Legislative Matter

Miami-Dade Legislative Item
File Number: 160913

Printable PDF Format

File Number: 160913

File Type: Resolution

Status: Amended

Version: 0

Reference:

Control: Board of County Commissioners

File Name: COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCIES AND REDEVELOPMENT

Introduced: 4/21/2016

Requester: NONE

Cost:

Final Action:

Agenda Date: 6/7/2016

Agenda Item Number: 11A3

Notes:

SEE 161526 FOR FINAL VERSION AS ADOPTED. ALSO SEE 150463, 160467.

Title:

RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING GUIDELINES FOR COUNTY COMMISSION APPROVALS RELATED TO NEW AND EXISTING COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCIES AND DIRECTING THE COUNTY MAYOR OR THE COUNTY MAYOR’S DESIGNEE TO DENY CERTAIN REQUESTS FROM COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCIES THAT ARE DEEMED APPROVED BY LAW, IF NOT APPROVED WITHIN THE ALLOWED TIMEFRAME [SEE ORIGINAL ITEM UNDER FILE NO. 160467]

Indexes:

COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY

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	6/7/2016	11A3	Amended
REPORT:	See Agenda Item 11A3 Amended; Legislative File No. 161526.

Board of County Commissioners	5/17/2016	11A7	Deferred		6/7/2016
REPORT:	Chairman Monestime advised representatives from several municipalities within the County contacted his office requesting deferral of the foregoing resolution so they could attend and make presentations. Commissioner Bovo explained some developing Community Redevelopment Agencies (CRA), might be unaware of the possible rule-changing that would impact them, particularly the one moving through the pipeline in the City of Hialeah. He indicated he would be more comfortable with those representatives being present when this item was heard. Following discussion among members of the Board on whether to defer the foregoing resolution, Commissioner Edmonson indicated her office also received calls from several CRA chairs in her district (Dist. 3) and preferred to not move forward on this until she heard their concerns. She noted her main concern was with the requirement that CRAs only receive funding when the project ended, which she said could destroy them. Commissioner Edmonson explained the CRAs needed to receive their funding at the beginning of the projects for financing purposes. Commissioner Levine Cava requested the County Attorney be allowed to read the proposed amendments into the record before the Board entertained a motion to defer this resolution. Assistant County Attorney Terrance Smith read, into the record, Commissioner Levine Cava’s proposed amendments, as follows: On handwritten page 9, Section 2(a): Community Benefits Agreement, in the first sentence: To delete the words “or rehabilitated;” and at the end of that sentence, to add the language: “…Additionally, a community rede3velopment agency, at its option, may also enter into community benefits agreements with entities or contractors contracting with or receiving grants from such community redevelopment agency for the rehabilitation of commercial or residential developments…”; On handwritten page 11, Section 2(e): Required Reasonable Opportunity to be Heard and Project-related Findings, to insert the words “or program” after each occurrence of the word “project;” In the first sentence: to strike the word “person’s” and insert the words “…community redevelopment agency official’s…;” and Commissioner Edmonson’s proposed amendments, as follows: On handwritten page 11, Section 2(e): To strike the words “…a finding must be made that…” and insert the words “…shall consider whether…;” Section 1 shall read: “…The proposed project or program will substantially benefit residents and business owners within the redevelopment area…;” and Section 2 shall read: “…The non-public entity or contractor requesting funding will use community redevelopment agency funds to fill in any financial gaps left when all other funding has been identified for the project and that, but for the community redevelopment agency’s funding, the project cannot be undertaken…;” On handwritten page 13, Section 2(l): Ethics Training: The paragraph shall read: “…All community redevelopment agencies shall agree to comply with Miami-Dade County’s Conflict of Interest and Code of Ethics Ordinance (Section 2-11.1 of the Code). Additionally, upon their appointment or reappointment, all boards of commissioners, all community redevelopment agencies’ advisory boards, and the persons who staff each community redevelopment agency or board shall be required to complete ethics training to be conducted by the Miami-Dade Commission on Ethics and Public Trust…” Commissioner Levine Cava advised 14 meetings were held pertaining to this matter and noted she accepted Commissioner Edmonson’s amendment. Assistant County Attorney Geri Bonzon-Keenan advised a motion to defer would take precedence over a motion to amend this item; therefore, she recommended the item be deferred and the proposed amendments, as read into the record, be set forth in a supplemental item. There being no further questions or comments, it was moved by Commissioner Levine Cava that the foregoing proposed resolution be deferred to the June 7, 2016 Board of County Commissioners meeting, as amended: On handwritten page 9, Section 2(a): Community Benefits Agreement, in the first sentence: To delete the words “or rehabilitated;” and To insert the language: “…Additionally, a community rede3velopment agency, at its option, may also enter into community benefits agreements with entities or contractors contracting with or receiving grants from such community redevelopment agency for the rehabilitation of commercial or residential developments…” at the end; On handwritten page 11, Section 2(e): Required Reasonable Opportunity to be Heard and Project-related Findings, to insert the words “or program” after each occurrence of the word “project;” In the first sentence: To replace the word “person’s” with the language “…community redevelopment agency official’s…;” and To replace the phrase “…a finding must be made that…” with the phrase “…shall consider whether…;” In paragraph 2: To replace the word “after” with the word “when” and replace the words “provided to” with the words “identified for;” and On handwritten page 13, Section 2(l): Ethics Training: To insert the language “…All community redevelopment agencies shall agree to comply with Miami- Dade County’s Conflict of Interest and Code of Ethics Ordinance (Section 2-11.1 of the Code). Additionally, upon their appointment or reappointment, all…” at the beginning of the paragraph; and To delete the words “a minimum of 4 hours of” from that sentence. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Bovo, and upon being put to a vote, passed by a vote of 9-0 (Commissioners Diaz, Heyman, Moss, and Zapata were absent).

