File Number: 131926
|Printable PDF Format Clerk's Official Copy|
|File Number: 131926||File Type: Resolution||Status: Adopted|
|Version: 0||Reference: R-897-13||Control: County Commission|
|Requester: Office of Management and Budget||Cost:||Final Action: 11/5/2013|
|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||11/5/2013||8G1||Adopted||P|
|Land Use & Development Committee||10/10/2013||1F4||Forwarded to BCC with a favorable recommendation as corrected||P|
|REPORT:||Assistant County Attorney Dennis Kerbel read the foregoing proposed resolution into the record. He noted scrivener’s errors were corrected to include missing pages from the exhibits. Chairman Diaz opened the public hearing and called for persons wishing to appear before the Committee in connection with this proposed resolution. Mr. Hugh Gladwin, 400 NE 85th Street, El Portal, 33138, appeared in support. He noted the cost implications were not great and the two areas to be annexed would improve the Village’s ability to coordinate with the School system and with regional transportation. Mr. Adam Old, Council member, Village of El Portal, appeared in support. He noted the proposed annexation would erase two donut hole areas from the County’s unincorporated areas. Mr. Old said the Village had started, and would like to continue, landscaping services on one of the properties. Chairman Diaz closed the public hearing after no one else appeared wishing to speak. Commissioner Edmonson said this item began during her tenure as Mayor of El Portal and the second area which was connected to Biscayne Boulevard, belonged to El Portal many years ago. She noted this item was correcting an error previously made by the County, and both of the proposed areas were considered donut holes. The Committee members proceeded to vote on the foregoing resolution, as corrected.|
|Office of the Chairperson||10/9/2013||Scrivener's Errors|
|REPORT:||This item was reprinted to include the even pages of Exhibit 2.|
|County Attorney||10/1/2013||Assigned||Craig H. Coller||10/1/2013|
|County Mayor||9/30/2013||Assigned||County Attorney||11/5/2013|
|REPORT:||OMB- Pending Cmte Assignment- Agenda Review form attached- PH @committee-Commissioner Edmonson is sponsoring|
|County Mayor||9/30/2013||Assigned||Ed Marquez|
RESOLUTION RELATING TO ANNEXATION REQUEST OF THE VILLAGE OF EL PORTAL; PROVIDING THAT ACTION BE TAKEN PURSUANT TO SECTION 20-7(B) OF THE CODE OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY TO EITHER DIRECT THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE THE APPROPRIATE ORDINANCE TO EFFECTUATE THE ANNEXATION REQUEST, DENY THE ANNEXATION REQUEST OR TO DEFER THE ANNEXATION REQUEST
WHEREAS, on February 20, 2013, the Village of El Portal submitted an annexation request to Miami-Dade County; and
WHEREAS, the Clerk of the Board placed the annexation request on the Board of County Commissioner’s (Board’s) agenda on March 5, 2013; and
WHEREAS, the Board referred the matter to the Planning Advisory Board (PAB) for its review and recommendation; and
WHEREAS, the PAB after reviewing the required staff report and after a public hearing adopted a resolution providing a recommendation on the Village of El Portal’s annexation request attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit 1; and
WHEREAS, County staff has prepared a staff report attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit 2; and
WHEREAS, the County Mayor has prepared his recommendation on the Village of El Portal’s annexation request which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 20-7(B) the Board after a public hearing either directs that the County Attorney prepare the appropriate annexation request or the Board may deny the request or defer the request,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
Section 1. The foregoing recitals are incorporated in this resolution.
Section 2. The Board of County Commissioners hereby takes the following action on the annexation request of the Village of El Portal: The County Attorney is directed to prepare and submit to the Board of County Commissioners an ordinance to accomplish the annexation.
To: Honorable Chairwoman Rebeca Sosa
and Members, Board of County Commissioners
From: Carlos A. Gimenez
Subject: Village of El Portal Annexation Application
Pursuant to Chapter 20-7 (B) of the Miami-Dade County Code (Code) and following the required public hearing, the Board of County Commissioners (Board) shall adopt the accompanying resolution to take one of the following actions:
* Deny the requested boundary change as presented by the Village of El Portal (Village);
* Direct the County Attorney to prepare an appropriate ordinance and any additional agreements accomplishing the proposed boundary change; or
* Defer such requested boundary change for further consideration at a subsequent meeting.
