New sewer funding proposal would increase taxes

While it would put a $10,000 cap on property owners' prepaid sewer assessments, a new proposal for funding the $105 million Septic Tank Replacement Program (STRP) would increase property taxes for all property owners on Marco Island.

Should the city council consider a referendum that would cap all sewer assessments at $10,000?

See the results »

View previous polls »

The newest plan is being proposed by Marco Island City Council Chairwoman Terri DiSciullo and would require a public referendum held as early as June.

Highlights of the financing scheme include having all island property owners pay for the sewer line construction, putting a cap of $10,000 on every property owner's prepaid sewer assessment, and doing away with rate increases in utility bills paid by every utility customer.

The property owners could make equal payments of about $930 each year over a 20-year period. Another payment option would be to defer the payments for 20 years or when the property is sold to another person.

City Council already approved an 8 percent increase in the utility rates for all utility customers, while reducing assessments for the STRP by an average of $1,500 for new sewer hook-ups. That would pay for the resurfacing of streets in each district after the neighborhoods are sewered.

The council also agreed to increase monthly utility bills for all property owners another 8 percent to pay for a proposal to reduce the assessments by about $2,500 that would offset the cost of upgrading the wastewater treatment plant to membrane technology.

DiSciullo said that if voters approved a referendum by mail ballot, the city could issue general obligation bonds to fund the balance of the STRP.

She noted that the sewer project will continue as a special assessment program.

"The referendum will only determine whether voters are willing to share in the cost through their annual property tax bill," she stated to the Marco Eagle.

© 2007 marconews.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

  • Discuss
  • Print

Comments » 3

bbyrone46 writes:

Very interesting proposal. For some homesteaded inland homeowners on sewers, it would appear the roll back of proposed rate increases vs. a minimum tax increase would result in a wash. For vacant lot owners and absentee landlords this is bad news. For the more affluent who itemize, the increase is deductable and results in an indirect Federal subsidy if they are to be new users. For all big water users this can be a gift. For those who recently homesteaded this will be a big hit on their pocket books. For investors and second home owners who are not homesteaded this is taxation without representation. Personally, it favors my situation so I would support it.

patton1 writes:

bbyrone: it is all about you, isn't it?

Lolala writes:

patton 1, looks to me like bbyrone showed you that although some will not benefit many others including him/herself will. Which group do you fall into?

Share your thoughts

Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.

Comments can be shared on Facebook and Yahoo!. Add both options by connecting your profiles.

Features