The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutBack-Up DocumentsCITT Board Members Chairperson Oscar). Braynon First Vice Chairperson Altred J. Holzman Second Vice Chairperson Robert Wolfarth Honorable Peggy Bell *Joseph Curbelo Meg Daly Qjuezari Harvey *Paul J. Schwiep, Esq. Marilyn Smith L. Elijah Stiers, Esq. Mary Street, Esq. Ernie Thomas Executive Director Javier A. Betancourt *Past Chairperson April 5, 2022 Mr. Arthur Noriega, City Manager City of Miami 3500 Pan American Dr. Miami, FL 33133 Citizens' Independent Transportation Trust 111 NW 1st Street • Suite 1010 Miami, Florida 33128 T 305-375-1357 F 305-375-4605 Q Transportation Trust c @GoCITT miamidade.gov/citt RE: Notification of CITT Resolution withholding Surtax funds from the City of Miami Dear Mr. Noriega, Please be advised that, pursuant to the Citizens' Independent Transportation Trust (Trust) directive at their March 31, 2022 meeting, the Office of the Citizens' Independent Transportation Trust (OCITT) has commenced the withholding of Charter County Transportation System Sales Surtax funds (Surtax) from the City of Miami (City) effective immediately. After careful consideration of both Staff's recommendation and the City's arguments, the Trust agreed with the recommendation of the Miami -Dade County Audit and Management Services Department (AMS) to withhold funds until such time as the auditor's findings and concerns are addressed to the OCITT's satisfaction. Resolution No. 22-006, attached, also directs this office to recapture said funds should the City fail to adequately address AMS' concerns in a timely and satisfactory manner (as determined by the OCITT). This Office stands ready, as always, to work with the City to resolve the pending issues and concerns outlined in the audit, which, if accomplished in a timely manner, would result in the release of the withheld funds back to the City. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions or concerns regarding this matter. Sincerely, C4vier A. Betancourt Executive Director Page 1 of 2 c: Oscar Braynon, Chairman, and Members of the CITT Hon. Daniella Levine Cava, Mayor, Miami -Dade County Hon. Francis Suarez, Mayor, City of Miami Hon. Jose "Pepe" Diaz, Chairman, and Members of the BCC Jimmy Morales, Chief Operating Officer, Miami -Dade County Cathy Jackson, Director, AMS, Miami -Dade County Bruce Libhaber, Assistant County Attorney, Miami -Dade County Xavier Alban, Assistant City Attorney, City of Miami Monica Cejas, Deputy Director, OCITT Vontressia Walker, Financial Manager, OCITT Nestor Toledo, Municipal Administrator, OCITT Page 2 of 2 AGENDA ITEM 7B RESOLUTION NO. 22-006 RESOLUTION BY THE CITIZENS' INDEPENDENT TRANSPORTATION TRUST (CITT) INSTRUCTING THE OFFICE OF THE CITIZENS' INDEPENDENT TRANSPORTATION TRUST (OCITT) TO WITHHOLD CHARTER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION SURTAX FUNDS (SURTAX) FROM THE CITY OF MIAMI; AND TO RECAPTURE SAID FUNDS SHOULD THE CITY FAIL TO ADEQUATELY ADDRESS CONCERNS RAISED IN THE MOST RECENT AUDIT OF THE CITY BY THE MIAMI-DADE COUNTY AUDIT AND MANAGEMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT (AMS) IN A TIMELY AND SATISFACTORY MANNER. WHEREAS, the CITT desires to accomplish the purposes outlined in the accompanying OCITT Executive Director's memorandum, a copy of which is incorporated herein by reference. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITT, that this Trust instructs the Office of the Citizens' Independent Transportation Trust (OCITT) to withhold Charter County Transportation Surtax Funds (Surtax) from the City of Miami; and to recapture said funds should the City fail to adequately address concerns raised in the most recent audit of the City by the Miami -Dade County Audit and Management Services Department (AMS) in a timely and satisfactory manner. Page 2 of 2 The foregoing resolution was offered by Alfred J. Holzman, who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by Robert Wolfarth and upon being put to vote, the vote was as follows: Oscar J. Braynon, Chairperson — Aye Alfred J. Holzman, 1st Vice Chairperson — Aye Robert Wolfarth, 2nd Vice Chairperson — Aye Hon. Peggy Bell — Aye Meg Daly — Absent Paul J. Schwiep, Esq. — Absent L. Elijah Stiers, Esq. — Absent Ernie Thomas — Aye Joseph Curbelo — Aye Qjuezari Harvey — Aye Marilyn Smith. — Absent Mary Street, Esq. — Aye The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 31' day of March 2022. Approved by the County Atto as to form and legal s ciene. AGENDA ITEM 7B Memorandum To: Oscar J. Braynon, Chairperson and Members, Citizens' Independent Transportation Tr t (CITT) From: Javier A. Betancourt, Executive Direct gfJZ - Date: March 25, 2022 Re: Adoption of Resolution Regarding City of Miami Audit dated 09-16-2020 for FY ended 09-30-2019 The purpose of this memorandum is to address the findings and recommendations found in the most recent audit of the City of Miami by Miami -Dade County's Audit & Management Services Department (AMS), dated September 16, 2020, and included herein for your review as Attachment 1. Also included for your review is the City of Miami's response to the audit, provided herein as Attachment 2. OCITT has reviewed the subject audit, which continues to express repeated concerns about the City's large balance of unspent surtax funds, as well as the City's response, and has held several discussions with AMS, the City, and the County Attorney's Office to discuss the findings and recommendations. Moreover, OCITT has worked with the City over many years to find a resolution to this ongoing matter. Most notably, in September 2016, then CITT Executive Director Charles Scurr sent a letter (provided herein as Attachment 3) to the City of Miami laying out a plan for the City to address unresolved audit findings in order to avoid the withholding of funds. As part of the arrangement, the City was to make quarterly presentations before the Trust, to include a detailed progress report on all major capital projects, updated project schedules and costs, and a plan by the City to accelerate and complete these projects. While the City has fulfilled its commitment to provide these quarterly reports, it has become abundantly clear over these many years that the City has failed to adequately spend down their unspent Surtax funds in a timely fashion, as per the agreement. While the OCITT has provided the City with ample, reasonable and attainable opportunities to comply with the findings provided in the audits by AMS, we have come to the conclusion that, given the lack of progress in addressing these longstanding concerns, a new and more assertive posture must be introduced. As a result, OCITT now concurs with AMS' recommendation to withhold surtax funds from the City of Miami until such time as the concerns raised in the audit are addressed to the satisfaction of AMS and OCITT. Furthermore, OCITT believes that, should the City fail to adequately address these concerns AGENDA ITEM 7B in a timely manner, those funds should be recaptured, so that they may be put to their intended use of advancing critical transportation projects and services. RECOMMENDATION In accordance with the above, OCITT recommends that the Citizens' Independent Transportation Trust (Trust) adopt the attached resolution instructing the Office of the Citizens' Independent Transportation Trust (OCITT) to withhold Charter County Transportation Surtax Funds (Surtax) from the City of Miami; and to recapture said funds should the City fail to adequately address these concerns in a timely and satisfactory manner. If you have any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. c: Jimmy Morales, COO, Office of the Mayor Bruce Libhaber, Assistant County Attorney AGENDA ITEM 7B RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION BY THE CITIZENS' INDEPENDENT TRANSPORTATION TRUST (CITT) INSTRUCTING THE OFFICE OF THE CITIZENS' INDEPENDENT TRANSPORTATION TRUST (OCITT) TO WITHHOLD CHARTER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION SURTAX FUNDS (SURTAX) FROM THE CITY OF MIAMI; AND TO RECAPTURE SAID FUNDS SHOULD THE CITY FAIL TO ADEQUATELY ADDRESS CONCERNS RAISED IN THE MOST RECENT AUDIT OF THE CITY BY THE MIAMI-DADE COUNTY AUDIT AND MANAGEMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT (AMS) IN A TIMELY AND SATISFACTORY MANNER. WHEREAS, the CITT desires to accomplish the purposes outlined in the accompanying OCITT Executive Director's memorandum, a copy of which is incorporated herein by reference. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITT, that this Trust instructs the Office of the Citizens' Independent Transportation Trust (OCITT) to withhold Charter County Transportation Surtax Funds (Surtax) from the City of Miami; and to recapture said funds should the City fail to adequately address concerns raised in the most recent audit of the City by the Miami -Dade County Audit and Management Services Depait.iuent (AMS) in a timely and satisfactory manner. Page 2 of 2 The foregoing resolution was offered by , who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by and upon being put to vote, the vote was as follows: Oscar J. Braynon, Chairperson — Alfred J. Holzman, 1st Vice Chairperson — Robert Wolf arth, 2nd Vice Chairperson — Hon. Peggy Bell — Meg Daly — Paul J. Schwiep, Esq. — L. Elijah Stiers, Esq. — Ernie Thomas — Joseph Curbelo — Qjuezari Harvey — Marilyn Smith. — Mary Street, Esq. — The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 31 st day of March 2022. Approved by the County Attorney as By: to form and legal sufficiency Executive Director ATTACHMENT 1 AUDIT AND MANAGEMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT OVERTOWN TRANSIT VILLAGE 701 NW 1ST COURT- SUIIL 8-175 MIAMI, FLORIDA 33136 TELEPHONE: 786-469-5900 FAX: 786-469-5933 September 16, 2020 Mr. Arthur Noriega, V City Manager City of Miami 444 SW 2"d Avenue, 10th Floor Miami, FL 33130 Re: Audit Report — City of Miami Charter County Transportation System Surtax Review — Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2019 Dear Mr. Noriega: Attached is the above -referenced Audit Report that was discussed with your staff. Although the Office of the Citizens' Independent Transportation Trust (OCITT) will be contacting you to resolve the audit findings, a reply is requested within 60 days. We appreciate the courtesies and assistance extended to our staff during the audit process. Please contact G. Nancy McKee, Assistant Director, at (786) 469-5900, should you have any questions. Sincerely, Cathy Ja Director CJ:bm Attachment c: Javier A. Betancourt, Executive Director, OCITT Sandra Bridgeman, Assistant City Manager and CFO, City of Miami Date: To: M IAM I•Di4DE Memorandum to�Nn September 16, 2020 Javier A. Betancourt, Executive Director Office of the Citizens' Independent Transportation Trust (OCITT) From: Cathy a 1 on, Director Audit and Management Services Department (AMS) Subject: Audit Report — City of Miami Charter County Transportation System Surtax Review — Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2019 PURPOSE AND SCOPE We performed a review of the City of Miami's (City) use of Charter County Transportation System Surtax (Surtax) Proceeds remitted by Miami -Dade County (County) for the year ended September 30, 2019. The primary objective was to ensure that Surtax Proceeds were used in compliance with the Interlocal Agreement for Distribution, Use and Reporting of Charter County Transit System Surtax Proceeds Levied by Miami -Dade County (Interlocal Agreement) executed on July 10, 2007. Additionally, we assessed resolution of prior audit findings referenced in our October 1, 2019 Audit Report (Exhibit I). BACKGROUND County Ordinance (Ordinance) No. 02-116, enacted on July 9, 2002, imposed a one-half of one percent Surtax on eligible sales transactions for Transportation -related projects. However, at least 20% of the Proceeds received by the County must be distributed to municipalities incorporated as of November 5, 2002, on a pro-rata basis using population statistics (Schedule V). The Surtax Program is administered by the Citizens' Independent Transportation Trust (CITT), a group comprised of 15 members appointed by the Board of County Commissioners, County Mayor, and Miami -Dade League of Cities. Pursuant to the Interlocal Agreement, the City must annually continue the same level of General Fund support for Transportation projects appropriated in its Fiscal Year (FY) 2002 Budget (Maintenance of Effort), which totaled $4.7 million (Table I). Surtax Proceeds may be used to develop, construct, equip, maintain, operate, or expand County -wide bus systems, fixed guideway rapid transit systems, roads, and bridges, as well as secure such Bonds or pay debt service. Further, the City must apply at least 20% of the Proceeds to Transit -related projects, such as circulator buses, bus shelters, bus pullout bays, or other related infrastructure. CITT Resolution No. 09-055, adopted July 30, 2009, allows for the rollover of unspent Surtax funds for up to five years, provided the City's Five -Year Transportation Plan demonstrates how the funds will be used. Additionally, CITT Resolution No. 15-027, adopted May 20, 2015, allows for carryover credits in Audit Report — City of Miami Charter County Transportation System Surtax Review — Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2019 Page 2 the event amounts expended are in excess of annual Surtax allocations. See Schedule I for summary financial information. SUMMARY RESULTS For the year ended September 30, 2019, the City received Surtax Proceeds of $18.8 million, and claimed $33.7 million in Transit and Transportation -related expenditures (Table I). Claimed expenditures were primarily for Trolley operations ($10.8 million), debt service ($6.1 million), street lighting ($5.5 million), and street improvements ($7 million), as detailed in Tables II and V. After adjusting claimed expenditures for the Maintenance of Effort (MOE) and disallowed amounts, the City had $47.4 million in unspent Proceeds. Table I Surtax Statistics Description Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2019 2018 I Maintenance of Effort $ 4,718,932 $ 4,718,932 Revenues: SurtaxProceeds Allocation $ 19,637,254 $ 18,948,619 Less: Amount Withheld 2 (817,551) (1,104,000) SurtaxProceeds per City of Miami (Schedule I) $ 18,819,703 $ 17,844,619 Claimed Expenditures: Transit (Table II) $ 11,175,219 $ 9,487,725 Transportation (Table V) 22,512,185 16,482,259 $ 33,687,404 $ 25,969,984 Unspent Surtax Proceeds as of September 30 (Schedule II): Transportation $ 47,394,264 $ 52,988,141 Key Account Balances as of September 30 (Schedule I): Transportation and Transit Special Revenue Fund: Cash and Investments $ 2,670,162 $ 1,669,503 Restricted Fund Balance $ 3,040,651 $ 3,716,410 Transportation and Transit Capital Projects Fund: Cash and Investments $ 25,082,229 $ 32,463,411 Restricted Fund Balance $ 23,348,711 $ 31,312,786 I Presented for comparison with the FY 2019 audit period. Z OCITT was withholding $92,000 monthly from the City to recapture specific ineligible costs, per a September 2016 letter from the former Executive Director. The $3.3 million has been recaptured, and thus OCITT is no longer withholding funds. We continue to be concerned about the City's $19.6 million cash shortfall, primarily representing the difference between Cash and Investments recorded by the City, and the amount of unspent Surtax proceeds. As repeatedly recommended since September 30, 2011, OCITT should suspend all future Surtax payments until this issue has been satisfactorily addressed. Audit Report — City of Miami Charter County Transportation System Surtax Review — Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2019 Page 3 These and other findings are more fully discussed in the remainder of this Report. We appreciate the courtesies extended to our staff during the audit process. A written response is requested from the City within 60 days. Please contact G. Nancy McKee, Assistant Director, at (786) 469-5900, if you have any questions. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Use of Transit Proceeds The City claimed $11.2 million in Transit -related expenditures, primarily for Trolley operations, which met the requirement that at least 20% of Surtax Proceeds, or $3 8 million, be used for Transit activities (Table II). The City's Trolleys are deployed over 13 fixed routes with average monthly passenger counts of 446,000 (Table III). Table II Summary of Claimed Transit Expenditures, as Adjusted Description Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2019 20181 Trolley Routes: Citywide $ 1,923,102 $ 872,888 Coral Way 1,502,130 1,350,177 Brickell/Biscayne 1,387,433 2,135,042 Little Havana 1,248,909 1,000,099 Flagami 985,791 248,343 Health/Stadium District 930,930 752,299 Overtown/Allapattah 793,951 813,264 Coconut Grove 786,162 849,299 Little Haiti 536,346 237,900 Wyn wood 430,588 437,201 Overtown/Health 135,262 137,811 Liberty City 90,600 - 10,751,204 8,834,323 Other: On -Demand Transportation Services 195,853 161,136 Automatic Vehicle Locator/GPS 97,528 73,770 Flagami Trolley Signage 83,599 - Planning and Professional Costs 2 47,035 72,363 Tri Rail Contribution - 346,133 424,015 653,402 Total Claimed 11,175,219 9,487,725 AMS Adjustments: Cross -Bay Trolley Costs Incurred by General Fund 177,790 - Less Cross -Bay Passenger Fees (10,793) - Less Ineligible On -Demand Costs (6,298) - 160,699 - Eligible Transit Expenditures $ 11,335,918 $ 9,487,725 Source: City of Miami Accounting Records 1 Presented for comparison with the FY 2019 audit period. 2 Amounts were paid to Kimley-Horn and HNTB for professional studies. Audit Report - City of Miami Charter County Transportation System Surtax Review - Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2019 Page 4 The City implemented the Cross -Bay Trolley, from Downtown Miami to Miami Beach, in October 2018, with a $5 fare each way. Due to low ridership, the route was cancelled in January 2019 and the City incurred a $167,000 loss, which was reimbursed by the General Fund. The costs were not initially claimed as Surtax uses, but they are eligible amounts and AMS added them to FY 2019 claimed Transit costs. Additionally, the City claimed on -demand transit services for the year, but the service was not allowed for County Special Transportation Services (STS) patrons until a change in on -demand rules, effective November 1, 2018. We disallowed the STS-related costs claimed for October 2018. Table III Trolley Ridership Summar Month Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2019 2018' October 471,368 419,052 November 447,292 399,150 December 445,923 406,198 January 460,220 419,093 February 435,713 399,321 March 443,511 454,526 April 446,539 442,095 May 457,525 456,383 June 425,188 446,768 July 439,515 450,111 August 451,180 489,646 September 432,786 435,703 5,356,760 5,218,046 Source: City of Miami Ridership Report I Presented for comparison with the FY 2019 audit period. The City received advertising revenues of $2.3 million from its trolleys. over the last five years, including $493,065 in FY 2019, and recorded those revenues and related expenditures in its General Special Revenue Fund, instead of the Transportation and Transit Special Revenue Fund. Advertising revenues were used primarily for Trolley operations, signage, and fuel (Table IV). Table IV Advertisin Revenues and Related Costs Description Fiscal Year Fnded September 30, 2019 20181 Advertising Revenues $ 493,065 $ 553,396 Related Fapenditures: Motor Fuel $ 486,837 $ - Trolley Signage - 298,359 Trolley Operations - 255,037 Supplies 6,228 - $ 493,065 $ 553,396 Source: City of Miami Accountmg Records t Presented for comparison with the FY 2019 audit period. Audit Report — City of Miami Charter County Transportation System Surtax Review — Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2019 Page 5 Recommendation The City should ensure all claimed costs are eligible for Surtax use, and prospectively consider recording Trolley advertising revenues in its Transportation and Transit Special Revenue Fund to facilitate accountability. Use of Transportation Proceeds The City claimed $22.5 million of Transportation -related costs to satisfy the 80% of Surtax Proceeds usage ($15.1 million), primarily for debt service costs, as well as to fund Citywide street lighting, drainage, and street improvement projects (Table V and Schedule III). On June 28, 2018, the City Commission adopted Resolution No. 18-0277 authorizing the issuance of Special Obligation Refunding Bonds, not to exceed $137 million. The Series 2018A and B Bonds, issued November 15, 2018, refunded Series 2007 and 2009 Street and Sidewalks Bonds with an outstanding balance of $120.3 million. Additionally, Series 2018C Bonds provided $7.5 million for various street improvement projects (Schedules IV and IV -A). Similar to the previous Bond issuances, the Series 2018 Bonds will be repaid with Surtax Proceeds, Local Option Gas Taxes, and Parking Surcharge revenues. The City claimed debt service of $6.1 million in FY 2019, but that amount related to Series 2007 and 2009 Bonds which were refunded before any debt service payments were made in FY 2019. The City paid interest on the Series 2018 Bonds totaling $3.2 million in FY 2019, of which $2.1 million related to Surtax (Schedule IV). The difference of $4 million was disallowed. Table V Summary of Claimed Transportation Expenditures, as Adjusted Description Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2019 2018 1 Debt Service -Series 2007 and 2009 Street and Sidewalks Bonds (Schedule IV) $ 6,117,000 $ 6,136,000 Street Lighting 5,547,224 5,584,694 Street Improvement Projects 7,045,078 4,073,226 Drainage Projects 3,484,967 456,242 Traffic Claming Projects 317,916 232,097 Total Claimed Costs 22,512,185 16,482,259 Less: Unpaid Debt Service (4,039,385) - Eligible Costs (Schedule III) $ 18,472,800 $ 16,482,259 Source: City of Miami Accounting Records r Presented for comparison with the FY 2019 audit period. After adjusting claimed expenditures for the MOE, the City had unspent Transportation funds of $47.4 million as of September 30, 2019 (Schedule II). CITT Resolution No. 09-055 allows for the rollover of unused funds for up to five years. Further, the $27.8 million reported as Cash and Investments in the Transportation and Transit Special Revenue and Capital Projects Funds (Schedule I) was approximately $19.6 million less than the unspent balance as of September 30, 2019. Audit Report — City of Miami Charter County Transportation System Surtax Review — Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2019 Page 6 Recommendation Prospectively, the City should ensure all claimed costs are eligible for Surtax use. City staff should submit a revised Five -Year Transportation Plan, approved by its City Commission, specifying how the $47.4 million in unspent funds will be used. More importantly, Surtax distributions should be held in Trust by OCITT until the City reduces the estimated $19.6 million funding gap. Further, OCITT should formally communicate these concerns to the CITT Board with a plan for timely resolution. Reporting to OCITT The City's Quarterly Transportation Expenditure Reports significantly overstated certain project costs and reported totals did not agree with the City's accounting records. Projects with major differences are shown in Table VI. Table VI Comparison of Quarterly Reports with Accounting Records Description Project Number _ Amount per Difference Quarterly Reports Accounting Records Transportation Planning and Professional Fees 70245 $2,010,706 $ 183,456 $ 1,827,250 Palm Grove Road Improvements 30630 1,146,407 28,010 1,118,397 Englewood Storm Sewer - Phase III 30011 600,270 - 600,270 South Grove Phase III Roadway and Drainage 30836 1,068,266 522,613 545,653 Transit Planning and Professional Costs 70246 591,985 47,035 544,950 Bird Avenue Road Improvement 30628 654,392 121,024 533,368 Source: City of Miami Accounting Records and Quarterly Reports Submitted to OCITT Also, the City's latest Five -Year Transportation Plan shows unexpended funds totaling $21.8 million as of September 30, 2019, materially less than the $47.4 million per Schedule II. Recommendation City staff should provide accurate reports to OCITT. CJ:bm Attachments c: Honorable Harvey A. Ruvin, Clerk of the Courts Abigail Price -Williams, County Attorney Edward Marquez, Deputy Mayor Jennifer Moon, Deputy Mayor/Director, Office of Management and Budget Arthur Noriega, City Manager, City of Miami Schedule I City of Miami Charter County Transportation System Surtax Review Transportation and Transit Funds 1 Balance Sheets Description As of September 30, 2019 2018 2 Special Revenue Capital Projects Special Revenue Capital Projects Assets: Pooled Cash, Cash Equivalents, and Investments (Table I) $ 2,670,162 $ - $ 1,669,503 $ - Restricted Cash, Cash Equivalents, and Investments (Table I) - 25,082,229 - 32,463,411 Surtax Amounts Due from Miami -Dade County 4,697,128 - 5,689,916 - Accrued Interest 16,669 - 19,494 - TotalAssets $ 7,383,959 $ 25,082,229 $ 7,378,913 $ 32,463,411 Liabilities and Fund Balances: Accounts Payable and Accrued Liabilities $ 1,543,308 $ 1,733,518 $ 1,062,503 $ 1,150,625 Deferred Inflows of Resources - Other Unavailable Revenue 3 2,800,000 - 2,600,000 - Fund Balances - Restricted 3,040,651 23,348,711 3,716,410 31,312,786 Total Liabilities and Fund Balances $ 7,383,959 $ 25,082,229 $ 7,378,913 $ 32,463,411 Statements of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances Description For the Year Ended September 30, 2019 20182 Special Revenue Capital Projects Special Revenue Capital Projects Revenues: Intergovernmental Revenues 4 Passenger Charges Investment Earnings Total Revenues Expenditures: General Govemment Public Works Planning and Development Capital Outlay Total Expenditures Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues over Expenditures Other Financing Sources (Uses): Transfers From - Special Revenue Fund General Fund Transfers To - Debt Service Fund (Schedule III) Capital Projects Fund Total Other Financing Sources (Uses) Net Change in Fund Balances Fund Balances, Beginning 5 Fund Balances, Ending $ 18,819,703 10,793 19,513 $ - - 661,117 $ 17,844,619 - 13,206 $ - - 862,850 18,850,009 661,117 17,857,825 862,850 141,429 11,984,339 - - 4,325 228,943 4,899 9,837,025 19,528 10,157,593 - - 23,649 364,836 2,441 3,681,246 12,125,768 10, 075,192 10,177,121 4,072,172 6,724,241 (9,414,075) 7,680,704 (3,209,322) - 167,000 (6,117,000) (1,450,000) 1,450,000 - - - - - (6,136,000) (3,710,000) (9,846,000) 3,710,000 - - - (7,400,000) 1,450,000 3,710,000 (675,759) 3,716,410 (7,964,075) 31,312,786 (2,165,296) 5,881,706 500,678 30,812,108 $ 3,040,651 $ 23,348,711 $ 3,716,410 $ 31,312,786 Source: City of Miami (City) Audited Financial Statements and General Ledgers ' Ali Surtax monies are received in the City's Transportation and Transit Special Revenue Fund for Transit -related projects. Transportation -related expenditures are incurred by the Capital Projects Fund, with transfers from the Special Revenue Fund. 2 Presented for comparison with the FY 2019 audit period. 3 Represents the City's estimate of Surtax monies receivable that was not collected within 60 days after year-end. ° Amounts differ from Schedule V due to timing differences. 5 The Capital Projects Fund balance reflects prior transfers of Surtax monies from the Special Revenue Fund. These Financial Statements are not complete without the accompanying Auditors' Reports and Notes. Schedule II City of Miami Charter County Transportation System Surtax Review Surtax Proceeds Usage Analysis Description Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2019 2018 4 Revenues: Surtax Proceeds 1 $ 18,815,279 $ 15,287,281 Interest Earnings (Schedule I) 680,630 876,056 $ 19,495,909 $ 16,163,337 Surtax Uses: Eligible Transit Expenditures (Table II) $ 11,335,918 $ 9,487,725 Eligible Transportation Expenditures (Table V) $ 18,472,800 $ 16,482,259 Less MOE (4,718,932) (4,718,932) Expenditures Available For Surtax Use $ 13,753,868 $ 11,763,327 AMS Analysis: Transit -Related Expenditures: Expenditures Available for Surtax Use $ 11,335,918 $ 9,487,725 Less 20% Minimum Amount 2 (3,763,056) (3,057,456) Decrease In Unspent Funds $ 7,572,862 $ 6,430,269 Analysis of Unspent Rollover: Beginning Balance 3 $ - $ - Decrease In Unspent Amounts (7,572,862) (6,430,269) Excess Amount Applied to Transportation 7,572,862 6,430,269 Remaining Unspent Amount $ - $ - Transportation -Related Expenditures: Expenditures Available for Surtax Use $ 13,753,868 $ 11,763,327 Excess Transit Expenditures Applied 7,572,862 6,430,269 Less Remaining 80% Amount 2 (15,052,223) (12,229,825) Less Interest Earnings (680,630) (876,056) Decrease In Unspent Funds $ 5,593,877 $ 5,087,715 Analysis of Unspent Rollover: Beginning Balance 3 $ 52,988,141 $ 58,075,856 Decrease In Unspent Funds (5,593,877) (5,087,715) Remaining Unspent Amount $ 47,394,264 $ 52,988,141 1 The FY 2018 amount does not agree with Schedule I due to a change in revenue recognition for AMS analysis purposes. The resulting catch-up adjustment was reflected in FY 2018. In FY 2019, the City made a $4,424 revenue posting error. 2 At least 20% of the Surtax Proceeds must be used on Transit -related projects, such as circulator buses, and the remaining funds (80%) are earmarked for eligible Transportation projects. 3 Per the prior Audit Report dated October 1, 2019. 4 Presented for comparison with the FY 2019 audit period. Schedule III City of Miami Charter County Transportation System Surtax Review Listing of Claimed Uses of Transportation Proceeds, as Adjusted Description Fiscal Year Ended September 30, Project Number 2019 2018 1 Street Lighting - $ 5,547,224 $ 5,584,694 Street Improvement Projects: Division 5 Alleyway Improvement 17363 1,374,025 - Shenandoah/Silver Bluff Roadway 50404 1,009,154 1,241 Citywide Pavement Resurfacing 73102E 970,851 - Capital Improvement Direct and Indirect Labor 122001 903,393 761,779 SW 21 St and SW 24 Ave Roadway 30979 463,725 33,235 Transportation Planning and Professional Fees 70245 183,456 292,454 SW 5 St (SW 27 to 28 Ave) 30966 179,703 513 SW 15 St (SW 12 to 14 Ave) 173630 170,436 19,767 SW 28 Rd (SW 3 to 4 Ave) 173620 167,579 13,598 Bird Avenue Road Improvement 30628 121,024 301,947 NW 17 St (NW 32 to 37 Ave) 183611A 117,480 138 SW 27 St (SW 31 P1 to 32 Ave), Division 2 50204 91,798 94,310 SW 23 Ave (SW 3 to 4 St) 173626 87,813 14,234 Miscellaneous Division 4 Street Maintenance 30614 77,153 - SW 18 St (SW 12 to 18 Ave) 50305 73,498 1,033 SW 22 Terr (SW 27 to 37 Ave), Division 2 50407 70,466 38,564 SW 15 Rd (SW 3 to 11 Ave) 173619 62,631 77,778 SW 71 Ave (SW 4 to 8 St) 50405 60,981 318,165 SW 22 Terr (SW 32 to 37 Ave) 50407A 56,332 88,546 A Media Art Entertainment Roadway 50902 47,731 74,321 Dorsey Park Neighborhood Roadway 50907 40,977 90,837 Overtown Greenway (NW 11 St) 30624 38,926 7,608 NW 17 St (NW 27 to 32 Ave) 183611 33,049 2,740 Auburndale Roadway 173616 29,936 29,666 SW 14 Ten (SW 16 to 17 Ave) 50316 28,201 27,911 Palm Grove Road Improvements 30630 28,010 18,015 NW 30 St Improvements, Division 1 30756 25,805 2,433 SW 17 St (SW 16 to 14 Ave) 50312 25,600 1,483 NW 7 St Rd (NW N River Dr to NW 9 Ct) 50904 23,410 6,418 Grove Park Road Improvements Phase II, Division 3 40347 22,337 22,937 NW 18 Terr, East of 27 Ave 50110 20,941 18,583 Downtown Sidewalks and Streets 30606 20,640 27,311 SW 17 St (SW 16 to 17 Ave) 50312A 20,548 7,509 SW 25 Ave (SW 2 to 4 St) 173643 19,011 16,459 SW 30 Ct (SW 12 to 13 St) 30969 18,262 14,658 SW 15 St (SW 13 to 14 Ave) 50322 17,001 1,727 La Pastorita Roadway Improvements 183608 16,439 4,918 SW 23 St (SW 3rd to 14 Ave) 173622 15,534 5,534 SW 5 St (SW 21 to 22 Ave) 50320 15,480 23,281 NW 4 St (NW 49 to 52 Ave) 173615 15,380 4,617 SW 20 St (SW 16 to 17 Ave) 50319 14,325 3,864 NW 13 St (NW 35 to 37 Ave) 50104 13,940 6,968 Charles Ave (Main Highway and S Douglas) 183612 13,536 - SW 30 Rd (SW 5 to 4 Ave) 50310 13,125 2,902 NE 3 Ave (NE 54 St to 58 Terr) 50906 12,078 2,344 SW 20 St (SW 14 to 15 Ave) 173628 11,625 10,587 NW 2 Ave (NW 38 to 54 St) 50900 11,543 25,873 NW 19 Terr (NW 21 to 22 Ave) 50108 10,945 2,443 NW 24 Ave Roadway, Division 1 30723 10,389 44,139 Page 1 of 2 Schedule III City of Miami Charter County Transportation System Surtax Review Listing of Claimed Uses of Transportation Proceeds, as Adjusted Description Project Number Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2019 2018 1 SW 14 Terr (SW 16 to 17 Ave) 173627 9,703 126,750 NW 29 St and NW 7 Ave, Phase I 30896 9,428 49,812 NW 11 P1 and NW 41 St 173649 8,545 39,213 SW 24 Rd (SW 7 to 9 St) 173621 7,963 11,292 NW 18 Ave (NW 1 to 3 St) 173623 7,310 16,988 Auburndale (SW 32 Ave and 2 St) 173655 6,761 21,893 Little River N, S, W, Phase I 30902 6,271 18,196 SW 5 Ave (SW 24 to 25 Rd) 173633 5,599 10,317 Lummus Park Landing Area 30643 5,383 56,938 SW 35 Ave Roadway 173610 5,365 28,934 Hilola St Roadway 173639 5,256 33,311 SW 31 Rd (SW 2 to 3 Ave) 50323 4,451 10,124 SW 34 Ave and SW 28 St 173611 4,216 27,999 SW 5 St (SW 22 Ave to Beacom) 40331 2,132 27,487 Kiaora St Roadway 173636 852 30,743 SW 11 St (SW 5 to 12 Ave) 173618 778 38,308 NW 16 St Roadway Reconstruction 30792 - 292,619 SW 21 St (SW 12 to 13 Ave) 50307 - 175,110 SW 25 Ave 173652 - 138,930 SW 19 St (SW 16 to 17 Ave) 50304 - 92,048 NW 5 Ave (NW 17 to 19 St) 50903 - 83,228 NW 33 Ave and NW 15 St 50114A - 34,385 NE 2 Ave 78508 - 12,513 NW 2 St (NW 6 to 7 Ave) 50306 - 10,920 Reconstruction of Roadway 30431 - 10,128 Others less than $10,000 - 78,843 109,652 7,045,078 4,073,226 Drainage Projects: Citywide Storm Sewer Repairs 30262 2,403,964 - South Grove Phase 3 Roadway and Drainage 30836 522,613 247,786 Shorecrest Drainage, Division 5 17365 307,499 144,415 Center St Drainage, Division 2 30622 194,486 15,804 S Bayshore Ln/Fairview St, Division 2 30737 42,287 12,535 S Bayshore Dr Roadway and Drainage 30646 13,028 3,359 Bayhomes Dr Drainage, Division 2 30846 1,018 26,842 Others less than $10,000 - 72 5,501 3,484,967 456,242 Traffic Calming Projects: Silver Bluff Speed Tables 50408 216,793 94,007 South Golden Pines No Outlet 173613 43,652 89,116 Flagami Traffic Calming - Division 4 40672G 20,990 8,635 SW 16 Ave Traffic Calming 193618 11,298 - The Roads Neighborhood Traffic Calming 193619 10,016 - SW 14 Ave and SW 13 St 173624 - 10,006 Others less than $10,000 - 15,167 30,333 317,916 232,097 Total Claimed Project Costs 16,395,185 10,346,259 Debt Service (Schedule IV) 6,117,000 6,136,000 22,512,185 16,482,259 Total Claimed Uses of Surtax Proceeds AMS Adjustment: Unpaid Debt Service (Schedule IV) (4,039,385) - $ 18,472,800 $ 16,482,259 Eligible Transportation Expenditures (Table V) Source: City of Miami Accounting Records Presented for comparison with the FY 2019 audit period. Page 2 of 2 Schedule IV City of Miami Charter County Transportation System Surtax Review Summary of Debt Service Requirements By Bond Issue Description Fiscal Year Ended September 30, All Years 2008-2016 2017 2018 2019 Special Obligation Revenue Bonds Series 2007: Outstanding Principal Less Principal Payment/Payoff Outstanding Balance Debt Service Requirements: Principal Interest $ 80,000,000 (12,555,000) $ 67,445,000 (1,880,000) $ 65,565,000 (1,970,000) $ 63,595,000 (63,595,000) $ 16,405,000 38,071,519 $ 67,445,000 $ 12,555,000 31,473,307 $ 65,565,000 $ 63,595,000 $ - $ 1,880,000 3,342,531 $ 1,970,000 3,255,681 $ - - $ 44,028,307 $ 5,222,531 $ 5,225,681 $ - $ 54,476,519 On December 5, 2007, the City of Miami issued 580 million in Special Obligation Bonds, Series 2007, for the purpose of financing various street and sidewalk capital improvement projects. The bonds were issued with interest rates ranging from 3.5% to 5.25%, maturing from year 2009 to 2037. The Bonds were refunded with Series 2018A Bonds. Special Obligation Revenue Bonds Series 2009: Outstanding Principal Less Principal Payment/Payoff Outstanding Balance Debt Service Requirements: Principal Interest $ 65,000,000 (5,940,000) $ 59,060,000 (1,140,000) $ 57,920,000 (1,195,000) $ 56,725,000 (56,725,000) $ 8,275,000 27,943,937 $ 59,060,000 $ 57,920,000 $ 56,725,000 $ - $ 5,940,000 21,714,693 $ 1,140,000 3,141,569 $ 1,195,000 3,087,675 $ - - $ 27,654,693 $ 4,281,569 $ 4,282,675 $ - $ 36,218,937 On December 2, 2009, the City of Miami issued 565,000,000 in Special Obligation Bonds, Series 2009, for the purpose of financing various street and sidewalk capital improvement projects. The bonds were issued with interest rates ranging from 2.5% to 5.625%, maturing from year 2011 to 2039. The Bonds were refunded with Series 2018B Bonds. Total Debt Service for Series 2007 and 2009 Bonds: Principal Interest Allowed Debt Service: Debt Service Claimed t Adjustment for Unspent Debt Proceeds 2 Other Adjustments 3 $ 18,495,000 53,188,000 $ 3,020,000 6,484,100 $ 3,165,000 6,343,356 $ - - $ 24,680,000 66,015,456 $ 71,683,000 $ 9,504,100 $ 9,508,356 $ - $ 90,695,456 $ 42,915,707 (15,151,432) (857,740) $ 6,107,500 - - $ 6,136,000 - - $ - - - $ 55,159,207 (15,151,432) (857,740) $ 39,150,035 $ 26,906,535 $ 6,107,500 $ 6,136,000 $ - Source: Bond Official Statements, and City of Miami (City) Audited Financial Statements and Financial Records According to Bond Official Statements, Local Option Gas Tax and Parking Surcharge revenues were also pledged to repay the Bonds. 2 The City had substantial amounts of unused Debt Proceeds in prior years, and therefore could not claim all Debt Service as allowable uses of Surtax monies. However, beginning in FY 2016, the City's use of Proceeds exceeded 85%: therefore, no further amounts were disallowed. 3 In FY 2008, the City charged 100% of Debt Service payments to Surtax, yet should have allocated a portion to the other funding sources, consistent with subsequent years. 4 In FY 2019, the City charged a portion of Debt Service payments to Surtax for the Series 2007 and 2009 Bonds, even though they were refinanced with Series 2018 Bonds. There was no Debt Service paid in FY 2019 on the Series 2007 and 2009 Bonds. However, the City paid interest on the Series 2018 Bonds in FY 2019, and the 64.3% portion attributable to Surtax was an allowable use of funds in that year. Page 1 of 2 Schedule IV City of Miami Charter County Transportation System Surtax Review Summary of Debt Service Requirements By Bond Issue Description Fiscal Year Ended September 30, All Years 2008-2016 2017 2018 2019 Special Obligation Revenue Bonds Series 2018: Series A: Outstanding Principal Less Principal Payment/Payoff Outstanding Balance Debt Service Requirements: Principal Interest Series B: Outstanding Principal Less Principal Payment/Payoff Outstanding Balance Debt Service Requirements: Principal Interest Series C: Outstanding Principal Less Principal Payment/Payoff Outstanding Balance Debt Service Requirements: Principal Interest Total Series 2018 Bonds: Outstanding Principal Less Principal Payment/Payoff Outstanding Balance Debt Service Requirements: Principal Interest Allowed Debt Service: Debt Service Claimed (Schedule III)1 Adjustment for Amount Unpaid (Schedule III) 4 $ - - $ - - $ - - $ 57,405,000 - $ - 1,801,879 $ - $ - $ - $ 57,405,000 $ - - $ - - $ - - $ - 1,801,879 $ - $ - $ - $ 1,801,879 $ 1,801,879 $ - - $ - - $ - - $ 42,620,000 - $ - 1,217,408 $ - $ - $ - $ 42,620,000 $ - - $ - - $ - - $ - 1,217,408 $ - $ - $ - $ 1,217,408 $ 1,217,408 $ - - $ - - $ - - $ 7,455,000 - $ - 211,841 $ - $ - $ - $ 7,455,000 $ - - $ - - $ - - $ - 211,841 $ - $ - $ - $ 211,841 $ 211,841 $ - - $ - - $ - - $ 107,480,000 - $ - 3,231,128 $ - $ - $ - $ 107,480,000 $ - - $ - - $ - - $ - 3,231,128 $ - $ - $ - $ 3,231,128 $ 3,231,128 $ - - $ - - $ - - $ 6,117,000 (4,039,385) $ 6,117,000 (4,039,385) $ - $ - $ - $ 2,077,615 $ 2,077,615 On November 15, 2018, the City of Miami issued S57.405, S42.620, and S7 455 million in Special Obligation Bonds, Series 2018A, B, and C, respectively, for the purpose of refunding Series 2007 and 2009 Bonds, and financing various street and sidewalk capital improvement projects. The bonds were issued with interest rates ranging from 3.461 % to 5%, maturing from year 2020 to 2039. The City pledged future revenue proceeds of 80 % of Surtax monies, 100 % of Local Option Gas Taxes, and 20 % of Parking Surcharge funds to repay the bonds. Page 2 of 2 Schedule IV -A City of Miami Charter County Transportation System Surtax Review Expenditures Paid from Series 2018C Bond Proceeds Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2019 Description Project Number Amount Downtown Sidewalks & Streets 30606 $ 1,452,840 Dorsey Park Neighborhood Roadway 50907 434,265 A Media Art Entertainment Roadway 50902 302,217 SW 17 St (SW 16 to 17 Ave) 50312A 225,539 SW 12 St (SW 16 to 17 Ave) 50311 194,167 Palm Grove Roadway 30630 193,065 SW 12 St (SW 13 Ave and 13 Ct) 50303 35,138 Grove Park Roadway Phase II, Division 3 40347 23,406 NW13Ave(NW21to23St) 50112 17,176 Overtown Greenway (NW 11 St) 30624 14,739 SW 28 Rd (SW 5 to 9 Ave) 50313 12,450 SW 5 St (SW 27 to 28 Ave) 30966 11,298 Coconut Grove Business District Sidewalks 30687 10,877 Buena Vista Neighborhood Traffic Calming 193620 9,378 SW 25 St (SW 27 to 32 Ave) 50421 7,801 NE 3 Ave (NE 54 St to 58 Terr) 50906 3,687 Center Street Drainage, Division 2 30622 2,917 SW 19 Ave and SW 14 St Traffic Calming 30804 2,000 Flagami Traffic Calming, Division 4 40672G 1,564 S Bayshore Lane and Fairview St, Division 2 30737 712 $ 2,955,236 Series 2018C Proceeds $ 7,455,000 Less: Costs of Issuance (139,097) Less: Funds Used (2,955,236) Unused Funds as of September 30, 2019 $ 4,360,667 Source: City of Miami Accounting Records Schedule V Charter County Transportation System Surtax Review Summary of Payments to Municipalities Municipality Fiscal Year Ended September 30, All Years 2003 to 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 City of Miami' $ 163,251,890 $ 16,889,133 $ 16,523,990 $ 18,187,632 $ 19,212,362 $ 234,065,007 City of Hialeah 94,519,774 9,243,159 9,346,775 9,873,020 10,107,558 133,090,286 City of Miami Beach 37,554,491 3,670,335 3,678,499 3,925,123 3,963,754 52,792,202 City of Miami Gardens 2 22,375,665 4,336,722 4,409,954 4,737,286 4,846,211 40,705,838 City of North Miami 24,592,952 2,454,241 2,473,804 2,665,998 2,700,412 34,887,407 City of Homestead 20,867,813 2,669,792 2,788,854 2,969,698 3,152,022 32,448,179 City of Coral Gables 18,755,177 1,955,854 1,981,236 2,091,593 2,132,315 26,916,175 City of North Miami Beach 17,154,830 1,733,203 1,746,039 1,882,765 1,945,188 24,462,025 City of Aventura 12,992,928 1,494,036 1,502,980 1,590,870 1,613,705 19,194,519 City of Doral 2 9,003,402 2,120,606 2,232,433 2,508,437 2,747,033 18,611,911 Town of Miami Lakes 1 11,086,213 1,209,319 1,211,635 1,288,227 1,309,407 16,104,801 Town of Cutler Bay 2 8,525,502 1,721,858 1,769,140 1,899,220 1,935,984 15,851,704 Village of Palmetto Bay 10,074,295 952,951 956,304 1,013,542 1,033,365 14,030,457 City of Hialeah Gardens 8,635,855 904,713 922,372 986,599 1,007,122 12,456,661 City of Sunny Isles Beach 7,759,606 869,990 866,019 933,221 951,809 11,380,645 Village ofPinecrest3 7,840,962 737,876 738,316 777,521 790,584 10,885,259 City of Miami Springs 5,682,283 562,418 565,087 601,223 608,639 8,019,650 City of Sweetwater ' 5,070,356 273,778 133,332 466,662 166,116 6,110,244 City of South Miami 4,767,184 546,219 547,720 546,151 541,343 6,948,617 City of Opa-locka I 6,329,004 90,323 195,000 210,000 165,000 6,989,327 Village of Key Biscayne 4,809,375 502,197 508,734 540,692 550,288 6,911,286 City of Florida City 4,132,139 498,385 504,443 542,769 557,265 6,235,001 Miami Shores Village 4,308,419 419,557 420,697 443,831 447,113 6,039,617 North Bay Village 2,808,576 314,789 328,007 378,523 384,140 4,214,035 City of West Miami 2,445,250 241,053 241,373 279,166 307,465 3,514,307 Town of Surfside 2,314,098 229,428 228,739 234,500 248,902 3,255,667 Town of Bay Harbor Islands 2,209,631 231,953 222,682 234,375 249,414 3,148,055 Village of Biscayne Park 1,342,176 125,900 126,220 135,905 135,965 1,866,166 Bal Harbour Village 1,262,745 114,472 111,421 114,881 125,178 1,728,697 Village of El Porta14 1,012,447 6,467 174,873 90,094 89,175 1,373,056 Village of Virginia Gardens 973,380 96,229 96,903 102,910 103,132 1,372,554 Town of Medley 429,285 34,442 33,529 35,277 35,617 568,150 Town of Golden Beach 1 365,820 36,766 37,221 39,423 39,386 518,616 Indian Creek Village 3,604 - - - - 3,604 $ 525,257,127 $ 57,288,164 $ 57,624,331 $ 62,327,134 $ 64,202,969 $ 766,699,725 Source: Office of the Citizens' Independent Transportation Trust (OCITT) and the County's Financial Accounting Management Information System t Amounts are net of withholdings of $76,553 from the Town of Miami Lakes, $2.1 million from the City of Sweetwater, $21,058 from the Town of Golden Beach, $2.3 million from the City of Opa-locka, and $3.3 million from the City of Miami, due to specific instances of noncompliance. Partial amounts were released as follows: $1.3 million to Sweetwater on 11/27/2019, and $901,927 to Opa-locka on 3/9/2020. 2 Pursuant to the respectiveInterlocal and/or Settlement Agreements, these Municipalities, which were incorporated after November 2002, are receiving a share of the County's Surtax Proceeds consistent with the other Municipal distributions. 3 In FY 2009, $551,589 was returned by the Village of Pinecrest for their unspent Transit portion of funding as of September 30, 2007. In FY 2013, OCITT returned the monies to the Village. 4 Amount in FY 2016 is net of $84,069 withheld due to instances of noncompliance, which was returned in FY 2017 by OCITT. Exhibit I City of Miami (City) Charter County Transportation System Surtax Review Status of Prior Audit Findings 1 Finding Use of Transit Proceeds Recommendation Auditee Response Current Status The City spent all of its Transit -related Surtax funds, but had Trolley advertising revenues and related expenses recorded in a separate fund from its Surtax activities. The City should consider recording Trolley advertising revenues in its Transportation and Transit Special Revenue Fund to facilitate accountability. The City provided AMS with documentation that irrefutably depicted the use of advertising revenues for Transportation and Transit - related expenditures. Unresolved During the year ended September 30, 2019, the City earned $493,065 in advertising revenues that were not recorded in Surtax funds, although the revenues were properly expended for Transit -related activities. (See Pages 3-5) Use of Transportation Proceeds The City had unspent Transportation Funds of $53 million available for carryover. Further, only $34.1 million was reported as "Cash and Investments" in the Transportation and Transit Special Revenue and Capital Projects Funds. The City should submit a revised Five -Year Transportation Plan to demonstrate how the $53 million of rollover monies will be used. Surtax distributions should be withheld until the City reduces its $18.9 million funding gap, and there is a substantial reduction in unspent funds. The City submitted a CITT Funds Management Plan which outlined its strategy to reduce its CITT fund balance. Unresolved As of September 30, 2019, the City had $47.4 million in unspent Transportation funds, with only $27.8 million in Cash and Investments in the Transportation and Transit Special Revenue and Capital Projects Funds. The shortfall was $19.6 million. (See Pages 5-6.) Reporting to OCITT The City timely submitted all required reports to OCITT. However, Quarterly Transportation Expenditure Reports did not agree with annual amounts recorded in the City's General Ledger. City staff must strive to provide accurate reports to OCITT. The City will begin reporting on a year-to- date basis instead of a project -to -date basis. Unresolved Quarterly Reports did not agree with City accounting records. (See Page 6.) ' See the Audit Report dated October 1, 2019 and the Response dated September 13, 2019 for the full text. Date: To: From: MIAMI•DADE Memorandum COUNTY February 28, 2021 Javier A. Betancourt, Executive Director Office of the Citizens' Independent Transportation Trust (OCITT) Cathy Jac l4don, `17irector Audit and Management Services Department Subject: Final Audit Report — Charter County Transportation System Surtax Review — City of Miami, Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2019 We are in receipt of the City of Miami (City) Response, dated January 29, 2021 (Attachment I) to the above -captioned Audit Report issued September 16, 2020. After reviewing the Response, we are concerned that it did not address the full extent of the City's Unspent Surtax Funds and related Cash Shortfall. The City had Unspent Surtax Funds of $47.4 million as of September 30, 2019, but only reported Cash and Investments of $27.8 million in its Transportation and Transit Special Revenue and Capital Projects Funds (Schedule I). This $19.6 million shortfall is excessive and should be replenished immediately. The City contends that the primary cause of Unspent Surtax Funds is the disallowance of debt service payments from prior year audits, which was the result of the City's excess and unused borrowings. We reaffirm that debt service on borrowed funds that remain unused for many years should not be an allowable use of Surtax Proceeds. As repeatedly recommended since September 30, 2011, OCITT should suspend all future Surtax payments until the City has addressed this issue. We also disagree with additional statements made in the Response, as explained below. • Trolley Advertising Revenues The City stated that Trolley advertisement revenues are properly accounted for and should not be included in the Transportation and Transit Special Revenue Fund. Per OCITT guidelines, Trolley advertising revenues should be used to fund Transit - related expenditures. As such, we recommend those revenues be accounted for in that fund. This is discretionary but not mandatory. • Debt Service and Surtax Allocation The City acknowledges that it did not make FY 2019 debt payments on refunded Series 2007 and 2009 Bonds, but rather did pay interest on Series 2018 Bonds. We reaffirm the audit adjustment to disallow unpaid debt service and include the interest paid on Series 2018 Bonds. Final Audit Report — Charter County Transportation System Surtax Review — City of Miami, Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2019 Page 2 The City further believes that 100% of debt service can be paid with Surtax Proceeds, even though there are three sources of repayment — Surtax, Local Option Gas Tax, and Parking Revenues. The City historically established an allocation of repayment among the three sources, and actually allocated 64.3% of debt service for refunded Bonds in FY 2019. Because the debt service payments were not disbursed prior to their refunding, our audit disallowed the amounts, but did allow 64.3% of debt service for Series 2018 Bonds (Schedule I). Therefore, we reaffirm the allocation of debt service among the three repayment sources. As requested by OCITT, we will continue performing annual audits of the City's use of Surtax Funds. Based on the foregoing, the audit for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2019 has been closed. Please contact me at 786-469-5900, if you have any questions. CJ: bm Attachment c: Honorable Harvey A. Ruvin, Clerk of the Courts Geri Bonzon-Keenan, County Attorney Edward Marquez, Chief Financial Officer Jimmy Morales, Chief Operations Officer David Clodfelter, Interim Director, Office of Management and Budget Arthur Noriega, City Manager, City of Miami Schedule I City of Miami - Charter County Transportation System Surtax - Audit Summary Description Unspent Surtax Proceeds Transit Transportation Total Audits through 9/30/13 Two Years Ended 9/30/15 Two Years Ended 9/30/17 Year Ended 9/30/18 Year Ended 9/30/19 Major Cumulative Adjustments Disallowed Debt Service 1 Debt not Charged to LOGT and Parking 2 Interest Income 3 Total Cash per General Ledger4 Cash Shortfall $ 14,435,991 $ 41,478,496 $ 55,914,487 $ 13,218,962 $ 857,740 $ 2,000,000 $ 16,076,702 $ 35,520,102 $ 20,394,385 13,315,690 51,958,114 65,273,804 15,151,432 857,740 2,856,645 18,865,817 40,454,603 24,819,201 58,075,856 58,075,856 15,151,432 857,740 3,708,941 19,718,113 36,366,394 21,709,462 52,988,141 52,988,141 15,151,432 857,740 3,708,941 19,718,113 34,132,914 18,855,227 47,394,264 47,394,264 19,190,817 857,740 3,708,941 23,757,498 27,752,391 19,641,873 Debt Service Claimed and Disallowed Description Series 2007 Bonds Claimed Disallowed Net Audits through 9/30/13 Two Years Ended 9/30/15 Two Years Ended 9/30/17 Year Ended 9/30/18 Year Ended 9/30/19 5 Series 2009 Bonds Series 2018 Bonds - Allowed Debt Service Claimed Disallowed Net $ 18,880,958 $ (9,772,457) $ 9,108,501 $ 9,581,988 $(4,304,245) $ 5,277,743 4,575,643 (1,061,881) 3,513,762 3,750,418 (870,589) 2,879,829 6,723,748 6,723,748 5,510,452 3,372,274 3,372,274 2,763,726 2,763,726 3,359,879 (3,359,879) 2,757,121 (2,757,121) $ 36,912,502 $ (14,194,217) $ 22,718,285 $ 24,363,705 $(7,931,955) $16,431,750 5,510,452 2,077,615 $ 2.077.615 Total Claimed Disallowed, net $ 28,462,946 $ (14,076,702) 8,326,061 (1,932,470) 12,234,200 6,136,000 6,117,000 (4,039,385) $ 61,276,207 $ (20,048,557) 1 Debt Service was disallowed because the City had substantial amounts of unused Debt Proceeds. Disallowed amounts were calculated as Debt Service charged to Surtax, multiplied by the percentage of Unspent Proceeds in each year. 2 In FY 2008, the City charged 100% of Debt Service to Surtax, yet should have allocated a portion ($857,740) to Local Option Gas Tax (LOGT) and Parking Revenues, as was done in subsequent years. The City did not record this FY 2008 allocation, and thus it is shown as a cumulative adjustment for each audit period. 3 Amounts represent interest that should have been earned on Unspent Surtax Proceeds that were not recorded by the City. 4 A separate Transit and Transportation Special Revenue Fund was established in FY 2003, but the detail of claimed expenditures did not tie to General Ledger amounts in the Special Revenue and Capital Projects Funds until the FY 2017 audit period. 5 In FY 2019, the Series 2007 and 2009 Bonds were refunded prior to the City making any debt payments. Therefore, all Debt Service related to those Bonds was disallowed. The City did not claim Debt Service for the new Series 2018 Bonds. We therefore included 64.3% of FY 2019 Debt Service for Series 2018, allocating the same percentage to Surtax that the City had allocated for the Series 2007 and 2009 Bonds. Attachment I ttp Df ARTHUR NORIEGA, V CITY MANAGER January 29, 2021 � 1I1 taint, ftoriba Ms. Cathy Jackson, Director Audit and Management Services Department 701 NW 151 Court, Suite 8-175 Miami, Florida 33136 P .O . BOX 330708 MEAMI. FLORIDA 33233-0708 (305) 250 -5400 FAX (305) 250 -5410 Re: City Audit Report - Charter County Transit System Surtax Review Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2019 We are in receipt of the report dated August 5, 2020, titled "Audit Report — City of Miami Charter County Transportation System Surtax Review for the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2019." We would like to thank you and your staff for your assistance and for the opportunity to address the recommendations. We have carefully reviewed each point identified in the Audit Report and offer the following responses to the three recommendations. Recommendation: The City should ensure all claimed costs are eligible for Surtax use, and prospectively consider recording Trolley advertising revenues in its Transportation and Transit Special Revenue Fund to facilitate accountability. Response: The City takes care to ensure claimed costs are eligible for Surtax use. In order to properly account for Surtax Proceeds, the City tracks the flow of funds through its Special Revenue and Capital Projects Funds' general ledger accounts. The City has provided documentation, including a reconciliation of available funds, that accounts for the balances in those funds and reconciles to the balance per the Audit Report. With this documentation, enough support was provided to ascertain that advertisement revenues are properly accounted for. Recommendation: Prospectively, the City should ensure all claimed costs are eligible for Surtax use. City staff should submit a revised Five -Year Transportation Plan, approved by its City Commission, specifying how the $47.4 million in unspent funds will be used. More importantly, Surtax distribution should be held in Trust by OCITT until the City reduces the estimated $19 million funding gap. Further, OCITT should formally communicate these concerns to the CITT Board with a plan for timely resolution. Wage Page 1 of 3 Response: The City takes care to ensure claimed costs are eligible for Surtax use and disagrees with AMS that there is $19 million funding gap (i.e. $19.6 million less than should be available, reported in the Transportation and Transit Special Revenue and Capital Projects Funds). The primary differences between the City and AMS's balance of unspent funds are related to AMS's disallowance of debt service payments (in prior year audits since 2013), and interest income - which is inflated by AMS due to their interest calculation utilizing the disallowed amounts. As its basis for the debt service disallowances, AMS asserts that "The City should not charge 100% of the debt service payments to the Surtax" because the bonds are to be repaid with three funding sources — Surtax, Local Option Gas Taxes (LOGT), and Parking Revenues. However, the City disagrees with this assertion. The City pledged 80 percent Transportation Taxes, 100 percent new LOGT, and 20 percent of the City's Parking Surcharge to repay $57.4 million in Special Obligation Revenue Bonds. Although revenue is pledged from multiple funding sources to ensure there is enough coverage to make payments throughout the life of the bond, the percentage of the pledges does not function as a percentage cap/restriction on the use of the respective funding sources for debt service. Therefore, the City maintains the position that each debt service payment does not have to be allocated amongst the three funding sources; and as a result, the City was within its rights to utilize the Surtax monies for the debt service payments being disallowed by AMS. The amount of the debt service payment that comes from Transportation Taxes is recommended by the City's Office of Management and Budget and approved in the Budget Ordinance by the City Commission. The City also disagrees with the disallowance of the $4.8 million debt service for FY19 for the following reasons. TD Bank was the City's paying agent for the 2007 and 2009 Street and Sidewalk Bonds. At the time of closing for the new Series 2018 Bonds, the balance in the bank accounts for the 2007 and 2009 Bonds totaled $4,876,909.57. These funds were to be used to make future debt service payments for FY2019. The closing took place in November 2018 and the funds were used as the sinking fund contribution towards the new debt. In addition, the City made the interest only payment of $3,231,127.73 on January 2019 for the new Series 2018 Bonds. The City's 5 Year Capital Plan outlines the projects that the remaining $27.8 million of Transportation and Transit funds will be spent on, and can be found on page 263 of the following link: http://archive. miamigov.com/Budget/docs/FY21 /FY%202020- 21 %20Proposed%200peratinq%20Budget%20Book%20-%20Web%20Version%20- %20Final.pdf Recommendation: City Staff must strive to provide accurate reports to OCITT. Response: The City's reporting to OCITT is accurate. The City has provided documentation, including a "Reconciliation of Quarterly Transportation Expenditure Report", reconciled to the balance per the AMS Audit Report. AMS is trying to reconcile using a year-to-date format; however, the OCITT Report is created to track expenditures on a project -to -date basis. As discussed during the audit field work, the City has no problem with reporting expenditures in the format that AMS prefers, but CITT will need to review the report and notify the City of the new 2IPage Page 2 of 3 format. In addition, the City communicated with CITT regarding a new template and we were instructed to continue with the old format (project -to -date) for FY19. Sincer Arthur Nriega, V City Ma ager Cc: Honorable Mayor Francis X. Suarez Javier A. Betancourt, Executive Director, Office of CITT Fernando Casamayor, ACM/CFO Wage Page 3 of 3 CITT Board Members Chairperson Paul J. Schwiep, Esq, First Vice Chairperson Hon. Anna E. Ward, Ph.D Second Vice Chairperson Glenn J. Downing, CFP Oscar J. Braynon Joe Curbelo Peter L. Forrest Alfred J. Holzman Prakash Kumar Jonathan A. Martinez Alicia Menardy, Esq. Miles E. Moss, P.E. Hon. James Reeder Marilyn Smith Hon. Linda Zilber Executive Director Charles Scurr Past Chairperson ATTACHMENT 3 Citizens' IndependentTransportation Trust 111 NW 1st Street • Suite 1010 Miami, Florida 33128 T 305-375-1357 F 305-375-4605 Transportation Trust ° t' ©GoCITT rniarnidade.gov/citt September 13, 2016 Mr. Daniel J. Alfonso, City Manager City of Miami 444 S.W. 2nd Avenue, 10th Floor Miami, FL 33130 Dear Mr. Alfonso: The purpose of this letter is to follow-up on the Audit Report on the City of Miami's Charter County Transit System Surtax Review completed by the Audit and Management Services Department (AMS) dated September 30, 2015 and covering FY 2011-2013 and to dispose of the issues that remain unresolved. Thank you and your office staff for their cooperation. Your letter dated August 17, 2016 accepting the disposition findings as presented below is attached. The Office of the Citizens' Independent Transportation Trust, (OCITT) carefully reviewed the Audit report as well as the responses of the City dated June 8, 2015 and September 15, 2015. We also carefully reviewed the original documents including the Interlocal Agreement dated August 6, 2003; the Interlocal Agreement dated July 10, 2007 and the Annual Reports submitted by the City. Finally, we have also carefully reviewed relevant County Attorney opinions and Transportation Trust legislation. A number of meetings have been held with the City and AMS in order to try and resolve the audit findings. There remains, however, disagreement between the City and AMS on several of the findings. This letter is the disposition of the audit findings. The AMS report focuses on a number of issues and these will be discussed separately. • Separate Bank Account — AMS recommended that the City be required to establish a separate bank account for surtax funds. This issue was raised in a previous audit. The City agreed to take a series of steps as identified in correspondence dated January 30, 2012 and February 1, 2012 that satisfactorily resolved this issue. Additionally, the City has advised that it is making additional changes to the Projects and Grants Module that will mirror the County process where expenditures will occur in the same fund where Surtax Proceeds are held, therefore eliminating a need for transfers. We agree that this will make it easier to properly account for eligible expenditures and improve internal controls. A separate bank account is not deemed to be necessary in light of the above changes that have been made. • Tracing Flow of Funds — AMS requests that the City trace the flow of funds through its Special Revenue and Capital Projects Funds general ledger accounts in order to properly account for Surtax Proceeds. The City has provided documentation including a Reconciliation of Available Funds that accounts for the balances in those funds and reconciles them tothe balance per the Audit Report with asmall difference remaining. The Trust accepts this documentation as sufficient support that Surtax Proceeds have been properly accounted for. * Bond Payments - /\M8 recommended that debt service payments be disallowed due to a large amount of unspent bond proceeds. The City has presented a plan to accelerate and complete these projects. If the City does not complete the projects then the bond expanaes, including debt service and interest expeneea, would be ineligible and would be subject to recapture, At this time it is premature to recapture the funds. The Trust has and continues to be concerned with the Cit/e failure to spend bond proceeds in a timely fashion. Therefore. the City is requested to present Quarterly Report tothe Trust. This report, oinni|a[ tothat presented quarterly by Miami -Dade County, will include adetailed progress report on all major capital projects, updating project schedules and costs. This report will be presented to the joint Municipal Coordination and Program and Financial Review Committee. On -Demand Expensee-The City claimed costs totaling $752.542 for On - Demand Transportation Services which AK88 has deemed ineligible. Of this amount, $288.441 was incurred prior to March 25. 2011 and $463.101 was for passengers that were not cross-checked for enrollment in the County's GT8 Program. The City has not provided documentation on the eligibility of the persons receiving these services. The Trust concurs with the dieo||ovvenne of these expenses barring eligibility documentation. It should be noted that the City has established appropriate procedures for eligibility and billing moving forward. * Debt Service Payments -The City used Surtax funds in the mnnourd of $857.740 for debt service that should have been paid from other funding sources. In addition, excess Surtax funds totaling $2.113.357 were transferred for debt service payments that were never reversed bock to the Surtax fund. The City has agreed with the A&48 finding and will reverse the entries. The Trust is in concurrence with this finding and resolution. StormwaterExpenditureo-AMGrecommended that funds used for storm sewer and drainage projects be disallowed because the City had otonnvvata[feea available. Gtornnvveter projects are surtax eligible and the expenses are, therefore, not disallowed. � Program Management - AMG recommended that expenditures for Program Management Services be disallowed. These expenses are generally allowable. The second level documentation provided needs to be improved in order to anauna that individuals billed are working specifically onsurtax eligible p jeote. For this audit the expenses are not w Parking —AMG recommended that $49'984 in expenses for a parking study for Marlins Park are ineligible. The Trust concurs in this finding. * Sidewalks - AK88 recommended the disallowance of $489.025 for sidewalk projects completed prior November 15. 2013 for projects that were not part of road improvement projects or AD/\ related. The Trust is in concurrence with this finding. Stand-alone eidavv@|h projects were not eligible until the effective date of the Trust sidewalk po|icy. November 15' 2013. ° Interest Earnings -The final issue cnnm*Ols the Citv's interest earned on surtax proceeds. /\K88 estimated that there is $2.6 million ofuncredited investment income after taking into account all disallowed costs. The Trust requests that o new estimate be prepared baking into account the disallowances noted above and that this amount becredited to the Surtax fund to be spent on qualifying transit or transportation projects. In the interim the sum of$2.O nni||ioD will be presumed to be Correct. The Trust and the City are in agreement that interest earnings should be credited on a monthly basis going forward. The total amount of costs subject to recapture is $3.301.551. Effective with the October 2018 distributions the Trust will withhold ninety two thousand dollars ($82'000.00) per month from the City'o surtax allocation until the recapture of the full amount is complete. If the $2.871.097 in excess debt service transfers has not been reversed by the City, the Trust will withhold an additional eighty three thousand dollars ($83,000.00) monthly until the recapture has been completed. Thank you for your cooperation. We look forward to continuing tnwork with you in inlp[VViOg transportation in our community. 8iDcerely, Charles D.8curr Executive Director oo C|TTBoard Bruce Libhober, /\aointmrd County Attorney Cathy Jackson, AK88 Attachment: August 17.2018Letter x�T~4°� �� {m�,~ ~ ��~.� �� ]�� _ ��, �Tlrrrt��^� °r � Lvhx+j 1 .A In A\� � DAm/EL J.ALFowSo CITY MANAGER August 17'2D10 Mr. Charles Scurr, Executive Director Citizens' Independent Transportation Trust 111NVV1stAvenue, Suite 111O Miami, Florida 33128 Dear Mr. Scurr: p�E3CX33m08 M.°M/.rLomoA 33233*70e (305)250-5400 VVewould like tothank you for your assistance with the Audit Report ofthe City ofMiami's Charter County Transit System Surtax Review, dated September 30, 2015, covering Fiscal Years 2011, 2012, and 2013, performed bvthe Counh/oDepartment ofAudit and Management Services, ("AMG"). V\eare very pleased that you've taken the steps towards resolving the outstanding and open issues related to the City of Miami's Charter County Transit Surtax funding. We've carefully reviewed each Weencouraged with the position you've taken with the issues to: 're ofthe points identified inyour letter and their related disposition. Separate ° Bank Accounts ° Tracing Flow ofFunds * Bond Payments * 8tornxwaterExpenditures; and ° Program Management While w eare discouraged that future funding will be redunod, we respect the decision to recapture the funds related toOn-Demand Expenses, Parking' and GkJevva|ka. Tomitigate any future recapture, we will aggressively work towards continuing to spend down bond proceeds where Transit Surtax Funds are pledged for repayment. We will provide a Quarterly Report, for your review and consideration, to the Trust detailing the progress ofall major capital projects, updatingp joctsohedu|ea.andp jentnosto.TheCity has been allocating interest to the unspent Surtax funds since Fiscal Year 2015. Moreover, vveconcur that the interest should berecaptured. VVewould like the opportunity todiscuss the amount with you and your staff. We will request approval from the City Commission to transfer back tothe Surtax Fund the excess debt service transfer totaling $2'Q71.OQ7.VVeanticipate requesting this approval nolater than November 2018. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or need additional information. Once again, vvewould like tothank you for your help and assistance. / Daniel J.Alfonso City Manager Victoria M6ndez City Attorney CCit of gliianti April 29, 2022 Javier A. Betancourt, Executive Director Office of the Citizens' Independent Transportation Trust Stephen P. Clark Center 111 NW First St. Suite 1010 Miami, Florida 33128 Email: Javier.Betancourt@miamidade.gov Telephone: (305) 416-1800 Telecopier: (305) 400-5071 E-MAIL: Lawcn miamigov.com Sent via Electronic Correspondence RE: CITT Resolution No. 22-006 — Withholding of City of Miami, FL Surtax Funds Dear Mr. Betancourt: This letter is being transmitted to you as the Executive Director of the Office of the Citizens' Independent Transportation Trust ("OCITT") and in response to the adoption of CITT Resolution No. 22-006 on March 31, 2022 by the Citizens' Independent Transportation Trust ("CITT") directing OCITT to withhold Surtax Funds from the City of Miami ("City"), attached as Attachment A (hereinafter, "CITT Resolution No. 22-006"), the OCITT letter to the City Manager dated April 5, 2022, attached as Attachment B (hereinafter, "April 5 Letter"), and the April 8, 2022 email from the OCITT withholding the City's portion of Transportation Surtax proceeds for the month of January 2022, attached as Attachment C (hereinafter, "April 8 Email"). The City continues to disagree with the recommendation of the OCITT and the CITT's adoption of CITT Resolution No. 22-006 for the reasons stated at the March 31, 2022 CITT Audit Committee meeting and the March 31, 2022 CITT Trust meeting,' as well as for the reasons stated herein. In submitting this Letter, the City reserves any and all rights afforded to it under applicable Florida Statutes, Miami -Dade County ("County") Ordinances, the 2007 Interlocal Agreement, or to which it may avail itself in law or equity. After reviewing the April 5 Letter, CITT Resolution No. 22-006, the April 8 Email, and all other relevant documents as may be identified herein, the City wishes to make the following statements and requests. ' The City of Miami, by this reference, incorporates its statements and arguments made at the March 31, 2022 CITT Audit Committee meeting and the March 31, 2022 CITT Trust meeting as if fully set forth in this Letter. OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY/ 444 S.W. 2nd Avenue, Suite 945 / Miami, Florida 33130-1910 I. The City of Miami has completed a majority of the projects associated with the Series 2007 and Series 2009 Street and Sidewalk Bonds and therefore those debt service expenditures are allowable expenditures pursuant to the September 13, 2016 CITT Letter. On October 9, 2015, the Miami -Dade County Audit and Management Services Department ("AMS") issued the Audit Report - Charter County Transportation System Surtax Review — City of Miami for the three (3) years ended September 30, 2013, attached as Attachment D (hereinafter, "2013 Audit"). In the 2013 Audit, AMS disallowed $8 Million dollars due to unspent debt proceeds from the Series 2007 and Series 2009 Street and Sidewalk Bonds (hereinafter, "S&S Bond"). As is further discussed in this Letter, the City disagrees with AMS' position that unspent debt proceeds allocated and appropriated to eligible projects is a disallowable expenditure. However, on September 13, 2016, then OCITT Executive Director Charles Scurr sent the City of Miami a letter addressing and resolving several findings made by AMS in the 2013 Audit, attached as Attachment E (hereinafter, "2016 CITT Letter"). On page 2 of the 2016 CITT Letter, Director Scurr stated in relevant part, Bond Payments — AMS recommended that debt service payments be disallowed due to a large amount of unspent bond proceeds. The City has presented a plan to accelerate and complete these projects. If the City does not complete the projects then the bond expenses, including debt service and interest expenses, would be ineligible and would be subject to recapture. At this time it is premature to recapture the funds. The Trust has and continues to be concerned with the City's failure to spend bond proceeds in a timely fashion. Therefore, the City is requested to present a Quarterly Report to the Trust. This report, similar to that presented quarterly by Miami -Dade County, will include a detailed progress report on all major capital projects, updating project schedules and costs. This report will be presented to the joint Municipal Coordination and Program and Financial Review Committee. Pursuant to Schedule IV of the Audit Report - Charter County Transportation System Surtax Review — City of Miami for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2019, attached as Attachment F (hereinafter, "2019 Audit"), AMS has disallowed $15,151,432.00 in debt service for unspent debt proceeds. Beginning in Fiscal Year 2016, AMS was no longer disallowing debt service because "the City's use of the [S&S Bond] Proceeds exceeded 85%."2 The City of Miami has complied with the requirements of the 2016 CITT Letter because the S&S Bonds projects have been completed. The language in the 2016 CITT Letter states that the "the bond expenses, including debt service and interest expenses," are ineligible if the City does not complete the S&S Bond projects. Pursuant to the attached documentation, attached as 2 Neither AMS nor OCITT has been able to justify or provide any documentation, authority, or guidance identifying how it developed this arbitrary figure or why the expenditure of 85% of the debt proceeds is when the payment of debt service becomes an allowable expense. 