Cheryl Ferrara/Eagle Correspondent The sub-committee tackled a larger item when it delved into the proposed replacement of the 8,000-square-foot Community Center at Mackle Park. Community Services Director Bryan Milk noted that the original proposal for a 40,000 square foot building had not been well received, and called a "Taj Mahal." Council members present expressed strong support for the scaled down, two-phase facility currently proposed. It consists of a 16,800 sq. ft. building to be built on the footprint of the existing structure, at a cost of $3.5 million, and a future gymnasium at a cost of $1.5 million.
MARCO ISLAND — All was sweetness and light at the meeting of the Budget Sub-Committee of the Marco Island City Council last week, but City Manager Jim Riviere cautioned that the love-fest cant be expected to last.
"Everything's going along very smoothly, but that won't hold up when we get to the millage," he said during a break in the session at the city hall's first floor conference room. "That's when friendships are destroyed," and things get ugly.
"It's trench time – we'll be down in the trenches," said City Clerk Laura Litzan, sitting in on the meeting. The actual sub-committee is made up of three city councilors: Chairman Joe Batte, Frank Recker and Jerry Gibson.
"I think it's going pretty well," Batte agreed, reached by phone on Sunday evening. "This is a good opportunity for the City Council to get in on the budget from the beginning. The department heads live with these numbers every day, and we don't, so this helps us get a handle on it."
While all the myriad components of the budget may seem remote from the day to day concerns of the average Marco Island resident, it's a good thing that the city's elected leaders are taking seriously their responsibility to carefully husband the city's funds. Tied to that budget is the tax millage rate that will be charged to city property owners.
Wednesday's meeting was in the conference room due to a scheduling conflict, and was actually the first half of a marathon two-day session, which resumed the next day in council chambers. An earlier meeting in May dealt with the big picture items in the five-year Capital Improvement Project (CIP), and last week's meetings took up the city's operating budget – department by department, line by line, and virtually pencil by pencil.
Sometimes, a particular item got plucked out as a topic for extended discussion, while other categories were dealt with summarily. The "Jolley B. Good" road race event gave new meaning to the phrase "10-K run," when Community Services Director Bryan Milk reported that the race, inaugurated last year in conjunction with the dedication of the Jolley Bridge's new span, is being repeated, and the cost to run it was $10,000 – $10-K.
This year, additional budget is being sought to expand the race, said Milk, approximately $16- to $17,000, but at the end of the day, it probably won't cost the city anything, once sponsorship dollars and fees are accounted for. Committee members, plus Marco Island Taxpayers Association president Fay Biles, sitting in the audience, were not happy with the concept of not having bottom line numbers available. City Recreation Supervisor Alex Galiana promised to provide exact numbers.
The sub-committee tackled a larger item when it delved into the proposed replacement of the Community Center at Mackle Park. Milk noted that the original proposal for a 40,000 square foot building had not been well received, and called a "Taj Mahal."
Council members present expressed strong support for the scaled down, two-phase facility currently proposed. It consists of a 16,800 sq. ft. building to be built on the footprint of the existing structure, at a cost of $3.5 million, and a future gymnasium at a cost of $1.5 million.
Gibson seemed impatient to get the project underway.
"The building we have now doesn't perform," he said. "How close are we to condemning that building and shutting it down? Apparently, nobody cares."
"I think you're on the right track," said Recker. "The question is how much, how fast. Thousands of voters on this island would rather see a new center than a new (Smokehouse Bay) bridge."
Galiana reported on the heavy usage of the Mackle Park center, and said more would be possible if there were more space.
"People come here because of this," he said.
Police Chief Don Hunter and Assistant Chief Dave Baer presented the police department's request, which would bring the number of sworn officers on the force up by three to a total of 33, which Baer pointed out just returns staffing to the 2009 level. Their budget, which includes code compliance, as well as patrol officers, investigative, marine and administration, seeks an overall spend of $4.5 million, up from $4.2. In line with Hunter's philosophy, the department is seeking to become more efficient and intelligence based, rather than reactive, said Baer.
