Referendum 1: commissioner salaries
Text on the ballot:
“Shall the County Charter be amended so that the fixed annual salary of the County commissioners be determined by an independent five-member Salary Commission—appointed by the Chief Judge of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida, the State Attorney, the Public Defender, the Executive Director of the Ethics Commission, and the Inspector General—that annually reviews and establishes the salaries of the commissioners based on specific criteria, and that all its decisions are final and cannot be modified by the Board of County Commissioners?”
Yes: 256 | No: 257
A yes vote would move the decision on commissioners’ annual salaries to a five-member independent commission. The panel would review compensation each year and would have to consider the duties of the position, salaries in comparable jurisdictions, benefits received, inflation, the County’s fiscal situation, and the need to attract qualified candidates. The amendment does not set a figure, but establishes a cap linked to the state salary formula. For 2026-2027, that formula yields a maximum of $127,779 annually per commissioner in counties with more than one million residents. The panel’s decisions would be final and could not be modified by the Board.
Those defending the proposal use the argument that commissioners currently receive a fixed salary of $6,000 and perform functions that, in practice, may require extensive dedication. Commissioner Oliver Gilbert also argued that an adequate salary could make the position more accessible to people who are not wealthy or unable to leave another job.
One of the limitations of the proposal is that it does not define how the salary will be determined, nor the conditions of dedication to the position. It does not require commissioners to work full time nor does it establish incompatibility with the private professions they may practice while in office. Although the aforementioned panel must consider the functions and responsibilities of the position, the amendment does not establish a working day or an availability obligation.
Voters would approve or reject the mechanism, but would not vote on the annual figure set by the commission. Commissioner Juan Carlos Bermúdez said that Board members were not voting to raise their salaries, but rather to submit the decision to a panel; He also acknowledged that the measure could be a difficult sell to voters.
Referendum 2: residence in the district
Text on the ballot:
“Shall the County Charter be amended to change the residency requirement for Commission members, increasing from six months to one year the minimum time a candidate must reside in his or her district before the qualification period begins?”
Yes: 258 | No: 259
The proposal would double the required residency period before qualification to apply begins. Proponents argue that requiring more time helps candidates get to know the district they aspire to represent. Critics say the change could reduce the number of people eligible, particularly among those who move to the district less than a year after qualifying. The Charter Review Commission unanimously endorsed this amendment, and the Board of Commissioners voted 11-1 to place it on the ballot.
Referendum 3: elections to fill vacancies and municipal qualification
Text on the ballot:
“Shall the County Charter be amended to permit the Board to coincide the dates of special elections to fill vacancies in the offices of Mayor or County Commissioner with other scheduled elections when such vacancies occur due to resignations to run for other offices, and to establish minimum requirements regarding qualification periods for municipal candidates?”
Yes: 260 | No: 261
The Board may coordinate certain special elections with other elections when a vacancy occurs due to the resignation of a mayor or commissioner running for another office. The proposal would also establish minimum requirements for the qualification periods for municipal candidates.
Those who are in favor consider that synchronizing elections could facilitate participation and avoid calling separate elections in those cases. Opponents say leaving the date up to the Board could prolong the time a seat remains vacant, and voters in that district could have to wait without representation until another scheduled election to choose their representative.
Referendum 4: elective constitutional offices
Text on the ballot:
“Shall the County Charter be amended to make certain changes that (1) address the reestablishment of the County’s elective constitutional offices of Sheriff, Tax Collector, Property Appraiser, and Supervisor of Elections, (2) clarify the respective functions of the Clerk of Courts and the County in matters of finance and budget, and (3) require County employees to take leave of absence? absence when they run for an elective constitutional office?”
Yes: 262 | No: 263
The amendment would update the Charter to reflect the reestablishment of four elective offices and specify financial and budgetary responsibilities of the Clerk of Courts and County. It would also require county employees to take a leave of absence when they apply for those positions.
The changes could clarify the structure and reduce conflicts between public functions and campaigns. On the other hand, a leave requirement may affect employees seeking those positions, depending on the conditions of the leave. The bill does not detail its duration or whether it would be remunerated.
Referendum 5: technical changes to the Charter
The text on the ballot:
“Shall the County Charter be amended to make certain technical changes, such as changing the name of some County places mentioned therein to the name currently used, authorizing the use of other methods of public notification and participation when permitted by state law, and ensuring consistency in stylistic conventions on numbering, gender, capitalization, and grammar?”
Yes: 264 | No: 265
The measure would update names and style rules and allow more methods of notification and participation when authorized by state law. Those who support it may consider it an administrative update. The reservation is that expanding notification methods should be implemented so that residents can learn about decisions and participate; the text does not list the methods that could be used.
Referendum 6: advertising in parks
The text on the ballot:
“Shall the County Charter be amended to expand the permissible advertising in parks subject to Article 7 of the Charter by eliminating the requirement that advertising in such parks must be related to the sponsorship of events or facilities in the parks, provided that such advertising does not harm the park or constitute an unreasonable obstacle to its use by the public and that the revenue generated is directed to the exclusive use of the park system?”
Yes: 266 | No: 267
A yes vote would allow advertisements that are not tied to sponsorship of an event or facility, as long as they do not harm the park or impede its reasonable use and the money goes to the parks system. Limited promotional opportunities, such as corporate sponsorships and sanctioned activities, are currently permitted. During the discussion, some commissioners expressed doubts about expanding advertising without first defining more precise limits.
The favorable argument is that the revenue could help fund parks. The contrary concern is that the Charter would leave subsequent decisions about the reach and placement of advertisements to the Board, with potential effects on the landscape and user experience.
School Board Referendum: Levy Renewal
On the ballot:
“Shall the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, maintain the current levy of one (1) mill of the ad valorem taxes exclusively for the operational purposes of the public schools of Miami-Dade County, including charter schools, for the purpose of further improving the compensation of teachers and teaching staff and improving student safety and school security, under the supervision of a Citizens Advisory Committee, beginning July 1, 2027 and until June 30, 2031?”
Yes: 268 | No: 269
The question proposes maintaining for four years the current tax of one thousandth — one dollar for every $1,000 of taxable value — for public and charter schools. In 2022, voters approved raising the rate from 0.75 to 1 thousandth. According to the district, 88% of the funds go toward teacher and staff salaries and 12% toward school safety.
In favor, school leaders, the teachers union and officials from both parties have said that the renovation helps recruit and retain teachers and maintain safety measures. Antonio White, president of United Teachers of Dade, called the referendum essential to the functioning of the District. Republican Commissioner René García stated that, although he does not usually support taxes, he considered that this had produced results.
Conversely, voters may object to the continuation of a local levy and prefer that the district finance those expenses with other resources or reduce costs. The renovation comes as Miami-Dade faces budget shortfalls and approved cuts of more than 3% to its operating budget. A negative vote would prevent extending this tax for the period 2027-2031; The specific effect would depend on the district’s budget decisions.
The seven questions cover decisions about the structure of county government, elections and resources for schools. On Nov. 3, voters will be able to approve or reject each proposal separately.
(email protected)