County Attorney	4/21/2016		Assigned	Terrence A. Smith		4/21/2016

Economic Prosperity Committee	4/14/2016	2A Amended	Forwarded to BCC with a favorable recommendation with committee amendment(s)				P
REPORT:	Pursuant to Commissioner Levine Cava’s request, Assistant County Attorney Terrence Smith read into the record the following proposed amendments to the foregoing proposed resolution: On handwritten page 9, Section 2(a) will read as follows: After the language “All entities or contractors contracting with or receiving grants from a community redevelopment agency . . .” insert the language “for new or rehabilitated commercial and residential developments to be constructed within the redevelopment area . . ." On handwritten page 10, Section 2(b) will read as follows: Strike “and/or” after roman numeral iii. and insert after roman numeral iv. “and/or Living Wage Ordinance.” On handwritten page 10, Section 2(d) will read as follows: Strike the language “at a minimum annually” in the last sentence. On handwritten page 11, Section 2(g) will read as follows: The language “However, the before-mentioned requirement shall not apply to substandard affordable housing that has been declared unsafe by a governmental entity and subsequently demolished.” will be inserted prior to the last sentence. On handwritten page 11, the title of Section 2(e) will read as follows: “Required Reasonable Opportunity to Be Heard and Project-related Findings” The first paragraph of that section will read: “If a community redevelopment agency proposes to fund a proposed new or rehabilitated commercial or residential project and such project amount is above the delegated person’s authority for approval thus requiring approval of the community redevelopment agency, a reasonable opportunity to be heard shall be afforded to the public” In Section 2(e)1, strike the word “primarily” and insert “substantially” and in Section 2(e)2, include the word “non-public” between “The” and “entity” On handwritten page 12, the title of Section 2(j) will read: “Participation of Commissioners, Their Designees, and/or Citizens on CRA Boards” The following sentence would be added: “In accordance with Resolution Nos. R-1382-09, R-871-11 and R-599-15 and Sections 163.356(2) and 163.357(1)(d) of the Act, the interlocal agreement between the County, the municipality and community redevelopment agency shall authorize this Board to appoint a County Commissioner or their designee to serve as commissioners of the community redevelopment agency. Additionally, if . . .” After Section 163.357, insert “(1)(c)” of the Act,; and after “two members” delete “or designees” and insert the language “, who reside or are engaged in a business within the area of operation of the community redevelopment agency, . . . ” On handwritten page 13, Section 4 will read as follows: At the end of the sentence that starts The County Mayor or the County Mayor’s designee is directed to timely communicate such denial, insert “and the reason for the delay” to the community redevelopment agency that made the request. Commissioner Levine Cava said the proposed changes were made after consultation with the community redevelopment agencies’ (CRA) leadership; and many of their changes were incorporated in the proposed resolution. She explained the CRA reform legislation was originally filed in March 2015; and a workshop was held on the item in which key stakeholders from community groups were invited to provide input, including the directors of several CRAs at that time. Commissioner Levine Cava noted it became clear that it would be better to amend the item to offer protections for taxpayers; and to empower the CRAs to meet their original mission of eliminating slum and blight. Commissioner Levine Cava advised that after the Grand Jury filed its final report in February, 2016, she decided to reintroduce the proposed legislation in which almost all of the Grand Jury’s recommendations were incorporated. Commissioner Levine Cava said she met with many of the CRAs, and she acknowledged North Miami CRA, and Florida City CRA, noting changes from these CRAS, as well as from the Inspector General, were incorporated within the legislation. She indicated her intent was to strengthen the CRAs, and believed this could be accomplished through the proposed amendments. Commissioner Levine Cava pointed out under the proposed resolution, economic growth had to eliminate slum and blight, and not just make a profit for the developers; housing, if it was part of the plan, had to include working people, and not reduce the number of affordable units through gentrification; hiring had to be local, with a living wage and utilizing local contractors; finances must be fully disclosed; and greater accountability was required. She noted the proposed legislation would only apply to new CRAs, or CRAs that were seeking to amend their redevelopment plan, or be extended so they would not apply to any currently operating CRAs. Commissioner Levine Cava advised these provisions would have to be negotiated with each CRA as part of the normal, negotiating process that accompanied the drafting of the interlocal agreements with governmental entities. She noted, if for any reason, the Mayor was unable to negotiate some of these provisions, he would explain this to the County Commission for the Commission’s review and approval. Commissioner Levine Cava referenced the community benefits agreements provision within the proposed resolution; however, she noted they were not closely defined, as Chairman Suarez had pending legislation which provided a comprehensive overview of community benefits agreements, and she was supportive