Loading...
058-1999 LTC CITY OF MIAMI BEACH CITY HALL 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE MIAMI BEACH FLORIDA 33139 OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER TELEPHONE: (305) 673-7010 FAX: (305) 673-7782 LETTER TO COMMISSION L.T.C. NO. 58-1999 DATE: March 4,1999 TO: Mayor Neisen O. Kasdin and Members of the City C mission FROM: Sergio Rodriguez City Manager SUBJECT: POTENTIAL BEACH RENOURISHMENT AND MAINTENANCE COSTS FROM MIAMI-DADE COUNTY TO BEACHFRONT MUNICIPALITIES. A meeting ofthe Miami-Dade County Beach Erosion Control and Maintenance Task Force was held at 10:00 am on Friday February 5, 1999, at the Sunny Isles Beach Resort Association offices. The purpose of the meeting was to review the County's revised proposals for the establishment of a dedicated funding source for on-going beach renourishment and maintenance costs. At the meeting, the County presented its package of revised funding scenarios to the Task Force members. The revised proposal included an analysis of several funding options including a County- wide Special Assessment, several Barrier Island Special Assessment scenarios, Tourist Development Tax increases, Cruise Ship Surcharges and the pro-rated allocation of beach costs to the coastal municipalities, based on length of beach frontage. In the analysis section of their proposal, the County favored those options which called for the imposition of additional taxes on the coastal municipalities to pay for beach renourishment and maintenance. A copy of the County's revised funding scenarios package is attached. After much discussion amongst the members of the Task Force, a motion was made to delete all of the references to Barrier Island Special Assessments contained within the Task Force's Final Report. Although the motion was supported by the City and the representatives ofBal Harbour and Surfside, the motion failed when the three representatives from the County and the representatives from the City of Miami and the Village of Key Biscayne voted against it. The City then introduced a motion which authorized the submission ofthe Task Force's Final Report to the County Manager with a cover letter stating the Task Force's conclusion that any potential funding source that results in a net tax increase to the residents and businesses of Miami-Dade County is unacceptable, and further, directing the County Manager to re-examine the budgetary priorities ofthe County in order to find the necessary funding for beach maintenance within existing revenues. The motion was passed by a majority vote of the Task Force. Publication of the Task Force's Final Report should be completed by mid-March, 1999, at which time it will be submitted to the County Manager for presentation to the County Commission. < SRlcMbJ~~\~dh F:\ WORK\ULL\BRUCE\T ASKFRC3,L TC c: Mayra Diaz-Buttacavoli, Assistant City Manager Christina Cuervo, Assistant City Manager Janet Gavarette, Assistant City Manager Murray Dubbin, City Attorney Robert Parcher, City Clerk Julio Grave de Peralta, Public Works Director Patricia Walker, Finance Director Mercedes Sosa, Assistant Public Works Director Bruce Henderson, Environmental Specialist DRAFT Report on Potential Sources of Dedicated Funding for Beach Erosion Control and Maintenance Recommendations of the Miami-Dade County Beach Erosion Control and Maintenance Task Force January 13, 1999 Authority: On October 8, 1996, the Dade County Board of County Commissioners passed Resolution R-1201-96 (Attachment 1), directing the County Manager to "...conduct a study of beach nourishment, management, protection, and maintenance activities of the county, subject to obtaining adequate state funding to conduct such study; (and) directing the County Manager to appoint a Task Force to develop options and make recommendations for a dedicated funding source for those activities". While no state funds were allocated to conduct a formal study of these activities, this summary report provides an overview of county- sponsored beach erosion control, and maintenance activities, as well as a preliminary list of potential dedicated funding mechanisms as developed by the Task Force intended to meet the mandate of Resolution R-1201- 96. Task Force Composition: The composition of the Beach Erosion Control and Maintenance Dedicated Funding Task Force (hereafter the Task Force), was structured to provide adequate input and representation from potential beneficiaries of beach management and maintenance activities, and groups which might be affected by the funding recommendations of the Task Force, as well as Miami-Dade County staff representation to provide expertise in the areas of beach erosion control and maintenance, budgetary, and legal issues. The Task Force is comprised of thirteen members including seven representatives from the barrier island municipalities, one representative from the tourism industry, and five county staff. A list of the appointed Task Force members is included as Attachment 2 to this summary report. Background: Beaches are a critical and integral part of the Miami-Dade County tourism economy, as well as an important part of the area's quality of life. This linkage was clearly established form the 1930's through the mid-1970's when severe beach erosion resulted in approximately 50% of the Miami-Dade barrier island shoreline having no dry beach at high tide (Miami-Dade DERM, 1990). This condition resulted not only in a dramatic decline in beachfront tourism, but also an increase in the frequency and severity of damage to beachfront properties and infrastructure during storms due to the lack of a protective beach. The severity of this problem prompted a request by Metropolitan Dade County for federal assistance in the mid-1950's. A comprehensive evaluation of shore protection alternatives for Dade County ultimately recommended a series of beach restoration projects, which were implemented from 1975 through 1988. These projects included the restoration of 13 miles of beach from Government Cut through Sunny Isles Beach, and a 2.4 mile restoration of Key Biscayne and Cape Florida. Since the completion of these initial projects, the county has implemented a number of other erosion control activities, including dune construction and vegetation, jetty improvements at inlets, and beach renourishment in eroded segments as needed to improve the function and maintain the integrity and intended benefits of the federal shore protection projects. A summary of beach erosion control activities completed within Miami-Dade County through 1997 is provided in Table 1. In addition to coordinating these countywide beach erosion control activities through its Department of Environmental resources Management (DERM), the county has also historically conducted the maintenance of all beach areas located on public lands through the Beach Operations Division of its Park and Recreation department. These maintenance services include litter collection, beach grading, debris sifting and removal, and other activities needed to maintain the aesthetics and safety of the public beaches. In addition to these maintenance responsibilities, the Park and Recreation department also administers the county's marine turtle protection and nest relocation program. Existing Beach Erosion Control and Maintenance Agreements. The initial construction and subsequent maintenance renourishment of the Congressionally-authorized shore protection projects are governed by the provisions of the Local Cooperation Agreement (LCA) between the local project sponsor, Miami-Dade County, and the federal government. These agreements define the respective responsibilities associated with the project, including federal and non-federal cost-sharing, required local items such as lands easements and construction access, and the project life, or term of the agreement. The initial LCA for the 10.5 mile segment extending from Government Cut through Haulover Beach Park (Appendix 4) was approved via resolution by the Dade County Board of County Commissioners in 1972, and provided for federal participation in the initial construction, as well as maintenance nourishment over a ten year project life. In 1986, a second LCA was executed for the 2.5 mile Sunny Isles Beach area north of Haulover Park. This agreement not only provided for initial construction and renourishment of that segment, but also extended the project life of both segments to 50 years. As a result of these agreements, federal participation and cost-sharing in the future renourishment of these areas is committed, subject to federal appropriations, through 2025, and 