Login | Contact Us | Feedback | Customer Service | Site Map | Archives | RSS | Subscribe to the paper

HomeIsland NewsLocal News

Marco council unanimously approves tax relief

City Council rejects proposed maximum tax rate, cuts $1 million from budget

Marco Island resident Jane Morra attends her first City Council meeting Monday to express her concerns over the economy and a proposed city tax hike. She said economic challenges are not  just seen in banking, real estate and the stock market, but something everyone is facing. City Council heard and responded to similar concerns, choosing to reduce their earlier tax rate increase.

KELLY FARRELL / Staff

Marco Island resident Jane Morra attends her first City Council meeting Monday to express her concerns over the economy and a proposed city tax hike. She said economic challenges are not just seen in banking, real estate and the stock market, but something everyone is facing. City Council heard and responded to similar concerns, choosing to reduce their earlier tax rate increase.

— It was to be the final city budget meeting Monday, but it wasn’t exactly final.

Anticipating the national headlines of the Dow Jones experiencing its greatest decline since 9/11 and bankruptcies filed among large companies such as the 158-year old Lehman Brother’s, Marco Island City Council did an approximate about-face on how it will handle the 2009 city budget and corresponding tax rate on its citizens.

Council lowered their earlier preliminary property tax rate of 1.454 to 1.3917 mils, choosing therefore to cut $1 million from the budget. Council will now need to set up a truly final meeting, tentatively scheduled for 3 p.m., Oct. 6, to decide where the $1 million should come from.

Just last month council unanimously voted in the maximum millage rate of 1.454 or $1.45 per $1,000 of taxable property value, increasing the 2008 rate of 1.2084 by about 22 percent. The decision required a super majority vote and Councilor Rob Popoff spoke up Monday to withdraw his vote for the highest rate, breaking the required super majority.

“For many of us these are the worst financial times of our lives. We’re a small community and we don’t need to rule with Washington type mentalities,” Popoff said and later added “This is a much bigger picture than any of us could imagine. This is outrageous what we’re going through right now.”

Councilors Chuck Kiester and Ted Forcht seemed to quickly come on board with Popoff, hoping to come up with plans that would be best for the community both short term and long term by providing some sort of cost savings for residents.

Kiester’s idea was to remove the electric franchise fee, a five percent surtax on electric bills, rather than reduce the millage rate. He said it would give residents the greatest annual savings while having the least impact on future city budgets because franchise funds are not subject to the city’s chartered spending cap on year to year budgets.

City Finance Director Bill Harrison reminded the council that the budget and millage rate was required by law to be discussed prior to any other decisions such as the electric franchise fee. While discussions included lowering the franchise fee from 5 percent to 3.5 percent just to pay off the $1 million debt the city has for prior undergrounding projects, the final decision was deferred until the early October meeting.

Councilor Frank Recker appeared to be taken aback by budget changes so late in the process.

“We spent a lot of time on this budget process. I know you can get a lot of cheers ... but it’s irresponsible,” Recker said of the initial proposition by Popoff to lower the tax rate.

Popoff stood his ground saying he felt it irresponsible for the city to not act in accordance with economic changes.

“This process started back in May; we were in different economic times. We were in different economic times two weeks ago,” he said citing recent daily changes in the press.

“When we went in with a 7-0 vote (to approve the larger tax increase) I thought we were responsible. A 180 year old company in the U.S. is gone, if that doesn’t scare the expletive out of you I don’t know what does,” Popoff said.

He also stated that he believed the press wasn’t very helpful in sharing information about the city’s budget process and he found many residents confused that the initially proposed 22 percent tax rate increase only affected their city tax, not their entire property tax bill.

“Only 11 percent are city taxes. When we talk about a tax increase it’s not the total of the tax bill. I feel the press failed to break that down appropriately,” Popoff added.

Most of Islanders tax bill goes to areas such as Collier County Schools, Collier County general government and Mosquito Control. City Councilors only have a vote in the city budget.

Island resident Cliff Mac Morris agreed with Popoff that he found recent news reports confusing.

“It was a huge clarification for us. We thought the 22 percent increase was on the whole property tax bill. We didn’t realize it was only 11 percent of that bill that went to the city,” Mac Morris said and added that as a business owner he’s had to make a lot of changes to keep operating costs down and wondered if City Council ever made a list of possible ways to save money.

“I’m really impressed they finally got something done,” he said of the council’s decision to cut the budget by about $1 million.

