It's Your Money

Back in September 2006 your Taxpayers’ Association remained neutral on whether voters should approve or disapprove an additional five year ½ cent sales tax being proposed for the November ballot. While we seldom agree with increasing taxes, we do prefer a voter approved sales tax over property tax increases when it comes to programs of this type. We did like the 50/50 split of funds raised going to land conservation and active recreation facilities, including a new Aquatics Center. Our decision at the time was to point out the pros and cons and let our voters choose whether their households were willing to spend an average of $54 a year for new land and recreation facilities. By a large margin, they did.

It is now over three years later and, while the County is facing a different economic reality and revenue shortfalls, sufficient funds have already been collected to build the proposed Aquatics Center. Next Tuesday the Commission will be deciding whether to move forward using those funds. We would normally be against starting such a project in our current declining economy but, for a number of overriding reasons, we are conditionally supporting the project.

• The voters indicated their desire for such a facility
• The $10 million required has already been collected and cannot be spent for anything other than a new active recreation facility.
• The County needs to replace the aging and costly pool they currently support for resident use at Martin County High School.
• The County already owns sufficient land at a central location (near the Sheriff’s compound) and has completed plans to locate there.
• The construction bid selected is some $2 million under original estimates due to our current economic conditions
• A local contractor has won the contract so much of the money spent will provide jobs and help stimulate the local economy.
• Pro Forma statements by the County Staff estimate user fees and concessions will generate more than enough revenue to maintain the facility.

Our lingering concern is whether the County can adequately maintain the facility without further taxpayer support. County Staff has performed significant research on similar Florida facilities and believes that it will be a revenue generator as well an economic stimulus for the County. While we note that virtually all government programs tend to be more costly than projections, we believe there are other positives that may provide some taxpayer assurance.

• Many school, County and City of Stuart recreation programs currently pay user fees and bus individuals to distant out of area facilities. These taxpayer costs will now revert to savings and revenues for the new facility.
• The County is currently spending $130,000 per year to maintain the MC High School pool, which will become an unnecessary expenditure of tax revenue.

In summary, we do not oppose building the new Aquatic Center as currently configured, but caution the County not to add options that may require additional taxpayer support for either long or short-term maintenance.

On another positive note, we would like to offer our preliminary support to the offer recently made by the City of Stuart to provide 8 acres of land adjacent to the Courthouse for a new Constitutional Officers’ building. We hope this initiative will prove viable and allow the Tax Collector, Property Appraiser, Supervisor of Elections and Clerk of Court to move from expensive, isolated leased facilities and consolidate in their new building within a couple of years.

Several months ago the County released a Request for Proposal (RFP) to at least a dozen owners of property adjacent to existing County facilities. The idea being to buy property to replace leased facilities while commercial property values were significantly reduced. Only three owners responded: the complex currently accommodating the Tax Collector and other private lessees, The Wachovia Bank building in Stuart, and the facilities currently housing the Supervisor of Elections. Of the three the only offer approximating the requirement was the area housing the Tax Collector. Even this facility was not the optimum solution desired.

Enter the Stuart proposal. This should allow construction of a facility that will reduce costs, meet all requirements and centralize services while allowing competing private land/structures to remain on the tax roles. We applaud the City for what may become a win/win for all concerned – especially our taxpayers.