Legislative Matter

Miami-Dade Legislative Item
File Number: 151995

Printable PDF Format

File Number: 151995

File Type: Ordinance

Status: Amended

Version: 0

Reference:

Control: Board of County Commissioners

File Name: ROAD IMPACT FEES

Introduced: 8/28/2015

Requester: NONE

Cost:

Final Action:

Agenda Date: 11/17/2015

Agenda Item Number: 7A

Notes:

SEE 152932 FOR FINAL VERSION AS ADOPTED.

Title:

ORDINANCE RELATING TO ROAD IMPACT FEES; PROVIDING FOR USE OF IMPACT FEES TO PAY FOR MASS TRANSIT PROJECTS THAT BENEFIT MULTIPLE IMPACT FEE DISTRICTS; AMENDING SECTION 33E-12 OF THE CODE OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA; PROVIDING SEVERABILITY, INCLUSION IN THE CODE AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE

Indexes:

IMPACT FEES

Sponsors:	Jose "Pepe" Diaz, Prime Sponsor
	Esteban L. Bovo, Jr., Co-Sponsor
	Daniella Levine Cava, Co-Sponsor
	Audrey M. Edmonson, Co-Sponsor
	Dennis C. Moss, Co-Sponsor

Sunset Provision: No

Effective Date:

Expiration Date:

Registered Lobbyist:

None Listed

Legislative History
Acting Body	Date	Agenda Item	Action	Sent To	Due Date	Returned	Pass/Fail

Board of County Commissioners	11/17/2015	7A	Amended
REPORT:	See Agenda Item 7A Amended; Legislative File No. 152932.

Board of County Commissioners	11/3/2015	7A	Deferred		11/17/2015		P
REPORT:	First Assistant County Attorney Geri Bonzon-Keenan read the title of the foregoing proposed ordinance into the record. It was moved by Commissioner Diaz that the foregoing proposed ordinance be adopted, as presented. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Levine Cava, followed by discussion. Responding to Chairman Monestime’s question regarding who would have the responsibility to recommend the road impact fees, Deputy Mayor Alina Hudak explained that the Public Works and Waste Management Director made all recommendations relative to the road impact fee ordinance to the Mayor; they then became part of the long-range transportation planning documents. She noted subsequently, they became part of the budget documents, and part of the proposals that the Board reviewed and approved in the budget process. Chairman Monestime pointed out that according to the proposed ordinance the Public Works and Waste Management Department and the Mayor would no longer have the ability to make these recommendations. Deputy Mayor Hudak noted this would apply specifically to transit projects, and the Administration had discussed this concern with Commissioner Diaz. Commissioner Diaz stated that the intent of the proposed ordinance was not to take the Mayor out of the process; but rather to allow for an expedited process for the bigger transportation projects. He indicated that he was willing to defer the item since the co-sponsor, Commissioner Bovo, was absent. Hearing no further questions or comments, the Board proceeded to vote to defer the foregoing proposed ordinance to the November 17, 2015, Board of County Commissioners’ meeting.

