2010-27470 Reso C7G1RESOLUTION NO.i 2010-27470
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, EXPRESSING
SUPPORT FOR THE CITIES OF MIAMI GARDENS, DORAL,
AND CUTLER BAY, AND URGING THE 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 NO. 02-116.
WHEREAS, in 2002, Miami-Dade County voters approved the People's
Transportation Plan ("PTP°) and ahalf-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 arevenue-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
r•
WHEREAS, House Bill 1205 was approved during the 2009 Florida legislative
session, requiring Miami-Dade County to renegotiate the interlocal agreements for
distribution of the surtax proceeds every five years to include any new municipalities;
and
WHEREAS, House Bill 1205 does not specify how the surtax revenues for new
municipalities are to be funded; and
WHEREAS, a working group was convened earlier this year 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 ahold-
harmless model" (the "hold-harmless option"); and
WHEREAS, the hold-harmless option proposes to provide PTP revenues to the
new cities with the growth in PTP revenue that is expected in the coming years as the
economy recovers; and
WHEREAS, the 5-year impact to the City of Miami Beach is estimated by the
Gitizen's Independent Transportation Trust to be between $800,000 and $1.1 million
under the hold-harmless option; and
WHEREAS, on July 29, 2010, the Citizen's Independent Transportation Trust
("CITY") 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 optionfl; and
WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Commission of the City of Miami Beach support
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.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, that the Mayor and City
2
Commission express support for the cities of Miami Gardens, Doral, and Cutler Bay to
receive their rightful share of PTP surtax funds as provided in Miami-Dade County
Ordinance No. 02-116, and urge Miami-Dade County to provide these three cities with
their rightful share of PTP 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 No. 02-116.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this /s Tt/ day of ~ 2010.
ATTEST:
~~~~ ~~~
CITY CLERK
OR
T:WGENDA12010\September 15\Consent\PTP Reso.docx
DATE
3
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title:
1. A Resolution expressing support for Miami Gardens, Doral, and Cutler Bay, urging Miami-Dade County to fund
these three cities from the County's 80% share of People's Transportation Plan surtax funding.
2. A Resolution urging the Board of County Commissioners to reject the County Manager's "hold-harmless" option
for funding the new cities from the existing cities 20% share.
3. A Resolution formally initiating conflict resolution procedures pursuant to Chapter 164 should the County adopt
the "hold-harmless" option.
Ke Intended Outcome Su orted:
Enhance Mobility Throughout the City
Supporting Data (Surveys, Environmental Scan, etc.): Transportation remains one of the most significant
reas 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 oaths/lanes as excellent or aood. and 30% as poor.
Issue•
Shall the City support funding for Miami Gardens, Doral, and Cutler Bay from the County's 80% share of PTP
Funds; and, oppose the County Manager's proposal to amend the PTP Ordinance; and, initiate conflict resolution
procedures with Miami-Dade County regarding this issue?
Item
The County Manager has proposed to the County Commission an amendment of the Ordinance to split 20% of
the PTP revenue known as the "municipal share" among three "new cities" as well as an increased number of
cities. In addition to forcing cities to share a smaller pool while the County receives a greater share with fewer
residents, this proposal has not received support from the municipalities that would be impacted. 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 their support for the PTP.
The PTP, as approved by the voters and adopted via Ordinance No. 02-116 sets forth the mechanism by which
municipalities -those existing at the time of passage of the tax and those created after passage -will receive
PTP funds.
The Administration recommends that the Mayor and City Commission adopt the attached Resolutions, expressing
support of the three new cities of Miami Gardens, Dorat and Cutler Bay and urging Miami-Dade County to fund
these three new cities from the County's 80% share, as agreed to by Miami-Dade County and as currently
required by Ordinance No. 02-116,- and further express opposition to the "hold-harmless" option proposed by the
County Manager, and authorize the initiation of conflict resolution procedures provided by Chapter 164, Florida
Statutes, should the Board of County Commissioners adopt on first reading, an ordinance implementing the "hold-
Board Recommendation:
Financial Information:
Source of Amount Account
Funds: ~
NIA 2
3
OBPI Total
Financial Impact Summary: Preliminary estimates are that the county's proposal could cost the
Cit between $800,000 and $1.1 million in trans ortation fundin over afive- ear eriod.
