91-100

At the Feb. 24 meeting of the County Commission , two of the most important issues taken up were: Consideration of a survey to learn which service cuts citizens were most willing to endure; and how to “streamline” development review procedures.

With regard to the survey matter, three Commissioners displayed a revolting hubris, in effect saying they already know and do not need to hear what residents want.

With regard to development review, four Commissioners approved radical changes that remove protections that provide needed limits and scrutiny of new projects.

At the Feb. 4 budget workshop, staff received a little encouragement to look into what a survey would involve. County Administrator Duncan Ballantyne brought Professor Wright of the University of Central Florida to the Commission meeting. Wright is an expert on surveys, having done many for government bodies.

He recommended a phone survey of 500 voters, which would provide scientific results within plus-or-minus 5% accuracy. Cost would be $10,000, which calculates out to 0.05% of the $20 million that needs to be cut. This is a tiny amount when one considers that it would enable residents to better accept cuts if they know that they represent the will of the people.

NO! said three Commissioners – Susan Valliere, Doug Smith and Ed Ciampi. They claim to know what the people want. There’s more ego and arrogance in that claim than intelligence. They can guess, but they don’t know. Commissioner Sarah Heard favored the survey; Patrick Hayes made no comment.

Professor Wright even told of a city where the authorities insisted on including street lighting in the survey, but 85% of the people were not interested. Commissioners hear from a small segment with an ax to grind, Wright explained.

The disdainful know-it-all attitude of the three opposing Commissioners is an insult to Martin residents.

The radical changes to Article 10 of Development Review Procedures (detailed in DEFENDER No. 90) strongly favor developers and related interests by undermining needed safeguards and cutting out public participation. The Commission’s excuse for reengineering the review process is to remove “requirements that impede economic development opportunities.” Some of the changes are so unclear and dispersed through Article 10 that the County Attorney had to explain them to Commissioners after various provisions had been passed. What a mess.

Of course, none of the changes will have a meaningful impact in the near term. Even if all review procedures were suspended, people are not going to rush out to buy homes or expand businesses in the current economic climate. The reason for the massive procedural changes is for the years ahead, when the economy turns up. Then watch the developers rip off the county. That’s OK with Commissioners Valliere, Smith, Ciampi and Hayes. The only opposition to this outrage came from Sarah Heard – the Commission’s conscience.

I’ve noted orally and in print that the DEFENDER has several thousand subscribers (plus pass-along readers and visitors to websites that post our issues). So I was taken aback during a chat with a County Commissioner when told that someone claimed – though no outsider could possibly know – that the DEFENDER has only a couple hundred subscribers. Obviously, either that someone or I was lying.

Not wanting the Commissioner to be misled by a false statement, I printed out the current, non-duplicated subscription list in text block paragraph format. That is, the email addresses, separated by commas, ran sequentially across the page width. The single-spaced solid text block ran two dozen pages long. Clearly there were several thousand emails, not a couple hundred.

Now the Commissioner, having seen the printout, knows who was telling the truth …. and who is exposed as a malicious liar.

"A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." - George Bernard Shaw

For a free subscription to The Martin County Defender, send request with “Subscribe” in the subject line to: mcdefender@gmail.com

County needs to cut staff about 10%, so Commission votes to add 33 fire personnel. Are they nuts?

Face it. The County Commission majority is irresponsible. At a time of diminishing tax revenues, when departments are being asked to cut staff/expenses by 10%, fire/rescue comes up with a proposal to add 33 firefighters. At the March 3, 2009 meeting of the County Commission , Commissioners Susan Valliere, Doug Smith and Ed Ciampi approved it. The bait was a Federal grant that would cover costs for a few years, but then taxpayers would have to pick up the tab.

This new hiring increase comes close on the heels of fire/rescue’s approved hiring of nine more personnel. The uncontrolled growth of this department will jeopardize the future financial stability of the county. Don Pickard, President of the Martin County Taxpayers Association, pointed out that in the past 8 years our population grew 11%, the number of fire/rescue staff grew 23%, and their budget grew a mind boggling 300%. Current population growth is about zero.

At the heart of this disaster in the making is the Commission-approved labor contract, which previously provided 10%/annum raises, and is currently extended for three years with 5% raises – well beyond raises for other county employees. Furthermore, there are contract provisions that curtail management flexibility to operate more efficiently. The contract even requires Kelly Days – paid days off.

We salute Commissioners Sarah heard and Patrick Hayes for their good sense and concern about the county’s financial health in voting against hiring the 33.

It makes economic and operational sense for Martin County and the City of Stuart to have one unified fire/rescue service. The issues involved in accomplishing this are so complex and formidable that County Commissioners – and certainly the public – did not understand either the cost or operational issues. We congratulate Commissioner Patrick Hayes for insisting that problems involved in achieving unified fire/rescue operations be presented publicly.

On March 3, 2009, Fire Chief Tom Billington did an excellent job at the County Commission meeting of presenting a wide range of clarifying facts. Basically, there is an agreement between the city and county to provide fire/rescue service in some of each other’s jurisdiction, and to charge for such services. This can be a reasonable arrangement since there are places where one or the other has fire trucks, ambulance and personnel nearer the target location. But the devil is in the details.

During recent negotiations, Stuart rejected a proposed merger because it would have to pay more. However, the county is providing services for the city that are below cost, or in the case of fire backup by the county, free to the city. County Commissioners expressed their intent to charge more to cover costs, which would cost the city on the order of $1 million more per year. Or the city might decide to build, equip and staff another fire station that would be even more expensive. When a city enlarges its borders, there are consequences.

As just one example of issue complexity, consider the effect of the Federal safety standard. It states that 12 specialists go on certain fire calls. Stuart may be able to muster only 7 at a given event, and there may be no repercussions if no one is injured. But county backs up the city with 5 people at no charge.

Chemical fires require special capabilities to handle hazardous materials (hazmat teams). The county is more prepared for such emergencies than the city.

Firefighters stand ready to do the job. It’s the elected officials and senior administrators who must come to a workable arrangement. We hope that county officials will not try to bludgeon the city. We hope that city officials will recognize the need either to pay for the county’s actual costs, or to agree to merger even if Stuart residents have to pay a little more.

Discrepancies in opposing cost analyses need to be resolved. An interlocal agreement between Stuart and Martin County would best serve the interests of all residents.

Too many politicians are known for issuing platitudinous pap when hard, specific facts are needed. So we hereby present this little quiz asking you to guess the first names of which Commissioners made the statements noted below at the County Commission meeting of Feb. 24, 2009.

In rejecting the need for a survey to determine which services residents are most willing to give up because of budget cuts, this Commissioner said: “I think it’s pretty clear what the residents want …. They expect us to cut fat and employee costs.”

HINT: This is one of the Commissioners who earlier had voted in favor of giving fire/rescue personnel 10% annual increases, voted to extend their current labor contract for three more years with 5% annual raises, and voted in favor of hiring 33 more personnel.

ANSWER: If you guessed the name “Susan” you are correct, and probably more of an aware citizen than some scribbler at a fine newspaper.

While trying to justify the removal of needed safeguards and limits in order to speed the approval of developments, this Commissioner bemoaned the difficulties developers had to endure in the review process. He then urged the public – seriously - to buy land and try to develop it so citizens can see the problem. [Hear it for yourself on the MCTV tape at the Martin website.]

HINT: It’s touching to hear the sympathy this Commissioner has for the developer’s pain. However, how does he expect citizens beset by lost jobs, failed businesses, foreclosures, and devalued homes and stocks to come up with money to become developers? Pick a Commissioner low on the empathy scale.

ANSWER: If you guessed the name “Doug” you are correct, and perhaps regretting the vote you cast this past November.

Maggy Hurchalla, Comprehensive Plan Expert - “Benefits for Our Present and Future Generations’ Quality of Life”

Richard Grosso, Everglades Law Center Attorney - “Legal Challenges to Keeping Our Protections, Long-Term”

Charles Pattison – 1000 Friends of Fl Planner - “Legislation and Growth Management”

Greg Braun – Audubon of Martin County Expert - “How Wildlife Benefits from Our Comp Plan Protections”

Ginny Sherlock – Attorney of Littman, Sherlock & Heims “Pay to Play – Undermining Our Protections”

For a free subscription to The Martin County Defender, send request with “Subscribe” in the subject line to: mcdefender@gmail.com

THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE IS BEING PUBLISHED CONCURRENTLY AS AN OP-ED GUEST COLUMN IN THE STUART NEWS

Martin County has long had wise and reasonable growth controls that have preserved our best qualities and prevented many of the developmental abominations found in counties north and south. Even with the numerous developer-fostered amendments to our Comprehensive Plan, the county has managed to retain most of its protections.

Now we have a recession – and an opportunity for those who contributed to it with overdevelopment – to use it as an excuse to strip away procedural protections. They claim that fast tracking permits with reduced scrutiny will stimulate economic recovery. That is a wishful thinking claim.

The sad fact is that jobs and business activity are not held back by permits, but by economic realities: Loss of consumer confidence, high unemployment, decreased values of homes and stocks, and unavailable bank loans. There are so many things the Federal government could have done to boost business and employment. They could have required that bank bailouts be used for loans. They could have suspended capital gains on new start-ups. They could have allocated stimulus social spending instead to boost more jobs and consumer spending. But they didn’t.

