Conclusion…

UPDATE: Proposed Storm Water and Road Assessment Fees- part 3

This will conclude our discussion on the proposed storm water and road repair assessment fees. As mentioned in part 1, I hope that this has brought about some additional clarity and a better understanding of the proposal. I would now like to extent my thanks to all of our residents that chose to participate. As of the time of this writing, these articles have been viewed 331 times and there have been 34 comments. So, the coverage of this has been far greater than I, or anyone else could have accomplished by word of mouth alone.

As with any discussion, the core topic got expanded upon to include other philosophies. The purpose of this conclusion is to circle back to the main subject and analyze what we have discovered.

The Genesis of the Idea:

During the Waste Pro workshops held last year, our Manager presented several (4, if I remember correctly) options as to our future sanitation fee structure. One of these options was to take the saving gained from outsourcing and funnel those saving directly into a fund for road and storm water repairs/improvements. This was presented simultaneously with the outsourcing discussion.

The Selection Process:

On February 4, 2014, the Village advertised a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) 2013-05 for Civil Engineering Professional Services. An evaluation committee met on August 1, 2014, and ranked the 8 proposals submitted. Of the 8 proposals for civil engineering services, Craig A. Smith & Associates (C.A.S.) ranked the highest. The Village previously engaged with C.A.S. to oversee the storm water and road repair project at 907/909 NE 111th Street and NE 111th Street between 111th Street and 113th Street.

 

Most pertinent to this discussion, “Staff is requesting authorization to have C.A.S. oversee all future professional services related to storm water and roadway improvements in the Village.” 

The Master Plan Proposal:

 

During my meeting with our Village Manager, she showed me the original proposal from Craig A. Smith (C.A.S.) for both surveys that totaled approx. $277,000.00. After some negotiations, the current fee for services is $200,000.00 net (there are $6,182.00 in fees that also apply (gross) somewhere else- I didn’t make note as to where they go.) Total revenue collected: Storm water survey fee= $100,770.00 - road repair survey fee=$ 105,412.00.  Total= $ 206,182.00. The amount to be levied against each parcel is: $93.40 for storm water, and $97.69 for roads.   

The Next Step: 

We received a Notice of Public Hearing in the mail that was dated April 15, 2015.  This stated that on the next regular Village Commission meeting on May 5^th, 2015, those two resolutions (2015-23 / 2015-24) would be heard with the intent to establish the assessment fee(s) for both the storm water repair/improvement and the road repair/improvements beginning on October 1, 2015.  

There was a discussion on this during the April Commission meeting. This was prior to the Notice of Public Hearing being mailed out to us and comments from residents were few.  

My Involvement and the Reasons Behind It: 

As I have already stated, my first reaction was that these plan fees were exorbitant based on our small size of 1079 parcels… homes.  And after all of the research that I have complied, I still do. However, I wanted to attempt to remain as objective as possible and went to work for more answers and details. 

During my meeting with our Manager, I asked if there was a way to reduce the scope of the survey to reduce the cost, in that some of the fee tiers seemed unnecessary - I asked if there was some “minimum standard required” by the State in order to qualify for funding - I asked for comparable plans from other similar municipalities (if there are any) to compare costs-  I even asked if we could “wink and nod” as to having the plan and then pay for it out of the grants if successful. (Probably my most unethical question) but hey, I was looking under every rock here. 

Conclusion: 

In researching this subject and in my discussions with our residents (those who chose to participate) the overall sense I got was that there is resistance to gamble (as some have referred to it) $206,182.00 for just surveys with no guarantee of State funding. Remember, these assessment fees do not include any actual work, just the cost for the plans. And there are several circumstances where we may have to amend or update these plans at an additional cost. How much more then? I didn’t get an answer.   

I was able to come up with, off the top of my head, a number of reasons why this proposed strategy could be unproductive, resulting in a loss of our money. There are clear and present pratfalls to this proposed assessment design. Actually, in my opinion, there are more reasons why this idea could fail… than in it succeeding.  

