So the logic is: form a new city, and we keep that money at work here, doing things like funding public safety, beautification, stormwater and road improvements, traffic enhancements, park improvements and code enforcement.
But what if there was a law that said that an area "declaring independence" from the county had to keep on paying a surplus to the county? Well, take a look at this, from the Miami Dade County Code:
(d) The fiscal impact of an incorporation on the remainder of the unincorporated area shall be revenue neutral; provided, however, any municipality which does not meet the foregoing requirement, as a condition of incorporation pursuant to Article V of the Miami-Dade County Home Rule Charter, shall agree to make an annual mitigation payment to the County's Municipal Services Trust Fund in the Unincorporated Municipal Service Area Budget, the amount of which shall be determined by the Board of County Commissioners, in the event of a negative fiscal impact of the municipality's incorporation on the unincorporated area. For purposes of this subsection, "a revenue neutral municipality" is defined as an area that previously, as part of the unincorporated municipal service area, generated revenues equal to or less than the cost of services provided to the area by the County. Any annual mitigation amount determined by the Board of County Commissioners pursuant to the provisions of this paragraph shall be established so as not to trigger "most-favored-nation-status" clauses which are contained in any municipal charter. |
The point is constantly made that we are a "donor community"
which means that we are NOT "revenue neutral" to the county; if we leave, the County loses money. The county needs that money to
keep doing whatever it is doing now (spending it elsewhere, it seems). The county simply can't afford having a bunch of "donor
communities" leave, because it would produce a budget crisis (letting Aventura secede, for instance, was a huge mistake for the county, in retrospect). And
that is why 20-26(d) exists: to protect the county.
How might 20-26(d) be applied in our “new city”? We don’t really have to guess – when the NE MAC recommended back in 2004-2005 to form a new city, the next step was a hearing by the county Planning Advisory Board (the “PAB”) held on August 8, 2005 at the Jewish Community Center. Here is what the PAB decided:
How might 20-26(d) be applied in our “new city”? We don’t really have to guess – when the NE MAC recommended back in 2004-2005 to form a new city, the next step was a hearing by the county Planning Advisory Board (the “PAB”) held on August 8, 2005 at the Jewish Community Center. Here is what the PAB decided:
“NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOVED BY THE MIAMI-DADE COUNTY PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD, that it recommends approval of the Northeast Dade Incorporation, after reviewing staff’s report and analysis of the fiscal viability of the proposed new city including staff’s recommended mitigation payment of 1.0 mill from the assessed 2003 tax rolls”
Recall from the earlier post “Your Taxes Will go Up” that a “mill”
is a unit of taxation equal to one-thousandth of the assessed value of a
property. Recall also that the current
millage rate in our area is 1.9283 (which means $192 in taxes for every
$100,000 in property value).
The first line on the MAC budget says that the “revised real property assessment,” that all the calculations are based on, is $1,041,716,358. One-thousandth of that amount is over ONE MILLION DOLLARS! $1,041,716.36, to be exact. So if the PAB decision on August 8, 2005 stood, today our “new city” would still be paying the county over $1M each year! That's right: it's not a one-time deal, it's forever.
If the NE MAC objective is to keep the taxes from going up (I don't know that this even is an objective, but I've heard that said at the meetings), and the current “target” is 1.9283 mills, then the “new city” would either have to give over half of its tax revenues to the county (1 mill from every 1.9283 collected: 1.9283 - 1.000 = 0.9283), or it has to face the reality that the target is an illusion.
This is why the mitigation issue is so central to the discussion of Incorporation, and it had largely been ignored so far in the hopes that the county (at its 2/27/2014 meeting) would take up the Mayor’s recommendation (supported by the Annexation and Incorporation Task Force) to repeal the “poison pill”. Now we know that the issue hasn’t been addressed, and that a “consultant” will study the issue and give recommendations “some day.”
The problem is: the NE MAC doesn’t have time to wait for that report, or for resolution of the mitigation issue: the MAC only exists until February 2015. So it was noted at the 3/27/14 meeting of the MAC that the budget should reflect the mitigation payment to the county, which kind of throws a cold bucket of water on the whole process.
So if you attend a MAC meeting, and you hear the word “mitigation”: pay attention, because mitigation is the difference between: (A) having a ‘surplus’ $974,872/$1,307,643/"77 cents for each $1.00 we pay " and (B) having a deficit. In other words, it makes all the difference in the world.
None of this is an argument against incorporating, but it is a call for the NE MAC to not make its decisions in a vacuum: if the mitigation payment is going to be implemented, it needs to be acknowledged (budgeted for) and negotiated with the County BEFORE a vote on incorporation takes place.
The first line on the MAC budget says that the “revised real property assessment,” that all the calculations are based on, is $1,041,716,358. One-thousandth of that amount is over ONE MILLION DOLLARS! $1,041,716.36, to be exact. So if the PAB decision on August 8, 2005 stood, today our “new city” would still be paying the county over $1M each year! That's right: it's not a one-time deal, it's forever.
If the NE MAC objective is to keep the taxes from going up (I don't know that this even is an objective, but I've heard that said at the meetings), and the current “target” is 1.9283 mills, then the “new city” would either have to give over half of its tax revenues to the county (1 mill from every 1.9283 collected: 1.9283 - 1.000 = 0.9283), or it has to face the reality that the target is an illusion.
This is why the mitigation issue is so central to the discussion of Incorporation, and it had largely been ignored so far in the hopes that the county (at its 2/27/2014 meeting) would take up the Mayor’s recommendation (supported by the Annexation and Incorporation Task Force) to repeal the “poison pill”. Now we know that the issue hasn’t been addressed, and that a “consultant” will study the issue and give recommendations “some day.”
The problem is: the NE MAC doesn’t have time to wait for that report, or for resolution of the mitigation issue: the MAC only exists until February 2015. So it was noted at the 3/27/14 meeting of the MAC that the budget should reflect the mitigation payment to the county, which kind of throws a cold bucket of water on the whole process.
So if you attend a MAC meeting, and you hear the word “mitigation”: pay attention, because mitigation is the difference between: (A) having a ‘surplus’ $974,872/$1,307,643/"77 cents for each $1.00 we pay " and (B) having a deficit. In other words, it makes all the difference in the world.
None of this is an argument against incorporating, but it is a call for the NE MAC to not make its decisions in a vacuum: if the mitigation payment is going to be implemented, it needs to be acknowledged (budgeted for) and negotiated with the County BEFORE a vote on incorporation takes place.