Business-developer interests know, or should know, that their efforts to undercut the rules that have made Martin County a wonderful place to live will do little or nothing for the common good. Yet they persist in raising the banner of economic stimulation to justify supposedly streamlined approval procedures and lifting needed construction limits. It’s unconvincing.

Why do they support such Article 10 ordinance revisions as: Allowing unreasonably long application extensions; expedited review to eliminate scrutiny; and lower Level of Service (LOS) for residents? Getting houses built quickly in an uncontrolled fashion is likely to harm our quality of life, and still not sell the houses in this economic climate.

Why do statewide organizations like Associated Industries, Florida Home Builders and Community Developers want to suspend impact fees (which would either reduce services or increase resident taxes)? And why do they want to remove wetlands control from counties when we lost 84,000 acres of wetlands to development from 1990 to 2003? None of these proposals have sunset provisions, so the damage will go on and on.

The answer to why protections are under attack is summed up in the remarkably candid comment by Frank Matthews, a builder-developer lobbyist. He said that the recession “is not going to last forever.”

There you have it. Those pushing to strip away protections – and the politicians who cater to them – know that the changes they promote will not help the economy now. They are thinking ahead. They want to be well positioned to take advantage of conditions when the economy improves, and it will improve in time with or without our lowering standards. Then business-developer interests will benefit from less controlled growth rules to start the next boom and bust cycle.

They are brash. In a recent meeting of the Local Planning Agency (LPA) considering potential Comp Plan changes, a leading developer said we should extend water and sewer lines five miles west of the Urban Services Boundary, thereby promoting sprawl. Such utility extensions would cost millions of tax dollars that we do not have now, but developers are thinking about future profits.

www.out2martincounty.com offers an attractive, photo-rich presentation of activities and people in Martin County .

For a free subscription to The Martin County Defender, send request with “Subscribe” in the subject line to: mcdefender@gmail.com

It is widely recognized that Martin County places some of the most demanding requirements on development, thereby preserving our high quality of life. Wetlands can not be filled. Setbacks are enforced. The Urban Services Boundary resists sprawl. And construction impact fees are levied so that schools, roads and other infrastructure facilities can be expanded to service growth. Across the state, and in our neighboring counties, development projects face weaker constraints. How does that affect the stability of home values?

A recently published report notes that property values statewide are expected to decline 12.9% this year. Consistent with this number, property values in Palm Beach County are expected to fall 12.6%. In St. Lucie County, the anticipated drop is 14.2%. However, in Martin County – the county with tougher standards - the expected decline in property values will be only 4.4%.

So how are we to view the inclination of the Martin County Commission majority to weaken Comp Plan protections and reduce growth management procedural safeguards as other counties have done? Are the guilty commissioners so gullible that they believe the pitch that being easy will bring prosperity? Do they feel obligated to pay back those who contributed so generously to their political campaigns? Just wondering.

Charles Pattison, executive director of 1000 Friends of Florida, recently reported that some 300 bills affecting growth management – many very adversely - have been introduced in the State Legislature.

His organization, which carefully monitors legislative matters, describes itself as follows: “1000 Friends of Florida promotes healthy urban and natural places by wise management of growth and change. We educate, advocate, negotiate and, when necessary, litigate to protect our high quality of life. We help citizens have the technical knowledge and access needed to ensure that public and private decisions lead to livable communities. Our planners, attorneys and community activists work to protect natural areas, fight urban sprawl, promote sensible development patterns, and provide affordable housing.” They are on target almost all of the time.

It is beyond our scope here to examine all these bills, but let’s look at the tip of the iceberg to see how some of the more menacing ones will impact us.

- A local government will not be allowed to enforce certain stricter requirements than the state (eg., weaken Martin’s wetlands and water runoff limits).

- Reduce scrutiny of Developments of Regional Impact (DRIs in Stuart will slide through).

- Kill the Department of Community Affairs (a disaster since DCA is the key state review agency interposed between developers and county commissioners beholden to them).

- Suspend construction impact fees (so taxpayers will either pay for needed infrastructure expansion, or citizens will suffer more crowded roads and schools).

Who’s behind the deluge of bills to emasculate the Growth Management Act and various environmental laws? It’s the usual suspects – the developer-business growth machine that built the house of cards economy that has all but collapsed. Their well paid foot soldiers working to tear down protections under the fanciful guise of economic stimulation are the lobbyists, who are out in force.

Consider just three of the numerous well-heeled organizations involved. Associated Industries of Florida has 23 registered lobbyists in Tallahassee . Associated Builders and Contractors has 10 registered lobbyists. Florida Homebuilders Association has 11 registered lobbyists. Ordinary citizens have zero registered lobbyists.

It is a lobbyist’s job to “educate” legislators. The newbie senators and representatives get reams of one-sided data. The old bulls get soft reminders of whose campaign contributions got them re-elected.

Martin County is represented by one state senator and two representatives. We also have a governor who sometimes listens to the people, and is capable of vetoing bad bills. Write them letters, send them emails, fax and phone them to let them know that you do not want growth and environmental protections reduced. Let’s do something to preserve this wonderful place we live in.

Nowadays those huge national banks justifiably earn our contempt or worse. Even most local banks are coldly impersonal and sometimes loaded with unexpected service fees. So it is a pleasure to recognize Colonial Bank as one of the friendliest banks in the area. (Note: We have no financial interest in Colonial, nor do we have any personal relationship with any employee or investor.) Colonial Bank also offers one of the highest Certificate of Deposit returns.

“Saying we should do away with environmental regulations and growth management requirements after the development bubble burst is like urging banks to start giving more subprime loans.” –Maggy Hurchalla, Martin County Commissioner for 20 years, and primary author of the Comp Plan.

For a free subscription to The Martin County Defender, send request with “Subscribe” in the subject line to: mcdefender@gmail.com

When the Commission fails to provide guidance for the County Administrator , what to do? Just fire the Administrator!

QUOTE: “We shouldn’t be looking for scapegoats…I can’t believe that in the middle of this crisis we are thinking of dumping our County Administrator . We do not give strong direction. We need to do it as a team. If we did a better job, then he can do a better job.” Commissioner Susan Valliere defending Duncan Ballantyne at March 17, 2009 Commission meeting, while justifiably chiding her fellow Commissioners for their poor leadership.

Later in the meeting, vague allegations by three Commissioners – each of which expects the Administrator to follow his or her pet agenda – forced a 4-1 vote not to renew Ballantyne’s contract. Who among us has never had a boss who failed to explain exactly what he wanted, but blamed you for not doing it?

At least the Commission had the good sense to name Assistant Administrator Taryn Kryzda as Acting Administrator. She is a savvy and highly competent staffer.

Should fees be imposed on boat ramp and beach parking in order to reduce crowding and increase revenues?

Our boat ramp and beach parking areas are crowded and expensive to maintain. So some Commissioner gets the bright idea to impose parking fees. After a hue and cry of protest – and a suggestion that first there should be fees for using the toilets in the County Administration Building – the idea was downgraded to fees for out-of-county users. It was hoped that this would raise revenue and reduce the roughly 40% of users who do not live in Martin County . About three quarters of these are from St. Lucie County, which refuses to contribute to Martin beaches and ramps.

A ridiculously foolish version of the non-resident fee plan was brought before the Parks & Recreation Advisory Committee (PRAC) meeting on March 19, 2009. Parks Director Richard Blankenship presented facts. We have 12 beaches and 10 boat ramp areas. We actually own only two of the beaches with 1,350 parking spaces, and five boat ramp parking lots with 486 spaces. We manage the rest, and charging the fee there could be challenged in court.

If we installed ten kiosks @ $7,000 each, plus signage costing $16,500, the total with related capital expenses would be about $100,000. The unrealistic possible revenue, if the daily charge is $3 and annual is $50, would be $279,000. Operating expenses, including enforcement, might be $177,000.

The money aside, the main concern is to find parking for residents. Reports indicate that with higher unemployment, more people are going fishing and to the beach

So PRAC wisely voted thumbs down on this seven location fee. But hope springs eternal. The problem was dumped on a subcommittee to consider extending the non-resident fee to all boat ramp and beach parking areas. The subcommittee can then come up with a suggestion that PRAC will consider in April. If they vote to approve an all-areas parking fee for non-residents, Blankenship can then carry the proposal to the County Commission .

Among the problems the all-areas plan would face are a capital investment of at least $300,000, and hiring more county staff. It is worth noting that a survey of dozens of other counties and towns with parking fees found that all but one lost money on the parking fee operation. The only exception was Sanibel Island , which is a unique place.

Here is an idea that, to the best of our knowledge, has not been considered by anyone. Its cost would be minor, but it would serve the primary objective of helping residents find parking spaces. Mark most of the spaces “Parking Only for Vehicles with Martin County License Plates or Hotel Occupancy Cards.” Then, depending on how tough we want to be, the sign could include either “All Others Will Be Ticketed,” or “All Others Will Be Towed.” Anyone got a better idea?

The March 18 meeting of the Martin County Library Board of Trustees discussed how its reduced budget, down about 25% from an earlier $4 million, and elimination of 20 positions, are impacting its operations. Fewer books and media can be purchased, meaning a longer wait for books. All this comes at a time when higher unemployment is driving more residents to the library.

A report by the Library Foundation is the only good news. The Foundation has contributed over $1 million in private donations to construct and furnish the expanded Cummings Library in Palm City . Previously it had donated over $2.2 million in capital support of all county libraries. It is expected that the Cummings will reopen (at last) for a public preview on May 2 to display its new wing, which doubles its space to 20,000 sq. ft.

