Regular Board Meeting of the Captiva Erosion Prevention District

Transcription

1 Regular Board Meeting of the Captiva Erosion Prevention District South Seas Island Resort, Alpha Cone Room Captiva, Florida Wednesday, January 7, :00 P.M.

2 CEPD Regular Board Meeting January 7, 2019 Table of Contents Agenda 3 Commissioners Notes 4-5 Approval of December 12, 2018 Regular Meeting Minutes 6-10 Financial Report Renourishment project Review Beach Project Analysis Review Tentative Apportionment 31 Review Contract Resolution Approving Purchase of Beach Vehicle Rules of Procedure Rule 1.08(k) increase non-administrative, non-recurring expenditures 43 Rule 2.07 Removing prior approval requirements for reimbursements 43 Deputy Administrator

3 Agenda of the Regular Meeting of the Captiva Erosion Prevention District South Seas Island Resort, Alpha Cone Room January 7, 1:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of December 12, 2018 Regular Meeting Minutes 4. Public Comments Review Rule Financial Report a) Budget Performance Ending December 31, Old Business a) Renourishment Project a. Review Beach Project Analysis b. Review Tentative Apportionment c. Schedule Town Hall Meeting d. Review Contract b) Resolution Approving Purchase of Beach Vehicle c) Rules of Procedure a. Rule 1.08 (k) - Increase non-administrative, non-recurring expenditures from $1,000 b. Rule 2.07 Reimbursement - Removing prior approval for reimbursement 7. New Business a) Deputy Administrator b) Dune Foot Path Education time permitting 8. Administrator s Report 9. Commissioner Comments Adjourn 3

4 Commissioners Notes 5. Financial Report a) Budget performance ending December 31, Old Business a) Renourishment Project a. Review Beach Project Analysis b. Review Tentative Apportionment c. Schedule Town Hall Meeting d. Review Contract 4

5 b) Resolution Approving Purchase of Beach Vehicle c) Rules of Procedure a. Rule 1.08(k) Increase non-administrative, non-recurring expenditures from $1,000 b. Rule 2.07 Reimbursement - Removing prior approval requirements for reimbursement 7. New Business a) Deputy Administrator b) Dune Foot Path Education (time permitting) 8. Administrator s Report 5

6 Minutes Regular Meeting of the Captiva Erosion Prevention District South Seas Island Resort, Alpha Cone Room December 12, 1:00 P.M. Commissioners Present: Dave Jensen, Chairman; Mike Mullins, Vice-Chair; Harry Kaiser, Secretary; Bob Walter, Treasurer; Michael Lanigan, Commissioner. Staff Present: Carolyn Weaver, Acting, Administrator; John Bralove, Acting Assistant to the Administrator; Hans Wilson, Hans Wilson and Associates; Dr. William Stronge, Economist; Dr. Gary Jackson, Economist. 1. Call to Order Chairman Jensen called the meeting to order at 1:00 P. M. 2. Roll Call The Chair called the roll and the results are outlined above. 3. Organization of the District Board Nominations a. Chairman The Chairman called for nominations for Chairman of the Board of Commissioners for Michael Mullins was nominated. After a brief discussion, Commissioner Mullins was elected unanimously and took over running the meeting. b. Vice Chairman Chairman Mullins called for nominations for Vice Chairman. Michael Lanigan was nominated and was elected unanimously. c. Secretary/Treasurer (may be concurrent) Chairman Mullins called for nominations for Secretary. Harry Kaiser was nominated and was elected unanimously. Chairman Mullins called for nominations for Treasurer. Bob Walter Kaiser was nominated and was elected unanimously. 4. Approval of November 14, 2018 Regular Meeting Minutes Commissioner Kaiser moved and Commissioner Walter seconded a motion to dispense with the reading of the minutes from the November 14, 2018 Regular Board Meeting and approve them as written. The motion passed unanimously. 5. Public to be Heard Gerhard Thelan, owner of 2 properties on the bay side, raised the issue of condominiums having a recreation millage rate almost double of that for single family homes. He said it was statistically not valid. There was discussion and clarification among the Commissioners. Mr. Thelan also brought up the issue of classifying bayside homes at Sunset Captiva as beachfront. He thought this was a technicality and did not pass the smell test. Commissioner Walter 1 6

