February 9, 1996

POSITION STATEMENT ON MARCH BALLOT QUESTION CONCERNING:

• One Cent Sales Tax
• FIT Purchase Bond Issue

One Cent Sales Tax

At its regular monthly board meeting the MCTA discussed the ballot questions being asked of voters on the March 12th, 1996 Presidential Primary Election.

A majority of the board of directors voted in favor of a motion to oppose the imposition of the additional one-cent of sales tax as presented to the voters. The board also included in its action an authorization of a brief synopsis of that position.

The Board clearly stated their belief and understanding for the need of libraries, parks, and public safety equipment. We understand that the adopted Martin County comprehensive plan contains minimum levels of service for these public needs and that the county is required to fund these adopted service level needs.

The Board does not oppose the use of the additional sales tax as a means to fund the construction of needed infrastructure. The Board believes that the sales tax is much preferable to property taxes and voted unanimously in later action to encourage the Board of County Commissioners to consider the use of the sales tax as a means to fund capitol needs for specific purposes after establishment of a fully discussed needs program.

The Board also believes that the mingling of needs into one question, answered yes or no for all, was not fair to the voter. Most Board members felt that the need for the split between libraries at 50%, Parks at 30%, and Public Safety at 20% (of the collected revenue from the sales tax) was not well established.

Many Board members agreed that this ballot question should have been placed on a general election.

Finally, a majority of the Board members felt that many questions remain unanswered as to the full and continuing costs associated with the proposed programs.

We believe that should the ballot question pass, further discussion of the expenditures and proposed programs is warranted.

FIT Purchase Bonds

The majority of the board voted in favor of a motion to support the FIT purchase bond issue. These board members
believed that the FIT property is a unique site and key resource to our community. We perceive that this property is
a good investment in the Countyís future needs. MCTA feels that this site has historical, cultural, and recreational
significance to Martin County.

The unanimous opinion of the Board is that an alternative to using ad valorem taxes to the bonds is preferable.

Future Use of sales tax as a means of funding infrastructure

The Board unanimously adopted a position of support for the use of sales tax as opposed to property taxes for funding of
needed infrastructure. We believe that the sales tax more fairly distributes the costs among users by including those that
do not own property in Martin County, but use its services. We would like to encourage the Board of County
Commissioners to clearly identify its specific infrastructure needs as well as a funding of those needs, giving voters a clear
choice of how to fund them. By this we mean, library, recreation, and public safety funding requirements should be
offered to the public in a manner that allows the taxpayer to vote on each need independently of the others.

We further encourage the Board of County Commissioners to research funding of the property purchases, particularly the
FIT purchase, using the sales tax or other non ad valorem source.