Meetings will resume in September

Visit use at www.ourphosphaterisk.com

SMR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT ____ Members of ManaSota-88 are strongly opposed changes to the Sarasota 2050 plan proposed by Schroder Manatee Ranch (SMR).   The proposed changes will weaken an already weak plan and set a precedent for other village plan amendments to further weaken the Sarasota 2050 plan.  Development proposals that utilize the Sarasota 2050 plan should be modified to fit the 2050 plan, the 2050 plan should not be modified to fit the development proposal.

SMR's proposal does not meet the expectations for a Village under the Sarasota 2050 goals, objectives, and policies. As we have already seen, other developments within the County will be requesting changes and modifications to the 2050 plan. Approving the proposed SMR amendment will signal the development community that they can expect changes to a plan that has gone through extensive public debate and an administrative challenge.

MANATEE SPEED ZONES _____ ManaSota-88 has submitted comments to the Sarasota County Local Rule Review Committee (LRRC) concerning the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission's  (FWC) proposals for rule changes for manatee protection. Unfortunately, boating interests appear to dominant the LRRC. Final recommendations by the LRRC will likely not be in the best interests of protecting manatees.

In December 1991, the governor and Cabinet voted to adopt manatee protection zones for Sarasota County. ManaSota-88 has supported these rules since adoption and strongly recommends that the speed zones be posted so they can be effectively monitored and enforced. There is no justification to reduce or eliminate the existing manatee protection speed zones, to do so would jeopardize the existence of a member of the marine community which is entitled to protection and respect.

 MANATEE COUNTY IMPACT FEES _____ To no avail, ManaSota- 88 recommended that the Manatee County Commissioners not reduce educational or road impact fees. A reduction in impact fees equates to an increase in taxes for existing residents or a reduced level off services for education and transportation.

ManaSota-88 supports impact fees that require new development pay 100% the costs associated with the residential and commercial growth of Manatee County. To fulfill the mandates of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, funding mechanisms need to be in place that meets the infrastructure requirements of the Comprehensive Plan. If impact fees are set too low, the level of service standards set for the various elements of the Comprehensive Plan would have to be reduced in order to meet concurrency management requirements, and thus reduce the quality of living in Manatee County.

Maintaining fair impact fees will help the County relieve existing deficiencies in infrastructure for the benefit of existing residents, and not require existing residents to pay for new growth. The County Commission has thus far failed to adequately address the problem of new growth's impact on the County's existing residents.

SARASOTA COUNTY IMPACT FEES ____ Representing ManaSota-88, Glenn Compton recommended that the Sarasota Board of County Commissioners not adopt Ordinance No. 2009-028 to temporarily suspend school impact fees. Apparently the Sarasota School Board is more concerned with developer profit margins than seeking equitable funding for schools.

ManaSota-88 first recommended the adoption of school impact fees back in 1986. Impact fees are assessed on new homes to help fund new infrastructure such as roads, water and sewer lines, and other services. Why are schools, which are vital to a community's quality of life, any less important?

Fortunately the Sarasota County Commission ruled the proposed suspension of school impact fee not in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and did not adopt the Ordinance.

OIL DRILLING _____ There are two sides to every story. Unfortunately for Floridians, the Florida House of Representatives only heard one side. The guest column by Rep. Dean Cannon, R-Winter Park, "Drilling off Florida coast won't hurt the environment" (Herald-Tribune, May 24), fails to mention the environmental trade-offs and risks associated with offshore oil drilling.

Florida's $65 billion a year tourism industry depends on clean beaches and a healthy environment, not oil refineries, storage tanks, oil platforms and pipelines. Cannon is misleading the public with contradictory statistics and rhetoric on the benefits of drilling for oil adjacent to Florida's coastline.

The Florida House approved legislation that would have allowed oil drilling within three to 10 miles of the coast. This bill surfaced only 10 days before the end of the legislative session. House members depended largely on information supplied by oil industry representatives to make their decision. Fortunately, the Florida Senate did not take up the issue and the drilling proposal did not pass.

Cannon attempts to draw a connection between offshore oil drilling revenues and reduced funding for education. Funding education is a matter of identifying priorities and providing reliable sources of revenue, none of which is connected to offshore oil drilling. What happens when oil company profits drop? Does education then get less funding?

Estimates of oil and gas reserves off the Florida coast vary widely. If we believe oil industry estimates on the amount of oil present offshore of Florida, the taxpayers will lose out on billions of dollars. By flooding the market with huge area-wide lease offerings, offshore oil drilling would drive down the price of leases and reduce competition. This would provide the oil industry with the opportunity to lease large blocks of publicly owned lands at bargain-basement prices.

The development that accompanies offshore oil production -- refineries, processing facilities, storage and transport facilities -- would have major impacts on Florida's environment, yet these adverse impacts were all but ignored during this legislative session.

Processing and oil separation require large volumes of water and produces wastewater containing toxics and heavy metals. The addition of one or several gas-processing plants will have significant impacts on local water supplies.

In addition to pipeline blowouts or leaks causing serious environmental problems, laying offshore pipes will likely cause increased turbidity of marine waters, destruction of sea grass beds and resuspension of contaminated sediments.

Oil and gas-processing plants can result in the degradation of air quality. Onshore gas-processing activities typically emit constant levels of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide and total suspended particulates.

There is no question that the record of the offshore oil industry with respect to oil spills is improving. This record, however, does not mean there will be no more spills. And the ability of the oil industry to respond effectively to such spills is questionable at best.

