CAC Agenda 11/10/202211/3/22, 12:12 PM
November 10, 2022
November 10, 2022 1 Collier County, FL
English
Meeting Agenda and Notice
Coastal Advisory Committee (CAC)
Thursday, November 10, 2022— 1:00 P.M.
Collier County Board Chambers
Collier County Government Center
3299 Tamiami Trail East, Third Floor, Naples, FL
Sunshine Law on Agenda Questions
2022 CAC MEETING DATES
I. Call to Order
II. Pledge of Allegiance
III. Roll Call
W. Changes and Approval of Agenda
V. Public Comments
VI. Approval of CAC Minutes
September 8, 2022
VII. Staff Reports
Extended Revenue Report
VIII. New Business
1. Presentation - Hurricane Ian
IX. Old Business
X. Announcements
XI. Committee Member Discussion
XII. Next Meeting Date/Location
December 8, 2022 at 1:00 p.m.
XIII. Adjournment
https://www.colliercountyfl.gov/government/advisory-boards-and-authorities/coastal-advisory-committee/cac-agendas/2022-cac-agendas/november-10... 1 /2
11/3/22, 12:12 PM
November 10, 2022 1 Collier County, FL
All interested parties are invited to attend, and to register to speak and to submit their objec� English
writing, to the board prior to the meeting if applicable.
For more information, please contact Andrew Miller at (239) 252-2922•
If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding, you
are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the Collier County Facilities
Management Department located at 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, FL 34112, (239) 252-838o•
Public comments will be limited to 3 minutes unless the Chairman grants permission for additional time.
Collier County Ordinance No. 99-22 requires that all lobbyists shall, before engaging in any lobbying activities
(including, but not limited to, addressing the Board of County Commissioners) before the Board of County
Commissioners and its advisory boards, register with the Clerk to the Board at the Board Minutes and Records
Department.
https://www.colliercountyfl.gov/governmentladvisory-boards-and-authorities/coastal-advisory-committee/cac-agendas/2022-cac-agendas/novem ber-10... 2/2
September 8, 2022
MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING
Naples, Florida, September 8, 2022
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, the Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee, in and
forthe County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 1:00
P.M. in REGULAR SESSION at Administrative Building "F," 3rd Floor, Collier
County Government Complex, Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: David Trecker
VICE CHAIRMAN: Joseph Burke
Steve Koziar (via phone)
Thomas McCann (via phone)
Jim Burke
Robert Raymond
Robert Roth (via phone)
Raymond Christman
Erik Brechnitz (absent)
ALSO PRESENT: Andy Miller, Coastal Zone Manager
Colleen Green, Deputy County Attorney
Farron Bevard, Operations Analyst
September 8, 2022
Any persons in need of the verbatim record of the meeting may request a copy of the video
recording from the Communications, Government & Public Affairs Division, or view it online.
I. Call to Order
Chairman Trecker called the meeting to order at 1:01 p.m.
II. Pledge of Allegiance
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
III. Roll Call
Roll call was taken and a quorum of five was established; three others joined later.
Mr. Miller said Tom Mr. McCann and Steve Mr. Koziar will be participating by phone. (The
phones were not yet connected and they joined the meeting later.)
Mr. Christman moved to allow Mr. McCann, Mr. Roth and Mr. Koziar to participate by phone
due to extraordinary circumstances. Second by Mr. Raymond. Carried unanimously, 5-0.
IV. Changes and Approval of Agenda
Chairman Trecker said he wanted to add an item, No. 4, under New Business, Long -Range
Planning.
Vice Chairman Burke moved to approve the agenda, as amended. Second by Mr. Burke. The
motion was carried unanimously, 5-0.
V. Public Comments
None
[Mr. McCann joined the meeting at 1: 09 p.m.]
VI. Approval of CAC Minutes
May 12, 2022
[Mr. Koziar joined the meeting at 1:10 p.m.]
Mr. McCann moved to approve the minutes of the May 12, 2022, meeting. Second by Mr.
Koziar. The motion was carried unanimously, 7-0.
VII. Staff Reports
1. Extended Revenue Report
"FY22 TDT Collections Revenue Report" dated August 31, 2022.
Mr. Miller reported that it's all good news. At present, with three months left to collect, we're 62%
above our budget number. Year-to-date collections are $41 million and our original budget was closer
to around $30 million, so we're about $15 million up, with a quarter to go.
Chairman Trecker said it's interesting to look back a year, when the Fund 195 had a $4 million
positive variance and it looks like this year it's going to be a $7- to $8 million positive variance, all
carried forward to the next year.
