HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem #01(A) - Discussion Item1^~ rr?~-~r=iC~ ~Ll~!~iOR.-1PiDU`~,1
Honorable Mayor and Members
of the City Commission
Jose Garcia-Pedrosa
City Manager
March 30, 1998
-Budget Solutions for
Revised FY 97/98 Budget
As has been previously reported to you, the Oversight Board at its meeting of March
18, 1998, rejected the City's revised FY 1997/98 budget, approved by the City
Commission on March 2, 1998. On March 20th, Oversight Board Chairman Adolfo
Henriques wrote to me the attached letter setting forth the rejection and giving the City
until April 9th to submit a revised budget that addresses the concerns of the Oversight
Board.
At the March 24 meeting of the City Commission, I reported to you the direction in
which the Administration is proceeding in preparing revisions to the FY 97/98 budget,
and a discussion ensued. At that time various members of the Commission expressed
views concerning the elements that might be included in the subject revision. Taking
those views into account, my staff and I have identified 10 sources of revenue,
including eight sources of recurring revenue, as well as additional funding opportunities.
Attached please find a Revenue Matrix which lists the recurring and non-recurring
sources of revenue (identified as Items 1 through 8, and 9 through 10, respectively).
Also attached is a list of Additional Sources of Recurring Revenues, identified with the
letters A through F. The tabs in this packet of documentation identify the location of
back-up material, including where applicable the necessary legislation, for each of the
items for which back-up material is needed or available.
The Commission therefore has a range of choices, not only with respect to the sources
of revenue, but also as to the amount of increases attributable to most items. For
example, the Matrix shows the result of increasing the solid-waste bills by $35, but the
Commission may decide to adopt a higher or lower amount, or no increase at all. The
back-up material in Tab 1 (the tab applicable to the solid-waste bill) includes a schedule
setting forth the different amounts of revenue that would be generated were the solid-
waste bills be increased by different amounts. Likewise, we have included schedules
for a modified fire fee, setting forth different revenues for different amounts of fee. We
have also been able to preserve all of the CDBG 24th Year Fundings, with the single
exception of a $500,000 item, and to fund $3.7 million in previously unfunded liabilities,
by limiting sources of funding to unused prior allocations.
The Administration's own recommendation is as set forth in the Revenue Matrix, which
produces $11,587,500 in additional recurring revenues in this fiscal year, FY 97/98, in
addition to $4,254,000 in non-recurring revenues, for a total of $15,841,500. Please
note that our recommendations include an additional solid-waste collection bill of $35.
We are also recommending a modified fire fee with a base rate of $34, two-thirds of
which would be earmarked for the capital needs of the Fire Department and the
remaining third for other Fire Department needs; the fire fee would be in effect for 5
years and would include an automatic sunset provision; and tax-exempt property
owners would not be assessed the fee but would be asked to make voluntary payments
to defray the cost of providing services to them.
The initiatives listed as Additional Sources of Recurring Revenues (Items A-F) are
worthy of careful consideration, and we propose to bring some of them (e.g.,
Department of Off-Street Parking and increases in property valuations) for the
Commission's consideration as soon as the necessary preparatory work has been
completed.
The Commission has scheduled a Special Commission Meeting tomorrow, March 31st,
at 1 P.M. to consider the budget solutions for FY 1997/98, with a view to having the
Estimating Conference consider them shortly in order to have the Oversight Board
receive the appropriate reports and recommendations in time for its next meeting on
April 15, 1998.
Please let me know if you wish to discuss any of the budget solutions prior to the
Special Commission meeting.
Thank you.
FRAM (FRI?03, 20' 98 19 /ST,19.18/ N0, 3360251-006 F, 2
Lawton Chiles
Governor
O1~~tSI61~IT $O~RD
l50 West Flag[er Street. Suite 1815
Miami, Florida 33130
Phone (305) 347-5633 Fax (305) 371-3160
Ad011b Hrariqucs
Chainrl~n
[ioberr G. Beaty
Cynthit w. awry
Meris Cernila I.eivi
Shddai D. Schneider
March 20, 1998
VIA FACSJMILE
Mr. Jose Garcia-Pedmsa
' City Manager, City of Miami
444 $.V~. 2nd Avenue
•~ •. ~ Miami, Florida 33130
Re: Disapproval of City of Miami's 1997-9 $ Amended Budget
Deaz Mr. C~reia Pedrosa:
Pursuant to the Intergovermnental Cooperation Agreement ("ICA'~, you submitted to the
Oversight Board on March 13, 1998 the City of Miami's budget for the balance of the current
fiscal year ("Amended Budget'. The Amended Budget was signific2uitly different from the
Proposed Budget for Fiscal Yeaz 1997-98 that was approved last year by both the City
Commission and the Oversight Board ("Approved Budget'.
As you know, the ICA specifically requires that "all budgets prepared and approved by the
• City shall be approved by the Qversight Board" and "any budget amendments requiring City
Commission approval shall also be approved by the Qversight Board" The Qversight Board at
its Mazch 18th meeting reviewed the Amended Budget, and the Oversight Board hereby rejects
it.
The Oversigh# Boazd has reviewed thoroughly the Ameztded Budget, and has concluded that it
is not in the Snancial best interest of the City and it does z~ot promote the City's recovery from
the state of financial emergency. 'This letter is written notice of the Oversight Boazd's
disapproval of the Amended Budget, and is notification of the reasons for such disapproval.
Each reason for the disapproval of the Amended Budget and necessary remedial measure is
specifically discussed below.
Issue: The refected Azz~ended Budget provided only a "razor thin"
margin for structural balance in comparison to the Approved Budget,
~.. nlOw46508.1
C/20/98 6:58p
FFsOM
(FRI) 03, 20' 98 19 /ST, 19:18/ N0, 3360261-006 P, 3
Mr. Jose Garcia-Pedrosa
Mazch 20, 1998
page 2
which was 104%. Broadening this margin of balance is particulazly
important as certain items in the Amended Budget cause concern as to
whether or not they are truly recurring revenues and recurring reduction
in expenses. The Estimating Conference was similarly unsure and
debated some "recurring" versus "non-recurring" designations. SpeciSe
examples include: (a) $900,000 concession on the labor union contract
(identified as a recurring reduction in expense when the contract ends in
September 1998); and (b) approximately $2 million expense for
information systems (identified as anon-recurring expense when such
paymeztts can certainly be anticipated each year ).
Remedy: The City should make revisions which bring the margin of
structural balance back to levels comparable to the Approved Budget
and the Five Year Plan which was approved on January 14,1998
("Approved Five Year Plan'. It is the scntixnent of the Oversight Board
that additional recurring revenues are necessary to meet these objectives.
2. Issue: The rejected Amended Budget did not reflect cornpazable levels
of reserves as detailed in the Approved Five Year Plan.
Remedy: The Amended Budget should reflect comparable levels of
reserves as were contained in the Approved Five Year Plan. In addition,
a budgeted reserve should be included to reflect the cumulative balance
of the working capital reserve.
3. Issue: The rejected Amended Budget does not address the human
resource elements and middle management concerns of the Blue Ribbon
Task Force.
Remedy: The Amended Budget should reflect sufficient personxxel costs
to implement and improve middle managemaient as recommended by the
Blue Ribbon Task Force.
ntow~o~. i
4. Issue: The rejected Amended Budget does not incorporate potential
costs for CDBG, non-general fund capital improvement programs and
other grant programs.
3/20/98 6:58p
FROM
(FRI } 03, 20' 98 19 ~ !sT, 19.18 Na, 3360251-006 P, 4
Mr. Jose Garcia-Pedmsa
March 20,1998
Page 3
Remedy: The City should submit a corrective action plan and schedule
which provides immediately for incorporating these obligations into the
monthly reporting process. As well, these costs must be reconciled and
incorporated into the Approved Five Year Plan.
We trust that the City Commission will meet diligently and as often as necessary so that it may
revise and specifically rodress the City's Amendod Budget for the reasons set forth in thus
letter. Such revisions to the budget, as reveiwed by the Estimating Conference and as
approved by the City Comnu~ission, should be submitted to the Oversight Board for approval by
no later than Tl~,ursday, Apri19, 1998. Jf the Oversight Board does not approve the revised
budget, it will, at that time, consider and implement alternative remedies.
Very truly yours,
_--.
Ado o Henri e
Chairperson, exsight Board
c: Governor Lawton Chiles
K~owaesos.~
1 3/20/98 6:58p
REVENUE MATRIX
RECURRING REVENUE CURRENT FEE FY98 ANNUALIZED
1. Residential Solid Waste Fee Increase of $35/UNIT
2. Modified Fire Fee ~vs ror fire capital needs; limited to s yrs. witn
sunset provision; excludes tax exempts) $160/UNIT
$34/SF-$41/MF $2,187,500
$6,567,000 $2,187,500
$6,567,000
3. Supplemental Waste Fee on Commercial CU's NONE $2,200,000 $2,451,951
4. Construction Debris Removal Fee NONE $500,000 $1,400,000
5. Commercial Solid Waste Haulers Permit Fee Increase
(from 15 to 20%)
NONE
$466,000
$932,000
6. 40-Year & 50-Year Building Re-Certification Fee
Increase (See Tab #4)
$42,175
$60,000
7. EMS Billings for ALS instead of BLS $150,000 $300,000
8. Increase in Building & Zoning Fees (See Tab #4) $100,000 $200,000
TOTAL RECURRING REVENUE I
$12,212,675 ~
$14,098,451
NON-RECURRING'REVENUES
9. CDBG Reallocation (net of $3.7 million in unfunded
liabilities)
$2,778,908 $0
10. St. Hugh Oaks contribution to the General Fund $1,466,175 $0
TOTAL NON-RECURRING REVENUE $4,245,083 $0
i
TOTAL NEW REVENUES: $16,457,758 $14,098,451
ADDITIONAL SOURCES OF REVENUE
A. Department of Off-Street Parking (reflected in FYZOoo or s
Year Plan) $3,000,000
B. State Legislature Funding _ I
-- - $1,050,000 _ ~ Not Determined
-- -
C. 3 & 4 Unit Apartment Building Solid Waste Service ~ ii $1,365,000
D. Franchise Fee for Commercial Waste Haulers Not Determined
E. Revised Property Valuations 4 Not Determined
$1.1 Million in 5 Yr. Plan;
Additional Savings Not
F. Privitization of Solid Waste i ~, Determined
OR~4F~
ASSCtS , nn.~
Current assets: ! 77 /
Cash and cash equivalents (note 3)
Investments and accrued interest receivable (note 3) $ 711, l 81
Accounts receivable (note 4) 1,321,323
Prepaid expenses and other current assets 56,224
216 570
Total current assets
2.305.298
Restricted assets:
Cash and cash equivalents (notes 3 and 7)
Investments and accrued interest (notes 3 and 7) 822.501
Deferred compensation (notes 3 and 12) 9,355,812
-- -5-=041
Total restricted assets 0 437 4
Property, plant and equipment, net (note 6)
21.8- 39548
Other assets:
Other receivables (note 4)
Rental advances vn leased lots (note S) 1,034,658
Unamorcized bond issuance and lease acquisition costs 298,870
Land held for resale 145,068
973 048
Total other assets
2.451. f>44
Total assets S 37,033.8-i-1
_----
See accompanying notes to financial statements.
-STREET' PARKING
L~MI. FLOR.iDA
tiheets
,1 and 1996
'6~~ ,•
~~. ~~.
.~~._~,~
Liabilities a_nd Retained ~rninoc ~2 19~
Current liabilities:
Accounts payable and accrued liabilities
Deposits $ 1,818,1 18 2,010,348
Due to other governments 49,551 49,968
Deferred revenue 1,023,116 548,979
_ 340.840 4 7
Total current liabilities
Current liabilities payable from restricted assets: 3.231.625 3.07g,p56
Current portion of bonds payable (note 7)
Interest payable - 935,000
Deferred compensation plan (note 12) - 465,728
259.041 1 4 4
Total current liabilities payable from restricted assets 2
Long-term liabilities: 59 041 1.5-x?
Loans and bonds payable, net of current portion (note 7)
Less unamortized bond discount 15,070,000 16,045,000
(157.5961 (1g0.9g1~
Deferred revenue, net of current portion 14,912,404
- 15,864,019
16
000
Total long-term liabilities .
14.912.404 15.880.019
Totalliabiiities 18.403,p7p 20.545.227
Commitments and contingencies (notes 6 and 11)
Fund equity:
Contributed capital
Retained earnings: - 1,000,000
Reserved for revenue bond retirement
Reserved for replacement and renewal 2,248.313 2,153,698
Unreserved 6,930,000 6,500,000
8.452.461 0 ~
Total retained earnings 18.630.774 ~ ~
15...6-i.3..3
Total fund equity
7 4
15.26=1.323
Total liabilities and fund equity $ 37,0__ 3_3 844 35.809.50
Opq~p
~`=•.
DEPARTMENT OF OFF-STREET PARKIIVG ~ ~ '~
OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA ~~~
Statements of Revenue, Expenses and
Changes in Retained Earnings
For the years ended September 30, 1997 and 1996
• !~• 1.22 296
1
Operating revenue: " ~ ..
~~
Parking lots ~
On-street facilities
$ 5,221,385
5,044,418
Off-street facilities 2,570,680 2,528,635
Management and administrative fees (note 10) 2,491,335 2,492,326
Other 125,586
92.990 138,022
69
644
10.501.976 .
7 4
Operating expenses:
Salaries, wages and fringe benefits (note 9)
Repairs and maintenance 3,820,188 3,614,052
Security 571,628 593,298
Utilities 459,580 461,973
Insurance 309,742 309,294
Property rentals and assessments (notes 5 and 6) 413,751
918
423 435,176
Legal and professional
P
ri
n
ng and supplies ,
465,965 890,043
437,296
Ot
h
eC 128,743 129,883
- 2_ - 2-_
7.343.304 7.087.871
Operating income before depreciation and
amortization 3,158,671 3,185,174
Depreciation and amortization
Amortization of rental advances (note 5) (863,886) (799,364)
(17 075) (27 ~2)
Operating income '''
~ 2.277.71 I 2,358.168
Nonoperating revenue (expenses):
•'
Interest income: ' 'qF~
Current investments
Restricted investments 816,942 710,229
Interest expense
Gain on disposals of fixed assets 175,315
(937,682) 173,766
(984,946)
34.165 43.985
Total nonoperating revenue (expenses),
net $8 740 (56.966)
Net income 2,366,451 2,301,202
Retained earnings, beginning of year ~ 4 ~ ! 2.963.121
Retained earnings, end of year $ 17.630.774 15.264.323
See accompanying notes to financial statements
-19-
DEPARTMErIT OF OFF-STREET PARKING
OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
Notes to Financial Statements
~~",
The following summarizes the debt service to maturity of outstanding debt as o
September 30, 1997 (in thousands):
Series Series
1993A 1992A e e t ~ta~
1998 $ 740 275 846 1
861
1999 775 290 796 ,
1
861
2000
2001 810 310 743 ,
1,863
2002 855
895 330
350 682
618 1,867
1
513
Thereafter 7.800 1.640 2.153 ,
11.943
Total $ 11,875 3,195 5,838 20,908
Range of rates 4.0%-5.7% 5.5%-6.7%
During fiscal 1993, the City issued the City of Miami, Florida Parking System Revenue
Refunding Bonds, Series 1993A ("Series 1993A bonds"). The Series 1993A bonds are being
used (i) to refund the City's outstanding Parking System Revenue Bonds, Series 1986; (ii) to
fund, with other moneys available, the Reserve Account; and (iii) to pay the costs of issuance
of the Series 1993A bonds. The Series 1993A bonds are limited authorizations by the City,
secured by a pledge of, and payable solely from, net revenue, as defined by the ordinance, the
right of the City to issue net revenue and the money and investment obligations in the funds
and accounts established under the ordinance and the income derived from such investment
obligations and the investment of such money, and will be secured on a priority with the
City's outstanding Parking System Revenue Bonds, Series 1992A ("Series 1992A").
The Series 1993A bonds or portion thereof maturing in fiscal 1998 and 1999, inclusive, are
not redeemable prior to their stated dates of maturity.
The 1993A bonds maturing on October 1, 2003 are subject to mandatory redemption prior to
maturity, by operation of a sinking-fund account, by lot, in such manner as the City may
deem appropriate, at a redemption price equal to par plus interest accrued to the redemption
date, on October 1, 2000 and on each October 1 thereafter, in the following principal
amounts in the years specified:
Principal
nt
2000
2001
200?
?003
$ 810,000
855,000
895.000
945,000
- 30 - (Continued)
DEPARTMENT OF OFF-STREET PARKING ~
OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA '
Notes to Financial Statements
The 1993A bonds maturing on October 1, 2009 will be subject to mandatory redemptic
prior to maturity, by operation of a sinking-fund account, by lot, in such manner as the Ci
may deem appropriate, at a redemption price equal to par plus interest accrued to tl
redemption date, on October 1, 2004 and on each October 1 thereafter, in the followir
principal amounts in the years specified:
Year Principal
~a4
2004 $ 990,000
2005 1,045,000
2006 1,110,000
2007 1,170,000
2008 1,235,000
2009 1,305,000
During fiscal 1992, the City issued the City of Miami, Florida Parking Systems Revenu
Bonds, Series 1992A ("Series 1992A bonds"). The Series 1992A bonds were issued tc
refinance the City's outstanding Subordinated Parking Systems Revenue Bonds, Series 199
("Series 1990 bonds") and the City's obligation under a participation agreement with the Frs
Municipal Loan Council Pooled Loan Program sponsored by the Florida League of Citie.
("FLOC"). The Series 1992A bonds and the interest thereon will be payable solely from anc
secured by a pledge of and lien on the net income, derived by the Ciry from the operations o:
the parking system.
The Series 1992A bonds or portions thereof maturing in fiscal years 1997 to 2002, inclusive
are not redeemable prior to their stated dates of maturity. The Series 1992A bonds maturin€
on and after October 1, 2002, are redeemable prior to their stated dates of maturity, at the
option of the City, beginning October 1, 2001, in whole on any date, or in part in such
manner as shall be determined by the City, on any interest-payment date, at the following
redemption prices, expressed as a percentage of the principal amount of the Series 1992A
bonds to be redeemed, plus accrued interest on the principal amount to the exemption date:
Redemption period Redemption
(both dates inclusive) ~ce
October 1, 2001 to September 30, 2002 102
October 1, 2002 to September 30, 2003 101
October I , 2003 and thereafter 100
The Series 1992A term bonds maturing on October 1, 2003, are subject to mandatory
redemption prior to maturity, by operation of a sinking-fund account, at a redemption price
equal to par plus interest accrued to the redemption date, on October 1, 2002 and on each
October 1 thereafter, in the following principal amounts in the years specified:
Principal
unt
'?00? ~ 350,000
003 370,000
3 I - (Continued)
DEPARTMENT OF OFF-STREET PARKING
OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
Notes to Financial Statements
<"'.1`
~~.
i, ~.
The Series 1992A term bonds maturing on October 1, 2006 will be subject to mandator,
redemption prior to maturity, by operation of a sinking-fund account at a redemption price
equal to par plus interest accrued to the redemption date, on October 1, 2004 and on eacr
October 1 thereafter, in the following principal amounts in the years specified:
Principal
YS~ amount
2004 $ 395,000
2005 425,000
2006 450,000
Under the terms of the Series 1992A Bond Ordinance, the City and the Department are
required, among other things, to establish rates and collect fees and charges which will be
sufficient at all times to (a) pay the costs of maintaining and operating related assets, (b) create
and maintain specified reserves for such purposes and (c) maintain adebt-service coverage of
at least 1.25 percent.
The amounts on deposit in the various restricted-asset accounts plus accrued interest as of
September 30, 1997 and 1996 are as follows:
1Q2Z 1QQ¢
(8)
Interest account
Principal account
Reserve account
Renewal and replacement
Total
$ 250,235 642,866
332,501 984,320
1,665,561 1,927,239
7.930.000 6.500,000
$ 10,178,297 10,054,425
No Department assets are pledged to collateralize any of the outstanding debt. Under the
terms of the Bond Ordinance, the Parking System Revenue Series 1993A bonds and
Series 1992A bonds outstanding at September 30, 1997 do not constitute an obligation of the
City or a pledge of the faith and credit of the City.
Dejeased Debt
The Department has defeased in substance certain outstanding revenue bonds by placing pro-
ceeds of the Series C, 1972 bonds in irrevocable trusts with an escrow agent, investing in
U.S. government securities, to provide for all future debt-service payments on the previously
outstanding bonds.
Accordingly, the trust accounts and the defeased bonds are not included in the Department's
financial statements. At September 30, 1997, the following outstanding bond is considered
defeased:
Parking facilities revenue bonds:
Series C, 1972 S 2,205.000
-32-
(Continued)
DEPARTMENT OFOFF-STREET PARKII~lG
OF THE CITY OF MIAMI. FLORIDA
SCHEDULE OF PARKING SYSTEM
REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 1993A
DEBT SERVICE REQ(TIREMENTS
Serial Bond Term Bond
Principal Principal Interest
Oct_ Requirements Requirements Requirements
1997 $ - $ - $ 669,346
1998 740,000 - 639,316
1999 775,000 - 606,016
2000 - 810,000 570,366
2001 - 855,000 528,853
2002 - 895,000 485,035
2003 - 945,000 439,166
2004 - 990,000 390,735
2005 - 1,045,000 334,305
2006 - 1,110,000 274,740
2007 - 1,170,000 211,470
2008 - 1,235,000 144,780
2009 - 1.305.000 74.387
Total $ 1,515,000 $ 10,360,000 $ 5,368,515
Vf
~ ~
~.
