5/22 MAC Meeting Summary: "Conceptual Agreement" for a new city

The NE Municipal Advisory Committee had a rare second monthly meeting last Thursday.  With only 6 of the 11 members attending (Donath, Friedman, Matza, Moss, Morton and Robson), quorum was just met.  The focus of the meeting was the "Conceptual Agreement," which (it was explained at the meeting) is an "ingredient" the county requires of all MACs as part of their process.

Brief review: the MAC was formed by the Miami Dade Board of County Commissioners in 2003/4 to investigate whether in made sense to take the unincorporated area pictured in the first post in this blog (which you can view by clicking here), and make a new city out of it.  After some starts and stops, the NE MAC continues this investigation nearly 10 years after first being established.

The Conceptual Agreement seems to be dictated by the county: it contains several things the county needs to see as prerequisites to approving new cities.  For example: the county wants to ensure it continues to be paid for bond debt, so the Conceptual Agreement makes it clear that residents in the new city will continue to be responsible for their share of bond indebtedness.  It's not entirely clear what, if anything, within the agreement is "negotiable," and this was the source of much of the discussion on May 22nd.

The Conceptual Agreement commences with a discussion of BOUNDARIES.  At the May 1 MAC meeting, there was a discussion of changing the boundaries to exclude the SW condominiums.  It was determined that this was not possible, and that even if it was, the resulting loss of per capita revenues would make incorporation infeasible (the May 1 meeting is discussed here).

Page 2 discusses county SERVICES, basically reiterating county laws which say that a new city has to contract for police services from the county for the first 3 years of its existence, that it has to remain part of the library system, waste collection and fire rescue.  These are the "countywide" services that all cities continue to receive from the County.

Things get interesting on page 3, which begins

"the incorporation of the proposed municipality of the northeast area will have an adverse financial impact on the remainder of the unincorporated municpal service area (UMSA).... [T]he code currently requires new municipalities to mitigate the adverse impact on UMSA.  At the time of incorporation, the Miami-Dade County Code requires that the proposed municipality contribute some amount of its property tax revenues after municipal incorporation to the County into a MSTF, the amount of which shall be determined by the Board."

The above language seems to guarantee a "MITIGATION payment" from the new city (a critical concept that was the subject of an April post you can find here).  If this agreement can be revised to delete this paragraph, or to at the very least specify a reasonable millage rate (not the 1 mill rate that the Planning and Advisory Board planned to levy in 2004, which would equate to around $800,000 per year), it would put the "new city" in a vastly better position with the county.  For this reason, MAC members Friedman and Robson raised the issue of revision, which will be considered by MAC "Conceptual Agreement Committee" (chaired by Richard Golden), and discussed at the next MAC meeting on June 19.

Also on page 3, the Conceptual Agreement discusses ROADS.  Local roads would be conveyed to the new city, but "The County is proposing to keep approximately 18.4 lane miles" which include West Dixie Highway and Ives Dairy Road!  This raised some concerns from the MAC members, who wanted to ensure that the new city would still have the ability to manage, police, and beautify the roads.  MAC member Robson also raised the issue of traffic cameras, noting that if the new city desired a "red light" camera at the intersection of Ives Dairy Road and 24th Avenue (which is often blocked by cars during school crossing hours), this language might prevent the new city from doing so, or at the very least require revenue sharing with the county. 

Alicia Rook (Queen of "no to incorporation"), in a post-meeting e-mail to her minions, wrote of the above discussion on roads:

"Mark Bronson [sic], a MAC member said he would like to put cameras' [sic] all over this new city because it would bring in over a million dollars in revenue (a number he just pulled out of the air), of course all of us in the area would be affected by those cameras' [sic] also."

As recounted above, only one intersection was discussed, not "all over the city", but scare-tactics and hyperbole (unlike spelling and grammar) are particular specialties of Ms. Rook.  Robson did say that ONE camera (at NE 203/24th Ave), to protect children crossing Ives Dairy get to school, might generate a million dollars in fines a year, because drivers at that intersection are so reckless.  The point (completely missed by Rook) was the importance of understanding the implications of the Conceptual Agreement language on roads, or else any revenue generated by red-light cameras could be surrendered to the County.

The rest of the Conceptual Agreement focused on bonds - nothing interesting there (just that residents of a new city would continue to pay on their tax bill their share of bond indebtedness).

Missing from the Conceptual Agreement was the "concept" that a the new city would be formed for the purpose of retaining revenues (it is frequently argued that the purpose of incorporating is to put our tax dollars to work locally, and not have them "donated" to other areas in the county).