City Clerk's Office Legislative Tracking:
Kevin Crowder, City Manager' Office
Si n-Offs•
Department Director Assis nt City Manager 'ty Manager
KC JMG
~- U
MIAMI BEACH AG NDAD TM G7S
E
m MIAMIBEACH
City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33139, www.miamibeachH.gov
MEMO #
COMMISSION .MEMORANDUM
r0: Mayor Matti Herrera Bower and Members of the City Commis 'on
FROM: Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager
DATE: September 15, 2010
SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, URGING THE MIAMI-DADE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO REJECT THE COUNTY MANAGER'S
PROPOSAL TO FUND THE PEOPLE'S TRANSPORTATION PLAN SURTAX
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 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 N0.02-116.
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR THE CITIES
OF MIAMI GARDENS, DORAL, AND CUTLER BAY, AND URGING THE
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
N0.02-116.
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI BEACH, INITIATING CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROCEDURES
PROVIDED BY SECTION 164.1052 OF THE FLORIDA STATUTES, PRIOR
TO INITIATING LITIGATION AGAINST MIAMI-DADE COUNTY WITH
REGARD TO MIAMI-DADE COUNTY'S ADOPTION ON FIRST READING, OF
AN ORDINANCE IMPLEMENTING THE "HOLD-HARMLESS OPTION" TO
PROVIDE CITIES INCORPORATED AFTER 2002 THEIR SHARE OF THE
PEOPLE'S TRANSPORTATION PLAN SURTAX FROM THE PRE-EXISTING
CITIES 20% SHARE OF THE SURTAX.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Resolutions.
Commission Memorandum
September 15, 2010
People's Transportation Plan -Proposed Changes
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 arevenue-
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. Clarification on this issue was provided prior to
ordinance approval.
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. This funding has been used to fund
an array of projects to enhance transportation in our City, including funding for our South
Beach Local. As you may know, Miami Beach is a heavy transit user, and the city's
voting precincts in 2002 reflected wide support for the Surtax. Since 2002, three
incorporations have been permitted in Miami-Dade County: Miami Gardens, Doral, and
Cutler Bay. These 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.
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 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, aworking -group was convened earlier this year 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
Commission Memorandum
September 75, 2010
People's Transportation Plan -Proposed Changes
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
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.
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.
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 as early as September 10, consistent with a
Commission Memorandum
September 15, 2010
People's Transportation Plan -Proposed Changes
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.
CONCLUSION
The County Manager's 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.
Subsequent correspondence between the County Mayor and attorneys for the three
newer municipalities indicates that the proposal is likely to move forward and references
the lack of formal action by the other municipalities.
The Administration recommends that the Mayor and City Commission adopt the
attached Resolutions, expressing support of the three new cities of Miami Gardens,
Doral and Cutler Bay and urging Miami-Dade County to fund these three new cities from
the County's 80% share, as agreed to by Miami-Dade County and as currently required
by Ordinance No. 02-116, and further express opposition to the "hold-harmless" option
proposed by the County Manager, and authorize the initiation of conflict resolution
procedures provided by Chapter 164, Florida Statutes, should the Board of County
Commissioners adopt on first reading, an ordinance implementing the "hold-harmless"
option.
JMG/HF/kc
T:WGENDA\2010\September 15\Consent\PTP Memo.docx
Memorandum "cam
Date: July 19, 209 0
To: Honorable Dennis C. Moss, Chairman
and Members, Hoard of County Commissioners
From: George M. Burges
County Manager
Subject: People's Transportation Pla MunlcIpal Revenue Sharing
Voters' approval of the People`s Transportation Plan (l7TP) in 2002 was a belhnrether moment for transit
and transportation in Miami-i7ade County. Revenues fn3m the l~If-penny surtax ~nmediately transformed
the use of mass transit by eliminating fares far the Metromaver and crr3atir~ the Golden Passport to fully
subsidize bus and train transport~ian for senior atizens. Over the ensuing years, PTP funds have
resurtaced roads, improved intersections and laid the financial fourtdatian for the ortgoir~ canstrudion of
the first Metrorail expansion in a generation with the oonr~edion between Earlington He~hfs and the Miami
Intermodal Center. In the future, those funds will continue to improve both mass transit arxi roadway travel
for residents and visitors. Aside from the west-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 pauverfial success
story for the rrt~emization of transportation.
