BY MARK SCHUMANN

Most people will tell you they moved to Vero Beach because they were looking for a slower pace, and were looking for to a quieter, calmer, less frenetic way of life.

Call me reactionary for wanting to preserve the small town qualities and community values that have made Vero Beach and Indian River County the gem of Florida’s Treasure Coast, but I sense that if we are not careful, some day in the not-to-distant future we will wake up and realize the character of our community has changed, and not for the better.  I fear we may be on the verge of losing the character and spirit that has for decades drawn visitors and new residents to Vero Beach and Indian River County.

For example, consider the near-constant feuding now going on between the city and county. I’ve spoken with a number of long-time Veroites about this, non of whom can remember a time when there was such contentiousness in local government.

To be sure, as the unincorporated areas of the county have developed around a 12-square-mile city not hungry for annexation, the political balance of power in the community has shifted.   Change is inevitable, but it is not preordained in the stars that the city and county should find each other locking horns over everything from consolidating 911 services, to deciding on a permanent location for a GoLine bus hub, to agreeing on a fair and equitable allocation of tourist tax revenues for beach restoration, to the looming battle over who will provide water and sewer service to the unincorporated area of the south barrier island.

Though journalists aren’t generally inclined to take sides, I can’t help but call it as I see it, and what I see is a lack of commitment on the part of county leaders to work with the city for the good of the larger community.

Much of the fault for the growing animosity between the city and county lies with County Administrator Joe Baird and County Commissioner Bob Solari.  Though neither man is constitutionally hardwired for diplomacy, they could both exercise more civility toward the city, and they could shift from a default posture of aggression to one of collaboration and cooperation.

Utilities is an area where cooperation, rather than confrontation, could lead to more efficient and better service.  Some have long suggested that forming an independent, countywide utility authority would be the best approach to solving the county’s problem of the underutilization of the county’s system.

The city and county could each contribute their respective customer base and infrastructure, and could then share proportionately in the “profits” from a larger, presumably more efficient system.  This consolidated countywide system would be run, not by politicians, but by an independent utility commission able to focus on efficiently providing the best possible service.

Currently, the county’s utility system is drawing on unencumbered reserves to the tune of a few million dollars a year.  So, clearly the county would benefit from consolidating its vastly underutilized system with the city’s.

The obstacle to forming an independent utility authority, though, seems to be that Baird and Solari will only play if the county can pitch in.  When they speak of consolidation they don’t have in mind a partnership, but a takeover.  Given that the city’s system is operating in the black, while the county’s is swimming in red ink, it’s hard to imagine a scenario in which it would benefit the city to capitulate to the county.

Because Baird and Solari have shown no inclination toward self directed behavior modification, the only real hope for improved local government relations rests with the remaining four members of the county commission.  The point is that there are, in fact, four other members of the county commission who can, if they will, offer the leadership necessary to place the public good above parochial interests.