In an Oct. 1 candidate forum, Marathon City Council candidates referenced a number of items in Marathon’s budget and city charter, along with allegations of environmental violations by private businesses. In an effort to provide factual context to these claims, the Weekly editorial staff offers additional information:
- Candidates discussed retirement benefits for Marathon City Manager George Garrett, reportedly set at 20% of his annual salary.
- Additional info: Per the city’s budget and Garrett’s contract, renewed in 2024 for three years, Garrett receives 10% in a 401a employer-sponsored retirement plan, plus an additional 10% in a 457 plan, another employer-sponsored plan for local government employees. According to Finance Director Jennifer Johnson, retirement benefits for city employees dropped from 10% to 5% during fiscal year 2014 – but employees already hired at the time of the change were grandfathered into the higher percentage.
- Candidates discussed potentially changing Marathon from a “council-manager” form of government to place more authority in the council’s hands as a “strong council” form of government.
- Additional info: Marathon operates as a council-manager government, in which a city manager is tasked with overseeing daily operations and city employees, while reporting to a council that dictates city policy. As currently written, Marathon’s charter specifically prohibits council members from interfering in the performance of individual staff members other than the city manager or attorney. A strong council system, or strong mayor system, would place a large deal of the authority now given to the city manager in the hands of elected officials – or, in some cases, specifically the city’s mayor. This shift is possible, but would require a change to Marathon’s city charter, proposed either by the city council or petition from 10% of Marathon’s registered voters. The proposed change would require majority approval in a referendum vote, a process that would likely take more than a year.
- Candidates disagreed on whether Marathon has been “over budget” over the last three years.
- Additional info: Assuming candidates are referring to Marathon’s general fund, with ad valorem tax revenues and expenses from general government, public safety and community services, Marathon has come in “under budget” in each of the last three years. From 2022 to 2024, Marathon did initially approve budgets with planned deficit spending (expenses exceeding revenues) that would have drawn down a portion of its reserves. However, since expenses were lower than expected and/or revenues higher than expected, reserves have increased, not decreased, in 2022 through 2024, according to Marathon’s audited financial summaries.
- In 2022, Marathon planned for expenses to exceed revenues by roughly $1.3 million, with $13.9 million in revenues against $15.2 million in expenses. Actual revenues were $16 million, while expenses totaled $13.1 million – turning a $1.3 million deficit into nearly a $3 million surplus.
- In 2023, Marathon planned for expenses to exceed revenues by roughly $337,000, with $16.9 million in revenues against $17.3 million in expenses. Actual revenues were nearly $18.3 million, while expenses totaled $14.9 million – leaving nearly a $3.4 million surplus.
- In 2024, Marathon planned revenues to exceed expenses by roughly $607,000, with $19.5 million in revenues against $18.9 million in expenses. Actual revenues were $20.2 million, while expenses totaled $18.3 million – turning a planned $607,000 surplus into a $1.3 million excess.
- Additional info: Assuming candidates are referring to Marathon’s general fund, with ad valorem tax revenues and expenses from general government, public safety and community services, Marathon has come in “under budget” in each of the last three years. From 2022 to 2024, Marathon did initially approve budgets with planned deficit spending (expenses exceeding revenues) that would have drawn down a portion of its reserves. However, since expenses were lower than expected and/or revenues higher than expected, reserves have increased, not decreased, in 2022 through 2024, according to Marathon’s audited financial summaries.
- A candidate referenced violations during construction of an upcoming resort on the Florida Keys Country Club property and golf course, questioning why a state agency issued violations to the property instead of the city.
- Additional info: The referenced violations involve two regulatory agencies, each responsible for overseeing portions of the project – the city of Marathon, and the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD).
- On June 20, 2024, the city issued a stop-work order to the property due to errors in infrastructure site work and due to fill being improperly placed – issues that were later corrected, and the stop-work order was lifted.
- An inspection from March 2024 by SFWMD noted no issues on the property. Additional letters sent from SFWMD to the property in April and August 2024 noted trimmed and destroyed mangroves along the property’s southern waterfront and inadequacies with a constructed berm used to retain stormwater on-site. A third letter from March 2025 noted these issues had persisted and required compliance within seven days. Speaking on Oct. 7, resort owner Peter Rosasco and project manager Lexi Connor of Weiler Engineering Corporation told the Weekly that SFWMD verbally confirmed resolution of the issues during a site visit on Sept. 25. The Weekly and Weiler Engineering requested written documentation of the resolution from SFWMD, which had not been sent as of press time. “Corruption is an act whereby unlawful acts occur and someone benefits financially from those acts,” said Rosasco in an email to the Weekly. “Nothing remotely close to that occurred at the golf course.”
