IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

Case No. 1:22-cv-24066-KMM 

GRACE. INC., et al., 

P/aint/fft, 

V. 

CITY OF MIAMI, 

Defendant. 

__________ / 

DECLARATION OF JOE ARRIOLA 

I, foe An-iola, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, declare the following: 

I. I served as City Manager for the City of Miami ("City") from 2003 to 2006. 

2. Because of my previous role as City Manager, I am familiar with the rules and 

laws governing the Miami City Commission ("Commission"), its meetings, and its enactments. 

3. This familiarity and expertise includes the City Code and Florida statutes. 

4. The Commission has a responsibility to notify the public of a special meeting. 

City Code§ 2-33(1). 

5. This notice must include the business to be considered at the special meeting. Id. 

6. The Commission is only able to conduct business and take votes on items that 

were included in the notice. "No business shall be conducted or a vote taken at a special city 

commission meeting on business other than the subject(s) for which the special meeting is called 

unless the city commission by a majority vote deems such resolution or ordinance to be of an 

emergency nature and such resolution or ordinance has been reviewed by the office of 

management and budget for any fiscal impact." Id. 

7. This rule for special meetings mirrors a rule for regularly scheduled meetings, 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 83-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 1 of 8
whereby, "A copy of each agenda item including each resolution and ordinance and all 

attachments and back-up material shall be furnished to the mayor and members oftbe city 

commission at least five full business days before each regular city commission meeting with the 

exception of veto items ... Nonscheduled (''pocket") items may be introduced for consideration at 

a city commission meeting by the mayor, a commissioner, the city manager, or the city attorney 

provided that the city commission by a majority vote deems such resolution or ordinance to be of 

an emergency nature." City Code,§ 2-33(f). 

8. I reviewed the materials from the City Commission's June L4, 2023 special 

meeting, including the meeting notice, agenda, marked (post-meeting) agenda and the video 

recording. 

9. The meeting agenda (printed June 12, two days prior to the meeting) only 

included a discussion item concerning redistricting and the city commission district boundaries. 

There were no other items - resolutions, ordinances or otherv.,ise - on the agenda. (Agenda, June 

14 Comm'n Special Meeting, printed June 12, 2023.) 

10. The marked agenda (printed June 23, nine days after the meeting) included a 

resolution, R-23-271, which purported to provide for new district bbW1daries, including an 

attached map. (Marked Agenda, June 14 Comm'n Special Meeting, printed June 23, 2023.) 

11. R-23-271 was not included in the meeting agenda noticed in aP.vance of the June 

14 special meeting. 

12. Therefore, R-23-271 was passed in violation of the City Code and is ultra vires. 

13. A discussion item on a topic cannot immediately result in a resolution to be voted 

on at a special meeting, as attempted here, because there was no finalized resolution noticed in 

the agenda in advance of the meeting. 

2 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 83-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 2 of 8
14. A discussion item must come back as an actual resolution at a different meeting, 

noticed in advance of that meeting. 

15. In this case, the Commission etTed by attempting to pass new district boundaries 

as a resolution that was not noticed as part of the special meeting. 

16. The only way the Commission could have passed this resolution without notice 

would be by having a maj01ity of the Commission take a separate, first vote to deem the 

resolution to be ofan emergency nature. City Code§ 2-33(f). 

17. The Commission did not take a vote to deem R-23-271 to be of an emergency 

nature, nor did any City Commissioners or staff describe the Resolution as being of such nature. 

18. Similar municipal and county governments pass their district maps after 

well-noticed redistricting processes conducted in confonnance with state law and local code 

requirements. 

19. One such government is Miami-Dade County. (Miami-Dade Cnty., Legislative 

Hist., Ord. 212844, 

https :/ /www.miarnidade.gov/ govaction/rnatter. asp ?rnatter=212 844&file=false&fileAnalysis=fals 

e&yearFoldeFY2022.) 

20. The Miami-Dade County Commission noticed Ordinance 212844 in advance of 

its November 16, 2021 redistricting meeting, and passed it on first reading during that meeting. 

