The background behind Miami's three ballot questions

UNOFFICIAL RESULTS: Update, Tuesday, Nov. 3, 2026. As of 9:56 p.m., the Miami-Dade Elections Department's election-night results page showed 138 of 139 precincts reporting on the three City of Miami questions. Countywide, the department listed early votes as completely reported and Election Day and vote-by-mail ballots as partially reported. These numbers are preliminary and unofficial until the county Canvassing Board certifies the results.

• Question 1, public-safety bond ($450 million): For bonds, 57,903 votes (60.94%). Against bonds, 37,108 votes (39.06%).
• Question 2, bond oversight committee: Yes, 65,054 votes (71.43%). No, 26,023 votes (28.57%).
• Question 3, Virginia Key marinas lease (listed by the department as Rickenbacker/Marine Stadium Marinas): Yes, 33,937 votes (34.80%). No, 63,588 votes (65.20%).

We will update this story again when the results are certified. The guide below was written before the vote and has not been changed.

By Rachel Chee A Tow · Nov. 2, 2026 · Last checked Nov. 1, 2026

City of Miami voters will see three city questions on Tuesday's ballot, alongside the countywide general election. Each is a separate decision. Question 2 covers all city general obligation bond projects, so it does not depend on Question 1 passing. [1] [13]

Election Day is Tuesday, Nov. 3. Polls are open 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. at your assigned polling place. Vote-by-mail ballots must be received by the Supervisor of Elections by 7 p.m. that day. [2]

The short version

• Question: 1. Public-safety bond — A yes vote: Lets the city borrow up to $450,000,000 for police and fire facilities, repaid from property taxes. [1] [3] — A no vote: Withholds that borrowing authority. The facility needs remain, and the city would have to fund, shrink or delay the work another way.
• Question: 2. Bond oversight committee — A yes vote: Writes an advisory oversight committee for general obligation bond projects into the city charter. [13] — A no vote: Leaves it out of the charter. Existing oversight arrangements stay as they are.
• Question: 3. Virginia Key marinas — A yes vote: Approves a specific 45-year lease of about 27.62 acres of city waterfront to Virginia Key, LLC, with two 15-year renewals. [1] — A no vote: Rejects this lease. It does not guarantee a better offer later or protect current tenants permanently.

Three things to keep straight

• 1. A bond vote is borrowing authority, not a loan. The interest rate and repayment schedule are set later, each time the city sells a series of bonds. Each series can run up to 30 years. [3]
• 2. The oversight committee advises. It does not control. The adopted charter text gives it no veto over projects, contracts or spending. [13]
• 3. A court ordered the marina award "pending approval by the public." That is why the deal is on the ballot. The court did not decide whether the price is a good one today. [17]

Question 1: Public-safety bond

What it asks. Whether the city may issue $450 million in general obligation bonds, repaid from property taxes, with no increase to the current capital projects debt tax rate of 0.5935 mills. [1]

How it got here. The City Commission voted 3–2 on July 9, 2026, to place it on the ballot. Commissioners Miguel Angel Gabela, Rolando Escalona and Ralph Rosado voted yes. Commissioners Christine King and Damian Pardo voted no. [3]

What the resolution actually commits to. The adopted resolution, R-26-0297, caps the principal at $450,000,000. It limits each series of bonds to 30 years, caps the debt tax rate at 0.5935 mills, and requires the bonds to be included in the city's independent annual audit. [3]

What the money would build

The city's program pages split the $450 million this way: [4] [5]

• Use: New public safety building (police, fire administration, emergency operations and 911) [6] — Amount: $300,000,000
• Use: Fire facilities, including four new stations — Amount: $150,000,000

In an Oct. 26 interview, Mayor Eileen Higgins gave a more detailed breakdown with slightly different totals: [9]

