Loading...
06-27-1988 Special Workshop MeetingSPECIAL WORKSHOP MIAMI SHORES VILLAGE COUNCIL JUNE 27, 1988 The Special Workshop of the Miami Shores Village Council was held on Monday, June 27, 1988, at Village Hall commencing at 7:30 p.m. with the following members present: Mayor Spero Canton Stephen Loffredo Robert S. Butler, Jr. Marty Stoflk Absent Karen Kirby Also Present Elly F. Johnson, Village Manager William F. Fann, Jr., Village Attorney Tom Benton, Public Works Director Mayor Canton stated the purpose of the meeting was to discuss procedures and criteria for street closing implemen- tation. Upon Inquiry from Mr. Loffredo, Mr. Benton reported there was approximately $5,500 remaining from funds allocated for temporary barricades. Mayor Canton recommended measureable criteria be used for determining barricade location: traffic, crime statistics and neighborhood perception. Traffic statistics are available from data in the Comprehensive Plan. He advised not ruling out funding from state grants. Grants are available from many sources. Mrs. Stoflk stated that after a given period of time after placement, a public hearing needs to be held to review feedback from the affected neighborhood. Upon Inquiry from Mr. Loffredo, Mr. Johnson suggested some options to pay for an overall barricade program. These Included: residents in affected area pay for barricades, state funds, assessment program for affected areas (an area is determined and residents In that area share the costs), borrow from Village funds, and raise taxes. Mrs. Stofik commented on a program of open space acquls- tion In Davie which began with a referendum on the concept to acquire open space, an ordinance then created a special taxing district, and bonds were Issued from the revenue that was generated by that special taxing district. It has generated Income and Is pald back at 5% to 6% from the taxing district. Thls process does not Impact general revenue as a general obligation bond would. The Safe Neighborhoods Act will accept either a Village wide program or a program by neighborhoods. Dr. Butler recommended support through a referendum before proceeding with funding and further discussion. He does not want one of the criteria to be that the neighborhood has to pay for Its barricades. Mr. Loffredo stated he feels an obligation to pursue the program and identified funding as the key. He expressed concern about how the barricade question as a theory would be presented In a referendum. He feels more temporaries should be placed In the perimeter areas and Council should continue with the ones already In place. He feels a referendum on whether to Issue general obligation bonds, with both payment and barriers addressed, would be the fairest way to approach the vote. Mrs. Stofik advised that counting on state funding would be a mistake as funds would not be available until the summer or fall of 1989. Grant monies still need to be matched by the participating city. State funds are available for planning although the definition of planning Is not clear. She does not see money coming from the regular budget, but prefers aspeclal assessment either through a bond Issue, a vote, or a special taxing district. Mayor Canton stated he had seen a significant change in neighborhoods since the temporaries have been placed. He feels an assessment program may be the best way to achieve funding. Long term financing must be achieved from other that the budget process which can only accommodate funding for temporary barricades. Mrs. Stofik commented that every neighborhood which requests or has 80% of Its residents supporting barricades should not be able to get them. A traffic planner should evaluate the requests In order to get the most effective placement throughout the Village. Mr. Johnson stated as there Is no overall Village plan, it Is difficult to get a cost estimate. Someone with exper- tise in the area should evaluate the plan. Once a plan Is defined, he would be able to have it reviewed, get cost esti- mates, and present Ideas for revenue generation. Mayor Canton feels the presentation of petitions Is more advantageous than a referendum. He wants to experiment In different areas. Mr. Loffredo Inquired if there were a way for individual areas to vote to tax themselves and how would these areas be defined. Mr. Johnson responded that special taxing districts could achieve this. The Council could define these dis- tricts, however, he will need to review the statues to deter- mine the criteria needed. Of the three proposed financing alternatives (assessment program, special taxing districts, and bonds), Mr. Johnson advised that special taxing districts seemed the fairest plan. Residents can petition for a special district. Mrs. Stofik stated the Safe Neighborhoods Act suggests a variety of systems, if not passed In a general referendum: The Village could create city wide districts; by Ordinance, 75% of the property owners In a neighborhood can form an association; and a special neighborhood district could be set up by referendum. Mr. Loffredo wants to broaden the scale and recommended using the remaining funds to put up temporary barricades and using an additional $3,000 or $4,000 In contingency to cover the boulevard and the southern perimeter. He urged that the Council decide on an overall proposal and then do an overall test. Dr. Butler recommended using the remaining funds to put up more temporary barricades. After a determined evaluation time, temporary barricades could be moved neighborhood by neighborhood throughout the Village. As funds are not currently available for permanent barricades, there will be a delay In replacing temporaries with permanent ones. A permanent commitment cannot be made until funding is available. Mrs. Stofik felt if temporary barricades met the needs, they should not be removed until replaced by permanent ones. She suggested, with the $5,500 available funds, adding a test area in the south central and eastern areas of the Village. Using the criteria of traffic, crime, and neighborhood sup- port, establish at least 1 if not 2 additional test areas. Determine a period of time when these test areas have had sufficient time to be evaluated then have a public hearing In order to hear from neighborhoods and to study traffic counters, crime, and property values. During the test period and as petitions come in, complete a matrix of plans for review by a professional planner. Use the plan as modified by the planner to cost out the expense for temporaries and permanent barricades. While this Is going on, she suggested beginning the process to have a referendum question on establishing a special taxing district to pay for the barricades. After this, Implement area by area as neighborhoods have approved them. After a 5 minute recess, the meeting reconvened at 8:50 p.m. Mrs. Stofik stated she would present her suggestion at the next Council meeting. She emphasized that at teach step, residents must have an opportunity to express their input. Upon inquiry from Dr. Butler, Dottie Yates, Crime Watch Coordinator, stated crime statistics were available whenever needed. Mr. Johnsons reported that traffic counters were difficult to get from the county. He can only get a commit- ment for a 24 hour period. He will contact the county for dates and times that previous counts were made. Mr. Benton reported that counters cost approximately $6,000 each. Dr. Butler stated a plan to accommodate alternate suggestions from residents on present barricades needed to be addressed. He also suggested considering 4 -way Intersections as an alternative to augment barricades. Mr. Benton stated this would need to be approved by the county and he will dis- cuss with them. Mrs. Stofik agreed that some formai process, either through the Village Manager, the Task Force, or the Council needs to be established In order to make adjustments during test periods. The meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m. pero Canto ayor ATTEST: Elly F. Johnson Village Clerk BY: G-l) Aria Clayton Deputy Village Clerk