Loading...
CAC Minutes 01/12/2023January 12, 2023 1 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING Naples, Florida, January 12, 2023 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, the Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee, in and for the 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 Thomas McCann (excused) Jim Burke Robert Raymond Robert Roth Raymond Christman Erik Brechnitz ALSO PRESENT: Andy Miller, Coastal Zone Manager Colleen Greene, Assistant County Attorney Farron Turner, Management Analyst I January 12, 2023 2 Anyone 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 p.m. II. Pledge of Allegiance The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. III. Roll Call Roll call was taken and a quorum of eight was established. IV. Changes and Approval of Agenda Mr. Brechnitz moved to approve the agenda. Second by Mr. Raymond. The motion passed unanimously, 8-0. V. Public Comments [None; public comments involving Tigertail Lagoon were heard under IX.] VI. Approval of CAC Minutes December 8, 2022 Mr. Raymond moved to approve the minutes of the December 8, 2022, meeting. Second by Koziar. The motion passed unanimously, 8-0. VII. Staff Reports Extended Revenue Report “FY22 TDT Collections Revenue Report” dated November 30, 2022. Mr. Miller reported that the first month of the year is typically our slowest. But the first data point is well above what we had budgeted. It’s almost identical to last year, but a little less on the percentage above budgeted. We budgeted $1.3 million and realized $2.3 million last year, so we did almost exactly the same. Chairman Trecker called that a good start for the new fiscal year. VIII. Old Business Executive Summary - Tigertail Lagoon / Sand Dollar Island Ecosystem Restoration Request for Additional Funding Chairman Trecker reported that: • This item relates to the Tiger Tail Lagoon-Sand Dollar Island Ecosystem Restoration Project. • The CAC is being asked to approve a request for $650,400 in Tourist Development Funds to cover a project overrun. • The amount was listed in a change-order for additional sand needed to complete the protective berm on Sand Dollar Island. • After CAC approval, the request would go to the Tourist Development Council for approval and then the Board of County Commissioners, who have final authorization. • The CAC will advise the TDC, but county commissioners make the final decision. January 12, 2023 3 • The Executive Summary in the agenda packet was prepared by the Marco Island city manager, who is asking that the request be approved. • Andy Miller, representing staff, agrees, with the proviso that it be a one-time contribution, which reflects the fact that there will be significant ongoing expenses in coming years. • It’s an understatement to say that feelings ran high on this project pro and con, so we need to take time to go through this thoroughly and not look like we’re rubber stamping it. • We need to take public comments, review the request, discuss it thoroughly and vote. • He asked speakers to refrain from repeating what the CAC has already heard because we’ve taken a lot of input, both written and what was presented at the last meeting. • He asked speakers to hold comments to three minutes. Linda Columbo, Friends of Tigertail Beach, said: • We are a non-profit organization and are celebrating our 25th year. • Our mission is to preserve and protect the Tigertail area. We’ve been informed about the situation and need for the project to restore the area adjacent to Sand Dollar Spit and leading into the lagoon at Tigertail Beach Park. • The approved project is in progress, but there’s a need for supplemental funding of the overrun due to Hurricane Ian, which reduced the sand available in the permitted dredge template, and for increasing the sand required to build a protective berm on Sand Dollar Island, as it was designed. • Staff has recommended spending the extra cost. • This berm, as designed, will provide storm protection from the newly reopened lagoon-flow channel connecting the southern lagoon adjacent to the park with the northern gulf entrance. • This flow enhances tidal flow and water quality needed to protect the Florida Fish & Wildlife critical area, an important recreational area for residents and visitors, who enjoy bird watching, kayaking, paddleboarding and fishing. • The beach berm restores a large section of Sand Dollar Island’s shoreline within the county park. • For a while, walkers couldn’t enjoy the two-mile-long Sand Dollar Island coastline to the end of Sand Dollar Island. • The supplemental funds are being requested from Tourist Development Funds. We know this area is eligible for funding, according to the minutes of the December 12th Coastal Advisory Committee. Assistant Collier County Attorney Colleen Greene said that pass and inlet maintenance and lagoon maintenance are all authorized expenditures of the Tourist Development Tax. The key question is the benefit to the county, the promotion of tourism and public access. • This area is accessible from Tigertail Park, from walkers entering the Collier County south beach, as