7 commented that all owners on Captiva share in the cost of the natural asset that residents are trying to preserve. John Jensen, President of the Sunset Captiva HOA, had a question about the common element. Dr. Stronge explained that in previous studies this parcel had not been identified and was not accounted for. Commissioner Mullins commented that those owners who disputed there apportionment had plenty of time to gather additional data and appeal and urged moving on in the agenda. 6. Financial Report a) Budget Performance Ending November 30, 2018 Treasurer Walter reported parking revenue continued to run behind budget but he thought it would eventually catch up. The Chair called for questions; there were none. 7. Old Business a) Updated Presentation of Tentative Apportionment for Proposed 2021 Beach Renourishment Project Dr. Stronge Dr. Stronge reported he has made one change since the last presentation regarding multifamily properties with less than 10 units. Because his survey did not gather enough significant data, he is recommending the millage rate be calculated as if each multi-family parcel generates the same usage regardless of how many units are on that parcel, the same as each single family parcel is calculated. Linda Laird, a Sunset Captiva homeowner, asked if there were any basic principles of the apportionment written. Dr. Stronge mentioned they will be in a report he will be issuing after the Board finishes providing its input. Commissioner Mullins explained the process. He suggested she attend Town Hall meetings when they are scheduled and talk to Administrator Weaver. Commissioner Lanigan suggested she look at CEPD s website and read the July 2018 minutes. Dr. Stronge and Dr. Jackson presented and explained Tables 1 through 10 of their PowerPoint display that showed how mileage rates were calculated. They also showed examples for basic millage gulf front single family assessments by beach zone, basic millage gulf front condominium family assessments by beach zone, and basic millage non-gulf front residential assessments by benefit category. Dr. Stronge and Dr. Jackson completed their presentation by going through their recommendations for Refinements and Outline of the Basis Millage Assessment Rates; Adjustments to Storm Protection Assessments in the Village Zone; Adjustments to Storm Protection Assessments in the Upper Gold Coast Zone; Adjustments to Recreation Assessments for Homesteaded Properties; and Adjustments to Recreation Assessments for Institutional Properties and Utility Parcels. After finishing the presentation, Dr. Stronge suggested he write the tentative apportionment report based on what was said today and submit it to the Board. Also he suggested he generate a list of assessments for each property that could be sent to homeowners, if CEPD chose to do so, have available if someone called in, or publish on their website. The Commissioners agreed. b) TDC Funding Quotes in Process 2 7

8 a. Beach Vehicle b. Alison Hagerup Beach Parking Amenities c. Beach Maintenance/Monitor position c) Rope and Bollard Replacement Quotes TDC Funds d) Fence Repair for Alison Hagerup Beach Parking Quote Regarding Agenda Items 7(b) through 7(d), Commissioners agreed that since everything has been budgeted and approved, and they were voted on, the Administrator should move forward with these projects. There was discussion about whether a permit is required for the beach vehicle, what the issues are the public has regarding a vehicle on the beach, whether the repair of rope and bollard does include the replacement of signs, which it does, and whether CEPD is responsible for the ongoing maintenance of the ropes and bollards. The Commissioners agreed that CEPD will be responsible for the ongoing maintenance. e) New/Acting Administrator Mr. Wilson recommended the Board approve Carolyn Weaver as the CEPD Administrator and outlined her credentials and qualifications. Commissioner Walter moved and Commissioner Kaiser seconded a motion to approve Carolyn Weaver as Administrator. After discussion, the vote was called and the motion passed unanimously. Regarding the second position, Mr. Wilson reported he has received 85 resumes and has narrowed those down to 15. After Board discussion, Mr. Wilson recommended to the Board that the job be changed to Assistant Administrator. Commissioner Jensen said CEPD must be willing to pay the extra money this decision will require. It was suggested the job be called Deputy Administrator. The Board directed Mr. Wilson return in January with qualified deputy administrator candidates and what the cost implications are. Mr. Wilson suggested the Rules of Procedures and other documents be updated to reflect this change. f) Joint Petition to Challenge Proposed Rule Update Commissioners reiterated their approval for payment to Ralf Brookes from the last meeting. It was agreed that in the future, the Chairman will repeat motions before they are voted upon. g) CEPD Jurisdiction Regarding Bay Side Properties Chairman Mullins asked whether CEPD s responsibility is an erosion control issue and suggested the District get feedback from those involved or concerned as well as consult CEPD s attorney. Mr. Wilson said CEPD should determine what its jurisdiction is as there are other agencies that have a role. The Chair said discussion of this issue will continue at future meetings but he thought CEPD had an obligation to let people on the bay side know whether CEPD is going to do anything or not. There was consensus that CEPD make sure it is receiving notices from the DEP and they include the bay side. 8. New Business a) Cell phones for CEPD Ms. Weaver proposed the Board approve the purchase and expenses for cell phones for the Administrator and the Deputy Administrator. She explained she thought this was necessary to ensure compliance with the Sunshine Laws. The phones would we in CEPD s name and if personnel were to change, the phones and phone numbers would stay with CEPD. The Chair said no vote is required since it was budgeted for. Board members agreed to the request 3 8

