CAC Agenda 04/11/2024April 11, 2024
Meeting Agenda and Notice
Coastal Advisory Committee (CAC)
Thursday, April 11, 2024– 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
2024 CAC MEETING DATES
I. Call to Order
II. Pledge of Allegiance
III. Roll Call
IV. Changes and Approval of Agenda
V. Public Comments
Va . Presentation by Eugene Wordehoff on the effects of wastewater
reuse irrigation pollution.
VI. Approval of CAC Minutes
January 11, 2024
VII. Staff Reports
Extended Revenue Report
VIII. New Business
1. ES - BCC - 2025-2026 Park Shore Renourishment APTIM
Work Order
2. ES City of Naples Amended TDC Grant Applications
First Amendment TDC Grant Agreement Pier and maintenance
TDC Grant App. Beach Maintenance
TDC Grant App. Lowdermilk Park
TDC Grant App. Pier
6/11/24, 12:41 PM April 11, 2024 | Collier County, FL
https://www.colliercountyfl.gov/government/advisory-boards-and-authorities/coastal-advisory-committee/cac-agendas/2024-cac-agendas/april-11-2024 1/2
8.B.b
Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: April 11, 2024 - Agenda (29124 : Coastal Advisory Committee - Aprill 11, 2024)
IX. Old Business
X. Announcements
XI. Committee Member Discussion
1. CAC - USACE CSRM Position Paper
Christman comments
Hushon comments
Roth comments
Trecker comments
XII. Next Meeting Date/Location
May 9, 2024 at 1:00 p.m.
XIII. Adjournment
All interested parties are invited to attend, and to register to speak and to submit their objections, if any, in
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) 252-8380.
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.
6/11/24, 12:41 PM April 11, 2024 | Collier County, FL
https://www.colliercountyfl.gov/government/advisory-boards-and-authorities/coastal-advisory-committee/cac-agendas/2024-cac-agendas/april-11-2024 2/2
8.B.b
Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: April 11, 2024 - Agenda (29124 : Coastal Advisory Committee - Aprill 11, 2024)
January 11, 2024
1
MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING
Naples, Florida, January 11, 2024
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 P.M. in REGULAR SESSION at Administrative Building F, 3rd Floor,
Collier County Government Complex, Naples, Florida, with the following
members present:
CHAIRMAN: Joseph Burke
VICE CHAIRMAN: David Trecker
Councilor Erik Brechnitz
Jim Burke
Councilman Raymond Christman (excused)
Dr. Judith Hushon
Steve Koziar
Robert Raymond
Robert Roth
ALSO PRESENT:
Andy Miller, Director, Coastal Zone
Management
Colleen Greene, Assistant County Attorney
8.B.b
Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: April 11, 2024 - Agenda (29124 : Coastal Advisory Committee - Aprill 11, 2024)
January 11, 2024
2
Anyone in need of a verbatim record of the meeting may request a copy of the video
from the Communications, Government & Public Affairs Division or view it online.
I. Call to Order
Chairman Burke 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 in the board room.
Vice Chair Trecker said several members must leave early.
IV. Changes and Approval of Agenda
Councilor Brechnitz moved to approve the agenda. Second by Vice Chair
Trecker. The motion passed unanimously, 8-0.
Chairman Burke noted that several members need to leave by 2:30 p.m., but
based on the agenda, he didn’t think the meeting would go over that.
V. Public Comments
Patrick J. Wack, a Seagate resident, told the CAC:
x He’s been coming to Naples for 40 years and keeps a boat at Wiggins Pass, so he
has a lot of interest in what’s happening.
x He’s appointed himself to be the head of Seagate’s waterway management, so he
wanted to introduce himself.
x He understands there’s a lot of history there but is looking forward to any advice
the CAC can provide.
x If any CAC member could, he’d like them to reach out offline to educate him on
what’s going on. He’d appreciate that.
VI. Approval of CAC Minutes
November 9, 2023
Mr. Roth said he’ll make a motion to approve the minutes on the condition that they
discuss the Action Items listed on the November minutes that aren’t reflected under Old
Business on the agenda. He’d like to bring them up under Old Business so they can go
through them.
Chairman Burke agreed they can cover those in Old Business.
Mr. Roth moved approve the November 9, 2023, meeting minutes. Second by
Mr. Raymond. The motion passed unanimously, 8-0.
VII. Staff Reports
Extended Revenue Report
“FY24 TDT Collections Revenue Report” dated Nov. 30, 2023.
Mr. Miller detailed a PowerPoint presentation and told the CAC:
8.B.b
Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: April 11, 2024 - Agenda (29124 : Coastal Advisory Committee - Aprill 11, 2024)
January 11, 2024
3
x This is actually the October collections. The list on the side starts in November, so
this is the November reporting for October collections.
x He superimposed in shaded black last year’s 2022 revenues and we’re slightly
above what we did last October and well above what we did the year prior.
x We reached 69.1% above our budgeted collections for October. The November
reporting is essentially parallel to what we did last year.
x We probably will report this with some updates for the next several months in
March, but the percentage above our projected budget is 69.2%, so we’re well
above what we anticipate. We hope the recent weather doesn’t take a toll on those
numbers.
A discussion ensued and the following points were made:
x The fund numbers changed. Instead of 195, Coastal Beach Management is now
1105. Nothing changed except that prefix.
x The red line represents collections, and the blue line represents this year’s budget,
which increased over last year.
x The increase was due to the cost of living.
x Collections are greater than expenditures, so the money rolls over into the
reserves. Coastal Zone management has a healthy reserve, but Hurricane Ian took
its toll on that, taking about $20 million from our reserves and we’re trying to get
some money back from FEMA and FDEP.
x Coastal Zone will be building on those reserves this year.
VIII. New Business
APTIM Environmental & Infrastructure Inc.
2025-2026 Local Government Funding Request (LGFR) Work Order
Recommendation to approve a work order with APTIM Environmental &
Infrastructure Inc. to provide professional engineering services for 2025-
2026 Local Government Funding Request under Contract No. 18-7432-CZ
for time and material not to exceed $27,010.00, authorize the chairman to
execute the work order, and make a finding that this item promotes
tourism (Fund 195, Project No. 90065).
Mr. Miller detailed the item:
x This action item is brought forth every year and involves hiring and paying a
consultant to assist the county and Coastal Zone in applications for state funding
of coastal management projects, inlets and beaches.
x The consultant is APTIM Environmental & Infrastructure Inc., which we have
used year after year and they’ve been very successful.
[Mr. Miller read the recommendation.]
A discussion ensued between Vice Chair Trecker and Mr. Miller and the following
points were made:
x This is a DEP requirement and we’re asked to do this to qualify for
reimbursement.
x APTIM is invited to do this. If the county doesn’t do this, we don’t get funds, so
we want to apply.
8.B.b
Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: April 11, 2024 - Agenda (29124 : Coastal Advisory Committee - Aprill 11, 2024)
January 11, 2024
4
x The cost is consistent with past work orders but is about $1,000 more than last
year. The primary reason is because we asked APTIM to conduct an after-the-
fact review of the points that we scored, the amount of funds we get and to detail
what we can do better next year to see if they can find anything that might
increase next year’s allotment.
x The county increased the tasks by that amount and APTIM increased the fee by
about $1,000.
x The items covered can change from year to year, but this is an annual
requirement.
A discussion ensued between Dr. Hushon and Mr. Miller and the following points
were made:
x There are some bills in the state legislature that probably will pass, which would
provide money for feasibility studies. Some relate to beaches. How do we get
considered?
x Mr. Miller said he could discuss it offline if she could provide information on the
bills. He can send the information to his grant team.
x More information will be available in about two months, at the end of the
legislative session, when the Budget Committee meets and cuts the state budget.
It’s a work in progress until it’s released.
x Mr. Miller said he’ll follow that legislation and noted that the County Manager’s
Office sends a notice to management staff to ensure we’re aware of what the
legislature passes that may affect our divisions.
x Dr. Hushon noted that there’s also money for wastewater treatment, which is
causing some issues involving releasing pollutants in fairly high levels to our
estuaries. There was money available in past years and it will be available this
year.
