Excessive local budgets are a growing concern across the U.S., driven by massive increases in spending, wasteful expenditures, and revenue shortfalls that push property taxes and other local taxes higher.

Over the last year, the Florida Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has traveled across the state to seek out waste, fraud, and abuse and identify opportunities for improvement. Most government agencies that did not receive a visit from DOGE, tried diligently to reduce costs fearing a future visit.

School board budget: Perhaps most notable, locally, was the Monroe County School Board.  They approved a tentative budget last week BELOW the rollback rate - so they will receive less property tax revenue in the coming year than they received this current year. Great job Monroe County Schools!

Monroe County faced criticism when they approved a tentative budget 7.7% above rollback, promising more cuts would be considered.

Village tentative budget: By contract the Village approved a tentative millage rate of 2.8 mills, more than a 13% increase over the current year!  And remember the increase in the previous 5 years was 58%.  

In four scenarios suggested by staff in the general fund budget agenda this week, the “best” the staff suggested was 7.7% increase over the current year.  None even came close to rollback which would have been a zero increase in property tax. All four scenarios showed identical expenditures - varying only based on the property tax millage rate revenue.

Under the new Senate Bill 4‑F, signed by Governor Ron DeSantis on June 24, 2026, Florida law would set strict approval thresholds for local governments that want to raise property tax millage rates above the “rolled‑back rate” - if approved by voters in November.

Millage rates up to 110% of the rolled‑back rate: Require a two‑thirds vote of the governing body (e.g., city council, county commission)

Millage rates above 110% of the rolled‑back rate: Require unanimous approval of the governing body.

Maybe things will be different next year.

Staggering Numbers: The budget comparison from current year to next for all departments - not just general fund - is projecting a staggering increase from $49 Million to $57.5 Million - 17% increase in just one year.

The Capital Improvement fund shows the Village has planned $8,676,794 of improvements for the fire department, Village Hall, Public Works, Parks, and more.  Lots of grant funding is needed - so the council doubled the amount they will pay a grant contractor to help our staff grant writer, though many of the grants have already been approved to fund much of the work contemplated.

And there is Wastewater. The capital improvements of $12,205,000 including what is hopefully a real fix for the repeated rupturing of the raw sewage pipeline at MM92 that has been ongoing for more than 5 years at an estimated $8 million for the coming year.  

Lack of Public Involvement: The Council appears anxious to minimize public involvement. No committee to review?  Very little time provided for the public to review extremely complex figures, uploading the 93-page budget document for the public just a few days before the first workshop.  

The very format of the budget agenda is extremely difficult to understand.  The bulk of the agenda, the general fund, $24 million, is in Tab 3, 18 items.  Will there be just one 3-minute opportunity for the public to discuss millions of dollars in taxpayer general fund expenses?  Will the public even show up?

For the next year the Council will be asked to pass resolutions to approve many of the expenditures in this proposed budget.  If the budget as presented this week is approved, we will hear repetitively in future approval requests - it is in the budget the council approved.  Every line of the budget is important to assure wise local spending.

For those of you wanting details, read on for a history and background of this saga:

I won’t include links to the many Sunshine Law violations and contract flaws that plagued this years’ long negotiation.  

This is a landlord - tenant situation.  Islamorada is the landlord and the School District is the tenant.  Who in their right mind would spend five years designing improvements, hiring a design and build contractor, submit an application for permits with included  civil and structural engineering plans - before the “lease” has been discussed and approved by the property owner?

And now expect the Village to agree to the “lease” - without nitpicking.

Over the years, our excellent athletic programs have been able to allow more and more Coral Shores students (which includes students from Tavernier and Key Largo ) to participate in sports on campus: girls and boys soccer and lacrosse, track, softball, tennis, as the baseball field was off site at Village owned Founders Park.

Remember, it’s not just Islamorada children.

The School District didn’t need to buy more land that would have cost millions of dollars, if they were able to get a good deal.

Instead school baseball space was leased from the taxpayers of Islamorada with a whopping $10/year lease. In fact – a gift at a giveaway price – with a lease now to be extended another 40 years.

Marathon and Key West residents do not pay any maintenance, utility bills,

repair and replacement costs for their facilities. Do their fields get utilized for other school activities after baseball season is over?

Shouldn’t the same happen at the Founders Park high school baseball field?

The license agreement prorates maintenance, utility costs – School 5

months; Village 7 months.

Replacement/repairs of improvements for the next 40 years – a 50-50

split.

What if other school athletic programs use the baseball field? Shouldn’t that reduce the 7 months? Not based on the agreement being considered.

Marathon workshop-

On July 21 a joint workshop was scheduled with the School Board and Village Council:

a Tuesday at 1:30 pm. Not conducive for Islamorada residents who work. But better than nothing. We’ll take it.

The residents here, naively believe they are entitled to open, transparent government with decisions made at public meetings.

The workshop agenda provided a license agreement as the base document that the Village Council had not previously agreed to, at least not publicly, as required.

The workshop discussion was limited to the changes to that previously “unseen” license and use document, with numerous items never discussed and approved publicly.

A “final” design being currently permitted by the Village that has never been presented to our Council and the public at a public meeting.

The design is not even the same as the improvements listed in the scope of work in the License Agreement.

We predict the agreement will likely be approved unanimously with no changes. Council will pretend that it was carefully thought out.

Far from it, another rollover to make it go away before the election.

I have to mention that at the end of the baseball workshop last week, a member of Village Council said the council wouldn’t “nitpick” the license agreement at the Special Call Council meeting Monday July 27 when the license agreement is to be approved.

“Nitpicking” is not the right word. The obligation of the Council is “attention to detail,” something that Islamorada lacks in most of our contracts.

Careful scrutiny of Village agreements is desperately needed in Islamorada. And I guess the School District too.

We absolutely need to “nitpick” and to analyze carefully every part of this 40-year agreement.

This is not “monopoly” money. The bill will be paid by taxpayers, current and future taxpayers.

“Nitpicking” on contracts should be standard operating procedure but, sadly, it is not.

Making Village taxpayers responsible for too many unknown future costs for a facility desperately needed by the school kids, is, in fact, sadly ill-advised.

It will only add to the future controversy and potential taxpayers’ financial obligations.

Islamorada did more than our share by providing an athletic site worth millions

of dollars, charging just $10/yr!  Because those are our kids.

We should be given the same financial burden the people of Marathon and Key West have. None.

The school budget should pay for the children in the Upper Keys as they do in the rest of the County.

Whether they “own” or “lease” the field should not be an issue.  

Am I being “nitpicky”?

Last year the Village millage rate approved was 2.65; School millage rate countywide,  2.947 mills.  

And the village must cover some school athletic costs that no other Monroe County

municipal government covers. Have the taxpayers of Marathon, Key Largo, Key West contributed school assets like the taxpayers of Islamorada?

We need to pay attention to the details - 40 years is a long time to pay for mistakes the council could make with an agreement that has not been properly nitpicked.

An election is coming!

Tom