TITLE
RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE ANNEXATION REQUEST OF THE CITY OF DORAL FOR THE AREA REFERRED TO AS SECTION 16; DIRECTING, AFTER A PUBLIC HEARING, PURSUANT TO SECTION 20-7(B) OF THE CODE OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, THAT THE COUNTY ATTORNEY PREPARE THE APPROPRIATE ORDINANCE AND INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT TO EFFECTUATE THE ANNEXATION REQUEST, OR DENYING OR DEFERRING THE ANNEXATION REQUEST

BODY
WHEREAS, on May 4, 2016, the City of Doral (�City�) submitted an annexation request to Miami-Dade County for the property shown on the map attached hereto and incorporated by reference as Exhibit 1, which area is also referred to herein as Section 16 or Area 16; and

WHEREAS, the Clerk of the Board placed the annexation request on the Board of County Commissioner�s (�Board�) agenda on May 17, 2016; and

WHEREAS, the Board referred the matter to the Planning Advisory Board (PAB) for its review and recommendation; and

WHEREAS, staff from the County�s Office of Management and Budget prepared a staff report, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit 2; and

WHEREAS, the PAB, after reviewing the required staff report and after a public hearing, adopted a resolution recommending that the City�s annexation request be adopted by the Board and the PAB�s resolution is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit 3; and

WHEREAS, the County Mayor has prepared her recommendation on the City�s annexation request, which is set forth in the Mayor�s memorandum attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference; and

WHEREAS, because this annexation may be considered at the same time as other, separate annexation applications from the City of Doral, Village of Virginia Gardens, Town of Medley, and City of Miami Springs, this Section 16 annexation area together with these other proposed annexation areas are all depicted in Exhibit 4 to the resolution, for the convenience of this Board; and

WHEREAS, the Board has considered the application in its totality as required by the Miami-Dade County Home Rule Charter and Code; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to section 20-7(B) of the County Code, the Board, after a public hearing, may either direct the County Attorney to prepare the appropriate items to accomplish the annexation request, deny the annexation request, or defer the annexation request,

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:

Section 1. The foregoing recitals are approved and incorporated in this resolution.

Section 2. The Board of County Commissioners hereby takes the following action on the annexation request of the City of Doral for the area referred to herein as Section 16: directs the County Attorney to prepare the appropriate items, including an ordinance and interlocal agreements, to accomplish the annexation request.

HEADER
Date:

To: Honorable Chairman Jose �Pepe� Diaz
and Members, Board of County Commissioners

From: Daniella Levine Cava
Mayor

Subject: City of Doral Section 16 Annexation Application

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that, pursuant to Chapter 20-7(B) of the Code of Miami-Dade County (Code) and following the required public hearing, the Board of County Commissioners (Board) consider the accompanying resolution to take one of the following actions:
� Deny the requested boundary change as presented by the City of Doral (City);
� Approve the boundary change and direct the County Attorney to prepare an appropriate ordinance and agreements accomplishing the proposed boundary change and place the items on the appropriate agenda; or
� Defer such requested boundary change for further consideration at a subsequent meeting.

Recommendation
It is recommended that the Board, pursuant to Chapter 20 of the Code, deny the boundary change requested by the City. The City is proposing to annex an area adjacent to the City�s western and southern municipal boundaries as detailed in Exhibit 1 to the resolution. The annexation area consists of governmental lands and Facilities of Countywide Significance, including the Solid Waste Department's main waste collection operations facility, the Internal Services Department's (ISO) main heavy equipment repair shop, the County's Mosquito Control headquarters, and the Miami-Dade Public Safety Training Institute. The proposed annexation area is not deemed an enclave, as defined in Chapter 20 of the Code, nor would the annexation create an unincorporated enclave. In addition, the proposed annexation complies with the requirements of Section 20-3.1 of the Code.

Scope
The proposed annexation area is approximately 640.8 acres or 1.02 square miles of the Unincorporated Municipal Service Area (UMSA) and is entirely within County Commission District 12, represented by Chairman Jose �Pepe� Diaz.

The proposed annexation area is generally bounded by NW 58th Street on the south, NW 87th Avenue on the east, NW 74th Street on the north, and NW 97th Avenue on the west. Except for nine (9) acres owned by the South Florida Water Management District, the entire annexation area is owned by the County and includes, among others, the Solid Waste Department's main waste collection operations facility, the Internal Services Department's (ISO) main heavy equipment repair shop, the County's Mosquito Control headquarters, and the Miami-Dade Public Safety Training Institute. The latter is the former site for County's Main Landfill (now closed), which is used as the County's primary debris staging site in the event of a natural disaster and as a staging site in the event of a pandemic.


Delegation of Authority
This item does not delegate any authority to the Mayor.

Fiscal Impact/Funding Source
All properties are government owned and do not pay or generate any property tax revenue or utility taxes.

Track Record/Monitor
If the annexation is approved, Rasha Cameau in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will monitor the interlocal agreement governing the annexation area.

Background
On May 4, 2016, the City submitted a boundary change application to the Miami-Dade County Clerk of the Board. The Board referred the application to the Planning Advisory Board (PAB) at the May 17, 2016 Board meeting. As required by Section 20-6 of the Code, OMB reviewed the application, compiled the staff report and processed the applicable for PAB consideration. The staff report reviewed by the PAB is attached as Exhibit 4 to the resolution. After reviewing the staff report and Code considerations, on May 6, 2019, the PAB held a public hearing and recommended to the Board that the annexation be approved (see Exhibit 2 to the resolution). The public hearing was advertised as required by the Code.

This annexation is being considered along with the annexation applications from the Village of Virginia Gardens, Town of Medley, and City of Miami Springs as depicted in Exhibit 3 to the resolution. The areas being requested by the four municipalities are not in conflict with each other. The Board requested these annexation requests be considered at the same time. It is important to note that at the May 6, 2019 PAB hearing, the Village of Virginia Gardens asked to return to the PAB at a later date. Accordingly, on July 26, 2021, the PAB held a public hearing on the Virginia Gardens annexation request. As a result, the annexations have been processed for Board consideration.

The Code requires a vote of the resident electors if the area has more than 250 resident electors or is more than 50 percent developed as residential property. The annexation area contains zero registered voters and the area is not developed residentially. Therefore, should the Board approve the annexation, a vote of the electors in the annexation area will not be required.

Charter Considerations
On November 6, 2012, Section 6.04 B of the Miami-Dade County Home Rule Charter was amended to require the Board to consider whether commercial areas are included in the boundaries of the proposed areas to be annexed for the mere benefit of increasing the tax base of the annexing municipality.

The properties within the proposed annexation area are zoned GU (Interim District) and, are designated �Parks and Recreation� and �Institutions, Utilities and Communications� on the County�s Land Use Plan (LUP) map.

As the proposed annexation area consists of Facilities of Countywide Significance, the County will retain regulatory control. As previously noted, the area includes parcels that, with the exception of nine acres owned by South Florida Water Management District, are owned by the County.

Summary of Issues for Consideration
1. The annexation area will remain within the Miami-Dade Fire Rescue (MDFR) District and the Miami-Dade Library District in perpetuity.
2. The Annexation Application acknowledges there are Facilities of Countywide Significance within the proposed annexation area but does not acknowledge nor address the County�s policy to maintain regulatory control over land use development and service delivery for such facilities. It should be noted that while the County�s CDMP establishes a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.25 for development within the proposed annexation area, the City�s closest land use equivalents contain FAR and building height provisions that could restrict development to less than that currently allowed by the CDMP. The City�s �Institutional and Public Facilities� future land use designation limits building heights to six (6) stories and the first story of buildings to an FAR of 0.5 while the �Public Parks and Recreation� designation limits ancillary commercial, administrative, recreation, cultural and entertainment buildings to a maximum FAR of 0.2. As indicated above, the City states that upon annexation the area would be designated to the City�s closest land use equivalent. Furthermore, the City has represented that it would rezone the annexation area to the City�s GU, General Use District, which is the closest zoning equivalent to the area�s current zoning designation. Therefore, the annexation application is inconsistent with the CDMP and the County Code.
3. The County�s policy regarding Facilities of Countywide Significance is to maintain regulatory control over planning, zoning, land use, and development of such facilities. Specifically, Section 20-8.6 (c) of the Code, requires that the County retain jurisdiction of such facilities as a condition of approval for annexation. Furthermore, adherence to this requirement is a condition of annexation and shall be included in any interlocal agreement for such area
4. The following have been designated by this Board as Facilities of Countywide Significance within the proposed annexation boundaries:
� The Miami-Dade Police Department�s Training Bureau Metro Training Center, located at 9601 NW 58th Street; and
� DWSM�s Main County Landfill (Resources Recovery), located at 6990 NW 97th Avenue and the 58 Street Landfill/Household Hazardous Waste Facility, located at 8831 NW 58th Street; which houses the Main waste collection operations facility, the Home Chemical collection center, the Stericycle medical waste facility, and the proposed compressed natural gas fueling station.

5. It is recommend that the following facilities be designated Facilities of Countywide Significance pursuant to Chapter 20 so that they will remain under County regulatory jurisdiction:
� The County�s Mosquito Control Headquarters, located at 8901 NW 58th Street;
� The proposed Parks, Recreation and Open Spaces Department�s 47-acre regional soccer park; and
� Internal Services Department�s General Service Administration�s Fleet Management Division and Material Management�s properties, located at 8801 NW 58th Street.
6. The County is proposing to keep the following roads located within the annexation area:
� NW 97th Avenue from NW 58th Street to NW 74th Street
� NW 87th Avenue from NW 58th Street to NW 74th Street
� NW 58th Street from NW 97th Avenue to NW 87th Avenue
� NW 74th Street from NW 97th Avenue to NW 87th Avenue

7. For any land use or zoning covenants in effect at the time of annexation, the City must comply with Section 20-8.8 of the Code which provides that the County shall retain jurisdiction over all land use and zoning covenants within the annexation area.

Code Considerations
Pursuant to Section 20-7 of the Code, after the public hearing, the Board in evaluating the boundary change shall consider the following guidelines:

1. The suitability of the proposed annexation boundaries, in conjunction with the existing municipality, to provide for a municipal community that is both cohesive and inclusive.

a) Does the area divide a Census Designated Place (an officially or historically recognized traditional community)?

The proposed annexation area does not divide a Census Designated Place.

b) Have any adjacent unincorporated areas with a majority of ethnic minority or lower income residents petitioned to be in the annexation area?

No adjacent unincorporated areas having a majority of ethnic minority or lower income residents have petitioned to be in the annexation areas.

c) Is the area, or does it create, an unincorporated enclave (an area surrounded on 80 percent or more of its boundary by municipalities) that cannot be efficiently or effectively served by the County?

The proposed annexation area is not an enclave, and should the area be annexed to the City, will not create an enclave.

d) Are the boundaries logical, consisting of natural, built, or existing features or City limits?

The boundaries follow major roadways. The proposed annexation area is bounded on the north by NW 74th Street, on the west and south by the municipal boundary of the City, and on the east by NW 87th Avenue.

2. Land use and Zoning Covenants � Provide a listing of all declaration of restrictions within the annexation area (include folios and copies of covenants).

The Board of County Commissioners shall require, as a condition of municipal boundary change, that the Board retain jurisdiction over the modification or deletion of declarations of restrictive covenants accepted by either the Board or a Community Zoning Appeals Board in connection with a Comprehensive Development Master Plan application or zoning application, regardless of whether such declaration provides for modification or deletion by a successor governmental body. A search of Miami-Dade County records indicates that no CDMP land use covenant is in effect within the proposed annexation area. A preliminary search of County records indicates that no zoning covenants are in effect on properties within the proposed annexation area. If any zoning covenants are in effect at the time of annexation, the City of Doral must comply with Section 20-8.8 of the Code of Miami-Dade County. It is provided, however, that the Board may not exercise such jurisdiction unless the applicable municipality has first approved the modification or deletion. In the event that any such declaration of restrictive covenant is not brought to the Board of County Commissioners, any action relating to the covenant by the municipality shall not be deemed final until the requirement of County approval is complied with. The identification of any declarations of restrictive covenants subject to this paragraph shall be the responsibility of each zoning applicant in the applicable municipality.


3. The existing and projected property tax cost for the municipal-level service to the average homeowners in the area - currently as unincorporated and as included as part of the annexing municipality.

All the properties are government owned and therefore do not generate any tax revenue.

4. Relationship of the proposed annexation area to the Urban Development Boundary of the County's Comprehensive Development Master Plan.

The proposed annexation area is located inside the 2020 Urban Development Boundary (UDB) of the Adopted 2020 and 2030 Land Use Plan (LUP) map of the CDMP.

5. What is the impact of the proposal on the revenue base of the unincorporated area, and on the ability of the County to provide services efficiently and effectively to the remaining adjacent unincorporated areas?

All the properties are government owned and therefore do not generate any tax revenue.

The County will continue to provide services efficiently and effectively to the remaining adjacent unincorporated areas should this annexation be approved.

6. What is the fiscal impact of the proposed annexation on the remaining unincorporated areas of Miami-Dade County? Specifically, does the per capita taxable value of the area fall within the range of $20,000 to $48,000?

Please see fiscal impact section of this memorandum. The proposed annexation area has zero residents, therefore this metric is not applicable.

7. Is the annexation consistent with the Land Use Plan of the County�s Comprehensive Development Master Plan?

The City identifies its Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map categories of �Business�, �Industrial�, and �Restricted Industrial� as equivalent to the County�s �Industrial and Office� and �Restricted Industrial and Office� land use categories (City�s Annexation Report dated April 20, 2016, pages 38 through 40). The City also states in the Annexation Report (page 35) that upon annexation the City will designate the annexation area lands to a Future Land Use Map designation(s) that is the closest land use equivalent to the current designations of the annexation area lands. The proposed annexation would be consistent with the CDMP LUP map if the annexation area is redesignated as stated by the City and the Business designation applied only to the BU-1A zoned property.

Further details on the area�s land use are included on page 6 of the PAB staff report (Exhibit 4 to the resolution).

8. Does the proposed annexation exclude areas designated terminals on County�s Adopted Land Use Plan Map?

The proposed annexation area does not include areas designated as terminals.




_______________________
Edward Marquez
Chief Financial Officer