Loading...
LTC 229-2010 People's Transportation Planm MIAMIBEACH OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER ---- =-- No.'LTC # ~ 229-20~ o - ~ LETTER TO COMMISSION ~. ~~ -=~ ~, ~ ~. TO: Mayor Matti Herrera Bower and Members of the City Co ..mission _ ..~, ~~, c~~ FROM: Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager °-~ DATE: August 30, 2010 U x ~--=h ~` _ J SUBJECT: People's Transportation Plan /Half-Cent.Sales Tax ' ~ ~~ `-ry '_' The purpose of this LTC is to inform the Mayor and City Commission of 'recent developments regarding the People's Transportation Plan (PTP) and the 20% municipal share generated by the half-cent sales tax surtax for transit. Background In 2002, Miami-Dade County voters approved the PTP and ahalf-cent sales tax surtax to be used for the enhancement of transit and transportation in Miami-Dade County. Previous efforts to implement such a tax had been defeated by ,the voters, and then- Mayor Alex Penelas worked in good faith. with ..municipal leaders to develop a revenue- . sharing concept that could be supported by the cities in Miami-Dade County. It is common knowledge that, without support from the municipal leadership in .Miami-Dade County, the ballot question most likely would have failed. The agreed-upon proposal provided that 20% of the revenue generated by the half .penny sales tax would be distributed to the cities in existence at the time the tax was approved. On July 9, 2002,. the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) adopted Ordinance 02-116, which expressly states that.20% of the .proceeds must be distributed solely among the existing cities. The Ordinance specifically states, that newly incorporated municipalities will have the right to negotiate with the County for their pro rata share of the sales surtax from the County's 80% portion, and that providing funding, to new cities would not affect the 20% share provided to municipalities that existed at the time the question was approved by the voters. The record from that meeting. of the BCC is clear: it was the intent of the Board that new cities be funded from the County's 80% share of Surtax funds since,. in addition to countywide projects- and services, that share also funds projects in the unincorporated areas. According to the Citizen's Independent Transportation Trust (CITY), Surtax proceeds for Fiscal Year 2010 are $169.7 million, with a 20% municipal allocation of $33.94 million. .Miami Beach's share of this amount is $2,656,451. Since 2002, three incorporations have been permitted in. Miami-Dade County: Miami Gardens, Doral, and Cutler Bay. Yhese three cities, understandably, are anxious to claim their fair share of the half .penny tax, which totals $5.377 million combined for these three cities. Municipalities currently receiving the surtax have consistently expressed support for these three cities to receive funding as provided for by the County's own legislation. Further, there has been concern with efforts that appear to attempt to create a rift between cities on this issue. Letter to Commission People's Transportation Plan 20%~ Municipal Share August 27, 2010 In response to Miami-Dade County's failure to enter into interlocal agreements to provide funding to new municipalities, as required by the PTP Ordinance, House Bill 1205 was approved during the 2009 legislative session, requiring the County to renegotiate the interlocal agreements for distribution. of the Surtax proceeds every five years to include any new municipalities. House Bill 1205 does not specify whether or not new municipalities should be funded from the 20% share; it is silent orr the issue. For the most -part this legislation essentially. required the. County to do what the PTP ordinance .already required. However, the County is interpreting this legislation differently. In response to continuing concerns, a working group was convened earlier this year by Miami-Dade County with .representatives of municipalities and the County to discuss this issue. Theis group met on at least three occasions and discussed options proffered by the County. There was no agreement by the cities 'on any one option proffered, only that further discussion should continue: Current Proposal On July 19, 2010, County Manager George Burgess issued a memorandum to the Board of County Commissioners {BCC) informing the Board that he had directed staff to prepare legislation for their consideration that "embraces ahold-harmless model." This memo also states that the hold-harmless solution is likely to emerge as the only one that has reasonable consensus both within County government and among the municipalities. The County Manager's impression that this solution will have reasonable municipal consensus is incorrect, as demonstrated by the letters (attached) in opposition to the hold-harmless plan from the cities of Miami, Hialeah and Coral Gables, as well as . the attached letter from Mayor Bower. In summary, the hold-harmless plan would fund the new cities with the growth in PTP revenue that is expected in the coming years as the economy recovers. If that growth is not sufficient in the early years to fully fund the new municipalities, the difference would come entirely out of the County's share. After that point, all municipalities. would begin receiving funding. from the new growth, but at a reduced share due to the inclusion of the new cities. Although a moratorium on incorporations is .currently in effect in Miami-Dade County, the plan does not address how to address more cities should incorporations begin again. The name "hold-harmless plan" is misleading, since it only means that revenues to each city will not go down. However, the 5-year impact to the City of Miami Beach could be between $800,000 and $1.1 million from lost. opportunity to access growth in revenue. This is a very initial estimate; the Administration has initially reviewed -the estimates provided by the CITT, but is conducting a more thorough analysis. Although the County Manager's memorandum alleges that the hold-harmless plan has municipal consensus (which to our knowledge it does not), it also presents one final option to the BCC, which is to exercise the ,BCC's power to reduce the 20 percent municipal share effective upon the expiration of the existing interlocal agreements in 2012, and provide funding from the 20% municipal share to new municipalities. On July 29, 2010, the CITT .approved two resolutions (attached). The first expresses support of an amendment to Ordinance 02-116 to provide for the funding of new municipalities through the implementation of the hold-harmless option and the easing of Letter to Commission People's Transportation Plan 20% Municipal Share August 27, 2010 the municipal maintenance of effort requirement. The second urges the BCC to fund the: ,new municipalities from a county source other than the 20% municipal share until new funding sources are identified or Ordinance 02-116 is amended. These CITT resolutions are recommendations to the BCC. Timeline Amendments to Ordinance 02-116 requires a 2/3 majority and must go .through a number of steps. The First Reading of the ordinance at the BCC implementing the hold- harmless proposal can be scheduled for September 9, consistent with a tentative timeline presented by the CITT. If approved, the proposal would be scheduled. for Public Hearing before the BCC's Transit, Infrastructure and Roads Committee with a Second and Final Reading. before the BCC thereafter. On August 24, 2010, the City Commissions of the cities of Coral Gables and Hialeah approved resolutions.. to initiate the conflict resolution procedure against Miami-Dade County regarding this issue. The