The fire department also took its turn at the table. The most significant change contemplated there is the proposed ambulance requested by Fire Chief Mike Murphy.
"That needs a lot of discussion," said Batte. "For the first time, that would put the city into the ambulance business for the first time in our history."
Acting city finance director Bob Lange, sitting in on all the departments' explication of their financial requests, got his own turn in the spotlight on Thursday when the sub-committee looked at the finance department, with its longstanding quest to obtain and utilize new accounting software.
"Every year we say go with it, and it never happens," commented Recker. Lange said the choice, with systems costing in the hundreds of thousands, is critical, and will require additional staff to run it.
"We need one and a half, maybe two people," he said, "professional staff, not clerical staff. We're talking about restructuring city records." The current, DOS-based system is antiquated, he said, and does not provide needed management reports.
Jeff Poteet, general manager of the water and sewer department, requested $1.5 million to run a water main across or underneath the Jolley Bridge. This could be key in an emergency, said Riviere.
"Should we have a disaster, and both our island water plants go down, we would have the ability to hook into the county water system and continue to supply water to our homes," he said. "Currently, we have no plan, except to run out of water."
All these and many other competing priorities, including "greatest hits" such as the Smokehouse Bay Bridge, will be considered, ranked and allocated by the budget sub-committee, which will then make its recommendations to the full city council.
"We've gone through all the departments' operating budgets, and the CIP. Now, we have the opportunity to go back to the beginning, and make suggestions and give our feelings or thoughts," said Batte. The BSC will weigh in on what can stay and what is, in 2011 sub-committee member Bill Trotter's phrase, a "nice to have, not a need to have" item for the city.
The BSC will hold at least one more meeting, at 9 a.m. on July 9 in the city council chambers. A meeting planned for this Thursday was postponed to that date. The full council will take up the Fiscal Year 2012 budget for its first reading at their September 4 meeting, and the final budget must be approved prior to that year beginning on October 1.
"I'm really happy with my two partners," Batte said of Recker and Gibson. "They cut right to the chase, so we get right to what we want to say. We've covered a lot of ground."







Scripps Interactive Newspapers Group
Comments » 9
ed34145 writes:
"I think you're on the right track," said Recker. "The question is how much, how fast. Thousands of voters on this island would rather see a new center than a new (Smokehouse Bay) bridge."
Did he take a poll? If he had, he would probably have found that thousands of voters DON'T want a new center.
Out of 18,000 residents, how many really use the center?
And, the finance department wants still more staff? They've already had staff added in recent years.
marco826 writes:
The article here reports nothing! Marco Islanders, bend over....Plus 33 Police now? Every Department wants more money and staff. Build, Build Build. Tax, Tax, Tax....enough already!...This town will crash financially and residents will flee.
marco826 writes:
Hey! I've got an idea....lets build a Nuclear Plant!.....
ajm3s writes:
"The sub-committee tackled a larger item when it delved into the proposed replacement of the Community Center at Mackle Park. Milk noted that the original proposal for a 40,000 square foot building had not been well received, and called a "Taj Mahal."
Council members present expressed strong support for the scaled down, two-phase facility currently proposed. It consists of a 16,800 sq. ft. building to be built on the footprint of the existing structure, at a cost of $3.5 million, and a future gymnasium at a cost of $1.5 million."
If you add up a 16.8K ft2 building with a second phase gymnasium, do you get something that is eerily reminiscent of the original proposal?
I guess if you super-size it, you get more fries and Coke, to include with all the planned activities.
Pay attention to the candidates that are running for council, it may be a referendum on Centers - Mackle Park Community center, Marriott Conference Center, and subsidizing a health care center and perhaps any center yet to be conceived.
No matter how you slice and dice it into manageable bites, it comes down to city leaders adding more to an island while planning and maintenance issues falter.