2038 for the Government Cut through Haulover Park, and Sunny Isles Beach segments, respectively. While the Key Biscayne Beach Erosion Control Project remains a Congressionally-authorized shore protection project, it was initially constructed by the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) under a Section 103 designation, which allows the Corps to construct authorized federal projects using discretionary funding of up to $1.0 million. While this approach allowed the initial construction of the project to be expedited, this process did not provide for the execution of a LCA to provide for federal participation in the future nourishment of the project. As a result, future erosion control activities required on Key Biscayne will be conducted without federal participation. The Miami-Dade County Park and Recreation Department, Beach Operations Division currently conduct Beach clean-up and other maintenance activities, The county has historically conducted these activities on the public beach areas between the high water line and the private properties fronting the beach since the completion of the initial beach restoration projects, although no written agreement or condition associated with the erosion control project obligates the county to this role, Formal management agreements between local governments and the State of Florida have been established on a limited basis for restored beach areas on state-owned lands. These agreements provide authority for local government to regulate concessions and other commercial or recreational activities occurring on the beach, but do not address the maintenance of these areas, In Miami-Dade County, agreements have been established between the state and the City of Miami Beach for the public beach areas fronting that municipality, and between Miami-Dade County and the state for the area fronting Sunny Isles Beach. Beach Erosion Control and Maintenance Funding Sources. From 1975 through 1997, a total of $107,597,000 was expended on the implementation of beach restoration and other erosion control activities throughout the county (Table 1). Federal funding levels for initial construction and renourishment are stipulated in provisions of the LCA established for each project. The federal cost share for these activities ranges from 49.8% to 70% of the total project cost depending on the specific location of the project segment. Funds for these projects are provided by congressional appropriations allocated to the ACOE. Similarly, state funds for these projects are provided by the Legislature as general revenue appropriations from the state's capital budget. Until recently, the state would provide 75% of the non-federal cost of implementing eligible erosion control activities. Recent policy revisions, however, enacted by the 1995 Legislature, have reduced this share to 50% of the eligible non-federal cost in most cases, The $18 million local cost share of erosion control projects conducted to date have included a variety of funding sources. The $9.1 million local cost of the initial 10.5 mile Dade County Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane Surge Protection Project was provided as part of the 1972 Decade of development bond issue, which provided capital funding for a number of major infrastructure improvements throughout the county. Subsequent projects were funded primarily through general revenue allocations to the county's capital project fund, the Capital Outlay Reserve Fund, or CORF. More recently, general revenue allocations to CORF have not been provided in the county budget, and the local cost share of erosion control projects has been funded through non-general revenue sources such as proprietary department budgets or special bond issues such as Safe Neighborhood Parks, Funding for county beach maintenance activities is provided as part of the Park and recreation department budget, which is primarily funded through general revenue allocations from the county budget. The required annual funding for this program has increased from just over $700,000 in 1984, to over $1.7 million in 1997 as additional beach areas have been restored, and the scope of the maintenance has expanded to include functions such as dune crossover and fencing repairs in addition to conventional maintenance, It is anticipated that the maintenance funding requirement will exceed $2.0 million annually due to required capital equipment replacement, and additional operating costs due to beach tilling and other federal and state permit requirements associated with beach nourishment activities. Pending Beach Erosion Control Projects and Required Funding. In 1995, the state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), which administers local government requests to the Legislature for beach erosion control funding, modified its process to require that each local government prepare and submit a ten-year beach erosion control capital plan to assist them in coordinating and prioritizing funding requests statewide. The plan developed by Miami-Dade County includes a total of ten (10) projects scheduled for construction from Fiscal Years 1998 through 2007, with eight (8) of these scheduled for construction prior to FY 2001 (Appendix 3). The total estimated cost of projects scheduled through FY 2001 is $48,550,000, with federal, state, and local shares of $22,599,000, $11,755,000, and $14,196,000, respectively. These projects include four federal, and one non-federal (Key Biscayne) project renourishments, one jetty modification, one dune vegetation project, and two sand management projects intended to reduce future renourishment requirements. Funding Status for Beach Erosion Control Projects. Of the $22,599,000 in federal funds required for beach erosion control projects scheduled through FY 2001, $20,700,000 is available, pending execution of the 1999 federal budget. This amount includes $5.6 million in federal project rehabilitation funding provided as a result of impacts form Hurricane Andrew in 1992, a $9.4 million appropriation for FY 1998, and a $5.7 million appropriation submitted by the House and Senate Appropriations Conference Committee, which is pending Administration approval. The 1998 State Legislature appropriated the full state funding required for all projects identified in the Miami-Dade County Beach Erosion Control Capital Plan through 2001. This includes the requested $10.552 million for renourishment and improvements to the federal project from Govemment Cut through Sunny Isles Beach, as well as $1.188 million for the renourishment of Key Biscayne beach. A contract to encumber the funds is currently being drafted by the state. Of the $14196,000 local share associated with the projects above, a total of $3,251,000 has been identified and is currently available. The funds identified include $3.0 million ion Safe Neighborhood Parks bond funds, $201,000 in Hurricane Andrew grant funding, and $50,000 in funds budgeted from DERM's department budget. Of this amount, $2.45 million is already committed for FY 1998-99 projects, including Dade Renourishment- Contract 2 ($2.0 million), Govemment Cut Sand Tightening ($250,000), and Bal Harbour renourishment ($200,000). Of the remaining $800,000 in available funding, approximately $325,000 is earmarked for construction of the Dade Erosion Hotspot Remediation Project in central Miami Beach. Thus, based on current project cost estimates, a local funding shortfall of $10,580,000 exists for Miami-Dade projects scheduled through 2001. Task Force Findings and Recommendations. Since its initial meeting in mid-1997, the Task Force considered a number of potential mechanisms for funding the local cost of beach-related activities. An initial step in the process was determining an accurate estimate of future funding needs for these activities to provide a basis for developing the revenue sources any option considered might need to provide. For beach erosion control activities, the annualized cost countywide was estimated at $2.25 million. This figure is loosely based on historical data for beach erosion control activities conducted since 1987, as well as projected costs described in the county's ten-year beach erosion control capital plan. The estimated cost for beach maintenance activities was estimated using an operational cost of $144,0001 beachfront milel year, and a countywide capital equipment cost of $750,000 annually. This maintenance budget provides for a slightly enhanced level of service over that currently being provided. In its evaluation of potential dedicated funding options for beach erosion control and maintenance activities, the Task Force considered a variety of mechanisms, ranging from standard, countywide assessment mechanisms to those more specifically targeted towards to beach-related activities and beneficiaries. In selecting the options, which follow, the Task Force agreed to the application of several principles: 1) \Nhile the funding or assessment mechanism should reflect the primary beneficiaries of the program, i.e.: the beachfront communities and industries, it should also take into account the countywide benefits of renourishing and maintaining Miami's beach areas. 