| |
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
MINUTES PREPARED BY:
|
| |
| |
REPORT:
Kerry Khunjar Breakenridge, Commission Reporter (305)375-5108
|
|
|
1
|
INVOCATION
|
| |
|
2A
|
ROLL CALL
|
| |
|
2A
|
Roll Call by the Village Clerk for the Village Council of the Village of Palmetto Bay
|
| |
| |
REPORT:
The following Village of Palmetto Bay Council members were present: Mayor Karyn Cunningham, Vice-Mayor Leanne Tellam, Councilmember for District 2 Steve Cody and Councilmember for District 3 Marsha Matson. (Councilmember Patrick Fiore was absent)
In addition to the Village Councilmembers, the following Village staff members were also present:
~ Village Attorney John Dellagloria; and
~ Village Clerk Missy Arocha
|
|
|
2B
|
Roll Call by the County Clerk for the Board of County Commissioners of Miami-Dade County
|
| |
| |
REPORT:
Board of County Commission (Board/BCC) Chairman Diaz convened the Joint Meeting with the Village of Palmetto Bay 12:50 p.m. with a moment of prayer led by Vice Chairman Gilbert III, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
Prior to the roll call, Deputy Clerk, Kerry Khunjar Breakenridge, announced that Commissioner Martinez had submitted written notice of his absence from today�s (1/20) Joint Meeting with Village of Palmetto Bay.
The following Board members were present at roll call: Chairman Diaz, Vice Chairman Gilbert III, Commissioners Cohen Higgins, Garcia, Heyman, McGhee, Monestime, Regalado, Sosa and Souto (Commissioners Higgins, Hardemon and Martinez were absent).
In addition to the members of the Board, the following staff members were also present:
~ Office of the Mayor, Chief Operations Officer, Jimmy Morales;
~ Assistant County Attorneys Annery Pulgar Alfonso and
~ Senior Deputy Clerk Melissa Adames, Clerk of the Board Director Basia Pruna and Deputy Clerk Kerry Khunjar Breakenridge.
BCC Chairman Diaz welcomed the Village of Palmetto Bay (Village) Council members and representatives, and reviewed the County Commission�s Rules of Decorum. He requested the public to keep their protective masks on while in the Commission Chambers and asked members of the public to limit comments to two (2) minutes. BCC Chairman Diaz noted there was a separate area set up for the public in the event they did not wish to keep their masks on in the Commission Chambers.
Village Mayor Cunningham requested public comments be heard first.
|
|
|
3A
|
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
|
| |
|
4A
|
JOINT STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
|
| |
|
4A
|
|
| |
220108
|
Joint Meeting/Workshop
|
|
| |
|
| |
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE JOINT STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES (ATTACHED TO THIS AGENDA) RELATED TO THE CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE VILLAGE OF PALMETTO BAY AGAINST MIAMI-DADE COUNTY PURSUANT TO VILLAGE RESOLUTION NO. 2021-18
|
|
| |
REPORT:
Assistant County Attorney Annery Pulgar Alfonso read the foregoing joint statement of issues into the record (See Exhibit 4A):
�The joint public meeting was related to the conflict resolution proceedings initiated by the Village of Palmetto Bay (Village) against Miami-Dade County regarding the Board of County Commissioners� Resolution No. R-88-21 pertaining to the construction of a bridge that would extend SW 87th Avenue from SW 164th Street to SW 163rd Terrace crossing over the Cutler Drain Canal C-100. Florida law requires that the Council of the Village of Palmetto Bay (the �Village Council�) and the Board of County Commissioners (the �Board�) have a joint public meeting. In this meeting, the governing bodies of these entities are required to:
(a) Consider the statement of issues;
(b) Seek an agreement; and
(c) Schedule additional meetings of the entities in conflict or of their designees to continue to seek resolution of the conflict.�
On February 2, 2021, the Board adopted Resolution No. R-88-21 (the �County Resolution�), attached herein as Exhibit 1 of the document, which directed the County Mayor to take all actions necessary to construct a bridge that would extend SW 87th Avenue from SW 164th Street to SW 163rd Terrace crossing over the Cutler Drain Canal C-100 (the �bridge project�). The County Resolution also identified $3,100,000.00 in already budgeted and unencumbered road impact fee funds from the fiscal year 2020-2021 County Budget for the design and construction of the bridge project. The County Resolution further directed the County Mayor or her designee, should additional funds be necessary, to identify and appropriate, in accordance with section 2-1796 of the Code of Miami-Dade County, Florida, any legally available funds from the fiscal year 2020-2021 County Budget to fund the bridge project, and to include the implementation of said bridge project, as necessary, in the Mayor�s Proposed Budget for fiscal year 2021-2022. On February 8, 2021, the Village of Palmetto Bay (the �Village�) Mayor and Council adopted Resolution No. 2021-18 (the �Village Resolution�), attached herein as Exhibit 2 of the document, initiating the conflict resolution proceedings against Miami-Dade County. The Village Resolution identifies the following areas of conflict:
1. The Village�s allegation that the County Resolution violates section 1.02 of the Charter of Miami-Dade County (the �County Charter�) which requires that the appropriation of funds be done by ordinance.
