Transparency and Public Trust

1. The MSTU Tax: 

Established in 2018—the Middle Keys Health Care Municipal Services Taxing Unit (MSTU)—this special taxing district was designed to raise up to $15 million over 10 years to support Fishermen’s Community Hospital in Marathon. Property owners have been paying 0.5 mills, which nets around $2 million per year. 

Original Purpose—or Was It?
The tax was initially publicized as a way to fund construction of the hospital after Hurricane Irma. Without a binding referendum, officials later pivoted the justification to funding indigent and underinsured patient care, which does not require a referendum. 

• Lack of Clarity Around Funding Use
  Citizens have raised concerns about the shift in purpose—from bricks and mortar to patient care—without public explanation or consent.  

• Poor Meeting Practices
  The MSTU renewal was nearly omitted from the March council meeting agenda. The City Manager later admitted this was an oversight—and the first meeting’s agenda wasn’t properly transparent. 

• Ambiguous Finances & Oversight
  The hospital’s CFO acknowledged only $774,339 remains to reach the $15M cap, but the City and County have no authority to alter millage; they can only approve or opt-out. 

• Financial Viability vs. Community Burden
  Critics note that the hospital reported a $17.5 million profit in FY 2024, yet claim a net loss of $31.2 million since 2017—sparking debate over whether the tax is still justified. 

• Community Voices & Doubts Residents called out a lack of hospital services and questioned the ethics of taxing taxpayers while the hospital remains profitable. 

• Decision Split & Fiscal Responsibility
  The Council passed a 2026 MSTU renewal in a close 3–2 vote. Some members insisted Marathon’s tax contribution must match the unordered $15M pledge and expressed frustration over lack of flexibility. 

During the 2022 City Council candidate messaging, several candidates voiced concerns about:

• The City favoring developers over long-term residents
• Decisions lacking transparency or consistency.
• An opaque, inaccessible process that “caters more to developers and big money” and fails to adequately involve residents

In early 2025, the City of Marathon was involved in a high-profile court battle. Owners of Shands Key alleged that zoning changes effectively wiped out their property’s economic value — a potential regulatory taking under the U.S. Constitution. Courts examined whether transfer of development rights (TDRs) sufficiently compensated the owners. The matter remains a point of legal and regulatory scrutiny 

• The Council approved administrative relief for building permits to complete affordable housing, even after state court rulings withdrew many allocations.

• There were split votes and controversy over whether affordable designations were being preserved

5. Financial Disclosure Confusion

In early 2024, Marathon’s city council sought an external consultant help to navigate the newly required Form 6 — a detailed financial disclosure form mandated by Florida’s 2023 ethics reform (Senate Bill 774). The need for outside help signals complexity and perhaps past uncertainty around public financial transparency.

An initially proposed city ordinance modified standards for hotel room redevelopment (e.g., increasing allowable bedrooms in exchange for fewer units). This was widely viewed as potentially tailored to benefit a specific high-profile resort project, prompting council members to call for more transparency and thoughtful deliberation before proceeding. The measure was tabled pending further clarification.

7. Trademark Dispute Over City Seal (2019)

A city councilman attempted to trademark the city’s seal and issued a cease-and-desist to the City—an action that blatantly ignored state and federal laws prohibiting municipal trademarking of official insignia

.“I’ll fight for accountability—political theater and legal chaos shouldn’t be part of Marathon’s playbook.”