2) The funding or assessment mechanism, or the parties providing the funds, should have an obvious and justifiable nexus to the beaches. 3) The funding or assessment mechanism should already exist, or can be easily implemented through existing procedures. The potential dedicated funding options below represent four broad categories of funding mechanisms considered by the Task Force and meeting these criteria. In most cases, several variants of each mechanism are presented based on different assumptions and! or objectives in assigning the program cost. A table summarizing these options is provided at the end of this report as Appendix I. Potential Dedicated Funding Mechanisms I) Special Assessment Districts Special Assessment Districts have represented one of mechanisms most often used to fund county services and activities with specific purposes or in specific locations. The Task Force evaluated several fonns of structuring a special assessment-based funding mechanism to fund countywide beach erosion control and maintenance activities: la) Countywide Assessment. This variant of the Special Assessment approach uses a countywide assessment to all taxable properties. The Miami-Dade County Tax Collector's Office indicated that in 1998, county tax rolls included approximately 806,000 parcels. Assuming a uniform assessment rate, and an estimated countywide beach erosion control and maintenance program cost of $4,500,000, the annual assessment of $5.58 per property would be required. Further refinement of this option could include the development of a graduated assessment based on proximity to the beach areas, or on actual benefits derived, c;i) Barrier Island Assessment Zone. This variation focuses the assessment of program costs among the barrier island communities, which arguably receive the greatest benefit from beach erosion control and maintenance activities. A preliminary evaluation was conducted to identify the approximate assessment charges that would be associated with a range of alternative assessment zones and mechanisms, Please note that this evaluation was conducted using a number of assumptions (presented below), and therefore is intended to provide only rough estimates of potential assessment values. Methods and Assumptions: For this exercise, all the barrier island areas of Dade County, with the exception of Fisher Island, were broadly considered to be part of the assessment zones to be evaluated, beginning with the south limit of the Village of Key Biscayne, and extending through Golden Beach. The estimates shown below assume an annual revenue requirement for beach erosion control and maintenance of $4,500,000, which would be derived from assessments levied across the zone being evaluated. Potential assessment zones were developed arbitrarily across the entire barrier island system to evaluate the potential charges associated with discrete zones or combinations of zones. Information used for the assessment mechanisms selected were obtained by DERM staff from the Miami-Dade County Property Appraisers Office Geographical Information System (GIS). The assessment zones selected for consideration were based on several intuitive assumptions: 1) That the primary beneficiaries of the beach erosion control and maintenance activities performed would be those properties directly adjacent to the beach. These properties more directly benefit from the beach due to the storm-protection benefits afforded these areas, and the direct economic benefits associated with beach use. 2) That while beachfront areas experienced a higher benefit level than those properties off the beach, all barrier island properties had some level of benefit associated with the beach, and could therefore be legitimately considered for some level of assessment. Based on these assumptions, four assessment zones were arbitrarily selected for evaluation; these zones are: Zone 1: All properties directly fronting Collins Avenue, or the easternmost roadway, or otherwise directly fronting the beach. Zone 2: All properties fronting the west side of Collins Avenue, or the easternmost roadway. Zone 3: All properties west of Zone 2, to the approximate midpoint of the island. Zone 4: All properties west of Zone 3, to the shoreline of Biscayne Bay. While a number of assessment mechanisms were considered, habitable square footage and habitable living units were selected for evaluation since they would be more universally applicable than other potential mechanisms such as shoreline frontage. Based on the assumptions above, a series of theoretical assessment zones were developed. These zones are intended to identify the approximate cost associated with variations in the size of the assessment zone, For each option the projected assessment required to meet an estimated $4.5 million annual revenue stream needed is shown for both habitable units, per square foot of habitable living space, and an equivalent assessment for a 2,000 sq. foot unit. In addition, some options assign a higher percentage of the total assessment to certain zones based on benefits received. Option 1: Includes only Zone 1 properties. Annual Assessment per Unit: $411.37 Assessment per Sq. Foot: $ 0,31 For 2000 Sq. Ft. Unit: $619,57 Option 2: Includes both Zones 1 and 2- equal assessment rate for each zone Annual Assessment per Unit: $219.69 Assessment per Sq. Foot: $0.19 For 2000 Sq. Foot Unit: $384.09 Option 3: Includes both Zones 1 and 2- 75% of total assessment assigned to Zone 1, 25% to Zone 2 properties. Annual Assessment per Unit: Zone 1: $308.53 Zone 2: $117.88 Assessment per Sq. Foot: Zone 1: $ 0.23 2000 Sq. Ft. Unit: $464.00 Zone 2: $ 0.13 2000 Sq. Ft.Unit: $252,65 Option 4: Includes all Zones with percentages of the total assessment defined as follows: Zone 1- 50%, Zone 2-25%, Zones 2 and 3- 12.5% each. Annual Assessment per Unit: Zone 1: $205.69 Zone 2: $117,88 Zone 3: $ 41.03 Zone 4: $ 24,04 Assessment per Sq. Foot: Zone 1: $ 0.150 Zone 2: $ 0.130 Zone 3: $ 0.026 Zone 4: $ 0.016 2000 Sq. Ft. Unit: $309,79 2000 Sq. Ft. Unit: $252,65 2000 Sq, Ft. Unit: $ 51,50 2000 Sq, Ft. Unit: $ 31,32 Please not that the scenarios presented above do not include the assessment of large undeveloped publicly owned parcels such as Crandon Park, Virginia Key, or Haulover Park. An equitable beach erosion assessment should include these areas through some alternative assessment mechanism, which could have a major or minor effect on the figures above depending on the mechanism selected. \lVhile the special assessment district approach is a common mechanism for funding various county and municipal special services, the negatives of its use in this case includes: 1) The projected assessment charges may prove prohibitive, particularly when applied to large or multi- unit facilities such as resort hotels. 