The Citizens Independent Transportation Trust will have a special meeting Thursday afternoon to consider giving $125 million in additional funds from the county transportation surtax funds and People’s Transportation Plan bond program to Miami-Dade’s Department of Transit and Public Works for ongoing architectural and engineering projects. But there are few details.

Several questions asked by the CITT staff came back with “pending” on Wednesday. Unanswered.

Read Full Story

The city of Miami may get cut off by Miami-Dade when it comes to transportation funds because of bad accounting.

According to the latest audit available from last year, the city has not been able to show how it has allocated almost $20 million in transportation surtax funds from the half-penny People’s Transportation Plan sales tax. Another $20 or $30 million has been spent on items the county auditor says are ineligible for surtax funding.

Read Full Story

It is nothing more than political retaliation.
The Miami-Dade County Attorney’s office is trying to remove an outspoken, critical member of the Citizens Independent Transportation Trust who has been a thorn in the mayor’s side, saying that he can’t be on the oversight committee because he is involved in legal action against the county.
Attorney Paul Schwiep was advised via email — actually a copy of an email to CITT Director Javier Betancourt — that he had “relinquished” his seat on the board when he filed a legal action Oct. 26 against the county on behalf of the Friends of the Everglades, seeking to stop construction of the Kendall Parkway extension to the 836 expressway.
Oh no he didn’t, Schwiep shot back.
In a seven-page email with exhibits and legal precedent examples the attorney tells the county attorney, in no uncertain terms, that he has absolutely not relinquished nada and that he will be at the scheduled CITT meeting Thursday, as planned.
Read related: Carlos Gimenez taps commissioner to block return of half penny funds?
“The current county administration did not appoint me to the CITT and is not permitted to remove Trustees with whom they may disagree on particular issues, whether on ending unification or the extension of SR 836,” Schwiep, an appointee of Commissioner Daniela Levine Cava, writes in his response.
Schwiep has also been one of the leading voices on the call to end unification of half-penny surtax funds — which were supposed to be for the extension of metrorail — with operation and maintenance dollars. Something the current administration continues to do. Mayor Carlos Gimenez has even found a way to use the county attorney’s office to thwart a CITT directive that these funds stop being used this way.
And, to boot, Shwiep also sued MDX months ago to get documents related to the PR for the Kendall Parkway, some of which was done by the mayor’s daughter in law, a perk now that he is chairman of the board.
So, as one might imagine, Gimenez doesn’t love Schwiep.
“The mayor is not happy with me because I represent people opposed to the 836 extension and because I am on the transportation trust saying we have to end comingling,” Schwiep said. “He’s told me himself.”
Does he think Gimenez ordered Assistant County Attorney Annery Pulgar Alfonso to get Schwiep off the board? “That would be pure speculation,” he told Ladra.
But what else could it be? How likely is it that this was on Alfonso’s radar all by itself? After all, Schwiep represented another group that sued the county in 2013 — and nobody objected then.
No, more likely this is a move by Gimenez to silence a critic who is in an actual position to derail the mayor’s plans to keep using PTP funds forever to shore up his budget.
Read related: MDX spent $400K on PR, including $60K for mayor’s daughter-in-law
Not that the county has any legal standing, he said, adding that the county code section 2-11.38 cited by Alfonso to make him “relinquish” the seat does not apply. “They’re really out on a limb on this,” Schwiep said.
First off, the legal action is not a lawsuit, per se, which is what the county code speaks to. What Schwiep filed is an “administrative petition” to seek the review of an agency decision, which doesn’t go to court but rather the state’s Division of Administrative Hearings and before an administrative law judge. Sounds like a lawsuit to Ladra, but the legal nuances may have Schwiep technically in the clear.
No matter, though. Because, secondly, this particular part of the county code does not apply to the CITT, which is not a board created by the county commission but rather a trust created by voters who approved the People’s Transportation Plan in 2002. It’s an independent watchdog group separate from the government and as such is not subject to the same government rules.
Schwiep also argues that, thirdly, the county code section only applies to board members who participate as a party to a lawsuit, not who serve as counsel — like he did in 2013 for the Biscayne Bay Waterkeeper in an action against the county.
“No one at that time suggested that my service as counsel for the plaintiffs triggered section 2-11.38,” Schwiep wrote. “This demonstrates that your current opinion is no more than retribution for my work to end comingling of surtax funds and in opposition to the extension of SR 836.”
In addition, Schwiep went to the Miami-Dade Commission on Ethics and Public Trust and got an opinion from them that he could serve as counsel on the administrative petition because the relief sought by the third parties are not associated with the CITT functions.
Schwiep ends by saying that he will be at the next CITT meeting Thursday afternoon. On the agenda are two $1.1 million contracts for environmental clean-up for the departments of transportation and public works and other departments using the half penny surtax funds.
And the county is requesting surtax funds for this, of course.