well as hotel beach accesses. • Recreational boaters use Sand Dollar Island at the northern point to gain access. • In the Friends of Tigertail Beach’s eyes, this project is tourist and resident driven. The park has had over 200,000 visitors in some years. • Collier County must recognize the negative impact of not completing this project correctly. It would greatly impact tourist visits, their willingness to return and county revenue. • To not properly complete the project would be like trying to stop an open, bleeding wound with Band-aids instead of sutures. • If the berm is not built intelligently with the needed sand, it will erode more quickly and require maintenance sooner. We need to get it right the first time. January 12, 2023 4 Mike McNees, Marco Island City Manager, said: • Thanks to the CAC for its speed in hearing the request, which the city made recently. The CAC already has had two hearings, so he appreciates county staff’s effort to get it to the CAC for a decision. • Tigertail Beach Park gets about 200,000 visitors a year, down from nearly 500,000 visitors yearly, so there’s a significant tourism element. • What happens if this addition to the project isn’t funded to supplement the project? Who loses out? We believe it’s visitors to Tigertail Park because the lagoon will suffer. • All that part of the project is outside of the Hideaway Beach direct-benefit zone. • There are two elements that people object to. One is that it’s going to cost Marco Island city taxpayers money if you approve this. That’s a fabrication, a fantasy. There is no general fund money. The Hideaway Beach Tax District money is the only money that went into this ecosystem for more than 10 years. • The other opposition is about the ecosystem and that this project won’t be beneficial in the long term. Every regulatory agency conducted a very extensive review process and issued permits, saying they believe this is in the best interest of the ecosystem in the long term. That’s a valid reasons to push this forward to the TDC. • This is very important to Marco Island and we appreciate county staff’s and the CAC’s assistance. Dave Crane, Marco Island resident (not a Hideaway Beach Tax District resident) • He’s in support of the proposal and called it very needed. • Mr. McNees noted that the number of tourists decreased at Tigertail Beach. That’s a direct result of the area’s deterioration, so kayaking and other activities aren’t what they used to be. • When he moved here in 2008, he and his son used to work at Tigertail, helping people get kayaks. That’s where it needs to come back, to get the people back there. • He’s strongly in favor of the project and wants it done. It needs to be done right the first time. Chris Dowell, Marco Island resident (not a Hideaway Beach Tax District resident) • It was a misrepresentation that people thought money was coming from Marco Island city funds. They now know it will come from county Tourist Development Council funds. • What we’re most concerned about is that we’ve lost bird habitat. It’s been destroyed. • The project should have been looked at more toward cleaning out the lagoon, which is abominable. Ashley Jenkins, Naples city resident and local clean water advocate, said: • It’s her understanding that we’re moving $24 million in funds to create dunes on our beaches from the devastation incurred during Hurricane Ian, but no one has mentioned dredging sand in Naples Bay or the Gordon River. • There also hasn’t been any movement to treat or test our sand or our gulf water, which she will discuss with the DEP on December 19. She was told they had no treatment protocols for our beaches or gulf. • This seems to be a large opportunity for your influence toward our governor’s $3.5 billion clean environmental projects initiative. • The City of Naples has existing treatment protocols in the Parkshore area and these solutions could be applied at our local beaches. • She looks forward to having continuing conversations with CAC members individually. Chairman Trecker thanked her and said the CAC would be considering her concerns in the next January 12, 2023 5 item, the emergency dune Project. He reported that: • He received other input that’s in the agenda packet, 17 emails and many calls, many from people who didn’t understand the project or had misgivings. • Many complaints were based on an erroneous assumption that they were going to be taxed, that there would be a direct tax on Marco residents. That’s not being proposed. • People who spoke here made many other good points. • People on both sides of the issue feel strongly. • The summary he made from the December meeting is in the agenda packet; a few items changed since he submitted it. • The key question is: will a successful project benefit the county, promote tourism and enhance public access? The answer is clearly yes. It should promote visitors to Tigertail Beach and Sand Dollar Island, tourism and public access should somewhat improve. • We don’t know the extent of the benefit, but that’s true of other county projects the CAC approves TDC funds for. Nobody knows what the return on investment is