One waterway resident continues to urge that county clean out sediment in ‘coves, inlets and branches’
Nearly 11 months after residents who live on Phillippi Creek began begging the Sarasota County Commission for the removal of sediment from the waterway, the first phase of that work is getting underway, county staff reported on Dec. 5.
The Dec. 5 county newsletter pointed out, “Sarasota County Stormwater staff and contractors have begun preparing staging and management areas for the Phillippi Creek dredging project, with dredging work expected to begin this month. The scope of work for Phase 1 includes high spots 4-11, which are large sediment areas stretching from Tuttle Avenue to Beneva Road. This phase is expected to take approximately six months and will follow a multiphased approach.”
The newsletter also noted, that “the West Coast Inland Navigation District is preparing to dredge from the mouth of the creek to an area 2,000 feet upstream of U.S. 41. To learn more about the project, visit scgov.net/phillippicreek.”
The webpages the newsletter referenced for the county work explain, “Phillippi Creek is a 7.2-mile tidal creek and part of the Sarasota Bay Watershed. It plays an important role for adjacent communities, collecting and transporting stormwater to Roberts Bay. Over the past several years, areas of the creek have seen significant sediment buildup. Sarasota County’s Stormwater Department is working with the West Coast Inland Navigation District (WCIND) to improve stormwater drainage and reduce flooding potential by dredging between the mouth of the creek and South Beneva Road.”
As The Sarasota News Leader has reported, the county received the necessary permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) in October. The county webpages note that the County Commission has approved approximately $16 million of county funds for the county stormwater initiative.
At the same time, the News Leader has learned, one of the Phillippi Creek residents who has urged a more complete dredging of the waterway has been engaged in recent communications with County Administrator Jonathan Lewis and commissioners, following remarks she made to the board on Nov. 18.
What recourse exists when unelected county administrator … is the one making decisions?
On Dec. 3, Kristy Molyneaux — who addressed the board members during the Open to the Public comment period of their Nov. 18 meeting — wrote Chair Joe Neunder in regard to the board discussion that arose the same day in response to her comments.
Molyneaux had expressed frustration that Stormwater Director Ben Quartermaine had not included “coves, inlets and branches of Phillippi Creek” as areas to be dredged during the ongoing initiative.
Molyneaux reminded Neunder that, on Nov. 18, she “asked a commissioner to please make a motion to include coves, inlets and branches of Phillippi Creek in the preliminary plan for a maximum allowable dredge. Commissioner [Mark] Smith tried to make a motion but was quickly told by the county administrator [Jonthan Lewis] that it was not necessary. Apparently, it was necessary because, on November 26 Ben [Quartermaine] informed me those areas will not be included. Here is where I need your guidance, as a county resident working hard to hold the County responsible for cleaning up the waterways … [W]hat am I [supposed] to do when the county administrator overrides a commissioner? I may be new and naive to the workings of the local government but, it was my understanding that the county administrator works under the direction of the BCC [Board of County Commissioners]. How am I, as a concerned resident, [supposed] to have recourse if the county administrator, an unelected position, is the one making decisions?”
Molyneaux added, “Lastly, the county’s own Comprehensive Plan and Ordinance 2022-027 [state] that waterways used as part of the stormwater conveyance system are the responsibility of the county to maintain. I ask: do you support that the county is responsible for maintaining waterways that county owned stormwater drainage pipes empty into?”
The Comprehensive Plan guides growth in the community. It includes a number of environmental policies.
On Dec. 4, County Administrator Lewis replied to Molyneaux: “To be clear your statement … is incorrect. I did not tell the board that something wasn’t necessary. I told the Board we have created a stormwater department and hired what all have recognized as the best person we could to be the stormwater director. That it would be appropriate to wait to [hear] from him on the topic before they took any action.”
A little more than two hours later on Dec. 4, Molyneaux responded to Lewis.
“I encourage you to go to the BCC video of November 18, [at the time stamp of] 2 hours 29 minutes. You say ‘I don’t feel I need a motion on that. We can work on the cost of that as well.’ Your comments were in response to Commissioner Smith wanting staff to look at the cost to include coves, branches and inlets. As I referenced in my email to Commissioner Neunder apparently a motion was needed because those areas are not being looked at in the cost! I will also remind you that you personally told me a motion was not needed to have the county look at a maximum allowable dredge but, as we both know, the county is only looking at that now because the BCC passed a motion.”
Further, Molyneaux pointed out, “The Resilient SRQ dollars are designed to help the people impacted by, not just [Tropical Storm} Debby, but [Hurricanes] Helene and Milton. The commissioners graciously awarded $45 million in the HUD [U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development] funds to clean out Phillippi Creek. They did that because of all of the people that came to the BCC meetings and the Resilient SRQ workshops and told their tragic stories of flooding and pleaded for help. All I am asking is that the $45 million be used to do a thorough removal of sediment buildup. If a county owned stormwater drainage pipe empties into a cove, branch, canal, inlet or oxbow the county should maintain that area.”
Seven minutes later, Lewis responded: “Kristy, Thank you for clarifying.
“Two different contexts. One was in reference to [the commissioners] considering a topic not on the agenda and suggesting that input from the stormwater director would be valuable to their policy discussion. The other is whether or not they needed to vote for us to look at those issues.
“That information is being prepared for the Board and the director will give his professional recommendation,” Lewis continued. “[H]owever, any policy direction will still come from the board. Which is why I did not need a motion to have staff prepare that information.”
Lewis forwarded the exchanges to all of the commissioners.
The last regular meeting of the board this year is scheduled for Dec. 16 at the Robert L. Anderson Administration Center in Venice. A stormwater update is listed on the agenda as part of Lewis’ report to the commissioners.