The Martin County
Defender
The e-newsletter for aware citizens – No. 26
Funding the Martin County School System
OCT. 1 “CONSENSUS” FORUM TO EXPLORE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
Why attending this meeting is important to everyone who cares about the education of our children:
Martin County’s topnotch school system – 18 A-rated schools, one B – is made possible by two elements. First is the high quality staff, from the excellent teachers and principals to the School Board and Superintendent. The second element is assuring adequate funding to maintain the schools’ present Level of Service (LOS) and building capacity for the future.
Funding depends on a complex, state-mandated Interlocal Agreement between the School Board, the County Commission and the Stuart City Commission. Thus politics and pressure from vested interests enter the picture. The nub of the issue is how much developers should pay in Impact Fees, and how much more or less crowded (based on LOS) our schools should be.
ONLY THE WELL INFORMED CAN PRESENT AN EFFECTIVE ARGUMENT FOR BETTER SCHOOLS TO OUR OFFICIALS. THE FOLLOWING FORUM WILL PROVIDE YOU WITH THAT EDUCATION:
On Monday, Oct. 1, 2007, The Martin County Consensus will sponsor another in its series of free forums with a roundtable on “Funding Martin County Schools.” TIME: 6:00 p.m. PLACE: Blake Library.
The highly knowledgeable participants include: Doug Griffin, School Board Attorney; Kim Delaney, Treasure Cost Regional Planning Council; Niki Van Vonno, County Growth Management Director; Cesar Perez, County planner; and Terry O’Neil, Stuart City.
Airport the issue at Oct. 2 Commission meeting
Residents who believe that the County-owned airport must charge its tenants market rental rates, instead of the sweetheart deal rates now in effect, should show up at the Commission room at 10:30 am to speak against the County’s giveaway to fixed base operators. In addition to this lease issue, concerns include the plan to expand the airport with a huge new building (when it should be downsizing to a community airport), and the runway crash zone.
A view of local newspapers
We examine the Stuart News and Palm Beach Post. They ain’t used to that.
[We use the word “we” out of editorial habit, fully aware that it more properly belongs to royalty and people with tapeworms.]
Editors and reporters are students of human activity. As such, we hereby apply our half century of experience as an editor to grade these students and their employers with letter grades A to F. Journalist scribes always turn their spotlights on citizens high and low, so it is fair play that we shine our mini-maglite on them.
We will focus here on the two local dailies, the Stuart News and Palm Beach Post. We find no need to include any weeklies in our ratings since we neither own a hamster or wrap fish.
Despite some well deserved criticism, we grade them both A- overall. As a resource for such important bread-and-butter information as detailed school postings and organization meetings in Martin County, the News gets an A, the Post a D.
The alpha dog editors, Mark Tomasik and Larry Reisman at the News, and local Glenn Henderson at the Post are all A rated. They know their jobs, and in the internet age are doing their best to keep their papers relevant and interesting to readers. For their online products, the News gets an A, the Post a B.
For their editorial opinion pages, the balanced views of the News earn them an A- (a tad more courage will boost them to a full A). The Post is more courageous, but their concern never to be to the right of the NY Times gets them a B-.
In terms of exposing official corruption, if we were evaluating Palm Beach County, the Post would get A++. However, for Martin County, either we are as pure as the driven sand or else both papers have neglected to really dig. So for deep investigative reporting, a D for both of them.
Reporters, who now use laptops instead of pads, have been promoted to being called staff writers. They are the heart of the newspaper business. We have a couple of the best for local news: George Andreassi at the News, and Jason Schultz at the Post, both A. Give these two guys a raise you keepers of the purse.
Among the top columnists, Sally Swartz at the Post is A+, and Kenric Ward at the News is a clear A. Their prose, guts and intelligence shine.
Last, but surely least, is our Deflated Balloon Award, earning an F for the newspaper item that most fell flat on its face during 2007 - so far. That honor goes to Rich Campbell for his Sept. 23 News column urging readers to unsubscribe from the Defender. Exactly one reader subsequently did so, bringing the grand total to five unsubs.
Forward this issue to friends who want to preserve the high quality of life in Martin County.
mc-defender@comcast.net
Editorial comments and requests to unsubscribe may be sent to the above address.
Al
Al Forman, Editor 9/28//07
The Martin County
Defender
The e-newsletter for aware citizens – No. 27
URGENT ACTION ALERT!
This is the most important civic action any Martin County citizen can take to prevent ruinous sprawl
(and it requires only two minutes of your time)
E-MAIL OBJECTIONS TO THE VALLIERE AMENDMENT TO DCA
The three pro-developer, pro-cluster Commissioners (Valliere, DiTerlizzi and Smith) have rammed through the Valliere Rural Cluster/sprawl Amendment, disdainful of what residents want. It is deeply suspicious. They have transmitted it to the Department of Community
Affairs (DCA), which must approve it before it becomes part of the Comprehensive Plan.