2 Document 1706430 Attachment G, the City has demonstrated that the majority of projects that were funded with S&S Bond funding were completed and therefore all bond expenses, including debt service and interest expenses, associated with the S&S Bond are eligible expenses. And for the projects that are not completed or that are in differing phases of design and/or construction, the City has accelerated the completion of the projects and/or expenditure of the funds as it has demonstrated in the City's Quarterly Reporting to the CITT including in its most recent report delivered to the CITT on March 31, 2022, attached herein as Attachment H (hereinafter, "March 2022 Quarterly Report"). Furthermore, AMS' determination that as of the beginning of fiscal year 2016 the City's bond expenses, including debt service and interest expenses, were no longer being disallowed is a tacit acknowledgement that the all of the S&S Bonds projects are projects eligible for Surtax funding, that the City accelerated its expenditure of the bond proceeds, and that the City expended the bond proceeds in a timely fashion pursuant to the 2016 CITT Letter. Additionally, in the 2013 Audit, it was already becoming evident that the City was spending down its S&S Bond proceeds because in 2011 as much as 53% of the debt proceeds were unspent but by 2013 only 34% of debt proceeds were unspent. The City has and continues to work diligently and expeditiously towards the use and expenditure of the S&S Bonds proceeds, as well as the use and expenditure of all Surtax Funds. Therefore, for the aforementioned reasons, the City respectfully requests that AMS and OCITT update the audit findings to reflect that $15,151,432.00 is not a disallowed expenditure and that the total amount of unspent Surtax Funds will be updated to reflect the removal of this disallowance. II. Debt Service of the S&S Bonds is an allowable use of Surtax Funds and should not have been disallowed. As was previously noted, AMS disallowed $8 Million dollars of Surtax Fund expenditures for the payment of debt service due to unspent debt proceeds from the S&S Bonds in the 2013 Audit. AMS noted that it "disallowed $8.0 million ... because of unspent bond proceeds, which ranged as high as 53% ... in 2011 to 34% ... in 2013." This disallowance is not supported by law or by the CITT's own guidance. The plain language of Section 212.0559(1)(d)4., Florida Statutes ("F.S."), states that proceeds from the Surtax may be used "for the payment of principal and interest on bonds issued for the construction of ... roads, or bridges ...." The CITT Municipal Workshop Q&As from 2004-2008 are consistent with the statutory language by explaining that municipalities can use Surtax Funds as collateral for a municipal bond "as long as the municipality can provide documentation regarding the bonding of surtax revenues" and that the "projects that will be funded must be clearly identified in the Municipal Transportation Plan," attached as Attachment I (hereinafter, CITT Municipal Workshop Q&A). Additionally, Section 4.2 of the Interlocal Agreement for Distribution, Use, and Reporting of Charter County Transit System Surtax Proceeds Levied by Miami -Dade between the City and Miami -Dade County ("County") dated July 10, 2007, attached as Attachment J (hereinafter, "2007 Interlocal Agreement"), similarly notes that debt service is a valid use of Surtax Funds so long as the City annually provides "a list 3 Document 1706430 of the projects (including ongoing or completed projects that the City is paying debt service on borrowed funds) on which the current year's portion of the municipal share received is being expended." (emphasis added). Neither AMS nor OCITT has provided any clear documentation, authority, or guidance stating that unspent bond proceeds are not an allowable use of Surtax Funds. Furthermore, AMS and OCITT have never made a finding that the S&S Bond projects are not eligible projects pursuant to Section 212.0559(1)(d)4., F.S., that the City has been unable to provide documentation regarding the bonding of the Surtax Funds, that the City did not clearly identify the projects in the City's Municipal Transportation Plan, or that the City is not in compliance with Section 4.2 of the 2007 Interlocal Agreement. AMS and OCITT simply state that unpent bond proceeds are ineligible expenditures unless 85% or more of the proceeds have been spent, a figure that is arbitrary and has never been justified or substantiated. Moreover, this determination that unspent bond proceeds is an ineligible expense is contrary to guidance provided by the County Attorney's Office. On June 30, 2004, Assistant County Attorney Bruce Libhaber drafted a Legal Opinion Concerning Municipal Use of Surtax Funds dated June 30, 2004, attached as Attachment K (hereinafter, "2004 Legal Opinion"). In the 2004 Legal Opinion, the County Attorney's Office explained, It is understood, that both transit and transportation projects may take longer than a year to develop and construct. As such, it is understood that not all of the monies received by the municipalities for any given year will actually be spent in that fiscal year. The monies however, must be authorized and appropriated within that fiscal year. Monies which are not authorized and appropriates within a fiscal year will be distributed to the cities in the ensuing year. (emphasis added). Similarly, the CITT Municipal Workshop Q&A provide similar guidance. The CITT Municipal Workshop Q&A read, in relevant part, "Can a municipality rollover its share of surtax funds from one year to the next to finance long-term projects? A municipality need not actually spend its share in any given fiscal year as long as those monies are encumbered through contractual agreement." (emphasis added). The acknowledgement from the County Attorney's Office that transit and transportation projects take more than a year to develop and construct supports why it was reasonable for the City to have unspent bond proceeds. Also, since the issuance of bonds is a contractual obligation to repay certain sums of money at designated times, once the City Commission approved the issuance of the S&S Bond and the pledge of the Surtax Funds, the Surtax Funds for that fiscal year (and for future fiscal years) were authorized, appropriated, and encumbered pursuant to the S&S Bond and in accordance with the 2004 Legal Opinion and the CITT Municipal Workshop Q&As. Not only were the disallowed amounts authorized, appropriated, and encumbered, but they were actually spent and should not have been disallowed. Additionally, while the 2004 Legal Opinion was discussing the expenditure of Surtax Funds, its reasoning and guidance can be used as it relates to the expenditure of bond proceeds secured by Surtax Funds. In the present case, the S&S Bond proceeds were all authorized and 4 Document 1706430 appropriated when the City Commission approved the issuance of the S&S Bond and the pledge of the Surtax Funds, as well as when the City annually approves its Capital Budget.3 Therefore, for the aforementioned reasons, the City respectfully requests that AMS and OCITT update the audit findings to reflect that any disallowed Surtax Fund expenditures for the payment of debt service due to unspent debt proceeds from the S&S Bonds are not eligible uses of Surtax Funds and to update the total of unspent Surtax Funds to reflect the removal of this disallowance. III. The $4 Million disallowed for debt service is no longer a disallowed expenditure pursuant to the Audit Report - Charter County Transportation System Surtax Review — City of Miami for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2020. In the 2019 Audit, AMS disallowed $4 Million in debt service payments because prior to the debt service payment being made, the City refunded the S&S Bond and issued the Streets and Sidewalks Improvements, Special Obligation Refunding Bonds Series 2018A and 2018B (hereinafter, "2018 Refunding Bond"). However, in the Audit Report - Charter County Transportation System Surtax Review — City of Miami for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2020, attached as Attachment L (hereinafter, "2020 Audit"), AMS allowed the use of the disallowed amount for debt service for the 2018 Refunding Bond. Therefore, the $4 Million that was disallowed in the 2019 Audit was resolved and was a figure that should have not been considered by the CITT as unspent Surtax Funds.' The City respectfully requests that the OCITT confirm that the $4 Million that was disallowed in the 2019 Audit is an allowable expense and that the figure is no longer included in the total amount of unspent Surtax Funds. IV. The OCITT has inappropriately withheld the City's portion of Transportation Surtax proceeds for the month of January 2022 because CITT Resolution No. 22-006 was not retroactive and the City is entitled to receive Transportation Surtax funds it was authorized to receive prior to April 5, 2022. 3 The Government Finance Officers Association ("GFOA") has awarded the City the Distinguished Budget Presentation Award since the Fiscal Year beginning October 1, 2014. To earn recognition, budget documents must meet program criteria and excel as a policy document, financial plan, operations guide, and communication tool. 4 At the March 31, 2022 CITT Trust meeting, the City recommended that the CITT defer consideration of CITT Resolution No. 22-006 until the 2020 Audit was finalized for the CITT to receive updated numbers that would demonstrate changes in the unpent proceeds such as this $4 Million reduction. This recommendation was rejected by the OCITT and CITT. As the City stated at the March 31, 2022 CITT meeting and in this Letter, the CITT relied on inaccurate figures in the adoption of CITT Resolution No. 22-006. 5 Document 1706430 On March 31, 2022, the CITT adopted CITT Resolution No. 22-006 which reads, in relevant part, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITT, that this Trust instructs the Office of the Citizens' Independent Transportation Trust (OCITT) to withhold Charter County Transportation Surtax Funds (Surtax) from the City of Miami; and to recapture said funds should the City fail to adequately address concerns raised in the most recent audit of the City by the Miami -Dade County Audit and Management Services Depaituient (AMS) in a timely and satisfactory manner.5 On April 8, 2022, the City received an email from the OCITT informing the City that it was withholding $1,842,569.00 of the City's January 2022 Surtax Funds.6 This action taken by the OCITT constitutes a retroactive application of CITT Resolution No. 22-006 in contravention of Florida law. In determining whether CITT Resolution No. 22-006 should be applied retroactively, the first inquiry is whether there is clear evidence of legislative intent to apply the Resolution retroactively and, if the Resolution clearly expresses such an intent, then the second inquiry is whether retroactive application is constitutionally permissible.' "The general rule is that in the absence of clear legislative intent to the contrary, a law affecting substantive rights, liabilities and duties is presumed to apply prospectively."8 While the CITT adopted a resolution and not an ordinance, CITT Resolution No. 22-006 clearly affects the substantive rights, liabilities, and duties of the City because it affects the City's ability to continue funding ongoing projects and services, it affects the city's home rule and statutory authority to annually adopt its budget, and directly impacts revenues pledged in the 2018 Refunding Bond. Therefore absent clear legislative intent, CITT Resolution No. 22-006 should apply prospectively. Additionally, the plain language of CITT Resolution No. 22-006 does not indicate that it is intended to apply retroactively. Although CITT Resolution No. 22-006 was adopted by the CITT on March 31, 2022, it does not provide an effective date. The City received the April 5 Letter which provided a copy of the rendered resolution and stated that OCITT "has commenced the withholding of Charter County Transportation System Sales Surtax funds (Surtax) from the City of Miami (City) effective immediately." Given that CITT Resolution No. 22-006 was not rendered and delivered to the City until April 5, 2022,9 the City asserts that the effective date of 5 Attachment A. 6 See Attachment C. See Metropolitan Dade County v. Chase Federal Housing Corp., 737 So. 2d 494, 499 (Fla. 1999). 8 See Metropolitan Dade County, 737 So. 2d at 499. 9 On April 1, 2022, the City sent an email to the OCITT requesting certified copies of the resolutions adopted by the CITT on March 31, 2022. On the same day, CITT Executive Director Javier Betancourt responded to the City 6 Document 1706430 CITT Resolution No. 22-006 is April 5, 2022.10 Furthermore, pursuant to the April 5 Letter which states that CITT Resolution No. 22-006 was "effective immediately," under Florida law the inclusion of an effective date, absent contrary legislative intent of retroactivity, is considered to be evidence rebutting intent for retroactive application of action affecting substantive rights, liabilities, and duties." Pursuant to Section 29-124(h) of the Miami -Dade County Code of Ordinances, as amended ("County Code"), attached as Attachment M (hereinafter, "Surtax Ordinance"), "[t]wenty percent of surtax proceeds shall be distributed annually to those cities existing as of November 5, 2002" subject to certain conditions (emphasis added). The OCITT distributes the Surtax Funds, in accordance with Surtax Ordinance, to the participating municipalities on a monthly basis. Prior to April 5, 2022, the CITT had not instructed the OCITT to withhold Surtax Funds to the City. As such, pursuant to Florida law and the plain language of CITT Resolution No. 22-006, the Resolution was not retroactive and any payments that were required to be made to the City prior to April 5, 2022 must be distributed to the City. Therefore, for the aforementioned reasons, the City respectfully requests that the OCITT distribute any Surtax Funds that were required to be distributed to the City prior to April 5, 2022. V. OCITT is required to distribute Surtax Funds to the City pursuant to Surtax Ordinance and the 2007 Interlocal Agreement. The CITT is a County Board as defined in Section 2-11.36.1(a) of the County Code. Pursuant to Section 2-11.37(a) of the County Code, all County Boards can only be created by Ordinance. "Such ordinance shall set forth the board's purpose, function, power, responsibility, jurisdiction, membership requirements and restrictions, terms and conditions of appointment to or removal from the board, and the specific staff support, if any, to be provided to the board."12 The CITT was established pursuant to Ordinance No. 02-117 and codified in Chapter 2, Article XCVII of the County Code, attached as Attachment N (hereinafter, "CITT Ordinance"). Section 2-1421(g) of the County Code outlines the CITT's "duties, functions, powers, responsibilities and jurisdiction with regard to use and expenditure of proceeds of any Charter County Transit System Surtax that is levied by the County under authority of Section 212.055(1), advising that OCITT "will certainly provide those [resolutions] to [the City] once they are finalized." Pursuant to the aforementioned email correspondence, the resolutions were not "finalized" as of April 1, 2022, and were provided to the City on April 5, 2022, upon being finalized 10 See Hobe Associates, Ltd. v. Fla. Dep't of Business Regulation, 504 So. 2d 1301, 1303-1305 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) (explaining that a declaratory statement constitutes final agency action). C.f. Fla. Stat. § 120.52(2) (—Agency action' means the whole or part of a rule or order, or the equivalent, or the denial of a petition to adopt a rule or issue an order."). 11 See State Dept of Rev. v. Zuckerman —Vernon Corp., 354 So.2d 353, 358 (Fla. 1977); see also Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 257 (1994) ("A statement that a statute will become effective on a certain date does not even arguably suggest that it has any application to conduct that occurred at an earlier date."). 12 Section 2-11.37(a) of the County Code (emphasis added). 7 Document 1706430 Florida Statutes." The following are duties, functions, powers, responsibilities, and jurisdiction of the CITT: (1) To monitor, oversee, review, audit, and investigate implementation of the transportation and transit projects listed in any levy of the surtax, and all other projects funded in whole or in part with surtax proceeds; (2) To assure compliance with any limitations imposed in the levy on the expenditure of surtax proceeds, including but not limited to: (a) Any limitation that surtax proceeds only be expended for the transportation and transit purposes specified Section 212.055(1)(d)1-4, Fla. Stats., as may be amended from time to time; (b) Any limitation that no more than five (5) percent of surtax proceeds be expended on administrative costs, exclusive of project management and oversight for projects funded by the surtax; (c) The limitation that the County Commission may not delete or materially change any County project listed in the approved Five Year Implementation Plan or on Exhibit 1 attached to the ordinance levying the surtax nor add any project thereto except as provided in this subsection (c) and Section 29-124 (d), (e). A proposed deletion, material change or addition of such a County project shall be initially reviewed by the Citizens' Independent Transportation Trust ("Trust"), which shall forward a recommendation thereon to the County Commission. The County Commission may either accept or reject the Trust's recommendation. If the County Commission rejects the recommendation, the matter shall be referred back to the Trust for its reconsideration and issuance of are considered recommendation to the County Commission. The County Commission may approve, change or reject the Trust's reconsidered recommendation. A two-thirds (2/3) vote of the Commission membership shall be required to take action other than as contained in the reconsidered recommendation of the Trust. The foregoing notwithstanding, the list of County projects contained in said Exhibit 1 and the Five Year Implementation Plan may be changed as a result of the metropolitan planning organization process as mandated by federal and state law as applied to the Transportation Planning Organization ("TPO"); and (d) Any requirement with regard to maintenance of effort of general fund support for Miami -Dade transit. (3) To assure compliance with federal and state requirements applicable thereto; (4) To require monthly reports from the Mayor, County agencies and instrumentalities regarding the implementation of the projects funded by surtax proceeds (which reports shall be posted on-line, i.e., made publicly accessible on the Internet); (5) To file a report, including any recommendations, with the Mayor and the County Commission on a quarterly basis regarding the implementation of the projects funded by surtax proceeds; (6) To monitor, oversee and periodically report to the County Commission on the level of participation by CSBEs and CBEs in contracts funded in whole or in part with surtax proceeds, and to recommend ways to increase such participation; and 8 Document 1706430 (7) Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary, to retain the services of consultants the Trust deems necessary to assist in its monitoring functions without the need for action by the County Commission, so long as the retaining of such consultants does not result in the budget for the Trust exceeding the amount approved by the County Commission during the annual budget approval process.13 Pursuant to Section 2-11.37(a) of the County Code, the CITT's duties, functions, powers, responsibilities, and jurisdiction are limited to those outlined in Section 2-1421(g) of the County Code. While several of the provisions quoted above do not apply to the portion of the Surtax Funds distributed to the participating municipalities, it is provided to clearly delineate the duties and powers the County Commission chose to confer on the CITT. The CITT has no additional duties and powers except those specifically identified in the CITT Ordinance.14 The Surtax Ordinance reads, in relevant part, that "[t]wenty percent of surtax proceeds shall be distributed annually to those cities existing as of November 5, 2002" subject to certain conditions (emphasis added). The conditions identified in the Surtax Ordinance are that 1) the municipality must continue to provide the same level of general fund support for transportation that is in their Fiscal Year ("FY") 2001-2002 budget in subsequent fiscal years; 2) the municipality must apply twenty percent (20%) of any surtax proceeds received to transit uses in the nature of circulator buses, bus shelters, bus pullout bays, on -demand transportation services as defined in Section 212.055(1)(e), Florida Statutes, or other transit -related infrastructure; and 3) that the municipality does not expend more than five percent (5%) of its municipal share of surtax proceeds on administrative costs.15 Section 4.2 of the 2007 Interlocal Agreement states that for a municipality to remain eligible to receive its portion of the municipal share of Surtax Funds for the ensuing year, the municipality must certify that 1) for the current fiscal year the municipality is providing at least the same level of general fund support for the transportation that the municipality provided in its FY 2001-2002 budget, and 2) that it is using the current year's portion of Surtax Funds in accordance with the Agreement. As part of the certification, the municipality must provide a "certified copy of the City's budget for the current fiscal year, together with a list of the projects (including ongoing or completed projects that the City is paying debt service on borrowed funds) on which the current year's portion of the municipal share received is being expended." The County may suspend or terminate the disbursement of Surtax Funds if the City breaches the terms of the 2007 Interlocal Agreement or if the City fails to meet the certification requirements. 13 Attachment N; see also Functions of the Citizens' Independent Transportation Trust, available at https://www.miamidade.gov/citt/about-citt.asp (last edited Jan. 12, 2015). 14 See Rinker Materials Corp. v. City of North Miami, 286 So.2d 552, 553-55 (Fla. 1973) (holding that municipal ordinances are subject to the same rules of construction as are state statutes, including the canon of statutory construction expressio unius est exclusio alterius which means "the mention of one thing implies the exclusion of another"); see also Siegle v. Lee County, 198 So. 3d 773, 775 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (applying the canon of statutory construction expressio unius est exclusio alterius to a county ordinance). 15 See also Attachment J. 9 Document 1706430 However, there is no provision of State law, the Surtax Ordinance, the CITT Ordinance, or the 2007 Interlocal Agreement that states that unspent Surtax Funds is a basis for withholding Surtax Funds from the City. Furthermore, the CITT Ordinance does not confer upon the CITT the authority to withhold the payment of Surtax Funds to the City unless the City has failed to meet the conditions outlined in the Surtax Ordinance (also restated in the 2007 Interlocal Agreement) or the City has breached the terms of the 2007 Interlocal Agreement. Neither AMS nor OCITT has demonstrated that the reason for withholding Surtax Funds from the City is because the City is out of compliance with State law, the Surtax Ordinance, or the 2007 Interlocal Agreement. The plain language of the Surtax Ordinance states that as long as the City is in compliance with the conditions set forth therein, the OCITT is required to distribute the Surtax Funds to the eligible municipalities. Therefore, for the aforementioned reasons, the City respectfully requests that the OCITT rescind CITT Resolution No. 22-006 in its entirety and distribute to the City its portion of the Surtax Funds because the City is in compliance with the provisions of the State law, the Surtax Ordinance, and the 2007 Interlocal Agreement. VI. Conclusion For the aforementioned reasons, the City is in strong disagreement with the findings and recommendations of AMS and OCITT, as well as the action taken by CITT on March 31, 2022. The adoption of CITT Resolution No. 22-006 was based on incorrect and inaccurate figures, applied arbitrary rules and benchmarks, and was not supported by law. Therefore, the City respectfully requests that the OCITT, or its representative, respond to this Letter in writing to each request made in this Letter within three (3) weeks of the date of receipt. The City also respectfully requests that the audit findings and figures be updated accordingly, and that OCITT continue distributing to the City its share of the Surtax Funds. Finally, the City respectfully requests that the CITT rescind CITT Resolution No. 22-006 in its entirety. The City is available to discuss the contents of this Letter, the audit findings, or any questions you may have at your convenience. Enclosures: Attachment A Attachment B - Attachment C - Attachment D Attachment E - - CITT Resolution No. 22-006 April 5 Letter April 8 Email - 2013 Audit 2016 CITT Letter Sincerely, Kai,, (,R/c— Xavier E. Alban Assistant City Attorney Document 1706430 10 Attachment F - Attachment G Attachment H Attachment I - Attachment J - Attachment K Attachment L - Attachment M Attachment N 2019 Audit - City Documentation of Status of S&S Bonds projects — March 2022 Quarterly Report CITT Municipal Workshop Q&A 2007 Interlocal Agreement - 2004 Legal Opinion 2020 Audit - Surtax Ordinance - CITT Ordinance CC: Art Noriega, City Manager, City of Miami Nzeribe Ihekwaba, Deputy City Manager, City of Miami Fernando Casamayor, Assistant City Manager, City of Miami Erica Paschal, Director, City of Miami Finance Department Marie Gouin, Director, City of Miami Office of Management and Budget Hector Badia, Interim Director, City of Miami Office of Capital Improvements Juvenal Santana, Director, Office of Resilience and Public Works Victoria Mendez, City Attorney, City of Miami Monica Cejas, Deputy Director, OCITT Vontressia Walker, Financial Manager, OCITT Nestor Toledo, Municipal Administrator, OCITT Cathy Jackson, Director, Miami -Dade County Department of Audit and Management Services Bruce Libhaber, Assistant County Attorney, Miami -Dade County 11 Document 1706430 AGENDA ITEM 7B RESOLUTION NO. 22-006 RESOLUTION BY THE CITIZENS' INDEPENDENT TRANSPORTATION TRUST (CITT) INSTRUCTING THE OFFICE OF THE CITIZENS' INDEPENDENT TRANSPORTATION TRUST (OCITT) TO WITHHOLD CHARTER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION SURTAX FUNDS (SURTAX) FROM THE CITY OF MIAMI; AND TO RECAPTURE SAID FUNDS SHOULD THE CITY FAIL TO ADEQUATELY ADDRESS CONCERNS RAISED IN THE MOST RECENT AUDIT OF THE CITY BY THE MIAMI-DADE COUNTY AUDIT AND MANAGEMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT (AMS) IN A TIMELY AND SATISFACTORY MANNER. WHEREAS, the CITT desires to accomplish the purposes outlined in the accompanying OCITT Executive Director's memorandum, a copy of which is incorporated herein by reference. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITT, that this Trust instructs the Office of the Citizens' Independent Transportation Trust (OCITT) to withhold Charter County Transportation Surtax Funds (Surtax) from the City of Miami; and to recapture said funds should the City fail to adequately address concerns raised in the most recent audit of the City by the Miami -Dade County Audit and Management Services Department (AMS) in a timely and satisfactory manner. Page 2 of 2 The foregoing resolution was offered by Alfred J. Holzman, who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by Robert Wolfarth and upon being put to vote, the vote was as follows: Oscar J. Braynon, Chairperson — Aye Alfred J. Holzman, 1st Vice Chairperson — Aye Robert Wolfarth, 2nd Vice Chairperson — Aye Hon. Peggy Bell — Aye Meg Daly — Absent Paul J. Schwiep, Esq. — Absent L. Elijah Stiers, Esq. — Absent Ernie Thomas — Aye Joseph Curbelo — Aye Qjuezari Harvey — Aye Marilyn Smith. — Absent Mary Street, Esq. — Aye The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 31' day of March 2022. Approved by the County Atto as to form and legal s ciene. AGENDA ITEM 7B Memorandum To: Oscar J. Braynon, Chairperson and Members, Citizens' Independent Transportation Tr t (CITT) From: Javier A. Betancourt, Executive Direct gfJZ - Date: March 25, 2022 Re: Adoption of Resolution Regarding City of Miami Audit dated 09-16-2020 for FY ended 09-30-2019 The purpose of this memorandum is to address the findings and recommendations found in the most recent audit of the City of Miami by Miami -Dade County's Audit & Management Services Department (AMS), dated September 16, 2020, and included herein for your review as Attachment 1. Also included for your review is the City of Miami's response to the audit, provided herein as Attachment 2. OCITT has reviewed the subject audit, which continues to express repeated concerns about the City's large balance of unspent surtax funds, as well as the City's response, and has held several discussions with AMS, the City, and the County Attorney's Office to discuss the findings and recommendations. Moreover, OCITT has worked with the City over many years to find a resolution to this ongoing matter. Most notably, in September 2016, then CITT Executive Director Charles Scurr sent a letter (provided herein as Attachment 3) to the City of Miami laying out a plan for the City to address unresolved audit findings in order to avoid the withholding of funds. As part of the arrangement, the City was to make quarterly presentations before the Trust, to include a detailed progress report on all major capital projects, updated project schedules and costs, and a plan by the City to accelerate and complete these projects. While the City has fulfilled its commitment to provide these quarterly reports, it has become abundantly clear over these many years that the City has failed to adequately spend down their unspent Surtax funds in a timely fashion, as per the agreement. While the OCITT has provided the City with ample, reasonable and attainable opportunities to comply with the findings provided in the audits by AMS, we have come to the conclusion that, given the lack of progress in addressing these longstanding concerns, a new and more assertive posture must be introduced. As a result, OCITT now concurs with AMS' recommendation to withhold surtax funds from the City of Miami until such time as the concerns raised in the audit are addressed to the satisfaction of AMS and OCITT. Furthermore, OCITT believes that, should the City fail to adequately address these concerns AGENDA ITEM 7B in a timely manner, those funds should be recaptured, so that they may be put to their intended use of advancing critical transportation projects and services. RECOMMENDATION In accordance with the above, OCITT recommends that the Citizens' Independent Transportation Trust (Trust) adopt the attached resolution instructing the Office of the Citizens' Independent Transportation Trust (OCITT) to withhold Charter County Transportation Surtax Funds (Surtax) from the City of Miami; and to recapture said funds should the City fail to adequately address these concerns in a timely and satisfactory manner. If you have any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. c: Jimmy Morales, COO, Office of the Mayor Bruce Libhaber, Assistant County Attorney AGENDA ITEM 7B RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION BY THE CITIZENS' INDEPENDENT TRANSPORTATION TRUST (CITT) INSTRUCTING THE OFFICE OF THE CITIZENS' INDEPENDENT TRANSPORTATION TRUST (OCITT) TO WITHHOLD CHARTER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION SURTAX FUNDS (SURTAX) FROM THE CITY OF MIAMI; AND TO RECAPTURE SAID FUNDS SHOULD THE CITY FAIL TO ADEQUATELY ADDRESS CONCERNS RAISED IN THE MOST RECENT AUDIT OF THE CITY BY THE MIAMI-DADE COUNTY AUDIT AND MANAGEMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT (AMS) IN A TIMELY AND SATISFACTORY MANNER. WHEREAS, the CITT desires to accomplish the purposes outlined in the accompanying OCITT Executive Director's memorandum, a copy of which is incorporated herein by reference. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITT, that this Trust instructs the Office of the Citizens' Independent Transportation Trust (OCITT) to withhold Charter County Transportation Surtax Funds (Surtax) from the City of Miami; and to recapture said funds should the City fail to adequately address concerns raised in the most recent audit of the City by the Miami -Dade County Audit and Management Services Depait.iuent (AMS) in a timely and satisfactory manner. Page 2 of 2 The foregoing resolution was offered by , who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by and upon being put to vote, the vote was as follows: Oscar J. Braynon, Chairperson — Alfred J. Holzman, 1st Vice Chairperson — Robert Wolf arth, 2nd Vice Chairperson — Hon. Peggy Bell — Meg Daly — Paul J. Schwiep, Esq. — L. Elijah Stiers, Esq. — Ernie Thomas — Joseph Curbelo — Qjuezari Harvey — Marilyn Smith. — Mary Street, Esq. — The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 31 st day of March 2022. Approved by the County Attorney as By: to form and legal sufficiency Executive Director ATTACHMENT 1 AUDIT AND MANAGEMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT OVERTOWN TRANSIT VILLAGE 701 NW 1ST COURT- SUIIL 8-175 MIAMI, FLORIDA 33136 TELEPHONE: 786-469-5900 FAX: 786-469-5933 September 16, 2020 Mr. Arthur Noriega, V City Manager City of Miami 444 SW 2"d Avenue, 10th Floor Miami, FL 33130 Re: Audit Report — City of Miami Charter County Transportation System Surtax Review — Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2019 Dear Mr. Noriega: Attached is the above -referenced Audit Report that was discussed with your staff. Although the Office of the Citizens' Independent Transportation Trust (OCITT) will be contacting you to resolve the audit findings, a reply is requested within 60 days. We appreciate the courtesies and assistance extended to our staff during the audit process. Please contact G. Nancy McKee, Assistant Director, at (786) 469-5900, should you have any questions. Sincerely, Cathy Ja Director CJ:bm Attachment c: Javier A. Betancourt, Executive Director, OCITT Sandra Bridgeman, Assistant City Manager and CFO, City of Miami Date: To: M IAM I•Di4DE Memorandum to�Nn September 16, 2020 Javier A. Betancourt, Executive Director Office of the Citizens' Independent Transportation Trust (OCITT) From: Cathy a 1 on, Director Audit and Management Services Department (AMS) Subject: Audit Report — City of Miami Charter County Transportation System Surtax Review — Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2019 PURPOSE AND SCOPE We performed a review of the City of Miami's (City) use of Charter County Transportation System Surtax (Surtax) Proceeds remitted by Miami -Dade County (County) for the year ended September 30, 2019. The primary objective was to ensure that Surtax Proceeds were used in compliance with the Interlocal Agreement for Distribution, Use and Reporting of Charter County Transit System Surtax Proceeds Levied by Miami -Dade County (Interlocal Agreement) executed on July 10, 2007. Additionally, we assessed resolution of prior audit findings referenced in our October 1, 2019 Audit Report (Exhibit I). BACKGROUND County Ordinance (Ordinance) No. 02-116, enacted on July 9, 2002, imposed a one-half of one percent Surtax on eligible sales transactions for Transportation -related projects. However, at least 20% of the Proceeds received by the County must be distributed to municipalities incorporated as of November 5, 2002, on a pro-rata basis using population statistics (Schedule V). The Surtax Program is administered by the Citizens' Independent Transportation Trust (CITT), a group comprised of 15 members appointed by the Board of County Commissioners, County Mayor, and Miami -Dade League of Cities. Pursuant to the Interlocal Agreement, the City must annually continue the same level of General Fund support for Transportation projects appropriated in its Fiscal Year (FY) 2002 Budget (Maintenance of Effort), which totaled $4.7 million (Table I). Surtax Proceeds may be used to develop, construct, equip, maintain, operate, or expand County -wide bus systems, fixed guideway rapid transit systems, roads, and bridges, as well as secure such Bonds or pay debt service. Further, the City must apply at least 20% of the Proceeds to Transit -related projects, such as circulator buses, bus shelters, bus pullout bays, or other related infrastructure. CITT Resolution No. 09-055, adopted July 30, 2009, allows for the rollover of unspent Surtax funds for up to five years, provided the City's Five -Year Transportation Plan demonstrates how the funds will be used. Additionally, CITT Resolution No. 15-027, adopted May 20, 2015, allows for carryover credits in Audit Report — City of Miami Charter County Transportation System Surtax Review — Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2019 Page 2 the event amounts expended are in excess of annual Surtax allocations. See Schedule I for summary financial information. SUMMARY RESULTS For the year ended September 30, 2019, the City received Surtax Proceeds of $18.8 million, and claimed $33.7 million in Transit and Transportation -related expenditures (Table I). Claimed expenditures were primarily for Trolley operations ($10.8 million), debt service ($6.1 million), street lighting ($5.5 million), and street improvements ($7 million), as detailed in Tables II and V. After adjusting claimed expenditures for the Maintenance of Effort (MOE) and disallowed amounts, the City had $47.4 million in unspent Proceeds. Table I Surtax Statistics Description Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2019 2018 I Maintenance of Effort $ 4,718,932 $ 4,718,932 Revenues: SurtaxProceeds Allocation $ 19,637,254 $ 18,948,619 Less: Amount Withheld 2 (817,551) (1,104,000) SurtaxProceeds per City of Miami (Schedule I) $ 18,819,703 $ 17,844,619 Claimed Expenditures: Transit (Table II) $ 11,175,219 $ 9,487,725 Transportation (Table V) 22,512,185 16,482,259 $ 33,687,404 $ 25,969,984 Unspent Surtax Proceeds as of September 30 (Schedule II): Transportation $ 47,394,264 $ 52,988,141 Key Account Balances as of September 30 (Schedule I): Transportation and Transit Special Revenue Fund: Cash and Investments $ 2,670,162 $ 1,669,503 Restricted Fund Balance $ 3,040,651 $ 3,716,410 Transportation and Transit Capital Projects Fund: Cash and Investments $ 25,082,229 $ 32,463,411 Restricted Fund Balance $ 23,348,711 $ 31,312,786 I Presented for comparison with the FY 2019 audit period. Z OCITT was withholding $92,000 monthly from the City to recapture specific ineligible costs, per a September 2016 letter from the former Executive Director. The $3.3 million has been recaptured, and thus OCITT is no longer withholding funds. We continue to be concerned about the City's $19.6 million cash shortfall, primarily representing the difference between Cash and Investments recorded by the City, and the amount of unspent Surtax proceeds. As repeatedly recommended since September 30, 2011, OCITT should suspend all future Surtax payments until this issue has been satisfactorily addressed. Audit Report — City of Miami Charter County Transportation System Surtax Review — Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2019 Page 3 These and other findings are more fully discussed in the remainder of this Report. We appreciate the courtesies extended to our staff during the audit process. A written response is requested from the City within 60 days. Please contact G. Nancy McKee, Assistant Director, at (786) 469-5900, if you have any questions. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Use of Transit Proceeds The City claimed $11.2 million in Transit -related expenditures, primarily for Trolley operations, which met the requirement that at least 20% of Surtax Proceeds, or $3 8 million, be used for Transit activities (Table II). The City's Trolleys are deployed over 13 fixed routes with average monthly passenger counts of 446,000 (Table III). Table II Summary of Claimed Transit Expenditures, as Adjusted Description Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2019 20181 Trolley Routes: Citywide $ 1,923,102 $ 872,888 Coral Way 1,502,130 1,350,177 Brickell/Biscayne 1,387,433 2,135,042 Little Havana 1,248,909 1,000,099 Flagami 985,791 248,343 Health/Stadium District 930,930 752,299 Overtown/Allapattah 793,951 813,264 Coconut Grove 786,162 849,299 Little Haiti 536,346 237,900 Wyn wood 430,588 437,201 Overtown/Health 135,262 137,811 Liberty City 90,600 - 10,751,204 8,834,323 Other: On -Demand Transportation Services 195,853 161,136 Automatic Vehicle Locator/GPS 97,528 73,770 Flagami Trolley Signage 83,599 - Planning and Professional Costs 2 47,035 72,363 Tri Rail Contribution - 346,133 424,015 653,402 Total Claimed 11,175,219 9,487,725 AMS Adjustments: Cross -Bay Trolley Costs Incurred by General Fund 177,790 - Less Cross -Bay Passenger Fees (10,793) - Less Ineligible On -Demand Costs (6,298) - 160,699 - Eligible Transit Expenditures $ 11,335,918 $ 9,487,725 Source: City of Miami Accounting Records 1 Presented for comparison with the FY 2019 audit period. 2 Amounts were paid to Kimley-Horn and HNTB for professional studies. Audit Report - City of Miami Charter County Transportation System Surtax Review - Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2019 Page 4 The City implemented the Cross -Bay Trolley, from Downtown Miami to Miami Beach, in October 2018, with a $5 fare each way. Due to low ridership, the route was cancelled in January 2019 and the City incurred a $167,000 loss, which was reimbursed by the General Fund. The costs were not initially claimed as Surtax uses, but they are eligible amounts and AMS added them to FY 2019 claimed Transit costs. Additionally, the City claimed on -demand transit services for the year, but the service was not allowed for County Special Transportation Services (STS) patrons until a change in on -demand rules, effective November 1, 2018. We disallowed the STS-related costs claimed for October 2018. Table III Trolley Ridership Summar Month Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2019 2018' October 471,368 419,052 November 447,292 399,150 December 445,923 406,198 January 460,220 419,093 February 435,713 399,321 March 443,511 454,526 April 446,539 442,095 May 457,525 456,383 June 425,188 446,768 July 439,515 450,111 August 451,180 489,646 September 432,786 435,703 5,356,760 5,218,046 Source: City of Miami Ridership Report I Presented for comparison with the FY 2019 audit period. The City received advertising revenues of $2.3 million from its trolleys. over the last five years, including $493,065 in FY 2019, and recorded those revenues and related expenditures in its General Special Revenue Fund, instead of the Transportation and Transit Special Revenue Fund. Advertising revenues were used primarily for Trolley operations, signage, and fuel (Table IV). Table IV Advertisin Revenues and Related Costs Description Fiscal Year Fnded September 30, 2019 20181 Advertising Revenues $ 493,065 $ 553,396 Related Fapenditures: Motor Fuel $ 486,837 $ - Trolley Signage - 298,359 Trolley Operations - 255,037 Supplies 6,228 - $ 493,065 $ 553,396 Source: City of Miami Accountmg Records t Presented for comparison with the FY 2019 audit period. Audit Report — City of Miami Charter County Transportation System Surtax Review — Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2019 Page 5 Recommendation The City should ensure all claimed costs are eligible for Surtax use, and prospectively consider recording Trolley advertising revenues in its Transportation and Transit Special Revenue Fund to facilitate accountability. Use of Transportation Proceeds The City claimed $22.5 million of Transportation -related costs to satisfy the 80% of Surtax Proceeds usage ($15.1 million), primarily for debt service costs, as well as to fund Citywide street lighting, drainage, and street improvement projects (Table V and Schedule III). On June 28, 2018, the City Commission adopted Resolution No. 18-0277 authorizing the issuance of Special Obligation Refunding Bonds, not to exceed $137 million. The Series 2018A and B Bonds, issued November 15, 2018, refunded Series 2007 and 2009 Street and Sidewalks Bonds with an outstanding balance of $120.3 million. Additionally, Series 2018C Bonds provided $7.5 million for various street improvement projects (Schedules IV and IV -A). Similar to the previous Bond issuances, the Series 2018 Bonds will be repaid with Surtax Proceeds, Local Option Gas Taxes, and Parking Surcharge revenues. The City claimed debt service of $6.1 million in FY 2019, but that amount related to Series 2007 and 2009 Bonds which were refunded before any debt service payments were made in FY 2019. The City paid interest on the Series 2018 Bonds totaling $3.2 million in FY 2019, of which $2.1 million related to Surtax (Schedule IV). The difference of $4 million was disallowed. Table V Summary of Claimed Transportation Expenditures, as Adjusted Description Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2019 2018 1 Debt Service -Series 2007 and 2009 Street and Sidewalks Bonds (Schedule IV) $ 6,117,000 $ 6,136,000 Street Lighting 5,547,224 5,584,694 Street Improvement Projects 7,045,078 4,073,226 Drainage Projects 3,484,967 456,242 Traffic Claming Projects 317,916 232,097 Total Claimed Costs 22,512,185 16,482,259 Less: Unpaid Debt Service (4,039,385) - Eligible Costs (Schedule III) $ 18,472,800 $ 16,482,259 Source: City of Miami Accounting Records r Presented for comparison with the FY 2019 audit period. After adjusting claimed expenditures for the MOE, the City had unspent Transportation funds of $47.4 million as of September 30, 2019 (Schedule II). CITT Resolution No. 09-055 allows for the rollover of unused funds for up to five years. Further, the $27.8 million reported as Cash and Investments in the Transportation and Transit Special Revenue and Capital Projects Funds (Schedule I) was approximately $19.6 million less than the unspent balance as of September 30, 2019. Audit Report — City of Miami Charter County Transportation System Surtax Review — Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2019 Page 6 Recommendation Prospectively, the City should ensure all claimed costs are eligible for Surtax use. City staff should submit a revised Five -Year Transportation Plan, approved by its City Commission, specifying how the $47.4 million in unspent funds will be used. More importantly, Surtax distributions should be held in Trust by OCITT until the City reduces the estimated $19.6 million funding gap. Further, OCITT should formally communicate these concerns to the CITT Board with a plan for timely resolution. Reporting to OCITT The City's Quarterly Transportation Expenditure Reports significantly overstated certain project costs and reported totals did not agree with the City's accounting records. Projects with major differences are shown in Table VI. Table VI Comparison of Quarterly Reports with Accounting Records Description Project Number _ Amount per Difference Quarterly Reports Accounting Records Transportation Planning and Professional Fees 70245 $2,010,706 $ 183,456 $ 1,827,250 Palm Grove Road Improvements 30630 1,146,407 28,010 1,118,397 Englewood Storm Sewer - Phase III 30011 600,270 - 600,270 South Grove Phase III Roadway and Drainage 30836 1,068,266 522,613 545,653 Transit Planning and Professional Costs 70246 591,985 47,035 544,950 Bird Avenue Road Improvement 30628 654,392 121,024 533,368 Source: City of Miami Accounting Records and Quarterly Reports Submitted to OCITT Also, the City's latest Five -Year Transportation Plan shows unexpended funds totaling $21.8 million as of September 30, 2019, materially less than the $47.4 million per Schedule II. Recommendation City staff should provide accurate reports to OCITT. CJ:bm Attachments c: Honorable Harvey A. Ruvin, Clerk of the Courts Abigail Price -Williams, County Attorney Edward Marquez, Deputy Mayor Jennifer Moon, Deputy Mayor/Director, Office of Management and Budget Arthur Noriega, City Manager, City of Miami Schedule I City of Miami Charter County Transportation System Surtax Review Transportation and Transit Funds 1 Balance Sheets Description As of September 30, 2019 2018 2 Special Revenue Capital Projects Special Revenue Capital Projects Assets: Pooled Cash, Cash Equivalents, and Investments (Table I) $ 2,670,162 $ - $ 1,669,503 $ - Restricted Cash, Cash Equivalents, and Investments (Table I) - 25,082,229 - 32,463,411 Surtax Amounts Due from Miami -Dade County 4,697,128 - 5,689,916 - Accrued Interest 16,669 - 19,494 - TotalAssets $ 7,383,959 $ 25,082,229 $ 7,378,913 $ 32,463,411 Liabilities and Fund Balances: Accounts Payable and Accrued Liabilities $ 1,543,308 $ 1,733,518 $ 1,062,503 $ 1,150,625 Deferred Inflows of Resources - Other Unavailable Revenue 3 2,800,000 - 2,600,000 - Fund Balances - Restricted 3,040,651 23,348,711 3,716,410 31,312,786 Total Liabilities and Fund Balances $ 7,383,959 $ 25,082,229 $ 7,378,913 $ 32,463,411 Statements of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances Description For the Year Ended September 30, 2019 20182 Special Revenue Capital Projects Special Revenue Capital Projects Revenues: Intergovernmental Revenues 4 Passenger Charges Investment Earnings Total Revenues Expenditures: General Govemment Public Works Planning and Development Capital Outlay Total Expenditures Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues over Expenditures Other Financing Sources (Uses): Transfers From - Special Revenue Fund General Fund Transfers To - Debt Service Fund (Schedule III) Capital Projects Fund Total Other Financing Sources (Uses) Net Change in Fund Balances Fund Balances, Beginning 5 Fund Balances, Ending $ 18,819,703 10,793 19,513 $ - - 661,117 $ 17,844,619 - 13,206 $ - - 862,850 18,850,009 661,117 17,857,825 862,850 141,429 11,984,339 - - 4,325 228,943 4,899 9,837,025 19,528 10,157,593 - - 23,649 364,836 2,441 3,681,246 12,125,768 10, 075,192 10,177,121 4,072,172 6,724,241 (9,414,075) 7,680,704 (3,209,322) - 167,000 (6,117,000) (1,450,000) 1,450,000 - - - - - (6,136,000) (3,710,000) (9,846,000) 3,710,000 - - - (7,400,000) 1,450,000 3,710,000 (675,759) 3,716,410 (7,964,075) 31,312,786 (2,165,296) 5,881,706 500,678 30,812,108 $ 3,040,651 $ 23,348,711 $ 3,716,410 $ 31,312,786 Source: City of Miami (City) Audited Financial Statements and General Ledgers ' Ali Surtax monies are received in the City's Transportation and Transit Special Revenue Fund for Transit -related projects. Transportation -related expenditures are incurred by the Capital Projects Fund, with transfers from the Special Revenue Fund. 2 Presented for comparison with the FY 2019 audit period. 3 Represents the City's estimate of Surtax monies receivable that was not collected within 60 days after year-end. ° Amounts differ from Schedule V due to timing differences. 5 The Capital Projects Fund balance reflects prior transfers of Surtax monies from the Special Revenue Fund. These Financial Statements are not complete without the accompanying Auditors' Reports and Notes. Schedule II City of Miami Charter County Transportation System Surtax Review Surtax Proceeds Usage Analysis Description Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2019 2018 4 Revenues: Surtax Proceeds 1 $ 18,815,279 $ 15,287,281 Interest Earnings (Schedule I) 680,630 876,056 $ 19,495,909 $ 16,163,337 Surtax Uses: Eligible Transit Expenditures (Table II) $ 11,335,918 $ 9,487,725 Eligible Transportation Expenditures (Table V) $ 18,472,800 $ 16,482,259 Less MOE (4,718,932) (4,718,932) Expenditures Available For Surtax Use $ 13,753,868 $ 11,763,327 AMS Analysis: Transit -Related Expenditures: Expenditures Available for Surtax Use $ 11,335,918 $ 9,487,725 Less 20% Minimum Amount 2 (3,763,056) (3,057,456) Decrease In Unspent Funds $ 7,572,862 $ 6,430,269 Analysis of Unspent Rollover: Beginning Balance 3 $ - $ - Decrease In Unspent Amounts (7,572,862) (6,430,269) Excess Amount Applied to Transportation 7,572,862 6,430,269 Remaining Unspent Amount $ - $ - Transportation -Related Expenditures: Expenditures Available for Surtax Use $ 13,753,868 $ 11,763,327 Excess Transit Expenditures Applied 7,572,862 6,430,269 Less Remaining 80% Amount 2 (15,052,223) (12,229,825) Less Interest Earnings (680,630) (876,056) Decrease In Unspent Funds $ 5,593,877 $ 5,087,715 Analysis of Unspent Rollover: Beginning Balance 3 $ 52,988,141 $ 58,075,856 Decrease In Unspent Funds (5,593,877) (5,087,715) Remaining Unspent Amount $ 47,394,264 $ 52,988,141 1 The FY 2018 amount does not agree with Schedule I due to a change in revenue recognition for AMS analysis purposes. The resulting catch-up adjustment was reflected in FY 2018. In FY 2019, the City made a $4,424 revenue posting error. 2 At least 20% of the Surtax Proceeds must be used on Transit -related projects, such as circulator buses, and the remaining funds (80%) are earmarked for eligible Transportation projects. 3 Per the prior Audit Report dated October 1, 2019. 4 Presented for comparison with the FY 2019 audit period. Schedule III City of Miami Charter County Transportation System Surtax Review Listing of Claimed Uses of Transportation Proceeds, as Adjusted Description Fiscal Year Ended September 30, Project Number 2019 2018 1 Street Lighting - $ 5,547,224 $ 5,584,694 Street Improvement Projects: Division 5 Alleyway Improvement 17363 1,374,025 - Shenandoah/Silver Bluff Roadway 50404 1,009,154 1,241 Citywide Pavement Resurfacing 73102E 970,851 - Capital Improvement Direct and Indirect Labor 122001 903,393 761,779 SW 21 St and SW 24 Ave Roadway 30979 463,725 33,235 Transportation Planning and Professional Fees 70245 183,456 292,454 SW 5 St (SW 27 to 28 Ave) 30966 179,703 513 SW 15 St (SW 12 to 14 Ave) 173630 170,436 19,767 SW 28 Rd (SW 3 to 4 Ave) 173620 167,579 13,598 Bird Avenue Road Improvement 30628 121,024 301,947 NW 17 St (NW 32 to 37 Ave) 183611A 117,480 138 SW 27 St (SW 31 P1 to 32 Ave), Division 2 50204 91,798 94,310 SW 23 Ave (SW 3 to 4 St) 173626 87,813 14,234 Miscellaneous Division 4 Street Maintenance 30614 77,153 - SW 18 St (SW 12 to 18 Ave) 50305 73,498 1,033 SW 22 Terr (SW 27 to 37 Ave), Division 2 50407 70,466 38,564 SW 15 Rd (SW 3 to 11 Ave) 173619 62,631 77,778 SW 71 Ave (SW 4 to 8 St) 50405 60,981 318,165 SW 22 Terr (SW 32 to 37 Ave) 50407A 56,332 88,546 A Media Art Entertainment Roadway 50902 47,731 74,321 Dorsey Park Neighborhood Roadway 50907 40,977 90,837 Overtown Greenway (NW 11 St) 30624 38,926 7,608 NW 17 St (NW 27 to 32 Ave) 183611 33,049 2,740 Auburndale Roadway 173616 29,936 29,666 SW 14 Ten (SW 16 to 17 Ave) 50316 28,201 27,911 Palm Grove Road Improvements 30630 28,010 18,015 NW 30 St Improvements, Division 1 30756 25,805 2,433 SW 17 St (SW 16 to 14 Ave) 50312 25,600 1,483 NW 7 St Rd (NW N River Dr to NW 9 Ct) 50904 23,410 6,418 Grove Park Road Improvements Phase II, Division 3 40347 22,337 22,937 NW 18 Terr, East of 27 Ave 50110 20,941 18,583 Downtown Sidewalks and Streets 30606 20,640 27,311 SW 17 St (SW 16 to 17 Ave) 50312A 20,548 7,509 SW 25 Ave (SW 2 to 4 St) 173643 19,011 16,459 SW 30 Ct (SW 12 to 13 St) 30969 18,262 14,658 SW 15 St (SW 13 to 14 Ave) 50322 17,001 1,727 La Pastorita Roadway Improvements 183608 16,439 4,918 SW 23 St (SW 3rd to 14 Ave) 173622 15,534 5,534 SW 5 St (SW 21 to 22 Ave) 50320 15,480 23,281 NW 4 St (NW 49 to 52 Ave) 173615 15,380 4,617 SW 20 St (SW 16 to 17 Ave) 50319 14,325 3,864 NW 13 St (NW 35 to 37 Ave) 50104 13,940 6,968 Charles Ave (Main Highway and S Douglas) 183612 13,536 - SW 30 Rd (SW 5 to 4 Ave) 50310 13,125 2,902 NE 3 Ave (NE 54 St to 58 Terr) 50906 12,078 2,344 SW 20 St (SW 14 to 15 Ave) 173628 11,625 10,587 NW 2 Ave (NW 38 to 54 St) 50900 11,543 25,873 NW 19 Terr (NW 21 to 22 Ave) 50108 10,945 2,443 NW 24 Ave Roadway, Division 1 30723 10,389 44,139 Page 1 of 2 Schedule III City of Miami Charter County Transportation System Surtax Review Listing of Claimed Uses of Transportation Proceeds, as Adjusted Description Project Number Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2019 2018 1 SW 14 Terr (SW 16 to 17 Ave) 173627 9,703 126,750 NW 29 St and NW 7 Ave, Phase I 30896 9,428 49,812 NW 11 P1 and NW 41 St 173649 8,545 39,213 SW 24 Rd (SW 7 to 9 St) 173621 7,963 11,292 NW 18 Ave (NW 1 to 3 St) 173623 7,310 16,988 Auburndale (SW 32 Ave and 2 St) 173655 6,761 21,893 Little River N, S, W, Phase I 30902 6,271 18,196 SW 5 Ave (SW 24 to 25 Rd) 173633 5,599 10,317 Lummus Park Landing Area 30643 5,383 56,938 SW 35 Ave Roadway 173610 5,365 28,934 Hilola St Roadway 173639 5,256 33,311 SW 31 Rd (SW 2 to 3 Ave) 50323 4,451 10,124 SW 34 Ave and SW 28 St 173611 4,216 27,999 SW 5 St (SW 22 Ave to Beacom) 40331 2,132 27,487 Kiaora St Roadway 173636 852 30,743 SW 11 St (SW 5 to 12 Ave) 173618 778 38,308 NW 16 St Roadway Reconstruction 30792 - 292,619 SW 21 St (SW 12 to 13 Ave) 50307 - 175,110 SW 25 Ave 173652 - 138,930 SW 19 St (SW 16 to 17 Ave) 50304 - 92,048 NW 5 Ave (NW 17 to 19 St) 50903 - 83,228 NW 33 Ave and NW 15 St 50114A - 34,385 NE 2 Ave 78508 - 12,513 NW 2 St (NW 6 to 7 Ave) 50306 - 10,920 Reconstruction of Roadway 30431 - 10,128 Others less than $10,000 - 78,843 109,652 7,045,078 4,073,226 Drainage Projects: Citywide Storm Sewer Repairs 30262 2,403,964 - South Grove Phase 3 Roadway and Drainage 30836 522,613 247,786 Shorecrest Drainage, Division 5 17365 307,499 144,415 Center St Drainage, Division 2 30622 194,486 15,804 S Bayshore Ln/Fairview St, Division 2 30737 42,287 12,535 S Bayshore Dr Roadway and Drainage 30646 13,028 3,359 Bayhomes Dr Drainage, Division 2 30846 1,018 26,842 Others less than $10,000 - 72 5,501 3,484,967 456,242 Traffic Calming Projects: Silver Bluff Speed Tables 50408 216,793 94,007 South Golden Pines No Outlet 173613 43,652 89,116 Flagami Traffic Calming - Division 4 40672G 20,990 8,635 SW 16 Ave Traffic Calming 193618 11,298 - The Roads Neighborhood Traffic Calming 193619 10,016 - SW 14 Ave and SW 13 St 173624 - 10,006 Others less than $10,000 - 15,167 30,333 317,916 232,097 Total Claimed Project Costs 16,395,185 10,346,259 Debt Service (Schedule IV) 6,117,000 6,136,000 22,512,185 16,482,259 Total Claimed Uses of Surtax Proceeds AMS Adjustment: Unpaid Debt Service (Schedule IV) (4,039,385) - $ 18,472,800 $ 16,482,259 Eligible Transportation Expenditures (Table V) Source: City of Miami Accounting Records Presented for comparison with the FY 2019 audit period. Page 2 of 2 Schedule IV City of Miami Charter County Transportation System Surtax Review Summary of Debt Service Requirements By Bond Issue Description Fiscal Year Ended September 30, All Years 2008-2016 2017 2018 2019 Special Obligation Revenue Bonds Series 2007: Outstanding Principal Less Principal Payment/Payoff Outstanding Balance Debt Service Requirements: Principal Interest $ 80,000,000 (12,555,000) $ 67,445,000 (1,880,000) $ 65,565,000 (1,970,000) $ 63,595,000 (63,595,000) $ 16,405,000 38,071,519 $ 67,445,000 $ 12,555,000 31,473,307 $ 65,565,000 $ 63,595,000 $ - $ 1,880,000 3,342,531 $ 1,970,000 3,255,681 $ - - $ 44,028,307 $ 5,222,531 $ 5,225,681 $ - $ 54,476,519 On December 5, 2007, the City of Miami issued 580 million in Special Obligation Bonds, Series 2007, for the purpose of financing various street and sidewalk capital improvement projects. The bonds were issued with interest rates ranging from 3.5% to 5.25%, maturing from year 2009 to 2037. The Bonds were refunded with Series 2018A Bonds. Special Obligation Revenue Bonds Series 2009: Outstanding Principal Less Principal Payment/Payoff Outstanding Balance Debt Service Requirements: Principal Interest $ 65,000,000 (5,940,000) $ 59,060,000 (1,140,000) $ 57,920,000 (1,195,000) $ 56,725,000 (56,725,000) $ 8,275,000 27,943,937 $ 59,060,000 $ 57,920,000 $ 56,725,000 $ - $ 5,940,000 21,714,693 $ 1,140,000 3,141,569 $ 1,195,000 3,087,675 $ - - $ 27,654,693 $ 4,281,569 $ 4,282,675 $ - $ 36,218,937 On December 2, 2009, the City of Miami issued 565,000,000 in Special Obligation Bonds, Series 2009, for the purpose of financing various street and sidewalk capital improvement projects. The bonds were issued with interest rates ranging from 2.5% to 5.625%, maturing from year 2011 to 2039. The Bonds were refunded with Series 2018B Bonds. Total Debt Service for Series 2007 and 2009 Bonds: Principal Interest Allowed Debt Service: Debt Service Claimed t Adjustment for Unspent Debt Proceeds 2 Other Adjustments 3 $ 18,495,000 53,188,000 $ 3,020,000 6,484,100 $ 3,165,000 6,343,356 $ - - $ 24,680,000 66,015,456 $ 71,683,000 $ 9,504,100 $ 9,508,356 $ - $ 90,695,456 $ 42,915,707 (15,151,432) (857,740) $ 6,107,500 - - $ 6,136,000 - - $ - - - $ 55,159,207 (15,151,432) (857,740) $ 39,150,035 $ 26,906,535 $ 6,107,500 $ 6,136,000 $ - Source: Bond Official Statements, and City of Miami (City) Audited Financial Statements and Financial Records According to Bond Official Statements, Local Option Gas Tax and Parking Surcharge revenues were also pledged to repay the Bonds. 2 The City had substantial amounts of unused Debt Proceeds in prior years, and therefore could not claim all Debt Service as allowable uses of Surtax monies. However, beginning in FY 2016, the City's use of Proceeds exceeded 85%: therefore, no further amounts were disallowed. 3 In FY 2008, the City charged 100% of Debt Service payments to Surtax, yet should have allocated a portion to the other funding sources, consistent with subsequent years. 4 In FY 2019, the City charged a portion of Debt Service payments to Surtax for the Series 2007 and 2009 Bonds, even though they were refinanced with Series 2018 Bonds. There was no Debt Service paid in FY 2019 on the Series 2007 and 2009 Bonds. However, the City paid interest on the Series 2018 Bonds in FY 2019, and the 64.3% portion attributable to Surtax was an allowable use of funds in that year. Page 1 of 2 Schedule IV City of Miami Charter County Transportation System Surtax Review Summary of Debt Service Requirements By Bond Issue Description Fiscal Year Ended September 30, All Years 2008-2016 2017 2018 2019 Special Obligation Revenue Bonds Series 2018: Series A: Outstanding Principal Less Principal Payment/Payoff Outstanding Balance Debt Service Requirements: Principal Interest Series B: Outstanding Principal Less Principal Payment/Payoff Outstanding Balance Debt Service Requirements: Principal Interest Series C: Outstanding Principal Less Principal Payment/Payoff Outstanding Balance Debt Service Requirements: Principal Interest Total Series 2018 Bonds: Outstanding Principal Less Principal Payment/Payoff Outstanding Balance Debt Service Requirements: Principal Interest Allowed Debt Service: Debt Service Claimed (Schedule III)1 Adjustment for Amount Unpaid (Schedule III) 4 $ - - $ - - $ - - $ 57,405,000 - $ - 1,801,879 $ - $ - $ - $ 57,405,000 $ - - $ - - $ - - $ - 1,801,879 $ - $ - $ - $ 1,801,879 $ 1,801,879 $ - - $ - - $ - - $ 42,620,000 - $ - 1,217,408 $ - $ - $ - $ 42,620,000 $ - - $ - - $ - - $ - 1,217,408 $ - $ - $ - $ 1,217,408 $ 1,217,408 $ - - $ - - $ - - $ 7,455,000 - $ - 211,841 $ - $ - $ - $ 7,455,000 $ - - $ - - $ - - $ - 211,841 $ - $ - $ - $ 211,841 $ 211,841 $ - - $ - - $ - - $ 107,480,000 - $ - 3,231,128 $ - $ - $ - $ 107,480,000 $ - - $ - - $ - - $ - 3,231,128 $ - $ - $ - $ 3,231,128 $ 3,231,128 $ - - $ - - $ - - $ 6,117,000 (4,039,385) $ 6,117,000 (4,039,385) $ - $ - $ - $ 2,077,615 $ 2,077,615 On November 15, 2018, the City of Miami issued S57.405, S42.620, and S7 455 million in Special Obligation Bonds, Series 2018A, B, and C, respectively, for the purpose of refunding Series 2007 and 2009 Bonds, and financing various street and sidewalk capital improvement projects. The bonds were issued with interest rates ranging from 3.461 % to 5%, maturing from year 2020 to 2039. The City pledged future revenue proceeds of 80 % of Surtax monies, 100 % of Local Option Gas Taxes, and 20 % of Parking Surcharge funds to repay the bonds. Page 2 of 2 Schedule IV -A City of Miami Charter County Transportation System Surtax Review Expenditures Paid from Series 2018C Bond Proceeds Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2019 Description Project Number Amount Downtown Sidewalks & Streets 30606 $ 1,452,840 Dorsey Park Neighborhood Roadway 50907 434,265 A Media Art Entertainment Roadway 50902 302,217 SW 17 St (SW 16 to 17 Ave) 50312A 225,539 SW 12 St (SW 16 to 17 Ave) 50311 194,167 Palm Grove Roadway 30630 193,065 SW 12 St (SW 13 Ave and 13 Ct) 50303 35,138 Grove Park Roadway Phase II, Division 3 40347 23,406 NW13Ave(NW21to23St) 50112 17,176 Overtown Greenway (NW 11 St) 30624 14,739 SW 28 Rd (SW 5 to 9 Ave) 50313 12,450 SW 5 St (SW 27 to 28 Ave) 30966 11,298 Coconut Grove Business District Sidewalks 30687 10,877 Buena Vista Neighborhood Traffic Calming 193620 9,378 SW 25 St (SW 27 to 32 Ave) 50421 7,801 NE 3 Ave (NE 54 St to 58 Terr) 50906 3,687 Center Street Drainage, Division 2 30622 2,917 SW 19 Ave and SW 14 St Traffic Calming 30804 2,000 Flagami Traffic Calming, Division 4 40672G 1,564 S Bayshore Lane and Fairview St, Division 2 30737 712 $ 2,955,236 Series 2018C Proceeds $ 7,455,000 Less: Costs of Issuance (139,097) Less: Funds Used (2,955,236) Unused Funds as of September 30, 2019 $ 4,360,667 Source: City of Miami Accounting Records Schedule V Charter County Transportation System Surtax Review Summary of Payments to Municipalities Municipality Fiscal Year Ended September 30, All Years 2003 to 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 City of Miami' $ 163,251,890 $ 16,889,133 $ 16,523,990 $ 18,187,632 $ 19,212,362 $ 234,065,007 City of Hialeah 94,519,774 9,243,159 9,346,775 9,873,020 10,107,558 133,090,286 City of Miami Beach 37,554,491 3,670,335 3,678,499 3,925,123 3,963,754 52,792,202 City of Miami Gardens 2 22,375,665 4,336,722 4,409,954 4,737,286 4,846,211 40,705,838 City of North Miami 24,592,952 2,454,241 2,473,804 2,665,998 2,700,412 34,887,407 City of Homestead 20,867,813 2,669,792 2,788,854 2,969,698 3,152,022 32,448,179 City of Coral Gables 18,755,177 1,955,854 1,981,236 2,091,593 2,132,315 26,916,175 City of North Miami Beach 17,154,830 1,733,203 1,746,039 1,882,765 1,945,188 24,462,025 City of Aventura 12,992,928 1,494,036 1,502,980 1,590,870 1,613,705 19,194,519 City of Doral 2 9,003,402 2,120,606 2,232,433 2,508,437 2,747,033 18,611,911 Town of Miami Lakes 1 11,086,213 1,209,319 1,211,635 1,288,227 1,309,407 16,104,801 Town of Cutler Bay 2 8,525,502 1,721,858 1,769,140 1,899,220 1,935,984 15,851,704 Village of Palmetto Bay 10,074,295 952,951 956,304 1,013,542 1,033,365 14,030,457 City of Hialeah Gardens 8,635,855 904,713 922,372 986,599 1,007,122 12,456,661 City of Sunny Isles Beach 7,759,606 869,990 866,019 933,221 951,809 11,380,645 Village ofPinecrest3 7,840,962 737,876 738,316 777,521 790,584 10,885,259 City of Miami Springs 5,682,283 562,418 565,087 601,223 608,639 8,019,650 City of Sweetwater ' 5,070,356 273,778 133,332 466,662 166,116 6,110,244 City of South Miami 4,767,184 546,219 547,720 546,151 541,343 6,948,617 City of Opa-locka I 6,329,004 90,323 195,000 210,000 165,000 6,989,327 Village of Key Biscayne 4,809,375 502,197 508,734 540,692 550,288 6,911,286 City of Florida City 4,132,139 498,385 504,443 542,769 557,265 6,235,001 Miami Shores Village 4,308,419 419,557 420,697 443,831 447,113 6,039,617 North Bay Village 2,808,576 314,789 328,007 378,523 384,140 4,214,035 City of West Miami 2,445,250 241,053 241,373 279,166 307,465 3,514,307 Town of Surfside 2,314,098 229,428 228,739 234,500 248,902 3,255,667 Town of Bay Harbor Islands 2,209,631 231,953 222,682 234,375 249,414 3,148,055 Village of Biscayne Park 1,342,176 125,900 126,220 135,905 135,965 1,866,166 Bal Harbour Village 1,262,745 114,472 111,421 114,881 125,178 1,728,697 Village of El Porta14 1,012,447 6,467 174,873 90,094 89,175 1,373,056 Village of Virginia Gardens 973,380 96,229 96,903 102,910 103,132 1,372,554 Town of Medley 429,285 34,442 33,529 35,277 35,617 568,150 Town of Golden Beach 1 365,820 36,766 37,221 39,423 39,386 518,616 Indian Creek Village 3,604 - - - - 3,604 $ 525,257,127 $ 57,288,164 $ 57,624,331 $ 62,327,134 $ 64,202,969 $ 766,699,725 Source: Office of the Citizens' Independent Transportation Trust (OCITT) and the County's Financial Accounting Management Information System t Amounts are net of withholdings of $76,553 from the Town of Miami Lakes, $2.1 million from the City of Sweetwater, $21,058 from the Town of Golden Beach, $2.3 million from the City of Opa-locka, and $3.3 million from the City of Miami, due to specific instances of noncompliance. Partial amounts were released as follows: $1.3 million to Sweetwater on 11/27/2019, and $901,927 to Opa-locka on 3/9/2020. 2 Pursuant to the respectiveInterlocal and/or Settlement Agreements, these Municipalities, which were incorporated after November 2002, are receiving a share of the County's Surtax Proceeds consistent with the other Municipal distributions. 3 In FY 2009, $551,589 was returned by the Village of Pinecrest for their unspent Transit portion of funding as of September 30, 2007. In FY 2013, OCITT returned the monies to the Village. 