The URL can be used to link to this page

CAC Agenda 12/13/2012 Collier County : December 13, 2012 Page 1 of 2 y r3 G�l ,ayi/5��/i/!�� y i�� ..ui 9 iii / �,./��/ r'yi;r /✓i /� Your Government �� z�nw•q• "E December 13, 2012 Share&Bookmark Font Size: Print Feedback Meeting Agenda and Notice COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (CAC) THURSDAY, DECEMBER 13,2012- 1:00 P.M. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CHAMBERS THIRD FLOOR,COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER 3299 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES •Sunshine Law on Agenda Questions •2012 CAC MEETING DATES I. Call to Order II. Pledge of Allegiance III. Roll Call IV.Changes and Approval of Agenda V. Public Comments VI.Approval of CAC Minutes 1. November 8, 2012 VII. Staff Reports 1. Expanded Revenue Report 2. News Artical on Dunes VIII. New Business 1. Post-Tropical Storm Isaac Analysis-Atkins North American. Inc. * Proposal 2. Marco South -Verbal Update * Schedule for Renourishment and Erosion Control Structures * Bid for Erosion Control Structure * Bids for Renourishment * FEMA Tropical Storm Debbie * Renourishment Quantities 3. Major Renoruishment-Verbal Update * Recent BCC Direction * Peer Review Renoruishment Quantities * Bidding Schedule * Permit Update 4. Update on December 11, 2012 BCC Meeting * 10M -Grant Application from the City of Marco Island/Hideaway Beach District * 1OR-Tourist Development Tax * SOX- Clam Pass/Pelican Bay Services Division * 10Y- Pelican Bay Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit * 10Z- RFP/General Beach Renourishment Construction Poriect * 10AA- FEMA Beach Renourishment * 10AC-Turrell Hall&Assciates/Clam Bay System * 11E- Peer Review with Atkins North American http://www.colliergov.net/index.aspx?page=6999 1/11/2013 Collier County : December 13, 2012 Page 2 of 2 * 16A35- FEMA Law Associates 5. Wiggins Pass-Verbal Update 6. FEMA De-Obliaation - Update 7. Funding Formula for Beach Renourishment * 11C- Reallocation of Current TDC Funding * 11D- FY 12 Carry Forward up to$450.000 IX.Old Business X.Announcements 2013 CAC Meeting Schedule Mr. Moity- Resianation Letter 11/15/12 Laolava Letter from Ron Vuv,Vice-President CAC Marco Island Board Approval XI.Committee Member Discussion XII. Next Meeting Date/Location January 10,2013 Government Center, 3rd Floor 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 Gail D. Hambright at(239) 252-2966. 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. http://www.colliergov.net/index.aspx?page=6999 1/11/2013 CAC MEETING AGENDA DECEMBER 13, 2012 OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY MEMORANDUM TO: Anthony P. Pires, Jr.,Esq., Chairman Coastal Advisory Committee Clam Bay Subcommittee FROM: Colleen M. Greene, Assistant County Attorne�L/'�I(�� DATE: March 18, 2010 RE: Sunshine Law and Agenda question The issue presented is whether the Sunshine Law requires that an agenda be made available prior to board meetings. In summary,the answer is no. The Sunshine Law Manual (2009 Ed. Vol. 31)provides the following: The Attorney General's Office recommends publication of an agenda, if available, in the notice of the meeting;_ if an agenda is not available, subject matter summations might be used. However, the courts have held that the Sunshine Law does not mandate that an agency provide notice of each item to be discussed via a published agenda. Such a specific requirement has been rejected because it could effectively preclude access to meetings by members of the general public who wish to bring specific issues before a governmental body. See Hough v. Stembridge, 278 So. 2d 288 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). And see Yarbrough v. Young, 462 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (posted agenda unnecessary; public body not required to postpone meeting due to inaccurate press report which was not part of the public body's official notice efforts). Thus, the Sunshine Law has been interpreted to require notice of meetings, not of the individual items which may be considered at that meeting. However, other statutes, codes or ordinances may impose such a requirement and agencies subject to those provisions must follow them. Accordingly, the Sunshine Law does not require boards to consider only those matters on a published agenda. "[W]hether to impose a requirement that restricts every relevant commission or board from considering matters not on an agenda is a policy decision to be made by the legislature." Law and Information Services, Inc. v. City of Riviera Beach, 670 So. 2d 1014, 1016 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). Today's Coastal Advisory Committee Clam Bay Subcommittee was properly noticed in compliance with the Sunshine Law on or about February 1, 2010. Further, the agenda for today's meeting was also publically noticed on the County's website on Monday, March 15, 2010. The related back-up materials for the agenda were supplemented and available on the County's website on Wednesday, March 17, 2010. In addition, a number of these materials also appeared on the agenda for the Coastal Advisory Committee meeting on Thursday, March 11, 2010. In my opinion, there is no violation of the Sunshine Law and no legal issue regarding the date the agenda was published. cc: Gary McAlpin, Director, Coastal Zone Management t v ICT County ri f � gr / raoCWt.YF. +Prv.N Public Services Division Coastal Zone Management TO: CAC Board Members FROM: Gail Hambright, Accountant DATE: December 1, 2011 SUBJECT: 2012 CAC Scheduled Meetings Please mark your calendar for the following 2011 CAC scheduled meeting dates: January 12, 2012 February 9, 2012 March 8,2012 April 12, 2012 May 10, 2012 June 14, 2012 July 12, 2012 August 9, 2012 September 13,2012 October 11, 2012 November 8, 2012 December 13, 2012 All meetings will be held in the Board of County Commissioner's chambers,third floor, Collier County Government Center, 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, unless otherwise noted. A public notice will be sent out before each meeting. ur>o, Collier County Coastal Zone Management•3299 Tanvami Trail East,Suite 103•Naples,Florida 34112-5746.239-252-2966•FAX 239-252-2950 www.colliergorr.neticoastalzonemanagement CAC December 13,2012 VI-1 Approval of CAC Minutes 1 of 5 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, November 8, 2012 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: John Sorey, III VICE CHAIRMAN: Jim Burke Anthony Pires Randy Moity Linda Penniman (Excused) Robert Raymond Joseph A. Moreland Victor Rios Wayne Waldack (Excused) ALSO PRESENT: Gary McAlpin, Director, Coastal Zone Management Colleen Greene, Assistant County Attorney Gail Hambright, Accountant Dr. Michael Bauer, City of Naples CAC December 13,2012 VI-1 Approval of CAC Minutes 2 of 5 Any persons in need of the verbatim record of the meeting may request a copy of the video recording from the Collier County Communications and Customer Relations Department or view online. I. Call to Order Chairman Sorey called the meeting to order at 1:00 P.M. II. Pledge of Allegiance The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. III. Roll Call Roll call was taken and a quorum was established. IV. Changes and Approval of Agenda Gary McAlpin,Director, Coastal Zone Management reported item VIII.3 is for information purposes only. Mr. Rios moved to approve the Agenda. Second by Mr. Burke. Carried unanimously 7—0. V. Public Comments Speaker Bob Krasowski VI. Approval of CAC Minutes 1. October 11,2012 Mr. Rios moved to approve the minutes of the October 11, 2012 Meeting as presented. Second by Mr. Raymond. Carried unanimously 7—0. VII. Staff Reports 1. Expanded Revenue Report—Gary McAlpin The Committee reviewed the "Collier County Tourist Tax Revenue FY13 TDC Revenue Report" updated through October 31, 2012. 2. Emergency Beach Renourishment Naples and Vanderbilt Beach Status Gary McAlpin provided the update noting the contract to complete the work was authorized for$674,000 to Eastman Aggregate Enterprises, LLC and Stewart Mining. 3. Marco South Project Status Gary McAlpin provided the update noting the scope of work necessary to complete the erosion control structures has been put out to bid to be followed by the beach renourishment proposals with the project expected to initiate in the beginning of 2013. 4. Wiggins Pass Project Status Gary McAlpin reported most issues have been resolved, including those associated with CAC December 13,2012 VI-1 Approval of CAC Minutes 3 of 5 Delnor Wiggins State Park and the Florida Department of Environmental Conservation permit. The construction required to complete the project is expected to begin in February of 2013. The committee requested staff to prepare a report on the cost of permitting vs. cost of construction in relation to the project and an estimate on the amount of staff time spent to obtain permits required to complete the work. Mr. Moreland reported the Estuary Conservation Association is developing a report to analyze the timeline of events required to obtain the permits. It will be distributed to any interested parties. VIII. New Business 1. Clam Pass Permit update and Data Gathering Proposal a. Clam Pass Channel Improvements & Peer Review Services Gary McAlpin provided the proposal from Atkins North American, Inc. "Professional Engineering Services for Clam Pass Channel Improvements and Peer Review Services Contract Number 09-5262-CZ November 6, 2012 for consideration. A letter from the Pelican Bay Foundation to Linda Elligott of the US Army Corps of Engineers was submitted for informational purposes Re: Clam Pass Dredging Permit USACE File No. SAJ-1996-02789 (IP-LAE) dated November 6, 2012. Speakers Marcia Cravens Morgan Rees (submitted a copy of a 6/18/11 letter he submitted to Linda Elligott of the US Army Corps of Engineers). Kathy Worley (submitted copy of an aerial of photo "Lower Clam Bay 1953'). Ted Raia,President,Mangrove Action Group. Jim Hoppensteadt, Pelican Bay Foundation. Mr. Pires moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners approve the proposal by Atkins North American,Inc.for "Professional Engineering Services for Clam Pass Channel Improvements and Peer Review Services—Contract Number 09-5262-CZ—November 6, 2012"subject to the County completing Task 1 in conjunction with Agnoli,Barber and Brundage and the remaining Tasks(2-4) to be completed by Atkins of North American,Inc. Second by Mr. Burke. Carried unanimously 7—0. 2. Bird Monitoring Requirements Gary McAlpin provided a proposal from the Conservancy of Southwest Florida for monitoring shorebird activity on both sides of Wiggins Pass between monuments R-12 and R-17 from November, 2012 through November, 2013. The cost for this service is $5,600.00, annually. Discussion occurred with committee members expressing concern that although the expenditure is required under the permits issued for the improvements to the Pass, the expenditure is unnecessary; the area contains Piping Plover habitat, however no birds have been sighted in the vicinity of this area. CAC December 13,2012 VI-1 Approval of CAC Minutes 4 of 5 Speaker Bob Krasowski Mr. Rios moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners authorize the scope of work as outlined in the Conservancy of Southwest Florida's proposal dated November 7, 2012 for a 1-year period at a cost of$5,600.00. Second by Mr. Moreland. Motion carried 6 "yes"—I "no." Mr. Moity voted"no." Staff reported they will confirm the expenditure is in conformance with County purchasing policies. 3. Legal Consulting Services for FEMA * Attachment No. 1 -FEMA Retention Agreement Proposal * Attachment No. 2 -Earnest B.Abbot Resume * Attachment No. 3-FEMA Law Associates Stafford Act Experience * Attachment No. 4-Letter dated 10-30-12 from Mr. Abbott Gary McAlpin reported that he submitted the above documents for information purposes. IX. Old Business 1. Coastal Advisory Committee,Management of Beach Renourishment letter dated 10/26/12 as directed by the CAC. Chairman Sorey submitted a letter for the record that he prepared at the direction of the committee to be submitted to the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners (Fred Coyle). The letter is dated October 26, 2012 and is an analysis of the County's management timeline for the proposed beach renourishment project. Speaker Bob Krasowski X. Announcements None XI. Committee Member Discussion Chairman Sorey reported Mr. Waldack will no longer be serving on the committee and recognized his service to the committee, citizens of the City of Marco Island and Collier County. Mr. Pires reported that at the November 13, 2012 Board of County Commissioners there will be an analysis presented on the beach renourishment project. XII. Next Meeting Date/Location December 13,2012—Government Center,Administration Bldg. F,3rd Floor CAC December 13,2012 VI-1 Approval of CAC Minutes 5 of 5 ***** There being no further business for the good of the County,the meeting was adjourned by order of the chair at 2:35 P.M. Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee John Sorey,III, Chairman These minutes approved by the Board/Committee on as presented or as amended . CAC December 13,2012 VII-1 Staff Reports 1 of 18 COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST TAX REVENUE FY 13 TDC Revenue Report 30-Nov-2012 Budget FY 13(5%) FY 13 Adopted Reserved by FY 13 Net Variance to FY 13 Description Fund Budget Law Budget FY 13 Forecast Budget Beach Facilities 183 2,368,600 (121,600) 2,247,000 2,368,600 0 TDC Promotion 184 3,588,800 (180,800) 3,408,000 3,588,800 0 Non-County Muse 193 342,000 (17,100) 324,900 342,000 0 TDCAdmin 194 1,667,700 (83,400) 1,584,300 1,667,700 0 Beach Renounshr 195 4,809,000 (297,900) 4,511,100 4,809,000 0 Promotion Disaste 196 0 - 0 0 0 County Museums 198 1,579,100 (79,100) 1,500,000 1,579,100 - Gross Budget $14,355,200 (779,900) $13,575,300 $14,355,200 $0 Less 5%Rev Res (779,900) Net Budget 13,575,300 Collections %Budget Collected to %over FY 12 %over FY 11 %over FY 10 Month Actual FY 13_ Cum YTD Date collections collections collections Oct 627,861 627,861 4.374% 19.52% 31.12% 41.11% Nov 734,419 1,362,280 9.490% 6.18% 17.48% -25.96% Dec 0 1,362,280 9.490% n/a n/a n/a Jan 0 1,362,280 9.490% n/a n/a n/a Feb 0 1,362,280 9.490% n/a n/a n/a Mar 0 1,362,280 9.490% n/a rVa n/a Apr 0 1,362,280 9,490% n/a n/a n/a May 0 1,362,280 9.490% n/a n/a n/a June 0 1,362,280 9.490% n/a n/a n/a July 0 1,362,280 9.490% n/a n/a n/a Aug 0 1,362,280 9.490% n/a n/a n/a Sept 0 1,362,280 9.490% n/a n/a n/a Total 1,362,280 1,362,280 11.93% 23.40% 37.34% Projected 14,355,200 Bal to Collect 12,992,920 Budget Comparison 5 Yr Collect 5 Yr Collect Budgeted Actual Month over Month Forecast Month History-Cum History-Monthly Collections Collections Variance Collections Oct 3.5% 3.5% 498,837 627,861 129,024 498,837 Nov 8.1% 4.7% 667,994 734,419 66,425 667,994 Dec 14.0% 5.9% 847,404 0 n/a 847,404 Jan 22.3% 8.3% 1,189,853 0 n/a 1.189,853 Feb 35.1% 12.8% 1,840,940 0 n/a 1,840,940 Mar 50.8% 15.7% 2,246,668 0 n/a 2,246,668 Apr 69.1% 18.3% 2,624,759 0 n/a 2,624,759 May 79.2% 10.2% 1,457,116 0 n/a 1,457,116 June 85.4% 6.1% 882,042 0 n/a 882,042 July 90.3% 4.9% 708,949 0 n/a 708,949 Aug 95.6% 5.2% 752,626 0 n/a 752,626 Sept 100.0% 4.4% 638,012 0 n/a 638,012 Total 100.0% 100.0% 14,355,200 1,362,280 195,448 14,355;200 100.00% Tourist Tax Revenue Collection Curve $3.0 , $2.0 1 - $1.5 - -- ..--Budgeted $1.0 ern-Actual $0.5 ............./ ........._..._........_..........................._.._._........................_.._...................._............ $0.0 ..........................................................._._. a 1 n r u m « 12/10/201212'.00 PM H'.\Revenue Report`Monthly Gas,Sales.and TDC Receipts CAC December 13,2012 VII-1 Staff Reports 2 of 18 BED32ORD 12/03/2012 COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST TAX - YTD REPORT BY CITY PAGE 1 ** NAPLES ** OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP TOTALS 154953 197464 352417 ** MARCO ISLAND ** OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP TOTALS 192829 165543 358372 ** IMMOKALEE ** OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP TOTALS 457 749 1206 ** EVERGLADES CITY ** OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP TOTALS 6921 5847 12768 ** COLLIER COUNTY ** OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP TOTALS 272701 364816 637517 ** OTHER ** OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP TOTALS ** TOTALS ** OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP TOTALS i 627861 734419 1362280 1 ■ CAC December 13,2012 VIP-1 Staff Reports 3 of 18 BED33ORD 12/03/2012 COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST TAX - YTD REPORT BY ACCOUNT TYPE PAGE 1 .. APARTMENT ** OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP TOTALS 1205 5819 7024 ** CONDOMINIUM ** OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP TOTALS 37104 19674 56778 *. CAMPGROUND/RV/PARK ** OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP TOTALS 2371 2872 5243 ** HOTEL/MOTEL ** OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP TOTALS 495304 623240 1118544 ** INTERVAL ** OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP TOTALS 7420 9011 16431 ** MOBILE HOME PARK ** OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP TOTALS 126 281 407 ** SINGLE FAMILY ** OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP TOTALS 38494 20440 58934 .. REALTOR ** OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP TOTALS 45837 53082 98919 ** OTHER ** OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP TOTALS ** TOTALS ** OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP TOTALS 627861 734419 1362280 CAC 9e 2012 StS VII 1 COWER COUNTY TOURIST TAX NAPLES FISCALYEAI{ OCTOBEfl NOVEMBER DECEMBER JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH APRI 539$ J�JI [ ,(` AUGUST $EPTEMBF,B YEARLY TOTALS 2005/2006 $76,843 $149,990 $236,963 $316,250 $512,938 $580,227 $570,569 $334,191 $217,611 $152,642 $175,256 $127,802 $3,951,282 2006/2007 $111,854 $151,746 $217,262 $291,277 $532,706 $589,595 $640,395 $340,926 $205,947 $156,476 $174,238 $145,286 $3,557,708 2007/2008 $122,094 $174,235 $231,470 $306,731 $564,747 $617,010 $664,907 $330,698 $233,938 $145,532 $172,641 $150,743 $3,714,746 2008/2009 $105,937 $154,246 $209,703 $298,657 5500,986 $528,321 $471,924 $327,310 $179,344 $133,913 $159,039 $120,786 $3,190,166 2009/2010 $102,425 $147,706 $202,271 $304,284 $473,406 $536,310 $578,659 $314,492 $192,256 $129,009 $150,982 $123,268 $3,255,068 2010/2011 $107,247 $144,923 $207,947 $296,553 $469,260 $537,127 $620,402 $342,016 $210,346 $150,143 $191,212 $144,535 $3,421,711 2011/2012 $124,889 $171,672 $257,204 $310,088 $463,661 $581,690 $646,118 $359,807 $239,314 $156,429 $192,882 $178,108 $3,681,862 2012/2013 $154,953 $197,464 $352,417 TOTAL: $906,242 $1,291,982 $1,562,820 $2,123,840 $3,517,704 $3,970,280 $4,192,974 $2,349,440 $1,478,756 $1,024,144 $1,216,250 $990,528 $24,624,960 CAC SeceRO0 12 2012 VII-1 SIM RepOft COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST TAX MARCO ISLAND FISULYEAR OROBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER .1/1 FEBRUARY win APRIL 1f�A`( IUNE Ll AUGUST SEPTEMBER YEARLY TOTALS 2005/2006 $71,763 $112,414 $147,512 $199,030 $344,074 $525,468 $576,530 $374,000 $261,791 $218,203 $208,955 $150,041 $3,189,781 2006/2087 $73,397 $88,576 $141,951 $189,026 $335,898 $517,149 $595,449 $379,673 $225,816 $216,858 $194,291 $183,007 $3,141,091 2007/2008 $165,745 $166,397 $93,819 $321,400 $408,079 $503,575 $666,564 $507,602 $140,088 $322,017 $245,721 $151,743 $3,692,750 2008/2009 $99,516 $168,129 $185,986 $280,663 $372,230 $457,015 $473,292 $324,558 $204,748 $183,654 $186,855 $210,702 $3,147,348 2009/2010 $124,837 $158,522 $168,816 $229,316 $364,347 $466,758 $550,969 $361,520 $197,005 $167,786 $223,954 $215,814 $3,229,644 2010/2011 $149,854 $169,786 $175,540 $198,803 $307,625 $416,029 $571,019 $363,648 $210,320 $192,412 $210,599 $230,248 $3,195,883 20/11/2012 $142,329 $171,194 $201,691 $244,744 $391,683 $485,677 $628,522 $372,070 $226,574 $231,338 $221,306 $186,893 $3,504,021 2012/2013 $192,829 $165,543 $358,372 TOTAL: $1,020,270 $1,200,561 $1,115,315 $1,662,982 $2,523,936 $3,371,671 $4,062,345 $2,683,071 $1,466,342 $1,532,268 $1,491,681 $1,328,448 $23,458,890 CAR Decerrdet 13 2012 eVitt SOP Repots R.18 COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST TAX IMMOKALEE FISCALYEAR OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH 8ERIL $45! MR Lyg AUGUST ;EPTEMBER YEARLYTOTA3 2005/2006 $842 $1,151 $1,306 $1,450 $1,683 $1,837 $2,050 51,786 51,900 $1,774 $1,602 $1,372 $18,753 2006/2007 $1,306 $1,258 $1,837 $1,447 $2,307 $1,932 $1,982 $1,691 $1,466 $504 $786 $1,159 $17,675 2007/2008 $731 $746 $776 $966 $749 $828 $2,806 $1,501 $887 $650 5488 $530 $11,658 2008/2009 $410 $553 $686 $687 $808 $1,137 $952 $944 $618 $723 $671 5468 $8,657 2009/2010 $676 $624 5558 $754 $633 $912 $580 $596 $541 $965 $670 $663 $8,172 2010/2011 $625 $470 $639 $649 $649 $768 $928 $937 $440 $990 $517 $667 $8,279 2011/2012 $528 $489 $863 $1,067 $681 $740 $983 $879 $807 $709 $635 $614 $8,995 2012/2013 $457 $749 $1,206 TOTAL: $5,575 $6,040 $6,665 $7,020 $7,510 $8,154 $10,281 $8,334 $6,659 $6,315 $5,369 $5,473 $83,395 VUt Sled 1 Repn m112 COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST TAX EVERGLADES CITY FISCAL YEAR OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCN APRJL MI JUNE Lux AUGUST SEPTEMBER YEARLY TOTALS 2005/2006 52,246 $3,922 $4,783 $6,921 $9,386 $15,217 $14,334 $13,423 $7,670 $3,754 $4,162 $3,331 $89,149 2006/2007 $4,678 $5,602 $5,705 $9,961 $12,884 $14,766 $16,860 $14,152 $8,653 $3,929 $4,101 $3,677 $104,968 2007/2008 $4,018 $5,424 $6,879 $9,724 $11,917 $16,032 $15,800 $11,327 $11,881 $4,136 $4,136 53,481 $104,755 2008/2009 $3,443 $4,975 $7,186 $8,987 $11,486 $15,137 $15,206 $10,315 $5,932 $3,302 $3,729 $3,447 $93,145 2009/2010 $3,783 $4,473 $5,706 $8,704 $12,423 $15,656 $18,852 $10,467 $6,149 $3,705 $4,019 $3,055 $96,992 2010/2011 $3,270 $5,011 $6,326 $7,626 $10,020 $13,210 $17,210 $10,847 $6,870 $4,054 $5,237 $5,113 $94,794 2011/2012 $4,057 $5,607 $7,144 $9,161 $12,338 $17,648 $18,666 $9,921 $6,879 $4,220 $4,310 $2,760 $102,711 2012/2013 $6,921 $5,847 $12,768 TOTAL: $25,495 $35,014 $43,729 $61,084 $80,454 $107,666 $116,928 $80,452 $54,034 $27,100 $29,694 $24,864 $686,514 CAC December 13.2012 I 1 Slap Reports 0o118 COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST TAX COLLIER COUNTY FISCAL YEAR OCTOBER NOVEMBER )7ECEMBER JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCN ARRIL 4Q81 $$ [ Lyn UA GUST ;EVTEMBER YEARLYTOTAL9 2005/2006 $86,479 $255,817 $446,229 $534,560 $867,498 $1,119,215 $1,277,646 $777,494 $465,272 $357,870 $335,272 $262,452 $6,785,794 2006/2007 $245,217 $358,486 $492,296 $564,991 $952,204 $1,215,359 $1,354,022 5765,087 $465,420 $368,234 $336,767 $289,157 $7,407,240 2007/2008 $233,050 $342,484 $467,648 $602,044 $937,713 $1,172,727 $1,363,500 $726,065 $479,408 $332,957 $334,056 $280,120 $7,271,772 2008/2009 $190,563 $291,340 $395,097 $538,743 $749,012 $973,781 $1,060,618 $566,718 $358,045 $258,429 $289,170 $234,304 $5,905,820 2009/2010 $213,228 $235,663 $367,743 $514,622 $827,789 $1,013,235 $1,256,966 $636,092 $393,674 $282,867 $289,743 $235,133 $6,266,755 2010/2011 $217,861 $304,930 $359,617 $506,087 $813,768 51,058,980 $1,357,406 $639,303 $422,707 5332,170 $323,179 $259,566 $6,595,574 2011/2012 $253,531 $342,743 $457,827 $643,501 $1,038,706 $1,239,892 $1,493,363 $694,955 $460,970 $337,636 $359,119 $278,418 $7,600,661 2012/2013 $272,701 $364,816 $637,517 TOTAL: $1,439,929 $2,131,453 $2,986,457 $3,904,548 $6,186,690 $7,793,189 $9,163,521 $4,805,714 $3,045,496 $2,270,163 $2,267,306 $1,839,150 $47,833,616 1/11.1 CAC Oacern.13 SW Rep.301] COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST TAX TOTALS NAPLES,MARCO ISLAND,IMMOKALEE.EVERGLADES CITY,COLLIER COUNTY FISCAL YEAR OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER IANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH 8PBI4 MAY /ME $53! AUGUST SEPTEMBER YEARLY TOTALS 2005/2006 $238,173 $523,284 $836,793 $1,058,211 $1,735,579 $2,241,964 $2,441,129 $1,500,894 $954,244 $734,243 5725,247 $544,998 $13,534,759 2006/2007 $436,452 $605,668 $859,051 $1,056,702 $1,835,999 $2,338,801 $2,608,708 $1,501,529 $907,302 $746,001 $710,183 5622,286 $14,228,682 2007/2008 $525,638 $689,286 $800,592 $1,240,865 $1,923,205 $2,310,172 $2,713,577 $1,577,193 $866,202 $805,292 $757,042 $586,617 $14,795,681 2008/2009 $399,869 $619,243 $798,658 $1,127,737 51,634,522 $1,975,391 $2,021,992 $1,229,845 $748,687 $580,021 $639,464 $569,707 $12,345,136 2009/2010 $444,949 $546,988 $745,099 $1,057,680 $1,678,598 $2,032,871 $2,406,026 $1,323,167 $789,625 $584,332 $669,368 $577,933 $12,856,631 2010/2011 $478,857 $625,120 $750,069 $1,009,718 $1,601,322 $2,026,114 $2,566,965 $1,356,751 $850,683 $679,769 5730,794 5640,129 $13,316,241 2011/2012 $525,334 $691,705 $924,729 $1,208,561 $1,907,069 $2,325,647 $2,787,652 $1,437,632 $934,544 $730,332 $778,252 $646,793 $14,898,250 2012/2013 $627,861 $734,419 $1,362,280 TOTAL: $3,049,272 $4,301,294 $5,714,986 $7,759,474 $12,316,294 $15,250,960 $17,546,049 $9,927,011 $6,051,287 $4,859,990 $5,010,300 $4,188,463 $95,975,380 II 20,7 I t Stall Reparo VI COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST TAX APARTMENT NSCALYEAR OROU8 NOVEMBER DECEMBER JANUARY RBRUARY M88S11 APRIL M81 IUNE LW AUGUST SEPTEMBER YEARLY TOTALS 2005/2006 $1,466 $198 $874 $1,987 $3,447 $6,076 $10,463 $1,504 $4,446 $1,740 $179 $29 $32,409 2006/2007 $2,403 $320 $1,387 $2,519 $3,479 $4,476 $7,976 $1,601 $624 $692 $1,447 $284 $27,208 2007/2008 $296 $2,797 $964 $2,770 $6,901 $4,396 $5,539 $2,817 $587 $1,045 $176 $158 $28,446 2008/2009 $675 $111 $1,162 $1,700 $3,571 $4,192 $7,489 $1,210 $710 $349 $63 $41 $21,273 2009/2010 $367 $165 $947 $2,776 $3,910 $4,729 $6,041 $2,607 $1,350 $799 $133 $150 $23,974 2010/2011 $1,113 $260 $1,018 $2,495 $4,802 $5,119 $4,555 $3,300 $2,706 $879 $140 $133 $26,520 2011/2012 $896 $435 $1,497 $863 $5,735 $6,040 $10,405 $4,081 $1,847 $1,221 $166 $64 $33,250 2012/2013 $1,205 $5,819 $7,024 TOTAL: $7,216 $4,286 $7,849 $15,110 $31,845 $35,028 $52,468 $17,120 $12,270 $6,725 $2,304 $859 $193,080 CAC December 13.2012 v1115,011120wm 110118 COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST TAX CONDOMINIUM FISCAL YEAR OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER JANUARY FEBRUARY hV1RCN APRIL Imo$$ 3UNE ail AUGUST SEPTEMBER YEARLY TOTAIS 2005/2006 $18,115 $9,286 $24,892 $46,267 $62,578 $172,726 $290,466 $55,985 $24,142 $17,905 $14,052 $10,670 $747,084 2006/2007 $17,081 $12,475 $21,751 $61,089 $79,540 $188,992 $323,240 $57,775 $23,138 $20,648 $14,595 $19,893 $840,217 2007/2008 $26,279 $14,948 $26,623 $60,871 $114,344 $203,054 $362,939 $60,403 $34,262 $19,440 $17,944 $15,076 $956,183 2008/2009 $18,344 $13,399 $23,789 $52,809 $91,805 $192,617 $347,817 $58,346 $23,642 $19,728 $12,954 $10,983 $866,233 2009/2010 $19,477 $14,463 $32,182 $63,689 $67,669 $240,487 $412,028 $65,444 $26,234 $23,042 $50,203 $55,623 $1,070,541 2010/2011 $84,551 $18,112 $30,208 $63,785 $91,669 $231,388 $462,079 $56,684 $32,886 $37,981 $18,278 $15,431 $1,143,052 2011/2012 $39,952 $21,515 $35,761 $82,154 $118,188 $264,235 $531,116 $59,412 $47,525 $37,085 $14,978 $13,141 $1,265,062 2012/2013 $37,104 $19,674 $56,778 TOTAL: $223,799 $104,198 $195,206 $430,664 $625,793 $1,493,499 $2,729,685 $414,049 $211,829 $175,829 $143,004 $140,817 $6,888,372 012 mcnc i.1 Sian Rawm 12.16 COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST TAX CAMPGROUND-RV-PARK FISCAL YEAR OROBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER JANUARY FEBRUARY M601U 8E6IL MAX Les ISM AUGUST SEPTEMBER YEARLY TOTALS 2005/2006 $2,009 $2,462 $6,622 $17,116 $21,543 $30,174 $33,024 $11,607 $5,331 $3,474 $3,313 $3,135 $139,810 2006/2007 53,579 $4,746 $11,676 $11,640 $20,946 $27,551 $38,732 $9,843 $5,634 $2,542 $2,679 $2,917 $142,485 2007/2008 $2,813 $3,141 $5,568 $14,015 $22,010 $27,176 $32,516 $13,625 $3,740 $3,059 $2,716 $2,530 $132,909 2008/2009 $2,648 $3,212 $4,849 $13,465 $39,031 $26,499 $40,324 $8,261 $3,491 $2,910 $1,959 $1,859 $148,508 2009/2010 $2,494 $2,999 $5,825 $13,772 $21,117 $30,227 $41,973 $7,260 $3,551 $1,501 $3,616 $1,954 $136,289 2010/2011 $1,903 $3,102 $5,296 $14,095 $18,919 $25,457 $42,028 $7,013 $3,961 $1,735 $3,441 $2,802 $129,752 2011/2012 $1,897 $3,546 $5,271 $11,540 $28,012 $27,270 $22,208 $7,704 $19,524 52,076 $3,239 $2,103 $134,355 2012/2013 $2,371 $2,872 $5,243 TOTAL: $17,338 $23,208 $45,107 $95,643 $171,578 $194,354 $250,805 $65,313 $45,232 $17,267 $20,963 $17,300 $964,108 CAC Sexm&ef 13.NIP 1•151af Report 13 of IS COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST TAX HOTEL-MOTEL FISCAL YEAR OCTOBER NOVEMBER pECEMBER JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL Dom IUNE NAY AUGUST 7EVTEMBER VEARLYTOTALS 2005/2006 $284,057 $467,480 $720,774 $761,245 $1,112,751 $1,512,646 $1,716,480 $1,253,822 $855,707 $647,441 $626,697 $488,099 $10,447,199 2006/2007 $371,144 $531,060 $735,510 $744,056 $1,163,479 $1,582,476 $1,772,635 $1,282,854 $829,704 $641,921 $614,936 $533,317 $10,803,092 2007/2008 $450,926 $600,629 $663,134 $899,608 $1,210,928 $1,557,503 $1,811,406 $1,370,272 $738,197 $715,412 $647,247 $503,218 $11,168,480 2008/2009 $326,143 $547,238 $683,525 $804,914 $926,626 $1,244,914 $1,240,850 $1,012,168 $653,733 $484,556 $539,652 $482,466 $8,946,785 2009/2010 $367,978 $469,435 $611,459 $712,102 $1,010,110 $1,243,041 $1,434,996 $1,081,251 $698,121 $477,576 $532,222 $454,761 $9,093,052 2010/2011 $333,456 $555,623 $619,659 $684,174 $953,504 $1,315,029 $1,587,010 $1,132,637 $737,285 $567,319 $611,275 $569,446 $9,666,417 2011/2012 $410,547 $599,695 $765,114 $796,797 $1,113,647 $1,478,881 $1,662,425 $1,202,831 $787,911 $585,887 $662,575 $552,740 $10,619,050 2012/2013 $495,304 $623,240 $1,118,544 TOTAL: $2,544,251 $3,771,160 $4,799,175 $5,402,896 $7,491,045 $9,934,490 $11,225,802 $8,335,835 $5,300,658 $4,120,112 $4,234,604 $3,584,047 $70,744,075 AC S16 Decembef Rep sm aew 13.2012 VII-1 �n 140110 COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST TAX INTERVAL FISCAL YEAR OCTOBER NOVEMBER pECEMBER mum FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL my $5 Iffy AUGUST SEPTEMBER YEARLY TOTALS 2005/2006 $865 $2,254 $3,617 $4,037 $7,099 $8,669 $15,490 $9,765 $8,182 $4,710 $7,116 $5,100 $76,904 2006/2007 $2,028 $3,691 $9,886 $10,092 $19,130 $24,221 $26,340 $17,397 $9,043 $6,290 $12,221 $6,099 $146,438 2007/2008 $6,597 $7,295 $10,353 $10,716 $20,438 $19,074 $20,960 $13,613 $7,614 $7,215 $7,767 $6,333 $137,975 2008/2009 $4,897 $5,623 $7,807 $10,438 $14,909 $13,650 $20,868 $21,687 $10,080 $11,449 $13,356 $13,307 $148,071 2009/2010 510,156 $9,509 $13,274 $20,198 $17,462 $28,801 $34,980 $31,383 $12,115 $19,999 $15,197 $9,839 $222,913 2010/2011 $7,444 $5,816 $13,426 $18,029 $17,347 $22,275 $27,152 $28,303 $16,540 $6,406 $14,542 $9,450 $186,730 2011/2012 $4,990 $7,843 $11,914 $14,375 $18,080 $18,075 $22,054 $23,386 $10,833 $11,349 $16,720 $6,776 $166,395 2012/2013 $7,420 $9,011 $16,431 TOTAL: $36,977 $42,031 $70,277 $87,885 $114,465 $134,765 $167,844 $145,534 $74,407 $67,418 $86,919 $56,904 $1,085,426 CAC I:boy. .,,2012 Report. 15a118 COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST TAX MOBILE HOME PARK fISCAL YEAR OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER MUM FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL M43 JUNE WY AUGUSZ SEVTEMBER YEARLY TOTALS 2005/2006 $26 $312 $554 $517 $129 $779 $2,399 $45 $51 $89 $14 $2 $4,917 2006/2007 53,093 $482 $203 $620 $1,110 $2,831 $2,017 $700 $828 $133 $160 $170 $12,347 2007/2008 $172 $288 $768 $1,444 $3,492 $1,941 $4,349 $557 $218 $461 $348 $450 $14,488 2008/2009 $43 $162 $1,057 $1,229 $1,982 $3,139 $4,012 $1,175 $702 $228 5249 $194 $14,172 2009/2010 $438 $746 $974 $1,688 $2,479 $1,940 $5,061 $2,170 $911 $516 $292 $464 $17,679 2010/2011 $352 $705 $1,477 $2,940 $3,895 $4,309 $5,743 $1,692 $879 $312 $266 $257 $22,827 2011/2012 $228 $517 $543 $1,455 $1,392 $3,710 $4,826 $1,441 $466 $126 5156 $157 $15,017 2012/2013 $126 $281 $407 TOTAL: $4,352 $3,212 $5,576 $9,893 $14,479 $18,649 $28,407 $7,780 $4,055 $1,865 $1,485 $1,694 $101,447 CC Demmer 13 VII A Reports 51•11 Repo, 2012 160110 COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST TAX SINGLE FAMILY FISCAL YEAR OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER IANUARY FEBRUARY M491 APRLL MI 1.0.1 00,! AUGUST SEPTEMBER NEARLY TOTALS 2005/2006 $9,710 $3,439 $4,409 $18,100 $17,773 $24,067 $52,042 $15,400 $5,945 $9,955 $6,729 $3,319 $170,888 2006/2007 $13,559 $4,549 $5,049 $20,838 $14,666 $23,955 $67,207 $13,573 $6,254 $16,936 $7,301 $8,453 $203,340 2007/2008 $17,673 $7,136 $12,482 $27,895 $15,617 $22,793 $12,815 $18,577 $11,121 $19,502 $8,797 $10,929 $255,337 2008/2009 $17,263 $11,147 $10,098 $33,205 $16,416 533,371 $97,716 $19,903 $11,470 $23,375 $12,173 $9,587 $295,724 2009/2010 $24,226 $7,933 $12,349 $33,206 $16,749 $41,749 $113,111 $20,584 $9,537 $23,926 $12,516 $17,674 $333,560 2010/2011 $31,981 $9,989 $12,618 $39,011 $20,626 $40,342 $126,367 $27,892 $12,448 $28,622 $20,527 $9,345 $379,768 2011/2011 $45,000 $11,899 $21,462 $49,877 $28,960 $51,324 $151,981 $26,449 $21,948 $38,055 $14,146 $33,708 $494,809 2012/2013 $38,494 $20,440 $58,934 TOTAL: $159,412 $56,092 $79,467 $222,132 $130,807 $237,601 $691,239 $142,378 $78,723 $160,371 $82,189 $93,015 $2,133,426 CAC SI.ff er 13.109 WI a4Pepae 170159 COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST TAX REALTOR FISCAL YEAR OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER IANUA8X FEBRUARY Witt APRIL 5193 ly_yL my AUGUST SEPTEMBER YEARLY TOTALS 2005/2006 $21,925 $37,853 $75051 $208,942 $510,259 $486,827 $320,765 $152,766 $50,440 $48,929 $67,147 $34,644 $2,015,548 2006/2007 $23,565 $48,345 $72,589 $205,848 $533,649 $484,299 $370,561 $117,786 $32,077 $56,839 $56,844 $51,153 $2,053,555 2007/2008 $20,882 $53,052 $80,700 $223,546 $529,475 $474,235 $393,053 $97,329 $70,463 $39,158 $72,047 $47,923 $2,101,863 2008/2009 $29,856 $38,351 $66,371 $209,977 $540,182 $457,009 $262,916 $107,095 $44,859 $37,426 $59,058 $51,270 $1,904,370 2009/2010 $19,813 $41,738 $68,084 $210,249 $539,102 $441,771 $357,570 $112,468 $37,806 $36,973 $55,189 $37,468 $1,958,231 2010/2011 $18,057 $31,513 $66,367 $185,189 $490,560 $382,195 $312,031 $99,230 $43,978 $36,515 $62,275 $33,265 $1,761,175 2011/2012 $21,829 $46,255 $83,167 $251,500 $593,055 $476,112 $382,637 $112,328 $44,490 $54,563 $66,272 $38,104 $2,170,312 2012/2013 $45,837 $53,082 $98,919 TOTAL: $155,927 $297,107 $512,329 $1,495,251 $3,736,282 $3,202,448 $2,399,533 $799,002 $324,113 $310,403 $438,832 $293,827 $13,965,054 CAC December 13,2012 • VII-,6138 Repots 1801.3 COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST TAX TOTALS APARTMENTS,CONDOMINIUM,CAMPGROUD/RV/PARK,HOTEL/MOTEL,INTERVAL,MOBILE HOME PARK,SINGLE FATLY,REALTOR FISCAL YEAR OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH 8_PBfj 11781 UINS &L! AUGUST 5EPTEMBE5 YEARLY TOTALS 2005/2006 $38,173 $523,284 $836,793 $1,058,211 $1,735,579 $2,241,964 $2,441,129 $1,500,894 $954,244 $734,243 $725,247 $544,998 $13,334,759 2006/2007 $436,452 $605,668 $859,051 $1,056,702 $1,835,999 $2,338,801 $2,608,708 $1,501,529 $907,302 $746,001 $710,183 $622,286 $14,228,682 2007/2008 $525,638 $689,286 $800,592 $1,240,865 $1,923,205 $2,310,172 $2,713,577 $1,577,193 $866,202 $805,292 $757,042 $586,617 $14,795,681 2008/2009 $399,869 $619,243 $798,658 $1,127,737 $1,634,522 $1,975,391 $2,021,992 $1,229,845 $748,687 $580,021 $639,464 $569,707 $12,345,136 2009/2010 $444,949 $546,988 $745,094 $1,057,680 $1,678,598 $2,032,871 $2,406,026 $1,323,167 $789,625 $584,332 $669,368 $577,933 $12,856,631 2010/2011 $478,857 $625,120 $750,069 $1,009,718 $1,601,322 $2,026,114 $2,566,965 $1,356,751 $850,683 $679,769 $730,744 $640,129 $13,316,241 2011/2012 $525,334 $691,705 $924,729 $1,208,561 $1,907,069 $2,325,647 $2,787,652 $1,437,632 $934,544 $730,332 $778,252 $646,793 $14,898,250 2012/2013 $627,861 $734,419 $1,362,280 TOTAL: $2,849,272 $4,301,294 $5,714,986 $7,759,474 $12,316,294 $15,250,960 $17,546,049 $9,927,011 $6,051,287 $4,859,990 $5,010,300 $4,188,463 $95,775,380 CAC December 13,2012 VII-2 Staff Reports - r ' .;7-_- 7 .-__ ._� 1 of 1 ' Resisted for Blocking the View, Dunes Prove They Blunt Storms By MIREYA NAVARRO and RACHEL NUWER LONG BEACH,N.Y. Surfers miles of coast to protect this bar- railed against the project because rier island,the Long Beach City they, said it would interfere with Council voted 5 to 0 against pay- the curl of the waves.Local busi- ing its$7 million initial share and nesses reliant on beach tourism taking part. hated it,too.Who would flock to Many of Long Beach's 33,000 the historic Boardwalk, they residents would come to regret it. asked, if sand dunes•were engi- The smaller neighboring corn- +, neered to rise up and obscure the munities on the barrier island— ocean view? Point Lookout, Lido'Beach and And many residents did not Atlantic Beach approved con- care for the aesthetics of the$98 struction of 15-foot-high dunes as million plan — declaring that storm insurance. Those dunes they preferred the beach wide did their job, sparing cats- and flat, with the soft, light-col- strophic damage while Long ored native sand that they had Beach suffered at least$200 mil- grown up with. lion in property and infrastruc- So, six years ago, after the ture losses,according to prelimi- Army Corps of Engineers pro nary estimates. posed to erect dunes and elevate Joe Vietri, director of coastal beaches alone more than six Continued on Page A3 ■ Resisted for Blocking View, Dunes Prove They Work From Page AI the force of the waves flattened stopped everything,but it would Western Carolina University in the dunes but left the town's have stopped some," Mr. Jones North Carolina. And restoration and storm risk management for Boardwalk and the houses just 75 said. , projects, he said, need to be the corps, toured the damaged feet from it intact. Plans to re- Now Long Beach officials say maintained at great financial coastlines after the 12-to-14-foot store the Bradley Beach dunes they are reconsidering. "It's no cost storm surge of Hurricane Sandy are already under way. The longer a hypothetical," Jack The Surfrider Foundation, an and came to an inescapable con- town's dune-barrier project cost Schnirman, the city manager, advocacy group that opposed ar- - clusion. The difference was dra- about$10,000 in 1996,Mr.Bianchi said."It's a reality,and we have tificial dunes at Long Beach,has matic for areas with vital and said.The town suffered$2 million to rebuild in a way that takes into softened its historic stance healthy dune systems,which did to$3 million in damage,officials account catastrophic storms in against armoring coastlines. better than those that did not,"he said,while many of its unprotect- the future." Chad Nelsen, environmental di- said in a telephone interview. ed coastal neighbors were devas- Long Beach and other vulner- rector for the national group,said "You can see the evidence on tated. able communities will have to sea-level rise and the threat of Point Lookout and Lido Beach, "People complained about how await an act of Congress before more intense storms required a which did much better than Long high they were but now they're restoration and beach-protection thoughtful consideration of all Beach." not complaining," Mr.'Bianchi projects can move forward.New strategies,including relocation. Mr.Vietri,who is overseeing a York's senators,Charles E.Schu- "We're more likely to have a comprehensive coastal damage mer and Kirsten E. Gilllbrand, less black-and-white view of the assessment,says it is too early to , asked for a$1 billion emer issue,"he said. • provide hard>. figures on how owns that built sand gency appropriation to pay for Homeowners along the coast towns with barriers fared in corn- seven corps sea-barrier construe- are undergoing a similar rethink- Pon with those,: like Long barriers were spared tion projects that have been ap mg.But some experts say dunes Beach,without them. proved by Congress but have can lend a false sense of security. catastrophic dam e. But up and down the coast,for p never been financed. Included "People think that if we have a the most part,dune barriers act- are construction on the south nice big dune,they don't have to ed like soft sea walls made of shore of Staten Island,Coney Is- worry and can build a high rise," sand and vegetation that even said "They're praising" land, Rockaway Beach, Long said Orrin H. Pilkey, professor when flattened or breached still The Army Corps of Engineers, Beach and the shoreline from emeritus of earth and ocean sci- managed to protect places like the federal agency char g ed with Fire Island to Montauk Point. ences at Duke University. "I Westhampton Beach on Long Is- maintaining the nation's coast "These are projects that should think that's a very serious short- land, Plumb Beach in Brooklyn, line,said some of the 100 miles of get built,providing the local corn- and Bradley Beach in Monmouth barrier dunes in the region were munities go along," Mr.Schumer coming of dunes." County, N.J., by blunting the at- built by the corps,others by local said. In Long Beach, he added, He supports dune restoration tack of surging waves and tides, governments themselves. Many now everybody supports it." but also proposes limiting and Richard T. Bianchi Jr., public of the projects were built to with- The projects can include sea mitigating development, includ- works supervisor in New Jer- stand storms less powerful than wall or dune building and pour mB not rebuilding destroyed sey's Bradley Beach, said the Hurricane Sandy,the corps said ishing+beaches to a higher eleva- homes next to the beach and ele- town began building its 15-foot- and even in places where the tion with millions of cubic yards vating others onto stilts to avoid high dune barrier along the mile- surge cut through the sand, the of sand. But some shoreline ex- flooding in the event that dunes : long waterfront in the 1990s by dunes helped to soften the blow. perts warn that anything short of are overtopped. laying 25,000 feet of snow fencing Cliff Jones, a program man relocating the buildings and de- Our preference is to put those �! in a saw-tooth pattern down the ager with the corps's North At velopment closest to the ocean dunes back as quickly as pos- beach and later adding 20,000 re- 'antic division in Brooklyn, was only buys time as sea levels rise. Bible," said Julie Schreck, the cycled Christmas trees as traps the project manager for the 2006 If you put up a sea wall, the mayor of Bradley Beach:"I hope for drifting sand. After wind barrier-island dune project that beach will disappear because you other communities will consider pushed sand over the structure, Long Beach rejected.He said the stop its ability to move land- trying to emulate nature as much shoots of dune grass were plant- dune would have limited the ward," said Robert S.Young, di- as they can but I guess every .......n.__,..-_i____ �_�..._.......a-:-�......... rantnr. of thn nrnaram fnr the town has to take stock of its own CAC December 13,2012 VIII-1 New Business 1 of 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to approve and authorize the expenditure of Tourist Development Category "A" Tax funds for Post-Tropical Storm Isaac Analysis of Collier County Beaches by Atkins North American, Inc. under contract No. 09-5262-CZ for a not-to-exceed time and material amount of$77,327. OBJECTIVE: To obtain a post-storm analysis of the impacts to the Collier County coastline after Tropical Storm Isaac. CONSIDERATIONS: This analysis will take place on various beaches and inlets of Collier County indicated below as part of the 2012 Post-Isaac physical beach monitoring (to -11.0 ft NAV88 only). The following is a list of expected monitoring locations. Please refer to previous monitoring reports for exact boundaries, survey locations, ranges and control monuments. Consistency with previous surveys is extremely critical and significant to Collier County. Contractors/consultants will have the responsibility to complete monitoring for the respective beach segment during the times indicated for each segment. Locations and monitoring timing is as follows: • Vanderbilt Beach physical beach monitoring and report performed in November-December this year. • Park Shore Beach physical beach monitoring and report performed in November-December this year. • Naples Beach physical monitoring and report performed in November-December this year. • South Marco Beach physical monitoring and report performed in November-December this year. FISCAL IMPACT: Funding for this project will be from Tourist Development Tax Category "A" funding within Tourist Development Council (TDC) Beach Renourishment Fund 195. Funding is available in Project 80096. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no impact to the Growth Management Plan related to this action. ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS: At the November 26, 2012 TDC meeting this item was recommended for approval by a 7 to 1 vote. However, the TDC approved a proposal to wading depth (-7.0 ft NAV88) for as cost of $41,453. FEMA is stipulating a physical survey to the depth of closure (-11.0 NAV88) which involves a survey vessel to complete the offshore survey. The price for this will increase to $77,327. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item has been reviewed by the County Attorney's Office, requires majority vote, and is legally sufficient for Board action.—CMG RECOMMENDATION: To approve and authorize the expenditure of Tourist Development Category "A" Tax funds for Post-Tropical Storm Isaac Analysis of Collier County Beaches by Atkins North American, Inc. under contract No. 09-5262-CZ for a not-to-exceed time and material amount of$77,327. PREPARED BY: J. Gary McAlpin, P.E., Coastal Zone Management, Natural Resources Department ATTACHMENTS: Proposal Professional Engineering Services for Post-Tropical Storm Isaac Analysis of Collier County Beaches November 20,2012 ATKINS is pleased to provide a scope of work for Collier County Coastal Zone Management Department.The intention of this Work Assignment is to provide professional guidance,preparation of project documentation (monitoring reports)and post-storm analysis of the impacts to the Collier County coastline after Tropical Storm Isaac. In accordance with Collier County Contract Number 09-5262-CZ the following scope of work is presented herein. SCOPE OF SERVICES This analysis will take place on various beaches and inlets of Collier County indicated below as part of the 2012 Post-Isaac physical beach monitoring. The following is a list of expected monitoring locations. Please refer to previous monitoring reports for exact boundaries, survey locations,ranges and control monuments. Consistency with previous surveys is extremely critical and significant to Collier County. Contractors/consultants will have the responsibility to complete monitoring for the respective beach segment during the times indicated for each segment. Locations and monitoring timing is as follows • Vanderbilt Beach physical beach monitoring and report performed in November-December this year. • Park Shore Beach physical beach monitoring and report performed in November-December this year. • Naples Beach physical monitoring and report performed in November-December this year. • South Marco Beach physical monitoring and report performed in November-December this year. Post-Storm Analysis& Report ATKINS shall prepare a report specifically discussing the impact of Tropical Storm Isaac in accordance with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems(BBCS)protocol for submittal to Collier County. The purpose of the post-storm report is to summarize and discuss the topographic & bathymetric data collected by Morgan&Eklund,Inc. and identify erosion and accretion patterns within the monitored area. In addition,the report shall include a comparative review of adverse impacts attributable to the project(s). Based on the scope of work requested by Collier County, ATKINS will only address Range Monuments R-23 through R-89,R-139 through R-148,and 9 intermediate lines. ATKINS will review the data and use the information to create a database to identify and characterize trends and current conditions of these reaches of Collier County's coastline. The database will be created to enable visualization and completion of a comparative analysis. Specific quantities and parameters that will be analyzed, if data are available,include the following: • Shoreline and volume change rates • Beach profile evolution • Identifying and quantifying areas of acute erosion 1 The above analyses will provide a qualitative understanding of the project and the storm-induced topography and bathymetry changes to the beach. The reports will be submitted as a bound printed report and on a disk in electronic .pdf format. ATKINS will prepare for,travel to and attend two (2) meetings. The meetings will be held to coordinate the project, meet with County staff, and to provide project updates/results to the County Project Manager and other stakeholder representatives as deemed necessary and appropriate. One ATKINS senior engineer will attend each of these meetings, again as deemed appropriate. Budget Estimate Work for this assignment will be performed for the lump sum amount of$77,327. Work will be billed to the County on a monthly basis based on the percentage of work completed for the preceding month. The budget breakdown per project area is as follows: Task 1 —Vanderbilt, Park Shore, and Naples Beach Engineering Post-Storm Topographic &Bathymetric Survey $40,800 Task 2 — Vanderbilt, Park Shore, and Naples Beach Engineering Post-Storm Analysis Report $19,000 Task 3—South Marco Island Engineering Post-Storm Topographic &Bathymetric Survey .. $10,200 Task 4—South Marco Island Engineering Post-Storm Analysis Report ....$6,327 Total .$77,327 Schedule Estimate The following schedule of completion is anticipated. 1. Submit draft reports within 30 calendar days following the Notice-to-Proceed and receipt of all required data(surveys)to complete analysis. Assumptions 1. All existing information/documentation including, but not limited to, survey data, project permits, environmental information,previous studies,etc. will be provided to ATKINS by the County. 2. This quote is based upon conversations with County Staff on November 19, 2012. 3. No biological monitoring of artificial reefs or hardbottom are included in this scope of work. 4. No side-scan sonar or diver verification of seagrasses, artificial reefs or hardbottom are included in this scope of work. 5. No aerial photograph will be flown per County direction. November 20,2012 Jef ,yy f Date Project I e or Atkins ,a o , American,Inc. 2 PROJECT BURG E`r I Client: (Collier County I Project: (Collier County P.hvsical Moinitorina Project No: ( Collier County Post-Isaac Survey Prepared By: BDF Labor Costs Task Task 1 Raw Multiplied l'IMNIIIRDMILEIHRERIM Monitoring Total Labor Labor Personnel Classification Rate Reports Manhours Cost Cost Project Manager 558.85 20 20 $1,177 $3,590 Senior Engineer $42.92 1 32 32 $1,373 $4,189 Project Engineer 535.50 48 48 $1,704 $5,197 Engineer EFT 530.