It is that time of year again. Most of our part time residents have gone back North, many “locals” are on vacation and our elected leaders are busy figuring out how to get further into Martin County taxpayer’s pockets while no one is looking. To confirm this one has only to read the local papers for the last few weeks. Numerous articles on the 2006 budget increases for Martin County Administration, Sheriff and School Board have been punctuated with discussions of how to justify increases in local sales taxes.
The Martin County Commission has led the way with much hand wringing over traffic problems and the “aftermath of last year’s hurricanes”. These discussions invariably end with broad hints about an increase in property tax rates. This is in the face of a minimum increase in the taxable value of Martin County real estate of 11% this year (over $1.5 billion dollars), which, with no change in millage rates, will accrue an additional 7-8 million in tax revenue. For 2004/5 the actual increase in tax value was a record 16% and the county appraiser has indicated it is possible that record may be broken this year, even with the hurricane damage taken into account. Last year the Commission rolled back the millage by less than 2 percent giving an increase in taxes actually collected of nearly 15%. With no increase in millage, or further increase in tax value, (at this writing both seem likely) the total increase in Martin County property tax revenues will exceed 25% in two years. When taken against a population increase of around 6%, and no appreciable increase in levels of service, some things are obviously not being accomplished very well. Negotiations with Emergency Service employees, policies on overtime, part-time employees/consultants and numerous “pork barrel” projects come to mind.
The Sheriff’s proposed 2006 budget has been released with a request for a 15.8% increase to a total of some $52.6 million dollars. It is justified by the increases in personnel costs associated with the new pay matrix agreed to as part of the recent union bargaining process (following the precedent set by the County’s ineffective EMS negotiations) and the hiring of 41 additional personnel. The Sheriff defends the budget request as being both “reasonable and realistic, particularly in light of the increasing demands placed upon us regarding National Security and Homeland Defense.” There is little objective justification and MCTA does not have the expertise to confirm or deny the requirement. However, as arguably the most popular elected official in Martin County, one that reports to a higher authority (State of Florida) and runs a very effective organization - he will probably get his way. What we can say with assurance is the same as we have previously stated following the EMS negotiations: “this pace of spending increase cannot be sustained.”
The third, most costly, and probably least understood budget is the School Board’s offering. In addition to normal operating budget issues the School Board is wrestling with the requirement to build a new elementary and middle school within the next five years. Arguments are currently being made that the 2 mills (most allowed) of property tax will not be sufficient and new sources of revenue must be located. Justification for the high cost of these facilities considers not only use as schools, but also that they are used as shelters and must be hardened. Ideas being evaluated are a 1/2 cent additional sales tax, general obligation bonds and a new not-for-profit leasing scheme called a Certificate of Participation (COP). No one can argue with giving our children a good education and adequate facilities to accomplish the instruction and fulfill other community requirements. However, it seems to us that the additional students that require the additional schools are exactly what impact fees are for. We hear much about school land and other assets donated/negotiated from developers, until it comes time to do the accounting and pay the bills. Also, we question the hiring of a full time professional “spokesperson” for the School System while bemoaning a lack of teachers and operating funds. Elected officials at the county level should be expected to speak for themselves as part of the job.
Last, but not least, is the current push for a special referendum on a new 1cent sales tax. The County Commission spent much of a recent meeting discussing what percentage of funds from the projected tax would go to roads, conservation lands, parks, etc. The MCTA was opposed to the same 1cent sales tax last year because of a lack of definition in the Lands for You Program. Now it appears that a variety of “high priority/crisis” requirements are being cited to entice support from single-issue proponents. We have to agree with one Commissioner’s comment: “if we have the money to hold a special election, where is the crisis?”
We will continue to monitor these budget processes and take on each in detail as they develop. As we go to press the County Commission is about to review new increases in Impact Fees. The draft recommendation shows fees for parks, boat ramps, libraries and recreation outweighing fees for roads, law enforcement and emergency services, not exactly in keeping with our priorities. We are also monitoring the City of Stuart’s budget and fiscal policy implementation and will provide a commentary as part of a future article.