Loading...
PBSD Minutes 03/05/2026 BBUDGET COMMITTEE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION MARCH 5, 2026 The Budget Committee of the Pelican Bay Services Division met on Thursday, March 5 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 Pelican Bay Services Division Staff Neil Dorrill, Administrator Chad Coleman, Deputy Director Dawn Brewer, Ops. Support Spec. II (absent) Darren Duprey, Supervisor - Field I (absent) Also Present Cindy Polke, PBSD Board Michael Rodburg Greg Stone Rick Swider (absent) Dave Greenfield, Supervisor —Field II (absent) Karin Herrmann, Project Manager I (absent) Lisa Jacob, Project Manager II Barbara Shea, Admin. Support Specialist II APPROVED AGENDA (AS PRESENTED) 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Roll call 3. Agenda approval 4. Approval of 12/2/2025 meeting minutes 5. Audience comments 6. Overview of PBSD Contracting Process Preliminary Discussion of Major Factors Impacting the FY27 Budget a. FY26 Operations Budget Forecast and Changes Expected in FY27 b. Capital Projects i. Major Projects in FY26 Budget Line Items and Forecast EOY Balances ii. Preliminary Draft of FY27 Capital Projects and Reserve Requirements c. Review of 10-Year Budget and Assessment Projection 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 carWo ried unanimous) . APPROVAL 12/2/2025 MEETING MINUTES Pelican Bay Services Division Budget Committee Meeting Mar. 5, 2026 Mr. Stone motioned, Mr. Fabregas seconded to approve the 12/2/2025 meeting minutes as presented. The motion carried unanimously, AUDIENCE COMMENTS Ms. Susan O'Brien commented that she learned as week that the PBSD's use of the County contract (#1179-03) between the County's Parks & Rec. Dept. and Earth Tech Environmental has been referred to the County Inspector General's Office because the PBSD's expenditure exceeded the maximum contract expenditure of $75,000, the PBSD used it for over $2.6 million in 2025, and the PBSD may have used the contract for some items that may not be included in the scope of the contract. FOLLOW-UP FROM THE DEC. 2 BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING Nh•. Fogg commented that staff followed up (from the last committee meeting) with County personnel on clarifying the wording of the PBSD assessment on next year's property tax bill. OVERVIEW OF PBSD CONTRACTING PROCESS Mr. Fogg addressed two issues relating to the PBSD County contracting process including (1) How was the County procurement process implemented in relation to the 2024 hurricanes? and (2) How does the PBSD Board approve items. Copies of the procurement manual and ordinance were made available to participants at this meeting. Highlights of his addressing these two questions included the following. • As a division of Collier County, the PBSD follows County procedures. • The PBSD follows procurement methods and threshold summary, as provided in the agenda packet. • For projects < $250,000, the department follows County procedures; if an existing County contract exists, then staff must use the contract wherever possible. • For projects > $250,000, BCC approval is required. • In Oct. 2024, there was a disaster declaration which resulted in either a suspension or softening of County procedures in their application, with an increased emphasis on using existing contracts. • Earth Tech had a Parks & Recl contract which was designed for a limited purpose. Earth Tech is experienced and was willing and able to respond quickly to our needs. As a result of these hurricanes, the dune swale was not functional and beach restoration work needed to be completed before turtle nesting season. Earth Tech began work with the dune Swale project which was extended to the dune reclamation/rebuild project. • All Earth Tech purchase orders followed County procedures, were approved by the County Procurement Dept., and ultimately all related invoices were paid by the Cleric of Courts (the County's auditor and ultimate bill payer). • While some suggest that savings could have been achieved by bidding these projects out at the time, this is highly unlikely as contractors were in short supply and post -hurricane prices were inflated. • The FY26 budget includes $4.6 million for beach dune restoration, which was approved by the Budget Committee, the PBSD Board, and ultimately the BCC. Numerous discussions and updates on the hurricane restoration work were provided at every board 2 Pelican Bay Services Division Budget Committee Meeting Mar. 5, 2026 meeting over the last year, as well as at Clam Bay and Budget committee meetings. Presentations to the community included Men's Coffee and Presidents Council, and updates were included in the PB Post and Today in the Bay. Updates to Commissioner Kowal, Commissioner Hall, and Coastal Zone Mgt. were provided. All were very satisfied with the work accomplished. • The damage firom the 2024 hurricanes was unprecedented; our response has been unprecedented. The coastal dune and beach are now in