2) The barrier island zones, while targeting the primary beneficiaries of beach related activities, did not assess other non-barrier island beneficiaries such as the tourism industry in general, and residents who use and benefit from the beach. This issue could potentially be addressed within the framework of this option by providing a countywide funding source to provide a portion of the program cost, either from general revenue, or another mainland assessment district, with a corresponding decrease in the required barrier island assessment rate. II. Utilization of Additional Tourist Development Tax for Sports Facilities The Task Force also evaluated the potential use of a currently authorized but unused Tourist Development Tax as a source of beach erosion control and maintenance funding. This approach required investigating the feasibility of broadening the authority granted under Florida Statutes, s. 125.0104(3)(0) to allow its use as a funding source for local beach erosion control and maintenance activities. This authority currently provides for the levy of up to 1 percent in addition to any other Local Option Tourist Development Taxes (TOT) by the vote of a majority plus one vote of the Board of County Commissioners, to pay debt service on bonds issued to finance the construction, reconstruction, or renovation of a new professional sports facility. Findings: A professional sports facility TDT is currently levied in Dade County pursuant to a separate legislative authority (s,125.01 04(3)(1)) than the section considered above. Revenues collected from this levy are currently obligated for bond repayment on a number of sports facilities including among others, the Lipton Tennis Center and the Homestead Motorsports Complex. The authority of this section is slightly broader in that revenues may be used to pay debt service on bonds used for both professional sports facilities and convention centers,. whereas the TDT authorized under section (0) is specific to professional sports facilities as defined in s. 288.1162. Dade County does not currently levy the professional sports facility TDT authorized under s. 125.0104(3)(0), and would be unable to do so under the existing language in Chapter 125, FS. Under the provisions of s. 125.0104(3)(b), the additional sports facility TDT cannot be levied countywide in areas already collecting a convention development tax pursuant to s. 212.0305, which is currently levied in Dade County. Thus, the legislative changes needed to allow the use of this levy for beach erosion control and maintenance would require amendments to both broaden the existing authority of s. 125.0104(3)(0) to establish eligibility to fund those activities in addition to professional sports facility debt service, and language to eliminate the existing conflicts with the convention development tax. The benefits to this option include the fact that the nexus between beaches and tourism is well established, and therefore a tourist-based levy would have an easily justifiable rationale. Most coastal counties throughout Florida utilize some or all of their local option TOTs to fund beach erosion control andl or maintenance activities. In addition, there would likely be less public opposition to a tourist-related tax than other broadly applied potential funding mechanisms such as special assessments. Potential revenues of a 1- percent levy throughout Dade County (excluding Miami Beach, Surfside, and Bal Harbour) would be approximately $4.5 million annually, which is the consistent with the estimate.d revenue stream needed to fund countywide beach erosion control and maintenance activities, The required amendments to broaden, and increase the existing tourist- related taxing authority would, however, likely conflict with the existing "no new taxes" sentiment in the Legislature, although potential support and opposition to such a proposal has not been determined. An increase in the total TOT levy in Dade County would also likely be opposed by the hotel and tourism industry on the basis of their ability to compete with other areas with a lower total TOT levy. Also because the additional sports facility TOT could not be levied in the beach areas of Miami Beach, Surfside, and Bal Harbour since they already levy a municipal resort tax, there would be a perceived inequity in that the levy would be collected from areas which are not the primary beneficiaries of the new tax. III. Cruise Ship Surcharge The 1997 Florida Legislature considered House and Senate bills proposing the use of a nominal surcharge on passengers embarking and debarking from Florida ports as a potential source of dedicated funding for State-sponsored beach management programs. Proponents of this mechanism provided the following justifications for its use: 1) The cruise ship industry is tourism-based. Many passengers of cruise ships also visit area beaches and beach-dependent facilities. 2) There is a clear nexus in that navigation inlets, such as cruise ship ports, have been identified as the primary source of beach erosion in Florida, since they block the natural flow of sand down the coast. 3) Most non-domestic cruise ship destinations implement a comparable surcharge, while Florida does not. \lVhile an alternative source of beach management funding was ultimately established for the state, Task Force members proposed a local cruise ship surcharge as a potential source of dedicated funding for countywide beach management activities. Assuming an estimated annual program budget of $4,500,000, and the 3.19 million cruise ship passengers using the Port of Miami in 1997, the required surcharge would be $1.41. IV. Municipal and County Cost Allocation A third option considered by the Task Force, focused not so much upon the revenue source, but rather on developing an equitable mechanism for assigning respective cost shares to the county and coastal municipalities. Under this option, the Task Force would evaluate and select a mutually agreed upon mechanism for determining the cost shares that each participating government would be responsible for providing on an annual basis, but would not designate how each government would fund that cost. The primary advantage to this approach is that it provides each government with the greatest degree of flexibility in funding their respective cost-share, which might include a range of existing sources such as local option tourist taxes, or general revenue funds, or creating a new source specifically earmarked for beaches. The funds generated under this scenario would be administered pursuant to a master interlocal agreement established to define the activities of the beach erosion and maintenance program. In order to fully develop this option, alternate means of determining the respective cost share for each participating government were developed, In order to provide the Task Force with a broad range of options to consider, a variety of assessment mechanisms were developed, based on population, shoreline length, and calculated benefit indices. A total of 19 potential assessment scenarios were evaluated, however only 6 are included here as representative options for consideration, In developing the attached short-list of several factors were considered: 1) Options which tended to generate disproportionately large cost shares for some municipalities were eliminated from consideration since their implementation would be politically difficult or impossible. 2) The selected scenarios do not include either the City of Miami or Golden Beach as participating municipalities. In the case of the City of Miami, current budgetary limitations combined with the fact that Virginia Key beach is not currently open and operating make it unlikely that the City would commit the several hundred thousand dollars annually needed to meet its estimated operational cost. Similarly with Golden Beach, it is unlikely that a beach erosion control project will be constructed due to the Town's desire to maintain a private beachfront, and the level of maintenance required is vastly different than that required on public beach areas. Rather than include these municipalities as part of the countywide funding scheme, it would be more favorable to perform the needed services at a negotiated price rather than as part of the countywide program envisioned due to the higher cost. The initial presentation to the Task Force included the following cost allocation scenarios: 1) Cost allocation based on relative shoreline length. These scenarios simply include a pro-rated cost share based on the percentage of the total maintained shoreline represented by each coastal municipality. Shoreline distances for each municipality were derived from the county's Geographic Information System base map. This option includes a scenario with simple pro-rated shares based on direct shoreline length, as well as a scenario where the county share represents 50% of the total estimated program cost, with the remaining 50% pro-rated among the coastal municipalities based on their relative shoreline length. 2) Cost allocation based on relative shoreline length, then adjusted through the use of a calculated "Benefit Index", This scenario attempts to consider the relative benefit each municipality receives from the beaches, based on tourist tax revenues. This option also includes a scenario under which the county assumes 50% of the total program cost. 3) A "federal project" scenario. This option only includes the area included as part of the existing federal project extending from Government Cut north through Sunny Isles Beach. At the September 17, 1998 meeting of the Task Force, these cost allocation scenarios were presented for comment. At that time, it was recommended that a short list of existing cost allocation options be developed, and that several additional scenarios be examined; these were: 1) Include only those cost allocation scenarios under which the county assumes 50% of the total program cost, with the remainder being pro- rated among the participating coastal municipalities using the alternate assessment scenarios. This was seen as an equitable mechanism for assessing countywide benefits resulting from beach-related management activities. 