Home › Island News › Local News
Alternative revenue sources may be answer to Marco's property tax shortfall
$1.8 million shortfall equates to about $90 needed per property
STORY TOOLS
RELATED STORIES
- Collier’s property values dipped lower than expected last month
- Marco city manager focuses on open communication between city, residents
- A rarity on Marco Island: Looking for alternative revenue sources
More Local News
- Cecelia Weeks, one of Goodland’s first residents, leaves Florida
- MICA survey says islanders give thumbs up for police, fire
- South Heathwood Drive temporarily closed Friday
Share and Enjoy [?]
Alternative revenue sources are not bankers with spiked hair cuts, earrings and big black boots. They are the answer proposed by city staff to the challenge of decreased property values and tax reform.
Since last month’s first general budget workshop, many public discussions have been held where residents pose several questions to city staff about budget issues. Among them are requests for explanations of PILOT, payment-in-lieu-of-taxes, the fire assessment and the storm water utility fee which may supplement or replace traditional property taxes.
The City of Marco Island will collect $1.8 million less this year due to decreased taxable property values and tax reform if the millage rate were to stay the same. In a phone interview, City Finance Director Bill Harrison helped to boil it down per property owner.
If all property owners on island were to split the $1.8 million like a large community bill, owners would need to contribute about $90 more dollars this year per property, he said. There are about 20,000 dwellings on island, he further explained.
City Council has a few options as to how they will collect that $90, or whether they believe the city should run with more or less revenue than it received last year and therefore increase or decrease the $90 estimated average.
Some of the options, or alternative revenue sources, which city officials have proposed to make up for a lack of property tax revenue, may be confusing.
Don Farmer described the confusion in a recent column in the Naples Daily News about a televised City of Marco Island budget meeting.
“I suggest televised council meetings include voice-over, play-by-play announcers and color commentators. That’s because our councilmen and commissioners tend to speak in tongues,” Farmer wrote.
As Farmer says, this political and financial lingo is a “tangle of acronyms, synonyms, homonyms and occasional good old fashioned Gospel-hymns, as in ‘Lordy Lordy, how much longer will this meeting last?”
Even simple words like “fire” and “assessment,” when combined, run the possibility of becoming more confusing.
However Harrison along with Fire Chief Mike Murphy and City Manager Steve Thompson, have found new ways throughout the last couple weeks to explain these proposed expenses that tax payers may soon take on.
Florida state law limits ad valorem rates to 10 mils (a mil is one thousandth of a dollar). With last year’s property tax rate being less than 1 mil, “that’s not much of a safe guard,” Harrison said.
Fire assessments on the other hand have “an absolute legal limit,” he said. They cannot exceed the actual expenditures.
However, if the fire assessment were as high as legally allowed, the average single family residence would pay $152 and raise more than $4 million for the city.
“That’s way more than what we need. We could cut the tax levy,” Harrison said.
A special assessment can only be used for fire, not EMS, because they legally must have a direct benefit on property value, not health and safety, Thompson explained.
Thompson further explained some skepticism raised by Marco Island Tax Association president Fay Biles who attends many of the city’s public forums on tax issues.
Biles said she was skeptical that the fire assessments could be waged to account for 91 percent of the total Fire Rescue and EMS budget.
“I see a lot more EMS responding to medical calls than just nine percent,” Biles said.
Thompson explained that “you have to still be able to maintain a certain level of service even if you only had one fire call. Nine percent would not be necessary if we were not providing medical service,” he explained.
The PILOT as proposed would also make up for the city’s quest for that average $90 loss due to property tax losses.
PILOT is a common way for municipalities to make up for the property taxes lost when what once was a private company is municipalized. Such is the case when the city took over the water utility.
To make up for the loss, Public Works Director Rony Joel proposed a six and a half percent increase on customers’ water bills.
Harrison said the average single family residence pays about $129 per month for water, so PILOT would cause bills to increase by about $8.38 per month. Annually, that’s more than enough to make up the loss in tax reform and property values.
Another alternative revenue source is a storm water runoff fee. A storm water utility enterprise fund would be created with this fee in order to use the money raised exclusively to pay for improvements to the storm water drainage and collection system.
