Miami-Dade Legislative Item
File Number: 112619
   Clerk's Official Copy   

File Number: 112619 File Type: Ordinance Status: Adopted
Version: 0 Reference: 11-98 Control: Board of County Commissioners
File Name: WASA DIRECTOR TO GRANT ONE-TIME LIFETIME BILLING ADJUSTMENT Introduced: 12/13/2011
Requester: NONE Cost: Final Action: 12/6/2011
Agenda Date: 12/6/2011 Agenda Item Number: 7D
Notes: THIS IS FINAL VERSION AS ADOPTED. ALSO SEE 111733, 112485) Title: ORDINANCE CREATING SECTION 32-101; GRANTING DISCRETION TO THE DIRECTOR OF THE MIAMI-DADE WATER AND SEWER DEPARTMENT TO ISSUE A ONE-TIME LIFETIME BILLING ADJUSTMENT TO CUSTOMERS WHERE THERE ARE EXTREME CIRCUMSTANCES THAT MERIT AN ADJUSTMENT; PROVIDING SEVERABILITY, INCLUSION IN THE CODE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE (SEE ORIGINAL ITEM UNDER FILE NOS. 111733 AND 112485)
Indexes: WATER AND SEWER
  WATER METER
Sponsors: Jose "Pepe" Diaz, Co-Prime Sponsor
  Lynda Bell, 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

