February 27 BCC meeting PART 2: "Things to Come"

There was lots of meaty stuff left on the cutting room floor at the 2/27 meeting.  This post digs into the details of these items, which were deferred but not defeated.  In no particular order: 

Special Item #8
ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO ANNEXATIONS; CREATING SECTION 20-4.3 OF THE CODE OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA; PROHIBITING THE FILING, CONSIDERATION, APPROVAL OF OR REFERENDUM ON ANNEXATION REQUESTS IF THE BOUNDARIES OF THE AREA PROPOSED TO BE ANNEXED CONFLICT WITH THE BOUNDARIES OF ANY MUNICIPAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE REGARDLESS OF WHEN SUCH COMMITTEE WAS CREATED; PROVIDING THAT THIS ORDINANCE APPLIES TO PENDING AND FUTURE ANNEXATION REQUESTS; PROVIDING SEVERABILITY, INCLUSION IN THE CODE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE 

It's not breaking news to say here what has already been posted on Nextdoor: if this item had been voted on last week, Annexation with Aventura would have become against the law - it's that simple.  The item was a huge surprise, was only known the day before the meeting, and would have left "West of Aventura" with only 2 choices (new city or status quo) instead of 3 (annexation being the third) if it had passed. 


Special item #11:
ORDINANCE RELATING TO INCORPORATION PROCEDURES; PROVIDING THAT A REQUEST OR PETITION FOR INCORPORATION SHALL NOT BE FILED NOR ANY FILED PETITION FOR INCORPORATION BE HEARD, CONSIDERED, OR APPROVED WHERE THE INCORPORATION REQUEST OR PETITION CREATES A NEW ENCLAVE; CREATING SECTION 20-21.2 OF THE CODE OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY; PROVIDING SEVERABILITY, INCLUSION IN THE CODE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE 

In the supporting memo it is noted that the MDC Code 20-3.1 "precludes the Board from considering an annexation application that creates a new enclave" BUT "20-23(B)(1)(c) does not preclude the Board considering an incorporation that creates a new enclave."

This is very interesting, because in a 2013 meeting of the MAC, Secretary Rochelle Matza was told by Jorge Hernandez (Office of Management and Budget) that the condominiums in the SW part of the study area could not be excluded from the MAC study area, since doing so would create an enclave.  This resolution acknowledges this is not the case. 

Special item #7:
ORDINANCE RELATING TO INCORPORATION PROCEDURES FOR MUNICIPAL ADVISORY COMMITTEES; AMENDING SECTION 20-29 OF THE CODE OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA; SPECIFYING CRITERIA FOR MEMBERSHIP, LOCATION AND STANDARDS FOR MEETING FACILITY, AND TIME FOR MEETINGS; PROVIDING APPLICABILITY; PROVIDING SEVERABILITY, INCLUSION IN THE CODE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE 

This one could be important "West of Aventura": it provides for amendments that would require MAC members "possess a variety of views on whether the study area should become incorporated" and "represent all geographical areas within the [MAC study area]."  WOW!  That would make the NE MAC look pretty bad, since it was initially stacked with "new city advocates" (in 2004/05), and even now in 2014 they all reside in the North end of the study area (no condos, no Ojus, no Presidential Estates even).  Section 2 of the background indicates that the ordinance would only apply to new MACs, but it WOULD apply to the filling of any vacancies on an existing MAC!  Keep an eye on this one. 

Special item #9:
ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO BOUNDARY CHANGE PROCEDURES; AMENDING SECTIONS 20-3 AND 20-4 OF THE CODE OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA TO PROVIDE THAT PETITIONS FOR BOUNDARY CHANGES SHALL REQUIRE CONSENT OF TWENTY PERCENT OF REGISTERED ELECTORS IN THE AREA PROPOSED TO BE ANNEXED; PROVIDING SEVERABILITY, INCLUSION IN THE CODE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE 

Voters decided in November of 2012 to amend the MDC Home Rule Charter to provide that 20% of resident electors in an area could sign an incorporation petition to get a MAC process started.  Annexations by petition require 25%, and this proposal would change that number to the same 20% voters approved for incorporation. 

Special item #6:
ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO THE INCORPORATION OF NEW MUNICIPALITIES; AMENDING SECTION 20-26 OF THE CODE OF MIAMI-DADE, FLORIDA; DELETING THE REQUIREMENT THAT MUNICIPALITIES PAY FOR MIAMI- DADE COUNTY SPECIALIZED POLICE SERVICES FROM ITS MUNICIPAL MILLAGE OR OTHER MUNICIPAL FUNDS; PROVIDING SEVERABILITY, INCLUSION IN THE CODE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE 

Someone in our community living on NE 199th Street spoke against this one, and she was the only person to speak on it either way.  The ordinance would amend 20-26 of the Code, deleting the requirement that municipalities (including any "new city" West of Aventura), no longer pay for specialized police services which include narcotics ("Miami Vice"), homicide ("Dexter"), sexual crimes ("Law and Order: SVU"), crime scene investigations ("CSI Miami") - basically all the things they make TV shows out of.  The rationale for this is that MDC does not currently charge municipalities for such services.  The question is: as more and more areas incorporate or are annexed, will the budget for these important services shrink?, or will they just be funded differently?

Special Item #3:
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING BOARD POLICY FAVORING ANNEXATIONS BY SMALL ECONOMICALLY CHALLENGED MUNICIPALITIES AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR OR THE MAYOR'S DESIGNEE TO PROVIDE RECOMMENDED PROCEDURES TO HELP ENSURE SUCH MUNICIPALITIES ARE ABLE TO ANNEX UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF THE COUNTY 

This one acknowledges that lots of these "under 18,000 resident" villages in MDC are struggling, and that their only way to stabilize and improve their tax base is to annex surrounding lands.  It begs the question: if the annexing city is already challenged, who'd want to be annexed by them?

Special Item #4:
ORDINANCE RELATING TO ANNEXATION PROCEDURES; REQUIRING CONSENT FROM PROPERTY OWNERS IN AN AREA PROPOSED TO BE ANNEXED, IF THERE IS NO REQUIRED VOTE OF RESIDENT ELECTORS BECAUSE THERE ARE 250 OR FEWER RESIDENT ELECTORS IN THE AREA AND THE AREA IS FIFTY PERCENT OR LESS DEVELOPED RESIDENTIAL; PROVIDING THAT SUCH REQUIREMENT IS APPLICABLE TO PENDING AND FUTURE ANNEXATION REQUESTS, UNLESS SUCH REQUESTS HAVE RECEIVED A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD ON OR BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE; AMENDING SECTION 20-9 OF THE CODE OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA (''CODE''); PROVIDING SEVERABILITY, INCLUSION IN THE CODE AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE   

The BCC can currently accomplish an annexation by ordinance (without a vote of resident electors) if there are under 250 resident electors in the area, and the area is less than 50% developed residential.  This change would provide that in those situations, at least 50% of the resident electors in the area consent to the annexation.  It's a pretty big change, and would prevent "serial killer" annexors (cities who avoid the need for a vote by just biting off pieces, <250 resident electors in size, one after another).



Expect to see all of these items discussed in 3 months when County Mayor Gimenez delivers his report ("Special Item 1" described in the last post) to the Commissioners, and the debate rages once again.