Read Full Story

Is a Miami-Dade county commissioner intentionally delaying the removal of the half-penny People Transportation Plan sales tax from the general operational budget? And is he, or she, doing it on behalf of Mayor Carlos Gimenez?
That’s what it looks like.
It’s been more than a month since the Citizens Independent Transportation Trust, a 15-member body created to oversee the People’s Transportation Plan funded with the half-penny sales tax, voted to rescind an agreement that gave the county permission to use the funds — which voters approved in 2002 to expand rail and bus service — for operations and maintenance.
Their intention was for Gimenez — who campaigned two years ago on adding rail lines (this photo is a screen grab from a TV ad) — to stop balancing the budget with PTP monies starting this year. The resolution, passed Aug. 23, basically recommends the commission “end the greater flexibility in the use of county transit surtax funds for the operation and maintenance of the existing transit system to be effective commencing with fiscal year 2019-2020.”
Read related: No brainer Miami-Dade Commission approves Kendall Parkway despite so much
It rescinds a 2009 board decision that gave the county the ability to use the funds for maintenance and operations after the county said it needed the reallocation because of budget shortfalls after the 2008 recession.
“The resolution was put forward to make the law reflect the desires of the CITT and citizens to expand transportation versus operate the current system,” said CITT member Evan Fancher, who proposed it. “If we make the law reflect our desire to return money to its intended use, next year’s budget will be presented with the money put back toward expansion instead of operations.”
That was wishful thinking.
Last week, before the final budget hearing, Commissioner Xavier Suarez tried to put something on the agenda to approve the CITT’s recommendation, but he was blocked. Another commissioner asked to sponsor legislation first, County Attorney Abigail Price-Williams told him, without telling him who it was but suggesting he schedule a Sunshine meeting.
Without knowing who it was? How is he supposed to do that?
Suarez says that’s either disingenuous or “complicit” in what appears to be an intentional effort to delay the “unwinding unification” of the PTP and general budget funds.
“Prior to the receipt of your legislative request another Commissioner requested to be the Prime Sponsor of legislation that conflicts and/or overlaps with your request,” Miami-Dade County Price-Williams wrote to Suarez on Thursday. “Once the first legislative request is finalized, we will send you that item for your consideration in case you wish to be listed as a Co-Sponsor.  Alternatively, upon our receipt of written confirmation that the first legislative request is released, we will work with your office to complete your legislative request.
“You may also wish to discuss this matter with the first requesting Commissioner at a sunshine meeting called for this purpose or at a publicly noticed meeting,” the attorney ended, signing her email “Take Care, Abi.”
Read related: Rumors persist of a new recall effort to oust Carlos Gimenez
But who is the first commissioner? The one who can hold this up indefinitely? Ah, “Abi” wouldn’t say.
Las malas lenguas say it’s Commissioner Rebeca Sosa, who has long been known to support Gimenez in everything he does. “Sosa is holding up the process. Doing the mayor’s work,” said one source.
We’ll find out.
Attorney Paul Schwiep, a member and former chairman of the CITT, has asked for all written communications regarding the agency’s resolution to end the subsidies.
The next day, Commissioner Suarez joined that public records request “which hopefully will elicit any and all communications, including telephone messages, emails, and texts between your office and other county officials,” he wrote in an email to Williams, where he basically accused the county attorney and/or her staff of playing politics.
“You have stated that there is another commissioner who is interested in this matter moving forward.  However, you did not identify the commissioner – yet suggested that I have a Sunshine meeting with this unidentified commissioner. In light of the above, putting my request on hold is at best disingenuous and at worst complicit,” Suarez wrote.

“It is your obligation as well as ours, and the mayor’s, to comply with this action by the CITT, which effectively dissolves a contractual agreement,” Suarez wrote, adding that it was more important to comply with the will of a citizen board than pander to commissioners.
“You have indicated that it’s your policy to only prepare legislative requests that may ‘overlap or conflict’ consecutively rather than concurrently, and only if the first legislative request is ‘released.’  I do not believe this policy supersedes the legal obligation to respond to the CITT’s resolution in a timely manner in accordance with Ordinance 02-177. The Board’s failure to do that is a matter of considerable concern.”
Suarez ended the email promising to find out exactly who is behind the hold up.
“I am intent on getting to the bottom of what appears to be an effort to ignore, delay or permanently frustrate the CITT’s clear mandate that rescinds the county’s right to continue diverting surcharge funds to balance the budget.”

Read Full Story