9 b) Increase Chairman s Spending Amount from $1,000 The consensus of the Board was to increase this limit to $1,500 for any purchase that had not already been pre-approved in the budget. It was agreed that further discussion of this item would occur at the January 2019 meeting. c) Reimbursement for Travel Chairman Mullins explained he put this item on the agenda to discuss reimbursement for travel to Board meetings when special trips are required to have a quorum or a special or emergency meeting is called. Ms. Weaver read the appropriate paragraphs in the Rules of Procedure governing travel reimbursement. Ms. Weaver was asked to check with CEPD s attorney and come back to the Board in January with Ms. Stroud s advice. 9. Administrator s Report Ms. Weaver reported on preliminary results of the poll of Captiva voters on whether they supported the March 2019 referendum. 279 mailings were sent; of those 8 were returned as undeliverable or not forwardable. She said there were 88 responses to date; 80 said yes, 6 said no, and 2 said they did not have enough information to make a judgement. Ms. Weaver also reported the new meeting calendar was on the website and she had just received the third quote to upgrade the website. She said CEPD s landlord has put through an increase in rent of 2.5% which is consistent with the lease agreement. Commissioner Walter asked for a copy of the lease. Ms. Weaver added that requests for TDC grants are due on February 22, She thought CEPD should apply for support to have APTIM do the geotechnical follow-up work on Redfish Pass and to ask APTIM to provide a Scope of Work. Commissioners agreed. 10. Public to be Heard Although there were no comments from the public, Commissioners discussed the participation of the public at today s meeting. 11. Commissioner Comments Commissioner Lanigan said CEPD needs to be prepared to answer why the Army Corps did not fund the previous project and to explain why CEPD did not seek funding from the Corps for this project, if that turns out to be the case. He also commented that procedures need to be established for beach cleaning and use of the beach vehicle. He added that CEPD should budget for new furniture for the office. Commissioner Walter listed the issues involved in why CEPD did not receive Corps funding for the last project, namely the lack of public access and not having the new easements the Corps insisted upon. It was mentioned that the lack of Army Corps funding ultimately did not impact the final cost of the project to the homeowners. Mention was made of CEPD s inability to get a Corps representative to meet with the Board. Mr. Wilson explained the easement issue and reviewed the history leading to the Corps decision to not assist with funding. He said he will meet with Ms. Weaver to document these issues and their history. Commissioner Jensen thanked the other Commissioners for their willingness to volunteer for the office positions. Commissioners thanks Commissioner Jensen for his service. 4 9

10 Commissioner Mullins raised concern about opening up issues again and Commissioners should be sensitive to this. Adjourn There being no further business, the Chairman adjourned the meeting at 4:25 P.M. 5 10

11 Financial Report to be Distributed at the Meeting 11

12 CAPTIVA ISLAND BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT BENEFIT ANALYSIS PREPARED FOR: CAPTIVA EROSION PREVENTION DISTRICT DECEMBER 2018 Prepared by: William B. Stronge, Ph.D. Gary L. Jackson Ph.D. and Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc. A Division of Aptim Corporation Boca Raton, FL

13 The enabling legislation of the CEPD requires that special assessments used to finance an erosion control project be levied against benefitting properties in proportion to the benefits received by the properties from the project. The benefits from the nourishment of Captiva s beaches are given in Table 1. The benefits considered are the same as those that were used to determine assessments for the previous beach nourishment projects undertaken on Captiva since Table 1 Annual Public and Private Benefits of the Beach Renourishment Project by Type Benefit Amount Percent Storm Protection Roads Storm Protection Other Public Storm Protection Benefits Sub-total Public Storm Protection Benefits Private Storm Protection Benefits Sub-Total Public & Private Storm Protection Benefits Recreation Public Recreation Benefits (Day Visitors) Private Recreation Benefits Sub-Total Public & Private Recreation Benefits $ 21,501 $ 466,284 $ 487,785 $ 2,417,881 $ 2,905,666 $ 860,789 $ 2,824,533 $ 3,685, Total Public & Private Benefits $ 6,590,987 Note: Items may not add to totals because of rounding errors The nourishment of Captiva s beaches will yield benefits of $6,590,987 each year over the fifteen-year life of the project. The benefits from the nourishment project are twofold: storm protection and recreation. Table 1 shows that the recreation benefits are larger than the storm protection benefits, $ 3,685,321 in recreation compared to $ 2,905,666. This is the usual case with a renourishment, since the project adds sand to an existing beach that already provides significant protection to upland properties. The benefits from the 1989 beach restoration 2 13

