Thursday, October 31, 2013

What is this P3 plan that Miami Dade County adopted July 2nd while you were busy with July 4th Holiday? By Geniusofdespair

REPORT: It was moved by Commissioner Zapata to amend the foregoing proposed ordinance. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Bell and upon being put to a vote, passed by a vote of 10-0 (Commissioners Bovo, Barreiro and Jordan were absent).

Bilzin Sumberg Law Firm This is how they analyze P3:

"Yesterday, the Miami-Dade County Board of Commissioners adopted a resolution establishing a Public Private Partnership Program for the County.
Purpose and Policy of the P3 Resolution

The stated purpose and policy of the resolution very effectively summarizes the case for public-private partnerships. The resolution explains that infrastructure “is a vital and foundational element in the future of Miami-Dade County,” but that the County’s infrastructure requires “significant and on-going improvements and upgrades” and “funding from traditional sources” for these important projects is “inconsistent and unpredictable, with demand for funding clearly exceeding the resources available.” Accordingly, “it is in the best interest of the County to work collaboratively” with private investors and organizations to establish and implement alternative financing methods for appropriate projects.

The resolution was sponsored by recently elected Commissioner Juan Zapata, who explained at the June 13 meeting of the Economic Development and Port Miami Committee that the resolution is intended to align County P3 regulations with the newly adopted state statute and to create a roadmap to establish productive P3s in the County that are based upon the best practices implemented in other communities. The Economic Development and Port Miami Committee agreed with these goals and unanimously recommended the resolution for adoption, with Commissioner Lynda Bell, the chair of the committee, offering to co-sponsor the resolution.
Facilitating P3s in Miami-Dade County

Pursuant to the new resolution, the Mayor is charged with creating a written P3 plan within 90 days of the effective date of the resolution. The P3 plan will identify model PPPs throughout the County, best practices, County infrastructure projects that could benefit from PPPs, and proposed legislative changes to streamline the P3 process. The plan will be submitted to the Infrastructure Committee for review and approval and, after the initial plan is approved, the plan will be updated and resubmitted to the Committee every six months.
The new County resolution, combined with the new state legislation, which was signed by Governor Rick Scott last Thursday, improves the legal climate for public-private partnerships in South Florida and throughout the state."
Sosa was worried about:
(3) Specifications and Contracting. To promote the use of public private partnerships, the Mayor shall, consistent with applicable law, develop simplified specifications to identify and solicit public private partnership contracting opportunities.
Look at HOW RUDE LYNDA BELL IS to Commission Sosa discussing this:

Here is the Body of the resolution note: The foregoing proposed ordinance was adopted as amended on handwritten page 5, under Section 1, to remove subsections 3 and 4; and to add the following language to subsection 2 to state: “…that the plan shall also contain the Mayor’s recommendation for simplification of specifications” with an instruction to Assistant County Attorney Hugo Benitez to draft the language contained in sections 1 and 2 in the form of a resolution.

The amended version of the foregoing ordinance was assigned Ordinance
No. 13-72.

BODY  (doesn't include changes made)

Section 1. Section 2-8.1.7 is hereby created to read as follows in its entirety:

Sec. 2-8.1.7. Public Private Partnership Program

(1) Purpose and Policy. Infrastructure is a vital and foundational element in the future of Miami-Dade County and the County’s infrastructure including its mass transit facilities, airport and seaport, fuel supply facilities, medical or nursing care facilities, recreational facilities, sporting facilities and water and wastewater facilities require significant and on-going improvements and upgrades. Infrastructure funding from traditional sources, including State and Federal are often unavailing, inconsistent and unpredictable, with demand for funding clearly exceeding the resources available. A range of private investors and organizations have demonstrated a growing interest throughout the country in long-term infrastructure investments. It is in the best interest of the County to work collaboratively with such investors, to provide a structure and simplify its procurement policies and practices to allow for such alternative financing for appropriate projects in order to meet the County’s infrastructure needs, all consistent with the protection of the transparency and integrity of public contracting. To give effect to this intent, the Public Private Partnership Program of Miami-Dade County is hereby created.

(2) Public Private Partnership Plan. The Mayor shall develop, and deliver to the Board of County Commissioners within ninety days following the effective date of this Section a written plan to maximize the use of public private partnerships in County projects (the “Plan”). The Plan shall contain, at a minimum, a list of projects considered suitable for public private partnerships arrangements, a timeline for their completion, and an identification of potential advantages and disadvantages of the delivery method in connection with each project. The Plan shall contain proposed legislative recommendations to simplify the County processes utilized to identify, solicit, evaluate, and contract for private investment opportunities consistent with applicable law. In particular, and without limitation to the foregoing, the Plan shall propose an amendment to the provisions of this Code governing unsolicited proposals, to simplify them, conform them to additional authorizations that may have resulted from amendments to the State law, and make them more effective. The Plan shall also contain a description of similar projects in other communities in the United States which may be used as a model. The Plan shall be updated and reported to the Board of County Commissioners, through its Infrastructure Committee, every six months. The Plan shall be subject to Board approval.