County Attorney 12/13/2011 Assigned Sarah E. Davis

Board of County Commissioners 12/6/2011 7D AMENDED Adopted as amended P
REPORT: First Assistant County Attorney Abigail Price-Williams read the foregoing proposed ordinance into the record. At Commissioner Bell’s request, Assistant County Attorney Sarah Davis read, into the record, the proposed amendments considered by the Infrastructure and Land Use Committee on November 9, 2011. (See Amended Language under this proposed resolution on pages 41and 42 of this report.) Commissioner Diaz as the co-sponsor of this ordinance, accepted the proposed amendments, noting he believed that as proposed, the amended language strengthen the process in terms of fairness. Chairman Martinez asked staff to explain the difference between this ordinance and Commissioner Souto’s proposed ordinance, which previously failed. He also questioned whether Mr. Renfrow supported this ordinance. Mr. John Renfrow, Director, Water and Sewer Department, noted if asked to vote on this proposal today, he would vote “No.” He noted; however, that he understood the existing problems and agreed that the amendments would give him some discretion. Chairman Martinez noted although this ordinance was not scheduled for a public hearing today; he would permit the following individual(s) to speak on it: 1) Ms. Diane Lawrence, 10626 SW 102 Street, Citizen’s Advocate for Ms. Cynthia Potter, appeared before the Board to protest an exorbitant water bill Ms. Potter received from Miami-Dade Water and Sewer (WASD). She noted Ms. Potter was charged $6222.78 for the use of 477,972 gallons of water, which equated to 218.9 gallons per hour over 91 days or the filling of 30 standard sized pools. Ms. Lawrence referenced a packet she provided to each commissioner containing documents on WASD’s billing practices, and an opinion rendered by the Third District Court of Appeals in the case of Miami-Dade County vs. Reyes. The Court found that Mr. Reyes was denied due process in an administrative hearing, stating that consumers could not afford to hire expert witnesses to defend against high water bills; that hearing officers should serve impartially; and that any indications to the contrary would raise grave constitutional issues. She noted the County Administration apparently ignored that opinion by conducting Ms. Potter’s hearing in the same manner it conducted Mr. Reyes’ hearing. Ms. Lawrence also referenced a 2010 letter from Sensus Metering Systems, stating that air in water lines could affect the accuracy of the company’s meters, and WASD’s response that, “should a revised response not be forthcoming from Sensus Metering Systems by the close of business on December 10, all purchases will be suspended until further notice.” Ms. Lawrence advised that Ms. Potter signed a binding settlement to reduce her debt to $2,651, but questioned whether Ms. Potter was under duress when she signed that agreement. She noted this ordinance must be adopted as amended and include a provision for making the adjustments retroactive. 2) Ms. Potter appeared before the Board stating that WASD threatened to turn off her water the next day if she did not accept a binding settlement which required her to pay $74 per month for the next three years, and that the entire amount would become due and payable if she failed to make a payment. Commissioner Bell indicated that she discussed with Mr. Renfrow the proposal for retroactive adjustments, but he was uncomfortable with it. However, she researched the matter further and found a plausible solution, which was to limit the retroactive term to four years only; limit the number of adjustments to 100 customers who challenged their bill and lost the appeal; and give discretion to the Department Director to grant the adjustments. She noted the fiscal impact would be no greater than $200,000, and she would offer this amendment if acceptable to Commissioner Diaz as the co-sponsor. Mr. Renfrow explained that it was suggested in previous discussions that all customers with high water bills be given a retroactive adjustment, which would have a huge fiscal impact on WASD’s budget of about $2 million per year and set a precedent for other customers to challenge their water bills. He noted he understood the foregoing amendment would minimize the impact and narrow the scope by only granting retroactive adjustments to customers with bills six times (6Xs) higher than their average bill, which were appealed in the last year and lost. Commissioner Diaz pointed out that he tried to get approval for retroactive adjustments when a constituent in his District had a similar problem, and was told this would have a negative impact on the County’s bond ratings. He asked Mr. Renfrow to address his concern as well as whether this amendment was proffered earlier and if not, why; and whether the County’s bond ratings would be impacted by retroactive adjustments. Mr. Renfrow explained that the amendment was just proffered today, and previous discussions involved a one-time, lifetime billing adjustment to any customer who received a water bill 6Xs higher than their average bill, whether it had been appealed or not. Mr. Renfrow added that the bond ratings were a significant concern, and asked the Bond Consultant to come forward and state, for the record, his expert opinion on whether retroactive adjustments would put the County’s bond ratings at risk. Mr. John Kersten, Engineer/Bond Consultant, Black and Veech Corporation, noted his role was to advise on issues that could adversely impact WASD’s operations and bond ratings. He indicated that two issues of concern involving this ordinance were: 1) the reduction in revenues from adjustments in water bills would have a slightly negative impact on WASD’s Debt to Service Coverage Ratio, and 2) concerns that bond rating agencies could view the adjustments, especially retroactive adjustments, as a conflict with the Bond Resolution, which prohibited WASD from providing a free service or not collecting for water provided. He added that even if the agencies did not perceive it to be a conflict, they could view it negatively and downgrade the bond ratings, which would cost the County tens of millions of dollars in additional interest over the life of the bonds. In response to Commissioner Diaz’ question, Mr. Kersten replied that even a small amount could impact the bond ratings negatively. Commissioner Bell noted she carefully researched this issue to ensure it had no negative impact on the County. She added that she redefined the previous ordinance, which was too broad, to limit it to customers who had appealed a high water bill unsuccessfully; grant a one-time, lifetime adjustment; limit the retroactive period to four years; and give the Department Director discretion to grant adjustments. Commissioner Bell explained that based on her calculations, about 100 customers would receive the adjustments, and the fiscal impact would be no more than $200,000, adding that she discussed these numbers with Mr. Renfrow and he concurred with them. She noted she questioned whether the fiscal impact would be minimal or whether the adjustments could ever be defined as “free service or not collecting for water provided,” as previously stated by Mr. Kersten. Mr. Kersten clarified that the issue was not the dollar amount, but whether the bond agencies viewed the adjustments or forgiveness of water bills as “free service or not collecting for water provided,” which would be a breach of the Bond Resolution and put the bond ratings at risk. Mayor Gimenez noted he recalled being sympathetic to the customers during his tenure as a commissioner because some extraordinarily high water bills could not be explained. He said he disagreed with Mr. Kersten’s explanation that a bill adjustment equated to “free service or not collecting for water provided,” particularly considering customers were asked to pay