14 were evenly divided between storm protection and recreation because much of the shoreline had little or no beach. The benefits in Table 1 also distinguish between publicly owned and privatelyowned properties. The share of the project costs accounted for by the benefits to roads and other public properties are covered by a grant from Lee County. The County grant also covers the cost share for the benefits received by day visitors who use Captiva s beaches for recreational purposes. Table 2 Annual Storm Protection Benefits of Private Properties on Captiva Beach Nourishment by Benefit Category Percent of Total Benefit Category Amount Private Storm Upper South Seas Beach Zone Properties Lower South Seas Beach Zone Properties Village Beach Zone Properties Tween Waters Beach Zone Properties Upper Gold Coast Beach Zone Properties High Erosion Gold Coast Beach Zone Properties $ 904,501 $ 290,306 $ 344,186 $ 338,826 $ 315,811 $ 224, Total Private Storm Protection Benefits $ 2,417,881 Note: items may not add to totals because of rounding Table 2 shows the annual storm protection benefits received by private property owners on Captiva. These amounted to $2,417,881. The CEPD coastal engineer has determined from the design and size of the renourishment project that storm protection benefits will not extend beyond the first line of properties along the beachfront. The percentages in Table 2 show how the portion of the project cost due to private storm protection will be shared by the property owners in the six beach zones. The largest shares of storm protection benefits are in the Upper South Seas zone (37.4 percent). This Zone has a relatively high erosion rate and has received a relatively large share of the 3 14

15 new beach fill to be placed as part of project because the design beach width is being widened in that part of the island. The design beach width will be similar to design beach width in the rest of the island. There are also relatively expensive properties in the Upper South Seas Zone. Beachfront properties were grouped into beach zones. The beach zones were selected by the coastal engineer on the basis of erosion conditions in the different reaches of beach. The zones are the same as those used in the Apportionment Plan for the 2014 Beach Nourishment Project except for the boundary between the Upper South Seas and the Lower South Seas zones. The border is now approximately 2,800 feet further south of Redfish Pass. For the 2014 and 2021 projects, Hagerup Beach and the first property to its south are included in the Lower South Seas Zone. The portion of the project cost due to recreational benefits will be shared by four different types of properties according to the percentages shown in Table 3. The 4 15

16 grouping of properties is similar to that used in the Apportionment Plan for the 2014 Beach Nourishment. The Multi-Family category was subdivided into its two components (condominiums and MF<10 properties). Interval properties were included in the Commercial Category because they have been classified as Hotels in the latest Property Appraiser file. Properties were grouped on the basis of the frequency of beach use by their residents, guests or customers. Surveys of beach users since 1986 substantiated the differences in intensity of beach use by these property types. Table 3 Annual Recreation Benefits of Private Properties on Captiva By Benefit Category Nourishment Project Percent of Total Benefit Category Amount Private Recreation Single-Family Properties Condominium Properties Multi-Family < 10 Units Properties Commercial Properties $ 1,087,044 $ 902,917 $ 187,713 $ 646, Total $ 2,824,533 Note: Items may not add to totals because of rounding The percentages in Table 3 show how the portion of the project cost due to recreation will be shared by the owners of the four property types. Single family and condominium properties will receive the largest share of the total (both types in excess of 30 percent). Multi-family properties with less than 10 units will receive the smallest share (6.6 percent), because these properties are relatively few in number on the island.. A summary of the benefit analysis as it applies to private properties is given in Table 4 (next page). The top 3 benefit categories found (shares) are Single Family properties (20.7 percent), properties in the Upper South Seas Beach Zone (17.3 percent) and Condominium properties (17.2 percent). 5 16

