Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 1980-04-25 Discussion Item00.1 Joseph R. Grassie City Manager Dena Spillman, Director Department of Community Development : Z : - " • April 18, 1980 `"•9 +EFERE NCES. Housing Workshop On April 25, 1980, at 1:00 p.m., a Housing Workshop will be convened for the purpose of updating the City Commission on our current activities in low and moderate income housing rehabilitation and development, as well as to discuss several other matters related to the production of low and moderate income and market rate rental housing in the City. Enclosed, for your review, are some materials pertinent to the Workshop including a Housing Update prepared by the Department of Community Development which describes the City's current efforts in the area of low and moderate income housing, legal opinions concerning the Commission's proposed moratorium on condominium conversion, the establishment of rental housing zones, and powers of the City in housing, community redevelopment, and voluntary housing rehabilitation. Also enclosed is the Workshop agenda. One of the major topics to be addressed at the Workshop will be the $25,000,000 Housing Bond program. The Commission will be requested to take action on three items related to the Housing Bond Program which are discussed below. To date, S1,500,000 in bond proceeds have been pledged to secure Dade County Special Revenue Bonds which are being utilized to develop 424 units of Section 8 rental housing at seven locations. One of the Section 8 projects, a 100 unit housing development for the handicapped located in the Civic Center area is now under construction and will be ready for occupancy within the next twelve months. Construction will begin in June of this year on two of the six housing projects remaining to be developed, a 75 unit elderly project located adjacent to the Little Havana Community Center and a 24 unit family project in Coconut Grove with completion scheduled for June 1981. However', escalating construction and interest costs have precluded the possi- bility of development of the remaining four Section 8 projects in accordance with the originally proposed financing plans. These projects include 40 units of "scattered site,, family housing in Wynwood, 65 units of elderly housing in Coconut Grove, 75 units of elderly housing in Little Havana, and 45 units of family housing in Overtown. Joseph R. Grassie Page 2. April 18, 1980 Dade County HUD has proposed the use of approximately $1,400,000 in housing bond funds to cover the financing "shortfall" which exists between the total amount of Dade County Special Revenue Bond funds available to develop these projects and the estimated completion costs. Repayment of the proposed capital contribution plus interest for these projects which have a combined value of $6,722,000 would occur over a long term period from operating revenues. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT, ON MAY 8, 1980, THE CITY COMMISSION APPROVE A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF HOUSING BONDS IN THE AMOUNT OF 1.4 MILLION DOLLARS WITH THE PROCEEDS TO BE USED FOR THE NECES- SARY CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION TO ALLOW FOR THE DEVEL- OPMENT OF THESE PROJECTS. In December of 1978, the City Commission approved a proposal to utilize Housing Bond proceeds to acquire and prepare sites for the development of low and moderate income housing contingent upon a special allocation of housing units to the City by the U.S. Department of HUD. In the fall of 1979, the City was awarded a "Bonus" public housing allocation sufficient to provide for the development of 360 units of public housing in response to its proposal. Several neighborhoods in the City have been surveyed and have been determined to be suitable for the development of these housing units. The residents of each of the C.D. target areas proposed for public housing development will be asked to comment on the proposed public housing development program to their target area. The City Commission will be asked to approve specific development areas and sites thereafter. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE CITY COMMISSION, AT ITS MAY 8, 1980 MEETING, APPROVE BY RESOLUTION THE SALE OF HOUSING BONDS IN THE XIOUNT OF 4 MILLION DOLLARS TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR THE ACOUISITION OF SITES FOR THE DEVELOP�IENT OF THESE HOUSING UNITS. The Housing Bond Program is a valuable asset to the City in meeting the housing needs of its low and moderate income residents. The program can be applied in several ways tc stimulate the development of additional housing resources, including construction, financing and equity participation in privately spon- sored low and moderate income housing developments. These and other methods of encouraging the production of low and moderate income housing through the innovative use of the Housing Bond program will be discussed at the workshop. Joseph R. Grassie Page 3. /so April 18, 1980 THE CITY COMMISSION WILL BE REQUESTED, AT ITS MAY 10, 1980 MEETING, TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ADMINIS- ND PR 14c3uslimG UPDAALT.E DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT APRIL 1990 home' owne"r'ship i assistance h loan �proaram ! II OVER HOUSING ITTLE HAVANIA- nmus PARK NSA n HOUSING UPDATE INTRODUCTION In an effort to provide for the City's housing needs, particularly those of low and moderate income families, the City of Miami has implemented a Community - Wide Housing Improvement Strategy which recognizes the importance of the pre- servation of existing housing resources, as well as the need to develop addi- tional housing. The task of coordinating the implementation of the City's Housing Improvement Strategy is the responsibility of the Department of Community Development. In the implementation of the City's Housing Improvement Strategy, several pro- grams are being employed, including the Community Development Block Grant program, the Urban Development Action Grant program, the Section 312 Rehabili- tation program, the Section 8 Rental Assistance program, the Conventional Public Housing Development program, and the City of Miami Housing Bond program. A brief description of these programs is provided below, as well as a program - by -program status report. GREAT NEIGHBORHOODS The Great Neighborhoods Program is one of a number of housing programs being implemented by the City to address the improvement needs of many of its residential neighborhoods. The primary objective of the Great Neighborhoods program is to upgrade neighborhoods by providing low - interest home improvement funds to qualified low -and -moderate income families. The Great Neighborhoods rehabilitation loan program is funded by the City's Comrunity Development Block Grant program (CDBG). A separate funding source, the Section 312 Rehabilitation Program, is used to assist both owner occupants and investor owners. A variety of reha- bilitation programs offer flexibility in dealing with neighborhood situations. In addition to the upgrading of homes, the Great Neighborhoods program also provides related neighborhood improvements, such as water and sewer improvements, street improvements, sidewalks, and parks. Approximately $6,000,000 in CDBG funds has been allocated for housing rehabilitation over the next four years. Based on the current Section 312 allocation loan from the HUD Area Office, we anticipate utilizing approximately $2,000,000 in Section 312 funds during the same period. Approximately $16,5000,000 has been allocated for supporting public improvements, funded by CDBG and other sources. I iO MIAMI'S great 0' 2=' 0400' 0100' N ei hborhoo�Cs 1 I I 1 t SC. &LE LITTLE HAVANA LUMMUS PARK NSA The objective of the Little-Havana/Lummus Park Neighborhood Strategy Area program is to facilitate rehabilitation of multi -family rental housing with private funds for occupancy by families of low and moderate income. Section 8 rental assistance contracts will be awarded to sponsors of rehabilitation projects enabling approximately 500 low and moderate income families to occupy standard apartment units with rents not exceeding 257 of their incomes. To date nineteen (19) buildings totalling 390 dwelling units, have been approved by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Reha- bilitation is aire,ad.v underway in seven (7) of these buildings. Completion of all the projects is scheduled for the fall of 1980. Proposals for the rehabilitation of eight (8) additional buildings are currently being reviewed by City staff in crder to allocate the re- maining contract authority of 108 units. Construction could start n ' � F-1 ZZ • • • 1 1 1 / • j//�/ a 3 V) in W Cr a x W (sA 6 sr Ju. _� COASEY - WMEATLEY NSA The City of Miami has submitted an application to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for the designation of Dorsey -Wheatley as a Neighborhood Strategy Area. Should the application be approved, an allocation of 319 units of Section 8 contract authority would be awarded to the neighborhood under the NSA Section 8 Substantial Rehabilitation Program. The program would facilitate rehabilitation of multi -family rental housing with private funds for occupancy by families of low and moderate income. • /%% r ■ ■ eN HOMEOWNERSHIP LOAN PROGRAM Utilizing a $1,000,000 Urban Development Action Grant, (UDAG), the City of Miami's Homeownership Assistance Loan program is designed to provide homeownership opportunities for low and moderate income families through construction of single family homes financed through a tandem mortgage plan. During the next 12 months, approximately seventy-five single family homes will be constructed in six neighborhoods throughout the City to provide second mortgage financing. Dade Federal Savings has committed $1,000,000 in first mortgage funds to the program, and Dade County has allocated $500,000 for second mortgage funds. Thirty-two of the seventy-five single family homes will be constructed on an "infill" basis in the City's Great Neighborhoods areas of Allapattah, Buena