• Item: Public safety headquarters — Amount: $305,000,000
• Item: Four new fire stations — Amount: $52,800,000
• Item: Two replacement fire stations — Amount: $59,500,000
• Item: Renovation of Fire Station No. 3 — Amount: $22,750,000
• Item: Repairs and upgrades at 12 facilities — Amount: $10,000,000
• Item: Total — Amount: $450,050,000

The mayor's line items add to $450,050,000, which is $50,000 more than the borrowing limit. Compared with the program page, her figures put about $5 million more toward the headquarters and about $5 million less toward fire work. A July 9 news report described "seven new fire stations." The mayor's list has four new stations, two replacements and one major renovation. [8] [9] These are planning figures. The city has not published a final project budget.

Three numbers that mean different things

• Number: $450 million — What it is: The most the city may borrow. It is not the total repayment. — Source: [1] [3]
• Number: About $795 million — What it is: Total repayment including interest and costs. City Manager James Reyes told commissioners repayment would be roughly $345 million more than the amount borrowed. The city has not published the model behind it. — Source: [7] [8]
• Number: 0.5935 mills — What it is: The property-tax rate the city already charges to repay all of its general obligation debt. It equals $59.35 per $100,000 of taxable value a year. It is not this bond's interest rate. — Source: [1] [3]

Our check on the $795 million. Borrowing $450 million repaid in equal yearly payments over 30 years would cost about $781 million in total at 4% interest, $800 million at 4.2%, and $829 million at 4.5% (our calculation). The city's estimate is consistent with a rate around 4.2%. Actual rates will depend on the market when each series is sold.

What it would cost a homeowner

"No increase" to the 0.5935 rate does not mean no cost. The rate is already being charged to repay older debt. As that debt is paid off, the rate could fall. New bonds would keep it where it is.

The city has published two different estimates for the same average home, valued at $423,020:

• Estimate: City program page: average over the life of the bond — Per year: $110.40 — Per month: $9.20 — Source: [4]
• Estimate: City figures reported in June — Per year: $131.00 — Per month: $10.92 — Source: [7]

The program page gives the monthly figure and the June report gives the yearly one. The conversions between them are our calculation.

Neither estimate says whether it uses the home's market value or its taxable value after the homestead exemption. Neither shows its interest-rate assumptions. For comparison, the full 0.5935-mill debt rate on $423,020 of taxable value would be about $251 a year (our calculation). That total pays for all city general obligation debt, not this bond alone.

Debt offsets: what is promised and what is binding

A July 9 report said the commission required that money from selling the current police headquarters, and eligible grants, go toward paying down the bond. Commissioner Gabela estimated the headquarters sale could bring more than $100 million. [8]

In the resolution text posted on the city's Legislative Hub, those commitments appear only in the opening "whereas" clauses. The numbered sections that authorize the bonds do not contain them. [3] The resolution was adopted with modifications and the meeting record is still marked draft, so the final enrolled text could differ. Whether "whereas" language binds future commissions is a legal question this guide does not answer.

At Commissioner Pardo's suggestion, City Manager Reyes agreed on July 9 to look for $10 million in the current budget for the most urgent repairs, without waiting for bond money. [8] Pardo later wrote that he had introduced legislation to use $10 million from excess reserves for fire station repairs. [10] We have not confirmed whether that money was approved.

The case for

• Aging buildings. Mayor Higgins said the police headquarters is more than 50 years old and that some fire stations are in worse shape. [9]
• Hurricane readiness. The headquarters houses the emergency operations center and the 911 call center, which Higgins said would not survive a major storm. [9]
• Response times. City data cited by WLRN shows average fire-rescue response times above six minutes in Liberty City, Shenandoah, Allapattah and Watson Island, sometimes more than eight. The national urban standard is five to six minutes. The plan would add four stations to the city's existing 15. [12]
• Firefighters' view. Alexander Cardenas, president of the Miami Association of Firefighters Local 587, said aging electrical and air-conditioning systems have been patched rather than replaced. [12]
• Cost of waiting. Higgins said construction costs rise 4% to 5% a year, so each year of delay adds about $20 million. [9]
• Why borrow. Higgins called bonds "the least expensive way to deal with this problem." She rejected public-private partnerships, pointing to two Brickell fire stations that were demolished for development and now operate from trailers. [9]

