Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Res. No. 048-03-11597
RESOLUTION NO.48-03-11597 A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI,FLORIDA,RELATED TO THE SNAPPERCREEK ANNEXATION APPLICATION; REQUESTING THE MIAMI-DADE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS NOT IMPLEMENT PROPOSED MITIGATION FEES SO THAT MAXIMUM FUNDS CAN BE INVESTED IN SERVICE IMPROVEMENTS AND CAPITAL PROJECTS IN THE ANNEXATION AREA;PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS,theresidents of theSnapperCreekAnnexationAreahaveproperlypetitionedthe City of SouthMiamitobeannexedintotheCity of SouthMiami;and WHEREAS,theCityandtheCountyhavedeterminedthe annexation tobe consistent with policiesrelatedtological boundaries andgoodgovernance;and WHEREAS,theproposedannexationhasbeenunanimouslyapprovedbytheCounty's BoundariesCommission,thePlanningAdvisory Board,theAnnexation/IncorporationSubcommittee, andthe Budget and Finance Committee;and WHEREAS,thePlanningAdvisoryBoardandtheCountyManagerhaverecommendedthatfor thefirsttime that aresidentialannexationarea,theSnapperCreekAnnexationArea,beassesseda mitigationfee;and WHEREAS,thelevel of residentialmitigationtobeassessedwouldbeahardshipontheCity which wouldlimittheCity'sabilitytoinvestin service improvements andcapitalprojectsinthe annexation area. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI,FLOIRDA,AS FOLLOWS: Section 1.It isthe position ofthe City of South Miami City Commission thatthe assessment of proposed mitigation fees for the Snapper Creek Annexation Area should not be implemented for the following reasons: (a)The County Code does not allow the transfer of franchise and utility taxes tothe annexing municipal government.This represents several hundred thousand dollars in lost revenue tothe City ona continuing basis.The revenue produced inan annexed area will,therefore,always belessthanthat of other comparable neighborhoods withinthesameCity. (b)The assessment of fees and retention of revenue was nota policy ofthe County when the Snapper Creek community initiated and submitted the annexation application (June,2002); (c)The removal of revenue tothe extent suggested asa residential mitigation fee will seriously reduce theCity's ability to provide thesame level of service commensurate with existing neighborhoodsintheCity; (d)The annexation areais need of major capital improvements (street paving,landscaping etc.), however theremoval of 20%of thearearevenueformitigationandotherfee payments severely restrictstheCityfrom accomplishing theseprojects. Section 2.ThisresolutionshallbetransmittedtotheCounty Manager andtotheBoard of County Commissioners . Section 3.This resolution shallbe effective immediately after the adoption hereof. PASSED AND ADOPTED this Hi,dayofMarch,2003. ATTEST:APPROVED: CITY CLERK READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM: 5C/&><£&:ILIS CITY ATTORNEY 'MAYOR f\ Commission Vote:3-2 Mayor Feliu Yea Vice Mayor Russell Nay Commission Bethel Yea Commission McCrca Nay Commissioner Wiscombe Yea To: South Miami AD-AmericaCity 2001 Excellence,Integrity,Inclusion Honorable Mayor,Vice Mayor & City Commission From:Sanford A.Youkilis I\ Acting City Manager^^ Date:March 31,2003 ITEM No. RE:Resolution on Snapper Creek Annexation Mitigation Payment A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI,FLORIDA,RELATED TO THE SNAPPERCREEK ANNEXATION APPLICATION;REQUESTING THE MIAMI-DADE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS NOT IMPLEMENT THE PROPOSED MITIGATION FEES SO THAT MAXIMUM FUNDS CAN BE INVESTED IN SERVICE IMPROVEMENTS AND CAPITAL PROJECTS IN THE ANNEXATION AREA;PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. BACKGROUND The Snapper Creek Annexation application was unanimously approved by the County's Boundaries Commission,the Planning Advisory Board,the Annexation/Incorporation Subcommittee,and the Budget and Finance Committee.Atleasttwoofthese meetings were noticed public hearings. The annexation will be presented to the full Board of County Commissioners at their April 8,2003 meeting,at which time the Board will instruct the County Attorney to prepare an annexation ("boundaries change") ordinance.This ordinance will specify any conditions placed on the annexation and