Vista, Coconut Grove, and King Heights. An addi- tional forty-three single family homes will be constructed in the Neighborhood Strategy Areas of Wynwood and Dorsey -Wheatley. HOUSING E30NO PROGRAM In 1976, Miami's voters passed a $25,000,000 housing bond to be used for the financing of housing for low and moderate income families. To date, $1.5 million in housing bond proceeds have been pledged as security for Dade County bonds to develop 424 units of Section 8 housing on seven sites in the City of Miami. PROJECT Dade 8-1 Wynwood Dade 8-3 Coconut Grove Dade 8-6 Riverside Dade 8-7 Coconut Grove Dade 8-10 Jackson Memorial Dade 8-11 Little Havana Dade 8-12 Town Park NO. OF UNITS OCCUPANCY 40 Family 65 Elderly 75 Elderly 24 Family 100 Handicapped 75 Elderly 45 Family Total 424 units Dade 8-10 (Jackson Memorial) which will provide housing for 100 handicapped individuals is currently under construction with completion stated for January, 1981. The remaining six (6) Housing Bond assisted Section 8 projects are scheduled to begin construction by fall of 1980. In December 1978, the City of Miami, in cooperation with Dade County, proposed to utilize funds from the housing bond issue to acquire sites for construction of additional low and moderate income housing. In September of 1979, in response to the City's housing site acquisition proposal, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development awarded a special "Bonus" allocation of 360 units of public housing to the City of Miami. Currently, City staff is in the process of identifying potential development sites throughout the City. In addition, the Housing Division is currently exploring additional programs for utilizing housing bond funds in the development of low and moderate income housing. PUBLIC HOUSING Dade County's Department of Housing and Urban Development, which serves as the City's Public Housing Authority, plays a key role in assisting the City of Miami to meet the objectives of its housing improvement strategy, most notably in the production of conventional public housing. A total of seven public housing projects have been completed since 1975, as shown on the following table: PROJECT ADDRESS NO. R TYPE OF UNITS Orr Plaza Musa Isle Culmer Place Lemon City Apts. Edison Park :i'^hland Park Stirrup Plaza 550 N.W. 5th St. 2501 N.W. 16th St. Rd. 610 N.W. loth St. 150 N.E. 69th St. 200 N.W. 55th St. 1150 N.W. 11th St. Rd. 3150 Mundy St. Total 200 Elderly 230 Elderly 151 Family 100 Elderly 80 Elderly 32 Family 104 Congregate 24 Family 1,021 units Currently a total of 324 units of public housing are in the devel- opmental stage. PROJECT NEIGHBORHOOD NO. & TYPE OF UNITS Fla 5-75 Culmer Overtown 75 Family Fla 5-76 Allapattah Allapattah 52 Family Buena Vista 22 Family Fla 5-89 EDCOM Downtown -New World 135 Elderly Center Fla 5-91 Phillis Overtown 40 Elderly Wheatley Total 324 units W 61312" MULTI -FAMILY HOUSING REHAB PROGRAM The City of Miami Housing Division has recently been given the responsi- bility for developing and coordinating the implementation of a Section 312 Multi -family Housing Rehabilitation program which will provide 3°0 direct federal low -interest property improvement loans to owners of multi -family apartments. To date, two applications have been submitted to U.S. HUD requesting almost $400,000 in Section 312 loan monies for the rehabilitation of two apartment buildings totalling 154 dwelling units. SECTION S MODERATE REHAB PROGRAM The City of Miami has received an allocation of 220 units of Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. This program will be implemented during FY'80. The Moderate Rehabilitation Section 8 program provides rent subsidies to tenants of rehabilitated multi -family apartment buildings. OVERTOWN HOUSING PROGRAM The section of Overtown bounded on the north by NW 11th Street, the east by the FEC Railroad right- of-way, the south by NW 8th Street, and the west by I-95 is proposed for the implementation of a comprehensive revitalization program. The pro- posed program will seek to amelio- rate the physical, economic, and social problems which the area is experiencing through a staged program of structural and envi- ronmental code enforcement, inten- sified municipal service delivery, residential and commercial reha- bilitation, new housing development and economic assistance. The objective of the program is to combine the technical skills and resources of both the public and private sectors in an effort to create a new economic and social environment in the demonstration area which will serve as a model for the total revitalization of the Overtown area. RECEIVED MAR 26 1980 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM OPINION GEORGE KNOX, CITY ATTORNEY, CITY OF MIAMI FROM: FINE JACOBSON BLOCK KLEIN COLAN & SIMON, P.A. SUBJECT.': LEGALITY OF ESTABLISHING A NEW ZONING CLASSIFICATION FOR MULTI -FAMILY DWELLINGS OR APARTMENTS FOR RENTAL ONLY. DATE: MARCH 6, 1980 You have asked our opinion as to whether the City can establish a new zoning classification in defined geographical areas in which the construction of multi -family dwellings or apartments would be permitted only on the basis that each individual dwelling unit within the erected structure be available to occupants on a rental basis rather than on a condom„inium or other form of individual ownership basis. Our response to your question must be in the negative because of Section 718.507, F.S., which forms part of the Florida Condominium Act. This statute recites: 718.507 Zoning and building.- All laws, ordi- nances, and regulations concerning buildings or zoning shall be construed and applied with re- ference to the nature and use of such property, without regard to the form of ownership. No law, ordinance, or r`gulation shall establish any requirement concerningT the use, location, placemc!n�, or construction of bui.ldincis or other improvcn,,_:nts which are, or mia,, thereafter be, subjected to the conc?ortinium form of ownership, unless :;uch requirc-mcmt shall he equally appli- eablu to all buildings and improvements of the same kind not then, or thereafter to be, sub- jected to the condominium form of ownership. This statutory provision in essence prohibits condominium )"NE' Ut.uar ICi.eta Cut..% S. tit-uo-N. R A. property from being considered or classified as a separate use category in any zoning or building enactment adopted by a local governmental entity. It essentially forbids the use of condominium ownership as a basis for establishing any building or zoning category. No cases directly construing the language of the above quoted statute have been decided in the appellate courts of Florida, although there is one extremely relevant case that will be discussed at a later point in this opinion. However, there are cases that have been decided in New Jersey and Pennsylvania that involve an interpretation of statutory language quite similar to the Florida statute quoted above. The first of these cases is Bridge Park Co. v. Highland Park, 113 N.J.Super. 219, 273 A.2d 397 (App. Div. 1971). There the owner of a garden apartment complex containing 11 apartments proposed to convert his units from rental to condominium form. When his applica- tion for conversion was denied by the municipality, he instituted suit. In reversing the trial court's ruling in favor of the municipality, the appellate court stated: "The zoning power has been granted to muni- cipalities by the Legislature in Chapter 55 of Title 40 of the Revised Statutes. In establish- ing the parameters of the zoning power, the Legislature has provided in N.J.S.A. 40:55-30: Any municipality may by ordinance, limit - 2 - FINE. JACOISSO\ BLOCK RIXIN COLA\ & SIMON, It %. and restrict to specified districts and may regulate therein, buildings and structures according to their construction, and the nature and extent of their use, and the nature and extent of the uses of land, and the exercise of such authority, sub- ject to the provisions of this article, shall be deemed to be within the police power of the State. The authority conferred by this article shall include the right to regulate and restrict the height, number of stories, and sizes of buildings, and other struc- tures, the percentage of lots that may be occupied, the sizes of yards, courts, and other open spaces, the density of population, and the location and use and extent of use of buildings and structures and lard for trade, industry, residence, or other purposes. A quick reacting of this section discloses no power granted to a municipality to regulate the ownership of buildings or the types of tenancies permitted. It is obvious that each phrase in the statute refers either to the type of construction or the use permit- ted on real property within the confines of a municipality. [1) Defendant attempts to characterize condominium ownership as a "use" of land-- i.e., since the property in question is to be "used" as a condominium, the municipality may regulate or prohibit such "use". It is apparent, however, that after change of owner- ship as planned, the same buildings will be on the pre:ii.,.es in question and the use to which they are putwill also remain the same. Ile conclude that the word "usc" as contained in the statute above, does not refer to owner- ship but to physical use of lands and buildings. A building is not "used" as a condominium for purposes of zoning." In Maplewood Village Tenants Association v. Maplewood Village, 116 N.J.SupQr. 372, 282 A.2d 428 (1971), the Appellate - 3 - FINI:.1.\('oilsox 111.uci: hu'l-V Cot.av & SINI(D\. 