Our View

Maybe it’s not a fair comparison, but what follows certainly is enough to get your attention.

It should at least persuade the Longboat Key town commissioners to ponder the town’s strategy. Here goes:

We went back to two beach-bond issues — 1993 and 1996 — to determine the cost to taxpayers of renourishing Longboat Key’s 11 miles of beaches. It breaks down like this:

• 1993 bond issue: $9,730,000
• 1996 bond issue: $4,270,000
• Total: $14,000,000

Now take that $14 million and apply an inflation calculator to determine what a $14 million bond issue then would cost today. The result:

• Total: $20,045,150

Now juxtapose that figure against the numbers town commissioners and Town Manager Bruce St. Denis are contemplating for the next round of renourishment and a possible March bond referendum:

$30 million to $45 million

That’s a huge difference.

The first and most obvious question is: Why?

To be sure, one of the answers is the sources of sand are becoming more difficult to locate and farther away, boosting the cost of transportation. We’d venture to say increased regulation from Tallahassee and federal agencies also are likely fueling the rising cost as well.

But no matter what is fueling the cost, the fact this next round of renourishment is expected to be 60% higher in cost than what normal inflationary costs would be should be cause for the town fathers to raise the next most obvious question: Is there a better alternative to beach-wide dredge and fill? Is there an alternative that would slow the rate of erosion for less money?

We almost pity the seven town commissioners at this point. They are facing tough decisions in 2011.
Probably No. 2 on the list — behind the beach bonds — are the dilemmas of resolving the town’s growing pension liabilities ($26 million and counting). Rushing at them even faster in terms of making a quick decision is what to do about the beach bond issues. Commissioners must decide no later than Jan. 3 whether to place a bond-issue on the town’s March ballot. They may vote on the matter at their Monday, Dec. 6, meeting.

Should they or shouldn’t they?

Mayor George Spoll at a recent commission meeting suggested they go ahead with a $45 million bond-issue vote. “ … Go for the whole ball of wax and realize we might be able to economize,” the mayor said.
In other words, try to get voter permission to spend up to $45 million to dredge and fill the entire beach and place breakwaters at the town’s most critical hot spot — the northernmost tip of the Key.

We shudder at giving any government agency a $45 million checking account. Count on it; it will be spent.
With the projected costs as high as they are, we are starting to see and hear many taxpayers — especially those on the Gulf side, who would pay 80% of the cost — becoming aroused.

If, say, you figure out the annual cost of a $40 million bond issue over eight years at current rates, beach-side residents would be taxed about 1.532 mills. For the home assessed at $1 million, that would be $1,532 a year — $12,256 total.

Of course, there are those on the Key who say “big deal”; it’s worth it.

But there also are those who say: Wait a minute, shouldn’t we explore our options?

Put us in that latter camp.

For 17 years, the town has relied on the dredge-and-fill method and advice of Coastal Planning & Engineering. The town tried a couple of geothermal tubes on the Islander Club without much success.
But, through it all, the town has been a faithful client of CP&E.

We’re not questioning the job or expertise of CP&E. Yet, faced with the prospect of a $40 million bond issue — more than 60% higher than the rate of inflation — it appears the circumstances beg for the Town Commission to seek a second or third opinion. We offer snapshots of two alternatives below.

With this much at stake, Longboat Key taxpayers deserve a thorough vetting. Though there is an urgency and anxiousness to get a bond issue on the ballot, taxpayers should be comfortable first with knowing the best way to go.

ALTERNATIVES TO RENOURISHMENT?
For the past 17 years, Longboat Key has followed a methodical practice of a large-scale “dredge and dump” every five to eight years to maintain its 11 miles of beaches. But this is not the only method available. Here are snapshots of two other approaches:

The Sandgrabber
Begun in the 1970s by Michigander Kenneth Herzog, the Sandgrabber has evolved from a system of stacked masonry cinder blocks to a patented system of polyethylene modules.

Used around the world in municipalities, resorts and at individuals’ properties, the Sandgrabber, according to Sandgrabber L.C., “rebuilds sandy beaches and prevents shoreline erosion.”

Sandgrabber consists of trapezoid structures placed side by side, parallel to the shoreline. Each module, which is filled with concrete has 20 tubes that extend from the front wall to the rear wall.

“As the waves break onto the Sandgrabber, their momentum is dissipated. Sand is deposited both in front of and behind the modules,” according to Sandgrabber L.C. “The stronger the wave action, the faster the buildup of sand. A further benefit is the typically extra fine sand deposited by the waves behind the Sandgrabber.”

Sandgrabbers can be left in place, removed or reused.

The manufacturer also says they are environmentally friendly, not harming sea or shore life. Nor do they starve adjacent shores.

Go to: sandgrabberbeach.com.

Holmberg Technologies
Richard Holmberg, of Englewood, another beach community south of Longboat Key, has been installing his trademarked “Undercurrent Stabilizers” on public and private beaches for more than two decades.
Holmberg takes a geologic approach to his projects with the goal of fostering “natural beach growth by neutralizing manmade imbalances.”

“We have a time-tested and nature-friendly technology to reverse shoreline erosion as well as the technical ability to restore lost and damaged headlands that have been losing soil to these erosive forces,” Holmberg Technologies reports.

The Undercurrent Stabilizers are low-profile geotextile tubes that run at right angles from the shore, mostly submerged. “The system is designed not to trap sand (and divert nearshore energy offshore) as do groin fields,” the company says. “As the system matures, area-wide accretions occur upcurrent, downcurrent and offshore. Eventually, the structures are buried by rising sand levels.”

“A Stabilizer field usually consists of four units spaced about 125 feet apart, covering about 400 feet of coast,” the company says. “Because a single Stabilizer field generally benefits several thousand feet of
shoreline or more, Stabilizer fields may be widely spaced along a coast.”

Holmberg Technologies says the system has been installed about 100 times, primarily by individual homeowners and associations; 10 government agencies have used the system.

Holmberg reports that “while formal and informal monitoring demonstrates that the system has achieved unqualified success, two installations are alleged to have had negative impacts.”

One occurred at Captiva Island. Reports the company:

“Three separate companies were monitoring a 1986 installation. Two reported that the system succeeded in restoring beach growth without negative impacts to adjacent shorelines. These reports are consistent with photo documentation of the restoration project.

“A third company, however, did not conform its post-construction surveys to the pre-construction survey baselines, a basic monitoring error. These monitoring results cause some to allege system failure at Captiva. A complete history of the Captiva project, including independent monitoring reports, photos and original field surveys, is available on request.”

Go to: erosion.com.