One element of the original PTP was the deasion to share revenues with municipalities. On most taxable
sales in Miami-Dade, every $200 of purcthase price generates 80 cents for the County and 20 cents to be
divided among the 31 ~ municdpatities that were operating when the PTP was approved in 2002. Thrss 80-20
split is defined in Ordinance 02-116, whidi txulifi~ the PTP, and is operatiortal'¢ed in 31 separate
interlocat agreements. Ordinance 02116 also provided the right for muruapal'~ties incorporated after
November 5.2002, to negotiate with the Courrty for a pro rata share of the surtax, taWng into consideration
the County funded projects within the applicable muniapality. The Ordinance also provided that any surtax
proceeds distributed to subsequently incorporated municpalities shall not affect the twenty percent shone
provided for those munitdpalities in existence as of November 5, 2002. Since November 5, 2002, Miami
Gardens, Donal, and Cutler Bay incorporated.
During the 2009 legislative session, House Bill 1205 was approved and subsequently signed into taw,
requiring the County to nsnegotiate those interiocal agreements th order to indude muniapalities that were
subsequently created' The three municipalities created since 2002 -Miami Gardens, Donal and Cutler
Bay -are eager to Maim their pro rata share, which totals $5.337 million. It now falls th the Board of County
Commissioners to determine how that funding should be allocated, both raw and going forward.
The consequences of this decision must not be underestimated; in addition to possible legs! 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 tD
sell future debt backed with these funds.
The County Attorney's Office {CAO) has reviewed the k~nguage of the law, the written legislative intent and
the staff analyses that accompanied HB 1205 as it traveteci through the prrn:ess. The counsel received by
~ The Iaw specifically requires that, "Any charter county that has entered into interlocal agreements for distnbution of
proceeds to one or more municipalities in the county shall revise such interlocal agreements no less than every five years in
order to inchide any municipalities that have been created since the prior interlocal agreements were executed."
the administration was that the law c~rrtemptates` funding the newly incorporated. muniapalities from the
same 20 percent rnuniapal share to be divided among the larger number of cr'tt'es that now exist:
Earlier this. year, I considered preparing Board legislation th that eliect. Howar~er, the administration is
keenly aware of the impact this quid have on municipal budgets during- difficult economic times; each
municipality's nvenue from PTP would' be reduced about 13.5 percent Moreover; both'the administrafiion
and the Board have been .consistent. in their desire to work -with ocir muniapalities as partners, rrot
adversaries..
To that end, t asked to meet with representatives of all 34 muniapaiities that would be impeded. That
meeting, hekt Mardi 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 effiaency at Miami-Dade Transit (iUiDTj. Some of the sties ff~at
already have intertocal a~eemerits are adamant that the new atier be funded fnxn the.Courtly's share.
Regardless of,the funding .source, the iheee new, muniapatrties are unwavering in tfieir posfion that they
must receive their pre-rata share of surtax funds Despite the vigor+a~ debate that afternoon, we remained
committed to fi inteliigerrt and creative:sotutions thatsatisfy the new municipalities' tegitiinate claim far
PTP funding wittrout`imposing an unreasonable burden on either the t;ountyor the cities.already receiving
PTP funds.
Controversy over the 8Q-20 split'is not new; it leas been disaassed many times over the Est eight y~ear~s..
The Couniy'sshare is tsy no means limited to the Uninoorporattrd Munidpal Service Area (UMSA) -th the
contrary, it has-been used primarily for the creation and `evolution of an integrated'and et'fieckive regional
system that;equally benefits residents of. UMSA and muniapatities. In :effect, municipal nesiderrts benefit
from bo#h the'80 strar~e and the 20 share, while UMSA residertts would only encounter the resutts of the 20
percent-share whP!e traveling within a muniapality.
Moreover, the County has never hesitated to use funds from. its share to finance road-projects within both
existing and :new muniapa6ties, espe~aily when they contributed "to improved traffic flow on major
corridors. This is consistent witl our vision of using the PTP ba enhance transportatrori in the most effective
ways, regardless of political. lines or parochial considerations.
Understanding. those facts and the concerns`' of our muniapat leaders, we worked with ~ Miami-Dade
League of Cities and the Citi¢ens' tr~ependent Transportation Trust (CITY) to convene a series of informal
~ainstorming 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 stakeho~ers to
parfiapate.
Senior members of the administration participa6ecl direcECy in these meetir~s, ndudir~ Assistant County
Manager Ysela Llort,_who oversees MDT.and other'transportation-departments, and Jennifer Glazer-Moon,..
