In September, 2013 Rox Ross submitted a
detailed Agenda Memo as support to move forward with a formal application to
the County to annex certain properties to our east. That Agenda Memo
contains a detailed history of the Village Comprehensive Plan amendments
adopted in 2008 and formally approved in 2010. The plan amendments were
shaped after more than 10 public hearings, held between 2007 and 2010.
What is our Comprehensive Plan?
The Comprehensive Plan is essentially the
Master Plan for the Village. It is a document required by Florida
Statute, submitted to the State, which defines the goals for the Village to
accomplish in the future.
For the future of Biscayne Park the train is in motion, attempts
to derail annexation could permanently jeopardize the best opportunity the
Village has to diversify its tax base.
Steve Bernard, the person pressing for the
“people to vote” on a referendum against annexation, voted to adopt and approve
amendments to the Village Comprehensive Plan in 2008 (Ord. 2008-2) in Aug, 2008
and again in 2010 (Ord. 2010-3) in October, 2010. These amendments
included ADDING a policy to annex unincorporated
areas. Let me repeat
that the amendments proposed in 2008 included adding a plan for annexation!
The motion to adopt the 2008 amendments to the Comprehensive Plan was made by
Chester “Doc” Morris; the motion to approve the 2010 amendments to the
Comprehensive Plan was made by Steve Bernard. The votes were unanimous
for approval of the amendments to the Comprehensive Plan —votes made by two
separate Commissions.
So, Steve voted for annexation twice, once
in 2008 and again in 2010; and Doc Morris voted for annexation in 2008 (Doc’s
term expired in 2009).
One policy amendment to the plan was to
provide as a first priority for annexation, specifically certain properties
to the east of BP and as a secondary priority certain properties to the west
towards 2nd Ave. I refer to policy 1.9 of the
Intergovernmental Coordination Element, page 32 of the Comprehensive Plan.
Both Steve Bernard and Doc Morris sat as
commissioners and actually adopted amendments providing for annexation WITHOUT A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE!
These Commission actions did two things,
as we look back on it.
First, Commission votes twice established
annexation as a firm goal and committed plan. The tracts to the east
identified by the previous Commissions included
an area substantially larger than the area that is subject to the Village’s
current application. The difference is that the current Commission
has narrowed the request and the current application is only for commercial
properties. The current application is less in scope than the policy
adopted by prior Commissions, and does not include the area known as “Peach
Tree”.
What’s more, the second thing these Commission votes did was to create and affirm a precedent regarding Village protocol for changes to the Comprehensive Plan, including annexation. The established protocol is that Comprehensive Plan amendments including annexation are initiatives implemented by Commission vote. --- No requirement for a referendum was asserted by the Charter Review Committee on which Steve Bernard sat, nor by the two Commissions which included Steve, and one
The current commission is now acting on a
policy that was put in place and reaffirmed by two prior Commissions, unanimously!
A plan that has been a work in progress for close to ten years.
It has been determined by our finance
director among other experts going back to 2004 that we need to diversify our
tax base. The last 10 years evidence the fact that we need to bolster our
revenues. So in my mind there is no alternative to annexation and no
alternative has been proposed by those for the referendum or against
annexation.
So Really What’s the Point of a Referendum
at this time?
The current Commission has reduced the scope
contemplated in the Amended Comprehensive Plan, and has taken the path of least
impact to the Village, strictly commercial properties (the two residential
apartment houses are commercial properties).
Ross Memo on Annexation:
Link to Ord. 2010-3:
Link to Ord. 2008-2:
Link to comprehensive Plan:
Chuck,
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure I completely agree with you, unless I don't understand the terminology. When you say there is only commercial activity on the tract we have applied to annex, isn't it true that there is also industrial use and two large apartment buildings? Don't those apartment buildings count as residential, or are they considered commercial, because they are a business?
Also, I think it's important to reiterate, although you said it a couple of times, that some of the same people who are insisting now that annexation must be voted upon by the residents at large, and not just by the Commission, THEMSELVES voted on this matter as Commissioners, more than once in some cases, and NEVER suggested they thought they were out of line to do it, in the complete absence of a general vote. Two or those people, Steve Bernard and Chester "Doc" Morris, voted in favor of annexation, and one of them, Barbara Watts, voted to oppose it, but not one of the three ever said the vote was not theirs, and not the Commission's, to make. The current urge for a general vote is a brand new invention from these three people. They have never explained why they have suddenly changed their minds, having as recently as last year (2013) voted in complete confidence (Watts) as a Commission-only matter. The fact that none of them has ever offered a viable, or even articulatable, alternative to annexation as a means of diversifying Village revenue sources is yet another lapse.
Fred
Yes the residential apartment buildings known as Bay Winds and Alta Mira are considered commercial properties, I stated this at the end of my post.
DeleteFurther, I concur with your second paragraph above.
Nice post Chuck.... thanks for pointing out the obvious facts once again.
DeleteIn thinking this over, it seems like the "anti-outsourcers" are mostly also the "anti-annexer's" which seems to be simply the "anti-change" movement. Their logic is flawed when based on the facts.
I cannot fathom how anyone doesn't understand (when based on the facts) that we've lost money in 8 out of past 10 years (possibly 9 of 11) and currently lack the reserves to even clean up after a hurricane- that some change HAS TO HAPPEN!
Clearly, our old-school model is not sustainable. Is the continuance of Biscayne Park even important to these residents? Since there has been no other viable solutions offered, again, what is the point of "lying on the tracks" other than to be obstructionists?
And how does that help our community?
Milt
Milt,
DeleteThe most likely result of lying on the tracks is that you get run over and killed. One is kidding oneself if one thinks he or she will succeed in stopping the train.
Fred
So then Fred, what's the point?
DeleteYou're asking the wrong person, Milt. Lying on the track and imagining stopping a train is not my idea, and it's not my project. I can direct you to the people Chuck mentioned in his post, though. Maybe they can explain what the point is.
DeleteFred
Chuck,
ReplyDeleteJust to expand a bit, when you say diversification of the tax base through annexation (in particular) was recommended by our Finance Director "among other experts," those "other experts" include our immediate former Manager, all three of the finalists we chose to pick her replacement, some Manager candidates who were not finalists to replace our former Manager, and our County Commissioner. We would be very hard-pressed to find anyone, "expert" or otherwise, who does NOT recommend annexation for us. But in theory, we don't have to take the advice. We can touch the flame anyway, "reasoning" that all the people who warned us that it's hot and will burn us might just be being overdramatic. It's not very smart, but we make our own decisions.
However, as you very clearly described in your post, we have consistently and over a span of about 10 years established and reinforced a method for this decision-making. A succession of Commissions have taken it upon themselves, with uniform and unwavering agreement internally (among themselves) and externally (with respect to the response from the rest of Village residents) to make this decisions. And as you also describe, apart from the unusual last Commission, majorities or even unanimous commitments of three different Commissions have all pointed clearly in the very same direction. What, as you ask, is this new idea of public referendum really all about? It doesn't seem to be about anything.
Fred
Fred
Also one of the experts is Ken Small, among other things he lectures for the Florida League of Cities on techniques to enhance Municipal Government Revenue. I quote from a Florida League Flyer, "Ken Small has over 31 years experience in finance and taxation issues pertaining to municipal, county, and state government."
DeleteIt gets harder and harder to find anyone who knows what they're talking about who DOESN'T think annexation is the right thing for us. That includes people who don't particularly know "us," like Ken Small, people who do know us, like Sally Heyman, and people who know us very well, like our own managers and people who have studied us out of a desire to become our manager.
DeleteFred