Miami-Dade Legislative Item
File Number: 112543
Printable PDF Format Download Adobe Reader  Clerk's Official Copy   

File Number: 112543 File Type: Ordinance Status: In Committee
Version: 0 Reference: 12-24 Control: Board of County Commissioners
File Name: REPEAL 07-120 RELATING TO INCORPORATION Introduced: 12/1/2011
Requester: NONE Cost: Final Action: 4/3/2012
Agenda Date: 4/3/2012 Agenda Item Number: 7D
Notes: 6WKS/4WIKS REQUIRED Title: ORDINANCE RELATING TO INCORPORATION; REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 07-120 OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA; DELETING PROVISIONS THAT SUSPENDED PROCESSING AND CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED INCORPORATIONS; PROVIDING SEVERABILITY, EXCLUSION FROM THE CODE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE
Indexes: INCORPORATION
  INCORPORATION POLICIES
Sponsors: Sally A. Heyman, Co-Prime Sponsor
  Esteban L. Bovo, Jr., Co-Prime Sponsor
  Jean Monestime, Co-Prime Sponsor
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 4/3/2012 7D Adopted P
REPORT: First Assistant County Attorney Abigail Price-Williams read the foregoing proposed ordinance into the record. Commissioner Heyman noted she lived in a municipality where government was closer to its residents and more hands on. She suggested that an umbrella policy be considered in order to prevent cherry picking and to resolve Peoples Transportation Plan mitigation, franchise fees, and law enforcement ratio issues. Commissioner Heyman noted a five year moratorium existed and hoped that members of the Administration had developed proposals during this period to mitigate the services and transfer of power when municipalities were annexation. She said there was no progress over the past five years while three groups were interested in incorporation. Commissioner Heyman suggested that members of the Administration begin evaluating legal aspects of mitigation and its economic consequences. She noted she sponsored this proposed resolution to suspend the process; to evaluate financial data and to consider future proposals. Commissioner Heyman expressed her appreciation to the Miami-Dade County League of Cities and to other interested parties who indicated their interest in this proposal. Vice-Chairwoman Edmonson called for persons wishing to appear before the Commission in connection with this proposed ordinance. Honorable Luis Gonzalez, President, Miami-Dade County League of Cities (MDLOC), noted he was joined by Mayor Juan Carlos Bermudez, City of Doral and Mayor Shirley Gibson, City of Miami Gardens who both represented cities that successfully incorporated, along with Mr. Richard Kuper, Executive Director MDLOC. Mr. Gonzalez spoke in support of removing the moratorium and allowing other areas of the County to incorporate or annex. He noted complaints about the lack of services from residents living in the unincorporated area within the City of Hialeah (Hialeah) could easily be resolved by absorbing that area into Hialeah. Mr. Gonzalez said he believed that a democratic government represented and listened to the people and urged members of the County Commission to remove the moratorium and to determine positive solutions for the community, the County, and future cities. Mayor Shirley Gibson, City of Miami Gardens, spoke in support of lifting the moratorium, noting that incorporation was a good thing for the City of Miami Gardens. She said that communities should have the opportunity to incorporate and cities could address boundary issues through annexation. Mayor Gibson noted that government was more effective being closer to its residents and when they had the opportunity to make decisions impacting where they lived. She said Miami Gardens had a $2.36 billion ad-valorem value when they incorporated in 2003; a $4.85 billion value at the 2009 peak; and a $3.42 billion value in 2012. Mayor Gibson noted the County received more income from Miami Gardens today than it did prior to incorporation and they would not have grown as much without becoming a city. Mayor Gibson said allowing underserved communities to incorporate provided added value to the County and gave residents a greater sense of caring for their communities. She encouraged members of the County Commission to lift the moratorium, noting that local governments were positive for the County and its residents. Mayor Juan Carlos Munoz, City of Doral, concurred with MDLOC President Gonzalez and Mayor Gibson’s comments over incorporation issues. He agreed with Commissioner Heyman that the County Commission and the community needed to begin discussion incorporation issues and that a process for these discussions needed to be developed. Mayor Munoz mentioned that the ability for a community to organize and to determine its future was inherent in American democracy. He said the moratorium prevented residents throughout the County considering incorporation