HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-78-0661RE8OtitiTtoN NO.
AEntliTioN APPROVING THE OFFICIAL
STATEMENT FOR THE t18,25o,000
BONDS OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, DATED
DECEI'4BER 1, 1978
WHEREAS, the the Finance Department of The City O
Miami (the "City"), has prepared and submitted to the
Commission of the City (the "Commission") an Official
Statement, dated October 26, 1978, containing data and
information respecting the City, Dade County and the bonds
of the City in the principal amount of t18,250,000, dated
December 1, 1978, consisting of $6,000,000 Sanitary Sewer
Bonds, $5,000,000 Street and Highway improvement Bonds,
$2,250,000 Fira, Fighting, Fire Prevention and Rescue Faci-
lities Bonds and $5,000,000 Storm Sewer Improvement Bonds; and
WHEREAS, the Commission has examined and considered
said Official Statement; now, therefore,
• BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI, FLORIDA: "DOCUMENT DEX
ITEM NO. P
Section 1. Such Official Statement is hereby approved
in the form presented to the Commission for its consideration
and is ordered to be filed as part of the official records of
the City.
Section 2. The Mayor of the City is hereby authorized
and directed to sign said Official Statement for and on
behalf of the City in such form, with such minor changes,
insertions and omissions as he may approve, and thereupon
cause such Official Statement to be delivered by the Director
of Financa, for use by the prospective purchasers of said
bonds in connection with the public sale of said bonds, and
the signature of the Mayor on such Official Statement shall
CITY COMMISSION
MEETING OF
OCT
failunom Am 7 8 .• 6 6
WPM . . ...
1
MM
e'conclusive evidence of his approvals as herein atit brited3
Of any such changes, insertions and omissions in said
Official Statement,
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of October 5 1978.,
R 'LPH G. ONGIE
CITY CLERK
PREPARED AND APPROVED BY:
;1.
ASSISTANT CITY ATTO,NEY
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS:
GE GE F. KNOX, JR.
CITY ATT '.NEY
J
MAURICt A► FERRE
IIII IIIIIIHHII■ii III 1 iiiiiiiiuiii1uiiiiuii■
,toseph R. G_-nsie
:.t na,_er
Gunderson
J:re :.or of Fin3n..n
Oc tOber l6, 1973
�
` r�selution Approlr;{; tht �•-•1
Statement for '::c:-, : l3 j �}ern i(10,.
NIneral Oh1L at,;. ;n Bona Sale)
ir`oVeMber y 19' 6
Att^.ched is a resolution a :iproVin the Offi',:ial Statement regartiha'
+.h_ !,13,277i0,CCO Genera'_ GY..Catio.1 3oni sale, scheduled for
iovember 9, 1973, consisting oft
gantnr: Sewer Bonds
nd L!.proveent ands
Fire 7:, ht.lii?y ilir e .Prevention r nl1 Rescue Cue iatil tt^S
Storm Ern:c?c 3 on:3 s
Please p1,a e the r esoiut an on the a ;enda of the October 24, 19
city rose11;'3io:l mectin',,
T5n tUPtaa4
At t u!h ent (1)
cc t Gcore r, Kno;.y Cit./ Attorne;r ,
N. . . ... .
7^ 1
■
1
•
In the opinion of Bond Counsel. interest on the Bonds is exempt under existing statutes.
regulations. rulings and court decisions from l ederal income tares.
OFFICIAL STATEMENT
$ 1I3,250,000
THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS
S6.000.000 Sanitary Sewer Bends
5,000,000 Street and Highway Improvement Bonds
2,250.000 Fire Fighting, Fire Prevention and Rescue Facilities �Ohds
5.000,000 Storm Sewer Improvement Bonds
Dated: Decemher 1. 1978
Due: In Annual Installments
Decemher I. in the years
1980 to 1998. inclusive
Denomination S5.000; Coupon Bonds. registrable as to principal alone and also as to both principal and
interest: except as to fully registered Bonds. principal and semi-annual interest (June 1 and Decemher 1.
first interest June 1. 1979). payable. at the option of the holder. at Chemical Bank. New York. New York.
at Continental Illinois National Bank and Trust Company of Chicago. Chicago. Illinois. or at Pan
American Bank of Nliami. Miami. Florida.
The Bonds w ill he general obligations of the City for which its full faith and credit are pledged. and are
payable from unlimited ad valorem taxes levied on all taxable property in the City. (excluding homesteads
to the extent of the exemption). The Bonds are stated to mature. without option of prior redemption. on
Decemher 1 in each of the years. and in the principal amounts. respecti'ely. as follows:
Year of Rate or Near of
Rate or 1 ear of Rate or
♦laturit� Amount livid \laturit� Amount 1 ield \laturit� amount 1 ield
1980 890.000
1986 940.000 1992 955,000
1981 895,000
1987 955.000 1993 970.000
1982 905.000 1988 965.000 1994 995,000
1983 915.000 1989 970.000 1995 1.015.000
1984 925,000 1990 910.000 1996 1.035.000
1985 940.000 1991 925,000 1997 1.060.000
1998 1.085.000
Sealed kids will he received by the Commission of The City of Miami. Florida. at its
regular place of meeting in the City. Hall. 3500 Pan American Drive. Dinner Key. Miami.
Florida. until 1I o'clock. A.M.. Miami Time. on Thursday. November 9. 1978.
The Bonds are offered when. as and if issued. and subject to the approving opinion of Brown. Wood,
Ivey. Mitchell & Petty. New York. New York. Bond Counsel. A copy of such legal opinion will he printed
on the Bonds. It is expected that the Bonds will he delivered in definitive form on or about December 12.
1978.
Prepared h�
Cite of Miami Finance Department
City Hall. 3500 Pan American Drive
Miami. Florida 33133
October 26. 1978
r 78-661
THE CITY OF MIAMI
MEMBERS OF BOARD OF CITY COMMISSIONERS
MAURICE A. FERRE. Mayor
THEODORE R. GIBSON J. L. PLUMMER. JR.
ROSE GORDON MANOLO REBOSO
City Manager CITY OFFICIALS
.r4ti;°n-jY
J R. GRASSIE
� City Attorney G. F. KNOX. JR.
Finance Director J E. GUNDERSON
City Clerk R. G. ONGIE
BOND COUNSEL
ROWN, WOOD. IVEY. MITCHELL & PETTY
New York. New York
Additional copies of this Official Statement. the Notice of Sale and Bid Form. may
be obtained from J. E. Gunderson, Director of Finance. P.O. Box 330708. Miami.
Florida 33133, Telephone (305) 579-6350, or from Brown, Wood. Ivey. Mitchell &
Petty. 1 Liberty Plaza. New York. N.Y. 10006. Attention J. Guandolo. Telephone
(212) 349-7500.
this Official Statement does not constitute an offer to sell Bonds in any jurisdiction to any person to
whdttt it is unlawful to make such offer in such jurisdiction. No dealer. salesman, or any other person has
been authorised to give any information or make any representation. other than those contained herein, in
connection with the offering of these Bonds, and if given or made, such information or representation must
not be relied upon. The information and expressions of opinion herein are subject to change without notice
and neither the delivery of this Official Statement nor any sale made hereunder shall. under any cir-
cumstances, create any implication that there will he no change in the affairs of the City from the date
hereof to the date of the delivery of the Bonds.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction
Security. Authorization and Validation
Application of Proceeds of Bonds
General Information , . .. a:=
Government of Miami�:f.';�`,�'�1
Background of Certain City Officials ........,;a.�.=
Employee Relations
City Pension Funds ,
Budgeting, Accounting and Auditing
Revenues and Expenditures •
Ratio of Net Deht to Assessed Valuation and Per Capita Figures
.4r4
Statement of Legal Deht Margin
Tax Data
Rex enue Structure
Outstanding. Bonds: Debt Service
r Statement � f Direct and Overlapping S tDebt ... ," ; • �'' '"'f`=p `;r
-:i 1��1':l•; `" ��f r,`r CFI" 'ifr..t
Bonds Authorized but not hued
Economic Factor ...... . . ............
Risk Ntanatiement ...............
Contingent Liabilities
)
Tax Exemption n ......,• .
'I Financfa Statements
tat' nent
r
.i Clo n Certificates . g • r .
Appros a) of Legal Proceedings
Miscellaneous
Appendix A. Audited Statements ........
Letter of Certified Public Accountants ....... . ... ,
Appendix B. Statistical Comparison of Ten Years Revenues and Expenditures":.
i1
Page
1216
l 7-18
9-24
25
25
25-33
•
•
•
•
WSW
OFFICIAL STATEMENT
Relating to
THE CITY OF MIAM1, FLORIDA
$18,250,000 General Obligation Bonds
Consisting of
$6,000,000 Sanitary Sevier Bonds
5,000,000 Street and Highviay Improvement Bonds
2,250,000 Fire Fighting, Fire Prevention and Rescue Facilities Bonds
5,000,000 Storm Sevier Improvement Bonds
INTRODUCTION
The City of Miami, Florida (the "City') will offer for sale on Thursday. November 9. its general
obligation bonds in the total principal amount of 518.250.000 (the "Bonds.). being parts of four issues of
general obligation bonds of the City authorized by the Commission of the City. approved by the electors
and remaining unissued. as hereinbelow mentioned.
The material in this Official Statement is presented in advance of the sale of the Bonds in order that
those interested in the purchase of the Bonds may have available information with which to make
investment judgments respecting the Bonds.
The purpose of this Official Statement. which includes the cover page and appendices hereto. is to set
forth information concerning the City and the Bonds offered for sale.
SECURITY, AUTHORIZATION and VALIDATION
The Bonds will be general obligations of the City for which its full faith and credit is pledged, and are
payable from unlimited ad valorem taxes on all taxable property in the City (excluding homestead
exemptions for certain persons viho are aged. disabled or otherwise qualified therefor.)
The Bonds shall he issued under and pursuant to the lays of the State of Florida. the Charter of the
City and ordinances and resolutions of the Commission of the City. The Bonds have been authorized under
the provisions of the City Charter. including particularly Section 58 thereof. and certain ordinances and
resolutions adopted by the Commission of the City. The Bonds have been approved by the electors and
validated as follows:
The Sanitary Sewer Bonds were authorized by Ordinance No. 8573. adopted July 22. 1976, were
approved by the electors on September 28. 1976 and were validated by judgment of the Circuit Court of
Dade County on February 22. 1977. No appeal was taken.
opted
The Street and Highway the) electors on Bun as e 30.ere 1970 and'wea b`,dOrdinance
ted by judgm8enit of the Circuit
ay
13. 1970, were approved
Court of Dade County on July 26, 1971. No appeal was taken.
The Fire Fighting, Fire Prevention and Rescue Facilities Bonds were authorized by Ordinance No.
8571. adopted July 22. 1976, were approved by the electors on September 28. 1976 and were validated by
judgment of the Circuit Court of Dade County on February 22. 1977. No appeal was taken.
The Storm Sever Improvement Bonds were authorized by Ordinance No. 8736. adopted January I I,
1978. were approved by the electors on March 7, 1978. and it is expected the decree validating the Bonds
will he rendered on or about October 20. 1978. If no appeal. as expected. is taken. the judgment will be final
30 days after such date. The Bonds will not be delivered unless and until such judgment is final.
•
•
■
APPLICATION OF IROCEMS OF B()tit)S
$6,000,000 Sanitary Sewer Bonds purpose of
Ordinance No. 8573 authorized the issuance f $
5.000.0°e r}S sewer Sanitary
eroBthe ondSto}the lad the
paying the cost of improvements and extensionstary sewer
construction, reconstruction and extension of sanitary s5lv►tiunsrs nti�utletsother
an►d►connectiunsl topthe sewage
intercepting seers.wforce mains. trunk sewers. pumping
disposal system of the City, the relaying of any damaged dsth�s �` sidewalks.
issued and the
additional installment
uisition of any
p
necessary land. $10.000.000 principal amount of such
of $6.000,000 of such bonds is being offered hereunder.
Ordinance No. 8573 provides that a part of the c►st of the n►if thcry `C omntiwer �s ��n orovef theents f City shalltso
sanitary sewer hands authorized thereunder are to he issucd may.
determine. he specially assessed and if any such s�1 in I+n�s�ear hyts such►ll be levied amuunt as ihhcld'fur su h purpose
e annual tax
levy for the payment of such bonds may be reduced
he
in a special fund in which the proceeds of such
hwitpal h respcctntotanhrry uf such bonll have beend including the
Commission has not made any such determination
S6.000.000 Sanitary Sewer Bonds offered hereunder.
$5,000.000 Street and HighNay Improvement Bonds
Ordinance No. 7861 authorized the issuance ,+nd5hi highway i)mpruyetreet and mer►tsl�n\\thc ay Improvement
nds
the
for the purpose of paying the cost of street g +\ in repaving. macadamizing and
constructing. reconstructing. extending. \\ idening. grading. paving. p g
ren►rad;nizing of highw;+\s. streets ;nd `rnd appurten,iceswith
and the acquisition of lands and rights
manholes. catch basins. sidewalks. curbs. gutters
of ways and the landscaping. clearing and leveling thereof. $10.000.000 principal amount of such bonds has
been issued and an additional installment of S5.000.000 of such bonds is being offered hereunder.
$2,250,000 Fire Fighting. Fire Prevention and Rescue Facilities Bonds
Ordinance No. 8571 authorized the issuance of 510.000.000 Fire Fighting. Fire Prevention and Rescue
Facilities Bonds for the purpose of pad ing the cost of Fire Fighting. Fire Prevention and Rescue Facilities.
including the construction. reconstruction and improving of fire stations. an administration building and a
communication system related to the Fire Department and the acquisition of any necessary land and
equipment. S6.000.000 principal amount of such bonds has been issued and an additional installment of
$2,250.000 of such bonds is being offered hereunder.
$5,000.000 Storm Sewer Improvement Bonds
Ordinance No. 8736 authorized the issuance of S15.000,000 of Storm Sewer Improvement Bonds for
the purpose of paying the cost of the construction of permanent drainage facilities within the City. A
portion of the proceeds will he used to construct drainage facilities in conjunction with street improvement
projects in certain portions of the City. The first installment of such bonds in the amount of S5,000,000 is
being offered hereunder.
i
t NtRAL INFORMATION
t0%Ontnent of Miami
The City of Miami has operated under the Commission -City Manager fotm of government since 1921.
The City Commission consists of five elected citizens. who are qualified voters in the City. one of whom
serves as Mavor. The Commission acts as the governing body of the City with powers to pass ordinances.
adopt regulations and appoint a chief administrative officer known as the City. Manager.
City elections are held in November every two years on a non -partisan basis. At each of these elections
a mayor is elected for a two year term. Candidates for Mayor must run as such and not for the Commission
in general. At each election two members of the Commission are elected for four year terms. Thus. the City
Commissioners' terms are staggered so that there are always at least two experienced members on the
• • Commission. The City Commission appoints the City Clerk. the City Attorney. the City Manager. the
members of the Off -Street Parking Board and the members of the Planning and *Zoning Board.
The City Manager acts as the administrative head of the municipal government and is responsible for
•
the proper administration of all affairs of the City. The Charter of the City of Miami places considerable
responsibility upon the City Manager. He is authorized to appoint and remove all departmental directors.
prepare the annual budget. investigate the affairs of the City or of any City department. reorganize the
administrative structure and recommend to the City Commission any policies which will benefit the health.
safety or welfare of the community.
Background of Certain City Officials
Maurice A. Ferre was elected Mayor in November 1973 and reelected in November 1975 and
November 1977 for two-year terms respectively. Mayor Ferre is 43 years old. is a graduate of Lawrenceville
School in New Jersey and holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Architectural Engineering from the
University of Miami. He is a prominent businessman and corporate consultant with interests in both the
United States and the Caribbean.
Theodore R. Gibson was appointed a Commissioner in April 1972 and was elected in November 1973
and reelected in November 1977 for four-year terms respectively. Lather Gibson is 63 years old. He was
graduated from St. Augustine's College in Raleigh, North Carolina and from Bishop Payne Divinity
School. now a part of the Virginia Theological Seminary. The Rev. Canon Gibson has been the Rector of
the Christ Episcopal Church. Miami. for 32 years.
Rose Gordon has served as a Commissioner since November 1971. Mrs. Gordon was educated in New
Jersey and Florida Schools. She is a registered real estate broker. appraiser and consultant. She has been
the owner of Rose Gordon Realty. Inc.. Miami. for over twenty years. Mrs. Gordon is Treasurer of the
South Florida Regional Planning Council and is on the Steering Committee of the National League of
Cities and the Human Resources Committee. and is Vice Chairman of Health Systems Agency and Co-
chairman of Florida Board of Realtors. Urban Revitalization Committee.
J. L. Plummer. Jr. was appointed a Commissioner in October 1970. and was elected Commissioner in
November 1971 and November 1975 for four-year terms. Commissioner Plummer is 41 years old and a
graduate of Miami Senior High School and the Cincinnati College of Mortuary Science. He is Chairman of
the Board of Ahern -Plummer Funeral Horne. Miami.
Manolo Reboso was 'appointed a Commissioner in 1972 and was elected in November 1973 and
reelected in November 1977 for four-year terms. respectively. Commissioner Reboso is 44 years old and is a
graduate of Baldor Academy. Havana. Cuba and the Georgia Institute of Technology. Atlanta. Georgia.
He has been self-employed as a general contractor since 1966 and as a land planning consultant in Miami
since 1972. He is also Executive Vice President of Radio Station WOCN.
J. R. Grassie was appointed by the City Commission as City Manager on July 30, 1976. He served as
City Manager of Grand Rapids. Michigan from 1970 to 1976 and as Deputy City Manager of Grand
MMIN
•
Ciotti■
Rapids from 1968 to 1970. City Manager Grassie isa4ter years
old ann d a giraldua enof the hivectsity is
Chicago with both a Bachelor of Arts degree and a Master'sdegree
dti active memher of the international City Management Association.
s
d from the
James E. Gunderson. the Director of Finance
He h�s extensive experience inr the City of Miami. a bothdtheeprivate and
University of Illinois in Law and Accounting.of
governmental sectors of the economy. Prior tonp,and the Cityoyment uof Gdes hand Rapids` Ile has bteer�oasso fated
Airplane Company. Pierce County, Washing
with Ki+yanis. Elks. Lions and the Boy Scouts. He was a former School Board Director in the State of
Washington and also served as a Commissioner on the Governor's Crime Commission for the State of
Michigan.
George F. Knox. Jr., the City Attorney for the City of Miami. was graduated from the Michigan State
University' and University of Miami. Florida School of Law. Prior to becoming City Attorney. Mr. Knox
was Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Arkansas. He is a member of the Association of
American Law Schools.
Employee Relations
The City employs approximately 4.500 people. Under the State of Florida. Public Employees
Relations Act. Chapter 447 Florida Statutes. the employees of the City of Miami have certain rights,
including the right to bargain collectively through representatives of their choosing on questions of wages.
hours and other terms and conditions of employment.
The Puhlic Employees Relations Act and the Florida State Constitution prohibit strikes by municipal
employees. Approximately 326 employees are designated managerial and confidential employees under the
Puhlic Employees Relations Act. and the remaining 4.174 employees are represented by four (4) collective
bargaining units.
Florida is a right-to-work state and. while employees may he designated by the State of Florida Public
Employees Relations Agency as being within a bargaining unit. the employees have a statutory right to join
or to refrain from joining the union. as they see fit.
T++o labor agreements, which expired on October 1. 1978. one with the Fraternal Order of Police,
Lodge #20, and the other with the International Association of Firefighters. Local 587 are still in
negotiations and have not been completed.
The American Federation of State. County and Municipal Employees. Local 1907, has entered into its
first negotiations after a coalition between it and the General Employees Association for a multiple year
agreement. As of this date. the negotiations have not been finalized. The Sanitation Employees Association
has a t++o-year labor agreement currently in effect. and this contract will expire on September 30. 1979. The
City's Lahor Relations stair. ++hich is a part o: the City Manager's Office. anticipates no major problems in
work ing out renewals of the above -mentioned labor agreements.
City Pension Funds
The City has two separate pension funds. the Retirement System (Police and Firemen) which went into
effect on February. 1. 1940 (the 'System" or "Retirement System—) and the Retirement Plan (General
Employees) ++hick went into effect on July 1. 1956 (the "Plan" or "Retirement Plan"). The actuary for the
Retirement Plan is Krause. O'Connor & Ling. Inc.. Plantation. Florida. For the Retirement System. the
actuary is Alexander & Alexander. Atlanta. Georgia.
With respect to the System and Plan. the principal actuarial assumptions are:
(1) As to funding method:
System —Entry Age Normal Cost Method with Frozen Initial Liability modification.
Man —tntry Age Normal Cost Method, modified to result in level funding by City as a
percentage of payroll, taking into account lower City costs for employees hired after
October 1. 1974.
(/) As to interest rate:
System-6%
Flan —7%
(3) As to assets:
System —Cost Value
Plan —Market Value taken into account to some degree (5.year average)
(4) As to retirement age:
System-53
Plan —62
Membership in the System and Plan is compulsory for classified employees, optional for unclassified
employees and not open to temporary employees.
The City's contribution is determined annually by the actuaries. The two actuaries determine pension
benefits to reflect cost of living adjustments for all retirees. Also, they calculate separate cost studies
whenever new benefits are being considered. Through December 1976, the Retirement System and Plan
were reported on a calendar year basis. The Citv's required contribution was made on a fiscal year basis.
commencing October 1st. The unfunded liability reflected was determined upon the basis of data as of
January 1st of each year. Subsequent to January 1977, the Retirement System and Plan began reporting on
a fiscal year basis.
The following table sets forth in summary form certain essential data respecting both the Retirement
Plan and the Retirement System for the calendar years 1973 through 1976 inclusive. and for the fiscal year
ending September 30. 1977:
MEM
1
tit%" VL;SS1US FU DS
iSAStIAL DATA FOR PENSIOY {'LASS
( ity's Benefits {nits.
Contribution 1 ntunded Including
t Accrued accrued F.mployee 1•:niplo gg
Basis, ►.lability w8 ithdranals (font
)z�l Veit tiding"
September 30. 19?7
Miami Erploees' Retirement System
Miami Employees' Retirement Plan
Total . •
Calendar Ire Ending
December 31. 19"6
Miami Employees' Retirement System
Miami Ernplosees' Retirement Plan
Total .
December 31. 1975
Miami Employees'
Miami Employees'
Total .....
December 31. 1974
Miami Employees.
Miami Employees'
Total
December 31. 1973
sliami Employees.
Miami Employees'
Total
Retirement System . .
Retirement Plan . ..
Retirement System
Retirement Plan
Retirement System
Retirement Plan
$6.229.299 5 x I.177.566
$2.465.716 $ 4629 , 9i
5127.46".95 7
Sk 695.015
56.527.501
53.t)97, 78
59.625.288
55,184.668
52.936.983
58.121 651
54.271.823
51." 86.752
56.05k.5-c
52.800.40E
51.842.092
54.64:.500
5 90,554.826
5 54.652.564
514 5.207, 390
59.2"6."61
5=6.203.146
5 I45.4kq. l (j-
5 99.(MN).fX.n)
C 99J14 000
5 65,(X)0.000
5 r.5.0(ei.000
*Earnings for Plan & System were combined prior
transferred to Plan.
**For the nine months ended September 30. 1977. The fiscal year was changed to end September 30,
thereafter.
54.182.323
54.377,429
$8,559.752
$,t k-6 --G
54.70f.,k-6
5`).5k 3.651
5.3.46s, f,64
58.3 3 Lriri8
54,4s,,3.326
$2.66-.295
C3.914.596
C� 4y,43-
5r,.br,4. i?
51.791.842
51.888,139
S3.679.981
52.339.785
5.735
54.903.520
522.192.304
$2.463.44 7
54.655.751
lntetest
Unit**
S3.033.058
S2,344.190
S5,377,248
S2.974,713
S2,215,597
S5,190.310
S2.555.907
S2.018.482
S4.574.389
5 2.11.7.051 S4.571.531
52.027.594
54.214.645 54.571.531
S I ."'S9.515 S3.212.809
S I.705.526
53.495.031 S3.212.809
to 1975. In 1975 all General Employees were
Budgeting, Accounting and Auditing
The City Charter requires the City Manager to submit a budget estimate not later than one month
before September 30 of each fiscal year. Each department prepares its own hudget request for review by the
City Manager. The City Commission holds public hearings on the hudget plan and must adopt the hudget
not later than October I.
The City's budgetary funds (General. Special Revenue. and Deht Service Funds) follow the modified
accrual basis of accounting. under which expenditures. other than interest on long-term debt. are recorded
when the liability is incurred and revenues are recorded when received in cash unless susceptible to accrual.
i.e., measurable and ax ailahle to finance the City's operations. or of a material amount and not received at
the normal time of receipt. The accrual basis is utilized (with minor exceptions) by all other funds.
The accounts. hooks. records and financial transactions of the City are audited annually by a firm of
independent certified public accountants. The opinions of the outside certified puhlic ,accountants are
included in the Annual Reports of the Director of Finance.
The tables hereinhelow set forth present certain financial information respecting the City and evidence
the financial capacity of the City respecting the payment of its obligations. including the Bonds.
ti
II IU
Mit 1,1111! `t P `+.!tt:`+: tt+. "lth•v&'* i'
':+ist.wt 'rt:f ,rtt*t %ttlkifttti 'U
•J:it6iut l`i4.1<0,1;:r..w`
.'P,•;Lnti : i., i d: a y J'i7 ,'fvi
k'f414.1}%;+1 F 41tn 1'#u4i`l
`JiLi
t1t114A,r1 A4A #.��''\.If Alit{}5'a-il',
l!
tnugtJ
=Olrti
;anal 'Anti) .. i
J. ..' J t a V 19 Ar
`to7 .CI{7 O.ili.a),2 ifl.`vK(�./i1i
�,{ ,i,61.;i9/
1..50.1.+39 5'.'t7:'.t,14 60 i 7?,417,
µ. ;\7. » 1..>_.1 ' 1 ? 2.'148,03,S
ik,t 11 t tAr.'.2' . 14. _15
4: vt13.' 06 3i.+:23.`50 84 4.g7.(,66
7 t . ?S! t J.. 40).1 * 1)9.f.5: Y4'
i9t�i041L•tt -1a+uCdt't 1,1t,Jclt0114. 'UUlteL .nta ie UCC!_it Lyles 1'Lldeet.
Pt.1:t-t+�Jits,C� , 0'. no �' 'ere • ll.Fta. t' tnd 1'alanCe
+ ei,i ' etyffients 'ere
a
IttvEst'ES AND EXPENDITLRES
GENERAL }ND
SPECIAL TAX LEAN. FLNDS
and
tIOND AND INTEREST RETIREMENT FINDS.
Fiscal tear Ended September ui
1Q"!
Budget
:, = -'`` 5
5.
•
c
*
�:--t.
r. L .
�- �$_.Frn
11■■11111•111111■11■IIIIIIIIIIIII I IIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIII 111111111111111 1•■1111111111111111111111111■
3,86%
S1,8284181,022
$3,275,022.632
744,179.862
4,644,604
4,023,847,098
195,664.076
$3.828,183.022
$ 156,996,000
9,071,000
147,925,000
itA110 O1~ NET DEBT TO ASSESSED VALUATION
for fiscal year ended September 30, 1978
inclusive of Bonds offered hereunder.
1 Off Net Assessed Valuation*
1977 Assessed Value*
Real Estate
Personal Property
Railroad Property
Total
Less Homestead Exemptions
Total 1977 Net Assessed Valuation
Total Deht (including the S18.250,000 Bonds)
General Obligation Bonds
Incinerator Revenue Bonds
Utility Service Tax Bonds
Orange Bowl Revenue Bonds
Orange Bowl Warehouse Rental Bonds
Off Street Parking Revenue Bonds
Less: self-supporting honds including
honds pad able from special assessments .... , . , .. ,
NET DEBT
Ratio Net Deht. including the Bonds. to Net
Assessed Valuation
A
i
*Latest assessment valuation.
147,925.000
512,000
1,500,000
635,000
249.000
6,175,000
1978 Estimated Population — 356.000
Per Capita Assessed Valuation — $10.753.32
Per Capita Net Deht — $ 415.52
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII''" lm•
•
RATIO OP Ntt GENERAL BoNC)FO t)Et31' .
'0 Stt ASSEsstD %'ALL;E AND NtT lloNI .D t)Et3T PI R CAPITA •
Ratio of
{funded Debt Bonded debt
Pistil Net to Net Ye>rt Assessed Hooded Debt {'et ed Capita
bid@d Assessed Homestead Bonded
slue p
"slue ---�—
Septcinbef �1► Population* Value Etemptinn _ ---" 4(13.(17'�'
?,R2ti.1`I?.022 la. .a,.. _5 291.65
197S 356,000 a(l23.Ra7.093 19_.66a•076 il,?,ti2°C;;a - 265.51
1.9j't,37f.1,39? 19R.Sc!(.65? ?•^,t4,'I I.'al aa.52i.4u0 2 (,?