Vice Chair Trecker moved to recommend approval of a work order with APTIM
Environmental & Infrastructure Inc. to provide professional engineering services for
2025-2026 Local Government Funding Request under Contract No. 18-7432-CZ for
time and material not to exceed $27,010.00, authorize the chairman to execute the
work order, and found that this item promotes tourism. Second by Mr. Raymond. The
motion passed unanimously, 8-0.
IX. Old Business
Mr. Roth discussed Action Items listed in the minutes:
x He spoke to (Resiliency Director) Chris Mason about why Marco Island was
pretty much dropped from the study Army Corps of Engineers study because the
federal government, since the 1980s, decided it won’t spend money in erodible
areas/areas that are subject to change. His emailed conversation with Chris was
provided to the CAC.
x Why can’t the county spend the money in those areas as we did with Tiger Tail
Beach’s ecological restoration last year? That’s in one of these zones.
x At least the Army Corps of Engineers could study it for us and maybe we don’t
need to use federal funds for the work. We can use county monies.
x There may be an update from Chris Mason on that.
x We have a January 24th Zoom meeting with the Corps of Engineers, but he’s not
expecting to hear a lot of news because they’re crunching numbers now.
8.B.b
Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: April 11, 2024 - Agenda (29124 : Coastal Advisory Committee - Aprill 11, 2024)
January 11, 2024
5
x After the Corps dropped Marco Island, we accepted it, but it should be
challenged. That’s a significant thing.
Mr. Miller agreed but said he won’t weigh in on what projects the Corps is or isn’t
doing. He suggested staying abreast of the Corps’ available monthly public meetings.
They’re going to be in town next week and he’ll send them that information so they can
speak to the Corps about it.
Dr. Hushon said the purpose of those meetings was mainly to target environmental
justice. We were inviting people in the poorer areas who were inundated to tell the
Corps what they needed.
Mr. Miller said the Corps will be here next week or you may be able to catch them
offline to ask questions. He plans to ask questions. There’s also the monthly Zoom
meeting at the end of January. He suggested keeping conversations with the Corps
separate from the Coastal Advisory Committee, unless we invite the Corps here directly.
They can speak for themselves. He can’t do that.
Mr. Roth said he’s just trying to fight for Marco Island.
Dr. Hushon said she understood. The Corps has made it very clear that some of the
things may have to be paid for by the county, not the Corps, and we will share the
payment on some, maybe a 65%-35% split. Others may have to be totally done by the
county and may be complementary to some of those things we’re sharing.
A discussion ensued and the following points were made:
x The sharing rate is 65% for the Army Corps of Engineers and 35% county for
Corps-driven projects.
x The plan won’t come out for a while, so it’s not going to be a fast fix. It could
take four or five years.
x At a previous CAC meeting, we talked about CAC taking a position if we reach a
consensus.
x Mr. Roth was trying to contact the other committee (Coastal Storm Risk
Management Feasibility Study Advisory Committee), but there are no meetings
pending.
x It comes out in June and Collier could get cut short.
x We should put something together before that.
Chairman Burke offered to draft some bullet points based upon his experience.
Dr. Hushon suggested adding maps to the draft because some issues are map related.
Chairman Burke said this is what the Corps does. They’re feeling time pressure and
even more money pressure. The money is driving the time, so we’re rushing to a
solution that nobody will be happy with. He noted that the military magazine he receives
just published an article showing that what’s being proposed in Newport News to protect
the naval yards is what we proposed for Doctor’s Pass.
Dr. Hushon said the Hampton Roads crew was doing the designing there. There may be
something in that.
8.B.b
Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: April 11, 2024 - Agenda (29124 : Coastal Advisory Committee - Aprill 11, 2024)
January 11, 2024
6
Chairman Burke said the Corps is implementing these strategies at military bases, so
he’d be happy to put together a draft we can work on. The county needs to be more
involved and needs to be front and center, driving the conversation toward a solution
that will work and be accepted.
Vice Chair Trecker noted that the CAC is an advisory group for the county.
Chairman Burke noted that they have the CAC and a separate committee (Coastal
Storm Risk Management Feasibility Study Advisory Committee) working with the
Corps.
Mr. Roth said it would be great if the chairman could put together a bullet-point memo.
Attorney Greene advised the chair to send it to Mr. Miller, not the entire CAC, so it
will adhere to the Sunshine Act.
Action Item: Chairman Burke will draft a bulleted memo for Mr. Miller to send to the
Army Corps of Engineers, including maps. Mr. Miller will send it to CAC members
for review first.
Mr. Roth asked about the Office of Management & Budget and the loan to the Paradise
Coast Sports Complex.
Mr. Miller said he sent some documents to all CAC members. One is a December 2020
executive summary detailing the methods, means and logic for payback of the $10
million. He encouraged them all to read it.
Chairman Burke said he didn’t understand it.
Mr. Miller agreed he didn’t either.
Attorney Greene said she has the ordinance and sent out a document with a table of the
distribution of the various percentages of each penny. It’s not her expertise, so if they
have questions, she can bring back answers. The distribution of the pennies, as identified
in the table, is part of the ordinance and is set pursuant to state statute, which defines
how each penny may be spent. That’s how our shore’s development tax plan is set up.
[The percentage table was displayed on the overhead projector for the CAC.]
Dr. Hushon said if they were to be spent on beaches and were spent on the sports park,
how does that line up?
Attorney Greene said it could be a loan. She hasn’t reviewed it yet, but it was set up
through the County Attorney’s Office and the OMG to detail the way the funds are
collected and distributed pursuant to statute.
Dr. Hushon said she understands that, but there was a diversion of funds, whether it was
a loan or not. What guarantees are there that these funds are going to come back through
this fund?
Attorney Greene said she’ll review that with the OMB.
Councilor Brechnitz said it’s the strangest loan document he’s ever read. The bottom
line is that if they choose, they don’t have to pay it back.
Dr. Hushon said that’s her concern. She doesn’t think that’s just asking for a donation.
8.B.b
Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: April 11, 2024 - Agenda (29124 : Coastal Advisory Committee - Aprill 11, 2024)
January 11, 2024
7
It’s a taking from one fund to put into another to offset a debt. Is that appropriate?
Attorney Greene said she’ll review it. That’s a complicated question. Before it went to
the Board of County Commissioners, it was reviewed by OMB and the county. She’ll
work on this with Andy for the next meeting. She didn’t realize it was on the agenda.
Dr. Hushon said it’s an action item from the last meeting.
A discussion ensued and the following points were made:
x The infrastructure penny sales surtax that just ended wasn’t intended for the
Paradise Sports Complex. The fifth penny of the surtax was dedicated to the
sports complex.
x The 1% sales surtax was for a period of seven years or $490 million, whichever
occurred first, and was for other infrastructure and capital improvements. The
$490 million was reached before the year ended, so year-end collections exceeded
that amount.
x There was a gap in the budget and county commissioners looked for money,
decided we had a lot of money and that we were a convenient source, so that’s a
concern.
A discussion between Mr. Roth and Attorney Greene occurred over another Action
Item and the following points were made:
x Tiger Tail Park is a county park owned and maintained by the county.
x The county purchased it from one of Marco Island’s developers, Marco Island
Development Corporation, an affiliate of Deltona Corporation.
x Sand Dollar Island is state-owned and state-maintained and the county does not
have jurisdiction to work on Sand Dollar Island.
x The money awarded last year for the Sand Dollar Island project was for an island
under state jurisdiction, but there was a benefit to a county lagoon in a county
park.
A discussion ensued over another Action Item and the following points were made:
x The CAC was to consider inviting an environmental group or two to the next
meeting for a presentation, possibly on advanced wastewater treatment and the
levels to which water is treated.
x Among groups/speakers being considered were the Conservancy of Southwest
Florida, the Collier Waterkeeper and Eugene Wardehoff from Marco Island.
x Eugene has published a lot. He just put together a PowerPoint on the oxygen
content and phosphate levels of water, where our pollution was coming from and
from which plants.
x He knows a lot about what levels Collier is treating water to. He’s an expert and
has been following it for a long time.
x We could invite Eugene, the Collier County Waterkeeper and someone from the
Conservancy.
x Attorney Greene suggested that Mr. Miller invite them on behalf of the CAC.
Action Item: Mr. Roth will provide Mr. Miller with the contact information and Mr.
Miller will reach out to possible speakers for an upcoming CAC meeting, possibly
March.