It is recommended that the Board, pursuant to the Miami-Dade County Code Chapter 20, approve the boundary change requested by the Village and direct the County Attorney to prepare an appropriate ordinance and any additional agreements accomplishing the proposed boundary change.
The Village is proposing to annex two areas (Areas) adjacent to the Village’s boundaries. The Areas are deemed existing enclaves as defined in Chapter 20 of the Miami-Dade County Code (Code), where approximately 80 percent of its boundaries are surrounded by one or more municipalities. Area A is fully developed and only contains Horace Mann Middle School. Area B consists of 13 folios of which six are multi-family; five are vacant; one single family and one parking lot with a total of 70 residents. The first annexation area is surrounded entirely by the Village; the other area is surrounded by the Village to the north and the City of Miami to the south.
The proposed Areas are approximately 22 acres or 0.03 square miles of the Unincorporated Municipal Service Area (UMSA).
Area A is generally bounded on the north by NW 91 Street, on the south by NW 87 Street, on the east by NW 2 Avenue, and on the west by NW 3 Avenue. This Area is fully developed and only includes Horace Mann Middle School, a Miami-Dade County Public School.
Area B is generally bounded on the north by NE 83 Court, on the south by NE 83 Street, on the east by Biscayne Boulevard and on the west by the Little River Canal. This Area consists of mostly vacant land with a zoning designation of Hotels and Motels and Multi-Family.
Both Areas are located in Commission District 3, represented by Commissioner Audrey M. Edmonson.
Fiscal Impact/Funding Source
Attachment B to the attached staff report is the “Impact to the Unincorporated Area”. The Areas’ taxable value is $2.6 million. The Areas generate an estimated $12,085 in revenue. The County spends an estimated $39,018 per year providing services to the Areas. Therefore, the net revenue gain to the UMSA budget is an estimated $26,933.
At the FY 2012-13 Village millage rate of 8.3 mills, the ad valorem revenues attributable to the Area would be $21,020. At the FY 2012-13 UMSA millage rate of 1.9283 mills, the ad valorem revenues attributable to the Area would be $4,883. The expected tax increase to the entire Area would be $16,136 given the higher Village millage rate, and the average property owner would pay an additional $1,241 in property taxes if this annexation is approved.
If the annexation is approved, pursuant to Section 20-8.1 and 20-8.2 of the County Code, the County would retain all franchise fees and utility tax revenues of the area. For the proposed annexation, an estimated $2,214 of franchise fees and $4,454 of utility taxes will be retained by the County.
If the annexation is approved, the Office of Management and Budget will monitor the interlocal agreement governing the Area.
On February 20, 2013 the Village submitted a boundary change application to the Miami-Dade County Clerk of the Board. The application was placed on the March 5, 2013 Board meeting and was referred to the Planning Advisory Board, as required by the Code.
After reviewing the staff report provided by the Office of Management and Budget, the Incorporation and Annexation Committee of the Planning Advisory Board and the Planning Advisory Board held a public hearing on July 1, 2013, and recommended the Board approve the annexation.
It is important to note that the Area has fewer than 250 resident electors and less than 50 percent is developed as residential. Should the Board approve the annexation, a vote of the electors in the Area will not be required.
The staff report, as reviewed by the Planning Advisory Board and the annexation application, is attached for the Board’s reference.
On November 6, 2012, Section 6.04 B of the Miami-Dade County Charter was amended requiring the Board to consider whether commercial areas are included in the boundaries of the proposed Area to be annexed for the mere benefit of increasing the tax base of the annexing municipality.
Area A is fully developed and only includes Horace Mann Middle School, a Miami-Dade County Public School.
Area B consists of mostly vacant land with a zoning designation of Hotels and Motels and Multi-Family.
Pursuant to Section 20-7 of the Code, staff is to provide the Board and the Planning Advisory Board with the following information for consideration of the annexation.
1. The suitability of the proposed annexation boundaries, in conjunction with the existing municipality, to provide for a municipal community that is both cohesive and inclusive.
a) Does the area divide a Census Designated Place, (an officially or historically recognized traditional community?
