Loading...
10-14-2010AGENDA 1. Race to the Top FDOE Grant (City Manager)* 2. Charter Revision Commission (City Manager)* 3. Annual Selection of Representative to the Miami -Dade County League of Cities (City Manager)* 4. Constitutional Amendments 5 & 6 (Mayor Gottlieb) 5. Amendment To Interlocal Agreement with Miami -Dade County School Board *(City Manager)* 6. Adjourn * Back -up Information Exists This meeting is open to the public. In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, all persons who are disabled and who need special accommodations to participate in this meeting because of that disability should contact the Office of the City Clerk, 305- 466 -8901, not later than two days prior to such proceeding. CITY OF "ENTURA OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER MEMORANDUM TO: City Commission FROM: Eric M. Soroka, ICMA -CM, Cit na er DATE: October 7, 2010 SUBJECT: Race To The Top Federal Education Grant Program As you are aware the State of Florida Department of Education recently was awarded Phase 2 Race To The Top (RTTT) Federal funding. In short, the grant was established to implement Federal targeted educational reform programs at the State level. The Miami -Dade School Board has executed MOU to participate in the program. It is optional for Charter Schools to participate in the RTTP program. I have placed this item on the Workshop Agenda to discuss this matter with the City Commission (Governing Board of ACES) and determine if we wish to participate in the RTTP program. EMS /act CCO1705 -10 CITY OF AVENTURA OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER MEMORANDUM TO: City Commission FROM: Eric M. Soroka, ICMA -CM, City a er Y DATE: September 22, 2010 SUBJECT: Charter Revision Commission The City Charter provides that at the first regular meeting of November 2010, the City Commission shall appoint a Charter Revision Commission (CRC). The CRC shall consist of five persons, one of whom shall have served as a member of the previous Charter Commission. The CRC shall commence its proceedings within 15 days after appointment by the Commission. Any recommended changes are required to be submitted to the City Commission by January 1, 2011. The City Commission shall, not less than 60 days or more than 150 days after the submission of the proposed amendments to the City Commission, submit them to the electors of the City. Attached hereto is a list of the previous members of the Charter Commission. I have placed this item on the Workshop Agenda in order to begin the process of appointing members of the CRC. EMS /act Attachment CCO1702 -10 § 706 AVENTURA CODE Section 7.06. Charter revision. At its first regular meeting in November of every fifth year after the adoption of this Charter, commencing with December, 2000, the Commission shall appoint a Charter revision commission consisting of five persons, one of whom shall have served as a member of the previous Charter commission and four of whom shall be electors of the City. If a former Charter commission member is not available to serve, five electors of the City, rather than four, shall be appointed. The City Commissioners shall not be eligible for appointment to the revision commission. The revision commission shall commence its proceedings within 15 days after appointment by the Commission. If the revision commission determines that a revision is needed, including but not limited to a change in the boundaries or numbers of Residential Areas, it shall draft such amendments to this Charter as it deems appropriate and submit the same to the Commission not later than January 1 of the following year after their appointment by the Commission. The Commission shall, not less than 60 days or more than 150 days after submission of the proposed amendments to the Commission, submit them to the electors of the City in accordance with the provisions of Section 6.02, except that the provisions of subsections (a) and (b) of such Section shall not apply. (Ord. No. 97 -30, § 7, adopted 12- 16 -97, passed at referendum 3- 10-98; Res. No. 2001 -15, § Upt. G), adopted 2 -6-01, passed at referendum 5- 15-01) Section 7.07. Variation of pronouns. All pronouns and any variation thereof used in this Charter shall be deemed to refer to masculine, feminine, neutral, singular or plural as the identity of the person or persons shall require and are not intended to describe, interpret, define or limit the scope, extent or intent of this Charter. Section 7.08. Style and capitalization. When a defined word is enclosed in quotes and in parentheses after the definition, that word shall be treated as a defined term in the remainder of this Charter, when capitalized. Section 7.09. No discrimination. The City shall not adopt any measure or policy or otherwise discriminate against any person due to race, religion, color, national origin, physical or mental disability, creed, sexual preference or sex. The City shall not adopt any policy regarding the use of City facilities that would discriminate against any person due to race, religion, color, national origin, physical or mental disability, creed, sexual preference or sex. (Res. No. 2001 -15, § Upt. H), adopted 2 -6-01, passed at referendum 5- 15 -01) Section 7.10. Fire rescue services. The City of Aventura shall utilize the services of the Metro -Dade Fire Rescue Department to provide fire and rescue services to the City. Supp. No. 6 CHT:20 2005 Charter Revision Commission Members Leonard Brenner Arthur Barr Arthur Berger Manny Grossman Alan Lips :1LAMI-ADDE COUNTY EAGUE OF CITIES Est. 1953 President Hon. Michael Blynn Councilman, North Miami First Vice President Hon. Juan C. Bermudez Mayor, Doral Second Vice President Hon. Luis Gonzalez Councilman, City of Hialeah Third Vice President Hon. Joseph Kelley Mayor, Opa -Locke Secretary Hon. Deede Weithom Commissioner, Miami Beach Treasurer Hon. Cindy Lerner Mayor, Pinecrest BOARn OF DIRECTORS Hon. Zev Auerbach Commissioner, Aventura Hon. Joni D. Blachar Assistant Mayor, Bal Harbour Hon. Jordan W- Leonard Councilman, Bay Harbor Islands Hon. Roxanne Ross Mayor, Biscayne Park Hon. Rafael Cabrera, Jr. Commissioner, Coral Gables Hon. Michael DiPietro Councilman, Dora[ Hon, Joyce Davis Mayor, El