from openly discussing their options. Mayor Munoz noted the moratorium was not a good example of government listening to community residents, despite the Commission would have the final authority to approve incorporation requests. Mayor Munoz pointed out that the City of Miami Gardens voted “No” to incorporation in 1997; however, the Democratic process prevailed and the County Commission permitted the request to move forward and Miami Gardens voted “Yes” to incorporation in 2003. He said that the potential for more cities in Miami-Dade County did not preclude a vibrant and effective County government in the future, even though 34 municipalities already existed. Mayor Munoz asked members of the Commission to support the proposed ordinance, noting that rescinding the moratorium was good for both the Commission and the community. Vice-Chairwoman Edmonson commented that members of the public had the opportunity to be heard on this proposed ordinance at the Infrastructure and Land Use Committee (ILUC) meeting. Ms. Renita Holmes spoke in support of the proposed ordinance, noting in addition to paying taxes, underserved populations wanted to contribute to the future of their neighborhoods. She stressed the importance to build new community leaders; to support independence; and to become valuable participants in local government. Commissioner Bovo encouraged his colleagues to consider this foregoing proposed ordinance, noting a discussion about the future of County government was needed. He said the big ticket items such as problems with Jackson Memorial Hospital, the Port of Miami, and Miami International Airport received media attention; however, they did not seem interested in reporting on “mini mayors” and whether municipal duties could be better served by municipal governments. Commissioner Bovo noted he believed financial issues were the major reason a community should consider when incorporating and the County Commission should not prevent any community from exploring their options. He commented that County government grew rapidly over the years and played catch-up. Commissioner Bovo said some areas did not want incorporation; however, others felt differently due to difficulty receiving County services. Commissioner Bovo spoke about the County Commission looking ten to fifteen years forward and addressing regional issues (water, waste, etc.) affecting every community in this County, with municipalities assuming the responsibility for local parks, code enforcement and building compliance issues. Ultimately, the voters will make the final decision and will make those decisions based upon the cost of services, said Commissioner Bovo. He noted he supported lifting the moratorium, developing more cities, and allowing more people to have control over their communities. Commissioner Monestime noted that although this ordinance gave communities the ability to explore the creation of new towns, villages or municipalities, some communities might be happy with their current County services. He said that the County needed to provide accurate financial and tax information to any community exploring their options. Commissioner Monestime supported lifting the incorporation ban so that communities could discuss their options on a local level. Commissioner Diaz explained that he previously served on a committee which analyzed incorporations and annexations and their future implications. He noted incorporation in Broward County was good for that County, yet it also presented many issues. Commissioner Diaz said he was supportive of incorporation and annexation if done properly; however, sufficient information was not available for the public to make a meaningful decision. He noted it was the responsibility of members of this Commission to work together; to assist all governments; and not to destroy one entity in order to establish another. Commissioner Diaz proceeded to ask the County Attorney questions pertaining to the incorporation ban. Assistant County Attorney Craig Coller confirmed that the proposed ordinance would lift the incorporation ban and start a new process. He also confirmed that sufficient information could also be provided to residents without lifting the incorporation ban. Commissioner Diaz noted he was not opposed to incorporations or annexations; however, his “No” vote on lifting the ban at the ILUC meeting was because information needed to be updated and distributed. He said he wanted to ensure that accurate information was provided in order to avoid giving people any false hope. Commissioner Diaz noted rumors existed that this County wanted to remove the Strong Mayor and to establish a regional government. He said that the alternative was for residents to keep their UMSA and to allow those areas to be incorporated. In response to Commissioner Diaz’ inquiry whether the annexation process was stopped, Assistant County Attorney Coller responded that it was