 

Milton Hunter

Biscayne Park Resident

 

Got Answers… Got More Questions

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.

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.

http://www.biscayneparkfl.gov/vertical/sites/%7BD1E17BCD-1E01-4F7D-84CD-7CACF5F8DDEE%7D/uploads/Agenda_Item_7.f_Regular_Commission_Meeting_02_04_2014.pdf

 

 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:

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

 

Proposed Storm Water and Road Assesment Fee

Over the weekend I received a Notice of Public Hearing regarding a potential new assessment for both storm water and road repair fees. It explained that effective October 1, 2015, the Village intends to charge each property $200.00- raising a total of slightly over $200,000 (for simplicity, I will round up the numbers used for explanation). The description offered was, and I quote, "The purpose of the assessment is to pay the cost of the master plan and estimate costs of repairs and improvements related to storm water/ road repairs and improvements."  

The purpose of this post today is hopefully meant to engage our readers here on the subject and to stimulate conversation. I attended the Commission meeting, and most of them, in which this was briefly discussed. However, I still have questions that have not yet been answered. Here are the first couple that comes to mind: 

1) Is this a one-time assessment or one that will repeat annually?

2) If so, for how many years?

3) What is the cost of this "master plan?"

4) Are there any guarantees that, after paying the cost of "the plan," we will receive more money from the State for these repairs?

5) And if so, how much more than the master plan fee already paid?

 

Let me now take a step back to mention that I may be missing the point here in that I haven't researched this subject in great detail. I assume that others reading here may be in the same position. What I did not see in the Notice nor hear from the Commissions explanation was the "master vision" behind this potential assessment. What will we, the taxpayers be seeing /getting for our money spent? Will it be tangible improvements or just the cost of some master plan? 

As far as the storm water issue, I don't think we need to spend a lot of money on some plan to learn that we need to both clean and maintain our drainage systems regularly. Do you? This seems to be a common sense issue.

 

Yesterday, I was driving through North Miami and into Biscayne Park just after the heavy rains during the early afternoon. The heavy rains, something we haven't seen for weeks, were most welcomed and needed...but let's stay on point here.  In driving through North Miami I noticed that they have a real problem with street flooding. I was glad that I have a higher than normal ground clearance on my car!

Once I got into Biscayne Park, I made an extra effort (thinking about this proposed assessment) to drive and look up and down our streets and took the "long way home" (if such a thing can be said for our small community). What I saw were standing puddles, but it was a major difference from the small "no wake lakes” I drove through in North Miami. Now, did I drive up and down every street… the answer is no.

As for the road repair fees, again what is the master plan? Are we to get, from our assessment, brand new roads with a fresh black topcoat? Or, are we to pay $105K for repairing pot holes?

In my opinion, part of the problem with government, both large and small, is that they tend to sprawl, often beyond their means with the taxpayer always relied upon to pick up the tab. In large government, banks have been deregulated to the extend that they have become leveraged casinos that required a taxpayer "bail-out” when their bets didn't pay off. In Europe, situations are ever more dire. They have crossed the line of trust by "bailing- in" bank depositors (by a certain amount of their savings) when their banks required capital. When or where does it end?

We have a sky high millage rate will little, really no tanigible room for further increases. We've already played that hand over the years. I get that. I do find it nessessary to mention, for balance, that we did realize some saving with the choice to outsource our sanitation service. And that tax relief was welcomed… though it looks now as if it may have been short lived.  

Personally, I would like to see and hear from our Commission and staff, new innovations and efficiencies discussed towards smaller government. And over time, that some of those saving be returned to our taxpayers through a lower millage rate.

To circle back to an earlier comment, I will admit that indeed I may be missing the point here. But, I do think it is important to understand what plans and concepts our leadership has in proposing new assessments or taxes that touches all of us.

Milton Hunter

Biscayne Park Resident

Mandolin Aegean Greek Bistro. I Should Have Gone to Mykonos. (Mykonos The Restaurant, Not Mykonos the Island.)

