The URL can be used to link to this page

99-23263 RESO RESOLUTION NO. 99-23263 A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, APPROVING, IN PRINCIPLE, THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH/MIAMI BEACH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CAPIT AL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 1999-2004; APPROVING, IN PRINCIPLE, CERTAIN PROJECTS WITHIN SAID PROGRAM FOR INCLUSION IN A PROPOSED GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND OFFERING; AUTHORIZING THE ADMINISTRATION TO CONDUCT PUBLIC MEETINGS AND SEEK INPUT FROM THE COMMUNITY; AUTHORIZE THE ADMINISTRATION TO PREPARE A BALLOT QUESTION FOR THE NOVEMBER 2, 1999 ELECTION REGARDING WHETHER THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH SHOULD BE AUTHORIZED TO ISSUE GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS PAYABLE FROM AD VALOREM TAXES FOR SAID PROJECTS; AND AUTHORIZING THE ADMINISTRATION TO ENGAGE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FIRM TO ASSIST THE CITY WITH A PUBLIC INFORMATION PROGRAM INCLUDING SURVEYS AND POLLS REGARDING THE ABOVE WITH FUNDING FOR SAME TO COME FROM UNALLOCATED BOND FUND 351. WHEREAS, the Administration has developed a Capital Improvement Program 1999-2004 (Program) for the City of Miami Beach and the Miami Beach Redevelopment Agency (RDA), which is a six (6) year plan of public improvements and capital expenditures by the City/RDA and is intended to serve as an official statement of policy regarding long range physical development in the City of Miami Beach; and WHEREAS, the development of the Program is a complex undertaking encompassing broad fiscal commitments and physical planning, and the Administration has requested that the Finance and Citywide Projects Committee provide guidance and recommendations relative to the selected Projects; priority for completion; and funding levels for each of the Program areas; and WHEREAS, at a special meeting of the Finance and Citywide Projects Committee on April 6, 1999 to review the Program, the Committee recommended the Program, and further recommended that community workshops be held to obtain public input on the Program and on proposed bond issues relative to the implementation of same; and WHEREAS, on May 26, 1999, the City Administration presented a resolution requesting that the City CommissionlRDA adopt the 1999-2004 Program and authorize the Administration to take all necessary actions to prepare a ballot question for the November election regarding the proposed General Obligation ("G. 0.") Bond program; and WHEREAS, the City Commission did not approve the proposed resolution. Instead, the City Commission requested the Administration to further review the list of projects and explore a lower dollar figure for the proposed bond, the City Commission also requested that the projects be discussed with the Mayor and City Commissioner individually prior to seeking public input and comments at a public workshop; and WHEREAS, on July 14, 1999, the City Commission conducted a Workshop on the Program and the proposed G.O. Bond. In accordance with the Commission's concerns, the proposed bond issue has been reduced from the $88 million presented in May, 1999 to $65.2 million discussed at the July, 1999 Workshop. The emphasis of the proposed bond issue is in Public Safety ($13.3 million), Neighborhood and Park Enhancements ($34.6 million) and Public Facilities Rehabilitation and Replacement ($17.3 million) for a total of approximately $65.2 million. WHEREAS, the projects in the Program are funded by various sources which include the proposed General Obligation Bond, the Water, Sewer and Stormwater Bonds, Parking and other various Bonds; and WHEREAS, the issuance of a General Obligation Bond requires that a referendum be held; and WHEREAS, the outcome of the July 14, 1999 Workshop, the City Commission/RDA agreed to receive further community input on the Program and the proposed G.O. Bond, thereby instructing the Administration to conduct public meetings and prepare ballot language for consideration at the September 8, 1999 Commission meeting, including the authorization to engage a firm to assist with the preparation and implementation of a public information program which may include marketing, polling and community meetings/ workshops; and WHEREAS, funding for a firm to conduct a public information program is available from unallocated Capital Projects Fund 351. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT DULY RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, the Mayor and City Commission of the City of Miami Beach, Florida, hereby approve, in principle, the City of Miami BeachlMiami Beach Redevelopment Agency Capital Improvement Program 1999-2004; approve, in principle, certain projects within said program for inclusion in a Proposed General Obligation Bond offering; authorize the Administration to conduct public meetings and seek input from the community; authorize the Administration to prepare a ballot question for the November 2, 1999 election regarding whether the City of Miami Beach should be authorized to issue General Obligation Bonds payable from ad valorem taxes for said projects; and authorizing the Administration to engage a professional services firm to assist the city with a public information program including surveys and polls regarding the above with funding for same from Capital Projects Bond Fund 351. PASSED and ADOPTED this 21st day of July, 1999 ATTEST i~~ fAA~ ITY CLERK ~~ MAYOR APPROVED /ItS TO FORM & LANGUAGE & FOR EXECUTION Ad/./(f~ Aitomey ~o; DatI CITY OF MIAMI BEACH CITY HALL 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33139 http:\\cLmiami-beach.f1.us COMMISSION MEMORANDUM NO. 57 .3-Cf1 TO: Mayor Neisen O. Kasdin and Members of the City Commission Sergio Rodriguez ~ City Manager DATE: July 21,1999 FROM: SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, APPROVING IN PRINCIPLE THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH/MIAMI BEACH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 1999-2004; APPROVING IN PRINCIPLE CERTAIN PROJECTS WITHIN SAID PROGRAM FOR INCLUSION IN A PROPOSED GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND OFFERING; AUTHORIZING THE ADMINISTRATION TO CONDUCT PUBLIC MEETINGS AND SEEK INPUT FROM THE COMMUNITY; AUTHORIZE THE ADMINISTRATION TO PREPARE A BALLOT LANGUAGE FOR THE NOVEMBER 2, 1999 ELECTION REGARDING WHETHER THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH SHOULD BE AUTHORIZED TO ISSUE GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS PAYABLE FROM AD VALOREM TAXES FOR SAID PROJECTS; AND AUTHORIZING THE ADMINISTRATION TO ENGAGE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FIRM TO ASSIST THE CITY WITH A PUBLIC INFORMATION PROGRAM INCLUDING SURVEYS AND POLLS REGARDING THE ABOVE; FUNDING FROM UNALLOCATED BOND FUND 351. ADMINISTRA TION RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Resolution. BACKGROUND: The Administration has developed a Capital Improvement Program 1999-2004 ("the Program") for the City of Miami Beach and the Miami Beach Redevelopment Agency (RDA). The Program is a six-year plan of public improvements and capital expenditures by the City/RDA and is intended to serve as an official statement of public policy regarding long-range physical development in the City of Miami Beach. A capital improvement is defined as a capital expenditure of $25,000 or more resulting in the acquisition, improvement, or addition to fixed assets in the form ofland, buildings, or improvements and heavy equipment with an expected life of at least five years. Heavy equipment includes items such as busses, fire apparatus, heavy construction equipment (backhoes, bucket trucks, etc.), and sanitation trucks. The Program initially includes only fire apparatus in the equipment category. Other heavy equipment will be added to the Program at a later date. The development of a comprehensive Capital Program is a complex undertaking encompassing broad fiscal commitments and physical planning. As such, thP ~imm~e and Citywide Projects 357 Agenda Item ~16 T"<_L_ 1-21-qg The development of a comprehensive Capital Program is a complex undertaking encompassing broad fiscal commitments and physical planning. As such, the Finance and Citywide Projects Committee provided guidance and recommendations relative to the projects, the priority for completion, and funding levels for each of the Program Areas in May of 1998. A special meeting of the Finance and Citywide Projects Committee was held on April 6, 1999 to review the proposed City of Miami Beach Capital Improvement Program, 1999-2004. At the meeting, the process used to develop the program was discussed and the steps to complete the process were explained. A presentation was made which included a brief discussion of the projects within each program area and funding level. The changes that had been incorporated based on the previous comments of the Commission from May of 1998 were also discussed. Various Department Directors and other City staff were available to present overviews of specific projects and respond to the Committee's questions. The Committee gave specific direction for changes as follows: - Move forward and resolve the litigation concerning the 10th Street Garage. Advise the Commission on the