17 Table 4 Annual Benefits Received by Captiva Private Properties By Benefit Category Nourishment Project Benefit Category Amount Percent Share Upper South Seas Lower South Seas Village Tween Waters Road Upper Gold Coast High Erosion Gold Coast Single-Family Condominium Multi-family Less than 10 Commercial Total $ 904,501 $ 290,306 $ 344,186 $ 338,826 $ 315,811 $ 224,251 $ 1,087,044 $ 902,917 $ 187,713 $ 646,859 $ 5,242, Once the project cost is determined, the benefit shares become the cost shares assigned to the properties in the different benefit categories. For the purposes of the Tentative Apportionment, the total cost was set at $18,000, 000 at the direction of the Board as a worst-case scenario. This was decided upon in order to assist the voters in determining whether to support the referendum too be held in March The benefit shares in Table 4 are used to apportion the $18,000,000 cost among the different benefit (storm protection and recreation) categories. The results are presented in Table 5. (next page). One storm protection category (Upper South Seas) has a cost share greater than $3 million as do two recreation categories. 6 17

18 Table 5 Cost Shares for Captiva Private Properties By Benefit Category Nourishment Project Benefit Category Benefit Share (%) Cost Share ($) Upper South Seas Beach Zone Lower South Seas Beach Zone Village Beach Zone Tween Waters Road Beach Zone Upper Gold Coast Beach Zone High Erosion Gold Coast Beach Zone Single-Family Properties Condominium Properties Multi-Family <10 Units Properties Commercial Properties Total $3,105,634 $996,775 $1,181,724 $1,163,970 $1,084,347 $769,973 $3,732,402 $3,100,196 $644,528 $2,221,010 $18,000,000 Tabulations of the just (market) values were obtained from the Lee County Property Appraiser for the Captiva private properties in each of the benefit categories. These are presented in Table 6 (next page). The cost shares are divided by the just values and the results are present as millages in the Table. The millage rates given in Table 6 are labeled Basic because they do not take into account refinements directed by the CEPD Board to fine tune the results of the benefit model. The refinements were made in two areas: extension of the assessment model to selected non-residential and non-commercial properties and a discount given to homesteaded properties based on the less intensive use of the beach by their occupants. All types of properties that are located on the beach receive storm protection assessments. The extension of the assessment program, therefore, only involved recreation assessments. 7 18

19 Table 6 Basic Millage Rates for the Beach Renourishment Project Benefit Category Cost Shares Just Values Millage Rates Other Upper South Seas Properties $3,105,634 $157,885, Lower South Seas Properties $996,725 $187,363, Village Properties $1,181,774 $100,972, Tween Waters Properties $1,163,370 $199,805, Upper Gold Coast Properties $1,084,347 $198,058, High Erosion Gold Coast Properties $769,973 $87,340, Single-Family Properties $3,732,402 $804,680, Condominium Properties $3,100,196 $354,491, Multi-Family <10 Properties $644,518 $223,853, Commercial Properties $2,221,010 $147,098, Total $18,000,000 NA NA NA = not applicable. Millages are thousandths, or tenths of percentages. Examples of assessments using the Basic Millages are given in Table 7A for single-family Gulf-Front properties, Table 7B for Condominium Gulf-Front properties and Table 7C for Non-Gulf Residential Properties. The just values for the examples are the average values within each of the benefit categories. Table 7A Examples of Basic Millage Gulf-front Single-family Assessments by Beach Zones Beach Renourishment Project Benefit Category Average Just Value Number of Parcels Storm Assessment Recreation Assessment Total Assessment Upper South Seas $3,255, $64,038 $15,101 $79,139 Lower South Seas $1,872, $9,959 $8,683 $18,643 Village Beach $1,164, $13,625 $5,400 $19,025 Tween Waters Beach $3,188, $18,563 $14,788 $33,351 Upper Gold Coast $4,126, $22,591 $19,139 $41,730 Lower Gold Coast $3,426, $30,210 $15,895 $46,

20 The storm protection assessment for any property in a particular benefit category is computed as the product of the storm protection millage (divided by 1,000) times the just value of the parcel. A similar computation using the recreation millage divided by 1,000 determines the recreation assessment. The total assessment is the sum of the storm protection and recreation assessments. Table 7B Examples of Condominium Gulf-Front Assessments Beach Renourishment Project Average Number Storm Recreation Just Value of Parcels Assessment Assessment Total Assessment Benefit Category Upper South Seas Lower South Seas $589, $3,137 $5,157 $8,295 Village Beach $925, $10,833 $8,094 $18,925 Tween Waters Beach $1,199, $6,987 $10,494 $17,481 Upper Gold Coast Lower Gold Coast The non-gulf properties in Table 7C have no storm assessments because they are not on the beach. Table 7C Examples of Basic Millage Non-Gulf Residential Assessments by Benefit Categories Beach Renourishment Project Average Number of Storm Recreational Benefit Category Just Value Parcels Assessment Assessment Single Family $1,434, $0 $6,653 Condominiums $635, $0 $5,562 Multi-family Less than 10 $1,136, $0 $6,152 Extension to Non-Residential and Non-Commercial Properties 9 20