Many years ago when I lived in New England , everyone knew who the Volunteer Firefighters were. They were unpaid citizens who put out fires. They trained and hung around the firehouse, rolling out the pumper when the siren sounded. At night, if the siren wailed and the phone rang, they leaped from their beds at home and raced to the firehouse.

So it was disconcerting to drive across the Palm City Bridge last week and see men, with “Volunteer Firefighter” boldly emblazoned across their chests, collecting donations from motorists. One may assume that the collections will be put to good charitable purpose, with the firefighters volunteering to collect funds and do good with them. However, those collectors – some of whom may be paid over $100,000/yr to fight fires thanks to a servile County Commission – are not Volunteer Firefighters.

How words are used does matter. If there is no intent to mislead, they should find a more appropriate term.

“I chase real estate deals. That’s what I do.” – State Senator Mike Bennett, supporter (along with “our” Senator Ken Pruitt) of bill to dismember the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), which monitors local growth plans to make sure they comply with the law. Developers and their political puppets don’t like the DCA.

For a free subscription to The Martin County Defender, send request with “Subscribe” in the subject line to: mcdefender@gmail.com

COMMISSIONERS: You failed to provide unified policy guidance to the outgoing Administrator. Please don’t screw up again with the new Acting Administrator.

OK. Let’s look forward instead of backward. But let’s learn from our failures so the same ones are not repeated. Anyone in the Administrator seat needs definitive policy guidance from the Commission. Unified guidance, not five disorganized voices with six disparate ideas. Our new Acting Administrator is fully capable of doing an excellent job during this trying time – provided that you come up with a single policy for each issue.

Budget reduction and related operational issues demand that you come up with definitive policies, in writing. For starters, consider how the following matters, among others, should be approached by staff:

Staff can present data and alternatives for you to consider, but YOU Commissioners need to decide first what policies need to be implemented so the Acting Administrator can move forward with confidence. The buck stops with you.

New reduced impact fees are a sellout that will either erode our infrastructure or require higher taxes

This coming Tuesday, March 31, 2009, the County Commission will vote (Agenda item 6B) on a new schedule of impact fees that bode ill for the county. Impact fees apply to new construction, and are specific as to how much added infrastructure will cost to service what the new construction will be used for.

The county fees to be considered, effective July 15, 2009, are broken down by application. For example, the fees for 1,000 sq. ft. of a fast food restaurant would be Roads - $13,006; Public Building - $2,634; Law Enforcement - $2,284; Emergency Services - $1,919; Parks and Library $0 because restaurant patrons, as such, do not use those facilities while patronizing restaurants. Total rounds off to $18,844. In comparison, a conventional restaurant’s Road Fee would be only $7,781 because of lower motorist traffic.

How do the folks charged with deriving these fees calculate them? The best we can say is by juggling numbers, more like educated guesswork than accounting. That’s where politics come in. The most knowledgeable member of the Impact Fee Review Committee was not reappointed so that less informed developer boosters could totally dominate.

In cooperation with the consultant, the Committee has supported the new schedule, which drastically reduces the fees for 41 of the 43 non-residential categories. The cut was a whopping average of 34.54%. Some non-residentials are getting their impact fees cut a ridiculous amount: Boat Storage down 73.33%; Fast Food Restaurants down 64.36%; Retail under 50,000 sq. ft. down 62.08%; Convenience Stores down 61.95%.

Residential construction impact fees have been increased an average of 30.64%. Perhaps it was thought that new home construction was almost dead for now anyway, so let’s bail out non-residential construction. It’s financially irresponsible to slash established revenue these dire days.

The idea that impact fees too low to provide adequate infrastructure will stimulate the economy is wishful thinking. Can you imagine that a company considering the construction of, say, a pharmacy costing $3 million would base its to-build-or-not decision on whether the impact fee is $30,000 rather than $45,000?

NOTE: School impact fees are not discussed here because they are imposed by the School Board, not the County Commission . Schools, as well as parks and libraries , are not impacted by non-residential because they do not add to the student load.

We have staked our future on an unrealistic expectation of high impact fee collections. We’ve pledged them for 20 years in the future to repay long term loans and bonds. Our five year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) must be funded, and the above noted Draconian impact fee reductions guarantee that we will not meet our targeted needs.

The result of insufficient impact fees will be that the level of service on our roads, our law enforcement, our emergency services, our parks and libraries will degrade. And so will our quality of life. We can look forward to some politicians eventually telling us that a tax increase and more fees will be needed to fund our infrastructure.

DEFENDER No. 95 reported that Martin County has been considering imposing fees for parking at boat ramps and beaches. The fees would either cover all parking lot users (in-county paying less), or just apply to out of county. The purpose of the fees would be to raise revenues, and to discourage overcrowding caused by out of county.

Strong opposition to fees for county residents may have killed that idea. The problem with taxing, er, fees for out of county at some or all facilities is the cost of enforcement. Almost all counties and towns find they lose money on such fee systems. So we suggested just reserving most spaces for residents and vacationers staying here. Fine or tow violators. KISS.

We invited readers to submit their ideas on the subject. We received an outpouring of comments. Below is a sampling of reader responses.

Perhaps the county could send out stickers for the car with our property tax bill to residents for the boat ramps and beaches. Everyone else would pay at a self serve kiosk or risk being ticketed or towed. I have seen this in other towns and it seems to work pretty well.

Just drop the whole idea. They will have to drag me into court to squeeze ramp or parking fees for the beach out of me.

How about parking stickers for the beaches that are given to residents and charged for non residents. These are mounted in the car and enforcement would just be tickets or towing. It worked up north for years.

East Hampton, NY had a similar problem with beaches and boat ramps. People were driving from Brooklyn to the East End to use their facilities! When East Hampton residents arrived at their beaches/ramps, all of the parking spaces were already filled. The solution was simple. Beach stickers (given only to county tax payers) were issued. Stickers were needed on cars parked at county beaches and ramps. High School students, as well as local police, checked vehicles (and issued tickets) to see if stickers were displayed on parked vehicles. County residents were provided with ONE sticker per year. You could either transfer it from vehicle to vehicle in your household in order to satisfy the requirement of having a sticker visible in your drivers' window...OR you could PURCHASE additional stickers (for county registered vehicles) in your household. This SIMPLE solution solved the problem. County residents enjoyed finding parking spaces/beach space/ramp availabilty all to their convenience. Why doesn't Martin County avail itself of this efficient plan? One beach could be set aside for visitors.

When I lived in Cincinnati , which is in Hamilton Co. Ohio , we were given stickers for the County park system. Signs were at each County park that stated non-county users were subject to fine unless they paid a use fee which was collected by a park ranger. You could use a vending machine at each entrance and upon depositing the required amount, it would give you a temporary card which you could display on your dash. Motels, etc. could issue temporary cards at their registration desks. I might add that their park system and golf courses were absolutely beautiful and very well maintained

Your suggestion about the beach parking is good. However, I do have a "but". I have been a Martin County resident for 32 years and property owner/taxpayer for 35 or so. I also like a "vanity" license plate. The identification of county does not appear on such plates.

No fees. The docks and ramps need repair true but Martin County is poor about maintaining facilities. Sandsprit neesd repair before someone gets hurt.

This fee plan sounds like an attempt to supplement the general funds from a source who can't vote the perpetrators out of office. And if it is done you can expect retaliation in kind from St Lucie County--they have beaches and boat ramps too. And many of them are used by Martin County residents.

The marine industry is already suffering from the insurance issue, from fuel prices and manatee type regulation It suffers from folks just not having money. Adding another use tax to the “fat cat” boater will be another nail in the box.

This Thursday, March 26, 2009, the Rivers Coalition will meet at 11:00 am at Stuart City Hall ,

“Over two-thirds of voters believe members of Congress are more interested in helping their own careers than in helping the American people.” - Leading national pollsters Douglas Schoen and Scott Rasmussen.

Could this also apply to the Florida Legislature and the Martin County Commission?

For a free subscription to The Martin County Defender, send request with “Subscribe” in the subject line to: mcdefender@gmail.com

Irresponsible Commission approval sets fee cuts that will starve almost all infrastructure upgrade needs

On 3/31/09, the Martin County Commission made one of its most idiotic decisions in years. They listened to representatives of the builder and real estate business interests pitch their unsupported speculations that sharply reducing construction impact fees will stimulate the economy.

There may be anecdotal reports that such reduction, or even elimination of impact fees, might stir economic activity, but there is no hard evidence. It’s wishful thinking. St. Lucie County has lower impact fees – and higher taxes and higher unemployment.

They listened to Dr. Jim Nicholas, an impact fee expert and a Martin consultant on the issue, who recommended a range of massive impact fee cuts for new non-residential construction, with increases for residential. County staff supported the Nicholas recommendations.

After that, commissioners listened to the Impact Fee Review Committee recommend that the consultant cuts be even larger by an arbitrary 50%. When the Commission awoke to the fact that we needed an annual revenue stream of $4.7 million to pay off mostly road bonds and loans for the next 15 years – and we’re currently collecting only about $1.5 million - the Commission did the opposite of what they needed to do. By a 3-to-2 vote, Commissioners Susan Valliere and Sarah Heard dissenting, the majority decided to eliminate all impact fees except roads. Road fees would be cut about 13% below the Nicholas recommendations. They’ve turned a bad situation into a looming financial disaster.