going to be. • Can the county afford the $650,400 expenditure? Yes. The coffers are full, collections continue to be robust and capital reserves are high. • Marco Island residents, businesses and rental businesses contribute to the TDC funds. • Could the overrun be funded by other sources? Yes, the Hideaway Beach Tax District could pay more, the City of Marco Island has tools for raising money, and FEMA and DEP could directly provide hurricane-recovery grants. • Will additional expenditures be required? Yes. This is not a one-time expenditure. It’s a dynamic system, so periodic dredging and sand restoration will be needed in the future. Additional funds will be required to comply with permit requirements. There are requirements for monitoring, so the $4.1 million charge for successfully completing this project is just the beginning. • There’s no basis to turn down this request. He supports this but is troubled by allegations of water pollution. • It’s a lot of money to approve for uncertain benefits. • He supports Andy’s proposal for one-time funding. That sends the message that this isn’t an open-ended approval. He asked other council members for their input. [That prompted questions.] Dr. Mohamed Dabees (the engineer from Humiston & Moore Engineers who designed and managed the project), answered CAC members’ questions: • The sand would be placed on Sand Dollar Island, extending from the Collier County park for about 1½ miles along the middle section of Sand Dollar Island, the section marked in yellow. • $650,400 is for additional sand to be taken from the offshore borough area (the top left corner of the map). It will be placed primarily at the park shoreline, the south part of the template. That has a capacity of about 100,000 yards, but we’re only asking for 60,000. • It would be placed on the southern end. • The photo shows the shoreline of Tigertail Beach Park post-hurricane. There’s water and dead vegetation, but no beach, so that part will receive the 60,000 plus cubic yards. [He showed a video of the area before and what it would look like after the work]. • In addition to creating the flow channel, it will make Tigertail Lagoon a two-mile long lagoon, rather than the enclosed pond that exists now. Mr. Raymond said he’s comfortable with the project. January 12, 2023 6 Mr. Burke said his initial concern was going back to the December meeting, that tourist tax money was going to be used to enhance a private beach, but the discussions in December and today, and the material distributed dispelled that concern, so he supports the proposal. Chairman Trecker noted that they were considering two related proposals. One is to approve it as requested, and one as proposed by Andy, that staff language be included as a one-time contribution. Mr. Burke said he’d support the one-time contribution. Mr. Brechnitz said: • The Hideaway Beach Tax District gets no special benefit from renourishing the Tigertail Lagoon, other than that they’re residents of Marco Island and all residents will benefit. • Yet Hideaway Beach Tax District is paying for a significant part of the lagoon’s renourishment because they think it’s the right thing to do. So the notion that it’s their responsibility isn’t true. • The environmental issues raised during the permitting process were given hearings by all agencies. The Conservancy, the Audubon Society and others had an opportunity to present their case. Despite that, Florida Fish & Wildlife, the Army Corps of Engineers and Florida DEP all decided there was a great ecological benefit and approved it. • We are losing bird habitat at one end of the project, but by creating the berm, we’re creating more bird habitat than we’re taking away. Nesting birds will have more area than they had before. • The notion that county and TDC funds shouldn’t be used for this project is bewildering. This is a county park. It doesn’t belong to the city or Hideaway Beach Tax District. It’s a lagoon next to Tigertail Beach Park, the single largest beach-access point on Marco Island. • It’s a major birding and shelling area and used to be a major kayaking area until the lagoon became shallow and unmanageable for kayaks. A vendor rented kayaks for many years there. We hope to restore that by taking it back to pre-Hurricane Irma conditions, pre-2017. • This clearly is a project that’s eligible for TDC dollars not just now, but forever. The notion that the responsibility ends doesn’t make sense, that when we dredge Clam Pass, it’s a one- time thing and our responsibility ends. • We have a $60 million balance in our reserve account. We’re asking for 1% of $60 million, so $650,400 won’t jeopardize future projects the CAC and TDC consider. It’s a smaller request than others we consider. • It’s the county’s and TDC’s responsibility to make sure the park continues to be a major access point for tourists on Marco Island. • Marco Island is a significant contributor of TDC funds, about a third or more, and we ask for very little. Rarely are we here with projects that the CAC and TDC consider. • This project has merit and should be approved. He can’t understand why they’re having