He says the harbor needs dredging, but he has no problem with saying that Holiday Isle is also in an emergency situation. But the dredging is essential.
Craig: Are we really the people they should be going to? This involves state and federal players.
He asks if the DEP would have gone for putting sand on Holiday Isle if the Sherrys hadn’t filed a challenge. Kisela: It depends how you read the original permit. But the original permit clearly gave us some flexibility.

Jim Wood: Dredging is one of our most frustrating issues, not just for us but for the Corps and the DEP: “We seem to fight more within our own community than” to get anything done, and he’s concerned the Corps will withdraw and head for somewhere where people “have their ducks in a row.”
Kisela: The Corps’ Terry Jangula says that if the permits is challenged, they could lose funding–though he thinks taking sand from Parcel B is doable.
Bagby: He’s heard someone say winter dredging is good, someone say it’s bad (it wasn’t just me, I heard the same). Robson: No, we want winter dredging.
Bagby: And when is the dredge coming? Kisela: Within two weeks, but they may have it stand down rather than waste the cost of mobilizing it.

George Eller: “The simple fact is, we can’t wait. In the thirty plus years I’ve been watching, every time a major dredging operation takes place during the winter it’s a failure or second rate at best–the weather just will not permit it. We have the money now … if we tamper with this process or do something to slow it down, we might use the funding.”
He’s sympathetic to the problem, but “there’s a lot of condominiums, there’s a lot of rooms for people to stay in, but there’s only one pass, only one harbor, only one fleet … the heart and soul of this community has always been this fleet.” And he’s proud the fleet has no finer friend than the city of Destin. “We can’t wait. We can’t take a chance on tampering with the process–everybody knows what happens when you do that.
“Clearly the law could be amended” and he thinks it’s worth working to that effect, but NOT NOW. “I understand every day that goes by, they’re in peril; every minute that goes by, the fleet’s in peril. We just can’t wait.”
Next: Larry Williges, ex-council member, steps up.
Okaloosa Island has argued they’ll lose their drift because sand moves east to west. “The sand that’s in the pass, where did that sand come from that’s blocking the pass? It came from the east? These condo owners at Jetty East, the sand was their sand … to me it seems to be a pretty simple thing.”
John Medina, Holiday Isle Improvement Association board member: Okaloosa Island will get sand as part of Eglin AFB’s beach restoration project, and they’re beaches aren’t eroded yet–so why do they need more? We’re not saying stop the dredging, we’re saying this is a state of emergency.
Scott Robson: “If you can persuade them to get this done in two weeks before the dredge gets here, that’d be great.” But based on experience, “you throw one monkey wrench in … it’ll be March, April.” And it’ll be too rough to dredge the worst part of the harbor. It has to be done now to be effective.

Once again, we’re dealing with bad science. If everyone agreed to put the sand on Holiday Isle, that would be a win-win all around (Muttered audience response: “Good freakin’ luck.”). We don’t have to sell Okaloosa Island, just the decision makers.
Kisela: That’s a three to six month process.
Bagby: But it would give the fleet and the property owners what they want.
Kisela; The Corps is very concerned that the funding and the timing for doing this project could go away if it’s postponed. Bagby: No way they can dredge and just put the sand somewhere until it’s worked out?
HInes: Yes, there are places to store the sand if the government was willing to do that.
Barker: Talked to the DEP secretary a month ago, he seemed eager to find a way to keep things moving. Kisela: The secretary has said he’ll work with the feds to expedite permitting of putting sand in the water in front of Jetty East. We’re also looking at the possibility of a)sand from an upland source, which might be lower quality and would cost money; b)taking sand from other parts of Holiday Isle for now and replacing it later. The owner of one parcel-owner has said he’d consider it. It would be 20,000-40,000 yards, not the quantity they’d get out of the dredging.
And now a recess while they change the Channel 6 tape.

Windes on the Holiday Isle owners challenging the permit for the upcoming dredge: The fishing fleet is already struggling, and “this is a lose-lose thing y’all are all proposing–we want to turn it around to a win-win. … let’s find some other avenue than stopping the dredging.”
Larry Hines, Holiday Isle resident: Original state permit didn’t say any sand could come to our beaches, but it didn’t rule it out; we owners hoped we could arrange to get a share. We didn’t challenge that permit because we knew the dredging was needed, but then Okaloosa Island owners got it rewritten to prevent any sand being dredged to Norriego Point or Holiday Isle for 10 years (I didn’t know that type).
“We have our backs against the wall too. It used to be just Jetty East was affected … now it’s the Islander, Holiday Surf and Racquet Club, Inland Reef.” Their goal is to avoid stopping the dredge, but they have to have sand–pictures of waves pounding on Holiday Isle with no beach are lethal. “We’re being shown across the country as a place not to go to because of our beach situation.”
“The state needs to comply to the law–I’m pretty convinced they broke the law.” He estimates that within two months, they could get the equivalent of 2/3 of what a major beach restoration project would bring.
Craig asks what law governs this case. Hines says “downdrift beaches” has been replaced with “adjacent eroded beaches” in Statute 161, which governs this case.
Craig: “I was told the Inlet Management Plan was a governing law.” Hines: “The law trumps the plan.” And the currents are not what they were back when the plan was written.
Craig: So are you fighting the dredging? Or over the law? Or what?
Kisela: They’ve petitioned to stop the dredging. The Office of General Counsel will make a decision whether the petition is timely.
Craig: Is it state statutes or the plan that rules here?
Kisela: Inlet Management Plan is the one that was adopted 10 years ago. We’re evaluating whether the currents have changed. Mr. Hines is referring to a change in the statutes.
Craig: So the statutes and the plan are inconsistent? Kisela recaps the history of the management plan and efforts to change it.
Seevers: What’s the stance on the current efforts for beach restoration?
Kisela: The DEP is on the brink of giving an “intent to issue” regarding a restoration permit, but the city expects a lot of owners to challenge that too.
Seevers: If they didn’t file, the project would move forward?
Kisela: Without opposition, we could probably get sand in place by 2010 summer.