11. A. r•• r- Division of the New Jersey Superior Court held in a case involving a similar issue as follows: "As to a requirement that defendant seek sub- division approval by Maplewood Township, the township zoning ordinance makes no reference to subdivision approval for the conversion of existing apartments into condominiums. It has been correctly asserted by the township that such an ordinance would be invalid in view of N.J.S.A. 46:8B-29 which has preempted this area. The statute states, in part, that: All laws, ordinance,, and regulations con- cerning planning, subdivision or zoning shall be construed and applied with reference to the nature and use of the condominium without re- gard to the form of ownership. [2-4] The presently existing apartments con- form to the to:.rnship zoning ordinance, and the proposed conversion represents nothing more than a change in the form of ownership. The use of the land will not be affected. Planning controls, including subdivision approval, cannot be employ- ed by a municipality to exclude condominiums or discriminate acgain:;t the condominium form of ownership, for it is use rather than form of ownership that is the proper concern and focus of zoning and planning regulation. The township does not contend otherwise. A municipality may impose subdivision controls upon a condominium apartment under the Municipal Planning Act (1953) only.if it imposes the same controls on conven- tional landlord -owned apartment buildings." In Kaufman and Broad, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors, 20 Pa. Commw. Ct. 116, 340 A.2d 909 (1975), an appellate court in Pittsburgh was faced with a similar issue and opined: [3,41 There was no stipulation concerning the issue of the exclusion of fourplex and - 4 - 1 INI: 11ACMISON' 131.utH KLEIN COLAN & SI?lU.N, P. A. . MEMORANDW-I OP t2. I0N TO., HON. GEORGE YNIOX, CITY ATTOW:EY, CITY OF MIMI DENA SPILLMAN, DI1ZBCT07, , DEPAR-1-ME.IT OF CW24UNITY DEVELOPMENT, CITY OF '• IAMI FROM: FINE JACOBSON BLOCI: KLEIZZ: COLAN & SI'IO:d, P.A. SUBJECT: POWERS OF 'i'HE CITY OF MI70II IN THE AREAS OF HOUSING, COMU. LAITY REDEVELOPZMEN'r, AND VOLUNTARY HOUSING REHABILITATION DATE: APRIL 10, 1980 In your two letters of February 4, 1980, you indicate that the City is considering both the reestablishment of a City housing authority independent of the Count:;'s Department of Housing and Urban Development and the municipal creation and administration of voluntary housing rehabilitation programs in certain reighbor.roo3a in the City. You requested an opinion from our firm that would make a comprehensive study of the City's legal authority and right to engage in the types of housing, co^munit;• r -evelopment, and voluntary rehabilitation programs cc•ntemplatzu. This opinion, written in response to your requests, will end-z-avor to beat three areas in some depth. The three inter -related areas involve the po,.ser and authorit, cf the Ci_v in (a) the area of housing, (b) the area of co:%munit•y re ievolopment and (c) the area involving the creation and administration of volunt-.ary rehabilitation pro- grams in individual City neighborhoods. I HOUS IA;G The City established the Miami Housing Authority on August 18, 1937 through and by virtue of City Resolution No. 1.3079. The Authority then operated successfully and r.fficietiLly from its establishment until February 61 19681 when its functions, responsibilities and powers were arholly transferred to the County. City Resolution No. 391111, as adopted by the City Commission on Octobor 30, 1967, recited the City's intent to transfer its Housing Authority to the County, requested the County to submit a suggested procedure for accom?;lishing the transfer and further requested the County to mcdify the structure of the County's Department of Housing and Urban Development in order to accommodate the City's :wishes and needs. The County thereafter suggested a transfer of functions procedure to the City and indicated a willingness to modify its HUD structure to meet the City's requirements. In response, the City Commission adopted Re- solution No. 39156, providing for the City's transfer of its housing functions to the County, subject to certain condi- tions to be performed by the County. These conditions es- sentially involved those changes in County HUD's organiza- tional structure previously recited by the City as a condi- tion precedent to the=ransfer of its Housing Authority to the Countv and u ere aczzptable to the County. Once the organizaticnal changes :were made in the County's HUD struc- ture to th City's satisfaction, the City transferred its Housing =ut zri.ty to the County on February 6, 19068. On February 39, 1968, t:le City adopted Resolution No. 39469, approvin;, and ratifying the already effected transfer of the municipal housing functions to the County. It is our vier., that a power or function transferred to the County by a municipality within it transfers the function to the County on a per.manont basis and is beyond -2- the powor of the City to retract. The transfer of the housing I)o ai-r tool; place. in accordaiicc with the. provisions in the Dade Count..? Home Rule Amcndru_•nt to the Florida Cons- � titution (Article VIII, Section 11, Florida Constitution 1885 and Article VIII, Section 6, Florida Constitution 1968), which provides that the County Charter: May provide a method by which any and all of the functions or powers of any municipal corporation or other governmental unit in Dade County may be transfer.rea to the Board of County COmmiSSion rS of Dad` Count}. This organic provision has been implemented by Section 1.01 A.18 of the County Charter, which states in relevant part that: The Board [of County Commissioners] may also t_nke over and operate, or grant franchises to operate any municipal ser- vice if (b) Tt--- , :,%,ornin:4 bode, of the munici- pality re;;ii sts the count; to take over the sere b.v a t�,o-thirds vote of its membe_ _,, c= Inv referendum. In the instant situation, the City's powers and responsibilities in the hou:Ing are ::•ire transferred to the County in accord - ante wit- t o Charter provision quoted. Where in addition the City.• reuired' t-I-e County to meet certain conditions as prerequisites to the transfer of the City's housing functions and the Ccunty met those conditions by changing the organization- al structure of its Hc•using and Urban Development Department, it seems clear, on viewing the transfer as one that occurred pursuant to a negotiated contractual. arrancjonient betc:,een the City and tho County, that' the contract may not be rescinded or set aside unilaterally by the City when the.County gave a defined consideration, i.e., the. modification of its Department- - 3 - al organizational structure, to induce the City to effect the transfer of the function. tt thus seems to us that, whether the transfer of the City': houzin:l function to the County was effected pursuant to a specific Florida organic provision as ■ implemented by a specific County Charter provision or whether the Count: modified the structure of its own Housing and Urban Development Department to meet the City's requirements and wishes as a contractual consideration, it is, in either event, beyond the power of the City to rescind the 1968 transfer of its housin_, function to the County. From the foregoing, it would appear that the powers and duties of the City in the area of public housing became a County function in 1968 and so remains. Those powers and duties in the area of public housing essentially involve those po..,ers, duties and responsibilities enumerated in Part I of Chapter 421, Florida Statutes, generally referred to as the "Housin-g Authorities Law." Since 1968, ho e-ver, there have been various federal enactments that have granted substantial powers in the public housing sphere speci=ically to cities and municipalities throughout t!:e United ates, including the City of Miami. Additionally? the Unit_d States Department of. Housing and Urban Develooment has created housing assistance programs in many inci-.-idual municipalities and authorized substantial financial a_ssistanc3 to local housing programs in order to aid lo-.%7 --^d middle income families in those municipalities. These p:c;rms have usually served as the nucleus of com- munity hc::si.ng programs financed in many instances by the Federal Covernment alone and in many other instances by contributions from municipal governments as well. These 4 I grants of powor anal fundin-j in the houain:l field, f.loaing from the. Federal Gnvc-rnmt�nt i--c-, individual municipalities or to housinc7 authorit:ics created b, such municipalities, con,titute a whole nQw area of municipal powor and authority. in our view, the City of %Iiami may continue to exercise all thone po::ers in the housing field conferred upon it by fed- eral enactments, federal regulations and federal grants despite any prior transfer of housing responsibilities to the County. That this is so is made clear by Section 421.21(1) and (2), Florida Statutes, which states with reference to municipal housing authorities as follo,.cs : In addition to tt e po•.ticrs conferred upon an aut'nori-tv by other provisions of this cis ter, an authority is empower- ed to borro.,' mone,, or accept grants or other f.ina7icial. 7_S_=ictanco from the Fed- eral Gov:'r nt fcr or in aid of any mousing pr_>-_ct its ar'�a of opera- tion, to _ o•;..r or lease or manage any housin ; ;,r%, _ct or unclerta!-,in-; con ;eructed or o:�ncc: b- r:.� _ Guverl)., t, and to thy.. _, - t^ cc:7.:)1- i th such con- ditio.Z a:-.d enter into such trust. in- dentu� _ __ , i,_ or a,�r'_c' :_':Zt:� as ay ' be r:•2c:: .,..: c'nv•_n_e.t or dcoirable. It is t.__ ^:)s and int—ent of this ChaDti "_ +.I c'IU'C.::02".17.-.. evt- r�• auLliority to do _.. all `_'.inq:, nrDcn-­zary or desires: 12 to secur: thro i lna nci_-il aid or o` th- .'c.c? 'ral Government in the construction, main- tenallce or c.c!ration of any housing pro- ject b­ sueh auti:orit•,. In a-.1d4ition to the po%-.,ers confcrrecl upon an au c.nor it1 by sub:,cc t: io:1 (1) and other nro-: ision: of this, ch_ ntor, an authorit' is e':lpo%.:ere3 to burro:.., monc y or acc•_-:' grants or other financial as- sistance from the Gov-.rnro.:nt under .,. 202 of the- iiousitic; t%ct of 1959 (PUb. 'To. E(i i �) or any la`:; or nrc)(;ram of th,' ��i11�:'.:'u Stag-'; Do;-,'lrt11'i nt of !iU.lclnq and U1:i)dit, v.hlch prov1.:1f.S for d1.rC'C� f!�Clt'Ia1 l.C�;;Il'. 