4 Amount in FY 2016 is net of $84,069 withheld due to instances of noncompliance, which was returned in FY 2017 by OCITT. Exhibit I City of Miami (City) Charter County Transportation System Surtax Review Status of Prior Audit Findings 1 Finding Use of Transit Proceeds Recommendation Auditee Response Current Status The City spent all of its Transit -related Surtax funds, but had Trolley advertising revenues and related expenses recorded in a separate fund from its Surtax activities. The City should consider recording Trolley advertising revenues in its Transportation and Transit Special Revenue Fund to facilitate accountability. The City provided AMS with documentation that irrefutably depicted the use of advertising revenues for Transportation and Transit - related expenditures. Unresolved During the year ended September 30, 2019, the City earned $493,065 in advertising revenues that were not recorded in Surtax funds, although the revenues were properly expended for Transit -related activities. (See Pages 3-5) Use of Transportation Proceeds The City had unspent Transportation Funds of $53 million available for carryover. Further, only $34.1 million was reported as "Cash and Investments" in the Transportation and Transit Special Revenue and Capital Projects Funds. The City should submit a revised Five -Year Transportation Plan to demonstrate how the $53 million of rollover monies will be used. Surtax distributions should be withheld until the City reduces its $18.9 million funding gap, and there is a substantial reduction in unspent funds. The City submitted a CITT Funds Management Plan which outlined its strategy to reduce its CITT fund balance. Unresolved As of September 30, 2019, the City had $47.4 million in unspent Transportation funds, with only $27.8 million in Cash and Investments in the Transportation and Transit Special Revenue and Capital Projects Funds. The shortfall was $19.6 million. (See Pages 5-6.) Reporting to OCITT The City timely submitted all required reports to OCITT. However, Quarterly Transportation Expenditure Reports did not agree with annual amounts recorded in the City's General Ledger. City staff must strive to provide accurate reports to OCITT. The City will begin reporting on a year-to- date basis instead of a project -to -date basis. Unresolved Quarterly Reports did not agree with City accounting records. (See Page 6.) ' See the Audit Report dated October 1, 2019 and the Response dated September 13, 2019 for the full text. Date: To: From: MIAMI•DADE Memorandum COUNTY February 28, 2021 Javier A. Betancourt, Executive Director Office of the Citizens' Independent Transportation Trust (OCITT) Cathy Jac l4don, `17irector Audit and Management Services Department Subject: Final Audit Report — Charter County Transportation System Surtax Review — City of Miami, Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2019 We are in receipt of the City of Miami (City) Response, dated January 29, 2021 (Attachment I) to the above -captioned Audit Report issued September 16, 2020. After reviewing the Response, we are concerned that it did not address the full extent of the City's Unspent Surtax Funds and related Cash Shortfall. The City had Unspent Surtax Funds of $47.4 million as of September 30, 2019, but only reported Cash and Investments of $27.8 million in its Transportation and Transit Special Revenue and Capital Projects Funds (Schedule I). This $19.6 million shortfall is excessive and should be replenished immediately. The City contends that the primary cause of Unspent Surtax Funds is the disallowance of debt service payments from prior year audits, which was the result of the City's excess and unused borrowings. We reaffirm that debt service on borrowed funds that remain unused for many years should not be an allowable use of Surtax Proceeds. As repeatedly recommended since September 30, 2011, OCITT should suspend all future Surtax payments until the City has addressed this issue. We also disagree with additional statements made in the Response, as explained below. • Trolley Advertising Revenues The City stated that Trolley advertisement revenues are properly accounted for and should not be included in the Transportation and Transit Special Revenue Fund. Per OCITT guidelines, Trolley advertising revenues should be used to fund Transit - related expenditures. As such, we recommend those revenues be accounted for in that fund. This is discretionary but not mandatory. • Debt Service and Surtax Allocation The City acknowledges that it did not make FY 2019 debt payments on refunded Series 2007 and 2009 Bonds, but rather did pay interest on Series 2018 Bonds. We reaffirm the audit adjustment to disallow unpaid debt service and include the interest paid on Series 2018 Bonds. Final Audit Report — Charter County Transportation System Surtax Review — City of Miami, Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2019 Page 2 The City further believes that 100% of debt service can be paid with Surtax Proceeds, even though there are three sources of repayment — Surtax, Local Option Gas Tax, and Parking Revenues. The City historically established an allocation of repayment among the three sources, and actually allocated 64.3% of debt service for refunded Bonds in FY 2019. Because the debt service payments were not disbursed prior to their refunding, our audit disallowed the amounts, but did allow 64.3% of debt service for Series 2018 Bonds (Schedule I). Therefore, we reaffirm the allocation of debt service among the three repayment sources. As requested by OCITT, we will continue performing annual audits of the City's use of Surtax Funds. Based on the foregoing, the audit for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2019 has been closed. Please contact me at 786-469-5900, if you have any questions. CJ: bm Attachment c: Honorable Harvey A. Ruvin, Clerk of the Courts Geri Bonzon-Keenan, County Attorney Edward Marquez, Chief Financial Officer Jimmy Morales, Chief Operations Officer David Clodfelter, Interim Director, Office of Management and Budget Arthur Noriega, City Manager, City of Miami Schedule I City of Miami - Charter County Transportation System Surtax - Audit Summary Description Unspent Surtax Proceeds Transit Transportation Total Audits through 9/30/13 Two Years Ended 9/30/15 Two Years Ended 9/30/17 Year Ended 9/30/18 Year Ended 9/30/19 Major Cumulative Adjustments Disallowed Debt Service 1 Debt not Charged to LOGT and Parking 2 Interest Income 3 Total Cash per General Ledger4 Cash Shortfall $ 14,435,991 $ 41,478,496 $ 55,914,487 $ 13,218,962 $ 857,740 $ 2,000,000 $ 16,076,702 $ 35,520,102 $ 20,394,385 13,315,690 51,958,114 65,273,804 15,151,432 857,740 2,856,645 18,865,817 40,454,603 24,819,201 58,075,856 58,075,856 15,151,432 857,740 3,708,941 19,718,113 36,366,394 21,709,462 52,988,141 52,988,141 15,151,432 857,740 3,708,941 19,718,113 34,132,914 18,855,227 47,394,264 47,394,264 19,190,817 857,740 3,708,941 23,757,498 27,752,391 19,641,873 Debt Service Claimed and Disallowed Description Series 2007 Bonds Claimed Disallowed Net Audits through 9/30/13 Two Years Ended 9/30/15 Two Years Ended 9/30/17 Year Ended 9/30/18 Year Ended 9/30/19 5 Series 2009 Bonds Series 2018 Bonds - Allowed Debt Service Claimed Disallowed Net $ 18,880,958 $ (9,772,457) $ 9,108,501 $ 9,581,988 $(4,304,245) $ 5,277,743 4,575,643 (1,061,881) 3,513,762 3,750,418 (870,589) 2,879,829 6,723,748 6,723,748 5,510,452 3,372,274 3,372,274 2,763,726 2,763,726 3,359,879 (3,359,879) 2,757,121 (2,757,121) $ 36,912,502 $ (14,194,217) $ 22,718,285 $ 24,363,705 $(7,931,955) $16,431,750 5,510,452 2,077,615 $ 2.077.615 Total Claimed Disallowed, net $ 28,462,946 $ (14,076,702) 8,326,061 (1,932,470) 12,234,200 6,136,000 6,117,000 (4,039,385) $ 61,276,207 $ (20,048,557) 1 Debt Service was disallowed because the City had substantial amounts of unused Debt Proceeds. Disallowed amounts were calculated as Debt Service charged to Surtax, multiplied by the percentage of Unspent Proceeds in each year. 2 In FY 2008, the City charged 100% of Debt Service to Surtax, yet should have allocated a portion ($857,740) to Local Option Gas Tax (LOGT) and Parking Revenues, as was done in subsequent years. The City did not record this FY 2008 allocation, and thus it is shown as a cumulative adjustment for each audit period. 3 Amounts represent interest that should have been earned on Unspent Surtax Proceeds that were not recorded by the City. 4 A separate Transit and Transportation Special Revenue Fund was established in FY 2003, but the detail of claimed expenditures did not tie to General Ledger amounts in the Special Revenue and Capital Projects Funds until the FY 2017 audit period. 5 In FY 2019, the Series 2007 and 2009 Bonds were refunded prior to the City making any debt payments. Therefore, all Debt Service related to those Bonds was disallowed. The City did not claim Debt Service for the new Series 2018 Bonds. We therefore included 64.3% of FY 2019 Debt Service for Series 2018, allocating the same percentage to Surtax that the City had allocated for the Series 2007 and 2009 Bonds. Attachment I ttp Df ARTHUR NORIEGA, V CITY MANAGER January 29, 2021 � 1I1 taint, ftoriba Ms. Cathy Jackson, Director Audit and Management Services Department 701 NW 151 Court, Suite 8-175 Miami, Florida 33136 P .O . BOX 330708 MEAMI. FLORIDA 33233-0708 (305) 250 -5400 FAX (305) 250 -5410 Re: City Audit Report - Charter County Transit System Surtax Review Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2019 We are in receipt of the report dated August 5, 2020, titled "Audit Report — City of Miami Charter County Transportation System Surtax Review for the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2019." We would like to thank you and your staff for your assistance and for the opportunity to address the recommendations. We have carefully reviewed each point identified in the Audit Report and offer the following responses to the three recommendations. Recommendation: The City should ensure all claimed costs are eligible for Surtax use, and prospectively consider recording Trolley advertising revenues in its Transportation and Transit Special Revenue Fund to facilitate accountability. Response: The City takes care to ensure claimed costs are eligible for Surtax use. In order to properly account for Surtax Proceeds, the City tracks the flow of funds through its Special Revenue and Capital Projects Funds' general ledger accounts. The City has provided documentation, including a reconciliation of available funds, that accounts for the balances in those funds and reconciles to the balance per the Audit Report. With this documentation, enough support was provided to ascertain that advertisement revenues are properly accounted for. Recommendation: Prospectively, the City should ensure all claimed costs are eligible for Surtax use. City staff should submit a revised Five -Year Transportation Plan, approved by its City Commission, specifying how the $47.4 million in unspent funds will be used. More importantly, Surtax distribution should be held in Trust by OCITT until the City reduces the estimated $19 million funding gap. Further, OCITT should formally communicate these concerns to the CITT Board with a plan for timely resolution. Wage Page 1 of 3 Response: The City takes care to ensure claimed costs are eligible for Surtax use and disagrees with AMS that there is $19 million funding gap (i.e. $19.6 million less than should be available, reported in the Transportation and Transit Special Revenue and Capital Projects Funds). The primary differences between the City and AMS's balance of unspent funds are related to AMS's disallowance of debt service payments (in prior year audits since 2013), and interest income - which is inflated by AMS due to their interest calculation utilizing the disallowed amounts. As its basis for the debt service disallowances, AMS asserts that "The City should not charge 100% of the debt service payments to the Surtax" because the bonds are to be repaid with three funding sources — Surtax, Local Option Gas Taxes (LOGT), and Parking Revenues. However, the City disagrees with this assertion. The City pledged 80 percent Transportation Taxes, 100 percent new LOGT, and 20 percent of the City's Parking Surcharge to repay $57.4 million in Special Obligation Revenue Bonds. Although revenue is pledged from multiple funding sources to ensure there is enough coverage to make payments throughout the life of the bond, the percentage of the pledges does not function as a percentage cap/restriction on the use of the respective funding sources for debt service. Therefore, the City maintains the position that each debt service payment does not have to be allocated amongst the three funding sources; and as a result, the City was within its rights to utilize the Surtax monies for the debt service payments being disallowed by AMS. The amount of the debt service payment that comes from Transportation Taxes is recommended by the City's Office of Management and Budget and approved in the Budget Ordinance by the City Commission. The City also disagrees with the disallowance of the $4.8 million debt service for FY19 for the following reasons. TD Bank was the City's paying agent for the 2007 and 2009 Street and Sidewalk Bonds. At the time of closing for the new Series 2018 Bonds, the balance in the bank accounts for the 2007 and 2009 Bonds totaled $4,876,909.57. These funds were to be used to make future debt service payments for FY2019. The closing took place in November 2018 and the funds were used as the sinking fund contribution towards the new debt. In addition, the City made the interest only payment of $3,231,127.73 on January 2019 for the new Series 2018 Bonds. The City's 5 Year Capital Plan outlines the projects that the remaining $27.8 million of Transportation and Transit funds will be spent on, and can be found on page 263 of the following link: http://archive. miamigov.com/Budget/docs/FY21 /FY%202020- 21 %20Proposed%200peratinq%20Budget%20Book%20-%20Web%20Version%20- %20Final.pdf Recommendation: City Staff must strive to provide accurate reports to OCITT. Response: The City's reporting to OCITT is accurate. The City has provided documentation, including a "Reconciliation of Quarterly Transportation Expenditure Report", reconciled to the balance per the AMS Audit Report. AMS is trying to reconcile using a year-to-date format; however, the OCITT Report is created to track expenditures on a project -to -date basis. As discussed during the audit field work, the City has no problem with reporting expenditures in the format that AMS prefers, but CITT will need to review the report and notify the City of the new 2IPage Page 2 of 3 format. In addition, the City communicated with CITT regarding a new template and we were instructed to continue with the old format (project -to -date) for FY19. Sincer Arthur Nriega, V City Ma ager Cc: Honorable Mayor Francis X. Suarez Javier A. Betancourt, Executive Director, Office of CITT Fernando Casamayor, ACM/CFO Wage Page 3 of 3 CITT Board Members Chairperson Paul J. Schwiep, Esq, First Vice Chairperson Hon. Anna E. Ward, Ph.D Second Vice Chairperson Glenn J. Downing, CFP Oscar J. Braynon Joe Curbelo Peter L. Forrest Alfred J. Holzman Prakash Kumar Jonathan A. Martinez Alicia Menardy, Esq. Miles E. Moss, P.E. Hon. James Reeder Marilyn Smith Hon. Linda Zilber Executive Director Charles Scurr Past Chairperson ATTACHMENT 3 Citizens' IndependentTransportation Trust 111 NW 1st Street • Suite 1010 Miami, Florida 33128 T 305-375-1357 F 305-375-4605 Transportation Trust ° t' ©GoCITT rniarnidade.gov/citt September 13, 2016 Mr. Daniel J. Alfonso, City Manager City of Miami 444 S.W. 2nd Avenue, 10th Floor Miami, FL 33130 Dear Mr. Alfonso: The purpose of this letter is to follow-up on the Audit Report on the City of Miami's Charter County Transit System Surtax Review completed by the Audit and Management Services Department (AMS) dated September 30, 2015 and covering FY 2011-2013 and to dispose of the issues that remain unresolved. Thank you and your office staff for their cooperation. Your letter dated August 17, 2016 accepting the disposition findings as presented below is attached. The Office of the Citizens' Independent Transportation Trust, (OCITT) carefully reviewed the Audit report as well as the responses of the City dated June 8, 2015 and September 15, 2015. We also carefully reviewed the original documents including the Interlocal Agreement dated August 6, 2003; the Interlocal Agreement dated July 10, 2007 and the Annual Reports submitted by the City. Finally, we have also carefully reviewed relevant County Attorney opinions and Transportation Trust legislation. A number of meetings have been held with the City and AMS in order to try and resolve the audit findings. There remains, however, disagreement between the City and AMS on several of the findings. This letter is the disposition of the audit findings. The AMS report focuses on a number of issues and these will be discussed separately. • Separate Bank Account — AMS recommended that the City be required to establish a separate bank account for surtax funds. This issue was raised in a previous audit. The City agreed to take a series of steps as identified in correspondence dated January 30, 2012 and February 1, 2012 that satisfactorily resolved this issue. Additionally, the City has advised that it is making additional changes to the Projects and Grants Module that will mirror the County process where expenditures will occur in the same fund where Surtax Proceeds are held, therefore eliminating a need for transfers. We agree that this will make it easier to properly account for eligible expenditures and improve internal controls. A separate bank account is not deemed to be necessary in light of the above changes that have been made. • Tracing Flow of Funds — AMS requests that the City trace the flow of funds through its Special Revenue and Capital Projects Funds general ledger accounts in order to properly account for Surtax Proceeds. The City has provided documentation including a Reconciliation of Available Funds that accounts for the balances in those funds and reconciles them tothe balance per the Audit Report with asmall difference remaining. The Trust accepts this documentation as sufficient support that Surtax Proceeds have been properly accounted for. * Bond Payments - /\M8 recommended that debt service payments be disallowed due to a large amount of unspent bond proceeds. The City has presented a plan to accelerate and complete these projects. If the City does not complete the projects then the bond expanaes, including debt service and interest expeneea, would be ineligible and would be subject to recapture, At this time it is premature to recapture the funds. The Trust has and continues to be concerned with the Cit/e failure to spend bond proceeds in a timely fashion. Therefore. the City is requested to present Quarterly Report tothe Trust. This report, oinni|a[ tothat presented quarterly by Miami -Dade County, will include adetailed progress report on all major capital projects, updating project schedules and costs. This report will be presented to the joint Municipal Coordination and Program and Financial Review Committee. On -Demand Expensee-The City claimed costs totaling $752.542 for On - Demand Transportation Services which AK88 has deemed ineligible. Of this amount, $288.441 was incurred prior to March 25. 2011 and $463.101 was for passengers that were not cross-checked for enrollment in the County's GT8 Program. The City has not provided documentation on the eligibility of the persons receiving these services. The Trust concurs with the dieo||ovvenne of these expenses barring eligibility documentation. It should be noted that the City has established appropriate procedures for eligibility and billing moving forward. * Debt Service Payments -The City used Surtax funds in the mnnourd of $857.740 for debt service that should have been paid from other funding sources. In addition, excess Surtax funds totaling $2.113.357 were transferred for debt service payments that were never reversed bock to the Surtax fund. The City has agreed with the A&48 finding and will reverse the entries. The Trust is in concurrence with this finding and resolution. StormwaterExpenditureo-AMGrecommended that funds used for storm sewer and drainage projects be disallowed because the City had otonnvvata[feea available. Gtornnvveter projects are surtax eligible and the expenses are, therefore, not disallowed. � Program Management - AMG recommended that expenditures for Program Management Services be disallowed. These expenses are generally allowable. The second level documentation provided needs to be improved in order to anauna that individuals billed are working specifically onsurtax eligible p jeote. For this audit the expenses are not w Parking —AMG recommended that $49'984 in expenses for a parking study for Marlins Park are ineligible. The Trust concurs in this finding. * Sidewalks - AK88 recommended the disallowance of $489.025 for sidewalk projects completed prior November 15. 2013 for projects that were not part of road improvement projects or AD/\ related. The Trust is in concurrence with this finding. Stand-alone eidavv@|h projects were not eligible until the effective date of the Trust sidewalk po|icy. November 15' 2013. ° Interest Earnings -The final issue cnnm*Ols the Citv's interest earned on surtax proceeds. /\K88 estimated that there is $2.6 million ofuncredited investment income after taking into account all disallowed costs. The Trust requests that o new estimate be prepared baking into account the disallowances noted above and that this amount becredited to the Surtax fund to be spent on qualifying transit or transportation projects. In the interim the sum of$2.O nni||ioD will be presumed to be Correct. The Trust and the City are in agreement that interest earnings should be credited on a monthly basis going forward. The total amount of costs subject to recapture is $3.301.551. Effective with the October 2018 distributions the Trust will withhold ninety two thousand dollars ($82'000.00) per month from the City'o surtax allocation until the recapture of the full amount is complete. If the $2.871.097 in excess debt service transfers has not been reversed by the City, the Trust will withhold an additional eighty three thousand dollars ($83,000.00) monthly until the recapture has been completed. Thank you for your cooperation. We look forward to continuing tnwork with you in inlp[VViOg transportation in our community. 8iDcerely, Charles D.8curr Executive Director oo C|TTBoard Bruce Libhober, /\aointmrd County Attorney Cathy Jackson, AK88 Attachment: August 17.2018Letter x�T~4°� �� {m�,~ ~ ��~.� �� ]�� _ ��, �Tlrrrt��^� °r � Lvhx+j 1 .A In A\� � DAm/EL J.ALFowSo CITY MANAGER August 17'2D10 Mr. Charles Scurr, Executive Director Citizens' Independent Transportation Trust 111NVV1stAvenue, Suite 111O Miami, Florida 33128 Dear Mr. Scurr: p�E3CX33m08 M.°M/.rLomoA 33233*70e (305)250-5400 VVewould like tothank you for your assistance with the Audit Report ofthe City ofMiami's Charter County Transit System Surtax Review, dated September 30, 2015, covering Fiscal Years 2011, 2012, and 2013, performed bvthe Counh/oDepartment ofAudit and Management Services, ("AMG"). V\eare very pleased that you've taken the steps towards resolving the outstanding and open issues related to the City of Miami's Charter County Transit Surtax funding. We've carefully reviewed each Weencouraged with the position you've taken with the issues to: 're ofthe points identified inyour letter and their related disposition. Separate ° Bank Accounts ° Tracing Flow ofFunds * Bond Payments * 8tornxwaterExpenditures; and ° Program Management While w eare discouraged that future funding will be redunod, we respect the decision to recapture the funds related toOn-Demand Expenses, Parking' and GkJevva|ka. Tomitigate any future recapture, we will aggressively work towards continuing to spend down bond proceeds where Transit Surtax Funds are pledged for repayment. We will provide a Quarterly Report, for your review and consideration, to the Trust detailing the progress ofall major capital projects, updatingp joctsohedu|ea.andp jentnosto.TheCity has been allocating interest to the unspent Surtax funds since Fiscal Year 2015. Moreover, vveconcur that the interest should berecaptured. VVewould like the opportunity todiscuss the amount with you and your staff. We will request approval from the City Commission to transfer back tothe Surtax Fund the excess debt service transfer totaling $2'Q71.OQ7.VVeanticipate requesting this approval nolater than November 2018. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or need additional information. Once again, vvewould like tothank you for your help and assistance. / Daniel J.Alfonso City Manager CITT Board Members Chairperson Oscar). Braynon First Vice Chairperson Altred J. Holzman Second Vice Chairperson Robert Wolfarth Honorable Peggy Bell *Joseph Curbelo Meg Daly Qjuezari Harvey *Paul J. Schwiep, Esq. Marilyn Smith L. Elijah Stiers, Esq. Mary Street, Esq. Ernie Thomas Executive Director Javier A. Betancourt *Past Chairperson April 5, 2022 Mr. Arthur Noriega, City Manager City of Miami 3500 Pan American Dr. Miami, FL 33133 Citizens' Independent Transportation Trust 111 NW 1st Street • Suite 1010 Miami, Florida 33128 T 305-375-1357 F 305-375-4605 Q Transportation Trust c @GoCITT miamidade.gov/citt RE: Notification of CITT Resolution withholding Surtax funds from the City of Miami Dear Mr. Noriega, Please be advised that, pursuant to the Citizens' Independent Transportation Trust (Trust) directive at their March 31, 2022 meeting, the Office of the Citizens' Independent Transportation Trust (OCITT) has commenced the withholding of Charter County Transportation System Sales Surtax funds (Surtax) from the City of Miami (City) effective immediately. After careful consideration of both Staff's recommendation and the City's arguments, the Trust agreed with the recommendation of the Miami -Dade County Audit and Management Services Department (AMS) to withhold funds until such time as the auditor's findings and concerns are addressed to the OCITT's satisfaction. Resolution No. 22-006, attached, also directs this office to recapture said funds should the City fail to adequately address AMS' concerns in a timely and satisfactory manner (as determined by the OCITT). This Office stands ready, as always, to work with the City to resolve the pending issues and concerns outlined in the audit, which, if accomplished in a timely manner, would result in the release of the withheld funds back to the City. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions or concerns regarding this matter. Sincerely, C4vier A. Betancourt Executive Director Page 1 of 2 c: Oscar Braynon, Chairman, and Members of the CITT Hon. Daniella Levine Cava, Mayor, Miami -Dade County Hon. Francis Suarez, Mayor, City of Miami Hon. Jose "Pepe" Diaz, Chairman, and Members of the BCC Jimmy Morales, Chief Operating Officer, Miami -Dade County Cathy Jackson, Director, AMS, Miami -Dade County Bruce Libhaber, Assistant County Attorney, Miami -Dade County Xavier Alban, Assistant City Attorney, City of Miami Monica Cejas, Deputy Director, OCITT Vontressia Walker, Financial Manager, OCITT Nestor Toledo, Municipal Administrator, OCITT Page 2 of 2 Alban, Xavier E. From: Walker, Vontressia (CITT) <Vontressia.Walker@miamidade.gov> Sent: Friday, April 8, 2022 9:51 AM Cc: (CITT) All Staff Subject: Municipal Surtax Transfer for January 2022 Attachments: January 2022.pdf CAUTION: This is an email from an external source. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good morning: Attached is a listing of payments forwarded via ACH transfer for the Municipal portion of Transportation Surtax proceeds for the month of January 2022. Feel free to contact me with any questions and/or concerns. Thank you, Vontressia Walker Citizens' Independent Transportation Trust 111 NW 1st Street, Suite 1010, Miami, Florida 33128-1980 Phone: 305-375-3481 Fax: 305-375-4605 vontressia.walker@miamidade.go, miamida-de.gov/citt morn o 1 1 .G "Delivering Excellence Every Day" Miami -Dade County is a public entity subject to Chapter 119 of the Florida Statutes concerning public records. E-mail messages are covered under such laws and thus subject to disclosure 1 REQUEST FOR PAYMENT OF MUNICIPAL SURTAX PROCEEDS Date: April 1, 2022 Payment for Month(s): January 2022 Wearialithill V .._ ER CURRENT AMOUNT TO BE PAID CUMULATIVE AMOUNT ",•°�: ,^:'....u`.ru&;.".,+TE CUMULATIVE AMOUNT LIEODATE City of Aventura 0000011373 140,771.00 675,614.00 23,009,618.00 Town of Bal Harbour Village 0000009971 10,850.00 52,073.00 2,022,692.00 Town of Bay Harbor Islands 0000009972 22,540.00 108,178.00 3,751,288.00 Village of Biscayne Park* 0000009973 0.00 0.00 1,876,250.00 City of Coral Gables 0000009975 189,218.00 908,020.00 32,015,995.00 Village of El Portal* 0000009976 0.00 0.00 1,530,087.00 City of Florida City 0000009977 49,605.00 238,076.00 7,563,507.00 Town of Golden Beach 0000009978 3,490.00 16,748.00 613,313.00 City of Hialeah 0000009979 887,958.00 4,261,657.00 157,166,889.00 City of Hialeah Gardens 0000010015 87,495.00 419,921.00 14,832,128.00 City of Homestead 0000009980 282,474.00 1,355,703.00 40,026,545.00 Indian Creek Village 0000009981 0.00 0.00 3,604.00 Village of Key Biscayne 0000010719 47,829.00 229,550.00 8,209,311.00 Town of Medley 0000010014 3,682.00 17,671.00 655,755.00 City of Miami* 0000009985 0.00 7,000,641.00 281,350,489.00 City of Miami Beach 0000009982 348,443.00 1,672,314.00 62,189,995.00 Town of Miami Lakes 0000012248 119,523.00 573,636.00 19,273,007.00 Miami Shores Village 0000009983 40,028.00 192,111.00 7,113,608.00 City of Miami Springs 0000009984 52,751.00 253,171.00 9,449,786.00 North Bay Village 0000009986 33,541.00 160,977.00 5,122,748.00 City of North Miami 0000009988 240,862.00 1,155,991.00 41,347,840.00 City of North Miami Beach 0000009987 176,595.00 847,550.00 29,180,058.00 City of Opa-Locka* 0000009989 730,582.00 730,582.00 9,302,400.94 Village of Palmetto Bay 0000000504 92,031.00 441,695.00 16,479,921.00 Village ofPinecrest 0000011415 68,900.00 330,677.00 12,747,589.00 City of South Miami 0000009990 47,736.00 229,105.00 8,239,809.00 City of Sunny Isles Beach 0000011611 88,327.00 423,917.00 13,701,653.00 Town of Surfside 0000009991 22,192.00 106,508.00 3,857,114.00 City of Sweetwater 0000010011 82,699.00 396,904.00 9,370,969.00 Village of Virginia Gardens 0000007931 9,026.00 43,317.00 1,617,655.00 City of West Miami 0000010012 32,990.00 158,332.00 4,319,878.00 Town of Cutler Bay 0000000274 168,299.00 807,731.00 20,417,482.00 City of Miami Gardens 0000000776 423,201.00 2,031,106.00 52,173,715.00 City of Doral 0000012564 263,898.00 1,266,548.00 25,626,999.00 *Withheld $1,842,569 from City of Miami *Withheld $11,771 from Village of Biscayne Park *Withheld $7,941 from Village ofElPortal *Withheld $66,942 from City of Opa-locka and Released $730,582 Total 4,767,536.00 27,106,024.00 926,159,697.94 MIAMI•DADE111 COUNTY' October 9, 2015 Mr. Daniel J. Alfonso, City Manager City of Miami 444 S.W. 2nd Avenue, 10th Floor Miami, FL 33130 AUDIT AND MANAGEMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT OVERTOWN TRANSIT VILLAGE 701 NW 15t COURT - SUITE 8-175 MIAMI, FLORIDA 33136 TELEPHONE: 786-469-5900 FAX: 786-469-5933 Re: Audit Report — Charter County Transportation System Surtax Review — City of Miami Dear Mr. Alfonso: Attached is the above -referenced Audit Report, together with the City's response. The Office of the Citizens' Independent Transportation Trust (OCITT) will be contacting you to resolve the audit findings. Sometime after March 2016, we will conduct a follow-up audit to assess use of Surtax Proceeds for Fiscal Years 2014 and 2015, as well as resolution of the audit findings. Please call me at (786) 469-5900, should you have any questions. Sincerely, etvatrygt Cathy Jackson Director CJ:ag Alina T. Hudak, Deputy Mayor Edward Marquez, Deputy Mayor Charles D. Scurr, Executive Director, OCITT MIAMI DADS Memorandum rI�tr Date: To: September 30, 20151 Charles D. Scurr, Executive Director Office of the Citizens' Independent Transportation Trust (OCITT) From: Cathy JaMso ,, Director Audit and Management Services Department Subject: Audit Report — Charter County Transportation System Surtax Review — City of Miami PURPOSE AND SCOPE We performed a review of the City of Miami's. use of Charter County Transportation System Surtax (Surtax) Proceeds remitted by Miami -Dade County (County) for the three years ended September 30, 2013. The primary objective was to ensure that Surtax Proceeds were used i_n compliance with the Interlocal Agreement for Distribution, Use and Reporting of Charter County Transit System Surtax Proceeds Levied by Miami -Dade County (Interlocal Agreement) executed on July 10, 2007. Additionally, we assessed resolution of prior audit findings referenced in our Report dated September 30, 2011 (Exhibit I). BACKGROUND Miami -Dade County Ordinance (Ordinance) No. 02-116, enacted on July 9, 2002, imposed a one-half of one percent Surtax on eligible sales transactions for Transportation -related projects. However, at least 20% of the Proceeds received by the County must be distributed to municipalities incorporated as of November 5, 2002, on a pro-rata basis using population statistics (Schedule I). The Surtax Program is administered by the Citizens' Independent Transportation Trust (CITT), a group comprised of 15 members appointed by the Board of County Commissioners, County Mayor, and Miami -Dade League of Cities. Pursuant to the Interlocal Agreement, the City of Miami (City) must annually continue the same level of General Fund support for Transportation projects appropriated in its Fiscal Year (FY) 2002 Budget (Maintenance of Effort), which totaled $4.7 million (Table D. Surtax monies may be used to develop, construct, equip, maintain, operate, or expand County -wide bus systems, fixed guideway rapid transit systems, roads, and bridges, as well as secure such bonds or pay debt service. Further, the City must apply at least 20% of the Proceeds to Transit -related projects, such as circulator buses, bus shelters, bus pullout bays, or other related infrastructure. CU "Resolution 09-055, adopted July 30, 2009, allows for the rollover of unspent Surtax funds for up to five years, provided the City's Five -Year Transportation Plan demonstrates how the funds will be used. ' Audit fieldwork was completed on March 23, 2015; however, the City's response was not finalized until September 15, 2015. Audit Report — Charter County Transportation System Surtax Review City of Miami Page 2 SUMMARY RESULTS For the three years ended September 30, 2013, the City received $41.2 million in Surtax Proceeds, and claimed Transit and Transportation -related expenditures totaling $49.3 million (Table I). Of the claimed expenditures, $18.6 million was applied towards debt service requirements for bonds issued in 2007 and 2009 that were used to finance street improvement projects. We disallowed $8.0 of the $18.6 million because of unspent bond proceeds, which ranged as high as 53% ($76.4 of $145 million) in 2011 to 34% ($49.7 of $145 million) in 2013 (Schedule IV). After adjusting claimed expenditures for the Maintenance of Effort (MOE), investment earnings, and disallowed costs, the City had unspent proceeds totaling $60.1 million as of September 30, 2013. However, available Surtax Proceeds classified as Pooled Cash and Investments within the Transportation and Transit Special Revenue and Capital Projects Funds amounted to only $35.5 million. Table I Description Fiscal Year Ended September 30, All Years 2011 2012 2013 Maintenance of Effort Surtax Proceeds Claimed Expenditures Transit (Table lI) Transportation (Table 111) Unspent Surtax Proceeds' (Schedule 11) Transit Transportation Key Account Balances' Transportation and Transit Special Revenue Fund: Cash and Investments Restricted Fund Balance Transportation and Transit Capital Projects Fund Cash and Investments Restricted Fund Balance $ 4,718,932 $ 4,718,932 $ 4,718,932 $ 14,156,796 $ 13,113,576 $ 13,555,331 $ 14,564,114 $ 41,233,021 $ 538,448 13,373,764 $ 2,039,649 14,779,999 $ 2,699,898 15,868,907 $ 5,277,995 44,022,670 $ 13,912,212 $ 16,819,648 $ 18,568,805 $ 49,300,665 $ 13,251,048 38,873,561 $ 14,127,528 42,676,682 $ 14,435,991 45,668,667 $ 52,124,609 $ 56,804,210 $ 60,104,658 $ 4,450,869 $ 14,158,271 $ 16,123,224 $ 6,327,463 $ 15,743,320 $ 17,421,739 $ - $ 19,725,884 $ 19,396,878 $ - $ 19,725,884 $ 19,396,878 ource: OCITT, City of Miami Audited Financial Statements and General Ledgers ' As of September 30 in each Fiscal Year In addition, we restated unspent funds as of September 30, 2010 after learning the City had used bond monies rather than Surtax Proceeds to pay project expenditures claimed for the three years ended September 30, 2010. However, cumulative debt service payments were significantly lower than the amount previously claimed as project expenditures. After correcting the errors, unspent Surtax funds increased from $29.6 to $44.2 million as of September 30, 2010. Audit Report — Charter County Transportation System Surtax Review City of Miami Page 3 Further, in our September 30, 2011 Audit Report, the City was asked to establish a separate bank account to track Surtax -related receipts and disbursements. Instead, the Transportation and Transit Special Revenue and Capital Projects Funds were established in their Accounting System, yet the City did not record all Surtax activities within those Funds. in certain instances, amounts were transferred from the Transportation and Transit Special Revenue and Capital Projects Funds to the Streets and Sidewalks, Storm Sewers, Mass Transit, and Debt Service Funds to pay for some or all of qualifying Project costs. Effective immediately, OCITT should suspend Surtax distributions to the City until: • A separate bank account has been established to account for Surtax receipts and disbursements, and legally -available funds totaling $60.1 million, including uncredited interest (estimated at $2.6 million), have been deposited. • The City can trace the flow of Surtax Proceeds and claimed expenditures through its Special Revenue and Capital Projects Funds general ledger accounts, as well as distinguish Surtax - related expenditures from those financed with Local Option Gas Tax monies. Until this is done, we have no assurance that the Surtax Proceeds have been properly accounted for and used to support only eligible Transit and Transportation Projects. These and other findings and recommendations are more fully discussed in the remainder of this Report. The City's response, incorporated herein as Attachment I, outlines the basis for their objections. After review of the City's rebuttal and additional documents submitted, we reaffirm the accuracy of our findings as summarized in Exhibit II. A follow-up review will be initiated within six months to assess corrective actions taken to address the findings. Nonetheless, in accordance with Administrative Order 3-7, we would appreciate a reply within 60 days from OCITT, outlining its plan to resolve the findings. Please contact Nancy McKee, Assistant Director, at (786) 469-5900, if you have any questions. Thank you for the assistance and courtesies extended to our staff during the audit process. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Use of Surtax Proceeds As mentioned previously, at least 20% of the $41.2 million in Surtax Proceeds, or $8.2 million, must be used for Transit activities. However, the City claimed only $5.3 million for its Trolley and On -Demand Transportation Programs (Table II). In FY 2012, the City acquired 34 Trolleys for $6.8 million, of which 19 were funded with a $3.9 million Federal grant, and the remaining 15 were bought with State grants ($1.9 million) and Surtax Proceeds ($1 million). The Trolleys are deployed over seven fixed routes, with average monthly passenger counts in excess of 300,000. Program operating costs were primarily funded with Surtax Proceeds ($3.5 million) and State grants. Audit Report - Charter County Transportation System Surtax Review City of Miami Page 4 Table II Summary of CIaimed Transit Expenditures, as Adius Description Project Number 40-8 Fiscal Year Ended September 30, All Years 2011 2012 2013 Trolley Services: Citywide Services CW Trolley $ - $ 329,895 $ 1,105,192 $ 1,435,087 Brickell/Biscayne Route Brick/Biscayne - 208,143 902,938 1,111,081 Health/Stadium District Route Health/Stadium 108 227,917 358,436 586,461 Overtown/Allapattah Route Overtwn/Allap - - 94,563 94,563 I08 765,955 2,461,129 3,227,192 On -Demand Transportation Services: l Action Community Center Action-122001 451,941 194,148 - 646,089 Other On -Demand - 10,915 95,538 106,453 451,941 205,063 95,538 752,542 Trolley Purchases 70715 - 998,133 816 998,949 Trolley Planning Services, Professional Costs 30645A 65,630 70,498 142,415 278,543 Miami Street Car Project 71215 20,769 - - 20,769 Total Claimed Costs 538,448 2,039,649 2,699,898 5,277,995 Less: Disallowed Costs (451,941) (205,063) (95,538) (752,542) Eligible Costs (Schedule II) $ 86,507 $ 1,834,586 $ 2,604,360 $ 4,525,453 Source: City of Miami Accounting Records Disallowed projects Effective March 25, 2011, On -Demand Transportation Services costs may be paid from Surtax funds, as long as passengers provide 24-hour notice, are elderly or disabled, low-income, and not enrolled in the County's Special Transportation Services (STS) Program (County Ordinance 11- 13). However, certain claimed costs ($289,441) were incurred prior to March 25, 2011, and passengers were not cross-checked for enrollment in the County's STS Program, as required ($463,101). City staff admitted that its On -Demand clients were not properly screened for eligibility. Thus, claimed costs totaling $752,542 were disallowed (Table II). Table III Summary of Claimed Transportation E Description Fiscal Year Ended September 30, All Years 2011 2012 2013 Debt Service -Series 2007 and 2009 Street and Sidewalks Bonds $ 6,141,816 $ 6,190,600 $ 6,252,800 $ I8,585,216 Street Lighting 5,183,184 5,203,550 5,508,137 15,894,871 Street Improvement Projects 1,922,436 3,036,757 3,633,775 8,592,968 Drainage Projects 121,275 322,198 457,090 900,563 Micellaneous Projects 5,053 26,894 17,105 49,052 Total Claimed Costs (Schedule 1111) 13,373,764 14,779,999 15,868,907 44,022,670 Disallowed Costs: Debt Service Related to Unspent Proceeds (3,234,894) (2,597,576) (2,144,710) (7,977,180) OtherDisallowedCosts - (63,068) (17,3I7) (80,385) Eligible Costs (Schedule II) $ 10,138,870 $ 12,119,355 $ 13,706,880 $ 35,965,105 Source: City of Miami Accounting Records The remaining 80%, or $33 million, was used mainly to pay debt service costs for the City's Series 2007 and 2009 Street and Sidewalks Bonds, as well as fund Citywide street lighting, improvement and drainage projects (Table III and Schedule III), However, claimed debt service costs of $18.6 million were reduced by $8 million for amounts attributed to unused debt proceeds (Schedules IV and IV -A). Audit Report - Charter County Transportation System Surtax Review City of Miami Page 5 Although the City had $8.5 million in its Storm Sewers Capital Projects Fund, OCITT allows the City and other municipalities to use Surtax proceeds for drainage projects if their Storm Sewer funds have been appropriated for future projects. According to the City's long-term Capital Project Program, $149 million in Storm Sewer Projects are planned, of which only $63 million is funded. After adjusting claimed expenditures for MOE and ineligible expenses, Transit and Transportation funds totaling $14.4 million and $45.7 million, respectively, were available for carryover as of September 30, 2013 (Schedule II). Recommendation To minimize the risk of cost disallowances, the City should adhere to the guidance set forth in County Ordinance 11-13 for On -Demand Transportation Program charges, as well as be more diligent in assuring that claimed costs are actually incurred and can be traced to an outflow of funds. Restatement of Prior Unused Funds During the prior audit, the City claimed to have used Surtax Proceeds to pay street improvements totaling $26.2 million. However, these expenditures were actually financed with Series 2007 and 2009 bond monies, and Surtax Proceeds were used to pay the related debt service costs. Therefore, we adjusted prior years' claimed expenditures for these errors, as well as retroactively applied CITT Resolution No. 09-055, which allows for the rollover of unused funds for up to five years. Thus, the previously -reported unspent amount of $29.6 million was restated as $44.2 million as of September 30, 2010 (Schedule II -A). The unused amount was further increased to $60.1 million as of September 30, 2013 due to claimed costs disallowed for the current audit period (Table III and Schedule II). Nonetheless, at least $35.7 million should have been spent before September 30, 2014, and the remainder expires in FYs 2015 through 2018 (Table IV). Table IV Analysis of Rollover Funds 1 UnspentAmounts Uns pent Amounts Aged byEXpiryDate Transit Transportation September30, Transit Transportation September30, 2009 $ 8,414,305 $ 27,335,367 2014 $ 8,414,305 $ 27,335,367 2010 $ 10,714,840 $ 33,527,427 2015 2,300,535 6,192,060 2011 $ 13,251,048 $ 38,873,561 2016 2,536,208 5,346,134 2012 $ 14,127,528 $ 42,676,682 2017 876,480 3,803,121 2013 $ 14,435,991 $ 45,668,667 2018 308,463 2,991,985 $ 14,435,991 $ 45,668,667 ^ITTResolulion 09-055, adopted July 30, 2009, permits rollover of unspent funds for five years. Thus, unspent proceeds which originated in FY 2009 expire in FY 2014. Thereafter, annual increases in unspent funds expire in the succeeding years, as shown above_ Audit Report Charter County Transportation System Surtax Review City of Miami Page 6 City officials have indicated that a greater share of the unspent Transit dollars will be used to further expand and operate the Trolley System after start-up funding provided by the State expires in FY 2016. Roadway improvements over the next five years are budgeted at $23 million, and annual debt service is approximately $6 million. However, these planned expenditures may not be sufficient to use annual Surtax receipts ($15.4 million in FY 2014) and reduce carryover amounts prior to their expiry date. Recommendation The City should submit a revised Five -Year Transportation Plan, approved by its City Council, specifying how rollover monies will be used, and request an extension of amounts that have expired. More importantly, OCITT and City staff should more diligently monitor unspent funds to minimize the risk of recapture and maximize effective use of Surtax dollars. Surtax Funds Availability and Accountability As noted during the previous audit, the City could not account for all of its claimed Surtax expenditures within the general ledger. According to City staff, Surtax monies are initially accounted for in. the Transportation and Transit Special Revenue Fund. However, not all claimed Surtax expenditures were recorded therein, as Surtax Proceeds are also transferred to the Debt Service, Capital Projects, or Other Funds to repay bonds and finance other eligible projects. The bonds are repaid with Surtax monies, as well as with Local Option Gas Tax and Parking Surtax Revenues. City Staff was unable to support the amount of debt service allocated to Surtax monies, or to distinguish improvement projects financed with Surtax Proceeds from those paid with Local Option Gas Tax dollars. Thus, we have no assurance that the Surtax Proceeds were used to support only eligible Transit and Transportation Projects. Table V Interest Attributable to Unused Surtax Funds For the Six Years Ended September 30 2013 Description fiscal Year Ended September 30, All Years 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Unspent Transit Funds, Beginning of Year Unspent Transit Funds, End of Year Average Annual Unspent Transit Funds Unspent Transportation Funds, Beginning of Year I Unspent Transportation Funds, End ofYear 1 Average Annual Unspent Transportation Funds Total Annual Average Unspent Funds Average Annual Yield on Investments Interest Attributable to Unused Funds $ 4,448,768 $ 6,137,227 $ 8,414,305 $ 10,714,840 $ 13,251,048 $ 14,127,528 $ 2,622,491 $ 6,137,227 $ 8,414,305 $ 10,714,840 S 13,251,048 $ 14,127,528 $ 14,435,991 $ 5,292,998 $ 7,275,766 $ 9,564,573 $ 11,982,944 $ 13,689,288 $ 14,281,760 $ 16,369,698 $ 21,396,503 $ 26,028,787 $ 31,868,068 $ 36,938,991 $ 40,382,833 $ 21,396,503 $ 26,028,787 $ 31,868,468 $ 36,938,991 $ 40,382,833 $ 43,046,176 $ 18,883,I01 $ 23,712,645 $ 28,948,428 $ 34,403,530 $ 38,660,912 $ 41,714,505 $ 24,176,099 $ 30,988,411 $ 38,513,001 $ 46,386,474 $ 52,350,200 $ 55,996,265 3.3423% 1.6088% 0.9160% 0.5933% 0.6863% $ 359,279 0.5869% $ 808,038 $ 498,542 $ 352,779 $ 275,211 $ 328,642 Source: City of Miami Financial Records and AMS Audit Reports ' Amounts do not include interest. Audit Report Charter County Transportation System Surtax Review City of Miami Page 7 In addition, the $35.5 million reported as "Pooled Cash and Investments" in the Transportation and Transit Special Revenue Fund and Capital Projects Fund was approximately $24.6 million less than the $60.1 million that was unspent and should have been legally available as of September 30, 2013 (Schedule II). The City commingled unused Surtax Proceeds with other operating monies; however, investment earnings were not allocated in proportion to the Funds' equity share of total pooled resources. Using data provided by the City's Finance Department, we estimate $2.6 million in uncredited investment income (Table V). Previously, the City was asked to establish a separate bank account to track Surtax Receipts and Disbursements, because it had commingled unused Surtax monies with general operating funds and could not substantiate that the monies were legally available. Recommendation OCITT should withhold future Surtax Proceeds pending the City establishing a separate bank account and depositing $60.1 million, inclusive of investment income earned since October 1, 2007. Prospectively, interest earnings should be credited at least monthly and used strictly for eligible Surtax projects. Within 30 days, the City should clearly distinguish Surtax projects from those funded by other sources in its general ledger, or risk disallowance of those amounts that cannot be substantiated. Until this is done, we have no assurance that the Surtax Proceeds have been properly accounted for and used to support only eligible Transit and Transportation Projects. CJ:ag Attachments c: Honorable Harvey A. Ruvin, Clerk of the Courts Abigail Price -Williams, County Attorney Alina T. Hudak, Deputy Mayor Edward Marquez, Deputy Mayor Jennifer Moon, Director, Office of Management and Budget Charles Anderson, Commission Auditor Daniel J. Alfonso, City Manager, City of Miami Charter County Transportation System Surtax Review Summary of Payments to Municipalities Municipality City of Miami City of Hialeah City of Miami Beach City of North Miami City of Homestead City of Coral Gables City of Miami Gardens 4 City of North Miami Beach City of Aventura Town of Miami Lakes 2 Village of Palmetto Bay City of Hialeah Gardens Village ofPinecrest 1 City of Sunny Isles Beach Town of Cutler Bay 4, 5 City of Doral City of Opa-Locks City of Miami Springs City of Sweetwater 2 Village of Key Biscayne City of South Miami Miami Shores Village City of Florida City North Bay Village City of West Miami Town of Surfside Town of Bay Harbor Islands Village of Biscayne Park Bal Harbour Village Village of El Portal Village of Virginia Gardens Town of Medley Town of Golden Beach 2 Indian Creek Village 3 Source: Office of the Citizens' Independe Amount in 2009 is net of $551,589 returned by the Village of Pinecrest for their unspent transit portion of funding as of September 30, 2007, In 2013, OCITT returned the monies to the Village. 2 Amounts are net of withholdings of $76,553 from the Town of Miami Lakes, 5277,500 from the City of Sweetwater, and $21,055 from the Town of Golden Beach, due to specific instances of noncompliance. s A total of $15,178 has been withheld from Indian Creek Village, at their request, since Fiscal Year 2007. Pursuant to the respective Interlacal and/or Settlement Agreements, these Municipalities, which were incorporated after November 2002, are receiving a share of the County's Surtax Proceeds consistent with the other Municipal distributions. s As per OCITT, Municipality received $3,000 in excess of amounts due for Fiscal Year 2012, which was corrected in 2013. Schedule I Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2 03 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 All Year's $ 6 905,410 S 10,580,915 $ 11,208,930 $ 12,562,541 $ 12,855,629 $ 12,574,719 $ 11,545,439 $ 11,946,673 $ 13,113,576 $ 13,555,331 $ 14,564,114 $ 131,413,277 4382,718 6,715,483 7,0I4,990 7,730,686 7,656,151 7,336,976 6,672,306 6,709,589 7,117,975 7,623,497 8,118,432 77,078,803 1686,079 2,583,517 2,719,756 3,029,839 3,108,056 2,960,734 2,736,361 2,765,507 2,916,205 2,978,728 3,166,271 30,651,053 I136,965 1,742,129 1,805,505 1,989,253 2,004,095 1,919,328 1,759,840 1,755,291 1,836,714 1,994,866 2,107,503 20,051,485 621,791 952,745 1,051,671 1,208,129 1,275,853 1,387,011 1,681,886 1,747,262 1,809,949 2,053,440 2,204,159 15,993,896 810,099 1,241,148 1,298,953 1,467,752 1,480,710 1,426,754 1,302,297 1,346,817 1,429,343 1,587,452 1,685,507 15,076,742 - - - 10,352,937 3,837,951 14,190,888 799,300 1,224,740 1,267,423 1,402,019 1,366,735 1,307,355 1,195,378 1,202,159 1,260,998 1,409,058 1,493,737 13,928,902 495,408 759,096 818,788 933,612 947,021 946,296 887,089 912,935 977,774 1,213,562 1,280,248 10,171,829 460,331 705,348 737,093 822,002 822,114 876,926 760,175 774,921 810,925 996,347 1,052,533 8,818,715 459,612 704,246 745,086 824,252 823,908 807,842 734,476 740,194 789,514 794,405 841,373 8,264,908 373,801 572,763 604,331 676,565 681,956 657,921 598,273 615,769 659,652 737,631 780,808 6,959,470 361,540 553,977 579,684 639,364 646,631 627,523 14,305 572,099 612,279 618,387 1,205,816 6,431,605 293,299 449,411 486,866 548,772 555,020 582,250 547,355 593,184 613,819 706,920 752,852 6,129,748 - - - - - - _ - 3,886,873 1,453,608 5,340,481 - _ - - - 3,642,653 1,667,049 5,309,702 291,102 446,045 468,652 533,416 513,020 497,615 448,435 445,408 480,123 516,448 552,018 5,192,282 259,738 397,985 412,534 456,196 459,353 440,937 398,334 398,681 421,632 468,600 496,146 4,610,136 270,238 414,075 429,218 472,215 477,595 458,867 418,273 419,090 350,048 368,080 390,842 4,468,541 202,733 310,644 333,638 369,378 379,639 368,354 333,808 339,806 358,459 418,886 443,069 3,858,414 203,889 312,415 323,655 360,476 351,494 338,279 308,347 328,868 357,423 395,573 443,069 3,723,488 197,655 302,860 313,826 346,278 348,437 335,963 301,400 313,310 340,930 345,317 368,810 3,5I4,786 153,748 235,582 254,464 288,454 291,983 295,447 272,056 299,755 320,951 381,591 419,450 3,213,481 126,762 194,231 198,770 218,913 215,921 186,169 167,474 200,385 214,742 242,190 263,374 2,228,931 113,307 173,613 185,212 202,961 194,190 184,561 167,123 I67,329 180,093 202,418 214,600 1,985,407 95,908 .146,959 157,799 184,160 144,185 223,419 168,6I0 170,243 180,473 194,919 206,033 1,872,708 96,989 148,613 155,936 172,145 173,190 167,339 150,306 151,009 160,052 190,982 201,912 1,768,473 62,045 95,070 104,750 117,666 110,586 106,676 97,167 96,222 100,460 103,670 110,094 1,104,406 62,707 96,085 99,550 112,832 105,834 95,526 $9,285 97,016 104,292 85,278 89,667 1,038,072 47,795 73,232 76,045 84,400 84,367 82,000 73,663 73,579 77,875 78,896 83,900 835,752 44,592 68,325 70,576 77,979 78,619 76,184 68,729 67,579 71,151 80,594 85,654 789,982 21,186 32,464 33,963 37,170 37,616 41,385 33,052 33,111 35,277 28,436 29,889 363,549 17,511 26,830 27,952 32,999 24,732 7,016 37,226 27,846 29,686 31,187 33,042 296,027 625 955 931 I,093 - - - - - - - 3,604 $ 21,054,793 $ 32,261,501 ' $ 33,986,547 $ 37,903,517 $ 38t214,640 $ 37,317,372 $ 33,968,468 $ 35 311,637 $ 37,732,390 $ 58,285,152 $ 50,643,530 $ 416,67 Schedule II Charter County Transportation System Surtax Review - City of Miami Surtax Proceeds Usage Description Fiscal Year Ended September 2012 30, 2013 AU Years 2011 Surtax Proceeds (Schedule I) $ 13,113,576 $ 13,555,331 $ 14,564,114 $ 41,233,021 Interest Attributable to Unused Surtax Funds (Table V) 275,211 359,279 328,642 963,132 $ 13,388,787 $ 13,914,610 $ 14,892,756 $ 42,196,153 Surtax Uses: Eligible Transit Expenditures (Table II) 2 $ 86,507 $ 1,834,586 $ 2,604,360 $ 4,525,453 Eligible Transportation Expenditures (Table III) $ 10,138,870 $ 12,119,355 $ 13,706,880 $ 35,965,105 Less MOE (4,718,932) (4,718,932) (4,718,932) (14,156,796) Expenditures Available For Surtax Use $ 5,419,938 $ 7,400,423 $ 8,987,948 $ 2I,808,309 AMS Analysis: Transit -Related Expenditures: Expenditures Available for Surtax Use $ 86,507 $ 1,834,586 $ 2,604,360 $ 4,525,453 Less 20% Minimum. Amount 1 (2,622,715) (2,711,066) (2,912,823) (8,246,604) Increase In Unspent Funds $ (2,536,208) $ (876,480) $ (308,463) $ (3,721,159 Analysis of Unspent Rollover: Beginning Balance (Schedule II -A) $ 10,714,840 $ 13,251,048 $ 14,127,528 $ 10,714,840 Increase In Unspent Amounts 2,536,208 876,480 308,463 3,721,151 Remaining Unspent Amount $ 13,251,048 $ 14,127,528 $ 14,435,991 $ 14,435,991 Transportation -Related Expenditures: Expenditures Available for Surtax Use $ 5,419,938 $ 7,400,423 $ 8,987,948 $ 21,808,309 Less Remaining 80% Amount 1 (10,490,861) (10,844,265) (11,651,291) (32,986,417) Less Interest Attributable to Unused Surtax Proceeds (Table V) (275,211) (359,279) (328,642) (963,132) Increase In Unspent Funds $ (5,346,134) $ (3,803,121) $ (2,991,985) $ (12,141,240) Analysis of Unspent Rollover: Beginning Balance (Schedule II -A) $ 33,527,427 $ 38,873,561 $ 42,676,682 $ 33,527,427 Increase In Unspent Amounts 5,346,134 3,803,121 2,991,985 12,141,240 Remaining Unspent Amount $ 38,873,561 $ 42,676,682 $ 45,668,667 $ 45,668,667 At least 20% of the Surtax Proceeds must be used on Transit -related projects, such as circulator buses, and the remaining funds (80%) are earmarked for eligible Transportation projects. 7 Trolley Services began in Fiscal Year (FY) 2012. The FY 2011 amount includes planning and professional costs. Schedule II -A Charter County Transportation System Surtax Review - City of Miami Surtax Proceeds Usage Analysis, as Restated Descrittion Fiscal Year Ended September 30, All Years 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Surtax Proceeds (Schedule 1) $ 6,905,410 $ 10,580,915 $ 11,208,930 $ 12,562,541 $ 12,855,629 $ 12,574,719 $ 11,545,439 $ 11,946,673 $ 90,180,256 Interest Attributable to Unused Surtax Funds (Table V) - - - - - 8118,038 498 542 352,779 1 659 359 $ 6,905,410 $ 10,580,915 $ 11,208,930 $ 12,562,541 $ 12,855,629 $ 13,382,757 $ 12,043,981 $ 12,299,452 $ 91,839,615 Surtax Uses: Eligible Transit Expenditures 2 $ - $ 442,443 $ 1,141,000 $ 1,345,457 $ 3,445,017 $ 826,485 $ 32,010 $ 88,800 $ 7,321,212 Eligible Transportation Expenditures 2 $ 4,719,207 $ 5,909,050 $ 10,040,778 $ 10,847,731 $ 18,998,936 $ 9,751,902 $ 9,322,999 $ 8,436,989 $ 78,027,592 Less MOE (4,718,932) (4,718,932) (4,718,932) (4,718,932) (4,718,932) (4,718,932) (4,718,932) (4,718,932) (37,751,456) Expenditures Available For Surtax Use $ 275 $ 1,190,118 $5321,846 $ 6,128,799 $ 14,280,004 $ 5,032,970 $ 4,604,067 $ 3,718,057 $ 40,276,136 AMS Analysis: Transit -Related Expenditures: Expenditures Available for Surtax Use $ - $ 442,443 $ 1,141,000 $ 1,345,457 $ 3,445,017 $ 826,485 $ 32,010 $ 88,800 $ 7,321,212 Less 20% Minimum Amount 1 (1,381,082) (2,116,183) (2,241,786) (2,512,508) (2,571,126) (2,514,944) (2,309,088) (2,389,335) (18,036,052) Amount Available (Unavailable) for Surtax Use (1,381,082) (1,673,740) (1,100,786) (1,I67,051) 873,891 (1,688,459) (2,277,078) (2,300,535) (10,714,840) Amount Applied to Reduce Unspent Transit Funds - - - - - - - (873,891) Increase In Unspent Funds $ (1,381,082) $ (1,673,740) $ (1,100,786) $ (1,167,051) _(873,891) $ - $ (1,688,459) $ (2,277,078) $ (2,300,535) $ (11,588,731) Analysis of Unspent Rollover: Beginning Balance $ - $ 1,381,082 $ 3,054,822 $ 4,155,608 $ 5,322,659 $ 4,448,768 $ 6,137,227 $ 8,414,305 $ - Increase In Unspent Amounts 1,381,082 1,673,740 1,100,786 1,167,051 - 1,688,459 2,277,078 2,300,535 11,588,731 Amount Applied to Reduce Unspent Rollover Funds - - - - (873,891) - - - (873,891) Remaining Unspent Amount $ 1,381,082 $ 3,054,822 $ 4,155,608 $ 5,322,659 $ 4,448,768 $ 6,137,227 $ 8,414,305 $ 10,714,840 $ 10,714,840 Transportation -Related Expenditures: Expenditures Available for Surtax Use $ 275 $ 1,190,118 $ 5,321,846 $ 6,128,799 $ 14,280,004 $ 5,032,970 $ 4,604,067 $ 3,718,057 $ 40,276,136 Less Remaining 80% Amount' (5,524,328) (8,464,732) (8,967,144) (10,050,033)10,284,503 ( ) (10,059,775) (9,236,351) (9,557,338) (72,144,204) Less Interest Attributable to Unused Surtax Proceeds - - - - - (808,038) (498,542) (352,779) (1,659,359 Amount Available (Unavailable) for Surtax Use (5,524,053) (7,274,614) (3,645,298) (3,921,234) 3,995,501 (5,834,843) (5,130,826) (6,192,060) (33,527,427) Amount Applied to Reduce Unspent Rollover Funds - - - - (3,995,501) - - - (3,995,501) Increase In Unspent Funds $ (5,524,053) $ (7,274,614) $ (3,645,298) $ (3,921,234) $ - $ (5,834,843) $ (5,130,826) $ (6,192,060) $ (37,522,928) Analysis of Unspent Rollover: Beginning Balance $ - $ 5,524,053 $ 12,798,667 $ 16,443,965 $ 20,365,199 $ 16,369,698 $ 22,204,541 $ 27,335,367 $ - Increase In Unspent Amounts 5,524,053 7,274,614 3,645,298 3,921,234 - 5,834,843 5,130,826 6,192,060 37,522,928 Amount Applied to Reduce Unspent Rollover Funds - - - - (3,995,501) - - - (3,995,501) Remaining Unspent Amount $ 5,524,053 $ 12,798,667 $ 16,443,965 $ 20,365,199 $ 16,369,698 $ 22,204,541 $ 27,335,367 $ 33,527,427 $ 33,527,427 nt yeast zo i at the Surtax Yroceeds must be used on Transit -related projects, sue h as circulator buses, end the remaining funds (60%a) are earmarked for elig'ble Transportation projects. 2 See Schedule III -A and the September 30, 2011 and March 9, 2609 Audit Reports for details of claimed amounts. Schedule III Charter County Transportation System Surtax - City of Miami Listing of Claimed Uses of Transportation Proceeds Description Project Number 40-B Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2011 2012 2013 Alt Years Street Lighting Street Improvement Projects: Capital Improvement Direct and Indirect Labor Costs Gibson Park Area Street Improvements Palm Grove Road Improvements West Flagler Area Street Improvements Transportation Planning Services Miami River Roadway- NW I0th Avenue to NW 12th Avenue SW 32nd Avenue Improvements - Additional Services Brickell Key Bridge Miami River Greenways - NW 5th Street Pavement and Drainage NE 2nd Avenue Road Improvements Overtown Greenway at NW 11 th Terrace NW 12th Avenue/NW 12th Place Roadway Improvements Tigertail Resurfacing Shorecrest Roadway Milling & Resurfacing Project Brickell Area Shared Use Path and Roadway Improvements Northwest 14th Street Roadway Project Center Grove Street Improvements SE 3rd Street Widening/Dupont Plaza Traffic Recirculation NW 14th Avenue and 28th Street Area Roadway Improvements Transportation Planning Services Bird Avenue Road Improvement SW/NW 17th Avenue Traffic Corridor Study Fair Isle Area Roadway and Drainage Improvements SW 19th Terrace Improvements (SW 23rd Avenue to SW 24th) FEC Quiet Zone Study - Future Passenger Railway Planning South Bayshore Drive Roadway and Drainage Improvements Roadway, Drainage, and Traffic Improvements Allapattah Area Roadway Improvement Shenandoah Area Street Improvements SW 2nd Street and SW 40th Avenue Traffic Circle Coconut Grove Park Area Milling & Resurfacing Baywalk Mobility Plan Health District Bicycle and Pedestrian Mobility Study US-1 Median Closures at Bridgeport and SW 30th Court Transportation Planning Services Drainage Projects; San Marco and Biscayne Islands Drainage Improvements Englewood Storm Sewer - Phase III Northwest Storm Sewers Garden Storm Sewer - Phase I Downtown Roadway Lighting and Beautification - North Miscellaneous Projects less than S 10,000 Total Claimed Project Costs Debt Service (Schedule IV) Total Claimed Uses of Surtax Proceeds (Table 111) Less Disallowed Costs: Debt Service Related to Unspent Debt Proceeds (Schedule IV) Excess Personnel Costs Charged as Direct Labor Bay -walk Mobility Plan - Stand -Alone Sidewalk Project Claimed Costs, as Adjusted (Table III) Trans-122001 30305C 30630 30774 30645B 30651 40704A 30634 30336 78508 30624 30883 30716 30035B 30822 30518 30621 31206 30780 70245 30628 30993 30823 30695 40268 30646 50706A 30782 30775 30779 30035 30645D 30645C 30662D 70246 30588 30011 30014 30183 30606N Trans-122001 30645D $ 5,183,184 339,153 445,666 135,673 153,234 187,758 277,079 103,743 85,579 48,881 2,036 49,897 6,881 8,517 50,159 248 18,851 6,221 2,860 1,922,436 33,421 69,655 17,152 1,047 121,275 5,053 7,231,948 6,141,816 13,373,764 (3,234,894) $ 10,138,870 $ 5,203,550 282,119 493,022 493,817 133,502 281,518 187,466 34,050 90,256 83,040 198,229 145,263 67,477 122,411 184,760 8,676 76,582 20,135 45,837 3,442 20,396 2,945 36,058 356 13,206 3,328 5,640 3,226 3,036,757 236,874 62,665 16,872 5,787 322,198 20,182 6,712 8,589,399 6,190,600 14,779,999 (2,597,576) (59,740) (3,328) $12,119 355 $ 5,508,137 473,920 197,423 647,847 223,324 131,456 421,472 2,235 177,060 62,906 136,310 188,968 90,638 4,338 163,883 8,956 102,387 74,009 50,760 95,565 79,965 63,160 69,328 27,874 (2,021) 19,029 30,510 25,700 22,443 20,473 8,672 4,889 10,296 3,633,775 424,042 24,164 1,109 7,775 457,090 17,105 9,616,107 6,252,800 15,868,907 (2,144,710) (8,645) (8,672) $ 13,706,880 $ 15,894,871 1,095,192 938,688 826,913 781,349 658,076 506,680 455,522 369,570 363,843 346,714 330,454 256,445 213,049 191,134 172,559 135,435 102,387 101,025 96,597 95,565 91,924 83,556 72,273 63,932 48,494 32,483 30,510 25,700 22,443 20,473 18,851 12,000 11,861 10,975 10,296 8,592,968 694,337 156,484 35,133 14,609 900,563 20,182 28,870 25,437,454 18,585,216 44,022,670 (7,977,180) (68,385) (12,000) $ 35,965,105 Source: City of Miami Accounting Records Street Lighting consists of monthly utility charges, which are used to satisfy the City✓s annual Maintenance of Effort Schedule III -A Charter County Transportation System Surtax Review - City of Miami Listing of Claimed Uses of Transportation Proceeds, as Restated Description Project Number 40-B Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2008 2009 2010 All Years Street Lighting ° - $ 4,926,248 $ 4,950,392 $ 5,054,584 $ 14,931,224 Street Improvement Projects: Transportation and Transit - Capital Improvement Direct Labor Costs Trans-122001 438,121 417,816 354,291 1,210,228 South Miami Avenue Improvements 60479 755,700 14,226 - 769,926 Model City Infrastructure - MLK Boulevard 78505 617,812 - 617,812 NE 2nd Avenue Improvements 78508 - 135,356 374,445 509,801 Spring Garden Bridge Repairs 60459 447,563 40,253 - 487,816 Downtown Infrastructure Streets - Phase II 30177 346,042 15,575 - 361,617 Miami River Greenway Project - Segment G-Jose Marti Extension 40695 364,164 (87,554) 1,623 278,233 US1 Milling/Resurfacing Improvements and Wall Replacement 30542 239,456 - - 239,456 NW 18th Terrace Street Improvements 30570 219,551 - - 219,551 Brickell Streetscape Project 40666 - 212,860 - 212,860 NW 14th Street Streetscape Project 30518 - 42,430 166,248 208,678 NE 4th Street Improvements 30357 89,581 - 108,229 197,810 NW 20th Street Streetscape 30328 74,440 116,522 3,805 194,767 Transportation Program Support Services - Transportation Professional Services 30645B - 49,659 124,371 174,030 Brickell Key Bridge Rehabilitation Project 30634 - - 141,164 141,164 NE 39th Street Reconstruction (Design District / FEC) 31208 97,968 - - 97,968 Bird. Avenue Road Improvement 30628 - 72,483 23,703 96,186 MiMo Sidewalks and Median Landscape Uplighting 30564 79,000 - - 79,000 Palm Grove Road Improvements 30630 - 983 74,854 75,837 Miami River Greenways - NW 5th Street Bridge Extension 30336 - 5,370 60,727 66,097 Gibson Park Area Street Improvements - Street Component of B-30305B 30305C - - 61,312 61,312 Buena Vista Heights - Phase II - D5 30323 7,874 27,792 20,249 55,915 Miami River Greenway Streetscape Project - Seg C 40692 10,394 43,851 186 54,431 Civic Center / Health District Comprehensive Traffic Study 30093 28,200 25,800 54,000 NW 32nd Street, NW 23rd Avenue, NW 24th Avenue 30507 49,382 - - 49,382 Management of Various Street Projects 30573 39,992 2,600 - 42,592 Miami River Greenway Streetscape Project Seg B 40691 40,037 - 40,037 Civic Center Implementation Plan 30248 14,448 15,339 - 29,787 Miami River Greenway (NW loth Avenue to NW 12th Avenue) 30651 - 4,933 10,168 15,101 SW 16th Avenue - D3 30168C - 2,419 7,619 10,038 Miscellaneous Amounts less than $10,000 - 24,608 996 8,311 33,915 3,944,296 1,199,746 1,541,305 6,685,347 Traffic Calming Projects: Silver Bluff Traffic Calming - Phase 1 - D4 30168 232,896 - (2,042) 230,854 SW 27th & 28th St, Closures - E of 27th Ave. Traffic Calming Circle Virginia St./Shipping Ave. 30083A 171,616 46,461 395 218,472 Shenandoah Traffic Calming - Phase 1 30167 7,992 166,165 174,157 West Little Havana, Home Depot Area Traffic Circles 30235A 125,677 23,425 - 149,102 Citywide Traffic Circles D2, D3, and D4 30235 (7,767) 31,793 6,090 30,116 Shore Crest Traffic Circles 30235E 5,190 - 5,190 535,604 267,844 4,443 807,891 Beautification Projects: Downtown Beautification - North 30606N - 841,602 - 841,602 Downtown Beautification - South 30606S - 454,083 4,017 458,100 Downtown Beautification Project Phase I 30606 9,518 - - 9,518 9,518 1,295,685 4,017 1,309,220 Claimed Project Costs, as Restated 9,415,666 7,713,667 6,604,349 23,733,682 Allowable Debt Service (Schedule IV) - 336,236 1,609,332 1,832,640 3,778,208 Claimed Costs, as Restated $ 9,751,902 $ 9,322,999 $ 8,436,989 $ 27,511,890 ource: City of Miami Accounting Records Street Lighting consists of monthly utility charges, which are used to satisfy the City's annual Maintenance of Effort Charter County Transportation System Surtax Review - City of Miami Allowable Debt Service Costs - Street and Sidewalks Bonds Description Bonds Issued Unspent Carryover Bond Funds Available for Use Uses of Bond Proceeds (Schedule V): Street Improvement Projects Drainage Projects Roadway Lighting and Beautification Debt Service Reserve Funding - Series 2009 Bonds Sidewalk Projects Other Total Uses of Proceeds Unspent Proceeds2 % of Issued Bonds Left Unspent Bonds Outstanding Debt Service Requirements: Principal Interest Total Debt Service Less; Allocation to Other Funding Sources 3 Debt Service Charged to Surtax % Charged to Surtax AMS Analysis: Debt Service Charged to Surtax Less: Debt Service Attributable to Other Sources 4 Amount Attributable to Unspent Proceeds 5 Allowable Debt Service Source: City of Miami Audited Financial Statements and General Led Series 2007 Bonds in the amount of $80 million and Series 2009 Bonds in the amount of $65 million were issued in FY 2008 and 2010, respectively, to fund a variety of street and sidewalk improvements. 2 Unspent amounts for FYs 2008 and 2009 were calculated using project expenditures; amounts in subsequent years are per Audited Financial Statements. 2 According to Bond Official Statements, Local Option Gas Tax and Parking Surcharge revenues, along with Surtax Proceeds, were pledged to repay the Bonds. In FY 2008, the City charged 100% of Debt Service payments to Surtax, yet sbould have allocated a portion to the other funding sources, consistent with subsequent years. s The City had substantial amounts of unused Debt Proceeds, and therefore cannot claim all Debt Service as allowable uses of Surtax monies. Disallowed Debt Service is calculated as Debt Service Charged to Surtax (as adjusted in FY 2008), multiplied by the percentage of Unspent Proceeds in each year. . Schedule IV All Years $ 145,000,000 59,404,018 16,253,970 11,192,083 5,870,698 2,735,028 (195,797) 95,260,000 $ 49,740,000 34.30% $ 10,165,000 32,996,687 43,161,687 (14,698,741) $ 28,462,946 65.9% $ 28,462,946 (857,740) (13,218,962) $ 14,386,244 Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 $ 80,000,000 $ - $ 65,000,000 $ - $ - _ $ - - 60,366,800 39,935,373 85,096,438 76,364,731 60,840,449 80,000,000 60,366,800 104,935,373 85,096,438 76,364,731 60,840,449 12,237,379 14,656,053 7,520,027 6,678,494 10,180,169 8,131,896 4,405,735 2,699,567 569,011 2,881,153 4,552,300 1,146,204 2,168,814 2,898,530 3,233,718 400,641 1,844,934 645,446 - - 5,870,698 - - - 821,272 177,277 368,597 492,387 234,818 640,677 - - 2,276,884 (1,720,968) (1,287,939) 536,226 19,633,200 20,431,427 19,838,935 8,731,707 15,524,282 11,100,449 $ 60,366,800 $ 39,935,373 $ 85,096,438 $ 76,364,731 $ 60,840,449 $ 49,740,000 75.46% 49.92% 58.69% 52.67% 41.96% 34.30 / $ 80,000,000 $ 78,640,000 $ 142,225,000 $ 139,845,000 $ 137,385,000 $ 134,835,000 $ - $ 1,360,000 $ 1,415,000 $ 2,380,000 $ 2,460,000 $ 2,550,000 2,227,896 3,865,656 5,775,435 7,126,250 7,044,375 6,957,075 2,227,896 5,225,656 7,190,435 9,506,250 9,504,375 9,507,075 - (2,012,134) (2,754,123) (3,364,434) (3,313,775) (3,254,275) $ 2,227,896 $ 3,213,522 $ 4,436,312 $ 6,141,816 $ 6,190,600 $ 6,252,800 100.0% 61.5% 61.7% 64.6% 65.1% 65.8% $ 2,227,896 $ 3,213,522 $ 4,436,312 $ 6,I41,816 $ 6,190,600 $ 6,252,800 (857,740) - - - - - (1,033,920) (1,604,190) (2,603,672) (3,234,894) (2,597,576) (2,144,710) $ 336,236 $ 1,609,332 $ 1,832,640 $ 2,906,922 $ 3,593,024 $ 4,108,090 Schedule 1.'V-A Charter County Transportation System Surtax Review - City of Miami Summary of Debt Service Requirements By Bond Issue D Description Fiscal Year Ended September 30, All Years 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Special Obligation Revenue Bonds Series 2007: Outstanding Principal Less Principal Payment/Payoff Outstanding Balance Debt Service Requirements: Principal Interest $ 80,000,000 - $ 80,000,000 (1,360,000) $ 78,640,000 (1,415,000) $ 77,225,000 (1,470,000) $ 75,755,000 (1,530,000D $ 74,225,000 (1,590 000) $ 7,365,000 20,989,026 $ 80,000,000 $ 78,640,000 $ 77,225,000 $ 75,755,000 $ 74,225,000 $ 72,635,000 $ - 2,227,896 $ 1,360,000 3,865,656 $ 1,415,000 3,810,156 $ 1,470,000 3,752,456 $ 1,530,000 3,695,906 $ 1,590,000 3,636,956 $ 2,227,896 $ 5,225,656 $ 5,225,156 $ 5,222,456 $ 5,225,906 $ 5,226,956 $ 28,354,026 On December 5, 2007, the City elf Miami issued 580 million in Special Obligation Bonds, Series 2007 for the 3.5% to 5.25%, maturing from year 2009 to 2037. The City pledged future revenue proceeds of 80% of Surtax purpose of financing various monies, 100 % Local street and sidewalk Option Gas Taxes, and capital improvement projects. 