outcome ofthe PubliclPrivate Project. Try to increase the size of the 46th Street surface lot by 25-30 spaces. - Include the cost of replacement of fire apparatus to be included in the Proposed General Obligation Bond. Review proposed costs for the Fire Administration project in light of the current relocation plan. - Consider including approximately $11 million of projects in the proposed General Obligation Bond package to complete the parks master plan. Consider the Golf Course funding alternatives. Consider establishing an endowment or an impact fee for parks maintenance. - Consider the expansion of City Hall for flexibility and future growth. - There was concern expressed by the Committee in regard to the current staffing and workload in Public Works and how the magnitude of proposed projects would impact this organization. The Manager indicated that he was working directly with this Department to enhance their staffing. Commissioner Cruz indicated that they should consider hiring temporary contract employees. Commissioner Liebman asked that the area between 5th Street and 6th Street in the South Pointe RDA be given particular attention. The Committee recommended the Program and referred it to the full Commission for approval. It was also recommended that a community workshop be held (after City Commission approval) to obtain public input on the program and on the proposed General Obligation and other Bonds. On May 26, 1999, the City Administration presented a resolution requesting the City Commission adopt the CIP 1999-2004 and authorize the Administration to take all necessary action to prepare 358 a ballot question for the November election regarding the proposed GO Bond program. The City Commission did not approve the proposed resolution. Instead, the City Commission requested the Administration further review the list ofprojects and explore a lower dollar figure for the proposed bond. The Commission also requested that the proj ects be discussed with the Mayor and City Commissioner individually prior to seeking public input and comments at a public workshop. ANALYSIS: On July 14, 1999, the City Commission conduced a Workshop on the CIP and the proposed G.O. Bond. In accordance with the Commission's concerns, the proposed bond issue has been reduced from the $88 million presented in May to $65.2 million discussed at the July Workshop. The emphasis of the proposed bond issue is in Public Safety $13.3 million, Neighborhood and Park Enhancements $34.6 and Public Facilities Rehabilitation and Replacement $17.3 for a total of approximately $65.2 million as follows: PROPOSED G.O. BOND From Other Total Project G.O. Bond Funds PUBLIC SAFETY - Fire Apparatus 2,700,000 2,700,000 - Fire Station #2 5,180,625 4,686,449 494,176 - Fire Station #4 2,475,525 1,925,525 550,000 - Security Lighting and Fencing at City Parks 3,815,000 3,815,000 - Police Department Repairs 125,000 125,000 14,296,150 13,251,974 1,044,176 PARK AND NEIGHBORHOOD ENHANCEMENTS - Neighborhood Enhancements 21,988,500 19,761,250 2,227,250 - Island Enhancements 23,766,120 6,471,150 17,294,970 - Park and Beaches 14,802,191 8,375,823 6,426,368 60,556,811 34,608,223 25,948,588 PUBLIC FACILITIES REHABILITATION & REPLACEMENT - Citywide ADA Renovations 1,000,000 1,000,000 - Property Management Yard 2,070,000 2,070,000 - Roof Repair Plan 875,500 875,500 - Convention Center City Hall Parking and Ancillary 9,697,600 9,697,600 Office - Public Works Yard 3,079,200 3,079,200 - Parks Maintenance Yard 960,650 600,236 360,414 17,682,950 17,322,536 360,414 TOTAL 92,535,911 65,182,733 27,353,178 359 The projects which will be funded from the proposed General Obligation Bond are attached. It is projected, based on current projected property values, that the debt service millage would be reduced from the current millage of 1.484 to approximately 1.11 during the first year after issuance of this bond. This equates to an annual reduction of$65.00 on an average home of $200,000. The attached CIP Summary incorporates the recommendations made by the Finance and Citywide Committee. CIP Summary Partially Project Costs Funded (1) Funded Unfunded Completed Total Program Parking 61,742,803 20,637,788 12,421,440 10,932,474 17,751,101 Public Safety 14,864,106 14,864,106 Parks & Recreation 56,242,257 53,135,973 2,206,284 900,000 Public Facilities 155,659,504 76,426,529 15,955,250 63,277,725 Transportation 31,667,107 20,844,609 10,822,498 Public Works 314,931,365 231 ,848,749 (2) 1 ,797,350 35,637,175 45,648,091 Information Technology 9,624,191 9,624,191 644,731,333 427,381,945 (2) 25,041,288 64,731,183 127,576,917 66.3% 3.9% 10.0% 19.8% Partially Funded Projects Parking 12,421,440 8,358,480 4,062,960 Transportation 10,822,498 1,962,498 8,860,000 Public Works 1 ,797,350 442,050 1,355,300 25,041,288 10,763,028 14,278,260 43.0% 57.0% Grand Totals 644,731,333 565,721,890 79,009,443 87.7% 12.3% (1) Includes projects with actual or proposed funding sources. (2) Includes $24,086,756 of totally funded FDOT projects. The projects in the Program are funded by various sources which include the proposed General Obligation Bond for the Water, Sewer and Stormwater Bonds, Parking and other various Bonds. 