2012-27911 Reso RESOLUTION NO 2012-27911
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, SUPPORTING
THE MIAMI-DADE COUNTY LEAGUE OF CITIES' (MDCLC)
PRIORITIES REGARDING THE MUNICIPAL DISTRIBUTION
OF THE PEOPLE'S TRANSPORTATION PLAN SURTAX
FUNDING; AUTHORIZING THE ADMINISTRATION TO
REPRESENT THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH DURING
NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN THE MDCLC AND MIAMI-DADE
COUNTY; AND FURTHER REAFFIRMING THE CITY'S
POSITION THAT SURTAX FUNDING FOR NEWLY
INCORPORATED MUNICIPALITIES SHOULD BE FROM THE
COUNTY'S 80% SHARE OF THE SURTAX, AS ORIGINALLY
NEGOTIATED IN GOOD FAITH AND AGREED TO BY MIAMI-
DADE COUNTY IN 2002, AND AS CURRENTLY REQUIRED
BY MIAMI-DADE COUNTY ORDINANCE 02-116.
WHEREAS, in 2002, Miami-Dade County voters approved the People's
Transportation Plan ("PTP") and a half-cent sales tax surtax to be used for the
enhancement of transit and transportation in Miami-Dade County; and
WHEREAS, because previous efforts to implement such a tax had been
defeated by the voters, then-Mayor Alex Penelas worked in good faith with municipal
leaders to develop a revenue-sharing concept that could be supported by the existing
cities in Miami-Dade County; and
WHEREAS, without support from the municipal leadership in Miami-Dade
County, the ballot question most likely would have failed; and
WHEREAS, the agreed-upon proposal provided that 20% of the revenue
generated by the half-cent sales tax would be distributed to the cities in existence at the
time the tax was approved; and
WHEREAS, on July 9, 2002, the Miami-Dade County Board of County
Commissioners (BCC) adopted Ordinance No. 02-116, which expressly states that 20%
of the half-cent sales tax proceeds must be distributed solely among the existing cities;
and
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 02-116 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; and
WHEREAS, since 2002, three incorporations have been permitted in Miami-
Dade County: Miami Gardens, Doral, and Cutler Bay; and
WHEREAS, municipalities currently receiving the surtax have consistently
expressed support for these three new cities to receive funding as provided for by
Miami-Dade County in Ordinance No. 02-116; and
WHEREAS, a working group was convened in 2010 by Miami-Dade County with
representatives of municipalities and the County to discuss this issue, which group met
on at least three occasions and discussed options proffered by the County; and
WHEREAS, the working group did not agree on a solution, only that further
discussion should continue; and
WHEREAS, on July 19, 2010, County Manager George Burgess issued a
memorandum to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) informing the BCC that he
had directed staff to prepare legislation for their consideration that "embraces a hold-
harmless model" (the "hold-harmless option"); and
WHEREAS, the hold-harmless option proposed to provide PTP revenues to the
new cities with the growth in PTP revenue, including the 20% municipal share that was
expected in the coming years as the economy recovers; and
WHEREAS, the 5-year impact to the City of Miami Beach from loss of growth of
the 20% municipal share was estimated by the Citizen's Independent Transportation
Trust to be between $800,000 and $1.1 million under the hold-harmless option; and
WHEREAS, the BCC did not adopt the hold-harmless option; and
WHEREAS, on July 29, 2010, the Citizen's Independent Transportation Trust
("CITT") approved two resolutions, the first supporting an amendment to Ordinance No.
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,
and second urging 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 No.
02-116 is amended; and
WHEREAS, on August 24, 2010, the City Commissions of the cities of Coral
Gables and Hialeah approved resolutions to initiate a conflict resolution procedure
against Miami-Dade County pursuant to Section 164.1052 of the Florida Statutes
regarding this "hold-harmless option"; and
WHEREAS, on September 15, 2010, the Mayor and City Commission of the City
of Miami Beach adopted Resolutions No. 2010- 27470 and 2010-27471, opposing the
hold-harmless option and supporting a plan whereby the new cities of Miami Gardens,
Doral, and Cutler Bay are provided their rightful share of PTP surtax funding as provided
in Miami-Dade County Ordinance No. 02-116; and
WHEREAS, some of the Interlocal Agreements between the municipalities and
Miami-Dade County expire in July 2012; and
WHEREAS, the Miami-Dade County League of Cities (MDCLC) and the Miami-
Dade County City Managers Association (MDCCMA) have met recently with the
2
administrations of the cities in Miami-Dade County to identify a list of issues for inclusion
in negotiations between with Miami-Dade County.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, that the Mayor and City
Commission support the Miami-Dade County League of Cities priorities regarding the
municipal distribution of the People's Transportation Plan Surtax funding; authorize the
Administration to continue to represent the City during negotiations between the Miami-
Dade County League of Cities and Miami-Dade County; and further reaffirm the City's
position that Surtax funding for newly incorporated cities should be from the County's
80% share of the surtax, as originally negotiated in good faith and agreed to by Miami-
Dade County in 2002, and as currently required by Miami-Dade County Ordinance No.