will direct the elections department to schedule a vote ofthe residents in the annexation area.This ordinance will be read twice (two meetings),however,no formal public hearings will be held. MITIGATION To date,no residential annexations have been subject to retention of revenue ("mitigation fee") which isthe difference between what the County 's current revenue forthe area and the expenditures.The County Manager's reports dated February 26,2003 and March 6,2003,both suggest that the mitigation is so small thatthe annexation could be considered "revenue neutral".However,the report suggests thatthe County should now consider assessing a stormwater bond debt service payment ($6,700)and a mitigation fee for annexation areasasisdonefornewincorporations. Within the body of the two reports the County Manager proposes that the County could assess the following: 1)A 100 %mitigation fee of$105,000 annual with an annual inflation adjustment;or 2)A combined residential and CBI (business area)mitigation fee of 1.145 mills or $110,000 annually,which would increase as property value goes up;or 3)A mitigation fee only for the CBI area,which would be $52,200 annually. (2) InthatthisisthefirsttimethattheCountyhassuggestedamitigationfeeforaresidentialannexation,several CommissionersatthefinalpublichearingbeforetheBudgetandFinanceCommittee,wereunsurehowto determinetheappropriatemitigationfee.Itwasstatedthatthisitemshouldbedeferreduntilastudybyanew committee established bytheCountycouldbecompleted.Atthattime,theCityManageradvisedthattheCity wouldacceptamitigationfee,andtheCommitteethenapprovedtheproposedannexationandsentontothe full Board. STAFF MEETING WITH COUNTY AmeetingwithCounty staff andcity representatives washeldonMarch 25,2003 inSouthMiamiCityHallat which time considerable discussion onthe retention of revenue andthe proposed mitigation fees took place.County staff didadvisethatitwouldbeappropriatefortheSouthMiamiCityCommissiontoadoptapositiononthemitigation issueandtomakethatpositionknowntoCountyCommissioners. RECOMMENDATION TheCity Commission should express a position onthe proposed feestobe charged totheCityforthe annexationarea.TheCitycanmakeaverydefensiblecaseforrequestingtheelimination of mitigationbased uponthefollowing: •TheCountyCodedoesnotallowthetransfer of franchiseandutilitytaxestotheannexing municipal government.This represents several hundred thousand dollars inlost revenue tothe Cityona continuing basis.The revenue produced inan annexed areawill,therefore,always be lessthanthat of othercomparable neighborhoods withinthesameCity. •Theassessmentoffeesandretention of revenuewasnotapolicy of theCountywhenthe community initiated and submitted the annexation application (June,2002); •Theremoval of revenuetotheextentsuggestedwillseriouslyreducethe City's abilitytoprovide thesamelevel of servicecommensuratewithexistingneighborhoodsintheCity; •Theareaisneedofmajor capital improvements (street paving,landscaping etc.),however,the removal of 20%ofthearearevenuefor mitigation andotherfeepaymentsseverelyrestrictsthe Cityfrom accomplishing these projects. Theattached resolution setsforththeaboveissuesand requests thattheBoardofCounty Commissioners not implement the recommended mitigation fees.Itis recommended that the attached resolution be adopted. Attachments: Revised DraftResolution County Manager's Report2/26/03 County Manager's Report3/6/03 SAY MEMORANDUM To:Honorable Chairperson and Members Boundaries Commission From:David Offic and Budget ITEM II Date:February 26,2003 Subject:CityofSouth Miami annexation BACKGROUND Agroup of resident voters in an area known as Snapper Creek submitted.*i formalanSxationrequestandpetitionstotheQtyofSouthMiarrurequestingthattheQty annex their area (see attached map). On Mav 21 2002,the City of South Miami,pursuant to a required public hearingapprovedResolutionNo.68-02-11417 that requests Miami-Dade County to effect the annexation of the subject area into the jurisdiction of South Miami. The Qty of South Miami's annexation request is for an area 8«^J"™^"**£n^rtTW SW 80*Street,on the south by Snapper Creek Canal and the Village of map attached). The Village of Pinecrest,which abuts the annexation area,approved Resolution No. 2002-57 supporting the City of Soudi Miami'^propos^amexation.