The case against

• Rushed process. Commissioner King said the plan was fast-tracked with little public information: "You don't contemplate $450 million in two months." [8]
• Alternatives not weighed. Commissioner Pardo wrote that the city had not adequately considered other options. He proposed using reserves for urgent repairs and said he would have welcomed partnership proposals for fire stations and other financing options for a police headquarters. [10]
• Other public-safety needs. Pardo argued that flooding is also a public-safety issue and that the city should weigh stormwater, streets and parks together instead of seeking a separate bond for each. [10]
• Existing debt. Former City Manager Emilio González, who ran against Higgins for mayor, said the city should pay down existing pension and bond debt first. WLRN reported that the city carries about $2 billion in unfunded pension and retiree health obligations. [11]

What we don't know yet

• The year-by-year repayment schedule and the interest rates behind the $795 million estimate.
• The final project budget, including land for four new station sites. [11]
• The cost of staffing the new stations. In June, Reyes said those costs had "not to date" been added to the city's long-term budget forecast. [7] We have not confirmed whether that has changed.
• Whether the headquarters sale proceeds and grants will actually reduce the borrowing.

Question 2: Bond oversight committee

What it asks. Whether to amend the city charter to create a permanent advisory oversight committee for projects paid for with general obligation bonds. [1]

How it got here. The commission adopted the amendment with changes on July 23, 2026, by a 3–1 vote. Commissioners Gabela, Escalona and Rosado voted yes. Commissioner Pardo voted no. Commissioner King was absent. The record does not state each member's reasons. [13]

What the adopted text does

These provisions are from the adopted charter language, Section 47. [13]

• Provision: Advisory only (47(D)) — What it means: Advises the commission and the city administration. No power to stop projects, contracts or spending.
• Provision: Meetings (47(A)) — What it means: At least once a quarter in any fiscal year when general obligation bonds are funding active projects.
• Provision: Reports (47(D)) — What it means: Quarterly reports to the commission on progress and spending.
• Provision: Members (47(B)) — What it means: One each appointed by the mayor, each commissioner and the city manager: seven people today. Unpaid.
• Provision: Public input (47(D)) — What it means: Public hearings and outreach, including surveys and digital platforms.
• Provision: "Permanent," with limits (47(A), 47(F)) — What it means: The charter calls it permanent, but each committee dissolves after its final report, once all bond-funded projects are finished and the money is spent. A new one forms automatically whenever voters authorize new general obligation bonds.

What it does not include. An earlier agenda draft called for audits and a public dashboard. The adopted text dropped both. [13] [14] The city's bond program page separately promises a dashboard, quarterly reports and an annual independent audit. [4] Those are program commitments, not charter requirements.

Background

Miami already has a citizens' oversight board for its $400 million Miami Forever bond, which covers flooding, roads, parks, housing and public safety. [15] WLRN reported that roughly 30% of that money had been spent as of the oversight board's May agenda. That figure is dated and should not be read as a current total. Mayor Higgins said Miami Forever spent heavily on designing projects that had no construction money behind them. [11]

The case for

We found no organized campaign for or against Question 2. These are the arguments its structure raises.

• A charter-based committee would apply to every future bond program, instead of being set up anew each time.
• Quarterly comparisons of budgets, schedules and remaining money could help residents spot problems earlier.

The case against

• Members are appointed by the same officials whose projects they review, and staff support comes from the city administration. [13]
• Reporting matters only if officials respond. Reporting in May documented underused city advisory boards with limited influence. [16]
• An advisory committee can identify a problem. Fixing it still requires the commission or the administration to act.