of that effort. Commissioner Levine Cava mentioned that she had a Sunshine meeting with Chairman Suarez regarding the community benefit agreements legislation and had recommended some changes. She noted it was her understanding that Chairman Suarez would adopt many, if not all, of those changes, and come back with the item. Commissioner Levine Cava commented on an upcoming study by Florida International University which would be a key tool to expanding economic prosperity and community benefits agreements, as part of that plan. She thanked the Committee members for their input and support. Mr. Oliver Gross, 8500 N.W. 25th Avenue, Miami 33147, appeared in connection with the foregoing proposed resolution. He noted he was supportive of the item in general, particularly the provisions relating to affordable housing and community benefits component. Mr. Gross asked the Committee to be mindful of areas in the proposed resolution that may mitigate the eradication of slum and blight that CRAs were intended to address. Mr. Gross suggested the Committee revisit the two-thirds majority requirement if there was a recommendation of an appropriation in excess of 50 percent of the tax increment. He referred to Section 2(b) of the proposed resolution relating to contract requirements and utilizing community businesses; and noted he believed more specificity was needed regarding community participation. Mr. Gross suggested the Committee wait to review the legislation proposed by Chairman Suarez relating to community benefits. He referred to Section 2(d) relating to the Inspector General’s review, particularly overseeing certain components of the developments; and expressed his concern regarding individuals overseeing or making decisions about issues which they may not have sufficient knowledge. Mr. Gross said he was the current Chair of the 79th Street CRA, and had not received any notice of this item. Commissioner Levine Cava said she looked forward to meeting with Mr. Gross to further discuss his comments; and apologized for not meeting with him earlier. She noted she met with the CRA representatives who replied to the original draft of the proposed resolution. Mr. Camilo Mejia, 3623 Charles Avenue, Miami, 33133, appeared on behalf of Catalyst Miami, 1900 Biscayne Boulevard, in support of the foregoing proposed resolution. He noted he was hopeful about the provision safeguarding the displacement of residents on a one-for-one replacement of affordable housing; and the housing provisions for extremely low-income residents. Ms. Melissa Gallo, Miami Homes for All, 140 West Flagler Street, appeared in support of the foregoing proposed resolution. She commented on the need for more affordable housing to maintain a strong community; and noted the proposed legislation would help preserve existing affordable housing by requiring CRAs to ensure a one-for-one replacement of affordable housing units that were demolished by projects. Ms. Gallo spoke in support of the mixed-income housing approach for CRAs with a housing component, allowing low-income to be served. Mr. Matthew Land, 14 N.E. 1st Avenue, Suite 1200, Miami, Florida 33132, Political Director, Southeast Laborers’ District Council, appeared in support of the foregoing proposed resolution. He spoke in support of the Grand Jury recommendations; the inclusion of local hiring and ensuring strong wages were negotiated on CRA projects. Mr. Denis Russ, representing PACT, appeared in support of the foregoing proposed resolution. He noted the importance of the items intended to support affordable housing; and concurred with the Grand Jury’s report regarding the use of CRA funds with respect to affordable housing. Mr. Russ urged the Committee to forward this item to the County Commission with a favorable recommendation. Mr. Shekeria Brown, South Florida Community Development Coalition, 300 NW 12th Avenue, Miami, Florida 33128, appeared in support of the foregoing item, particularly the revisions to the affordable housing requirements. She expressed appreciation regarding the safeguards against the displacement; and including a mix of extremely low to workforce housing. Ms. Brown noted the Coalition’s support of the proposed guideline of including a statement in the CRA’s annual budget describing the expenditures; and suggested the procurement and employment guidelines that prioritized community residents be incorporated in the document. She said the Coalition wanted to ensure that community-based organizations were incorporated in a meaningful way as the proposed revisions were incorporated in the CRA guidelines. Ms. Brown observed that each CRA was different and some degree of flexibility was necessary; however, the Coalition wanted to ensure that any adopted guidelines that were approved could be enforced. Mr. Jihad Rashid, President and Chief Executive Officer, Coconut Grove Collaborative, Coconut Grove, appeared in support of the foregoing item. He pointed out similar issues impacted areas that were not in the CRA; and an opportunity existed to apply this excellent standard in areas such as Coconut Grove. Mr. Rashid requested the Committee extend similar protections to areas that were already demarcated by the County pursuant to the 1968 Civil Rights Act that showed development in areas like Coconut Grove, where affordable housing was designated, had been absorbed by private sector developers. Mr. Chris Reyes, Senior Policy Advisor for Commissioner Ken Russell, City of Miami, 3500 Pan American Drive, appeared in support of the foregoing item. He requested the Committee consider the publication of a CRA checkbook; a registration of lobbyist with the