You can stop this sprawl assault on our quality of life by sending e-mail objections about the amendment to DCA Team Leader Dennis and Planning Chief McDaniel:
bob.dennis@dca.state.fl.us, mike.mcdaniel@dca.state.fl.us,
Send cc to their boss, DCA Secretary Pelham and Asst. Secretary Richardson:
tom.pelham@dca.state.fl.us, mike.richardson@dca.state.fl.u s ,
The above four e-mails are essential. You can make your objections far more effective by also sending copies to key officials in other agencies, including:
thess@tcrpc.org, jim.quinn@dep.state.fl.us, psharma@sfwmd.gov, evansw@doacs.state.fl.us, lois.bush@dot.state.fl.us,
If you have any problems with sending the e-mails, please let us know. We can help.
mc-defender@comcast.net
And it would help our planning if you can let us know what you’ve done. Thanks.
PLEASE INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING WITH YOUR OBJECTIONS:
1 – Refer to “Martin County CPA #07-20, Land Preservation Incentive Amendment,” and include your name and street address. State that you would be affected by this amendment, and urge the DCA to reject it.
2 – Examine the following brief summaries of objections to the Valliere amendment, which have been noted by experts that have studied it. Select some of these objections to include in your e-mail. If you wish to re-state and expand the objections in your own words to individualize it, so much the better. It is not always as effective to simply cut and paste the entire list without your further comment. The more personal viewpoint you present along with the listed objections, the greater the impact.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS SECRETARY TOM PELHAM HAS STATED THE FOLLOWING REGARDING COMP PLAN AMENDMENT ABUSE:
“The local plan is constantly changing, offers little stability or predictability, and has diminished credibility with the public. Instead of the 10- or 20-year visions they were supposed to represent, local comprehensive plans are in danger of becoming little more than six-month suggestions.
“It is not surprising that many citizens have lost faith in the ability of local comprehensive plans to control growth and development.”
The Valliere Rural Cluster Amendment (CPA #07-20) is the poster monster for what Secretary Pelham is criticizing!
WHAT’S WRONG WITH
Martin County CPA #07-20
(AKA the Valliere Rural Cluster Amendment)
LIST OF OBJECTIONS TO SEND TO DCA:
POLICIES FAIL TO IMPLEMENT OBJECTIVE
The Amendment title and objective, “Land Preservation Incentive Amendment,” is false and misleading. Rather that increasing land preservation, it is likely to promote more urbanized rural sprawl, in conflict with current provisions of the Comp Plan and Florida state public policy.
PROVISIONS OVER-RIDE URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY,
RECOGNIZED AS HEART OF COMP PLAN
The incentives to plop urban clusters all over the County’s 180,000 rural acres conflicts with current provisions of the Comp Plan. One example: The Amendment would, without so stating, effectively nullify the protections of the Urban Services Boundary which has prevented sprawl for many years.
UNDERMINES EVERGLADES RESTORATION
Promotion of PUDs in rural lands will greatly increase the cost of land vital to the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Program (CERP), seriously harming environmental recovery. The Commission’s sales pitch to the public claimed their amendment would provide “free land for the IRL (Indian River Lagoon) restoration.” However, in the final hour, donation language was removed with the poor excuse that it “was punishing lands we want for CERP.”
FUTURE AMENDMENTS WITHOUT APPROVED PLANS
A flaw in Section 7b is that site-specific Future Comp Plan Amendment approvals are not actually required. The wording requires only “filing” a future CPA. A future Commission could then ignore the filing and permit the urban cluster PUDs because CPA #07-20 allows the PUDs to be approved without any future Comp Plan amendment.
AMENDMENT TEXT TRANSMITTED TO DCA IS DIFFERENT FROM
THAT APPROVED BY COMMISSION
The version of the amendment transmitted to DCA by Commission vote on Sept. 18, 2007 is not the same as the version approved by the Commission on Aug. 21, 2007. The differences are significant. The agenda item for CPA #07-20 on Aug. 21 was ruled as closed on Sept. 18, despite the Chairman’s prior ruling that the item was being “continued” to Sept. 18.
EFFORTS TO PREVENT PUBLIC STUDY AND INFORMED INPUT
CPA #07-20 was approved 3-to-2 by the Commission over the overwhelming opposition of County residents and our two local daily newspapers. The Commission effectively confused the public by changing the name of the Amendment, and drafting before our eyes numerous different versions with different provisions. Copies have not been made available for timely study by either citizens or Commissioners. It is contemptible that, considering the far reaching impact of this Amendment, the Commissioners have refused to hold any public workshops.
POSSIBLE INTER-COMMISSIONER VIOLATION S
A private citizen communicated privately with Commissioners in the process, and wrote various text versions of the Amendment, including the version submitted to DCA. This person was seen making hand and face signals to two Commissioners during the public hearing when the Amendment was being re-written from moment to moment. Details on non-public contact between the three have not been clarified. It is under investigation by citizens whether these improprieties constitute violations by the Commissioners.
COMMISSION IGNORES LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY
This amendment came before the Local Planning Agency (LPA), which voted to reject it. LPA instructed the staff to conduct workshops to arrive at public consensus before such an amendment was proposed, but workshops were not even discussed by the Commission. The Commission over-rode the very LPA Board it appointed to advise on such matters.
NO TIME FOR COUNTY STAFF TO ANALYZE
The potential impact of this Amendment on infrastructure, sprawl, taxes, environment and other planning requirements of the Comp Plan have not been analyzed by the County’s on-staff experts. The fast shuffle actions of the Commission have precluded adequate staff study. We have no idea of the impact on traffic, schools, utilities, water supply, economy, environment, infrastructure cost or public safety.