360 CONCULSION: The issuance of a General Obligation Bond requires that a referendum be held. At the outcome of the July 14, 1999 Workshop, the City Commission agreed to receive further community input on the CIP and the proposed G.O. Bond, thereby instructing the Administration to conduct public meetings and prepare ballot language for the consideration at the September 8, 1999, including the Administration will request authorization to engage a firm to assist with the preparation and implementation of a public information program which may include marketing, polling and community meetings/ workshops. A summary of the Capital Improvement Program by program area and category and a list of projects by each proposed funding source are included. S ~IPDW/OdP F~~i:rUUlcnPD 361 .c~;I;.Jj,> T ..:z Asset Allocation Study and Recommendation- Dorn, Helliesen & Cottle, Inc. conducted an asset and liability analysis for the City of Miami Beach General Employees' Retirement System in June, 1996. This study evaluated the System's CUIrent asset mix and alternative asset mixes relative to the System's liabilities. We believe asset allocation is the most important investment decision made by an institutional investor. Research suppons this opinion. Academic studies have found that asset allocation accounted for about 91 % of the variance in quarterly returns for a typical pension plan 1. - Asset allocation is effective if it provides an asset mix which generates reasonable returns for the Retirement System. while at the same time guards against significant increases in liabilities, especially those that are unmatched by increases in assets. Our asset allocation model incorporates plan liabilities to provide the lowest possible total plan risk (variation of the difference between assets and liabilities) for a given level ofieturn. The projected liabilities used in this study were provided by the Retirement System's actuary, Gabriel, Roeder, Smith and Company. The outcome of our analysis of alternative asset mixes and liabilities is an "efficient frontier" of asset mixes, a set of asset mixes which provide the highest expected return for a given level of funding uncenainty. These mixes range from a low-return, low- uncenainty mix, to a high-return, high-uncenainty mix. We examined the Retirement System's cwrcnt asset mix, and current target mix to infer potential trade-offs in return and uncertainty for alternative asset mixes. The expected cost of implementing a new asset mix was also considered relative to the expected benefit of the mix. The current target has an expected return lower than the actuarial-assumed interest rate. or "hurdle rate" of 8.5%. We recommend adopting the Proposed Asset Mix as the new target asset mix. The Proposed Mix has an expected return of 8.8%. which provides a cushion between the assets' expected return and the System's actuarial interest rate. The Proposed Mix has a 40% allocation to domestic bonds and 60% to domestic common stocks. When simplified into an equity vs. bond allocation. the Proposed Mix is still reasonably conservative. In conclusion, we recommend the adoption of the Proposed Asset Mix which will provide a slightly higher expected return than the System's actuarial interest rate assumption. while not significantly increasing its expected level of risk. In addition, the Proposed Asset Mix is expected to make the Retirement System more financially sound over the long term. I Please see "Determinants ofPonfolio Performance II: An Update." Gary P. Brinson. Brian D. Singer and Gilben L. Beebower. Financial Analysts Journal. May/June 1991. This article is an update of Gary P. Brinson. L. Randolph Hood. and Gilbert L. Beebower. "Determinants of POnfolio Performance," Financial Analysts Journal. July/August 1986. 365 ~.. .:.:..:"'?' F.S.1~ duciary funds in I:: 1 Administrator.-B::lnlt. inies, buiiding and ioa;; .- mpanies, and guardians or currently in receipt Ol > Department of Veterans funds alone, may: j advances of credit, aJld representing loans and ;ured by the Federal Hous- 1 such insurance; cured by real property or i Housing Administrator nent to insure, and obtain 1936 Supp. 7100(1); s. 1. CII. 17980. .268. iduciary funds in bonds, sing Administrator.