County; and a requirement to adopt bylaws. Mr. Reyes said the publication of a CRA checkbook would be vital to bringing transparency to the process to allow citizens to see what entities, and what individuals were receiving monies from the CRA; the lobbyist registration would also be crucial in demonstrating government transparency; and to require CRAs to adopt bylaws providing basic foundational components to the agencies’ mission, structure and organization. He noted his office looked forward to working with the Committee in all future economic opportunities for the community. Mr. Richard Stauts, 16613 SW 298 Terrace, Homestead, Florida, representing City of Florida City, appeared in connection with the foregoing proposed resolution. He noted the City’s issues regarding this item were resolved following his discussion with Commissioner Levine Cava, her staff and the County Attorney; and he wished to withdraw any objections the City had regarding the proposed resolution. Professor Frank Schnidman, John M. DeGrove Eminent Scholar, Florida Atlantic University, 777 Glades Road, Boca Raton, appeared in connection with the foregoing proposed resolution. He noted a change in perception was needed, and recommended the Committee change the “Whereas” clause which stated the County would changes the process to cautiously consider new CRAs; expansions; and amendments to redevelopment plans. Professor Schnidman recommended the Committee change the “Whereas” clause to read as follows: “Whereas, this Board shall not consider approving any new community redevelopment agency, any redevelopment plan, any interlocal agreement, any extension of life, unless there is clear and convincing evidence of the need for such actions, supported by detailed review and analysis of the conditions of the area, and neither are proposed for redevelopment, independent financial analysis illustrating the feasibility of the proposals based upon market studies and related information, and a conclusion that without a CRA, or the changes in the redevelopment plan or Sunset date for the CRA, the identified slum and blight conditions will not be alleviated and redevelopment will not occur.” Professor Schnidman said Liberty City was one of the most blighted areas in the County; and the County Mayor had decided that it could be redeveloped; and no one had ever discussed a CRA; and there was a proposal from a private developer, who was not looking for any subsidy. Mr. James Carras, Carras Community Investment, 330 SW 2nd Street, Ft. Lauderdale, expressed concern regarding the proposed amendment on page 11, Section 2(e), which states: “The non-public entity or contractor requesting funding will use community redevelopment agency funds to fill in any financial gaps left after all other funding has been provided . . .” He noted significant federal resources existed, particularly, the new market tax credit program. Mr. Carras said that by practice, all new market tax credits were the last ones in; therefore, this section could create a conflict in terms of creating the capital stack relative to the project funding. He cautioned the Committee regarding the language, noting it may be painting some projects into a corner. Commissioner Levine Cava said the language in the section that would apply to non-public was slightly modified; however, she would be happy to exempt new market credit deals. Chairman Suarez indicated the amendment could be done on second reading; and Assistant County Attorney Smith offered to read an amendment that the Committee could adopt. Commissioner Edmonson suggested the proposed amendment be proffered after the Committee discussed the item, as she would like to place her comments on the record. Seeing no other persons appear wishing to be heard, the Committee proceeded to consider the foregoing item. Commissioner Edmonson expressed concern regarding the language in Section 2(e)2 of the proposed resolution. She noted the language could deter contractors, developers, or anyone else coming into the area, as many of these individuals would be unable to obtain financing. Commissioner Edmonson suggested the language be removed or changed. In response to Commissioner Edmonson’s inquiry regarding the CRA’s board membership, Commissioner Levine Cava said it must be consistent with State law. Referring to Commissioner Edmonson’s initial question, Commissioner Levine Cava noted she wanted to ensure cities did not channel all of their projects through the CRA without utilizing general revenue funds and concurred with Commissioner Edmonson’s comments regarding the need to demonstrate capital for leverage to get private funding. She pointed out the purpose was to assure the CRA would not supplant other government funding. Commissioner Edmonson asked Assistant County Attorney Smith to provide an amendment to address her concern regarding Section 2(e)2. Chairman Suarez inquired whether Commissioner Levine Cava wanted to make an amendment to Section 2(e)(2), pursuant to Mr. Carras’ suggestion. Commissioner Levine Cava proposed an amendment that would allow the CRA to provide a Letter of Intent to fund, which could be used to secure private financing. Chairman Suarez indicated the proposed amendment would not be considered today and asked the County Attorney to prepare an alternate amended item. Assistant County Attorney Smith advised that language could be prepared in time for the next County Commission meeting; and he suggested meeting with Commissioner Levine Cava to discuss her proposed amendment. There being no further questions or comments, the Committee proceeded to vote on the foregoing proposed resolution as amended.

