Legislative Matter

Miami-Dade Legislative Item
File Number: 141707

Printable PDF Format

File Number: 141707

File Type: Ordinance

Status: In Committee

Version: 0

Reference:

Control: Board of County Commissioners

File Name: METROMOVER TRANSIT FEE FOR SERVICE

Introduced: 7/31/2014

Requester: NONE

Cost:

Final Action: 3/17/2015

Agenda Date: 3/17/2015

Agenda Item Number: 7B

Notes:

REQUIRES 2/3 VOTE - REQUIRES 6 WEEKS BETWEEN FIRST AND SECOND READING

Title:

ORDINANCE AMENDING BY A TWO-THIRDS VOTE OF THE COMMISSION MEMBERSHIP SECTION 29-124 OF THE CODE OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA BY ELIMINATING FARE FREE TRANSPORTATION SERVICE ON METROMOVER; PROVIDING SEVERABILITY, INCLUSION IN THE CODE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE

Indexes:	FEE
	METROMOVER

Sponsors:	Sally A. Heyman, Co-Prime Sponsor
	Barbara J. Jordan, 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	3/17/2015	7B	Adopted				F
REPORT:	First Assistant County Attorney Abigail Price-Williams read the foregoing proposed ordinance into the record. It was moved by Commissioner Heyman that the foregoing proposed ordinance be adopted. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Jordan. Commissioner Sosa said she could not support this proposal, as residents were promised free public transportation on the Metromover when they approved the half-penny sales tax. Commissioner Levine Cava echoed Commissioner Sosa’s remarks. She commended the sponsors for attempting to identify revenue for the transit system and noted she was hopeful the Board would continue to explore proposed options. Commissioner Levine Cava said if the Board decided that this proposal was an appropriate option for reconsideration and it was submitted to the voters in 2016, it could be an opportunity to present comprehensive transit-oriented items for voter approval, and she would be supportive of bringing recommendations to the public at that time. Commissioner Levine Cava expressed concern regarding privatization of the Metromover. She noted the Board was informed there was no cost benefit analysis for the Metromover charges in its current format, and she could not support the foregoing item. Commissioner Barreiro said he did not support the proposed ordinance. He noted he understood the issue of funding mass transit, and supported identifying a dedicated revenue source; however, mass transit was currently substantially subsidized in all forms. Commissioner Barreiro opined that mass transit should be considered holistically and the cost to operate a transit system should be determined, and dollars obtained through some general form that everyone paid into and benefitted from. He noted the Metromover, Metrorail, and local circulator systems were attracting ridership; and the local circulators and the Metromover had no fares. Commissioner Barreiro stressed the need to create more incentive for people to use mass transit, and indicated that he would continue working with Commissioner Jordan on other legislation to generate revenue. Chairman Monestime noted he would not support this proposal as most mass transit system was subsidized. Commissioner Moss indicated he was not supportive of the foregoing item. Commissioner Zapata noted many promises were made to the voters that were broken. He said the transit system did not have a strategic plan, did not have a vision and was inefficient. Commissioner Zapata directed questions to Ms. Ysela Llort, Director, Miami-Dade Transit (MDT) regarding MDT’s cost structure. Commissioner Zapata said he would not be supportive of the foregoing item. He noted his belief that Community Redevelopment Areas (CRAs) that benefitted immensely from the free Metromover needed to contribute to the system; and suggested contracting the operational hours for the Metromover. Commissioner Zapata commented on the bus system and noted the need for a bus system with the highest impact with the available resources. Commissioner Barreiro suggested later operational hours for the Metromover on the weekends to accommodate downtown Miami riders. He also noted the Omni Metromover Loop was the only loop within the CRA. Commissioner Jordan spoke in support of the foregoing proposed ordinance, and commented on her editorial in the Miami Herald in support of this item. She noted it was her understanding that a plan would be presented to the Board to privatize the Metromover, and expressed that any money to be made or any jobs to be created should first be considered by the Board. Commissioner Jordan pointed out that a promise was made when the Metromover ridership was not high, and the promise was kept in good faith for ten years; however, conditions had changed as downtown Miami was booming; people were finding difficulty parking; and the area was growing even more. She agreed that all transit should be free, but expressed concern that the brunt was being borne by the working poor while people who might be making over $100,000 could ride free. Commissioner Jordan indicated that she believed the voters would be supportive of eliminating fare free transportation service on the Metromover. Chairman Monestime noted the opportunity was always afforded to the sponsors of an item to speak before and after consideration of the item. Commissioner Heyman thanked Commissioner Jordan for co-sponsoring the foregoing proposed ordinance, and noted she read Commissioner Jordan’s editorial. She noted the Board should not make promises that it might not have the ability to control and keep in a changing society. Commissioner Heyman agreed that leadership in Transit was needed, and commented on fares for buses, Metrorail, and Special Transportation Service. She also agreed with Commissioner Bovo’s editorial regarding the need for tangible transit solutions; and acknowledged that the People’s Transportation Plan (PTP) had proven to be inadequate. Commissioner Heyman said the people mover system in Jacksonville, Duval County, was currently 100 percent free and this was accomplished through a six percent increase in gas tax which resulted in a dedicated funding stream. She suggested that Commissioner Bovo explore this option as a potential funding source. Commissioner Heyman said patrons of the Arsht Center and the Perez Art Museum Miami (PAMM) were encouraged to use the Metromover due to insufficient parking spaces; however, the City of Miami’s 20 percent of the PTP did not pay for the intercity transit service. She noted in speaking to Metromover users, no one indicated that they would prefer to drive and park downtown, rather than paying a fare of $1.00. Commissioner Heyman commented on the Downtown Development Authority’s position that mass transit should be totally free, but pointed out that it was not free and even by charging a bus fare of $2.50, the deficit could still not be addressed. She noted while she was not a proponent for privatization, it may be time to look at what was being done in Transit. Commissioner Heyman indicated that she was working on a proposal to ask the voters in 2016 to direct the half-penny to countywide transit expansion, and no free service on the Metromover as she believed that was an unfair subsidization. Commissioner Barreiro noted he did not support the half-penny as he did not believe it was enough. He offered to work with any of his colleagues who wanted to address public transportation issues. There being no further discussion, the foregoing motion, upon being put to a vote, failed by a vote of 2-10.

