Next week, March 12, we are asking people to vote on a number of issues that will have a tremendous impact on the future of our city. We are hopeful that you will all take a few moments out of your daily routine, and if you haven’t already done so by mail, to visit your polling station and vote.
Let me go over the ballot items with you. The first two would allow the city to undertake efforts to rebuild our police station and refurbish our parks.
The current police station was built 60 years ago and was intended for about 100 officers and civilian personnel. Its structural integrity has weakened over time and cannot withstand the strength of hurricanes today. It had to be evacuated during Hurricane Irma, putting our officers – and our community – at risk.
And it has since grown somewhat long in the tooth. The facilities have long since outlived their useful life and can no longer measure up to today’s demands in law enforcement.
The park system, too, has not seen any real investment over the past two decades, and yet the demand for our park facilities has never been greater. New fields, better infrastructure, and more open space are an imperative for any growing city.
With the bond issue, all park buildings also would be improved, lighting would be enhanced for better safety and visibility, and infrastructure would be hardened to protect parks from sea-level rise. Four signature projects would be undertaken, one in each section of the city.
There have been concerns, and I want to address them.
The current proposal for the police station originated with the former city manager. We were presented no layouts or designs, only a consultant’s report that estimated the cost at $100 million. There was sticker shock among city commissioners, particularly since other cities in the area have been replacing their police stations or thinking of doing so for much less.
Some also have rightly questioned whether the city had deferred maintenance and neglected infrastructure in the past.
I recognize that the bond issues are big asks. I also recognize the faith we are asking you to place in us to do the right thing. Please know that your approval does not commit us to spend the entire amounts.
With the police station, I doubt such a large sum is necessary to accomplish the task of building a modern, up-to-date facility. If approved, we will have a citizen committee assist the commission and staff and guide us through the process. It will be another set of eyes as we take each step. I am convinced we can cut costs during the design and implementation process by value engineering and through the extra oversight we are demanding.
The same can be said with regard to the parks bond.
In this case, the commission is not intending to spend the entire amount of the bond, $200 million, all at once. It will be based on a list derived from neighborhood input and a citizen board identifying needs and prioritizing projects that have long languished due to lack of funding.
It is like a line of credit and will be spent as needed. This flexible funding approach will put priorities first and allow for investment to be made in the most impactful way possible.
Already we can see some savings, as the city entertains proposals for the refurbishment of Lockhart Stadium. There, we were intending to allocate as much as $35 million to restore it for the community and the use of league players.
This community voted for a new City Commission a year ago so we could take a new direction. With a new city manager, this commission is willing to question the status quo and find more innovative approaches.
In our short time, we have begun addressing growth responsibly, we are ending the raids on our water and sewer funds, and we halted work on the expensive Wave streetcar. I believe we are earning your trust and showing we can be good stewards of your tax dollars. We will do the same with the bond issues if they are approved.
We decided to put these matters before you now because the next opportunity would have been in summer or fall of 2020 unless we were willing to pay extra for a special vote. A delay would have risked further deterioration of our infrastructure.
We are an exciting city with great possibilities. The decisions we make now will lay the groundwork for generations to come and will ensure that Fort Lauderdale remains a family-friendly, safe, and enjoyable city for our residents and for those who visit.
Let’s work together to make this happen.
The other items to be voted upon relate to our city elections.
The two main questions to be decided are the date when elections take place and the length of commission terms. As it is now, a member of the City Commission can serve up to three three-year terms and the date of the election is the second Tuesday in March.
If the ballot measure is approved, commissioners would be eligible for three four-year terms and the elections would be held at the same time as the presidential election. The commission was not unanimous in agreeing to these changes, but it was unanimous in letting the voters decide.
I believe changing the election to November in a presidential year could present unintended consequences.
National elections are confusing enough with so many candidates on a ballot for federal, state and county races. There often is also a plethora of constitutional amendments and other ballot initiatives bundled onto the ballot.
If our city elections are added to such a ballot, local candidates could get lost in the mix. Some voters don’t make it to the bottom of the ballot where local races are. Those who do vote may not even know the candidates or the issues of the city and just vote willy-nilly to finish out the ballot.
Some say that fewer voters turn out for March elections. While that may be true, would they not be a more informed voter since they are coming out specifically to vote in the local races? You decide.
Furthermore, the proposed charter change would eliminate the primary system. Thus, if five candidates run for a commission seat, there would no longer be a runoff and it would be possible for someone to be elected with only 21 percent of the vote.
Moreover, the whole revised process could shut out newcomers and protect the incumbents. It’s more expensive for candidates to run in November and the impact of name recognition is greater.
With regard to the four-year terms, the length could remove the commission further from the grasp of the public as people would wait longer to express their opinion on job performance at the ballot box.
At the end of the day, these are personal preferences and it’s up to the people to decide. Along with that, there are some clean-up provisions regarding our charter that clarify the intention of particular sections.
I ask that you all make it a point to
VOTE ON MARCH 12
.
Sincerely,
Dean