Mr. Miller said that's correct.
2
September 8, 2022
III. New Business
1. ES 2022-2023 Tourist Development Council (TDC) Fund 195 Grant Application Requests
Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Grant Applications
TDC 2022 — 2023 Category A Grant Application — Beach Maintenance
TDC 2022 — 2023 Category A Grant Application — Pier Maintenance
Turtle Monitoring Grant Application
TDC 2022 — 2023 Grant Agreement — Collier County & City of Naples
City of Naples — Resolution 2022-14857
Mr. Miller noted that all three items are pro forma and are done yearly. The first recommendation is
to approve our TDC grant applications. We did a lot of heavy lifting in FY22, so this year is going to
be more of an operation and maintenance year and the dollar figures are going to be on the lower
side. He asked for a recommendation to approve the Tourist Development Council grant application
requests from the City of Naples, the City of Marco Island and Collier County for FY2022-2023 in
the amount of $455,100, to budget these expenditures, approve an agreement with the City of Naples
and make a finding that these expenditures promote tourism.
Chairman Trecker said it's interesting that the orders of approval are reversed from what they
normally are. Normally, the CAC would approve them first and then the TDC. We were unable to do
that because we didn't have a quorum for our June meeting, so to keep on the timetable, they had to
do it in reverse order. Nevertheless, our vote approval is very important. The grant requests are
consistent with the monitoring recommendations, the people who look at the beaches to see whether
anything other than monitoring and forward planning is necessary and they said no. The dollar
amount that's being requested is consistent with that. Any questions or comments?
Mr. Christman asked Mr. Miller if he could talk about the $200,000 Parkshore Beach renourishment
program.
Mr. Miller said the $200,000, as well as the $100,000 for Clam Pass Beach, is in anticipation of
possible engineering of the beaches at Park Shore and Clam Pass Beach, so that's the engineering
portion of the renourishment project. If our monitoring people come back in January or February and
tell us these beaches need renourishment, we will get our designers on board in anticipation of a
renourishment project. That money will be spent in FY24 after turtle season ends in November. This
is the engineering portion of the project.
Mr. Christman asked him to explain what engineering would be for the benefit of everyone.
Mr. Miller said we hire a consultant to do the engineering plans to cut and fill quantities, as well as
the permitting effort, which typically takes three to six months to get in place. Then they'll assist with
our bid package and that probably will go out in August or September. They also will provide
services for a construction project as oversight and construction engineering.
Mr. Christman asked if the consultants in January or February determined that the renourishment is
not required and in FY24, is the engineering work something that would have been completed by then
or underway?
Mr. Miller said no. The monitoring report should come in, at least in draft form, and at the end of
January or the beginning of February. We'll immediately get them to look at this portion of our
beaches and if it's determined that these beaches are in fine shape, then this money will roll into the
next year in anticipation of next year's project.
Mr. Christman said he and Mr. Miller spent time at Doctor's Pass looking at that situation in The
September 8, 2022
Moorings neighborhood and the concerns there. There's going to be further work and analysis you
were going to do as the year continued and into the fall. Is there anything on this budget that is a
placeholder for anything that might need to be done there?
Mr. Miller said the effort you're talking about is that we agreed to have the consultant that did the
January/February survey stay on board. They will be going out in October to do the survey work for
Doctor's Pass erosion control structures, which includes The Moorings beach portion. If they come
back and say that we've got an issue that requires immediate attention, we'll put together an ad -hoc
micro project. We'll probably wait until the results come back from the January/February effort, so if
they need to do a wholesale renourishment of Clam Pass, Parkshore and Moorings Park, we'll have it
together in one package.
Mr. Christman asked if that would require a budget amendment or is it an additional project that
would need to be approved.
Mr. Miller said he wasn't certain they'd need a budget amendment. It depends on the size of the
project and the effort involved. We've had money left over in the past.
Mr. Christman asked him to talk about a project in the first category under Beach Renourishment,
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Feasibility Study for $500,000.
Mr. Miller said that's basically a placeholder in case the Army Corps project rematerialized. We just
wanted funding to be available to allow us to bring the consultant who has assisted in the past back on
board. He didn't expect the effort to be as large as the money allocated. It's just a placeholder.
Mr. Christman said he may have more to say once they get to the Long -Range Planning item.
[Mr. Roth joined the meeting via phone at 1:20 p.m., saying he was watching on video, but had
trouble calling in.]