Board of County Commissioners	3/3/2015	7E	Deferred		3/17/2015		P
REPORT:	First Assistant County Attorney Abigail Price-Williams read the foregoing proposed ordinance into the record. She advised that a 2/3 vote (nine votes) of the County Commission was required to adopt this item. Commissioner Heyman suggested that the item be deferred until the March 17, 2015 Board of County Commissioners meeting, in Commissioner Jordan’s absence. She acknowledged members of the public who voiced their opinions earlier in the meeting and for the media attention to this item. Hearing no further questions or comments, the Commission proceeded to vote to defer the foregoing proposed ordinance. Note: See Agenda Item No. 1G for public comments on this item.

Transit and Mobility Services Committee	2/11/2015	1G1	Forwarded to BCC with a favorable recommendation				P
REPORT:	Assistant County Attorney Geri Bonzon-Keenan read the foregoing proposed ordinance into the record. Commissioner Jordan noted as a co-prime sponsor with Commissioner Heyman on this item that she expected some challenges; however, she believed a significant opportunity was being missed with the growing developments in downtown Miami-Dade, such as the condominiums. She was aware of the opposition from the Citizens’ Independent Transportation Trust (CITT) of this item, but she believed there was a need to gain as much revenue as possible to help with the transit system. Commissioner Jordan noted that if this fare continued to be at no cost there would be a loss of opportunities for growth and development in this area. She pointed out those who could afford to pay a fee more than others who may use Special Transportation Service (STS) or other transportation services and the discounts were used by people who could afford it, rather than the people who could not. Commissioner Jordan stated that research was conducted to determine the cost, which was high, but equivalent to the ridership at that time; however, there has been a significant amount of ongoing growth. It was moved by Commissioner Jordan that the foregoing proposed ordinance be forwarded with a favorable recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Diaz seconded this motion for discussion. Chairman Bovo opened the public hearing on the foregoing item. Ms. Heather Needelman appeared before the TMSC members on behalf of Commissioner Heyman who could not be present at today’s (2/11) TMSC meeting. She referred to the memorandum from Commissioner Heyman with the attached news articles and noted that they reflected on the free Miami Metro-Mover that was 100 percent subsidized by this County’s budget and the economic legitimacy to create a charge for this service. Ms. Needelman stated that Commissioner Heyman was requesting that the Administration aggressively look at this funding source to defuse the County’s Transit Budget. She asked that the TMSC members forwarded this proposed ordinance with favorable recommendations to the full Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Eric Riel, Miami Downtown Development Authority, appeared before the TMSC members and pointed out there was a passing vote by this Commission, an elected government for a resolution that recommended a fare free metro-mover system in October 2014. Mr. Charles Scurr, Executive Director, Citizens’ Independent Transportation Trust appeared before the TMSC members and noted the challenges faced related to this item that would be reviewed every six months by the Trust. He noted the opinion of the Trust points to the promises made to the voters should only be changed for the following specific reasons: - If there was a compelling public purpose - If there was a significant gain and no unintended consequences Mr. Scurr noted upon reviewing this item there was an inverse relationship if the fare was reestablished at a low rate, such as a quarter, there would not be enough revenue generated for a compelling public purpose. However, if there was higher fare established such as a dollar, it would result in a number of unintended consequences. He said there would be a significant adverse impact on ridership and the metro rail and bus passengers would be impacted as well as City of Miami Trolley passengers who pay fares because there was no fare mechanism for a transfer from a bus to rail service. Mr. Scurr noted the efforts made to resolve this matter; however, the Trust members could not identify a compelling public purpose to change the policy and promise to voters. Commissioner Diaz pointed out the ongoing need for changes and that every venue needed to be looked at within this community in order to make improvements. In response to Commissioner Diaz’ question regarding the number of free fares around the country, Ms. Ysela Llort, Director of Miami-Dade Transit noted she did not have that information on hand and would have to retrieve that information to provide it to this Committee. Commissioner