Loading...
BCC Minutes 09/04/2025 BSeptember 4, 2025 Page 1 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, September 4, 2025 BUDGET HEARING LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Board of County Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 5:05 p.m., in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following Board members present: Chairman: Burt L. Saunders Dan Kowal Chris Hall Rick LoCastro William L. McDaniel, Jr. ALSO PRESENT: Amy Patterson, County Manager Ed Finn, Deputy County Manager Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney Troy Miller, Communications & Customer Relations September 4, 2025 Page 2 MS. PATTERSON: Chair, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: I'm glad we have a deputy here tonight to deal with our crowd control. COMMISSIONER HALL: Exactly. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: We'll start off with the Pledge of Allegiance, and then we'll do the roll call. Colonel LoCastro, will you lead us in the Pledge. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Ms. Patterson, would it be sufficient to simply say all five commissioners are here, we'll proceed with the meeting; we don't need to do a roll call or anything? MS. PATTERSON: Yes, sir. Welcome to your first of your budget hearings. And Mr. Chris Johnson is going to lead us through. We're going to be starting with Pelican Bay Services, and he is going to navigate you through all of the necessary steps. MR. JOHNSON: Thank you, Ms. Patterson. Good evening, Commissioners. For the record, Christopher Johnson, your director of Corporate Financial Management Services. As Amy said, welcome to our first of two required public budget hearings for the FY '25/FY '26 budget. Tonight's discussion will include a review of the Pelican Bay Services division budget. We are seeking to adopt a resolution approving levying the special assessment roll for the District. This action will be followed by the Board of County Commissioners budget hearing where we will be discussing the tentative millage rates and changes to the tentative budget. Everybody's favorite part, I will read into the record the tentative millage rates. We will then adopt the tentative millage rate resolution and tentative budget resolution. And finally, we will announce the time and place for the final public hearing. September 4, 2025 Page 3 Tonight there will be an opportunity for public comment for both the Pelican Bay budget hearing and the BCC budget hearing. Agendas and speaker slips are available out in the hallway. Anyone interested in addressing the Board regarding the budget must complete a slip and provide it to Mr. Miller, right over there with his hand up. He will collect the slips and announce the names of the speakers at the appropriate time. And with that, I will briefly go over our budget timeline and give you a quick outline of where we've been on the path towards our first public hearing before we get started with Pelican Bay. All right. I think everyone's familiar with this. We have a few more peach-colored squares here, so we're moving our way along. So I'll just kind of go over this real quick for those that are new to this. We started the budget process in February with our budget policy discussion. That was followed by a strategic plan priority-based budgeting workshop in March and the adoption of the FY '26 budget policy also in March. This budget policy provided the framework for the departments to build their FY '25/'26 budgets. Then in June, the County Manager presented the Board with her recommended budget, and the Board heard a presentation from ResourceX on the progress of our priority-based budgeting initiative, including Phase 2, which is now focused on process efficiencies. On July 1st, we received certified taxable value from the Property Appraiser. On July 8th, the Board adopted the maximum millage for FY '26 with the countywide and unincorporated rates set at the maximum of millage neutral. On July 11th, the Board received the FY '26 budget document which included changes from the June workshop. On August 18th, the Property Appraiser mailed the TRIM September 4, 2025 Page 4 notices, and they were sent to all the property owners in the county. Today is our first of two FY '25/FY '26 budget hearings, and on September 12th -- and this was included in the TRIM notices sent out to the property owners. September 12th is the deadline to file a petition with the Value Adjustment Board. And then finally, we have our final FY '25/'26 budget hearing on September 18th; that is a Thursday, at 5:05. And last but not least, I guess, is our office will submit the TRIM compliance package to the Department of Revenue in early October. With that, we'll jump right into Pelican Bay Service Division budget, as that is the first item on the docket. Mr. Dorrill and Mr. Coleman are in the room to present, and I'll turn it over to them. MR. DORRILL: Thank you. Good evening, Commissioners. As has been our practice since the inception of the District, a major source of funding is a non-ad valorem assessment for both operations and capital. There is an associated ad valorem tax and millage that funds a streetlighting program and our Capital Improvement Fund within the subdivision. This year's budget is 800 -- $8,214,100, and of that amount -- I'm going to break this down in a couple of ways and then answer any questions that you have. Our operations and maintenance assessment was approved with a 3 percent increase in the regular portion of the assessment. It does include a $45 increase as a one-time replenishment of our contingency reserve that was exhausted following Hurricanes Ian and Milton last fall. Additionally, there's a small increase in our Clam Bay cost center of $10 this coming year for some expanded service opportunities in some work that we're going to be doing within the Natural Resource Protection Area. Our capital program is where the real, I think, issue from a September 4, 2025 Page 5 policy perspective for this board is. Our capital assessment is scheduled to increase on a one-time basis by $455 to help fund next fall's beach renourishment project, again, as a result of the hurricane activity, next year. Vanderbilt Beach and the Pelican Bay Beach will be renourished. We have separate programs to help reconstruct the dune and to reclaim some of the sand that overwashed the dune and in the mangrove area. We'll be doing that earlier this fall. Overall, the thing that I need to get into the record is that the total maintenance and operational assessment for next year is $5,888,165. That breaks down to $768.70 per unit. The separate capital assessment is $5,984,680, or $781.30 per equivalent residential unit. The total number of ERUs next year remain unchanged at 7,659 and 9/10 of a unit that also include property that you own in, particularly, the maintenance site where we are. And in addition, even other properties, not only the two major hotels and the Inn at Pelican Bay and the Waterside Shops, but even the Catholic church in the community is contributing in support of the maintenance and operations of the community. As a quick aside, our operation facility that was destroyed during Hurricane Ian is scheduled to receive a CO later this month. It's a big deal for your employees there. It is also a welcome relief to what has been a series of trailers and ocean-going containers that we have been operating out of now for almost three years since the hurricane. That facility was destroyed. And with some insurance proceeds and hopefully some FEMA reimbursement, that new $5.4 million facility will reopen to the community, and we would hope to see you there at that time. The recommendation is that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the resolution that is attached to the executive September 4, 2025 Page 6 summary this evening approving both the special assessment roll for those benefiting properties that I alluded to and also levying the combined special assessment for both operations as well as capital in the amounts that I have provided. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. MR. DORRILL: I can also tell you that this comes to you with a unanimous recommendation of your advisory board there and the commercial partners. And I have spoken separately to the two hotels and also the Waterside Shops and Marketplaces at Pelican Bay, because they're also contributing into this. And with that, I'll stop and see if you have any questions. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. Before we go to the public comments, are there any questions or comments from the Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Seeing none, Mr. Miller, do we have any registered speakers online? MR. MILLER: We do, Commissioner. And if I've done this right, I believe Marsha Oenick does want to speak of this. I'm going to ask Nicole Rolando, who's online, Nicole, if you want to speak on Pelican Bay, please raise your hand on Zoom. Marsha, you're being asked to unmute yourself, if you'll do so at this time. All right, Marsha. I see you're unmuted. You have three minutes. MS. OENICK: Thank you, Commissioners, for allowing me to make a very brief comment. I am frankly surprised that the County is assessed for this non-ad valorem tax as well -- and I get it for individual homeowners, but I find it quite surprising that the various recreational areas of Pelican Bay are not assessed this ad valorem tax. This includes the community center, their beach buildings and so on. And the -- when September 4, 2025 Page 7 I look at the tax bills for these, it says they're recreational areas. Well, I would say the library and the park are certainly recreational areas, yet the County is assessed this non-ad valorem tax. The police department and the fire department are in the service category, and they are taxed as well. I don't understand this. I -- it's not helpful to the budget of the county to have to pay this ad valorem assessment. Thank you very much. MR. MILLER: Mr. Chair, that was the only registered speaker we have for the Pelican Bay portion of the budget. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Mr. Dorrill, do you have any response to that or -- MR. DORRILL: Quickly, I think it's important. There is a statute -- and Mr. Klatzkow could help me with this -- that provides for a uniform method of assessments statewide for situations like this where we are levying a non-ad valorem assessment against all benefiting properties. And way back in the origination of Pelican Bay and the former Pelican Bay improvement district, there was a methodology that was performed that assigned those benefits to all the properties within the community, and that's why I alluded to the fact that whether it's the Catholic church or your library or the fire station, the golf and country club there pay a substantial number of ERUs in support of the District. But all of that is prescribed by Florida law within that statute. I'm not sure if it's 125 or 127. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: I think we're ready for a motion. Mr. Dorrill, do you want to let us know what the motion is that will meet your needs? MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. Again, the appropriate motion would be to approve and adopt the resolution and authorize the Chairman to sign the resolution for a number that will be reserved to both approve the special assessment roll that I just alluded to and levying a special September 4, 2025 Page 8 assessment against those benefiting properties within the District. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. Do we have a motion? COMMISSIONER HALL: I'll move to do exactly what he said. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And I'll second to do exactly what he said. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: We have a motion and second. I don't see any discussion. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALL: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Aye. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: That passes unanimously. MR. DORRILL: Thank you for what you do, collectively. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Thank you, Mr. Dorrill. MR. DORRILL: We would hope to see you at our dedication perhaps in a month. COMMISSIONER HALL: I'll be there. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Thank you. MR. JOHNSON: All right, Commissioners. Before we jump into the Board's budget hearing, as I stated earlier, the TRIM notices were mailed out to all county property owners on August 18th, 2025. Our office, and I'm sure all your offices, have received many calls regarding these notices. So I thought this would be a good time to do a quick educational review of a TRIM notice a couple minutes here. So I'm just going to start. And I'm sorry this is hard to read because there's a lot going on on the TRIM notice. But if you look up -- I'm good. My mouse works on this. September 4, 2025 Page 9 We'll start at the top here. Your market value of your property is listed up here by the No. 1. That is the just value of the property, determined by the Property Appraiser as of January 1st, the beginning of this year, so 2025. Down here where the No. 2 is, that's the assessed value of the property for assessment, and that -- that is the amount of the property less any Save our Homes benefit, which is the benefit you get from the Constitution of Florida where you only can be raised 3 percent a year if you're a homesteaded property, and then there's also a 10 percent non-homestead cap there that reduce the market value to the assessed value for homeowners who are not residents or not homesteaded. There's a few other ones in there, agricultural and working waterfront as well. From there, you take the assessed value and you reduce it by any exemptions. The most popular exemption, as most of us probably have here, is the homestead exemption. That was previously $50,000 a year. Amendment 5 that was on the ballot last fall now increases that with CPI. So for this year, as you can see here on this example, it's $50,722. And then finally, that get you to No. 3 here, which is your taxable value. This is the amount that is used to calculate the tax levied for the property. Moving down here to these columns, you have Column 1, 2, and 3, and I'll go over those in a minute. But the 4 and the 5 here, the 4 is the millage rate or tax rate per thousand dollars of taxable value. And then finally, the No. 5 is the tax amount, the amount of property tax, and that is calculated by taking No. 3, your taxable value, multiplying it by No. 4, your millage rate, and then dividing it by a thousand, and that's how you get to the numbers you see in these -- in Column 5. So to go on with the colors here -- and I will say I'm not very September 4, 2025 Page 10 good at computers. This was kind of hard to do, so I apologize. You can't really see through it. But I just wanted to point out that the yellow area here, this line right here, is the BCC-controlled taxing districts. That's under IDA. So that is what we're going to be talking about tonight. Now, everybody's tax bills are a little different. You may have multiple MSTUs that apply to us [sic]. You may -- this person has just the General Fund and the Unincorporated Area General Fund. But this is the area right here that is under the Board of County Commissioner's control. The blue area in Column 1 here is last year's tax rate and property taxes, the purple area is your rolled-back tax rate and property taxes, and finally, the green area here is this year's proposed tax rates and property tax. When you look all the way down at the bottom, the gray area, that's the total property tax for each of those columns. So all the taxing authorities. And again, here, the yellow is the Board's. They have public schools on this one, you have South Florida Water Management District, and then you have independent districts that includes the Collier Mosquito Control and the Greater Naples Fire District. So those all add up in the gray to get you your overall millage rate, which on this example is 10.5 for the proposed, 9.6625 for the rolled-back, and 10.07 -- I think that's 00 for the -- for last year's. So in this example here, when you're looking at this, you can see the millage rate went up by about -- it looks like it's .4358. And that amount there is mainly due to the Greater Naples Fire. Again, they had a referendum, and they're increasing their millage from 1.5 to 2. Any questions on any of that before we hop into what we have to do tonight? (No response.) September 4, 2025 Page 11 MR. JOHNSON: All right. Thank you. All right. So with that, I would like to welcome everyone to the first of two public hearings on the Collier County Government Fiscal Year 2025/'26 budget. Fiscal Year 2025/'26 begins October 1st, 2025, and runs through September 30th, 2026. This public budget hearing -- the public budget hearing, excuse me, in September must follow a specific format pursuant to the State of Florida Truth in Millage or TRIM guidelines. This presentation is scripted -- so I apologize in advance -- pursuant to the TRIM statutes. So if you will indulge me a while, I'm going to read some things into the record as we normally do, then there will be time for public comment, and then we will move on to the action items on the agenda. Your agenda contains a specific sequence of agenda items to be covered pursuant to the statute. This hearing was advertised as part of the TRIM notices mailed to all the county property owners on the week of August 18th. The final budget hearing is two weeks from tonight on September 18th, 2025. The final hearing will be noticed as part of a statutory advertising requirement contained in the Truth in Millage statutes. The final hearing notice advertisement will appear in the Naples Daily News on September 15th, 2025, and depending on action tonight, will either contain a notice of proposed tax increase or a budget hearing notice. A notice of proposed tax increase is necessary when the County's tentatively adopted aggregate millage rate is greater than the current year's aggregate rolled-back rate. A budget hearing notice is necessary when the current year aggregate millage rate is less than or equal to the current year's aggregate rolled-back rate. The final tax rate and budget decisions will be made at the final hearing on September 18th, 2025. September 4, 2025 Page 12 As stated earlier, agenda and speaker slips are available in the hallway. Anyone interested in addressing the Board of County Commissioners regarding the County's budget must complete a speaker slip. Again, Mr. Troy Miller is over there, and he will collect the slips. Following some introductory remarks regarding tax rates and changes to the tentative budget released in mid-July, there will be an opportunity under Agenda Item 1C for public comments. Speakers will be called by name. The TRIM notice mailed to all property owners indicated that close of business 5 p.m. September 12th, 2025, is the deadline for property owners to contact the property appraiser and file a petition for market value adjustment with the Value Adjustment Board. With that, we'll move to the taxable value and millage rates. Taxable value for the County increased by 8.49 percent and 8.81 percent in the unincorporated area. It increased to 164.9 billion and 104.9 billion respectively. 