Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM-92-030011 —�2 -rum q i D"A MIAHt STATE Of FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY P . 02 APFAIRS 2>40 CiNTERVItW 1)IIIvk • TALLA11A55EC, Tl0R11)A 22399:2101•0 IAWIUN CIIILEs c:•ve/l,6f WILl1AM E. fAnOWiKI April 6, 2.992 s•er•tnrr 1 tt.. � . tt ._4 R A _N n tr �t • '1'0: Miami Downtown Uevealoljn*nt AuthorlLy Ocala Downtown Development Distriut/Communi.ty Redevelopment Agency West Valtn floach Uowntown Development Authority rrom: Christine A. Graham, Administrator Special District: Information Progrt�Yn ;ll Ile: Status of Downtown Development Authorities The E)oprituent•°a office of the General counsel has cletorinined that downtown development authorities established as inftpandent bodies and autliarized to levy a millage Prior tb the •, effectivo date of the 3960 5t'nte ColluLitutioh, should bo , classified as independent: special districts for all purposon. ' Theso downtown daveaopmont authorities are to be considered ' indepondent• regnrdlass of whether the governing board is bpF•ointed or alas t.ed and reyardless of whethur or not the budget is approved by the local governing authority. The authority for, this exception to the definition of a "dependent" special district io provided for in Section 200.001.(0)(a), rlorida 9fia4iat~stia. Tho status of your downtown development authority has been ' changed to rrindopendent,•," based upon theso findings. Attached for your information is a copy of the legal opinion which addresses' this issua. Ploase do not hesitate to contact: no at 904/922-5431• , i f you have gttcat ions . Cho/jp , Attachment cc: Auditor GGISUE- 1' , OffiCc Deportment of Dunking & Finance Depa r t manta of Revenue •0 2— 300 iMERMNCY MANAGEMCNT • HOUSING, AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT • RESOURCE PLANNING AND ►,nA►rAraMCNT `- r, MAY— 5— g 2 T 1J E 91 4 D D A MIAMI 5TATE ©F F L 0 R I D A DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY P . 0 S AFFAIItS , 2 ? 4 0 CENI tnvItW 1)RIVt • I At LA It ASS Et. I IURI UA 31 ]49.I I(Ia •I ,' - IAIV/UN C111115 Wli I IAA(1• SAI)U\�•fAi • March 30, 1992 Pi V.Cf�:��� 1L F...Irl._Q_13 A N n if 14 APR i i94 TO Christine A. Graham ,Sned�l District SBC00r, PROM: Ai It•(att O. Qragy, Yri ' SUBJECT: Downtown'' Ue:velopment: Authoritie ?_ This is in reference to your Memo of February 1.4, 1992 con- - cerning downtown development authorities which are governed by a special. definition In Section 200.001(8) (a), riA. scat. (1991). ' As your know, Section 200.001(8)(a) defines "independent special district" as a special dialtrict: which (satisfies the definition of Section 189.403(3), Fla. Stat. (3991). It then provides aasep- , :. axaate dofinition of "independent: special district" which applies to downtown development authorities in existence whlan the Con- ' Sti,tution went: into effect. According to Section 200.001(a) (cs) ,- ; an entity is an "independent: special district" if it is a downtown develupinent authority established , prior to the affective date of tine 1968 State t Constitution as an independent body, either appointed or elected, regardless of whether i or not the budget is approved by the local governing body, it the district•levien a 'L millage authorized are of the effective date of tho 1960 State Constitution. Your question is whether a developmont authority which in i.nde pendent tinder the spacial definition in section 200.001(8)'(e) , but: dependont within the meaning of Section 189.403(2), may be t listed aa: dependant by tho Special Districts Information program. 92— 3U0 f t . IWAGENCY MANAGEMENT • I U)USING AND COMMUNITY UtVa;a 17!'MtNT • At$OURCt rtANNING ANT) MANACIAItNT +. J r rl ti . 1 Memorandum March 300 1992 Page 2 IL Is nsy undersLanding that if t-ltesd' etiLlties hove one or snore of the "dependence" variables in Section 189.403(2) the Pt-ogram now classifids them as dependent districts. Xn my opin- ion trough, downtown development authorities matting the special roquirament's of Suction 200.001(0)(e) are independent spooial • districts for purposes other than the determination of mi.11ago, and should be c:lastsificd as such. 1 The spacial definition in section 200.001(0)(c) was much the same before the Uniform Special District Accountability Act was passed, but the former wording was different in one material respect. Section 200.001(8)(0), Fla. Stat. (1987), limited L•he ' independence of downtown davel.opment authorities by declaring t1tem independent "for purposes of this section" only. When the �. Iegislature passed Chapter 09-169, Fla. Laws, and passed the Act,; It Also amended Section 200.001(0)(e) by the deletion of the phrase "tor purposQ:n of this section." ' This is compelling evidence that the Legislature intended to broaden the oxamhtion for downtown development authorities which moot the requirements of Section 200.001(8)(e) by extending the. uc ope of that exemption beyond this one section: An amendment• to . an existing statute creates a presumption that the Legislature intended to chango the law. gjo& fig.Ofen, v . u •gr, 403 So. 2d ' 4090 1411 (I"la. 3.901) ; COba11a„Y. City,jQf GMjnq,%vil_1Q, 377 So.2d 6580 660 (Fla. 1979). This presumption would have ettaehed•even if the•Legialature had amended Section 200.001(8)(e) in -one piece of legislation and passed the Act in another. The presumption is. all the stronger hero, because the Legislaturo did both in tho name anacttssent. T-no inference is that it intended to make the , special definition of "independence" in Section 200.001(8)(e) , applicable to contaxts other than the determination of millage with roupect to all downtown development authorities which come within L•he exception. For those ronsaons, it is my opinion that downtown develop- ' meet authorities within the oxception in Section 200.001(8)(e) , aahould ba reclassified -as independent spacial districts for all purrones. t 92-- 300'