Diaz requested that Miami Dade Transit Director Ysela Llort and Deputy Mayor Alina Hudak provide a report before this item was considered by the County Commission on the number of Metro Mover or circulators existing around the country at no cost to the public, and to include information on the length of time in existence, the distance of travel, and information on like services provided in Miami-Dade County. Commissioner Diaz reiterated his concerns due to the growth of this County and said he was supportive of this item. Commissioner Suarez noted that he was not supportive of this proposal. He said that based on his observation after a Sunshine meeting with Chairman Bovo; there was a cultural impediment that people had to use public transportation. He referred to a conversation with Chairman Bovo regarding the complex demographics made by analysis, and that the key reasons that limited people from utilizing public transportation was the lack of information regarding fares and how to pay. Commissioner Suarez spoke on how this transit service was the one of was best functioning part of this transit system and was used by a diverse group of business people, which made downtown Miami connected like an engine that drives this County. He noted that any impediment put on this system could make it counter-productive. He further noted how complicated it was to determine an appropriate fare amount due to the various people who used the system, such as bankers, and the homeless, that totaled approximately nine million people using this transportation system annually. Commissioner Suarez spoke on a presentation he made on behalf of this County many years ago during the economic impact statement hearings and that he argued against the estimate per rider mile totaling $14.00. Commissioner Suarez concluded that he would not be supportive of this item. Commissioner Barreiro noted that while he shared the same concerns as Commissioner Jordan regarding generating and increasing revenue in addition to a system that was properly funded and maintained, he had a different insight. He said everything cost, but he believed it had to be paid for by another revenue source. Commissioner Barreiro urged the Committee members to decide differently than what was commonly known in other areas. He also noted this was the reason the level of numbers continued to increase as it relates to ridership. Commissioner Barreiro noted this service was not free, but it was not a fare collecting system, but paid by another revenue source. He noted the need to encourage the public to use this mass transit system more although the whole system was approximately 60 percent subsidized in addition to the fare collections, which required other expenses, such as auditing. In conclusion, Commissioner Barreiro noted he was not supportive of the foregoing item. Vice Chairman Moss noted he would not be able to support the foregoing proposed item. He commented on future plans wherein there would be no cost transportation, but the question was to determine how to create a mechanism to pay for it. He noted he liked the vision, but there was a need to creatively think in that direction for the future, wherein the public would use mass transit more. Commissioner Diaz pointed out the difficult equation that was wanted by the majority of the Commissioners, but would require supplements, such as increase in taxes. He stated that if another revenue source was identified he would support the idea of free fares. He spoke on the high maintenance fees of the trains, which system was over 30 years old. Commissioner Diaz questioned who would pay for this transit system if the metro mover services remained at no cost. He said he would like to explore and listen to recommendations, such as the amount to charge, or to determine another source of revenue. Commissioner Diaz commented on the increase in buses, trolleys and he questioned the source of revenue, which was why he was supportive of the foregoing proposal because there was a need to find other resources, because he would like to see the fares at no cost, but he agreed with Commissioner Barreiro, that everything cost. Chairman Bovo noted this was a public hearing and hearing no other persons wishing to speak on this item, he closed the public hearing. Responding to Chairman Bovo’s question regarding how was the number of riders determined since there were no mechanism upon entering the terminal, Commissioner Jordan noted that this mechanism was removed. Chairman Bovo expressed his concern after hearing both sides regarding the fact of taking away a system from the people that was given, in addition to making changes. In response to Chairman Bovo’s second request regarding how the number of transit users was monitored, Ms. Ysela Llort noted there was an electronic eye that takes count and was tested to monitor any occurring problems such as data, and trends. She noted this information was