Portal Hon. R.S. Shiver Commissioner, Florida City Hon. Judy Lusskin Vice Mayor, Golden Beach Hon. Vivian Casals- Murloz Councilwoman, Hialeah Hon. Yoset De La Cruz Mayor, Hialeah Gardens Hon. Jon A. Burgess Councilman, Homestead T.B.A. Indian Creek Hon. Robert Vernon Mayor, Key Biscayne Hon. Ramon Rodriguez Mayor, Medley Hon. Francis Suarez Commissioner, Miami Hon. Jose "Pepe" Diaz Vice - Chairman, Miami -Dade County Hon. Dr. Wilbert "Tee" Holloway Board Member Miami -Dade County School Board Hon. Jonah Wolfson Commissioner, Miami Beach T.B.A Miami Gardens Hon. Michael Pizzi Mayor, Miami Lakes Hon. Prospero Herrera Councilman, Miami Shores Hon. Billy Bain Mayor, Miami Springs Hon. Dr. Paul Vogel Commissioner, North Bay Village Hon. Andre Pierre Mayor, North Miami Hon. Myron Rosner Mayor, North Miami Beach Hon. Dorothy Johnson Commissioner, Opa -Loeka Hon. Howard Tendrich Councilman, Palmetto Bay T B.A Pinecrest Hon. Bnan Beasley Commissioner, South Miami Hon. Norman Edelcup Mayor, Sunny Isles Beach TBA Surfside Hon. Orlando Lopez Commissioner, Sweetwater Hon. Spencer Deno IV Mayor, Virginia Gardens Hon. Eduardo Muhina Mayor, West Miami MIAMI -DADE COUNTY LEAGUE OF CITIES. 226 East Flagler Street • Suite 200 • Miami, FL 33131 Phone 305.416.4155 Fax 305.416.4157 www.mdcic.org Richard Kuper, Esq. Executive Director September 16, 2010 The Honorable Susan Gottlieb Mayor, City of Aventura 19200 W. Country Club Drive Aventura, Fl 33180 Dear Mayor Gottlieb: fritmediate Past President Hon. Shirley Gibson Mayor, Miami Gardens Past Presidents Hon. Richard Steinberg State Representative, District 106 Hon. Manuel Marodo Mayor, City of Sweetwater Hon. Eduardo Gonzalez State Representative District 102 Hon. Isaac Salver Councilman, Town of Bay Harbor Islands Hon. Julio Robaina Mayor, City of Hialeah Hon. R.S. Shiver Commissioner, City of Florida City Hon. Wilfredo "Willy" Gorr Commissioner, City of Miami Hen. Paul Vogel Commissioner, City of North Bay Village Howard B. Lenard, Esq Allow me this opportunity to first thank you for your continued participation in and support of the Miami -Dade County League of Cities (MDCLC). President Michael Blynn, and myself are well aware that MDCLC's success is a direct result of the hard work and dedication of its members. For this reason, we need your cooperation in making appointments to the Board. Each member municipality designates one of its elected officials to serve as a Director and one as an alternate of the League for a period of one year. The term commences at the date of the Annual Meeting which has been changed to the month of February, and runs until the following February. Allow this letter to serve as a kind reminder that you are required to designate a Director and an alternate to represent your municipality on the MDCLC's Board preferably before the December Board Meeting. Please send us a note to the League office naming your appointments. Thank you for your continued cooperation and support. RK/mr Executive Director YES on FairDistricts Amendments 5 & 6 August 5, 2010 The Honorable Susan Gottlieb Office of the Mayor City of Aventura, City Hall 19200 W. Country Club Dr. Aventura, Fl 33180 -2413 Dear Mayor Gottlieb: As Chairman of Fair Districts Florida, I ask for your support of Amendments 5 and 6. FairDistrictsHorida is a non - partisan group of Florida citizens who gathered 1.7 million petitions in support of Amendments 5 and 6. This November, we will have a unique opportunity to reform the way legislative and Congressional district lines are drawn by establishing constitutionally mandated fairness standards. For too long, gerrymandered districts have severed our communities. Amendments 5 and 6 will establish constitutional standards that will prohibit legislators from designing districts to favor themselves or their parties; require compact districts; and, provide strict protections for minority voters, ensuring that redistricting cannot be used to reduce minority representation. Amendments 5 and 6 would require lawmakers to use existing city and county lines where feasible, creating districts that keep communities together and eliminating districts that look like puzzle pieces, span hundreds of miles, and divide communities. (Please see enclosed fact sheet). Most importantly, Amendments 5 and 6 will allow voters the opportunity to choose their representatives instead of politicians choosing which voters they want in their districts. Amendments 5 and 6 have been endorsed by the Florida League of Mayors, the Florida League of Cities, the League of Women Voters, the Florida School Boards Association Florida NAACP, Florida Black Caucus of Local Elected Officials, Democracia Ahora, the Florida Black Legislative Caucus, and every major newspaper in our state. I hope you will support Amendments 5 and 6 by signing the enclosed endorsement form and returning the same to my attention via facsimile at (786) 522 -0522. I also encourage and welcome your suggestions on how best to achieve victory in November. I look forward to hearing from you. I can be reached at manny@fairdistrictsflorida.org or (305) 445 -5442. Sincerely, Manny Diaz, Chairman, FairDistrictsFlorida Former President of the U.S. Conference of Mayors Former Mayor of the City of Miami FairDistrictsFlorida.org 2665 South Bayshore Drive • Suite M -103 • Miami, FL 33133 • 305.445.5442 pd.pol.adv. Paid for by FairDistrictsFiorida.org, 2665 South Bayshore Drive, Suite M -103, Miami, FL 33133. " FairDistrictsFlorida.org Endorsement Form endorse the campaign of (print name) FairDistrictsHorida.org to pass two constitutional amendments to establish standards for Congressional and legislative redistricting. FairDistrictsFlorida.org has my permission to refer to my endorsement Publicly or privately and to refer to me as a supporter of these initiatives. Si«naturc Print Name Phonc Email Address Date Title City - County Please send your endorsement form to FairDistrictsFlorida.org by fax, email or mail. Fax: (786) 522 -0522 Email: Ellen@ FairDistrictsFlorida.org Mail: FairDistrictsFlorida.org c/o Ellen Freidin 2665 South Bayshorc Drive, M -103 Miami, FL 33133 If you have any questions, please contact FairDistrictsFlorida.org at 305- 445 -5442. pd