Knee-deep in the final stages of its work, the Escambia County RESTORE Advisory Committee continued Monday afternoon to wade through potential projects in line for the millions of dollars in oil spill money headed to the area. They breezed over the last half of the submitted projects — as so ranked by a consulting firm — and solidified future meeting dates.
But the real movement on the local RESTORE front comes later this week, probably by Wednesday. That’s when the county will be sending out the “invitations,†in which project applicants will find out how committee members scored their projects. The projects falling in the top 50 percent of the committee’s rankings — the ones viewed as having any serious chance of funding — will be invited to present their proposals during two upcoming meetings, as well as submit a written presentation. The bottom half will be granted the consolation prize of submitting the written presentation.
If discussion during Monday’s meeting was any indication, the committee is raising its eyebrows at certain types of projects while wanting to dig deeper into others.
Members were particularly interested in hearing more about project number 117, entitled Bayou Chico Restoration. It’s a big one. With an estimated price tag of $22,828,151, it’s almost a third of the total funds the county will see over about 17 years.
“This is a huge piece of the money,†said RESTORE committee Vice Chairman Alan McMillan.
The project involves suction dredging Bayou Chico, removing loose contaminated sediment from the bottom and pumping it into a sand pit. The project would be the crowning cherry atop years of associated efforts aimed at purging the bayou of decades of abuse.
McMillan requested county staff report back to the committee on how the largest project on the table ties into past efforts of cleaning waterways associated with the bayou, as well as waterway-centric projects currently being considered for RESTORE dollars.
While the committee only skimmed over the last half of the projects before them, stopping only to make brief comments or raise questions, members did offer some insight into their thinking. When looking at the merits of a project — such as job creation, or environmental benefits, or general appropriateness — there are certain types that will face some amount of scrutiny.
Projects submitted by local governments, for example, must show why the project should be funded by RESTORE dollars as opposed to the money that would ordinarily pay for such expenses. Members pointed out that projects related to road improvements or infrastructure replacement was typically accounted for in budgets. Christian Wagley, who represents environmental interests on the committee, suggested members use such factors as “filters in the future†when looking at a project.
Wagley also questioned several projects on environmental grounds. He wondered if using fines stemming from the Deepwater Horizon spill to fund a parking garage, which he contended furthered the use of fossil fuels, was appropriate. And also questioned the prudence of spending funds on project number 81, the restoration of White Island in Pensacola Bay.
“There are thousands of islands all around the Atlantic and Gulf Coast and they’re all gonna drown at some point,†Wagley said, in relation to White Island, which is popular with boaters.
McMillan, on the other hand, wanted to ensure the committee was taking into consideration that the White Island project — estimated at $169,000 — had the support of nearby homeowners.
Monday’s meeting also suggested that some committee members may not be too hip on research related projects.
Committee member Al Coby said that some research projects only served to initiate future work that would need to be funded and that the chances of such funding might not be good.
“We have a bunch of’em on the shelf out there,†Coby said of past research projects.
And other projects, received a notable snub from the committee. For instance, project number 98 — LA’s Funtainment Center — faces an uphill climb.
“Unless the county wants to own or run a bowling alley, skating rink and arcade,†laughed committee Chairwoman Bentina Terry, suggesting the project was more suited for the private sector.
The RESTORE committee will soon be hearing more about half of the 124 projects submitted to Escambia County. Applicants will make the case for their respective projects over the course of two meetings, the first on Dec. 9 and the second on Jan. 11.
Later in January, the committee will hear from the Dewberry consulting firm about opportunities for collaboration between contending projects. And then, in February, the advisory board will meet with the Escambia County Commission.
Terry said that the joint meeting would be about “goals.â€
“So, outside of the criteria, what are the goals the county should achieve?†she said.
Sometime after that, the committee will make its recommendations to the county. Ultimately, the decision on how best to use the RESTORE money rests with the commissioners.