Kiester came prepared with budget cutting recommendations totaling about $1.4 million such as not hiring five new employees and delaying undergrounding. His list of possibilities also included delaying the resurfacing clay courts, as well as other park improvements and some landscaping saving nearly $3.8 million if all those plans were eliminated in 2009.

Resident John DeFalco said he understood the proportions on his tax bill, but it didn’t change how important he saw the city’s tax levy.

“I think we should be going after Collier County also, but this is where you start. I think each house ought to be in order,” DeFalco said during a council break.

While Popoff initially pushed for no tax rate increase at all and Kiester hoped to save residents money on electric bills, the council reached a unanimous compromise with a smaller increase of 1.3917 mils or about a 10 percent increase from last year.

Chairman Bill Trotter did not believe matching last year’s tax rate of 1.2084 mills would be wise given the significant budget shortfall due particularly to decreased taxable property value.

“ ... to cavalierly do that and find we can’t provide the services is not productive,” he said.

City staff will offer council recommendations to cut just shy of $1 million from the budget and City Council will have the final say on the matter at their next meeting.

Harrison said he wasn’t surprised by the change and said he even expected it.

“As Mr. Popoff noted, this is not business as usual,” Harrison said.

In other business City Council voted to:

– Set the Hideaway Beach Special Taxing District millage rate at 1.5570 for operations and 1.043 for debt service adopting an approximate $3.3 million budget for 2009.

– Amend the Fire Prevention and Protection Code to include a $75 inspection fee for single family resort properties which would take effect if City Council also approves an ordinance for short term rental housing.

– Approve a barbed wire fence at the South Water Treatment Plant as required by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

– Approve an ordinance to eliminate grease from going directly into the sewer system by establishing grease trap and interceptor installation and maintenance laws for restaurants.

– Postpone discussions on Tract K until after the Collier County School Board elections in November

– Postponed a 15 to 30 percent emergency water rate increase during once a week watering restrictions until such conditions arise.

– Postponed the reading of an amendment to the Police Officer’s Pension Plan.

– Postponed setting the process for funding special events.

– Postponed adjusting the 5 percent electric franchise fee on residents’ electric bills.

– Approve a six-month trial contract with Christopher Harlow’s Wildlife Removal to ride Marco Island of its non-native green and black spiny tail iguanas for $7,500.

– Approve a 4.3 percent water rate increase to pay for repaving of roads due to the STRP project and account for a cost of living adjustment.

Comments

This site does not necessarily agree with comments posted below — responsibility lies with the relevant reader alone. Read our privacy policy & user agreement.


Spincity I tell you!!!! The fact is it's still in an increase, call it what you want but not tax relief. When you pay for more taxes than a previosu year it's call getting shafted.

#1 Posted by Marcosnook03 on September 16, 2008 at 2:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Poppoff should have said NO TAX INCREASE- 11 PERCENT INCREASE is still laughable with the economy like it is. Poppoff just mentioned a 180 year company gone! Marco Council needs to act responsible and do away with any property TAX increase! WE ARE ALL IN THE SAME BOAT! The franchise fee needs to be reduced asap! and eliminated - it was not used for the purpose intended. The Water Bill Increase is also not justified! What is wrong with this council. The council has started to act (a little) concerned about the residents that voted them into office. We are asking that the council become ALOT CONCERNED with what Residents of Marco say- THIS IS A RECORD DOWN ECONOMY- FORECLOSURES ON MARCO- BUSINESS IS HURTING AND PAYCHECKS ARE GONE! Please come up with inventive ways to save us $$ not spend- the spend spend agenda of City needs to be stopped until we are back into a Up Economy. COUNCILORS PLEASE DO THE RIGHT THING AND VOTE DOWN ANY INCREASE IN OUR TAXES- REMEMBER YOU WERE PUT IN OFFICE BY MARCO VOTERS.

#2 Posted by 25yearsonmarco on September 16, 2008 at 3:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Last night was Marco City Council at their best. They actually did something positive with open and productive dialog. I have been going to council meetings since we became a city and have never seen such a riveting and dynamic debate. Hope this is the sign of more good to come...

#3 Posted by ejburger on September 16, 2008 at 3:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

right ejburger...and pigs will soon fly! as long as wayne keeps meeting arceri at hoots for breakfast,(which he does regularly.. arceri is still steering the titanic and wayne's trying to see around the icebergs. but sooner rather than later they'll hit the iceberg.

