I thought we had a spending cap, why is the city taking out a line of credit with Bank of America for $20,000,000?

Spending cap?..... What's that?

The people have been duped once again. When I asked where the money was coming from for the first two STRP districts pending issuance of the bonds, councilors told me they really didn't know. About a month later, after continual prodding, Council Chair DiSciullo said it was coming from our "unallocated" funds. I questioned whether there was sufficient money in these funds. Councilman Kiester said there was $30 million.

The City Charter provides only one method of transferring funds from one account to another and that is by an ordinance subject to the people's demand for a referendum. In actuality, the council transferred the funds by "resolution" which is a violation of the City Charter. I filed a complaint with the Attorney General asking that his office investigate the legality of the transfer. The AG, then running for Governor, tossed the ball into Jeb Bush's court who tossed it back to the AG.

So here we are, almost a year later, not having issued a single bond, presumably having no revenue from the first districts, sewering the rest of the island with a bank loan. This is the height of fiscal irresponsibility, of questionable legality, and every member of the council must be held responsible. It seems to me that the council - and through them the tax payers of this island - are being blackmailed into approving a bank loan to build the STRP because the city has already committed more funds than it has!

Ed Foster

Love the picture of Tucker!!! Looks like an honest guy????????

Ed,
There is no way to stop the line of credit. Why not a local bank though. Why B of A. Maybe this was part of the deal when the city turned the old B of A building into City Hall.

Public beach access................Yes!

Mr. Foster, a couple of points to keep the record straight, I was at that council meeting when you asked where the money was coming from and I never heard Councilor DiSciullo say the money was coming from our "unallocated" funds. I suppose I could have missed it, but what I did hear was that the money was coming from the general fund or as you stated on the CARES web site “It’s coming from cash … coming from our general cash fund.” Councilor DiSciullo went on to say “then when our bonds are validated we will reimburse the cash fund”. That appeared to satisfy many people. I guess I was wrong. Tell me what you think the problem is with using the general cash fund for this purpose as long as the intent is to pay it back and eventually it is paid back and as long as it's not prohibited. I'm thinking of all the debt service the taxpayers have saved by using these idle funds for this purpose.

Also you say, “The City Charter provides only one method of transferring funds from one account to another and that is by an ordinance subject to the people's demand for a referendum.” I have searched the charter and dammed if I can find that section. Would you please be kind enough to tell me just where in the charter it specifically say’s that.

Seriously, please enlighten me on this.

Lou,

I agree that Ms. DiSciullo used the words “cash pool” when referring to where the money was coming from. Personally, I don’t see the difference between “unallocated reserves” and “cash pool,” but if you do, I’ll cede the point. My problem then was that the administration was proceeding with the STRP without the council knowing how it was being paid for. The administration wouldn’t answer me and it took the council itself about a month to extract the information! Mr. Kiester found there was about $30 million in free cash and I believe the council approved continuing the project while the bonds were pending because they thought we had the cash. To date, no bonds have issued (blame CARES if you wish although CARES is not the first to challenge a “special assessment” and win) and we’ve run out of cash. Even if the supreme court rules for the City (not certain) those bonds will not issue because the city has changed the financing arrangements since the time they attempted to obtain court validation (which, I understand, itself is a rarity.)

When a city has the surplus that Marco did ($30 million ain’t hay) I do not like blowing it all on a contentious project and continuing construction with a bank loan. It’s bad policy. We’re about to enter the hurricane season. What happens if we get hit? I understand the cash pool is to be replenished, and the bank loan repaid, from the bond proceeds if and when they are issued. But more than a year has elapsed and no bonds have issued. With the new financial plans, the City will have to reinitiate the bonding procedure and it will be a long time before we see any bond money. Why rush to the bank? Do we go back to the bank for every district? Can’t we delay this contentious project until the finances are arranged? Isn’t that just prudent management?

Regarding the City Charter, I will quote from the letter I sent to the AG which itself quotes from the charter:

Section 3.08 of the City Charter authorizes the council “to make or reduce appropriations as deemed necessary in accordance with general law” and to “transfer part or all of any unencumbered appropriation balance from one department, office, or agency to another .” It also authorizes the city manager to “transfer unencumbered appropriation balances within a department, office, or agency.” Neither provision enables cash reserves to be transferred to a capital count.

You will find my complete position on this issue in the two letters I sent to the AG last July. They are on www.marcocares.com. Click the Legal Issues tab along the top and then select the letters from the list. Furthermore, if you check the original resolution authorizing the transfer, you will find that it only authorized a transfer from the surplus within the sewer account and there isn’t any surplus in the sewer account; it’s running a deficit.

