what happened there cuz using the original Taylor Engineering that had all these mapped out. It's laid out exactly like this was and
it didn't have anything going across the commercial district there. You know, by Hooters and Waxy Joe's and all that. Back then when they did it, they didn't go along there and I can only imagine is because that's probably not our jurisdiction. It's probably state or
federal jurisdiction to to handle that, I guess. Um the same thing up at Harbor Point. They just show basically the the marina area. And there is a little There's channel 21 which kind of tease. I think looks like channel 21 is what you
you're you're supposed to follow towards that. Um let me see what your map is here. >> And uh while you're looking that up, some of the >> Yeah, that little bump there that you see on that little L-shaped thing. That little bump is channel 21.
It looks a little longer than the original diagram. >> Yeah, and many of these channel extends they were kept uh in their in their footprint just because that's the way it was previously permitted. Uh just for ease of obtaining another permit. >> I can share this again just so people
remember. Let me I'll share my screen real quick. >> But yeah, I remember the the the first meeting on this and and I remember looking at some of these and like I said, Moonlit Bayou down there like he was saying was dredged up towards uh
wherever wherever driving close to 19. That really doesn't need to be dredged, but I know it had it had like stopped by my house and it didn't continue along the houses and I was hoping it didn't. I see now it does and I'm happily surprised surprised to see that that that was
included which we did talk about. I just remember Harbor Point was just a clean cut channel out to the main channels. What I remember, maybe I wasn't paying attention and I missed it. It's probably my fault, but I'm looking at it and I just don't see that the reason to dredge it if we're not going to
make get get the the shallowest part around that out of there cuz it's not going to do any good if they can't get out of that channel. That's That's just my point. I'll draw it up. How how soon do you need that drawing? >> Hey hey Bob, here's Can you see my screen?
>> No, I can't. Hang on a minute. >> I can't see your screen either, Eric. >> Uh I think that might be your screen there, Eric. I guess I'm looking at this channel 29 and 21. >> Yeah, 21 Yeah, so that's the Harbor Point. So this is the original Taylor Engineering. >> Right. Okay.
>> And see that and you'll see this on the on the new one. It's like a little bubble there. Um is this channel 21? Is that That That's kind of what I was thinking as you come off the the river, you do a hard left and you should be able to come right into those docks and you would progress along. >> That's what they do now. Yeah, that's
what they do now. >> So, I don't know if you guys didn't do quite as or maybe just not represented well in the diagram or whatever, but I'm assuming you probably did a good stretch of that, so maybe it's covered anyway. And then of course you can see down here on
along the waterfront, there was uh it just did exactly what it does here, kind of comes out and there was nothing along the waterfront. >> Yeah, channel 18's going to be a problem with the permitting. I'm just telling you that if FTCC sees that, they're going to freak out cuz you can't dredge
along there according to the FTCC. Unfortunately. >> Uh F channel 18, yeah. That's a drainage ditch. That was put in there for drainage. >> 18. >> Yeah. But I think if if we could clean it out
cuz it's just sand sediment in there, it's it's filled up especially the end of it up by the by the main channel is shallower than what's up by the road. >> Yeah, well there I mean there's going to be a development all along here, so I mean I would I would rather ask them and let them tell us what they're going to allow us to do as opposed to speculate
whether they would or wouldn't. I mean, um that could >> Well, that's fine. Yeah, but I I just you know, that's going to that could be a a big problem if we dredge that out and they find out about it. >> Well, we would we wouldn't do it unless they told us we could through a permit,
so. Okay. >> But uh yeah, I can I can send a drawing in, Mr. Stahle. How soon would you like to get that? Probably as soon as possible, I guess, right? >> The sooner rather than later. If you could get something over to Sal and staff, um you know, early next week, that would be just fine.
>> All right, I'll work on it. >> Nothing fancy. >> It's not It's not a big deal. It's little little things that just >> I've got some notes here, too. I can take a look at it from my end. >> All right. >> That's all I got at the moment. >> Uh this we don't have a workshop, so it's just kind of a >> consensus.