#4 Posted by van on September 16, 2008 at 5:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So you did not agree with councils decision last night? Why can't you accept this as a victory for us taxpayers?

And so what if wacky Wayne meets with Arceri? I remember vividly the meetings between Godfrey Davies and Chuck Kiester. Councilor Kiester has turned out to be a very good councilor now that Davies isn't pulling his strings; he makes good decisions when he comes up with them on his own. Councilors should meet with their constituents. I am sure wacky Wayne would meet you for breakfast, just ask him.

If I had a choice I would rather have 100 Arceri's on Marco rather than one McMullan. Say what you want about Arceri and Waldack but at least they're honest. McMullan has a bad track record and he'll slip up again. People don't change that easy.

Van, as I've proven before (by just reading all of your posts) you are a complainer and will never be happy. I am thrilled with the meeting last night; there was enegy in the room except for the negative aire radiating from Bill "Kissimmee" McMullan, Marco's self-proclaimed saviour. McMullan's history is well-noted yet some of you yahoos still give him credibility.

Keep up the good work councilors!

#5 Posted by ejburger on September 16, 2008 at 10:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

ejburger....i am not a "complainer" as you suggest or state...i am a citizen that has an opinion....right or wrong....just like you...i could change my post name like others and i could keep quiet, like others. i do not agree with all mr. mc mullan "bloviates" but i do see where we are headed if this train is not stopped...it seems to me that there is no end to the taxes/special assessments/special districts etc etc that we are being bombarded with.
mr arceri is a poison for this city (also my opinion)he has way to many ties and way to much influence on this council and is a self-appointed/opinionated loud mouth loser. he is as bad on one front as you say mc mullan is on the other front.
and for your information i supported candidates from both sides because i thought that would at least give us a more honest/candid and reasonable decision on all items that come for votes.

and as for wacky wayne...you called him that/not me..but i do agree with you!

so mr. ejburger...be thrilled if you want to be..i am not...the only credibility here is what the councilors that got elected live by and do what is best for this island...not what arceri says or does.

and i am not a yahoo...wish i owned more of the stock though...would be happy to meet with you to discuss this debacle in more detail.

#6 Posted by van on September 16, 2008 at 11:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

ejburger, I understand your frustration with McMullan, a very pompus and shamless man. However, van seems like a reasonable man with an opinion. Not sure I would classify him as a cave dweller or a yahoo. My take on this whole thing is very simple:

* The city needs money to operate
* They must tax us
* The county is screwing us
* Our city councilors are doing the
best they can
* Council gts abused no matter what
they do; they're blasteded if they do
and blasteded if they don't

We should cut them a break becasue they are doing a very demanding job with little of no monetary gain and probably doing a better job then most of the amateur politicians on these blogs. It's real easy to sit in your underwear with a cup of coffee and blog negative things about the very people who have the guts to put themselves out there and volunteer their lives for abuse from a bunch of disrespectful, unhappy people they don't appreciate anything! Our council makes tough decisions and then takes abuse. I saw the meeting on tv and thought is was an amazing meeting.

#7 Posted by jchamberland on September 17, 2008 at 5:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This article is all about a tax INCREASE! What's the matter with you people? Most of the expenditures our City is now burdened with can be traced to ideas that John Arceri made. Get a grip and start being real. If the City Council is doing the best they can, then they are incompetent! They can and must do better.

#8 Posted by Fossil on September 17, 2008 at 6:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It’s obvious you were not at the meeting Monday night 25yearsonmarco, and at best, you just skimmed the article. If you read the article above in its entirety you would know that Councilor Popoff did ask for a zero tax increase and it’s not an 11% increase. You should definitely re-read the article?? Popoff mentioned all of the points you made and more. Perhaps it’s your sole intent, like Fossil, to find fault even when someone is acting with your best interest in mind? It sure looks like you are misinformed and misaligned. Get the facts before you write such nonsense!

#9 Posted by Sailor on September 17, 2008 at 9:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

#10 Posted by Montel on September 17, 2008 at 11:17 a.m.

The article says (Marco council unanimously approves tax relief) when is raising taxes tax relief? Only on Marco.

#11 Posted by marcoislandres on September 17, 2008 at 3:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OH no they raise the 10% of my Tax Bill that is the Cities by 11% OMG!!! Thats a $20.00 per year increase!!!!!!
I guess Ill go Bankrupt and Move.
I bet the City could send a check out to pay all your taxes and you people would cry because they didn't include the cost of stamps to mail them in.
From what I've seem, most of you cry babies don't even live here, and I don't care that your upset that your $10 Million Vacation Homes Taxes are a little high.