2) That the concept recommended in item (1) be modified whereby the county would assume 50% of the total estimated program cost, and also be included in the pro-rated cost distribution of the remaining 50%. Under this scenario, the county cost share would be approximately 72% of the total program cost. Appendix 1 provides a summary of the different cost allocation scenarios determined to be most feasible by the Task Force. APPENDIX 1: Municipal! County Cost Allocation Scenarios Option 1- Shoreline Length Method: Assumes Miami-Dade County provides 50% of the total program cost of $5,463,840, with the remainder being pro-rated among the municipalities based on an adjusted shoreline length, Note: Percentage of total length numbers shown represent percentages of municipal shorefront only, County/ Shoreline Length Percent of Total Pro-Rated Annual Municipality Length Share Dade County 3,80 miles NA $2,731,920 Crandon Park 2.60 miles Haulover Park 1,20 miles Miami Beach 7.73 miles 58,08% $1,586,700 Surfside 1,03 miles 7,74% $211,450 BaI Harbour 0.85 miles 6.39% $174,570 Key Biscayne 1.20 miles 9,02% $246,419 Sunny Isles Beach 2.50 miles 18,78% $513,054 Option la- Shoreline Length Method: This represents a variant of the cost allocation scenario above, Assumes Miami-Dade County provides 50% of the total program cost of $5,463,840, with the remainder being pro-rated among the municipalities and the county, based on an adjusted shoreline length, Note: Percentage of totallehth numbers shown represent percentages of both municipal and county-owned shorefront. Countyl Shoreline Length Percent of Total Pro-Rated Annual Municipality Length Share Dade County 3.80 miles NA $3,338,679 Crandon Park 2,60 miles Haulover Park 1.20 miles Miami Beach 7,73 miles 45.18% $ 1,234,281 Surfside 1.03 miles 6.02% $164,442 Bal Harbour 0,85 miles 4,97% $135,776 Key Biscayne 1.20 miles 7,01% $191,508 Sunny Isles Beach 2.50 miles 14.61% $399,134 Option 2- Federal Project Scenario: Includes only segments under federal shore protection authorization (Government Cut north through Sunny Isles Beach). Under this scenario, Miami-Dade county provides 50% of the total program funding required, or $2,458,320/ year, with the remainder pro-rated among the coastal municipalities based on total percentage of municipal beachfront. County/ Shoreline Length Percent of Total Pro-Rated Annual Municipality Length Share Dade County NA 50,00%1 $2,458,320 Miami Beach 7,73 miles 63.84% $1,569,392 Surfside 1.03 miles 8.51% $209,203 Bal Harbour 0,85 miles 7.02% $172,574 Sunny Isles Beach 2.50 miles 20,64% $507,397 Option 2a: Includes only segments under federal shore protection authorization (Government Cut north through Sunny Isles Beach). Under this scenario, Miami-Dade county provides 50% of the total program funding required, or $2,458,320/ year, with the remainder pro-rated among the coastal municipalities, and the county, based on percentage of total beachfront. County share shown includes 50% share plus pro-rated shorefront (9.02%). County! Shoreline Length Percent of Total Pro-Rated Annual l\'lunicipality Length Share Dade County 1.20 miles NA $2,680,060 Miami Beach 7.73 miles 58.08% $1,427,792 Surfside 1,03 miles 7.74% $190,274 Bal Harbour 0.85 miles 6.39% $157,087 Sunny Isles Beach 2.50 miles 18.78% $461,672 OPTION 3: Cost Share Development Based on "Tourism Benefit Index" Previous methodologies for assigning respective cost-shares to the county and coastal municipalities have relied on physical (shoreline length) or numerical (population) measures which may not accurately reflect the relative economic and other beach-related benefits. In an attempt to account for these differences, and allow for them to be factored into the calculation of municipal and county cost shares, the derivation of a "benefit index" is necessary. Although a variety of variables can be considered in developing this index of this type, an initial assumption is made that relative differences in benefits received could be related to the level of beach-related tourism found in a given area. This variable would be capable of assessing not only direct tourist spending, but, if standardized, would also be indicative of the level of tourist-related infrastructure which receive storm damage reduction benefits form the restored beaches, Based on this assumption, an index was developed using the amount of revenue generated per one percent of tourist tax levied, and then standardized based on the shoreline length of each area considered. The calculation of this index utilized the most recent tourist development tax (TDT) revenues reports each area levying an independent TDT. Because discrete information on revenues is only available for Miami-Dade County, Miami Beach, Surfs ide, and Bal Harbour, the adjustment factor used for the City of Miami, Golden Beach, Key Biscayne, and Sunny Isles Beach is the same as for unincorporated Miami-Dade County as a whole, although with further development, independent adjustment factors could be determined for these areas. Using 1995 roT data, the total revenues per one percent of tax levied in these areas was as follows: AREA REVENUES PER 1 % Miami-Dade County (including Miami, Key Biscayne, Golden Beach, and Sunny Isles Beach) $3,198,826 Miami Beach $3,944,976 Surfside $ 122,262 Bal Harbour $ 431,761 When these revenues are standardized based on shoreline length, the total TDT revenues/ per mile/ per percent TDT levied are: AREA REVENUES/ 1 % TDT LENGTH REVENUES/ MILE Miami- Dade $3,198,826 10.42 miles $306,990 Miami Beach $3,944,976 7.73 miles $510,346 SUIfside $ 122,262 1,03 miles $118,700 Bal Harbour $ 431,761 0.85 miles $507,954 Based on this information, a "benefit multiplier" was calculated for each area: AREA BENEFIT MULTIPLIER Bal Harbour Key Biscayne Miami Beach Miami-Dade County Sunny Isles Beach Surfs ide 4.2791 2,5826* 4,3012 2,5826 2,5826 1.0000 Based on these multipliers, total shoreline length, and the total estimated beach erosion control and maintenance program cost of $5,880,000, a standardized cost per mile of $90,657/ mile was calculated. Respective cost shares for each area using this methodology were obtained by multiplying the standardized program cost per mile, by the length of shoreline in miles for each area, times the area's benefit multiplier: OPTION 3- Benefit Index Method: Cost shares based on Benefit Index described above. Assumes Miami-Dade County provides 50% of the total estimated program cost, or $2,731,920. Municipal cost shares are calculated based on the miles of beach times the benefit multiplier, times an adjusted per-mile program cost of $57,526. County or Miles of Standardized Benefit Annual Cost Municipality Beachfront Cost Per Mile Multiplier Share Miami-Dade NA NA NA $2,731,920 County Bal Harbour 0,85 $57,526 4.2791 $209,235 Key Biscayne 1.20 $57,526 2,5862 $178,528 Miami Beach 7,73 $57,526 4,3012 $1,912,640 Sunny Isles 2.50 $57,526 2,5862 $371,934 Surfside 1.03 $57,526 1,0000 $ 59,251 APPENDIX 2: Beach Erosion Control and Maintenance Dedicated Funding Task Force Appointed Members Chairman: >( Carlos Espinosa, P.E., Assistant Director, Department of Environmental Resources Management County Staff: Martha Borges Gutierrez, Budget Analyst, Office of Management and Budget I Brian Flynn, Coastal Programs Administrator, Department of Environmental Resources Management Jim Hoover, Beach Operations Supervisor, Park and Recreation Department Peter Tell, Assistant County Attorney, Office of the County Attorney Municipal/ Industry Judy Cuenca, Mayor, Town of Golden Beach "} Sandra Goldstein, Chair, Key Biscayne Beach Resources and Management Task Force (representing the Village Manager) r Bruce Henderson, Environmental Specialist, City of Miami Beach J vi ,f j Diane Johnson, Chief of Development, Department of Real Estate and Development William Lone, Executive Director, Sunny Isles Beach Resort Association <{ Eduardo Rodriguez, Town Manager, Town of Surfside William Talbert, Chief Operating Officer, Greater Miami Convention and Visitors Bureau 1 Alfred Treppida, Village Manager, Bal Harbour Village APPENDIX 3: Miami Dade County Beach Erosion Control 1998-2007 Capital Plan with Project Summaries r--- = => ~ ~ I I ..... QO c:::, c:::, 0'\ ~ 0'\ ~ ~ ~ I = = - ~ ..... e c:::, ~ c:::, J,.. c:::, QJ ~ ~ ~ = 0 ~ ~ - ~ 0 :s:: J-o l::l c:::, ....., r", c:::, :::: c:::, = ~ ~ o~ ~ U :s:: Q\ ..... = .