The proposed Areas are not within and do not divide a Census Designated Place.
b) Have any adjacent unincorporated areas with a majority of ethnic minority or lower income residents petitioned to be in the annexation area?
No adjacent unincorporated areas have a majority of ethnic minority or lower income residents that have petitioned to be in the annexation area.
c) Is the area or does it create an unincorporated enclave area (surrounded on 80 percent or more of its boundary by municipalities) that cannot be efficiently or effectively served by the County?
The proposed annexation areas are unincorporated enclaves. Area A is surrounded by the Village on 100 percent of its boundaries, while Area B is surrounded by the Village and the City of Miami.
d) Are the boundaries logical, consisting of natural, built, or existing features or Village limits?
The boundaries of the proposed Areas are mostly logical and generally follow City limits or rights-of-way.
2. The existing and projected property tax cost for the municipal-level service to the average homeowners in the area currently as unincorporated and as included as part of the annexing municipality.
The taxable value within the Areas is $2,665,782. At the current Village millage rate (8.3 mills), the ad valorem revenues attributable to the Areas would be $21,020. At the current UMSA millage rate (1.9283 mills), the ad valorem revenues attributable to the Areas would be $4,883 as noted in the table below. The expected tax increase to the entire Area would be an additional 6.3717 mills and $16,136. It is important to note that Area A is a school with no taxable value, and there are 13 folios in Area B, and the average property owner would pay an additional $1,241 if this annexation is approved.
Existing and Projected Property Tax Cost Village of El Portal FY 2012-13 Millage Rate Millage x Taxable Value Village of El Portal Municipal Millage 8.3 $21,020 Unincorporated Area UMSA Millage 1.9283 $4,883 Increase 6.3717 $16,136 3. Relationship of the proposed annexation area to the Urban Development Boundary (UDB) of the County's Comprehensive Development Master Plan.
The proposed annexation areas are located inside the 2015 UDB of the Adopted 2015 and 2025 Land Use Plan (LUP) map of the Miami-Dade County Comprehensive Development Master Plan.
4. What is the impact of the proposal on the revenue base of the unincorporated area and on the ability of the County to efficiently and effectively provide services to the adjacent remaining unincorporated areas?
The total taxable value of the Areas is $2,665,782. The areas generate an estimated $12,085 in revenue. The County spends an estimated $39,018 per year providing services to the Areas. Therefore, the net revenue gain to the UMSA budget is an estimated $26,933.
Pursuant to Section 20-8.1 and 20-8.2 of the County Code, the County retains all franchise fees and utility tax revenues of the Area upon annexation. For the proposed annexation, franchise fees of an estimated $2,214 and utility taxes of an estimated $4,454 will be retained by the County.
5. What is the fiscal impact of the proposed annexation on the remaining unincorporated areas of Miami-Dade County? Specifically, does the per capita taxable value of the area fall within the range of $20,000 to $48,000?
There are 70 residents in annexation Area B. The per capita taxable value is $38,082.
6. Is the annexation consistent with the Land Use Plan of the County’s CDMP?
The proposed annexation Areas are isolated enclaves of unincorporated lands. Area A comprises land developed with institutional uses (the Academy for Community Education and the Horace Mann Middle School), and is completely surrounded by single family residences that are within the Village. Area B comprises residences and vacant land that abut lands within the Village to the north and the City of Miami to the south, east and west.
The property within Area A is designated “Low Density Residential” (2.5 to 6.0 dwelling units per gross acre), where public schools are an allowed institutional use. The properties within Area B are designated “Medium-High Density Residential” (25 to 60 dwelling units per gross acre).
The Application for Annexation (pg. 21) states “…The Village envisions maintaining the land use mix that currently exists.” The Village’s Future Land Use map shows Area A as Educational and designates the lands abutting this proposed annexation area as Single Family Residential. The land abutting Area B is designated Office Park/Light Retail on the Village’s Future Land Use map. The annexation would be consistent with the CDMP if the Village re-designates the annexation areas to land use designations similar to the current CDMP LUP map designations for the areas.
E-mail your comments,
questions and suggestions to