When I want a Greek meal, I usually go to Mykonos on Coral Way, but I was thinking about maybe something different.  Maria's is further down the street on Coral Way, but I was there once, and I can't remember that I thought it was better than Mykonos.  Maroosh in Coral Gables was a contender.  There's a place on Miami Beach, but I don't like going to (South) Miami Beach.  BarMeli is not open on Sundays.  So the winner was Mandolin.  It's very convenient (43rd and NE 2nd Avenue), the Yelps were very positive, and the price was reasonable.  This seemed like a good place to come to know, for future Greek jonesings.

Mandolin is crowded.  And it's noisy.  But everyone seemed to be having a good time, and whoever was responsible for those Yelp recommendations was either there again, or they'd be back soon.  The offer was a table at the top of the outdoor patio-- a table that seemed like a throne, compared to the rest of the tables on the patio-- or a table inside.  The choice was for dining al fresco.

A restaurant that crowded couldn't have had highly attentive service, and it wasn't.  I'd say adequate.  The menu is spare.  Spanakopita was not on it for dinner, and the server explained they serve them only for lunch.  Some of the usual appetizers were there, and so were some salads.  My companion and I were eating vegetarian, and not one entree qualified.  So we chose two appetizers and two salads.  The wines, by the way, were standard and too expensive.  We passed on a bottle.

The Turkish sampler was essentially uninspired.  It included hummus, shredded beets, and a melange of tomatoes and walnuts.  It was all too salty.  My companion says the stuffed zucchini was the best dish we got.  I suspect she thinks that, because it was she who picked it out.  It was so-so at best, and the tomato sauce at the base of it was simply not good.  The bulghar salad was adequately good, but it was $14, and it was neither good enough nor ample enough to have been worth it.  The Greek salad was $14, too, and it, too, was smaller than expected.  As my companion correctly pointed out, it had a monolithic slab of feta on top, and it didn't look like anyone took any particular interest or care in throwing it together.

I had sung the praises of Mykonos (restaurant), and my companion asked me if Mykonos was better.  Much.  Vastly.  Less money for more and better food.  If I had wanted to spend as much money as I did at Mandolin, I would have been far better off at BarMeli, had they been open.  The service is better anywhere else, too.

I'm No Longer Sure Why I Bother

Noah Jacobs seems to take offense.  Someone sent to me a recent facebook whine of his, in which he complains of my reference to him in the blog post that precedes this one.

Noah was not a central figure in that post.  He got one passing mention, because he was part of a Commission majority that made a faulty decision.  But it appears that in his search for relevance, he wants to interpret this passing mention as a focus on himself.

Noah's wish to be about something, and somehow centrally worth talking about, is his problem.  What is curious is what he does with this ambition and contrived self-image.  His complaint was about my mentioning his name in this blog.  So did he write to me about it?  No.  Did he post a comment about it, or even accept my repeated invitations to write his own blog post?  No.  Instead, he reaches out, I suppose, to his facebook readers (I'm assuming he has some), and he whines to them.

But what's his point?  Where does he think he's going with this, or where does he think it's taking him?  There is no discussion or debate, unless his (imagined?) facebook readers respond to him.  He's complaining about me, but he takes the trouble to try to reassure himself that I won't find out about it.  Am I missing something, or is this empty, and lacking in courage and conviction?

I have said repeatedly, and I will say again, that this blog is a public space.  Anyone is more than welcome to read what's here, and anyone can comment.  Anyone can be an "author" and produce his own views of anything.  The blog is supposed to be about BP, and it is expected that BP will be the central topic.  But even that is not required or essential.  Noah is invited-- I have very specifically and personally invited him several times-- to participate here.  Noah lives in BP, he was briefly an elected official, and it might be imagined that he has some interest in the place.  So why does he skulk around, spewing his half-cocked and distorted views, in a place where only a selected few can see them?

