File Number: 130655
|Printable PDF Format|
|File Number: 130655||File Type: Resolution||Status: Amended|
|Version: 0||Reference:||Control: Board of County Commissioners|
|Requester: Office of Management and Budget||Cost:||Final Action:|
|Sunset Provision: No||Effective Date:||Expiration Date:|
|Registered Lobbyist:||None Listed|
|Acting Body||Date||Agenda Item||Action||Sent To||Due Date||Returned||Pass/Fail|
|Board of County Commissioners||4/16/2013||8G1||Amended|
|REPORT:||See Agenda Item 8G1 Amended; Legislative File No. 130815.|
|County Attorney||4/8/2013||Assigned||Debra Herman|
|County Mayor||4/8/2013||Assigned||County Attorney||4/16/2013|
|REPORT:||ISD- Debra Herman CAO- Settlement agreement-No Committee and Commissioner Edmonson sponsorship.|
|County Mayor||4/8/2013||Assigned||Ed Marquez|
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SETTLEMENT OF THE LAWSUIT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MIAMI, THE SOUTHEAST OVERTOWN/PARK WEST COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND MIAMI-DADE COUNTY RELATING TO BLOCKS 36, 45 AND 56 LOCATED IN MIAMI-DADE COUNTY
WHEREAS, in January 2008, the City of Miami (the “City”) and the Southeast Overtown/Park West Community Redevelopment Agency (the “CRA”) filed a lawsuit against Miami-Dade County (the “County”), captioned City of Miami et al. v. Miami-Dade County, Case No 07-46851 CA 31 regarding Blocks 36, 45 and 56 located in Miami-Dade County; and
WHEREAS, an injunction which has been entered by the Court in that lawsuit prohibiting development on such properties until resolution of such lawsuit; and
WHEREAS, the County, the City, and the CRA seek to resolve the litigation in accordance with the terms of the attached Settlement Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the Board desires to accomplish the purposes outlined in the accompanying memorandum, a copy of which is incorporated herein by reference,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
Section 1. This Board ratifies and adopts those matters set forth in the foregoing recitals.
Section 2. This Board authorizes and directs the County Mayor or the County Mayor’s designee to execute the attached Settlement Agreement between the County, City, and CRA in substantially the form attached hereto and incorporated herein, and to perform all acts as set forth in the Settlement Agreement necessary in order to effectuate same.
Section 3. This Board authorizes the County Attorney to compromise and settle on behalf of the County all claims against the County on the terms set forth in the attached Settlement Agreement.
Section 4. Pursuant to Resolution No. R-974-09, the Board directs the County Mayor or the County Mayor’s designee to record any instrument of conveyance accepted herein, creating or reserving a property right in the County, in the Public Records of Miami-Dade County, Florida; and to provide a recorded copy of the instrument to the Clerk of the Board within thirty (30) days of execution of said instrument; and directs the Clerk of the Board to attach and permanently store a recorded copy together with this resolution.
To: Honorable Chairwoman Rebeca Sosa
and Members, Board of County Commissioners
From: Carlos A. Gimenez
R. A. Cuevas, Jr.
Subject: Approving the Settlement Agreement to Dismiss With Prejudice the Case of City of Miami et al v. Miami-Dade County, Case NO. 07-46851 CA 31
It is recommended that the Board of County Commissioners (Board) adopt the accompanying resolution approving the Settlement Agreement (Agreement) between the County, City of Miami (City) and the Southeast Overtown/Park West Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) which dismisses with prejudice the case of City of Miami et al. v. Miami-Dade County, Case No 07-46851 CA 31 (lawsuit) in accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement for the properties on Blocks 36, 45N and 56N (Blocks) located in Overtown, City of Miami.
This item seeks to settle that lawsuit in which the County, the City, and the CRA, each claim ownership of the Blocks, in order to allow development of this area of Overtown to commence. Additionally, as part of the Agreement, the Board is also approving a Declaration of Restrictions (Declaration) that imposes certain development criteria and restrictions on the Blocks.
The CRA and City approved the Agreement on March 25, 2013 and March 28, 2013, respectively.
The Blocks to be developed are in Commission District 3, represented by Commissioner Audrey M. Edmonson, and are depicted on the attached map.
