Beach Renourishment 2026

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

• April 7, 2026 – Beach Renourishment (DPKI)Bocilla Lagoon Presentation
• April 7, 2026 – Community Meeting Notes
• July 22, 2026 – MSBU Public Hearing Presentation

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.