(x) 65 65 $1,950 $5,948 CAD Technician 530.00 05 65 $1,950 $5,948 Administrative 518.70 S 8 $150 $456 Total Hours 3N` issI F 238 238 POSHONIOL POSH t ll °s Paz t Raw Labor Cost �,' $8.304 Mult.Labor Cost 'iiilbiOdhoj $25,327 $25,327 1 Reimbursable Multiplied Reimbursable Costs Task No I Costs Costs 1 W _ Travel $0 11 1� i. $0 $0 ml Lodging $0 !,,l2!1: $o r k $50 $o Misc. $500 $500 0 Geotechnical Ana ly sis $0 11 1f�X kt $D $D Beach Survey $51,000 I'+,+" r 0 tAl " $51,000 $51,000 iI Graphics/Reproduction $500 Aini , $500 $500 Total Reimbursables $52,000 iiiil $52,000 $52,000 Total Mult.Reimbursables $52,000 yyj;""y w 6 $52,000 $52.000 iti u�+ Total Project Budget $52,000E�''I�N"�"�i�?I sl" YTiGCI $77,327 3 fit:tit Board of Collier County Commissioners Donna Fiala Georgia A.Hiller,Esq. Tom Henning Fred W.Coyle Jim Colette District i District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 MEMORANDUM Date: November 14th 2012 To:County Manager Ochs From: Commissioner Henning,District 3 Re: Reconsideration Hideaway Please place on the December 11th BCC agenda Item 11-C This item to be heard at 11:00 a.m. Recommendation to consider an out- ofcycle Tourist Development Council ('TDC")Grant Application from the City of Marco Island/Hideaway Beach District for Erosion Control Structures at Hideaway Beach and if approved make a finding that the project is in the public interest and authorize all necessary budget amendments. Estimated fiscal impact:$925,000. Pending outcome of Recommendation for the Board to make a finding,on how Roberts Rule of Order applies Ordinance 75-16 as amended ommissioner Henning,Distri 3 cc: 3299 Tanaami Trail East,Suite 303•Naples,Florida 34112-5746.239-252-8097•FAX 239-252-3602 10/23/2012 Item 11.C. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to consider an out-of-cycle Tourist Development Council ("TDC")Grant Application from the City of Marco Island/Hideaway Beach District for Erosion Control Structures at Hideaway Beach and if approved make a finding that the project is in the public interest and authorize all necessary budget amendments. OBJECTIVE: The City of Marco Island and the Hideaway Beach Special Taxing District are seeking a Tourist Development Council emergency grant of$925,000 for the installation of three erosion control structures on the east end of Hideaway Beach. CONSIDERAT{QNS: The City Manager of Marco Island has requested this item be placed on the Board's agenda for consideration. The total cost of this project is$2,350,000 with the City of Marco Island/Hideaway Beach District contributing $1,425,000 for the engineering, permitting and beach renourishment and the County funding $925,000 for the erosion control structures. The Board of County Commissioners has previously approved the use of Tourist Development Tax funds for the installation of erosion control structures on Hideaway Beach. Funds were approved for a 2005 project and then again for a 2009 project. If approved, this will complete the installation of erosion control structures on Hideaway Beach. Hideaway Beach is classified as a critically eroded beach by Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). Hideaway Beach does not satisfy FDEP's public access guidelines for state cost share reimbursement. Collier County has used the state cost share guidelines in the past to determine project eligibility for TDC funding. This project may however,meet the criteria of the TDC Category"A"Funding Policy(attached)for installation of erosion control structures if the Board makes a determination that this project is in the public interest. On May 11, 2012, the Coastal Advisory Committee voted 5-4 to recommend denial of this request and on September 24, 2012, the Tourist Development Council voted 4-3 to recommend denial of this request. FISCAL IMPACT: This project is not funded within the FY2013 budget. Should the Board decide to appropriate funds, a budget amendment will be necessary moving $925,000 from Fund (195) Beach Renourishment/Pass Maintenance reserves. Any further reduction of Fund (195) reserves will reduce the availability of funds for the FY2014 planned renourishment project based upon the expenditure pro forma presented to the Board on September 25, 2012, Item I1C. (See Attachment G.) GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: Because the project is within the City of Marco Island there are no County growth management impacts. LEGAL CONSIDERATION: Tourist development tax funds may be used to fund the erosion control structures if the Board makes the required finding that funding this project is in the public interest. Packet Page-139- 10/23/2012 Item 11.C. Section 125.0104,Fla. Stat.,provides authorized uses of revenue which include to"fmance beach park facilities or beach improvement,maintenance,renourishment,restoration,and erosion control,including shoreline protection,enhancement,cleanup,or restoration of inland lakes and rivers to which there is public access as those uses relate to the physical preservation of the beach,shoreline,or inland lake or river." § 125.0104(5)(a)4,Fla. Stat. Collier County Ordinance No.92-60,as amended,also provides the authority to fund erosion control with Category"A"funding. The Tourist Development Category"A"Funding Policy(approved 11/01/05)provides a policy for the legal use of Category"A"Funding. Both eligible and ineligible beach areas are considered. Section Four defines eligible beaches as those accessible to the public and not more than one half mile from a beach park facility. Section Five provides a standard for funding ineligible beach areas. Section 5(b)provides that "an area of ineligible beach that is subject to high erosion,with the recommendation of the CAC and determination by the BCC as being in the public interest,may have erosion control structures installed with Category"A"funding." This item is legally sufficient and requires a majority vote for Board action.—CMG RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners consider an out-of-cycle Tourist Development Council ("TDC") Grant Application from the City of Marco Island/Hideaway Beach District for Erosion Control Structures at Hideaway Beach and if approved make a finding that the project is in the public interest and authorize all necessary budget amendments. PREPARED BY: Gary McAlpin, Natural Resources Department, Growth Management Division. Attachments: a) City of Marco Island Cover Letter b) Marco Island/Hideaway Beach District TDC Grant application c) City of Marco Island Resolution 12-15 d) TDC Funding Policy e) Marco Island City Manager e-mail f) Hideaway Beach Erosion Control Memorandum g) Fund 195 pro forma Packet Page-140- 10/23/2012 Item 11.C. September 24,2012 New Business 7-a } City of Marco Island tt At 4 • • May 1,2012 Collier County Coastal Zone Management Office 3299 Tamiami Trail East,Suite 103 Naples,Florida 34112 Re:Category"A"Grant Application for FY 12/13 Attn:Mr.Gary McAlpin,Director Dear Gary: Please accept the attached application from the City of Marco Island for the proposed Big Marco / Capri Pass Inlet Sand Bypassing and Northern Marco Island Erosion Control Structures Project. The City of Marco Island's northern beach area has been experiencing significant erosion in the wake of recent storms including Tropical Storm Fay. Since 2005, this beach segment has eroded on average of 12 feet per year. The upland development and infrastructure are threatened by the continuing erosion. The City has completed a detailed model study and preliminary design,and is currently processing permits through the FDEP and USACE, for their erosion control project to address this emergency situation. The purpose of this project is to provide a mechanism to offset historical erosion,restore recreational beach use, provide storm protection to the upland prosperities, provide and preserve sea turtle nesting sites, and to restore coastal habitat for the threatened and endangered species. If you have any questions or comments concerning this application, please contact me directly. • Sincerely, 111" 4-rZWIrotti FILE COPY Public Wo ,s Director City of Marco Island 50 Bald Eagle Dries,Marco luland,F+lori&3414.5 (941)389-6000 FAX (941)389-4369 Packet Page-143- 10/23/2012 Item 11.C. September 24,2012 New Business 7-a 2 of 9 COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL CATEGORY"A"GRANT APPLICATION Beach Renonrishment and Pau Maintenance Biz Marco/ Capri Pass Inlet Sand Bvpaselig and Northern Mater Island ff rosion Coriza}8tructurek (Project Title) 1. Name and Address of Project Sponsor Organisation: City of Marco Island 50 Bald Eagle Drive Marco Island,FL 34145 2. Contact Person,Title and Phone Number: Name:limnthaili nter.P.E. Address:50 Bald Eagle Drive City:Maraelgliggi ST:EL ZIP:34145 Phone:239-3$g5 IJ„FAX:23?-389-4359 Other: 3. Organization's Chief Official and Title: Dr.James Riviere,City Manager 4. DetaIls of Project-Description and Location: Description: The City of Marco Island's northern beach area has been experiencing significant erosion in the wake of recent storms including Tropical Storm Fay and coastal processes(winds, waves, tides and currents). Please refer to Exhibit A for recent photographs. Since 2005,this beach segment has eroded on average 12 feet per year(Figure 1).The upland development and infrastructure are threatened by the continuing erosion. Based on these measured near-term erosion rates, it is expected the building foundations will soon be under direct wave attack as the remaining dune and wetland habitats and upland vegetated lawn areas will be lost to erosion. To address this critical erosion area, the City has completed a detailed model study and preliminary design, and is currently processing permits through the FDEP and USACE for installation of three erosion control structures(T-groins) Packet Page-144- 10/23/2012 Item 11.C. September 24,2012 New Business 7-a 3 of 9 Collier County Tourist Development Council Category"A"Grant Application Page 2 812 Marco I Capri Pass Inlet Sand Bvmasing and No r s.Marco Erosion Coarol 3trnctur.,a. and placement of up to 25,000 cubic yards of beach compatible sand from inlet bypassing sources. The purpose of the renourishment and erosion control structures is to address significant erosion along this beach segment providing a mechanism to offset historical erosion, restore recreational beach, provide storm protection to the upland properties,provide and preserve sea turtle nesting sites,and restore coastal habitat for other threatened and endangered species. The sand sources for the renourishment include the previously utilized Big Marco/Capri Pass Ebb Shoal and Nearshore Borrow Areas. The public benefit realized by the Project is to extend the project life of the recently completed Collier Bay Entrance Channel Dredging which temporarily addressed the navigation needs for the boating community. Installation of the structures is expected to hold the sand placed in the nearshore zone along this critically eroded beach segment,thereby reducing Project related costa as well as future maintenance costs. FDEP indicated support of the City's recommended plan and has requested a Physical and Biological Monitoring Plan. The USACE completed its permit review and has initiated consultation with the USFWS and NMFS. Permits are expected by the end of the year. As established by prior precedent in 2004 and 2010 County Commission approvals, the City of Marco Island will be responsible for the cost of the sand dredging and placement,and the County will be responsible for cost of the T- r' Packet Page-145- • 10/23/2012 Item 11.C. September 24,2092 New Business 7-a 4 of 9 Collier County Tourist Development Council Category"A"Grant Application Page 3 •• Bi4 Marco I l'anrl Pass Inlet Said Hvvs>rslntt and, • Northern X11co Island Erosion Cent Structures groins. In order to reduce the County's cost sharing compared to the prior projects,the City will also be responsible for the mobilization and demobilization costs specific to the 1-groins.That is,this request is specific to the materials and installation costs for the three erosion control structures only. Location:The activity is located along the City of Marco Island's northern beach area adjacent to the Big Marco River and Gulf of Mexico,Marco Island,Collier County,Sections 5,6,and 7,Township 52S,Range 26E,Class III Waters. 5. Estimated project start deter Winter 2012-2013. 6. Estimated project duration:4S monl a 7. Total TDC Tax Funds Requested:S 925.000 S. If the full amount requested cannot be awarded,can the program/project be restructured to accommodate a smaller award? Yes (X) No () rAoLT B?IDGP', ZEMBAHLIMMI TDC Funds Requested S 925.000 City/Taxing District Share 1.425.000 State of Florida Share 3 Federal Share TOTAL S 2350.000 PROJECT EXPENSES: (Engineering,Mobilization,Contractor,Monitoring etc) Engineering S 250.000 Sot Bypass Dredmnalinct N�qb✓D�ob) $ 1.175.000 Erosion ControlStruttres 925.000 TOTAL S 2.3511000 Packet Page-146- 10/23/2012 Item 11.C. September 24,2012 New Business 7-a 5 of 9 Collier County Tourist Development Council Category"A"Grant Application Page 4 Biz Marco I Capri Pass Inlet Sand Uvoassilla and Northern Marco Island Erosion Control Structures I have read the Tourist Development Category"A"Beach Funding Policy covering beach rcnourishment and pass maintenance and agree that my organization will comply with all guidelines and criteria. Signature of Sponsor Organization's Chief Official . .. "'Art'"Gstreeraer• W. taw-arc,m awevrp .......ya.WI acre ant M/rq - iw.-twt mow mu rpm) rte .. t � - Ni, k " - ; Wy V : L .. Figure 1. Marco Island North Beach Historic Shoreline Change • tea. Table 1.Marco Island North Annualized Shoreline Maws. Survey Jul-90— Oct-97— Dee-05 Jul-90- Oct-97 Dee,--11 Aug-11 Line Change to at 1 W(R/Xear) Shoreline H-12 -3.8 6.1 .t -18.5 -3.9 H-13 -7.1 0.$.. -12.4 -5.5 , H-14 -3 ..: .: 2.3 . ... ....: -11 -2.1 Average -4.7. 3.1 42.7 -3.8 • 1 Packet Page-147- t 10/23/2012 Item 11.C. September 24,2012 New Business 7-a 6 of 9 EX1IBIT A. Photo 1:View from upland residence lookhng north 1 • tR. Photo 2:View from escarpment at toe of dune g northwest Packet Page-148- 10/23/2012 Item 11.C. September 24,2012 New Business 7-s 7019 • 3:View from esearpielat lit toe ofdiliie Scolding northeast .1.41:4,, F,1 photo 4: View from mangrove fringe looking west Packet Page-149- 10/23/2012 Item 11.C. September 24,2012 New Business 7-a 8 of 9 RESOLUTION NO.12-15 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF MARCO ISLAND, FLORIDA DECLARING AN EMERGENCY FOR A CRITICALLY ERODED BEACH WITHIN THE • BOUNDARIES OF THE HIDEAWAY BEACH DISTRICT WHICH REQUIRES EMERGENCY CONSTRUCTION OF THREE EROSION CONTROL STRUCTURES AND MAKING FINDINGS TO SUPPORT THE PUBLIC • PURPOSE OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE EROSION CONTROL STRUCTURES IN THE CITY OF MARCO ISLAND, FLORIDA; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the area of the City of Marco Island's northern beach located within the Hideaway Beach District in the vicinity of Florida Department of Environmental Protection(FDEP)monuments H-13 to H-14 has suffered severe beach erosion;and WHEREAS, the City of Marco Island, Florida finds that the Hideaway Beach District has experienced severe beech erosion which requires emergency construction of erosion control structures to control erosion loss of the beach in the vicinity of FDEP monuments H-13 and 1414;and WHEREAS, condominium ium units located within the District at 6000 Royal Marco • Way abut the eroding beach between FDEP monuments H-13 to 1414 and are threatened by the continuing erosion;and WHEREAS, the City and the District have retained Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc. to seek FDEP permits for emergency construction of the erosion control structures. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Marco Island, Florida,that SECTION 1. The area of the City's and the District's northern beach in the vicinity of FDEP monuments H-13 to H-14 fronting Royal Marco Way Building 6000 has experienced significant beach erosion. SECTION 2. The emergency construction of three erosion control structures as proposed by Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc. (CEC) is a viable solution to the erosion. SECTION 3. The City Council of the City of Marco Island declares an emergency and directs and authorizes the City Manager or his designee to support and assist the District in obtaining governmental approvals for the erosion control structures and the City will assist the District with application on behalf of the District to the Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee; the Collier County Tourist Development Council and the Collier County Board of County Commissioners for Emergency Tourist Development Funds required for the construction of the erosion control structures. • Packet Page-150- 10/23/2012 Item 11.C. September 24,2012, New Business 7-a 9of9 SECTION 6. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. DULY PASSED AND ADOPTED in open and regular session by the City of Marco Island, Florida,this 7th day of May,2012 ATTEST CITY OF :. p 'a ISLAND,FLORIDA _ By: Lat r+s.utsiN city 1-are, .O '.. Approved as to Form and Legal sufficiency: z • . tint L Saunders,City Attorney • 2 Packet Page-151- 10/23/2012 Item 11.C. Agenda Item No. 16F1 October 25,2005 Page 3 of 7 Proposed Changes 9-8-05 TOURIST DEVELOPMENT CATEGORY"A"FUNDING POLICY 1. Use of TDC Category "A"funds. " " acquisiition. To finance beach park facilities or beach improvement. maintenance, renourishme nt. restoration and erosion control- incI d a,pass and inlet sgaintenanee, shoreline protection. enhancement. cleanup or restoration of gland hikes and rivers to which there is public access. as these i de to the physical preservation of the beach , phoreline or inland lake or river.(Code of Ordinances.Division 3,Sec.126-83.1 2.Squrce of other funds. Federal or State funds are desirable and should be diligently pursued. 3. Mandatory annual budget allocation of funds and maintenance of reserves. a. Catastrophe reserves shall be accumulated in the budget with $1M in 2004 plus $0.5M per year thereafter(up to a maximum of SIOM). In the event of a catastrophe requiring the expenditure of all or part of these reserves,$0.5M will continue to be set aside. c. 12, Major renourishrnent reserves shall be accumulated in the budget with S2M per year after the completion of the major renourishment project currently in planning and permitting (as of 14ovember 3 &ntember 2005; projected to start setting aside Rinds in FY 2006 2007. d. c„..Beach park facilities(including beach access property acquisition) shall be funded an amount equal to one-third of the TDC Category "A" revenues. e. sLRemaining funds may be used for eligible grant applications as outlined in the policy below. 4.EIigita y, Eligible beach areas qualify for Category "A"funding. An "eligible beach area" has-ig: a. Accessible to the public, and Exhibit A Packet Page-152- - 10/23/2012 Item 11.C. • Agenda October 25. 2005 Page 4 of 7 b. No more than one-half mile from a public beach park facility, public access point, hotel, Qd motel : ': :. and if at least 80% of a beach area is classified as eligible, otherwise ineligible gaps will be deemed eligible. 5.Ineligible beach areas: a Beach areas not meetina the criteria for eligibility of pgjaaraph 4. above.are not eligible for Category "A" funding. Renourisment or maintenance of these beach Areas are the responsibility of adlacent Qrpnerty owners., • b. An area of an ineligible beach that is subject to high erosion, with the recommendation of the Coastal Advisory Committee and determination by the, Board of County Commissioners that it is in the public interest. may have erosiog control structure'installed,with Clamors,"A"funding. ¢s Inlet Sand Bypossng. The bypassing of sand across inlets may be funded by Tourist Development Tax Category"A" funding provided the Inlet Management Plan recommends the bypassing .,the dredging of the.pass or inlet is recommended by the Coastal Advisory Committee, meets the inlet funding policy criteria end is aparoved by the Board of County Commissioners g being in the public interest.No TDC Category"A"funding will be approved for dredging non-beach compatible material except when encountered during an approved realignment er modification to an existing approved pass/inlet siredaina urolect and then only when recommended by the Coastal Advisory Committee,Tourist Development Council and approved by the Board of County Exhibit A Packet Page-153- • 10/23/2012 Item 11.C. Agenda Item No. 16F1 October 25,2005 Page 5 of 7 Commissioners as belay in the Dubuc Interest. $:L Shore protection structures and project sponsorship. Projects, including construction and maintenance of shore protection structures(groins,jetties, breakwaters, etc.), may be funded by Category"A"funding for eligible beaches. However, `ownership'responsibilities must rest with an entity other than"Tourist Development Taxes"—i.e.there must be a project sponsor(private interests, taxing districts, municipalities or County Departments other than those funded with Tourist Development Taxes). $;Grant Application Review. The Coastal Advisory Committee and the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board will prepare and maintain a proposed prioritized annual spending plan for the use of Tourist Development Tax Category"A"funds,with a ten year projection. The proposed plans will be submitted to the Board of County Commissioners(BCC)for their consideration and approval,via the TDC. These submissions will coincide with the annual Collier County budget cycle. The Coastal Advisory Committee will review all requests for Tourist Development Tax Category"A"funds,with the exception of County maintained beach park facilities that witl be handled by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. Both advisory boards will make recommendations for approval,denial or modification to the BCC,via the TDC,consistent with the BCC established policy for use of these funds. • • • • Exhibit A Packet Page-154- • 10/23/2012 item 11.C. BrockMaryJo From: Dr.James Riviere prJRiviereecityofmarcoleland.corn) Sent: Wednesday,October 10,2012 11:41 AM To: Ochsleo Subject: Hideaway Beach TDC Funding Dear Leo, Please schedule the subject issue for the 10/23/12 BCC meeting.Hideaway needs to work from a solid financial base and hopefully the issues will be resolved at that meeting. Cheers • JR 114.7s L very i)rochl pubik riQtTk aw.ic a rgrsuP, writ ten cornrrnwication rf7.r.tiveci by City of 4iic jcr i. st.thjez1 tO dticlost.ore tr .rhe apa neSTI,C00, ar.P.,ss otherett;se Z.•=nriei^ r:cia law aieJA:S:es ore puNic records. it vino do not wont your email aritire5s'released fn response te., trtGurls recorsT... 7,at s ed F.,Mctronic moll to tho.n entity, fnsteda, contort tfr7i5 Qffire by phone z# in writinc. 1 Packet Page-155- • 10/23/2012 Item 11.C. • • OFFICE OF T1iB COUNTY ATTORNEY MEMORANDUM DATE: April 28,2008 TO: Coastal Advisory Committee Members . Gary McAlpin,Director,Coastal Zone Management PROM: Colleen M.Greene,Assistant County Attorney O&- SUBJECT: Hideaway Beach Erosion Control At the Coastal Advisory Committee meeting on April 10, 2008. the Committee was asked to make a recommendation.regarding funding erosion control at Hideaway Beach in the City of Marco Island. Several issues were raised including whether it is appropriate to fund this erosion control project with tourist development tax funds. In summary,the Committee may recommend that this erosion control project be funded with tourist development tax funds if certain findings are established. Authorization of Tourist Development Tax Funds Section 125.0104, Fla. Stat., provides authorized uses of revenue which include to "finance beach park facilities or beach improvement, maintenance, renourishment, restoration, and erosion control, including shoreline protection,enhancement, cleanup, or restoration of inland lakes and rivers,to which there is public access as those uses relate to the physical preservation of . the beach,shoreline,or inland lake or river." $ 125.0104(5Xa)4,Fla.Stat. Collier County Ordinance No 92-60, as amended, also provides the authority to fund erosion control with Category"A"funding. The Tourist Development Category "A"Funding Policy(approved 11/11/05)provides a policy for the legal use of Category "A" Funding. Both eligible and ineligible beach areas are considered. Section Four defines eligible beaches as those accessible to the public and not more than one half mile from a beach park facility. Section Five provides a standard for funding ineligible beach.areas. Section 5(b)provides that "an area of ineligible beach that is subject to high erosion,with the recommendation of the CAC and determination by the BCC as being in the public interest,may have erosion control structures installed with Category"A"funding." ilk Packet Page-156- 10/23/2012 Item 11.C. • • Hideaway Bach Page 2 of 3 • • Based on the above areas of law, the CAC may make certain findings to authorize the expenditure of tourist development tax funds for erosion control structures. The CAC must make findings that Hideaway Beach is an area subject to high erosion and that erosion control structures or "T-groins" are the appropriate solution for erosion control. A finding of public access, required by Section Four, is not required by Section Five for "ineligible beach areas." Further, pursuant to the plain language of Section Five, the CAC need not make a finding regarding public interest. Once the CAC makes its findings,favorable or not,the CAC may forward its recommendations to the BCC. To authorize the expenditure of tourist development tax funds,the BCC must make a determination that funding these erosion control structures is in the public interest. • Accessibility As discussed above,the CAC need not specifically find that Hideaway Beach is accessible to the public for this expenditure. For future reference please note that the issue of public access has not been specifically defined in case law in terms of interpreting$ 125.0104,Fla. Stat. However the Coastal Zone Management Department has followed the Florida Department of Environmental Protection standards to define accessibility. Generally speaking,the FDEP will only fund projects or participate in cost-sharing for beaches that are accessible to the public. FDEP Beach Access is defined in the Florida Administrative Code as follows: (11) "Public Beach Access" is an entry zone adjacent to a sandy beach under public ownership or control which is specifically used for providing access to the beach for the general public. The access must be signed,maintained and clearly visible from the adjacent • roadway.The types of public beach access sites ace: (a) "Primary Beach Access" is a site with at least 100 public parking spaces and public restrooms. (b) "Secondary Beach Access" is a site that may have parking and amenities, but does not qualify as a primary beach access. Although Hideaway Beach is not easily accessible to the public, and does not meet the FDEP standard, the public may gain access to the beach by walking from the public access point at Tlgertail Beach or by boat. Hideaway Beach District The Hideaway Beach District ("District")was created by City of Marco Island Ordinance No. 04-05. The ordinance provides that the District"shall have all powers as authorized by law,to effectuate its purpose to improve, renourish, preserve, maintain, monitor and provide public access to the beach property located within the boundaries of the district, and such other improvements and appurtenances within the district as may be necessary for the improvement, renourishment, preservation, maintenance, monitoring and providing access to such beach lands." • Packet Page-1.57- . -• • 10/23/2012 Item 11.C. . • }Jideaway Beach Page 3of3 • On April 8,2008,a member of the District appeared before the CACto request the use of tourist development tax funds. This person represented that he was'authorized by.his board to make this -request on behalf of the District Pursuant to ordinance it appears that the District may lawfully request the use of tourist development tax funds. Notwithstanding the District's ordinance,any member of the public may appear before the Coastal Advisory Committee and request the use of tourist development tax funds. Public Interest • Finally, the BCC must make a finding that funding this erosion control project is in the public interest. The Hideaway Beach representative and the engineers,Humiston &Moore, presented •their opinions that the erosion control structures will protect the coastline. The coastline adjacent to Hideaway Beach,including Tigertail Beach, will also benefit from the structures and protect the beach system. This erosion control project may provide an incidental•benefit to private . property owners; however it is undisputed that County beaches ultimately promote tourism There was further discussion that the structures may also protect a private road, and more information on this issue may be needed, however as discussed above an incidental benefit to private property owners,may be found to be in the public interest. • al cc: Heidi Ashton•Cicko,Assistant County Attorney Jeffrey A.Klatzkow,County Attorney 2005-001/10 • • • Packet Page-158- . _ .-- A ---- - 10/23/2012 Item 11.C. Attachment G IOC each RaWUealrawt Copal Fad(1 S) Pre4aeme ane�rsis _ pr..o1 aside a d.•o5MOSMd Mak Um*.a'1 1Y2M DEP nrneirearnen*set aside,tie addWon of a� 000 truck heel rurw nd urish eU*In FY 18 a • I .100Zt3Sea3n.aa441__-1 9/12012•IOC Dinah R.neuA.h 10f . ':' mil• •1111111111IMMIIIINMENNIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINIMIIM eooaoo IMMO-71=3 w -=MR - � - .1111 MINIMIIMINIIIIMI M I==MN-Na. T-� F7�'*7M1111.11 M sib MINI l• ==1M --� ■ M s0 .. MEM� _ mo ®- :X6 d MM.=1.1111=7 MIONIIIIIIIIMCMIIIIMIONIMININII=1111111111111•11110ED • M_' lu'1L 1.,..y "1 l}'•'„�.y' 1 _�1 MEM i • 1111.111.11112 n MEM 7:711•11':-.7.t...=-.-4=111=1.1111111111111.111,1111IMIII=111111111111111111 .2 III . rl -. -- 3.-? 11111111111111111= INEAll it 3 _=1111111111111111111111111111111111=1: 1101111.111=71111111111111-=-1 -1 Mai.•= _ '11-2_w—_,M111=11111111111=101=1=11111111111ININININIMINININI11111111=1 a• ow111=11111 � ili ._ a .ter r E� 00 11111111111■■■� ore NIMMM �-O 0 MEAN"=-, 111111111=11•111111111=11111=1111111=1111111111111111111= a • kr W`l:._L.JLJ. _ �—Pismo DI K VAA9St PIM FY 13`01AOM 5OMM1TOGF■14/means 1a/WpAl 7013 PropPloas taw^51) Packet Page-159- EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Direct the County Attorney to seek a Florida Attorney General Opinion regarding authorized uses of tourist development tax. OBJECTIVE: To be in compliance with Florida Statutes, specifically, Section 125.0104, Fla. Stat., Tourist development tax;procedure for levying; authorized uses; referendum;enforcement. CONSIDERATIONS: On October 25th 2005 the Board approved the Category "A" Funding Policy for tourist development tax use to include: "An area of an ineligible beach that is subject to high erosion with the recommendation of Coastal Advisory Committee and determination by the Board of Commissioners that it is in the public interest,may have erosion control structures installed,with Category"A"funding." It is unclear to me whether this policy is consistent with 125.0104(5)(a)4, Fla. Stat. It is also unclear to me whether the tourist development tax can be used for dredging passes if the dredge material is used for beach renourishment. Florida Statute is very specific on the use of tourist development tax. Obtaining an Attorney General Opinion on these issues will help gain certainty for the County for these expenditures. In furtherance of this Executive Summary, the County Attorney has drafted the attached proposed request to the Attorney General. I am asking the Board to authorize and direct the County Attorney to forward this request to the Attorney General. Fiscal impact: None Growth Management Impact: None Recommendations: To authorize and direct the County Attorney to forward the attached request to the Attorney General, which seeks an opinion from the Attorney General on the authorized uses of tourist development tax in compliance with Section 125.0104,Fla. Stat. Submitted by: Commissioner Henning BrockMaryJo From: OchsLeo Sent Saturday, December01, 2012 1:34 PM To: BrockMaryJo Subject: FW:Tourist Development Tax AG Request Attachments: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY signs.docx;TDC questions.docx.docx;beach funding policy.pdf.pdf, municode.doc.doc Original Message From: HenningTom Sent: Friday, November 30, 2812 7:47 PM To: OchsLeo Subject: FW: Tourist Development Tax AG Request please place on the Dec 11th agenda From: Klatzkow]eff Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 11:58 AM To: HenningTom Subject: Tourist Development Tax AG Request Commissioner Henning: In response to your e-mail, attached for loading onto SIRE please find: 1. A proposed Executive Summary, which I took the liberty of editing; 2. A proposed AG Request for the Board to approve. Feel free to advise me of any changes you would want to see in this request, which I believe captures your issues. 3. A copy of the Category A Funding Policy and the Tourist Development Tax ordinance, as amended, which is the back-up to the AG letter request. Jeffrey A. Klatzkow County Attorney (239) 252-2614 Original Message From: HenningTom Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 7:41 AM To: Klatzkow]eff Subject: Jeff I'm getting close to have my issues on the dec agenda. this is one more 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. 1 01.J.IF . Office of the County Attorney "`° Jeffrey A. Klatzkow U l ` Deputy County Attorney•Scott R.Teach Managing Assistant County Attorney•Heidi F.Ashton-Cicko` *Board Certified CO,County and Local Govemmont Law Assistant County Attorneys•Colleen M.Greene Kevin L Noell Emily R.Pepin Jennifer B.White Jeff E.Wright' December 11,2012 Honorable Pamela Bondi Attorney General of Florida Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol PLO! Tallahassee,FL 32399-1050 Re: Collier County's request for Formal Legal Opinion regarding authorized uses of the tourist development tax as set forth in Section 125.0104, Fla. Stat., the County's Tourist Development Tax Ordinance No. 92-60, as amended, and the County's Board approved funding policy for use of tourist development tax. Dear General Bondi: This is a request from the Collier County Board of County Commissioners ("BCC") for a formal legal opinion regarding authorized uses of the tourist development tax as set forth in Section 125.0104,Fla. Stat. (2012). (1) Whether Collier County's Tourist Development Category "A" funding policy which provides tourist development tax funding for erosion control structures for"ineligible beaches"is a lawful expenditure of tourist development tax funds. (2) Whether County Ordinance No. 92-60, as amended, which provides for "pass and inlet maintenance" using tourist development funds is consistent with and authorized by Section 125.0104(5)(a)(4), when said dredging projects are used for beach renourishment and erosion control. Issue I: Collier County's Category"A"Funding Policy On or about November 5, 2005, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners adopted a Tourist Development Category "A" Funding Policy. Collier County's Category "A" Funds are defined by the County Ordinance and generally follow the authorized expenditures in Section 125.0104(5)(a)(4). The purpose of the Funding Policy is to provide guidelines when a municipality or other group requests tourist development tax funds for items related to beach renourishment. 3299 East Tamiami Trail,Suite 800 • Naples Florida 34112-5749 • (239)252-8400 • FAX:(239)252-6300 Section 5 of the Funding Policy defines beach areas as "eligible or ineligible" for funds. The concept of eligibility is based on FDEP guidelines for cost share found in Section 62B- 36.007,F.A.C.,Project Cost Sharing. Section 5(b) of the Funding Policy, Ineligible Beach Areas, provides: "An area of ineligible beach that is subject to high erosion,with the recommendation of the Coastal Advisory Committee and determination by the Board of County Commissioners that it is in the public interest, may have erosion control structures installed,with Category"A"funding." Historically, the beach areas seeking such funds are areas that are accessible to the public by water but are beach areas that have no public parking or public land access. Question: Whether Collier County's Tourist Development Category "A" funding policy which provides tourist development tax funding for erosion control structures for "ineligible beaches" is a lawful expenditure of tourist development tax funds. Issue II: Category "A" funds for inlet and pass maintenance including dredging for beach renourishment Collier County's Tourist Development Tax Ordinance No. 92-60, as amended, provides authorized uses of Category "A" funds which mirrors Section 125.0104(5)(a)(4), with one exception. The County Ordinance provides that "pass and inlet maintenance" is an authorized use of Category "A" funds. This language has been in the County Ordinance since it was first adopted on August 18, 1992. The County has used tourist development tax funds to dredge passes and inlets using the sand for beach renourishment and erosion control. Question: Whether County Ordinance No. 92-60, as amended, which provides for "pass and inlet maintenance" using tourist development funds is consistent with and authorized by Section 125.0104(5)(a)(4), when said dredging projects are used for beach renourishment and erosion control. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Should you have additional questions, or require additional information,please contact me directly. Sincerely, Jeffrey A. Klatzkow County Attorney Attachments: Collier County Ordinance No. 92-60,as amended Collier County Category"A"Funding Policy dated November 5,2005 3299 East Tamiami Trail,Suite 800 • Naples Florida 34112-4902•(239)252-8400•FAX:(239)252-6300 Attachment (d) Agenda Item No. 16F1 October 25,2005 Page 3 of 7 Proposed Changes 9-8-05 TOURIST DEVELOPMENT CATEGORY"A"FUNDING POLICY 1. Use of TDC Category "A"funds. -: "•" e: _ .. . .. . . .- . .. acquisition. To finance beach Dark facilities or beach improvement, maintenance, renourishment, restoration and erosion control, including pass and inlet maintenance, shoreline protection, enhancement, cleanup or restoration of inland lakes and rivers to which there is public access, as these relate to the physical preservation of the beach t shoreline or inland lake or river.(Code of Ordinances,Division 3.Sec.126-83.) 2.Source of other funds. Federal or State funds are desirable and should be diligently pursued. 3. Mandatory annual budget allocation of funds and maintenance of reserves. a. Catastrophe reserves shall be accumulated in the budget with $1M in 2004 plus $0.5M per year thereafter(up to a maximum of$10M). In the event of a catastrophe requiring the expenditure of all or part of these reserves, $0.5M will continue to be set aside. I Y1 "• " c. b. Major renourishment reserves shall be accumulated in the budget with $2M per year after the completion of the major renourishment project currently in planning and permitting (as of November-2003 September 2005; projected to start setting aside funds in FY 2006 2007). d. c_Beach park facilities (including beach access property acquisition) shall be funded - - . - . : - - - annually in an amount equal to one-third of the TDC Category "A" revenues. e. d. Remaining funds may be used for eligible grant applications as outlined in the policy below. 4. Eligibility. Eligible beach areas qualify for Category "A" funding. An "eligible beach area" has-is: a. -- - = -- = - - --- - --•- - . -. . - ., -- ; : _ Accessible to the public. and Exhibit A Attachment (d) Agenda Item No. 16F1 October 25, 2005 Page 4 of 7 b. No more than one-half mile from a public beach park facility, public access point, hotel, or motel and if at least 80% of a beach area is classified as eligible, otherwise ineligible gaps will be deemed eligible. ' • - - .o 5.Ineligible beach areas: a Beach areas not meeting the criteria for eligibility of paragraph 4. above. are not eligible for Category "A" funding. Renourisment or maintenance of these beach areas are the responsibility of adjacent property owners. b. An area of an ineligible beach that is subject to high erosion, with the recommendation of the Coastal Advisory Committee and determination by the Board of County Commissioners that it is in the public interest. may have erosion control structures installed.with Cateeory"A"funding. 7- 6. Inlet Sand Bypassng. The bypassing of sand across inlets may be funded by Tourist Development Tax Category "A" funding provided the Inlet Management Plan recommends the bypassing . ,the dredging of the pass or inlet is recommended by the Coastal Advisory Committee. meets the inlet funding policy criteria and is approved by the Board of County Commissioners as being in the public interest.No TDC Category"A" funding will be approved for dredging non-beach compatible material except when encountered during an approved realignment or modification to an existing approved pass/inlet dredging nroiect and then only when recommended by the Coastal Advisory Committee, Tourist Development Council and approved by the Board of County Exhibit A • Attachment (d) Agenda Item No. 16F1 October 25,2005 Page 5 of 7 Commissioners as being in the public interest. , & 7. Shore protection structures and project sponsorship. Projects, including construction and maintenance of shore protection structures (groins,jetties, breakwaters, etc.), may be funded by Category"A"funding for eligible beaches. However, `ownership' responsibilities must rest with an entity other than"Tourist Development Taxes"—i.e. there must be a project sponsor(private interests, taxing districts, municipalities or County Departments other than those funded with Tourist Development Taxes). $ 8. Grant Application Review. The Coastal Advisory Committee and the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board will prepare and maintain a proposed prioritized annual spending plan for the use of Tourist Development Tax Category "A"funds,with a ten year projection. The proposed plans will be submitted to the Board of County Commissioners(BCC)for their consideration and approval,via the TDC. These submissions will coincide with the annual Collier County budget cycle. The Coastal Advisory Committee will review all requests for Tourist Development Tax Category"A"funds,with the exception of County maintained beach park facilities that will be handled by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. Both advisory boards will make recommendations for approval,denial or modification to the BCC,via the TDC,consistent with the BCC established policy for use of these funds. Exhibit A PARTI-CODE Chapter 126-TAXATION ARTICLE III.-TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX(LODGING TAX) DIVISION 3.-1992 TAX ORDINANCE DIVISION 3. - 1992 TAX ORDINANCE Sec. 126-81.-Purpose. Sec. 126-82.-Tourist development tax. Sec. 126-83.-Uses of tax revenues. Sec. 126-84.-Ballot auestion. Sec. 126-85.-Use of previously collected tax receipts. Sec. 126-86,-Tourist development council. Sec, 126-87.-Penalties for failure to collect. Sec.126-88.-Penalties for misrepresentation. Sec. 126-89.-Liens authorized. Sec. 126-90.-Repeal by referendum. Sec. 126-91.-Local administration of the tax. Secs. 126-92-126-110.-Reserved. Sec. 126-81. -Purpose. This division is adopted pursuant to the authority and requirements of F.S. § 125.0104 for the purpose of levying and imposing the tourist development tax, subject to approval by voters at a referendum election. It is further the intent of this division to provide for the use of the receipts of the tax imposed by division 2 of this article as required by Laws of Fla. chs. 92-175 and 92-204. (Ord. No. 92-60, § 1) Sec. 126-82. -Tourist development tax. (a) There is hereby levied, imposed and set a tourist development tax throughout the geographic area of the county at a rate of two percent of each whole and major fraction of each dollar of the total consideration charged every person who rents, leases or lets for consideration any living quarters or accommodations in any hotel, apartment hotel, motel, resort motel, apartment, apartment motel, roominghouse, mobile home park, recreational vehicle park, or condominium for a term of six months or less, as provided in F.S. § 125.0104(3)(a), as amended, unless such person rents, leases, or lets for consideration any living quarters or accommodations which are exempt according to the provisions of F.S. ch. 212. When receipt of consideration is by way of property other than money, the tax shall be levied and imposed on the fair market value of such nonmonetary consideration. (b) The tourist development tax shall be in effect until repealed by the board or repealed by referendum pursuant to section 126-90 herein and shall be in addition to any other tax imposed pursuant to F.S. ch. 212 and in addition to all other taxes, fees and the considerations for the rental or lease. (c) The tourist development tax shall be charged by the person receiving the consideration for the lease or rental, and it shall be collected from the lessee, tenant, or customer at the time of payment for the consideration for such lease or rental. (d) Pursuant to F.S. ch. 212, the state department of revenue shall keep records showing the amount of taxes collected, which shall also include records disclosing the amount of taxes collected for and Collier County,Florida,Code of Ordinances Page 1 of 9 • PARTI-CODE Chapter 126-TAXATION ARTICLE III.-TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX(LODGING TAX) DIVISION 3.-1992 TAX ORDINANCE from each county in which the tax authorized by this act is applicable. These records shall be open for inspection during the regular office hours of the said department of revenue subject to the provisions of F.S. § 213.053. (e) Pursuant to F.S. § 125.0104(10), the county tax collector shall be responsible for the collection and administration of the tax. Collections received by the tax collector shall be placed in the county tourist development trust fund, which shall be established by resolution of the board of county commissioners prior to receipt of any tax revenues collected pursuant to this division. (f) Pursuant to F.S. § 125.0104(3)(d), the board of county commissioners by an extraordinary vote hereby levies, sets and imposes an additional one percent tourist development tax (3rd percent) to be collected in the same manner as the two percent tax collected pursuant to this article. (g) Pursuant to F.S. § 125.0104(30(1), the board of county commissioners by a majority vote hereby levies, sets and imposes an additional one percent tourist development tax(4th percent)to be collected in the same manner as the two percent tax collected pursuant to this article. (Ord. No. 92-60, §2; Ord. No. 95-46, § 1, 9-5-95; Ord. No. 95-56, § 1, 10-24-95; Ord. No. 2005-43, § 1) Sec. 126-83. -Uses of tax revenues. (a) The tax revenues received pursuant to this division shall be used to fund the county tourist development plan,which is hereby amended as follows: Tourist Development Plan The two percent tourist development tax was levied throughout the county beginning the first day of the second month following approval of this article by referendum. The tax district includes the entire geographic area of Collier County, Florida. The anticipated revenue for a two percent tourist development tax for all of Collier County over a 24-month period was $7,000,000.00, less costs of administration. The additional one percent tourist development tax (3rd percent) was levied throughout the county beginning the first day of January, 1996. A majority of the electors of the county voting in a straw referendum election approved the continuation of the additional one percent tourist development tax prior to June 30, 2000, therefore the additional one percent tourist development tax shall continue until terminated by an amendment to this division. The tax district shall include the entire geographic area of Collier County, Florida. The additional tourist development tax (4th percent) shall be used to finance tourism promotion as provided herein. The tax district shall include the entire geographic area of Collier County, Florida. (1) The categories of use of the two percent, one percent (3rd percent) and additional one percent (4th percent) tax revenues by specific project or special use are hereby listed in the order of priority: CATEGORY A To finance beach park facilities or beach improvement, maintenance, renourishment, restoration and erosion control, including pass and inlet maintenance shoreline protection, enhancement, cleanup or restoration of inland lakes and rivers to which there is public access as these uses relate to the physical preservation of the beach, shoreline or inland lake or river. Collier County,Florida,Code of Ordinances Page 2 of 9 • PARTI-CODE Chapter 126-TAXATION ARTICLE III.-TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX(LODGING TAX) DIVISION 3.-1992 TAX ORDINANCE Percentage of Net Revenue 50 percent of the two percent tax and 100 percent of the one percent tax (3rd percent), reduced by the amount required for Category D. CATEGORY B To promote and advertise county tourism within the State of Florida, nationally and internationally, which encourages tourism to Collier County and to fund convention bureaus, tourist bureaus, tourist information centers and news bureaus as county agencies. If tax revenues are expended for an activity, service, venue or event, the activity, service, venue or event shall have as one of its main purposes the attraction of tourists as evidenced by the promotion of the activity, service, venue or event to tourists. Percentage of Net Revenue 23.236 percent of the two percent tax and 100 percent of the additional one percent tax (4th percent) CATEGORY C. To acquire, construct, extend, enlarge, remodel, repair, improve, maintain, operate or promote one or more county owned or operated museums or municipal owned museums that are owned and operated by not for profit organizations and open to the public. Percentage of Net Revenue 26.764 percent of the two percent tax. This amount may be amended upwardly or downwardly prospectively from the date of the budget amendment approval, provided that the amount of the aggregate allocation per fiscal year budget amendment does not exceed 26.764 percent of the two percent tax. Sub-categories: C(1):County owned or operated museums: 22.0 percent C(2): Municipal owned museums and museums owned and operated by not for profit organizations open to the public: 4.764 percent CATEGORY D To acquire, construct, extend, enlarge, remodel, repair, improve, maintain, operate or promote one or more fishing piers which are publicly owned and operated. Percentage of Net Revenue Amount budgeted for this category by the board of county commissioners each fiscal year, but not to exceed $200,000.00. This amount may be amended upwardly or downwardly prospectively from the date of the budget amendment approval, provided that the amount of the aggregate allocation per fiscal year does not exceed $200,000.00. It is the intent of this division that the above uses shall be funded separately, but simultaneously in the above percentages regardless of the actual amount of net revenues collected. It is the intent of this division that the above uses shall be funded separately, but simultaneously in the above percentages regardless of the actual amount of net revenues collected. Collier County, Florida, Code of Ordinances Page 3 of 9 • PARTI-CODE Chapter 126-TAXATION ARTICLE III.-TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX(LODGING TAX) DIVISION 3.-1992 TAX ORDINANCE (2) The additional one percent tax revenues (3rd percent) collected pursuant to subsection 126-82(f) shall be used to finance beach park facilities, beach improvement, maintenance, renourishment, restoration and erosion control including pass and inlet maintenance shoreline protection, enhancement, cleanup or restoration of inland lakes and rivers to which there is public access as these uses relate to the physical preservation of the beach, shoreline or inland lake or river. (3) The additional one percent tax (4th percent) collected pursuant to section TWO (G) shall be used entirely to finance tourism promotion including advertising, public relations, promotion, research and fulfillment. The Disaster Recover Advertising Fund will continue to be financed from the 23.236% of the 2% tax to maintain a maximum level of $1 million. At the end of each fiscal year, any remaining funds in the 23.236% of the 2% tax after fulfillment of the above uses in the 23.236% of the 2% tax will be distributed to Category "B" (Marketing and Promotion). It is the intent of the Board of County Commissioners to maintain this new level of tourism promotion dollars in the future. (4) Administrative costs. a. Tourism promotion administrative costs shall not exceed 32% of the total amount collected each fiscal year for Category"B"revenue. b. Project Management, Indirect Overhead, and Program Administration in support of Fund 195 (Beaches) and Fund 183 (Beach Park Facilities) shall not exceed 15% of Category "A" revenues. These charges to be split 75% to Fund 195 (Beaches) and 25% to Fund 183 (Beach Park Facilities). (5) The revenues to be derived from the tourist development tax may be pledged to secure and liquidate revenue bonds in accordance with the provisions of F.S. § 125.0104. Such revenue bonds and revenue refunding bonds may be authorized and issued in such principal amounts,with such interest rates and maturity dates, and subject to such other terms, conditions and covenants as the governing board of Collier County shall provide. This paragraph shall be full and complete authority for accomplishing such purposes, but such authority shall be supplemental and additional to, and not in derogation of, any powers now existing or later conferred under law. (6) The event bonds are issued by Collier County for any of the purposes enumerated by the Tourist Development Plan, the amount of tourist development tax receipts used to pay debt service on such bonds may exceed the percentages provided for the purpose for which such bonds were issued; provided, however, the maximum annual debt service on such bonds, together with any other obligations of Collier County which were issued to finance improvements for the same purpose and which are secured by the tourist development tax, must not exceed the stated percentage of tourist development tax receipts provided in the Tourist Development Plan for such purposes, as calculated as of the date of sale of such bonds. For purposes of performing the calculations described in this paragraph, the amount of tourist development tax receipts shall be assumed to be the amount provided as such in Collier County's immediately preceding annual audit, plus, if the levy of such tax was imposed or increased subsequent to the beginning of the period which was audited, an amount equal to the estimate by the County Manager of the moneys the County would have received if the tax imposition or increase had been in effect during the entire audit period. At or prior to the issuance of bonds the County Manager shall provide a certificate as to the findings required in this paragraph, which certificate shall be conclusive as to all matters provided herein. Collier County, Florida,Code of Ordinances Page 4 of 9 PARTI-CODE Chapter 126-TAXATION ARTICLE III.-TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX(LODGING TAX) DIVISION 3.-1992 TAX ORDINANCE (7) The sum of $1,000,000.00 annually allocated for Category "A" - Beach Park Facilities Fund 183 shall be reallocated to Fund 184 to be used for destination marketing for a period of one year from enactment of this amendment, at which time this provision will expire and be of no further force or effect unless further extended by the Board of County Commissioners. (8) The sum of$500,000.00 annually allocated for Catastrophe Reserves from County Fund 195 shall be reallocated to Fund 184 to be used for destination marketing for a period of one year from enactment of this amendment, at which time this provision will expire and be of no further force or effect unless further extended by the Board. (9) Five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000.00) of the Two million dollars ($2,000,000.00) that is annually allocated for Major Beach Renourishment Reserves from County Fund 195 shall be reallocated to Fund 184 to be used for destination marketing for a period of one year from enactment of this amendment, at which time this provision will expire and be of no further force or effect unless further extended by the Board. (10) The sum of$100,000.00 shall be reallocated from Fund 193 Municipal owned museums and Museums owned and operated by not for profit organizations open to the public, to Fund 198 County owned or operated Museums to be used for a one-time payment pursuant to a Category C (2) agreement with Marco Island Historical Society prior to the museum becoming a County owned and operated C (1) museum. This provision will expire and be of no further force or effect upon payment to Marco Island Historical Society. (11) The above and foregoing tourist development plan may not be substantially amended except by ordinance enacted by an affirmative vote of a majority plus one additional member of the Board of County Commissioners. (Ord. No. 92-60, § 3; Ord. No. 95-46, § 2, 9-5-95; Ord. No. 95-56, § 2, 10-24-95; Ord. No. 96-54, § 1, 9-10-96; Ord. No. 97-21, § 1, 5-20-97; Ord. No.98-95, § 1; Ord. No. 98-111, § 1; Ord. No. 99-28, § 1, 4-27-99; Ord. No. 99-50, § 1, 6-22-99; Ord. No. 99-66, § 1, 9-14-99; Ord. No. 01-31, § 1, 6-12-01; Ord. No. 03-10, § 1, 2-25-03; Ord. No. 2005-18, § 1; Ord. No. 2005-43, §2; Ord. No. 2009-58, § 1; Ord. No. 2010-44, § 1; Ord. No. 2011-02, § 1; Ord. No. 2012-08, § 1) Sec. 126-84. -Ballot question. Pursuant to F.S. § 125.0104, the board of county commissioners, by resolution, shall cause to be placed on the ballot at the next regular or special election to be held in the county, the question of the approval or disapproval of this ordinance, such question to be preceded by an explanatory statement or title as set forth in such resolution, with such question to appear on the ballot substantially as follows: FOR THE TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX AGAINST THE TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX (Ord. No. 92-60, §4) Sec. 126-85. - Use of previously collected tax receipts. In accordance with Laws of Fla. chs. 92-175 and 92-204, the tourist tax revenues previously received by the county pursuant to division 2 of this article shall be expended as follows: (1) If the voters approve the imposition of the tourist tax at the referenda provided in section Collier County,Florida,Code of Ordinances Page 5 of 9 • PART I-CODE Chapter 126-TAXATION ARTICLE III.-TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX(LODGING TAX) DIVISION 3.-1992 TAX ORDINANCE 126-84, 60 percent of the tax revenue previously received shall be expended to finance beach improvement, maintenance, renourishment, restoration and erosion control, including pass and inlet maintenance; and 40 percent shall be expended to promote and advertise the county tourism within the state, nationally and internationally, which encourages tourism with an emphasis on off-season visitors to the county. (2) If the voters disapprove the imposition of the tourist tax at the referenda provided in section 126-84, the revenue shall be expended for the uses provided in section 126-62. (Ord. No. 92-60, §5) Sec. 126-86. -Tourist development council. Pursuant to the provisions of F.S. § 125.0104, the board of county commissioners established by chapter 2, article VIII, division 10 of this Code an advisory council which is known as the Collier County Tourist Development Council. The council is composed of nine members, the original membership of which have been appointed by the board of county commissioners by Resolution No. 92-238. Chapter 2, article VIII, division 10 of this Code also sets forth the terms and composition of membership and the responsibilities and duties of the council. (Ord. No. 92-60, §6) Cross reference— Tourist development council,§2-986 et seq. Sec. 126-87. -Penalties for failure to collect. Any person who is a dealer hereunder who fails or refuses to charge and collect from the person paying any rental or lease the taxes herein provided, either by himself or through his agents or employees, is, in addition to being personally liable for the payment of the tax, guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in F.S. § 775.082 or F.S. §775.083. (Ord. No. 92-60, §7) Sec. 126-88. -Penalties for misrepresentation. No person shall advertise or hold out to the public in any manner, directly or indirectly, that he will absorb all or any part of the tax, or that he will relieve the person paying the rental of the payment of all or any part of the tax, or that the tax will not be added to the rental or lease consideration, or when added, that it or any part thereof will be refunded or refused, either directly, or indirectly, by any method whatsoever. Any person who willfully violates any provision of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in F.S. §775.082 or F.S. § 775.083. (Ord. No. 92-60, §8) Sec. 126-89. -Liens authorized. The tax hereby levied shall constitute a lien on the property of the lessee, customer or tenant in the same manner as, and shall be collectible as are, liens authorized and imposed in F.S. §§ 713.67, 713.68 and 713.69. (Ord. No. 92-60, §9) Collier County, Florida, Code of Ordinances Page 6 of 9 PART I-CODE Chapter 126-TAXATION ARTICLE III.-TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX(LODGING TAX) DIVISION 3.-1992 TAX ORDINANCE Sec. 126-90. -Repeal by referendum. Upon the filing of a petition signed by 15 percent, or more, of the electors of the county, the board of county commissioners shall cause an election to be held for the repeal of the tax, which election shall be subject only to any outstanding revenue bonds for which the tax has been pledged. (Ord. No. 92-60, § 10) Sec. 126-91. -Local administration of the tax. (a) It is the intent of the county to provide for the collection and administration of the tax on a local basis pursuant to F.S. § 125.0104(10) which provides for such election of local administration of the tax. It is further the intent of the county to be exempted from those requirements of F.S. § 125.0104 that the tax collected be remitted to the department of revenue before being returned to the county. (b) The county assumes responsibility for auditing the records and accounts of dealers, and assessing, collecting, and enforcing payment of delinquent tourist development taxes. The county adopts any and all powers and authority granted to the state in F.S. § 125.0104 and F.S. ch. 212 to determine the amount of the tax, penalties and interest to be paid by each dealer and to enforce payment of such tax, penalties, and interests by, but not limited to, distress warrants, writ of garnishments and criminal penalties as provided in F.S. ch. 212. (c) Initial collection of the tax shall continue to be made in the same manner as the tax imposed under F.S. ch. 212, part I (F.S. § 212.01 et seq.). (d) The county tax collector shall be responsible for the collection and administration of the tax. The person receiving the consideration for such rental or lease shall receive, account for, and remit the tax to the county tax collector. The tax collector shall keep appropriate records of said funds. The same duties and privileges imposed by F.S. ch. 212 upon dealers in tangible property, respecting the collection and remission of tax, the making of returns, the keeping of books, records and accounts, the payment of a dealer's credit in compliance with the rules of the department of revenue in the administration of said chapter shall apply to and be binding upon all persons who are subject to the provisions of this division; provided, however, the said county tax collector may authorize a quarterly return and payment when the tax remitted by the person receiving the consideration for such rental or lease for the preceding quarter did not exceed $100.00. Remittances of the tax and filing of the appropriate return may be done semiannually or seasonally as follows: (1) Facilities rented or leased which generate a total of $300.00 or less of tourist development tax revenue during a six-month period may remit the tax semiannually. The remittance and return filing date shall be between April 1st and April 20th for the six-month rental or lease period ending the preceding March 31st and the remittance and return filing date shall be between October 1st and October 20th for the six-month rental or lease period ending September 30th of each year. (2) The tourist development tax may be remitted seasonally for facilities that are rented or leased only for a total period of three months or less annually. The remittance and return filing date shall be between April 1st and April 20th for the preceding rental or lease period ending March 31st and the remittance and return filing date shall be between October 1st and October 20th for the preceding rental period ending September 30th of each year. (e) The county tax collector may promulgate rules, prescribe and publish the forms necessary to effectuate this division. Collier County,Florida, Code of Ordinances Page 7 of 9 PART I-CODE Chapter 126-TAXATION ARTICLE III.-TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX(LODGING TAX) DIVISION 3.-1992 TAX ORDINANCE (f) The county tax collector is hereby designated as the local official for the county who shall perform the enforcement and audit functions referenced in subsection (b) of this section which are associated with the collection and remission of this tax, including, without limitation, the following: (1) For the purpose of enforcing the collection of the tax levied by this division, the tax collector is hereby specifically authorized and empowered to examine at all reasonable hours the books, records, and other documents of all dealers, or other persons charged with the duty to report or pay a tax under this division, in order to determine whether they are collecting the tax or otherwise complying with this division. In the event said dealer refuses to permit such examination of its books, records or other documents by the tax collector as aforesaid, it is guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in F.S. § 775.083. The tax collector shall have the right to proceed in circuit court to seek a mandatory injunction or other appropriate remedy to enforce its right against the offender, as granted by this section, to require an examination of the books and records of such dealer. (2) Each dealer, as defined by statute, shall secure, maintain, and keep for a period of three years a complete record of rooms or other lodging, leased or rented by said dealer, together with gross receipts from such sales, and other pertinent records and papers as may be required by the tax collector for the reasonable administration of this division; and all such records which are located or maintained in this state shall be open for inspection by the tax collector at all reasonable hours at such dealer's place of business located in the county. Any dealer who maintains such books and records at a point outside this county must make such books and records available for inspection by the tax collector in the county. Any dealer subject to these provisions of this division who violates these provisions is guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in F.S. §775.082 or F.S. §775.083. (3) The tax collector shall send written notification, at least 30 days prior to the date an auditor is scheduled to begin an audit, informing the taxpayer of the audit. The tax collector is not required to give 30 days prior notification of a forthcoming audit in any instance in which the taxpayer requests an emergency audit. Such written notification shall contain: a. The approximate date on which the auditor is scheduled to begin the audit. b. A reminder that all of the records, receipts, invoices, and related documentation of the taxpayer must be made available to the auditor. c. Any other requests or suggestions the tax collector may deem necessary. (4) In addition to criminal sanctions, the tax collector is empowered and it shall be his duty, when any tax becomes delinquent or is otherwise in jeopardy under this division, to issue a warrant for the full amount of the tax due or estimated to be due, with the interest, penalties, and cost of collection, directed to all and singular the sheriffs of the state, and shall record the warrant in the public records of the county, and thereupon the amount of the warrant shall become a lien on any real or personal property of the taxpayer in the same manner as a recorded judgment. The tax collector may issue a tax execution to enforce the collection of taxes imposed by this division and deliver it to the sheriff. The sheriff shall thereupon proceed in the same manner as prescribed by law for executions and shall be entitled to the same fees for his services in executing the warrant to be collected. The tax collector may also have a writ of garnishment issued regarding any goods, money, chattels, or effects of the delinquent dealer which are in the hands, possession, or control of a third person based on an indebtedness owed to the delinquent dealer by the third person, to Collier County, Florida, Code of Ordinances Page 8 of 9 PARTI-CODE Chapter 126-TAXATION ARTICLE III.-TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX(LODGING TAX) DIVISION 3.-1992 TAX ORDINANCE enforce collection of the taxes in the manner provided by law. Upon payment of the execution, warrant,judgment, or garnishment, the tax collector shall satisfy the lien of record within 30 days. (g) The amount of administrative costs retained by the tax collector shall be negotiated annually, but shall not exceed three percent of the tax collected herein. The remainder of the tax collected shall be submitted to the county on a monthly basis. If the tax collector retains less than three percent of the tax collected for administrative costs, the county may retain an amount up to three p percent for administrative costs provided the aggregate amount retained by the county and the tax collector does not exceed three percent of the tax collected. (Ord. No. 92-60, § 11; Ord. No. 97-21, §2, 5-20-97) Secs. 126-92-126-110. -Reserved. Collier County, Florida,Code of Ordinances Page 9 of 9 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation that effective immediately, Clam Pass be considered part of the ongoing management responsibilities of the Pelican Bay Services Division ("PBSD") including but not limited to all monitoring components such as biological, tidal, and hydrographic data collection, and, inlet dredge permitting/construction; that PBSD, exclusively, shall make recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners as to when the inlet should be dredged,and make such other recommendations related to managing the unified Clam Bay system as it deems necessary; further, that Clam Pass, being an integral part of the Clam Bay system,is managed as such. OBJECTIVE: Effective immediately, that Clam Pass be considered part of the ongoing management responsibilities of the Pelican Bay Services Division ("PBSD") including but not limited to all monitoring components such as biological, tidal, and hydrographic data collection, and, inlet dredge permitting/construction; that PBSD, exclusively, shall make recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners as to when the inlet should be dredged, and make such other recommendations related to managing the unified Clam Bay system as it deems necessary; further,that Clam Pass, being an integral part of the Clam Bay system, is managed as such. CONSIDERATIONS: The purpose of the maintenance permit for the dredging of Clam Pass is to provide adequate tidal flushing of the Clam bay system for environmental benefits. The health and welfare of the Clam Bay system relies on adequate flushing, which starts with the inlet, yet is closely related to the shoaling within the system, and that shoaling largely occurs from the sand entering Clam Pass,so the two are inextricably related. Therefore bifurcating the project, as it was originally designed and permitted for the Clam Bay Restoration and Management Plan, into an inlet project and an interior environmental project resulting in two separately managed projects, is not the most efficient approach to managing this system. Clam Pass is an integral part of the Clam Bay system,and should be managed as such. Florida statutes and administrative rules require that sand dredged from the inlet be placed along the adjacent shorelines influenced by the inlet and experiencing erosion. The maintenance of Clam Pass should continue to address the erosion along the beaches with the immediate vicinity of Clam Pass and should not be considered part of the larger scale beach management program for Collier County. Over dredging Clam Pass for the purpose of obtaining additional sand for areas beyond the influence of Clam Pass can lead to additional localized shoreline and inlet stability problems in the immediate vicinity of Clam Pass. It is recommended that Clam Pass be considered part of the ongoing management responsibilities of the PBSD including all monitoring components such as biological, tidal, and hydrographic data collection. (The important tide monitoring portion of this plan has always remained under PBSD's jurisdiction). PBSD shall be responsible for the inlet dredge permitting/construction. PBSD, exclusively, shall make recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners as to when the inlet should be dredged, and make such other recommendations related to managing the unified system as is needed to preserve the environmental health of this Natural Resource Protection Area ("NRPA"). The PBSD's track record in being able to successfully manage the system through the highly successful mangrove recovery period is an indication that the PBSD is the right entity for the important responsibility of ensuring the preservation of the restored system. FISCAL IMPACT: None LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item has been reviewed by the County Attorney, is legally sufficient,and requires majority vote for approval. -JAK. RECOMMENDATION: Effective immediately, that Clam Pass be considered part of the ongoing management responsibilities of the Pelican Bay Services Division ("PBSD") including but not limited to all monitoring components such as biological, tidal, and hydrographic data collection, and, inlet dredge permitting/construction; that PBSD, exclusively, shall make recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners as to when the inlet should be dredged, and make such other recommendations related to managing the unified Clam Bay system as it deems necessary; further, that Clam Pass, being an integral part of the Clam Bay system, is managed as such. PREPARED BY: Commissioner Georgia Hiller EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Request for authorization to advertise an ordinance for future consideration which would amend Ordinance No. 2002-27, as amended, relating to the Pelican Bay Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit. OBJECTIVE: To obtain the Board of County Commissioners (Board's) authorization to advertize for future Board consideration the attached amendment to Ordinance No. 2002-27, as amended,which created the Pelican Bay Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit. CONSIDERATIONS: Collier County Ordinance No. 2002-27, as adopted on May 28, 2002, superseded, repealed, and consolidated prior ordinances relating to the Pelican Bay Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit. The Board subsequently amended the Ordinance through its adoption of Ordinance Nos. 2006-05 and 2009-05. The purpose of the ordinance is to amend the Pelican Bay Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit ordinance to clarify that the Unit will be solely responsible for advising the County on dredging and maintaining Clam Pass for the purpose of enhancing the health of the affected mangrove forest, and will manage such activities for the County; to add a non-voting member recommended by the Pelican Bay Foundation; and to create a system of rotating officers for this advisory board. FISCAL IMPACT: The cost for advertising the proposed ordinance is approximately$350.00. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: None. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: The proposed ordinance was drafted by the County Attorney, and is legally sufficient for Board action. A simple majority vote is required to authorize its advertisement. -JAK RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners authorizes advertisement of the attached ordinance for future Board consideration which will amend Ordinance No. 2002- 27,as amended,relating to the Pelican Bay Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit. SUBMTTED BY: Commissioner Georgia A. Hiller,District 2 ORDINANCE NO. 2013- AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2002-27, AS AMENDED, WHICH CREATED THE PELICAN BAY MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING AND BENEFIT UNIT, BY AMENDING SECTION FOUR, PURPOSE; POWERS; SECTION SEVEN, CREATION OF THE PELICAN BAY MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING AND BENEFIT UNIT ADVISORY COMMITTEE KNOWN AS THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD; SECTION EIGHT, COMPOSITION, NOMINATION AND APPOINTMENT; AND SECTION ELEVEN, OFFICERS; QUORUM; RULES OF PROCEDURE; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, on May 28, 2002, the Board of County Commissioners (Board), adopted Ordinance No. 2002-27, which superseded, repealed, and consolidated prior ordinances relating to the Pelican Bay Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit("Unit"); and WHEREAS, the Board subsequently amended Ordinance No. 2002-27 by adopting Ordinance No.2006-05 and Ordinance No. 2009-05;and WHEREAS, the Board desires to further amend Ordinance No. 2002-27, as amended, in order to clarify that the Unit will be solely responsible for advising the County on dredging and maintaining Clam Pass for the purpose of enhancing the health of the affected mangrove forest and will manage such activities for the County; to add a non-voting member recommended by the Pelican Bay Foundation; and to create a system of rotating officers for the Unit. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,that: SECTION ONE: AMENDMENT TO SECTION FOUR OF ORDINANCE NO. 2002-27, AS AMENDED. Section Four is hereby amended as follows: SECTION FOUR: Purpose;powers. The Unit is formed for the purpose of providing street lighting, water management, ambient noise management, extraordinary law enforcement service and beautification, including but not limited to beautification of recreation facilities, sidewalk, street and median areas, identification markers, the maintenance of conservation or preserve areas including the restoration of the mangrove forest preserve and to finance the landscaping beautification of only Words Underlined are added;Words Straeli—Threugh are deleted. Page 1 of 4 that portion of U.S. 41 from Pine Ridge Road to Vanderbilt Beach Road in the above-described taxing and benefit unit and to that end shall possess all the powers to do all things reasonably necessary to provide such services. The Unit will be solely responsible for advising the County on dredging and maintaining Clam Pass for the purpose of enhancing the health of the affected mangrove forest, and will manage such activities for the County. SECTION TWO: AMENDMENT TO SECTION SEVEN OF ORDINANCE NO. 2002-27,AS AMENDED. Section Seven is hereby amended as follows: SECTION SEVEN: Creation of the Pelican Bay Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit Advisory Committee Known as the Pelican Bay Services Division Board. Concurrent with the passage of the Ordinance, an 11 member advisory committee to be known as the Pelican Bay Services Division Board (PBSD Board) is hereby created. Those individuals who are members of the PBSD Board pursuant to Collier County Ordinance No. 90- 111,as amended,as of the moment prior to the effective date of this Ordinance, shall continue on as members of the PBSD Board until March 31st of the year in which their term would have expired as set forth in the prior ordinances, and shall continue to hold over and serve in that capacity until their position is filled as provided for in this Ordinance. In addition, there shall be 1 non-voting member nominated by the Pelican Bay Foundation in the manner set forth below. This non-voting member shall not be subject to the voting requirements set forth below. SECTION THREE: AMENDMENT TO SECTION EIGHT OF ORDINANCE NO. 2002-27,AS AMENDED. Section Eight is hereby amended as follows: SECTION EIGHT: Composition,nomination and appointment. A) The PBSD Board shall be representative of the residential, business and commercial interests and landowners in Pelican Bay. To that end, nine of the PBSD Board members shall be representative of the residential interests within the Unit and two of the PBSD Board members shall be representative of the commercial and business interests within the Unit. The non-voting member shall be recommended for appointment by the Pelican Bay Foundation. The non-voting member should be an individual who is not related to and who is independent of the other Board members and County employees, with no apparent conflict of interest or appearance of impropriety. Members of the PBSD Board shall be appointed by and serve at the pleasure of the Board of County Commissioners pursuant to the procedure outlined herein. The nine (9) PBSD Board members representative of the residential interests within the Unit, and the non-voting member recommended for appointment by the Pelican Bay Foundation, shall be residents of and qualified Words Underlined are added;Words Struck rough are deleted. Page 2 of 4 electors within the Unit. The two PBSD Board members representative of the commercial/business/other interests shall be residents of and qualified electors in Collier County. ********** SECTION FOUR: AMENDMENT TO SECTION ELEVEN OF ORDINANCE NO. 2002-27,AS AMENDED. Section Eleven is hereby amended as follows: SECTION ELEVEN: Officers; quorum; rules of procedure. A) At its earliest opportunity, the membership of the PBSD Board shall elect a chairman and vice chairs from among the members. Officers'terms shall be for one year,with no eligibility for re-election. Officer's terms are to be on a rotating basis, with no member allowed a second term for the same office unless all members have previously served in that position. This provision shall be retroactive for one year prior to the adoption of this ordinance, and shall apply to all current officers and members. ********** SECTION FIVE: CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY. In the event this Ordinance conflicts with any other ordinance of Collier County or other applicable law, the more restrictive shall apply. If any phrase or portion of the Ordinance is held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction,such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion. SECTION SIX: INCLUSION IN THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES. The provisions of this Ordinance shall become and be made a part of the Code of Laws and Ordinances of Collier County, Florida. The sections of the Ordinances may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such, and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section," "article," or any other appropriate word. SECTION SEVEN: EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be effective upon filing with the Department of State. Words Underlined are added;Words Struok gh are deleted. Page 3 of 4 PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by a vote of a majority plus one of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,Florida,this day of ,2013. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E. BROCK,CLERK COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA By: By: ,Deputy Clerk , CHAIRMAN Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: Jeffrey A. Klatzkow County Attorney Words Underlined are added;Words Struelk--Threugh are deleted. Page 4 of 4 • PART I-CODE Chapter 122-SPECIAL DISTRICTS ARTICLE LXI.-PELICAN BAY MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING AND BENEFIT UNIT DIVISION 1.–GENERALLY DIVISION 1.—GENERALLY Sec. 122-1651.-Creation of the Pelican Bay Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit. Sec. 122-1652.-Boundaries of the unit. Sec. 122-1653.-Governing body. Sec. 122-1654.-Purpose:powers. Sec, 122-1655.-Annual estimates of expenses:taxation and assessment rate. Sec. 122-1656.-Tax and assessment, imposition and collection. Secs. 122-1657-122-1660.-Reserved. Sec. 122-1651. -Creation of the Pelican Bay Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit. Pursuant to Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, and Collier County Ordinance No. 88-23, the Pelican Bay Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit (hereinafter "Unit") is hereby created for the purpose of providing street lighting, water management, extraordinary law enforcement service and beautification, including but not limited to beautification of recreation facilities, sidewalk, street and median areas, identification markers,the maintenance of conservation or preserve areas, including the restoration of the mangrove forest preserve and to finance the landscaping beautification of only that portion of U.S. 41 from Pine Ridge Road to Vanderbilt Beach Road. While repealing prior ordinances pertaining to the unit, the purpose of this article is to adopt a new ordinance that consolidates said preexisting ordinances into one easily read and understood article, with some modifications that express the will of the property owners within the unit. (Ord. No. 02-27, § 1, 5-28-02; Ord. No. 2006-05, § 1) Sec. 122-1652. -Boundaries of the unit. The Pelican Bay Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit is comprised of and includes those lands as described on the attached Exhibit"A"*and as depicted on the map attached hereto as Exhibit"B". (Ord. No. 02-27, § 2, 5-28-02) *Note—Exhibit A is not set out herein, but available as an attachment to Ord. No. 02-27. Sec. 122-1653. -Governing body. The governing body of the unit shall be ex-officio the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida. (Ord. No. 02-27, § 3, 5-28-02) Sec. 122-1654. -Purpose; powers. The unit is formed for the purpose of providing street lighting,water management, ambient noise management, extraordinary law enforcement service and beautification, including but not limited to beautification of recreation facilities, sidewalk, street and median areas, identification markers, the maintenance of conservation or preserve areas including the restoration of the mangrove forest preserve and to finance the landscaping beautification of only that portion of U.S. 41 from Pine Ridge Road to Collier County, Florida,Code of Ordinances Page 1 of 2 PART I-CODE Chapter 122-SPECIAL DISTRICTS ARTICLE LXI.-PELICAN BAY MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING AND BENEFIT UNIT DIVISION 1.—GENERALLY Vanderbilt Beach Road in the above-described taxing and benefit unit and to that end shall possess all the powers to do all things reasonably necessary to provide such services. The Unit will be solely responsible for advising the County on dredging and maintaining Clam Pass for the purpose of enhancing the health of the affected mangrove forest, and will manage such activities for the County. (Ord. No. 02-27, §4, 5-28-02; Ord. No. 2006-05, §2) Sec. 122-1655. -Annual estimates of expenses; taxation and assessment rate. For the purpose of carrying into effect and the administration of this article, the Board of County Commissioners shall annually, at the time required by general budgetary law, review and adopt an itemized estimate of the amount of money required to carry out the business of the unit for the next fiscal year, which shall be from October 1 to and including September 30 following (the "budget"). The proposed budget shall be prepared and reviewed by the Pelican Bay Services Division Board prior to its consideration by the Board of County Commissioners and after review by the Pelican Bay Services Division Board, the budget shall be heard, considered and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners as provided for herein. The proposed budget shall describe the purpose or purposes for which the moneys are required and the amount necessary to be raised by taxation and special assessment within the unit. At the time and place for establishing the annual rate of taxation for county purposes, the Board of County Commissioners shall fix and cause to be levied on all property within the unit subject to taxation or assessment a millage and assessment sufficient to meet the requirements of the budget; provided, however, the total millage shall not exceed the millage authorized by law for municipal service, taxing and benefit units. (Ord. No. 02-27, § 5, 5-28-02; Ord. No. 2006-05, § 3) Sec. 122-1656. -Tax and assessment, imposition and collection. Taxes and assessments herein provided for shall be levied and assessed, imposed and collected in the same manner and form as provided for the levy and assessment and collection of general county taxes subject to the same fees for assessing and collecting as general county taxes in accordance with general law. (Ord. No. 02-27, §6, 5-28-02) Secs. 122-1657-122-1660. -Reserved. Collier County, Florida, Code of Ordinances Page 2 of 2 PART I-CODE Chapter 122-SPECIAL DISTRICTS ARTICLE LXI.-PELICAN BAY MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING AND BENEFIT UNIT DIVISION 1.–GENERALLY DIVISION 1. —GENERALLY Sec. 122-1651.-Creation of the Pelican Bay Municipal Service Taxina and Benefit Unit. Sec. 122-1652.-Boundaries of the unit. Sec. 122-1653,-Governina body. Sec. 122-1654.-Purpose;powers. Sec. 122-1655.-Annual estimates of expenses;taxation and assessment rate. Sec. 122-1656.-Tax and assessment, imposition and collection. Secs. 122-1657-122-1660.-Reserved. Sec. 122-1651. -Creation of the Pelican Bay Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit. Pursuant to Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, and Collier County Ordinance No. 88-23, the Pelican Bay Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit (hereinafter "Unit") is hereby created for the purpose of providing street lighting, water management, extraordinary law enforcement service and beautification, including but not limited to beautification of recreation facilities, sidewalk, street and median areas, identification markers,the maintenance of conservation or preserve areas, including the restoration of the mangrove forest preserve and to finance the landscaping beautification of only that portion of U.S. 41 from Pine Ridge Road to Vanderbilt Beach Road. While repealing prior ordinances pertaining to the unit, the purpose of this article is to adopt a new ordinance that consolidates said preexisting ordinances into one easily read and understood article, with some modifications that express the will of the property owners within the unit. (Ord. No. 02-27, § 1, 5-28-02; Ord. No. 2006-05, § 1) Sec. 122-1652. -Boundaries of the unit. The Pelican Bay Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit is comprised of and includes those lands as described on the attached Exhibit"A"*and as depicted on the map attached hereto as Exhibit"B". (Ord. No. 02-27, §2, 5-28-02) * Note—Exhibit A is not set out herein, but available as an attachment to Ord. No. 02-27. Sec. 122-1653. -Governing body. The governing body of the unit shall be ex-officio the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida. (Ord. No. 02-27, §3, 5-28-02) Sec. 122-1654.-Purpose; powers. The unit is formed for the purpose of providing street lighting, water management, ambient noise management, extraordinary law enforcement service and beautification, including but not limited to beautification of recreation facilities, sidewalk, street and median areas, identification markers, the maintenance of conservation or preserve areas including the restoration of the mangrove forest preserve and to finance the landscaping beautification of only that portion of U.S. 41 from Pine Ridge Road to Collier County,Florida, Code of Ordinances Page 1 of 2 • PARTI-CODE Chapter 122-SPECIAL DISTRICTS ARTICLE LXI.-PELICAN BAY MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING AND BENEFIT UNIT DIVISION 1.—GENERALLY Vanderbilt Beach Road in the above-described taxing and benefit unit and to that end shall possess all the powers to do all things reasonably necessary to provide such services. The Unit will be solely responsible for advising the County on dredging and maintaining Clam Pass for the purpose of enhancing the health of the affected mangrove forest, and will manage such activities for the County. (Ord. No. 02-27, §4, 5-28-02; Ord. No. 2006-05, §2) Sec. 122-1655. -Annual estimates of expenses; taxation and assessment rate. For the purpose of carrying into effect and the administration of this article, the Board of County Commissioners shall annually, at the time required by general budgetary law, review and adopt an itemized estimate of the amount of money required to carry out the business of the unit for the next fiscal year, which shall be from October 1 to and including September 30 following (the "budget"). The proposed budget shall be prepared and reviewed by the Pelican Bay Services Division Board prior to its consideration by the Board of County Commissioners and after review by the Pelican Bay Services Division Board, the budget shall be heard, considered and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners as provided for herein. The proposed budget shall describe the purpose or purposes for which the moneys are required and the amount necessary to be raised by taxation and special assessment within the unit. At the time and place for establishing the annual rate of taxation for county purposes, the Board of County Commissioners shall fix and cause to be levied on all property within the unit subject to taxation or assessment a millage and assessment sufficient to meet the requirements of the budget; provided, however, the total millage shall not exceed the millage authorized by law for municipal service,taxing and benefit units. (Ord. No. 02-27, § 5, 5-28-02; Ord. No. 2006-05, § 3) Sec. 122-1656. -Tax and assessment, imposition and collection. Taxes and assessments herein provided for shall be levied and assessed, imposed and collected in the same manner and form as provided for the levy and assessment and collection of general county taxes subject to the same fees for assessing and collecting as general county taxes in accordance with general law. (Ord. No. 02-27, §6, 5-28-02) Secs. 122-1657-122-1660. - Reserved. Collier County, Florida, Code of Ordinances Page 2 of 2 PARTI-CODE Chapter 122-SPECIAL DISTRICTS ARTICLE LXI.-PELICAN BAY MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING AND BENEFIT UNIT DIVISION 2.–ADMINISTRATION DIVISION 2. -ADMINISTRATION Sec. 122-1661.-Creation of the Pelican Bay Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit Advisory Committee Known as the Pelican Bav Services Division Board. Sec. 122-1662.-Composition,nomination and appointment. Sec. 122-1663.-Terms of office of the Pelican Bav Services Division Board. Sec. 122-1664.-Removal from office;failure to attend meetings. Sec. 122-1665.-Officers:quorum:rules of procedure. Sec. 122-1666.-Reimbursement of expenses. Sec. 122-1667.-Functions,powers and duties of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board. Sec. 122-1668.-Duties of the county manager. Sec. 122-1669.-Review process. Sec.122-1670.-Opportunity to comment prior to initial implementation or use of the unit's taxing and assessment authority. Secs. 122-1671-122-1700.-Reserved. Sec. 122-1661. - Creation of the Pelican Bay Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit Advisory Committee Known as the Pelican Bay Services Division Board. Concurrent with the passage of the article, an 11 member advisory committee to be known as the Pelican Bay Services Division Board (PBSD Board) is hereby created. Those individuals who are members of the PBSD Board pursuant to Collier County Ordinance No. 90-111, as amended, as of the moment prior to the effective date of this article, shall continue on as members of the PBSD Board until March 31st of the year in which their term would have expired as set forth in the prior ordinances, and shall continue to hold over and serve in that capacity until their position is filled as provided for in this article. In addition,there shall be 1 non-voting member nominated by the Pelican Bay Foundation in the manner set forth below.This non-voting member shall not be subiect to the voting requirements set forth below. (Ord. No. 02-27, §7, 5-28-02; Ord. No. 2006-05, §4) Sec. 122-1662. -Composition, nomination and appointment. (a) The PBSD Board shall be representative of the residential, business and commercial interests and landowners in Pelican Bay. To that end, nine of the PBSD Board members shall be representative of the residential interests within the unit and two of the PBSD Board members shall be representative of the commercial and business interests within the unit. The non-voting member shall be recommended for appointment by the Pelican Bay Foundation. The non-voting member should be an individual who is not related to and who is independent of the other Board members and County employees, with no apparent conflict of interest or appearance of impropriety. Members of the PBSD Board shall be appointed by and serve at the pleasure of the Board of County Commissioners pursuant to the procedure outlined herein. The nine PBSD Board members representative of the residential interests within the unit, and the non-voting member recommended for appointment by the Pelican Bay Foundation, shall be residents of and qualified electors within the unit. The two PBSD Board members representative of the commercial/business/other interests shall be residents of and qualified electors in Collier County. Collier County,Florida, Code of Ordinances Page 1 of 7 • PARTI-CODE Chapter 122-SPECIAL DISTRICTS ARTICLE LXI.-PELICAN BAY MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING AND BENEFIT UNIT DIVISION 2.—ADMINISTRATION Appointment of members to the PBSD Board shall be by resolution of the Board of County Commissioners, which resolution shall set forth the date of appointment and the term of office. Any member of the PBSD Board who ceases to meet the requisite qualifications during his or her term of office shall immediately advise the Board of County Commissioners in writing of such change in status. Upon the Board of County Commissioners receiving such notice, otherwise becoming aware of such vacancy, or if a vacancy occurs by any other process,the Board of County Commissioners shall declare the position to be vacant and shall promptly consider filling the vacant position with a person from among the unsuccessful candidate(s) vying for the position from the immediately preceding recommendatory balloting that receives recommendation from the PBSD Board. In the event the PBSD Board should fail to provide its recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners within 20 days of the Board of County Commissioners being informed of "member's change in status", the Board of County Commissioners shall appoint the recent unsuccessful candidate that received the greatest number of votes among those unsuccessful candidates. In the event that there are no prior unsuccessful candidates available for appointment to the PBSD Board as provided herein, the vacant position shall be filled pursuant to the procedures of Collier County Ordinance No. 2001-55, including as may be amended or its successor ordinance. (b) The terms and provisions of section six of Collier County Ordinance No. 2001-55,titled "Process of Appointment", shall not be applicable to appointment of members to the unit. (c) Upon adoption of the ordinance from which this section derives, all of the members of the PBSD Board shall be appointed by, and all vacancies shall be filled by, the Board of County Commissioners, in the manner outlined herein, beginning with appointment to the PBSD Board of members to fill expiring memberships. All appointments of members to the PBSD Board shall be at the sole and complete discretion of the Board of County Commissioners. Provided however, that the Board of County Commissioners will take into consideration and give great weight to the recommendations of the property owners within the unit, utilizing the process outlined herein. Beginning with the second Tuesday in December, 2002, and each second Tuesday in December thereafter, the Board of County Commissioners shall publicly announce and advertise all current vacancy(ies) on the PBSD Board as of that date and shall request that applications be submitted to the Board of County Commissioners to fill the expiring term(s). All such applications shall be submitted in writing to the Board of County Commissioners no later than 28 days after said announcement as determined by the postmark on mailed applications and the time stamp on hand delivered applications. The name(s)of all appropriately qualified individuals timely submitted to the Board of County Commissioners shall be considered nominees for appointment to fill said expiring term(s).The Board of County Commissioners shall then publish said list of nominees and the positions on the PBSD Board for which they have been nominated (i.e., for the "residential interests" or for the "commercial/business/other interests") and deliver a conformed copy thereof to the clerk of courts (the "clerk"). The clerk shall cause the name of each nominee as reported and published by the Board of County Commissioners to be included on the mail ballot, which ballot shall be mailed to all of the nongovernmental property owners of the class (i.e. "residential or commercial/business/other") corresponding with the class for which the balloting is occurring ("residential or commercial/business/other")within the unit no less than 30 days prior to the balloting date. Said balloting date being set by the Board of County Commissioners. Collier County, Florida,Code of Ordinances Page 2 of 7 PARTI-CODE Chapter 122-SPECIAL DISTRICTS ARTICLE LXI.