UPDATE: Proposed
Storm Water and Road Assessment Fee- part 2
I wanted to
provide a follow up to my previous post on the subject from earlier in the week.
Since then, several Commissioners’ and our Village Manager were kind enough to have
reached out to offer a further explanation of this proposed assessment. At this
point, I want to thank them all for their time and assistance in helping me to (somewhat)
get my mind wrapped around this idea.
Let’s first
start with answers to the questions posed in Part 1: (answers are in red from Heidi)
1) Is this a one-time assessment or one that will repeat
annually?- It is set-up to repeat (with an amount being
determined each year) – but ideally the storm water master plan will position
us to competitively go after state and other funding for the actual
work. It is very difficult to get funding for studies and
easier to get money for actual work – but they want to see the plan before they
fund this. This has been our experience the past couple years in
Tallahassee as funding has gotten more competitive.
2) If so, for how many years? - Until the work plan is complete.
3) What is the cost of this master plan? – Storm water --
$97,750 Roads -- $102,250 – shared equally by every property
owner. (Ouch!) There are no admistrative fees in the Assessments.
4) Are there any guarantees that, after paying the cost of "the
plan," we will receive money from the State for these repairs? - No
5) And if so, how much more than the master
plan fee already paid? - I am not sure I understand question #5. Aside- this was a poorly crafted
question on my part. My enquiry was the amount of money (above the cost of the
master plan) that we could consider to receive. In other words, is it a 1:1
matching amount -or- would the State
offer money (if accepted) to fund most of, if not the entire project without a financial
match from us. End aside-
I feel this point was important due to what I project as the cost of these two improvements.
I feel this point was important due to what I project as the cost of these two improvements.
Part 2
What I
gathered from our Village Manager is that the State may be in a position to fund most of this… again, if approved. Specifically
with the storm water section. However, there is no guarantee to anything other
than us absorbing the cost of the plan(s) through the assessment.
I then
questioned about the quote from Craig A. Smith:
Did it go out to bid? - No.
The bid was prepared by the Village Engineer who was procured through competitive bidding (previously)
The Village has an existing relationship with this firm and feels that it is a competitive quote. It has already been reduced by some $77K
Please see the linked resolution approving Craig A. Smith
and associates and the process in which we engaged with them. The
Staff report even mentions further storm water and roadway projects.
Is there a possibility of striping down the assessment features in order to reduce the cost? – Looks like a no go
Is there a minimum requirement (on
the plan) that the State would approve? Meaning less than what was submitted? - Also looks
like a no go (You see where I'm going with this and I'm striking out hard here)
How long does the Master Plan last? Does
it need/have to be renewed or amended over time and if so, at what cost?
No answer… yet/ Update from the Engineer:
No answer… yet/ Update from the Engineer:
In municipalities such as Biscayne Park where you are
built out and there is little to no commercial and industrial properties then
it should be updated every 15-20 years.
Who would know the climate in
Tallassee as to forecasting future money availability? In other words, are they
expecting a tightening, loosening or to remain as is? – Working on
this now
Lastly,
how did we arrive at the per household assessment amount? – Formula = the total cost of the plan(s) ($200,000) divided
equally among the number of households [1079]
So neighbors, there we have it. In truth, I am still having difficulty
in swallowing the $200,000 cost for the plans. I think for our size community
it is exorbitant! But hey, then again, I am not an engineer.
There remain
potential pratfalls to this proposed assessment. There is no way to mitigate
this fact. However, if enacted, it would provide a real solution to these
issues as opposed to slapping a band aid on it as we’ve so often… perhaps too
often gotten away with in the past.
Let me know
what you think.
Milton
Hunter
Biscayne
Park Resident
What is wrong with them to not get competitive bidding? How is this not a requirement for governments? The fact that the fee was reduced by $77K only proves how bloated the initial quote was. Sounds like someone is shirking their fiduciary responsibilities.