I myself have been singled out for criticism by the Biscayne Times in the past.  When that has happened, I have written a rebuttal, and sent it to the Biscayne Times.  The fact is, if they have trashed me to their readers, I would like my rebuttal to be read by their readers.  What good would it have done me to have complained only to my closest friends?  And the Biscayne Times can choose, and has chosen on numerous occasions, not to publish my rebuttal.  That has struck me as disturbingly unfair.  That can never happen in this blog.  I don't control what's here.  I wouldn't.  If Noah Jacobs, or anyone, feels confronted, or affronted, in this blog, then this blog is the very best place to offer a defense, or even a counteroffensive.  Noah criticized me.  Perhaps I deserved it.  Frankly, because I am not on facebook, and Noah did not reach out to me, I didn't read what he wrote.  I skimmed it, because someone sent it to me, but I concluded it was not for me, so I ignored most of it.  If Noah has something to say, in his own defense or at my expense, this blog is the place to say it.

Come on, Noah, go for it.  Give me the best you have.  If I still disagree, or I still think you're wrong, I'll let you know.  Oh, that's why Noah doesn't write his stuff here.  Right, he did tell me that.  He likes to control the information and how it's presented.  No, Noah is right.  This is not the place for him.

"The Elephant in the Room"

In the Commission meeting last night, there was a presentation from our annexation strategist/lobbyist, Becker Poliakoff.  Their representative let us know what has been accomplished, and where we are still lacking.  We have now done what we can, and we are in the unenviable position of doing battle with the City of North Miami over who has the better case to annex the area in question.  Becker Poliakoff are working on how to stop the annexation train that CNM is trying to guide through the County Commission.

Becker Poliakoff have tried pleading and cajoling, all to no avail, and they are now trying to represent us "from a position of strength," not one of weakness.  They have threatened CNM that if it does not relinquish to us the area in question, they will object to other and even unrelated CNM acquisition/annexation targets.

In questioning the Becker Poliakoff representative, Barbara Watts demanded attention to "the elephant in the room."  Specifically, she wanted to know what was told to residents of the annexation target, to induce them to sign a petition approving their being annexed, and she wanted to know why "we" were objecting to unrelated ambitions on the part of CNM.  These elements of what she seemed to interpret as mischief were what she saw as the "elephants in the room" regarding our scheming and maneuvering.

The "elephant in the room" is really this: the last BP Commission, the one that included Mayor Jacobs and Commissioners Watts and Cooper, chose not to apply to annex the tract in question.  At a time that there was no other applicant, and there were no residents.  When the tract seemed to be ours for the taking, and every expert and knowledgeable advisor urged us to annex, these three BP elected officials chose to drop the ball.  They demonstrated complete lack of vision, ambition, courage, and even common sense, and they did not mark our place by submitting an application.

In our dealings with CNM over this annexation effort, CNM have held firm in refusing to back away from this tract.  And they have had one and only one argument, one trump card, one song to sing: "we applied first."  They are absolutely right.  The majority of the last BP Commission allowed CNM to put forth the first application, and thereby gain what CNM, at least, think is an important, if not dispositive, upper hand.

That was the "elephant in the room."  Barbara Watts, who was casting about looking for someone to blame, someone whose methods could be impugned, was a central figure in causing unspeakable trouble and extra expense for the Village.  She did not have the decency to admit her own blameworthiness, and certainly not to apologize for her poor judgement and failed representation of BP.

What, Another "Love Fest?" Perhaps Not Quite as Loving as Some. But a Fest All the Same.

At the March Commission meeting this past Tuesday, we had the second reading of an Ordinance approving our borrowing up to $350K to finish the log cabin/annex project.  Although the dispute about this matter has been mostly irrational and pointless, still there has been some.

Roxanna Ross and Ana Garcia from the last Commission, and Roxy, David Coviello, and Heidi Shafran Seigel from this one, worked hard to get the State to grant us over $1M for this project.  There's no way we could have done more than repainting without this kind of help.  But considering the extent of the complex tasks, we had to contribute $50K of our own, and even at that, we came up $350K short.