-PELICAN BAY MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING AND BENEFIT UNIT DIVISION 2.—ADMINISTRATION (d) (1) One indivisible vote may be cast for each parcel in the unit regardless of the number of persons who have an ownership interest in the property or the manner in which title is held by them, with each discrete parcel being those as listed by the property appraiser of Collier County and as approved by resolution of the Board of County Commissioners. Commercial/business/other owners cast ballots only for"commercial/business/other interest"positions and residential owners cast ballots only for"residential interest" positions. Only one ballot shall be counted for each parcel. If multiple ballots are cast for the same parcel by owners of record, all ballots for that parcel will be deemed invalid. It is not the responsibility of the clerk or the county attorney to determine or select the ballot to be counted wherein multiple ballots for a parcel are cast as described herein. (2) For purposes of determining record title owners of property entitled to cast ballots, the listed record title owners of property as evidenced by the Collier County Property Appraiser's tax rolls as of 60 days prior to the balloting date shall be utilized and deemed conclusive. Not less than 45 days prior to the balloting date, the property appraiser shall provide the clerk and the Board of County Commissioners with the list of all parcels within the unit, each parcel's identification number, the names of the property owners and their addresses, with said list designating each parcel as either residential/commercialother(based upon the property appraiser's classification system). (3) The mail ballots shall be cast directly with the clerk.At the place and time stated in the notice of the balloting published by the Board of County Commissioners, the clerk,with the assistance of the county attorney's office, shall open and count the ballots,which have been returned to the clerk as of the date and time stated in such notice of balloting, in a manner which the clerk deems advisable and not inconsistent with the provisions of this section.Any member of the public shall be entitled to attend and observe. The determination of the clerk and the county attorney of validity of any ballot shall be final. (4) The nominee(s) receiving a plurality of the ballots cast in each category of membership shall be deemed the successful nominee(s) and their name(s) shall be reported and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners. The Board of County Commissioners shall then, at their next regularly scheduled meeting, make the necessary appointments to fill said positions. (e) The cost of the nomination and balloting process shall be borne by the Board of County Commissioners. (f) Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the number of nominees for the position which they have been nominated (i.e., for the "residential interests" or for the "commercial/business/other interests") does not exceed the number of open members for that position, then there shall be no balloting for such position. Instead, the list of nominees for the position shall simply be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners, who,following public hearing on the matter,will make the necessary appointments to fill said positions. (Ord. No. 02-27, § 8, 5-28-02; Ord. No. 2006-05, § 5; Ord. No. 2009-05, § 1) Sec. 122-1663. -Terms of office of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board. In 2002, of the four terms which are expiring: i)two positions shall be filled with persons representative of the residential interests who shall each be appointed for a four-year term; and ii) two positions shall be filled with persons representative of the commercial/business/other interests,wherein one person will be appointed for a four-year term and one person appointed for a two-year term. Thereafter, each Collier County, Florida, Code of Ordinances Page 3of7 PART I-CODE Chapter 122-SPECIAL DISTRICTS ARTICLE LXI.-PELICAN BAY MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING AND BENEFIT UNIT DIVISION 2.—ADMINISTRATION appointment or reappointment shall be for a term of four years. Each new term of appointment will begin on the date of appointment and expire on March 31st. A member of the PBSD Board may be reappointed by the Board of County Commissioners without limitations. Appointments to fill any vacancies on the PBSD Board shall be for the remainder of the unexpired term of office. (Ord. No. 02-27, §9, 5-28-02; Ord. No. 2006-05, §6) Sec. 122-1664. -Removal from office; failure to attend meetings. (a) Any member of the PBSD Board may be removed from office by a majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners. (b) Notwithstanding the provisions of Collier County Ordinance No. 2001-55 as to attendance, if any member of the PBSD Board fails to attend two consecutive board meetings without a satisfactory excuse, as determined by the PBSD Board, or if a member is absent from more than one-half of the PBSD Board's meetings in a given fiscal year, the PBSD Board shall declare the member's seat to be vacant and the vacancy shall be filled by the Board of County Commissioners in conformance with this article. (Ord. No. 02-27, § 10, 5-28-02; Ord. No. 2006-05, §7) Sec. 122-1665. -Officers; quorum; rules of procedure. (a) At its earliest opportunity, the membership of the PBSD Board shall elect a chairman and vice chairs from among the members. Officers' terms shall be for one year, with no eligibility for re-election. Officer's terms are to be on a rotating basis,with no member allowed a second term for the same office unless all members have previously served in that position. This provision shall be retroactive for one year prior to the adoption of this ordinance, and shall apply to all current officers and members. (b) The presence of six or more members shall constitute a quorum of the PBSD Board necessary to take action and transact business. In addition, an affirmative vote of a majority of the members present shall be necessary in order to take action, except that an affirmative vote of seven or more members present shall be required to recommend the budget for the unit to the Board of County Commissioners. (c) The PBSD Board shall, by majority vote of the entire membership, adopt rules of procedure for the transaction of business of the PBSD Board and shall keep a detailed record of meetings, resolutions, findings and determinations. (Ord. No. 02-27, § 11, 5-28-02; Ord. No. 2006-05, § 8) Sec. 122-1666. -Reimbursement of expenses. Members of the PBSD Board shall serve without compensation, but shall be entitled to receive reimbursement for expenses reasonably incurred in the performance of their duties upon prior approval of the Board of County Commissioners after approval by the PBSD Board. (Ord. No. 02-27, § 12, 5-28-02; Ord. No. 2006-05, § 9) Collier County, Florida,Code of Ordinances Page 4 of 7 PARTI-CODE Chapter 122-SPECIAL DISTRICTS ARTICLE LXI.-PELICAN BAY MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING AND BENEFIT UNIT DIVISION 2.—ADMINISTRATION Sec. 122-1667. -Functions, powers and duties of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board. The functions, powers and duties of the PBSD Board shall be as follows, and shall be carried out consistent with the provisions of the memorandum of understanding/letter of understanding referenced herein: (1) With the assistance of the county manager, provide input to the Board of County Commissioners in carrying out the purposes of the Pelican Bay Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit as set forth in this article. (2) Upon any decision by the Board of County Commissioners to dissolve, merge or otherwise change or discontinue the functions or services provided by the Pelican Bay MSTBU, the PBSD Board shall be prepared to and shall aid, assist and provide input to the county manager and the Board of County Commissioners, within the time frame requested, in effectuating a smooth and expeditious transfer of street lighting, water management and beautification services, responsibilities and obligations to the unit. (3) With the assistance of the county manager,to prepare and recommend to the Board of County Commissioners an itemized budget of the amount of money required to carry out the business of the unit for the next fiscal year. (4) The PBSD Board shall recommend work programs and priorities to the Board of County Commissioners in accordance with the adopted budget or budget amendments which may be adopted by the Board of County Commissioners in accordance with law. The execution of work programs shall be under the direct supervision and responsibility of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board to be executed by the Pelican Bay Services Division staff with the assistance of any additional county staff needed in accordance with the memorandum of agreement/letter of understanding. Said work may be performed under contract (in accordance with law and county policy) or by county forces. (5) To enter into a memorandum of agreement/letter of understanding with the Board of County Commissioners, and with the county manager, wherein the parties outline that the intent in the operation of the unit is to allow the PBSD Board to exercise decision and control of the day to day operational affairs of the unit to the maximum extent allowed by law, unless and except when there is some overriding governmental reason to do otherwise. (Ord. No. 02-27, § 13, 5-28-02; Ord. No. 2006-05, § 10) Sec. 122.1668. -Duties of the county manager. The duties of the county manager or his designee shall be: (1) To participate in the administration of the activities of the unit in accordance with the memorandum of agreement/letter of understanding, and the established policies of the Board of County Commissioners, subject to the terms of this article. (2) To assist the PBSD Board performing its functions as defined by this article including the preparation of the proposed annual budget. Collier County, Florida,Code of Ordinances Page 5of7 • PARTI-CODE Chapter 122-SPECIAL DISTRICTS ARTICLE LXI.-PELICAN BAY MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING AND BENEFIT UNIT DIVISION 2.—ADMINISTRATION (3) To require any contract manager or employee manager of the unit to report directly to the county manager. (Ord. No. 02-27, § 14, 5-28-02; Ord. No. 2006-05, § 11) Sec. 122-1669. -Review process. This article shall be reviewed once every four years, in accordance with the procedures contained in Collier County Ordinance No. 2001-55. (Ord. No. 02-27, § 15, 5-28-02) Sec. 122-1670.-Opportunity to comment prior to initial implementation or use of the unit's taxing and assessment authority. Prior to adopting the budget for the unit and implementing any taxing or assessment authority under this unit, the Board of County Commissioners shall hold a public hearing upon reasonable notice in a local newspaper of general circulation. At such public hearing the Board of County Commissioners will consider the budget recommended by the PBSD Board and provide the public the opportunity to comment on the proposed budget and the implementation or use of the unit's taxing and assessment authority. (Ord. No. 02-27, § 16, 5-28-02; Ord. No. 2006-05, § 12) EXHIBIT A The Pelican Bay Services District is comprised of and includes those lands described as follows: A tract of land being in portions of Sections 32 and 33,Township 48 South, Range 25 East;together with portions of Sections 4, 5,8 and 9,Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida,being one and the same as the lands encompassed by the Pelican Bay Improvement District, the perimeter boundary of same more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Southeast corner of said Section 33; thence South 89 degrees 59 minutes 50 seconds West along the South line of Section 33 a distance of 150.02 feet to a point on the West right-of-way line of U.S. 41 (State Road 45), said point also being the Point of Beginning; thence Southerly along the West right-of-way line of said U. S. 41 (State Road 45)the following courses: South 00 degrees 58 minutes 36 seconds East a distance of 2.49 feet;thence South 00 degrees 55 minutes 41 seconds East a distance of 3218.29 feet; thence South 01 degrees 00 minutes 29 seconds East a distance of 3218.56 feet; thence South 00 degrees 59 minutes 03 seconds East a distance of 2626.21 feet; thence South 01 degrees 00 minutes 18 seconds East a distance of 2555.75 feet to a point on the North right-of-way line of Pine Road as recorded in D.B. 50, Page 490,among the Public Records of said Collier County; thence departing said U.S. 41 (State Road 45) South 89 degrees 09 minutes 45 seconds West along said North right-of-way line a distance of 2662.61 feet; thence South 00 degrees 51 minutes 44 seconds East a distance of 70.00 feet to a point on the North line of Seagate Unit 1 as recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 85 among said Public Records; thence South 89 degrees 09 minutes 45 seconds West along said North line of Seagate Unit 1 and the South line of said Section 9 a distance of 2496.67 feet to the Southwest corner of said Section 9;thence continue South 89 degrees 09 minutes 45 seconds West a distance of 225 feet more or less to a point on the mean high water line established May 15, 1968; thence a Northwesterly direction along said mean high water line a distance 15716 feet more or less; Collier County, Florida, Code of Ordinances Page 6 of 7 • PARTI-CODE Chapter 122-SPECIAL DISTRICTS ARTICLE LXI.-PELICAN BAY MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING AND BENEFIT UNIT DIVISION 2.—ADMINISTRATION thence departing said mean high water line South 80 degrees 29 minutes 30 seconds East and along the Southerly line of Vanderbilt Beach Road (State Road 862) as recorded in D.B. 15, Page 121 among said Public Records a distance of 7385 feet more or less to a point on said West right-of-way line of U. S. 41 (State Road 45);thence South 00 degrees 58 minutes 36 seconds East along said West right-of-way line a distance of 2574.36 feet to the Point of Beginning. Pelican Bay—Exhibit B Secs. 122-1671-122-1700. -Reserved. Collier County, Florida, Code of Ordinances Page 7 of 7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners direct staff to prepare RFPs for the Collier County General Beach Re-nourishment construction project to include pricing for sand in 50,000CY increments over 200,000CY up to 500,000CY, to include pricing for both truck hauls and dredging,to include pricing for such re-nourishment activities outside of and within turtle nesting season, and to include that the offered prices will be fixed for a period of time at the expiration of which if construction has not commenced that the contract will lapse and be put back out to bid in the future; that staff further prepare an RFP for Fixed Term Coastal Engineering services to expand the number of firms available to provide such services to the county; that these RFPs shall be prepared and publicly advertised during the months of December and January, respectively. OBJECTIVE: That the Board of County Commissioners direct staff to prepare RFPs for the Collier County General Beach Re-nourishment construction project to include pricing for sand in 50,000CY increments over 200,000CY up to 500,000CY, to include pricing for both truck hauls and dredging, to include pricing for such re-nourishment activities outside of and within turtle nesting season, and to include that the offered prices will be fixed for a period of time at the expiration of which if construction has not commenced that the contract will lapse and be put back out to bid in the future; that staff further prepare an RFP for Fixed Term Coastal Engineering services to expand the number of firms available to provide such services to the county; that these RFPs shall be prepared and publicly advertised during the months of December and January, respectively. CONSIDERATIONS: The county beaches are critically eroded. The 2006 general beach re- nourishment was constructed based on the adopted 6 (six) year design template. The county beaches should have next been re-nourished in 2012 - 6 (six) years following the last re- nourishment. This has not occurred to date. As such, time is of the essence in moving forward with the delayed re-nourishment in the interest of protecting the county's threatened shoreline, and avoiding further adverse economic impacts to the county's tourism industry. The state mandates that the beaches be preserved. Re-nourishment is required to that end. The Board of County Commissioners only recently re-adopted the 6 (six) year design template (unchanged/not expanded from 2006), and has finally submitted the permit application to the state and federal agencies, which permits are under review. There remains the question of what quantity of sand is needed to satisfy the six year design template given the current erosion levels. A peer review of the proposed quantities is being separately requested. The 2012 monitoring report provides that 120,000CY of sand has eroded in the stretch between the north county beaches and the south city beaches. However, the County's outside consulting engineers have estimated that 420,000CY are needed to fill the six year design template notwithstanding that the actual erosion is 120,000CY. The county's permit submittal requests 515,000CY. The differences between the actual erosion and proposed sand quantities necessitates that the construction RFP be drafted to request bidders to quote prices in 50,000CY increments above 200,000CY up to 500,000CY to avoid a future challenge by any selected contractor. Further, pricing should be obtained for truck hauls as well as dredging, and also for re-nourishment activity outside and within turtle nesting season. Importantly, since the time for performance is unknown, the RFP shall state that the prices shall be fixed for a limited time, and if the county doesn't proceed with construction within the stated period, that the contract will lapse at no cost to the county and be rebid in the future. This avoids the unfairness of tying up a dredger's equipment and the risk that the county would face delay related price increases. Additionally, given that the county faces ongoing coastal engineering emergencies related in part to storm events, providing an expanded list of coastal engineering firms under fixed contracts eliminates the risk of delays in responsive performance associated with the time it takes to bid a project, and, that the limited number of firms the county currently has under fixed contracts are unable to perform when needed due to scheduling conflicts. Ensuring availability of such engineering services is critical. As such, it is recommended that the county prepare and advertise an RFP for fixed contract coastal engineering services as was done in 2008. FISCAL IMPACT: Estimate of construction and engineering budgets to be provided by staff. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This has been reviewed by the County Attorney, is legally sufficient, and requires majority vote for approval. -JAK RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners direct staff to prepare RFPs for the Collier County General Beach Re-nourishment construction project to include pricing for sand in 50,000CY increments over 200,000CY up to 500,000CY, to include pricing for both truck hauls and dredging, to include pricing for such re-nourishment activities outside of and within turtle nesting season, and to include that the offered prices will be fixed for a period of time at the expiration of which if construction has not commenced that the contract will lapse and be put back out to bid in the future; that staff further prepare an RFP for Fixed Term Coastal Engineering services to expand the number of firms available to provide such services to the county; that these RFPs shall be prepared and publicly advertised during the months of December and January, respectively. PREPARED BY: Commissioner Georgia Hiller EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation that the County Attorney be directed to handle all aspects of the FEMA beach re-nourishment reimbursement denial and de-obligation appeals on behalf of Collier County; to direct that staff provide the County Attorney with all requested information, and to assist his office in any manner he deems necessary; further, that the County Attorney assess what civil and/or criminal liability the county may face if the final determination on appeal is that the county materially misrepresented to the federal government (by way of overstatement) what the storm related beach re-nourishment expenses were,and report back to the Board of County Commissioners. OBJECTIVE: That the County Attorney be directed to handle all aspects of the FEMA beach re-nourishment reimbursement denial and de-obligation appeals on behalf of Collier county; to direct that staff provide the County Attorney with all requested information, and to assist his office in any manner he deems necessary; further, that the County Attorney assess what civil and/or criminal liability the county may face if the final determination on appeal is that the county materially misrepresented to the federal government (by way of overstatement) what the storm related beach re-nourishment expenses were, and report back to the Board of County Commissioners. CONSIDERATIONS: Without Board of County Commissioners knowledge or direction, staff has appealed FEMA reimbursement denials of storm related re-nourishment expenditure reimbursement requests. Importantly,the County Attorney was never apprised of the denials, nor of the ensuing appeals. Staff has independently handled two separate appeals, and has lost on both counts. FEMA's denial amounts to approximately $9 million. Generally, FEMA claims that the county's consulting engineers materially misstated the qualifiable reimbursable amounts by improperly combining general beach re-nourishment expenses with storm related beach re- nourishment expenses, thereby overstating what is actually owed the county by FEMA. The county is now commencing it's third appeal of this same dispute. FEMA has, in addition to the denials, de-obligated the county for approximately $11 million, again claiming that the storm related beach re-nourishment expenditures were overstated by the wrongful inclusion of general beach re-nourishment expenditures. Again, the County Attorney was not timely apprised, nor involved in this matter when it came to light; neither was the Board of County Commissioners until recently. The county is facing a potential total loss of about $19 million in federal reimbursements it had hoped to receive. The matter has escalated to a legal challenge and as such jurisdiction properly rests with the County Attorney's office,rather than with the County Manager's office. Further, if the county is found to have in fact materially misrepresented it's request for federal reimbursement, the county may or may not face civil and/or criminal liability. The county should understand what contingent liabilities, if any, it may face. It is clearly the hope that the county's consultants/staff representations are accurate, and,that the county can prevail in its' third denial appeal,and, first de-obligation appeal against FEMA. Note: The dollar amounts provided herein are approximate. It is expected that the County Attorney will inform the Board of County Commissioners of the actual amounts in dispute with accuracy at a future BCC meeting. FISCAL IMPACT: To be assessed by the County Attorney and brought back to the Board of County Commissioners upon determination,for approval. RECOMMENDATION: That the County Attorney be directed to handle all aspects of the FEMA beach re-nourishment reimbursement denial and de-obligation appeals on behalf of Collier county; to direct that staff provide the County Attorney with all requested information, and, to assist his office in any manner he deems necessary; further, that the County Attorney assess what civil and/or criminal liability the county may face if the final determination on appeal is that the county materially misrepresented to the federal government (by way of overstatement) what the storm related beach re-nourishment expenses were, and report back to the Board of County Commissioners. PREPARED BY: Commissioner Georgia Hiller Reference -Minutes of BCC meetings where the YORK/FEMA denial appeal documents were introduced,and,where the FEMA de-obligation was brought to the BCC's attention by staff. September 11-12, 2012 County, et al, Second District Court of Appeals, Case No. 2D11-1224; Shawn Hussey, et al versus Collier County, et al, Second District Court of Appeal, Case No. 2D11-1223. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have two minutes, right? MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Turn your pages to 11.H and smile. CHAIRMAN COYLE: What is this? MR. OCHS: Take a two-minute stretch break? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, we can take a two-minute break. MR. OCHS: Thank you. (Recess.) Item #11H RECOMMENDATION TO DIRECT THE COUNTY MANAGER TO PURSUE THE RECOVERY OF DE-OBLIGATED FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY (FEMA) PAYMENTS FROM HURRICANES KATRINA & WILMA AND AUTHORIZE EXPENDITURES UP TO $100,000 FOR TECHNICAL, LEGAL AND PROFESSIONAL RESOURCES TO SUPPORT THE RECOVERY EFFORT— MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS — APPROVED MR. OCHS: Thank you, Commissioners, I appreciate your indulgence. That takes us to your 11:30 a.m. time certain hearing. It's Item 11.H on your agenda. Recommendation to direct the County Manager to pursue recovery of de-obligated Federal Emergency Management Agency payments from Hurricanes Katrina and Wilma and authorize expenditures up to $100,000 for technical, legal and professional resources to support the recovery effort. Mr. Casalanguida will present. Page 78 September 11-12, 2012 MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thank you, County Manager. For the record, Nick Casalanguida. Commissioners, over the summer County Manager implemented the reorganization plan and coastal zone moved into natural resources to get a dedicated budget team, prepare team and a support staff Over that summer we started to receive information from the Federal Depart -- Florida Department of Emergency Management, as well as FEMA, regarding the disallowed cost initiative that started in November of last year. That initiative was referencing $800 million nationwide in terms of money they'd like to get back into their coffers. The state was notified in June. State passed the invoices to us at the end of July, and direction from the County Manager was to run this down and research the item prepare a brief and an action plan before he brought this item to the Board. We are not alone in the State of Florida. As Mr. Bob Seibert from the state will tell you, there's anywhere from 80 to $110 million of disallowance through other agencies. In speaking to one of the board members from the water management district, they're facing a $24 million de-obligation. The methodology is based on Florida Department of Emergency Management consultation, FEMA guidance, it was done through state coordination with consultants, your staff, and FEMA. Many, many times they approved it at the state level, they approved it at the Atlanta Level and at the Washington D.C. level. The irony here, as we discussed earlier, is Mr. Fugate was the Florida Department of Emergency Management Director, now he's the FEMA director. I've read some of the past memos and appeal responses, and I believe that the qualifying statements are mostly subjective. They're not objective. I look at some of the comments "may," I look at some of the comments, prefer estimates over engineered drawings, and it makes me a little worried when I start going through these documents Page 79 September 11-12, 2012 and I don't see them specifically referencing one document. So I'm going to go recap a couple of the key points and I'll let Mr. Seibert speak. All the work and expenditures that was done were Board approved. And you would have had to do them anyway. This is a reimbursement that we're arguing about. So the expenditures for beach renourishment were budgeted projects that you were going to do. The storm came through. We're fighting to get money through the code and federal regulations we're supposed to get. But it's money you would have had to spend anyway. We requested $31 million; we received 20. And with this pending de-obligation, we still have $9 million that we'd receive from FEMA. Our action plan, and as discussed this morning under the item under public comment I think is prudent to go through the federal lobbying avenue. We need to get state support from the Governor, because the Governor's agencies are also facing this de-obligation. And I fully intend to prepare a technical response to FEMA. In talking about it with our staff, I said this is pretty straightforward. We're going to go back to 2000, we're going to prepare some maps. Every time we had accretion and erosion we're going to update those maps with a table. Every event, every time we did renourishment that was part of maintenance or any project that we have. In talking to our staff, I think that's going to be pretty foolproof to be able to put that forward. Now, in managing expectations, what I've seen in researching this in other municipalities and other agencies is FEMA tends to settle. Because a lot of their criteria can be subjective. So I don't know if we'll get any of the 11 million back, I don't know if we'll get all of the 11 million back. I know that we have to go forward and put together a technical response, I know that we need to bring some of the Page 80 September 11-12, 2012 consultants forward, and I know that we have to get the lobbyists involved as well. So with that, I'd like to bring up Mr. Seibert from the state and echo some of the comments he's given us on the quality of our submittal and if we have done everything proper in terms of being able to get money back. Mr. Seibert? MR. SEIBERT: Good morning, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good morning. MR. SEIBERT: What you've heard is -- MR. OCHS: Would you identify yourself for the record. MR. SEIBERT: I'm Bob Seibert, I'm the Deputy Public Assistance Officer of the Lead for the state, and we handle all of the infrastructure issues. So I thought I'd let you know what the format was and the process was of how the funding went so that you know how it could come back. The -- when there's a disaster it's declared, PW, project officers go out, come out to Collier, inspect everything, all the damages, estimate the damages and the cost and submit a project. Project equals a grant, federal grant. And that comes in to the state. We review and approve or disapprove or add and then give it back to FEMA, it goes into their system, it goes through a series of approvals. The money is obligated. And that money comes into the state's SmartLink account. And at that point in time we make payment out to the grantees, so -- actually it's sub-grantees at that time. So that's the way it works. And then when they take it back, when they de-obligate the money, they, FEMA, for whatever reason, whether it's considered ineligible or something else, they de-obligate, process the paperwork in the system and then automatically take the money out of SmartLink. So they're not taking your $11 million out, they're taking Page 81 s • September 11-12, 2012 $11 million out of the SmartLink account that was due other sub-grantees and maybe even the state's shares. So that's where the money flow is. Let's get back to why we're here and why we're working with Gary and his crew. We've been working together for quite some time. We come over here to write the projects with my counterpart who was the Director of Public Assistance for the FEMA. And we met and decided that this was -- all the beach renourishment were valid eligible projects. We outlined the process where that was going to occur. And for the -- PW2700 is the number. There were 463 pages of documentation in that one grant. And that came from -- all but 23 pages came from Gary and his crew. And what it did, all of the money was exact down to the penny. We had everything cured according to and copied over according to the various contracts. And there were quite a few. It all balanced. And the money was obligated, paid in 2010, August of 2010. It was paid to us at the state, we paid it back to Collier, and everything was fine. Then FEMA got hit with a -- their DRF, Disaster Relief Fund, was almost defunct for -- on two different occurrences from 2010 on. They were only processing very few projects and grants because they didn't have the money there. Part of that was because of Katrina and California and other flooding in other states in addition to Florida. So that happened. Then FEMA took a look at what was going on and they decided to do a disallowed cost initiative. And that's coming from HRS. HRS is the cabinet seat, FEMA is the sub-department to DHS federally. The CFO of DHS decided FEMA was going to have to take some money back because there was some money sitting out there for maybe a couple of years in various states, and if the applicants were not going to do the work in a timely manner, they wanted their money Page 82 September 11-12, 2012 back. As a result, that started a de-obligation of many, many grants throughout the country. Now, for Florida, there were 1,334 de-obligations on projects. $275 million went out of the State of Florida back to the fed. During that same period obligations which are plus money coming back to the state was only 182 million. How that money flowed was -- that was in 2011, 2012. In 2012 there was $131 million of de-obligations and 33 million of obligations. So you can see where the emphasis has been. And that's one of the reasons you all got caught up in that. It got to the point where when we did the appeal for DR1393, which was Gabriel, FEMA decided to open up all the beach projects. And someone had an opinion that 2700 was ineligible, ineligible work. To somewhat belay that this project was obligated and approved, went all the way up from here in Florida to Atlanta, to headquarters through the million dollar queue, before the money was paid out. So it went through all those queues and all those approvals at one time, I find it very difficult to understand why they would change their mind two years after the fact. Because the de-obligation occurred in June of this year. So that's just the history of things. The complexity of the project was significant. There was a lot of environmental issues with FEMA, as well as state. We had turtle monitoring. And this all started with Gabriel in 2001 where that project was written and it was sand renourishment and replacement, and it was denied totally. Just flat out denied by FEMA. And it was appealed. The first appeal was denied by FEMA. And then a second appeal. Now, when a second appeal goes -- first appeal goes to Atlanta, second appeal goes to headquarters in DC. And it was upheld. So you got the money for the Gabriel renourishment. So just give you that history to let you know that there always seems to be with FEMA issues with sand renourishment. And since this was quite a large obligation, it was seen by many, many eyes. Page 83 September 11-12, 2012 The state fully supports Collier, and we will walk shoulder-to-shoulder all the way up through to DC with the appeals, first and second. Because what we're doing, FEMA kind of pulled a little end around on us where they de-obligated the 2700, which is Wilma, as part of the Gabriel appeal. So we're going back and saying, you know, you really can't do that. We're going to appeal the de-obligation of 2700 separate from Gabriel. And that's why we're in the process of developing all the legal and programmatic issues of that right now. I think our key is we're in this together. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Mr. Seibert, I'd like to express my appreciation for your support and for your being here today. Can you tell us very briefly, under what authority has FEMA taken this action, and are they in conformance with that authority? MR. SEIBERT: We have had legal minds look at it. I've got three issues where we're ready to contest from a legal standpoint. You have 44 CFR, which is part of the Stafford Act, and we're going to tear that apart, as well as all of the working documentation that we have to back it up here from Collier. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right, thank you. Commissioner Hiller? COMAiIISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. Thank you very much for being here, Mr. Seibert, I appreciate it. MR. SEIBERT: You're welcome. COMrVIISSIONER HILLER: I've read the emails you sent to the county, and I saw where you made reference to how PW2700 is being deemed ineligible. And I'll read exactly what you say in your email. What is being used to make PW2700 ineligible is opinion regarding storms that were not named as disaster events. Now, if you take out the storm events which were not named as disasters and separate it from the Wilma, what is the amount that you believe should be de-obligated? Page 84 September 11-12, 2012 MR. SEIBERT: I think the amount as written stays pat. The unnamed storms are covered in your annual renourishment of 50,000 cubic yards. It stems from your DEP from 19 I think 95 where you redo the 50,000 cubic yards every year to account for annual erosion, et cetera. Those would be covered in that. And that's our position. The renourishment of 50,000 cubic yards every year was totally ignored and passed over in FEMA's de-obligation and denial of the appeal. That's one of the things that we're going to hang one of our hats on. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So are you saying the entire 11 million -- and just also to clarify one point, you said that the feds would pull the money from the state coffers, not the county coffers. But then in turn what would happen is prospectively the state would de-obligate us for whatever amount the state is remitting back to FEMA, if any is remitted; isn't that correct? MR. SEIBERT: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So in the end it still comes out of our coffers. MR. SEIBERT: It does. COMIVIISSIONER HILLER: Going back to clarify, are you suggesting the entire 11 million is challengeable? MR. SEIBERT: Yes. We were -- excuse me for just a second. We were very positive in the total and that it was complete, accurate and eligible when submitted. FEMA backed that up because they approved it and gave us the money two years before it was de-obligated. So there was a separate or a change of venue that had a different set of-- pair of eyes looking at it. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Following up, the other statement you made is that FEMA was de-obligating because there were counties that had not made the expenditures and the money was still sitting there and so they said well, you know, if you didn't need to make these expenditures and it's been so long, you don't really need Page 85 • September 11-12, 2012 this money so we're taking it back. Has all the money actually been expended by the county, and was everything given to the county on a reimbursement basis? MR. SEIBERT: Yes, it was. COMMISSIONER HILLER: How does that affect the other non, well, let's call them named disaster events like Fay. What is the expectancy that we will receive monies for Tropical Storm Fay? And how does this affect Tropical Storm Isaac? I heard -- and I haven't been briefed by staff; but I heard it on the news that the county is expecting to make a claim for some $5 million related to Tropical Storm Isaac. How does that all play into this de-obligation claim being made by FEMA? And is that something we can expect with respect to Fay possibly, and does that mean that Isaac is not a realistic request? MR. SEIBERT: Those separate storms are supposed to keep their own identity money-wise and obligation-wise. So there should be no effect from Wilma on Isaac, Debbie and -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I'm not concerned about Wilma's effect. I'm concerned about FEMA's position with respect to now going back and de-obligating what hasn't been spent. To give you an example, we haven't spent the funds on Tropical Storm Fay for the damage caused by Fay, and it's been years. I believe that was in 2008. Isaac now has just occurred and that's a claim we're making for what just happened, so that's a little bit different. But I want to know what we're looking at here in terms of a potential trend. MR. SEIBERT: FEMA has been paid the 11 million. So the state doesn't owe them anything. The money default right now or deficiency right now is between the state and Collier. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, I see. So the state has already given the feds the $11 million? MR. SEIBERT: Well, we didn't give it, they took it. Page 86 UMW September 11-12, 2012 COMMISSIONER HILLER: So they already took it. MR. SEIBERT: Yes. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I see. MR. SEIBERT: It's an automatic. As soon as it's de-obligated they subtract the money -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: They just take it off from future funds. MR. SEIBERT: They take it off of existing funds that are in there for projects that are due other sub-grantees in the state. COMMISSIONER HILLER: What about Collier's money coming from the state, has it been -- has that been reduced now by that 11 million and until this is settled that money is not coming down to Collier? MR. SEIBERT: We will hold money until that 11 million is paid,just like any business would. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So Gary, how much were we expecting to get from the state towards this upcoming beach renourishment that you had proposed? MR. McALPIN: We -- for this upcoming beach renourishment, we were not planning -- when we look at our funding, we were not planning on receiving any money from the government on that for Tropical Storm Fay, Isaac or Debbie. So that's still an open book. We will apply for funds if that's the direction the Board gives us. But when we bring the renourishment program back to the Board on the 25th, we'll have some discussion about how much funds we have. And we've always said we're going to scope manage that project. So at this point in time we're not planning on using any FEMA funds for that project. COMMISSIONER HILLER: State funds. MR. McALPIN: State funds. Now, state funds is Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Part of this would be a cost Page 87 • I September 11-12, 2012 share program that we would apply for. As far as I know, Commissioner, that is completely separate and distinct from that. Again, that goes into the how we organize this project, how much money that we have accrued in the county for beach renourishment. We've been accruing funds for beach renourishment. So that's part of this whole funding mechanism that we need to look at in total. But I believe DEP's money is distinct and separate. I can't -- I am not the one to talk about that at this point in time. We will have that information for you when we bring our beach renourishment program, as far as what we're going to do, the next major beach renourishment to you in a couple of weeks. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I thought we were going to get money, for example, from Marco for Tropical Storm Fay. We had a discussion about that. We said the bulk of the damage there was attributable to that and that we were going to get monies from the state for Tropical Storm Fay to pay for that Marco project. And that's just a small example, you know, pulling the information from memory. MR. McALPIN: There's -- you know, for Tropical Storm Fay for Marco, we have said at one point in time there could be $1 million coming for that. But that would be from federal funding for Marco. We would make that in terms of timing and sequencing for Marco with that, Commissioner. But what we would prefer to do in terms of this moving forward is look at -- we have totally funded the Marco program from existing funds that we have with TDC. So we could bring all that information back to you at the next Board meeting when we're talking about funding for the beach renourishment programs. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Mr. Seibert, are those funds going to come out of the DEP beach renourishment cost share? MR. SEIBERT: My understanding is that we would not be crossing over grants from different accounts, if you will, and sources. Page 88 September 11-12, 2012 We are just now starting to cross over FEMA grants. If we have something that somebody owes in Wilma and we have money in Fay or whatever and we can offset the Wilma deficiency with the Fay money, we're going to start doing that. And that will all be done with a lot of documentation back and forth with the various sub-grantees in the state. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So basically any money that we expected to get from FEMA for beach renourishment that we have not gotten, we can now expect not to get until this matter is resolved. MR. SEIBERT: That would be correct. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we have public speakers, Ian? MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we have one speaker. Bob Krasowski. MR. KRASOWSKI: Hello again, Commissioners. Bob Krasowski, for the record. This is pretty mind boggling when I read this on the agenda that -- you know, I empathize with your searching to try to better understand this. It might take a little time. I appreciate the man from the state being here who helped. I wish there was somebody here from FEMA. And I still don't understand. Somewhere I thought I heard we had maybe in account 195 $25 million, and I got the impression that 11 million would be taken out of that, reducing the amount of money we'd have for beach renourishment. Which entirely isn't necessarily a bad thing. But, you know, I just -- I guess I'm just frustrated with not being able to understand more. And I saw in the backup packet that there were letters written in July indicating that this was going to happen. And I wish that -- you know, I understand your staff has to adjust to things and understand it before they come screaming fire to the commission. But, you know, I wish some indication of this would have been Page 89 September 11-12, 2012 brought forward then. Because there have been Coastal Advisory Council meetings, Tourist Development Council and they're all talking about beach renourishment and funds they have. And this certainly throws -- it seems to throw a kink in it, I don't know. But the 11 million can't just disappear, be there and then not be there and not have some kind of impact, you know, at least in a way -- maybe there's the magic of the ruling class that knows how that works. I haven't figured that out. CHAIRMAN COYLE: We just print more money. MR. KRASOWSKI: Oh, that's very democratic of you, yes. Glad to see you're getting on board. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, it's your own fault, Bob. MR. KRASOWSKI: I know, it's all my fault. I'll agree, I'll take it. So I have that question. You know, is there a 25 million aside that we're going to lose 11 million of? And let's see, maybe one other thing. Yeah, last question. You know, I wonder if on these applications that went forward, was there a provision that said okay, in the eventuality that FEMA wants to reconsider, like hold off on spending this money until we go through the entire process, was that in there? Was it like okay, you might have this money but later on we might be able to take it back if things don't work? Was that in there? And that would be a question I'd have for whoever, you know. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I comment on that last question? I think that is a very significant question. Was there any provision that said that this was subject to audit, you know, subsequently by the state and that we were always at risk of de-obligation? MR. KRASOWSKI: Or the feds. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm sorry, not -- I didn't mean by the state, I mean by, you know, the Auditor General or the Inspector Page 90 September 11-12, 2012 General, as the case may be. MR. SEIBERT: There are statements in there. And there are also -- in the contract that you have with the state there's statements that they're subject to audit. And we've had some of them where the audit occurred five, six, seven years after the fact. And that's where a lot of the de-obligation is coming from, from the auditors. And understand that the OIG audits are as much an audit of FEMA itself than it is the sub-grantees and the grantee, being the state. The state's responsible to make sure that all of the programmatic issues are processed in the correct way, according to the law and regulations, so — COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. I'd like to make a motion that we allocate the $100,000 by way of budget amendment to a separate line item and that staff come back to us, you know, as needed to keep us apprised of what's going on with this and, you know, how these $100,000 are being expended in order to protect our position. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, the staff is recommending five other actions for approval too. How about those? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you pull those out? Sorry. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I can read them. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I was just focusing on the -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, number one is to retain the services of a nationally recognized law firm that specializes in FEMA-related issues to consult and lobby on the Board's behalf. Number two, continue to retain the services of Mr. Bruce French of York Corporation to provide technical consulting on the FEMA and DEP rules, policies and regulations. Develop and implement a federal representative lobbying plan through the Ferguson Group supporting our efforts. Draft a letter to the Governor for their Chairman's signature asking for his support and FDEM's assistance in our recovery efforts. Page 91 September 11-12, 2012 And work with the County Attorney's Office to review legal remedies. And then of course the $100,000 in professional support services that you did mention for approval. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. And those professional support services are to pay for the aforementioned listed professionals. MR. OCHS: That's correct. COMIVIISSIONER HILLER: So I incorporate what Commissioner Coyle has just listed as the details supporting the $100,000 allocation for this issue. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second the motion. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And second by Commissioner Henning. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously. And we are now COMMISSIONER FIALA: On our way to the United Way lunch. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, that's right, I'm going down to get a hot dog. Okay. Good. We'll be back at 1:01. (Luncheon recess.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Turn the mic on. MR. OCHS: Mr. Chair you have a live mic. Page 92 - I September 11-12, 2012 CHAIRMAN COYLE: This item that will be coming up before us requires four votes. One of the commissioners will not be here for several more minutes because of traffic so I'm going to ask your indulgence. We will continue taking our lunch hour recess until Commissioner Henning arrives and then we will call the meeting to order. Okay. So we will continue our recess. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: County Manager, do I have a live mic? MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN COYLE: County Manager, can you find me something that we can do in a very short period of time? MR. OCHS: You want to sing a song or something? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Something productive. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Here's Commissioner Henning. MR. OCHS: Is Mr. Curry still here? Chris, are you ready? MR. CURRY: Sure. MR. OCHS: Why don't we try that item, sir. That was an item for your airport authority portion of the agenda that was moved from the consent to the regular agenda. Item #14A1 RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE AN AFTER-THE-FACT ACCEPTANCE OF A FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION (FAA) GRANT OFFER OF $713,565 FOR DESIGN, PERMITTING & BIDDING OF RUNWAY #9-27 PAVEMENT RESTORATION AT IMMOKALEE REGIONAL AIRPORT AND ASSOCIATED BUDGET AMENDMENTS —APPROVED CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. MR. OCHS: It was previously Item 16.G.1, now 14.A.1. It's a Page 93 r ■•■ • November 13, 2012 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Our voices are a lot alike. COMMISSIONER HILLER: As long as we don't look alike. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, I don't know. Two eyes, a nose. Go ahead. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMIVIISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. �' e.y CHAIRMAN COYLE: A O COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. �' CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any oppose e.11 'ke sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, (pst:Ist unanimously. Item #1 1 K RECOMMENDATION ' = '-- W & APPROVE DOCUMENTS THAT OUTLINE HI io:4+ ' , TIMING, PRIOR GUIDANCE AND APPROVAL REC • ��'�`` OR: THE BEACH RENOURISHMENT PROGRAM; L S` ' OVERNMENT FUNDING REQUEST (LGFR) GRA 1 P LICATIONS; AND THE FEDERAL EMERGE■v AGEMENT AGENCY (FEMA) APPEAL PROCE'�' ' ' OTION TO ACCEPT PRESENTATION AND DOC ' ►ITS — APPROVED MR. OCHS: It brings us to Item 11.K on your agenda this afternoon, Commissioners. It's a recommendation to review and approve the documents that outline the history, timing, prior guidance and approvals received for the beach renourishment program, the local government funding request grant application to the state and the Page 165 • November 13, 2012 Federal Emergency Management Agency appeal process. Mr. McAlpin will present. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Leo, before you present, can I just make one comment? I think approve is the wrong word. We have to just accept the documents. We can review and accept them, but there's no really approval. It's not an action for approval. MR. OCHS: Thank you, ma'am. �,r� MR. McALP1N: For the record, Gary McAlpin, y `nager of Coastal Zone Management. Commissioners, the item that you have befor. as three parts. The first is to discuss the timing of the or beach renourishment and the planning that went in ' The second is a response to Bob Krasowski's email, the Fl.It • s epartment of Environmental Protection on the local g• , Nid ent funding request. And the third is to discuss the appe \ o. -ss, the FEMA appeals process for Tropical Storm Gabri 'canes Wilma and Katrina. There's a detailed respons 'i •ur information packet. The comments I make will be s in g. comet ,. �• g nt planning and timing, the Relative to the beac ishme p g g, BCC shared concerns • 4 : - + ember 25th that the renourishment was behind schedule. S - • ly it was discussed that in the '05, '06 renourishment t . • was for a six-year design. And if it was for a six-year desig• a - the renourishment -- the next renourishment should hay s1 c t1 ed in 2012. So ing that comment, I want to talk about the -- where we are relate- o this item. A tremendous amount of planning, direction, review and discussion has gone into the beach renourishment program. Funds in general funds were budgeted in 2009 to do our planning studies. Planning occurred in 2010. Direction was changed in 2011 and 2012. In 2009, $150,000 was budgeted for conceptual design. And the objective of that budget was to develop a more robust fill section for Page 166 • 4 , 1 ' November 13, 2012 the beaches. Planning occurred in 2010, and it resulted in the conceptual design proposal that we brought to the advisory committees, and ultimately that developed into a conceptual design plan. In 2011, in a joint City of Naples/Collier County workshop, the direction was changed. And in that, both Boards asked us to develop a more long-term -- a better long-term solution and to maxi ize the time between beach renourishment programs. We have had at least 10 planning updates, revie e had a workshop, we've had approvals -- approval had g• - - • -ach one of the Boards, both the CAC, TDC and Board of ' Commissioners. And in that time period we've talked about tho wt T eptual design, we've talked about the options that we wo• re Nrsue relative to this beach renourishment. We've talked abo • < quantities that we were going to use, whether it was going t• • ; a .' -year design, whether it was going to be a 10-year design • extensive discussions on contractor selection and the pe• • _ •plication. So you can see that w- 114 etted this very well with our advisory Boards, the CA P C and also the Board of County Commissioners. Also with this , Aa• a six-year design project, that's true, but we were accruin ,� •s on a 10-year basis. We were accruing $2 million a year at $2 million a year, even at a -- at the end of a six-year d- •:• r s► -year period, that would only give us $12 million. And tha - is not enough money at this point to conduct a six-year ' gn beach renourishment. Any discussion about timing, we would have to include Tropical Storm Fay and the impact Tropical Storm Fay had. We did -- Tropical Storm Fay hit the coast less than three years after we completed the '05/'06 renourishment. It occurred in 2008. And Tropical Storm Fay damaged the beaches, and we received $175,000 worth of additional sand, if you would, from FEMA to renourish the beaches. Page 167 November 13, 2012 But at that point in time the beaches were healthy and they were not in need of immediate renourishment. The quantities that we would have put on the beaches, if we had moved forward in 2008, would have spreading 175,000 cubic yards over eight-and-a-half miles, and it would have not been effective. And we made a decision with the advisory Boards to take a more technically and financially effective solution that coupled ropical Storm Fay with more of a planned renourishment so thaw uld share the fixed costs. So in summary, relative to this item we start- : • •lanning in plenty of time to move forward with the next G•s ach renourishment in 2009. We did a lot of pl: '414 • n 010. We had direction that was changed in '11 and '12, we're moving forward with a six-year design that will • • pleted in -- starting at '13 and completing in '14. Secondly, with -- the secon• • .t I wanted to talk about was local government funding req - -- and we were asked to comment on an email that : • ' ; .sowski sent to the state. We have been cond •: ocal government funding requests with DEP for the last -...71P 10 years without incident. This is a pretty normal part • o • siness, something that we do all the time, asking for fundi•�. Staff, we • - -xtensively with DEP over the past year, and we did that be is is our money year, if you would. We really needed •ve the competitiveness of our proposal and we really wanted t• ' ake the trees, if you would, and get everything we possibly could and identified in this request and make it as competitive as possible. DEP throughout this whole process, they shortened the cycle in terms of submittals, but at the same time they stressed timing and competitiveness. They weren't going to accept any additional information and they wanted to make sure our applications were Page 168 November 13, 2012 complete as possible. We submitted a 420,000 cubic yard design that was the results of the 2012 survey. We worked real hard to get the 2012 survey done and got the basis for that for that design, and we put it in as 420,000 cubic yards. The BCC will have -- and we talked about this at the time we made our submittal, that the BCC has the opportunity to a prove any grant contract if we qualify. We have -- what we submi terms of the local government funding request is consisten e resolution that you provided, and also is consisten a direction that ou approved on the September 25th meet' Y And September 25th meeting was after , mittal deadline on the 18th, and so we anticipated what you q, Noing and the -- in your September 25th meeting you authorized -,000 cubic yard beach renourishment. Submittal is consiste tiL i that. You recommended we do an upland sand source, an. • • - 'mittal -- as a bidding option. Our submittal is consistent wi '1' : . It's not part of the scope. We talked to DEP at t A,. in time, and DEP told us that it would not materially aff- . it didn't increase the cost, and there's no reason to do it if it :'1 increase the cost, it would not materially affect the funding r, • . There was .4.o • of of concern at that point in time with whether we were goin: o - ourish during turtle nesting season or not. Turtle nesting se. + :I lowed by the state and the federal government to occur y- :, d. The Board direction for us is to bid this project both ways an. look at a project that renourishes during turtle nesting season and a project that does not. So our submittal is consistent with direction from the Board. We also had -- there was a lot of discussion about maps at that point in time that Mr. Krasowski brought up. We are consistent with that. The maps, we did not try to persuade one way or another. We have maps in the proposal that show gaps in there. Those are part of Page 169 November 13, 2012 attachment one. And maps on Page 3 show beach segments. So we are consistent and maps that were questioned are included in the package. The $5 million in federal funding that was discussed, well is that for de-obligation and why are you showing funds in there that are being de-obligated? Well, it's not for de-obligation. Those are for Tropical Storm Fay. Tropical Storm Fay was authorized and we included that in there because that funding could be ava' etseio us. The agency, DEP, gives additional points for fe p�6 aj , icipation roJ P and projects. So we included that in there becaus ��lb .ve authorizing PW's for Tropical Storm Fay. Lastly, there was a lot of discussion th ed relative to why are Y ou looking at combining with a muni=; Ny. And this was the first time that the Board of County Corn 1.". •ners has -- it's been discussed and it hasn't been fully dis - with the Board. But we mentioned this and we had disc th the Board on 4/10, 5/22 and 6/26. We had those disc 4k hey were part of those Board agenda items when we wen •'% _4 and had our presentations to the Board. The DEP gives s'_••:: • • t points for regionalization. Regionalization h. . y' ficant impact. Regionalization we believe has a significant . 4 ial to save money. The Board of County Commissione i • sing to make the decision on regionalization if it makes sen ; • lastly, if we move forward with regionalization, the only wa ='Would do it is if it did not delay our renourishment at all. Thee as a lot of question about the 420,000 cubic yards of sand that would be placed on the beaches. There was discussion, is the volume right. We had a joint workshop with the Coastal Advisory Committee and the Tourist Development Council when we specifically went through how we were going to build the beach. We discussed this item back and forth. The design approach that we used is exactly the Page 170 November 13, 2012 same as the '05106 renourishment. The actually beach performance has validated the -- that we're seeing right now -- has validated the design assumptions that we've made. And lastly, later on today we're going to ask you for money to spend do a peer review so that we can fmally put to bed this issue about whether the quantities are correct or not. In the package that we submitted to the state, 515,001 cubic yards of-- was mentioned. Well, the 515,000 cubic yar• •my the area that we could fit under the template, the beach f 1 tee 4 ate. It did not have anything to do with the quantities th ere Y� g q proposing. We were very clear that we were o s. posing 420,000 P cubic yards. Our estimate was for 420,000 •L•, ' • ds. And anything above 420,000 cubic yards would have to :roved by the Board of County Commissioners. Lastly, there was some discussi Ww4ttft the timing and direction of the fill placement. We're goin: . -. g that back to the Board when those decisions are ready to be • - ey're not ready to be made at this point in time. We do n• Itr all the information, and we'll bring that back to the Board w - • fight to do so. The last item tha to to talk about is the FEMA appeal for Tropical Storm Ga e - • d how it relates to Hurricanes Wilma and Katrina. Tropical o •• brielle, the disaster occurred in September of 2001. An• li - •it of background on how things with FEMA work is the es ' that are -- estimates are used to determine initial federal ot_ation. So we go through and we estimate through our surveys the damage that we expect on the beaches. And at that point in time we sit down with the agencies and they authorize that. However, the final costs are determined at close-out and they're determined by a reconciliation process with the close-out specialists, both by FEMA and Florida Department of Emergency Management. We audit, we reconcile, we review and they analyze those and they Page 171 November 13, 2012 finally make a determination. On this particular project, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers stipulated that this project would extend three years after the completion of renourishment, and that we also could do no recovery work until we had the permits in place. The permits were not issued until December of 2005. And if we tried to do work prior to that point in time we would be in iolation of the Stafford Act. The recovery work that we looked at was from "d o project close-out. So that went all the way to the end of 2:Z early 2009. In August of 2009 we closed the project o did that with the Florida Department of Emergency Mana_,3, 1-• specialists and FEMA specialists. It took us two months 1 ► :e this project out. And in the FEMA close-out report as generated in January, 2010, FEMA validated $29 million • •f total project costs. They also directed how the close-out a iit,711P g would be done at that point in time. FEMA, Lake Mary -- .. '` - are the agency that had jurisdictional control ov- . .. canes Wilma and Katrina, process and paid an additional $9. • .n worth of funding for that event. FEMA Atlanta, w 'sditional control for Tropical Storm Gabrielle, refuse y the additional $9.2 million from Tropical Storm Gabriel v-N, We ;�e rst appeal to the nonpayment on 4 -- on April of 2010 th•,�• •artially successful. MR. • HS: For which event? MR. McALPIN: This is for Tropical Storm Gabrielle, Leo. For Tropical Storm Gabrielle, the first appeal was for -- in April of 2010 it was partially successful. They agreed to pay us the environmental monitoring costs. But they did not agree to pay us the additional sand. The second appeal we made in January of 2011 and the sand was Page 172 November 13, 2012 denied on that appeal. The FEMA -- it's very important that you understand this: The FEMA denial of Gabrielle appeals had no impact on our budgeting. It had no impact on our budgeting for beach renourishment because we never received any of those monies. We never received the $9.2 million. And at this point in time we're talking about appealing their nonpayment. But what that second appeal for Tropical Storm G did is they recommended that they reexamine the costs for c es Wilma and Katrina. They did that. FEMA de-obligated $11.2 ' for Wilma and Katrina, and we have filed our first appeal f• I .ns cane Wilma and Katrina. We did that in July of 2012. Ant 14 • •a Department of Emergency Management has filed their . •,- - - on our behalf to FEMA. So we have been consistent < - • ay through in terms of how we've handled this appeal proc And I'll answer any q - , that you have at this point on any of the three items. CHAIRMAN C• ' ,+` ow many public speakers? ■ MR. MILLE' • ■, sir. CHAI' • ■ • E: Two? Let's hear the public speakers. MR. MI ' ' • our first public speaker, Mr. Chairman, is Bob Krasowski R •e followed by Marcia Cravens. �► �'•• OWSKI: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Bob Krasows711or the record. There's really too much here for me to cover in three minutes, so I'll touch on some of the main points. And maybe if we need to we can have discussions later. I'm going to talk about two of the documents, not the third, not the FEMA. And briefly on the first document, the analysis of the BCC Page 173 l November 13, 2012 comments, what I remember about that meeting where these comments were made was my question, which I thought was kind of mixed in with the discussion at the time, was that the -- how was it that the county staff, when they proposed the umbrella 10-year plan to us many time over and over explaining that that umbrella 10-year plan included the six-year plan just doing the Fay renourishment and there was another option in there, that they were keeping them 1 alive until you would make the ultimate decision as to how to go. Now, the 10-year plan which initially seemed t 4 + e ense failed. It fell off the cliff there. You know, chees; • ■ its cracker. Due to a large part because we were denied ce;4 N15 ding opportunities. But that didn't happen. So what the or the concern was is that the staff did not do what I as an a ,- . an citizen have always � Y enjoyed knowing, they did not have • ti :ency plans if the 10-year plan didn't go forward. The six- - was just flat on its face without the permits to pull it o i'. So by pursuing the 10- • 1 . and forgetting to maintain the permits on our six-year • were left where we are right now. When as if we had th- • - Au and we're moving on that as well, might have cost ex v 4 ey though. If we would have maintained that project as w , would have been able to move forward and we would have bz - ourishing the beaches now. If I m;� 4.r. Chair, take a few minutes to address the other docume C NII a COYLE: Let's make it brief. MR. KRASOWSKI: Okay, okay. This was supposed to be brief. So this letter I wrote to the DEP, I'm looking for a response from the DEP. I appreciate Commissioner Hiller's bringing this to the staff and asking them to address the questions I raised, along with a few of hers which she'll probably cover later. Let's see. Okay, an important point. As Gary pointed out, Page 174 November 13, 2012 they've been working on these projects for eight to 10 years with no problem. Okay, I think that should be changed. You should give greater scrutiny and not rely on the CAC and the Tourist Development Council to work through a lot of these issues before they actually come to you, especially in years when we have these big renourishment projects. He claimed that they only gave him two months to p t together this LGFR. But the LGFR isn't such a complicated doc at it requires a whole lot of time. The main thing that h• ,pdated on that are the listings of the properties that are taxed • e hoteliers that contribute to the funding of the county's p. • 'e funding. I have here a Coastal Planning and En.' 44 - :'s scope of work and their contract, and they were supposedc p with that. So if they're helping the county with managin issue, then we should have had it done weeks before. Andei that should have come to you before the -- before it was su. . They mentioned again th. �i � - •pplication was completed and brought to you on 10/5. I 11, P document that shows it was insufficient. Local gove 0041 • - ding request deficiency checklist. They didn't provide t - .it operation in their application, so that had to fall away. They i' .e able to address that next year. This also is,' h - scope of work of CP&E, Coastal Planning and Engineering, t. h' • the staff accomplish. And if we lose money because ‘441 s ent wasn't provided in a timely fashion and done correctl . urately to what is required -- and we're hearing from staff note haven't heard yet from the FDEP on this -- then we know exactly who to look towards to why that document wasn't finished with the joint operation with Long Boat Key. I did that. The questions about the financing, the funding, the monies available, 350,000 and five million. That's not about the de-obligation. I just made the point that we were sensitive to federal Page 175 • November 13, 2012 monies because of that de-obligation, and it would have been nice to have it discussed in front of you and vetted that before it went up to the state. Because it's a big mystery to us, at least, okay? And then -- and then I'll end with this, and I appreciate your consideration. There are other things I could say but I'll leave it at this. The sand volume is confusing to me. And that's why I look to the state to see how they describe this. With our six-year •roject, we lost 77 percent of the -- no, excuse me, we maintained 7 • - nt of the sand on the beach. So when you look at how mu °• it would actually take to replace what was lost since 2005, ' something like, I believe, 170,000 cubic yards or less. So they're looking for 420,000 cubic yfid much of that is Y explained by the nourishment -- I can't reer the term, the P pre-nourishment, it's called, or somethin tv. that, okay. So I was curious to know where this addition.J • came into play in actually coming back to cover what was • •- - years ago. So that's a question that's • • clear in my mind that I have. And I expect to hear from • ; - about it. But once again, 170,000 cubic yards, or whatever : ' ber is, it's a pretty small number, to replenish the beach to - • •6 template. Gary mentioned 500,000 cubic yards to go ' •e - template. So I'm just confused about that and would like t•4 . at explained. There are • - questions here, but Commissioner Hiller is -- I think she'! , o a• y talk to that. So thank you very much. I have a lot of stuff' ead too still, but this will do, and I appreciate the opportun'to address you. And oh, I wanted to dedicate my presentation to those who we acknowledged and showed respect to yesterday and the day before. Because usually I'm uncomfortable thanking you for the opportunity to speak because it's not so much you that provided, although you regulate the time, but it's all through the years, all of the veterans that have paid for this opportunity for you to sit there, for me to speak to Page 176 November 13, 2012 you and for this process, this open process that we sometimes enjoy and sometimes we don't. So I thank you very much again. MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, your final registered speaker on this item is Marcia Cravens. MS. CRAVENS: Good afternoon. One of my favorite subjects is to talk about our beaches and our coastal projects. And on this local government funding request, althou l this agenda item is several different items combined within • • inutes, I can't really cover all of that, so I'm just going to fo "r ol+ . e LFGR. But also point out that statements and assertions - = • DEP in the document submitted there are discrepant from 4,4 nts that were submitted at a Coastal Advisory Committee '•,L - 141. And, I mean, there seem to be a lot o ent versions going around of how much volume of sand is g Its• ' o be used and what the cost is particularly. And there are -- ; c cerned about the gap areas. I don't think that that com• -► comprehensive county-wide beach renourishment plan. • -ms that there are some areas that seem to be favored and so - that are not favored. And there doesn't seem to be a cle• ► • - and procedure for how to rank the areas. And as I spoke Q, you know, you could take a page from DEP on how they r - s. On a Septe•4• - 112 Coastal Advisory Committee meeting on these issues a r •u '•i-ach renourishment, it kind of divided it into two items. On-` .� • ck haul sand. That indicated it would be placed for a total a •f about 25,000 cubic yards of sand. An.'s'- second item was that there would be approximately 420,000 cubic yards of sand from the borrow site. It goes on to say that this does not address renourishment at Clam Pass Beach Park. And it indicates some gap areas. This also has some additional what it calls -- there's a table with columns in it on a couple of pages, and it has -- the title of that column is Additional Features. And repeatedly it shows Clam Pass Park, and Page 177 November 13, 2012 under additional features it shows 30,000. While it doesn't say what that 30,000 is, I think the understanding is it apparently is 30,000 cubic yards of sand that would come from Clam Pass to renourish Clam Pass Park in the north area of Park Shore. That is problematic because the permits for dredging Clam Pass are not for using Clam Pass as a sand source, and actually require avoidance and minimization and only dredge Clam Pass t the minimum necessary to keep that pass open. I would just -- can I show you something on the • 4tad? Because I always say pictures explain things a lot . : q - than words. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Be brief. MS. CRAVENS: Okay. This first item here is the Vanderbilt r segment. I don't know how well -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: You ngto et on the mic. MS. CRAVENS: Sorry. �V,7 The first area here is the ilt Beach segment. And you can see there's a yellow bo d there's a red boundary. The yellow boundary is the o •roject site. The red line is the area that's critically erode You can see o► Vanderbilt Beach area all of the project site pretty much -- a • sat has critically eroded beach. And, you know, of course that' • ething that needs to be a priority. This ; t 7n- is the Naples segment of the beach. And again, it's got a ye 'j e that is the boundary of the project area and a red line which is Miically eroded beach. You can see again all of the project area is critically eroded beach. But that's not the case with the Park Shore segment. The Park Shore segment has a yellow area for the project site, which kind of ends a little bit south of Clam Pass. But the critically eroded area only comes to about here. So the project area does encompass areas that are not critically eroded, but it has a big gap of Clam Pass Park. Page 178 November 13, 2012 And one of the things that's not included in the local share from being requested for DEP is that there is a commercial establishment that this has recreational benefit and commercial benefit. Because the Waldorf Astoria is right here. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Marcia, wrap it up. MS. CRAVENS: Okay. Simply stated, I would request that Clam Pass Park and the north section of Park Shore of our • -ach segments, that all of that area be included in our coun ••• • • -ach renourishment planning and not be omitted, because ' s a conflict of use and it creates a conflict for how Cl s is dredged and purpose and volumes and things like that. r. d be able to be renourished from the off-shore borrow site o A:, 1: aul sand. Thank you. ■ CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is that our '•eaker? MR. MILLER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: 0 . ,ft,„. • • • 'ssioner Hiller? COMMISSIONER HILL' ' r ary, can I ask you a couple of questions? , The 420,000 cubic I • -sn't contemplate any of the sand required as a consequ-,;4 v any of the inlet management plans, correct? MR. Mc • at is correct. COMMI ■ "S17- R HILLER: Okay. I just wanted to confirm that. M i e inlet management plans like the Clam Pass manage1 plan is going to be handled separately. The sand that's needed for that will be separately accounted for. It's not a discussion, I just want to clarify that. I want to thank you very much for going to the trouble for preparing this summary. And as Bob pointed out, there's too much here to respond in this discussion this afternoon. So at a future time I will respond to each of the segments that you have presented with my Page 179 • November 13, 2012 own comments. I just want to make a few observations -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- based on some of the stuff you presented today. I think -- and in all fairness, I think everybody is responsible here. Ifs really simple. We had a -- in 2006 we had a six-, ear permit, okay? Which means that the renourishment which was • ' 10 en for that design template was intended to last six years. - : that prior to the expiration of that six years the county shoul undertaken preparations to be ready with a permit in hand . •• W,ding in hand to renourish the beaches at the end of that six-y ign. That six-year design was only intended to last six years. And that didn't happen. And that is significant. And notwithstanding all the discussion h:, - o there were plans to, you know, develop a, you know, lon:- ' '. g beach, that is irrelevant to the obligation that the county • ■ • the public that in six years that beach would be renouris = ' hatever extend it had eroded, because that was the des •late that was approved under the -- is it 2006, Gary? Am I . ? tj ' that? 2006 permit? MR. McALP ► : = I I /2006 was the last renourishment. COMMISSs .• ' HILLER: And it's my understanding that that six-year desi - •• it was actually renewed in 2010, and that that permit is ' ti � . And we can renourish under that permit for another 'r- - s. And I don't mean the duration of the time that the renourisNint should last but that that permit has been renewed through 2015, if I understand correctly. MR. McALPIN: The permit is valid till -- it's a 10-year permit. It's valid to 2015. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. So it goes to 2015. So we actually had the ability to submit the information under the existing permit and have the dredge in place at this time because we're Page 180 November 13, 2012 now at the expiration of the six years. And beaches that are critically eroded would be renourished right now. But instead we have a delay as a consequence of what was undertaken at Leo's direction. Because it certainly wasn't Board direction to cause this delay. In fact, I went back to the minutes of the meeting of the county and the city, and nowhere does it state that there should have been a 10-year design. In fact, the only thing that was discussed as, you know, we should consider hard structures like reefs and . h ught to also be considered is better means of securing state al fundin g and so forth. So I really don't see that as the direction. ` ► . y action taken by a group at a workshop, regardless of who'-L ')' •ing that workshop, is non-binding on the Board. • - Board actually votes at a properly noticed Board meeting that ► is the direction of the Board. That wasn't the case. So I think the information y s u - -sented is very interesting and very informative and I do ' $ - o respond, which is generally again to summarize, we sho 1�; ' ,e had a permit -- we should have already applied under th- _ t g permit to renourish the 120,000 cubic yards that have - . - • . And we still need that reconciliation of the difference betty n s e 120,000 cubic yards, which is all that has eroded from 200. e present with respect to the 6-year design template and . 0,000 cubic yards, which is being proposed by Coastal P1. �i . d Engineering. C N COYLE: Okay. CO ISSIONER HILLER: And then I'll just reserve comment on the rest, and I'll have a few additional comments with respect to this at a later time. And I will address these other, you know, summaries that you have presented at a later time. And I really want to thank you, Gary. I really do appreciate it. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there a motion to accept the document in the presentation? Page 181 November 13, 2012 COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'll make a motion to accept the presentation. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to accept the presentation by Commissioner Hiller, second by Commissioner Fiala. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMIVIISSIONER HENNING: Aye. -\•) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. �' Aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: A e. O COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. 10 CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, ►•. ►?- ign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion pas • • 'mously. You want to go to M now, Cou. . :er, or you want to go somewhere else? `,7 Item #11J RECOMMENDATI I • PROVE AND EXECUTE AN IMPROVEMENT 0 "iI PARKING AREA AGREEMENT WITH NAPLE 4 b , C., RELATED TO COST SHARING FOR THE ENT • ' PARKING IMPROVEMENTS AT NAPLES i I TH COLLIER COUNTY SHARING 50% OF FINAL ' IED CONSTRUCTION COSTS, CURRENTLY ESTI • '01' D AT $2,600,000 — APPROVED MR. OCHS: You have a 3:30 time certain item, sir. That is Item 11.J on your agenda this afternoon. It's a recommendation to approve and execute an improvement to a parking area agreement with Naples Zoo, Incorporated, related to cost sharing of the entrance and parking improvements at Naples Zoo, with county share to be 50 percent of Page 182 1310 Cross Creek Circle Suite B Tallahassee,FL 32301-3728 Tel: 850-671-6367 yo R K. Fax:850-877-7698 www.yorIcrsg.com DRAFT-1 August 22,2012 • J.Gary McAlpin,P.E.,Director Coastal Zone Management Collier County Government W. Harmon Turner Bldg.,Suite 103 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples,Florida 34]12 Re: Discussion of Routine Beach Maintenance FDEP Operating Permits&Relation to 10-Category G Large Projects for Beach Recovery Specific to FEMA-FL-DRs-1393, 1602& 1609 Dear Director McAlpin; On August 16,2012 York received instructions from you to address comments regarding"routine annual beach sand maintenance"in FEMA's Final Decision Letter for . the 2nd Appeal on DR 1393 PWs 566&673 dated May 14,2012. These comments referenced the FDEM(Grantee)memorandum dated July 10,2008 that accompanied the Final Inspection Report(FIR)for closeout of DR-1393 PWs(566,568, 575 &673). Because FDEM-Tallahassee had management authority only for DR-1393, the FIR presented a general rationale for allocation of eligible costs across the three disasters (DRs 193, 1602& 1609)as a logical means to close-out the DR 1393 PWs. The FEMA- DEM FRO in Lake Mary had authority to manage DRs 1602& 1609 PWs;these 6-PWs were closed before those for DR 1393,which were found later to have missed eligible recovery costs. In August 2009,the County had not received reimbursements for the DR-1393 closed PWs and requested the FRO-Lake Mary office to re-inspect all three DRs to prepare revised closeout PWs that retlected an accurate accounting of eligible costs. As part of that invoice/cost validation process,a revised spreadsheet of the ineligible County cost for routine annual beach maintenance was prepared. The four-year estimated maintenance cost(9-2001 to 9-2004)of$1.9 million was then subtracted from the total of all eligible invoices validated by the FEMA-FDEM specialists for the three disasters. 1 YORK. In conclusion, FEMA's comments addressing annual sand maintenance are not entirely correct. The new versions of the PWs prepared for closeout provided an accurate accounting of eligible recovery costs as authorized in 44 CFR Subpart H§206.223(a)(1) and§206.226(d)and (j); and,as required for environmental compliance in 44 CFR Part 10. A more detailed explanation for estimating the four-year ineligible cost of routine beach sand maintenance is attached to this letter with supporting exhibits. As you know, all recovery work to repair damages to the four engineered beaches was performed under two Joint Coastal Construction Permits(Mainland and Marco Island beaches)issued in 2005-2006. The County filed these two permit applications immediately following DR 1393 as authorized in the four PWs for NEPA compliance.No additional permitting was required for DRs 1602 and 1609 because the scope of work was included in the permits approved for DR 1393,saving time,effort and expense to recover from these two major disasters. Beach recovery work was completed in 2006 and all l0-PWs were completed in 2010 following 3-years of post-construction biological monitoring. The Coastal Zone Management Office's management of the 3-disasters FEMA recovery process complied with all federal and state environmental laws and performed the many complicated tasks efficiently. Beach nourishment projects can experience costs of$1 million per mile, which would be about$20.6 million for the four County engineered beaches. Under different circumstances, the total recovery costs for the 3 major disasters quite possibly could have exceeded$60 million. By comparison,the final total eligible validated cost(after deducting maintenance) for the 3 disasters was $31.7 million. We appreciate the opportunity to be of assistance to the County in this matter. Regards, Bruce French Sr. Project Manager, York RSG, Inc. Attachments: Report 6-Exhibits 2 YORK. Description of Routine Beach Maintenance FDEP Operating Permits&Relation to 10-Category G Large Projects for Beach Recovery Specific to FEMA-FL-DRs-1393, 1602& 1609 Prepared for Collier County,FL—Coastal Zone Management Federal Disaster Declarations:DR-1393,DR-1602, 1609 Date:August 23,2012 1. Basis of Ineligible Routine Beach Sand Maintenance The rationale for determining routine beach sand maintenance costs as ineligible is embodied in the description of"Force Account"presented in the: Public Assistance Guide FEMA 322/October 1999&/June 2007;and, FEMA Policy 9525.7 Labor Costs-Emergency Work(7/20/2000). Specific to Collier County's Category G large beach recovery projects,annual replacement of up to 50,000 cubic yards of sand is authorized in the FDEP Operating Permits issued in 1999 to control"normal"erosion of the four public,engineered beaches: Mainland Beaches- Vanderbilt,Park Shore&Naples;and, Marco Island Beach. The total annual amount could be installed at one beach or as needed at each of the four beaches. Therefore,all costs associated with routine maintenance are ineligible,non-disaster activities that are the financial responsibility of the County. 2. Codes and Standards Defined 2.1. Public Assistance Guide,FEMA 322/October 1999&/June 2007 and Applicant Handbook, FEMA 323/September 1999: Permanent Restoration of Facilities A. GENERAL ELIGIBILITY •Facilities will be restored on the basis of design,capacity and function of such facilities as they existed immediately prior to the disaster and in conformity with applicable standards. •Codes and Standards must be in writing, apply to the type of work,and be in place and enforced prior to the disaster declaration. They must apply uniformly to all similar types of facilities. 3 YO R K. 44 CFR 206.226 Restoration of damaged facilities.Revised as of October 1,2000 (codified) 2.2. Work to restore eligible facilities on the basis of the design of such facilities as they existed immediately prior to the disaster and in conformity with the following is eligible: (b)Standards. For the costs of Federal,State,and local repair or replacement standards which change the predisaster construction of facility to be eligible,the standards must: (1)Apply to the type of repair or restoration required; (Standards may be different for new construction and repair work) (2)Be appropriate to the predisaster use of the facility; (3)(i)Be found reasonable, in writing,and formally adopted and implemented by the State or local government on or before the disaster declaration date or be a legal Federal requirement applicable to the type of restoration. (ii)This paragraph(b)applies to local governments on January 1, 1999 and to States on January 1,2000. Until the respective applicability dates,the standards must be in writing and formally adopted by the applicant prior to project approval or be a legal Federal or State requirement applicable to the type of restoration. (4)Apply uniformly to all similar types of facilities within the jurisdiction of owner of the facility;and (5)For any standard in effect at the time of a disaster, it must have been enforced during the time it was in effect. (h)Beaches. (1)Replacement of sand on an unimproved natural beach is not eligible. (2) Improved beaches. Work on an improved beach may be eligible under the following conditions: (i)The beach was constructed by the placement of sand (of proper grain size) to a designed elevation,width,and slope;and (ii)A maintenance program involving periodic renourishment of sand must have been established and adhered to by the applicant. 2.3. Codes and Standards of Engineered Beaches Codes and standards for beaches can be defined as the construction specifications authorized in the initial government permit issued for establishing an engineered beach. A beach is that area of the coastal zone lying between the upland dune line and the offshore depth-of-closure. In general the slope and elevation of the beach at state-established range monuments are determined during the design phase. Grain size and color may be included in the specifications. The design specifications are intended to provide a beach that is stable under normal weather conditions and to afford the greatest storm protection of adjacent improved 4 YORK. property. After construction,a state-approved operating permit is issued to the local government for installing a limited volume of sand annually to maintain the design elevation profile of the engineered beach. An engineered beach is not resilient to major disasters,such as tropical storms or hurricanes,which may cause sand erosion(lost from the system)that exceeds the permitted annual maintenance volume and the ability of the design tolerance to recover the elevation profile. 3. Category G Large Recovery Project Period (Sept. 13,2001 to Jan.2010) 3.3. Start Date for Adjusting Ineligible Routine Beach Sand Maintenance T.S. Gabrielle made landfall on September 13,2001 and became a federal declared disaster on September 28,2001. The four engineered beaches incurred damages and were declared eligible for federal assistance under FEMA-FL-DR1393. 3.4. Scope of Eligible Work Post-disaster elevation profile surveys were performed to provide a general, static estimate of sand volume lost by coastal erosion. These estimates were provided as "samples"for documenting damage in each of the 4-PWs 566,568,575 &673. Disaster-initiated erosion continued until completion of coastal construction in 2006. The generic text for the Scope of Eligible Work included the following statements: • To restore the beach to predisaster cross section... • The actual cost of this project will be determined by bid process and availability of the source material (offshore or inland borrow area). 3.5. Environmental Compliance FEMA is authorized by the Stafford Act to enforce the requirement for environmental compliance as directed in 44 CFR Part 10,which is integral to defining the eligible scope of work. The FEMA Regional Environmental Officer assured consistency with this requirement by including in the Category G PWs the following text: JUNE 24,2004 • FEMA'S ENVIRONMENTAL LIAISON OFFICE HAS REVIEWED THE FOLLOWING EMERGENCY BERM PROJECT: THE FbLLOWING GRANT CONDITIONS APPLY: 1. ANY CHANGE IN THE ORIGINAL SCOPE OF WORK REQUIRES THAT THE APPLICANT NOTIFY FL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT (WHO WILL NOTIFY FEMA),AS WELL AS ANY AGENCY FROM WHICH THE APPLICANT RECEIVED A PERMIT. 5 _ _ „oloPP- YORK. 2. THE APPLICANT IS RESPONSIBLE TO OBTAIN ALL RELEVANT LOCAL,STATE AND FEDERAL PERMITS. NO CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES SHALL COMMENCE PRIOR TO RECEIVING SAID PERMITS. AT A MINIMUM THE APPLICANT SHOULD CONTACT: 1.US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS(404,401 (STATE PERMIT),402 (NPDES),OR NATIONWIDE) 2.US FISH AND WILDLIFE(THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES) 3.STATE FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCY 4.STATE NATURAL HERITAGE AGENCY(THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES) 5.STATE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT OFFICE(FOR CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION) 3.ALL ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROJECT MUST COMPLY WITH ALL CONDITIONS SET FORTH IN ANY REQUIRED LOCAL, STATE, OR FEDERAL PERMITS. AS A REMINDER,APPLICANTS FOR FEMA FUNDING MUST COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE LOCAL,STATE,TRIBAL,AND FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION LAWS, REGULATIONS, PERMITS,AND CONDITIONS IN ORDER TO RECEIVE FEMA FUNDS FOR THEIR PROJECTS.FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THESE REQUIREMENTS MAY JEOPARDIZE FEDERAL FUNDING. FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CONTACT BRETT BOWEN,DEPUTY ENVIRONMENTAL LIAISON OFFICER DR•I393 AT(770)220-5387. NEPA Level of Review•NEPA review is complete••GBOWEN•The project is Categorically Excluded under 44 CFR 10.8(d): 15. Repair, replace, restore, retrofit, upgrade to current codes and standards,or replace a facility(xv) Documentation Complete 06/24/2004 Standard Conditions 1.Any change to the approved scope of work will require re-evaluation for compliance with NEPA and other Laws and Executive Orders. 2.This review does not address all federal,state and local requirements. Acceptance of federal funding requires recipient to comply with all federal,state 6 YO R K. and local laws.Failure to obtain all appropriate federal,state and local environmental permits and clearances may jeopardize federal funding. 3. If ground disturbing activities occur during construction,applicant will monitor ground disturbance and if any potential archeological resources are discovered,will immediately cease construction in that area and notify the State and FEMA. 3.6 End Date for Adjusting Ineligible Beach Sand Maintenance d "llre Mu , 5. Public Assistance administrative and NEPA-limited work activities during this period included: • Erosion estimates from post-disaster elevation profile surveys for DR 1393 • Ineligible annual beach sand maintenance authorized by FDEP operating permits • County appeal and FEMA approval of PW eligibility • County's Environmental Permit Application to USACE&FDEP Jan.24,2004 • USACE permit application review requirement for an Environmental Assessment • FEMA environmental compliance review through June 24,2004 • FDEP approved permits for inlet sand dredging-beach nourishment Jan-Feb. 2005 • Post-disaster elevation profile surveys for DR 1602 in Sept. 2005 • USACE approved coastal construction permit Sept.20, 2005(offshore sand) • County bid process for offshore dredge contracts Oct.-Dec.2005 • DR 1609 Hur. Wilma federal declaration Oct.24,2005 • Approved permits(modified to include DR 1393, 1602& 1609 damages)sent on Jan. I,2006 to FEMA Region 4-Atlanta for environmental compliance review and approval of change in scope of work. • FDEP approval of USACE coastal construction permits(modified)Jan. 2006 Supporting documentation for these activities are contained in the applicant's file maintained by FEMA and FDEM. tletll "1' flrievm ;- _iiiiiiiii ' -This was due to the county being engaged in numerous activities to recover from DR 1393 and the immediate need for modifying the USACE-FDEP coastal construction permits to include damages from DRs 1602 and 1609. Offshore sand dredging contract work commenced in 2006 to complete recovery of the four engineered beaches to the design elevation profiles(codes and standards)authorized in the 10-PWs for the three disasters. 7 YO R K. 3.7 End Dates of 10-Category G PWs Included in the approved Joint Coastal Construction Permits for the 3-mailand beaches and for the Marco Island Beach were numerous conditions from the USACE,USFWS, USMMS,and FDEP. The condition submitted by the USFWS for 3-years post construction biological monitoring extended the eligible PW work completion to January 2010 for Mainland beaches and to May 2010 for Marco Island beach. 4. Procedure Used to Estimate Ineligible Routine Beach Sand Maintenance Costs affilleffrgramMliskraglfigaimakfificheggigammuirmegiumigpmett 1* elegfrireffittftivrefile. The County hired professional engineers to oversee the beach sand maintenance work of contracted companies including Jahana Industries, timiiiiWOMIPINSOke, and STD Enterprises of Naples. The County issued the last pre-disaster Purchase Order#105968 to Agnoli for the period June 2001 to January 2002, - . ., • it wash ' in —,':- "ent. See partial list of Purchase Orders in Exhibit 6. Although truck-hauling of inland sand for routine beach maintenance commenced again on October 10,2001 (Exhibit 6) related purchase orders issued to many vendors contained both eligible and ineligible work. Therefore,it was decided to estimate a reasonable 4-year maintenance cost and subtract the ineligible amount from the final list of validated eligible costs at PW closeout. 4. Maintenance-related invoices for work performed in 2001 were used to establish the costs for disaster-ineligible maintenance work performed by the County in 2002: Truck-hauled sand,cubic yard $ 4.34 Grading&Tilling,avg,annual cost $ 60,000.00 Surveyor(elevation profiles),annual fee $ 50,000.00 Engineering/Management,annual fee $ 75,000.00 The County's annual Force Account labor cost for planning,contracting, inspection, invoice payment and reporting was estimated at $ 40,000.00 n assumed annual inflation rate of 6%was used to estimate the cost of the above items for 2003,2004 and 2005. For the FDEP maximum • rmitted v• ume for 4-year :ch sang .,.,.,.a.._..o 0,1 1. r N v •- • r X+ a construction col e,ti e .al$0' the County's Force Account costs plus related contract services were estimated at$1,043,345.92. 