such a lengthy discussion when it’s clear. Chairman Trecker asked if he supported the project. Mr. Brechnitz said he won’t vote against it. Chairman Trecker asked if he supported the proviso that it be a one-time contribution. Mr. Brechnitz said the county has an obligation to maintain that lagoon. It’s contiguous to a county park, so it should be their continuing responsibility. Vice Chairman Burke asked Andy if the county could support the project from a purely technical perspective. Mr. Miller said that based on the county attorney’s opinion that tourist development tax dollars can be used for the project, he supports it. To the extent that the state has issued a permit that shows January 12, 2023 7 there’s a net benefit to the public, he’d be disappointed to see the lagoon get so stagnant that odors and smells make people reluctant to go there. The park would suffer dearly, so he’s in support of the project and expenditure. Vice Chairman Burke said: • He looks at it from a technical and environmental perspective. • There was one person, an engineer, who the technical aspects of the project from the environmental side. As Erik indicated, the agencies that reviewed it and issued permits agreed from an environmental standpoint that it should stand on those merits. • He supports the project with the understanding that, for now, it’s a one-time contribution until we understand why it’s not the county’s responsibility. That’s a discussion we need to have. Mr. Roth said: • He’s not looking at it from a technical or environmental perspective because they have a permit, it had a rigorous review and the work is proceeding under the permit. • The City Manager said 500,000 people originally went to that park, but it’s now 200,000. He went there Monday and no one was there. Photos also show no one using the beach, but that may have been due to the time of day. • There used to be boat, kayak and paddleboard rentals there, but the county closed that down two years ago, as well as the concession stand, so he’s not comfortable with the level of activity they claim was there. But people and tourists do go there, use the park and walk on the beach. • The sand spit boaters used to congregate on is now an 8-foot depression, a sand trap. Now that Keewaydin Island has become so overcrowded, he uncertain if boaters will be allowed to use that anymore. • He’s trying to determine if this is really due to Hurricane Ian. It says the available sand was reduced by the permitted-dredge template. The majority of the material being removed is underwater. To what extent was sand lost above the template or did the bottom contour change so you’re not coming up with that material. He doesn’t see where the 60,000 yards was lost. Dr. Dabees said: • The majority of losses were on over-wash, the weak part of where we’re constructing the berm because that part was pushed in by 100 feet landward, on average, and in its over-wash, the losses were close to 100,000 yards through erosion. • There also was build up in areas we cannot reach, including where the spit is attached to the mangrove. They are 3-4 feet high inside the mangrove. We would have been able to collect that sand before it got over-washed, but it’s now inside the vegetation. • By the sand spit, 100 feet landward, the bottom is deeper. When the contractor arrived onsite, they said that wasn’t what they’d bid for. They were supposed to take the sand spit and flip it in one handling. Now they have to double handle it or transport it north to south because it’s more than double-handling of the material. • The hurricane impacted the site. The area in the photos didn’t look that bad and this is an area that for us to anchor the berm at the beach park requires 100,000 cubic yards. That area is totally outside of Hideaway Beach Tax District’s boundaries. It’s part of Marco Island, an area with many vacation rental homes that offer easy access to the beach. • When people come to the beach, they don’t expect to see vegetation and dry beach, so the 60,000-100,000 yards will be placed in the park shoreline at a cost of less than $11 a yard. January 12, 2023 8 • Sand usually goes for $60-$70 a yard, so the cost of not doing it is costly. We now have a contractor that is mobilized with equipment that would enable us to add this sand, minus mobilization, at a cost that probably will never be available to us again. • The $650,400 can only buy you 10,000 yards if you truck sand into the park. We’re going to put between 60,000 and 100,000 cubic yards of sand down. Mr. Roth asked if it was Hurricane Ian that reduced the sand available within the permitted dredge template. Dr. Dabees said that was correct. Mr. Roth noted that: • This board can make this determination because it’s a beach facility or channel. • The board needs to make a finding that it promotes tourism. • He questioned if this was a CAC matter. It’s unusual to have a one-time contribution. It should be all the time. It should go to the BCC, which has the final say. • Andy tried to mitigate some concerns by calling it a one-time contribution, which is unusual. • He’s not supporting a