Special Assistant and Detector of the Office of Strategic Business Management. The meetings. were
facilitated by CCtT Execu6ive Director Charter Scum: Despite my .inclination to protect the regronal transit
system above ail, I directed t#tem fo ,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 addn~s the short term
needs bo do right by Miami Gardens, Ctoral 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-Ices! government addressing the need of a geographicaliy tight area -with our regional
Metrobus service. if we can tweak our routes to minimize duptication with arculators without impacting
service beyond municipal boundaries, we can reduce costs at MDT in a way that will be nearly. invisible to
riders. Coupled with route realignments and administrative cuts that have saved MDT more than $57.5
million over the last two years, these added eitiaencies could identify new savings while enhancng our
service partnerships with munidpal govemmerrts. Early estimates indicate the County could reduce
spending by ap~oximately $908,000, with the potential for more savings if smaller munk:ipaGties band
together to fund and operate circulators.
Another idea addresses the revenue side of the equation rather than the expense side. 13dh the PTP half-
penny surtax and the half-penny sales tax that funds Jackson Heafth Systems have a significant (imitation:
they only apply to the first $5,000 of a transaction. Ff the County and our muniapalities could sucoessfupy
lobby the Florida Legislature to remove that restriction, each of theme funds would receive an additional $12
mtilion. Considering the fact that transportation and health care are iwo of this Board's highest priorities -
indeed, lvva of our k:ommuniiy'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, Dorm and Cutler Bay. At frost
blush, there would appear to be only four solutions to thaf issue. None are attrak~ive:
1. Fund the new muniapalities entirely out of the County's share of the 80-20 split. The negative
implications to our govemmerit, our transit system and our riders would be severe. Additarral
service outs of 1.2 to 1.6 million service miles would be absolutely necessary in order th balance
the budget, bringing the County perilously close #o levels that existed before the PTP was kxeated.
Even more troubling, it would have a dint impact on our bong ability and set a poor precedent
that oauld further degrade our ability to issue debt. Funding new cities from the Countys share
would lower that share beksw 80 percent, kthanging the funding stream that guarantees hundreds of
millions in PTP-banked bonds. A cthange of .25 percent -which is a reasonable guess of the
impac# -would increase the per-year interest cast 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 aril might limit us to five-year bons, substantially adding to issuance costs and
making major capital project fmanang unrealistic. It could alp impact our existir~ debt, which
would suddenly have a degraded fund~g souroe. The administration could never recommend an
option that created sucfi vulnerabilities. Attempting th fund the new sties from County funds outside
the PTP is also problematic, in that those cities might be unable to sell. debt in the abserx;e of a
dedicated funding stream to balk it
2. Fund the new municipalities entirely out of the 20 percent share. Whtie this would have no direct
impact on the County, it would have a notable impact on the PTP revenues granted to existing
municpaGties. In isolated cases, ft could have similar impacts to smaller, muniapal-backed debt
issuances. Moreover, it would Gkefy be seen by muniapal govemnrerds and our shared
«mstituents as an aggressive at~ion, impairing our ability to work together in partnership on
numerous other issues.
3. Fund the new municpalities with some combination of funds from both the 80 percent and 20
percent shares. While this mitigates the seventy of the kthallenges described above, it nonetheless
sets the same precedent and could ha~ne 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 finro-Dent local~ption gas tax, which would
generate $16.7 million. Under the existing distribution formula -which is different than the 80-20 split -
muniapalities would receive $4.3 million and the County would receive $12.4 million. Prior studies suggest
that such gas taxes are not direCtiy responsible for increase prices at the pump - largety because their
repeal rarely leads to price drops -but the notion was stilt ~nsdered a difficult proposition during. such dire
eoonomictimes.
Fortunately, discussions in the wonting group ,and-among .County staff'have yielded an option that, while
still dtfficultt may be more palatable. Known as the hold=harmless plan, the idea is to fund the new sties
witty ifie growth in PTP revenue that is expected in the coming years as tf~;economy recovers.. tf that
growth is not sufficien# in the. early years to fully fund the new muniapalities, the difference would. come
entirely out of-the County's share. After fat point, the current 80-20 spf~ would be r+etair-ed at the new,
higher funding level.