2. The Village�s allegation that by not adopting the measure by ordinance, it violates the County�s notice requirements for the adoption of ordinances.
3. The Village�s allegation that the County�s reliance on Ordinance No. 20-38, authorizing the waiver of procedural requirements, including but not limited to the three- and four day rules, is inapplicable as the ordinance applies to emergency measures, and the bridging of 87th Avenue does not �meet a public emergency affecting life, health, property or public safety.�
4. The Village�s allegation that Ordinance No. 20-38 is only meant to �expedite certain processes and procedures that directly affect the acquisition of goods and services.� The Village alleges that the construction of the subject bridge does not fall within such purpose. Since March 2021, the Village and the County have been attempting in good faith and in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 164 to resolve the conflict between the parties. To date, such negotiations have not been successful.
If a conceptual agreement to resolve the conflict resolution proceedings is reached today, resolutions will be prepared for approval by the Board and the Village Council at the next available regular meeting of the Board and the Village Council.
If a conceptual agreement is not reached at the joint public meeting, a vote will be taken to schedule mediation between the designees of the County and the Village.
SPECIAL NOTE: A Joint Statement of Issues was attached to the agenda for this meeting and was also distributed to members of the County Commission.
|
|
|
5A
|
REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PUBLIC TO BE HEARD
|
| |
| |
REPORT:
Board of County Commissioners (Board/BCC) Chairman Diaz opened the reasonable opportunity for the public to be heard, and the following persons appeared before the Board and Village Council (Village) members:
1. Ms. Michelle Cravin, 8305 SW 205th Terrace, Cutler Bay, Florida, reviewed the legislative history of the bridge item, highlighting the Miami-Dade Transportation Planning Organization (TPO) and Board�s processes and timelines. She noted her support for building the bridge and how the bridge would benefit the community.
2. Ms. Dora Vorce, 8720 SW 155th Terrace, Palmetto Bay, Florida, spoke in opposition of building the bridge citing concerns about the impact of the bridge on the surrounding neighborhoods.
BCC Chairman Diaz cautioned speakers about addressing specific Board/Village members and requested all comments be directed to the general governing bodies in attendance.
3. Ms. Loretta Gregory, 8830 SW 153rd Terrace, Palmetto Bay, Florida, voiced her objections to building the bridge.
4. Mr. Patricio Gonzalez, 7420 SW 174th Street, Palmetto Bay, Florida, opposed building the bridge and questioned who would be responsible for maintaining the bridge if it were built.
5. Ms. JoAnn Parns, 15301 SW 88th Court, Palmetto Bay, Florida, spoke in opposition of the bridge building project.
6. Mr. Victor Wong Chong, 16140 SW 88th Avenue Road, Palmetto Bay, Florida, voiced his objections to building the bridge and argued the bridge would not alleviate traffic in the area.
7. Mr. William Kestel, 16720 SW 83rd Avenue, Palmetto Bay, Florida, spoke in support of building the bridge and the benefits to the community.
8. Ms. Catherine Viera, 16020 SW 87th Avenue, Palmetto Bay, Florida, voiced her objections to the bridge building project citing concerns about the lack of community engagement in the process.
BCC Chairman Diaz strongly cautioned speakers against addressing specific Board/Village members and reiterated his request for all comments to be directed to the general governing bodies in attendance.