19776 356.001) yc, 3_596.933.4;0, 236,41
1976 356,(NN) ?.796,1Sk 1.2a0 i )U.9a'. i ??,26? 2 c I
',541,205.760 199.947,71 3.344.40S ,0a2 250.99
1975 346.txi - , 2,50?.a6".[=S yh.�aa•2'? 3 l6 i50.99
1974 346,000 2,70i,65a.390 19R.I`70.1h- - I.I6a,'41) 1
2 an,9a2 ' 222." 17.`)O5 , y, 150.30
8
1973 3a[ 010 2.424.469,847 () i •'- "' a;.?a 1.2()s -
, 202,�![)0.9 5 2.222." 1 S.905 1 is I(N).16
1933a.(59 2._0_.791.4s1 _ ?3.154.6,a
`tl?,`t2�.;5' 1,40?.465.h_a RN).51
1911 33LtNN) ...107.i)I.dKI - ?;,t,`I.tia2 2.32
#7.73
'l)?,9(11,065 I .5o6.6 10.1 15 1
1969 325.000 1.71 1.327.596 53 c 1 50h.t '� `' I ?0 -90,2yc _.l J 79,O5
I969
3L5,txx) I.71I.?27.596 _0afi...0 . 90.4?a I4i
196R ?20•tNN! SI,6itt.l77.l'i 5_05,6'6,ItN, 51.a?=.501.u"'' S
* i utted on basis of added electric and eater connections and nev d%%elling units constructed. except in
LsUn
those }ears for v,hich a Federal census v..as a%ailahle.
**This figure for Fiscal I97R is hased upon the inclusion of the 518.250.000 Bonds.
***This percentage for Fiscal 1978 is hased upon the inclusion of the S18.250.000 Bonds.
■
■
1
■
■
■
StAttMLNt OF ASSLSSFD VALUATION AND LEGAL, DEBT MAtkGIN
Fiscal year ended September 30. 1918
Assessed Valuations
tdtal Assessed Valuation
Homestead Exempt Valuation . , :...
Net Assessed Valuation ..: , ... .
Legal Debt Margin
Deht Limitation for Bonds
(I 5` % of S3.828.183.022 )*
Present Deht Applicable to Debt Limitation:
General Bonded Deht**
Less:
Sinking Fund 'S3291.865
Bonds Paid from Special Assessments 1,140,079
Legal Deht Margin
$4,023,847,098
195,664.076
$3.828,183,022
125.243.056
S448.984.397
*Section 58 of the City Charter limits voted bonds of the City to 15`; of the assessed valuation of all real
and personal property within the city limits as shown by the last preceding assessment roll of the City and
provides that honds for street. sewer. sidewalk and other public improvements which are paid from
special assessments. shall not he subject to such limitation of amount nor he considered ►-hen computing
the amount of general obligation honds that may he issued.
**Exclusive of the S18.250.000 Bonds.
tA
114TA
tor Fluted Septetitbet 341. 1
tois_
ovtit tic11
Oct tti‘kut.tri4 of kv,mied Live
•, , ott-i`
‘0.4%
MU , ,
„ • , 1 ::k ,.:.A.' 44, ' ' 4 :,'" ' lb!' ' itrialtett" A •,,..'iip,A.,41,4,
. - .: . 4....-..........------
•`.‘i;',.:.(t.,'.-4,,.,.',,k ,,; -1' "N..% .,.'...' ; , ,''. ,i'l, i%
r . t , • . 4‘.,.,..,
Z
4 :*.- ',.t. : ',.. '41'S;-,...;;.',- ,,, ,..";'i,,..,':=
4 :.,,-;:--;,-, *`-- "-441'',,'' ' '''.''''' ' • ''''',..-;1'
44.44t,imm
tit infloffi
'yorit
*.404etwtts4
' -A t--41,4tt 1..vrar4nettrto
4 -iri re 1.t9imspet
1111111111111111111111111111111•011
TAX DATA
N'ear Ended September :40. 19/8
Mi‘notl Value
Total Net Assessed Value .....................
to Rates 1477-18 (Dollars per Thousand of Assessed Value)
Funds
General Operations** .....................................
............
Debt So.' ice ..................................
Total Ntillage & Ad Valorem TaX Levy , , .....
*See page 9 for breakdown of assessed value.
**Ten N1i1l Limit
to*Niiildgt
10.000
3.200
13.200
3,8/8,1 83,0/*
Ad Vstotem
I** Levy
S38.281.830
12.250.186
550.532.016
Outstanding
. . .. . Delinquent
Taxes
Total Collections
As Percent Outstanding
Total
As Percent
Eivcal Adjusted Collection Per Cent Collection
of of of Current Delinquent
Taxes of Current
Vent Tax of Current Total
5.20%
sem. .ti All Funds Collected Taxes Collections
99 47T 2.2552.c39
Le” Lel*
I.:tided Iv% Year's Le Delinquent 1-s
Taxes
1977 4.1.s54,o70 42.969.2'32650.775 4.1.620.00-
W-16 2.04S,476
1970 3S.508.055 3-.1s0.000 96.51 63.S60 3-.914.52.0
101 41 1.454.941 5.32
1075 34.023.2%0 13.S33.003 (*.Ss 1 ,,,s.3.14 :::"..417.40
99 94 1.949,072 4.17
1974 13.03.575 3'.-36.227 9.32 —SS:1.3 33.61.s.00
100.9 1.929.5;7 5.79
1973 S.106.0S1 27.44S,S05 9-.06 90S.3S5 .2.35-.2.0
99.36 .1t..,0.746 6.87
192 2009,445 29.043.734 97.4.1 27-.691 29.321.425
9'.!,. ,6:: 1.692.726 7.32
1971 27.S1.-90 .33.4S5 9,99 171.669 2-.506.154
9:',. 5"., 1.307.04 6.07
1970 24.313.11 '3.7-1.100 P-7.7— 196.137 2:'.96-.2.7,7
9:S.9f. 961.170 5.38
1000 23.0-S.0-1 23.240,912 9S.1$ 1S$.-02 23.430.61 4.06
"Rates of Lielimpienctes are based upon the cumulative amount of delinquent *.axe. for past ears.
RECORD OF TAX COLLECTIONS
1 —
=Mr
•
•
•
•
•
tstittiate of Ad Valoretn Tars levied for the City of Miami on the average home ($24.000 assessed
value for the 1977 tax year. exclusive of bade County and other taxes.
S24.0H1 S24.000
(With $5.000 1 Without Home -
Homestead Exemption) stead Exemption)
Average Total Tax , , . , $250.80 $316.80
i,
Specific Purposes
,,4i14i ,'i,i.:Siil_,i.4l 13.54 17.11
Administration
Public Works {,:,,:'Y,:';i��:, �. ...,.... 13.54 17.11
Sanitation, �r,,�a_�r:',��P�.t>.:�,,.., 27.34 34.53
Parks and Recreation ti , ,, .',... _ , , ., ..'4 4 . • • 10.03 12.67
Police and Fire Protection ..... 90.54 114.37
Miscellaneous ..........:........ i 4 4 4 4 a • 30.10
38.02
Pensions 24.08 30.41
Street Lighting 5.02 6.33
Publicity and Tourism 3.26 4.12
Debt Retirement 33.35 42.13
Tax Limitation For Municipal Purposes Excludes Debt Service
Article 7. Section 8 of the Florida Constitution provides that municipalities in the State may not levy
ad valorem taxes in excess of ten mills upon the assessed value of real estate and tangible personal property
having a situ~'1ithin the taxing city. %%hen the tax is being imposed to generate monies for municipal
purposes. Taxes le%ied for the payment of bonds are not. however. limited by this ten mill maximum.
During the fiscal year 1976-77 the Citv's tax rate. exclusive of that attributable to bonded
indebtedness. reached the ten mill maximum. Consequently. while the City is not limited in the taxes which
it may impose to discharge its bonded indebtedness. including the Bonds. it may not generate additional
revenues to meet increased annual operating expenses or to finance new construction by increasing the tax
rate. Such additional revenues can only result from an increase in the aggregate assessed value of taxable
real and tangible personal property situated within the City's borders.
,AR
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII1n iii■I■.n
•
t r 1 I A i 6 tP,
fjk'itl
tt-
2
5
2 3'1 t. )0.8:40
3'1,t1 )34315
h r 613 12 673
., ) _ J 'AI .._ - i lail,e4 _ i:132 , - ;61• 55
14>. ? 4t ' 565 ' 319 14,825
ill . 495 r art-) ,t2',2 t mt52 15.762
- t ,U1a -1r.9 '15,6 i. ,i)52 15 7762
a'+''tl her.une the retil7un':1hlhty of the Metropolitan fade County Water Division
A% .stet .111t1 Se‘+er): effect lye O :t her 1. It?"` 1
Sssten) was trans erred Io Metropolitan Dade County 1timb r i.
s4.„ Ordinance consolidated the [,Ighting C its. Publicity and f'enstont, int,. the
I II II III IIIIu111I■IIIII•i11
■
I'Isl'NI th1•tll;tat
' 1'ettt Opera link
• 19784" , 10 ()M)
'1977 5 681
1976 5 553
1975 4 959
1974 5 92)
1973 6 152
1972 0,58
1971 9 180
1970 9418,
1969 9 380
ASSESSED VAL.l.t. OP All IA1AF31.t•. 1140PF-K-1'l"
hat h t-ars F.ndr-d Srpts; mhet 30.
Pt-r.001 l t,rass litrines-ten 4 NH
Prnpt-rtt __.. 1ota1 F.**ftlotitio4 tat
, __.
/44 ..,9 r,f,. 4 92 t.y4- (//8 195.G64 076 3.828.183.022
681 4',4 9 z', • ? 93"r.. 270 ?93 )98.558.652 3.739.711.741
r,t? 1,'t'.t.Ir".4 ° 796 114 8,9 199.420.6601 3.596.933.488
1,89.89`., 64 3 `.41,20! -{,r) 195 797.718 3.344.408.042
' 4, ? 49',"• 7 i 2, 01.t,54 399 198.186.763 2.503.467.628
4t,4 149.081 r ' 2.424.469,847 201.750,942 2.222.718.905
411, 74,8 'rr,7 218,2,551.069 202.900.985 2.079.650.084
'8,1),278.083 2,107.791.481 203.8,25.857 1.903.965.824
124.579 2?` 1.742.403.1880 203.903,065 1.538.500.115
329, 3't) 791 71" 132 20a 653.975 1.512.722,057
I ax Rate Per SSl40(0 of Assessed Valuations
Fiseal dears Ended September 30.
Lighting 1itdtant
('ih Ser.ice
Debt
Publicity Pensions t.ibtaties Semice Total
.r). -0- .0. .0. -0- 3.200 13.200
541 . -0• 239 3129 -0- 2.311 11.903
374 -0. .171 2.521 -0- 2.311 10.830
242 -0- .304 3.064 -0- 2.311 10.880
.503 -0- .439 2 892 -0- 3,781 13.436
665 -0- '.404 2.779 -0- 2.673 12.673
480 .0.• .420 2.661 .304" 2.232 14.755
523 .114 .342 2.482 .865 1.319 14.825
.511 .174 .405 2.400 .972 1.882 15.762
456 223 .405 2 460 956 1.882 15.762
*Hydrant service function became the responsibility of the Metropolitan Dade County Water Division
of the Department of Water and Sewers effective October 1. 1971.
**Operation of the Library Sy stem was transferred to Metropolitan Dade County effective November 1,
1971.
***The 1977-78 Millage Ordinance consolidated the Lighting City. Publicity and Pensions into the General
Fund.
11111111111• ■IIIii iiiimin
TAX LEVIES
Visa! feats Ended September O.
Piaui General Lighting Hydrant Debt
Veit Operating (14 Service publicity pensions t,ihrariet . Service total
197R''" 38.281.830 -0. •0• M. -0- •0- 12,250.IR6 50,532,016
1977 21.252.7R2 2,t12?.IR4 .0- R93.79I 11,701.558 0• 8.642.474 44,513,789
1976 19.973.772 1.345.253 -0- 615,076 9.067.869 -0- R.312,513 39,314.483
1915 16.584,919 809.347 0- 1.U16,701) 10 247.266 -0- 7,728.927 36.387.159
1974 14.572.685 1.259.244 .0- 1.099,022 7.240.029 -0- 9.465.611 13,636.591
1913 13.674.166 1.478.10R-0- 897,978 6,176.935 0- 5.941. 327 28.168.516
1972 18,005,510 99R.2?: -0•' 873,453 5,533,948 632.213" 4.641.77s 30.685.236
1971 17,478,4(14 995,77d 217,052 651.156 4.725.642 1.646.930 2.511.330 28,226.290
197U 14,489,594 786.173 267.699 623.092 3.692,40f1 1.495.422 2.895.45' 24,249.838
In69 I4.I32.507 687,043 315.988 610.203 3.706.419 1.440.380 2.815.561 23.748.203
*Hydrant service function became the responsibility of the Metropolitan Dade County Water Division
of the Department of Water and Sewers effective October 1. 1971.
**Operation of the LihrarSystem was transferred to Metropolitan Dade County effective November 1.
1971
***The I977-78 Millagc Ordinance consolidated the Lighting City. Publicity and Pensions into the General
Fund.
Part educe for Tax Levy and flax Collection
Assessor
of d personal property valuations are determined e a h ye r as f orf
1 byg the
epDade
valua-
tion.
Aappeal with the Dade County of Board of Tatt
ti n. of property
at just the. i tnotice is an
to Clerkis ofi theeat and that as
tion. The property owner has the right to file an app " ro erty appraiser
Adjustment if such property valuation as determined b>� the property
determined by the property owner. All
appeals of such valuation determinations are heard by the Dade
Coun
ty guard of Equalization. The Board certifies the assessment roll upon completion of the hearing of
all appeals So filed.
All taxes are due and payable on November 1 �Ile�lhr• Theear or as Dade(County as
mails to each
ent roll
is certified and delivered to the Dade County Tax
d.
s may be
taxp.
aver on the assessment roll a notice of the i � enitheeme ntheof �" `ntbcrf. three percent if pa dnnupon receipt of such tthe
with discounts at the rate of four percent ifp�nd one percent if
month of December. two percent if paid in the lnth re without of diti� count. All unpaid taxe� on real andin the th of
Fehruary, Taxes paid during the month of March
per-
sonal property become delinquent on April calendar
the City cuffollowing
I�11�� m nhthe
Dale County. The delinquent
levied. All tax collections for the City are delivered April I
real property taxes hear interest at the rate e`f►Ili eighteen
f`p`r�hnll per year
hid by from
buyer until a tax sale
certificates
cer-
tificate is sold at auction from which time th
TEN LARGEST TAXPAYERS IN THE CITY OF WAND
Nature of Actitit%
Name of Ta‘pa>cr
Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co. Telephone Utility
Florida Power & Light Co. Electrical UtilityEank
First Federal Savings & Loan Co. Bank apes
Miami Herald Sales
International Business Machine Co. Retail Reface B
One Biscayne Assoc. Office
ilding
Massachusetts Mutual ins. Co. Retail Sales
Xerox Corp.
St. Joe Paper Co. Paper Manufacturer
New York Life Insurance Co. Insurance
Total Assessed Valuation of top 10 Taxpayers. which is 12.55`'<'
of total 1977 Assessed Valuation
COMPUTATION OF DEBT SERVICE TAX RATE
Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 1978
Total principal & interest requirements
Less; Appropriation from prior year's fund balance* .
Amount of appropriation required
Plus costs and expenses of administration ..........
Total amount required ...................
$3.200 tax rate. per thousand dollars
(.i 95`'; collection produces
*Amount available for meeting principal and interest requirements derived from special assessments, in-
vestment earnings and miscellaneous sources.
1977
Assessed
Value
$217,876,346
64,013.080
36,911.899
33.771,725
27.211,877
25,536,000
21,985.325
21.469, 549
20.076.426
18.143.102
$486.995,329
$14.933.543
3.392,867
$11.540.676
97.000
$11.637.676
$11,637.676
•
i
•
ikEVENUE STRUCTURE
the following is a description of the City's revenue structure. See Appendix A rot a detailed stdtettiebt
of feVehues for the fiscal year ended September 30. 1977,
General and Special Tax Levy Funds
Ad Valorem Taxes — Described elsewhere in this Official Statement.
Tusiness License & Permits — The City levies a license tax for husiness privilege licenses which is
collected by the City's Treasury Management Division. License taxes vary according to the type of
business. The exception to this are the contractors' licenses. which are collected only by the Dade County
Tax Collector. There is a set contractor's fee for all contractors within the County. After collection, Dade
County returns to the cities its pro rata share of revenue collected. The pro rata share due each City de-
pends on the number of contractors doing husiness within each City's limits.
Utilities Service Tax — The City imposes a 10% tax on each purchase of electricity. metered gas. bottle
gas, water and local telephone and telegraph services. Revenue is pledged for debt service on Utilities Ser-
vice Tax honds. The excess over the debt service reverts to the general fund.
Federal Revenue Sharing — The revenues derived from the Federal government are appropriated by
the Commission for various social service programs throughout the City as well as the City's improvements
to the fire rescue service. recreation programs and the continuation of the City's pay plan. The City's
receipts of federal revenue sharing funds since fiscal year ended September 30. 1973 are as follows:
Federal Revenue Sharing Receipts
Fiscal Near
Ended September 3(1
1978 S 8.928.428
1977 8.893.709
1976 8.775.313
1975 8.935.551
1974 8.075.539
1973 10.360.577
Total received to date S53.969.117
State Revenue Sharing — The revenues distributed to the municipalities by the State of Florida under
the State's revenue sharing program are derived from a percentage of its collection of the State cigarette
tax, the State motor fuel tax. and the State road tax. The City has received the following revenue sharing
funds from the State:
Fiscal bear
Ended September 3(1
1978 51 1,005.477
1977 11.070.719
1976 10.880.405
Fines and Forfeitures — The City receives a pro rata share of fine and forfeiture revenue from Dade'
County. Since Fiscal 1976 the City has received the following amounts from the County:
Fiscal Year
Ended September 30
1978 S 1.291,213
1977 I.125,302
1976 1,162.587
•
•
•
i
_�
■
re
potting
juts neef n vetal
— there are five intergovernmental funds
hat a ts. elf- sepfunds areecause' therit
City
p�banues ate derived from charges for services to other
City Garage Fund: For purchases and maintenance of all heavy equipment
used by the City.
Motor Pool Fund: For purchases and maintenance of the automobile
fleet.
Maintenance Property Fund: For regular building maintenance. and a limited amount of building
alterations and additions.
Print Shop Fund: For all of the City's printing needs. items consumed in quantity in the
Stationery Stock Fund: For purchases and storing of office supply
City•s operations.
Monies for these funds are generated by self-supporting
activities which render
ntrrnrisc Funds —
ities
e
sere
on
s on a u.cr charge basis to the central public.II These
v.irioutsemarinas.rDinnerKey
f Orange
Auditorium.
Stadium. the Marine Stadium. the Miami Bascha
ti„11 ranges. and ‘karehouse property in which floats for the annual Orange Boss1 parade are built and
c
ran g
stored.
•
1
1Fi!►ral
Ending
9-30
MI' OF 1VIIAMI, FLORIDA
PkINCtPAL AND INTEREST REQUIREMENTS ON AIL OUTSTANDING BONDS
AND THE $18,250,000 BONDS
Outstanding Bonds
This 18.250,000 Issue
Principal Interest Total 1?
1979 $ 7,981,000 $ 6.137.023 $ 14,118,023
1980 10,809.0(10 6.563,779 17.372,779
1981 10. 521.000 5.950.817 16,471,817
1982 10.345,000 5,361.9(13 15.706,903
1983 9.184.000 4,794.724 13.978,724
1984 8.736,000 4.262.515 12.998.515
1985 8.722,000 3,760.154 12.482,154
1986 8.587.000 3.283.694 11,870,694
1987 7.793,000 2.875.188 10.668,188
1988 7.385,000 2.5(19.5(17 9,894.507
1989 6.276,(88) 2.167.309 8,443.309
1990 6.087,000 1,882.65() 7,969,65(1
1991 5,475,000 1,614,962 7,089.962
1992 4,775.00(1 1,353.016 6.128.016
1993 4,365.000 1.111.583 5.476.583
1994 4,040,000 897.538 4,937,538
1995 4,070,(100 726.468 4,796.468
1996 3,530,000 575.956 4.105.956
1997 3.270.000 438,28(1 3.708,280
1998 2,075,000 305,765 2 38(1.765
1999 925.000 234.135 1,159.135
L000 97(1,0(10 181.481 1.151.481
2001 1.000 000 126.743 1.126.743
2002 795,000 70.356 865,356
2003 555.000 30.100 585.100
2004 75,000 17.500 92.500
2005 95,000 14,100 109.100
2006 95.000 10,30(1 105.300
2007 100.000 6.400 106.400
2008 110.000 2.201) 112.200
5
rincipal
890.000
)(95,1)00
905,000
915,0()0
925,000
940,000
940,000
955,(8)0
965,000
970.000
910,00()
925.01X)
955.0(X)
970.000
995.000
1,015.000
1.035,000
1,060.(N)0
1.085.000
Interest
5 1.062.450 5 1,062.450 5
1.062.450
1.952.450
1,904.050
1.86(1.35(1
1.816,050
1,771.150
1,730,650
1,674.25(1
1.632,85(1
1,585.55(1
1,532.650
►,414,450
1.374.850
1,349,35(1
1,307.050
1.273.850
1.234.150
1.193.250
1.156.150
1.117.55()
Total
1,062,450
1.062.450
1.009,05(1
955.35(1
901,050
846.15(1
790.650
734,25(1
677.850
620.550
562.650
504,45(1
449,850
394,350
337.05(1
278,850
219.15(1
158,250
96.15(1
32.560
Total
Less Requiretnbnt3
Self- for
Grand Supporting General
Total Debt Obligation
Requirements Requirements Bonds
15,180.473 5
18.435.229
18,424,267
17.610,953
15.839.074
14.814.565
14.253.3(14
13,601,344
12.342.438
11.527,357
10,028.859
9.5(12.3(81
8.504.412
7, 501.866
6.825.933
6.244.588
6,07(1,318
5,340.106
4,901,53(1
3.536.915
2.276.685
1.151.481
1.126.743
865,356
585.100
92.500
109,100
105.30()
106.40(1
112.200
1.053,870 5
1.046,649
1.042,602
849.527
672,327
654,955
651.512
646.432
641,785
637,320
483,837
482.370
458.115
461.105
458.325
460,075
460.925
464,150
466.275
472.300
471,950
475.500
482.675
253.200
518,250.000 S12.755.550 531,005.550 5227.017.696 514.247.781
Note: Interest on the $18.250.000 Bonds now being offered for sale has been calculated at the rate of 6%
for purposes of illustration.
5138,746.000 $52.266.146 5196,012,146
14.126.603
17.388,580
17.381.665
16,761.426
15,166.747
14,159.610
13,601,792
12.954.912
11.700.653
10.890,037
9.545.022
9.019.930
8,046.297
7,041,761
6,367.608
5.784.513
5.609.393
4,875.956
4.435.255
3.064.615
1,804.735
675.981
644.068
612,156
585.100
92.500
109.100
105.300
106,400
112.200
5212,769.915
•1IA 1)111,WA ION Oil r ANit►N+. $i.1 Pi l Mill ►► Of IT
ttx't Al 10410110o ;tot.
e 41111 Ow ;It 111f lcc
w. ,,.°itititl 1;lot r Iltt Ittct;itrt
11.0t0011+v so‘ Arc lltrtttis
1111100. Nt•1 Si:1t111,1
�111t1 kt,}ntcllit+il 1t1`11t1�
.11k. clOtti it r, tV.111t`11.11 I'.11'1)t11C�
Itrt traftt•111i i .tt tllllt.
St,s11':1 Not cl 11111't 0t C111C01�
1
t1`,ro•r1t;Or4ai .1ta11;1t•�
S14't;'t �rt1�`s 1‘'`Cti111
t
■
P)rettl
Mtrtaiii
illted ►4.ar �Yy
t j 1!j �/!
x `
A i1
'rjf.tyy)
c, 3(1 .0Y)
.r1):.(LtYYJ
k,70.tYY)
_4c.fYY)
./5r).ryy)
45`).r. rY)
4 Srl.r!`f)
•.44`.rf j
r:S•h..,1,1,1
16L'.0(i(
t . 14
.4`(r.((i1)t(/
' :.O0(i.00►(
.000.00(
.00{1.001
:.140.00(
:.S0(!.(i0(
'st 129.67...00(
BMW
ammim
ammez
fffffffffffffffIRL
=me
!ME
REVENUE AND SPECIAL OI3LIGAtION IIONDS OUTSTANDING ON SEPTF FIBER 30, 108
Final
Amount Amount
Otte of Maturit% on Outstanding
ountnR
Special ueOBon Is ueanIssue Near (tr�enue Bond Issue 3,330.000 512.000
27-1-61 1981 3.125.000 1.500.000
3-1-67 1982 -1-7 1988 1.900,000 635.000 12-1-69 1982 105.000 53,000
225,000 196.000
12-20-74 1989
1994 4,800.000 3.060,000
4.1-13 2002
4-1-3,150.000 3.1� 0
Total $9,071.000
Incinerator Revenue
Utilities Service Tax Series A
Orange Boy.1 Special Obligation
Orange Bo‘%1 Warehouse Revenue
Orange Bo‘xl Warehouse Revenue
Off Street Parking Revenue
Series A&B
Series C
11111111111111111111111111
•i
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
titStitAt. 0011(iAtI)N 1#0:NOVI) !Witt
PRIScIPAI. ASO NIATI
RI lil:s
mi of September 10, 018. nit including thi% Potty.
iitrit
" todfot tn000 _ Rriptirrment%
'Se tiiiikt 311 Into! Principal Inlova
___ -...._.... .. .
I•t; 000 44 s. •I.I,I CI
6.106.1 10
• . 10S1 1,,..1'..q .' I • 0 il 000 s.s•o,:is
, 10: :,s,s s • ; •t, o slit Ilksi s Ili *.
1•11•-..1 1 i to,s to '' s s ts ow 4 .11. to '
104 1:.;,4 ;.•0t; s 100 OW l Os t.sbil
S %Om t: S 1p,.+100 140(.4,'
: lkiSt• II : :4 :t.: S ,N1.1100 1.001...w
4 Ic.t10t; .‘',11 40%
-....'.10SS '3..: • -.1S • 0 00% LAM; : :0.', 1 S •
-.szs,44 •2 ''' oto 1 0 41.4 ','
.,4s.,:SO • S '• %NM; 1 :il
• .1 00 '1. 0.01' S4 ' •,.."•.1;00 1 100.S4
''.10",•:, •.4•00 011 1,•10 ON 1. 1 `6.01 I
1 'H,S'S.t.:. • i:"'S : •S 1 000 AV 0:.: •S
40 ; ,••t; t;00 .:..401
.:":•104;• 4 ;11/4 .4: t•;,...,Nst s '0. s.s
:''','Slosk 1.04 SO0 z.:0•.(10‘; 4 16,S00
:3: Al• .,` 0:•,000 II '.0tIS
' •:‘,&•''S ;,'VS 41 1.T• tIth; :01..40s
,i.n-.44t,,,... •, 0•S-.' S • k ti.(10(1 IS:',ISS
i'..*e ; ••••,,t10,1 I :11.0S I
' '','.',04:•-; , , S1.1 I'lc 1/4,0..00,1 SI),(VIS
- - - --p . :. -, •p i • iliA)
...„ w., , 00 4.4......000 10, i 00
.I.' '•.t\)t) l'.500
: A 1 0,.0410 14, I (X1
10_100
,;"*.:,,,t: IiI10.004,1 0.4011
0.000 2,200
S !I "SI ?•-• S I :,000 S I LOS4.37? $1.050,(XX) 5530.(00 $2.5g5.000 S170.000 S7.835.000 $245,000
llot !runt
krcreational
1:1)(1011
I
1'0001)
I I 1011
II t,
I I \
I I IN III
I IS (1H)
I I s 11041
octimit
Grove
intinetNtor
4•.11110
4s IN(1)
'041(111)
s11.111111
mi 000
ss INN
s1$111
611.110f1
(41.1101)
611,1100
t °mention
tenter
ts,000
:1S.1100
IS.0110
0,1100
:1S.111111
tS.11110
;'1S 1100
‘c.11011
2 i',.1)00
.10,000
2
bittner
key
Marino Virefighting
s 2c.000 S 355.000
12s.000 460.000
12s ,0(l0 465.0(X)
12r, 465,01(3
s x) 460.0(10
12s 000 465.(X0
120.1100 465,(X)0
470.(X)0
470,(X)0
470.000
430,000
430.00(1
425.000
375.000
315.000
315.000
315.000
315,000
315.000
55.000
Lend • •
Acquisitio%
MEW
S 3:000
3000
000000 immi=1
3 5 .000
3 5 000 Rum
7
MEOW
"", , • T''''".•,'"".",.'':"Tr,-771:P•7'•,.7.,'••..,..
•
MN'
IIINIENIIII
■
Fiscal
lear
Ending
September 311
19-9
1980
I'' 1
145'
9,0
1984
986
I `1 S'
I INS
1459
(99(I
14'11
109_2
1493
1404
1495
1496
1997
1998
944
2000
2001
_(N)_2
2(l0
_'(104
'_005
2(N16
2007
2008
Refunding
Recreation SeNnge
Facilities Disposal
GtNF1AL OBLIGATION BONDED DEBT
PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST N1ATt RITIES
as or Septemher 10, 1978, not including this issue.