ReplyDeleteH,
DeleteI'm not completely sure I relayed this correctly. I will update this post (soon) with new & additional information. Please understand that this is not my area of expertise. Moreover, a fact find mission.
Milt,
ReplyDeleteMilt,
Thanks for putting this out for discussion and providing the administration an opportunity to respond.
Chuck
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteChuck,
DeleteChuck,
Well done Milton, thank you for posting all this information!
ReplyDeleteHi Jorge,
DeleteStill digging. We'll get to the bottom if this, or end up in China, who knows?
From William Pierce:
ReplyDeleteThank you Milton for sharing, All good info. A few questions I have:
1) With out bidding it out how do we know this is a competitive bid?
2) What exactly is it that the village would like to do?
3) Where would we be able to read the exact details of what was bid to this firm and what they plan to do?
4) With my company every so often I bid out to other companies in order to be sure I am not missing out on a savings. How long has it been since the village has bid out to anyone else? And what is the name of the firm?
5) Will this only effect certain areas of the village and where are those areas?
Look forward to any insight and comments
William
Hello William,
DeleteFirstly, you're welcome! I'll do my best to answer your questions, but would also suggest that you check in with our Village Manager Heidi. She has been most helpful with me in gathering this information.
So, here we go:
1) My understanding is that we went through a bid process (last year) and selected this firm (Craig A. Smith & Assoc.) as our Village engineer then. There is a link above that covers this. I also heard that professional services don't have to go to bid. (I don't know if I agree with this when dealing with this amount of money) I am working on getting some comps from other cities that this firm has provided plans for to compare.
2) We now need to have a master plan prior to going to the State for funding. To build a complete infrastructure plan of action.
3) Fred should have the back up on this. If not, I'll email him a copy that he can forward as I don't have your email address.
4) The name of the Firm is : Craig A. Smith & Assoc. Heidi could better answer the rest of this question for you.
5) My understanding is that this would be a plan for the entire Village. Since the scope of the potential work is large, perhaps our problem areas would be addressed first.
The Village is proposing to raise the entire $200K in one year to pay for the master plan. Even though State funding is not guaranteed, there is no way we could save enough to pay for this scope of improvements ourselves.
"Rock... meet hard place." Hope this helps-
Milt
Additional thoughts on funding amounts:
ReplyDeleteAs mentioned above, funding is not guaranteed. And, based on the scope of assumed costs for projects like these, a 1:1 match wouldn't help us either, in my opinion. In other words, if the State were to say, "congrats BP, we will provide you $5M towards your new road work plan... you pay the additional $5M yourselves." In this case, I don't see it happening.
The idea is to assess the amount of $ saved from outsourcing sanitation. That is where we are now @ $200K per year. Here's the math... based on this example, it would take 25 years to raise this amount via assessments. By that time the "plan" would have to be amended again. We haven't' gotten what that would cost yet. Again, just an example.
It would have to be a situation like the Village Hall/Annex building grant. But, can we really count on that, year after year after year based on the anticipated cost of these improvements?
There remains a great deal of uncertainty as to the probability of success. We need to be diligent in thinking all options through before taking any action.
Milt,
DeleteI think back to the economic crash that started in 2007, and one of the theories regarding its cause. Some say there was too much debt, specifically in the housing market, and people who frankly could not afford to be homeowners, and should not have been homeowners, were given loans on which they eventually defaulted. The argument is that these people could not afford to own homes, and they should not have had this experience made available to them.
Are you suggesting the same thing about being an autonomous municipality? Are you saying that we here cannot afford to maintain ourselves, including road repairs and adequate drainage, and so we have no business being independent? If it costs $200 more per property per year, or $500 more per property per year, to provide infrastructure for ourselves, and we're unwilling to pay it, have we disqualified ourselves as entitled to exist autonomously? Some members of the last Commission seemed to think that. They thought we should surrender ourselves, and hope it's MSV who absorb us (although taking the chance it could be CNM or the County). Do you agree?
