12-7-2019. It has been 78 Years since the surprise attack at Pearl Harbor. Franklin Delano Roosevelt - Pearl Harbor Address

78 years ago today. December 7, 1941. "A day which will live in infamy." Please take a moment to reflect on this day and remember those who still survived this Day and those who gave up their lives in service of our Country.

Are we reaching the end game? What is the strategy and what is the long term goal of the current Mayor and Village Council Members? Fire by volley.

Mayor Cunningham and the Palmetto Bay Council have made their move. The County has stepped in and is now installing the No Right Turn signs. 

Does anyone remember how that worked out last time? 

Cutler Bay does and now Cutler Bay is countering with stated objections (see letter of 12-5 directed to County Mayor Gimenez). CLICK HERE to download and read the complete letter of December 5, 2019, full size with attachments. The attachments include Cutler Bay Town Council Resolution 19-30, approved 5-0 on May 15, 2019, along with a 2 page excerpt of the Village of Palmetto Bay Neighborhood Access Traffic Study.

I ask that readers take a very close look at what is contained within the letter. It relates back to promises broken by leaders of the current Palmetto Bay council.  I have a link posted below to a prior blog post - October 25, 2019, Thoughts on the most recent litigation FILED by the village: Good faith or is this a less than good faith attempt to avoid a deal that the Mayor and Council had no authority to make? This post specifically identified and discussed this leadership crises - this is just more fall out caused by making a hand-shake deal then running from it. 

I was under the impression that Mayor Cunningham has called for cooperation between the local municipalities, at least at the recent State of the Village Address. Now I have to ask the question as to whether there was any collaboration with our partners to the South regarding these newly replaced No Right Turn signs? Was nothing discussed or worked out at any of the District 8 Meeting of the Mayors or the South Dade Municipal Coalition meetings? 

Again, I have to wonder if this is all part of a hidden agenda to force the hand of the County to act in a manner that provides cover for our local officials to have it both ways - the ability to be able to tell different groups conflicting messages and not have to make a hard decision in public, on the record.

Question for readers to consider: 
The prior Village of Palmetto Bay Council passed resolution 2015-101 back in November 18, 2015. Signs were installed. Does anyone recall the result and why the signs were removed? 
Now, in 2019, is this simply being done with a hope that things will be different or are new traffic measures in place, or ready to go into place to bring about a better result?

Transparency demands an answer from the current mayor and all the current sitting members of the Palmetto Bay Village Council.

More lawsuits on the Horizon? Is anyone else hearing rumors that this current move will trigger the Cutler Bay Town Council taking a page from the Playbook of the current Palmetto Bay Village Council and initiate a lawsuit, this time against the Village of Palmetto Bay as well as Miami-Dade County? 

PRIOR RELATED POSTS:

August 2, 2019, A full update of the Malbrook Traffic and other traffic calming issues - to the extent that the information has been made readily available.

October 25, 2019, Thoughts on the most recent litigation FILED by the village: Good faith or is this a less than good faith attempt to avoid a deal that the Mayor and Council had no authority to make?

December 5, 2019, Meeting noticed: Conflict Assessment Meeting set in Village of Palmetto Bay vs. Miami-Dade County, Florida, for 2:00 PM, Thursday, December 12, 2019, at Village Hall

Small bite updates on the LUXCOM DOAH litigation. Waiting on the pretrial stip, due date moved to 12/12 and the trial beginning 12/18

More litigation updates. The quick updates on the LUXCOM litigation currently pending before the Florida Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH). Not much interesting here. Housekeeping issues. The interesting read will be the Pre Hearing Stipulation. The date for the filing has been moved from 12/8 to 12/12.

December 4: The motion filed by Palmetto Bay was granted (CLICK HERE for the prior related post - CLICK HERE to view the actual one-page order). Palmetto Bay shall be responsible for having a notary public in India with Mr. Mohammed Khan on the assigned hearing date to swear Mr. Mohammed Khan in as a witness and shall provide the requisite documentation for proof. Fla. Admin. Code R. 28-106.213(5)(b).

Palmetto Bay is also required to make all arrangements for a speaker telephone to be available at the final hearing.