their average bill amount. He added that stolen water was unlikely the cause for a one-time unexplained high water bill, and noted staff made adjustments to high water bills all the time for leaks attributable to the County and lost millions of gallons of water each year as a result of leakage in the County’s system. Mayor Gimenez said he felt it was reasonable to give the Department Director the discretion to grant a one-time, lifetime adjustment to customers with exorbitant water bills. Responding to Mayor Gimenez’ question whether the bond agencies would reverse their decision to downgrade the County’s bond ratings, if the Commission reconsidered the Bond Ordinance, Mr. Kersten noted it would be up to the bond agencies, but generally they did not react very quickly. Commissioner Diaz indicated that he did not oppose retroactive adjustments in extreme circumstances, but needed to be fiscally responsible and did not want to jeopardize the County’s bond ratings. He asked Assistant County Attorney Heffernan whether he concurred with the Consultant’s position. Assistant County Attorney Gerald Heffernan noted he concurred with the Mayor’s position that an adjustment to a bill was not providing a free service or a violation of the Bond Ordinance, because the customer was charged for water based on usage. He added that the Ordinance did not prohibit adjustments because they appeared to be a free service, and it was only fair to provide an adjustment for unexplained, exorbitant bills. Commissioner Diaz asked how the retroactive term of four years was determined, and whether the County could be sued if the retroactive period was not extended. Assistant County Attorney Gerald Heffernan replied that he was unsure how the retroactive term was determined, but the issue was not the four years, rather whether the adjustments constituted a free service and whether the County could provide the reimbursements. He noted his position was that a free service could not be provided under the circumstances described in this ordinance. Pursuant to Chairman Martinez’ query, Assistant County Attorney Heffernan clarified that under the present circumstances, where the County decided to give someone who had an unexplained, out of the ordinary, increase in their bill, a one-time, lifetime dispensation on a bill, in that instance, the County would not be providing a free service. Chairman Martinez expressed concern that a policy was being set based on the determination that a customer never received the service if the cause for the exorbitant bill was unknown. In response to Commissioner Sosa’s question regarding who was liable for the loss of water due to leakages in the County’s system, where it was connected to the customer’s home water meters, Mr. Renfrow noted the loss would never be attributed to the customer’s water meter. Commissioner Sosa said she opposed reopening the budget to find $200,000 to support the retroactive amount; otherwise, members of the Board would need to find funds to bridge the budget gap they were proposing to fill with employee concessions. She said she had tried to be consistent in not supporting retroactive proposals, which she believed posed a liability. Commissioner Sosa noted she supported this ordinance as originally proposed, without any retroactive adjustments. Commissioner Jordan asked if the proposed amendments were applicable to renters and homeowners and if so, that the address of the properties be included to prevent WASD from giving additional adjustments to a subsequent renter or owner at the same location. She noted she was concerned regarding the potential fiscal impact of this ordinance, if adopted. Mr. Renfrow noted that based on last year’s records, the impact of forgiving all extraordinarily high water bills (6Xs the average) would be approximately $2 million. Commissioner Jordan asked Mr. Renfrow whether he had the discretion to make adjustments to water bills. Mr. Renfrow said he currently had the discretion to adjust high water bills caused by concealed leakage where the cause was unknown and later discovered, but he did not have the discretion to forgive high water bills pursuant to this ordinance, which were defined as bills 6Xs the average bill, whether the cause was known or unknown. Responding to Commissioner Jordan’s inquiries regarding what action would be taken if a customer received a one-time adjustment and continued to receive high water bills; and what mechanisms were available to detect leakage, Mr. Renfrow noted a customer could only receive a one-time, lifetime adjustment once. He added that many certified plumbers and technicians were able to detect hidden leakage using a tool similar to a stethoscope. Commissioner Jordan expressed mixed feelings concerning this ordinance as written, which provided no maximum threshold and could open a Pandora box once the adjustments were made public. She asked if the $200,000 or less fiscal impact was certain going forth. She noted she preferred a hybrid process for forgiving bills and suggested establishing a set aside fund, with a maximum annual amount that could not be exceeded, like the one the County established to assist customers in paying their water bills, until the fund was exhausted. Mr. Renfrow clarified that the fund mentioned by Commissioner Jordan was set aside through the Community Action Agency (CAA) in an amount of possibly $500,000 per year, and eligibility was considered based on income levels. Pursuant to Commissioner Jordan’s question regarding how many customers the $200,000 would cover, Mr. Renfrow replied that the amount was calculated based on 103 customers who were unsuccessful in their appeal of an unusually high water bill, over the past four years. Commissioner Jordan said she would support the ordinance if it was amended to limit the impact to approximately $250,000. Assistant County Attorney Henry Gillman clarified that the impact of the retroactive portion would be $200,000 total for 103 customers, but the impact of this ordinance going forth would be approximately $2 million per year. Chairman Martinez pointed out that the Commission would be approving an ordinance that had a continual impact. Commissioner Jordan noted the impact was huge and she could not support this ordinance as presented. She said she intended to submit a proposal to enable the WASD to repair and/or replace aging infrastructure for a discussion and debate in a workshop forum. She noted members of the Board could not expect this department to pay out $2 million per year when it needed funds to repair broken pipes. Chairman Martinez pointed out that WASD needed to improve its infrastructure immediately, and may need to re-issue bonds for this purpose. Commissioner Heyman suggested the Board consider establishing a contingency or reserve fund for WASD to use to make adjustments to customers who received exorbitant bills, provided it was justifiable. She expressed concern that the Statutes of Limitations may cap the retroactive period to four years. Commissioner Moss stated that he was very familiar with Ms. Potter’s case, noting the County determined it could not provide an adjustment and made arrangements for Ms. Potter to pay off the debt through a payment plan. He asked whether WASD’s staff had considered billing on a monthly basis rather than a quarterly basis, to minimize the amount of time that lapsed before a customer to realize that a bill was erroneous. In response to Commissioner Moss’ question, Mr. Renfrow confirmed that departmental staff had considered billing on a monthly basis versus a quarterly basis; however, the cost to mail bills and read meters would triple. He noted WASD implemented a system to monitor high bills, and immediately contact the customer during the billing period in which the exorbitant bill occurred. Commissioner Moss said he believed that meters were being stolen in some cases, and used at