Loading...
PBSD MinutesBUDGET COMMITTEE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION DECEMBER 2, 2025 The Budget Committee of the Pelican Bay Services Division met on Tuesday, December 2 at 1:30 p.m. at the Truist Building, 801 Laurel Oak Drive, Suite 102, Naples, Florida. In attendance were: Budget Committee Michael Fogg, Chairman Nick Fabregas Michael Rodburg Greg Stone Rick Swider (absent) Pelican Bay Services Division Staff Dave Greenfield, Supervisor —Field II (absent) Neil Donill, Administrator Karin Herrmann, Project Manager I Chad Coleman, Deputy Director Lisa Jacob, Project Manager II Dawn Brewer, Ops. Support Spec. II Barbara Shea, Admin. Support Specialist II Darren Duprey, Supervisor - Field I (absent) Also Present Cindy Polke, PBSD Board APPROVED AGENDA (AS PRESENTED) 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Roll can 3. Agenda approval 4. Approval of 4/3/2025 meeting minutes 5. Audience comments 6. Review of Oct. 31 financial statements 7. Existing budgets for current projects 8. Adjournment ROLL CALL Mr. Swider was absent and a quorum was established. AGENDA APPROVAL Mr. Rodburg motioned, Mr. Stone seconded to approve the agenda as presented. The motion carried unanimously. Mr. Stone motioned, Mr. Fabregas seconded to approve the 4/3/2025 meeting minutes as presented. The motion carried unanimously. Pelican Bay Services Division Budget Committee Meeting Dec. 2, 2025 AUDIENCE COMMENTS Ms. Beth Schultz reported that several Pelican Bay residents have commented that Collier County tax bills are confusing as they identify the PBSD assessment as "community improvement." Mr. Dorrill responded that he will reach out to the Tax Collector and request that our assessment is more clearly defined. Ms. O'Brien suggested and the committee agreed that "PBSD assessment" would be the preferred wording. Ms. Cindy Polke commented that budgeted PBSD fertilizer expense is very high and noted that our most recent water quality report identifies Clam Bay as impaired for nitrogen and phosphorus. She suggested that we introduce littoral shelves to our lake banks; a ten -foot barrier on our lake banks (between the lakes and grass) would reduce chemicals from entering our lake system. Ms. Polke suggested that the PBSD and the PBF work with the community to improve our water quality. Mr. Fogg commented that the PBSD has tried littoral shelves in the past and that the Water Management Committee can revisit this issue. Ms. Polke suggested that the PBSD and PBF work together to produce a working document on landscaping guidelines. Mr. Stone commented that the Landscape & Safety Committee has recently met several times with the PBF Design Review Committee and that we have a good working relationship. Mr. Fogg commented that there had been some discussion with PBF Board member Susan Levine on a possible joint landscape plan. Mr. Stone questioned what expenses are included in the fertilizer budget. Mr. Coleman commented that aquatic treatment expenses are also included in the fertilizer budget and noted that lakes are monitored to determine whether any treatment is needed. He noted that at the completion of our Oakmont Lake Bank project, residents expressed to us that they did not want a littoral shelf installed. REVIEW OF OCT. 31 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Mr. Fogg provided a discussion of the October 31 financials which included the following. • The balance sheet is straight forward. Follow-up is needed to confirm that $325,000 retainage payable relates to our commercial paper loan. Follow-up is needed to confirm that the amount of our commercial loan was $5,500,00; the balance sheet shows a loan of $6,500,000. • Funds transferred over to County controlled special FEMA expense accounts should be identified on the balance sheet as these funds are contingent receivables/assets. • Budgeted employee head counts are in line with expectations. • Reserves of $700,000 for disaster relief and $184,400 for contingencies have been replenished (hurricane expenses depleted much of these funds in FY25). • Budgeted operating canyforward funds were $210,000 more than anticipated; these additional funds will roll over into our FY27 budget. • Budgeted street lighting ad valorem revenues are approximately $1 million. Approximately $500,000 will be transferred to our capital account, and the remaining funds will be used for the maintenance and electrical costs of our streetlights. • Ending FY25 balances of our capital projects rolled over into FY26 projects, as noted in the difference between the "adopted budget" and "amended budget" of each capital project. • Mr. Coleman commented that we will spend approximately $150,000 for sign replacement in FY26; initial work will be to replace all of the broken signs. The replacement of all of our PB signs will take place over five years. 2 Pelican Bay Services Division Budget Committee Meeting Dec. 2, 2025 • $4,629,782 for beach renourishment includes our beach renourishment project, sand reclamation project, and $219,000 for replanting costs. Mr. Coleman expects that this budget will cover all of these expenses (including the unexpected costs of a larger amount of sand being reclaimed). Ms. Polke asked whether we have reached out to the Naples Botanical Gardens, which has offered up beach dune plantings at no cost. Mr. Coleman will reach out to Earth Tech (our contracted vendor for dune plantings) to pursue free plantings supplied by the Naples Botanical Gardens. • Mr. Fabregas questioned whether beach renourishment is funded by the TDC. Mr. Dorrill responded that the TDC funds sand placed on "County beaches." Mr. Fogg explained that the PBSD must fund (without TDC reimbursement) any sand deposited on our private beaches, which