Legislative Matter

Miami-Dade Legislative Item
File Number: 150088

Printable PDF Format

Clerk's Official Copy

File Number: 150088

File Type: Resolution

Status: Adopted

Version: 0

Reference: R-123-15

Control: Board of County Commissioners

File Name: ALLOCATION FROM GOB PROJECT 124

Introduced: 1/16/2015

Requester: NONE

Cost:

Final Action: 2/3/2015

Agenda Date: 2/3/2015

Agenda Item Number: 11A3

Notes:

Title:

RESOLUTION SETTING POLICY FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY RELATED TO BUILDING BETTER COMMUNITIES GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND PROGRAM PROJECT NO. 124 - ''ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FUND'' (''PROJECT 124''); AND DIRECTING COUNTY MAYOR OR COUNTY MAYOR’S DESIGNEE TO COMPLETE NEGOTIATIONS BY JULY 21, 2015 WITH PROPOSED GRANT RECIPIENTS OF PROJECT 124 FUNDING ALLOCATIONS APPROVED BY THIS BOARD ON OR BEFORE JANUARY 21, 2015, TO PREPARE AND SUBMIT A REPORT DETAILING RESULTS OF NEGOTIATIONS TO BOARD, AND, FOR ANY APPLICATION SUBMITTED ON OR BEFORE JANUARY 15, 2015 AND UNDER REVIEW BY THE COUNTY MAYOR OR THE COUNTY MAYOR’S DESIGNEE, TO COMPLETE NEGOTIATIONS WITH PROPOSED GRANT RECIPIENTS WITHIN SIX MONTHS FOLLOWING BOARD APPROVAL OF A PROJECT 124 FUNDING ALLOCATION FOR SUCH APPLICATION (SEE ORIGINAL ITEM UNDER FILE NO. 142810)

Indexes:

GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND PROGRAM

Sponsors:

Daniella Levine Cava, 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	2/3/2015	11A3	Adopted				P