- <s, trust companies, build. S, insurance companies, ceived from or currently in i1ited States Department of nt of those funds alone, the visions, all institutions and approval of the officials or or management of same, moneys in their custody or estment, in notes or bonds st deed insured by the Fed. ., in debentures issued by inistrator, and in securities .e associations. debentures, and securities 't may be used wherever, by al is required as security for her funds; or deposits are lny public official or depart. of capital or surplus, or a luired to be maintained con. .ities. iL 1936 Supp. 7100(2); s. 2, ch. 17980. 13.268. laws requiring security, etc. 19 security upon which loans ade, prescribing the nature, .curity, prescribing or limiting s or investments, limiting ~posits, or prescribing or Iirn- Jans or investments may be :0 apply to loans or invesl. s. 518.06 and 518.07. _ 1936 Supp. 7100(3). Js legal investments. ~nd all public officers, mumc~pal 1ivisions, and public bodies, .mpanies, savings banks and loan associations, savings }stment companies, all insur' .ce associations, and other urance business, and gua~ d from or currently in receipt F.S.1997 --- 12)(,#;<13/7 JL. INVESTMENT OF FIDUCIARY FUNDS ,Jf funds frorn the United States Department of Veter- 3nS Affairs to tt~ :~:::: ~ .::-I':'~~ :u.-.~.; a:vi'n:; .-lIay egally invest any sinking funds, moneys, or other funds ~elonging to them or within their control in any bonds or ;ther obligations issued by a housing authority pursu- "nllO the Housing Authorities Law of this state (chapter .m), or issued by any public housing authority or agency in the United States, when such bonds or other 2bligations are secured by a pledge of annual contribu- .Ions 10 be paid by the United States Government or ~ny agency thereof, and such bonds and other obliga- :Ions shall be authorized security for all public deposits; t being the purpose of this section to authorize any per- ;on, associations, political subdivisions, bodies, and officers, public or private, to use any funds owned or ;onlrolled by them, including, but not limited to, sinking, n5urance, investment, retirement, compensation, pen- ;Ion, and trust funds, and funds held on deposit, for the ourchase of any bonds or other obligations; provided, ,owever, that nothing contained in this section shall be ;onslrued as relieving any person from any duty of exercising reasonable care in selecting securities. HisIOry.-ss. 1,2. 3, CII. 19512, 1939; CGll940 Supp. 7100(3-I1n); $. 4, CII. ~'54. 1953; s. 27. ch. 93-268. 518.10 Fiduciary defined as used in ss. 518.11- 518.14.-Forthe purpose of ss. 518.11-518.14, a "fidl,l- ;iary" is defined as an executor, administrator, trustee, guardian (except any guardian holding funds received !rom or currently in receipt of funds from the United Slales Department of Veterans Affairs, to the extent of !hose funds alone), or other person, whether individual or corporate, who by reason of a written agreement, ovill, court order, or other instrument has the responsi- bility for the acquisition, investment, reinvestment, exchange, retention, sale, or management of money or property of another. Hislory.-s. 5, ell. 28154, 1953; s. 28. ell. 93-268. 518.11 Investments by fiduciaries; prudent inves- lor rule.- (1) A fiduciary has a duty to invest and manage Investment assets as follows: (a) The fiduciary has a duty to invest and manage Investment assets as a prudent investor would consid- ering the purposes, terms, distribution requirements, and other circumstances of the trust. This standard requires the exercise of reasonable care and caution and is to be applied to investments not in isolation, but In Ihe context of the investment portfolio as a whole and as a part of an overall investment strategy that should Incorporate risk and return objectives reasonably suit- able to the trust, guardianship, or probate estate. If the fidUCiary has special skills, or is named fiduciary on the baSIS of representations of special skills or expertise, the fiduciary is under a duty to use those skills. (b) No specific investment or course of action is, taken alone, prudent or imprudent. The fiduciary may Inv~st in every kind of property and type of investment, Subject to this section. The fiduciary's investment deci- Sions and actions are to be judged in terms of the fidu- cla~'.s reasonable business judgment regarding the anticipated effect on the investment portfolio as a whole under the faCts and circumstances prevailing at Ch.518 the time of the decision or action. The