,\
r( ,' '~
`'I e
.; ,
.. .
~~
Total
e ui e e
$ 669,34
1,379,31 c
1,381,O1r
1,380,36E
1,383,85=
1,380,035
1,384,166
1,380,735
1,379,305
1,384,740
1,381,470
1,379,780
1.379.387
$ 17.243,515
-~10-
` C pp
i ~ `~SnI~g000Q~N0 ~
~ '~ ~ ~f -~ n et ~O v'1 O ~D - ~D
NOOOOOONOOMOONO~00000 h
N~l~~tt'et~Q~~ V1
' ~ ~ i9 i9
S n ~
O
~
'
~'
~ ~O V1
~
~0
O~OONMNQ~v~oo
~
~ ~O
O~
6 NNO
f
hM000h V~
M
~
Q Q EW„ ~ ~ tr4
~ ~~
~~~~_
a
W
~~a
°°~ ~~ ~m ~~~~
z
o~Q
p; ~ ~ i i i i O0 °
~ a
u o N o
~
F.,(^WWy/
~V~=~ ~E..,
~ MMMet c~
~
~
~F=~~
~.
0 .
H~
~ Em
QQQQQQc~c~
~5C5~SZ5
_
~ ~.~ ,
i i i i i
~nooo
~.~,
u
a
~
~
~~
" ~' o
~ 1
~ / L
~~ XO Q~ Q~ Q~ ~ ~ V
v N N f~! N C I N N
CiG1KTh:l1
Sec. 'l~-C. Board of trustees oC Jackson Me-
mocial Hospital.
Editor's notes-.Jackson ~temonul Hospital wog trans-
ferred to Dade County by a contract dated .lone 14, 1948.
Section 22-C, added to the charter by Laws of Fla., ch.
l4'l34(19291, 3 7, is therefore not get out herein. The transfer
of .lackson Memorial Hospital to Dade County was upheld in
Cleary v. Dade County, L60 Fla. 892, 3? So. 2d 248.
Sec. 23. Department of offf street parking;
oPf-street parking board.
Within thirty days atter the commission
City of Miami shall have adopted an ordi
dE~clsuing the need for the department and f
board, it shall appoint the members of the f
two of whom shall hold office for a term c
years, two of whom shall hold office for a to
three years, and one of whom shall hold off
a term of four years, and thereafter each me
shall be appointed for a term of five year
herein provided.
(a) There is hereby created and established as
an agency and instrumentality of the City of
Miami, a new department to be named and known
as the "Department of Ofd Street Parking of the
City of Miami" (hereinafter sometimes called the
"department ofoff-street pazking" or the "depart-
ment"), and by that name it may sue and be sued,
plead and be impleaded, contract and be con-
tracted with and have an official seal; provided,
however, that the department shall not commence
business or exercise any of the powers granted by
this act unless and until the commission of the
City of Miami shall by ordinance declare the need
for the depaztment and for the off-street pazking
board of the City of Miami hereinafter created.
The department, which shall operate and func-
tion under the supervisory control of the board
created and established in subsection (b) hereof,
shall consist of a chief executive officer to be
known as the "director of the department of
off-street parking" (hereinafter sometimes called
the "director of the department" or the "director")
and such other officers and employees as shall be
necessary to exercise the powers and perform the
duties and functions of the department.
(b) There is hereby created and established a
board to be known as the "Off-Street Parking
Board of the City of Miami" (hereinafter some-
times called the "off-street parking board" or the
"board") which shall consist of five members.
Each member of the board shall either reside or
have his principal place of business in the city and
shall be an individual of outstanding reputation
for integrity, responsibility and business ability,
but no officer or employee of the city shall serve as
a member of the board while employed as such
utPcer or employer, of the city.
At least ten days prior to the date of expir
of the term of any member of the board, or w
ten days after the death, resignation or remo~
any such member, his successor shall be n~
and appointed by the remaining members o
board, subject to confirmation by the commi.
of the city. In the event that any appointmer
made shall not be confirmed by the commi:
within ten days after notice of such appointr.
has been served upon the commission, the apps
merit shall be null and void, and thereupon
remaining members of the board shall mab
new appointment, or appointments, which s
likewise be subject to confirmation by the c
mission and each member of the board shat
eligible for reappointment. The successor in e
case shall be appointed and shall hold office fi
term of five years from the date of expiration
the term of his predecessor, except that
person appointed to fill a vacancy shall serve c
for the unexpired term.
Upon the effective date of his appointment
as soon thereafter as practicable, each membe
the board shall enter upon his duties, but be:
doing so he shall take the oath prescribed
section 41(e) of the city charter and shall exec
a bond in the penal sum of ten thousand doll
(~ 10,000.00) payable to the department and c
ditioned upon the faithful performance of
duties of his office, which bond shall be appro~
by the commission of the city and filed with
city clerk, the cost of the premium on any sc
bond to be treated as part of the cost of opera[:
the department.
"Che memb.,rs of Che hc~:ird yh;ilf each be pair
;;cl:rry uf~fifty doll;iri ~:SSI) OO) her ;tnnurn, ur s~
CE(T:''t
3.i
~'t1:~KTER ~.vD Rt:IJ~"i'F;() I.:~wti
I;crR,•r Burn Rs the commisswn of the city may
c•~t:it)liyh by ordinance, payable in monthly install-
mc~nty.
Any member of the board may be removed by
the commission of the city for good cause and
:after proper hearing by the commission, but if so
removed, may apply to the Circuit Court of the
Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Dade County,
Florida, for a review of the action of the commis-
sion.
(c) The board shall have the powers, duties and
responsibilities customarily invested in the board
of directors of a private corporation, and shall
exercise supervisory control over the operation of
the off-street parking facilities of the city, and all
acts of the department and of the director with
respect to such facilities shall be subject to the
approval of the boazd. The board shall elect one of
its members to serve as chairman of the board,
shall make appropriate rules and regulations for
its own government and procedure, and shall hold
a regular meeting at least once a month and such
special meetings as it may deem necessary, and
all such meetings shall be open to the public.
(d) From and after the date of appointment of
the first member of the board, the department
shall operate, manage and control the off-street
parking facilities of the city and all properties
pertaining thereto now owned or hereafter ac-
quired or constructed by the city or by the depart-
ment and shall succeed to and exercise all powers
vested in and succeed to and perform all functions
and duties imposed upon the department of off-
street parking of the city by and under the provi-
sions of this act.
Upon the adoption by the commission of the city
of an ordinance declaring the need for the depazt-
ment and the board, all powers, functions and
duties relating to such off-street parking facilities
and properties pertaining thereto then vested in
the city or any of its departments or officers,
including but not limited to the exercise of the
power of eminent domain, shall be and are hereby
transferred to the department, and all books,
r~rcorcly and papers now existing or hereafter
accluired in the operation and maintenance of
-+:u,l facilities or relating thereto shall be the
~,rr,l,~•rty of and under the jurisdiction and control
of the department; provided, however, that noth-
ing contained in this section shall be deemed to
vest in the department the power to establish and
fix rates and charges for off-street parking service
furnished by the off-street parking facilities of the
city or the power to issue revenue bonds. The
department shall have full power and authority to
acquire, own, use, hire, lease, operate and dispose
of real property and personal property and of any
interest therein, including the power to acquire
by eminent domain proceedings lands or any
interest therein and rights-of--way and easements
upon, in, along or across any public street, road or
highway for the purpose of constructing, main-
taining oroperating off-street parking facilities as
shall be necessary in the judgment of the off-
street pazking board, and to make and enter into
all contracts necessary or incidental to the exer-
cise of its powers and the performance of its
duties and functions with respect to the opera-
tion, management and control of said facilities,
and to promulgate and enforce appropriate rules
and regulations. governing the utilization of the
services of the off-street pazking facilities of the
city.
(e) The director shall be appointed by and shall
hold office at the will of the boazd. He shall be a
person of good moral character and have an
excellent reputation for integrity, responsibility
and business ability, but no member of the board
shall be eligible for appointment as director. The
director shall receive such salary, payable to him
in equal semi-monthly installments, as shall be
fixed by the boazd but such salary shall not be less
than ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) per an-
num. Before entering upon his duties, the director
shall take the oath and execute the bond pre-
scribed hereinbefore for each member of the board.
The director shall act as the chief executive officer
of the department, shall devote his entire time
and attention to the duties of his office and shall
not engage actively in any other business or
profession. Subject to the direction and approval
of the board, the director shall have general
supervision over and be responsible For the oper-
ation and maintenance of Che off-street parking
facilities of the city and Shall exercise the powers
vested in and perform the functions and duties
imposed upon him ;)y hr_rtrin proviclF~d. The direc-
C HT: 2'l
CFI:\lt"I'F:it
for sh:-II ;-ttcnd all meetings of the board, shall
furnish to thc~ board and the commission of the
city ~ monthly report with respect to the opera-
tion, maintenance and financial condition of the
department of off-street parking, and shalt from
time to time have prepared and shall furnish such
reports, audits and other information relating to
said facilities as may be required by the board.
[n the event that the director shall for any
reason be temporarily incapable of exercising the
powers and of performing the duties and func-
tions of his office, the board may appoint an
acting director to exercise such powers and to
perform such functions and duties until such
incapacity of the director shall be terminated.
(f) Subject to the approval of the board, the
director shall employ such additional executive
and operating assistance, including engineering
and other experts and professional assistance, as
shall be necessary to provide for the efficient
operation of the department. Included in the
personnel to be employed, there shall be the
following subordinate of}icers whose positions shall
be in the unclassified service of the city.
(1) A treasurer, who shall perform the func-
tions and duties customarily performed by
the treasurer of a private corporation. The
treasurer shall be responsible for all funds
of the department, for all accounts and
accounting records relating to the depart-
ment and its operation, and for the prepa-
ration of all checks and vouchers requisite
to the operation of the department.
(2) A secretary, who shall perform the func-
tions and duties customarily performed by
the secretary of a private corporation. The
secretary shall have charge and custody of
the official seal and of all books, records,
documents and papers of the department
other than those required to be in the
custody of the treasurer. He1She shall at-
tend in person all meetings of the board,
and shall keep a correct record of all the
proceedings of the board, and shall perform
such other duties as may be assigned to
him/her as secretary by the board.
(g~ The city attorney shall act as general con-
sel for the department and fur the board in all
matters of l:-w which rn;-y ariscr, and shat
cute ur defi~nd all suits brought by or age;
city or the department ur the board whirl
to the ofT-street parking facilities of tt
Special counsel as shall be deemed neces:
the city attorney may be employed by the c
subject to the approval of the board, city a
and city commission. Such special counsE
serve under the direct supervision and cor
the city attorney.
(h) All budgets, funds and accounts pert
to the off-street parking facilities of the cit
be segregated from all other budgets, funs
accounts of the city and shall be so kept the
shall reflect the financial condition and the
ation of each off-street parking facility of tl•
separately. Not later than one month befo.
end of each fiscal year the director, wit
approval of the board, shall prepare and sub
the commission of the city a budget estim
expenditures and revenues for the ensuing
year in the same form and like manner
other departments of the city for approval t
commission with the exception, however,
such budget estimate will be submitted direr
the commission of the city for its approval.
(i) All expenses incurred by the depart:
and by the board in exercising their power
performing their functions and duties she
paid solely from the revenues of the off-s
parking facilities of the city and no liabili~
obligation not payable from the revenues of
facilities shall at any time be incurred in cor
lion with the operation thereof.
(j) Should there occur in any fiscal yea
excess of revenue over expenditures require
operation, maintenance, required reserves
debt service, then such excess revenues s
subject to the provisions of any ordinance or
commission of the city authorizing the issuan
parking facilities revenue bonds of the city, ar
the provisions of any trust indenture or t
agreement securing such bonds, be paid into
general funds of the city.
(k) All powers and rights conferred by
section shall be in addition and supplement..
those conferred by any other ~c~ner;-I ur spy
Ltw and ah;-II b~ lih~rr;-lly cunytrurd to efFect~
C HT:'?: t
3 '~:[
CtU1RTER MID RE[.ATF:U [J~wS
the purposes hereof; and the department and the
bo:-rd shall have power, in addition to exercising
the powers expressly conferred in and by this
section, to do all things necessary or convenient to
carry out the purposes hereof.
(Laws of Fla., ch. 30997(1955); Res. No. 88-535,
6-9-88/9-6-88)
Sec. 24. Department of public safety.
The head of the department of public safety
shall be known as the director of public safety.
Subject to the supervision and control of the
city manager in all matters, he shall be the
executive head of the division of police, and fire.
He shall be the chief administrative authority in
all matters pertaining to the erection, mainte-
nance, repair, removal, razing, occupancy and
inspection of buildings under such regulations as
may be ordained by the commission.
(a) Division of police. The police force shall be
composed of a chief and such officers, pa-
trolmen and other employees as the aty
manager may determine. The chief of po-
lice shall have the immediate direction and
control of the police force, subject to the
supervision of the director of public safety,
and to such rules, regulations and orders
as the said director may prescribe, and
through the chief of police, the director of
public safety shall promulgate all orders,
rules and regulations for the government of
the police force. He shall devote his entire
time to the discharge of his official duties
and shall not be absent from the city except
in the performance of his official duties,
unless granted a written leave of absence
by the city manager. His office shall be kept
open at all hours, day or night, and either
he or a subordinate shall be in constant
attendance. In case of the disability of the
chief of police by reason of sickness, ab-
sence from the city or other cause, the
director of public safety shall designate one
of the captains or lieutenants of police to
act as chief of police during such disability,
and the officer so designated shall serve
without additional compensation. The mem-
bers of thr, police force, other than the chief,
shall be selr~cted from the list of eligibles
prep,-red by the civil service board, and in
.-ccord~-nce with such rules a3 the said
board may prescribe; provided, that in case
of riot or emergency, the director of public
safety may appoint additional patrolmen
and officers for temporary service, who
need not be in the classified service. Each
member of the police force, both rank and
File, shall have issued to him a warrant of
appointment signed by the city manager, in
which the date of his appointment shall be
stated, and such shall be his commission.
Each member of the said force shall, before
entering upon his duties, subscribe to an
oath that he will faithfully, without fear or
favor, perform the duties of his office, and
such oath shall be filed and preserved with
the records of said department.
No person, ezcept as otherwise provided by
general law or this charter, shall act as
special police or special detective ezcept
upon written authority from the director of
public safety. Such authority, when con-
ferred, shall be exercised only under the
direction and control of the chief of police
and for a time specified in the appoint-
ment.
The members of the police force of said city
shall be invested with all the power and
authority necessary for enforcing the ordi-
nances of said city.
The chief of police or any policeman of the
City of Miami, may arrest without war-
rant, any person violating any of the ordi-
nances of the city committed in the pres-
ence of such of'Fcer, and when knowledge of
the violation of any ordinance of said city
shall come to the said chief of police or
policeman, not committed in his presence,
he shall make affidavit before the judge or
clerk of municipal court against the person
charged with such violation, whereupon,
said judge or clerk shall issue a warrant for
the arrest of such person.
(b) Dcuiscon n% ~c~e. The fire force shall be
composed of a chief and such other officers,
fireman and employees ~-y the city m;-nager
m:iy dett~rrnin«~ 'The fire chi«~f shall have
C HT:24
,• ~ ~ 'ter `,I'A~1,li "q,V,~
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
'~ Honorable Mayor and Members
of the City Commission
-,,~,,, Q inn /J es , I I I
City At ney
'- June 9, 1992 A-~~
~.~.:.• Issues Concerning Depar
of Off-Street Parking
=_a=_~~c=_s
etic~cs~Q=_s
At the direction of the City Commission, this office ha
prepared items ~k16 and ~k17 which appear on the Agenda for th
meeting of June 11, 1992 concerning Charter Amendments relativ~
to the Department of Off-Street Parking {hereinafter referred t:
as "DOSP").
I have examined the following issues which are germane t:
any action that you may take regarding the proposed Charter
Amendments:
I. WHETHER THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI MAY BE AMENDED IN ORDER TO
PROVIDE FOR A MEMBER OF THE CITY
COMMISSION TO BE APPOINTED BY THE
COMMISSION TO ACT AS AN EX OFFICIO
MEMBER AND CHAIRPERSON OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF OFF-STREET PARKING BOARD?
IZ. WHETHER DOSP MAY BE ABOLISHED AS IT
EXISTS IN ITS PRESENT FORM AND
RECONSTITUTED AS A CITY DEPARTMENT
UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE CITY
COMMISSION?
QUESTION I: The answer to this question is in the negative.
On August 23, 1990 the City Commission adopted Resolution.
90-711 which authorized the placement of language on the
November 6, 1990 ballot essentially asking the voters to approve
the question noted above. As a result of an action for a
preliminary injunction brought by DOSP bondholders in Circuit
Court on November 2, 1990, the court ruled that such an
appointment would violate the constitutional prohibition on dual
office holding. The court also found the ballot language to be
ambiguous and unclear.
We have reviewed the transcript of the court's comments
during the final hearing on the injunction referred to above in
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Commission
Re: Issues Concerning Department of Off-Street Parking
File No. A-9200405
June 9, 1992
Page 2
order to determine the court's specific reasoning for grantinc
the injunction. The following is a brief summary of our review
of said comments .
1. Clear and Unambiguous Terms
This issue is straight forward and non-controversial.
Simple redrafting of the ballot language which clarifies the
points addressed by the court during the final hearing would
serve to cure any possible objections to the ballot language on
ambiguity grounds.
2. Dual Office Holding
The constitutionality of the effort by the City
Commission to place a commissioner in the chairmanship of DOSP
hinged, according to the court and to AGO-86-106 (attached), upon
the fact that, in order to meet the definition of an ex officio
member of a board, {which is the only way to avoid running afoul
of the constitutional prohibition against dual officeholding) a
person must become ex officio "by virtue of his title to a
certain office and without further warrant or appointment. This
language has been interpreted to mean that the particular
position to which an individual is elected carries, as an
additional inherent power or authority, the right or duty of
acting as an officer of another compatible board. Therefore, in
order to address the court's main concerns on this issue and to
conform to the requirements of AGO-86-106, the new proposed
charter amendment would have to designate a particular
commissioner (possibly by Group) to serve as the chairperson of
DOSP for a predetermined period of time. Given the fact that a
rotation system has been adopted by the Commission, such
designation could be rotated from Commission Group to Commission
Group. Adopting such a designatory system could relieve the
court's concern about this aspect of the dual office holding
question.
However, another issue raised by the court and a key
component of the "ex officio" exception to the dual office
holding prohibition is that of the incompatibility of the office
of Commissioner and of DOSP chairperson. The Court took note of
the fact at the hearing that there are instances in which the
interests of a City Commissioner may be at odds with those of a
DOSP Chairperson. This incompatibility issue has not been
resolved and would again result in a violation of the dual office
holding prohibition if the amendment were to be proffered again.
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Commission
Re: Issues Concerning Department of OEf-Street Parking
File No. A-9200405
June 9, 1992
Page 3
QUESTION II: The answer to this question is in the affirmativ
with the qualifications as discussed below.
The abolition of the DOSP Board/Department structure a
provided for in the City of Miami Charter would necessitate
referendum.
The Department of Off-Street Parking and the Off-Stree"
Parking Board were created and established as an "agency anc
instrumentality" of the City in 1955 by virtue of Chapter 3099"
of the Laws of Florida. Section 23(d) of the Charter state:
that, "Upon the adoption by the Commission of the City of ar
ordinance declaring the need for the department and the board;
all powers, functions and duties relating to such off-stree*
parking facilities and properties pertaining thereto then vestec
in the City or any of its department or officers shall bE
and are hereby transferred to the department." ~ Thus, the
exercise of the powers and commencement of business of the
department and the board are clearly contingent upon the
enactment of an ordinance declaring a need for the department anc
for the board.
It is our opinion that the City Commission cannot abolish
the Department of Off-Street Parking or the Department of Off-
Street Parking Board as the Charter can only be repealed or
modified through a referundum of the electorate. However, what
the Commission has created by ordinance it can subsequently
modify or repeal. In the event the City Commission decides that
a semi-autonomous authority is no longer warranted, the
Commission could adopt an ordinance finding that the need
expressed in Ordinance No. 5461 for a Department of Off-Street
Parking and the Off-Street Parking Board no longer exists. At
the same time, it can divest the department and the board of the
powers, duties and responsibilities set forth in said ordinance.
It can also redesignate the parking facilities presently within
the control of DOSP to another department or agency, under the
supervision of the City Manager, and amend or repeal all other
ordinances delegating authority to DOSP. However, if DOSP were
to be placed under the direct auspices of the City Commission, it
would be necessary to amend all pertinent sections of the Charter
and Code which would be inconsistent with such action.
Although not specifically abolishing DOSP, the City could in
effect emasculate DOSP by revoking DOSP's authority to operate.
DOSP would remain technically in existence yet without any
authority to function.
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Commission
Re: Issues Concerning Department of Off-Street Parking
File No. A-9200405
June 9, 1992
Page 4
The City Commission may not undertake any action which ma~..
diminish or impair the rights of bondholders or the security foz
the outstanding bonds.
