Legislative Matter

Miami-Dade Legislative Item
File Number: 172012

Printable PDF Format

Clerk's Official Copy

File Number: 172012

File Type: Ordinance

Status: In Committee

Version: 0

Reference: 17-99

Control: Board of County Commissioners

File Name: RELATING TO PETITION REQUIREMENT FOR MAC

Introduced: 8/22/2017

Requester: NONE

Cost:

Final Action: 12/5/2017

Agenda Date: 12/5/2017

Agenda Item Number: 7F

Notes:

REQUIRES 6-4 WEEKS

Title:

ORDINANCE RELATING TO INCORPORATION; AMENDING SECTION 20-29 OF THE CODE OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA; PROHIBITING THE PLACEMENT OF AN ORDINANCE TO CREATE A MUNICIPAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (“MAC”) TO STUDY THE POSSIBLE INCORPORATION OF AN AREA ON THE BOARD’S AGENDA UNLESS A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF THE RESIDENT ELECTORS IN THE AREA HAVE CONSENTED TO THE CREATION OF A MAC; PROVIDING SEVERABILITY, INCLUSION IN THE CODE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE

Indexes:	PETITION
	MAC

Sponsors:	Joe A. Martinez, Prime Sponsor
	Audrey M. Edmonson, Co-Sponsor
	Sally A. Heyman, Co-Sponsor
	Rebeca Sosa, Co-Sponsor
	Sen. Javier D. Souto, Co-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	12/5/2017	7F	Adopted				P
REPORT:	First Assistant County Attorney Geri Bonzon-Keenan read the title of the foregoing proposed ordinance into the record. Commissioner Martinez apologized to the public on his behalf for a miscommunication regarding the foregoing proposed ordinance that was not considered as a reasonable opportunity item; noting he would speak on the public’s behalf regarding the matter. Commissioner Martinez expressed concerns regarding the portrayal of annexation of cities. He recalled when Mayor Gimenez was a former Miami Dade Commissioner; they visited Jacksonville to get insight as to how the annexation of their cities benefited Jacksonville. Commissioner Martinez believed as an elected official acting as the voice of the people, when the form of government and living begin to change; the constituents should be the ones to petition. He also believed some elected officials intentions to incorporate the cities was for authoritarian reasons, running for office, monetary gains etc. Nonetheless, Commissioner Martinez strongly opposed government involvement in deciding for the constituents; noting he believed in the government performing their jobs on behalf of the constituents. Commissioner Sosa concurred with Commissioner Martinez; noting the constituents should decide on the direction of their city, not government. She noted it had become apparent that the cities was losing their residential state as a result of high rises being built, which represented the quality loss of life in Miami-Dade County. Commissioner Sosa noted incorporating and annexing would cost the residents more; noting they would have to decide whether to combine the fire, and police departments. Also, she noted as Miami-Dade County continued to grow it was not visualized the excessive need for transit. Nevertheless, she stated she would continue to represent her constituents; stating she believed the constituents should not feel pressured to conform, but to decide on their own merits. Pursuant Commissioner Suarez’ question as to whether the signatures were 20 percent of the voting list from the voters in the district; Assistant County Attorney Abbie Schwaderer-Raurell stated it was 20 percent of the residents’ electors in the area. Responding to Commissioner Suarez’ question as to whether the petition format reflect other petitions such as referendum, recalls etc. on one page with an affidavit; Assistant County Attorney Schwaderer- Raurell noted the Miami-Dade County Code (Code) provides that 20 percent of the residents electors were on a consent form approved by Office of Strategic Business Management. Commissioner Suarez indicated he attempted to petition the Charter modification in which the requirement was 4 percent. He noted Commissioner Martinez had calculated 20 thousand within his district, noting those requirements were unwieldy. Discussion ensued between Commissioners Martinez and Suarez regarding areas versus all the districts. Commissioner Suarez noted the if the City of Coral Gables or South Miami wanted to annex they would have to conduct a survey and he asked could those cites reverse the decision to annex; Assistant County Attorney Schwaderer-Raurell confirmed the Code could be changed if the Board chooses at a later date. Assistant County Attorney Schwaderer-Raurell indicated the Code