Earth Bunny, is that you? A bunny sighting in the neighborhood.

Came home from dinner last night to spot a pair of bunnies running amok in the neighborhood.

Were they temporarily lost or are they part of a feral colony of rabbits? Caught one, the other would not be caught.

More on this later (SPOILER ALERT: a happy ending).

Wild (non-native) bunnies are actually an occasional find here in Palmetto Bay.

Challenge accepted. Palmetto Bay’s canal bank erosion: Another glaring example of mayor and council bluster at council meetings – for optics – but without follow up as soon as the meeting ends and the cameras go off.

I received significant inquiries (and challenges) relating to the post of Feb 23, 2022: Palmetto Bay: Indecisiveness. Once again, what's old is now new again, at least in regard to annexation. Once again, history repeats itself. Loss of interest and follow through, failure to keep commitments made, is a habit that the Palmetto Bay government has slipped into since December 2018.

These inquiries/challenges were basically the same, but for the tone, the inquiries being of the nature of: Can you point to any other examples of failing to act after a definitive directive by Mayor Cunningham and Council? 

Challenged accepted!

The short answer is Yes, of course. Examples include the CANAL BANK EROSION issue. Another example of the failure to follow through. Promises made that have not been kept – far from it.

The current mayor and two councils passed not one, but two, nearly identical resolutions directing the Village Attorney to file a lawsuit against the South Florida Water Management District relating to canal bank erosion, trespass and the taking of village property though the erosion of the canals to the point where the easement had eroded and the canal was now running through village property.

So my questions, similar to the prior post relating to annexation, are as follows:

1. What/where was the follow through, where are the updated reports? (But this issue goes further as this is not an intellectual exercise it is one of a real, pressing need):
2. Why hasn’t the directed dispute resolution process been enacted on either of these resolutions?
3. Has the canal erosion ceased?
4. Have the damaged canal banks been restored?

And again, just like with the annexation process, Palmetto Bay Resolution 2020-80, enacted 9/14/2020, makes no reference to the first resolution (Reso 2019-82) enacted 15 months earlier. This council behavior is eerily similar to the annexation issue where this mayor acts like it is being considered for the first time, rather than owing up to the clear fact that nothing has been done in relation to the prior action.

The Delay Counter:

31 months (over 2 ½ years) have passed since Palmetto Bay Resolution 2019-82 (Enacted June 3, 2019)

17 months (nearly a year and a half) have passed since Palmetto Bay Resolution 2020-80 (Enacted September 14, 2020) 

The bottom line: Nothing. I repeat – NOTHING has happened to date, despite the two strongly worded resolutions were enacted promising and actually directing action by Council Charter Officers.

06/03/2019        Palmetto Bay Resolution 2019-82

A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND VILLAGE COUNCIL OF THE VILLAGE OF PALMETTO BAY, FLORIDA, REGARDING CANAL BANK EROSION, TRESPASS AND TAKINGS BY THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT; DIRECTING THE VILLAGE ATTORNEY TO FILE SUIT AGAINST THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT FOR ALL CAUSES OF ACTION RELATING TO CANAL BANK EROSION, TRESPASS AND TAKING OF PROPERTY BY THE CANAL C-100C PASSING THROUGH CORAL REEF PARK; INITIATING DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCEDURES PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTE 164.1052(1); AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

(Sponsored by Mayor Karyn Cunningham and Co-Sponsored by Councilmember(s) Patrick Fiore, David Singer, and Marsha Matson) (Vote 4-0: Mayor Cunningham: Yes; Vice Mayor DuBois: Absent; Councilmember Fiore: Yes; Councilmember Singer: Yes; Councilmember Matson: Yes)

09/14/2020        Palmetto Bay Resolution 2020-80

A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND VILLAGE COUNCIL OF THE VILLAGE OF PALMETTO BAY, FLORIDA, REGARDING THE INTRUSION OF THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT'S C-100A CANAL ONTO CORAL REEF PARK AND THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT'S REMOVAL OF TREES FROM CORAL REEF PARK, RESULTING IN A TRESPASS AND TAKING BY THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT; DIRECTING THE VILLAGE ATTORNEY TO FILE SUIT AGAINST THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT FOR ALL CAUSES OF ACTION RELATING TO THE TRESPASS ON TO AND THE TAKING OF PROPERTY DUE TO THE CANAL ENCROACHMENT AND REMOVAL OF TREES; INITIATING DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCEDURES PURSUANT TO SECTION 164.1052(1), FLORIDA STATUTES, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