AQJ/rcl/M078
Attachment
cc: Cesar H. Odio
City Manager
Clark Cook
Executive Director
Department of Off-Street Parking
Sri ~iki ~~~L'.~L. REPt)RT ~)F T~-{E .~I't~ iR~;E~' i;E~;ER.~L
AG() $8.108-December Id. 1948
,~tL'NIC[P:~L RET[RE~tEVT SYSTEMS
DC;:~L OFFICEHOLDftiG OF BO.-~RD OF 'I'R[.'STEES-
a[,"TO~O~tY OF BOARD
Tn B~!! Porter..Kavor. C~tv o% South .b(iant~
P-!parrd by Kertt L Wr~ss~nger. ,a;sistan[ .attornty Grnera!
QL'ES'T[OYS:
1. 4lay the mayor serve as a member of the board of truaues of
the municipal employees' retirement trust fund:'
2. To what estent does stau law permit the board of trusties of
a municipal employees' retirement trust fund to act autonomously
of the municipality's local governing body''
SUMMARY:
1. Unless and until judicially determined otherwise, the mayor
may serve u a member of the board of trustees of the municipal
employees' retirement trust fLnd where the mayor is designated
by ordinance or charter as a member of such boards. in the absence
o[ any conIIict or iacompadbility between such designated duties
and preeszstiag duties, sad where •uch designation by ordinance
does not violate the commonaaw rule of public policy disqualityiag
officers who have appointing power from appointment to o[!lces
or poe~itioas to which they may appoint.
2 Unless sad until kglaladvdy or judicially determined otherwise.
no general rote law operates to require or prohibit such legatee of
autonomy for action by the board of trustees of a general municipal
employees' retirement trust fund as may be accorded to such board
by municipal ordinance or charter in the ezerciae of home rule
I~ powers and subject to constitutional constraints.
., You have also asked whether the mayor may serve as a member of the board of
t~ trustees of the municipal police officer' retirement trust fund. That precise
!~~ question is presently the subject of pending litigation. See City of Orlando v.
State of Florida. Department of Insuraaw. Case Yo. 88-3269 (2nd Cir. Gon
County. filed Sepumber 26, 1986). Attorney General Opinions are not rendered
on questions pending before the courts in order to avoid intrusion upon the
.~ constitutional prerogative of the judicial branch. See Statement of Policy Conossniag
Attorney General Opinions. Annual Report of the Attorney General (198b), p.
nil. Accordingly, no comment u erpreaaed herein u to whether the mayor msy
serve u a member of the municipal police Delon' retirement trust fund board of
trustees.
~' AS TO QUESTION 1:
'I
Your inquiry rotas that the Mayor of South Miami served until reuntly on the
.` pension board for municipal employees generally u established by ordinance.
I which ~nl}y provided that the board ba oompoaed of tlve members ooosistiag of
,~ the mayor, and two alive employees of the city sad two citizen electors d the
city, the latter four to be appointed by the city commission. You thrther nau that
the ordinance was recently amended to remove the mayor es a member ai the
board "to aontarm with what w• thought wu Sou Law." Finally. You have
~ advised this otQlu that the City ai South Miami has espatau boards of trustees
~` far general municipal employees sad far municipal polio oQian. Cj. ch. 18b,
F.S.. u amended by ch. 86.42. Laws d Florida.
~ Ssc~ion S(a). Art. Q 9aa Coost., provides in pertinent part:
294
i
~'~~ ptrvun ;h,c!! h~ii.: .31 :,'tt +u.•~r. :;mt ^t~~rr ;hen ins ilttir .n,:r~ ''tt
K,~ternmr•tt ~,~ ;,~t note find the iountir9 and ~tunciepaiicitt :her±irt
except that a Horner public or military urlicer may huld anuthrr irF~ce.
and any officer may br a member of ~ con9utuuon revt910R ~Omm199lon,
coristuunonal convenuun. x statutory body ns~•inK only ,idvisury powen
Empha9~9 supplied
Generally, the term "otT'ice ' contemplates a delegation of a portion of the
•y of sovereign power of the 3CdCe. 39 contrasted with the term 'employment. ' which
does not comprehend a delegatwn of any part of the state s soverei,;ti authority.
State rs gel. Holloway v Shear. 33 So. 508. 509 Fla. 1919 See also aG0 ti9.2 and
•y of authorities cited therein. accordingly, it l9 clear chat a mayor of a municipality
usly holds an "office" under the municipality See s. 2, :frt. CI. Charter of the City of
South Miami. providing for the office of mayor :end see .AGO 76.92. additionally.
it would appear chat a board of trustees established by ordinance and empowered
thereby to administer a municipal employees' retirement trust fund exercises a
iYor portion of the state's sovereign authority, a, constitutionally and statutorily
iPa1 delegated to municipalities. Ste generally s. 2tb~, Art. VIII, State Const.: s. 166.021,
akd F.S. Cj. AGO's 74.109 and 74-217 (Errs sad police pension fund boards of trwtees
once under chs. 175 and 185. F.S. 19?3, were boards and agencies of municipalities).
ides Thus, a member of the board of trustees of a municipal employees' retirement
once trust fund as established by ordinance would appear co be a municipal officer. See
•~g also AGO 80-97 (member of semiautonomous board vested with and ezercising
ices portion of governmental or sovereign power of city wan municipal officers AGO
78-3 (of~lcers and employees of city's board of trustees for fire and police pension
,~ funds are officers and employees of city).
,
e of The underlying purpose of the constitutional dull officeholding prohibition is
ipal the concern that a conflict of interest will arise whenever the respective duties of
,ar.d office are inconsistent. Bath Club, Inc. v. Dade County, 394 So.2d 110, 112 (Fla.
rule 1981). The prohibition does not apply where additional or es oJ~tcio duties are
-
imposed on or assigned to a particular offce or ofifcers
b}- action of the Legislature or
the governing body of a municipality or by city charter and there is no conflict or
rd of incompatibility between the sew sad the preesisting duties. The dual officeholdiag
rr~~ prohibition of s. 5(a). Art. II, State Conn., does not opsrau w preclude such
ando v. assignment; rather, the new duties are viewed u as addition to the a:fisting
Leon duties of the affected officer. See Bath Club, Inc. v. Dade County, supra; State v.
-endered Florida State Turnpike Authority, 80 So.2d 337 (Fla. 19ffi}; State ez rel. Gibbs v.
pon the Gordon, 189 So. 43? (Fla. 1939); Amon v. Mathews, 128 So. 308 (Fla. 1930): AGO's
uerniag 86.21, 82.92, 81.72 and 80.12. And ice AGO 80-9? (legislative designatfion of local
.985), p. ofScers by legislative body of the city to perform es o/ficio functions of another or
nor may aecood municipal office does not violate dual ofSeeholding prohibition of s. S(a),
board of Art. II, State Const.l; AGO 70-48 (statute imposing an es o/rtcio post upon holder
of another oQia must be dininguiahed f!•om one authorizing the appointment of
one ad'ia holder to anatha distinct and wparau offce).
Thus, to the eztent that the mayor d a municipality may be designated by
on the ordinance or charter to perform a o/~'icio the duties of the offlce of a member of
iinance, the board d ttusteas of the municipal employees' retirement trust fund, it would
fisting of appear that such designation u not prohibited by s. S(a), Art. II, State Const.,
9 of the such that the mayor may carve u a mamba of the board of ~asteea of the
oce chat municipal employees retirement trust Hind provided such additional duties an in
r of the >yo way inconsistent or incompatible oc in conflict with has duties u mayor. Sss
~u have AGO'e 70-48 sad 80.17 (a conflict of interest or clash of duties ezins when one
t Rlateea OQiOa V ftibOl'dlaate LO Ch1 orbs sad nlb'lett u3 some degree to the ~upervlaory
:h. 186, power d its incumbent or when the inr+~**+tint of one of the aQicea hu the power
of appointment to the other seise or has the power to remove err punish the
incumbent a[the other). Sae also Grynk •. Stitt, 380 So.2d 1102, 1104 (1 D.C.A.
Fz l
86-106 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE ATTO R:YE Y G E IY E RAi.
Fls.. 19801, pennon jor review denud, 388 So.2d 1113 rFla. 19801, xtttng forth the
doctrine of mcompaubiGty sa follows:
Incompatibility eziata "where in the established governmental scheme
one office u subordinate to another, or subject W iu supervision or
control, or the duties clash. inviting the incumbent to prefer one obligation
to another." . if the duties of the two offices are such that when
"placed in one person they might disserve the public inceresu. or if the
respective offices might or will conflict even on rare occasions, it u
sufficient to declare them legally incompatible."
However, it should be noted that. where the mayor u a voting member of the
municipal governing body that votes upon sad adopu an ordinance designating
the mayor a, as ac o/f"rcio member of the board of tnutees of the municipal
employees' rotitement trust fund, such mayor would appear to be disqualified
from serving on the board of trustees pursuant to common law. See AGO's 80.17,
75-60, 73-359, 72.348 and 70.8. roa8irming the o°ntinued vitality d the oommon-
law rule of public policy to the effect that all offcers who have appointing po at
are disqualified for appointment to offices or positions w which they may sppo
This office applied the common-law rule is AGO 80-17 in concluding that a
member of a board of county commissioners wu disqualified from serving as the
board's appointee to a spacial district governing board. Accordingly. I am of the
view that the mayor may serve as a member of the board of trustees of the
municipal employees' retirement tsust fund if the mayor u designated u an ex
o/~'"scio member of such board by charter. but a mayor who u a voting member of
the municipal governing body that adopts an ordinance designating the mayor as
a member of such board is disqualified tom sarnng as a member of such board.
AS TO QUESTION 2:
Although it appears that your seoaod gctestiao relates specificsllY to the retirement
crust fund established for municipal employees generally by municipal ordinance,
rather than to funds for firefighters and police o@ieers, it should be noted that
sure law specifically addressiss the autonomy of the boards of trustees of firefighta'a'
and police officero' retirement trust funds- See v. 175.071(4) and 185.06(8), F.S.,
as amended respectively by s. 4, ch. 88-41• haws of Florida, sad s. S, ch. 86-42,
Laws of Florida. providing that boards of trustees of municipal firefighter' and
police officers' retirement trust funds are vested with the power of "sole sad
ezclusive administration" of such trust funds- Provided that such boards are not
empowered to amend the provu~°O+ of a retirement plan without the approval of
the municipality,, $~ aLo w. 175.311 and 185.31, F.S.. u amended respectively
by s. 18, ch. 88-41. +upr'a. sad s. 20, ch. 86-42..+upra, providing that such boards of
trustees shall be independent of the municipalities for v.hich they serve a, boards
d tnuues to the eztent required co accomplish the intent, requiremenu, and
responsibilities provided for in chs. 17S and 185. F.S.. as amended. But cP AGO's
74-109 (boards of trustees of municipal fvemen's and policemen's pension trurt
funds, created by chs. 17S and 185. F.S. 1973. respectively, are municipal boards
sad ageociee of municipalities and are not autonomous entities sad, u such, aro
subject to annual poscaudit of municipal financial accouau as required by law)
and 74.217 Ipens~oa board created by special act u municipal board must use
sernces of city actorney~. And cj City d Orlando ° State of Florida. Department
of Insurance. supra, in which the foregoing provuioas of chs 175 and 186. u
amended, an alleged to cannitute ~avalid legislative delsgac~ons of municipal
taring authority
Thera u no general law counterpart to ctu. l'es ~vl ~SeFct on 68.0211~F 9`
retirement crust fund for municipal employees g Y
implementing s. 21bi, Art. ~. Sute Conn.. provides thwen conecnablletthemato
have the govsrnmental. corporate. and proprietary P°
298
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 86-107
e conduct municipal government, perform municipal functions, and render municipal
eerv~oee. and may ezerc3se any power for municipal purposes, e:capt when espreasly
prohibited by law." Municipal pension plans have traditionally been eatablishsd
by special act or by municipal ordinance and. under the provvions of ch. 121. F.S..
these local pension plans continue is full force and effect as to all present and
future municipal officers and employees unless the city, after a referendum.
elects to participate in the Florida Retirement System. Attorney General Opinion
70150. In that opinion, this ofRce fusther concluded that specific legislative
authority for optional municipal participation in the Florida Retirement Sysum
appeared to permit the adoption of local pension plans by municipal ordinaries in
the es~cise of bums rule powers pursuant to s. 167.006. F.S. 1969, by mun~dpalities
not electing to participate. Accordingly, I am of the view that in the ezercise of
~ e~nstin6 home rule powers a municipality may accord to the board of trustees of a
~ general municipal employees' retirement trust fund such degree of autonomy as
may be determined by ordinance or charter, subject to constitutional conrtraints,
: if any (see City of Orlando v. State of Florida. Department of Insurance, suprar
1
r and that ao general Mate law operates to require or prohibit such autonomous
action by such boards as may be Provided for by municipal ordinance or charter.
a However, I would nou that, with respect to the foregoing response to your first
question, the degree of autonomy or lack thereof accorded by ordinance or charter
e
~ to the board of trustees of a general municipal employees' retirement trust fund
e
e may impact significantly on the factual question as to the e:;stence of any
aooIIiet a incompatibility between the preezLtiaB duties of the mayor wad additional
duties imposed by ordinance or charter in designating the mayor to serve as a
s member of such bosud. Ste AGO's 708 and 80.17, disn~ssed supra, under question
. 1, relating to conflict of interest. See also Gryzik v. State, supra (doctrine of
incompatibility).
~c
•t AGO 8610?-December 31, 1986
', SCHOOL BOARDS
j LEASE OR SALE OF REAL PROPERTY
d To: Joseph E. Johnston. Jr., Attorney jor Hernando County Sehoo! Board
c
-f
•
prepared by: Corry Xamnwnd Assistant Attorney General
~
f QUESTIONS:
`' 1. V the School Board of Hernando County authorized to lease
'i real property without compeddve bids, for a urm of lb years with
as opdoo to renew to a nonprofit fire A~bdas corporadon'
~s Z. V the Hernando County School Board authorised to declare
P each real property u surplus wad to seU it to a nonproAt Are
• ' Ashdns corporadon without compedtlve bids'
~ SUMMARY:
' ~ Udess and mtil' judicWly or leglsladvely dearmined otherwise.
the Hernando County School Board V not atatutorUy authorized
nor dose It pwwss home rule power to lease real property to a
prlvaq oonproat oorporsalon for ooosducatlonal purpoeea. Eiowen+sr.
the Hernando County School Board V authorised. when dearmlaed
~
~ to be Ia the beet Laterests o[ the pubUc. co seU real property owned
, by the board which has been declared unnecessary or unsdtabl•
291
+ E - -t ~ j 3
F ~,
ti •~.~
v ~.
f - '
r._rr ,
~ ` ORDINANC8 NO. 5461
~,
All 0(d)INANCH CRFJITINO AND ESTABLISHING A Nf~l DEPAR'It4~+T
CITY Ol,R1~MISANDEPROVIDIN NirOaF'ritTiFAPPO~'1~N~~THE T~
DIRECTOR 19ER~OF. CAFATING AND SSTABLIS}rlNd .1 EOAAD '1'0 HB
IWOY11 AS TifB OPP-STREET PARKtNO BOAriD 0! :'HL~ CITY OF l9211RI;
PRa3CRI8IN0 THE NUl~BR OP MF?SREROF R~ D1BC.1ftp~RESPBCITLYTs
~UALxFICATI0N9 INITIAL FtEMBE
sATI01~ aND Z}fE !d::`-iCD bP JELECTING
't'BRMS OP OFFIC~, COgi'F]r '
TliblR StJCCBS3oRS; FftFSCRIbItrO THE iC~+Ea>, FUNCTIOtr3 ;~`~
,a1D
DUTI83 OP SAZL DLP~i'iTtENi, of ~al~ OtRBC':Qa :ANC of ,
BOARD: TRAl:SF`BNRINO TO ;;AID. C~FaAfiMENT At1:+ s" ~t~ TRF,~~-
CONTROL, 1~iANAIIE~ENT ~+ND ~paRaTiON OP ,+L4 DPF ~-
INd PROPtRTYE3 OF TNii CITY OF kiaMi, iNC~t;DLNG P,~WCItrO
AtrD I7iE ;te:lF.artlES IHEALFRGM; ANL p~y'IDING
ME'PERS TNSkRdW ~ :ND ACCOUNTS
FOR TNS SEJREGI~MON OF cL1,EEt.Fa~j ~J~~PBRTIES FAOK
pF.itTAINTNO TO SAID c1FP--.TR
aLL 04}tER gyDGETS, F'.TNDS •1N0 ,t•;Crui?iTS OF ;HB CIiY
WNERF+13, ~r.fc:r Sectlor; 1°;•,~ : f chi ~:h~t't.•r of *nr City of ;'tiaras,
IlOf'laa, tl;~ CpC+c-l:fjlcri -,y, Fy -rttti~r.c`', ad~Ftc t 5y 'loft of ?t.lcast
three rur..Dera of t!+e i`carlyal~n~ • rcatc new do~zrt~zr.tn cr !ilcontln~ ,
r .ir.z fo .ar•.••Sr,~ . • .t in-= ,r.~ siatr,b:.t~ tke f~~ncticns• and
r
Any ~lepart~n
dutlea oP tn« lrpart:~cr,r..; ir.o a~.ci•.vl.:l,r•3 thereof, ar.i
MilERBps, it la the kuire of the c.x.+ml9aiQr, to creatt a new de-
*'' runt oC OCC-Street F'srktr+g:
~ pArt:r,ff/t to b! knOwr. a! the :kPa
.•' Na, '~EALliOAB, HE LT OitpalNF.D by 'fHJ? COMMISSION OF 1111~ CI`tY OP
r~, - KZAIII, FLORIDA : .
3aotlotl 1. •iT~are 1! hereby Oreate~ and e3tabllahed as an agenny
%•, ~Q 1rtAtrvnentallty of the Clty o[ Miami, ~ ~et1 JoPartmrnt to 0e nan+eQ
•n~d kt+OtT Ae the '~~epartment of OCf-Street Parking of the City of Hisntt''
+~ (J»relnafter ~anetL•~es culled the "D~Partment .f Off-Strn.et Parking"•or
LM ,~~,~en•"); the GcFartm'=rtt, which shall op~rite ~rt4 Fun~tiCn
''~ under the supervisory control oC the Bcara creates and eat~-bllahtG Sn
jr
r adDaectlon (a) hereof, shall conatat oC a ahlef execur.i~e officer to
•,~ artment of Off-Street parking`
', t9e knout a^ t!te '~Direotor o[ the `.kP rWwnt" or tlla
(ri~t`~1n~ttep aoesetlmes 'called the "Director of the De pa
~; ca a• shill Oe neceaaat•y
'Dlt"~eto!') ahd eucA other officers and employe
~~~ rform ehe duties and Lunctlona oC the
to exaratse the powcre and pe
/ peparterant .
, (a) 'it;ere is !treby ece~"-e7 and ~at7tll3rr~ a $cara to ba lmcwn
he relrui to
se the "Off-Street Parut~~ gowrd oe t.ht City =c 'rt~r't' E
aoraetlmee called LhC •hi f -3t r~.,t ?ar•w is S 8c~r4" or the "8o#r!") rh1cR
y}aall to comer lsad ci cr.~ f~ilo'~In.S '~` Cr:'~ ~~ "- re,p.rcelvtl teCna cc
oft'l~'e shall r.~ » C~~llnwa: -t
S/'
l
- 9 A ~ E... 1 3 . ~•_~..- ~
1 ; •-t. '
• ~
~ ,
i
r, {(. $chnefer who' E11i1 l recv' 1'•.r twe yesra,
Ptaurey AaMann who 3h:?11 ~~+*~+• fer twC year",
Millia#t C,~ 4~-11vC aho chair *~cve for three. yoara,
Joseph H.' Marker whe ~~ia11 :: •:rve for ~ncc~~ years,
Mitchell Wolfson ahc shs11 aerv~ Cnr four Y..ara:
and thereafter ea:h :k•'~tCc t`~sl t t.:~ a1:Kc inter fur t tecY'm cf CL'+e years,
a~ Mrein provi:ci. E•ich c1R'+tot' ~'f :Y.u Hcara Shall eieher reside or
have his principal yl'1ce =f haai^~~~~ Lt: the City and shall Ce en Lndi-
vidual'of outotaeding r~•rutxeion f^-r ine~grlr,y, responsibility and
Dwinesa ability, but no officer ar r~•plcyee of tree City shall serve
.. N a a~emDer of the Ac.,rd whirs ~mpluYe1 1s Such; officeC or employee of
tht City.- AC le;st ten' Gaya prier to -r,:• iaty of~axp1r1,1on of the
tans of any nemter cf the ao.lr~• <r within tan isys after the 30te,
ttsi~natl0e- or rvncvit of .~t•Y iucn c~rnCcr, t~.19 s•~ccessor vhR11 De
. nae~el and apy.7lr.tsS tp the City "a,rr,lssl°^• The aucces3or in edcT. cafe
shall be. app~lntsd ar•J ~h.ll -:ctJ office for ~ tett~ of ilve yearr from
~'~ the data of expiratlcn of the lir., of his predecessor, except thae any
,;
perioe+ appoir•~"d to fill a vncancy stall serve only for tht unezpLrc
' te!*. .
q~1 ~oemters o! tt7e Bo~M ah+sll each bo paid a salary of lifty
..:
(~Sp,pp) Dollars per ann;,on,
• AnY mesbtt of the Board eay Da rt'oved by the Coesniesion of the
.I City foe aood cause Rtfd after proper hnaring by the Cos~ission.