does not provide a particular time frame. She asked that she be allowed to review the section of the Code. In response to Commissioner Moss’ question, Commissioner Martinez confirmed voters had 180 days to provide the signatures according to Section 20-20(A)(4) of the Code. Commissioner Heyman recalled in the past she had inherited a MAC that existed for 20 years, to which it was renewed because of a sunset provision date. She noted the issue with annexation and incorporation was to ensure community involvement, and the jurisdiction of the area had enough time to be informed; noting because of the constant change with redevelopment, franchise fees, surcharges, property tax values the area of interest needed 180 days to be informed. Additionally, Commissioner Heyman indicated the 20 percent could not be suggested for the Commissioner to move forward without adequate information; noting in the past there were a number of studies that had been conducted, recalculations, and selecting dates etc. Nevertheless, the community needed factual and resourceful information. Pursuant to Commissioner Jordan’s question regarding how the foregoing proposed ordinance was different from what currently exist; noting it was to her understanding the commission was eliminating the ability to establish MAC and deviating from the 20 percent; Assistant County Attorney Schwaderer-Raurell explained the foregoing proposed ordinance was just adding a more procedural requirement in the code for the creation of a MAC. She noted with regards to waiving the 20 percent, another ordinance would have to be created to do so. Assistant County Attorney Schwaderer- Raurell also noted if there was an ordinance to create a MAC in the future, that ordinance could waive both the requirements of the 20 percent that was currently in the Code, and it could waive the new provision requiring the 20 percent before something could be place on the agenda. In Response to Commissioner Jordan’s question, regarding if she wanted to create a MAC for an unincorporated area Westside of her district, could she do so with this legislation; Assistant County Attorney Schwaderer-Raurell noted if Commissioner Jordan wanted to proceed without the 20 percent, she could present an ordinance before the Board, which would waive the 20 percent requirement and the new provision. Commissioner Jordan noted she wished the Commission had discussed this matter 10 to 15 years ago before the affluent areas were incorporated in Miami-Dade County. Pursuant to Commissioner Jordan’s question regarding how many municipalities does Miami-Dade County have and what was the current percentage of unincorporated Miami Dade County; Ms. Jennifer Moon, Office of Management and Budget Director stated there were 34 Unincorporated Municipal Service Area (UMSA) and 43 percent was unincorporated. Responding to Commissioner Jordan’s as to what was the average income level for incorporated and unincorporated Miami-Dade County; Ms. Moon stated there were municipalities with low income levels or older municipalities with very low average income levels, and the eastern shore had high income levels. Commissioner Jordan stated the discussion regarding the unincorporated and incorporation was long overdue; noting the areas that were left to decide were least affluent communities and a few above average income levels. Nevertheless, she expressed concerns about treatment and the disparity between the communities. Commissioner Jordan stated until the remainder of Miami-Dade County was considered the discussion remained premature. She noted she had prompted legislation to have a discussion regarding the remainder of Miami-Dade County and how would they tackle the community services such as fire and law enforcement. Commissioner Diaz indicated annexation and incorporation were two different entities that needed to have a balance spectrum. He noted he concurred with Commissioner Jordan statement regarding discussion on the matter; noting he was trying to put a workshop together to further discuss the matter. Furthermore, Commissioner Diaz indicated there had been annexed cities voted by the community that had failed. He indicated it was not foreseen that Miami-Dade County would grow at a rapid pace; therefore, he noted it important to have a balance with the municipality and the County. Commissioner Monestime believed the Commission was trying to fix a system that was not broken; indicating in the past it was considered to be an appropriate system. He stated there were no complaints from the municipalities that had incorporated