8 1 ' „As"- YO R K. r The spreadsheet prepared as an attachment to the FDEM-Tallahassee Final Inspection Report for DR 1393 PWs of July 10,2008 is attached as an Exhibit. In August 2009 following validation of eligible invoices for the completed 10-PWs, FEMA-FDEM FRO specialists and FEMA Technical Advisor re-allocated these ineligible maintenance costs by the percent disaster-erosion as estimated in the CP&E Report,January 2010. 5. List of Exhibits 1. Public Assistance Guide FEMA 322/October 1999&/June 2007; and, 2. FEMA Policy 9525.7 Labor Costs-Emergency Work(7t20/2000) 3. Applicant Handbook, FEMA 323/September 1999 4. 44 C.F.R. Revised as of October 1,2000(codified) 5. Partial List of Vendor Purchase Orders for Pre-and Post-disaster routine beach sand maintenance work 6. Spreadsheet Prepared for FDEM-FIR dated July 10,2008 and used to determine ineligible beach sand maintenance costs for 3 major disasters during the joint PW closeout,August 2009. 9 • 1310 Cross Creek Circle Suite B Tallahassee,FL 32301-3728 YO R K Tel: 850-671-6367 Fax:850-877-7698 www.yorkrsg.com DRAFT-3 August 15,2012 J.Gary McAlpin,P.E.,Director Coastal Zone Management Collier County Government W.Harmon Turner Bldg.,Suite 103 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples,Florida 34112 Re: Compilation of Federal Documents Governing Disaster Recovery 10-Category G Large Projects for Beach Recovery Specific to FEMA-FL-DRs-1393, 1602& 1609 Dear Director McAlpin; 6 . ielevant federal laws,regulations and policies that frame the body of actions for FE 's •dministration of federal assistance provided to Collier County for FEMA-DR-1609 ' • 00 Naples Beach, PW 2704 Park Shore Beach and PW 6733 Marco Island Beach. 's - uest is related to the • _- . - • _ rei We have completed the assigned task with the compilation of documents presented in 15 Exhibits that pertain to the FEMA Public Assistance program and more specifically to Category G beach recovery projects. As a consequence of this task,we believe that the federal laws and rules in effect on the declaration date of DR-1393 comprise the body of federal authorizations governing administration of the 10-PWs for beach recovery work (3 mainland beaches and the Marco Island beach)through the completion of construction,post-3-year biological monitoring and final joint closeout by FDEM and FEMA. This position is directly associated with the fact that damages caused by the three federal disasters received USACE final approval(2005-06)for the scope of work in two joint coastal construction permits,which was a result of the County's permit application immediately following the declaration of DR-1393. Information provided in the attached Exhibits supports the fact that the County performed all beach recovery work in compliance with these federal laws,regulations and policies. To this end, York advises the County to seek an independent legal opinion in addition to expert testimony from a professional engineer specializing in Florida beach renourishment and management. We appreciate the opportunity to be of assistance to the County in this matter. Regards, Bruce French Sr. Project Manager, York RSG,Inc. 1 • YORK. Compilation of Federal Documents Governing Disaster Recovery 10-Category G Large Projects for Beach Recovery Specific to FEMA-FL-DRs-1393,1602& 1609 Compiled for Collier County,FL—Coastal Zone Management Federal Disaster Declarations: DR-1393,DR-1602, 1609 Date:August 9,2012 1.0 Government Program Administration All federal,state and local governments are required to administer programs authorized in Laws,Rules,Regulations and Guidance Documents. Specific procedures on how to conduct the business of government are dependent on the effective dates of these legal authorizations;subsequent changes and revisions to these legal procedures are not retroactive, but specifically apply to government activities performed after the new effective date(s). 1.1. Tropical Storm(T.S.) Gabrielle became a federally-declared disaster on September 28,2001. In Collier County, four engineered public beaches (Vanderbilt, Park Shore,Naples and Marco Island) incurred erosion damage and were determined by FEMA to be eligible for federal funding under the Public Assistance Program. Recovery work is eligible for reimbursement from the "official"date of landfall,which is stated by FEMA as September 13,2001, through the date of work completion. For these four Category G beach recovery projects the completion date is specified by the USACE Permit(issued September 20,2005)Specific Conditions(listed by the USFWS)as being 3 years after the construction completion date,which allows for mandatory biological monitoring of the work area(generally ending in 2010-2011). 1.2. During the USACE permit review process for NEPA compliance required by the Stafford Act, the estimated scope of work for six Category 0 PWs under DRs- 1602& 1609 were included within the final approved scope of work authorized in the two USACE joint coastal construction permits(3-mainland beaches& 1- Marco Island beach)issued 2005-06. 1.3. Laws, Rules, Regulations and Guidance Documents in effect on the federal declaration date for T.S. Gabrielle,DR-1393 govern all FEMA-eligible work to be performed by Collier County as the PA applicant. These authorizations are to be adhered to throughout the implementation of each individual Project Worksheet(PW)issued to Collier County and govern the procedures for the joint FEMA-State PW closeout for determination of final eligible scope of work and cost reimbursement. Subsequent changes or revisions to these legal documents after the declaration date of September 28,2001 do not apply to Collier County's performance of the ten Category G PWs for beach recovery work(DRs-1393, 1602& 1609). 2 YORK. 1.4 issu for the our olher ounty public PWs Beach: DR-1393 DR-1602 DR-1609 Vanderbilt 568 1110 2698 Park Shore 575 2704 Naples 566 1109 2700 Marco Island 673 6733 3 YO R K. 1.5 A key element of im lenient' the FEMA-approved Scope of Work for the 10 PWs is dates,USACE offshore sand permitting and construction and post-monitoring: DR 1393 September 28,2001 ili1/431111MMld- - ors , FEMA-REO Review June 24,2004 Snyder-Inlet Sand Wiggins Pass January 13,2005 City of Naples- Inlet Sand Doctors Pass February 22,2005 DR-1602 August 28,2005 1.1111111Mit 41RIPOINFROP41.05 DR-1609 October 24,2005 GLDDIIIIIMBIROggrd all11.148611110.1111rists .. '> , Notification of FEMA for Permitted Scope of Work January 1,2006 SubAqu-Offshore Sand Marco Beach September 5,2006 end May 4,2007 Inlet Sand- Wiggins Pass December 6,2006 3-yr B io-Monitoring Mainland January 2007 through December 2010 Marco June 2007 through May 2010 FEMA-State Scope &Invoice Validation August 3,2009 for accurate accounting of costs for 3-DRs-l0 PWs FEMA Payments 2011,2012 &Appeals on-going Notes: 1. 2 u rx • : ui ized•,in e two FDEP operating permits issue• or the main an. 'an. Marco Island :dies prior to DR-1393. The total 4-year cost estimated at$1.9 million wash !aid 100 percent by they rdtw+ss - '� �:` p !a +xn>*. 4 YO R K. [Notes Continued] 2. Inlet sand dredging and deposit on"down-drift"mainland beaches was performed by the County under FDEP authorized permits issued after the declaration date of DR-1393. Dredging was required to recover the permitted designed depth specified for safe navigation following excessive sand deposition resulting from DRs-1393, 1602 and 1609. 3. Completion of contractor work for offshore dredging performed under the two joint USACE coastal construction permits did not represent the end date of the 10-PWs. PW-eligible,post-dredging work included grading to engineered beach design-elevation profiles and disking for sand density suitable for turtle nesting. The USACE permit conditions for 3-years post-construction biological monitoring began after these construction tasks were completed. 4. All 10-PWs included in the scope of work the authorization to restore the specific beach to the engineered design ecifica• n or the elevation profiles existing prior to disaster dams e. ree , pt �iffit a tPliftrd''1'ffsl ore { r�s. As authorized in the 10-PWs,Aillimilsomismedesostered.the r n codes jalatiadMitaintieirtairaidt4itiensamptiattce. Additionally,as stated by th-FREO in each of the 10-PWs:"the actual cost of this project will be determined by bid process and availability of the source material(offshore or inland borrow area)". FEMA and FDEM validated all costs and determined the eligible scope of work at the joint Final Closeout on August 3,2009. 5. The Final Closeout versions of the 10-PWs were prepared in advance of completing the NEPA-required,3-years biological monitoring.diteliditiOrittRiat farm... 5 YO R K. 1.6 Summary of Validated Invoices for completing the eligible scope of work required by the 10-PWs performed August 3,2009 during Final Closeout: $ 30,496,999.96 Vendor Costs $ 28,612.00 Permits $ 844,800.00 Monitoring $ 466,093.89 PM $ 1,917,455.21 Inlet Sand Dredging $ 33,753,961.06 Total Coat of 3-DRs $ (1,992,637.59) Less Truck-hauled Sand $ 31,761,323.47 Collier's Gross Cost of 3-DRs Validated Costs FEMA 75%1 100% State 12.5% Collier 12.5% Final Est 51.66% Total Est 1393= $ 16,408,538.18 $ 12,306,403.64 $ 2,051,067.27 $ 2,051,067.27 Closeouts 48.34% Total 1602+1609= $ 15,352,785.29 $ 15,352,785.29 $ - $ 100.00% 10 PWs= $ 27,659,188.93 $ 2,051,067.27 $ 2,051,067.27 Less Colliers Share= 2,051,067.2 Gross to Collier= • 29,710,256.21 Less FDEP Reimb.= 6,643,979.22 =F.S.161 Trust Funds Rev.8-27-2009 Note: Subtraction of FDEP funds that were provided from the state's trust fund authorized by F.S. 161 represents a duplication of benefits. The amount provided by FDEP to the County for FEMA-eligible PW recovery work significantly exceeded the federal-state cost share established in the disaster agreements for DRs-1393 (75%-25%) and for 1602& 1609(100%-0%). Following the Final Closeout and reimbursement of eligible costs($29.7 million)to the County, the County is to reimburse the state for the duplicated amount. This legal compliance procedure is authorized in the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, P.L. 93-288 Sec. 312(a);44 CFR 13.24 and 206.226(a); and,as explained in FEMA Policy 9525.3,effective October 30, 2000. 6 YORK. 2.0 Index of Exhibits 1 1 Disaster Relief Act of 1974,Public Law 93-288,93rd Congress,S.3062,May 22, 1974 2 U.S.Code 2001 Title 42-The Public Health and Welfare 3 44 C.F.R.Revised as of October 1,2000(codified) 4 FEMA's NEPA Desk Reference,Version III—May 14, 1996 5 Possible Consequences of Not Following National Environmental Policy Act Process 6 FEMA Environmental Policy Package 7 FEMA 322/Modified 2001 Public Assistance Guide 8 FEMA 323/1999 Applicant Handbook 9 FEMA 321/2001 Public Assistance Policy Digest 10 Archived List of FEMA 9500 Series of Policies for the Public Assistance Program,9-22-2004 11 Archived List of FEMA 9500 Series of Policies for the Public Assistance Program,9-23-2011 12 Disaster Assistance Fact Sheet DAP9580.8 Eligible Sand Replacement on Public Beaches Effective October 1,2009 13 DHS Management Directives System MD Number:5100.1 Issue Date:4/19/2006 14 42 USC CHAPTER 68-DISASTER RELIEF U.S.House of Representatives Analysis January 03, 2012(112-90) 15 CEF for Large Projects,Instructional Guide V2.1,September 2009 7 EXHIBIT 15 CEF for Large Projects,Instructional Guide V2.1,September 2009 Comment:Although the CEF became available after DR 1393, Collier County's performance of the Category G 10-PWs was consistent with the Instructional Guide. Relevant Sections: 1.1 FEDERAL ASSISTANCE FOR DISASTER DAMAGE Para.4-For large projects,this estimate is used to determine the initial Federal obligation of funds for the work, but it is not necessarily the final cost that will be approved for the project. Rather,the final cost is based upon the reasonable,actual costs incurred by the applicant in completing the eligible scope of work. Actual costs are determined through a reconciliation process initiated by the State when the work is complete. Discrepancies between the initial estimate and the final cost are addressed through the obligation(or de-obligation)of Federal funds. 2.6 STEP 6—RECONCILE COSTS WHEN PROJECT IS COMPLETED (Page 2-7)Upon completion of a large project,the grantee must submit supporting documentation and an accounting of all eligible costs incurred for the project to FEMA for a final determination of eligible project costs. The grantee must certify that the reported costs were incurred in the performance of eligible work and that the project was completed in accordance with FEMA approval.The grantee may perform inspections and audits as it deems necessary to make this certification. FEMA will review the reported costs to determine if the costs are eligible,and may conduct inspections or audits as necessary to verify eligible costs.Upon completing this review,FEMA will reconcile final costs for eligible work against the original estimate and prepare a supplemental PW to adjust the approved amount upward or downward as necessary. If additional funds are approved by FEMA,the grantee may then make an additional drawdown of any funds remaining for that project. Within 90 days following completion of the last large project,the grantee must submit a final progress report that includes the final amount paid for each large project. If FEMA determines that the grantee has drawn Federal funds for ineligible costs,then the grantee must return those funds to I�J3MA. Refer to Appendix E(Standard Operating Procedure—CEF for Large Projects) for additional information relating to the cost reconciliation process. Appendix E(excerpts pages 3 &4) • When applicants complete large projects and submit project documentation to the State and FEMA,FEMA will reconcile actual eligible costs against estimated costs,except for alternate and improved projects. • If the Project Specialist requires assistance with any part of the CEF,the PAC Crew Leader will request a Technical Specialist(a cost estimator,engineer, environmental specialist,historic preservation specialist, insurance specialist, etc.) from the Ordering Specialist. Refer to the CEF for Large Projects Instructional Guide for more detail. EXHIBIT 15 CEF for Large Projects,Instructional Guide V2.1,September 2009 Comment:Although the CEF became available after DR 1393,Collier County's performance of the Category G 10-PWs was consistent with the Instructional Guide. Relevant Sections: 1.1 FEDERAL ASSISTANCE FOR DISASTER DAMAGE Para.4-For large projects,this estimate is used to determine the initial Federal obligation of funds for the work,but it is not necessarily the final cost that will be approved for the project. Rather,the final cost is based upon the reasonable,actual costs incurred by the applicant in completing the eligible scope of work.Actual costs are determined through a reconciliation process initiated by the State when the work is complete.Discrepancies between the initial estimate and the final cost are addressed through the obligation(or de-obligation)of Federal funds. 2.6 STEP 6—RECONCILE COSTS WHEN PROJECT IS COMPLETED (Page 2-7)Upon completion of a large project,the grantee must submit supporting documentation and an accounting of all eligible costs incurred for the project to FEMA for a final determination of eli 'ble project costs at e grantee may perform inspections and audits as it deems necessary to make this certification. FEMA will review the reported costs to determine if the costs are eligible,and may conduct inspections or audits as necessary to verify eligible costs. Upon completing this review,FEMA will reconcile final costs for eligible work against the original estimate and prepare a supplemental PW to adjust the approved amount upward or downward as necessary.If additional funds are approved by FEMA,the grantee may then make an additional drawdown of any funds remaining for that project. Within 90 days following completion of the last large project,the grantee must submit a final progress re ort th t includes the final amount paid for each large project.111 t ttireffiNftistirliqfPfWflitftififferaMiti ble y1Virri l6 FEtk .' Refer to Appendix E(Standard Operating Procedure—CEF for Large Projects) for additional information relating to the cost reconciliation process. Appendix E(excerpts pages 3 &4) • When applicants complete large projects and submit project documentation to the State and FEMA, FEMA will reconcile actual eligible costs against estimated costs, except for alternate and improved projects. • If the Project Specialist requires assistance with any part of the CEF,the PAC Crew Leader will request a Technical Specialist(a cost estimator,engineer, environmental specialist,historic preservation specialist, insurance specialist,etc.) from the Ordering Specialist. Refer to the CEF for Large Projects Instructional Guide for more detail. Co Te-r Cau:pity Public Services Division Coastal Zone Management !ul Mr.Bryan W.Koon,Director Florida Division of Emergency Management 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee,FL 32399-2100 Mr.Leo Lachat Florida Department of Emergency Management Bureau Chief-Recovery 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee,FL 32399-2100 Mr.Robert M.(Bob)Seibert Lead Deputy Public Assistance Officer Florida Division of Emergency Management 5900 Lake Eleanor Drive Orlando,Florida 32809 RE: r e s Dear Mr.Koon,Lachat and Seibert: FreertirSTffrAllftlsvDebeirah Ingram 'Assiseent Ad—at-Twat or oFFE s` ecove Ire te. Collier County believes that this denial was made In error and that the FEMA analysis did not take into account the following facts: 1. The Denial letter from FEMA voiced opinions to refute our scientific and expert reports. Our reports were based on expert analysis from Professional Engineers with significant coastal experience. FEMA provided no technical evidence from experienced or Professional Engineers experienced in coastal engineering matters to refute our information. FEMA "Beach Expert" review and approved our position when the PW's were modified. 2. Original PW's authorized by FEMA was comprised of generic text. The initial language and scope was an estimate that was to be reconciled at contract approval and close out. 3. The estimated initial sand volumes could only be achieved if recovery work commenced Immediately. Federal and state permitting were not in place at this time and if the project proceeded without permits, it would be a federal violation of NEPA Compliance and the Stafford Act. 1 0• Coast County Coastal Zone Management•W,Harmon Turner Builchng,Surte 103•3301 Easl Tamiam Trait•Naples,Florida 34112.239-252-2966•FAX 239.252.2950 v..w rAfiomne roUrn a.1 abnnomvnanomonl Request for Reconsideration of 2nd Denial July 26,2012 Page 2 of 2 4. Between the date of the Federal Declaration and the date of the permits, the county operated in an Gm�roQn.�f tc�eCr� e. "WMlrpeadng 5. The 50,000 cy/yr maintenance program that was setup,documented and approved prior to Tropical Storm Gabrielle was ignored and dismissed in FEMA's denial letter. Again, an opinion without due consideration. Sand bypassing is a source of repairs that is a FEMA encouraged policy as documented by FEMA Policy 9580.8. 6. The denial letter stated "much uncertainty of erosion". Technical reports and yearly monitoring activity verify in detail our position. There was no review or discussion of this information. 7. No analysis of our invoices/documentation provided. These were approved by FDEM and FEMA staff and served as the basis for the PW's written by FDEM. These were rejected out of hand with no review or discussion. 8. At closeout FEMA-FRO and FDEM-FRO validate all invoices and changes in scope. Additionally, all PW's were closed out and approved by FEMA Atlanta and Tallahassee FDEM. Collier County Is requesting that the State Director of Florida Department of Emergency Management (FDEM)support this Request for Reconsideration by moving forward with a new FEMA appeal request on this project. Very Respectfully, Gary McAlpin CC: Mgregir Nick Casalanguida Bill Lorenz Mark Isackson Steve Carnell Dan Summers Ed Finn Sherr Pryor May� rey Michael Cox Goiter County Public Services Division Coastal Zone Management Mr.Bryan W.Koon,Director Florida Division of Emergency Management 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee,FL 32399-2100 Mr.Leo Lachat Florida Department of Emergency Management Bureau Chief-Recovery 2555 5humard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee,FL 32399-2100 Mr.Robert M.(Bob)Seibert Lead Deputy Public Assistance Officer Florida Division of Emergency Management 5900 Lake Eleanor Drive Orlando,Florida 32809 RE: Fl Dear Mr.Koon,Lachat and Seibert: 4. ,, .. • .aw :: . . .;.� �; ,, 1608°Eollier 4`+!cY ; to'thisaction taking Move.drigregiMirtiltittrifirtWfvlsplinatifithislittigitVbalettivothe-:following: 1. Collier County worked closely with FDEM to determine eligibility,scope documentation, authorization and approval for Hurricane Wilma and the balance of the 2004/05 storms.In fact, Collier took all direction/guidance from the State.Collier presented the information;The State wrote the PW's;approved the additional scope/work;and received authorization from FEMA. 2. Expenditure and payment were reviewed,approved and authorized by FEMA-Lake Mary, FEMA- Atlanta and FEMA-Washington. 3. All approaches are backed up with hard costs,hard documentation,proper authorizations,proper closeouts and correct closeout documentation. 4, Scope increases were approved in each one of the revised PW's by FEMA. 5. Payments were made 22 months ago for Collier County expended costs,This was for cost reimbursement with no conditions on the reimbursement i, rnior m onk,radar 7nno Alanan•nrnI•W Hamm TiKnnr Roalrtinn Sii1e 103.33(1!FasI Tamiaml Trail•Naoles Fbrida 34112.239-252-2966•FAX 239.252.2950 First Appeal Request-De-obligation Hurricane Wilma July 26,2012 Page 2 of 2 6. Details will be developed that address the lack of technkai basis for the de-obligation along with the disregard for established FEMA policies and procedures. Collier County is requesting that the State Director of Florida Department of Emergency Management (FDEM)support this Appeal Request. Very Respectfully, '4447 416(417-- Gary McAlpin CC: MOW Nick Casalanguida Bill Lorenz Mark Isackson Steve Carnell Dan Summers Ed Finn Sherry Pryor Michael Cox t l yy!!n t iY ic.3 t• �t �t hyt��++•+ y a :?:,4.177,J-1_.:: ::';,-4:`,-;.,k4-,_.1:7,',.-4:),81 " O M v s 1 i 'r b O ........;,:;1;• ;.::.: ! k;��S tit if^ t : 1 ,' , , t .�tiy�,ti ,t'r�r. i s r' +t}a .1, y tr�- ?',' 1 y } �'� � g m v y ]J.:}',{,', s .r . ; t:41><v{ ,fs p a -, ,• i; tt r 1,ti r . ��: � 5 `;.-.. t`. ` L f). •A,1 , r r t' 5tiiA4TF;- '�t y 41;� l4t =k Ly .ti 1` .t!' Sy ' rr .-.P, ,,, -.,„,',,; , 0 m m i t + t tYi • t 4fi 7 - , x. i. ! : m r s 4..,•:.‘e,.,•. ,7 r pl: 5� , �.z '� ••1, :14'` • r 1t;. ,, !m' x, < r 7 }{ r i. �:','; t 1t•l! ir, d a "'d,t .. 7 s!• f�- mss •3, W 2 —I 0 t 7 tF f a r 1 '•-`1•5,:.:` .� ,'. 'ti N m .. .?:.•:.:.-•,•-`.:' tt,;$,.tiyt�•4rl .i .crt 7,. 1 ,; t, i^,n, a p"}1. e'''' }r r{4X 00 Z ' z, } :: n t/y1l43tF-,1'- P .�' r i 7Fi; • L 14•x,1 ? •7*•J'. fir •,�K h Yi,<< y'F to O r- •'O .. , r i •.+,,Si}�• Y !`1 r .. ,( �.-:.:P r 1 ?!7'`�v'1';'). a 1C•t ,.,, 1 ,Yy r 7 -"t ' Y�1 5 t ! }''• "rr�" ;eru'.sl ��' O O • • t t ! y, r .+;•„I..•y ).f 1 a 'fi it d1-4 ,}:' 1 S' ` , ' 7' A O T • . I ,{r t ysi * t t ttl� /:L &t.' P l7 + a i,t t 7 ,• t 1 - • 4a1 ] l "`0 > fl . t `„, t y fur 1 of i tr ,) rS ,= O m • t „ } F i 7 rl• t„'''4..k R t 1••.:•,`,-.,9 -'lC1 1.•+ r-- • t l,; - ! �, ,,-, �t< t.•,r4tYiv`v •�J'-': .-,tt'rfs'-: 0 t.'• !!,i , l • S% 3 t.t{e>4j r 41 y..4G 7t7 .. y..::.•,: .::;,:,..4•..',-,`,..,/,.....,-:;!,::,,.;.t....7..> '! '.'1.1/�jtitiu'4��itiJ '''',''V. 1 }!s,�3 7 frJ t'l Lt • .. ! `7 5'•-.,;;',..,.'4;•••:•(.1.1:',.•-•:::•t• ! t ♦:47• kv Gi l:,”; , ? .-• d r r N i, �''.4 a y r �.t tip s�, �4 f { r ,� • j�r•` • '' v1 til!'fitE tJ z>I;' �y eril `ry Sti t'gtt� ' . , t' { `. i .Fl r f tt t l t , F ; <t4 �,� ��Ci+ ! i� ' ,+ ) 1. • • ,• ' tt .'+ 1 r 1 j!fi + , ! Tw J x} 3kwa r � � 1ii ;! Y;yy r yk' t! Y 1 7.1 4 r• , .'t t ,.•'. t : t t y kil ' f .st ' P : ; F1' '�.,�• F r* i + r ,,',..:',..'f!5 M .'l ,:. 4,:zTdC • r▪ .aa rb , r y!' 1•y,N q7� S '1° i'r R ..:',,c1.'-'1'„%.•� fit•: '• .. ... r:�• ar � }^�' .. i;:1:.„..,..%...:k.,::, e,.,∎,...!.`..y'`!r�yt, }•r, ,' ,_rF \4 n•• rr• #Y' 7-•\ 7! �{Y >44%� ! tr Sa"-� y 3. •' ''...:-.,-.•'..;• =J[l°•'.t ea•�t 5• 'r 5r,� X� Yt Y `i4yF• i rrit• • Zz :: a l ` Y>}4S?�wi•T r:.4s Ir- a 1Yy 4'-i- - ” 'OGO ,xlyNrgM`,;?P ltt,_�`5V,I, is -i -. .4!;,.�� . .e, 1'raS.1 ifl N �p t Y! `yt' M'}`fr{ 4• :,--wm� t', ..,0•.c,� -,, 1',,,,��-�t �� 1 ' .. ! ` e •�' `{ } r � ---a •• ' , ti ?v,Ss.j. �±,'k.v.., �J}, �G•.. y ,le''' `vI-7, tt'r t 17 -- t + r v.R 4 'e ff�{,44•0''t, ,.l t.4?AA:tr.. Y,r� >i, v ,.,i'1S 7{S Rl•1 A D r '}{Nt t}' 1,. �" 1) ▪•A: yr'/rr?-j,-.1''.,J��, *—TI., ,2!;,c''iNx'7 .'O ----.....1.:,4:. ` t' '' °• 3Q .>•+ ;.1,34 rtY,44 r.j1i 1t7 J y{?7 y;� 44$,C-1}"ti��1-1i s r ! v Y,. It•I' . °'I. FdY :'..1.\it+∎, r {lx.P)1.•f r 4 •7 _,fi •t i- '. t 77., 2 ,ri, tf1 y+L K rr"..Ve Il ; t+V tv �.,d>. •1 � � Y !s.! ?� � �t ��I?}r v t' +cssh•+n t r !.{y�{��•.tYr " ry �, r�+,O tTt�A Y :-4; rA•410:i1A; L,+'Y ,:i .j 4c�'iY 1 eR O .�- +ems t ,�^�,6� 41.; y r�&f �.1•.t$4'...'tot 5Vt,.'Y+�t 1t¢T[ .'t O i4A� �ye l' s�, � St �S� .r r cb 3 �'ti•, � w x cri,t tS,wy S it.{Sm t q Y iC t &a 111, s avt A, )s91y,4.rttt 3 Pl� t}at•�ft.,7 ,.'Llj� ",t�t1"}C"..1,�l..x.. f�cY rti J+r�S .!rlv r ! t•4 .1 4,-D¢ '��7�`+r :C y frig+"r a �,'r2 7 ♦/s'tt S 17r �. -yE,: z, 3•r - + y: r 4� t '1 L'4 l(a S�•l f1 ! .,r tt ik l',y 1r It E' .. 3 llr jyr S v '. l.t `rG 7t ✓ Ki, I 7 . 1 r s+ r ,- r,4 x l gka n ,�4 ,rl i•.i' `•r y i.V zaS� d,F t 3.�i{ti _'i�+ si', `••'j t pr ,i• • j 7 �. 1�.�• r t 5l �a i .. !v. ;.: 1 }° y Yt it. 1><5 t,1j.44 dlt,� `�L 4+?' k�,� J!N�'t.'''°S �,k� t t -S.t'3Y. •' it fit .--4 r i''� �1=s' A•t " t4 y+A '•4^ 1,SS L ` ,n �' - , < ° t! ��4(�} ;Z'n tS`{{';•1 tyn, 7'.4'��,�tk 14�. j. f.F t'z;1 . :`ri P h ti 7 v �` #'£3 h, s+ Y 1 I r 7 ilY �J(I% �T }l A T 1 xt,ti-$� f, . . ▪\ i h�tr i7 . 1 i,re r a} L,.i{,+ !4 +t.w d r r r y 4 2p,�'gkvc.:i, w.��' a „`.. �1+r r.Y a. y y. ,y 1 L.,.-.. S4+. t'd:;c1,3,4;$4, •e' p6.97r. u ,-.„ t, .7',':•7 vl t 4 Litt' ♦ r 7 r.7St> > j{ .. '� _.tet s r r t { r t .•t.".',.!,•;`..'.:-..'•• •''.:::.f):•;t • + ts1T�4�rt � tF F�� • ' it , `'. f '�' (Ft,, L '''r'�l:t�:ter+{'�-� - , 5 t s} J N <_ ,r t �'}? 4 ,� , vt4:{t'rF'?1 ta' i 1 ti ., : tt J r>y!}Y i1+ ..,;i4...,,,,,,,:,1,,,-,.:.:ii:� .! • ., : t t 5t 5 V t r7grrwh `f°rf= ` r 3��`' S 1J�t6,...(,4,'!';"n[ ' i, r•:'''•4•-',:',"••:,''i •1`tk• 1 r . �1 ice!, ��4{" }F ;;1 i�t-, 6 r--s FMS,i <.r %S q(,1{jy�fj.�'Y r% �1'x ti 4•J'. . f i � 1+'t •• ,rte.'.,x,93, ,'1' .if., { :.k 'y t�,ii, r40,'".i'S'.0,Z 1 'Pr 4;::,.4!A�?,a`'aFA k •,•,s '}1•1 {{ , r 11 of ' +r+ t 1. 4y� • =fir Yr' • STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT RICK SCOTT • BRYAN W.KOON Governor Director ' 2 Ms. Cheryl Pryor Collier County 3301 Tarniami Trail,Admin. Bldg. Naples, FL 34112 • Re:Overpayment Dear Ms. Pryor: PERIMIT-mletetrillefOnlistitochment) Division of Emergency Management 5900 Lake Ellenor Drive Orlando,FL 32809-4634 Attention: Renee Singh, Deputy State Public Assistance Officer of Finance • Please contact Renee Singh via e-mail, Renee.Sinah @em.rnyflorida.com'or by phone 407-858-2761 should you have any questions or need any additional information. Respectfully, n• Charles Shinkle Deputy Bureau Chief• Division of Emergency Management • Attachment: CS/tca FLORIDA RECOVERY OFFICE • DIVISION HEADQUARTERS • STATE LDOISTICSRESPONSECENTER • 5900 Lake Ellenor Drive 2556 Shumird Oak Boulevard 2702 Directors Row Orlando, FL 32009-1671 Teliahastea, FL 32399.2100 Orlando. FL 32505.5631 107.065-2761 Tel:650.413.5969•Fax:550.488-101e www.Florlds Ols e s i er•ar2 • • • • INVOICE STATE OF FLORIDA *7-T:'.G!{ Division of Emergency Management Date:Jul 23, 2012 Invoice#: 122 • To:Collier County(FIPS:021-99021-00) 3301 Tamiaml Trail,Admin Bldg Naples,FL 34112 • Disaster PW# Federal Share Admin Slate Share Une Item Total 1809 2700 $11,095,283.52 $55,478.42 $0.00 311,150,759.04 • 1809 2704 ($16,818.80) ($84.08) $0.00 ($18,900.88) 1809 8733 $38,222.45 $191.11 $0.00 . $38,413.58 SubTelai $11,172,272,82 State of Florida Public Assistance,5900 Lake Ellenor Drive,Orlando,FL 32809-4634 Phone(107)858-2761 Fax(407)858-4429 renee.singh @em.myforlda.com • • Payment#122 Project 2700 FEMA-1609-DR-FL 021-99021-00 Payment #122: Project 2700 (L - Cat G) Collor County • • Eligible Federal Admit) State • Obligated&Approved Version 0(Large)-Initial Obligation $3,381,940.54 $2,536,455.41 $16,909.70 n/a SyWm AamWakikr-Apr 11,2005 Version 1 (Large)-Federal Share Change $0.00 $507,291.08 $0.00 n/a SyalamAdm/olarrefor-Jan 18.2007 Version 2(Large)-Federal Share Change $0.00 $338,194.05 $0.00 n/a System Adrrinlidralor-Jun 19,2007 Version 3(Large)-Eligible Amount Change $9,486,535.40 $9,488,535.40 $47,432.68 n/a Renee Sip*-Aug 30 2010 Version 4(Large)-Version Modilcatiorl $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 n/a • Ranee Singh-Oa 1e,2010 • Version 5(Large)-Version Modification • $0.00 $0.00 , $0.00 n/a Rena Singh-Jan 4 2011 Version 6(Large)-Eligible Amount Change ($11,095283.52) ($11,095,283.52) ($55,476.42) n/a Renee Singh-Jul 15,2012 • $1,773,192.42 $1,773,192.42 $8,865.96 $0.00 Justified by RFRs 000.0%) RFR#1-Expense Approval $761,258.08 John Schmidt-May 1 i 2006 RFR#1-Expense Approval $1,272,301.32 Met 9ehnnan-Jul 2$2006 RFR#1-Expense Approval $255,883.14 • Mabee Val*•Aug 2,2006 RFR#1-Expense Approval $803,931.91 Darryl cox-Jun 27,2007 RFR#2-Expense Approval $9,775,103.49 Kelh.dne(Lank.)Huhtg-Sep 3,2010 Reversal of Overrun ' 411,095,283.52 $1,773,192,42 $1,773,192.42 $6,866.96 .$0.00 Previous Payments Payment#54 $570,942.08 $3,808.28 $95,157.01 Orlando Roddguar-May 18,2006 • Payment#77 $954,225.99 $6,361.51 $159,037.67 Nick Bahama-Jul 24 2000 Payment#79 $191,912.36 $1,279.42 $31,985.39 Often*Rodriguax-Aug 2,2008 Payment#91 $343,418.08 $0.00 ($171,708.04) Orlando Rodriguez-Mar 12,2007 Payment#107 $723,538.72 $4,019.68 $0.00 Van Cal-Jul 27,2007 Payment#108 $309,337.24 $0.00 ($114,472.03 Yon Cal.Oct 31.2007 ($114,472.03) Payment#119 $9,775,103.49 $48,875.52 $0.00 Jamie Booth-Jan 9,2009 Payment#117 • $0.00 ($0.01) $0.00 Jamb Booth-Jan 6 2009 -$12,868,475.94 - $64,342.38 - $0.00 Adjustments + $0.0o + $0.o0 + $0.00 • This Payment ($11,095,283.52) ($55,476.42) $0.00 no p pawa.r+..a.hnwataoa • P.ywau cakvis four sr el Jvf 19,2012 • Printed born I°bdd.PA.op on Ju124 2012.112.3!PM. • • • • • • • • • • • Payment#122 Project 6733 FEMA•1609-DR-FL 021-99021-00 • Payment #122: Project 6733 (L - Cat G) • Collier County • Eligible Federal Admin State Obligated &Approved Version 0(Large)-Initial Obligation $625,964.16 $469,473.12 $3,129.82 n/a SYMeon Ado dstalor.May 22.2006 Version 1(Large)-Federal Share Change $0.00 $93,894.62 $0.00 n/a System AdnWnIstrMar-Jan 1e 2007 Version 2(Large)-Federal Share Change $0.00 $62,596.42 $0.00 n/a system Admil/atnmfar-Jun 20.2007 Version 3(Large)-Eligible Amount Change ($107,135.18) ($107,135.18) ($536.67) n/a Syaren,AdnWsLator-Jan 30,2006 Version 4(Large)-Eligible Amount Change $31,993.47 $31,993.47 $159.96 n/a Rana Shah-Aug 17,2010 Version 5(Large)-Eligible Amount Change ($38, .4 Renee Singh-Jid 1a 2012 ($38,222.46) ($38,222.45) ($191.11) Na $512,600.00 $512,600.00 $2,563.00 $0.00 Justified by RFRs (1Q0.0%) RFR#1-Expense Approval $625,964.18 Avon Harden-Jinn 11,2007 Reversal of Overrun •$113,364,16 $612,600.00 $512,600.00 $2,563.00 $0.00 Previous Payments Payment#106 • $563,367.74 $3,129.82 $0.00 Van Cal-Jun 12,2007 Payment#110 $62,596.42 Yon C.1-OM 31,2007 $0.00 $0.00 Payment#119 Jamie Booth-Jan 6,2009 ($76,141.71) ($376.71) $0.00 —$550,822.45 — $2,754.11 — 20.00 Adjustments + Moo + $0.00 + $o.00 This Payment ($38,222.46) ($191.11) $0.00 • Amupgem/Neves a balance of UM ',,n nr Wnda/bas a&NJW N,2012 "rtal.d In,,n fAiddisPA.010 an Jul 20,2012.11215 PM. • • ` *. US.Department of Homeland Security S00 C Street,SW Washington,DC 20472 FEMA Bryan Koon Director Florida Division of Emergency Management 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee,Florida 32399-2100 Re: eco p ter ounty Public Services Di sion,PA ID 21-08835-01, Sand Replacement,FEMA-1393-DR-FL,Project Worksheets(PWs)566 and 673 Dear Mr.Koon: r•ferenced_ ��lialf of the Co] ier County Public Services Division(Applican , e Applicant is appealing the D •artment of Homeland Security's Federal Emergency ,.•.,,, , ,k ,ency ,r, •eni. • . . ,• ' ..i , o : n: arco s and beaches. I have determined that there is no adequate basis to increase the amount of eligible sand replaced on the beaches. I have reviewed the information submitted with the appeal and have determined that the Regional Administrator's decision in the first appeal is consistent with Public Assistance regulations and policy. However,in my review of the documentation,I have found errors in the apportionment of eligible costs that were incurred as a part of the mainland and Marco Island renourishment projects. By cdpy of this letter,I am requesting the Regional Administrator prepare versions of PWs 566 and 673 to award the eligible costs associated with the renourishment projects as detailed in the enclosed analysis. Please inform the Applicant of my decision. This determination is the final decision on this matter pursuant to 44 CFR§206.206,Appeals. Sincerely, _Pdflay 41 Deborah In g ran r3 Assistant Administrator Recovery Directorate Enclosure cc: Major P. May Regional Administrator FEMA Region IV www.fem.gov SECOND APPEAL ANALYSIS ( FEMA-1393-DR-FL Collier County Public Services Division,PA ID 021-08835-01 Sand Replacement,Project Worksheets 566 and 673 d EMA determined that four engineered beaches in Collier County are eligible for Public ssistance(PA)permanent work funding as improved and maintained beaches. These beaches suffered sand erosion from c trine•r .1. -r .-. ,an' -urn : ""1t : 1... S /Project Worksheets(PWs)to replace the sand eroded by each storm. A .propared•several The Collier County Public Services Division(Applicant)performed nourishment work in two parate projects that had different design firms and contractors. The first renourishment project, he mainland project,to restore the Naples,Vanderbilt,and Park Shore beaches substantially to heir 1996 design,was completed in 2006. The other renourishment project,to restore the Marco land beach to its design,was completed in 2007. While the Applicant's appeal only addresses Ws under FEMA-1393-DR-FL,in order to properly assess the eligible work and costs,both nourishment projects must be examined in conjunction with all three disasters. Table 1 provides information on the ten PWs(including versions) for eligible work that was accomplished as part of the renourishment projects. PW : PW Amount •rli� Beach '• 566 $1,700,137.45 70,650 Naples 568 $2,085,076.70 80,464 Vanderbilt 575 $634,657.86 36,382 Park Shore 673 $593,292.00 49,441 Marco Island Total $5,013,164.01 MiNIPPIS ti). .. • 44141460zF1 PW. PW Amount Sand VOltimaritif Beat:h, 1109 $1,192,557.72 45,762 • Naples 1110 $375,779.91 15,599 Vanderbilt Total $1,568,337.63 • ' PW • PW Arpount olume wet Beach 2700* $12,868,475.94 367,159 Naples,Vanderbilt,Park Shore 2698 $284,334.27 11,803 Vanderbilt 2704 $100,815.00 4,290 Park Shore 6733 $550,822.45 55,000 Marco Island Total $13,804,447.66 irStrillAr *The eligible volume of sand In PW 2700 is allocated based on the Applicant's engineering study which -; 1.4.: , . ,°:"OW The PW's original scope of work approved ,641 CY of sand for Naples Beach at a cost of$3,381,940.54. Second Appeal Analysis,Collier Co , Public Services Division,PA ID 021 48835-01 Paget of 8 Sand Replacement,Project Workshe.-` 566 and 673 From September 13 to September 21,2001,Tropical Storm Gabrielle eroded Collier County's public beaches. FEMA prepared PWs 566 and 673 for the restoration oftiiiptilliftWof sand to the Naples beach and 49,441 CY to the Marco Island beach,respectively. The disaster related damages documented in the PWs' eligible scopes of work were derived from pre-and post-storm surveys. The Applicant was unable to complete the required repairs until the Florida Department of Environmental Protection(FDEP) issued an environmental permit for the renourishment, under Florida Statutes,Chapters 161 and 370,as the Applicant's 1999 permit for county-wide beach maintenance allowed for only 50,000 CY of spot nourishments annually. On April 3, 2009, FEMA received from the Florida Division of Emergency Management (Grantee)Final Inspection Reports(FIR),dated June 30,2008,for each PW, The FIR indicated that work on the beach projects had completed on May 1,2006. FEMA prepared final reconciliation reports on March 31,2010,and initiated close-out of the PWs. First Appeal In the appeal, the Grantee claimed that PWs 566 and 673 were closed in error as costs for three years of beach environmental and turtle monitoring,required by federal regulations and FDEP,were absent from the approved costs. Additionally,the Grantee requested that FEMA increase the eligible amount of the PWs based on an apportionment of the actual sand replacement costs. Included with the appeal were draft closeout versions of PW 566 and 673. With the draft Version 3 of PW 566, et et ee combining scope of work and cost adjustments for PWs 568 and 575 for Vanderbilt and Park Shore beaches, respectively,with Naples Beach under a single closeout version of PW 566. The PW included line item costs of$10,200.00 for Environmental Monitoring,$278,556.95 for Force Account Labor,and timanissfail t5;77 for Contracts. rep . • , . . Y.. •t:t1 :1- . M. . •• .•,. ♦ . - ° jest. This ap .... ,u nt came from till111111,1111110WMeakiersuisthrgememblia.4141144eanes Ka,.na an. _ ,•,• ,�.• - :beach Al144 Not - :r. :. ' beach n. ., -, • ... .. ...� : ..; : . 1 , ., . ' .� �: •:I _y The report partitioned the sand loss between Naples,Vanderbilt,and Park Shore and used estimates to divide the total into complementary portions by <-. :. .-. *'.,, , '- ,, (FE.. ,; t G ft )...iitrikeierns+ning 3 4% , i _ 934)&64 Th e-Ikiarco Island beach that included line items of$13,766.00 for Environmental Monitoring,$73,645.54 for Force Account Labor,and a lump sum Contracts cost of$1,159,812.50. The scope of work detailed that the Contract cost represente of the sand renourishment contract. This factor was derived by subtracting the 55,000 CY of sand estimated on PW 6733 attributed to Hurricane Wilma under FEMA-1609-DR-FL, from the total volume of sand replaced, 176,457 CY,for the Marco Island renourishment. In a September 30, 2010, letter partially granting the Grantee's appeal, the Regional Administrator determined that the incurred environmental and turtle monitoring costs are etigi. for reimbursement and directed that versions of PWs 566 and 673 be prepared to reflect those Second Appeal Analysis,Collier County Public Services Division,PA ID 021-08835-01 Page 2 of Ail"Sand Replacement, Project Worksheets 566 and 673 t costs . . .„u1�r !cr '1 + . a4., itiDttlNecl, for •..,.Y •"• r.n o _ 2116 and 2007 renourishment projects to s 566 and egygioaah , •..•.':..- _ • ., ark was-sub a.it ed. sx ya4li Frsa :.... . .c. .. . ...-4,, .'}w. in 7! f•' -u to Title 44 Code of Federal Regulations(CFR)6206.206(c)(1),Time LImits,applicants must file appeals within 60 days after receipt of a notice of the determination that is being appealed. Second Appeal With a letter dated January 24,2011,the Grantee supported and forwarded the Applicant'§ . : -. the approved scopes of work on estimated volumes of sand loss from the beaches,rather, -.an the actual quantity of sand required to restore the beaches. To address this difference, pplicant requested that FEMA increase the approved scopes of work and associated costs t ti flea the amount of sand replaced during the 2006 and 2007 renourishment projects. The pplicant also requested that FEMA combine the three mainland beach PWs under a new ersion of PW 566 as shown in Table 2. The Applicant submitted copies ofthe proposed drift oseout , .., _. ....:;:dlite4b+�°h daiprevi� Kalb i� . . . mitted��. 1��: - a. TABLE 2—FEMA-1393-DR-FL—Amounts Obligated and Requested � f r! : ) .'':L,,T i iLkA - �9 ayt-4' :=f t,Tai _x 7 s r :(r c'4 � F;"; n:<4,F i,!_l.tYd.ASA. n� i��r,V. r T N.t V a�!'4,. Cam. litii.r �«:wn..r a a Naples 566 70,650 $1,700,137.45 Vanderbilt 568 80,464 $2,085,076.70 226,971 $8,534,565.27 Park Shore 575 36,382 $634,657,86 (3496 of 667,562 CY) • Marco Island 673 49,4441 $593,292.00 121,457 $653,932.04 (68.83%of 176,457 CY) Total 7 ,' ,3444219 241,2 9.41. , , . ' " :;—•�'•s biddetr'damages • � .. .... r . -. ¢:.... a ,.... • . _complete the project,and as such;.the PWs should remain appealable after the 60-clay post obligation period had expired. Furthermpre;the CPE report states that based • :,•.s. jr. 12000 1 2 losw the ., - , - ', ', :lit calculating the revised costs on the closeout version of ''W 566, • .,.- ainla}ndre�u lunentpjcct costs,by a 34% f te,.. .. • . - . y, . PE r a*bute1a�Trop l,Sto Qabficlle. As justification for the eligibility of apportionment of the total renourishment costs based on the CPE distribution,the draft closeout PW noted that FEMA prepared Version 3 of PW 2700 under FEMA-1609-DR-FL. PW 2700 Version 3 consolidated the damages for the three mainland beaches from Hurricane W"', . (r ',resented by PWs 2698,2700,and 2704011 it . ttte, 4 a' F • obligated PW 2700 Version 3 on August 27,2011. `► 1 ' Similarly,the Applicant's proposed closeout version of 673 attributed 68.83%of the work and costs of the 2007 renourishment project on Marco Island to Tropical Storm Gabrielle. FEMA Second Appeal Analysis,Collier County Public,Services Division,PA ID 021.08835-0I Page 3 of 8 Sand Replacement,Project Worksheets 566 and 673 , obligated the complementary portion,or 31.71%of the renourishment contract costs, with Version 4 of PW 6733 under FEMA-1609-DR-FL,and with this appeal,the Applicant is requesti s: x 'to • .. u, P • emainder under PW 673. us.-1 tt .norol eri Corm; i ; s '"... < .- . ,., r�,_., . w .;i;;,.d. Based on . tt data contained in the two draft closeout versions, . • . , . . . . t o , , ainland beaches under PW 566 and an a••Mon: $60,.40.04 for Marco Island beach under PW 673. 'DAR In order to properly evaluate the appropriateness,accuracy, and eligibility of the Applicant's proposal of using proration of the costs of the two beach restoration projects as foundations for estimatin reimbursable costs under PWs 566 and 6 e o t to : , Table 1. Th' DR-FL, lle. � In 2006,the Applicant completed the mainland sand renourishment project to restore the Naples, Vanderbilt,and Park Shore beaches substantially to their 1996 design. The January 2010 CPE report lists the as built volume of sand for the mainland project as 668,000 CY. Prior to the 2006 renourishment,the Applicant replaced 140,102 CY of truck-hauled sand between 2000 and 2003 t ,` and 44,352 CY of Bred_ed sand in 2005. orm i , . .. . 1 . I:1 . . �, ;:,. :— p'� . .._,i � .� •• � �i"l'ft11I'ttlul`!ffe"['Fffil ss of 5 . . rr . ,t ,..._ ;-..:, a Applicant maintains that CPE's value is a more accurate assessment of the volume of sand loss as a result \� of storms than are the quantities calculated from pre-and post-storm surveys that FEMA used to estimate storm loss volumes. Furthermore,in the"Storm Contribution"section of the report, CPE states that given the relative magnitude of Hurricane Wilma,the distribution(Table 3)of sand loss attributed to each storm based on the surveys before and after each event is unrealistic. TABLE 3—Mainland Beaches—Storm erosion distribution by declaration Disaster PW Initial Approved Storm Totals Percent of Scope Estimates(CV) (a) Total Mainland Sand Percents of Loss(CY) TotaC 566 70,650 . 1393 568 80,464 l 187,496 -.96 187,496 575 36,382 1602 1109 45,762 __ 61,361 61,361 1110 15,599 ?. 2700 •58,641 1609 2698 11,803 t y.% .�,, .1 a 2704 4,290 :„r' Total ;, *Volume from original approved scope of work for PW 2700.(see Table I note) Second Appeal Analysis,Collier County Public Services Division,PA ID 021-08835-01 Page 4 of 8 Sand Replacement,Project Worksheets 566 and 673 ,.:• •recommen• x.►.._, ti t:r"oss rz 'i'<_•i, • `m�stonns il7id p-.posed a distribution of 34%, 11%,and 55%for Tropical Storm Gabrielle,Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Wilma,respectively. As shown in Table 3,CPE seems to have derived this • •' ed distribution by adding the volumes of the maintenance nourislunents between 2000 '' 2115 to the volume that the original scopes of work of PWs 2698,2700,and 2704 under 1.i• DR FL attributed to Hurricane Wilma. Using this distribution of relative volumes as a bads for allocating costs under FEMA-1393-DR-FL,the Applicant is requesting reimbursement., •, • 4%of the total contract cost . .epesitinr667,562 CY of sand for renourishm t► •' •.c tit:'t a•• t .:r«• As noted in the Grantee's July 10,2008,memorandum accom•:• • the FIR,thesis• e _ • Y.l r, :t If I • .1.1-J11 '• I 1 .• • , • ••. •1l•tle**11;M1.;4.44.111:A,5f.1. .5ji IL',� m' • • i e r recovery period... and not the can "This is supported by the Applicant's 1999 permit from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection allowing the annual deposition of 50,000 CY of sand in spot nourishments. TheiggiumukagatagiadisettetrartirrireMtICY 0 no .1•. • �.a:. 1! .. 04 Cal or,•1 553 455 CY•is the correct sin:;• „_. •.13 `i.`• .ja'i' Cs L U . we 2000 and the first quarter of 2006,it is not v CA • by the three declared storms in that representative of the amount of sand Y period for the following reasons: • e 140,102 CY of truck-hauled sand includes at least one(April 2001),if not to, •aintenance nourishments before Tropical Storm Gabrielle; and • •d 'laced on the beaches between Tropical Storm Gabrielle and 2006 needs to be per,,{ • n. t --t r. Q 1 --r.11 r '4 t l. 1 81 ,.: 1 Ir ri 1 1 I i,a.5; ,..1F...1.J� ..• • s:_, d first There is too much uncertainty about typical erosion before,between,and after the events for reliable use of this information to determine disaster damage. The sand volumes calculated for the eligible scopes of work are based on survey data that was available when the PWs were prepared and represent the most reliable pre-and post-storm profile data. The Applicant has not demonstrated that a survey of losses over a nearly six year period is more accurate than the estimates prepared for the PWs. Furthermore,as the documentation submitted falls to demonstrate that 34%of the sand replaced through ,.e m.• : •• 1 a,. • e;ent project was attributa loss as a direct 4, .,. . .It . r. •ne e, e :.; `°: :• reimbursemen .•• " `or l e mainland beaches under FEMA-1393-DR-FL does not meet the 44 CFR§206.223(a)(1)eligibility requirements. PW 673—Marco Island Beach The renourishment of Marco Island was completed in 2007 and consisted of an as built volume of 176,457 CY of sand at a contract cost of$1,551,312.92. In calculating the volume of sand loss as a result of Tropical Storm Gabrielle,the Applicant subtracted the Hurricane Wilma contribution of 55,000 CY funded with PW 6733 under FEM,A-1609-DR-FL from the total volume renourished. This calculation results in 121,457 CY of sand,or 68.83%of the renourishment t. The Applicant used this volumetric ratio in assigning 68.83%of the costs Second Appeal Analysis,Collier County Public Services Division,PA ID 021-08835-01 Page 5 of 8 Sand Replacement,Project Worksheets 566 and 673 t of the 2007 renourishment project to Tropical Storm Gabrielle. wlt •ti'' new rd noY�nt _ - : project(mainland and Marco Island),but this is based on total length of project area. To determine a unit cost for force account project management,it is best to combine the two projects sincessonsestossoolvisrottrellOVIMMErThe two renourishnlent projects placed a total of 884,019 CY of sand on Collier County beaches. That reduces to a unit cost of$0.5272 per CY for force account project management he ruse l V 'last nraf$ 9 8=11.5ftar au an i&t $1,551,312.92 for the Marco Island project. Dividing these costs by 667,562 CY and 176,457 CY of ed.sand for the mainland and Marco Island projects,respectively,results is unit costs of . CY for the mainland project and*99915 per CY for the Marco Island proje . Adding the force account project management unit cost yields total unit sirs-u�trS38r238+-per 11 ..5.' }' ,'.!!2,.Yl:104'•!+_r r.AllflR l.azci+' and p ,ect. As a result of the permit requirements of the Florida statutes associated with the beach =nourishment projects,the Applicant incurred three years of environmental monitoring costs. The first appeal approved these post-construction monitoring costs in the amounts of$10,200 for PW 566 and$13,766 for PW 673. The eligible costs were based on proration of the total estimated costs of$30,000 for the mainland beaches and$20,000 for the Marco Island beach.. Because Stafford Act§406(exl)authorizes FEMA to reimburse the costs of repair of an improved beach"in conformity with codes... applicable at the time at which the disaster occurred,"these costs would be required and eligible regardless of the amount of sand re- nourished;thus, 100%of these costs should be eligible. Furthermore,as the costs were initially necessitated by the repairs of damages by Tropical Storm Gabrielle,the full costs should be. reimbursed under FEMA-1393-DR-FL. Due to the imprecision of appropriately distributing mainland beach monitoring costs between PWs 566,568,and 575,the Region should make closeout adjustments.for the three mainland beaches on PW 566. should pre• ' ' 44 i. ., •_e• 872d0•l for deob1lgation of t •' 140 • S68 and 575 The version should include a line item for reimbursement of the eligible portion of actual costs. Using the unit costs for the eligible replaced sand based on the contract costs supplied with the project closeout documentation and lump sum monitoring costs,as described above,ttrfegtdi?s'ftrietalooiigil►lc costs,$57. r i e mai •Y • ,496 CY x$30.2381/CY+$30,000). Sin laxly,the Region should prepare a closeout version of PW 673, tom previausly funded` d Itti2 o4slend•beach,(49,441_CY x $9.3187/CY+$20,000). Second Appeal Analysis,Collier County Public Services Division,PA ID 02I-08835-01 Page 7 of 8 Sand Replacement,Project Worksheets 566 and 673 TABLE 5 � f'�, �" 1�� oc r aT f��`f -kttt+� 7 �LL J f' .'��. •,"�'i;} �.i �t�t' -i.. F,?.l yR; .(w;�k$gt �.. r. ,�F li,, }��a. Tii �I 7 a.y:":42-4 71..�, .i._5xr ,:`'. :HY.i,+.1 i.. E r:SS�,�1. +R X4 Naples 566 $1,700,137.45 $5,699,535.53 Vanderbilt 568 $2,085,076.70 •$8,534,565.27 Park Shore 575 $634,657.86 Marco Island 673 $593,292.00 5653,932.04 $480,726.00 Total , , 3 I' • • in = iii g o I i. =. .�.• 1..ith>,tlze.. �' . 1_...1 • 1.: Lib■. .1 ,l+f�t.�,_-_�.dwr l 1M I i_ i1.■ I•. . t. ..0 .A .r0 as = ,, e. IeseproJectrep :r d . ill:t I:. .- . .orn ;TZ ore, .r • _•,• .1.r. : -erthe disaster incident periods,and also placed sand on non-eligible beaches. F4111,6911 !!t be b . •. 'r .- .,. ., e• 1 Y .n p....ism -X11^!1 .: e.. 5 _.6. Conclusion 1. r)r• .... . da . . HSe • .. .,..'i T . • - 8+,-.; ,st} the irela and.MarEO•Island ..-:x.11 • .1: . ..• '-r.i I . <x ; ,ealcolated*from pre-and post-storm surveys and documented in the approved scopes of work for PWs 566,568,575,and 673. These surve s , represent the most reliable pre-and post storm beach profile measurements. •;g...1,.