Mr. Christman said from a process standpoint, can you explain for his benefit and others the
interaction with the City of Naples streets and stormwater staff planning staff s views on project
needs within the city. He assumes that occurred because city staff was given the opportunity to come
forward with any applications for projects that they thought deserved attention. He asked if the City
of Marco Island also was given the opportunity.
Mr. Miller said yes and they are included in the recommendation of the projects that typically go for
the city, the beach maintenance and the Naples Pier project.
Vice Chairman Burke made a motion to approve the Tourist Development Council grant
application requests from the City of Naples, the City of Marco Island and Collier County for
FY2022-2023 in the amount of $455,100, to budget these expenditures, approve an agreement with
the City of Naples and make a finding that these expenditures promote tourism. Second by Mr.
Burke. The motion passed unanimously, 8-0.
2. ES 10-Year Plan
Fiscal Year 2023 10-Year Plan
Mr. Miller said the 10-year plan is a planning document that's required as part of our FDEP permit
requirements in order for us to get state participation in our beach projects. It's part of a required
annual package, but the numbers also are to our benefit for anticipating our beach renourishment and
inlet management projects. The good news is we did most heavy lifting in FY22, so this year will be a
relatively light construction year. The only construction project we foresee is our Collier Creek jetty
and groin and dredging project, which should materialize by next spring. That money already has
4
September 8, 2022
been budgeted and allocated, so the money is waiting to be spent.
The recommendation is to approve the FY2022-2023 10-year capital planning document for Fund
195 Beach Renourishment and pass maintenance and Fund 185 program management and
administration, and to make a finding that these expenditures promote tourism.
Chairman Trecker said it's interesting and very instructive to compare this year's 10-year plan with
last year's 10-year plan, focusing specifically on a number of items. For example, the sum of reserves
is $59 million, up from $45 million previously projected and the bottom -line unencumbered research
balance is $58 million, up from $40 million projected last year, so it's a remarkably healthy
situation. I discussed with Andy the value of a quarterly or annual P&L, which lists revenues versus
the actual expenditures in one place, so this might be useful.
Mr. Miller said we have a monthly meeting with our fiscal team and this is the ideal time to be
discussing this because we're at the end of the fiscal year. It's a great time to gather the numbers and
put our initial report together.
Mr. Roth said that when he mentioned the Collier Creek Marco project being set for 2023, he'd read
an online discussion, most originating from Rose Marina on the Marco River, about the Capri Pass
becoming silted in and shallow for some of the major vessels that come in and out. Is that something
our group would be involved in or is that an Army Corps of Engineers matter that the City of Marco
Island pursue? It seems like there's not enough depth for some of the larger boats that come in and
out on the Marco River. Has anyone reached out to you on that?
Mr. Miller said we've had several discussions with the marina, the Coast Guard and the Army Corps
of Engineers related to the shoaling coming from the north and filling in the Marco Channel. We also
met with the city on a Zoom call and there were some discussions offline from the coastal zone
between the City of Marco and the Coast Guard. The recommendation is going to involve possibly
moving the markers south of the existing Marco Channel because there's good water there. The
problem is that the Marco Channel is silted or filled with sand to the point where we're getting boats
close to grounding there. We had a grounding last year just outside of the channel. The effort in the
discussions between the City and the Coast Guard are geared toward an effort to move several of the
markers to what we refer to as good water.
Mr. Roth asked if that would narrow the channel.
Mr. Miller said not necessarily. You'll have at least the same width and possibly more as you move
the markers to the south.
Mr. Roth asked if they move the red and green markers together.
Mr. Miller said that's correct.
Burke asked if the Coast Guard would do that.
Mr. Miller said it's a federal channel, so the County has no jurisdiction.
Mr. Christman said this financial report raises some issues he brought up with Andy in the spring or
summer about the amount of money that was in the 195 Reserve Fund and other funds. It shows we
have $60 million in reserves, growing to $100 million in the next 10 to 12 years. And that includes
some money for beach renourishment projects, which may not be enough. When we had the Army
Corps of Engineers discussion over the past few years, we talked about how great it would be if we
got $80- $90 million from the Army Corps if the locals put up a match of $30-35 million.
Chairman Trecker suggested he bring up any Army Corp discussion up during the Long -Range
Planning discussion.
Mr. Christman said he just wanted to tee it up now. These numbers suggest that we have an
5
September 8, 2022
opportunity to do what many other coastal communities are doing in Florida, which is developing, on
our own nickel, a long-range coastal resilience sea -level rise climate -action plan.