pol adk. Paid for h\ fQaiIDistriel rk6da.org, 2665 South Bayshore D1IVe, Suite M -103, Miami, FL 33133 Amendments 5 and 6: The Case for Redistricting Reform There is no state in the union with more partisan bias in its Congressional and Legislative district maps than Florida. The districts are rigged to favor a particular party or an incumbent. This makes it almost impossible for an opposition party candidate or a challenger to an incumbent to win. In fact, in the last three election cycles, only 3 incumbent legislators have been defeated. • This unfair power grab is accomplished by packing most of the opposing party voters into a few districts and spreading the controlling party's voters over a larger number of districts in numbers just sufficient to ensure that the seat is "safe ". Districts are bizarrely shaped and they senselessly divide Florida's communities. Legislators are not accountable to their constituents. Once elected to their "safe" seats, these elected officials vote with impunity because their districts are drawn so that any meaningful challenge is practically impossible. This discourages moderation and compromise and fosters extremist voting. Then, when redistricting comes around, these "safe" legislators take care of themselves and their party rather than the people of Florida. Forty -seven states have more competitive legislative elections than Florida! ( htti): / /www.foIlowthemone ..org/ database /graphs /competitive /index.phtm1 • Our present system creates a conflict of interest by vesting the legislature with virtually unlimited discretion to draw district lines. It is like having "the fox guard the henhouse" and many Florida citizens are unfairly left without a voice. Reapportionment in Florida has been little more than an exercise in perpetuation of power. • In response to this problem, FairDistricts Amendments 5 and 6 will be on the November ballot. These amendments will establish fairness standards for use in creating legislative and congressional boundaries. • While protecting minority voting rights, FairDistricts Amendments Sand 6 will prohibit drawing district lines to favor or disfavor any incumbent or political party. Districts will have to be compact and utilize existing political and geographical boundaries. The legislature will be bound to follow these standards and if a resulting plan is challenged in court, there will be clear requirements for the court to enforce. • These amendments have over 70% approval on multiple polls. • Florida editorial boards unanimously favor these amendments. • FairDistrictsFlorida.org is non - partisan. It is co- chaired by three Republicans: attorney and former Judge Thom Rumberger, Former Assistant Secretary of the Interior Nat Reed and former State Comptroller Bob Milligan; and three Democrats: Former Senator and Governor Bob Graham, former State Attorney and Attorney General Janet Reno and former state Senator and Lt. Gov. Candidate Daryl Jones. Miami lawyer Ellen Freidin, the Campaign Chair, is supported by a highly professional staff with vast experience in Florida campaigns and ballot initiatives. The effort has been endorsed by numerous individuals, elected officials and organizations including the Florida NAACP, Florida League of Cities, the Florida League of Mayors, the Florida Legislative Black Caucus, League of Women Voters, the Florida Black Caucus of Local Elected Officials, Common Cause, Florida Voters Coalition, and Democracia U.S.A. Pd. Pol. Adv. Paid for by FairDistrictsHorida.ore. 2665 S. Bayshore Drive. M -103. Miami.FL 33133 AMENDMENT 5 STANDARDS FOR LEGISLATURE TO FOLLOW IN LEGISLATIVE REDISTRICTING BALLOT SUMMARY: Legislative districts or districting plans may not be drawn to favor or disfavor an incumbent or political party. Districts shall not be drawn to deny racial or language minorities the equal opportunity to participate in the political process and elect representatives of their choice. Districts must be contiguous. Unless otherwise required, districts must be compact, as equal in population as feasible, and where feasible must make use of existing city, county and geographical boundaries. Full text: In establishing Legislative district boundaries: (1) No apportionment plan or district shall be drawn with the intent to favor or disfavor a political party or an incumbent; and districts shall not be drawn with the intent or result of denying or abridging the equal opportunity of racial or language minorities to participate in the political process or to diminish their ability to elect representatives of their choice; and districts shall consist of contiguous territory. (2) Unless compliance with the standards in this subsection conflicts with the standards in subsection (1) or with federal law, districts shall be as nearly equal in population as is practicable; districts shall be compact; and districts shall, where feasible, utilize existing political and geographical boundaries. (3) The order in which the standards within sub - sections (1) and (2) of this section are set forth shall not be read to establish any priority of one standard over the other within that subsection. AMENDMENT IS STANDARDS FOR LEGISLATURE TO FOLLOW IN CONGRESSIONAL REDISTRICTING BALLOT SUMMARY: Congressional districts or districting plans may not be drawn to favor or disfavor an incumbent or political party. Districts shall not be drawn to deny racial or language minorities the equal opportunity to participate in the political process and elect representatives of their choice. Districts must be contiguous. Unless otherwise required, districts must be compact, as equal in population as feasible, and where feasible must make use of existing city, county and geographical boundaries. Full text: In establishing Congressional district boundaries: (1) No apportionment plan or individual district shall be drawn with the intent to favor or disfavor a political party or an incumbent; and districts shall not be drawn with the intent or result of denying or abridging the equal opportunity of racial or language minorities to participate in the political process or to diminish their ability to elect representatives of their choice; and districts shall consist of contiguous territory. (2) Unless compliance with the standards in this subsection conflicts with the standards in subsection (1) or with federal law, districts shall be as nearly equal in population as is practicable; districts shall be compact; and districts shall, where feasible, utilize existing political and geographical boundaries. 