IfighNa% Police
Sanitary Storm Imprtne- Head -
Sewers Seers ments quarters
Public I'ark
Pollution & Recreation
(ontrol Facilities Housing
5 125.000 5 590,0(8) 5 2.755.000 5 735,000 5 1,365.000 5 865,001
130,001) 590,000 3.405,000 730,00(1 1,365,010 1.055.000 I6(1,(1(10 .685,000 20,000
130010 590010 3.105,001) 730.010 I.365,0(10 1,055.0110 160.(00 1,665,00) 20.000
130.188) 590,000 3,100,000 730,000 1,365,(100 1,055.00) 160,00)) 1.665.00(1 20.000
130.1100 590010 2,410.000 735.000 1.055.000 1.050,00;1 1(4)(100 1,665,000 20.000
130010 590,000 2.0(15010 735.0(10 955,(00 1,1145,000 155,000 1.665010 200)0
13(1010 590.000 2.045,00(1 73(1.000 955,(00 1.1140,000 155.(100 I.66508) 30.000
130.000 590.00(1 2.035.000 74(1.00(1 950.(00 1,045.0N0 155011 (.665.000 30.000
130.000 590,000 1.535 010 740,000 650.000 1.040.001 155.110(1 1,6(15.000 30.000
80.1)00 590010 1,340011 (185,000 6500)0 1,035.01)0 155,(1(81 1,665000 30.000
590.000 1.125 010 605,(1()0 1 5ft000 I .(140.(NNI 155,004 1.665.181(1 30.000
590.000 1.125010 (05.(00 150.000 1.0650)0 155.000 .665010 40.000
1.125.0(0 605.000 145,000 1.065,000 155.000 (.665,(00 40.000
870.00(1 525.11(8) 45010 99(1,(8(11 1.665.010 40.0(8)
790,000 365.010 915.001) 1.665.000 40,000
795,(100 26011(8) 6750)0 1,665,(0(1 4(1.001)
795.000 260,18)0 675 010 1.665.000 55.000
805.000 11)50)) 260010 I.665.0(8) 55.00)
625.000 1 10,(N)0 155.18)0 ,665.010 55.000
.595010 5501(1
480.000 55.000
480.000 75.0)0
480.001) 75.000
480.000 75.000
48018)0 75,000
75.000
95.0(X)
95,000
1(x1.000
1(1)0(8l
$1,245,0(1) S7,080.00O $31.850,000 S10.730.000 5I1.165.000 517.125.0(8) 51.880.100 $33,985.004) 51.50(1,0(0
,.REVENUE BONDS AND SPECIAL OBLIGATION PONDS
PRINCIPAL AND INTI:RIST MATURITIES
as of September 30, 1978
Fiscal Vear
Ending Orange tints( Special Obligation
Sept, 30 Principal Interest Total
1979 5150,000 526.035 SI76,035
1980 155,(00 19,885 174.885
1981 165,001) 13.53(1 178.530
1982 165,0(8) 6,765 171.765
5635,0)0 566.215 57(11.215
Fiscal
Year Parking Facilities
Ending Refunding & Re%cnue Ser. A & B
Sept. 10 Principal Interest Total Principal Interest
1979 5 135.(x0) 5 142.125 5 2 7 7.125 5 10.000 S 172,725
1980 140,000 136.050 276.050 10,000 172. 125
1981 15(1,000 129.750 2'9,750 10.00(1 171.525
1982 155,010 123.(881 2-8.000 10.000 17(1,925
1883 I60,000 115,870 275,870 10.000 170.325
1984 170.0(10 108.510 "8,510 10,000 169.725
1985 1 "75,001 1((0.690 1_75,69(1 15,000 169.125
1986 185.000 92.640 277,640 15,0000 168,225
1987 190.000 84,130 274.130 20.000 167.325
1988 210,000 75.200 275.2(81 20,000 166,125
1989 210.000 65.800 275.50(1 20,(00 164.925
1990 220,000 55.930 275,930 20.(8)0 163.72.5
1991 230,000 45.590 275,590 20.000 162.525
1992 240.000 34.780 274.780 25.000 161.325
1993 250,000 23,5(0 273.500 25.000 159.825
1994 250,000 11.750 261,750 40,000 158,325
1995 305,000 155.925
1996 325,000 139.150
1997 345.000 121,275
1998 370,08) 102.300
1999 390,188) 81.950
211011 415,000 60.5011
2001 445.000 3-.675
2002 240,000 13.200
Incinerator
Principal Interest Total
5166,00(1 5I9.200 5185,200
173,000 12.975 185.975
17 3,(Xx1 6,488 179,488
5512.0(0 538.663 5550,663
Parking Facilities
Revenue Series
53.060.000 S1.345.315 54.405.315 53.115.000
S3,380.775
Orange Bow Warehouse
l'tilities Sersice Tax Bonds Revenue Bonds
Total Principal Interest Total Principal Interest Total
5 182.725 5 150,(0x0 5 47.250 5 197.250 5 20.000 SI5,535 $ 35,535
182.125 150,(810 42..412 192.412 21,000 14.202 35,202
181.525 150.00x) 37,537 187.537 23.18)0 12,772 35.772
180.925 150,000 32.625 182.625 25.000 11.212 36,212
18(1.325 150.(8)O 27.675 177.675 29,000 9,457 38,457
179,725 150,0)(1 22,725 172.72.5 16,(00 7,995 23,995
184,125 150.1810 17.775 167,775 17.000 6,922 23,922
183.225 150.000 12,750 162.750 17,00) 5.817 22,817
1877,325 150.00)) 7.650 157.650 18,000 4,680 22.680
186.125 150.000 2.550 152.550 20,000 3,445 23,445
184.925 21.000 2,112 23.112
183,725 22.000 715 22,715
182.5_'5
186,325
184.825
198,325
460,925
464.150
466.275
472,300
471,950
475.500
482.675
253.2(x)
5.6,495.775 51.50),000 5250,949 51.750.949 5249.000 594,864 $343.864
Since the above facilities have been financed with revenue bonds, there is good authority for the City's practice of not
providing depreciation on property. plant and equipment which is financed with revenue bonds.
MMEMMEW
MEIC
it &
titer
•
liter
��e
EMIIM
A 'tMENt OP litPtt tt ANI) O%'t•:M APPi . Milt
Name
ity ciC �Vti:trni, September 30, 1978
add trdutity. June 30. 1978
Net Debi
Si29,675,000
351.211.227
$408,886.227
Pcrcent*ge
Applicable to
100.00%
22.39
tity's shire
of Debt_ ,_...
S 129,675.000
78,636,193
$208.311,193
*Percentage applicable to City for Dade County based on January I. 1978 assessed valuation.
BONDS AUTHORIZED BUT NOT ISSUED
D
Of the S81,475.000 bonds approved by the voters on June 30. 1970 all of such bonds have been issued
except $7,375.000 of Streets and Highway Improvement Bonds and S4.000.000 of Pollution Control Bonds.
Of the authorized but unissued Street and Highway Improvement Bonds. $5.000.000 are offered hereunder.
The S35.000.000 bonds approved by the voters on Seetemher 28. 1976 herein listed and the amounts of
such bonds unissued are as follows:
Sanitary Fire
Sewers Fighting
Authorized S25.000.000 S10,000.000
Previously Issued 10,000.000 6,000.000
6,000.000 2.250.000
Proposed issue Balance Unissued 9.000.000 3.750.000
At an election held on March 7, 1978. the electors approved the issuance of SI 5.000.000 of Storm
Sewer Improvement Bonds. 55.000.000 of said Storm Sewer Improvement Bonds are offered hereunder.
The principal amounts issued and unissued of the S25,000,000 General Obligation Housing Bonds
approved by the electors on March 9, 1976 and validated on February 17. 1977, are as follows:
Previously Issued .... 5 1,500,000
Unissued
23.500.000
' '
Total Authorized S25.000.000
ECONOMIC FACTORS
The•City
The City of Miami in the Counti�io i Dade, onethegest lowerieast coain the st of Floridtate of lorida. was first y along the settled in
1836 and was incorporated in 1896. 1ises 34.3 square
es of
of Biscayne Bay and is the southernmost `a1970tcensusthe
populat population theIt
was 334.859, represelnting
land and 19.5 square miles of water. Th
26.4% of the total population of Dade County.
The Climate
The temperature of Miami is essentially
The aical marine, featured verage temperatureanbhe slongummer i, warm s 81,4 and 69!Ih
abundant rainfall, followed by mild, dry winters.
in the winter, with a yearly average of 75.3°.
25
111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
ttOttlittrint of Dade ('outfit}
The following information and data concerning Uade County are signif-scant in indicating factors
tchieh suhstannalb affect the Cat of Miami by reason of its status as the largest municipality in Dade
Count‘ and its completely urban character.
The Florida Legislature in 1955 approved and submitted to a general election. a Constitutional
Amendment designed to give a new form of government to the County of Dade. '1 he Amendment was
approved in a state -wade general election in Noycnther of 1956. A Dade ('aunty Charter Board was
constituted and in April. 1957 it completed a draft of a charter for the County. the proposed Charter,
which established a form of ;Metropolitan County government. was adopted in a count election in May of
1957. and became effective on Jul‘ 'll. 1957. The electors of Dade County are granted power to revise and
amend the charter from time to time by count -wide vote. Since its adoption the Charter has been amended
in 1961. 196'. 1963, 1966. 1967. 1969 and 1972. It now enjoys Home Rule subject only to the limitations of
the Florida Constitution and General State Laws. It is. in effect. a municipality with governmental powers
effective upon the twenty-seven cities in the County and the unincorporated area. It has not displaced or
replaced the cities hut supplements them. The County can take over particular activities of a city's
operations (1) if the services fall below minimum standards set by the County Commission. or (2) with the
consent of the go\erning body of the city.
Since its inception. the Metropolitan County Government has assumed responsibility on a County-
wide service basis for a number of functions. including County -wide police services. complementing the
municipal police sera ices within the municipalities. w ith direct access to the National Crime Information
Center in Washington. U.C. and the Florida Crime Information Center: uniform system of fire protection,
complementing the municipal fire protection services within ten municipalities and providing full service
fire protection for seventeen municipalities which have consolidated their fire departments with the
County's fire department: consolidated two-tier court system conforming to the revision of Article W of the
Florida Statutes which became effective on January 1, 1973: creation of the Miami -Dade County Water
and Sewer Authority with the responsibility for developing and operating a Counts -wide water and sewer
system under a single body composed of seven members appointed by the Board of County
Commissioners: coordination of the various surface transportation programs and extending into the
planning and development of a unified rapid transit system: installation of a central traffic control
computer system which will computerize traffic management: merging all public transportation systems
into a County system: regulation ()I' all taxicabs within the County: effecting a combined public library
system of the County and eighteen municipalities. which together operate the main library. seventeen
branches and six mohile units serving forty-four County -wide locations: centralization of the property
appraiser and tax collector functions: furnishing data to municipalities. Board of Public Instruction and
several state agencies for the purpose of budget preparation and for their respective governmental
operations: collection by the Dade County Tax Collector of all taxes and distribution directly to the
respective governmental entities according to their respective tax levies: and prescribing minimum
acceptable standards adopted by. the Board of County Commissioners and enforceable throughout the
County in such areas as environmental resources management. building and zoning. consumer protection.
health. housing and welfare.
Demographics of Dade County
The U.S. Census figures for 1970 show that the working group from 20 years through age 64 makes up
54.1`'of Dade County's population. compared to 52.3`T for the entire United States. The percent of pop-
ulation 65 and over exceeds the national average by 3.8 .
Ell
maw
saw
ME
ilk .1
MOM
MEE
•
•
ME
Elt
i.i■iui iiiiu iu nuii1iui1
MI
11
•
ma
Age Gtnup
0-5
5.9
10-14
15-19
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
60-64
65-69
70-74
75 and over
Total
Att GROUP AS A PPItcI.NT or TOTAL POPULATION
1970
United States Percentage Dade county i efeehttr e
�.
17.154.337 8.4 86.172 6.8
19,956.247 9.8 107.062 8.4
20,789.468 10.2 113.205 8.9
19.070.348 9.4 103.050 8.8.11
16.371.021 8.1 89.329
13.476.993 6.6 75.785 6.0
11.430.436 5.6 71.059 5.6
11.106.851 5.5 73.200 5.8
11.980,954 5.9 83,372 6.6
12.115,939 6.0 82.701 6.5
11.104.018 5,5 75.701 6.0
9.973.028 4.9 69.635 5.5
5.1
8.616,784 4.2 64,804
6.991.625 3.4 62.213 4.9
5.443.831 2.7 50.155 4.0
7,630,046 3.8 60,349 4.8
203,211,926 . 100.0 1,267.792 100.0
Transportation
The following table sets forth certain data concerning the movement of cargo and individuals into and
from the City.
MIAMI
PORT OF NIIAM1 INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Number Air Cargo Air Mail
Cargo
of ( Ihs. ( ( lbs. )
Year Resenue Tonnage Passengers Passengers (0I11's ( mows)
v
1.387.142 67.160
3.980.534 202.814
4.180.556 188.657
10.660.815 513.823
11.176.739 579.071
12.076.00(1 636.893
12.776.011 709.776
12.443.885 778.0(16
12.068.118 745.453
12.884.153 807.791
13,736.500 1.087.988
1950
1957
1960
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
S 355,199 194.633 61.377
597.482 318.001 120.732
601,936 352.154 136.275
2.380.579 794.144 569.366
2.755.088 841.185 685.990
2,842,933 779.591 678.397
3,700.182 1,205.454 851.164
3.850.232 1.301.052 728.201
4.517.946 1.257.608 804,926
4,956.670 1.525.095 1,029,687
5.374.978 1,711.535 947,093
6.391
14.428
20.597
64.811
66.194
71.449
69.766
68.120
68.233
69.218
69.856
Source: Economic Society of South Florida.
1111111•111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111M11
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII111111IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII0111111111IIIII11111I1111 IIII I I I IIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII■II
Oohing g and lndu try
nomy with a
Dade Omni in recent ye;+rs has begun ►nd minufaft cturing arc becoming strong forces onst-oriented economy to an �he economic
etldely diversified economic base. Industry
scene in 1).uk C•t,►►nth While the County's share of Florida's expanding tourist trade remains one of the
minor economic forces. its attractiveness a
s a activities have `ntial � combirea ned twith skilled
tourismlabor
to produce asection
more diversified
major and smaller light industrial ,
economic base.
Dade C'u►►nt‘in addition to being Florida's tourist capital. is also the industrial capital of the State.
having more than twice as many employed in manufacturing as any other county in the State.
The tallow ing chart gives the September 30, 1977 estimated employment in non-agricultural establish-
ments in Dade Count • Florida. These figures are compared with the corresponding figures for September
3o, 1976. I'Q75, and 1974.
■ ■IIIIUIMIIIIIUiH III
ISTtMATE1 EMPLOYMENT IN NONAGRICULTURAL ESTABLISHMENTS
DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
(Prepared b) the State of Florida Department of Commerce in Cooperation
with the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics)
iiajnr Industries (1)
TOTAL
MANUt ACTURING
Durable Goods
Furniture & Fixtures
Stone. Clay & Glass Products
Fabricated Metal Products
Machinery (2) :',....
Transportation Equipment •
Other Durable Goods
Nondurable Goods
Food & Kindred Products ...............:.
Apparel & Other Textile Products
Printing & Publishing
Other Nondurable Goods
CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION
TRANSPORTATION.
COMMUNICATION & PUBLIC
UTILITIES
Local & Interurban Passenger
Transit
Trucking & Warehousing
Air Transportation
Other Transportation
„' Y '4
.4 .
•
Communications & Public Utilities .....
TRADE
Wholesale Trade
Retail Trade
Bldg. Materials & Farm
Equipment
General Merchandise
Food Stores
Automotive Dealers & Service
Stations
Apparel & Accessory Stores
Furniture, Home Furnishings
Stores
Eating & Drinking Places
Miscellaneous Retail Stores
FINANCE. INSURANCE &
REAL ESTATE .................
Estimated 'I otal 1-:mplo� ment as of:
September September September
1977 1976 1975
586.500 569.800 584.000
87.800 82.600
36.500 32.500
3.500 3.600
2.700 2.600
7.600 6.100
10.700 7.900
3.800 2.800
-0- 9.500
51.300 50.100
6,700 7.100
18,500 18.000
7.200 6,500
-0- 18,500
23,900 21.000
84.800
34.600
4,000
2.800
7.800
8,000
3.400
8.600
50.200
7.100
21.400
6.600
15.100
37.400
September
1974
608.300
91.900
39.300
4.800
3.800
8.900
8.800
4.100
8.900
52.600
7.100
22.000
7.100
16.400
42.900
59.100 57.300 55.100 57.800
1,600 1,500 2.300 2.200
6,300 6.100 6.300 6.800
25.900 25.600 23.000 24.000
-0- 7.300 6.400 6.900
16.100 16.800 17.100 17,900
149.700 145,000 148.900 154.400
45.700 42,700 41.800 44.500
104.000 102.300 107.100 109,900
3.500 3.200 3.900 4.200
21.200 20.900 25.100 24.100
17.000 16.700 15.500 16.700
12.500 11.500 11.800
7,200 7.100 8,100
4.500 5.800 5.400
26.700 25,600 25.500
11.400 11,500 11.800
43.300 43.500 45.600
12,700
7.800
5.800
26.600
12,000
47,000
(Continued)
MEM
ti"'f ItI '4 ti�
et„t ier-J `cis
liriItent
1111 ■I1111111IIIII II■ 111111111111I1■111111I IIII111111111111111 111111111111
Staddari (ddtt
riot �_iaa5i cati�tfl itanri�i, , 1.11 data
•
!i',ai l v
slits 'w l:'at1
t many
4. + sLartioer-
4k,..1r ,rqz , 'ker'iia s
s
MEE
IMFS
climate allows crops to he grown and harvested during winter months. and the tropical fruits grown here
cannot he grown elsewhere in the country. An average of more than 100 million dollars of agriculture
products are produced annually. and the total retail value of these products is estimated at approximately
300 million dollars. Millions of dollars are generated each year in the marketing and distribution of these
(products. It has been estimated that farmers purchase goods and services within the County in excess of 50
million dollars.
Source: Miami -Metro Publicity & Tourism
I inanciai Institutions
There are 95 hanks located in Dade County which together have a total of over S6.000.000.000 in
deposits.
Demand Deposits and Bank Debits
Number Total
of Total
Fear Hanks Demand Deposits Bank Debits
1960 36 $1.150.924.000 S 15.682.000
1965 63 1.744.453.000 21.869.000
1970 68 3.257.368.000 46.086,000
1971 71 3.614.491.000 55.129.000
1972 77 4.432.841.000 62.168,000
1973 83 5,193,728.000 80.030.401
1974 91 5.493.965.000 91,205.336
1975 93 5.296.569.000 90.037.666
1976 95 5.526.615.000 95.569.000
1977
98 6.489.006.000 *
*Discontinued by Federal Reserve Board System in 1977.
Source: Economic Society of South Florida.
Dade County is also increasing as an international�financial
l��tn� )Bl+ntil of 'Amer Amis erica. BankedffrBuon Boston. Hankers
cation
in the County of such major northern and
Trust Co.. Chase Manhattan Bank. Citizens c Southern
First
City
tBIrving
Co„ Northern Trust Cu. and The WellsFargoBkThFederalReserye System has located a branch
office in Dade County to assist the Atlanta office „i9 Sinancial transactions in the South Florida area.
Such branch received full branch status
on July
Building Permits
Building permits issued in Dade County and the City since 1971. are as follows:
City of Miami Dade County
Year
(0011's) 10011's )
__.-- --'—"—
1971 156.239
1972 241.967
1973 190.026
1974 113,619
1975 60.750
1976 80.744
1977 97.151
760.228
1.296.235
1.119.141
786.760
404.585
506.798
733.966
Source: Economic Society of South Flon
■
■
ril lid Facilities
Where :crc -12 hospitals located in Dade County.
A;!A F.N I11154
•nrrii`
, ail C►7Linty ltrtwirlea outstanding educational facilities oh
tilleg'es and universities located within the area are
University of Miami
'Miami -Dade (. (irnmunity College
Honda International t;niversity
Harry College
lliscaync ('allege
enrollment. including hnth primary and secondary le
School Enrollment
Public School 5yStern
197I 245.275
1972 242.190
1973 244.565
1974 246.5411
1975 243.444
1976 219.806
1977 235.123
ecreatinn
The area is famous for its sailing. deep sea fishing and hunting in the Everglades National Park.
Athletics for the spectator sportsmen include professional football. baseball and basketball
competition. university competition in sports. open golf tournaments. and professional exhibition games.
There :trc twenty public and eight private golf courses in Dade County.
There are 21)7 public parks and playgrounds which have a total area of 408.710 acres.
Tourism
Tourism is. and will he for the near future. an important economic force in Miami. The combination
of favorable climate. together w ith excellent recreational opportunities — theatres. ballet. symphony
orchestras. famous entertainers. parks. public beaches. yacht basins. fishing. golf. outstanding restaurants.
racing. all spectator sports. historic sites. and other land and water recreational facilities too numerous to
detail -- base made Miami a tourist mecca. Miami is also one of the foremost convention centers in the
United States.
IMF
MINIMINK
=MWIST
MID
Mit
1110
AMF MtlI S
IME
bade County provides outstanding
dilation
educational facilities on ttithatyse otidaty afitd college levels.
ate:
ammmmo
-
Colleges and universities located within the areal
University of Miami
Miami -Dade Community College
Florida international University
Barr} College
Biscayne College
chool enrollment. including both primary and secondary levels. since 1971 is as follows:
School Enrollment
Public School System
till•
ledical facilities
There are 42 hospitals located in Dade County.
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
245.275
242.190
244.565
246.548
243.444
239.806
235,123
Recreation
The Miami area is famous for its sailing. deep sea fishing and hunting in the Everglades National Park.
Athletics for the spectator sportsmen include professional football. baseball and basketball
competition. university competition in sports. open golf tournaments. and professional exhibition games.
There are tent public and eight private golf courses in Dade Count.
There are 297 public parks and playgrounds which have a total area of 408.710 acres.
Tourism
Tourism is. and v+ill he for the near future. an important economic force in Miami. The combination
of favorable climate. together with excellent recreational opportunities — theatres. ballet. symphony
orchestras. famous entertainers. parks. public beaches. yacht basins. fishing. golf. outstanding restaurants.
racing. all spectator sports. historic sites. and other land and '; ater recreational facilities too numerous to
detail — have made Miami a tourist mecca. Nliami is also one of the foremost convention centers in the
United States.
•
BEMIRE
AHEM
MENEM
Wmg
llw
■
•
_'
111111111111111111 IlIlIlIuIluuIl
Miscellaneous
bata which reflects the growth of the econ(tmy of bade County since 1941 is presented in the following
table.
Vest
GROWTH FACTORS RELATIVE TO DADE COUNTY. FLORIDA
WATER ELEC'TRICITI 1 E:I.EPIit)NE:S
Number Consumption KW II Number Motor Post Sales Talc
of Millions of Sold Commercial Residential in chicle °ffice C'ollectiohs
Water Meters Gals. I000'sl Customers Customers Ser%ice Registration Receipts (000'1)
195() 59.613 18.081 780,295 19.233 144.902
1955 77,617 26,0"11 1.714,138 23.919 220.001
1957 83,291 29.290 2. 319, 301 26.0416 2543113
196(1 86.918 12.440 3.344.041 28.993 288,987
1965 92,657 51.310 5.121.515 31.472 341.328
1966 94.516 45.957 5.676.151 31,937 354.300
1967 96.185 48.601 6.294,814 32.351 361.262
1968 97,17() 5(1.127 7.153.631 35.296 383.455
1969 98.180 50.044 8.165.989 37.746 4(11.922
197(1 10(1.035 55,879 9.134.181 39.452 419.957
1971 104.221 58.073 10.1 17.519 41.955 443.419
1972 105.166 59.558 11.237.948 43.882 466,814
1973 117.807 64.785 12.164.376 50.01(1 488.642
1974 12(1.936 69,02(1 12.162.021 52.594 5(11.040
1975 122.870 69,437 12,416,964 53.334 494.269
1976 126.500 70.770 12.388.(00 55.2(X) 511.900
1977 130.5(10 71.774 13.032.9(10 57.600 537.200
2041,6m
325,85i
419.928
516.-15
649,457
689.937
74(1.540
792.654
859,684
918.131
995.6(16
13)92.960
1.181.571
1.216.761
1.235.1)15
1.251.390
1,328.413
_'22.819
377,093
448,'36
492.999
603,349
03.402
671.210
7311.9'2
796.455
823.442
861, 564
925,881
09 5.18 )11
1.009 `55
1.040.047
1.2(111.212
1._68.632
4 5.677.073
9,864.686
12.101.825
17.396.609
25.4'_9.3 31
27.091.324
_8,641.261
34,553,865
37, 322,879
39.404.520
45.'51.523
51.3114.014
51.679,418
59,889,081
7),088,591
7s.807.661
.3'8.596
S 12.763
22.622
32.639
41.666
58.942
63.703
69.807
99.7(13
129.241
140.227
155.(X)1
178.565
193.845
233.487
218.347
224.8(11
259.119
Source: Economic Society of South Florida
i
1
MM
ME
ME
ME
tttttttttt■
Risk Ni,c'vAcii. 11-:N i
tlti lit li 1+mt rkprt ietwe tltnt measures had to he taken to halt the spiraling costs of
�c :tl ttiattrt atttemlitteitt ,%;0; successfully voted on by the electorate in 1971 (7.964 for.
the t'tt` to set up .1 Sell Insurance and insurance -I rust Fund. The City
oidtitancr, .t Bo;nd oI I rosters conlpnsed of the ('ity Manager. the Director of
Stana);et to handle the security investments of the hind. Also created is a Self -
Attie, ;;r1s,+at1ed by the ('tt% 11;niagt t. to administer the plan.
141 e ay tot all accidents. Police l opts and I'reniises Liability up to S50.000
•Oc!..e,,t ,,,;,; SiiV..t NO pet occurrence nl accottlaticc yytth 1 lorida Statutes. Section 768.28. waiving
ereiFsn too claims
The (-try ,.f `t.:aitu is self, utsuled for all other exposures yyrth the exception that coverage by outside
sed
tix'u_ralree i+iit•cl,ayc 1► made ,y hoc it is found ay.illahle at� acceptable
lc(iart yip Life a�n d rlccidcntcurrently
al Di ah�il ty
inelitde accidental death and propert% damage, excluding 1tr
tii�i t)eatlt t�cttefitx have been purchased, %kith group benefits being sell' -funded.
CONTINGENT LIABILITIES
IFS
1'ritdiitg t.ei iI Proceedings
1\'ith respect to pending tart actions for which the City may have liability. reserves have been set aside
follows.
Butcher .City of Miami S1.100.000.00
A settlement has been reached limiting the City's liability to $1.100.000
'respecting the wage .adjustment claim for certain city employees.
ROsen %. City of \li.inti
,auto .accident with Police %chicle. in %%Inch City is awaiting Plaintiff Attorney
to act by entering a stipulation or obtaining a summary judgment. Without
this initial actiy ity . the City cannot proceed v. ith the appeal.
• There are presently 115 claim files. myolving 153 potential claimants. pending
nook mg various types of automobile accidents. including all Departments of
• the City. These claims have been recorded in the Self -Insurance Fund 597,158.07
The City is involved in a3 police civil liability matters which have been
recorded in the Self -Insurance Fund 107.004.45
The City is involved in 24 general liability matters of various types yyhich have
,been recorded in the Self -Insurance Fund 69.175.00
TOTAL
400.000.00 ..
S2.273.337.52
ltt the opinion of the City Attorney. there is no pending litigation that may have any materially adverse
eftect On the financial condition of the City of Miami. other than the claims and actions above. all of which
aye been booked by the City .
TAX EXEMPTION
In the Ipinion of Brow n. \\'ood. Ivey. Slitchell and Petty. No% fork, N.1'.. Bond Counsel. interest on
e; f3ontiS is eiertpt from all present Federal income taxes under existing statues. regulations. rulings and
ecision'
34
IiDuIII■II■I■IuIIIIIOIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII111111IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII111111111111111111111111■IIIUI II I11I111111 ■ iniumu1■II
IThANCIAi. STATEMENTS
the financial statements or the City of Miami set forth in Appendix A to this Official Statefietit habee
beeti examined by Peat. Marwick. Mitchell & Co.. independent certified public accountants. for the: I3etidds
and to the extent stated in their letter to the City Commission dated July 14. ITN.
CLOSING CERTIFICATES
Certificate of City 11anager and finance
Director Concerning Official Statement
Concurrently with the delivery of the Bonds, the City. Manager and the Director of Finance will
furnish their certificate to the effect that. to the hest of their knowledge. this Official Statement. as of its
date and as of the date of delivery of the Bonds. did not and does not contain an untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact which should he included therein for the purpose for which the
Official Statement is to he used. or which is necessary to make the statements contained therein. in the light
of the circumstances under which they were made. not misleading.
APPROVAL OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
Certain legal matters incident to the authorization and issuance of the S18.250.000 Bonds are subject
to the approval of Brown. Wood. Ivey. Mitchell & Petty. New York. N.Y.. I3ond Counsel. whose legal
opinion will he available to the underwriters. at no cost to them. at the time of the delivery of the Bonds and
will he printed on the Bonds.
MISCELLANEOUS
Any statements in this Official Statement involving matters of opinion or estimates. whether or not
expressly so stated. are intended as such and not as representations of fact. No representation is made that
any of the statements will he realized.
References herein to the Constitution. state laws. the City Charter. ordinances and resolutions are only
brief outlines of certain provisions thereof and do not purport to summarize or describe all provisions
thereof.
The information contained in this Official Statement has been compiled by the Finance Department of
the City of Miami from official and other sources deemed to he reliable. and while not guaranteed as to
completeness or accuracy. is believed to he correct as of this date.
The execution of this Official Statement has been duly authorized by the Commission of the City of
Miami.