Fred
Hi Fred,
DeleteI think you missed an important component regarding your opening statement. The housing market crash was brought about by the deliberate design of predatory lending that falsified property values, applicant’s income and used bait-and-switch teaser ARM (adjustable rate) type mortgages. The applicant would have never qualified for the loan once it reset to its higher rate…. or if factual information and valuations were used. The banks both bet on the defaults and profited from the results in packaging (and misrepresenting) these bad loans and selling them to others. This was predatory lending practices at its worst.
What I am suggesting is that we look at our history objectively. How innovative and proactive have we been to new concepts and ideas prior than being forced to? We operated, until recently, under an outdated government style of self-management. We elected Commissioners to run departments that in many cases had no practical experience or training in doing so. And why? Because this was the way it had always been done before.
Understand, this is not meant as a slur towards these residents. I respect them for the giving of their time and best efforts offered towards the running of our Village. But, we found that lacking and then moved to install professional management.
Over time, we continued to increase our tax millage in order to operate the Village. We have now reached the point where we are, for all extensive purposes, capped out. Shouldn’t this be a warning sign of systematic failure?
Best efforts or not, the system simply is not working as intended. And part of that is due to our small size (1079) homes with no other form of tax revenue. We’re working to correct this but we have no idea as to future success in annexation or when it may occur. What if we’ve exhausted our reserves by then?
So, our style of government (past and present) has resulted in a 9.7 millage rate (10 being the cap) and we’re still struggling to meet our responsibilities. When it is time to consider that the existing way of doing business may no longer work in today’s environment?
You mention, “what if it costs $200 more per property per year, or $500.00,”or $1,000.00 via assessment I’ll add. When does it end? When is enough, enough? When does it become clear that the system is broken? Taxing our residents should not be considered a bottomless pit.
To be clear, I am absolutely not suggesting to “surrender ourselves.” Quite the opposite. I am suggesting for us to be proactive, see things for what they are and not just hope and pray that somehow things will right themselves. I feel at this stage that we’re deluding ourselves in thinking that by doing the same things, the same way as we’ve always done them will bring about a different result.
To put it bluntly, evolve or die.
Milt,
DeleteI wrote you a long reply a couple of days ago, but it disappeared when I tried to post it (from someone else's computer), and I got demoralized and unwilling to try to recreate it.
Suffice it to say that the Village is our home. Like our personal homes, it needs maintenance. As we do with our personal homes, we need to pay it costs to maintain our "home." If the millage doesn't cover the cost of maintenance, we need to pay the money out of our other accounts. We are not at all "capped out." We have simply come to the easy end of raising the millage. We can raise it above 10, and perhaps we should, but it takes more than a Commission vote. Or we can increase residential revenues by using assessments. We can increase revenues by annexing. The only thing I think we can't do is shrug our shoulders and simply not do the maintenance. We don't that with our personal homes, and we shouldn't do it with the Village.
Fred
Hi Fred,
DeleteSorry you lost your original post... I hate when that happens. I do however, have a different opinions from yours in that the Village should be considered more of a business, and not that of our home. We all live here, sure... but it is a much larger responsibility than maintaining our individual homes. And also, as homeowners we do not receive taxes (from other homeowners) to pay for our maintenance.
Businesses constantly need to adjust, innovate and modernize their models to ... well, simply survive. Forget thrive, just to survive it in todays ever changing world. And as you know, all don't make it. They arrive at their conclusions too late, or fail to have the foresight to act before it gets out of their control.
To suggest that any municipality should just keep increasing taxes beyond the established scope is not viable. In my opinion. This should be a clear indication that the system is no longer working as intended. Like any business, you need to analyze your business model and make the required changes to correct the deficits... if possible. Sometimes, you may be forced to do things that you never envisioned... but that doesn't change the fact. I'm not suggesting that this isn't being done or hasn't been done by our management here. You've said, and I've been told from our current and previous managers that there may not be much more room under our existing model.