This,presents numerous advantages. New muniapalities would be funded, Wandering rrroot any question of
a costly and time-consuming legal action. Mun'iapaCities, wh~e forgoing sur~c growth in the shod term,.
would rust have funding reductions thatwould contribute to budget gaps. The. importance of that.cannot be
overstated. The impact to the- County -potentially as tugh as $17.5 million over five years, and .tF~nefiore,
not ins~nficant -would be 'limited to a finite amoant arui 6me period, whidi should prevent any negative-
etlecf on our existing bond agresrrients'or.abitity to sett future debt
While a few vocal municipal leaders'have expressed complete opposition to this idea -insisting that the
only acceptable solution ~s-to fund new munic~aa[it~s entirely from-:the. Couritjr's share - we be#ieve tt~e
majority of cities consider the abov+e'option a fair and honorable compromise that addresses everyone's
needs within today's difficult budge# sihaatiorts. We believe :that few muniapalities develop budgets that
predict growth in F'TP funds, so they wou~ be content to contrue receiving the~same funding level. The
.administration aisso expressed its:,. willingness to discuss lowering the cities' maintenance=a~f~effott
ri~uirements. While this would not add new doltats to the ledger, it would albw.aties to; reprogram some
existing nonfiTP transportation funding for other tradly-needed senricss; in that Wray; it was a show of good
faith by the Courrty toward the broader-goal of finding a solution that met every party's global goals:
For some municipalities, that MC?E,has become increasingly onerous; their budgets have become`tigtrter
with the dedinin+g tax,base, and their transit and transportation needs have abated as early years of PTP
fundiru~ apowed them to address capital needs.. Allowing; munic%paiities to continue rti~eiving PTP funding
with less matching funding wou~ not free up money for the new municipalities; but would make it easier fior
exsting ones to manage theirbngoing operations:
The holdfiarmtess soluti~r is likely to emerge as the only one that has reasonable consensus Bath within
Countygovemment and among our partners. l would be profess'sonally remiss, however, if l did not raise
ors final `altematnre that this Board must consider, despite the fiad that tt is not our reoommec~led course:of
action.
ft is within :the Board's: power to reduce the 20 percent muniap~al share effective upon tl~ expiration of the
existing irrterlocal agreements in 2012. For some cities, the purpose: originally. served. by the share has
long since been addressed. At some' point, those sties wilt reach - or pefiaps have already- reached - a
-state of diminishing returns in whitth there are no more major roads tb be resurfaced, no more bus shelters
to be built, no more traffic ardes to be installed. The Countywauld r?eceive an additional $34,279 million in
PTP revenue. in order in honor the. legal obligations of the cities that sold debt based upon PTP`
agreements; the County could assume $227 million in muniapal debt with an annual debt~enrioe payment
of $19.948 million. The net,taenefit to the Courrty would tae $15.1,31. million.
Certainly this would be seen as hostile to municipal governments, regardless of whether it better serves the
regianat transit. system. and the broader Miami-Dade community.
in summary,. the question of how th fund Miami-Dade's three newest municipalities is a diffuxatt conundrum
that has been too tong delayed. Whenever a new fundir~ obligation is imposed upon a finite funding
source, there will be impacts. I have directed staff to pn:pare legislation for the Board's consideraation that
embraces the hold-harmless model discussed in our dozens of hours of mee6r~gs with muniapaf staff.
Nonetheless. I wanted the Board to be aware of the numerous short and kxxi-term alternatives that exist,
and t look forward to nng your input arxi direction as we move fonnrard.
If you have any questions, please contact me directly.
c: Honorable Carts Aivanaz, Mayor
Roi~rt A. Cuevas, Jr., County Attorney
Ysela Mort, Assistant County Manager
Jennifer Glazer-Moon, 5pedal Assistant arut [rector, OfFrce of Strategic Business Management
Harpai Kapoor. Direaor, Miami-Dade Transit
Charles Scum, Execx~tive Director, Citizens' Independent Transportation Trust
Ryan EI6ot, Budget Manager, QSBM
Charles Anderson, Commission Audifior
Richard Kuper, Executive Director, Miami-DDade League of Cities
~LY~~~ xg~ ~~X~Y~ ~.~.>a'xtl~r~x
' 4¢G,KY OF,)rl
F ~r
CARLOS A...MIGOYA * ~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ ,,
_ CITY MANAGER ,p ~~ ~~ ~.
. t O i( ~O
. July 29, 2010 •
- . ~ . Honorable Chairperson Linda Zilber
• Citizens' Independent Transportation Trust
`. ~ ~ Miami-Dade County Stephen P. Clark Center
• ; 111 NW ls( Street, Suite 1010
- ~. ' ~ Miami, FL 33128-1994
P.O. BOX 330708
MIAMI, FlORIOA 33233-0708
(30S) 250-5400
FAX (3 061 250-6 410
R)r: •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 funding 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 Community Outreach
and IVlunicipal Coordination Committee meetings.
