Beach Renourishment 2026 - Palm Island Estates

PIE Action recently received copies of the PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE with regards to beach renourishment. We are writing to ensure that everyone is fully informed about the upcoming MSBU taxing unit changes related to the Don Pedro Island beach renourishment project, and to outline several unresolved questions and concerns that may guide your position ahead of the July 22nd public hearing.

CALL TO ACTION

If you oppose the proposed MSBU apportionment or have concerns about the unanswered questions below, please make your voice heard:

Email the Charlotte County Board of County Commissioners:
Chris.Constance@CharlotteCountyFL.gov, Ken.Doherty@CharlotteCountyFL.gov, Bill.Truex@CharlotteCountyFL.gov, StephenR.Deutsch@CharlotteCountyFL.gov, Joseph.Tiseo@CharlotteCountyFL.gov

Attend the Public Hearing:
Wednesday, July 22 at 5:01 PM
Tringali Park Community Center 3460 North Access Road, Englewood, FL 34224

Your participation is essential to ensuring that the County understands the community’s concerns and expectations.

Supporting Materials

A Brief History

Charlotte County has historically funded beach renourishment through a two part MSBU structure:

A Recreation (REC) assessment applied to all Island parcels
An additional Nearshore Beach Zone (NBZ) assessment applied only to beachfront parcels

The current apportionment model applies 80% of the project cost to the REC assessment and 20% to the NBZ assessment.

For years, property owners paid a modest annual amount — approximately $220 for capital costs plus $18.77 for regular maintenance. Under the new cycle, however, the proposed REC rate jumps dramatically to $1,903.69 per EDU (“equivalent dwelling unit”) per year for 8 years, with a maximum rate of $2,466.43 per EDU without the external funding sources.

This increase is driven by higher project costs, the necessity of dune restoration, changes to the funding model, and uncertainty around federal, state, and county contributions.

Unanswered Questions

Several points remain unclear from the County staff’s May 19th PowerPoint presentation, which included a memorandum prepared by an outside consultant for the Commission that outlines the funding model:

Benefit Area Definition – The County asserts that only island properties receive recreation and storm damage reduction benefits. How is “proximity” defined? Why would mainland residents not be included when they use and benefit from public beaches?
Storm Protection Logic – Barrier islands reduce hurricane wind impact and storm surge for the mainland. Shouldn’t that justify broader cost sharing across West County?
Equity Across Public Assets – All Charlotte County residents contribute to the general ad valorum tax which pays for local parks, and a discrete ad valorem tax for Stump Pass dredging. Why is beach renourishment treated differently?
Tourism Revenue & Bed Tax Contributions – With the Island supporting a high volume of rentals and tourist accommodations, why has the apportionment model not incorporated funding from the Tourist Development Tax (bed tax) or other tourism generated revenue streams? Has the County evaluated whether these sources should offset project costs for a beach heavily used by visitors?
County Responsibility for Dune Restoration – After Hurricane Idalia destroyed the beach dunes, the County chose not to rebuild them at that time, which subsequently contributed to the increased flooding and resulting damage from Hurricanes Helene and Milton across the Island and the mainland. Should Island property owners bear the cost of this decision?
Funding Stability – The County’s presentation noted federal, state, and local contributions totaling more than $6.5 million. Are these commitments firmly secured, and could any portion be redirected to other County priorities — potentially leaving property owners responsible for the maximum assessment rate?
Magnitude of Increase – The proposed rate represents an 850% increase over the prior cycle. What justifies such a dramatic jump for a public beach used by residents, visitors, and tourists alike?

Arguments for Opposing the Tax Increase

Members who oppose the proposed MSBU structure may wish to highlight:

The disproportionate burden placed on island property owners for a public amenity used countywide.
The lack of clarity on benefit area boundaries and apportionment methodology.
The County’s failure to rebuild dunes after Hurricane Idalia, which contributed to extreme flooding.
The uncertainty of federal and state funding, which could leave property owners responsible for the maximum rate.
The inequity compared to other public assets funded through ad valorem taxes.
The absence of tourist-based revenue sources in the funding model.
The sudden and extreme increase in annual assessments.

Meeting Report: MSBU Public Hearing

July 22, 2026
The Charlotte County Board of Commissioners held a public hearing on July 22, 2026, to review updated information on the Beach Renourishment MSBU. Commissioners Tiseo, Constance, Doherty, Truex, and Deutsch attended, along with County Attorney Thomas David, Public Works Director John Elias, and Fiscal Services Division Manager Rick Arthur.

The beach renourishment MSBU is now in its second year of a 2-year budget cycle, when adjustments are made based on updated conditions. Although the MSBU rate is reviewed annually, once set it may only decrease, not increase. The revised rate will appear on the September TRIM notice, followed by a second public hearing before final inclusion on the tax bill.
Mr. Arthur reported updated assessment rates of $1,326.53 annually for REC properties. The initial assessment was reduced due to the appropriation of an additional $6,744,521 in federal funding.

John Elias provided a status update on beach conditions and funding. Since the last renourishment cycle, five major storms and several “no name” storms have caused significant erosion, increasing sand needs by 27%. Sand costs have risen by roughly 2.5 times the price per cubic yard compared to eight years ago, and the current cycle includes the required dune restoration. Elias noted that FEMA and the State have appropriated nearly $9 million for the project, with an additional $7 million pending. The County has four years to secure the remaining funds and expects to do so. If the $7M appropriation is secured, the MSBU assessment will be reduced.

Mr. Elias cautioned that FEMA’s obligated funds depend on the project remaining materially consistent with the approved scope. Any reduction or redesign requires FEMA approval and may affect permitting and eligibility for federal and state funding. Smaller projects may not qualify for certain funding sources. He emphasized that the project cannot be delayed, noting additional erosion from the wave action of the recent tropical storm.

Commissioner Constance questioned the “Milton Pass anomaly,” asking whether the State intends to fund closure of the gap and who would bear the cost. Mr. Elias clarified that Milton Pass is not included in current project estimates and that any state involvement would need to align with the County’s mobilization schedule.

Staff addressed several recurring public questions. They explained the distinction between capital expenditures such as dredging and sand placement, and maintenance activities such as beach profile monitoring and required environmental reporting.

Staff also noted that project estimates evolve as new field data becomes available. Commissioner Constance added that mobilization costs dominate project expenses, making larger projects more cost efficient because mobilization occurs only once.

Mr. Arthur provided a breakdown of the County funding for the entire beach renourishment project (both Manasota Key and Don Pedro-Knight Island): $11.5 million from countywide ad valorem taxes, $3 million from tourist bed taxes, and $1.6 million from voter registration fees. Commissioner Deutsch questioned the limited use of bed tax revenue. Arthur explained that statutory formulas govern allocations but agreed to examine potential flexibility.

Commissioner Tiseo suggested increasing the County’s annual contribution to $3.5–$4 million in response to rising costs and referenced the County’s disaster retention fund as a possible source. This additional County funding would be applied to both the Manasota Key and DP-KI portions of the project. Commissioner Truex agreed that an increased County share is justified and noted fuel costs as a volatile budget factor.

The Commissioners concluded from the public input that most people want beach renourishment, but the MSBU tax is just too much.

You can view the PowerPoint presentation from the July 22nd hearing here: PowerPoint Presentation