Taxpayers group urges board to fully vet $24 million SRO contract

Darlene Van Riper, speaking for the Martin County Taxpayers Association, told the Martin County School Board on June 3 that the association is “concerned about the recent news involving department to supply school resource officers.”

Van Riper said the proposal under discussion is a three-year contract she estimated at more than $8 million per year, which she characterized as roughly $24 million over the contract’s lifetime for 34 officers. “While the safety of our school children is paramount,” she said, “this contract is a 3 year contract costing the taxpayers over $8,000,000 per year.”

The taxpayer speaker listed a number of other county spending priorities she said would compete for the same local dollars, including a sheriff’s helicopter she said would cost “over $6,000,000,” a shoot house “for $4,300,000,” three new fire stations “to the tune of $45,000,000,” a $10,000,000 renovation for House of Refuge, and at least $4,500,000 to rebuild a Jensen Beach restroom/café building that burned down. She also said public buildings were requesting “nearly $8,000,000 in 2026 to replace generators” and other security and expansion work.

Van Riper said she and her organization “appreciate the importance of SROs, but we also appreciate due diligence,” and asked the board to document research into alternatives the speaker said are “allowed by statute.” She concluded: “We are counting on the school board to thoroughly research other suitable options. We know there are options allowed by statute. We know that you will document your research so that the Martin County taxpayers can be assured that you are looking out for us as well as for our children.”

The board did not take formal action on the topic during the workshop; the remarks were made during the public-comment portion of the June 3 workshop. No staff presentation or contract text was introduced during the public-comment period, and the board did not vote or direct a specific procurement path on the record at that meeting.

The speaker’s dollar figures and lists of county projects were presented as a public comment and attributed to Van Riper; the board did not confirm those figures during the meeting. Members of the board and staff did not dispute the speaker’s request for documentation, and subsequent agenda items and staff responses will determine whether the board requests or receives additional detail about the proposed SRO contract.