Latest Headlines
- Cause Of ‘Major’ Fire At Ascend Remains Under Investigation
- Fire Destroys Mobile Home Being Used For Storage Near McDavid
- Century’s Small Town Christmas Parade Turns Out Small With Four Entries, No Santa
- Photos: Second Annual Cottage Hill Neighborhood Christmas Parade
- Man Facing Multiple Charges After Escambia County Shooting
- Flomaton Host Free Family Movie Night
- Tate Cheerleaders Win Top Spots In Gulf Breeze Competition
- Need Those Gifts Wrapped? The Tate Band Has You Covered
- Ice Flyers Delight Big Crowd With Thrilling Win Against First-Place Havoc
- Acres Of Christmas Lights, Hayride, Goats In Pajamas At Run-a-muck Ranch In Bratt
Final RESTORE Project Rankings Listed, North Escambia Projects Score Low
April 7, 2016
The Escambia County RESTORE Act Advisory Committee will present their rankings of all 124 RESTORE applications to the Escambia County Commission late today. Five project specifically benefiting some part of the North Escambia area general scored low in the rankings.
The rankings are the final recommendation for the allocation of component funds, ending three years of work by the committee.
The direct component funding, or pot one of RESTORE money, is just part of the approximately $70 million Escambia County is expected to receive over the next 16 years as part of the final settlement of the 2010 BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Escambia will also be eligible to apply for other sources of oil spill funding.
Once the commission selects the projects to receive RESTORE direct component funding, the county will draft a Multi-Year Implementation Plan and initiate a 45-day public comment period. Public input will be reviewed and necessary updates will be made before the MYIP is submitted to the U.S. Treasury Department for final review and acceptance.
The top 15-ranked project from the committee were (listed in ranked order with total cost):
- Eleven Mile Creek Stream Restoration $12,929,908
- Forest Creek Apartment Complex Acquisition/Demolition & Jones Creek Floodplain Restoration Project $2,029,200
- Perdido Key Gulf of Mexico Public Access $1,648,000
- Carpenter Creek and Bayou Texar Economic and Environmental Revitalization Plan $2,440,000
- Perdido Key Gulf of Mexico Public Access $1,648,000
- Port Pensacola Maritime Infrastructure Berth 6 Restoration $3,750,000
- Project Universal Access (promotion of tourism and fishing) $3,350,000
- White Island Restoration $169,000
- 11 Mile Creek Basin $4,024,000
- Hollice T. Williams Park -Stormwater Management/Recreational Facilities Project $3,764,000
- Lake Charlene/BridleTrail $1,000,000
- OLF8 Commerce Park Improvements $19,037,790
- Woodlands -UWF Scenic Hills–St Luke’s Church Neighborhood Partnership Stream Restoration & Flood Protection $3,753,466
- Escambia Wood Treating Superfund Redevelopment Master Plan $500,000
-
Sanders Beach Park Addition / Beach Restoration $17,268,246
Five projects specifically benefiting some portion of the North Escambia area (north of Muscogee Road) were submitted. Those projects (listed with rank and total cost) were:
31. Town of Century Water Quality Improvements $486,000
70. Cantonment Community Center $2,000,000
90. Lambert Bridge Road $500,000
97. Cottage Hill Water Works Infrastructure Update and System Improvements $3,700,000
116. Cantonment Sportsplex $50,000
For the complete project listings:
- Click here to view the scored and ranked list of 124 RESTORE project applications.
- Click here to view the RESTORE project applications separated by category.
Pictured top: A RESTORE project information meeting held during October 2015 in Cantonment. NorthEscambia.com file photo, click to enlarge
Comments
10 Responses to “Final RESTORE Project Rankings Listed, North Escambia Projects Score Low”
>>Where is this Cantonment Community Center?? Is it for everyone one Just a select few?
It does not exist. The money was to build one.
Where is this Cantonment Community Center?? Is it for everyone one Just a select few?
The other posters are correct. These are the recommendations from the RESTORE Advisory Committee to the BCC and had nothing to do with the commissioners efforts.
I, a north ender, submitted a project for an entity and I watched a lot of the RAC meetings.
Now the commissioners can decide to use the RAC rankings or go with their own decisions based on any other priorities they have for the area.
The RESTORE process was difficult in my opinion because while the average citizen could have submitted project ideas, they were competing against a lot of projects that had paid staff (governmental or business staff) working on professional presentations so the competition was tough.
I am not a professional grant writer nor had I the time to spend to get a fancy presentation ready.
As to Commissioner Barry caring about the north end, I have watched a lot of the county commission meetings and I can’t think of a more professional and hardworking person to represent us. He comes to the meetings prepared having done the background work to ask tough questions and scrutinize expenditures for the entire county. Yes, we elect from each of our own districts but all commissioners must do the work of the entire county once elected.
He has also been very responsive to the Cantonment Improvement Committee’s efforts to improve parts of the county that had been previously neglected in the past.
Commissioners represent people, not land mass. People with larger lots still only get one vote.
Lastly, Frank, the gas tax for ECAT took place before Mr. Barry took office so you can hardly pin that one on him.
Bob, C. WE the People voted for Leadership, at the least Barry should lead his district. I have personal tried to get into contact with Barry only to have to go to another CC to get something done.
I see #31 up to #116 in an area that covers 2/3 of the Land mass of this county.
Where is our representation?
Might I say example ECAT?
William is absolutely correct.
It was up to We the People to put in our own Proposals for the uses of the BP monies and uses.
If WE chose to NOT put in a proposal then WE chose to not participate in the projects and associated funding.
BOCC had nothing to do with which project would be in the proposals, That neighbors was up to You and Us.
>>$50,000 for Cantonment sports Complex? It is a disgrace that it will only scratch the surface of the needs in that park.
Understand that is the amount the ballpark asked for in their proposal.
William, I understand what you say is true, But as our County Commissioner, if Barry actually was ever in his office, His staff could Have lead in these Projects.
These 5, listed are WAY down on the list.
$50,000 for Cantonment sports Complex? It is a disgrace that it will only scratch the surface of the needs in that park.
Is there any single office or website that one human Citizen can go and view the actual plans for these projects.?
Rankings are Way too Heavy for “the Other Escambia County”.
>Mr. Barry, How many did you submit for the North end (anything north of Muscogee)?
Commissioners did not submit projects. Any citizen or group in the county could submit a proposal for a non-profit type activity or entity.
And there are five listed in the article north of Muscogee.
Mr. Barry, How many did you submit for the North end (anything north of Muscogee)?
Evidently you don’t travel near the intersection of Muscogee and 29. How about a road to access Cottage Hill area from train blocks, or overpass for 29. These are a few examples, Would like to see your replies on North-Escambia.com.