Below is a list of additional questions sent by Diane Kobernick to the county in response to their answers given in the post entitled “Dredging Questions and Responses”

To:  Mr. Curtis Franklin, Program Manager

Mr. Franklin, I was given your name as the contact person, from Mr. Keith Wiley.  I understand that you are the County Representative that was responsible for the Dredging Project done by Dewberry.  I have a few questions

Per the Pasco County Interoffice Memorandum dated October 23, 2014 as well as the November 5, 2014 signed Contract Agreement; Dewberry had 24 months to produce the report.

  1. Was there an extension to the original agreement?  If so, could you please send me the extended agreement?
  2. Having read the documents given, I have not received the actual Scope of Work given to Dewberry, i.e. specifically for the canals. Does this document exist?  If so, may I please have a copy?  I believe Pasco County called it “Executed Task Order”
  3. Article 3.2 (2) indicates that Dewberry was to collect input from the public. How was this accomplished?  When was the public informed of this project? May I have a copy of any and all published notices?
  4. Article 3.2 (7) indicates that Dewberry was responsible to attend “including public workshops.” Can you give me the dates of these public workshops and where they were given?
  5. Article 3.2 (10) states “engaging the public on Restore meetings and process.” Can you give me the dates these were done and what was done to “engage the public”?
  6. Article 6.1: Information provided by the County, Who was responsible to make sure that all the information provided was accurate?
  7. Article 7.1- Payment:
  • Which method was used to compensate Dewberry?
  • How much was Dewberry paid?
  • May I please have a copy of the invoice?
  • Were there extra/additional costs? If so, I would also like a copy of the invoices.


Attached is a copy my speech at the May 18 BOCC meeting and Mr. Keith Wiley’s response to the questions.  I have a few questions regarding the responses.

Question (a) Response:

  • Who is Mr. Allen Rose?
  • No such person appears on the Pasco County’s Appraisal site in Gulf Harbors?
  • What was his expertise regarding Gulf Harbors?
  • How long was he on the Committee acting as a representative of Gulf Harbors?

Question (b) Response:

“The Executive Summary of the Dewberry Report states that the BOCC approved the development of a dredge management plan for coastal Pasco County, with specific focus on canal systems of several residential neighborhoods with navigational access to the Gulf of Mexico.”

  • What were the specific directives for these canals?

Question (c) Response:

“At the time of creation of direction being taken”:

  • When were the directive given? What dates?
  • Who was responsible to affirm that the Golf Course was owned by Pasco County?

Question (d) Response:

“Limited commercial access is available at the end of Gulf Harbors north” “Commercial use in the future is likely limited to that market.”

Page 1 of the Executive Summary of the Dewberry Report states:  “The ultimate goal is to harmonize all water related activities including boating, recreational fishing, COMMERCIAL FISHING, swimming and diving.”  This seems contradictory.

  • If Commercial fishing was the goal, I could understand that dredging may be needed.
  • But why would the cost be imposed only on the property owners?
  • Would any portion of the cost be imposed on Commercial Fisherman?


  • However if this is for, as stated, Windsong Charters and boat rentals:
  • Windsong has been in operation at this location for at least a decade and seem to not need more depth. – So why is dredging in the North Canal necessary?
  • Why is dredging in the South Canal necessary?
  • If it is for Windsong, why will the cost be imposed on the property owners?
  • Will any cost be imposed on the business, Windsong Charters?

Question (e) Response:

“Dewberry used aerial maps to count the number of plats along the waterways” And, it was intended to determine the impact if it were to be the sole source of funding.”

  • Why did the County not give this information directly?
  • How will the County deal with Sandcastle?
  • How will the County deal with vacant lots?

Page 25 of the Dewberry Report 100% of maintenance dredge cost are covered by the MSBU and exclude any potential grant match.  Since Gulf Harbors would only be “Maintenance Dredge”,

  • Would it be safe to assume Gulf Harbor’s MSBU would be for the full cost of the dredging of the North and South Canals? (as indicated on page 11 – Gulf Harbors – Maintenance Dredge)
  • If not maintenance, are there any grants that have been identified to help with the costs?

Question (n) (Disposal plan & Costs) Response:

“Dredging Disposal plans have not been created”

Since this Dewberry Report dated July 14, 2017 and is titled Final Report;

  • Why was a disposal plan not created?
  • Why was the project cost not include transport or disposal materials farther than 6,000 ft from the project area?
  • Why did the project cost estimate not include the cost of planning?
  • Why did the project cost estimate not include the cost of surveying?
  • Why did the project cost estimate not include geotechnical analysis?
  • Why did the project cost estimate not include the cost of Engineering?
  • Why did the project cost estimate not include the cost of permitting?
  • Why did the project cost estimate not include the cost of the design?
  • What design is being considered?
  • Why did the project cost estimate not include the construction administration?
  • Who will be the construction administrator?

Per the Dewberry Report, page 11, Estimated Costs:  “Costs associated with the maintenance dredge of the project area consist of contractor mobilization and demobilization…”

  • What does this mean?

Thank you

Diane Kobernick

Cc: Dan Biles


Mailing Address:
PO Box 293
Elfers, Florida 34680

donation button

Get in touch

Have questions? Want to get involved? Send us a note and someone will get back to you shortly.

9 + 4 =

Gulf Harbors United (GHU) is a non-profit that was formed to protect the mutual interests of all property owners in the unincorporated areas of the community. Donations from members help keep us going.

Donations are tax deductible and will ensure your voice is heard

Donations are tax deductible under section 170. Public Charity Status 509(a) (2)