FALSE CLAIMS OF NO DENSITY INCREASE
The Amendment claims that there would be no population density increase. However, it leaves loopholes, vague definitions, and specific allowances that are likely to increase density. For example, the vague language about land density credits and the density allowed by the Future Land Use Map can be interpreted in a way that allows up to a 45% density increase.
FALSE CLAIMS OF FISCAL NEUTRALITY
Though Section 7c(2) states that “the proposed PUD must be fiscally neutral to existing taxpayers,” nothing is said about the fiscal burden to taxpayers of providing infrastructure support to the PUD, or requiring PUD developers to pay for all added county costs. County staff has acknowledged that they have not done any fiscal analysis of the amendment or its impact.
DEVELOPERS MAY BECOME LAND TRUSTEES
Amendment Section 7a provides that open space be “conveyed” to “at least three governmental and non-governmental entities,” or given perpetual easements. For the non-governmental entity, the Amendment states it may be any IRS 501(c)(3) organization. This allows developers to become trustees, as well as Friends of Martin County, a corporation that advertises support of developer aims, and is controlled by an author of the Amendment.
“AGRICULTURAL USE” ALLOWS EXTENSIVE DEVELOPMENT
A developer with a 1,000-acre site can put 50 houses on about 100 acres, according to this Amendment, allowing Agricultural Land use for the remaining 900 acres. This is not 900 acres of wilderness, crops and grazing. Allowable uses include kennels, day-care centers, cemeteries, and worst of all, mining. This is a destructive provision.
NO SPECIFIC BENEFITS ARE MANDATED
One of two flaws in Section 7b is that “approval of the PUD will be based on significant site-specific public benefits.” However, there is no clear statement on what is significant. Worse yet, Section 7e lists some typical benefits that may apply, but mandates none of them. Thus the Commission assigns to itself case-by-case determination of which sites and which developers qualify. This is absolutely contrary to the Comp Plan which is specific to avoid confusion and litigation.
PUDS GET FREE REIN UNLESS LAND IS “CRITICAL”
Section 7c(4) prohibits development on environmentally sensitive land inside the PUD if it is critical to plant or animal life. There is no definition of what is critical. Presumably, if it is less than critical, there is no protection. No mention is made of land outside the PUD set aside as agricultural.
WETLANDS PROVISIONS INCREASE DENSITY
Despite assurances that the Amendment does not increase density, the change in wetlands transfer credits will increase density. Under this Amendment full density credits may be transferred from wetlands (that is, acre for acre). The current rule is that only half of the wetland acreage credit may be transferred to another location for development. Thus the Amendment doubles the added density, allowing more houses.
UNCLEAR PLAN REQUIRMENTS MAY VIOLATE LAW
Amendment lacks clarity. In particular, it fails to require a separate approved future plan Amendment when a cluster PUD is allowed. This is likely to violate legal requirements. Section 7c(7).
HABITAT FRAGMENTATION NOT ADDRESSED
The claimed preservation benefits are undermined by the absence of concerns about wildlife corridors and greenways. Since the cluster PUDs may apply almost anywhere in rural areas, there is a likelihood of habitat fragmentation, contrary to public policy.
ABSENCE OF IMPORTANT DEFINITIONS
The absence of vitally needed definitions is fatal to this Amendment. Basically it allows the Commission to say that the Amendment means anything the Commission arbitrarily decides. Examples: “Recognized” entities in Section 7a – Recognized by whom based on what standards? “Consistent with the Agricultural future land use” in Section 7c is not defined anywhere. “Open space” in Section 7c(1) – Does this include yards, driveways, swimming pools or other such “open” space? “Previously impacted” in Section 7d(2) – is a loophole because even slightly altered areas may be interpreted as impacted. The undefined word “inconsequential” is similarly flawed.
FAILURE TO TRANSMIT COMPLETE PACKAGE TO DCA
The Martin County Board of County Commissioners deliberately failed to transmit to DCA the hundreds of e-mails, letters and phone call records opposing CPA #07-20. With their incomplete package, Commissioner wanted to shield from DCA the public outrage at the massive sprawl-inducing giveaway of rural lands to developers.
OUR OBJECTION: In view of the above flaws, this Amendment should be rejected
*****
If you are interested in how developers, their allies and lackeys influence Martin County business organizations to promote faster growth policies (often at the expense of other local businesses), request a copy of:
The Martin County Defender Business Edition – Sept. 21, 2007
*****
Forward this e-newsletter to friends who want to preserve quality of life in Martin County
For a free subscription to The Martin County Defender, send request with “Subscribe” in the subject line to:
mc-defender@comcast.net
Comments and requests to unsubscribe may be sent to this same address.