- 0 ~ .- :s:: l"-l ... 0 is J-o :: ~ ~ .: "- oS ~ - = \;) QJ e.. = ~ ....., = - - 0 U QJ "0 = ~ o o o o o ~ I ~ c:::, ~ ;::: .s: ~ - ~ ;::: a ;::: .~ '"'.It-... ~~ ~~~ ..:::~~ ~~:: t:::t .:: l:: ~ bo l".l ~==~ ~~~ ~'S :: t:::t ~ .... t'\ooO~~ ~ I .... bI) ~ :: ;:::~~ (;:) ('~ E ~~~ :;..l::'" .... ......'Ill l:: ;:::.....::::: ::::_<::l a~e. .l".l ~~ ~ t:::t C.\ ;::: .s :::: (;:) ~ ~ ~ Metropolitan Dade County Long Range Beach Erosion Control Plan Project Description Note: The project description presented is applied to the entire Dade County Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane Surge Protection Project. More detailed information on the individual "sub-projects" presented in the long-term capital plan are included as attachments to this submittal. Project Name: Dade County Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane Protection Project. Project consists of initial restoration, ongoing maintenance renourishment, and monitoring of 13 miles of critically eroded shoreline extending from Golden Beach to Government Cut. Project Location: Dade County, R6 through R74. Project Evaluation: Mitigation ofInlet Effects: The project area includes two maintained navigational inlets. An inlet management plan was completed for Bakers Haulover Inlet in 1995, and is currently being reviewed by the Department. The plan recommended continuing existing management practices related to the downdrift placement of material obtained by maintenance dredging of the flood shoal approximately every 3 to 4 years. Government Cut is located at the south terminus of the project. Funding to complete an inlet management plan for Government Cut is requested for FY 1998-99, Threat to Existing Upland Development! Benefits: The shoreline within the project area is heavily developed, almost exclusively with multi-unit commercial and residential structures. Approximately 41,520' of the project area is privately-owned and developed, with an additional 17,120' of shorefront providing beach access through oceanfront parks, dedicated beach access easements, or street ends. All hurricane evacuation routes within adjacent to the project area are located landward of the Coastal Construction Control Line, Performance of the Project: The project performance to date has exceeded original estimates for projected renourishment interval. A recently completed regional sediment budget found that while the project has overall averaged a shoreline recession rate of approximately 6 feetl year, that this did not translate into large volumetric losses in the active littoral system. Several localized segments of the project, termed "hotspots", had much greater rates of erosion of up to 25' of shoreline recession! year, Studies to identify the causes of this high erosion rate, and the development of methods to mitigate it are currently underway, Availability of Federal Funds: The originallO.5-mile initial phase of this project which extends from Government Cut through Haulover Park was authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1968, This authorization was modified to include the addition of an additional 2.5 miles of beach front north of Haulover Park by the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1985 and the Water resources Development Act of 1986. This existing authorization extends through 2035. Federal funds are currently available for pending projects, with additional federal funds requested for additional work beyond FY 1997-98. Innovative Applications to Reduce Erosion: Several efforts are currently underway to evaluate potential mechanisms for improving the peIfonnance and cost-effectiveness of the project. Observed erosion/accretion trends for the project since initial construction indicate that while much of the project area is stable or accretional, several segments have shown high rates of localized erosion which has required repeated renourishments to maintain the project design dimensions. To begin to address these erosion "hotspots", Dade County recently completed a regional sediment budget for the area from Port Everglades to Government Cut to quantitatively define the location and extent of these erosional areas, and the sediment transport mechanisms resulting from them. The second phase of this effort will be to conduct a detailed assessment of the causes of the accelerated erosion at a selected hotspot, and to develop potential solutions using structures or other means. The long-tenn plan submitted includes a request for study funds in 1998-99 to develop a pilot project, with construction funding requested for the following year. If successful, additional hotspot areas will be subsequently addressed. In addition, the Corps is in the process of coordinating a Design Modification (DM) to the Sunny Isles segment to address high erosion rates at the northern extent to the project. The OM recommendations include the installation of two geotextile tube breakwater structures, an increase in the design benn width for that segment., and the addition of a 1,500' transition fill at the north end of the project. These modifications of the authorized design are intended to better maintain the design dimensions at the north limit of the project, and to optimize the anticipated nourishment interval for the full 2.5 mile segment. Local Commitment: Metropolitan Dade County has served as local project sponsor for this project since 1972 with the execution of the initial Cooperation Agreement with the Federal Government, A second Cooperation Agreement for the Sunny Isles segment was approved and executed by Dade County in 1986, Beach renourishment, inlet management, and dune preservation and revegetation are identified as objectives in the Coastal Element of the Metropolitan Dade County Comprehensive Development Master Plan. Dade County has passed numerous resolutions supporting the Department's many beach management objectives and activities as described in Chapter 161. State Commitment: The entire project area has been previously identified by the Department as critically eroded, and the project is recommended for continued implementation in the Department's Beach Management Plan for Dade County. Since the fonnal inception of this project in 1972, the State of Florida has provided $32,938,000 for initial construction and maintenance of the federal shore protection project, An additional $2,632,000 in State funding has been provided for State/ Local cooperative projects including dune revegetation and inlet management planning. ATTACHMENT 1 Summary and Descriptions of Proposed Project Activities Included in Dade County's Long Range Beach Erosion Control Plan Dade Beach Renourishment- Contract 2: This project includes the maintenance renourishment of two segments of the Dade County Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane Surge Protection Project. The segments included are located in Surfside (approximately 590,000 cubic yards of material from R31 through R36) and South Miami Beach immediately north of Government Cut (approximately 132,000 cubic yards- R73 through R74), The project will also include as part of the federal construction contract the placement of 380 pre-fabricated artificial reef modules to mitigate for reef impacts sustained during the 1990 renourishment of Bal Harbour Beach. The sand source for this project is located south of Government Cut in approximately 35' of water. This project is currently in the final phases of permitting and is scheduled for construction in the Winter of 1997. This request will provide reimbursement of the State share for previously expended funds as construction is currently scheduled for late 1997. State funds previously allocated from the Hurricane Andrew Recovery and Rebuilding Trust Fund for this project were partially reallocated to fund additional costs associated with Contract 1 renourishment activities in central Miami Beach and Sunny Isles, thus resulting in the need for additional Contract 2 funding, Bal Harbour Beach Renourishment: This project includes the placement of approximately 400,000 cubic yards of sand as maintenance renourishment of the Bal Harbour segment of the Dade County Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane Protection Project (R27 through R31). Two sand sources are currently identified in the permit application for this project. The original application designated a southerly extension of the South of Government Cut borrow site being used as a source for