Mr. Roth said the last Action Item asked Colleen to detail the remit on the CAC’s
8.B.b
Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: April 11, 2024 - Agenda (29124 : Coastal Advisory Committee - Aprill 11, 2024)
January 11, 2024
8
expanded duties involving water quality and she did.
Attorney Greene noted that she provided a copy of the Coastal Advisory Committee
Ordinance, which was amended in 2019 to add subsections F and G for water quality
issues. The board expanded the CAC’s functions and duties to include water quality. She
understands there is a subcommittee that needs support from county staff.
Vice Chair Trecker said after the remit, in May 2021, the CAC submitted a
recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners that covered three items. The
most relevant was to investigate the cost benefit of fully advanced wastewater treatment
to reduce nutrient levels in reclaimed water. It was favorably accepted by the Board of
County Commissioners, but we didn’t follow up on it and should have. The
recommendations were very well thought through. He can provide copies to anyone who
wants them.
Mr. Roth said if the speakers come to a future meeting, it will continue that discussion
and possibly help advance it. Eugene Wardehoff was trying to bring attention to the fact
that Collier County’s own pollution control division recommended in its last report that
its wastewater plants should be upgraded to advanced. In my opinion, rather than just
advanced, it should be upgraded to the best available technology because advanced is a
40-year-old statute so there are bigger and better systems that the county should
consider.
Vice Chair Trecker noted that Lee County already has done this.
Dr. Hushon said she has a copy of the CAC Water Quality Subcommittee report, which
asked for three items: remote compliance with the county’s fertilizer urban landscaping
ordinance; to conduct training of lawns and landscape companies; and to investigate the
cost benefit of installing advanced wastewater treatment to reduce nutrient levels in
reclaimed water.
Vice Chair Trecker said they were all accepted and looked upon favorably by the BCC.
We made a mistake by not aggressively following up on it right away.
A discussion ensued and the following points were made:
x We need to make sure that the Wastewater Treatment Office group within
Utilities starts to put together specs so they can request monies to do this. The
next thing that must happen is that someone in the county needs to request those
modifications to the wastewater treatment plants.
x The CAC’s job is not to implement any of this, but to make recommendations to
the Board of County Commissioners. We’re an advisory group.
Councilor Brechnitz told the CAC:
x He has copies of an extensive engineering study that looked at reclaimed water on
Marco Island and found that its negative effect on Marco Island waterways was
de minimis.
x Marco is a boating community, with 100 miles of streets and 120 miles of canals
and 70% of the homes have access to the Gulf of Mexico by boat.
x Our waterways are considered impaired by the Florida DEP, so we’ve been doing
lots of work testing our water in 20 different places, including off island to see
where pollutants are coming from.
x We also paid for a fairly extensive study on reclaimed water and what effect it
may be having on our canals.
8.B.b
Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: April 11, 2024 - Agenda (29124 : Coastal Advisory Committee - Aprill 11, 2024)
January 11, 2024
9
x The conclusion was that reclaimed water was having a de minimis effect and the
cost benefit of changing it didn’t make sense.
x The common opinion of most people is that reclaimed water is a problem that
needs to be solved, but this report provides a different viewpoint.
x The real problem isn’t nitrogen because we’re now below that and unless you do
isotope testing, you don’t know whether the nitrogen is coming from fertilizer or
rotting vegetation.
x Weeks after Hurricane Wilma, we had a jump in nitrogen. It could have been due
to post-hurricane.
x We’re now under the nitrogen level required for impairment and have been for
almost two years.
x It’s going to take us another year to get off the impaired list.
x The real problem is the lack of oxygenated water, which promotes the growth of
sea plants.
Chairman Burke noted that it decreases the BOD (biochemical oxygen demand).
Councilor Brechnitz said he could provide the report to the CAC. It’s a large report and
probably doesn’t make sense to email it.
Dr. Hushon told the CAC:
x One of the biggest problems is the phosphates that aren’t being removed from the
recycled water/gray water we use for irrigation.
x They’re doing a better job of removing nitrogen than they are removing
phosphate.
x While they both cause problems, we can have issues with red tide from either.
Both could cause those problems.
x For comprehensive monitoring, you’d look for levels of phosphate, nitrogen and
chlorophyll. How much green there is in the water color reflects algae.
x We’re basically talking about that getting stimulated, so they regularly take all
three measurements all around. They’re taking it from Marco Bay to all the
estuaries.
x The county has all that information, so it would be good to examine in detail.
x It also would be worth examining in historic detail what the monthly reclaimed
water readings are.
x What does the analysis look like for nitrogen phosphate or chlorophyll from each
water plant?
A discussion ensued and the following points were made:
x Every sewer plant submits a monthly report containing data.
x Data from each plant could all be pulled into one document so we can make
conclusions.
x Dissolved oxygen is the other variable that we need to look at because that’s the
measure of how healthy the water actually is for wildlife and plants.
Action Item: Councilor Brechnitz will provide the consultant’s reclaimed water report
to the CAC at the next meeting.
Action Item: Staff was asked to obtain monthly sewer plant reports for the county,
Naples, Marco Island and Everglades City to compile a year’s worth of data to
8.B.b
Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: April 11, 2024 - Agenda (29124 : Coastal Advisory Committee - Aprill 11, 2024)
January 11, 2024
10
determine how healthy the water is for plants and wildlife. If possible, provide that data
to the CAC before its March meeting.
X. Announcements
Mr. Miller said the agenda says we’ll have a meeting on February 8th but Coastal Zone
doesn’t have any action items pending for that meeting. We have one pending for March,
a fairly important meeting involving the City of Naples and its TDC grant applications.
XI. Committee Member Discussion
Chairman Burke said no meeting in February will give us some time to line up speakers
for the March meeting.
Dr. Hushon said if we’re going to pull that data together for the county, we also should
pull data together for the cities because they run their own water treatment plants in
Naples, Marco Island and Everglades City. It would be very nice to have just all of them
in one paper. A year’s worth of data would be enough to make conclusions.
Vice Chair Trecker said it would be good to get that data well in advance of the March
meeting. That would be very helpful to everybody.
[The Action Item above was amended to include the cities and to provide data before the
March meeting.]
Mr. Roth said the City of Naples already has advanced wastewater treatment, so it meets
that criteria. It has to show that on each monthly report submitted to the DEP. For the
county and Marco Island plants, there are no limits. It just has to be reported, so that data
can be mined and put into a report.
Dr. Hushon said it would be interesting to see the contrast, which will tell a story.
Mr. Roth said you don’t even need the actual numbers from Naples because you know
what their limit is, and you can compare that.
Dr. Hushon said it would be worth it. Everglades City is currently meeting the
requirements, according to a briefing she saw yesterday, so they may have a new
wastewater treatment plant. They have a new plant, so if Everglades City and Naples are
meeting the requirement, we have Marco Island and the county. What do their numbers
look like?
Mr. Roth said putting together that data is more than a summer intern’s job. Is there
somebody on staff who can do this?
Mr. Miller said he’d have to go through Public Utilities or Pollution Control. It would
help if someone could formalize the request for information, send it to him and he’ll
distribute it to the right people.
A discussion ensued and the following points were made:
x This data already may be summarized.
x There’s federal reporting and annual reports for wastewater treatment plants.
x We’re only asking for summary data, not a lot of detail.
x We want volume and concentration.
x Every monthly report has a monthly average of nitrogen and phosphorous. That’s
8.B.b
Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: April 11, 2024 - Agenda (29124 : Coastal Advisory Committee - Aprill 11, 2024)
January 11, 2024
11
not from the sewer plant. That’s a separate water-quality test.
x The sewer plant monthly reports show nitrogen, phosphorus and volume.
x That information is in the DEP database but may not be in a usable form. We may
have to pull all the data from each report, the lower-right hand corner, put it on a
chart and plot it.
x That would enable us to see the different plants.
x It would be nice to see how far below the minimum standard Naples is.
XII. Next Meeting
March 14, 2024, 1 p.m.
XIII. Adjournment
Councilor Brechnitz moved to adjourn the meeting. Second by Mr. Burke. The
motion passed unanimously, 8-0.
There being no further business for the good of the county, the meeting was
adjourned by order of the chairman at 1:52 p.m.
Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee
Joseph Burke, Chairman
These minutes were approved by the Committee on , (check one) as
presented, ____ or as amended .