3) The order in which the standards within sub - sections (1) and (2) of this section are set forth shall not be read to establish any priority of one standard over the other within that subsection. pd.pol.adv. Paid for by FairDistrictsFlorida.org, 2665 South Bayshore Drive, Suite M -103, Miami, FL 33133 VOTE YES on Fair Districts Amendments 5 &6 YOU can stop p oliticians from drawin g districts to preserve their own political power What you're looking at is one example of how politicians in Tallahassee hold on to power. Like most districts in Florida, the 78th House District is bizarrely shaped. It includes random parts of 4 counties and is divided by Lake Okeechobee - all to ensure that those with the power stay in power. Now Politicians are allowed to choose which voters they want in their districts. Voters should be choosing their representatives, not the other way around. Vote Yes on 5 & 6. Give Power back to the people. FairDistrictsFlorid a,org pd.pol.adv. Paid for by FairDistrictsFlorida.org, 2665 South Bayshore Drive, Suite M -103, Miami, FL 33133. ®4e�- Only Career Politicians Think a District Like This Makes Sense THAT WE NEED TO VOTE YES ON AMENDMENTS 5 & 6 .......................... ................................................................................................ .................................................. I — —......... "The current system of drawing legislative and congressional districts is broken." — St. Pete Times ............................................................................................................................................................ ............................... "The redistricting process needs to be overhauled. ...It is critical to remove selfish political motives from the process." — Tampa Tribune ............................................................................................................................................................ ............................... "There is nothing state lawmakers guard more jealously than their power to rig legislative and congressional districts to serve their own interests and their party's desire for control." — The Gainesville Sun ............................................................................................................................................................ .................I............. "Legislators love the perverse practice (of gerrymandering), which allows them to draw legislative and congressional districts in ways that make it virtually impossible for challengers to unseat them." — Orlando Sentinel ........................................................................................................................................................... ............................... . "Lines shouldn't be drawn to help a party, incumbent or anyone else." — Florida Times Union ........................................................................................................................................................... ............................... . "Amendments 5 & 6 will give control of elections back to Florida's voters, where it belongs." — The Miami Herald ........................................................................................................................................................... ............................... . "The intent of the amendments is sound: give voters more power and powerful politicians less. " — Tallahassee Democrat ........................................................................................................................................................... ............................... . "The people should support Amendments 5 & 6 so we can put an end to the chicanery and political arrogance that has become all too routine in the Legislature." — Lakeland Ledger Amendment 5 Standards for Legislature to follow in legislative redistricting Legislative districts or districting plans may not be drawn to favor or disfavor an incumbent or political party. Districts shall not be drawn to deny racial or language minorities the equal opportunity to participate in the political process and elect representatives of their choice. Districts must be contiguous. Unless otherwise required, districts must be compact, as equal in population as feasible, and where feasible must make use of existing city, county and geographical boundaries. Amendment 6 Standards for Legislature to follow in congressional redistricting Congressional districts or districting plans may not be drawn to favor or disfavor an incumbent or political party. Districts shall not be drawn to deny racial or language minorities the equal opportunity to participate in the political process and elect representatives of their choice. Districts must be contiguous. Unless otherwise required, districts must be compact, as equal in population as feasible, and where feasible must make use of existing city, county and geographical boundaries. FairDistridsFlorida.org 305 - 445 -5442 Al tom q -� . a y k .y 'a HERA d� iA4m.rvffi.v" O M - �r>- �x W t . ` AMENDMENTS, ' es j f 0 �;; �. Sen.� By MKWL z L 2U0(! <" t , return to, tb�er+ @ � F and have for ©zie V �erj� �.' �� be,'The � � A sad �. its resp mar -�r�` fee aad cbvit,;� be . lei d � 9 " 5 NM Af `r,ent� s etc 4 - eleC #ed 8n� { >,� t h r ' job for et in e � ` a wfo p X son � draw ow�t SET t out it's nt1 tl� 11, come, it tit �Y�� t1CS bailQt an atu }A AOyr m c sile [tlye �rro ter' a s t ie gressional xst - toes supposed to be ccxna act, crib $aI snd � omit +s lu best the mould doi these re nble. rue�as,it a by tiguous aztd + tgotate sonv e, as well as comp to cane #es all ;I eon' cttsoe after, beusg i�eci. "ei#i e! from axe it blood from sc#�iz op�sre� stsui�+ities n� c�i tart intermit hots. �o�nples, lbogu whiie fie' Terse district ba, of ,orxtiesvrrr #h 5 a� Ain Yes make dizzy t ris gods but ones that are rarely Onctine . b� roui �' , #ealized fir, t current tha rtsssed ` t s Votes c�lsc cx�snmunities eh s7rst How` car eziatt lei �, , the el t o i i l v +�on�r�a 10, , � ea► alt�4. �' districts, drawn by agents 6 �� cant', in, `2�t18,, passed iega ber Z >atomu dime of �� App ! tv of It s a � ,�. muster is :t _ yood me, but a a; � lorida .tc►tars�e �tbe'8� emo theyre not emots#rably tutx n a tdme w d r oats ert . when worst thou rte; ones drawn "representatives , try 1ss, a � atanexital t e� coritrri 1 so. do pro"" T xe `Ueinos:rals Ciice." . cause ofo#er et t 4d?