On June 28^th the Martin County Commission spent a considerable portion of the weekly session debating their proposed additional 1-cent sales tax referendum.  The majority of these discussions revolved around how to divide the pie in such a way as to get the most votes for passage.  Emphasis was placed on which groups could muster the most get-out-the-vote activists, and what roads should be added to the to-do list based on the number of voters in the area.  Several Commissioners did make appropriate points concerning how the revenues could be most appropriately spent and even talked about fiscal responsibility.  However, just the fact that they were still addressing which road programs ought to be supported this late in the process says volumes about our problem with supporting this referendum. 

In our opinion, these actions are not the way the process should be advanced, and are indicative of the overall problem with the County Administration.  The focus was squarely on how to acquire more funds, not on justifying and prioritizing projects, developing a timeline for the required expenditures or updating their estimate of the current shortfall after factoring in record (and claimed to be unexpected) built-in revenue increases. 

In the last few days we hear that this year's increase in Martin County's land value, and therefore property tax revenues, have been raised from the estimated 10% to almost 15% for 2005.  In 2004, the increase was over 16%, for a combined 30+% increase in taxable land value in two years.  The proposed 2006 budget now also assumes nearly a 10% increase in millage, which, combined with the increased 2005 valuations, should add almost $30 million dollars to the 2006 coffers.  This is roughly 1.5 times the increase that the proposed 1-cent sales tax would yield for one year.

If the property tax is allowed to stand as currently budgeted, and the sales tax referendum passes, the total tax increase for 2006 will be over $50 million dollars.  This does not include the proposed large increases in impact fees, or the tax increases being proposed by the School Board.  This has got to stop!  We agree with almost all of the proposed road improvements, support targeted land preservation, and want to maintain our excellent schools and effective law enforcement.  However, these worthy objectives must be accomplished while staying within a reasonable budget increase using prioritization accompanied by fiscal restraint.

We empathize with the current commission's situation, since they are now facing a problem that has been allowed to grow for a long time.  Large impact fees were collected in previous years to relieve the very problems we are currently experiencing in our road system, but bickering over priorities prevented them from being effectively utilized.  A few years ago the County justified adding 4-cents a gallon to the gasoline tax by stating that this new revenue, along with companion increases in state and federal funds, would solve the majority of the County's transportation problems.  These fuel tax revenues alone amounted to over $12.2 million in 2004, but have done little to increase the County's road capacity.  

One problem was highlighted after the Commission's sales tax debate as they approved engineering consultant fees amounting to nearly one million dollars to monitor two road-rebuilding projects for less than a year. 

Unfortunately, previous commissions could not agree on what should be built and where.  A prime example is the Indian Street Bridge.  It has been on the books as a priority for a good many years, and funds that should have been used to build it were collected.  It was not built, and the funds were presumably used to enhance other, less practical projects of lower priority.  Even monies that were put aside have not helped the problem since current low interest rates have done little toward keeping up with the rapid rise in building costs.

In summary, just debating whether 60 or 70 percent of the sales tax revenues will go for roads and/or emergency equipment, 20 or 25 percent for land preservation and 10 or 15 percent for parks and recreation does not constitute adequate planning or justification; or a program we feel the taxpayers of Martin County should support.