IN YOUR CORNER
Government decisions,especially those of local governments, can have a
major impact on the quality of life in our community. That quality is
determined by a large number of factors, including our environment,
roads, parks and other community services. When government is
preoccupied with only one of these components, our long term quality of
life will be affected. This had been a concern of the Taxpayers
Association with the previous county commission.
A workshop on major capital improvement projects was held recently to
discuss the need to either reprioritize, increase funding, or both for
the major county buildings, parks, storm water and transportation
projects. The picture was not bright for the taxpayers of Martin
County. Although county budgets increased significantly over the last 4
years, capital projects, which had been an orphan under the previous
commission, have been seriously underfunded. A recent "Space Study"
showed that Martin County currently has 204,429 sq. ft. of space and
will need an additional 57,167 (or an increase of over 25%) sq. ft. by
the year 2005. It was further projected in this space study that, by the
year 2010, we will need an additional 73,891 sq. ft. (or an additional
increase of 29%). We assume that this additional space is projected
based on the rate of growth in our population, but saw no reference to
this.
Although the Sheriffs Administration and the Court System will be
growing at a fairly rapid pace, Emergency Services, Fire & Rescue, and
EOC appear to want to double and triple their space requirements every
five years. This all goes back to the growth in our population and the
services required by each new resident.
In the discussion at this workshop, other buildings and parks were
mentioned: a high security pod for the jail, Indian RiverSide Park,
General Services Field Operations, etc. The stumbling block is that the
total value of these projects is estimated to be $62 million, and the
actual funding in place right now equals $9.7 million, resulting in a
shortfall of $52.4 million.
Transportation is in a similar quandary as far as funding goes. The
priority transportation projects, numbered 1 thru 7, equal $42 million,
and the existing revenues equal $4.09 million annually. This includes
the gas tax at its present rate.
The bright spot was that, although underfunded, our priority storm water
projects may qualify for funding through a very low 3-4% interest
revolving credit line from the state which could advance our river clean
up efforts.
The options discussed include increased ad valorem and gas taxes,
extending the 1% sales tax, floating bonds and doing only the top
priorities.
We agree with Commissioner Weberman’s comment that before asking
taxpayers to pay more money, the commission must make their current
budget more efficient.
The Taxpayers Association will help, if we can, to look for a long term
solution to funding for needed projects.
A follow up hearing is scheduled for next Tuesday (April 3rd) at 9 am in
the commission chambers.
***
In a recent column, the Taxpayers Association discussed that portion of
Martin County's Comprehensive land use plan and map which allows 20 acre
ranchettes on a major portion of county land west of I-95. We described
the problem and offered one possible solution of using tax dollars to
purchase density (the development rights), then transferring same to
more appropriate areas within the county which could accommodate growth.
This requires the willingness of landowners to sell their rights.
Almost prophetically, on the heels of this column, Jill Schwartz of the
American Farmland Trust, visited Stuart on March 22 to speak on the
subject of preserving our agricultural lands. Some other possible
solutions given are as follows:
Transfer development rights: Requires coordination and planning to
effect the transfer of rights from agricultural landowners to developer/
recipients who fund the process, to increase the intensity of use in
politically acceptable locations.
Agricultural Protection Zoning: Changing the zoning at this juncture to
allow farming only. This could create legal turmoil between our county
government and effected landowners.
Tax Relief: Martin County farmlands currently enjoy tax relief in the
form of an agricultural exemption.
Agricultural District Programs: Programs created by agricultural
landowners on a voluntary basis and approved by local government. This
involves a choice of local incentives in the form of legal, tax,
conservation and related benefits.
Right to Farm laws: Protect farmers from overly restrictive ordinances
and strengthen their legal position.
Any combination of these tools could be used by a local government to
protect farmland and, in the process preserve scenic vistas, wildlife
habitat, and a valued local industry. This includes preserving the green
space envisioned by Martin County as a sustainable community. The key
question is whether the will of the community exists to carry out such a
program.
In a related vein, state legislation is pending on a bill sponsored by
farm and conservation interest to protect agricultural land around the
state; we don’t know how this might affect our local properties.