by SC Reporter Emilie Alfino
Many citizens were on hand, and many more submitted emails, as the City Council considered a resolution to establish the Wulfert Channel and Dinkins Bayou Area Dredging Assessment District to finance public improvements for maintenance dredging in the Wulfert Channel, Sunset Bay, and Dinkins Bayou.
The need to dredge these areas was raised by residents who live in the residential areas with water access to the Dinkins Bayou area. As a result of hurricanes Ian, Helene, and Milton, the Wulfert Channel, Sunset Bay, and Dinkins Bayou have accumulated bottom sediment that is impeding marine navigation. This has been confirmed through bottom surveys.
An emergency permit has been obtained from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for Wulfert Channel which requires work to begin by September 1, 2025. The City has applied for an emergency permit from the USACE for Dinkins Bayou and anticipates receiving the permit any day.
The total cost of the entire dredging project is $3,190,650 (that’s $16,000 for surveys, $2,838,800 for dredging, and $335,850 for dredge material hauling). The City would fund 33.33 percent of the project cost. Property owners within the established assessment area would be responsible for 66.67 percent of the cost.
There are 202 affected parcels, making each owner’s share $10,636.03.
As written, the Resolution offers options for property owners to pay the assessment through one-year, two-year, and three-year installments at 4.5 percent interest.
The resolution also calls for an additional assessment of $1,200 per year per property owner beginning with the 2026 tax year to establish a fund to pay for future maintenance dredging.
Many residents complained that they received notice of the Resolution just two or three days before the City Council meeting and didn’t have time to prepare responses. Indeed, 59 notification letters to affected residents were returned as undeliverable, although the City uses the Lee County Property Assessors’ records to determine mailing addresses.
City Council directed City Manager Dana Souza to conduct public meetings or find some other means of engaging the public on this matter. Council member Richard Johnson said, “We have got to pick up the pace, but we cannot ignore the community.”
In discussing the Resolution before the Council, Mayor Mike Miller stressed, “This is the very first step. Public hearings will take place in August.”
In actuality, the Resolution clearly states it is “a Resolution Expressing the Intent of the City Council of the City of Sanibel, Florida, to Declare a Special Assessment to Finance a Public Improvement …”
While Council member Holly Smith argued that this meant the Council intended to gather more information, Council member Laura DeBruce said it is not, in fact, about the intent to gather more information but rather an intent “to declare a special assessment.” If the Council passes a resolution today, it will then be published and notice given. It won’t say “intent to gather more information”; it will say “intent to declare a special assessment.”
Should Sanibel and its citizens bear the full cost of this project? The waterways are used by many residents and tourists from the county, state, and other jurisdictions. The Council seemed – unhopeful – that Lee County would contribute. “Lee County has a responsibility here, but they find themselves in a deficit,” Johnson said.
“We will not stop looking for money to reduce the cost to the property owners and the city,” said City Manager Dana Souza.
“The City doesn’t have an obligation to dredge,” said City Attorney John Agnew. “The whole proposal came from property owners.”
Council member John Henshaw enumerated three possibilities:
(1) Do nothing.
(2) Do Wulfert and Dinkins now if you get a 2/3 approval vote from the community.
(3) Do Dinkins now and pressure Lee County to do Wulfert
Johnson added, “Doing nothing is an alternative. I don’t know if it’s the best alternative.” He continued to say that passing this Resolution does not determine, “who is doing the dredging, who is paying for the dredging, or if we even do the dredging.”
“We need to go back to the drawing board and start over,” DeBruce said. “It’s clearly a problem, but this doesn’t resolve it.”
There wasn’t much disagreement that dredging would increase property values, some even saying much more than the $10,363.03 assessment.
“If the County doesn’t do it, it’s our responsibility to take care of Sanibelians,” Smith said.
City Council voted 4-1 (DeBruce voting “no”) to instruct City staff to bring back a revised resolution with (1) no future assessment, and (2) an additional five-year payout option. With so many issues and opinions on the Resolution, City Council members decided to defer it to the next meeting on June 12.
Excerpts from a sampling of residents’ emails:
• “We urge the Council to at a minimum table this project until answers to these points are more carefully researched. Fundamentally, this dredging should not be undertaken by the City of Sanibel when it so clearly benefits many users from other communities, and so few of the abutters. If the Council decides to proceed with this effort, then at a very bare minimum the affected abutters should have the opportunity to vote on this proposal; to do otherwise amounts to taxation without representation.”
• “I am writing this letter in strong opposition to the proposed dredging of the waterways around our home. … This is being imposed on residents unfairly and should not be shouldered only by the immediate homeowners. Everyone in a vessel on the waterways can use these areas and should therefore not be paid by a select few residents. … This is ‘rushed’ in my opinion and should at least be tabled for further review. The majority of us residents are at our summer residences or working. Since this is 9 a.m., I am personally still working and will be treating patients and cannot attend. That is just not right.”
• “[This] is great news for those that have boats or have properties whose values are enhanced by having deep water access through safe, navigable waterways.”
• “I will be supporting this project.”
• “We are also in support of this project. Losing boating access would be far more costly in terms of reduced market value of our properties than any assessment(s) we will pay. Most importantly, we bought our property in 2016 precisely because we could have a boat in our backyard and use it whenever we wanted. Our ability to do that has been reduced by the changes in Dinkins and Wulfert, and if this is the only way to make access less tide-dependent, we support it.”
• “I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed dredging assessment. … This proposal places a disproportionate financial burden on a small number of residents for the maintenance of public waterways – resources that benefit and are accessed by the wider community, not just those being asked to fund them.”
• “I am writing to oppose the Special Assessment District as currently proposed. … Mention is made of protecting property values of abutters. Is protection of property value actually one of the responsibilities of the City of Sanibel?”
• “We were quite appalled that this [Council] meeting is occurring at a time when very few homeowners are present on the island. And we are appalled at the short notice given. …. After three hurricanes in the past few years, redoing our landscaping and restoring our house to the tune of $600,000, we are TIRED. We are WEARY. And we are going broke trying to stay on the island.”