Storm water has a cost to the city because it must be diverted in the right direction using ditch lines, held in storage tanks and may need to be treated due to chemicals such as pesticides. These hazardous materials must be collected or the water treated, Thompson explained.
The cost as proposed to City Council would be $6 per single family residence. The storm water utility fee, likely to also be placed on the water bill, would not be enough if it is the only alternative revenue source to make up for the loss.
City Council will likely set the millage rate at the July 24 meeting, which starts at 5:30 p.m. in the community room next door from the police office. Unless the millage rate is raised more than 10 percent, one or more of these new fees or assessments is likely to be used to supplement the tax rate and make up for decreases caused by Amendment 1 and decreased property value. If not, the city will be required to cut expenses or services.
Comments
This site does not necessarily agree with comments posted below — responsibility lies with the relevant reader alone. Read our privacy policy & user agreement.
Call it what you like, this article is still about increasing TAXES! Marco Island's elected officials are cowards because they cannot bring themselves to do the real hard work they were elected to do. REDUCE EXPENDITURES, REDUCE SERVICES, REDUCE STAFF, REDUCE MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS. Either they are cowards or they are lazy or they have an agenda that is not in the best interests of the City's residents and property owners.
#1 Posted by Beowulf on July 3, 2008 at 7:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Beowulf: I do not agree or disagree with your concept expressed in your opinion above. I think it is important for anyone who wants to chime in on this issue to do some research. First, we are a City. Second, we pay $150 million to Collier County in Property Taxes and get a refund (for being a City and doing most everything ourselves) of only $10 million. So, we have Taxation without Representation. Anyone think that our use of Lely High School is worth $140 million ?? Next, I suggest everyone contact other cities in Florida, comparable in size and population with Marco Island. Ask how many emplyees they have, what is their annual budget and what are they doing to make up for shortfalls as a result of Property Tax reductions. I have done the first 2 of the 3 and the results are staggering. Our City Staff is a lot less than other cities and our Budget is a lot less, also. That does not justify any expenditure or tax increase, but it sure puts things into perspective about how efficient and cost conscience our City Council and City Staff are. My opinion is to sue the County or get into some serious negotiations with the County to get more of our Tax dollars back. By the way, Marco Island paid $4 million dollars in Bed Tax last year to the County and got back $86,000 in benefits. We could pay for a new bridge with 1/2 of our Bed Tax. How about that !!
Ed Issler
#2 Posted by lauralbi1 on July 3, 2008 at 8:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Our city councilors have more guts than you any day of the week Beowulf. Just sitting at meetings and listening to people complain constantly makes them anything but cowards.
For your information, they were not elected to reduce taxes although they have consistently done so for the 10 years of incorporation. They were elected by the majority to keep Marco Islands level of service and balance a near impossible budget. I think given the circumstances they are doing a great job.
#3 Posted by MarcoFacts on July 3, 2008 at 8:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Issler, you sound like the child comparing their playmates parents and financial abilities to those of their friends next door. This is your city, so forget about Naples and any other town. You don't need to have all these employees or buy new utilities every year. Marco Government has grown at a faster rate then any governing entity in the entire state. As for MarcoFacts, what were these fellows elected to do? Raise taxes? As for your belief that the City has consistently reduced taxes that is one big lie! The city never took into consideration the fact that the assessed values of our homes increased, they just reduced the milage rate. In effect most of us realized tax INCREASES over the past 7 years. Tell the truth. Glad to see neither of you denied that this article is really about TAX INCREASES.
#4 Posted by Beowulf on July 3, 2008 at 1:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
By the way MarcoFacts, our elected officials were elected to sit and listen to our citizens. If they choose to go their own way and not pay attention to the people then they shouldn't be surprised about citizens complaining "constantly". Our citizens do so for a very good reason and in large numbers. If our elected officials think like you do then they are really arrogant SOBs. Besides they are compensated plenty to take the abuse. $6,000 is a lot of money for the little I have seen them do. Because they can't make the really hard decsions our city requires they are either cowards or incompetent. Our elected officials with few exceptions take the easy way and do whatever Rony Joel tells them to do without ever telling him to wait a year or challenging him in any useful way. Perhaps it's simply because their expertise is too limited to serve our City. A bartender, failed real estate speculator, dentist and inefficiency expert don't make for very good experts.