(Sponsored by Mayor Karyn Cunningham) (Vote 5-0): Mayor Cunningham: Yes; Vice Mayor DuBois: Yes; Councilmember Fiore: Yes; Councilmember Singer: Yes; Councilmember Matson: Yes)

 The specifics:

RESOLVED BY THE VILLAGE  OF PALMETTO BAY, FLORIDA, THAT:
Section 1.
(1) Lawsuit Against South Florida Water Management District.
              (a) The Village Attorney, in coordination with the Village Manager, is hereby authorized and directed to file suit against the South Florida Water Management District for the canal bank erosion of canal C- 100C, which illegally intrudes upon, trespasses upon, and takes property within Coral Reef Park not owned by the District.
              (b) The Village Attorney is authorized to include in such lawsuit any and all legal claims, whether or not otherwise identifies herein.
(2) Dispute Resolution Procedures.
              (a) In so far as Florida law requires participation in dispute resolution procedures prior to the filing of a lawsuit by a Florida governmental entity against another Florida governmental entity (e.g., Fla. Statute 164.1041 to 164.1065), the Village Attorney, in coordination with the Village Manager, is authorized and directed to engage in such dispute resolution procedures prior to filing the lawsuit otherwise authorized herein.
              (b) Consistent with Village Charter section 2.1, the Village Attorney, in coordination with the Village Manager, may invite the attendance of the Village Mayor at any dispute resolution meetings with the District.
(3) Official Initiation of Dispute Resolution by the Village Council in Accordance with Fla. Statute 164.1052(1). This Resolution shall be considered the initiation of the dispute resolution process by the Village Council pursuant to Fla Statute 164.1052(1). As provided by the statute, the Village Council hereby states as follows: “It is the intention of the governing body to initiate the conflict resolution procedures provided by this act prior to initiating court proceedings”.
***   ***   ***
(Remainder omitted by available through reading a copy of the complete resolution CLICK HERE)

RESULT - Bold promises made, but not kept (nor have the issues been resolved through any alternative means.

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.

"Happy Presidents' Day to all who celebrate." ??? Whaaaaaat?

 Interesting buzz - 

Ken Jennings on Jeopardy (Monday, February 21, 2022):

"Happy Presidents' Day to all who celebrate."

What was that I just heard? Did he really say that? Quite a buzz. Thought provoking. Was this an awkward or perhaps a political statement made for an episode that was probably recorded at least 2 months in advance, set to air on a specific day.

At least this is a holiday where no politically correct method of observation is required. As I asked (in my official recognition post for Presidents Day) "Do you celebrate this federal holiday by reflecting upon legacies of past presidents, simply relaxing over a long weekend, taking in annual community events, taking advantage of sales or none of the above?"

But "Happy Presidents' Day to all who celebrate." - really? Let's not inflict this on anyone who may not celebrate. And I hope those who chose not to celebrate it went to work rather than spending it as a day at the beach.

Actually I did both - I celebrated Presidents' Day and went to work, someone has to earn money and pay those taxes, including local, State and Federal. Besides, It is one of those days I call a traffic holiday, when traffic is so light it would be a shame not to take advantage.

I could find no local parades for Presidents' Day. I did not find even a blood drive. Were there any public events where the names of the US Presidents were read aloud? As I have noted, Sadly, by some, it is better known commercially as the Presidents' Day Sale where we celebrate and save with great deals! Providing for an extra 15 - 20% off plus free shipping (online)!

So once again I ask if there are there people who actually "celebrate" President's Day? Like, how? By buying a mattress?

Things to consider. That is all.

Happy Presidents Day - 2022

What have you been doing over this weekend?  Do you celebrate this federal holiday by reflecting upon legacies of past presidents, simply relaxing over a long weekend, taking in annual community events, taking advantage of sales or none of the above? 

Presidents' Day is celebrated on the third Monday in February.  Sadly, by some, it is better known commercially as the Presidents' Day Sale where we celebrate and save with great deals! Providing for an extra 15 - 20% off plus free shipping (online)!

A short History of Presidents’ Day

Presidents’ Day was first celebrated in the 1880s, with the birthday of George Washington was first celebrated as a federal holiday.

Controversy: long weekends versus recognizing the actual date:

In 1968 Congress passed the Uniform Monday Holiday Bill in 1968.  This moved federal holidays to Mondays. The intent was to provide for long weekends.  There was opposition to this move, by those who believe that those holidays should be celebrated on the dates they actually commemorate.