not. Commissioner Diaz noted he was supportive of lifting the moratorium; however said that additional information and guidance was needed from Administration about the process. He said decisions pertaining to a regional form of government versus another form of government needed to be considered, particularly as related to the delivery of services. Commissioner Sosa noted it was government’s responsibility to provide residents with sufficient information for them to make independent decisions. She said she supported lifting the moratorium and asked Assistant County Attorney Coller to meet with her to draft a resolution on annexation and incorporation issues; whether or not small municipalities that depend on county funding could become self-sufficient after incorporation; whether annexation was a more efficient and effective method to deliver services; whether regional police and fire services would be beneficial to the community; instructing the County administration to provide information regarding the associative costs and services to anyone inquiring about incorporation or annexation; and ensuring that the electorate was limited to the residents located within the proposed annexation or incorporation area. Commissioner Sosa noted that a balanced and established process and procedures was needed to ensure everyone was treated fairly and residents received complete and accurate information before they made their decision. Commissioner Jordan asked the County Attorney to describe the incorporation process. Assistant County Attorney Cynthia Johnson-Stacks described the Municipal Advisory Committee (MAC) process as requested by Commissioner Jordan as follows: ~ The MAC was created by a Board of County Commissioners (BCC) Ordinance. ~ A new MAC requires Consent Forms with at least 25 percent resident electorate consent to create the MAC and its boundaries. ~ Upon submission of the Consent Forms, the Clerk of the Board (COB) submits the forms that have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). ~ After the form is circulated, the COB and Supervisor of Elections reviews the Consent Forms to determine whether the signatures are sufficient. ~ The Consent Form is then certified. ~ The BCC can call a public hearing on the MAC report. ~ The item is sent to the Planning Advisory Board (PAB) to review the process and make a recommendation to the BCC. ~ The BCC can choose to hold a public hearing to approve calling a vote on the MAC report pursuant to Section 20-23 of the County Code. ~ A process also exists where the BCC can also propose the creation of a municipality. Commissioner Jordan asked whether a County Commissioner could bypass this process and bring forward a resolution to establish a MAC. Assistant County Attorney Johnson-Stacks responded that she needed to review Commissioner Jordan’s question further and would provide an answer later. Assistant County Attorney Johnson-Stacks explained that the MAC would then gather information; determine the type of municipality desired; and submit a budget, bylaws, and other required documentation. She said this information would be presented to the County Commission for approval. Assistant County Attorney Johnson-Stacks noted that the Planning Advisory Board (PAB) would make a recommendation to the County Commission prior to the Commission deciding whether to approve proceeding with the incorporation proposal. Commissioner Jordan noted the moratorium was enacted in 2007 due to lower income communities being excluded from the process. She also noted that staff was directed to prepare a report to show what the remainder would look like if all the MACs and other requests were placed on a map. Commissioner Jordan proceeded to ask Ms. Jennifer Moon, Director, Office of Management and Budget to address the report which was placed on the County Commission’s December 2011 meeting agenda. Ms. Jennifer Moon, Director, Management and Budget Department explained that the report was deferred to no date certain and presented to the Government Operations and Environment Committee on December 11, 2007. Commissioner Jordan noted she believed communities should have the right of self-determination and that she was not opposed to lifting the moratorium. She said that incorporation allowed communities to make decisions about what happens within their neighborhoods, largely because they believed the County was ineffective. Commissioner Jordan noted that three pockets of Unincorporated Miami-Dade County existed in her District and was concerned about providing services to the remainder of the community that would be excluded from incorporation. Commissioner Jordan commented that communities needed to be told the truth about incorporation. She noted Miami Gardens was a recipient community at the time of incorporation; however, the community did not understand that taxes would increase after incorporation. Commissioner Jordan said she was