>> Yeah, I mean not really consensus, just kind of directional. So uh procedure-wise, Al, so whatever we decide here, does that need to come back to council to adopt? >> The the proposal that you're preparing. >> Um if we're just going to go all in,
it's probably going to be a proposal for >> 106 something. >> Yeah, to bring to bring towards council. >> So >> All depending on these additions that um Councilman Hubbard is talking about. If he can find given what Vice Mayor Mayor just proclaimed about the the amount of feet.
I doubt that we're going to have that, so that's going to have to be something we're going to consider as an additional cost down the line, if I'm correct. I mean, if we're talking 180 to 200 feet, I mean, it's that's much different than 20. So, I mean, I know they might have additional data, but I don't >> 120 to 150 feet.
>> I mean, so, [clears throat] but you can go back and see what you do have, and then, you know, >> Yeah, what I would say is let us take a look at what we do have, and for the purposes of the project currently as it stands, >> [snorts] >> I would expand the dredge channels
to where they have them right now. And the areas if we don't have any additional data, like if our seagrass guys didn't go 100 feet, I don't think they probably went that far, but we can just say additional data to be provided. And we know this permit process is going to be pretty lengthy, so we can
[clears throat] address it down the road. But at least we get the um horizontal extents of the project on paper in front of them. There's a little data gap in there. They do it all the time. Additional data to be provided. We'll get it to them. And they'd probably give us an RAI that said,
"Please provide additional data." So not not the end of the world. Definitely workable. >> So is there any is there anybody that that doesn't agree we should go just for everything for permits? >> No, not me.
>> I think we should go for it, absolutely. >> That sounds like to me a good like a consensus. Yeah. >> Is he okay with >> Yeah, she said she's good. >> Ashley, can we go back to the second-to-last slide, please? Where so we have the uh directive on here.
Um just going back >> Are we still going to touch on the oyster bed that you brought up? Oh, yeah, you mentioned something about that that one in the oyster bed bottom. >> Can you go back to the last submerged resource slide right
there? Okay. Now that it sounds like uh there's a consensus to move forward with trying to permit uh the entire project area, we would permit that. The contractor for the dredging work would essentially remove that area.
We would be required to transplant oysters somewhere. Um there's a potential that when we get to this point for mitigation, we could just relocate the oysters to another part of the river
um rather than uh interfere with them. So, that would be our proposed approach. You put some divers in the water, let's take up the oysters and we'll re- we'll we'll relocate them. Yeah, it's like they're on a wall or a piling where we have to you know
really interfere with them. They're on the >> Well, sure, Bob's house, maybe? Is that the >> Yeah, yeah, you're you're as funny as you mentioned that cuz you know, that's I look I look over that every day um and half the boats that come out of that river, and I'm not kidding, at least half don't follow the channel markers.
They run over the oyster beds out in the middle of that bayou all the time. So, if you want to move those oysters just in the middle of that bayou where the boats have been tearing it up, I think that would be uh would be a good idea. And make it simple.
And I think I mean there's there's plenty of room to put them out there, but there's a lot of oyster beds in the middle of that that bayou right there. I mean just we can add to it. >> And that's essentially when we do these permit applications, the seagrass is a little bit different. The oysters, we can tell them we're
going to relocate them. We relocate the oysters and the contractor goes in, removes the material as as according to the plans, and then you know, that area is checked off, we're good to go. So, that would probably be my preferred approach to this. We'll just
say there's um however many square feet of oysters we're going to relocate them here, and they'll be they won't be harmed. >> Have you worked with it, Mr. Starr? Have you worked with um the CCA, Coastal Conservation Association, any of those groups?