Thank you for your posting. This is what blogs are for!

Ed Foster

Dear Mr. Foster: What you don't seem to realize is that it is just a minority of the residents on Marco that really care what you say, said or did. The only reason we do not have Bonds issued yet is because of the CARES lawsuits (soon to be all unsuccessful). Now we will probably have to pay higher interest on those eventual Bonds. Thanks again for being the cause of costing the taxpayers of Marco Island more money. Nobody has been duped and the spending cap does not include projects implemented as the STRP was and anyone knowledgable knows this. Even though you, Ed, even have your own version of how that should have been done. Someday you will realize that the majority of Marco Islanders cannot wait for you to sell your home and just be gone !! It will be cheaper for all of us and less misinformation. I hope that the people of North Carolina treasure your residency. I was also hoping that what happens in North Carolina stays in North Carolina, and vice versa, but we just do not seem to be that lucky.
Ed Issler

Dear Mr. Issler:

Unless you credit yourself with Mr. Minozzi's ability to predict future events with papal infallibility, I suggest that little is served by your saying "that it is just a minority of the residents on Marco that really care (about the STRP)." Why not wait until the upcoming election and see? I do not claim any particular ability to predict the outcome but I can say that CARES had/has thousands of adherents, more thousands signed petitions in support of POP and the recall initiative while the city-support group, Celebrate Marco, has died on the vine after a few meetings to which no one would come even for free wine and the chance to threaten to "shoot" the opposition.

I have not "cost" the citizens of Marco a cent because I have not suggested the spending of money. In fact, one might say that CARES saved the citizens a bundle by forcing the city to change the financing plan for the STRP while the city has cost the citizens a bundle by accepting the cost of the asbestos cleanup in order to protect its contractor.

It does not take a "majority of Marco Islanders" to buy my house; one will do. Perhaps you'd be interested ... it's far away from the asbestos dump in your back yard and you'd be able to breathe cleaner air and perhaps regain some sanity. If you can't afford it, perhaps you could take up a collection. If that vast majority kicked in a few bucks apiece, you could purchase it and deed it to the city if you wish.

Have a nice day. I mean that honestly and I do appreciate and respect your signing your postings.

Ed Foster

Mr. Foster, you are correct this is what these blogs should be for and I thank you for the civil dialogue.

I’m still confused, which dosen't take much these days. Just where in the budget are these “unallocated reserves”, I checked the budget and can’t find them and I don’t recall anyone using the term “unallocated reserves”. As to the words “cash pool” you are mistaken, it was the CM that said “cash pool” and I took that to mean whatever cash the city had on hand from all accounts and being held in the General Fund. As I said before it was Councilor DiSciullo that said the money was coming from the “General Fund” and there is defiantly a difference. The “General Fund” is the chief operating fund of the city. When Chuck Kiester said 30 million dollars I think he meant the amount in the “General Fund” because that is about what was in the “General Fund” at that time and I don’t believe Mr. Kiester or anyone said the city had a 30 million dollar “surplus”. To accumulate that much of a surplus for a city this small (200% of our operating budget) would be ludicrous. If I am wrong please tell me what they call this account you keep referring to.
(Note: the budget for this period can be found on the city web page)

Since you did not address my enquiry regarding where in the charter it say’s, “The City Charter provides only one method of transferring funds from one account to another and that is by an ordinance subject to the people's demand for a referendum.” , I must assume that this statement made by you is incorrect.

As to Section 3.08 of the Charter, I believe, lacking hard evidence, otherwise, the Council and the CM did just what Section 3.08 of the City Charter allowed for. Further, nowhere in Section 3.08 does it say that any such transfer of funds must be done by resolution or ordinance. The resolution you refer to refers to enterprise funds and perhaps that had to be done by resolution as was done.

Mr. Foster, I still fail to grasp your point or why you are bring this up again. No one listened before because, while it was somewhat creative, it had no merit. The city acted properly and the result was the city saved money. When the Supreme Court renders its decision bonds will be sold quickly and the “General Fund” will be replenished and the line of credit will be paid down.

I think we should move on to the future. These are old arguements that will take you nowhere.