02-116.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 6 +rti day of-14re-2012.
ATTEST:
\\ BB ITY CLERIC MAYOR
TAG A\�\$eptemb�,5\ n TP Reso.docx
�Ncco ORATED:
,9,4CH-26.�
APPROVED AS TO
FORM &LANGUAGE
1OR E UTION
rtity Att y Date
3
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title:
A Resolution supporting the position of the Miami-Dade County League of Cities' priorities regarding the
municipal share of the Surtax; authorizing the Administration to continue working with the MDCLC during
negotiations with Miami-Dade County; and further reaffirming the City's position regarding distribution of the
municipal share of the Surtax..
Key Intended Outcome Supported:
Enhance Mobility Throughout the City
Supporting Data (Surveys, Environmental Scan, etc.):Transportation remains one of the most significant
teas to address from the survey results (often mentioned as a key quality of life issue). 24% of residents
ated traffic flow as excellent or good, and 37% as poor. 35% of residents rated the availability of pedestrian
rails and bicycle paths/lanes as excellent or good, and 30%as poor.
Issue:
Shall the City support the Miami-Dade League of Cities during negotiations with Miami-Dade County regarding
the distribution of the municipal share of the People's Transportation Plan Surtax?
Item Summa /Recommendation:
The Administration has attended several meetings recently with the Miami-Dade County City Managers
Association MDCCMA) and the Miami-Dade County League of Cities (MDCLC) to discuss the Transportation
Surtax and upcoming negotiations with Miami-Dade County. Each municipality that receives a distribution from
the Transportation Surtax has entered into an Interlocal Agreement (ILA) with Miami-Dade County. These
agreements were originally entered into in 2003, but were revised in 2007 by Miami-Dade County. The 2007 ILAs
expire in July, 2012, and the MDCCMA and MDCLC have jointly initiated negotiations with Miami-Dade County
regarding the items that the cities would like to be included in the new ILAs.
There are five (5) municipalities that did not execute the revised 2007 ILA: Miami Beach, Pinecrest, South Miami,
North Miami Beach, and Virginia Gardens. The 2003 ILA does not have an expiration date; therefore, the City of
Miami Beach's ILA will remain in effect beyond July 2012,when the 2007 IIA's entered into by other cities expire.
Furthermore, the 2003 ILAs require that the County fund only those cities in existence in 2003 from the 20%
municipal share and that new cities are to be funded from the County's 80% share. Attachment A compares that
terms between the 2003 and 2007 ILAs (as well as the 2011 ILA entered into by the three newly incorporated
cities).
The MDCCMA and MDCLC have identified several items (Attachment B) for inclusion in a new ILA, to be
negotiated with the County. The Administration recommends that the City support the position of the MDCCMA
and MDCLC during negotiations with the County, and further support each item listed on Attachment B, provided
that:
1. Newly incorporated cities be funded from the County's 80% share, and at a funding level that is the per
capita equivalent of the existing cities; and
2. That the new ILA remain in effect from year-to-year for so long as the County receives net proceeds
from the Surtax.
i
Advisory Board Recommendation:
N/A
Financial Information:
Source of Amount Account
Funds: 1
OBPI Total
Financial Impact Summary:
City Clerk's Office Legislative Tracking:
Kevin Crowder, City Manager' Office
Sign-Offs:
Depart meat Director As ista City Manager Ci Manager
KC H JMG
MIAMMEACH AGENDA ITEM G 7E
DATE 6-6-12-
® MIAMI BEACH
City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33139,www.miamibeachfl.gov
MEMO # COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Matti Herrera Bower and Members of the City Commission
FROM: Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager
DATE: June 6, 2012
SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, SUPPORTING THE MIAMI-DADE COUNTY
LEAGUE OF CITIES' (MDCLC) PRIORITIES REGARDING THE MUNICIPAL
DISTRIBUTION OF THE PEOPLE'S TRANSPORTATION PLAN SURTAX
FUNDING; AUTHORIZING THE ADMINISTRATION TO REPRESENT THE
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH DURING NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN THE MDCLC
AND MIAMI-DADE COUNTY; AND FURTHER REAFIRMING THE CITY'S
POSITION THAT SURTAX FUNDING FOR NEWLY INCORPORATED
MUNICIPALITIES SHOULD BE FROM THE COUNTY'S 80% SHARE OF THE
SURTAX, AS ORIGINALLY NEGOTIATED IN GOOD FAITH AND AGREED
TO BY MIAMI-DADE COUNTY IN 2002, AND AS CURRENTLY REQUIRED
BY MIAMI-DADE COUNTY ORDINANCE 02-116.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Resolutions.