So now what?
There are other options available than to continue to burden taxpayers with higher taxes with no end in sight. Are we in agreement on this? There comes a point when, (if not always as it should be), elected officials need to consider the welfare of all of their residents and the effects of their actions. How are we going to attract new buyers, which you said we needed, with taxes and other potential fees that are out of whack (or much higher) than competing neighborhoods? Like a business, we are competing with others for the same market.
Fred, we are already paying the cost to "maintain our home." [= 9.7 millage rate] Look, you have always been one to ask for answers to problems. I'm just trying to provide you with some alternative ideas or logic that as of yet, has not been discussed or considered. Why? You may consider it all too radical, that's your choice. But is the logic completely flawed and as such, rendered unusable?
You previously asked if we should simply "surrender ourselves" or if we will just "shrug our shoulders." I'm not, nor anyone else who has participated in this discussion suggesting that. I hope that this is not what you have gotten out of these posts and comments from our neighbors.
One neighbor said:
Delete"Agreed, Agreed - one should maintain one's home. But - one normally has a finite amount of money to work with and therefore as costs rise must make adjustments if one is to continue to maintain said home. Continuing business as usual just results in run down or even abandoned properties when one's money runs out.
If we follow Fred's advice - millage over 10, more and more special assessments - we will end up pricing ourselves out of existence as buyers will be turned off and sellers will be stuck. He forgets it's not just the various maintenance items we need to fix, our fixed costs (insurance, utilities, wages) continue to rise. We can't possibly keep up just with more and more taxation."
All opinions are welcomed... anyone else?
The issue is not finite resources per se. It is a decision as to how much money to spend and for what. The money is not finite for almost anyone. We could have lower taxes, or we could have somewhat higher taxes. We could assess. We can also annex, but there are people who don't want to do that. They have never explained what they want to do about our functional problems, since they don't seem to want to increase revenue in any way at all.
DeleteWhen it comes to our personal dwellings, we can choose what maintenance to do, and how much to spend. When it comes to the Village, we live together, and we have to keep each others' needs and desires in mind. In the last election, three Commissioners were elected. One was re-elected and the other two were new. All three ran on platforms that suggested an intention to improve the Village, including through taxation. Two were open about annexation, and the third did not rule it out. So if we are to listen to our neighbors, they seem agreeable to maintaining the Village through taxation and annexation. The Village voters who do not want to tax, do not want to annex, and maybe do not want to improve anything either did not vote, or they were the minority who voted for the candidates who did not win.
Let's move this along. Let's agree to fix the streets, including providing functional drainage, and to improve the medians. Let's plan ahead to erection of a wall along the track, to improve noise control and to limit unwanted access. Imagined prospective buyers will be "turned off" by a high tax rate? How will they feel about the prospect of living on streets and medians like ours? Not exactly a turn-on. And the secret is that although our tax rate/millage is high, the taxes are generally low. Home values here are comparatively low, so a higher percent of a lower amount is not high. Many of us say we emulate Miami Shores. Prices there for our houses are much higher, and the tax rate is almost the same. So the tax there is much higher than it is here. What we have is a good deal. We should take advantage of it, and maintain ourselves to a proper standard..
Fred
Fred,
DeleteI do not remember any serious discussion from any candidate suggesting higher taxation during our last election. Annexation yes, but higher taxes, no. Perhaps I am mistaken, but that's not how I remember it.
Some comments from one of our residents:
ReplyDelete"It goes back again to spending $200,000 in hopes of getting outside funding which we all know is a gamble - whether or not we get it and if we do does it even match the amount we spend on the survey? Just because we've saved a couple hundred on sanitation doesn't mean they have the right to take it back for a gamble.