Either we do the work, or we don't.  And if we do it, we have to scare up $350K.  David Coviello and I were apprehensive about doing the whole task at once, because of the shortfall, but our Commission colleagues, and a number of our other neighbors, persuaded us that we should do it all now.  There was discussion about where to get this kind of money, and the most forceful and confident advice from our Manager was to borrow it.  Again, a number of our neighbors agreed.  Not all of the Commission was so sure, though.  Barbara Watts declared the equivalent of "over [her] dead body," and Bob Anderson was distinctly skittish.  For this approval to happen, at least four of the five of us had to agree, and Bob at least tentatively did agree last month.  He didn't feel good about it, but he was willing to be dragged along.  So the first reading of the Ordinance passed by its minimum requirement: 4-1.

This week, we had to revisit the matter for the second reading.  Bob appeared to have reconsidered his reluctance, and indications were that he was now committed.  Barbara was not so quick to capitulate, if that was what would get her endorsement.  (Yes, for those keeping score, the matter was already settled, with or without Barbara.  But since the resistance was so empty, it would have been nice to have had the most enthusiastic commitment possible.)

The pre-meeting grumblings have been increasingly weak, though they have happened.  They have seemed almost more reflexive than considered.  Barbara had dredged them up last month, and it seemed as if she might try to take her quixotic stand this month, too.

She was disarmed, though.  Heidi Seigel had spent time with her, answering all her questions, and providing full reassurance, and Chuck Ross in his public comments gave her every reason to have full confidence in agreeing to borrow.  In the end, Barbara voted with the rest of us, in favor of taking the loan.  The vote was 5-0, as it should have been all along.  What Barbara told herself and us was that she could see it was going to pass anyway, so she might as well climb on board.  But I would like to offer her more credit than that.  I think she really did get it.  I think she saw not only what was going to happen, but that it was the right thing, and even why it was the right thing.  And it was great to have her endorsement.  It might not have included all the unequivocal enthusiasm in the world, but she did join us: the rest of the Commission and all but a very few heels-dug-in neighbors.  Or was it just one heels-dug-in neighbor?

SMDCAC Makes Me Very Happy.

I have talked before about South Miami-Dade Cultural Arts Center.  If you don't remember, it's an arts venue in Cutler Bay.  They have music and theater there.  It's 27 miles down I-95/US1 from my door to the theater.

I heard a concert there tonight.  I heard one there last night, too.  I'm there a lot.  It's very well worth the trips.  The fact is, I have never heard any concert there I didn't love.  The talent is amazing.

And the prices are low.  One of the first shows I ever saw there was Keb Mo'.  If I remember correctly, the ticket price was about $40.  It was about $70 to hear him at the Lyric Theater in Stuart the night before.  The ticket prices at SMDCAC are always low.  And parking is free.

The staff there are most unusual.  I am on friendly terms with Eric Fliss, the managing director.  I buy tickets usually from Brian or Dora.  They used to call me Mr Jonas, but now they call me Fred.   They greet me that way.  When the ticket-takers greet you, they're unbelievably friendly.  They act like you've done them a valued personal favor by coming to the theater.

And then there's the unfortunate event of a concert that can't be attended at the last minute.  I myself haven't missed any, but some of the people I go with have.  When I approach the box office to say some of the party couldn't attend, they take the tickets back, and put the value of them on my account.  I use that credit to buy other tickets.  Who does that?

Do yourself a favor, and check out smdcac.org.  Take a look at the rest of this season.  There's lots of stuff, it runs quite a range of styles and genres, and it seems unimaginable you wouldn't find something that appeals to you.  I've often attended concerts there just because they looked intriguing, and I've never been disappointed.

There's a regular auditorium, and the acoustics are excellent.  Then, there's a cabaret room where all the seating is at small tables, with food and bar service.  The closest I ever sat was with my knees touching the stage.  For about $20-$25 per ticket.  To hear great performances.

If you think I'm exaggerating, ask John Holland.  I've seen him and Elena there more than once.

This is an incredible resource for this County.  (It's a County-owned venue.) If you go, I promise you won't be sorry.