20% of Parking Surcharge The bonds were funds to repay the issued with interest rates bonds. ranging from Special Obligation Revenue Bonds Series 2009: Outstanding Principal Less Principal Payment/Payoff Outstanding Balance Debt Service Requirements: Principal Interest $ - - $ - - $ 65,000,000 - $ 65,000,000 (910,000) $ 64,090,000 $ 64,090,000 (930,000) $ 63,160,000 (960,000) $ 2,800,000 I2,007,661 $ - $ - $ 65,000,000 $ 63,160,000 $ 62,200,000 $ - - $ - - $ . 1,965,279 $ 910,000 3,373,794 $ 930,000 3,348,469 $ 960,000 3,320,119 $ - $ - $ 1,965,279 ' $ 4,283,794 $ 4,278,469 $ 4,280,119 $ 14,807,661 On December 2, 2009, the City 9If 2.5 %to 5.625%, maturing fro rtj Miami issued 565,000,000 in Special Obligation Bonds, year 2011 to 2039. The City pledged future revenue Series 2009 for the proceeds of 80 % of Surtax. purpose of nnancing various ninnies, 100% Local street and sidewalk Option Gas Taxes, and capital improvement 20% of Parking Surcharge projects. The bonds were funds to repay the issued with interest bonds. ores ranging from Total Special Obligation Revenue Bonds; Outstanding Principal Less Principal Payment/Payoff Outstanding Balance Debt Service Requrrements: Principal Interest Allowed Debt Service: Debt Service Claimed 1 Adjustment for Unspent Debt Proceeds -2 Adjustment for Debt Service Attributable to Other Sources 3 $ 80,000,000 - $ 80,000,000 (1,360,000) $ 343,640,000 (1,415,000) $ 142,225,000 (2,380,000) $ 139,845,000 (2,4fi0 000) $ 137,385,000 (2,550,000) $ 10,165,000 32,996,687 $ 80,000,000 $ 78,640,000 $ 142,225,000 $ 139,845,000 $ 137,385,000 $ 134,835,000 $ - 2,227,896 $ 1,360,000 3,865,656 $ 1,4I5,000 5,775,435 $ 2,380,000 7,126,250 $ 2,460,000 7,044,375 $ 2,550,000 6,957,075 $ 2,227,896 $ 5,225,656 $ 7,190,435 $ 9,506,250 $ 9,504,375 $ 9,507,075 $ 43,161,687 $ 2,227,896 (1,033,920) (857,740) $ 3,213,522 (1,604,190) - $ 4,436,312 (2,603,672) - $ 6,141,816 (3,234,894) - $ 6,190,600 (2,597,576) - $ 6,252,800 (2,144,710) - $ 28,462,946 (13,218,962) (857,740) $ 336,236 $ 1,609,332 $ 1,832,640 $ 2,906,922 $ 3,593,024 $ 4,108,090 $ 14,386,244 Source: bond Otiiaal Statements, City of Miami Audited Financial Statements and Financial Records 1 According to Bond Official Statements, Local Optian Gas Tax and Parking Surcharge revenues were also pledged to repay the Bonds. 2 The City had substantial amounts of unused Debt Proceeds, and therefore cannot claim all Debt Service as allowable uses of Surtax monies. Disallowed Debt Service is calculated as Debt Service Charged to Surtax (as adjusted in FY 2003), multiplied by the percentage of Unspent Proceeds in each year. 3 In FY 2003, the City charged 100 % of Debt Service payments to Surtax, yet should have allocated a portion to the other funding sources, consistent withsubsequent years. Schedule V Charter County Transportation System Surtax Review - City of Miami Expenditures Paid from Bond Proceeds Description Project Number40-B Fiscal Year Ended September 30, All Years 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Street Improvement Projects: Model City/ Floral Park - Street Improvements Phase ❑ US I Roadway Improvements and Wall Replacement Phase 11 USI Milling/Resurfacing Improvements and Wall Replacement Buena Vista Heights - Phase ICI Buena Vista East Historic District - Streetscape Improvements Ph 11 District 3 NW Quadrant - Phase I Palm Grove Road Improvements Coral Gate Roadway& Wall Improvements SW 32nd Avenue Improvements. Citywide Street Resurfacing Shenandoah Roadway Improvements Buena Vista Heights East Roadway and Lighting NW 18th Avenue Roadway Improvement Project Little River Industrial Park Silver Bluff Traffic Calming - Phase 2 NW 32nd Street, NW 23rd Avenue, NW 24th Avenue Venetian Causeway Improvements North Spring Garden Greenway SW 32nd Avenue Improvements Additional Services NW 1st Street Miscellaneous Streets Paving Phase II NW 15th Street (NW 32nd Avenue to NW 37th Avenue) NW 14th Terrace (32-37 Avenues) Model City Street Resurfacing Project NW 58th St / NW 58th Terrace 0vertown, Little Haiti, and Model City Street Resurfacing Project Shorecrest Roadway Milling & Resurfacing Project Venetian Causeway Improvements NW 11th Street Roadway Improvement Project NW 43rd Avenue Street Improvements NW 9th Street Roadway improvement Project SW llth Street(14-17 Avenue) North Shorecrest Roads Improvements Project Flagler Terrace (12th Avenue to 17th Avenue) Beacom Project Area Improvements Flagami Traffic Calming Phase IV Coconut Grove Park Area Milling & Resurfacing NW 27th Street Flagami Tragic Calming Improvement (Phase II) NW29th Terrace Silver Bluff Traffic Calming Priority 3 NW 34th Street NW 2nd Street SW 5th Street (55-57 Avenue} Miami River Greenway SW 1st Court to South Miami Avenue NW 33rd Street Roadway Improvement Project NW lath Street (30-32 Avenues) . NW4th Terrace NW 25th Street Miami River Geeenwaysl Streetseape Segment D Flagami Traffic Calming Phase 111 Various Streets in Grove Area - 27th Ave Ln St Closure - Virginia Street 1-95 South Miami Terminal Street improvements Tigerteil Resurfacing NW 8th Street Roadway & Drainage Improvements District 3 NW Quadrant - Phase El NW 131h Terrace NW 35th Street NW 24th Street Between NW 14th and NW 17th Avenues NW 14th Avenue & 28th Street Area Roadway Improvements FtagamiTraffic Calming NW 16th Street/Terrace (27-28 Avenues) Civic Center Infrastructure NW 24th Street (from 12th to 13th Ave_) - NW 24th Avenue between NW 3rd Street to NW 6th Street NW 14th Avenue Between NW 24th. to NW 27th Streets NW 21st Avenue between NW 1st and NW 3rd Streets NW 36th Court SW 15th Road (Coral Way- South Miami Avenue) SW 13th Street Roadway & Drainage improvements Traffic Calming SW 6th Street Project Coral Gate Community improvements SW 16th Avenue Roadway & Drainage Improve cots 30138 30542A 30542 30323 78500A 30020C 30630 30627 40704 30583 3016711 78500B 30727 30540 30168E 30507 39911 40643A 40704A 30020A 30025E 30019F 30019C 30614 30654A 30035E 39911 30725 30565 30732 300348 3003 SA 3002613 30699 40672D 30035 30500B 40672E 30500A 30168A 30500F 30620B 30025A 30130 30724 30019B 30019G 305000 40686 40672C 30037E 30718 30716 30745 30020D 300I9H 30500D 30705 30780 40672G 30019D 30500 30500E 30715 30704 30712 300t9A 30031C 30747 30771 311717 30741 $ 1,792,038 - 2,456,473 110,569 1,536,182 29,349 - - 1,376,695 631,046 - 9,445 - 173,679 99,525 1,018,294 - 10,189 - - 12,568 - 10,000 - - - - - 626,324 - 44,049 - - - - - 552,504 88,269 548,521 - - - - - - 9,993 - 475,149 - - 6,862 - - - - - - - - - - 9,993 - - - - - 205,703 107,537 - - - - $ 705,508 - 44,377 1,266,242 328,040 1,721,951 - 74,837 12,208 758,147 93,326 8,859 - 165,638 419,243 - - 310,915 - 27,025 760,908 773,234 783,481 628,385 699,413 - - - - - 13,463 /05,446 579,860 - - - - 170,558 439 54,297 497,165 483,033 13,187 4,527 - 451,855 461,560 1,268 133,953 74,885 342,324 - - - 352,911 32,615 - - - - 291,434 - 269,636 - - - - 89,765 - - - - $ 70,853 24,479 - 1,104 904 110,979 223,599 - 1,319,719 - (6,663) 25,942 14,584 - 422,133 573,608 - - 31,069 1,922 696,149 25,974 25,990 - 114,939 24,965 - - - - - 440,181 25,682 19,644 - - 549,350 - 292,048 - 17,934 38,148 26,629 329,294 96,523 - 17,155 14,869 - 74,348 367,098 102,163 - - - 13,287 42.,361 17,814 - - - - 2,371 - - - - - 5,951 - - - - $ 29 1,114,166 83 544 21 (22,577) 267,098 149,636 - - 268,092 1073,267 123,I15 245,074 64,652 - 32,747 110,596 199,256 105,705 9 9 - 9 10 3,891 - 35,550 - 63,104 117,760 108,309 4,558 13,469 24,465 30,508 - 1,143 - 1,650 6 319 165,756 208,995 136,031 - 6 - 78,235 10,047 - 45,903 56,588 - 4 287,133 193,496 55,262 - 82,594 - 25,142 - 245,254 76,623 19,457 - 2 2,297 90,641 - $ - 1,006,622 - - - - 1,336,267 - - - 632,207 22,737 103,310 8,505 - - 982,134 337,973 532,985 - - - - - - 650,083 - 137,737 - 497,042 - 296,125 - 3,254 120,965 1,384 - - - 353,753 - - - 105,300 309,878 - - - 48,226 - - 355,660 268,354 30,548 - - 145,438 40,584 770 141,846 - 236,140 - 1,778 143,015 116,400 - - 34,523 39,856 100,076 43,549 $ - 386,101 - - - - 185,322 - - - 322,525 167,243 1,040,138 205,679 - - - 128,569 144,878 - - - - - - 5,864 645,313 260,748 - 59,463 - 76,621 - 585,562 452,356 - - - - 103,401 - - - 85,385 48,147 - - - 117,439 - - 18,464 62,266 338,543 - - - 242,868 330,705 101,568 - 43,916 - 3,496 - 203 - - 165,807 156,710 - 145,905 $ 2,568,428 2,531368 2,500,933 2,482,259 1,975,272 1,952,322 1,788,687 1,544,192 1,388,903 1,382,530 1,342,092 1,296,135 1,266,633 1,220,768 1,157,028 1,018,294 1,014,881 929,311 879,041 828,879 799,459 799,233 793,481 741,133 724,388 659,138 645,313 634,035 626,324 639,609 615,453 612,183 604,062 602,285 597,786 581,242 552,504 552,018 548,969 531,035 516,019 509,981 5013,237 500,730 494,056 479,003 476,435 476,408 452,181 452,030 451,349 420,027 387,208 369,091 366,222 362,109 356,748 338,714 331,475 326,008 308,427 307,569 269,636 250,528 219,638 206,060 205,703 203,255 200,330 198,863 190,717 189,454 Page 1 of2 Schedule V Cha rter County Transportation System Surtax Review - City of Miami Expenditures Paid from Bond Proceeds Description Project Number 40-13 Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 All Years Management of Various Street Projects NW North River Drive Little Haiti Soccer Park - Road 3mprovernent to NE 4th Avenue NW 14th Court Roadway & Drainage Improvements SW 28th Road Roadway & Drainage improvements Bob Hope Dr. Between NW 20th Street to NW 17th Street Shenandoah Traffic Calming - Phase 11 SW 3rd Avenue Road Improvements Project Luntmus Park Landing Area Project Citrus Grove Roadway Improvements The Reads Roadway Improvements NW 17th Court Roadway Improvement Project SW 16th Avenue from Core) Way to 20th Street SW 25th Road from SW 4th Avenue to SW 5th Avenue Flagami Traffic Calming (including East Little Havana devices) SW 23rd Road Roadway & Drainage Improvements SW 5th Street - 12-13th Avenues NW 1 lih St from 27th to 371h Avenue Area Roadway Improvements NE 2nd Court Roadway & Drainage Improvements Project Beacom Phase 11 SW 23rd Street from SW 171h Ave to 15th Avenue SW 19th Terrace Improvements (SW 23rd to SW 24th Avenue) SW 17th Terrace between SW 18th & 19th Avenues Traffic Calming - Grove Area Speed Humps and Roads improvements at South Greve NW 17th Avenue between NW 3rd and NW Id Street District 2 - Traffic Study at Bridgeport Ave and SW 30th Court Royal Road Milling and Resurfacing Belle Meade Gateway Enclosure Projects Less than S50,000 Drainage Projects: Fairlawn Storm Sewer improvements Project Phase III Fiagarni/West End Storm Sewer Improvements Phase II Northwest Road and Storm Sewers Improvements Belle Meade Storm Sewer Project, Phase II Durham Terrace Drainage Project Englewood Road and Storm Sewer Improvements - Phase DI Fairlawn Storm Sewer Improvements Project Phase 1IB NW 35th Avenue - Streets Improvement Silver Bluff Drainage Improvements NW 30th Court - Street Improvements NW 36th Avenue - Street Improvements San Marco & Biscayne Islands Drainage Improvements NW 19th Street NE 71st Street Storm Sewer Project Mary Brickell Village Drainage Improvements Shenandoah North Street Maintenance NW 36th Street Drainage Improvements Roadway Lighting and Beautification Projects: D WNTWN Beautification - North DWNTWN Beautification - South DWNTWN Beautification (Lighting) Brickell Lighting Phase II DWNTWN Beautification - Design Phase DWNTWN Beautification Project Phase I Grand Avenue & McDonald Street Beautification Sidewalk Projects: Coconut Grove Business improvement District - Street Improvements Citywide Sidewalk Replacement Phase 29 District 1 - Sidewalk Repairs & ADA District 5 - Sidewalk Repairs & ADA District 4 - Sidewalk Repairs & ADA District 2 - Sidewalk Repairs & ADA District 3 - Sidewalk Repairs and ADA District 3 - Sidewalk ADA Retrofits Debt Service Reserve Funding - Series 2009 Bonds Other 30573 30691 30674 30746 30743 30703 30167B 30031A 30643 30749 40326 30728 30719 30720 40672A 30744 30024A 30781 30880 40325 30168E 30695 30710 30037A 30653 30714 30662B 40174 40183 various 50704 50695 30014 50672 30629 30011 50703 30181E 30776 30181C 30181 A 30588 30181D 50690 30637 30034A 30046 39606N 30606S 306061. 40666B 30606D 30606 30676 30687 43114A 30377A 30377E 30377D 30377B 30377C 30677 175,196 70,365 50,871 12,237,379 32,279 720,858 1,392,626 45,431 629,240 569,443 544,870 331,356 89,290 50,282 4,405,735 1,013,784 919,143 166,531 69,356 2,168,814 821,272 13,411 127,488 104,844 112,615 41,591 12,996 44,114 49,047 41,520 94,939 14,656,053 18,326 793,663 557,978 1,187,532 142,068 2,699,567 944,262 1,362,327 449,972 139,414 2,535 2,898,530 24,928 70,322 43,429 32,598 341 48,566 34,645 24,917 12,782 2,654 2,613 18,233 10,536 14,648 72,097 7,520,027 91,176 448,907 339 4,245 2,325 3,875 I5,230 2,017 897 569,011 1,658,477 663,881 825,126 970 25,264 3,233,718 6,833 119,352 134,366 75,322 32,724 821,272 177,277 $ 19,633,200 S 20,431,427 368,597 5,870,698 2,276 884 S 19 838,935 176,513 4 25,763 487 18,321 12,388 21,674 92,634 38,290 35,546 58,460 62,066 40,968 144 57,755 121,672 6,678,494 2,189,990 101,508 557 462,520 76R 39 108,162 16,689 920 2,881,153 4,023 16,963 96,508 126,608 61,711 88,496 73,270 2,126 10,042 20,245 11,184 7 21,836 55,449 38,861 97,814 10,180,169 6,230 1,993,802 1,305,667 982,406 25,613 202,260 36,302 4,552,300 162,078 79,344 146,358 573 2,229 49 10,010 400,641 232,112 193,541 72 72 57,525 7,996 1 069 492,387 357,060 512,131 54,804 828,255 92,684 1,844,934 214,875 19,943 234,818 147,355 52,634 56,316 119,578 108,650 7,610 4,248 79,240 81,836 25,761 81,015 19i 11,156 719,121 8,131,896 1,809 15,648 18,600 459,228 589,134 8,055 53,730 1,146,264 371,013 173,701 84,665 1,227 14,840 645,446 640,677 640,677 (1,720,968) S 8,731,707 (1,287,939) S 15,524,282 536,226 S 11,100,449 188,607 120,877 176,058 164,318 155,142 152,371 139,976 137,532 136,348 119,578 108,650 108,494 99,192 94,762 92,663 89,282 86,015 81,836 81,552 81,015 69,644 64,686 62,804 62,491 59,583 57,755 56,168 55,640 50,017 1,156 514 59,404,018 2,339,810 2,064,936 2,010,346 1,950,664 1,791,052 1,444,727 1,236,877 629,240 614,747 569,443 544,870 333,707 331,356 233,375 106,721 50,282 1,817 16,253,970 4,506,694 3,710,527 1,620,925 828,828 310,371 179,464 35,274 11,192 083 1,094,497 846,200 I93,541 189,746 177,867 132,847 79,318 21,012 2,735 028 5,870,698 (195,797) S 95,260,000 Solace, City oft usmi Arrnrmting Records Page 2 of 2 Finding 1 Use of Surtax Proceeds The City of Miami (City) reported spending $54.9 million on eligible Transit and Transportation Projects, but our review disclosed that $8.6 million was ineligible for Surtax funding. Specifically, $7.4 million was used for storm sewer and drainage projects, while the City's Auditor General stated that $6.85 million in storm water utility fees were improperly used by the General Fund. The balance of ineligible projects included stand- alone sidewalk installations and parking studies. The City had unused funds totaling $29.6 million as of September 30, 2010. Charter County Transportation System Surtax Review — City of Miami Status of Prior Audit Findings Recommendation I Auditee Response Exhibit I Current Status The Office of the Citizens' Independent Transportation Trust (OCITT) should require the City to segregate unspent Surtax funds in a restricted bank account within 30 days, or withhold future funding. The City should submit its Five -Year Transportation Plan specifying how rollover monies will be used. None. Unresolved After restatement for the use of Surtax Proceeds to fund debt service, and the retroactive application of CITT Resolution No. 09-055, the City's unused funds as of September 30, 2013 totaled $60.1 million (Schedule II). The City has not segregated unspent funds in a separate bank account. Moreover, the City has not detailed how it will spend unused Transit funds of $14.4 million and Transportation funds of $45.7 million within five years. (See pages 3-5 of the Audit Report.) Reporting Requirements The Amended Interlocal Agreement requires the City to submit an independent audit report with a disclosure of Surtax Proceeds expended. There was no discrete reporting of Surtax expenditures in the City's annual audited financial statements. Prospectively, the City should provide audited financial statements that comply with the Agreement. ' For the full text, see the Audit Report dated September 30, 2011. None. Partially Resolved The City included a Special Revenue Transportation and Transit Fund in its Annual Financial Statements, but did not identify all Surtax expenditures within that fund. Expenditures were also included within Capital Projects funds, but Surtax items were not separately identified, and were commingled with non -Surtax projects that cannot be verified. (See pages 6-7 of the Audit Report.) Exhibit II Charter County Transportation System Surtax Review — City of Miami Abridged Response Together with AMS Commentary Excerpts of AMS Findings and City of Miami Responses t Suspension of Surtax Distribu tions Effective immediately, OCITT should suspend Surtax distributions to the City until: • A separate bank account has been established to account for all Surtax receipts and disbursements, and legally -available funds totaling $60.1 million, including uncredited interest, have been deposited. • The City can trace the flow of Surtax Proceeds and claimed expenditures through its Special Revenue and Capital Projects Funds, as well as distinguish Surtax - related expenditures from those financed with Local Option Gas Tax monies. Auditee Response: The City disagrees. Similar to Miami -Dade County, the City pools its cash and investments. The City is able to account, monitor, and track the sources and uses of funds. The City segregates Surtax proceeds into two distinct funds, and the transactions in those funds are strictly for the purpose of Surtax -eligible costs. Moreover, the City has recently made changes to the general ledger which will enhance transparency. AMS Rejoinder As cited in the prior audit, there is no clear accounting of the receipt and expenditure of Surtax monies. The City received Surtax monies in one fund, transferred amounts — depending upon the planned use — to the Special Revenue, Capital Projects, and Debt Service funds, as well as commingled Surtax monies with Local Option Gas Tax and other revenue sources. Additionally, the City's financial statements showed Surtax -related cash and investments of $35.5 million as of September 30, 2013, however, unspent Surtax Proceeds were $60.1 million. We agree that discrete funds have improved transparency and accountability. Nonetheless, it is imperative to segregate Surtax monies in a separate bank account to minimize the risk that funds may be used for unauthorized purposes. (See page 3 of the Audit Report.) Disallowance of Debt Service For Unused Proceeds The City had substantial amounts of unused Debt Proceeds, and therefore cannot claim all Debt Service as allowable uses of Surtax monies. Auditee Response: The City disagrees. While the City has not fully spent -down the proceeds related to the 2009 Streets and Sidewalks Bonds, the related debt service has been paid from its inception. Furthermore, the City has fully spent the 2007 bond proceeds and will continue to aggressively spend -down all the remaining 2009 Proceeds. The City has not found enabling legislation that would disallow eligible debt service payments from Surtax funds as a result of unspent bond proceeds. The 2009 bond proceeds have been outstanding for over five years. As of September 30, 2013, 34% of the $145 million borrowed, or $49.7 million, was still outstanding. We reaffirm that taxpayer monies should not be used to pay debt service on unspent Proceeds and thus $14.1 million was disallowed (Schedule IV). (See page 4 of the Audit Report.) Disallowed On -Demand Transportation Costs The City should adhere to the guidance set forth in CITT Ordinance 11-13 for On - Demand Transportation Program charges. Auditee Response: The City does not believe that all of the disallowed costs incurred after March 24, 2011, should be disallowed. The City is currently cross-checking all riders to determine which were already in the County's STS Program. The City respectfully requests the opportunity to finalize cross-checking riders and report its results to the County. All On -Demand Transportation Program costs, totaling $753,000, were disallowed because the City did not comply with the Program eligibility criteria outlined in County Ordinance 11-13. The City was first advised of this noncompliance matter in October 2014, To date, we have not received the requested rider eligibility documentation, and therefore reaffirm the accuracy of our finding. (See page 4 of the Audit Report.) Sec the AMS Audit Report and City of Miami Response incorporated herein for the full text of the respective comments. Page 1 of 2 Exhibit II Excerpts of AMS Charter County Transportation System Surtax Review — City of Miami Abridged Response Together with AMS Commentary Findings and City of Miami Responses' AMS Rejoinder Interest Attributable to Unused Surtax Funds The City commingled unused Surtax Proceeds with other operating monies; however, investment earnings were not allocated in proportion to the Funds' equity share of total pooled resources. Interest earnings on unused Surtax funds should be credited at least monthly and used strictly for eligible Surtax projects. Auditee Response: The City concurs that interest earnings should be credited monthly, however, disagrees with the amount, as our estimate was $1,258,942. The City will credit the applicable interest upon reaching a determination of final unused Surtax proceeds. The City calculated interest using pooled cash balances in Surtax -related Funds per its general ledgers; however, amounts in pooled cash are significantly less than the amount that should have been on account. As of September 30, 2013, the City had Surtax -related pooled cash of $35.5 million, yet unspent Surtax proceeds were $60.1 million. Therefore, our $2.6 million calculation took into account monies that should have been on hand, after considering disallowed costs. (See Table V on page 6 of the Audit Report) Disallowed. Project Management Costs The City charged excess personnel costs as direct labor, as well as other program management costs for projects that were not eligible for Surtax funding. Auditee Response: In its draft response to the September 30, 2011 Audit Report, the City stated that disallowed expenses related to a parking study included a transit and traffic component, including planning and analysis of roadway circulation in the area. The City believes the costs should not be disallowed, Disallowed Stormwater Projects Parking expenditures and their related program management costs are disallowed under published CITT Municipal Guidelines. Such costs totaled $439,000 for the five years ended September 30, 2013. (See Schedule III, as well as the September 30, 2011 Audit Report. ) Prior Stormwater Projects were disallowed after the City's Auditor General cited the improper use of Stormwater Utility Fees by the General Fund. Auditee Response: In its draft response to the September 30, 2011 Audit Report, the City could not find a reference to direct it to use its Stormwater Utility Tax Funds prior to spending CITT Surtax Funds. It is within the City's discretion and authority to use CII 1 Surtax funds while still having available Stormwater funds. Disallowed Stand -Alone Sider�valk Costs Stormwater Projects totaling $3.5 million were disallowed in the prior Audit Report dated September 30, 2011 because the City's Auditor General, in a February 17, 2011 Report, stated that storm water utility fees totaling $6.85 million were improperly used by the General Fund. However, we did allow use of Surtax funds for Stormwater expenditures during the current audit period. Until the expenditures questioned by the former Auditor General are resolved, we cannot allow those prior costs. Stand-alone sidewalk costs were not allowable Surtax expenditures until the CITT passed Resolution 13-054 in November 2013. Such costs were therefore disallowed. Auditee Response: In its draft response to the September 30, 2011 Audit Report, the City cited Florida Department of Transportation definitions of highways, streets, and roads as a public way for purposes of traffic, including both vehicular and pedestrian. The City believes that sidewalk improvements are eligible expenditures. Stand-alone sidewalk expenditures were not permitted by CITT until November 15, 2013, per C117 Resolution 13-054, which was not retroactive. Therefore, we disallowed $133,000 of such costs for the six years ended September 30, 2013. See the AMS Audit Report and City of Miami Response incorporated herein for the full text of the respective comments. Page 2 of 2 Attachment I (fag cif*Mardi, Ior t-t DANIEL J. ALFONSO CITY MANAGER September 15, 2015 Ms. Cathy Jackson, Director, Audit and Management Services Department 701 NW 1st Court, Suite 8-175 Miami, Florida 33136 Re: City Audit Report — Charter County Transit System Surtax Review Dear Ms. Jackson, P.O. BOX 330708 MIAMI. FLORI DA 33233-C708 (305) 250-5400 FAX (305) 250-5410 We are in receipt of the draft titled "Audit Report — Charter County Transportation System Surtax Review — City of Miami". In order to provide you with a comprehensive response and address all outstanding issues, we have carefully reviewed the most current report along with the two preceding reports. To facilitate your review of our responses, please find below a table reconciling the City of Miami's (the "City") available Surtax funds per its general ledger as of September 30, 2013, and the results of the County's reviews for the same period. For easy reference, we have also attached the respective page from the corresponding audit report that discusses each matter. Our responses will follow the legend number in the table below. We would like to thank you and your staff for all of your assistance and appreciate the opportunity to further discuss our responses and position. In moving forward effectively, we need to discuss each of the disallowed points enumerated below and reach a determination. We firmly believe our points have merit and greatly appreciate your consideration. The City disagrees with the recommendation that the Citizens' Independent Transportation Trust ("CITT") should suspend Surtax distribution to the City until a separate bank has been established to account for all Surtax receipts and disbursement. The City, similar to Miami -Dade County and other municipalities, pools its cash and investments. Through its financial system, the City is able to account, monitor, and track the sources and uses of the respective fund's cash, interest earnings, and ending cash balance. Currently, the City segregates Surtax proceeds into two distinct funds-15600--Transportation and Transit Special Revenue Fund and 36500— Transportation and Transit Capital Projects Fund. The revenue, expenditure, and transfer transactions contained within these funds are strictly for the purpose of Surtax eligible costs. The funds are not comingled with any other funds. Moreover, we have recently made changes to the general ledger along with projects and grants, which, we believe will, enhance transparency and improve internal controls over accounting and financial reporting. We are confident these enhancements will vastly improve and enhance all future audits. Page 1 of 10 1. The City disagrees with the auditor's position that claimed debt service payments should be reduced by approximately $14.1 million, of which, approximately $13.2 million is attributed to unspent bond proceeds. While the City has not fully spent -down the proceeds related to the 2009 Streets and Sidewalk Bonds, the related debt service has been paid from its inception. Furthermore, the City has fully spent the 2007 Streets and Sidewalks Bonds and will continue to aggressively spend -down all remaining 2009 Streets and Sidewalks Bond proceeds. The City has not found enabling legislation that would disallow eligible debt service payments from surtax funds as a result of unspent bond proceeds. Not only do we disagree with the reason for the disallowance, but we also disagree with the methodology. Per the audit report, adjustments were being made as early as 2008— the same year in which the 2007 Streets and Sidewalk Bonds were issued. The City believes that it has complied with ail requirements and the related expense should not be disallowed. 2. The City does not believe that ail of the disallowed costs incurred after March 24, 2011, should be disallowed. Instead, the City believes that the only instances that should be considered disallowable are those in which riders were already in the County's STS Program. The fact that the City did not cross-check each rider should not automatically mean the rider was part of the County's STS Program. The City is currently cross-checking all riders to determine the impact. The City respectfully requests the opportunity to finalize cross-checking riders and report its results to the County. 3. The City concurs that the interest earnings should be credited monthly. We are currently working with our Information Technology Department to properly credit interest to the 15600—Transportation and Transit Special Revenue Fund and 36500—Transportation and Transit Capital Projects Fund. The City also concurs that uncredited interest for prior years should be credited to the respective funds in order to properly reflect unspent Surtax proceeds. However, the City disagrees with the interest amount that should be credited. Based on the City's computation, which is based on the CITT cash on hand times the respective interest yield, the amount of interest that should be credited is approximately $1,258,942. The interest amount of approximately $2.6 million is calculated including all disallowed costs. The City would credit back the applicable interest upon finalizing and reaching a determination of which costs will remain disallowed. 4. During the audit dated September 30, 2011, in its response, the City had mentioned during its research of enabling legislation, planning, development, construction, operation, and maintenance of roads and bridges are in fact, allowable expenses. It was the City's position then and it remains our position now, that the disallowed expenses related to the parking study included a transit and traffic component, which included planning and analysis associated with the roadway circulation and network in the area. The City believes that it has complied with all requirements and the related expense should not be disallowed. 5. During the audit dated September 30, 2011, in its response, the City mentioned that it could not find any notation in the enabling legislation, including the Miami -Dade County Ordinance; Florida Statutes, and the Inter -Local Agreement, requiring a priority of fund expenditures. Furthermore, the City could not find a reference to direct the City to expend its Stormwater Utility Tax Funds prior to spending CITT Surtax Funds. The City continues Page 2 of 10 to hold this position. We believe it is the City's responsibility and management right, to manage its funds, and prioritize and allocate funds based on its needs as long as it complies with all applicable requirements. Consequently, utilizing CITT Surtax funds while still having Stormwater funds, is within the City's discretion and authority. The City believes that it has complied with all requirements and the related expense should not be disallowed. 6. During the audit dated September 30, 2011, in its response, the City referenced that Florida Statutes 212.55(1) (d) 4, indicated specifically that planning development, construction, operation, and maintenance of roads and bridges are allowable expenses. The Florida Department of Transportation ("FDOT") defines Highway, Street, or Road as a public way for purposes of traffic, both vehicular and pedestrian, including the entire area within the right of way. Furthermore, Florida Statutes 334.03 stipulates that Road means a way open to travel by public, including, but not limited to a street, right-of-way, and all culverts, drains, sluices, ditches, water storage areas, waterways, embankments, slopes, retaining walls, bridges, tunnels, and viaducts necessary for the maintenance of travel and all ferries used in connection therewith. Florida Statutes 334.065 (1)(a) stipulates that bicycle and pedestrian ways shall be given full consideration of such ways into state, regional and local transportation and programs. The City's position has always been that sidewalk improvements are eligible expenditures. The City believes that it has complied with all requirements and the related expense should not be disallowed. Once again, we would like to thank you and your staff. We look forward to the opportunity to discuss our responses and positions with you and Mr. Charles Scurr, Executive Director, Office of the Citizens' Independent Transportation Trust. Please do not hesitate to contact myself or Mr. Fernando Casamayor, Assistant City Manager/CFO, at 305,416.1025 or 305.416.1009, respectively. Sincerely, Daniel J. Alfonso, City Manager Cc: Honorable Mayor Tomas Regaledo Charles Scurr, Executive Director Office of the CITT Fernando Casamayor, ACM/CFO FN20150005 Serving, Enhancing, and Transforming our Community Page 3 of 10 City of Miami Reconciliation of Available Funds As of 09f30t2013 Description Amount Legend Adjustments for Debt Proceeds Attributable to Other Sources 857,740 Adjustments for Unspent Bond Proceeds 13,218,676 Disallowed Debt Service Transfers 14,076,416 7 Disallowed On -Demand Transportation Expenditures 752,542 2 Excess 2008 Debt Service Transfer (in Fund 10090) 2,113,357 Interest income Earned but not Accrued bythe City 2,622,491 3 Disallowed Program Management Serrbces Expenditures 2009 80,385 4 Disallowed Program Management Services Expenditures 2012 and 2013 371,000 4 Sub -total 451,385 Disallowed Stomwater Projects Taken bythe City 7,387,317 5 Disallowed Sidewalks or Parking Projects 809,099 5 Sub -Total Reconciling Items 28,212,607 LESS: Excess Street Lighting and other Exp from General Fund Over MOE 2003 4,719,207.00 4,719,207.00 - 2004 4,891,562.00 4,719,207.00 (172,355.00) 2005 5,079,005.00 4,719,207,00 (359,798.00) 2006 4,847,505.00 4,719207.00 (128,298.00) 2007 5,640,435.00 4,719,207.00 (921,228,00) 2008 4,926,248.00 4,719207.00 (207,041.00) 2009 4,950,392.00 4,719,207.00 (231,185.00) 2010 5,054,584.00 4,719,207.00 (335,377.00) 2011 5,183,184.00 4,719,207.00 (463,977.00) 2012 5,203,550.00 4,719,207.00 (484,343.00) 2013 5,508,137.00 4,719207.00 (788,930.00) Total 56,003,809.00 51,911,277.00 (4,092,532) Funding Balance Per Miami Trial Balance at09130I2013 36,818,616 Add: Reconciling Items 28,212,607 Less: Excess Street Lighting and other Exp from GF Over MOE (4,092,532) Adjusted Cash Balance 60,938,691 Adjusted Cash Balance per Audit 60,104,658 7 Difference 834,033 Page 4 of 10 Schedule IV Charter County Transportation System Surtax Review - City of Miami Allowable Debt Service Costs - Street and Sidewalks Bonds Description Bonds Issued Unspent Carryover Bond Funds Available for Use Uses of Bond Proceeds (Schedule V): Street Improvement Projects Drainage Projects Roadway Lighting and Beautification Debt Service Reserve Funding - Series 2009 Bonds Sidewalk Projects Other Total Uses of Proceeds Unspent Proceeds Z % of Issued Bonds Left Unspent Bonds Outstanding Debt Service Requirements: Principal Interest Total Debt Service Less: Allocation to Other Funding Sources 3 Debt Service Charged to Surtax % Charged to Surtax Debt Service Charged to Surtax Less: Debt Service Attributable to Other Sources 4 Amount Attributable to Unspent Proceeds 5 Allowable Debt Service Source: City of Miami Audited Financial Statements and General Ledge Series 2007 Bonds in Ibe amount of 580 million and Series 2009 Bonds in the amormt of 565 million were issued in FY 2008 and 2010, respectively, to fiord a variety of street and sidewalk improvements. Unspent amounts for FY 2008 and 2009 were calculated using project expenditures; amounts in subsequent years are per audited financial statements_ ' According to Bond Official Statements, Local Option Gas Tax and Parking Surcharge revenues, along with Surtax Proceeds, were pledged to repay the Bonds. In FY 2008, the City charged I00'% of Debt Service payments to Surtax, yet sltomld have allocated a portion to the other funding sources, consistent with subsequent years. 5 The City had substantial amounts of unused Debt Proceeds, and therefore cannot claim all Debt Service as allowable uses of Surtax monies. Disallowed Debt Service is calculated as Debt Service Charged to Surtax (as adjusted in FY 2008), multiplied by the percentage of Unspent Proceeds in each year. 5/11/2015, 8:54 AM Fiscal. Year Ended September 30, All Years 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 $ 80,000,000 $ - $ 65,000,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 145,000,000 - 60,366,800 39,935,373 85,096,438 76,364,731 60,840,449 80,000,000 60,366,800 104,935,373 85,096,438 76,364,731 60,840,449 12,237,379 14,656,053 7,520,027 6,678,494 10,180,169 8,131,896 59,404,018 4,405,735 2,699,567 569,011 2,881,153 4,552,300 1,146,204 16,253,970 2,168,814 2,898,530 3,233,718 400,641 1,844,934 645,446 11,192,083 5,870,698 - 5,870,698 821,272 177,277 368,597 492,387 234,818 640,677 2,735,028 2,276,884 (1,720,968) (1,287,939) 536,226 (195,797) 19,633,200 20,431,427 19,838,935 8,731,707 15,524,282 11,100,449 95,260,000 $ 60,366,800 $ 39,935373 $ 85,096,438 $ 76,364,731 $ 60,840,449 $ 49,740,000 $ 49,740,000 75.46% 49.92% 58.69% 52.67% 41.96% 34.30% 34.30% $ 80,000,000 $ 78,640,000 $ 142,225,000 $ 139,845,000 $ 137,385,000 $ 134,835,000 $ - $ 1,360,000 $ 1,415,000 $ 2,380,000 $ 2,460,000 $ 2,550,000 $ 10,165,000 2,227,896 3,865,656 5,775,435 7,126,250 7,044,375 6,957,075 32,996,687 2,227,896 5,225,656 7,190,435 9,506,250 9,504,375 9,507,075 43,161,687 - (2,012,134) (2,754,123) (3,364,434) (3,313,775) (3,254,275) (14,698,741) $ 2,227,896 $ 3,213, 22 $ 4,436,312 $ 6,141 816 $ 6,190,600 $ 6252,800 S. 28,462,946 100.0% 61,5% 61.7% 64.6% 65.1% 65.8% 65.9% $ 2,227,896 $ 3,213,522 $ 4,436,312 $ 6,141,816 $ 6,190,600 $ 6,252,800 $ 28,462,946 ,, (857,740) - - - - (857,740) (1,033,920) (1,604,165) (2,603,547) (3,234,608) (2,597,510) (2,144,926) (13,218,676p $ 336,236 $ 1,609,357 $ 1,832,765 $ 2,907,208 $ 3,593,090 $ 4,107,874 $ 14,386,530 DRAFT Audit Report - Charter County Transportation System Surtax Review City of Miami Page 4 Table II S111illilary Df CIarmed i ran.. f lttrnwrtrli+t.roc d e d ri:..eFaA - Description --- _ .0.._r_.._...,....., Project -Number 40.E .. Fiscal Year n,.J.4s« Ended September 30.• 2012 1 2013 All Years 201I 'Volley Services: Citywide Services CW Trolley S . S 329,895 S I,105,192 S 1,435,087 Srieke l/Biseeyne Route Btick/Biscayne - 208,143 902,938 1,111,081 Health/Stadium District Rome HealthJStadium 108 227,917 358,436 586,461 Otertowr/Allapattah Route Oterhvo%A11ap - - 94,563 94,563 108 765955 2,451,129 3,227,192 On -Demand 1YanspottationServices:1 Action Community Center Action-122001 451,941 194,I48 • 646,989 Otter On Demand - I0,915 95,538 106.453 451,94I 205,063 95,53E 752,542 Trolley Purchases 70715 - 998,133 816 998,449 Trolley PlreningServices, Professional Costs 30645A 65,630 70,498 142,415 278,543 Vtiteai Street Cm- Project 71215 20,769 - - 20,769 Total Claimed Costs 538,448 2,039,649 2,699,898 5,277,995 Lees: Disallowed Casts (451,941) (205,063) (93,538) (752,542) Eligibie Costs (Schedule II) S 86507 S 1,834,386 S 2 604,360 S 4,525 453 ymMlute Acsouri aRLeaMs ttu.lkwed grajecte Effective March 25, 2011, On -Demand Transportation Services costs may be paid from Surtax funds, as long as passengers provide 24-hour notice, are elderly or disabled, low-income, and not enrolled in the County's Special Transportation Services (STS) Program (C!'JT Ordinance 11- 13). However, claimed costs ($289,441) were incurred prior to March 25, 2011, and passengers were not cross-checked for enrollment in the County's STS Program, as required ($463,101). City staff arlmitted that its On -Demand clients were not properly screened for eligibility, Thus, claimed costs totaling $752,542 were disallowed (Table II). Table III Summary of CIa Description Placid Year PededSsptember 2012 30. 2013 All Years 2011 Debt Service -Series 2007 and 2009 Street Bonds $ 6,141,816 $ 6,190,600 $ 6,252,800 $ 15,585,216 Street Lighting 5,183,184 5,203,550 5,508,137 15,894,871 Street Improvement Projects 1,5,22,436 3,016,757 3,633,775 8,592,968 Drainage Projcots 121,275 322,198 457,090 900,563 Micellaneous Projects 5,053 26,894 17,105 49,052 Total Mimed Costs (Schedule 1II) 13,373,764 14,779,999 15,868,907 44,022,670 Disallowed Costs; Debt Service Related to Unspent Proceeds (3,254,894) (2,597.576) (2,194,710) (7,977,180) Other Disallowed Costs - (63,058) (17,317) (80,385) Eligiblo Costs (Schedule 11) $$ 10.138,870 $ I2,119,355 $ 15,706,880 $ 35,965,105 urce_ Qty of Mount Aceo uting ]tecox The remaining 80%, or $33 million, was used mainly to pay debt service costs on the City's Series 2007 and 2009 Street and Sidewalks Bonds, as well as fund Citywide street lighting, improvement and drainage projects (Table III and Schedule III). However, claimed debt service costs of $18.6 million were reduced by $8 million for amounts attributed to unused debt proceeds (Schedules IV and IV -A). 5/11/2015, 8:51 AM Page 6 of 10 DRAFT Audit Report — Charter County Transportation System Surtax Review City of Miami Page 6 City officials have indicated that a greater share of the unspent Transit dollars will be used to further expand and operate the Trolley System after start-up funding provided by the State expires in FY 2016. Roadway improvements over the next five years are budgeted at $23 million and annual debt service is approximately $6 million. However, these planned expenditures may not be sufficient to use annual Surtax receipts ($15.4 million in FY 2014), and reduce carryover amounts prior to their expiry date. Recommendation The City should submit a revised Five -Year Transportation Plan, approved by its City Council, specifying how rollover monies will be used, and request an extension of amounts that expired in FY 2014. More importantly, City staff should more diligently monitor unspent funds to minimize the risk of recapture and maximize effective use of Surtax dollars. Surtax Funds Availability and Accountability As noted during the previous audit, the City could not account for all of its claimed Surtax expenditures within the general ledger. According to City staff, Surtax monies are initially accounted for in the Transportation and Transit Special Revenue Fund. However, not all claimed Surtax expenditures were recorded therein, as Surtax Proceeds are also transferred to the Debt Service, Capital Projects, or Other Funds' to repay bonds and finance other eligible projects. The bonds are repaid with Surtax monies, as well as with Local Option Gas Tax and Parking Surtax Revenues. City Staff was unable to support the amount of debt service allocated to Surtax monies, or to distinguish improvement projects financed with Surtax Proceeds from those paid with Local Option Gas Tax dollars. Thus, we have no assurance that the Surtax Proceeds were used to support only eligible Transit and Transportation Projects. Table V Interest Attributable to Unused Surtax Funds Description Idseai Year.33adedSeptitsober30., 2008 - 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 AilItara Unspent Transit Funds, Beginning of Year Unspent Transit Funds, ad afYear Average Annual Unspent Transit Funds Unspent Transportation Funds, Beginning ofYear 1 Unspent Transportation Funds, End of Years Average Annual Unspent Transportation Funds Total Annual Average Unspent Funds Average Annual Yield on investments Interest AtttlbutabletoUnused Funds $ 4,448,768 $ 6,137,227 $ 6,137,227 $ 8,414,305 5 8,414,305 S 10 714,840 $ 10� 714,840 $ 13,251,048 $ 14,127,528 S 2,622,491 $ 13,251,048 3 144,127,528 $ 14,435,991 $ 14281,76600 S 5� 2, 9Z,998 $ 7,275,766 S 9,564,673 $ 11,982,944 S i3,689,288 $ 16,369,698 $ 21,396,503 $ 26,028,767 S 31,868,068 $ 31,868,068 $ 36,938,991 $ 40,38 ,833 $ 21,396,503 $ 26,028.787 $ 36,938,991 $_40,382,833 S 38,660,912 $ 43,046,176 $ 4I,714,505, $ 18,883,101 $ 21,712,645 S 28,948,428 $ 34,403,530 $ 24,176,099 13423% $ 808,038 $ 30,988,41I $ 38,513,001 $ 46,386f474 $ 52,350,200 $ 55,946,265 1.6088% 0.9160% 0.5933% 06863% 0.5869% S 498,542 $ 352,779 $ 275,211 $ 359,279 $ 328,642 Pons Amounts do not incluh interest. 5111/2015, 8:51 AM Page 7 of 10 DRAFT Audit Report - Charter County TrAusportation System Surtax Review City of Miami Page 4 Table II Summary of Claimed Transit Expenditures Description PrajectNamber 40-5 Fiscal Year Eroded September 30, All years 2011 2012 2033 Trolley Services: Citywide Services CWTrolley $ • S 329,895 $ 1,I05,192 $ 1,435,087 Brie/cell/Biscayne Rome BricklBiseayae • 208,143 902,938 1,111,081 Health/Stadium DimictRoute lierltb/Staditmt 108 227,917 358,436 586,461 OwrtowatAllepattabRoute (hsttwnfAllsp - - 94,563 94,563 108 765,955 2,461,129 3,227,192 Oa -Demand 11-ansportatioa Services: 1 Action CommmtityCenter Action-122001 451,941 194,148 - 646,089 Other On Demand 10,915 95,538 106,453 451,941 205,063 95,539 752,542 Trolley Purchases 70715 - 998,133 816 998,949 TrolleyPlancing Services, Professional Costs 30645A 65,630 70,498 142,415 278,543 Miami Street Car Project 71215 20,769 • - 20,769 Total Claimed Costs 538,448 2,039,649 2,699,898 5,277,995 Less: Disallowed Costs (451,941) (205,063) (95,538) (752,542) Eligible Costs (Schedule 11) 5 86,507 5 1,834,586 $ 2,604,360 $ 4,525,453 Source: C.ar crM6seri.Aceountma Records Di<ulowed pmjeete Effective March 25, 2011, On -Demand Transportation Services costs may be paid from Surtax funds, as long as passengers provide 24-hour notice, are elderly or disabled, low-income, and not enrolled in the County's Special Trnrisportation Services (STS) Program (C171 ` Ordinance 11- 13). However, clairned costs ($289,441) were incurred prior to March 25, 2011, and passengers were not cross-checked for enrollment in the County's STS Program, as required ($463,101). City staff admitted that its On -Demand clients were not properly screened for eligibility. Thus, claimed costs totaling $752,542 were disallowed (Table II). Table m Summary of Claimed Transtsortation Expenditure Descriptiae Y Revd Year Libel Septeember 30„. . - All Years 2011 2012 2013 Debt Service -Series 2007 and 2009 Street Bonds $ 6,141,816 $ 6,190,600 $ 6,252,800 3 38,585,216 Street Lighting 5,183,184 5,203,550 5,508,137 15,894,871 Street Improvement Projects 1,922,436 3,036,757 3,633,775 8,592,968 Drainage Projects 121,275 322,198 457,090 900,563 Micellancons Projects 5,053 26,894 17,105 49,052 Total C€airced Costs (Schedule 111) 13,373,764 14,779,999 15,868,907 44,022,670 Disallowed Costs: Debt Service Related to Unspent Proceeds (3,234,894) (2,597,576) (2,144,710) (7,977,180) Other Disallowed Costs - (63,068) (I7,317) (80,385) E3igrble Costs (Schedule ID $ 10,138,870 $ 12,119,355 $ 13,706,880 $ 35,965,105 Source: city of Miami Accounting Records The remaining 80%, or $33 million, was used mainly to pay debt service costs on the City's Series 2007 and 2009 Street and Sidewalks Bonds, as well as fund Citywide street lighting, improvement and drainage projects (Table III and Schedule III). However, claimed debt service costs of $18.6 million were reduced by $8 million for amounts attributed to unused debt proceeds (Schedules IV and IV -A). 5/11/2015, 8:51 AM Page 8 of 10 Charter County Transit System Surtax City of Miami Listing of Disallowed Surtax Projects For the Three Years Ended September 30, 2010 Storm Sewer Projects Belle Meade Storm Sewer Project, Phase 2 Flagami/West End Storm Sewer Improvements Phase II Fairlawn Storm Sewer Improvements Project Phase 2B Baypoint Storm Sewer Rehabilitation NW 35th Ave - Street Improvements' NW 30th Court - Street Improvements' NW 36th Avenue - Street Improvements' NW 19th Street' NE 71 Street Storm Sewer Project Fairlawn Storm Sewer Improvements Project Phase III Englewood Road and Storm Sewer Improvements - Phase III - D4 Northwest Road and Storm Sewer Improvements - D5 Shenandoah North Street Maintenance' Battersea & Douglas Road Storm Sewer Improvement San Marco & Biscayne Islands Drainage Improvements - D2 Durham Terrace Drainage Project Fairlawn Storm Sewer Pump Station Project Phase 2A NW 36 Street Drainage Improvements Sidewalks or Parking Projects Citywide Sidewalk Replacement Phase 29 District 5 - Sidewalk Repairs & ADA District 4 - Sidewalk Repairs & ADA Marlins Stadium - Orange Bowl Site - Parking Study District 2 - Sidewalk Repairs & ADA District 3 - Sidewalk Repairs & ADA Program Management Services Sowce: City of Miami Capital Improvement Program and Accounting Records Although their descriptions suggest otherwise, these projects me comprisedof storm sewer and dtainage activities. 50672 50695 50703 30563 30181B 30181C 30181A 30181D 50690 50704 30011 30014 30034A 50700 30588 30629 50702 30046 43114A 30377E 30377D 30560E 30377E 30377C - 19,527 91,771 71214 - 371,000 1,913,305 $ 2,057,121 $ - 364,682 401,514 227,102 28,791 636,448 1,960 365,564 318,332 288,081 275,650 167,633 45,172 71,872 1,020 16,330 9,271 46,126 7,225 47,865 4,806 27,162 25,438 - 19,999 2,880 11,812 3,292 168 696 367,203 $ 3,970,426 993,298 667,199 365,564 318,332 288,081 275,650 167,633 118,064 71,727 55,090 31,968 25,438 19,999 11,812 3,292 3,048 696 7,387,317 499,025 95,956 89,947 49,984 38,105 36,082 809,099 37I,000 $ 4,343 290 $ 3,673,907 $ 550,219 $ 8,567,416 DRAFT Audit Report — Charter County Transportation System Surtax Review City of Miami Paget SUMMARY RESULTS For the three years ended September 30, 2013, the City received $41.2 million in Surtax Proceeds, and claimed Transit and Transportation -related expenditures totaling $49.3 million (Table I). Of the claimed expenditures, $18.6 million was applied towards debt service requirements for bonds issued in 2007 and 2009 that were used to finance street improvement projects. We disallowed $8 of the $18.6 million because of unspent bond proceeds, which ranged as high as 53% ($76.4 of $145 million) in 2011 to 34% ($49.7 of $145 million) in 2013. After adjusting claimed expenditures for the Maintenance of Effort (MOE), interest earned on unused funds, and disallowed costs, the City had unspent proceeds totaling $60.1 million as of September 30, 2013. However, available Surtax Proceeds classified as Pooled Cash and Investments within the Transportation and Transit Special Revenue and Capital Projects Funds amounted to only $35.5 million. Table I Deacripion Fiscal Year Faded September 30, All Years 2011 2012 2013 . Maintenance of Effort $ 4,718,932 $ 4,718,932 $ 4,718,932 $ 14,156,796 Surtax Proceeds $ 13,113,576 $ 13,555,331 $ 14,564,114 $ 41,233,021 Claimed Expenditures Transit (Table II) $ 538,448 $ 2,039,649 $ 2,699,898 $ 5,277,995 Transportation (Table 111) 13,373,764 14,779,999 15,868,907 44,022,670 $ 13,912,212 $ 16,819,648 $ 18,568,805 $ 49,300,665 Unspent S urtax Proceeds 1(Schedule 11) Trans- it $ 13,251,048 $ 14,127,528 $ 14,435,991 Transportation 38,873,561 42,676 682 45,668,667 $ 52,124,669 $ 56,804,210 $ 60,104,658 —;6) Key Acconnt Balances 1 Transportation and Transit Special Revenue Fund: Cash and Investments $ 4.450,869 $ 14,158,271 $ 16,123,224 Restricted Fund Balance $ 6,327,4,63 $ 15,743,320 $ 17,421,739 Transportation and Transit Capital Projects Fund: Cash and Investments $ - $ 19,725,884 $ 19,396,878 Restricted Fund Balance $ - $ 19,725,884 $ I9,396,878 Source: OCITT, City ofMia i Audited Financial Statements and Cleneral Ledgers 1 As of September 30 in each Fiscal Year In addition, we restated unspent funds as of September 30, 2010 after learning the City had used bond rather than Surtax Proceeds to pay project expenditures claimed for the three years ended September 30, 2010. Cumulative debt service payments for that prior period, however, were significantly lower than the amount previously claimed as project expenditures. After correcting the errors, unspent Surtax funds increased from $29.6 to $44.2 million as of September 30, 2010. 5/11/2015, 8:51 AM Page l00f10 CITT Board Members Chairperson Paul J. Schwiep, Esq, First Vice Chairperson Hon. Anna E. Ward, Ph.D Second Vice Chairperson Glenn J. Downing, CFP Oscar J. Braynon Joe Curbelo Peter L. Forrest Alfred J. Holzman Prakash Kumar Jonathan A. Martinez Alicia Menardy, Esq. Miles E. Moss, P.E. Hon. James Reeder Marilyn Smith Hon. Linda Zilber Executive Director Charles Scurr Past Chairperson ATTACHMENT 3 Citizens' IndependentTransportation Trust 111 NW 1st Street • Suite 1010 Miami, Florida 33128 T 305-375-1357 F 305-375-4605 Transportation Trust ° t' ©GoCITT rniarnidade.gov/citt September 13, 2016 Mr. Daniel J. Alfonso, City Manager City of Miami 444 S.W. 2nd Avenue, 10th Floor Miami, FL 33130 Dear Mr. Alfonso: The purpose of this letter is to follow-up on the Audit Report on the City of Miami's Charter County Transit System Surtax Review completed by the Audit and Management Services Department (AMS) dated September 30, 2015 and covering FY 2011-2013 and to dispose of the issues that remain unresolved. Thank you and your office staff for their cooperation. Your letter dated August 17, 2016 accepting the disposition findings as presented below is attached. The Office of the Citizens' Independent Transportation Trust, (OCITT) carefully reviewed the Audit report as well as the responses of the City dated June 8, 2015 and September 15, 2015. We also carefully reviewed the original documents including the Interlocal Agreement dated August 6, 2003; the Interlocal Agreement dated July 10, 2007 and the Annual Reports submitted by the City. Finally, we have also carefully reviewed relevant County Attorney opinions and Transportation Trust legislation. A number of meetings have been held with the City and AMS in order to try and resolve the audit findings. There remains, however, disagreement between the City and AMS on several of the findings. This letter is the disposition of the audit findings. The AMS report focuses on a number of issues and these will be discussed separately. • Separate Bank Account — AMS recommended that the City be required to establish a separate bank account for surtax funds. This issue was raised in a previous audit. The City agreed to take a series of steps as identified in correspondence dated January 30, 2012 and February 1, 2012 that satisfactorily resolved this issue. Additionally, the City has advised that it is making additional changes to the Projects and Grants Module that will mirror the County process where expenditures will occur in the same fund where Surtax Proceeds are held, therefore eliminating a need for transfers. We agree that this will make it easier to properly account for eligible expenditures and improve internal controls. A separate bank account is not deemed to be necessary in light of the above changes that have been made. • Tracing Flow of Funds — AMS requests that the City trace the flow of funds through its Special Revenue and Capital Projects Funds general ledger accounts in order to properly account for Surtax Proceeds. The City has provided documentation including a Reconciliation of Available Funds that accounts for the balances in those funds and reconciles them tothe balance per the Audit Report with asmall difference remaining. The Trust accepts this documentation as sufficient support that Surtax Proceeds have been properly accounted for. * Bond Payments - /\M8 recommended that debt service payments be disallowed due to a large amount of unspent bond proceeds. The City has presented a plan to accelerate and complete these projects. If the City does not complete the projects then the bond expanaes, including debt service and interest expeneea, would be ineligible and would be subject to recapture, At this time it is premature to recapture the funds. The Trust has and continues to be concerned with the Cit/e failure to spend bond proceeds in a timely fashion. Therefore. the City is requested to present Quarterly Report tothe Trust. This report, oinni|a[ tothat presented quarterly by Miami -Dade County, will include adetailed progress report on all major capital projects, updating project schedules and costs. This report will be presented to the joint Municipal Coordination and Program and Financial Review Committee. On -Demand Expensee-The City claimed costs totaling $752.542 for On - Demand Transportation Services which AK88 has deemed ineligible. Of this amount, $288.441 was incurred prior to March 25. 2011 and $463.101 was for passengers that were not cross-checked for enrollment in the County's GT8 Program. The City has not provided documentation on the eligibility of the persons receiving these services. The Trust concurs with the dieo||ovvenne of these expenses barring eligibility documentation. It should be noted that the City has established appropriate procedures for eligibility and billing moving forward. * Debt Service Payments -The City used Surtax funds in the mnnourd of $857.740 for debt service that should have been paid from other funding sources. In addition, excess Surtax funds totaling $2.113.357 were transferred for debt service payments that were never reversed bock to the Surtax fund. The City has agreed with the A&48 finding and will reverse the entries. The Trust is in concurrence with this finding and resolution. StormwaterExpenditureo-AMGrecommended that funds used for storm sewer and drainage projects be disallowed because the City had otonnvvata[feea available. Gtornnvveter projects are surtax eligible and the expenses are, therefore, not disallowed. � Program Management - AMG recommended that expenditures for Program Management Services be disallowed. These expenses are generally allowable. The second level documentation provided needs to be improved in order to anauna that individuals billed are working specifically onsurtax eligible p jeote. For this audit the expenses are not w Parking —AMG recommended that $49'984 in expenses for a parking study for Marlins Park are ineligible. The Trust concurs in this finding. * Sidewalks - AK88 recommended the disallowance of $489.025 for sidewalk projects completed prior November 15. 2013 for projects that were not part of road improvement projects or AD/\ related. The Trust is in concurrence with this finding. Stand-alone eidavv@|h projects were not eligible until the effective date of the Trust sidewalk po|icy. November 15' 2013. ° Interest Earnings -The final issue cnnm*Ols the Citv's interest earned on surtax proceeds. /\K88 estimated that there is $2.6 million ofuncredited investment income after taking into account all disallowed costs. The Trust requests that o new estimate be prepared baking into account the disallowances noted above and that this amount becredited to the Surtax fund to be spent on qualifying transit or transportation projects. In the interim the sum of$2.O nni||ioD will be presumed to be Correct. The Trust and the City are in agreement that interest earnings should be credited on a monthly basis going forward. The total amount of costs subject to recapture is $3.301.551. Effective with the October 2018 distributions the Trust will withhold ninety two thousand dollars ($82'000.00) per month from the City'o surtax allocation until the recapture of the full amount is complete. If the $2.871.097 in excess debt service transfers has not been reversed by the City, the Trust will withhold an additional eighty three thousand dollars ($83,000.00) monthly until the recapture has been completed. Thank you for your cooperation. We look forward to continuing tnwork with you in inlp[VViOg transportation in our community. 8iDcerely, Charles D.8curr Executive Director oo C|TTBoard Bruce Libhober, /\aointmrd County Attorney Cathy Jackson, AK88 Attachment: August 17.2018Letter ATTACHMENT 1 AUDIT AND MANAGEMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT OVERTOWN TRANSIT VILLAGE 701 NW 1ST COURT- SUIIL 8-175 MIAMI, FLORIDA 33136 TELEPHONE: 786-469-5900 FAX: 786-469-5933 September 16, 2020 Mr. Arthur Noriega, V City Manager City of Miami 444 SW 2"d Avenue, 10th Floor Miami, FL 33130 Re: Audit Report — City of Miami Charter County Transportation System Surtax Review — Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2019 Dear Mr. Noriega: Attached is the above -referenced Audit Report that was discussed with your staff. Although the Office of the Citizens' Independent Transportation Trust (OCITT) will be contacting you to resolve the audit findings, a reply is requested within 60 days. We appreciate the courtesies and assistance extended to our staff during the audit process. Please contact G. Nancy McKee, Assistant Director, at (786) 469-5900, should you have any questions. Sincerely, Cathy Ja Director CJ:bm Attachment c: Javier A. Betancourt, Executive Director, OCITT Sandra Bridgeman, Assistant City Manager and CFO, City of Miami Date: To: M IAM I•Di4DE Memorandum to�Nn September 16, 2020 Javier A. Betancourt, Executive Director Office of the Citizens' Independent Transportation Trust (OCITT) From: Cathy a 1 on, Director Audit and Management Services Department (AMS) Subject: Audit Report — City of Miami Charter County Transportation System Surtax Review — Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2019 PURPOSE AND SCOPE We performed a review of the City of Miami's (City) use of Charter County Transportation System Surtax (Surtax) Proceeds remitted by Miami -Dade County (County) for the year ended September 30, 2019. The primary objective was to ensure that Surtax Proceeds were used in compliance with the Interlocal Agreement for Distribution, Use and Reporting of Charter County Transit System Surtax Proceeds Levied by Miami -Dade County (Interlocal Agreement) executed on July 10, 2007. Additionally, we assessed resolution of prior audit findings referenced in our October 1, 2019 Audit Report (Exhibit I). BACKGROUND County Ordinance (Ordinance) No. 02-116, enacted on July 9, 2002, imposed a one-half of one percent Surtax on eligible sales transactions for Transportation -related projects. However, at least 20% of the Proceeds received by the County must be distributed to municipalities incorporated as of November 5, 2002, on a pro-rata basis using population statistics (Schedule V). The Surtax Program is administered by the Citizens' Independent Transportation Trust (CITT), a group comprised of 15 members appointed by the Board of County Commissioners, County Mayor, and Miami -Dade League of Cities. Pursuant to the Interlocal Agreement, the City must annually continue the same level of General Fund support for Transportation projects appropriated in its Fiscal Year (FY) 2002 Budget (Maintenance of Effort), which totaled $4.7 million (Table I). Surtax Proceeds may be used to develop, construct, equip, maintain, operate, or expand County -wide bus systems, fixed guideway rapid transit systems, roads, and bridges, as well as secure such Bonds or pay debt service. Further, the City must apply at least 20% of the Proceeds to Transit -related projects, such as circulator buses, bus shelters, bus pullout bays, or other related infrastructure. CITT Resolution No. 09-055, adopted July 30, 2009, allows for the rollover of unspent Surtax funds for up to five years, provided the City's Five -Year Transportation Plan demonstrates how the funds will be used. Additionally, CITT Resolution No. 15-027, adopted May 20, 2015, allows for carryover credits in Audit Report — City of Miami Charter County Transportation System Surtax Review — Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2019 Page 2 the event amounts expended are in excess of annual Surtax allocations. See Schedule I for summary financial information. SUMMARY RESULTS For the year ended September 30, 2019, the City received Surtax Proceeds of $18.8 million, and claimed $33.7 million in Transit and Transportation -related expenditures (Table I). Claimed expenditures were primarily for Trolley operations ($10.8 million), debt service ($6.1 million), street lighting ($5.5 million), and street improvements ($7 million), as detailed in Tables II and V. After adjusting claimed expenditures for the Maintenance of Effort (MOE) and disallowed amounts, the City had $47.4 million in unspent Proceeds. Table I Surtax Statistics Description Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2019 2018 I Maintenance of Effort $ 4,718,932 $ 4,718,932 Revenues: SurtaxProceeds Allocation $ 19,637,254 $ 18,948,619 Less: Amount Withheld 2 (817,551) (1,104,000) SurtaxProceeds per City of Miami (Schedule I) $ 18,819,703 $ 17,844,619 Claimed Expenditures: Transit (Table II) $ 11,175,219 $ 9,487,725 Transportation (Table V) 22,512,185 16,482,259 $ 33,687,404 $ 25,969,984 Unspent Surtax Proceeds as of September 30 (Schedule II): Transportation $ 47,394,264 $ 52,988,141 Key Account Balances as of September 30 (Schedule I): Transportation and Transit Special Revenue Fund: Cash and Investments $ 2,670,162 $ 1,669,503 Restricted Fund Balance $ 3,040,651 $ 3,716,410 Transportation and Transit Capital Projects Fund: Cash and Investments $ 25,082,229 $ 32,463,411 Restricted Fund Balance $ 23,348,711 $ 31,312,786 I Presented for comparison with the FY 2019 audit period. Z OCITT was withholding $92,000 monthly from the City to recapture specific ineligible costs, per a September 2016 letter from the former Executive Director. The $3.3 million has been recaptured, and thus OCITT is no longer withholding funds. We continue to be concerned about the City's $19.6 million cash shortfall, primarily representing the difference between Cash and Investments recorded by the City, and the amount of unspent Surtax proceeds. As repeatedly recommended since September 30, 2011, OCITT should suspend all future Surtax payments until this issue has been satisfactorily addressed. Audit Report — City of Miami Charter County Transportation System Surtax Review — Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2019 Page 3 These and other findings are more fully discussed in the remainder of this Report. We appreciate the courtesies extended to our staff during the audit process. A written response is requested from the City within 60 days. Please contact G. Nancy McKee, Assistant Director, at (786) 469-5900, if you have any questions. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Use of Transit Proceeds The City claimed $11.2 million in Transit -related expenditures, primarily for Trolley operations, which met the requirement that at least 20% of Surtax Proceeds, or $3 8 million, be used for Transit activities (Table II). The City's Trolleys are deployed over 13 fixed routes with average monthly passenger counts of 446,000 (Table III). Table II Summary of Claimed Transit Expenditures, as Adjusted Description Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2019 20181 Trolley Routes: Citywide $ 1,923,102 $ 872,888 Coral Way 1,502,130 1,350,177 Brickell/Biscayne 1,387,433 2,135,042 Little Havana 1,248,909 1,000,099 Flagami 985,791 248,343 Health/Stadium District 930,930 752,299 Overtown/Allapattah 793,951 813,264 Coconut Grove 786,162 849,299 Little Haiti 536,346 237,900 Wyn wood 430,588 437,201 Overtown/Health 135,262 137,811 Liberty City 90,600 - 10,751,204 8,834,323 Other: On -Demand Transportation Services 195,853 161,136 Automatic Vehicle Locator/GPS 97,528 73,770 Flagami Trolley Signage 83,599 - Planning and Professional Costs 2 47,035 72,363 Tri Rail Contribution - 346,133 424,015 653,402 Total Claimed 11,175,219 9,487,725 AMS Adjustments: Cross -Bay Trolley Costs Incurred by General Fund 177,790 - Less Cross -Bay Passenger Fees (10,793) - Less Ineligible On -Demand Costs (6,298) - 160,699 - Eligible Transit Expenditures $ 11,335,918 $ 9,487,725 Source: City of Miami Accounting Records 1 Presented for comparison with the FY 2019 audit period. 2 Amounts were paid to Kimley-Horn and HNTB for professional studies. Audit Report - City of Miami Charter County Transportation System Surtax Review - Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2019 Page 4 The City implemented the Cross -Bay Trolley, from Downtown Miami to Miami Beach, in October 2018, with a $5 fare each way. Due to low ridership, the route was cancelled in January 2019 and the City incurred a $167,000 loss, which was reimbursed by the General Fund. The costs were not initially claimed as Surtax uses, but they are eligible amounts and AMS added them to FY 2019 claimed Transit costs. Additionally, the City claimed on -demand transit services for the year, but the service was not allowed for County Special Transportation Services (STS) patrons until a change in on -demand rules, effective November 1, 2018. We disallowed the STS-related costs claimed for October 2018. Table III Trolley Ridership Summar Month Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2019 2018' October 471,368 419,052 November 447,292 399,150 December 445,923 406,198 January 460,220 419,093 February 435,713 399,321 March 443,511 454,526 April 446,539 442,095 May 457,525 456,383 June 425,188 446,768 July 439,515 450,111 August 451,180 489,646 September 432,786 435,703 5,356,760 5,218,046 Source: City of Miami Ridership Report I Presented for comparison with the FY 2019 audit period. The City received advertising revenues of $2.3 million from its trolleys. over the last five years, including $493,065 in FY 2019, and recorded those revenues and related expenditures in its General Special Revenue Fund, instead of the Transportation and Transit Special Revenue Fund. Advertising revenues were used primarily for Trolley operations, signage, and fuel (Table IV). Table IV Advertisin Revenues and Related Costs Description Fiscal Year Fnded September 30, 2019 20181 Advertising Revenues $ 493,065 $ 553,396 Related Fapenditures: Motor Fuel $ 486,837 $ - Trolley Signage - 298,359 Trolley Operations - 255,037 Supplies 6,228 - $ 493,065 $ 553,396 Source: City of Miami Accountmg Records t Presented for comparison with the FY 2019 audit period. Audit Report — City of Miami Charter County Transportation System Surtax Review — Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2019 Page 5 Recommendation The City should ensure all claimed costs are eligible for Surtax use, and prospectively consider recording Trolley advertising revenues in its Transportation and Transit Special Revenue Fund to facilitate accountability. Use of Transportation Proceeds The City claimed $22.5 million of Transportation -related costs to satisfy the 80% of Surtax Proceeds usage ($15.1 million), primarily for debt service costs, as well as to fund Citywide street lighting, drainage, and street improvement projects (Table V and Schedule III). On June 28, 2018, the City Commission adopted Resolution No. 18-0277 authorizing the issuance of Special Obligation Refunding Bonds, not to exceed $137 million. The Series 2018A and B Bonds, issued November 15, 2018, refunded Series 2007 and 2009 Street and Sidewalks Bonds with an outstanding balance of $120.3 million. Additionally, Series 2018C Bonds provided $7.5 million for various street improvement projects (Schedules IV and IV -A). Similar to the previous Bond issuances, the Series 2018 Bonds will be repaid with Surtax Proceeds, Local Option Gas Taxes, and Parking Surcharge revenues. The City claimed debt service of $6.1 million in FY 2019, but that amount related to Series 2007 and 2009 Bonds which were refunded before any debt service payments were made in FY 2019. The City paid interest on the Series 2018 Bonds totaling $3.2 million in FY 2019, of which $2.1 million related to Surtax (Schedule IV). The difference of $4 million was disallowed. Table V Summary of Claimed Transportation Expenditures, as Adjusted Description Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2019 2018 1 Debt Service -Series 2007 and 2009 Street and Sidewalks Bonds (Schedule IV) $ 6,117,000 $ 6,136,000 Street Lighting 5,547,224 5,584,694 Street Improvement Projects 7,045,078 4,073,226 Drainage Projects 3,484,967 456,242 Traffic Claming Projects 317,916 232,097 Total Claimed Costs 22,512,185 16,482,259 Less: Unpaid Debt Service (4,039,385) - Eligible Costs (Schedule III) $ 18,472,800 $ 16,482,259 Source: City of Miami Accounting Records r Presented for comparison with the FY 2019 audit period. After adjusting claimed expenditures for the MOE, the City had unspent Transportation funds of $47.4 million as of September 30, 2019 (Schedule II). CITT Resolution No. 09-055 allows for the rollover of unused funds for up to five years. Further, the $27.8 million reported as Cash and Investments in the Transportation and Transit Special Revenue and Capital Projects Funds (Schedule I) was approximately $19.6 million less than the unspent balance as of September 30, 2019. Audit Report — City of Miami Charter County Transportation System Surtax Review — Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2019 Page 6 Recommendation Prospectively, the City should ensure all claimed costs are eligible for Surtax use. City staff should submit a revised Five -Year Transportation Plan, approved by its City Commission, specifying how the $47.4 million in unspent funds will be used. More importantly, Surtax distributions should be held in Trust by OCITT until the City reduces the estimated $19.6 million funding gap. Further, OCITT should formally communicate these concerns to the CITT Board with a plan for timely resolution. Reporting to OCITT The City's Quarterly Transportation Expenditure Reports significantly overstated certain project costs and reported totals did not agree with the City's accounting records. Projects with major differences are shown in Table VI. Table VI Comparison of Quarterly Reports with Accounting Records Description Project Number _ Amount per Difference Quarterly Reports Accounting Records Transportation Planning and Professional Fees 70245 $2,010,706 $ 183,456 $ 1,827,250 Palm Grove Road Improvements 30630 1,146,407 28,010 1,118,397 Englewood Storm Sewer - Phase III 30011 600,270 - 600,270 South Grove Phase III Roadway and Drainage 30836 1,068,266 522,613 545,653 Transit Planning and Professional Costs 70246 591,985 47,035 544,950 Bird Avenue Road Improvement 30628 654,392 121,024 533,368 Source: City of Miami Accounting Records and Quarterly Reports Submitted to OCITT Also, the City's latest Five -Year Transportation Plan shows unexpended funds totaling $21.8 million as of September 30, 2019, materially less than the $47.4 million per Schedule II. Recommendation City staff should provide accurate reports to OCITT. CJ:bm Attachments c: Honorable Harvey A. Ruvin, Clerk of the Courts Abigail Price -Williams, County Attorney Edward Marquez, Deputy Mayor Jennifer Moon, Deputy Mayor/Director, Office of Management and Budget Arthur Noriega, City Manager, City of Miami Schedule I City of Miami Charter County Transportation System Surtax Review Transportation and Transit Funds 1 Balance Sheets Description As of September 30, 2019 2018 2 Special Revenue Capital Projects Special Revenue Capital Projects Assets: Pooled Cash, Cash Equivalents, and Investments (Table I) $ 2,670,162 $ - $ 1,669,503 $ - Restricted Cash, Cash Equivalents, and Investments (Table I) - 25,082,229 - 32,463,411 Surtax Amounts Due from Miami -Dade County 4,697,128 - 5,689,916 - Accrued Interest 16,669 - 19,494 - TotalAssets $ 7,383,959 $ 25,082,229 $ 7,378,913 $ 32,463,411 Liabilities and Fund Balances: Accounts Payable and Accrued Liabilities $ 1,543,308 $ 1,733,518 $ 1,062,503 $ 1,150,625 Deferred Inflows of Resources - Other Unavailable Revenue 3 2,800,000 - 2,600,000 - Fund Balances - Restricted 3,040,651 23,348,711 3,716,410 31,312,786 Total Liabilities and Fund Balances $ 7,383,959 $ 25,082,229 $ 7,378,913 $ 32,463,411 Statements of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances Description For the Year Ended September 30, 2019 20182 Special Revenue Capital Projects Special Revenue Capital Projects Revenues: Intergovernmental Revenues 4 Passenger Charges Investment Earnings Total Revenues Expenditures: General Govemment Public Works Planning and Development Capital Outlay Total Expenditures Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues over Expenditures Other Financing Sources (Uses): Transfers From - Special Revenue Fund General Fund Transfers To - Debt Service Fund (Schedule III) Capital Projects Fund Total Other Financing Sources (Uses) Net Change in Fund Balances Fund Balances, Beginning 5 Fund Balances, Ending $ 18,819,703 10,793 19,513 $ - - 661,117 $ 17,844,619 - 13,206 $ - - 862,850 18,850,009 661,117 17,857,825 862,850 141,429 11,984,339 - - 4,325 228,943 4,899 9,837,025 19,528 10,157,593 - - 23,649 364,836 2,441 3,681,246 12,125,768 10, 075,192 10,177,121 4,072,172 6,724,241 (9,414,075) 7,680,704 (3,209,322) - 167,000 (6,117,000) (1,450,000) 1,450,000 - - - - - (6,136,000) (3,710,000) (9,846,000) 3,710,000 - - - (7,400,000) 1,450,000 3,710,000 (675,759) 3,716,410 (7,964,075) 31,312,786 (2,165,296) 5,881,706 500,678 30,812,108 $ 3,040,651 $ 23,348,711 $ 3,716,410 $ 31,312,786 Source: City of Miami (City) Audited Financial Statements and General Ledgers ' Ali Surtax monies are received in the City's Transportation and Transit Special Revenue Fund for Transit -related projects. Transportation -related expenditures are incurred by the Capital Projects Fund, with transfers from the Special Revenue Fund. 2 Presented for comparison with the FY 2019 audit period. 