8.B.b
Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: April 11, 2024 - Agenda (29124 : Coastal Advisory Committee - Aprill 11, 2024)
Collier County Tourist Development Tax Revenue
Fund Reporting Fund Adopted Budget
Updated Annual
Forecast Budgeted YTD YTD Actual
Variance to
Budgeted YTD
Beach Park Facilities 1100 1,234,300 1,455,125 380,302 601,187 220,885
TDC Promotion 1101 12,221,500 14,765,829 3,765,582 5,636,188 1,870,607
NonͲCounty Museums 1103 658,500 776,310 202,891 320,250 117,359
TDC Admin 1104 - - 0 - -
Beach Renourishment 1105 13,438,900 15,843,217 4,140,676 6,544,644 2,403,968
Disaster Recovery 1106 - - 0 - -
County Museums 1107 2,000,000 2,000,000 616,223 1,290,075 673,852
TDC Capital 1108 4,923,200 5,803,996 1,516,893 2,398,298 881,405
Gross Budget 34,476,400 40,644,478 10,622,567 16,790,643 6,168,076
Less 5% Rev Res (1,723,800)17.89% % Over/(Under) Bud 58.1%
Net Budget 32,752,600
Collections
Month Reported Actual Cum YTD
% Budget
Collected to
Date
% Variance FY23
Collections
% Variance FY22
Collections
% Variance FY21
Collections
Nov 2,566,657 2,566,657 7.44% 9.03% 14.03% 116.41%
Dec 3,274,362 5,841,019 16.94% 23.72% 12.56% 106.35%
Jan 4,411,181 10,252,200 29.74% 18.85% -1.89% 53.59%
Feb 6,538,444 16,790,644 48.70% 20.84% 9.49% 84.87%
Mar - 16,790,644 48.70% n/a n/a n/a
Apr - 16,790,644 48.70% n/a n/a n/a
May - 16,790,644 48.70% n/a n/a n/a
June - 16,790,644 48.70% n/a n/a n/a
July - 16,790,644 48.70% n/a n/a n/a
Aug - 16,790,644 48.70% n/a n/a n/a
Sept - 16,790,644 48.70% n/a n/a n/a
Oct - 16,790,644 48.70% n/a n/a n/a
Total 16,790,644 16,790,644 YTD 18.89% 7.44% 82.87%
97.0% 97.0% 97.0%40,644,478 Forecast
Budget Comparison
5 Yr History-
Cum
5 Yr History-
Monthly
Budgeted
Collections
Actual
Collections
Budget to Actual
Variance
Updated
Forecast
Nov 4.4% 4.4%1,517,975 2,566,657 1,048,682 2,566,657
Dec 10.0% 5.6%1,934,395 3,274,362 1,339,967 3,274,362
Jan 18.7% 8.7%3,001,834 4,411,181 1,409,346 4,411,181
Feb 30.8% 12.1%4,168,363 6,538,444 2,370,081 6,538,444
Mar 44.8% 14.0%4,823,183 - - 4,823,183
Apr 61.4% 16.6%5,723,547 - - 5,723,547
May 71.9% 10.5%3,606,621 - - 3,606,621
June 78.3% 6.5%2,229,096 - - 2,229,096
July 84.1% 5.8%1,983,274 - - 1,983,274
Aug 90.0% 6.0%2,053,876 - - 2,053,876
Sept 94.9% 4.9%1,685,186 - - 1,685,186
Oct 100.0% 5.1%1,749,050 - - 1,749,050
Total 100.0% 100.0%34,476,400 16,790,644 6,168,077 40,644,478
% over/(under) budget 58.1%17.89%
FY 24 TDT Collections Report
29-Feb-2024
$Ͳ
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
$7,000,000
$8,000,000
$9,000,000
NovDecJanFebMarAprMayJuneJulyAugSeptOctMonthReported
Tourist DevelopmentTax CollectionCurve
Budgeted Collections
Actual Collections
M:\Revenue Report\TDC Revenue\TDC Update Report\2024\TDT Tax Collector Reports\04ͲTDC Updates February.xlsx
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ͲͲͲͲͲͲͲͲ
$1,$$$1$1$$$1111$1,$$11$1$1,1$1$$$$$$$1,1$$$1,,,00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000,00,000,0000000000000000000000000000000000000,000000000000000000000,0000000,,00,00000,00000000000000000000000000
$2,$$2$2$2$2$$$$2,$2$2$2$$22$22$$2$$$222$2$2,$2,$$$2$$$22,,00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000,000000000000000000,0000000000000000000,00000000000000,0000,,0,000000000000000000
$3,$$3,$$$3$$3$33$3$3$3,$$$333$$$3$$3,$33$3$33$3$3$333$3$3,,0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000,00000000000000000000000,000,0000,00000,00,00000000,,0000,,000000000000000000000
$4,$$$4$$4$4$4$4,444$4$4$44$4,$4,4$44$$44$4,$4$4$4$4$4,4$4,444$4444$$0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000,00000000,00000000000000000000,0000,00000000000000000000000,0000000,,00000,,00000000000000000000
$5,$$5$$5$$5$5$5,5$5$5$5$5$$5$5$$$55$$$5,$55$5$55$55$5$5$$$$5$555,$,$,,,0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000,000000000000000000,0000000000,00000000,000000,0000000000,00000000000,,0,0000000000000000000000000
$6,$6$6$$6$6$66$66,$$66$$6,6,$6$6$$6,$6$666$6$6$6$$6$6$6$6,$00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000,00,00000,0000,00000000000000000,00,0000000,0000000000000000000
$7,$$7$7$7$7,$7$7,$77$$$7$$7777$$77$77,$$7$7$$7777$$7$7$$7,,$,,00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000,000000000000000000000000000,00000000000,000,00,00,00000000000000000,,00000000000000000000000000000
$8,$8,$$8$8$8$$$888$8$8,$$8$88$8,$8$8,88$8$8$8,$8$888$$88$$88$,$000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000,0000000000000000000000000000,00000000,000,00,000000000000,000000000000000
$9,$$9$9,$9,$9$9$9,$9$9$9$99$99$$9$9,9$9$9,$999$9$99,$99$$000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000,00000000,0000000,0000000000,00000000000000000000,0,,000000000000000000000
NovNovovNovNovNovNovNovovvovvovovvNovovNooNoNoooNoNoNooNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNDecDecDecDecDecDecDececececccDecDeccDececceceDeeDeeDeDDDDDJannanannnnnJanannnnnannaaaaaaJaJaJJFebFebFebFebebFebebFebbebFebebFebFebbbebebFebebFebbeFeFeFeeMarMarMarMarMararMarMarMarrMarrMarMaMaMaMaMaMaMaaMaaaMMMMMMMMMMAprAprAprrAprAprAprAprprAprAprAprApApApApApppppAppApApppAAAAAAAAMayMayMayayMayMayyMayyMayMayMayMayMayMayMayMayMayMayMayMaaMaMaMMMMMMMMMMMJunnnJunnJununJunnunnnnnnJunnunnunununununununnunJunuJuuuJJJeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeJulJlulululululJulJullJulJuluuuuJuuJuJuuuJuuJJJJJyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyAugAugAugAuggAuggugAugAugAuggAugugAugguggAugAugugAugugugAuAuAuAuuAuuAuAAAAAASepSepSepSepepSepSepeppppSepSepSepppSeppSepSepSepSepepSepSeSeSttttttttttttttttttOctOctOctctOctOctctOctOctcttOctcttOctOctOctOctctctOcOccOcOcOcOcOcOOOOOOOOOMonMoMoMMMMMonMMoMMMoMonMMoMoMoMMMonMoMMMonMonoooonnMMonMoMoonnMonononnMoonMoonMooononothhhhththtttthttthhhhhthhhtthhtttttth RepRepRepRReRepRRRRepReRReRReReRepRepRRReRRRRRepepepppeppRReepRepepppRppRReepepRepRepppReRepeportortortorttooortoorororrtrttooororrtttoorttooortotoortoooototoeddeddddeedeeeededddedeeeeedddeedeeeedddeededdeeded
ToToToToToToToToToTTToToToToToToTToToTooooooToooooToooToooTooTooTooooTTooooToToooToTooooTooooToooooooooTourururururuuururrururururuuuuruurrrurruruurururuurrrruururuuurruruuuuuruuruuruuruuuuuuuuuurisisisisisissisississisiiiiisisisssisissssississssissssssissssssssssssssttttttttttttttttttttttttttttDeDDeDeDeDeDeDeDeDeDeDeDeDeDeDDDeDeDeDeDDeDeDeDeDeDeDeDeDeDDeDDeDDDeeeeDDDeDeeDDDeeDeeeeDeeDeeeeeDeeDeDDDeeeDeeeDDDeeDevevvevvvvevveveveeevevvevvvevvvevevevevevvvevevevvveevvvvvveevevvevvvvvvvvevvvvvvevvevevvveeevvelolollolollolololllllolllollooloooooollooooooooololollooolooolooooooooooooooooooopmpmpmppmpmpmpmpmmpmpmmpmpmpmppmpmpmppmpmpmpmpmmpmmpmpmpmpmmmpmppmpmpppppmmmpmpmpmpmpmppmpmppmmpmpmpmmmpppmppppppppmppppppeneneeenenenennnneneeeenennenenennnenenneeenennenneneeenenennnenneneeeneeeeneenneenttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt TaTaTaTaTaaTaTTTTTaaTaTTTTTTaaaaTaaTaaaTaaaTaaTaTaaaaaaTTaaTaaaxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx CoCoCoCoCoCoCoCoCCoCoCoCoCoCCoCCoCoCoCoCCCCCoCCCoCCCCoCoCoCCoCoCoCoCCCoCCCoCoooCCCoooCooCCooCCCCooCooooCoolllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllecececececececceeecececececceeeceeccceeeceeeeeeecececcceeeeecceeceecceecceecceccceecctiitiititititititttiittttiiitiitttttttttiittittttiititiitttittttittttttttionoonononononoonnnononoononoononnnnnononoooonnnnononoononnnnnnoonnooooooonnnoonnoonooonnoon CuCuCCCuCuCCCuCuCCCCuCCCCCCuCCCCCCCuCCCCCuCuCCuCCCuuuCuCuCuuCuuCuCuCuuCCuCCuuuuCuuuurvrvrrrrrrvvrvvvrvvrvrrvrrrvrvvvrvvvrvrrrvrvvvrvrrrvvrvvvvvrvvvvvrrvrvrvvrvvvrvvvrvvvvvvvvvvvveeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