'y~ (D~ ,~ Soard chair have the poNere, duties and responsibLlitiea
O~t~tyjy vested In tht Coard of directors~ot a private corporation,
i
•1 .: edi a?tall txerclse auperviaory ecntrot over the operstion o[ the off-
end all acts of the Department
~•~:~//;wit par{cins fsoilitlrs cf the City
~l~~ .
~.~: Or th/ Dlrectar with respect to auclt factlitlea shall be eua~ect
toval of tht B~rd• 'me Beard shall eltlct one or lta mr~bers
~,. to' ~ wpb
~.. ,.
~° to serve as etlairssan of .the guard, sM11 a~ke appropriate Toles and
•~• acMura, and shill holi s
- re`ulatiooe for its own ga~errmont end pr
regular nsetins at Least once a ~~onth end suen special aeettngs as
it nsy dtacs necessary, anQ all s.ch „e;t-n~a atoll Oe open to the
publlC.
-2-
t '..r~.~__~ E 1 ~.i1 6
•
+ .
. .
than those t'Qquired -~ be tr. tn~ c~~st-ay cC the
. Truar~ircr. He sh.tll attend in pcra:*• ull ~c"ttr.gs
correct. c..cor] cf all
o[ t;he Board, sRsll k~~P ~
~' `~
~ ._ the proceedings of the Ec irn, Vim] .,t::~ll Perform
such other duties as r•a} to i::sie',ne3 to him ay
~ ..
F,~ 9ecret.try ~Y tt:t eo~r•!.
(g) dll ru,iget,~, Cun•ir, ani 3csoac.t~ parrtinit+~ to, tt+e oft-street'
;~•grr•y~tc4 fror•. all ether
~.'' .,parking fscilit.ic.: .f tnr City stall :~
' buQgets, t'ur:ie sni ~cc_ unt,c ;,f t!.c C1+•y ~~ 1 ~:•~11 be eo KQpt !hat the;;
shall reflect the ftninclal .:,;nJitlon Ord iha vperxtion cf. each cff-
. ' .. .f' :hv :Sty i_•p'-rl:cl.Y
• etreet parltin~ tact.kty
r.ach fiaea-l year cne
ltot later Char. ;n.: month trfoce tnc oni ,:.f
Director, rith the lpprov:31 ~[ tt+• Hoari, dn•]1i Prepare an~i sutYnit to
the City gannger ~ t•..~d` ~. ^•;tls.:+te of ctPvnliturc9 Ind rzvenucs .;'or
•+' tKe anauins i lacsl Y•:-r Sn 'n~ ez~e forr., an•i 1 l;ct -ar.r.er zs all other
departa~nts of trie C:ty -.r •1Ppr=•+al oy the Co+'~izslon.
• (h} all exp.ril~rs lneurrel ty thr popart:aen*, an4 by the Bol-rd in
! ~ ~xen:leind their p'»rers .r:.l p~rfor~ing their f.~nctlons and duties shall
pe pa1Q solely [rcm'the re•+onLLss of tYl~: off-street parkShEi [acilitkee
oC the C1ty and ro liattli"y or celkg~tl,n not payable Crcnt the
••` .: "le~snuee of eaLd facllltios shall at t-nY tlr.,a bo incurred in connection
t~~.~ ration ehereoC.
frith the Ope .
. ~ (1) 9houl3 them odcu~' in any [iscsl year an exeeee of revenue,
•t ,• srstlon, maintrranee, reQuictd
'~ Aver expeaalturc• cetluire~ for P
',~ 'res.rtes, sn4 debt secvic•. then such excYSS r:vur.ues shall, sub,}ec
1, ~ ~sion or cne c~cy .utrt-
•~'~•• °~ to t `DlrC~isl4ns~ of any ordinance o[ ChM Coe+nl
j twt ~ i~~w~A of parkin6 Cacllitles ra•fenue bandy of the City,
'r•..~ ~i. ' ~ or truer agrcenent secur-
'~ .. '' : ` ` dot anY trust lndenturs
.~~t •~d ~ •~~ r o t)+e `eneral tunas of tt+e Ctcy.
:~•. ins ~int
`'• ~`. •• •,- ,•~'oanferTed b9 thls ordinance shall Ce
'•1` (~} w11 ~4+d: a ~. ,
..wr••,ry.ct _ . "-~ see hereof; •nd the pep.~rt-
lipstilly coiSS~rwd• to ~i[t+ot~te ch1 pur'Do ; Inc
aont Wd thf dG1-rQ e1la~ilfM~ve Power, In addltlon to exerolslna
.t tc Jo ell tnl~..:z
Porters expryssl7l oont~rred In ar~d ~y CRIe ardinanca,
nseessary or conv~~nlcnt to carry out cne putPc+eea n~"cof.
~-
t 1
,'r
.~ w l ~ r.f
~.1, ~~l.Cl`F. ~~~-~~tL7 i'i'a~7;1F~~ ~; -i'. ~!"~if..7`~~J~i~i..,.
,S
~ 9. J E 1 ~:~1 .Er
~' ~ r
~. . .
PAS3ED on first rea:iing Cy eitlc orsly •ttt.~ ljt-. :3y of pctoDer,
1955• '
lA33ED ANL' ADOP?EO crt se:ccns Zn~1 final Tullina this end Qay
' o t Nov~a~b'tr, ~ 1955 • '
i-'T'PEST: .
.:Ly Lbi~ • ~,,:r.:yfY-~ .. 1. :: .. ~~y,~ .
. ~ it1 ,.larY
~'
.~ . .
STATE LEGISLATURE FUNDING for FY98
(Funding Sought by Senator Al Gutman, Chairman Dade Delegation)
1) Park Improvements Funding
$500,000
Park Improvement Projects: Pursue funding for park improvements that are needed for 35 park
sites. Many of these park projects have not been awarded grant funds from other sources because of
ineligibility or insufficient funds due to the large number of competing from other locations and
pursue funding for ADA access improvements to 61 parks.
2) Miami Love Youth at Risk Project
$150,000
"Miami Love" Youth At-Risk Project: Pursue continued funding for the "Miami Love" Youth At-
Risk which is an innovative project that brings the public and private sector (Community Wide
Coalitions) together promoting partnership and targeting 450 Youth at Risk (ages 7 to 17) in the City
of Miami Parks. City parks serve as magnets which incorporate schools, community organizations,
business, churches, education, youth services providers, and juvenile justice professionals which
provide intervention programs for Youth At-Risk. The program provides for supervision, problem
solving through conflict resolution, peer mentoring and empowerment to maximize youth potential.
3) Police-Equipment $100,000
• Equipment/Computer Enhancement Funding: Pursue funding to interface the multiple sources of
information affecting our ability to manage the large number of cases and provide funding for
additional Police equipment needs.
4) Miami River Initiatives $300,000
• Miami River Initiatives: MONITOR legislation that includes the recommendations of the Miami
River Study Commission. SUPPORT efforts that maintain the maritime industry, and promote
increased economic development, public safety, environmental protection, and code enforcement on
the Miami River.
Total Anticipated Funding $1,050,000
VSa,. ~~~_` ~~~ rE Fa (: ~l_~5-5 ~,-~ I ~~- `~7 ~i~~ I i . l~:- r'. (~: ~~3
INT~A-OFF1C~ til~~~,fOR,a,~iQUlVl
Joseph Pirion
Assistant City Manager March 20, 1 g98
.:~
~. ~ - Information Regarding
' 3-4 Unit Residential
~~=~~ drienne Macbeth Revenue ~ Service
Assistant Director '~ ='E'"-=~
Department of Solid Waste
?,,r~_cU9E~
The information which you requeSt~ as follow-up to my March 9"' me
to you suggesting aitematives to the creation of an Qccupation moLandum
Sanitation Impact Fee is as follows. cense
' assumed an average of 2.65 tons of solid waste
per year The scale fees for an additional 7,000 res,dentia9un is would produce
18,550 tons of solid waste per year. At a cost of $54 r
stations for disposal), the disposal costs vrould be $1 p ym flionsandt at the
Resource Recovery or landfills, it would be a roximaiel e
pp Y $850, 000 annually.
The Five Year Financial Recovery Plan estimated that the City's waste s
was atypical in that the ratio between garbage and trash was 40%$pqb~ 40,000
of our 170,000 annual tons therefore were projected to be from illegally darn d
materials, much of which we assumed was related to non-residential properties.
Using 6096 as the estimated amount of trash collected as the factor to detennin
the percentage of trash being collected from 3-4 unit residences and other
commercial establishments, we arrived at 1.65 tons per year of the 2.65 annual
average tons per years produced by a unit as being collected in the illegal trash
stream.
The balance of 1.0 ions per year times the 7,000 units projected as potential for
the mandatory residential stream, should the City Commission approve our
recommendation, equals 7,000 tons of additional material which the city forces
would collect. At the higher disposal cost, this would equal $378,000 and at the
lower cost facility, $315,000.
3/27/98
GSAiSQ.IO ~ Fax:3C5-5~-5107 Mar 27 '98 13:09 P.03~03
Joseph Pifion
March 20, ~ g98
Page 2
The latest word that 1 have received is that the recommended increase i
solid waste fee would be to $240. At this rate, therefore, adding these n the
would produce $x,680,000 in revenue. Taking out the disposal costs, for tI~
higher cost facility ($378,000} would yield $1,302,000 and for the Tower he
facility ($31g,000~ the difference is $1,36$,400. Again please note that cost
not extracted the potential recycling and yardlgarden trash diversion ~d athve
savings associated with this. e
(~Ji~ 9e
CITY OF MIAti11, F~QRIpA
INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM
ro The Honorable lViayor and Members
of the City Commission oarE F~~=
suB.iECr. Assessed Values of Real
Properties
FROM : REFERENCES : ~'1~ CUInml9slOn Meeting
Jose Garcia-Pedrosa March 31, 1998
City Manager eNC~osuRES: Florida Statutes Section 193.01
and Section 193.023
This memorandum serves as a response to a request made at the March 24, 19~
Commission meeting by Commissioner Teele regarding the method of assessment of re
property located in the City of Miami.
Properties located within the City of Miami are assessed by the Miami-Dade Count
Property Appraiser. In accordance with Chapter 193 of the Florida Statutes, a copy c
which is attached hereto for reference, the property appraiser establishes the assesee
value for real property located within the City Miami. The property appraiser utilize
eight criteria, as more fully outlined in Florida Statute, Section 193.011, in establishin.
the just valuation of the property. These eight criteria are as follows:
1) Present cash value of the property;
2) Highest and best use to which the property can be expected to be put in the immediate
future and the present use of the property;
3) Location;
4) Quantity or size of the property;
5) Cost of said property and present replacement value;
6) Condition of property;
'n Income from property; and
8) Net proceeds of sale as received by the seller after deduction of all usual and reasonable
fees and costs of the sale.
For purposes of determining which properties are to be reassessed, the property appraiser
reviews building permit data and performs a sales analysis.
The City forwards to the County, on a monthly basis, a list of all building permits issued by
the City. The property appraiser performs physical inspections of the properties which
have been improved to determine if a revised assessment is warranted.
The sales analysis is divided into categories including sales price, property type (ie. office,
residential, warehouse, etc.) and location. The sales analysis data is then compared to the
assessment values. Typically the property appraiser will adjust assessments when the
ratio of assessed value to market value falls below 85%.
Honorable Mayor and Members
of the City Commission
Page 2
Re: Assessed Values of Real Properties
The assessed value of residential properties which have a homestead exemption may not 1
increased more than 3°r6 per year or the CPI, whichever is less. This cap is not applicab
at the time of sale, or if additions or alterations have been made to the property.
In accordance with Florida Statute 193.023, the property appraiser is to complete "his c
her assessment of the value of all property no later than July 1 of each yeaz, except thf
the department may for good cause shown extend the time for completion of assessment c
all property."
Property owners may appeal their assessed value and the City is notified of said valu
adjustment hearings. Additionally, the City can request the property appraiser to revie~
assessments of certain properties as circumstances may warrant. However, a request fo:
review does not guarantee that the assessed value will be increased. Currently there is no'
a procedure whereby the City can appeal the assessed value of a property. It should bE
noted that the County is a recipient of ad valorem taxes; consequently, it is in their best
interest to ensure assessments are reasonable.
II. VALUE ADJUS NTS TO PROPERTIES SOLD BY CITY
As you are awaze, the City recently sold two pazcels to other governmental entities. The
first sale was the golf course located at 650 Curtiss Pazkway, Miami Springs, Florida, to
the City of Miami Springs. The second sale was a portion of the FEC Tract to Miami-Dade
County. The 199? assessed value and the purchase price aze as follows:
1997 Purchase Ratio of Assessed
A~aessed Value 'ce Value to Price
Golf Course $ 2, 084,172 $ 3, 000, 000 69%
FEC Tract $31,282,350 $37,606,234 83%
The 1997 assessment values have not been adjusted to reIIect these sales as both sales
occurred after July 1, 1997. Additionally, it should be noted that the property appraiser
may not deem it relevant to reassess the properties since both properties are currently
exempt firom ad valorem taxes.
The pending sale to Winn Dixie of the property located at 1145 NW 11 Street, IViiami,
Florida, in the amount of $5,710,000 has not yet closed. An April, 1998 closing is
anticipated. With this sale the assessment value will likely be adjusted for tax year 1998.
[t will be adjusted further upon completion of improvements to the site.
Honorable Nlayor and Members
of the City Commission
Page 3
Re: Assessed Values of Real Properties
III. yA1.UE n.n r.~~r~,rF?vm~ FOR PRNATE SgLES
Two premier properties which have recently sold in the downtown area aze Miami Cent<
located at 201 South Biscayne Boulevard and First Union located at 200 South Biscayr
Boulevazd. The assessed values and purchase price are as follows:
1997 Purchase Ratio of Assessed
Assessed Value ~ Value to Price
Miami Center $ ?9,000,000 $131,450,300 60°~6
First Union $1? 1, 600,000 $206, 620,900 83
The Miami Center and First Union sales closed in September, 1997 and December, 199?
respectively. Consequently, the current assessed values referenced above do not reflec
any adjustment due to the sale.
IV. ASSESSED VALLTF VS MARKET VALUE
In an attempt to determine the relationship of assessed value to mazket value, the Office of
Asset Management has compiled a sample of properties located within the City of Miami
which last sold in 1996 and compared these to the 1997 assessed value. Certain properties
were eliminated from the list due to the nature of the sale (i.e. multiple properties, tax
sale, quick claim sale, government sale.)
The property appraiser has indicated that historically properties are assessed at 85% to
95% of the market value, using the criteria on just valuation. Based on our analysis, it is
appazent that properties located in the City of Miami aze assessed on an average of about
84°~ of the market value.
JGPC B:1b:mv:mPropAases
c: Christina Cuervo, Assistant City Manager
Dena Bianchino, Director
Office of Asset Management
Enclosure
F.S. 1997 ASSESSMENTS
Ch. 193
CHAPTER 193
ASSESSMENTS
PART I GENERAL PROVISIONS (ss. 193.011-193.155)
PART II SPECIAL CLASSES OF PROPERTY (ss. 193.441-193.6255)
PARTI
GENERAL PROVISIONS
193.011
193.015
t 93.023
193.024
193.052
193.062
193.063
193.072
193.073
193.074
193.075
193.076
193.on
193.085
193.092
193.102
193.114
193.1142
193.1145
193.1147
193.116
193.122
193.132
193. t 55
Factors to consider in deriving just valua-
tion.
Additional specific factor, effect of issuance
or denial of permit to dredge, fill, or con-
struct in state waters to their landward
extent.
Duties of the property appraiser in making
assessments.
Deputy property appraisers.
Preparation and serving of retums.
Dates for filing retums.
Extension of date for filing tangible per-
sonal property tax retums.
Penalties for improper or late filing of
retums and for failure to file retums.
Erroneous retums; estimate of assessment
when no return filed.
Confidentiality of retums.
Mobile homes.
Notice of expansion.
Notice of new, rebuilt, or expanded prop-
em-
Listing all property.
Assessment of property for back taxes.
Lands subject to tax sale certificates;
assessments: taxes not extended.
Preparation of assessment rolls.
Approval of assessment rolls.
Interim assessment rolls.
Performance review panel.
Municipal assessment rolls.
Certificates of value adjustment board and
property appraiser; extensions on the
assessment rolls.
Prior assessments validated.
Homestead assessments.
193.011 Factors to consider In deriving just valua-
t'0~•-In arriving at just valuation as required under s.
,~ Art. VII of the State Constitution, the property
acPraiser shall take into consideration the following
actors:
~ (1) The present cash value of the property, which is
ha dmount a willing purchaser would pay a willing
Setter. exclusive of reasonable tees and costs of pur-
=~ase, in cash or the Immediate equivalent thereof in a
~ta~sachon at arm's length;
12) The highest and best use to which the property
~~e A esepeuse o~ heppropetrty. Itak gtlnttof constdea
anon any applicable judicial limitation, local or state
land use regulation, or historic preservation ordinance,
and considering any moratorium imposed by executive
order, law, ordinance, regulation, resolution, or procla-
mation adopted by any governmental body or agency
or the Governor when the moratorium or judicial limita-
tion prohibits or restricts the development or improve-
ment of property as otherwise authorized by applicable
law. The applicable govemmental body or agency or
the Governor shall notify the property appraiser in writ•
ing of any executive order, ordinance, regulation, reso-
lution, or proclamation it adopts imposing any such limi-
tation, regulation, or moratorium;
(3) The location of said property;
(4) The quantity or size of said property;
(5) The cost of said property and the present
replacement value of any improvements thereon;
(6) The condition of said property;
(7) The income from said property; and
(8) The net proceeds of the sale of the property, as
received by the seller, after deduction of all of the usual
and reasonable fees and costs of the sale, including the
costs and expenses of financing, and allowance for
unconventional or atypical terms of financing arrange-
ments. When the net proceeds of the sale of any prop-
erty are utilized, directly or indirectly, in the determina-
tion of just valuation of realty of the sold parcel or any
other parcel under the provisions of this section, the
property appraiser, for the purposes of such determina-
tion, shall exclude any portion of such net proceeds
attributable to payments for household furnishings or
other items of personal property.
Nlstory.-s. t, a+. 6J-230: s. t, U. 67.187: aa. t. 2. cn. 69.55: a. t7. U+. tf9.2t6:
a. e. ut. 7a2.J: s. 20. d+ 7a23~: a. ,. a+. 77•tQ2: a. ,. cn. 77.16.7: s. 6. ell.
79-JSa; a, t, en. gS.tOt: s. t, rr 9J-t J2: a. t, en. 97.117
tVOq.~Ormp a. 191.021.
193.015 Additional specific factor; effect of issu-
ance or denial of permit to dredge, fill, or construct in
state waters to their landward extent.-
(1) If the Department of Environmental Protection
issues or denies a permit to dredge, fill, or otherwise
construct in or on waters of the state, as defined in
chapter 403, to their landward extent as determined
under 's. 403.817(2), the property appraiser is
expressly directed to consider the effect of that issu-
ance or denial on the value of the property and any limi-
tation that the issuance or dental may impose on the
highest and best use of the property to tts landward
extent.
(2) The Department of Envtronmental Protection
shall provide the property appratser of each county in
which such property .s situated a copy of any final
agency ,~chon relating to an appi~cat~on for such a per.
mIl
I ~i-~ 9
Ch. 193 ASSESSMENTS F.S. 1997
(3> The provtstons of subsection (t) do not apply if:
(a) The property owner had no reasonable basis for
expecting approval of the application for permit: or
(b) The application for permit was denied because
of an incomplete filing, failure to meet an applicable
deadline, or failure to comply with administrative or pro-
cedural requirements.
NIa1wY.-s ]. U 6449: s. a2. U 9a-JS8
'NOt~.-ApraNtl oy s. !a. U 9a. i22
193.023 Duties of the property appraiser in making
assessments.-
(1) The property appraiser shall complete his or her
assessment of the value of all property no later than
July 1 of each year, except that the department may for
good cause shown extend the time for completion of
assessment of all property.
(2) In making his or her assessment of the value of
real property, the property appraiser is required to
inspect physically the property every 3 years to ensure
that the tax roll meets all the requirements of law. How-
ever, the property appraiser shall physically inspect
any parcel of taxable real property upon the request of
the taxpayer or owner.
(3) In revaluating property in accordance with con-
stitutional and statutory requirements, the property
appraiser may adjust the assessed value placed on
any parcel or group of parcels based on mass data col-
lected, on ratio studies prepared by an agency author-
ized by law, or pursuant to regulations of the Depart-
ment of Revenue.
(4) In making his or her assessment of leasehold
interests in property serving the unit owners of a condo-
minium or cooperative subject to a lease, including
property subject to a recreational lease, the property
appraiser shall assess the property at its fair market
value without regard to the income derived from the
lease.
(5) In assessing any parcel of a condominium or
any parcel of any other residential development having
common elements appurtenant to the parcels, if such
common elements are owned by the condominium
association or owned jointly by the owners of the par-
cels, the assessment shalt apply to the parcel and its
tractional or proportionate share of the appurtenant
common elements.
(6) In making assessments of cooperative parcels,
the property appraiser shall use the method required by
s. 719.1 t4.
