Durring the week of July 29-31, the Martin County Commission

set an indoor land speed record for reviewing and approving the county's

2002-03 tentative budget which totaled $375.8 million. Major spending

departments were whisked through their very professional presentations, many

using the latest in Power Point projection techniques to emphasize their

requests for new employees and equipment.

These presentations were completed with little, if any, challenge

from the commission, the public and, regrettably, our members.

After all, the resultant overall tax increase would be less than 1

percent (plus 4.9 cents to a millage of $8.474), the "typical" homeowner

would face a tax increase of only $6.12. So what's the beef? The value of

all taxable properties increased 6.3 percent to a new total of $11.87

billion, providing additional revenue estimated in excess of $7 million

without a millage increase.

Nevertheless, the presentations were swift and professional, the

approvals expeditious, and the final vote on the entire budget almost

unanimous, except for one lone dissenter who reasoned that there might still

be some programs with opportunities for cost-cutting which would allow

Martin County to hold the line on the tax rate.

We applaud this commissioner for his point of view, one shared by

the Martin County Taxpayers Association. Unlike businesses in the private

sector which measure their success in terms of profit, government uses level

of service as a measuring stick. The higher the level of service, the better

taxpayers are being served. Government at all levels seeks out those

unfulfilled niches in the maze of service possibilities and, finding a

vacuum, attempts to fill it with more or better service (sometimes whether

we need it or not).

Only after the enhancement of new or improved service passes a

severe sniff-test by an impartial and knowledgeable third party (does one

exist?) should the aspects of new equipment or personnel be considered.

If the "private enterprise" approach to spending in this economy

were incorporated into government, would the following turkeys fly?

Would we allocate $75,000 for a program to advocate the conversion

of rental units to owner-occupied in certain areas because "the existence of

a significant number of rental units is an impediment to redevelopment and

existing property values"? How does government plan to convince landlords to

sell, occupy, or convert income-producing properties?

How about the "interactive fountain" planned for Indian RiverSide

Park at a cost of $500,000 plus the long-term burden of an attendant during

operating hours?

Do we need an additional deputy to secure the airport which has

already contracted for its security with the Pinkerton Agency?

Does $290,000 sound excessive for the travel and education budget

of a department totaling 33 employees?

Can we continue to construct fire stations and hire battalion

chiefs without at least studying and modeling the consolidation of the

Stuart and Martin County fire-rescue departments?

These examples are but a drop in the bucket, but are representative

of the need for more extensive pre-work before these budgets ever come

before the commission.

The rising tide of real estate values in Martin County continues to

float the local government boat, resulting in easy fiscal decisions for our

commissioners and annual budget increases of 7 percent. From past experience

we know that real estate values will not increase at these rates

indefinitely; values always flatten or even drop sooner or later.

Martin County is unprepared for a flat budget. We will only become

prepared by exercising fiscal restraint now. Reducing millage rather than

raising it is a critical first step. Otherwise, Martin County is headed down

a dangerous fiscal path.