Also missing was the concept that taxes in the new city not be increased, and the concept that there would be no "eminent domain" practiced in a new city.  Perhaps neither concept is appropriate for inclusion in the Conceptual Agreement, but if the "no to incorporation" people were paying attention, this might have been a sensible question to ask.  Instead, "NO" co-founder Brian Rook used his Q&A time at the end of the meeting to complain about statements Glenn Gopman had made at a prior meeting (which were true: that the Rooks own 6 or 7 homes in North Miami Beach, and that they have one residence inside the MAC boundaries).

Mr. Rook brought a video camera to record the May 22 meeting, so perhaps he will rewind the tape to review the discussion on roads and traffic cameras, to satisfy himself that nobody on the MAC is proposing that we live in an Orwellian police state.

The next MAC meetings are tentatively scheduled for June 19, July 24 and August 28.  Save the date!

As the "West of Aventura" blog slows for summer vacation, use the "follow by email" tool at the very top right side of the page to have future posts sent to you directly. 

The "new city" Budget

As noted in the coverage of the 5/1 MAC meeting (post is here), the key question in whether to form a new city is whether or not tax revenues are retained in the new city, and not spread across the county as is the case right now.  Put another way, the "PRO-incorporation" people want to put our tax dollars to work in our community.

In that post, I wrote that the answer would be evident from a side-by-side comparison with a budget delivered by the County detailing "impact on UMSA."  So here is a copy of the 2012-13 budget (this was prepared and submitted by the county "Office of Management and Budget", or "OMB").

 

A little messy, but here is the summary: Revenues of about $6M, of which $1.93M (about 1/3) comes from Property taxes, followed by Utility Taxes ($1.4M), Sales Taxes ($1.8M) and Franchise Fees ($0.7M).

The more important section for the purposes of this post is the "Expenditures" section.  This is where the County says what it spends in our area (from the money it collects from us).  The difference between what is collected ($6M) and what is spent here ($4.43M) is $1,560,723, which defines the extent to which we are a "donor community."  We "donate" $1.56M every year, according to the County.

More recently we were delivered a 2013-14 "Impact to UMSA" statement.  Here's what it looks like:

Again the revenues are consistent at just under $6M.  The "Expenditures" section comes in at $4.685M, making us a "donor community" to the tune of $1.2M in 2013-14, down from the $1.56M "donation" in 2012-13.  On this newer statement, police is $3.6M (big jump from $2.97M the prior year), parks is $150,000 (big drop from $245,000 the prior year), public works is $106,859 (steady from $116,869).

Now look at an image of the most recent version of the budget presented at the 5/1 MAC meeting:

The revenues at the top of the page are different because a new city would have different sources of revenues.  But to see if our area would spend more money locally as a "new city" than the county spends now, the focus should be on "Expenditures."  From the above 2 images, let's analyze the differences.

Employees:

The MAC budget contains line items for "Council/Manager, Attorney, Clerk and Finance Department" that are absent from the OMB budget.  Why?  Because these functions are all performed downtown, and so are not technically "spent" locally.  They are costs that we pay for, but the work is not performed within our community.  This is the cost of the so-called "extra layer of government," which is not really an extra layer because it just takes money we pay already, and spends it here rather than downtown.

General Services:

The OMB indicates the County spends about $400K on this line item.  The MAC sets this at $334K, and includes in that category [on another page not pictured here]: Rent ($75K), Audit Fees ($50K), Insurance ($50K), IT Costs ($50K), Repairs and Maintenance ($24K), Office Expenses and Supplies ($24K), Telephone ($12K), Utilities ($12K), Payroll Services ($5K) and Other Administrative costs ($32K).  So the MAC figures that in this category it can be more efficient than the County, spending about $66,000 less than the county.  That's a good thing.

Police:
The biggest expenditure (by a mile): the most recent numbers from the County say it paid $3.6M on our police needs.  MAC is budgeting $4.4M - almost $800,000 more.  The MAC number is solid, because it was supplied directly by the MDPD and is based on the minimum service level allowed (which is still much more policing than we get currently, since police assigned to "new city" STAY in "new city" and don't answer calls down on 163rd Street).  So more money for police to fight crime and keep the intersections clear: a good thing.

Public Works:
County spends $106,859.  MAC proposes $200,000.  Neither is a particularly large number since this line item represents money spent on making the area look better: fixing roads and fences, including the one in Highland Lakes that the criminals escape over.  So this is an improvement for the community, but not a very big one, and one area the MAC may look at increasing to be more realistic.