is considered to be areas south of a''/z mile south of the Ritz. • $110,959 budget for roadway safety is for our crosswalk replacement pilot project. • $786,598 budget for our Operations Building Project will cover final payments for our building ($310,000 to Heatherwood), and expenses for security, furniture, fixtures, and other equipment. • $281,248 budget for our Sidewalk Project is to make a final payment for retainage. • $172,124 budget for streetlight maintenance is for the replacement of some light fixtures with LED lights. • $660,931 has been budgeted for drainage/pipe maintenance projects. Mr. Coleman commented that so far, we are working on one large project to re -line 1,396 feet of pipe along Bob White Lane, at an estimated cost of $336,000. • $576,195 has been budgeted towards a future lake bank restoration project, likely to be a Community Center project. Our PBSD project would follow a PBF Community Center renovation project which is not likely to be completed for at least two years. Mr. Coleman noted that we may need to do some work (where we have an easement) on the Trieste/Ritz pond which is overgrown, although it continues to have good flow. He noted that the Trieste, the Ritz, and the BCCA have property interests in this pond; however, these property owners are not interested in participating in a clean-up project. • Transfers out of $883,500 (in the Capital Projects Fund) include $500,000 to repay a portion of our debt, $250,000 in potential interest expense, and other miscellaneous County charges. • The average FY25 interest rate on our commercial loan was 3.69%, while the average FY25 interest rate earned on our cash balances was 3.76%. • Mr. Dorrill commented that our financial statements are prepared by the County Clerk of Courts, who is the Chief Fiscal Officer for the County, and confirmed that the Clerk's financial statements are audited by an outside auditor. • Budgeted funds in our Clam Bay fund have been increased from FY25 for (1) additional hand -dug channel work, and (2) increased coastal engineering fees for contracted work to extend our permits. Mr. Coleman commented that we will need a permit for any new hand - dug channels which differs from our Clam Bay permit. The permit process for new channels needs to begin (by Earth Tech). OPTIONS FOR FUTURE BEACH RENOURISHMENT BUDGETING Mr. Fogg commented that in past years, funds were added to our beach renourishment reserve every year, in expectation of a beach renourishment project every three to four years. In 3 Pelican Bay Services Division Budget Committee Meeting Dec. 2, 2025 FY25, we did not have sufficient funds to pay for our Fall FY26 beach renourishment project, and as a result, the FY26 PBSD assessment was raised by approximately $500/ERU. It is expected that after payments for our FY26 project, our funds for this purpose will be depleted. Mr. Fogg commented that we need to consider how to budget for beach renourishment going forward and whether we should seek our own permit to enable us to do our own beach renourishment project separately from a "County controlled" project, which would be at a considerable cost. He also suggested that we need to consider whether we should continue with adding a "level amount" of funds to our beach renourishment reserves each year, as we have done in the past; or do we need to add a significant amount to our reserves in FY26, in case of a 2026 hurricane requiring a beach renourishment project. Mr. Rodburg commented that per Dr. Dabees, any small beach renourislunent project will be a waste of money as the sand will quickly migrate away; the beach length from Vanderbilt Beach down to Clam Pass may not be large enough to prevent the quick migration of sand. He noted that when we piggyback on County beach renourishment projects that we are at the mercy of the County (in relation to timing). Mr. Rodburg also questioned whether a contractor would be willing to take on a small beach renourishment project. Mr. Fogg noted the cost effectiveness of piggybacking on County projects. Ms. O'Brien commented that Pelican Bay residents would appreciate pursuing the answers to these questions including (1) the cost of obtaining a permit, and (2) the effectiveness of a small beach renourishment project. Mr. Coleman commented that per the County, the PBSD cannot borrow on our line of credit for beach renourishment purposes; only funds on hand can be used. He reported that when we renew our Clam Pass permit, that it will include a line item for us to do a beach renourishment project (via trucked sand) from South Beach to Marker 37 (which will give the PBSD the ability to renourish this stretch of beach going forward). Mr. Coleman commented that the County has a permit to renourish the beach from Marker 37 northward; we could piggyback off their permit if necessary. Ms. Schultz suggested that the PBSD pursues looking into (1) What would our cost be to obtain our own beach renourishment permit? and (2) Is it possible to piggyback on beach renourishment projects by the Naples Grande Hotel and/or the Ritz? Mr. Coleman commented that these two hotels have not done their own beach renourishment projects. He noted that the Turtle Club recently completed a small emergency project; the sand quickly washed away. Mr. Dorrill confirmed that the sand from this project was washed away within 60 days. Mr. Rodburg commented that our coastal engineer had recommended against this project for this reason. He noted that at our next Clam Bay Committee meeting, we will discuss what the minimum stretch of beach would be to prevent sand migration, as was experienced by the Turtle Club. The meeting was adjourned at 2:36 0 Fogg, Minutes approved [ ]V as� e�nfied OR �� as amended ON �, � a o date 4