City of Miami. Florida
by s/s MAURICE A. FERRE
Mayor
Mirk
rett
sue°
Mbe
moin
MPE
Mir
mire
MEM
tii
1111
Me
EMM
11111111111111111■1■OI11■1111111111IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII■■■■In11111111IIIIIIIIIIIm■I■"■ IUU i
!1VTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
•
..,..II•1,...,,),IIINII•MIINIIIIMIIIMeg.,,IN/IMI,'
-
■
•
M
m
CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
111111111111111111111111111111111IIIIIIIIIIIIII nI■■
m
•
Financial Statements
eat ended September 30, 197
Table of Contents_
Part I = ri'aat vial Statements
Accountants' Report
Combined Balance Sheet - All Funds and Account Groups
Combined Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, Transfers
and Operations - All Funds Excluding Budgetary Funds
and Trust and Agency Funds
General Fund - Statement of Revenues, Expenditures,
Encumbrances and Transfers - Budget and Actual
Special Tax Levy Funds - Statement of Revenues, Expenditures,
Encumbrances and Transfers - Budget and Actual
Federal Revenue Sharing Fund - Statement of Revenues,
Expenditures, Encumbrances and Transfers - Budget and
Actual
Trust and Agency Funds - Statement of Revenues, Expenditures
and Transfers
Combined Statement of Changes in Fund Balances, Contributed
Capital and Retained Earnings - All Funds
Enterprise Funds - Statement of Changes in Financial
Position
Statement of Pooled Cash and Investments
Notes to Financial Statements
Part II - Supplementary Schedules
Special Tax Levy Funds:
Combining Balance Sheet Expenditures,
Combining Statement of Revenues,
Encumbrances and Transfers - Budget and Actual
Combining Statement of Changes in Fund Balances
Debt Service Funds:
Combining Balance Sheet Expenditures, Transfers'.
Combining Statement of Revenues,
and Changes in Fund Balances
MEM
MEM
MEW
•
•
•
oR MIAMio MAIM
financial Statements
Table of Contents, CoT►t,
ititragovernmental Service Funds:
Combining Balance Sheet
Combining Statement of Operations and Changes in
Contributed Capital and Retained Earnings
Enterprise Funds:
Combining Balance Sheet
Combining Statement of Operations and Changes in
Contributed Capital and Retained Earnings
General Obligation Capital Projects Funds:
Combining Balance Sheet
Combining Statement of Revenues and Expenditures
and Changes in Fund Balances
Trust and Agency Funds:
Combining Balance Sheet
Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures,
and Transfers and Changes in Fund Balances
Combined Statement of Long -Term Debt Payable
pmmg.
MIL
MMW
mmw
MEE
mmw
EEF
MEW
MEM
M1TCniL.t. & Co.
CEIVTIEII;:D PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
IOOO f;RICHELL AVENUE
MI_AMI, FLORIDA 33131
The Hondtable Members
of the City Commission
City of Miami, Florida:
We have examined the financial statements of the various funds and account
groups of the City of Miami, Florida for the year ended September 30,
19
as listed under the exhibits in the accompanying table of contents.
Our
examination was made in accordance with generally accepted auditing stand -
and
ards, and accordingly incded asch wetests of consideredenecessaryng inrthercircum-
such other auditing procedures
stances.
The Department of Off Street Pangfnd the Miami,Downtown F orida.DeTheofinancialhstate-
ty are autonomous units of theCity o
ments of these entities for the year ended September 30, 1977, the former
which is examined by
another firm of certified public accountants, are not
�
included in the accompanying financial statements.
As described more fully in note 1 to the financial statements, the City
does not provide depreciation on property, plant and equipment of the
Enterprise and Intragovernmental Service Funds as required by generally
accepted accounting principles.
In our opinion, except for the effect on the fcial ial statements
oofthe
failure to provide depreciation on property, planttheedin
Enterprise and Intragovernmental Service
statements dpresentdfairly the
the fi- precg
paragraph, the aforementioned financial
nancial position of the various funds and
account
agr the atSepte beri30,
hd
1977 and the results of operations of in con-
1977 position of the Enterprise Funds for the year then ended,
enerally accepted accounting principles applied on a basis
fortuity with g receding year.
consistent with that of the p
111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
the Honorable Metbets
of the City Comm
City of Miami, Florida
Page Two
the examination referred to aboVe Was directed primarily toward formulating
ah opinion of the various funds and account groups of the City of Miami,
Florida, taken as a whole. The supplementary data included in Schedules
I-1 through VII-5, are presented for supplementary analysis Purposes and
ate not necessary for a fair presentation of the financial Position and
results of operations of the various funds and account groups, and changes
in financial position of the Enterprise Funds of the City of Miami, Florida.
The supplementary data have been subjected to the auditing procedures
applied in the examination of the basic financial statements and, in our
opinion, except for the effect of the failure to provide depreciation on ,
property, plant and equipment in the Enterprise and Intragovernmental
%
Service Funds, are stated fairly in all material respects only when con-
sidered in conjunction with the financial statements taken as a whole. -
III11111■I.■II■us III■iIII■uI■I
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
IIIII I I I I I II II I IIII I III I III III■uuI■ii
AS:NeAS and Other Deb i 0
in pooled rash and
est~ents (note 1)
_:axesl+e^ei•:a.:e - delinquent
:axes
allswan-e for estitiated
a:..J%.ir to of
E1,2
nAr= _c:: r is rece-i atie (net
SE L 2'))
liens rerei:atie
-._rnne.ts
:e _ _:s a... _ • a.. era de
Frd7erty, ;Ian:: and eq..;i7ment
- - n z s and _ter : e _ n t s
.-_-z..__...
tit
L°r�r
: eis s1 Debt
service
..ins funds
4.0
5,436,300
212,542
839
2,395
111111011111 uu■ iiiiimiummfilualomommommi
Intragovettittental
service
funds
1,820,316
6,7
519,814
294,026
724,489
7,510,741
533,862
11,409,952
General
fixed
assets
14,584,030
14,905,787
130,033,214
6,879,158
31,230,676
General
lottg-tertrt
debt
3,944,712
1,694,474
119,960,288
1,408,526
750,000
3 063 088 197 632 865 127 758,000
Capital Pro j
General
Trust acid obligation
agency 1ntetptise capital
funds funds projects
2,965,013
ects Funds
Special
obligation
capital
improvements
437,903 52,168,629 3,063,088
1,820,107
21,121,651
806,105
517,691
688,000
702 2 881,5-_
2 9 6--- 5 -= 2 5-�--1005--9
45
all OF M1A1'II , FLORIDA
Cftb 1ted Ratance Sheet - All Funds and Account
Liabilities
Deficit in pooled cash and investments
(note 1)
Accrued liabilities (principally salaries)
Accounts payable
Deferred income
Revenue bonds payable (note 4
Deposits refundable
Due to other funds (note 1)
Claims payable (note 7)
General obligation bonds payable (note 4)
Special obligation bonds payable (note 4)
Judgment payable (note 7)
Total liabilities
Encumbrances outstanding
Reserve for noncurrent delinquent
taxes receivable
Fund Balance, Contributed Capital
and Retained Earnings
Fund balances - appropriated (note 1)
Fund balances (deficit) - unappropriated
Contributed capital and retained earnings
appropriated
Contributed capital and retained earnings
unappropriated
Investment in general fixed assets
Special Revenue Funds
Special Federal Debt
General tax revenue service
fund 1 sharin funds
973,695
12,863
496,963 52,828
i 744,591
750,000
3,965,249
896,689
143,055
elm
12,699
420,590
65,691 433,289
51,872 1,105,975
98,105
2,616,368
(61377)1,022,182 138,430
$ 4.943.616 1.237.850 4.294.062
See accompanying notes to financial statements.
IEEE
MEMP
OMR
437 SW
12,453
12,890
63,567 IW
4.507,391 M
1,068,228 --
5.652.07
IIIIII■INE111ui•■iiuiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiI iioiiiiiw.vuu
115,723
IMO
Ekhibit A, Cont
Capital projects Funds
General Special
Intragovetrimental Trust and obligation obligation General
service agency Enterprise capital capital fixed
funds funds funds projects improvements assets
45,560
129,545
800,000
975,105
911,603
159,005
604,698
688,000
39,978 3,673
33,300 1,396,486
268,850 -
267,000
2,665,131 609,128 1,400,159
299,882'
681,000 -
9,753,847 ".
24,375,851 - 3,062,481
197,632,865
11,4091952 2.96� 25�02 52 881
591 3 063 088 197 632,865 127 758.000
607
General
long-term
deb t
123,905,000
3,103,000
750,000
127,758,000
Capital Projects Funds
General Special
obligation obligation
Enterprise capital capital
funds projects improvements
28,000,000
_ - 4,079,041
3,049,866 - -
2,370,699 275,648
72,459 -
3,049,866 30,443,158 4,354,689
3,049,866 30,443,158 4,35 4
2,797,250
13,821,037 429,063
2,797,250 13,821,037 429,063
6,755,880
2,797 250 13,821,037 7,184,943
252.616
166 62_
(2 8,30.2.54)
•
EE
mm
_MTV OP MMIAWI, FLc RIMA
General Fund
tfatemtnt of Revenues, Expenditures,
dutbrances and Transfers, Budget and Actual
Year ended September 30, 1977
eVenues i
Taxes:
General property tax
Penalties and interest
Business and excise taxes
Licenses and permits:
Business licenses and permits
Construction permits
Intergovernmental revenue:
Federal grants
State grants
Other
Intragovernmental revenue:
Engineering services
Legal and financial
Charges for services:
Public safety
Recreation
Other
Miscellaneous revenues::
Interest
Rents
Other
Total revenues
Transfers from other funds
Total revenuesand transfers
Revised
budget
$ 20,457,556
202,500
684,063
21,344,119
3,106,000
1,024,300
4,130,300
4,586,800
12,351,905
1,558,307
18,497,012
1,341,142
290,230
1,631,372
715,925
173,320
254,550
1,143,795
1,050,000
225,296
437,988
1,713,284
48,459,882
25,283,568
73,743,450
Exhibit C
Expect=
ditures
or Entntiv.
transfers bratizes Otua1
20)515,729
257,120
655,968
21,428,817
3,359,829
551,383
3,911,212
3,479,548
12,271,365
2,269,450
18,020,363
1,458,625
257,107
1,715 732
460,478
138,237
122,391
721,106
625,669
173,251
_ 369,022
1,167,942
46,965,172
25,887,268
72,852,440
MEW
MEW
MEk
■•
1
-
Ea
Mffi
—
MM
-
T¥ 0 H!k#, FLORIDA
'General b and
,\
bent a Re¥emt222 Q2iDe
w, Budget, T
es And }!wafers,
s at3 enc' branL
,.
�/ a\@_+_-ent:
Anazet
%=sagesent sell=es
faIrs
=a�2py.arE £tani4
S
t#vised
budget
238,170
510,622
118,941
777,390
3,597,431
696,192
170,025
5E0,766
1E2,558
130,426
7,002,521
:,3E3,758
1,32T,524
55E,418
6.0:222�
mmmmw
BEER
Emme
ume
\{EE,934 S
.-23.l01 lir
1.)2:,538
- 2,ETl
/:.19 ,2
MEE
Mow
ZEE
UMW
mmE
£AMM
mm
i
Expert-
ditutes
of Encum=
transfers btances
210,207
490,894
114,314
722,840
3,583,009
647,687
158,162
386,142
181,362
144,625
6,639,242
4,063,566
1,166,991
515,793
5,746,350
20,359,924
14,577,162
1,974,527
36 , 911, 61.3
10,368,821
4,095,470
580,761
516,145
96,655
1,193,561 -
Exhibit C, Cont.
2,428
4,577
375
58,062
3,526
14,259
3,126
107,490
ACLU t
213,135
495,471
114,689
780,902
3,586,535
661,946
161,288
493,632
181,362
144,625
194,343 6,833,585
18,179 4,081,745
37,971 1,204,962
2,770 518,563
58,920 5,805,270
96,924
62,459
84,829
244,212
6,371
11,370
3,615,665
212,437
1,355,381
484,534
783, 750
6,451,767
71,406,824
643,277
72.050.101
20,456,848
14,639,621
2,059,356
37,155,825
10,375,192
4,106,840
580,761
516,145
96,655
1,193,561
3,615,665
11,890 224,327
1,355,381
369,583 854,117
783,750
381,473 6,833,240
896,689 72,303,513
643,277
896.689 72,946,790
(94.350)
1.
MEW
•
•
m- mw
mmft
M- EE
MMm
mmra
MEM
ffiMFf
•
1111111010ilimunalm
t'tnr
Revenues, Expenditures,
Budget and Actual
drat` ended September 30, 0T7
C19if OF MlA111 , FI.ctR1bA
Special Tax levy Funds
Fricumbrauf;es , a
'fiey trues : taxes
General property
Metro Dade County publicity coni s(Jilt)
Other
Total revenues
Transfers from other funds
Total revenues and transfers,
expenditures and encumbrances:
Pension expense (note 3)
Publicity and tourism
Street 1ishtint'.,
.:co11a:..b1 c delinquent propert;�
Other
I
Total expenditures i tures and encu . : sure:
Excess tu.
1 b. y;,:.8...; ,� of revenues !and
is ariLie
�.
,.t.
over expenditures .a;:. enz--17 ..,.cc
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeer�
$evised
budget
S 14,099,383
500,000
14,599,383
1,200,000
15,799,383
11,203,427
1,389,708
3,232,140
382,460
16,207,735
(408,352)
MIW
■
MEM
MEW
maim
MEW
immew
MEW
mwm
MME
MEW
mow
MEM
Expenditures EfcUnbtances ActUal
14,076,087
_ 487,987
48,943
14,613,017
1,200,000
15,813,017
11,003,921 - 11,003,921
1,240,525 51,648 1,292,173
2,739,047 - 2,739,047
526,350 - 526,350
397,906 224 398,130
15,907,749 51,872 15,959,621
$ (146,604)
III.IIuMIII is 1111uIuI ■IIIIuIIIII
iMEM
c11 0I: MIAMI, FLORIDA
`ederdl. Revenue Sharing Fund
dltOtiUetl, Expenditures, Encumbrances
Budget and Actual
1`ear ended September 30, 1977
tv6iUo s :
. t4Voilue shating entitlements
tntere,t and other
Total revenues
to sfers from other funds
Total revenues and tratisfets
4en.:itures and encumbrances:
utlic safety
•especial programs
:etreation
Sanitation
Total expenditures and
encumbrances
ra.sfers to other funds:
::rrent year's operations
ther fiscal years
Total transfers
Total expenditures, encumbrances
and transfers
Excess (deficiency) of revenues and
transfers over expenditures,
encumbrances; and transfers
and 'itafls iyre,'.
annual budE,et does not include revenues for`this fund,
i$t? ii'tl a-u tip i ina'neial statements.
Revised
,bidget (A)
750,000
1,665,010
165,000
147,000
2,727,010
10,071,986
3,230,000
13,301,986
16,028,996
$(16.028.996)
Mt-
■
i
1
Eneac i .... _
or tra-.. =
2EE...:
1:,
44,4�w v
44
c a ' a
`i ♦ $ i
i a r
• i _ l ♦ L _ a
i t� Lai
4.40 ♦ J
' L '
Exhibit F
OILY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
Trust and Agency Funds
titebett of Revenues, Expenditures and TtahSfet§
Year ended September 30, 1977
Revenues:
mm Comprehensive Employment and Training
Act grants
Community Development Block Grant
MM Economic Development Administration
m public works grants
MO Other Federal, state and miscellaneous
■ grants
m.
Total revenues
Transfers from other funds
650,265
1,123,169
893,740
853,444
10,120,618
269,784
; :_,:z 10,390,402
Total revenues and transfers;;;`�'��''��z,;,,��±r'�
Expenditures:
Comprehensive Employment and Training
Act grants
Community Development Block Grant
Economic Development Administration
public works grants
Other Federal, state and miscellaneous
grants
Total expenditures
Excess of revenues and
transfers over expenditures
See accompanying notes to financial statements.
6,664,372
1,723,169
893,740
1,005,507
10,286,788
$ 103.614
IS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK:
•
■
■
■
■
CITY OF 1.1tAMI, FLORtbA
tOMbitied Statement of Changes in Fund Balances,
COhttibuted Capital and Retained Earnings
All Funds
Year ended September 30, 1977
Fund balances (deficit),
October 1, 1976
Contributed capital and retained
earnings, October 1, 1976
Excess (deficiency) of revenues
and transfers over expenditures
encumbrances and transfers
Net income
Increase in reserve for noncurrent
delinquent taxes receivables
Contributions from other funds
Fund balances (deficit),
September 30, 1977
Contributed capital and retained
earnings, September 30, 1977
Siet iei. Revenue Futids
Special Federal Debt
etietA1 tax revenue service
fu kl levy sharing funds
$ (575, 972) 1,266,891 6,286,368 11, 314, 886
(94350) (146, 604) (3, 531,570) (5,675,700)
(143,055) (98,105)
750,000
(63,567)
$ (61.377) 1.022.182 2,754,798 5,575,619
ee accompanying notes to financial statements.
MEE
MEV
Exhibit G
■
m
■
■
• overnmental
�Intrag service Trust and
funds agency funds
i
.9,225,530
$ 1010
675,455
533,862
196,268
103,614
29
Capital Projects i:unds
Ceneral Special
obligation obligation
Enterprise capital capital
funds projects improvements
23,720,650
252,616
518,308
24,491,574
34,859,311 5,892,735;
16,622,121 (2,830,254)
51 4` 42Ah2.481.
•
•
•
•
•
mm
Capital ?rolects Funds
m Gehetal Special
aQtraservin
ental obligation obligation
service Trust and Enterprise capital capital
II funds
aSencL funds funds projects improvements
34,859,311 5,892,735'.
675,z.55
533,E 2
M11111111111111111111110111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111
Expenditures
or transfers Encumbrances Actual
8,893,709
251041
9 445, 650
141,556
9,287,206
154,084 300,000 454,084
1,602,703 91,960 1,694,663
328,652 411 329,063
268,980 - 268,980
2,354,419 392,371 2,746,790
10,071,986 - 10,071,986
10,071,986 10,071,986
12,426.405 392,371 12,818,776
(3.531.570)
■1 m ■ ii■iuu■i.i■■iminmiii■iim■n
•
•
MM
MM
MM
1nIIIIIIII
CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
Trust and Agency Funds
tatebeht of Revenues, Expenditures and Transfers
Year ended September 30, 1977
Revenues:
Comprehensive Employment and Training
Act grants
Community Development Block Grant
Economic Development Administration
public works grants
Other Federal, state and miscellaneous
grants
Total revenues
Transfers from other funds
Total revenues and transfers
Expenditures:
Comprehensive Employment and Training
Act grants6,664,372
z`sa=''_.F,::''!;
Community Development Block Grant ar, 7t:Y `:a 'y 1,723,169
'4,
Economic Development Administration
public works grants _ ,.,;;Ff 893, 740
Other Federal, state and miscellaneous ;f
grants ';r''yl;rA`'T 1,005,507
Total expenditures !', 10,286,788
Exhibit F
6,550,265
1,723,169
893,740
853,444
10,120,618
269,784
10,390,402
Excess of revenues and
transfers over expenditures ''�'c''��j;.i=�$ 103.614
See accompanying notes to financial statements.
III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIuIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
a•
0
Expeiidittttes Ettcutnbtances Antral
14,076,087
- 487,987
48,943
14,613,017
1,200,000
15,813,017
11,003,921 - 11,003,921
1,240,525 51,648 1,292,173
2,739,047 - 2,739,047
526,350 - 526,350
397,906 224 398,130
15.907.749 51.872 15,959,621
$ (146.604)
IM11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111•1111111Mium
Ctt`I OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
Federal Revenue Sharing Fund
ftefeielt Of Revenues, Expenditures, Encumbrances and ttensfets,
Budget and Actual
Year ended September 30, 1977
Revised
;budget (A)
Revenues:
Revenue sharing entitlements
Interest and other
Total revenues
Transfers from other funds
Total revenues and transfers
Expenditures and encumbrances:
Public safety °?;;; u
. 750,000
Special programs ;i `i" ,;'-,:,..=
1,665,010
Recreation y+,F,,,:,., .,,,,:
165,000
Sanitation '.r ;:: `'G`x :.:::4s-.
147,000
Total expenditures and
,,g-;=K•,
<<;t;�.,+;��t<<, _;<<�:. z$ , �?�t_�.:.�,.. 2,727,010
encumbrances ;;.r�; ,.��� :, :�:..:;,�.;�:�<v�;=`:�tu ,.�A;, ,;::i,;� ,
Transfers to other funds:
Current year's operations
Other fiscal years
Total transfers
Total expenditures, encumbrances
and transfers
Excess (deficiency) of revenues and
transfers over expenditures,
encumbrances and transfers
(A) The City's annual budget does not include revenues for
See accompanying notes to financial statements.
56,
und.
10,071,986
3,230,000
13,301,986
16,028,996
$(16.028.996)
TUTS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
1
CItV OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
COfnbffied Statement of Changes in Fund Balances,
Contributed Capital and Retained Earnings
All Funds
Year ended September 301 1977
Fund balances (deficit),
October 1, 1976
Contributed capital and retained
earnings, October 1, 1976
Excess (deficiency) of revenues
and transfers over expenditures
encumbrances and transfers
Net income
Increase in reserve for noncurrent
delinquent taxes receivables
Contributions from other funds
Fund balances (deficit),
September 30, 1977
Contributed capital and retained
earnings, September 30, 1977
Special Revenue Funds
Special Federal bebt
etieral tax revenue service
fund levy sharing funds
$(573,972) 1)266,891 6,286,368 11,314,886
(94,350) (146,604) (3,531,570) (5,675,700)
(143,055) (98,105) - (63,567)
750,000
$ (61.377) 1.022,182 2.754.798 5.575.619
See accompanying notes to financial statements.
■
■
■
■
■
•
■
■
■
■
■
THE CITY OF MIAMI
MEMBERS OF BOARD OF CITY COMMISSIONERS
MAURICE A. FERRE. Mayor
TI:IEODORE R. GIBSON J. L. PLUMMER. JR.
ROSE GORDON MANOLO REBOSO.
CITY OFFICIALS
City Manager J. R. GRASSIE
City Attorney G. F. KNOX, JR.
Finance Director J E. GUNDERSON
City Clerk R. G. ONGIE
BOND COUNSEL
BROWN, WOOD, IVEY, MITCHELL & PETTY
New York. New York
Additional copies of this Official Statement. the Notice of Sale and Bid Form. may
be obtained from J. E. Gunderson. Director of Finance. P.O. Box 330708, Miami.
Florida 33133, Telephone (305) 579-6350. or from Brown, Wood. Ivey. Mitchell &
Petty, I Liberty Plata, New York, N.Y. 10006, Attention J. Guandolo. Telephone
(212) 349-7500.
this Official Statement does not constitute an offer to sell Bonds in any jurisdiction to any person to
whofft it is unlawful to make such offer in such jurisdiction. No dealer, salesman. or any other person has
been authorized to give any information or make any representation, other than those contained herein, in
connection with the offering of these Bonds, and if given or made, such information or representation must
not be relied upon. The information and expressions of opinion herein are subject to change without notice
and neither the delivery of this Official Statement nor any sale made hereunder shall. under any cir-
cumstances. create any implication that there will he no change in the affairs of the City from the date
hereof to the date of the delivery of the Bonds.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction
Security, Authorization and Validation
Application of Proceeds of Bonds
General Information • • • •
Government of Miami
Background of Certain City Officials ... • . • • : •
Employee Relations • . ,
City Pension Funds • .... •.. • . • • .
Budgeting. Accounting and Auditing
Revenues and Expenditures
Ratio of Net Deht to Assessed Valuation and Per Capita Figures ..
Statement of Legal Deht Margin
Tax Data
Revenue Structure
Outstanding Bonds: Debt Service
Statement of Direct and Overlapping Debt
Bonds Authorized hut not Issued
Economic Factors
Risk Management
Contingent Liabilities
Tax Exemption
Financial Statements
Closing Certificates
Approval of Legal Proceedings
Miscellaneous
Appendix A. Audited Statements
Letter of Certified Public Accountants
Appendix B. Statistical Comparison of Ten Years Revenues and Expenditures ...
ii
Pip
7'18
19-24•.
25
s
mamimg
Miff
MEM
EWE
MIER
Fff-
s
EMIR
MIME
• t
•
MIWW
■i11iii111111iiiiiiii iiiiii11111111i1111111111IIIUIII11IIIII■
In the opinion of Bond Counsel, interest on the Bonds is exempt under existing statutes.
regulations. rulings and court decisions from Feder.►I income taxes.
OFFICIAL STATEMENT
$18,250,000
THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS
$6;000.000 Sanitary Sewer Bonds
5,000.000 Street and Highway Improvement Bonds
2,250.000 Fire Fighting, Fire Prevention and Rescue Facilities ' #otitis
5.000,000 Storm Sewer Improvement Bonds
Dated: Decemher 1, 1978
Due: In Annual Installments
Decemher 1. in the years
198(1 to 1998. inclusive
Denomination S5.000: Coupon Bonds, registrable as to principal alone and also as to both principal and
interest: except as to fully registered Bonds, principal and semi-annual interest (June 1 and Decemher I.
first interest June I. 1979). payable. at the option of the holder. at Chemical Bank. New York. New York.
at Continental Illinois National Bank and Trust Company of Chicago. Chicago. Illinois. or at Pan
American Bank of Miami, tiliami. Florida.
The Bonds w ill he general obligations of the City for which its full faith and credit are pledged. and are
payable from unlimited ad valorem taxes levied on all taxable property in the City (excluding homesteads
to the extent of the exemption). The Bonds are stated to mature. without option of prior redemption. on
Decemher I in each of the years. and in the principal amounts. respect i% ely. as follows:
Year of Rate or bear of Rate or Near of Rate or
11aturit� Amount Yield \1aturit� Amount 1 ield \luturit� mount livid
1980 890.000 1986 940,001) 1992 955.000
1981 895.000 1987 955.00(1 1993 970,000
1982 905.000 1988 965.000 1994 995.000
1983 915.000 1989 970.000 1995 1.015.000
1984 925,000 1990 910.000 1996 1.035.000
1985 940,000 1991 925.000 1997 1.060.000
1998 1.085.000
Sealed hids will he received by the Commission of The City of Miami. Horida. at its
regular place of meeting in the City Hall. 3500 Pan American Drive. Dinner Key. Miami.
Florida. until 1I o'clock. A.M.. Miami Time. on Thursday. Nmernher 9. 1978.
The Bonds are offered when. as and if issued. and subject to the approving opinion of Brown. Wood,
I%ey, Mitchell & Petty. New York. New York. Bond Counsel. A copy of such legal opinion will he printed
on the Bonds. It is expected that the Bonds will he delivered in definitive form on or about Decemher 12.
1978.
Prepared h�
City of Miami Finance Department
City Hall. 3500 Pan American Drive
Miami, Florida 33133
October 26. 1978
�v.
r 78-661
OFFICIAL STATEMENT
Relating to
THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
$ 18,250,000 General Obligation Bonds
Consisting of
$6,000,000 Sanitary Sewer Bonds
54000,000 Street and Highway Improvement Bonds
2,250,000 Fire Fighting, Fire Prevention and Rescue Facilities Bonds
5,000,000 Storm Sewer Improvement Bonds
INTRODUCTION
The City of Miami, Florida (the "City") will offer for sale on Thursday. November 9. its general
obligation ponds in the total principal amount of 518.250.000 (the "Bonds"). being parts of four issues of
general obligation bonds of the City authorized by the Commission of the City. approved by the electors
and remaining unissued. as hereinbeIow mentioned.
The material in this Official Statement is presented in advance of the sale of the Bonds in order that
those interested in the purchase of the Bonds may have available information with which to make
investment judgments respecting the Bonds.
The purpose of this Official Statement. which includes the cover page and appendices hereto. is to set
forth information concerning the City and the Bonds offered for sale.
SECURITY, AUTHORIZATION and VALIDATION
The Bonds will be general obligations of the City for which its full faith and credit is pledged, and are
payable from unlimited ad valorem taxes on all taxable property in the City (excluding homestead
exemptions for certain persons who are aged. disabled or otherwise qualified therefor.)
The Bonds shall he issued under and pursuant to the Taws of the State of Florida. the Charter of the
City and ordinances and resolutions of the Commission of the City. The Bonds have been authorized under
the provisions of the City Charter. including particularly Section 58 thereof. and certain ordinances and
resolutions adopted by the Commission of the City. The Bonds have been approved by the electors and
validated as follows:
The Sanitary Sewer Bonds were authorized by Ordinance No. 8573. adopted July 22, 1976. were
approved by the electors on September 28. 1976 and were validated by judgment of the Circuit Court of
Dade County on February 22. 1977. No appeal was taken.
The Street and Highway Improvement Bonds were authorized by Ordinance No. 7861. adopted May
13, 1970, were approved by the electors on June 30. 1970 and were validated by judgment of the Circuit
Court of Dade County on July 26, 1971. No appeal was taken.
The Fire Fighting, Fire Prevention and Rescue Facilities Bonds were authorized by Ordinance No.
8571, adopted July 22, 1976, were approved by the electors on September 28, 1976 and were validated by
judgment of the Circuit Court of Dade County on February. 22. 1977. No appeal was taken.
The Storm Sewer improvement Bonds were authorized by Ordinance No. 8736. adopted January 11.
1978, were approved h‘ the electors on March 7. 1978. and it is expected the decree validating the Bonds
will he rendered on or about October 20, 1978. If no appeal. as expected. is taken. the judgment will be final
30 days after such date. The Bonds will not be delivered unless and until such judgment is final.
