Chuck Ross
I must respond to some of what Fred has posted and Barbara’s comments, both of whom I consider my friends. It’s good to have this point counterpoint and keep it constructive. It is a matter that requires a practical analysis.
But first I want to rephrase some of what Fred has posted about my position. I believe we need to do something to raise additional revenue and one of the few options is annexation of the commercial properties east of the Village.
There are a couple of points that need to be corrected.
First, there is no guarantee what millage rate the village will be able to initially assess. The annexation process is a negotiation between the Village and the County Commission (CC). One of the components is the initial rate that results from the process. It is up to us to justify to the CC what will be charged according to Alex David one of our planners.
Next, I don’t think Sally Heyman would ever say “Tax the hell” out of them, not sure where that came from, after all they are her constituents too.
As Barbara indicated I said that area will be annexed by some city and if not us then it will likely be North Miami. Should the Village reach out to the property owners east of us, yes and the Village will likely do so after the analysis has been completed.
If BP annexes the proposed area what are some of the benefits to the area?
1) One of the best Police Departments in Miami-Dade County.
2) The personal attention of belonging to a small Village.
3) The convenience of dealing with Village hall not that far away to transact Village business.
4) Becoming part of the Biscayne Park community.
Pro’s to BP:
Other than the taxes what other advantages are there for BP? There are additional revenues above and beyond the Ad Valorem tax base, there will be a Police presence in a place that has presented many challenges to keeping BP safe. The proposed area has a limited number of residents approx. 560 or so based on the *420 living units contained in two gated communities. So according to the study the majority of the additional cost to maintain the area will initially be 3 Police Officers and a FT or possibly PT Code Officer.
Con’s to BP:
I don’t really see any because as a practical matter BP is running out of resources, the reserves have diminished, critical improvements to our infrastructure need to be made, our police need to be better compensated for the excellent work that they do, and our local streets and medians need to be improved.
It’s not going to come from BP’s existing tax base which is at best flat lined, ad valorem revenues are capped annually, Intergovernmental revenues are on the decrease and expenses are on the increase. Don’t believe me I’ll show you the charts I have prepared based on BP’s Audited Financials.
What if we do not find additional Revenue sources?
My opinion is that in order to survive we will need to cut services. Where will we start? I don’t know you tell me. Our annual General Fund expenses have already been reduced over $400,000 since the year ended Sept 2008. The unrestricted fund balance in the general fund is down substantially despite the reduction in annual expenditures since Sept 2008!
If action is not taken make no mistake, there will be no money for Village improvements, services will be cut and ultimately there will be no Biscayne Park as we know it today, if at all.
Chuck Ross
*One of the Communities is still under construction and will hold 240 units so the number of residents is an estimate.
Chuck,
ReplyDeleteThank you for the post. A couple of things. When you say there are "few" options including annexation, please list and handicap the other options.
I know, because you told me, that we may not be able to open with a sudden increase to 9.5 mills, but that would certainly be where we/they would end up, if that's our BP rate. In fact, Bell David have shown us what income to expect, depending on our millage, and including 9.5.
I like Sally Heyman, and I think she's a great County Commissioner for us. I would never want to insult her, and certainly not to misrepresent her. Within the past year, she came to a BP Commission meeting to talk to us about annexation. It was her birthday, or something, and she couldn't stay more than a few minutes. Please check the recording of her comments, and see that it was then (I'm almost positive it was then, and not something more private I overheard) that she treated us to the "tax the hell out of them" offer. It was somewhat jarring, and I remember that she said it. I have even taken the liberty to quote it, which I wouldn't do if I was just interpreting something I thought she might have meant.
Apart from that, excellent post, very informative, and thank you.
Fred
The other option would be to have a referendum and raise the millage above 10 mills to make up for the lost reserves and provide for the improvements that were discussed. I believe we can do that for two years in a row and then we revert back to the 10 mil cap. The problem I am told from our finance director is that we would lose a portion of our revenue sharing with the State. I have not confirmed this yet.
DeleteI believe that the initial rate and the subsequent years rates are all part of the negotiation with the CC but I will get back to you that.
I'll listen to the tape.
Thank you,
Chuck
I also remember Sally Heyman saying that at a commission meeting and it was a public comment not something said in private. It was jarring to me also and maybe that's why I remember it so clearly and Gary does also.
DeleteI think we need to keep options open and not just rely on the planners. In their first report they did say that they recommended the annexation. It seems like they already have their opinion and now they're justifying it. We could use some input from other experts about ways to generate money or better use the money we have. We use personal financial planners to come up with ideas that we didn't think of for ourselves. Are there financial strategist / planners for cities? Maybe that's something we should explore before we decide that annexation is the only answer.
Barbara
Barbara,
ReplyDeleteOK, I'm not going to dispute the three of you so thanks for saving me the time to listen to the tape.
I'm glad to hear that you want to keep options open, that's what separates you from the rest of the crowd.
If you want to consult with someone then that is Ken Small, you may remember he gave a Revenue Workshop when the franchise agreement was on the table.
Chuck
Check with the League of Cities and have them evaluate our situation. The 5 people sitting on the Dais shouldn't be the ones to decide on annexation. This should be up to a vote of the citizens of the Park after they get ALL the information pro and con. This will change the Park from what we have now to something else.
ReplyDeleteDoc Morris
Doc,
ReplyDeleteThe league of Cities would probably tell us to annex. I would disagree that a vote in December of an odd year when we get 500 or so to vote is a good reflection of community opinion. Further, as we know certain inflammatory "Drive By" flyers get dropped off on the eve of an election with misinformation.
If you want to take the pulse of the community then do a survey.
However, no matter what the opinion is of the residents, the MD league or the average Joesph or Josephine; at the end of the day we still need to find new sources of revenue.
On another matter.
I am going to update my post because I have determined that the number of residents and voters is probably double what was in the "Annexation Analysis" because the planners have only included the existing occupants of Bay Winds and not estimated the Alta Mira residents as that is unknown at this time. Since it is a brand new apartment complex no one knows how long it will take to become completely occupied. I would double the ultimate number of residents and voters for conversation purposes. This does not change my opinion as to what I wrote.
If you double the registered voters then that would be approx. 450 vs 223 listed in the study and residents listed of 559 doubled would be approx 1,100 or so between the two complexes. BP has over 1,800 registered voters and approx 3,100 residents.
Chuck