3 Represents the City's estimate of Surtax monies receivable that was not collected within 60 days after year-end. ° Amounts differ from Schedule V due to timing differences. 5 The Capital Projects Fund balance reflects prior transfers of Surtax monies from the Special Revenue Fund. These Financial Statements are not complete without the accompanying Auditors' Reports and Notes. Schedule II City of Miami Charter County Transportation System Surtax Review Surtax Proceeds Usage Analysis Description Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2019 2018 4 Revenues: Surtax Proceeds 1 $ 18,815,279 $ 15,287,281 Interest Earnings (Schedule I) 680,630 876,056 $ 19,495,909 $ 16,163,337 Surtax Uses: Eligible Transit Expenditures (Table II) $ 11,335,918 $ 9,487,725 Eligible Transportation Expenditures (Table V) $ 18,472,800 $ 16,482,259 Less MOE (4,718,932) (4,718,932) Expenditures Available For Surtax Use $ 13,753,868 $ 11,763,327 AMS Analysis: Transit -Related Expenditures: Expenditures Available for Surtax Use $ 11,335,918 $ 9,487,725 Less 20% Minimum Amount 2 (3,763,056) (3,057,456) Decrease In Unspent Funds $ 7,572,862 $ 6,430,269 Analysis of Unspent Rollover: Beginning Balance 3 $ - $ - Decrease In Unspent Amounts (7,572,862) (6,430,269) Excess Amount Applied to Transportation 7,572,862 6,430,269 Remaining Unspent Amount $ - $ - Transportation -Related Expenditures: Expenditures Available for Surtax Use $ 13,753,868 $ 11,763,327 Excess Transit Expenditures Applied 7,572,862 6,430,269 Less Remaining 80% Amount 2 (15,052,223) (12,229,825) Less Interest Earnings (680,630) (876,056) Decrease In Unspent Funds $ 5,593,877 $ 5,087,715 Analysis of Unspent Rollover: Beginning Balance 3 $ 52,988,141 $ 58,075,856 Decrease In Unspent Funds (5,593,877) (5,087,715) Remaining Unspent Amount $ 47,394,264 $ 52,988,141 1 The FY 2018 amount does not agree with Schedule I due to a change in revenue recognition for AMS analysis purposes. The resulting catch-up adjustment was reflected in FY 2018. In FY 2019, the City made a $4,424 revenue posting error. 2 At least 20% of the Surtax Proceeds must be used on Transit -related projects, such as circulator buses, and the remaining funds (80%) are earmarked for eligible Transportation projects. 3 Per the prior Audit Report dated October 1, 2019. 4 Presented for comparison with the FY 2019 audit period. Schedule III City of Miami Charter County Transportation System Surtax Review Listing of Claimed Uses of Transportation Proceeds, as Adjusted Description Fiscal Year Ended September 30, Project Number 2019 2018 1 Street Lighting - $ 5,547,224 $ 5,584,694 Street Improvement Projects: Division 5 Alleyway Improvement 17363 1,374,025 - Shenandoah/Silver Bluff Roadway 50404 1,009,154 1,241 Citywide Pavement Resurfacing 73102E 970,851 - Capital Improvement Direct and Indirect Labor 122001 903,393 761,779 SW 21 St and SW 24 Ave Roadway 30979 463,725 33,235 Transportation Planning and Professional Fees 70245 183,456 292,454 SW 5 St (SW 27 to 28 Ave) 30966 179,703 513 SW 15 St (SW 12 to 14 Ave) 173630 170,436 19,767 SW 28 Rd (SW 3 to 4 Ave) 173620 167,579 13,598 Bird Avenue Road Improvement 30628 121,024 301,947 NW 17 St (NW 32 to 37 Ave) 183611A 117,480 138 SW 27 St (SW 31 P1 to 32 Ave), Division 2 50204 91,798 94,310 SW 23 Ave (SW 3 to 4 St) 173626 87,813 14,234 Miscellaneous Division 4 Street Maintenance 30614 77,153 - SW 18 St (SW 12 to 18 Ave) 50305 73,498 1,033 SW 22 Terr (SW 27 to 37 Ave), Division 2 50407 70,466 38,564 SW 15 Rd (SW 3 to 11 Ave) 173619 62,631 77,778 SW 71 Ave (SW 4 to 8 St) 50405 60,981 318,165 SW 22 Terr (SW 32 to 37 Ave) 50407A 56,332 88,546 A Media Art Entertainment Roadway 50902 47,731 74,321 Dorsey Park Neighborhood Roadway 50907 40,977 90,837 Overtown Greenway (NW 11 St) 30624 38,926 7,608 NW 17 St (NW 27 to 32 Ave) 183611 33,049 2,740 Auburndale Roadway 173616 29,936 29,666 SW 14 Ten (SW 16 to 17 Ave) 50316 28,201 27,911 Palm Grove Road Improvements 30630 28,010 18,015 NW 30 St Improvements, Division 1 30756 25,805 2,433 SW 17 St (SW 16 to 14 Ave) 50312 25,600 1,483 NW 7 St Rd (NW N River Dr to NW 9 Ct) 50904 23,410 6,418 Grove Park Road Improvements Phase II, Division 3 40347 22,337 22,937 NW 18 Terr, East of 27 Ave 50110 20,941 18,583 Downtown Sidewalks and Streets 30606 20,640 27,311 SW 17 St (SW 16 to 17 Ave) 50312A 20,548 7,509 SW 25 Ave (SW 2 to 4 St) 173643 19,011 16,459 SW 30 Ct (SW 12 to 13 St) 30969 18,262 14,658 SW 15 St (SW 13 to 14 Ave) 50322 17,001 1,727 La Pastorita Roadway Improvements 183608 16,439 4,918 SW 23 St (SW 3rd to 14 Ave) 173622 15,534 5,534 SW 5 St (SW 21 to 22 Ave) 50320 15,480 23,281 NW 4 St (NW 49 to 52 Ave) 173615 15,380 4,617 SW 20 St (SW 16 to 17 Ave) 50319 14,325 3,864 NW 13 St (NW 35 to 37 Ave) 50104 13,940 6,968 Charles Ave (Main Highway and S Douglas) 183612 13,536 - SW 30 Rd (SW 5 to 4 Ave) 50310 13,125 2,902 NE 3 Ave (NE 54 St to 58 Terr) 50906 12,078 2,344 SW 20 St (SW 14 to 15 Ave) 173628 11,625 10,587 NW 2 Ave (NW 38 to 54 St) 50900 11,543 25,873 NW 19 Terr (NW 21 to 22 Ave) 50108 10,945 2,443 NW 24 Ave Roadway, Division 1 30723 10,389 44,139 Page 1 of 2 Schedule III City of Miami Charter County Transportation System Surtax Review Listing of Claimed Uses of Transportation Proceeds, as Adjusted Description Project Number Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2019 2018 1 SW 14 Terr (SW 16 to 17 Ave) 173627 9,703 126,750 NW 29 St and NW 7 Ave, Phase I 30896 9,428 49,812 NW 11 P1 and NW 41 St 173649 8,545 39,213 SW 24 Rd (SW 7 to 9 St) 173621 7,963 11,292 NW 18 Ave (NW 1 to 3 St) 173623 7,310 16,988 Auburndale (SW 32 Ave and 2 St) 173655 6,761 21,893 Little River N, S, W, Phase I 30902 6,271 18,196 SW 5 Ave (SW 24 to 25 Rd) 173633 5,599 10,317 Lummus Park Landing Area 30643 5,383 56,938 SW 35 Ave Roadway 173610 5,365 28,934 Hilola St Roadway 173639 5,256 33,311 SW 31 Rd (SW 2 to 3 Ave) 50323 4,451 10,124 SW 34 Ave and SW 28 St 173611 4,216 27,999 SW 5 St (SW 22 Ave to Beacom) 40331 2,132 27,487 Kiaora St Roadway 173636 852 30,743 SW 11 St (SW 5 to 12 Ave) 173618 778 38,308 NW 16 St Roadway Reconstruction 30792 - 292,619 SW 21 St (SW 12 to 13 Ave) 50307 - 175,110 SW 25 Ave 173652 - 138,930 SW 19 St (SW 16 to 17 Ave) 50304 - 92,048 NW 5 Ave (NW 17 to 19 St) 50903 - 83,228 NW 33 Ave and NW 15 St 50114A - 34,385 NE 2 Ave 78508 - 12,513 NW 2 St (NW 6 to 7 Ave) 50306 - 10,920 Reconstruction of Roadway 30431 - 10,128 Others less than $10,000 - 78,843 109,652 7,045,078 4,073,226 Drainage Projects: Citywide Storm Sewer Repairs 30262 2,403,964 - South Grove Phase 3 Roadway and Drainage 30836 522,613 247,786 Shorecrest Drainage, Division 5 17365 307,499 144,415 Center St Drainage, Division 2 30622 194,486 15,804 S Bayshore Ln/Fairview St, Division 2 30737 42,287 12,535 S Bayshore Dr Roadway and Drainage 30646 13,028 3,359 Bayhomes Dr Drainage, Division 2 30846 1,018 26,842 Others less than $10,000 - 72 5,501 3,484,967 456,242 Traffic Calming Projects: Silver Bluff Speed Tables 50408 216,793 94,007 South Golden Pines No Outlet 173613 43,652 89,116 Flagami Traffic Calming - Division 4 40672G 20,990 8,635 SW 16 Ave Traffic Calming 193618 11,298 - The Roads Neighborhood Traffic Calming 193619 10,016 - SW 14 Ave and SW 13 St 173624 - 10,006 Others less than $10,000 - 15,167 30,333 317,916 232,097 Total Claimed Project Costs 16,395,185 10,346,259 Debt Service (Schedule IV) 6,117,000 6,136,000 22,512,185 16,482,259 Total Claimed Uses of Surtax Proceeds AMS Adjustment: Unpaid Debt Service (Schedule IV) (4,039,385) - $ 18,472,800 $ 16,482,259 Eligible Transportation Expenditures (Table V) Source: City of Miami Accounting Records Presented for comparison with the FY 2019 audit period. Page 2 of 2 Schedule IV City of Miami Charter County Transportation System Surtax Review Summary of Debt Service Requirements By Bond Issue Description Fiscal Year Ended September 30, All Years 2008-2016 2017 2018 2019 Special Obligation Revenue Bonds Series 2007: Outstanding Principal Less Principal Payment/Payoff Outstanding Balance Debt Service Requirements: Principal Interest $ 80,000,000 (12,555,000) $ 67,445,000 (1,880,000) $ 65,565,000 (1,970,000) $ 63,595,000 (63,595,000) $ 16,405,000 38,071,519 $ 67,445,000 $ 12,555,000 31,473,307 $ 65,565,000 $ 63,595,000 $ - $ 1,880,000 3,342,531 $ 1,970,000 3,255,681 $ - - $ 44,028,307 $ 5,222,531 $ 5,225,681 $ - $ 54,476,519 On December 5, 2007, the City of Miami issued 580 million in Special Obligation Bonds, Series 2007, for the purpose of financing various street and sidewalk capital improvement projects. The bonds were issued with interest rates ranging from 3.5% to 5.25%, maturing from year 2009 to 2037. The Bonds were refunded with Series 2018A Bonds. Special Obligation Revenue Bonds Series 2009: Outstanding Principal Less Principal Payment/Payoff Outstanding Balance Debt Service Requirements: Principal Interest $ 65,000,000 (5,940,000) $ 59,060,000 (1,140,000) $ 57,920,000 (1,195,000) $ 56,725,000 (56,725,000) $ 8,275,000 27,943,937 $ 59,060,000 $ 57,920,000 $ 56,725,000 $ - $ 5,940,000 21,714,693 $ 1,140,000 3,141,569 $ 1,195,000 3,087,675 $ - - $ 27,654,693 $ 4,281,569 $ 4,282,675 $ - $ 36,218,937 On December 2, 2009, the City of Miami issued 565,000,000 in Special Obligation Bonds, Series 2009, for the purpose of financing various street and sidewalk capital improvement projects. The bonds were issued with interest rates ranging from 2.5% to 5.625%, maturing from year 2011 to 2039. The Bonds were refunded with Series 2018B Bonds. Total Debt Service for Series 2007 and 2009 Bonds: Principal Interest Allowed Debt Service: Debt Service Claimed t Adjustment for Unspent Debt Proceeds 2 Other Adjustments 3 $ 18,495,000 53,188,000 $ 3,020,000 6,484,100 $ 3,165,000 6,343,356 $ - - $ 24,680,000 66,015,456 $ 71,683,000 $ 9,504,100 $ 9,508,356 $ - $ 90,695,456 $ 42,915,707 (15,151,432) (857,740) $ 6,107,500 - - $ 6,136,000 - - $ - - - $ 55,159,207 (15,151,432) (857,740) $ 39,150,035 $ 26,906,535 $ 6,107,500 $ 6,136,000 $ - Source: Bond Official Statements, and City of Miami (City) Audited Financial Statements and Financial Records According to Bond Official Statements, Local Option Gas Tax and Parking Surcharge revenues were also pledged to repay the Bonds. 2 The City had substantial amounts of unused Debt Proceeds in prior years, and therefore could not claim all Debt Service as allowable uses of Surtax monies. However, beginning in FY 2016, the City's use of Proceeds exceeded 85%: therefore, no further amounts were disallowed. 3 In FY 2008, the City charged 100% of Debt Service payments to Surtax, yet should have allocated a portion to the other funding sources, consistent with subsequent years. 4 In FY 2019, the City charged a portion of Debt Service payments to Surtax for the Series 2007 and 2009 Bonds, even though they were refinanced with Series 2018 Bonds. There was no Debt Service paid in FY 2019 on the Series 2007 and 2009 Bonds. However, the City paid interest on the Series 2018 Bonds in FY 2019, and the 64.3% portion attributable to Surtax was an allowable use of funds in that year. Page 1 of 2 Schedule IV City of Miami Charter County Transportation System Surtax Review Summary of Debt Service Requirements By Bond Issue Description Fiscal Year Ended September 30, All Years 2008-2016 2017 2018 2019 Special Obligation Revenue Bonds Series 2018: Series A: Outstanding Principal Less Principal Payment/Payoff Outstanding Balance Debt Service Requirements: Principal Interest Series B: Outstanding Principal Less Principal Payment/Payoff Outstanding Balance Debt Service Requirements: Principal Interest Series C: Outstanding Principal Less Principal Payment/Payoff Outstanding Balance Debt Service Requirements: Principal Interest Total Series 2018 Bonds: Outstanding Principal Less Principal Payment/Payoff Outstanding Balance Debt Service Requirements: Principal Interest Allowed Debt Service: Debt Service Claimed (Schedule III)1 Adjustment for Amount Unpaid (Schedule III) 4 $ - - $ - - $ - - $ 57,405,000 - $ - 1,801,879 $ - $ - $ - $ 57,405,000 $ - - $ - - $ - - $ - 1,801,879 $ - $ - $ - $ 1,801,879 $ 1,801,879 $ - - $ - - $ - - $ 42,620,000 - $ - 1,217,408 $ - $ - $ - $ 42,620,000 $ - - $ - - $ - - $ - 1,217,408 $ - $ - $ - $ 1,217,408 $ 1,217,408 $ - - $ - - $ - - $ 7,455,000 - $ - 211,841 $ - $ - $ - $ 7,455,000 $ - - $ - - $ - - $ - 211,841 $ - $ - $ - $ 211,841 $ 211,841 $ - - $ - - $ - - $ 107,480,000 - $ - 3,231,128 $ - $ - $ - $ 107,480,000 $ - - $ - - $ - - $ - 3,231,128 $ - $ - $ - $ 3,231,128 $ 3,231,128 $ - - $ - - $ - - $ 6,117,000 (4,039,385) $ 6,117,000 (4,039,385) $ - $ - $ - $ 2,077,615 $ 2,077,615 On November 15, 2018, the City of Miami issued S57.405, S42.620, and S7 455 million in Special Obligation Bonds, Series 2018A, B, and C, respectively, for the purpose of refunding Series 2007 and 2009 Bonds, and financing various street and sidewalk capital improvement projects. The bonds were issued with interest rates ranging from 3.461 % to 5%, maturing from year 2020 to 2039. The City pledged future revenue proceeds of 80 % of Surtax monies, 100 % of Local Option Gas Taxes, and 20 % of Parking Surcharge funds to repay the bonds. Page 2 of 2 Schedule IV -A City of Miami Charter County Transportation System Surtax Review Expenditures Paid from Series 2018C Bond Proceeds Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2019 Description Project Number Amount Downtown Sidewalks & Streets 30606 $ 1,452,840 Dorsey Park Neighborhood Roadway 50907 434,265 A Media Art Entertainment Roadway 50902 302,217 SW 17 St (SW 16 to 17 Ave) 50312A 225,539 SW 12 St (SW 16 to 17 Ave) 50311 194,167 Palm Grove Roadway 30630 193,065 SW 12 St (SW 13 Ave and 13 Ct) 50303 35,138 Grove Park Roadway Phase II, Division 3 40347 23,406 NW13Ave(NW21to23St) 50112 17,176 Overtown Greenway (NW 11 St) 30624 14,739 SW 28 Rd (SW 5 to 9 Ave) 50313 12,450 SW 5 St (SW 27 to 28 Ave) 30966 11,298 Coconut Grove Business District Sidewalks 30687 10,877 Buena Vista Neighborhood Traffic Calming 193620 9,378 SW 25 St (SW 27 to 32 Ave) 50421 7,801 NE 3 Ave (NE 54 St to 58 Terr) 50906 3,687 Center Street Drainage, Division 2 30622 2,917 SW 19 Ave and SW 14 St Traffic Calming 30804 2,000 Flagami Traffic Calming, Division 4 40672G 1,564 S Bayshore Lane and Fairview St, Division 2 30737 712 $ 2,955,236 Series 2018C Proceeds $ 7,455,000 Less: Costs of Issuance (139,097) Less: Funds Used (2,955,236) Unused Funds as of September 30, 2019 $ 4,360,667 Source: City of Miami Accounting Records Schedule V Charter County Transportation System Surtax Review Summary of Payments to Municipalities Municipality Fiscal Year Ended September 30, All Years 2003 to 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 City of Miami' $ 163,251,890 $ 16,889,133 $ 16,523,990 $ 18,187,632 $ 19,212,362 $ 234,065,007 City of Hialeah 94,519,774 9,243,159 9,346,775 9,873,020 10,107,558 133,090,286 City of Miami Beach 37,554,491 3,670,335 3,678,499 3,925,123 3,963,754 52,792,202 City of Miami Gardens 2 22,375,665 4,336,722 4,409,954 4,737,286 4,846,211 40,705,838 City of North Miami 24,592,952 2,454,241 2,473,804 2,665,998 2,700,412 34,887,407 City of Homestead 20,867,813 2,669,792 2,788,854 2,969,698 3,152,022 32,448,179 City of Coral Gables 18,755,177 1,955,854 1,981,236 2,091,593 2,132,315 26,916,175 City of North Miami Beach 17,154,830 1,733,203 1,746,039 1,882,765 1,945,188 24,462,025 City of Aventura 12,992,928 1,494,036 1,502,980 1,590,870 1,613,705 19,194,519 City of Doral 2 9,003,402 2,120,606 2,232,433 2,508,437 2,747,033 18,611,911 Town of Miami Lakes 1 11,086,213 1,209,319 1,211,635 1,288,227 1,309,407 16,104,801 Town of Cutler Bay 2 8,525,502 1,721,858 1,769,140 1,899,220 1,935,984 15,851,704 Village of Palmetto Bay 10,074,295 952,951 956,304 1,013,542 1,033,365 14,030,457 City of Hialeah Gardens 8,635,855 904,713 922,372 986,599 1,007,122 12,456,661 City of Sunny Isles Beach 7,759,606 869,990 866,019 933,221 951,809 11,380,645 Village ofPinecrest3 7,840,962 737,876 738,316 777,521 790,584 10,885,259 City of Miami Springs 5,682,283 562,418 565,087 601,223 608,639 8,019,650 City of Sweetwater ' 5,070,356 273,778 133,332 466,662 166,116 6,110,244 City of South Miami 4,767,184 546,219 547,720 546,151 541,343 6,948,617 City of Opa-locka I 6,329,004 90,323 195,000 210,000 165,000 6,989,327 Village of Key Biscayne 4,809,375 502,197 508,734 540,692 550,288 6,911,286 City of Florida City 4,132,139 498,385 504,443 542,769 557,265 6,235,001 Miami Shores Village 4,308,419 419,557 420,697 443,831 447,113 6,039,617 North Bay Village 2,808,576 314,789 328,007 378,523 384,140 4,214,035 City of West Miami 2,445,250 241,053 241,373 279,166 307,465 3,514,307 Town of Surfside 2,314,098 229,428 228,739 234,500 248,902 3,255,667 Town of Bay Harbor Islands 2,209,631 231,953 222,682 234,375 249,414 3,148,055 Village of Biscayne Park 1,342,176 125,900 126,220 135,905 135,965 1,866,166 Bal Harbour Village 1,262,745 114,472 111,421 114,881 125,178 1,728,697 Village of El Porta14 1,012,447 6,467 174,873 90,094 89,175 1,373,056 Village of Virginia Gardens 973,380 96,229 96,903 102,910 103,132 1,372,554 Town of Medley 429,285 34,442 33,529 35,277 35,617 568,150 Town of Golden Beach 1 365,820 36,766 37,221 39,423 39,386 518,616 Indian Creek Village 3,604 - - - - 3,604 $ 525,257,127 $ 57,288,164 $ 57,624,331 $ 62,327,134 $ 64,202,969 $ 766,699,725 Source: Office of the Citizens' Independent Transportation Trust (OCITT) and the County's Financial Accounting Management Information System t Amounts are net of withholdings of $76,553 from the Town of Miami Lakes, $2.1 million from the City of Sweetwater, $21,058 from the Town of Golden Beach, $2.3 million from the City of Opa-locka, and $3.3 million from the City of Miami, due to specific instances of noncompliance. Partial amounts were released as follows: $1.3 million to Sweetwater on 11/27/2019, and $901,927 to Opa-locka on 3/9/2020. 2 Pursuant to the respectiveInterlocal and/or Settlement Agreements, these Municipalities, which were incorporated after November 2002, are receiving a share of the County's Surtax Proceeds consistent with the other Municipal distributions. 3 In FY 2009, $551,589 was returned by the Village of Pinecrest for their unspent Transit portion of funding as of September 30, 2007. In FY 2013, OCITT returned the monies to the Village. 4 Amount in FY 2016 is net of $84,069 withheld due to instances of noncompliance, which was returned in FY 2017 by OCITT. Exhibit I City of Miami (City) Charter County Transportation System Surtax Review Status of Prior Audit Findings 1 Finding Use of Transit Proceeds Recommendation Auditee Response Current Status The City spent all of its Transit -related Surtax funds, but had Trolley advertising revenues and related expenses recorded in a separate fund from its Surtax activities. The City should consider recording Trolley advertising revenues in its Transportation and Transit Special Revenue Fund to facilitate accountability. The City provided AMS with documentation that irrefutably depicted the use of advertising revenues for Transportation and Transit - related expenditures. Unresolved During the year ended September 30, 2019, the City earned $493,065 in advertising revenues that were not recorded in Surtax funds, although the revenues were properly expended for Transit -related activities. (See Pages 3-5) Use of Transportation Proceeds The City had unspent Transportation Funds of $53 million available for carryover. Further, only $34.1 million was reported as "Cash and Investments" in the Transportation and Transit Special Revenue and Capital Projects Funds. The City should submit a revised Five -Year Transportation Plan to demonstrate how the $53 million of rollover monies will be used. Surtax distributions should be withheld until the City reduces its $18.9 million funding gap, and there is a substantial reduction in unspent funds. The City submitted a CITT Funds Management Plan which outlined its strategy to reduce its CITT fund balance. Unresolved As of September 30, 2019, the City had $47.4 million in unspent Transportation funds, with only $27.8 million in Cash and Investments in the Transportation and Transit Special Revenue and Capital Projects Funds. The shortfall was $19.6 million. (See Pages 5-6.) Reporting to OCITT The City timely submitted all required reports to OCITT. However, Quarterly Transportation Expenditure Reports did not agree with annual amounts recorded in the City's General Ledger. City staff must strive to provide accurate reports to OCITT. The City will begin reporting on a year-to- date basis instead of a project -to -date basis. Unresolved Quarterly Reports did not agree with City accounting records. (See Page 6.) ' See the Audit Report dated October 1, 2019 and the Response dated September 13, 2019 for the full text. Date: To: From: MIAMI•DADE Memorandum COUNTY February 28, 2021 Javier A. Betancourt, Executive Director Office of the Citizens' Independent Transportation Trust (OCITT) Cathy Jac l4don, `17irector Audit and Management Services Department Subject: Final Audit Report — Charter County Transportation System Surtax Review — City of Miami, Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2019 We are in receipt of the City of Miami (City) Response, dated January 29, 2021 (Attachment I) to the above -captioned Audit Report issued September 16, 2020. After reviewing the Response, we are concerned that it did not address the full extent of the City's Unspent Surtax Funds and related Cash Shortfall. The City had Unspent Surtax Funds of $47.4 million as of September 30, 2019, but only reported Cash and Investments of $27.8 million in its Transportation and Transit Special Revenue and Capital Projects Funds (Schedule I). This $19.6 million shortfall is excessive and should be replenished immediately. The City contends that the primary cause of Unspent Surtax Funds is the disallowance of debt service payments from prior year audits, which was the result of the City's excess and unused borrowings. We reaffirm that debt service on borrowed funds that remain unused for many years should not be an allowable use of Surtax Proceeds. As repeatedly recommended since September 30, 2011, OCITT should suspend all future Surtax payments until the City has addressed this issue. We also disagree with additional statements made in the Response, as explained below. • Trolley Advertising Revenues The City stated that Trolley advertisement revenues are properly accounted for and should not be included in the Transportation and Transit Special Revenue Fund. Per OCITT guidelines, Trolley advertising revenues should be used to fund Transit - related expenditures. As such, we recommend those revenues be accounted for in that fund. This is discretionary but not mandatory. • Debt Service and Surtax Allocation The City acknowledges that it did not make FY 2019 debt payments on refunded Series 2007 and 2009 Bonds, but rather did pay interest on Series 2018 Bonds. We reaffirm the audit adjustment to disallow unpaid debt service and include the interest paid on Series 2018 Bonds. Final Audit Report — Charter County Transportation System Surtax Review — City of Miami, Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2019 Page 2 The City further believes that 100% of debt service can be paid with Surtax Proceeds, even though there are three sources of repayment — Surtax, Local Option Gas Tax, and Parking Revenues. The City historically established an allocation of repayment among the three sources, and actually allocated 64.3% of debt service for refunded Bonds in FY 2019. Because the debt service payments were not disbursed prior to their refunding, our audit disallowed the amounts, but did allow 64.3% of debt service for Series 2018 Bonds (Schedule I). Therefore, we reaffirm the allocation of debt service among the three repayment sources. As requested by OCITT, we will continue performing annual audits of the City's use of Surtax Funds. Based on the foregoing, the audit for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2019 has been closed. Please contact me at 786-469-5900, if you have any questions. CJ: bm Attachment c: Honorable Harvey A. Ruvin, Clerk of the Courts Geri Bonzon-Keenan, County Attorney Edward Marquez, Chief Financial Officer Jimmy Morales, Chief Operations Officer David Clodfelter, Interim Director, Office of Management and Budget Arthur Noriega, City Manager, City of Miami Schedule I City of Miami - Charter County Transportation System Surtax - Audit Summary Description Unspent Surtax Proceeds Transit Transportation Total Audits through 9/30/13 Two Years Ended 9/30/15 Two Years Ended 9/30/17 Year Ended 9/30/18 Year Ended 9/30/19 Major Cumulative Adjustments Disallowed Debt Service 1 Debt not Charged to LOGT and Parking 2 Interest Income 3 Total Cash per General Ledger4 Cash Shortfall $ 14,435,991 $ 41,478,496 $ 55,914,487 $ 13,218,962 $ 857,740 $ 2,000,000 $ 16,076,702 $ 35,520,102 $ 20,394,385 13,315,690 51,958,114 65,273,804 15,151,432 857,740 2,856,645 18,865,817 40,454,603 24,819,201 58,075,856 58,075,856 15,151,432 857,740 3,708,941 19,718,113 36,366,394 21,709,462 52,988,141 52,988,141 15,151,432 857,740 3,708,941 19,718,113 34,132,914 18,855,227 47,394,264 47,394,264 19,190,817 857,740 3,708,941 23,757,498 27,752,391 19,641,873 Debt Service Claimed and Disallowed Description Series 2007 Bonds Claimed Disallowed Net Audits through 9/30/13 Two Years Ended 9/30/15 Two Years Ended 9/30/17 Year Ended 9/30/18 Year Ended 9/30/19 5 Series 2009 Bonds Series 2018 Bonds - Allowed Debt Service Claimed Disallowed Net $ 18,880,958 $ (9,772,457) $ 9,108,501 $ 9,581,988 $(4,304,245) $ 5,277,743 4,575,643 (1,061,881) 3,513,762 3,750,418 (870,589) 2,879,829 6,723,748 6,723,748 5,510,452 3,372,274 3,372,274 2,763,726 2,763,726 3,359,879 (3,359,879) 2,757,121 (2,757,121) $ 36,912,502 $ (14,194,217) $ 22,718,285 $ 24,363,705 $(7,931,955) $16,431,750 5,510,452 2,077,615 $ 2.077.615 Total Claimed Disallowed, net $ 28,462,946 $ (14,076,702) 8,326,061 (1,932,470) 12,234,200 6,136,000 6,117,000 (4,039,385) $ 61,276,207 $ (20,048,557) 1 Debt Service was disallowed because the City had substantial amounts of unused Debt Proceeds. Disallowed amounts were calculated as Debt Service charged to Surtax, multiplied by the percentage of Unspent Proceeds in each year. 2 In FY 2008, the City charged 100% of Debt Service to Surtax, yet should have allocated a portion ($857,740) to Local Option Gas Tax (LOGT) and Parking Revenues, as was done in subsequent years. The City did not record this FY 2008 allocation, and thus it is shown as a cumulative adjustment for each audit period. 3 Amounts represent interest that should have been earned on Unspent Surtax Proceeds that were not recorded by the City. 4 A separate Transit and Transportation Special Revenue Fund was established in FY 2003, but the detail of claimed expenditures did not tie to General Ledger amounts in the Special Revenue and Capital Projects Funds until the FY 2017 audit period. 5 In FY 2019, the Series 2007 and 2009 Bonds were refunded prior to the City making any debt payments. Therefore, all Debt Service related to those Bonds was disallowed. The City did not claim Debt Service for the new Series 2018 Bonds. We therefore included 64.3% of FY 2019 Debt Service for Series 2018, allocating the same percentage to Surtax that the City had allocated for the Series 2007 and 2009 Bonds. Attachment I ttp Df ARTHUR NORIEGA, V CITY MANAGER January 29, 2021 � 1I1 taint, ftoriba Ms. Cathy Jackson, Director Audit and Management Services Department 701 NW 151 Court, Suite 8-175 Miami, Florida 33136 P .O . BOX 330708 MEAMI. FLORIDA 33233-0708 (305) 250 -5400 FAX (305) 250 -5410 Re: City Audit Report - Charter County Transit System Surtax Review Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2019 We are in receipt of the report dated August 5, 2020, titled "Audit Report — City of Miami Charter County Transportation System Surtax Review for the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2019." We would like to thank you and your staff for your assistance and for the opportunity to address the recommendations. We have carefully reviewed each point identified in the Audit Report and offer the following responses to the three recommendations. Recommendation: The City should ensure all claimed costs are eligible for Surtax use, and prospectively consider recording Trolley advertising revenues in its Transportation and Transit Special Revenue Fund to facilitate accountability. Response: The City takes care to ensure claimed costs are eligible for Surtax use. In order to properly account for Surtax Proceeds, the City tracks the flow of funds through its Special Revenue and Capital Projects Funds' general ledger accounts. The City has provided documentation, including a reconciliation of available funds, that accounts for the balances in those funds and reconciles to the balance per the Audit Report. With this documentation, enough support was provided to ascertain that advertisement revenues are properly accounted for. Recommendation: Prospectively, the City should ensure all claimed costs are eligible for Surtax use. City staff should submit a revised Five -Year Transportation Plan, approved by its City Commission, specifying how the $47.4 million in unspent funds will be used. More importantly, Surtax distribution should be held in Trust by OCITT until the City reduces the estimated $19 million funding gap. Further, OCITT should formally communicate these concerns to the CITT Board with a plan for timely resolution. Wage Page 1 of 3 Response: The City takes care to ensure claimed costs are eligible for Surtax use and disagrees with AMS that there is $19 million funding gap (i.e. $19.6 million less than should be available, reported in the Transportation and Transit Special Revenue and Capital Projects Funds). The primary differences between the City and AMS's balance of unspent funds are related to AMS's disallowance of debt service payments (in prior year audits since 2013), and interest income - which is inflated by AMS due to their interest calculation utilizing the disallowed amounts. As its basis for the debt service disallowances, AMS asserts that "The City should not charge 100% of the debt service payments to the Surtax" because the bonds are to be repaid with three funding sources — Surtax, Local Option Gas Taxes (LOGT), and Parking Revenues. However, the City disagrees with this assertion. The City pledged 80 percent Transportation Taxes, 100 percent new LOGT, and 20 percent of the City's Parking Surcharge to repay $57.4 million in Special Obligation Revenue Bonds. Although revenue is pledged from multiple funding sources to ensure there is enough coverage to make payments throughout the life of the bond, the percentage of the pledges does not function as a percentage cap/restriction on the use of the respective funding sources for debt service. Therefore, the City maintains the position that each debt service payment does not have to be allocated amongst the three funding sources; and as a result, the City was within its rights to utilize the Surtax monies for the debt service payments being disallowed by AMS. The amount of the debt service payment that comes from Transportation Taxes is recommended by the City's Office of Management and Budget and approved in the Budget Ordinance by the City Commission. The City also disagrees with the disallowance of the $4.8 million debt service for FY19 for the following reasons. TD Bank was the City's paying agent for the 2007 and 2009 Street and Sidewalk Bonds. At the time of closing for the new Series 2018 Bonds, the balance in the bank accounts for the 2007 and 2009 Bonds totaled $4,876,909.57. These funds were to be used to make future debt service payments for FY2019. The closing took place in November 2018 and the funds were used as the sinking fund contribution towards the new debt. In addition, the City made the interest only payment of $3,231,127.73 on January 2019 for the new Series 2018 Bonds. The City's 5 Year Capital Plan outlines the projects that the remaining $27.8 million of Transportation and Transit funds will be spent on, and can be found on page 263 of the following link: http://archive. miamigov.com/Budget/docs/FY21 /FY%202020- 21 %20Proposed%200peratinq%20Budget%20Book%20-%20Web%20Version%20- %20Final.pdf Recommendation: City Staff must strive to provide accurate reports to OCITT. Response: The City's reporting to OCITT is accurate. The City has provided documentation, including a "Reconciliation of Quarterly Transportation Expenditure Report", reconciled to the balance per the AMS Audit Report. AMS is trying to reconcile using a year-to-date format; however, the OCITT Report is created to track expenditures on a project -to -date basis. As discussed during the audit field work, the City has no problem with reporting expenditures in the format that AMS prefers, but CITT will need to review the report and notify the City of the new 2IPage Page 2 of 3 format. In addition, the City communicated with CITT regarding a new template and we were instructed to continue with the old format (project -to -date) for FY19. Sincer Arthur Nriega, V City Ma ager Cc: Honorable Mayor Francis X. Suarez Javier A. Betancourt, Executive Director, Office of CITT Fernando Casamayor, ACM/CFO Wage Page 3 of 3 Summary of Projects Capitalized by Funding Source SS - Series 2007 - Award 1379 Street Bonds Capitalized?/Department # of ProjecI Actual Cost 0 14 $3,837,098 Office of Capital Improvements 14 Yes 174 Office of Capital Improvements 168 $3,837,098 Comments and Findings Out of the 14 projects that have not yet been capitalized, all are managed by OCI and are currently active in Design, Construction or are in the closeout process. $73,033,469 $71,413,949 Non-OCI 6 $1,619,520 Grand Total 188 $76,870,568 Out of the 174 projects that have been capitalized 168 are managed by OCI. Please note that not all projects have been closed in Oracle yet. There are still 80 projects opened or pending to be closed in Oracle. SS - Series 2009 - Award 1638 _Street Bonds -Series 2 Capitalized?/Department ctual Cost Comments and Findings Out of the 44 projects that have not yet been capitalized, 43 are managed by OCI, from which, 39 are currently active in Design, Bidding, Construction or are in the closeout process and 4 projects have been canceled and closed. No 44 $16,927,481 Office of Capital Improvements 43 $16,778,684 Non-OCI 1 $148,797 Yes 168 $34,313,920 Out of the 168 projects that have been capitalized all are managed by OCI. Please note that not all projects have been closed in Oracle yet. There are still 76 projects opened or pending to be closed in Oracle. Office of Capital Improvements 168 $34,313,920 Grand Total 212 $51,241,400 SS - Series 2018C - Award 2460 Street Bonds - Series 2018C capita me /Departfeh # o Project Actua Co No 39 Office of Capital Improvements 39 $4,021,692 $4,021,692 Yes 14 $234,690 Comments and Findings Out of the 39 projects that have not yet been capitalized, all are managed by OCI, from which, 36 are currently active in Design, Bidding, Construction or are in the closeout process and 3 projects have been canceled and closed. Office of Capital Improvements 14 $234,690 Grand Total 53 $4,256,382 Out of the 14 projects that have been capitalized all are managed by OCI. Please note that not all projects have been closed in Oracle yet. There are still 13 projects opened or pending to be closed in Oracle. Yes $3,837,098, No $16,927,481, e $34,313,920 Yes $234,690,_ Yes No $4,021,692, No Project Project Name Budget Actual Cost Commitment Amount Total Cart Available Balance %Complete Managed By Current Phase (if applicable) Status Oracle a pitalaed Cart 40-B30011 Englewood Stm Sewer - Ph 111 1,640,267.86 1,640,267.86 - 1,640,267.86 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements 08- Final Completion APPROVED 2,041,632.21 40-B30019A NW 36th Court 205,703.31 205,703.31 - 205,703.31 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED 205,703.31 40-B30019B NW 18th Street (30-32 Ave) 479,002.97 479,002.97 - 479,002.97 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED 479,002.97 40-B30019C NW 14th Terrace (32-37 Ave) 793,480.98 793,480.98 - 793,480.98 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED 793,480.98 40-B30019D NW 16th Street/Terr (27-28) 308,426.99 308,426.99 - 308,426.99 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED 308,426.99 40-B30019E NW 14th St (22nd to 27th Ave) 39,775.10 39,775.10 - 39,775.10 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED 39,775.10 40-B30019F NW 15th St (NW 32 Ave - 37) 799,232.23 799,232.23 - 799,232.23 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED 799,223.03 40-B30019G NW 4th Terrace 476,435.06 476,435.06 - 476,435.06 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED 476,429.54 40-B30019H NW 13th Terrace 362,109.78 362,109.78 - 362,109.78 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED 362,109.78 40-B30020A NW 1st Street 828,878.29 828,878.29 - 828,878.29 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE 828,878.29 40-B30020B NW 2nd Street 509,980.12 509,980.12 - 509,980.12 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE 509,980.12 40-B30020C D3 NW Quadrant PH 1 1,952,322.52 1,952,322.52 - 1,952,322.52 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE 1,952,322.52 40-B30020D D3 NW Quadrant- PH 11 - ME 366,222.37 366,222.37 - 366,222.37 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE 366,222.37 40-B30024A SW 5th St. 12- 13th Ave. 86,016.71 86,016.71 - 86,016.71 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE 86,016.71 40-B30025A SW 5th Street (55-57 Ave) 508,237.28 508,237.28 - 508,237.28 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE 508,237.28 40-B30025B D4-Misc Streets Paving PHII 799,458.25 799,458.25 - 799,458.25 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE 799,458.25 40-B30026A SW 5th Street Improvements 11,096.28 11,096.28 - 11,096.28 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED 11,096.28 40-B30026B Flagler Terr (12th - 17th Ave) 604,061.93 604,061.93 - 604,061.93 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE 604,061.93 40-B30031A SW 3rd Avenue Road Impr 137,532.09 137,532.09 - 137,532.09 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED 137,532.09 40-B30031C SW 15th Rd (Coral Way-SMia) 203,254.99 203,254.99 - 203,254.99 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED $ 203,252.57 40-B30034A D3 Shenandoah St. Assess 50,282.00 50,282.00 - 50,282.00 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED $ 50,282.00 40-B30034B SW llth Street (14-17Ave) 615,452.77 615,452.77 - 615,452.77 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE $ 615,452.77 40-B30035 Coconut Grove Park Area Mill 581,241.02 581,241.02 - 581,241.02 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED $ 607,040.84 40-B30035A North Shorecresr Rd Impr 143,860.07 143,860.07 - 143,860.07 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE $ 612,471.41 40-B30035B Shorecresr Roadway Mill/Resur 610,060.97 610,060.96 0.01 610,060.97 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED $ 855,026.32 40-B30037 Mary St-Grd Ave/Tiger Traffic 29,503.22 29,503.22 - 29,503.22 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED $ 29,503.22 40-B30037A Traffic Calming - Grove Area 62,491.44 62,491.44 - 62,491.44 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED $ 62,491.44 40-B30037B Various Streets - Grove Area 451,348.84 451,348.84 - 451,348.84 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE $ 454,490.40 40-B30041A Wesr/Ctr Grove Traffic Study 18,258.78 18,258.78 - 18,258.78 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED #N/A 40-B30130 Miami River Greenway SW 1 410,896.13 410,896.13 - 410,896.13 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED $ 1,183,859.81 40-B30138 Model City/Floral Park St PHII 2,568,420.01 2,568,420.01 - 2,568,420.01 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED $ 2,568,390.83 40-B30167B Shenandoah Traffic Calm P2 139,976.06 139,976.06 - 139,976.06 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED $ 139,976.06 40-B30167D Shenandoah Traffic Calm P4 326,001.34 326,001.34 (0.01) 326,001.33 0.01 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED $ 1,395,052.90 40-B30168A Silver Bluff Traffic Calm P3 181,327.67 181,327.67 - 181,327.67 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE $ 648,647.45 40-B30168B Silver Bluff Traffic Calm PH2 1,157,027.85 1,157,027.85 - 1,157,027.85 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED $ 1,157,027.85 40-B30168C SW 16th Avenue 44,426.49 44,426.49 - 44,426.49 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED $ 54,464.61 40-B30181A NW 36th Avenue -Streets 544,869.57 544,869.57 - 544,869.57 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED $ 544,869.57 40-B30181B NW 35th Avenue -Streets 629,239.75 629,239.75 - 629,239.75 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED $ 629,239.75 40-B30181C NW 30th Court -Streets 569,443.23 569,443.23 - 569,443.23 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED $ 569,443.23 40-B30181D NW 19th Street 331,356.47 331,356.47 - 331,356.47 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED $ 331,356.47 40-B30323 Buena Vista Heights PHII 2,482,259.75 2,482,259.75 - 2,482,259.75 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE $ 2,747,402.49 40-B30377A District 1- Sidewalk Repairs 193,541.05 193,541.05 - 193,541.05 - 100 Non-OCI PENDING_CLOSE $ 193,541.05 40-B30377B District 2- Sidewalk Repairs 132,847.21 132,847.21 - 132,847.21 - 100 Non-OCI PENDING_CLOSE $ 132,847.21 40-B30377C D3 - Sidewalk Repairs and ADA 79,318.67 79,318.67 - 79,318.67 - 100 Non-OCI PENDING_CLOSE $ 79,318.67 40-B30377D District 4- Sidewalk Repairs 177,867.00 177,867.00 - 177,867.00 - 100 Non-OCI PENDING_CLOSE $ 177,867.00 40-B30377E District 5- Sidewalk Repairs 189,745.94 189,745.94 - 189,745.94 - 100 Non-OCI PENDING_CLOSE $ 189,745.94 40-B30500 Civic Center Infrastructure 1,017,780.96 1,017,780.96 - 1,017,780.96 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE $ 1,613,691.57 40-B30500A NW 29th Terrace 548,959.74 548,959.74 - 548,959.74 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED $ 548,959.74 40-B30500B NW 27th Street 552,504.25 552,504.25 - 552,504.25 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED $ 552,504.25 40-B30500C NW 25th Street 476,408.16 476,408.16 - 476,408.16 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED $ 476,408.16 40-B30500D NW 35th Street 356,748.74 356,748.74 - 356,748.74 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED $ 356,748.74 40-B30500E NW 24th St (12th - 13th Ave) 269,635.59 269,635.59 - 269,635.59 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED $ 269,635.59 40-B30500F NW 34th Street 516,019.47 516,019.47 - 516,019.47 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED $ 516,013.47 40-B30507 NW 32 Street, NW 23 Ave 1,018,294.44 1,018,294.44 - 1,018,294.44 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED $ 1,699,875.24 40-B30540 Little River Industrial Park 1,317,899.24 1,317,899.22 0.02 1,317,899.24 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements APPROVED $ 1,806,216.19 40-B30542 US-1 Privacy Wall 2,500,932.11 2,500,932.11 - 2,500,932.11 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE $ 2,744,459.11 40-B30542A US1 Milling/Resurf. and Wall 1,250,354.94 1,250,354.94 - 1,250,354.94 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE $ 2,662,122.22 40-B30565 NW 43rd Avenue Street Imp 626,324.38 626,324.38 - 626,324.38 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED $ 646,421.38 40-B30573 Mgt of Various Str Projects 188,606.58 188,606.58 - 188,606.58 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED $ 315,486.89 40-B30583 Citywide Street Resurfacing 1,382,530.50 1,382,530.50 - 1,382,530.50 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED $ 1,382,530.50 40-B30588 San Marco & Biscayne Drain 1,644.50 1,644.50 - 1,644.50 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED $ 4,322,411.19 40-B30606 Flagler Street formly DWNTWN 233,797.83 233,797.83 - 233,797.83 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements 07- Construction APPROVED $ - ma ining to be capital Capitalized? 3,712,690.86 No Ves Ves Ves Yes Ves 9.20 Ves 5.52 Ves Ves Yes Ves Ves Ves Yes Ves Ves Ves Yes Ves 2.42 Ves Ves Yes Ves Ves Ves Yes Ves Ves #N/A No Yes 29.18 Ves Ves Ves Yes Ves Ves Ves Ves Yes Ves Ves Ves Yes Ves Ves Ves Yes Ves Ves Ves Yes Ves 6.00 Ves Ves Yes Ves Ves Ves Yes Ves Ves 14,201,453.86 No 40-B30606D 40-B30606L 40-B30606N 40-B30606S 40-B30610 40-B30624 40-B30627 40-B30629 40-B30630 40-B30643 40-B30653 40-B30654 40-B30654A 40-B30662A 40-B30662B 40-B30662C 40-B30662D 40-B30664A 40-B30674 40-B30676 40-B30677 40-B30687 40-B30691 40-B30699 40-B30703 40-B30704 40-B30705 40-B30712 40-B30714 40-B30715 40-B30716 40-B30718 40-B30719 40-B30720 40-B30722 40-B30724 40-B30725 40-B30727 40-B30729 40-B30730 40-B30732 40-B30749 40-B30760 40-B30770 40-B30771 40-B30776 40-B30778 40-B30780 40-B30781 40-B30803 40-B30804 40-B30830 40-B30836 40-B30841 40-B30880 40-B30884 40-B30891 40-B30892 40-B30894 40-B30906 40-B30960 40-B30965 40-B30967 DWNTWN Beaut -Design Ph DWNTWN Beautif(Lighting) DWNTWN Beaut - North DWNTWN Beaut - South NW 7th Court Overtown Greenway @ NW 11 Coral Gate Wall Durham Terrace Drain. Palm Grove Road Impr W mmus Park Landing Area Speed Humps/Road Impr S.Gr D5 Model City Street Resu rf D5 Overtown, Little Haiti St D2-Traffic Study -SW 28th D2-Traffic Study at Bridge D2-Traffic Study at Mary US-1 Median Closures @ Brdgpt D4-Traffic Study at La Past. Little Haiti Soccer Park- Rd Grand Ave & McDonald ROW D3 Sidewalk ADA Retrofits Coconut Grove Business Dirt NW North River Dr- Distl Beacom Project Area Impr Bob Hope Dr. btw NW 20 - 17 NW 14th Ave btw NW 24-27 St NW 24 St btw NW 14 & 17 Ave NW 21 Ave btw NW 1st -3rd St NW 17 Ave btw NW 3rd -1st St NW 24 Ave btw NW3-6 St Tigertail Resurfacing -D2 1-95 S. Miami Terminal St Imp SW 16 Ave from Coral Way to 20 SW25 Rd from SW4-5 Ave NW 31st St Roadway Impr NW 33rd St Roadway Impr NW llth St Roadway Impr NW 18th Ave Roadway Impr NW 17th Terr Roadway Impr NW 4th Terr Roadway Impr NW 9th St Roadway Impr Citrus Grove Roadway Impr SW 17th Ave Rdwy & Drain Imp SW 22nd Ave Med. US1-Coral Way Traffic Calming SW 6th St- D4 Silver Bluff Drainage Impr D4 Traffic Circle -SW 18 Ave & 13 NW 14 Ave & 28St Area Rdwy NW 11 Street from 27 to 37Ave SW 18th Ave from Sw 23rd St Traffic Calm @ SW 19 Ave/SW 14 US1 Landscape-17Ave/Viscaya South Grove PH3 Rdwy &Drain Scoffee Speed Tables- D2 NE 2nd Ct Rdwy & Drainage D5 NW 62 St West of 1-95 Rdwy Imp Buena Vista One Way St Cony Little Haiti Gateway Signs Little Haiti Right of Way Impr NW 3 Avenue Pedestrian Impr La Pastorita Traffic Calm/Misc Cora l Gate Speed Humps - D4 SW 16th Terr from SW 21 Ave 324,571.13 324,571.13 1,349,932.37 1,349,932.35 4,657,524.62 4,657,524.62 3,148,266.16 3,146,626.16 3,962.96 3,962.96 9,825.59 9,825.59 1,544,192.52 1,544,192.52 35,988.40 35,988.40 9,781.01 9,781.01 210,320.67 210,320.64 59,330.03 59,330.03 743,133.45 743,133.45 724,388.46 724,388.46 28,941.57 28,941.57 56,167.68 56,167.68 19,705.35 19,705.35 134,735.67 134,735.67 26,234.06 26,234.06 176,057.71 176,057.71 35,273.95 35,273.95 21,425.74 21,425.74 1,306,471.26 1,306,471.26 79,880.00 79,880.00 820,431.40 820,431.40 73,275.43 73,275.43 65,986.87 65,986.87 242,852.78 242,852.78 206,060.15 206,060.15 57,755.35 57,755.35 250,527.95 250,527.95 121.31 121.31 422,213.41 422,213.41 99,192.26 99,192.25 14,722.68 14,722.68 43,816.59 43,816.59 17,428.99 17,428.99 602,138.06 602,138.06 368,117.58 368,117.58 159,225.43 159,225.43 14,997.02 14,997.02 249,380.24 249,380.24 303,101.36 303,101.32 488,191.11 488,191.11 5,205.93 5,205.89 204,444.02 204,444.02 1,179,115.89 1,179,115.88 90,730.18 90,730.18 422,507.14 422,507.13 261,361.25 261,361.25 7,674.24 7,674.24 626.66 626.66 54,855.37 54,855.37 765.83 765.83 1,374.82 1,374.81 305,784.79 305,784.79 10,564.35 10,564.35 38,182.15 38,182.15 6,504.33 6,504.33 51,419.60 51,419.59 65,486.41 65,486.41 59,293.52 59,293.52 665.01 665.01 3,168.61 3,168.61 324,571.13 0.02 1,349,932.37 (0.04) 4,657,524.58 (0.01) 3,146,626.15 3,962.96 9,825.59 1,544,192.52 - 35,988.40 9,781.01 0.03 210,320.67 59,330.03 743,133.45 - 724,388.46 - 28,941.57 - 56,167.68 19,705.35 134,735.67 26,234.06 - 176,057.71 35,273.95 21,425.74 1,306,471.26 79,880.00 (0.01) 820,431.39 - 73,275.43 - 65,986.87 242,852.78 - 206,060.15 - 57,755.35 250,527.95 121.31 (0.01) 422,213.40 0.01 99,192.26 - 14,722.68 (0.03) 43,816.56 - 17,428.99 602,138.06 368,117.58 159,225.43 - 14,997.02 249,380.24 0.04 303,101.36 - 488,191.11 0.04 5,205.93 (0.02) 204,444.00 0.01 1,179,115.89 (0.03) 90,730.15 0.01 422,507.14 261,361.25 7,674.24 626.66 54,855.37 765.83 0.01 1,374.82 305,784.79 10,564.35 38,182.15 6,504.33 0.01 51,419.60 - 65,486.41 59,293.52 665.01 3,168.61 100 Office of Capital Improvements 100 Office of Capital Improvements 0.04 100 Office of Capital Improvements 1,640.01 100 Office of Capital Improvements 100 Office of Capital Improvements 100 Office of Capital Improvements 100 Office of Capital Improvements 100 Office of Capital Improvements 100 Office of Capital Improvements 100 Office of Capital Improvements 100 Office of Capital Improvements 100 Office of Capital Improvements 100 Office of Capital Improvements 100 Office of Capital Improvements 100 Office of Capital Improvements 100 Office of Capital Improvements 100 Office of Capital Improvements 100 Office of Capital Improvements 100 Office of Capital Improvements 100 Office of Capital Improvements 100 Office of Capital Improvements 100 Office of Capital Improvements 100 Office of Capital Improvements 0.01 100 Office of Capital Improvements 100 Office of Capital Improvements 100 Office of Capital Improvements 100 Office of Capital Improvements 100 Office of Capital Improvements 100 Office of Capital Improvements 100 Office of Capital Improvements 100 Office of Capital Improvements 0.01 100 Office of Capital Improvements 100 Office of Capital Improvements 100 Office of Capital Improvements 0.03 100 Office of Capital Improvements 100 Office of Capital Improvements 100 Office of Capital Improvements 100 Office of Capital Improvements 100 Office of Capital Improvements 100 Office of Capital Improvements 100 Office of Capital Improvements 100 Office of Capital Improvements 100 Office of Capital Improvements 100 Office of Capital Improvements 0.02 100 Office of Capital Improvements 100 Office of Capital Improvements 0.03 100 Office of Capital Improvements 100 Office of Capital Improvements 100 Office of Capital Improvements 100 Office of Capital Improvements 100 Office of Capital Improvements 100 Office of Capital Improvements 100 Office of Capital Improvements 100 Office of Capital Improvements 100 Office of Capital Improvements 100 Office of Capital Improvements 100 Office of Capital Improvements 100 Office of Capital Improvements 100 Office of Capital Improvements 100 Office of Capital Improvements 100 Office of Capital Improvements 100 Office of Capital Improvements 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE CLOSED CLOSED CLOSED CLOSED 03-Design APPROVED PENDING_CLOSE CLOSED 10- Administrative Close-0ut PENDING_CLOSE APPROVED CLOSED CLOSED CLOSED CLOSED CLOSED CLOSED CLOSED CLOSED CLOSED CLOSED CLOSED 08- Final Completion APPROVED CLOSED CLOSED CLOSED PENDING_CLOSE PENDING_CLOSE PENDING_CLOSE CLOSED PENDING_CLOSE CLOSED PENDING_CLOSE PENDING_CLOSE PENDING_CLOSE CLOSED APPROVED CLOSED PENDING_CLOSE CLOSED PENDING_CLOSE PENDING_CLOSE CLOSED CLOSED CLOSED CLOSED Complete -Closed CLOSED CLOSED CLOSED CLOSED CLOSED 10- Administrative Close-0ut PENDING_CLOSE PENDING_CLOSE 08- Final Completion APPROVED CLOSED PENDING_CLOSE CLOSED CLOSED PENDING_CLOSE PENDING_CLOSE PENDING_CLOSE 07- Construction APPROVED CLOSED CLOSED 326,202.70 1,634,904.91 6,267,516.37 4,714,093.97 1,550,202.32 2,008,326.05 3,462,097.98 1,840,956.20 59,583.12 743,124.02 724,388.46 56,167.68 426,714.92 26,234.06 176,054.06 35,273.95 21,425.74 180,877.50 821,988.23 152,370.40 219,637.25 358,401.93 206,060.15 57,755.35 250,527.95 656,520.30 905,582.26 99,192.25 109,484.07 44,239.38 4,870,316.24 635,384.58 1,710,391.39 226,240.57 25,241.12 690,271.71 354,878.81 224,050.71 208,498.93 1,933,145.49 90,850.48 833,660.83 315,584.85 132,879.56 183,648.86 54,999.99 16,368.27 389,162.52 157,609.64 41,356.26 #N/A 72,061.80 117,230.39 409,764.56 79,145.71 11,465.98 Ves Yes 4,997.00 Ves Ves 38,851.11 No 901,384.70 No Ves Ves Ves 5,382.77 Ves Yes 9.43 Ves Ves 28,941.57 No Yes 19,705.35 No Ves Ves 3.65 Yes Ves Ves 6,639,346.11 No Yes Ves Ves Ves Yes Ves Ves Ves Yes Ves Ves Ves Yes Ves Ves Ves Ves Yes Ves Ves No 474.77 Yes Ves 80,228.00 Ves Ves Yes Ves Ves Ves Yes 1,897,047.79 No Ves Ves Yes Ves #N/A No Ves Yes 37,310.08 No Ves Ves 40-B30980 40-B30982 40-B30983 40-B40183 40-B40300 40-B40301 40-B40302 40-B40303 40-B40304 40-B40306 40-B40307 40-B40308 40-B40309 40-B40310 40-B40312 40-B40313 40-B40314 40-B40315 40-B40317 40-B40318 40-B40319 40-B40320 40-B40321 40-B40322 40-B40332 40-B40333 40-B40334 40-B40337 40-B40340 40-B40341 40-B40342 40-B40343 40-B40344 40-B40346 40-B40347 40-B40643A 40-B40672A 40-B40672B 40-B40672C 40-B40672D 40-B40686 40-B40695L 40-B40704 40-B40704A 40-B43114A 40-B50200 40-B50400 40-B50401 40-B50557 40-B50558 40-B50559 40-B50560 40-B50561 40-B50562 40-B50563 40-B50564 40-B50672 40-B50690 40-B50695 40-B50703 40-B50704 40-B78500A 40-B78500B Liberty Square T-Turnarounds Little River Area Rd & Drain NW 44th St btw NW 7 & NW 8 Belle Meade Gateway Encl SW 18th Terr. Rd. Impr - D3 SW 15th Terr Road Impr D3 SW 1st Ave Road Impr Seg 1 SW 23rd Road Improvements D3 SW llth Street Road Impr SW 10th Street Road Impr SW 16th St Road Impr D3 SW 17th Terr. Rd Impr D3 SW 17th Street Rd Impr D3 SW 20th Road Improvements D3 SW 22nd Terr. & 13th Ave Imp SW 3rd Ave Road Impr D3 NW 18th Place Road Impr D3 SW 15th Street Rd Impr Seg 2 SW 28th Road Impr D3 SW 1st Ave Road Impr. Seg 2 SW 25th Road Impr. D3 SW 26th Road Impr Seg 2 SW 2nd Ave Road Impr D3 SW 27th Road Impr D3 SW 7th Ave- 80 NE of SW 23Rd SW 7th Avenue and SW 24 Rd SW 9 Ave (SW 26 St to 28 Rd) SW 17 St (SW 12 Ave to 14 Ave) SW 26 Rd (SW 3 Ave to 5 Ave) SW 26 Rd (SW 5 Ave to 7 Ave) SW 27 Rd (SW 4Ave to Ave) SW 27 Rd (SW 5 Ave to 7 Ave) SW 27 Rd (SW 7 to 9 Ave) SW 24th Rd btw 1st and 2nd Ave Grove Park Rd Impr PH II D3 N Spring Garden Greenway Flagami Traffic Calming (ELH) Flagami Traffic Calming Imp 2 Flagami Traffic Calming PH III Flagami Traffic Calming IV Miami River Greenways D Miami River Grwy Seg G & E2 SW 32 Avenue Improvements SW 32 Ave. Impr Add] Svcs Citywide Sidewalk Repl PH29 Natoma Street- D2 SW 4 St(68 Ave to 70 Ave) NW Flagl Terr (NW 34 to 40 Av) NW 16 Ave from 41 St to 46 St NW 14Ct from 41 St to 46 St NW 13 Ave from 41 St to 46 St NW 13 PI from 41 St to46 St NW 12 PI from 42 St to 46 St NW 8Ave from 41 St to45 St NW 7 Ave from 41 St to 42 St NW 10 Ave from 35 St to 54 St Belle Meade Storm Swr, Ph II NE 71 St Storm Sewer Proj Flagami/West End Storm Sewer Fairlawn StormSewer PH2B Fairlawn Storm Sewer III Buena Vista East Historic Buena Vista Heights East Rdwy 2,666.41 2,666.41 122,611.69 122,611.68 162,102.43 162,102.43 50,016.56 50,016.54 86,073.28 86,073.28 12,440.13 12,440.13 144,835.21 144,835.21 104,205.46 104,205.46 2,397.47 2,397.47 203,028.77 203,028.77 73,965.91 73,965.91 12,987.00 12,987.00 78.49 78.49 95,773.83 95,773.83 9,153.99 9,153.99 158,737.14 158,737.14 88,066.17 88,066.17 176.31 176.31 21,383.37 21,383.37 129,295.77 129,295.77 92,829.95 92,829.95 45,908.90 45,908.90 11,036.43 11,036.43 145,779.55 145,779.55 2,260.79 2,260.79 1,046.90 1,046.90 4,596.98 4,596.98 7,624.04 7,624.04 122.46 122.46 3,663.97 3,663.97 4,377.48 4,377.48 5,082.58 5,082.58 3,440.51 3,440.51 418.69 418.69 20,989.91 20,989.91 943,761.02 943,761.02 67,460.80 67,460.80 552,018.02 552,018.02 452,030.06 452,030.06 440,122.54 440,122.54 383,611.80 383,611.80 107,337.00 107,337.00 1,388,903.11 1,388,903.11 653,677.97 653,677.96 846,200.01 846,200.01 1,340.72 1,340.72 844.65 844.65 74.20 74.20 148.43 148.43 871.69 871.69 709.90 709.90 879.05 879.05 745.60 745.60 1,342.39 1,342.39 294.13 294.13 4,876.80 4,876.80 1,950,663.43 1,950,663.43 233,375.22 233,375.22 2,064,935.91 2,064,935.91 1,236,876.56 1,236,876.56 2,339,809.93 2,339,809.93 1,975,272.15 1,975,272.15 1,328,474.00 1,328,473.98 2,666.41 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE 6,393.29 0.01 122,611.69 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED 143,390.45 162,102.43 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED 170,638.22 0.02 50,016.56 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE 50,016.54 86,073.28 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE 90,078.07 12,440.13 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE 29,210.92 144,835.21 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE 190,326.82 104,205.46 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE 122,630.96 2,397.47 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE 50,638.14 203,028.77 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE 245,346.78 73,965.91 - 100 0ffice of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE 96,182.97 12,987.00 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE 29,801.24 78.49 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE 35,916.07 95,773.83 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE 109,640.59 9,153.99 - 100 0ffice of Capital Improvements CLOSED 336,608.48 158,737.14 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED 181,421.04 88,066.17 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE 604,443.86 176.31 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE 29,405.40 21,383.37 - 100 0ffice of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE 23,429.39 129,295.77 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE 170,208.93 - 92,829.95 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE $ 156,850.59 45,908.90 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED $ 237,633.29 11,036.43 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED $ 322,980.98 145,779.55 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED $ 299,943.21 2,260.79 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED 5 74,197.83 1,046.90 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED 5 59,996.83 4,596.98 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED $ 219,957.74 7,624.04 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE $ 311,236.35 122.46 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE $ 370,009.95 3,663.97 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED $ 150,022.78 4,377.48 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE $ 174,065.33 5,082.58 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE $ 209,897.65 3,440.51 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE $ 119,000.50 418.69 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED $ 134,320.27 20,989.91 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements 08- Final Completion APPROVED $ - (0.01) 943,761.01 0.01 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED 5 2,498,127.75 67,460.80 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE $ 92,664.27 552,018.02 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE $ 552,018.02 452,030.06 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED $ 452,030.06 440,122.54 - 100 0ffice of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE $ 1,103,200.49 383,611.80 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED $ 2,090,711.89 - 107,337.00 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE $ 143,347.80 1,388,903.11 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE $ 1,787,307.47 0.01 653,677.97 - 100 0ffice of Capital Improvements CLOSED $ 1,752,467.20 846,200.01 - 100 Non-OCI PENDING_CLOSE $ 4960,669.66 - 1,340.72 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED $ 2,070.65 844.65 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE $ 68,181.27 74.20 - 100 0ffice of Capital Improvements CLOSED 5 107,882.94 148.43 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE $ 39,751.43 871.69 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE $ 37,570.94 709.90 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE $ 36,012.27 879.05 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED $ 40,211.47 745.60 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED $ 33,625.65 1,342.39 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE $ 62,996.72 294.13 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE $ 17,582.57 4,876.80 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED $ 194,217.23 1,950,663.43 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements APPROVED $ 11,998,291.21 233,375.22 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE $ 3,463,114.15 (0.03) 2,064,935.88 0.03 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED $ 8,176,673.91 1,236,876.56 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE $ 2,262,398.49 2,339,809.93 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements APPROVED $ 4,835,489.65 - 1,975,272.15 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE $ 2,378,892.88 0.02 1,328,474.00 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED $ 1,364,261.57 Ves Yes Ves Ves Ves Yes Ves Ves Ves 0.68 Ves Yes Ves Ves Ves Yes Ves Ves Ves Yes Ves Ves Ves Yes Ves Ves Ves Yes Ves 972.00 No Ves Yes Ves Ves 1,000.01 Ves 2,630,421.20 No Ves Ves Ves Ves Yes Ves Ves Ves Yes Ves Ves Ves Yes Ves Ves Ves Yes Ves Ves Ves Yes Ves Ves (66,909.00) Ves Yes Ves Ves Ves 76,872,207.89 76,870,567.62 0.07 76,870,567.69 1,640.20 Project Project Name Budget Actual Cost Commitment Arr Total Cost Available Balance %Complet Managed By Current Phase (if applicable) Status Oracle Capitalized Cost 40-B173617 SW 3 Street (14 Ave to 15 Ave) 50950.63 50950.63 - 50,950.63 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements Canceled -Closed CLOSED $ - 40-B173618 SW 11 St(SW 5 to SW 12 Ave) 130,867.39 130,867.39 - 130,867.39 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE $ - 40-B173619 SW 15th Rd (3 and llth Ave) 2,618.78 2,618.78 - 2,618.78 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements 03-Design APPROVED $ - 40-B17366 NW 51 SF (7 Avenue to 1-95) 33,508.92 33,508.92 - 33,508.92 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE $ - 40-B30008A Grove Park Road Impr - D3 383,821.91 383,821.91 - 383,821.91 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED $ 383,821.91 40-B30014 Northwest Storm Sewers 2,010,571.27 2,010,571.27 - 2,010,571.27 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE. 2,749,002.64 40-B30035A North Shorecresr Rd Impr 468,611.32 468,611.34 (0.02) 468,611.32 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING CLOSE 612,471.41 40-B30035B Shorecrest Roadway Mill/Resur 49,776.91 49,776.92 (0.01) 49,776.91 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED 855,026.32 40-B30046 NW 36 Street Drainage Impr 1,817.71 1,817.71 - 1,817.71 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED 1,817.71 40-B30130 Miami River Greenway SW 1 113,055.39 113,055.43 (0.04) 113,055.39 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED 1,183,859.81 40-B30167D Shenandoah Traffic Calm P4 1,069,051.57 1,069,051.56 0.01 1,069,051.57 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED 1,395,052.90 40-B30168A Silver Bluff Traffic Calm P3 467,163.70 467,163.70 (0.01) 467,163.69 0.01 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE 648,647.45 40-B30168E SW 23 St fr SW 17 Ave - 15 Ave 69,954.02 69,954.02 - 69,954.02 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED 69,954.02 40-B30183 Garden Storm Sewer - PHI 149,951.92 149,951.92 - 149,951.92 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED 1,269,584.30 40-B30416 NW 34 Ave over Comfort Canal 0.01 0.01 - 0.01 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE 3,924.76 40-B30500 Civic Center Infrastructure 564,594.95 564,595.00 (0.05) 564,594.95 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE 1,613,691.57 40-B30540 Little River Industrial Park 380,928.13 380,928.12 0.01 380,928.13 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements APPROVED 1,806,216.19 40-B30542A US1 Milling/Resurf. and Wall 1,328,230.28 1,328,230.28 - 1,328,230.28 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE 2,662,122.22 40-B30588 San Marco & Biscayne Drain 470,454.05 470,454.04 0.01 470,454.05 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED 4,322,411.19 40-B30606 Flagler Street formly DWNTWN 5,886,303.08 5,886,302.81 0.27 5,886,303.08 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements 07-Construction APPROVED - 40-B30606D DWNTWN Beaut- Design Ph 1,631.57 1,631.57 - 1,631.57 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE 326,202.70 40-B30606L DWNTWN Beautif (Lighting) 284,972.60 284,972.56 0.04 284,972.60 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED 1,634,904.91 40-B30606N DWNTWN Beaut - North 260,580.02 260,579.82 0.20 260,580.02 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED 6,267,516.37 40-B306065 DWNTWN Beaut - South 633,970.40 633,970.44 (0.04) 633,970.40 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED 4,714,093.97 40-B30610 NW 7th Court 34,888.15 34,888.15 - 34,888.15 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED 40-B30621 Center Grove Street Improv. 0.04 0.04 - 0.04 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE 1,864,677.24 40-B30622 Center St Drainage Improv - D2 124,540.64 124,540.63 0.01 124,540.64 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements 10-Administrative Close -Out APPROVED 367,454.07 40-B30624 Overtown Greenway @ NW 11 111,843.40 111,843.40 - 111,843.40 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements 03-Design APPROVED - 40-B30628 Bird Avenue Rd Improv. 200,000.00 200,000.05 (0.05) 200,000.00 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements 10-Administrative Close -Out APPROVED 460,066.82 40-B30629 Durham Terrace Drain. 1,755,062.07 1,755,062.07 - 1,755,062.07 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED 2,008,326.05 40-B30630 Palm Grove Road Impr 2,106,464.14 2,106,464.14 (0.03) 2,106,464.11 0.03 100 Office of Capital Improvements 10-Administrative Close -Out PENDING_CLOSE 3,462,097.98 40-B30630A Palm Grove Roadway Impr D5 31,922.05 31,922.05 - 31,922.05 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements 05-Bidding APPROVED - 40-B30631 Mia River Greenwy-Mia Circle 12,394.65 12,394.62 (0.01) 12,394.61 0.04 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE - 40-B30637 Mary Brickell Village Drain. 