______-___ ANALYSIS Objectives The application states that the subject annexation is bordered on the east and northS&ft Miami,on the south by the Village of Pinecrest,and on the wes£unincorporated Miami-Dade County.Furthermore,the application states that £e resident desire to receive improved services and government representation. The Qty of South Miami believes they can better serve the proposed annexation area.. Chairperson and Members Boundaries Commission February 26,2003 Page 2-South Miami Annexation Land Use The current land uses in the proposed annexation area,according to the County's 2005-2015 Land Use Plan Map,are Office/Residential,Business and Office,Industrial and Office,Low Density Residential,and Estate Density Residential.In addition,a portion of the proposed annexation area is located within the Downtown Kendall Urban Center District,an area designated as a metropolitan urban center in the County's Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP). FaHlities and Services Police -The City states that police protection will be provided for the ^o"sed Snapper Creek annexation area by the City of South Miami Mice Department an established,full-service law enforcement agency. The appHcation states,that the Qty provides aratio of approximately one officer per 175 residents.Furthermore,the appHcation indicates that most response times to the area are under 2-minutes for emergencies and less than five minutes for routine calls.Currently,service is provided by the Miami-Dade County PoHce Department's (MDPD)Kendall District with responses to calls for service being dispatched from the geographic venue of interest. ffire and Rescue -According to the appHcation,the closest fire station is located at 5860 SW 70*Street,this station currently serves the proposed annexation area and services will continue to be provided by Miami-Dade and this station in the event of annexation.Since the City of South MiamiispartoftheMiami-Dade Fire Rescue District,the armexafaon aTea-wUl^ .:_,,-......-^©ntiftue-t-obe-served by-fe-Gofety.-•...-..- Water and Sewer -The entire annexation area is within the Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Department (WASD)water and sewer service areas. WASD owns,operates and maintains existing water and sewer faculties within the Snapper Creek area,and would own,operate and maintain any future faculties,whether constructed by the Qty of South Miami or by private developers.The proposed annexation would have no impact on WASD's abiHty to provide services to the remaining unincorporated area in the vicinity.Service areas are not modified by annexations. Solid Waste -The area proposed for annexation is.within the County's waste unincorporated municipal service area.Per Ordinance No.96-30,as Chairperson and Members •'_• Boundaries Commission February 26,2003 Page 3-South Miami Annexation the Qty has entered into a twenty-year waste disposal commitment with the County,the Department of SoHd Waste Management (DSWM)could opt to delegate waste coUection responsibiHties to the City,provided that the cumulative effect of annexations that have taken place since February 16 1996,do not sigiuficantly impact the DSWM's abiHty to meet debt coverage requirements or to hold down the cost of coUection service. SfrPPt Maintenance -South Miami maintains aU streets within its jurisdiction with the exception of State and County roadways Many minor arterials and coUector streets are constructed and improved by the private sector through direct construction and by the state,county and city using gas taxes,impact fees and grants.It is expected that roads and streets built in the future in the subject annexation area would be constructed/improved by private development and thereafter mamtamed bySouth Miami. ParksandReCTeatign -According to the appHcation,no new park and recreation facilities will be needed to serve the industrial land uses proposed for the annexation area. Annexation guidelines: The following analysis addresses the factors required for consideration by the Boundaries Commission pursuant to Chapter 20 of the County Code. 1 The suitability of the proposed annexation boundaries,in conjunction withtheexistingmunicipality,to