>> Um they're not a regulatory agency. Um sometimes they're a stakeholder in some of our projects. You know, them CCA, Audubon, you know, some of Tampa Bay Watch, some of the other nonprofits here on the West Coast. >> Well, they they they've laid oyster
slats and grass beds for DEP before. They they've donated and have planted seagrasses up and down the coast. >> Yeah. >> I mean >> They have >> And they would probably donate oyster beds for that bayou if we asked for it. >> That's great to know because you know,
this is also a great uh public outreach and educational opportunity to get schools involved to re-transplant oysters and seagrass. There's ways to help reduce the cost with nonprofits and volunteer opportunities that are you know, obviously great for the environment, but
great uh you know, community involvement as well when we get to that point. So, thank you for that idea. That's certainly you know, forward thinking when we get to that point. We really like to engage those uh nonprofits for that. And even high schools do field trips. We [snorts] can always find classrooms
that want to have educational opportunities outside for them. >> Yeah. Yeah, I've been a part of part of those. I've I've done a lot of taken a lot of school kids out to look at the turtle um tagging and inspecting and and and look at the turtles and show the kids all the
turtles on my boat and we've done grass bed plants. We've done oyster slats. And a lot of a lot of volunteers do a lot of that that work. So >> Oyster beds and oyster domes. There's a lot of uh you know, lesser expensive ways to to get there at
the end of the day. But that's one of them. >> Yeah, like Pasco Coastal Improvement Council. Uh Kevin and all those guys and they they might be helpful with that. >> Um but Ashley, can we go back to that uh
second-to-last slide? Uh for the the directive, obviously there there's not a motion or anything here. Uh I just want to make sure that I understand everything here. It sounds like that staff and council want to proceed with permitting the project as scoped
>> Item number one. >> Item number one. >> Yep. Right. >> Confirmed. Confirmed. Okay. >> Yep. I agree. [clears throat] >> Just want to I just want to make sure everybody's on the same page here cuz this is a this is a big undertaking. So we'll we'll work with Sal on the scope
of work and we'll hop on it and make sure these permits get submitted while the seagrass applica- seagrass survey is still valid by September 22nd. >> So I plan on the council at the our first July meeting uh to stay within our timeline.
Um cuz you will need a PO by the uh I think we said the 20th of July uh 23rd 23rd so you can stay on track. >> Yep, that works. >> Okay. >> That works. >> And This This will come to council on the
14th of July. of the one one little question is all people that you're trying to put markers. Are you going to be able to put markers or we do we need to put markers within these new channels will be put such as the one at Harvard Point that
looks like a t or they going to know where to turn to go out or should we put markers or will you put a couple posts there to identify where that where to get in and out of so right now the project is proposed without red and green channel markers no
channel markers. Okay, we this is open discussion here. We can add red and green channel markers as private aids to navigation. They have to be maintained by some
entity which obviously in this point would be the city. Well, if Gary was there, I'm sure he'd be happy to do that. But I'm not going to speak for him right now cuz he's not here. I mean that's that's something just a
couple and a couple of so second so people don't get get confused. That's all not a big deal. Just a just a little question I have there is another level of permitting with the Coast Guard to get a letter of consent from them for permits.
But the the one thing I would caution about the channel markers. If you think about the federal channel that's out there, you know, or the ICW for that matter. They have to maintain that to a controlled depth of minus 9 or 10 feet depending on where you are.
If you put red and green channel markers out there and you tell the public it's at minus 5, you are going to have to maintain it to minus 5 in perpetuity basically while those markers are there. It's a discussion point. We can certainly do it, but then the city is
going to be on the hook to maintain that at minus five. A storm comes through, fills it up. >> Right. >> You got to go clean it out cuz you got red and green and you're telling the public from a navigational chart that it's minus >> Does it have to be that elaborate? Can't be just
a PVC pole on either side of it or >> You can do a PVC pole. I mean, that's that's not going to be permitted with the Coast Guard, but that might be something, you know, down the road, you know, if a >> Yeah, we've got one now. >> If a resident does it >> Yeah. >> out there, but a true red and green
marker permitted by the by the Coast Guard >> Yeah, no, no, I'm not looking for a marker and numbered marker by the Intracoastal. I'm just looking at something just so people can see maybe with some tape around it that glows in the dark so they can see it at night time. They know
where they're at and they won't get in trouble. >> I I think a better solution might be if you have areas with that are shallow with oyster bars, shoaling, or sea grass, you could very easily permit
informational markers with FWC that say caution shallow sea grass area, caution rock pile, um with either a buoy or a 3x4 sign on a pile.
