Legislative Matter

Miami-Dade Legislative Item
File Number: 220225

Printable PDF Format

Clerk's Official Copy

File Number: 220225

File Type: Resolution

Status: Adopted

Version: 0

Reference: R-247-22

Control: Board of County Commissioners

File Name: EXPANDING THE GEOGRAPHIC AREA OF THE COUNTY SEAT OF MDC

Introduced: 1/27/2022

Requester: NONE

Cost:

Final Action: 3/15/2022

Agenda Date: 3/15/2022

Agenda Item Number: 5A

Notes:

PH @ BCC (2 public hearings required)

Title:

RESOLUTION EXPANDING THE GEOGRAPHIC AREA OF THE COUNTY SEAT OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY BEYOND THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF MIAMI

Indexes:	CITY OF MIAMI
	COUNTY SEAT

Sponsors:	Joe A. Martinez, Prime Sponsor
	Jose "Pepe" Diaz, Co-Sponsor
	Sen. Rene Garcia, Co-Sponsor
	Rebeca Sosa, 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	3/15/2022	5A	Adopted				P
REPORT:	Chairman Diaz relinquished the Chair. Commissioner Sosa, assumed the Chair and opened the public hearing; seeing no one come forward, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Regalado asked the County Attorney to advise the Board of the changes that had impact on the foregoing resolution. Assistant County Attorney Oren Rosenthal explained that a prior Supreme Court case had resolved an issue regarding the Sherriff’s ability to move funds from one budget position to another. In the aforementioned Supreme Court’s case it was found that the statutes prohibited the Sherriff from doing so. He explained, an Act was passed during this Legislative session that undid that ruling and allowed the Sherriff to move budgeted items and funds within their budget. Commissioner Regalado opined that this portion should be left for negotiation with the Sherriff’s Office because statutorily they can move within line items, whatever was approved they can move or appeal for more funds. She noted she was not in support of the foregoing resolution. Hearing no further questions or comments, the Board proceeded to vote on the foregoing resolution as presented. The foregoing resolution contained a scrivener's error which was corrected as follows: -Vice Chairman Gilbert III and Commissioner Cohen Higgins were inadvertently listed as Co-sponsors on this item and have been removed. The item has been reprinted.

Office of the Chairperson	3/14/2022		Scrivener's Errors
REPORT:	Vice-Chairman Oliver G. Gilbert, III, and Commissioner Cohen Higgins were inadvertently listed as Co-Sponsors on this item and have been removed. The item has been reprinted.

Board of County Commissioners	3/1/2022	5B	Public Hearing opened and closed, and forwarded to BCC for 2nd Public Hearing on 3/15/2022				P
REPORT:	County Attorney Geri Bonzon-Keenan read the title of the foregoing proposed resolution into the record and explained the foregoing item required two (2) public hearings pursuant to Florida Statute 138.12. She advised the Board members that today’s public hearing could be opened and closed, with the option to forward the item to the March 15, 2022 Board of County Commissioners (BCC/Board) meeting for the second public hearing. Vice Chairman Gilbert III opened the public hearing and there being no persons registered or appearing to speak, closed the public hearing. Commissioner Regalado spoke about the County “seat law” and noted only three (3) counties had relocated their county “seats” within the last 100 years, with two (2) of the moves due to natural disasters. She contended the law was not archaic and inquired whether the County Attorney’s Office had reviewed legal opinion on the issue. Assistant County Attorney Oren Rosenthal confirmed that the legal opinion cited by Commissioner Regalado had been reviewed. Commissioner Regalado reviewed the circumstances related to the ethical opinion and noted the most recent process for changing a county seat was based on changes in population. She inquired if the County Attorney’s office was aware of any recent county seat changes and the impact of the change. Assistant County Attorney Rosenthal clarified that the intent of the foregoing item was to expand the geographic boundaries of the county seat to be larger than the geographic boundaries of the City of Miami. He assured the Board members that the item would not change the county seat from the City of Miami but would allow county constitutional offices to be located anywhere in the expanded geographical border. Assistant County Attorney Rosenthal advised that Broward County had expanded its seat boundaries in 1996, which was supported by a Florida Supreme Court 1982 opinion; and reported he did not have any information regarding the impact of the change. Commissioner Regalado stated she believed the change would impact County business and voiced her concerns about expanding the boundaries before the constitutional offices were created. Chairman Diaz recognized the concerns raised by Commissioner Regalado and reiterated the item only sought to expand the geographic boundaries to provide more opportunity for the constitutional offices to relocate to other areas in the City. Commissioner Martinez concurred with the explanation provided by Assistant County Attorney Rosenthal regarding the intent of the item. He pointed out the Board of County Commissioners (BCC/Board) had no jurisdiction over the budget or “powers” granted to constitutional offices since the roles and functions of the offices were established and defined by the State constitution. Commissioner Martinez noted the administration would be tasked with negotiating arrangements with the new constitutional officers following the County-wide election, and reiterated the item simply provided the incoming officers more options by expanding the county seat. Chairman Diaz clarified that there was no question regarding the “powers” of the constitutional offices but whether the County’s assets should be made available to the new officers for use. Vice Chairman Gilbert III contended expansion of the county seat was in fact a change to the seat and questioned the necessity of the item since the administration would ultimately be responsible for negotiating arrangements with the new officers. He stated that while he was supportive of the intent of the item, he believed it was premature and a more detailed discussion was needed regarding asset distribution. Commissioner Higgins indicated her support for the item and noted that her commission district would be the most impacted if the county seat was relocated from Downtown Miami. She spoke about her efforts to create a master plan to redevelop the downtown area to include more affordable housing options and utilize county-owned properties to benefit residents. Commissioner Higgins stated more discussion was needed to fully understand the effect of the change to government business in Downtown Miami and the resulting impact to the Downtown communities and neighborhoods. Commissioner Regalado reiterated her concerns regarding the item and concurred with comments made by Vice Chairman Gilbert III about the negotiation process. She spoke about the fiscal impact of the item and the Board’s role in interpreting and codifying the Florida Statute as it relates to the functions and operations of constitutional offices. Commissioner Garcia agreed that more discussions were needed. Discussion ensued between Commissioner Martinez and Assistant County Attorney Rosenthal regarding the process of setting and approving the Property Appraiser’s Office budget. Discussion ensued between Commissioners Martinez and Regalado regarding comments made by Commissioner Regalado at the February 9, 2022 Chairman’s’ Council of Policy (CCOP) meeting in which she alleged Commissioner Martinez rejected an invitation to schedule a sunshine meeting. Assistant County Attorney Rosenthal reminded the Board members that the item required two (2) public hearings, therefore the motion before the Board was to advance the item to the March 15, 2022 BCC meeting for the second public hearing. Hearing no other questions or comments, the Board members voted to advance the foregoing item to the March 15, 2022 BCC meeting for the second public hearing. Chairman Diaz recessed today’s (3/1) Board of County Commissioners (BCC) meeting until 1:30 p.m.

Chairmans Council of Policy	2/9/2022	2A	Forwarded to BCC with a favorable recommendation				P
REPORT:	Assistant County Attorney Shanika Graves read into the record the title of the foregoing proposed resolution. Chairman Diaz reviewed the intent of the item and inquired whether it would be more efficient to amend the language to state within the boundaries of Miami-Dade County. Assistant County Attorney Oren Rosenthal confirmed that it was within the Council’s discretion to change the boundary to include the entire County. Chairman Diaz noted the prime sponsor was not present at today’s (2/9) meeting and stated his intent to request the item be amended to expand the boundary to include the entire County when next it was considered by the Board of County Commissioners (Board/BCC). Commissioner Regalado voiced her concerns about addressing this issue in isolation and noted that the Board had agreed that all items related to Constitutional Offices should be considered together. She contended expanding the “seat” could lead to multiple constitutional offices leaving the Government Center and increased taxes for residents. Commissioner Regalado cautioned that a fiscal analysis should be performed before any decisions were made related to the constitutional offices. Chairman Diaz pointed out the departments identified to become future constitutional offices were currently not located in the City of Miami, and noted the new constitutional officers had the right to choose their office locations. Commissioner Sosa indicated her support for the foregoing item and contended governmental offices should be located throughout the County. She maintained that the Florida constitution which required all permanent County offices be located within the municipality designated as the County seat was outdated, and reiterated her support for expanding the geographical boundary to include incorporated and unincorporated areas. Chairman Diaz recognized the merits of performing a fiscal impact study and suggested deferring the item to allow the Office of Policy and Budgetary Affairs (OPBA) time to perform the evaluation. Commissioner Regalado moved to defer the foregoing item. Commissioner Sosa pointed out that the prime sponsor was not present and recommended forwarding the item with the understanding that the Council’s concerns would be addressed when next the item was considered by the Board. Chairman Diaz noted the item would be considered at the March Board meeting if the Council voted to forward the item, and stated he believed this would provide the OPBA sufficient time to perform a fiscal analysis. Vice Chairman Gilbert III concurred with the fiscal concerns raised by Commissioner Regalado, and stated he would not be opposed to deferring the item. He opined discussions regarding the County seat may be rendered moot due to changes in the methods of delivery of services, and pointed out that more services were being provided remotely or virtually. Vice Chairman Gilbert III contended a more in-depth discussion was needed regarding the roles of the constitutional offices before expanding the geographic area of the County seat. Discussion ensued among Chairman Diaz, Vice Chairman Diaz and Commissioner Regalado regarding the courtesies afforded to item sponsors in their absence. Commissioner Regalado argued items should be properly vetted at Committee level before being forwarded to the Board for consideration. She reiterated her belief that expanding the boundaries of the County seat was premature absent a full discussion by the Board about the Constitutional Offices. Commissioner Heyman opposed the deferral of the item. Commissioner Regalado spoke about her unsuccessful efforts to schedule a Sunshine meeting with Commissioner Martinez to discuss the foregoing item. Chairman Diaz noted the motion to defer failed to secure a “second.” Hearing no further questions or comments, the Committee members proceeded to vote on the foregoing proposed resolution, as presented.

County Attorney	2/1/2022 3:17:37 PM		Referred	Chairmans Council of Policy		2/9/2022

County Attorney	1/27/2022		Assigned	Oren Rosenthal		1/27/2022

Legislative Text

TITLE
RESOLUTION EXPANDING THE GEOGRAPHIC AREA OF THE COUNTY SEAT OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY BEYOND THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF MIAMI

BODY
WHEREAS, Miami-Dade County, originally Dade County, was created in 1836 and comprised land that now contains Palm Beach, Broward and Miami-Dade counties as well as the Florida Keys north of Bahia Honda Key with a county seat at Indian Key in the Florida Keys; and
WHEREAS, between 1866 and 1915 land from Miami-Dade County was divided into present day Palm Beach, Broward and portions of Monroe County; and
WHEREAS, during this time, the County seat was moved to Miami in 1844, Juno in 1888, and then returned to Miami in 1899; and
WHEREAS, there have been no significant boundary changes to Miami-Dade County since 1915, and the county seat has remained in the City of Miami since 1899; and
WHEREAS, the Florida Constitution and Florida Statutes require that the principal offices and permanent records of all county officers be located in the municipality designated as the county seat; and
WHEREAS, the requirement that all county offices and permanent records of a county be located within the municipal boundary of the county seat is an outdated law designed for a time when transportation to government facilities and access to government information was substantially more difficult and costly; and

WHEREAS, locating the primary office of all county officers and all permanent county records within a single municipality can create a financial strain on both the county, county officers, and the county seat municipality by requiring the use of high value real estate for government function that can be more effectively located elsewhere; and
WHEREAS, this Board believes that requiring all county offices and permanent records of a county to be located within the geographic boundaries of a single municipality is no longer necessary and, on balance, not in the interest of Miami-Dade County when Miami-Dade County is home to 34 municipalities, only 16.4 percent of the County�s 2.7 million residents live within the geographic boundaries of the City of Miami, and over 1 million residents live in the County�s unincorporated area; and
WHEREAS, section 138.12, Florida Statutes, authorizes the Board of County Commissioners to expand the geographic area of Miami-Dade�s county seat beyond the corporate limits of the City of Miami by adopting a resolution after two public hearings held at intervals of not less than 10 or more than 20 days after notice of the proposal and such meetings has been published in a newspaper of general circulation; and
WHEREAS, expanding the geographical boundaries of the Miami-Dade county seat prior to the re-establishment of the previously abolished county constitutional officers in Miami-Dade County on January 7, 2025 will provide additional locations for the permanent offices of these officers at a lower financial cost to the County, the county officers, and the City of Miami; and
WHEREAS, this Board desires, in accordance with Florida law, to expand the geographical boundaries of the County seat to include all incorporated and unincorporated land with the County�s urban development boundary,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, that this Board, in accordance with section 138.12, Florida Statutes, hereby expands the geographical area of the county seat of Miami-Dade County beyond the corporate limits of the City of Miami to include all incorporated and unincorporated areas of Miami-Dade County within the Urban Development Boundary, as depicted in the Land Use Plan Map of the County's Comprehensive Development Master Plan in effect on January 1, 2022.