(3) Specifications and Contracting. To promote the use of public private partnerships, the Mayor shall, consistent with applicable law, develop simplified specifications to identify and solicit public private partnership contracting opportunities.

(4) Public Private Partnership Task Force. The Board may by separate resolution establish a public private partnership task force to enhance the County’s use of public private partnerships consistent with the policies set forth in this Section.


Anonymous said...

Public private partnerships = thievery.

Anonymous said...

Equals bail outs for billionaires and wanna be billionaires at the expense of our natural resources which Zapata cannot wait to pave over and Bell cannot wait to approve rock mining to help pave those roads. Read Gimleteye's blog post today. It's not rocket science. It's stealing tax payer funds to help bail out developers. It's another version of CDD's which are highly unpopular once an owner receives their tax bill.

Public corruption in plain sight. Zapata should be recalled after Novermber and Bell should be termed out in 2014! These two together are the Tea Party at it's worst.

Stop using MY tax dollars for YOUR pet projects. Gimenez should just stop all of this now but he won't because he is supported by the LBA and their members are holding the bag on too much land outside the UDB they cannot sell or rezone. It's really simple. Another dog and pony show.

The GOP is SUPPOSED to be about less government. Now about public/private partnerships, but if we go there, how about redevelopment projects, not one's outside the UDB or on the edge of it where the housing isn't needed. There are no jobs their to pay for the houses anyway!

Vote them all out or recall them in 2014!

Anonymous said...

To: Hon. Carlos A. Gimenez, Mayor, Miami-Dade County Hon. Joe A. Martinez, Chairman, Board of County Commissioners and Members, Board of County Commissioners
From: Christopher Mazzella, Inspector General
Date: October 31, 2012
Subject: 0G Audit of the Agreements Between Miami-Dade County and Basketball Properties, Ltd.,, to Operate the American Airlines Arena; Audit Close-out, Ref. IG11-34
RE: Miami-Dade County's Response to OIG Item 23 Letter-OIG Audit Report IG11-34 Audit of the Agreements Between Miami-Dade County and Basketball Properties, Ltd., et. al. to Operate the American Airlines Arena

The audit-identified questioned expenses include: $614,000 paid to lobbyists, $12,300 for political contributions, $17,500 for charitable contributions, and $24,300 for non-arena related memberships and dues. ISO
states that it believes that the OIG-identified questioned costs are, in its opinion, legitimate business expenses that are reasonable and customary. For the current fiscal year 2013, ISO has approved BPL's budget for these items totaling $326,684-$294,000 for lobbyist fees, $5,000 for charitable contributions, and $27,684 for membership fees/dues. Moreover, ISO states that it will allow BPL to continue to include the salary of a BPL vice president, as an operating cost, notwithstanding the fact that executive compensation is an unallowable Arena operating expense, pursuant to the Agreements. We reaffirm our position that the subject expenses are not appropriate given the nature and the terms of the County's business arrangement with BPL. In addition, ISO states that it met with the County Attorney's Office to discuss what comprises executive compensation and will not be pursuing this issue. As you recall, this audit was partially predicated on the fact that Arena net operating revenues have never exceeded the threshold triggering profit sharing between BPL and the
County. In other words, since its inception, the County has yet to receive any portion of profits from the Arena, despite the fact that profit sharing was a major selling point for the approval of the Arena deal. This condition has been prolonged because of BPL's debt liabilities-i.e., related party loans-which BPL has been paying off for the last several years. These loans were necessitated by operating deficits-expenses exceeding revenues. The audit-identified questioned expenditures directly added to the deficits. Our recommendations for the County to negotiate credit adjustments to the Schedules of Management Agreement Computations would bring the County closer to eliminating the deficit gap sooner and, thus, bring the County nearer to realizing profit sharing. In closing, we are encouraged that our audit has resulted in the implementation of
administrative controls that promote fiscal prudence. The OIG considers this audit closed but unresolved, with regards to the two discussed issues.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Mazzella:
I am in receipt of your letter dated September 27, 2012 regarding the County's position on issues found in item 23 of our response to the OIG's final report. We have met with Basketball Properties Limited BPL representatives on several occasions to discuss a number of issues including those outlined in your letter. The County has reviewed the expenses associated with lobbyist's fees, political contributions, charitable contributions and memberships/dues and have concluded that they are legitimate business expenses allowed under the current agreement.Therefore, we will not be challenging these past charges.
For the Arena's 2012-2013 fiscal year, the County has approved operating expenses for lobbyist fees $294,000 and requested appropriate back-up to justify actual expenses, charitable contributions $5,000 and
memberships dues $27,684. We feel these expenses are reasonable and customary for an operation such as the Arena. Finally, we met with the County Attorneys' Office to discuss the issue of bonuses, incentive payments and commissions as they relate to the agreements. Based on these discussions and our review, we will not be pursuing this matter at this time. Should you have any questions, please contact me at 305-375-2363.
Lester Sola, Director
MDC Internal Services Department

Anonymous said...