QNIP:
This is "Quality Neighborhood Improvement Program", which sounds like the same kind of stuff as "public works" above, but actually has to do with payments on bonds (1999 and 2006), which is why it's the same amount ($200K-250K) in the County budget and the MAC one.

Building and Planning:
County says $470,323, MAC says $491,000, so the MAC is saying it will cost basically the same to perform these functions (but would save residents having to run their contractors down to SW Dade to get a permit).

Parks and Recreation:
County said $245K in 2012 and $150K in 2013/14.  MAC says... $250K?!  A little stingy.  An earlier draft of the MAC budget was for $500K, but already that is on the chopping block.

Stormwater Costs/Bonds/Projects:
Not sure why these appear on the MAC budget and not the County one, but I assume we pay these one way or another, and that they aren't changed.

Contingency Reserve:
This $800,000 item only appears in the MAC budget.  It is theoretically money that could be saved and spent on the "new city."  HOWEVER, if there is a "mitigation payment" requirement imposed on the new city (if you haven't already read the April 12 post, do so immediately here), then this money, or at least a very big chunk of it, would be lost.  It would be, in effect, "money for nothing," and in a budget of $8.39M, this creates a mighty 10% "hole" in the budget.

So, based on the above, is a "new city" a good idea financially?  The answer is in the eye of the beholder: More police would be nice, but there's little new money for public works, and no extra money for parks (and forget about recreation: there will be no Aventura-style sports programs for boys and girls in "new city"). 

For me, the answer to "is this a good idea" centers on that $800,000 contingency reserve.  That amount of money would buy a lot of playground equipment, road and fence fixing, eliminate the need for (ugly) bus benches, and make a new city easier to swallow.  But if the county steals that money away in the form of a mitigation fee... well... let's just hope our MAC (or somebody), can negotiate a good deal when it comes to mitigation.  That won't be possible before the MAC has to vote, but must be answered before the people vote.

Gables Aventura Project (West Dixie Highway): Revealed

West of Aventura exclusive: Plans for "Gables Aventura" project.

Gables Residential (website), is in the process of submitting building permits, and plans to present the project to local residents at the June 11 HOA meeting, but here is your opportunity for a "first look."
Orientation: North is to the left, so the the buildings along the bottom of the drawing are on the railway tracks to the east.  The top of the page is the west side of the site, with Ives Dairy Road running along the right side of the page.  It will be a massive undertaking; even more construction than the proposed railway station, and certainly the biggest project undertaken in "West Aventura" in... well... EVER!

Implications: (a) some traffic challenges to be addressed, but these residences will have a "reverse commute" (ie: when all the cars are going eastbound on Ives Dairy in the morning, Gables residents will be going west; (b) the entire development will meaningfully contribute to the tax base of either the county, or "new city" if one is created; and (c) maybe the development will act like a sound barrier for the train traffic, which could be greatly expanded as discussed in the all-important April 28 post.

All the specifics on the Tri-Rail Coastal Link

The following is the PowerPoint presentation made by Ami Goddeau from the Florida Department of Transportation.  It was presented to Aventura on April 17, and to our community on April 23.  Goddeau did not have time to go through each page at our meeting, so it is worth taking a look at the full presentation.

[note: the following 1 page was omitted from the Skylake Presentation]

[the following 1 page was omitted from the 4/17 Aventura Presentation]

the following page was new for the 4/23 HOA meeting [not at 4/17 Aventura presentation]

5/1 NE MAC Meeting Summary

Better turnout for this month's meeting, and special guest: Craig Collier, the "numero uno" at the County Attorney's office.  He was called in to answer some questions that turned into a major Q&A session about many of the central issues concerning the formation of a new city (incorporation) - very informative meeting as always.

BOUNDARIES OF STUDY AREA
The issue Collier had been called in to address was the issue of boundaries: many of the "NO to incorporation" people live in the condominiums in the SW part of the study area (the study area map was  posted way back in the first post here).  At a 2013 meeting, MAC member Rochelle Matza had suggested a change to the boundaries to exclude those areas.  The MAC was told this was not possible, until it was discovered that the current county laws have NO prohibition against "creating an enclave,"  at which point the MAC asked for a legal interpretation.

The thinking was: if the condo-owners were "excused" from deliberation within a new city, they would stop the lawn signs, distributing leaflets and worrying about their future in general.  This would allow the homeowners (who have a whole different set of concerns, crime and safety being #1), to consider the issue without all the theatrics and distractions.

Collier said that although there is currently no LAW against creation of an enclave, there are GUIDELINES (and also a proposed law), that would have the effect of not allowing the MAC to sever off the condominiums.  Also the Planning and Advisory Board ("PAB"), and/or the Board of County Commissioners ("BCC"), would probably not allow the exclusion, since the condos (while not necessarily an "enclave") would at the very least be difficult to service.

