Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM-89-0644CITY of MIAMI, FLORIDA INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM To Honorable Mayor and Members DATE July 12, 1989 CILE- OMNI/CM of e City Commission SU9JEC:, Omni Redevelopment Area Tax Increment Finance C� District FROM Cesar H. Odio RFrFRFNCEs- City Manager F NCLdSURES The Department of Budget has reviewed the Ordinances relating to the establishment of the Omni Redevelopment Tax District. In our analysis, we found that there should be no dispute that 1987 should be L-he base year. In support of our position we found that : 1. The 1987 Assessment Roll Estimate, which is used for budget purposes, was received by Mayor Suarez on June 3, 1987. The correspondence, dated June 1, 1987 included assessments for Plaza Venetia. 2. On July 1, 1987, the Property Appraiser submitted to the City, a certified copy of the 1987 DR-420 which included assessments for Plaza Venetia. Instructions for the preparation of this document states that data used comes directly from the tax roll. The DR-420 serves as the source document for the preparation of the City's budget. 3. On July 1, 1987, the Property Appraiser, as mandated by the State, submitted the County's tax roll to the Florida Department of Revenue for approval. On July 17, 1987 the Omni District became effective. This was also the date that the State approved the tax roll. 4. On November 13, 1987, we received a correspondence from J. William Matthews, Appraiser. Specialist, with the State of Florida Department of Revenue. This correspondence confirmed that we complied with sections 200.065 and 200.068 of Florida Statutes relative to 1987-88 millage and budget process, as determined by the Division of Ad Valorem Tax. On November 28, 1988, attorneys Greenberg, Traurig, Hoffman Lipoff, Rosen and Quentel prepared a response to the question of which year was appropriate. They found that a) the base year for the tax increment is to be determined by the most recent assessment b) the Florida Department of Revenue did not yet M o ri 99-544 A 13 approve our ',interim assessment roll c) the County Commission defaulted in their decision to certify the roll before the State d) the case of State Department of Revenue v.- Adkinson was relevant to our si ua ion. we revieweli the materials presented and found that the most recent assessment was a) the one submitted to Mayor Suarez b) used to prepare the DR-420 c) this was the one approved by the State on July 17, 1987. It should be noted that the Dade County does not prepare an interim assessment and the case cited was irrelevant to our situation because in said case the State disapproved the preliminary assessment on the grounds that the level of assessment was only 77% of just value. We would also like to point out that on July 7, 1987 at the County Commission Meeting where the decision to certify had been defaulted, was an oversight since the certified copy of the DR-420 has already been prepared and sent to the Department of Revenue. If the City follows the attorney's recommendations, $1.6 million, (1988 and 1989) , will be transferred from the General Fund Revenues to the Omni District Trust Fund. The Plaza Venetia property which was supposed to generate additional tax increment dollars for this purpose is delinquent for FY188 and may not pay FY189 property taxes to the City. This amounts to approximately another $1.6 million. Furthermore, regardless of whether Plaza Venetia remits it's share of property taxes to the city, we are still obligated under the State law to make the necessary payments to the Omni District Trust Fund. On December 23, 1988, I requested, from the Law Department, a legal opinion as to which year was to be used as the base year. Sq. --- (;11.1 i I i I t 5 - j 1 j _ li