part of the monthly report submitted to this Committee. She noted September report listed approximately 32,000 transit users per day, and had increased by 1.3 percent yearly. Following a series of questions by Chairman Bovo, Ms. Llort noted that her staff would provide information on the entire operation and maintenance in addition to debt services, such as the purchase of new vehicles. Mr. Robert Gore, Miami Dade Transit, noted that the all expenditures on the existing system for the Miami Metro- Mover were approximately $22 million a year, which included capital and operations. Commissioner Jordan noted several years ago while she chaired the Transit Committee, a report were prepared that reflected the cost of transportation and fares. She pointed out the free services at that time, such as the Miami Golden Passport and the Patriot Passport, in addition to the Metro-Mover. She further noted there were subsidized and reduced discounted riders, and in terms of the school system, 75 percent of the County’s system was in that category; and only 25 percent of the system was paid for by the working poor. Commissioner Jordan stressed that she believed the system had reversed because there were people who could afford to pay. She noted her concerns about the 25 percent of people who could not afford to pay and the fact that in the downtown area, based on authority’s research, 13 of the 31 projects that were under construction should be completed in 2015. Commissioner Jordan said these projects consisted of residential as well as businesses and a struggle already existed for the 25 percent of commuters to pay a fare while others who could afford to pay and not have to. She reiterated the fact that this system was supplemented by the working poor, which she believed was not fair. Commissioner Jordan noted the need to try to generate revenue for this item and she was aware there would be challenges, but she said this Board needed to stop the system that she believed supported the wealthy and punished the poor. Commissioner Moss noted he agreed with Commissioner Jordan comments, but he did not determine a huge savings after the necessary items and precautions were put in place, such as machines, and security guards, which would not be profitable for the County. He stated that he would like to identify a way for that 25 percent of riders to be fare free, but it would cost in some creative way to generate revenue, such as gas, taxes to provide that type of service. Chairman Bovo noted he would support the foregoing item today, but he was expecting further information to come forth because he was not convinced; however, it did merit a longer discussion. Therefore, for the purpose of moving forward, he noted he was not committed to the foregoing proposal, but he wanted the item to go before the full County Commission for further discussion. In response Commissioner Barreiro’s inquiry regarding the cost to implement fare collections, Ms. Llort noted the cost would depend on the aggressiveness of the type of system put in place. She noted the problem consisted of 22 mover stations, which required large numbers of equipment. Ms. Llort noted in order for the fare card structure to work that was outlined by Commissioner Jordan, it would vary in the installation of the equipment and the initial capital cost would total between $2.4 to 9 million dollars that was dependent on either an honor system or whether there were gates installed. Ms. Llort noted that the ONM based on the aggressiveness of the system would vary between $200,000 to a million dollars per year for collections, security, and etc. Commissioner Barreiro noted the impact on the existing riders if this proposal was approved, such as a decrease in number of ridership and an increase in drivers. He said he would like to support the 25 percent of the working class riders who could not afford to pay to use the mass transit system through a non- fare system. He noted he was willing to discuss this further to provide fair opportunities. Chairman Bovo stated that once this proposal was forwarded to the full County Commission, it would require a two thirds vote. He noted the need for those specific numbers to be provided in order to make a full commitment on this item. Additionally, Commissioner Jordan asked that this report requested by Commissioner Diaz include information from the Downtown Development Authority (DDA) on new projects in Miami-Dade County and their projections for the next five years. Ms. Llort noted her staff would work with the DDA to identify those numbers in addition to expected residential and business use. Chairman Bovo noted the Board members were ready to make a motion and move forward with this item. Hearing no further questions or comments, the TMSC members proceeded to vote to forward the foregoing proposed resolution to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) with favorable a recommendation.