provide for amunicipal community that *both cohesive and inclusive.r-^x ^r : a)To the "extent feasible,not divide aCensus Designated Place,(an officially recognized traditional community). The proposed annexation area is entirely located inside a linearly shaped portion of the Glenvar Heights Census Designated Place (CDP)that extends into the murdcrpalmes ot 'South Miami and Pinecrest.The Qty of South Miami bounds the proposed annexation area on the north and east.The Village of Pinecrest bounds the proposed annexation area on thesouth.Annexation of the subject area will divide the Glenvar Heights CDP leaving the remaining portion in unincorporated Miami-Dade County to the west This division will however Chairperson and Members Boundaries Commission February 26,2003 Page 4-South Miami Annexation result in more cohesive and consistent boundaries for the City .of South Miami and the Glenvar Heights CDP b)Include adjacent areas of ethnic minority or lower income residents .in which those residents petitioned to be in the annexation area. No adjacent unincorporated areas have petitioned to be included in the annexation area. Population By Race and Hispanic Origin AnnexationAnnexation Area Population Characteristics,2000 Percent Hispanic Origin Percent White,NotHispanic Percent Black,NotHispanic 960 37.8 53.1 5.3 Miami- Dade 2,253,362 57.3 20.7 19.0 3.0PercentOtherNotHispanic|3.8| Source:U.S.Census Bureau,Census 2000 Summary Filel, x K>.:t\~a~o™«tv.Denartment of Planning and Zoning Source:U.S.Census Bureau,^en&up ^wV ^*****~*~j ,. Miami-Dade County,Department of Planning and Zoning, 7002.1:_,— cV Have contiguity and not create any unincorporated enclave area(s).]ri&enclave area is defined as an area that would be£T>S2d on more than eighty (80)percent of its boundary byoneTmoremunidpaHties,and 2)of a size that could not be serviced efficientlyor effectively. .-•-qk«KertrttftramWdeaTiiot create/an umhcorporafed^clavearea(surrounded on 80 percent or more of its boundary by munidpaHties). The proposed annexation area is surrounded by the City_of South Miami and the Village of Pinecrest on three sides.The . adjacent municipal boundaries encompass 73 percent of thesubjectareaboundariesandannexationoftheareawillnot result in an enclave. Chairperson and Members Boundaries Commission February 26,2003 Page 5-South Miami Annexation d)Have natural or built barriers as boundaries,to the extent feasible The area is bounded on the north by SW 80*Street and the Qty of South Miami,on the east by SW 62**Avenue/City of South Miami,on the south by the Snapper Creek Canal and the Village of Pinecrest,and on the west by South Dixie Highway and the Snapper Creek Expressway.The above referenced boundaries are logical and consist of existing features. 2.The existing and projected property tax cost for the municipal-level service to the average homeowners in the area currently as unincorporated and as included as part of the annexing municipalityi Millafre Rate Citv of South Miami Munidpal Millage 6.373 Unincorporated Area UMSAMfflage 2.447 Increase 3.926 3 Relationship of the proposed annexation area to the Urban DevelopmentIt^d^UVB)of the County's Comprehensive Development Master Plan. The area is within the Urban Development Boundary of the County's Comprehensive Development Master.^^JSSm^^^^^.rWHcrlrHtates"^^a^raolities and the aUocation of finandal resources for services and faculties m Miami-DadeCountyshaUbegivenfirsttoservetheareawithintheUrbanDevelopment Boundary (UDB)of the Land Use Plan Map (LUP)/' 4 Impact of the proposal on the revenue base of the unincorporated area and onSmtyofLCountytoeffidentlyandeffectivelyprovideservicestothe adjacent remaining unincorporated area. The total taxable value of the annexation area is $96.5 milHon.Hie area generates approximately $371,000 in revenues.The County expends approximately $266,000 per year.providing services.Therefore,me netSuTSsstotheUMSAbudgetisapproximately$105,000.The revenue Chairperson and Members Boundaries Commission February 26,2003 Page 6-South Miami Annexation loss when viewed inthe context of the entire UMSA budget essentiaUy makes this annexation "revenue neutral." However,if mitigation were to be considered,the total amount,based on the impact