originally opposed to incorporation based upon internal County information that was not provided to Miami Gardens’ residents; however, she was wrong to oppose the incorporation because she has observed the willingness of the community and the courage to raise taxes and do what was needed for the community to survive. Commissioner Jordan explained that she previously amended Commissioner Rolle’s item on Biscayne Gardens, requesting the County obtain an outside entity to assist proposed MAC’s develop and review budget information for those communities. She noted affluent donor communities did not include recipient communities within their boundaries and left the remainder behind for the County. Commissioner Jordan said it was the County’s responsibility to provide all residents with nice communities and it would be a disservice to the remainder if the County did not seriously address the issue considering the current no tax attitude. She noted she was extremely proud of Miami Gardens becoming a very beautiful community and it would not be where it was today had it not incorporated. Commissioner Jordan noted the report needed to be reviewed and a full discussion take place on the remainder. She said a serious discussion about full incorporation was needed if the County did not have the courage to do what was necessary to support the remainder, so that those communities could thrive and look as beautiful as the municipalities. Commissioner Jordan noted communities choose to incorporate out of frustration. She said commissioners were elected to make decisions impacting the entire County, not just those of single communities. Commissioner Jordan commented that residents needed to understand that they would pay more taxes after incorporation to continue receiving County services. In conclusion, Commissioner Jordan noted she supported lifting the moratorium; however a discussion was needed about the remainder and whether there should be full incorporation or annexation. Commissioner Suarez commented that the report addressed by Commissioner Jordan was needed to provide the Commission with information to analyze the effects of annexation and incorporation on different communities. He noted that County residents needed to be told that the cherry pie was not split appropriately; that it was probably larger than residents were previously informed; and that funds were possibly misused by other County entities, as mentioned by Commissioner Bovo. Commissioner Suarez acknowledged Mayor Gibson, Mayor Munoz, and Councilman Gonzalez for addressing the Board. He noted that an email was also received from Mayor Cindy Lerner, Village of Pinecrest, expressing her support to lift the moratorium. Commissioner Suarez commented that areas such as Kendall did not want incorporation and commended Commissioner Bell for her accomplishments in that community. He noted he recently met with Mayor George Vallejo, City of North Miami Beach, and was informed that North Miami Beach had many surrounding unincorporated areas that could be served by the City. Commissioner Suarez commented that decisions should be made at the level closest to the people affected by those decisions. He concurred with Commissioner Sosa that the final decision should remain with the people and proceeded to question the requirements needed to consult an area about a proposed incorporation. Assistant County Attorney Craig Coller responded that a vote was always required for incorporation. Commissioner Suarez noted he believed lifting the moratorium was a good idea and that he would monitor the issue to ensure that it did not negatively affect areas within his District that did not want to incorporate. Commissioner Souto noted this was a crucial issue for some communities and it needed to be addressed as soon as possible. He stressed the importance of listening to County residents, letting them vote, and expressing themselves. Commissioner Souto said that each community was different from one another with unique issues and needs; therefore, the entire County should not be consulted about the issues of a specific community. He encouraged his colleagues to conduct town hall meetings in order to serve the community and address residents concerns. Commissioner Diaz noted the intention was to ensure the public received sufficient information so that they could cast an intelligent vote. He offered his assistance to Commissioner Sosa on this effort and mentioned that the League of Cities could join together with the County to update the report used in previous incorporations. Commissioner Sosa welcomed Commissioner Diaz’ assistance and said she would schedule a Sunshine Meeting in order to encourage participation from all interested parties. In response to Commissioner Jordan’s earlier question pertaining to the process for a Commissioner initiated proposal for incorporation, Assistant County Attorney Johnson-Stacks responded that the 