In Your Corner
Taxpayers will have the opportunity to choose three commissioners to
serve for the next four years in the primary election scheduled for
September 5th. While it is not our association’s role to support any
specific party or candidate, we urge voters to attend candidate forums,
review their statements, and, in the case of incumbents, review their
records.
Peer beyond the labels of environmentalist versus developer, and vote
for
candidates who will address all the issues facing our communities,
including the rapidly rising county budget, our deteriorating
transportation network, overcrowded parks and athletic fields, our
unbalanced local economy and the continued decline of our waterways.
Voters should reject anyone who does not address all these issues which
are vital to our quality of life.
We think that every voter should ask these questions:
While all the hopefuls are Republicans, which ones truly support lean
and efficient government? Which candidates, in your judgment, are most likely to work well with
citizen advisory groups to broaden citizen participation while cutting
costs?
Which would work most harmoniously with neighboring county and city
governments and existing agencies to take advantage of their knowledge,
skill, and experience to help resolve our own problems?
Which would promote and strive for a truly sustainable community in
which people live, work and play?
Which would have the knowledge and personality to best understand their
role and working relationships as a commissioner? This includes their
interface with staff as well as their conduct toward each other and the
general public.
All candidates have worked very hard to state their case to the voter of
Martin County. It would be to every taxpayer’s advantage to make an
effort to acquaint themselves with and evaluate all of the candidates.
***
With little or no warning a new tax has been added to the businesses of
Martin County, the fire inspection fee. This program will cost county
businesses over $235,000 (minimum) each year, yet we have heard of no
growing problems associated with business fires. We expect that the
first year’s operations will cost more in order to bring everybody in
line with this fire sprinkler service company’s latest products.
According to may Association members who are business owners this
represents a duplication of inspections already performed by the fire
companies, insurance companies, DPR, OSHA, Workmans comp and other
agencies.
While we fully support privatization wherever possible in our county
government, we do question the need for and cost of this new program and
business owners are concerned by the county contracting with a fire
sprinkler service company to perform annual fire inspections of Martin
County’s businesses. Is this like locking the cat and the canary in the
same room, but feeling safe because the canary is in a cage?
***
The county commission has done it again! They have created a new
position, therefore, another layer of bureaucracy, with we fear little
or no accountability. Readers may recall in our recent columns reporting
on the budget review process, we questioned the need to create the new
position of Water Resources Issues Manager.
Perhaps our concern regarding this $64,000/yr. question (called a
‘Budget
Enhancement’ item) is best reinforced by the County’s wording of the
justification, which reads "IMPACT if enhancement is NOT implemented:
Related projects will continue as they have in the past, and some
critical
issues may not be addressed as effectively." We have not been convinced
that a specific level of service, both needed and desired by us, is not
attainable without this new position. or that we neither have the
expertise
nor capacity to do the job with existing personnel. Failing that level
of
justification, we believe this request should not merit approval.
Currently, there are numerous organizations and agencies involved with
our water resources, which need better coordination. Organizations such
as Four-County Coalition, the River Coalition, Restudy Group, St. Lucie
River Initiative, Best Management Program, etc. are all addressing
various interrelated water issues. Martin County’s participation in
these activities is reported as both sporadic and inconsistent in as
much as meetings are either attended by various representatives or not
attended at all. Obviously our county could benefit if represented by a
technically competent and somewhat autonomous authority, and several
county staffers have been identified by their peers as having the right
stuff.
Some of the Illustrative Duties of this proposed new job include:
"Develops water resource policy alternatives. . ." "Identifies
benchmarks. . for monitoring water-quality standards". These duties
reflect those already underway at Department of Environmental Protection
and the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). Does that mean
Martin County is already dissatisfied with the standards these agencies
are developing, or that we want an even higher standard than they may
develop? In either case, it begins to sound like redundancy and
duplication of effort resulting in an unnecessary waste of taxpayer
dollars. We currently have standards stricter than those of the State of
Florida for the quality and quantity of runoff from development
projects, but no practical means of long term accountability. Turning
from the sublime to the simple, we have had a watering ban in place for
the past six years, but know of not one violation recorded.
In summary, writing rules is a relatively simple matter, but the
sampling,
analysis and enforcement involved in making them stick is quite another.
SFWMD is set up to do the sampling, analysis and enforcement in concert
with the county’s needs. If our standards exceed the state’s, it will be
illegal for SFWMD to enforce them. We should take advantage of help
currently available through our agencies and cooperate with them to
provide an acceptable level of service, not duplicate their work at the
county level. The balance of the duties in this proposed job should be
shared by existing qualified staff who could probably benefit from an
organizational realignment. The county should look at the City of Stuart
as for a model of how to do more with less money.