IMPACT: Telephone testimony. Burden is on Palmetto Bay to make sure everything is properly set up and working if they want this testimony to go forward.

Why not teleconferencing? Not necessary. Testimony is allowed via deposition in many proceedings. Reading a deposition offers less insight into the witness you neither observe the witness live nor can the judge hear any inflection or hesitation in the voice of the witness. 

December 5: Both parties; LUXCOM and Palmetto Bay joined into an agreed motion asking the court to extend the time to submit the Pre-Hearing Stipulation from December 8, to December 12. The grounds include the 12/5 depo of Petitioner’s Expert Witness and the 12/6 deposition of Palmetto Bay’s Expert Witness. The parties point out that the issues, witnesses, and exhibits may be affected by the deposition of the expert witnesses. (CLICK HERE to read the joint motion).

December 5: The motion is granted. The Pre-hearing stipulation shall be filed with the FRANCINE M. FFOLKES, Administrative Law Judge, no later than December 12, 2019. (CLICK HERE to read this Order).

IMPACT: The pretrial stipulation will be of great interest. Tune in to review that filing. I expect it to be filed at end of day, due to the significance of this document, though it would be nice if filed early.

Meeting noticed: Conflict Assessment Meeting set in Village of Palmetto Bay vs. Miami-Dade County, Florida, for 2:00 PM, Thursday, December 12, 2019, at Village Hall

Post update - 12-5-2019. 6:00 PM - apparently my "spoiler alert" (below) proved to be accurate. Information not provided form the village can be obtained from other sources. The Village released an email advisement (mine was released to me at 5:06 PM) advising of the following:

There is still no information as to whether this resolves the need for the conflict assessment meeting (it does not if the village intends to go through with further litigation), so my original post remains as originally posted:

What are your plans for 2:00 PM, Thursday, December 12? The future of 87th Avenue, the bridge or no bridge, 4-way stop or no way stop or traffic circle for the intersection at 174th may take shape in this meeting. Those interested in the outcome should appear, especially as the village council has not held a public town hall meeting to take public input on the desired actions. (SPOILER ALERT - a possible outcome may already be in the works, privately, pre-meeting - listed at bottom of this post)

As noticed on the Village website:

NOTICE OF CONFLICT ASSESSMENT MEETING IN THE MATTER OF:
VILLAGE OF PALMETTO BAY VS. MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO. 19-03136 CA-01

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Conflict Assessment Meeting shall be held on Thursday, December 12, 2019 at 2:00 p.m. at Village Hall, 9705 E. Hibiscus Street, Palmetto Bay, FL 33157 pursuant to Case No. 19-03136 CA 01 (Village of Palmetto Bay vs. Miami-Dade County, Florida). This Conflict Assessment Meeting is in reference to the matter regarding the intersection at SW 87th Avenue and SW 174th Street whereas the Village adopted Resolution 2019-137 on October 22, 2019 to initiate conflict resolution for this intergovernmental dispute. More than three Councilmembers will be in attendance during the meeting along with Miami-Dade County representatives. 

What is this meeting about? You can find background relating to how the Village got to this meeting through reading a PRIOR RELATED POST of November 20, 2019, Litigation Update. Court approves agreement between Palmetto Bay & Miami-Dade County to stay proceedings pending exhaustion of conflict resolution procedures. Consider the information provided part of your 'toolbox' to prepare to observe this meeting.

What will happen? We will need to wait and see.  

PAST POSTS have discussed the buzz around the village is whether the current Mayor and council overstepped their authority in reaching a formal agreement with Miami-Dade County, through the Department of Transportation and Public Works (DTPW) without bringing the proposal back to the residents. It is a fair question as others have wondered whether this lawsuit is an abject 'abdication of responsibility' of the responsibility of their elected office as spelled out in the Village Charter for Mayor Cunningham and the entire Village Council to maintain civility, communication and advocate for Palmetto Bay with Miami-Dade County. 