better shape than they were prior to the 2024 hurricanes. • Going forward, we are back to a more normal operating environment where staff is expected to manage day-to-day maintenance activities under the supervision of the Administrator, as outlined in the operating budget and in accordance with County operating procedures. • The PBSD Board is expected to provide overall direction to staff through the approval of the annual operating and capital budgets, and where appropriate, approval of new projects that require significant expenditures or resources. • The PBSD Board should approve projects exceeding $250,000, prior to submittal to the BCC for approval. There is an exception to this rule, where there are existing contracts. • Mr. Dorrill and Mr. Fogg are working on a proposal to identify specific dollar amounts for proposed projects requiring PBSD Board approval. This will be brought to the board for approval in April or May. Going forward, a more extensive list of ongoing projects and activities currently underway will be included in the monthly board package. Mr. Rodburg commented that in many cases, we have not had great experience with putting projects out to competitive bid, as we often receive no bids, or low bids by contractors who are not qualified to complete our project, which may cause huge delays in the bidding process. Mr. Stone commented on an issue raised at the 2/19/26 Landscape & Safety Committee meeting, whereby a resident suggested that an $800,000 street sign & pole replacement project was never approved by the board. He noted that this year's $150,000 replacement work was approved to be performed over multiple years and that work is proceeding as intended. Mr. Stone cautioned that we need to be careful in disparaging staff or assuming any wrongdoing. Mr. Fogg commented that street sign replacement has been a subject included in two or three budget cycles. He explained that our sign replacement contract had to be large enough in order to attract bids. Reserves for this project have been built up for at least two years, during which there has been board discussion on this issue. Mr. Fogg commented that in FY26, the first phase of this project will include replacement of street name signs and damaged signs, in FY27 the second phase will include the replacement of verde signs, and a possible third phase may replace the signs with large bases installed after Hurricane Ian under a FEMA grant. The PBSD Board is well aware of this entire project. Ms. O'Brien clarified that at the L&S Committee meeting, she suggested that the $800,000 sign replacement contract should have been approved by the PBSD Board before going to the BCC for approval and hopes that this will not happen again. Mr. Dorrill clarified that two different companies named Earth Tech (Enviromnental and Ltd.) have been working on our dune restoration and sand reclamation projects. He commented that the Clerk has the sole and ultimate authority to approve and make payment on all County 3 Pelican Bay Services Division Budget Committee Meeting Mar. 5, 2026 invoices. Mr. Donin noted that the Clerk has not approved and made payment on the final invoices relating to our Operations Building construction, as we have not received our final C.O. Nh. Dorrill commented that on occasion he has made the decision to not follow County procedures as was the case in 2017, when he directed staff to remove all debris from Hurricane Irma to a staging area on our Operations site; the County preferred that the debris be left in the County road right-of-way. He noted that the FEMA debris removal contractor did not come through to remove the R.O.W. debris until approximately four months later. Mr. Dorrill commented that he would be reluctant to ask the County to amend their procurement ordinance to apply lower levels of threshold authority for one division. He commented that he is not opposed to disclosing additional information (County contract and purchase order details) on work to be done under an emergency or not specifically budgeted item. Mr. Dorrill commented that he routinely provides project updates either written or oral at advisory board meetings. Ms. Polke commented on our sand reclamation and beach renourishment projects. She questioned, (1) What is the plan for our dune creation? and (2) Who is managing it? Mr. Fogg explained that Dr. Dabees is the Coastal Engineer in charge of the dune project and that the County's Coastal Zone Division is not involved in the project. MAJOR PROJECTS IN FY26 BUDGET LINE ITEMS AND FORECAST EOY BALANCE Mr. Fogg and the committee discussed a spreadsheet of our projects which included FY26 forecast, 10/1/27 available balance, FY27 assessment, and total FY27 funds available for each project. The committee agreed that the FY27 assessment should include additional funding of $250,000 for landscape improvement, $150,000 for signage replacement, $900,000 for beach renourishment, $100,000 for crosswalk replacement, and $300,000 for drain/pipe maintenance. Mr. Stone commented that our goal is to plant 50 trees in FY26 (and fully funded in FY26), and that we will be using a drone to identify appropriate planting sites on PB Blvd. and Gulf Park Dr. He noted that there has been some community discussion on development of a long-term landscape plan for the community, which may require a landscape architect. Input from the PBF is needed. Mr. Stone suggested that we consider hiring a landscape architect to redesign the PB entrances. Mr. Coleman commented that the "beach renourishment project" budget includes about $250,000 for dune plantings. He noted that not all of the mangrove seedlings installed in Clam Pass are thriving and suggested that it may take a number of years to gradually restore this mangrove area. Mr. Fogg commented on exploring the feasibility of doing our own beach renourishment project in front of the Marker 36 facility (and possibly South Beach) in the future when deemed appropriate. He suggested that we need (1) a cost estimate, and (2) an engineer's opinion on how large a beach length would be needed for the sand to remain in the deposited area. Mr. Rodburg commented that we need to have a discussion on this issue at the committee level, and suggested that the cost of such a project would be 1.5 to 2 times what our cost of sand is when piggy -backing on a County project. He noted that Dr. Dabees has explained that sand will wash away when deposited in a small area (as was seen after the 2025 Turtle Club project was completed). Mr. Coleman commented that a PBSD beach renourishrent project would include mobilization, grating, and sand costs. Mr. Fogg commented that currently there is no lake bank restoration project planned, and therefore, we are not budgeting any additional funds for this purpose in FY27. He noted that the 4 Pelican Bay Services Division Budget Committee Meeting Mar. 5, 2026 next lake bank requiring an upgrade is likely to be the Community Center lake. A project cannot be planned for this lake until the PBF finalizes its Community Center renovation plans. Mr. Coleman commented that the PBF has done some mitigation work at the Community Park lake as part of the pickleball project, and noted that the County Parks & Ree. Division is responsible for landscaping in the Community Park, FY26 OPERATIONS BUDGET FORECAST AND CHANGES EXPECTED IN FY27 Mr. Coleman commented that County FY27 budget guidance includes a limit of a 3% increase for operating expenses and 5% for capital. Mr. Fogg commented that staff has been looking for a smaller space for the PBSD office as a result of PBF Covenants staff vacating their shared portion of the existing office. Mr. Coleman commented that a potential office on the third floor of the Truist Bldg, is being looked at, which could potentially result in an annual cost saving of approximately $50,000 if negotiations on the space are successful. FY27 CLAM BAY FUND BUDGET Mr. Coleman commented that we may need an increase in the funding for our Clam Bay Fund in FY27 due to additional monitoring, additional reporting, installation of additional hand - dug channels, and higher rates charged by the County Pollution Control for water quality testing. FY27 BUDGET TIMELINE Mr. Coleman commented that he will begin loading budget data into the County system beginning on March 10, after the BCC adopts their FY27 budget policy. The committee agreed to meet again in late April to finalize the PBSD budget, which would be followed by PBSD Board approval at the May board meeting. Ms. O'Brien requested that the proposed FY27 budget is included in the backup of a board agenda packet. REVIEW OF 10-YEAR BUDGET AND ASSESSMENT PROJECTION Mi•. Fogg reviewed his 10-year budget and assessment projection. For FY27, he suggested that our goal is for a reduction of at least $300 per ERU. PB FERTILIZER USE Mr. Stone commented on a recent L&S Committee discussion on PB fertilizer use and its contribution to water quality impairment in Clam Bay, noting that there is no confidence that the bulk of PB landscapers are following County guidelines. Ongoing questions include, (1) Is there evidence that some inputs are causing the Clam Bay impairment? and (2) Should PB consider banning the use of fertilizer in light of the high level of nutrients in the County reclaimed water? Mr. Rodburg commented that the County publishes data on nutrient levels contained in the reclaimed water, which is meant to be used as a guide for landscapers. He suggested that some fertilizer will always be necessary. Mr. Stone noted that County Pollution Control will be malting a presentation to the Presidents Council next week. Mr. Fogg suggested that a workshop or joint meeting with the PBF is scheduled in the next few months to discuss inflows to the Clam Bay system. The meetins was adjourned at 3:25 G Pelican Bay Services Division Budget Committee Meeting Mar. 5, 2026 Fogg, Minutes approved[' ] as p nt�d OAR �7 as amended ON 6date