County Attorney	1/16/2015		Assigned	Juliette Antoine

Economic Development & Port Miami Committee	1/15/2015	2A Amended\	Forwarded to BCC with a favorable recommendation with committee amendment(s)				P
REPORT:	Assistant County Attorney Jess McCarty read the foregoing proposed resolution into the record. Assistant County Attorney Juliette Antoine read the amended language for the foregoing proposed resolution to read that all references to June 16, 2015 be referred to June 30, 2015, and on handwritten page 5, Section 2 that refers to June 30, 2015 shall read July 14, 2015. Commissioner Levine Cava explained the intent of the foregoing proposal was to make some clarifications regarding Projects#124, in terms of the criteria and the changes in the recommended projects as well as the open-ended timeframe to conclude the negotiations of contracts. She noted there were challenges within these grant agreements because of the high standards that were set, in terms of expectations from these applicants. Therefore, she noted her request was to set a date certain for the completion of negotiations, which was agreed upon by Mayor Gimenez in order to determine the status of these funds in order to recapture those dollars that could not negotiate a final agreement. Commissioner Levine Cava explained the two parts to this amendment was to identify a date certain for completion of negotiation, following a report by Mayor Gimenez to be presented to the County Commission before the recess for the final approval of the contract; and the second portion was to hold an advance or to put a moratorium on additional projects in the process. Commissioner Levine Cava noted her intentions in working on some proposals to frame any recaptured funds and the priorities for those projects. She recognized Mr. Leland Salomon, Regulatory and Economic Resources to explain to the EDPMC members the timeline and how it would impact this process. Mr. Salomon noted he was in agreement with the amendment presented with this item, and that efforts would be made to meet the timeline of negotiating these contracts which would be part of the report to the County Commission on July 16, 2015, following the process at the committee level. It was moved by Commissioner Levine Cava that the foregoing proposed resolution be forwarded as amended. This motion was seconded by Chairwoman Jordan for further discussion. In response to Commissioner Zapata’s inquiry regarding whether there was another proposal on the table by Commissioner Sosa regarding the remaining funds to go through a specific process with clarifications made on the policy, Deputy Mayor Jack Osterholt noted that preliminary commitments for these grants except for $7.5 million and the discussion regarding three or four projects that were in the middle of the process would go for the second round of this process. Mr. Osterholt clarified that these actions have put funding behind some project to start the second phase of negotiating contracts that was a total of $75 million in Project #124. Following an extensive discussion among the EDPMC members and Mr. Osterholt regarding the amendments to the foregoing proposed resolution, Commissioner Zapata pointed out an issue pertaining to the Administration’s lack in attempting to create equity between municipalities and unincorporated areas. Discussion ensued among the EDPMC members regarding the 17 projects in Project #124 and the consideration of geographic locations in order to reach businesses countywide and although not equally funded there was a need for more strategic planning and development in the unincorporated areas, perhaps in the aviation industry. Responding to Commissioner Diaz’ question regarding the total allocation for these projects, Mr. Osterholt noted the funds totaled approximately $90 million. Mr. Salomon noted the remaining allocation for the second round of grants totaled $7.5 million out of $75 million funding source and the remaining allocated amount of the Targeted Urban Areas (TUA) Program totaled $4.8 million out of $15 million; and a combined remaining funds approximate total of $11 million. Commissioner Diaz reiterated there was process and although the mandate was to reach the entire County for the purpose of economic development, there was a need to respect past votes, rather than change an original agreement that was already in process, which would create more issues. He urged the EDPMC members to move forward and to find additional funding to support other businesses within this County and create other opportunities. Chairwoman Jordan reflected on comments previously made and at today’s (1/15) meeting regarding the fact that the Mayor was not directed how to conduct this process. She also noted that because several commissioners who approved this process in 2010 were no longer present, there were changes with the new commissioners. She stated that the only part that had deviated from the original vote was the request for a waiver on the $10 million as pointed out by Commissioner Zapata. Chairwoman Jordan stated that times would change and the directives or wishes of the Commission’s predecessors would not always be upheld, but there was an issue that indicated the system was not being followed, which was in line with what was passed at that time. Chairwoman Jordan expressed concerns regarding the timeline because of the process to negotiate five leases by June 30, 2015, specifically regarding the County owned land or the project in her commission district that would require a lease document. Mr. Leland Salomon stated that the majority were private projects and would require a grant agreement. He said he just received the draft of the grant agreement that indicated the distribution of the funds based on the County rules under the General Obligation Bonds (GOB). Therefore, the requirement would be a confirmation by each grantee of the public infrastructure to be built and funded by these grants, such as plans, specifications, and cost amounts that would be specifically allocated to each portion of the infrastructure, in addition to job requirements for the permanent jobs. Mr. Salomon noted that based on the Mayor’s stated policy, the grants would not be awarded, or certified until the construction of the projects were completed, and after the permanent job requirements were met after one year minimum. Discussion ensued among the EDPMC members and Mr. Salomon regarding consideration of the physical aspects, in terms of the grant agreements, which was only the public infrastructure because the funds were specifically for that purpose. Further discussion ensued regarding any environmental issues would be handled by the applicant because without addressing those issues the infrastructure would not be built, nor would grants be received. Commissioner Levine Cava noted for clarification that the intent of this item was to have the Mayor’s Office provide a report by July 14, 2015 on the projects that had negotiated agreements in place for final approval by the County Commission. She noted the process based on these reviewed terms would be negotiated over the next few months and signed by the applicant in order to move forward and approved by the Board of County Commissioners (BCC). Mr. Salomon explained the past issue was the misunderstanding by staff regarding the timeline the items had to be approved by the Board by June 30, 2015, which would not be sufficient time to go through the process and be placed on a BCC agenda. However, he noted for clarification that the proposal was to have the grantee sign the agreement by June 30, 2015 and report back to the BCC. Chairwoman Jordan pointed out that although the projects would be bifurcated some may not be ready, and asked that those circumstances should be made known to the BCC, such as whether it was missing information in order to determine whether the project needed to be recaptured. Mr. Salomon said based on this proposal the intent was to report back on July 14, 2015 with the status of all the agreements; and staff should provide the BCC with the information that was needed to decide how to move forward with the projects, which would be at the Board’s discretion. Mr. Brian May, representing the River Landing Development appeared before the EDPMC members and noted, for the record, his client has met with staff and it was recommended to have our item sponsored. He indicated that his client was ready to move forward with its project. Mr. May expressed that there was a concern with the proposed timeline and the leaving out of other four projects that were in process. Mr. Jack Osterholt expressed concern that if the decision was to allow those four projects to proceed with the process without being certain there would be enough grant dollars to support those requests would be unfair to everyone. He said that those projects that did not make the first round of allocations would be in line for the second allocation when available. Discussion ensued among the EDPMC members regarding the remaining $7.5 million that would be available for those projects that were recommended and have gone through the committee process but did not receive funding through the first allocation of grant funds; the timeline that would be different on negotiating the agreements based on the time of the application, which was based on the approval of this proposed resolution. Mr. Salomon explained that he had 17 projects waiting for the approval by the Board and there were four more applications in his possession that had not come before the EDPMC or the Mayor. He noted that he could not bring those four items into this program until a determination was made on how to move forward with these items and would be based on the Mayor’s recommendation and approval of the foregoing proposed resolution, which included a moratorium to go into effect in addition to the need for more funding. Following further discussion, Assistant County Attorney Jesse McCarty advised that once the foregoing proposed resolution was approved by the EDPMC, it would be forwarded to the February 3, 2015 BCC meeting. Commissioner Levine Cava requested a waiver for the foregoing proposed resolution to heard at the January 21, 2015 BCC meeting, which she believed included the allocation for Ocean Studio. Commissioner Diaz his concern in supporting a proposal when there was already an existing process and there were 4-5 projects in the pipeline that was part of the reviewing process. He reiterated the issue of setting standards and moving forward, and the steps that were taken. Commissioner Diaz spoke in support of creating a future process, but not to change the game for the remaining $11 million out of the $90 million grants. Chairwoman Jordan noted for clarification if this item was bifurcated, one vote would be to separate the date in order for items to come back with a negotiated agreement that was finalized and signed by the recipient by June 30 2015. She also noted that this BCC would also vote on any proposal that was not signed by June 30, 2015, and those funds would be recaptured for reallocation. Chairwoman Jordan asked Commissioner Levine Cava to confirm whether this was the intent to bifurcate this proposed resolution. Commissioner Levine Cava agreed with the comments made by Chairwoman Jordan and noted that except for the issue of the moratorium. She noted there were three parts to this proposal, which included: 1) any item approved by the BCC as of January 21, 2015, would have an agreement signed by June 30, 2015; 2) there would be a moratorium for any other projects that remained in the pipeline after June 30, 2015; 3) any funds not allocated with an agreement would be recaptured for reallocation. Chairwoman Jordan offered a friendly amendment to the foregoing proposed resolution that once these items were approved by the BCC the agreements shall be signed within six months of BCC approval. She expressed concern about the proposal, in terms of recapturing funds and would not be supportive of it. Commissioner Levine Cava rescinded her statement on the portion of this resolution regarding the recapture of funds and noted that it was not a part of this resolution. Discussion ensued among the EDPMC members regarding the policy of this resolution, in terms of allowing a maximum of six months from the date of approval by the BCC, including those projects in the pipeline to complete negotiations and provide a signed agreement. Commissioner Zapata stated that a moratorium would not be helpful since this has become time sensitive; however, he recommended that once this process was completed, the Mayor should develop a clearer process and priorities. He said although he was not supportive of these projects he spoke about meriting them because of the past approval of these actions. Commissioner Levine Cava accepted the friendly amendment offered by Chairwoman Jordan and noted that the second portion regarding the moratorium could be eliminated. She said she would be working on a separate proposal for the recapture and the reallocation base on new criteria to be presented for consideration at the committee level Mr. Jack Osterholt, Deputy Mayor noted for clarification that Mr. Salomon had four projects pending on his desk that have not been reviewed and no funds have been allocated towards those projects. He said he wanted to clarify that unless instructed staff would not address those projects because there was no funding source. Discussion ensued among the EDPMC members regarding those four projects and consideration of those projects with the remaining funds totaling $7.5 million through an established recapture and reallocation process. Further discussion ensued regarding the process and the issue that the four pending projects totaled well over the $7.5 million, which would require more funds, followed by recommendations from the Mayor, and the approval by the Board to allocate those funds. Following an extensive discussion reviewing the process in moving forward with pending projects, followed by approval of recaptured funds, Commissioner Zapata noted he believed part of the problem was that the Administration needed to identify how to deal with these proposals with only $7.5 million. He spoke in favor of the proposed legislation and the need to resolve this issue without interfering with the existing process. Assistant County Attorney Juliette Antoine advised read the proposed amended language of the foregoing proposed resolution into the record. Hearing no further questions or comments, the EDPMC members proceeded to vote on the foregoing proposed resolution to be forwarded to the BCC with a favorable recommendation as amended to read with the following language… “To change the dates of all approved grantees referred to June 16, 2014 to the completion date of negotiation by July 21, 2015; and to include potential grant recipients of the Board approved allocation from Project 124 fund. Subsequently, the Administration would present a status report at the next BCC meeting after July 21, 2015. In addition, a provision of a six month period for negotiations for any future projects currently under review, which have not yet been approved by the County Commission.” In response to Commissioner Levine Cava's request, Chair Jordan requested that staff prepare an appropriate memorandum requesting that Chairman Monestime waive the BCC Rules of Procedure to allow the foregoing proposed resolution to be forwarded to the January 21, 2015 BCC meeting for consideration.