And then there was one national day for all presidents:

How many of us remember celebrating both Washington’s and Lincoln’s birthdays as separate events?  Presidents' Day became the officially celebrated holiday in 1971, to honor the birthdays of both Washington (February 22) and Abraham Lincoln (February12).  Note that Abraham Lincoln’s birthday was celebrated in many states, but was never an official national holiday (I wonder which states celebrated?  Extra points awarded for those who can answer)

UPDATE Tallahassee Legislative Agenda 2022 – current money listed in SB 2500 (updated 2-17-2022), now under HB 5001 - Appropriations: what local cities have money listed at the present time in the House/Senate versions.

IMPORTANT NOTE:     Everything is subject to change. Appropriations can and will change. And even money passed in the final budget are not final until after the Governor approves the budget. The governor can and does exercise line item vetoes - where individual appropriations are removed.

CLICK HERE to view the current SB 2500 -  Appropriations (you can search the document by name to see who has what listed to date) CLICK HERE to view HB 5001

SB 2500 (2022) Appropriations
    http://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/02500
    SENATE - Substituted HB 5001
    SENATE - Laid on Table, refer to HB 5001

WHO HAS APPROPRIATIONS LISTED (Note that this is a very representative sample of neighboring municipalities as HB 5001 is currently 448 pages long):

Under HB 5001, there are some key differences from SB 2500:

           Coral Gables:
House Bill 5001:
975,000  Coral Gables Mobility Hub (HB 2637)
187,500  Coral Gables Citywide Septic to Sewer Conversion Assessment (HB 2639)
250,000  Coral Gables Stormwater Master Plan (HB 2641)
375,000  Coral Gables - Restoration of Historic Gondola Building  (HB 4173)

Senate Bill 2500:
375,000  Coral Gables Citywide Septic to Sewer Conversion  Assessment (Senate Form 1250)
500,000 Coral Gables Legacy Sewer System Repair and Replacement Project (Senate Form 2612)
500,000 Coral Gables Stormwater Master Plan (Senate Form 1251)

           Cutler Bay:
House Bill 5001:
(No items are currently listed as funded under HB 5001)

Senate Bill 2500:
520,000  Marlin Road Improvement Project - Cutler Bay (Senate Form  2608)
100,000  Town of Cutler Bay - Active Adults Services (Senate Form 2020) 

           Doral:
House Bill 5001:
125,000  Doral Stormwater Improvements Sub Basin D-3-1 (HB 3179)

Senate Bill 2500:
250,000  Doral Stormwater Improvements Sub Basin D-3-1 (Senate  Form 2496)

           Homestead:
House Bill 5001:
250,000  City of Homestead - Breast Cancer Screening (HB 3661)

Senate Bill 2500:
100,000  City of Homestead - Senior Citizen Programming (Senate Form 1446)

           Miami Lakes:
House Bill 5001:
500,000  Miami Lakes Canal Bank Stabilization Phase III Project  (HB 3507)

Senate Bill 2500:
750,000  Miami Lakes Canal Bank Stabilization Phase III Project (Senate Form 1328)

           North Bay Village:
House Bill 5001:
150,000  North Bay Village Stormwater Inlet Filter Installation (HB 4385)

Senate Bill 2500:
150,000  North Bay Village Stormwater Inlet Filter Installation (Senate Form 1757)
250,000  North Bay Village Wastewater Pump Station Improvements  (Senate Form 1758)

           North Miami:
House Bill 5001:
200,000  North Miami Pedestrian Bridge Over C-8 Canal (HB 4613)

Senate Bill 2500:
500,000  North Miami Septic Tank to Sanitary Sewer Conversion (Senate Form 1968)
400,000  North Miami Pedestrian Bridge Over Biscayne (C8) Canal  (Senate Form 2036)

           Palmetto Bay
House Bill 5001:
392,500  Palmetto Bay Sub-Basin 43 Construction (HB 4027)
560,000  Palmetto Bay Sub-Basin 57/96 Construction (HB 4029)

Senate Bill 2500:
(No items are currently listed as funded under SB 2500)

           Pinecrest:
House Bill 5001:
250,000  Pinecrest Stormwater Improvements (HB 4041)

Senate Bill 2500:
500,000  Pinecrest Stormwater Improvements (Senate Form 1321)
500,000  Pinecrest Water Line Extension Project (Senate Form 1560)

           South Miami:
House Bill 5001: 
(No items are currently listed as funded under HB 5001)

Senate Bill 2500:
500,000  City of South Miami New Police Station (Senate Form 1254)

_______________________________________________________

WHAT IS CURRENTLY REQUESTED BY PALMETTO BAY, but is not currently listed within SB 2500?:

Some important money has been requested by Palmetto Bay officials. There are presently three items filed as House Bills, as listed below:

HB 4025 -  Palmetto Bay Sub-Basin 11 Construction
$765,000 Appropriations Project request filed by State Rep. Aloupis
Palmetto Bay Sub-Basin 11 Construction: Provides an appropriation for the Palmetto Bay Sub-Basin 11 Construction.
Effective Date: July 1, 2022
Last Event: Now in Appropriations Committee on Tuesday, January 25, 2022 2:22 PM

HB 4027 - Palmetto Bay Sub-Basin 43 Construction
$785,000 Appropriations Project request filed by State Rep. Aloupis
Palmetto Bay Sub-Basin 43 Construction: Provides an appropriation for the Palmetto Bay Sub-Basin 43 Construction.
Effective Date: July 1, 2022
Last Event: Now in Appropriations Committee on Tuesday, January 25, 2022 2:22 PM

and, finally:

HB 4029 - Palmetto Bay Sub-Basin 57/96 Construction
$1,120,000 Appropriations Project request filed by State Rep. Aloupis
Palmetto Bay Sub-Basin 57/96 Construction: Provides an appropriation for the Palmetto Bay Sub-Basin 57/96 Construction.
Effective Date: July 1, 2022
Last Event: Now in Appropriations Committee on Tuesday, January 25, 2022 2:23 PM

The item of critical importance is that none of the three items above are currently listed as receiving funding within SB 2500 -  Appropriations

General Bill by Appropriations

Appropriations: Providing moneys for the annual period beginning July 1, 2022, and ending June 30, 2023, and supplemental appropriations for the period ending June 30, 2022, to pay salaries, and other expenses, capital outlay - buildings, and other improvements, and for other specified purposes of the various agencies of state government, etc.

Effective Date: Except as otherwise provided herein, this act shall take effect July 1, 2022, or upon becoming law, whichever occurs later; however, if this act becomes law after July 1, 2022, then it shall operate retroactively to July 1, 2022

Last Event: 02/10/22 S Placed on Special Order Calendar, 02/17/22 on Thursday, February 10, 2022 6:17 PM

IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER: The information above is accurate as of 2:00 PM, Friday, 2/11/2022. Information listed via link should be updated automatically by source.

It is important that Palmetto Bay officials get these items funded through the budget. There is significant work to be done.

Tallahassee Legislative Agenda 2022 – current money listed in SB 2500 - Appropriations: what local cities have money listed at the present time. Who doesn’t.

IMPORTANT NOTE:     Everything is subject to change. Appropriations can and will change. And even money passed in the final budget are not final until after the Governor approves the budget. The governor can and does exercise line item vetoes - where individual appropriations are removed.

CLICK HERE to view the current SB 2500 -  Appropriations (you can search the document by name to see who has what listed to date)

WHO HAS APPROPRIATIONS LISTED (Note that this is a very representative sample of neighboring municipalities as SB 2500 is currently 459 pages long):

Coral Gables:
375,000  Coral Gables Citywide Septic to Sewer Conversion  Assessment (Senate Form 1250)
500,000 Coral Gables Legacy Sewer System Repair and Replacement Project (Senate Form 2612)
500,000 Coral Gables Stormwater Master Plan (Senate Form 1251)

Cutler Bay:
520,000  Marlin Road Improvement Project - Cutler Bay (Senate Form  2608)
100,000  Town of Cutler Bay - Active Adults Services (Senate Form 2020) 

Doral:
250,000  Doral Stormwater Improvements Sub Basin D-3-1 (Senate  Form 2496)

Homestead:
100,000  City of Homestead - Senior Citizen Programming (Senate Form 1446)

Miami Lakes
750,000  Miami Lakes Canal Bank Stabilization Phase III Project (Senate Form 1328)

North Bay Village
150,000  North Bay Village Stormwater Inlet Filter Installation (Senate Form 1757)
250,000  North Bay Village Wastewater Pump Station Improvements  (Senate Form 1758)

North Miami
500,000  North Miami Septic Tank to Sanitary Sewer Conversion (Senate Form 1968)
400,000  North Miami Pedestrian Bridge Over Biscayne (C8) Canal  (Senate Form 2036)

Palmetto Bay
(No items are currently listed as funded under SB 2500)

Pinecrest:
500,000  Pinecrest Stormwater Improvements (Senate Form 1321)
500,000  Pinecrest Water Line Extension Project (Senate Form 1560)

South Miami:
500,000  City of South Miami New Police Station (Senate Form 1254)

WHAT IS CURRENTLY REQUESTED BY PALMETTO BAY, but is not currently listed within SB 2500?:

Some important money has been requested by Palmetto Bay officials. There are presently three items filed as House Bills, as listed below:

HB 4025 -  Palmetto Bay Sub-Basin 11 Construction
$765,000 Appropriations Project request filed by State Rep. Aloupis
Palmetto Bay Sub-Basin 11 Construction: Provides an appropriation for the Palmetto Bay Sub-Basin 11 Construction.
Effective Date: July 1, 2022
Last Event: Now in Appropriations Committee on Tuesday, January 25, 2022 2:22 PM

HB 4027 - Palmetto Bay Sub-Basin 43 Construction
$785,000 Appropriations Project request filed by State Rep. Aloupis
Palmetto Bay Sub-Basin 43 Construction: Provides an appropriation for the Palmetto Bay Sub-Basin 43 Construction.
Effective Date: July 1, 2022
Last Event: Now in Appropriations Committee on Tuesday, January 25, 2022 2:22 PM

and, finally:

HB 4029 - Palmetto Bay Sub-Basin 57/96 Construction
$1,120,000 Appropriations Project request filed by State Rep. Aloupis
Palmetto Bay Sub-Basin 57/96 Construction: Provides an appropriation for the Palmetto Bay Sub-Basin 57/96 Construction.
Effective Date: July 1, 2022
Last Event: Now in Appropriations Committee on Tuesday, January 25, 2022 2:23 PM

The item of critical importance is that none of the three items above are currently listed as receiving funding within SB 2500 -  Appropriations

General Bill by Appropriations

Appropriations: Providing moneys for the annual period beginning July 1, 2022, and ending June 30, 2023, and supplemental appropriations for the period ending June 30, 2022, to pay salaries, and other expenses, capital outlay - buildings, and other improvements, and for other specified purposes of the various agencies of state government, etc.

Effective Date: Except as otherwise provided herein, this act shall take effect July 1, 2022, or upon becoming law, whichever occurs later; however, if this act becomes law after July 1, 2022, then it shall operate retroactively to July 1, 2022

Last Event: 02/10/22 S Placed on Special Order Calendar, 02/17/22 on Thursday, February 10, 2022 6:17 PM

IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER: The information above is accurate as of 2:00 PM, Friday, 2/11/2022. Information listed via link should be updated automatically by source.

It is important that Palmetto Bay officials get these items funded through the budget. There is significant work to be done.

Mediation ended in an impasse – will the mayor and council file the lawsuit? Key local attorneys are ready to step in for residents in opposition to the bridge.

Update on the 87th Avenue Bridge dispute.  The mediation held February 3, 2002, ended in an impasse (no issues resolved). This is significant. This means that the dispute resolution requirements have been met and the Village of Palmetto Bay officials may now proceed with the long promised lawsuit.

Another lawsuit? Well, yes, but this case may be different for Palmetto Bay due to probable appearances by Palmetto Bay Resident Norman Waas and local attorney David Winker.

Both are excellent attorneys, well suited for this cause. Attorney David Winker has been retained by various residents in opposition to the bridge.  Attorney Winker has extensive experience protecting the rights of aggrieved residents in actions taken by local government. Winker has recently achieved a huge win in a case against the City of Coral Gables in what is known simply as the WAWA case; a victory for the residents in an action where they claimed Coral Gables officials approved the WAWA, through a process described as expedited and without proper notice (sound familiar?).

Attorney Norman Waas is a highly respected litigator. He has incentive as a resident who has opposed the bridging of 87 th avenue. Passion and extensive litigation experience. 

The team of attorneys Winker and Waas will drive this lawsuit and should work well for their respective interests / clients in this matter.

I assume this lawsuit will be discussed at the February Regular Village Council meeting, Monday, February 7, with the lawsuit possibly being filed by the end of this coming week. 

Update on the Multi-Use Trail & SMART Plan Connectivity Study

The Multi-trails study is not listed on the agenda for the February Regular Council meeting.

I was advised that there has been an extension provided in order to finalize the draft report and conceptual plan sheets due to the latest COVID wave of Dec/Jan. Additionally, it is believed that there will be updated drafts that will be submitted to the Village, TPO and County in the next week or so. I will try to obtain and provide these documents in advance.

Perhaps this matter will go before the Village Council sometime in March. 

I am hopeful to receive a date, which I will pass on upon receipt.

CLICK HERE to view prior posts related to the Multi-Use Trail & SMART Plan Connectivity Study.

How and where will it all fit? Design definition of a multi-use trail – as defined by the Palmetto Bay study. Issues and concerns that should be addressed before any alternatives are greenlighted.