Mtatory -t 9. cn 70.24] s '. cn 72290. s S. cn 76.222. s. t. cn 77-102:
s 2. cn 8a~26~ s ta, cn 86300. s t. cn 88.218. t S. cn 9t~22J. s 970. cn
95 u7
193.024 Deputy property appraisers.-Property
appraisers may appoint deputies to act in their behalf in
carrying out the duties prescribed by law
Nlrrtdy. -s 2 .n op~ ]64
'193.052 Preparation and serving of returns.-
I t) The following returns shall be bled
la) Tangible personal property. and
(bl Property speahcally requtred to ba returned by
othr~r provtstons ~n this title
(~) No return shall be requtred br real property the
owner;h~p .)f which i5 refler_ted .n ~nstrumenl5 reCOrded
to the public records of the county in which the property
is located, unless otherwise requtred in this title. In
order for land to be considered for agricultural CIBSSifi-
cation under s. 193.461 or high•water recharge classifi-
cation under s. 193.625, an application for classifica-
tion must be filed on or before March 1 of each year
with the property appraiser of the county in which the
land is located, except as provided in s. t 93.461(3)(4).
The application must state that the lands on January 1
of that year were used primarily for bona tide commer-
cial agricultural or high-water recharge purposes.
(3) A return for the above types of property shall be
filed in each county which is the situs of such property.
as set out under s. 192.032.
(4) All returns shall be completed by the taxpayer in
such a way as to correctly reflect the owner's estimate
of the value of property owned or otherwise taxable to
him or her and covered by such return. All forms used
for returns shall be prescribed by the department and
delivered to the property appraisers for distribution to
the taxpayers.
(5) Property appraisers may distribute returns in
whatever way they feel most appropriate. However, as
a minimum requirement, the property appraiser shall
requisition, and the department shall distribute, forms
in a timely manner so that each property appraiser can
and shall-make them available in his or her office no
later than the first working day of the calendar year.
(6) The department shall promulgate the neces-
sary regulations to ensure that all railroad and utility
property is properly returned in the appropriate county.
However, the evaluating or assessing of utility property
in each county shall be the duty of the property
appraiser.
Mlratory.-s. t,, ch. 70.2x]: s. t, eh. 72•]70: s t, cn. 7]•228: s. 20. cn. 7]•734:
s. 8, ch. T627a, s. ,. cn 77.102: s. a5. U. T7•t0a; s. 7. cn. 79-]3a, s. 9. d+•
8,•]t36: s. 75. cn. 82.226: s. ,. cn. 6a•,t36: ss. 2B. 22,, cn. 95.342: s. 63. d,.
89•]36: s. 97,, a,. 95•,w7: s. 2. cn. 95•a0s; s. ]. cn. 96.204
'NON.-S~ctan ,0, cn 96.20s, provw~s !net '(tiM am~namwt,s !o srrcoon
,97.44,, s~csan 197.625. s~ctan 19].052. sracnon t9a.0, t, soc,an t9a 032. s~c•
tan t9a 037. sax:,an ,95 077. or sattan 195.096. Pbrw Statutes. py !nrs act o0
n01 pI~UuC~ !h~ SIaI• or any opal 90v~Inm~nt !rpm impl~mMlrn9 Othlr prOgfam3
W m~alur~3 !O p101~Ct !h• ngh•watN r~pnar9rl arcs wtlhrn cn~ AunfNf Of th1
s,aN
NoN.~on soiaatan of protisans of to.mar ss t9] tt3. t97.t2t. t9J.20.7.
t9]2tt, t9]27t•t9]26t 197272. t972Bt.t9]]tt
193.062 Dates for tiling returns.-All returns shall
be filed according to the following schedule:
(1) Tangible personal property-April t .
(2) Real property-when required by specific provi-
sion of general law.
(3) Railroad, railroad terminal, private car and
freight line and equipment company property-April 1•
(4) All other returns and applications not otherwise
specified by specific provision of general law-April 1.
Malay -s r2 cn 10-2a). s a5 cn 77 t0a t 9 cn '9734 t 7 cn Or.JOe
raol~ -+~onto~aai~on ~i o,o.~s~ons of ro,mu st t7] ;03 ~9] : ~ ~
193.063 Extension of date for filing tangible per-
sonal property tax returns.-The property appraiser
may. at her pr his d~screhon, grant an exten9~on for thz
filtnq of ~ tangible personal property tax return for up to
45 days ~ request for extension must be made .n hme
for the pr~7pr'r1y ,lppr,~tser to r_ons~der the request and
act Jn it ht'Ic)rr (he regular du«~ date of the return. A
req~e5t rur N.<tan;~r~n must ~ncludN th«~ namr~ ~31 (he tax'
1454
~~y~~gt.tN~'i' I:V t? '.i'AX CHOICES
CRITERIA: (1) Big money area + Wealth
(2) Disposable income (NOT bread and butter
like food or rent etc.)
(3) Ease of collection (computer-dominated
area)
SUGGESTIONS) Four, for starters, (imagine others);-
(A) Those "900" telephone num~~rs ----millions of
dollars thrown away o~. sex talk, etc
at 2 or more PER MINUTE...,,,.,
Just another of the footnotes on your phone
bill, alon with
g manhole covers" etc.
(B) PUBLICITY (There is no tax now on advertising.)
- Classified ads (exempting Donations, Freebies.
lost-and-found, churches, charities)
- Display ads (all those full-page spreads--
Brands Mart, Sears. Macys, Auto Dealers,
Cont~~ctors, Legal notices, etc.) Multi-
milllons of dollars daily,-,.,,,,,,)
- Distribution of pre-printed leaflets
(C) Gambling (There's no end to it,.,)
- Door tax to enter lotto. 1-arm bandits, casinos,
cock-fights, etc
- Card tax Ticket tax. More....
(D) Wealthy patron contributions
- Set upa "Hall of Fame" with lifelong honor tothe
truly noble k:enefactors who. can be the "Saviors
of Miami" and honor them as Heroes, constantly.
,.a r~ y~'l,i as Ys:
~$p~ _. 4 ~ a_ • o QY 1
~.3~'I/ t,,IE~C
98-AT•241-1003
Audit Report
District Inspector General for Audit
Southeast-Caribbean District
Report: 98-AT-241-1
TO: Angelo Castillo, Director, Community Planning and Development Division,
Florida State Office, Coral Gables, Florida, 4DD _
SN.
FROM: Nancy H. Cooper
District Inspector General for Audit-Southeast/Canbbean, 4AGA
SUBJECT: City of Miami
Community Planning and DevelopmenR Programs
Miami, Florida
We completed a review of the City of Miami's Community Planning and Development (CPD)
Programs for the years 1995 and 1996. Our objectives were to determine whe$ner the City: (I)
complied with Federal laws, Department of Housing and Urban Development (HL1D)
regulations, and other requirements; (2) had adequate controls to comply with the requirements;
and (3) carried out its activities in an economical, efficient, and effective manner.
The City of Miami did not have adequate controls to ensure compliance with reg<ations or
properly manage its CPD funds. As a resuh, the City spent 55,203,607 of Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds far grant administrative expenses withoud proper
support. Also, the City spent $484;999 for ineligible grant administrative expenses. In additioq
because the City did not efficiently and effectively manage its loan programs and did not
safeguard its assets, approximately $9.9 million of its outstanding loan portfolio was is default.
Further, the City allocated 54.75 million of HOME Im+estment Partnerships (HOME) fiords far
an affordable housing development that was not feasible.
Within 60 days, please give us, for each recommendation cited in this report, a stator report oQ:
(1) the corrective action taken; (2) the proposed corrertive action and the date to be completed;
or (3) why action is considered unnecessary. Also, please finnish us copies of any
correspondence or directives issued because of the audit.
98-AT-2~1-1003
If you have any questions, please contact Sonya D. Lucas, Assistant District Inspector General
for Audit, at (404) 331-3369, or Gerald R Kirkland, Senior Auditor, at (904) 232-1226. We are
pmviding a copy of this report to the City of Miami.
~~
98-.! T-2~1-1003
Executive_ Summary
We have completed a review of the City of Miami's CPD Programs. The objectives of the
review were to determine whether the City: (1) complied with Federal laws, HUD regulations,
and other requirements; (2) had adequate controls to comply with the requirements; and (3)
carried out its activities in an economical, efficient, and effective manner.
We determined the City did not have adequate controls to ensure compliance with regulations or
properly manage its CPD fiords. Also, the City did not efficiently and effectively manage its
programs or adequately safeguard its assets.
Specifically, the review disclosed:
• The City spent $5,203,607 of CDBG fiords for grant administrative expenses without
proper support. Also, the City spent $484,999 for ineligible grant administrative
expenses. As a result, the City deprived the intended program beneficiaries of
$5,688,606.
• The City did not efficiently and effectively administer its loan programs or
adequately safeguard its assets. As a result, approximately $9.9 million of the City's
outstanding loan portfolio was in default.
• The City allocated $4.75 million of HOME fiords to develop an affordable housing
project that was not feasible. The homes were not affordable for prospective buyers
and finding was insufficient to complete the project. Also, the developer owed the
City $144,538 of program income.
We recommend that HUD require the City to reimburse the CDBG Program and the U.S.
Treasury for all ineligible costs and resolve unsupported costs; submit certified Cost Allocation
Plans; develop and implement controls and procedures to ensure proper administration of its
loan programs and proper safeguarding of its assets; collect all loan payments over 90 days past
due; repay the CDBG Program $686,270 for loan amounts written off as uncollectible; and
demonstrate how the housing project can be made affordable to low and very low income
families by obtaining sufficient subsidies, reconfiguring the project, or reducing the costs. Also,
because of the significance of the findings, we recommend that HUD require the City to develop
a connective action plan for approval that corrects the systemic weaknesses identified in the
findings.
iii
98-.1T-?~1-1003
We presented our Endings to the City and HUD officials during the audit. We held ~m exit
conference on January 21, 1998. The City provided written comments to our findings and has
commendably taken initial steps to conbcK some deficiencies. The HUD Field Officx in Coral
Cables, Florida, also provided written comments to our findings. We considered the responses
in preparing our final report. We included excerpts from the City's responses in each Ending
and the complete comments as Appendix D.
~v
98 AT-2~1-1003
Table of Contents
Management Memorandum .............................................................................................. i
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ iii
Table of Contents ..............................................................................................................v
Introduction ......................................................................................................................1
Findings and Recommendations
1. The City Inappropriately Spent $5,688,606 .............................................................3
2. Loan Procedures Needed Improvement .................................................................10
3. The City Allocated $4.75 Million for a Project That Was
Not Feasible ..........................................................................................................19
Internal Controls .............................................................................................................26
Follow-up on Prior Audits ...............................................................................................27
Issues Needing Further Study and Consideration ............................................................28
Appendices
A. Schedule of Ineligible and Unsupported Expenditures ..........................................30
B. Schedule of Defaulted Multifamily Rehabilitation Loans ......................................31
C. Narrative Case Presentations .................................................................................32
C-1 Ideal Rehab, Inc., and Liberty City Improvement Corporation
C-2 DC Two Exponent, Inc.
C-3 Indian River Investment Management, Inc.
D. Auditee Comments :.............:...............................................................................39
E. Distribution ...........................................................................................................44
9&AT•2~1-1003
Abbreviations:
CDBG Community Development Block Grant
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CPD Community Planning and Development
HOME HOME Investment Partnerships
HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development
MFR Multifamily Rehabilitation
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PITI Principal, Interest, Taxes, and Ins«rance
SFR Single Family Rehabilitation
v~
98 AT-2~l -1003
Introduction
BACKGROUND
The CDBG Program was established by Title I of the Housing and Community Development
Act of 1974. The program provides grants to aid in the development of viable urban
communities by providing decent housing and a suitable living environment and expanding
economic opportunities, principally for persons of low and moderate income. HUD gives the
City of Miami annual entitlement grants to help the City's efforts in carrying out a wide sage of
community development activities directed towards neighborhood revitalization, economic
development, and improved community facilities and services.
To be eligible for fimding, every CDBG-fimded activity must meet one of the program's three
national objectives. Each activity, except program administration and planning, must:
• Benefit low and moderate income persons; or
• Aid in preventing or eliminating slums or blight; or
• Address a need with a particular urgency because existing conditions pose a serious
and immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community. `
The HOME Investment Partnerships Program was created under Title II of the National
Affordable Housing Act of 1990. HOME was designed to strengthen public-private partnerships
to expand the supply of decent, safe, sanitary, and affordable housing, with primary attention to
housing for low and very low-income families.
The City of Miami's CPD Programs are administered through its Department of Community
Development. For the audit period, the City's CDBG aad HOME entitlement fiords were:
SOURCE OF CPD FUNDS ~p~
Unexpended CDBG fiords from prior years ~ 23,508,092
Unexpended HOME fiords from prior years 8,669,711
CDBG Program year May 1996 13,709,000
CDBG Program year May 1997 13,320,000
HOME Program year May 1996 4,038,000
HOME Program year May 1997 4,315,000
Program income, June 1, 1995 through May 31, 1996 3,298,724
Program income, June 1, 1996 through May 31, 1997 3,497,625
Prior period adjustrnents 76,044
Total ~ 74,432,196
98 AT-2~1-1003
The City of Miami is a Municipal Corporation governed by the Mayor and City Commissioners.
The City's fiscal year is October 1 through September 30. The City's CPD Programs are
administered by its Assistant City Manager. The City's books and records are maintained at 444
SW Zed Avenue, Miami, Florida.
AUDIT OBJECTIVES, SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
The focus of our review was to determine if the City complied with Federal laws, HUD
regulations, and other requirements in carrying out its CPD Programs. Specifically, objectives
were to determine whether the City:
• Complied with the CPD Program requirements, laws, and regulations;
• Had adequate controls to ensure compliance with HUD regulations; and
• Carried out its activities in an economical, efficient, and effective manner.
To accomplish the objectives, we tested program activities for compliance with program
requirements, interviewed appropriate HUD staff and City officials, a~ reviewed HUD and
City records related to the CPD Programs. We also reviewed various disbursements for
eligibility, support, and proper allocation; evaluated the City's system of internal eantrols and
management practices; and performed limited reviews of the City's Grantee Performance
Reports•
Our review methodology included a judgmental selection of five multifamily rehabilitation
loans. The City wrote off two of the loans as uneollcctible. Also, one loan was past due and
the City restructured the loan terms of the last two loans.
Our audit covered the period June 1, 1995, through December 31, 1996; however, we extended
the audit period as necessary. We performed the audit field work between January and August
1997. We .conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards.
s
98-AT-2~1-1003
Findings
Finding 1
The City Inappropriately Spent $5,688,606
The City spent $5,203,607 of CDBG funds for grant administrative expenses without proper
support. Also, the City spent $484,999 for ineligible grant administrative expenses. This
occur ed because the City shifted grant administirative costs between grants; exceeded the 20
Percent Brant administration limit; and paid indirect costs without supporting cost allocation
Plans, prior to receiving services,.and prior to the central service departments incurring costs.
As a result, the City deprived the intended program beneficiaries of $5,688,606.
HUD REQUIREMENTS
Title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 570.200 (ax5) requires that costs
incurred, whether direct or indirect costs, must conform to Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) Circular A-87 (A-87). Costs allocable to a particular grant cannot be charged to other
grants. Indirect costs must be supported by a certified Cost Allocation Plan. For fiscal years
beginning after September 1, 1995, A-87 requires Grantees to submit a certified plan to the
cognizant agency. HUD is the City's cognizant agency. If the City has not submitted a certified
Plan, HUD may disallow all indirect costs.
THE CITY SHIFTED COSTS BETWEEN GRANTS TO AVOID EXCEEDING
EXPENDITURE LIlVIITS
The City shifted costs between grants to avoid exceeding the 20 percent grant administrative
expense limit. Because the City elected not to comply with requirements, the City deprived the
intended program beneficiaries of $2,133,797.
A-87 stipulates that any excess costs over the Federal contribution under one award agreement
are unallowable under other award agreements. Similarly, A-87 states any cost allocable to a
particular grant or cost objective may not be shifted to other Federal grant programs to overcome
fiord deficiencies, avoid restrictions imposed by law or grant agreements, or for other reasons.
Also, A-87 stipulates that amounts not recoverable as indirect costs or administrative costs under
one Federal award may not be shifted to artpther Federal award unless specifically authorized by
Federal legislation or regulation. Further, Title 24 CFR 570.200(8) limits expenditures for
Planning and administrative costs to 20 percent of the sum of any grant plus program income.
3
98 AT-2I1-1003
Based on a July 1991 inter-office memorandum, the City's Finance Department withdrew
51,850,997 from the May 1992 program year CDBG grant. The fiords included cumulative
indirect costs that Finance claimed it undercharged for fiscal years 1987 through 1991.
In July 1992, Finance charged another 5215,382 of indirect costs to the program Year. Thus, the
City charged 52,066,379 of indirect costs to the May 1992 program year. The estimated indirect
costs for the program Year were 5552,689.
Indirect costs are part of the grant administrative costs which are subject to a 20 percent limit.
Because the City charged the cumulative indirect costs, the City exceeded the 20 percent limit
for program year May 1992.
The HUD Jacksonville Area Office reviewed the Grantee Performance Report for the program
year. In a June 14, 1993, letter the HUD Office disclosed the City apparently exceeded the 20
percent limit. .
In an October 25, 1993, inter-office memorandum a former City Community Development
Director requested Finance to transfer the over charges to the May 1992 program Year indirect
costs account. On October 26, 1993, Finance transferred indirect costs of 51,266,066 to other
program years to avoid exceeding the 20 percent limit The transfers included 51,166,329 to
program Year 1994; 599,589 to program Year 1991; and 5148 to program Year 1987. In addition,
the City transferred 536,482 to other expenses in the May 1992 program year. `
Also, for program Years May 1994 through May 1997 the City continued the practice of
transferring costs to other grants to avoid exceeding the 20 percent limit Generally, the City
transferred grant administrative expenses that exceeded the total amount budgeted. The costs
transferred included indirect costs and other grant administrative costs that caused the City to
exceed the total grant administration budget Because the City transferred the excessive costs
before the end of the program Year, the costs were not repotted to HUD on the City's Grantee
Performance Report.
98 .!T•2~1-1003
As shown in the following chart the City transferred excess administrative expenses totaling
52,133,797.
DESCRIPTION
Program Yar Mav 1987
Excaas coats transferred from program yar May 1992 5148
Program Yar Mav 1991
Excexs coats traosfen+ed from ProB~ Yar MaY 1992 99, 389
Program Yar Mav 1992
Retroactive adjustment 51,850,997
Additional charge 215,382
Leas:
Estimated indirect cost - (SS2,689)
Transfer to Pro6~ Yar May 87 (148)
Transfer to program yar May 91 (gg,S89)
Transfer to program yar May 94 f 1.166.329)
Excess casts charged to program yar May 1992 u7,6u
Proeam Yar Mav 1994
Transfer from ProB~ Y'ar MaY 1992 1,166,329
Less: Transfer to program yar May 1995 7 4
Excess coats charged to program yar May 1994 0~
Program Yar Mav 1995
Transfer from program yar MsY 1994 1,786,436
Leas: Transfer to program year May 1996 (1.459.464)
Excxas costa charged to ProB~ Yar MaY 1995 326,972
Program Yar Mav 1996
Transfer from program year May 1995 1,459,464
Lena: Transfer to program Yar May 1997 (869.336)
Excess coats charged to program yar May 1996 390,128
Pro~am Yar Mav 1997
Excess costs transferred from program Yar May 1996
c~8'~ ~ ProB~ Yar ~Y 1997 869,336
TOTAL EXCESS COSTS 52,133,797
In order to avoid the 20 percent limit, the City transferred out more than was tratt:fetned in. Thus, no excess
costa resulting from the transfers remained in program year May 94.
5
98-AT-2~1-1003
The City believed it was acceptable to shift administrative costs between grant years. Although
the City acknowledged the provisions of A-87, the City claimed it, as well as HUD, had
administered the CDBG Program Hiles and regulations as a single Federal award. Any shifting
of indirect costs that may have taken place always occurred within the Grant, rather than
between two grant programs. -The City also believed it was acceptable to charge indirect costs
for previous years as long as the charges did not contribute to the City excceding the 20 percent
grant administration limit.
In the past HUD has allowed recovery of indirect costs from previous years. Based on a June
24, 1986, memorandum from Alfred C. Moran, former Assistant Secretary, Community
Planning and Development, if a Grantee exceeded the 20 percent requirement in a program year,
the Grantee would be considered to be in compliance with the requirement if it could allocate its
planning and administrative expenditures to each source year of the CDBG fiords and thereby
demonstrate that it had not exceeded the 20 percent limit. In order to recover such excess costs,
the Grantee would have to account for its expenditures on a grant by grant basis.
We discussed the matter with the HUD CPD Entitlement Division. The Assistant Director
agreed that in order to recover such costs the City would have to account for its administrative
costs on a grant by grant basis, support the undercharged amounts, and remain under the 20
percent limit for each applicable program year. Also, the City would have to show for each
program Year which administrative costs were applicable to each activity administered.
However, in no case could any undercharged amounts from prior years be charged to the ctitrent
year or future years.
We agreed that if the City could demonstrate that it would not have exceeded the 20 percent
limit for 1987 through 1991 in which the City claimed it had undercharged the indirect costs, we
would consider allowing the costs. The City provided documentation to support the 20 percent
limit would not have been exceeded. However, the documentation is not sufficient to fiilly
resolve the issues. Therefore the City did not adequately support $2,133,797 of grant
administrative expenses that were transferred between program Years.
TSE CITY EXCEEDED THE ZO PERCENT GRANT ADNIINISTRATION LIlVIIT
The City exceeded the 20 percent grant administration limit for program years May 1992 and
1994. Because the City failed to comply with requirements and report all expenses, the City
expended $484,999 in excess of the grant administration limit. Thus, the City deprived the
intended program beneficiaries $484,999.