4.3 billion of the $12.9 billion increase in the countywide taxable value is net new taxable value. Likewise, in the Unincorporated Area General Fund, 3.2 billion of $9.5 billion increase is attributed to net new taxable value. Of note, the Florida Constitution provides a 3 percent limit to annual assessed value increases for homestead property for all taxing authorities and a 10 percent limit to the annual assessed value increase for non-homesteaded property for all taxing authorities with the exception of state and local school board taxing authorities. As a result, at the maximum millage rate, a typical homestead property owner would see a modest increase in the overall BCC-related taxes due this year, and non-homesteaded property owners would be limited to a 10 percent increase as it pertains to county taxes. September 4, 2025 Page 13 Item #1A REVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF TENTATIVE MILLAGE RATES AND INCREASES OVER THE ROLLED BACK MILLAGE RATES MR. JOHNSON: Millage rates, this brings us to Item 1A on the agenda, discussion of the percent increase in millage over the rolled-back rate needed to fund the budget and the reasons ad valorem tax revenues above the rolled-back rate as calculated on state DR form 420 are being increased. The rolled-back rate is defined as the tax rate necessary to generate prior-year tax revenues, and this tax rate is calculated not including taxable values associated with new construction, additions, deletions, and rehabilitative improvements. The Board adopted maximum millage rates in July at the millage neutral operating levy for all countywide levies. Millage neutral rates are 3.0107, 2.0246, and 2.2096 for the General Fund, Water Pollution Control Fund, and Conservation Collier Fund respectfully. Likewise, the Unincorporated Area General Fund maximum millage rate was also set at millage neutral, or 0.6844. Levies for the General Fund and Unincorporated Area General Fund together represent the majority of the total aggregate taxes levied across all county taxing authorities for FY 2026. The FY 2026 tentative General Fund and Unincorporated Area General Fund operating capital budgets, as presented, are based upon the Board-adopted maximum millage rates. Countywide funds including the General Fund and Unincorporated Area General Fund proposed tax rates are higher than the rolled-back rate. Collier County taxable value has increased for FY '26 by 8.49 percent countywide and 8.81 percent within the September 4, 2025 Page 14 Unincorporated Area General Fund. With an increasing taxable value environment, the rolled-back rate will be lower than the millage-neutral rate. This -- in this case -- this is the case, I'm sorry, for FY 2026. Any questions on any of that before I move on? CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: I don't see any. MR. JOHNSON: All right. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: We can move on. MR. JOHNSON: This slide contains the MSTU millage rates. Per policy, these budgets were established to cover operational needs for FY '26 and any planned allocations. The proposed maximum millage rates were set to support those budgets. Of note on this list, Haldeman Creek is proposed to be increased back to the customary 1.0000 mills. Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage MSTU is proposed to be reduced from 4 to 2.5 mills. Sabal Palm MSTU is proposed to be reestablished at a millage rate of 1.0000. And the Private Road Emergency Repair MSTU is proposed to be established at 1.000 [sic] as well. All right. Referring to Exhibit 1A on -- 1A, Page 1, Packet Page 37, millage rates for each Collier County taxing authority have been established pursuant to Board guidance. The roster of tax rates adopted by the Board on July 8th, 2025, represents the maximum property rates that can be levied for FY '26. The cumulative aggregate rolled-back rate for all county taxing authorities, exclusive of debt service, totals 3.5870 per thousand dollars of taxable value. The proposed aggregate rate for all Collier County taxing authorities, exclusive of debt service, totals 3.7675 per thousand dollars of taxable value. This represents an increase of 5.03 percent over the aggregate rolled-back rate, and adoption of these rates at the tentative rates would necessitate a notice of proposed tax increase advertisement for September 4, 2025 Page 15 TRIM purposes and not simply a budget summary advertisement. Final millage rates will be adopted by the Board on September 18th, 2025. Any questions on any of that before I move on to the changes? CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Nope. Item #1B REVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF CHANGES TO THE TENTATIVE BUDGET MR. JOHNSON: All right. This is Item 1B, review and discussion of changes to the tentative budget. For tonight's hearing, changes from FY 2026 tentative budget that was given to everyone in July, as noted within Exhibit 1B, pertain to customary adjustments to the Tax Collector and Property Appraiser's budgets. These budgets were received in August. Adjustments to certain funds reflecting FY 2025 revenue and expense changes, which resulted in adjustments to the FY 2026 carryforward or beginning cash balance. Transfer adjustments for required rebates to the U.S. Department of Treasury related to Series 2020A, special obligation revenue bonds and Series 2021 Collier County Water/Sewer District revenue bonds. Adjustments for position reclassifications, transfers, and BCC-approved additions and other customary and routine revenue and expense adjustments required to support capital projects or operations as the FY 2026 fiscal year begins. These fund-level adjustments occur as a matter of normal operations or are necessary in accordance with previous Board action or direction. Detailed budgetary resolution changes are found within -- within September 4, 2025 Page 16 Exhibit 1B, Pages 4 to 24, or Packet Pages 43 to 63. A summary of these actions is described within Exhibit 1B, Page 1 through 3, or Packet Page 40 to 42. The gross budget change amount is a reduction of about -- of, excuse me, $873,200. There are no proposed changes to the maximum millage rates set by the Board on July 8th, 2025. Any questions on these budget changes since July? (No response.) Item #1C PUBLIC COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS - MOTION TO APPROVE THE MAXIMUM MILLAGE RATE AT RATE NEUTRAL FOR FY26 BY COMMISSIONER MCDANIEL; SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LOCASTRO – APPROVED MR. JOHNSON: All right. Mr. Chair, that moves us to Item 1C, public comment and questions. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Mr. Miller? MR. MILLER: We have two registered speakers on Zoom. We're going to go back to Marsha Oenick first and then to Nicole Rolando. Marsha, you're being asked to unmute yourself again, if you'll do so. I see you've done that. You have three minutes. MS. OENICK: Thank you. My name is Marsha Oenick, and I live in Naples Park. Thank you, Commissioners, department leaders, and staff for your hard work in establishing a budget that meets the goal the commissioners set a few months ago. Hopefully this budget will allow all county residents to enjoy the efficient service I have personally witnessed September 4, 2025 Page 17 since I moved here in 2015 with regards to the many things we need from county government, including waste management, refurbishing infrastructure, and storm sewers in my neighborhood, and care before and after the inevitable hurricanes, among many others. I look forward to continue enjoying the public library system which we learned recently is already the most cost effective in terms of per capita cost in Southwest Florida, and especially to using my local branch, Vanderbilt Beach Library, which serves an important part of the county population. Be sure our small team will continue to both ensure this branch is allowed to continue to serve that population well and to support the general well-being of the entire library system. Commissioners, I caution you as you continue to work with consultants to further improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the government to be sure the goals for their work are clear. Much of my career in an operating company of Johnson & Johnson was spent on process improvement and cost reduction both while I was leading organizations designing, delivering, and supporting projects and while I was director of process excellence in which I oversaw training of people to do this kind of work and oversaw their projects. So I personally know the difficulties and benefits of this work. When I was director of process excellence, we drilled our students and practitioners that it is critical to establish useful metrics and measures to define the work to be done and to track its progress. Sometimes this meant the project wasn't appropriate to do, as the benefits were going to be small compared with the benefits from working on other projects. Process improvement -- process improvements are the most important and the most difficult. Cutting inefficiencies in processes is hard work, especially when the process crosses multiple departments. I know this personally from my work improving the September 4, 2025 Page 18 product development and delivery process and the complaint-handling process, both processes that involve many departments of the company. The project to improve the procurement process is an important and critical one, and it will require a clear plan and much patience to get it defined and then get it fully implemented. Frankly, implementation is the hardest and trickiest to do, as people's jobs will be changing and management is impatient to get resolved. For this project and all others that they propose, please instruct your consultants to be very clear about the metrics they are using, what the current state of those metrics are, what the targets are, and how they establish them, and demand timelines with clear milestones to monitor progress. The county is growing at a rapid pace. You have much work to do to manage that growth carefully so that citizens who have moved here and who will move here will want to continue to stay here. Thank you for all the work you are doing, and thank you for listening to me. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Thank you. MR. MILLER: Mr. Chair, your next and final speaker is Melinda Brankow -- or excuse me -- Nicole -- I got that wrong, Nicole Rolando. Nicole, you're being asked to unmute yourself, if you'll do so at this time. I see you have that, Nicole. You have three minutes. MS. ROLANDO: I wanted to thank you for all the efforts and the time that you spent on this to enhance our community. I have lived here since '92, and I hope to continue using the Vanderbilt library. I support all the comments by Ms. Oenick. And my intentions in following your process is to save the library, which it appears you did, and to continue to give us good service, because you have young and older population, and we want them to continue September 4, 2025 Page 19 reading. Thank you. MR. MILLER: And that was our final registered speaker, Mr. Chair. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: We will close the public hearing. Any questions or comments from the Commission? (No response.) MR. JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That moves us on to a time for discussion. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: I don't see any lights lit up here, so unless there's -- Commissioner Hall. COMMISSIONER HALL: So the purpose of tonight is to have a preliminary talk about what we're going to finally do on next -- the last Thursday, on the 18th? MR. JOHNSON: Correct. COMMISSIONER HALL: Okay. And the budget guidance that came forth earlier in the year was 3 percent operational, 5 percent capital. MR. JOHNSON: Yes, it was, and that was under an umbrella of 5 percent increase in taxable value. COMMISSIONER HALL: Okay. Well, the way that I see it, going back, you know, the proposed budget at millage neutral, that, to me, was a maximum figure, and that would give us an additional $38 million in revenue with the increase in values and the net new stuff? MR. JOHNSON: Let me pull up a slide for you, Commissioner. I think it will show exactly what you're looking at. COMMISSIONER HALL: It's that one. MR. JOHNSON: Yep. This one right here. In the General Fund, yes, 38.2. OPPOSING COUNSEL: And so the difference of the September 4, 2025 Page 20 rolled-back rate that we had, if we wanted to go rolled-back again, the difference would be 25 million bucks, is what we would -- it would be short. MR. JOHNSON: In the General Fund, 25.4. COMMISSIONER HALL: I'm only going to talk about General Fund, yeah. MR. JOHNSON: Correct, yes. COMMISSIONER HALL: Okay. Four or five things. When I was elected, I ran hard on smaller government, better efficiency, less taxes, less government, and I signed a no tax increase pledge, and I meant it. I meant it with everything in me. I understand that we can't roll back our taxes every year in perpetuity. I'm smart enough to know that, but two years ago we all agreed that we would do the hard work. We would make the hard decisions, we would go to work, roll up our sleeves, take the deep dive, and do what was necessary to establish our priority-based budget based on the data that came forth. So we hired ResourceX. We got the insights from them, which is a softball -- it's a soft term for how to raise revenue on the revenue side. And we're just now getting into Phase 2 where we're working on the expense side or the efficiency side. They're going to call those things options -- viable options for us. Like I said, once we do that, once we establish our priority-based budget, those are going to be the bones that we can operate on with small adjustments year after year. The framework will be there, the hard work will be done, and the only way to get that is to let the process run out. I didn't dream that we would be going into the third year, but we're going into the third year. Our budget policy -- our budget policy, like I said, and our adopted millage, I considered to be a maximum. Would it be just really easy to just do it? Yeah, it would really be easy just to do it, September 4, 2025 Page 21 which we've already done the work, we've already done the resolutions, we've already got everything approved, and we could just go, boom, let's do it, but I don't want to. I don't want to do that. I want to do -- I want to continue my commitment to do the hard work and to get this budget where we really want it going into the future. We have the data; we have the viable options to make the harder decisions. They're not going to happen tonight. They're not going to happen by next Thursday night. Any increase in the General Fund on the taxpayers' bill is a tax increase. You can say millage neutral is not a tax increase. You can say it till -- can say it till your hair falls out. It is a tax increase. It's -- as a matter of fact, it's a tax increase to 38 million bucks overall. The net new values were almost $13 million. So 13 million of the 38- is in growth. That leaves us $25 million short. So I want to set -- I want to let this process roll out. I want to see it and give it some time to roll out while not being a burden on the taxpayer. And to do that, we've got our budget set to go to the rolled-back rate, and to collect the same amount, we're $25 million short. I know that this is not going to be very popular, and I really don't give a rip, and I'll repeat, don't give a rip. I don't want to take from another -- another fund, but I do want to charge a less millage rate on that fund. I'm talking about Conservation Collier. Last year at the rolled-back rate, I think they paid, like, a .20 something millage, and it generated $32 million. I would like to make up this $25 million deficit and charge whatever -- whatever millage we have to charge to leave 10 million in Conservation Collier and let the 25 million roll to the rolled-back. Am I making sense? You know what I want to do? MR. JOHNSON: I think I hear you, Commissioner. Reducing September 4, 2025 Page 22 the -- COMMISSIONER HALL: We're going to charge the same rate -- we're going to charge the same 3.0 something that we did last year to the taxpayer; however, 25 million of it's going to the General Fund and not to the Conservation Collier. So we're going to charge a lesser millage for the Conservation Collier portion -- MR. JOHNSON: Gotcha. So you're going to reduce the Conservation Collier millage to make the countywide be at millage -- I'm sorry -- at rolled back. COMMISSIONER HALL: Right. And that gives us the money -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) COMMISSIONER HALL: -- to operate till we let this process roll out. It's going to leave $10 million in the Land Acquisition Fund for Conservation Collier. At the same time, I think we're about to put 60 million in the maintenance; is that right? MR. JOHNSON: Correct. COMMISSIONER HALL: Okay. MR. JOHNSON: The current budget is putting about 62 million -- COMMISSIONER HALL: So there's 42 million in there now. (Simultaneous crosstalk.) COMMISSIONER HALL: So we're going to put -- we're going to leave -- and that's what's really important in perpetuity is that maintenance account. And if, by chance, something came along that was a dream property in 2026, we're not to the position where we would have to just pass. We still have the funds in the maintenance that we could use to purchase that. We still have $42 million left. I think there's going to be a balance of 42 -- or 52 or 62 million? If we put 10 million in there this coming year, what's in there -- what would be the September 4, 2025 Page 23 total? MR. JOHNSON: Are you talking land acquisition? COMMISSIONER HALL: Yeah, land acquisition. MR. JOHNSON: So the FY 2026 budget -- and again, this is total budget for that -- for that fund, is $56.3 million approximately. 34.3 of that is for land acquisition. COMMISSIONER HALL: If we put 10- more in there, they'd still have $44 million as land acquisition. MR. JOHNSON: The land -- that's based on the whole amount going in. And so land acquisition would be down to -- would be down to 10 million for that specific line item. The fund would drop by about 25 million. So you'd go from 56- to 31- in the Land Acquisition Fund budget-wise. COMMISSIONER HALL: And then in addition, we have 60 -- 64 million in maintenance? MR. JOHNSON: There is -- COMMISSIONER HALL: There would be 121 million total if we charge -- if we went with this proposed budget. So less 25- of that. So we're still going to have -- MR. JOHNSON: Correct. If you add the two funds together, next year's budget, the two funds together, it's about $121-plus million. If you took out 25- from it -- COMMISSIONER HALL: So we'll still have $95 million in the whole program? MR. JOHNSON: Correct. COMMISSIONER HALL: And that's pretty -- that's pretty robust. So those are my thoughts. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Let me ask a quick question. We do have the Williams property acquisition that's going to close here fairly soon, so that's going to reduce that amount -- that number, the 95 million, by how much? September 4, 2025 Page 24 MR. JOHNSON: Commissioner, that was taken into account in the forecast. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Okay. MR. JOHNSON: Moving into next year. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: So all these numbers -- MR. JOHNSON: So those numbers that I was speaking to are next year's numbers. I'm just going to look back to make sure. Yep, yep. It was in the forecast. So those numbers will be -- COMMISSIONER HALL: Twelve or 13 million. MR. JOHNSON: Those numbers for next year will be after that property -- COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: They're big numbers, Chris. Get it right. Take your time. MR. JOHNSON: That's why I have these people behind me. COMMISSIONER HALL: Mr. Chairman, that puts us up -- Williams Ranch was 12 or $13 million for the Conservation Collier portion of it. COMMISSIONER KOWAL: If I had one more vote, you would have kept that money. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Commissioner Kowal. COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Yeah. I want to just get clarity. So I'm writing all these notes down trying to figure out what we're talking about here. So what Commissioner Hall's proposing, he's just looking at the General Fund saying, we go with -- when we vote next meeting, and we hit the gavel and everything's done, said and done, we would have the rolled-back rate percentage for the General Fund. We make up the 25 million that we lose for the rolled-back -- moving to the rolled-back out of adjusting the millage rate to Conservation Collier, but the other -- the Water Pollution Control, are you considering leaving that at the neutral? September 4, 2025 Page 25 COMMISSIONER HALL: Yeah. That's just 200,000 bucks, yeah. (Simultaneous crosstalk.) COMMISSIONER KOWAL: The one we're really making up the difference of -- through the Conservation Collier? MR. JOHNSON: So if I may, Commissioner, looking at this slide here, you can see the millage rates. So what I think Commissioner Hall is describing is this is the rolled-back right here. These three add up to 3.0781 at rolled-back, and at millage neutral it adds up to 3.2449. We would reduce the Conservation Collier number to get this -- to get this number to equal this number. COMMISSIONER KOWAL: This number -- MR. JOHNSON: Essentially, is what I'm -- am I correct, Commissioner? COMMISSIONER HALL: You got it. I'm glad I communicated so well. COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Well, not actually, because if the Water Pollution Control stayed at neutral, that number would be slightly larger. MR. JOHNSON: These -- the two numbers here for General Fund and Water Pollution would stay the same. You'd reduce Conservation Collier to -- by this amount here -- where is it? -- .1668 to get to this number. So, essentially, this would go down, and that would make up for those two staying the same. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: You've got a calculator there -- MR. JOHNSON: I do. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Can you give us the number so we know what we're talking about? MR. JOHNSON: Certainly. So Conservation Collier would go to -- COMMISSIONER KOWAL: So the Water Pollution would go September 4, 2025 Page 26 back to rolled-back? MS. PATTERSON: No. MR. JOHNSON: No. It would stay -- COMMISSIONER KOWAL: But you keep saying that. So that number is going to change? It's going to stay at .0246? MR. JOHNSON: So -- yeah. Let me just -- COMMISSIONER KOWAL: So that number will be actually larger than 3.078. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Just so I understand it -- COMMISSIONER HALL: The numbers -- CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: I'm not sure if I understand this, but all the millage rates would be millage neutral, except Conservation Collier would be reduced enough to have that equate to rolled-back. MR. JOHNSON: Correct, correct. COMMISSIONER KOWAL: The General would be rolled-back. All the rest would be neutral except for Conservation Collier and General. General would go back -- COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: No. COMMISSIONER KOWAL: -- would reduce, and Conservation Collier would -- MS. PATTERSON: No. We're going to achieve -- under this scenario, we achieve rolled-back in the General Fund -- so that's General Fund, Water Pollution, Conservation Collier -- by reducing Conservation Collier's millage to achieve the rolled-back rate. So General Fund itself and Water Pollution would remain at millage neutral, and Conservation Collier would be rolled back actually beyond the rolled-back rate to achieve the combined rolled-back. COMMISSIONER HALL: It's just going to make up that 25 million. MR. JOHNSON: And then that millage rate would be 0.0428. September 4, 2025 Page 27 CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Okay. Wait a minute. I can't write that fast. MR. JOHNSON: Oh, no problem. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: You're on Conservation Collier millage rate, which right now is .2096, and that would go to what? MR. JOHNSON: 0.0428. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Okay. And I'm going to double-check my number. COMMISSIONER HALL: Can I clarify one thing on that? CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Yes. Commissioner Hall. COMMISSIONER HALL: I just wanted to clarify, on this, if we do this, this is not a precedence. I'm not going to be looking to do this year after year after year. I was hoping that we didn't have to do it at all, but since the process has taken us now into the third year, it's the only way that we can be fair to the taxpayers, leave Conservation Collier a rope -- in a robust situation, and let us get the hard work done in Phase 2 this year with ResourceX. And so I just wanted the public to know that this is not going to -- something that I'm going to be pitching year after year after year, and I'm serious about that. COMMISSIONER KOWAL: I guess my question -- I just want to make it clear, the day I vote on this, the General Fund millage rate is going to be the rolled-back rate? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Correct. COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Correct. MS. PATTERSON: The combined. MR. JOHNSON: The combined rate. So when you look at your TRIM notice -- and let me just go back to this. This might also help. So -- and I apologize. This is small. But you see on your TRIM notice where it says county General Fund, and the rate here, the rolled-back rate is 3.0781, that's the combination of those three taxing September 4, 2025 Page 28 authorities. COMMISSIONER KOWAL: I understand that. MR. JOHNSON: So, yes, that would be at rolled-back. COMMISSIONER KOWAL: I understand that, but he specifically pointed out $25-some million. That is just the first line, the difference, and he's having you make up that difference by changing the millage rate of Conservation Collier, not changing the Water Pollution rate. That's what I'm trying to say. MR. JOHNSON: Yeah. COMMISSIONER KOWAL: He didn't pick -- he didn't choose all the lines. He just chose the 25 million. So what I'm trying to say is, the only one that's going to be at rolled-back will be the top line at 2 point whatever. Then Conservation will be diminished to make up the 25 million on the far-right column. MR. JOHNSON: I get your question, and you're 100 percent right. We would have to reduce it by this number, $27.5 million, to get everything to rolled-back. COMMISSIONER KOWAL: To get everything to rolled-back, yeah. MR. JOHNSON: So. Yes, yes. And to do that -- COMMISSIONER KOWAL: But that's not what you said. MR. JOHNSON: That's the number that I allocated. COMMISSIONER HALL: I was just talking General Fund. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Okay. So what does that leave you for Conservation Collier for the millage rate, then? MR. JOHNSON: That would be the one I just gave you. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: So that number's still correct, all right. MR. JOHNSON: Yep. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. Commissioner McDaniel. September 4, 2025 Page 29 COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I can see where you're going. I can understand what it is that you're doing, but I think we have to give consideration to what we -- what we, as a commission, have already accomplished. Three years ago, we rewrote the vision statement, the mission statement, the business plan, and budget priorities. The next year we did a rolled-back and saved the taxpayers $62 million, and that carries forward again for the next year, and then last year we did a rolled-back again on all of our taxable values, and that was equivalent to about 40, 42 million plus/minus, somewhere in there. MR. JOHNSON: Here's the slide on that, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: There you are right there. And that's the cumulative reduction in taxes that we've been able to effectuate. MR. JOHNSON: And that's the 152.6 million. If you go to the bottom there, that would be this year at millage neutral. It would -- compared to the old rate from 2022, it would be another $104.2 million. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Combined. That's been -- that's been the effectuated savings, if you will, that we've been able to -- that we've been able to accomplish. I would give -- I would give some thought -- and I'm not saying total yes, and I'm not saying total no to what you've proposed, but I would give some thought to a rationale that you and I both know about, and that's you cannot cut your way to prosperity. And we are direly deficient in our reserves, especially the new reserve account, the 301 Fund, the capital asset replacement and maintenance fund. In my thoughts, as I was going through all these numbers, and that sort -- those things, I had intentions of staying at rate neutral. Our budget that staff prepared this year in February -- and we worked September 4, 2025 Page 30 all the way through -- is prepared on the expense side at rolled-back plus 3 on O&M and 5 on capital; is that correct? MR. JOHNSON: It's -- no, it's -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: The expense budget? MR. JOHNSON: No, it's at that 5 percent increase, which is a little above rolled-back, about $10 million, because that was budget policy was the 5 percent taxable-value increase. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Where did I get the 3 and the 5 at? MR. JOHNSON: That was the operating and capital compliance that we gave the departments. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. Okay. So that was the compliance that was done. MR. JOHNSON: Correct. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: So it was -- it was -- but it was prepared at rolled-back plus 5 -- plus 5 percent. MR. JOHNSON: It was -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: For year-over-year expense. MR. JOHNSON: It was prepared initially -- initially was the 5 percent increase in taxable value. The current budget is at millage neutral. That includes expanse. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Maybe I'm not asking the question properly. The budget that we put forth to be adopted by our departments was prepared on rolled-back plus 5 -- MR. JOHNSON: It was -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- year over year expense? MR. JOHNSON: It was prepared at 5 percent taxable value increase. So that's what we utilized as the model. Now, we gave them a 3 percent rail, if you will, on the operating side, and a 5 percent rail on the capital side. But when you put all that together, it was under an umbrella of a 5 percent taxable value September 4, 2025 Page 31 increase, which at the time, given the State's estimates, we thought would be right around the net new taxable value increase. It came in a little lower. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And you're talking about taxable valuable, and you're talking about revenues that come from staying rate neutral or going to rolled-back. I'm talking about the expense budget that we put forth in February was based upon last year's taxable value. MR. JOHNSON: Plus 5 percent. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Plus 5 percent. MR. JOHNSON: Yes, correct. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: He and I go round and round and round, because he's a "fund accounter." He lives over in this accounting world called "funds," and it's not -- and that's f-u-n-d, not f-u-n. And so my thoughts are we need to fund our reserves. We're direly deficient, and specifically in that one fund, which is the 301 fund, we've got close to $2 billion worth of assets that need to be accounted for that need to be maintained. So my -- I'm not saying yes to your proposition, Commissioner Hall. I'm not saying no. I have to give that some consideration. I also know that we have, with the acquisition of the Williams -- of the Williams farm, we're going to accomplish a Comp Plan amendment. We're going to swap those farm fields out of the RLSA in the developable area. We'll still use them for our own development purposes, but we're going to move that slough into the RLSA, and we all know how much of an environmental asset that is going to be to our community, alleviating flooding in Immokalee, water quality -- water quality going over into Lake Trafford and so on. So I'm -- I have a -- my thought process, I'm leaning more towards staying at rate neutral and plowing the spread between September 4, 2025 Page 32 rolled-back and rate neutral, plowing that into the 301 fund. That fences it off. It can't be spent on anything along those lines except for staff-driven and Board-directed expenditures. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Commissioner LoCastro. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Thank you, Chairman. I'm not saying yes or no either because we don't have to, right? We're coming back in here on the 18th of September. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: We do have to be a little careful about what we say yes to today, because it will limit us what we can say yes to at the next meeting. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Here's my thoughts. I understand the math. I don't need to see any of the slides. I get it. All great questions as we're trying to interpret the numbers. But it's clear, you know, to get to that rolled-back number, you change Conservation Collier. All the other numbers stay the same. You change Conservation Collier down to .0428, and it gives you the bottom-line rolled-back number when everything else stays millage neutral, which is what we were -- we were leaning towards. I'm not saying yes or no either, but my initial feeling -- and I like the brainstorming that we're doing here, but my initial feeling is we've tinkered with Conservation Collier quite a bit, and it's the only thing on the slide that the voters really voted for separately. And so I don't mind seeing the numbers on the 18th, and by us talking about it here, I'm sure in-boxes are going to be filled with citizen feedback, and that's all part of being an elected official. I don't want to do a knee jerk because we heard a really interesting idea at 5:58 today, and we don't have to say yes or no now. But I just -- my initial thoughts are caution because, like I said, we've tinkered with Conservation Collier to move some money around, and I think -- I know that was a smart thing to do. I September 4, 2025 Page 33 supported it. We all, you know, got rocks thrown through our windows by some people, but we were trying to make sure that fund just didn't get money thrown in it; that it was actually managed properly. We totally changed the whole Conservation Collier program, leadership, and it's now managed and led much better. But I'd need to chew on this one a little bit, too, maybe similar to Commissioner McDaniel, because I go back to this is a citizen-voted-on program. My initial thoughts deep down were if we thought that the fund was fully funded or had enough money in it, then one of our proposals could be, "Hey, you know, send this back to the polls. Have citizens decide if they want to keep Conservation Collier funded or if they want to fund it less," but, you know, it's the one thing that has citizen input that the other things don't. You know, we're here to make command decision for the citizens, but Conservation Collier's a little bit different of an animal. So I'm not saying yes or no. I just -- I think we should proceed with caution before it looks like we're haphazardly moving too much money around without -- without thought to it. On the flip side, I know none of us are oblivious to some slides that show a huge amount of investment that's still needed in the County. None of us are oblivious to that. So, you know, I have supported the millage-neutral rate because I still don't think we've gotten a deep -- we've done a deep enough dive with ResourceX. We've gotten all that feedback. I mean, it's actually not -- I don't think it's 100 percent correct to say we've been in it for two years, you know. I mean, ResourceX needed time to do some things, and we're just starting to see some of the ideas and the fruit and whatnot. And in conclusion, I'll just say -- and you and I had this conversation, Chris. Aren't we going to be sitting right back here in January, which is just a few months from now? So if we -- if we September 4, 2025 Page 34 decided to not do it, make a big, giant, huge muscle movement or make some big sort of change and we realize we should have or we could have or now we have more information from ResourceX, we're going to be sitting here in a few months with, I would hope, a lot more information in our hand, not only from our constituents, but from our consultant that's peeling back the onion and having us take a look at things, and I think we would have -- we would be making much more educated adjustments at that point. So that's sort of where I'm sitting now. I have until September 18th to think about it. But I just feel like we've tinkered with Conservation Collier quite a bit, for the advantage of the county. Anything more aggressively, I -- it starts to -- starts to be something that I question. MR. JOHNSON: And you are correct, the timeline does start over January, February. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Right. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: For me, I can -- I think I can say that I would be a no on the proposal, and there are a couple reasons for that. If we reduce the millage rate for Conservation Collier to .0428, it's never going back up. There's no way we're going to raise that rate because that will result in a millage rate increase, and we're not going to do that. So what we're doing if we do this is we are basically saying -- I don't know how much money you generate at .0428, but that would -- that would be the new permanent millage rate for Conservation Collier until we increase that at some point in time, but -- which would result in a millage increase. So we're not going to do that. So for me that's kind of a hard no on that proposal. But how much money does that .0428 raise? I think you said about 10 million. MR. JOHNSON: It's $7 million. September 4, 2025 Page 35 CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Seven million, okay. MR. JOHNSON: A little over 7. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: So that's one thing. I don't know how Conservation Collier gets put back up to the .25 or the .2096, so I would not support that proposal. I believe that -- you know, that millage neutral is the way to go. That's the position I would take. I realize that that is a tax increase, but we have needs in this community that we're going to have difficulty meeting if we continue to roll the millage rates back. Marco Island is a perfect example. They've boasted about how they've rolled the millage rate back year after year after year. This year they're asking -- they initially started off with a 30 percent increase proposed for their millage rate. They've reduced that to a 20 percent increase in their millage rate this year, because they continued to reduce the millage rate to rolled-back without proper consideration for the future needs of Marco Island. And I think that if we're not careful, we're going to be doing the same thing. So I -- my vote is with -- is going to be with millage neutral. But if there is a motion made in reference to this particular proposal, I will not support it because I think that's really gutting Conservation Collier and, as Commissioner LoCastro pointed out, that's the one line item that 70 percent-plus of the voters in Collier County approved. I don't see anybody else lit up. Any other comments? Then -- Commissioner Kowal. COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Thank you, Chairman. It sounds like our discussion's always, you know, it's either millage neutral or rolled-back. Is there an in between? MR. JOHNSON: Yep. You can go anywhere in between. COMMISSIONER KOWAL: I mean, we look at new -- I mean, what was it, 4.3 billion and 3.2 billion in new taxable value. So that's September 4, 2025 Page 36 taxable value that wasn't involved in last year's budget when we rolled back to millage neutral. So that wouldn't be new taxes. We're not raising taxes on anybody. That's the taxes they came in at. MR. JOHNSON: Correct, and that -- and it's 4.2 countywide. The 3.2 is a portion of the 4. COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Yeah, okay. MR. JOHNSON: Yeah. And yes, you're correct, that's net new taxable value. So new rooftops, essentially. COMMISSIONER KOWAL: So in reality, they're coming in at the tax rate, what they're coming in at, so you're not really raising taxes on them. I mean, it's new -- it's new to the County. MR. JOHNSON: Yeah. COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Okay. It's a new revenue. MR. JOHNSON: Correct. COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Right? So that's what I'm saying, I mean. So there's probably a difference here that we can probably come to a point where we can actually not be at millage neutral, still lower the taxes to a point and still achieve what we want to achieve and not go all the way back to rolled-back. Because I'll be honest, I think we need to have a serious conversation here in the near future about the percentages. And if we take -- like Commissioner Saunders just said, you know, if we keep taking Conservation Collier down -- our power we have is the fact that whatever they collect, we have the power to put it in what pot we want to put it in as the Board of County Commissioners. It's a part of what we can do. And historically, we always did 25 percent to the maintenance fund. So I think the maintenance fund is the most important thing moving forward. And if we diminish what we're going to collect on it, we're going to have a harder time getting to a magic number to get September 4, 2025 Page 37 to the point where we're working off interest to maintain these properties into perpetuity. So that's something that -- I want to have that serious discussion at some point that maybe we need to do a 50/50 moving forward, and -- but if we diminish this to a point where it's not -- it's only making $7 million a year, it's not going to achieve that. I just have a hard time seeing that happening, because -- regardless if we increase the percentage over to the maintenance. MR. JOHNSON: And if I may, Commissioner, the updated budget for Conservation Collier is putting about 50 percent of the new tax into the maintenance fund. So with your new ordinance, we were able to do that. It's not -- it's up to you guys. It's not as prescribed as it was in the past, so... COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I like that. COMMISSIONER KOWAL: So I just -- you know, there's a number there somewhere that I want to find, and I just don't -- you know, I don't have a big enough brain to do that math. But I think if you take the new taxable values, you figure you subtract that from something and figure out where we're at, and we're not raising taxes, we're lowering tax, but we're not going all the way back to rolled-back at some point. I think there's a number there. So I just don't want to get stuck at having one or the other, and it seems like that's where we're at. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Commissioner Hall. COMMISSIONER HALL: Thank you, Chairman. Well, the difference could be we could -- we could raise the Conservation Collier millage to only take 12 million and then lower the -- we could lower the millage neutral to make -- a little bit to make up that 25 million bucks. We could combine those two, because that's what Commissioner Kowal was talking about. There's a number in the middle somewhere. September 4, 2025 Page 38 And I just want to say, I could leave the Conservation Collier thing alone. I would love to fully fund them to .25 mills from now on so that they can all live happily ever after. You know, if they had 300 million in their bank for maintenance and perpetuity, they're going to need it eventually. So I'm not -- I disagreed with Commissioner Saunders on that would say that we're never going to get back there. I only wanted to do that while we allowed ResourceX's process to roll out. Once that process rolls out, if we don't achieve the savings that we think that we can get, we're just going to go with it. It is what it is. But until we get to that, I was just trying to find a happy medium to let the process roll out. Raise the 25 million that we would be short. So we would basically have the same amount of money at millage neutral, but we would charge the taxpayers rolled-back for the General Fund and make up the difference with a lower millage rate for Conservation Collier this one year. And I'll go on record saying I'll leave Conservation Collier alone after this year. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. Just a question for the County Attorney in terms of, if we -- whatever the motion is that we make tonight in terms of -- because we're going to talk about a millage rate that we're going to be setting tonight. MR. KLATZKOW: You're not setting the millage rate. You're setting the maximum millage rate. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: I hadn't finished my question, Mr. Klatzkow. I said, we're setting a millage rate. We're voting on a millage rate tonight. That millage rate will be the maximum that we can consider at the next meeting. MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: So I just wanted that to be clarified for the record, that everybody knew that. You know, we can talk September 4, 2025 Page 39 about the next budget hearing, but if we vote on a particular millage rate tonight, even though it's not the permanent one, it is going to be one that's going to be our cap going forward. So, Commissioner McDaniel. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'll make a motion we stay at rate neutral. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? COMMISSIONER HALL: And that's just going to be for the discussion of tonight? That just keeps the maximum. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HALL: Do it. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: We can sit here and debate this all night long, but we're not doing -- we're not -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) COMMISSIONER HALL: I was going to say, I don't think I -- I'm not going to make a motion for what -- my comments. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: We're not making the sausage until the 18th. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: You know, your motion's going to pass. I'm going to vote for it, and I assume it will probably pass unanimously. But when we get here in two weeks, we need to have some kind of idea in our minds individually as to where we want to go with this, because we'll be here until 2 o'clock in the morning again. COMMISSIONER HALL: No, no, no -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: No. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: -- if we don't let staff have some idea what we're thinking. So, Commissioner LoCastro. September 4, 2025 Page 40 COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I'll just make the comment. I just want to make sure we don't put the cart before the horse. I mean, I appreciate everything that's being said here by Commissioner Hall and all the commissioners, but I would like to see a little more meat on the bone from ResourceX. And I think it's coming. We're deeper into it. And I'd be very comfortable doing something aggressive if I had some evidence in my hand that, "Wow, we just found a big chunk of savings here, and we decided that this program was overfunded, and we're spending too much for this." And, you know, I think that's the more prudent way to do it, not make a major muscle movement now because we have -- we're hopeful. You know, they always say, "Hope's not a course of action." I also think if we don't make a big muscle movement -- and I think we are making a muscle movement. Millage neutral, let's not -- that's a pretty big deal. Like Commissioner Saunders just said, in my own district, Marco Island's, you know, fighting pretty hard, and other counties. Millage neutral's like a dream. So I think we've done some good things here because we're looking at where we can find efficiencies and maximize ResourceX's recommendations, and even the own things -- the things that we are finding on our own and as well as the hard work that our County Manager and her staff's doing. But like I said, we're going to blink, and we're going to be back in here in January, and I think when I see some meat on the bone and I see some savings, I think it's a lot of easier to decide to move some money around when we know what we're moving. And I think also, too, it incentivizes not only ResourceX but us specifically to make sure that we keep a sense of urgency because we're trying to save even more money for the taxpayer or be more efficient with their taxes, and we're -- as we march towards that January date, noting that -- knowing that we might -- we should have a lot more detail, I September 4, 2025 Page 41 think, we'll all work a little bit maybe harder, faster, dig a little deeper, because that's where we're really looking to make changes that make sense, possibly. I just don't think we're there yet. But like Commissioner Saunders said, we just voted on what would be the maximum, which would be millage neutral, but the 18th could be a long meeting if we don't do our homework between now and then. MR. JOHNSON: We're ready for it, if we need to. COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Chris is going to be in my office a lot. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Thanks, Chris, for all your help. You know, I've said this before, but sometimes citizens don't realize you spend a lot of time with us separately, and your staff that's sitting here and, you know, these slides just don't produce themselves and the numbers and whatnot. I appreciate your sense of urgency and how easily you and your staff have been reachable, you know, to answer questions that I've had, and I'm sure the commissioners, all of us, feel the same way. So thank you so much. MR. JOHNSON: You're welcome. Thank you, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. We have a motion and second. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Seeing none, all in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALL: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Aye. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All opposed? (No response.) September 4, 2025 Page 42 CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: That passes unanimously. Item #1D ANNOUNCEMENT OF TENTATIVE MILLAGE RATES AND PERCENTAGE CHANGES IN PROPERTY TAX RATES - READ INTO THE RECORD BY CHRIS JOHNSON MR. JOHNSON: All right. Commissioners, that brings us on to the best part of the night, the announcement of the tentative millage rates. So that's Item 1D. As I'm sure you are aware, the Florida TRIM statutes require that I announce the tentative millage rates, the rolled-back millage rates, and the percent change from the rolled-back millage rate into the record to the adoption of the tentative millage rates under Agenda Item 1E, which is on Packet Page 64. So without further ado, if it pleases the Board, I will begin. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: It probably doesn't please the Board, but ago ahead and -- MR. JOHNSON: I put that in there for that reason. If you guys would like to follow along, it's on Page 65 of the packet or -- CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: We're going to wait for the -- we'll wait for the movie. COMMISSIONER KOWAL: It's on tape. MR. JOHNSON: All right. Well, let me get started then. General Fund 0001, the proposed millage rate is 3.0107. The rolled-back millage rate is 2.8564. The percent change from the rolled-back rate is 5.4 percent. The Water Pollution Control Fund 1017, the proposed millage rate is 0.0246. The rolled-back millage rate is 0.0233. The percent September 4, 2025 Page 43 change from the rolled-back rate is 5.58 percent. Conservation Collier Fund 1060 [sic], the proposed millage rate is 0.2096. The rolled-back millage rate is 0.1984. The percent change from the rolled-back rate is 5.65 percent. Unincorporated General Fund 1011, the proposed millage rate is 0.6844. The rolled-back millage rate is 0.5 -- I'm sorry -- 0.6506. The percent change from the rolled-back rate is 5.2 percent. And I apologize. I'm going to -- on Conservation Collier, I accidently said 1060. The fund is 1061. Moving on to Golden Gate Community Center Fund 1605, the proposed millage rate is 0.1862. The rolled-back millage rate is 0.1786. The percent change from the rolled-back rate is 4.26 percent. Victoria Park Drainage Fund 1608, the proposed millage rate is 0.3814. The rolled-back millage rate is 0.3634. The percent change from the rolled-back rate is 4.95 percent. Naples Park Drainage Fund 1613, the