A Message From Steve Bernard and Me

From Steve:

For the First Time Ever, Biscayne Park is About to Borrow Money

Seeing as how no one else (except Commission Barbara Watts - see below) has brought it to your attention, there's a First Ordinance reading tomorrow night (2/3/15) to borrow $350,000. 

The purpose is to pay for the difference between State Grants accepted by the Village and the estimated costs to build a new Administration Building and rehab the Log Cabin. Here's the Agenda item - http://www.biscayneparkfl.gov/vertical/sites/%7BD1E17BCD-1E01-4F7D-84CD-7CACF5F8DDEE%7D/uploads/Agenda_Item_9.a_Regular_Commission_Meeting_02_03_2015.pdf

Our Current Charter, passed in 2006, allows for borrowing, pending certain requirements, and I do think that there are times when a government can borrow responsibly, but the term "responsibly" apparently has different meanings to different people.

There are many questions on this Ordinance (and there will have to be a Second Reading, although I don't know when that might be, by law it has to be at least 10 days from the First Reading), so I'll just put some of them out there, and you all can decide if now is the time to make this decision.

1. As I said, Biscayne Park has never borrowed money before, other than for vehicles, most of which have been lease purchases. Seems like such a momentous occasion lasting 15 years might be worthy of some conversation from our Commissioners (other than at the Commission Meeting), or a newspaper article, an email blast... something to engage the public to get our thoughts. But - nothing but silence, even though the Commission has known about this shortfall since the middle of December. Where's the outreach and transparency?

2. When only one bank responded on 1/22/15 to a 1/14/15 RFP for financing, why didn't we hold off so that we could get more options? The deal CNB is offering us is $350,000 at 4.25% for 15 years - could we do better if we had more than a one week RFP? Is the loan such a problem that no other bank wanted a part of it?

3. The annual cost of the loan, for 15 years, will be $31,876.40. Where is it coming from? According to the backup, $20,000 comes from our Contingency Fund, and $16,577 comes from something called, “Returned to Reserves". Amazing how after years of saying how we're going broke, we can in one month come up with almost $32,000 at the drop of a hat. Maybe more importantly, if anyone knew we'd have this shortfall during our budget season, why didn't we plan for this? Maybe because once again, we're not going as broke as we've been told? And if we didn't know we'd have a shortfall... well, what does that say?

4. There is good news - there's more money in our finances that we thought. As per the backup, pg 5 , "The Finance Director also highlighted that the “½ Cent Sales Tax” revenue is on track to increase from the amount that was projected in the revenue budgeted line item." It doesn't say how much more, but enough that there's no concern about paying an extra $32,000 this year. What about the next 14 years? Is it possible that when this Commission says we have to Annex because we're going broke, they throw around statements to 'prove' we're going broke, but when they want to borrow $350,000, things are going great?

5. And even better news on our reserves? Pg 5 of the backup states, "While the most previous fiscal year audit is to be completed in the spring of 2015, we anticipate returning an estimated $100,000.00 to reserves."  Wow! So instead of our reserves going down (a big part of the Annexation argument, and still no answer from the Manager or Commission about exactly what we've spent our Reserves on in the last  to 10 years), "As of the September 30, 2013 audit, the audited general fund reserves amount for the Village is: $407,685", so this year we're going to add 25% of that amount. Tell me again how we're going so broke we had to outsource Sanitation (and $74,933 of the money is coming from the sale of our Sanitation Trucks) and Annex other areas.

6. What's the planned collateral to the bank for this loan? Page 6 says, "the Finance Director is recommending that the Village pledge its “½ Cent Sales Tax” revenue that is received from the State of Florida as collateral for the proposed loan." I'm sure confused about this - if we need revenue so bad... why are we, and how can we, pledge funds that we need to operate the Village?

7. How did this go so wrong - did we seriously ask for Grant money for a project that the Grant couldn't cover and we had no money for, did we not even attempt to reduce the Scope of Work to stay within that budget, did we not commission the Architect to come in on budget or pay redesign fees, did we not make public the Shortfall until the night we signed a Contract for more than $833,000 (at an un-televised Special Commission meeting), thinking that we could figure out some way to make it work - spending money without know where it was coming from? 