� ►. . • \ ,at.. " ,, t s survey .. .a . ,l ier lieliPwr The Applicant submitted proposed draft closeout versions of PWs 566 and 673 that suggest the total volume of sand replaced by the 2006 and 2007 nourishment projects is eligible and should be apportioned to each of the three federally declared disasters. yd iepi y ea,that the mainland and Marcos Island renourislunent Projects included both eligible and ineligible work, and the fact that this response only affects the PWs under FL!MA-1393-DR-FL;Regional PA staff should reexamine the ' PWs wider FEMA-1607-DR-FL and FEMA-1609- DR-FL to de.. ,:.""` •up icative environmen Al- `w∎ . .1 a t7iot itt niti "fists arid"to ensure that FEMA reimburses only eligible sand replacement costs. Second Appeal Analysis,Collier County Public Services Division,PA ID 021-08835-01 Page 8 of 8 Sand Replacement,Project Worksheets 566 and 673 • .4 r• t•'c STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT RICK SCOTT DAVID HALSTEAD Governor rte,, Director «arasruan � Ms.Elizabeth A.Zimmerman, Assistant Administrator—Disaster Assistance Directorate DHS-Federal Emergency Management Agency 500 C Street,SW, Washington,DC 20472 Through: Major P.May,FEMA Region IV Administrator Federal Emergency Management Agency 3003 Chamblee-Tucker Road Atlanta,Georgia 30341 Re: !tier County Dear Ms.Zimmerman: __,�,--`` • "r t •`• s 1 �' �; •"" % ,+,a.:- - stefe1'k rletter in apperei FEll+lrA s<dontal..of as. .. . _ ..,� beet$(PW's)arising from the Tropical Storm Gabrielle event(DR-1393). This letter has been received in a timely manner from the subgrantee,and the Grantee recommends that FEMA approve this appeal based on the arguments presented therein. Issue for Second Appeal Tropical Storm Gabrielle(DR-1393)caused damaging beach erosion to public beaches within the subgrantee's jurisdiction. In the wake of Gabrielle,joint teams from FEMA,the Grantee and the subgrantee, wrote PW's to reimburse the subgrantee for the costs of repairing this damage. Specifically,PW's 566 and 673 were written to reimburse for costs associated with repairing the subgrantee's public beaches on mainland Collier County(Naples,FL),and on Marco Island, respectively. These same public beaches would also suffer damage during 2005's Hurricane Katrina(DR-1.602)and Hurricane Wilma(DR-1609)events. geEdisparit existin b a t weep the ub: •ntec's cl:'rr • , getteyd+amaunts �`tited'to the •, - r 5w rri� :•�_, a .. . ,�- 4. �1 � it■4 :� •d`fftfvr��lur iroittrtent andt _.,,. , u •er e'era and or Florida law. On first FLORIDA RECOVERY OFFICE • DIVISION HEADQUARTERS • STATE LOGISTICSRESPONSiECENTER 36 Skyline Drive 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard 2702 Directors Row Lake Mary, FL 32746-6201 Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 Orlando, FL 32609.5631 T•r• ain,11%.O0AO• F.• acn.dna.fftA Ms.Elizabeth A.Zimmerman January 24,2011 Page 2 appeal,the Regional Administrator approved a total of$23,966 to cover future environmental and turtle monitoring costs,but denied a total of$9,188,479.31 in additional beach reconstruction costs which the subgrantee attributes to the Gabrielle event. This second appeal follows. In the analysis attached to the Regional Administrator's first appeal determination letter, two reasons are provided as to why the subgrantee's additional beach reconstruction costs have continued to be deemed ineligible by FEMA: 1. ingthe-atlditio'tttiel"tlttlreff9in' lamage>to TierisairfitetiVeittietttraid 2. FE " ". the estimated sand replacement values listed on version n0 of the antee's PW's(both of which were obligated on July 8, 2004), s yj" A—Period. These issues will be addressed below in reverse order from that shown above. FEMA's 60-day objection period is not a limiting factor The analysis attached to the first appeal determination cites that as approved scopes of work were obligated on July 8, 2004 the obli: tion establish,. • a ich the sub • `'+ p' a appr:v i7: opes o wo ',o • ever ose e right'to ditions evolved. To this,the Grantee points out that such an interpretation would have been incorrect under FEMA policy that was in effect at the time of the Gabrielle event,and would also be incorrect in the present established practice as well. The FEMA Public Assistance Guide clearly notes that"[d]uring the performance of work on a project,the applicant may discover hidden damage,additional work that is necessary to properly complete the project, or that certain costs are higher than those used to make the original estimate for the PW"(see: FEMA 322/October 1999,page 115). This statement indicates that FEMA policy envisions that the original obligation of a PW is not intended to be a "lock-down"event,and that it is quite likely that project costs will change over the lifecycle of the project. Continuing in the same subsection of FEMA 322,the Grantee can find no mention that the establishment of a scope of work through PW obligation begins a 60-day appeals countdown, after which the subgrantee would be barred from making eligible changes to the approved scope of work. To read in such an interpretation would be contra to the established current practice in that scopes of work are modified often as projects develop,and the modification seen in this PW is not extraordinary in comparison with modifications made to the scopes of countless number of other projects currently still open in Florida. In such a case, the general rule could simply be stated that the scope of work may be changed(given a set of changed circumstances or changed data inputs),so long as the project has not been closed out. As the successful first appeal on this r Ms.Elizabeth A.Zimmerman January 24,2011 Page 3 PW indicated that there will be environmental monitoring costs accruing in the future,' the project could not be closed out,which is defined as occurring when"... all required work of the grant has been completed"(see:44 CFR §13.50(a)). As line items on a PW cannot be individually closed out(i.e.—the entire PW must be closed out,or the PW remains open), and as the Regional Administrator's first appeal determination indicates that there was still•work remaining to be completed on the PW(environmental monitoring), the entire PW remained open, and thus the scope of work for beach reconstruction could legitimately be changed as new studies dictated. As the applicant's appeal should be unaffected by the passage of the 2004 60-day objection period,the next section of the appeal deals with the scientific study underlying the apportionment of additional damage to Tropical Storm Gabrielle. The basis for attributing additional damage to Tropical Storm Gabrielle In regard to the subgrantee's assertion that additional damage should be attributed to Tropical Storm Gabrielle,the Regional Administrator answered this claim in the first appeal determination by stating that"[tjhe subgrantee provides no basis for attributing a portion of its overall beach restoration project to damage inflicted by Tropical Storm Gabrielle beyond that already identified in the PW's." Included in the subgrantee's second appeal package,the reviewer will find a copy of a study prepared by Coastal Planning&Engineering, Inc.,which explains the inadequacies of earlier studies,and which lays out a new apportionment of overall storm damage caused by the 3 Presidentially declared disasters to have major affects on the area between 2001 and 2005 2(see Attachment C of the subgrantee's second appeal package). The Grantee has read this study and does not dispute the findings contained therein. While the Grantee can only take a guess at why the Regional Administrator did not accept the findings of this study,the Grantee has reason to believe that it is due to a mistaken belief that the study attributes all damage during that timeframe to the 3 Presidentially declared disasters of interest,and does not consider any other possible sources of damage. On page 2 of the first appeal analysis,the analysis notes that the area would have been affected by at least 3 additional hurricanes,and"numerous other weather events which did not meet the threshold for a Federally-declared disaster." The reviewer seems to have been of the opinion that each of these weather incidents caused its own beach erosion(which the subgrantee does not dispute), which was not accounted for in the study attributing"all damage"to the three named storms of interest(which the subgrantee does dispute). t er vents was cony ; '..re„�wsr, rlsserts that sidcre• ui t c s r r" • lady is not fla um y e reviewer. e'study accounted for the effects of this beach erosion by accounting for"supplemental sand fill"that was added yearly between the years 2000 'The Regional Administrator granted$23,966 in future monitoring costs in partially granting the subgrantee's first appeal. 2 These 3 storms being Gabrielle(DR-1393), Katrina(DR-1602)and Wilma(DR-1609) Ms. Elizabeth A.Zimmerman January 24,2011 Page 4 and 2006(see page 4 of Attachment C to the subgrantee's second appeal request). The Grantee can see no reason why treating sand losses for each of the"other events"would be necessary individually,so long as the yearly loss is accounted for in the net calculations. Additionally,the subgrantee has asserted that no Stafford Act reimbursement has been requested for this "supplemental sand fill"in any of the 3 named storms that are the subject of the study. As a result,the study does represent the pure damage that can be associated with the 3 storms of interest(i.e.—free from the confounding effects of other weather events),and represents a valid apportionment of damage across the 3 events. As the subgrantee has provided a valid scientific study which more accurately apportions damage due to the 3 named events of interest than had earlier studies,and as that study does take account of other weather related erosion that would have occurred during the timeframe in question,the Grantee recommends that FEMA approve this second appeal and award the relief requested by the subgrantee. Relief Requested In regard to relief requested,the subgrantee requests the granting additional costs consistent with new version PW's that the subgrantee has filed with FEMA. Attached to the subgrantee's second appeal package as Attachments D and E,respectively,these PW's request additional funding to correct previous version overruns in the following amounts: - DR-1393;PW-566—an additional$8,534,565.27 is requested,and - DR-1393; PW-673—an additional$653,932.04 is requested. Summarizing these requests,the subgrantee requests an additional$9,188,497.31 from what has already been obligated for these otherwise eligible beach projects. As this request is backed with a scientific study,is not barred by a timeliness issue,and is for otherwise-eligible work to constructed/maintained beaches,the Grantee recommends approval of this second appeal. Conclusion The Florida Division of Emergency Management believes that the argument provided above will provide an adequate basis upon which FEMA can provide the relief requested to the subgrantee. If you have any further requests for technical information regarding this second appeal, please contact Evan Rosenberg,Special Projects Coordinator,at(850)487-2293 or by e- mail at: evan.roscnberg @cm.myflorida.com. a• Ms.Elizabeth A.Zimmerman January 24,2011 Page 5 Sincerely, • 1 tn. David Halstead,GAR Division of Emergency Management DWDW/TEBO/KA/er Attachments: Subgrantee's Second Appeal Letter(Including Attachments A-E) Copy of First Appeal Denial letter EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to direct Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. to prepare a work order under Contract #10-5571 to update the existing Clam Bay Management Plan to ensure the preservation of the Clam Bay system and compliance with this preserve's Natural Resource Preservation Area ("NRPA") designation; and, to establish criteria as indicators for evaluation of dredging needs for the purpose of maintaining flushing for the environmental benefit of the Clam Bay system; to present such work order to the PBSD, the TDC, and the BCC at the first January,2013 meeting of each of these respective boards. OBJECTIVE: To update the existing Clam Bay Management Plan to ensure the preservation of the Clam Bay system and compliance with the preserve's NRPA designation; and, to establish criteria as indicators for evaluation of dredging needs for the purpose of maintaining flushing for the environmental benefit of the Clam Bay system. This shall be accomplished through a work order under Contract #10-5571 for a total cost not to exceed $34,000. The work order deliverables shall include the following: . Update the Clam Bay Management Plan to achieve the objective of `preservation' since the `restoration' objective has been successfully achieved. . Modify the State and Federal maintenance dredging permits to incorporate the revised Management Plan objective. . Develop and implement an updated Monitoring Plan consistent with the revised objective of the Management Plan. CONSIDERATIONS: The Clam Bay Management Plan has successfully achieved the restoration of the mangrove system within Clam Bay. The next management phase will entail preserving the restored mangrove system. To that end, the Clam Bay Management Plan shall be updated based on obtained monitoring data to incorporate the preservation objective. Inherent to the preservation of the mangrove system is the need to provide adequate flushing through maintenance dredging of Clam Pass to ensure the health of the mangroves. The update to the Management Plan shall include a recommendation that listed monitoring data, evaluated in totality, shall be the basis for future dredging considerations. The updated Management Plan guidelines shall serve as the basis for the modification of the State and Federal maintenance dredging permits. Clam Pass and Clam Bay shall be recognized and managed as a single unified system, rather than as bifurcated systems, given that both the pass and the bay constitute the NRPA and must be taken as a whole. Further, an updated monitoring plan shall be developed and implemented consistent with the objectives of the updated Management plan. FISCAL IMPACT: Funding for this work order shall be from the Tourist Development Tax Fund 195; the total cost shall not exceed $34,000. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item has been reviewed by the County Attorney, is legally sufficient, and requires majority vote for approval. -JAK RECOMMENDATION: To update the existing Clam Bay Management Plan to ensure the preservation of the Clam Bay system and compliance with the preserve's NRPA designation; and, to establish criteria as indicators for evaluation of dredging needs for the purpose of maintaining flushing for the environmental benefit of the Clam Bay system. This shall be accomplished through a work order under Contract#10-5571 with Turrell, Hall & Associates for a total cost not to exceed $34,000. The work order deliverables shall include the following: . Update the Clam Bay Management Plan to achieve the objective of `preservation' since the `restoration' objective has been successfully achieved. . Modify the State and Federal maintenance dredging permits to incorporate the revised Management Plan objective. . Develop and implement an updated Monitoring Plan consistent with the revised objective of the Management Plan. Turell, Hall & Assoc. shall present the proposed work order to the PBSD, the TDC, and the BCC at the first January, 2013 meeting of each of these respective boards. PREPARED BY: Commissioner Georgia Hiller EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to approve and authorize the expenditure of Tourist Development Category "A"tax funds for a Peer Review of the Collier County Beaches volume design by Atkins North American, Inc. under Contract No. 09-5262-CZ for a lump sum amount of $33,365. OBJECTIVE: To move forward with the Peer Review for the renourishment volumes of the Collier County Beaches. CONSIDERATIONS: The intention of this Peer Review is to provide design methodology and proposed renourishment volume review of the upcoming beach nourishment project by Atkins North American, Inc. for a lump sum price of$33,365. Atkins will review design drawings, monitoring reports,calculations,modeling results and construction standards in this analysis. A written report will include the following deliverables: 1. Analysis addressing the adequateness of the design, the completeness of the design, probable outcome and recommendations, if any. 2. A detailed explanation of the total quantity of sand to be placed on the beach as part upcoming Collier County beach renourishment project. 3. Plots of the beach profiles at each of the surveyed monuments showing the 2006 design template and the computed quantity of sand necessary to restore the original 2006 design that is unmodified and not including inlet management projects. 4. A table identifying the amount of sand to be placed throughout the project at each profile for each beach segment. 5. Identify any and all assumptions used to explain how much sand is proposed and specifically where it is proposed to be placed as part of the 2006 design in each beach segment. 6. Confirm and show any differences if the new fill differs from the unmodified 2006 design template. Explain why there are differences, if any, based on the review of the reference documents. Atkins will be awarded this work under fixed term contract No.: 09-5262-CZ. This item was on the Board of County Commissioners November 13, 2012 meeting Item 16A25 and was requested to be moved to the December 11, 2012 meeting for review and approval. The Growth Management Administrator made modifications to the scope to provide a more detailed Peer Review which increased the cost to $33,365. The increase in scope will allow the Peer Review consultant to develop their own sand volume analysis plots to confirm the total quantity as compared to the 2006 design template. Sand volume represents the largest cost component variable of the project. FISCAL IMPACT: Funding for this project will be from Tourist Development Tax Category "A" funding within Tourist Development Council (TDC) Beach Renourishment Fund 195. Funding is available in Project 80096. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no impact to the Growth Management Plan related to this action. ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS: This item was presented for approval to the Coastal Advisory Committee and the Tourist Development Council in the amount of $17,000. At the October 11, 2012 Coastal Advisory Committee(CAC)meeting,the Collier County Beach Volume Peer Review was recommended for approval by a 5 to 1 vote. At the October 22,2012 Tourist Development Council (TDC)meeting,the Collier County Beach Volume Peer Review was not recommended for approval by a 7 to 0 vote. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item has been reviewed by the County Attorney's Office, requires majority vote, and is legally sufficient for Board action.—CMG RECOMMENDATION: To approve and authorize the expenditure of Tourist Development Category "A" tax funds for the Peer Review of Collier County Beach volume design by Atkins North American, Inc. in the amount of$33,365. Prepared by: J. Gary McAlpin, P.E., Coastal Zone Management, Natural Resources Department, Growth Management Division. Attachments: Atkins Peer Review proposal Professional Engineering Services for Peer Review Services of Collier County Beaches for Coastal Management Contract Number 09-5262-CZ December 4,2012 ATKINS is pleased to provide a scope of work for Collier County Coastal Zone Management Department.The intention of this Work Assignment is to provide peer review of the beach nourishment design methodology prepared for the County by Coastal Planning and Engineering. In accordance with Collier County Contract Number 09-5262-CZ the following scope of work is presented herein. SCOPE OF SERVICES Atkins will review the beach design template for Vanderbilt,Park Shore,and Naples Beach. Vanderbilt Beach will include range monuments R-25 through R-31,Park Shore will cover R-43 though U-55,and the Naples Beach fill template will address R-58A to R-73.Atkins will review documentation prepared by Coastal Planning and Engineering(CP&E)in support of the design process. Documents include:Collier County Conceptual Renouishment Project Analysis October 2011,Design Calculation Tables October 2012,and other design information that is relevant. Atkins will also use the results of the recently completed 2012 County Coastal Monitoring Report and Post-Tropical Storm Debby Impacts Report to evaluate the predicted design life of the planned beach renourishment events.Atkins will review design drawings,calculations,modeling results and construction standards and write a memorandum that details the methods used and provides a review of our findings. The analysis will look at the currently proposed project in comparison to the last large-scale beach nourishment project that was completed in 2006 using a 6 year design template.The analysis will look at each R-monument in the three project areas in detail showing comparisons in beach widths and volumes in plan and profile views and tabular form. Figures will be developed illustrating the comparisons to the 2006-6 year design template project at each profile.Calculations will be verified using MATLAB and Civil 3D software. The above analyses will provide a review of the proposed design project and the memorandum will be submitted as a bound printed document and on a disk in electronic.pdf format. Atkins will prepare for,travel to and attend one(1) Board of County Commissioners Meeting to present our findings. One Atkins senior engineer will attend this meeting. Deliverables will include: 1) A detailed explanation of the total quantity of sand to be placed on the beach as part of the renourishment project. 2) This will include plots of the beach profiles at each of the surveyed monuments showing the 2006 -6 year design template and the computed quantity of sand necessary to restore the original 2006 —6 year design template.(unmodified not including any inlet management projects) 3) A table will be provided indentifying the amount of sand to be placed throughout the project at each profile,for each of the 3 areas. 1 4) Any and all assumptions shall be listed to explain how much sand is proposed and specifically where it is proposed to be placed as part of the 2006-6 year design template in each of the project areas. 5) Figures will confirm and show any differences on the profile if the new project fill differs from the unmodified 2006—6 year design template.The memorandum will explain why there are differences,if any,based on the review of the reference documents. Budget Estimate Work for this assignment will be performed for the lump sum amount of$33,365. Work will be billed to the County on a monthly basis based on the percentage of work completed for the preceding month. The budget breakdown per project area is as follows: Task 1 —Collier County Beach Design Template Peer-Review Analysis&Memorandum $33,365 Total ..$33,365 Schedule Estimate The following schedule of completion is anticipated. 1. Submit draft reports within 30 calendar days following the Notice-to-Proceed and receipt of all required data(surveys)to complete analysis. Assumptions 1. All existing information/documentation including, but not limited to, survey data, project permits, environmental information,previous studies, CAD drawings and volume tables, etc. will be provided to Atkins by the County/CP&E. 2. This quote is based son conversations with County Staff on October 9,and November 28,2012. 3. No modelin• • sis, design or bi• . - s will be generated from this peer-review, however Atkins w' .r. ..e exhi Insistent with the deliverables section. December 4,2012 Jeffre R. abar Date Project Director Atkins North America,Inc. 2 PROJECT BUDGET WORKSHEET Client: CokrCountv Labor Multiplier: 3.05 Project: Reimbursable Multiplier: 1.00 Project No: ( TBD Prepared By: BDF Labor Costs Task Task 1 Raw Multiplied kal ,, :,_i � ..' r . Monitoring Total Labor Labor Personnel Classification Rate Reports Manhours Cost Cost Project Manager $58.85 24 24 $1,412 $4,308 Senior Engineer $42.92 40 40 $1,717 $5,236 Project Engineer $35.50 60 60 $2,130 $6,497 Engineer EIT $30.00 75 75 $2,250 $6,863 CAD Technician $30.00 85 85 $2,550 $7,778 Administrative $18.70 12 12 $224 $684 Total Hours ' 296 296 Raw Labor Cost 4 L-il ;�zs�= k Pad $10,284 F, ,' , . •' Mult.Labor Cost ` ?` $31,365 $31,365 -',,,i,,4‘'-f �� `g , ,'i,r' Reimbursable Multiplied Reimbursable Costs Task No. 1 Costs Costs z Travel $0 V 4 A :i,te $� $0 $0 Lodging $0 $0 $0 — $0 Misc. $0 tom$ ' $0 $0 Geotechnical Analysis $o : i, j f 4,;, $0 $0 Beach Survey ''' _N Y A $0 ,� .w , $0 $0 Graphics/Reproduction $2,000 �' ` $2,000 $2,000 Total Reimbursables $2,000 fit« $2,000 $2,000 Total Mult.Reimbursables $2,000 M; , , $2,000 $2,000 . Total Project Budget $2 090 °}` $33,365 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign a Retention Agreement for legal services with FEMA Law Associates, PLLC pertaining to an appeal concerning the de-obligation of FEMA funds related to Hurricanes Katrina and Wilma with a request to open a Purchase Order in an amount not to exceed $20,000. OBJECTIVE: To obtain approval to enter into a Retention Agreement for legal services with FEMA Law Associates, PLLC ("FEMA Law"). CONSIDERATIONS: Attached for the Board's approval is a Retention Agreement with the FEMA Law; which is a law firm that specializes in representing public agency clients on issues arising under the laws, regulations, and policies of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, including but not limited to matters seeking to reverse the de-obligation of FEMA assistance grants. At the September 11, 2012, Board of County Commissioner's (BCC) meeting the Board directed the County Manager to pursue the recovery of de-obligated Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) payments from Hurricanes Katrina and Wilma and authorized the expenditure of funds for technical, legal, and professional resources to support the recovery effort. Staff is requesting Board approval of the attached Retainer Agreement and authorization to open a Purchase Order in an amount not to exceed $20,000. In the event that the cost of pursuing this appeal with FEMA Law's assistance will exceed the requested amount, staff will return to the Board to seek authorization for additional funds. FISCAL IMPACT: Funding in the amount of$20,000 is available in Fund 001-103010. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item has been reviewed and approved by the County Attorney's Office, is legally sufficient for Board action and only requires a majority vote for approval—SRT. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no Growth Management Impact associated with this Executive Summary. RECOMMENDATION: To approve and authorize the Chairman to sign the attached Retention Agreement for legal services with FEMA Law Associates, PLLC for FEMA claims pertaining to Hurricanes Katrina and Wilma not to exceed $20,000. Prepared by: Gary McAlpin, Manager, Coastal Management Programs Attachments: Retention Agreement with FEMA Law Associate, PLLC RETENTION AGREEMENT WITH FEMA. LAW ASSOCIATES, PLIC This Retention Agreement is made by and between the I3oard of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida (the "County"), and the law firm ol FEMA Law Associates, Pl.,LC (-FLA-) whose principal place of business is located at 1725 I Street. NW, Suite 300, Washington, D.C. 20006. Whereas, LEA has special expertise and resources in representing public agency clients on issues arising under the laws, regulations, and policies of the Federal Emergency Management Agency CI:TIM-1, including but not limited to 'natters seeking to reverse the deobligation of FEMA assistance grants; and Whereas, the County wishes to retain counsel to provide legal services which are particularly within the expertise ot LEA: • Now, there-ION, in consideration of the premises contained herein. the County hereby hires and retains FLA and FLA hereby agrees to provide legal services to County. ARTICLE 1 COMPENSATION; METHOD OF PAYMENT I.I Compensation shall he paid to FLA in accordance with the terms set tin.th in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof Requirements tir reimbursable expenses are set forth in Exhibit "ft" attached hereto and made a part hereof Expenses other than automobile expenses must be documented by copies of paid receipts or other evidence of payment. The Certificate contained in Exhibit must he included with every invoice submitted fin- payment. Vag,: or 16 1./ The rates set tbrth in Exhibit "A- shall remain in effect without change for a minimum of two (2) years from the ellecti‘e date of this Agreement. In any subsequent years of the Agreement, upon the request of FLA. the County Attorney is authorized to negotiate to increase the hourly rate up to a maximum of ten (10) percent without approval by the Board of County Commissioners. In the negotiation process, FLA must substantiate the reason the request is being made(i.e. market conditions, increase in C'Pl. etc.) 13 Multiple Attorney Assignments. FLA agrees that all legal services will be primarily provided for the County by its Principal, Ernest B. Abbott, with assistance from his designated paralegal stall: and by any other FLA attorney (either currently in ELKs employ or subsequently hired) as designated by Mr. Abbott. 1.4 FLA may submit invoices for hourly work assignments pursuant to Exhibit "A- only alter the services for which the invoices are submitted have been completed or expenses incurred. An original invoice plus one copy is due within fifteen (15) days of the end of the month, except the final invoice which must be received no later than sixty 1(0) days atter the work is completed or the expiration of this Agreement. 1.5 To be deemed proper, all invoices must comply with the requirements set tOrth in this Agreement and must be submitted on the form and pursuant to the instruction prescribed by C'ounty. Payment may be withheld tOr failure of FLA to comply with a term, condition, or requirement or this Agreement. 1.6 Payment shall be made to FI.A at: EEMA Law Associates, PLLC Suite 30i 1725 1 Street, NW Nage 2 of I Washington, D.C. 2000() ARTICLE 2 INSURANCE FLA shall as a minimum, provide, pay Jr. and maintain in tbrce at all times during the term of this Agreement. professional liability insurance in an amount no less than Two Million Dollars (S2,000,000.00) per occurrence, Combined Single Limits. If any liability insurance obtained by FLA to comply with the insurance requirements contained herein is issued on a "claims made" form as opposed to an "occurrence" limn, the retroactive date fin coverage shall be no later than the commencement date of the assigned work to which this Agreement applies, and such insurance shall provide, in the event of cancellation or nkin-rencwal, that the discovery period for insurance claims (tail coverage) shall not be less than three years following the completion of the assigned work and acceptance by the County. 2.2 Such policy or policies shall be issued by an insurance company with at least an "A" rating tiom the A.M. Best Company, Inc. 13 FLA shall furnish to the Risk Management Director Certificates of Insurance or endorsements evidencing the insurance coverages specified by this Article prior to beginning performance of work under this Agreement. l'agc 3 of 16 ARTICLE 3 TERM AND TIME OF PERFORMANCE 3.1 The term of this Agreement shall be li)r a period of two (2) years to begin November 13, 2012 and to end on November I 2, 2014. unless terminated earlier in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. Absent notice of intent to terininate, the Agreement may be renewed upon mutual consent of the parties for three (3) additional terms of one ( ) year each, (In the event the term of this Agreement extends beyond a single fiscal year of County, the continuation of this Agreement beyond the end of any fiscal year shall be subject to the availability of Rinds from (.'ounty in accordance with Chapter 129, Florida Statutes.) 3.2 Time shall be deemed to be of the essence in performing the duties, obligations and responsibilities by this Agreement. 3J Any amendments, alterations, variations, modifications or waivers of provisions of this Agreement shall only he valid when they have been reduced to writing, duly signed by both parties hereto, and attached to the original of this Agreement. ARTICLE 4 TERMINATION 4.1 This Agreement may he terminated by either party for cause upon ten (10) days' notice or by either party for convenience upon no less than thirty (30) days' advance written notice in accordance with the-NOTICES- section of this Agreement. 4.2 'Termination of this Agreement for cause shall include, but not he limited to. thilure to suitably perform the work, failure to continuously perform the work in a manner calculated to meet or accomplish the objectives of County as set lOrth in this Agreement. l'agc 4 of 16 or multiple breach of the provisions of this Agreement notwithstanding whether any such breach was previously waived or cured. 4.3 In the event this Agreement is terminated for convenience. FLA shall be paid for any services perfOrmed to the date the Agreement is terminated; however, upon notice by either party to terminate, FLA shall refrain from perlbrming further services or incurring additional expenses under the term of this Agreement. FLA acknowledges and agrees that Ten Dollars ($10) of the compensation to he paid by County, the adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged by F1 A. is given as specific consideration lo FLA liar County's right to terminate this Agreement Ibr convenience. [LA's obligations to the County as provided for hereunder shall cease upon termination, except for participating in an orderly and professional transfer of such responsibilities and files or copies of tiles to the County or its designee, ARTICLE S RECORD AUDIT AND INSPECTION 5.I County shall have the right to audit the books and records of FLA pertinent to the funding under this Agreement, FLA shall preserve and make available, at reasonable times tbr examination and audit by County, all financial records. supporting documents, and other documents pertinent to this Agreement tOr a period of'three Of years atter termination of this Agreement or, if any audit has been initiated and audit Findings have not been resolved at the end oldie three years, the books and records shall be retained until resolution of'the audit findings. Page 5 of 1(1 5.2 If the Florida Public Records Act (Chapter 119, Ha. Stat.) is determined by County to he applicable to FLA's records, FLA shall comply with all requirements thereof ARTICLE 6 CONFLICT OF INTEREST 6.I FLA states that it is familiar with and will comply with the terms and conditions of Chapter 112. Part Ill. Florida Statutes (Code of Ethics) 6.2 It is important that FLA be independent and impartial in order to properly conduct its services to the County. FLA shall not act as counsel in any lawsuit or other adversary proceeding in which County is named as an adversary party or in which FLA takes an adverse position to the County. 6.3 Neither FLA nor its employees shall have or hold any continuing or frequently recurring employment or contractual relationship that is substantially antagonistic or incompatible with FA's loyal and conscientious exercise ofjudgment related to its pertimnance under this Agreement. 6.4 In the event FLA is permitted to utilize subcontractors, herein. to perform any services required by this Agreement. FLA agrees to prohibit such subcontractors, by written contract, from having any conflicts as within the meaning of this section. 6.5 If at any time FLA's firm represents a client in matters having to do with the Collier County government, be it belbre the Board of County Commissioners or any other agency or division of Collier County government. FLA will contact the County Attorney's Office betOre undertaking such representation so that it can be determined whether a conflict of interest exists. Page of I ARTICLE 7 OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS 7.1 Any and all documents provided or created in connection with this Agreement. are and shall remain the property of County. In the event of termination of this Agreement. any documents prepared by FLA, whether finished or unfinished, shall become the property olCountv and shall he delivered by FLA to the County within seven (7) days of termination of this Agreement by either party. Any compensation due to FLA shall he withheld until all documents are received as provided herein. ARTICLE 8 INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR FLA is an independent contractor under this Agreement. Services provided by FLA shall be subject to the supervision of Ft A, and such services shall not he provided by FLA as officers, employees, or agents of the County. The parties expressly acknowledge that it is not their intent to create any rights or obligations in any third person or entity under this Agreement. ARTICLE 9 NONDISCRIMINATION, EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AND AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT 9.I FLA shall not unlawfully discriminate against any person in its operations and activities in its use or expenditure of the tunics or any portion of the Rinds provided by this Agreement and shall affirmatively comply with all applicable provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in the course of providing any services funded in whole or in part by County, including l'ag' 7 of 16 Titles I and II or the ADA (regarding nondiscrimination on the basis of disability), and all applicable regulations, guidelines, and standards. 9.2 FLA's decisions regarding the delivery of services under this Agreement shall he made without regard to or consideration of race, age. religion, color, gender, sexual orientation national origin, martial status, physical or mental disability, political affiliation, or any other factor which cannot be lawfully or appropriately used as a basis for service delivery. 9.3 FLA shall comply with Title 1 of the Americans with Disabilities Act regarding nondiscrimination on the basis of disability in employment and further shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant tOr employment because of race, age, religion, color, gender, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status, political affiliation, or physical or mental disability. In addition, FLA shall take affirmative steps to ensure nondiscrimination in employment against disabled persons. Such actions shall I uce, but not he limited to. the tbllowing: employment, upgrading, demotion. transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising. layoff, termination, rates of pay, other firms of compensation, terms and conditions of employment, training(including apprenticeship). and accessibility. 9.4 FLA shall take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed and employees are treated without regard to race, age, religion, color, gender, sexual orientation, national origin. marital status, political affiliation, or physical or mental disability during employment. Such actions shall include, but not he limited to, the f011owing: employment. upgrading, demotion, transfer. recruitment or recruitment advertising. layoff, termination, rates of pay. other forms of compensation, terms and conditions of employment, training (including apprenticeship). and accessibility. hp:8 of 16 9.5 FLA shall not engage in or commit any discriminatory practice in performing the Scope of Services or any part of Scope of Services of this Agreement. ARTICLE 10 NOTICES 10.1 Whenever either party desires to give notice to the other, such notice must he in writing. sent by registered or certified United States Mail. postage prepaid.. return receipt requested, or by hand-delivery, addressed to the party for whom it is intended at the place last specified. The place for giving notice shall remain the same as set forth herein until changed in writing in the manner provided in this section. For the present, the parties designate the following: FOR COLLIER COUNTY: Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney Goventment ('enter 3299 Tamiami Trail East Suite 800 Naples. Florida 34112 FOR FEMA LAW ASSOCIATES, PLLC: Ernest B. Abbott, Esq FEMA Law Associates, PLLC Suite 300 1725 1 Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20006 ARTICLE It M ISCE ELAN EOUS 11.1 WAIVER Q1: 13RE.AC'll AND MATERIALITY Pal..ze 9 of I Failure by County to enforce any provision of this Agreement shall not be deemed a waiver of the provision or modification of this Agreement. A waiver of any breach of a provision of this Agreement shall nut he deemed a waiver of any subsequent breach and shall not be construed to he a modification of the terms of this Agreement. I 1.2 COMPLIANCE Will-I LAWS FLA shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws, codes, ordinances, rules, and regulations in performing its duties, responsibilities. and obligations related to this Agreement. I 1.3 $IYIRANCF, In the event a portion of this Agreement is tbund by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, the remaining provisions shall continue to he effective unless County and FLA elect to terminate this Agreement. The election to terminate this Agreement based upon this provision shall he made within seven (7) days alter the finding by the court becomes 11.4 APPLICABLE LAW AND VENUE. This Agreement shall be interpreted and construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of Florida. Venue for litigation concerning this Agreement shall be in Collier County, Florida. 11.5 PRIOR AGREEMENTS This document supersedes all prior negotiations, correspondence, conversations, agreements, and understandings applicable to the matters contained herein and the parties agree that there are no commitments, agreements or understandings concerning the Pace 100116 subject matter of this Agreement that are not contained in this document. Accordingly. the parties agree that no deviation from the terms hereof shall be predicated upon any prior representations or agreements. whether oral or written. It is further agreed that no modification. amendment or alteration in the terms or conditions contained herein shall be effective unless contained in zi written document in accordance with Article 3 above. 11.6 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE The truth and accuracy of each "Whereas" clause set forth above is acknowledged by the parties. The attached Exhibits "A," -B" and "C" are incorporated into and made a part of this Agreement, DATE: December II. 2012 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK By: FRED W. COYLE. CHAIRMAN Approved as to form and legal sufficiency Scott R. Teach Deputy County Attorney Page 11 of 16 FEMA Associate: ILLC DA IF (V5-1,..ee4 2,a 2- (C„ Ernest B. Abbott, F.% Its: CITY OF WASHINGTON DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA The foregoing Retention Agreement was acknowledged befbre me this day of øi t . 2012, by Erwest- ALLIr of FL MA Law Associates. PLI„C, on behalf of Ernest B. Abbott. He/she is personally known to me or produced ° as identification. Signature of Notary Public r(-( e' Name of Notary Public typed, printed or My Commission I:Npires: BRIAN FRIEDMAN 04" 1.0144 Notary Public District of Columbia 0 My Commission Expires July 14,2013 sit k v z • 4.1 :11 „7. 4. 4 • °A.% 4:4••6: , Mit*, % •/ • 411 ' rage 12 tit 16 EXHIBIT A For professional services rendered, FEMA Law Associates PLLC's fee shall he based on the hourly rate as tbllows: Ernest B. Abbott 5400.00 per hour Other Attorneys S200,00 per hour Law Clerks & Paralegals •580.00 per hour FEMA Law Associates' lee shall not exceed S I 00,000.00 without the prior approval of the Board of County Commissioners. Any expenditure beyond the initial S100,000.00 approval by the Board of County Commissioners must have Board approval prior to work being performed. (Where appropriate a -not to exceed" sum shall be agreed to when each assignment is made to FEMA raw Associates.) In the event that FEMA Law Associates is required or requested to per liirm any additional or extraordinary services not herein contemplated, FEMA Law Associates shall he entitled to apply tiir additional compensation, the amount of which shall be subject to the approval of County and no such additional compensation in excess of the amount herein stated shall be paid unless specifically authorized in advance by County in is sole discretion. FEMA Law Associates shall provide, at no cost to County, the annual response to County's auditors regarding pending or threatened litigation. The auditors typically request information regarding all litigation, claims and assessments considered to he material. The response should include the nature 01 the litigation, the progress or the case to date, an estimate of the amount or range of potential loss, and any other intiirmation considered necessary to explain the case. FEMA Law Associates shall provide said response within 30 days of receipt of the request. NOTES: • Divisions, or departments within such divisions, shall be responsible and pay for legal counsel services relating to litigation and outside counsel specifically tier cases, matters or issues relating to such division or department. as determined by the County Attorney in coordination with the County Manager. Page 13 of I 6 EXHIBIT B In addition to the charges kir professional tees set ihrth in Exhibit "A," and the Schedules attached hereto. County shall reimburse FEMA Law Associates Ibr out-of pocket expenses reasonably incurred in the course of rendering such legal services, including costs of king distance calls, printing, costs of reproduction, and necessary travel expenses incurred in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 112, F.S. FEMA Law Associates shall not charge for travel of attorneys between its offices so that it can provide the best available and most appropriate lawyer in any of its office locations rm. the issues involved. 2. FEMA Law Associates shall submit invoices on a monthly basis tOr the payment of out-of-pocket expenses. Each invoice shall include a signed certificate listing all costs. expenses, vouchers, invoices and other documentary evidence that will describe in reasonable detail the basis for expenditures tiir which reimbursement is sought as set kirth below. 3. REQOREMUNIES The tbtlowing represents Collier County's payment requirements lbr legal costs Your federal employee identification number must he on all invoices submitted. P. The applicable Purchase Order number must be on all invoices submitted. r No service, interest, or other charge ollike nature is to he imposed with regard to any item, invoice, or request. All firms doing business with Collier County must have a current W-9 "Request for Taxpayer identification Number and Certification" on tile. :4- Services rendered must be specifically and concisely identified: Names of persons perkirming services, hourly rates, and dates must he listed. The County agrees to reimburse FEMA Law Associates lbr retention and utilization of sub-consult ants. Page 14 of 10 • Reimbursable expense must he verified by attached receipts or copies thereof e- Qaimstbr mileage and meals cannot exceed statutory allowance as provided tbr under Chapter \ |2, E.S. Meals and mileage cannot be charged unless the professional has traveled outside the county of the principal business locut ion. a~ Claims for lodging at single rate (actual cost) must he substantiated by paid bill or with a cap ohio more than SI SUM() per night. °° Car rentals required for travel should include compact or standard-size vehicles only. e Common carrier travel shall he reimbursable at tourist or coach class fares only. °~ Accounting Division requires original receipts, or copies of receipts which have been individually certified 10 be true copies of the originals. {n addition the Certificate contained in Exhibit ^C` must accompany each invoice. The eortifvino person must sign the Certification tbrm and a description providu1 of the items, which are certified. e Faxes shall not he reimbursed -~ Legal Research costs (Lcis-Nexis. Westlaw, etc.) shall not he reimbursed Page 15 of 16 EXHIBIT C CERTIFICATE IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that: has been duly designated as special counsel to render legal services or provider of services for or on behalf olCollier County; 2. Each of the documents hereinafter identified and attached is a true and correct copy of the original record: 3. Expenditure(s) enumerated represent costs necessarily incurred during the course olotticial business for which payment has not been received and for which documentation is not available or reasonably retrievable: 4. Claims are in compliance with the applicable statutes and administrative orders, and with the express provision that all other parties are barred from entitlement to any part of these costs. RE: Invoice No. Dated Period Covered: , Amount IN-HOUSE CHARGES: Photocopies: copies (tr' $0.1 51each Mileage: miles to /mile OTHER (Copies of invoices required): Long Distance Calls Other: S TOTAL: FOR THE FIRM Signed: Print Name: Title: Date: 04.00A-01 t.5612E97 'ilgt.• 11'1(it 16 ' CAC December 13,2012 VIII-6 New Business • `t`� • - 1'of5 nr�'V"z.