9. Mr. Craig Woischwill, 8660 SW 161st Terrace, Palmetto Bay, Florida, opposed building the bridge.
10. Ms. Adela Viera, 16020 SW 87th Avenue, Palmetto Bay, Florida, spoke in opposition of the bridge project.
11. Ms. Ineska A Stojsic, 8700 SW 155th Street, Palmetto Bay, Florida, voiced her objections to building a bridge in the area.
12. Mr. John Crawford, 15400 SW 85th Avenue, Palmetto Bay, Florida, opposed the Board�s decision to proceed with the bridge project.
13. Mr. Val Snider, 8745 SW 150th Terrace, Palmetto Bay, Florida, spoke in opposition of the bridge project.
14. Mr. Gilbert Viera, 16020 SW 87th Avenue, Palmetto Bay, Florida, voiced his objections to the bridge project and read a statement of into the record.
15. Mr. Norman Waas, 8481 SW 147th Terrace, Palmetto Bay, Florida, stated that while he was against the bridge project, he was hopeful the today�s (1/20) meeting would result in an amicable resolution and the reversal of County Resolution No. R-88-21 to allow for proper notice and community engagement. He requested a new traffic study and analysis be performed before the Board made a decision regarding the project.
16. Ms. Ljerka Kolb, 8700 SW 155th Street. Palmetto Bay, Florida, appeared in opposition of the bridge project and requested an updated traffic study be performed.
17. Ms. Madeline Roman, 9383 SW 182nd Street, Palmetto Bay, Florida, spoke in support of the bridge project and the benefits to the community. She disputed prior comments regarding the lack of community engagement and pointed out that the Community Connectivity Committee was created to address the residents� concerns and provide additional information about the bridge.
18. Mr. Joseph Miorelli, 8481 SW 142nd Street, Palmetto Bay, Florida, appeared in opposition of the bridge building project and noted he had collected over 1000 signatures of residents opposing the project. He argued the bridge would negatively impact property values and was inconsistent with the County�s long range traffic plan.
There being no other persons registered or appearing to speak, BCC Chairman Diaz closed the reasonable opportunity for the public to speak.
|
|
|
6
|
DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION BY THE VILLAGE COUNCIL AND THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
|
| |
|
6A
|
|
| |
220105
|
Discussion Item
|
|
| |
|
| |
CONSIDERATION OF THE JOINT STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES BY THE VILLAGE COUNCIL AND THE BOARD
|
Presented
|
|
6B
|
|
| |
220106
|
Discussion Item
|
|
| |
|
| |
DISCUSSION OF ANY RESOLUTION OF THE DISPUTE
|
Presented
|
| |
REPORT:
Village of Palmetto Bay (Village) Mayor Karyn Cunningham, read a statement (See Exhibit 6B) into the record detailing the source of the conflict, outlining the efforts made by the Village to mediate and resolve the matter, the community�s overwhelming opposition to the bridge project, and the Village Council�s unanimous decision to oppose the bridge. The statement also identified failed aspects of the bridge project and listed the following motions the Village was prepared to consider at today�s (1/20) meeting:
~ A motion to request a fully noticed meeting to consider the recession of the construction of a bridge at 87th Avenue;
~ A motion to request funding in an amount equal to the cost of the bridge to support street, sidewalk and traffic calming infrastructure in the area surrounding the bridge; and
~ A motion to request a county funded comprehensive traffic study to determine the traffic congestion relief by the 87th Avenue Bridge and the impact it may have on the residential streets both north and south of the canal. The study scope needs to include the impact of the induced demand, navigational tools like WAZE, as well as address telecommuters and the impact of the future development and county traffic initiatives already in the cure (ex. Old Cutler Road circles).
Village Mayor Cunningham noted due to Sunshine Law requirements, she was unable to discuss her presentation with the Village Councilmembers and stated she believed some of her colleagues wanted to make statements of their own.
Village Councilmember for District 3, Marsha Matson, argued the bridge project presented a contradictory message to the community regarding the County�s commitment to reducing carbon emissions and public and mass transit goals. She spoke about the importance of implementing goals and urged the Board of County Commissioners (BCC/Board) to oppose the 87th Avenue bridge project.
Village Councilmember for District 2, Steve Cody, pointed out that it was not too late for the Board to reverse their decision regarding the 87th Avenue bridge project. He voiced his support for the motions read into the record by Village Mayor Cunningham and requested the Board adopt the motion.