within the past 10 years. However, Commissioner Monestime expressed concerns about the commissioners not being able to initiate a petition. Nonetheless, Commissioner Monestime stressed the importance of addressing the matter. Commissioner Sosa agreed to the 20 percent; noting it was cost effective versus conducting costly surveys. She expressed concerns about spending taxpayers’ dollars without knowing what the constituents want. Commissioner Sosa also stated there were a number of cities that asked to be annexed and later decide not to. She said it worked both end of the spectrum with the 20 percent signature and the MAC system if a commissioner chooses to waive the rule. Nevertheless, she believed the public needed to decide on annexing their community. Commissioner Barreiro believed the incorporation from the past had followed through because of the 20 percent signatures; to which the commissioners expedited. He noted more areas were becoming divided and it would prove so if the MAC was supported. Nonetheless, Commissioner Barreiro indicated he would not impose on the areas in his district who was not interested in incorporating. However, he noted the areas that choose to incorporated; he would ensure it was done at the will of the public. Pursuant to Commissioner Moss’ question regarding whether a commissioner could propose an ordinance that waiving this rule for any particular area, or could the commission reverse the entire ordinance; Assistant County Attorney Cynthia Johnson-Stacks explained the proposed ordinance provides that no ordinance to create a MAC may be placed on the agenda, unless this the Clerk had taken certain steps to forward the consent forms. She further explained the requirement maybe repealed amended or taken away by a subsequent ordinance. Additionally, Assistant County Attorney Johnson-Stacks said there could be an ordinance adopted allowing a particular MAC to move forward, but it would have to be an exception to this rule because this was a rule prohibiting a placement. Responding to Commissioner Moss’ question as to whether a commissioner could propose an ordinance that would waive the rule for a particular area, and if approved by the commission, a MAC could be created without the 20 percent; Assistant County Attorney Johnson-Stacks confirmed Commissioner Moss enquiry. Commissioners Souto, Heyman, and Sosa asked to be listed as a cosponsor. Commissioner Martinez wanted clarity on the matter; noting he understood that any ordinance disapproved by the commission, another could be presented and repealed; Assistant County Attorney Johnson-Stacks indicated if it was being done in a particular area an ordinance could be presented and a MAC could be created . Assistant County Attorney Johnson-Stacks further elaborated that in order to create an absolute prohibition, it would have to be a charter amendment; noting it would require a prohibition now that would require a waiver, amendment, and repeal of this requirement. Commissioner Martinez indicated it was not communicated to him and he should follow up with the matter personally, he asked what he was doing differently from what was currently on the agenda; Assistant County Attorney Johnson-Stacks indicated in order for this proposed requirement to be amended, it would have to be highlighted in the title of a future proposed ordinance indicating this rule/prohibition was being waived. She stated more focus was put on the fact there was a waiver of the prohibition in the Code. Commissioner Barreiro indicated in the past a resolution was presented to create a MAC; and an ordinance had two readings that went to a committee. He added it was a simpler and faster form. Commissioner Martinez pointed out the 20 percent was currently an option; and if the objection was whether a commissioner still had a say concerning the matter, the County Attorney confirmed the commission still had a say on the matter. Nevertheless, he noted he would bring forth an ordinance in hope of the commission support. Additionally he believed the 20 percent was to get a few people to control what everyone wanted Commissioner Monestime noted he does not want those to feel the inability to vote on incorporation; noting if a commissioner presents a resolution to create a MAC, the residents have the right to vote on the matter. He stressed in most instances, the community still had the opportunity to vote for or against any proposed incorporation. Hearing no further questions or comments, the Board proceeded to vote on the foregoing proposed ordinance, as presented.