BudgetBudgeBudgetBudgetBudgetudgBudgetddgudgetetBudgetBudgetdgggudgeudgetgggudgdtteddededdedeedeedeedded CollecCollecCollecCollecCollecllecCollecCollecollecColleoollecColleeeCtionstionstiontionstionstionstionstionstionstionnnstionstiontion
ActualActualActualAActuActucActActutualActualActualutualaAAuActuaActActuaAAAaAAuua CollecCollecColleclCCoCoCoolCollecolleclecCollecCollecolleclececCollecCoeleCoCoCoCoetionstiotionstionsonstiottionnttionsonsnsntionsnnsst
8.B.b
Packet Pg. 182 Attachment: April 11, 2024 - Agenda (29124 : Coastal Advisory Committee - Aprill 11, 2024)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recommendation to approve a work order with APTIM Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc. to
provide professional engineering services for 2024-2025 Park Shore Renourishment Project under
Contract No. 18-7432-CZ for time and material not to exceed $102,117.70 and make a finding that
this item promotes tourism (Fund 1105, Project No. 90067).
OBJECTIVE: To move forward with professional Engineering Services for the FY 2025 Park Shore
Renourishment Project.
CONSIDERATIONS: APTIM Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc. will assist the County in
conducting beach renourishment activities on Park Shore Beach from FDEP reference monuments R-44
to T54. This work order will provide professional services including engineering design, preparation of
construction plans and technical specifications, bidding services, coordination with permitting agencies
for Notice to Proceed, and serving as the Engineer of Record for the construction event.
This item is consistent with the Quality of Place Objectives of the County’s Strategic Plan.
FISCAL IMPACT: Funding in the amount of $102,117.70 is available within Tourist Development
Tax Beach Renourishment Fund (1105), Project 90067 (County/Naples Beach Monitoring).
FDEP cost-share funding will be requested if eligible at a future date to reimburse Collier County for a
portion of the completed work.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: This item is consistent with the Conservation and Coastal
Management Element of the Growth Management Plan.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS: This item will be presented to the Coastal
Advisory Committee (CAC) on April 11, 2024, and the Tourist Development Council (TDC) on April 16,
2024
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item is approved as to form and legality and requires majority vote
for approval. – CMG
RECOMMENDATION: To approve a work order with APTIM Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc.
to provide professional engineering services for 2024-2025 Park Shore Renourishment Project under
Contract No. 18-7432-CZ for time and material not to exceed $102,117.70, and make a finding that this
item promotes tourism (Fund 1105, Project No. 90067).
Prepared By: Andrew Miller, P.E., Coastal Zone Management, Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees, and
Program Management Division
8.B.b
Packet Pg. 183 Attachment: April 11, 2024 - Agenda (29124 : Coastal Advisory Committee - Aprill 11, 2024)
8.B.b
Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: April 11, 2024 - Agenda (29124 : Coastal Advisory Committee - Aprill 11, 2024)
8.B.b
Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: April 11, 2024 - Agenda (29124 : Coastal Advisory Committee - Aprill 11, 2024)
8.B.b
Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: April 11, 2024 - Agenda (29124 : Coastal Advisory Committee - Aprill 11, 2024)
8.B.b
Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: April 11, 2024 - Agenda (29124 : Coastal Advisory Committee - Aprill 11, 2024)
8.B.b
Packet Pg. 188 Attachment: April 11, 2024 - Agenda (29124 : Coastal Advisory Committee - Aprill 11, 2024)
8.B.b
Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: April 11, 2024 - Agenda (29124 : Coastal Advisory Committee - Aprill 11, 2024)
8.B.b
Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: April 11, 2024 - Agenda (29124 : Coastal Advisory Committee - Aprill 11, 2024)
8.B.b
Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: April 11, 2024 - Agenda (29124 : Coastal Advisory Committee - Aprill 11, 2024)
8.B.b
Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: April 11, 2024 - Agenda (29124 : Coastal Advisory Committee - Aprill 11, 2024)
8.B.b
Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: April 11, 2024 - Agenda (29124 : Coastal Advisory Committee - Aprill 11, 2024)
8.B.b
Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: April 11, 2024 - Agenda (29124 : Coastal Advisory Committee - Aprill 11, 2024)
8.B.b
Packet Pg. 195 Attachment: April 11, 2024 - Agenda (29124 : Coastal Advisory Committee - Aprill 11, 2024)
8.B.b
Packet Pg. 196 Attachment: April 11, 2024 - Agenda (29124 : Coastal Advisory Committee - Aprill 11, 2024)
8.B.b
Packet Pg. 197 Attachment: April 11, 2024 - Agenda (29124 : Coastal Advisory Committee - Aprill 11, 2024)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recommendation to approve the First Amendment to the Tourist Development Council Grant
Agreement based on updated requests from the City of Naples for FY 2023-2024 in the amount of
$2,500,000, budget these expenditures, approve any required budget amendments, and make a
finding that these expenditures promote tourism.
OBJECTIVE: To obtain approval of additional funding for the City of Naples Tourist Development
Fund (1105/195) Grant application requests for FY 2023-2024 in the amount of $400,000.
CONSIDERATIONS: On September 26, 2023, (Item 16.B.9) the Board of County Commissioners
approved the TDC Grant Applications received from the City of Naples (City) as follows:
FY 2023-2024 Tourist Development Council Fund (1105/195) Grant Applications
PROJECT / DESCRIPTION: STAFF
REQUESTED
APPROVED
9/26/23
Beach Maintenance
90527 - Beach Maintenance - City of Naples* Carryforward
Funding will be utilized to fully fund the request.
$200,000 $200,000
Structures
90096 - Naples Pier Repair & Maintenance $200,000 $200,000
TOTAL APPROVED GRANTS $400,000 $400,000
The City has requested to amend the approved Grant Agreements by adding the following funding
requests as follows:
FY 2023-2024 Amendments to Tourist Development Council Fund (1105/195) Grant Applications
PROJECT / DESCRIPTION: STAFF
REQUESTED
RECOMMENDED
Beach Maintenance
90527 - Beach Maintenance - City of Naples $300,000 $300,000
Structures
90096 - Naples Pier Repair & Maintenance $2,000,000 $2,000,000
Beach Park Facilities
50308 - Lowdermilk Park Maintenance - City of Naples $200,000 $200,000
TOTAL GRANT AMENDMENT $2,500,000 $2,500,000
Beach Maintenance: The City of Naples maintains the City’s beaches in Park Shore and Naples to
provide an exceptional experience for our visitors and residents. The City desires to add $300,000 to
the initial approved $200,000 grant. Approval is recommended.