2,000,000.00 1,999,999.80 0.20 2,000,000.00 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements 07-Construction APPROVED 416,074.76 40-B30643 Wmmus Park Landing Area 901,688.60 901,688.62 (0.02) 901,688.60 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements APPROVED 1,840,956.20 40-B30653 Speed Humps/Road Impr S.Gr 253.09 253.09 - 253.09 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED 59,583.12 40-B30664B Parkda le -La Pastoria Traff Clm 256.56 256.56 - 256.56 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED 256.56 40-B30687 Coconut Grove Business Dist 1,775,721.95 1,775,721.80 0.15 1,775,721.95 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements 08- Final Completion APPROVED - 40-B30691 NW North River Dr - Dist1 100,997.50 100,997.50 - 100,997.50 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED 180,877.50 40-B30692 Disrricrwide Street Resurf. D1 292.16 292.16 - 292.16 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED $ - 40-B30693 Neighborhood Traffic Clm D4 29,978.29 29,978.29 - 29,978.29 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED 29,978.29 40-B30695 SW 19th Terr. (SW 23 Ave - 24) 64,685.08 64,685.08 - 64,685.08 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED 136,057.69 40-B30699 Beacom Project Area Impr 1,556.83 1,556.83 - 1,556.83 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED 821,988.23 40-B30702 NW 34 Ave @ SR 836 - D1 19,491.06 19,491.06 - 19,491.06 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE 19,491.06 40-B30703 Bob Hope Dr. btw NW 20-17 79,094.97 79,094.97 - 79,094.97 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED 152,370.40 40-B30704 NW 14th Ave btw NW 24 - 27 St 153,650.38 153,650.38 - 153,650.38 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE 219,637.25 40-B30705 NW 24 St btw NW 14 & 17 Ave 115,549.15 115,549.15 - 115,549.15 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE 358,401.93 40-B30710 SW 17 Terr btw SW 18 & 19 Ave 62,803.98 62,803.98 - 62,803.98 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED 62,803.98 40-B30716 Tigertail Resurfacing -D2 394,594.44 394,594.42 0.02 394,594.44 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED 656,520.30 40-B30717 Coral Gate Community Impr 190,716.62 190,716.62 - 190,716.62 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE 190,716.62 40-B30718 1-95 S. Miami Terminal St Imp 478,659.28 478,659.27 0.01 478,659.28 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE 905,582.26 40-B30720 SW 25 Rd from SW 4 -5 Ave 94,761.39 94,761.39 - 94,761.39 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE 109,484.07 40-B30722 NW 31sr St Roadway Impr 422.79 422.79 - 422.79 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED 44,239.38 40-B30723 NW 24th Ave Rdwy Impr D1 13,506.83 13,506.83 - 13,506.83 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements 07-Construction APPROVED - 40-B30724 NW 33rd St Roadway Impr 3,250,954.03 3,250,954.03 (0.01) 3,250,954.02 0.01 100 Office of Capital Improvements APPROVED 4,870,316.24 40-B30725 NW llth St Roadway Impr 33,246.54 33,246.52 0.02 33,246.54 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED 635,384.58 40-B30726 NW 60th Ave Roadway Impr 46,950.21 46,950.18 0.03 46,950.21 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED 46,950.18 40-B30727 NW 18rh Ave Roadway Impr 1,342,273.80 1,342,273.81 (0.01) 1,342,273.80 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE 1,710,391.39 40-B30728 NW 17th Court Roadway Impr 108,493.95 108,493.95 - 108,493.95 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED 108,493.95 40-B30729 NW 17th Terr Roadway Impr 67,015.12 67,015.14 (0.02) 67,015.12 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED $ 226,240.57 40-B30730 NW 4th Terr Roadway Impr 10,244.10 10,244.10 - 10,244.10 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE $ 25,241.12 ma ining to be capitalized Capita Iced? 135,261.98 No 179,329.75 No 213,936.06 No 33,508.92 No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes yes Yes 29,955.48 Ves Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 14,201,453.86 No Yes Yes 4,997.00 Ves Yes 38,851.11 No Yes No 901,384.70 No 1,890,708.01 No Yes Yes 158,304.08 No 1,141,566.62 No 3,835,883.35 No 5,382.77 Ves Yes Yes 6,639,346.11 No Yes 292.16 No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 589,809.21 No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 40-830732 NW 9th St Roadway Impr 40-830736 PH II: NW 33rd St Rdwy Impr 40-830737 S Bayshore Ln/Fairview St-D2 40-830740 Two Way Traffic Cony NW 1 St 40-B30741 SW 16 Ave Rdwy & Drain Imp 40-830742 SW 5th Ave Rdwy & Drain Imp 40-830743 SW 28th Rd Rdwy & Drain Imp 40-830744 SW 23rd Rd Rdwy & Drain Imp 40-B30745 NW 8th St Rdwy& Drain Imp 40-830746 NW 14th Ct Rdwy & Drain Imp 40-830747 SW 13th St Rdwy & Drain Imp 40-830749 Citrus Grove Roadway Impr 40-B30755 Golden Pines Neighborhd Rdwy 40-830756 NW 30th Street Improvement-D1 40-830760 SW 17th Ave Rdwy & Drain Imp 40-830770 SW 22nd Ave Med. US1-Coral Way 40-B30771 Traffic Calming SW 6th St-D4 40-B30775 Shenandoah Area Impr-D4 40-830776 Silver Bluff Drainage Impr D4 40-B30781 NW 11 Street from 27 to 37 Ave 40-830804 Traffic Calm @SW 19 Ave/SW 14 40-830830 US1 Landscape-17Ave/Viscaya 40-830836 South Grove PH3 Rdwy & Drain 40-830842 Coacoochee Ave/Mica nopy Impr 40-830880 NE 2nd Ct Rdwy & Drainage D5 40-B30891 Buena Vista OneWay St Cony 40-830892 Little Haiti Gateway Signs 40-830894 Little Haiti Right of Way Impr 40-830906 NW 3 Avenue Pedestrian Impr 40-830909 Coral Way Med (37-17Ave)D 3,4 40-830960 La Pastorita Traffic Calm/Misc 40-B30965 Coral Gate Speed Humps-D4 40-830966 SW 5 St btwn 27 Ave & 28 Ave 40-830967 SW 16th Terr from SW 21 Ave 40-830972 SW 64 Ct Rdwy & Drain Improv 40-830980 Liberty Square T-Turnarounds 40-830982 Little River Area Rd & Drain 40-830983 NW 44th St btw NW 7& NW 8 40-B39911 Venetian Causeway Impr 40-1340004 Morningside Drain. Impr D2 PW 40-1340010 NW 14 Ave and NW 17St Improv 40-1340174 Royal Road Milling/Resurf D2 40-1340300 SW 18th Terr. Rd. Impr - D3 40-B40301 SW 15th Terr Road Impr D3 40-1340302 SW 1st Ave Road Impr Seg 1 40-1340303 SW 23rd Road Improvements D3 40-1340304 SW llth Street Road Impr 40-B40305 SW 12th Street Road Impr 40-1340306 SW loth Street Road Impr 40-1340307 SW 16th St Road Impr D3 40-1340308 SW 17th Terr. Rd Impr D3 40-1340309 SW 17th Street Rd Impr D3 40-1340310 SW 20th Road Improvements D3 40-B40311 SW 22nd Road Improvements D3 40-1340312 SW 22nd Terr. & 13th Ave Imp 40-1340313 SW 3rd Ave Road Impr D3 40-1340314 NW 18th Place Road Impr D3 40-B40315 SW 15th Street Rd Impr Seg 2 40-1340316 SW 26th Road Impr Seg 1-D3 40-1340317 SW 28th Road Impr D3 40-1340318 SW 1st Ave Road Impr. Seg 2 40-1340319 SW 25th Road Impr. D3 440,550.04 440,550.00 0.04 440,550.04 1,590,872.70 1,590,872.70 - 1,590,872.70 10,325.52 10,325.52 - 10,325.52 8,970.45 8,970.47 (0.02) 8,970.45 189,454.10 189,454.09 0.01 189,454.10 345.18 345.19 (0.01) 345.18 155,142.52 155,142.51 0.01 155,142.52 89,281.24 89,281.25 (0.01) 89,281.24 369,091.74 369,091.73 0.01 369,091.74 164,318.78 164,318.77 0.01 164,318.78 200,329.82 200,329.84 (0.02) 200,329.82 51,777.49 51,777.49 - 51,777.49 79,303.37 79,303.41 (0.04) 79,303.37 111,667.69 111,667.69 - 111,667.69 5,677.30 5,677.29 0.01 5,677.30 173,194.28 173,194.28 - 173,194.28 4,054.92 4,054.91 0.01 4,054.92 48,107.82 48,107.82 - 48,107.82 298,221.90 298,221.90 - 298,221.90 16,441.35 16,441.36 (0.01) 16,441.35 121,757.75 121,757.75 (0.05) 121,757.70 144.63 144.62 0.01 144.63 108,043.87 108,043.87 - 108,043.87 71,000.00 71,000.00 71,000.00 83,377.71 83,377.73 (0.02) 83,377.71 3,174.11 3,174.11 3,174.11 20,524.37 20,524.38 (0.01) 20,524.37 19,480.40 19,480.39 0.01 19,480.40 25,537.39 25,537.39 - 25,537.39 158,901.61 158,901.61 - 158,901.61 263,376.27 263,376.27 - 263,376.27 6,302.41 6,302.41 - 6,302.41 28,700.23 28,700.23 - 28,700.23 2,835.74 2,835.74 - 2,835.74 425.85 425.85 - 425.85 3,726.88 3,726.88 - 3,726.88 20,778.77 20,778.77 - 20,778.77 6,877.18 6,877.18 - 6,877.18 2,151,690.45 2,151,690.45 - 2,151,690.45 42,410.45 42,410.45 - 42,410.45 148,796.58 148,796.58 - 148,796.58 55,640.01 55,640.00 0.01 55,640.01 4,004.79 4,004.79 4,004.79 16,770.79 16,770.79 - 16,770.79 45,491.61 45,491.61 - 45,491.61 18,425.50 18,425.50 - 18,425.50 48,240.66 48,240.67 (0.01) 48,240.66 635.02 635.02 - 635.02 42,318.68 42,318.69 (0.01) 42,318.68 22,217.05 22,217.06 (0.01) 22,217.05 16,814.26 16,814.24 0.02 16,814.26 35,837.58 35,837.58 — 35,837.58 13,866.76 13,866.76 - 13,866.76 12,874.88 12,874.88 - 12,874.88 326,490.11 326,490.12 (0.01) 326,490.11 22,683.90 22,683.90 - 22,683.90 323,150.76 323,150.76 - 323,150.76 29,229.09 29,229.09 - 29,229.09 3,479.65 3,479.65 - 3,479.65 2,046.02 2,046.02 - 2,046.02 40,913.16 40,913.16 - 40,913.16 64,020.64 64,020.64 64,020.64 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE $ 690,271.71 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE $ 1,590,872.70 100 Office of Capital Improvements 03-Design APPROVED $ - 100Office ofCapital Improvements CLOSED $ 8,970.47 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED $ 189,454.09 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED $ 345.19 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED 155,142.51 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED 89,281.25 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE 369,091.73 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE 164,318.77 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED 200,329.84 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED 354,878.81 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED 132,003.64 100 Office of Capital Improvements 03-Design APPROVED - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED #N/A 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED 224,050.71 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED 208,498.93 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED 307,493.07 100 Office of Capital Improvements Complete -Closed CLOSED 1,933,145.49 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED 315,584.85 0.05 100 Office of Capital Improvements 10-Administrative Close -Out PENDING_CLOSE 183,648.86 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE 54,999.99 100 Office of Capital Improvements 08- Final Completion APPROVED - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED 71,000.00 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE 389,162.52 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED $ 41,356.26 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE #N/A 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE 72,061.80 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE 117,230.39 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE - 100Office ofCapital Improvements 07- Construction APPROVED 409,764.56 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED 79,145.71 100 Office of Capital Improvements 08- Final Completion APPROVED - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED 11,465.98 100 Office of Capital Improvements 10-Administrative Close -Out APPROVED - 100Office ofCapital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE 6,393.29 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED 143,390.45 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED 170,638.22 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE #N/A 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED 121,572.98 100 Non-OCI PENDING_CLOSE $ - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED 55,640.00 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE 90,078.07 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE 29,210.92 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE 190,326.82 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE 122,630.96 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE 50,638.14 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED 635.02 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE 245,346.78 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE 96,182.97 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE 29,801.24 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE 35,916.07 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE 109,640.59 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE 12,874.88 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED 336,608.48 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED 181,421.04 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE 604,443.86 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE 29,405.40 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE 3,479.65 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE 23,429.39 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE 170,208.93 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE 156,850.59 Yes Yes 1,349,473.12 No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 353,503.49 No #N/A Ves 474.77 Ves Yes Yes 80,228.00 Ves Yes Yes Yes 1,897,047.79 No Yes Yes Yes #N/A No Yes Yes 194,769.48 No 37,310.08 No Yes 419,359.05 No Yes 547,668.08 No Yes Yes Yes #N/A No Yes 148,796.58 No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0.68 Ves Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 40-B40320 SW 26th Road Impr Seg 2 191,724.41 191,724.39 0.02 191,724.41 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED $ 237,633.29 40-B40321 SW 2nd Ave Road Impr D3 311,944.52 311,944.55 (0.03) 311,944.52 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED $ 322,980.98 40-B40322 SW 27th Road Impr D3 154,163.67 154,163.66 0.01 154,163.67 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED $ 299,943.21 40-B40323 SW 1st Ave Rd Impr Seg 3 - D3 104,245.49 104,245.49 - 104,245.49 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE $ 104,245.49 40-B40324 NW llth Ave Road Impr 168,638.17 168,638.17 - 168,638.17 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED $ 168,638.17 40-B40325 Beacom Phase 11 - D3 933,232.61 933,232.61 - 933,232.61 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED $ 933,232.61 40-B40326 The Roads Roadway Impr D3 260,291.10 260,291.10 - 260,291.10 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED 260,291.10 40-B40327 Shenandoah Roadway Impr D3 10,931.14 10,931.14 - 10,931.14 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED 10,931.14 40-B40328 NW 13 Ave (NW 4 St to NW 5) 92,822.21 92,822.21 - 92,822.21 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED 92,822.21 40-B40329 NW 13 Ave and NW 5 St 14,236.40 14,236.40 - 14,236.40 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE 14,236.40 40-B40330 SW 2 St (SW 19 Ave to SW 20) 157,766.41 157,766.41 - 157,766.41 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE - 40-B40331 SW 5 St (SW 22 Ave to Beacom) 356,010.00 356,009.98 0.02 356,010.00 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements 10-Administrative Close -Out APPROVED 416,916.85 40-B40332 SW 7th Ave-80 NE of SW 23Rd 7,420.86 7,420.87 (0.01) 7,420.86 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED 74,197.83 40-B40333 SW 7th Avenue and SW 24 Rd 5,562.89 5,562.90 (0.01) 5,562.89 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED 59,996.83 40-B40334 SW 9 Ave (SW 26 St to 28 Rd) 24,701.14 24,701.14 - 24,701.14 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED 219,957.74 40-B40335 SW 15 St (SW 16 Ave to 17 Ave) 185,565.64 185,565.64 - 185,565.64 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED 185,565.64 40-B40336 SW 15 Terr (SW 12 to 13 Ave) 162,425.52 162,425.53 (0.01) 162,425.52 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED 162,425.53 40-B40337 SW 17 St (SW 12 Ave to 14 Ave) 207,148.64 207,148.64 - 207,148.64 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE 311,236.35 40-B40338 SW 22 Rd (SW 7 Ave to 9 Ave) 198,663.79 198,663.74 0.05 198,663.79 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE 198,663.74 40-B40339 SW 23 Rd (SW 3 to SW 5 Ave) 375,565.32 375,565.33 (0.01) 375,565.32 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED 375,565.33 40-B40340 SW 26 Rd (SW 3 Ave to 5 Ave) 300,413.13 300,413.13 - 300,413.13 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE 370,009.95 40-B40341 SW 26 Rd (SW 5 Ave to 7Ave) 13,637.35 13,637.35 - 13,637.35 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED 150,022.78 40-B40342 SW 27 Rd (SW 4 Ave to 5 Ave) 21,617.17 21,617.17 - 21,617.17 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE 174,065.33 40-B40343 SW 27 Rd (SW 5 Ave to 7 Ave) 12,032.23 12,032.23 - 12,032.23 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE 209,897.65 40-B40344 SW 27 Rd (SW 7 to 9 Ave) 1,803.68 1,803.68 - 1,803.68 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE 119,000.50 40-B40346 SW 24th Rd btw 1st and 2nd Ave 57,954.02 57,954.03 (0.01) 57,954.02 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED $ 134,320.27 40-B40347 Grove Park Rd Impr PH 11 D3 901,384.04 894,891.39 6,492.65 901,384.04 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements 08- Final Completion APPROVED - 40-B40348 NW 2nd St (NW 15 Ave to NW 2) 14,067.00 14,067.00 - 14,067.00 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE 27,888.20 40-B40349 NW 9 St NW 15 Ave to NW 17 1,357.09 1,357.09 - 1,357.09 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED 1,357.09 40-B40350 SW 1 St from 28-29 Road-D3 129,212.00 129,212.00 - 129,212.00 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE 129,212.00 40-B40351 SW 2nd St from 15-16 Ave-D3 48,000.00 48,000.00 - 48,000.00 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED 98,500.00 40-B40352 SW 2 St from 16- 17 Ave-D3 43,000.00 43,000.00 - 43,000.00 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE 92,529.00 40-B40353 SW 16th St from 14 - 17 Ave 313,375.06 313,375.08 (0.02) 313,375.06 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED 331,660.79 40-B40643A N Spring Garden Greenway 33,504.04 33,503.37 - 33,503.37 0.67 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED 2,498,127.75 40-B40666B B rickell Lighting PH 11-D2 828,827.45 828,827.45 - 828,827.45 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE 828,827.45 40-B40672A Flagami Traffic Calming (ELH) 25,203.47 25,203.47 - 25,203.47 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE 92,664.27 40-B40672D Flagami Traffic Calming IV 654,926.85 654,926.89 (0.04) 654,926.85 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE 1,103,200.49 40-B40672G Flagami Traffic Calming -D4 660,371.17 660,371.16 0.01 660,371.17 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements 08- Final Completion APPROVED 798,023.36 40-B40686 Miami River Greenways D 508,748.18 508,748.14 0.04 508,748.18 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED 2,090,711.89 40-B40695L Miami River Grwy Seg G & E2 36,010.80 36,010.80 (0.01) 36,010.79 0.01 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE 143,347.80 40-B40704A SW 32 Ave. Impr Add.' Svcs 317,688.78 317,688.78 - 317,688.78 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED 1,752,467.20 40-B50100 NW 10th Ave (fr 20th St to 35) 225,250.94 225,250.94 - 225,250.94 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE 225,250.94 40-B50101 NW 14 Ave (19 Terr to 20 St) 75,226.55 75,226.55 - 75,226.55 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED 75,226.55 40-B50102 NW 16 St West of NW 14 Ave 4,404.78 4,404.79 (0.01) 4,404.78 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED 4,404.79 40-B50103 NW 10th Ave and 33rd St-D1 25,347.83 25,347.83 - 25,347.83 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED 25,347.83 40-B50104 NW 13th St fr NW 35 to 37 Ave 53,547.75 53,547.75 - 53,547.75 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements 03-Design APPROVED - 40-B50105 NW 12th St fr NW 21 to 22 Ave 55,354.98 55,354.98 - 55,354.98 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements Complete -Closed CLOSED 153,596.92 40-B50200 Natoma Street -D2 296.79 296.79 - 296.79 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED 2,070.65 40-B50303 SW 12 Street (13 Ave & 13 CT) 130,904.41 130,904.39 0.02 130,904.41 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements 08- Final Completion PENDING_CLOSE - 40-B50311 SW 12 St (SW 17 Ave -SW 16 Ave) 40,822.57 40,822.55 0.02 40,822.57 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements 08- Final Completion APPROVED - 40-B50312A SW 17 SF (16 ave to 17 ave) 26,489.47 26,489.47 - 26,489.47 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements 08- Final Completion APPROVED - 40-B50313 SW 28 RD (SW 5to 9) 170,321.01 170,320.98 0.03 170,321.01 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements Complete -Closed CLOSED 211,347.64 40-B50314 NW 6 Street (11 to 10 Ave) 111,476.99 111,476.97 0.02 111,476.99 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE - 40-B50315 SW 30 RD (SW 2 Ave- SW 1 Ave) 50,556.97 50,556.97 - 50,556.97 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE 122,287.38 40-B50318 SW 21 RD (SW 7-SW 9 Ave) 6,170.69 6,170.69 - 6,170.69 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE - 40-B50324 SW 29 Road (2nd to 3rd Ave) 35,035.89 35,035.89 - 35,035.89 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE - 40-B50400 SW 4 St (68 Ave to 70 Ave) 4,597.76 4,597.76 - 4,597.76 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE 68,181.27 40-B50401 NW FIagl Terr (NW 34 to 40 AO 107,808.75 107,808.74 0.01 107,808.75 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED 107,882.94 40-B50402 SW 18 St West of SW 22 37,668.27 37,668.28 (0.01) 37,668.27 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements CLOSED 37,668.28 40-B50403 SW 11 Terr Sidewalk Constr 15,314.58 15,314.58 - 15,314.58 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements PENDING_CLOSE 15,314.58 40-B50408 Silver Bluff Speed Tables 156,899.48 156,899.50 (0.02) 156,899.48 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements 07-Construction APPROVED - 40-B50412 23 Terfrm SW 27 to SW 32Ave 175.68 175.68 - 175.68 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements 05-Bidding APPROVED - yes yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 157,766.41 No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 972.00 No Yes Yes Yes Yes 1,000.01 Ves 2,630,421.20 No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 39,961.20 No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 283,430.25 No Yes Yes 169,853.67 No 265,521.91 No 298,420.55 No 36,012.21 Ves 111,476.97 No Yes 102,821.20 No 35,035.89 No Yes Yes Yes Yes 646,404.68 No 220,856.78 No 40-B50421 40-B50500 40-B50514 40-B50551 40-B50552 40-B50553 40-B50554 40-B50555 40-B50556 40-B50557 40-B50558 40-B50559 40-B50560 40-B50561 40-B50562 40-B50563 40-B50564 40-B50565 40-B50566 40-B50567 40-B50699A 40-B50902 40-B50905 40-B50906 40-B50907 40-B78500B 40-B78509B SW 25 St(S W 27 Ave -SW 32 Ave) NW 42 St(12 Ave to 17 Ave) Street&DI SW 4St&SW 69 Ave NW 43 St from 12 Ave to 17 Ave NW 45 St from 10 Ave to 12 Ave NW 8Ave from 45 St to46 St NW 45 St from 7 Ave to 10 Ave NW 43 St from 7 Ave to 12 Ave NW 41 St from 7 Ave to 8 Ave NW 16 Ave from 41 St to 46 St NW 14Ct from 41 St to46 St NW 13 Ave from 41 St to 46 St NW 13 PI from 41 St to 46 St NW 12 PI from 42 St to 46 St NW 8Ave from 41 St to 45 St NW 7Ave from 41 St to42 St NW 10 Ave from 35 St to 54 St NW 14St from 1 Ave to 7 Ave Wynwood One -Way St Con, 1850 NW 55 St Roadway Liberty City-15th Ave Corridor A Media Art Entr Rdwy Impry NE 58Terr(NE 1 CT to NE 3 CT) NE Ave (NE 54 SF-NE58 Ter) Dorsey Park Nbhd Roadway Impry Buena Vista Heights East Rdwy Ca Ile 8 Light & St Impr-Mayor 17,828.22 77,508.65 7,524.01 76,660.94 66,716.95 16,663.42 62,424.79 94,655.48 39,195.03 13,197.95 2,560.87 5,763.30 1,583.45 2,649.84 424.23 2,204.77 6,301.17 233,087.46 53,794.50 262.55 228,753.61 588,090.15 40,493.70 105,834.36 180,934.82 9,869.81 164,542.73 17,828.22 77,508.65 7,524.01 76,660.95 66,716.95 16,663.42 62,424.79 94,655.48 39,195.03 13,197.95 2,560.87 5,763.30 1,583.45 2,649.84 424.23 2,204.77 6,301.18 233,087.46 53,794.50 262.55 228,753.61 588,090.15 40,493.70 105,834.36 180,934.82 9,869.82 164,542.73 17,828.22 - 77,508.65 7,524.01 (0.01) 76,660.94 - 66,716.95 16,663.42 - 62,424.79 - 94,655.48 39,195.03 13,197.95 2,560.87 5,763.30 1,583.45 2,649.84 424.23 2,204.77 (0.01) 6,301.17 233,087.46 53,794.50 262.55 228,753.61 (0.03) 588,090.12 - 40,493.70 (0.03) 105,834.33 180,934.82 (0.01) 9,869.81 164,542.73 100 Office of Capital Improvements 100 Office of Capital Improvements 100 Office of Capital Improvements 100 Office of Capital Improvements 100 Office of Capital Improvements 100 Office of Capital Improvements 100 Office of Capital Improvements 100 Office of Capital Improvements 100 Office of Capital Improvements 100 Office of Capital Improvements 100 Office of Capital Improvements 100 Office of Capital Improvements 100 Office of Capital Improvements 100 Office of Capital Improvements 100 Office of Capital Improvements 100 Office of Capital Improvements 100 Office of Capital Improvements 100 Office of Capital Improvements 100 Office of Capital Improvements 100 Office of Capital Improvements 100 Office of Capital Improvements 0.03 100 Office of Capital Improvements 100 Office of Capital Improvements 0.03 100 Office of Capital Improvements 100 Office of Capital Improvements 100 Office of Capital Improvements 100 Office of Capital Improvements 51,247,894.49 51,241,400.41 6,493.20 51,247,893.61 0.88 05-Bidding Complete -Closed 08-Final Completion 05-Bidding 08-Final Completion APPROVED CLOSED PENDING_CLOSE CLOSED CLOSED PENDING_CLOSE CLOSED CLOSED PENDING_CLOSE PENDING_CLOSE PENDING_CLOSE PENDING_CLOSE CLOSED CLOSED PENDING_CLOSE PENDING_CLOSE CLOSED CLOSED PENDING_CLOSE PENDING_CLOSE CLOSED APPROVED CLOSED APPROVED APPROVED CLOSED PENDING_CLOSE 77,508.65 76,660.95 66,716.95 16,663.42 62,424.79 94,655.48 39,195.03 39,751.43 37,570.94 36,012.27 40,211.47 33,625.65 62,996.72 17,582.57 194,217.23 233,087.46 53,794.50 262.55 526,466.63 1,364,261.57 506,552.48 168,596.02 No Yes 18,417.82 No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 19.70 Ves Yes Yes 1,309,089.91 No 44,462.11 No 201,166.36 No 1,012,773.03 No Yes (358.66) Ves Project 40-B173617 40-B173619 40-B173621 40-B17366 40-B183612 40-B193620 40-B203519 40-B203608 40-B30168A 40-B30540 40-B30606 40-B30622 40-B30624 40-B30630 40-B30630A 40-B30687 40-B30723 40-B30724 40-B30732 40-B30736 40-B30737 40-B30756 40-B30804 40-B30909 40-B30960 40-B30966 40-B30972 40-B30975 40-B39911 40-B40329 40-B40330 40-B40347 40-B40350 40-B40672G 40-B40695L 40-B50104 40-B50110 40-B50112 40-B50303 40-B50311 40-B50312A 40-B50313 40-B50314 40-B50315 40-B50323 40-B50324 40-B50412 40-B50421 40-B50514 40-B50902 40-B50905 40-B50906 40-B50907 Project Name SW 3 Street (14 Ave to 15 Ave) SW 15th Rd (3 and 11th Ave) SW 24 Rd (7th and 9th St) NW 51 SF (7 Avenue to I-95) Chrles Ave(Main Hwy&S Douglas) Buena Vista Neighd Traffic Cal Swannanoa Mini Park -ROW Improc D4 Traffic Calming- DistriCW Silver Bluff Traffic Calm P3 Little River Industrial Park Flagler Street formly DWNTWN Center St Drainage Improv- D2 Overtown Greenway @ NW 11 Palm Grove Road Impr Palm Grove Roadway Impr D5 Coconut Grove Business Dist NW 24th Ave Rdwy Impr D1 NW 33 rd St Roadway Impr NW 9th St Roadway Impr PH 11: NW 33rd St Rdwy Impr S Bayshore Ln/Fairview St- D2 NW 30th Street Improvement-D1 Traffic Calm @ SW 19 Ave/SW 14 Coral Way Med (37-17Ave)D 3,4 La Pastorita Traffic Calm/Misc SW 5 St btwn 27 Ave & 28 Ave SW 64 Ct Rdwy & Drain Improv Swale Restoration 9 NW 2 St Venetian Causeway Impr NW 13 Ave and NW 5 St SW 2 St (SW 19 Ave to SW 20) Grove Park Rd Impr PH 11 D3 SW 1 St from 28-29 Road - D3 Flagami Traffic Calming - D4 Miami River Grwy Seg 6 & E2 NW 13th St fr NW 35 to 37 Ave NW 18 Terrace East of 27 Ave. NW 13 Ave (NW 21St-NW 23 St) SW 12 Street (13 Ave & 13 CT) SW 12 St (SW 17 Ave -SW 16 Ave) SW 17 SF (16 ave to 17 ave) SW 28 RD (SW 5 to 9) NW 6Street (11 to 10 Ave) SW 30 RD (SW 2 Ave - SW 1 Ave) SW 31 RD (2 Ave to 3 Ave) SW 29 Road (2nd to 3rd Ave) 23 Ter frm SW 27 to SW 32Ave SW 25 St(SW 27 Ave -SW 32 Ave) Street &DI SW 45t & SW 69 Ave A Media Art Entmt Rdwy Impry NE 58 Terr(NE 1 Cf to NE 3 CT) NE 3 Ave (NE 54 ST-NE 58 Ter) Dorsey Park Nbhd Roadway Impry Budget Actual Cost 2,051.13 1,375.48 7,020.66 - 7,446.08 - 0.02 - 10,079.24 9,631.45 11,098.39 157.51 6,683.51 6,683.51 2,894.94 - 47,960.01 - 2,792,520.60 2,341,539.68 13,855.14 2,916.77 898,979.19 44,407.72 193,064.72 193,064.72 38,836.67 692.63 12,760.49 12,597.00 727.17 727.17 775.07 714.57 714.57 36,499.26 16,238.78 1,999.95 1,999.95 17,129.96 12,298.03 60,367.43 60,367.43 44,774.55 0.60 65,945.94 48,259.10 1,569.34 1,569.34 20,542.07 20,542.07 18,904.45 18,904.45 479,312.97 55,981.66 35,138.39 35,138.39 203,302.48 202,587.91 234,597.16 225,539.07 35,139.02 35,139.02 425.82 - 41,270.28 19,968.43 8,360.36 - 20,053.56 15,171.72 35,237.58 7,801.25 387,211.33 362,521.08 139,526.36 46,100.64 472,911.43 455,745.51 Commitment Amount Total Cost Available Balance %Complete Managed By 0 Office of Capital Improvements 1,375.48 675.65 67 Office of Capital Improvements 7,020.66 7,020.66 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements 7,446.08 0 Office of Capital Improvements 0.02 0 Office of Capital Improvements 447.79 10,079.24 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements 10,940.88 11,098.39 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements 6,683.51 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements 2,894.94 0 Office of Capital Improvements 47,960.01 0 Office of Capital Improvements 450,980.92 2,792,520.60 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements 10,938.37 13,855.14 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements 841,047.46 885,455.18 13,524.01 98 Office of Capital Improvements 193,064.72 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements 692.63 38,144.04 2 Office of Capital Improvements 12,597.00 163.49 99 Office of Capital Improvements 727.17 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements 0 Office of Capital Improvements 775.07 0 Office of Capital Improvements 0 Office of Capital Improvements 714.57 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements 20,260.48 36,499.26 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements 1,999.95 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements 0 Office of Capital Improvements 0 Office of Capital Improvements 4,831.93 17,129.96 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements 60,367.43 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements 0 Office of Capital Improvements 44,774.55 0 Office of Capital Improvements 0.60 0 Office of Capital Improvements 0 Office of Capital Improvements 17,682.00 65,941.10 4.84 100 Office of Capital Improvements 0 Office of Capital Improvements 1,569.34 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements - - 0 Office of Capital Improvements 20,542.07 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements 18,904.45 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements 2,500.00 58,481.66 420,831.31 12 Office of Capital Improvements 35,138.39 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements 714.55 203,302.46 0.02 100 Office of Capital Improvements 9,058.09 234,597.16 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements 35,139.02 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements 0 Office of Capital Improvements 425.82 0 Office of Capital Improvements 10,624.31 30,592.74 10,677.54 74 Office of Capital Improvements 8,360.36 0 Office of Capital Improvements 15,171.72 4,881.84 76 Office of Capital Improvements 27,436.33 35,237.58 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements 0 Office of Capital Improvements 24,690.25 387,211.33 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements 0 Office of Capital Improvements 4,000.00 50,100.64 89,425.72 36 Office of Capital Improvements 17,165.92 472,911.43 - 100 Office of Capital Improvements 6,407,687.89 4,256,382.04 1,460,339.94 5,716,721.98 690,965.91 Current Phase (if applicable) Canceled -Closed 03- Design 07-Construction 03- Design 07-Construction 03- Design 04- Dry-Run/Permit 07-Construction 10-Administrative Close -Out 03- Design 10-Administrative Close -Out 05-Bidding 08- Final Completion 07-Construction #N/A 03- Design 03- Design 10-Administrative Close -Out 07-Construction 08- Final Completion 10-Administrative Close -Out Complete -Closed 08- Final Completion 08- Final Completion 03- Design 07-Construction 05-Bidding 08- Final Completion 08- Final Completion 08- Final Completion Complete -Closed 08- Final Completion 05-Bidding 05-Bidding 08- Final Completion 05-Bidding 08- Final Completion Status Oracle Capitalized Cost Remaining to be capit Capitalized? CLOSED 0 135261.98 No APPROVED 0 204084.12 No APPROVED 0 44149.7 No PENDING_CLOSE 0 33508.92 No APPROVED 0 199330.83 No APPROVED 0 110057.49 No APPROVED 0 472.43 No APPROVED 0 302338.8 No PENDING_CLOSE 648647.45 0 Yes APPROVED 1806216.19 0 Yes APPROVED 0 11136796.93 NO APPROVED 367454.07 0 Yes APPROVED 0 846574.06 No PENDING_CLOSE 3462097.98 0 Yes APPROVED 0 147365.76 No APPROVED 0 6623565.2 NO APPROVED 0 406836.35 No APPROVED 4870316.24 0 Yes PENDING_CLOSE 690271.71 0 Yes PENDING_CLOSE 1590872.7 0 Yes APPROVED 0 1171590.76 No APPROVED 0 305624.03 No PENDING_CLOSE 183648.86 0 Yes PENDING_CLOSE 0 194769.48 No APPROVED 409764.56 17278.64 No APPROVED 0 419359.05 No APPROVED 0 457205.64 No CLOSED 0 4289.01 No PENDING_CLOSE #N/A #N/A No PENDING_CLOSE 14236.4 0 Yes PENDING_CLOSE 0 157766.41 No APPROVED 0 2624732.62 No PENDING_CLOSE 129212 0 Yes APPROVED 798023.36 11466.66 Yes PENDING_CLOSE 143347.8 0 Yes APPROVED 0 240825.36 No APPROVED 0 83230.45 No APPROVED 0 149011.56 No PENDING_CLOSE 0 169853.67 No APPROVED 0 258400.87 No APPROVED 0 291878.55 No CLOSED 211347.64 36012.21 Yes PENDING_CLOSE 0 111476.97 No PENDING_CLOSE 122287.38 0 Yes APPROVED 0 66803.12 No PENDING_CLOSE 0 35035.89 No APPROVED 0 158735.16 NO APPROVED 0 130512.67 No PENDING_CLOSE 0 18417.82 No APPROVED 0 1302089.11 No CLOSED 0 44462.11 No APPROVED 0 196509.3 NO APPROVED 0 1008125.8 No • ••• ••••• • • • \ City of M * IMCOAPBRAT 18g98 PTP Funded Capital Projects ::.::. ••• CITT Project Execution as of September 2021 Priority A B C Sep-21 Design #Projects CITT $ Allocation CITT $ Unspent 4 $3.04 M $2.02 M 18 $4.40 M $2.75 M 3 $1.50 M $0.11 M 25 $8.94 M $4.88 M TOTAL #Projects CITT $ Allocation CITT $ Unspent CITT Unspent 6 $6.35 M $4.44 M 69.9% 26 $7.54 M $4.99 M 66.1% 9 $2.44 M $0.61 M 25.1% 41 $16.33 M $10.04 M 61.5% Procurement tfl 1I U CD 0 A: i CITT $ Allocation CITT $ Unspent 0 $0.00 M $0.00 M 2 $0.87 M $0.82 M 3 $0.46 M $0.35 M $1.33 M $1.17 M Construction tfl 1I U CD 0 A: i CITT $ Allocation CITT $ Unspent 2 $3.31 M $2.42 M 6 $2.28 M $1.42 M 3 $0.48 M $0.15 M m $6.07 M $3.99 M Completed & Reprogramming #Projects CITT $ Allocation CITT $ Unspent CITT Unspent 59 $9.62 M $0.86 M 8.9% Totals Sept-21 #Projects CITT $ Allocation CITT $ Unspent CITT Unspent 100 $25.95 M $10.90 M 42.0% 03-31-22 s• •.• CITT Project Execution as of March 2022 Priority A B C Design #Projects CITT $ Allocation CITT $ Unspent 4 $3.04 M $1.83 M 14 $3.74 M $2.06 M 2 $0.33 M $0.08 M 20 $7.12 M $3.97 M Procurement 1I U N 0 A: x* CITT $ Allocation CITT $ Unspent 0 $0.00 M $0.00 M 6 $1.52 M $1.24 M 3 $0.46 M $0.35 M Construction U CD Cr_ i CITT $ Allocation CITT $ Unspent 2 $3.31 M $0.73 M 6 $2.28 M $1.10 M 0 $0.00 M $0.00 M 9 $1.98 M $1.59 M 8 $5.59 M $1.83 M Completed & Reprogramming #Projects CITT $ Allocation CITT $ Unspent CITT Unspent 63 $11.21 M $0.85 M 7.6% Totals Mar-22 1I U CD 0 A: x* CITT $ Allocation CITT $ Unspent CITT Unspent 100 $25.90 M $8.24 M 31.8% TOTAL #Projects CITT $ Allocation CITT $ Unspent CITT Unspent 6 $6.35 M $2.57 M 40.4% 26 $7.54 M $4.40 M 58.3% 5 $0.79 M $0.43 M 53.6% 37 $14.69 M $7.39 M 50.3% 03-31-22 s• •.• CITT Project Execution as of March 2022 Priority c A z B 1 c 2 jL,-September 2021 to March 2022 Reduced unspent funds on projects by $2.66M l unspent funds in higher priority projects L84% A's and B's) 73% allocated funds in Procurement and Construction (vs 27% in Design) Totals Mar-22 1I U 0 a CITT $ Allocation CITT $ Unspent CITT % Unspent 100 $25.90 M $8.24 M 31.8% CITT % Unspent 40.4% 58.3% 53.6% 50.3% 03-31-22 CITT Expenditures up to March 2022 Reporting Month Allocated CITT Unspent CITT Spent CITT Cumulative Expenditures CITT % Unspent Oct-19 $25.90 M $16.30 M $5.50 M $5.50 M 62.9% Jan-20 $26.30 M $14.94 M $1.36 M $6.86 M 56.8% Aug-20 $26.30 M $13.39 M $1.55 M $8.41 M 50.9% Jan-21 $25.99 M $12.63 M $0.76 M $9.17 M 48.6% Apr-21 $25.94 M $11.96 M $0.68 M $9.85 M 46.1 Aug-21 $25.95M $11.59 M $0.37 M $10.21 M 44.7% Sep-21 $25.95 M $10.90 M $0.69 M $10.90 M 42.0% Mar-22 $25.89 M $8.24 M $2.66 M $13.56 M 31.8% CITT Spent vs. Unspent $16.30 $14.94 $13.39 $5.50 8.41 $12.63 $11.96 $11.59 $9.17 $9.84 $10.90 $1.3.56 $10.90 $8.24 $10.21 Oct-19 Jan-20 Aug-20 Jan-21 Apr-21 Aug-21 Sep-21 Mar-22 Months 0 Jnspent CITT -0- Cumulative Expenditures 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% CITT % Unspent 62.9 % Oct-19 Jan-20 Aug-20 Jan-21 Apr-21 Aug-21 Sep-21 Mar-22 CITT %Unspent 03-31-22 •. ••• CITT Unspent Forecast 70.00% 60.00% • 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% 62.90% 6:•80% • 90% 8.60% 44.70% 42.00% a) a) O O O O O O N N N N N N M M M M M M N N Q N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N ▪ U) U) U U) U) - U U) U) - U • U) U) - U U) U- ) p Q Q O p Q Q O p CITT Unspent ••• Trendline 03-31-22 • ••• CITT Budgets by County Districts as of March 2022 ••••• • • • CITT Budget by County Districts 5; $10.31 M; 40% 6; $0.73 M; 3% 3; $5.83 M; 23% 40 35 30 7; $7.38 M; 28% 25 20 15 CW; $0.25 M; 10 1% 5 2; $1.40 M; 5% •2 •3 ■5 •I6 •7 ■CW 0 Projects Completed by County District 7,$1.70M 3 35, $3.89 M 6, $0.69 M 5 6 County Districts 15, $4.07 M 7 $4.50 M $4.00 M $3.50 M $3.00 M $2.50 M $2.00 M $1.50 M $1.00 M $0.50 M $0.00 M CITT Actuals 03-31-22 • • • CITT Budgets by City Districts as of March 2022 • CITT Budget by City of Miami Districts CW, $3.12 M, 12% 5, $5.43 M, 21% 1, $3.09 M, 12% 2, $5.85 M, 23% 4, $5.23 M, 3, $3.17 M, 20% 12% ■1 ■2 ■3 4 ■5 ■CW 35 30 v) 25 u 20 Q O. 15 0 10 5 0 Expenditures by City of Miami District 16, $3.89 M 8, $1.21 M 1 2 30, $4.39 M 28, $2.41 M 16, $3.37 M 2, $2.38 M 3 4 5 CW City of Miami Districts $5.00 M $4.50 M $4.00 M $3.50 M $3.00 M $2.50 M $2.00 M $1.50 M $1.00 M $0.50 M $0.00 M CITT Actuals 03-31-22 �41• •O•CITT Project Execution Projections for August 2022 83% in A's and B's Priority A Design #Projects CITT $ Allocation CITT $ Unspent 3 $2.26 M $1.58 M 13 $3.70 M $1.74 M 2 $0.33 M $0.07 M 18 $6.29 M $3.39 M Procurement #Projects CITT $ Allocation CITT $ Unspent 1 $0.78 M $0.16 M 3 $1.17 M $1.03 M 3 $0.46 M $0.35 M 7 $2.41 M $1.54 M Construction #Projects CITT $ Allocation CITT $ Unspent 2 $3.31 M $0.33 M 9 $2.70 M $1.31 M 0 $0.00 M $0.00 M 11 $6.02 M $1.65 M B C Priority A B C TOTAL #Projects CITT $ Allocation CITT $ Unspent 6 $6.35 M $2.07 M 25 $7.57 M $4.09 M 5 $0.79 M $0.42 M 36 $14.72 M ; u.Jc .vi 76% in Procurement and Construction 03-31-22 * IMCOAPBRAT �r f lags R • ••• ••••• • • • ,Nop City of Miami Projects Completed and On -going • ;Ow 40-B50323 - SW 31 Road from SW 2 to SW 3 Avenue Total Project Cost: $ 259,213 CITT Actual Spent: $ 125,000 PROJECT LOCATION 8-50323 Description: Milling and resurfacing, minor drainage and driveway approach repairs Goal: ❑ Drainage Improvements ❑ Milling and Resurfacing Target/Audience: ❑ District 3 ❑ The Roads Neighborhood ❑ Local and Visitor Traffic Benefits: ❑ 1,235 SY of Milling and Resurfacing ❑ 234 SY of Sidewalks and Driveways ❑ 2 Drainage Solutions Status: ❑ Completed in Q2 2022 and the Contractor is now working on closing -out the project. 03-31-22 40-B40672G - Flagami Traffic Calming Total Project Cost: $ 857,085 CITT Actual Spent: $ 88,065 Description: Construction of traffic calming devices, drainage improvements, pavement restoration, ADA ramps, signing and pavement markings and landscaping Goal: ❑ Speed Reduction Signage ❑ Traffic Calming Devices Target/Audience: ❑ District 4 ❑ Flagami Neighborhood ❑ Local and Visitor Traffic Benefits: ❑ 1 Speed Hump ❑ 8 Traffic Signs ❑ 180 SF of Sod Area Status: ❑ Completed in Q1 2022 and the Contractor is now working on closing -out the project. 03-31-22 ��••� 40-B173620 - 28 Road from SW 3 to SW 4 Avenue �••��•�°• Roadway Improvements Total Project Cost: $ 271,600 CITT Actual Spent: $ 212,965 BEGIN CONSTRUCTION STA: 10+18.64 PROJECT LOCATVON 8-173620 Description: Drainage improvements, pavement restoration, sidewalk and driveway approach repairs, new curb and gutter, swale restoration and striping and pavement markings Goal: ❑ Drainage Improvements ❑ Milling and Resurfacing ❑ ADA Sidewalks Target/Audience: ❑ District 3 ❑ Local and Visitor Traffic Benefits: ❑ 1,955 SY of Milling and Resurfacing ❑ 180 SY of ADA Compliant Sidewalks ❑ 5 Drainage Solutions Status: ❑ The project is completed, and the Contractor is now working on closing -out the project. 03-31-22 • •i•• i 40-B30846 — Bayhomes Drive Drainage •��# Improvements Total Project Cost: $ 1,425,000 CITT Budget: $ 31,000 PROJECT LOCATION N. BAY HOMES OR Description: Design and construction of right of way improvements to include but not limited to roadway reconstruction, milling and resurfacing, drainage installation work minor driveway and sidewalk work Goal: ❑ Drainage Improvements ❑ ADA Compliant Sidewalks ❑ Street Beautification Target/Audience: ❑ Locals and Visitors ❑ District 2 Benefits: ❑ 440 SY of Asphalt Pavement ❑ 100 SY of ADA Compliant Sidewalks ❑ 4 Drainage Solutions ❑ 235 SY of Sod Status: ❑ Currently in construction 95% complete, the Contractor is working on the restoration of 03-31-22 the roadway. •• ••• ••••• • • • End of Presentation r A i OCITT MUNICIPAL WORKSHOP Complete Q&A Edition 2004-2007 As Consolidated by AMS Ma fLIJ 04-akir 4 ELIGIBLE EXPENDITURES: 1. What is defined as a "transit project"? A transit project is defined as bus service, rail service and related.a en ties bus pull-out bays, bus shelters, bus benches, and bus stops. All expenses associated with -the operation .and _maintenance_ of a transit project is an eligible expense. Additionally, consultant services for transit planning as well as other related transit admigistrative expenses are eligible. �� 2. What is defined as a "transit (bus or circulator) service"? A fixed i qt. route. This term is applied to a transit service that is regurjy. la 1 j(' ' scheduled and,operates over. a,set.rqu.,te, I 3. Does the cost of city personnel associated -..with transporta.ti.on Improvements, count «ward. baseline expenses (e.g., charging a portion of the Public Works Director's time spent on PTP transportation projects)? Can funds from the transit surtax be used to may for the costs of city staff hired to perform street maintenance duties such as repairing pot holes, etc. Yes — as long as it is for enhanced services and eligible transportation and transit expenses. '1' 4. Where and when can the installation or repair of sidewalks be regarded as an eligible project? If the construction or repair of a . •d sidewalk is part of a larger, road improvement_.:project, or,-, if the � installation is necessary to provide accessibility (ADA) to._a bus stop, then it is eligible to be funded from surtax proceeds. The installation, repair or maintenance of a sidewalk cannot.be done when not part of a road improvement project, or when not associated with bus stop accessibility. If during the construction or maintenance of a road or bridge, a sidewalk is damaged or needs to, be removed, that sidewalk may be repaired and/or replaced with surtax funds. A bus stop sidewalk improvement project is funded_by: the 20 -percent transit portion. A sidewalk that is part of a road improvement project is funded by the 80 percent transportation portion. 5. ,07 Are landscaping and irrigation allowed under PTP funding guidelines? Landscaping and irrigation. aretinot-an acceptable use of surtax funds, unless it is part of a roadway improvement. Specifically, if in the process of constructing or maintaining a road or bridge, trees must be removed, then surtax funds, ,may be utilized to, restore or replant. Landscaping as a "Stand Alone Project," not related to a road improvement Project (e.g., for beautification), is not eligible for surtax funding. REFERENCE Q&A t May 2004 1-'� June 2005 I / June 2006 r•: June 2007 IT May 2004 June 2005 June 2006 June 2007 May 2004 June 2005 June 2006 June 2007 May 2004 June 2005 June 2006 June 2007 May 2004 June 2005 June 2006 June 2007 OCITT Q&As Consolidation Prior Auditfl A-066601 — W/Ps (RE:3/9/09 Audit Report PB•2.9) p o -/ , s c, (1/6) 6. Are bike paths and/or greenways an eligible expenditure? Bicycle paths and greenways that.run alongside and connect to roads and/or a rapid transit system are acceptable transportation uses of surtax funds. Bicycle paths which run along the beach or in a park are not acceptable uses of surtax funds. 7. Are vanpools an eligible expenditure? No. Van Pools are not an acceptable use of surtax funds, since they are not part of a bus or rapid transit system. 8. Is street furniture (benches, trashcans, tree grates) eligible? Benches and shelters at bus stops are an acceptable transit purpose under the state statute and county ordinance. However, street furniture which is not located at bus stops, for example, along parks or public facilities, is not an'acceptable use of surtax funds. 9. Are bus shelters for school bus pickup/drop-off points eligible? Are bus bays for school buses eligible? Can school buses be purchased to transport children? No. Florida Statute 316.003 has clear, separate, and distinct definitions for a bus and school bus. Therefore, when Florida Statutes and the county ordinance make reference to a bus or bus system, It does not include school buses or school bus amenities. As such, the purchase of school buses, school bus benches, school bus pullout bays, etc., are not legally acceptable uses of surtax funds. 10. Are the painting and/or maintenance of traffic light mast arms, benches and light poles an eligible expense? The maintenance of benches, assuming they are located at transit bus stops, is an acceptable use of surtax funds and would constitute a transit purpose. The maintenance of traffic light mast arms is an acceptable transportation project. Light poles, assuming they are placed to lightta road,, are an acceptable transportation purpose. 11. What type of signage is eligible for funding? Miami -Dade County Public Works Department is responsible for maintaining the county's traffic and street signs on county roads/right-of-ways. However, municipalities may utilize its surtax proceeds from Its transportation share for street signs. Entrance feature signs (e.g. "welcome to ...") and other non -transit related directional signs are not eligible for surtax funding. 12. Are street sweepers, backhoes, crew cabs, asphalt spreaders, bulldozer excavators, asphalt milling machines, grader, wheel loaders, low floor planers, dump trucks, and street pressure washers eligible expenditures? The procurement of maintenance equipment, if used for the repair and/or maintenance of roads, is an acceptable transportation use of surtax funds, Equipment utilized for irrigation and/or drainage along roads is an acceptable transportation program for the use of surtax funds. May 2004 June 2005 June 2006 June 2007 May 2004 June 2005 June 2006 June 2007 May 2004 June 2005 June 2006 June 2007 May 2004 June 2005 June 2006 June 2007 May 2004 June 2005 June 2006 June 2007 May 2004 June 2005 June 2006 June 2007 May 2004 June 2005 June 2006 June 2007 OCITT Q&As Consolidation (2/6) 13. Can traffic cameras be procured with surtax proceeds to monitor traffic conditions and resolve issues when they occur to ensure vehicular mobility? If the cameras are there to deter speeding, that would be a police function and not eligible for surtax funds. However, if traffic cameras are being placed inside buses or at bus stops are to enhance transit safety, the answer is yes. That would be an acceptable. REPORTING CRITERIA 14. Can a municipality modify its transportation plan after it has been submitted to the CITT? Yes. Although an amendment/change to the plan may be presented anytime during the fiscal year, annual updates 0 of the five year transportation plan are required, whether changes occur or not, by June 1 of each year. 15. What time period should the Municipal Transportation Plan cover? Is the baseline year FY01-02 considered the first year of the 5-year transportation plan? No, their first year of the plan is for FY 02-03; the Transportation Plan covers activities beginning in FY 02-03 through FY 00-07. In order to have uniformity and consistency in reporting the transportation plans, a boilerplate has been developed for your convenience. A sample may be downloaded from trafficrelief.com. A sample, along with instructions, is included in your Guidebook. The five-year transportation plan is for the period between FY02-03 thru FY06-07. 16. Who can assist me with developing my transportation plan? A municipality may exercise on the following options: (1) Utilize the County's contract s to access one of the three firms that have already been approved by the County's Metropolitan Planning Organization; (2) contact OCITT's municipal liaison to assist with basic technical questions in the preparation of your plan; or (3) utilize surtax proceeds (80% transportation share) to hire a consultant or an employee to develop and maintain their plan. 17. Define fiscal year? From October 1 — September 30 18. We already applied some surtax funds in September 2003 for the purchase of road grading and paving equipment. Under the five- year plan, under which fiscal year does this fall? Projects should be listed/budgeted in the Five -Year Transportation Plan utilizing the County's fiscal calendar (i.e. October 1 thru September 30). 19. If a city operates on a different fiscal year than the County, which should be used when submitting transportation plans? Plans must be submitted using the County's fiscal year. The budgetary process and submissions are based on the County's budget year, while audited financial statements would be based on the municipality's actual fiscal year. June 2005 June 2006 June 2007 May 2004 June 2005 June 2006 June 2007 May 2004 May 2004 May 2004 May 2004 May 2004 OCITT Q&As Consolidation (3/6) .3/ MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT 20. What level of maintenance of effort is required by municipalities? County Ordinance 02-116 (i), states that municipalities are to "continue to provide the same level of general fund support for transportation that is in their FY 2001-02 budgets in subsequent Fiscal Years," 21. Are there exceptions to the required level of Maintenance of Effort? In the case where surplus funds were transferred for a project that was not completed and, subsequently, the surplus has been transferred back? The FY01-02 is the base year, the ordinance (02-116) does not allow for exceptions for calculating the required level of MOE. 22. Is the FY 2002 level of effort amount based on what was actually spent in 2002, or what was originally budgeted? Per County Ordinance and as agreed upon in the Interlocal Agreement, the Maintenance of Effort is based on what was "budgeted" for FY01-02, and not what was expended. 3. Is it ei,uugli for the city to have begun a study to examine ways to accomplish the 20% expenditure, (like the development of a circulator system)? Yes, as long as the balance is encumbered under a contractual agreement. GENERAL INFORMATION 24. Can a municipality use its People's Transportation Plan dollars as collateral for a municipal bond? Yes, as long as the municipality can provide documentation regarding the bonding of surtax revenues. The projects that will be funded must be clearly identified in the Municipal Transportation Plan. 25, Can a municipality rollover its share of surtax funds from one year to the next to finance long-term projects? A municipality need not actually spend its share in any given fiscal year as long as those monies are encumbered through contractual agreement. t 26. When a municipality spends more than the 20% allowed for transit projects in earlier years, is it obligated to meet the 20% requirement in later years? Yes. County Ordinance No. 02-116 requires that municipalities allocate at least 20% of its distribution annually on transit projects. The 20% is a minimum level of expenditure, not a maximum. The ordinance further explains that the municipality must expend or encumber by the end of the (fiscal) year its receipt of surtax funds. Any municipality that cannot apply the 20% portion of surtax proceeds it receives may contract with the county for the county to apply such proceeds on a county project that enhances traffic mobility within the city and immediately adjacent areas. If the city cannot expend such proceeds in accordance with the established criteria, • roceeds shall be carried over and added to the overall portion OCITT Q&As Consolidation May 2004 June 2005 June 2006 June 2007 May 2004 May 2004 June 2005 June 2006 June 2007 rviay ..., 2004 May 2004 June 2005 June 2006 June 2007 June 2005 June 2006 June 2007 May 2004 June 2005 June 2006 June 2007 (4/6) of the surtax proceeds to be distributed to the cities in the ensuring year and shall be utilized solely for transit. 27. Can a municipality rollover its transit share (20%) of surtax funds? No. The 20% that must be spent on transit activities must be spent within the fiscal year that it is received. However, a municipality may encumber the monies through contractual agreement. Each municipality shall be required to apply at least 20% of their share of surtax proceeds towards transit, such as bus service, bus pullout bays, shelters, and any other transit -related infrastructure. Any municipality that cannot apply the 20% portion of surtax proceeds it receives may contract with the County for the County to apply such proceeds on a County project that enhances traffic mobility within the city and immediately adjacent areas. If the city cannot expend such proceeds in accordance with the established criteria, proceeds shall be carried over and added to the overall portion of the surtax proceeds to be distributed to the cities in the ensuing year and shall be utilized solely for the transit uses enumerated herein. Municipalities can utilize more than 20% of transit services. 28. Can a municipality rollover its transportation share (80%) of surtax funds? Yes. Uniike the 20% of transit share of surtax piuuccua, the 80% transportation portion may be carried over to the following fiscal year(s). 29. Can a municipality limit access to non -city residents to transit services funded with the municipal surtax share? No. Municipalities may not exclude access to those individuals who are not residents of that municipality. Moreover, residency within a particular municipality of Miami —Dade County cannot form the basis of a differential treatment in terms of services and/or pricing schemes for any projects funded in whole or in part with Charter County Transit Surtax Funds. 30. Can surtax funds be utilized to provide demand response bus/shuttle service, similar to the County's STS program? No. The difference is that STS is required once you provide bus service. The county provides STS throughout the county, including within municipalities. As such, municipalities are not required to provide STS or demand service. As a result, demand service by municipalities is more like a taxi system and not part of a bus or mass transit system and is therefore ineligible for surtax funds, It should be a fixed route system for it to be eligible 31. Given the municipalities for the most part did not receive their share of surtax proceeds until July/August 2003, will the transit portion of these funds be allowed to rollover to FY03-04? Yes, given the limited time municipalities had to develop their transportation plan, the transit portion will be allowed to rollover to FY03-04 must be expended or encumbered prior to the end of the fiscal year or those funds will revert to the municipal pool. May 2004 May 2004 June 2005 June 2006 June 2007 June 2005 June 2006 June 2007 May 2004 OCI;TT Q&As Consolidation (5/6) 32. When did the County distribute the first surtax proceeds to the municipalities? The first receipt was on April 1st for January collections. The first distribution was to Hialeah on June 12th for January through March collections followed by a transfer to all Municipalities with competed interlocal agreements and ACH forms on July 29th for January through April collections. 33. How will cities handle the annual audits? City auditors are required to review applicable resolutions, ordinances and contracts (Interlocal Agreement) relating to this funding source as part of annual audit requirement to ensure compliance. The audits will be reviewed to make sure the cities comply with this agreement. 34. What are the requirements for minority and small business participation compliance on PTP funded municipal projects? There are no participation requirements if municipal projects are funded exclusively from municipal and surtax funds. 35. Are there allowances for cities that have a large daytime population, but still have a small residential population? No. The municipal distribution formula was established at the time the ordinance was approved, it is a pro rata, population based formula. May 2004 May 2004 May 2004 May 2004 OCITT Q&As Consolidation (6/6) N, MUNICIPAL (2&A e � May 2004 /'cr :. �� Imit ELIGIBLE EXPENDITURES 11) What is defined as a "transit improvement project?" A transit improvement is defined as 21 bus service and related amenities, such as the operation and maintenance of transit service, bus pullout bays, bus shelters, bus benches, and bus stops. Consultant services for transit planning as well as other related transit administrative expenses are eligible. 2) What is defined as a "transit service"? A fixed route. 'This term is applied to a transit service that is regularly scheduled and operates over a set route. 3) Does the cost of city personnel associated with transportation improvements count toward baseline expenses (e.g. charging a portion of the Public Works Director's time sg spent on PTP transportation projects)? Can funds from: the transit surtax be used to pay for the costs of city staff that are hired to perform street maintenance duties (such as repairing pot holes, etc.). Yes — as long as it is for enhanced services and eligible transportation and transit expenses. 4) Where and when can the installation or repair of sidewalks be regarded as an eligible project? If the construction or repair of a sidevvaik is part of a larger road improvement project, or if the Installation is necessary to provide accessibility (ADA) to a bus stop, then it is eligible to be funded from surtax proceeds. The installation, repair or maintenance of a sidewalk cannot be done when not part of a road improvement project, or when not associated with bus stop accessibility. If during the construction or maintenance of a road or bridge, a sidewalk is damaged or needs to be removed, that sidewalk may be repaired and/or replaced with surtax funds.' A bus stop sidewalk improvement project is funded from the 20 percent transit portion. A sidewalk that is part of a road improvement project is funded from the 80 percent transportation portion. Please contact your Municipal liaison for a list of bus stops within your municipality that require ADA compliance retrofit. 5) Are landscaping and irrigation allowed under PTP funding guidelines? Landscaping is not an acceptable use of surtax funds, unless it is part of a roadway improvement. Specifically, if in the process of constructing or maintaining a road or bridge, trees must be removed, then surtax funds may be utilized to restore or replant. Landscaping as a Stand Alone Project, not related to a road improvement project (e.g. for beautification), is not eligible for surtax funding. 6) Are bikepa.ths and/or greenways an eligible expenditure? Bicycle paths which run alongside and connect to roads and/or a rapid transit systern are acceptable transportation uses of surtax funds. Bicycle paths. which run along the beach or in a park are not acceptable uses of surtax funds. 7) Are vanpools an eligible expenditure? No. Van Pools are not an acceptable use of surtax funds, since they are not part of a bus or rapid transit system, nor do they constitute construction, operation, or maintenance ofa road or bridge. 8) Are street furniture (benches, trashcans, tree grates) eligible? Benches and shelters at bus stops' are an acceptable transit purpose under the state ;statute and county ordinance. DAA Z Prior Audit!'A•066601 — W/Ps (RE: 3/9/09 J n.� Audit Report PB-2,9) pi?) _6 , 4 �a-and i• t MUNICIPAL Q&A May 2004 However, street furniture which is not located at bus stops is not an acceptable use of surtax funds. 9) Are bus shelters for schoolbus pickup/dropoff points eligible? Are busbays for school buses eligible? Can school buses be purchased to transport children? If yes, from transit or transportation funds? No. Florida statute 316.003 has clear, separate, and distinct definitions for a bus and school bus. Therefore, when Florida Statute and the County Ordinance make reference to a bus or bus system, it does not include school buses or school bus amenities. As such, the purchase of school buses, school bus benches, school bus pullout bays, etc., are not legally acceptable uses of surtax funds, 10)Is the painting and/or maintenance of traffic Tight mast arms, benches and light poles an eligible expense? The maintenance of benches, assuming they are located at transit bus stops, is an acceptable use of surtax funds and would constitute a transit purpose. The maintenance of traffic light mast arms is an acceptable transportation project. Light Poles, assuming they are placed to light a road, are an acceptable transportation purpose. 11)What type of signage is eligible for funding? Miami -Dade County Public Works Department is responsible for maintaining the county's traffic and street signs on county roads/right-of-ways, However, municipalities may utilize their surtax proceeds from their transportation share for street signs. Entrance feature signs (e.g. "Welcome to .... ") and other non -transit related directional signs are not eligible for surtax funding. 12)Equipment, such as streetsweepers, backhoe, crewcab, swale and ROW maintenance equipment, asphalt spreader, bulldozer excavator, asphalt milling machine, grader, wheel loader, low flow planer, dump truck, street pressure washer, storm drainage vacuum cleaner, portable suction pump, eligible expenditures? The procurement of maintenance equipment, if used for the repair and/or maintenance of roads, is an acceptable transportation use of surtax use. Equipment utilized for irrigation and/or drainage along roads is an acceptable transportation program for the use of surtax funds. REPORTING CRITERIA 13)What time period should the Municipal Transportation Plan cover? is the baseline year FY 01-02 considered the first year of the 5-year transportation plan? No, the first year of the plan is FY 02-03; the Transportation Plan covers activities beginning in FY 02-03 through FY 06-07. In order to have uniformity and consistency in reporting the transportation plans, a boilerplate has been developed for your convenience. A 'sample may be downloaded from trafcreliefcom. A sample, along with instructions, are included in your Guidebook. The five year transportation plan is for the period between FY02-03 thrrr FY06-07. 14)Who can assist me with developing my transportation; plan? A municipality may exercise one of the following options: (1) Utilize the County's contract to access one of the three firms that have already been approved by the County's Metropolitan Planning Organization; (2) contact OCITT's municipal liaison to assist with basic technical questions in the preparation of your plan; or (3). utilize surtax proceeds (8b% transportation share) to hire a consultant or an employee to develop and maintain their plan. 15)Dofine fiscal year. From October 1— September 30 2 1 15 IV a MUNICIPAL Q&A May 2004 16)We already applied some surtax funds in September 2003 for the purchase of road grading and paving equipment. Under the five year plan, under which fiscal year does this fall? Projects should be listed/budgeted in the Five Year Transportation Plan utilizing the County's fiscal calendar (Le. October 1 thru September 30). 17)1f a city operates on a different fiscal year than the county, which should be used when submitting transportation plans? Plans must be submitted using the county's fiscal year. The budgetary process and submissions are based on the county's budget year, while audited financial statements would be based on the municipality's actual fiscal year. 18)Can a municipality modify their transportation plans after they have been submitted to the CITT? Although an amendmenf/change to the plan may be presented anytime during the fiscal year, annual updates of the five year transportation plan are required, whether changes occur or not, by June 1St of each year. MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT 1 19)What level of maintenance of effort is required by municipalities? Per County Ordinance 02-116 6), states that ,municipalities are to "continue to provide the same level of general fund support for transportation that is in their FY 2001-02 budget in subsequent Fiscal Years." 20)Are there exceptions to the required level of Maintenance of Effort? In the case where surplus funds were transferred for a project that was not completed and, subsequently, the surplus has been transferred back? The FY 01-02 is the base year, the ordinance (02-116) does not allow for exceptions for calculating the required level of ti Maintenance of Effort. 21)is the FY 2002 level of effort amount based on what was actually spent in 2002, or what was originally budgeted? Per County Ordinance and as agreed upon in the lnterlocal Agreement, the Maintenance of Effort is based on what was "budgeted" for FY01-02, and not what was expended. • • 22)Is it enough for a city to have begun a study to examine; ways to accomplish the 20% expenditure, (like the development of a circulator system)? Yes, as long as the balance is encumbered under a contractual agreement. GENERAL INFORMATION • 23)Can a municipality use its People's Transportation Plan dollars as collateral for a municipal bond? Yes, as long as the municipality can provide documentation regarding the bonding of surtax revenues. The projects that will be funded *must be clearly identified in the municipal transportation plan. 24)Can a municipality rollover its transit share (20%) of surtax funds? No, The 20% that ,any. must be spend on transit activities must be spent within the,' fiscal year that it is received. However,. a municipality may encumber the monies through: contractual agreement. Each municipality shal/be required to'apply at least 20% of their share of surtax proceeds towards 3 axzyf"i, MUNICIPAL L Q &A • May 2004 transit, such as bus service, bus pullout bays, shelters; and any other transit -related infrastructure. Any municipality that cannot apply the 20% portion of surtax proceeds it receives may contract with the County for the County to apply such proceeds on a County project that enhances traffic mobility within the city and immediately adjacent areas. If the city cannot expend such proceeds in accordance with the established criteria, proceeds shall he carried over and added to the overall portion of the surtax proceeds to be distributed to the cities'in the ensuring year and shall be utilized solely for the transit uses enumerated herein. Municipalities can 'Utilize more than 20% oh transit services. 25)When, a municipality spends more than the 20% allowed for transit projects in earlier years, is it obligated to meet the 20% requirement in later years? Yes. County Ordinance No. 02-116 requires that the municipalities allocate 20% of their distribution annually on transit projects. The 20% is a minimum level of expenditure, not a maximum. The ordinance further explains that the 20% transit portion must be expended (or encumbered) by the end of the [fiscal) year, or the unexpended portion will; revert to the municipal pot for redistribution. The 20% expenditure can include debt payments on financing relating to eligible transit improvements. 26)Can a municipality rollover its transportation share (80%) of surtax funds? Yes. Unlike the 20% of transit share of surtax proceeds, the 80% transportation portion may be carried over to the following fiscal year(s). 27)Given the municipalities for the most part did not receive their share of surtax proceeds until July/August 2003, will the transit portion of these funds be allowed to rollover to FY03-04? Yes, given the limited time municipalities had to develop their transportation plan, the transit portion will be allowed to rollover over to FY 03-04. However, these "transit" funds, as well es the percentage of "transit" funds allocated in FY 03-04 must be expended or encumbered prior to the end of the fiscal year` or those funds will revert to the municipal pool. 28)When did the County distribute the first surtax proceeds to the municipalities? The first receipt was on Apr71 lst for January collections. The first distribution was to Hialeah on June 12th for January through March collections followed by a transfer to all Municipalities with completed interlace! agreements and ACH forms on July 29th for January through April collections. ?9.) How will cities handle the annual audits? City auditors are required to review applicable resolutions, ordinances and contracts (Interlocal Agreement) relating to this funding source as part of annual audit requirement to ensure compliahce. The audits will be reviewed to make sure the cities comply with this agreement. 30)What are the requirements for minority and small business participation compliance on PTP funded municipal projects? There are no participation requirements if municipal projects are funded exclusively from music/pal and surtax funds. 31)Are there allowances for cities that have a large daytime population but still have a • small residential population? No. 'The municipal distribution formula was established at the time the ordinance was approved. It is a pro rata, population based formula. 4 Ir pti Date: To: From: Subject: Memorandum June 22, 2009 Honorable Rebeca Sosa County Commi Toner George M. County Man COUNTY Municipalities Receiving Charter County Transit System Surtax Funding — Allowable Landscaping Expenditures This memorandum addresses your question regarding the use of Charter County Transit System Surtax (Transit Surtax) funds for landscaping expenditures. As you know, the Office of the Citizens' Independent Transportation Trust (OCITT) oversees the administration of the Transit Surtax under the supervision of the Citizens' Independent Transportation Trust. Municipalities receiving Transit Surtax monies must expend those funds on eligible Transit and Transportation projects, in accordance with laws, regulations and administrative guidelines expressed in Florida Statutes Section 212.055(1), Miami -Dade County Ordinance No. 02-116, and the respective Interlocal Agreements executed with the OCITT. Ft; , Y While landscaping expenditures are not addressed in the referenced Florida Statues or Miami - Dade County Ordinance, the OCITT formally issued guidance on the eligibility of these costs during a May 2004 Workshop attended by municipal representatives (Attachment I). Based upon that guidance, landscaping costs are eligible for Transit Surtax funding] when plantings are part of roadway improvement projects. Thus, the routine maintenance of swales and medians are not eligible for Transit Surtax funding, We understand these guidelines were developed in consultation with the Office of the County Attorney. If you have any further questions, please contact Cathy Jackson, Director of the Audit and Management Services Department, at 305-349-6100 or Charles Scurr, Executive Director of the OCITT, at 305-375-1357. CJ:ag Attachment c: Honorable Chairman Dennis C. Moss and Members, Board of County Commissioners Chairperson Linda Zilber and Members, Citizens' Independent Transportation Trust Susanne M. Torriente, Chief Assistant County Manager Ysela Llort, Assistant County Manager Charles D. Scurr, Executive Director, OCITT Bruce Libhaber, Assistant County Attorney Cathy Jackson, Director, Audit and Management Services Department 7,4 MUNICIPAL WORKSHOP June 2005 Q&A ELIGIBLE EXPENDITURES: 1. , What is defined as a "transit project"? A transit project is defined as bus service and re,,;a., 2-1 related amenities: bus pull-out bays, bus shelters, bus benches, and bus stops. All expenses associated with the operation and maintenance of a transit project is an eligible expense. Additionally, consultant services for transit planning as well as other related transit administrative expenses are eligible. 2. What is defined as a "transit (bus or circulator) service"? A fixed route. This term is applied to a transit service that is regularly scheduled and operates over a set route. 3. Can surtax funds be utilized to provide demand response bus/shuttle service, similar to the County's STS program? The difference is that STS is required once you provide bus service. The county provides STS throughout the county, including within municipalities. As such, municipalities are not required to provide STS or demand service. As a result, demand service by municipalities is more like a taxi system and not part of a bus or mass transit system and is therefore ineligible for surtax funds. It should be a fixed route system for it to be eligible. 4. Does the cost of city personnel associated with transportation improvements, count toward baseline expenses (e.g., charging a portion of the Public Works Director's time spent on PTP transportation projects)? Can funds from the transit surtax be used to pay for the costs of city staff hired to perform street maintenance duties such as repairing pot holes, etc. Yes — as long as it is for enhanced services and eligible transportation and transit expenses. 5. Where and when can the installation or repair of sidewalks be regarded as an eligible project? If the construction or repair of a sidewalk is part of a larger road improvement project, or if the installation is necessary to provide accessibility (ADA) to a bus stop, then it is eligible to be funded from surtax proceeds. The installation, repair or maintenance of a sidewalk cannot be done when not part of a road improvement project, or when not associated with bus stop accessibility. If during the construction or maintenance of a road or bridge, a sidewalk is damaged or needs to be removed, that sidewalk may be repaired and/or replaced with surtax funds. A bus stop sidewalk improvement project is funded by the 20 percent transit portion. A sidewalk that is part of a road improvement project is funded by the 80 percent transportation portion. 6. Are landscaping and irrigation allowed under PTP funding guidelines? Landscaping and irrigation is not an acceptable use of surtax funds, unless it is part of a roadway improvement. Specifically, if in the process of constructing or maintaining a road or bridge, trees must be removed, then surtax funds may be utilized to restore or replant. Landscaping as a "Stand Alone Project," not related to a road improvement Project (e.g., for beautification), is not eligible for surtax funding. 