(Miami-Dade Cnty. Bd. ofCnty. Comm'rs, Nov. 16, 2021 Meeting Agenda, 

https://www.miamidade.gov/govaction/commagenda.asp?cmbmeetdate=4695&file=true&change 

s=true&auditor=true.) 

21. The Com1ty Commission then brought back the resolution, amended it and passed 

it on second reading during their December 1, 202 l redistricting meeting. (Miami-Dade Cnty. 

3 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 83-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 3 of 8
Comm'rs, Dec. 1, 2021 Meeting Agenda, 

https://www.miamidade.gov/govaction/commminute.asp?cmbmeetdate=4696&file=true.) 

22. The City of North Miami also passed its redistricting map after first and second 

readings. (Redistricting No Mi 2022, City of North Miami, 

https://www.no1thmiamitl.~ov/ l 034/Redistricting-NoMi-2022.) 

23. The Nmth Miami City Council meeting on March 8, 2022 included the first 

reading of the ordinance to amend the boundaries of council districts as Tab H. (No1th Miami 

City Council, Mar. 8, 2022 Meeting Agenda, 

https://play.champds.com/no1thmiamifl/agendapdf/323.) 

24. Their March 22, 2022 meeting included the second reading of the same ordinance 

as Tab F. (North Miami City Council, Mar. 22, 2022 Meeting Agenda, 

l1ttps://play.champds.com/1101t hmi amifl/agcndapdf/327.) 

25. The agenda packets for both meetings included the district map ultimately 

adopted, under "Exhibit A." (North Miami City Council, Mar. 8 & Mar. 22, 2022 Meeting 

Agenda Packets, h ttps: //play. cham pds .com/northm i am i fl/ a~endapacketpd f/3 2 7.) 

26. The City of Jacksonville also passed its redistricting map after multiple votes, 

following a preliminary injunction in a racial gerrymandering case similar to the City of 

Miami's. (City of Jacksonville, Legislative Hist., Ord. 2022-0800, 

https://jaxcityc. legistar.com/LegislationOetail.aspx? I O=5896569&G U I O=70F3 7F l 5-FC4 7-4695 

-8F0A-7 I BED 188FE85.) 

27. Jacksonville Ordinance 2022-800 to amend district boundaries was introduced 

during the October 25, 2022 city council meeting. (Jacksonville City Council, Oct. 25, 2022 

Meeting Marked Agenda, 

4 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 83-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 4 of 8
https://j axcityc.1 egistar.com/MeetingDetai l .aspx ?10=98 8063&G UlD=CS 7 65 0E0-0405-4 8B 1-BD 

DA-C648EAB0C2C3&Options=&Search=.) 

28. The ordinance was amended and passed during the November 3, 2022 meeting of 

the Special Committee on Redistricting. (Jacksonville Special Comm. on Redistricting, Nov. 3, 

2022 Meeting Agenda, 

jaxcityc.lcgistarl .com%2Fjaxcityc%2Fmeetings%7 F2022%2F l I %2F2727 A Special Committ 

ee on Redistricting 22- 11-03 Agenda.pdf &embeddcd=true.) 

29. It was passed by the full city council during their November 4, 2022 meeting, 

including a separate vote to take up the ordinance as an emergency. (Jacksonville City Council, 

Nov. 4, 2022 Special Council Meeting Marked Agenda, 

https://docs.google.com/gview?url=https%3A%2F%2Fjaxcityc.granicus.com%2FDocumentVie 

wer.php%3Ffile%3Djaxcityc_bd0542d265258550a0c2474b7cld5lc4.pdfl/o26view%3Dl&embe 

dded=true ). 

30. 1n addition to invalidly passing a new redistricting resolution during a special 

meeting which did not include the voted-on resolution as pa1t of its noticed agenda, the Miami 

City Commission's procedure for R-23-271 violated the City Code in multiple other ways. 

31. These include failing to have the Office of Management and Budget review 

R-23-271 's fiscal impact; failing to publicly post the proposed map online in advance of the 

special meeting; and falsely stating in the notice of the special meeting that the public would not 

be able to address the City Commission. 

