Guest Commentary: Councilor Chuck Kiester 'My turn'

As a counterpoint to Chairman Trotter’s commentary published in the Dec. 31 edition of the Marco Eagle, I would like to offer the following thoughts.

In terms of the City Council’s recognition of our nation’s (and local) economic problems, Mr. Trotter cites the reduction of the city’s mileage rate, postponing of new hires (not stated, but some only until January 1, 2009), reducing the amount the city gives to community events, and so on.

My response to the above statements is that these actions, at best, will save our taxpayers a few hundred dollars (mostly less) on their Marco Island tax bill. My proposal to eliminate the 5 percent electric franchise fee (rejected by the City Council) would have saved our residents $5 on every $100 of their electric bill. Over a 12 month period, assuming an average of $300/month, this adds up to $180, probably more than that produced by the slight reduction in the mileage rate.

The City Council did finally agree to reduce the franchise fee by 1.4 percent to 3.6 percent. But, again, we are talking peanuts here.

Unfortunately the City Council also rejected my proposal to place the STRP on hold until the nation’s financial markets had a chance to rebound from the recession so the city would be able to sell its STRP bonds at reasonable interest rates. The other side of the coin is that many, if not most, of us have been devastated by the stock market collapse to the point that many residents to whom I have spoken have changed their intentions of paying the sewer assessment upfront to the option of waiting 20 years before any payment is made.

How are the higher interest rates, along with more residents withholding payment for 20 years, going to affect the amount of money that all of us will pay as part of our monthly water/sewer bills beginning as early as now since the assessments are capped based on assumptions of lower interest rates? I would like to see a comparison of costs to (all) of our residents between the cost of higher interest rates and, presumably, lower bid prices which the Chairman seems to think will save each homeowner $4,000 to $4,500 less on their assessments.

If he is correct, that would drop my assessment from $21,500 to $17,000 (taking his high estimate) which quite frankly I have a hard time believing. While I do not have time (if I am to get this to the editor before cutoff) to verify the numbers, I still believe that an interest rate that is 1.5 to 2.0 percent higher will cost all of us more in terms of our utility rates.

Finally, the 8 percent increase on our water/sewer charge is due to the fact that the previous council agreed to increase the base rate 2 percent each year for four years to pay for the paving of streets torn up in the STRP areas. While again I do not have time to confirm the numbers, it is my understanding that the total increase is 14 percent with at least some (maybe all) of the increase being COLA.

There are other issues that I question regarding Chairman Trotter’s Commentary, but time has run out.