The City recognizes that the three new municipalities are entitled to the Surtax proceeds.
However, the enabling Ordinance clearly establishes the process for distribution of the
Siu~tax 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 have the "right to negotiate with the County for a pro rata share of the sales surtax....
The preceding sentence shall not affect the twenty (20) percent share provided herein for
municipalities existing on November 5, 2002:" •
The resolution is recommending the Hold Harmless option. The•economic impact to the
City for next five years could be approximately $1,804,490 or $360,898 pen year. This
amount is an actual funding loss to the City.
Numerous City conunitments to constituents will be severely impacted by any future loss
of the growth in Surtax receipts. The City has currently allocated Surtax proceeds io
approximately 40 transportation projects consisting of street reconsfruction and
resurfacing and traffic calming improvements. In addition, the proposed trolley projects
are pivotal in the City's efforts to provide public transit as a viable transportation option
in some of the most dense and heavily congested areas in~ both the City and County.
• .: " • • :County Transit System Surtax Ordinance Amendment
July 29, 2010
• : ~ .- Page 2
• The passage of the resolution will also have negative implications for the City's future
ability to pledge the Surtax proceeds in bonds. ~ -
• Please do not hesitate to contact me on this item or have the appropriate staff contact
- Johnny Martinez, Assistant City Manager at (305) 416-1025 ; "
.. , . Since~~T}~, ~ ~ ~ .
• ~- .. .
- ~ Cazlos. A. Migoya ~ ~ ,
• City Manager; City of Miami
. c: Hon. Dennis C. Moss, Chairman,. BCC
. ~ Hon.lVIayor Carlos Alvarez
George M. Burgess, County Manager ~. .
' .Hon. Linda Zilber, CITT Chairperson
. ~ Charles D. Scurr, CI"TT Executive Director
Johnny Martinez, P.E.; City Assistant City Manager
Alice Bravo, P.E., City CIP Director
•.. . ,
• .
~Il~IO RffhBl21A
Mayor
C:aA'la9 HernaQdez
Crum«'1 Prasident
y~~i of 91q~~~`
+~= .~,
'~C~$?OA4~`~0
Co~mait Vioc Pmsident
JaseY~ra ~it~ of Hialeah
July 29, 2010
Honorable Linda Zilber, Chairperson, and Members
Citizens' Fndependent Transportation Trust (CITY)
Stephen P. Clark Building
111 N,W. 1st Stmt, Suite 1010
Miami, Florida. 33128
Re: People's Transportation Flan Municipal Revenue 5~tarring
Dear Committee Members:
Council Memt~rs
Jose F. Caragal
Vivian Casa15-MUnaz
Katharine E. Cue
Isis Garcia-Martinez
Luis Gonzalez
The City of Carat Gables and the City of Hialeah write jointly to respond to
Miami-Dade County (MDC or the County) 11~ianager George Burgess's July 19,
2010 memorandum, recommending that the Board of County Commissioners
(BCC) appmve the cleverly coined hold-harmless plan. ~1s the CITT 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
memorandum misrepresents the municipalities' positions, ignores MDC's
commitment 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 fiend the new cities, none of
the existing cities backed the hold-harmless plan. While 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.
Raul L. Martinez Government Canter
501 Falm Avenue, Hialeah, Florida • 33010-4719
www.hialeahfl.gc}v
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 02-116.
In June 2002, then•County Mayor Alex Penelas announced his intention to place
the County's "People's Transportation Plan" (P'TP), which called far 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 laic and other municipal
mayors' assistance. Importantly, Mayor Penelas, not the municipal leaders,
proposed the 209/o share to the existing cities to induce the cities to help the
County.
On July 8, 20x2, 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 impoztance to the
municipal leaders was a guarantee from MDC that the 20% share to the existing
cifies 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 thane
negotiations would not affect the existing cities' share. These events leave na
doubt that it was the intent of MDC to limit the 20% share to existing cities and to
fund any fixture 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.
Since then, M1~C has reaped substantial rewards from surtax revenue--aver $800
million. But for the cities' cooperation, these monies would have remained
unavailable to NIDC. 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 na.erely because cVIDC is going back on its word. Rather, the
Cities of Coral Gables and Hialeah cannot accept the hold haruitess 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 citiesj 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, Ivlr. Burgess ignores that all new cities stem from MDC's unincorporated
areas {its population centerj. ~4ccordingly, an increasing amount of cities would be
forced to share from a smaller pool, while M]DC 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 overcooked.