Fiscal Impact/Funding Source
According to the Miami-Dade County Property Appraiser, the 2012 Preliminary Assessed Value for the three Blocks to be conveyed is $7,822,830. The County will convey these properties, at no initial cost to the CRA (which will convey the properties to the selected developers prior to construction), in exchange for development that will serve as a catalyst for redevelopment in the Overtown area and guaranteed future Project Payments to the County and the CRA. The selected developer will make separate Project Payments to the County and the CRA as follows: 1) for Blocks 45 and 56, the greater of 2.5 percent of Gross Rent paid for occupancy of space within the retail component, or $122,000 each per year for five years with a three percent annual increase thereafter, and 2) for Block 36, the greater of 2.5 percent of Gross Rent or $38,500 each per year under the same payment structure. The payments on all Blocks would commence 30 days from issuance of the temporary certificate of occupancy on the retail component, but no later than five years after this Settlement is recorded, and would continue for a 25 year period.
The Project Payments received by the County will be used for services that support the redevelopment project and other community development efforts.
The County Attorney’s Office will monitor the settlement agreement with respect to the recording of the documents. The County’s Internal Services Department will monitor the progress of the development and all other aspects of the settlement agreement.
On January 20, 1981, the BCC approved Resolution R-39-81 establishing the CRA when it declared the area to be slum and blighted. The Board subsequently approved Resolution R-1677-82 approving the CRA’s Community Redevelopment Plan (Plan) and enacted Ordinance No. 82-115 to fund the Plan through the Agency Trust Fund.
In July 2003, the City and County entered into a settlement agreement concerning these same three parcels, Circuit Court Case No. 2001-13810 CA-08. Based on that agreement, the City and the CRA were to execute quit claim deeds for the properties to the County that would be held in escrow by the County’s General Services Administration, now known as the Internal Services Department, for a period of four years, beginning August 1, 2003. Unless the City or the CRA commenced construction of the development on all properties by August 1, 2007, the County was to file the escrowed quit claim deeds in the public records and the properties were to be deemed legally quieted to the County without further order of the court. Through Resolution R-875-07, the Board authorized the extension of the reverter date to December 31, 2007. On January 2, 2008, the County filed the escrowed quit claim deeds and as a result, the City filed a lawsuit against the County, City of Miami et al. v. Miami-Dade County, Case No 07-46851 CA 31, asserting ownership by the City. The Court in this matter issued an injunction prohibiting development on the parcels by the City, the County, or the CRA, pending resolution of the case. This item seeks to settle that lawsuit, and in doing so, allows development of this area to commence.
On July 21, 2009, the Board approved amendments to the CRA’s Plan to expand the area and extend the life of the CRA until March 31, 2030. Along with approval of the updated Plan, a 2nd Amendment to the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement (Amendment) was approved. The Amendment required, among other things, that this lawsuit be dismissed with prejudice upon the County’s approval of a development plan for these three blocks. In April 2010, the City submitted a development plan pursuant to the Amendment; however, the plan lacked sufficient detail. County, City and CRA officials subsequently met to discuss the issues and development of the Blocks and have negotiated the attached Agreement and Declaration.
The significant highlights of the proposed Agreement and Declaration include, but are not limited to, the following:
* Conveyance by the County and the City to the CRA of all title and interest in the Blocks, immediately followed by two solicitations being issued by the CRA to develop the Blocks (one for 45 and 56 and the other for Block 36) in accordance with minimum requirements for development as set in the Agreement. The Properties will be conveyed to the selected developers prior to commencement of construction.
* Preservation of the history and character of the Overtown area, while incorporating the theme of “Live, Work and Play,” to the fullest extent possible.
* Development of a Retail Component with a minimum of 150,000 square feet of retail, office, hotel and/or permitted institutional space with, at a minimum, structural parking spaces required by Code to accommodate the development on Blocks 45 and 56, and construction of 30,000 square feet of retail plus a parking garage including 300 parking spaces on Block 36.
* Additionally, development on Blocks 45 and 56 of a minimum of 60 affordable housing units (Residential Component), of which ten percent will be available for families earning 30 percent or less of the area median income (AMI), 70 percent will be made available for families earning between 30 and 80 percent of AMI, and the remaining 20 percent will be made available for families earning between 80 and 140 percent of AMI. The CRA will be responsible for development of an additional 100 residential units in the area. Pursuant to R-556-09, the AMI in Miami-Dade County is detailed further in this memorandum.
* Phases of construction will be scheduled with a preference on completion of the Retail Component prior to the Residential Component although both components can be under construction simultaneously.