Legislative Text

TITLE
RESOLUTION SETTING POLICY FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY RELATED TO BUILDING BETTER COMMUNITIES GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND PROGRAM PROJECT NO. 124- ''ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FUND'' (''PROJECT 124''); AND DIRECTING COUNTY MAYOR OR COUNTY MAYOR�S DESIGNEE TO COMPLETE NEGOTIATIONS BY JULY 21, 2015 WITH PROPOSED GRANT RECIPIENTS OF PROJECT 124 FUNDING ALLOCATIONS APPROVED BY THIS BOARD ON OR BEFORE JANUARY 21, 2015, TO PREPARE AND SUBMIT A REPORT DETAILING RESULTS OF NEGOTIATIONS TO BOARD, AND, FOR ANY APPLICATION SUBMITTED ON OR BEFORE JANUARY 15, 2015 AND UNDER REVIEW BY THE COUNTY MAYOR OR THE COUNTY MAYOR�S DESIGNEE, TO COMPLETE NEGOTIATIONS WITH PROPOSED GRANT RECIPIENTS WITHIN SIX MONTHS FOLLOWING BOARD APPROVAL OF A PROJECT 124 FUNDING ALLOCATION FOR SUCH APPLICATION

BODY

WHEREAS, Appendix A to Resolution No. R-914-04 (�Public Infrastructure Resolution�) lists projects eligible for funding from the Building Better Communities General Obligation Bond Program (�Bond Program�) by project number, municipal project location, Commission district, project description, street address, and project funding allocation; and
WHEREAS, one of the projects listed in Appendix A to the Public Infrastructure Resolution and approved by the voters for funding is Project No. 124 � Economic Development Fund (�Project 124�) with a project description that states �Provide infrastructure improvements to spur economic development and attract new businesses to the community in order to create jobs� and a maximum allocation amount of $75 million for eligible (meets all federal and state legal requirements and is within the scope the ballot question) public infrastructure projects (�Project 124 Fund�); and
WHEREAS, this Board has allocated almost all of the $75 million from the Project 124 Fund to projects which are now subject to negotiations of a grant agreement between the County and each potential grant recipient with no deadline for the final completion of such negotiations; and
WHEREAS, there is a need for localized public infrastructure improvements throughout the County that are consistent with the Public Infrastructure Resolution and the related public infrastructure ballot question (�Public Infrastructure�); and
WHEREAS, Public Infrastructure projects may be eligible for funding pursuant to the Bond Program with a significant modification to the project description and funding criteria for the Project 124 Fund and/or the addition of a new project to Exhibit �A� to the Public Infrastructure Resolution (�New Project�) by this Board after public hearing; and
WHEREAS, it is essential that all Project 124 Fund negotiations with potential grant recipients be completed in a timely manner so that, if negotiations are not successful, this Board may reallocate funding to Public Infrastructure projects that will meet the needs of the local communities; and
>>WHEREAS, as of January 15, 2015, applications have been submitted to the County by potential grant recipients of a Board approved allocation of Project 124 Fund proceeds, which applications are under review by the County Mayor or the County Mayor�s designee and which may or may not be presented to this Board for approval (the �Pending Applications�); and<<
WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of Miami-Dade County that the County Mayor or the County Mayor�s designee be directed to complete negotiations by [[June 16]] >>July 21<<, 2015 with potential grant recipients of a Board approved allocation of Project 124 Fund proceeds >>approved by this Board on or before January 21, 2015,<< [[and]] to submit a report to this Board at its next scheduled meeting following [[June 16]]>>July 21<<, 2015, >>and, if the Board approves an allocation of Project 124 Fund proceeds for a Pending Application, to complete negotiations with the proposed grant recipient of such allocation within a six month period following the date of approval of such allocation by this Board,<<[[; and]]
[[WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of Miami-Dade County to delay approval of new allocations from the Project 124 Fund until after the County Mayor�s report is submitted for the Board�s consideration so that this Board may consider whether the Project 124 Fund should be re-constituted or a New Project created,]]
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
Section 1. The foregoing recitals are approved and incorporated in this Resolution.
Section 2. The County Mayor or the County Mayor�s designee is directed to complete negotiations by [[June 16]]>>July 21<<, 2015 with each potential grant recipient of [[a Board approved]] >>an<< allocation from the Project 124 Fund >>approved by this Board on or before January 21, 2015<< and to prepare and submit a report to this Board detailing the results of the negotiations. [[no later than June 30, 2015 and, pursuant to Ordinance No.14-65, to]] >>The County Mayor or the County Mayor�s designee, pursuant to Ordinance No. 14-65, shall<< place the completed report on an agenda of the Board at its next scheduled meeting following [[June 16]]>>July 21<<, 2015. >>If this Board approves an allocation of Project 124 Fund proceeds for a Pending Application, the County Mayor or the County Mayor�s designee is directed to complete negotiations with the proposed grant recipient of such allocation within a six month period following the date of approval by this Board.<<
[[Section 3. This Board delays approval of new allocations from the Project 124 Fund until the report provided for in Section 2 has been provided to the Board.]]