If changing scope of work and/or amount of fee means we miss this years' tax bill sobeit. I just feel that $200,000 is a large amount to gamble on something that has had less discussion than the swale ordinance. And - has anyone ever thought that if we fix what we already have we just may not even need anything else? Shouldn't we at least try to do something that WILL get us results first? "
Over the weekend I heard from several of our residents. The purpose of these posting was to generate conversation, explanations and to share and discuss ideas, opinions, etc. Below are some further clarifications sent to me:
ReplyDelete" Thanks for publishing your dialog with Heidi. Professional services are selected under a state statute called the Consultants Competitive Negotiations Act (which applies to all public agencies). Engineers, Architects and similar professional services are selected based on qualifications, not fees. State law precludes "bidding" fees. Fees are negotiated for each project in the absence of any comparative proposals.
There's more. Read their proposals. How well thought out is CAS' storm water proposal when they start out stating that "municipalities are being required to implement a plan to reduce off-site discharge" and then turn around to propose engineering services for collection, pumping and discharging storm water to canals? Or consider the statement that the master plan would be good for 15-20 years. In their own words they allude to the evolving regulations concerning storm water disposal. So how does a master plan stay valid for 15-20 years if regulations keep changing. What if we annex? (that is a thought I had as well- in addition to the costs involved in updated or amended this master plan-how much $?-MH)
On roadway proposal there are a lot of hidden costs. The Village is responsible for providing surveys, traffic counts, signage and stripping maps etc. in order for CAS to perform their services. We do not have any of these documents and a survey of roads and swales alone would exceed the cost of CAS's proposal.
To go on. Why would we pay them to simply reiterate state standards for road construction, signage stripping etc. It's actually all available on line. What's the relevancy of a tree survey? and so on. (would it be simply to tell us to remove all of our large trees where roots are affecting the roads? - Is that something we would want? -MH)
So as you have stated in other words, we are gambling $200,000 on transient, flawed and inflated studies. Despite my criticism of CAS' proposal - which I think is largely boiler plate mumbo jumbo -they are a reputable firm. Rather than gamble $200K, it would be more productive to have an assessment to actually implement improvements."
Milt,
ReplyDeleteI'm responding to your longer reply on 4/28 at 7:36 AM.
You say you're trying to provide alternate ideas and logic, but you're not providing anything. You're just complaining about the taxes. I completely understand your complaint, but you're not offering anything else. You describe the current BP taxes, and whatever may come, as a "burden," but I think you misunderstand. Our taxes are not something being done to us. They are what we agree to pay ourselves to have what we have, and to maintain it. I bought my house in mid-2005. I paid too much, because it was the height of an inflated real estate market. But I'm not complaining. I wanted a house, I wanted one here, and what I paid is what it cost to have what I wanted. It's the same with taxes. Whatever they are is what it costs to have what we should have. Maybe you don't agree what we should have. Maybe others don't, either. Maybe some people don't agree that we should have, and pay for, streets in reasonable repair and that don't flood, and medians of which we can be proud. I will tell you from personal experience that there are BP residents who believe that if it would cost them $100, or $50, or $20, or $8 a year, to have public art, then we shouldn't have it. It's too much of their money. They may feel the same way about taxes calculated as 9.7 mills, or 10 mills, or 15 mills, or an extra assessment. And maybe those same people would not pay for their houses what those houses would cost them today, or what I paid in '05. OK, that's a philosophy. If they would rather rent, or live in a more poorly developed and poorly kept surroundings, then that's their choice. I don't choose it to stay that way, and I said so loudly and clearly when I ran for office, and got elected. I promised "The Best We Can Be," and I'm sticking to it.
In my opinion, 9.7 mills was a mistake. It should have been 10, at least. And we need to annex. And we need to assess. We need the money, because we need the improvements. This is what we do, and what we should do, for ourselves. It's not anyone taking from us. It's we giving to ourselves.
(To be continued)
Fred,
DeleteIf all you've gotten out of this discussion is that "I'm just complaining about taxes," then you have indeed missed the point.