� #� , B evert tit power That should apathy: Thaw M'bz_ T tit tli vs w >u�ot, ► interest-of either t d vot al party tp�draw these !' fi choose 6M y M In Ham. sent t F e tx� Re ottable btswndnrles a, rillingne to el t ti MV; , .., munity ' oar bisfricts Flcirida, a ity can of tlue tirser anti ©as= A � , vaiu�s, + atizl�emocra# teeth whe t siva ed Too o£teia,� :the 180,000 real mss, ,.., ,. �, r represented Eby fou 'gtdi lieci+ed � d r Ho �. eo Imo- limn szgnttus t ..Z . G .poleiit system is bro• WL ,and J# �. e'distr�cts to bee ken. Approving u f r a one 5 and 6 waatd go a to nore fairly and, ortal seats. hopes, mo re transparently, U Milthiog is deeply wrong. with,- boun its s that :pxslit�cs as usual � e. voters, not # #e other w ' and the �esyou ace around. 'Chic Must Change drn ixnes year's your At present, n3)►x tie txa�t be atecl vote Yes Cart Ai>aertdments �• ,Ma CITY OF AVENTURA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: City Commission FROM: Eric M. Soroka, IC A City Manager BY: Joanne Carr, AIC Community Develo ment Director DATE: October 6, 2010 SUBJECT: Proposed Revisions to Interlocal Agreement for Public School Facility Planning October 14, 2010 City Commission Workshop The revisions to the Interlocal Agreement for Public School Facility Planning listed in this report are offered by the School Board for inclusion in the City's agreement under the "most favored nations" clause, as they are contained in a separate agreement made between the School Board and Miami -Dade County. Background In 2002, the Florida Legislature enacted new growth management legislation relating to coordination of planning between the school boards and local governing bodies so that plans for construction and opening of public educational facilities were facilitated in time and in place with plans for residential development. These new laws, Sections 163.31777 and 1013.33, Florida Statutes, required the school board, county and nonexempt municipalities to enter into an Interlocal Agreement that jointly established the specific ways in which the plans and processes of the district school board and the local governments were to be coordinated. The City entered into this agreement on February 4, 2003, by authority of Resolution No. 2003 -15. During its 2005 session, the State legislature enacted further growth management legislation mandating the implementation of a County -wide uniform school concurrency system. The legislation required that the City adopt an Education Element into our Comprehensive Plan and also required that the existing Interlocal Agreement be amended and restated to incorporate the public school concurrency system. The Education Element was adopted on June 3, 2008 by Ordinance No. 2008 -12 and the amended and restated agreement was signed on January 8, 2008 by authority of Resolution No. 2008 -08. The form of Amended and Restated Agreement signed by our City in January 2008, referred to as the "Consensus ILA ", was also signed by 24 of the other non - exempt municipalities in Miami -Dade County. The County itself and 2 other cities, Hialeah and Hialeah Gardens, did not agree with certain provisions of the Agreement and continued negotiations with the School Board. In May of 2009, the County, Hialeah and Hialeah Gardens entered into a separate agreement with the School Board, referred to as the "Bi- lateral ILA ". Section 18 of the Consensus ILA is the "most favored nations" clause, and provides that if the School Board enters into a separate agreement with another municipality or County which provides more beneficial terms, the School Board shall offer the same terms to all parties to the agreement. There are eight clauses in the Bi- Lateral ILA that differ from the Consensus Agreement. The first seven, listed below, are referred to by the School Board as "optional' revisions to the ILA, because they are offered to the nonexempt municipalities for consideration as part of a supplementary agreement. The School Board has deemed them to be non - substantive. Each city may choose none, some or all of the amendments for inclusion in our ILA. These "optional" amendments are essentially already in effect because the actions they require will be need to be undertaken by the School Board, pursuant to the School Board and County agreement, regardless of whether or not they are listed in both versions of the ILA. The eighth amendment is referred to as "non- optional" because it will be effective only if all parties to the Consensus Agreement agree to its inclusion. The School Board has provided the attached Response Forms for completion and return by the non - exempt municipalities before December 31, 2010. I. Supplementary Agreement: Optional Amendments to Consensus ILA 1. Section 9.2(a) Capacity Methodology and Formula for Availability This amendment adds, to the end of the Section, the requirement to assess the effects of using geographic areas within one year 2. Section 9.2(b) Level of Service Standard This amendment adds that the School Board is to submit annual reports by September 30, and provides that amendments to LOS standards must follow the amendment provision of the agreement 3. Section 9.2(c) Concurrency Service Areas This addition requires that amendments to the Concurrency Service Area are to be accomplished in accordance with the amendment provision of the agreement Pj 4. Section 9.2(d) Student Generation Multipliers This amendment revises the process for developing Student Generation Multipliers and removes the requirement of adoption into the Comprehensive Plan 5. Section 9.2(f) Proportionate Share Mitigation This revision confirms