I have been asked to provide more information regarding the proposed multi-use trail, a possibility for Coral Reef Drive (and SW 184).  I have posted page 16 of the draft study below. Note this is limited to the multi-use trail, not the alternative plan if protected bike lanes were installed. The protected bike lane alternative will be the subject of a future post if there is interest from readers.

As indicated on page 16, for purposes of this study, Marlin Engineering lists the design (and impact) of a multi-use trail as follows:

·       Standard width is 10 to 12-Feet, may be 8-Feet in areas where space is restricted or if it is not heavily used.
·       Must be at least 6-Feet from roadway and have a 2-Foot clearance on each side. 

(See below)

SPACE REQUIREMENT: That means total space dedicated to the Multi-Use Trail would be 16 to 20 feet from the edge of the roadway [minimum 6 feet from road, plus minimum 8 feet (where restricted) plus an additional 2 feet of clearance from the edge of the path furthest from the street].

IMPORTANT ISSUES: The logical question here is whether there is sufficient open right of way along Coral Reef Drive? I have previously identified the numerous mature shade canopy trees as well as a historic coral rock wall in many areas.

My issue is what trees will be destroyed for a project that may not fit within the design parameters set by Marlin Engineering? Or would the Coral Reef Multi-Path be forced to take the same type of modifications used on SW 136 Street such as severe reductions or splitting the path in two to allover for trees in a center median?

The discussion above leads to many fair questions to be discussed when and if these proposals come before the mayor and village council. That is, unless any changes would be handled administratively as attempted (and, thankfully, denied) for the Palmetto Bay Village Center.

Applying the Marlin Engineering Design recommendations to the actual 136 Street buildout:

Obviously the SW 136 Street Multi-Path was not designed by Marlin Engineering as that path does not conform to the design criteria.  There are many areas where the 136 Street path is significantly less than 8 feet, some areas only as wide as the standard sidewalk they sought to upgrade from. There are many areas where the SW 136 Street path is significantly closer to the roadway than the 6 feet Marlin Engineering’s design recommends. That same 136 Street path also suffers many areas where the path has a hard end to obstructions including fences, walls and hedges – meaning there is no 2 foot buffer for the non-street side of the path – any bicyclist attempting to use the path would need to stay to center in order to avoid conflicts with these obstructions, thus severely reducing the effective width of that area of the path.

Background - prior related post - see: January 28, 2022, Next issue - do we turn Coral Reef Drive into the next SW 136th Street? Time to get involved.

TO BE CONTINUED ... stay tuned and check back for updates

Next issue - do we turn Coral Reef Drive into the next SW 136th Street? Time to get involved.

Coral Reef Drive is one of our signature main streets crossing through Palmetto Bay. Do we really envision remaking this street into one where the mature canopy shade trees are yanked out for a concrete path of 8 to 10 feet? Ask yourself, what is the problem they are trying to solve as well as is this a case where the proposed 'solution' is actually worse than the problem they allege? Seriously, why would we want to change the character of Coral Reef Drive? I did not see any issue alleged in the recent survey put out by Village Officials, so do we really need to spend significant tax dollars to pour tons of cement along Coral Reef Drive, ripping out many, many, mature signature shade trees in the process?

All of the above should be discussed when an update of the Palmetto Bay Multi-Use Trail and SMART Plan Connectivity Study is scheduled to come before the Palmetto Bay Mayor and Council at the February Regular Council Meeting.

SPOILER ALERT: The recommendations to be presented to the Palmetto Bay Council represent profound changes to SW 184 and 152 Streets (those along SW 168th and 144th can rest easy - for now).

CLICK HERE to review the current document, consisting of 38 pages. As always, these documents are subject to change. I will update documents as I become aware of any.

IMPORTANT NOTE: There is no requirement for the mayor and council to make any changes to either Coral Reef Drive or SW 184th. This is all discretionary. "Keep as is" is an option. There is no compelling need to make changes to either road.

But for now, here is the issue for Coral Reef Drive:  Do you want to continue with Coral Reef Drive as it currently exists:

Is there really a problem with Coral Reef Drive as depicted in these photos? 

Or will the current mayor and council approve a change in scenery and go with the Howard Drive (SW 136th Street) model as seen below?

For perspective, comparing what is promised versus what is delivered, this is what was originally promised for SW 136th Street, as posted on the official Village Website as late as October 2021:

Then Village officials updated the SW 136th Street rendering to the following:

Actual photos of the 136th Street project disclose a much different reality:

All photos are actual photos, so we can see current conditions. The photos are fair comparisons.

