Guest Commentary: We deserve better

The national economy reflects the problems our country is facing. Americans everywhere are beginning to see how runaway spending and huge deficits are affecting them and their children’s future. Not so with Marco Island city government.

One has only to review the agenda items for the upcoming budget workshop! The Financial Planning Committee recommendations are simply overwhelming! The recommendations include increasing present fees, implementing new fees and resurrecting a fire assessment, as well as establishing a stormwater utility which would then establish a stormwater utility fee.

And it’s no secret — everyone knows that another word for fee is a tax! Let’s examine these “fees” further.

n The increase in the Fire/Rescue Department for fees and assessments amount to $1.5 million dollars.

n The largest is the Fire Assessment for $900,000 which would be used to fund three firefighters/para medics per shift for a total of nine new employees. In the present economic climate most fire/rescue districts across the country are trying to maintain current levels in lieu of laying off personnel, but city government wants to increase personnel. This is on top of hiring three additional firemen.

n But even worse — by establishing a fire assessment, it would generate revenue outside the charter.

n The Fire/Rescue Department is presently a general fund expenditure item and any and all expenditure increases must remain under the spending cap budget. The first time the City Council considered a fire assessment, the city attorney was asked if it would be an expenditure under the CAP, and he stated that this council agreed that it would indeed fall under the cap; however, he also admitted that a future council could rule otherwise.

As Chairman of “Citizens Against Runaway Spending (CARS), I do not believe the taxpayers or voters want that to occur. By allowing a fire assessment we will be establishing a precedent that at some future date the City could take this expenditure outside the CAP, which would allow the city to “double-dip” for almost $5 million dollars. In other words, taxpayers will pay twice for the same service, and in addition, the fire/rescue department revenue would not be federal tax deductible.

n A further recommendation is to establish a stormwater utility in order to implement a stormwater utility fee. This fee would be used to pay for a projected $50 million dollar capital project over the next 20 years. The proposed fee of $4 to $5 dollars per month per utility user would generate $900,000, plus another $400,000 in grants that would Provide $1,300,000 for debt service. The “key words” in this recommendation are debt service. This means that the city would finance this project so it could be addressed immediately, but the users will thus be paying excessively more than $50 million dollars.

n For Fiscal Year 2010 the capital improvement project budget is $400,000 (plus a $200,000 grant) for this project. Presently the expenditure item is budgeted annually in the spending cap general fund budget. If a stormwater sewer utility is established, this would result in those dollars remaining under the cap being expended as the city sees fit. This is another attempt by the city to expend monies outside the cap.

The citizens of Marco Island have spoken loud and clear about the importance of keeping appropriate expenditures under the cap. The proposed increases in fees, as well as adding new fees, reflect a blatant attempt to circumvent the cap.

In these tough times we should be making decisions that reflect our present economy. The residents and taxpayers are experiencing the most difficult economic downturn in their lifetimes, but the council seems to be moving full speed ahead to increase spending and to increase sources of revenue to maintain their spending ways. When will the City Council get it — that times are tough and that tough decisions have to be made?

CARS has looked carefully at these issues and is looking at various options to stop these attempts to burden our citizens further with new “fees” and assessments, another definition of “taxes.” One option is to present to City Council a petition for a referendum on the ballot so our voters of can decide these issues for themselves.