stated above,would be $105,000.This amount,which results in 100 percent mitigation of the current adverse impact,would be adjusted annually based onthe Consumer Price Index (CPI).The CPI adjustment is used inthe mitigation calculations for the Town on Miami Lakes and the Village of Palmetto Bay. Another option could be that the mitigation calculation be based on a miliage rate.Inthat case,itwouldbethe equivalent of 1.145 mills fortheentirearea induding the CBI.The total dollar amount would increase as the area is developed and the taxable value of the area grows.This methodology was used in reaching agreement with the Doral Area Muniripal Advisory Committee andwiththe Medley annexation approvedin 2002. However,a portion of the annexation area is in the Dadeland CBI area.As such,if mitigation were considered for the CBI area only,the amount should be based ona miliage rate and equal 100%percent of the surplus revenues. This would amount to .541 mills. Furthermore,pursuant to section 20-8.1 and 20-8.2 of the.County Code,the County retains the franchise and utility tax revenues of the area upon annexation. 5.Fiscal impacts of the proposed annexation on the remaining unincorporated area.Specifically,does the per capita taxable value of the area fall within the The per capita taxable value of the proposed annexation area is approximately $100,000.Therefore the per capita taxable value of the proposed annexation area is higher than the range of $20,000 to $48,000. However,thereareonly 960 residentsinthearea. 6.Consistency with the Land Use Plan of the County's Comprehensive Development MasterPlan. A portion of the proposed annexation area is located within the Downtown Kendall Urban Center District,an area designated asa metropoHtan urban center in the County's Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP). Chairperson and Members Boundaries Commission February 26,2003 Page 7-South Miami Annexation The County's CDMP provides for land use,intensity of use,infrastructure and design of this area.The Board of County Commissioners has adopted unique development regulations for implementation of the CDMP guidelines withintheDowntown KendaU Urban Center District.The CDMP appHes to aU lands withinthe urban center irrespective of governmental jurisdiction. Unless there isa formal commitment (interlocal agreement)from the City of South Miami to fuUy comply with the guidelines,the annexation of this portion of the subject area would be inconsistent with the County's CDMP. AdditionaUy,the County's 2005-2015 Land Use Plan Map.designates the balance ofthe annexation area for Office/Residential,Business and Office, Industrial and Office,Low Density Residential,and Estate Density Residential. The County's "Office/Residential"land use designation allows both professional and derical offices,hotels,motels,and residential uses.The existing RU-5A zoning and the existing office use is consistent with the County's CDMP.Office development may range froim small-scale professional office to large-scale office parks. The County's "Business and Office"land use designation accommodates the fuU range of sales and service activities.Induded are retail,wholesale, personal and professional services,commercial and professional offices, hotels,motels,hospitals,medical buildings,nursing homes/entertainment and cultural faciHties,amusement and commerdal recreation estabHshments. The existing BU-1 zoning and business use is consistent with the County's CDMP.Residential uses,and mixing of residential use with commercial, office ahcrhotelstare abb peranfct£*firB^provided that the scale and the intensity,induding height and floor area ratio of residential or mixed use development,is not out of character with that of adjacent or adjoining development and zoning. The County's "Industrial and Office"land use designation aUows industries, manufacturing operations,warehouses,mini-warehouses,office buildings, wholesale showrooms,distribution centers,merchandise marts and similar uses.The existing IU-1 and IU-2 zoning and industrial use is consistent with the County's CDMP. The County's "Low Density Residential"land use designation aUows residential uses at a density range of 2.5 to 6.0 dweUing units per acre.The Chairperson