prudent investor I ui", i~ a lesi oi conduct and not of resulting perform- ance. (c) The fiduciary has a duty to civersify the invest- ments unless, under the circumstances, the fiduciary believes reasonably it is in the interests of the benefi- ciaries and furthers the purposes of the trust, guardian- ship, or estate not to diversify. (d) The fiduciary has a duty, within a reasonable time after acceptance of the trust, estate, or guardian- ship, to review the investment portfOlio and to make and implement decisions concerning the retention and disposition of original preexisting investments in order to conform to the provisions of this section. The fidu- ciary's decision to retain or dispose of an asset may be influenced properly by the asset's special relationship or value to the purposes of the trust, estate, or guard- ianship, or to some or all of the beneficiaries, consistent with the trustee's duty of impartiality, or to the ward. (e) The fiduciarY has a duty to pursue an invest. ment strategy that considers both the reasonable pro- duction of income and safety of capital, consistent with the fiduciary's duty of impartiality and the purposes of the trust, estate, or guardianship. Whether investments are underproductive or overproductive of income shall be judged by the portfolio as a whole and not as to any particular asset. (f) The circumstances that the fiduciary may con- sider in making investment decisions include, without limitation, the general economic conditions, the possi- ble effect of inflation, the expected tax consequences of investment decisions or strategies, the role each investment or course of action plays within the overall portfolio, the expected total return, including both income yield and appreciation of capital, and the duty to incur only reasonable and appropriate costs. The fiduciary may, but need not, consider related trusts, estates, and guardianships, and the income available from other sources to, and the assets of, beneficiaries when making investment decisions. (2) The provisions of this section may be expanded, restricted, eliminated, or othelWise altered by express provisions of the governing instrument, whether the instrument was executed before or after the effective date of this section. An express provision need not refer specifically to this statute. The fiduciary is not liable to any person for the fiduciary's reasonable reliance on those express provisions. (3) Nothing in this section abrogates or restricts the power of an appropriate court in proper cases: (a) To direct or permit the trustee to deviate from the terms of the governing instrument; or (b) To direct or permit the fiduciary to take, or to restrain the fiduciary from taking, any action regarding the making or retention of investments. (4) The following terms or comparable language in the investment powers and related provisions of a gov- erning instrument shall be construed as authorizing any investment or strategy permitted under this section: "in- vestments permissible by law for investment of trust funds," "legal investments: "authorized investments: "using the judgment and care under the circumstances then prevailing that persons of prudence, discretion, 1535 Ch. 518 INVESTMENT OF FIDUCIARY FUNDS and intelligence exercise in the management of their own affairs, not in regard to speculation but in regard to the permanent disposition of their funds, considering the probable income as well as the probable safety of their capital," .prudent trustee rule," .prudent person rule," and .prudent investor rule." . (5) This section applies to all existing and future fiduciary relationships subject to this section, but only as to acts or omissions occurring after October 1, 1993. Hlstory.-s. 6. ell. 28154. 1953; s. 2. ell. 93-257; s.26. ell. 97-98; s. 686. ell. 97.103. .. f 518.112 Delegation of investment functions.- (1) A fiduciary may delegate any part or all of the investment functions, with regard to acts constituting investment functions that a prudent investor of compa- rable skills might delegate under the circumstances, to an investment agent as provided in subsection (3), if the fiduciary exercises reasonable care, judgment, and caution in selecting the investment agent, in establish- ing the scope and specific terms of any delegation, and in reviewing periodically the agent's actions in order to monitor overall performance and compliance with the scope and SPecific terms of the delegation. (2)(a) The requirements of subsection (1) notwith- standing, a fiduciary that administers an insurance con- tract on the life or lives of one or more persons may del- egate without any continuing