other locations and then returned to the original location for the owner to be charged. He noted his concern was the cost of this ordinance and it opening up a Pandora box, but he wanted to be fair to those customers whose bills were obviously exorbitantly high. Responding to Commissioner Bovo’s inquiry as to whether the original ordinance mandated or delegated the Department Director the discretion to make the adjustments, Mr. Renfrow clarified that he did not have the discretion to make adjustments to the 103 cases appealed and denied by a hearing officer. Chairman Martinez clarified that members of the Board had agreed to the other proposed amendments, and were only discussing the proposed amendment for retroactive adjustments. He questioned whether a high water bill would be considered a “free service or not collecting for water provided” if the department determined that the customers’ system was the cause of the leakage. Assistant County Attorney Gillman noted in that case, service was provided, but the customer would be entitled to a credit adjustment as long as he/she notified the Department of the leak and made the repair. Chairman Martinez suggested the Commission instruct the Mayor or his designee to review all 103 cases and to submit the amount needed for adjustments to the County Commission for approval. Assistant County Attorney Henry Gillman noted he believed that would require a separate ordinance, and could not be accomplished by a resolution or direction. He explained that due process was served in some of the cases, which were successfully appealed and a final settlement rendered. Commissioner Bell suggested the Board vote separately on the original amendments proposed earlier, from the proposed retroactive portion being discussed. She clarified that the Bond Consultant was quick to assume a negative impact on bond ratings if this ordinance was approved, but slow to assume a positive impact on bond ratings if the ordinance was reconsidered. She reiterated that the determination of the four year retroactive timeframe was based on the Statutes of Limitations, and not on any particular person or group, noting this Commission approved retroactive items all the time and WASD had the lowest rates in the nation. The burden of proof was on the customer; and the Department Director would be given discretion to approve the adjustments, the commissioner noted. She suggested members of the Board take a straw vote on the retroactive portion. Chairman Martinez noted pursuant to the Board’s rules and procedures, the co-sponsor must accept the proposed amendment before voting on it. He pointed out that Commissioner Diaz was the co-sponsor and he had not accepted the proposed amendment yet. In response to Commissioner Monestime’s question regarding what process was currently used by the department to collect past due bills and declare accounts uncollectible, Mr. Renfrow noted the Department attempted to contact or communicate with customers by mailing notices. If the customers did not respond, the Department either shut the water off or litigated the unpaid bill, and sometimes placed a lien on the property. Commissioner Monestime referred to a statement made earlier that a property owner could not sell her property because the amount owed for water was too high, and he believed it was only fair for the County to come up with some kind of agreement when customers in good standing received extraordinarily high bills. He concurred with Commissioner Bell’s statement that an error could only be corrected retroactively, though it could be pre-empted. He questioned whether it was unusual for a customer to receive an exorbitant bill repeatedly or more than once. Mr. Renfrow noted, in some cases, this anomaly re-occurred after a bill had been settled. He reiterated that this ordinance would provide a one-time, lifetime adjustment for a water bill that was 6Xs higher than the customer’s average consumption rate. Commissioner Monestime said he had no issues with delegating the Department Director the discretion to adjust exorbitant bills one time. Chairman Martinez noted members of the Board had already agreed to grant the Department Director the discretion to make adjustments; however, the issue currently being discussed, was whether adjustments should be retroactive. He reiterated that procedurally, the co-sponsor must accept the proposed amendment. Commissioner Diaz said he could not accept the amendment because it would put the County’s bond ratings at risk of being downgraded. He asked Mr. Renfrow whether the department was currently facing issues with breakages in water and sewer lines, and needed to re-issue bonds to repair or replace pipes, as well as cover the amount needed for retroactive adjustments. Mr. Renfrow noted Commissioner Diaz was correct. Chairman Martinez clarified that if the proposed amendment was not accepted today, members of the Board would not be prohibited from presenting other proposals for retroactive adjustments. Commissioner Jordan clarified that her proposal was to include only prospective cases, the property owners’ or renters’ names and addresses, and to set the cap under $2 million or around $500,000. Commissioner Diaz noted he would accept Commissioner Jordan’s proposed amendment to include the property owners’ or renters’ names and addresses; however, he could not accept her proposal to reduce the cap. In response to Chairman Martinez’ inquiry as to whether this ordinance would require the Department Director to submit quarterly or annual reports, Mr. Renfrow said he believed it would. Pursuant to Assistant County Attorney Gillman’s request for clarification regarding the intent of Commissioner Jordan’s proposed amendment, Commissioner Jordan clarified that the intent was to preclude a tenant from receiving a credit after moving into a house in which a previous tenant had received a credit. Commissioner Diaz said it was his understanding that this ordinance as originally proposed, would prohibit double credits, and he would not accept the proposed amendments to include the property owners/renters’ names and addresses or make the adjustments retroactive. Hearing no further comments or discussion, the foregoing proposed ordinance was adopted as amended as follows: 1. to add the following subsections to Section 32-101 (3) to read as follows: (a) For residential customers, only one lifetime adjustment will be available to the property owners, based on the name(s) on the deed. If more than one property owner appears on the deed, only one lifetime adjustment will be available to the deed holders collectively; (b) In the case of renters, the one-time, lifetime adjustment will be limited to one per person for his/her lifetime, regardless of where he/she resides. Individuals who have received a one-time lifetime adjustment, while renting, will not be entitled to any further adjustments under this section, even if they subsequently, become property owners or relocate to a different rental property. (c) With regard to commercial entities (corporations, LLCs, partnerships, etc.), each commercial entity and all related parties will be limited to one lifetime adjustment collectively, in a commercial context. For purposes of this section, related parties shall mean entities and their principals, corporate officers, and managers that have a direct or indirect ownership interest in another entity. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no more than one lifetime adjustment may be awarded in connection with a commercial property every five years, regardless of what commercial entity occupies the property; and 2. Add the following sentence at the end of Section 32-101 (2) (b) to read: “Additionally, the customers’ licensed plumber must also execute the notarized affidavit before the customer submits it to the Department for consideration for a one-time, lifetime adjustment.”

