North Bay Village residents hold on to your wallets!!!

North Bay Village residents hold on to your wallets. Once again your water bill needs to and will go up! On last night’s commission meeting an environmental financial group made an analysis presentation of how much we would need to  borrow and at what rates to fix and bring up to date our failing and aging water delivery system and sewer system which includes our storm water system. 

The analysis was based on a 20 year and 10 year bond borrowing 5.625 million for the 2015 target year which the first debt service payments would be due.  The 20 year bond would bring a 19.1 % increase on your water bill and a shorter time term of 10 years would bring a 28.6 % increase on your water bill.

This was determined by a 5.9% to stem operating loss and 13.2 to 22.7 % to fund CIP totaling 19.1 to 28.6 % needed now to begin repairs and replacement of our water and sewer system. That’s not all, because we buy the water from the county and the county is increasing their rates that will be passed on to the consumer.  

We did receive $ 600, 000 from the state thanks to the hard work of House Representative David Richardson. This money has already been ear marked for repairs.  There is no getting around this problem that has been ignored for too long! What worries me is the way this administration has handled this aging and growing problem. This could have been partially avoided if they would have acted responsibly and timely, most definitely before the recent rate increase!                                                                                                           Left....example of the water pipe that delivers our drinking water. This administration has been forced into transparency because this problem cannot be ignored any longer! We were informed that water tests were performed regularly and that the water is safe to drink! 

Right.....example of our storm water sewer pipes with debris that people maliciously  and illegally dump into our storm water drain!

Blame the residents of North Bay Village

In many occasions the present North Bay Village commission and administration has had the audacity and daring attitude  to blame our troubles on the negativity of our residents that voice their opinion.

Mayor Connie Leon-Kreps, Vice Mayor Eddie Lim and At Large Commissioner Jorge Gonzalez blamed the negative results of the Barry University Students Survey on the residents!

Imagine that dirty streets, unsafe streets, poor government communication, aging infrastructure, horrendous web site, poor signage, unwelcoming boulevard is our fault! I got news for you Mayor, Vice Mayor and Commissioner this all and mean all is your doing !!!!

Now for the elections they are scrambling and using all means possible to cover the neglected issues but we can see right through their motives!

NORTH BAY VILLAGE DESERVES BETTER!

Honestly opinionating!!

Mario Garcia
June 27, 2014

North Bay Village Commissioner At Large

I am announcing my intentions to file for the candidacy for North Bay Village Commissioner At Large.  As Commissioner, I pledge to bring transparency and open communication to the Commission.  For too long North Bay Village has ignored the glaring needs of our residents and I pledge to dedicate myself to safe, clean streets, to bring accountability and transparency to our fiscal policies, and to address our aging infrastructure.

My long experience in community involvement, including service on the North Bay Village Business Board, Crime Watch and my participation in each board, along with my attendance at every commission meeting, show that I have the knowledge and the fortitude to serve my village with integrity and transparency.  North Bay Village deserves better.  Our future depends on it.

Mario Garcia
June 20, 2014

North Bay Village Deserves better!

North Bay Village Commission meeting of Tuesday June 10, 2014 did not have any board report. I am extremely concern specifically with the Budget and Oversight Committee. The responsibility of this board is to review where our money is going and how can we be more efficient with it. This board was handpicked by the commission and apparently the public once again will be left in dark.

Our budget workshop is around the corner and very soon we will need to set our mileage for the 2014 to 2015 fiscal year. Once again we will be discussing our police budget that seems to eat up about 67% of our operating budget. The board to this day has failed to identify areas of concerns and recommendations to address them.  

The commission has failed to apply pressure and guidance to make these boards effective and useful, are they going to blame this on us as well, the negative bloggers. Is the commission ignoring their own boards?  North Bay Village deserves better!  

In the absence of the Mayor at yesterday’s meeting Vice Mayor Eddie Lim chaired the meeting. We once again endured the pain of listening to their reports that normally toot to their own horns. Yet nothing was mentioned regarding the Barry University Survey Results and the plans to correct it, why? Is it going under the rug? Public safety is not important? Clean Streets? A failing and aging infrastructure is not important? Only one commissioner keeps reminding the rest of our troubles, hopefully he will not give up and continues to drive the message home!   No wait we will just fix it by raising our taxes. North Bay Village deserves better!!!

Honestly Opinionating!

Mario Garcia

June 11, 2014

North Bay Village Survey Results

For the benefit of our North Bay Village Residents that were unable to attend the Barry University Survey presentation or have not viewed it on the North Bay Village Web Site. Here is in bullet form the weaknesses and Strengths outlined on the hand out distributed at the end of the meeting by the Barry University Presenters.

