Council Tackles Bond Referendum, Taxes, Water Rates and Police Chief Appointment

Marco Island City Manager Dr. Casey Lucius announced Monday that Joseph Belardo has been selected as the city’s permanent police chief during a Marco Island City Council meeting that also included debates over the transportation bond referendum, the tentative property tax rate, water and sewer charges and whether property owners should need special approval before adding or changing recreational facilities such as pickleball or basketball courts. 

Belardo Named Police Chief 

Lucius announced during her city manager’s report that Belardo, who had been serving as interim police chief, had accepted the permanent position. 

In a show of support, several Marco Island police officers attended the meeting and joined Belardo at the front of the council chambers following the announcement. 

Belardo thanked Lucius, the City Council, the Marco Island Police Department, the community and those who participated in the interview process. He said the department had experienced an intense but productive two months and had received positive feedback as it implemented changes. 

Lucius said the officers’ attendance demonstrated the impact Belardo had already made as a leader. 

A formal swearing-in ceremony will be scheduled, with the public and councilors invited to attend. 

Bond Referendum Prompts Sharp Debate 

The proposed $23 million transportation bond referendum generated one of the meeting’s most pointed exchanges. 

Councilor Tamara Goehler asked City Attorney Alan Gabriel to clarify language authorizing transportation improvements “including but not limited to” bridge replacements and roadway improvements. She questioned whether the broad wording could allow bond proceeds to be used for projects that were not specifically identified to voters. 

Gabriel said state law limits the length of ballot questions and does not allow the city to include a detailed project list. He emphasized that voter approval would not give the city unrestricted authority to spend the full $23 million. Each project, contract and bond issuance would still return to the City Council for a public vote. 

Lucius said the proposed fiscal year 2027 budget includes funding for the Caxambas Bridge project. If the referendum fails, the remaining projects in the city’s 10-year plan would not have a dedicated funding source, and staff would return to the council to discuss alternatives. 

Councilor Stephen Gray said he had already mailed his ballot and voted against the referendum. 

Gray said he initially supported putting the question before voters because he had pledged not to raise taxes without public approval. However, he said the ballot measure lacked the specificity, financial accounting and safeguards he expected. 

“I also expected residents to receive a specific list of projects, their estimated costs, and a clear explanation of how the money would be managed,” Gray said. 

Gray said his concern was heightened by the significant turnover in the city’s finance department. He argued that before the city is entrusted with authority to borrow and manage as much as $23 million, the department should first demonstrate that it can provide consistent financial controls, clear accounting and reliable oversight of the money already under its management. 

For that reason, Gray said the city should move forward one project at a time. Under his approach, the council could review each project’s cost, available grants, funding needs and financial controls before authorizing borrowing. He said a failed referendum would not mean the work would be abandoned, only that it would proceed in stages with closer public and council oversight. 

Vice Chair Rene Champagne strongly disagreed. He said the projects and estimated costs had been discussed during months of workshops and public meetings and argued that most of the work would be delayed without the bond. 

The disagreement centered on how much financial authority the city should receive at one time. Champagne said the bond is necessary to keep the infrastructure plan moving. Gray maintained that the projects can still be completedbut said the finance department should first establish a stronger record of stability and accountability before being asked to manage such a large pool of borrowed money. 

Council Keeps Tentative Tax Rate Unchanged 

The council voted 5-2 to maintain the city’s current property tax rate as the tentative rate for fiscal year 2027. 

City staff recommended keeping the rate unchanged and presented a balanced budget based on that amount. Several councilors said raising property taxes while asking voters to approve a separate $23 million bond referendum would send the wrong message. 

Champagne argued that the council should begin with a higher tentative rate and reduce it later if the additional revenue was not needed. Councilor Kevin Dohm agreed. Lucius estimated that the highest rate discussed would cost the owner of a home assessed at $1 million about $100 more per year. 

“That’s, you know, my Starbucks budget for the week,” Dohm said. “I wasn’t here running for election. I didn’t sign anything saying I won’t raise taxes. I think we should go as high as we possibly can, and if we need to, we can reduce it later.” 

Champagne said an increase would help offset inflation and give the city more flexibility to pay for services and infrastructure. 