The total administrative costs for program year May 1992 exceeded the 20 percent limit. The
program Year grant was $12,502,000 and program income was $1,937,187. The City also
received an additional $697,016 for the program year. Thus, the maximum grant administrative
expense allowed was $3,027,241. According to the Grantee Performance Report, the City
charged $3,177,555 for grant administrative expenses. Therefore, the City exceeded the 20
percent limit by $150,314.
6
98-~T-2~1-1003
Also, on May 9, 1994, Finance transfen~ed 5551,600 from its May 1994 program year indirect
cost line item to its Disaster Grant. However on September 1 S, 1994, Finance reversed the May
9, 1994, journal entry and transferred the 5551,600 back to the May 1994 program year grant.
Since the City transferred the costs on May 9, 1994, and the City's CDBG Program year ended
May 31, 1994, the City did not report the 5551,600 of administrative costs on its Grantee
Performance Report.
The May 1994 program year grant was 512,571,000 and program income was 53,274,913.
Thus, the maximum allowable grant administrative expense was 53,169,183. According to the
Grantee Performance Report, the grant administrative costs wen 52,952,268 for the program
year. However, the City did not report the 5551,600 that was transferred Since the City
expended the 5551,600, it should have been reported on the Grantee Performance Report. If the
City reported the 5551,600, the total grant administrative costs would have been 53,503,868.
Thus, the City exceeded the 20 percent limit by 5334,685.
THE CITY DID NOT HAVE COST ALLOCATION PLANS TO SUPPORT INDIRECT
COSTS
The City did not have plans to support 53,069,810 of indirect costs charged to its CDBG grants.
A-87 requires the Grantee to prepare and maintain a plan to support indirect cost charges. For
fiscal years beginning after September 1, 1995, A-87 requires the Grantee to prepare an indirect
cost rate proposal and related documentation to support indirect costs. The indirect cost late
proposal must be developed and submitted to HUD within 6 months after the close of the fiscal
year.
A. Indirect Costs of 52.518.210 Wen Charged to CDBG Without Support
The City did not prepare plans for approval to support indirect costs charged to its
CDBG grants for program Years May 1995 through May 1997. Also, indirect costs
for program Years May 1996 and May 1997 were based on costs for fiscal years
beginning after September 1, 1995. Thus, the City was required to submit its indirect
cost rate to HUD for approval.
The City did not have approved plans; however, it charged 52,518,210 of indirect
costs to program years May 1995 thmugh May 1997. Typically, the City withdrew
funds from its line of credit early in the program year to pay its indirect costs. Since
the City did not prepare the plans, the City based the amount withdrawn on plans from
previous fiscal years. For example, the City initially charged 5758,551 as indirect
costs for program year May 1995, which also represented fiscal year 1995. The City
based the 5758,551 on its fiscal year 1992 plan. Once the fiscal year 1993 plan was
prepared, the City adjusted the May 1995 program year indirect costs charged to
closely reflect the 1993 plan. The City performed the same projections for the May
1996 and May 1997 program years. The City recently received the fiscal year 1994
plan. Thus, we anticipate the City will adjust the indirect cost for program years May
1995 through May 1997 to closely reflect the 1994 plan.
98-AT-2~1-1003
The City's staff explained the plans cannot be prepared and submitted within 6
months of the end of the fiscal year. The plans are not developed until the City's
audited financial statements are prepared. Thus, the City typically does not receive
the plans until 2 years after the respective program years have ended. This is further
complicated by the fact the City's program year is June 1 through May 31, whereas its
fiscal year is October 1 through September 30. Because the plans are not prepared
timely, the City justified withdrawing the estimated indirect costs from the line of
credit based on plans from previous fiscal years. The City did not have an approved
provisional rate.
A-87 permits Grantees to use a provisional rate as a temporary indirect cost rate
applicable to a specified period pending the establishment of a final rate for that
period. The provisional rate must be approved. Also, A-87 permits Grantees to use $
predetermined rate based on an estimate of the costs to be incurred during the period.
However, predetermined rates may not be used by Grantees that have not submitted
and negotiated the rate with the cognizant agency. HUD did not approve either a
provisional rate or a predetermined rate.
B. Indirect Costs of 5551.600 Were Charged to a Disaster Grant Without a Plan
On September 21, 1994, Finance charged 5551,600 of indirect costs to the Disaster
Grant. The City did not have a plan to support the charges. Coincidentally,'the
5551,600 represented the maximum grant administrative expense that could be
charged to the Disaster Grant to meet the 20 percent limit. Thus, it appeared the City
charged the 5551,600 in order to **+ imi~ .the administrative expense.
TSE CITY PAID INDIRECT COSTS PRIOR TO RECEIVII~IG SERVICES
The City paid indirect costs for program years May 1996 and May 1997 prior to receiving
services. A-87 provides that a cost is allocable to a cost objective if the goods ar services
involved are chargeable or assignable in accordance with relative benefits received. Costs must
be necxssary and reasonable for proper and efficient grant administration. In determining
reasonableness, consideration must be given to sound business practices.
The City's CDBG Program year is June 1 through May 31. The City's fiscal year is October 1
through September 30. The City's plans are based on the actual costs for the fiscal year.
Because of the differing time periods, the indirect costs charged to the CDBG Program did not
match the periods in which the services were received.
Although we do not take exception to tha differing periods, we do not believe the City should
paY indirect costs prior to receiving services and prior to the central service departments
incurring related costs. For example, on June 9, 1995, the City withdrew 5987,746 from its line
of credit for indirect costs for program year May 1996. The City paid the 5987,746 to the
general fund. The payment was for indirect costs for services to be provided from June 1, 1995,
e
98-AT-2~1-1003
through May 31, 1996. Thus, the City paid the full program Year's indirect costs in June 1995
for services that had not been rendered and for which the central service departments had not
incurred costs. We do not believe this represents sound business practice.
In September 1996, the City paid $987,746 for indirect costs for program year May 1997.
Again, the City paid the indirect costs even though no services had been received and no costs
had been incurred by the central service departments.
The City believed it was acceptable to pay indirect costs in advance. The City was informed by
the consulting firm that prepares its plans that the practice was common in the industry.
According to an OMB Policy Analyst, indirect costs cannot be paid until costs for services are
incurred. If a provisional rate were approved, the City could pay its applicable portion of the
indirect costs incurred based on the provisional rate.
AUDITEE COMII~NTS
The City generally agreed with the finding. The City provided documentation to support that the
20 percent limit would not have been exceeded for years 1987 through 1991.
OIG EVALUATION
Based on the City's comments, we made revisions to the finding. We commend the City's
positive efforts to resolve the wealmesses. Although the City provided documentation to try to
show the 20 percent limit would not have been exceeded, the documentation was not sufficient
to fully resolve the issues.
RECOMII~NDATIONS
We recommend you require the City to:
lA. Provide adequate support far $2,133,797 of grant administrative expenses that were
transferred between program Years or repay any unsupported costs to the CDBG
Program.
1B. Reimburse the CDBG Program for ineligible costs of $484,999.
1 C. Submit certified Cost Allocation Plans as required to support indirect costs charges of
$2,518,210 for program years May 1995 through May 1997 or repay any unsupported
costs to the CDBG Program.
1D. Provide support for the $551,600 of administrative costs charged to the Supplemental
Disaster Relief Grant or repay any unsupported costs to the U.S. Treasury.
lE. Submit for approval a corrective action plan to correct the systemic wealrnesses
identified in the finding.
9
98 .!T-2~1-1003
Finding 2
Loan Procedures Needed Improvement
The City's loan procedures needed improvement. The City's underwriting and collection
procedures were inadequate. In addition, the City failed to pursue legal remedies to cure
defaults and recover losses, as well as protect its interests upon foreclosure. Also, loan decisions
made by the City Commissioners were not in the City's best interest. As a result, about 59.9
million, or 36 percent, of the City's outstanding loan portfolio was in default. The City's failure
to collect the loans reduced the amount of program income available to carry out its CDBG
activities.
HUD REQUIREIVIFNI'S
A-87, Paragraph A, 2.a, requires efficient and effective administration of Federal awards thmugh
the application of sound management practices. Title 24 CFR, Part 85.20(ax3) requires
Grantees to maintain effective control and accountability far all grant and subgrant cash and
other assets. Grantees must adequately safeguard aU such property.
LOAN PORTFOLIO ACTIVITY -
The City administered several loan programs including multifamily rehabilitation (1ViFR), single
family rehabilitation (SFR), rental rehabilitation, new const<vction, and various smaller
programs. As of May 30, 1997, the City's portfolio contained 634 loans with an outstanding
principal balance of 527,658,117. Approximately 187 or 30 percent of the loans were in
defaultz. The outstanding balance of the defaulted loans was 59,904,456 or 36 percent of the
og loan portfolio balance. Further, 55,987,960 of the defaulted balance was aver 90 days
past due. The past due paymerns on all loans, including late Bees, totaled 51,509,138.
The following table shows the City's complete loan portfolio.
Loan payments were at least 30 days pest due.
10
98-AT•2I1-1009
CITY'S LOAN PORTFOLIO AS OF MAY 30,1997
LOAN
PROGRAM PRiTiCIPAL
BALANCE
OUTSTANDQiG PRiNCipAL
BALANCE IN
DEFAULT PERCENT
IN
DEFAULT
DEFAULT
> 90 DAYS PERCENT
DEFAULT >
90 DAYS
CDBG -MFR S1S,031,188 56,738,463 44.8 percent 54,772,984 31.8 t
CDBG -SFR < - 5,274,361 1,781,682 33.8 799,417 15.2
Rental Rehab 5,489,370 979,732 17.8 percent 227,500 4.1 t
HOME 748,986 110,790 14.8 percent 57,051 7.6 percent
UDAG 585,597 88,189 15.1 percent 50,338 8.6 percent
Scattered Site 368,919 102,281 27.7 percent 20,000 5.4 percent
Section 8 59,6% 53,319 89.3 percent 50,670 84.9 percent
Other 100,000 50,000 50.0 percent 10,000 10.0 percent
TOTAL 527,658,117 59,904,456 35.8 percent 55,987,960 21.7 percent
We limited our review to the MFR loan program due to the large outstanding Iona portfolio; high
defalilts; and high suscept<bility to fraud, waste, and abuse. As of May 30, 1997, the MFR loan
portfolio outstanding principal balance was 515,031,188, which rued 54 pent of the City's
outstanding loan portfolio.
Approximately 45 percent of the MFR loan otstanding balauccx were in default, which was 23 of the
40 MFR loans. The 23 defaulted loans represented 57.5 pei~oent of the City's outstanding MFR loans.
Twenty of the 23 defaulted loans were over 90 days past due. Also, 10 of the 201oans were ova 2
years past due. Approximately 51.1 million of the MFR loan payme~, including late fees, were. past
due. A schedule of the defaulted MFR loans is inchided as App®ndix B. In addition to the defaulted
loans, the City wrote off five MFR loans totaling 52,373,865 as uncollecttbk during the May 31,
1996, program Year.
We judgmentally selected five MFR loans far review. The loans reviewed inch~ded two loans the
City wrote off as uncollechble, one in default, and two the City restivctured. See Appendices C-1
through C-3 for detailed results of the deficient loans reviewed. In addition, we also performed a
limited reviews of foreclosure requesCs for defaulted SFR loans.
THE CITY'S UNDERWRITING PROCEDURES WERE DEFICIENT
The City's underwriting procedures were deficient. Far example, the City did not adequately analyze
borrowers' credit vrorthiness or require equity investments from baroweas. As a restilt, the City
made loans to borrowers who were not credit worthy. Therefore, the City increased the risk that
borrowers would not repay loans and the risk of financial losses upon foreclosure. The deficiencies
contributed to the defaulted and uncollectible loans.
ii
98-AT-2~1-1003
A. The City Did Not Adequately Analvu Borrowers' Credit Wordiness
The City's Housing Division did not adequately analyze credit vwrdiness when
underwriting MFR loans. For the five loans reviewed, the City did not obtain credit
reports. Analysis of credit worthiness is an essential element of the u~exvvriting process.
Faihae to consider credit wordiness demonstrates the City's lack of wind management
Practices.
Because the City did not adequately analyze credit wordiness, Housing inappTOpriately
made a loan to Lberty City Improvement Corporation. Lberty's principal was also a
principal of two other entities, Ideal Rehabilitation Inc., and DC Two Exponent, Inc., that
previously defaulted on MFR loans. Despite the previous defaults, Hwrsing made a
5367,300 MFR loan to Eberly on August 15, 1990. Lberty defaulted on the loan in
Febn~aty 1991. The details regarding these loans are discussed in Appa~dices C-1 and
C-2. It is not sound management practice for the City to make loans to borrowers with a
poor credit history or who have previously defaulted on a Federal loan. At a minimum,
the City should analyse credit wordiness by reviewing credit repots for the borrowing
entities and its principals.
B. The Citv Did Not Require Equity Investment From Borrower
Housing did not require equity investments by borrowers. Private sector leaders geaa~ally
require borrowers to make at least a 10 to 20 pero®t irn+esdmeat to receive a rehabilitation
loan, tart the investment inch~de debt equity (secondary loan proceeds). However,
Housing allowed debt equity for the full equity investment.
Requiring borrowers to make an equity investment would reduce the 117celihood of default
becaou,4e the borrowers risk losing their investments. Beca~u.9e the City did not require
borrower investments, borrowers had less incentive to repay the loans. Thus, the City
increased the risk of loss to the program.
TSE CITY'S COLLECTION PROCEDURES WERE INADEQUATE
The City did not have written collection procedcu~es detailing the collection procxss and assigning
respon.~bilities far specific tasks. The lack of written procedures caused poor communication and
misunderstanding of duties between the responsible divisions. Therefore, the procedures used by the
City were inadequazte to properly safeguard its assets. The City's faiha+e to implement adequate
collection procedures contributed to the 59.9 million in defaulted loans and the 52.3 million writter-
off as uncollectible
is
98-AT-2~1-1003
A. Weaknesses in the Finance Division's Procedures
A City Finance Department Accounts Receivable Clerk was responsible for collecting
loan payments, contacting delinquent borrowers, notifj+ing the other responsible
depariinents when borrowers defaulted on their loans, and determining when a loan was
uncolle+ctible. When losers became past due, the Clerk sent various types of 30 and 60 day
delinquency letters to borrowers and made personal contact with borrowers to discuss
repayment. If a loan was not cunrat after 120 days, the Clerk seat a letter threatening
legal action. Although the 120 day letters wed legal action, Finance did not begin
sending the letters for MFR loans to Legal until February 1997 after eta review started
Thus, Legal did not take say legal action pursuant to the letters. The Clerk oantinued to
send the 120 day delinquency letters to the delinquent borrowers every monde until the
past due amounts were paid ar the City took other aeon.
If the Clerk determined aYoan to be uncolle+chble, the Clerk seat a foreclosure request form
to Housing recommending foreclosure. How~eva, loans wGC+e often cielingtient more than a
year before the Clerk sent a foreclosure request form to Housing. The Clerk did not recall
seaiding Housing any foreclosure request forms for MFR lo~ens even though same MFR
loans had been delinquent for over 3 yeses. We were unable to determine the reason the
Clerk seldom sent MFR loner foreclosure request forms to Hat>sing.
B. W in the Hotisitig Division's Procedt_~ -
Housing was responsible for determining whether to re~tichue delinquent MFR loans or
recommend foreclosure. However, Housing did not have access to the City's aeootmts
receivable system. Therefore, Housing cotild not readily identify delinquent loans.
Instead, Housing relied on Finance for notiSc~tion of delinquent lo~ens.
Acxiording to the Housing Division Chien Finance was responsible for initiating the
foreclosure process by sending a foreclosure request farm to Housing. Housing was
responsible for recommendmg foreclosure and seeding the form to Legal. Even though
Housing knew many losers were seriatisly delinquent, Housing relied an Finance to send a
foreclosure request form to initiate the process.
C. Wealmesses in the Lestal Division's Procedures
Legal was responsible far foreclosing on ]Dens. However, Legal did not have adequate
staff assigned or an effective system established to perform timely foreclosures. As a
restilt, the City never foreclosed on a MFR mortgage. As of March 31, 1997, 10 SFR
loans that were sent tp Legal far foreclosure from November 1991 through September
1996 were not foreclosed Legal had only completed foreclosure on one SFR loan in the
last 2.5 years.
13
98-dT-2~1-1003
An Assistant City Attorney and a part time legal assistant wea+e assigned to perform
foreclosures for the community development loans. However, the Assistant City Attorney
was also responsible for foreclosures of code enforcement liens as well as other
foreclos~aes. At the time of our review, in addition to the community development loans,
the Assistant City Attorney had about 900 code enforcement foreclosures in inventory.
The Assistant City Attorney also recxives about 200 additional foreclosure esses anoually.
According to the Assistant City Attorney, each foreclosure case requires abort 20 staff
hours. Therefore, it would take about 18,000 (900 cases x 20 staff hours) staff hours to
complete the 900 uses curnently in inventory. This does not consider the additional 200
cases received annually or any community development foreclosure cages.
Generally, when the City received a Notice of Foreclosure Action ft+om other lien holders,
the City had 30 days or less to respond to the foreclosure action. Otherwise, the other lien
holders could obtain a summary juclgrnent and the debt to the City would be extinguished.
However, Legal did not have a system in place to track correspondence with Housing or
the status of foreclosure cases. The lack of a tzac~ng system seriously interfered with the
City's ability to respond timely to the Notices. Upon receiving a Notice, Legal sent a letter
to Housing requesting advice as to what adian to take. Because there was no system to
track correspondence, Legal coiild not ensure a timely response was rocxived from
Housing. Also, Legal could not ensure timely action would be taken if a r+esponge was
received Legal recognized the vvea~esses caused by the lack of a tracking system, and
has commendably begun the development of a tracking system. -
OT~R WEAI~TISSES EXISTED IN T~ CiTY'S PROCEDURES
The City did not pursue all legal remedies to cure defaults and recover losses. In addition to
forocloenu+es, the City had other available remedies to safeguard its assets. The remedies inchided
collecting rents through assignment of rent agreements and pursuing personal gum to recover
losses Also, the City did not take appzopriate adion to protect its interests upon foreclosure by
superior lien holders.
A. The Citv Did Not Pursue Collection Throuah~Qnment of Rent Aat~eements
The City required each MFR borrower to execute an assignment of rent agreement. The
agreements authorized the City to require all property rents be assigned to the City to cure
defauts. However, despite the high defaults, the City never exercised its rights pcasuant to
the agreements. As a result, the City increagod the risk of loss to the program.
B. The Citv Did Not Pursue Personal Guarantees To R_ ver Losses
Since 1986, the City required all MFR bon~owers to personally guarantee the loans in order
to decrease the risk of loss. Even though the City wrote off over $2.3 million in program
year ending May 31, 1996, the City did not take action pursuant to the guarantees to
recover the losses. The City has never exercised its rights to recover any losses pursuant to
the guarantees.
is
98-AT-2~1-1003
Legal explained they had never recxived a roquest to pursue collection against personal
guarantees. Thus, Legal took no action Housing assumed Legal pursued collection
against personal guarantees based on its foreclosure recAmmeridations. This further
illustrates the poor communication and tiiisunderstanding of duties caused by the lack of
written procedures.
C. The City Did Not Protect Its Interest Uvori Foreclosure By Superior Lien Holders
The City did not protect its interest upon foreclosure by superior lien holders. The City
claimed this occuri+ed because it did not have funding airthorized to pay off superior
mortgages and because ft did not have adequate resoin~ to manage properties acquired
through foreclosure. As a result, the City lost at least x1,571,480 following foreclosure by
superior lien holders.
Generally, the City had 30 days or less to respond to notices of foreclos~ires firm other
lien holders. Otherwise, the other lien holders caild obtain a summary judgment and the
debt to the City would be extinguished. In order to avoid the summary judgnierrt, the City
coiild have satisfied the note to the foreclosing lien holder. However, the City did not have
a funding sonaoe established to satisfy the liens. The City recogiii~od the need to establish
a finding souroe; however, finding was not provided.
Also, the City did not have staff assigned to manage multifamdy propeaties. We believe
the City should have anticipated that foreclosures would ooaa; thus the City should have
P~~ Y•
COIVIIVILSSIONERS' IIWOL ~ ~ HAMPERED LOAN PROGRAM OPERATIONS
The City established a loan committee responsible for reoommendmg approval a disappc~oval of
loan applications, loan agreement and lien subordinatiions. In spite of the committee's
reoammendations, the City made certain decisions regarding MFR loans because of political pressure
by City Commissioners.
We identified three cases where the City Comnnissioneis became involved in decisions regarding
loans. In each of the three cases, the bornowers requested the City to subordinate its liens to increased
superior mortgages. The loan committee disapproved the requesrts. Against the loan committee's
ra~ommendations, the Commissioners subsequently approved the subordinations. As a result of the
Coinmissianers' actions, the City increased its risk of loss by over x 1 million.
The following illustrates an example of the Commissioners' involvement in a MFR loan. The City
made a x1,685,283 defen*ed payment loan~to Downtown Investments, Inc., in April 1994 fiom its
HOME Program funds. Aasuant to the loan terms, the City would forgive a portion of the loan
annually for 10 years. Downtown Investments, Inc., was not required to make any Payments on the
loan unless they defaulted on a superior mortgage or failed to comply with the HOME Program
requirements. The City held a third mortgage position.
is
98-.lT-2~J-1003
In a Febniary 16, 1995, memo the City was informed that the second mortgage holder was
foreclosing on the mortgage. On August 18, 1995, Miami Capital Development, Inc., asub-recipient
that administers the City's economic development loan program, obtained the second mortgage.