-Sr STATE OF FLORIDA • DIVISION OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT RICK SCOTT BRYAN W.KOON Governor Director October 18,2012 Major P. May, FEMA Region IV Administrator Federal Emergency Management Agency 3003 Chamblee-Tucker Road Atlanta, Georgia 30341 Re: Collier County First Appeal of DR-1609; PW-2700 Dear Mr. May: The Florida Division of Emergency Management(Division) is in possession of a letter indicating Collier County's(subgrantee's)desire to submit a first appeal of FEMA's denial of sand replacement costs as reported on the above-referenced Project Worksheet(PW)arising from the Hurricane Wilma event(DR-1609). This letter has been received in a timely manner from the subgrantee, and the Grantee recommends that FEMA approve this appeal based on the arguments presented therein. Issue for First Appeal High winds,torrential downpours,high wave action and rip currents due to Hurricane Wilma(DR-1609)caused damage throughout the subgrantee's jurisdiction. In the wake of the Wilma event,joint teams from FEMA,the Grantee and the subgrantee, wrote PW's to reimburse the subgrantee for the costs of repairing this damage. Specifically,PW-2700 was written to reimburse for costs associated with repairing the subgrantee's public beaches which suffered from extensive beach erosion due to the storm. Years after the subject PW was written and obligated,FEMA revised the allowable costs that would be obligated between the three storms that affected the subgrantee's beaches during approximately a 10 year period—Tropical Storm Gabrielle,Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Wilma. Due to resulting deobligations,the PW's written for Tropical Storm Gabrielle were taken through second appeal, which resulted in an overall additional net obligation of funds for the PW's from the Gabrielle event, due to an increase in the unit cost of sand allowed by the National Administrator's office. However, the second appeal did not correctly address the issue of the amount of sand utilized during the post-Wilma beach restoration,resulting in a large'deobligation for the Wilma event from which the subgrantee now brings this first appeal. The issue of the amount of sand utilized during the post-Wilma beach restoration affects the overall bottom line to the subgrantee in two ways: 1.)the amount of sand impacts the overall unit cost of sand calculated by FEMA, and 2.)the amount of sand directly impacts the final project costs of the resulting unit-price work. As the subgrantee has developed a number of arguments FLORIDA RECOVERY OFFICE • DIVISION HEADQUARTERS • STATE LOGISTICS RESPONSE CENTER 5900 Lake Ellenor Drive 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard 2702 Directors Row Orlando, FL 32809 Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 Orlando, FL 32809.5831 Tel: 850-413-9989 • Fax: 850-488-1018 www,FloridaDisaster.org CAC December 13,2012 VIII-6 New Business 2 of 5 • Mr. Major P. May October 18, 2012 Page 2 that support this appeal,each will be presented separately below. Issue 1 —FEMA has Not Correctly Determined the Amount of Eligible Replacement Sand The second appeal determination for the Gabrielle PW's notes that the applicant replaced a total of 184,454 cy of sand on the mainland beaches as maintenance sand between 2000-2003 and in 2005. This would be somewhat less than the permit requirements imposed by FDEP,but not necessarily inconsistent with them, as the permit spoke in terms of amounts"up to 50,000 cy per year"that could be deposited by the county for renourishment. Where FEMA errs in this part of the analysis is that CPE and the subgrantee have repeatedly stated and shown that the CPE calculations of sand attributable to Wilma(above and beyond the original scope calculations) already have taken the use of maintenance sand into account, and that the new number for Wilma does not include any amounts of sand placed for maintenance. Issue 2—FEMA has Not Afforded Proper Deference to the Subgrantee's Engineering Report The Beach Engineering report prepared by CPE in 2010 not only served the purpose of providing evidence for FEMA appeals, but it also served the purpose of satisfying(in part)the subgrantee's environmental monitoring requirements for these projects that were imposed by FDEP. As such,the subject report by CPE, once accepted by FDEP,becomes a part of the permit itself by incorporation, and as such,the findings are entitled to a higher degree of deference than would typically be necessitated (see F.S. 120.68(7)). Under such a standard of higher deference, FEMA must put forward substantial &competent evidence to refute the findings that have attached to the(satisfaction of the)permit. FEMA has repeatedly been asked to justify their rejection of the CPE report by providing names and qualifications of engineers or other experts who have reviewed and rejected the CPE findings,but to date FEMA has not done so. FEMA has also refused to allow the subgrantee to review the result of any such "FEMA-commissioned studies,"that were produced specifically to refute the CPE report) Essentially,the heightened deference standard shifts the burden from one of the subgrantee proving that the report is true,to one of FEMA being required to show why the report is wrong, and this has never been done to any measure of satisfaction. Please note that while the subgrantee has already provided a consultant's Engineering report that is dispositive of the questions at issue in this appeal (the CPE report), and has also attached a supplemental package of data relevant to this appeal from York RSG, Inc.,the subgrantee has commissioned a second Engineering study to bolster their claim,which should be available within a few weeks of the submission of this first appeal. By this notice,the subgrantee reserves the right to submit this additional study when it becomes available. • 1 On page 5 of 8 in the second appeal analysis for the Gabrielle PW's,FEMA notes that"the aaplicant has not demonstrated... ,"yet the heightened deference requirement clearly shows that FEMA has placed the burden on the wrong party. CAC December 13,2012 VIII-6 New Business • 3of5 Mr. Major P. May • October 18,2012 Page 3 Issue 3-FEMA is Improperly Holding the Subgrantee to the Initial Approved Scope Estimates In the second appeal analysis,FEMA attributes 74,734 cy of sand lost on the mainland beaches to the damaging effects of Hurricane Wilma. Countering this,the CPE report determines this amount to be 304,598 cy of sand based on scientific analysis of beach profiles. One of the arguments noted by FEMA on the PW is that the increased amount of sand required due to the CPE report would be ineligible for Stafford Act reimbursement as an ineligible scope change;this charge can be rebutted quickly under several theories. First,while scope changes are not allowed under FEMA policy without advance knowledge of FEMA,the development of the report, and eventual submission to FEMA resulted in the original reobligation of project costs,thus indicating that FEMA did know of, and approved,the scope change at least until the second appeal determination for Gabrielle was released. As such, it would be difficult for FEMA to sustain an argument that FEMA did not have the requisite knowledge in advance of the change in scope for the project.2 Second, it is arguable that where an indeterminate amount of some material is required at original PW writing,the scope is to be treated more like a lump sum contract(as opposed to being a fixed amount),where the scope is use as much of the material as is necessary in order to complete the project until it is finished. Under this sort of interpretation,FEMA is being too narrow-minded in regard to what their definition of the scope of this project is. The actual scope was not to place 323,591 cy of sand(volumes from the original PW's),but instead was to place enough sand to restore the beach profiles to what they had been prior to Gabrielle. For FEMA to hold that a never-changing scope of work for these projects is limited to the amount of sand specified in Version 0 of the associated PW's (across the 3 storms—Gabrielle, Katrina and Wilma), is far too limiting an interpretation of the purpose of the scope of work in such a large and complex engineering project. Issue 4—Section 705(c)of the Stafford Act Precludes FEMA's Deobligations Section 705(c) of the Stafford Act was enacted by Congress with the intent of providing relief to applicants that have suffered a large deobligation after initially relying on FEMA's approval of Stafford Act reimbursement. Section 705(c) states that: "A State or local government shall not be liable for reimbursement or any other penalty for payment made under this Act if— (1) the payment was authorized by an approved agreement specifying the costs; (2) the costs were reasonable; and (3) the purpose of the grant was accomplished." • 2 Due to the continuance of similar work from the Gabrielle event,it is likely that the work on this PW is some of the most studied and analyzed beach work presented for reimbursement under the Stafford Act. CAC December 13,2012 VIII-6 New Business 4 of 5 • Mr. Major P. May October 18,2012 Page 4 In the case at hand,the payment(s)at issue are the payments made in connection with Versions 0 through 3 of the PW,which total$12,868,475.94.3 At this point,the analysis requires that the observer conduct the three factored test shown above under the requirements of Section 705(c)of the Stafford Act, in order to determine whether all three factors apply in this case, and it is the assertion of the Grantee and the subgrantee that all three factors do apply given the facts as presented by the subgrantee. First, it would seem to be undisputed that the payment was authorized by an approved agreement specifying the costs. To this end, the Grantee has attached a copy of the FEMA-State Agreement for DR-1609 between FEMA and the Grantee, a copy of the subgrantee's Funding Agreement for the DR-1609 event,and copies of the versions 0 through 3 of the subject PW as Obligated by FEMA. Second,the subgrantee and Grantee both argue that the costs incurred within the obligated PW's were reasonable. Recall from above that the primary issue at hand in this appeal is not based on a FEMA determination that costs paid were unreasonable,but instead were based on a charge that the original Scope of Work was violated. While it is true that as part of the second appeal for the Gabrielle PW's FEMA did tinker with the amounts to be paid per cy of sand replaced,however all changes made in regard to this area actually served to increase the amount to be paid per cy of sand replaced. As such, it would be difficult for FEMA at this point to sustain a claim that costs • were truly unreasonable.4 Finally,both the Grantee and subgrantee believe that there is no question that the purpose of the grant has been accomplished. As the purpose can simply be stated as reconstruction of the subgrantee's engineered beach, and as it is undisputed that all sums in question have been spent on said reconstruction,this final factor of the test has been satisfied. As all three factors of the three factor test noted above have been satisfied, Section 705(c) of the Stafford Act serves as a bar to FEMA implementing the proposed deobligation to the subject PW. Conclusion Above,the Grantee and subgrantee have provided Issues 1 through 3,all of which provide bases upon which the subject deobligation should be overturned. Based on these arguments the Grantee supports the subgrantee's appeal on these grounds, and recommends that FEMA grant the relief requested below. While Issue 4 does not serve as a defense to FEMA's claims that work undertaken on the subject PW was ineligible, it does serve(in the alternative)as an affirmative defense that prevents FEMA from implementing the deobligation, and would require FEMA to 3 Version 0 was obligated on April 11,2006,in the amount of$2,536,455.41.Version 1 was obligated on January 16, 2007,in the amount of$507,291.08.Version 2 was obligated on June 19,2007,in the amount of$338,194.05. Finally, Version 3 was obligated on August 27,2010, in the amount of$9,486,535.40. 4 This assumes a hard-line definition of"reasonable cost'where this factor refers only to unit or line-item pricing,and that cost reasonableness is not defined by the presence or absence of costs later determined to be ineligible for some • reason other than cost reasonableness.As any other definition of"reasonable cost"would serve ultimately to make factor 2 virtually unsatisfiable,thus eviscerating factor 2 and Section 705(c),standard rules of statutory interpretation dictate the use of such a hard-line definition. CAC December 13,2012 VIII-6 New Business 5of5 • Mr. Major P. May October 18,2012 Page 5 replentish the Grantee's SMARTLINK account with the funds that have already been removed due to the subject deobligation. Again,the Grantee supports the subgrantee's assertion on Issue 4, and recommends that FEMA provide appropriate relief. Relief Requested In regard to relief requested,the subgrantee requests the reobligation of funds deobligated by FEMA on Version 6 of the PW in the amount of$11,095,283.52. Based on the arguments provided above,the Grantee recommends that FEMA approve this appeal and provide the requested relief to the subgrantee. Conclusion The Florida Division of Emergency Management believes that the argument provided above will provide an adequate basis upon which FEMA can provide the relief requested to the subgrantee. If you have any further requests for technical information regarding this first appeal, please contact Evan Rosenberg, Special Projects Coordinator, at(850)487-2293 or by e-mail at: evan.rosenberg niem.myflorida.com. Sincerely, Bryan W. Koon, GAR Division of Emergency Management BWK/LL/HS/er Attachments: Subgrantee's First Appeal Letter Copy of CPE Report from Gabrielle Appeals Additional Material from York RSG, Inc. Copy of FEMA-State Agreement,DR-1609 Copy of Subgrantee's Funding Agreement, DR-1609 Copy of(Obligated)Versions 0 through 3 of PW-2700 S EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to provide direction relative to reallocation of existing Tourist Development Tax distributions to increase destination marketing efforts and the annual accumulation of reserves for major beach renourishment. OBJECTIVE: To obtain direction and authorization to initiate reallocations to the existing tourist tax distributions and required Tourist Development Tax(TDT)Ordinance amendments to increase funding for destination marketing and revise the Tourist Development Tax Category "A" Funding Policy to increase accumulation of reserves for major beach renourishment. CONSIDERATIONS: Tourism is a major driver of Collier County's economy supporting 32,000 hospitality and tourism industry jobs and providing a $1.4 billion annual economic impact. According to Research Data Services, the Convention and Visitor Bureau's (CVB) marketing consultant, each dollar invested in destination advertising and promotion returned $40.79 in direct visitor spending. In addition many County property and business owners were first introduced to Collier County through visitation to our area as leisure or group meeting travelers. A special subcommittee of the Tourist Development Council (TDC) was appointed in March of 2011 to review the current tourist tax structure and make recommendations on how the destination can benefit from a more robust year-round marketing and promotion effort. The committee met ten times beginning April 1, 2011 and developed a list of findings and conclusions on the current situation of the tourism industry in Collier County. From those findings and conclusions, a set of recommendations was developed for review and recommendation to the County Commission. Attachment 1 is an overview of the TDC subcommittee recommendations that were supported and recommended by the Tourist Development Council on March 16, 2012. The TDC requested staff to take the eleven (11)recommendations to the various tourism industry stakeholder groups for consideration and input. The result of that process is shown on Attachment 2. A table summarizing the TDC recommendations is provided as attachment 3. The County Manager reviewed the TDC recommendations and the outcome of the stakeholder input meetings and requested staff to prepare recommendations to accomplish the goals of more destination marketing funding and more realistic reserve requirements for future beach renourishment and beach park facilities. The County Manager suggests a blended approach to tourist tax allocation changes combining the TDC recommendations and the staff recommendations. Some of these reallocations will require an amendment of Tourist Tax Ordinance No. 92-60, as • amended, and some will require a change in the Category "A" Beach and Inlet Funding Policy adopted by the BCC in October of 2005. FISCAL IMPACT: The recommendations under consideration involve changing the allocation of existing Tourist Development Tax revenues and redistributing interest earnings. The proposals both increase the allocation for promotional activities and beach renourishment through decreases to Beach Park Facilities and County Museum funding. Staff's proposal adds General Fund commitment to backstop potential Museum and Beach Park Facility funding shortfalls. The following table compares the current TDT allocation to staff's and the TDC's proposals. Tourist Development Tax Reallocation Analysis Currant Allocation Staff Recommendaaon TDC Recommendation $'n I I I $b, I Description % millions % $In millions $Change % millions I $Change Summary by Fund Beach Faciiltles-183 16.50% $ 2.369 4.31% $ 0.619 $ (1.750) 6.00% $ 0.861 $ (1.507) TDC Promotion-184 25.00% $ 3.589 35.10% $ 5.039 $ 1.450 45.00% $ 6.460 $ 2.871 Non-County Museums-193 2.38% $ 0.342 2.38% $ 0.342 $ - 2.40% $ 0.345 $ 0.003 TDC Admin-194 11.62% $ 1.668 11.62% $ 1.668 $ - 12.60% $ 1.809 $ 0.141 Beach Renourlshment-195 33.50% $ 4.809 36.98% $ 5.309 $ 0.500 34.00% $ 4.881 $ 0.072 Promotion Disaster Recovery-196 0.00% $ - 0.00% $ - $ - 0.00% $ - $ - County Museums-198 11.00% $ 1.579 9.61% 5 1.379 $ (0.200) 0.00% $ - $ (1.579) Total -100.00% $ Isms 100.00% $ 14.355 $ 0.000'100.00% $14.35 d $ - The following table illustrates staff's reallocation approach including interest and sweeps of fund balances from designated funds as directed by ordinance: Staff Recommended Tourist Development Tax Reallocation Tourist Development Tax Reallocations Beach) I uBe Parks Promotion Fund Adman Fund Re hrn t 8 Description rid 8 Fund Fund peach Facilities-183 (1,750,000) - - - - TDC Promotion-184 - 1,450,000 - - - Non-County Museums-193 - - - - - TDC Admm-194 - - Beach Renourishment-195 - - • 500,000 - Promotion Disaster Recovery-196 - - - County Museums-198 - - - - (200,000) Sob-Total Annual TDC Rev AOocatsm (1.750,0061 1.450.000 - 500.000 mu" Fund Balance&Interest Sweeps TDC Armin Sweep - 250,000 (250,000) - - Interest Sweep(all TOT funds) - 209,500 - - Sub-Total 1DC Sweep Funding - 459.500 (0.000) Total MC Scenes to Promotion (1.750,0006 1.909.900 (250,000) 500.000 (200.000) In addition to the recommended changes detailed above which will result in annual additional marketing and promotion dollars totaling $1,900,000, staff recommends that the Board consider allocating one time dollars available within the disaster recovery advertising fund (196) in the amount of approximately$500,000 to supplement Category A beach renourishment/pass maintenance projects and/or augment additional Category B marketing and promotion. An ordinance amendment or policy change may be required depending upon the use of these one time dollars. Lowering the ordinance mandated minimum balance in the disaster advertising fund from $1,000,000 to $500,000 provides the basis for this one time recommended distribution. Under this proposal, if the Disaster Recovery Fund drops below$500,000 it will be replenished by the General Fund. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no growth management impact associated with this Executive Summary. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: Any amendment to the Tourist Development Tax Ordinance No. 92-60, as amended,will require a super-majority vote. This item has been reviewed by the County Attorney's Office, is legally sufficient for Board action and requires a majority vote for approval. —CMG RECOMMENDATION: To provide direction on the reallocation of current Tourist Development Tax funding to increase destination marketing efforts and the annual accumulation of reserves for major beach renourishment, and further, to solicit recommendations from stakeholder groups prior to the Board's consideration of ordinance and/or policy changes. Prepared by: Jack Wert,Tourism Director,Ed Finn, Senior Budget Analyst, OMB Attachments: 1. TDC recommendations overview 2. Stakeholder meeting outcomes 3. Subcommittee recommendations table Attachment 1 Overview of the Tourist Development Council(TDC) Recommendations Process • The TDC Sub Committee of 5 members was appointed by Commissioner Hiller in March 2011 • The group met 10 times over 12 months and made recommendations to the full TDC in February 2012.TDC recommended 11 tactics for consideration by tourism industry stakeholder groups • The overarching goal of the recommendations is to extend the reach of our destination marketing efforts to attract more visitor spending to our communities • Final community supported recommendations will go back to TDC and then to BCC for possible implementation THE RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Implement changes to the tourist tax allocations to increase the marketing and promotion allocation from 25%of the total Tourist tax revenue(currently$2 million)to 45%generating a budget of$4.0 million per year for destination marketing efforts 2. Reduce Beach Park Facilities annual allocation of Category A funds from 16.67%to 6%,or from $2 million per year to$600,000 per year 3. Reduce Collier County Owned&Operated Museums Operating funding from tourist tax funding after five years(FY 171 from 11%to 0%.Future funding(after 5 years)for museum operations would revert to General Fund,supplemented by the following new revenue sources: a. Charge admission to non-residents b. Apply for state,regional and national museum grants c. Annual major fund raising efforts d. Tourism Department would direct more TDC funds to heritage marketing 4. Increase allocation to Category A Beach renourishment funding from 33.33%to 34%annually (Increase of$100 k) 5. Increase the allocation to tourism department administration from 11.60%to 12.60%(+$13 k) 6. Request County Commission(BCC)to recognize excess TDT revenue above current year projections for immediate use in current fiscal year for destination marketing 7. Extend the allocation of interest earned on each TDT fund to Fund 184 for destination marketing for an additional three years through FY 15 8. Aggressively pursue State and Federal cost share funding for our beach renourishment projects through legislative lobbying and education Attachment 1 9. Increase the current budget($100,000)for air service marketing funds by$50,000 per year to attract more direct service and enhance and expand existing air service especially from U.S. West Coast 10. Expand the CVB Community Relations efforts to encourage more local and regional media coverage of the impact and importance of tourism to our community 11. Tourism Dept(CVB)should be included as an equal participant in economic development planning for County The projected results the first year of additional destination marketing funding: a. 27,700 more Visitors b. $15.6 million increase in direct visitor expenditures c. $23.3 million increase in economic impact d. $250,300 in additional TDT revenue e. 500 new tourism industry jobs each year f. Increased tax savings to Collier home owners e. ) } ( 43 * 2 ^ ' ! £ E ! 4 k ® • ^ ° § ; \ E. k { } \ ® { & } « E § / 7J 3 - \ \ ( \ a . 3 \ ƒ . § k ƒ _ II ` ` \ E - g. « k 7 » ■ E { § k ( { ( \ \ § 2 f ( g ` { i \ ) 2 \ c ' C \ ) § z 0. E J ƒ , . . E £ E ! ! 2 § B § E § E E g z g ° ! ! § § R 5 ■ I J s 2 s £ # # ! & ! # « ! } F. & g / ! : 3 2 / 2 ! E ! x ! ! § & g . o ( NI a. < 8 E & 8 / / ! £ 0 ; § N z 8 3 8 -c ! -< z z ! 8 ■ § R z - E ! g ! E ! g & N ( £ ! - ? ! J \ z z \ m Es8 B ; 2 0 ! ! J / 7 ! , 000000 , E.) ! .6.i qQ . \ a A A - \ \ ƒI. \ § 2 § ! « « ! ! J £ J # § £ A 1 , fill: v, a R m n fe 1e c n P O m c = u° 2 m $ e i � a N O N 8 o m 3 ae ro °. 3 2 * d 3 g 3 °' ° ° n D m m 3 �0 3 0�, d n^D 3 S X RI o. ,+' 3 3 O y 3 c p n w 07. 3 iD N m O 3 n D D , C C 3 n .< 3 w a y c 3 R 3 Q R d 1 n p 3 Xi $ N w m m cm R �' > 9 d _ ,� • a 1 0 _ Pe a $ d N O m u <P ° ,r1 %.. 4 0 0 co 7 ., N S' Oa_ ' W N - 0 3 -i v ry Zs p —1 •�_i, g n n N v V a 2 3 -1 o. °• , ',I 2o P, 5 a ° o a 3 'Il- 1 o 3 R A o = o 5. m d 3 m �'+ $' a °^ p w 3 • W ; 452 v 5.. c 3 m 3 w a 3 01 3 A ° n &25 n e. 5 o m �' a -^ n v a G, ,' 7R Z a 'a a 'o N 3 °° d c 3 H d A. 2 X w 00 X E. 2�Q - 1 J ((e - W V N !me 3 ° 3 s O N N vi S b IC T 7. 3 H fe _ N N p NI ^ o g m S w o. ' m ° 9 0 rn X 3 o a e a . d o w s M a °N c L. $ e°i '� 0 o ▪ m 3= 3 O1 °. �' m 3 m . v. 3 V 3 k z + N. a °c O Q w a 5 - R a a 3 3 n y° O ,e a ' !e O . n A N `C °' 0 3 E v e n o 3 - c Z d a c c o m �° 3 G o o Oh °^ o C 3 T '� 8 c' a' `0 E. Y 3 A W j z » z D O F N y y D ry n an D o. n (� _r n d d w ' ry 3 g a °a_ °n °T s ' yn ,� 60 m fir. 2' ? Ta = r8°0' H N � N 3. N 9 aY•w' o m m » a na § Qg5� g $$ '� ag ° 33 ° 2 Lo .°, A n d _o � 25 c O °c°n � 3' 3 3 c ^N' 7 3 -1 N o ;•,', ° C v " c 2`m o 3 ilt° °. c o o < ° c 3 �+ Z Y.,' , ? � d A d i d a� 21 R c 3 a ° 'r 2. w N N E .d. n o ° Qom, W E. s _. m g on 3 3 0. 3 w' o d :° °� o w' o w S a c E. w S.o o 6. $ a a c T N y g O O g XI O O O O' O O O C RI 3 3 w a 0, c 3, 'a, z rn m - 2 .j 3 ° 2 3 3 pO (� C C o R S 7 S 3 J 9 z _ZO ° N N R 2 E m n ie n 8 D s O z ry s s n > go 2 m fk m n n m rwo m 8 2 a I 2 es A m EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to approve recognition of additional, uncommitted FY 12 Carry Forward up to $450,000 and all necessary budget amendments for additional destination marketing efforts and Tourism Department staff OBJECTIVE: Recognize funds carried forward in Tourism Promotion Fund 184 from FY 12 for use in FY 13 marketing and staffing. CONSIDERATIONS: As part of the strategic marketing planning process, the Collier tourism industry has recommended that additional uncommitted FY 12 carry forward funds in Fund 184 be invested in additional destination advertising and promotion campaigns in Florida and Northern feeder markets and to fund new tourism department staff. In order to accomplish this, tourism staff is requesting the Board of County Commissioners recognize additional carry forward funds in Tourism Promotion Fund 184. These uncommitted carry forward funds are due to additional FY 12 tourist tax revenue over forecast. These are Category "B" funds so no tourist tax ordinance amendment is required as there is no reallocation between ordinance categories. The approximate expenditures for the $450,000 will be allocated along the guidelines recommended by the Tourist Development Council (TDC): • Up to $100,000 to enhance the first quarter 2013 television, digital, social media advertising and promotion campaign in Northern U.S. feeder markets in Tourism Promotion Fund 184. • Up to $100,000 in additional group market assistance for RFP enhancements in Tourism Promotion Fund 184. • Up to $250,000 for additional tourism department staff in sales and digital media positions in Tourism Administration Fund 194. o Tourism Sales Coordinator - Grade 19 (Working Title: Leisure & Association Sales Manager) The fully burdened cost of this FTE is projected to be$80,000.This position will incrementally generate tourist tax revenue in excess of$900,000 based on the direct sales efforts of our current tourism sales coordinator to influence the booking of group travel to our area hotels;($4.9 million in group TDT in FY12 x 20%of total influenced by CVB sales efforts). With continued growth in tourist tax revenue generated by these additional direct sales efforts,the Tourism Department will be able to continue to fund this position in the future. o Events and Marketing Coordinator - Grade 18 (Working Title: Sports Marketing Manager) A second sports marketing staff member dedicated to sales efforts will enable us to attract a number of new events to our area. . Based on the hotel room night production by our current shared sports marketing staff member of 10,000 hotel room nights in FY 11, and approximately 9,500 in FY 12,the new events attracted in FY 13 and beyond should generate approximately 5,000 incremental hotel room nights resulting in incremental tourist tax revenue of$20,000($100 average rate x 4%tourist tax). This new revenue, coupled with the projected growth of tourist tax revenue from both sports sales and marketing positions will cover the projected fully burdened annual cost of$75,000 for this position and allow the tourism department to fund this position in the future. o Public Information Specialist - Grade 16 (Working Title: Digital Marketing Coordinator) The projected annual fully burdened cost of this FTE is$60,000. This position will save the tourism department approximately$65,000 or 35%of the total of $185,000 in tourist tax dollars the Tourism Department currently pays annually to contractors to perform some of these functions.Combining this cost savings with continued growth in tourist tax revenue from increased social media marketing will enable the Tourism Department to continue to fund this position in the future. FISCAL IMPACT: Additional unbudgeted carry forward in the amount of $450,000 is available in Tourism Promotion Fund 184 (Marketing & Promotion). The positive variance is attributable to a combination of tourist development tax revenue above projected amounts and expenditures under projected amounts. Budget amendments increasing carry forward/interfund transfers and increasing the promotion and marketing budget in TDC Fund (184) and the personnel budget in TDC Fund (194)will be required. The fully burdened personnel costs for the three additional full time equivalent positions are projected to be Grade 19 - $80,000, Grade 18 - $75,000, Grade 16 - $60,000 for a total of$215,000 per year. ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Tourist Development Council reviewed and recommended approval of this action on October 22, 2012 (5-2). LEGAL CONSIDERATION: This item has been reviewed by the County Attorney's Office. No tourist tax ordinance amendment is required as there is no reallocation between ordinance categories, and as such this item only requires majority vote and is legally sufficient for Board action. - CMG GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no impact to the Growth Management plan with this action. RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners approve recognition of additional, uncommitted FY 12 Carry Forward up to $450,000 and all necessary budget amendments for additional destination marketing efforts and Tourism Department staff. SUBMITTED BY: Jack Wert, Tourism Director TOURISM SALES COORDINATOR—Grade 19 The purpose of this classification is to provide professional, sales and technical support to the products and services of the Tourism Development Department. Work involves sales promotions, solicitation programs,and support of the county's tourism effort. JOB FUNCTIONS The following duties are normal for this position. The omission of specific statements of the duties does not exclude them from the classification if the work is similar,related,or a logical assignment for this classification. Other duties may be required and assigned. Develops,monitors and evaluates annual sales solicitation programs with appropriate budget for both international and domestic groups,wholesale,corporate and leisure businesses.These sales programs should be driven by research and complement the media relations and advertising programs. Coordinates all promotions,planning and management of familiarization tours in compliance with marketing plans. Monitors and follows-up on sales leads that can result in increased business for Collier County tourism. Develops and maintains strong professional relations with the local accommodations and attractions industries. Initiates sales contacts by phone,mail,e-mail and in person to qualify and establish relationships with prospective clients. Schedules and attends trade shows,industry functions and other events as directed. Assists Director in analyzing key market statistics in development of top-producing and opportunity markets. Coordinates sales presentations,site inspections,and sales blitzes to showcase Collier County in key tourism markets. Coordinates maintenance of sales tools inventories including collateral and promotional items. Provides meeting planners with information about all County resorts/hotels that meet the planner's specific needs and act as liaison between the planners and the hotel community. PERFORMANCE MEASURES 1. Growth in number of group meeting Requests for Proposals(RFP)received from potential meeting planners. 2. Growth in leisure travelers in slower months of the year. 3. Effective use of meeting RFP incentives to attract potential meetings to our destination. 4. Growth in tourist development tax revenue resulting from sales efforts to attract new or returning group meetings. RETURN ON INVESTMENT The fully burdened cost of this FTE is projected to be$80,000.This position will incrementally generate tourist tax revenue in excess of$900,000 based on the direct sales efforts of our current tourism sales coordinator to influence the booking of group travel to our area hotels.($4.9 million in group TDT in FY 12 x 20%of total influenced by CVB sales efforts).With continued growth in tourist tax revenue generated by these additional direct sales efforts,the Tourism Department will be able to continue to fund this position in the future. EVENTS&MARKETING COORDINATOR/TOURISM—Grade 18 The purpose of this classification is to plan and implement County-wide special events and to promote Collier County as a special events and sports destination. Employees in this classification will provide professional sales and technical support to the products and services of the Tourism Department. Work involves sports marketing sales and promotions, solicitation for future events, travel to sports and event trade shows,and support of the county's efforts to attract sports and other events. JOB FUNCTIONS Coordinates all promotions,planning and management of County-wide special events and/or sports events. Develops monitors and evaluates marketing and special events programs with appropriate budgets.These marketing programs should be driven by market research and complement media relations and advertising programs. Oversees the promotion of sports and other special events through newspapers,radio commercials, television commercials,flyers,posters,and public service announcements;designs,prepares,and distributes flyers and posters for special events.May create advertising and public relations campaigns that target sports events promoters and events rights holders of sports events. Selects events that match well with our County athletic facilities. Works closely with the Convention and Visitor's Bureau Public Relations and Sales&Marketing managers in attracting and hosting sports related annual meetings and events and publicizing our current events. Works closely with other County Departments in planning and executing high impact and well thought out events that reflect positively on our destination and facilities. Prepares press releases and articles for local newspapers, periodicals, and journals; places display advertisements for the recreation section in local newspapers. Coordinates and administers event contracts with each individual promoter and facilitates permits and other usage criteria related to sports and other special events. Monitors and follows-up on sales leads that can result in increased business for Collier County tourism. Develops and maintains strong professional relations with the local accommodations and attractions industries. Initiates sales contacts by phone,mail,email and in person to qualify and establish relationships with prospective events clients. Schedules and attends marketing conferences and trade shows,industry functions and other events as directed.May involve travel to trade shows on periodic basis to meet with potential event organizers and follow up on those leads. Coordinates marketing presentations,site inspections,and sales blitzes to showcase Collier County in key tourism markets. Coordinates maintenance of marketing tools inventories including collateral and promotional items. Designs and prepares departmental informational flyers. Provides event promoters with information about all County resorts/hotels,attractions,restaurants,and businesses that meet the promoters specific needs and act as liaison between the promoters and the hotel/business community. Develops"home grown"sports events by working closely with local sports promoters and sports organizations.Conduct meetings with them on a regular basis,and outreach to local sports groups to encourage them to become involved in the Sports Marketing programs. Assists Tourism Director in analyzing key market statistics in development of top-producing and opportunity markets. PERFORMANCE MEASURES 1. Attract at least three major sports and/or athletic events annually to our area such as fishing tournaments,wakeboard/waterskiing,lacrosse,beach and outdoor field volleyball tournaments, beach tennis,motorboat racing,flag football. 2. Grow the number of hotel room nights and economic impact to the local economy of all the sports events attracted and facilitated by the Tourism Department and the Sports Council and its members. 3. Provide month-to-month and year on year comparison statistics to the TDC and media on hotel bookings,economic impact and return on investment generated from sports events. 4. Assist in recruiting at least five new hotels and three new corporate partners annually to Sports Council membership. RETURN ON INVESTMENT A second sports marketing staff member dedicated to sales efforts will enable us to attract a number of new events to our area. .Based on the hotel room night production by our current shared sports marketing staff member of 10,000 hotel room nights in FY 11, and approximately 9,500 in FY 12,the new events attracted in FY 13 and beyond should generate approximately 5,000 incremental hotel room nights resulting in incremental tourist tax revenue of$20,000 ($100 average rate x 4%tourist tax).This new revenue,coupled with the projected growth of tourist tax revenue from both sports sales and marketing positions will cover the projected fully burdened annual cost of$75,000 for this position and allow the tourism department to fund this position in the future. PUBLIC INFORMATION SPECIALIST/TOURISM-Grade 16 The purpose of this classification is to provide professional and technical support to promote the services and digital initiatives of the assigned department(s).Work involves creating and producing a wide variety of print material and web content which require the use of graphic skills and ability to maintain social networking sites; developing and posting original material for use in online and print campaigns, social media and television programming; and coordinating promotional campaigns and digital services for event programming and marketing. JOB FUNCTIONS Oversees all social media and digital marketing efforts and for all enhancements to relevant websites on behalf of the Tourism Department. Coordinates all e-marketing efforts and maintains distribution lists for marketing purposes. Serves as department liaison to coordinate social media marketing program among all contracted vendors in marketing Collier County as a tourism destination through the use of all available digital marketing channels.Tracks and coordinates monthly reporting of digital marketing analytics from contracted agencies. Assists in providing information to the public. Assists with disseminating information during emergencies. Organizes and coordinates special events/promotions as assigned Operates a personal computer, telephones, copiers and other general office equipment as necessary to complete essential functions, to include the use of desktop publishing, word processing, spreadsheet, database,or other system software. Researches and purchases equipment as needed. PERFORMANCE MEASURES 1. Growth in Social Media platform reach including level of engagement, social click thru rate and growth in key influencer mentions(Facebook"Likes", Twitter interactions and re- tweets). 2. Timely enhancements to each of the tourism websites to reflect current campaigns. 3. Growth in e-newsletter measures for opens, bounces and opt-ins. RETURN ON INVESTMENT MEASURES The projected annual fully burdened cost of this FTE is $60,000. This position will save the tourism department approximately $65,000 or 35% of the total of$185,000 in tourist tax dollars the Tourism Department currently pays annually to contractors to perform some of these functions. Combining this cost savings with continued growth in tourist tax revenue from increased social media marketing will enable the Tourism Department to continue to fund this position in the future. (i) N • _. �. CU 0 ) Cr- O •- E E O u aL o 0 0 • V •- O a !, cn CU .N rti g c4.0 pm 4-; "Pi I 8 cd © 4-1 w CA ihr b1) •1_4 4J ro OS t/3 ,-1 5 4•J mw' O Lu E I 1'5 iwt: CU E U et ;* 46 , 4?) et 4..i Im■ CIJ C) g 2 � .+ .1•0 � ,, C 5 © v - .. p w g 44 ° pq aJ a0 CU W � - pt , E CU ro — o ., Fr* M CI)t L° o � E p O - r v .8 ''I porn r `�-. O ,* ill\ W\ In 2 rk a 8 g 771 ft" 121 Z4a uwOCJ ..w ,.., g g .,,. g 4.J 741s \ 0 •ro . ,„, •9.0 — 4.1 0.0 bID t 14j CU g .47.41 E .- vo . � z caw = Haft s a • c4 g .. 0 001) 0.1 5 irvE vi 4-.4, t C mod° °° � 4� '= ,o v vtoo �, IIIU LL E 0 CU to �," v rt 0 0-1 g .,6° :VI 4-1 0 0 O �+ ' a � 2 a' �I O w � a p qc ,a + _ v b • 0 V r ►n .+ O • 1, v yV a..+ 0 . 1 0 kA- Cid 2 O o = ,.0 E ''= .,4 g � b O a) 4_, v �, 0 n$ 0 � Po 0V CU in al' 5 2 c" 5 4t1 4 'V ''' 44 E M V O C O O y(J g c% cn po cu .47.,, cu c,.. ,' 9, ...., 5 r•, V N a.�. .-ca a Pt.. — .n 0�v _ � as p ' "'O4 � A CO Ole Pm' O ft 4-1 v cn • • • a w • c+-I ;0 X 0 t.,s ft 0 rip ° ' w3 ' o cam O • g u O�E ai ft ;., t_,0 2, r w ,,,, cu rit v.' 'tE tea' •,5 � aJ � 0 Z 0 ft 4•4 0 '''C Z-1., t; 8 T- riz V 4.0 ad cid '"� gyp'' � � '� 6 '5A � �cu cn U t ' tr) 8 e, 4■1 4m° t= C 4' CD U) flji E 0 •FP% Ci p Pt Pt • t CU CL 41)E 0,.., E � rd fti a 44 eid g tjI tin 74 To f m.i 5 ,Z 4 tx ut 7d � O 1 4 r 1 l -;ci,) 0 ,7$ cu +., 7,-..1. 4 ,, I — 0— 7 -1L-1 7.-2, 1 7:1 E -5 ;1' T.i 44 fti2J Ca • ro,.., O u 4.+ f O ft V WO fig ,^ Wirt$ E V4 in 'v 4) O 'ICI '-1 CU g LL • • • • cll CV o v, w — tup Lf,cid mi g ri .. g N.:, E 0 El, tz cu ---, E-i o g rai Pt •cP"iI o i^ fj • l ft rp .- a 1 + .E ° � °� ;a• 1-1 ft o O 5 t, o Peo ro 1 0--- -1 g u t 1- 0 .1- T rt V) / „iii 1-4 „., „. 0, •,-, ,,,,, 0,) .1.,, 0 .,,. , e p• ,...; .:::: .1.4 I 0 * p 74 Flo ri ft ICI O\ O O 01 .1..4 GC N E 0 CU C4 V C 7 n II p . a + \- ft CU CU CU t � O O O M .,�. t • 0 � 0 N K O CO CU 4J GU 0 4J N ;O io 4 N 0� 00 PO■ g -1 � OI M •� .� CO 0 hQ aA 0 V p �r, .� v � � v v � •dwa • � A :4cA • c.7c.7 glia■ ( g � • • • • • • • Ce • Cld g o p O Lf1 t-r■ M N V ".1 - \ + + + + 0 0 0 0 0 O , ' N o 0 O\ os L rn N 00 0 p CO 0 0 ^ O ^ N M N CO 101 0 O 1111111111111111111111 ;40 CO ,-i C3 CO 0 O �!4 M ill U • • Li 1 0 E tel �. � � \ 0) , O ,', O v a 'u O� Q" a rt v W cn rt O b cn 2 H V O .� > ;-4 GJ Q U H O H u i L 0 Q 4 o N N u .0 'IC O `� o 0. o CS z N 0 v r4 O O 4 "1:::$ t-i \ o u O N ►'i 0 0 n.... U 0 O m U v N••.-.- CO n O N U N g h U V 5 o y" on o 0 Es O O N O 0.. 1■1 pii E W' i d O O • O O M N N N ° ° o o n t, U y O O c w iii C •..4 N N i a o 0 x moo 0 ft 0 Tr g. MO N N O ft 0 0 '� N N 0 .0 0 V) a •- V 0 0 Z` N 0 . 1 A�/✓1 •rl o o N N 00 o N N 0. C v o N. � C..) N N C v Q p N 'b 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O N 'o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 N N ,N N Ti-' N N N N O" 00 1 ,� i T a ;uauiAoidui3 kip;idsol pup aanspri Taaaiu Aiquow (--7-e, r O •, N ! O O M r41 "0 O O -V p A •. - O. ~ A U- a � a a • a ro a 0 I © A c i w •� •- I E . Iv -0 ci3 ;.1 rts •; A), .- 4-1 a o v 0 4 A, WI iW a) •„ ,,o Z a CL) b 3 V i� O o c a ;� a cu _L_, b 4. N G) , 130 O wF'' {'g-' aka O 0 C •v C Z i tikj •� ,--• 1 O •�• ..4 (/) O Z \ MINNO ca) •5 V) •Po 0 I.; t r13, 'Ll 4.0 cil 7:4) ift5 "e4i) V f d v --' •°' t'' .5 W CZ a v vb 3 N O 0 v O b V b2AEti w a 0 Oi • • • • Oil • • 2 v cn tA Z • V• • ; . >\y . . . . . . . . ® ) a - ® ° ® \ - § \ �. \ 2 ` - - 1 * i 2 \ . . \ \ . : 2 w. _ I- ' ( / 5 \ . a 1 \ - ■ . } \ • I I \ \ 2 y . 1 / 2 2 : . J. \ \ % 3 _ u t ƒ ■ '.....::'. \ .. \ �` • •\ : \2 \ \ ' \2 t \ \ ..:0..- . $ ■ yft 6 { m < : ! { \ \ T. / - ) \ 77. . cc 2 : . . . . . ri . 2 ? / ., ° . § § _ ' . . . 1 , .:- . Ar • 4 . . . , , „ _ ..iiiiii4 `4 A , i 4mA eve 11 A i , t . i 4,"-,-;'.-.,, t, v. 4. • ..: .■ - a.0 . u. .e, W r • IL Cr 411:1 . - •I' 4JJ .-- . 1.. et I , INF 1 43 <iiii: , ce .. 1 (I .,....... - - c .. t . .... 1 liC 4 = 1 I I, a GI.g ig r, 1 . . E `4 a,,t .C1 ii 1 c • 5 • ,A,e- -'..,:,:-.-7.,, .; • i 41 ; •=••••■•. •-a• A i ••• 7. li .,; — 12 i 1..... 5 , —, , 1 ' .'' i t . -C) ' - .-" ' •WINO i , ......; ; • CIO .ft -" i I.I I 110 al I,. = r. * :-... 1 0 i I I t, 1 .., - = 1 - . `1,::' 'r 4 • --41, -: , ' .. . .•_i ... . . 1 , 4'• •;,' .'. 'As 7". i I S ! iii , . .. , . , . • . .. , . - . U i, der n O * e O � •d)�,, 0 O 0 0 eE+ gip 1. M N I o O O 0 0 0 O 0 O ;O C O O O O C O O O O O O O O Lii Tr M M N C N O Er3 Ea * O • \ N •Z Z A•y N eD N N 0 + M M O A M F I F "EU O d O c. F F E a W o o up }, U� O U w 0 pip•w = U c� Z cu `na 0. ° w A .r x L' •t' cga ,7_, � O U bG O 'ri O a O , or :0 w b F 0. o °' C b°• cr C C U o W GU CU 4 • w i P b 'C L. w O. q c. > •0 7 -" O O ,y o to A cd a t ; d U E cC c Z •O p Z ti . E 0 U 0 a) V w O o E6 Z o O w cz 1 d E-1 4 O W , h0 . .., cu cu 5., c; g too.- cu g. ,,,;-1 A cl.),„ +.+ cA yNo ^� AI � 0 ca w cA G w hi rt 14 4 E O �, O .v 0 i CO 4 (A •-• c ) P`'' :44 i-i 74's V, 111-1 cu --0.4' g 8' -w g 2.. 5 © 5 rt, — • rA) 5 u cn O bA r m v, I M Ou c i ct 4 O O bA V) u v cn a CU 3 +� .4..-4.,f 11 P 4 a —g t, °it' t CIJ ‘) &a) os a to to .. 5 •7, tp Imi r1,1 to 5 1 ' Ci 0 0 ,.. pi Ci . . v M p C O 4.., 4) "N' g� N C) ,y o0 O ,—� ti,00 0 C/) w U1 '., V-' r r� •ci): \t 'v 4 QJ u ( 0 § g � *9 C7 O C G 7 ft � � " I... p..0 , a) 0 co • • • • . 4 r. ": CO • • 7:i'h•Pti.47.':frI:...f.'42. il?,,,,vt,..,:: ,"' 4,1,L,, '-31,-g-,t4..,'F,t,,,T. u i;I,' -6,,J, lie -•:- „Tip IIIMJ 061) G # c N lti-a ft1, O. ,, ,,,, V v # + 4 �ti ry §� V th \ �� x• ,0.,_2.., _74142, ts a) - ... _ , fr4,1,,,,,,,a, =-4N et fi. IN O 3, w - o 1.1, Id oa it YM ~ 1 h 41■■+ p ++ p •N - p . a '''P'i"r; el ' . r `; i r, ' 'y ii ., '9 q x °i g -•__., =..new.... A (� ..,.,..........r.�»w... -.�-�.�.........--.....�... , ,, ,� [ it 7I �& I CU F,, TTd d"" 0 4italt,p,,, . I 2 „ .. pi a 0 .y ... r. it ,. N9� K b40 Til,�fKk t.F�'� x ilf,r.,;%,„ . R e' p.a) c,5 ;..1 i' V,�Vs' � '-',13',7 ;:i4▪i4.4. c 0 2 .. 9 CV •. wl Cilia.r4 l'Ir. CA.4, A c.FBI s y • 1 O# '' co MI u ~ w� y $ a. yti i y Ol•►•I 5 ' !�3 Y �..M y CU o p �r hq x..:.1 C Lm v �Fy� � cI r c4 Eli) 1:10 orgf e' � � a p cid ad eu 4m. 4 PO w dik t .E a ` u a...v .` p °z$ .,v p �4 L G) 4 4:1 , Jr cu 4, i 2 i •� O .�Ei .o •.O o E © Lin 44 i; F.4 frl '-u 7,1 ;., -•-4 .i:,1 (/) +a fci, 1 ,m( a c" e vA � ro o a 0 aHo Iv ti) 0 ' ' cu;..( z © .5., 4 z 0 0_ cu to 715 4' ..,t1 4"/ 0 0 ro up.4"mi V CU 1 0 Immi CU E Njoi " 0 4m4 41 Ild CU CL) rtl E 44 5 0 ci) 4' \ +AO 4 4,J tt 714J ,. cti % 2, rd Pimi a) e„, ts � M N O � v3 � ,O a 8 t a) (4 z cid fit-' if3. $1) 124 cid 8 g cu 00 • • co — to - 4t S 4 04 • • • • . .. cld +a rID •� •� VI C$ 4 C RI y O o7�15 *".4 ;4..1 cu CU 5 .+.J ft:: w) cai .- c" I / o o L • O �. r.�, }' ° •- .•+ j •. 0 N 4. C •t4 V T� G� , cu g u 2 �, — 4 � 0 , cu � O ® .V ft O ap vv gft R3 O • ' 0 '" O Q+ cn 2 , n v : '� v Q o v to tin ccp, W v O v •� . 0 +r t"- '4'2 u I tut tie4•J ri:i &CL4c1) Wt11:1 . in 1--1 pm 0) E g rs;-■ e .;_i_., 0 •”4 64, .. \ 411a NNIZ cf) ro a "a-) bA • im 0 tiny 1:1 RS .-4y t_0 0 ft 0 1 .4 rci C to AY 0=4 4 CA O cn G/) Po cu 4) � 5 • • • • c4 • • • CO • • • ,, 1 ie 7) ., L V CIO 0 0 z z Z' .it M c! O O N b E ' N= 000 ~ C e9 C N aC L V O w M 01,4 N N o N .w O N L aer N n ° M G 12 4 Cra a t V l= 0 . a, R co cn O M f71 M M ci U II' N N of fr1 . 1 I - G! t0 pp A O tD to C N N '43 f+^ 0 N a, ... m cr, O v '-,1 C 1 1 in N N °e e n CO 0 N 0I CO "..1 M m N M N CO N e-1 CO in en N co N N to CO N iin N N I co tin 00 CO ~ ti in M N M O N N N en 4' ill � L O O u• 4 In co •V N o F' CO o c cu _ N 4J C Lc pp co o. 171 0.1 in O in i pre co 11' in o cu u ou o. co ai Q �. E -4.. o E Z v t" to 111 r 1 CA 64 "d o O ' 'j O + , W V O 4 C 44 +r GA ft •0 O ` •� cu cu ci) Iwi "' O V+•O 'W Ems+ cn w , Z .el, , 1 0 g V —1° ,t) i 7-411 tt 4' 4 4a i i 1, —4 ..... 0 1... ro _ , 1.4 , ›... 42 „ iv I i_ V 0 y-t ro r g 4 ° g < t'Ircr ro 0 0., +. '4-1, ''' cl9 .5 .ai 0 l- 0 © .- Z .4:c, : rI M v . ,l o O a M o o LLI o P''; `41'- ;-4 ...1 w"cri 0-1 v ft t •fT 2 „ ,., 4.., g cu im, 4 -E „rz i—i cA 2 ;4 .9. g g v,4 g 5„ Z +4 CO E "I ''' E—' 'P, "I' .;7" "9" L;'' © 0 rl 0 vOlgv ": © cl' z '' W 4 t ° E `1:14 • H w Ce • r .115 f S . i i r1 •a 9 , e y .ti JI = t I 111011 O C CO NE Ilmi. I \ 6 1 1t1 � a A w ¢ a CL I November 13,2012 via email and US Mail Councilman Joe Batte—Chairman Marco Island City Council 50 Bald Eagle Dr. Marco Island, FL 34145 Randolph M. Moity,Sr.—Marco Island, Coastal Advisory Committee Member 340 Sea breeze Dr. Marco Island, FL 34145 Re: Marco Island's Coastal Advisory Committee seat Mr. Batte: Congratulations on your Chairmanship. Being seated on the Coastal Advisory Committee for a little over a year has been a wonderful experience and I thank the Town and the Council for extending that opportunity to me. Hopefully I have made a contribution that is can be seen as positive. My wife and I have made one of those 'life' decisions to return to our City of birth. Most of my children live in or around Lafayette, LA and so therefore do our grandchildren. It seems that each time we see them,and that is only about twice a year, it seems that they are at least foot taller than the last time. We do so want to be part of their lives and time keeps racing along. We have listed our house here and have an offer to buy a house in Lafayette. We'll be moving very soon. Because of this decision, I must resign my position on the CAC,effective today. Realizing that you will be advertising for replacement(s)for the CAC,with this notice, possibly you can solicit replacements with the same letter. Thank you for the opportunity to serve the Town and our community. Randolph 'Randy' M. Moity,Sr. L _AP ._ AYA November 15,2012 Georgia Hiller Board of Collier County Commissioners Commissioner, District 2 3299 Tamiami Trail East Suite 303 Naples, Florida, 34112-5746 Ref: Director Gary McAlpin Collier County Coastal Zone Management Dear Commissioner Hiller: The purpose of my letter is to inform you of the exemplary manner in which Gary McAlpin administered the renourishment program on Vanderbilt Beach in front of LaPlaya Beach & Golf Resort. He took into account the resort's very busy November and accommodated our schedule to minimize guest and member inconvenience. From 11/5 through 11/8/2012 Gary ensured the beach project was conducted efficiently while delivering a quality product. Operating a business on the beachfront has many moving parts and Gary was diligent in understanding our unique challenges. It was rewarding to experience the cooperation between the public and private sector. Gary is doing an outstanding job! I have always appreciated Gary's timely responses to my e-mails and telephone calls. I felt compelled to not only compliment Gary McAlpin and the Coastal Zone Management team; but to let you know as well. Best Regards, Ron Vuy, Vice-Presi anager eteif j Y " 21.44,-40 Woo Eg+S dh %8% .r Co ie-r County Public Services Division Coastal Zone Management TO: CAC Board Members FROM: Gail Hambright, Accountant DATE: December 1, 2012 SUBJECT: 2013 CAC Scheduled Meetings Please mark your calendar for the following 2013 CAC scheduled meeting dates: January 10, 2013 February 14, 2013 March 14, 2013 April 11, 2013 May 9, 2013 June 13, 2013 July 11, 2013 August 8, 2013 September 12, 2013 October 10, 2013 November 14, 2013 December 12, 2013 All meetings will be held in the Board of County Commissioner's chambers, third floor, Collier County Government Center, 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, unless otherwise noted. A public notice will be sent out before each meeting. Ut.LdF. . Color County Coastal Zone Management•3299 Taman Trail East,Suite 103•Naples,Florida 34112-5746.239-252.2966•FAX 239-252-2950 www.colt to rgov.net/coastalzonemanageme nt