Chairman Trecker said that's exactly what we're going to do.
Mr. Christman made a motion to recommend approval of the FY2022-202310-Year Capital
Planning document for Fund 195 Beach Renourishment and Pass Maintenance and Fund 185
Program Management and Administration and made a finding that these expenditures promote
tourism. Second by Vice Chairman Burke. The motion passed unanimously, 8-0.
3. ES Fiscal Year 2023 — 2024 Resolution for LGFR Request
Resolution
LGFR Application — FY 23-24 — Collier Beaches
LGFR Application — FY 23-24 — South Marco Beach
LGFR Application — FY 23-24 — Wiggins
Mr. Miller said this is an annual item related to our request from the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection to participate in our beach and inlet projects. It's a recommendation to
approve a resolution that goes with the grant -applications package. This is a recommendation to
approve a resolution supporting the County's applications to the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection for long-range budget plan requests for beach renourishment projects for
fiscal year 2023-2024 and make a finding that these projects promote tourism. This action maintains
the County's eligibility for state cost -share funding for future renourishment projects.
Chairman Trecker said he understood that this has been helpful in augmenting the TDC funding,
which is about 40% of our total funding, so it's worth going after.
Mr. Miller said absolutely.
Chairman Trecker said he'd questioned Andy before the meeting about a few things. In category 2,
the Marco renourishment wording reflects monitoring only. You said it was for this fiscal year only
and the monitoring could, in the future, lead to inclusion in that category of an actual renourishment
project.
Mr. Miller said that was correct.
Chairman Trecker said the wording is very narrow, which he hadn't realized. In Category 3,
Wiggins Pass. He asked about Doctors Pass and you said that's covered by Category 1.
Mr. Miller said it is. It's part of the Collier Beach Renourishment project because it's a sand source
for beach renourishment. We put the sand from Doctor's Pass this year in Lowdermilk Park.
Chairman Trecker asked if they'd always been this successful with DEP reimbursement of 40%
range in the past.
Mr. Miller said yes, that's the average.
Mr. Roth asked if that sand goes to sea or is it recovered for an on -land purpose.
Mr. Miller said they put it on Barefoot Beach and the state park beach, Delnor-Wiggins Beach. It's
the first time we put sand on the state park's beach in a long time. They were appreciative and in need
because they had suffered from erosion. The sand benefited the state park.
Mr. Burke made a motion to recommend approving the resolution supporting the County's
applications to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection for long-range budget plan
requests for beach renourishment projects for fiscal year 2023-2024 and made a finding that these
projects promote tourism. Second by Mr. Christman. The motion passed unanimously. 8-0.
6
September 8, 2022
4. Long -Range Planning
Chairman Trecker said he wants to speak about where it stands with the Army Corps project to set
the stage for next month meeting, when we will have a serious discussion to see what, if anything,
needs to be done and what we'd recommend to the Board of County Commissioners. The County
does year-to-year monitoring, planning, implementing, erosion control, renourishment and inlet
dredging in four- to seven-year cycles. These are planned cycles. Coastal Zone Management does a
terrific job. A good example is the recent sand -haul project, which was a resounding success.
As Ray said, we've got massive reserves and they're going to grow, so to the extent that
emergencies arise or we can use those reserves for something else that's useful, we should be aware
of that and talk about it. The Army Corps project started as a 50-year, multibillion project covering
six separate areas in Collier County. The main objective was to protect buildings, some on the shore
and others a distance from the shore. One attractive feature with the feds is that, should this be
approved, they would pick up 65% of the costs, so it's going to be a major and expensive project. In
its extended form, it was unpopular with many people. A lot of stakeholders objected and we beat
them back essentially and got County commissioners' approval to continue with the project.
A year ago, the planners were about to present a feasibility study to the Army Core management and
say this is how we think we should move forward. The problem was that by the time they got ready
to do that, huge cost increases rendered their proposals invalid, so many of the things that were
recommended no longer applied. So the planners petitioned the management of the Army Corps for
a two-year extension to take another look, taking into account the cost increases and most
importantly, proposing that the entire scope of the project be reduced substantially, so it would
largely cover just beach areas only. It's a much smaller project, probably a lot more palatable to
most people and far less costly. This sounded good and we supported it and they went forward.
So where does it stand? The bad news is we don't know where it stands. After 10 months, we've had
virtually no word on the status, only that it's running its course. There's been no transparency.
We've said it's going to be very difficult to take a hard look at this and make recommendations and
proposals without knowing where the Army Corps stands.