one-time contribution because he has too many misgivings about whether the county is getting a benefit to tourism. It should be all the time or not a matter for this board. Mr. Christman said: • He didn’t have enough information in December. • He has since met with Dr. Dabees to educate himself on the project. • He wanted to determine whether there was sufficient public benefit or does it overly benefit Hideaway Beach Tax District. • Is there a sufficient public benefit in terms of access to justify this project or is this only going to benefit Hideaway Beach Tax District? He’s persuaded that there are public benefits from a public-access standpoint with the lagoon and the park. This will enhance that significantly. • Are there environmental benefits? That’s difficult to answer conclusively. This project area has a long history and some issues involving birding and other matters started years ago. Based on permits that were granted, the review by DEP and other agencies, he concurs that the net environmental benefits are positive and that the project would be beneficial to Marco Island, the county and region. • Can we afford this? 82% of the cost is being paid for by Hideaway Beach Tax District, even with the proposed county funding. • He agrees with others’ comments. Hurricane Ian may change this, but we’ve had trouble spending TDC money. We ended 2022 with $60 million in the reserve account, which is awkward and embarrassing. We shouldn’t be throwing money at bad projects just because we have $60 million, but this is a worthwhile project and we can afford it. • Is there a possibility of FEMA reimbursement? That shouldn’t determine whether we approve it, but could we submit this? Mr. Miller said he didn’t know for sure if FEMA or FDEP could provide funds. They’re still looking at that. The governor just provided $100 million-plus in funds to provide storm relief to various counties and we could pursue that. Mr. Christman said the point is, we can pursue that. So it’s possible if we approve this project that all of the $650,400 or a portion could be reimbursed to us? Mr. Miller said it could be. January 12, 2023 9 Mr. Christman added: • From a public policy standpoint, it’s a bad idea for this to be a one-time request. We don’t do this with other projects. • He was told that periodically there will be a need to come back and do lagoon work. That’s true of a lot of projects along our coastline to keep the ecosystem sustainable. It’s no surprise that it’s every five, six or seven years this area will have to be looked at. None of us are going to be on this advisory council and the same BCC members probably won’t be here. • If it comes back, we don’t know what form it might take. That will be up to CAC and BCC, but for us to propose a one-time payment precedent is bad policy. • He supports the project, but not the one-year-only provision. Mr. Koziar said: • It’s clear that Tigertail Beach Park is solely a county responsibility and since he’s been on this committee, Tigertail Beach Park has been neglected. • He supports Mr. Christman’s belief that whenever they voted on a project, he was voting on the project on a one-time basis and that it wouldn’t be continuing approval. It’s project by project. • We shouldn’t say this is a one-time expenditure and send a signal that additional funding would not be spent in the future. • All our projects require monitoring and regulatory considerations, so he supports it. • We should remove the one-time language and make a finding that this benefits the public. Chairman Trecker said that was very helpful He noted that there wasn’t adequate support to approve this as a one-time project. He asked to entertain a motion to recommend approval. He noted that the recommendation at the bottom of the Executive Summary, page 2, should read “Change Order No. 2,” not No. 1. Attorney Greene agreed but said the top of the page does say No. 2. Chairman Trecker asked to entertain a motion to recommend approval of the expenditure of Tourist Development Tax Fund 195 money in the amount of $650,400 for Change Order No. 2 and to find that the expenditure promotes tourism. Mr. Roth said he changed his position because they agreed to remove the one-time language. Mr. Christman said he wanted to make the record clear that this doesn’t assure that future similar requests will be approved, but it won’t prevent similar requests from moving forward. Mr. Brechnitz moved to approve and recommend the expenditure of Tourist Development Tax Fund 195 funding in the amount of $650,400 for Change Order No. 2 to the City of Marco Island’s contract with Ahtna Marine & Construction for the 2022 Tigertail Lagoon / Sand Dollar Island Ecosystem Restoration Project and made a finding that this expenditure promotes tourism. Second by Mr. Koziar. The motion passed unanimously, 8-0. [Chairman Trecker polled each CAC member verbally and the vote was 8-0.] Chairman Trecker noted that the BCC will make the final decision. IX. New Business Executive Summary - Expenditure of Funds of a Not-to-Exceed Amount of $24,000,000 for the Construction of an Emergency Berm January 12, 2023 10 