Legislative Text

TITLE
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING GUIDELINES FOR COUNTY COMMISSION APPROVALS RELATED TO NEW AND EXISTING COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCIES AND DIRECTING THE COUNTY MAYOR OR THE COUNTY MAYOR�S DESIGNEE TO DENY CERTAIN REQUESTS FROM COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCIES THAT ARE DEEMED APPROVED BY LAW, IF NOT APPROVED WITHIN THE ALLOWED TIMEFRAME [SEE ORIGINAL ITEM UNDER FILE NO. 160467]

BODY
WHEREAS, the Florida Legislature during its 1969 Legislative Session enacted the Community Redevelopment Act of 1969 which is presently codified in Florida Statutes at Part III of Chapter 163, Sections 163.330 through 163.450, as amended (the �Act�); and
WHEREAS, the Legislature made the following findings and declarations as set forth in Section 163.335 of the Act:
(1) It is hereby found and declared that there exist in counties and municipalities of the state slum and blighted areas which constitute a serious and growing menace, injurious to the public health, safety, morals, and welfare of the residents of the state; that the existence of such areas contributes substantially and increasingly to the spread of disease and crime, constitutes an economic and social liability imposing onerous burdens which decrease the tax base and reduce tax revenues, substantially impairs or arrests sound growth, retards the provision of housing accommodations, aggravates traffic problems, and substantially hampers the elimination of traffic hazards and the improvement of traffic facilities; and that the prevention and elimination of slums and blight is a matter of state policy and state concern in order that the state and its counties and municipalities shall not continue to be endangered by areas which are focal centers of disease, promote juvenile delinquency, and consume an excessive proportion of its revenues because of the extra services required for police, fire, accident, hospitalization, and other forms of public protection, services, and facilities.

(2) It is further found and declared that certain slum or blighted areas, or portions thereof, may require acquisition, clearance, and disposition subject to use restrictions, as provided in this part, since the prevailing condition of decay may make impracticable the reclamation of the area by conservation or rehabilitation; that other areas or portions thereof may, through the means provided in this part, be susceptible of conservation or rehabilitation in such a manner that the conditions and evils enumerated may be eliminated, remedied, or prevented; and that salvageable slum and blighted areas can be conserved and rehabilitated through appropriate public action as herein authorized and the cooperation and voluntary action of the owners and tenants of property in such areas.

(3) It is further found and declared that the powers conferred by this part are for public uses and purposes for which public money may be expended and police power exercised, and the necessity in the public interest for the provisions herein enacted is declared as a matter of legislative determination.

(4) It is further found that coastal resort and tourist areas or portions thereof which are deteriorating and economically distressed due to building density patterns, inadequate transportation and parking facilities, faulty lot layout, or inadequate street layout, could, through the means provided in this part, be revitalized and redeveloped in a manner that will vastly improve the economic and social conditions of the community.

(5) It is further found and declared that the preservation or enhancement of the tax base from which a taxing authority realizes tax revenues is essential to its existence and financial health; that the preservation and enhancement of such tax base is implicit in the purposes for which a taxing authority is established; that tax increment financing is an effective method of achieving such preservation and enhancement in areas in which such tax base is declining; that community redevelopment in such areas, when complete, will enhance such tax base and provide increased tax revenues to all affected taxing authorities, increasing their ability to accomplish their other respective purposes; and that the preservation and enhancement of the tax base in such areas through tax increment financing and the levying of taxes by such taxing authorities therefor and the appropriation of funds to a redevelopment trust fund bears a substantial relation to the purposes of such taxing authorities and is for their respective purposes and concerns. This subsection does not apply in any jurisdiction where the community redevelopment agency validated bonds as of April 30, 1984.

(6) It is further found and declared that there exists in counties and municipalities of the state a severe shortage of housing affordable to residents of low or moderate income, including the elderly; that the existence of such condition affects the health, safety, and welfare of the residents of such counties and municipalities and retards their growth and economic and social development; and that the elimination or improvement of such condition is a proper matter of state policy and state concern and is for a valid and desirable public purpose.

(7) It is further found and declared that the prevention or elimination of a slum area or blighted area as defined in this part and the preservation or enhancement of the tax base are not public uses or purposes for which private property may be taken by eminent domain and do not satisfy the public purpose requirement of s. 6(a), Art. X of the State Constitution; and

WHEREAS, all powers arising pursuant to the Act are conferred upon counties with home rule charters, which counties in turn are authorized to delegate certain such powers to municipalities within their boundaries; and
WHEREAS, counties may also confer powers to a citizen board established pursuant to section 163.356 of the Act; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Act, the Miami-Dade County Board of County Commissioners (the �Board�), as the governing body, created or delegated to certain municipalities the power to create 14 community redevelopment agencies, including Miami Beach City Center, Southeast Overtown/Park West, Omni, Midtown Miami, South Miami, North Miami Beach, Homestead, Florida City, North Miami, N.W. 7th Avenue Corridor, Naranja Lakes, West Perrine, 79th Street Corridor and Opa-locka community redevelopment agencies; and
WHEREAS, the County�s Fiscal Year 2015-16 annual appropriation from the general fund to community redevelopment agencies totaled $31,973,561.00; and