Remember, this SW 136th Street project was once a bike lane project that would have extended the road surface a total of 8 feet; 4 feet on the Palmetto Bay side (east bound lanes) and the other 4 feet on the Pinecrest side (the west bound lanes) with minimal, if any impact on the existing tree canopy along Howard Drive. See related article of June 17, 2021: SW 136th Street update. There is no mistaking who owns responsibility for this SW 136th project design: Palmetto Bay officials (2019 to date) who redesigned it from bike lanes to a MEGA shared path.

Back to the current proposals being proposed for Coral Reef Drive:

The following have been taken from the current draft document. Note page 18, "SW 152 Street Existing Conditions". The street is characterized as a "Tree-lined residential Street" with a ROW (Right of Way) that varies from 73' - 96' feet. What is not detailed are sections of historic coral rock wall that exists within the ROW. See Page 18, posted below along with an actual photo of current SW 152 detailing the coral rock wall

BACKGROUND POSTS - CLICK HERE to view prior articles relating to share paths and the SW 136th Street project.

Excerpts from the present draft document. Please note the Pros and Cons presented. Feel free to formulate your own pro or con argument to the proposals:

TO BE CONTINUED ... stay tuned and check back for updates

An important environmental post worth repeating: What’s So Special about a 22 Acre Forest on Old Cutler Road, by Eduardo Varona, Guest Post (originally published October 18, 2018)

Is the environmental spirit dead with current elected officials? Why are they willing to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in the future to "beautify" the median running within US1 (costs that they gladly assumed from FDOT), but not protect environmentally sensitive land? 

Various plans have been proposed. I proposed working with the Miami-Dade Environmentally Endangered Lands Program (EEL) several times. In fact, I worked to get these 22 acres placed on the "B" List for acquisition, but it requires that Palmetto Bay participate.  That would remove any threat of development both on that land or any transferrable rights being applied to adjoining land.  This land has been used as a political football for far too long and I am anxious to see a realistic plan to save this precious land. 

I rely upon experts. The 22 acres of the Palmetto Bay Village Center should be saved. Please see this guest post from 10/18/2018: What’s so special about a 22 acre forest on Old Cutler Rd? 

This forest is very special indeed. It is one of the last remaining remnants of the tropical rockland forest ecosystem that covered Miami-Dade County before we bulldozed 98% of it. Yes there is roughly only 2% left of this forest ecosystem left in all of South Florida. Most of this ecosystem existed almost exclusively in South Miami-Dade. And day by day we lose additional acreage to development and neglect.

Specifically, the 22 acres of the PBVC is a tropical rockland forest composed of rockland hammock and pine rockland. These two forest communities exist on the oolitic limestone ground in a fluid equilibrium with each other as the land can transition back and forth between the two distinct plant communities in a natural and controlled process influenced by fire, hydrology, and by man. The species diversity both plant and animal that this 22 acre forest harbors cannot be measured in dollars. It should not ever be measured in dollars. In fact some years ago, the 22 acres was nominated for inclusion into the County's Environmentally Endangered Lands (EEL) acquisition program. County biologists assessed the site in response and documented the important habitat values. As a result, the Board of County Commissioners added this site to the list of lands that EEL should purchase for management and protection. The land has remained on the list ever since awaiting funding for purchase.

Here is the complete guest post, originally published on October 18, 2018:

Thursday, October 18, 2018

What’s So Special about a 22 Acre Forest on Old Cutler Road, by Eduardo Varona, Guest Post

Many have questioned over the last decade what is the importance of 22 acres of privately owned native forest on the east side of Old Cutler Rd just north of SW 184 St in Palmetto Bay. Some have claimed and said it is a protected forest. The private owner at times has wanted to develop it and at times seems to want to protect it. Politicians have even fallen on their own swords actually proposing to develop it. At times part of the forest was even looked at for a fire station to serve the surrounding neighborhoods. 

In the last four years there has been a serious push to finally give steadfast lasting protections to this forest through a deal between the Village of Palmetto Bay and the private owner, the Palmetto Bay Village Center (PBVC). This agreement would involve a transfer of developmental rights from the 22 acres east to the parcels surrounding the PBVC. And Palmetto Bay would receive the 22 acre forest as the newest passive park in the “Village of Parks”.

So this begs the question, do the 22 acres of forest need protection? Is this privately owned forest currently protected from development now and in the future?