What we don't know yet

• What staff and budget the committee would get.
• How quickly it could obtain records from city departments.
• Whether officials would have to respond publicly to its findings.

Question 3: Virginia Key marinas

What it asks. Whether the city may lease about 27.62 acres on Virginia Key to Virginia Key, LLC for 45 years, with two 15-year renewals. The ballot lists minimum guaranteed rent of $2,200,000 a year, with increases, totaling about $203,980,000 over the first 45 years. The tenant would also pay 6% of gross revenues and fund about $80 million in redevelopment of the Rickenbacker and Marine Stadium marinas. [1]

Who is behind it. WLRN reports that Virginia Key, LLC is a 50-50 partnership of RCI Group and Suntex Marinas. [20]

How an old deal reached this ballot

The city's own resolution gives this history: [17]

• Date: Feb. 17, 2017 — What happened: The city issued a request for proposals (RFP No. 16-17-011).
• Date: June 15, 2017 — What happened: The city manager approved the selection committee's recommendation of Virginia Key, LLC. A rival bidder's protest and court petitions were denied in 2017, 2018 and 2019.
• Date: Nov. 16, 2020 — What happened: The commission rejected all proposals (R-20-0361).
• Date: Feb. 10, 2023 — What happened: A circuit court ruled the city "must award the RFP to the Proposer, pending approval by the public."
• Date: July 31, 2024 — What happened: The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed (Case No. 3D23-436). [19]
• Date: June 11, 2026 — What happened: The commission voted 5–0 to put the lease on the ballot.

City Attorney George Wysong told commissioners that placing it on the ballot was a required step under the court order, and that refusing could expose the city to contempt. [20] Several officials who voted to send it to voters said they had doubts about the deal. Commissioner Gabela said the proposed contract "does not reflect property prices today." Mayor Higgins said she would like "a better marina deal." [20]

Some news coverage gives different years for the original bid and the appeal. This guide uses the dates in the city's resolution and the court's opinion.

What the lease says

These terms are from the city-posted lease form, which is unsigned. [18]

• Term: Base rent starts at $183,333.33 a month ($2.2 million a year). — Lease section: §4.1.1
• Term: Base rent rises each year by at least 3% and up to 5%, tied to inflation. — Lease section: §4.1.2
• Term: The tenant, not the city, holds the two 15-year renewal options, as long as it is not in default. Total possible term: 75 years. — Lease section: §3.2
• Term: Plus 6% of gross revenues from slips, dry storage, commercial and restaurant space, fuel and other income, from the first dollar. — Lease section: §4.1.4
• Term: The tenant builds the improvements at its own cost, as described in the original RFP. — Lease section: §5.1
• Term: Each phase must be built within 36 months after permits are issued. The whole project must be substantially complete within 60 months after the city hands over the property. — Lease section: §5.5
• Term: $7,000,000 earnest money. A $2,000,000 security deposit that later drops to $1,000,000. — Lease section: §4.3, §4.4
• Term: A capital reserve fund starting at 2.5% of gross revenues. — Lease section: §7.4

The $80 million is not written into the lease text we reviewed. We found no minimum investment amount in the lease form. The project phasing plan (Exhibit E) and the original RFP are referenced but were not part of the text we reviewed. They may contain construction commitments. [18]

What the rent figure means

The ballot's $203.98 million equals $2.2 million rising exactly 3% a year for 45 years, the minimum increase the lease allows. We calculate $203,983,695. It is the floor. If rent rose at the 5% maximum every year, base rent over 45 years would total about $351 million (our calculation). Either way, the 6% revenue share is paid on top.

That money arrives over 45 years. It is not a lump sum, and it is not an appraisal of what the land is worth today.