andMembers Boundaries Commission February 26,2003 Page 8-SouthMiamiAnnexation existing RU-1 zoning and residential low density useis consistent with the County's CDMP. The County's "Estate Density Residential"land use designation allows residential usesatadensity range of1toZ5dwellingunitsper acre.The existing EU-M zoning and residential estate density consistent with the County's CDMP. According to the annexation appHcation the City proposes to apply the following future land use designation for the area:Transit Oriented • Development District (TODD);Duplex/Residential;Commercial,Retail and Office;•Light Industrial;Multifamily Residential and Single Family Residential. Once annexed the Qty has the exdusive jurisdiction to file a municipal plan amendmentto officially designate thelandusesonthe area. TheBoundaries Commission shallalsoconsider the following guidelines: 1.Willthis annexation divide a M^orically recognized community? the proposed annexation area is entirely located inside a linearly shaped portion of the Glenvar Heights Census Designated Place (CDP)that extends into the munidpaHties of South Miami and Pinecrest.The City of South Miami bounds the subject area on the north and east.The Village of Pinecrest bounds the subject area on the south.Annexation of the subject area will divide the Glenvar Heights CDP leaving the remaining portion in unincorporated Miami-Dade County.to the west This division wffl however^j; —rcctilflfi"'niLdiie-^eehe5ive and:consistent7 %ouriSaiies-for-the-CIfcy'of SoulIT'~" Miami and the GlenvarHeights CDP. 2.Is the annexation compatible with existing planned land uses and zoning of the munidpaHty to which the area is proposed tobe annexed? Yes,the existing land use and zoning of the annexation area are compatible with the land uses and zoning ofthe adjacent areas within the munidpaHty of South Miami.The annexation areais currently built out. Existing SurroundingLand Uses: North:Commercial,Office and Residential. Chairperson andMembers Boundaries Commission February 26,2003 Page 9-SouthMiamiAnnexation South:Commercial,Residential and Institutional. East .Residential West Commercial and Residential. 3.Willthe area,if currently qualified,continuetobeeligibleforanybenefits derived from inclusion in federal orstate enterprise zones,or targeted area assistance provided by federal,state and local government agendes? Theannexation area iscurrentlynotpartof federal orstateenterprisezones, or targeted areas assistance provided by federal,state and local government agendes. 4.WiU the annexation impact public safety response times? The proposed annexation wiU not have any negative or significant impact on the Miami-Dade Police and Fire Rescue Department's abiHty to service the remaining unincorporated area:The Qty of South Miami is part of the Fire Rescue District. 5.Willthe annexation introduce barriers to.municipal traffic circulation due to existing security taxing districts,walled communities,and/or private roads? It is not anticipated that annexation will introduce any new barriers to munidpal traffic flow. 6.Will the annexation area be served bythe same public service franchises,such as cable and communication services,as the existing munidpaHty,or willit have full access to all available municipal programming through its franchises jt,...-...-^pro^yej:^.:-;—-^^^^--^^^-^^:—*•<.,----->—^=--•-v *-•--,-—*~r- The proposed annexation wiU continue to be served by the same cable television and tdecommunication operators..Municipal programming is accomplished through separate agreement between munidpaHties and the cable operators providing services within their respective munidpaHty.The cable operators'obHgation to broadcast munidpal meetings is outlined in these agreements. 7.Ifthe area has been identified bythe federal government as a flood zone or by emergency planners as an evacuation zone,has the existing munidpaHty indicated its preparedness to address any extraordinary means that may arise? Chairperson andMembers Boundaries Commission February 26,2003 Page 10-SouthMiami Annexation About 80 percent ofthe proposed South Miami annexation area isinthe 100- year floodplain.The area east of South Dixie Highway inthe annexation area is located in a hurricane,evacuation areafor categories fourand five hurricanes.SouthDixieHighwayandthePalmettoExpresswayarecurrently the primary hurricane evacuation routes for this area. Planning to address extraordinary circumstances willbethe munidpal government's responsibility in conjunction withthe County's Office of EmergencyPlanning. 