Let's Hear It

Vol. 5, No. 7 1 August 2024

TOWN HALL MEETING

In case the font is too small, the Town Hall meeting is

on Tuesday, August 6

at 6:00 pm

in the Commission Chambers, City Hall

The agenda is about the Referendum that the Mayor wants residents to approve. His PC has mailed two fancy, glossy flyers to urge everyone to vote "Yes." There is little on these flyers that explains what this Referendum would actually do. Indeed, what is suggested - "protecting residents voices" - does not seem to be supported at all by the language of the Referendum, nor the Resolution the Commission passed in April about the Referendum.

(See my post of July 18 to read more about the Mayor's explanation of this Referendum and my interpretation of his remarks.)

The City's CFO wrote the following in response to questions I had asked:

"I will attempt to answer each of your three questions:

 

(1)    What happens if the indebtedness were to exceed 5%?

 

Currently should the City want to issue any debt, (i.e., bank loan, revenue bond, general obligation bond, etc.) in an amount greater than 1.3 million (5% of $26 million, the City’s General Fund operating expense), it would require a unanimous vote of the Commission.  Should the referendum pass in August, and should the City wish to issue debt which is NOT a General Obligation Bond, which requires majority approval of the voters, it would require 4/5 vote on ALL debt, irrelevant of any threshold.

 

(2)    When would debt be subject to a voter referendum?

 

A General Obligation Bond requires majority approval of the voters.  Hence since majority approval of the City voters is required to approve the issuance of such debt, then the vote requirement for Commission would be 3/5, a simple majority.

  

(3)    What debt would not be subject to a voter referendum?

 

There are multiple debt instruments that exist and are available, however, the most common types of “non-public referendum” are bank loans and revenue bonds.  Those types of debt instruments do not require voter approval, hence requiring a higher Commission vote count of 4/5."

Unfortunately, the CFO's explanations do not make things clearer for me. It would seem to me that to include more resident voices, more Commissioners would have to approve expenditures - which is what the current Charter states when compared to what the Referendum suggests.

Whatever the intention might be, the Referendum, as worded, is unclear and non-specific. For that reason, I am very much against voting "yes" for it. It does seem to me, that passing the Referendum would make it easier for the Commission to put the City in greater debt.

What I find most troubling is that the Mayor does not detail what improvements are needed, nor what bids have gone out, nor what bids seem most suited, nor what the costs might be.

I remember when the plans for the South Miami Market (i.e. the former Winn-Dixie site) first came to the Commission. Of course, the Planning and Zoning Board had its recommendation. The plans actually looked appealing, even though the apartment building along 74th Street was going to be 12 stories. But the wings on each side of the central plaza were going to be two stories. The central plaza was going to be open to the public for outdoor seating at restaurants, and the street was going to be paved so that it looked like it and the plaza flowed together. Bird-safety glass was required, and the full service grocery store (which Fresh Market is not) was carefully defined. The current Commission and Mayor approved a lot of changes to the initial proposal. As far as I know, none of the changes are ones I like. So, because of that history, I am not at all in favor of giving this Commission - only one of whom will be different after the November election - any greater freedom to fund large projects that the residents have not voted upon.

VAGUENESS AND UGLINESS

It's weird, our both Mayor and the County Commissioner representing South Miami approve vague flyers. I have not seem the reference to the "verbal abuse" our Miami-Dade Commissioner has accused her competitor of voicing. I have seen a summation of the support money that Commissioner has raised and the increase in her net worth*, and specific references to articles about Miami-Dade politicians' large expenditures.

*Interestingly, those websites are no longer available - at least

not by scanning the bar box.

What is also a contrast is that Commissioner Regalado's flyers are from groups with appealing names** which do not specifically claim to be her PACs and which do not have her approval. Meanwhile, the flyer from Cindy Lerner is from an organization called Cindy Lerner for Miami-Dade County Commissioner.

**Paid for In-Kind by Foundation for America's Families, an

organization in West Palm Beach that has "no recorded board

of directors."

Keep safe, stay healthy!