The Martin County Commission has set July 12 th as the date for a decision on their proposed 1-cent sales tax increase. It is stated that this is being rushed so that the tax, if approved, can take effect 1 January. Some suspect that it is also being hurried along during a time when attention is on vacations, many voters are out of town and there are no commission elections. Others say it is to get an approval before the Martin County School Board also requests an additional 1/2-cent sales tax increase. Whatever the reason, it is being hurried and we have the same complaint as last year: “…our county government wants $20+ million dollars per year from our collective pockets with no definitive plan on how it will be spent”.

In the last election cycle the justification was “preservation of agricultural lands”, “more open space”, “conserving environmentally sensitive lands”, “future school sites, recreational and athletic space”. Having failed in that attempt the focus is now being placed on things more voters can relate to: “…congestion reducing road projects, purchasing fire rescue equipment – like trucks and ambulances…” In the background at most venues, but pushed in some circles, are the large percentage of funds slated for “…purchasing conservation lands, funding parks and recreation facilities, and funding historic preservation and redevelopment projects.” In short, most of their discussions appear to be on how to sell the tax to the public and give every advocacy group in Martin County a reason to support it - not how much do we really need and for how long.

Our real complaint is that we do not believe that Martin County should need an additional $20+ million per year. Martin County’s population increase has been stable at less than 3% per year for many years while government expenses have been rising nearly10 times as fast. For example, in 1994 there were about 110,000 residents in Martin County and government expenditures of $128.4 million or $1,167 per person. Ten years later, (through 2003) the population was 134,500, but government expenditures were a whopping $391.4 million. That is an increase in dollars spent per year, per man, woman and child in the county to nearly $3,000 each - and this does not include the School System.

We believe bad decisions were made in the past and, yes, just looking back does not fix things. However, giving more money to a system that is demonstrably inefficient and has used bad judgment setting past priorities is not the answer. That means: no more construction costs that are 2 – 3 times the commercial market. No more union negotiations carried out by county employees that will benefit from the outcome. No more paying overtime to high-level salaried managers doing what they were hired to do. No more using consultants to design a dog park. No more using large numbers of part time employees to hold down the actual employee count. No more building additional parks as a back door way to preserve land – we will support it, but call it what it is and avoid expensive, underutilized parks and parking lots that cost over $1,000 per space. No more moving/restoring old buildings of questionable historic value while avoiding building a much-needed bridge or improving roads in the same area.

We could go on and on with additional examples, but you should have gotten the point. As the County hires a new Administrator it should use the opportunity to address these and many other issues. Before we can support ANY tax increases we want (and County voters deserve) hard evidence that things are changing and the additional funds will be used effectively for purposes deserving our support.

Just tell us the truth. Where did the money from the 4-cent gas tax increase go? Where are the Impact Fees being spent? Where have the additional property taxes generated by our sky rocketing real estate market gone? What is being done to cut the costs of government? Exactly what projects do you need more money for and what will they cost? We can handle the truth and will support real needs - we can’t handle the spending as usual.