#5 Posted by Beowulf on July 3, 2008 at 1:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Your just wrong Beowulf. If the City didn't exist you wouldn't even notice it on your tax bill.
If you added what the County and County Schools losses in accounting errors for the first two quarters of this year you would find its more than the total of all (so called) Real Taxes and City Fees collected in the City of Marco by the for last year.
B*tch to the CCC or the CCSB if you want to b*tch. they are the real Tax-a-holics
#6 Posted by OldMarcoMan on July 3, 2008 at 4:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I may be mistaken, but I believe property taxes are deductible on our income tax returns. So, why would anyone want to move "legitimate" City expenses from property taxes and bury them as a surcharge on our utility bills which are not tax deductible? Seems like a "shell game" to me.
#7 Posted by GFonda on July 3, 2008 at 4:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
GFonda, to disqualify a State tax from being a deductable item on your Federal tax is to not only increase your taxes but to deny the federal subsidy of our State's resources. OldMarcoMan, problem is, I did notice the increase for 7 years. I don't care where it came from, but don't tell me that my taxes were reduced when every year I am asked to pay more not less. Interesting that you do not deny that our taxes were in effect increased and not lessoned.
#8 Posted by Beowulf on July 3, 2008 at 7:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Beowulf: You obviously want to spew lies about our growth and spending. There is only oine other City in Florida with a spending cap and that is Palm City and theirs is 10%. Why don't you become valuable and do the research anhd take part in the process in a meaningful way instead of complaining about things you know nothing about. Call Venice City Hall and Naples City Hall for starters. Then call Palm City City Hall. Then share with us what you find out !!
Ed Issler
#9 Posted by lauralbi1 on July 3, 2008 at 7:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Why not just assess each resident a couple of thousand dollars. Geez, it's not like we don't have it!! We're all millionaires, it wouldn't hurt to pay a little extra to live in paradise. If you can't afford it, get off the island.
#10 Posted by hourigan82247 on July 3, 2008 at 8:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yawn this is boring.
http://www.marconews.com/news/2008/ju...
#11 Posted by Sanity on July 3, 2008 at 9:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Sanity, boring? I share your concern for our dearly departed and the selfishness of your minister. My immediate concern however is for the living and the here and now. Taxes and death are inevitable but murder and stealing by politicians is not.
#12 Posted by Beowulf on July 4, 2008 at 7:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Beowulf,
My intention was for you to read the article. Thanks.
#13 Posted by Sanity on July 4, 2008 at 8:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I think the millage rate should be raised to cove the loss, if necessary. At least it can be lowered in the future. The alternative sources may not be so easy to lower or eliminate. Please don't saddle us with alternative funding sources and be seen as the guys who did it.
#14 Posted by dougenman on July 4, 2008 at 9:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Beowulf: What's a matter. Have you started your research. Or, are you going to prove to all of mus that you really are not interested in facts. Don't see any progress on your part here. Just more meaningless postings. You have definitely shown yourself as a Neylon/Hall disciple. The truth shall set you free andf allow you to enjoy what we have here.
Ed Issler
#15 Posted by lauralbi1 on July 6, 2008 at 12:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Lauralbi1, what kind of research would that be? I'm old enough to know a tax when I see it. I'm old enough to understand when politicos are trying to find ways to spend more of MY money. What have Neylon/Hall done now to get your hair up? You sir, have a real problem with reality. I'm beginning to think you are part of the problem.
#16 Posted by Beowulf on July 7, 2008 at 6:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Beowulf: As you say, you are getting old, so you may have forgot what you posted originally. Here it is. "Call it what you like, this article is still about increasing TAXES! Marco Island's elected officials are cowards because they cannot bring themselves to do the real hard work they were elected to do. REDUCE EXPENDITURES, REDUCE SERVICES, REDUCE STAFF, REDUCE MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS. Either they are cowards or they are lazy or they have an agenda that is not in the best interests of the City's residents and property owners."
So, do some research and compare our budget and employees and expenditures to other cities the same size and population. Then let us all know what the facts are. I think you will find that our City leadership is doing just fine. Or, are you the one that is lazy ??
Ed Issler
#17 Posted by lauralbi1 on July 7, 2008 at 8:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
MarcoFacts, according to you Marco Island has "reduce(d) taxes ... consistently done so for the 10 years of incorporation."