I will steer this back to the central topic of the proposed assessment to pay for a master plan (surveys) when I have time prior to our next meeting.
Milt.
One of our residents asked me to forward this:
DeleteWow....where to begin.
Taxes most certainly are something done to us for a very basic reason - we won't all agree on what the best ways to spend those tax dollars are. In addition - as long as taxes can be raised and then supplemented with special fees there is simply no incentive to find efficiencies or economies in how things are done.
I went walking last night which is always a real eye opener. So many poorly kept properties. I'm not even counting the actual abandoned or derelict properties. I mean yards that are nothing but weeds and dirt, mildewed and chipped walls, crooked awnings, rotting wood.
I think those things are a far greater turnoff to perspective buyers than minor street flooding or cracked pavement. It sure would be nice to see the same passion shown for tougher code enforcement - as is being shown for streets and drains.
Oh and last time I checked $200,000 surveys do not actually fix drains and roads. You have to actually hire people to do the specific work.
Where we should begin is with your identifying yourself.
DeleteIt's true we don't all agree about how public money is spent. Those who can't bear life like that need to live somewhere that doesn't tax and allows everyone to do what s/he wants. Otherwise, we compromise. Let's suppose you live with someone, and one of you wants to do a home project. The other doesn't, or doesn't want to do the same scope of project as the first. Is this an example of someone being "done to" by the other, as taxes are imposed by some onto others?
The incentive to find efficiencies, instead of just taxing, is a manager who wants to do a good job. We have that. We've had it twice in a row. I, for one, have no complaint or criticism, and I have no doubt about the creativity and ambition of either of these managers to have done an excellent and money-saving service for the Village. Does that still leave someone who doesn't agree? Of course it does. That happens in a universe of two people, too.
So you don't want the wishes of some to be imposed on others via taxation, but you don't mind the aesthetic senses of some imposed on others via Code. If there's an important difference, you'll have to make clear to me what it is.
I agree that a survey and plan cost money and result in no direct and tangible change. I would liken this to a survey you might commission of your property, or a plan from an architect, or a request for medical advice. You will pay for nothing but an opinion or a plan. You should consider it essential that you do that, unless you're capable of doing it for yourself. If you personally have expertise in planning drainage or road projects, and you want to save the Village, and yourself, money, please let the manager know you want to provide a plan, and you want to do it for free. If your credentials are appropriate, I'm sure she, and the Commission, will graciously accept.
Fred
Look at the sanitation issue. I was one who argued that it didn't matter who picked up the garbage, and what truck they were driving at the time they picked it up. Our opportunity was to save considerable money, and stabilize Village functioning, by outsourcing. There were many, as you recall, who argued that they wanted what they wanted, and if it cost them more, or even much more, that was OK with them. It was never clear they meant it, but they very clearly said it. So fine. Great. They understood that you can have what you want, but you have to agree to pay more for it. You might pay more than you want, more than you should, more than it seems to be worth. But they were OK with that. They wanted a certain person to pick up the garbage (until he retired), that was an important part of life in BP to them, and they were willing to pay an inflated cost for it, but they don't want, and want to pay for, better streets, better drainage, better medians, and public art? Difference of philosophy, I guess. There was a time I agreed with them about the garbage. Had it not been for my careful investigation of the matter, I would have voted for what they wanted. But it became clear to me that it didn't matter who picked up the garbage, and that it wasn't worth the extra money to have a certain person do it for a while. You couldn't tell who picked it up, as long as it got picked up. You can tell whether or not the streets are flooded, or are in such disrepair that they're increasingly impassable, or that the medians look awful. You can tell whether the trains create too much noise, or vandals and mischief-makers cross the tracks to prey on Village homes. You can tell whether the neighborhood is enhanced with public art. That's where I'd spend my money. I encourage the rest of my neighbors to do the same.
ReplyDeleteFred