21 There are three types of non-residential and non-commercial properties on Captiva: institutional properties, government properties and miscellaneous properties. There are 15 institutional, 9 government and 15 miscellaneous properties out of the 1,148 properties on the island. The Board affirmed the 2014 decisions about institutional parcels and miscellaneous parcels for the project The Board levied a single-family recreational assessment against the 11 Rauschenberg parcels in the institutional category. These parcels support a Visiting Artists program which brings artists to Captiva from around the United States. The Board also levied recreational assessments against the two parcels owned by the Captiva Civic Association: a single-family assessment against the single-family property and a commercial assessment against the Library and Community Center. The two Chapel by the Sea parcels pay storm protection but not recreational assessments. The cemetery is full, open only to selected remains of cremations, and the Chapel is only open during the winter season. The Board has also affirmed the 2014 decision not to assess the government parcels because grants for the project that exceed the assessment amounts will be received from the state and county governments. The Board has affirmed for the project the 2014 decision to levy commercial recreation assessments against the three utility parcels that are classified in the miscellaneous category. The Board did not levy recreational assessments against the 12 other miscellaneous parcels which together have a just value of $ and consist of right of way ditches, marshes and dunes, as well as 5 submerged parcels

22 Homestead Parcels In 2014, the Board gave a discount on the recreational assessment for multifamily properties (MF < 10 and condominiums) on the grounds that intensity of beach use is low among homesteaded properties. Many non-homesteaded multi-family properties are available in the vacation rental market. Occupants of rental units tend to have relatively short stays and visit the beach relatively frequently while on the island. As a result, there is relatively high rate of beach use. The discount replaced the multifamily assessment rate with the (lower) single-family rate. Over the last 10 years, there has been a growth in the number of single-family properties in the vacation rental market. The availability of the internet has increased the ability to market these units. The result has been a substantial increase in the beach use generated by single family properties on Captiva. It seemed likely that there is a substantial disparity in beach use among the single-family as well as the multi-family properties. For the project, the Board commissioned a study of beach use by homesteaded single-family properties. Details will be given in the methodology section of this report below. The results showed that annual beach use by the average homesteaded single-family parcels was 42.1 percent of the annual beach use of the average of all single-family properties taken together. This implied a discount of 57.9 percent for homesteaded parcels. The Board decided to provide the same percentage discount to the MF<10 and condominium properties. This resulted in basic millages for homestead properties as given in Table

23 TABLE 8 Basic Millage Rates for Homestead Properties Beach Renourishment Project Benefit Category Basic Millage Rates Single-Family Homestead Property Condominium Homestead Property Multi-Family < 10 Units Homestead Property The homestead discount resulted in a shortfall in recreation revenues in the assessment program. This was partially offset by the surplus in revenues as a result of the non-residential and non-commercial properties. The net shortfall amounted to 5.4 percent of the total recreation assessments, derived using the basic recreational millages in Table 6. The recreational millages were increased in each of the recreation categories by 5.4 per cent to cover the net shortfall. The results are given in Table 9. Table 9 Adjusted Millages for Captiva Private Properties By Benefit Category Nourishment Project Type of Property Basic Millage Adjusted Millage Storm Protection Upper South Seas Lower South Seas Village Tween Waters Road Upper Gold Coast High Erosion Gold Coast Recreation Single-Family Multi-Family Interval Units Commercial

24 The adjusted storm protection millages are the same as the basic millages, because the refinements of the Basic Plan involved only recreation benefit categories. Each adjusted recreational millage is 5.4 per cent higher than the corresponding basic millage. The basic millages for the homestead properties were also increased by 5.4 percent, resulting in mills for single family properties, 3,8802 mills for condominium properties and mills for multi-family less than 10 units properties