This is NOT a fact. My taxes have doubled in 5 years.
I recommend you change your username to something else.
#18 Posted by marcoredeagle on July 7, 2008 at 5:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I would love to make the comparisons you suggest. After looking at several City's in Florida I cannot find one that actually compares in every way to Marco Island. We need to spend more time fixing OUR problems and not looking to others. Common sense and cutting out advice from big spenders that think this city is their SIM City to play with has to stop. Marco Island has too many employees and a budget that is far too big for a city of this size. As I recall you once made a comical attempt to compare our City to that of Naples. Is that what you want me to do? Acquiring more infrastructure will only require us to hire more and spend more. Our leadership is not doing well, if they were no one would be complaining. Thank you for repeating my entry. Having it said twice doubles it's exposure. Feel free to do the same with this one.
#19 Posted by Beowulf on July 8, 2008 at 7:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Okay, Beowulf, I guess you have proven that you are the lazy one. Here you go. The City of Naples is about the same size as the City of Marco, 20 square miles. They have 23,000 full time residents with an additional 13,000 seasonal residents. I believe Marco has less full time and more seasonal residents. Naples has 16,870 registered voters, Marco has 13, 931.
Naples has 514 employees budgeted, with a number of openings. Marco currently has 198 employees, of which 12 positions are part time. Marco currently has 4 openings (1 firefighter and 3 in utilities).
Also checked the City of Venice, Florida, as the City is about the same size as Marco. Venice is 16.158 square miles (a little smaller). They have a full time population of 20,000 with a seasonal population of 26,000, very similar to Marco Island. According to their City Clerk, they have 300 employees. They, as is the case with Naples, have their own water utility, as do we.
All this information is available from City Clerks offices. So this illustrates that it is much better to do homework than to get emotional about topics that we do not understand completely. The figures above show that as citizens, we should monitor these numbers and stay involved in the City Government process. But we should be armed with knowledge to be effective.
But, Beowulf, you can continue to be lazy. We understand you have no interest in reality and figures. Oh, and by the way, our budget is TREMENDOUSLY lower than any other comparable City in Florida !!! Do the research.
Ed Issler
#20 Posted by lauralbi1 on July 8, 2008 at 12:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
just the facts from last census
m= marco
n= naples
pop. m 12,888 n 20,976
hous. units m 10,826 n 16,956
density sq/mi m 1,270 n 1,744
area sq/mi m 17.1 n 14.4
land m 10.6 n 12.03
water m 7.5 n 2.38
stats according to wikipedia
naples is part of a metropolitan area of 300,000+ people. the number of retail establishments in naples that attract people therefore requiring water, police, road maint. etc..far surpasses marco. marco is an island that does not have the same type of destination or transient traffic flowing through it. in that light i dont think naples compares readily to marco. perhaps an island in the keys or elsewhere in florida might make a better comparison model.
#21 Posted by islandman4now on July 8, 2008 at 2:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
there are 26 island cities in florida listed at wikipedia to choose a comparison model from that you can contact for their budget info etc...apples and apples....
#22 Posted by islandman4now on July 8, 2008 at 2:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
islandman4now, thank you. Another blogger pointed all this out to Issler months ago when he first attempted to make this comparison. He doesn't listen. I also recall that it was pointed out to Issler that the City of Naples has the County government living right next to it and shares responsibilities with an airport administration and a public dock and many more responsiblities then little Marco Island has. Issler would love to compare Marco Island with Miami if he could.
#23 Posted by Beowulf on July 8, 2008 at 6:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
26 cities is a great number. I will get started right away !!! Beowulf, how many do you plan on contacting ?? The more the better. Let's get a real Matrix set up and do it right.
Ed Issler
#24 Posted by lauralbi1 on July 8, 2008 at 10:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What ever happened to the Marco Island that I used to love prior to cityhood. Way out of control, this is like a steam roller going down hill---with no brakes. It is never going to end, more fees taxes whatever. Another fee attached to water?? Are these the same people who said Florida water was so bad for charging a lot less than them for our water??!!Yea, let them take over the power too. Please, do we really need all of this?
#25 Posted by sunnycity on July 9, 2008 at 12:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Post your comment
(Requires free registration.)