Structures: The City of Naples is requesting a 5-year advance of $400,000 per year, totaling an
additional $2,000,000 in grant funding for the maintenance, upkeep, and safety of the Naples pier. The
City agrees to forego requests for TDC funding for the pier for FY25 through FY29. Approval is
recommended.
Beach Park Facilities: The City of Naples is requesting an additional $200,000 in grant funding for
parking lot maintenance at Lowdermilk Park. Approval is recommended.
8.B.b
Packet Pg. 198 Attachment: April 11, 2024 - Agenda (29124 : Coastal Advisory Committee - Aprill 11, 2024)
FISCAL IMPACT: A budget amendment in the amount of $2,500,000 is necessary to reallocate
funding from reserves within the TDC Beach Renourishment Fund (1105) to the projects shown below:
Project Amount
90527 - Beach Maintenance 300,000$
90096 - Naples Pier 2,000,000$
50308 -Beach Park Facility- Lowdermilk 200,000$
Total Budget Amendment 2,500,000$
The source of funds is Tourist Development Tax.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: This project meets current Growth Management Plan
standards to ensure the adequacy and availability of viable public facilities.
ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS: This item will be presented to the Coastal
Advisory Committee (CAC) on April 11, 2024, and the Tourist Development Council (TDC) on April
16, 2024.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item is approved as to form and legality and requires majority
vote for approval. - CMG
RECOMMENDATION: To approve the First Amendment to the Tourist Development Council Grant
Agreement with the City of Naples for FY 2023-2024 in the amount of $2,500,000, budget these
expenditures, approve any required budget amendments, and make a finding that these expenditures
promote tourism.
Prepared By: Andrew Miller, P.E., Coastal Zone Management, Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees
and Program Management Division
8.B.b
Packet Pg. 199 Attachment: April 11, 2024 - Agenda (29124 : Coastal Advisory Committee - Aprill 11, 2024)
8.B.b
Packet Pg. 200 Attachment: April 11, 2024 - Agenda (29124 : Coastal Advisory Committee - Aprill 11, 2024)
8.B.b
Packet Pg. 201 Attachment: April 11, 2024 - Agenda (29124 : Coastal Advisory Committee - Aprill 11, 2024)
8.B.b
Packet Pg. 202 Attachment: April 11, 2024 - Agenda (29124 : Coastal Advisory Committee - Aprill 11, 2024)
8.B.b
Packet Pg. 203 Attachment: April 11, 2024 - Agenda (29124 : Coastal Advisory Committee - Aprill 11, 2024)
8.B.b
Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: April 11, 2024 - Agenda (29124 : Coastal Advisory Committee - Aprill 11, 2024)
8.B.b
Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: April 11, 2024 - Agenda (29124 : Coastal Advisory Committee - Aprill 11, 2024)
8.B.b
Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: April 11, 2024 - Agenda (29124 : Coastal Advisory Committee - Aprill 11, 2024)
8.B.b
Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: April 11, 2024 - Agenda (29124 : Coastal Advisory Committee - Aprill 11, 2024)
8.B.b
Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: April 11, 2024 - Agenda (29124 : Coastal Advisory Committee - Aprill 11, 2024)
8.B.b
Packet Pg. 209 Attachment: April 11, 2024 - Agenda (29124 : Coastal Advisory Committee - Aprill 11, 2024)
8.B.b
Packet Pg. 210 Attachment: April 11, 2024 - Agenda (29124 : Coastal Advisory Committee - Aprill 11, 2024)
8.B.b
Packet Pg. 211 Attachment: April 11, 2024 - Agenda (29124 : Coastal Advisory Committee - Aprill 11, 2024)
COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
CATEGORY “A” GRANT APPLICATION
Beach Renourishment and Pass Maintenance
Naples Beach Maintenance
1. Name and Address of Project Sponsor Organization:
City of Naples
735 8th Street South
Naples, Florida 34102
2. Contact Person, Title and Phone Number:
Name: Chad Merritt – Parks, Recreation, and Facilities Director
Address: 280 Riverside Circle
Naples, Florida 34102
Phone: 239.213.7111
3. Organization’s Chief Official and Title:
Jay Boodheshwar, City Manager
4. Details of Project- Description and Location:
This is an annual TDC funded project essential for support of maintenance on
local beaches. The City is responsible for the upkeep and grooming of TDC
eligible beaches within the City limits. Under this project, the City removed litter,
accumulation of algae and rocks along public access beach portions of the Gulf
within the City’s jurisdictional limits. These funds would also help to support the
daily operation on the beach. Funding is a benefit to both residents and tourist
populations, and to the preservation and protection of the beach, shoreline and its
overall appearance and investment. This year’s request includes the partial
reimbursement for FY24 beach maintenance operations, which is $1,305,001. Our
plan is to enhance beach facilities & much needed staffing. We are requesting an
amendment of the previous application amount of $200,000 with a new requested
total of $500,000.
Location: Naples Beach – Beaches located in the city limits of Naples.
5. Estimated project start date: October 1, 2023
6. Estimated project duration: 12 Months
7. Total TDC Tax Funds Requested: $500,000
8. If the full amount requested cannot be awarded, can the program/project
be restructured to accommodate a smaller award?
8.B.b
Packet Pg. 212 Attachment: April 11, 2024 - Agenda (29124 : Coastal Advisory Committee - Aprill 11, 2024)
Yes ( X ) No ( )
Collier County Tourist Development Council
Category “A” Grant Application (Page 2)
Naples Beach Maintenance
8.B.b
Packet Pg. 213 Attachment: April 11, 2024 - Agenda (29124 : Coastal Advisory Committee - Aprill 11, 2024)
PROJECT BUDGET
PROGRAM ELEMENT AMOUNT
TDC Funds Requested $ 500,000
City/Taxing District Share $
State of Florida Share $ -
Federal Share $
TOTAL $ 500,000
PROJECT EXPENSES:
(Engineering, Mobilization, Contractor, Monitoring etc)
Beach Maint Staff Salaries _ $ 300,000 ______
Beach Maint Operating Cost $ 200,000 _____
__________________________________ $_______________
__________________________________ $_______________
__________________________________ $_______________
TOTAL $ 500,000 ____
I have read the Tourist Development Category “A” Beach Funding Policy covering
beach renourishment and pass maintenance and agree that my organization will
comply with all guidelines and criteria.
______________________________ _________________
Signature of Sponsor Organization’s Chief Official Date
8.B.b
Packet Pg. 214 Attachment: April 11, 2024 - Agenda (29124 : Coastal Advisory Committee - Aprill 11, 2024)
POSITION PAPER for
Collier County Coastal Storm Risk Management (CCCSRM) Feasibility Study
Prepared By:Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee (CAC)
Date:DRAFT February 19, 2024
TOPIC:CAC input on current progress by US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) on the CCCSRM Project
After two significant hurricanes impacting the county in the last 7 years causing significant damage from
coastal flooding it is critically important for the county and the county residents which live within the
areas susceptible to coastal flooding to implement a plan which prevents or at a minimum mitigates
storm driven coastal flooding. Through the efforts of the county’s coastal zone management staff, the
county has been able to secure the USACE interest in a project and develop tentative options to mitigate
storm driven coastal flooding. The first part of the project is the preparation of a Tentatively Selected
Plan (TSP) based on cost-benefit driven flood protection/mitigation measures identified by USACE.
USACE brings a wealth of experience and expertise and important federal funds to help pay for the
design and construction to potentially be implemented by the County through a cost sharing agreement.