Government Operations Committee	11/14/2017	1G5	Forwarded to BCC with a favorable recommendation				P
REPORT:	Assistant County Attorney Eddie Gonzalez read into the record the title of the foregoing proposed ordinance. Chairman Moss opened the public hearing and the following persons appeared: 1. Mr. John McHugh, 12785 SW 99th Court, Miami, spoke in support of the foregoing proposed ordinance. 2. Mr. Robert Misic, 11240 SW 111th Street, Miami, appeared in support of the item. 3. Ms. Moraima Lugo Morales, 4240 SW 153rd Place, Miami, urged the Committee members to reduce the current resident elector support requirement from 20% to 10%. 4. Mr. McHenry Hamilton, 7860 SW 86th Street, Unit #25, Miami, appeared in opposition to the foregoing proposed ordinance and voiced his concerns regarding the 20% resident elector support component. 5. Ms. Kimberly Cole, 11920 SW 89th Avenue, Miami, spoke in support of the item. 6. Mr. Norbert Lamenca, 10243 SW 126th Street, Miami, appeared in support of the foregoing proposed ordinance and the 20% resident elector support requirement, noting the amendments would allow for a clear and transparent process. 7. Mr. David Ricks, 12523 SW 107th Court, Miami, voiced his support for the item. 8. Mr. Dave Allen, 13741 SW 97th Avenue, Miami, appeared in opposition to the foregoing proposed ordinance. 9. Ms. Bev Gerald, 14271 SW 74th Court, Palmetto Bay, spoke about the difficulties associated with securing the required signatures to initiate a petition and urged the Committee members to deny the foregoing proposed item. 10. Mr. Marshall Ives, 9215 SW 144th Street, Miami, appeared in support of the item. 11. Mr. Richard Friedman, 6328 NW 175th Terrace, Miami, questioned the intent of the foregoing proposed ordinance and voiced his support for the creation of a process geared towards creating a long term solution for Unincorporated Municipal Service Areas (UMSA.) 12. Mr. Jose Rodriguez, 14255 SW 38th Terrace, Miami, spoke in opposition to the foregoing proposed ordinance and the 20% resident elector support component. 13. Mr. Russ Gordon, 10381 SW 139th Street, Miami , appeared in opposition to the foregoing proposed ordinance and spoke about his personal efforts to survey his community to determine the residents’ interest in incorporation. He requested the Committee members consider “grandfathering” the current process to allow for the completion of the study. 14. Mr. Brian Rook, 1971 NE 188th Street, Miami, appeared in support of the foregoing proposed ordinance. 15. Ms. Alicia Rook, 1971 NE 188th Street, Miami, argued the current process was not inclusive and voiced her support for the item as presented. 16. Mr. Jack Russell, 9850 SW 80th Drive, Miami, appeared in support of the foregoing proposed ordinance. 17. Ms. Catherine Christofis, 2430 NE 135th Street, North Miami, spoke in favor of the item. 18. Ms. Deborah Hayden, 1501 NE Miami Gardens Drive, Miami, appeared in support of the foregoing proposed ordinance. 19. Mr. George May, 18770 NE 22nd Avenue, Miami, voiced his support of the item. 20. Ms. Milena Connelly, 1401 NE Miami Gardens Drive, Apt 391, Miami, spoke about residents’ fears of incorporation and expressed her support of the foregoing proposed ordinance. Seeing no other persons wishing to speak, Chairman Moss closed the public hearing. Commissioner Martinez explained the intent of the foregoing proposed ordinance. Commissioner Monestime opined the 20% resident elector support requirement/component of the item was too high. Commissioner Martinez clarified the 20% requirement was already part of the current process. Assistant County Attorney Abbie Schwaderer-Raurell confirmed the 20% resident elector support was currently required by County Code and proceeded to read the proposed amendment to the Code into the record. Commissioner Sosa requested she be added as a co-sponsor for the item and discussed the merits of the proposed amendment to the existing process. Chairman Moss indicated he was not in support of the foregoing proposed ordinance because it eliminated the District Commissioners’ ability to form a Municipal Advisory Committee (MAC.) There being no further questions or comments, the Committee proceeded to vote on the foregoing proposed ordinance, as presented.