25 Appendix A: Methodology The Beach Renourishment Project will generate a stream of benefits for property owners on Captiva Island which, ultimately, will show up as an enhancement of property values beyond the levels they would have attained in the absence of the Project. To the extent that properties are better protected from erosion and storm damage by the Renourishment Project, their values will increase. In addition, to the extent to which properties are adjacent or close to a recreational beach that is made more attractive, their values will also increase. In sum, the Beach Renourishment Project will benefit Captiva Island properties by providing two types of benefits. First, the Project will protect properties from erosion and storm damage, the "storm protection benefit". Second, the Project will provide access to an enhanced recreational beach, the "recreational benefit". These benefits are estimated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and other engineering firms for projects that receive federal funding. The basic methodology has also been validated in Lee County Court as part of a bond validation undertaken in for the project. Storm Protection Benefits Project benefits associated with storm protection were generated for properties that front on the Gulf of Mexico. The storm protection benefit to a property represents the difference between the value of expected property losses if the project is constructed compared to the value of losses if the project is not constructed. For the purpose of determining project benefits, the enabling legislation of the Captiva Erosion Prevention District requires that Captiva properties be grouped into areas 14 25

26 and zones. Areas are relatively large groups of properties where CEPD projects have been undertaken in the twelve months prior to project construction. Zones are smaller divisions of areas which are characterized by the same degree of beach erosion and gradient of the beach profiles. The entire gulf-front of Captiva is grouped into a single area because at the anticipated time of the Renourishment Project no CEPD project will have been undertaken in the preceding twelve months. Table A.1 Beach Zones Used in the Economic Analysis Zone Profiles Lee Co. Parcel Numbers Street Addresses R-84 to B to & 1200 South Seas 1 R Plantation Road R-88 to to South Seas Plantation 2 3A 3B 4 5 R-93 R-94 to R-96 R-97 to R-101 R-102 to R-105 R-106 to R to to B B0010 to to Road & Captiva Drive 11558/560 Laika Lane to Captiva Drive Captiva Drive Captiva Drive Captiva Drive The storm protection benefits were computed for different beach zones which are defined in Table A.1. The zones were delineated based on erosion conditions on the different beach areas. Erosion rates along each zone were based on the May 1996 to September 2009 erosion and accretion rates in cubic yards per year per foot (Table A.2). Zone 1 experiences the highest erosion rates, followed by the Village Area along Zone 3A. The southern Gold Coast (Zone 5) experiences moderate erosion rates due to the effects of Blind Pass. Although the shorelines in Zones 3B and 4 are relatively stable, properties in these reaches are vulnerable to storm damage

27 Zone Table A.2 Average Erosion Rates in Each Beach Zone Profile Lines Erosion (+) & Accretion (-) (c.y./foot/year) Equiv. Shoreline Retreat (-) & Advance (+) (feet/year) Average Residential Land Value per Square Foot 1. Upper South Seas R-84 to R $ Lower South Seas R-88 to R $ A Village R-94 to R $ B Tween Waters Road R-97 to R $ Upper Gold Coast R-102 to R * $ High Erosion Gold $66.42 Coast R-106 to R Note: In Zone 4, the equivalent retreat rate is based on the observed retreat from May 1996 to September 2009 instead of the observed accretion rate. The storm protection received by a property is the expected loss due to erosion and storm damage in the absence of the Renourishment Project, or the cost of an alternative erosion control project for storm protection, whichever is less. A comparison of the erosion control options which include the expected loss under the "do-nothing" alternative is made for each property. The expected loss consists of the discounted stream of future losses multiplied by the probabilities of various storm events. In addition to beach conditions in each zone, expected losses reflect land and building values, beach widths and distances between buildings and the mean high water line. Future losses are discounted by an interest rate of percent over the 15-year project life of the Renourishment Project. Revetted properties experience annual maintenance and structural damage to the revetments during the storms in the computation of project benefits. The Risk and Uncertainty Storm Damage Model version 2.0 (RU SDM, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District, 1999) was used to calculate benefits in each zone

28 The benefits analysis for Captiva Island was based on property value data obtained from the Lee County Property Appraiser Data Services Department. This data was current as of July 2009 for the storm damage benefit analysis and current as of July 2010 for the recreation benefit analysis. An interest rate of 4.375% was used in this study. This rate was based on the Memorandum for Planning Community of Practice issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on October 26, 2009 ( 01.pdf). Average land values were calculated based on the total value (in dollars) and total land area (in square feet) of the residential parcels fronting the Gulf of Mexico. Land loss values used in the analysis appear in Table A.2. Recreational Benefits Recreational benefits consist of the recreational value of the beach that is created once the beach maintenance project is implemented. Unlike the storm protection benefits, the recreational benefits flow to properties on the island regardless of whether they are on the Gulf or not. The recreational value of the beach was obtained from detailed surveys of more than 600 beach users on Captiva, conducted during a 9-day period in the winter of 2010 and during a 7-day period in the summer of Surveys were collected all along the beach and the results are to be found in the reports Beach Usage and Economic Impact Winter 2018 and Beach Usage and Economic Impact Summer The results were extrapolated to the entire year and projected forward to The primary determinant of recreational value is beach usage. Properties which send, or can send, relatively large numbers of beach users on to the beach receive relatively 17 28

