Item O6
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA ITEM SUMlVIARY
Meeting Date: June 15, 2005
Division:
County Administrator
Bulk Item: Yes
No -1L-
Department: County Administrator
Staff Contact Person: Debbie Frederick
AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Discussion of recent Dade County Commission actions regarding
the proposed annexation of property by Florida City and expansion of the Urban Development
Boundary (UDB).
ITEM BACKGROUND: At the BOCe meeting of March 16,2005, the Board adopted Resolution
No. 107-2005, calling on Miami-Dade Board of County Commissioner to oppose any extension to the
Urban Development Boundary, to encourage infi]] development and adherence to the Miami-Dade
County Development Master Plan as currently adopted, including the Adopted 2003 Evaluation and
Appraisal Report, providing an effective date.
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION: Same as above.
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES:
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
TOTAL COST:
-0-
BUDGETED: Yes
No
COST TO COUNTY:
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes
No
AMOUNTPERMONTH_ Year
APPROVED BY: County Atty _ OMB/Purchasing _ Risk Management __
DIVISION DIRECTOR APPROV AL:
:]fumuuI 1- Willi
(TYPE NAME HERE)
DOCUMENTATION:
Included
Not Required_2L-
DISPOSITION:
AGENDA ITEM #
Revised 2/05
From: McGarry-Tim
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2005 4:40 PM
To: BOCCDIS1; BOCCDIS2; BOCCDIS3; BOCCDIS4; BOCCDIS5
Cc: Collins-John; Frederick-Debbie; Willi-Tom
Subject: Update on Miami-Dade County Commission Action on Florida City Annexation
Commissioners,
As you are probably all aware by now, the Miami-Dade Commission voted 7-5 to approve the
annexation boundary request of Florida City on Tuesday, June 7. This annexation request was
approved despite recommendation of denial by the Miami-Dade County staff, which identified
problems with possible expansion of growth into this currently mostly undeveloped portion of
Miami-Dade County.
The County staff report cited that expansion of utilities and municipal services to this area and its
subsequent development would be inconsistent with the County's Comprehensive Development
Master Plan. Furthermore, until the South Miami-Dade Watershed Study and other related
studies were completed, it would be premature to make any decisions affecting future
development in that area ofthe County.
Florida City claimed that it would not change the current zoning of the property (1 unit per 5
acres) and that it needed the additional acreage to expand its tax base and possibly preempt the
City of Homestead from annexing the area in the future.
Approximately 40 minutes was provided to each side (pro and con) to present their arguments.
The con side had 35 speakers, including a representative each from Monroe County, City of
Marathon, and Village of Islamorada, who voiced concerns or spoke against the annexation.
Miami-Dade Mayor Alvarez has indicated that he may veto the action of the Commission. He has
10 days to do so. As it requires 9 votes to override the veto, it is unlikely that a veto would be
overridden based on the initial vote. The staff has asked Miami-Dade staff about whether or not
another public hearing would be necessary for the County Commission to consider overriding the
veto should the Mayor take such action; we have not yet received an answer to this question.
As of this date, the application for Development of Regional Impact for the Florida City project has
not been submitted to the South Florida Regional Planning Council. It is anticipated that the
application for expansion of the Urban Development Boundary will be submitted at a future date
by Florida City, if the annexation is approved. To be approved, the Florida City DRI would require
expansion of the Urban Development Boundary.
The Board of County Commissioners may want to discuss the County's continued response to
the annexation, DRI, and UDB boundary issues at its June 15, 2005, meeting. As local
municipalities in the County are also very concerned about the potential impacts of these issues
on the Florida Keys, it may be the opportune time for the Board to discuss the desirability of
coordinating our efforts with these municipalities to form a collective response. I would be happy
to bring this item up for discussion during my Growth Management report unless a Commissioner
or the County Administrator would like to separately agenda the item.
Should you have any questions or need further information, please don't hesitate to contact me.
Tim McGarry