County Attorney	1/28/2015		Referred	Transit and Mobility Services Committee	2/11/2015

Transportation & Aviation Committee	12/10/2014	1G1	Deferred to next committee meeting		1/14/2015		P
REPORT:	The foregoing proposed ordinance was deferred during consideration of changes to today’s (12/10) agenda. Later Assistant County Attorney Bruce Libhaber clarified that the foregoing proposed ordinance would be deferred until the next TAC Meeting scheduled for January 14, 2015.

Office of the Chairperson	12/9/2014		Deferrals		12/10/2014
REPORT:	The Prime Sponsors are requesting a deferral to the January 14, 2015 Transportation and Aviation Committee Meeting.

Transportation & Aviation Committee	11/12/2014	1G1	Carried over due to cancellation of meeting

Transportation & Aviation Committee	10/15/2014	1G3	Deferred				P
REPORT:	The foregoing proposed ordinance was deferred to no date certain during consideration of changes to today’s (10/15) agenda.

Office of the Chairperson	10/14/2014		Deferrals		10/15/2014
REPORT:	The Prime Sponsor is requesting a deferral to the November 12, 2014 Transportation and Aviation Committee Meeting.

Board of County Commissioners	9/3/2014		Tentatively scheduled for a public hearing	Transportation & Aviation Committee	10/15/2014

Board of County Commissioners	9/3/2014	4C	Adopted on first reading		10/15/2014		P
REPORT:	First Assistant County Attorney Abigail Price Williams read the foregoing proposed ordinance for the record. Hearing no comments or questions, the foregoing proposed ordinance was adopted on first reading and set for public hearing before the Transportation and Aviation Committee meeting on Wednesday, October 15, 2014, at 2:00 p.m.