At the October meeting, he and Andy will do their best to determine where it stands and see if they
can get some input and then have a serious discussion with the CAC to see where we should go from
there. There are a lot of options. Maybe we don't need to do anything. With the huge reserves we've
got, we can handle it. We don't need any anymore major planning for this, or we might say a
supplemental program or a backup program to what the Army Corps is doing would be
beneficial. Those are some of the things we want to talk about next month. We're going to get
backup material ready so everybody can take a reasonable look at this and make a recommendation
to the County commissioners. Are there any comments or suggestions?
Mr. Burke asked if there was any indication that the Army Corps of Engineers has lost interest.
Chairman Trecker said he could speculate that we're not the only game in town. There are other
Florida communities that would like this federal money and a joint program. He doubted they'd lost
interest.
Mr. Miller said the fact that they haven't given us a negative response or a denial is probably more
good than bad. As long as we're still at the table, it's a good sign.
Vice Chairman Burke said the Army Corps will do this because of flood insurance and protection
of critical infrastructure will be excluded. Their mission starts with that. There are areas that would
7
September 8, 2022
be excluded because it's either not affected due to liability on government flood insurance, or it
didn't involve critical infrastructure. Port Royal and areas like that were left out. That's the basis for
what they do. Nobody brings more to the table in terms of expertise on these projects than the Army
Corps. If we think we as a County or a group are going to be able to hire consultants to bring that
level of expertise, he'd say no. The Army Corps has the best of the best, the people who've done it
worldwide and have that level of experience. My trust in the Corps is more than my trust in a model
that would be developed by a consultant because the Corps has had many decades of doing it, the
experience and they know what works, what doesn't and what could be bad.
As with anything you do with the coast, you may think you're doing a great job and find out once
it's in place, it does the exact opposite of what you wanted it to do. The Corps is an integral part of
what we want to pursue. Another problem is that a bad sell job has been done by everyone,
including the Corps. It has not been well communicated and in addition to shore protection, we need
to look at hardened structures. In flood protection, we've made no advancement. We're still stuck at
elevation 10. We've got two choices. We harden the codes or we put everything up at elevation 20,
so you change the building code and put everything up on stilts. We need to start with selling what
the risk is and what the solutions can be.
Chairman Trecker asked if it would be fair to say that an ideal outcome would be the Corps getting
the go-ahead to flesh out this smaller -scope project and with our input, come up with something that
would be saleable to stakeholders here?
Vice Chairman Burke said the reduced project is that the Corps willing to build the berms and
extend the beaches. There are areas that would not be protected. Marco Island has been left out of
this for a long time. It's an island and there are very limited options on how to protect an island.
Marco may be a building code issue and may have to go up to elevation 20. That's what the Corps
said. That may be the cost of doing business on Marco Island.
Chairman Trecker said in the initial study, one criterion was that any project, regardless of
government funding, had to be cost effective. That eliminates many things. We may have to change
some criteria or it won't fly.
Vice Chairman Burke asked why don't we take what they'll give us and then do what we can for
the rest? Outside of Naples and Marco, the rest of the County should be very interested in back -bay
protection, which is completely off the table, and was something the Corps was actually willing to
do.
Chairman Trecker said those were good points.
Mr. Christman told the chairman he's pleased he put this issue on the table. We need to have these
discussions. He appreciates Vice Chairman Burke's comments because he's educated me on these
issues. As the CAC's Naples City Council representative, Naples City Council, with the support of a
broad number of city residents, is dead set against this Corps' proposal and most of that has to do
with communications, perhaps incomplete or misinformation. It's put us in a very bad place, an
adversarial relationship in terms of the positions that have been taken. The planning approach the
Corps took was mostly top down. There was really no meaningful local engagement outside of some
initial community meetings. It appeared there was bias toward physical infrastructure improvements
relative to natural infrastructure improvements.
As. Mr. Burke pointed out, we very likely need some level of physical infrastructure improvements
if we're really going to accomplish anything. The plan that was presented seemed to be tilted
disproportionately in that way. There also was a view that once you let the Corps in, the locals would
lose control completely and you were basically handing control over all future decisions to the
federal government. You were unilaterally disarming yourself in terms of your ability to influence
8
September 8, 2022
things going forward. This was the perception, fair or not.