Mr. Miller reported that: • We had a significant hurricane, if not two, that caused a lot of damage to the county, especially the county’s beaches, and dunes, in particular. • We hope to get FEMA reimbursement for these dunes, but FEMA has a stipulation that emergency work must be completed within six months of the event, so we would typically go through three board actions and advertise for bids. That could take many months. • We’re trying to expedite getting funding approved for the emergency berm in advance so the County Manager can execute contracts and get contractors on the beach building dunes. • If all goes according to plan, the dunes will be in place before FEMA’s deadline, we’d be eligible for 75% reimbursement of the $24 million and would then seek additional funds from the state for the balance. Chairman Trecker noted that they’re talking about berms, but it’s really dune construction. Mr. Miller agreed. We had a substantial meeting with FEMA yesterday and they were in total agreement that the wording causes confusion. But we’re rebuilding the dune or building an emergency dune. Someone at FEMA refuses to change the definition. Chairman Trecker said he understands that the general intent is to provide the structures behind them with some protection from a five-year storm, not a major hurricane. Mr. Miller said that’s the intent. Chairman Trecker said they’re talking about moving quickly to get the construction underway so the county has a chance of meeting the March 23, 2023, deadline. He was concerned they wouldn’t meet it because we’re starting too late, but you indicated that it’s doable. Mr. Miller said the amount is about double last year’s Naples Beach project, 86,000 tons. We did that from November 1st to just before Thanksgiving and completed that amount in about three weeks. Although this is about double that, we want to bring on two contractors and probably two sand sources, so we’re going to be scrambling, but it’s physically possible to do the work. A discussion ensued with Mr. Miller and the following points were made: • APTIM originally said it would be 500,000 cubic yards but is now saying 400,000. • The county has the funds for the project. • We’d be eligible for FEMA reimbursement of 75%. • The county has obtained all easements for all beaches from Delnor Wiggins down to Gordon Pass, 18th Avenue South and down to Marco Island, but is working on some private beaches, Barefoot Beach and Port Royal. Nearly the entire Barefoot Beach is eligible for FEMA and TDC funding. • They’d start where sand is most needed, at the Naples Beach and the Park Shore Beach. • The designer started about 1½ weeks ago and has multiple teams working on it. Early estimates are showing that Naples Beach needs about 110,000 cubic yards, so we’ve asked him to expedite the design for Naples Beach, knowing it will be the most significant chunk, so we need to start that early. • The second area will be Barefoot Beach, Vanderbilt Beach and Pelican Bay. • The first phase was simple beach clearance and repair and getting beaches back in shape so they could be used. • The second phase is rebuilding the dunes to provide some minimal protection for structures behind them. • The third phase, the largest, will be a major sand renourishment, bringing in huge amounts of sand to replace what was lost. That’s a two- to three-year project and scheduling hasn’t been January 12, 2023 11 decided. • The amount of sand lost on beaches is more like 500,000 cubic yards, not 400,000. • Most of the beaches are in the City of Naples. • Depending on the final design, dunes would be about 2- to 4-feet high and about 30 feet wide at the top, not including the slope, on either side, seaward and landward. We’ll probably have a 6-to-1 slope, a fairly flat slope that’s easily walkable. • There will be vegetation planted on the dunes, but the FEMA reimbursement is still in question. FEMA’s criteria for dune planting being eligible for reimbursement is that there is a local requirement for the dunes to be planted. For example, if a city ordinance required anyone building a home and/or building a dune on the beach, the dune must be vegetated. If that’s a requirement, then we may be eligible. There are other circumstances that may provide the county with relief from that requirement, but we’ll have to explore those. • If the Board of County Commissioners wants the dunes, and he highly recommends that they do get planted, just stabilize them, if nothing else, we can entertain a project request through the 195 Fund. Mr. Christman said many residents asked him if it makes sense to underlay any new dunes with concrete to provide more stability and a better foundation long-term. That adds a lot more complexity in terms of cost, timing, etc. Has this been a conversation with your team, FEMA and the city? Mr. Miller said yes and no. From the outset, we thought we were going to bring in sand and there were minor discussions related to stabilization. The problem with putting structural material on a beach is permitting issues. That complicates it and adds time, so it wouldn’t be feasible. A discussion ensued