The environmental damage from even a minor oil spill of 100 barrels or less can be significant. Should oil reach the Florida coastline, it will render many areas uninhabitable to plants and animals. Oil could remain for years, destroy eggs and larvae of marine organisms and affect marine life and food chains. Petroleum hydrocarbons are extremely toxic, even at very low concentrations.

Existing state and federal regulations do not address the significant damage that oil drilling does to the environment. There is no reason to believe that future oil drilling will protect Florida's economy and environment from the potentially serious damage associated with the process.

In light of the real dangers of offshore oil drilling, our legislators should commit to developing clean alternative sources of energy. The beauty of our beaches and the productivity of our estuarine areas will ultimately prove to be more important than oil industry profits.

Florida's fragile coast must not needlessly be placed in jeopardy. To avoid probable irreversible damage to our ecosystems and the ensuing severe impact on Florida's economy, Florida House and Senate members should continue to support the current ban on offshore oil drilling.

MYAKKA RIVER PURCHASE _____ The Sarasota County Commissioners are to be congratulated for voting to purchase the Gabbert Investments Group, LLC land located on the Myakka River.

Previously proposed high-density development was very inappropriate for this area and would have caused significant downstream water quality degradation. Acquiring the 7 acres of land adjacent to the Myakka River will help protect this natural treasure.

Public ownership of waterfront property along the Myakka will help to protect the water quality of the Myakka River as it flows into Charlotte Harbor.

The Myakka River is one of the most scenic and pristine areas in southwest Florida. The importance of protecting the integrity of the Myakka cannot be overstated.

MANFULL LANDFILL _____ ManaSota-88 has objected to Manatee County Proposed Ordinance 09-06 to designate portions of the Manfull Property as a Class III landfill because:

1. The Lena Road landfill has space available for the next thirty years and is permitted as a landfill to operate during this period. Extending the time of use for the existing Manatee County landfill by employing realistic composting and recycling techniques is an option that needs to be carefully explored before approving a new landfill site. The Manatee County Commission appears to ignore the advantages composting and realistic recycling goals can offer in extending the life of the existing Lena Road landfill;

2. The site is characterized as having poorly drained soils. The location of the underlying groundwater resources makes them particularly susceptible to contamination. Aquifers overlain by sandy or porous soils or lying close to the surface are more likely to become contaminated. These soils permit rapid percolation of water from the landfill site, thus providing little natural cleansing.

Contaminated groundwater is extremely difficult, expensive and time-consuming to clean up if, in fact, total restoration is possible. It is probably impossible to pump and treat all the contaminated groundwater in a plume and some of the contaminants will cling to soil particles and remain untreated in any event;

3.  A needs analysis study has not demonstrated a new landfill is necessary. According to the Manatee County Planning Department, the Lena Road landfill currently takes Construction & Demolition Debris in for disposal and Manatee County has a plan for post-disaster debris removal.

4.  Planning staff has expressed concerns that this type of landfill will have impacts on the headwaters of Long Branch creek, which is a tributary to the Little Manatee River. The Little Manatee River is designated an Outstanding Florida Water body (OFW). An OFW designation is intended to provide additional protection to special waters recognized for their ecological significance, by providing the highest degree of protection under the State of Florida permitting policies.

5.   A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from FDEP has not been approved yet.

Prior to committing extensive and valuable staff time to a landfill project, there are some basic questions that should be answered by Waste Management before the County Commission permits a new landfill.  Basic questions such as; is there a need for a new landfill? Is this the best location in the County for a landfill to be built? Is it cost effective to have two landfills instead of one? What impact will the new landfill have on the environment? 

The building of a new landfill should be considered only after the applicant has demonstrated the need for a new landfill and an alternative siting study has demonstrated the proper placement of the landfill.

There are practical alternatives to building a landfill; Waste Management has not demonstrated that no other practice alternative exists as is required to obtain federal permits required by the Clean Water Act. Less environmentally damaging alternative exists, the Lena Road Landfill.

FLORIDA BIOMASS ENERGY _____  The Manatee County Commissioners recently approved  an amendment to the Manatee County Comprehensive Plan for the construction of  a biomass energy plant near Port Manatee.  The proposal will next be reviewed by the Department of Community Affairs.

Air quality and water use permits have not been issued for the Florida Biomass Energy producing plant. The potential for air and water pollution, spills, transportation mishaps, dust, and odor emissions will be reviewed by federal, state and local permitting agencies at a later date. The possible long-term impacts on local water supplies and air quality are largely unknown. Without additional information on air quality, water quality and water supply impacts, determining compliance with the Comprehensive Plan is impossible.

Manatee County does not need another air polluting industry located near Port Manatee. Manatee residents would bear the burden of increased pollution from a biomass energy plant built near the Port.  Biomass energy production is likely to have little or no impact on reducing air pollution or reducing our dependence on foreign oil. 

It is never a good idea to build a power plant in the Coastal High Hazard Area and it is never a good idea to propose a power plant in the Most Impacted Area for water supply.

It remains to be seen whether Florida Biomass Energy can demonstrate a reasonable balance between the need for the biomass energy producing facility and the environmental and health impacts resulting from the construction and operation of the plant. Several questions remain unanswered.

There are specific state and federal definitions for contaminants, hazardous materials, pollutants, toxic materials or wastes and these definitions need to be agreed upon before the Comprehensive Plan is modified for this project. 

_____

Tax-deductible contributions should be mailed to: ManaSota-88, P.O. Box 1728, Nokomis, Florida 34274