Mr. Issler,

May I respectfully suggest that the reason you cannot find the money in the budget is because the budget is (in my opinion, purposely) obscure. When councilors do not know where the money is coming from to pay for an ongoing project, something is wrong. Yet that is what happened ... even to Terri DiSciullo who is an accountant. I asked her privately during a break at a council meeting where the money was coming from and she said: "Ed, I don't know. I just don't know but I'll try to find out." And she did. Kudos for her. Ditto for Chuck Kiester. He didn't know either but he found out. It just took them weeks to find out something they should have known before they voted. The City wouldn't tell me when I asked in a council meeting, the council didn't know ... and you think this is right? I don't. I suggest we review the tape of that council meeting. Unfortunately, I gave my copy to those who followed me when I resigned as Chairman of CARES.

Regarding Section 3.08, I suggest you review it again; I will too ... when I get a chance. (Right now I'm trying to get three computers up and running on a network while cleaning up the winter damage to the gardens so I'm a bit busy.) As I recall, the charter permits transfers within departments but not between departments. Nor does it permit capital projects to be funded from reserves without an ordinance (not a resolution) permitting it. The city was quite aware that they needed an okay to transfer money to pay for the STRP construction and Mr. Moss' suggested resolution (which was passed) made it quite clear that the approval was needed prior to starting the project. The problem is that he suggested a resolution, not an ordinance which is challengable, and the resolution said that the money would be transferred from the surplus in the Utilities account. There was no surplus (except for the residual from the original bond issue) and the charter does not permit that to be done by resolution. All of this came out in my letters to the AG and from Mr. Jovanovich's letter to the AG.

I always prefer civil comment rather than being called names and responding in kind. Thank you!

Ed Foster

Mr. Foster, you are now more confusing then when you started this dialogue. You attempted to answer my question by addressing Ed Issler. He is most likely as confused as I am. Your answers are that of a person who is so confused that he makes it up as he goes along. I remember when you stated the council did not know where the money was coming from and Terri chimed in “I do”….. “It’s coming from cash … coming from our general cash fund.” I suggest that you read the remarks you posted on the CARES web site which you are now contradicting. The budget has been obscured? Good grief man listen to your self. I think you should quit before you lose all creditability.

I have attached section 3.08 to save you time.

Section 3.08. Appropriations.
(1) Pursuant to Section 1.01, the council shall have full authority to make or reduce appropriations as deemed necessary in accordance with general law.
(2) The city manager shall have authority to transfer unencumbered appropriation balances within a department, office, or agency. The council may transfer part or all of any unencumbered appropriation balance from one department, office, or agency to another.

As you can see no need for resolution or ordinance.

lou/Geezer and Mr. Issler, what does it matter what you call it? The money obviously was just laying around. If it had been obligated or planned to be used elswhere it would not have been available for use on the STRP. There is a pot in City Hall and all extra cash is stored there. This pot is for the exclusive use of the City Manager, that is now obvious. As you guys point out, the Charter makes it so. Time to Change the Charter and make our CM accountable to the taxpayer. If he cannot operate in a transparent manner, then he will need to start brushing up his resume. One thing is clear, the election will give us a new Council and they either will be transparent, accountable and polite to the citizens of Marco Island or the next petition to be passed around will be to disband the City. Clear enough for you?

Lolala, you sound angry. But then I can't blame you. Mr. Moss runs this City like it's his personal fiefdom. Most of what he proposes are political initiatives that should be made by elected officials. These proposals are presented to the Council with no alternative choices. He is running this Council, that has been clear for a long time now. What is so sad about this, is that he does so with impunity. The Council is so lazy, unimaginative and accomadating to his suggestions that there are never any challenges to his suggestions or edicts. They would just as soon he take care of these issues as involve themselves. It is time for the citizens to replace these people with citizens that have new ideas, imagination and real experience. Citizens that can think for themselves and ask direct challenging questions. Citizens that want choices and not edicts from their CM. We deserve leaders not followers, the City Manager needs some supervision and it's time he be made accountable to the citizens of Marco Island.

You lolala, are unreal. Someone has told you that there is a pot of money in City Hall filled with cash “just laying around”… “for the exclusive use of the City Manager” and you blindly believe this with no other evidence other then the undocumented statement of someone who knows almost as little as you. Along comes someone and asks, for the purpose of information, what you call the account this money is in and you say “what does it matter what you call it? The money obviously was just laying around.” Read the dam budget that is of course assuming you can read a budget. My question was rhetorical, there is no such account or “pot” and the money is defiantly not just lying around city hall it is coming from the General Fund as Councilor DiSciullo stated it was.