WHEREAS, it is anticipated that the County�s total annual appropriation to community redevelopment agencies over the next 10 years will either remain at the same level as the County�s Fiscal Year 2015-16 total annual appropriation or increase; and
WHEREAS, it is anticipated that this Board will likely continue to consider legislation that would lead to the creation of additional community redevelopment agencies or modify the arrangements with existing community redevelopment agencies; and
WHEREAS, therefore, this Board should cautiously consider approving new community redevelopment agencies, redevelopment plans, and related interlocal cooperation agreements as well as extending the life of existing agencies and approving amendments to existing redevelopment plans and interlocal cooperation agreements (�County Governing Body Approvals�), as such approvals may likely further limit the County�s ability to fund much needed countywide services from the general fund, such as projects or programs to alleviate the severe shortage of housing affordable to residents of extremely low, very low, low or moderate income, including the elderly and disabled; and
WHEREAS, furthermore, this Board should establish guidelines for all community redevelopment agencies that set greater controls over or condition County Governing Board Approvals, while still honoring the original purposes of such agencies; and
WHEREAS, efforts to implement controls over contributions to community redevelopment agencies are not new; and
WHEREAS, prior to 1994, the Act required taxing authorities to annually appropriate 95 percent of the tax increment; and
WHEREAS, a 1994 amendment to the Act creating applicable provisions of Florida Statutes Section 163.387 gives Miami-Dade County the authority to enact an ordinance establishing a redevelopment trust fund for a new community redevelopment area that limits the amount of funding each taxing authority is required to annually appropriate to between 50 percent and 95 percent of the tax increment; and
WHEREAS, a 2006 amendment to the Act creating Section 163.387(3)(b), Florida Statutes, gives governing bodies, such as Miami-Dade County, the ability to have alternate provisions in an interlocal agreement that deviate from the requirements of state law pertaining to the redevelopment trust funds; and
WHEREAS, this 2006 amendment would include authority for taxing authorities, by agreement with the appropriate parties, to reduce the percentage of the annual appropriation to less than 50 percent of the tax increment; and
WHEREAS, this Board adopted Resolution No. R-871-11, which requires an interlocal cooperation agreement between a community redevelopment agency, the County, and if applicable, a municipality or taxing authority, to contain a provision requiring the community redevelopment agency to submit timely budgets for approval by this Board prior to the community redevelopment agency borrowing money, advancing funds or incurring indebtedness proposed to be repaid from or secured by the community redevelopment agency�s tax increment financing funds; and
WHEREAS, this Board also adopted Resolution No. R-1382-09, which requires that, prior to this Board�s approval of an interlocal cooperation agreement or an amendment to an existing interlocal cooperation agreement between a community redevelopment agency, the County, and, if applicable, a municipality or taxing authority, such interlocal cooperation agreement shall include a provision that permits at least one County Commissioner to serve as a commissioner of the community redevelopment agency; and
WHEREAS, this Board also adopted Resolution No. R-611-15, which established a policy �requiring each community development agency, except those community redevelopment agencies that have been in existence for 10 years or less, to prepare and submit to this Board an
assessment of need study that demonstrates that slum or blight still exists within a designated community redevelopment area whenever such community redevelopment agency seeks approval from this Board to extend the life of the community redevelopment agency and the community redevelopment area; and
WHEREAS, the Miami-Dade Grand Jury (�Grand Jury�) was convened after an investigation revealed alleged mismanagement of large amounts of public dollars by certain community redevelopment agencies; and
WHEREAS, on February 3, 2016, the Grand Jury filed its final report (the �Report�) in which 29 recommendations were proffered, including but not limited to some of the steps already taken by this Board; and
WHEREAS, the Report emphasizes among other things that community redevelopment agencies must (1) provide more affordable housing projects within certain redevelopment areas, (2) ensure more citizen participation on the board of commissioners of community redevelopment agencies located within municipalities, (3) timely submit their budgets to this Board for approval prior to expending funds, (4) cap their administrative costs, (5) include statements in their budgets that describe how much money they have spent in the previous year and how much they expect to spend in the upcoming fiscal years on affordable housing, (6) have all community redevelopment agencies� boards of commissioners, all members of advisory boards established by community redevelopment agencies, and the persons who staff each community redevelopment agency and boards attend mandatory ethics trainings, and (7) undergo yearly audits performed by the County�s Inspector General (�Grand Jury Recommendations�); and
WHEREAS, this Board concurs with the Grand Jury�s Recommendations and believes that additional fiscal and other conditions and controls should be considered by this Board prior to any County Governing Body Approvals, while still taking steps to (1) ensure that community redevelopment agencies increase the number of affordable housing opportunities, (2) protect existing neighborhoods from gentrification due to redevelopment activities, (3) ensure greater employment opportunities and economic growth potential for the area�s residents and businesses by ensuring that community redevelopment funds are utilized to achieve these purposes, including providing greater employment opportunities for the workforce in the community redevelopment area, and (4) ensure that community redevelopment agencies comply with the County�s policies, as reflected by County ordinances pertaining to ethics, auditing, fair labor and small business contracting practices, because of the County�s appropriation of funds to such agencies that would otherwise remain general funds,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
Section 1. The Board incorporates and approves the foregoing recitals as if fully set forth herein.
Section 2. Subject to the requirements of the Act and other applicable laws, the Board establishes guidelines for County Governing Body Approvals pertaining to community redevelopment agencies, certain of which may require amendments to existing agreements, as follows:
a) Community Benefits Agreements
All entities or contractors contracting with or receiving grants from a community redevelopment agency >>for new or rehabilitated commercial and residential developments to be constructed within the redevelopment area<<1 in an amount of $200,000.00 or more, or such other amount as may be established by this Board, shall enter into a community benefits