111 tii P.l�:;li1L': c-1mr)unt, as dcfint:!d th'.'rcia, for of assisting cortain nonprof i c. cari�:?nations to provide hou3inq and related f..lciliti.es for elclerly families and eldierly por ;on:,. - 5 - I 2 The City's po:aers in t`:e housicia field fire also ntrenjth- ened by thy: basic principle that any grant of -±r, authority or funding to a local government flowing from the rederal Gov- ernment carries with it the imprimatur of the federal suprema- cv clause found in the middle paragraph of Article VII of tho United States Constitution. In a sense, the City acts as an agent of. the Federal Government when spending federal monies to carry forward a federal housing program. The Federal Gov- ernment has effectively said that the Cityis so empowered. It is, therefore, our view that the City of Miami may create a housing authority or a community development depart- ment to administer loi: income housing programs within the City based on powers saecifically granted to it by federal legislation, federal -regulations adopted pursuant to federal. legislation, or federai grants. Such grants of power or money ale: a limit the -po:•:er to utilize federally created authorit-; by carefully defining the manner in which and the purposes for which such federally provided funds may be expended. The principal fede_ '_ hc-.,sing subsidy programs through which federal funds to assist housing are granted to local governments are best described is a pamphlet prepared b-• the Staff of the Joint Co:-_niit=ee on ia::ation for the use of the Committee on Ways and :'a=ns of the L::i ted States house of Representatives in conjunc:::rn ..:it ..earings scheduled by that Committee on FIR 3712 dur-ing ':ay of 1979. Relevant portions of that pamphlet are atta=`cd hereto as Mpendix A. Sdith, t"',e City of Miami granted substantial powers in the housing area essentially through federal legislation,.. regulations and funding, the City undertook to go forward with its oorn housing program in a fairly substantial manner. - 6 - The City created its own Dcpartnont of Co.-xT.unity Development initiall•,, to admini:.1k..e1- cotamu►►ity develoi:m•211t blo-_-k r;rant programs. As time went- b,:, th,_' Department iindortoo}: a number of additional programs; and oxp-inded i.t_. areas ol. resp-)nsibili.ty considerably. In due course, the hepartment undertoo: the res- ponsibility for preparing and monitoring the Section 8 Housing Assistance Program within the City. It did so in conjunction with the County's Department of Iiousing and Urban Development (HUD), which remained primarily responsible for implementing the Section 8 Housing Assistance Program throughout the County. In due course, the City's Department began the process of system- atically reviewing all privately sponsored, assisted housing prograr,a within the City. It also began processing all private- ly sponsored Section 8 Substantial Rehabilitation Programs planned within the City, with -the support and encouragement of the County HUD Department, and it comLmenced a program for systematically evaluating County HUD's performance in low cost housing prog_am.r,, undertaken within the City. The City's Departmant also to research all the various mechanisms for creating new or red abili.tated lo,; cost housing throughout the Unite States, utilizing both an economic and a legal approach. In due co::rzn, the City's housing programs, functions and powerZ, all o= :•:hich were initially based on federal legis- lation, regulations or grants, and subsequently on po•..ers implied=.e.refro:n, became substantial. In recognition of this, Count.- an,' City officials involved in the complex: and multi- faceted ::.;using area met for the purpose of conking out the details of a mutual agreement that would divide or allocate the evor-growing number of housing responsibilities and pro- grams bot,..:c:en th�c County's HUD 'Department and the Cit}r. A formal agreement desiclnated as a Memorandum of Understanding - 7 - Was arrived at by the two tlo urnmontol ent.itios and formally executed by tMessrs. Sti.erhoim and on O::tober 17, 1978. A copy of that detail -ad agreerno::nt is attach�_,d hereto as Ap- pendix B. Thin opinion %' il.l not endeavor to discu:,s each and every provision in the detailed Memorandum of Understanding between the City and the County, but we will point out those provisions that seem most significant to us. These are enumerated belo:, . A. Section II of the Agreement relates specifically to the Fourth Year Community Programs and both the immediate and long- term responsibilities flowing from it that require a substantial undertaking by the two govern-mantal entities. B. Secti-= II also indicates the extent of the ver:r substantial funding for the hous- ing pro:-ra­:s to be furnished by the City of Miami. C. Section IV on Page 7 of the Agreement indicates t:^.ose areas of responsibility in the housincr field to be undertaken by the C1. I Cy. D. Ti-,,-:: material on Pages 9, 10 and 11 of the Agreement indicates the heavy responsibi- • lities to be undertaken by the City in the area of housing rehabilitation. E. The pcnultim-ate paragraph on Page 4 of the Agreement contains provisions which per- rhit the City to terminate the rehabilitation portion of tho Agrecrrier.t under certain con- ditions. We have been given to understand ,that tho. first application for housing rehabilitat-ion assi otance wa.; n,roccssed in April, 1978, and that there were 104 applications for such assistance proces- sed by Ducembor 31., 1979. We al:,o under- stand that only 45 loans had been executed by December 31., 1979. F. Section XII of the Agreement (found on Page 16) contains provisions which permit either the City Manager or the County Man - alter to wholly terminate the Agreement under certain stated conditions, following 30 days written notice of intention to terminate. To conclude the initial portion of this opinion, we would summarize the lengthy discussion contained within it in the following wa%r. Khen the City turned over its sub- stantial poaars and duties in the low cost housing field by agreeing to merge 41--5 Fousing Authority into the County's Department of Housing: an4_ Urban Development in 1968, it was left with virtuall,: no or authority in the housing field. Thereafter, t:e Cit.- asuaired substantial powers in the housing field by vi `ze of «deral legislation, federal regulations imnlementi:-: fedo-a'_ 1--islation and federal grants, all of which conferred ne:•; and considerable powers on the City from the fcde_sl level. The County recognized the City's substantial authorit_ in the area when it entered into a contractual arrange- ment t;it! t-o City in 1968, which allotted the various powers, duties and responsibilities arising from low cost housing pro- grams within the geocjranhical boundaries of the City between the City and th(, Count,;,. The City now considerable power and authority in Lhe area of low-income housing and, in our vi.uw, may create its own housing authority or department - 9 - to its housing po-aur3, adnini.�t (-!r its ;ousinq pro- grams or work out a cooperativ,� undcr.t aki.ng with the C')+.inty. Such a City authority or departmcnt will not possess the powers contained in Part I of chapter 421, Florida Statutes, which powers have been tr.ansforred to L-he County's Dnpirtment o4L Housing and Urban Development, but it will possess all those po%,.crs specifically conferred upon the City in the housing field by federal legislation, regulations implementing federal legislation and federal grants. It will also possess all powers in the housing field that may reasonably be implied from those powers specifically granted by federal authority and enure;rated in the previous sentence. - 10 -- Cn_i�lU:i'('I": i'T;D[: Ti:L_O;?`•'I:::'I' Virtually all communit. redevelopment powers created by or arising from Part III of Chapter 163, F.S., generally refer -- rod to as the "Community Redelrelopment Act of 1969", within Dade County are vested in the Board of County Commissioners of Dade County. This is because of Section 163.410, F.S., which states: In counties which have adopted home rule charters, th:: poc•:ers conferred by this part shall be exercised e::clusively by the governing hody.• o'_" such county. Hoc;ever, tt c�o�:,r;;i. lr hod of any such county a hem rule charter i_?1 it:, discr..: (ion, by res- olution cic 1_ ^atc� t;1c e::c.rc.i e o r the powc_-rs co-._ _ -- d u, on sai county by this part : it_lin t hou: u,--Aries of a munici: .l_`: to "Ih._ cr-) r..ir.<r bo y o� such a nunici =.1i.t Such a del ,gation to a mt:nici ity shall confer only such a mainic.i.:ali t :. a1S shall be snccii� enur.mer-:_­d in tt.t dcl,cating resolut io) . h,.y: po:•;,.r not spz_2ci `ically b` reservc2d exclusively to the co:- r _nc; body of tl­ i country. The Cit_: --ay only aC . i.r redevelop. -lent poc•:ers through the County's delegation jome or all of these poc•:ers. Our opinion could be inco:aplete however if we did not speeificz:lly point out Section 163.450, r.S., which reads: Not`t-in contained herein shall bo construed to provent a county or municipality which is enganina in community red cvelo;:;•rent activities hereunl-,r from participating in the neighbor- hood dev lopm-2nt program under the Housing Act of: 1:5° (P.L. 90-448) or in any amendments subseau=t thereto. , is provision indicates to us that any municipal powers in the =."-gun i ty redcvolopmnn t field that flow to the City from the Federal Housing Act of 1968, or any other federal legislation, or rcTgulations adopted by federal agoneies re- quired to implemunt federal legislation, arty in affect and r ma , not be dirini; hL--d I)v a n.trro,.J of 5ertion 163.410, 11.S., prE::viaufely clUoted. in our vic-tr, federal grants; of redevelop.mcnt power to municipalitir.s togother with any additional powers that may be reasonably and logically derived therefrom will take prQcedcnce over an; state law provision that may be in conflict. III In City Resolut.ion ;do. 38660 of May 8, 19G7, the Cit;, transferred its Dopart.ment of 1`1(:ighbr)r.hood Rehabilitation to the County as of Octob;�T- 1, 1967. Thu Resolution• understand- ably d.,ferred to federal authority and provided that the tran3- fer should in no way interfere with Federal HUD's designation of the Workable Program of the City in any manner. The County in return agreed to enforce th,, City's Minimum Housing Code and Fire Code within the City of Miami. In July 1967 the City enacted Ordinance No. 7576 through which it abolished its Department of Neighborhood Rehabilitation and discontinued all functions then carried out by that Department. The foregoing would seam to indicate on superficial examination that the Cit, turned over its Neighborhood Housing Rehabilitation fun(-4- -L s to the County, and that Rehabilitation then became a Count_- function in the same way t^-=t dousing became a County function. pursuant to Section 1.O1A(18) of the County Charter. . careful e::amination of the situation indicates t,at this _S not at all what happened. The essent'_til rez—Z11onsibility and functicn of the City Department s= Rehabilitation involved the inter- pretation .. 