Legislative Text


TITLE
ORDINANCE CREATING SECTION 32-101; GRANTING DISCRETION TO THE DIRECTOR OF THE MIAMI-DADE WATER AND SEWER DEPARTMENT TO ISSUE A ONE-TIME LIFETIME BILLING ADJUSTMENT TO CUSTOMERS WHERE THERE ARE EXTREME CIRCUMSTANCES THAT MERIT AN ADJUSTMENT; PROVIDING SEVERABILITY, INCLUSION IN THE CODE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE

BODY
WHEREAS, Resolution No. R-1164-04 provides a one-time lifetime adjustment for a Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Department quarterly single-family residential customer who receives a bill that exceeds six (6) times the past year’s average quarterly consumption due to a concealed leak; and
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 1164-04 has resulted in credits to customers that met the criterion in the amount $7,381,645.68 since its inception; and
WHEREAS, an adjustment to the bill for 50% of the excess water and 100% of the excess sewer charges above the average consumption is given if the quarterly single-family residential customer makes the necessary repairs to its plumbing and provides the information required by the Department’s Rules and Regulations; and
WHEREAS, on several occasions customers have received unusually high bills and neither the Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Department nor the customers have been able to explain the reason for such high bills; and
WHEREAS, this Board seeks to assist customers that receive a bill that exceeds six (6) times the past year’s average respective monthly or quarterly consumption and neither the Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Department nor the customers can explain the reason for the high bill; and
WHEREAS, in 2008, the Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Department received 11,087 high bill complaints and issued approximately 8,316 credits; and
WHEREAS, in 2009, the Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Department received 17,666 high bill complaints and issued approximately 12,965 credits; and
WHEREAS, in 2010, the Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Department received 16,364 high bill complaints and issued approximately 13,404 credits,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
Section 1. Section 32-101 of the Code of Miami-Dade County, Florida, is hereby created to read as follows1
>>32-101 Section 32-101. One-Time Lifetime Credit for Customers

