IN YOUR CORNER

There have been concerns regarding the Tropical Farms water supply and waste water
treatment projects. Members of The Martin County Taxpayers Association (MCTA) met with the Utilities Department on April 29 to become familiar with these projects, focusing on the level of necessity and efficiency of these proposed projects.

The MCTA supports these two projects as being appropriate and consistent with Martin
County's expected growth and its environmental policies, and construction should
proceed as scheduled in the revised project detail sheets in the FY04 Capital
Improvement Plan. Our position is that the issuance of $40.1 million of revenue bonds to
fund these projects will have no adverse impact on the county's normal debt service load.

The future growth/capacity projections do not have to be re-evaluated now in order to
proceed with the Tropical Farms WTP Expansion because the net gain in capacity from
the FY04 overall plan will be only about one million gallons per day (mgpd). Our
understanding is the main reason for the FY04 portion of the Tropical Farms Water Plant
project is to reduce county-wide draw from the surficial aquifer and replace this water
from new wells drilled into the Floridan aquifer. Reducing draw from the surficial
aquifer is not only a Martin County objective to reduce negative impacts on wetlands and
private wells, but has been so directed by the South Florida Water Management District.
According to the Utilities Dept., the plans to close older surficial aquifer plants that are
approaching the end of their useful lives will reduce available capacity by about 3 mgpd.
The new wells to be drilled in the FY04 portion of this Tropical Farms project are
expected to produce 4 mgpd. Future water demand-capacity relationships can be
examined later as needed.

We see no advantages in deferring these projects for financial or any other reasons.
Deferring these projects could delay the implementation of certain planned efficiencies
effected through consolidation of plants and automation.

The primary source of financing will be revenue bonds that will be paid off from
revenues collected entirely within the utility's operation. There will be no competition
for funds with other capital projects debt services that are customarily financed from ad
valorem taxes and impact fees. The Utilities Dept. has stated that there will be no need to
increase utility rates specifically to finance these or any future capital utility expansion
projects. It is estimated that future efficiencies in operations will result in a larger portion
of revenues being available for future capital projects. Although utility rates could
increase due to inflation, increased salaries and wages, and other operating costs, there
should be no increase before 2006.

The MCTA is not so much interested in just lower taxes as it is in getting the most for our tax dollars. If you remember, this organization fully supported the 4-cent increase in motor
fuel taxes, recognizing the need to repair our failing roads and small bridges.

***

The Martin County Commission is currently well into the annual process of defining next
year's budget and approving the Capital Improvements Projects for the next ten years. In
observing these processes, two almost opposing generalities become readily apparent.

The first is that the use of consultants seems to be the way the county staff justifies
projects and insulates themselves from criticism. In listening to staff briefings on the
above subjects, the words "our consultant", "the consultant says" and "the consultant
will" have become part of virtually every briefing. While there is nothing inherently
wrong with hiring expertise where needed, at some level the staff should be skilled
enough to solve their own problems and confident enough to support the decisions they
make.

Many of these consultants are probably well justified. However, when briefings indicate
consultants are being used to research the appropriate site for a county dog park, or to
generate land use data that should be available in the County Appraiser's office, or tell a
supervisor how long it takes to perform a job within their own department, one has to
wonder.

Conversely, there also appear to be many occasions when the county staff chose to go it
alone, even when the need for outside expertise is indicated. For example, the costs on
some county building projects are forecast to be over $150 per square foot in a $100-$120 square foot market. Negotiators have approved union contracts that increased a
department's labor costs by nearly fifty percent in a three-year period, and there are
overruns on a high percentage of construction projects. In short, there are numerous
examples of situations where external consultants/negotiators should have been
employed. As noted in some of our earlier articles, line supervisors have even carried out
negotiations with unions that represent personnel under their command.

We have been unable to obtain the number of consultants used by county staff over the
past year, and the subsequent costs, but our advice to the county staff is to pick your own
dog park sites and use those consultant funds where they will produce tangible results, as
in negotiating and managing contracts.

***

A recent report indicated that the county was considering spending all of the remaining funds in the lands for you program on a 2.4 million dollar 90 acre parcel north east of the Jensen Causeway. This parcel appears to be a mangrove swamp. Real Estate 101 states that the value of a property is determined by it’s ultimate use. Before spending these moneys this value needs to be reviewed in the reality of the parcels posable use.