THIS MEANS THAT IMPORTANT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS TO PARKS, LIBRARIES, LAW ENFORCEMENT AND EMERGENCY SERVICES WILL BE STARVED OF FUNDS. TO MAKE UP THE SHORTFALL. WE WILL NEED HIGHER TAXES ON RESIDENTS – OR SETTLE FOR A MUCH LOWER LEVEL OF SERVICE!

Public comment by resident Jackie Trancynger captured the destructive foolishness of the Commission action. She said that as a solution, “cutting impact fees when we don’t have enough revenue is like if I were having trouble paying my mortgage, I would quit my job.”

Dr. Nicholas says that it’s difficult to determine whether reducing impact fees promotes economic development because there are too many variables in a company’s decision to set up shop or expand a location. Of course. It’s primarily a marketing and operations decision.

As we noted with an example in DEFENDER No. 96, it may cost $3 million to set up a large pharmacy, so reducing impact fees from $45,000 to $30,000 is hardly likely to be critical. Even if the entire fee were eliminated, it would represent only about 1.5% of the initial cost, and save nothing of the follow-on costs. The impact fee elimination is not a meaningful stimulus. It’s a bailout for developers.

[See DEFENDER Nos. 29 and 96 for details on how impact fees pay for needed additional infrastructure to serve new development.]

IMPACT FEE REVIEW COMMITTEE GETS SIDETRACKED, FAILS IN ITS MISSION TO EVALUATE AND RECOMMEND FEE PROPOSALS

At least 80% of some 10 Impact Fee Review Committee members who may attend Committee meetings are anti-fee. They are active real estate specialists, members of associations and boards that promote growth at any price, a land use lawyer, a development review expediter and so on.

The machinations that go on in their meetings may best be understood by the following inside report by Richard Towne, a former Committee member who was not re-appointed despite his superior knowledge of impact fee issues. Perhaps he was too objective, and not sufficiently political. Here is Towne’s report:

“The Feb 24 meeting did not go as planned. The committee was supposed to review and comment on Dr. Nicholas’ draft technical report. It didn’t happen. The discussion quickly (within two to three minutes) turned to recommending a moratorium on impact fees for two or three years.

“The tactic of the last committee was to challenge the cost estimates provided by county staff, then challenge the adopted levels of service; and if that didn’t work, delay implementation – which the BOCC fell for.

“At the Feb 24 meeting they went directly for the jugular – moratorium. Justification was that Dr. Nicholas’ cost data was not credible and the adopted levels of service are unrealistic. The best solution, according to the majority of members, is to recommend a moratorium until data more to their liking can be obtained. No going for delaying implementation this time. They are going for the kill.”

When citizens are involved and informed about their government, democracy flourishes. We are fortunate in Martin County to have officials who recognize the need to respond to appropriate resident inquiries in a timely and satisfactory manner. Based on first hand experience, let’s list some of these officials and department heads in a kind of Inquiry Responsive Honor Roll:

Sheriff Bob Crowder; Acting Administrator Taryn Kryzda; Assistant Administrator David Graham; Growth Management Director Nicki van Vonno; Fire/Rescue Chief Tom Billington; Stuart City Manager Dan Hudson; Elections Supervisor Vicki Davis; School Superintendent Nancy Kline; Tax Assessor Laurel Kelly. Thank you all. We applaud these government leaders. There are a number of others who also deserve to be on this very short list. Included above are a couple of public servants with whom we often or occasionally disagree, but we are talking here only about inquiry responsiveness to citizen inquiry. So praise for them is deserved.

We will also talk about a department head, paid $142,000/yr of our tax money, who is not responsive.

We recently received a disturbing letter from a resident. It alleged health and safety concerns relating to inadequate maintenance of an unpaved road. To learn more, we applied the first unofficial rule of reporting: Be Skeptical. Verify if the allegations are true. So on 3/20/09 we sent an email copy of the letter [See slightly edited reproduction below] to County Engineering Director Don Donaldson, along with two questions.

The first question was: “Does the County have any verifiable evidence that any of the claims made in the letter are not true? If so, I would appreciate receiving such evidence.”

The second question was: “If the complaint may be essentially correct, what is the County prepared to do to alleviate the situation, and when?”

Another unofficial journalistic rule is: Be Persistent. Since we had not received any reply by 3/26/09, we wrote again to Mr. Donaldson as a reminder that we were waiting for a reply from him or his designee – perhaps one of his staff with the detailed information. We asked: “When may I expect an explanatory reply from you or your designee concerning the inquiry below, sent to you on 2/20/09?”

As of noon on 4/1/09, we had not received even an acknowledgement that either inquiry had been received. We should expect more than arrogant neglect from those hired to serve the public.

Residents do not want their inquiries ignored. We have a right to learn what government is doing. It is the responsibility of the County Commission – which is supposed to represent residents - to issue a directive to its senior staff that they or their designee are obligated to make a suitable, timely response to appropriate citizen inquiries. Failure of a department head to comply should be taken into account as part of a performance review that may determine who deserves a raise, and who should be retained in his job.

Between Martin County and Shadow Grove Farms, there are at least 100 trees in the driving path. I moved here in 1996 to build an equestrian breeding farm and there were 8 homes at that time that accessed Busch. It is unbelievable that today we have a one mile road that has 27 homes using it with business, 18 wheelers etc and Martin County will not even put water down to keep the dust down and only periodically scrape it. We have one child that lives on Busch that has allergies to the coquina dust and is on a breathing machine and the county will not water or do anything to make things better.

In short, Martin County cannot take care of a one mile road, then they are opening up more problems and misery for taxpayers just for money & trying to control people's lives and property.

To hear Treasure Coast business development types tell it, biotech is going to be our economic salvation. We hope so, but the hard facts are not promising. The Biotechnology Industry Organization reports that during the past five months 10 biotechs have declared bankruptcy. A couple of giants, such as Genentech and Amgen are profitable. However, according to Burrill & Co., a venture capital company that tracks biotech, 120 of the 360 publicly traded biotechs have less than six months of cash left, compared with just 12 companies in that position a year ago. Those are the companies we’re betting the farm on?

Desperately looking for answers in all the wrong places, developer forces have persuaded too many state legislators that the way to cure the problem of empty stores, vacant offices and abandoned homes is to make it easier and less expensive to build more stores, offices and homes by weakening voter influence. At the county-city level, some politicians are ready to use public funds to fight voter initiatives that enable citizens to assert more control over their communities.

So we are hopeful that two bills that have been introduced – House Bill 591 and Senate Bill 0216 – will gain support. These bills would stop local governments from running campaigns, using public funds to support or oppose ballot issues. Let’s tell our elected representatives that we want them to support these bills.

For a free subscription to The Martin County Defender, send request with “Subscribe” in the subject line to: mcdefender@gmail.com

Recently two situations arose that reflect the self-centered interests of different residents. Competing lifestyle preferences are the stuff of living in a community. To make a better community, it’s necessary to consider the other fellow’s desires as well as your own.

People have a right to some peace and quiet. So the County Commission passed an ordinance that prohibits any noise that can be heard 150 feet from the property line 24/7. Between the hours of 11:00 pm and 7:00 am, any noise must be contained within the noise source property line.

That seems quite reasonable, except it may go a tiny bit too far. What about folks who want to enjoy night time musical entertainment? And we don’t need excessive restrictions on business. However, no one has the right to deprive children and early morning working people of a good night’s sleep.

Perhaps a little give-and-take compromise is in order to balance everybody’s interests for the common good. We hope the Commission will take three things into consideration when they review the noise ordinance with an eye to easing restrictions.

First, the ordinance should consider the noise level. It makes a big difference if you hear a sound at 70dB versus 110dB.

Second, the day and time of day matter. A noise at midnight or 4:00 am is more intrusive than at, say, 3:00 pm. For many, it also matters when the noise is on Friday or Saturday night, rather than the other five nights of the week.

Third, the one argument for lifting noise restrictions that should carry little weight is that it may somehow affect a little income for a business. No one is entitled to profit from the discomfort of others (dentists excepted).

The County’s only pool, the aging facility next to Martin County High School , does need to be replaced. Good facilities are provided for other sports, such as boating, soccer, baseball and skateboarding. So enthusiasts for other sports should not give short shrift to swimming.

We’ve heard of people who say that they or their kids do not swim competitively, so let’s not spend $9.7 million on the aquatics center. But the center would be for families, as well as competitors. Setting aside the unseemly anti-swim argument of someone whose kid is big on baseball, there are concerns about cost. It’s not the construction cost, which does seem too high, because that money is already allocated from the half-cent sales tax voters approved for land and park recreation. It’s the maintenance cost that is worrisome.

It is estimated that annual maintenance cost will run $756,000, but it could end up much higher than that. Charging perhaps $8 admission may cover all? most? some? of the cost. It is a sticking point with us that no serious marketing study has been done to pin down anticipated paid attendance in this area that has a great many private and community pools. Saying that the Palm Beach County water park is packed in spite of a $40 admission fee is irrelevant. They have thrilling water rides.

We hope the aquatics center goes forward, but we’d like to see more careful scrutiny of prospective income and expense.

There are two aspects to the issue of who receives time-and-a-half overtime pay: The employee must be asked by management to work the overtime hours; and the employee must not be exempt from the law mandating overtime pay.