4 "f-3r.^._'r7jnnt of the City's Housing and Fire Codes. The Dena= -:en_ disc:arr`d virtually none of the responsibilities that cse tend to associate with Neighborhood Re habilitation today, the departmental name. This wa- essentially %..hy the County agreed tD enforce the City's Housing and Fire Codes :•nit: in the dity vhen the City simult:anco: sly agreed to abolis'. its Department of Neighbortiood'Rehabilitation and to terminate all the functions3 of the Department-. t-,'e therofore conclude. that, al.thouc3tt the City transfcr- red what was called its Department of Neighborhood Rohabilita- - 13 - b tion to the County in 1907, it did not, transfur the basic neighborhood housing rehabilitation po•:!ers described i.n Part V of Chapter 420, F.S., generally cited as the ":7eighbor.hood Housing Services Act", to the County. Those functions and powers involved in what we today describe as I•,ei:.hborhood Housing Rehabilitation Programs were not transferred to the County and accordingly remain within the jurisdictional and operational control of the City of Miami. SLS/1.ms Attachments FINE JACOBSON BLOCK KLEIN COLAN & S IMON , P.A. 14 STU.-NRT L. SIMON 4 160 D. Federal Government Programs to Assist dousing 2. Progrnnis for single-family housing Government P,allorial Nor.gnf)e Association tandem plan G;rNS:i (G,1ci•rrtri!::Lt ;latiort:.I MG."tCfi !t:-tiltCt;lt:0L'J li A 000pOta- thn \\"ithi;t the V-partt: e, rtnrl Mon DwOopment HUD tit:,', j,r ,. i11•', ;t e..,cor. I:: _' t;',.ri:,: ror 1•'f TA, i'A ,.:-A core : eritionO LlortL,i _i. Ui-. !,:: it:, I't.: ,t.:cl i i,ri, G'NNIA pvoviiI'; Litt into,-est -'.Ib- sidy that c) ,r:it !•.a;i.. to interest fro.I I_:u!'::" ztt thta the rlic rtnre het•,t'ee❑ 7.5 jamp t hal the mr .,. ` rat ;:hi t ~G-NNIA s:h,nrb; Ow stlbiidy. attb-*orki to ::rCl - hwh .^ - ft�. r:l:Iy and r1?:ii;t:aTLl Irlortgay-S L ISS been' ,• : to t::,NIA. .•t 11%•ru we no Irafll::1%% il:'l:t� I',r }JurrO i\,f`r;i un,ler tIe ;I•_ f.....'t j;:o r..n, .:Itht,,i�L th+ rU(.rt':•.,e is $42100 jwr uuA .Sec`.'an 312 loan propr(Jn Thc-" 10: s ... t ; :1:!�'b!'- for it a rov nwats to r rAbothd hn I com- rn+erckl " \: u ... tI to j t,,. ,n�::i:1 t:!f v ii•:})rt:_ rl ateas. Mann for ;): riot esceiI 827,000 p,- unit, o3r .;:;. vwu f_'- imi)rn:t`rt: ?lt' tri n'.nr,si,l.'ntial j) rentntliri•1c1:!s and 514 to h�hnr is\& for InllAW and ngyq inronja 1it11l C:,li1^_!i. S£Qi:..,:,'i,. _.. ..;'GfC.•IE'rS!'2�.t7rC!'rL:in it L: l_i pals. t:aiii1 " gage pa'.: .._.. , .:t\ •e F%; i::_,:r;:aa j�r,tri'.:n,} which tare Q,'CE':i?. l�y - !nt U1 lvljii��{ I �rOv ltt,''-1'?N'. ./ hr ?,:'(.;'rF1111 RI, i>ia 101 t^-_ >Ip w-Me f:'':Lly p:r;..ss _ r, !'. r.c:, � r?ivej o: s1} 0_.._ :...t• !I:oirt• ,11 ...:,ttj,.i,:• t:u,.!,1 brim; tna ?' cCtr � c• .-` _ .-,."rCS: ntti: j),:l,: h.v ti:. hoineC )v. n-•rs to as !o•:: as i tIMe �.. "_..._1: ro f1r('4r•'.i t. `.11 S:1rVi;1F'� G•:!U'.\' J;) pf-c. nt Lf R! D de n -miPE . 8'1:a1:1llj' for earn stand—._. Mq=waau Gtr.'t:;.._1I Ann .:n,T .J\:IIa .. CnunV. Th-,` M`_'-. J :Mri" .,;t rlii•_'r , from $1 0 3 t7 `.: "09, howl is to hwh cc t a.-e,.,; a:!'i: :! '! r...:nr.^, t:r,' r.ia'ic foi. f`trui!.. ca On Laurel: ;_s, iz�.' !• n:_.....}: :? f' .ai1� i-. t.},' to . _. it., ccsva : ._ j- -- ; _0 p-;c. nt nr }a__, of it; Qu unj pr,�, i:tcoaje. W Tit? ,•, F ^ Horne r.,i,r' un (l' HA) MAW direct la inwrest r : :t •i .'"vlr&Ke• tr'.• I)1 and I:1nI.... _ :?lu nne fnml!W ti; Y49 homes Pi rur 1:! art::.... Tia- W rt•; t rate' is i .7 5 1 • cent t0 htmi!i• trite T_Nn i; IM 304wint Of a d: !r h1lti.m, hf f..':1111.•3 aL,nte Ind 10nt wwct:..._ Up awe of the oh-enatinni c.f f.t:nity i:.c_.. _. Pr 161 with v.(ljtjAv0 auni-al in-otue:; below S15,0111, (91S,500 in 1111WIdi Will $2:,.000 in Faniili­; v.itL bw- i'l S121,01.10 in nnd SOMbij In Al':S"kzl) are ehgib!P. ff)F an fidditional Suhshly mldch Cold rethwe the mart.; age h1preA rntn M as little as pmvmt. Lonna tire rn71,le for reliiibilitution, c,.n,trt;,:6on or tl!f• purchase of edYng Knok T he she of We home is restActed but not tires nungi, or J)Urr"1-l-,' 01" "It! II I:II =d L ,:zaran!t,tod loam: NAM! MOK-9 Admb of tile FHA pro'..:! ±3%ranvP for shmieWily loans, mith maxinuirn interest roq"inninank Zt'ld lr,!!t.n") . R�;.Int'; miliell are set -!V- by shna" hnI Tlir- ins,:rmilce i; a gurtran.tr,? to tl.r. I mlvr tiltP:.) :inc! principal will ba ma"10. Velerays and inu'-t.s privately Wri ttell I uu. - :, MoQnys marke! SterrPUMm, Piderc! Monna! or, ;P ment spori-q, .11 - - " I—` . —. I . '' --tion ti.,-t jmrd":&D vatf-1v it of­­r" Iln opi-0:'Lunity to liquiilate-.;J ENNUT - ncoursges the use of private WN fcm hamw Law pliI.- tQ?d - ' - * Cn tl-_' for FECL1ri!:_ : S�1111 tO the PubX� I Public. G-% bl!v is Its 1Cj\V 115 to toeinlwr snvirjo En.d 1 -,v ±Ahobm; v c:­.t.r v. t;ght Money 1- to savir> nof Awn P�ndntkns t t j).ind their on homes'.. 2. ProZmmm Nr multiW00- rental KcluArq,, Qv""M CUM hauAng 1.0"-rer! 1 -K-W-0_in 7 ;0,:;m7nv fun! tf- cumtnvzion or the pure`," tni P004001wl m�� (mburnz HOWAY V'P:;_e4, null apank" it 5 - , -"rak! mpon-r-, of renN Imp"s tt ale arid man7-! ij S-veorWal F:n7nnow e2cvns W th,onmLunde • nvnlvYv,w� tvLv", at rahv,d chAnyK, jnhhc imuln is c'c7­*!;. to hs- Q im-Wro-"cmny km0s and to e,'!" I . Z. :_ ...' '., or It'lltal '111(l Uti KV CL%- WQd W In !Aj of no: nvVe 1hal 25 1-ntnt of • SVc.'."r)7: ; 7:6x COWnWan •lwograp; pruvok 1, S.mcp 01 IQ, OF I mcl!jl) in;; neWh- Cr Q='WntP_ itl2d LTI't, th_-' 171't Ce.'tnlu Uri- tem.. fuld Und.,-:- the5c pro- r; ri�o­ ,ram; wntc sl;r,. In WKIR Z: 17:01 (:.� the un:­i a!e It ­.v to LVA- L!ld inco"n- ...* redn'..ed ro;. . Tho bi-tv.ve.1 the HUD- 162 e.,tabll,hetl alluw•able rant for each unit, and tl?e huu:ehuld contribu- tion—limitLti to 15-2.5 percent of family income —is InWlc Up by regular payments from RUD to the project ownerfrnanngm Assistance coatract5 bet.":pen HUD and project sponsors cover five-year periods and are renewable tit the owner's discretion. for 20 to 40 years, de(lent}- in ; onthe type of sponsor ttnd the kind of financing used Income limits, t1.)r Se Lion S aa�i.trulce recipients are Silt at upproxtrrl;uely SO percent of the area meJial: family incomes. Section S exisling housing Tile exlstin, n housing component of the Section S pro"rp-m provides . assistance oa heha;f of lower -income households oucupying.physically adequ nte, moderate -cot rental housing of their own choosing, in tho private m.:l:et. Public housiu,, agetimcs under contract to HUD subsidise the buus'ing, costs of 1 wer-income families by paying their Imndlords the difference hetween the tenants' rental fee and.the tenants' contribution of 15 to 25 percent of their mouthly income. All housinC,, L`r11t5 M, t meet standards ofphysical ndequacy, must be located l�7thin tee.jur!sdict+•.on served by the local anenci, and must rent for an smour.t egtuel to or less than 1: HUD -established maximum. Beyond these restriction,, a-,zsisted househulds are free to select the location and type of housing' so long as the lendlord is willing to enter into a lease with t1hu tera??t and : particlpl:.!on agreement ii'lth the adrn*mis- tering agency. Section 28 rental assistance and rent supplements r •�....0 The Se: - ilort TfOgi'altl, flUt}?OCt'(.eC1 In 190, pCUVldeS mOCtct!=;e interest sllbzidies to•developers of rental projects In which a portion' of the hour; ­,a are made available to lover-incorne persons at reduced rmr.-.i.. Tl e- interest subsidy alone is sufficient to reduce tenant rental to an avet,age of about'30 perccut of family Income. • S'. AC1Ca:0II�': ac1i5! !2: are provrued oil behalf of the occupants of some of One units :.ruu=^ rent -upolement payments, Section S•assistance, or dee�I subsir_1_ p +:n;,nts specificai'lY authorize:! for :use In Conjunction with Vt��.? j '�.iJ. This plggybuckin- of those subsidies, wM6li are psid to th per ant oinner, perm; is tenants' rents for some units to be reduced to De:cent of their 1nCo:rlr without jLoplydizinL' the financial t iUil!ty OI t: •'- : rotects.• . The rent st;;:r:.:rnea£ pr0gr;',110 was authorized to pl'ovide payments to the e`.c r.;5 o; private rental housing on' behalf. of lower -income tenaatz, 1;t. it h:a been used primarily to reduce rental charges in Sectio : 235 and cancer mortgage s?lbsidy projects. See::os: -%03 housing for the elderly and hnn(licapped Ct!Or '�U'i provides direct federal Ioa11S to 110TII)rUfit 0Cgi1ni-, dtiOl13 develo; "ut rent:;l 'housing for the elderly and, the handicapped. Since I911 ;io :r.t�rezt rat }lai'fl been S11�ia1•y' }light's t}!fist t}1+:)'le}ll OI.IIII outst� •:ii:1 • Treastiry obligations—nn •inlen,,t rate. more nearly ttp- 1)roxirn a tin, that of conventional ftlU:neing. Projects developed under the 4-_ctior; 203 pro;:aut sl.;o carry a ";ectiu:l S•sub;icly, %vhich enables tee rents r.f lover -income families and individtia1z; to be reduced to a max'Im"I ^. of 25 percent of their income. 3. }1oi ii —C.related community development programs Sever:a community choveloptuent prograll?s providc 1•0usiu" benefits to a w?do. rpm-c^• of lncornrt 'grolifis than l.re C}1 lble for Its- 163 &Wince llrn;;rcros. '!'hest: l:r: rlt pro;;rams to State and local govern- tnettts ^ener:l!•.v are ndministert`k hy the D-?p:lrtine`nt of llottsin�: an(1 Urban Devr!