25 percent requirement did not apply; however, the remaining portion of the process remained, pursuant to the County Code. Commissioner Jordan noted she believed several commissioners had received requests to reactivate MAC’s within their Districts. She suggested either proffering a motion today or instructing staff to prepare a future agenda item that would bring back the full report of the overlay and initiate a serious discussion about the remainder. Commissioner Bovo said he believed that Commissioner Jordan’s request could be incorporated into the discussion at Commissioner Sosa’s Sunshine Meeting and that he noted he would like to be included in this process. Commissioner Jordan agreed to address the concern at the Sunshine Meeting. Commissioner Moss asked and Assistant County Attorney Johnson-Stacks explained the process for a Commission sponsored incorporation. She noted a commissioner could propose an incorporation by resolution and the requirements previously stated which pertained to the consent process did not apply to commissioner initiated proposals. Assistant County Attorney Johnson-Stacks said the proposal would need to be submitted to the PAB and then to the County Commission. She noted the proposal would be presented for a community vote after the Board authorized an election. Commissioner Moss asked and Assistant County Attorney Johnson-Stacks confirmed that a commissioner could sponsor an incorporation effort within his/her District. Commissioner Moss expressed his support; however, noted concern about People’s Transportation Plan (PTP) funds in the event that future incorporations were treated in the same manner as previous incorporated areas. Ms. Moon responded that 80 percent of the PTP Surtax funding supported regional transportation needs and the remaining 20 percent was allocated to municipalities. She noted a policy discussion would be needed to determine allocations in the event of future incorporations. Commissioner Moss noted a review of facts, figures and scenarios was needed to understand the future impact of lifting the moratorium. He expressed concern about funding regional transportation needs if all areas of the County incorporated and received their share of PTP funds. Commissioner Moss also noted concern that Police and other County provided services would need to be considered. He said District 9 contained a very large unincorporated area and his direction would be to incorporate the entire area into a city, to include both economically challenged and affluent areas. Commissioner Moss noted consideration of the impact upon the County needed to be addressed if everyone was to receive a portion of the half-penny surtax. Commissioner Jordan said she understood that all municipalities, including those incorporating in the future, would share the 20 percent allocation, in the event that the County was responsible for regional transportation needs. Ms. Moon responded that the interpretation of State law vs. County Code relating to the distribution of PTP revenues to new municipalities remained an issue. She noted that a serious discussion about whether new municipalities would receive part of the 20 percent allocated to existing municipalities was needed. Ms. Moon said a settlement was reached with the three municipalities created subsequent to the adoption of the PTP; however, all Interlocal Agreements would expire soon. Commissioner Jordan commented that existing municipalities would not give up money they already received. She noted a legal opinion was necessary because residents of new municipalities were entitled to their fair share since they paid into the PTP fund. Commissioner Moss noted he preferred considering these concerns before voting on the proposed ordinance; however, those concerns were not the subject of this resolution. He reiterated that he was interested in incorporating the majority of District 9 into a city. Vice-Chairwoman Edmonson asked for clarification on whether the County Commission had the authority to either deny or approve an application for annexation or incorporation. Assistant County Attorney Johnson-Stacks responded that the County Commission had four options: 1) call for an election of area electors of the incorporation petition; 2) call for an election with modified boundaries; 3) deny the proposed incorporation petition; or 4) defer the request. Vice-Chairwoman Edmonson commented that she concurred with Commissioner Moss’ concerns and that she supported the proposed ordinance with hesitation. She noted that the impact upon transit, water, public works, and social services needed to be discussed at the Sunshine Meeting. Commissioner Heyman encouraged the members of the League of Cities, MACs, and others considering incorporation to participate in the Sunshine Meeting. Hearing no further questions or comments, the Commission proceeded to vote on the foregoing proposed ordinance as presented.

