Palmetto Bay: Indecisiveness. Once again, what's old is now new again, at least in regard to annexation.

Annexation: old news – once again repackaged as new. The Palmetto Bay Village Council discussed annexation of the area west of Palmetto Bay’s current boundaries- this time it was at a Committee of the Whole meeting (COW) held Tuesday, 2-22-2022. Let me jump ahead, does anyone remember that this is the exact same area submitted to the voters in 2016? Unfortunately I have been here since we first incorporation and I pay attention to what has happened as well as not happened in Palmetto Bay. So allow this blog post to serve as some institutional history on Annexation. 

But first, let’s provide some backstory: as they say in politics, they were against it, before they were for it.

 The annexation issue did not end with the election results in 2016. Nope. History repeats itself – watching council meetings have become far too similar to watching the movie Groundhog Day, but far less entertaining. I have to admit, the recycling of concepts is mind numbing, especially as new discussion is the exact same discussion from 2019, involving 3 of the same members of the current village council. It was on April 1 (how apropos) that Mayor Cunningham was one of 3 votes in favor of Palmetto Bay Resolution 2019-65, which provided for the following:

A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND VILLAGE COUNCIL OF
THE VILLAGE OF PALMETTO BAY, FLORIDA, RELATING TO
POSSIBLE ANNEXATION; DIRECTING STAFF TO INVESTIGATE
THE IMPLICATIONS OF ANNEXATION BY THE VILLAGE OF THE
AREA WEST OF THE VILLAGE BOUNDARY ALONG HIGHWAY
US 1 AND EAST OF THE BUSWAY, BOUNDED ON THE NORTH
BY 168 STREET AND ON THE SOUTH BY 184 STREET; AND
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (Sponsored by Councilmember
David Singer) (Vote 3-2: Mayor Cunningham: Yes; Vice Mayor
DuBois: Yes; Councilmember Fiore: No; Councilmember Singer:
Yes; Councilmember Matson: No)

Resolution 2019-65 passed 3-2 on April 1, 2019. It sounded like action, but looks are very deceiving. Nothing happened. The resolution passed, but then the mayor, council and staff simply sat on it, which is commonplace for this mayor.  It sat forgotten and the resolution, prior pending action, was not even discussed at the COW almost 3 years later (34 ½ months) as a new item.  There was no staff report as to any action taken in response to this April 1 resolution directing action. Why? Because no action was taken. The April 1, 2019 action was for optics only. It was obviously killed behind the scenes as it is the only plausible reason for this matter being neglected for 34 months - nearly 3 full years without the current mayor or any member of the village council asking even once for an update on staff (in)action.

FAIR QUESTION: Why is the current village council starting over? Is there any update, any report, anything to demonstrate anything regarding staff investigating the implications of annexation of these very same annexation boundaries? Of course not!

Perhaps the directions as to Resolution 2019-65 were ignored simply to spite the sponsor – Village Council Member David Singer.

It is important to note why Council Member Singer felt it was important to sponsor the resolution and to take control of the zoning along Palmetto Bay's western boundary.  Look to language of the resolution excerpted below: 

WHEREAS, Miami-Dade County has adopted Comprehensive Development Master Plan amendments which provide for extensive high-density development in areas within one-half (1/2) mile of any mass transit stop (including bus mass transit); and

 

WHEREAS, the area contiguous to the western boundary of the Village of Palmetto Bay and east of the busway is presently within Miami-Dade County unincorporated jurisdiction and is within one-half (1/2) mile of potential bus mass transit stop, so that this area is subject to possible high-density development;

 

WHEREAS, the Village might benefit significantly from having this area within the land use jurisdiction of the Village rather than Miami-Dade County (See document “A”).

(Highlighted emphasis added)

Vindication. The mayor and council in 2016 were right! Council Member Singer was right in April of 2019. We tried to get ahead of this very important issue of controlling density, but there was a very calculated misinformation campaign in opposition to the annexation back regarding the 2016 vote and now, once again, that same group has left the area residents holding the bag from probably higher density through their ill-conceived hysteria campaign.

The unfortunate irony is that if a "new" annexation effort commences, it will simply represent more time wasted as well as the fact that neither Mayor Cunningham, nor Charter Officers/Staff appear to have any follow up or institutional knowledge – and it is important to note that this delay will hurt, judging from recent action by Miami-Dade County on the Rapid Transit Zone.

Future post – Annexation takes years. What is the cost of the delay, both from 2016, then from April 1, 2019 to now.  Annexation will be much more difficult now then back then. The cost of indecisiveness as well as politicizing smart growth.

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.