The case for

• Investment and upgrades. Virginia Key, LLC says the project would bring modern marina facilities, environmental protections, jobs and public access. [20] The Vote Yes campaign emphasizes private investment, marina upgrades, a connected waterfront promenade and revenue for the city. [23]
• A long-delayed process. The company says the referendum "should have happened years ago," and blames the current operator for using the courts to keep things as they are. [20]

The case against

• Old price. Opponents say terms set a decade ago undervalue the waterfront. WLRN reports that Miami property values have more than doubled since the original bid. [20] [24]
• Displacement and environment. The Save Our Marinas coalition includes boater groups, current tenants and the Miami-Dade Democratic Party. Rickenbacker Marina president Aabad Melwani says the project would displace small businesses and middle-class boaters, remove mangroves and could require deep dredging. [20] [24]
• Public access. October reporting found uncertainty over whether the full waterfront promenade will be delivered. [21]

Both sides have money at stake. Virginia Key, LLC would operate the marinas. Rickenbacker Marina Inc., the current operator, is suing over the referendum. [20] [22]

The lawsuit

Rickenbacker Marina Inc. sued in July 2026, arguing the ballot language is misleading. In August, Circuit Judge Lisa Walsh declined to block the vote. The case was not dismissed. WLRN reported in August that a jury trial was scheduled for the following September, in 2027. [22]

What we don't know yet

• A current appraisal of the property.
• Whether Exhibit E or the original RFP contains an enforceable construction commitment.
• Binding public-access hours and completion dates for the waterfront promenade. [21]
• How the lawsuit ends.

What we will follow after Tuesday

• If the bond passes: when the first bonds are sold and at what interest rate; whether headquarters sale proceeds and grants reduce the borrowing; whether new-station staffing costs enter the city's budget forecast; and whether the $10 million for urgent repairs is spent.
• If the oversight amendment passes: who is appointed, when it first meets, and what its first quarterly report says.
• If the marina lease passes: the signed lease and its exhibits, the construction schedule, and the scheduled jury trial.

We will update this page with results and link each follow-up here.

How we reported this

This guide is based on the official ballot, the resolutions the commission adopted, the city's program pages, a city-posted lease form and news reporting. Campaign claims are identified as campaign claims. Figures marked "our calculation" were computed by Miami on the Record from numbers in the cited sources.

We did not review a property appraisal, the city's bond financing model, the lease exhibits or the full court docket. Those limits are noted where they matter. This guide makes no voting recommendation.

Sources

All accessed Nov. 1, 2026.