29 greater recreational benefits than do properties which send relatively few beach users onto the beach. Users of Captiva's beaches were classified on the basis of the type of properties that they lived in or were staying in. Such properties were classified into single-family, condominium, multi-family < 10 and commercial (hotel) categories. Day visitors to the beaches were not assigned to a lodging type on Captiva and were accounted for separately. On the basis of the lodging type of beach users, beach usage and recreational value was assigned to Captiva properties. Recreational value was obtained from a willingness to pay survey of beach users. The same average willingness to pay value, projected to was assigned to almost all beach users, and the annual recreational value over the 15-year project life was discounted to present worth using an interest rate of percent. Properties can also be categorized on the basis of their land use. The land uses of properties were determined on the basis of the land use code specified on the tax roll record obtained from the Lee County Property Appraiser. No distinction was made between vacant and improved properties. Commercial properties include resorts, restaurants, shops and offices. The Employee Housing property at the south end of South Seas Plantation was included in the commercial category Non-lodging commercial properties were grouped with hotels and resorts because their businesses are mainly dependent, either directly or indirectly, on beach users, particularly users who spend at least one night on the island. Institutional properties include the properties owned by the Captiva Civic Association and Chapel by the Sea. Government properties included those owned by the Federal and State Governments, Lee County and the Captiva Island Fire Association, There 18 29

30 were also a small number of miscellaneous properties including those owned by utilities, drainage, marshland and submerged parcels.. Storm protection benefits were calculated for institutional, government and miscellaneous properties that were located on the beachfront. Recreation benefits were computed for most institutional properties and for the three utility parcels in the miscellaneous category. No recreation assessments were levied against government parcels

31 Tentative Apportionment for Renourishment: excel spreadsheet to be distributed at the meeting on January 7,

32 32

33 33

34 34

35 35

36 36

37 37

38 38

39 39

40 40

41 Captiva Erosion Prevention District Resolution No RESOLUTION NO BY THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE CAPTIVA EROSION PREVENTION DISTRICT LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA WHEREAS, the Captiva Erosion Prevent District ( District ) is authorized by Chapter , Laws of Florida and Section , Florida Statutes (2018), as a beach and shore preservation district; and WHEREAS, Section 4 Powers of the District, paragraph (3) authorizes the District to purchase property as may be necessary or proper to carry out the purposes of its enabling legislation; and WHEREAS, the District has received a grant from the Lee County Tourist Development Commission; and WHEREAS, the District has received at least three quotes for the purchase of a beach vehicle that will enable the District to further its program for comprehensive beach and shore preservation; and WHEREAS, the proposed expenditure for such a beach vehicle is included in the budget. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE CAPTIVA EROSION PREVENTION DISTRICT that: Section 1. The District approves the expenditure for a beach vehicle whose cost shall not exceed $20,000 including necessary accessories and delivery. Section 2. The District authorizes the Administrator to choose the vendor based on the quotes received, recommendations, and referrals and to sign such documents and contracts to implement this purchase. Section 3. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon adoption. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was offered by Commissioner who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by Commissioner and upon being put to vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman Mullins Vice Chair Lanigan 41

42 Captiva Erosion Prevention District Resolution No Secretary Kaiser Treasurer Walter Commissioner Jensen DULY PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 7 th day of January, Board of Commissioners of the Captiva Erosion Prevention District By: Certified by: Chairman Secretary Approved as to Form By: Board Attorney 42

43 SECTION I: PROCEDURE FOR MEETINGS Rule Authority of the Chairman The Chairman: (k) Is authorized to sign for Board approved contracts, and to approve administrative expenditures or non-administrative, non-recurring expenditures under $2,5001,000. SECTION II: BUDGET AND FINANCES Rule Reimbursement The District has the power to pay from funds available to it under Chapter , Laws of Florida, all reasonable and necessary expenses incurred in carrying out its purposes, including reimbursement of actual travel expenses (excluding alcoholic beverages) of members of the District Board or their properly designated agents upon prior approval by the District Board except that all emergency expenditures not having prior approval by the District Board shall be scheduled for consideration at athe next regular meeting. A travel expense report including receipts shall be provided to the Treasurer or his/her designee prior to reimbursement. 43