Board of County Commissioners	10/6/2017		Municipalities notified of public hearing	Government Operations Committee	11/14/2017	10/3/2017

Board of County Commissioners	10/3/2017	4F	Adopted on first reading		11/14/2017		P
REPORT:	The foregoing proposed ordinance was adopted on first reading and set for public hearing before the Government Operations Committee meeting on Tuesday, November 14, 2017, at 1:30 p.m.

Board of County Commissioners	10/3/2017		Tentatively scheduled for a public hearing	Government Operations Committee	11/14/2017

Board of County Commissioners	8/30/2017		Requires Municipal Notification	Government Operations Committee	11/14/2017

County Attorney	8/22/2017		Assigned	Abbie N. Schwaderer

County Attorney	8/22/2017		Referred	Government Operations Committee	11/14/2017

Legislative Text

TITLE
ORDINANCE RELATING TO INCORPORATION; AMENDING SECTION 20-29 OF THE CODE OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA; PROHIBITING THE PLACEMENT OF AN ORDINANCE TO CREATE A MUNICIPAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (�MAC�) TO STUDY THE POSSIBLE INCORPORATION OF AN AREA ON THE BOARD�S AGENDA UNLESS A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF THE RESIDENT ELECTORS IN THE AREA HAVE CONSENTED TO THE CREATION OF A MAC; PROVIDING SEVERABILITY, INCLUSION IN THE CODE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE

BODY

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 20-29 of the Code, a municipal advisory committee (�MAC�) may be created by the Board of County Commissioners to study and give advice to the County Commission regarding the creation of a proposed municipality; and
WHEREAS, Section 20-29 provides that a Municipal Advisory Committee may only be created by ordinance of the Board, and that �no Municipal Advisory Committee shall be created by the County Commission, unless no less than twenty (20) percent of the resident electors in the area to be studied consent to the creation of a Municipal Advisory Committee . . .�; and
WHEREAS, this requirement of consent by resident electors has been waived by subsequent ordinances of this Board; for example, the ordinances which created the two West Kendall Municipal Advisory Committees waived the Code requirement in Section 20-29 which required consent by a percentage of the resident electors; and
WHEREAS, those two West Kendall Municipal Advisory Committees no longer exist because this Board subsequently repealed the ordinances which established them; and

WHEREAS, the consent of at least 20 percent of the resident electors is important because it demonstrates to the Board that there is a minimum level of interest in the proposed municipality by the resident electors of that particular area; and
WHEREAS, the creation of a Municipal Advisory Committee requires staffing by County employees, public meetings, public notices, and other work which results in a cost to the County which is not insignificant, and the requirement of consent by resident electors before a Municipal Advisory Committee can be created may protect the County from incurring unneeded and unnecessary costs; and
WHEREAS, this Board therefore wishes to prohibit the placement of an ordinance to create a Municipal Advisory Committee on this Board�s agenda before 20 percent of the resident electors in the area to be studied have consented to the creation of a Municipal Advisory Committee,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA:
Section 1. Section 20-29 of the Code of Miami-Dade County, Florida, is hereby amended to read as follows:1
Sec. 20-29. � Municipal Advisory Committee�Creation and Limitation of Study Area.

(A) A Municipal Advisory Committee may only be created by ordinance of the Board in accordance with the provisions of this section to study and give advice to the County Commission regarding the creation of a proposed municipality. However, as of the effective date of this ordinance, no Municipal Advisory Committee shall be created by the County Commission, unless no less than twenty (20) percent of the resident electors in the area to be studied consent to the creation of a Municipal Advisory Committee on a consent form which shall be approved by the Office of [Strategic Business] Management>> and Budget<<. The signed consent forms shall be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners. Upon submission of the signed consent forms, the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners shall submit the signed consent forms to the Department of Elections for certification as to the sufficiency of signatures on the consent forms. Upon notification of certification by the Department of Elections, the Clerk of the Board shall forward to the County Commission the signed consent forms of area residents and the certification of the sufficiency of the consent forms. >>No ordinance to create a Municipal Advisory Committee may be placed on an agenda of this Board unless the Clerk of the Board has forwarded to the County Commission the signed consent forms of area residents and the certification of the sufficiency of the consent forms, as required in this subsection.<< Following public hearing, the County Commission may create a Municipal Advisory Committee by ordinance. It is provided, however, that where a Municipal Advisory Committee has been established, prior to the effective date of this ordinance, no consent of resident electors shall be required for the adoption of an ordinance creating a Municipal Advisory Committee involving the same study area. Upon receipt of the Municipal Advisory Committee report, which shall include findings of fiscal feasibility, evidence of desirability, and a plan for the development of a viable community, and upon motion of the district commissioner whose district comprises the majority of the proposed area to be incorporated, the Board of County Commissioners, at a regular meeting of the Board, may schedule the Municipal Advisory Committee report and resolution for consideration by the Planning Advisory Board.

* * *

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 shall become effective 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.