Is the lawsuit nothing but an attempt to weasel out of the commitment represented by Village elected leaders to support the traffic circle and force a four way stop as a permanent measure despite an agreed-to short term stopgap? Or is this lawsuit a passive-aggressive back-door attempt to have Miami-Dade County take action on the bridge in order to enable this current Mayor and Council to deflect responsibility (or privately take credit?) for the action? This lawsuit and the Conflict Assessment Meeting may provide some insight. Look for what is said, and what is NOT said at this meeting.  For more background, please review a past post of October 25, 2019: Thoughts on the most recent litigation FILED by the village: Good faith or is this a less than good faith attempt to avoid a deal that the Mayor and Council had no authority to make?

We shall see.

Eugene Flinn

SPOILER - possible resolution already in the works -  Miami-Dade County appears ready to approve seven (7) No-Right Turn signs along 87th avenue. Cost and responsibility of enforcement would fall upon the Village of Palmetto Bay. Note that this would be the most cost effective resolution for Miami-Dade County. The cost of signs is minimal, especially when compared to the cost of the traffic circle the County had previously agreed to fund. 

So much happens outside of public view under this current mayor and council. The meeting may end being little more that public notification of agreement, depending upon who from the public appear and whether there are any objections to the No Right Turn sign proposal.

LUXCOM update – DOAH Judge grant’s LUXCOM’s last-minute motion to allow the filing of an Amended Petition.

Petitioner LUXCOM prevailed in its attempt to amend the petition.  

CLICK HERE to view the order GRANTING its motion.  You can CLICK HERE to view LUXCOM's REPLY in further support of Petitioner's Motion for Leave to Serve Amended Petition that was filed to address the issues raised in Palmetto Bay's response.

IMPACT: The final hearing for December 18 - 20 will be on the global issues raised in the Amended Petition.

SW 136th Street Project update - two meetings separating Pinecrest and Palmetto Bay residents. Palmetto Bay meeting is set less than 3 weeks from final design.

Two meetings upcoming - one directed toward Pinecrest and the other held at the Palmetto Bay Village Hall.  Why not hear from all residents at once? Will the information be the same? 

The Pinecrest meeting is set for Wednesday, December 11, at 5:20 PM. This meeting will be held at Sunniland Park - SW 128th Street and US1.

The Palmetto Bay residents will need to wait for more than a month for their meeting: Tuesday, January 28th at 7 PM - and the meeting is set to be held at the opposite end of Palmetto Bay - at the Village Hall, 9705 Hibiscus Street. (Note that I was told that the date for completion of the final design for the MEGA sidewalk project is alleged to be February 14, 2020).

Regardless, thank you Commissioner for scheduling this meeting. It is long over due, see a PRIOR RELATED POST of November 8, 2019, Time is past due for a Public Meeting to engage and update residents regarding the SW 136th Street Project

OTHER PRIOR RELATED POSTS:

Note that the initial public information meeting was held for all at a location impacted by this project - at Howard Drive Elementary located on SW 136th Street. January 25, 2017: Update on the 136 improvement meeting held at Howard Drive Elementary & Temporary Traffic Tables coming to Farmers Road during County Pilot Program.

October 30, 2019, Pinecrest Wins, Palmetto Bay loses. Pinecrest Council discusses material changes to 136 St Bike Lane. Palmetto Bay may be home to a 10 foot MEGA sidewalk instead of a shared project.

UPDATES - in response to some inquiries received:
Why is Palmetto Bay receiving a last minute meeting date? Shouldn’t there be a single joint meeting where all share the same information?

It’s a fair question. Should not the meeting be as early as possible if the plans are in progress, set to be finalized no later than February 14, 2020? The January 28 meeting is a mere 12 working days before the design deadline.  This late date appears to provide too little time to address the concerns, if any, from those who will lose 100% of the right of way in front of their homes to the MEGA sidewalk. And why not hold the meeting nearest to those affected? The 2017 meeting was held in easy travel of all who would be affected – at Howard Drive Elementary (HDE). And why, when Palmetto Bay is rumored to bear the brunt of the MEGA Sidewalk (up to 10 feet wide), is there meeting being set at a distance of 4.1 miles of driving (HDW, from SW 77th up SW 136th Street to US1 to Village Hall). The Pinecrest meeting is somewhat earlier in the process, set at a much better time and location, accessible to those most involved; a mere 1.2 miles from the Howard Drive location. Ironically, people could easily bike, or even walk from HDE to the Sunniland location, but this is not realistic for those in Palmetto Bay to reach the meeting at Village Hall as easily as their Pinecrest counterparts.