• 1. Official sample ballot, City of Miami special election, Nov. 3, 2026. Miami-Dade Supervisor of Elections. Primary. https://www.miamidade.gov/elections/library/sample-ballots/2026-11-03-miami-special-election-sample-ballot.pdf
• 2. 2026 City of Miami Bond Referendum and Special Election. Office of the City Clerk. Primary: voting hours and deadlines. https://www.miami.gov/My-Government/Elections/2026-Special-Election-November-3-2026
• 3. Resolution R-26-0297 (bond question), adopted July 9, 2026. City of Miami Legislative Hub. Primary: Sections 2 and 11–13, vote record and recitals. https://miamifl.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx?ID=19183&highlightTerms=R-26-0297
• 4. Safe and Ready Miami: Frequently asked questions. City program site. Program explanation, not a financing contract. https://www.safeandreadymiami.com/frequently-asked-questions
• 5. Safe and Ready Miami: Projects overview. City program site. https://www.safeandreadymiami.com/projects-overview
• 6. Safe and Ready Miami: Public safety building. City program site. https://www.safeandreadymiami.com/public-safety-building
• 7. "Internal Q&A reveals Miami's $450 million public safety bond could cost taxpayers nearly $800 million." Coconut Grove Spotlight, June 18, 2026. The underlying financing model was not obtained. https://coconutgrovespotlight.com/2026/06/18/internal-qa-reveals-miamis-450-million-public-safety-bond-could-cost-taxpayers-nearly-800-million/
• 8. "Commission sends $450 million public safety bond to November ballot." Coconut Grove Spotlight, July 9, 2026. https://coconutgrovespotlight.com/2026/07/09/commission-sends-450-million-public-safety-bond-to-november-ballot/
• 9. "Miami's mayor makes the case for more spending." Coconut Grove Spotlight, Oct. 26, 2026. Interview with Mayor Eileen Higgins. https://coconutgrovespotlight.com/2026/10/26/miamis-mayor-makes-the-case-for-more-spending/
• 10. "Opinion: Voters should reject Miami's public safety bond." By Commissioner Damian Pardo. Coconut Grove Spotlight, Oct. 29, 2026. Advocacy. https://coconutgrovespotlight.com/2026/10/29/opinion-voters-should-reject-miamis-public-safety-bond/
• 11. "Miami voters will decide on $450 million loan as city faces debts and deficits." WLRN, Oct. 9, 2026. https://www.wlrn.org/government-politics/2026-10-09/miami-voters-will-decide-on-450-million-loan-as-city-faces-debts-and-deficits
• 12. "Miami Fire Rescue leaders say $450 million safety bond is needed to shorten response times." WLRN, Oct. 26, 2026. https://www.wlrn.org/government-politics/2026-10-26/miami-fire-rescue-leaders-say-450-million-safety-bond-is-needed-to-shorten-response-times
• 13. Resolution R-26-0345 (oversight charter amendment), adopted July 23, 2026. City of Miami Legislative Hub. Primary: adopted Section 47 text and vote record. https://miamifl.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx?ID=19572&highlightTerms=r-26-0345
• 14. File 19572, earlier agenda draft of the oversight amendment. City of Miami Legislative Hub. Primary draft; not the adopted text. https://miamifl.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?ID=98516&Type=30
• 15. Miami Forever Bond. City of Miami, Office of Capital Improvements. https://www.miami.gov/My-Government/Departments/Office-of-Capital-Improvements/Miami-Forever-Bond
• 16. "Zombie boards: The life and death of Miami's citizen oversight." Coconut Grove Spotlight, May 28, 2026. https://coconutgrovespotlight.com/2026/05/28/zombie-boards-the-life-and-death-of-miamis-citizen-oversight/
• 17. Resolution R-26-0255 (marina lease question), adopted June 11, 2026. City of Miami Legislative Hub. Primary: procurement and court history, vote record. https://miamifl.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx?ID=19189&highlightTerms=r-26-0255
• 18. Proposed Virginia Key lease form (city attachment 53920). City of Miami Legislative Hub. Primary; unsigned form. Sections 3.2, 4.1.1–4.1.4, 4.3, 4.4, 5.1, 5.5 and 7.4. https://miamifl.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?ID=53920&Type=4
• 19. City of Miami v. Virginia Key, LLC, No. 3D23-0436. Third District Court of Appeal, July 31, 2024. Via Justia. https://law.justia.com/cases/florida/third-district-court-of-appeal/2024/3d23-0436.html
• 20. "Miami officials think the Virginia Key marina referendum is a 'bad deal.' So why is it on the ballot?" WLRN, Oct. 8, 2026. https://www.wlrn.org/government-politics/2026-10-08/miami-virginia-key-marina-referendum-ballot
• 21. "Virginia Key's waterfront promises come with fine print." Coconut Grove Spotlight, Oct. 22, 2026. https://coconutgrovespotlight.com/2026/10/22/virginia-keys-waterfront-promises-come-with-fine-print/
• 22. "Miami marina redevelopment will remain on the ballot, but the legal battle isn't over." WLRN, Aug. 21, 2026. https://www.wlrn.org/law-justice/2026-08-21/miami-marine-stadium-virginia-key-lawsuit-ballot
• 23. Vote Yes to Save Virginia Key. Campaign supporting Question 3. Advocacy. https://savevirginiakey.com/
• 24. Save Our Marinas. Campaign opposing Question 3. Advocacy. https://saveourmarinas.org/