County Attorney	7/31/2014		Referred	Transportation & Aviation Committee	10/15/2014

County Attorney	7/31/2014		Assigned	Bruce Libhaber	7/31/2014

Legislative Text

TITLE
ORDINANCE AMENDING BY A TWO-THIRDS VOTE OF THE COMMISSION MEMBERSHIP SECTION 29-124 OF THE CODE OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA BY ELIMINATING FARE FREE TRANSPORTATION SERVICE ON METROMOVER; PROVIDING SEVERABILITY, INCLUSION IN THE CODE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE

BODY
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA:
Section 1. Section 29-124 of the Code of Miami-Dade County, Florida, is hereby amended to read as follows:1
Sec. 29-124. Special fund created; uses of surtax proceeds; and role of Citizens� Independent Transportation Trust..

The surtax proceeds collected by the State and distributed hereunder shall be deposited in a special fund set aside from other County funds in the custody of the Finance Director of the County. Moneys in the special fund shall be expended for the transportation and transit projects (including operation and maintenance thereof) set forth in Exhibit 1 to this article (including those projects referenced in the ballot question presented to the electors to approve this levy) and the adopted Five Year Implementation Plan, subject to any amendments thereto made in accordance with the MPO process or made in accordance with the procedures specified in subsection (d) of this Section.

Expenditure of surtax proceeds shall be subject to the following limitations:

(a) Surtax proceeds shall be applied to expand the Golden Passport Program to all persons (regardless of income level who are over the age of 65 or are drawing Social Security benefits[[, and to provide fare-free public transportation service on Metromover, including extensions]].

(b) Surtax proceeds may only be expended for the transportation and transit purposes specified in Section 212.055(1)(d)1�4 Fla. Stats. (2010).

(c) The County shall not expend more than five percent of the County's share of surtax proceeds on administrative costs, exclusive of project management and oversight for projects funded by the surtax.

(d) The Trust shall in consultation with the Mayor recommend to the County Commission a Five Year Implementation Plan. The Five Year Implementation Plan shall include a detailed scope of work, schedule and budget, consistent with the federal requirements for the MPO TIP and Long Range Plan, for each project included in Exhibit 1 of the People's Transportation Plan, as amended, anticipated to be implemented in whole or in part during the five year period. The Five Year Implementation Plan shall be approved by the County Commission in accordance with the procedures established in paragraph (f) of this section. The initial Five Year Implementation Plan shall be approved no later than January 1, 2011. The Five Year Implementation Plan shall be updated annually no later than thirty days from the commencement of Miami-Dade County's fiscal year. The Trust shall review and monitor projects included in the Five Year Implementation Plan and provide to the County Commission and post online an annual report no later than December 31 of each year. The annual report shall detail the progress on each project included in the Five Year Work Plan.

(e) The County Commission shall not delete or materially change any County project contained in the list attached as Exhibit 1 to this article nor add any project to the list or delete, materially change or add any project to the Five Year Implementation Plan except in accordance with the procedures set forth in this subsection (e). The Five Year Implementation Plan and any proposed deletion, material change or addition of a County project shall be initially reviewed by the Citizens' Independent Transportation Trust ("Trust"), which shall forward a recommendation thereon to the County Commission. The County Commission may either accept or reject the Trust's recommendation. If the County Commission rejects the recommendation, the matter shall be referred back to the Trust for its reconsideration and issuance of a reconsidered recommendation to the County Commission. The County Commission may approve, change or reject the Trust's reconsidered recommendation. A two-thirds vote of the Commission membership shall be required to take action other than as contained in the reconsidered recommendation of the Trust. The foregoing notwithstanding, the list of County projects contained in Exhibit 1 and the Five Year Implementation Plan may be changed as a result of the MPO process as mandated by federal and state law.