Village Vice-Mayor Leanne Tellam, noted that she lived in close proximity to the proposed bridge location. She contended the Board did not follow due �process� and provide notice to the Village that the legislative matter was being considered, and further noted that several of the public speakers� had voiced similar frustrations regarding the lack of engagement. Village Vice-Mayor Tellam argued the bridge was not a good investment and urged the Board to reconsider its decision to support the project. She asked the Board to give the Village of Palmetto Bay residents the same consideration as they have given to other communities and indicated her support for the motions outlined by Village Mayor Cunningham.
County Commissioner Cohen Higgins thanked the public for appearing today. She commented on the sensitive nature of the topic and pointed out that she too was a resident of the area. County Commissioner Cohen Higgins contended the �tone� and �temperature� of the discussions surrounding the 87th Avenue bridge project was set by the Village Council and clarified the purpose of today�s (1/20) meeting. She stated that while disagreements were not unusual during the regular course of government business, she believed comments regarding the bridge project had been distorted, politicized and weaponized resulting in a divided community.
County Commissioner Cohen Higgins spoke about her decision to remain silent on the matter during the pendency of the litigation. She pointed to the Village�s pattern/practice of engaging in litigation and cited other cases such as the Palmer Trinity Private School Inc. and the Luxcom�s (Florida Power and Lights (FPL) Cutler Plant property) petitions. County Commissioner Cohen Higgins stated that while she was an advocate for healthy debate, she did not respect the intentional dissemination of misinformation and the personal attacks by the Village Council. She referenced the March 22, 2021, November 1, 2021, November 29, 2021 Village Council meetings where several comments were made alleging the Board�s actions were illegal and commenting on the Village politics. County Commissioner Cohen Higgins reiterated her concerns regarding the Village�s ongoing pattern of engaging in costly litigation at the expense of residents and spreading misinformation.
County Commissioner Cohen Higgins noted despite the importance of the issue, the Village Council did not appear for the properly noticed Board meeting, intentionally crippled the public comment process and neglected to request relief from the Board before threatening legal action.
County Commissioner Cohen Higgins with the aid of a PowerPoint presentation, pointed out that her position regarding the 87th Avenue bridge project was well known to all and referenced public posts made on November 24, 2019, prior to her appointment as the District 8 representative. She reviewed the timeline and process for the BCC meetings leading to her appointment on December 7, 2020, and noted the Village Councilmembers never appeared before the Board to voice their objections or concerns regarding her eligibility based on her stance regarding the bridge project. County Commissioner Cohen Higgins noted, following her appointment to serve as the District 8 commissioner, she visited the Village and spoke with the councilmembers regarding her intent to proceed with the 87th Avenue bridge project.
County Commissioner Cohen Higgins explained that she decided to schedule the legislative item on the February 2, 2021 (2/2) BCC meeting agenda following the cancellation of all committee meetings in January, due to the item�s importance. She noted despite the Village Council being notified by her office staff and, the item being publicly noticed for the 2/2 BCC meeting date, none of the Village Councilmembers appeared before the Board.
County Commissioner Cohen Higgins advised her colleagues that the Community Connectivity Committee (CCC) was created shortly after the 2/2 BCC meeting to invite public input and clarified the only action taken on that day was the Board�s decision to place an item before the Miami-Dade Transportation Planning Organization (TPO) � the entity with final jurisdiction regarding the project.
BCC Chairman Diaz reminded the public that they must comply with the County Commission�s Rules of Decorum while in the Commission chambers.
Village Vice-Mayor Tellam requested a point of order, and asked that the Commission�s rules of decorum extend to the Board and Village Councilmembers.
She requested all Board comments to be directed to the Village Council body instead of an individual.
BCC Chairman Diaz clarified that while the rule applied only to public comments, in an effort to maintain congeniality in the discussion, comments would be addressed to the governing body moving forward.
County Commissioner Cohen Higgins emphasized the intent of her presentation was to illustrate that the Village failed to appear before the Board despite numerous opportunities. She reiterated the CCC was created to engage residents in a publicly noticed forum and to provide a report to the TPO regarding their findings. County Commissioner Cohen Higgins noted the Village subsequently withdrew their members from the CCC following its creation which prevented the Village from engaging in the process.