Being asked to put in overtime depends on both the level of service that management is tasked to provide, as well as how efficiently that personnel time is utilized. This aspect merits some hard-nosed scrutiny, especially with reduced budgets, but is beyond the scope of this report.

Who is and who is not eligible for overtime pay is determined by the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), though there is leeway for interpretation. We will examine overtime pay criteria in three local government entities: the Sheriff’s Office, Martin County , and City of Stuart .

In the law’s section pertinent to this discussion, FLSA basically requires that employees who work more than 65640 hours per week receive time-and-a-half for the overtime unless they fall into an exempt category. To be exempt, one must be a bona fide executive, administrative manager or professional, among others, earning over $455/wk. Job titles alone do not determine exempt status.

Additional requirements to be classified as an exempt executive include having the primary duty of managing a recognized department; regularly directing the work of at least two employees; and having the authority either to hire, fire and promote, or to recommend such actions.

Administrative managers exempt from overtime must have the primary duty of non-manual work directly related to management; exercising discretion and independent judgment with respect to matters of significance.

A rule regarding highly compensated individuals states that workers paid a total annual compensation of $100,000 or more are exempt.

In addition to the above broad rules, there is a special rule in FLSA that makes first responders non-exempt. Police officers, deputy sheriffs, fire fighters and paramedics, regardless of rank or pay level, generally do not qualify as exempt executives because their primary duty is not management if they regularly perform such work as extinguishing fires and apprehending suspects.

Sheriff Bob Crowder’s salary is set by the legislature based on a population formula. He has not had an appreciable raise in the last four budgets.

The Sheriff’s exempt management consists of the Chief Deputy or Undersheriff, Majors, Captains and Lieutenants. They represent under 15% of sworn personnel, and do not receive overtime pay. Their salaries are a percentage of the Sheriff’s salary the previous year. Sergeants and deputies have union representation, and qualify for overtime pay.

Martin County has 79 employee positions that are considered management. They range, A to Z, from Airport Director, through Assistant Maintenance Superintendent and Purchasing Manager to Zoning Compliance Supervisor. All but two of the 79 are exempt from the overtime pay requirement. In many respects, the exempt list favorably follows equivalent private industry practice.

The two managers eligible for overtime are in fire/rescue: Battalion Commanders and Lieutenants. If they regularly go out on fire calls, then presumably they come under the FLSA First Responder Rule. Though duties may be different between the two uniformed first responder services, there does seem to be some inequitable disconnect between an exempt Sheriff’s Lieutenant and a non-exempt Fire Battalion Commander. Is that law, function or politics?

Having fewer employees than the county, Stuart has a shorter roster of exempt positions. There are 20 manager positions that are overtime exempt. A notable difference between city and county is the larger number of medium level managers considered exempt in the county, but not listed as such in the city. This includes 8 supervisors, but government size may make a difference.

In DEFENDER No. 97, we noted that “Impact fee elimination is not a meaningful stimulus. It’s a bailout for developers. It’s wishful thinking.” Developer-business promoters who lobby to ease land use rules and shift construction costs to taxpayers don’t agree, of course. But they cite no hard evidence to support the contention that such changes will be an effective stimulus.

We recently heard from Steve C., a reader who had experience in looking for company locations. Here is what he had to say:

“What company would even consider moving here when they saw what our Commissioners were, or were not, doing? Having been a part of a corporate site seeking team. I can tell you that we always obtained either the minutes, or video footage of at least three years worth of County Commission (or city if it was an urban area) meetings. The material was looked at closely to see how the leadership worked. When our Commission makes such ill advised decisions, thinking that the paltry sum they will save [by eliminating impact fees for] a possible new company will outweigh the "quality of life" issues that will be impacted... they are totally unaware”.

Impact fees are designed to collect from new construction the amount that it costs the County to add to infrastructure to accommodate that specific growth. The use of the new construction determines how much of a load that use places on, say, roads. So if a building’s use changes, additional impact fees may be needed. For example, a fast food restaurant or convenience store with gas station would add more traffic than a factory or boat storage facility. That’s basic growth management.

So it was disconcerting to hear Commissioner Doug Smith say at the Commission’s 3/31/09 meeting that changing a building’s use “shouldn’t change the impact fee. A building is a building.” Well, you see Mr. Commissioner, impact fees are designed to collect from new construction the amount that it costs the County … aw, forget it!

For a free subscription to The Martin County Defender, send request with “Subscribe” in the subject line to: mcdefender@gmail.com

Proposed radical revisions will delete protections against sprawl and tall buildings, mandate clusters, place industry in residential neighborhoods …. and more.

These developer-business proposals are a disaster in the making. Don’t let them ruin our wonderful County!

The WHO are the usual suspects: A cabal of developer-business promoters, lawyers, contractors, realtors and land use planners clustered around an organization called Future Group. These folks will profit financially when the economy turns up if they can eliminate existing sensible restrictions on land use and construction. Included are the same people who pushed the now collapsed residential building boom.

Too many of these people are trying to turn into reality the idiotic prediction by the head of a land use law firm that Martin County will have one million residents in 20 years – 28 times the growth of University of Florida projections. A major step to achieving this outrageous population goal is to adopt Future Group’s proposed Comp Plan changes

Should their proposals become law, Martin residents will suffer a drastic reduction in quality of life.

The WHY NOW is because the County is currently undergoing a self-examination required by the state every seven years. It’s called EAR – Evaluation and Appraisal Report. Its purpose is to see how well the County has fared with the existing Comp Plan (Martin County Comprehensive Growth Management Plan), and to make such changes that will correct shortcomings. Also, little inconsistencies that creep into a major document can be corrected.

County Growth Management staff proposes changes that are reviewed by the Local Planning Agency, then voted on by the County Commission , subject to approval by the Florida Department of Community Affairs. We do not agree with all County proposals, especially those that raise taxes and fees, but at least – unlike those devised by Future Group - they are generally reasonable. Prior to Commission adoption of changes, comments by the public are encouraged. This process has allowed that developer-business crew the opportunity, under the umbrella of comment, to propose a massive radical revision of the Comp Plan.

These proponents of irresponsible growth have done more than just comment. They have extensively revised the Comp Plan in the hope that the Commission will swallow the rewritten legalese hook, line and sinker. Ordinarily, Comp Plan changes receive careful scrutiny. However, with the large number of EAR-based changes beyond the land use element examined here under consideration, the developer-business band hopes that their proposals will slip through hearings and workshops to be held in the coming months …. and become (truly bad) law.

The organizers of the draconian Future Group changes know that most citizens will not have the opportunity to examine the details of the outrageous changes they seek. It would be easy for them to simply dismiss concerns about the implications of their proposals. So in this lengthiest DEFENDER ever, we intend to let you see for yourself exactly what Future Group wants to delete, and what to add. See for yourself. After reading this DEFENDER issue, you decide if Future Group proposals are good or ruinous.

When the Future Group “explainers” try to double talk their actual proposals quoted in this report, think of the Chico Marx quote from the classic movie Duck Soup: “Who you gonna believe, me or your own eyes?” Bad intentions are in plain view for you to see here with your own eyes.

We asked two people – a present and a former County Commissioner - who are knowledgeable about the Comp Plan to select specific Future Group proposed changes, and to comment independently on them. Space does not allow us to present an examination of all the bad things proposed, but below is a substantial sampling of some of the worst.

NOTE: Strikethrough represents existing text that Future Group wants deleted. Italics are for existing text. Underline represents text proposed by Future Group to be added. Color is our emphasis.

The Future Group's proposed changes to Chapter 4 are so broad and radical and numerous that it will be difficult to condense into a coherent concise evaluation. Their goal is to destroy the urban services boundary, the ag only use outside the urban services boundary, and the prohibition against new urban clusters anywhere there's cheap land (ie, ag land).

Our biggest defenses against urban sprawl have been our Primary and Secondary Urban Service Districts (PUSD & SUSD). Currently, there is no provision to extend urban or suburban development of any type beyond these bright lines. We don't allow water or sewer or convenience stores or gas stations outside these USDs. We only allow bonafide agriculture. In this way we protect our valuable agriculture. We protect our natural resources. We save taxes because those urban services are wildly expensive to provide and maintain. So, the first assault is to blur then obliterate the urban service district’s bright lines.

Section 4.2.A.6.e has been re-written to include: Because of the intensity of some agricultural activities, Agricultural lands shall not be located adjacent to the Primary Services Districts, and shall be buffered from the Primary Urban Service Districts by Agricultural Ranchette or Rural Residential. Section 4.6.E has been re-written to include: Because agriculture is an intensive land use, Martin County will not locate Agricultural Land next to the Urban Services District.

The changes above would be vast, and the distinctions between the two are very important. The first change would require that all of the agricultural land currently adjacent to the PUSD would have to be changed from one allowable home per 20 acres to one allowable home on 2 or 5 acres. Future Group is silent on how wide this new buffer must be. Is it that every 20 acre lot next to the PUSD has to now be divided into 4 or 10 lots? What if there is a 1000 acre parcel adjacent to the PUSD? Does the entire parcel then have to be divided into 2 or 5 acre lots?

The second change is even more broad-reaching. It would include both the Primary and Secondary Urban Service Districts. And, of course, these changes would include the separate Urban Service District around Indiantown. It's impossible to calculate the additional number of new suburban lots required by these two changes. Certainly, hundreds more are mandated. Thousands perhaps.