Goehler opposed an increase, noting that staff had balanced the budget without one. Chair Darrin Palumbo said the issue was not simply how much residents would pay but the promises elected councilors had made to voters. He noted that Champagne and Dohm had been appointed rather than elected. 

Champagne moved to raise the tentative rate, with Dohm seconding the motion. They were the only two councilors to support it, and the motion failed 2-5. 

Gray then moved to maintain the current rates for the city and Hideaway Beach. Councilor Bonita Schwan seconded the motion, which passed 5-2, with Champagne and Dohm opposed. 

The rates remain tentative and will return for public hearings before the budget is adopted. 

Council Questions Water and Sewer Rate Structure 

Questions about water and sewer rates arose after the Planning Board approved the proposed Hilton expansion. 

Resident Christine Dowell argued that the Hilton and JW Marriott do not pay their fair share despite their large numbers of rooms, restaurants and other water-intensive amenities. She said single-family homeowners are being asked to subsidize tourism-based businesses while carrying much of the cost of the city’s water and sewer system. 

“It is not fair to the single-family homeowners to support the businesses on this island,” Dowell said. She urged the council to review the rates before voting on the Hilton proposal. 

Water and Sewer General Manager Jeffrey Poteet said rates are established by the City Council as a policy decision and that commercial customers are charged under a different rate structure from single-family homes. The overall structure has not changed since 2006, although rates have been adjusted periodically, most recently in 2017. 

Goehler asked whether the city should conduct a new study to determine whether the rates remainequitable. Poteet said a study could answer that question, but Palumbo suggested first gathering information about its scope and cost. 

Goehler said she would follow up with Poteet rather than immediately seek council approval. No study was authorized. 

Recreational Review Paused, Noise Debate Resurfaces 

The council reconsidered an earlier decision to ask the Planning Board whether property changes involving recreational facilities, such as new or converted pickleball, tennis or basketball courts, should require conditional use approval. 

Residents and several councilors said the request was too broad because it could apply to any type of recreational facility in any zoning district. 

Champagne said policy proposals should first be reviewed by the appropriate advisory committee before city staff is directed to act. Schwan responded that this was exactly what the council had agreed to do by sending the question to the Planning Board for a recommendation. 

Goehler reopened the issue. She said she continued to support addressing pickleball noise but was concerned about applying the proposal to private communities governed by homeowners associations. She asked to reconsider her previous support. 

When the council was polled again, only three members supported sending the issue to the Planning Board. The earlier direction was withdrawn, placing the proposal on hold. 

The conversation then broadened into a discussion of how councilors develop policy proposals and how much research should be completed before city staff is directed to act. 

Champagne said councilors should not simply raise an idea, seek consensus and then expect staff to perform all the research and policy development. He suggested that proposals should first go to the appropriate advisory committee or be supported by a white paper prepared by the councilor proposing the idea. 

Champagne cited Gray’s work on the noise ordinance as an example of the extensive preparation he believed councilors should undertake. Although Champagne said he did not agree with every part of Gray’s proposal, he praised Gray for spending significant time researching the issue and developing specific recommendations. 

Palumbo also questioned the amount of staff time and legal expense devoted to council initiatives that do not ultimately move forward. Focusing on the noise ordinance, Palumbo asked Gray why he had not accepted a compromise or moved forward with the version Gabriel considered legally sufficient. 

Gray said he had developed his proposed limits and enforcement standards through extensive research and consultation with residents. His position was that there was little value in passing a weakened ordinance if it would not meaningfully address the problem residents had asked the council to solve. 

The discussion revealed a clear disagreement over the extent of Marco Island’s noise problem. Gabriel said enforcement had improved and complaints had declined, but Gray said he continued to hear from residents who were seriously affected. He noted that one resident had recently sold his home after giving up on obtaining relief. 

Gray said he stopped pursuing the ordinance because he did not believe the current council would approve the standards he considered necessary. 

“I am hoping and expecting that after the next election, that there will be seven councilors up here that will seriously consider the noise ordinance as I presented it,” Gray said. “So that’s why I went silent on it. But that is not a lost investment.” 

Gray said he would rather bring the ordinance back after the November election, maintaining that Marco Island continues to have a serious noise problem.