that any proportionate share mitigation must be acceptable to the School Board, adds Charter Schools as a mitigation option at the sole discretion of the School Board, and adds a process if there is lack of agreement on option to be used for mitigation 6. Section 9.3 Updates to Public School Concurrency This amendment explains the actions to be taken if the School Board closes an existing school, or deletes, modifies or delays a school facility project planned in the first three years of the Work Plan 7. Section 22 Taking and Vested Rights New language in this section reinforces the fact that nothing in the ILA shall be construed or applied to effect a permanent or temporary taking of private property Staff Recommendation on I. Staff recommends that the clause on proportionate share mitigation in 5 be added to our Agreement, to show our strong support of Charter Schools as a mitigation option for student capacity. The amendments in 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 describe actions that will be taken by the School Board whether or not the requirements are in our Agreement. The amendment in 7 is legal language, added at the request of the County, but it is in force as a matter of law whether or not it is added to the Agreement. II. Non - Optional Amendment to Consensus ILA The City's Agreement currently provides that any future amendments to the ILA must be approved by unanimous vote of all parties. The County, Hialeah and Hialeah Gardens Agreement, on the other hand, would allow an amendment affecting the uniform district -wide public school concurrency system to become effective on approval of the County, the School Board and two- thirds of the non - exempt municipalities, as opposed to all non - exempt municipalities. Before this unanimity provision can be modified, all non - exempt municipalities will first need to individually ascertain whether or not the modification would be in their best interest. Unless all non - exempt municipalities agree to the change, it will not take effect. 3 Staff Recommendation on II. The positive effect of a change from the current unanimous vote to a "two- thirds in favor" vote is that one dissenting city could not block a beneficial modification to the Agreement. Conversely, the negative effect is that a change could be made to the Agreement that the City Commission is opposed to, if two- thirds of the other cities agree to that change with the County and the School Board. Staff will complete the response forms and deliver them to the School Board based on the City Commission's direction. 4 PROPOSED AMENDMENT No. 1 AMENDED AND RESTATED INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR PUBLIC SCHOOL FACILITY PLANNING IN MIAMI -DADE COUNTY Purpose To consider whether or not to approve the addition of a new Section (Section 21) related to the required vote on future amendments to the Interlocal Agreement. Summary: Presently the Consensus ILA provides that any amendments to the ILA must be approved by unanimous vote. The language below would, if approved unanimously by all ILA signatories (Municipalities), change that requirement from a unanimous vote of all Municipalities to a 2/3 vote by the Municipalities. Section 21. Amendments An amendment to this Agreement shall require approval by each City and the School Board, and shall be offered to the County and all other Cities for their consideration as a supplementary agreement. If the amendment to this Agreement affects the uniform district -wide public school concurrence system or otherwise requires the approval of the non - exempt municipalities, it shall become effective only upon the approval of an amendment to this Agreement by the County and School Board and approval of a similar amendment to the Amended and Restated Agreement by two- thirds of the non - exempt municipalities. Notwithstanding the foregoing, all of the nonexempt municipalities must approve the amendment to the Amended and Restated Agreement for it to become effective, unless all non - exempt municipalities have revised the Amended and Restated Agreement to allow for amendments to be approved by two- thirds of the non - exempt municipalities. An amendment shall not be effective until the amendment is fully executed by the applicable parties and, where applicable, all comprehensive plan amendments are effective. Please indicate your preference by circling the appropriate response YES In favor of accepting proposed Amendment No. 1, which would add a Section (Section 21) as written above NO Not in favor of accepting proposed Amendment No. 1. Future amendments would require a unanimous vote of all municipalities Submitted By: (Print and sign name of authorized official) Date: Name of Municipality: Response Form For Optional Amendments Presented for Consideration for Adoption as First Supplementary Agreement ( Please check the appropriate box(es) for the option(s) selected) El l Section 9.2 (a) Capacity Methodology and Formula for Availability Add to end of section the requirement to assess effects of geographic areas within one year 2 Section 9.2 (b) Level of Service Standard - Add after paragraph 4 that MDCPS is to Submit Annual Reports by 9/30; and also revise the next paragraph to read that Amendments to LOS standards must follow the amendment provision of the Agreement 3 Section 9.2 (c) Concurrence Service Areas Amend third paragraph to require that amendments to CSA are to be accomplished in accordance with amendment provision of the Agreement 4 Section 9.2 (d) Student Generation Multipliers Amend first paragraph which amends process for developing Student Generation Multipliers and removes requirement of adoption into CDMP F15 Section 9.2 (f) Proportionate Share Mitigation a) Amend paragraph before listing of options to reiterate that proportionate share mitigation must be approved by the School Board b) Add Charter Schools as mitigation option No. 6, subject to conditions set forth therein c) Add process to follow in the event there is lack of agreement on option to be used for mitigation and local governments accepting mitigation if the form of money 6 Section 9.3 Updates to Public School Concurrence Amend paragraph two and events 1, 3 and 4, for