Infrastructure and Land Use Committee 3/14/2012 1F2 Forwarded to BCC with a favorable recommendation P
REPORT: Assistant County Attorney Geri Bonzon-Keenan read the foregoing proposed ordinance and supplement into the record. Commissioner Monestime suggested that one person be allowed to speak on behalf of all persons in favor of this ordinance, in order to expedite this hearing. Chairwoman Edmonson opened the public hearing for persons wishing to speak in connection with this ordinance, and limited speakers to two minutes. The following persons spoke in support: 1) Mr. Jonathan Morton, 2135 NE 204 St, Highland Lakes Community, noted a few years ago, the citizens of his community moved to incorporate as a city to control their destiny, but were stopped by the moratorium. He asked that the moratorium be lifted and that they be allowed the right to vote to become a city. 2) Mr. Mike Hatcher, 25145 SW 144 Ave, Redland Community, spoke in support of lifting the moratorium and allowing communities to incorporate. He thanked Chairwoman Edmonson for allowing the public to speak on this issue. 3) Ms. Beverly (Bev) Gerald, 14271 SW 74th Ct, Palmetto Bay, asked that the moratorium be lifted and communities be allowed to move forward with annexations and incorporations. 4) Ms. Bari Schanerman, 2145 NE 207 St, spoke in support of repealing the moratorium. 5) Mr. Lenny Feldman, HOA Vice-President, Sky Lake/Highland Lakes Community (part of the Northeast Municipal Advisory Committee (MAC)), 20620 NE 22 Pl, spoke in support of lifting the moratorium. He noted some local issues were so specific and personal to the community that they could be better resolved under municipal governments. 6) Mr. Richard Friedman, 6328 NW 175 Terr, supported a repeal of the moratorium, and recommended the ordinance be tabled, pending a study on how new incorporations would impact the remaining portion of the Unincorporated Municipal Service Area (UMSA); a plan based on current economic conditions, and a deadline on the study. 7) Mr. Andrew Nierenberg, 13725 SW 104 Ct, noted during his tenure as a member of the Financial Responsibility Advisory Committee, charged with addressing a proposal to incorporate the Falls areas, a 90-day moratorium was subsequently imposed to study the impact on UMSA, which was still in effect today, five years later. He noted it was his understanding that Mayor Gimenez was devising a plan and would submit it at the next County Commission meeting to respond to the nine areas presently seeking to incorporate. He asked that the Commission vote to repeal the moratorium and the constituencies involved in this process be recognized and allowed to vote. 8) Mr. Mack Samuel, 8951 NW 8 Ave, UMSA, spoke in support of lifting the moratorium. He noted he represented a 12-square mile area, an enclave that was a community unto itself. He said his desire was to have a dialogue and provide the community with all the facts, so that they could decide if they want to incorporate or not. He expressed appreciation to all the Commissioners that sponsored this item. 9) Mr. Vernell Everett, 15100 S. River Dr, Biscayne Gardens, Chairman of the MAC, spoke in favor of repealing the moratorium. He noted the MAC did a study and determined the budgets, but its progress was halted by the moratorium. 10) Ms. Anne Cates, 13939 NW 1 Ave, asked that the moratorium be lifted. She cited articles by the Miami Herald on waste, unethical activities and the Fuel Farm at the Miami International Airport. Ms. Cates suggested the Commission get out of the municipal services business and focus on the bigger issues. 11) Reverend Carl Johnson (address not given), expressed appreciation to the Committee regarding how today’s public hearing was conducted. He said he supported lifting the moratorium and would be happy to have an honest, intelligent discussion with the concerned parties on the issues of cities incorporating. The following person(s) appeared in opposition: 1) Mr. Alan Rigerman, 17910 NW 84th Ave, Palm Springs North, noted the earlier incorporations were good for the wealthy, but left out the recipient neighbors and denied UMSA its most profitable communities. He suggested if UMSA could afford to maintain good services after more donor communities incorporated, it was time for the moratorium to be lifted. Mr. Rigerman noted he was open-minded, and wanted the best for the entire County. He expressed appreciation to the Committee and its Chair for conducting today’s public hearings professionally. Hearing no one else wishing to speak, Chairwoman Edmonson closed the public hearing. It was moved by Commissioner Monestime that the Committee forward the foregoing proposed ordinance to the County Commission with a favorable recommendation. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Barreiro, followed by a discussion. Commissioner Diaz noted, as members of the Incorporation and Annexation Subcommittee, he and Commissioners Martinez and Souto were tasked to gather input and hear testimony on incorporations and annexations, and heard a lot of it. He noted the reason the moratorium was extended was due to budget constraints and the unstable economy. He also noted the key issue raised in the study was annexation before incorporation. Commissioner Diaz said the motives were: 1) the right to self-govern and 2) the greater good of the government. He pointed out that the numbers in the 2007 study would not be the same today. Commissioner Diaz noted he had strongly supported annexations and incorporations until he saw the bigger picture. He said he was surprised to hear the Mayor had developed a plan before the Commission knew the numbers and financial impact to the remaining portion of UMSA. Deputy Mayor Jack Osterholt clarified that members of the Administration felt any discussion on incorporations and annexations was like a plan, and made a commitment to not only perform a financial analysis, but also to consider all the community’s concerns. He suggested the entire unincorporated area be reviewed to ensure all the recipient areas were addressed. Commissioner Diaz noted that getting the facts did not require lifting the moratorium. He noted the information was needed to avoid putting Commission Districts with mostly unincorporated areas at risk. He said the proposed annexations of Doral, Medley, Virginia Gardens and Miami Springs caused much frustration regarding increased taxes. He noted he completely supported the Mayor looking at a plan, but was concerned with opening the flood gates and the potential impact on UMSA. He said he would like the process to be more comprehensive. The Commissioner later clarified that he was not opposed to incorporating, but wanted to see the numbers before lifting the moratorium. Commissioner Jordan noted the ordinance implementing the moratorium was adopted on September 4, 2007, about four years ago, and she co-sponsored it. She said she firmly believed in self-determination, but understood what it meant in terms of donor versus recipient communities. She noted in the initial process, affluent communities cherry-picked wealthier communities, while leaving out the poorer communities. She said she purposely included a requirement that the Administration provide Biscayne Gardens technical support to determine its budget and if it wanted to proceed with incorporating. She also noted it was initially determined that the City of Miami Gardens was a recipient community and could not sustain itself without increasing taxes; however, that information was not provided to its citizens. She said citizens needed to know the costs and impact of incorporating, and whether their taxes would increase. Commissioner Jordan noted the moratorium was also implemented to study the impact of new incorporations on the remainder of UMSA. She noted the community could suffer if UMSA could not sustain itself without increasing taxes. She also noted incorporations that did not have a surplus could hurt other communities in UMSA. She concurred with Commissioner Diaz’ and Mr. Osterholt’s statements regarding including all communities and getting the numbers first. Commissioner Jordan noted that one’s ambition to form a city in which to run for office should not block the distribution of information to the community. She noted she appeared before the MAC with information on taxes, but was not heard. Chairwoman Edmonson noted she believed the citizens should have the right to participate in the decisions that impact their communities. She asked that if the moratorium was lifted and an application for annexation was filed, the financial information would have to come back before the BCC and the community. Assistant County Attorney Craig Coller noted typically, the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) were provided the anticipated revenues and expenses for a specific area seeking to incorporate. Commissioner Edmonson noted that staff had 4.5 years to compile this information, and the Board should not continue delaying the inevitable. She said she would support forwarding this ordinance to the BCC to get input from her colleagues and the sponsors, but may not vote in favor of it at the BCC meeting. Commissioner Barreiro noted he supported this ordinance, and noted the Board should ensure that the County achieved a balance concerning incorporated and unincorporated areas. He pointed out that historically, smaller communities had more ethical problems and crime. Commissioner Diaz noted once the moratorium was lifted, the Board could not deny applications to incorporate, and would have to move forward with the process. Commissioner Diaz also noted he would prefer to defer this ordinance until staff provided this Board and County residents with all the information. Mr. Osterholt noted it was important to understand that staff’s role in this process was an independent, neutral consultant and it would not adopt the position of any city. Commissioner Jordan read into the record language from the existing ordinance, which stated: “whereas such a report was to indicate whether municipalities near unincorporated areas were interested in annexing such areas as the preferred method to pursue boundary changes…and updating financial information relative to the North Central MAC.” She asked that this ordinance be deferred for 30 days to allow staff to provide an overlay of what the remainder of UMSA would look like with new incorporations and an update on the financial information relative to the North Central MAC. Mr. Osterholt asked that he and staff be allowed to determine a realistic timeframe in which the information and a proposed work plan could be provided to the