Contract 2 as the sand source for the Bal Harbour renourishment. Subsequent geotechnical evaluations of the Bakers Haulover Inlet ebb shoal indicated that it could also be a viable sand source for this project, and the application was modified to include this shoal as a potential sand source for the project. The Department has requested that the Corps submit an engineering analysis to determine the shoreline effects that the removal of this shoal would have on beaches north and south of the inlet. Project construction is presently scheduled for Spring 1998. The Corps has not developed a formal cost estimate for this project since that will be dependent on the sand source selected. A cost estimate of $4,000,000 is used for this request based on the use of the ebb shoal. Sunny Isles Desi~n Modification: This project is the result of a recently completed Design Modification (OM) to the authorized Design Memorandum for the Sunny Isles segment of the Dade County Beach erosion Control and Hurricane Protection Project (R7 through R19), The intent of the OM is to address any project performance deficiencies identified to date, as well as to optimize various aspects of the project to improve the cost-effectiveness and overall performance of the project. The Corps OM prepared for the Sunny Isles segment includes several recommendations: 1) address the erosional "hotspot" at the north limit of the project by extending the fill transition 1,500' north offshore of the Town of Golden Beach, This transition will reduce the shoreline discontinuities and end losses that currently exist between the project and the unrestored Golden Beach shoreline to the north. Because the Town of Golden Beach desires to maintain a private beach front, all material will be placed below Mean High Water in the fill transition zone. 2) To reduce wave energy and associated sediment transport, the project will include the placement of two 375'-long geotextile breakwater structures off the north Sunny Isles limit immediately south of Golden Beach, and 3) the construction ofa 100' advance maintenance berm in addition to the 20' design berm,to optimize the nourishment interval. This project will require approximately 915,000 cubic yards of fill material. A sand source for this project has not been identified at this time, although the Corps and the County are actively pursuing the development of alternative sand sources for future nourishment of the project. The estimated project cost with contingencies is $15,875,000, North Beach Alternative Sand Project: This project will combine the maintenance renourishment of the North Miami Beach segment (R41 through R43) while providing for in-situ testing of selected alternative sand sources being considered for future renourishment of the project. The specifics of the nourishment project, together with the monitoring protocols and objectives are now being developed cooperatively by the Corps, Dade County DERM, and the Department. The estimated volume offill material is estimated at between 400,000 and 500,000 cubic yards. Probable alternative sources which will be considered include upland silica sands and non-domestic Caribbean carbonate sands such as those available in the Turks and Caicos. The monitoring objectives of this project will focus on physical characteristics and performance of the selected alternatives, together with limited experimental treatments relating to potential sea turtle effects. This testing will be supplemented with additional in-situ testing as part of a companion project planned for implementation in John U, Lloyd Park in Broward County. The estimated construction cost of this project is $12,000,000, Government Cut Jetty Sand Tightening: This project includes the tightening of the landward 1,000 feet of the north jetty at Government Cut to improve project performance of the beach fill by eliminating sand leakage into Government Cut. The estimated cost of the jetty modifications are $1,200,000 with an anticipated construction date of Summer 1998, Dade Erosion Hotspot Assessment and Construction: This project includes conducting a detailed engineering analysis of one or more of the consistent erosion "hotspots" which exist in the Dade County Beach Erosion Control and Hurricane Protection Project, with subsequent implementation of the recommended action resulting from this analysis, The study phase will include wave refraction analysis and sediment transport characteristics of the study area to determine the causes of the high erosion rates in these areas. The probable test site will be the central Miami Beach hotspot (approximately R53 to R57). Based on a recently completed regional sediment budget for Dade County, this area has shown high shoreline recession and volumetric losses, while areas immediately south of the hotspot have been highly accretional. A possible objective of the study phase will be to recommend structural or other means of inducing intentional downdrift "impacts" to slow the loss of material from the hotspot and corresponding high rates of accretion downdrift. The estimated total cost of this project (study and construction phases) is $650,000. Dade Sand Relocation: The results of a recently completed sediment budget for Dade County (Coastal Systems International, 1997) indicated a number of accretional segemcnts of shoreline immediately downdrift of erosion hotspsts. This would suggest a problem with sand distribution rather than loss in some parts of the Dade County littoral system, To better manage the sand resources on the project, Miami-Dade County has requested the Corps to evaluate the feasibility of relocating material from accretional to erosional areas as an authorized project feature, rather than an operations/ maintenance item, The requested funding would provide for the annual cost of relocating this material, subject to a favorable recommendation from the Corps study. Metropolitan Dade County Long Range Beach Erosion Control Plan Project Description Project Name: Key Biscayne Beach Erosion Control Project. This project consists of initial restoration, ongoing maintenance renourishment, dune construction and vegetation, and monitoring of approximately 4,2 miles of critically eroded shoreline on Key Biscayne, Project Location: R94 through R113 Project Evaluation: Mitigation oflnlet Effects: The project area represents the south terminus of the Atlantic barrier island chain and does not contain a natural or artificial inlet within the project segment. The project area is influenced by three inlets to the north: Government Cut, a major artificial inlet which is though to constitute a complete littoral barrier to transport, and Norris Cut, and Bear Cut, the only unstabilized inlets found in Dade, Broward, or Palm Beach Counties.. Threat to Upland Development! Benefits: The project area contains one section which is heavily developed with multi-family commercial and residential structures, flanked by undeveloped park areas. The north segment from R94 through RI0llies within the County-owned Crandon Park. This area is relatively undeveloped with the exception of paved access roads, and minor structures such as cabanas, snack bars, and restroom facilities, The central segment (RI01 though (RI08) lies within the municipal boundaries of the Village of Key Biscayne, This area is highly developed with multi-family commercial and residential structures, and approximately 80% of this shore front is armored with sewalls or other protective structures. A municipal ordinance for this area originally passed in 1989 prohibits the construction of major habitable structures seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line for all new development. Two major new developments within this segment are being re-developed in accordance with these requirements. The last section (RI08 through RII3) lies within the Bill Baggs Cape Horida State Recreation Area and is essentially undeveloped, Project Performance: The project area has been nourished on two occasions, In 1968, the northern end of Key Biscayne received approximately 196,000 cubic yards of sand was placed from an offshore borrow site. This portion of the project has remained stable and has not required subsequent renourishment. The central and southern portions of the project were initially constructed in 1987 using approximately 420,000 cubic yards of material dredged from an offshore borrow site south of Key Biscayne, and the construction of a terminal groin at the south terminus, The project performance to date has exceeded original design predictions, and much of the project has remained stable