Friday, October 21, 2016

2016 MTC Recap and Fact Check


Greetings Neighbors,

We had a successful and informative Meet the Candidates meeting on Tuesday night. As mentioned previously, I hope that all in attendance (and those residents who were unable to attend- but are watching the videos provided) were able to walk away with a much better understanding and feel for each candidate.
As with any political forum, there were some misstatements and errors from several of our candidates. Today’s post will focus on fact checking in an attempt to correct the inaccuracies. We will not be discussing concepts or platforms from the candidates as they are subjective to interpretation and would be better served coming directly from the candidates themselves.
There were clear themes generated throughout the evening to include: “Oversight and outreach,” “Reserves and fiscal responsibilities,” Police department expenses,” "Listening to the residents” and to “Treat others with respect.”   
So, let’s get started. I’ll address each candidate in the order that they were seated.

Tracy Truppman: School teacher
INCORRECT STATEMENT 1: (Video 1)  41:16 / Tracy mentions that for the past 4 years the  Village has been on a State audit “watch list.”
CLARIFICATION: The source material for this statement is found on the July 7th, 2015 meeting (link here-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igWgFbCocaw&feature=youtu.be 11:30 time) The auditor is addressing the Commission to explain that the financial condition assessment for the Village has been upgraded from that of “deteriorating” to “inconclusive.” He further explains that the reason for the status is due to 7 of 23 ratios being deemed inconclusive. He says “if the trend continues you will no longer be like on a watch list.”
Since Tuesdays meeting we have verified (with the auditor) that the Village is not on any State watch list. I have no other explanation as to why he used that language in July of last year.
INCORRECT STATEMENT 2: (Video 2) 0:07 / Tracy, addressing the police overtime expenses mentions “which I believe if correct on the figures- don’t hold me to this- but I believe it’s around $160,000." (she may have said $116,000 as it’s hard to tell on the video)
CLARIFICATION: The verified number is estimated to be $75,000.
Dan Samaria: Small business owner
INCORRECT STATEMENT 1: (Video 2) 37:07 / Dan claims that the $350,000 loan came out of our reserves.
CLARIFICATION: The $350,000 bank loan (funding for the Log Cabin restoration) did not come from our reserves.
William Tudor: Auditor
No misstatements found
Jenny Johnson-Sardella: Attorney
No misstatements found
Fred Jonas: Psychiatry
INCORRECT STATEMENT 1: (Video 2) 4:03 / When answering a question regarding the special assessment ordinance that was passed last year Fred states, “I haven’t ever been asked to decide on anything like that so I can’t image that kind of action in the absence of a referendum.” 
CLARIFICATION: Fred was presented and asked to decide on this type of action last year.  He  voted in favor of this very assessment. This was in the absence of a referendum. 
INCORRECT STATEMENT 2: (Video 2) 33:23 / In defense of one of the budget questions, Fred states that “we set aside $40,000 for the reserves.”
CLARIFICATION: This was the number presented during the first budget workshop. However, it was assumed to be an accounting error and as such was lowered to approx. $23,000 for the second workshop.
INCORRECT STATEMENT 3: (Video 3) 20:41 / In defense of a statement made by another candidate (Tracy) Fred declares “assessments are not an end run around the millage. You cannot have a millage of 9.7 and an assessment. The assessment is part of the millage.”
CLARIFICATION: The intent of the special assessment was to raise approx. $200,000 for the purpose of purchasing engineering master plan surveys. The vote was defeated 2-3 and was supported by Fred Jonas and Rox Ross. So the suggestion that the attempted assessment was not an “end run around the millage” is incorrect. It would have been in addition to our existing 9.7 millage.
If anyone finds any other misstatements I may have missed, please contact me and I’ll update and amend this report.
Standing Watch, 
Milton Hunter
The Biscayne Parker

7 comments:

  1. As a refresher for our new readers: These Blog Guidelines are in place for the obvious reason of keeping things running smoothly and keeping things civil among our readers.

    The Blog Guidelines-

    • Treat everyone on the site with respect. The purpose of this Community blog is to create and foster a hospitable atmosphere for all. Personal attacks or deliberate trolling (posts or comments meant solely to incite) will NOT be tolerated.

    • If you disagree with a point of view please address the point made and not the person. Remember everyone has a right to their own opinion. Likewise, making a comment in a post to insult the author of the post will be seen as a personal attack on the author and will not be tolerated. Remember that not every post is going to be for everyone.

    •No use of pseudonyms please

    • Make all members welcome! It does not matter if you have been here since inception or just joined this morning. No one's opinion is more valid then the next person's. We’re neighbors after all.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Considering the candidates answered questions for two hours a few incorrect statements aren't that bad. I think they all did a good job.

    The discussion on the special assessment for road repair and storm water repair was surprising to me. Commissioner Jonas said he hadn't dealt with that issue and if he did he thought there should be a referendum. In May 2015 when the ordinance passed Commissioner Ross made motions to approve assessments for storm water and road repairs that would have raised $200,000 from home owners without a referendum. Commissioner Jonas seconded the motion. It was a pretty big issue at the time. The motions did fail.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I too think they did good job. I tend to be a little more forgiving of the mistakes from the 4 new candidates due to not having had the benefit and experience of all of the inside information, etc. However personally, I expect better from an incumbent.

      Not remembering or seemingly understanding the details of an ordinance (that he supported) which would have potentially added an additional $200K tax burden on our residents is troublesome. We already pay the highest millage rate in Dade County.

      This was no insignificant matter.

      Delete
    2. Additional:
      To be clear, I have no issue with our high millage per se. I understand our fiscal condition and limitations. What I do object to was the attempted "end run around" the millage cap via this ordinance. The thinking that the savings we residents received by outsourcing our sanitation service was the Commissions to spend without approval was an error.

      We must learn to work within our existing budget and not look for abstract ways to circumnavigate it without the consent of the majority of our taxpayers. If 51% of my fellow shareholders in BP vote to approve a special tax assessment... I'm all in! You'll hear no complain from me. But, we need to follow the proper process. This was not a decision for just 3 members of our community to make on their own.

      Delete
  3. I appreciate you clarification and providing us all with the process of fact checking. "It's a good thing," and bolsters the credibility of the election process by not allowing any of the candidates to pivot from the issues central to the Village's future. I for one, am grateful.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hi Milton,
    Not actually knowing about the watch list, since it is a state watch list, I think it would be prudent to check with the state.
    Did we have to take any money out of reserves or put less in because of the loan payment?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey Harvey,

      I checked this point with Sharon (our Manager) on Friday and she mentioned that she looked into it, spoke with the auditor, and verified that we are not on any State "watch list." As mentioned in the article, I cannot say why the auditor used that language back in July of last year. I agree that I'd like to hear more explanations on our reserves financial condition as "inconclusive" doesn't give me the warm and fuzzies.

      As to your other question, I don't have an answer. But, I'll try to get one and get back to you on it sometime next week. My gut feeling is no, but that's only my guess.

      Delete