Unfortunately based upon the CACs participation in various planning sessions, public meetings and
County and USACE led in person and virtual public meetings, it is CAC’s opinion that the project is not
trending towards the goal of preventing storm driven coastal flooding. This has occurred through a
series of delays, mis-information and special interest environmental groups outside the county co-
opting the message. Failure of this project to meet the goal exposes significant portions of the county to
future destruction of homes, businesses, critical infrastructure and its overall impact on tourism,
ultimately impacting the county economy. CAC’s basis for this opinion include:
x Structural measures for flood protection have been eliminated from the USACE project driven
by:
o Construction cost inflation which has skewed the economics for “cost effective”
available coastal flood prevention measures.
o USACE has indicated its the county’s preference for “nature based” solutions which
cannot from a practical approach prevent coastal flooding via unprotected coastal
inlets and exposed shoreline. Vocal environmental lobbying is driving nature based
solutions as a realistic alternative to structural measures to prevent coastal flooding.
This would not be achievable with the current USACE plan.
x Marco Island and other portions of the county have been excluded from the USACE project.
x USACE TSP project schedule compression which is primarily driven by funding limitations is
pushing accelerated completion of the TSP without adequate understanding of the economics
being used to screen available prevention or mitigation measures.
x As currently proposed, the project appears to be headed towards a beach renourishment and
mangrove planting project for limited areas of the county. This will not prevent coastal
flooding.
x The current USACE schedule is to release the TSP to the public in September 2024 and allow a
30 day comment period as required by Federal law. However, USACE and Collier County have
failed to note that this is the minimum federal requirement period for public comment.
8.B.b
Packet Pg. 215 Attachment: April 11, 2024 - Agenda (29124 : Coastal Advisory Committee - Aprill 11, 2024)
Furthermore the comment period will be at a time when the County’s population is at the
lowest during the year and occurs during the height of hurricane season. A comment period of
at least 90 days is necessary for the public, engineering professionals and other parties to
adequately review and comment on the TSP.
If the county waits to act until USACE releases their Tentatively Selected Plan (TSP) it will be too late.
CAC is recommending the county commissioners take a more proactive role in shepherding this project
with clear communication that the county is in support of the project and is willing to do more to
protect areas and communities which are at risk of coastal flooding but which are not part of the current
USACE plan.
Our Recommendations
x The County elected officials communicate their dedication to the USACE project and the need to
get this right from the beginning and not rush to issue a TSP which does not meet the stated
goal of preventing storm driven coastal flooding.
x The County’s engineering experts become more directly involved in understanding the economic
models being used, the resultant flood elevation, the defined areal flood zone for the model,
and post flood impacts for each proposed flood mitigation measure.
x The County work with USACE on screening additional mitigation measures for improvements in
areas currently not in the USACE plan or for improvements to USACE proposed mitigation
measures (eg dune height increase, inlet protection, etc).
In conclusion the county has a once in a lifetime opportunity to reduce the risk of coastal flooding with
technical support from USACE and substantial Federal funding. We cannot squander this opportunity.
8.B.b
Packet Pg. 216 Attachment: April 11, 2024 - Agenda (29124 : Coastal Advisory Committee - Aprill 11, 2024)
From:Ray Christman
To:Andrew Miller
Subject:Re: CAC CSRM Position Paper - DRAFT FOR COMMENTS
Date:Monday, March 4, 2024 7:21:03 AM
EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email is from an external source. Confirm this is a trusted sender
and use extreme caution when opening attachments or clicking links.
Good morning Andy:
I wanted to provide my comments on Joe Burke's position paper on CSRM as requested.
Please share these with the members of the CAC as I will not be able to attend the
March 14 meeting due to an out-of-town travel commitment and therefore will not be
able to speak to this subject at the meeting.
As I have gotten to know Joe though the CAC and otherwise, I have come to greatly
respect to knowledge, expertise and common sense views on marine engineering and
coastal resilience matters. I share his concern that the current draft CSRM plan, in its
apparent effort to move entirely away from consideration of any physical infrastructure
investments in the Collier County shoreline to only nature-based solutions, is perhaps
"swinging the pendulum too far" from where the original 2018-20 draft plan landed,
which was largely centered around extensive hardscape solutions.
The question as to what combination of investments might best reduce coastal storm
flooding risk may remain unanswered.
That said, I have several concerns with the proposed CAC position paper.
First, while it may be a valid point that structural measures should be considered as part
of the plan, it depends on what measures in what location. It is all in the details and
specifics and I am not comfortable signing on to a document that makes a
recommendation for structural measures in the abstract and the general. That will only
reignite a firestorm in many parts of the City of Naples a least, who will suspect the
worse intentions.
Second, from a matter of process, the Commissioners could have designated the CAC
as the oversight advisory committee for the CSRM. Given our charter, that would have
been the logical choice. Instead, they created a new ad-hoc committee that has met
only twice with one meeting being a short organizing session.
The Commissioners have demonstrated no interest in hearing the CAC point of view on
this study, even if we could fashion consensus on one. I think it is therefore
8.B.b
Packet Pg. 217 Attachment: April 11, 2024 - Agenda (29124 : Coastal Advisory Committee - Aprill 11, 2024)
presumptuous for us to do so. If on the other hand, any of us individually wish to present
observations and recommendations to the ad hoc committee and/or the
commissioners, then I think that is appropriate.
In summary, I agree with Joe's conclusion that this study is a rare opportunity to develop
(and implement) a comprehensive plan to reduce coastal flooding. I share his concerns
as to whether all the best ideas have been given the opportunity to surface. But given
the process that county leadership has set forth, I am not supportive of the CAC as a
body providing its recommendations and cannot lend my name and vote to any such
action.
Raymond Christman
Naples City Council
239-213-1035
From: Andrew Miller <Andrew.Miller@colliercountyfl.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2024 11:20 AM
To: djtrecker@yahoo.com <djtrecker@yahoo.com>; EBrechnitz@marcocitycouncil.com
<EBrechnitz@marcocitycouncil.com>; therightperson71@gmail.com
<therightperson71@gmail.com>; judyhushon@aol.com <judyhushon@aol.com>; Ray Christman
<rchristman@naplesgov.com>; rwr720@hotmail.com <rwr720@hotmail.com>; koz516@aol.com
<koz516@aol.com>
Cc: jsanteburk@gmail.com <jsanteburk@gmail.com>; Maria Becerra
<Maria.Becerra@colliercountyfl.gov>; Colleen Greene <Colleen.Greene@colliercountyfl.gov>
Subject: CAC CSRM Position Paper - DRAFT FOR COMMENTS
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Naples e-mail system. Do not click links or open
attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when
opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
All,
Please review and return Joe’s DRAFT position paper for CSRM and return any comments ONLY TO
ME. I’ll do my best to incorporate suggestions into a final draft for presentation / approval at CAC in
March.
Thank you,
Andy Miller, P.E.
Manager
(239)-252-2922
Collier County
8.B.b
Packet Pg. 218 Attachment: April 11, 2024 - Agenda (29124 : Coastal Advisory Committee - Aprill 11, 2024)
Transportation Management Services Department
Coastal Zone Management Section
2685 South Horseshoe Drive, Unit 103
Naples, Florida 34104
Andrew.Miller@colliercountyfl.gov
Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released
in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this
office by telephone or in writing.
NOTIFICATION TO RECIPIENTS: Under Florida law, e-mails created or received by a
government agency are public records. Both the message and the e-mail address it was sent
from (unless otherwise exempt under Florida law) may be released in response to a public
records request. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public
records request, do not send electronic mail to this office. Instead, you may contact City Hall
by phone or in writing.
NOTIFICATION TO RECIPIENTS: Under Florida law, e-mails created or received by a
government agency are public records. Both the message and the e-mail address it was sent
from (unless otherwise exempt under Florida law) may be released in response to a public
records request. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public
records request, do not send electronic mail to this office. Instead, you may contact City Hall
by phone or in writing.
8.B.b
Packet Pg. 219 Attachment: April 11, 2024 - Agenda (29124 : Coastal Advisory Committee - Aprill 11, 2024)
POSITION PAPER for
Collier County Coastal Storm Risk Management (CCCSRM) Feasibility Study
Prepared By: Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee (CAC)
Date: DRAFT February 19, 2024
TOPIC: CAC input on current progress by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) on the CCCSRM
Project
Collier County has experiencedAfter two significant hurricanes impacting the county in the last 7 seven
years causing significant damage from coastal flooding. it It is therefore critically important for the
county and the county residents which liveliving within the areas susceptible to coastal flooding to
implement a plan which that prevents, or at a minimum, mitigates storm driven coastal flooding.