Yes, our Log Cabin needs significant work. Yes, borrowing is now legal and it has it's place. But is this the way it's going to happen? With just one loan bid, with virtually no public notice, without concern for what our collateral is, with a diametrically opposed version of what we've been told our finances have been? Or maybe the tactic of putting our millage rate at 9.7 was purely so the argument for Annexation could be made - because that extra $32,000 a year sure would have gone a long way to 'making Biscayne Park a better place to be'.

Let's talk about this before jumping into a 15 year commitment.

Sincerely,

Steve Bernard

Steve and I are not pleased.  We're both concerned about the Village borrowing money.  I don't share Steve's complaint about the fantasy that Village residents didn't have an opportunity to hear about this.  It was on the Commission Agenda for December, and anyone who wanted to listen or express an opinion had an excellent opportunity.  I'm sorry if Steve was busy that day, and didn't come to the meeting, but that was the chance to "talk about this."*

And it's not really the first time the Village has borrowed money.  But I can see that Steve makes a more dramatic point if he claims it is.  I like a good story as much as anyone else, so I thought it was an engaging enough hook.  Steve clearly states that this is the first time the Village has borrowed money, except for the other times we borrowed money.  I hope this leaves no ambiguity.

Steve agrees, and I agree with him, that "our Log Cabin needs significant work."  It's a shame Steve didn't have that insight when he was on the Commission, or when a majority of the Commission were people he particularly favored, for two years until the end of 2013.  If he'd realized the needs of the log cabin then, he could have led a campaign to make those improvements when it would have been cheaper and easier.  Oh, well.  Better late than never, perhaps.  Although if it were that simple, Steve wouldn't be complaining.

I'm not sure what Steve means when he says Commissioners should discuss these things, but not only at Commission meetings.  I agree Steve has done a good deal of talking about things outside Commission meetings, but he should know about the Sunshine Law, and that some of us take it seriously.

Steve is whining that only one lender responded to an RFP.  Was there a point?  As many lenders responded as wanted to make the loan.  As long as the number of respondents was at least one, we have solved our problem.

But then, Steve gets real.  He points out that we are about to incur debt that we don't have an improved way to settle.  This is important.  What we want the loan for is something that will not make the Village any more money than it already has.  This is a risky business.  We create more expense without creating more revenue to cover it.  That's why I was against borrowing.  I agree with Steve here.  Steve gives us a little elbow, and reminds us about that reserve that's getting juicier.  I'm all over it, Steve.  That's exactly where I thought we should take the cost of the annex building overrun, so we wouldn't have to borrow.**

I also agree with him when he reports the "good news" that Village finances are improving.  Yes, that is good news.  Steve is tempted to conclude that maybe it's such good news that it may mean we don't have to annex other land usage across the tracks.  No, the news is not that good.  We still can't do what this Village needs to do, even if we're moving in the direction of some increase in revenue.  Not only can't we afford median improvement, we can't even afford the cost of a landscape architect to tell us what that improvement should be.  Fix the streets?  Um, I sure don't think so.  And we're still bemoaning the skanky and dirty mulch at the tot lot, because it costs $30K to replace it with a good surface.  A barrier wall along the track?  Ooh, in our dreams.  Not without a major infusion, like what might result from annexation.  But Steve is not wrong.  Even modest improvement is good news.

I can see Steve's point about pledging Village revenues as collateral.  If we need money, which we do, isn't it a risk to pledge revenue as collateral?  Sure it is, but you don't give up the collateral, unless you default on the loan.  If you feel confident about your ability to repay, you can pledge any collateral you want.  You're not going to lose it.  So Steve is twisting this unnecessarily, but he's given himself good exercise.  I imagine the lad is very fit by now.