and the following points were made: • If the county shows it’s making a good-faith effort to get it done, we hope FEMA will be flexible and allow an extension to the March 23 deadline. • Today’s vote is to get the work started. • Because hauling would have a major impact during high-season in the City of Naples, Andy has been speaking with city staff weekly and they’re asking City Utilities Director Bob Middleton to get preferred truck routes in place as soon as possible. • Out of $24 million, APTIM’s engineering cost is $150,000-$180,000, an insignificant amount. • $60 per cubic yard is the average cost for all-in, including engineering. • 6.0 NAVD is the top elevation of the berm. • The maximum FEMA will make eligible is 6 cubic yards per lineal foot of beach. The rule is it’s either a five-year storm, still-water elevation, plus wave run-up, whatever elevation that is. Any sand in that dune is eligible. The maximum we could get is 6 cubic yards per lineal foot, and our engineer essentially designed it to maximize that. • The bathymetric surveys are complete. We’ve surveyed every 1,000 feet and the engineer came in with that report. The sand is just the sand we lost is offshore, in between the high beach and the depth of closure, which is around 11 feet. The sand is still in that area. If the sand is still in the sandbox, FEMA says then you haven’t lost sand. For us, that’s the issue. We really haven’t lost any because it’s still in the system. • That doesn’t make it more amenable to dredging. To dredge, the sand is spread out in such a large area over 11-15 miles and it varies depending on where it might be, so dredging is more complicated permitting-wise. We don’t have a permit to dredge the sand offshore. • We haven’t addressed hardbottom impacts yet. We’ll be doing our annual hard-bottom monitoring this summer, so that’s currently unknown. January 12, 2023 12 • Whether dune construction will extend through the central beach at Marco is unknown at this point. If so, that would impact traffic on Collier Boulevard. There is eligible dune replacement on Marco Island, particularly the southern end. • The county also has been asked by Cape Marco to help with their dunes, a temporary measure before hurricane season begins. • This is a temporary measure before hurricane season arrives and could be reimbursed by FEMA. • 75% FEMA reimbursement would total $18 million. • The county will put emergency dunes in place to provide immediate protection to beaches. • We’re probably going to follow that effort up with a major renourishment similar to what we did in Vanderbilt, Naples and Pelican Bay last year. According to FDEP, if we can take advantage of the $1 million in state funds to do hurricane-recovery beach restoration, we’ll build the beaches back to their permitted template and potentially realize 100% reimbursement. • The amount of sand is about 500,000 cubic yards, which was in the permitted template that we lost, so that’s on the borderline between entertaining the idea of a hopper-dredge offshore or getting a BOEM lease, which allows us to dredge the sand from 30 miles offshore. We’ll look at that, but 500,000 cubic yards is doable with two contractors and if you spread that project over two to four years, it’s easily manageable with trucks. • It’s a possibility that if there is a five-year storm the berms won’t be there, but the county could take advantage of state and TDC funds if it’s eligible for dune plantings. State funds are significant and the county can afford to do this. • It would be hard to add an underlying, more resistant structure to hold the berm in place due to turtles nesting and permitting issues. There also would be a lot of environmental pushback. Mr. Brechnitz recommended approving the expenditure of Tourist Development Tax funds of a not-to-exceed amount of $24,000,000 for the construction of an emergency berm necessary for protection of upland structures left vulnerable by Hurricane Ian and made a finding that this expenditure promotes tourism. Second by Mr. Raymond. The motion passed unanimously, 8-0. X. Announcements [Discussed after XI] Vice Chairman Burke asked if there were any updates from the Army Corps of Engineers. Mr. Miller said he’d have to ask Gary McAlpin and his team because they’re involved with that. He asked him to email him and he’d forward it to Gary and his team. Chairman Trecker asked if Gary could make a report at the CAC meeting. Mr. Christman said he’d heard there had been developments on that and asked if it could be put on the agenda for next month. XI. Committee Member Discussion Chairman Trecker asked Mr. Roth, chairman of the CAC Water-Quality Subcommittee, if he had a subcommittee report. Mr. Roth said he did and reported that: • The subcommittee met yesterday with (Pollution Control Manager) Danette Kinaszczuk and (Principal Environmental Specialist) Rhonda Watkins and Farron Turner from Coastal Zone Management. • We feel that the first subcommittee, from 2019 to 2021, identified the three most important things the county can do to protect and improve coastal water quality, separate from what is January 