amending the District Facilities Work Program. Also add to end of section language that explains the actions to be taken when the School Board closes an existing school, or delete, modify, or delay a school facility project planned in the first three years of the Work Plan ❑ 7 Section 22 Taking and Vested Rights Add new section that reinforces the fact that nothing in the ILA shall be construed or applied to effect a permanent or temporary taking of private property in violation of the U.S. Constitution or Florida Constitution. No optional amendments will be selected for adoption Submitted by: (Print and sign name of authorized official) Name of Municipality: Date: Please return via e-mail to the attention of irodrigu @dadeschools.net or by fax to (305) 995 -4760 ATTACHMENT 1 1. If added, the following would be placed at the end of Section 9.2 (a) Assess Effects of Geographic Area Within one year following the effective date of this Agreement, the County, Cities and School Board staffs shall meet to assess the effect of the Geographic Areas (Northwest, Northeast, Southwest, Southeast) on the public school concurrency system. If any party feels that there are issues with the Geographic Areas, that party may propose to include an additional review step, as follows: "Where the Geographic Areas result in an application being found not to meet concurrence, the staffs shall evaluate whether the following factors exist: 1. The concurrence service area serving the development is bisected by the Geographic Area boundary line; 2. The adjacent concurrence service area, across the Geographic Area boundary line, has the capacity to absorb all of the impacts of the development; 3. The shifting does not result in the adjacent concurrence service area exceeding 95% of its capacity; and 4. The travel distance to the adjacent concurrency service area school is no greater than the travel distance to any adjacent concurrency service area located on the same side of the Geographic Area boundary line as the development. If all of these factors exist, then proportionate share mitigation shall not be required, and the shifting of impacts across the Geographic Area boundary line shall be automatically allowed." Both this Agreement and the Amended and Restated Agreement must be revised, and the public school facilities elements revised if deemed necessary, before this review step can become effective. The parties have agreed to start with the above concept, but may choose to adopt different language or procedures on this topic, if properly approved by all parties. 2. If added, the following would be placed after paragraph 4 of 9.2 (b) — Level of Service Standard The School Board shall provide to the County and cities: (1) an annual report of all schools that exceed the adopted LOS Standard: and (2) an annual report of the status of all capital projects related to school capacity that were due to be completed by the date of the report. Both reports shall be provided to the local governments no later than September 30 of each year. Potential amendments to these LOS Standards shall be considered at least annually at the Staff Working Group meeting to take place no later than April 30 (for the County's first comprehensive plan amendment cvclel or October 31 (for the County's second comprehensive plan amendment cycle) of each year. if there is a ensensus to arneRd aRV LOS St aF d i }en amendment to the LOS standard shall be accomplished by the exegu}i o f 'n rrn �� nd Restated Ar° °m °n+ by all Pa i °c And }h° gtttrt -tYF � n adopt ef amendmen t o th e G e . un t y ' s iqlan The mended L C� l l shall Rot be eff °n+irr° until +li nl+n + f„11., °., ° ^,. + °,� ^nlv in accordance with the amendment -- - i provisions of this Agreement. No LOS Standard shall be amended without a showing that the amended LOS Standard is financially feasible and can be achieved and maintained over the five years of the District Facilities Work Program. 3. If added, the following would amend the third paragraph of 9.2 (c) - Concurrency Service Areas Potential amendments to the concurrency service areas, other than periodic adjustments to student attendance boundaries, or to redefine the concurrency service area as a different type of boundary or area shall be considered annually at the Staff Working Group meeting to take place each year no later than April 30 for the County's first comprehensive plan amendment cycle) or October 31 (for the County's second comprehensive plan amendment cycle), and shall take into account the issue of maximization of capacity. Other considerations for amending the concurrency service areas may include safe access (including factors such as the presence of sidewalks, bicycle paths, turn lanes and signalization, general walkability), diversity, and geographic or manmade constraints to travel. if there rs a - An amendment to the type or# geographic configuration of concurrence service areas shall be accomplished amendment }f --this r an e'F-' - af - ea - s shal l n^ r� - rOt be- 'Gtte6 +i crv�un }i cil the arnendFneRt }n }hire Amended and Restated AqFeemeRt is fully exeGuted and related ameRdFnentG t -- ♦♦ 9 }h° County Qt n^mnr°h°ncirr° P anti a --+- in �� ru vvcmr7 aunty accordance with the amendment provision of this Agreement. 4. If added, the following would amend the first paragraph of 9.2 (d) - Student Generation Multipliers TheFuture student generation rates shall be determineddeveloped by the County with the School Board in a joint, collaborative proces in accordance with professionally accepted methodologies, and shall be updatedreviewed at least every three (3) years masFnUGh ° n^°sihl° and shall be °d epte i in +^ the OURty's and Cities' empFeh i e plan. The 16&eel eRr9#n ePA oFe eGn4innS ,Aiill he innl„rJorl in the tPntAtlVP rlictrint eduGatinnal fanilitioc nl�n this Amended and Re s tated Aween%nt and updated as necessary. The initial professionally accepted methodology shall take student addresses by school type (elementary, middle and senior) as provided by School Board staff, and geocode each address to the property appraiser files to identify the type of unit, with the goal of obtaining an accurate student generation multiplier rate by Minor