proposed millage rate is 0.0041. The rolled-back millage rate is 0.0039. The percent change from the rolled-back rate is 5.13 percent. Vanderbilt Beach MSTU Fund 1617, the proposed millage rate is 0.4650. The rolled-back millage rate is 0.4438. The percent change from the rolled-back rate is 4.78 percent. Ochopee Fire Control Fund 1040, the proposed millage rate is 4.0000. The rolled-back millage rate is 3.7959. The percent change from the rolled-back rate is 5.38 percent. Goodland/Horr’s Island Fire MSTU Fund 1041, the proposed millage rate is 1.2760. The rolled-back millage rate is 1.1793. The percent change from the rolled-back rate is 8.20 percent. Sabal Palm MSTU Fund 1619, the proposed millage rate is 1.0000. The rolled-back millage rate is 0.0000. This millage is being reinstated; therefore, there is no percent change from the rolled-back rate. September 4, 2025 Page 44 Lely Golf Estates Beautification MSTU Fund 1620, the proposed millage rate is 2.0000. The rolled-back millage rate is 1.8930. The percent change from the rolled-back rate is 5.65 percent. Golden Gate Parkway Beautification MSTU Fund 1621, the proposed millage rate is 0.5000. The rolled-back millage rate is 0.4784. The percent change from the rolled-back rate is 4.52 percent. Hawksridge Stormwater Pumping MSTU Fund 1622, the proposed millage rate is 0.0318. The rolled-back millage rate is 0.0316. The percent change from the rolled-back rate is 0.63 percent. Radio Road Beautification MSTU Fund 1625, the proposed millage rate is 0.1000. The rolled-back millage rate is 0.0949. The percent change from the rolled-back rate is 5.37 percent. Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage MSTU Fund 1626, the proposed millage rate is 2.5000. The rolled-back millage rate is 3.7448. The percent change from the rolled-back rate is negative 33.24 percent. Immokalee Beautification MSTU Fund 1629, the proposed millage rate is 1.0000. The rolled-back millage rate is 0.9573. The percent change from the rolled-back rate is 4.46 percent. Bayshore Avalon Beautification MSTU Fund 1630, the proposed millage rate is 2.1104. The rolled-back millage rate is 1.9304. The percent change from the rolled-back rate is 9.32 percent. Haldeman Creek Dredging MSTU Fund 1631, the proposed millage rate is 1.0000. The rolled-back millage rate is 0.9034. The percent change from the rolled-back rate is 10.69 percent. Rock Road MSTU Fund 1632, the proposed millage rate is 0.7224. The rolled-back millage rate is 0.7019. The percent change from the rolled-back rate is 2.92 percent. Vanderbilt Waterways MSTU Fund 1635, the proposed millage rate is 0.3000. The rolled-back millage rate is 0.2859. The percent change from the rolled-back rate is 4.93 percent. September 4, 2025 Page 45 Blue Sage MSTU Fund 1640, the proposed millage rate is 3.0000. The rolled-back millage rate is 3.0620. The percent change from the rolled-back rate is negative 2.02 percent. Collier County Lighting Funding 1601, the proposed millage rate is 0.1025. The rolled-back millage rate is 0.0977. The percent change from the rolled-back rate is 4.91 percent. 42nd Avenue Southeast MSTU Fund 1637, the proposed millage rate is 1.0000. The rolled-back millage rate is 0.8738. The percent change from the rolled-back rate is 14.44 percent. Palm River Sidewalk MSTU Fund 1638, the proposed millage rate is 0.5000. The rolled-back millage rate is 0.4776. The percent change from the rolled-back rate is 4.69 percent. Private Road Emergency Repair MSTU Fund 1639, the proposed millage rate is 1.0000. The rolled-back millage rate is 0.0000. This is the first time a millage will be levied for this MSTU. There is no calculated change from the rolled-back rate. Pelican Bay MSTU Fund 1008, the proposed millage rate is 0.0857. The rolled-back millage rate is 0.0811. The percent change from the rolled-back rate is 5.67 percent. Commissioners, the aggregate millage rate proposed is 3.7675, the rolled-back rate is 3.5870, and the percent change from the rolled-back rate is 5.03 percent. Item #1E RESOLUTION 2025-168: RESOLUTION TO ADOPT THE TENTATIVE MILLAGE RATES - MOTION TO ADOPT THE TENTATIVE MILLAGE RATE FOR FY26 BY COMMISSIONER MCDANIEL; SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LOCASTRO – ADOPTED September 4, 2025 Page 46 MR. JOHNSON: All right. And, Mr. Chair, that brings us to Item 1E, a motion to adopt the tentative millage rates for FY 2026 via resolution would be in order at this time. Tentative millage rates can be adopted by a single majority vote. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Okay. Before we take a motion on that, Commissioner McDaniel. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: No. I was going to make the motion. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Oh, okay. Commissioner McDaniel, you're recognized for -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Make a motion that we accept those rates as read. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Second. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: We have a motion and second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Seeing none, all in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALL: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Aye. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: That passes unanimously. MR. JOHNSON: All right. Commissioners, I will note that for the final hearing the millage rates can be adopted by a single unanimous vote. If an initial vote is not unanimous for all millage rates, a separate vote will be required for specific tax levies. Specifically, Victoria Park, Lely Golf Estates Beautification, September 4, 2025 Page 47 Bayshore Avalon Beautification, Haldeman Creek Dredging, Vanderbilt Waterways MSTU, 42nd Avenue Southeast MSTU, and the Pelican Bay MSTU based on their respective districts, DR 420 MMPs, maximum millage calculations, will require a two-thirds majority vote, and then similarly, the Private Road Emergency Repair MSTU, being a new MSTU, will require a unanimous vote. So moving from there, Commissioners, any questions on any of those votes at all? CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Commissioner McDaniel. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I just had one question, and I wanted to just clarify. I know we've had discussions in the past, but these individual MSTUs for these different expense programs throughout the community, we've gone through those budgets and recommended -- you've recommended rates for these -- for these MSTUs based upon accumulated expenses that have arisen in the last couple years plus -- plus a reserve amount. MR. JOHNSON: Yeah. I -- 10-4. For -- depending on what kind of MSTU they are. You know, they're operating expenses for next year and the capital needs moving forward, so correct. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I just wanted -- I wanted to clarify that. Don't say 10-4, because somebody will be picking that as a number. Just say, "yes, sir." MR. JOHNSON: I'm sorry. You caught me off guard for a second. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Raise the taxes 10.4. COMMISSIONER HALL: Roger that. MR. JOHNSON: What was I going to say about that? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Nothing. I'm -- MR. JOHNSON: Oh, and the advisory boards have also weighed in on each of the MSTUs that have advisory boards, so... CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Ready for that motion? September 4, 2025 Page 48 Item #1F RESOLUTION 2025-169: RESOLUTION TO ADOPT THE AMENDED TENTATIVE BUDGET - MOTION TO ADOPT THE AMENDED TENTATIVE BUDGET WITH CHANGES BY COMMISSIONER MCDANIEL; SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HALL – ADOPTED MR. JOHNSON: Next, all right. So moving onto Item 1F, it's the resolution to adopt the amended tentative budget. Commissioners, if you refer to Tab 1F, starting on Packet Page 67 where you'll find the resolution providing for adoption of the FY 2026 amended tentative budget, your action on this item will include the changes discussed under Agenda Item 1B, the amended -- the amended tentative budget can be adopted by a single majority vote. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: So moved. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. COMMISSIONER HALL: Second. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: So we have a motion. Do you need any clarification on that, or is that sufficient? MR. JOHNSON: That's sufficient. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: We have a motion and second. Seeing no discussion, all in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALL: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Aye. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All opposed? (No response.) September 4, 2025 Page 49 CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: That passes unanimously. MR. JOHNSON: Thank you, Commissioners. Item #1G ANNOUNCEMENT OF FINAL PUBLIC HEARING AS FOLLOWS: FINAL PUBLIC HEARING ON THE FY 2025-26 COLLIER COUNTY BUDGET THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 2025, AT 5:05 P.M. COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER W. HARMON TURNER BUILDING (F) THIRD FLOOR, BOARDROOM, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112 MR. JOHNSON: All right. Moving onto Item 1G, the announcement of the final public hearing. The final public hearing on the FY '25/'26 Collier County budget will be Thursday, September 18th, 2025, at 5:05 p.m. It will be at the Collier County Government Complex, W. Harmon Turner Building F, which is this building, on the third-floor boardroom. That's in Naples, Florida 34112. And that is all I have for today. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. Any further discussion? Any comments from the Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Seeing none, we are adjourned. ******* September 4, 2025 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:26 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL Airliite4claphafa. BURT SAUNDERS, CHAIRMAN ATTEST CRYSTAL K} KINZEL, CLERK ' fr Attest es to Chairman's/ signature only • These minutes approved by the Board on tO H 2025, as presented ✓ or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF FORT MYERS COURT REPORTING BY TERRI L. LEWIS, REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL COURT REPORTER, FPR-C, AND NOTARY PUBLIC. Page 50