Transit and Mobility Services Committee	10/14/2015	1G2	Forwarded to BCC with a favorable recommendation				P
REPORT:	Assistant County Attorney Michael Valdes read the foregoing proposed ordinance and its supplement into the record. Chairman Bovo opened the public hearing. Mr. Truly Burton, Executive Vice President, Builders Association of South Florida, 111 NW 183 Street, Miami appeared before the TMSC members and spoke in support of the foregoing proposed ordinance. Chairman Bovo closed the public hearing seeing no other persons wishing to speak on this item. It was moved by Commissioner Moss that the foregoing proposed ordinance and its supplement be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) with a favorable recommendation. This motion was seconded by Chairman Bovo, followed by a discussion. In response to Commissioner Jordan’s question regarding identifying the urban infill area and the reason for eliminating it in this item, Mr. Antonio Cotarelo, Department of Transportation and Public Works noted the location was southeast of the Palmetto Expressway. He said he believed it was not eliminated in this item, but extended countywide, in terms of the ability to use transit funding for mass transportation. Deputy Mayor Alina Hudak noted that she believed the intent of the original ordinance was to promote the use of impact fees for mass transit projects within the urban infill area and it actually opens up the availability of the funding to a larger area. Responding to Commissioner Jordan’s question regarding the removal of recommendations made by the Mayor and Public Works Director, Commissioner Diaz noted as prime sponsor of this item that the idea was to expand transportation projects that were originally limited to road projects, which would provide more funding transit projects as well. Ms. Alice Bravo, Director, Transportation and Public Works explained the reason this language was omitted from this ordinance was because the intended focus was strictly for roadways and unique circumstances with the recommendation of the Public Works Director; however, this would cover more areas, such as transit, rather than an exception only. Commissioner Diaz noted the purpose of this proposed ordinance would lessen the process time and target projects that this committee determined needed more funding. He also noted with this proposal those funds would become accessible for the needed projects that have been discussed, but did not have funding for. Ms. Bravo noted for clarification that through the County Budget process the Mayor and Administration were consulted regarding allocation of all funding before a budget was proposed for a project. Commissioner Jordan expressed her concern regarding the removal of the input from the Public Works (PW) Director, which she believed was critical on various projects as well as the “Strong” Mayor’s input. She said it appeared as if there was an attempt to eliminate the process that would also eliminate the review. She spoke about the past issues concerning discretions on allocated dollars and that this proposal would remove that discretion or advice to this commission from management. Discussion ensued among the TMSC members and Administration regarding the process and the needed input from the Mayor and PW on the transit projects. Deputy Mayor Alina Hudak said all projects were currently part of the transportation plan and approved whether short or long-term; however, the road impact fee was a funding source, which required meeting the criteria that was reviewed by the Public Works Director and the County Budget Office, followed by recommendations that go through process of approval by the Board of County Commissioners (BCC). She also said she was not aware of the reason that the language in this ordinance was amended other than to put the Public Works and Transit projects on equal ground and she had shared the same concerns, but the results would come through the budget process. Deputy Mayor Hudak stated that currently road impact fees were in the capital plan of this Board’s approved County Budget and was projected out and committed for the next five years. At the request of Commissioner Jordan, Assistant County Attorney Bruce Libhaber advised that road impact fee were applied primarily for roads, and under unique circumstances there could be an exception that allowed these fees to be allocated to transit, such as the location being in the urban infill area that was southeast of the Palmetto Expressway; and would alleviate traffic congestion on existing roads. He further advised this would require a written recommendation from the Mayor and consultation with the PW Director. Assistant County Attorney Libhaber stated that this ordinance would put transit on equal footing with road projects and not be limited to those infill areas as well as no longer require specific recommendations from the Mayor and PW Director. He referred to comments made by Deputy Mayor Hudak that because of the budget process there would still be significant input from the Mayor and Administration concerning all these projects, and the funding mechanisms. Responding to Commissioner Jordan’s question regarding whether this ordinance would impact existing projects in the pipeline or other projects that might be at risk, Deputy Mayor Hudak noted the possibility of impacts, depending upon the Board’s policy; and based on the current projection expected to be received in road impact fees there are projects currently funded in a five year plan. She also noted it would be depended upon the Board’s decision and the Mayor’s recommendation. In response to Commissioner Barreiro’s question regarding the number of districts included in the impact fee, Deputy Mayor Hudak said she was not certain about other impact fee programs she believed were different, but the Road Impact Fee Ordinance defined nine benefit districts. Commissioner Barreiro expressed concern and noted the need to revisit those assigned benefit districts and he believed there should not be a boundary, but funds should be allocated countywide towards merited projects. However, he noted that he believed, for accounting purposes, there should be 13 districts that was based on the County Commissioner’s geographical assigned areas. He further noted the need for a countywide perspective with consideration that areas that support higher densities, etc., would generate more road impact fees, which were issues that should be specifically addressed. Commissioner Barreiro noted the current nine benefit districts did not allow the Commissioners to have a full grasps of the issues at hand, in terms of accounting. However, he noted that the Mayor and Administration had an advantage, in terms of funding projects, determining priorities and it was important that this Board had more information. Commissioner Moss commented on his observations of this issue and based on a past discussion that this would provide an opportunity for additional resources. He indicated, although, the focus was on transit there was a need to determine the potential transit funding opportunities, such as Tax Increment Financing (TIF),, road impact fees, and other funding sources, followed by creating a plan on how to fund these various expansions. Commissioner Moss pointed out there were roads that needed paving and he wanted to ensure that those roads were repaired and not missed in the process. He believed this was a way of identifying another funding source, which was an opportunity that was needed. He spoke about the reasonable opportunity for the Mayor and the PW Director to provide recommendations because of transit projects. Commissioner Moss agreed with comments made by Commissioner Barreiro to expand this ordinance countywide to address all issues pertaining to this item including existing projects in the pipeline. Commissioner Diaz agreed with the comments made by Commissioner Moss and the expansion of using these resources for transit and the importance of repairing existing roads. He acknowledged comments made by Commissioner Barreiro and the fact there were higher density areas, but residents had a choice of their location. Commissioner Diaz noted the need to address this issue carefully and plan, which would make funds available for transit; and look holistically at the issues, which was his intent as prime sponsor. He noted the need to review the current policy. In response to Commissioner Jordan’s question whether this could be accomplished without amending the reviewing process of recommendations in this ordinance, Assistant County Attorney Libhaber advised there was nothing prohibiting this Board from requiring the Mayor’s or PW Director’s recommendations. Assistant County Attorney Libhaber advised although it was the same required process of recommendations and the attempt was to put transit on equal footing with the roads, currently the roads projects did not require a Mayor’s recommendation; therefore, if the transit projects required those recommendations, the process would be different. Chairman Bovo asked MDT Director Alice Bravo to provide a current assessment report regarding funding resources for work on roads and paved roads, such as People’s Transportation Plan (PTP) component and allocated expenditures as well as the location of those projects before the November 12, 2015 TMSC meeting. Commissioner Moss suggested considering restricting those road impact fees that were used for transit to the corridor projects because of the urgency in completing them in moving forward.