32. R-23-271 was required to be assessed for fiscal impact prior to passage. "All 

resolutions and ordinances except land use changes, zoning changes, board and committee 

appointments, and election results shall be reviewed by the office of management and budget for 

5 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 83-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 5 of 8
any fiscal impact prior to placement on any agenda." City Code§ 2-33(e). 

33. The City provided no evidence ofa fiscal impact assessment of their proposed 

redistricting resolution and map. 

34. Redistricting is not included in the listed four exceptions to the fiscal impact 

requirement, which otherwise applies to all resolutions and ordinances. id. 

35. Therefore, the City Commission also violated the City Code in failing to have the 

Office of Management and Budget review their redistricting resolution for fiscal impact prior to 

passing R-23-271. 

36. The City is also required to post "the supplemental agenda and any information 

related to the upcoming agenda simultaneous with its distribution." City Code § 2-33(g)(2). 

3 7. "Any infonnation related to the upcoming agenda" includes the proposed map 

passed as part ofR-23-271. 

38. The City did not post any proposed map online in advance of the special meeting. 

They did not post the map they voted on until June 23, 2023 at the earliest- nine days after the 

vote. Plaintiffs' counsel has represented to me that the resolution and supporting materials were 

not actually posted online until June 30. 

39. Failing to post online the map the City voted on in advance joins failing to include 

the actual redistricting resolution in the agenda for the special meeting as violations of public 

notice as required by the City Code. 

40. In the public notice the City did provide, they failed to notify the public that the 

special meeting would include public comment and the opportunity to address the Commission. 

4 I. In fact, the special meeting agenda printed two days prior to the meeting stated 

that "It is anticipated that no input from anyone other than the City personnel is needed or 

6 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 83-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 6 of 8
expected while the City Commission is considering any matter in this portion of the Agenda; 

accordingly, no member of the public ri1ay address the City Commission during this time:" (June 

14 Comm'n Special Meeting Agenda.) 

42. However, the Commission did in fact take public comment during the JW1e 14 

special meeting. 

43. Ultimately, the failures to notice the redistricting resolution voted on in advance 

of the June 14 special meeting, to-assess the fiscal impact of that redistricting resolution, to post 

online the map passed as part of that redistricting resolution, and to correctly notify the pub1ic of 

the opportunity for public comment on redistricting violate the Florida Sunshine Law 

requirement of "reasonable notice." See Fla. Stat § 286.01 I (l); Hough v. Stembridge, 278 So. 2d 

288,291 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Yarbrough v. Young, 462 So. 2d 515,517 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). 

44. "Reasonable notice" is a fact-specific inquiry, but in each case, an agency must 

give the general public enough notice to attend the meeting. Fla. Att'y Gen. Ops. 00-08, 04-44, 

80-78, and 73-170. This includes enough infonnation for the public to be informed of how 

matters may affect their rights and "afford them the opportunity to appear and present their 

views." Rhea v. City of Gainesville, 574 So. 2d 22 l, 222 (Fla. !st DCA 199 l ). 

45. The failure to notice the redistricting resolution and post online the redistricting 

map in advance of the special meeting deprived'the public of the opportunity to understand how 

the redistricting resolution and map would impact them and thus voice their views on the 

resolution and map during the special meeting. 

46. The failure to have the Office of Management and Budget review the proposed 

resolution for fiscal impact prior to the meeting also contributed to depriving the public of the 

opportunity to fully understand the impacts of the resolution and proposed map. 

7 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 83-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 7 of 8
47. The false statement in the special meeting agenda that public comment would not 

be heard fmther deprived the public of the opportunity to voice their views at the special 

meeting, as it presumably led to some members of the public relying on the false infonnation 

and, as a result, not attending the meeting or not preparing to speak. 

48. Therefore, based on my knowledge of the applicable laws and rules, it is my 

opinion that the City Commission did not follow the proper procedures required by the City 

Code as well as Florida statutes, and that its action in passing R-23-271 was in violation of the 

City Code as well as Florida statutes, and was ultra vires. 

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true 

and correct to the best of my knowledge and recollection. 

Dated: ~{ --------------

Joe Arriola 

8 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 83-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2023 Page 8 of 8