7. Are vanpools an eligible expenditure? No. Van Pools are not an acceptable use of surtax funds, since they are not part of a bus or rapid transit system. cP ; C'T Prior Audit!! A•046601 - W/Ps (RE: 3/9/09 Audit Report P13-2.9) 146-6.5Z Municipal Workshop Page 2 8. Are bikepaths and/or greenways an eligible expenditure? Bicycle paths and greenways that run alongside and connect to roads and/or a rapid transit system are acceptable transportation uses of surtax funds. Bicycle paths which run along the beach or in a park are not acceptable uses of surtax funds. 9. Is street furniture (benches, trashcans, tree grates) eligible? Benches and shelters at bus stops are an acceptable transit purpose under the state statute and county ordinance. However, street furniture which is not located at bus stops, for example, along parks or public facilities, is not an acceptable use of surtax funds. 10. Are bus shelters for schoolbus pickup/dropoff points eligible? Are busbays for school buses eligible? Can school buses be purchased to transport children? No. Florida statute 316.003 has clear, separate, and distinct definitions for a bus and school bus. Therefore, when Florida Statutes and the county ordinance make reference to a bus or bus system, it does not include school buses or school bus amenities. As such, the purchase of school buses, school bus benches, school bus pullout bays, etc., are not legally acceptable uses of surtax funds. 11. Is the painting and/or maintenance of traffic light mast arms, benches and light poles an eligible expense? The maintenance of benches, assuming they are located at transit bus stops, are an acceptable use of surtax funds and would constitute a transit purpose. The maintenance of traffic Tight mast arms is an acceptable transportation project. Light Poles, assuming they are placed to light a road, are an acceptable transportation purpose. 12. What type of signage is eligible for funding? Miami -Dade County Public Works Department is responsible for maintaining the county's traffic and street signs on county roads/right-of-ways. However, municipalities may utilize its surtax proceeds from its transportation share for street signs. Entrance feature signs (e.g., "Welcome to....") are not eligible for surtax funding. 13. Are streetsweepers, backhoes, crewcabs, asphalt spreaders, bulldozer excavators, asphalt milling machines, grader, wheel loaders, low floor planers, dump trucks, and street pressure washers eligible expenditures? The procurement of maintenance equipment, if used for the repair and/or maintenance of roads, is an acceptable transportation use of surtax funds. 14. Can traffic cameras be procured with surtax proceeds to monitor traffic conditions and resolve issues when they occur to ensure vehicular mobility? If the cameras are there to deter speeding, that would be a police function and not eligible for surtax funds. However, if traffic cameras are being placed inside buses or at bus stops r to enhance transit safety, the answer is yes. That would be an acceptable. 15. Can a municipality modify its transportation plan after it has been submitted to the CITT? Yes. Although an amendment/change to the plan may be presented anytime during the fiscal year, annual updates of the five year transportation plan are required, whether changes occur or not, by June 1 of each year. • Municipal Workshop Page 3 GENERAL INFORMATION: 16. What level of maintenance of effort is required by municipalities? County Ordinance 02-116 (1), states that municipalities are to "continue to provide the same level of general fund support for transportation that is in their FY 2001-02 budget in subsequent Fiscal Years." 17. Is the FY 2002 level of effort amount based on what was actually spent in 2002, or what was originally budgeted? Per County Ordinance and as agreed upon in the Interlocal Agreement, the Maintenance of Effort is based on what was "budgeted" for FY01- 02, and not what was expended. 18. Can a Municipality use its People's Transportation Plan dollars as collateral for a municipal bond? Yes, as long as the municipality can provide documentation regarding the bonding of surtax revenues. The projects that will be funded must be clearly identified in the Municipal Transportation Plan. 19. Can a municipality rollover its share of surtax funds from one year to the next to finance long-term projects? A municipality need not actually spend its share in any given fiscal year as long as those monies are encumbered through contractual agreement. 20. When a municipality spends more than the 20% allowed for transit projects in earlier years, is it obligated to meet the 20% requirement in later years? Yes. County Ordinance No. 02-116 requires that municipalities allocate at least 20% of its distribution Annually on transit projects. The 20% is a minimum level of expenditure, not a maximum. The ordinance further explains that the municipality must expend or encumber by the end of the (fiscal) year its receipt of surtax funds, Any municipality that cannot apply the 20% portion of surtax proceeds it receives may contract with the county for the county to apply such proceeds on a county project that enhances traffic mobility within the city and immediately adjacent areas. If the city cannot expend such proceeds in accordance with the established criteria, proceeds shall be carried over and added to the overall portion of the surtax proceeds to be distributed to the cities in the ensuring year and shall be utilized solely for transit. 21. Can a municipality limit access to non -city residents to transit services funded with the municipal surtax share? No. No municipality may exclude access to those individuals who are not residents of that municipality. Moreover, residency within a particular municipality of Miami —Dade County cannot form the basis of a differential treatment in terms of services and/or pricing schemes for any projects funded in whole or in part with Charter County Transit Surtax Funds. t .. ray Pam) 04 pi to MUNICIPAL WORKSHOP June 2006 Q&A ELIGIBLE EXPENDITURES: 41, What is defined as a "transit project"? A transit project is defined as bus service, rail service and related amenities: bus pull-out bays, bus shelters, bus benches, and bus stops. All expenses associated with the operation and maintenance of a transit project is an eligible expense. Additionally, consultant services for transit planning as well as other related transit administrative expenses are eligible. 2. What is defined as a "transit (bus or circulator) service"? A fixed route. This term is applied to a transit service that is regularly scheduled and operates over a set route. 3., Can surtax funds be utilized to provide demand response bus/shuttle service, similar to the County's STS program? The difference is that STS is required once you provide bus service. The county provides STS throughout the county, including within municipalities. As such, municipalities are not required to provide STS or demand service. As a result, demand service by municipalities is more like a taxi system and not part of a bus or mass transit system and is therefore ineligible for surtax funds. It should be a fixed route system for it to be eligible. 4. Does the cost of city personnel associated with transportation improvements, count toward baseline expenses (e.g., charging a portion of the Public Works Director's time spent on PTP transportation projects)? Can funds from the transit surtax be used to pay for the costs of city staff hired to perform street maintenance duties such as repairing pot holes, etc. Yes — as long as it is for enhanced services and eligible transportation and transit expenses. 5. Where and when can the installation or repair of sidewalks be regarded as an eligible project? If the construction or repair of a sidewalk is part of a larger road improvement project, or if the installation is necessary to provide accessibility (ADA) to a bus stop, then it is eligible to be funded from surtax proceeds. The installation, repair or maintenance of a sidewalk cannot be done when not part of a road improvement project, or when not associated with bus stop accessibility. If during the construction or maintenance of a road or bridge, a sidewalk is damaged or needs to be removed, that sidewalk may be repaired and/or replaced with surtax funds. A bus stop sidewalk improvement project is funded by the 20 percent transit portion. A sidewalk that is part of a road improvement project is funded by the 80 percent transportation portion. 6. Are landscaping and irrigation allowed under PTP funding guidelines? Landscaping and irrigation is not an acceptable use of surtax funds, unless it is part of a roadway improvement. Specifically, if in the process of constructing or maintaining a road or bridge, trees must be removed, then surtax funds may be utilized to restore or replant. Landscaping as a "Stand Alone Project," not related to a road improvement Project (e.g., for beautification), is not eligible for surtax funding. 7. Are vanpools an eligible expenditure? No. Van Pools are not an acceptable use of surtax funds, since-rthey are not part of a bus or rapid transit system. S"tt/t4tA. �i V YT I'riorAWith' A-066601 - W/Ps RE: 3/9/09 Audit Report P13.2,9) Pe G63 Pb-,7.5 11 Municipal Workshop Page 2 8. Are bikepaths and/orgreenwa.ys an eligible' expenditure? Bicycle, paths and gre.enways that run alongside and connect to roads and/or a rapid transit system a.re acceptable transportation uses of surtax funds. Bicycle paths which run along, the beach or in a park are not acceptable uses of surtax funds,. 9. Is street, furniture (benches., trashcans,, tree grates) eligible? Benches and .shelters at bus stops are; an acceptable transit purpose under the state. statute and county ordinance. However, street furniture which is n,ot• located at bus steps, for example, along parks or public ,facilities, is not an acceptable use of .surtax funds: 10. Are bus shelters for schoolbus pickup/dropoff points. eligible? Are busbays for school buses eligible? Can school buses be purchased to transport children? .No. Florida Statute 316.003 has clear, separate, .and distinct. definitions for a bus and school bus. Therefore, when Florida Statutes and the county ordinance make reference. to a bus or bus system, tt does not include school buses or school bus amenities. As such, the purchase of school buses, school bus benches, school bus pullout bays, etc., are riot' legally acceptable uses of surtax funds. 11. Is the painting and/or maintenance of traffic light mast arms, benches and light poles an eligible expense? The maintenance of benches, assuming they are located at. transit bus .stops, are an acceptable use of surtax funds and would constitute a transit purpose.. The maintenance of traffic light mast.. arms is an acceptable transportation project. Light poles, assuming they are placed to light a road, are an acceptable transportation purpose. 12. What type of signage is eligible for funding? Miami -Dade County Public Works Department is responsible for maintaining the county''s traffic and street signs on county roads/right-of-ways. However,. municipalities may utilize its surtax proceeds. from its transportatio.ri share for street signs. Entrance feature signs.(e.g., "Welcome to..,.") are not eligible for surtax funding. 13. Are streetsweepers, backhoes, crewcabs,, asphalt spreaders, bulldozer excavators, asphalt milling machines:, grader; wheel loaders, low floor planers, dump trucks, and street pressure washers eligible .expenditures? The procurement of maintenance equipment, if used for the repair and/or maintenance, of roads, is an acceptable transportation use of'surtax funds. 14; Can traffic cameras be procured with surtax proceeds to monitor traffic conditions and resolve issues when they occur to ensure vehicular mobility? If the cameras are there to deter speeding; that would be a police function and not eligible far surtax funds. However, if traffic cameras are being placed' inside buses or at bus stops are: to enhance transit safety, the answer is yes. That would be an acceptable. 15. Can a municipality modify its transportation plan after it has been submitted to the' CITT? Yes. Although an amendm.ent/change'to the plan may be presented anytime during the fiscal year, annual updates of the five year transportation plan are required, whether changes occur or not, by June 1, of each year. Municipal Workshop Page 3 GENERAL INFORMATION: 16. What level of maintenance of effort is required by municipalities? County Ordinance 02-116 (I), states that municipalities are to "continue to provide the same level of general fund support for transportation that is in their FY 2001-02 budget in subsequent Fiscal Years." 17. Is the FY 2002 level of effort amount based on what was actually spent in 2002, or what was originally budgeted? Per County Ordinance and as agreed upon in the Interlocal Agreement, the Maintenance of Effort is based on what was "budgeted" for FY01- 02, and not what was expended. 18. Can a Municipality use its People's Transportation Plan dollars as collateral for a municipal bond? Yes, as long as the municipality can provide documentation regarding the bonding of surtax revenues. The projects that will be funded must be dearly identified in the iviuiiicipai Transportation Plan. 19. Can a municipality rollover its share of surtax funds from one year to the next to finance Tong -term projects? A municipality need not actually spend its share in any given fiscal year as long as those monies are encumbered through contractual agreement. 20. When a municipality spends more than the 20% allowed for transit projects in earlier years, is it obligated to meet the 20% requirement in later years? Yes. County Ordinance No. 02-116 requires that municipalities allocate at least 20% of its distribution annually on transit projects. The 20% Is a minimum level of expenditure, not a maximum. The ordinance further explains that the municipality must expend or encumber by the end of the (fiscal) year its receipt of surtax funds. Any municipality that cannot apply the 20% portion of surtax proceeds it receives, may contract with the county for the county to apply such proceeds on a county project that enhances traffic mobility within the city and immediately adjacent areas. If the city cannot expend such proceeds in accordance with the established criteria, proceeds shall be carried over and added to the overall portion of the surtax proceeds to be distributed to the cities in the ensuring year and shall be utilized solely for transit. 21. Can a municipality limit access to non -city residents to transit services funded with the municipal surtax share? No. Municipalities may not exclude access to those individuals who are not residents of that municipality. Moreover, residency within a particular municipality of Miami —Dade County cannot form the basis of a differential treatment in terms of services and/or pricing schemes for any projects funded in whole or in part with Charter County Transit Surtax Funds. MUNICIPAL WORKSHOP June 2007 Q&A ELIGIBLE EXPENDITURES: 1. Can surtax funds be utilized to provide demand response bus/shuttle service, similar to the County's STS program? No. The difference is that STS is required once you provide bus service. The county provides STS throughout the county, including within municipalities. As such, municipalities are not required to provide STS or demand service. As a result, demand service by municipalities is more like a taxi system and not part of a bus or mass transit system and is therefore ineligible for surtax funds. It should be a fixed route system for it to be eligible. What is defined as a "transit project"? A transit project is defined as bus service, rail service and related amenities: bus pull-out bays, bus shelters, bus benches, and bus stops. All expenses associated with the operation and maintenance of a transit project is an eligible expense. Additionally, consultant services for transit planning as well as other related transit administrative expenses are eligible. 3. What is defined as a "transit (bus or circulator) service"? A fixed route. This term is applied to a transit service that is regularly scheduled and operates over a set route, 4. Does the cost of city personnel associated with transportation improvements, count toward baseline expenses (e.g., charging a portion of the Public Works Director's time spent on PTP transportation projects)? Can funds from the transit surtax be used to pay for the costs of city staff hired to perform street maintenance duties such as repairing pot holes, etc. Yes — as long as it is for enhanced services and eligible transportation and transit expenses. 5. Where and when can the installation or repair of sidewalks be regarded as an eligible project? If the construction or repair of a sidewalk is part of a larger road improvement project, or if the installation is necessary to provide accessibility (ADA) to a bus stop, then it is eligible to be funded from surtax proceeds. The installation, repair or maintenance of a sidewalk cannot be done when not part of a road improvement project, or when not associated with bus stop accessibility. If during the construction or maintenance of a road or bridge, a sidewalk is damaged or needs to be removed, that sidewalk may be repaired and/or replaced with surtax funds. A bus stop sidewalk improvement project is funded by the 20 percent transit portion. A sidewalk that is part of a road improvement project is funded by the 80 percent transportation portion. 6. Are landscaping and irrigation allowed under PTP funding guidelines? Landscaping and irrigation is not an acceptable use of surtax funds, unless it is part of a roadway improvement. Specifically, if in the process of constructing or maintaining a road or bridge, trees must be removed, then surtax funds may be utilized to restore or replant. Landscaping as a "Stand Alone Project," not related to a road improvement Project (e.g., for beautification), is not eligible for surtax funding. 7. Are vanpools an eligible expenditure? No. Van Pools are not an acceptable use of surtax funds, since theyarenot part of a bus or rapid transit system. SdW1 C� �'� 7 7 Prior Auditl A•066601 — W/PS (RE; 3/9/09 Audit Report P0.2.9)pg Municipal Workshop Page 2 8. Are bikepaths and/or greenways an eligible expenditure? Bicycle paths and greenways that run alongside and connect to roads and/or a rapid transit system are acceptable transportation uses of surtax funds. Bicycle paths which run along the beach or in a park are not acceptable uses of surtax funds. 9. Is street furniture (benches, trashcans, tree grates) eligible? Benches and shelters at bus stops are an acceptable transit purpose under the state statute and county ordinance. However, street furniture which is not located at bus stops, for example, along parks or public facilities, is not an acceptable use of surtax funds. 10. Are bus shelters for schoo/bus pickup/dropoff points eligible? Are busbays for school buses eligible? Can school buses be purchased to transport children? No. Florida Statute 316.003 has clear, separate, and distinct definitions for a bus and school bus. Therefore, when Florida Statutes and the county ordinance make reference to a bus or bus system, it does not include school buses or school bus amenities. As such, the purchase of school buses, school bus benches, school bus pullout bays, etc., are not legally acceptable uses of surtax funds. 11. Is the painting and/or maintenance of traffic light mast arms, benches and light poles an eligible expense? The maintenance of benches, assuming they are located at transit bus stops, is an acceptable use of surtax funds and would constitute a transit purpose. The maintenance of traffic light mast arms is an acceptable transportation project. Light poles, assuming they are placed to light a road, are an acceptable transportation purpose. 12. What type of signage is eligible for funding? Miami -Dade County Public Works Department is responsible for maintaining the county's traffic and street signs on county roads/right-of-ways. However, municipalities may utilize its surtax proceeds from its transportation .share for street signs. Entrance feature signs (e.g., "Welcome to....") are not eligible for surtax funding. 13. Are streetsweepers, backhoes, crewcabs, asphalt spreaders, bulldozer excavators, asphalt milling machines, grader, wheel loaders, low floor planers, dump trucks, and street pressure washers eligible expenditures? The procurement of maintenance equipment, if used for the repair and/or maintenance of roads, is an acceptable transportation use of surtax funds. 14. Can traffic cameras be procured with surtax proceeds to monitor traffic conditions and resolve issues when they occur to ensure vehicular mobility? If the cameras are there to deter speeding, that would be a police function and not eligible for surtax funds. However, if traffic cameras are being placed inside buses or at bus stops are to enhance transit safety, the answer is yes. That would be an acceptable. 15. Can a municipality modify its transportation plan after it has been submitted to the CITT? Yes. Although an amendment/change to the plan may be presented anytime during the fiscal year, annual updates of the five year transportation plan are required, whether changes occur or not, by June 1 of each year. • VS,. Municipal Workshop Page 3 GENERAL INFORMATION: 16. What level of maintenance of effort is required by municipalities? County Ordinance 02-116 (i), states that municipalities are to "continue to provide the same level of general fund support for transportation that is in their FY 2001-02 budget in subsequent Fiscal Years." 17. Is the FY 2002 level of effort amount based on what was actually spent In 2002, or what was originally budgeted? Per County Ordinance and as agreed upon in the Interlocal Agreement, the Maintenance of Effort is based on what was "budgeted" for FY01- 02, and not what was expended. 18. Can a Municipality use its People's Transportation Plan dollars as collateral for a municipal bond? Yes, as long as the municipality can provide documentation regarding the bonding of surtax revenues. The projects that will be funded must be clearly identified in the Municipal Transportation Plan. 19. Can a municipality rollover its share of surtax funds from one year to the next to finance long-term projects? A municipality need not actually spend its share in any given fiscal year as long as those monies are encumbered through contractual agreement. 20. When a municipality spends more than the 20% allowed for transit projects in earlier years, is it obligated to meet the 20% requirement in later years? Yes. County Ordinance No. 02-116 requires that municipalities allocate at least 20% of its distribution annually on transit projects. The 20% is a minimum level of expenditure, not a maximum. The ordinance further explains that the municipality must expend or encumber by the end of the (fiscal) year its receipt of surtax funds. Any municipality that cannot apply the 20% portion of surtax proceeds it receives may contract with the county for the county to apply such proceeds on a county project that enhances traffic mobility within the city and immediately adjacent areas. If the city cannot expend such proceeds in accordance with the established criteria, proceeds shall be carried over and added to the overall portion of the surtax proceeds to be distributed to the cities in the ensuring year and shall be utilized solely for transit. 21. Can a municipality limit access to non -city residents to transit services funded with the municipal surtax share? No. Municipalities may not exclude access to those individuals who are not residents of that municipality. Moreover, residency within a particular municipality of Miami —Dade County cannot form the basis of a differential treatment in terms of services and/or pricing schemes for any projects funded in whole or in part with Charter County Transit Surtax Funds. MUNICIPAL WORKSHOP June 2008 Q&A ELIGIBLE EXPENDJTURES: ; 1. What Is defined as a "transit project"? A transit project is defined as bus service, rail e) /` service and related amenities: bus pull-out bays, bus shelters, bus benches, and bus stops, 6 All expenses associated with the operation and maintenance of a transit project is an eligible expense. Additionally, consultant services for transit planning as well as other related transit administrative expenses are eligible. 2. What Is defined as a "transit (bus or circulator) service"? A fixed route. This term is applied to a transit service that is regularly scheduled and operates over a set route. 3. Where and when can the installation or repair of sidewalks be regarded as an eligible project? If the construction or repair of a sidewalk is part of a larger road improvement project, or if the installation is necessary to provide accessibility (ADA) to a bus stop, then it is eligible to be funded from surtax proceeds. The installation, repair or maintenance of a sidewalk c•.ennot he done when not part of a road improvement project, or when not associated with bus stop accessibility, If during the construction or maintenance of a road or bridge, a sidewalk is damaged or needs to be removed, that sidewalk may be repaired and/or replaced with surtax funds. A bus stop sidewalk improvement project is funded by the 20 percent transit portion. A sidewalk that is part of a road improvement project is funded by the 80 percent transportation portion. 4. Does the cost of city personnel associated with transportation improvements, count toward baseline expenses (e.g., charging a portion of the Public Works Director's time spent on PTP transportation projects)? Can funds from the transit surtax be used to pay for the costs of city staff hired to perform street maintenance duties such as repairing pot holes, etc. Yes . as long as it is for enhanced services and eligible transportation and transit expenses. 5. Are landscaping and Irrigation allowed under PTP funding guidelines? Landscaping and Irrigation is not an acceptable use of surtax funds, unless it is part of a roadway improvement. Specifically, if in the process of constructing or maintaining a road or bridge, trees must be removed, then surtax funds may be utilized to restore or replant, Landscaping as a "Stand Alone Project," not related to a road improvement Project (e.g., for beautification), is not eligible for surtax funding. 6. Can surtax funds be utillzed to provide demand response bus/shuttle service, similar to the County's STS program? No. The difference is that STS is required once you provide bus service. The county provides STS throughout the county, including within municipalities. As such, municipalities are not required to provide STS or demand service. As a result, demand service by municipalities is more like a taxi system and not part of a bus or mass transit system and is therefore ineligible for surtax funds, It should be a fixed route system for It to be eligible. 7. Are vanpools an eligible expenditure? No. Van Pools are not an acceptable use of surtax funds, since they are not part of a bus or rapid transit system. ,sow e-c ' C- 1 T 7 WI.4 Municipal Workshop Page 2 8. Can a municipality modify its transportation plan after it has been submitted to the CITT? Yes, Although an amendment/change to the plan may be presented anytime during the fiscal year, annual updates of the five year transportation, plan are required, whether changes occur or not, by June 1 of each year. 9. is street furniture (benches, trashcans, tree grates) eligible? Benches and shelters at bus stops are an acceptable transit purpose under the state statute and county ordinance. However, street furniture which is not located at bus stops, for example, along parks or public facilities, is not an acceptable use of surtax funds. 10. Are bike paths and/or greenways an eligible expenditure? Bicycle paths and greenways that run alongside and connect to roads and/or a rapid transit system are acceptable transportation uses of surtax funds. Bicycle paths which run along the beach or in a park aro not acceptable uses of surtax funds. 11. Are bus shelters for school bus pickup/drop-off points eligible? Are bus bays for school buses eligible? Can school buses be purchased to transport children? No, Florida Statute 316.003 has clear, seper tc, ar,d distinctschool definitions for a bus and school bus. Therefore, when Florida Statutes and the county ordinance make reference to a bus or bus system, it does not include school buses or school bus amenities. As such, the purchase of school buses, school bus benches, school bus pullout bays, etc., are not legally acceptable uses of surtax funds, 12. Are the painting and/or maintenance of traffic light mast arms, benches and light poles an eligible expense? The maintenance of benches, assuming they are located at transit bus stops, is an acceptable use of surtax funds and would constitute a transit purpose. The maintenance of traffic light mast arms is an acceptable transportation project. Light poles, assuming they are placed to light a road, are an acceptable transportation purpose. 13. What type of signage is eligible for funding? Miami -Dade County Public Works Department Is responsible for maintaining the county's traffic and street signs on county roads/right-of-ways. However, municipalities may utilize its surtax proceeds from its transportation share for street signs. Entrance feature signs (e.g., 'Welcome to....") are not eligible for surtax funding. 14. Are street sweepers, backhoes, crew cabs, asphalt spreaders, bulldozer excavators, asphalt milling machines, grader, wheel loaders, low floor planers, dump trucks, and street pressure washers eligible expenditures? The procurement of maintenance equipment, if used for the repair and/or maintenance of roads, Is an acceptable transportation use of surtax funds. 15. Can traffic cameras be procured with surtax proceeds to monitor traffic conditions and resolve issues when they occur to ensure vehicular mobility? If the cameras are there to deter speeding, that would be a police function and not eligible for surtax funds. However, if traffic cameras are being placed inside buses or at bus stops is to enhance transit safety, the answer is yes. That would be an acceptable, Municipal Workshop Page 3 GENERAL INFORMATION: 16. What level of maintenance of effort Is required by munlclpalitles? County Ordinance 02.116 (I), states that municipalities are to "continue to provide the same level of general fund support for transportation that is in their FY 2001-02 budget in subsequent Fiscal Years." 17. Can a Municipality use its People's Transportation Plan dollars as collateral for a municipal bond? Yes, as long as the municipality can provide documentation regarding the bonding of surtax revenues. The projects that will be funded must be clearly Identified in the Municipal Transportation Plan, 18. Can a municipality rollover its share of surtax funds from one year to the next to finance long-term projects? A municipality need not actually spend its share in any given fiscal year as long as those monies are encumbered through contractual agreement. 19!Aiken nzericipaitty :vends more than the 20/%p allowed for transit projects in earlier years, is it obligated to meet the 20% requirement In later years? Yes. County Ordinance No. 02-116 requires that municipalities allocate at least 20% of its distribution annually on transit projects. The 20% is a minimum level of expenditure, not a maximum. The ordinance further explains that the municipality must expend or encumber by the end of the (fiscal) year its receipt of surtax funds. Any municipality that cannot apply the 20% portion of surtax proceeds it receives may contract with the county for the county to apply such proceeds on a county project that enhances traffic mobility within the city and immediately adjacent areas. If the city cannot expend such proceeds in accordance with the established criteria, proceeds shall be carried over and added to the overall portion of the surtax proceeds to be distributed to the cities in the ensuring year and shall be utilized solely for transit, 20. Can a municipality limit access to non -city residents to transit services funded with the municipal surtax share? No. Municipalities may not exclude access to those individuals who are not residents of that municipality. Moreover, residency within a particular municipality of Miami —Dade County cannot form the basis of a differential treatment in terms of services and/or pricing schemes for any projects funded in whole or in part with Charter County Transit Surtax Funds, sliga INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR DISTRIBUTION, USE AND REPORTING OF CHARTER COUNTY TRANSIT SYSTEM SURTAX PROCEEDS LEVIED BY MIAMI-DADE This Interlocal Agreement ("Agreement") entered into this l ray of 2007, by and between Miami -Dade County, a political subdivision of the Staff of %ride ("County"), and the City of Miami, a municipal corporation located within thdigeogphic boundaries of Miami -Dade County, Florida ("City"). WHEREAS, County adopted Ordinance No. 02-116 levying and imposing a one half of one percent Charter County Transit System Surtax ("Surtax") pursuant to the authority of Sec. 212.055(1) FIa.Stats. (2002); and WHEREAS, in 2003,E County and City entered into an Interlocal Agreement delineating each party's obligations; and WHEREAS, the County and City wish to modify that agreement; and WHEREAS, this Agreement supersedes all previous agreements; and WHEREAS, twenty (20) percent of surtax proceeds shall be distributed annually to those Cities existing as of November 5, 2002, ("eligible cities") that meet certain conditions including: The City continues to provide the same level of general fund support for transportation that was in its FY 2001-2002 budget in subsequent fiscal years; Any surtax proceeds received shall be applied to supplement, not replace a City's general fund support for transportation; and WHEREAS, Miami -Dade County Ordinance 02-1 16;requires that the City, on an annual basis, apply at least twenty (20)percent of any surtax proceeds received to transit uses in the nature of circulator buses, bus shelters, bus pullout bays or other transit -related infrastructure. Any City that cannot apply the twenty (20) percent portion of surtax :prooeeds it receives as provided in, the preceding sentence, may contract with_th_eCou.nty for the County to apply such proceeds on a County project that enhances traffic mobility within that City and immediately adjacent areas; and WHEREAS, rif the City; cannot expend such proceeds in accordance with either of the - preceding sentences, then such proceeds shall either, carry_over and be added to the ,cr overall portion of f surtax proceeds to be distributed to the Cities in the ensuing year and shall be utilized solely for the transit_ uses; WHEREAS, surtax proceeds distributed on a pro rata basis amongst eligible cities,based on the ratio such City's population bears to the total population in all such Cities (as adjusted annually in accordance with the Estimates of Population prepared by the Bureau of Economic and Business Research of the University of Florida) that continue to meet the foregoing conditions; and NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION of the mutual terms, conditions, promises, covenants and payments hereinafter set forth, the County and the City agree as follows: ARTICLE 1 DEFINITIONS 1.1 "ADA" shall mean the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended. 1.2 "Administrative costs" shall be defined as overhead expenses which are not readily attributable to any one particular project funded in whole or in part by the transit surtax funds. 1.3 "BCC" shall mean the Miami -Dade County Board of County Commissioners, 1.4 "CITT" shall mean the Citizens' Independent Transportation Trust. 1.5 "City" shall mean a municipal corporation located within the geographic boundaries of Miami -Dade County, Florida. 1.6 "Contractor" shall mean any entity, public or private, providing public transit services as described in this Agreement under contract to the City. 1.7 "County" shall mean Miami -Dade County, Florida. 1.8 "FDOR" shall mean the Florida Department of Revenue. 2 1.9 "Eligible Cities" shall mean cities in existence as of November 5, 2002. 1.10 "Fares" shall mean individual transportation fees paid by public transit passengers in accordance with a schedule of fares adopted by County Ordinance. 1.11 "Mayor" shall mean Miami -Dade County Executive Mayor 1.12 "MDT" shall mean Miami -Dade Transit and authorized representatives thereof. 1.13 "OCITT" shall mean the Office of The Citizens' Independent Transportation Trust and authorized representatives thereof. 1.14 "Project" shall be defined as transportation and transit projects including operation and maintenance thereof, funded in whole or in part by -surtax proceeds, 1.15 "Program" shall be defined as transportation and transit projects including operation and maintenance thereof, funded in whole or in part by surtax proceeds. 1.16 "Surtax Proceeds" shall mean the funds collected and received by the FDOR from the imposition of the Charter County Transit System Sales Surtax, less the FDOR's cost of administration. 1.17 "The Trust" shall include the Citizens' Independent Transportation Trust, and authorized representatives thereof. 3 ARTICLE 2 TERMS 2.1 TERMS OF AGREEMENT This agreement shall become effective as follows: (1) ten (10) days after the date of its adoption unless vetoed by the Mayor, and if vetoed, shall become effective only upon an override by the Board of County Commissioners, and (2) either i) the Citizens' Independent Transportation Trust (CITT) has approved same, or ii) in response to the CITT's disapproval, the County Commission re -affirms by two- thirds (2/3) vote of the Commission's membership and such reaffirmation becomes final; and approval by the Commission or Council of the City of Miami or City Manager, if accompanied with documentation evidencing the City Manager's authority to sign agreement; and the execution by the County Manager. This agreement shall remain in force for five (5) years thereafter. 2.2 TERMINATION This Agreement may be terminated for cause by either party upon no less than thirty (30) days written notice to the other party. Said notice shall be delivered by verified facsimile transmission or certified mail, return receipt requested. The noticed party shall have the opportunity to cure any stated cause for termination within the notice period, in which case the terminating party may cancel the termination notice using the same means by which the notice of termination was delivered. 2.3 The County may suspend or terminate the dispersing of surtax proceeds to the City if there is a breach of this Interiocal Agreement until such breach is cured. 2.4 The County reserves the right to cancel unilaterally this Agreement for refusal by the City to allow public access to all documents, papers, letters, or other material subject to the provisions of Chapter 119, Florida Statutes and made or received in conjunction with this Agreement. 4 ARTICLE 3 ACCOMPLISHMENT OF PROJECTS Submission of Proceedings, Contracts and Other Documents: The City shall submit to the CITT and/or OCITT such data, reports, records, contracts and other documents relating to the program as the CITT or OCITT may request. On a quarterly basis, the City shall provide to the OCITT a report regarding the implementation of the projects funded in whole or in part by surtax proceeds. This information is due to the OCITT no more than ten (10) working days after the quarter end. ARTICLE 4 ACCOUNTING RECORDS 4.1 Establishment and Maintenance of Accounting Records: The City shall maintain for projects or programs, in conformity with requirements of "Principles for State and Local Governments," separate accounts to be maintained with -in its existing accounting system or establish independent accounts. Such accounts are referred to herein collectively as the "program account". Documentation of the program account shall .be made available to the CITT upon request any time during the period of the Agreement. 4.2 By November 1 of each year, City shall, in order to be eligible to receive a portion of the Municipal Share for the ensuing year, certify to County that: i) for the current fiscal year it is providing at least the same level of general fund support for transportation that City provided in City's FY 2001-2002 budget; and ii) it is using the current year's portion of the Municipal Share received in accordance with this Agreement. Such certification shall include a certified copy of City's budget for the current fiscal year, together with a list of the projects (including ongoing or completed projects that the City is paying debt service on borrowed funds) on which the current year's portion of the Municipal Share received is being expended. If City fails to meet the certification requirements, after being given a reasonable opportunity to correct any deficiencies, the amount equal to the pro rataportion-of the Municipal Share City is to receive in the ensuing year shall not be distributed to City and shall be distributed among the remaining eligible cities. - 4.3 ""Funds Received or Made 'Available for Projects: The City shall appropriately record the'program'account, and deposit in a bank or trust company which is a member of the:Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, all payments received by it from the 'G'ounty pursuant to this 'Agreert ent and all other funds provided for, accruing to, or otherwise received on account of the program, which County payments and other furds are herein collectively'referred to as "program funds". The City shall require 5 depositories of program funds to secure continuously and fully all program funds in excess of the amounts insured under Federal plans, or under State plans which have been approved for the deposit of program funds by the County, by the deposit or setting aside of collateral of the types and in the manner as prescribed by State law for the security of public funds, or as approved by the County. 4.4 Documentation of Program Costs: All costs incurred by the program, including any approved services contributed by the City or others, shall be supported by properly executed payrolls, time records, invoices, contracts, or vouchers evidencing in proper detail the nature and propriety of the charges. ',, ARTICLE 5 AUDIT AND INSPECTION 5.1 Audit Reports: By_November,,..1 a ,certified report with a. disblosure of surtax proceeds expended in accordance with State law; Ordinance No. 02-116, and this Agreement followed_by an independent audit report_six (6) months after the fiscal year end. The City agrees to comply and cooperate with any monitoring procedures/processes deemed appropriate by the CITT, including but not limited to site visits and limited scope audits. The City further agrees to comply and cooperate with any inspections, reviews, investigations, or audits deemed necessary by the CITT or the ,Audit and Management Services Department of Miami -Dade County, the Office of the Commission Auditor, the Miami -Dade County Office of the InspectorGeneral or an agent of the County. The City shall retain sufficient records demonstrating its compliance with the terms of this Agreement for a period of three (3) years from the date the audit report is issued, and shall allow the CITT access to such records and working papers upon request. 5.2 Other Requirements: If an audit discloses any significant audit findings relating to any award, including material noncompliance with individual project compliance requirements or reportable conditions in internal controls of the City, the City shall submit as part of the audit package to the CITT a plan for corrective action to eliminate such audit findings or a statement describing the reasons that corrective action is not necessary. The City shall take timely and appropriate corrective action to any audit findings, recommendations, and corrective action plans. 5.3 The 'City shall permit and require its contractors to permit the County and the ,CITT's(authorized representative to inspect all work, materials, payrolls, records, and to audit' the books, records and accounts pertaining to the financing and development of the program. 6 ARTICLE 6 RESTRICTIONS, PROHIBITIONS, CONTROLS, AND LABOR PROVISIONS 6.1 Equal Employment Opportunity: In connection with the carrying out of any project, the City shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, age, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation or national origin. The City will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, age, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation or national origin. Such action shall include, but not be limited to, the following: Employment upgrading, demotion, or transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeship. Grantees, recipients and their contractors shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin or sex in the award and performance of CITT assisted contracts. The City shall insert the foregoing provision modified only to show the particular contractual relationship in all its contracts in connection with the development or operation of the ' project/program, except contracts for standard commercial supplies or raw materials, and shall require all such contractors to insert a similar provision in all subcontracts, except subcontracts for standard commercial supplies or raw materials. When the project involves installation, construction, demolition, removal, site improvement, or similar work, the City shall post, in conspicuous places available to employees and applicants for employment for project work, notices to be provided by the County setting forth the provisions of the nondiscrimination clause. 6.2 Title VI - Civil Rights Act of 1964: Execution of this Interlocal Agreement constitutes a certification that the City will comply with all the requirements imposed by Title VI of -the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d, et. seq.), the Regulations of the Federal Department of Transportation issued thereunder, and the assurance by the City pursuant thereto. 6.3 The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA): Execution of this Interlocal 'Agreementconstitutes -a certification that the City will comply with all the requirements Imposed by,the ADA (42 U.S.C. 12102, et. seq.), the regulations of the- Federal -'-go'vernment issued thereunder, and the assurance by the City pursuant thereto. Prohibited Interests: Neither the City nor any of its contractors or its subcontractors shall enter 'into' any contract, subcontract, or arrangement in connection with projects or -and property included or planned to be included in the projects, in which any member.; officer, or employee of the City during his tenure or for two years 7 thereafter has any interest, direct or indirect. If any such present. or former member, officer, or employee involuntarily acquires or had acquired prior to the beginning of his tenure any such interest, and if such interest is immediately disclosed to the City, the City with prior approval of the BCC and the CITT, may waive the prohibition contained in this subsection: Provided, that any such present member, officer or employee shall not participate in any action by the City relating to such contract, subcontract, or arrangement. The City shall insert in all contracts entered into in connection with projects or any property included or planned to be included in any project, and shall require its contractors to insert in each of its subcontracts, the following provision: "No member, officer, or employee of the City during his tenure or for two years thereafter shall -haveany interest, direct or indirect, in this contract or the proceeds thereof." The provisions of this subsection shall not be applicable to any agreement between the City and its fiscal depositories, or to any agreement for utility services the rates for which are fixed or controlled by a Governmental City. 6.5 Interest of Members of, or Delegates to, Congress: No member or delegate to the Congress of the United States shall be admitted to any share or part of the Agreement or any benefit arising therefrom. ARTICLE 7 MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 7.1 Environmental Pollution: Execution of this lnterlocal Agreement constitutes a certification by the City that the project will be carried out in conformance with all applicable environmental regulations including the securing of any applicable permits. The City will be solely responsible for any liability in the event of non- compliance with applicable environmental regulations, including the securing of any applicable permits, and will reimburse the CITT for any loss incurred in connection therewith. 7.2 Not Obligated to Third Parties: The County, the BCC Members, the CITT Members and all of the County's officers, agents, and employees shall not be obligated or liable hereunder to any party other than the City. 7.3'' When Rightsand Remedies Not Waived: In no event shall the making by the 'County of any payment to the City constitute or be construed, as a waiver by the County of any breach of covenant or any default which may then exist, on the part of the City, and the making of such payment by the County while any such breach or default 'shalt exist' shall in no way impair or prejudice any right or remedy available to the County with respect to such breach or default. 8 7.4 How Agreement Is Affected by Provisions Being Held Invalid: If any provision of this Agreement is held invalid, the remainder of this Agreement shall not be affected. In such an instance, the remainder would then continue to conform to the terms and requirements of applicable law. 7.5 State or Territorial Law: Nothing in the Agreement shall require the City to observe or enforce compliance with any provision thereof, perform any other act or do any other thing in contravention of any applicable State law: Provided, that if any of the provisions of the Agreement violate any applicable State law, the City will at once notify the.00ITT in writing in order that appropriate changes and modifications may be made by the County and the City to the end that the City may proceed as soon as possible with projects. 7.6 Use and Maintenance of Project Facilities and Equipment: The City agrees that project facilities and equipment will be used by the City to provide or support public transportation for the period of the useful life of such facilities and equipment as determined in accordance with general accounting principles. The City further agrees to maintain the project facilities and equipment in good working order for the useful life of said facilities or equipment. 7.7 Signage: For any project funded in whole or in part by surtax proceeds, The City shall post in a conspicuous location at the job site, structure or vehicle, a sign indicating that surtax proceeds are being used for this project. 7.8 Residency Requirement: For any project funded in whole or in part by surtax proceeds, the City may not provide any preferential- access accommodations or pricing based on residency. 7.9 Administrative Expenses: Consistent with Miami -Dade County Ordinance 06-138 the City shall not expend more than five (5) percent of its municipal share of surtax proceeds on administrative expenses, exclusive of project management and oversight for projects funded by the surtax. 7.10 Contractual Indemnity: To the extent provided by law, the City shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the County, the BCC Members, the CITT Members and all of the County's officers, agents, and employees from any claim, loss, damage, cost, charge, or expense arising out of any act, error, omission, or negligent act by `the City, its 'agents, or' employees, during the performance of .the Agreement, except that neither the City;' its agents, or its employees will be liable under this -r"-parag'r'aph'for any claim; lo'ss','damage, cost, charge, or expense arising out of any act, e'rror,''omission, or negligent act by the County or any of its officers, agents, or 'employees during the performance of the Agreement. 7.11 'When='the' County receives' a' notice of claim for damages that may have been caused'by the City fn the 'performance of services required under this Agreement, the -County will immediately forward the claim to the City. The County's failure to 9 promptly notify the City of a claim shall not act as a waiver of any right herein to require the participation in or defense of the claim by the City. 7.12 The County Manager or his designee shall have the authority to distribute and/or withhold surtax funds in accordance with this agreement. ARTICLE 8 AGREEMENT FORMAT All words used herein in the singular form shall extend to and include the plural. All words used in the plural form shallextend to and include the singular. All words used in any gender shall extend to and include all genders. ARTICLE 9 EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT This Agreement may be simultaneously executed in counterparts, each of which so executed shall be deemed to be an original, and such counterparts together shall constitute one in the same instrument. ARTICLE i0 RESTRICTIONS ON LOBBYING 10.1 Federal: The City agrees that no surtax proceeds have been paid or will be paid by or on behalf of the City, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence any officer or employee of any federal agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awardingof any federal contract, the making of any federal grant, the making of any federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment or modification of any federal contract; grant; loan or cooperative agreement. If any funds other than federal appropriated funds have .been paid by the City to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any federal agency, a Member of 'Congress, an officer' or. employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Interlocal Agreement, the undersigned shall complete, and submit Standard Form-LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying," in acco-rdance with its instructions. The City shall require that the language of this sectioi be included in the award documents for all subawards at all tiers (including subcontracts, subgrants, and contracts under grants, loans and cooperative agreements) and that all subrecipients shall certify and disclose accordingly. 10 10.2 State: No funds received pursuant to this contract may be expended for lobbying the Legislature or a State agency. 10.3 County: No funds received pursuant to this contract may be expended for lobbying the County. ARTICLE 11 MODIFICATIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS All notices and other communications required to be remitted pursuant to this Agreement to either party hereto shall be in writing and shall be delivered by verified facsimile transmission or certified mail, return receipt requested, to the parties at the address indicated below: FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY: OFFICE OF THE CITIZENS' INDEPENDENT TRANSPORTATION TRUST c/o Executive Director, OCITT 111 NW 1 Street, .Suite 1010 Miami, FL 33128 Fax: (305) 375-4605 FOR CITY OF MIAMI: OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER 444 SW 2nd Avenue, 10`h Floor Miami, FL 33130 11.1 COMPLETE AND BINDING AGREEMENT This writing embodies the full and complete agreement of the parties. No other terms, conditions or modifications shall be,binding- upon the parties unless in writing and signed by the parties. :=!! 11.2- GO:VERNINGDLAW:-ThisHAgreement shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida IN, WITNESSWHEREOFF, the parties hereto have made and executed this 11 Agreement on the respective dates under each signature: ATTEST: .14,vey.Ruvin, Clerk .e' ysc, I, clEir . t 0 Out erk ft** Date Executed: '910 (itt Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency By:, _ Assistant County Attorney 12 FOR THE COUNTY: Miami -Dade County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida By its Board of County Commissioners By: ktal Count Manager ATTEST: By: i/to./�� Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk FOR THE CITY: City of Mi nicipal Corporation PedrO6,ernandez City Manager Date Executed: 74)7 /Re u Approved as to Form and Lega"ufficiency Approved as to Ins ance qirements Jorg: L. -rnande City ey 13 LeeAnn Breh Director Risk Management ..a ' vf 1)41; eta MEMORANDUM TO: Marc Buoniconti, Chairman Citizens' Independent Transportation Trust DATE: Luis Morse, Chairman, External Affairs Committee Citizens' .Independent Transportation Trust FROM: Bruce Libhaber Assistant County Attorney June 30,2004 f e.1 r iee's . ,.ia 2 9-€ SS SUBJECT: Legal Opinion Concerning Municipal Use of Surtax Funds At recent External Affairs and Executive Planning Conunittees, you have expressed an interest in receiving a legal opinion concerning the munici.palit.ie, obligations i� nhovv they utilize their share of surtax funds. As you are well aware, 20'14) of those proceeds received through the halt -cent surtax, are distributed to those cities in Miami -Dade County existing as of November 5, 2002. (Miami -Dade County Code — Section 29.124(f)). The rn:unic.ipalities must provide the same level of general fund support for transportation as was allocated in the Fiscal Year 2001-2002 bud.get. Moreover, at least 20% of the monies received by the municipalities shall be used for transit purposes. Example of transit purposes include circulator buses, bus shelters,,hus_pullout.hays or o_ther transit related infrastructure. At least 20% of the monies received by each municipality must be authorized and appropriated for transit purposes. If a city cannot apply at least 20% of .its surtax proceeds to transit purposes, that city may contract with the county for the county to provide a project(s) that enhances traffic mobility within that city and the immediate vicinity. .If the city does not authorize and appropriate nor contract with the county to provide such service, then that portion of surtax funds provided to the municipality shall be distributed to the cities in the following year and shall be utilized solely for transit uses, The cities may spend up to 80% of the monies they received t'rom the surtax .finds on non - transit, but transportation related projects. This would include the building, operation, and maintenance of roads and/or bridges. Pursuant to the Intel -local Agreement that all of the applicable municipalities have entered into with Miami -Dade County, the cities shall also authorize and appropriate the monies received from surtax fiends. This would apply not only to the at least 20% for transit projects but also the up to 80% for transportation projects. It is understood, that both transit and transportation projects .may take longer than a year to develop and construct. As such, it is understood that not all of the monies received by the OFFICE OF COUNTY ATTORNEY, MIAMI•DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA TELEPHONE 130S) 37E•5151 June 30, 200<4 page 2 municipalities for any given year will actually be spent in that fiscal year. The monies however, must be authorized and appropriated within that fiscal year, Monies which are not authorized and appropriated within. a .fiscal year will be d.istrh;buted to the eitiesjn the ensuin _year. If you have any further questions o.r concerns, please do not hesitate to call me. cc: Members of the CITT Irma San .Roman, Acting Executive Director, OC1TT OFFICE OF COUNTY ATTORNEY, MIAN11•0AOC COUNTY, FLORIDA TELEPHONE f3OS) 375-5151 MIAMIZ COUNTY September 28, 2021 Mr. Arthur Noriega, V City Manager City of Miami 444 SW 2nd Avenue, 10th Floor Miami, FL 33130 AUDIT AND MANAGEMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT OVERTOWN TRANSIT VILLAGE 701 NW 1ST COURT -SUITE 8-175 MIAMI, FLORIDA 33136 TELEPHONE: 7 8 6-469-5 900 FAX: 786-469-5933 Re: Audit Report — City of Miami Charter County Transportation System Surtax Review — Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2020 Dear Mr. Noriega: Attached is the above -referenced Audit Report that was discussed with your staff. Although the Office of the Citizens' Independent Transportation Trust (OCITT) will be contacting you to resolve the audit findings, a reply is requested within 60 days. We appreciate the courtesies and assistance extended to our staff during the audit process. Please contact G. Nancy McKee, Assistant Director, at (786) 469-5900, should you have any questions. Sincerely, czrit 190 6I-- Cathy Jackson Director CJ:bm Attachment c: Javier A. Betancourt, Executive Director, OCITT Fernando J. Casamayor, Assistant City Manager and CFO, City of Miami Date: To: M IAM I DADS Memorandum COUNTY September 28, 2021 Javier A. Betancourt, Executive Director Office of the Citizens' Independent Transportation Trust (OCITT) From: Cathy Jacl o9e1 d"""/ n, Director Audit and Management Services Department (AMS) Subject: Audit Report — City of Miami Charter County Transportation System Surtax Review — Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2020 PURPOSE AND SCOPE We performed a review of the City of Miami's (City) use of Charter County Transportation System Surtax (Surtax) Proceeds remitted by Miami -Dade County (County) for the year ended September 30, 2020. The primary objective was to ensure that Surtax Proceeds were used in compliance with the Interlocal Agreement for Distribution, Use and Reporting of Charter County Transit System Surtax Proceeds Levied by Miami -Dade County (Interlocal Agreement) executed on July 10, 2007. Additionally, we assessed resolution of prior audit findings referenced in our September 16, 2020 Audit Report (Exhibit I). BACKGROUND County Ordinance (Ordinance) No. 02-116, enacted on July 9, 2002, imposed a one-half of one percent Surtax on eligible sales transactions for Transportation -related projects. However, at least 20% of the Proceeds received by the County must be distributed to municipalities incorporated as of November 5, 2002, on a pro-rata basis using population statistics (Schedule V). The Surtax Program is administered by the Citizens' Independent Transportation Trust (CITT), a group comprised of 15 members appointed by the Board of County Commissioners (BCC), County Mayor, and Miami -Dade League of Cities. Pursuant to the Interlocal Agreement, the City must annually continue the same level of General Fund support for Transportation projects appropriated in its Fiscal Year (FY) 2002 Budget (Maintenance of Effort), which totaled $4.7 million (Table I). Surtax Proceeds may be used to develop, construct, equip, maintain, operate, or expand County -wide bus systems, fixed guideway rapid transit systems, roads, and bridges, as well as secure such bonds or pay debt service. Further, the City must apply at least 20% of the Proceeds to Transit -related projects, such as circulator buses, bus shelters, bus pullout bays, or other related infrastructure. CITT Resolution No. 09-055, adopted July 30, 2009, allows for the rollover of unspent Surtax funds for up to five years, provided the City's Five -Year Transportation Plan demonstrates how the funds will be used. Additionally, CITT Resolution No. 15-027, adopted May 20, 2015, allows for carryover credits in the event amounts expended are in excess of annual Surtax allocations. See Schedule I for summary financial information. Audit Report — City of Miami Charter County Transportation System Surtax Review — Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2020 Page 2 SUMMARY RESULTS For the year ended September 30, 2020, the City received Surtax Proceeds of $19.4 million, and claimed $23.9 million in Transit and Transportation -related expenditures (Table I). Claimed expenditures were primarily for Trolley operating expenditures and vehicle purchases ($13.9 million), as well as street lighting costs ($5.5 million). After adjusting claimed expenditures for the Maintenance of Effort (MOE) and disallowed amounts, the City had $45 million in unspent Transportation Proceeds. Table I Surtax Statistics Description Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2020 2019 Maintenance of Effort (Schedule I) $ 4,718,932 $ 4,718,932 Revenues: SurtaxProceeds Allocation S 19,412,965 $ 19,637,254 Less: Amount Withheld 2 - (817,551) SurtaxProceeds per City of Miami (Schedule I) $ 19,412,965 $ 18,819,703 Claimed Expenditures: Transit(Tablell) $ 14,171,329 $ 11,175,219 Transportation (Table V) 9,711,896 22,512,185 Total (Table VI) $ 23,883,225 $ 33,687,404 Unspent Surtax Proceeds as of September 30 (Schedule II): Transportation $ 45,029,956 $ 47,394,264 Key Account Balances as of September 30 (Schedule I): Transportation and Transit Special Revenue Fund: Cash and Investments $ 6,812,859 $ 2,670,162 Restricted Fund Balance $ 7,408,078 $ 3,040,651 Transportation and Transit Capital Projects Fund: Cash and Investments $ 20,785,142 $ 25,082,229 Restricted Fund Balance $ 20,173,458 $ 23,348,711 x Presented for comparison with the FY 2020 audit period. 2 OCITT was withholding $92,000 monthly from the City to recapture specific ineligible costs, per a September 2016 letter from the former Executive Director. The $3.3 million has been recaptured, and thus OCITT is no longer withholding funds. Surtax Revenues are recorded in the Transportation and Transit Special Revenue Fund, where most of the Transit -related activities are expensed. Funds for Transportation -related projects are transferred to the Transportation and Transit Capital Projects Fund. We continue to be concerned about the $17.4 million cash shortfall, primarily representing the difference between Cash and Investments, and Unspent Surtax Proceeds. As repeatedly recommended since September 30, 2011, OCITT should suspend all future Surtax payments until this issue has been satisfactorily addressed. These and other findings are more fully discussed in the remainder of this Report. We appreciate the courtesies extended to our staff during the audit process. A written response is requested from the City within 60 days. Please contact G. Nancy McKee, Assistant Director, at (786) 469-5900, if you have any questions. Audit Report - City of Miami Charter County Transportation System Surtax Review - Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2020 Page 3 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Use of Transit Proceeds The City claimed $14.2 million in Transit -related expenditures, primarily for Trolley operations, which met the requirement that at least 20% of Surtax Proceeds, or $3.9 million, be used for Transit activities (Table II). The City purchased twelve Trolleys during FY 2020 to replace older leased minibus vehicles which resulted in lower operating costs. The fleet of 54 vehicles (Schedule VI) are deployed over 13 fixed routes with passenger counts averaging 295,000 monthly (Table III). Table II Summary of Claimed Transit Expenditures, as Adjusted Description Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2020 2019 Trolley Routes: Biscayne $ 1,327,422 $ 1,189,359 Coral Way 1,196,660 1,502,130 Little Havana 1,101,489 1,248,909 Brickell 1,089,980 198,074 Overtown/Allapattah 902,418 793,951 Little Haiti 622,817 536,346 Coconut Grove 551,326 786,162 Flagami 486,817 985,791 Liberty City 417,106 90,600 Stadium 407,839 896,663 Wynwood 356,830 430,588 Health 348,504 34,267 Overtown/Health 126,581 135,262 8,935,789 8,828,102 Citywide Trolley Costs 803,707 1,923,102 9,739,496 10,751,204 Other. Purchase of Twelve Trolleys (Schedule VI) 4,153,100 - On -Demand Transportation Services 90,893 195,853 Automatic Vehicle Locator/GPS 79,763 97,528 Trolley Route Signage 82,377 83,599 Planning and Professional Costs 25,700 47,035 4,431,833 424,015 Total Claimed (Table I) 14,171,329 11,175,219 AMS Adjustments: Unspent Fund Balance - Advertising Revenues (Table IV) (1,119,270) - Cross -Bay Trolley Costs Incurred by the General Fund (Table VI) - 177,780 Less Related Passenger Fees - (10,783) Less Ineligible On -Demand Costs - (6,298) (1,119,270) 160,699 Eligible Transit Expenditures (Schedule II) $ 13,052,059 $ 11,335,918 Source: City of Miami Accounting Records Presented for comparison purposes. Trolley service was reduced between March 23 and June 30, 2020 in response to COVID-19 concerns. On -demand transportation services are provided in accordance with BCC Ordinances Nos. 18-46 and 19-06, limited to five miles in distance within City limits, or to/from a transit stop. Audit Report - City of Miami Charter County Transportation System Surtax Review - Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2020 Page 4 Table III Trolley Ridership Summar Month Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2020 2019 October 482,303 471,368 November 459,068 447,292 December 460,326 445,923 January 461,248 460,220 February 439,148 435,713 March 325,572 443,511 April 93,045 446,539 May 101,532 457,525 June 126,814 425,188 July 198,536 439,515 August 194,732 451,180 September 196,321 432,786 3,538,645 5,356,760 Source: City of Miami Ridership Report Advertising revenues and related operating expenditures are recorded in the General Special Revenue Fund, however, the $1.1 million unspent fund balance has not been correctly recorded as a reduction of claimed Surtax expenditures (Table IV). Table IV Advertising Revenues and Related Costs Description Fiscal Year Ended Septen ber 30, 2020 2019' 2018' 2017' 2016' Advertising Revenues Related A&penditures: Trolley Operations Trolley Stops and Signage Motor Fuel Supplies and Other Increase in Fund Balance Fund Balance, Beginning Fund Balance, Ending (Table II) $ 648,182 $ 493,065 $ 553,396 $ 488,106 $ 480,432 $ 3,503 - 129,233 - $ 6,702 - 460,203 6,184 $ 71,675 306,796 - 3,832 $ 732,427 - 127,979 13,642 $ - - - 14,000 132,736 473,089 382,303 874,048 14,000 515,446 603,824 19,976 583,848 171,093 412,755 (385,942) 798,697 466,432 332,265 $ 1,119,270 $ 603,824 $ 583,848 $ 412,755 $ 798,697 Source: City of Miami Accounting Records ' Presented for comparison with the FY 2020 audit period. Recommendation The City should record Trolley advertising revenues and expenditures in its Transportation and Transit Special Revenue Fund to facilitate accountability. Audit Report — City of Miami Charter County Transportation System Surtax Review — Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2020 Page 5 Use of Transportation Proceeds The City claimed $9.7 million in Transportation -related costs, primarily for Citywide street lighting and street improvement projects to satisfy its MOE requirement and reduce its Unspent Surtax Proceeds (Table V). On November 15, 2018, Series 2018A and B Bonds refunded Series 2007 and 2009 Street and Sidewalks Bonds with an outstanding balance of $120.3 million and Series 2018C Bonds were issued totaling $7.5 million for various street improvement projects (Schedules IV and IV -A). Similar to the previous Bond issuances, Series 2018 Bonds will be repaid with Surtax Proceeds, Local Option Gas Taxes, and Parking Surcharge revenues. Table V Summary of Claimed Transportation Expenditures, as Adiusted Description Fiscal Year Ended September 30. 