8.Will the annexation area be connected by pubHc transportation municipal governmentofficesand commercial centers? South Miami City HaU is located at 6130 Sunset Drive,just beyond the boundaries ofthe proposed annexation area and contiguous totheSouth Miami Metforail Station.City HaU andtheCityofSouth Miami are also serviced by Metrobus throughout. 9.To the degree possible,would the proposed annexation area be contained in oneormore school district boundaries governing admission to elementary, middleandhighschool as the adjoining munidpaHty? Yes,the annexation area shares school boundaries with the adjoining South Miami.The area is served by Ludlam Elementary,South Miami Middle School and South Miami Senior. Attachment -Map miami-padeJ Miami-DadeCounty SouthMiami ProposedAnnexationArea&DadelandCBI MEMORANDUM B&F Supplement to Agenda Item No.4 (A) To:Honorable Chairperson and Members Budget and Finance Committee From:Steve Shiver County Manager Date:March 6,2003 Subject:Qty ofSouthMiami Annexation Application RECOMMENDATION Itis recommended that,following the required public hearing,the Board of County Commissioners (BCC)directtheCountyAttorneytoprepareanappropriateordinance accomplishing theannexationofthearea identified inthe application.The annexation has received a positiverecommendation from boththePlanning Advisory Board and me Boundaries Commission. Atits February 26,2003 meeting,theBoundariesCommission recommended that the South Miami annexation be approved withthe boundaries as specified inthe application. On March 3,2003,the Planning Advisory Board passeda resolution recommending approvalofthe annexation with certain conditions.Those conditions indude payment of 100 percent mitigation,equivalent to 1.145 mills or currently approximately $105,000, forthelosstothe Unincorporated Munidpal Service Area (UMSA)budget,and,that South Miami pay Miami-Dade Countythearea'spro-ratedshareoftheStormwater Utility Revenue Bonds debt service,estimated at $6,700 peryear,thatwill continue as an obligation to the residents of UMSA. Asstated in the Budget Director's transmittal memorandum to the Boundaries Commission,the Town of Miami Lakes,The Village of Palmetto Bay,andthe proposed municipalities ofNorthDadeand Doral agreed to continue topaytheirshareof the debt service onthe Stormwater Utility and F*ublic Service Tax Revenue Bonds that provide funding for Quality Nei^tiborhood Improvement Program (QNIP)projects. The requirement to maintain debt service payments hasnot applied to annexations that were processed contemporaneously:Homestead,Medley,Florida City,and Coral Gables.However,statelaw protects bondholdersand does not allowforthe impairmentofbonds.Therefore,asannexationapplicationsmove forward andmore / Chairperson and Members Budget andFinance Committee March 6,2003 Page2-South Miami annexation are considered,itwouldseem appropriate to also haveannexed areas continue topay a shareoftheStormwaterUtilitydebt service. Pursuant to Section 20-8.2 ofthe MiamirDade County Code,changes toa municipality's boundaries through annexation are contingent uponthe condition that Miami-Dade County forever continues to collect and receive all utilitytax revenues accruing within theannexed area remainedapartofthe county's unincorporated area.Therefore,the debt service associated withthe Public Service TaxRevenue Bonds that provide funding for the QNIP projects isnot affected bythisoranyother annexation. Another concern regarding debt service isthe calculation ofan area's payment Currently an area's share is based onthecostofthe bond-financed projects withinthe areaasapercentage of thetotal bond expenditures.Another method would betobase the payment onthe area's existing pro-rata shareofthedebtserviceonthebonds. This item wasforwardedbythe Incorporation andAnnexationSubcommitteeatits March 4*,2003 meeting witha recommendation to incorporate the Planning Advisory Board's recommendations.I concur