The other problem is that certain areas of our coastline, Pelican Bay, Marco Island, Port Royal and
others, were not properly included in the planning. These things created a situation where the City of
Naples ended up sending a letter to County commissioners, saying we urge you to reject
participation and if this does go forward, we won't participate. It's important to understand
politically where things stand. The City of Naples represents 75% of the publicly accessible beaches
in Collier County. Obviously, Collier County is a lot more than the City of Naples, but we're a big
part of the coastline and if we're going to do anything productive we've got to find a way to all work
together. He's not sure what the answer is. His gut says the starting point is not to go back and try to
start with the Corps, but to figure out a planning effort, not spending time and millions of dollars on
consultants, but an effort that could at least bring together all the interests and Collier County and
develop a planning framework that could have significant community engagement and create what
the beginnings of a Collier coastal resilience -climate plan. We should have a point of view so when
the time comes to agree and engage with the Corps, we'd be in a better position. Having a longer
discussion about this next month would be useful. If the starting point is to work with the Corps and
pick up on where things left off, it will be difficult for the City of Naples to participate.
Chairman Trecker said the County has been working with the Corps to develop the basic plan and
Gary McAlpin spent years on this before his retirement, so the County has had a big hand in this. He
agrees with almost everything you say and we should do exactly what you're proposing.
After further discussion with Andy and others, we weren't quite ready for it yet. We have to suss out
the status of where the Corps is now. If this is about to fail, then it presents a new challenge. He was
led to believe we should go more slowly and take it one step at a time. Every area, including Pelican
Bay, Vanderbilt and north Naples, feels that this has to be inclusive. We can't eliminate areas for any
reason on any major resiliency project. There are many changes we have to make on the basic
premise that was put forward.
Vice Chairman Burke said we're getting hung up on the areas that were excluded. They did not
qualify because they either weren't critical infrastructure or they didn't participate in flood
insurance. Those areas need to be protected and excess County funding should be used to protect
them, but why turn our back on free money? The best way to start is to start selling the idea.
Mr. Christman said the perception in the city, not just City Council, but many residents believe that
No. 1, the plan was handed to us and there was no opportunity for consultation, engagement or
participation. No. 2, if the plan proceeds, there will be a loss of control, a loss of ability to have an
influence going forward on the part of the local community. Those may be incorrect perceptions, but
these are the realities we need to address in any future planning effort.
Chairman Trecker said that once the basic funding and commitments are made, the stakeholders
will have no voice.
A discussion ensued and the following points were made:
• The community needs to go through the review and engagement process.
• Once the Corps begins construction, the stakeholders can't participate.
• The Corps is very responsive.
• Taking more steps could lead to the Corps rejecting this.
• The County and stakeholders aren't doing enough to sell the community on the risks of not
moving forward and what the benefits of the project are.
• The NOAA website shows the 20-year prediction is dire for the City of Naples.
September 8, 2022
• It's unlikely the Corps will abandon the project after so much effort was put forth.
• Marketing of the project needs to be undertaken to promote the benefits of the project.
• The Army Corps listens to congress, so until our congressional representatives fully support
the project and all the stakeholders agree, it won't move forward.
IX. Old Business
Chairman Trecker asked about the water quality report.
Mr. Roth said the Vertical Oyster Gardens needs to take the next step. Andy shared some
interesting information that they need to disseminate. Rather than starting a program that the
County would be running, as we showed in the video, we could educate residents about this
being something they could do that's already going on elsewhere. He plans to speak to Andy
more when he returns to the area on Nov. 1.
X. Announcements
None
XI. Committee Member Discussion
None
XII. Next Meeting
October 13, 2022, 1 p.m.
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of
the Chairman at 2:07 p.m.
Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee
David Trecker, Chairman
These minutes were approved by the Committee on , as presented, or as
amended
R
Collier County Tourist Development Tax Revenue
FY 22 TDT Collections Report
30-Sep-2022
Fund Reporting
Fund
Adopted Budget
Updated Annual
Forecast
Budgeted YTD
YTD Actual
Variance to
Budgeted YTD
Beach Park Facilities
183
184
193
194
195
196
198
758
1,068,600
1,686,808
1,014,631
1,633,228
618,597
TDC Promotion
10,313,100
17,436,494
9,792,239
16,815,122
7,022,883
Non -County Museums
570,100
899,915
541,307
869,254
327,947
TDCAdmin
-
-
0
-
Beach Renourishment
11,635,500
18,366,888
11,047,851
17,777,743
6,729,891
Disaster Recovery
-
-
0
-
-
County Museums
2,000,000
2,000,000
1,898,990
2,000,000
101,010
TDC Capital
1 4,262,600
6,728,606
4,047,318
6,515,801
2,468,483
Gross Budget
29,849,900
47,118,711
28,342,337
45,611,147
1 17,268,811
Less 5% Rev Res
(1,492,500)
57.85%
% Over/(Under) Bud 60.85/6
Net Budget 28,357,400
Collections
Month Reported
Actual
Cum YTD
% Budget
Collected to
Date
% Variance FY21
Collections
% Variance FY20
Collections
% Variance FY19
Collections
Nov
2,250,846
2,250,846
7.54%
89.78%
61.05%
130.07%
Dec
2,908,930
5,159,776
17.29%
83.32%
40.641/6
143.14'/6
Jan
4,495,951
9,655,727
32.35%
56.54%
40.19%
141.27%
Feb
5,971,910
15,627,637
52.35%
68.85%
31.52%
101.36%
Mar
6,470,936
22,098,574
74.03%
56.69%
29.92%
61.63%
Apr
8,355,492
30,454,066
102.02%
25.40%
107.05%
88.12%
May
4,833,893
35,287,959
118.22%
20.17%
938.50%
-19.91%
June
3,093,200
38,381,159
128.58%
16.58%
377.64%
8.07%
July
2,646,499
41,027,657
137.45%
0.90%
133.62%
44.56%
Aug
Sept
Oct
2,578,402
2,005,089
-
43,606,059
146.08%
-10.35%
99.83%
67.40%
45,611,147
152.80%
-2.55%
71.68%
25.10%
45,611,147
152.80%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Total
45,611,147
45,611,147
YTD
1 33.34%
82.93%
1 55.56%
1
Budget Comparison
5 Yr History-
Cum
5 Yr History-
Monthly
Budgeted
Collections
Actual
Collections
Budget to Actual
Variance
Updated
Forecast
Nov
Dec
4.1%
9.5%
4.19/
1,214,583
2,250,846
1,036,263
2,250,846
5.4%
1,612,820
2,908,930
1,296,110
2,908,930
Jan
18.2%
8.7%
2,603,922
4,495,951
1,892,029
4,495,951
Feb
30.5%
12.3%
3,665,032
5,971,910
2,306,878
5,971,910
Mar
44.6%
14.1%
4,216,359
6,470,936
2,254,577
6,470,936
Apr
61.9%
17.3%
5,175,604
8,355,492
3,179,888
8,355,492
May
72.7%
10.8%
3,209,421
4,833,893
1,624,472
4,833,893
June
79.0%
6.3%
1,892,959
3,093,200
1,200,240
3,093,200
July
94.6%
5.6%
1,671,124
2,646,499
975,375
2,646,499
Aug
90.4%
5.7%
1,709,348
2,578,402
869,053
2,578,402
Sept
94.9%
4.6%
1,371,164
2,005,089
633,925
2,005,089
Oct
100.0%
5.1%
1,507,563
1,507,563
Total 1
100.0%
100.0%1
29,849,900
1 45,611,147
1 17,268,811
1 47,118,711
% over/(under) budget 60.9 % 57.850/6
$9,000,000 Tourist Development Tax Collection Curve
$8,000,000
$7,000,000
$6,000,000
$5,000,000
-end,-d C.1-.n,
�naai mnenion,
$4,000,000
$3,000,000
$2,000,000
$1,000,000
z o � a 0 � � ¢'
Month Reported
F:\OMB\TDC Revenue\TDC Update Report\2022\11-TDC Updates September
Collier County Tourist Development Tax Revenue
FY 22 TDT Collections Report
30-Se -2022
Fund Reporting
Fund
Adopted Budget
Updated Annual
Forecast
Budgeted YTD
YTD Actual
Variance to
Budgeted YTD
Beach Park Facilities
183
184
193
194
195
196
198
758
1,068,600
1,686,808
1,014,631
1,633,228
618,597
TDC Promotion
10,313,100
17,436,494
9,792,239
16,815,122
7,022,883
Non -County Museums
570,100
899,915
541,307
869,254
327,947
TDCAdmin
-
-
0
-
-
Beach Renourishment
11,635,500
18,366,888
11,047,851
17,777,743
6,729,891
Disaster Recovery
-
-
0
-
-
County Museums
2,000,000
4,262,600
2,000,000
1,898,990
2,000,000
101,010
TDC Capital
6,728,606
4,047,318
6,515,801
2,4681483
Gross Budget
29,849,900
47,118,711
28,342,337
45,611,147
17,268,811
Less 5%Rev Res
(1,492,500)
57.85%
% Overl(under) Bud 60.9%
Net Budget 28,357,400
Collections
Month Reported
Actual
Cum YTD
% Budget
Collected to
Date
% Variance FY21
Collections
% Variance FY20
Collections
% Variance FY19
Collections
Nov
2,250,846
2,250,846
7.54%
89.78%
61.05%
130.07%
Dec
2,908,930
5,159,776
17.29%
83.320/6
40.64%
143.14%
Jan
Feb
4,495,951
5,971,910
9,655,727
32.35%
56.54°/a
40.190/6
141.270/.