2020 20191 Street Lighting (Table VI) $ 5,512,223 $ 5,547,224 Street Improvement Projects 2,938,411 7,087,365 Traffic Calming Projects 152,129 317,916 Drainage Projects 139,133 3,442,680 Total Claimed Project Costs (Schedule III) 8,741,896 16,395,185 Debt Service Claimed (Schedule IV) 970,000 6,117,000 Total Claimed Transportation Costs (Table I) 9,711,896 22,512,185 Add: Unclaimed Debt Service (Schedule IV) 3,886,789 - Less: Unpaid Debt Service (Schedule IV) - (4,039,385) Eligible Costs (Schedule II) $ 13,598,685 $ 18,472,800 Source: City of Miami Accounting Records ' Presented for comparison with the FY 2020 audit period. In FY 2019, the City claimed $6.1 million in Surtax monies that had been transferred to its Debt Service Fund to pay principal and interest on the Series 2007 and 2009 Bonds; however, the Bonds were refunded prior to the payment due dates. Nonetheless, we disallowed only $4 million, as $2.1 million was used to pay debt service for the Series 2018 Bonds (Schedule IV). In FY 2020, $4.9 of the $8.4 million owed in debt service on the Series 2018 Bonds was paid from FY 2019 Surtax monies held in the Debt Service Fund ($3.9 million) and FY 2020 Surtax Revenues ($970,000). Thus, for purposes of analyzing usage of Surtax Funds in FY 2020, we allowed the $3.9 million after confirming these monies were used to meet debt service due on the Series FY 2018 Bonds. It is notable that $4 million of the $7.5 million borrowed under the Series 2018C Bonds was still unused as of September 30, 2020 (Schedule IV -A). Series 2018C interest expense for FY 2020 totaled $332,842, of which $193,274 was paid from Surtax monies. We attribute $104,000 of the $193,274 interest allocation to unspent bond proceeds, which is concerning as the City is holding $45 million of unspent Surtax proceeds. Audit Report — City of Miami Charter County Transportation System Surtax Review — Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2020 Page 6 Table VI Claimed Expenditures Reconciliation to the Audited Financial Statements Description Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2020 2019 Amounts per Audited Financial Statements (Schedule I): Transportation and Transit Special Revenue Fund Transportation and Transit Capital Projects Fund Transfers to the Debt Service Fund Cross -Bay Trolley Costs Not Claimed by the City (Table II) Street Lighting Costs fromthe General Fund (Table V) Total (Table I) $ 10,600,247 6,800,755 970,000 5,512,223 $ 23,883,225 $ 12,125,768 10,075,192 6,117,000 (177,780) 5,547,224 $ 33,687,404 After adjusting claimed expenditures for the MOE and unrecognized debt service payments, the City had unspent Transportation funds of $45 million as of September 30, 2020 (Schedule II). CITT Resolution No. 09-055 allows for the rollover of unused funds for up to five years. However, the City's latest Five -Year Transportation Plan shows total unspent funds of only $16.5 million as of September 30, 2020. Further, the $27.6 million reported as Cash and Investments in the Transportation and Transit Special Revenue and Capital Projects Funds (Schedule I) was approximately $17.4 million less than the unspent balance as of September 30, 2020. See Table VI for a reconciliation of the City's claimed expenditures to its audited Financial Statements. Recommendation City staff should submit a revised Five -Year Transportation Plan, approved by its City Commission, specifying how the $45 million in unspent funds will be used. More importantly, Surtax distributions should be held in Trust by OCITT until the City reduces the estimated $17.4 million funding gap. Further, OCITT should formally communicate these concerns to the CITT Board with a plan for timely resolution. To assure the most effective use of Surtax monies, the City should not be allowed to pledge Surtax revenues towards any future borrowings without OCITT's approval. CJ:bm Attachments c: Honorable Harvey A. Ruvin, Clerk of the Courts Geri Bonzon-Keenan, County Attorney Edward Marquez, Chief Financial Officer Jimmy Morales, Chief Operations Officer David L. Clodfelter, Director, Office of Management and Budget Arthur Noriega,V, City Manager, City of Miami Schedule I City of Miami - Charter County Transportation System Surtax Review Transportation and Transit Funds 1 Balance Sheets Description As of September 30, 2020 20192 Special Revenue Capital Projects Special Revenue Capital Projects Assets: Pooled Cash, Cash Equivalents, and Investments (Table I) Restricted Cash, Cash Equivalents, and Investments (Table I) Surtax Amounts Due from Miami -Dade County Accrued Interest Total Assets Liabilities and Fund Balances: Accounts Payable and Accrued Liabilities Deferred Inflows of Resources - Other Unavailable Revenue 3 Fund Balances - Restricted (Table I) Total Liabilities and Fund Balances $ 6,812,859 - 3,600,485 20,802 $ - 20,785,142 - - $ 2,670,162 - 4,697,128 16,669 $ - 25,082,229 - - $ 10,434,146 $ 20,785,142 $ 7,383,959 $ 25,082,229 $ 1,726,068 1,300,000 7,408,078 $ 611,684 - 20,173,458 $ 1,543,308 2,800,000 3,040,651 $ 1,733,518 - 23,348,711 $ 10,434,146 $ 20,785,142 $ 7,383,959 $ 25,082,229 Statements of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances Description For the Year Ended September 30, 2020 20192 Special Revenue Capital Projects Special Revenue Capital Projects Revenues: Intergovernmental Revenues (Table I) $ 19,412,965 $ - $ 18,819,703 $ - Investment Earnings 4 23,709 126,406 19,513 661,117 Other - 96 10,793 - Total Revenues 19,436,674 126,502 18,850,009 661,117 Expenditures: General Government 149,282 - 141,429 4,325 Public Works 10,448,044 575,249 11,984,339 228,943 Planning and Development - 197 - 4,899 Capital Outlay 2,921 6,225,309 - 9,837,025 Total Expenditures (Table VI) 10,600,247 6,800,755 12,125,768 10,075,192 Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues over Expenditures 8,836,427 (6,674,253) 6,724,241 (9,414,075) Other Financing Sources (Uses): Transfers From - Special Revenue Fund - 3,499,000 - 1,450,000 General Fund - - 167,000 - Transfers To - Debt Service Fund (Table VI) (970,000) - (6,117,000) - Capital Projects Fund (3,499,000) - (1,450,000) - Total Other Financing Sources (Uses) (4,469,000) 3,499,000 (7,400,000) 1,450,000 Net Change in Fund Balances 4,367,427 (3,175,253) (675,759) (7,964,075) Fund Balances, Beginning 3,040,651 23,348,711 3,716,410 31,312,786 Fund Balances, Ending $ 7,408,078 $ 20,173,458 $ 3,040,651 $ 23,348,711 Source: City of Miami (City) Audited Financial Statements and General Ledgers All Surtax monies are received in the City's Transportation and Transit Special Revenue Fund for Transit and Transportation -related projects, and to repay Street and Sidewalk Bonds. 2 Presented for comparison with the FY 2020 audit period. 3 Represents the City's estimate of Surtax monies receivable that was not collected within 60 days after year-end. 4 Decrease in Investment Earnings is due to a reduction in yields from an average of 2.2% in FY 2019 to 0.7% in FY 2020. These Financial Statements are not complete without the accompanying Auditors' Reports and Notes. Schedule II City of Miami - Charter County Transportation System Surtax Review Surtax Proceeds Usage Analysis Description Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2020 2019 4 Surtax Proceeds 1 $ 19,417,389 $ 18,815,279 Surtax Uses: Eligible Transit Expenditures (Table II) $ 13,052,059 $ 11,335,918 Eligible Transportation Expenditures (Table V) $ 13,598,685 $ 18,472,800 Less MOE (Table I) (4,718,932) (4,718,932) Expenditures Available For Surtax Use $ 8,879,753 $ 13,753,868 AMS Analysis: Transit -Related Expenditures: Expenditures Available for Surtax Use $ 13,052,059 $ 11,335,918 Less 20% Minimum Amount2 (3,883,478) (3,763,056) Excess Transit Expenditures $ 9,168,581 $ 7,572,862 Transportation -Related Expenditures: Expenditures Available for Surtax Use $ 8,879,753 $ 13,753,868 Excess Transit Expenditures Applied 9,168,581 7,572,862 Less Remaining 80% Amount 2 (15,533,911) (15,052,223) Less Investment Earnings (Schedule I) (150,115) (680,630) Decrease In Unspent Funds $ 2,364,308 $ 5,593,877 Analysis of Unspent Rollover: Beginning Balance 3 $ 47,394,264 $ 52,988,141 Decrease In Unspent Funds (2,364,308) (5,593,877) Remaining Unspent Amount (Table I) $ 45,029,956 $ 47,394,264 1 Amount does not agree with Schedule I because of a $4,424 error in FY 2019, corrected in FY 2020. 2 At least 20% of the Surtax Proceeds must be used on Transit -related projects, such as circulator buses, and the remaining funds (80%) are earmarked for eligible Transit or Transportation projects. 3 Per the prior Audit Report dated September 16, 2020. 4 Presented for comparison with the FY 2020 audit period. Schedule III City of Miami - Charter County Transportation System Surtax Review Listing of Claimed Uses of Transportation Proceeds Description Project Number Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2020 2019 1 Street Lighting - $ 5,512,223 $ 5,547,224 Street Improvement Projects: Capital Improvement Direct and Indirect Labor 122001 690,095 903,393 Transportation Planning and Professional Fees 70245 350,580 183,456 Hilola St Roadway 173639 252,923 5,256 Citywide Streets Milling and Resurfacing 73102A 198,863 - SW 23 St (SW 3rd to 14 Ave) 173622 160,488 15,534 SW 21 St and SW 24 Ave Roadway 30979 152,275 463,725 I-395 Open Space/Mobility Connection 193621 112,274 - S Bayshore Ln/Fairview St, District 2 30737 111,639 42,287 SW 23 St Roadway 173650 103,980 505 Downtown Sidewalks and Streets 30606 82,693 20,640 SW 3 Street (SW 14 to 15 Ave) 173617 57,571 8,023 Charles Ave (Main Highway and S Douglas) 183612 51,844 13,536 Overtown Greenway (NW 11 St) 30624 49,748 38,926 A Media Art Entertainment Roadway 50902 45,744 47,731 Grove Park Road Improvements Phase II, District 3 40347 40,890 22,337 NW 13 St (NW 35 to 37 Ave) 50104 40,463 13,940 NW 30 St Improvements, District 1 30756 39,786 25,805 La Pastorita Roadway Improvements 183608 34,384 16,439 NW 17 St (NW 32 to 37 Ave) 183611A 32,710 117,480 NW 18 Terr, East of 27 Ave 50110 29,348 20,941 NW 24 Ave Roadway, District 1 30723 27,772 10,389 SW 24 St (SW 27 to 32 Ave) 50413 21,899 358 Auburndale (SW 32 Ave & 2 St) 173655 20,539 6,761 Dorsey Park Neighborhood Roadway 50907 19,893 40,977 SW 5 St (SW 27 to 28 Ave) 30966 19,153 179,703 SW 1 Ave (SW 15 to 7 St) 30833 14,321 8,525 SW 15 Rd (SW 3 to 11 Ave) 173619 13,796 62,631 SW 28 Rd (SW 5 to 9 St) 50313 13,324 7,605 23 Ten. (SW 27 to 32 Ave) 50412 12,215 2,687 NW 4 St (NW 49 to 52 Ave) 173615 11,532 15,380 SW 15 St (SW 12 to 14 Ave) 173630 10,481 170,436 District 5 Alleyway Improvement 17363 - 1,374,025 Shenandoah/Silver Bluff Roadway 50404 - 1,009,154 Citywide Pavement Resurfacing 73102E - 970,851 SW 28 Rd (SW 3 to 4 Ave) 173620 4,975 167,579 Bird Avenue Road Improvement 30628 - 121,024 SW 27 St (SW 31 P1 to 32 Ave), District 2 50204 5,179 91,798 SW 23 Ave (SW 3 to 4 St) 173626 6,416 87,813 Miscellaneous District 4 Street Maintenance 30614 1,744 77,153 SW 18 St (SW 12 to 18 Ave) 50305 - 73,498 SW 22 Terr (SW 27 to 37 Ave), District 2 50407 3,944 70,466 SW 71 Ave (SW 4 to 8 St) 50405 - 60,981 SW 22 Terr (SW 32 to 37 Ave) 50407A - 56,332 NW 17 St (NW 27 to 32 Ave) 183611 7,780 33,049 Auburndale Roadway 173616 1,145 29,936 SW 14 Terr (SW 16 to 17 Ave) 50316 - 28,201 Palm Grove Road Improvements 30630 - 28,010 SW 17 St (SW 16 to 14 Ave) 50312 1,518 25,600 NW 7 St Rd (NW N River Dr to NW 9 Ct) 50904 972 23,410 SW 17 St (SW 16 to 17 Ave) 50312A 5,026 20,548 SW25Ave(SW2to4St) 173643 - 19,011 SW 30 Ct (SW 12 to 13 St) 30969 - 18,262 SW 15 St (SW 13 to 14 Ave) 50322 - 17,001 SW 5 St (SW 21 to 22 Ave) 50320 249 15,480 SW 20 St (SW 16 to 17 Ave) 50319 1,231 14,325 Page 1 of2 City of Miami - Charter County Transportation System Surtax Review Listing of Claimed Uses of Transportation Proceeds Description Project Number Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2020 2019 t SW 30 Rd (SW 5 to 4 Ave) 50310 - 13,125 NE 3 Ave (NE 54 St to 58 Terr) 50906 4,507 12,078 SW 20 St (SW 14 to 15 Ave) 173628 2,514 11,625 NW 2 Ave (NW 38 to 54 St) 50900 - 11,543 NW 19 Terr (NW 21 to 22 Ave) 50108 - 10,945 Others less than $10,000 - 67,988 129,136 2,938,411 7,087,365 Drainage Projects: Silver Bluff Drainage Improvements District 4 30776 73,958 - Shorecrest Drainage, District 5 17365 33,922 307,499 SW 64 Ct Roadway and Drainage 30972 15,782 - Citywide Storm Sewer Repairs 30262 - 2,403,964 South Grove Phase 3 Roadway and Drainage 30836 651 522,613 Center St Drainage, District 2 30622 7,763 194,486 S Bayshore Dr Roadway and Drainage 30646 6,982 13,028 Others less than $10,000 - 75 1,090 139,133 3,442,680 Traffic Calming Projects: Silver Bluff Speed Tables 50408 93,870 216,793 Buena Vista Neighborhood Traffic Calming 193620 37,009 5,983 Belle Meade Traffic Calming 173642 10,387 - South Golden Pines No Outlet 173613 4,603 43,652 Flagami Traffic Calming - District 4 40672G 653 20,990 SW 16 Ave Traffic Calming 193618 - 11,298 The Roads Neighborhood Traffic Calming 193619 - 10,016 Others less than $10,000 - 5,607 9,184 152,129 317,916 Total Claimed Project Costs (Table V) $ 8,741,896 $ 16,395,185 Source: City of Miami Accounting Records Presented for comparison with the FY 2020 audit period. Schedule III Page 2 of 2 Schedule IV City of Miami Charter County Transportation System Surtax Review Summary of Debt Service Requirements By Bond Issue Description Fiscal Year Ended September 30, All Years 2008-2016 2017 2018 20195 2020 Special Obligation Revenue Bonds Series 2018: Series A: Outstanding Principal $ - $ - $ - $ 57,405,000 $ 57,405,000 Less Principal Payment/Payoff - - - - (2,020,000) Outstanding Balance $ - S - $ - $ 57,405 000 $ 55,385,000 Debt Service Requirements: Principal $ - S - $ - $ - $ 2,020,000 $ 2,020,000 Interest - - - 1,801,879 2,819,750 4,621,629 S - $ - $ - $ 1,801,879 $ 4,839,750 $ 6,641,629 Series B: Outstanding Principal S - $ - $ - $ 42,620,000 $ 42,620,000 Less Principal Payment/Payoff - - - - (1,030,000) Outstanding Balance S - $ - $ - $ 42,620,000 $ 41,590,000 Debt Service Requirements: Principal $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,030,000 $ 1,030,000 ' Interest - - - 1,217,408 1,921,410 3,138,818 $ - $ - $ - $ 1,217,408 $ 2,951,410 $ 4,168,818 Series C: Outstanding Principal $ - $ - $ - $ 7,455,000 $ 7,455,000 Less Principal Payment/Payoff - - - - (240,000) Outstanding Balance $ - $ - $ - $ 7,455,000 $ 7,215,000 Debt Service Requirements: Principal $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 240,000 $ 240,000 Interest - - - 211,841 332,842 544,683 $ - $ - $ - $ 211,841 $ 572,842 $ 784,683 Total Series 2018 Bonds: Outstanding Principal $ - $ - $ - $ 107,480,000 $ 107,480,000 Less Principal Payment/Payoff - - - - (3,290,000) Outstanding Balance $ - $ - $ - $ 107,480,000 $ 104,190,000 Debt Service Requirements: Principal $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 3,290,000 $ 3,290,000 Interest - - - 3,231,128 5,074,002 8,305,130 $ - $ - $ - $ 3,231,128 $ 8 364,002 $ 11,595,130 Allowed Debt Service: Debt Service Claimed (Table V)1 $ - $ - $ - $ 6,117,000 $ 970,000 $ 7,087,000 Use of Prior Year Disallowance (Table V) 2 - - - - 3,886,789 3,886,789 Adjustment for Amount Unpaid (Table V) 2 - - - (4,039,385) - (4,039,385) $ - $ - $ - $ 2,077,615 $ 4,856,789 $ 6,934,404 On November 15, 2018, the City of Miami issued S57.405, S42.620, and S7.455 million in Special Obligation Bonds, Series 2018A, B, and C, respectively, for the purpose of r funding Series 2007 and 2009 Bonds, and financing various street and sidewalk capital improvement projects. The bonds were issued with interest rates ranging from 3.461% to 5%, maturing from year 2020 to 2039. The City pledged future revenue proceeds of 80% of Surtax monies, 100% of Local Option Gas Taxes, and 20% of Parking Surcharge funds to repay the bonds. Page 1 of 2 Schedule IV City of Miami Charter County Transportation System Surtax Review Summary of Debt Service Requirements By Bond Issue Description Fiscal Year Ended September 30, All Years 2008-2016 2017 2018 2019 5 2020 Special Obligation Revenue Bonds Series 2007: Outstanding Principal Less Principal Payment/Payoff Outstanding Balance Debt Service Requirentenls: Principal Interest $ 80,000,000 (12,555,000) $ 67,445,000 (1,880,000) $ 65,565,000 $ 65,565,000 (1,970,000) $ 63,595,000 $ 63,595,000 (63,595,000) $ - - $ 16,405,000 38,071,519 $ 67,445,000 $ - $ - $ 12,555,000 31,473,307 $ 1,880,000 3,342,531 $ 1,970,000 3,255,681 $ - - $ - - $ 44,028,307 $ 5,222,531 $ 5,225,681 $ - $ - $ 54,476,519 On December 5, 2007, the City of Miami issued S80 million in Special Obligation Bonds, Series 2007, for the purpose of financing various street and sidewalk capital improvement projects. The bonds were issued with interest rates ranging from 3.5% to 5.25%, maturing from year 2009 to 2037. The Bonds were refunded with Series 2018A Bonds. Special Obligation Revenue Bonds Series 2009: Outstanding Principal Less Principal Payment/Payoff Outstanding Balance Debt Service Requirements: Principal Interest $ 65,000,000 (5,940,000) $ 59,060,000 (1,140,000) $ 57,920,000 (1,195,000) $ 56,725,000 (56,725,000) $ - - $ 8,275,000 27,943,937 $ 59,060,000 $ 57,920,000 $ 56,725,000 $ - $ - $ 5,940,000 21,714,693 $ 1,140,000 3,141,569 $ 1,195,000 3,087,675 $ - - $ - - $ 27,654,693 $ 4,281,569 $ 4,282,675 $ - $ - $ 36,218,937 On December 2, 2009, the City of Miami issued S65,000,000 in Special Obligation Bonds, Series 2009, for the purpose of financing various street and sidewalk capitol improvement projects. The bonds were issued with interest rates ranging from 2.5 % to 5.625%, maturing from year 2011 to 2039. The Bonds were refunded with Series 2018E Bonds. Total Debt Service for Series 2007 and 2009 Bonds: Principal Interest Allowed Debt Service: Debt Service Claimed 1 Adjustment for Unspent Debt Proceeds 3 Other Adjustments 4 $ 18,495,000 53,188,000 $ 3,020,000 6,484,100 $ 3,165,000 6,343,356 $ - - $ - - $ 24,680,000 66,015,456 $ 71,683,000 $ 9,504,100 $ 9,508,356 $ - $ - $ 90,695,456 $ 42,915,707 (15,151,432) (857,740) $ 6,107,500 - - $ 6,136,000 - - $ - - - $ - - - $ 55,159,207 (15,151,432) (857,740) $ 26,906,535 $ 6,107,500 $ 6,136,000 $ - $ - $ 39,150,035 Source: Bond Official Statements, and City of Miami (City) Audited Financial Statements and Financial Records According to Bond Official Statements, Local Option Gas Tax and Parking Surcharge revenues were also pledged to repay the Bonds. 2 In FY 2019, the City charged a portion of Debt Service payments to Surtax for the Series 2007 and 2009 Bonds, even though they were refinanced with Series 2018 Bonds. There was no Debt Service paid in FY 2019 on Series 2007 and 2009 Bonds. However, the City paid interest on Series 2018 Bonds in FY 2019, and the 64.3% portion attributable to Surtax was an allowable use of foods in that year. In FY 2020, the City used 53.9 million of the previously -disallowed amount for Series 2018 Bonds Debt Service. 3 The City had substantial amounts of unused Debt Proceeds in prior years, and therefore could not claim all Debt Service as allowable uses of Surtax monies. However, beginning in FY 2016, the City's use of Proceeds exceeded 85%: therefore, no further amounts were disallowed. In FY 2008, the City charged 100% of Debt Service payments to Surtax, yet should have allocated a portion to the other funding sources, consistent with subsequent years. 5 Series 2007 Bonds were repaid with Series 2018A Bonds of 557.4 million, plus 55.5 million premium, plus additional reserves. Series 2009 Bonds were repaid with Series 2018B Bonds of 542.6 million, plus unused Series 2009 principal of 58.5 million, plus additional reserves. Page 2 of 2 Schedule IV -A City of Miami Charter County Transportation System Surtax Review Expenditures Paid from Series 2018C Bond Proceeds Description Project Number Year Ended September 30, 2020 2019 1 Downtown Sidewalks & Streets 30606 $ 159,302 $ 1,452,840 SW 62 Ct Roadway and Drain Improvements 30972 60,367 - NE 3 Ave (NE 54 St to 58 Terr) 50906 34,765 3,687 NW 13 Ave (NW 21 to 23 St) 50112 30,663 17,176 Overtown Greenway (NW 11 St) 30624 28,353 14,739 Grove Park Roadway Phase II, District 3 40347 24,854 23,406 SW 28 Rd (SW 5 to 9 Ave) 50313 22,689 12,450 Dorsey Park Neighborhood Roadway 50907 21,481 434,265 A Media Art Entertainment Roadway 50902 19,822 302,217 SW 12 St (SW 16 to 17 Ave) 50311 8,421 194,167 SW 23 Terr (SW 27 to 32 Ave) 50412 8,033 - NW 30 St Improvements District 1 30756 2,288 - Coconut Grove Business District Sidewalks 30687 1,720 10,877 SW 15 Rd (SW 3 to 11 Ave) 173619 1,375 - SW 5 St (SW 27 to 28 Ave) 30966 1,000 11,298 NW 24 Ave Roadway Improvements District 1 30723 651 - NW 13 St (NW 35 to 37 Ave) 50104 573 - NW 18 Terr East of 27 Ave 50110 562 - Buena Vista Neighborhood Traffic Calming 193620 254 9,378 Swannanoa Mini Park ROW Improvements 203519 158 - SW 17 St (SW 16 to 17 Ave) 50312A - 225,539 Palm Grove Roadway 30630 - 193,065 SW 12 St (SW 13 Ave and 13 Ct) 50303 - 35,138 SW 25 St (SW 27 to 32 Ave) 50421 - 7,801 Center Street Drainage, District 2 30622 - 2,917 SW 19 Ave and SW 14 St Traffic Calming 30804 - 2,000 Flagami Traffic Calming, District 4 40672G - 1,564 S Bayshore Lane and Fairview St, District 2 30737 - 712 $ 427,331 $ 2,955,236 Unused Funds, Beginning of Year $ 4,360,667 $ 7,455,000 Less: Funds Used (427,331) (2,955,236) Add: Interest Income 81,074 - Less: Costs of Issuance - (139,097) Unused Funds, End of Year $ 4,014,410 $ 4,360,667 Source: City of Miami Accounting Records I Presented for comparison with the FY 2020 audit period. Schedule V Charter County Transportation System Surtax Review Summary of Payments to Municipalities Municipality Fiscal Year Ended September 30, All Years 2003 to 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 City of Miami 1 $ 163,251,890 $ 16,889,133 $ 16,523,990 $ 18,187,632 $ 19,212,362 $ 17,998,849 $ 252,063,856 City of Hialeah 94,519,774 9,243,159 9,346,775 9,873,020 10,107,558 8,933,032 142,023,318 City of Miami Beach 37,554,491 3,670,335 3,678,499 3,925,123 3,963,754 3,458,999 56,251,201 City of Miami Gardens 2 22,375,665 4,336,722 4,409,954 4,737,286 4,846,211 4,248,977 44,954,815 City of North Miami 24,592,952 2,454,241 2,473,804 2,665,998 2,700,412 2,348,890 37,236,297 City of Homestead 20,867,813 2,669,792 2,788,854 2,969,698 3,152,022 2,762,015 35,210,194 City of Coral Gables 18,755,177 1,955,854 1,981,236 2,091,593 2,132,315 1,893,283 28,809,458 City of North Miami Beach 17,154,830 1,733,203 1,746,039 1,882,765 1,945,188 1,705,603 26,167,628 City ofDoral2 9,003,402 2,120,606 2,232,433 2,508,437 2,747,033 2,551,901 21,163,812 City of Aventura 12,992,928 1,494,036 1,502,980 1,590,870 1,613,705 1,413,111 20,607,630 Town of Cutler Bay 2 8,525,502 1,721,858 1,769,140 1,899,220 1,935,984 1,696,665 17,548,369 Town of Miami Lakes' 11,086,213 1,209,319 1,211,635 1,288,227 1,309,407 1,163,617 17,268,418 Village of Palmetto Bay 10,074,295 952,951 956,304 1,013,542 1,033,365 902,837 14,933,294 City of Hialeah Gardens 8,635,855 904,713 922,372 986,599 1,007,122 882,753 13,339,414 City of Sunny Isles Beach 7,759,606 869,990 866,019 933,221 951,809 841,547 12,222,192 Village ofPinecrest 7,840,962 737,876 738,316 777,521 790,584 691,410 11,576,669 City of Miami Springs 5,682,283 562,418 565,087 601,223 608,639 530,692 8,550,342 City ofOpa-locka' 6,329,004 90,323 195,000 210,000 165,000 1,112,782 8,102,109 City of Sweetwater' 5,070,356 273,778 133,332 466,662 166,116 1,850,267 7,960,511 City of South Miami 4,767,184 546,219 547,720 546,151 541,343 473,555 7,422,172 Village of Key Biscayne 4,809,375 502,197 508,734 540,692 550,288 481,895 7,393,181 City of Florida City 4,132,139 498,385 504,443 542,769 557,265 488,960 6,723,961 Miami Shores Village 4,308,419 419,557 420,697 443,831 447,113 391,399 6,431,016 North Bay Village 2,808,576 314,789 328,007 378,523 384,140 335,832 4,549,867 City of West Miami 2,445,250 241,053 241,373 279,166 307,465 291,897 3,806,204 Town of Surfside 2,314,098 229,428 228,739 234,500 248,902 221,896 3,477,563 Town of Bay Harbor Islands 2,209,631 231,953 222,682 234,375 249,414 220,923 3,368,978 Village of Biscayne Park 4 1,342,176 125,900 126,220 135,905 135,965 10,084 1,876,250 Bal Harbour Village 1,262,745 114,472 111,421 114,881 125,178 109,190 1,837,887 Village of Virginia Gardens 973,380 96,229 96,903 102,910 103,132 90,977 1,463,531 Village of El Porta13 1,012,447 6,467 174,873 90,094 89,175 77,404 1,450,460 Town of Medley 429,285 34,442 33,529 35,277 35,617 31,486 599,636 Town of Golden Beach' 365,820 36,766 37,221 39,423 39,386 34,961 553,577 Indian Creek Village 3,604 - - - - - 3,604 $ 525,257,127 $ 57,288,164 $ 57,624,331 $ 62,327,134 $ 64,202,969 $ 60,247,689 $ 826,947,414 Source: Office of the Citizens' Independent Transportation Trust (OCITT) and the County's Financial Accounting Management Information System Amounts are net of withholdings of $76,553 from the Town of Miami Lakes, $766,362 from the City of Sweetwater, $21,058 from the Town of Golden Beach, $1.9 million from the City of Opa-locka, and $3.3 million from the City of Miami, due to specific instances of noncompliance. 2 Pursuant to the respective Interlocal and/or Settlement Agreements, these Municipalities, which were incorporated after November 2002, are receiving a share of the County's Surtax Proceeds consistent with the other Municipal distributions. 3 Amount in FY 2016 is net of $84,069 withheld due to instances of noncompliance, which was returned in FY 2017 by OCITT. Amount in FY 2020 is net of $110,249 withheld due to instances of noncompliance. Schedule VI City of Miami Charter County Transportation System Surtax Review Trolley Inventory No Vehicle ID Odometer Reading Make Model Year Purchased 1 VIN No. Lic Plate 1 TY212001 216,259 Freightliner STARTRANS 2012 4UZADEDT2CCBP4129 XC3254 2 TY212002 263,248 Freightliner STARTRANS 2012 4UZADEDT4CCBP4133 XC3255 3 TY212003 263,152 Freightliner STARTRANS 2012 4UZADEDTOCCBP4128 XC3256 4 TY212004 249,015 Freightliner STARTRANS 2012 4UZADEDTOCCBP4131 XC3257 5 TY212005 261,208 Freightliner STARTRANS 2012 4UZADEDT2CCBP4132 XC3258 6 TY212006 245,955 Freightliner STARTRANS 2012 4UZADEDT9CCBP4130 XC3268 7 TY212007 268,523 Freightliner STARTRANS 2012 4UZADEDTXCCBP4136 XC3266 8 TY212008 235,816 Freightliner STARTRANS 2012 4UZADEDT1CCBP4137 XC3265 9 TY212010 258,265 Freightliner STARTRANS 2012 4UZADEDT5CCBP4139 XC3263 10 TY212011 204,406 Freightliner STARTRANS 2012 4UZADEDT8CCBP4135 XC3262 11 TY212012 190,655 Freightliner STARTRANS 2012 4UZADEDT3CCBP4138 XC3261 12 TY212013 219,262 Freightliner STARTRANS 2012 4UZADEDT1CCBW5180 XC3272 13 TY212014 224,822 Freightliner STARTRANS 2012 4UZADEDT5CCBW5179 XC3275 14 TY212015 238,323 Freightliner BTRL 2013 4UZADEDT3CCBW5181 XC9679 15 TY212016 252,593 Freightliner BTRL 2013 4UZADEDT9DCFB8391 TD0998 16 TY212018 240,614 Freightliner BTRL 2013 4UZADEDT2DCFB8393 TD0994 17 TY212019 269,507 Freightliner BTRL 2013 4UZADEDT4DCFB8394 TD0996 18 TY212020 291,429 Freightliner BTRL 2013 4UZADEDT1DCFB8398 TD0997 19 TY212021 230,092 Freightliner BTRL 2013 4UZADEDT3DCFB8399 TD0999 20 TY212022 247,823 Freightliner BTRL 2013 4UZADEDT6DCFB8400 TD1000 21 TY212023 293,778 Freightliner BTRL 2013 4UZADEDT8DCFB8401 TD1001 22 TY212024 289,599 Freightliner BTRL 2013 4UZADEDTXDCFB8402 TD1002 23 TY212025 248,514 Freightliner BTRL 2013 4UZADEDT1DCFB8403 TD1003 24 TY212026 275,899 Freightliner BTRL 2013 4UZADEDT3DCFB8404 TD1004 25 TY212027 262,134 Freightliner BTRL 2013 4UZADEDT5DCFB8405 TD 1005 26 TY212028 246,886 Freightliner BTRL 2013 4UZADEDT7DCFB8406 TD1006 27 TY212029 304,320 Freightliner BTRL 2013 4UZADEDTXDCFB8397 TD1017 28 TY212030 286,888 Freightliner BTRL 2013 4UZADEDT8DCFB8396 TD1016 29 TY212031 245,601 Freightliner BTRL 2013 4UZADEDT6DCFB8395 TD1015 30 TY212032 168,671 Freightliner BTRL 2013 4UZADEDTXDCFB8609 TD1018 31 TY212033 220,872 Freightliner BTRL 2013 4UZADEDT6DCFB8610 TD1019 32 TY212034 257,743 Freightliner BTRL 2013 4UZADEDT8DCFB8611 TD1020 33 TY212047 146,417 Mainstreet Hometown MB65 2017 4UXADEDT7HCJC3497 XE3735 34 TY212048 149,088 Mainstreet Hometown MB65 2017 4UXADEDT7HCJC3498 XE3736 35 TY212049 293,703 Mainstreet Hometown MB65 2017 4UXADEDT7HCJC3499 XE3737 36 TY212050 220,209 Mainstreet Hometown MB65 2017 4UXADEDT7HCJC3500 XE7245 37 TY212051 202,781 Mainstreet Hometown MB65 2017 4UXADEDT7HCJC3501 XE7244 38 TY212052 242,710 Mainstreet Hometown MB65 2017 4UXADEDT7HCJC3502 XE7243 39 TY212053 195,973 Mainstreet Hometown MB65 2017 4UXADEDT7HCJC3503 XE7242 40 TY212054 200,820 Mainstreet Hometown MB65 2017 4UXADEDT7HCJC3504 XE7240 41 TY212055 192,901 Mainstreet Hometown MB65 2017 4UXADEDT7HCJC3505 XE7251 42 TY212056 190,588 Mainstreet Hometown MB65 2017 4UZADEDT8HCJC7722 XE7238 43 TY212072 50,920 Freightliner XBS CHASSIS 2020 4UZABOFESLCLZ7933 XH3238 44 TY212073 46,320 Freightliner XBS CHASSIS 2020 4UZABOFE7LCLZ7934 XH3239 45 TY212074 42,510 Freightliner XBS CHASSIS 2020 4UZABOFEXLCLZ7944 XH3240 46 TY212075 33,290 Freightliner XBS CHASSIS 2020 4UZABOFE9LCLZ7935 XH3241 47 TY212076 39,888 Freightliner XBS CHASSIS 2020 4UZABOFEOLCLZ7936 XH3243 48 TY212077 39,626 Freightliner XBS CHASSIS 2020 4UZABOFE2LCLZ7937 XH3244 49 TY212078 37,896 Freightliner XBS CHASSIS 2020 4UZABOFE4LCLZ7938 XH3245 50 TY212079 32,107 Freightliner XBS CHASSIS 2020 4UZABOFE6LCLZ7939 XH3246 51 TY212080 32,184 Freightliner XBS CHASSIS 2020 4UZABOFE2LCLZ7940 XH3247 52 TY212081 30,345 Freightliner XBS CHASSIS 2020 4UZABOFE4LCLZ7941 XH3248 53 TY212082 33,659 Freightliner XBS CHASSIS 2020 4UZABOFE6LCLZ7942 XH3249 54 TY212083 33,161 Freightliner XBS CHASSIS 2020 4UZABOFE8LCLZ7943 XH3250 Source: City of Miami ' FY 2020 additions replaced vehicles leased from the Trolley operator. Finding Use of Transit Proceeds City of Miami (City) Charter County Transportation System Surtax Review Status of Prior Audit Findings 1 Recommendation Auditee Response Current Status Exhibit I The City spent all of its Transit -related Surtax funds, but had Trolley advertising revenues and related expenses recorded in a separate fund from its Surtax activities. Also, revenues and expenses for the Cross -Bay Trolley were not included with other Surtax accounts, and ineligible amounts were charged for on - demand transit services. The City should ensure all claimed costs are eligible for Surtax use, and consider recording Trolley advertising revenues in its Transportation and Transit Special Revenue Fund to facilitate accountability. The City provided AMS with documentation to show that advertising revenues were properly accounted for. Unresolved As of September 30, 2020, unspent advertising revenues totaled $1.1 million and were recorded by AMS as an adjustment to claimed Transit expenditures. (See pages 3-4 of the Audit Report.) The Cross -Bay Trolley was discontinued in FY 2019. Use of Transportation Proceeds The City had unspent Transportation Funds of $47.4 million available for carryover. Further, only $27.8 million was reported as "Cash and Investments" in the Transportation and Transit Special Revenue and Capital Projects Funds. Also, $4 million of claimed debt service expenditures was disallowed, as the amount was not paid. The City should ensure all claimed costs are eligible for Surtax use. City staff should submit a revised Five -Year Transportation Plan to demonstrate how the $47.4 million of rollover monies will be used. Surtax distributions should be withheld until the City reduces its $19.6 million funding gap, and OCITT should communicate these concerns to the CITT Board. The City disagrees with the amount of the funding gap, which relates to prior disallowances of debt service payments. Unresolved As of September 30, 2020, the City had $45 million in unspent Transportation funds, with only $27.6 million in Cash and Investments in the Transportation and Transit Special Revenue and Capital Projects Funds. The shortfall was $17.4 million. (See pages 5-6 of the Audit Report.) Reporting to OCITT The City's Quarterly Transportation Expenditure Reports did not agree with annual amounts recorded in the City's General Ledger. Also, the latest Five -Year Transportation Plan showed unexpended funds totaling $21.8 million, not the $47.4 million shown in Schedule II. City staff should provide accurate reports to OCITT. The City's reporting to OCITT is accurate. Partially Resolved Quarterly Reports were more accurately prepared using OCITT's new format, but the latest Five -Year Transportation Plan showed unspent funds of only $16.5 million. (See page 6 of the Audit Report.) ' See the Audit Report dated September 16, 2020 and the Response dated January 29, 2021 for the full text. ARTICLE XVI. - ONE HALF OF ONE PERCENT CHARTER COUNTY TRANSIT SYSTEM SALES SURTAX AUTHORIZED BY SECTION 212.055(1) FLORIDA STATUTES (2001) Sec. 29-121. - Sales surtax levied. There is hereby levied and imposed a one half of one percent discretionary sales surtax authorized by Section 212.055(1), Florida Statutes (2001) on all transactions occurring in Miami -Dade County which transactions are subject to the state tax imposed on sales, use, rentals, admissions and other transactions by Chapter 212, Florida Statutes (2001). (Ord. No. 02-116, § 1, 7-9-02) Sec. 29-122. - Surtax rate, limitations. The surtax rate shall be one-half of one percent on the amount of taxable sales and taxable purchases representing such transactions. The limitations, conditions and provisions contained in Section 212.054, Florida Statutes (2001) as the same may be amended and supplemented from time to time are hereby incorporated herein. (Ord. No. 02-116, § 1, 7-9-02) Sec. 29-122.1. - Exemption from Sales Surtax. All exemptions applicable to the discretionary sales surtax contained in Chapter 212, Florida Statutes are hereby incorporated herein as the same may be amended and supplemented from time to time including, but not limited to, the following: 1. The sales amount above $5,000 on any item of tangible personal property shall not be subject to the surtax. However, charges for prepaid calling arrangements, as defined in Section 212.05(1)(e)1.a. Fla. Stats., shall be subject to the surtax. For purposes of administering the $5,000 limitation of an item of tangible personal property, if two or more taxable items of tangible personal property are sold to the same purchaser at the same time and, under generally accepted business practice or industry standards or usage, are normally sold in bulk or are items that, when assembled, comprise a working unit or part of a working unit, such items must be considered a single item for purposes of the $5,000 limitation when supported by a charge ticket, sale slip, invoice, or other tangible evidence of a single sale or rental. 2. The sale at retail, the rental, the use, the consumption, the distribution, and the storage to be used or consumed in this state of the following are hereby specifically exempt from the sales surtax imposed by this article. (1) Exemptions; General Groceries. (a) Food products for human consumption are exempt from the sales surtax imposed by this article. (b) For the purpose of this article, as used in this subsection, the term "food products" means edible commodities, whether processed, cooked, raw, canned, or in any other form, which are generally regarded as food. This includes, but is not limited to, all of the following: 1. Cereals and cereal products, baked goods, oleomargarine, meat and meat products, fish and seafood products, frozen foods and dinners, poultry, eggs and egg products, vegetables and vegetable products, fruit and fruit products, spices, salt, sugar and sugar products, milk and dairy products, and products intended to be mixed with milk. 2. Natural fruit or vegetable juices or their concentrates or reconstituted natural concentrated fruit or vegetable juices, whether frozen or unfrozen, dehydrated, powdered, granulated, sweetened or unsweetened, seasoned with salt or spice, or unseasoned; coffee, coffee substitutes, or cocoa; and tea, unless it is sold in a liquid form. 3. Bakery products sold by bakeries, pastry shops, or like establishments that do not have eating facilities. (c) The exemption provided by this subsection does not apply: 1. When the food products are sold as meals for consumption on or off the premises of the dealer. 2. When the food, products are furnished, prepared, or served for consumption at tables, chairs, or counters or from trays, glasses, dishes, or other tableware, whether provided by the dealer or by a person with whom the dealer contracts to furnish, prepare, or serve food products to others. 3. When the food products are ordinarily sold for immediate consumption on the seller's premises or near a location at which parking facilities are provided primarily for the use of patrons in consuming the products purchased at the location, even though such products are sold on a "take out" or "to go" order and are actually packaged or wrapped and taken from the premises of the dealer. 4. To sandwiches sold ready for immediate consumption on or off the seller's premises. 5. When the food products are sold ready for immediate consumption within a place, the entrance to which is subject to an admission charge. 6. When the food products are sold as hot prepared food products. 7. To soft drinks, which include, but are not limited to, any nonalcoholic beverage, any preparation or beverage commonly referred to as a "soft drink," or any noncarbonated drink made from milk derivatives or tea, when sold in cans or similar containers. 8. To ice cream, frozen yogurt, and similar frozen dairy or nondairy products in cones, small cups, or pints, popsicles, frozen fruit bars, or other novelty items, whether or not sold separately. 9. To food prepared, whether on or off the premises, and sold for immediate consumption. This does not apply to food prepared off the premises and sold in the original sealed container, or the slicing of products into smaller portions. 10. When the food products are sold through a vending machine, pushcart, motor vehicle, or any other form of vehicle. 11. To candy and any similar product regarded as candy or confection, based on its normal use, as indicated on the label or advertising thereof. 12. To bakery products sold by bakeries, pastry shops, or like establishments that have eating facilities, except when sold for consumption off the seller's premises. 13. When food products are served, prepared, or sold in or by restaurants, lunch counters, cafeterias, hotels, taverns, or other like places of business. (d) As used in this subsection (1), the term: 1. "For consumption off the seller's premises" means that the food or drink is intended by the customer to be consumed at a place away from the dealer's premises. 2. "For consumption on the seller's premises" means that the food or drink sold may be immediately consumed on the premises where the dealer conducts his or her business. In determining whether an item of food is sold for immediate consumption, there shall be considered the customary consumption practices prevailing at the selling facility. 3. "Premises" shall be construed broadly, and means, but is not limited to, the lobby, aisle, or auditorium of a theater; the seating, aisle, or parking area of an arena, rink, or stadium; or the parking area of a drive-in or outdoor theater. The premises of a caterer with respect to catered meals or beverages shall be the place where such meals or beverages are served. 4. "Hot prepared food products" means those products, items, or components which have been prepared for sale in a heated condition and which are sold at any temperature that is higher than the air temperature of the room or place where they are sold. "Hot prepared food products," for the purposes of this subsection, includes a combination of hot and cold food items or components where a single price has been established for the combination and the food products are sold in such combination, such as a hot meal, a hot specialty dish or serving, or a hot sandwich or hot pizza, including cold components or side items. (e) 1. Food or drinks not exempt under paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (d) shall be exempt, notwithstanding those paragraphs, when -purchased with food coupons or Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants, and Children vouchers issued under authority of federal law. 2. This paragraph (e) is effective only while federal law prohibits a state's participation in the federal food coupon program or Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants, and Children if there is an official determination that state or local sales taxes are collected within that state on purchases of food or drinks with such coupons. 3. This paragraph (e) shall not apply to any food or drinks on which federal law shall permit sales taxes without penalty, such as termination of the state's participation. (2) Exemptions medical. (a) There shall be exempt from the sales surtax imposed by this article any medical products and supplies or medicine dispensed according to an individual prescription or prescriptions written by a prescriber authorized by law to prescribe medicinal drugs; hypodermic needles; hypodermic syringes; chemical compounds and test kits used for the diagnosis or treatment of human disease, illness, or injury; and common household remedies recommended and generally sold for internal and external use in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of illness or disease in human beings, but not including cosmetics or toilet articles, notwithstanding the presence of medicinal ingredients therein, according to a list prescribed and approved by the Department of Health, which list shall be certified to the Department of Revenue from time to time and included in the rules promulgated by the Department of Revenue. There shall also be exempt from the sales surtax imposed by this article artificial eyes and limbs; orthopedic shoes; prescription eyeglasses and items incidental thereto or which become a part thereof; dentures; hearing aids; crutches; prosthetic and orthopedic appliances; and funerals. In addition, any items intended for one-time use which transfer essential optical characteristics to contact lenses shall be exempt from the sales surtax imposed by this article, however, this exemption shall apply only after $100,000 of the sales surtax imposed by this article on such items has been paid in any calendar year by a taxpayer who claims the exemption in such year. Funeral directors shall pay tax on all tangible personal property used by them in their business. (b) For the purposes of this subsection (2): 1. "Prosthetic and orthopedic appliances" means any apparatus, instrument, device, or equipment used to replace or substitute for any missing part of the body, to alleviate the malfunction of any part of the body, or to assist any disabled person in leading a normal life by facilitating such person's mobility. Such apparatus, instrument, device, or equipment shall be exempted according to an individual prescription or prescriptions written by a physician licensed under chapter 458, chapter 459, chapter 460, chapter 461, or chapter 466, Florida Statutes, or according to a list prescribed and approved by the Department of Health, which list shall be certified to the Department of Revenue from time to time and included in the rules promulgated by the Department of Revenue. 2. "Cosmetics" means articles intended to be rubbed, poured, sprinkled, or sprayed on, introduced into, or otherwise applied to the human body for cleaning, beautifying, promoting attractiveness, or altering the appearance and also means articles intended for use as a compound of any such articles, including, but not limited to, cold creams, suntan lotions, makeup, and body lotions. 3. "Toilet articles" means any article advertised or held out for sale for grooming purposes and those articles that are customarily used for grooming purposes, regardless of the name by which they may be known, including, but not limited to, soap, toothpaste, hair spray, shaving products, colognes, perfumes, shampoo, deodorant, and mouthwash. 4. "Prescription" includes any order for drugs or medicinal supplies written or transmitted by any means of communication by a duly licensed practitioner authorized by the laws of the state to prescribe such drugs or medicinal supplies and intended to be dispensed by a pharmacist. The term also includes an orally transmitted order by the lawfully designated agent of such practitioner. The term also includes an order written or transmitted by a practitioner licensed to practice in a jurisdiction other than this state, but only if the pharmacist called upon to dispense such order determines, in the exercise of his or her professional judgment, that the order is valid and necessary for the treatment of a chronic or recurrent illness. The term also includes a pharmacist's order for a product selected from the formulary created pursuant to Sec. 465.186 Fla. Stats. A prescription may be retained in written form, or the pharmacist may cause it to be recorded in a data processing system, provided that such order can be produced in printed form upon lawful request. (c) Chlorine shall not be exempt from the tax imposed by this article when used for the treatment of water in swimming pools. (d) Lithotripters are exempt. (e) Human organs are exempt. (f) Sales of drugs to or by physicians, dentists, veterinarians, and hospitals in connection with medical treatment are exempt. (g) Medical products and supplies used in the cure, mitigation, alleviation, prevention, or treatment of injury, disease, or incapacity which are temporarily or permanently incorporated into a patient or client by a practitioner of the healing arts licensed in the state are exempt. (h) The purchase by a veterinarian of commonly recognized substances possessing curative or remedial properties which are ordered and dispensed as treatment for a diagnosed health disorder by or on the prescription of a duly licensed veterinarian, and which are applied to or consumed by animals for alleviation of pain or the cure or prevention of sickness, disease, or suffering are exempt. Also exempt are the purchase by a veterinarian of antiseptics, absorbent cotton, gauze for bandages, lotions, vitamins, and worm remedies. (i) X-ray opaques, also known as opaque drugs and radiopaque, such as the various opaque dyes and barium sulphate, when used in connection with medical X-rays for treatment of bodies of humans and animals, are exempt. (j) Parts, special attachments, special lettering, and other like items that are added to or attached to tangible personal property so that a handicapped person can use them are exempt when such items are purchased by a person pursuant to an individual prescription. (k) This subsection (2) shall be strictly construed and enforced. (Ord. No. 02-116, § 1, 7-9-02) Sec. 29-123. - Administration, collection and enforcement. The Florida Department of Revenue shall administer, collect and enforce the surtax levied hereunder pursuant to the procedures specified in Sec. 212.054(4) Fla. Stats. (2001) as the same may be amended or renumbered from time to time. (Ord. No. 02-116, § 1, 7-9-02) Sec. 29-124. - Special fund created; uses of surtax proceeds; and role of Citizens' Independent Transportation Trust. The surtax proceeds collected by the State and distributed hereunder shall be deposited in a special fund set aside from other County funds in the custody of the Finance Director of the County. Moneys in the special fund shall be expended for the transportation and transit projects (including operation and maintenance thereof) set forth in Exhibit 1 to this article (including those projects referenced in the ballot question presented to the electors to approve this levy) and the adopted Five Year Implementation Plan, subject to any amendments thereto made in accordance with the Transportation Planning Organization ("TPO") process or made in accordance with the procedures specified in subsection (d) of this section. Expenditure of surtax proceeds for contracts procured by or on behalf of Miami -Dade Transit or for transit -related procurements shall be subject to the following limitations: (a) Surtax proceeds shall be applied to expand the Golden Passport Program to all persons (regardless of income level who are over the age of 65 or are drawing Social Security benefits) and to provide fare -free public transportation service on Metromover, including extensions. (b) Surtax proceeds may only be expended for the transportation and transit purposes specified in Section 212.055(1)(d)1-4, Florida Statutes (2010). The use of surtax proceeds for on - demand services as defined in Section 212.055(1)(e), Florida Statutes, shall be limited to on - demand services where the trip is no greater than 5 miles in distance. (c) The County shall not expend more than five percent of the County's share of surtax proceeds on administrative costs, exclusive of project management and oversight for projects funded by the surtax. (d) The Trust shall in consultation with the Mayor recommend to the County Commission a Five Year Implementation Plan. The Five Year Implementation Plan shall include a detailed scope of work, schedule and budget, consistent with the federal requirements for the TPO TIP and Long Range Plan, for each project included in Exhibit 1 of the People's Transportation Plan, as amended, anticipated to be implemented in whole or in part during the five year period. The Five Year Implementation Plan shall be approved by the County Commission in accordance with the procedures established in paragraph (f) of this section. The initial Five Year Implementation Plan shall be approved no later than January 1, 2011. The Five Year Implementation Plan shall be updated annually no later than January 1st of each year and shall be presented to the County Commission and posted online. The annual report shall detail the progress on each project included in the Five Year Work Plan. (e) The County Commission shall not delete or materially change any County project contained in the list attached as Exhibit 1 to this article nor add any project to the list or delete, materially change or add any project to the Five Year Implementation Plan except in accordance with the procedures set forth in this subsection (e). The Five Year Implementation Plan and any proposed deletion, material change or addition of a County project shall be initially reviewed by the Citizens' Independent Transportation Trust ("Trust"), which shall forward a recommendation thereon to the County Commission. The County Commission may either accept or reject the Trust's recommendation. If the County Commission rejects the recommendation, the matter shall be referred back to the Trust for its reconsideration and issuance of a reconsidered recommendation to the County Commission. The County Commission may approve, change or reject the Trust's reconsidered recommendation. A two- thirds vote of the Commission membership shall be required to take action other than as contained in the reconsidered recommendation of the Trust. The foregoing notwithstanding, the list of County projects contained in Exhibit 1 and the Five Year Implementation Plan may be changed as a result of the metropolitan planning organization process as mandated by federal and state law as applied to the TPO. (f) (i) No surtax proceeds may be used to pay the costs of a contract unless the Trust has submitted a recommendation to the County Commission regarding said contract award. The County Commission, if in agreement with the Trust's recommendation, may award a contract by majority vote. The County Commission may modify or reject the recommendation of the Trust by a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the Commission's membership. If the Trust has failed to forward a recommendation to the County Commission within 45 days of the County Mayor or County Mayor's designee filing an award recommendation with the Clerk of the Board, the County Commission may take action on the contract award recommendation without any Trust recommendation. Notwithstanding any other provision to the contrary, a committee of the Commission may consider a contract award recommendation prior to receipt of a recommendation of the Trust. (ii) Where no surtax proceeds are used to fund a contract, no County funds may be used to pay the costs of a contract where the portion procured by or on behalf of Miami -Dade Transit or for transit -related procurements is valued at over one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) unless the Trust has submitted a recommendation to the County Commission regarding said contract award. The County Commission, if in agreement with the Trust's recommendation, may award a contract by majority vote. The County Commission may modify or reject the recommendation of the Trust by a majority vote. If the Trust has failed to forward a recommendation to the County Commission within 45 days of the County Mayor or County Mayor's designee filing an award recommendation with the Clerk of the Board, the County Commission may take action on the contract award recommendation without any Trust recommendation. Notwithstanding any other provision to the contrary, a committee of the Commission may consider a contract award recommendation prior to receipt of a recommendation of the Trust. (iii) Where no surtax proceeds are used to fund a contract eligible for award under the County Mayor's delegated authority and where the portion procured by or on behalf of Miami -Dade Transit or for transit -related procurements is valued at one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) or less, the Trust shall be provided with a Semi -Annual Report detailing all such contract awards. If the Trust takes exception with a contract award the County Mayor or County Mayor's designee will provide the Trust with any additional information necessary to resolve any outstanding issue and, if necessary and appropriate, work in collaboration with the Trust to take any corrective action that may be available. (iv) The Trust shall, in consultation with the County Mayor or County Mayor's designee, schedule Trust meetings monthly so as to ensure that a Trust recommendation is provided to the Commission with the Commission's agenda package. (g) On a quarterly basis, the Executive Director of the CITT shall submit a written report to the Commission and the Mayor of all expenditures made pursuant to Section 29-124 herein. (h) Twenty percent of surtax proceeds shall be distributed annually to those cities existing as of November 5, 2002 that meet the following conditions: (i) That continue to provide the same level of general fund support for transportation that is in their FY 2001-2002 budget in subsequent Fiscal Years. Any surtax proceeds received shall be applied to supplement, not replace a city's general fund support for transportation. Where the general fund support for FY 2001-2002 exceeded the general fund support in the preceding year by more than 150 percent, the maintenance of effort requirement may be calculated as the average general fund support for the five years preceding FY 2001-2002 and applied beginning FY 2001-2002; (ii) That apply 20 percent of any surtax proceeds received to transit uses in the nature of circulator buses, bus shelters, bus pullout bays, on -demand transportation services as defined in Section 212.055(1)(e), Florida Statutes, as may be amended from time to time, or other transit -related infrastructure. The use of surtax proceeds for on -demand transportation services shall be limited to providing transportation services where the trip is no greater than 5 miles in distance. Each city that uses surtax proceeds for on -demand transportation services shall provide an annual report to the County describing the city's implementation of the on -demand transportation services. Any city that cannot apply the 20 percent portion of surtax proceeds it receives as provided in this paragraph, may contract with the County for the County to apply such proceeds on a County project that enhances traffic mobility within that city and immediately adjacent areas. If the city cannot expend such proceeds in accordance with this paragraph and does not contract with the County as described in this paragraph, then such proceeds shall carry over and be added to the overall portion of surtax proceeds to be distributed to the cities in the ensuing year and shall be utilized solely for the transit uses enumerated in this subsection (ii); (iii) Surtax proceeds distributed amongst the existing cities shall be distributed on a pro rata basis based on the ratio such city's population bears to the total population in all such cities (as adjusted annually in accordance with the Estimates of Population prepared by the Bureau of Economic and Business Research of the University of Florida) annually to those cities that continue to meet the foregoing conditions. For purposes of the foregoing, whenever an annexation occurs in an existing city, the number of persons residing in such annexed area at the time it is annexed shall be excluded from all calculations. Increases in population in areas annexed over and above the population in such area at the time of annexation which occur after annexation shall be included in subsequent years' calculations; and (iv) That do not expend more than 5% of its municipal share of surtax proceeds on administrative costs, exclusive of project management and oversight for projects funded by the surtax. Administrative costs shall be defined as overhead expenses which are not readily attributable to any one particular project funded in whole or in part by transit surtax funds. (i) Newly incorporated municipalities shall have the right to negotiate with the County for a pro rata share of the sales surtax, taking into consideration the neighborhood and municipal projects identified in Exhibit 1, as amended, within the boundaries of the new municipalities. The preceding sentence shall not affect the twenty (20) percent share provided herein for municipalities existing on November 5, 2002. (Ord. No. 02-116, § 1, 7-9-02; Ord. No. 06-138, § 1, 9-26-06; Ord. No. 07-56, § 1, 4-24-07; Ord. No. 10-53, § 2, 9-21-10; Ord. No. 11-13, § 2, 3-15-11; Ord. No. 16-09, § 1, 1-20-16; Ord. No. 18-23, § 2, 2-21-18; Ord. No. 18- 46, § 1, 5-1-18; Ord. No. 19-06, § 1, 1-23-19; Ord. No. 21-21, § 1, 3-2-21) ARTICLE XCVII. - CITIZENS' INDEPENDENT TRANSPORTATION TRUST Footnotes: (104) --- Editor's note— Ord. No. 02-117, § 1, adopted July 9, 2002, did not specifically amend the Code; hence, its inclusion herein as article XCVII, § 2-1421, was at the discretion of the editor. Sec. 2-1421. - Citizens' Independent Transportation Trust created; powers over expenditure and use of proceeds of proposed Charter County Transit System Surtax. (a) Creation. A Citizens' Independent Transportation Trust ("Trust") is hereby created. The Trust will have fifteen (15) members: one residing in each of Miami -Dade County's thirteen commission districts, one appointed by the Mayor without regard to such appointee's district of residence, and one appointed by the Miami -Dade League of Cities without regard to such appointee's district of residence. Members of the Trust shall be residents of Miami -Dade County who possess outstanding reputations for civic involvement, integrity, responsibility, and business and/or professional ability and experience or interest in the fields of transportation mobility improvements or operations, or land use planning. No person shall be eligible to serve as a member of the Trust who has any interest, direct or indirect, in a contract with the County or in any corporation, partnership or other entity that has a contract with the County, or who is a member of a community council. The Trust and the Nominating Committee, as defined below, will be comprised of members who are representative of the geographic, ethnic, racial and gender make-up of the County. (b) Initial members. The initial members of the Trust shall be nominated and appointed in the manner set forth in this subsection. The Board of County Commissioners shall appoint a nominating committee (the "Nominating Committee") comprised of seventeen (17) members as set forth below who are representative of the geographical, ethnic, racial and gender make-up of the County: (1) The Executive Director of the Miami -Dade League of Cities or one of the League's officers shall serve as a member of the Nominating Committee; (2) The Chairperson of the United Way or his or her designee shall serve as a member of the Nominating Committee; (3) The Chairperson of the Greater Miami Visitors and Convention Bureau or his or her designee shall serve as a member of the Nominating Committee; (4) The Chairperson of the Citizen's Transportation Advisory Committee or his or her designee shall serve as a member of the Nominating Committee; (5) The Chairpersons of the Community Councils shall meet and shall, by majority vote, appoint one member of the Nominating Committee; (6) The Chair of the Ethics Commission or his or her designee; (7) The President or CEO of the Urban Environment League shall appoint one member of the Nominating Committee; (8) The President or CEO of the local branch of the Urban League shall appoint one member of the Nominating Committee; (9) The President or CEO of the Alliance for Aging shall appoint one member of the Nominating Committee; (10) The President or CEO of the Miami -Dade Branch NAACP shall appoint one member of the Nominating Committee; (11) The President or CEO of the Coalition of Chambers shall appoint one member of the Nominating Committee; (12) The President or CEO of Florida International University shall appoint one member of the Nominating Committee; (13) The President or CEO of Miami -Dade Community College shall appoint one member of the Nominating Committee; (14) The President or CEO of People Acting for the Community Together (P.A.C.T.) shall appoint one member of the Nominating Committee; (15) The President or CEO of Underrepresented People's Positive Action Council (UP -PAC) shall appoint one member of the Nominating Committee; (16) The Executive Director of the local chapter of the League of Women Voters shall appoint one member of the Nominating Committee; and (17) The Executive Director of the Haitian American Grass Roots Coalition shall appoint one member. The Nominating Committee shall submit a slate of four (4) candidates from each Commission District to the Commissioner of each District for selection. The District Commissioner must select from the slate submitted by the Nominating Committee; however, the District Commissioner may request one additional slate of entirely new nominations. The Board of County Commissioners shall ratify each District Commissioner's selection. The Nominating Committee shall submit a slate of four (4) candidates without regard to district to the Miami -Dade League of Cities for selection. The Miami -Dade League of Cities must select from the slate submitted by the Nominating Committee; however, the League may request one additional slate of entirely new nominations. The Nominating Committee shall also submit a slate of four (4) candidates without regard to district to the Mayor for selection. The Mayor must select from the slate submitted by the Nominating Committee; however, the Mayor may request one additional slate of entirely new nominations. (c) Term ofinitial members. The initial members from Districts 1 to 5, inclusive, shall serve two-year terms; the initial members from Districts 6 to 9, inclusive, shall serve three-year terms; and, the initial members from Districts 10 to 13, inclusive, shall serve four-year terms. The selection of the Mayor shall serve an initial term of four years. The selection of the Miami -Dade League of Cities shall serve an initial term of two years. The foregoing notwithstanding, such initial terms shall be subject to automatic expiration as provided in subsection (c) of Section 2-11.38.2 of this Code provided however, a District Commissioner appointed Trust member may continue to serve until the appointment and ratification of the succeeding District Commissioner's selection. (d) Subsequent membership and term. Any vacancy on the Trust that occurs after appointment of the initial membership, as well as appointment of successors to those members whose terms have expired shall be filled directly by appointment of the Commissioner for the district for in which a vacancy occurs, or, in the case of a vacancy in a Miami -Dade League of Cities appointment shall be filled by appointment of the League, or, in the case of a vacancy in a mayoral appointment shall be filled by appointment of the Mayor. Such appointments shall be made from a slate submitted by the Nominating Committee in accordance with subsection (b) pertaining to initial members, and shall have the qualifications for Trust membership set forth in subsection (a) above. The foregoing notwithstanding, an incoming District Commissioner or Mayor may elect to re -appoint his or her predecessor's currently serving appointee, in which case there shall be no need for the Nominating Committee to submit a slate of candidates for such vacancy. The term of any Trust member appointed or re -appointed pursuant to this subsection after the initial terms set forth in (c) above shall be for a term of four years, and in the case of Commissioner or Mayor appointees shall be subject to automatic expiration as provided in subsection (c) of Section 2-11.38.2 of this Code provided however, a District Commissioner or Mayor appointed Trust member may continue to serve until the appointment and ratification of the succeeding District Commissioner's or Mayor's selection. Members may be re -appointed. If an appointment is not made by the District Commissioner (or the League or Mayor where applicable) within thirty (30) days from the date on which the Nominating Committee submits the required slate of candidates, the County Commission may appoint the successor. (e) Leave of absence for CITT members on active military duty. Any Trust member who as a result of being called into active duty of any of the branches of the United States Armed Services is unable to continue serving on the CITT may request a leave of absence from the CITT for a period not to exceed ninety (90) days. Said leave of absence may be renewed so long as the Trust member remains in active duty of the United Services Armed Services, but may only extend until the expiration of the term for that Trust member. Upon a Trust member's leave of absence, the applicable District Commissioner, Mayor, or League of Cities may directly appoint an interim Trust member who shall serve on the CITT until the expiration of the term of the Trust member on leave of absence or the return of the Trust member from leave of absence, whichever is sooner. (f) Attendance and quorum requirements. Any Trust or Nominating Committee member shall be automatically removed if, in a given fiscal year: (i) he or she is absent from two (2) consecutive meetings without an acceptable excuse; or, (ii) if he or she is absent from three (3) of the Trust's or Nominating Committee's meetings without an acceptable excuse. A member of the Trust or Nominating Committee shall be deemed absent from a meeting when he or she is not present at the meeting at least seventy-five (75) percent of the time. An "acceptable excuse" is defined as an absence for medical reasons, business reasons, personal reasons, or any other reason which the Trust or Nominating Committee, by two-thirds (2/) vote of its membership, deems appropriate. The requirements of this section may be waived by two-thirds (2/) vote of the members of the full Board of County Commissioners. A quorum of the Trust or Nominating Committee shall consist of a majority of those persons duly appointed to the Trust or Nominating Committee, provided that at least one-half (1h) of the full Trust or Nominating Committee membership has been appointed. (g) Powers and duties. The Trust shall have the following duties, functions, powers, responsibilities and jurisdiction with regard to use and expenditure of proceeds of any Charter County Transit System Surtax that is levied by the County under authority of Section 212.055(1), Florida Statutes: (1) To monitor, oversee, review, audit, and investigate implementation of the transportation and transit projects listed in any levy of the surtax, and all other projects funded in whole or in part with surtax proceeds; (2) To assure compliance with any limitations imposed in the levy on the expenditure of surtax proceeds, including but not limited to: (a) Any limitation that surtax proceeds only be expended for the transportation and transit purposes specified Section 212.055(1)(d)1-4, Fla. Stats., as may be amended from time to time; (b) Any limitation that no more than five (5) percent of surtax proceeds be expended on administrative costs, exclusive of project management and oversight for projects funded by the surtax; (c) The limitation that the County Commission may not delete or materially change any County project listed in the approved Five Year Implementation Plan or on Exhibit 1 attached to the ordinance levying the surtax nor add any project thereto except as provided in this subsection (c) and Section 29-124(d), (e). A proposed deletion, material change or addition of such a County project shall be initially reviewed by the Citizens' Independent Transportation Trust ("Trust"), which shall forward a recommendation thereon to the County Commission. The County Commission may either accept or reject the Trust's recommendation. If the County Commission rejects the recommendation, the matter shall be referred back to the Trust for its reconsideration and issuance of a reconsidered recommendation to the County Commission. The County Commission may approve, change or reject the Trust's reconsidered recommendation. A two-thirds (%) vote of the Commission membership shall be required to take action other than as contained in the reconsidered recommendation of the Trust. The foregoing notwithstanding, the list of County projects contained in said Exhibit 1 and the Five Year Implementation Plan may be changed as a result of the metropolitan planning organization process as mandated by federal and state law as applied to the Transportation Planning Organization ("TPO"); and (d) Any requirement with regard to maintenance of effort of general fund support for Miami - Dade transit. (3) To assure compliance with federal and state requirements applicable thereto; (4) To require monthly reports from the Mayor, County agencies and instrumentalities regarding the implementation of the projects funded by surtax proceeds (which reports shall be posted on-line, i.e., made publicly accessible on the Internet); (5) To file a report, including any recommendations, with the Mayor and the County Commission on a quarterly basis regarding the implementation of the projects funded by surtax proceeds; (6) To monitor, oversee and periodically report to the County Commission on the level of participation by CSBEs and CBEs in contracts funded in whole or in part with surtax proceeds, and to recommend ways to increase such participation; and (7) Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary, to retain the services of consultants the Trust deems necessary to assist in its monitoring functions without the need for action by the County Commission, so long as the retaining of such consultants does not result in the budget for the Trust exceeding the amount approved by the County Commission during the annual budget approval process. (8) Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary, until March 3, 2019 the Executive Director shall have authority to award contracts in an amount up to $10,000 for goods and services for the Trust and its staff without the need for action by the County Commission, so long as the award of such contracts is first approved by the Trust and does not result in the budget for the Trust exceeding the amount approved by the County Commission during the annual budget approval process. The award of such contracts shall be reported to the County Commission on a quarterly basis. Following the expiration of the authority granted to the Executive Director in this paragraph, the Trust, in coordination with its staff, and the County Mayor or County Mayor's designee shall provide a report to the County Commission providing an audit of the contracts for goods and services that were awarded pursuant to this paragraph and provide an analysis on how the goods or services were procured. The County Mayor or County Mayor's designee shall place the report on the first available agenda of this Board pursuant to Ordinance No. 14-65. (h) Staff support. The County Attorney shall serve as legal counsel to the Trust. The Trust may by a majority vote of its membership hire an Executive Director. The Executive Director shall provide to the Trust adequate staff and support services to enable the Trust to carry out its duties and responsibilities. The Executive Director is authorized to hire and/or remove staff in order to provide adequate support for the Trust. The Executive Director may be removed by a two-thirds (%) vote of the Trust members present. (i) Trust subject to Florida Open Government law, the Conflict of Interest and Code of Ethics Ordinance and the investigatory powers of the Inspector General. The Trust shall at all times operate under the Florida Open Government Laws, including the "Sunshine" and Public Records laws, and shall be governed by the Conflict of Interest and Code of Ethics Ordinance, Section 2- 11.1 of this Code providing, among other things, a proscription on transacting business with the County and on oral communications with bidders or their representatives during the bid process, and a requirement for financial disclosure. The Trust and its actions shall be subject to the investigatory powers of the Inspector General provided in Section 2-1076 of this Code. Additionally, Trust members shall not lobby, directly or indirectly, the Mayor, any member of the County Commission or any member of County staff regarding a project funded in whole or in part by surtax proceeds, or regarding any person or business bidding for or under contract for a project funded in whole or in part with surtax proceeds. Trust members shall not have any interest, direct or indirect, in any contract with the County or in any corporation, partnership or other entity that has a contract with the County. (j) Removal of Trust members. A finding by the Ethics Commission that a person serving as a member of the Trust has in the course of his or her service willfully violated any provision of Section 2-11.1 of this Code (the Conflict of Interest and Code of Ethics Ordinance) shall constitute malfeasance in office and shall effect an automatic forfeiture of such person's position as a member of the Trust. (Ord. No. 02-117, § 1, 7-9-02; Ord. No. 04-208, § 1, 12-2-04; Ord. No. 05-53, § 1, 3-15-05; Ord. No. 06-71, § 1, 5-9-06; Ord. No. 06-72, § 1, 5-9-06; Ord. No. 07-06, § 1, 1-25-07; Ord. No. 08-21, § 1, 2-7-08; Ord. No. 08-97, § 1, 9-2-08; Ord. No. 08-98, § 1, 9-2-08; Ord. No. 10-53, § 1, 9-21-10; Ord. No. 11-13, § 1, 3-15-11; Ord. No. 18- 23, § 1, 2-21-18; Ord. No. 19-48, § 15, 6-4-19) Secs. 2-1422-2-1430. - Reserved.