APPLICATION OE' PROCEEDS OF BONUS
S6;tI00,000 Sanitary Sewer Bonds
Ordinance No. 8573 authorized the issuance of S25.000.000 Sanitary Sewer Bonds for the purpose of
paying the cost of improvements and extensions to the sanitary sewer system of the City. including the
construction. reconstruction and extension of sanitary sewers and other sanitary sewer improvements,
intercepting sewers, force mains. trunk sewers. pumping stations, outlets and connections to the sewage
disposal system of the City. the relaying of any damaged street or sidewalks. and the acquisition of any
necessary kind. S 10.000,000 principal amount of such bonds has been issued and an additional installment
of S6.000.000 of such bonds is being offered hereunder.
Ordinance No. 8573 provides that a part of the cost of the sanitary sewer improvements for which the
sanitary sewer bonds authorized thereunder are to he issued may. if the Commission of the City shall so
determine. he specially assessed and if any such special assessments shall he levied therefor. the annual tax
levy for the payment of such bonds may he reduced in any year by such amount as is held for such purpose
in a special fund in which the proceeds of such special assessment shall have been deposited. The
Commission has not made any such determination with respect to any of such bonds including the
$6.000,000 Sanitary Sewer Bonds offered hereunder.
$5.000.000 Street and Highway Improvement Bonds
Ordinance No. 7861 authorised the issuance of SI7.375.000 Street and Highway Improvement Bonds
for the purpose of pay ing the cost of street and highwa. improvements in the City. including the
constructing. reconstructing. extending. w idening. grading. paying. repaying. macadamizing and
remacadamizmg of highways. streets and other public ways. with necessary drainage. sewer inlets.
manholes. catch basins. sidewalks. curbs. gutters and appurtenances and the acquisition of lands and rights
of way s and the landscaping. clearing and ley cling thereof. S I(1.000.000 principal amount of such bonds has
been issued and an additional installment of S5.000.000 of such bonds is being offered hereunder.
S2,250,00(I Fire Fighting, Fire Prevention and Rescue Facilities Bonds
Ordinance No. 8571 authorized the issuance of SI0,000.000 Fire Fighting. Fire Prevention and Rescue
Facilities Bonds for the purpose of paying the cost of Fire Fighting, Fire Prevention and Rescue Facilities,
including the construction. reconstruction and improving of fire stations. an administration building and a
communication system related to the Fire Department and the acquisition of any necessary land and
equipment. S6,000,000 principal amount of such bonds has been issued and an additional installment of
$2.250,000 of such bonds is being offered hereunder.
$5,000,000 Storm Sewer Improvement Bonds
Ordinance No. 8736 authorized the issuance of S15.000.000 of Storm Sewer Improvement Bonds for
the purpose of paying the cost of the construction of permanent drainage facilities within the City. A
portion of the proceeds will he used to construct drainage facilities in conjunction with street improvement
projects in certain portions of the City. The first installment of such bonds in the amount of S5,000,000 is
being offered hereunder.
p
MEE
i
•
■
3LNERAL INFORMATION
00Vel thietit of Miami
The City of Miami has operated under the Commission -City Manager forth ofgovernment since 192L
The City Commission consists of five elected citizens. who are qualified voters in the City. one of whom
serves as Mayor. The Commission acts as the governing hodv of the City with powers to pass ordinances.
adopt regulations and appoint a chief administrative officer known as the City Manager.
City elections are held in Novemher every two years on a non -partisan basis. At each of these elections
a mayor is elected for a two year term. Candidates for Mayor must run as such and not for the Commission
in general. At each election two members of the Commission are elected for four year terms. Thus. the City
Commissioners' terms are staggered so that there are always at least two experienced memhers on the
Commission. The City Commission appoints the City Clerk. the Citx Attorney. the City Manager. the
members of the Off -Street Parking Board and the members of the Planning and Zoning Board.
The City. Manager acts as the administrative head of the municipal government and is responsible for
the proper administration of all affairs of the City. The Charter of the City of Miami places considerable
responsibility upon the City Manager. He is authorized to appoint and remove all departmental directors.
prepare the annual budget. investigate the affairs of the City or of any City department. reorganize the
administrative structure and recommend to the City Commission any policies which will benefit the health.
safety or welfare of the community.
Background of Certain City Officials
Maurice A. Ferro was elected Mayor in Novemher 1973 and reelected in Novemher 1975 and
Novemher 1977 for two-year terms respectively. Mayor Ferre is 43 years old. is a graduate of Lawrenceville
School in New Jersey and holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Architectural Engineering from the
University of Miami. He is a prominent businessman and corporate consultant with interests in both the
United States and the Caribbean.
Theodore R. Gibson was appointed a Commissioner in April 1972 and was elected in Novemher 1973
and reelected in Novemher 1977 for four-year terms respectively. Father Gibson is 63 years old. He was
graduated from St. Augustine's College in Raleigh. North Carolina and from Bishop Payne Divinity
School, now a part of the Virginia Theological Seminary. The Rev. Canon Gibson has been the Rector of
the Christ Episcopal Church. Miami. for 32 years.
Rose Gordon has served as a Commissioner since November 1971. Mrs. Gordon was educated in New
Jersey and Florida Schools. She is a registered real estate broker. appraiser and consultant. She has been
the owner of Rose Gordon Realty, Inc.. Miami. for over twenty years. Mrs. Gordon is Treasurer of the
South Florida Regional Planning Council and is on the Steering Committee of the National League of
Cities and the Human Resources Committee. and is Vice Chairman of Health Systems Agency and Co-
chairman of Florida Board of Realtors. Urban Revitalization Committee.
J. L. Plummer. Jr. vs as appointed a Commissioner in October 1970. and was elected Commissioner in
Novemher 1971 and Novemher 1975 for four-year terms. Commissioner Plummer is 41 years old and a
graduate of Miami Senior High School and the Cincinnati College of Mortuary Science. He is Chairman of
the Board of Ahern -Plummer Funeral Home. Miami.
Manolo Reboso was 'appointed a Commissioner in 1972 and was elected in November 1973 and
reelected in Novemher 1977 for four-year terms. respectively. Commissioner Reboso is 44 years old and is a
graduate of Baldor Academy. Havana. Cuba and the Georgia Institute of Technology. Atlanta. Georgia.
He has been self-employed as a general contractor since 1966 and as a land planning consultant in Miami
since 1972. He is also Executive Vice President of Radio Station WOCN.
J. R. Grassie was appointed by the City Commission as City Manager on July 30. 1976. He served as
City Manager of Grand Rapids. Michigan from 1970 to 1976 and as Deputy City Manager of Grand
3
1
1
MIR
ttttttttttttttttt�•
EMIIC
MMZ
Rapids from 1968 to 1970. City Manager Grassie is 45 years old and a graduate of the University of
Chicago with both a Bachelor of Arts degree and a Master's degree in Political Science/Economics. He is
an active member of the International City Management Association.
James E. Gunderson. the Director of Finance for the City of Miami. was graduated from the
University of Illinois in Law and Accounting. He has extensive experience in both the private and
governmental sectors of the economy. Prior employment includes the University of Washington. Boeing
Airplane Company. Pierce County. Washington and the City of Grand Rapids. He has been associated
with Kiµanis. Elks. Lions and the Boy Scouts. He was a former School Board Director in the State of
Washington and also served as a Commissioner on the Governor's Crime Commission for the State of
Michigan.
George F. Knox. Jr., the City Attorney for the City of Miami. was graduated from the Michigan State
University and University of Miami. Florida School of Law. Prior to becoming City Attorney. Mr. Knox
was Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Arkansas. He is a member of the Association of
American Law Schools.
Employee Relations
The City employs approximately 4,500 people. Under the State of Florida. Puhlic Employees
Relations Act. Chapter 447 Florida Statutes. the employees of the City of Miami have certain rights,
including the right to bargain collectively through representatives of their choosing on questions of wages,
hours and other terms and conditions of employment.
The Puhlic Employees Relations Act and the Florida State Constitution prohibit strikes by municipal
employees. Approximately 326 employees are designated managerial and confidential employees under the
Puhlic Employees Relations Act. and the remaining 4.174 employees are represented by four (41 collective
bargaining units.
Florida is a right-to-work state and. µhile employees may he designated by the State of Florida Public
Employees Relations Agency as being within a bargaining unit. the employees have a statutory right to join
or to refrain from joining the union. as they see fit.
Two labor agreements. which expired on October 1, 1978. one with the Fraternal Order of Police,
Lodge #20. and the other with the International Association of Firefighters. Local 587 are still in
negotiations and have not been completed.
The American Federation of State. County and Municipal Employees. Local 1907. has entered into its
first negotiations after a coalition between it and the General Employees Association for a multiple year
agreement. As of this date. the negotiations have not been finalized. The Sanitation Employees Association
has a two-year labor agreement currently in effect. and this contract will expire on September 30. 1979. The
City's Labor Relations staff. which is a part o:'the City Manager's Office. anticipates no major problems in
working out renewals of the above -mentioned labor agreements.
City Pension Funds
The City has two separate pension funds. the Retirement System (Police and Firemen) which went into
effect on February. I. 1940 (the 'System" or "Retirement System") and the Retirement Plan (General
Employees) which went into effect on July I. 1956 (the "Plan" or "Retirement Plan"). The actuary for the
Retirement Plan is Krause. O'Connor & Ling. Inc.. Plantation. Florida. For the Retirement System. the
actuary. is Alexander & Alexander. Atlanta. Georgia.
With respect to the System and Plan. the principal actuarial assumptions are:
(I) As to funding method:
System —Entry Age Normal Cost Method with Frozen Initial Liability modification.
Plan —Entry Age Normal Cost Method. modified to result in level funding by City as a
percentage of payroll. taking into account lower City costs for employees hired aftet
• October 1. 1974.
■ O As to interest rate:
I System—h`>r
■ Plan —7%
() As to assets:
System —Cost Value
Plan —Market Value taken into account to some degree (5-year average)
(4) As to retirement age:
System-53
Plan —62
Membership in the System and Plan is compulsory for classified employees. optional for unclassified
employees and not open to temporary employees.
m
The City's contribution is determined annually by the actuaries. The two actuaries determine pension
E benefits to reflect cost of living adjustments for all retirees. Also. they calculate separate cost studies
M whenever new benefits are being considered. Through December 1976. the Retirement System and Plan
m were reported on a calendar year basis. The City's required contribution was made on a fiscal year basis.
commencing October Ist. The unfunded liability reflected was determined upon the basis of data as of
• January 1st of each year. Subsequent to January 1977. the Retirement System and Plan began reporting on
I
a fiscal year basis.
The following table sets Forth in su nmary form certain essential data respecting both the Retirement
Plan and the Retirement System for the calendar years 1973 through 1976 inclusive. and for the fiscal year
m ending September 30. 1977:
11111011111111111111111111111
tliA' PENSION Ft: N DS
ViNASiti A L b AT A FOR PENSION PLANS
ciq 's Benefits Pmts.
Contribution t nrunded Including
( Accrued Accrued Employee Ettiployee interto
Basic Liability A ithdrassals Contribution tortingit
tisol Neal Etidittgei
September 30, 1977
Miami Eniploees* Retirement System
Miami Emploees' Retirement Plan
Total
Calendar Year Ending
5E1.229,299 5 81.177,566
52.465.716 5 46.290.191
58,695.015 5127.467.957
54.182.323
54.377,429
58,559.752
51.791.842
51.888.139
53.679.981
S3.033.058
52.344.190
55,377,248
m
December 31. 1976
= Miami Ernplo ees' Retirement System 56.527.501 5 90,554.826 54.876.775 52.339.785 52.974.713
Miami Emploees' Retirement Plan 53.097,787 5 54.652.564 S4.706 K76 52.563.735 52.215.597
M Total 59.625.288 $145.207.390 59.583.651 54.903.520 55.190,310
December 31. 1975
=
Miami Emploees' Retirement System
iniplo ees* Retirement Plan 52.936.983 5 56.203.346
Total
December 31. 1974 55.184,668 5 89.276.761
53.862.4
58.121.651 5145.40,107 54.468,664
04 S2.463.447 52.018.482
sh,331.06S 52.192.304
$4.655.751 $4.574.389
52.555,907
Mami E
I Miami Einplo ees' Retirement S stem
54.271,823 5 99.000.
Miami Einploees' Retirement Plan 00 $4.483.326 52.187.051 54.571,531
51.786.752
52,667.295
52.027.594
= Total 56.05$.575 5 99.000.000 57. 150.621 54.214.645 54,571.531
=
December 31. 1973
Miami EllIplo et:%* Retirement System . . 52.800.408 5 65,000.000 53.914.596 51.789.515 53.212.809
Miami Eniploce,.* Retirement Plan .. 51.842.092 s2,749.837 51.705.526
Total .. ... . .... . 54.642,500 5 65.000,000 56.664.433 53.495.041 53.212.809
*Earnings for Plan & System were combined prior to 1975. In 1975 all General Employees were
transferred to Plan.
**For the nine months ended September 30. 1977. The fiscal year was changed to end September 30.
thereafter.
MiC
Itudgeting, Accounting and Auditing
the City Charter requires the City Manager to submit a budget estimate not later than one month
before September 30 of each fiscal year. Each department prepares its own budget request for review by the
City Manager. The City Commission holds public hearings on the budget plan and must adopt the budget
not later than October 1.
The Cit's budgetary funds (General. Special Revenue. and Debt Service Funds) follow the modified
accrual basis of accounting. under which expenditures. other than interest on long-term debt. are recorded
when the liability is incurred and revenues are recorded when received in cash unless susceptible to accrual.
i.e., measurable and available to finance the City•s operations. or of a material amount and not received at
the normal time of receipt. The accrual basis is utilised (with minor exceptions) by all other funds.
The accounts. hooks. records and financial transactions of the City are audited annually by a firm of
independent certified public accountants. The opinions of the outside certified public accountants are
included in the Annual Reports of the Director of Finance.
The tables hereinhelow set forth present certain financial information respecting the City and evidence
the financial capacity of the City respecting the payment of its obligations, including the Bonds.
■uni= ini■iuni iiiiiiiiiiiiii IIIIII nisi ii i inimit a m■un.•
REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES
GENERAL FUND
SPECIAL TAX LEVY FUNDS
and
BOND AND INTEREST RETIREMENT FUNDS
Fiscal Year Ended September 30
Revenue:
Ad Valorem taxes (Net)
General Operating
Special Tax Levies
Debt Service
Other income
Operating
Debt Service
Operating and Debt Service.
Fund Balance 4.231,186
5111,401,149 $ 99,437.508 $87.880.400
Expenditures:
General Operations
Special Tax Levy Fund
Debt Service
Principal and Interest
Other
1978 1977 19/6
Budget Actual Actual
$ 36.872,992* $ 20,515,729
— 14.076,087
11,799,357 8,321.806
$18, 313,454
10.111. 508
7,621,525
Actual
$14,919,487
10,860,929
6,952.800
58,497,614 52.870,274 47,242.576 42,293,102
3,653,612 4.591.337 8,661,697
$83,688,015
$ 96.370,606* $ 71.850,039 $67.072.614 $60,178,437
— 14,707.749 11.424.713 12,938,038
15.030,543 17,1 18.91 1 12.007.329
532.207 $515,924
5111,401,149 5104, 208.906 591.020, 580
10.749.215
621.976
$84,487,666
Surplus or (Deficiency) of
Revenue over Expenditures 5 — $ (4.771.398) 5 (3.140,180)** 5 (799,65I )*
* 1978 Budget consolidated the General Operating Budget and the Special Tax Levies Budget.
**The deficiencies of revenue over expenditures in 1977. 1976 and 1975 were offset by fund balance
appropriations. All 1977. 1976 and 1975 debt service payments were met as scheduled.
f Atto OP NET DEBT TO ASSESSED VALUATION
for fiscal yeat ended September 30, 1978
inclusite of Bonds offered hereunder.
1977 Net Assessed Valuation*
1977 Assessed Value*
Beal Estate
Personal Property
Railroad Property ..... ,
Total
Less Homestead Exemptions
Total 1977 Net Assessed Valuation .......
Total Debt (including the S18.250.000 Bonds)
General Obligation Bonds
Incinerator Revenue Bonds
Utility Service Tax Bonds
Orange Bom I Revenue Bonds
Orange Bov%I Warehouse Rental Bonds ...............
OI'f Street Parking Revenue Bonds
Less: self-supporting bonds including
bonds payable from special assessments ........ , ; .
NET DEBT
Ratio Net Debt. including the Bonds. to Net
Assessed Valuation
*Latest assessmentwalijati
14'7,025,000
512,000
1,500.000
635,000
249,000
6,175,000
1978 Estimated Population — 356,000
Pet Capita Assessed Valuation — 510.753.32
Per Capita Net Debt — $ 415.52
3.86%
1828,181,022
'3,275,022.632
744.179,862
4.644,604
4,023,847.098
195,664.076
$3.828.183,022
$ 156,996,000
9,071,000
$ 147,925,000
IIII III=I_IIIII IIIIIII11■1•IIIIIuIII IIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIII■I III 1111111111111111111111
RATIO OE NET GENERAL BONDED DEBT
TO NET ASSESSED VALUE AND NET BONDED DEBT I'I R (ApITA
Pita!
feat
+girded
September 30 Population*
Assessed
fetus
Homestead
t.emption
1978 356,0(0 4.023.847.098 195.664.076
1977 3560X) 3,938,270.393 198.558.652
1976 356.000 3.796,881,240 199,947.752
1975 355.00(1 2,541,205.760 196,797.718
1974 346.00(1 2.701.654,390 198,186.762
1973 340,018) 2.424.469.847 201.750.942
1972 334.859 2.282.551,069 1_02.9(81.985
1971 331.000 2,107,791.481 203.825.857
1970 328.0(8) 1,742,403.180 203.903.065
1969 325.(00 1,711327.596 204.653.(175
1968 320.000 S1.638.177.177 S205.676.1(10
*Estimated on basis of added electric and %%ater connections and nev d‘selling units constructed. except in
those )ears for which a Federal census N%as available.
**This figure for Fiscal 1978 is based upon the inclusion of the S I8.250,00(l Bonds.
***This percentage for Fiscal 1978 is based upon the inclusion of the $18.2.50.000 Bonds.
Net
Accessed
Glue
Ratio of
Bonded Debt
to Set Bonded Debi
Bonded Debt :Assessed % slue Pet Ctiplti_.
3,828,183.022 143,493,056.. : -. ,, ... 403.07**
3,739,711.741 1((3,826.694 _ 78 291.65
3,596,933.488 94.523.990 2 63 265.51
3,344,408.042 83.933.263 2.51 236.43
2,503,467.628 xh,844,27 3 3 46 250.99
2 222_."18.905 51.164,790 2 31 150.48
2.079.650.(184 48.341.208 2.32 144.30
1.903.965.624 33.1 54,654 1.74 100.16
1.538,50).115 35.681.842 2 32 100,51
1.506.674.521 30,790,245 2 04 87.73
51.432.501.077 S 27666.934 1.93 79.05
StAtt%1LNt OE ASSESSED 'V'ALUATION AND LEGAL. DEBT ;11AfGl i
Fiscal year ended September 30, 1978
Assessed Valuations
total Assessed Valuation
$4,01.847,098
Noniestcad Exempt Valuation ... 195,664.07.n
r r . n'. f't �. i : r -t,t' 'r;r fa'r'�l 3,a-;;'{,'•1�'" ''(n�i`G
,�rl, - fi�.f:t°: - �,t�;l,i;C �r��4:,:" -
{ - - ,•„ ti:.;.=..�;�<_>i���l';?' S3. 828, 183,022
(vet Assessed Vitlttattl)n . , t "'t o":i �r �•s",:":;).-i';r�:,'i;�n4�i'�i;ttrc'�Y°�'Y'�i °a;u'-C"t`"s'%"%"t'`t`.`�;>. � ,." ...-.
Legal Debt Margin
beht Limitation for Bonds
(I5`i. of S3.828.183.022)*
Present Debt Applicable to Deht Limitation:
General Bonded Deht** 'S129,675,000
Less:
Sinking Fund
Bonds Paid from Special Assessments
Legal Deht Margin
S3.291.865
1.140.079
4.431.944
125,243.056
S448.984.397
*Section 58 of the City Charter limits voted ponds of the City to 15''; of the assessed valuation of all real
and personal property within the city limits as shown by the last preceding assessment roll of the City and
provides that ponds for street. sever. sidewalk and other public improvements ‘khich are paid from
special assessments. shall not he subject to such limitation of amount nor he considered when computing
the amount of general obligation ponds that may he issued.
**Exclusive of the S18.250.000 Bonds.
■
•
TAX DATA
Fiscal Vent Ended September 30, MS
Assessed Value
Total Net Assessed Value ... • •
Tax Rates 1977-78 (Dollars per Thousand of Assessed Value)
Funds
General Operations**
Debt Service
Total Millage & Ad Valorem Tax Levy
*See page 9 for breakdown of assessed value.
**Ten Mill Limit
Fitt Millage
10.000
3.200
13.200
RECORD OF TAX COLLECTIONS
IONS
3,828,183,022*
Ad N'atorem
Tat Levy
$38.281,830
12,250,186
$50.532,016
Outstanding
Total
Total Delinquent
Fiscal Adjusted CollectionPer Cent Collodion ('ollections Taxes
of('
Year Tax of Current
of of Total As Percent Outstanding As Percent
Ended Lest fear's Less Delinquent Tax of Current Delinquent of Current
Sept. 30 All Funds Taxes Collected Taxes Collections less Taxes Levy'
1977 43,854,070 42.969.232 97.99`*( 650.775 43,620.007 99,47`; 2,282,539 5.20%
1976 38.508.055 37.280.660 96.81 633.860 37.914.520 98.46 2,048,476 5.32
1975 34,923.276 33.833.693 96.88 1.583.714 35.417.407 101.41 1.454,941 4.17
1974 33.637.575 32,736,227 97.32 881.853 33.618,080 99.94 1,949,072 5.79
1973 28,106.081 27.448.865 97.66 908.385 28.357.25(1 100.89 1.929,577 6.87
1972 28.809.445 29.043.734 97.43 277.691 29,321.425 99.36 2.180.746 7.32
1971 27.891.796 27,332.485 97.99 173.669 27.506.154 98.62 1.692.726 6.07
1970 24.313.151 23.771.100 97.77 196,137 23.967.237 98.58 1,307,084 5.38
1969 23,678.971 23.246,912 98.18 183.702 23.430.614 98.95 961,170 4.06
*Rates of delinquencies are based upon the cumulative amount of delinquent taxes for past years.
•
irstirnate of Ad Valorem taxes levied for the City of Miami on the average home ($24.000 assessed
Value for the 1977 tax year. exclusive of bade County and other taxes.
524.000 $4.000
lttotnea�ith $5,1100 (Without Hoine-
teed Exemption 1 et ad Ete pt on )
•
NN Average Total Tax , s : +: ...: $250.80 $316.80
Specific Purposes
Administration :>:4.:.4 13.54 17.11
Public Forks i t r'r t .'i v i i. �1d E .' i : cz 13•5
Sanitation 4 .:1C;'t t. s'=f t t6,4.4 ... 27.34 34.53
1 Parks and Recreation : � , :: � . '' ; _ _ .::. ... 10.03 12.67
Police and Fire Protection i . i':'.: ;, ', : . = 90.54 114.37
Miscellaneous : . . 4 . . . .'l 4 1 . . . , : 4 ` 30.10 38.02
Pensions .6.4........4...46.,. 24.08 30.41
Street Lighting 5.02 6.33
• Publicity and Tourism 3.26 4.12
Debt Retirement 33.35 42.13
Tax Limitation For Municipal Purposes Excludes Deht Service
Article 7. Section 8 of the Florida Constitution provides that municipalities in the State may not levy
ad valorem taxes in excess of ten mills upon the assessed value of real estate and tangible personal property
having a situs within the taxing city. when the tax is being imposed to generate monies for municipal
• purposes. Taxes levied for the payment of bonds are not. however. limited by this ten mill maximum.
During the fiscal year 1976-77 the City's tax rate. exclusive of that attributable to bonded
indebtedness. reached the ten mill maximum. Consequently. while the City is not limited in the taxes which
it may impose to discharge its bonded indebtedness. including the Bonds. it may not generate additional
revenues to meet increased annual operating expenses or to finance new construction h}• increasing the tax
rate. Such additional revenues can only result from an increase in the aggregate assessed value of taxable
real and tangible personal property situated within the City's borders.
•
-
•
•
ttttttt•
ASSESSED VALUE OF ALL TAXABLE PROPERTY
Fiscal fears Ended September 30,
Gross Homestead StetEi total heal Personal Total F:Remptions tot,il ... .
�P 1"ropetty Property
g781,279.667.236744.179,862 4.023.847.098 195,664,07() 3.828.183.022
; s
1977 3.256,815,414 681.454.979 3,938.27(1,393 I98..58.6.2 3.739.711,741
3,796,354.089 199.420.601 3.596.933.488
1976 3.123.F57.U35 672,697.054 + ,c ,
1975 2.851.309.996 689.895.764 3.541.205.760 195.797.718 3.344,408,042
2 533,495.571 2.701.654.390 198.186,763 2,503,467.628
19734 1. 59.720,7 5 2.222,718,905
1973 1,959,720.765 46d.749,(I81 2.424.469.847 201.750.942�
2 5s 2(12,900.985 2,079.6.0.084
t1972. I.8F6.182.2112 416.368,867 2.2 R�,.. I,(169 203,825.857 1.903,965,824
1971 1.727,513,398 380.278.083 2,10,,7)1.481
1970 1,417,823,945 3..4..5�9� ,_235 1.742.403,180 2(13,903.065 1.538.500.115
1969 1.388,024,341 329,350. 791 1.71 7.375.132 204.653.075. 1.512.722,057
Tax Rate Per S1,000 of Assessed Valuations
Fiscal Years Ended September 30,
Vises1 general Lighting Hydrant Debt
Year Operating City Ser"ice Publicity Pensions Libraries Ser('ice Total
1978"** 10.000 -0- -0- •0- •U- -0- 3.2(8) 13.200
1977 5.683 .541 -0- .239 3.129 -0• 2.311 11.903
1976 5.553 .374 -0- .171 2.521 -0- 2.311 10.830
1975 4.959 .242 -0• .304 3.064 -0- 2.311 10.880
1974 5.921 .503 -0- .439 2.892 -0- 3.781 13.436
1973 6.152 .665 -0- .404 2.779 -0- 2.673 12.673
1972 8.658 .480 -0-' .420 2.661 .304*6 2.232 14.755
1971 9.18(1 .523 .114 .342 2.482 .865 1.319 14.825
1970 9.418 .511 .174 .405 2.4(10 972 1.882 15.762
1969 9.380 .456 .223 .405 2.460 .956 1.882 15.762
*Hydrant service function became the responsibility of the Metropolitan Dade County Water Division
of the Department of Water and Sewers effective October 1. 1971.
**Operation of the Library System was transferred to Metropolitan Dade County effective November 1.
1971.
***The 1977-78 Millage Ordinance consolidated the Lighting City. Publicity and Pensions into the General
Fund.
mmm
mmm
MEM
MEM
mm▪ m
mm▪ m
h cil tieiietil Lighting
%'Fit ()Witting City
1978+++ 38.281.830 .0-
1977 21.252.782 2.1)23.184
1976 19.973.772 1.345.253
1915 16,584,919 8119,347
1974 14.57 2.68 5 1.2 59.244
1973 13.6 74.166 1,478,108
1972 18.005,511) 998.2232
1971 17.478.404 995.774
1970 14.489.594 786.171
1969 14.1 )2.507 687.))43
TAX LEVIES
Fiscal fears Ended September 30.
hydrant
Service
-0.
-0_
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
217.052
2.67.699
335.988
Puhlicaty Penalanc
-0- .0-
893,791 11,701.558
615,076 9,067.869
1.016,7(10 10.247266
1.099 022 7.240,029
897,978 6.176.935
873.453 5,533.948
651.156 4.725,642.
623,092 3.692.4(8)
610.203 3,-06.419
*Hydrant service function became the responsibility of the Metropolitan
of the Department of Water and Sewers effective October 1. 1971.
**Operation of the Library. System was transferred to Metropolitan Dade County effective November I.
1971.
***The 1977-78 Millage Ordinance consolidated the Lighting City. Publicity and Pensions into the General
Fund.
t)ebt
Lihta le Settler tntil
-0- I2.250,186
-0- 8.642,474
-0- 8.312,513
-0- 7.728.927
-0- 4,465.611
-0- 5.941.327
632.213*' 4.641.778
1.646.930 2.511.330
1.495,422 2.895.457
1.44)).i811 2.835 5(,I
50.532,016
44,513.789
39.314.483
36,387.159
3 3,636, 591
28.168,516
30.685.236
28.226.290
24.249.838
23.748.2(13
Dade County Water Division
NNE sWa
utterer
mmmmmw
ENS
.114
tit•
•
•
•
•
•
■
■
•
•
lititititr.
MINEIBeia
Matt
NEE
amok
Nig
INIIR
P twedttte for Tat Len and Tat Collection
Real and personal property valuations are determined each year as of January 1 by the Dade County
Assessor of Property at just value. A notice is mailed to each property owner indicating the property valua-
tion. The property owner has the right to file an appeal with the Dade County Clerk of the Board of Tax
Adjustment if such property valuation as determined by the property appraiser is inconsistent with that as
determined by the property owner. All appeals of such valuation determinations are heard by the Dade
County Board of Equalization. The Board certifies the assessment roll upon completion of the hearing of
all appeals so filed.