Al
The Martin County
Defender
The e-newsletter for aware citizens – No. 28
Developer-compliant Commission eats crow
ON OCT. 16, PORT MAYACA PLAN TO BE REPEALED
Camayen Cattle Company initiated Comprehensive Plan #06-21 to develop land next to Lake Okeechobee. The development was called the Port Mayaca Commercial Service Center. On Sept. 6, 2006, the County Commission obediently passed Ordinance No. 723, which authorized this exception to the Comp Plan prohibition against the “package” wastewater treatment plant that Port Mayaca would require. Environmentalists opposed this on various grounds, including the fact that package plants were notoriously unreliable and likely to pollute. That is why both the Martin County Comp Plan and Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) regulations do not allow them in such applications.
In a notoriously irresponsible decision, the Commission majority approved Ordinance No. 723. Adding insult to injury, Commissioners Valliere and DiTerlizzi pooh-poohed the well documented view presented by environmentalists that package plants were unreliable.
Predictably, DEP was so concerned over the likely harmful impact on the lake, that the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) declared the amendment “not in compliance.” The next step would have been for Camayen and Martin County to argue the case before the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH). Knowing that they would lose that legal hearing, Camayen pulled out, requesting that the County repeal Ordinance No. 723, which authorized the Comp Plan amendment. This leaves the County holding the bag. So the County has little choice but to vote for repeal on Oct. 16.
The Commission majority stoked controversy and wasted thousands of staff time tax dollars, which could have been avoided if they listened to Commissioner Heard and those pesky environmentalists with their scientific information. Will Commissioners Valliere and DiTerlizzi apologize for their false accusations that opponents were misleading the public about package plants? Betting folks are giving long odds on that.
Do faster growth leaders really hold Martin County values in contempt, while admiring what is happening in Port St. Lucie?
“The saying, ‘Martin County, it’s different here,’ is another example of a community that has lost its soul …. When I look at Port St. Lucie I see a community addressing the needs and demands of a young community in search of opportunities and long-term sustainibility.” – Susan O’Rourke, former defeated pro-developer candidate for Martin County Commissioner.
Valliere responds to critics with irresponsible tirade
LETTER MAKES WILD UNSUPPORTABLE ACCUSATIONS
Commission Susan Valliere’s sponsorship of the Rural Cluster Amendment prompted many residents to contact her with their reasons for opposing this giveaway to developers. To explain her position, Valliere sent over 500 letters to residents. In almost 1,000 words, she explains how false ads have convinced you gullible chumps out there to oppose her wonderful effort. Then she goes on an off-the-wall rant full of ridiculous allegations … but don’t take my word for it. Here is a verbatim, unedited copy of three self-questions and answers in her letter:
“I have 3 questions that I would like to pose to you and attempt to answer. #1, What is the motivation for these false ads? #2 Why are these ads so effective. And finally #3, What is the source of the vast sums of money that are being used to promote these false ads?
“The answer to the first question is simple. The motivation for this barrage of false ads is a quest for power. The folks behind this movement will oppose anything that this commission does and they will falsify this Board's action in order to undermine this Board's credibility. This Amendment should be applauded by these people who call themselves environmentalists, but that would give credit to this Board and that alone would be self-defeating.
“As for question #2, why are these false ads so effective? The answer is also simple. They are promoted with hundreds of thousands of dollars and they use the well known advertising technique of repeating the falsehoods over and over again until the people are hooked. In contrast there is only a small voice trying to set the record straight. Falsehoods, exaggerations, partial truths and personal attacks will always win in a small community like ours when they are unopposed, and, in this case, they have been unopposed, and they are winning.
“As to question #3, what is the source of the money for these false ads? Well, I assure you that the lion's share of the money does not come from average citizens contribution pennies to a noble cause; the source of the money is the ultra rich who have settled in this region. They do not care if their taxes soar, because they have destroyed the local economy, for they have the power to pay and the ability to import all their needs directly to their home sites regardless of the cost. They do not mind if they local government strong arms its citizens to prevent them from building on their own land. They do not respect personal property rights. They do not hesitate to finance extremists to carry out their objectives. They rely on the principle that the average man will not stand up and fight for his rights.
“Sincerely,
Susan L. Valliere”
Is it unreasonable to ask: Should someone with this mindset be in a position to make decisions that so greatly impact our lives?
REMINDERS:
* If you have not yet sent to DCA your objections to the Valliere Rural Cluster Amendment, please do so this week because DCA will be cutting off new input shortly. They have scheduled their report on CPA #07-20 for November. SEE DETAILS IN DEFENDER NO. 27.
* If you, your family and friends have not yet sent in a signed petition in support of the Florida Hometown Democracy Amendment, which returns control of growth to the people, please do so now. Time is growing short. Download petition forms at:
www.floridahometowndemocracy.com/
+++++
Forward this e-newsletter to friends who want to preserve quality of life in Martin County
For a free subscription to The Martin County Defender, send request with “Subscribe” in the subject line to:
mc-defender@comcast.net
Comments and requests to unsubscribe may be sent to this same address.
Al
The Martin County
Defender
The e-newsletter for aware citizens – No. 29
Martin County Statistics
IMPACT FEE REPORT DATA
TELLS MUCH ABOUT WHO WE ARE
AND HOW WE LIVE
Dr. James Nicholas, a consultant to the County, submitted Draft 6 of his impact fee report on Sept. 26, 2007. The basic intent of the report is to inform the County in great detail how much the addition of a house, or a bank, or a restaurant, or a library, or a high school, or any other construction adds to the infrastructure cost to service that addition.