And then you're providing information to the public, but you're not marking a channel. So, you're basically saying, "There's sea grass over here. Caution. >> Right. >> Stay over here." >> Right. Well, well, we have those in the mouth of the river. We have a couple out there on the on the south side. People
run over them all the time. I agree though. I mean, that's even when you put markers up, people don't always pay attention to them. I see them all the time, but you know, if the people don't want to know where they're going, I mean, that that could be something could do. Um I need them behind my house, but I don't think people would pay attention
to them at the same time. At least some people wouldn't. >> Yeah, and I think I think that's a good thought and a good discussion point cuz obviously there are very shallow areas outside of these uh navigable waterways. From a boating safety standpoint, that's definitely a a good opportunity
um you have to look at that in the future. >> Isn't that something that you would do at the end of the project when you're actually doing the dredging? Do you Do you need to do that Is that something to do with that now, I guess? >> Are Are you referring to the red and green markers or informational signs? >> Informational markers, whatever. Is it I mean, it doesn't seem Is it that far
that I mean, we'd have to permit that now, do we? >> You don't have to The informational markers >> No, I wouldn't I wouldn't put that in the permit now at all. No, I'd leave it alone. >> Those are >> It's It's Yeah. >> Those are different permit applications
than what we're doing right now. Um the state of Florida FWC, the uh they have what's called a uniform waterway marker application where you would apply for boating safety signs at that point. But,
they have to um essentially assign a They'll assign a permit number to it. So, marine law enforcement can also enforce those items that you mark out there as well. But, can you go one slide to the end? I got my question slide there.
Just for just for the record, so we got to the end of the presentation. It's recorded, so. >> Yeah. >> But, yeah, thank you uh for letting us go through that and happy to answer any other questions or open discussion on. I think this has been uh
been great to get through this. >> Um one question I have has to do with the timing. October 1 is a new fiscal year. Uh we've got to submit these um would that would the 106, give or take, whatever it is. Would that have to come out of this year's budget or can we put
it in next year's budget cuz we're kind of right up against the line. >> I'm going to I've already forwarded this proposal to our to the finance department. So, I'm going to have conversations with them early next week about that. Cuz I've been thinking how >> I think we can somehow push it to
next year. >> Yeah. I We may have you know cuz I mean like I said they need the he needs PO to move forward. So, I think what we can do I'm going to see what's available as far as contingencies or anything else just to get this moving along
and to see if that after the fact that we can offset it into the new fiscal year. So, the the most important thing is to keep this ball rolling. So, I think we do have it somewhere and I'll have that when I present the proposals on the 14th where we'll be
taking the money from to move forward on it. So. >> Sal, [clears throat] from our side too, we can certainly work with the city on timing. You know, if there's a PO issue now and you have to update it or modify it after October 1, we can certainly wait on you know
invoicing and whatnot and to you know to work with you all on that to make it happen. I'm happy to >> That's when we spent our dredging funds for this year. >> Understood. Yeah, and I'm happy to work with you guys to to make it as seamless as possible. >> So,
just to clarify, if I went ahead and locked in a number of PO number with you now and told you and told you said, well, let's try and get the first invoice the in October, that's doable? >> Uh-huh. >> Okay. I'll like I said, I'll let me clarify with the finance department to see where
we stand cuz you know, we you know, like I said, I think we're we're exceeded for this fiscal year and then it's going to restart into the new one, but I'll I'll know for sure by the by next >> What's your drop dead to submit the September? >> September 22nd.
>> Yes, we're just right there. So, we just >> Yeah. >> So, we maybe sell maybe I can do this with our scope of work. I typically uh I think the way the piggyback contract is currently with written is net 30 on invoices. Maybe we do like a net 60 or net 90.
So, I get it. You guys have time on your side. Something like I'll update my proposal to do that. Would that help you out with on the clerical side? >> Yeah, and then that'll that'll take us over into the next fiscal year. >> Okay. >> That advice is funny. >> There you go. >> and whatnot. So, that's that'll be
that'll work. >> Okay. We will make that update tomorrow and get that back to you. >> Sounds good. That's all I had questions I had. Very [snorts] informational. Thank you. >> Thank you for all the support. >> I just want to let everyone know and then clarify.