I for one like a residential community with simple playgrounds and passive parks, instead of this "planned" growth of CENTERS (community and conference) for every conceivable activity. And do parks need to be enclosed and weather controlled. Is a gymnasium a need to be provided by government that is not associated with a school?
Watch the candidates for what they want. I know Mr. Magel wants to subsidize a 24 hr Community Health Center. Are all these "needs" to be subsidized?
How many centers do we really "need", or is it want? And for the record, a public building (ie. Mackle Park) built in 1985 is considered obsolete and requires razing. Does this mean all buildings constructed in 1985 including homes undergo the same fate because of flood plain concerns?
Common sense would go a long way to improving governance. Is there a need for a gymnasium for the city? As there was a need to purchase a $10MM property to create Veterans Park with a plan to expand its usefulness as a parking facility for beach goers.
This city squanders opportunity at the hand of a myriad of special interests.
Seawaller writes:
A "Taj Mahal" is only such if it is built all at once. If it is built in stages it is "a new center".
"Thousands of voters on this island would rather see a new center than a new (Smokehouse Bay) bridge"
The Police budget "seeks an overall spend of $4.5 million, up from $4.2. In line with Hunter's philosophy, the department is seeking to become more efficient".
For the Fire Dept. a proposed ambulance requested by Fire Chief Mike Murphy, "that would put the city into the ambulance business for the first time in our history."
"it's a good thing that the city's elected leaders are taking seriously their responsibility to carefully husband the city's funds."
The title of this article should be: A Sarcastic Look at Crunching the Numbers.
KlausStoertebeker writes:
A mini nuclear plant at Tract K. For educational reason. Don't tell MMM with godfather Aceri. They will do it with Waldi's support.
KlausStoertebeker writes:
"This city squanders opportunity at the hand of a myriad of special interests."
That is the problem with the American democratic system. You elect dependent people focused on the interest off their principals.
Elect real independent people with only one goal: "I will work for the people of Marco Island. I represent the will of the majority."
Like me with pirate mentality.
WizeOlMarco writes:
Begin with the tax millage rate, the base aggregate budget. Allocate a contingency, then to each department at a ratio of the whole less contingency based on the City's most recent 7 year historic ratio averages, adjusted by comparing department ratios to ratios from other similar city historic average ratios. How could it not be a balanced budget?
OutWithTheOldies writes:
Just a few comments to answer some questions...
-Out of 18,000 residents, how many really use the center?
Over 33,000 visits to the Mackle Park community center occurred last year. That was only for activities were attendance is measured.... most do not check attendance/usage.
-A "Taj Mahal" is only such if it is built all at once. If it is built in stages it is "a new center".
-If you add up a 16.8K ft2 building with a second phase gymnasium, do you get something that is eerily reminiscent of the original proposal?
The new plan has two phases (the second phase is optional) Both phases combined of the new plan are 1/2 the size of the original proposal (16k SF vs. approx 32,000 SF)
-I for one like a residential community with simple playgrounds and passive parks, instead of this "planned" growth of CENTERS (community and conference) for every conceivable activity.
I'm glad that you have an opinion. Exercise your right to vote and vote for a candiate who shares your views. If there isn't one, then run for council yourself. If that doesn't work.... then quite frankly: Move. I, for one, enjoy having nearby acitivities and resources in the community that I live in and would welcome an expansion in those services and amenities for what amounts to less annually than what most people spend at the McDonald's drive thru.
-How many centers do we really "need", or is it want? And for the record, a public building (ie. Mackle Park) built in 1985 is considered obsolete and requires razing. Does this mean all buildings constructed in 1985 including homes undergo the same fate because of flood plain concerns?
A building necessitates razing when updating the building to current building code requirements (for public structures) and handicap accessibility is more costly than constructing an entirely new building. How is it that you can decide whether or not a building needs to be updated/improved/replaced when you previously noted that you don't even use it? It sounds to me like you're simply rallying against something that doesn't suit YOU! Wouldn't that make you a special interest?
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.