The data analysis is broken down into meticulously detailed numbers. For example, the addition of 1,000 sq. ft. to a nursing home adds $633 to the cost of providing more County road. This would translate to what the nursing home owner should pay as an impact fee, which is 18.32% more than the $535 he is now paying. The nursing home also uses public building and fire/rescue services, so it needs to pay its proportionate share of impact fees for that part of the added infrastructure. Nursing homes do not add to the school population, so they do not pay that impact fee. With very few exceptions, proposed new fees are substantially less than existing fees for non-residential growth, but substantially higher for residential constructionbecause their occupants and visitors use more of that part of the infrastructure. Impact fees are not arbitrary; they are calculated by use.
CONCEPTUAL BASIS FOR IMPACT FEES
The following is quoted from the Nicholas report:
Impact fees grew out of two rather commonly held notions:
1 – Generally, new development does not pay the cost of capital facilities needed to accommodate the residents and businesses from standard sources of revenue, and
2 – It would be inequitable to impose the cost of extending facilities to new developments on existing residents and taxpayers. In Florida, both the courts and the Florida Statutes acknowledge local governments’ authority to impose equitable impact fees. Impact fees are not taxes.
A key factor in how much an impact fee should be depends on the Level of Service. That is, if we want wider roads so traffic can move more freely, then the road impact fee needs to rise. If we want to tolerate fewer, more crowded schools, then the school impact fee can be reduced. So when some people with a financial self-interest in the matter demand that impact fees be arbitrarily reduced, they are in effect saying to reduce infrastructure service and the quality of life it provides because they do not want to pay their fair share.
Tangentially related to impact fees, taxes are the prime means for raising money to accommodate growth, especially if impact fees do not cover costs. A 2000-2005 comparison of counties showed that higher taxes and greater population growth go hand in hand. Counties with the 10 largest tax increases grew by an above-average 23.9%; the 10 with the smallest tax increases had only a 7.4% population increase, well below the state average.
Abstract of the impact fee report
The report contains an imposing mountain of statistical data in 149 pages, packed with thousands of numerical tabulations. Your bleary-eyed editor has slogged through them all, extracted some of the most important and interesting highlights, and added just a little commentary. Small discrepancies in numbers shown here may relate to adjustments and credits that have been ignored for conciseness.
COUNTY PARAMETERS
POPULATION: The estimated 2007 resident population of Martin County is 145,509. However, its infrastructure must serve a peak population, including part-time residents (here for under six months) and transients (less than one month), for a total of 173,530.
There are 76,131 total dwelling units, of which 63,480 are households (house median sale price $239,000), and 12,651 oddly classified as vacant, though 6,530 of them are seasonally occupied. Looking ahead a decade to 2017, the numbers are: 205,689 peak population, 171,700 residents, 90,240 dwelling units, 74,906 households, 15,333 “vacant” including 5,494 seasonally occupied.
The average number of occupants per residence is 2.292, ranging from 1.555 for dwelling units 800 sq. ft. and under, to 2.490 for those 2,301 sq. ft. and over.
EMPLOYMENT: In 2007, there are 57,803 people employed. This includes 15,788 in retail; 15,368 office; 10,669 industrial; and 15,979 other. Projected to 2017, the figures are: 68,208 total; 19,539 retail; 16,531 office; 12,529 industrial; and 19,609 other.
FLOOR AREA: In 2007, there were 108,225,588 sq. ft. of residential floor area; 17,152,997 non-residential. In 2017, projections are 128,282,279 residential and 20,579,831 non-residential.
THERE ARE EIGHT CATEGORIES OF IMPACT FEES:
- Roads
- Public Buildings
- Law Enforcement
- Emergency Services
- Parks
- Library
- Schools
- Art & Culture
ROADS
The basis for figuring which kind of new development produces how much added road travel is the concept of VMT – Vehicle Miles Traveled per day. In 2007, VMT is 3,286,504. By 2017, there will be1,279,231 more VMT; 58.8% of that increase will be caused by new development. The added new development over the decade breaks down into 62.8% residential, 20.5% retail, and the balance office, industrial, institutional and other.
The total cost for road projects being planned to accommodate the road use growth will be $379,905,868, of which $225,775,868 is an unfunded deficit; 46.7% of this deficit is attributable to Indian Street Bridge roadwork.
There are 46 categories of new construction, and each has a different road impact fee allocation based on VMT. They range from Boat Storage ($121.43, down 77.65% from the existing fee) to Convenience Store w/Gas ($15,855.84, down 43.18%).
Because of its size and personal involvement, major focus is on residential, which falls into four sub-categories. For residences 800 sq. ft. and under, the updated proposed road impact fee before certain minor credits is $3,287.14, up 80.76%; for 801 to 1,100 sq. ft., it’s $4,892.20, up 82.03%; for 1,101 to 2,300 sq. ft. it’s $5,087.66*, up 82.13%; and for 2,301 sq. ft. and over, revised road impact fee is $5,259.42, up 81.93% over the current fee. NOTE: For simplicity, residential impact fees to be presented here for schools and other infrastructure will list only those in the more typical 1,101 to 2,300 sq. ft. range.