Addressing comments made by the Village Councilmembers regarding the absence and/or lack of public engagement and notice, County Commissioner Cohen Higgins briefly reviewed the list of fourteen (14) publicly noticed meetings held regarding the 87th Avenue bridge and confirmed with Assistant County Attorney Annery Pulgar Alfonso that all CCC meetings were publicly noticed.
She reiterated the only action taken by the Board at the February 2, 2021 BCC meeting was to forward the item to the TPO.
County Commissioner Cohen Higgins pointed out that various experts and County departments, such as the Fire, Police and Transportation Departments, attended the CCC meetings to address residents� concerns regarding the project. She noted several public comments were made citing quick emergency response times (11 seconds) for the area and argued the Miami-Dade Fire and Rescue Department�s (MDFR) memorandum identified and detailed safety and emergency response time issues caused by the Village�s lack of connectivity. County Commissioner Cohen Higgins contended twenty three percent (23%) of the Village population experienced emergency response times exceeding ten (10) minutes, which was unacceptable.
County Commissioner Cohen Higgins pointed out the March 18, 2021 (3/18) TPO meeting was attended by hundreds of residents along with the Village Councilmembers. She emphasized that at no time during the meeting did the Village request the bridge not be built, but instead asked for the item to be deferred. (A video recording of the 3/18 TPO meeting highlighting Village Mayor Cunningham�s request for deferral was published.)
County Commissioner Cohen Higgins noted subsequent negotiations with the County and the Village following the 3/18 TPO meeting resulted in the County�s offer to resolve the litigation with an interlocal agreement, which was completely rejected by the Village. She highlighted the terms of the interlocal agreement which included the County�s offer to: (1) Conduct a traffic study and pay half the cost; (2) Invite the Village�s participation in the bridge design to allow resident input; and (3) Expedite the implementation of the Advanced Traffic Management System traffic light synchronization project within the Village.
County Commissioner Cohen Higgins reasoned that even Village Attorney John Dellagloria advised the Village against proceeding further with the conflict resolution proceedings following the Village�s rejection of the County�s interlocal agreement, and published multiple video recording clips highlighting Mr. Dellagloria�s comments.
County Commissioner Cohen Higgins urged the Village to stop wasting more time and taxpayers money.
Discussion ensued between BCC Chairman Diaz and Assistant County Attorney Pulgar Alfonso regarding the publicly noticed TPO meetings scheduled for later today (1/20).
Responding to County Commissioner Sosa�s request for clarification regarding the Board process and meeting notices, Assistant County Attorney Pulgar Alfonso confirmed that the Board�s meetings and actions to date regarding the 87th Avenue Bridge were properly noticed and legal.
Assistant County Attorney Bruce Libhaber further clarified that Board members were typically advised to refrain from responding to public inquiries and/or correspondence related to litigated matters.
County Commissioner Sosa concurred with the comments made by her colleague, County Commissioner Cohen Higgins regarding the emergency response times and stated she was hopeful the County and Village could resolve the
matter to the residents� benefit.
BCC Vice Chairman Gilbert III commented on the conflict resolution process and clarified today�s (1/20) meeting was intended to discuss whether the Boards� actions regarding the 87th Avenue bridge project were lawful and proper. He pointed out that Village Attorney Dellagloria advised the Village that the County�s actions were lawful, and voiced his support for the project and the County�s actions.
County Commissioner McGhee commented on the language used by the Village to describe the Board�s actions, and concurred with the comments made by BCC Vice Chairman Gilbert III regarding the purpose of today�s (1/20) meeting.
County Commissioner McGhee referenced Village Attorney Dellagloria�s advice to the Village Council and asked whether he maintained the same position regarding the issue and if any circumstances had changed since he proffered his advice to the Village.
Village Attorney John Dellagloria clarified the comments made to the Village Council and published earlier, addressed the conflict resolution/mitigation process, the County�s interlocal agreement terms and the County�s ability to build the bridge without the Village support. He spoke about his duties as the Village attorney and stated that while he maintained his stance regarding the matter and recognized the challenges, the Village Council was free to accept his advice and/or pursue further action.
County Commissioner McGhee questioned whether the Village Council disagreed with Mr. Dellagloria�s assessment of the matter.
Village Mayor Cunningham spoke about the Village�s efforts to mediate in good faith and the negotiation process. She contended the interlocal agreement and supporting documents were not provided to the Village in a timely manner, and argued the Village requests to the County were reasonable given the scale of the project.