(f) No surtax proceeds may be used to pay the costs of a contract unless the Trust has submitted a recommendation to the County Commission regarding said contract award. The County Commission, if in agreement with the Trust's recommendation, may award a contract by majority vote. The County Commission may modify or reject the recommendation of the Trust by a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the Commission's membership. If the Trust has failed to forward a recommendation to the County Commission within 45 days of the County Mayor or his designee filing his award recommendation with the Clerk of the Board, the County Commission may take action on the contract award recommendation without any Trust recommendation. Notwithstanding any other provision to the contrary, a committee of the Commission may consider a contract award recommendation prior to receipt of a recommendation of the Trust. The Trust shall, in consultation with the County Mayor or his designee, schedule Trust meetings monthly so as to ensure that a Trust recommendation is provided to the Commission with the Commission's agenda package.

(g) On a quarterly basis, the Executive Director of the CITT shall submit a written report to the Commission, the Mayor and the Manager of all expenditures made pursuant to Section 29-124 herein.

(h) Twenty percent of surtax proceeds shall be distributed annually to those cities existing as of November 5, 2002 that meet the following conditions:

(i) That continue to provide the same level of general fund support for transportation that is in their FY 2001-2002 budget in subsequent Fiscal Years. Any surtax proceeds received shall be applied to supplement, not replace a city's general fund support for transportation;

(ii) That apply 20 percent of any surtax proceeds received to transit uses in the nature of circulator buses, bus shelters, bus pullout bays, on-demand transportation services as defined in Section 212.055(1)(e), Florida Statutes (2010), or other transit-related infrastructure. The use of surtax proceeds for on-demand transportation services shall be limited to providing transportation to Miami-Dade County residents whose household income do not exceed the standard threshold applied to determine eligibility for the low-income, senior citizen's additional homestead exemption outlined in Section 196.075, Florida Statutes (2010), as amended from time to time and meet at least one of the following two criteria: (1) are aged 65 years or older or (2) have a disability, as defined in the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary, on-demand transportation services as defined in Section 212.055(1)(e), Florida Statutes (2010), and used herein, shall require 24-hour pre-arranged service by recipients. No City may utilize surtax proceeds to provide on-demand transportation services, as defined herein, for individuals receiving County sponsored Special Transportation Services. Any city that cannot apply the 20 percent portion of surtax proceeds it receives as provided in this paragraph, may contract with the County for the County to apply such proceeds on a County project that enhances traffic mobility within that city and immediately adjacent areas. If the city cannot expend such proceeds in accordance with this paragraph and does not contract with the County as described in this paragraph, then such proceeds shall carry over and be added to the overall portion of surtax proceeds to be distributed to the cities in the ensuing year and shall be utilized solely for the transit uses enumerated in this subsection (ii); and

(iii) Surtax proceeds distributed amongst the existing cities shall be distributed on a pro rata basis based on the ratio such city's population bears to the total population in all such cities (as adjusted annually in accordance with the Estimates of Population prepared by the Bureau of Economic and Business Research of the University of Florida) annually to those cities that continue to meet the foregoing conditions. For purposes of the foregoing, whenever an annexation occurs in an existing city, the number of persons residing in such annexed area at the time it is annexed shall be excluded from all calculations. Increases in population in areas annexed over and above the population in such area at the time of annexation which occur after annexation shall be included in subsequent years' calculations.
(iv) That do not expend more than 5% of its municipal share of surtax proceeds on administrative costs, exclusive of project management and oversight for projects funded by the surtax. Administrative costs shall be defined as overhead expenses which are not readily attributable to any one particular project funded in whole or in part by transit surtax funds.

(i) Newly incorporated municipalities shall have the right to negotiate with the County for a pro rata share of the sales surtax, taking into consideration the neighborhood and municipal projects identified in Exhibit 1, as amended, within the boundaries of the new municipalities. The preceding sentence shall not affect the twenty (20) percent share provided herein for municipalities existing on November 5, 2002.

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 may only be amended or repealed by a two-thirds vote of the Board. Any amendment or repeal of this Ordinance shall further require a minimum of six (6) weeks between first and second reading.
Section 5. 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.