(1) The Director of the Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Department is hereby given discretion to provide a one-time lifetime billing adjustment to a customer who disputes a high bill that is not the result of a concealed or visible leak. The Director’s discretion to grant such a credit will be based on his assessment that there are extreme circumstances affecting the customer’s account that merit a credit. If awarded, similar to the credit provided in the Department’s Rules 2.10(1)(e) and 3.10(1)(e), such credit will be a 50% credit to the water portion of the customer’s high bill above the customer’s last yearly average consumption and a 100% credit to the sewer portion of the customer’s high bill above the customer’s last yearly average consumption.

(a) For purposes of this section, the term “extreme circumstances” is defined as those situations in which a customer receives a bill that exceeds six (6) times the past year’s average, as applicable, monthly or quarterly consumption but is unable to show the Department that the high bill is due to a leak, concealed or visible, and cannot otherwise explain the high water bill.

(2) In order to be considered for the one-time lifetime billing adjustment that the Director of the Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Department has been given discretion to grant, a customer seeking a one-time lifetime adjustment for extreme circumstances must be in good standing with the Department.

(a) For purposes of this section, a customer in “good standing” is defined as a customer who has not had the water disconnected for nonpayment or his/her account placed in collection during the previous 12 months.

(b) In order to request a one-time lifetime billing adjustment, a customer must submit their request on a form proscribed by the Department; and must provide the Department with a notarized affidavit stating that a licensed plumber has checked the residence (inside and out) for leaks (both concealed and visible); that the customer did not leave a hose running inadvertently or otherwise allow water to flow for any period of time; and that there have been no changes in water usage within the household during the billing period (i.e. new landscaping, guests visiting, major household repairs or construction that required increased water usage, problems with one’s pool or sprinkler system, or water theft.) Additionally, the customer’s licensed plumber must also execute the notarized affidavit before the customer submits it to the Department for consideration for a one-time lifetime adjustment.


(3) The Department shall keep track of adjustments to ensure that a customer receives only one lifetime adjustment based on extreme circumstances.

(a) For residential customers, only one lifetime adjustment will be available to the property owners based on the name(s) appearing on the deed; thus, if there is more than one property owner reflected on a deed, only one lifetime adjustment will be available to the deedholders collectively. 

(b) In the case of renters, the one-time lifetime adjustment is limited to one per person for their lifetime regardless of where they are residing.  Individuals who have received a one-time lifetime adjustment while renting will not be entitled to any further adjustments under this section, even if they subsequently become property owners or relocate to a different rental property. 

(c) With regard to commercial entities (corporations, LLCs, partnerships, etc.), each commercial entity and all related parties will be limited to one lifetime adjustment collectively in the commercial context.  For purposes of this section, “related parties” shall mean entities, their principals, corporate officers and managers that have a direct or indirect ownership interest in another entity.  Notwithstanding the foregoing, no more than one lifetime adjustment may be awarded in connection with a commercial property every five years regardless of what commercial entity occupies the property.


(4) The Department will provide a report to the Board of County Commissioners on a quarterly basis, which sets forth a detailed accounting of the one-time lifetime adjustments under R1164-04 and this section of the Code per year.

(5) Nothing in this section shall affect the Department’s Rules and Regulations that address the procedures and credits allowed when a concealed or visible leak has been discovered in connection with a single-family residential customer’s account.<<

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 become and be made a part of the Code of Miami-Dade County, Florida. The Sections of this ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such intention and the word “ordinance may be changed to “section”, “article” or other appropriate word.
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.



1 Words Stricken through and/or [[double bracketed]] shall be deleted. Words underscored and/or >>double arrowed<< constitute the amendment proposed. Remaining provisions are now in effect and remain unchanged.



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.