Town of Sewalls Point

COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 23, 2024

The commission spoke regarding the four charter questions that look like they will be on the November ballot.

Commissioner Fender wanted to know whether being a resident for one year was enough to run for commission (someone approached him with the question). A quick survey of other municipalities shows that Jupiter Island’s charter just had that a candidate should be a registered voter and resident of the town.

Stuart’s qualification is that the candidate should be a registered voter of the city, a permanent resident, and a continuous fulltime resident for the preceding year before qualification. Indiantown is similar with a one-year residency requirement before qualifying, a voter, and must be a resident during their time in office.

Most municipalities use a one-year standard. In Mogk v. City of Detroit, a district court invalidated a three-year residency requirement to serve on a charter review board. There is no one standard in my research but (I hate to use the phrase) I am not a lawyer. It seems though the courts are opening qualifications not narrowing them.

The year which is in line with other Martin County municipalities should be the standard used. To do something else would be exclusionary and not serve any real purpose but to keep people from running.

The other question is regarding having a planning board. Apparently, there has never been one constituted since the town was created though it is currently in the charter. The planning functions are performed by other boards. The argument for removal is it hasn’t been needed up to this point and an ad hoc committee (like the charter review board) could be formed in the future if necessary.

A motion was made by Kurzman and seconded by Mayfield to send the questions to the Supervisor of Elections for review. It passed 5-0. It will come for a final vote before the commission after that. The ballot language can be found here https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:US:bc92afae-39b2-4b72-b064-2e614e71c75c

There was a discussion as to how to maintain the millions of dollars in stormwater improvements the town has made.

The main question was whether the town institutes a fee or not. The manager wants to do a study to see if a stormwater utility fee is the best way to go. Currently the town spends $125,000 per year on maintenance but that will significantly increase as more improvements are made. Sewall’s Point has done a remarkable job of securing millions of dollars in grants to make the improvements.

According to the town engineer, Joe Capra, the granting agencies want to see a dedicated source for maintenance. They are taking away points if the government doesn’t have this source. And now that every municipality and the county are seeking the same grants then Sewall’s Point will be at a disadvantage going forward since, they all have fees.

Capra did a back of the envelope calculation. If there are 1500 parcels and the amount of maintenance is $125,000 per year the amount of the fee per month would be $6.94.  According to the manager there are no grants to pay for the monitoring that is required and the maintenance.

The reason why a fee is seen by the state as a better option than ad valorem taxes is because the cost of stormwater maintenance is paid by a dedicated fund and there must be a rational nexus to the amount charged. How the fee is structured can be by parcel, size of the parcel, pervious and impervious footprints, or a combined approach.

Tompeck wants to know the baseline amounts for maintenance. Mayfield believes a study should be done. Kurzman needs a budget. Barile doesn’t believe you can stop the storm water from flowing downhill and used his street as an example. He believes the county should maintain the baffle boxes on North Sewall’s Point Road since they own it. Fender thinks going through the budget process every year is a goal setting exercise. People demand fiscal integrity.

The manager will bring back the information requested. He will also see if he obtains a study for $1000 or less. A motion was made to proceed with a study for that amount or less. The vote was 3-2 with Barile and Fender dissenting.

You can see the manager’s request here