Steve and I agree that if the job costs more than we have, we should consider not doing the whole job.  Steve realized this possibility, and so did I, and so did David Coviello.  Dave and I talked during a Commission meeting about holding back part of the job, and proceeding once we had more funding in hand, but we got outvoted by the rest of the Commission.  If I recall, Steve got outvoted a time or two on the Commission, and his three Commission puppets sometimes outvoted the other two Commissioners, too.  That happens.  All I can say to Steve is that you learn to take it in stride.

Finally, Steve and I agree that the millage is wrong.  I've advocated for 10 mills, and so has Steve, when he was on the Commission.  I got outvoted, and Steve did, too.  But I still say we're right.


*Inexplicably, despite all the questions Steve was so careful to ask, he did not come to the Commission meeting last night where answers were available.  That was another opportunity to "talk about this."  Since he clearly did not want the answers, it is unclear what he meant by posing the questions.

**I had prepared to request that if we were to borrow any money, we at least take part of the amount from the reserves.  A number of our neighbors, in their public comments, spoke persuasively about what they considered the inadvisability of taking anything from the reserves, and they urged relying entirely on a loan instead.  They convinced me, and I agreed to support borrowing.

From Liset's Mouth to Your Ears: Peerby.com. And You Might Want to Get Naked.

My brother put me onto this site.  Apparently, he knows it and likes it.  So I joined.  Evidently, Peerby wishes you would, too.

Hi Fred,

Thanks for trying out Peerby! My name is Liset and I wanted to reach out to you personally, because you are one of the first people in your neighborhood to join our community. Congratulations, this makes you a Peerby Pioneer!

Being a pioneer can be lonely at times and Peerby works best when your neighbors become members too. We would love to spread the Peerby sharing spirit all over the world but for that we need help from brave Peerby Pioneers like you. Do you like to help spreading the love and make your neighborhood an even better place to live?

Here’s some inspiration what you could write:

Hey guys! Need something you don't want to buy? Why not borrow it from your neighbors for free? Join me at http://Peerby.com

Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or any feedback for us. I would love to hear from you!

Sunny greetings,

Liset

PS: I don't know why Liset would love to hear from me.  I'm not sure what she has in mind for me to "borrow."  But maybe she'd be just as happy to hear from you.

One of my BP friends put me onto a very interesting wine distributor.  It's called NakedWines.  Their site is nakedwines.com.

NakedWines claims that costs of wines are inflated by too many middlemen, and they endeavor to cut them out of the deal.  The serve as the one link between the consumer and the vintner.  They essentially commission vintners, who are encouraged to make the best wines they can, and NakedWines creates a population of consumers for these unique wines.  In fact, NakedWines says that the wines they commission are not available to anyone but NakedWines members.

I think my friend suggested me to NakedWines, because NakedWines sent me a $100 introductory voucher.  The offer was on a case of wine (12 bottles), with an extra three bottles added.  So 15 bottles of supposedly exceptional wine.  NakedWines says the "retail" value of this case would be around $350.  Their normal discount price is $169.99.  My voucher brings that down to $69.99.  Shipping is $9.99.  So I'm supposedly getting $350 (plus shipping) worth of wine for just under $80.  Thereafter, I'm back to their normal discount pricing of somewhere around $170 per case.  Plus $10 shipping.  They never send you any wine you don't specifically request.  They have a site, you go on it, you choose what you want (if you want anything), and they send it.  If you don't ask, they don't send.

The intended level of involvement in NakedWines is what they call their "Angels."  I'm not an Angel.  Yet.  I have to wait for an opening, maybe in a month or so.  Angels are charged $40 a month, every month.  This creates a bank which NakedWines uses to underwrite the vintners, and which represents the Angels' advance investment in purchasing wine.  Whenever I want wine, the money that will pay for it will come initially from my NakedWines bank.  Only if I want more wine than I've paid for in advance (at $40 a month) will NakedWines further bill my credit card.  And if I ever no longer want to be a NakedWines member/Angel, they will return to me whatever is in my NakedWines bank.

I've had some of these wines at my friend's house, and I can attest that they are, in fact, excellent.  So I joined.  If you want to do this yourself, let me know, and I'll sponsor you.  I assume that will mean you'll get a voucher, too.