Through the efforts of the county’s coastal zone management staff, the county has been able to secure
the USACE interest in a project and that would develop identify tentative options to mitigate storm
driven coastal flooding. The first part of the projectThe initial task is the preparation of a Tentatively
Selected Plan (TSP) based on cost-benefit driven flood protection/mitigation measures identified by the
USACE. The USACE brings a wealth of experience and, expertise and important federal funds to help pay
for the design and construction of infrastructure to potentially be implemented by the County through a
cost sharing agreement.
Unfortunately, based upon the CAC’s participation in various planning sessions, public meetings and
County and USACE led in person and virtual public meetings, it is CAC’s opinion that the project is not
trending towards the goal of preventing storm driven coastal flooding. This has occurred through a
series of delays, mis-information, and special interest environmental groups outside the county co-
opting the message. Failure of this project to meet the goal of protecting Collier’s coastline and
residents exposes significant portions of the county to future destruction of homes, businesses, critical
infrastructure and its overall impact on tourism, ultimately impacting the county economy. CAC’s basis
for this opinion includes the facts that:
x Structural measures for flood protection have been eliminated from the USACE project driven
by:
o Construction cost inflation which has skewed the economics for “cost effective”
available coastal flood prevention measures.
o USACE has indicated its that the county’s preference is for “nature based” solutions
which which cannot from a practical approach prevent coastal flooding via unprotected
coastal inlets and exposed shoreline. Vocal environmental lobbying is driving nature
based solutions as a realistic alternative to structural measures to prevent coastal
flooding. This would not be achievable with the current USACE plan.
x Marco Island and other portions of the county have been excluded from the USACE project.
x The USACE TSP project schedule has been compression compressed which is primarily driven
by funding limitations. This is pushing accelerated completion of the TSP without adequate
understanding of the economics being used to screen available prevention or mitigation
measures.
Commented [JH1]: I disagree with this sentence. It is
trending the right way, just not the way Marco residents
want. But because of its 5’ height and SLR it is next to
impossible to protect Marco Island from storm surge. The
gates that were proposed would flood other parts of the
island. The only options for Marco are nearshore offshore
islands to the south and west that could receive Mangroves
in the future and maybe encouraging the sandbar that is
forming to the south. The other alternative is increasing
dunes and perhaps hardening them to better protect the
shoreline. Not sure what Marco is asking for.
Commented [JH2]: While they cannot remove this risk,
they can mitigate it. Storm Surge is the biggest concdrn and
if we can break up the waves off the coast it will go a long
way to addressing the problem. So far they have not
focused on strategies to break up waves like nearshore
offshore reefs that are being used in other locations.
8.B.b
Packet Pg. 220 Attachment: April 11, 2024 - Agenda (29124 : Coastal Advisory Committee - Aprill 11, 2024)
x As currently proposed, the project appears to be headed towards a beach renourishment and
mangrove planting project for limited areas of the county. This will not prevent coastal
flooding.
x The current USACE schedule is to release the TSP to the public in September 2024 and allow a
30 day comment period as required by Federal law. However, USACE and Collier County have
failed to note that this is the minimum federal requirement period for public comment.
Furthermore, the comment period will be at a time when the County’s county’s population is at
the lowest during the year and occurs during the height of hurricane season. A comment
period of at least 90 days is necessary for the public, engineering professionals and other
parties to adequately review and comment on the TSP.
If the county waits to act until the USACE releases their Tentatively Selected Plan (TSP), it will be too
late. CAC is recommending that the county commissioners take a more proactive role in shepherding
this project with clear communication that the county is in support of the project and is willing to do
more to protect areas and communities which are at risk of coastal flooding but which are not part of
the current USACE plan.
Our Recommendations
x The County elected officials communicate their dedication to the USACE project and the need to
get this right from the beginning and not rush to issue a TSP which does not meet the stated
goal of preventing storm driven coastal flooding.
x The County’s engineering experts become more directly involved in understanding the economic
models being used, the resultant flood elevations, the defined areal flood zones for the model,
and post flood impacts for each proposed flood mitigation measure.
x The County work with USACE on screening additional mitigation measures for improvements in
areas currently not in the USACE plan or for improvements to USACE proposed mitigation
measures (e.g., dune height increase, inlet protection, etc).
In conclusion the county has a once in a lifetime opportunity to reduce the risk of coastal flooding with
technical support from the USACE and substantial Federal funding. We cannot squander this
opportunity. Commented [JH3]: You have not mentioned the
Environmental Justice element of their plan which has real
potential to help many lower income residents, especially
those experiencing flooding from storm surge up Naples
Bay. I realize that none of the EJ areas are in Marco Island
so maybe you were not aware of this emphasis.
8.B.b
Packet Pg. 221 Attachment: April 11, 2024 - Agenda (29124 : Coastal Advisory Committee - Aprill 11, 2024)
8.B.b
Packet Pg. 222 Attachment: April 11, 2024 - Agenda (29124 : Coastal Advisory Committee - Aprill 11, 2024)
8.B.b
Packet Pg. 223 Attachment: April 11, 2024 - Agenda (29124 : Coastal Advisory Committee - Aprill 11, 2024)
POSITION PAPER
Objections by the Coastal Advisory Committee (CAC) to the Coastal
Storm Management Feasibility Study
After two significant hurricanes impacting the county in the last 7 years and
causing significant damage from coastal flooding, it is critically important
that the county and county residents implement a plan that prevents or at
least mitigates damage from storm-driven coastal flooding.
Through earlier efforts by the Coastal Zone Management, the county secured
the participation of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) in a study
to develop options to mitigate such damage. The first step was a feasibility
study to be completed in 2025. If approved, that would lead to a cost-sharing
program with the USACE to flesh out the plan and implement the project.
Unfortunately, based on the CAC’s participation in planning sessions and
public meetings – some led by the USACE – it is the CAC’s opinion that the
project as now portrayed will not prevent widespread damage from coastal
flooding. This is due to a series of delays, misinformation, and special-
interest environmental groups coopting the message. As a result, the project,
if implemented as it now stands, would expose significant portions of the
county to destruction of homes, businesses and critical infrastructure. That,
in turn, would impact tourism and marine businesses and affect the county’s
economy.
CAC’s basis for this opinion is as follows.
x Structural measures, so-called “hardening,” have been completely
eliminated from the feasibility study. That is a recipe for disaster.
Widespread coastal engineering experience teaches that at least some
hardening – groins, seawalls, jetties, floodgates – is necessary to
prevent widespread flooding.
x Such measures have been eliminated because (1) construction cost
inflation has skewed the economics for “cost effective” options and
(2) vocal environmental lobbying has driven “nature-based only”
solutions.
8.B.b
Packet Pg. 224 Attachment: April 11, 2024 - Agenda (29124 : Coastal Advisory Committee - Aprill 11, 2024)
x Marco Island and other portions of the county have been excluded
from the USACE project, ensuring the plan will not be
comprehensive.
x Time compression of the feasibility study means measures other than
“nature-based only” cannot be thoroughly examined.
x The current USACE schedule calls for the tentatively selected plan
(TSP) to be released in September 2024 and to allow only a 30-day
comment period, hardly enough at a time when a large part of the
population is away and when the hurricane season is at its peak.
If we wait to act until the USACE releases its TSP, it will be too late. We
urge the county commissioners to take a proactive role to ensure the plan is
not dead on arrival. In its current form – with hardening and large portions
of the county excluded – widespread coastal protection cannot be
ensured.
The CAC proposes the following.
x County officials should convey to the USACE that their ongoing
support is contingent on not rushing approval of a TSP. A 90-day
comment period is recommended. Let’s get this right from the
beginning.
x County engineering experts, including those in advisory groups,
should become actively involved in devising models that ensure
widespread protection. That includes a better understanding of flood
zones and elevations, as well as flood impacts. It also involves
modeling of selective hardening, dune heights and plantings.
In conclusion, the CAC feels Collier County has a realistic chance to reduce
the risk of damage from future storms – but not with the current USACE
plan. Significant changes are needed. Let’s not squander this opportunity.
Joe Burke, chairman
Coastal Advisory Committee
8.B.b
Packet Pg. 225 Attachment: April 11, 2024 - Agenda (29124 : Coastal Advisory Committee - Aprill 11, 2024)