Administration is preparing a resolution in opposition to this proposal for consideration at the September 15, 2010 City Commission Meeting; and urging the- County to fund these new municipalities from the 80% share, as provided for by Ordinance. .Conclusion This proposal seeks to split 20% of the PTP revenue among an increased number of cities which will be forced to share a smaller pool, while the County will receive a greater share with. fewer residents. This will be especially true if more areas incorporate.. The legislation approving the PTP sets forth the manner by which new municipalities can receive PTP funds (through the County's 80% share), and the City maintains that this remains the appropriate mechanism, consistent with the promises made to municipalities .. in 2002 to obtain support for the PTP. The Administration will continue to monitor events related to this issue and work with the City Attorney's Office to evaluate all of the City's options, and will also remain in contact with the other municipalities and the Miami-Dade County League of Cities on this matter. In the meantime, please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or need additional information. JMG/kc Attachments: h July 19, 2010 letter from. County Manager George M. Burgess July 29, 2010 letter from Miami City Manager Carlos Migoya July 29, 2010 letter from Hialeah Mayor Julio Robaina July 29, 2010 letter from Coral Gables Mayor Don Slesnick August 19, 2010 letter from Mayor Bower CITT Resolution No. 10-061 CITT Resolution No. 10-062 F:\cmgr\$ALL\CROWDER\Intergovernmental\Miami Dade County\PTP20%RaidLTC.docx Date: " July 19, 2010 M IAM I•DiADE 1~1e~®randum ~ To: Honorable Dennis C. Moss, Chairman and Members, Board of County Commissioners From: George M. Burges County Manager Subject:.. People's Transportation Pla Municipal Revenue Sharing .Voters' approval of the People's Transportation Plan (PTP) in 2002 was a bellwether moment for transit and transportation in Miami-Dade County. Revenues from the half-penny surtax immediately transformed- the use of mass transit by eliminating fares for the Metromover and creating. the Golden Passport to fully subsidize bus and train transportation for .senior citizens. Over the ensuing years, PTP funds have resurfaced roads, improved intersections and .laid the financial foundation for the ongoing construction of the first Metrorail expansion in a generation with the connection between Earlington Heights and the Miami Intermodal Center. In the future, those funds will contiriue to improve both mass transit and roadway travel for residents and visitors. Aside from the well-documented and unfortunate ways that the plan was ' oversold by leaders who are no longer a part of this administration, the PTP has-been a powerful success story for the modernization of transportation. One element "of the original PTP was the decision to share revenues with municipalities. On most taxable sales in 'Miami-Dade, every $200 of purchase price generates 80 cents for the County and 20 cents to be "divided among the 31 municipalities that were operating. when the PTP was approved in 2002. This 80-20 split is defined in Ordinance 02-116, which codified -the PTP, and. is operationalized in 31 separate interlocal agreements. Ordinance 02-116 also provided the right for municipalities incorporated after November 5, 2002, to negotiate with the Countyfor a pro rata share of the surtax, taking into consideration the County funded projects within the applicable municipality. The Ordinance also provided that any surtax proceeds distributed to subsequently incorporated municipalities shall not affect the twenty percent share provided for those municipalities in existence as of November 5, 2002. Since November 5, 2002, Miami Gardens, Doral, and Cutler Bay incorporated. During the 2009 legislative session, House Bill 1205 was approved and. subsequently signed into law, requiring the County to renegotiate those interlocal agreements in order to include municipalities that were subsequently created.' The three municipalities created since 2002 -Miami Gardens, Doral and Cutler Bay -are eager to claim their pro rata share, which totals $5.337 million. It now falls to the Board of County Commissioners to determine how that funding should be allocated, both now and going forward. The consequences of this decision must not be underestimated; in addition to possible legal fallout, there are potential implications to service levels in the countywide bus network, funding for .municipal transportation projects, coverage for existing bonds backed by PTP revenues and government's ability to sell future debt backed with these funds. -The County Attorney's Office (CAO) has reviewed the language of the law, the written legislative intent and the staff analyses that accompanied HB 1205 as it traveled through the process. The counsel received by. ' The law specifically requires that, "Any charter countythat has entered into interlocal agreements for distribution of "proceeds to one of more municipalities in the county shall revise such interlocal agreements'no less than every five years in order to include any municipalities that have been created since the prior interlocal agreements were executed." " ~ ~ the administration was thafi the law contemplates funding the newly incorporated municipalities from the same 20 percent municipal share to be divided among the larger number of cities that now exist. Earlier this year, I considered preparing Board legislation to that- effect. However, the administration is ~,, . ,keenly aware of the impact this could have on municipal budgets during difficult economic times; each - ,municipality's revenue from PTP would be reduced about 13.5 percent. Moreover; both the administration and the Board have been consistent in their desire to work with our municipalities as partners, not adversaries. To that end,' I asked to meet with representatives of all 34 municipalities that would. be impacted. That meeting, held March 18, was frank and at times heated. A great deal of passion surrounds this issue, as well as an unfortunate level of misunderstanding about the PTP itself and the extensive actions taken by this Board and administration to increase efficiency at Miami-Dade Transit (MDT). Some of the cities that already have interiocal agreements are adamant that the new cities be funded from the County's share. Regardless of the funding source, the three new municipalities are unwavering in their position that they must receive their pro-rata share of surtax funds. Despite the vigorous debate that afternoon, we remained . committed to finding intelligent and creative solutions thaf satisfy the new municipalities' legitimate claim for PTP funding without imposing an unreasonable burden on either the County or the cities already receiving 'PTP funds. Controversy over the 80-20 split is not new; it has been discussed many times over the last eight years. The County's share is by no means limited to the Unincorporated Municipal Service Area (UMSA) - to the contrary, it has been used primarily for the creation and evolution of an integrated and effective regional system-that equally benefits residents of UMSA and municipalities. In effect, municipal residents benefit from both the 80 share and the 20 share, while UMSA residents would only encounter the results of the 20 :percent share while traveling within a municipality. Moreover, the County has never hesitated to use funds from its share to finance road projects within both existing and new .municipalities, especially when they contributed to improved traffic flow on major corridors. This is consistent with our vision of using the PTP to enhance transportation in the most effective ways, regardless of political lines or parochial considerations. Understanding those facts and the coricems of our municipal leaders, we worked with the Miami-Dade League of Cities and the Citizens' Independent Transportation Trust (CITY) to convene a series of informal brainstorming and discussion sessions. While we initially planned on a small working group with .members chosen by the League, we ultimately opted for optimal transparency and allowed all stakeholders to participate. Senior members of the administration participated directly in these meetings, including Assistant County Manager Ysela Llort, who oversees MDT and other transportation departments, and Jennifer Glazer-Moon, Special Assistant- and. Director of the Office of Strategic Business Management.- The meetings were facilitated by CITT~ Executive Director Charles Scurr. Despite my inclination to protect the regional transit system above all, I. directed them to explore and. consider any compromise proposals, and I was pleased - with some of the ideas that developed. Many of those ideas will require some`months or years to implement; they do not address the short-term needs to do right by Miami Gardens, Doral and Cutler Bay, but they present important and intriguing opportunities. One idea was to more tightly integrate municipally-funded circulators -which are often excellent-examples of hyper-local government addressing the needs of a geographically tight area -with our regional Metrobus service. If we can tweak our routes to minimize duplication with circulators without impacting service beyond municipal boundaries, we can reduce costs at MDT in a way that wilt be nearly invisible to riders. Coupled with. route realignments and administrative cuts that have saved MDT more than $57.5 j ~ million. over the last two years, these added efficiencies could identify new savings while enhancing our service partnerships with municipal governments. Early estimates indicate the County could reduce ~ spending by approximately $900,000, with the potential for more savings if smaller municipalities band together to fund and operate circulators. Another idea addresses the revenue side of the equation rather than the expense side. Both the PTP half- penny surtax and the half-penny sales tax that funds Jackson Health Systems have a significant limitation: they only apply to the first $5,000 of a transaction. If the County and our municipalities could successfully - lobby the Florida Legislature to remove that restriction, each of those funds would receive an additional $12 million. Considering the fact that transportation and health care are two of this Board's highest priorities - indeed, two of our community's highest priorities - I would strongly recommend including this in our next legislative package. , Neither of those ideas, however, will address the demands of Miami Gardens, Doral and Cutler Bay. At first- . blush, there would appear to be only four solutions to that issue. None are attractive:. 1. Fund the new municipalities entirely out of the County's share of the 80-20 split. The negative implications to our government, our transit system and our riders would be severe. Additional service cuts of 1.2 to 1.6 million service miles would be absolutely necessary in order to balance the budget, bringing the County perilously close to levels that existed before the PTP was created. Even more troubling, it would have a direct impact on our bonding ability and set a poor precedent that could further degrade our ability to issue debt. Funding new cities from the County's share would .lower that share below 80 percent, changing the funding stream that guarantees hundreds of millions in PTP-backed bonds. A change of .25 percent -which is a reasonable guess of the impact -would increase the per-year interest cost on $100 million in debt by $180,000. Multiplied out by the large amount of PTP-backed debt anticipated by our capital plans, that annual impact becomes severe. Moreover, because the new law requires renegotiating these agreements every five years, rating agencies and bond buyers could be reluctant to buy the 30-year bonds we traditionaNy sell and might limit us to five-year bonds, substantially adding to issuance costs and making major capital. project financing unrealistic. it could also impact our existing debt, which would suddenly have a degraded funding source. The administration could never recommend an 'option that created such vulnerabilities. Attempting to fund the new cities from County funds outside the PTP is also problematic, in that those cities might be unable to sell debt in the absence of a dedicated funding. stream to back it. 2. Fund the new municipalities entirely out of the 20 percent share. While this would have no direct impact on the County, it would have a notable impact on the PTP revenues granted to existing municipalities. In isolated cases, it could have similar impacts to smaller, municipal-backed debt issuances. Moreover,.. it would likely be seen by municipal govemments and our shared constituents as an aggressive action, impairing our ability to work together in partnership on numerous other issues. 3. Fund'' the new municipalities with some combination of funds from both the 80 percent and 20 percent shares. While this mitigates the severity of the challenges described above, it nonetheless sets the same precedent and could have the same broad impact on debt issuance and, to whatever degree the County's share is tapped, a proportionate impact on MDT service. 4. Refuse to fund .the new cities. This certainly violates the spirit of the law and likely its letter, as well. The working group also discussed the imposition of the two-cent local-option gas tax, which would generate $16.7 million. Under the existing distribution formula -which is different than the 80-20 split - municipalities would receive $4.3 million and the County would receive $12.4 million. Prior studies suggest ' that such gas taxes are not directly responsible for increase prices'at the'pump -largely because their I repeal rarely leads to price drops -but the notion was still considered a difficult proposition during such dire ( economic times. Fortunately, discussions in the working group and among County staff have yielded an option that, while still difficult, may be more palatable. Known as the hold-harmless plan, the idea is to fund the new cities • with the growth in PTP revenue that is expected in the coming years as the economy recovers. If `that • growth is not sufficient in the early years to fully fund the new municipalities, the difference would come entirely out. of fhe County's share. After that point, the current 80-20 split would be retained at the new, higher funding level. .. This-presents numerous advantages. New municipalities would be funded,~rendering moot any question of a costly and time-consuming legal action. Municipalities, while forgoing surtax growth in the short term, .would not have funding reductions that would contribute to budget gaps. The importance of that cannot be overstated. The impact to the County -potentially as high as $17.5 million over five years, and therefore not insignificant -would be limited to a finite amount and time period; which should prevent any negative - ~. effect on our existing bond .agreements or ability to sell future debt. While a few vocal municipal leaders have expressed complete opposition to this idea -.insisting that the - only acceptable solution is to fund new municipalities entirely from the County's share - we believe the majority of cities consider the above option a fair and, honorable compromise that addresses everyone's needs within today's difficult budget situations. We believe thaf few municipalities develop budgets that predict growth in PTP funds, so they would be content to continue receiving the same funding level. The administration also expressed its willingness to discuss lowering the cities' maintenance-of-effort.. requirements. While this would not add new dollars to the ledger, it would allow cities to reprogram some existing non-PTP transportation funding for other badly-needed services; in that way, it was a show of good faith by the County toward the broader goal of finding a solution that met every party's global goals. For some municipalities, that MOE has become increasingly onerous; their budgets have become tighter with the declining tax base, and their transit and transportation needs have abated as early years of PTP funding allowed them to address capital needs. Allowing municipalities to continue receiving PTP funding with less matching funding. would not free up money for the new municipalities, but would make it easier for existing ones to manage their ongoing operations. - The hold-harmless solution is likely to emerge as the only one that has reasonable consensus both within County govemrrient and among our partners. 1 would be professionally remiss, however, if I did not raise • one final alternative that this Board must consider, despite the fact that it is not our recorrimended course of action. It is within the Board's power to reduce the 20 percent municipal share effective upon the expiration of the existing inter(ocal agreements in 2012. For some cities, the purpose origihally served by this share ,has long since been addressed. At some point, those cities will reach - or perhaps have already reached - a state of diminishing returns in which there are no more major roads to be resurfaced, no more bus shelters to be built, no more traffic circles to be installed. The County would receive an additional $34.279 million in .PTP revenue. In order to honor the legal obligations of the cities that sold debt based upon PTP agreements, the County could assume-$227 million in municipal debt with an annual debt-service payment of $19.148 million. The net benefit to the County would be $15.131 million. Certainly this would be seen as hostile to municipal governments, regardless of whether it better serves the regional transit system and the broader Miami-Dade community. • _ In summary, the question of how to fund Miami-Dade's three newest municipalities is a difficult conundrum that has °been too long delayed. Whenever a new funding obligation is imposed upon a finite funding ~, j I. - ~ - .y source, therewily be impacts. I have directed staff to prepare legislation for the Board's consideration that embraces the hold-harmless model discussed in our dozens of hours 'of meetings with municipal staff. ' Nonetheless, I wanted the Board to be aware of the numerous short- and long-term alternatives that exist, and I look forward to receiving your input and direction as we move forward. If you have any questions, please contact me directly. ' c: Honorable Carlos Alvarez, Mayor . Robert A. Cuevas, Jr., County Attorney . Ysela Llort, Assistant County Manager 'Jennifer Glazer-Moon, Special Assistant and Director, Office of Strategic Business Management ` Harpal Kapoor, Director, Miami-Dade Transit ,Charles Scurr, Executive Director, Citizens' Independent Transportation Trust . Ryan Elliot, Budget Manager, OSBM _ Charles Anderson, Commission Auditor . ~ Richard Kuper, Executive Director, Miami-Dade League of Cities ~, r /tY~ ~~ P.O. BOX 330708 CARLOS A.~MIGOYA * ~Mem umi * MIAMI, FLORIDA 33233-0708 CITY MANAGER ,•{, ~I ~~ ~ , (305) 250-5400 L p (( ~ ~ FAX (305) 250-SAtO July 29, 2010 - . Honorable Chairperson Linda Zilber Citizens' Independent Transportation Trust • Miami-Dade County Stephen P. Clark Center 111 NW 151 Street, Suite 1010 Miami, 1 L 33128-1994 - R>C: Resolution amending Miami Dade County Ordinance 02-116, Charter County Transit System Surtax, to provide for the funding of new municipalities Dear Chairperson Zilber: The purpose. of this letter is to express the City of Miami's (the "City") strong objection to the proposed resolution amending the Charter County Transit System. Surtax Ordinance 02-116 (the "Ordinance") to provide for the fiuiding of new municipalities through the Hold Harmless option. This item is to be heard on July 29, 2010 at the • Citizens' Independent Transportation Trust ("the CITT") and the Coimnunity Outreach ` and Municipal Coordination Conunittee meetings. The City recognizes that the tlu•ee new municipalities are entitled to the Surtax proceeds. " However, the enabling Ordinance clearly establishes the process for distribution of the Surtax to new municipalities incorporated after the passage of the Surtax in November , 2002: Section 29-124(h) of the Ordinance notes "Newly incorporated municipalities shall leave the right to negotiate with the County for a pro rata share of the sales surtax.... The preceding setrtence shall not affect the twenty {20) percent share provided herein for _. municipalities existing on November 5, 2002." - The resolution is recommending the Hold Iarmless option. The-economic impact to the City for next five years could be approximately $1,804,490 or $360,898 per year. This amount is an actual fiuiding loss to the City. Numerous City conunitments to constituents will be severely .impacted by any fiiture loss of the growth in Stutax receipts. The City has currently allocated Surtax proceeds to approximately 40 transportation projects consisting of street reconstruction aiid resurfacing and trafric calming improvements. In addition, the proposed trolley projects -are pivotal in the City's efforts to provide public transit as a viable transportation option in some of the most dense and heavily congested areas in both the City and County. County Transit System Surtax Ordinance Amendment July 29, 2010 Page 2 - The passage of the resolution will also have negative implications for the City's future ability to pledge the Surtax proceeds in bonds. Please do not hesitate to contact me on this item or have the appropriate staff contact . Joluuiy Martinez, Assistant City Manager at (305) 4I6-1025., Sincerely;, ,, ,, j ~ ; ~ ~, f r~, ~r~ ~ ~`--' ` ~~:; Carlos. A. Migoya City Manager; City of Miami c: Hon. Dennis C. Moss, Chairman,. BCC Hon. -Mayor Carlos Alvarez George M. Burgess, County Manager ` Hon. Linda Zilber, CITT Chairperson Charles D. Scurr, CITT Executive Director Jolumy Martinez, P.E., City Assistant City Manager Alice Bravo, P.E., City CIP Director `may op„urgi~9 f Council Members Julio"Robaina "•.-- ~'y Mayor W _ ,~N - ~ Jose T. Caragol Carlos Hernandez ~ ~~~ogpoRpt~a~ Vivian Casals-Munoz Council President Katharine E. CUe Isis Garcia-Martinez Jose Yedra Luis Gonzalez Council Vice President ~ 1~ ~ 1 Kl~.~.e~.11. i ~~/J Y 11 .July 29, 20 ~ 0 Honorable Linda Zilber, Chairperson, and Members ', Citizens' Independent Transportation Trust {CITY} - Stephen P. Clark Building - 111 N.W. 1st Street, Suite 1010 Miami, Florida 33128 Re: People's T;~anspor^tation Plan. Municipal Revenue Sharing i Dear Committee Members: The City of Coral Gables and the City of Hialeah write jointly to respond to Miami-Dade County (MDC or the County} Manager George Burgess's July 19, 2010 memorandum, recommending that the Board of County Commissioners {BCC) approve. the cleverly coined hold-harmless plan. As the CITY is aware, the hold-harmless plan purports to freeze the existing cities' funding at the 2009-2010 amount and to fund the new cities with the growth in surtax revenue that is expected in the coming years. After the new cities have been fully funded, they then would be included in the pro rata distribution of the 20% share currently allotted to the existing cities. i While artfully drafted to create the impression that MDC worked hand-in-hand . with the municipalities to develop this purportedly reasonable plan; Mr. Burgess's memorandum misrepresents the municipalities' positions, ignores MDC's conunitment to the existing municipalities, and glosses over the unpact the plan - would have on the cities. To start, Mr. Burgess erroneously reports that the majority of existing cities considers the hold-harmless plan a fair and honorable compromise that addresses everyone's needs. Mr. Burgess is mistaken.. In fact, after participating in several working group sessions to try to develop a solution to fund the never cities, none of the existing cities backed the hold-harmless plan. While it is true that same cities vocalized their opinions about the plan more forcefully, no existing city opined that it would be willing to forego monies that rightfully belong to it and its constituents. The .County must not mistake silence for acquiescence. Raul L. Martinez Government Center ~'~ _ 501 Palm Avenue, Hialeah, Florida •.33010-4719 - www. hialeahfl .gov ~. Indeed, .the existing cities cannot agree to this proposal because it utterly defies the agreement reached between the cities and MDC. In order to properly grasp the significance of that agreement,- we find it necessary to remind everyone of the events surrounding the enactment of Ordinance 02- i 16. In June 2002, then-County Mayor Alex Penelas announced his intention to place the County's "People's Transportation Plan" {PTP}, which called for ahalf--penny sales tax increase, on the November 2002 ballot. MDC voters had voted unequivocally against similar tax increases twice in the not-so-distant past. Mayor Penelas understood that voters likely would vote against the tax increase a third time unless he obtained the municipalities' support. Accordingly, Mayor Penelas approached then-Hialeah Mayor, Raul Martinez, to secure his and other municipal mayors' assistance. Importantly, Mayor Penelas, ,not the municipal leaders, proposed the 20% share to the existing cities to induce the cities to help the County. On July 8, 2002, various. county and municipal .officials, including then-Assistant County Attorney Robert Cuevas and League of Cities President-elect and Mayor Jose "Pepe" Diaz, met to negotiate the arrangement. Of utmost importance to the municipal leaders was a guarantee from MDC that the 20% share to the existing cities would continue so long as the half penny surtax -was collected. The leaders were assured that it would. The very next day, July 9, 2002; the BCC passed and adopted Ordinance No. 02-116, which expressly provides that 20% of the surtax proceeds must be distributed solely among. the existing cities. At the BCC meeting and prior to adopting the ordinance, several commissioners expressed concerns about the exclusion of future cities. After considering this issue,. the BCC added that future municipalities would have the. right to negotiate -with MDC to obtain a share of the surtax revenue, but expressly ruled that those negotiations would not affect the existing cities' share. These events leave no doubt that it was the intent of MDC to limit the 20% share to existing cities- and to fund any future cities from its own 80% share. Over the next four months, the municipalities performed their part of .the bargain - -they promoted the PTP, .they informed their residents that the tax revenues would benefit them directly, and they encouraged the voters to approve the tax increase.. As a direct result, the half-penny surtax. passed with overwhelming, voter support. _ . i } ' ~ Since then, MDC has reaped substantial rewards from surtax revenue --over $800 millzon. But for the cities' cooperation, these monies would. have remained. unavailable to .MDC. The bounty, nonetheless, now seeks to renege on its part of the deal. How. can any city (existing or-new) ever trust MDC again after this bait- . and-switch? We do' not complain merely because MDC is going back on its word...Rather, the Cities of Coral Gables and Hialeah cannot .accept the hold-harmless plan because it . -poses serious financial difficulties. Indeed, in addition to forcing the existing cities to forego any growth revenue in the near future, the .hold-harmless .plan includes the current new cities {and purportedly any additional future new cities) in the 20%. sliare. Mr. Burgess, however, provides no statistical information. explaining ,the projected impact this revised distribution would have on the existing cities. In addition, Mr. Burgess ignores that all new cities stem from MDC's unincorporated areas (its population center). Accordingly; an increasing amount of cities would be . forced to share from a smaller pool, while MDC would enjoy a greater share with fewer residents. This unfair result was the outcome the existing cities sought to avoid when it agreed to assist the County. - ° - The County's dereliction of its duties to the new cities also cannot. be overlooked. Indeed, MDC accepted the burden of negotiating with these cities -when it adopted the ordinance and incorporated the appropriate mechanism for including the cities. in MDC's 80% .share. Over the last seven years, however, the County .has continually violated the ordinance when it failed to fund the new cities {Miami Gardens, Doral and later Cutler Bay) after repeated requests. No doubt exists that these cities should- have received funding years ago. The existing cities,. however, should not be forced to pay for the County's failure to act in good-faith toward the . ~ new cities.. Indeed, if MDC had behaved appropriately, it would have. avoided the unnecessary ,conflict. between the new and existing cities that this situation now creates. f JVIr. Burgess appears to suggest that despite any prior .arrangement with the cities, the hold-harmless plan is a proper solution because .municipal residents benefit from county services while county residents only encounter the. results of :municipal services when traveling through a particulaz municipality. While this is arguably correct, this concept was considered when the 8020% split was decided. Indeed, it is, in part, ,for this reason that MDC collects the lion's share of surtax revenues. although approximately 50% of its residents live within a municipality.. Mr. Burgess also implies. that the existing cities no longer need Surtax revenues because the original purposes served by their share Have already been .addressed. He ignores that the municipalities rely on these funds and falsely assumes that they never intend to implement any further improvements. We recognize that MDC, like all of the cities, is facing difficult economic times. We have all had. to lay-off personnel, reduce. services, and employ other cost- effective measures. We cannot, however, allow MDC to break its promise to the ..cities (to the cities' detriment} so that it may resolve its own finances. The County bargained for an 80% share of the surtax. If internal inefficiencies render this amount insufficient, MDC should address those inefficiencies rather than attempt to take from the cities' xightful share. Mr. Burgess's memorandum includes a poorly veiled threat suggesting that if the existing cities fail to agree to the hold-harmless plan, the BCC need only wait two years (for the current interlocal agreements to expire) to amend the ordinance to reduce the 20% share. Strong-arming the cities to agree to the hold-harmless plan will not work. Despite this threat, the cities cannot .agree to the hold-harmless plan. Further, we will not wait two years so that MDC unilaterally resolves this dilemma in its favor.' We are not suggesting that we are on the verge of litigation, but we are asking that the CITT demand further statistical data about the impact of the plan and consider alternative resolutions before rendering its recommendation. Finally, while we greatly appreciate the opportunity to voice our opinion about this matter, we take issue with today's meeting being scheduled on the day on which the Florida Municipal Attorneys Association meeting was scheduled, rendering it impossible for our city attorneys to attend. Thank you for your consideration.. Very truly y urs, I ~Mayc~r Julio,Robaina ~~ i @i-ty oIialeah . ~~. r ~ cc: Board of County Commissioners ~. ~ . i 'o ELIZABETH M. HERNANDEZ -C ITYATTORN EY BOARD CERTIFIED CITY. COUNTY AND LOCAL 60YERNMENT LAWYEA ERERNANDE;~CO RALGABLE6.COM LOURDES AL FONSIN RUIZ ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY t LALFONBINQCORALaABLEB.COM _. ZILMA OSLE - . ZO6LEQCORALGABLE6.COM SUSAN FRANQU7 6FRA NOUI~O COAAI..GABLES.COM THE CITY OF CORAL GABLES ::~ ~I" m .x~.. ~Rf. Tke Cihj Brauttjut July 29, 2010 OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY CITY HALL 408 BLLTMORE WAY CORAL GABLES, FLORIDA 331.34 Honorable Linda Zilber, Chairperson, and Members Citizens' Independent Transportation Trust (CITY) Stephen P. Clark Building 111 N.W. 1st Street, Suite 1010 Miami, Florida 33128 . Re: People's Transportation Plan Municipal Revenue. Sharing Dear Committee Members: The City of Coral Gables and, .the City of Hialeah write jointly to respond to .Miami-Dade County {MDC or the County) Manager George Burgess's July 19, 2010 memorandum, recommending that the Board of County Commissioners (BCC} approve the cleverly coined hold-harmless plan. As the CITY is aware, the hold-harmless plan purports to freeze the existing cities' funding at the 2009-2010 amount and to fund the new cities with the growth in surtax revenue -that is expected in the coming years. After the new cities have been fully funded, they then would be included in the pro rata distribution of the 20% share currently allotted to the existing cities. While artfully drafted to create the impression that MDC worked hand-in-hand .with the municipalities to develop this purportedly reasonable plan, Mr. Burgess's memorandurri misrepresents the municipalities' positions, ignores MDC's commitment to the existing municipalities, and glasses over the impact the plan . would have on the cities. - - P.O. BOX 141549 CORAL GABLES, FLORIDA 83 1 3 4-1 549 (30S) ABO^5219 To start,.. Mr. Burgess erroneously reports that the majority o~ existing cities considers the hold-harmless plan a fair and honorable compromise Ghat addresses everyone's needs. Mr. Burgess is mistaken. In fact, after participating in several working group sessions to try to develop a solution to fund -the new cities, none of the existing .cities backed the hold-harmless plan. V~hile it is true that some cities vocalized their opinions about the plan more forcefully, no existing city opined that it would be willing to forego monies that rightfully belong to it and its constituents. The County must not mistake silence for acquiescence. Indeed, the existing cities cannot agree to this proposal because it utterly defies the agreement reached between the cities and MDC. Tn order to ,properly-grasp the significance of that agreement, we find it necessary to remind everyone of the - events surrounding the enactment of Ordinance 02- 116. .In June 2002, then~County Mayor Alex Penelas announced his intention to place the County's "People's Transportation Plan" (PTP), which called for ahalf--penny sales tax .increase, on the November 2002 ballot. MDC voters had voted unequivocally against similar tax increases twice in the not-so-distant past. Mayor Penelas understood that voters likely would vote against the tax increase a third time unless he obtained the municipalities' support. Accordingly, Mayor Penelas approached then-Hialeah Mayor, Raul Martinez, to secure his and other municipal mayors' assistance. Importantly, Mayor Penelas, not the municipal leaders, .proposed the 20% share to the existing, cities to induce the cities to help the County. On July 8, 2002, various county and municipal officials, including then-Assistant County Attorney Robert Cuevas and League of Cities President-elect and Mayor Jose "Pepe" Diaz, met to negotiate the arrangement. ' Of utmost importance to the municipal leaders was a guarantee from MDC that the 20% share to the existing cities would continue so long as the half-penny surtax was collected. The leaders were assured that it would. The very next day, July 9, 2002, the BCC passed and adopted Ordinance No. 02-1I6, which expressly provides that 20% of the surtax proceeds must be distributed solely among the existing cities. At the BCC meeting and prior to adopting the ordinance, several commissioners expressed concerns .about the exclusion of future cities. After considering this issue, the BCC added. that. future municipalities would have the right to negotiate - with MDC to obtain a share of the surtax .revenue, but expressly ruled that those negotiations would not affect the existing cities' share. These events -leave rio doubt that it was the intent of MDC to limit the 20% share to existing cities and to fund any future cities from its own 80% share. Over the next four months, the municipalities performed their part of the bargain - they promoted the PTP, they informed their residents that the tax revenues would benefit them directly, and they encouraged the voters to approve the tax increase. As a direct result, the hal£ penny surtax passed with overwhelming voter support. Since then, MDC has reaped substantial rewards from surtax revenue -over $800 million. ,But for the cities' cooperation, these monies would have remained unavailable to MDC. The County, nonetheless, now seeks to renege on its part of the deal. How can any city (existing or new} ever trust MDC again after this bait- and-switch? We do not complain merely because MDC is going back on its word. Rather, the Cities of Coral Gables and Hialeah cannot accept the hold-harmless plan because it poses serious financial difficulties. Indeed, in addition to forcing the existing cities to forego any growth revenue in the near future, the hold-harmless plan includes the current new cities. (and purportedly .any additional future new cities). in the 20% share. Mr. Burgess, however, provides no statistical information explaining the projected impact this revised distribution would have on the existing cities. In addition, Mr. Burgess ignores that all new cities stem from MDC's unincorporated areas (its population center). Accordingly, an increasing amount of cities would be forced to share from, a smaller pool, while MDC would enjoy a greater share with fewer residents. This unfair result was the outcome the existing cities sought to avoid when it agreed to assist the County. The County's dereliction of its duties to the new cities also cannot be overlooked. Indeed, MDC accepted the burden of negotiating with these cities when it adopted the ordinance and incorporated the appropriate mechanism for including the cities in MDC's 80% share. Over the last seven years, however, the County has continually violated the ordinance when it failed to fund the new cities (Miami Gardens, Doral and later Cutler Bay) after repeated requests. No doubt exists that these cities should have received funding years ago. The existing cities, however, should not be forced to pay for the County's failure to .act in .good-faith toward the new cities. Indeed, if MDC had behaved appropriately, it would have avoided. the unnecessary conflict between the new and existing cities that this situation now creates. IVIr. Burgess appears to suggest that despite any prior arrangement with the cities, the hold-harmless plan is a proper solution because municipal residents benefit from county services while county residents only encounter the results of municipal services when traveling through a particular municipality.. While this is arguably correct, this concept was considered when the 80-20% split was decided. Indeed,- it is, in part, for this reason that MDC collects the lion''s share of surtax revenues although approximately 50% of its residents live within a municipality. Mr. Burgess also implies that the existing cities no longer need surtax revenues because the original purposes served by their share have already been addressed. He ignores that the municipalities rely on these funds and falsely assumes that they never'intend to implement any further improvements. We recognize that MDC, like all of the cities, is facing difficult economic times. We have all had to lay-off personnel, reduce services, and employ -other cost- effective measures. We cannot, however, allow NIDC to break its promise to the cities {to the cities' detriment) so that it may resolve its own finances. The County bargained for an 80% share of the surtax. If internal inefficiencies render this . amount insufficient, NIDC should address those inefficiencies rather than attempt to take from :the cities' rightful share. . ` ~ Mr. Burgess's memorandum includes a poorly veiled threat suggesting that if the existing cities fail to agree to the hold-harmless plan, the BCC need only wait two years {for the current interlocal agreements to expire) to amend the ordinance to reduce the 20% share. Strong-arming the cities to agree to the hold-harmless plan will not work: Despite this threat, the cities cannot agree to the hold-harmless plan. Further, we will not wait two years so that MDC unilaterally resolves this dilemma in its favor. We are not suggesting that we are on the verge of litigation, but we are asking that the CITT demand further statistical data about the impact of.the plan and consider alternative resolutions. before rendering. its recommendation. Finally, while we greatly appreciate the opportunity to voice our opinion about this matter; we take issue with today's n7eeting being scheduled on the day on which the. Florida Municipal Attorneys Association meeting was scheduled, rendering it impossible for our city attorneys to attend. f _ a i CITY C:~F M1AMI BEACH ~~c~o cC"wvEtvraot~€ c~ti~~s~ c~RivF~~ MfAMi BEACh!, FLORIDA 3 J 1 39 ' ~ - M A"1"°f l N. S O W E R .~ MAYC7R August 19, 2010 Honorable Carlos Alvarez, Mayor :Miami--Dade County Stephen P: Clark Building 111 N.W. 1$` Street. Miami; Florida 33128 Re: People's Transportation Plan Municipal Revenue Sharing near Committee Members: _ The City of Miami Beach. joins with the cities of Coraf Gables, Hialeah, and Miami to express our strong objection to the proposal to amend the Charter 'County Transit System Surtax Ordinance to freeze the existing cities' funding at the .2009-10 level for an undefined period of time (the so-called "hold-harmless" plan}. The City of Miami Beach is in full agreement with the history and legislative intent explained by Mayors Robaina and Slesnick in their July 29; 201'0 letters to CITT Chair Zilber (attached for your .reference), reminding all involved of the commitments made to the municipalities by Miami-Dade in exchange for-municipal support of the !'eople's .Transportation Plan (PTP} and half-:penny#ax increase. We feel strongly that without fhe partnership with the cities., the half-penny sales tax, and the PTP would not exist. Certainly, the election results from precin~tsr^ our City attest to support. for the tax. Funding challenges and: a .reluctance to recommend difficult choices on how to prioritize. use of the. County's share is not enough reason to destroy the partnership that created the funding source In-the.. first- place. T z More specifically (and as recorded in the County Commission's- meeting minutes}, on ,Iuiy 9, 2002, fhe Board of County Commissioners .adopted Ordinance 02-116 which codified the PTP and defined the 20°to municipal share with full disclosure and discussion of the proposed language: . "Discussion ensued regarding Commissioner Ferguson's concern relating to fhe exclusion of future municipalities. from fhe surtax proceeds. Commissioner Cancio requested assurances that future cities .would receive a portion of the surtax revenues. I"ollowing further discussion, County Attorney Ginsburg proffered the following language to address Commissioner Ferguson's concern regarding future municipalities: "newly incorporated municipalities shall have the right to negotiate with the County for a pro rata share of .the sales surtax, taking into consideration the neighborhood and municipal projects identified in Exhibit l (to the, resolution]., as amended, within the boundaries of- the new municipalities: The preceding sentence shall 'not affect the twenty percent share prorrided Herein for murtiepalities existing. an /November 5, ZOD2." - The legislative intent of the 20°!o municipal. share,. and the intent of the BCC that new -municipalities be funded from the 80°lo allocated to UMSA and the County, could not be clearer.- - Of particular concern is .information shared with the Chairman and Board in the County Manager's memorandum dated July '19, 20~ d (also attached for your reference), which requires clarification. ® While the three new municipalities maybe "unwavering in their position that they must receiae their pro-.,rata. share of surtax funds," Mr. Burgess fails to clarify that their first choice for full funding of their entitled share.portion is .from the 80°l0, as '- ., - provided for by County Ordinance. ® Although Mr. Burgess asserts in the memo that. one of `the consequences of the - decision on this matter is°"coverage for existing bonds 6acketi by PTP revenues - _ and .government's. ability to :sell future debt backed with these .bonds," the same July 9, 2002 meeting minutes reflect that in response to.a c}uestion regarding the County's bonding. capacity by Commissioner Barreiro, the County Attorney - advised the BCC that he felt that the language regarding new municipalities. "would not undercut its own bonds or cause itself financial harm in negotiations with new municipalities." The County Manager states that he believes that "the majority of cities" consider the "hold-harmless option" a ``flair and honorable compromise" and implies a reasonable consensus. He further refers to "a few vocal municipal leaders" that. _ oppose this option: We can only assume he is referring to the cities cif Miami, Hialeah, Coral Gables,. and now, Miami Beach. As you know, these four cities alone represent 56°Io of the incorporated area ofi the county {31 °Io ofi the county's en#ire population), and many consti#uents that are .heavy users of public transportation. In conjunction with many other municipalities that -have been actively expanding their infrastructure and transportation services, I believe that a proposal that in the long term would result in a re-distribution of the 20°!0, would be a detriment:to most cities, and not just.a few vocal ones .that find' it necessary to lead the charge against potential efforts by-the county to renege on prior commitments. Further, participation ,at a meeting :and .discussion of options should not be misconstrued. as consensus, fet alone::suppart. . g Perhaps as disturbing; the County Manager's. memo proceeds with a thinly veiled threat of perhaps merely waiting until the current interlocal agreements expire in two years for unilateral .county action.. This approach should be of serir~us concern to all .parties involved in this: matter. The real threat: is to 'the partnership between the cities and the county that made all of this possible, and-has provided hundreds of millions- of dollars of PTP benefiit to the residents of Miami-Dade County. The Cities of Coral Gables, Hialeah and Miami have done a very good .job at outlining the ,problems with the so-called hold-harmless plan and the serious financial difficulties it creates. The plan also does not address how the County would propose providing PTP - funds to any more new cities that may be created in the future,.assuming incorporations begin again in Miami-©ade County. Currently funded .municipalities have consistently supported :the new municipalities in their e€forts to access PTP funds;. as was provided fot'in the legislation that made this tax possible.. Un behalf of the. City of Miami Beach, I urge you to reconsider this new approach and reject-the County- Manager's, proposal, and direct him to fund the new cities from the Cqunty's portion, as originally approved and intended. Please, do not allow the 20% municipal share to.become another of the.broken P~'P promises. Please do no# hesitate to contact me at 305-673-7030 if you would like to discuss this matter further: . sincerely, ~~..~, . ~~~ ~-' ~~.~ a~ , ~ -~ °,~~% Matti Herrera Bawer Mayor ' c. Honorable Miami Beach City Commissioners Hancarable Board of County.Commissioners Honorable ;Chairperson and .Members :=CITY . Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Marrage[_ Jane smith, City A#torney executive staff, City of Miarni;Beach Cities of Miami, Hialeah, and .Coral Gables Miami-Dade League of Cities x• AGENDA ITEM 7E RESOLUTION. NO. 10-061 RESOLUTION BY THE CITIZENS' INDEPENDENT TRANSPORTATION TRU5T EXPRESSING SUPPORT OF AN 'AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE 02-116 TO PROVIDE FOR THE FUNDING OF NEW MUNICIPALITIES THROUGH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE HOLD HARMLESS OPTION AND THE EASING OF THE MUNICIPAL MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT REQUIREMENT WHEREAS, the Citizens of Miami-Dade County approved the Charter County Transit System Sales Surtax (Surtax) including the Peoples' Transportation Plan (PTP) on November 5, 2002; and WHEREAS, the Surtax and PTP have funded critically needed transportation and transit projects throughout Miami-Dade County and its municipalities; and WHEREAS, at the. time of voter approval of the Surtax there were a .total of 31 municipalities; and WHEREAS; there has been the incorporation of 3 new municipalities -Miami Gardens, - ~ Doral and Cutler Bay -since the approval of the Surtax; and WHEREAS, the Transportation Trust recognizes that these new municipalities should receive their fair share of Surtax proceeds; and WHEREAS, .the Transportation Trust facilitated a New Municipality Worlang Group in conjunction with Miami-Dade County, the Miami-Dade County League of Cities, the existing cities and the new cities; and WHEREAS, the New Municipality Working Group, recognizing the financial challenges facing the County and the municipalities, worked collaboratively to develop innovative funding solutions; and Page 2 of 3 WHEREAS, the New Municipality Working Group explored a full range of potential options including: new revenue sources; coordination and efficiency initiatives; additions to the federal transit formula; changes to the municipal requirements in the CITT Ordinance, a hold harmless revenue growth option and other ideas presented by members of the Working Group; and WHEREAS, the new revenue option of reinstating the two cent Local Option Gas Tax, which had been previously supported by the Trust, does not appear to be viable at this time; and WHEREAS, a number of the ideas such as the coordination and efficiency initiative represent best practices and will be continued, but unfortunately do not generate enough in savings to fund the new municipalities; and WHEREAS, the solution that achieves the objective of funding the new municipalities with the least financial impact on the County and the existing municipalities is a combination of the Hold Harmless Option in conjunction with a relaxation of the Municipal Maintenance of Effort Requirement. NOW .THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITIZENS' INDEPENDENT TRANSPORTATION TRUST that the Transportation Trust supports the fair share funding of the new municipalities through the implementation of the Hold Harmless Option. and the easing of the Municipal Maintenance of Effort Requirement. Page 3 of 3 The foregoing resolution was offered by Miles E. Moss, P.E., who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by Glenn J. Downing,.CFP® and upon being put to vote, the vote was as follows: Hon. Linda Zilber, Chairperson -Aye Paul J. Schwiep, Esq., 1 S` Vice Chairperson -Absent Hon. Anna E. Ward, Ph.D., 2"a Vice Chairperson -Nay Harold Braynon, Jr. -Absent David Concepcion -Nay Joseph Curbelo -Aye Glenn J. Downing, CFP©-Aye Peter L> Forrest -Aye Miles E. Moss, P.E. -Aye Hon. James A. Reeder -Nay William Sancho -Absent Marilyn Smith -Absent The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 29`h day of July,' 2010. Approved by the County Attorne as By: to form-and legal sufficiency - Executive Director AGENDA ITEM 7F RESOLUTION NO. 10-062 RESOLUTION BY THE CITIZENS' II~tDEPENDENT TRANSPORTATION TRUST URGING THE BOARD OF COTJNTY" COMMISSIONERS (BCC) TO FUND THE NEW MUNICIPALITIES COMMENCING OCTOBER. 1, 2010 FROM A COUNTY SOURCE OTHER THAN THE 20% MUNICIPAL SHARE OF SURTAX REVENUE UNTIL NEW FUNDING SOURCES ARE IDENTIFIED OR ORDINANCE NO. 02-116 IS AMENDED WHEREAS, the Citizens of Miami-Dade County approved the Charter County Transit System .Sales Surtax (Surtax) including the Peoples' Transportation Plan (PTP) on November 5, 2002; and WHEREAS, there has been the "incorporation of 3 new municipalities -Miami Gardens, Dotal and Cutler Bay -since the approval of the Surtax; and WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 02-116 indicates that new cities formed after November 5, 2002 have the right to negotiate with the County Manager to receive their share of surtax funds " from a source other than the 20% municipal- share; and WHEREAS, the Florida Legislature has passed legislation requiring the modification of interlocal agreements every five years to include newly-incorporated municipalities. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITIZENS' INDEPENDENT TRANSPORTATION TRUST that the Transportation Trust recommends that the Board of County Commissioners, effective October 1, 2010, fund the new cities .from a county source other than the 20% municipal share until new funding sources are identified or Ordinance No. 02-116 is amended or modified. Page 2 of 2 The foregoing resolution was. offered by Miles B. Moss, P.E., who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by Hon. James A. Reeder and upon being put to vote, the vote was as follows: Hon. Linda Zilber, Chairperson -Aye Paul J. Schwiep, Esq., 1St Vice Chairperson. -Absent Hon. Anna E. Ward, Ph.D., 2na Vice Chairperson -Aye Harold Braynon, Jr. -Absent David Concepcion -Nay Joseph. Curbelo -Aye Glenn J. Downing, CFP®-Aye Peter L. Forrest -Aye Miles E. Moss, P.E. -Aye Hon. James A. Reeder -Aye William Sancho -Absent Marilyn Smith -Absent The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 29th day of July, 2010. Approved by the County Attorne~s~ By: to form and legal sufficiency`i=~' " ' Executive Director