In January 1997, after the first mortgage holder began foreclosure, Downtown Investments requested
the City to subordinate its mortgage to a new first mortgage. Downtown Investments planned to
obtain a new first mortgage loan of $950,000. Downtown Investme~ would use $539,000 of the
loan proceeds to pay off the existing first a~ second mortgages. Downtown Investments would
receive the remaining $411,000 as a rehan of equity. If the City agreed to the subordination, the
City's risk would be increased as a result of the $411,000 larger mortgage. Although the defaulted
borrower would receive $411,000 from the refinance, the City would not receive compensatiion for its
incxeased risk. The loan committee disapproved the request.
The City's staff determined the appropriate action was for the City to pay off the first mortgage
balance of $209,000 and then foreclose. This would prevent the City's $1,685,283 mortgage from
being extinguished upon foreclosure by the superior lies holder. The second mortgage holder, Miami
Capital Development, agreed to subordinate its lien position to the City.
However, the City Commissioners did not agree. At a July 10, 1997, meeting the Commissioners
approved Downtown Investments request for the City to subordinate its mortgage to the larger
refinanced mortgage. The Commissioners, however, did require Downtown Investments to use the
remaining $411,000 to rehabilitatie property owned by harm, However, the City did not~)iave
an interest in the other' property. Thus, the City would not receive a benefit for its increased risk.
We do not believe the Commissioners aged in the City's best i by approving the subordination.
T~ Ply was valued ~ about $2 million. Thus, the City could have sold the property for a price
sufficient to recover the HOME funds. Thus, we believe foreclosure was a more appropriate option
than subordination of the lien. Also, by December 22, 1996, Downtown Investments had defaulted
on both the first mortgage and the second mortgage assumed by Miami Capital Development.
The balances were $209,000 and $330,000, napectively. Since Downtown Investments defaulted on
the previous mortgages, we are concerned Downtown Investments will be unable to make payments
on a $411,000 greater mortgage. In addition, we are concerned that the Commissioners elected to
increase the City's risk of loss to a borrower who had previously defaulted twice on its mortgage
loans.
We identified two other caws in which the City Commissioners may not have acted in the City's best
interest In both cases, the Commissioners acted against the loan c~mrnittee's recommendations.
One case involves the refinancing and subordination of loans to Ideal Rehab, Incorporated and
L'berty City Investments Corporation.' The other case involves the sale of a property owned by
Indian River Investments Management Company. The details regarding these loans are discussed in
Appendices C-1 and C-3, respectively.
Separate loans were originally made to Ideal and Liberty. The loans were subsequently restructured into a
single loan.
16
98 AT-2~1-1003
AUDITEE CONIIVIENTS
The City generally agreed with the Finding. The City is Seeking City Commission approval to
impose a voluntary moratorium on the CD13G and HOME funded MFR loan programs. This would
atI'oc+d the City an opportunity to work with HUD in addressing the wesimesses and deficiencies cited
in the audit. The City plans to aggressively pursue collection and legal aeons against sll delinquent
loan axamts under the MFR Programs.
OIG EVALUATION
We commend the City for recognizing the weekoesses and its taking actions to resolve the
deficiencies. We believe the City recognizes that s<rbstantial improvements in the loan programs
must be made.
RECOMMENDATIONS
We recommend you require the city to:
2A. Repay the CD13G Program $686,270 for amounts written off as uncoUedrble far the DC Two
Exponent, Inc. loan.
2B. Repay the CDBG Program x368,077 repre~ing past due avDerest and late fees focgiveu' for
the Ideal Rehab, Inc. and Lberty City Corporation loans.
2C. Collect all loan payments over 90 days past due, within 90 days, either through repayment
from the borrowers, assigmneat of rents, faroclossa+e, or personal guarantees. As of May
30,1997, about S 1,500,000 of the loan payments were past due. The City should consider
establishing a task force or other committees to aggnea~vely puasue oolkctions.
2D. Implement controls a~ procedures to ensure proper administration of its loan programs and
proper safieguarding of its assets. At a minimum the controls and pc+oadtu+es should include:
• Obtaining and analyzing cxedit reports for the borrowing entity and its principals;
• Requiring disapproval of loans to entities and individuals who have demonstrated a
lack of credit worthiness;
• Requuring a minimum equity investment of 10 percent fivm harrowers;
• Written proced~es delineating the roles and resporattbilities of the various
departments in carrying out the loan collection process;
i~
98 AT-2~1-1003
Despite the review appraiser's comments, on January 30, 1996, the City authorized a
disbursement of $725,000 to purchase the site. Liberty Housing Associates purchased the site on
February 15, 1996.
INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT DETERMINED THE PROJECT WAS NOT VIABLE
The City hired an independent consultant to analyze the project development. In an October 31,
1996, report the consultant concluded that the development was not a viable project. The
consultant stated the developer should provide sufficient funding to complete the overall
development, as well as provide sufficient evidence of available subsidized end loan financing
for individual buyers. The consultant further stated cost savings could be accomplished in the
construction process by reducing the per square footage costs and reducing and/or redesigning
the homes to make them affordable for prospective home buyers. Therefore, the cost savings
would make the overall development a more viable and attractive project.
IIVIPLEMENTATION OF THE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
The housing project, Northwestern Estates (formerly Knight Manor), was implemented to
increase the supply of affordable housing for low aad very low income families and individuals.
The City allocated the funding for land acquisition and assisting in financing the development
of 134 affordable homes. The project is located in the Model City Community Development
target area of Miami, Florida. ~
The Urban League of Greater Miami, Inc., a State of Florida not-for-profit corporation, sponsors
the project. The Urban League is also the Community Housing Development Organization
approved by the City to conduct HOME activities within the Model City target area. Liberty
Housing Associates is the project developer.
THE HOMES EXCEEDED AFFORDABILITY LII~IITS
According to the Community Housing Development Organization Agreement, the project was
intended to increase the supply of affordable housing for low and very low income families and
individuals. However, the sale prices exceeded affordability and income limits were insufficient
for eligible families to qualify.
Title 24 CFR 92.254, sets forth requirements for housing to qualify as affordable. It states if a
participating jurisdiction intends to use HOME fiords for homebuyer assistance, the participating
jurisdiction may use the Single Family Mortgage Limits under Section 203(b) of the National
Housing Act or it may determine 95 percent of the median area purchase price for single family
housing in the jurisdiction.
20
98-AT-2~1-1003
The single family mortgage limit under Section 203(b) of the Act for Dade County was
$112,350. Since the Model City neighborhood where the project is located is an economically
depressed area of Dade County, the mortgage limits were not representative of the area market.
Therefore, the prudent method to determine affordability for the project was to use 95 percent of
the median purchase price for the immediate area of the project and similar adjacent areas. Per
Titie 24 CFR 92.254, to determine the median purchase price at least 3 months of sales data
were required since sales were less than 250 per month.
We determined the median area purchase price was 560,000. Thus, to qualify as affordable the
purchase prices cannot exceed $57,000 ($60,000 x 95 percent). As shown in the following table,
the estimated prices of the homes ranged from $53,000 to 591,400. Therefore, only 14 of the
134 homes qualified as affordable.
PLANNED UNIT iviII~ AND SALES PRICES
Model A 8 Single family 591,400 5731,200
Model B 8 Single family $91,400 5731,200
Model C 8 Single family $91,400 $731,200
Model A(T) 14 Two story townhouses 553,000 to $55,000 $756,000
Model B('1~ 96 Two story townhouses $74,500 to $76,000 57,224,000
TOTAL 134 $10,173,600
In addition, low and very low income families will not qualify for the homes without subsidies.
The following tables illustrate the required income and cash imrestmeart far home ptu+chases, as well
as the income limits and family size for Dade County.
INCOME AND CASH IIWESTMENT REQUIREMENTS
(1) PURCHASE PRICE $54,000 575,250 $91,400
(2) DOWNPAYMENT 2,200 3,262 4,070
(3) MORTGAGE AMOUNT (1) - (2) _ (3) 51,800 71,988 87,330
(4) PRINCIPAL & IN'TERFST @ 8 PERCENT 380 528 641
(5) TAXES 8t 1NSUR.ANCE 128 169 200
(6) PITT (4) + (5) _ (~ 508 697 841
(7) iv~iIlV1UM INCOME TO MEET
31 PERCENT REQCfTREMIIV'I' 19,647 26,970 32,555
(8) Iv~,A7~VIUM FD~D EXPENSES TO MEET
43 PERCENT REQLiIItENIENT 704 966 1,167
(9) MAXIMUM EXPENSES WITHOUT PTTI 1 % 269 326
(10) iv~ID~1IMUM CASH INVESTMENT
(1) x 7 PERCENT = (10) 3,780 5,268 6,398
21
98-AT-2I1-1003
LOW AND VERY LOW INCOME LIMITS FOR DADS COUNTY
FAMILY SIZE LOW VERY LOW
1 24,900 15,600
2 28,500 17,800
3 32,050 20,000
4 35,600 22,250
5 ~ 38,450 24,050
6 41,300 25,800
7 44,150 27,600
8 47,000 29,350
As shown in the above tables, becx+use of the minimum income needed to meet the 31 percent
rquirmmt, the income limits for very low one and two peiscm families wet+e inadequate to qualify
fac mortgages on any of the homes Also, only very low income families with scum and eight
members would qualify for the $75,250 averaged priced homes. No very low income families
qualified for the X91,400 homes. The only families qualified for the x91,400 homes were low
income families with fora or more persons.
Since the project is located in an economically depressed area, the median income data for Dade
County was not truly representative of the neighborhood incomes. Thec+efore, wee obtained
household income information in the immediate area of the project and similar adjactnt areas.
HOUSEHOLD INCOMES WITHIN THE
ZIP CODE AREA OF THE PROJECT
160,000 a
moro
12x
136,000 b
i1o,9~
13x
120,0
i34,fi
24x
'-~s tf,.n
io,ooo
Sox
CEO
110,0
21x
As shown in the above chart, incomes wen less than $20,000 for 51 percent of the households in
the immediate area. Therefor, it would be Jiff cult to locate enough qualified buyers to
purchase the homes.
22
98-AT-2~1-100
The Federal Register Final Rule Part 92.503 (ax 1), published September 16, 1996, requires program
income be deposited in the City's HOME Investment Trust Fund unless the City permits the
subrecipient to retain the program income for other HOME projects pursuant to a written agt+eement.
The Community Housing Development Organization Agreement requires the project spon.4or to
obtain written approval if program income is used. No written approval was granted The City's
Housing Division notiSed the developers on several oocasions that the funds must be retuned to the
City. However, the developer did not return the fund..
CITY DID NOT RECORD PROPERTY DEED
The City did not record the property deed as agreed. The City and Liberty Housing Associates
executed a Covenant on February 1 S, 1996. According to the Covenant, the City agreed to make
disbursements of HOME funds for construction on the condition that construction improvements
commenced on or within 12 months from the date of the Covenant. In the event construction did
not start by the commencement date, the property would be conveyed to the City by warranty
decd Liberty Housing Associates executed the deed in favor of the City and authorized the City
to record the deed in the Public Records if construction did not commence by the
commencement date. Commencement of construction would be evidenced by recordation in the
Public Records of Dade County of a Notice of Commencement. As of August 12, 1997, (18
months from the covenant date) construction had not commenced and the City held the deed but
did not execute its right to record the deed.
CITY SPENT OVER S1.9 MII.LION ON THE PROJECT
The City agreed to fiord 54.75 million of the estimated ~ 15 million total development costs. The
finding would be disbursed in two phases of 52,375,000. Phase I finding would be used
primarily for land acquisition, tenant relocation, and demolition/clearing. Phase II included
finding for site work, construction of a model center, and construction of pre-sold units. The
City was not obligated to disburse fiords for phase II until the project sponsor had pre-sold two-
thirds of the units. Also, the City was not obligated to disburse any fiords for conshuction unless
the City had received evidence of sufficient financing to complete construction and ensured the
project was affordable for low and very low income families. Although the City spent
51,925,814 of HOME fiords for phase I activities, the developer did not pre-sell or construct any
units, provide evidence of sufficient financing, or ensure the project was affordable.
AUDITEE COMII~NTS
The City generally agreed with the finding. The City is taking steps to ensure compliance with
requirements. The City informed the developer to repay the $144,538.
2a
98-AT-?~1-1003
OIG EVALUATION
We commend the City for its efforts to ensure compliance with requirements. However, the City
must ensure that no additional funding, except necessary funding for relocation and security, be
provided until the developer is in compliance with requirements.
RECOMII~NDATIONS
We recommend you require the City to:
3A. Demonstrate how the Northwestern Estates housing project can be made affordable to
low and very low income families by obtaining sufficient subsidies, reconfiguring the
project, or otherwise reducing the costs.
3B. Provide evidence the developer has obtained sufficient financing to complete project
development.
3C. Reimburse X144,538 of program income to its HOME Investment Trust Fund
3D. Discontinue funding the project, except far' necessary costs such as relocation and
security until the City complies with recommendations 3A, 3B, and 3C. `
3E. Take other appropriate action, as needed, to protect the Socretary's interest and the
integrity of the HOME Program, including terminating the project,
25
9&~!T-2~1-1003
Internal Controls
In planning and performing our audit, we considered the internal controls of the management of
the City of Miami to determine our auditing p and not to provide ass~aance on internal
controls. Internal control is the process by which an entity obtains reasonable ass~u~ancx ss to
achievement of specified objectives. Internal control consists of interrelated components,
including integrity, ethical values, competence, and the control environment which includes
establishing objectives, risk assessment, information systems, control procedures,
communication, managing change, and monitoring.
We determined the following inten~al control categories were relevant to our audit objectives:
• Management philosophy and operating style.
• Accounting for and maintaining control over program receipts and disbuc'sements.
• Assuring expenditures for administering the programs were eligible.
• Management monitoring methods.
• Reporting Program results.
• Assuring proper underwriting, servicing, and collection of loans.
• Assuring housing activities will provide affordable housing to eligible recipients.
We assessed these controls. To the extent possible, we obtained an understanding of the City's
procedures and H[JD requirements, assessed control risk, and performed various su~tantive
tests of the controls.
A significant weakness exists if internal control does not give reasonable assurance that goals
and objectives are met; that resource use is consistent with laws, regulations and policies; that
resources are safeguarded against waste, loss, and misuse; and that reliable data are obtained,
maintained, and fairly disclosed in reports. Based on our review, significant weaknesses existed
in the internal controls we tested as discussed in the findings.
26
9&.!T-2~1-1003
Follow-Up on Prior Audits
An Office of Inspector General audit (report number 94AT-251-1002, dated October 18, 1993)
of the City's Emergency Shelter Grant Program contained one finding, The Ending disclosed
the City did not properly manage its Emergency Shelter Grant Program, Specifically, the City
did not execute a written agreement for services, did not monitor e~ and did not
timely submit required reports to HUD. The finding was resolved.
The last financial audit report completed by Deloitte dt Touche for the fiscal year ended
September 30, 1995, contained one finding pertaining to the CDBG Program. The finding did
not relate to an issue in our report. The finding was not resolved.
s~
98-.1 T-2II-1003
Issues Needing FurtheY Study
and Consideration
During our review, other matters regarding the City's special economic development loan
program came to our attention that require correction or improvement. Miami Capital
Development, Inc. administers the City's special economic development loan program.
LOAN DEFAULT RATE WAS EXCESSIVE
Based on Miami Capital Development's April 30, 1997, Loan Portfolio Status Report,
approximately 33 percent of theoutstanding principal balance of loans was in default. The
defaulted loans represented about 32 percent of the outstanding loans. At November 30, 1996,
about 21 percent of the outstanding balance was in default which represented 23 percent of the
loans. Thus, the default percentages have increased rather significantly over a 5 month period.
We believe the increased defaults indicate a weakness in Miami Capital Development's
procedures.
PROGRAM INCOME MAY NOT HAVE BEEN PROPERLY DLSBURSED
Miami Capital Development, Inc. administered a revolving loan fiord used to provide economic
development loans. In addition to receiving funding from the City to provide the loans, Miami
Capital Development also received program income in the form of loan repayments. The loan
repayments were required to be deposited into the revolving loan fund for use in making new
loans.
According to Title 24 CFR 570.504 (c) and (bx2xi), any program income should be disbursed
from the revolving loan fund before additional cash wiffidrawals are made from the U.S.
Treasury for the same activity. We believe the City did not require Miami Capital Development
to substantially disburse program income prior to making additional withdrawals.
At April 30, 1997, Miami Capital Development reported a balance of $723,657 in the revolving
loan fund. This included about $389,000 of program income received from November 30, 1996,
to April 30, 1997, from loan principal payments. During the same period, Miami Capital
Development made only four new loans which totaled $86,000. Even though Miami Capital
Development had a large balance in the revolving loan fiord and made only $86,000 of loans in
S months, the City allocated Miami Capital Development an additional $560,000 for the
revolving loan fund for the period July 1, 1996, to June 30, 1997. The City also provided Miami
Capital Development $250,000 for administrative expenses for the period.
~e
98 AT-III-1003
Although Miami Capital Development needs to maintain funds in the revolving loan fund to
provide loans, given the low loan activity, we do not believe a substantial balance is needed in
the revolving loan fund. Miami Capital Development should substantially use the revolving
fiords to pay administrative expenses prior to the City withdrawing funds to pay those expenses.
Alternatively, unless the new loan activity increases, the City should reduce the amount of
funding to the revolving loaa fiend..
Further, the City did not require Miami Capital Development to remit interest earned on the
revolving loan fiord. Title 24 CFR 570.500(b), requires the revolving loan fund cash balance to
be held in an interest bearing account. Any interest paid on the fiords is considered interest
earned on grant advances and must be remitted to HLTD at least annually.
According to the City, interest earned on the revolving loan fund was used to pay Miami Capital
Development's administrative expenses and to make new loans. The City was not aware the
interest should be remitted to HUb. Thus, the City did not require Miami Capital Development
to remit the fiords. Given the large cash balance in the revolving loan fiord, the interest income
may be significant.
INSUFFICIENT PUBLIC BENEFIT RECEIVED
Miami Capital Development made loans which do not appear to provide sufficient public
benefit. According to Title 24 CFR 570.209(b), if the amount of CDBG ace fot an
individual activity exceeds X50,000 for each permanent job created or retained, the public
benefit received is insufficient. Therefore, the activity may under no circumstances be assisted
with CDBG funds. Miami Capital Development made at least two loans which did not provide
sufficient public benefit.
On March 31, 1995, Miami Capital Development loaned x401,479 to 1830 Ent. Teatro Marti.
As a result of the loan, only four jobs were created or retained. Thus, the average cyst for each
job was $100,370. In addition, on October 30, 1996, Miami Capital Development loaned
x200,000 to Valparaiso United. The loan resulted in the creation or retention of two jobs. Thus,
the average cost for each job was X100,000.
29
98 .!T-2~1-1003
Appendices
Appendix A
SCHEDULE OF INELIGIBLE AND
UNSUPPORTED EXPENDITURES
tu~t~
lA
1B
1C
1D
2A
2B
2C
3C
Totals
52,133,797
5 484,999
2,518,210
551,600
686,270
368,077
1,500,000
144.538
53.183.884 55.203.607
` Ineligible amounts obviously violate law. HUD or local agency policies of regulations.
` UnauppoRed amounts do not obviously violate laws contract, policy or regulation but warrant being contested
for various reasons such a the lack of utisfictory documentation to support eligibility and HUD approval.
30
98-.lT-2I1-1003
Appendix B
SCHEDULE OF DEFAULTED MULTIFAMILY
REHABILITATION LOANS
BORROWER DATE OF
DEFAULT PRINCIPAL
BALANCE 0 - 30
DAYS 30 - 60
DAYS 60 - 90
DAYS 90+ DAYS TOTAL
PAST DUE
Urban League of
Greater Miami 11/01/96 S 308,244 S 2,416 S 2,416 S 2,416 S 9,108 S 16,356
Indian River Mgmt 12/01/93 740,788 7,640 7,640 7,640 290,322 313,242
Winwood Nme Inc. 06/01/93 147,415 946 946. 946 41,787 44626
O.T. 12 Inc. 04/01/'93 - 216,507 1,379 1,379 1,379 63,542 67,679
O.T. 15 Inc. 06/01/93 234,247 1,500 1,500 1,500 66,225 70,025
White, Patrick 12/01/92 143,018 1,107 1,107 1,107 S6,OS8 59,379
Douglas, Il(illorxa 06/01/96 82,584 817 817 817 6,518 8,969
Dawson, Floyd ~mlmown 43,390 903 903. 903 555 3,264
Sisto, Omar d<
Donna 11/01/96 11,268 245 245 245 518 1,253
Hascarchi, Cozp 07/01/94 181,033 2,013 2,013 2,013 62,487 68,526
Dales, Inc. 02/01/95 398,295 2,818 2,818 2,818 70,447 78,901
Gemini Investment
d< Mgmt. 11/01/94 129,030 1,214 1,214 1,214 30,009 33,650
Chibascar Corp I 07/01/94 180,328 1,643 1,645 1,645 51,054 55,988
Gemini Investment
d< Mgmt. 03/01/95 148,369 1,138 1,138 1,138 26,667 30,082
Gemini Investment
dk Mgmt 05/01/96 2,414 146 146 146 1,459 1,897
Siato, Omar 8t
1~ana 12/01/95 352,116 3,088 3,088 3,088 45,253 54,518
Overtown
Development Group ~mlmown 1,056,322 3,987 3,957
United Stasis
Aviation 06/01/95 516,514 2,580 2.580 2,580 52,102 59,843
2368, Inc. 01/01/96 288,267 2.253 2,253 2,253 29,549 36,308
Vives, Manuel &
Margarita 06/01/96 391,322 2,004 2,004 2,004 16,157 22,169
EZ 352 NW 11 St. 03/01/96 257,833 1,283 1,283 1,283 14,163 18,013
Hillary Ventures,
Inc. unlmown 350,733 1,730 1,730
Vilu, Inc. unlmown 558,425 2,760 2,760 2,760 8,281
TOTAL PAST DUE
PRINCIPAL 8t
INTEREST
6,738,462
45,612
39,895
39,895
933,980
1,059,382
LATE FEE (a3 4
percent 1,824 1,5% 1,5% 37,359 42,375
TOTAL PAST DUE 56,738,462 547,436 541,491 541,491 5971,339 51,101,757
31
98-AT-2~1-1003
Appendix C-1
IDEAL REHAB, INC., AND LIBERTY CITY
IlVIPROVEMENT CORPORATION
On Febn~ary 6, 1987, the City made a 5560,000 MFR loan to Ideal Rehab, Inc., to rehabilitate 58
units. Ideal defauilted on the loan in June 1990. As of July 1995, Ideal was 5200,135 pest due on the
loan payments.
