IN YOUR CORNER

Over the years, you have seen the Martin County Taxpayers Association take positions on Impact Fees, Sales Taxes and Property Taxes. We are not opposed to support of necessary funding and good government. We will continue to support what we believe is needed and oppose what we think is not. We rely on our members for their opinions in forming our position. We also rely on our volunteers to research public policy and procedures.

Recent articles have commented on Martin County's Capital Improvements Plan. These planned public expenditures require providing buildings and facilities that keep our County current for the provision of public services. We have cautioned that newer, bigger buildings will require more personnel and increased operational costs that will, and must, be paid by property taxes and fees other than "impact" fees.

We have become increasingly concerned about the County's costs of construction of buildings and the projects that are being funded by impact fees. As a "for instance", without criticism, we wonder if we really needed to spend over $200 per square foot on a fire station, or if using impact fees for "traffic calming" are proper. These concerns have led us to request a genuine study of the costs of growth and an audit of impact fee expenditures, which we have asked for repeatedly in the past.

We welcome support, comment, and even criticism of our efforts and ask that our County Commissioners join us in finding better ways of protecting the public's money.

**

Some years ago we presented a White Paper to the County Commission addressing subdivision of land outside the Urban Services Area into 20-acre "ranchettes". Our principal concern was that taxpayers inside the Urban Services Area would be forced to subsidize services for that low-density ranchette development, a type of development eligible for agricultural property tax exemptions.

At that time, based on our review of how other local governments were addressing sprawl into rural areas, we reported that many alternatives to ranchette development existed, but none were in our Comprehensive Plan. Fortunately, the Commission agreed to study these issues. Unfortunately, they remain unresolved. We still do not have a plan to prevent 20-acre ranchettes from consuming all privately held land outside the Urban Services Area. Meanwhile, the market pressures for conversion of agricultural lands to ranchettes are accelerating.

More recently, as the land is becoming fully developed, there has been new interest in preserving green space inside the Urban Services Area. The political winds have shifted from a 20-year sales tax to solve planning problems outside the Urban Services Area, as proposed early in 2004, to a shorter term sales tax to buy green space inside this area.

We will fully examine the new proposal and report to you on it when we understand it better. However, we trust the County Commission will not forget why they began the current studies of ranchette subdivision and planning alternatives to it.

Significant changes to the Comprehensive Plan may be required for land both inside and outside the Urban Services Area in order to meet the public's needs and expectations for green space and rural areas. If so, such changes should proceed together and apace, so that solutions are comprehensive, real and lasting. A land purchase proposal to assuage fears of development inside the Urban Services Area is not likely to be the comprehensive planning solution we need for a sustainable Martin County for taxpayers.