Further erosion of agriculture occur in Section 4.4.M.1.c. Policies (Agricultural Ranchette development). Future Group strikes the following requirement in our existing Comp Plan: residential development on these lands shall be related to agricultural uses. Our current Comp Plan also states: The plan recognizes the primary value of these lands for small agricultural operations and open space. Future Group adds to this: recreational equestrian activities, small stables, rural residential. This change dramatically changes the ag ranchette requirement for uses to be related to ag and replaces them with suburbanization not related to ag at all.

OK. Those pesky hard barriers to urban sprawl have been broken by the above changes. Now, how to completely de-regulate?

To Section 4.2.A, Future Group adds: Therefore land use policies must be implemented that result in the establishment of new neighborhoods and communities. Ah hah! Clusters!

Future Group's proposal mandates that these new land use policies for new neighborhoods are established within one year of the 2009 EAR. (Section 4.4.A.1.)

Future Group adds an entire new Section 4.4.A.1.c.: Specify new receiving zones adjacent to the existing Urban Services District where additional density can be accepted: Additional commercial, industrial and institutional land uses may be located in order to protect existing native habitat, water sheds and ecosystems; and to provide for the establishment of new neighborhoods and communities that contain a balanced mix of land uses with a range of housing types and affordabilities in proximity to employment and services. This change mandates new urban clusters adjacent to and OUTSIDE OF the existing Urban Services District. And, gives them additional density.

Section 4.2.A.7 of the Existing Comp Plan states: the County shall only entertain suburban and urban uses and densities for lands located within the Planned Urban Services Map Boundary. Future Group strikes the words "Map Boundary" and adds: or in an independent Urban Services District associated with a Traditional Community Development. Our existing Comp Plan wisely prohibits freestanding or independent Urban Service Districts. Urban Services like water, sewer, police and fire protection, schools, roads, etc. are wildly expensive to provide. One could argue that we don't do such a great job of providing some of those services right now, and we only have 2 USDs, in the eastern part of the county and Indiantown. Just imagine how costly it would be and how destructive to our natural resources if we allowed or, worse yet, promoted the proliferation of these urban clusters all over Martin County .

Future Group’s new Section 4.4.A.1.a.(13) states: Establish Traditional Community Development (TCD) as the preferred form of development and promote it through Future Land Use goals, policies and objectives, and LDR regulations, including the provision of incentives and opportunities for those developments which contain a diversification and integration of uses by including at least two or more of the following uses: residential, retail, light industrial, institutional, professional business offices uses, and coordinated systems of recreation and conservation open spaces to be located in close proximity to each other in order to provide residents with a variety of choices in lifestyle arrangements and experiences, and reduce infrastructure impacts that provide for a higher quality of life than single use developments. These mixed use TCD's Shall incorporate and be connected to the rest of the County by an integrated local road network and a multi-modal transportation system and shall be pedestrian friendly.

Whoa, Nellie! Hide your pocketbooks! This one is going to cost us taxpayers dearly. Not only are we going to mandate that mixed use clusters are going to be our preferred form of development that can be developed ANYWHERE in the county, we are also mandating that they're going to be connected to the rest of us by roads, bike lanes, sidewalks, maybe transit. There is NO mention of the developers of these new urban clusters picking up the tab for these connections. That means that they're going to stick the existing taxpayers with the bills for construction and maintenance.

It gets worse. They're going to give developers additional incentives for developing their new towns out in our cattle pastures. As if the cheap land wasn't incentive enough for them.

Future Group's new language in Section 4.4.A.1.a 13 (a) states: The county shall revise its LDR's to regulate the design and provide incentives for TCDs's including:

(1) create TCD/TND Overlay Zoning District that can be implemented in all Future Land Use Categories except Conservation, Recreation, and Power Generation.

What you have just read is that intense mixed use developments (which by Future Group fiat are the Preferred new form of development in Martin County ) are not only allowed and clustered in every land use category in the county except conservation, recreation, or power generation, developers will receive incentives to build them. Maybe roads, water, sewer, schools provided on the taxpayers dime. Definitely, they'll be afforded additional densities: New language in (7) Establish as a TDR receiving zone eligible for density bonuses. That's a hefty bonus for developers. What are the requirements? Limits? Criteria? There aren't any. That's precisely what Future Group's new (8) says: Establish Density and Intensity requirements based upon locational criteria. (8) in plain language says that there are no density or intensity rules. We'll make them up as we go along. The 1 unit per 20 acre law is ancient history. And, there are no new limits on residential density or intensity. And, under the Future Group's proposal, both residential and retail, office, light industrial or institutional will be required (refer Section 4.4.A.1.a (13))

Future Group's new Section4.4.A.1.a.13(a)(9) states: Enable TCD/TND overlay to be serviced with water and sewer within an Independent Urban Service District, or an extension of the existing Primary Urban Servcie district if in proximity to but not located within it. This provision allows water and sewer to be extended everywhere in the county.

There are dozens more catastrophic changes in the Future Group proposal for Chapter 4. This should suffice to warn our residents of their intent to destroy our Comp Plan and our quality of life.

Current Comp Plan: The Comp Plan currently includes a four story limit mandate for all buildings. [Comp Plan Section 4.5.A.2.d.] Section 4.5.A.2.d.

Section 4.5.A.2.d. Height limits for all structures shall be specified in the Land Development Regulations. In all instances the maximum height limit of four stories shall be followed.

County Staff Proposal: The County staff EAR proposal preserves the overall four-story limit mandate for all buildings but proposes to change the location in the Comp Plan to Section 4.4.A.8.d. [page 38 of 132 page document presented to LPA on April 2]

Section 4.4.A.8.d. Height limits for all structures shall be specified in Section 4.4.M., CGMP and in the Land Development Regulations. In all instances the maximum height limit of four stories shall be followed.

Future Group Proposal: The Future Group proposal strikes the overall Section 4.5.2.d. four-story building height limit requirement at page 113 of the 136 page rewrite of Chapter 4 of the Comp Plan.

Section 4.5.A.2.d. Height limits for all structures shall be specified in the Land Development Regulations. In all instances the maximum height limit of four stories shall be followed.

The legal result of the Future Group Proposal that our treasured mandatory four-story building height limit would be unprotected by the Comp Plan - our local constitution.

Current Comp Plan: The Comp Plan specifies 30 and 40 feet building height limits for the commercial and industrial land uses. [Comp Plan Section 4.4.M.1.]

COR Land Use Current: 4.4.M.1.g.(1) Commercial Office/Residential development (COR)

County EAR Draft: 4.4.M.1.g.(1) Commercial Office/Residential development (COR) pg 92 of 132

"Minimum open space is shall be 40 percent and the maximum building height is shall be 30 feet."

Future Group: 4.4.M.1.g.(1) Commercial Office/Residential development (COR) pg 94 (of 136)

County EAR Draft: Sec. 4.4.M.1.g.(2) Limited Commercial, pg 95 of 132

"Minimum open space is shall be 30 percent and the maximum building height is shall be 30 feet."

County EAR Draft: Sec. 4.4.M.1.g.(3) General Commercial, pg 96 of 132

"Minimum open space is shall be 20 percent and the maximum building height is shall be 40 feet."

"Minimum open space is 30 percent and the maximum height is 30 feet for parcels zoned for resort (water related) uses and 40 feet for parcels zoned for general (water dependent) uses."

County EAR Draft: Sec. 4.4.M.1.g.(4) Marine Waterfront Commercial, pg 97 of 132

"Minimum open space is shall be 30 percent and the maximum building height is shall be 30 feet for parcels zoned for resort (water related) uses and 40 feet for parcels zoned for general (water dependent) uses."

Future Group: Sec. 4.4.M.1.g.(4) Marine Waterfront Commercial, page 99 (of 136)

"Minimum open space is 30 percent and the maximum height is 30 feet for parcels zoned for resort (water related) uses and 40 feet for parcels zoned for general (water dependent) uses."

"Sites acceptable for development by limited impact industries shall contain a minimum of 15,000 square feet with maximum building coverage of 40 per cent and maximum height of 30 feet. Sites better suited for development by extensive impact industries shall have a minimum lot size of 30,000 square feet with maximum building coverage of 50 per cent and maximum height of 40 feet.”

"Sites acceptable for development by limited impact industries shall contain a minimum of 15,000 square feet with maximum building coverage of 40 per cent and maximum building height of 30 feet. Sites better suited for development by extensive impact industries shall have a minimum lot size of 30,000 square feet with maximum building coverage of 50 per cent and maximum building height of 40 feet.”

LEGAL RESULT: Both the current Comp Plan and the County Draft EAR Comp Plan Amendment preserve the four-story building height limit and continue to set the building height limit for commercial and industrial in feet - 30 feet or 40 feet.

By contrast, the Future Group proposal eliminates the overall four-story building height limit and specifically eliminates the 30 feet and 40 feet building height limits for commercial and industrial land uses five (5) times.

Residents have long enjoyed looking from a boat or from a tall bridge to view the difference in skyline of Martin County in comparison to our neighboring counties. That difference can easily be lost if the Comp Plan no longer has clear, strong protections. The Future Group proposals are inconsistent with our quality of life.

