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