Also, it was pointed out that if the condos were excluded, many revenues the new city would depend on (which are per-capita based) would be diminished to the point where the "new city" may not be financially viable.

MITIGATION
The issue of mitigation and its central importance to the creation of a new city is discussed in the April 12 post here.  Here is where a MAC member really got into a cross-examination of both the County Attorney and Office of Management and Budget representative Jorge Fernandez.

It was noted that the most recent incorporations (new cities) were the cities of Doral, Palmetto Bay and Miami Lakes.  Each of those cities was nailed with a 1 mill "mitigation payment" that was paid to Miami Dade County, and might have been paid to the County forever, if extraordinary actions, including a County task force and a lawsuit, hadn't put them to an end.  To give an example of how mitigation worked: Doral was paying $5.546M in 2006, with annual CPI increases for inflation: that's over $23 million in total, paid to the County, in return for very little.

If our area had succeeded in 2004/2005 in creating a new city, we too would have been assigned a 1 mill mitigation fee [source: PAB Report, quoted in the April 12 post - hey, I told you to go read that post!].  And if so, we would have likely been involved in litigation just like Miami Lakes, Doral and Palmetto Bay to make it go away, and after 7 years of paying about $800,000, we would just be emerging from that heavy financial weight in 2011.  So perhaps it was a good thing we didn't succeed....

... Or was it.  The hope was that by now, after recommendations by both the County Mayor and the County "Annexation and Incorporation Task Force," that mitigation would be off the books, but as noted in the April 12 post, mitigation is still on the books.  So in that sense there's been NO progress.  A new city WILL likely have to make a mitigation payment, but the question is: how much and for how long?

This was the question posed, several times and in several ways, by MAC member Robson, but no answers were forthcoming - the answer was "we don't know what the PAB and BCC will decide is an appropriate millage rate, and we won't know it until after the MAC decides whether to put the issue to a vote."  That stinks.  If the 2004/05 is a precedent, we should at least have the answer before voters go to the polls, but that's no help to the MAC.

I would suggest to the MAC that a solution may lie in making a contingent recommendation: in its report, the MAC could say "we support a vote on a new city, but only if the PAB does not assess a mitigation payment" or "... only if the PAB does not assess a mitigation fee greater than '0.X' mills, and for no longer than 'Y' years"  Just a thought.

"NEW CITY" BUDGET:
Because the decision to create a new city is largely a financial decision, budget was as usual a major part of the meeting.  The newest version is below:

The MAC committee making the budget includes members both "for" and "against" incorporation, and there doesn't seem to be any objections to this budget being inaccurate, so I'm left to conclude that whether you love or hate the idea of creating a new city, the above appears to be a "legitimate" budget.

The big question, asked at the MAC meeting, is: if the major reason to form a new city is to "retain tax dollars and put them to work locally", then "where's the beef?" (since the above shows a balanced budget).  The answer, from MAC member Glenn Gopman, is that the benefits are spread across the various "expenditure" items - for example, more money is budgeted for "Public Works" than is currently spent by the county.

To see if this is so, a side-by-side comparison with a budget delivered by the County in 2013 is required, and this will be done in a future post (because this one is already running a little long).

Next MAC meeting scheduled for May 22nd.

Newsflash: "NO to incorporation" signs are coming down... NOT [updated]

We have received reports that Alicia Rook, agitator-in-chief and ringleader of the "NO to incorporation" effort, was called by Building Dept./Code Enforcement with instructions to remove the "NO" lawn signs by May 15 or face a fine of $500.  The ordinance cited is Section 33-99, and the logic is that 'since no election has even been called, these damn eyesores are a little premature.'

In a related story, property values in the area just went up 5%.

May 20 update:
West of Aventura has learned today that after a fierce retaliation, Alicia Rook's army of "No" have succeeded in reversing the county's initial decision to improve the appearance of the community.  From the County:

Good Afternoon!

Ms. Hayden:

The County Attorney has advised that the provisions of the sign code provide for removal 30 days after the issue is on the ballot.  As this matter has not yet come for a vote there is no restriction on erecting these signs. Therefore, you may place the signs on the property.

 

Chaveli A. Moreno

Director, Neighborhood Regulations Division

Miami-Dade County Department of Regulatory and Economic Resources

11805 SW 26 Street -Suite 230

Miami, Fl 33175

Telephone: 786-315-2506

Fax: 786-315-2548

chaveli@miamidade.gov 

The end? 
Stay tuned.