agreement with the community redevelopment agency which will benefit primarily the residents of the community redevelopment area. To the extent allowed by law, a community benefits agreement shall include provisions for hiring the labor workforce for the project financed by the grant or agreement from residents of the community redevelopment area that are unemployed or underemployed. Depending on the worker or employee to be hired, the community redevelopment agency will be required to ensure that such entity or contractor complies with wage requirements, as applicable, established by Miami-Dade County�s Living Wage or Responsible Wage Ordinances, pursuant to Section 2-8.9 and 2-11.16, respectively, of the Code of Miami-Dade County, Florida (the �Code�) or pay higher wages and benefits, as are feasible.

b) Contract Requirements

All entities or contractors contracting with or receiving a grant from the community redevelopment agency in an amount of $200,000.00 or more, or such other amount as may be established by this Board, shall comply with the following Miami-Dade County ordinances contained in the Code, as may be amended, as if expressly applicable to such entities:

i. Small Business Enterprises (Section 2-8.1.1.1.1 of the Code);
ii. Community Business Enterprises (Section 2-10.4.01 of the Code);
iii. Community Small Business Enterprises (Section 10-33.02 of the Code); [[and/or]]
iv. Conflict of Interest and Code of Ethics Ordinance (Section 2-11.1 of the Code)>>; and/or
v. Living Wage Ordinance<<.
c) Adoption of Procurement Requirements

All community redevelopment agencies shall adopt procurement requirements. A community redevelopment agency has the option of adopting procurement requirements that are established by the State of Florida, Miami-Dade County or the municipality in which the community redevelopment agency operates, as modified to reflect that such requirements are applicable to the community redevelopment agency.

d) Inspector General Review

The County shall have the right to retain, at its sole cost, the services of an independent private sector inspector general whenever the County deems it appropriate to do so, in accordance with Miami-Dade County Administrative Order No. 3-20.� Upon written notice from the County, each community redevelopment agency shall make available to the independent private sector inspector general retained by the County all requested records and documentation
for inspection and reproduction.� Additionally, the community redevelopment agency shall submit to the County�s Inspector General�s review in accordance with Section 2-1076 of the Code. The County�s Inspector General shall be empowered to review past, present and proposed community redevelopment agencies� contracts, transactions, accounts, records, agreements and programs and [[at a minimum annually]] audit, investigate, monitor, oversee, inspect and review operations, activities, performance and procurement process, including but not limited to, project design, specifications, proposal submittals, activities of each community redevelopment agency, their officers, agents and employees, lobbyists, staff and elected officials to ensure compliance with contract specifications and to detect any fraud and/or corruption.�

e) Required [[Public Hearing]] >>Reasonable Opportunity to Be Heard<< and Project-related Findings

If a community redevelopment agency proposes to fund a >>proposed new or rehabilitated commercial or residential<< project >>and such project amount is above the delegated person�s authority for approval thus requiring approval of the community redevelopment agency<<, a [[public hearing must be held]] >>reasonable opportunity to be heard shall be afforded to the public<< and a finding must be made that:

1. The proposed project will [[primarily]] >>substantially<< benefit residents and business owners within the redevelopment area.
2. The >>non-public<< entity or contractor requesting funding will use community redevelopment agency funds to fill in any financial gaps left after all other funding has been provided to the project and that, but for the community redevelopment agency�s funding, the project cannot be undertaken.

f) Recovery of Grant Funds

All community redevelopment agencies shall include in their contracts or grant agreements a �clawback� provision that will require the community redevelopment agency to �clawback� or rescind and recover funding from any entity or contractor to which it provides funding which does not substantially comply with the provisions of its agreement with the community redevelopment agency by demanding repayment of such funds in writing, including recovery of penalties or liquidated damages, to the extent allowed by law, as well as attorney�s fees and interest, and pursuing collection or legal action, to the fullest extent allowable by law, if feasible.