Proposed Solution: Perhaps the best solution is to hold a single meeting at Sunniland Park (3 miles less travel for all) with a makeup meeting in Palmetto Bay. Let everyone hear the same information and the same reaction.

 It is easier for those impacted along SW136th Street to attend Pinecrest meeting location (above)

Than it is for those impacted to travel to the meeting scheduled in Palmetto Bay (below)

As confirmed through an official tweet from the Village of Pinecrest (pictured right, posted 12-4-2019), the two meetings are set by our County Commissioner. It appears that Palmetto Bay would not be having a public meeting for the area stakeholders but for our commissioner's efforts at public involvement.

LUXCOM update – Palmetto Bay filed a strong response, objecting to LUXCOM’s last-minute motion to allow the filing of an Amended Petition. 2 depositions of experts are set for Dec 5 & 6.

The parties are making final preparations for the December 18-20 Final Hearing set in this case.  First  the small bites, the deposition updates:

• 12/05/2019, 09:30 AM, the deposition, of Michele C. Mellgren, Petitioner’s Expert Witness, is set to be taken by attorneys for Palmetto Bay.
• 12/06/2019, 10:00 AM, the deposition of Mark Alvarez is set to be taken by the attorney for Petitioner, LUXCOM.

Now the big issue.  Palmetto Bay filed a Response in Opposition to Petitioner Motion for Leave to Serve Amended Petition(CLICK HERE to view online). 

For background, CLICK HERE, to view the PRIOR RELATED POST of November 25, 2019, LUXCOM filed a last-minute motion to allow the filing of an Amended Petition (total 647 pages).  

As I stated in that post, LUXCOM's right to file this amended petition is far from automatic. The judge has to approve this motion, to allow the filing of this amended petition. The Judge may DENY this motion and force LUXCOM to try this case on December 18th based solely upon the original petition.

The amended petition is based upon an expert hired by Luxcom, identified as Michele C. Mellgren, AICP, identified as a professional urban planner and the principal of The Mellgren Planning Group, Inc. You can review her report, identified as ‘Exhibit "Q-1”’ located on Page 564 of 647.

Palmetto Bay has objected, correctly pointing out the the court numerous issues as t why this proposed amendment is untimely and prejudicial to Palmetto Bay. I strongly recommend that time is taken to read this response in full. Palmetto Bay’s attorneys argue that this Amendment should be rejected by the judge for many good reasons:

First, the Amendment at this late stage is untimely. Palmetto Bay’s attorneys argue that the Petitioner should have known the alleged shortcomings of the Plan Amendment when filing its original Petition. 

Prejudice to Palmetto Bay. It is argued in the Response that any permission to allow amendment to the proceedings, after conclusion of written discovery, would be prejudicial to Palmetto Bay. 

Palmetto Bay’s attorneys argue that Petitioner’s Amendment “…should not be permitted to delay the final hearing, as any exigency is caused entirely by Petitioner’s strategic decision to spring the Expert Report and Amended Petition less than four weeks prior to final hearing.” (emphasis added).

Finally, as stated by Attorneys for Palmetto Bay:

The Expert Report is a sort of Trojan Horse, by which numerous new issues or new nuances of argument are to be introduced into the proceedings, without clear and concise statement of which portion of the Amended Petition governs the proceedings

IMPACT: one of two things will happen. First (and most likely) – the motion to amend will be DENIED by the court and the case will proceed to trial solely upon the original Petition filed August 28, 2019, due to the untimeliness of this last-minute Amendment, or (and much less likely, but possible), the motion will be granted, but a continuance will be required to prevent prejudice to Palmetto Bay.

Happy Thanksgiving 2019

Like millions of others across this great country, we will celebrate Thanksgiving, honoring a tradition older than the nation itself. The Continental Congress proclaimed that the "inhabitants of these states" observe a day of Thanksgiving back in 1782.  Ever since then we set this day aside to give thanks for all our blessings, and this year we have many things for which to be thankful.