Identified Strengths from the Survey Responses and Research:

1)      Enjoyment of NBV Amenities as well as being pleased with the work of the commissioners was basically neutral!

2)      209 of 324 respondents or 65% reported they are satisfied with North Bay Village!

3)      54% Reported they lived in North Bay Village because its location!

4)      Of 151 respondents who submitted a reply to how satisfied they were with their interaction with North Bay Village Administration, 79% were either satisfied or neutral and 21% expressed dissatisfaction.   (Note: this data   was pointed out on one of the comments posted in North Bay Village Residents Speak. This data may not be reflective of reality because neutral should not mix with either satisfied or not satisfy. For example, lets say33% across the liker scale you cannot say that 33% was satisfied and 66% were not satisfied).

5)      Geographical location

6)      Fast police response

7)      Low crime rates

8)      An interesting history

9)      Quiet neighborhood

10)  Variety of housing alternatives (houses to condos)

11)  Affordable home values

12)   79^th Street Causeway traffic

13)   No pending major Village legal burdens

Identified Weaknesses from the Survey Responses and Research:

1)      Lack of long-term community economic planning

2)      79^th Street Causeway traffic speed

3)      Old infrastructure

4)      Older image outdated buildings

5)      Lack of  public access to the water; people and watercraft

6)      Insufficient public amenities for walking and jogging

7)      Small number of North Bay Village residents to support local business

8)      Lower rated single hotel in the Village

9)      Poor street lighting

10)  Traffic noise (here I would add speeding in our local streets a big safety issue for our residents in particular children and elderly)

11)  2 draw bridges on causeway

12)  Capital (lack of money for needed improvement) Note: the presenter simply stated that the village is broke or near bankruptcy

13)  High percent of total budget for police department

14)  Low level of overall community communication and lack of trust (community cohesiveness)

15)  Feral cat population

16)  Trash collection (large items)

17)  Parking

Mario Garcia

May 19, 2014

NORTH BAY VILLAGE DESERVES BETTER!!

T0 PACE OR NOT TO PACE IN NORTH BAY VILLAGE

(PROPERTY ASSESSED CEAN ENERGY PROGRAM)

I am not convinced that this program is good for North Bay Village.  There are controversial issues that favor the lender and place the borrower at a disadvantage.

Let us start by the interest charged with a typical loan. The current rate for a 10 year loan is 6.55 % and a 20 year loan is 7.55%.  A $ 20,000.00 loan for 20 years pays roughly $ 160.00 per month, which equates to $ 1920.00 per year.  In a typical home valued at $ 250, 000.00 the yearly real estate taxes are roughly $ 4,800.00 increasing the home owner’s yearly responsibility to $ 6,700.00.  Additionally the first year charges could amount to $ 9,100.00 which includes administrative charges and the current year of the loan and the yearly tax assessment.

Secondly Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which amount to 80% of all mortgages do not allow this type of loans because of the lien priority clause thus reducing the target population to 20 %.  If you add other qualifications such as not having more than one 30 day late mortgage payments within 3 years; the borrower must have minimum of 15 % equity and the loan amount cannot exceeds 10% equity. No bankruptcy 3 years; No tax delinquency 3 years. These pre-qualifications can potentially reduce the target population even further. ..How many single families home owners in North Bay Village do not have the credit rating to obtain a more favorable loan would take advantage of this program? Exactly, not too many!  Furthermore out of those that fit the criteria how many would be willing to make energy savings improvement to their homes and take advantage of the program; thus reducing the target population further.

The Village would need to endorse this program and the commission would need to approve participation thus associating itself with the lender.  There is a real possibility that with a bad loan, a foreclosure or any other negative result implicating the PACE program the village’s reputation could be further compromised.

Thirdly if the borrower decides to sell their house the buyer’s Mortgage Company may not be willing to sign off on the loan and potentially force the seller to satisfy the loan in order to consummate the deal. This would make the sale of the home more difficult and end up hurting the target population.  

Fourthly, in a tax default that typically has four years of real estate taxes plus penalties the addition of four years of loan arrears would make the amount larger and more difficult to collect. 

Commissioner Gonzalez and Vice Mayor Lim are extremely eager to approve PACE citing that we need to sign up now and take advantage of the offer to join the District that includes Biscayne Park, Surfside and Bay Harbor Islands. I say proceed with caution and wait to see how it works out with those municipalities.

If this program works like the lender promises, I am sure that there would be other districts or expansion of existing district that North Bay Village could join.  Once you endorse and approve the program is too late to undo.  There are too many other questions yet to be answered. Frankly, I am afraid that the target population could potentially borrow beyond their means and end up losing their homes once they realize that going green just went red for them! What is the rush?

Honestly opinionating!

NORTH BAY VILLAGE DESERVES BETTER!