Indeed, MI?C 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. liver ~e last seven years, however, the County has
continually violated the ordinance when it failed to fiord the new cities (Miami
Gardens, i3oral and later Cutler Bay) after repeated requests. No doubt exists that
these cities should have received funtdzng years ago. The existing cities, however,
should not be forced to pay far the County's failure to act in goad-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.
Mr. 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
a~cguabcy correct, this concept was considered when the 80-24% split was decided
Indeed, it is, in part, for Chits reason that MDC collects the lion's share of surtax
revenues although approximately 54% of its residents live within a municipality.
Mr. Burgess also implies that the existing cities na longer need surtax revenues
because the original purposes served by their share have already been addressed.
I3e ignores that the municipalities rely on these fiands and falsely assumes that they
never intend tc> implement any fi~rther unprovements.
We recognize that iVIDC, 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 84°!o share of the surtax. If internal inefficiencies render this.
amount insuffscient,lVIDC 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. piaa, the BCC need only wait two
years {for the c?urrent 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 an the day on which
the Florida municipal Attorneys Association meeting was scheduled, rendering it
impossible far our city attorneys to attend.
Thank you for your consideration.
Very urs,
cc: Board of County Commissioners
THE CITY OF CC?RAL GABLES
~.
ELl2ABETH M. HERNANDE2
crrr axroepsT
eoARflcttRT~r~ee clTr, couNTr '['ltCit~Hwlalk~rti
AND LOCAL 60V8RNMeNT LIIVtYIlR
BHRRNANOQt~CORALOAOL68.COM
i
LOURDES ALFON8IN RUIZ
` AB818TANT WTY ATTORNCY
LAL-ONOIN~60M{,oAOL66.COM
t
zILMa osLE
ZOOLS®OOAALOABLSa.cor
SUSAN FRANgW
e~mwNQUi~CORwwAOLas.coN
July 29, 2010
Honorable Linda Zilber, Chairperson, and Members
Citizens' Independent Transportation Trust (CITY'}
Stephen P. Clark $uilding
111 N. W. 1st Street, Suite 10I 0
Miami, Florida 33128
Ite: People's T3ransportatio,r~ Plan 1t~unicipal Revenue Sharing
Dear Committee Members:
OFFICE of THE CITY ATTORNEY
CITY HALL 408 BILTMORE WAY
CORAL QABLEB, FLORIDA 95194
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 Boazd of County Commissioners
(BCC} approve the cleverly coined hold-harmless plan. As the CTIT is awaze, the
hold-hazrnless 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
memorandum misrepresents the municipalities' positions, ignores MDC's
commitment to the existing municipalities, and glosses over the impact the plan
would have an the cities.
P.O. BOX 141549 CORAL 6ABLEB, FLORIDA 89134-lS49 (30S) 480-8219
To start, Mr. Burgess erroneously reports chat 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 new cities, none of
the existing cities backed the hold-harmless plan. While 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. In order to properly grasp the
significance of that agreement, we find it necessary to remind everyone of the
events surrounding the enactment of Chdinance 42-116.
In June 2442, then-County Mayor Alex Penelas annauneed. his intention to place
the County's "People's Transportation Plan" (PTP), which called far shelf--penny
sales tax. increase, on the November 2402 ballot. NIDC voters had voted
unequivocally against similar tau 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-ITialeah Mayor, Raul Martinez, to secure his and other municipal
mayors' assistance. Importantly, Mayor Penelas, net the municipal leaders,
proposed the 20% share to the existing cities to induce the cities to help the
County.
4n July $, 2442, 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. Qf utmost importance to the
municipal leaders was a guarantee from MDC that the 24% 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, 2042, the BCC passed. and
adopted {hdinance No. 02-116, which expressly provides that 24% 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 net 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°/a share.
Over the next four months, the municipalities performed their part of the bargain -
they promoted the FTF, they informed their residents that the tax revenues would
benefit them directly, and they encouraged the voters to approve the tax increase.
As a d"~rect result, the half-penny surtax passed with overwhelming voter support.
Since then, MDC has reaped substantial rewards froze, 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 purpartedly.any additional future new cities) in the 20'/0
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, Dural. 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.
Mr. 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 MI7C 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.
~Ve 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 far an 80% share of the surtax. If internal inel~'iciencies render this
amount insufficient, MDC 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 want two
years {for the current interlocal agreements to expire) to amend the ordinance to
reduce the 20% share. Strang-aiming the cities to agree to the hold-harmless plan
will not work.
