IN YOUR CORNER

by the Martin County Taxpayers' Association 10/09/99

The City of Stuart budget document starts with a mission statement. "The City of Stuart is dedicated to promoting the highest quality of life for our people." This type of statement is not particularly helpful. We would like to see it followed by some specific examples of what is going to be done this year to accomplish this goal. Setting defined goals is always a good idea. It gives taxpayers a yardstick for judging performance.

The next section of the budget document provides the staff with policy guidelines for drafting the budget. These guidelines include balancing the budget and controlling the costs of government. The policy language is as clear as governmentese can be. In Funding Public Services, it states, "It is not the tax rate (millage) alone, but the combination of tax rate and assessment increases that together determine a citizen's property tax bill." Very often a government, such as Martin County, will trumpet the low increase in the tax rate, not explaining that expenditures really increased but were funded by increases in assessed values. A government should be judged on how it controls expenditures, not on the millage rate.

The next section of the budget provides historical and projected future revenue and expenditures, and documents the assumptions made in the projections. A graph shows clearly how the City allowed expenses to exceed revenues during the mid 1980s, which eventually led to a fiscal crisis and how the City cuts costs and raised taxes in the early 1990's to solve the problem.

Since 1995, revenues have grown rapidly and expenses less rapidly, and projections through the year 2005 show a safe margin of revenues over expenses. Since 1996, the City has held the property tax millage constant or has reduced it. This year's proposed millage rate of 4.0134 is the same as last year, but we hope that the rate can be reduced to the 2.6 mills enjoyed in 1989.

About 70% of the general fund budget is dedicated to personnel costs. The proposed budget allows for a 1.5% cost of living adjustment and another 1.5% for selective merit increases. This sounds in line with inflation and cost of living increases, but the actual average merit increase is higher. The City adjusts pay on employees' annual dates, which occur throughout the year and budgeting 1.5% actually provides about 3% per employee during the year. The City continues this practice each year and we think it is deceptive. Taxpayers deserve an honest picture.

The City budget plans to use its portion of the 1% sales tax to "clean up the river" in planning and designing major water quality improvement projects in Haney Creek, Poppleton Creek, and Kruger Creek. Building an anchorage and pump-out facility for visiting boats is another logical use for this money. None of it will be used to buy uplands having nothing to do to help the river and so far the City is keeping its promise to taxpayers. It is doing this work with the regular City staff, helped in some instances by consultants.

The City has been very efficient is securing grants to augment local money in cleaning the river. So far these grants, from the Florida Inland Navigation District, South Florida Water Management District, and Florida Communities Trust have totaled more than $7 million. This has been accomplished by regular City personnel. Taxpayers might well expect the county government to do at least as well, but so far there has been little success at the county level.

The City Attorney's budget is projected to decrease substantially next year with the apparent end of County litigation concerning the city's annexations. The City manager has requested $5,000 for bonuses for employees who come up with money saving ideas. This is quite standard in private industry and should be equally successful here.

This budget document shows that the City of Stuart has made great strides in the past few years in reducing government expense and making wise use of taxpayer dollars. The School District has also done well, eliminating transfers from capital accounts to operating accounts and reducing the cost to taxpayers of operating the school system.

Martin County unfortunately has not followed this trend. County government continues to grow and the county budget continues to grow far faster than county population. The inflationary increases in the county payroll continued this year, without reason. The county budget format won an award recently and it was deserved, the county format is very good. Unfortunately, taxpayers must be most concerned with budget performance, and that will not win any awards.

********
Commissioner Getting took us to task for blaming the premature purchase of land for the county health department on the county attorney. Three commissioners approved the purchase, without contingencies such as zoning, and we did not find any objections by the county attorney in the minutes of the meeting. However, a more thorough search revealed that the attorney's office did notify the county property management administrator that the zoning was not correct for the intended use and that there should be a contingency in the purchase contract. Three commissioners, who presumably were notified of this warning, chose to approve the purchase anyway. We were probably remiss in assuming that the minutes of the commission meeting would tell the complete story of the meeting, even though they should. Three commissioners were remiss in ignoring the advice of their legal department assuming they got the advice. We still believe the legal department could have been more forceful in stating the possible problems. The county has purchased far too many parcels that have proved unsuitable for their intended use, and that situation simply must change, whatever it takes.


W e encourage your comments, criticisms, ideas, or any questions about how your taxes work; call or fax 288-0474 or write to us at PO Box 741, Stuart, FL 34995 or e-mail us at admin@mctaxpayers.org or visit our WEB site, mctaxpayers.org.