All taxes are due and payable on Novemher 1 of each year or as soon thereafter as the assessment roll
is certified and delivered to the Dade County Tax Collector. The Dade County Tax Collector mails to each
taxpayer on the assessment roll a notice of' the taxes levied. Taxes may he paid upon receipt of such notice.
with discounts at the rate of four percent if paid in the month of November. three percent if paid in the
month of December. two percent if paid in the month of January and one percent if paid in the month of
February. Taxes paid during the month of March are without discount. All unpaid taxes on real and per-
sonal property become delinquent on April 1 of the calendar year following the year in which the taxes were
levied. All tax collections for the City are delivered to the City of Miami by Dade County. The delinquent
real property taxes hear interest at the rate of eighteen percent per year from April 1 until a tax sale cer-
tificate is sold at auction from which time the interest rate shall he as hid by the huver of the certificate.
TEN LARGEST TAXPAYERS IN THE CITY OF 111AN1I
Name of Ta‘pa%cr Nature of Actir it
Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co.
Florida Power & Light Co.
First Federal Savings & Loan Co.
Miami Herald
International Business Machine Co.
One Biscay ne Assoc.
Massachusetts Mutual Ins. Co.
Xerox Corp.
St. Joe Paper Co.
New York Life Insurance Co.
1977
Assessed
Value
Telephone Utility $217,876,346
Electrical Utility 64,013,080
Bank 36,911.899
Newspaper 33.771,725
Retail Sales 27.211.877
Office Building 25.536.000
Insurance 21.985.325
Retail Sales 21.469.549
Paper Manufacturer 20.076.426
Insurance 18343,102
Total Assessed Valuation of top 10 Taxpayers, which is I2.55`",
of total 1977 Assessed Valuation
COMPUTATION OF DEBT SERVICE TAX RATE
Fiscal Year Ended September 311, 1978
•Total principal & interest requirements
Less: Appropriation from prior year's fund balance*
Amount of appropriation required
Plus costs and expense, of administration
Total amount required
$3.200 tax rate. per thousand dollars
0. 95`; collection produces
$14.933.543
3,392.867
$11. 540.676
97.000
$1 1.637.676
$11.637,676
$486.995,329
*Amount available for meeting principal and interest requirements derived from special assessments,: in-
vestment earnings and miscellaneous sources.
16
e_
REVENUE STRUCTURE
the following is a description or the City's revenue structure. See Appendix A for a detailed statement
Or t'e'ehues for the fiscal year ended Septemher 30. 1977.
General and Special Tax Levy Funds
Ad Valorem Taxes — Described elsewhere in this Official Statement.
ll3usiness License & Permits — The City levies a license tax for husiness privilege licenses which is
collected by the City's Treasury Management Division. License taxes vary according to the type of
business. The exception to this are the contractors' licenses. which are collected only by the Dade County
Tax Collector. There is a set contractor's fee for all contractors within the County. After collection. Dade
County returns to the cities its pro rata share of revenue collected. The pro rata share due each City de-
pends on the number of contractors doing husiness within each City's limits.
Utilities Service Tax — The City imposes a 10'i- tax on each purchase of electricity, metered gas, bottle
gas. water and local telephone and telegraph services. Revenue is pledged for debt service on Utilities Ser-
vice Tax bonds. The excess over the debt service reverts to the general fund.
Federal Revenue Sharing — The revenues derived from the Federal government are appropriated by
the Commission for various social service programs throughout the City as well as the City's improvements
to the fire rescue service. recreation programs and the continuation of the City's pay plan. The City's
receipts of federal revenue sharing funds since fiscal year ended September 30. 1973 are as follows:
Federal Revenue Sharing Receipts
Fiscal fcar
Ended September 30
1978 $ 8.928.d28
1977 8.893.709
1976 8.775.313
1975 8.935.551
1974 8.075.539
1973 10.360.577
Total received to date $53.969,117
State Revenue Sharing — The revenues distributed to the municipalities by the State of Florida under
the State's revenue sharing program are derived from a percentage of its collection of the State cigarette
tax. the State motor fuel tax, and the State road tax. The City has received the following revenue sharing
funds from the State:
Fiscal Year
Ended September 30
1978
1977
1976
$11.005.477
11.070.719
10.880.405
Fines and Forfeitures — The City receives a pro rata share of fine and forfeiture revenue from Dade
County. Since Fiscal 1976 the City has received the following amounts from the County:
Fiscal Year
Ended September 30
1978 $1.291.213
1977 1,125.302
- 1976 1.162.587
tntergn+ernmental, — There are five intergovernmental funds that are self-supporting because their
revenues are derived from charges for services to other City Departments. These funds are:
City Garage Fund: For purchases and maintenance of all heavy equipment used by the City.
Motor Pool Fund: For purchases and maintenance of the automobile fleet.
Maintenance Property Fund: For regular building maintenance. and a limited amount of building
alterations and additions.
Print Shop Fund: For all of the City's printing needs.
Stationery Stock Fund: For purchases and storing of office supply items consumed in quantity in the
Cit, s operations.
F:nterpritie Funds — Monies for these funds are generated by self-supporting activities which render
services on a user charge basis to the general public. These activities include operation of the Orange Bowl
Stadium. the Marine Stadium. the Miami Baseball Stadium, various marinas. Dinner Key Auditorium.
golf ranges. and warehouse property in w hich floats for the annual Orange Bowl parade are built and
stored.
its ot MIAMt, FLORIDA
PRINCIPAL AND tNTtRFST RLQUIRI:MBNTS ON ALI. 01JTSTANDiNG RONbis
AND THE $18,250,000 BONDS
Fiscal
Vest Outstanding Bonds
aiding
0-30 Principal Interest Total
1979 $ 7.981,000 5 6.137,023 5 14.111023
1980 10,809.000 6.563.779 17,3 72,779
1981 10.521.0(0 5.95(1.817 16.471.817
1982 10.34 5.0(Nl 5,361.903 15, 706,903
1983 9.184.000 4.794, 724 13.978.724
1984 8.736,000 4,262.515 12.998, 515
1985 8.722.000 3.76(1.154 12.482,154
1986 8.587,000 3,283.694 11.870,694
1987 7,793,000 2.875.188 10.668,188
1988 7,385,000 2,509,507 9,894.507
1989 6.276.(8)0 2.167.309 8.443,309
1990 6,087.000 1.882.650 7,969,650
1991 5.47 5.000 1.614.962 7.089.962
1992 4,775,000 1.353.016 6.128,016
1993 4.365.000 1.111,583 5.476,583
1994 4.040,0(8) 897,538 4.937,538
1995 4,070,(88) 726.468 4,796.468
1996 3.530.000 575,956 4.105.956
1997 3.270,000 438.280 3.708.28(1
1998 2.075,000 305,765 2.380.765
1999 925.000 234.135 1.159.135
2000 970,000 181.481 1.151.481
2001 1.000 (NNl 126.743 1.126.743
2002 795,000 70.356 865,356
2003 555,(810 30.100 585.1(N)
2004 75,000 17,5(10 92.500
2005 95,000 14.100 109,100
2006 95.000 10.300 105.300
2007 100.000 6.400 106,400
2008 110.000 2.200 112.200
5138.746.000 S52,266.146 $196.012.146
This 18,250,000 Issue
Principal Interest
5 1,062.450
1.062.4 50
5 890.000 1,062,450
895.(8)0 1.nt19,050
905.000 955.350
915.000 901.050
925.000 846.150
940.000 790,650
940.000 734,250
955.000 677,850
965.000 620.550
970,000 562.650
910,000 504,450
925,0()) 449.850
955,000 394,350
970,000 337.050
995.000 278,850
1.015.00) 219.150
1,035.000 158.250
1.060.(N)0 96.150
1.085,000 32.560
S18.250,000
512755550
Toth
Levi Requireineth
Self- for
Grand Supporting General
Total Debt Obligation
Total Requirements Requirements Bonds
S 1.062,450 5 15.180,473 5 1.053.870 S 14.126.603
1.062,450 18.435.229 1,046.649 17,388.580
1.952,450 18.424.267 1.042.602 17,381.665
1.904:050 17,610,953 849.527 16,761.426
1.860,350 15.839,074 672.327 15.166.747
1.816,050 14,814.565 654.955 14.159.610
1.7 71.15(1 14.253,304 651.512 13.601,792
1.730.650 13.601.344 646.432 12.954.912
1.674.250 12.342.438 641.785 11.700.653
1.632.850 11,527.357 637.320 10.890,037
1.585.550 10,028.859 483.837 9.545,022
(.532.650 9.502 3(8) 482,370 9,019.930
1.414.45(1 8.504.412 458,115 8.046.297
.374.850 7.5(12.866 461.105 7,041.761
(.349.350 6.825,933 458.325 6.367,608
1.307.050 6.244.588 460,075 5.784.513
(.273.850 6,070,318 460.925 5,609.393
(.234.15(1 5.340.106 464.150 4,875.956
1.193.250 4.901,53(1 466.275 4.435.255
1.156.150 3.536.915 472.300 3.064.615
1.117.550 2.276,685 471.950 1.804.735
1.151,481 475.500 675.981
1.126.743 482.675 644.068
865.356 253,200 612.156
585.100 585.100
92.51(x) 92.500
109,1(N) 109.100
105,300 105.300
106,400 106.400
112.20(1 112,200
S3(.005,550 S227.017.696 514.247.781 5212.769,915
Note: Interest on the $18.250.000 Bonds now being offered for sale has been calculated at the rate of 6%
for purposes of illustration.
=11-
RNRRAL ORLIGAt1ON HONKS OtrrstAtsbiNG ON sttel :MB R :0. I9/N
General Obligation Iccue
Fite Fighting Facilities
Coconut Grove Incinerator
Refunding Sewage Disposal Bonds
Dinner Key Marina
Land Acquisition Bonds
Bayfront Recreational Facilities
Recreational Facilities
Storm Sewer Improvements
Recreational Facilities
Storm Sever Improvement
Sanitary Sewer
Convention Center
Sanitary Sever
Fire Fighting Facilities
Police Headquarters
Pollution Control Facilities
Sanitary Severs
Highway improvement
Storm Sever improvement
Highway Improvement
Sanitary Sever
Fire Fighting
Sanitary Sever
Police Headquarters
Storm Sewer Improvements
Street & Highway Improvements
Public Pk & Recreation Facilities
Storm Sever improvements
Police Headquarters
Storm Sewer Improvements
Sanitary Sewer Improvements
Police Headquarters
Street & Highway Improvements
Sanitary Sewer Bonds
Police Headquarters
Sanitary Sewer
Street & Highway Improvements
Fire Fighting
Police Headquarters
Storm Sewer Improvement
Fire Fighting
Public Pk & Recreation Facilities
Housing
Final
MIaturitAmount
Dated fear Issued
3-1-58 1988 $ 850.000
3-1-58 1988 1.100.000
1-1-62 1990 14, 565.000
6-1-65 1985 2.370.000
6-1-65 1985 700,000
8-1-67 1987 2.250,000
8-1-67 1987 1.000.000
8-1-67 1987 1.000,000
7-1.68 1988 1.500.000
7-1-68 1988 1.500.000
7-1-68 1988 5.000.000
5-1-69 1989 4,500.000
5-1-69 1980 3,000.000
10-1-70 1990 1.000.000
10-1-70 1990 1.500,000
10-1-70 1990 3,000.000
10-1-70 1990 7,000.000
2-1-71 1982 3.000,000
2-1-71 1991 1.500.000
9-1-71 1991 2.000,000
9-1-71 1991 5.000.000
6-1-72 1992 1.100,000
6-1-72 1992 5,000.000
6-1-72 1992 1.500.000
6-1-72 1992 3.000.000
6-1-72 1992 2.000,000
10-1-72 1997 28.350.000
9-1-73 1993 2.000.000
9-1-73 1993 4.000.000
3-1-75 1995 3.000.000
3-1-75 1986 5.000.000
3-1-75 1995 8.000.000
3-1-75 1986 3.000,000
10-1-7 5 1995 5,000,000
10-1-75 1995 2.000.000
5-1-77 1997 13.000.000
5-1-77 1988 5.000.000
5-1-77 1997 5.000.0(10
5-1-77 1997 3.000.000
5-1-77 1997 2.000.000
12-1-77 1998 1.000.000
12-1-77 2003 11.540.000
12-1-77 2008 1.500.0(10
tig
etitititl
aEL
A titnufit
Out+ttatidieg
S 405.000
530,000
7,080,000
870.000
245.000
1.050.000
450.000
450.000
795,000
800,000
1,445,000
2.585.000
600,000
615.000
940.000
1.880,000
3.010.000
1.200,000
1.02(1.000
1.340,000
2.630,000
815,000
2.875.000
1.100,000
2.200,000
1.225.000
22,445.000
1.580.000
3.160.000
2.680.000
4.000.000
7,140,000
2.400.000
4.290.00(1
1.785.000
13.000,000
5.00(1.000
5,000.000
3.000.000
2.000.000
1.000.000
11.540.000
1.500.000
$129,675,000
111■IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIUIIIIIIII IIIIII IIIIIIII II IIIIIIIIII■II
RLVLSit'Ir ANI) SPECIAL OBLIGATION BONDS OUTSTANDING ON SEPTE MBER 30. 1978
Special Obligation and
Re.enue Bond Issue
Incinerator Revenue
Utilities Service Tax Series A
Orange Bow 1 Special Obligation
Orange Bow Warehouse Revenue
Orange Bow I Warehouse Revenue
Off Street Parking Revenue
Series A&B
Series C
Final
Date of Mlaturits Amount Amount
Issue 1 ear Issued Outstanding
7-1-51 1981 3.330,000 512,000
2-1- 6 3 1988 3.12 5.000 1,500.000
3-1-67 1982 1,900,000 635,000
12-1-69 1982 105,000 53.000
12-20-74 1989 225.000 196,000
4-1-66 1994
4-1-73 2002
4.800,000 3,060,000
3,150,000 3.1 15,000
Total $9.071,000
�isruf
•
edt
Ending
Settle either A0
GtNI:ItAL OBLIGATION BONDED DEBT
PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST MATT RITIES
its of September 30. 197S. not including this issue.
Ba%front Coconut
Annual Requirements Recreational Grote Contention
Total Principal Interest Facilities Incinerator ('enter
1979 5 13.064,1535 7,350,(N0 5 5.714.153 5 120.00() 5 45.(N00 5 235.000
1980 16 126.110 10.160,000 6,166.1 30 120,000 45,000 235.(00
9.850.000 5.579 ' 15 120,1NI(1 50,(NNI 235.01N)
1982 15,429.215 5 50,(N)0 2_35.(AN)
1982 14.857.376 9,84(l,(NNl . (II7.3"6 115.1100
1983 13,306.391 8,835.000 4,471.39' 115.000 50,0(N) 235.000
1984 12,343,560 8.390.1810 3,953.56(1 11V00 55.(8)11 235.(00
1985 11.830.642 8.365.001 3,465.642 115,000 55,100 235,000
1986 11.224,262 8.220.000 3.004.262 115.000 60.00(1 235010
1987 10.026,4(13 7,415.000 2.611.403 115.000 60.(00 235.0(8)
1988 9,257.181 6.995.0)(1 2,262,187 O0M0) 235.000
1989 7,959.472 6.025.000 1.934,472 235.(00
1990 7,487.280 5,825.0)0 1.662.280
1991 6.631,841 5.225.(N)0 1.406.847
1992 5.666.911 4,510.(N10 1. 156.91 1
1993 5.018,258 4,(190010 928.258
1994 4,477.463 3,750,000 727,463
1995 4,335.543 3,765.00) 570.543
1996 3,641,806 3.205.0011 436,806
1997 3.242.015 2.925,0(8) 3170)5
1998 1,908.465 1, 705,(810 203,465
1999 687.185 535.(00 152.185
2000 675.981 555,001 120.981
tall 644,068 555,0(0 89,068
2(02 612,156 555,110)) 57.156
2(03 585.1(0 555,000 30.100
2004 92,500 75,(1)() 17,500
2005 1(19.118) 95.000 14.10)
2006 105.30) 95.000 10.300
2007 106.40) 100,000 t 6.400
2(08 112.200 110,(N10. 2.200
5181,764.3735129,675.00) 512.089,373
51.050.000
t)inneF
key
Marino Firefighting
$125.000 5 355.000
125.(NN) 460,000
125.000 465.000
125.000 465.000
125.000 460.000
125.(N8) 465.000
120,000 465,000
470.000
470,000
470.000
430,000
430.000
425.000
375,000
315.000
315.000
315.000
315.000
315.000
55,000
5530,000 52.585.00) 5870,000
S7.835.000
Land
Acquisition
5 35,000
35.000
35.000
35.000
35.0(N)
35.0(10
35,(NNl
11
nth
$245,(88) 1.11
Mff
imff
INK
GtNI:RAL OBLIGATION BONDED I)iF:BT
PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST MATURITIES
as of Septemher 30. 1978, not including this issue.
Fiscal
1 ear Rerunding
Ending Recreation Sersage Sanitar} Storm
September 30 Facilities t)ispnsal Sewers Sewers
19"9 5 125.000 S 590,000 S 2.755.00t) 5 735,O(1(1
1984) 130010 590.000 3,405.010 "3(1,(N(1)
19k 1 130.000 590.000 3.105.000 7.30.000
1952 130.000 590,00(1 3.1(10,000 730.0n)
1913 13(I,00(1 590,000 2.410,000 735.000
m 1984 130010 590.000 2.065.0H0 735.000
mm 19)5 13(1010 590,00 2.045.(0(1 710.000
m•
1956 130.000 590,000 2.035.000 740,000
1987 130.000 590.010 1,535,(1)(1 "40,000
1985 80,(H)0 590.000 1.3401)48) 685,(810
1989 590,0(1(1 1.125,010 605,000
1990 590.000 1.115.(}00 605,000
1991 1.125,000 605,000
1992 870.000 525.(1(81
1993 790.000 365,0N)
1994 795.00(1 26)1,(100
1995 795.000 260,(00
1996 805 0 )0 105.(X)0
1997 625.000 110,000
tt)t)t)■
tt)t)t)■
199s
1999
2111N)
2001
2(8)2
2003
_20114
'I )05
2(N(8
S I , 245.00O
ItighNa}
Imprme-
mcnts
5 1.165.0t(()
1,365.00))
.365.(N t)
I.365.1N(0
1,055,00t)
955.(N10
955,(8(1)
950.000
650,(H11)
650.000
150.000
150,000
145,000
45.(H1((
Police
Head- Pollution
quarters ( ontrol
5 865.000
1.053)00 16(I.000
1,055.001i 1600)0
1.055.010 16(1,00)
1.050,(N(0 160,08I
1.045.000 155,(0(1
1.040.000 155.000
1.045.0)0 155.000
1.040.000 155010
I.035.0(0 155,0H0
1,040,(810 155.000
1,((65.000 155,000
1.065.(00 155.000
99(1.1)18)
915.000
675,(NIO
675.000
260.000
155.000
Public Park
& Recreation
E acilities Housing
.685.(10 20,000
.665.000 20.0(K)
.665.000 20,000
,665,010 20,000
.665,010 20.0)0
.665.000 300K)
.665.000 30.000
.665,(0() 30,000
h65.000 3(1,000
.665.0)0 30.(XX)
.665,000 40,(X)0
.665,())0 40.(K)0
.665.000 40.0(8)
.665.0I(1 40,(H)0
.665,000 40,0(X)
.665.0)0 55.0X10
.665.I00) 55,000
.665,0)0 55.000
.595000 55.(X)0
480,())() 55.0(X)
480.000 75.((X)
4800)0 750)0
481000 75.(X)0
00.000 75,(100
75.(XK)
95,(XX)
95.(XK)
10(1.000
110.000
57,080.000 S31.850.00(1 S10,730,(00)1 511.165.000 517.1250)0 51,880,0H) S33.985.010 51.500,000
Fiscal fear
Ending
Sept. 30
1979
1980
1981
1982
Fiscal
Near
Ending
Sept. 311
1979
1980
1981
1982
1883
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
199(1
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000H
2001
2(9)2
REVENUI; RONDS AND SPLCIAL ORLIGAtION I3 NtiS
PRINCIPAL ANI INtI;RESt MATURITIES
as of September 30, 1978
Orange Rout Special Obligation
Principal Interest Total
S 150.000
155.000
165.(AH)
165,000
5635.18)0
526,035
19.885
13.530
6.765
566,215
5176.035
174,885
178.530
171.765
5"01.215
Incinerator
Principal Interest Total
Parking Facilities Parking Facilities
Refunding & Revenue Ser. A & B Revenue Series C
Principal Interest Total Principal Interest Total Principal
5 172.725 5 182.725
172.125 182.125
171,525 181.52.5
170.925 180.925
170.325 180,325
169.725 179.725
169.125 184.125
168.225 183.225
167,325 187.325
166.125 186,125
164.925 184.925
163.725 183,725
162.525 182.525
161.325 186,325
159.825 184,825
158.325 198.32.5
155.92.5 460.925
139.150 464,150
121.275 466.275
102.301) 472.318)
81,950 471.950
60.500 475.500
3' 675 482.675
253.2)8)
53.380.7'5
$166.0(10
173.000
173.000
519,200 5185.200
12.975 185.975
6,488 179.488
5512.00(1 538.663 5550,663
( tilities Service Tax Bonds
5 135.000 5 142.125 5 277.125 5 10.000
14(1,010 136,1)50 276.050 10.0110
150.000 129,750 2 79. - 50 10,000
155,000 1.23.000 2'8.(00 11(185)
I60,001) 115.870 275,870 10,00))
170,0)81 11)8,510 _178,5IO 10.000
175,018) 100.691) 275.690 I5,)81(1
185,0on 92.640 277.640 15.00))
I90.010) 84.130 2,4,130 20.000
200,000 75.200 275.200 20,0081
210.001) 65,800 275.800 20.000
22(1,0011 55.930 275.930 200)))
230.001) 45.590 275.590 20.000
2401)))0 34.780 274,780 25.000
250.000 23,510 273,500 25.000
250.000 11.750 261.750 40.0))0
53.060.0(0 51.345.315 54,405.315
305.(xx)
325,000
345.488)
370.188)
390,000
415.000
445.000
240.000
53.115.048)
56,495,775
5 150,000
15000
150.000
150.000
150,(xH)
150,000
15o,0)0
150,000
150,tx)0
150,(Nl0
51.500.)00
Interest Total
5 47.'50
4_2.412
37,537
32.625
27,675
22.725
17.775
12.750
7,650
2.550
5 197.250
192.412
18-.537
182.625
177.675
17_'.7_25
167.775
162.750
157.650
152,550
5250.949 51.750.949
Orange Bow) Warehouse
Revenue Bonds
Principal Interest Total
5 200)0
2000
2 3.(K)0
25,(88)
29.181)
16.18)))
17,000
17,000
18.18)0
20.000
21000
22.000
S15.535
14.202
12.772
11.212
9.457
7,995
6.922
5.817
4,680
3,445
2.112
715
S 35.535
35,202
35.772
36,212
38,457
23,995
23,922
22,817
22,680
23,445
23.112
22,715
5249.000 S94.864 S343,864
Since the above facilities have been financed with revenue bonds. there is good authority for the City's practice of not
providing depreciation on property. plant and equipment ‘shich is financed with revenue bonds.
MIME
e
i▪ m▪ mmmW
MMEM
MEME
i
StA1 tMENT OP DIRECT AM) OVERLAPPING DEBT
Name
Net Debt
Percentage
Applicable to
(.It.'
City of Miami. September 30. 1978 S129.675,000 100.00%
bade County. June 30. 1978 351,21 1,227 22.39
S408.886,227
titi•'3 Share
of debt
$129,675,000
78,636.193
S208.311,193
*Percentage applicable td City rot• bade County based on January 1. 1978 assessed valuation.
BONDS AUTHORIZED BUT NOT ISSUED
Of the $81,475,000 bonds approved by the voters on June 30. 1970 all of such bonds have been issued
e. eept 57,375,000 of Streets and Highway Improvement Bonds and S4,000,000 of Pollution Control Bonds.
OI'the authorized hut unissued Street and Highway Improvement Bonds. S5.000.000 are offered hereunder.
The S35.000.000 bonds approved by the voters on September 28. 1976 herein listed and the amounts of
such bonds unissued are as follows:
Sanit r Fire
Sewers Fighting
Authorized S25.000.000 5I0.000.000
Previously issued 10,000.000 6.000.000
Proposed Issue 6,000.000 2.250.000
Balance Unissued 9,000.000 3,750,000
''At an election held on March 7. 1978. the electors approved the issuance of S15.000.000 of Storm
Sewer Improvement Bonds. S5.000.000 of said Storm Sewer Improvement Bonds are offered hereunder.
The principal amounts issued and unissued of the 525.000.000 General Obligation Housing Bonds
approved by the electors on March 9. 1976 and validated on February 17. 1977. are as follows:
Previously Issued 5 1,500.000
Unissued 23.500.000
Total Authorized S25,000.000
ECONOMIC FACTORS
The Cite
The City of Miami in the County of Dade. the largest city in the State of Florida. was first settled in
1836 and was incorporated in 1896. It is located on the lower east coast of Florida along the western shore
of Biscayne Bay and is the southernmost large city in the United States. It comprises 34.3 square miles of
land and 19.5 square miles of water. The 1970 census population of the City was 334.859. representing
26.4% of the total population of Dade County.
The Climate
The temperature of Miami is essentially subtropical marine. featured by long. warm summers, with
abundant rainfall, followed by mild. dry winters. The average temperature in the summer is 81.4° and 69.1°
in the winter, with a yearly average of 75.3°.
25
•
■
■•
■
ti
tttt�
■
Go.ethtnent of Dade County
The follow ing information and data concerning Dade County are significant in indicating faCtofs
which substantially affect the City of Miami by reason of its status as the largest municipality in Dade
County and its completely urban character.
The Florida Legislature in 1955 approved and submitted to a general election. a Constitutional
Amendment designed to give a new form of government to the County of Dade. The Amendment was
approved in a state-wide general election in November of 1956. A Dade County Charter Board was
constituted and in April, 1957 it completed a draft of a charter for the County. The proposed Charter.
which established a form of Metropolitan County government. was adopted in a county election in May of
1957. and became effective on July 21). 1957. The electors of Dade County are granted power to revise and
amend the charter from time to time by county -wide vote. Since its adoption the Charter has heen amended
in 1961. 1962, 1963, 1966, 1967. 1969 and 1972. It now enjoys Home Rule subject only to the limitations of
the Florida Constitution and General State Lays. It is. in effect. a municipality with governmental powers
effective upon the twenty-seven cities in the County and the unincorporated area. It has not displaced or
replaced the cities hut supplements them. The County can take over particular activities of a city's
operations 111 if the services fall below minimum standards set by the County Commission. or (2) with the
consent of the goYerning body of the city.
Since its inception. the Metropolitan County Government has assumed responsibility on a County-
wide service hasis for a numher of functions, including County -wide police services. complementing the
municipal police services within the municipalities. with direct access to the National Crime Information
Center in Washington. D.C. and the Florida Crime Information Center: uniform system of fire protection,
complementing the municipal fire protection services within ten municipalities and providing full service
fire protection for seventeen municipalities which have consolidated their fire departments with the
County's lire department: consolidated two-tier court system conforming to the revision of Article N. of the
Florida Statutes which became effective on January 1. 1973: creation of the Miami -Dade County Water
and Sewer Authority with the responsihility for developing and operating a County -wide water and sewer
system under a single hods composed of seven members appointed by the Board of County
Commissioners: coordination of the various surface transportation programs and extending into the
planning and development of a unified rapid transit system: installation of a central traffic control
computer system which will computerise traffic management: merging all public transportation systems
into a County system: regulation of all taxicabs within the County: effecting a combined public library
system of the County and eighteen municipalities. which together operate the main library. seventeen
branches and six mobile units serving forty-four County -wide locations: centralization of the property
appraiser and tax collector functions: furnishing data to municipalities, Board of Public Instruction and
several state agencies for the purpose of budget preparation and for their respective governmental
operations: collection by the Dade County Tax Collector of all taxes and distribution directly to the
respective governmental entities according to their respective tax levies: and prescribing minimum
acceptable standards adopted by the Board of County Commissioners and enforceable throughout the
County in such areas as environmental resources management. building and zoning. consumer protection.
health. housing and welfare.
Demographics of Dade County
The U.S. Census figures for 1970 show that the working group from 20 years through age 64 makes up
54. I" of Dade County's population, compared to 52.37( for the entire United States. The percent of pop-
ulation 65 and over exceeds the national average by 3.8%.
•
•
■
■
C
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
•
litii•
AGE GROUP AS A PERCENT OF TOTAL POPULATION
100
Ate troop United States Percentage bade County 1�ltci:ittbae
0-5 17,154337 8.4 86.172 6.8
5-9 19.956,247 9.8 107.062 8.4
10-14 20.789.468 10.2 113.205 8.9
15-19 19.070,348 9.4 103,050 8.1
20-24 16, 371.021 8.1 89.329 7.0
25-29 13.476.993 6.6 75.785 6.0
30-34 11,430,436 5,6 71.059 5.6
35.39 11,106.851 6.5 13.200 5.8
40-44 11.980.954 5,9 83.372 6.6
45-49 12,115.939 6.0 82,701 6.5
50-54 11.104.018 5.5 75,701 6,0
55-59 9.973.028 4.9 69.635 5.5
60-64 8.616.784 4.2 64.804 5.1
65-69 6.991.625 3.4 62.213 4.9
70-74 5,443.831 2.7 50.155 4.0
75 and over 7.630,046 3.8 60,349 4.8
Total 203.211,926 100.0 1,267.792 100.0
Transportation
The following table sets forth certain data concerning the movement of cargo and individuals into and
from the City.