#12 Posted by OldMarcoMan on September 17, 2008 at 4:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

RIGHT ON OldMarcoMan!!!!!!!

What amazes me is that the paper actually removes public information about Bill McMullan. There was absolutely NO abusive language or insulting remarks, only facts about McMullans checkered past. Why would the Eagle staff remove this...McMullan must have pull with the press!

To find out more about Mr. McMullan google his name as follows, Bill McMullan Kissimmee, or just visit the link below:

www.supportmarco.com

#13 Posted by Montel on September 17, 2008 at 9:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Geez, Monte—among other reasons, your posts linking to that inflammatory website that further links to copyrighted material are violations of the marconews Terms of Use. That’s why they’re taken down.

And we’re not falling for your ridiculous tactic—dredging up 20 year-old allegations to distract from the real issues of today. To quote somebody: “It’s the economy, stupid.”

#14 Posted by Avenger on September 17, 2008 at 10:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

here's my tax bill:
last year this year
640.70 761.16
for the city of marco island...now how is my bill lower wayne? please explain.

#15 Posted by van on September 17, 2008 at 10:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

vote mccain/palin

#16 Posted by van on September 17, 2008 at 11:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

van, your tax bill should be lower, mine is over $100 lower. Has your houses assessed value gone down? If not talk to the property appraser; my assessed value has gone down.

I agree: VOTE McCain / Palin

#17 Posted by ejburger on September 18, 2008 at 5:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

yep...assessed value went down...i've got calls in to the appraisers office...still waiting. and wayne hasn't called either.

#18 Posted by van on September 18, 2008 at 9:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

spoke to the county...they said call the city...called the city they said i need to talk to bill harrison...left message...BUT..if i look at houses around me everyones marco city tax bill had gone up from last year by avg $100.00. what say you wayne?

#19 Posted by van on September 18, 2008 at 9:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

wayne's city tax bill went down $14.00.

every item on my tax bill went down EXCEPT the city of marco...which went up 21%. and it's the same the lot i own. plus..if you look at the SOH column it was cut in half. my bottom line taxes went down...BUT that was because the county and state taxes went down...had nothing to do with the city taxes that went UP....so i believe i am right...i got a tax increase from the city!!! don't care where they bury or hide it...it's an increase.

#20 Posted by van on September 18, 2008 at 9:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Welcome to Wayne's world, fast and very lose with the facts.

#21 Posted by JohninMarco on September 18, 2008 at 12:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I guarantee all these tax and spend liberals from N.Y who are burying our city in debt are BIG Obama supporters.

#22 Posted by playballonK on September 18, 2008 at 9:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

No where else but Marco Island would anybody have the audacity to propose a 11% tax increase and call it tax relief because it could have been more. This is one sick city.

#23 Posted by marcoobserver on September 19, 2008 at 12:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I am neither from NY or a big spend liberal...that is why retirement came early and I get to live on Marco. Palin/McCain my derriere!!! That woman does not represent women...and it was an insult for "John" to allow himself to be pressured in choosing her. Most of the people who are raising your taxes on Marco are from the "other side". The greedy you know what.

#24 Posted by NtJstUrMarco on September 19, 2008 at 4:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

NtJstUrMarco: I suggest if you want to express your political leanings, you do that outside the forum of this local paper discussing local issues. You need to get a grip and get with reality

#25 Posted by lauralbi1 on September 21, 2008 at 12:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

NtJstUrMarco wasn’t the first poster to bring up national politics in this tread, although he was the first to make any sense. Why aren’t you telling van (#16), ejburger (#17), and playballonK (#22) to go elsewhere and get a grip, Issler?

#26 Posted by Avenger on September 21, 2008 at 5:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

lauralbil...that was my point when I made my political view...postings before me made their political view...just keeping it equal. The idea that Liberals on this island are raising our taxes and spending money is absurd. If you were to take a poll of the island, city government, and council, the majority would be???? Not the Liberals that have been stated in the comments now and previously. Correct???Who is spending the money.

#27 Posted by NtJstUrMarco on September 22, 2008 at 10:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)



Post your comment
(Requires free registration.)

Username:

Password:
(Forgotten your password?)

Your Turn: