Legislative Matter

Miami-Dade Legislative Item
File Number: 231209

Printable PDF Format

File Number: 231209

File Type: Ordinance

Status: In Committee

Version: 0

Reference:

Control: Board of County Commissioners

File Name: SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SERVICE FEES

Introduced: 6/2/2023

Requester: Solid Waste Management Department

Cost:

Final Action:

Agenda Date: 9/6/2023

Agenda Item Number: 5G

Notes:

Title:

ORDINANCE APPROVING, ADOPTING, AND RATIFYING NON-AD VALOREM ASSESSMENT ROLLS, RATES, AND ASSESSMENTS FOR THE SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SERVICE AREA OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, COMMENCING OCTOBER 1, 2023; PROVIDING SEVERABILITY, EXCLUSION FROM THE CODE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE

Indexes:

NONE

Sponsors:

NONE

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	9/6/2023	5G	Amended
REPORT:	County Attorney Geri Bonzon-Keenan read the foregoing proposed ordinance into the record. Chairman Gilbert III opened the public hearing. There being no one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Miami-Dade County Mayor Daniella Levine Cava spoke of the Administration’s efforts to address the short and long-term challenges and opportunities for continued vital waste services expected by residents. She also spoke of the release of a comprehensive solid waste strategy for zero waste plan and reducing waste production, which included next steps. Mayor Levine Cava recommended a minimal fee increase of $3 a month or $.76 a week in order to continue basic services to the community of twice a week garbage pickup and be able to comply with state mandates. Mayor Levine Cava noted that a funding solution was currently being reviewed prior to submittal to the Board. She added that efforts were being contemplated that would provide financial assistance for residents who would be challenged by the fee increase. Chairman Gilbert III pointed out that the Board would make all policy decisions about County services after balancing all equities that was incumbent by system. He stated he appreciated the Mayor’s proposed fee increase of $36 to address the shortfall for this fiscal year, as it acknowledged the financial hardships many residents would face. He noted however, the proposed fee was insufficient to fully fund the operating costs of the County’s solid waste system. He spoke of propriety nature of solid waste services of which the fee should pay for the running system. Chairman Gilbert III asked as the Board considered this issue at its September 9th meeting, a solution predicated upon fixing the system be brought forward as to not have a recurring shortfall next year; and that in the future should matters of this nature arise, he would prefer that an accounting of the true amount needed to be presented in order to assist in the decision making and possibly minimize imposition on residents and communities. Commissioner Cabrera spoke to the impoverished families and senior citizen residents who continued to deal with high costs of living and who would be challenged by the increased fees. He pointed out that other large counties within the State had lower waste collection fees and provided better services than Miami-Dade County and suggested looking at the practices being used by other counties that could be emulated and provide improved waste services with lower fees to County residents. Commissioner Cabrera questioned why wait until next fiscal year to address and resolve deficiencies within the solid waste system, stating he could not support increasing waste collection fees at this time. Chairman Gilbert III reiterated that County solid waste services had to be paid for with fees collected, noting the County had avoided fee increases in the past. He stated he advocated for fixing the solid waste system and spoke of finding sustainable solutions to have the system pay for itself. He spoke on practicalities of avoiding fee increases, including the effects on the County bond rating. Discussion ensued between staff representatives from the Miami-Dade Solid Waste Management (DSWM) department and Commissioner Regalado regarding her prior suggestion for a possible revenue stream by charging County departments for waste collection; and on diversifying the bond portfolio so that the increase in the costs of trash did not always equate to raising fees. Discussion was also held regarding one consequence of the RRF closure and the waste management contract rates and capacity concurrency relative to the costs for services. Commissioner Regalado spoke about different methods to obtain unused funding from the last fiscal year, which could be used to balance the solid waste’s budget. She concluded that finding other sources of revenue was preferable to raising fees for residents. Vice Chairman Rodriguez concurred with many of the points that Commissioner Regalado mentioned and spoke unfavorably about the County’s lengthy procurement policies and procedures and its vendor pool from which to procure items and equipment. Commissioner Cohen Higgins voiced her concerns with the pattern of how waste rates had been dealt with in the past. She mentioned that residents may support incremental fee increases if the increase was more predictable, but would be concerned over unpredictable rate increases. She commented that a long-term solution which addressed the budget issues had to be presented to the Board. She said the amount needed to fill DSWM’s budget gap could be found or reallocated from other sources. Commissioner Cohen Higgins would not support the proposed fee increase and proposed that future fee increases should be based on the consumer price index (CPI) while the 2023 DSWM budget could be balanced by using other funding sources. Ms. Jennifer Moon, Chief, Miami-Dade Office of Policy and Budgetary Affairs, recounted a past discussion she had with Commissioner Cohen Higgins about adjusting fee increases based on the CPI. She pointed out periodic adjusted rates were anticipated in the County’s existing financial structure, and there was a specific CPI used for solid waste activities. She also stated that during a ten-year period there were no rate adjustments due to more efficient means of services used by the department, such as automation, which reduced expenses. Commissioner Gonzalez commented that a master plan was needed to adequately address the budget issue, provide for essential services and ensure that residents would not pay high fees for the services. He did not support the proposed fee increase. Commissioner Regalado expressed concerns about basing fee increases on the CPI, noting a master plan had not been approved and the overall cost was unknown. She sought input from Ms. Moon about DSWM collecting waste from the departments as a funding source. Ms. Moon explained that the DSWM’s activities and fees were based on residential collection, which differed significantly from commercial collection. She pointed out that any adjustments in disposal costs affected the fees and a long-term plan was necessary to cover all expenses, including capital expenditures, which were included in the fees. She continued that basing the fees on the CPI would provide funding for capital expenditures. She also noted that the recent fire at RRF exacerbated the department’s budget issue because expenses were outpacing revenue since fees have not been recently adjusted. Commissioner Regalado repeated there were other sources of funding to help balance DSWM’s budget for 2023 and a long-term solution was needed. Commissioner Hardemon stated he was not in favor of an incremental fee increase because it would not solve the budget problem with the DSWM. He stated that the fees should be raised to the appropriate level as needed to balance the department’s budget. Chairman Gilbert III cautioned that a substantially higher fee increase would be required in 2024 if this item was not approved, noting an incremental increase in 2023 would offset future increases. He also spoke against decreasing collection services. Commissioner Bastien stated that many residents, including veterans, low-income employees and the elderly, could not afford the fee increase. She asked what measures would be taken to assist residents who were unable to pay for the fees. Mayor Levine Cava noted that the Administration would assist residents who were unable to afford the fee increase. She detailed how the Administration used other funding sources, such as federal grants, and planned to assist residents and the Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Department (WASD), which faced comparable budgetary issues in the past. She asked DSWM to work with WASD to develop similar methods to address its budgetary issues. She also listed other funding sources, media campaigns, and programs that would be available to assist residents with the fee increase. She pointed out that other counties that had a lower fee structure often subsidized their collection with the General Fund. Commissioner Bermudez voiced his support for the fee increase and that residents had to be accurately informed about the justification for the increase. Commissioner McGhee cautioned there was a risk of collection services being reduced or DSWM employees being laid off if the fee increase was not approved. He also voiced concerns with illegal waste dumping in his district. It was moved by Commissioner Higgins that the foregoing proposed ordinance be adopted. This motion was seconded by Chairman Gilbert III and upon being put to a vote, failed by a vote of 6-7 (Vice Chairman Rodriguez and Commissioners Cabrera, Cohen Higgins, Garcia, Gonzalez, Hardemon and Regalado voted no). County Attorney Geri Bonzon-Keenan asked that the Board recess the meeting to allow staff to consult on procedure regarding the agenda item, as the previous motion failed to pass. The Board meeting recessed at 1:48 p.m. The Board meeting resumed at 2:20 p.m. All the Board members were present except for Commissioners Bermudez and Garcia, who both arrived at 2:24 p.m. County Attorney Bonzon-Keenan informed the Board that in order to include solid waste assessment as part of the County’s tax bill, the Board needed to take action before September 15, 2023, and another motion was in order for the agenda item. Following discussion regarding sustainability and the need to raise the standards for collection of solid waste, it was moved by Commissioner Hardemon that the proposed amendment to the foregoing proposed ordinance be amended to increase the County residents’ waste collection service fee to $116, as was noted in part of the proposal. Commissioner Regalado voiced her concerns the fee increase was not a long-term solution as it would only address the budget for 2023, and the County would face this issue again in 2024. She pointed out that the increase would not be able to tackle the issue of illegal dumping, and suggested camera surveillance as a method to curb illegal dumping. County Attorney Bonzon-Keenan restated the motion to amend the proposed ordinance to have a solid waste collection fee increase of $116 for a total non-ad valorem assessment fee of $625.00. In response to Vice Chairman Rodriguez, County Attorney Bonzon-Keenan explained that without an approved authorization for a fee increase for solid waste collection before September 15, 2023, the rate would not appear on the tax bill for the purpose of collecting a fee. County Attorney Bonzon-Keenan noted that the Board would not be precluded however from assessing a fee for the services and through a direct payment process. She noted historically, solid waste collection fees were collected as part of the tax bill, therefore the procedure called for approval an amount today. Vice Chairman Rodriguez pointed out there was a surplus in DSWM’s disposal fund that could have been used instead of a fee increase for solid waste collection. He stated he would not support the new fee increase. Mayor Levine Cava clarified the disposal fee revenues were being used for capital projects for disposal, such as the replacement facility for the RRF and upgrades to the transfer stations. She stated that use of those revenues would jeopardize the County position when borrowing funds in the future for maintenance and rebuilding. Commissioner Garcia spoke against the new proposed increase. He noted that a long-term solution for funding solid waste collection and disposal was required. He pointed out that despite the County’s large budget and increased property values, the residents were being asked to pay more for services. Vice Chairman Rodriguez stated he was not supportive of the proposed amendment to the foregoing item. He stated he was hopeful that the Board would find a holistic solution for solid waste collection; and noted he was open to having sunshine meetings to discuss the matter further. Chairman Gilbert III pointed out that the procedure on borrowing from the disposal fund would have to be paid back and would not remedy the department’s budget issues in the long term. He spoke regarding the Board’s willingness to make the tough decision on next year’s solid waste collection fees. Commissioner Cohen Higgins stated that ways to maintain the level of service within the current budget was the most important issue for her, given the possible available funding through other sources to address the DSWM’s budget shortfall. She stated she would not support the proposed fee increase of $116 and that she favored raising fees at a nominal and consistent rate, which she further stated maybe more acceptable to residents. Commissioner Cohen Higgins mentioned that following the vote on Commissioner Hardemon’s motion, she would introduce a motion to keep the waste fees flat for this year, use monies that was on-hand to fill the funding gap, and identify a nominal, predictable and consistent fee increase next year and moving forward. In response to Commissioner Bermudez's inquiry, Mr. Fernandez indicated that the proposed increase fee of $116 would generate $40 million for the department and balance its waste collection funding gap next year, noting that the disposal budget funding had other issues to be considered. Commissioner Bermudez voiced his concern on whether the $116 was a true accounting of the amount needed to close the funding gap. He stated he felt that residents may be willing to accept rate increases if they knew what they were getting for their money; and that the Board owed its residents to have well thought-out decisions. Commissioner Bermudez stated that he would like to include a friendly amendment asking for a definitive date and cut-off date to have a discussion on this issue. Commissioner Regalado agreed that a meeting date should be set to further discuss this issue. She explained why funds could not be borrowed from the DSWM surplus, which was allocated for capital projects, and how borrowing funds would affect the County’s bond rating. She pointed out that funds were still available from the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) that could be used to address the department’s budget situation for 2023. Commissioner Higgins proposed an amendment to increase the solid waste collection fee to $38 annually and allocate $1 to address illegal dumping in the County, and another $1 for DSWM to create a specific program to aid residents who lived at or below the federal poverty level. Commissioner Hardemon spoke on the need for the Board to make the tough decision of filling the funding gap regarding solid waste fee increase in order to provide adequate services; and he called upon those Board members that voted with the County Mayor to stay in the same position. In response to Commissioner Bastien’s inquiry, Mayor Levine Cava answered that should residents not pay imposed fees, a lien would be placed on their properties, but noted that the Administration was willing to work with the Board to come up with plans to assist residents who could not afford the solid waste collection fee increase. Commissioner Bastien spoke of the hardships of many residents and the increased burden a fee increase would have, and stated she could not support a fee increase of $116. Commissioner Bermudez proffered an amendment for the Board and the County Mayor hold a meeting by December 15, 2023 on how to deal with waste collection services in Miami-Dade County, up to 20 years in the future, and determine the cost of providing such services. He indicated he would not support the foregoing proposed motion unless his amendment was accepted. Commissioner McGhee indicated that he was not in support of Commissioner Hardemon’s motion. He proposed an amendment of $1 to be taken from Commissioner Higgins’ proposed amendment of $38 solid waste fee increase to be allocated to an illegal dumping trust fund that would identified County districts that experienced the worst problems with illegal dumping. He also offered an amendment that directed the County Mayor to find funding sources to off-set the costs of the increased waste collection fee for residents, seniors, and veterans living below the federal poverty level. Commissioner Higgins indicated her support for Commissioner McGhee’s language in his proffered amendment. Commissioner Hardemon accepted Commissioner McGhee’s proffered amendment, but cautioned that if the motion was approved today, the Board would be asking for another small fee increase for services. He indicated he would not support Commissioner Bermudez’s proposed amendment since the Board was avoiding making a decision today. Commissioner Gonzalez cautioned that most middle-class families would have to pay for brunt of the fee increase, however, they would not qualify for financial assistance with the fee increase. He stated that Board cannot look toward taxpayers to pay for government funding shortcomings. Chairman Gilbert III reiterated his previous comments that the solid waste collection increase was not a tax, but rather a fee for services. He stated that the fee needed to match the service and the fee cannot be used for other things as part of the general fund. Commissioner Higgins indicated that should Commissioner Bermudez’s amendment not be accepted, she would be happy to second a separate motion. Commissioner Regalado stated she would present a motion to use the two (2) ARPA funds; and clarified that DSWM did have certain exemption for solid waste as outlined in section 15-31 for persons who qualified for welfare. There being no further discussion, Commissioner Hardemon accepted Commissioner Bermudez’s amendment to have a meeting before December 15, 2023 to make an informed decision on long-term solution for solid waste collection. County Attorney Geri Bonzon-Keenan clarified the aforementioned amendments as follows: to increase the County’s current $509 per household waste collection fee by $38; to include additional funds for services to address illegal dumping, worth at least $1 of such proposed increase; a directive to the Administration to look at options to assist low-income individuals with payment of these fees for consideration by the Board; and a directive for the Administration to prepare a long-term plan to address collection and disposal services in the County and submit that plan so that the full Board may consider that plan December 15, 2023. It was moved by Commissioner Hardemon that the foregoing proposed ordinance be adopted as amended, as read into the record by the County Attorney. This motion was seconded by Chairman Gilbert III, and upon roll call, passed by a vote of 7-6 (Vice Chairman Rodriguez and Commissioners Cabrera, Cohen Higgins, Garcia, Gonzalez, and Regalado voted no). The amended version of this Ordinance has been assigned Ordinance No. 23-58.

Board of County Commissioners	7/18/2023	5D	Public hearing opened and closed, item deferred to 9/6/2023 BCC		9/6/2023
REPORT:	County Attorney Geri Bonzon-Keenan read the title of the foregoing proposed ordinance into the record. Chairman Gilbert III opened the public hearing; the following individuals appeared before the Board: 1.) Mr. Noel Cleveland, 5990 SE Street, Miami, Florida spoke in support of Agenda Item 5D. The following individuals spoke in opposition of Agenda Item 5D: 1.) Ms. Rose Ling, 15420 SW 57 Terrance, Miami, Florida. 2.) Ms. Patricia Ellis, 1146 Dunad Avenue, Miami, Florida. 3.) Ms. Bonnie Waxman, 13290 Biscayne Bay Terrace, North Miami, Florida. 4.) Mr. Javier Balcells, 9466 SW 170 Avenue, Miami, Florida. 5.) Ms. Madeline Kaufman, 2508 SW 19 Terrace, Miami, Florida. 6.) Ms. Sabrina Martin, 1100 NE 212 Terrace, Miami, Florida, requested more information on Agenda Item There being no other individuals appearing to speak, Chairman Gilbert III closed the public hearing. Commissioner Higgins expressed concern that this proposal would be the second year in a row regarding a shortfall funding for garbage pickup; noting the use of American Rescue funding to cover fees. She asked to meet with the Mayor and be presented a full 5-year analysis on garbage pickup and fees. Commissioner Higgins spoke regarding the importance of garbage services, and stated that if the department runs out of funding, then the County would have to reduce or limit garbage service pickup. Commissioner Regalado thanked the residents for making their voices heard. She stated that the County was experiencing a spike in waste production, expressed concern that the administration did not have a concrete plan on how to solve this issue, and noted that the narrative surrounding the fee was that it was presented as savings rather than a true tax increase. Commissioner Regalado spoke of the needed for the County to deal with the bigger issues regarding waste collection, emphasizing that the County did not have a master plan, nor was the Board given any solution or options regarding trash removal. She emphasized that in order to maintain current services, taxes would have to be raised, of which county residents would not be able to sustain. Commissioner Regalado stated that either more landfills would need to be developed, or the service provided by Waste Management would have to be re-negotiated. . She suggested the Board use allocated money from the County’s General Fund as a way to provide residents with a tax break, and to continue using their current services at a discounted rate. She stated she could not support the foregoing proposed ordinance until administration exhausted all resources and a meaningful conversation was had to solve the problem Commissioner Garcia agreed with Commissioner Regalado regarding the importance of trash collection, which he noted was a high health issue concern. He emphasized the necessity of creating a regional solution that included Broward, Palm Beach and Monroe counties with regard to waste. Commissioner Garcia then inquired if the County had additional money from the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Fund or the COVID-19 Relief Fund. He spoke of recycling services having higher costs, not producing feasible results, and the contamination of recycling bins – thus should be cut. Commissioner Garcia stated he could not support this item because he believed that the County did not consider all options for waste services before proposing to burden residents with higher taxes when general fund could be used. He stated the Board needed to have a more robust conversation regarding waste collection. Commissioner Hardemon suggested that the Board be honest with residents regarding the cost of certain waste services. He referred to the trash services provided by the City of Miami compared to that offered to unincorporated areas where the two municipalities intersect. He stated that he would like to see a service increase in unincorporated areas; not just an increase in fees. He stated the Board should decide whether to match the fees to the actual costs of providing service, or have a reduced fee and provide tax dollars to cover the gap. Commissioner Hardemon indicated this issue demanded the necessary budgetary resources in providing trash pick-up services. Commissioner Cabrera mentioned Commissioner Garcia’s comments regarding ARPA funds, questioned why raise fees instead of finding money to address this issue, and whether additional ARPA funds was available that could be used for trash pick-up. He then compared the City of Miami waste service fess to the County fees, and noted that the County fee was significantly larger. County Mayor Danielle Levine Cava summarized her recent memorandum dated July 17, 2023, outlining the challenges and opportunities regarding solid waste issues, noting that the County was not in a crisis. She indicated a citing report would be presented to the Board in September 2023, highlighting short, medium and longer term options along with other alternatives being considered given the destruction of the Miami-Dade County Resource Recovery Facility. Mayor Levine Cava noted that with respect to the foregoing item, the County was currently borrowing money from the Waste Department’s Disposal Funds to cover the collection costs. She noted that in addition to collection services, illegal dumping and code enforcement would be aggressively dealt within the proposal. Commissioner Cohen Higgins spoke of the current economic realities being faced by residents and expressed concern with the foregoing proposal to impose an increased solid waste collection fee on residents given the size of the County’s budget. She indicated that the proposed increase amount would create a gap in addressing long-range plan requirements, which in turn would call for further tax increases from the Disposal Fund in the coming years and jeopardize funding of future projects. Mr. David Clodfelter, Director, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) responded to Commissioner Cohen Higgins questions regarding whether or not general fund dollars could be used to fill budgetary gaps for propriety departments, and if the funds for the construction of new solid waste facilities would allocated from the Disposal Fund. Commissioner Cohen Higgins stated she concurred with the comments of Commissioners Cabrera and Garcia regarding the County’s recycling bill. She referred to Broward County’s relinquishing its recycle program, and asked if it was possible for the County to cancel theirs. Ms. Olga Espinosa-Anderson, Interim Director, Solid Waste Management, stated that although the County recently extended the current recycling contract, administration could terminate the contract at any time. She noted that previously the department was paid for recycled items, but in recent years there was a spike in contaminated recycled items, thus the County lost some funding. Ms. Espinosa-Anderson emphasized that the Solid Waste Management Department had to renegotiate the terms of contract, wherein the County now had to pay for all recycled items. Mayor Levine Cava assured the Board that the County had the ability to terminate the recycling contract, but emphasized that administration will return to the Board with a full comprehensive plan after assessing the recent damage from the fire at the Resource Recovery Facility , and include the cost and benefit of recycling. In response to Commissioner Cohen Higgins inquiry, Assistant County Attorney (ACA) Jorge Martinez-Esteve stated that pursuant to Florida Statute 197 (362), the public hearing and final tax rate would have to take place at the first meeting of the Board in September to allow for processing and implementation prior to the statutory requirement of September 25, 2023. He clarified the statutory provisions concerning tax increases, and noted that additional notice to residents and advertisement, in addition to the TRIM notice, was required. Commissioner Cohen Higgins reiterated her sentiments and stated she preferred to continue the discussion of looking at the budget to cover the fee increase as opposed to increasing rates and considering a plan for the future. Commissioner Bastien stated that she was concerned regarding the rising economic burdens facing residents today, especially the elderly on fixed incomes who may not be able to afford the tax increase. She stated this matter cannot be solved piecemeal; and that she could not support the item because she believed that the administration should engage in a more in-depth conversation regarding all options. Commissioner Bermudez stated he concurred with his colleagues’ comments regarding the need for frank discussion on finding solid waste collection, and inquired if an approval vote today would allow for reduce the advertised service increase for residents. Mr. Lazaro Solis, Deputy Property Appraiser, stated that the Board could reduce the price increase at the upcoming Budget Hearing. He noted that the Solid Waste Department had asked for an extension on providing the Property Appraiser’s office with this year’s for the trim rate, which was granted. Mr. Solis stated it was customary to recommend a higher trim rate be advertised, and later be reduced at theb first meeting in September. Commissioner Bermudez inquired if the Board could terminate the recycling contract at this meeting. Ms. Namita Uppal, Director, Strategic Procurement Department (SPD), stated that the contract could be terminated at any time. Vice Chairman Rodriguez asked Mr. Solis if the billing for the increase would be invoiced separately or fall under County tax. Mr. Solis stated that the billing for the increase fell under a different quarter. He noted that the Solid Waste Management Department could sanction their own billing, but the increase would occur in the tax. Mr. Solis stated the highest rate could go on the first trim notice, and then would be re-advertised with the lower amount after the Budget Hearing. Discussion ensued regarding whether the proposed increase would be invoiced separately or fall within the County’s tax notice and on how would deferral of this matter impact taxpayers. Chairman Gilbert III spoke of the need for the Board to honestly acknowledge and reconcile the actual costs of providing solid waste services, and to act deliberately in planning services that matches fees. He noted that solid waste funding was propriety and the service provided was to be paid by the people who used the service. Chairman Gilbert III stated he was interested informed solutions to this issue. Commissioner Regalado indicated that she had a previous meeting asked for a workshop and that the solid waste master plan be brought before Board; noting that a workshop and master plan meetings conversations should be accomplished before September 6, 2023 meeting. Commissioner Bastien questioned whether the administration considered whether fee adjustment or exemptions could be offered for those residents that would experience a burden of this proposed tax increase. Commissioner Cabrera motioned that the County terminate its recycling program and to vote down the foregoing proposed ordinance. Vice Chairman Rodriguez seconded this motion. Later in the meeting, Commissioner Cabrera withdrew his motion as mentioned above. Commissioner Regalado stated that the Board should fully vet the recycling service before termination, and that terminating this program would not be fair without the resident’s input. She then directed Ms. Espinosa-Anderson, Interim Director, Solid Waste Management, to produce a report including individual recycling rates and a list of waste services for County residents to review prior to the September 6th, 2023 BCC meeting. Mr. Jimmy Morales, Chief Operations Officer, Office of the Mayor, suggested that the Board give the administration direction to come back with a complete analysis to find ways to address all solid waste concerns. In response to Commissioner Higgins motion to defer the foregoing proposed ordinance to the BCC meeting of September 6, 2023 meeting, County Attorney Geri Bonzon Keenan clarified that state law required that in this matter, a motion to defer would also require the public hearing to be re-opened and adjourned the public hearing and then defer the matter to September 6, 2023, when the public hearing would be resumed. This motion was seconded by Commissioner McGhee. Discussion ensued between the Commissioners and the County Attorney regarding deferral, increase notice requirements, and mailing costs should the matter be deferred. There being no further discussion, the Board proceeded to defer the foregoing proposed ordinance to the September 6, 2023 BCC meeting.

Board of County Commissioners	6/21/2023	4L	Adopted on first reading		7/18/2023		P
REPORT:	County Attorney Geri Bonzon-Keenan read the foregoing proposed ordinance into the record. The foregoing proposed ordinance was adopted on first reading and set for public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners meeting on July 18, 2023 at 9:30 a.m.

Board of County Commissioners	6/21/2023		Tentatively scheduled for a public hearing	Board of County Commissioners	7/18/2023

County Attorney	6/9/2023		Assigned	Jorge Martinez-Esteve		6/9/2023

Office of Agenda Coordination	6/7/2023		Assigned	County Attorney

County Attorney	6/6/2023		Assigned	Office of Agenda Coordination	6/6/2023
REPORT:	Item Returned

Jimmy Morales	6/2/2023		Assigned	Office of Agenda Coordination

Office of Agenda Coordination	6/2/2023		Assigned	County Attorney	6/21/2023
REPORT:	DSWM - ACA: Jorge Martinez-Esteve - no cmte or sponsor - 1st Reading at June 21st BCC - P.H. at July BCC - Attachment: Exhibit A - item has 11 pages

County Attorney	6/2/2023		Assigned	Jorge Martinez-Esteve		6/5/2023

Legislative Text

TITLE
ORDINANCE APPROVING, ADOPTING, AND RATIFYING NON-AD VALOREM ASSESSMENT ROLLS, RATES, AND ASSESSMENTS FOR THE SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SERVICE AREA OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, COMMENCING OCTOBER 1, 2023; PROVIDING SEVERABILITY, EXCLUSION FROM THE CODE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE

BODY
WHEREAS, as provided in chapter 15 of the Code of Miami-Dade County (�Code�), the County provides solid waste services, including the collection, disposal, and recycling of household garbage, trash, and bulky waste, within the Solid Waste Collection Service Area in Miami-Dade County, Florida; and

WHEREAS, Implementing Order 4-68 provides that special assessments in the Solid Waste Collection Service Area should be levied on a per household unit basis for residential customers and on a per-unit basis for commercial and multi-family customers; and

WHEREAS, the benefits provided by these special assessments to the affected properties include, but are not limited to, the availability of facilities to properly and safely dispose of solid waste, the long term monitoring of the facilities, a potential increase in value to the affected properties, better service to owners and tenants, and the enhancement of environmentally responsible use and enjoyment of such properties; and

WHEREAS, the County Mayor or County Mayor�s designee caused rates to be prepared and filed with the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners and pursuant to notice published and mailed to all property owners within the Solid Waste Collection Service Area, this Board held a public hearing on this date upon the rate submitted by the County Mayor or County Mayor�s designee, and all interested persons were afforded the opportunity to present their objections, if any, with respect to their assessments of such rate; and

WHEREAS, after due consideration, this Board found and determined that the assessments shown on the assessment rolls were in proportion to the special benefits accruing to the respective parcels of real property appearing on said assessment rolls; and

WHEREAS, each property owner was notified that the special assessments, when finally approved and confirmed pursuant to Section 15-28 of the Code of Miami-Dade County, Florida, will be placed on the November 2023, and subsequent real property tax bills and that, if these special assessments are not paid when due, the properties on which the special assessments are levied will be respectively subject to the same collection procedures as for ad valorem taxes, including possible loss of title,

BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA:

Section 1. This Board hereby adopts and incorporates the facts contained in the accompanying memorandum and the foregoing recitals as if stated herein.

Section 2. This Board intends to use the uniform method of collection of non-ad valorem assessments as authorized in Section 197.3632, Florida Statutes, as amended, for collecting the non-ad valorem assessments levied within Miami-Dade County for the Solid Waste Collection Service Area, including, but not limited to, collection, recycling, and disposal of solid waste. Legal descriptions of such areas to the assessments, units of measurement, and the amount of the assessment are attached to the accompanying memorandum as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. This Board hereby also incorporates by reference: (1) all previously adopted ordinances establishing and/or amending the services and service areas described in Exhibit A; and, (2) any resolutions adopting preliminary or amended assessment rolls for the service areas described in Exhibit A.

Section 3. After duly advertised public hearing, this Board has received written objections, if any, and heard testimony from all interested persons and, based on the benefit to the properties described in Exhibit A, hereby determines that the levies of the assessments are needed to fund the cost of providing collection, recycling, and disposal of solid waste within Miami-Dade County, Florida. Therefore, this Board adopts the non-ad valorem assessments rolls, rates, and units of measurements as referenced in Exhibit A.

Section 4. All assessments made upon said assessment rolls shall constitute a special assessment lien upon the real property so assessed from the date of the confirmation of such assessments, in accordance with the provisions of Section 15-28 of the Code of Miami-Dade County, Florida.

Section 5. All assessments shall be payable in accordance with Section 15-24 of the Code of Miami-Dade County, Florida. As authorized by Section 197.3632, Florida Statutes, all special assessments levied and imposed under the provisions of the ordinance previously approved by the Board shall be collected, subject to the provisions of Chapter 197, Florida Statutes, in the same manner, and at the same time as ad valorem taxes. Unless paid when due, such assessments shall be deemed delinquent, and payment thereof may be enforced by means of the procedures provided by the provisions of Chapter 197, Florida Statutes, and/or Section 15-24 of the Code of Miami-Dade County, Florida.

Section 6. Within 30 days from the effective date of this resolution, the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners is directed to deliver to the Tax Collector a copy of the assessment roll to be filed and recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Miami-Dade County, Florida.

Section 7. Unless otherwise prohibited by law, this ordinance shall supersede all enactments of this Board including, but not limited to, ordinances, resolutions, implementing orders, regulations, rules, and provisions in the Code of Miami-Dade County in conflict herewith; provided, however, nothing in this ordinance shall amend or supersede the requirements of Ordinance 07-45, as amended.

Section 8. 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 9. All provisions of this ordinance shall become effective ten (10) days after the date of enactment unless vetoed by the Mayor, and if vetoed, shall become effective only upon override by this Board.

Section 10. It is the intention of the Board of County Commissioners, and it is hereby ordained that the provisions of this ordinance shall be excluded from the Code of Miami-Dade County.

HEADER
Date:

To: Honorable Chairman Oliver G. Gilbert, III
and Members, Board of County Commissioners

From: Daniella Levine Cava
Mayor

Subject: Ordinance Adopting and Ratifying Non-Ad Valorem Assessment Rolls, Rates and Assessments for Residential Solid Waste Collection Fees

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Executive Summary
Due to multiple compounding pressures on the operating costs for the Department of Solid Waste Management (DSWM), outlined in this memo, the department will experience a shortfall of $38.8M at the end of FY 2023-24. As a result, DSWM finds its Collections Operations fund in a deficit beginning October 1, 2023, which will result in the need for an increase in Collection fees. Although my administration continues to aggressively seek opportunities to reduce costs by accelerating our implementation of a Zero Waste Strategy, and is working to generate additional revenues by insourcing all County garbage collection within the next few years, the current deficit requires either an increase in fees or cuts to critical solid waste services.

Multiple factors have contributed to the continued increase in operating costs � including the sustained effects of the pandemic, which caused a significant shift in waste from commercial accounts to residential accounts; the sharp increase in costs of recycling as recycling globally shifted from being a revenue-generating operation to a service municipalities must now pay for � costs the County had previously been insulated from by a long-term recycling contract which only just expired early this year; and inflation, which resulted in dramatic increases to the cost of all goods and services purchased by Collections, including diesel fuel and heavy equipment.

Staff have worked hard to run several projections to find the lowest possible increase in Collection fees for homeowners. Although $116 per household is needed to close the gap, in order to minimize the impacts to our residents, my administration instead recommends an increased annual amount of $36 or $3 per month to the County�s current $509 per household waste collection fee charged on the Tax Bill. This amount yields an additional $12 million, which will be supported with a simultaneous transfer from the waste Disposal Fund of $26.8 million, to be paid back in the future to continue to address long-range disposal master plan requirements. The Collections Fund will still require increases in the future to maintain its level of service. We urge the Board against further borrowing from the Disposal Fund as it diminishes the financial health of the Fund and will jeopardize our ability to bond future projects � including the replacement waste-to-energy facility, which is an urgent priority to ensure our community maintains our capacity to process waste.

A fee increase of $3 per month will allow the department to continue providing the level of service that residents expect and deserve. This increased fee amount will be reflected in the FY 2023-24 Proposed Budget and the increase, due to the timing for advertisement and deadlines for the development of the final TRIM notice, must be adopted through this item.

Recommendation
It is recommended that the Board approve the attached Ordinance increasing the Residential Solid Waste Collection Fees (Collection Fee) for the DSWM Waste Collection Service Area (Service Area) in Exhibit A to fund current services for the units within the Service Area, in order to continue providing critical solid waste services to our residents. All units within this Service Area are unique due to the type of services being provided. The proposed assessments will increase customers� rates by 7.07 percent starting the Fiscal Year 2023-24. This will result in rate increases of $9, $14, $24, $28 or $36, as reflected in Exhibit A, depending on the current rate and level of service. The DSWM has determined, and I concur, that the services provided by this Solid Waste Service Area will offer special benefits to properties within the district, exceeding the amount of special assessment to be levied. Therefore, it is hereby recommended that the proposed rates being assessed in Exhibit A be approved and adopted.

Scope
The impact of the Collection Fee will be in unincorporated Miami-Dade County and within municipalities that are a part of the DSWM Service Area.

Fiscal Impact
The rate increase would be paid by the property owners and other customers within the Service Area. The proposed value of these increases is approximately $12 million to support existing services.

Social Equity Statement
The proposed ordinance is not anticipated to have any measurable social equity benefit or burden because all Service Area customers will be impacted equally.

Delegation of Authority
This item authorizes the County Mayor or County Mayor�s designee, contingent upon Board approval of non-ad valorem rates, to place the non-ad valorem assessments on the 2024 real property tax bills.

Background
DSWM uses a non-ad valorem fee to fund the bulk of its Collections Operation. The fee currently totals $509 per household per year for the typical full-service household. Services funded through this fee include, but are not limited to, twice per week garbage collection, two bulky waste pickups per year, seven days per week access to all thirteen (13) neighborhood trash and recycling centers (TRC), Waste Code Enforcement, Bulky Collection, and every other week curbside recycling.

Since FY 1990-91, when the household fee was $299, the Board has voted to increase the household fee by $50 on three occasions, for FY 1991-92, FY 1992-93, and FY 2003-04. For FY 2006-07, the Board voted to increase the household fee by $40. After a hiatus of ten years, the Board voted to increase the household fee by $25 for FY 2017-18, $6 of which was for new service and only $19 of which was for existing service. Another $20 increase was approved for FY 2019-20 and a $25 increase in FY 2022-23, along with a one-time cash infusion from the Miami-Dade Rescue Plan. Had both of these most recent fee increases been $50, the Collections Fund would have received an additional $121.8 million through FY 2023-24, reducing the projected shortfall.

This shortfall was exacerbated by the newly approved and implemented recycling contracts that include a new processing fee for 60,000 tons and COVID-19 mandates to �stay safer at home.� COVID-19 mandates created an average shift in waste of 79,000 tons annually (9.5 percent) from commercial accounts to residential accounts, increasing the disposal costs for the Collections operation. In addition, the inflation rate, typically projected at one percent, has seen recent annual values of 8.6 percent in 2022 and a projected 6.9 percent in 2023. This high inflation rate has dramatically increased the cost of all goods and services purchased by Collections, to include diesel fuel and heavy equipment.

Other Challenges
� Resources Recovery Facility (RRF) System & Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP): DSWM determines compliance with the County�s adopted level-of-service (LOS) requirement, which is a minimum of five years of solid waste disposal capacity based on the ability of the County Solid Waste Management System (System) to accommodate projected waste flows for concurrency, in accordance with Chapter 33G of the Miami-Dade County Code, Service Concurrency Management Program. DSWM currently meets the minimum LOS standard for solid waste disposal; the disposal capacity includes available capacity in County Landfills and contracted disposal capacity. The fire at the RRF significantly impacted the DSWM�s remaining years of disposal capacity. This reduced disposal capacity affects the LOS standard and may limit future development in Miami-Dade County.

Assessments are ongoing regarding the RRF to determine the next steps. Based on its Countywide significance to the System, a replacement modernized Waste-to-Energy Facility, currently estimated at $1.2B, is desperately needed and will have a positive impact on the County�s future development and solid waste disposal concurrency. Future bonds will have to be issued to cover the costs of a replacement facility. In order to issue future bonds, the financial stability of the Department is of the upmost importance.

County Landfill Capacity & Consequential Impacts: According to the July 2022 Landfill Capacity Report, the North Dade Landfill (NDL) is expected to reach capacity by 2026, barring any major weather events. A vertical landfill expansion i.e., increasing the height of the landfill (no increase to the acreage) will help the residents and commercial haulers in the northern region of the County. The South Dade Landfill (SDL) is also expected to reach capacity by 2030; the Department will in the future recommend a permit modification to increase its landfill disposal capacity. Landfills generate revenue for the Department, and the financial costs of allowing the two County-owned landfills to reach capacity and close is significant. The initial cost to close two County-owned landfills is estimated to be $50 million ($25 million per landfill). The County would lose more than $50 million a year in revenues ($17 million for NDL landfill and $37 million for SDL) due to loss of tipping fees. The Department will also have to lay off more than 100 staff members and will have to incur costs for the long-term care of these closed landfills for at least 30 years.

� Contracted Disposal Capacity: The Department has contracted landfill capacity for 1.75 million tons with private waste companies, such as Waste Management and Waste Connections. Currently, as a result of the RRF fire, the Department is utilizing this capacity and concurrency contingency. The Department has very competitive disposal rates; however, both contracts are up for mutual agreed upon renewals within the next 12 years.

Most of the waste is currently being transported to the Okeechobee Landfill for disposal under the current disposal agreement with Waste Management. With the current closure of the RRF and limited County landfill capacity, the County is dependent on these private contracts. The County projects to spend over $32 million annually for disposal of solid waste. Funds have been reallocated from the RRF processing fee contract to cover these contracted disposal costs.

� Departmental Financial Impacts: According to DSWM�s analysis, the Department will not be able to meet debt service coverage to meet its current bond obligations beginning 2023/2024 if the Board does not approve the appropriate Collection fee increase to the annual household fee. Bond Ordinance 96-168 Section 602 requires the Department to adjust rates and charges for the use of the services and facilities in the waste system by increasing or decreasing the same or any selected categories of rates and charges, so as to provide Net Operating Revenues in each Fiscal year equal to one hundred and twenty percent (120%). The Disposal funds will also have a negative financial outlook in 2027, if the North Dade Landfill (NDL) expansion is not approved. The closure of the landfills will impact revenues and costs will have to be incurred for disposal using contracted landfill capacity. This will have detrimental impacts on the Department, where the Disposal Fund will no longer be able to subsidize the Collections Fund with loan payments. Both Funds will ultimately be financially bankrupt, unable to support the services they once provided. Not only will the Department be impacted, but our municipal and private partners will also be impacted by higher disposal charges.

This will negatively impact DSWM�s future bond ratings and potentially increase the interest rate on any future loans associated with a replacement RRF, capital fleet, capital projects and ultimately the solid waste fees charged to homeowners.

Service Reduction Options
The analysis of the fee increase proposal considered numerous potential service reductions, totaling $38.1 million:

� Extended Recycling Contract ($22.8M)
� Garbage: Reduce garbage service to once per week ($7M; 24 months to implement)
� Cut newly approved illegal dumping (4) crews ($2.5M)
� TRC #1: Reduce operating days at nine (9) trash and recycling centers ($1.8M)
� TRC #2: Close four (4) trash and recycling centers ($1.2M)
� Litter: Eliminate litter collection ($1.3M)
� Code Enforcement: Eliminate ten (10) Waste Enforcement Officers ($975,000)
� Community Service Program ($200,000)
� Holiday Tree Recycling ($275,000)

Unfortunately, given the projected deficit of $38.8 million, implementation of these $38.1 million reductions would still leave a deficit of $750,000, which would still require a one-time fee increase of $2. In addition, making these cuts would dramatically affect the quality of service, including scaling back significantly on the monitoring of illegal dumping and reduction in garbage pick-up to once per week. Drastically reducing services while still requiring a fee increase is not in the best interest of our residents. For these reasons, I am recommending a $36 annual fee adjustment or a $3 per month increase for FY 2023-24, in order to maintain the level of service that our residents expect from DSWM.

In order for the recommended non-ad valorem assessment to be included in the TRIM notice that is mailed to all property owners in August, the assessment must be submitted to the Property Appraiser�s Office by July 21, 2023. In addition, the Board is required to adopt its non-ad valorem assessment roll at a public hearing held between January 1st and September 25th. In accordance with Section 197.3632 of the Florida Statutes, the County is required to publicly notice the public hearing considering the adoption of the new non-ad valorem assessment rolls, which includes notice by first-class mail to each person owning property subject to the assessment, and publication in a newspaper generally circulated within Miami-Dade County.

At least twenty (20) days before the public hearing, all property owners within the Service Area will receive notice by first-class mail with the following information:
� Purpose of the assessment.
� Total amount to be levied against each parcel.
� Unit of measurement to be applied against each parcel to determine the assessment.
� Number of such units contained within each parcel.
� Total revenue the local government will collect by the assessment.
� A statement that failure to pay the assessment will cause a tax certificate to be issued against the property, which may result in a loss of title.
� A statement that all affected property owners have a right to appear at the hearing and to file written objections with the local governing board within 20 days of the notice.
� Date, time, and place of the hearing.

The published notice shall contain the following information:
� Name of the local governing board;
� Geographic depiction of the property subject to the assessment;
� Proposed schedule of the assessment;
� The fact that the assessment will be collected by the tax collector; and
� A statement that all affected property owners have a right to appear at the hearing and file written objections with the local governing board within twenty (20) days of the notice.

The Administration remains committed to providing the high level of service that our residents expect and deserve, while keeping costs as low as possible. At the same time we continue to seek new approaches to contain expenses, enhance efficiency, remain competitive, and accelerate progress toward a zero-waste future,

_________________________
Jimmy Morales
Chief Operations Officer