IN YOUR CORNER

 

In the ensuing weeks, the Board of County Commissioners will be

performing some serious number crunching.  Beginning with a mandatory

review of impact fees and followed by a decision to reinstate or not

reinstate a sales tax, the calculations should be quite an exercise.

 

Last October, the Capital Projects Department issued a report at a

workshop using figures gathered from various county departments.  This

report concluded that Martin County government's annual funding

requirement for land and facilities attributable to growth in population

is $4,613,542, or a burden of $1,637 created by each of the 2,813 new

county inhabitants projected to move here in the coming year!

 

As it is with all projections, these figures are based upon various

assumptions, a few of which are as follows:  Current space occupied by

the county (616,570 sq. ft.) is the exact amount needed to provide the

required level of service to the current population.  All county

facilities are calculated as if owned, yet some are leased.  The average

life span of county buildings is 46.64 years; therefore there is a

projected replacement cost of $2,299,423.  This replacement cost does

not include a projected rehabilitation cost during the life span of

those buildings.  That additional cost is estimated at $735,606.  And

future growth in facilities (to house additional employees) is projected

without any factor for efficiency gains, consolidation of programs, or

privatization.

 

Besides calculating building costs at a whopping  $172 per sq. ft., land

costs are calculated at $20,000 per acre for "conservation land" and

$100,000 per acre for parkland.  Each new resident (and keep in mind

that is 2,813 new residents expected each year) triggers a need for .220

acre of parkland and .02 acre of conservation land.  Added to land

required for new buildings, the total land cost for each new resident is

projected at $670.53.

 

Based on these assumptions, projected annual impact fee revenues are

falling short of paying for growth by an estimated $3,388,542.  Yet

Martin County's impact fees for building activity were increased 85% in

1999, and are 37% above the average for the rest of Florida's counties.

In fact, our higher impact fees are having  a reported negative

influence on businesses wanting to relocate here.

 

Not included in this or other impact fee analysis is the fact that the

location of new development has a major influence on it's impact to

county services. Development which occurs further away from required

services costs significantly more to serve in both the long and short

term. Also not addressed is the fact that businesses require less

government services, pay higher taxes and generate income which is

multiplied throughout the community, thus increasing everyone's quality

of life.

 

Despite groans from the purists who feel that impact fees must pay for

the highest estimated costs of growth, there may be merit in calculating

such fees only to establish a range of impacts created by roads and

services by certain types of construction and their differing locations.

A survey could then be performed to ascertain some semblance of parity

with surrounding areas and to arrive at actual dollar amounts.  This

exercise is similar to a job evaluation and wage survey.  Only then

should impact fees be set in conjunction with other local, state and

federal funding sources to achieve our needs.

 

**

The Commission seems determined to close the county-owned landfill and

pay a vendor (Waste Management) to collect solid waste here and transfer

it to their landfill in Okeechobee.  Taxpayer watch dogs  note that this

change will cost more than using our own land fill.  The cost increase

is estimated to be $3.00/mo. ($36.00 per year) for each of the county's

60,000 customers. Why are commissioners saying that this move is

inevitable in three to five years when there is ample space for an

additional cell which would extend the life of our current landfill by

10 to 12 years and create an considerable savings to all of us?  This

cell is located near the center of our present landfill and, therefore,

its appearance would not materially change anything, as it would not

extend the overall height or breadth but only fill an existing void.

 

Transferring solid waste to another landfill requires the creation of a

transfer station.  Truck traffic would actually increase as the incoming

deliveries would continue while the large transporters hauling their

cargoes of waste to Okeechobee would be added.

 

Solid waste kept at a transfer station is not buried, and therefore the

pungent aroma typical of such a facility might become stronger.

 

Why is this issue so apparent to us, but to nobody in county

government?  We will be meeting with the County soon to get answers to

these questions.