Why I Voted No on the Bond Referendum

I have been asked by a number of Marco Island residents: If the transportation bond referendum does not pass, how will we pay for the repairs that are needed?

It is a fair and important question. I have already mailed in my ballot and voted no. I want residents to understand why.

When I ran for City Council, I pledged not to raise taxes without first putting the question to Marco Island voters. My initial support for a referendum reflected that promise. I did not want the City to spend your money without asking for your approval. However, 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. I asked for that information, but the necessary detail and financial accounting have not been provided to my satisfaction.

Instead, the referendum asks voters to authorize up to $23 million for transportation improvements, “including but not limited to bridge replacements and roadway improvements.” Those words are too broad and ambiguous. They could allow the money to be redirected to projects that were never clearly identified for the voters.

I am also concerned about authorizing such a large amount before the City has demonstrated how much is already available in its various funds, how much must actually be borrowed and when each project will be ready to proceed. After considerable turnover, the City has a new finance team. Before taxpayers authorize $23 million, I believe we must first be confident that the City has the financial tracking, controls and staffing needed to manage it responsibly.

Financial discipline means identifying each project, determining its actual cost and borrowing only when the work is ready to begin. That avoids paying borrowing costs before the money is needed and ensures that each bond is tied to the project for which it was approved.

If the referendum fails, needed repairs will not be abandoned. The Council should consider projects individually, examine available funds and grants, and authorize borrowing as necessary over time. This approach provides stronger guardrails while allowing essential work to move forward.

I voted no because this referendum does not provide enough specificity, financial accountability or protection against funds being used differently than represented to taxpayers. We can complete these projects, but we should do so carefully, transparently and with the financial discipline Marco Island residents deserve.