…THE “BLOB THAT ATE MARTIN COUNTY” If you were in Martin County in 2002, you might remember Maggy Hurchalla’s article on “The Blob that Ate Martin County.” That article was about the Mixed Use Comp Plan Amendment in 2002 that residents rejected. Now, with the bad economic times, we have more of the same.

Shortly after the Future Group submitted their Comp Plan rewrite, an extreme growth booster announced that growth in Martin County can skyrocket to be 1 million people by 2029. That claim projects that Martin County can grow 860,000 over the next 20 years instead of the 30,000 predicted by the state. [UF BEBR March 2009 prediction for 2030 was 170,400 .]

So what’s going on? Trying to drum up business – get boom-quick promises? Martin County Bldg Dept numbers show only 214 residential permits issued in 2008 to house 475 people.

Is this a sales pitch in bad economic times for eliminating from the Comp Plan the good rules that have kept us from being like Port St. Lucie and the rest of overdeveloped South Florida ? Trying to convince voters to give up the quiet enjoyment and value of our homes, ignore the environment, add density and drop the building height limit and good things will happen? Like Port St. Lucie – woops, no - they have higher unemployment, worse crime and troubled schools?

Current Comp Plan: Residential neighborhoods are protected by Martin County ’s Comp Plan; the Plan separates industrial land uses from low and medium density residential except for small acreage Mixed Use Overlays within the Community Redevelopment Areas (CRAs) in Sec. 4.4.C.

4.6.A.2. …Existing and future residential areas shall be protected from encroachment by commercial or industrial development or other nonresidential uses which exhibit characteristics which would be incompatible with residential development… (Exception -) Commercial and light industrial uses may be allowed in residential land uses within the Mixed Use Overlay of a CRA in accordance with section 4.4.C., CGMP.

County EAR Proposals: The same provision is retained though moved and additional protective language was added.

4.6.A.2. was moved to 4.4.I.8 …Existing and future residential areas shall be protected from encroachment by commercial or industrial development or other nonresidential uses which exhibit characteristics which would be incompatible with residential development… (Exception -) Commercial and light industrial uses may be allowed in residential land uses within the Mixed Use Overlay of a CRA in accordance with section 4.4.C., CGMP.

New 4.4.M.1.f. The following residential future land use designations may be a part of a mixed use project as allowed by section 4.4.C., CGM P, within any of the mixed use overlays found in seven CRAs designated in section 4.4.B.2.d., CGMP.

BY CONTRAST: Future Group Proposals resurrect the industrial and commercial in residential neighborhoods proposal that citizens stopped in 2002 [the BLOB Mixed Use CPA].

The Future Group rewrite mandates industrial and commercial in residential neighborhoods. These mixing of industrial and commercial into residential are to be the “preferred form of development and redevelopment” and shall be allowed and incentivized in all Land Uses (land uses are like a stronger zonings).

NEIGHBORHOOD INCOMPATIBILITIES – mix of industrial and commercial allowed in residential neighborhoods – – including existing neighborhoods – remembering that industrial can include crematoria and adult businesses.

New Sections 4.4.M.1.l. and 4.4.A.1.(13) contains mandate that a mix of industrial and commercial be allowed in every land use – including within existing residential.

New 4.4.M.1.l. final paragraph: “Mixed Use outside the CRA’s (sic) shall be in TCD, TND overlays, or COR land use.

New 4.4.A.1.(13) Establish Traditional Community Development (TCD) as the preferred form of development (and redevelopment) and promote it through Future Land Use goals, policies and objectives, and LDR regulations. Such regulations shall provide incentives and opportunities for those developments which contain a diversification and integration of uses such as: residential, retail, light industrial, institutional, professional and business offices (sic) uses, and…

a. The county shall revise its LDR ’s (sic) to regulate the design and provide incentives for TCD’s (sic) including:

(1) Creation of a TCD/ TND Overlay Zoning District that can be implemented in all Future Land Use categories except Conservation, Recreation, and Power Generation…

(8) Establishment of Density and Intensity requirements based upon locational criteria…

Conclusion about Future Group proposals: If owners of a residential lot want to put in an adult bookstore or a 24-hour gas station or the combo near you, can they? Not under the Comp Plan or EAR as drafted by the County. BUT – it is okay under the Future Group draft.

Additionally, those industrial and commercial uses allowed in our residential neighborhoods or in existing commercial areas can have less open space, less green, more pavement. The Future Group eliminated the cap on building coverage and the requirement that part of the lot must be preserved in open space; industrial uses today have

These compatibility, community amenity, requirements have been removed in the Future Group draft (page 104 and 97 and 119of 136). So what would the Future Group rules put in next to YOUR home? Or along the roads you drive? What will our community look like with this mix and with more concrete and less open space?

With less open space, more pavements, less soil erosion protections (pg 125) - what happens when the wet times come? We hear of other counties having new areas underwater for days with problems for going to work and school and then water shortages. And will older homes have greater worries of water inside our homes?

Our residences and businesses are currently protected by the Comp Plan from the encroachment of activity on adjacent property.

NUISANCE ISSUES – Adding insult to injury - with commercial and industrial in residential neighborhoods, the Future Group has deleted the prohibitions that heavy equipment and hardware can be stored outdoors and deleted the requirement that manufacturing and processing must take place within enclosed areas. And that exterior lighting shall be arranged to shield neighboring property owners and the streets where we drive.

Screening and mechanical equipment. Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware other than antennas and stacks on roofs shall be harmonious with the building or they shall be located and/or screened so as not to be visible from any pubic way….except for industrial districts…

Maintenance of activities within enclosed building. All businesses, services or manufacturing or processing shall be conducted within completely enclosed buildings in all zoning districts excepting industrial zoning districts. If…unreasonable then…

Exterior lighting. Exterior lighting shall be so arranged as to shield or deflect the light from adjoining properties and public streets..

Current Comp Plan and County EAR draft: Our residences and businesses are currently protected by the Comp Plan from the encroachment of new development on adjacent property.

Tiering: The Pinecrest court case protection remains but is relocated - Old 4.5.A.2.b. and new 4.4.A.8.b. This protects Projects immediately adjacent to lands used or designated for lower intensity use should be given lesser density. (1)… a density transition zone of comparable density and compatible dwelling unit types shall be established in the new project for a depth from the shared property line that is equivalent to the depth of the first tier of the adjoining development’s lower density…

Future Group removing Tiering/Transition Zones protecting residential from commercial and industrial land uses? With the mandate of mixed use in new Towns and in existing neighborhoods, it appears that not only did their rewrite of 4.5.A.2. provide less protection from the impacts of non-residential on the quiet enjoyment of our homes, but it really legally removes those by the final provision:

4.5.A.2.c.(4) This sub-policy c (the tiering/transition) shall not apply to projects abutting ... land used or designated by land use or zoning for non-residential land uses.

Since Future Group proposes that all residential land uses shall now allow TCD mixed use, then is all residential lands "designated...for non-residential land uses" and, thus, have no buffers and transition areas?

Another of Martin County ’s quality of life Pillars is the Urban Boundary, which stops the costly sprawl we see to our south and north; low density sprawl west goes hand-in-hand with increased densities east.

The County identifies the key pillars: Two are environmental protections – protecting all wetlands and preserving 25% of all native upland habitat; a third is the four-story building height limit, and the final pillar is the urban boundary. Together they result in our low density, slow growth, that allows us to enjoy good schools and beaches, avoid road gridlock, keep fast emergency response times.

CURRENT COMP PLAN : The Martin County ’s strong urban boundary consists of:

the prohibition of urban outside the boundary – no towns and villages outside the boundary and no industrial parks or gas station superstores outside the urban boundary (Sec. 4.4.G. and Sec. 4.4.M., and the Future Land Use Map);

the prohibition of urban utilities (water and sewer utility) lines outside the urban boundary – the large lots can and do support well and septic (Sec. 4.4.G.); and

the low density (1 unit per 20 acres) for the 190,000 acres of agricultural land use along with the restriction that residential lots in agricultural be at least a 20-acre minimum lot size with no clustering allowed. (Sec. 4.4.M.1.a.-b.)

Recent County Action: The Valliere Rural Cluster Amendment that is in litigation right now likewise creates problems for the Urban Boundary esp. clustering and densities.

FUTURE GROUP PROPOSALS strip away each and every one of the Urban Boundary pillars:

Future Group mandates NEW TOWNS for the 190,000 acres of agricultural lands and allows industrial parks and gas station superstores outside the urban boundary – destroying key protections.

Future Group’s proposal call for higher, mixed use, densities east through the same provisions.

Future Group new Sections 4.4.M.1.l. and 4.4.A.1.(13) mandate Towns and Villages out west. They contain mandate that a mix of industrial and commercial be allowed in every land use – including within existing residential.

Future Group’s New 4.1.B.1.A. TCD – Traditional Community Development (TCD). The TCD Overlay … to implement the establishment of new communities… 4.4.M.1.a. Mixed Uses…shall be in TCD …

Future Group’s New 4.4.A.1.(13) Establish Traditional Community Development (TCD) as the preferred form of development (and redevelopment) and promote it through Future Land Use goals, policies and objectives, and LDR regulations. Such regulations shall provide incentives and opportunities for those developments which contain a diversification and integration of uses such as: residential, retail, light industrial, institutional, professional and business offices (sic) uses, and…

a. The county shall revise its LDR ’s (sic) to regulate the design and provide incentives for TCD’s (sic) including:

(1) Creation of a TCD/ TND Overlay Zoning District that can be implemented in all Future Land Use categories* except Conservation, Recreation, and Power Generation…(8) Establishment of Density and Intensity requirements based upon locational criteria…

* Agricultural land use – the 1 per 20 acres ag lands all outside the urban boundary is required to include TCD mixed use new communities.

