Miami-Dade Legislative Item
File Number: 112234
Printable PDF Format Download Adobe Reader  

File Number: 112234 File Type: Ordinance Status: In Committee
Version: 0 Reference: Control: Board of County Commissioners
File Name: ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 08-62 Introduced: 10/21/2011
Requester: Office of Property Appraiser Cost: Final Action: 2/21/2012
Agenda Date: 2/21/2012 Agenda Item Number: 7A
Sponsors: Clerk of the Board
Sunset Provision: No Effective Date: Expiration Date:
Registered Lobbyist: None Listed

Legislative History

Acting Body Date Agenda Item Action Sent To Due Date Returned Pass/Fail

Board of County Commissioners 2/21/2012 7A Amended
REPORT: (See Agenda Item 7A Amended; Legislative File No. 120952)

Board of County Commissioners 2/7/2012 7C Deferred P

County Mayor 2/2/2012 Deferrals 2/7/2012
REPORT: It has been requested that this item be deferred to the February 21, 2012 Board of County Commissioners Meeting.

Internal Mgmt. & Fiscal Responsibility Committee 12/13/2011 1E1 Forwarded to BCC without a recommendation P
REPORT: Assistant County Attorney Jess McCarty read the foregoing proposed ordinance into the record. Chairwoman Bell opened the public hearing on the foregoing proposed ordinance and called for persons wishing to be heard. She closed the public hearing after no one appeared wishing to speak. It was moved by Commissioner Edmonson that the foregoing proposed ordinance be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a favorable recommendation. This motion was seconded for discussion by Commissioner Bovo. In response to Commissioner Bovo’s inquiry regarding whether a specific amount was set for the third party agreements, Assistant County Attorney James Kracht advised that a specific dollar amount was not reflected in this proposed ordinance as currently drafted, and it would not require that the contract be awarded through the competitive bid process. Mr. Kracht advised that he would ask a representative from the Property Appraiser (PA) to meet with Commissioner Bovo. In response to Commissioner Edmonson’s question as to whether the Clerk of Court was required to comply with the County’s procurement procedures, the Committee deferred discussion until a representative from the PA’s office was present. In response to Commissioner Bovo’s inquiry as to whether the PA followed County procedures regarding the procurement process and whether the dollar amount for contracts was capped, Deputy Property Appraiser Lazaro Solis stated that the PA currently followed all County procedures and guidelines set forth by the Board, including the use of the Procurement Department (as it used to be known). He added that the PA used the agents or staff from the Procurement Office, and also had a buyer within the office who followed all of the County procurement procedures. Commissioner Jordan pointed out that the response to Commissioner Bovo’s question did not address the changes proposed in the foregoing resolution, which would make the PA independent, in terms of the entire procurement process, similar to the Clerk of Court.. Assistant County Attorney Kracht noted he was unsure of the Clerk of Court’s procurement process; however, he explained that the PA differed from the Clerk’s Office in that the PA was a Charter Office and the Clerk of Court was a Constitutional Office. Mr. Kracht advised that the foregoing legislation would take the PA out of general County procurement procedures if funds were in the PA budget for a particular contract item, but not for every procurement item. Commissioner Jordan offered an amendment to include language requiring that contracts be awarded through a competitive process. However, she requested clarification on the extent of the Clerk of Court’s procurement process to ensure the PA was limited only to that extent. Mr. Solis responded to Commissioner Jordan’s inquiry regarding the Clerk of Court’s procurement procedures and noted he believed the Clerk could enter into agreements independent of a bidding process. However, the Clerk also had the discretion to use the County’s Procurement Department to go through the regular RFP or competitive bidding process, he added. Assistant County Attorney Kracht advised that he was informed that the Clerk’s Office was subject to the County’s procurement practices and procedures and that Commissioner Jordan’s proposed amendment was in order. Commissioner Edmonson noted she concurred with Commissioner Jordan stressing that the key question was whether or not the Clerk of Court’s Office was “required” to abide by the County’s procurement procedures. She stated that she agreed with the amendment, and if the Clerk of Court’s Office was required, then the PA’s Office should be required as well. Assistant County Attorney Hugo Benitez advised the Committee that the PA’s Office was subject to all of the County’s procurement rules and regulations. He stated, however, that the Clerk of Court’s Office was not required to use the County’s procurement process; but sometimes did utilize the County’s process. Upon hearing that the Clerk’s Office was not subject to the County’s procurement practices, Commissioner Edmonson noted she supported this ordinance as written. Discussion ensued among Committee members regarding whether the proposed amendment was necessary. Commissioner Bovo expressed concern with there being no competitive process for the issuance of contracts, and indicated he believed that whatever process was put in place would have to include checks and balances. Commissioner Jordan noted she recalled that the Assistant Attorney had indicated that the PA was a Charter Office and the Clerk of Court was a Constitutional Office. She inquired as to the latitudinal difference between a Constitutional versus a Charter office. In response to Commissioner Jordan’s question, Mr. Kracht advised that the Constitution provided certain powers and responsibilities, whereas the Charter created the elected Property Appraiser and the Board of County Commissioners then adopted an ordinance which mandated how the PA’s powers would be carried out. Mr. Kracht noted the ordinance under consideration proposed to change the initial ordinance adopted when the elected PA was created. He advised that there would be no ordinance for a Constitutional Officer. Chairwoman Bell recommended the Committee forward this ordinance, as presented, to the Board without a recommendation from this Committee for further discussion. Hearing no further questions or comments, the Committee proceeded to vote.

Board of County Commissioners 11/3/2011 Tentatively scheduled for a public hearing Internal Mgmt. & Fiscal Responsibility Committee 12/13/2011

Board of County Commissioners 11/3/2011 4H Adopted on first reading 12/13/2011 P
REPORT: First Assistant County Attorney Abigail Price-Williams read the foregoing proposed ordinance into the record. Hearing no questions or comments, the Commission proceeded to vote on the foregoing proposed ordinance. The foregoing proposed ordinance was adopted on first reading and set for public hearing before the Internal Management and Fiscal Responsibility Committee on December 13, 2011.

County Attorney 10/28/2011 Assigned Internal Mgmt. & Fiscal Responsibility Committee 12/13/2011

County Attorney 10/26/2011 Assigned James K. Kracht 10/26/2011

County Mayor 10/24/2011 Assigned County Attorney 11/3/2011
REPORT: Property Appraiser - Jame Kracht assisted

Legislative Text

There is no text currently available online for this item.

Home  |   Agendas  |   Minutes  |   Legislative Search  |   Lobbyist Registration  |   Legislative Reports
2017 BCC Meeting Calendar  |   Miami-Dade County Code of Ordinances   |   ADA Notice  |  

Home  |  Using Our Site  |  About Phone Directory  |  Privacy  |  Disclaimer

E-mail your comments, questions and suggestions to Webmaster  

Web Site 2017 Miami-Dade County.
All rights reserved.