Monday, January 6, 2014

A sample annexation petition – City of Sweetwater – transmitted on August 3, 2012.

Please CLICK HERE to view an actual transmitted application by a municipality seeking to annex land located within unincorporated Miami-Dade County.  This application is dated August 3, 2012, and is date stamped as received August 6, 2013, by Miami-Dade County. 16 months ago.  The application begins with a description of the application (page 3 of the 51 page .PDF).  FIU had stated its strong support for this application by letter dated March 27, 2012, (page 5 of 51) from FIU President Mark B. Rosenberg.

Note also that August 3, 2012, is not the start date of this annexation process.  This application was years in the making.
This annexation application involves State land (FIU) that is non-taxable.  Note that FIU is also served by its own police department and is otherwise independent/largely self-sustaining regarding services.
Note the following essential components of this application:
Copies of the Sweetwater Council Resolution Expressing Desire to Initial Proposed Boundary Change (pages 10-11), (13-19)
Proof of Written Notice of Affected Property Owners of Public Hearing Where Resolution was Unanimously Passed (page 21)
Lists of Services to be Provided  (page 33-37)
This post is provided to enable fellow Palmetto Bay residents (as well as the current mayor and council) with facts as to what is involved in annexations and the projected time frame, if successful.  A completed application may take a full year (if all the ducks line up); the application could be denied (with a 6 month waiting period for re-filing) or it could linger forever with Miami-Dade County.

Click the link to review ARTICLE I. BOUNDARY CHANGE PROCEDURE of Miami-Dade County which provides the specific procedure that Palmetto Bay must follow to annex these lands.
Please see Sec. 20-3. Initiated by governing body of municipality.

MAIN POINT: Is it smart practice for our mayor and council to be investing significant village financial reserves for a return on investment that is relies on land we may never have? It is a chicken v egg argument as they may argue that we need to investigation our options before we move forward, but then again, the county would be less inclined to allow a 'land grab' based upon a tax base rich commercial property.

No comments:

Post a Comment