On April 27, the Board of County Commissioners considered our recommended additions to the Martin County Fiscal Policy.  The Board endorsed 20 or our 27 specific recommendations, several over staff recommendations

The most important of these, in our opinion, was to prepare a budget assuming an increase equal to the rate of inflation, and then set aside half of the additional increase in property tax revenues generated by real estate appreciation for potential return to taxpayers through millage rollback.  While the Commissioners did not agree to roll back millage, we will at least have the chance to discuss it within the context of funding priorities, rather than trying to find savings within the budget after it is written.

The Commissioners also agreed to seek a method of treating all county employees similarly with regard to increases in pay and benefits.  Adopting a policy of this type is critical to controlling excessive pay and benefits provided unionized versus non-union employees over the past four years.

Staff was directed to provide a fiscal history and future projections along with future fiscal policy reviews.  This will provide all of us a context within which to consider the rate of growth in government, and potential future shortfalls in funding.  We commend the Commissioners for exercising their responsibilities to the taxpayer by adopting these and other new fiscal policies.

**

Several weeks ago, re recommended the Commission disapprove the "Guardians' Amendment" to The Comprehensive Plan.  A number of individuals have since voiced concern that we are retreating from long-held positions supporting the environment and opposing unbridled growth.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Our position was taken for one main reason: the probability of and costs associated with, abuse of the Amendments' provisions.  In the past week, a telling situation developed that illustrates, in microcosm, the reason for our concern.

A small gated community in southern Martin County was planning to remove a dying oak tree planted by the developer over ten years ago as decoration for their main entrance.  It was located inside the gate, on community property, and not in a designated Preserve.  The diagnosis of two Arborists called in was that it was dying because of transplanting a relatively mature tree to an inappropriate location.  Moving or other major corrective measures could not be undertaken because the tree's root system had grown around major electrical conduits and water lines.

The solution derived by the community's Landscape Committee, and approved by their Board, seemed relatively simple.  Cut down the tree just above ground level, treat the root system to enhance natural deterioration, add plantings to hide the stump, and plant shallow-rooted palm trees close behind to act as the new decorative focus.  Enter one disgruntled resident who, without participating in the open decision process or understanding the problems, wanted to save the tree.  This resident's solution was to call the County Environmental Planning Dept. and complain.

County Staff immediately called the POA President and Landscape Committee Chairperson advising them it would be illegal to continue as planned.  An entire day of heated phone calls ensued, followed the next business day by a meeting at the Administration building with a County Senior Administrator and two additional County employees.  An hour and a half after the community representatives pointed out that the developer's plans indicated no tree anywhere near that location, the only "decision" was for an inspection visit to the community.  This required the community to cancel two contractors scheduled to remove the old tree and plant new ones the next day.

A day later, following this inspection by two County employees, the community was informed that a decision would be made after a PhD administrator reviewed their report.  He was not available that day, and his approval was required before the work could continue.

The community involved is one of a very few that has actually written and received County and State approval of an environmental plan.  They have completed an expensive program to remove all prohibited and invasive plants, and keep two environmental firms on yearly contracts to maintain compliance.  As this goes to press the community is still awaiting approval, after the county has spent tens, if not hundreds, of employee hours "solving" this "tremendous problem plaguing Martin County".

Now look at this situation and how the County, in the light of the proposed Guardians' Amendment, is handling it.  One disgruntled resident caused this illogical expenditure of effort.  Just think what a crafty lawyer could do by accusing any project, no matter how necessary, of violating one of the less precise provisions of the Amendment.

**
Our sincerest sympathies to the family of John Mulliken, Jr., who passed away on April 28.  John was an extraordinary gentleman who gave exemplary service to his Country.  He was, also, a past President of this association, and we all will remember him with great fondness.