MIAMI
PORT OF MIAMI 1NTERNATIONAI. AIRPORT
Number Air Cargo Air Mail
Cargo of (Ibs.) (Ibs.I
Year Re%enue Tannage Passengers Passengers i (H►(I's i i (HHI's )
1950 S 355.199 194.633 61.377 1.387.142 67.160 6.391
1957 597.482 318.001 120.732 3.980.534 202.814 14.428
1960 601.936 352.154 136,275 4,180.556 188,657 20.597
1970 2.380.579 794.144 569.366 10.660.815 513.823 64.811
1971 2.755.088 841.185 685.990 11.176.739 579,071 66.194
1972 2.842,933 779.591 678,397 12.076.000 636.893 71.449
1973 3,700.182 1.205.454 851.164 12.776.011 709.776 69.766
1974 3.850.232 1.301.052 728.201 12.443.885 778.006 68.120
1975 4,517.946 1.257.608 804.926 12.068,118 745.453 68.233
1976 4.956.670 1.525.095 1,029,687' 12.884.153 807.791 69.218
1977 5.374.978 1.711.535 947.093 13.736.500 1,087.988 69.856
Source: Economic Society of South Florida.
II■ I•IIIIIIIII■■■1■111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111iIIIIIII
business and industry
Dade County in recent years has begun to shift from a tourist -oriented economy to an economy with a
widely diversified economic hase. industry and manufacturing are becoming strong forces on the economic
scene in Dade County. While the County's share of Florida's expanding tourist trade remains one of the
major economic forces. its attractiveness as a residential area to skilled labor and its selection as the site for
major and smaller light industrial activities have combined with tourism to produce a more diversified
economic hase.
Dade County. in addition to being Florida's tourist capital. is also the industrial capital of the State.
having more than twice as many employed in manufacturing as any other county in the State.
The following chart gives the September 30, 1977 estimated employment in non-agricultural establish-
ments in Dade County. Florida. These figures are compared with the corresponding figures for September
30. 1976. 1975. and 1974.
F.
w -
Q
�i-
45.700 42.700 41,800 44.500
104,000 102.300 107.100 109,900
3.500 3.200 3.900 4,200
21,200 20.900 25.100 24,100
17.000 16.700 15.500 16.700
12,500 11.500 11.800 12,700
7,200 7,100 8.100 7.800
4,500 5,800 5.400 5.800
26.700 25,600 25.500 26.600
11,400 11,500 11.800 12.000
43,300 43,500 45.600 47,000
tStIMATEf ElkiPLOVMENT IN NONAGRICULTURAL ESTABLISHMENTS
DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
(Prepared hy the State of Florida Department of Commerce in Cooperation
with the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics)
Major Industries t 11
TOTAL
Estimated Tmat Emplm ment as of:
September Septemher Septemher
1977 1976 1975
Septetnbet
1914
586.500 569.800 584.000 608.300
MANUFACTURING 87.800 82.600 84.800 91,900
Durable Goods , .. 36.500 32.500 34.600 39,300
Furniture & Fixtures 3.500 3.600 4,000 4,800
Stone. Clay & Glass Products 2.700 2.600 2.800 3.800
Fabricated Metal Products , .: , .: , , • 7.600 6.100 7.800 8.900
Machinery (2) 10.700 7.900 8.000 8.800
Transportation Equipment 3.800 2.800 3.400 4.100
Other Durable Goods -0- 9.500 8.600 8,900
Nondurable Goods 51.300 50.100 50.200 52.600
Food & Kindred Products 6.700 7.100 7.100 7,100
Apparel & Other Textile Products .... , , 18,500 18.000 21.400 22,000
Printing & Publishing Y'�:, s`:;��. 7,200 6.500 6.600 7.100
Other Nondurable Goods -0- 18.500 15.100 16,400
CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION 23,900 21.000 37,400 42.900
TRANSPORTATION.
COMMUNICATION & PUBLIC
UTILITIES 59.100 57,300 55.100 57,800
Local & Interurban Passenger
Transit 1,600 1.500 2.300 2,200
Trucking & Warehousing 6.300 6.100 6.300 6.800
Air Transportation 25.900 25.600 23.000 24.000
Other Transportation -0- 7.300 6.400 6.900
Communications & Public Utilities .. 16,100 16.800 17.100 17.900
TRADE 149.700 145.000 148.900 154.400
14'holesale Trade
Retail Trade
Bldg. Materials & Farm
Equipment
General Merchandise
Food Stores
Automotive Dealers & Service
Stations
Apparel & Accessory Stores ..............
Furniture. Home Furnishings
Stores
Eating & Drinking Places
Miscellaneous Retail Stores .........
FINANCE. INSURANCE &
REAL ESTATE ...................
1
(Continued)
ii iiiii1 11.1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
SERVICES & MISCELLANEOUS
Hotels & Other Lodging Places
Personal Sere ices
Miscellaneous Business Services
Motion Pictures
Amusement & Recreation
Medical & Other Health Services ........ , • ..
Other Seri ices & Miscellaneous
Industries
Government
138.900 136.000 13 7, 800 142,000
15.800 15.800 20,800 21.300
7.900 7,400 9.100 9.100
21.200 22.200 21.900 24.400
1.100 1.400 1.400 1.400
6.000 7,800 7.700 7.800
36.700 36.200 4.000 33.800
-0- 45.200 42.900 44,200
96.800 84.400 74.400 72,300
(I) All industries are classified according to the Standard Industrial Classification 1lanual, 1967. All data
are adjusted to first (luarter 1975 benchmark levels.
(2) Includes both electrical and non -electrical machinery.
The twenty largest private employers in the County are:
Eastern Air Lines 12.000
Southern Bell Telephone Co. 9,573
Florida Pov. er & Light Co.... , . 5.000
National Air Lines Co. 4.436
Burdines 4,200
Sears 3.700
Winn Dixie Stores 2.777
Southeast Banking Corp. 2,744
Food Fair Stores 2.671
Jefferson Stores 2.506
Delta Air Lines 2.064
Miami Herald 2,045
Burger King 1,938
Pan American Air Lines 1.750
Grand Union Stores ........... ci. 1,700
Bodin Apparel. Inc. 1,520
Cordis Corp. 1.500
Puhlis Stores 1.378
Suave Shoe 1.330
Coulter Electronics 1.300
Adding to the County's highly diversified economic base is its growth as the location for many
national and international firms doing business in Latin America. Among firms having substantial proper-
ties in Dade Count} are such corporations as Dow Chemical. Gulf Oil Corp.. Owens-Corning Fiberglass
Corp.. American Hospital Supply. Coca-Cola Interamerican Corp.. and Ocean Chemicals. Inc.. a sub-
sidiary of Rohm Haas Co.
Other national firms w hich established international operations or office locations in Dade County are
Alcoa International. Ltd.. Atlas Chemical Industries. Bemis International. Dymo. Inc.. International Har-
vester. Johns -Manx ille International. Minnesota (3-M) Export. Inc.. Pfizer Latin American, Royal Export
and United Fruit.
Agriculture
A significant factor of the economy of Dade County is its agricultural production. Dade County leads
Florida in the production of limes, avocados, mangos, tomatoes and pole beans for fresh market. The mild
30
fIMIEf
ttttttttttttt-j
MMSMM
sM
MEW
Ile
mulmom
ttt
climate allows crops to be grown and harvested during winter months. and the tropical fruits grown here
cannot he grown elsewhere in the country. An average of more than 100 million dollars of agriculture
products are produced annually. and the total retail value of these products is estimated at approximately
300 million dollars. Millions of dollars are generated each year in the marketing and distribution of these
products. It has been estimated that farmers purchase goods and services within the County in excess of 50
million dollars.
Source: Miami -Metro Publicity & Tourism
Financial Institutions
There are 95 hanks located in Dade County which together have a total of over S6,000.000,000 ih
deposits.
Demand Deposits and Bank Debits
Number
of Intel Total
Veal. Banks Demand Deposits Bank Debits
1960 36 S 1.150.924.000 S 15.682.000
1965 63 1.744.453.000 21,869.000
1970 68 3.257.368.000 46.086.000
1971 71 3.614.491.000 55.129.000
1972 77 4,432.841,000 62.168.000
1973 83 5.193.728.000 80.030.401
1974 91 5.493.965.000 91.205.336
1975 93 5.296.569.000 90,037.666
1976 95 5.526.615.000 95,569.000
1977 98 6.489.006.0)0 *
*Discontinued by Federal Reserve Board System in 1977.
Source: Economic Society of South Florida.
Dade County is also increasing as an international financial center. This has resulted from the location
in the County of such major northern and western hanks as Bank of America. Bank of Boston. Bankers
Trust Co.. Chase Manhattan Bank. Citizens and Southern Bank. First National City Bank. Irving Trust
Co.. Northern Trust Co. and The Wells Fargo Bank. The Federal Reserve System has located a branch
office in Dade County to assist the Atlanta office with financial transactions in the South Florida area.
Such branch received full branch status on July 1. 1975.
Building Permits
Building permits issued in Dade County and the City since 1971. are as follows:
City of Miami Dade County
Year (MO's ) t Mfrs ►
1971 156.239 760.228
1972 241.967 1.2962 35
1973 190.026 1.119,141
1974 113.619 786.760
1975 60.750 404.585
1976 80.744 506.798
1977 97,151 733.966
Source: Economic Society of South:7Fiori
•
a�
•
tduentlon
bade County provides outstanding educational facilities on ptitnaty, sccdtidary acid college levels.
Colleges and universities located within the area are:
University of Miami
Miami -Dade Community College
Florida International University
Barry College
Biscayne College
Ublic School enrollment. including both primary and secondary levels, since `I 7
School Enrollment
Public School System
1971 245.275
1972 242.190
1973 244.565
1974 246.548
1975 243.444
1976 239.806
1977 235.123
Medical facilities
There are 42 hospitals located in Dade County.
Recreation
The Nliami area is famous for its sailing. deep sea fishing and hunting in the Everglades National Park.
Athletics for the spectator sportsmen include professional football. baseball and basketball
competition. university competition in sports. open golf tournaments. and professional exhibition games.
There are twenty public and eight private golf courses in Dade County.
There are 297 public parks and playgrounds which have a total area of 408.710 acres.
Tourism
Tourism is. and will he for the near future. an important economic force in Miami. The combination
of favorable climate. together with excellent recreational opportunities — theatres. ballet. symphony
orchestras. famous entertainers. parks. public peaches. yacht basins. fishing. golf. outstanding restaurants.
racing. all spectator sports. historic sites. and other land and water recreational facilities too numerous to
detail — have made Miami a tourist mecca. Miami is also one of the foremost convention centers in the
United States.
MEM
MEMEL
=MEM
IMM
■■=r
IMB
EMBN
IMK
■
■
Miscellaneous
Data which reflects the growth of the economy of Dade County since 1941 is presented in the follOwitig
table.
GROWTH FACTORS RELATIVE TO DAI)E COUNT1, FLORIDA
1V.. TE:R _EI.E(1 RICITI 1 El E1'1IO\E:S
rumher Consumption K%%H !Cumber Motor M'nst
of Millions of Sold Commercial Residential in 1 ehicle Office
Year Water 'Meters Gals. ((100's) Customers ('ustomers Sersice Registration Receipts
950 59.613 18.0'41 7'80.295 19._37
955 77,63' 22(.07(1 1.714,338 23.919
957 83.291 29,-190 2.319.3(11 26.046
960 86.918 32.44() 3,344.041 28.993
965 92.657 51.310 5.1-' 1.535 31.472
966 94.516 45.957 5.676.151 31.937
967 96.185 48,601 6.294.814 32.351
968 97,170 50.127 7.153.631 35.296
969 98,180 50,044 8.165.989 37.746
970 100.035 55.879 9.134.181 39.452
971 104.221 58.073 1(1.1 1'.519 41.955
972 105.166 59.55X 11.237.948 43.882
973 117,807 64.785 122,164.376 50.010
974 120,936 69.020 12.162,021 52.594
975 122,87(1 69.437 12.416.964 53.334
976 126,500 70.770 12.388,600 55.20(1
977 130.50(1 71.774 13.032,90)) 57.60(1
144.902
222(l(I(13
2254.013
28k.9k7
341.328
354.300
361.262
383,455
401.922
419.957
443.419
466.814
488.642
501.040
494.2(1')
511.90(1
537.2(10
2011.6S-
1'5,k57
419.922S
516."15
649.4 4'
019,931
'40.5411
-92.654
k59.6k4
91k,13)
995.606
1.1)92.96(1
1.151.5'3
I.216."61
1,235,015
1.251.390
1.328.41 3
"2 s39 5 5.6"-.0'73
3-- 093 9.868,686
44s.'3(, 12.10025
492.999 1'. 396.609
603.349 25.429.331
633,40' 27,091.324
671 2111 28.641.261
-30.422 34.55 .5;65
796.455 37.322.k79
k2 i,442 39.4(14.52(1
863.564 45.251.523
925,8k1 51.304.014
995,000 51.679.418
1.(1119 1.55 59.889.081
1.040.04" 71.088.59 i
1.21111,'12 "8,807,661
1,268.632 71.378.546
Sties Til<
C'oileetions
( 000's )
5 12,763
22,622
32.639
41.666
58.942
63.703
69.8(17
99.703
129.241
140,227
155,001
178.565
193.845
233.487
218.347
224,8(1l
259.119
Source: Economic Society of South Florida
IttSk MANAGEMENT
It became apparent through past experience that measures had to he taken to halt the spiraling costs of
insurance premiums. A charter amendment was successfully voted on by the electorate in 1971 (7.964 for.
4,687 against). allowing the City to set up a Self -Insurance and Insurance Trust Fund. The City
Commission created. by ordinance. a Board of Trustees composed of the City. Manager. the Director of
Finance and the Insurance Manager to handle the security investments of the fund. Also created is a Self -
Insurance Committee, appointed by the City Manager. to administer the plan.
The Cite is self -insured for all vehicular accidents. Police Torts and Premises Liability up to S50.000
per accident and S100.000 per occurrence in accordance with Florida Statutes. Section 768.28. waiving
sovereign immunity in tort claims.
The City of Miami is self -insured for all other exposures with the exception that coverage by outside
insurance purchase is made where it is found available at acceptable rates. Coverages currently purchased
include accidental death and property damage. excluding burglary. Group Life and Accidental Disability
and Death benefits have heen purchased. with group benefits being self -funded.
CONTINGENT LIABILITIES
Pending Legal Proceedings
With respect to pending tort actions for which the City may have liability, reserves have been set aside
as follows:
Butcher x. City of Miami 5I:100.000.00.
A settlement has heen reached limiting the City's liability to S1.100.000
respecting the wage adjustment claim for certain city. employees.
Rosen v. City. of Miami :400.01)0.00
Auto accident with Police vehicle. in which City is awaiting Plaintiff Attorney
to act by entering a stipulation or obtaining a summary judgment. Without
this initial activity. the City cannot proceed with the appeal.
There are presently 115 claim files. involving 153 potential claimants. pending
involving various types of automobile accidents. including all Departments of
the City. These claims have heen recorded in the Self -Insurance I-und
The City is involved in 43 police civil liability- matters which have heen
recorded in the Self -Insurance Fund
The City is involved in 24 general liability matters of various types which have
been recorded in the Self -Insurance Fund 69.175.00
TOTAL S2,173.337.52
597.158.07
107.004.45
In the opinion of the City Attorney. there is no pending litigation that may have any materially adverse
effect on the financial condition of the City of Miami. other than the claims and actions above. all of which
have been hooked by the City.
TAX EXEMPTION
- In the opinion of Brown. Wood. Ivey. Mitchell and Petty, New York. N.Y.. Bond Counsel, interest on
• the Bonds is exempt from all present Federal income taxes under existing statues. regulations. rulings and
court decisions.
34
NiASCIAl. STATEMENTS
he financial statements of the City of Miami set forth in Appendix A to this Official StateMeitt halve
Beefs ekattitihed h) Peat. Marwick. Mitchell & Co.. independent certified public accountants. for the periods
arid to the extent stated in their letter to the City Commission dated July 14. 1978.
CLOSING CERTIFICATES
Certificate of City 1lanager and Finance
Director Concerning Official Statement
Concurrently '+ith the delivers of the Bonds. the City 'Manager and the Director of Finance will
furnish their certificate to the effect that. to the hest of their knowledge. this Official Statement, as of its
date and as of the date of delivery of the Bonds, did not and does not contain an untrue statement of a
material fact or onus to state a material fact stihich should he included therein for the purpose for which the
Official Statement is to he used. or V. hich is necessary to make the Statements contained therein. in the light
of the circumstances under ‘+hich they were made. not misleading.
APPROVAL. OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
Certain legal matters incident to the authorisation and issuance of the S18.2.5t).0(IU Bonds are subject
.to the approval of Brown, Wood. I'.ey. Mitchell & Petty. New York. N.Y.. Bond Counsel. whose legal
opinion will he available to the underwriters. at no cost to them. at the time of the delivery of the Bonds and
will he printed on the Bonds.
MISCELLANEOUS
Any statements in this Official Statement invoking matters of opinion or estimates. whether or not
expressly so stated. ore intended as such and not as representations of fact. No representation is made that
any of the statements ysill he reali'ed.
References herein to the Constitution. state law.. the City Charter. ordinances and resolutions are only
brief outlines of certain provisions thereof and do not purport to summari/e or describe all provisions
thereof.
The information contained in this Official Statement has been compiled hy the Finance Department of
the City of Miami from official and other sources deemed to he reliable. and while not guaranteed as to
completeness or accuracy. is believed to he correct as of this date.
The execution of this Official Statement has been duly authorised by the Commission of the City of
Miami.
City of Miami. Florida
hy s,'s MAURICE A. I'ERRE
Afat'or
II II II II III IIIII IIiiiiI 1111
•
•
»D!O84-11 Y`
1
M
1
■
NV-
ti
i1.5,1 131111ii■.niiuiiim hill null 1111 imi nui I III III II.II I■
IS PAGE 1NTENT!ONALLY LEFT BLANK'
•
•
•
•
■
i
CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
Financial Statements
Year ended September 30, 1971
Table of Contents
Pat l Financial Statements
Accountants' Report
Combined Balance Sheet - All Funds and Account Groups
Combined Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, Transfers
and Operations - All Funds Excluding Budgetary Funds
and Trust and Agency Funds
General Fund - Statement of Revenues, Expenditures,
Encumbrances and Transfers - Budget and Actual
Special Tax Levy Funds - Statement of Revenues, Expenditures,
Encumbrances and Transfers - Budget and Actual
Federal Revenue Sharing Fund - Statement of Revenues,
Expenditures, Encumbrances and Transfers - Budget and
Actual
Trust and Agency Funds - Statement of Revenues, Expenditures
and Transfers
Combined Statement of Changes in Fund Balances, Contributed
Capital and Retained Earnings - All Funds
Enterprise Funds - Statement of Changes in Financial
Position
Statement of Pooled Cash and Investments
Notes to Financial Statements
Part II - Supplementary Schedules
Special Tax Levy Funds:
Combining Balance Sheet I-1
Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures,
Encumbrances and Transfers - Budget and Actual I-2
Combining Statement of Changes in Fund Balances 1-3
Debt Service Funds:
Combining Balance Sheet
Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, Transfers'
and Changes in Fund Balances
39
11115
mmmmmw
MMER
MMEMb
MEMEL
MIMED
wimmmw
IIIIF
DEMME
11111
IMNIErt
111
IrklWat
mw
mimmom
ems•
■
■
■
■
■
■
MM
1
MM
MEM
eitY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
Financial Statements
Table of Contents, Coat+
inttagovernmental Service Funds:
Combining Balance Sheet
Combining Statement of Operations and Changes iti
Contributed Capital and Retained Earnings
Enterprise Funds:
Combining Balance Sheet
Combining Statement of Operations and Changes in
Contributed Capital and Retained Earnings
General Obligation Capital Projects Funds:
Combining Balance Sheet
Combining Statement of Revenues and Expenditures
and Changes in Fund Balances
Trust and Agency Funds:
Combining Balance Sheet VI-1
Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures,
and Transfers and Changes in Fund Balances VI-2
IV44
Combined Statement of Long -Term Debt Payable VII
PtA ', MARWICK, MITCHIELL & CO.
CkterrviED 1112•I3LIC ACCOUNTANTS
1000 BRICK ELI. AVENUE
MIAMI. FLORIDA 33131
m.
The HOhorabie Members
of the City Commission
MI City of Miami, Florida:
1
•
We have examined the financial statements of the various funds and account
groups of the City of Miami, Florida for the year ended September 30, 1977
as listed under the exhibits in the accompanying table of contents. Our
examination was made in accordance with generally accepted auditing stand-
ards, and accordingly included such tests of the accounting records and
such other auditing procedures as we considered necessary in the circum-
stances.
The Department of Off Street Parking and the Downtown Development Authori-
ty are autonomous units of the City of Miami, Florida. The financial state-
ments of these entities for the year ended September 30, 1977, the former
which is examined by another firm of certified public accountants, are not
included in the accompanying financial statements.
As described more fully in note 1 to the financial statements, the City
does not provide depreciation on property, plant and equipment of the
Enterprise and Intragovernmental Service Funds as required by generally
accepted accounting principles.
In our opinion, except for the effect on the financial statements of the
failure to provide depreciation on property, plant and equipment of the
Enterprise and Intragovernmental Service Funds as discussed in the preceding
paragraph, the aforementioned financial statements present fairly the fi-
nancial position of the various funds and account groups at September 30,
1977 and the results of operations of such funds and the changes in finan-
cial position of the Enterprise Funds for the year then ended, in con-
formity with generally accepted accounting principles applied on a basis
consistent with that of the preceding year.
mommmw
mmmmm
romm
mmmmm
N
MOW
illir
mimmmw
Eimmmw
niniED
EMU
Miff _
MEEEM
Ilgi
tM
MM• EW
MEW
IIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
MM
■
The Hohotable Membets
of the City Comtnisssion
City of Miami, Flotida
Page Two
The examination referred to above was directed ptitnatily toward formulating
an opinion of the various funds and account groups of the City of Miami,
Florida, taken as a whole. The supplementary data included in Schedules
I-1 through VII-5, are presented for supplementary analysis purposes and
ate not necessary for a fair presentation of the financial position and
results of operations of the various funds and account groups, and changes
in financial position of the Enterprise Funds of the City of Miami, Florida.
The supplementary data have been subjected to the auditing procedures
applied in the examination of the basic financial statements and, in our
opinion, except for the effect of the failure to provide depreciation on
property, plant and equipment in the Enterprise and Intragovernmental
Service Funds, are stated fairly in all material respects only when con-
sidered in conjunction with the financial statements taken as a whole.
July 14, 1978
1111111111111111111IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
■ffi
•
1
•
IS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
•
Debt
service
funds
5,436,300
MIRINEW
rimmk
MEW
MIE
mil
212,542 Mink
839
2,395
MEMU
o10
NOW
5,652.076
MEOW
MEW
CITY OF M1AMI4 FLORIDA
Cohbined Balance Sheet - All Funds and Acccnit►t GtOUpa
September 30, 1977
Assets and Other Debits
Equity in pooled cash and
investments (note 1)
Receivables:
Taxes receivable - delinquent
(less allowance for estimated
uncollectible amounts of
$1,258,128)
General accounts receivable (net
of allowance for doubtful
accounts of $62,720)
Assessment liens receivable
Other governments
Deposits and prepaid insurance
Inventories, at cost (note 1)
Property, plant and equipment (note 1):
Land
Buildings and improvements
Improvements other than buildings
Machinery and equipment
Construction -in -progress
Amount available for retirement of
bonds:
General obligation
Special obligation
Amount to be provided for retirement
of bonds and judgment payable:
General obligation bonds
Special obligation bonds
Judgment payable (note 7)
Due from other funds (note 1)
Other
ttera1
ttih4
dd1a1 .evettue Funds
Special Federal
tax revenue
levy sharing
$ 4,087,206 897,618 2,003,996
482,745 329,124
373,665
4,943.616 1,237,850 4,294.062
m.
MI
m.
EE Capital Projects Funds
EE
IIGeneral Special
Intragcvernmeiltal Trust and obligation obligation General
service agency Enterprise capital capital fixed
Ea funds funds funds projects improvements assets
1
•
1,820,316
2,965,013
519,814
294,026
724,489
7,510,741
533,862
437,903 52,168,629 3,063,088
1,820,107
21,121,651
806,105
517,691
11,409,952 2,965,013 25,100.702 52,881,591
45
14,584,030
14,905,787
130,033,214
6,879,158
31,230,676
General
long-term
debt
3,944,712
1,694,474
119,960,288
1,408,526
750,000
3,063,088 197.632,865 127,758,000
Wont
•
ifims
•
CITY OF iIANI, FLORIDA
Combined Balance Sheet = All Funds mid Account Groups
Special Revenue Funds
Special Federal Debt
General tax revenue service
Liabilities, fund levy sharing funds
Deficit in pooled cash and ibvestmefts
(note 1)
Accrued liabilities (principally salaries) 973,695
Accounts payable
Deferred income
Revenue bonds payable (note 4)
Deposits refundable
Due to other funds (note 1)
Claims payable (note 7)
General obligation bonds payable
Special obligation bonds payable
Judgment payable (note 7)
Total liabilities
Encumbrances outstanding
Reserve for noncurrent delinquent
taxes receivable
(note 4)
(note 4)
Fund Balance, Contributed Capital
and Retained Earnings
Fund balances - appropriated (note 1)
Fund balances (deficit) - unappropriated
Contributed capital and retained earnings
appropriated
Contributed capital and retained earnings
unappropriated
Investment in general fixed assets
496,963
1,744,591
750,000
12,863 12,699
52,828
420,590
437
12,453
3,965,249 65,691 433,289 12,890
896,689 51,872 1,105,975
143,055 98,105 - 63,567
- 2,616,368 4.507,391
(61,377) 1,022,182 138,430 1,068,228
$ 4.943.616 1.237.850 4.294.062 5.652.076
See accompanying notes to financial statements.
46
MM
1
Exhibit A, Cont
Ca iita1. Projects Funds
General Special
IntragoVertttneittal trust acid obligation obligation General General
service agency Enterprise capital capital fined long-term
funds funds funds projects improvements assets debt
45;560
129,545
800,000
911,603 -
159,005 39,978 3,673 -
604,698 33,300 1,396,486 607
268,850 -
1301,825
688;000
267,000 -
975,105 2,665,131 609,128 1,400,15y
681,000 115,723
9,753,847
24,375,851
51,481,432
3",062,481
197,632,865
123,905,000
3,103,000
750,000
127,758,000
11.409,952 2,965.013 25.100.702 52.881.591 3.063.088 197.632,865 127.758.000
47
1mm
■
1
■MEM
Debt thttagoVetnritental
servi'te setvice
funds funds
8,321,806
13,286,804
6,814,557
174,966
182,473
36,846
22,002,895 6,814,557
3,076,223
25,079,118 6,814,557
11,654,000
5,464,911
339,900
123,550
31,037
37,720
6,139,102
17,651,118 6,139,102
13,103,700
30,754,818 6,139,102
$ (5.675.700)
675.455
CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
Cotnbifted Stateitent bf Revenues, Expenditures, Transfers and Opetations
All Funds Excluding Budgetary Funds and Trust and Agency Funds
Year ended September 30, 1977
Revenues and other sources:
Sale of bonds
General property taxes
Franchise and utilities service taxes
Revenue from operations
Assessment liens collections
Interest
Other
Total revenues
Transfers from other funds
Total revenues and transfers
Expenses and expenditures:
Bond principal
Bond interest
Uncollectible delinquent property taxes
Operating expenses
Administrative charges
Capital projects expenditures
Fiscal agents fees
Bad debt expense
Total expenses and expenditures
Transfers to other funds
Total expenses, expenditures and
transfers
Net income
Excess (deficiency) of revenues and transfers
over expenditures and transfers
See accompanying notes to financial statements.
48
IIIII•11■1■uME11111111111111 11
Capital Projects Funds
General Special
obligation obligation
Enterprise capital capital
funds projects improvements
28,000,000
3,049,866
2,370,699
72,459
4,079,041
275,648
3,049,866 30,443,158 4,354,689
3,049,866 30,443,158 4,354,689
13,821,037 429,063
2,797,250 13,821,037 429,063
6,755,880
2,797,250 13,821,037 7,184,943
252.616
16.622.121 (2.830.254)
Of
rmr:1"..1T7.-
OP MIXRI4 FLORIDA
General Fund
Statetent of Revenues, Expenditures,
Etcumbrances and Transfers, Budget and ActUai
Year ended September 30, 1977
mm
Revenues:
Taxes:
11 General property tax
MO Penalties and interest
11 Business and excise taxes
11 Licenses and permits:
Business licenses and permits
Construction permits
Intergovernmental
Federal grants
State grants
Other
revenue:
Intragovernmental revenue:
Engineering services
Legal and financial
Revised
budget
$ 20,457,556
202,500
684,063
21,344,119
3,106,000
1,024,300
4,130,300
4,586,800
12,351,905
1,558,307
18,497,012
1,341,142
290,230
1,631,372
Charges for services:
Public safety 715,925
Recreation 173,320
Other 254,550
1,143,795
Miscellaneous revenues:
Interest 1,050,000
Rents 225,296
Other 437,988
Total revenues
Transfers from other funds
Total revenues and transfers
1-;
1,713,284
48,459,882
25,283,568
73,743,450
Exhibit H
IN ■IIIIIIIIIIII■IIII I II IIII IIIIIIII II I II IImuI IIIII II i 11111
aft OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
Enterprise Funds
stitent of Changes in Financial Posititt;.