Please also take the time to remember the less fortunate.  Many families and children are doing with less, Take the time to become involved in a local charity, with time, if not a donation. There are many ongoing charities that are looking for donations and volunteers.

There is much to be grateful for this Thanksgiving. Alexandra, Katherine, Meredith and I wish you and your family the happiest of holidays.  

Thanksgiving is the busiest traveling season of the year.  Please be aware and be safe. 




Famous Quote:
On Thanksgiving Day all over America, families sit down to dinner at the same moment - halftime.
– (author unknown)

Wednesday is known as one of the busiest days to travel of the year - therefore, in honor of travel day, I present a scene from a personal favorite Thanksgiving Movie: Planes, Trains & Automobiles. Safe travels. Happy Thanksgiving.

A scene from one of my favorite movies - Planes, Trains and Automobiles. Steve Martin and John Candy. This is an underrated movie.



The movie turned at 5:24 of this excerpt. 5:48 - and yes, he is the real article. What you see is what you get. 

Have a safe and Happy Thanksgiving.

Excerpt - document separated from the 647 page Amended Petition - "Q-1" - the report prepared by the expert hired by Luxcom, Michele C. Mellgren, AICP

In response to many requests, I created an except from the 647 pages of Amended Petition down to just the report which is contained in pages 565 - 586 of the Amended Petition.  This document is identified as "Q-1" - the report prepared by the expert hired by Luxcom, Michele C. Mellgren, AICP, identified as a professional urban planner and the principal of The Mellgren Planning Group, Inc. 

CLICK HERE to download and review exhibit "Q-1" (22 pages).

The motion for leave to amend was filed Monday, November 25, 2019. 

Also note: Ms. Mellgren's deposition is currently scheduled for December 5, 2019. This is NOT a public event.

LUXCOM filed a last-minute motion to allow the filing of an Amended Petition (total 647 pages)

Now it gets really interesting - and not necessarily in a good way.  I am still taking a deep dive in this filing, but I want to put this new fact out there for others to review and be aware of as it impacts this important issue.

Luxcom filed a last-minute motion to allow the filing of an Amended Petition (total 647 pages), filed at 3:14 PM, on Monday, November 25, 2019. (CLICK HERE) to view this DOAH filing. I refer to this filing as ‘last-minute’ as the final hearing is set for December 18 through 20, 2019, beginning at 9:00 a.m. We are a mere 3 weeks and two days prior to the expected start date of this Final Hearing.

The motion for leave to amend was filed Monday, November 25, 2019. The motion is only six (6) pages long, but the amended petition itself is 641 pages with exhibits for a total of 647 pages (including amended petition and exhibits). 

LUXCOM's right to file this amended petition is far from automatic. The judge has to approve this motion, to allow the filing of this amended petition. The Judge may DENY this motion and force LUXCOM to try this case on December 18th based solely upon the original petition.

The amended petition is based upon an expert hired by Luxcom, identified as Michele C. Mellgren, AICP, identified as a professional urban planner and the principal of The Mellgren Planning Group, Inc. You can review her report, identified as ‘Exhibit "Q-1”’ located on Page 564 of 647

Luxcom seeks leave to file and serve the attached Amended Petition which is the same as the original Petition except with respect to the addition of Section - "VI.B" which asserts the grounds and arguments relating to the Plan Amendment's non-compliance as set forth and explained in detail in the report of Luxom's expert - Michele Mellgren a copy of which report is directly incorporated into the Amended Petition and attached thereto as Exhibit "Q-1.”

Michele C. Mellgren, AICP, is a professional urban planner and the principal of The Mellgren Planning Group, Inc., which is a planning, zoning and land use consulting firm located in South Florida. Ms. Mellgren holds a Master’s Degree in Urban and Regional Planning from The George Washington University in Washington, D.C.; is certified by the American Institute of Certified Planners; and, has more than 30 years of experience in planning, zoning and land use issues. She has also qualified in both Federal and Circuit Courts as an expert in planning, zoning and land use matters. 

Through legal counsel for Yacht Club by Luxcom, LLC (Luxcom), Ms. Mellgren was retained to analyze the land use plan amendment (LUPA) initiated and adopted by the Village of Palmetto Bay, FL for the former Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) site presently owned by Luxcom. The purpose of this study is to analyze whether the LUPA is “in compliance” as the term is defined in Sec. 163.3184 F.S., which includes the regulatory requirements in Sec. 163.3177 F.S.