A motion to revise Destin travel policies for elected officials passes unanimously.
Next: An update to the city budget, bringing the official records in line with last minute adjustments to FY 2009 (which ended Sept. 30).
Unanimous.
Next, a presentation by Pastor William Colvin of Journey Fellowship Ministries. His request: Allow religious operations in commercial general zoning.
It’s a new church meeting on Gulf Shore Drive and to be part of the community they want to “dot their t’s and cross their i’s.” Having learned their Gulf Shore location doesn’t allow for religious meetings, they’ve come to council to ask them to change the rules and allow them “a presence in the city of Destin.”
Craig: Aren’t there churches in that zoning?
Community Development Director Ken Gallander: Most places of worship are in institutional zoning, though some might be grandfathered into commercial zoning.
Dewey: “In our old zoning, before we adopted that, churches could be anywhere?”
Gallander: It was more generally allowed, as he remembers it.
Dewey: So is it all institutional where Beach Drive has all the churches?
Gallander: Yep.
Dewey: And that’s all the zoning that’s allowed? Gallander: Yep.
Dewey: “That’s probably news to a lot of people … we don’t have the ability to grant zoning variances, do we?”
Gallander: We would have to go through the growth-plan amendment approach.
Dewey: “I would say we need to move back to our old, liberal policy … I’ve never looked at churches as a bad neighbor.”
Jim Bagby: “I’m even more confused–they want an amusement arcade?”
Kisela: That’s acceptable in this zoning. Colvin says they’re working on building it now. Kisela: They have a business license now. Bagby: So you want services there too? Colvin: Yep.
Seevers: “We also need to make sure it’s compatible with our ordinances as far as what’s already in the area … should there be a small restaurant that serves wine.” i.e., given the separation requirement from churches, a place serving alcohol might not be able to rebuild after major damage or major remodifications.
Bagby: “We have a major bunch of restaurants there … I wouldn’t want to see them put out of business.”
Gallander: Those rules are very specific: You have to have more than 51 percent of sales in the alcohol line.
Motion to make this change. Kisela points out that the next growth plan review won’t be due until next summer. Gallander: I think staff can expedite the process.
Colvin: He wants to do this by the book, no special favors.
Unanimous to make the change

Randy Howard, partner in Harbor Watersports (opening in 2010) steps to the podium on behalf of his business and others along the harbor water.
“We’re very supportive of the fishing boats … like us, they’re entrepreneurs … parasail business is what we’re really talking about here in terms of being in opposition to this no-wake zone.” 75 to 80 people work on parasailing vessels in the harbor. A no-wake zone would cut the amount of time from six trips a day to squeezing in five. “Sometimes well-intentioned rules and regulations, just like red snapper–I’m sure there was well-intentioned reasons for that.”
Charles DuPlantis’ quote in my story on big boats posing a wake risk did not translate into support for the expanded zone, Howard says.
Charter Captain George Eller gets up next: “To extend the no-wake zone would be a benefit to safety. It’s very hard to sit still and bait fish, among other things, when you’ve got high-speed boats running past you. It’s dangerous, it’s uncalled for, it’s just not necessary … It’ll slow us down also, but sometimes that’s the price you have to pay for safety.”
Kelly Windes moves to approve the resolution (which requests the county cooperate in creating the no-wake zone–by contacting the EPA as well).
Dewey: Does the charter association have an official position?
Scott Robson, president: “We’re okay with extending the no-wake zone for the benefit of safety.”
Kelly: “When I first got on the council four years ago, Miss Seevers brought up the same motion and I was against it–I’m still not completely happy, but I think it’s the thing to do. My reason was the same as Mr. Howard’s, we didn’t want to slow down … nowadays we’ve got snorkelers running around, we’ve got windsurfers, parasailers, bait fishers … it’s in the interest of the general public … I’m not crazy about it, i’ve got a fast boat myself, but … the economics shouldn’t trump the safety factor.”
The vote: unanimous.

If I’m reading it properly, it updates the city’s construction plan by including school board and DWU plans among other things, rather than just city projects.
The amendment passes unanimously.
The consent agenda is up next; seven (the Azalea sidewalk) is yanked for discussion. The other three pass unanimously.
Tom Weidenhamer: Explains to the TV audience what the deal on the new Azalea sidewalk is.
Unanimous to approve that one too.

Next up, an ordinance modifying city travel procedures for staff. The city’s old rules included a lot of things not required by the IRS (such as efforts to get the best quoted price from multiple hotels or rental-care companies, if I remember what Kisela has said) and this pares the requirements down to the IRS minimum.
Unanimous to approve.
Next: Increasing the permissible height in Gulf Resort Mixed Use zoning to 50 feet for single-family homes. This is to align the zoning with the city’s growth plan.
Unanimous. It was second reading, so it’s now law.

Moore-Basee Consulting and Jenkins Engineering.
A motion is made to approve. Sandy Trammell states she will abstain because she has a relative working for one of the firms.
Sam Seevers congratulates all the firms who apply.
The verdict: 6-0 with one abstention.