The problem as I see it is that when someone presents factual accounts regarding our city you and your group dismisses them with a duh! Why? Because your too dam lazy to find out the correct information before shooting off your mouth and you come back with fairytales. A little less rhetoric and more actual facts will go a long way towards informing all.

lou, I still can't understand why it is important to give a name to the "pot" You call it the "general fund" I call it a "pot". Some call it a reserve and say that it resides in the "general fund". Makes no difference, the money wasn't being used (it was unobligated) and the City Manager was authorized to take it to make up for not having the money obligated for the STRP. That is stealing in any enviornment outside of Marco Island's budget. The City Manager has far too much authority to obligate large amounts of funds without obtaining approval from elected respresentitives. Members of the Council admit to not knowing where the money was coming from. Staff did not feel obligated to respond to citizen inquiries or those of some Council Members. Others simply didn't care where Moss got it from, just so the precious STRP wasn't delayed. The Charter paragraph that grants this authority must now be amended to restrict the CM's spending authority. He has abused the authority and now he must receive some adult supervision. By the way lou, you need to control how you address people. Perhaps you need adult supervison also. Try and be civil.

Nerve in check lou?

Sorry, but my frustration got the better of my recent commitment to cool it.

How can you call it stealing when the funds were used for a city purpose? Using funds available that are not being used is a sound financial practice. The city could have set up a line of credit back then but they did not. Instead the city chose to use the money wasn't being used in the General Fund with the full knowledge of the council and in doing so the taxpayers saved hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt service and for saving the taxpayers money you attack the CM. There was no sinister plot to cheat the city as some would infer.

You keep saying that the city did not know where the money was coming from. They did know, it is a documented fact and once again I will quote; Terri stated "I do"... “It’s coming from cash … coming from our general cash fund.” Councilor DiSciullo went on to say “then when our bonds are validated we will reimburse the cash fund”.

I really don't understand what the problem is unless it's because by using these funds it allowed the STRP to go forward as if CARES law suite was just a minor problem that it turned out to be. But that can't be because the city could have borrowed the money via a line of credit back then and the STRP still would have gone forward without missing a beat. whti the only difference being that the taxpayers would have to pay thousands in debt service for the LOC.

I'm sure you have many reasons for not liking the STRP but this should not one of them.

If the Council had approved the continued funding (at risk), then why did they say they did not know where it was coming from when asked? Why did Staff not respond when asked the same question by Joe Sixpack? The correct method would have been to come to the Council and explain to them exactly what money was available and inform them that Staff intended to drain off all unobligated resources to continue the project until the law suits were resolved. Councilors could have been informed of alternatives and assurred that there were no risks to the City. This was not done. That is why no one knew where the money was coming from. Even continuing the project via a line of credit would have required going to the Council on bended knee. This the CM did not do. He made a decsion on his own and now he doesn't want to be accountable -- Here is an analogy that may help explain it. A bank manager finds himself short of funds for a payroll, he believes the deficiency to be a mathimatical error. He decides to make up the shortfall with earned undistributed dividends. Even though he has the authority to use these funds in an emergency he still is required to file a report to the board. He decides that is not necessary because he intends to replace the funds when the error is corrected. Stockholders and the bank board would disagree and this manager would likely be fired. That's called accountability.

lolala/Ed Foster, who cares. The taxpayer’s ultimately were the winners.

I have finally realized that nothing I can say will make you understand that the city benefited from what you believe was criminal. Have a great life, over and defiantly out, I’m gone

Islandvisitor, thank you, I could not have said it better.

Get a grip Ray. You are replying to yourself via your own posting. In essence you are having a conversation with yourself, kinda like playing with yourself!!

Why don't you just enjoy your life, take your wife on a cruise and stay away from all the controversial crap...you might live longer without the stress!

happyharry,
BUHAAAAAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Needed a good laugh. That was funny. I even would have laughed had it been aimed at me. Ray...Loala, you have to admit that was funny!!!!!

Seriously though, lou and visitor. I feel the same way. Going to gang up on this soon. Funny thing though is visitor says the city benefited, not the tax payers.

that was hang up, not gang up. HAHAHHA!! See ya in 08.

Islandvisitor, Lou, RayBeauf, Geezer, Sailingby and Soloman.

Try to remember which one you are today Ray, so that you don't pick a fight with yourself.

It is entertaining, in a pathetic way.

Take a cruise, smell the roses, chill out, get a life!!

I have no dog in this fight, just find the discussion interesting. However, here is a personal observation: Bank robbers benefit from their acts too, until they get caught. The point being made was that it is still a crime.

tucker's picture looks like a shister...who would have voted for him?

Are you people so afraid of the truth that you pick fights with those you don't even know in an attempt to obscure the facts. As one who knows who at least three of those you refer to, the last laugh is on you dummies.

lou, THE VESSEL!!!