Once you start this process, what's the timeline for I just want to I just want everyone to hear this. >> Expectations. >> Expectations and and then let them understand. I just want everyone to know. >> I heard something like 2 years, is it?
>> So, in the feasibility report, uh we do anticipate the permit timelines for this project. The DEP permit is probably somewhere between 12 and 18 months if they end up requiring some of
the mitigation. The Army Corps permit is probably 24 to 36 months out right now. And I say that based on current permits I have in with other communities in West Florida. I have permits into the Army Corps that we
submitted in December 2023. We are still waiting on our Fish and Wildlife concurrence review for them. And we're 2 and 1/2 years later now. So, with the staff shortages in Florida and the turnover on the federal government side, Army Corps is short
staffed. Basically, we submit the permit application and we get in line. Um so, the sooner the better we get it in there and they just start taking it off the top of the stack at that point. >> Good news is is that gives us plenty of time to work out the funding mechanisms. So.
>> So what happens if what happens if all the they all go in for the permits and then a storm comes in and it changes everything? Can we Is everything just pulled? >> I wouldn't say it's pulled, but the Army Corps does allow The Army Corps and the state, they have emergency
authorizations in the event of a natural disaster like Ian, Milton, Helene. >> Right. >> to do that, but the permit would still continue to process at that point in time because everything is in that's a an act of God. I don't
see them requiring us to redo any of the field work. But when we get to construction, obviously if there's a lot of sediment that's moved around, the volumes that we presented today may be a little different. >> Excuse me, pardon you. >> So when we get to the actual bidding part of the process,
we might want to update the survey if it's years from now. So when we bid it on the street, a contractor has real up-to-date numbers that we're using regardless of a storm or not rather than data that might be a couple years old at that point in time. >> Right. I just wondered if there was a change.
Thank you. >> I haven't seen that on the recent ones we've had in. No. No. >> Uh, and the scope of work includes the whatever the permitting costs is, right? It's all in. So it's not like I mean >> The permitting fees are not included in that cuz we don't know what they are.
Uh, there's a note and assumption at the end of the scope of work that says the permit fees will be paid directly from the city to the agencies, whatever that may be. >> Any idea of what that might be? >> The Army Corps one is typically $100.
The FDEP one, that's typically 7,500 to 10,000 dollars for that. >> So, not not a lot. We're not going to be hit with 100 grand, basically. >> Not that I see that. Where the additional costs would poten- potentially >> Mitigation mitigation
>> would be the mitigation and we don't know the extent of that. So, that's a that's a discussion for 6 to 12 months from now once they actually review the application, we come back and say here's what they told us, here's what they want us to do. What's our plan to move forward? We come
up with a couple solutions at that point in time. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Thanks for coming. Appreciate it. >> You're very welcome. >> Matthew, thank you very much. >> You're welcome. >> I'll be in touch. Thank you. >> Okay. That concludes council business. Um next up is comments from Mayor and
City Council. I'll start with Vice Mayor. >> Really? >> [clears throat] >> I just want to say that I am grateful and thankful that we're at this point. We're moving forward because many people out there want us to clean up these waterways and uh I think the state forward wants to help us do it, too. So,
I'm excited about that. >> Councilwoman Seldom >> I second what Chris said. >> All right. Councilman Hubbard >> No, nothing at this point. >> Okay. Councilwoman Burke >> I'm good. Thank you. >> Okay. I have nothing as well. Um
obviously the uh Like Chris said, a lot of residents really want to see some action on this and so these uh these are the steps we're taking to make sure that we're moving the ball down the the court. So, at some point in the future, hopefully we'll make some baskets. So, that's the intent. So,
uh with that, um just Anything? >> Just want to add um outside of this uh Monday we have uh Port Richey Events Committee meeting. Um Tuesday we s- uh we have PBA negotiations starting at noon on Tuesday the 23rd and then we
have our council meeting and CRA meeting on Tuesday night. So, just want to close out. Yeah. >> Good. Move for motion. >> Motion to adjourn. >> Second. >> Motion second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Workshop concluded.