g) Safeguards for Residents from Displacement

In the event the community redevelopment agency funds a redevelopment project authorized by the agency�s redevelopment plan that may displace persons (including individuals, families, business concerns, nonprofit organizations and others) located in the community redevelopment area, the community redevelopment agency shall prepare plans for and assist in the relocation of such persons, including making any relocation payments under the Act and applicable laws and regulations. Further, each community redevelopment agency shall make
or provide for at least a �one-for-one� replacement of each affordable housing unit demolished pursuant to a redevelopment project to ensure that such demolished unit is replaced by a new comparable, affordable housing unit. >>However, the before-mentioned requirement shall not apply to substandard affordable housing that has been declared unsafe by a governmental entity and subsequently demolished.<< The community redevelopment agency shall ensure that individuals and families who are displaced from affordable housing units have a right of first refusal to return to comparably priced affordable housing units located within the redevelopment area.

h) Affordable and Mixed Income Housing

Subject to compliance with Paragraph (g) above, each community redevelopment agency which has a redevelopment plan with a housing component shall serve an income mix of extremely low, very low, low, moderate, and workforce housing up to 140 percent of area median income, as may be defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Developer incentives may be established by this Board that may assist in accomplishing these housing goals. If, however, this Board adopts guidelines for mixed income housing, such projects shall comply with the adopted guidelines. Further, each community redevelopment agency shall ensure that prior to funding any non-housing project authorized by the applicable community redevelopment plan, priority shall be given to rehabilitation, conservation or redevelopment of housing for extremely low, very low, low or moderate income persons that is authorized by the community redevelopment plan, subject to compliance with the applicable comprehensive development plan for the area.
i) Reporting on Affordable Housing

Each community redevelopment agency shall include a statement in its annual budget that describes its expenditures for the provision of affordable housing in the previous year and that are anticipated in upcoming fiscal years, if applicable.
j) Participation of Commissioners >>, Their<< [[or]] Designees >>, and/or Citizens<< on CRA Boards

>>In accordance with Resolution Nos. R-1382-09, R-871-11 and R-599-15 and Sections 163.356(2) and 163.357(1)(d) of the Act, the interlocal agreement between the County, the municipality and community redevelopment agency shall authorize this Board to appoint a County Commissioner or their designee to serve as commissioners of the community redevelopment agency. Additionally, if<< [[If]] a community redevelopment agency�s board of commissioners is the governing body of a municipality and the board consists of five or fewer members, then the interlocal agreement between the County, the municipality and community redevelopment agency shall authorize this Board, in accordance with Section 163.357>>(1)(c)<< of the Act, to appoint two members [[or designees]] >>, who reside or are engaged in a business within the area of operation of the community redevelopment agency,<< to serve as commissioners of the community redevelopment agency.

k) Limitation on the Amount of a Tax Increment

If this Board, in its sole discretion, determines that it is in the County�s best interest to establish a redevelopment trust fund for a new community redevelopment area, in accordance with Section 163.387, Florida Statutes, this Board shall determine the amount to be funded by each taxing authority annually. However, the approval of any ordinance establishing payment in an amount greater than 50 percent of the tax increment shall require a 2/3 vote of the members of this Board.
l) Ethics Training

All boards of commissioners, all community redevelopment agencies� advisory boards, and the persons who staff each community redevelopment agency or board shall be required to complete a minimum of 4 hours of ethics training to be conducted by the Miami-Dade Commission on Ethics and Public Trust.

m) Cap on Administrative Costs

Each community redevelopment agency shall be subject to a cap on administrative costs of 20 percent of its overall budget.

Section 3. No item shall be placed on a County Commission or committee agenda seeking a County Governing Board Approval until such time as all of the terms set forth in Section 2 of this resolution and Resolution Nos. R-871-11, R-1382-09, and R-611-15 are fully considered, negotiated and addressed in the item, unless the County Mayor or the County Mayor�s designee recommends in writing that it is the best interests of the County to waive the requirement of this resolution or Resolution Nos. R-871-11, R-1382-09, and R-611-15, in whole or in part.� This Board, in its sole discretion, reserves the right to direct the County Mayor or the County Mayor�s designee to engage in further negotiations on any such item proposed for approval by this Board.
Section 4. Any Board decision required by Section 163.410 of the Act to be made within 120 days of the request for such decision, including any request for a County Governing Body Approval, which is deemed granted by the Act if not made within such timeframe, is denied by operation of this resolution, unless this Board makes a decision on the request prior to the 120th day or an extension of time is negotiated for this Board to make its decision on the request. The County Mayor or the County Mayor�s designee is directed to timely communicate such denial >>and the reason for the delay<< to the community redevelopment agency that made the request.

1 Committee amendments are indicated as follows: Words stricken through and/or [[double bracketed]] are deleted, words underscored and/or >>double arrowed<< are added.