15,627,637
52.35%
68.85%
31.520/6
101.36%
Mar
6,470,936
22,098,574
74.03%
56.691/6
29.920/6
61.630/6
Apr
May
8,355,492
30,454,066
102.02%
25.40%
107.05%
88.12%
4,833,893
35,287,959
118.22%
20.179/6
938.500/6
-19.91%
June
3,093,200
38,381,159
128.58%
16.58%
377.64%
8.07%
July
2,646,499
41,027,657
137.45%
0.90%
133.62%
44.56%
Aug
Sept
2,578,402
2,005,089
43,606,059
146.08%
-10.35%
99.83%
67.40%
45,611,147
152.80%
-2.559/6
71.680/6
25.100/6
Oct
45,611,147
152.80%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Total
45,611,147
45,611,147
YTD
1 33.34%
1 82.93%
1 55.56%
F:\OMB\TDC Revenue\TDC Update Report\2022\11-TDC Updates September
Collier County Tourist Development Tax Revenue
Budget Comparison
5 Yr History-
Cum
5 Yr History-
Monthly
Budgeted
Collections
Actual
Collections
Budget to Actual
Variance
Updated
Forecast
Nov
Dec
Jan
4.1%
9.5%
18.2%
4.1%
1,214,583
1,612,820
2,250,846
2,908,930
1,036,263
2,250,846
2,908,930
5.4%
1,296,110
8.7%
2,603,922
4,495,951
1,892,029
4,495,951
Feb
30.5%
12.3%
3,665,032
5,971,910
2,306,878
5,971,910
Mar
44.6%
14.1%
4,216,359
6,470,936
2,254,577
6,470,936
Apr
61.9%
17.3916
5,175,604
8,355,492
3,179,888
8,355,492
May
72.7%
10.8%
3,209,421
4,833,893
1,624,472
4,833,893
June
79.0%
6.3%
1,892,959
3,093,200
1,200,240
3,093,200
July
Aug
84.6%
5.69/6
1,671,124
2,646,499
975,375
2,646,499
90.4%
5.7%
1,709,348
2,578,402
869,053
2,578,402
Sept
94.9%
4.69/o
1,371,164
2,005,089
633,925
2,005,089
Oct 1
100.0%
5.1%
1,507,563
-
-
1,507,563
Total 1
100.0%
100.0%
29,849,900
45,611I 47
17,268,811
47,118,711
% oved(under) budget
60.9%
57.85%
$9,000,000
Tourist Development Tax Collection Curve
$8,000,000
$7,000,000
$6,000,000
$5,000,000
—eudeeted m11— s
$4,000,000
�Attual Collections
$3,000,000
$2,000,000
$1,000,000
>
z° o
c a
LL
n >
¢
Month Reported
w 5 eo
n +•
F:\OMB\TDC Revenue\TDC Update Report\2022\11-TDC Updates September
r � �
d_
.61
0
0
4—
ra
'Di
r
to
O
V
M
a)
m
Iai
,4411_
O
O
4-
4�
ra
m
,- ;,r., , =
V
4-J
on
V
1
O
.�
.;J4f -
L
. .. 4�
GGPIWWOO AJOSInpy JOISBOO : 9£6£Z) 303I30d epuOBV 3y3 - ZZ-0 V L 6 4uGwl43L;;y
OOPIWWOO AJOSInpy le;SBOO : 9£6£Z) 40313ed epuOBV 3y3 - ZZ'ov :4u0w43e;4V
O Y
U
R
IL
�AIs
r
v `P
y
K �
e•
\
1 r *r
E � r
1 ea 1 a J {%
Pr
ra
0044!WWOO AJOSInpy 184SBOO : 9£6£Z) 4013ed epu06y OVO - ZZ-0V'6 :;u8wl43e4lV
[A-
a
t
�.`�'
�4 ��,'
\>
�.'::1 _
A)
99;1Iwwoo AjoslnpV le;seoo : 9£6£Z) P313ed epu96V OVO - ZZ-0V :;u9w43e;;V
LO
Qr
a