BACKGROUND
In 2002, Miami-Dade County voters approved the PTP and a half-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 the
Commission Memorandum
June 6, 2012
People's Transportation Plan—Proposed Changes
Transportation Surtax funds since, in addition to countywide projects and services, that
share also funds projects in the unincorporated areas. Clarification on this issue was
provided prior to ordinance approval.
In response to Miami-Dade County's failure to enter into interlocal agreements to provide
funding to municipalities incorporated after the passage of the PTP, 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 on 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 in 2010 by Miami-
Dade County with representatives of municipalities and the County to discuss this issue.
This 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.
On September 15, 2010, the Mayor and City Commission adopted the following
Resolutions:
Resolution 2010-27470: A Resolution Expressing Support For The Cities Of Miami
Gardens, Doral, And Cutler Bay, And Urging Miami-Dade County Board Of County
Commissioners To Provide These Three Cities With Their Rightful Share Of People's
Transportation Plan Surtax Funding From The County's 80% Share Of The Surtax, As
Originally Negotiated In Good Faith And Agreed To By Miami-Dade County In 2002, And
As Currently Required By Miami-Dade County Ordinance 02-116.
Resolution 2010-27471: A Resolution Urging The Miami-Dade County Board Of County
Commissioners To Reject The County Manager's Proposal To Provide The Peoples
Transportation Plan Surtax Funds To Cities Incorporated After 2002 From The Growth
Of The Existing Cities' 20% Share, Also Known As The "Hold-Harmless Option," And
Urging The Miami-Dade County Board Of County Commissioners To Direct The County
Administration To Prepare A Plan To Fund The Newly Incorporated Cities From The
County's 80% Share, As Agreed To In Miami-Dade County Ordinance No. 02-116.
Since the time that these Resolutions were adopted, Miami-Dade County has reached
agreement with the three new cities, and provided funding to those cities in Fiscal Year
2011/12 from the County's 80% share of the surtax.
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
The Administration has attended several meetings recently with the Miami-Dade County
City Managers Association MDCCMA) and the Miami-Dade County League of Cities
(MDCLC) to discuss the Transportation Surtax and upcoming negotiations with Miami-
Dade County. Each municipality that receives a distribution from the Transportation
Surtax has entered into an Interlocal Agreement (ILA) with Miami-Dade County. These
Commission Memorandum
June 6, 2012
People's Transportation Plan— Proposed Changes
agreements were originally entered into in 2003, but were revised in 2007 by Miami-
Dade County. The 2007 ILAs expire in July, 2012, and the MDCCMA and MDCLC have
jointly initiated negotiations with Miami-Dade County regarding the items that the cities
would like to be included in the new ILAs.
There are five (5) municipalities that did not execute the revised 2007 ILA: Miami Beach,
Pinecrest, South Miami, North Miami Beach, and Virginia Gardens. The 2003 ILA does
not have an expiration date; therefore, the City of Miami Beach's ILA will remain in effect
beyond July 2012, when the 2007 entered into by other cities expire. Furthermore, the
2003 ILAs require that the County fund only those cities in existence in 2003 from the
20% municipal share and that new cities are to be funded from the County's 80% share.
Attachment A compares the terms between the 2003 and 2007 ILAs (as well as the 2011
ILA entered into by the three newly incorporated cities).
The MDCCMA and MDCLC have identified several items (Attachment B) for inclusion in
a new ILA, to be negotiated with the County. The Administration recommends that the
City support the position of the MDCCMA and MDCLC during negotiations with the
County, and further support each item listed on Attachment B, provided that:
1. Newly incorporated cities be funded from the County's 80% share, and at a
funding level that is the per capita equivalent of the existing cities; and
2. That the new ILA remain in effect from year-to-year for so long as the County
receives net proceeds from the Surtax.