or, in some cases, accretional. The stability of the project is largely due to the existence of One segment I the vicinity of R I 06 appears to be a possible hotspot and is currently below the authorized design dimension, A recent analysis performed by Coastal.Systems International on behalf of the Village of Key Biscayne will evaluate the causes of the erosional trends in this area and propose recommendations on addressing it. The draft report also proposes implementing a renourishment of the project within the municipal limits of the Village, The .. .,. , proposed project would require approximately 70,000 cubic yards of sand to restore the original design dimensions, Availability of Federal Funds: The initial nourishment of the northern 1,9 miles of Key Biscayne was authorized by the River and Harbor Act of 1962 (Public Law PL-87-864) which provided for initial construction and periodic renourishment for a period of 10 years. The 1987 nourishment from the south end ofCrandon Park through the Cape Florida lighthouse (RIOI through RII3) was authorized pursuant to the provisions of Section 103, River and Harbor Act of 1962, This authorization provided federal participation for initial construction but not for periodic renourishment. Because of this, and the assumption of small quantities of sand needed for future maintenance renourishment of this project, federal participation is not anticipated at this time. Innovative Applications to Reduce Erosion: In 1997 the Village of Key Biscayne commissioned Coastal Systems International (CSI) to develop a fifty year beach management plan for the shorefront located within the Village's municipal boundaries. One element of the management plan will be to identify any erosional portions of the project, and recommend engineering solutions to mitigating that erosion. At present, the project has only one apparent "hotspot" located in the vicinity ofR106. CSI is currently evaluating this area as part of the management plan, and may consider structural or innovative technologies to address it. Local Commitment: Metropolitan Dade County has served as the Local Sponsor of all federal activities implemented on the project to date, and as lead agency for all non-federal activities including dune vegetation, derelict structure removal, and project monitoring. In June 1996, the Village of Key Biscayne created the Village Beach Resource and Management Task Force to oversee the management and maintenance of the Village's shorefront. The task force includes representatives from the Village Manager's Office and Council, Dade County DERM, the National Hurricane Center, the University of Miami, and the department (Cape Florida Park), At the recommendation of the Task Force, the Village allocated $132,000 from its FY 1997 budget for the development ofa 50 year Management Plan for the Village's beaches, This plan will include a comprehensive sediment budget for the Key Biscayne system, determination of erosion rates and the identification of hotspot areas, estimated future nourishment needs and sand sources, and other relevant technical and other issues needed to maintain the beach areas on Key Biscayne, This plan is expected to be completed during the summer of 1997. This project is consistent with the objectives of the Coastal Element of the Metropolitan Dade County Comprehensive Development Master Plan, which identifies beach renourishment, dune vegetation, and inlet management as objectives, State Commitment: The Key Biscayne project area has been identified by the Department as critically eroded, and the project is recommended for continued implementation by the Department's Beach Management Plan for Dade County. The State provided $529,000 in funding for the initial construction of the 1987 nourishment of Key Biscayne, and allocated an additional $70,000 for dune vegetation within the Village in 1991. Resolution Authorizing the Establishment Of th e Beach Erosion Control and Maintenance Dedicated Funding Task Force ') '- ( Agenda :I(-----',n No. 6 (D) ( 3 ) 10-8-96 ' J r RESOLUTION NO. R-lIDl-% RESOLUTION DIRECTING COUNTY MANAGER TO CONDUCT A STUDY OF BEACH NOURISHMENT, MANAGEMENT, PROTECTION AND MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES OF THE COUNTY, SUBJECT TO OBTAINING ADEQUATE STATE FUNDING TO CONDUCT SUCH STUDY; DIRECTING COUNTY MANAGER TO APPOINT A TASK FORCE TO DEVELOP OPTIONS AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A DEDICATED FUNDING SOURCE FOR SUCH ACTIVITIES WHEREAS, Dade County's .beachesare an integral part of the quality of life of this community, providing aesthetic, environmental, hurricane mitigation and other recreational benefits for our residents and tourists; and WHEREAS, the 1996 Florida Legislature has adopted policies reducing the State government's share in beach renourishment activities within the State of Florida from 75% of the nonfederal share to 50% of the nonfederal share; and WHEREAS, these policy changes will result in a larger local burden to maintain these activities, and increasing budget constraints on Dade County revenues will make funding these activities more difficult in the future; and WHEREAS, an important potential mechanism for insuring long term planning and successful implementation of beach restoration activities within Dade County and the State of Florida is through the development of an adequate and reliable source of dedicated funding; and .~ d- Ageno, Item No. 6(0)(3) Page No. 2 WHEREAS, State funding may be available to help defray the costs of conducting a study, which is integral to a proper assessment of appropriate dedicated funding options; . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA: section 1. Subject to obtaining adequate State funding to help defray costs, the County Manager is hereby directed to conduct a study of beach nourishment, management, protection and maintenance activities of Dade County (collectively, "beach protection activitieslt), including an economic analysis of the beach protection activities of Dade County that reflects, among other things, the actual dollar value and the beneficiaries of such activities. The County Manager is further directed to seek state funding to help defray the costs of such study. section 2. The County Manager is further directed to form a task force to develop options and make recommendations fora locally generated dedicated funding source for all beach protection activities. Based upon the study and the recommendations of the task force, the County Manager is directed to make a recommendation to this Board regarding an appropriate locally generated dedicated funding source for beach protection activities. ,~ ~ Agenda I~~m No. 6(0)(3) Page No. 3 ; The foregoing resolution was sponsored by commissioner Katy Sorenson and Commissioner Bruce Kaplan and was offered by commissioner F'aty ~B:Jl , who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by Commissioner 0iH1 ltIqpli~ and upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: ~ Miguel Diaz de la Portilla ~ Maurice A.Ferre dBlt Gwen Margolis ~ Dennis C. Moss ~ Pedro Reboredo ~ Javier D. Souto Arthur E. Teele, Jr. c:inD: . d I assed and adopted this 8th day of The Chairperson thereupon declared the resolution. u Y p (10) days after the date of its adoption October. 1996. This resolution ~hall become effective tenffective only upon an override by this unless vetoed by the Mayor, and ifvetoed, shall become e Board. James Burke Betty T. Ferguson Bruce Kaplan Natacha S. Millan Alexander Penelas Katy Sorenson ~ c:heJt 8Je aje aje 8BD: .~~- ........ ~..c,O M 41"" ... ~ /\S"" t." .' 0 i\ 0 o" -. <=' . -+. ~ . - ~ ..... . c' - o. oJ O. 'TY . . ' - . 0 \~ --....__ ...::. . \0 ' ~. ~: . OR,Q/4>: .., ~ .. ~~ *It* ~. Approved bY~Y Attorney ~!':" to form and legal SUfficiency.~ DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA BY ITS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS HARVEY RUVIN, CLERK .' \ j .........-....., ~ STATE OF FLORIDA ) ) ss: COUNTY OF DADE ) I. t-WtVEY R.NIN. CIeri< of the Circuit CoUrt In.and for Dade County, Flor~da. . and ex-Qfflclo Clerk of the Board of CoUnty o:mnlssloners of saId OJunty. 0::> t-EREBY CERTIFY that the above and foregoing Is a true and rorrect OJPY of Resolution I'b. R-1201-96 . adopted by the sa i d board of OXJ{lty O::mnl ss loners' at Its meeting held 00 October 8th 01 19 96 . IN Wlnc:ss~. 5th day ,of have hereunto set my hand and off Icial seal on November ! A.D. 19 96 this WIRVEY RNIN, Clerk Board of OXJnty O:mnissioners Dade . County , F lor ida SEAL Board of O::lUnty O:xm1lsSloners Dade OJUnty. Florida ~ CL(/CT ~67 3/93