Commissioners FY 2027 Budget Affects Conservation Collier

In a split 3-2 vote, the Board of County Commissioners cut $5.2 million from the Conservation Collier fund on Thursday, the largest cut made during the approval of the $3.1 billion fiscal year 2027 budget.

The motion, which was to keep the mill rate for Conservation Collier flat, was put forward by District Two Commissioner Chris Hall, reducing the program’s budget from $35 million to $30 million. He argued that the change would allow taxpayers to keep an additional $12, and that the program already had a healthy surplus ー that the limited number of land purchases wasn’t from a lack of funding, but from a lack of willing sellers.

Commissioners Dan Kowal and William McDaniel Jr. also voted in favor of the cut, with Burt Saunders and Rick LoCastro voting against. This came following a marathon public comment period that lasted for over an hour, with over 30 members of the public coming to speak, a majority of them speaking out against the reduction in Conservation Collier funding.

“Conservation Collier never had a funding problem. Didn’t then, doesn’t now, and it won’t ever … We simply don’t have the willing sellers to sell it to us to match the amount of money we’ve raised for the program,” Hall said.

He explained that, of the $30 million that’ll be raised over the course of the next year, $17 million will go to maintenance on the existing wildlife properties, while the remaining $13 million will be added to the existing $22 million set aside for future land purchases, which other commissioners said they plan to be more aggressive about going forward after having purchased 18 new properties earlier this month.

“We’re not trying to defund Conservation Collier; we’re not trying to violate the voter sentiment. We’re doing a dang good job of managing that money, and I just didn’t want to have to collect from the taxpayer an extra $5 million that we didn’t have the ability to spend,” Hall added.

Not all the commissioners agreed with Hall, though. LoCastro was particularly vocal that he felt the tax savings from the reduced mill rate were largely negligible on an individual level, adding that it would serve the county to have more money in the program fund in case a valuable environmental property became available for purchase.

“People just need to realize that the $12.96 that they’re going to get back isn’t going to pay their gas bill for 12 months,” LoCastro said. “I’m all for cutting taxes and keeping them low, and we have. But I have a hard time taking credit for a rollback when the actual benefit to the average homeowner is $13 per year while the cost to Conservation Collier would be $5 million. As I often say, is that juice worth the squeeze?”

“I don’t mind spending money to make the area I’m in better,” added Saunders, who said it was best they had as much money as possible on hand now, with the potential passage of Amendment 3 in November, which would drastically reduce the amount of tax revenue municipal governments could receive.

“My concern is that if we don’t maintain proper funding, over a period of time ー and I’m not talking about this year, next year, or the year after ーdown the road you’re going to see that quality of life eroding … it’s irresponsible for an elected official to say ‘I will never raise taxes or fees,’ because things happen.”

During the budget meeting, a significant time was given to the public comment period, with around 30 residents showing up to advocate for Conservation Collier. This is the second time residents have done so recently; at a commission meeting last month, residents also spoke out against proposed amendments to the program that would allow development on preserved land and strip back the advisory role of the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Advisory Committee. The commission tabled the motion at the time to draft another document seeking to clarify the changes to the public.

More members of the public spoke out against the tax rollback, but it didn’t seem to influence the commission members to change their minds.

Bridget Washburn, Executive Director of the Audubon of the Western Everglades, gave a presentation advocating the benefits of the Conservation Collier Program ー specifically when it came to stormwater mitigation and how it benefited the county over expensive infrastructure projects that achieved the same effect.

“We sometimes talk about land as something we buy and set aside, but it’s far more than that. For low cost and low maintenance, wetlands hold and purify stormwater. Just one acre of wetlands can hold a million gallons of water, which is pretty helpful during our hurricanes,” Washburn said.

“Our environment is taking a beating, and I’m hoping we can just keep this water drinkable around here,” said another resident, Jay Kohlhagen.

Bebe Kanter, a local environmental advocate, also criticized Hall and the other councilors, believing they cared more about development than maintaining critical wildlife areas, which were needed to serve a critical public health function as a habitat for dragonflies to cull the disease-carrying mosquito population.

“I’m very confused about the way you do math. You’ve approved a lot of development out in the [Rural Lands Stewardship Area], which is costing the taxpayer a fortune because you didn’t charge the developers enough to install the infrastructure,” Kanter said. “It’s your fault we’re going bankrupt. And now you want to take whatever is left from the dragonflies in the middle of a public health crisis. We need that land to protect us from Dengue fever. All you care about is your money and your supporters.”

The rest of the budget passed with only minor adjustments and will be sent forward for state approval before the end of the month.