Future Group’s new Sec. 4.4.J.1.c. adds “Essential Service Nodes” at each of the interchanges outside the urban boundary.

Future Group removes the 20-acre minimum lot size for residential subdivisions in the 190,000 acre agricultural lands, revising 4.4.M.1.a. to delete the restrictions as follows:

Future Group 4.4.M.1.a. … In order to further avoid activities that adversely impact agricultural productivity on agricultural lands as designated on the Land Use Map, no development shall be permitted which divides land holdings into lots, parcels, or other units of less than twenty (20) gross acres. Acreage may be split for bona fide agricultural uses into parcels no smaller than 20 gross acres. Residential subdivisions must be platted and provide for all necessary services. Residential subdivisions at a density or intensity of greater than one (1) single family dwelling unit per 20 gross acre lot shall not be allowed.

Future Group opens the agricultural ranchette lands for urban uses by deleting a key sentence:

In 4.4.M.1.c. “However, residential development on these lands should be related to agricultural uses.”

WATER SUPPLY: Future Group’s Proposals Allow Urban Utilities west of the urban boundary without addressing water supply issues – a growing Florida concern. Note that the state agency recently challenged a Martin County Comp Plan of 35 acres on

IN SUMMARY: Our urban boundary is about planning - cost-efficient infrastructure planning. Counties without an urban boundary have rising tax issues – how to pay for unknown, unplanned infrastructure since towns can pop up miles and miles from schools and hospitals.

Privatized redevelopment happens here. Instead of millions in taxes for revitalizing older areas, it made economic sense to remodel and rework vacant strip buildings and centers because they couldn’t sprawl west on “cheap” lands.

What threatens that good, fiscally sound, planning then? How can Martin County lose its crucial urban boundary – its difference from Port St. Lucie, from Broward?

Residents Vision Supports the Urban Boundary - When the residents have been allowed to weigh in - The Visioning Process, the costly Glatting Jackson Study and Community Foundation of Palm Beach and Martin County recent poll), they have overwhelmingly supported the urban boundary.

HOW MUCH MORE PROOF DO WE NEED TO SEE THE DESTRUCTIVE FUTURE THE ABOVE PROPOSALS WOULD PRODUCE?

You can help prevent the catastrophic consequences of adopting the Comp Plan changes advocated by Future Group

To send an email to all five County Commissioners , plus the Acting Administrator and www.MartinCountyDefender.com

Growth Management Director, copy and paste the following addresses in the TO line of your email. Then voice your opinion of how the Future Group proposals would change the Comp Plan – and what you think of the idea. Preserve Martin County protections by emailing to:

We would love to hear what you say to our Commissioners. Just add to the BCC line of your email:

PLEASE FORWARD THIS ISSUE TO FRIENDS WHO WANT TO PRESERVE MARTIN’S FINE QUALITY OF LIFE.

For a free subscription to The Martin County Defender, send request with “Subscribe” in the subject line to: mcdefender@gmail.com

The editorial mission of the DEFENDER is to provide facts and independent commentary on issues affecting Martin County . We are fortunate to have such an involved and responsive readership. So it seems appropriate at this milestone of the 100th issue to focus our content on a sampling of the pro and con comments about the efforts to remake the Comp Plan, as revealed in issue No. 99.

The proposals that have been offered by the "future group" are so outrageous that any acceptance would certainly remove any possibility of my future support. It will encourage me to take a more active participation in the future elections to defeat those who would support this outlandish proposal and the destruction of the comp plan. Reader H.C.

Do not let "THEM" ruin our county anymore than they have already tried to do. Readers J. & G.M

The Future Group's proposals will destroy the way of life we bought into eleven years ago when we chose Martin County over its neighbors to the south and north because of its anti-sprawl and pro environment stance. We don't want to live in Palm Beach or St. Lucie Counties because earlier groups just like The Future Group spoiled them with their self serving (avaricious) schemes. Readers M. & R. C.

This is the biggest bunch of B.S. you have ever written. I have been to all of the meetings and none of what you say is true. You have truly gone beyond anything resembling fact based journalism. As usual the people you quote have USED you as an attack dog. .Reader R.H.

My wife & I vote and we watch these issues very closely. We want no changes whatsoever to the current limits to the land use. Reader S.S.

As a realtor, I agree with you that these changes are not for the good of our future. Reader T.B.

It seems to me that those who want major change must go beyond hacking up prior regulations. They have a responsibility to define the cost/benefit to their recommendations. Reader J.T.

We moved here permanently in 2005. We were very aware that Martin County was unique in the way it protected the county from sprawl. In our first vote as Florida residents we went to the polls and voted for Sarah Heard and for Susan Vallier because of what they said during their campaigns. We were stunned by the complete reversal in Susan Vallier's position once she was elected. In fact we felt betrayed! Since that time we have paid a lot more attention to the local politics and as a result we are getting angrier. After learning what the special interests are trying to do to the Comp Plan, I e-mailed it to forty or so voters here in Willoughby Golf Club. I know they are interested in what is going on because last fall we had a word of mouth get together at the club regarding the election and I was astonished at the number of people who wanted to participate. Reader A.L.

The alarmist representation of the content and potential effect contemplated by the suggested revisions constitutes a complete and total misrepresentation of the truth. As for the makeup of the group of citizens who wish to modernize and improve Martin County ’s cumbersome and antiquated planning process, I would like to inform you that Mr. Forman has never met me and does not know me. If he did, he would know that I am not a developer, land use planner, engineer, attorney, architect, contractor, or Realtor™. Further, if any of these professionals has compensated me, I have not seen the check. Reader D.K.

[This is part of the letter also published in the Stuart News. Hey, Dave K., you neglected to mention that your business is placement of loans and mortgages for developers and real estate investors. It says so on your website. Ooops! – Ed.]

As a former 40 year resident of Boynton Beach , I moved to Hobe Sound to escape from the rampant growth and traffic snarls caused by the idiotic revisions of zoning protections. Reject the revisions engendered from greed which would "Browardize" this gem in which we live. Reader C.E.

Thanks for the long and very detailed explanation about the new proposal regarding land-use regulations. Your explanation of its impact was complete and concise. May I post this over to another site that will reach a few more thousand people? Readers R. & V. H.

I am against EVERYTHING that the "Out for themselves" Future Growth scammers have in mind. You people had better make sure you see what has happened to the south of

Martin County and know that we, the people, don’t want to look like that. It's within your time on this earth to make sure you leave a good legacy for those who come after you. Reader G.K.

You seem to use Donna Melzer as your source of what the Future Group is proposing. Since Donna has never said a word to anyone I know of about Future, I have to wonder about her motive for attack but knowing her history I should not be surprised by anything she says or does. As usual she is dead wrong. You, or Donna, continue with a strange objection to the suggestion of adding recreational equestrian and similar uses to Ag ranchette. Palm City Farms is Ag Ranchette. It is full of recreational uses not tied to active agriculture. Should all of those folks be non-conforming? You seem to go really off on Traditional Residential Districts. The language and reference to new neighborhoods comes directly from the December 2007 letter from FDCA to Martin County . Future thought it a good alternative to mono use sprawl. You say that the Future group advocates removal of the four story height limit and points to the removal of Sections 4-5 and 4-6; performance standards and implementation. All of those Sections are now contained within the Land Development regulations, LDR. Removal of those Sections was STAFF'S recommendation not ours. Same with the references to the LDR. FUTURE GROUP NEVER ADVOCATED REMOVAL OF THE FOUR STORY HEIGHT LIMIT. You seem an intelligent guy. Why not recommend something positive instead of just attacking the ideas of others? Reader T.S.

THE SKY IS FALLING!!!! Reader J.M.

DESTROYING COMP PLAN FOR GAIN

If the Future Group proposed changes to the Comp Plan are approved, commissioners will be robbing the majority of Martin County citizens of a quality of life, that has made the County a special place, to please a special interest group, the development community. The proposed changes are made by people who stand to gain monetarily, who are paid to support destroying the urban service boundary, the 4 story maximum height limit, and more. The lack of respect shown opponents of these proposals by all concerned tells me everyone involved in promoting them has a closed mind to what the residents really want. Those of us who oppose these changes don't get paid for the time we spend attending the required public meetings, that seem now to be a farce, nor do we gain financially from these efforts. What we are trying to protect is a lifestyle that attracted every current resident, and is about to be destroyed by narrowly focused, politically indebted, County representatives, some who may not be able to comprehend the consequences and will take the word of those who have the most to gain. Reader M.K.

SCARE TACTICS

I am a Realtor and receive your email. It seems to me that your emails are more radical than what you are against or worried about, which you believe to be the radical issues. I believe that a more cohesive approach would appeal to more people. I would appreciate the opportunity to speak with you to truly understand the issues you feel are devastating our county. I live on five acres, promote agricultural pursuits and also want to have a balance of business, industry, and a quality lifestyle. I am concerned by your email that there are scare tactics going on here and certainly do not understand this aspect of your information. Reader P.B.

For a free subscription to The Martin County Defender, send request with “Subscribe” in the subject line to: mcdefender@gmail.com