How does Martin County compare with other counties? It’s not possible to know what revisions other counties are considering, so we are forced to compare current road impact fees. Even there, not all counties include exactly the same factors as others. The average current road impact fee is $3,625.67 (median $3,108.50). For Martin County it’s been $2,891.00 (revised as noted above to $5,087.66*).
* There are alternative possibilities, such as the county repairing state roads, and loss of state support, that could bring this figure to $10,538.
PUBLIC BUILDINGS
To meet a growing population, such additional public buildings as courthouses, maintenance facilities and administrative offices must be built. By 2017, the grand total will cost $82,065,832, including Fixed Asset Replacement (FARB). The major costs are attributable to Administrative Center expansion in 2013 ($11,862,000); Constitutional Officers Building in 2014 ($45,728,100); Courthouse expansions in 2008 and prior, and in 2013 ($16,394,400 total); and Public Safety complex in 2013-2014 ($1,254,123). The improvement cost adjusted to 2007 is $70 million, half of it allocated to growth.
In 2005, the Public Building impact cost for a 1,101 to 2,300 sq. ft. residence was $435.88. For 2007, it has increased 171.91% to $1,185.18**. A major contributor to the increase is the higher Level of Service, public building square footage going from 2.017 to 2.476 sq. ft. per capita.
The Public Building impact fee of $435.88 before updating compares to an average of $488.96 for other counties ($359.50 median).
** An alternative method of calculation could bring this figure to $606.08.
LAW ENFORCEMENT
The 2007 Law Enforcement cost, including correctional facilities, is $385.69 for the 1,101 to 2,300 sq. ft. house, a decrease of 13.23% from 2005. On the total value of Law Enforcement’s facilities of about $83 million, over 52% is for corrections.
The average residence impact fee for Law Enforcement in other counties is $270.11 ($236.00 median) compared to the prior $459 for Martin.
EMERGENCY SERVICES
The existing typical home impact fee has been $345.80, now revised upward 33.6% to $462.14. For some unexplained reason, the highest updated Emergency Services fee is for movie theaters -- $3,394.64 per 1,000 sq. ft.
On a statewide county basis, the average has been $315.31 ($278.18 median).
PARKS & RECREATION
Martin County has 517.2 acres of regional park and recreation areas, 399.6 acres of community parks, 25,192 acres of conservation lands and public access areas, 33 boat ramp lanes, and 1,382 beach access parking spaces. For that typical house, impact fee increases 23.02% from $2,344.58 in 2005 to $ 2,884.19 in 2007.
Martin County’s parks impact fee – or cost of growth, depending on how one views it – may be the third highest in the state at $2,344.58. The county average is $577.13 ($492.50 median). The question for residents is whether we want to spend the money to have a top quality parks ‘n rec system, or else settle for a lower quality of life.
PUBLIC LIBRARY
The Martin County library system includes six libraries and one warehouse totaling 100,026 sq. ft. About 39% of that is at the Blake. Calculation of costs is complicated by the availability of grants and gifts. For a 2,000 sq. ft. house, the existing building and materials impact fee is $456. However, the cost is actually $532.32 , and so the impact fee needs to increase to that amount. The $456 compares to a county average fee of $214.63 (median $179), and may be second highest in the state.
SCHOOLS (PUBLIC EDUCATION)
There are 17,654 students currently enrolled in Martin County Schools. In 2017, that number is projected to rise to 20,3418. Other than one county in northeast Florida with only four schools, Martin is the only county to have all (19) schools rated A.
School capacity is measured in “stations,” a designation that is often misunderstood. It is not just one seat in a classroom. It is the allocated portion of the school system that must be added to accommodate one more student. Student station cost is $41,949, up about 22% since 2005. Much of that upward jump is attributable to loss of state credits, as Florida allocates available funds for classroom size reduction. Certain critics have observed that this is higher than some other counties. However, Martin County includes costs that other counties may fail to include, such as buses and land. On the fairer comparison of per-foot building cost, Martin is fully competitive.
There are 22,550 permanent student stations with 17,483 students, and 2,498 portable stations with 1,401 enrolled students. That breaks down to enrollment accounting for 85.63% of permanent stations, or 80.25% of capacity. Capacity includes such minor segments as Environmental Studies, Adult Learning and Headstart.
To accommodate growth needs by 2011 will require the addition of 869 stations just for the Constitutional classroom size reduction mandate. Since this addition is not part of population growth, no impact fee funds may be used for this purpose. An additional enrollment will require 1,086 stations. Over the five years to 2012 we will bear capital cost obligations for capacity expansion of $98,511,270. Of this amount, $72,642,000 is attributable to growth.
Keep in mind, as we stated above, impact fees vary widely by the purpose of construction that contributes to specific infrastructure growth demand. Since commercial and industrial facilities do not contribute students to the school system, they do not pay this impact fee. It is all borne by residential. The existing fee for that 2,000 sq. ft. house is $4,555, and what is needed now is a 87.68% increase to $8,530. The only way to reduce that, as many developers and their allies want, is to reduce Level of Service. This would mean fewer and more crowded schools, and longer student bus rides, not desirable outcomes.
Compared with other counties, Martin is close to the average of $4,230.93 ($4,266.00 median). Like Martin, others will have to plan for higher impact fees as well.