(The two paragraphs quoted above was taken verbatim from page 568 of 647).

There will be more to come at a later date. For now, we all can read up on this case.

LUXCOM files its response – responding as to phone v video testimony and meekly challenging the witness as well as the location of the hearing.

Obviously the LUXCOM lawyers fear the 'home field advantage' - This is a hearing before a neutral Judge, not a sporting event where the crowd pumps up the home team. Location for me has always been about transportation (love riding the Metrorail to the courthouse) and/or easy parking and access for me to meet and consult with the clients and witnesses who will be participating in the proceedings.

CLICK HERE to download (from the actual DOAH docket online) the PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR TELEPHONIC APPEARANCE filed by LUXCOM.

This is an update to a PRIOR RELATED POST of Monday, November 18, 2019, LUXCOM litigation update: PALMETTO BAY, filed a Motion for Telephonic Appearance of Expert Witness Mohammed Khan who has relocated out of the Country.

The main points of LUXCOM's argument are:

First, Petitioner objects to phone testimony since it would not allow Petitioner, its counsel and the trier of fact in these proceedings - the Administrative Law Judge - to visually observe Mr. Kahn and his demeanor while testifying.  LUXCOM lawyers argue that everyone participating in the proceedings should have the ability to visually observe this witness and his demeanor. 

This was not unexpected and was discussed in the prior related post of Monday, 11/18.

Secondly, and somewhat awkward, this response serves as a backdoor renewal of the objection to the location of the hearing:
“On a final note, Petitioner previously objected to the current location of the final hearing – Respondent’s own facilities in the Village of Palmetto Bay.” LUXCOM ’renewed’ its objection, alleging that the Palmetto Bay Village Hall “… is anything but a neutral location and it should be moved to the Department Of Administrative Hearing’s video teleconferencing site in Miami which is clearly a neutral and fair location to both sides.” 

Again, I have never personally believed in the ‘home field’ advantage insofar as location of proceedings. There will be no fan advantage and I am sure that the LUXCOM attorneys will be able to maintain their concentration in the face of the hordes of Palmetto Bay home town spectators that they fear.  (So I ask my fellow Palmetto Bay residents to please leave your cowbells and foam fingers at home if you attend the December hearing live.)

On a serious note, there is a crack in the door on revisiting the location of hearing. The real issue is the ability to properly set up teleconferencing. The location of the hearing will turn on whether Palmetto Bay can properly accommodate video teleconferencing.

IMPACT: Expect video testimony and a change in location of the hearing if Palmetto Bay cannot properly accommodate video conferencing for Mr. Khan to testify from India.  I expect that Palmetto Bay will be able to accommodate video conferencing. 

CONTINUING SPECIAL NOTE: Palmetto Bay officials continue to neglect to update the “litigation page” online to include any information relating to this action (or other recent actions) on the official village website (at least as of  2:00 PM, Monday, 11/25/2019). Posting would be for courtesy, as it is not required, but would aid in transparency. As pointed out previously, many of the documents from the prior administrations have been removed from public access online, casting shade on transparency as well as accessibility of these public records.

After all, if DOAH can post these (and many other) documents online, why can’t Palmetto Bay? Don't buy the "ADA" argument. DOAH/the Courts are under the same ADA requirements as any other government entity. There is no lack of ability for Palmetto Bay elected leaders, only a lack of will to make the records accessible.

Litigation Update. Court approves agreement between Palmetto Bay & Miami-Dade County to stay proceedings pending exhaustion of conflict resolution procedures

A short bite update in the case for injunctive relief against Miami-Dade County. Or as this post should be called "why simply send a certified letter to initiate an inter-governmental conflict resolution proceeding when you can direct the Village Attorney to file a lawsuit, so that lawsuit can be placed on hold while the parties engage in an inter-governmental conflict resolution proceeding?" Sound convoluted? Yes, the entire reasons for the following legal action are as convoluted as the statement above. This is but another lesson in how to blow through a legal budget and waste taxpayer money.