CONCLUSION
The Administration recommends that the Mayor and City Commission adopt the
Resolution, supporting the position of the Miami-Dade County League of Cities' priorities
regarding the municipal share of the Surtax; authorize the Administration to continue
working with the MDCLC during negotiations with Miami-Dade County, and further
reaffirm the City's position regarding distribution of the municipal share of the Surtax.
JMG/HF/42�
TAAGENDA\2012\6-6-12\PTP Memo.docx
ATTACHMENT A
Interlocal Agreement for Distribution of Transit System Surtax Proceeds
2003 Agreement
e Cities: Pinecrest, South Miami, North Miami Beach, Virginia Gardens, Miami Beach.
2007 Agreement
• Cities: Miami Springs, Aventura, Bal Harbour Village, Bay Harbor Islands, Miami, Key Biscayne,
Village of El Portal, Indian Creek Village, West Miami, Sunny Isles Beach, North Bay Village,
Sweetwater, Miami Lakes, Florida City, Biscayne Park, Hialeah, Surfside, Palmetto Bay, Hialeah
Gardens.
2011 Agreement
e Cities:Town of Cutler Bay, Miami Gardens, Doral
Terms 2003 2007 2011 Comments
2003 Agreement
Net Proceeds means portion of surtax proceeds collected by FDOR. X
County Distributes 20%of net proceeds("municipal share')to cities existing as of X X Should provide for time frame for
Nov.5,2002,classified as"eligible cities". distribution of funds.
Municipal share distributed among eligible cities on pro rata basis,adjusted annually. X X
Whenever annexation occurs in any eligible city,population of annexed area shall be X Silent in 2007&2011 Agreements
excluded.
Increases in population in areas annexed over and above population in such area at X Silent in 2007&2011 Agreements
the time of annexation,which occur after annexation shall be included in subsequent
year's calculations.
Cities cannot replace general fund support for transportation,only supplement. X X X
Cities shall only expend the portion of the municipal share for transportation and X Similar wording in 2007&2011
transit purposes(FS 212.055(1)(d)1-3). Agreements
City shall on an annual basis,apply 20%to transit uses-circulator buses,bus shelters, X X X
bus pullout bays or other transit-related.
If City cannot apply 20%,City may contact County to apply on county project that X X X
enhances traffic mobility within the City.
If City and County cannot expend the 20%,then portion will be carried over and added X X X
to municipal share to be distributed amongst the eligible cities.
Net proceeds distributed to cities incorporated after Nov.5,2002,shall not reduce X Removed from 1007&2011
or affect the municipal share for eligible cities. Agreements
By June 1 of each yr,cities will certify same level of general funding support for X Similar wording in 2007&2011
transportation in FY 2001-2002,using share in accordance with agreement. Agreement.Date changed from June 1
to November 1.
If cities failed to meet certification requirements,after opportunity to correct X X X Similar wording in 2007&2011
deficiencies,the pro rata portion of the municipal share will not be distributed to the Agreements
city and be redistributed to remaining eligible cities.
Cities such submit records as requested by CITT. X Similar wording in 2007&2011
Agreements
CITT has power to monitor,oversee,review audit and investigate the city's X Similar wording in 2007&2011
implementation of any project funded by the municipal share. Agreements
City does not have to obtain prior approval of the CITT to select the transportation X Silent in 2007&2011 Agreements
and transit projects or award of contracts.
County may audit the funds received by the city to assure compliance with laws, X Similar wording in 2007&2011
County Ordinance 02-116 and this agreement. Agreements
Agreement shall remain in effect from year to year for so long as county receives net X
proceeds.
2007 Agreement
Under Whereas.Cities continue to provide same level of general fund support for X X Similar wording to 2003.
transportation that was in its FY2001-2002 budget in the subsequent years.
Under Article 2.1-Terms of Agreement.Agreement shall remain in force for five(5) X X
years thereafter.
Under Article 2.2-Termination.Agreement may be terminated for cause by either X X Need to define"cause".
party no less than 30 days written notice to the other party.
Under Article 2.2.The noticed party of termination of the agreement shall have an X X
opportunity to cure.
Terms 2003 2007 .2011 Comments
Under Article 2.2.County may suspend or terminate the dispersing of surtax proceeds X X
to the City if there is a breach of this Interlocal Agreement until such breach is cured.
Under Article 3-Accomplishment of Projects.On-a quarterly basis;cities shall.provide X X Increased reporting requirements
a report regarding the implementation of the projects.
Under Article 4-Accounting Records.City to appropriately record in the program X X
account,payments and deposits.......in a matter as described by State law for the
security of public Funds,or as approved by the County.
Under Article 4.By November 1,of each year,cities will certify same level of general X X Similar wording in 2003 Agreement.
funding provided in FY 2001-2002,using share in accordance with agreement. Date changed from June 1 to
November 1.
Under Article 4.City shall maintain for projects and programs in conformity with X X
"Principals for State and Local Governments.
Under Article 4.Documentation of Program Costs.......all costs associated with the X X
program will be supported by proper documentation.
Under Article 5-Audit and Inspection.By November 1 a certified report with a X X
disclosure of surtax proceeds expended,followed by independent audit report six(6)
months after the fiscal year end.City agrees to cooperate with CITT and County
agencies,including providing access to records upon request. City retain records for
three years from date audit report is issued.
Under Article 5.If audit discloses noncompliance,the City such submit plan for X X
corrective action.
Under Article 5.City shall permit and/or require Contractor to permit County and CITT X X
to access all records.
Under Article 6-Restrictions,Prohibitions,Controls,and Labor Provisions.Equal X X
Employment Opportunity.......
Under Article 6.Civil Rights Act of 1964...... X X
Under Article 6.Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990....... X X
Under Article 6.Prohibited Interested........ X X
Under Article 6.Interest of Members of,or Delegates to,Congress....... X X
Under Article 7-Miscellaneous Provisions.Environmental Pollution.... X X
Under Article 7.Not Obligated to third Parties...... X X
Under Article 7.When Rights and Remedies Not Waived..... X X
Under Article 7.If any provision of this Agreement is held invalid,the remainder would X X
then continue to conform to terms and requirements of applicable Law.
Under Article 7.State or Territorial Law...... X X
Under Article 7.Use and Maintenance of Project Facilities and Equipment....... X X
Under Article 7.Signage.Cities shall post a sign indicating surtax proceeds are being X X
used for this project.
Under Article 7.Residency requirement.No preferential accommodations or pricing X X
based on residency.
Under Article 7.Administrative Expenses.No more than S%on administrative X X
expenses.
Under Article 7.Contractual Indemnity.City hold harmless County and agencies X X
harmless and County holds City harmless.......
Under Article 7.County forwards claims to City,arising from the contract..... X X
Under Article 7.County shall have authority to distribute and/or withhold surtax X X Paragraph should refer to a"cause"
funds. for holding back funds.
Under Article 8-Agreement Format. X X
Under Article 9-Execution of Agreement. X X
Under Article 10-Restrictions on Lobbying. X X
Under Article 11-Modifications and Miscellaneous Provisions. X X
2011 Agreement
Under Whereas.County Distributes 20%of net proceeds("municipal share")to cities X Particular to the Incorporation.
existing as of Nov.5,2002,and those Cities incorporated between Nov.5,2002 and
the date of this agreement that meet certain conditions.(herein,referred to"eligible
cities".)
Under Whereas.County agrees to provide its pro rata share from the County's 80% X Particular to the Incorporation.
share of Surtax revenue.
Under Article 12.Favored Nation Status.The County agrees that the Town will be Particular to this Agreement.
entitled to the same favorable terms as other eligible Cities without the need for an X
amendment to this Agreement.
ATTACHMENT B
Some suggested new(or reintroduction)of terms for the new Interlocal Agreement:.
• Eliminate 20% transit requirements, making 100% of the funds available for transportation
purposes;
Define Transportation purposes to include but not limited the provisions of Florida Statutes
212.055, with the relevant sub-references to the Public Transportation, Chapter 334.03 and
Florida Statutes 334.065(1)(a) (Attached);
• Allow for an annual independent audit to be overseen by an established Municipal Committee
to audit the Count's use of the surtax funds with the same regularity as the County audits the
Cities;
Eliminate the required baseline maintenance of efforts;
Distributed net proceeds to Cities incorporated after November 5, 2002 shall not be reduced
or affect the municipal share for eligible Cities(similar term exist in the 2003 Agreement);
• Identify a percent of the County's 80% (based on population) that is dedicated to UMSA, with
the intent to allocate to future annexations and incorporations;
• Allow for the Agreement to remain in effect from year to year for so long as the County
receives net proceeds (similar term exist in the 2003 Agreement);
• Provide "favored nations" status to Cities, so as to grant the same exemptions and rights that
the County grants itself and/or other eligible Cities(similar term exist in the 2011 Agreement);
• Need to define "cause" related to "termination" and/or when County "withholds" surtax
funds; and
• Reduce reporting requirements to annually not quarteriy, and tied to the certification
requirement of the work completed (similar term exist in the 2003 Agreement).
G