Board. Commissioner Jordan noted she asked for 30 days because the existing ordinance referenced a report already prepared by the County Manager and placed on the December 11, 2007 Government Operations and Environmental Committee agenda, but was deferred to no date certain. She said she thought the overlay would be based on the report prepared in 2007, and only the financial information on the North Central MAC would need to be updated. Mr. Osterholt noted he believed the Commission needed a recalculated assessment of how proposed incorporations would financially impact the remainder of UMSA, post 2007. He said he would like to come back at the next Committee meeting with a detailed work plan and a realistic timeframe. Commissioner Jordan withdrew her request for a deferral, and asked Deputy Jack Osterholt to provide a comprehensive report at the April 11, 2012 Committee meeting, on the impact of incorporations on the Unincorporated Municipal Service Area (UMSA), including the status of the North Central Municipal Advisory Committee (MAC), a detailed financial report, specifically the financial implications to UMSA; and an overlay map showing the remaining portion of UMSA, including a complete work program, timelines, etc. Commissioner Monestime pointed out that the requested information would have to come before the Board before any proposal to incorporate was approved. He said he believed it would show that even during the current economy, municipalities were able to increase their taxes and sustain themselves better than the County had; and that areas remaining in UMSA had disintegrated over time. He noted self-determination fed growth and allowed municipalities to take responsibility for their own decisions, plus receive federal funding. He agreed that the plan had to be comprehensive and the numbers from 2007 had to be adjusted. He said that letting go of unincorporated areas was sometimes necessary and the right thing to do. Hearing no further comments or questions, the Committee proceeded to vote on the foregoing ordinance.

Board of County Commissioners 1/27/2012 Municipalities notified of public hearing Infrastructure and Land Use Committee 3/14/2012 1/24/2012

Board of County Commissioners 1/24/2012 Tentatively scheduled for a public hearing Infrastructure and Land Use Committee 3/14/2012

Board of County Commissioners 1/24/2012 4G Adopted on first reading 3/14/2012 P
REPORT: The foregoing proposed ordinance was adopted on first reading and scheduled for public hearing before the Infrastructure and Land Use Committee on March 14, 2012 at 2:00 p.m.

Board of County Commissioners 1/17/2012 Requires Municipal Notification Infrastructure and Land Use Committee 3/14/2012

County Attorney 12/1/2011 Referred Infrastructure and Land Use Committee 3/14/2012

County Attorney 12/1/2011 Assigned Craig H. Coller

Legislative Text


TITLE
ORDINANCE RELATING TO INCORPORATION; REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 07-120 OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA; DELETING PROVISIONS THAT SUSPENDED PROCESSING AND CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED INCORPORATIONS; PROVIDING SEVERABILITY, EXCLUSION FROM THE CODE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE

BODY
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners (“Board”) adopted Ordinance No. 07-120 on September 4, 2007 that suspended processing and consideration of proposed incorporations until a report prepared by the County Manager was presented and considered by the Board; and
WHEREAS, such report was to indicate whether municipalities near unincorporated areas were interested in annexing such areas as the preferred method to pursue boundary changes and updating financial information related to the North Central Municipal Advisory Committee Study Area; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 07-120 provided that the County Manager’s report be submitted to the Board within 90 days of the effective date of such ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the County Manager’s report was placed on the agenda of the Governmental Operations and Environmental Committee on December 11, 2007 and the Committee deferred consideration of the report to no date certain; and
WHEREAS, the County Manager’s report has not been presented to nor considered by the Board of County Commissioners,

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA:
Section 1. Ordinance No. 07-120 of Miami-Dade County is hereby repealed in its entirety.
Section 2. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or provision of this ordinance is held invalid, the remainder of this ordinance shall not be affected by such invalidity.
Section 3. It is the intention of the Board of County Commissioners, and it is hereby ordained that the provisions of this ordinance, including any sunset provision, shall not become and be made a part of the Code of Miami-Dade County, Florida.
Section 4. This ordinance shall become effective ten (10) days after the date of enactment unless vetoed by the Mayor, and if vetoed, shall become effective only upon an override by this Board.



Home  |   Agendas  |   Minutes  |   Legislative Search  |   Lobbyist Registration  |   Legislative Reports
2014 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 © 2014 Miami-Dade County.
All rights reserved.