(.i meat. C.nrtr :a� Development Mt'•:: Crum.; I% C EIRG :iro : um }rinvirl:>, ,'rant; to state and 1r Cal goverrrT£�m to land };r j nj t:.;:.;n',tl to jonmW vi.tbl_ urb ut cr�nlnunitie;. Wit C MIG far. !> n" ::11•m:ttr'tl W tnr::m; Of ll :2CI3-t .:'.e l fu.rnul_le nrnon,• cities mithirl rntr.;lu'knu rre:t, v,'ith I,oplatiom A 50Y'.10 or rnme and urh,ir, c:,::: 'ia Ijoh 1,c+jydat�'us of :' t!i,000 Or rats'`. Blynnu:, in fiscal .e tr INS, tllu for:n'Ov Ere a -A to (I;.,tribut_• tllio,e untitl.'tnent grantgrantT li h run;�(!er the T:'!t::l' of }'�..:�,:: in th }ur:��lir hwi 1l'itli Irlco:: r•; 't,eL,'.. tlt•. pov-'rty 1::; 0:1! : fol-I u!.( 'l..0 tal✓:, it:.) l:rc'1 :nt t (ll al'}'ojt':•:=t:o:1 a:1d tho rll.lridwr of ( vAorfumled lira}=hiq units within the ]Ul.-,f,t'51: the Wh.`1' E . n•A t'; '.I 'r-3 1:1,; it, linl'4:! tU�r 'ra•n'til R'}nn e to '!. ...-inal rtto on! To nnnOwr ref lr:,.4010 1. sin' unlit.;. Conlnit!ni. ,t rt 1. , • t nttt! 1:. t; :ts inti,t :Ilan suloniit alL,i->ttir, • t•' no',!,,.it £'-,tiri;lt' the •'tt:;;t r.!rl n;ltn:_ c,. 1io i°,in', nrells IIIIIOT:: ln. - 1 alc .ir at :'�: :� li... ,,r , Tt ciciin n:'PCjtcctE l to I•2.iile In tl:' jar'-.t•:..:r^. and ..�'I:r�1 �C` i'��'.•'1'_;1'c'r,ll 1,'J .I ll .. >..!llrt• \%ill lie usNt t0 noon,, thu r T: ••,1,. LO'.1!.Ili ittk'.i tint 1,i0, t0 l,rrivl•l'` 1rt11er- incums hu,: L,t::r.c` In;t.� 'fv: •it tl:.ir el!,�'! 11ity for th,s Cnnl- I:111ni��' t!:•'.ci'I'):ar'nt f1111.1_•. 'L'ri in %-_c�d�1z•r.^^t :tc.tr,r: Gra:.s (Fi1l:1G} ar: to 1; oul: UD2.t_r rr-e avall'ihii only to (!mr`.-A ^lilt'. £:nil they are. to be 1.. , i•` zjomi pnq _ is % _ l,: vAp itwem1t:Cl:t as mAl tiS li:1tt CiiirL-nt C:' fr•r dotermin1 tirlonn di;tmC iziulu' .. '•lCtlr':1A ,!' :1• nVA comtnllmW lintU;e 19-ltl, net i:,.7. fr',al 1n1,19 to 1974, pupu'!atlon ,growth 950 moo 1070 to tin' 7:::t.':1.!1 r:.tO flit' 1'--vCl of u:.:. :1 the r.' o-r, :l: is C:nt:l'n't, :It, tl: j:crv:r.i of the }: :'..... Z t! l ', tr _'v..l ❑tl .:t it{: . lucal factors. Mo: t .ccaliti,s tl far L'I):.C; fut:•ltn; unt!:r those COOK Ss:.:a;, .:= r�•F:uj�F::tc:.'•�r. l:�r.;., yve ^... p !onn }i-t' 7im i,:nvh!,s am. fin_k:u.ing for the rehab; .. ..o P1 1.st.'!v nt lV m�'!:•MA ant! co:rtma(.ial.5061- 1.*tff 1: { urh"a �!, to"aJ0',allG'.! tl•'�'' L• :(1:'rlit 9ntl Rie"IP,7no _ ea;. loan bier n 3�}iem nt ir.t.rest tat• mth n Sn:;ximi n r: _ w- ! ps.j , nJ fit'.:Cj. drat of t:: yl,li:o.xinia!V1v 5:,,G'. 1 1'' 1„ i,. i!lr.a:_;£ tll•` vid of tt_C :l v`•nr 1077 fiw .. l t:. : th.abditation r: fi�.t ._: -O: C:Ij1if`+! fl(7' -![I,_ jllt• �t;ction 312 ;, -c. ; kes h ' • ".( ro 1- �',,'.:' lt'ith TgherI iut.oui.,s Omik nil C'>e ,rh . ... _.-•(!:ri`Ct f. !� : e.! 1,i:.UL• Ll i. >:�t•tll4('t•. A sr::-." _u Won hwm, vm,lin'- derno:l;tration ltru;;: tilt has beryl CndPr \('l'irtll fell":,tll,. }tell! are dMA't.! !.'C:!alcti End snit! bC ttv-tll lit potsonti a'illi::� I'!'.!'•:liiatc kuui n•. rclt_ th, ill. '1'ili; lit ;ram i.; inten-le'l to e11CUllr :�, !znitial It :{iCt tir!r'11t it: tll.'tCr °.rtl itieit,. ,it it! .Q J::tnI!Iate - _-•g.rv:: i':.»=1'<°'C-rad.'1[1RiL'#.4'` ___ ...1C!^_ and ''I:t,!rQd into tI11G :d• O� / 1973 b.., and betlanen thc-. C-t`J 0f :iia-mlr- (�1C!r111>L��� L^tn�•r:� ~O ]u �•':?u CZ.r:rri r � and %lietronolitan Dade Count', (hertinafter rc�ca r-3d tO Is T FE COL both of whcm-Underdtand and agree aS f01'1Vel.9 r 1,11?ZRE�AS, the OaL'tlC?5 lc'rC?�0 _I7�iVF' t}lt? c0^,^an. i,ower '/lit 1n r,ierIr 6riSC:1C`ion3. to car o out..t:Le activities snelied out in this Agreement:,,: and .*M:?EAS,'bet na�ties are agreeable to carrjing out the acLivities and/or Sr_>rViceS as =ratified under the terns and conditions hereinafter Set forta, .: , ; AG? 1SrLL01tiSNO dr THE =JS:r^ri CITY AND THE COL.iTDOaUT'AL; . .. SyCTT_CiI n�-�:1alT_' ACMINIST?_ I'; COSTS T a associated /+ Costs lncurre4 In. sal. ries / . Count': e:1D10 /''c_S , rd a oOClc..c -overhead. 'TIO: COS-g _ COSS, incurred-. in.: -fall i the- •+r: ng `activi _ s : azura s' s-- court :. fees. (li:n«`-a'"' =0 aeZe 1Se s. fees) , Cost.. of land, Capital i,:.prOVc- ments,and d�-2 c.1ition ccs L . CC ^OrnoCA �_�� _ � , .:u:L:,^." L?c;olC:ulL'nt SECTION 11 The purncZe o_ ....,isr _ _..t is to pro. ids a wr, . �en' undors tan-;i^y bet:aee- t.:o {2; warti es o° t::a acticitec to' ,be car- i-d out as a oar o= t;^.e Fo - - _ - .......,..;:? i - Dn` 0..1 nt Procram and C. a1.^.`_^cCa: te? e•1::C2; Or' !on -tcr-1 :ec—on : i h? 1 t4 _i,-3cSOCl.ted 'Alta those'act1V11-_Os. .o:i --- FOli::TH 7 A1! CD .CTIVIT-IES A?_ B .T!!TS :,C n—_-'." C3L' :CC 1`' a�cti7l:t• tiousi?, D-a .210r r.;ra.- (:,S •.i a. Lane. ;ccuisiticn . b. ;c::abil_tati n Lcin:-Procram ,fir^a Act _•Jir _ s,4c Cit j i'i:�; Ffeiyh~: �'=de•Jn_lar.:l2:f: •;�.i•,l Ci~: Tenant Z'ducation !)ark ff7uai::, C••v�:1- -�,-tt ?r ;ra.•n (tluuna •!iota a. Land b. Rehabilitaticti :.can ?ragrart Allacattah Hausini Cevelor-nent Pro4ram (:f:, .) a. Land lc. .ii: i.ion b. Reh,abilitaticn :.can Progr,=i Wynwood Housing, Dev,_•lcn:aent Prcgran v:yn.rood Garment District Redevelocmen: multi -Targe` Save Our Ala-0 Multi -Tar e t Co.;tnunications Culmer Overto.m Redevelo_:aent Cul: _r Dorsey ..heat? ey Redevelotment t t Coconut Grote Land Ac=uisition Do:., to:In ED CCa Land Ac-r i3ition Little Havana Housinc re•:elo_ -^_nc .-_ ,ra.':t Little Havana Acticn Trans_ cr _ation Pr-ogram Little Hatar..- Mi.'. ii P.iver.__.._ Center ;Sulti-Target am rr.-••i ��v.-0 r=.. L i �. OD "' EL C' (::S:y)(Land Ac: is,",on Phase) The City _11 0-0•. __._ ,_Z' 400 to tha Cotu^t:; for this activity. Of this amount :: _ __t1• ..� a:_=c=tad S92, 1C10 for acquisition an! S'10,0100 nor reiecac__... The -se s_..__ Will be u_I to pu=c^ase s:tas that. have been � selectee the __-. and a-:-reedl ..o b, the Count*.:. Reuse cr this pro - pert*,* Z.._be detcrmined ..y the C ..;•, and agreed to by the County. The Ci:_ will Oro•,i:ie 1225,000 to the County for accuIsi"_ion and relo- caticn. T::^_we funr.33 :ill he u_e,i to pur_ha:3e sites .:;..t have been selec- ted by the City and a ,ren(i to by t'hr: Ci.nmt; . The Comity will provi::a v300,000 For ac^uioition., ac'.; ini3t'ratlon and r::IJcation. Reuse O: this ron,Q-rty shall bd d•_ .:?rmiaod join A.. Ly the City ln;: ;ii. J:J �..7: �• .� �.I '.�:::•i �.. is •i \'+.�^"J i�C Yllln_ti Oil Viu City will _7 ti1L r_'1:1`.y for activity. Of thin anjunt t :'. C.t•. ::1=i .1116u:at-d ^72,4r,0 f it .lC: ..:1t:Un Jn(t J30,01:J for relocation. Thu fund.: will blr ucu:i to acquir': nite!. that have been scl•.cted by the City and agreed to by thy: County. Reuse of this pro,^.'2rt! shall bi deterr..inc t by the: City, and agreed •to by , the Count.;. D. ALt,A AT'A: (=A) HOUSI:J., DM'.IL•'LOP.x.F:JT PF,Oc;?Ad (Land Acquisition Phase) The Cit1 ::ill provide $122,400 to the County for this activity. Of this amc'.:nt the City has allocated a92,400 for acquizition and $30,000 for r_location. Then'= funds will be used to aciire sites that have been selected uy the Citj and agreed to by the County. Reuse of property shall :;e determined by the City and agreed to by the County. ""`:T Pr:13:1A t The City will provic:: 3-80,000 to the Cour.'cy for this activity. Of this amount the City as allocated $120,000 for acquisition and $50,000 for relccalien. .se funds will be used to purchase sites that ha,e been selected by C_ and agreed to by the County for Section 8 aid/Or .^�3C:,^.� :^r � ^.•? ...-.lLiing in the i•J':n•+:oo-i c•.rea. Feuse of this pro: ert:' ^hall D^ by the City. The City will Yrc. .225#000 to Jo County for this activity. Of this a-t_.= t C:_ Ulccated $165,000 for acquisition and $60,000 for rel_--ation. _.._sz fez s will,be used to purchase sites that have �. s,r- lc-:d •. n:, n _ _ _ b; the C'_t, in the PJyn::oc:i G,zr^ent District. •The imple- o menLat- _.n of L!:ic _ :t will bercme oagrab r le when the Cityand County C�a^issicr.s arrc_ for -,illy upon the manner in which the re dovelopment wil'_ be carried out. -3- P P. condominium units in the Township. However, condominiums are not uses but are merely a method of expressing realty ownership. Condo- minium -type ownership is statutorily provided for under the Unit Propertv Act, Act of July 3, 1963, P.L. 196, as amended, 68 P.S. § 700.101 et seq.. This Act is inclusive enough to in- clude townhouse uses as possibilities for condo- minium ownership, but a condominium cannot be a use itself.2 Therefore, the subject of condo- miniums is not a proper subject to raise in these proceedings. If a use is permitted, the municipality cannot regulate the manner of ownership of the legal estate. 2. It is quite possible to have town- houses that are not condominiums and condo- miniums that are not townhouses. A condo- minium can be a multifamily, attached, semi- detached, vertical, or horizontal building used for residential purposes, or for com- mercial or industrial purposes. Finally we would bring to your attention the only relevant Florida case which we think is wholly diapositive of the question posed to us, even though not directly on point. The case is designated City of Miami Beach v. Arlen King Cole Con. Ass'n., Inc. (Fla. App. 3, 1974) and appears at 302 So.2d 777. In that case, the City of Miami Beach brought suit against the owners of the King Cole Apartments "which would, in effect (among other things], prevent the hotel -apartment from being converted to a condominium because it could not provide sufficient off-street parking spaces for an apartment as defined and required in the 1971 ordinance. The appellees, as defendants; answeredl in effect contending that they were entitled, as a matter of right under the law, to convert the hotel -apartment into a condo- minium and, as a nonconforming, use under the 1971 ordinanc(� as amended, they were not required to have any more off -:street parking spaces than those originally required [which - 5 - 1'I.Nr .L\cons ; Ikoc•h K1.1'u Cui..