with these recommendations. Attachments:Resolution,Boundaries Commission Resolution Planning Advisory Board RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI-DADE COUNTY BOUNDARIES COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE ANNEXATION INTO THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI WHEREAS,the city of South Miami has petitioned for the annexation ofthe area bounded by SW 80*Street to the north,by Snapper Creek Canal and the Village of Pinecrest to the south,by SW 62nd Avenue to the east;and,South Dixie Highway to the west. WHEREAS,the Board of County Commissioners referred this application to the Boundaries Commission;and, WHEREAS,on February 26,2003 the Boundaries Commission held an advertised public meeting;and, NOW,THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Miami-Dade County Boundaries Commission recommends APPROVAL of the proposed annexation into the city ofSouth Miami with the payment ofannual mitigation in the amount of 1.145 mills. The foregoing resolution was offered byRobert Connor who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by Manuel A.Huerta,Jr.upon being put to a vote it passed unanimously. Robert Connor Aye Edward G.McCue Aye Carlos Batista Aye Jose Luis Castillo Aye Dr.Shirley Merlin West Aye Manuel Alvarez Aye Manuel A.Huerta,Jr.Aye Daniel Lavan Aye Irma Plumber Aye Ian Martinez ABSENT Norman Powell Aye RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI-DADE COUNTY PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE APPLICATION FOR THE ANNEXATION OF PROPERTY TO THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI. WHEREAS,theCity of SouthMiami has petitioned for theannexation of the area generally described below:•:...;•...•\> Area:Eastern Boundary:SW 62nd Avenue; 'Southern Boundary:Snapper Creek Canal arid theVillage of Pincrest; Western Boundary:SouthDixie Highway; Northern Boundary:SW 80th Street;and'.: WHEREAS,the Board of CountyCommissioners referred the application tothe Planning AdxispryBoard{EAB);and .._:.._..;.__.L.._l„_J_:___^.^^_._ WHEREAS,on February 26,2003theBoundariesCommissionrecommended approval oftheproposed annexation;and WHEREAS,on March 3rd,2003 the Planning Advisory Board held and advertised public hearingconcerningthe Area generallydescribed below: Area:Eastern Boundary:SW 62nd Avenue;. Southern Boundary:Snapper Creek Canal andthe Village of Pincrest; Western Boundary:South Dixie Highway; Northern Boundary:SW 80*Street;and NOW*THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MIAMI-DADE COUNTY PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD,thatit recommends approval of the application fromthe City of SouthMiamitoannextheproposed area,arid thattheCitypaythedebtservicerelatedto theStorm-waterUtilityRevenueBonds,andmitigate 100 percent of theadverseimpactonthe UMSA budget;andthatthemitigation calculation bebasedonamiliage rate.In this case, mitigationforthisannexationwould bethe equivalent of1.145 mills. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE MIAMI-DADE COUNTY PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD,thatitrecommendsthataninter-localagreementbeenteredinto between theCity of SouthMiamiand Miami-Dade CountyinwhichtheCity of SouthMiami agrees to abide by alltheregulationscontainedinthe Downtown KendallUrban Center Districtasset forth in Sec.33-284.55 et.seq.,Code of Miami-Dade County. PA3 03-03 Page 2 ;The forgoing resolution was offeredbyBoardMember Christie Sherouse,whomovedits adoption.Themotionwas seconded by Carlos Lopez-Cantera,anduponbeingputtoavote,the vote wasasfollows:V >.•'.'".•:'--";."'••-'••••'•-\-•.V-••••'<;.\JV',;- Dorothy Cook Yes AlMalobf Yes. Antonio Fraga Yes Wayne Rinehart Yes Charles George Yes '..AlidoPina Yes TimHymari Yes ;•'Gonzalo Sanabria Absent Rod Jude Yes ..Christi Sherouse ..Yes.. CarlosLopez-Cantera Yes JaySosna Yes Shirlyon McWhorter,Chair Yes The Chair thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 3rd day of March,2003...\.'...,•..-•:•-..<V;. The foregoing actionwastakenbythe Planning Advisory Boardattheconclusion of its public hearing on March 3rd,2003 and is certified correct by Diane O'Quinn Williams,Executive Secretary ofthe Planning Advisory Board. Diane O'Quinn Williams Executive Secretary