Responding to County Commissioner McGhee�s question regarding the Village Council�s position with regards to Mr. Dellagloria�s advice, Village Vice-Mayor Tellam emphasized the Village�s intent was to pursue reconciliatory options and to request the Board reconsider its� February 2, 2021 vote to refer the item to the TPO. She stated that she was hopeful this reconsideration would provide all parties involved additional time to examine properly noticed and vetted information.
County Commissioner McGhee asked whether Mr. Dellagloria would represent the Village Council in court if the matter were to be litigated.
Village Councilmember Cody stated that he anticipated Mr. Dellagloria would be one of the attorneys tasked with representing the Village Council. He noted that the Village was well within its rights to accept or reject the advice proffered by Mr. Dellagloria, and requested the Village Councilmembers be treated as equals in today�s (1/20) proceedings.
County Commissioner McGhee questioned the validity of the Village Council�s arguments to proceed to litigation given Mr. Dellagloria�s advice regarding the Board�s process. He argued further litigation of the matter was a waste of the court�s time and taxpayer�s money and contended the Village Council had weaponized a political position against the district commissioner.
Village Attorney Dellagloria clarified that he was responsible for drafting the Village resolution which initiated today�s (1/20) conflict resolution proceedings. He noted the resolution identified the following two (2) issues: (1) The mechanism by which the Board approved the bridge project was based on the faulty premise that there was an emergency; and (2) Questioned whether the item was properly adopted as a resolution instead of an ordinance. Village Attorney Dellagloria reiterated that he stood by the advice he provided to the Village Council and emphasized that the Village�s actions were not illegal. He stated that while he acknowledged the legal challenges facing the Village, the challenges did not preclude the Village from continuing to litigate the matter. Village Attorney Dellagloria explained his intent has always been to mitigate the issue.
Discussion ensued between County Commission Monestime and Assistant County Attorney Pulgar Alfonso regarding the procedural purpose of today�s (1/20) meeting.
Assistant County Attorney Pulgar Alfonso explained that part of the conflict resolution process required the Board to meet with the Village Council and confirmed that the Board was not required to make a determination regarding the validity of the Village�s claims.
County Commissioner Monestime pointed out that there were two (2) other TPO meetings noticed to begin at 2:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. following the adjournment of this meeting. He questioned whether the Board had fulfilled its duties and complied with the legal requirements for conflict resolution proceedings; and asked if the Board acted within its jurisdiction to approve the construction of the 87th Avenue Bridge.
Assistant County Attorney Pulgar Alfonso explained in the event there was no resolution, the respective governing bodies would be required to make a motion declaring an impasse. She further explained that the Board would be required to declare an impasse of today�s (1/20) Joint Public Meeting with Village of Palmetto Bay; and to direct the County Mayor or County Mayor�s Designee to coordinate with the County Attorney�s Office to schedule the required mediation between the Village of Palmetto Bay and Miami-Dade County, as required by State law. Assistant County Attorney Pulgar Alfonso pointed out that mediation was the final step before litigation and confirmed that the Board�s actions related to the bridge project were legal.
County Commissioner Monestime commented on the Board�s actions at the February 2, 2021 BCC meeting and opined that the Village Council had not made a valid argument for the Board�s reconsideration of the item. He spoke about the County�s plans to improve connectivity and infrastructure while developing mass transit, and argued the bridge was needed to accommodate the area�s increasing density. County Commissioner Monestime urged the Village to mitigate the issue without pursuing litigation and voiced his commitment to continue working with the Village in future endeavors.
BCC Chairman Diaz announced the scheduled TPO meetings and broadcast would continue immediately following the adjournment of today�s (1/20) conflict resolution meeting.
Assistant County Attorney Pulgar Alfonso clarified that the TPO meeting noticed for 2:00 p.m. would convene immediately following the adjournment of the conflict resolution meeting.
Commissioner Garcia spoke about the Village�s right to exhaust all legal avenues they believed was necessary. He stated that while he took issue with the process from the initial stages, he believed the public had been provided multiple opportunities and avenues to speak on the issue and the Board�s actions were legal and proper. Commissioner Garcia concluded that an impasse had been reached by both parties and urged everyone involved to maintain a sense of professional geniality moving forward. He discussed the importance of reviewing and improving processes and stated he was optimistic the matter could be mediated.
County Commissioner Regalado concurred with the comments made by Commissioner Garcia regarding the legal process. She spoke about her efforts to improve municipal notice requirements, but noted the requirements could also be waived by the Board. County Commissioner Regalado addressed comments made regarding the Board�s treatment of municipalities as subservient entities, and argued the current Board members were cognizant of the cities� challenges. She cautioned the Village about seeking legal advice in a public forum and the subsequent use of such public advice as an evidentiary point.
BCC Chairman Diaz recognized the sensitive nature of the issue at hand and commended Village Attorney Dellagloria for his candor during today�s (1/20) proceedings. He concurred that the parties had reached an impasse and stated he was hopeful the matter could be mediated.
Village Attorney Dellagloria argued a motion declaring an impasse was improper at this time due to the Village�s pending motions; and explained if the Board denied the Village�s motions, the Board would then be rejecting mediation.
Assistant County Attorney Pulgar Alfonso clarified the Board could consider any motion made by a County Commissioner and the motion did not have to mirror the motions made by the Village Council.
Village Attorney Dellagloria contended the order in which the motions were presented was important.
BCC Chairman Diaz spoke about the County�s process for conflict resolution proceedings. He echoed his colleagues� comments regarding the legality of the Board�s actions and stated his intent to respect the district commissioners lead.
Village Attorney Dellagloria maintained that the Board had not voted unanimously on the mitigation issue.
Assistant County Attorney Pulgar Alfonso stated there were no pending Board motions to consider.
She explained the Board was required to vote on motions made by Commission members while the Village Council would vote on motions made by the Village Councilmembers.
Village Mayor Cunningham clarified that she had not made a motion.
Discussion ensued between BCC Chairman Diaz and Village Mayor Cunningham as to whether Commissioner Garcia had made a motion declaring an impasse.
BCC Chairman Diaz clarified that Commissioner Garcia deferred to the district commissioner to make the appropriate motion.
Following extensive discussions and there being no other motions made for the Board to consider, County Commissioner Cohen Higgins moved to declare an impasse of today�s (1/20) Joint Public Meeting with Village of Palmetto Bay; and to direct the County Mayor or County Mayor�s Designee to coordinate with the County Attorney�s Office to schedule the required mediation between the Village of Palmetto Bay and Miami-Dade County, and to take any other actions required by Chapter 164 of the Florida Statute for any other applicable laws including Florida Statute 57.105.
This motion was seconded by Commissioner McGhee, and upon being put to a vote, passed by a vote of 8-0 (Vice Chairman Gilbert III, Commissioners Hardemon, Heyman, Higgins and Martinez were absent).
Village Mayor Cunningham thanked the Board and County Attorney�s Office for the attention given to the matter. She expressed her disappointment in comments made by County Commissioner Cohen Higgins and spoke about the Board�s rules of decorum. She thanked the residents for attending today�s (1/20) meeting and voicing their concerns and, commended her fellow Councilmembers and the Village�s legal team for their continued hard work and commitment to serving the residents of Palmetto Bay. Village Mayor Cunningham apologized on behalf of Councilmember Patrick Fiore for his absence from today�s (1/20) conflict mediation proceedings but noted that he would be present for the TPO meetings.
|
|
|
6C
|
|
| |
220107
|
Discussion Item
|
|
| |
|
| |
CONSIDERATION BY THE VILLAGE COUNCIL AND THE BOARD OF ANY PROPOSED MOTIONS FOR A CONCEPTUAL RESOLUTION OF THE CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROCEEDINGS, OR IF NO CONCEPTUAL RESOLUTION IS REACHED, THE GOVERNING BODIES ARE REQUIRED TO SCHEDULE MEDIATION TO BE CONDUCTED BY THEIR REPRESENTATIVES TO CONTINUE TO SEEK RESOLUTION OF THE CONFLICT
|
Presented
|
|
7A
|
ADJOURNMENT
|
| |
| |
REPORT:
The Joint Meeting between Miami-Dade County Board of County Commissioners and the Village of Palmetto Bay adjourned at 3:15p.m.
|
|
|
3
|
CONSENT AGENDA
|
| |
|
| 9/2/2026 |
|
|
|
Agenda Key: 4721 |