�� .1 tit�iux, R A. Owl GOA Met the code at the time the improvement was Constructed3. There is no question of the right to develop a condominium in the use district wherein the subject property is lo- cated. Following final tearing, the trial judge entered a final judgment finding that the "use" of the building had not been changed by the owners desiring to convert it into a condominium and that they were not required to meet the off-street parking requirements of the ordinances of the City of Miami Beach as they existed on the date of the filing of the declaration of condominium. This appeal ensued." The Court's opinion which recited the relevant facts `quoted above then concluded: "the major contention by the City presents a more difficult problem, i.e., whether an owner (when he desires to convert a valid nonconforming use apartment building into a condominium] may continue to provide the number of parking spacls that were permitted as a nonconforming use or must he meet the parking requirements in effect at the time he filed his declaration of condominium, it being conceded that if a new structure was being erected on the site as of the date of the filing of declaration of condominium it would be necessary to meet the requirements of the 1971 ordinances. Q , 33 A nonconforming use relates to the property and not to the typo of ownership of the property. Beers v. Board of Adjustment of Township of Wayne, 75 N.J.Super. 305, 183 A.2d 130; Bridge Park Co. v. Borough of high- land Park, 113 N.J.Super. 219, 273 A.2d 397; Maplewood Village Tenants Assn. v. Maplewood Village, 116 N.J.Super.. 372, 282 A.2d 428. Changing the type of ownership of real estate upon which a nonconforming use is located will not destroy a valid existing nonconforming use. r t vr:.4consf ix bt.ocK Kia: is Cot.. v sc tit .%tuX, Is. A. This is the only significant change in the real property and improvements involved in the instant litigation. Such structural changes as the owners determine to make in the hotel -apartment to convert to condominiums were minor in nature and not of a structural quality. Therefore, there was no abandonment of the nonconforming use under the zoning ordi- nances of the City of Miami Beach. The trial judge having found that the use of the property had not changed and the record supporting this finding, under the applicable law we are required to sustain the finding and, therefore, the final judgment here under review will not be disturbed and is thereby affirmed." The Third District's opinion thus adopts the rationale Of the New Jersey and Pennsylvania cases cited above and is wholly consistent with the clear intent of the Florida Legislature as expressed in Section 718.507, F.S.. We can therefore only conclude that the statute lay: of Florida prohibits the use of condominium ownership as a separate category or use classification in the enactment of either zoning or building ordinances by Florida municipalities. In rendering this opinion we also considered Section 718.402, F.S., the first sentence of which reads: "(1) A developer may create a condo- minium by converting existing, previously occupied improvements to such ownership by complying with part I of this chapter." Since this 197G state statute creates a clear right in a developer to turn existing and previously occupied rental - 7 - FIND .1.1CUllti1)X 111.0cK HLEIN CQLAN & SIMON, R A. rc. apartments into apartments owned on an individual condominium basis, we do not believe the will of the legislature can be thwarted by a municipality's creation of a new zoning category which would effectively prevent a builder from building an apartment house for rental purposes and, once such units were rented, then exercising the right granted by the State under the quoted statute to convert the units into condominiums. The reading of Section 718.402, F.S. in conjunction with Section 718.507, F.S. strengthens our initial conclusion. Nothing contained in this opinion should be inter- preted as a limitation or restriction on the City's right to seek a repeal or modification of either or both of the controlling state statutes discussed in this opinion during the forthcoming regular session of the Florida Legislature. We would be pleased to suggest ways in which the statutes might be modified to accomplish the goals and objectives of the City. SLS/ims FINE JACOBSON BLOCK KLEIN COLAN & SIMON, P.A. STUART L . s i-MON Fixe J.%consox BLOCK IW:1\ COLA, & SIMON. 1! j%. FRECEIVED 26 1980MUNITY MEMORANDUM OPINION OPM ENT TO: HON. GEORGE KNOX, CITY ATTORNEY, CITY OF MIAMI FROM: FINE JACOBSON BLOCK KLEIN COLAN & SIMON, P.A. SUBJECT: LEGALITY OF IMPOSING A MORATORIUM ON THE CONVERSION OF RENTAL UNITS IN MULTI -FAMILY DWELLINGS OR APART- MENT BUILDINGS TO CONDOMINIUM UNITS. DATEt MARCH S, 1980 You have requested our opinion as to the legality of imposing a moratorium upon the conversion of rental units in multi -family dwellings or apartment buildings into condominium units. In our opinion such a proposal would be in violation of Florida statute law. Our conclusion is based on the specific language contained in a recently enacted state statute which appears both to pre-empt this area to exclusive state regulation and control and also to establish the precise terms and conditions pursuant to which rental units may be converted into condominium units under state law. The Florida statute upon which our conclusion is based is Section 718.402, F.S., a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The first sentence of the statute which states: "(1) A developer may create a condo- minium by converting existing, previously occupied improvements to such ownership by complying with part I of this chapter." clearly allows a developer to create a condominium through 111.41ct: col..%x & Slam-', R A. the conversion of existing, previously occupied rental apartments by following a prescribed procedure. Other requirements of Section 718.402, F.S., require an owner to give tenant occupants first priority to purchase, a period of time in which to decide whether to purchase, and a period of time in which to vacate if the option to purchase is not exercised. We do not believe that any local governmental body can remove or limit the right specifically granted to a developer of condominium units (out of existing and occupied rental units) by a state enactment. The word "may" as used in the statute means that the developer may create the condominium units if he so chooses. See in this regard Board of County Comanissioners of. Dade County v. Boswell, (Fla. 1964) 167 So.2d 866. The undersigned attorney served until recently as County Attorney of Dade County, Florida. During his tenure in office he was asked for an opinion on the identical legal issue discussed in this opinion by County Commissioner Barry D. Schreiber. A memorandum opinion responding to Commissioner Schreiber was prepared by an extremely able Assistant County Attorney with the knowledge and approval of the undersigned, and a copy of that opinion is attached hereto as Exhibit B. Although that memorandum opinion was written prior to the 1979 amend- ments to Section 718.402, F.S., it reached the same con- - 2 - ISLut:I: I(ixI.N Cui...'s & sl%lox, R.S. clusion stated herein. We will add that nothing contained in this opinion should be interpreted as a limitation or restriction on the City's right to seek repeal or modification of the controlling state statute discussed in this opinion during the forthcoming regular session of the Florida Legislature. SLS/lms FINE JACOBSON BLOCK KLEIN COLAN & SIMON, P.A. By. • STUART L. SIMON - 3 - F1v11 JACOLSON BLOCK 10./:1N COLAN & -IMON, 1! A. 718.402 Conversion of existing; imlF ve- ^,tnts to condominim-n -- ,I) A developer may create a condominitl,,, I,,; cotiverting existing, prt'yiously occupied improvt.- tur•nts to su:h o% nt•rghip by complying with 1•:irt I of this ch:,ptvr. (2)(a► If uxi;tiwt irnill u.t oleos.; tire count rhd to owner_;hi;• as a rf-iid••nti;ll condtuninium, each dential tenant of the cs:-tin'; i[npt'nv�lnt'nt; shall have t}le rl ht tO extend an expiring leote. or tenancy upon the sarne ternt-i for a period that will expire no later than 180 days afler writtetl notice to tilt- tenant of the intended conversion. A tenant must r;i%v writ- ten notice to the develop••r of• his int••nt inn to extend his lease or tenancy v: ithin :t') days after he receives notice of the intended conversion. (b) Any di=count to an exi,;tino tenant on the pur- chase price of a condominium parcel in a conversion ofexistin- improvements shall be ofti•red for a peri- od of not less than 60 days from the date of first offering to such tenant. (3)(a) It is the policy of this state that provisions of contracts, leases, or other undortakin-s which al- low landlords or developers, at their option, to cancel and terminate the terms of such leases upon the conversion ofthe property and improvements to con- dominium ownership upon less than 120 days' notice to the tenant are against public policy. Any provi- sions in any contract, lease, or undertakin., which provides for cancellation or termination of the term of any lease for an apartment or other residence at the eption of the landlord or develo,r:•r for reason of its intended conversion to a condominium form of ownership without at least 120 days' notice !,hall be unr-nturct•:tble exct,pt in the fullo% int; ca_es: 1. If the tt•rm of th!, lra=t has le:; than 1:t0 days- rernaini:!:; : ter such notification i.; ijvcn. 2. If the lc:tse 1;rants the tenant all option to pur- chase tart, apartment or other re:sirll•nce in v:hich he resides at .1 prier• equal to or le,; than that o9ered to nontenants, v.hich option is exercisable by the tenant during a period of not. 1r` s thin 90 days after the rimilln , of a notice of" thf, intended conversion to the tenant. 