12, 2023 13 being studied and done by other organizations regarding red tide, etc. • One was to enforce fertilizer ordinances because fertilizers are a significant source of nitrogen and phosphorus, which is what’s plaguing coastal waters. • The second was to improve the educational program for landscapers who apply fertilizer. Marco Island just took that initiative on to ensure everybody is on the same page. We’ve had laws for a while, but we’ve lacked enforcement. The word has gone out that landscapers will be held accountable and will be checked on proper procedures. • The third was to ensure that all new wastewater plants and expansions to existing plants be upgraded to Advanced Wastewater Treatment standards, which would remove harmful nutrients like nitrogen and phosphorus. That will improve irrigation re-use water, which ends up in the canals and ocean. • Those are very valid recommendations. To add to that, the current subcommittee considered Vertical Oyster Gardens (VOGs), a public-education program the county could coordinate and administer. But we later found it would be far more complicated because someone has to collect oyster shells, string them together and make them available and that’s something the county can’t administer by itself. A volunteer organization would be needed to assist. • We learned that in the Rock Creek in the Brookside development already started something similar. Residents are collecting oyster shells, stringing them and hanging them from their docks, so we’re going to leave that alone. • We learn a tremendous amount from Danette and Rhonda, our technical advisors, so we thought they could come before the full CAC a few times a year to provide an update on what Collier County Pollution Control is doing and what they’re finding. There are many things occurring that we’re not aware of. • We don’t see a future purpose for our subcommittee and believe it should be disbanded because it’s served its useful purpose. • If the full CAC wants us to continue, he’s willing to remain involved. Chairman Trecker said he didn’t think they should disband the water-quality effort. We need to keep it going in some fashion. We worked very hard to get the BCC to include it as part of our mission. He’d hate to lose that, so we need to keep it going. He’s pleased they liked the prior subcommittee’s recommendations. Danette was very helpful in helping us craft our recommendations. He’d like to speak to Andy and Danette to see if we can push some of those recommendations forward within the limits of the Sunshine Act. Commissioners would probably be amenable because they’re not onerous or costly. Mr. Christman said: • He’s happy to continue on the subcommittee, but if they want to appoint others, that’s fine. • Water quality is incredibly important. We have many water-quality issues, but the frustration or dysfunction needs to be addressed: The three recommendations by the prior subcommittee were presented to the BCC and there’s been no response. That was several years ago. • The VOGs idea is good, but staff doesn’t have the capacity to reach out to volunteer non- profit groups and others to see if there’s interest. Staff has been reduced and can’t take on additional assignments. • For the subcommittee to be effective, there needs to be a conversation at the county manager or deputy county manager level to ask if they support providing a staff liaison for the CAC Water-Quality Subcommittee, so we could get the information we need and consider projects or programs that we might want to recommend for approval. That linkage isn’t there now, so the staffing issue needs to be addressed. January 12,2023 Chairman Trecker reported that: o The recommendations were accepted by the BCC. The subcommittee didn't follow up and he's sorry about that. It was accepted pro forma. What we should have done is an impressive presentation and made specific recommendations to get a yes or no vote. He asked Attorney Greene what kind of meeting notice would be required if Andy and several others got together for such a discussion. Attorney Greene reported that: o A meeting will require notice. A solution would be to have one more meeting of the current subcommittee so you could publicly notice the subcommittee meeting. They can work with Andy and invite Danette, if she's available. Any CAC member also could attend. The best way to do it is by reconvening another meeting. Two of the three members are needed for a quorum. Chairman Trecker asked the subcommittee chairman if that was acceptable. Mr. Roth said they need someone from senior management to come to the meeting to determine if any of the recommendations are feasible to pursue. Chairman Trecker said they could invite senior management and asked other subcommittee members if that was acceptable. [They said it was.J Next Meeting February 9,2023,1 p.m. Adjournment There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chairman at 2:38 p.m. a a XII. xIII. Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee0w These minutes were approved by the Committee on L ' Q ' 26?.3, (check one) as presented,f or as amended n 14