Statistical Areas (MSAs) based on a 100% samplin -g.. The methodology and calculations thereunder shall be updated as necessary. The formula to be utilized when determining the number of students generated by a development shall be based on student generation rates calculated as follows: Total Number of Students Generated = Number of Residential Units Generated By Development Proposal X Student Generation Multiplier 5. If added, the following would amend 9.2 (f) Proportionate Share Mitigation Amend Paragraph before the listing of options Options for providing proportionate share mitigation for any approval of additional residential dwelling units that triggers a failure to meet the Level of Service Standard for public school capacity will be specified in the County's and Cities' Public School Facilities Elements. Proportionate -share mitigation must be acceptable to the School Board. Options shall include the following: (Add Option No. 6 ) 6. Charter Schools — Charter schools may be considered as a mitigation option only at the sole discretion of the School Board. Criteria associated with this option will be developed by the School Board. If there is a lack of agreement among the applicant, the applicable local government and the School Board on the option to be used for mitigation as set forth in options 1 -5 above, the local government may accept mitigation in the form of money (option 1 above) only in accordance with the following procedures: (a) The local government shall inform the School Board of an impasse in writing, which shall trigger a thirty (30) day period for final negotiations. (b) Upon receipt of the written notice of an impasse, the School Board shall schedule a negotiation session with the applicant and the local government. (c) If agreement on a mitigation option is not reached within thirty (30) days of the School Board's receipt of the notice of impasse, then the local government may request that the mitigation requirement be satisfied with the money option (option 1 above). (d) In this event, the School Board shall accept the money option (involving mitigation banking under option 5 above, if appropriate) if the following requirements are met: (i) the money option must include payment of the full capital cost of a planned project to be expanded or a new project to be added to the District Facilities Work Program, located in the first three (3) years of the program; and (ii) the money option must provide sufficient capacity to absorb the excess impacts of the development. 6. If added, the following would amend 9.3 — Updates to Public School Concurrency Add after first Paragraph The School Board shall not amend the District Facilities Work Program as to modify, delay or delete any project that affects student capacity in the first three (3) years of the Five Year Plan unless the School n0G +r;Gt staff w ith +ho Board provides written confirmation that: 1. The modification, delay or deletion of a project is required in order to meet the School Board's constitutional obligation to provide a redistrict -wide uniform system of free public schools or to meet other legal obligations imposed by state or federal law; or 3. The project schedule or scope has been modified to address local government concerns, and the modification does not cause the adopted LOS standard to be exceeded in the Concurrency Service Area from which the originally planned project is modified, delayed or deleted; and in addition to any of the foregoing three events, 4. The Staff Working Group has had the opportunity to review the proposed amendment and has submitted its recommendation to the C„norintendent or des 1p° School Board. Add after last paragraph: Other than as part of the process required to annually update the District's Facilities Work Program (Work Program), any interim action taken by the School Board to either 1) close an existing school, or 2) delete, modify, or delay a school facility project planned in the first three years of the Work Program, shall not adversely impact the County's or a City's ability to rely on said facility's or project's capacity, for purposes of issuance of school concurrency certificates during that interim period between annual reviews and adoption of the Work Program. Furthermore, where an action by the School Board to close an existing school, or to delete, modify, or delay a school facility capacity project listed in the adopted Work Program, would result in a CSA exceeding its adopted level of service within the period covered by the work program, and a Geographic Area boundary (as set forth in Exhibit 2) limits the ability to shift impacts of proposed development to contiguous CSAs, then the School Board shall shift impacts of proposed developments to any contiguous CSA, irrespective of the Geographic Area boundaries, until the adopted level of service standard for the affected CSA is restored. As required for financial feasibility, pursuant to Section 163.3164 (32), F.S., the School Board shall, at the conclusion the five -year period, ensure that the adopted level of service standard for the CSA shall be achieved. As it relates to the required annual updates of the Work Program, the School Board shall provide the relevant data and analysis that demonstrate the achievement and maintenance of the adopted level of service standard, at the conclusion of the five -year timeframe covered by the Work Program, and as required by the governing state statutes. All data and analysis will be .-,.r. AAA A 4- 44— --A --- ..............L 1-.. AA-.. "f A $ ...:AL- Lk- - of the Annual Work Program. 7. If added, there would be a New Section 22. Taking and Vested Rights Section 22. Takings and Vested Rights Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed or applied to effect a permanent or temporary taking of private property or the abrogation of vested rights in violation of the United States Constitution or the Florida Constitution to result in a violation of law, to require the payment of compensation by the School Board the County or any municipality for impacts on private property, or to modify or eliminate any remedy available to prevent or rectify a taking, deprivation of vested rights, or violation of law.