Note that as of November 20, 2019, the following has been accomplished (or not) in the case of VILLAGE OF PALMETTO BAY, FLORIDA VS MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, case number 019-031036-CA-01, case filed 10/18/2019:
1. There is no injunction, or even request for a temporary injunction while the case proceeds.
2. The parties agreed to stay this case (as required by Florida Law) while the parties pursue conflict resolution procedures pursuant to Chapter 164, Florida Statutes.

The agreed order was rendered by the Judge on November 18, 2019. This agreed step is actually required under Florida Law. Section 164.0141, Florida Statutes, which places a duty to negotiate and provides under subsection (1) that "If a governmental entity files suit against another governmental entity, court proceedings on the suit shall be abated, by order of the court, until the procedural options of this act have been exhausted."  CLICK HERE to review the complete CHAPTER 164, GOVERNMENTAL DISPUTES

Waste of time and money. In reality, no lawsuit was ever needed to get to this phase. The lawsuit has only served to create needless antagonisms between Miami-Dade County and the current elected officials of the Village of Palmetto Bay. Why do I say this? Because this conflict assessment phase did not require a lawsuit (which was filed October 18 – a month ago) and an agreed order. Per subsection 164.1053, the parties could have completed this conflict resolution phase and either resolved the issue or now had grounds to file the lawsuit. This subsection provides that:

(1) After the initiation of the conflict resolution procedure, and after proper notice by certified letter has been given, a conflict assessment meeting shall occur. The meeting shall be scheduled to occur within 30 days of the receipt of the letter initiating the conflict resolution procedure. Public notice shall be given for this meeting in accordance with s. 164.1031(7).

Palmetto Bay failed to follow the proper protocol. Where a certified letter would suffice, the Village Council took the political gamesmanship approach by instead ordering the Village Attorney to immediately file suit - that has simply sat from October 18 until the agreed order of November 18. This has only delayed the process and antagonized the County.

By the way, when can we, the people, expect to be provided with public notice shall be given for this conflict resolution meeting in accordance with s. 164.1031(7)?

IMPACT: Legal representatives of Palmetto Bay & Miami-Dade County have agreed to talk through participating in a legally required conflict resolution proceeding. A proceeding that could have commenced anytime after 10 days of serving a simple certified letter.

Is there an urgent issue affecting public safety or not? There are inconsistencies in the litigation, the stated purpose of the lawsuit. What is intriguing here is that the Village Council stated that there was an immediate need to the suit for injunctive relief for public safety purposes, yet there has been no pursuit of a temporary injunction pending the remainder of the case and the parties are now engaging in the mediation. The actions of the Palmetto Bay Council conflict sharply as this procedure is not required where:

(If) a governmental entity, by a three-fourths vote of its governing body, finds that an immediate danger to the health, safety, or welfare of the public requires immediate action, or that significant legal rights will be compromised if a court proceeding does not take place before the provisions of this act are complied with, no notice or public meeting or other proceeding as provided by this act shall be required before such a court proceeding. 

See subsection (2).

For background, see a PRIOR RELATED POST of October 25, 2019, Thoughts on the most recent litigation FILED by the village: Good faith or is this a less than good faith attempt to avoid a deal that the Mayor and Council had no authority to make?

As I have stated, The recent lawsuit for injunctive relief is a very big deal. This is diplomacy through litigation, giving up on communication turning the entire matter over to the court where all parties are divested of certain decision making authority. The best thing that can happen is that Miami-Dade County obtains a binding agreement from the current Palmetto Bay Council which will actually bind the council to keep their negotiated agreements.

Fellow residents need to be sure that this council does not enter into any binding agreement that is not in our best interest (and that will vary based upon how each person's interest is affected).

I make the statement above as the continued buzz around the village is whether the current Mayor and council overstepped their authority in reaching a formal agreement with Miami-Dade County, through the Department of Transportation and Public Works (DTPW) without bringing the proposal back to the residents. It is a fair question as others have wondered whether this lawsuit is an abject 'abdication of responsibility' of the responsibility of their elected office as spelled out in the Village Charter for Mayor Cunningham and the entire Village Council to maintain civility, communication and advocate for Palmetto Bay with Miami-Dade County.