Board of County Commissioners	9/16/2015	4A	Adopted on first reading		10/14/2015		P
REPORT:	During the setting of the agenda, County Attorney Robert Cuevas advised Commissioner Edmonson requested to have her sponsorship removed. First Assistant County Attorney Abigail Price-Williams read into the record the title of the foregoing proposed ordinance. There being no comments or objections, the members of the Board proceeded to take a vote on this ordinance as presented. The foregoing proposed ordinance was adopted on first reading and scheduled for a public hearing before the Transit and Mobility Services (TMS) Committee on Wednesday, October 14, 2015, at 9:30 a.m.

Board of County Commissioners	9/16/2015		Tentatively scheduled for a public hearing	Transit and Mobility Services Committee	10/14/2015

Board of County Commissioners	9/1/2015		Tentatively scheduled for a public hearing	Transit and Mobility Services Committee	10/14/2015

Board of County Commissioners	9/1/2015	14A5	4 Day Rule Invoked
REPORT:	(See Report under Agenda Item 14A2, Legislative File No. 151710)

Office of the Chairperson	8/31/2015		Additions

County Attorney	8/28/2015		Assigned	Dennis A. Kerbel	8/29/2015

County Attorney	8/28/2015		Referred	Transit and Mobility Services Committee	10/14/2015

Legislative Text

TITLE
ORDINANCE RELATING TO ROAD IMPACT FEES; PROVIDING FOR USE OF IMPACT FEES TO PAY FOR MASS TRANSIT PROJECTS THAT BENEFIT MULTIPLE IMPACT FEE DISTRICTS; AMENDING SECTION 33E-12 OF THE CODE OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA; PROVIDING SEVERABILITY, INCLUSION IN THE CODE AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE

BODY
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA:
Section 1. Section 33E-5 of the Code of Miami-Dade County, Florida, is hereby amended to read as follows:1
Sec. 33E-5. Definitions.

* * *

(23) Select Transit Capital Improvement means a specific transit capital project [[located inside the Urban Infill Area]] that has been determined by the Board of County Commissioners to be of strategic value in providing roadway capacity [[inside the Urban Infill Area]] pursuant to Section 33E-12(d).

* * *

Section 2. Section 33E-12 of the Code of Miami-Dade County, Florida, is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 33E-12. Impact fee expenditures.

* * *

(d) Roadway trust funds >>from one or more impact fee districts<< may be expended on select transit capital improvements provided that the Board of County Commissioners, [[after recommendation from the Mayor in consultation with the Public Works and Waste Management Director and]] after public hearing, determines that any such transit use of roadway trust funds would be effective as part of the county's strategy for providing roadway capacity >>and would provide a benefit to each of the impact fee districts contributing roadway trust funds to the transit improvement.<< [[within the Urban Infill Area. Roadway trust funds may only be used for select transit capital improvements within the Urban Infill Area. Only impact fees generated from within the Urban Infill Area may be used for select transit capital projects.]] Transit projects are to be selected for road way trust fund funding on the basis of their expected effectiveness as roadway capacity improvements >>, and road way trust funds shall not be used to address existing deficiencies<<.

* * *

Section 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or provision of this ordinance is held invalid, the remainder of this ordinance shall not be affected by such invalidity.
Section 4. It is the intention of the Board of County Commissioners, and it is hereby ordained that the provisions of this ordinance, including any sunset provision, shall become and be made a part of the Code of Miami-Dade County, Florida. The sections of this ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such intention, and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section," "article," or other appropriate word.

Section 5. This ordinance shall become effective ten (10) days after the date of enactment unless vetoed by the Mayor, and if vetoed, shall become effective only upon an override by this Board.

1 Words stricken through and/or [[double bracketed]] shall be deleted. Words underscored and/or >>double arrowed<< constitute the amendment proposed. Remaining provisions are now in effect and remain unchanged.