ART & CULTURE
Art and cultural facilities in Martin County are owned and operated by not-for-profit entities. Providing impact fee support does not appear to be an issue. The cost per dwelling is $209.54.
IMPACT FEE SUMMARY
Excluding a 1.5% administrative fee, here is the resulting impact fee schedule for a single family home with 2,000 sq. ft.
-------------------------------------------Existing……….Revised……….Change
ROADS………………………….. $2,793……..$5,088………82.1%
PUBLIC BUILDINGS………………..436……….1,185……..172.9%
LAW ENFORCEMENT……………..445………….386……..(13.2%)
EMERGENCY SERVICES…………..346………….462………33.6%
PARKS………………………………2,345……….2,884………23.0%
LIBRARY………………………………456………….532…..….16.8%
SCHOOLS…………………….……4,555……....8,530………87.3%
ARTS & CULTURAL…………………..0………….210……… --
TOTAL…………………….……$11,376…...$19,277………69.5%
Comparing Martin’s $11,376 with other counties: Average $8,062 ($8,380 median).
Higher impact fees reflects higher Level of Service, a key factor in achieving better quality of life.
Please mark your calendar:
RIVERKEEPER – “Fall Mullet Run Celebration,” Saturday, Nov. 3, 2007 from 4:00 to 8:00 pm at Taylor Creek Marina, Fort Pierce. Features fried fish dinner, music by Rappture, raffle and silent auction. Tickets $9 in advance, $10 at door. Funds raised help save the Indian River Lagoon. Contact: 631-5827.
AIRPORT – WAAM will hold an informative meeting on Monday, Nov. 5, 2007 at 6:30 pm at the Blake Library. Topics will include runway shortening, expanded building construction, fixed base operator leases, and dealing with the FAA. Maintaining Witham Field as a community airport is a county-wide concern.
+++++
Forward this e-newsletter to friends who want to preserve quality of life in Martin County
For a free subscription to The Martin County Defender, send request with “Subscribe” in the subject line to:
mc-defender@comcast.net
Comments and requests to unsubscribe may be sent to this same address.
Al
The Martin County
Defender
The e-newsletter for aware citizens – No. 30
Pro-developer advocates distort “1000 Friends of Florida” proposal
FAST-GROWTHERS IGNORE MAIN BODY OF GOOD RECOMMENDATIONS, FALSELY PROMOTE CLUSTERS
1000 Friends of Florida has issued a 16-page report: “Working to Sustain Florida’s Rural and Natural Lands: A Call to Action.” There are good ideas in this report, as well as some serious omissions and failures based on its underlying 180-page 2006 academic study.
1000 Friends is a non-profit corporation that tries to blend diverse views by accommodating environmentalists, landowners, developers and planners. So some proposals are bound to fail with unintended consequences. Its Chairman Emeritus is recognized conservationist Nathaniel Reed. Its vice-president is Tim Jackson, President of Glatting Jackson Kercher Anglin, Inc., which profits from planning cluster communities and issuing pro-cluster consultant reports.
Contributors to the 1000 Friends proposal included a wide assortment of viewpoints ranging from Richard Grasso, General Counsel of the Everglades Law Center to Peter Rummell, Chairman of giant landowner The St. Joe Co. Contributors do not necessarily endorse all elements of the report.
The 180-page report, “Florida in 2060 – An Alternative Future,” was prepared at the University of Central Florida and the University of Pennsylvania. It is an “extrapolation of current growth trends” that projects a Florida population increase from about 18 million today to 36 million in 2060. It is based on the big IF; if growth continues as it has across Florida.
There is nothing said about controlling growth as Martin County has done to preserve quality of life with its well conceived Comp Plan. Martin should be the model for others to follow. Instead, there is much pie-in-the-sky possible data based on the big IF and on conditions in other counties. Economic and sociological impacts were not investigated. Would we know what our world would be like today if we had made speculative predictions in 1955?
It is doubtful that some of the local mouthpieces for faster development have even read the 16-page 1000 Friends proposal, much less the 180-pager. But that does not stop them from shooting from the lip. Commissioner DiTerlizzi said “I was very surprised Reed would speak in favor of clustering.” Stuart News columnist Rich Campbell praised Valliere “for attempting to implement some of the same goals and strategies enunciated by 1,000 friends of Florida …. Clustering homes.” FACT: Though “new towns” are noted, not once in Reed’s 16-page report is the word “clustering” mentioned! Reporters often do not dig deeply enough. “Judiciously placed” new towns – a questionable proposition in itself - are not the same as small clusters scattered hither and yon for favored developers.
WHAT’S ACTUALLY IN THE 1000 FRIENDS REPORT
First, it should be understood that this is a vision piece, a collection of ideas and opinions that might provide Florida with a better future if they were all carried out. It reflects broad hopes and aspirations, and is not meant as law, which must be very specific and encompassing. For example, the report says “Support agriculture,” a good idea, but that is not enough to write a law. Incidentally, that is one of the basic flaws of the Valliere amendment, which echoes the report’s proposal to “Provide additional density only to accomplish public benefits.” A law must say what benefits, where, when and how. Neither the report or the Valliere Comp Plan amendment explain such vital details.
