“Ocala Gazette” Q&A with candidates for County Commission

[Shutterstock]

Home » Politics

Posted May 19, 2026 | Staff report

There are three candidates running for the District 2 County Commission seat (Matthew Cretul, Mike Crimi and Brien Weidemiller) and five for the District 4 seat (Randall Alvord, Jeff Bairstow, Clint Barkley, Wanda Wimberly Lasher and Sherri Meadows). NOTE: Former candidate Anthony Barriner-Massa has withdrawn from the race, according to votemarion.gov

The “Gazette” will email a different question each week to all of the candidates, for a total of nine questions over nine weeks. The candidates are given a week to respond in writing and we do not edit their answers. The answers from those who chose to participate are presented below in the order in which they were received.

QUESTION EIGHT: Florida law requires local governments to ensure infrastructure keeps pace with development through concurrency and impact fees. Do you believe Marion County’s current policies adequately require growth to pay for itself? If not, what changes would you support?

Florida law gives counties tools like impact fees and growth management policies to help infrastructure keep pace with development. Impact fees are one-time assessments on new construction intended to help offset the impacts growth places on roads, schools, public safety and infrastructure.

Marion County suspended impact fees during the recession, later reinstated them at lower levels and experienced significant growth during years of reduced collections. As a result, the county is now working to catch up with growing infrastructure demands. That has created growing pains many residents experience every day through traffic congestion, crowded schools and pressure on public services.

When government falls behind growth, the costs eventually show up in higher home prices and increased pressure on taxpayers.

I support requiring infrastructure planning and cost projections earlier in the development process; improving coordination between the County Commission, School Board, transportation planners and emergency services; and conducting regular impact fee and infrastructure studies so we are planning ahead instead of constantly playing catch-up.

We must respect private property rights while also planning responsibly, protecting taxpayers and keeping Marion County affordable and sustainable for future generations.

—Sherri Meadows

***

Growth should pay a fair share of the infrastructure impact it creates, especially roads, public safety, water capacity and schools  but I also believe Marion County has to be careful not to push all costs onto existing residents through higher taxes and declining quality of life.

I think Marion County has made progress with concurrency requirements and impact fees, but the current system still leaves gaps. Too often, infrastructure improvements lag behind development and residents feel the effects through traffic congestion, overcrowded roads, longer emergency response times and strain on public services.

I would support several changes:

• Stronger enforcement of concurrency so major developments cannot move forward unless transportation, utilities and public safety capacity are truly available or fully funded.
• Regular independent reviews of impact fees to ensure they reflect actual infrastructure costs and inflation.
• More targeted infrastructure agreements requiring large developments to contribute directly to road improvements, turn lanes, water infrastructure, fire protection and other necessary upgrades tied to their projects.
• Better long-range planning so infrastructure is built proactively instead of years after growth occurs.
• Protecting rural areas by directing higher-density growth toward areas where infrastructure already exists or can be expanded efficiently.

At the same time, we must keep Marion County business friendly. Responsible growth is important to our economy. The goal is balance, planning, control and encouraging investment and job creation while making sure existing residents are not left paying the bill for unmanaged growth.

—Mike Crimi

***

I would start by requiring that any new development be reviewed by looking at projected growth in the area. We have lots of data at our disposal that can help us plan for future expansion of infrastructure and public safety in a proposed area. 

For example, if a parcel of land is vested and allowed to proceed with development, those plans should account and provide for future utility easements and road expansions. The county needs to be more forward thinking in this regard and led by a County Commission with the ability to impose this forward-looking planning. 

As far as school concurrency goes, the state legislature in 2011 passed the Florida Community Planning Act, which basically made it overburdensome for local leaders to use school concurrency/capacity as a factor in approving new development. 

We are under attack by the Florida legislature, in some regard, by all the new laws passed like SB 180, HB 399 and most recently SB 686 that is stripping away our ability of “home rule” and not allowing local citizens and leadership to guide development in our community. Increasing impact fees only add to our unaffordability crisis.  

—Randall Alvord

***

Marion County is catching up after a decade of artificially low impact fees, but there’s still more that can, and should, be done. While the county did raise transportation impact fees last year, they started at only 70% of the actual calculated impact, rising to 100% over four years beginning last October. 

These are real improvements, but they come after years of under-collection. And even at full rates, the county’s own transportation study estimates a $500M+ funding gap between 20-year infrastructure needs and projected sales tax revenues, so impact fees alone won’t get us there.

Impact fee and sales tax revenues can’t be used for operations costs, meaning the personnel expenses that come with growth have to be funded somewhere else. On top of that, portions of Marion County’s comprehensive plan were recently sent back by the state as null and void, partly because level-of-service standards were in the land development code rather than the comprehensive plan, where they belong, and SB 180 restrictions. 

While state law sets a high bar that Marion County may not clear to accelerate the impact fee phase-in beyond what the county has already adopted, other tools are underutilized. The county should more systematically deploy proportionate share requirements, special assessments and developer agreements to close the infrastructure gap. Resolving the comprehensive plan’s concurrency deficiencies should be treated as an immediate priority, not a procedural afterthought.

So, while growth is paying more of its way than before, it might not be enough for any substantial relief to be seen without additional actions.

—Matthew Cretul

These candidates did not respond by the stated deadline of 5 p.m. May 19: Brien Weidemiller, Jeff Bairstow, Clint Barkley and Wanda Wimberly Lasher.