Loading...
CAC Minutes 09/08/2022September 8,2022 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COTINTY 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," 3'd 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 B rechnitz (absent) ALSO PRESENT: Andy Miller, Coastal Zone Manager Colleen Green, Deputy County Auorney 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 il 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 offive was established; three othersjoined 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 [ater.) Mr. Christman moved lo allow Mr. McCann, Mr. Roth and Mr. Koziar to participate by phone due b ertraordinary circumstances. Second by Mr. Raymond. Carried unanimously, 5-0. IV. Changes and Approval ofAgenda Chairman Trecker said he wanted to add an item, No. 4, under New Business, Long-Range Planning. Vice Chairman Burke moved lo 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 ot I :09 p.m.] VI. Approval of CAC Minutes Nlay 12,2022 [Mr. Koziar joined the meeting at I : l0 p.m.J Mr. McCann moved to approve the minutes of the May 12,2022, meeting. Second by Mr. Koziar. The molion was carried unanimously, 74. VII. StaffReports 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 62Yo above our budget number. Year-to-date collections are $41 million and our original budget was closer to around $30 miltion, 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 l. LS 2022-2023 Tourist Development Council (TDC) Fund 195 Grant Application Requests Coastal Zone Managem ent (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 ofan 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 ofNaples and make a finding that these expenditures promote tourism. Chairman Trecker said it's interesting that the orders ofapproval 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 ilhe 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 ofthe beaches at Park Shore and Clam Pass Beach, so that's the engineering portion ofthe renourishment project. Ifour monitoring people come back in January or February and tell us these beaches need renourishment, we will get our designers on board in anticipation ofa renourishment project. That money will be spent in FY24 after turtle season ends in November. This is the engineering portion ofthe 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 ifit's determined that these beaches are in fine shape, then this money will roll into the next year in anticipation ofnext year's project. Mr. Christman said he and Mr. Miller spent time at Doctor's Pass looking at that situation in The J September 8, 2022 Moorings neighborhood and the concems 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'\,e 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 effo( 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 olEngineers 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'sjust 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 l:20 p.m., saying he was watching on video, but had trouble calling in.J 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 lor the city, the beach maintenance and the Naples Pier project. Vice Chairman Burke made a motion to approve the Tourist Developmenl Council granl 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 lhe City of Naples and make afinding that these expenditures promote lourisnL Second by Mr. Burke. The motion passed unanimously, 8-0. 2. ES l0-Year Plan Fiscal Year 2023 10-Year PIan 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 ofa 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 healy 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 FY2O22-2023 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 ofreserves is $59 million, up from $45 million previously projected and the bottom-line unencumbered research balance is $58 million. up lrom $40 million projected last year, so it's a remarkably healthy situation. I discussed with Andy the value ofa 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 olthe 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 ofthe 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 yearjust outside ofthe channel. The effort in the discussions between the City and the Coast Guard are geared toward an effort to move several ofthe 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 ifthe 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 l0 to l2 years. And that includes some money for beach renourishment projects, which may not be enough. When we had the Army Corps ofEngineers 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 FY 2022-2023 l0-Year Capital Planning documentfor Fund 195 Beach Renourishmenl and Pass Mainlenance and Fund 185 Program Managemenl and Administration and made aJinding that these expenditures promote tourishl 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 abori 40Yo 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 ofan 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 ifthey'd always been this successful with DEP reimbursement of 400lo range in the past. Mr. Miller said yes, that's the average. Mr. Roth asked ifthat sand goes to sea or is it recovered for an onJand 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 applicalions to the Florida Deparlment of Environmental Protection for long-range budget plan requests for beach renourishment projects for fiscal year 2023-2024 and made aJinding that these projecls promote tourisnl 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-yeiu 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 ofthat 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% ofthe costs, so it's going to be a major and expensive project. In its extended form, it w-as 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 olthe 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 ofthe project be reduced substantially, so it would largely coverjust 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'J 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 ofcritical infrastructure will be excluded. Their mission starts u/ith 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 ofthe 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 ofdoing 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 ofwhat 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 oldoing business on Marco Island. Chairman Trecker said in the initial study, one criterion was that any project, regardless of govemment 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 ofthe 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 ofthat has to do with communications, perhaps incomplete or misinformation. It's put us in a very bad place, an adversarial relationship in terms ofthe 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 govemment. 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 ofour 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 ifthis does go forward, we won't participate. It's important to understand politically where things stand. The City of Naples represents 7 5o/o 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 ofthe 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 ofdollars 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. Ifthe 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 ofwhere the Corps is now. Ifthis 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 qualifu 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 tum 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, ifthe plan proceeds, there will be a loss of control, a loss ofability to have an influence going forward on the part ofthe 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 though the review and engagement process. o Once the Corps begins construction, the stakeholders can't participate. o The Corps is very responsive. . Taking more steps could lead to the Corps rejecting this. o The County and stakeholders aren't doing enough to sell the community on the risks ofnot moving forward and what the benefits of the project are. o The NoAA website shows the 20-ye5 prediction is dire for the City of Naples. September 8, 2022 o It's unlikely the Corps will abandon the project after so much effort was put forth. o Marketing ofthe project needs to be undertaken to promote the benefits ofthe project. o 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. 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 nmning, 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. l. Announcements None Committee Member Discussion None Next Meeting October 13,2022,1 p.m. There being no further business for the good ofthe County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chairman at 2:07 p.m. x. Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee It \O LoLL , u. p."r"nt"d, X o. asThese minutes were approved by the Committee on amended IC David Trecker, Chairman XII.