Naples, Marco Island
We should keep it at three percent. That way, we won’t spend more money than we should, and it will be spent on what the people would like it spent on. We, as citizens of Marco, should be able to go to meetings, but also to vote on things like the Jolley Bridge expansion, and the $12 million Smokehouse Bay bridge.
I think they should keep the cap, and not have a free reign on spending. It shouldn’t be a ‘Let’s-just-tax’ policy, where voters have no say. Whether we are voting on something that’s small or huge, voters should have a choice. If there is a limit, a project would be done within it. Without a limit, it may become a situation where a budget is appropriated, and then we are taxed, retroactively, and left asking, ‘What happened?’
A good example is the sewer repair. It was fine for 24 years; why spend a million dollars on it right now? What about the new bike trail along Bald Eagle Drive? Do we need to spend six or seven hundred thousand dollars on that? When people are losing their homes, their jobs? We love Marco Island; decisions like these incur scrutiny.
I agree with the cap, because Marco has a tendency of opening up cans of worms, time after time, and the projects always manage to tie in with the season. So, everybody that is coming down to Marco Island is coming to the inconvenience of this. They spread it out. I’m originally from Minnesota. A six-month program up North takes three years here. The way I see it, a spending cap would put a time limit on how long a project can go on.