obligation to review the agent's actions, certain investment functions with respect to any such contract as provided in subsection (3), to anyone or more of the following persons as investment agents: 1. The trust's settlor if the trust is one described in s. 733.707(3); 2. Beneficiaries of the trust or estate, regardless of the beneficiary's interest therein, whether vested or contingent; 3. The spouse, ancestor, or descendant of any person described in subparagraph 1. or subparagraph 2.; 4. Any person or entity nominated by a majority of the beneficiaries entitled to receive notice under para- graph (3)(b); or 5. An investment agent if the fiduciary exercises ~easonable care, judgment, and caution in selecting the Investment agent and in establishing the scope and specific terms of any delegation. (b) The delegable investment functions under this subsection include: 1. A determination of whether any insurance con- tract is or remains a proper investment; 2. A determination of whether or not to exercise any policy option available under such contracts; 3. A determination of whether or not to diversify such contracts relative to one another or to other assets, if any, administered by the fiduciary; or 4. An inquiry about changes in the health or finan- cial condition of the insured or insureds relative to any such contract. (c) Until the contract matures and the policy pro- ceeds are received, a fiduciary that administers insur- a!1ce ~ontracts under this subsection.is not obligated to dlver~lfy nor allocate other assets, if any, relative to such Insurance contracts. :!j! .. t F.S. 1117 ~ (3) A fiduciary may delegate investment fllnctiona t? an inv~stment agent under subsection (1) or SUbsec: tlon (2), ,f: _ (a) In the case of a guardianship, the fidUCiary has obtained court approval. (b) In the case of a trust or estate, the fidUCiary has given written notice, of its intention to begin delegating investment functions under this section, to all beneficia: ries, or their legal representative, eligible to receive dis- tributions from the trust or estate within 30 days of the delegation unless such notice is waived by the eligible beneficiaries entitled to receive such notice. This notice shall thereafter, until or unless the beneficiaries eligible to receive income from the trust qr distributions from t~e estate at Uie time are notified t9 the contrary, autho- nze the trustee or legal representative to delegate investment functions pursuant to this subsection. This discretion to revoke the delegation does not imply under subsection (2) any continuing obligation to review the agent's actions. 1. Notice to beneficiaries eligible to receive distri- butions from the trust from the estate, or their legal rep.. resentatives shall be sufficient notice to all persons who may join the eligible class of benefICiaries in the future. 2. Additionally, as used herein, legal representa. tive includes one described in s. 731.303, without any requirement of a court order, an attomey-in-fact under a durable power of attomey sufficient to grant such authority, a legally appointed guardian, or equivalent under applicable law, any living, natural guardian of a minor child, or a guardian ad litem. 3. Written notice shall be: a. By any form of mail or by any commercial deliv- ery service, approved for service of process by the chief judge of the jUdiCial circuit in which the trust has its principal place of business at the date of notice, requiring a signed receipt; b. As provided by law for service of process; or c. By an elisor as may be provided in the Rorida Rules of Civil Procedure. Notice by mail or by approved commercial delivery s~r. vice is complete on receipt of notice. Proof of notice must be by verified statement of the person mailing or sending notice, and there must be attached thereto t~e signed receipt or other satisfactory evidence that dellv. ery was effected on the addressee or on the address. ee's agent. Proof of notice must be maintained among the trustee's permanent records. . (4) If all requirements of subsection (3) are. sailS. fied, the fiduciary shall not be responsible oth~~lse 'oofr the investment decisions nor actions or omISSions the investment agent to which the investment functions are delegated. (5) The investment agent shall, by virtue of .ac:cepl- ance of its appointment, be subject to the jurisdiction 01 the courts of this state. (6) In performing a delegated function, the invest. ment agent shall be subject to the same standards as the fiduciary. H1story._. 3. ell. 93-257; s. 8. ell. 97.240. 518.115 Power of fiduciary or custodian to deposit securities in a central depository.-