The County rolls over and lets the Heat take advantage of them. Idiots. Who is protecting the taxpayers?

Anonymous said...

This is a glaring example of why public private partnerships are a really, really bad idea. No one ever watches out for us, the taxpayers, nor the public land or open spaces or wetlands, etc.

Vote them all out in 2014, if they're not recalled first!

Anonymous said...

This was for the Young Mens Christian Association Inc. vote and passed by MDC BCC for the take over of MDC Parks after the fact. HHHhhhmmmm...

Anonymous said...

Think about it

Why would a private entity be interested in financing our public infrastructure ????

To own it.

Anonymous said...

This stuff reminds me of back door Master Plan amendments outside the UDB, which are basically making so many entity's commercial/business type zoning, they might as well be inside the UDB because they use these changes, one by one, to then lobby the Board to open up the UDB. Sickening and transparent.

Anonymous said...

In Public Private Partnerships the public almost always gets screwed royally.

Anonymous said...

Unfortunately, last anon, the BCC doesn't really care about the public or its' property or our tax dollars, it cares about their next election & their puppet masters who get obnoxiously rich off of the tax payers and the morons who keep approving this stuff get re elected.

Anonymous said...

Mrs. Sosa nominated Lynda Bell as her vice chair. Mrs. Sosa deserves the Lynda Bell treatment of rudeness and disrespect. Mrs. Sosa should have selected and voted for Mrs. Heyman as vice chair. If Lynda Bell is reelected to District 8 we have not observed the worst of her wrath. Lynda Bell would like to be the Chair of the BCC. Mrs. Sosa you are a good person stay strong but Lynda Bell is out to make you appear weak as a leader.

Anonymous said...

Lynda Bell is rude and dismissive. That video told all. Why did she ask a question and sit there if she didn't want it answered?

Terry Murphy said...

Who are the private companies that want to invest in and manage our public infrastructure? Should our roads, bridges, water treatment plants, port facilities, or transit service be controlled by private sector firms? How do private companies make a profit when pumping and treating our drinking water? Where is the profit margin in light rail? Should state-owned foreign companies have control over our water supply?
In July of this year, the County Administration was instructed to deliver a “written plan to maximize the use of public private partnerships in County projects.” The plan is expected to detail a “list of projects considered suitable for public private partnership arrangements.” As the ninety-day deadline for delivery of the plan approaches, the public should be attentive and prepared to comment.
In a recent presentation to the Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce, public private partnerships were heralded as “decreasing owner control” over projects. Government, as the owner, relinquishes control by asking contractors to operate the project when completed. Contractors routinely design and build facilities for government. As it was explained to the Chamber, giving private contractors operational control of a facility is the threshold-distinguishing feature of a public private partnership. This breaks new ground.
Before the federal government moves to privatize any of its operations, there is a process for determining whether or not the activity is a core government service. The Federal Activities Inventory Reform (FAIR) Act established a process for vetting projects that distinguishes commercial activities from inherently governmental activities, and then further differentiates commercial activities that may be suitable for competition from those that should continue to be performed by public employees. An activity is considered inherently governmental if it is in the public interest to have public employees perform the service. Elections, environmental protection, police, fire rescue, and building regulation are examples of local services that should remain public.
Some government ventures are ideally suited for public private partnerships. The Miami Herald recently featured a planned hotel complex at the entrance of the airport to be designed, built and operated by a private consortium. The operations of a hotel facility rightfully belong with the hospitality industry. The Corrections Department has experience in hosting overnight guests, but they don’t leave a mint on your pillow or give you a room key.
The county may want to keep the keys to certain facilities. Water treatment plants and public transportation facilities have been designated as vulnerable to possible terrorist attacks. The DHS has provided millions of dollars through the Urban Area Security Initiative program to protect such facilities. Miami-Dade County recently lobbied Washington to be designated as a Tier 1 security region to further “safeguard the citizens, visitors and infrastructure of this large and complex four county urban area.” Good call.
Encouraging the county to maximize public private partnerships because a “range of private investors and organizations have demonstrated a growing interest” raises legitimate questions. Is this growing interest by the private sector driven by an assessment that local governments are financially weak and susceptible? Are private investors demonstrating their interest by increasing campaign contributions? While downsizing the government, has the county retained the professional expertise to successfully negotiate with these sophisticated global investors?
County officials should be commended for wanting to be on the cutting-edge of procurement policy. Public private partnerships may be worth pursuing - if the operational security risks and long-term financial impacts are deemed acceptable. Hopefully, the unwitting partners in this process, the public, will be consulted before the County waltzes into this new frontier of contracting.

Anonymous said...

Some of the motivation pushing Carlos Gimenez and too many of the weak willed County commissioners is outdoor advertising. The outdoor advertising industry wants to put up more illegal billboards. They covet all sites near highways and the County happens to own or control many sites on highways. Gimenez is overly close to many billboard lobbyists. Bruno Barrerio is the go-to commissioner for the "all billboards, all the time" mafia.