Our initial review of Martin County’s proposed 2008 budget elicited both disappointment and compliments. We are extremely disappointed that the Governor and Legislature failed to aggressively attack property tax problems and fix the underlying causes. Just as with their earlier forecast of large insurance rate decreases, the results of their efforts are extremely disappointing. Rather than directly address the unsustainable spending by local governments and the extreme tax rate inequities brought on by the “Save our Homes” amendment of 1992, they made token reductions (that can be overridden locally) and put the onus of making unpopular decisions on the voters. Increasing our disappointment is the fact that these reductions do not apply to the School Board, our biggest spender. They have been given an increase that may wipe out the meager savings homeowners now anticipate.

We extend compliments to the County Administrator for melding the legislature’s mandates, priorities set by the County Commission and Constitutional Officers and some common sense into a workable 2008 budget. This was a daunting task that will only get worse in the future. Unchecked spending over many years have put the current administration into the untenable position of having to fulfill contractual commitments that obligate approximately 85% of their operating budget to personnel costs. Fortunately a hiring freeze instituted last year goes a long way to softening the impact of the shortfall, at least for now. This foresight resulted in some 50 less employees without layoffs, and will absorb the largest portion of the mandated $6.27 million reduction.

Other proposed reductions that meet with our approval include the 10% reduction in CRA funding, substituting grant money for county funds in the Office of Water Quality, 10% reduction in County grants to outside agencies and delaying some park and recreation projects while pursuing private endowments.

While we understand the reasons, other proposed reductions may portend future problems. Canceling cost of living raises and reducing the benefits package of all non-contractual personnel while simultaneously giving a 10% raise mandated by union contract to EMS personnel, and negotiating for a union requested 9+% raise for the Sheriff’s Department, certainly warrant concern. This is especially true since Martin County is only weeks away from an employee referendum on whether The Teamsters Union will represent Administration personnel, and months away from new contract negotiations.

We remain frustrated that the real property tax problems are still not being addressed. The legislature and governor have to take the initiative to evolve a tax system that is reasonable, equitable and responsive to the people actually paying the tax. Continuously offering politically expedient partial solutions and referendums are not what representative government is about. It certainly isn’t leadership. Only politically courageous actions by state government can really correct the system, and that does not seem possible in the near term.

At the local level, Commissioners, Constitutional Officers, and Administrators wasted much of the largess created in recent years by rapidly raising property values. They instituted unsustainable levels of service and granted inordinately high salaries and benefits for civil service personnel, especially those with savvy unions. This occurred because the “homestead” exclusions and limitations meant that non-voting part-time residents and under-represented owners of vacant, rental, or business properties are the ones paying the large tax increases. While some level of protection for homesteaders is appropriate, the gap between taxes paid versus services received has grown to ridiculous levels and substantially harm the County’s economy.

Current officials could, with locally courageous actions, make a real difference even without more effective State action. Non-partisan professionals could be retained to conduct all future union and high value contract negotiations without political interference. Emphasis could be placed on regaining management control and reducing benefits rather than focusing solely on comparative salary issues. All current contracts and local personnel policies could be reviewed with the objective of reducing redundancy and overtime. Each manager and department head could be required to perform a yearly bottom-up justification, plus a five-year projection, to accompany each yearly budget. Every civil servant could be encouraged to offer suggestions and be compensated for those that improve services and/or reduce costs.

The only way significant changes will ever occur is for voters to understand the problems and keep pressure on all State and local officials to make needed corrections. Remember as you hear complaints about all the draconian results that will result from adoption of this budget: The 2008 budget is still $2.5 million or some $7,000 per day HIGHER than in 2006, less than a year ago.