3. If thc� lease provides that the Ic »or or develop- er shall hilt convert to condominium ov.nc!rship ex- cept with tihe- cons=ent of the tenants of not lc_a than 60 pert-ent of the ap:irtrn^nts or other dwellings in improverents intended to be converted. For the pur- pose of this vote, unoccupied apartment or dwell- ings shall 1:•e counted and th•, developer or h•ssor may vote thn;e ap:utrr,ents. (b) If t}tr le;t:.e provides for a riot ific,,,tion to the tenant of Ir ss than 121) d:+vs and if the tt•rm of the lease ha; rnonC. than 151) days renutiniw,, after notifi- cation is i6on, notification of tr•r•rnin;ttion to the tenant .':ill b,' efirtti:e iftlw notice provide; that the tenant have 1.50 dav, or more br'ti,re cancella- tion Or tt'!:11imatlo'l t,•-'C(`tni's ef),'dive (c) eXenutedSuh,equenttnthc•deveIoper's 01' 1:1rv11''IrTS M11CIL111C.12111r_'Ilt e! IllterltlOn to ColIV 'rt to c ,ndor:lini•Im mvner,hip rn:ty providt, fur cane 1. Intion or r?rmin:tti-m upan rlrlt tll:tll notice to t1, tenant, providt'd the Llridlorcl eun�picu- ou.-Jv (11,cio in tilt lt•:I-,• thO intention to convert taw prop-! ty cont:tinin-, tl:c Ira;t tl promi-o.; to con- durnnli,!:n ov n!-rAiip and th.!t tho I•a ;:, may be can- celod uu,,n t;U d.ly ' nothi•t• to tau! ter .lilt (el► Elie no.iirt.1 retfuiren!:'r,t of till, sail e:li,rl Shall rtnt ;Illi,!v to a u:,to'!t•t1 illtu S1I^•'11t,.f l`'V llo- ly %alit, Or _0) _,•,illetlt t(,, :t C�)f:tl'.u•t tO parC h:lc,t• tali: tllllt (4) All entice, to ten.utt< s•Ila!l Ise given Cher. depo.:ited in thr• Unitt•d ti•.Irh m:hli :..Idrt• t•1I to the tt'rl:ult at Ill., I,'•-t l.rtn,� n re,i !-m-, %%hirh m-ty be tho addre:, of the pr rty s,lh t to tht• le:t,l' s"nt by certtfi,.1 or le ;l,t, .'e:1 to;ul, t',-t:+.,r prep.tid Nutlet- may not I,!! w.tlyr-d by a tt•nant the tcn;lnt'a 1f.a.,t States til.tt the Ise corl%ert!'d. I1.cn r r. r MMMORANDUM 103.01 -1 • TO Commissioner Barry D. Schreiber eATe April 18, 1979 •uraee,r Conversion of Rental Units to Condominiums room Clifford A. Schulman Assistant County Attorney Your memorandum of April 9, 1979, asked this office to address the issue noted above and to advise you if there were any remedial or legal actions that could be taken at the County level to prevent the problem of rental conversions to condomini.u:-,s from arising in t`►e future. Our conclusion is that the solution to this problem, if it arises in the future, rests with the Legislature of the State of Florida for the reasons noted below: The subject of problems deali.n,; with mer.,.bens of the community that rent apartments has recently been addresle(l by num,2r ,is court decisions in the State of Floric}a in ::rith attc,�.pts by vr:riuuc; ;unicipalities, and particularly t1w City of 'ii Beach, t0 the rentals charged in those inflationary ti:-:es. As early as 1969 the Ciry of Miami Beach enacted Ordinance No. 1791 entitled "Iiousin and Rent Control Regulations" which provided in Section 16 A.5 D as follows: It shall be unlat:•ful for any person to remove a housing unit from the narket if the same will result in eviction. This provision, and others not pertinent to your inquiry, was attacked in the case styled City of Mia':ii Beach v. Fleetc,00d Hotel, Inc., 261 S0.2d 801 (Fla. 1972) and the court founci the Ci.ty's at.te;::pt to control rentals and evictions was outside the powc r of thy, City, constituted an unlawful de1u-1-1,ation of Legislative aut};ority anc, c'.i-octly conflicted with State law dealing with the relationship bet.:t2cn lancilurds and tenants and eviction:;. In so doing, the Court said, in part: (261 So.'_'d at °Oi) Local governments have not been given or,nipoteace by home rule provisions or by Article VIII, Section 2 of the 1968 Florida Constitution. Commissioner Barry D. Schreiber April 18, 1979 Page No. 2 Matters that because of their nature -are inherently reserved for the State alone and anion. which have been the master and Servant and landlord and tenant relationships, matters of descent, the adriinic;tration of estates... and many other matters of -eneral and statewide si.nificance are not proper subjects for local treatment.... [citations omi.tted] The State of Florida through Legislative action has enacted statutory provisions to regulate the landlord -tenant relationship. Chapter 83, Fla. Stat. F.S.A. Ab5ont a Lclislative enactment authori.:in- the e:•:ercise of such a power by a municipality, a municipality has no power to enact a rent control ordinance. In specifically dealing with Suction 16 A.5 D, noted above, the courts specifically held that the "non -eviction" prow, -;ion conflicted with numerous provisions of Florida Statutes, Chapter 83 dealing ::.ith the landlord -tenant relationship and upheld the trial court's findii:;; of the invalidity of that section. Subsequently, the Legislature cn—cted Section 166.021(1), Florida Statutes kno,:n as the Minicip�:1 Hoge Rule pokers Act which was found to grant to the m;:nicipalities the ability to enact rent control legislation in the absence of. a prohibition within the Str;te Statutes. City of Beach V. Forte Too,xr's,_Tnr., 305 So.2d 764 (I'lri. 1975). The newly enacted ordinance of the City did have a nc;.. pra•:i:;ion do;ilin; with inhibitions on the ability to evict renters front thci.r ap,,irL!-cuts, and to prohibit the change of ownership from rental to other for:a;; of corldo;;iniu::: or cooperative apartment use. The Supreme Court did not c;�^al tsi.th the c•.onst i tutionality of that provision since it found the City's ordinance, chile properly empo�,er'ed, to be unconstitutionally vague and in need of rc•draftin;;. However, suhsecinent litigation was specifically directed toward the new City ordinance! provi,;i.on:; dialing with a restriction on conversion of the facilities from rcnt,il to other u^es in the cas:os of. Lifsc•hit^ v. ami Beach_r 339 So.2d 232 (I'la. 3kl DCA 1970), c<•rt, dcni.e.l, 348 So.2d 949 (Fla. 1917) and %Iu!; v_._C_it:•_of ;;iar;i Fwach, 339 So.2d 236 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), cert. denied, 348 So.2cl 950 (Fla. 19i7), _it�t tl_di: .i::; d, 434 U.S. 9h4 (1977). In the Lifschitz case, <,ui,rr, tit trial court' con,trued th; provisions of Section 17A-7 of the X;xn1. Beach City Code vitich provided, in part, as follow-t;: Commissioner Barry D. Schreiber April 18, 1979 Page No. 3 (a) No action or proceeding to recover possession of housing accommodations shall be maintainable by any landlord against any tenant, not%Athstanding that the tenant has no lease or tha: his lease has expired, so lon- as the tenant continues to pay the rent to ,,,hich the landlord is entitled, unless: (1) The tenant is cor..r:iittin a nuisance or using the housing accommodations for an innoral or illegal purpose or for other than living or dwelling purposes; or (2) The tenant is failin^ to comply with any of the provisions for which eviction is permitted pursuant to Flori.da Statutes Chapter 83, except where this chapter provides othere,ise. (3) The landlord seeks in good faith to recover posses�,ina of the property for his immediate and personal use or occupancy as a d:cellin;; or for the use and occupancy of any member of his immediate family. (4) The landlord seeks in good faith to recover possession for the immediate purnoso of demolishing the property and replacin- it with net; construction in accord: nce :aitlr plans filed with and approved by the buildins department of the city. (5) The landlord seeks in good faith to permanently witi:dra:v the housirig accommodations from the housing market without any intent to rent or sell. all or any part of the rental unit or structure. '(b) Except as provided in section 17A-7(a), it shall be unla.-:fu1 for any person to remove, or attempt to remove, frcn: any housin,, acco::imo�at°c,n tl-.e tenant or occup.tnt tl_reof, or to refuse to renew lease or agreement for the urc. of :;,tch accor.:;;iodations, because such tenant or occupant hnF; taken or proposes to take action author i zed. or reyu i red by tli in cli:ipter or anv res;ulation, order or rec;wirer! t;t adoptod horounder. So lot-, as the tenant to pay the applicable rent payable by him: for t110 acro: ^odatinns occupied by him, he may not h_, rC:::cwed or evf _'ed th,:refrota, not;:ithntanding the expirat i„rt of any Such tenant shall pay the lai-.ful. rent fi::csd for his honshi acco;:'-�:odat.i.ons on Lhe first day of each Month so Ion(, as he re.riains in possession r Commissioner Barry D. Schreiber April 18, 1979 Page Nu. 4 and shall be required to dive the landlord fifteen days' written notice of his intention to vacate said prc^ises, otherwise he shall be liable to the landlord for one month's rent. No landlord may institute eviction proceedin-s pursuant to (a)0 ,4 and 5) above until tie has filed a petition: for an eviction certificate with the rent director ettin- forth the grounds for such proposed action, and an eviction certificate has been issued by the rent director; the director siilll is,,ue such certificate only if he finds that the. landlord is entitled to such certificate under the provisions of this section. No such eviction certificate shall be required prior to the ir:_titutica of eviction proceedin-s pursu:nt to (a)(I t:nd 2) above, or where the ten;n:it has failed to pay his rent. The above —noted provision :;as herld to be "void and unenforceable" by the Circuit Court and that decision :,-as af::ir:-:ad by the District Court of Appeal, Third District, in the Lif ;cirri t:: c asc:, supra. Finally, in 1976 n-! 1977 the 1r_, islature. took certain actions which would specifically allo.✓ the conversion o rental units to condon-iiniums under certain co:ditions (Section 713.402, Florida Statutes, a copy of vhich is attached for your reference) and prohil;i.•_�(i co,nr.ties, municipalities or other entities of local Sovern::ient fro:-i i7-::,osinL; any la-:, ordin:ince, rule, or other measure which would hav• th_, effect of i-pesin^ controls on rents for any accommodations used or offered for residential purpo,,e (Section 125.0103, Florida Statutes, a copy of which is attached for your referencu). In su:::!aary, sine tt•e 1976 anc 1977 Legislative sessions, and even before that due to th T.i i i:i tz liti ;:.icn, it seems clear that the matter of the conversion of rental uc:its to concic -..iniunas is a matter within the Legislative discretion of t;:e Stagof Flor da and net witlnin the Legislative discretion of the municipalities or countic, ; of ti:e State. I trust you have -iven u; please feel free u ficiently ans::•ers the question which further inforriation regarding this matter Assistant County