Mario Garcia

May 1, 2014     

Forgotten Real Estate Bubble Burst!!!! Have we?

Residents of North Bay Village! My apologies for the delay in reporting on some of the issues that were addressed at the commission meeting on Tuesday April 8, 2014, I was extremely busy with personal stuff that needed my attention.

Let’s begin with an item presented by At Large Commissioner Jorge Gonzalez.  He was eagerly pushing for approval on the first reading of his resolution, too eagerly if you ask me. The proposed resolution would allow the Village to create a Property Assessed Clean Energy Act (PACE) and join the referenced municipalities in a program to finance energy efficient improvements.

                 

Commissioner Gonzalez quickly met resistance from Mayor Connie Leon-Kreps that wanted a workshop before voting, an item she knew very little about. Commissioner Gonzalez appeared very annoyed at the Mayor’s request and resistance. He quickly defended his position by explaining how this was a unique opportunity for single family property owners to make energy efficient improvement in their homes and fully finance it.  Commissioner Gonzalez proudly mentioned how the 360 of which he is president of the condo association spent $ 20,000.00 replacing all their bulbs to LED.  (Commissioner Gonzalez FYI Bulbs are not covered under the program!)

 He cited that before the bloggers had a field day with his proposal, he wanted the residents to know that this program carries no cost to the Village Local Government. It is done independently with the lenders. Payments that usually have a high interest cost although they promise the opposite, which is expected. The monthly payments that include principal and interest would be collected via the property local taxes over time. Typically these loans can have a life of 15 to 20 years depending on the amount and the improvement.  Commissioner Gonzalez I guess I am a blogger, however foremost I am a concern North Bay Village resident that cares!!!!!

I have done some research and my findings are only a small sample of the information available regarding this form of creative financing. Additionally I don’t want to bore you with a twenty page report.  I do know that jumping into this kind of commitment and partnership with the independent lenders and investors require more than Commissioner Jorge Gonzalez urgency and eagerness to sign up for PACE.

This creative finance would become part of the property and the payments would be transferred to the new home owners should the home be sold. In case of bankruptcy, short sale, foreclosure or abandonment, the loan would supersede any mortgages on the property and would have to be satisfied first as would any taxes in arrears.  Have we forgotten already what “creative finance” did to property values? Have we forgotten the “Real Estate Bubble Bust”? I believe that like separation of church and state, the government has no business partnering with lending institutions, banks and investors regardless of the incentives. You want to issue a credit, that’s fine but making loan payments part of your property assessment and real estate tax bill? I don’t know it just doesn’t sound right.   You be the judge, here is an independent report on the “Pros and Cons” found on the internet.

Advantages

·         Allows for secure financing of comprehensive projects over a longer term than does traditional financing, making more projects cash flow positive (i.e., monthly energy savings are greater than monthly principal and interest payments).

·         Transfers the repayment obligation with ownership, potentially overcoming hesitancy to invest in longer payback measures* by spreading repayment over many years and removing the requirement that the debt be paid at sale or refinance.

·         Can lead to low interest rates because of the high security of loan repayments as a result of their attachment to the property tax bill.

·         Helps some property owners deduct payments from their income tax liability. 

·         Allows municipalities to encourage energy efficiency and renewable energy without putting their general funds at risk.

·         Taps into large sources of private capital, such as the municipal bond markets.

Disadvantages

·         Available only to property owners; renters cannot access the program directly.

·         Cannot finance portable items (e.g., screw-in light bulbs, standard refrigerators, etc.).

·         Can require dedicated local government staff time.

·         High legal and administrative expenses to set up.

·         Not appropriate for investments below $2,500 due to minimum origination and administrative costs.

·         Potential resistance by lenders/mortgage-holders whose claim to the property may be subordinated to the unpaid assessment amount should the property go into foreclosure.

PACE is enabled in 31 states and the District of Columbia

State	Status
California	Available some locations
Colorado	Available, but no current loans
Connecticut	Available
District of Columbia	Available
Florida	Available
Georgia	Under development
Hawaii	On hold
Illinois	On hold
Louisiana	Under development
Maine	Available
Maryland	On hold
Massachusetts	Under development
Michigan	Under development, available in Southfield
Minnesota	Available
Missouri	Available
Nevada	On hold
New Hampshire	On hold
New Jersey	Under development
New Mexico	Under development
New York	Available
North Carolina	On hold
Ohio	Under development
Oklahoma	On hold
Oregon	On hold
Texas	On hold
Vermont	Available
Virginia	Under development
Wisconsin	Available
Wyoming	On hold

NORTH BAY VILLAGE DESERVES BETTER!

Honestly Opinionating!

More to come!!!

Mario Garcia

April 12, 2014