The answer to the second question is a very certain NO. The 22 acres have never been designated a Natural Forest Community (NFC) by the County and therefore are not protected whatsoever under County laws. To have been designated an NFC the private owner could have approached the county and asked for an ecological and biological assessment of the site. This has never happened. Had it happened, due to the relatively well maintained condition of the forest it would most likely have been designated an NFC. However, even if it had been designated an NFC it would only have protected a percentage of it from development, not all of it. 

What about a covenant that allegedly exists or existed that allegedly protects the forest. Well, depending on who you ask and on which side of the bed they woke, there is a covenant of sorts that is enforced by the Village. A covenant that the Village agrees is soon scheduled to expire.

But in actuality that covenant doesn’t protect the forest at all. It only protects the homes across from the forest along Old Cutler Rd by maintaining a “visual buffer” so that those homes can’t see the PBVC building. That is the extent of the covenant which is due to expire in 2019, if you ask the experts. Finally, is there interest by the private owner to develop the forest? Well why wouldn’t there be as it is prime real estate right on old Cutler Rd. If not protected, someday it will be developed.

Now let’s go back to the original question, the title of this writing. What’s so special about a 22 acre forest on Old Cutler Rd? This forest is very special indeed.  It is one of the last remaining remnants of the tropical rockland forest ecosystem that covered Miami-Dade County before we bulldozed 98% of it. Yes there is roughly only 2% left of this forest ecosystem left in all of South Florida. Most of this ecosystem existed almost exclusively in South Miami-Dade. And day by day we lose additional acreage to development and neglect. 

Specifically, the 22 acres of the PBVC is a tropical rockland forest composed of rockland hammock and pine rockland. These two forest communities exist on the oolitic limestone ground in a fluid equilibrium with each other as the land can transition back and forth between the two distinct plant communities in a natural and controlled process influenced by fire, hydrology, and by man. The species diversity both plant and animal that this 22 acre forest harbors cannot be measured in dollars. It should not ever be measured in dollars. In fact some years ago, the 22 acres was nominated for inclusion into the County's Environmentally Endangered Lands (EEL) acquisition program.  County biologists assessed the site in response and documented the important habitat values.  As a result, the Board of County Commissioners added this site to the list of lands that EEL should purchase for management and protection.  The land has remained on the list ever since awaiting funding for purchase.

Roughly half of the 22 acre forest is pine rockland with the rest consisting of an oak hammock also containing trees such as mastic and gumbo limbo. Yet it is a little known fact that pine rockland is a worldwide endangered ecosystem and plant community which only occurs in Cuba, Bahamas, and yes, Miami-Dade County, and only in South Dade. 

There is more that makes this 22 acre forest more unique than other similar parcels in South Dade. This forest is one of the last remnants of a vast coastal forest that existed in a long ecotone where the forest met the South Dade coastal wetlands and then beyond that Biscayne Bay. And there is even more that makes it so special. 

Few understand that all throughout the Miami coastal ridge where now lie the municipalities of Palmetto Bay, Cutler Bay, and Pinecrest there existed transverse glades, also known as finger glades. These transverse glades, traversed the coastal ridge as creeks and fresh water wetlands that in the wet season flowed with fresh water from the Everglades all the way to Biscayne Bay. One very large transverse glade occurred in the area known as Bel Aire in Cutler bay and it ran northeast into Palmetto Bay emptying most of its fresh water into Biscayne Bay at the Deering Estate.  This same transverse glade, now a canal, at one time also fed this 22 acre forest and the coastal wetlands abutting it with a seasonal seepage of subterranean ground water through the porous limestone underfoot. In fact an unusual tree species for this location so close to the coast still lives on the edge of these 22 acres at the spot where it once met the coastal wetlands. The Swamp Bay, a tree in the Avocado family, mainly occurs in the Everglades tree islands and in transverse glades. And that a specimen of this tree still grows on the edge of the 22 acre forest is evidence of the strong Everglades fresh water connection that once existed at the site.

So to come full circle, the 22 acres is significant in of itself as one of the last remnants of a vast tropical rockland coastal forest that once existed but is now mostly gone. However, the last piece of the intricate story is that this 22 acre forest lies right beside the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands (BBCW) restoration project which is an integral component of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP). This large scale CERP restoration project is planned to restore many thousands of acres of coastal wetlands and the near-shore adjacent portions of Biscayne Bay.  With the exception of what has already been restored at the Deering Estate, the most northerly component of this large project is the 130 acre restoration parcel purchased by the Water Management District just to the south of the 22 acre forest.  This makes the forest and its protection an effort worthy of local, county, state, national, and international significance.

This precious 22 acre forest if preserved will support and enhance BBCW and the Village of Parks far into the future.

Swamp bay trees that are proof of the connection of this forest to fresh water wetlands.