On August 15, 1990, the City made a 5367,300 MFR loan to Lberty City Improvement Corporation
to rehabilitate 18 units. Lberty defaulted on the loan in February 1991. As of July 1995, Iaberty was
5173,943 pest due on its loan payments
A principal of both Ideal and Eberly was also the president of DC Two Exponent, Inc., which also
defaulted on a MFR loan In fact, when the City made the loan to Eberly, both the Ideal and DC
loans were in default.
In July 1991, Housing exercised its option to accelerate the entire balance of 5375,104 due on the
I.i'b~a ty loran. Tlie City informed Eberly that tl~e loan must be paid in full by Aug~~st 15, 1991, or the
City would exercise itg various rights and raniedies agsingt the borr+o~we:s. Although Iaberty still did
not repay the loan, the City did not exercise its righots and remedies to cent the default
In September 1993, Housing recommended foreclosure on bath the Ideal and Eberly loen~.
However, no foreclosures occurrod. On October. 26, 1993, the City again accelerated the Eberly
mortgage note and requested payment of the remaining principal balance. Again, Iaberty did not
make the payment and the City did not exercise its rights and remedies to wre the default.
In January 1994, Housing denied Ideal's sod Lberty's request m restin~cha~e their loan terms.
Housing denied the request because the prapaties were fully occupied. Thus, the properties should
have generated sufficient rent revenue to make the loan payments.
On July 27, 1994, the first mortgage holder filed far foreclosure on both Ideal and L~eaty. However,
prig to the completion of the foreclosure, the City entered into negotiations with Ideal and Eberly.
Apparently, die foreclosure was not ccrrmpletod.
32
98•.!T-2~1-100.t
In April 1996, Housing n:strttctured the loan terms and combined both loans into a single loan. The
restructured agreerent required the owner to make two $100,000 payments to reduce past due
amounts. The first $100,000 payment was dine by April 30, 1996.6 The second payment was due on
May 1, 1997. The agreement also reduced the monthly payments fi+om $6,205 to $800 far six years.
At the end of the six years, if all terms and conditions of the agreement were met, the City would re-
negotiate the terms of the agreement. Further, the City agreed to forgive $368,077 of past due
inroa~est and late fees and forgave all futtae interest payments.
Around February 1997, Ideal and L'berty requested the City to subordinate its lien to a refinanced
fast mortgage of $700,000. The existing first mortgages on the properties at the time were about
$470,000. Thus, the City's second mortgage would be behind a $230,000 largrr first mortgage. In
addition to paying off the first mortgage, the loan proceeds would be used to pay delinquent water
bills of $105,000 to the Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Authority and to make the second $100,000
payment .due under the rr~ctured agreement of 1996. The City's loan committee disapproved the
subordination request on March 24, 1997, because of the borrower's poor payment history, inchsding
the DC Two loan, and the inadequate compensation offered to the City.
A City Commissioner attended the Mm~ch 24, 1997, loan committee meding. At the meding, the
loan committee discatssed the payment lustary of the DC Two, Ideal, and Lberty loses. The loan
committee also discussed the City's losses on the DC Two loan. Despite the Commissioner's
knowledge of the payment histories and the loan cwmnnittee's recommendation, the Commissioner
recommended approval of the refinancing to the full City Commission. The City Commissioners
approved the refinancing an May 7, 1997.
The City's CDBG Multifamily Rehabilitation Program policies provide guidance far the City's
subordmation to refinanced senior mortgages. If the refinanced senior mortgage is mare than the
existing senior mortgage, the City should consider subordinating its lien only if the new loan, in
addition to all outstanding loans secured by the property, do not exceed 80 percxut of the market
vah~e of the property. The refinanced senior mortgage for Ideal and IabQty was more than the
existing senior mortgages. Thus, the total secured debt could not eaceeod 80 percent of the property
values, according to the City's policies. However, after the refinance the secured debts for the two
properties were 94 percent of the property vah~es. Thus, the City Commissioners violated the City's
policies by approving the subordination.
The properties had a combined net income of $100,425 from October 31, 1995, to September 30,
1996. According to an August 26, 1996, appraisal, the properties had an estimated fair market value
of $1,663,000. As of April 16, 1997, the property's mortgage debts were about $1,334,660,
inchiding $864,660 owed to the City. Since the property vahies exceeded the debts, the City may
have been able to foreclose on its mortgage and sell the propcrties fa a price sufiYCient to recover at
least a portion of the $864,660: The Citycould have pursued personal guarantees to recover any
losses resulting from the foreclosure. Alternatively, the City could have assigned the projects' rents
to nxover the past due amounts.
` The agreement required a payment of 552,302 on another City loan owed by a related company. The
remaining 547,698 was to be applied to City loans to Ideal.
33
9&AT-2~1-1003
Instead, the Commissioners were willing to reinstate the April 1996 restructured loan agreement
upon payment of the second 5100,000. In return the City subordinated its loan to a 5230,000
larger mortgage and forgave 5368,077 of past due and late fees plus all fuhae interest. It
appears the only bexreficiaries of the refinance were Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Authority and the
property owner.
Because of the City of Miami's financial difiiwhier3, an Oversight Board established by the State of
Florida ove~ees the City's financial apasdons. On July 7, 1997, the Overnight Board denied the
City's subordination of the Ideal and L'baty mortgages. The Oversighrt Berard stated, in part, it
appears the City of Miami has bees extremely lenient with the mortgagors. Payments on the
outstending City mortgage of 5836,000 were r+oduced from 56,204 tD 5800 per month w'h no
internat. At the c~arent rate, it would require 87 years to repay the loan. Additionally, the Oversight
Board conchidod that no oonsideratiion was offerod to the City of Miami in rstum fa its incased
risl~
We agree with the Oversight Board's docision. We believe the City should far+ecloae on the
mortgages and sell the pr+opexties. The City should pursue collec*ion against personal guar tees for
arty r+estilting losses incaured. Also, we do not believe the City toa~k appropriate action m safeguard its
assets by forgiving the past due nuer~ and late fees and all firiu<+e interest.
31
98-AT-?II-1003
Appendix C-2
DC TWO EXPONENT, INC.
On April 24, 1986, the City loaned 5750,000 to DC Two Exponent, Inc., to rehabilitate 66 units.
Verde Capital Corporation provided 5550,400 of additional financing to complete the rehabilitation.
Verde held a mortgage position behind the City's mortgage.
On the day the loan closed, the president of DC Two resigned and the president of Verde acquirod 49
pex+oent ownership of DC Two. Within two years of the loan closing, all of DC Two's principals had
resigned and the president of Verde became the president of DC Two.
In June 1987, DC Two obtained a 5550,000 loan from First American Bank and Trust. DC Two
used the 5550,000 in part to pay off an existing first mortgage of about x270,000. DC Two paid the
remaining 5280,000 to Verde to reduce its mortgage. DC Two did not pay a~+ of the proceeds to the
City. The City subordinated its mortgage to First Ametic~n Bank and Trust, thus allowing First
American Bask and Trust to become the Srst mortgage holder. Thus, the City incx+ea.9ed its risk by
assuming a second mortgage behind a higher first mortgage. Also, since the president of DC Two
was also the president of Verde, he benefited firm the First American Bank and Tn~st loan. `
In October 1989, the City allowed DC Two to discontinue its monthly mortgage payments for one
year {July 1,1989 to June 30, 1990). The City allowed the discontinued payments tD provide funding
to hire police officers in order to redtu;e vacancies However, whey the agc+eement expired in hme
1990, DC Two failed to resume making the monthly loan payments.
Although DC Two defaulted on the loan payments in July 1990, the City did not fik a foreclosure
suit until December 18, 1992. However, DC Two also defaulted on the First American Bank and
Trust/First Union loan.' First Union began foreclosure on its mortgage in about September 1992.
First Union received a final foreclosure judgment on December 17, 1992, the day before the City
filed its foreclosure suit. Thus, the City's lien was extinguished
In addition to failing to foreclose, the City also failed to protect its interest at the foreclosure sale. On
August 31, 1992, the property appraised for 51,572,000. The property's mortgage debts were about
51,422,358, including 5686,270 owed to the City. Since the property value exceeded the debts, the
City may have been able to purchase the property at the foreclosure sale and resale it for a price
sufficient to recover at least a portion of the 5686,270.
Apparently, First Union National Bank of Florida subsequently acquired the mortgage from First American
Bank And Trust.
35
98 AT-2I1-1003
Subsegt~eady, the City wrote off the 5686,270 as ao unoolledible aooount. The City did not attempt
to recover the loss p~asuant to peagooal guarantees signed by principals of DC Tvw.
Because the City failed to foreclose, failed to protect its lies upon foreclosure by First American Back
and Tn~st, and failed to recover losses p~a~~aat to personal guareoobees, the CDBG program lost
5686,270. We do not believe the City took adecluabe action to safeguard its assets.
36
9&.!T-2~1-1003
The City's loan committee disapproved Sentrs's ~P'd~ of the Indian River loan. However, the
City Commissioners subeequartly approved the agreement. Many of the gams of the
Connmissioners' approval are unclear. Thus, we wen unable to aaalyae the won to debamine
if it was in the City's best intatet. However, based on the prior payment history of the Sentra
principal, the tiransaction appears to be very risky.
Also, as a part of the purchase, Sentra planned to aealmse Indian River's Housing Assistanoe Payment
oontrad with the City. Indian Rive originally obtained the Housing Assistanwe Paymertt oootiac~ in
aooordanoe with HUD's Moderate Rehabilitation Program. In aeoordance with program
requirements, the Housing Assistance Paymeaot rents are based, in paR, on the property's operating
~Pm~
The agcnennent approved by the Commissioners allowed Sentra to red~~oe the monthly payments on
the MFR loan from 57,640 to 54,500. Since the Housing Assistance Paymer~t rents are based an the
operating expeages, the Housing A~istancx Payment ooatiact should be red~yoed to n~ect the lower
PaYm~
se
98-.1T-2~1-1003
AUDITEE COMMIENTS
J06E (iARt7A-P~DROSA
CTIY 11M-NAaFR
March 9, 1998
Ms. Sonya D. Lucas
Assistant Inspector General for Audit
Southeast/Caribbean
Richard B. Russell Fcdetsl Building
7 S Spring Street, SW Room 3 1 0
Atlanta, GA 30303-3388
Dear Ms. Lucas:
Appendiac D
PA. Baas 330705
1bQAM[, Fi.ORmA 33233-070d
(305)416.1025
FAX (305) 400-3043
Please consider this co~neapondeace as a follow up to ovr telephone canfer+eace call an
Friday, March 6,1998, whereby the City of Miami concurred with the iawd stated is the
draft audit Sadinga of the Ol~ce of the Inspector General far the Audit dated
November 21, 1997. SpeciScally, this correspondence serves to respond to fording No. 2 `
and No. 3, sad to reiterate cwcr+ective adiaas which the City of Miami plans W
imdertaice immediately in the camiag months. Finding No. 1 is being addressed under
separate cover.
1a our telephone conversation, both parties agreed to the sohrtiaaa piopoeed below sod
the city's administration welcomes any additional sss~,aKx related to the Sadinge.
FINDING No. 2
11~~-Fadly ReiabiHtattoa Promraes Loan Uaderwrltlsur sad Cen~•••
Procedarea
In refer+enoe to Sndinga No. 2, within the next thirty (30) days, the City Administrstian
plans to secure City Commission approval to impose a voluntary moratorium relative W
the administration of the City's CDBG sad HOME Program firnded Multi-Family
Rehabilitation Loan Programs. This action would afford the City an opporpmity to work
closely with the Coral Gables HUD Regional Office, in addraaaing the wealmpses and
deSciencies cited in the audit relative to the City's loan imderwritiag and collection
procedures.
39
98-AT-2~1-1003
March 12, 1998
Ms. Sanya D. Lucas
Assistant District Inspector General
for Audit, Southeast/Caribbean
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
District Otlice of the Inspector General
Richard B. Russell Federal Building
7S Spring Street S. W. Room 330
Atlanta, GA 30303-3388
Dear Ms. Lucas:
The attached schedule is submitted in ns;ponse to HUD's request for as explanation of the retm-active
adjuutime~ which the City recorded in Fiscal Year 1991
Our records reflect that in 1991, the City performed a review of indirect tests charged to the CDBG
program for Program Years 1986 thru 1991 inclusive. The resultiag determination was that the amounts
charged to the grant program for Program Yeses 1986 thru 1991 was grossly ~mderstated and as adjustment
was ~Y P~P~ to recover indirect costs totaling 52,066,379
In conformity with the guidelines of OMB-A-87, the City had prepat+ed Cost Allocation P1aos far the years
1986 and 1990, however there were no plans prepared for the years 1987,1988, dk1989. Based on the
consistency of the data captured in the plans fez 1986 and 1990 it was determined that as average of the
two years' charges should be applied to each of the analyzed years for which the indirect coatswere
understated. These amounts are supported by the Coet Allocation Plans fez the years 1986 and 1990, and
justifiably represented the basis for allocating these costs.
Based on this average it was determined that the total of S60S,916 should have been recovered from
the CDBG program as indirect costs for each of the 5ve years (I 986f1-1990!91) which were amslyzed. The
adjustment, which was recorded in Fiscal Year 1991; therefore, repzea~ts the di$erenoe betvreea indirect
cnets Bch were previously rxorded, and the revised calculation of S60S,916 as per the 1991 analysis.
(RCfei t0 line item "RETRO-ACTIVE ADJUSTMENT' OD schedulE eatided - "ANALY$LS -
CDBG IINDIREG"I' COSTS'7.
The attached schedule further illuatratea that the twenty pet+oeat (20X) cap allowable for adminiatrstive
expenses was not exceeded in any of the referenced years as a result of pr+oceasing this recovery
sdjuatmern. This is clearly indicated on the attached scheduile of Indirect costa. (Refer to the line item
"AVAII,ABLE UNDER 20°/. CAP AFTER ADJUSTMENT" on attached schedule).
ai
98 AT-2I1-1003
Page 2 of 2
March 12, 1998
Ms. Sonya D. Lucas
Assistant District Inspector General
far Audit, Southeast/Csribbean
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
As a r+earrlt of the finding in the draft audit report related to the issue of Coat Allocation Plans to support
indirect coats for the years 1995, 1996 and 1997, City sta$ and with 14UD Regional Office Administrators
in Coral Gables. We proposed and obtained approval to pr+epar+e the Coat Allocation Plan for the FY ended
September 30, 1997, which is due March 31, 1998. Based upon the timely aubmitaion of the 1997 Coat
Allocation Plan sad pending the approval by HUD of the Indirect Coat Rate Proposal, thet+e-in contained,
City staff requested that HUD consider allowing ua to use that Indirxt Cast Rate Proposal retroactively,
for FY's 1995 and 1996. Furthermore, the Finance and Community Development departments will work
together with David M. Griffith _ and Associates, Ltd. (DMGA) to ensru+e that each City deparimeat
reaponaible for providing support services prepares acxvmte sad barely documentation caositReat with the
provisions of OMB A-87.
The City of Miami, for at leant the last ten (10) years, has contracted the services of DMGA to annually
prepare a Cost Allocatiion Plan, according to OMB CircuLr A-87. DMGA is one of the hugest, if not the
largest. company specializing in the preparation of Cost Allapttion Plans for government entities is the
State of Florida.
sincerely,
I.ouc+dea Reyes„
Comptroller
LR:KFJIs
Attachments: (1)
c: Angelo Castillo, Director, HUD Regional Officx
Christina M. Cuervo, Assistant City Manager
Michael G. Lavin, Assistant Director of Finance
Kenneth Edwards, Greats Financial Manager
Linda Kelly Kearson, Assistant City Attorney
Gwendolyn Warren, Director -Department of Community Development
Jeff Hepburn, Assistant Director of Community Development
Jose Cerdan, Acting Asaiataat Director -Department of Community Development
Frank Castenada, Federal sad State Liaison
Jose Romano, Staff Auditor Principa}
42
9&AT-I~1-1009
/ .-
~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~
A ~ ~ ~ ~ < ~ A m ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ 1
G~ ~~ ~ ~ O '~~i ~ ~ • ~ ~n ri
m ~~ ~ a- ~ii ~~ ~ ca ~ ~~ ~ -
$ ~o m ~ a ~ ~~ -+ ~o
W ~~ ~
o
~~ ~ ~ ~~
o Y ~~
¢ T
,63 w ~ ~ •
N N M Y • • • M
r
N N Y ~ •
gg Y w • •
r Ss ~ r= v i ~
_ e` V' ~ 8 S
• N p ~ V x Y Y O vY O O
r
M N M N M • M •
V r Os i . ~. v M• L
• P O P ~~ •~~ O O
M M M M M • • •
N N ~ M ~ r
~ ~ $~ ~r ~ ~ ~ ~Q
~~s~ Ti .~Z~ ~ v Va
M N M • Y • • M
N + M M ~ w + •
y~ O N
N N+ _ v yy ; ~ ~ a
O • • ~ Y S N
a .~ ~ ~ w• V • r r
X d N V ~+ ~ Y• V
M N M M • • M • Y
r N r
,gig ~ u ~ ~ o • ~ • r ~ ~
s ~ sq ~ a ~ 8
N tl N, V ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ O
N ' M M M M M M • • • •
pq A N N N a w .O r Y ~ O r 0
r YNi C1 b OI N N N N. ~ ~ ~ Y
M O Y~ N • O ~~ Y r Y, ~ •
,'RiS ~~ r N $~ SC ~Y ~ YlGS ~ 8~ •
~~
D
2
D
~_
ro A
v
a
J Z
m Q
~' m
A
-i
A
0
43
REVENUE MATRIX
RECURRING REVENUE CURRENT FEE FY98 ANNUALIZED '
1. Residential Solid Waste Fee Increase of $35/UNIT _
- -- -- ---
2. MOdlfied Fire Fee (2/a for fire capital needs, limned to s yra. with
sunset provision; exGudea tax exempts)
3. Supplemental Waste Fee on Commerci I
__ _ __ _ _ a CU s I $160/UNIT
~--- -----
$34lSF-$41/MF _
NONE $2,187,500
r -
I (p~ DS 2., ~p0
$~gQO -
$2,200,000 i $2,187,500
i _
~ ~ji ~Of z/ Z~pO
X00 .
i
$
2,451,951
4. Construction Debris Removal Fee NONE $500,000 __
_
$1,400,000
5. Commercial Solid Waste Haulers Permit Fee Increas
_ (from 15 to 20%)
NONE
$466,000
$932,000
6. 40-Year & 50-Year Building Re-Certification Fee
Increase (See Tab #4)
$42,175
$60,000
7. EMS Billin s for ALS instead of BLS $150,000 $300,000
8. Increase in Building & Zoning Fees (See Tab #4) $100,000 $200,000
TOTAL RECURRING REVENUE STZ;Z72;675 $14,098,451
t(,(~Q7,9'3~ ~ 13,~P3,~It
NON-RECURRING REVENUES -
9. CDBG Reallocation (net of $3.7 million in unfunded
liabilities)
$2,778,908
$0
10. St. Hugh Oaks contribution to the General Fund $1,466,175 $0
TOTAL NON-RECURRING REVENUE 54,245,083 50
TOTAL NEW REVENUES: ~g ~
~ IJ ~ qc{3, O~~ a ~3~ 583,711
ADD/T/ONAL SOURCES OF REVENUE
A. Department of Off-Street Parking ~renected ~n Frzooa a s
Year Plan) -- - --- --'-- -- - ---. _
B. State Legislature Funding
C. 3 & 4 Unit Apartment Building Solid Waste Service
D Franchise Fee for Commercial Waste Haulers
E. Revised Property Valuations
F Prlvitization of Solid Waste
$1,050, 000
~: ss ..
i
$3,000,000
Not Determined
-- -
I $1,365,000
I
' Not Determined
j
' Not Determined
!~ $1.1 Million in 5 Yr. Plan;
Additional Savings Not
Determined