* Requires information regarding job opportunities for local area residents and businesses to allow them to participate in the construction of the development, including at least two local job fairs prior to the commencement of each development phase.
* Requires information regarding job opportunities for local area residents and local businesses post-construction, including newly generated trade and service related jobs, including at least one job fair upon completion of each development phase.
* Provides for a Project Payment from the developer to the County and CRA as noted in the fiscal impact section.
* Authorizes the CRA Executive Director to modify the agreement by up to ten percent with respect to the square footage in the Retail Component and the number of units in the Residential Component, but not the percentage allocations of housing units by AMI, without further City and County approval provided the modifications are in writing. Any other variances from the requirements of the Restrictive Covenant, proposed by a Developer or the CRA, would require approval of this Board.
* Provides for enforcement by the County of the provisions of the Declaration and the Settlement Agreement by motion filed with the Court in the event of non-compliance or by reverter.
* The Board would be required to approve any proposed Developers selected by the CRA within 45 days of notice by the CRA, in order for the Developer to be selected. The only exception is that if the CRA enters a Development Agreement with Gatehouse Group LLC (Gatehouse), previously selected pursuant to a prior Request for Proposal issued by the CRA on Block 36, for the development of Block 36, no approval would be needed by the County.
Pursuant to R-556-09, below are charts that illustrate the AMI in Miami-Dade County by household size.
FY 2013 Income Limit for Miami-Dade County
Median Income $49,000
Income Category 1
Persons 30% $13,740 $15,720 $17,670 $19,620 $21,210 $22,770 $24,330 60% $27,480 $31,440 $35,340 $39,240 $42,420 $45,540 $48,660 140% $64,120 $73,360 $82,460 $91,560 $98,980 $106,260 $113,540 Source of information – Florida Housing Finance Corporation
FY 2013 – Rent for Affordable Housing (Miami-Dade County)
AMI Percentage Category
Percentage Category 1 Bedroom 2 Bedrooms 3 Bedrooms 4 Bedrooms 30% $368.00 $441.00 $510.00 $569.00 60% $736.00 $883.00 $1,020.00 $1,138.00 140% $1,718.00 $2,061.00 $2,381.00 $2,656.00 Source of information – Florida Housing Finance Corporation
The time frames for the development are as follows:
Blocks 45 and 56
* Obtain all land use and zoning approvals for both the Retail and Residential Components within two years of this settlement.
* Commence vertical construction within three years of this settlement.
* Substantially complete construction of the Retail and Residential Components within two years of commencement of vertical construction.
* The CRA Executive Director will have the ability to modify the time frames of the development, square footage of the retail development and number of units of the residential component by no more than ten percent without further City and County Board approval.
* Obtain all land use and zoning approvals for the Retail and Parking Components within two years of this settlement (within one year if selected developer is Gatehouse in light of the prior CRA Request for Proposal approving negotiation of a development agreement with this developer).
* Commence vertical construction within three years of this settlement (within two years if Gatehouse)
* Substantially complete construction of the Retail and Residential Components within two years of commencement of vertical construction.
The CRA Executive Director will have the ability to modify the time frames of the development of the square footage of the retail development and number of units of the residential component by no more than ten percent without further City and County Board approval.
The Declarations provide for a Default Notice if the developer fails to obtain all land use and zoning approvals or fails to substantially complete the Retail, Parking, and Residential Components within their respective timeframes. In either instance, the developer may extend the approval or respective completion dates by six months by paying $250,000 to each the CRA and County.
As previously noted, the County will have 45 days (plus the mayoral veto and Board override period) as of the date the CRA provides notice to the County of the selection of the developer to approve or reject the developer (other than Gatehouse which is approved herein with respect to Block 36 only). If no action is taken by the Board to approve or reject the selected developers within 45 days, then the developers are automatically deemed approved at the expiration of the 45 days. The County waives any Committee reviews (if applicable) for approvals required under this Settlement Agreement and attached Declaration, and all such approvals will be presented directly to the full Board for final approval.
Reverter to the County may be exercised by the County if: 1) vertical construction is not commenced as set forth above, 2) the CRA attempts to select a developer two times and is unable to select and forward the name of a selected developer to the County (either receives no bids or is unable to select), or 3) the construction is not complete within six years (although the portion of Block 36 including the parking garage will not revert if that portion is constructed). At all times, the County has the right, in addition to the reverter, to enforce compliance with the restrictions and covenants by motion filed with the Court.
E-mail your comments,
questions and suggestions to