The Pinecrest Water Tax Vote: A Tax That Creates More Problems Than It Solves

The vote for and against the issuance of bonds in the Village of Pinecrest is currently ongoing and will end next Tuesday, March 26 at 7:00 pm. While some have already voted, others are still trying to decide.

If the bonds are approved, the Village will increase taxes for all property owners by .23 mills for the next twenty years to pay for water line extensions that property owners may or may not want. In addition, the proposed Village-wide tax solution may actually create more problems than it solves.

The following are some of the unpleasant consequences of the tax solution for water line extensions:

  • A punishing tax for the more than 180 property owners who over the last few years paid to extend the County water to their property at their own cost and are now being asked to pay a tax on top of what they paid to help others achieve a lower cost for their water line extension.
  • A double tax for those previously connected to County water since they, or a previous owner or builder, paid for their water line. As properties change hands, some new owners are under the false impression that the water line was free or that it was paid for by the Village as a service to its residents. The Village has made it clear that it does not provide water service to its residents.
  • Perpetuates financial imbalances such as the one created 10 years ago from the County bonds issuance. The County funds were intended for all 1500 property owners on well water but the amount offered was not sufficient to complete the lines for all the properties. A Special Taxing Assessment District was considered to pay for the balance but The Village Council rejected this plan and instead, applied the funds to about half the properties resulting in a near-zero cost for this group while the rest were left empty-handed. The proposed tax-all solution in this vote does not resolve the created imbalances and instead creates new ones.
  • Punishes the elderly, retirees and those that simply do not want or cannot afford to connect to County water by forcing them to pay a tax and ultimately pay to connect. It places a financial burden on those on fixed incomes, some of whom are Pinecrest pioneers that have helped make the City what it is today.
  • Hurts apartment dwellers and commercial property tenants as property owners will likely pass the tax increase on to their tenants.
  • Saddles the Village with a $15,000,000 debt obligation–the largest bond ever issued in the City’s history and more than half its annual budget. It also continues the recent pattern of tax increases in the Village and leaves the City vulnerable to new spending needs.
  • Leaves the City with no capital improvements to show for its capital expenditures. When the lines are completed, they will be handed over to the County and all water service revenue will go to the County.
  • Creates private profit-making opportunities at taxpayer expense when properties that are given access to their water line at a reduced cost are sold for a premium.
  • Does not give an equal voice for all property owners that are directly impacted by the vote as those owning rental properties in the Village but do not reside there cannot vote.
  • Does not offer any other financing alternatives for the water line extension except the City-wide tax increase for all property owners.

If passed, the tax increase will directly benefit a small group of Village residents at the expense of many.  Supporters of the tax increase suggest there is no alternative… that if the vote fails, they will be left unable to get access to County water that they desire. That is untrue.

To bolster the cause, supporters of the tax increase play on fears and emotions and personal attacks.  Claims are made about groundwater contamination when no proof is given and the Village staff states otherwise; claims of insufficient fire hydrants for fire suppression are made when no proof is given and fire department officials claim otherwise; and personal attacks are made on those opposed to the tax increase by accusing them of being selfish and inconsiderate.

The truth is that by spreading the cost among all Pinecrest property owners the cost of the water line is greatly reduced for those receiving the benefit while the rest pay most of the bill. This is contrary to Miami-Dade policy that states that “the cost associated with new water infrastructure be borne by private developers/private property owners.” With much to be gained, supporters of the tax increase have launched an aggressive marketing campaign including inaccurate and misleading statements to get voter approval. Even the ballot wording is confusing as it states a vote for bonds instead of a vote for a tax increase.

A more balanced approach can be taken that takes into consideration the different needs of citizens and offers a more fair and equitable financing alternative. In addition, new efforts can be undertaken to seek assistance from all governmental entities. County officials, in particular, can be approached again and presented with new and updated proposals that may be more palatable and correct past mistakes. Also, other governmental entities and newly elected officials can be approached for assistance.

However, once the new tax is approved, the odds of getting any governmental financial assistance are practically eliminated.

A new start is needed and that begins by rejecting the current bad tax proposal. Pinecrest citizens must vote AGAINST THE BONDS.


Connect To Your Customers & Grow Your Business

Click Here

6 COMMENTS

  1. These pinecrest politicians, are the same people who chose to “aesthetically update” all of the street signs, stop signs etc… all over the village. They are also the same crowd that pushes for an Oak tree every 10 feet on the right of way.

    These wasted funds could have been used for water mains instead of the commissions “pet projects”

  2. Well said Harry. You have pointed out some glaring problems with this referendum vote that no one has mentioned. One I find very unsettling is that property owners not residing in VOP will never get a vote. Also owners that can’t vote will not have had a voice. This vote was never given the proper time and thought to be sure it was being handled fairly. A vote AGAINST is the only correct one. Thank you for giving us a more clear understanding of this vote.

  3. Why are the Pinecrest politicians and insiders trying to make the Village into Coral Gables? Property taxes are real out of control there. So is density.

  4. Those 782 homes without county water are the tail end of a project that was never completed. One that we are ALL paying for. We are ALL also paying for the storm water surge protection that benefited a few and that, on your logic, also gave them a price premium for their homes. We are ALL paying for the fitness center that only a few use. We do it because they are ALL community projects that benefit the “Pinecrest Brand” as a whole. The environmental dangers are real, too. They are happening here and in other South Florida communities. As to the “gift to the County” argument, it is not like we’re giving a gift to a “for profit” corporation. The revenue the County would get would go largely towards maintaining and operating the infrastructure, not towards making a profit. For the past 10 years at least, many people (both private individuals and elected village officers) have tried obtaining funding from a myriad of sources- county, state, federal, without success. That’s why we are where we are with this referendum. This is not a handout for the rich. It is the fair thing to do.

  5. It’s frustrating so I will only point out 4 small errors. 1-For the past 10 years, it is 88 developments that have paid to bring in lines, NOT 180. the 180 is the number the village says gained access, that’s 92 that didn’t pay for it. 2- Of the 1500 homes in 2007, only 564 received access, not the ‘about half’, over 900 were left out of the project. 3- “punishes the elderly or retirees” these are most often the long-time residents who fall into a payment of less than $56 a year, if you know one that can’t afford this, I’m sympathetic and offer my assistance, this is not said sarcastically, I mean it. 4 – benefits a few while the rest pay most of the bill? prove it… it’s ironic that folks yap about the mcmansions asking for a handout, but if they are all mcmansions then the math tells us that it’s this group of 739 that will shoulder a large chunk of the change, I’m not saying that’s the number, I need to run the data, but I’m trying to follow the story, is it the mcmansions that want a handout, or is the 739 the low paying taxpayer? I know you aren’t being purposely misleading, that these statements were just a little off, I get it, it happens and you didn’t do it on purpose.

Comments are closed.