Despite this threat, the cities cannot agree to the hold-harmless plan, Fur~er, we
will not wait two years so that MDC unilaterally resolves this dilemma in its favor.
6Ve are not suggesting that we are on the verge of litigation, but we are asking that
the CIT'T 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 tame 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.consideraxion.
Sincerely;,
3
cc Board of County Comnussioners ,
' n
,
MATTI H. BOWER
MAYOR
August 19, 2010
CITY OF MIAM1 BEACH
1700 CONVENTION-CENTER DRIVE
MIAMI BEACH, FkORIOA 33;1 39
Honorable Carlos-Alvarez, Mayor
Miami-Dade County
Stephen P. Clark Building
111 N.VI(. 15"Street
Miami, Florida 33128
Re: People's Transportation Pian Municipal Revenue Sharing
Dear Committee Members`
The City of Miami :Beach joins with the cities: of Coral 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 2009-101evel for an
undefined. period of time (the so-called "hold-ham~less" plan}.
The City of Miami Beach is in- full agreement with 'the history. artd legislative intent
explained by Mayors Robaina and: Slesnick in heir July 29, 20'! 0 letters to C1TT Chair
2ilber {attached for-your reference), rennnding all involved .of the commitments .made to
th"e municipalities by .Miami-Dade in exchange for municipal support of the People's
Transportation -Plan (PTP) :and half=penny- tax increase.. VUe feel strongly that without the
partnership with the .cities, the half=penny sates tax,. and 'the PTP would; not.. exist.
Certainly, `ihe election results from precincts in 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
thee-funding source in the first place.
More specifically (and: as recorded in the County Commission's meeting minutes), an
July 9, 2002, the Board of County Commissioners adopted Ordinance 02-116 which
codified the PTP anti defined the 20% municipal share with "full disclosure and
discussion of the' proposed language:
"Discussion ensued regarding Commissioner Ferguson's concern relating
to the exclusion of future. rnunicipaiities from the surtax proceeds.
.Commissioner Cancio requested assurances that future. cities would
receive a portion of the surtax revenues. FoAowing 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 far a pro rata share of the sales surtax, taking into consideration
the neighborhood and municipal projects identified- in Exhibit t [to the
resolution], as amended, within the boundaries of the- new municipalities.
The. preceding sentence shall not affect the twenty percent share
provided herein .for municipalities existfng on November 5, 2Q02."
The legislative intent of the 20°lo municipal share, and the intent of the BCC that new
municipalities be funded from the $0°I° 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, 2010 (also attached for your reference), which
requires clamcation.
• While the three new municipalities may be "unwavering in their position that they
must receive 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 $0%, 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 backed by PTP revenues
and government's ability to sell future debt backed with These bands," the same
July 9, 2002 meeting minutes reflect that in response to a question 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 "fair 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 sties of Miami,
Hia{eah, Coral Gables, and now, Miami Beach. As you. know, these four cities
alone represent 56°10 of the incorporated area of the county (31 % of the county's
entire population), and many constituents that are heavy users of public
transportation. to conjunction with many other municipalities that have been
actively expanding their infrastructure and transportation services, l believe that a
proposal that in the long term would result in a re-distribution of the 20°l0, would
be a detriment to mast 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, let alone support.
• Perhaps as disturbing, the County Manager's memo proceeds with a thinly veiled
threat of pefiaps merely waiting until the current interiocal agreements expire in
two years for unilateral county action. This approach should be of serious
concern to all parties involved in this matter. The real #hreat 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 benefit #o 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 crea#ed in the future, assuming incorporations
begin again in Miami-Dade County.
Currently funded municipalities have consistently supported the new municipalities in
their efforts to access PTP fiunds, as was provided for in the fegistation that made this
tax possible.
On behalf of the City of Miami Beach, !urge you to reconsider this new approach and
reject the County Manager's proposal, and direc# him to fund the new cities from the
County's portion, as originally approved and intended. Please, do not allow the 20%
municipal share to become another of the broken PTP promises.
Please do not hesitate to contact me at 305-673-7030 if you would like to discuss this
matter further.
Sincerely,
Matti Herrera Bower
Mayor
c: Honorable Miami Beach City Commissioners
Honorable Board of County Commissioners
Honorable Chairperson and Members, CITT
Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager
Jose Smith, City Attorney
Executive Staff, City of Miami Beach
Cities of Miami, Hialeah, and Coral Gables
Miami-Dade League of Cities