In addition to supporting agriculture and providing public benefit for increased density, here verbatim are some of the vague “possible components” in the 1000 Friends proposal:
- Establish an alternative landscape vision for Florida.
- Embrace the market by identifying multiple layers of value for rural lands.
- Promote compatible rural economic development.
- Improve existing land protection strategies.
- Make additional refinements to Florida’s growth management process.
- Expand and improve public land acquisition.
- Engage and educate the public.
The above ideas are very different from the Valliere Rural Cluster Amendment. Martin County’s three pro-cluster commissioners deliberately failed to “engage and educate the public.” They arrogantly refused to allow public workshops. They refused to allow a public referendum. They confused the issue with numerous last minute changes so citizens had little idea of the final details. Public input was barely tolerated and not reported timely.
As to the creation of new towns, the 1000 Friends proposal states: “The trade-off for permanently protected rural lands may include judiciously placed and well-planned new towns and some increases in overall density if done with care to be compatible with the area’s rural character.” This “may include” is a far cry from Valliere’s amendment pushing 500-acre cluster developments to be plopped aimlessly all over western lands.
Instead of wasting state and county funds with stretched out infrastructure to rural lands, the 1000 Friends proposal asks that we “redirect state infrastructure expenditures toward rebuilding Florida’s cities,” and also to examine “new strategies to prevent sprawl and piecemeal development outside of new towns.” Despite the words respecting our Comp Plan, issued for public consumption by the Martin County commission majority, their approval of a flood of developer-proposed amendments reveal their true intent to work around the Comp Plan and the USB. This promotes sprawl.
Furthermore, the report states: “If residents wish for their community to grow in population, sprawl must be replaced by compact use and higher densities in urban areas.”
These and other considerations in the less than perfect 1000 Friends proposal directly contradict the unfounded claims of the landowner and developer-connected businesses (not to mention the politicians hungry for campaign funds) that the proposal advocates clusters. It doesn’t!
To download both the 180- and 16-page reports go to:
1000friendsofflorida.org
NOTE: The name 1000 Friend of Florida should not be confused with another corporation, Friends of Martin County, Inc. The latter’s board consists of Mary E. Dawson, Jennifer M. Dawson, and Robert C. Dawson. Mary Dawson is an author and ardent supporter of the Valliere amendment. With friends like these ….
Hometown Democracy voice comes to Stuart
LESLEY BLACKNER, CO-ORIGINATOR OF THE PETITION DRIVE, WILL SPEAK AT THE CONSENSUS-SPONSORED DEC. 3 FORUM
The brilliantly conceived Hometown Democracy Amendment is getting down to the wire. 611,000 signed petitions are needed to get the measure on the 2008 ballot. Then control of growth can be returned to the voters. We can learn what is happening, and much that has not been publicized, by attending the Dec. 3, 2007 Forum sponsored by the Martin County Consensus. Featured speaker will be attorney Lesley Blackner, co-originator of this petition drive to amend the Florida Constitution … and a terrific speaker.
Please mark this Hometown Democracy Forum day on your calendar:
Monday, Dec. 3, 2007 at 6:00 pm. Location: Blake Library.
“Incestuous intercourse between business and politicians”
COLUMNIST DETAILS LINK BETWEEN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND POLITICIANS
The best opinion columnist at the Stuart News, Kenric Ward, revealed in his Oct. 23 column how growth oriented local governments team up with business groups and large landholders. They load taxpayers with “higher taxes, more congestion, a degraded environment, a hugely overblown real-estate market and, maybe, a few more service-sector jobs.” Furthermore, “public-private partners keep crafting growth-inducing tools, such as ‘clustering,’ ‘density transfers,’ ‘planned development’ and ‘town-villages-countryside.’”
“What terrifies the growth-development complex,” Ward continues, “is Florida Hometown Democracy’s threat to disrupt this cozy arrangement by giving residents a direct say in their communities’ future.”
GO KENRIC!
Speakers for your organization’s meetings
The Defender is pleased to announce the formation of a Speakers Bureau to provide speakers for meetings of Martin County organizations. The speakers are well informed, and sometimes prominent, residents who know much about what goes on behind the scenes. They can explain the real meaning of opposing viewpoints relating to public issues and give no-nonsense answers to questions about these issues.
HERE IS HOW IT WORKS: If any organization that you belong to – a condo or homeowners association, a trade group, a church, a union, a civic organization, a social club, a professional society, a business association, a social service network, for example – would like to invite an interesting speaker to one of its meetings, send your request and the following information to:
mc-defender@comcast.net
1 – The name, address and purpose of your organization.
2 – Your name and phone number.
3 – Where and when you meet.
4 – Number of people you expect to attend meeting.
The Defender Speakers Bureau will find an excellent speaker for your meeting at no charge. He or she will tailor a topic that will be interesting and informative for your members … and perhaps help build meeting attendance for your group. A typical talk runs about 20 minutes, plus question period. Your members will learn things about our county and what goes on here that they never knew before.
+++++
Forward this e-newsletter to friends who want to preserve quality of life in Martin County
For a free subscription to The Martin County Defender, send request with “Subscribe” in the subject line to:
mc-defender@comcast.net
Comments and requests to unsubscribe may be sent to this same address.
Al