Year ended September 30, 1977
Funds provided:
Net income
Item not using funds disposition of machinety
and equipment
Funds provided from operations
Contributions from other funds
Increase in accrued liabilities
Decrease in cash
Funds used:
Retirement of revenue bonds
Increase in receivables
Decrease in amount due to other funds
Additions to property, plant and equipment
Decrease in accounts payable and other liabilities
See accompanying notes to financial statements.
,616
21,615
274,231
518,308
3,319
74,182
$ 870.040
18,000
153,618
78,550
605,680
14,192
$ 870.040
Exhibit G
M
III I III II IIII III 110Biii iiii■.■
Capital Projects Funds
General Special
Intragovernfnental obligation obligation
service Trust and Enterprise capital capital
funds agency funds funds projects improvements
.9,225,530
675,455
533,862
196,268 - 34,859,311 5,892,735
103,614
299,882
23,720,650
252,616
518,308
16,622,121 t2,810,254)
51.481,432 3,062.481
$ 10.434.847
24.491.574limm
lig
IIIIL
is-
Exhibit H
OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
Enterprise Funds
ttstetfieht of Changes in Financial t'ositibfi
Year ended September 30, 191
Funds previded t
Net income
Item not using funds _ disposition of machinery
and equipment
Funds provided from operations
Contributions from other funds
Increase in accrued liabilities
Decrease in cash
Funds used:
Retirement of revenue bonds
Increase in receivables
Decrease in amount due to other funds
Additions to property, plant and equipment
Decrease in accounts payable and other liabilities
See accompanying notes to financial statements.
21,615
274,231
518,308
3,319
74,182
$ 870.040
18,000
153,618
78,550
605,680
14,192
$ 870.040
MEMEL
itt
Exhibit C
■
Expen-
ditures
or Encu--
transfers brstices Aortal
20,515,729
257,120
655,968
21,428,817
3,359,829
551,383
3,911,212
3,479,548
12,271,365
2,269,450
18,020,363
1,458,625
257,107
1,715,732
_ - 460,478
_ - 138,237
- - 122,391
721,106
625,669
173,251
369,022
1,167,942
46,965,172
111 _ - 25,887,268
_ 72,852,440
i■ii■iiiii u•IIIIII11111I111111111111 1111II1111111111111111I1i1imi1IIUIII1II
CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
General Fund
5thteinent of Revenues, Expenditures,
EhcUthitances and Transfers, Budget and Acthal
EXpehditures and encumbrances:
General government:
Mayor and commission
City manager
City clerk
Management services
Finance
Legal
Civil service
Human resources
City hall operations
Community affairs
Public Improvements:
Public works
Building
Planning and zoning boards
Public Safety:
Police
Fire
Communications
Sanitation
Parks and recreations
Intragovernmental charges:
Property maintenance
Self insurance
Print shop
Other:
Employee benefits
Special programs
Judgments (note 7)
Miscellaneous
Uncollectible delinquent property taxes
Total expenditures and encumbrances
Transfers to other funds
Total expenditures, encumbrances and transfers
Excess (deficiency) of revenues and transfers
over expenditures, encumbrances and transfers
52
ke'vised
budget
238,170
510,622
118,941
777,390
3,597,431
696,192
170,025
580,766
182,558
130,426
7L002, 521
4,183,758
1,307,524
558,418
6,049,700
21,265,934
14,725,401
2,001,538
37,992,873
10,592,272
4,060,304
606,250
555,495
117,640
1,279,385
4,044,009
306,121
200,000
1,199,088
5,749,218
72,726,273
443,205
73,169,478
$ 573.972
Exhibit C, Cont.
Expert
ditutes
or Entu
transfers brances
210,207
490,894
114,314
722,840
3,583,009
647,687
158,162
386,142
181,362
144,625
6,639,242
4,063,566
1,166,991
515,793
5,746,350
20,359,924
14,577,162
1,974,527
36,911,613
10,368,821
4,095,470
580,761
516,1.45
96,655
1,193,561 -
2,928
4,577
375
58,062
3,526
14,259
3,126
107,490
213,135
495,471
114,689
780,902
3,586,535
661,946
161,288
493,632
181,362
144,625
194,343 6,833,585
18,179
37,971
2,770
4,081,745
1,204,962
518,563
58,920 5,805,270
96,924
62,459
84,829
244,212
6,371
11,370
3,615,665
212,437
1,355,381
484,534
783,750
6,451,767
71,406,824
643,277
72.050.101
11,890
369,583
381,473
896,689
896.689
20,456,848
14,639,621
2,059,356
37,155,825
10,375,192
4,106,840
580,761
516,145
96,655
1,193,561
3,615,665
224,327
1,355,381
854,117
783,750
6,833,240
72,303,513
643,277
72,946,790
(94.350)
••
■
ttati.
Revenues:
General property taxes
Metro Dade County publicity tontfi',
Other
c1TY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
Special Tax Levy Funds
ReVefiues, Expenditures, Encumbrances and Ttatisfet5,
Budget and Actual
Year ended September 30, 1977
Total revenues
Transfers from other funds
�i�.�'°`;,'
Total revenues and transfers 15,799,383
Revised
budget
$ 14,099,383
500,000
14,599,383
1,200,000
Expenditures and encumbrances: �!i,.x•,�=_r�= r»�-=:,_.;� 11,203,427
Pension expense (note 3) ;:''
Publicity and tourism `4'1,389,708
'���
Street lighting,232,140;` 3 —
Uncollectible delinquent property taxes 382,460
Other
Total expenditures and encumbrances
Excess (deficiency) of revenues and transfers
over expenditures and encumbrances
See accompanying notes to financial statements.
16,207,735
$ (408.352)
Expenditures Ettcutnbtaitces Actusi
•
■
•
•
- 14076,087
487,987
48,943
14,613,017
m - - 1,200,000
MI
II - - 15,813,017
m
11,003,921 - 11,003,921
1,240,525 51,648 1,292,173
2,739,047 - 2,739,047
526,350 - 526,350
397,906 224 398,130
15.907,749 51.872 15,959,621
$ (146.604)
MEM
.,<,nr
111111111•11111•1.11111111111111111111111111111111111 III 1111i 111 nisi iiiiiiiimii iuiuiiiiiiii
10,071,986
3,230,000
13,301,986
16,028,996
$(16.028.996)
MEMMME
111111
wiemiammaw
siiat
IEEE
mom
Exmoor
mmmor
=MOM
IMEN
MENEM
GtrY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
Fedetal Revenue Sharing Fund
Steteleh t 6f Revenues, Expenditures, Encumbrances and TratiSfet§f
Budget and Actual
Year ended September 30, 1977
Revenues:
Revenue sharing entitlements
Interest and other
Total revenues
Transfers from other funds
Total revenues and transfers'
Revised
,ilidget (A)
Expenditures and encumbrances
Pu
blic safety
- - 750,000
rh > 1,665,010
Special programs x,-
S ec '-��`,�,.�� 7 u; �„'' eft;
165,000
Recreation
Sanitation e azS::: ':fJr";-;,a;; ;f;i'.
147,000
'it,jij,tiiiRl:lir,'--�', u.4'"": .'.Y:•� '
Total ex
penditures and _...�.,N�; --- r� ;4�"',•
encumbrances ,.,..:,:`�".._.,"w,�'�'<diYi�'ri"`:'^:"'k��'4�"��,:��"r?;x':"a�?'=„�ISx�;i,..-.,,»� � 2f f
010
Transfers to other funds:
Current year's operations
Other fiscal years
Total transfers
Total expenditures, encumbrances
and transfers
Excess (deficiency) of revenues and
transfers over expenditures,
encumbrances and transfers
(A) The City's annual budget does not include revenues for=,t
See accompanying notes to financial statements.
56
und..
■
Expenditures
or transfers Encumbrances Actual
•
1
8,893,709
251,941
9,145,650
L 141,556
- 9,287,206
154,084 300,000 454,084
1,602,703 91,960 1,694,663
328,652 411 329,063
268,980 - 268,980
2,354,419 392,371
10,071,986
2,746,790
10,071,986
10,071,986 - 10,071,986
12,426.405 392.371 12,818,776
(3.531.570)
•
■
■
immmw
WEEW
IIIIE
.mot
MMISIW
d1'FY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
fitust and Agency Funds
tAttMent of Revenues, Expenditures and Traitat`ta
Year ended September 30, 1977
Revenues:
Comprehensive Employment and Training
Act grants
Community Development Block Grant
Economic Development Administration
public works grants
Other Federal, state and miscellaneous
grants
Total revenues
Transfers from other funds
Total revenues and transfers
Expenditures:
Comprehensive Employment and Training
Act grants
Community Development Block Grant
Economic Development Administration
public works grants
Other Federal, state and miscellaneous
grants
Total expenditures
Excess of revenues and
transfers over expenditures
See accompanying notes to financial statements.
6,66b,266
1,723,169
893,740
853,444
6,664,372
1,723,169
893,740
1,005,507
10,286,788
103.614
wf-
MI
1IIu1uiiii■mIIII IIIIIIiminIiuiiiiI
1111101.111111111111
THIS P4GE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
sow
•
MM
MM
CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
Galbifed Statement of Changes in Fund Balances,
Contributed Capital and Retained Earnings
All Funds
Year ended September 30, 1977
Fund balances (deficit),
October 1, 1976
Contributed capital and retained
earnings, October 1, 1976
Excess (deficiency) of revenues
and transfers over expenditures
encumbrances and transfers (94,350) (146)604) (3,531,570) (5)675,700)
Net income - - -
Increase in reserve for noncurrent
delinquent taxes receivables (143,055) (98,105) - (63,567)
Contributions from other funds 750, 000
Special Revenue Funds
Special Federal Debt
General tax revenue service
• fund levy sharing funds
$(573,972) 1,266,891 6,286,368 11,314,886
Fund balances (deficit),
September 30, 1977
Contributed capital and retained
earnings, September 30, 1977
$ (61.377) 1.022.182 2.754.798 5.575.619
See accompanying notes to financial statements.
"
Exhibit G
d9pitu1 Projects Fuudo
General Special
IotraQonettMeotal obligation obligation
service Trust and Enterprise capital capitol
funds agency funds funds projects improvements
� 196,268 - 34,859,311 5,892,735
^9,225,530 - 23^720,650 - �
103�614 - 16"623,121 (2,830,254)
875,455 - 252^610 -
� -
533,863 - 518,308
-
299.882 51.481.432 3.062.481
$ 10^436.847 34^691.574
OIL__
NMI—
�
_
�
-
_
_
_
_
UN
=
_
�
�
��
MEM
ZZZ
MEM
all OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
Enterprise Funds
tatehent of Changes in Financial I'ositibfi '•
Year ended September 30, 1977
Funds provided:
Net income
Item not using funds - disposition o th chifit
and equipment
Funds provided from operations
Contributions from other funds
Increase in accrued liabilities
Decrease in cash
Funds used:
Retirement of revenue bonds
Increase in receivables
Decrease in amount due to other funds
Additions to property, plant and equipment
Decrease in accounts payable and other liabilities
See accompanying notes to financial statements.
2,t2,616
21,615
274,231
518,308
3,319
74,182
$ 870.040
18,000
153,618
78,550
605,680
14,192
$ 870.040
MEW
MIME
MIMMIL
MMEMMIP
mmEmmw
MIMED
mEmmulp
IIIIE
MIME
spmm
MOINE
1
1
4
aft bR iMIAMI, RLORI1A
gthtebent of Pooled Cash
and Investments
September 30, 1977
Cash in depositories demand deposits
Petty cash funds
Total pooled cash
Short-term investments:
U.S. Treasury bills
Repurchase agreements
Certificates of deposit
Accrued interest
Other
Assets
Liability and Equities
Liability for payroll deductions
Equity of other funds:
General fund
Special tax levy funds
Federal revenue sharing fund
Debt service funds
Intragovernmental service funds
Trust and agency funds
Enterprise funds
General obligation capital projects funds
Special obligation capital improvements fund
See accompanying notes to financial statements.
63
10647 335
9,025
1,656,360
1,000,591
48,816,176
18,071,473
671,553
68,559,793
12,646
$ 70.228.799
1,225,346
4,087,206
897,618
2,003,996
5,436,300
1,820,316
(911,603)
437,903
52,168,629
3,063,088
69,003,453
$ 70.228.799
•
MMIlk
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
(1)
CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
i*tes to Financial Statements
September 30, 1977
Suutinaty of Significant Accounting Policies
The accounting policies of the City of Miami, Florida conform to generally
accepted accounting principles as applicable to governmental units except
for the nonrecognition of depreciation on the fixed assets of the Enter-
prise and Intragovernmental Service Funds. The following is a summary of
the more significant of such policies:
Fund Accounting
The accounts of the City are organized on the basis of funds or groups of
accounts, each of which is considered to be a separate accounting entity.
The operations of each fund are accounted for by providing a separate set
of self -balancing accounts which comprise its assets, liabilities, fund
balance, revenues and expenditures. The various funds are grouped by
type in the financial statements (see note 2). The Department of Off -
Street Parking and the Downtown Development Authority are autonomous
units of the city. The financial statements of these entities are not
included herein.
Basis of Accounting
The modified accrual basis of accounting, under which expenditures, other
than interest on long-term debt, are recorded when the liability is in-
curred and revenues are recorded when received in cash unless susceptible
to accrual, i.e., measurable and available to finance the city's operations,
or of a material amount and not received at the normal -time of receipt,
is followed for the budgetary funds (General, Special Revenue, and Debt
Service Funds). The accrual basis is utilized (with minor exceptions) by
all other funds.
A comparison of budget to actual is presented for the General and Special
Revenue Funds. The revised budget amounts are based on the City's original
budget ordinance as revised by all subsequent amendments.
Encumbrances
Encumbrance accounting, under which purchase orders, contracts and other
commitments for the expenditure of funds are recorded in order to reserve
that portion of the applicable appropriation, is employed in the General
and Special Revenue Funds.
Investments
Investments are stated at cost, which approximates market. Investments consist
of U.S. Government obligations and time deposits with commercial banks.
64
(Continued)
mmmik
•
MEEMW
sue:
MOM
MEM
IME
•
•
e�-
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I11 IIIIIIIIIIIIIII1111IIIIIII
WMMM
I 11111IIIII111111111IIIIIIIIII
CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
?Totes to Financial Statements
IiiVentdries
ItNentories are priced at cost, on a first -in, first -out basis, The inventories
recorded in the Intragovernmental Service Fund consist principally of expendable
supplies held for internal consumption.
Properly, Plant and F.Apipment
Property, plant and equipment in the Enterprise and Intragovernmental Service
Funds is recorded at cost or, for donated assets, at fair market value at
time of donation.
The City does not provide depreciation on property, plant and equipment in
the above mentioned funds as required by generally accepted accounting
principles. The amount of accumulated depreciation at September 30, 1977
and the depreciation expense for the year then ended for these funds cannot
be reasonably estimated at this time.
General Fixed Assets
General fixed assets have been acquired for general governmental purposes.
Assets purchased are recorded as expenditures in the General Fund, Capital
Projects Funds, etc., and capitalized at cost in the General Fixed Assets
Group of Accounts. These assets include improvements other than buildings,
such as roads, curbs and gutters, streets and sidewalks, and drainage and
lighting systems.
Donated assets are recorded at fair market value at time of receipt, except
for the Maurice Gusman Cultural Center for the Performing Arts and the
Olympia Building. These properties were received by the City as a gift
in July of 1975. As of September 30, 1977, the fair market value of these
properties had not been determined, and thus had not been recorded.
No depreciation is provided on general fixed assets.
Pooled Cash and Investments
During 1977, the City implemented a new accounting system in which all cash,
investments and accrued interest are recorded and maintained in a separate
group of accounts. All cash and investments including accrued interest,
and interfund accounts (except interfund loans approved by the City Commission)
were closed during the year and at September 30, 1977 are all reflected in
the equity or deficit in pooled cash and investments. No interest is charged
to funds having deficit balances. Interest income is allocated based upon
the approximate proportionate balances of each fund's equity in pooled cash
and investments.
(Continued)
IIIIIIIIIIIIIII■11■■III1111111IIIII111111111111■■IIIIIIi 11111IIII II I IIII■II I I I I I I I II I I i111H i
MM
MM
Gill OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
Notes to Financial Statetnents
Allocation of Administrative Expenses
The General Fund incurs certain administrative expenses for other funds;
including accounting, legal and engineering services. An administrative
charge is levied against these funds to defray a portion of these expenses4
The General Fund also incurs certain costs of the Intragovernmental Service
Fund, including pension cost, social security and group insurance con-
tributions. These costs, approximating $550,000, are absorbed by the
General Fund.
Appropriation of Fund Balances
The 1977-78 budget for the General, Federal Revenue Sharing, and General
Obligation Debt Service Funds included budgeted deficits of $1,000,000,
$2,649,879, and $3,231,186, respectively. The latter two amounts are shown
in the respective financial statements as appropriated fund balance. The
$1,000,000 in the General Fund is not available for appropriation. However,
there is sufficient fund balance in the Special Tax Levy and Federal Revenue
Sharing Funds to cover this budgeted deficit.
(2) Description of Funds
General Fund
The General Fund is the general operating fund of the City. General tax
revenues and other receipts that are not allocated by law or contractual
agreement to some other fund are accounted for in this fund. From the
fund are paid the general operating expenses, fixed charges and the
capital improvement costs that are not paid through other funds.
Special Revenue Funds
The Special Revenue Funds are utilized to account for revenues derived from
specific taxes or other earmarked revenue sources which are required by
law or regulation to finance particular functions or activities of govern-
ment.
Debt Service Funds
The Debt Service Funds are utilized to account for the payment of interest and
principal on the City's general long-term debt.
(Continued)
11,11.0 ■ii■uiniimi iniiiimi 111u1i 11I111111II iiim
CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
Notes to Financial Statements
Capital Projects Funds
The Capital Projects Funds are utilized to account for all resources used it1
the acquisition and construction of capital facilities and other fixed
assets, with the exception of those that are financed by Enterprise or
Intragovernmental Service Funds and special assessments.
Enterprise Funds
The Enterprise Funds are utilized to finance and account for the acquisition,
operation and maintenance of governmental facilities and services that are
supported mainly by user charges to the general public.
Intragovernmental Service Funds
The Intragovernmental Service Funds are used to finance and account for certain
services and commodities furnished to other funds within the City.
Trust and Agency Funds
The Trust and Agency Funds are utilized to account for monies and properties
received and held by the City in a trust, custodial or agency capacity
for other entities, such as employees, other governments or nonpublic
organizations. These funds are used to account for revenues and expendi-
tures relating to most Federal and state grants.
General Fixed Assets Group of Accounts
nt for all
This group of
thanuthoseacconts saccountedhed fortinatheufixed
City, otherEnterprise and Intragovernmental
Service Funds.
General Long -Term Debt Group of Accounts
This group of accounts is established to account for long-term debt not
accounted for in Enterprise Funds.
(3) Retirement Plans
The City has contributory pension plans covering substantially all employees.
Total pension expense for the current fiscal year, including amortization
of prior service costs over 35 years, was approximately $11,200,000. Of
this amount $11,004,000 was funded by the Special Revenue Fund, and the
remainder by various other funds, principally Enterprise.
(Continued)
•
Clot OF IIIAMI, FLORIDA
lbtes to Financial Statements
The ectuatially computed value of vested benefits under the plans exceeded
the pension funds' assets by approximately $69,739,000 at September 30, 1977,
the date of the last valuation.
The pension expense for the year ended September 30, 1977 increased substan-
tially from the amount reported for the year ended September 30, 1976
(approximately $8,500,000). This increase was principally due to changes
in actuarial assumptions, the most significant being anticipated future
salary increases.
(4) Bonds Payable
(a) General Long -Term Debt
IN
General obligation bonds, 1/10% to 7 1/2%, maturing in
various years through 1997, current principal
maturities of approximately $8,270,000 backed by
the full faith and credit of the City and its taxing
power.
Special obligation bonds 3% to 4-1/107, maturing
in various years through 1988, current principal
maturities of approximately $456,000.
(b) Enterprise Funds
Revenue bonds, 6.5%, maturing in various years through
1989, current principal maturities of approximately
$18,000.
(c) Debt Service Requirements
General Obligation Bonds
Debt service is provided by an unlimited tax levy on nonexempt property
value and collections on assessment liens from projects financed by
the proceeds of such bonds.
39.05,000
3.103.000
267,000
Special Obligation Bonds
(1) Incinerator revenue bonds - Revenues from the operation of the incin-
erator are pledged to service these bonds. A reserve of $250,000
must be maintained.
(2) Capital improvement bonds - Debt service is provided by electric
franchise revenues under the terms of the franchise agreement be-
tween the City and Florida Power and Light Company.
68
(Continued)
mmommmw
MEM
Egi
FEW
Ems
fflugl
Emim
momm
MEMMW
mmmm
wit
mim
MEM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
(5)
CITY OF MIAMI) FLORIDA
'Notes to Financial Statements
'hese bonds were called on September 1, 1977, prior to Maturity, acid
fully paid.
'0 ) Utilities service tax bonds - Debt service is provided by utilities
service taxes imposed by the City on each purchase of electricity,
gas, water and local telephone and telegraph service. A reserve
must be maintained equal to the maximum annual debt service requite-
ment. Utilities service tax revenues exceeding debt service and
reserve requirements can be used for any lawful purpose.
(4) Orange Bowl Special Obligation Bonds - Debt service is provided by
electric franchise revenues. A reserve equal to the maximum annual
debt service requirement must be maintained. At September 30, 1977
there were sufficient funds reserved to fully pay the amount out-
standing.
Enterprise Revenue Bonds
Rental income for the lease of the warehouse facilities is pledged to
providedebt service on these bonds.
Land Transactions
Epot
At September 30, 1974 the Inter -American Center Authority was indebted to
the City in the amount of $8,500,000 for the original land sale of the
Graves Tract. The Authority had agreed to pay the amount of the indebted-
ness, together with 5% annual interest in equal semiannual installments
of $300,000 beginning January 1, 1977. In 1975 the Authority was dissolved.
Negotiations as to payment of the indebtedness are in process and the rights
of the various parties including the City have not been determined.
At September 30, 1977 Dade County was indebted to the City for approximately
$1,330,000 relating to the sale of the Dodge Island site. Pursuant to
terms of the original agreement, payments were to commence after payment
and cancellation of the County's Seaport Revenue Bonds. During 1977, the
original agreement was amended. The County has agreed to pay the City in
the following manner: $500,000 plus accrued interest (6% per annum) by _
July, 1978, $500,000 plus accrued interest by July, 1979, and the re-
maining amount including interest by July, 1980.
The receivables relating to the above transactions have not been recorded
due to the uncertainty and timing of their collection.
(Continued)
Wmmm
MMW
111111IIII1I..IIi.IIIIIIuIIu■iuiiii
CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
Ni5tes to Financial Statements
(6) Legal 'Cotth i tice
At September 30, 1977, certain expenditures for the General, Special Tax LeVy
and Federal Revenue Sharing Funds exceeded the amounts on the revised budgets
as shown on the respective financial statements. These over -expenditures
were not approved by the City Commission.
The City Charter requires that all cash and investments with local depositories
be secured by an equal amount of bonds of the United States, State of Florida,
or the City. At September 30, 1977 the amount of City funds on deposit at
certain local depositories exceeded the amount of such security.
(7) Commitments and Contingencies
At June 30, 1978, the City had certain contingent liabilities for payment
of employee benefits. The amount of benefits earned and accumulated is
governed by Civil Service regulations and administrative policy. These
liabilities are summarized below:
Type Description Amount
Vacation Normal vacation earned $ 3,392,965
Earned time Additional time -off earned
by hourly employees for over-
time hours worked 1,721,367
Sick leave
Normal sick leave accumulated 11.886.409
The full amount of vacation and earned time, if not used by the employee, is
payable upon separation of service. Sick leave payable upon separation
is limited to a.maximum of 960 hours and is paid only if the employee has
ten or more years of service, or in the case of sanitation workers, fifteen
years service is required and the limit is $3,000.
Due to uncertainties relating to the timing and amount of payments to be made,
the above liabilities are not recorded.
Self Insurance Fund
In October of 1975 the City created a Self Insurance Fund as part of the Intra-
governmental Service Funds, to provide insurance against certain liability
risks. All revenue -generating departments of the City are levied or charged
for insurance, which becomes revenue to the Self Insurance Fund. These charges
are not computed on an actuarial basis. Expenditures of the Self Insurance
Fund consist of payments of settlements, claims and premiums on insurance
policies.
70
(Continued)
MMf
IMF
MIN
IMO
•
MIL
rez
mmimg
EMMER
NEMEC
MMEEF
eft*/ OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
Notes to Financ'.al Statements
At pfesent, the City does not carry umbrella excess liability coverage to
liinit the City's exposure in possible claims.
Litigation
In April, 1978, the City, as defendant, settled an outstanding suit which alleged
certain irregularities in pay increases granted to certain City employees in
prior years. The City agreed to pay the plaintiffs $1,100,000 covering all
back wages, attorney's fees, court costs and auditor costs. Of this amount,
$187,500 was charged to expenditures in the prior year, and the remainder
($912,500) was charged to expenditures in the current year, both in the
General Fund. The portion of the settlement which the City expects to pay
in fiscal 1977-78 ($350,000) is included in General Fund claims payable. The
remainder ($750,000) is recorded in the General Long -Term Debt Group of
accounts, with a contribution to fund balance in the same amount being made
to the General Fund.
The City is a defendant in a lawsuit arising from an automobile accident in-
volving a City employee which caused a fatality. Settlement negotiations are
currently in progress. The amount of the City's liability, as estimated by
the City Attorney, is included in claims payable in the General Fund.
There are also a number of claims and lawsuits against the City resulting
principally from personal injuries incurred on City property. In the opinion
of City officials and the City Attorney, these claims will result in a
liability to the City of approximately $800,000. At September 30, 1977,
the City had $435,000 on deposit with an insurance company under a spread
loss reinsurance contract to cover such claims. Effective October 1, 1977,
this contract was cancelled and the deposit returned to the City. The
liability for outstanding claims and the deposit are recorded in the Intra-
governmental Service Funds (Self -Insurance Fund).
The City of Miami relies primarily on their legal department acting under the
direction of the City Attorney for legal advice. The foregoing opinions
are based solely on the opinion of the City Attorney.
(8) Transactions with Related Parties
Revenues derived from the operations of the Maurice Gusman Cultural Center
for the Performing Arts, the Olympia Building and certain other properties
owned by the City have been assigned to the Department of Off -Street
Parking.
mmmima
simm
Ammm
mimics
WOMEN
MUMMER
immmmm
mmwmw
MEMEL
•
MMEMB
mom.
EM▪ MEW
w -
mimmmw
MEEEK
Emmmt
54111
ITV OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
Special Tax Levy Funds
Combining Balance Sheet
September 30, 1977
Assets
Equity (deficit) in pooled cash
and investments
Taxes receivable - delinquent (less
allowance for estimated uncol-
lectible amounts of $390,198)
Other
Liabilities, Encumbrances
Outstanding, Reserves
and Fund Balances
Accrued liabilities (principally
salaries)
Accounts payable
Encumbrances outstanding
Reserve for noncurrent delinquent
taxes receivable
Fund balances
Schedule I-1
Publicity
and Street
TO 1 Pension Tourism Lighting
$ 897,618 (115,735) 89,466 923,887
329,124 273,239 23,085 32,800
11,108 11,108
$ 1.237.850 157.504 123.659 956.687
12,863 990 10,443
52,828 1,237 51,591
51,872 224 51,648
1430
81,083 7,252 9,770
1,022,182 73,970 2,725 945,487
$ 1.237.850 157.504 123.659 956.687
Exhibit D
98,105
MIME
mmilm
MEER
mom
Er7
m..mm
...mu
....0
M
•
■
•
7'II15 PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
•
MM
•
•
•
at? OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
Special Tax Levy Funds
Cdtftbining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures
Eilcuthbtances and Transfers - Budget and Actual
Year ended September 30, 1977
Revenues:
General property taxes
Metro Dade County publicity contribution
Other
Total revenues
Transfers from other funds
Total revenues and transfers
Expenditures and encumbrances:
Pension expense
Publicity and tourism
Street lighting
Uncollectible delinquent property
taxes
Other
Total expenditures and
encumbrances
Excess (deficiency) of revenues
and transfers over expenditures
and encumbrances $
'rot •
l...
.evised
.budget
14,099,383
500,000
14,599,383
1,200,000
15,799,383
11,203,427
1,389,708
3,232,140
382,460
16,207,735
Actual.
14,076,087
487,987
48,943
14,613,017
1,200,000
15,813,017
11,003,921
1,292,173
2,739,047
526,350
398,130
15,959,621
(408.352) (146._604)
Schedule 1-2
■I ■I IIIIIIIIIII11111IIIIIIUIIII II1m1 1i iiiiiuiimi iiiiniiii■iii
Petsiori
Publicity and
Toutistn
Revised Revised
budget Actual budget Actual
Actual
11,263,758 11,267,279 889,122 860,663 1,946,503 1,948,145
- - 500,000 487,987 -
- 9,415 - 33,534 - 5,994
1,382,184 1,946,503 1,954,139
- - - 1,200,000 1,200,000
11,263,758 11,276,694 1,389,122
11,263,758 11,276,694 1,389,122 1,382,184 3,146,503 3,154,139
11,203,427 11,003,921
1,389,708 t1,292,173
437,250
382,460 398,130 -
3,232,140 2,739,047
37,950 - 51,150
11,585,887 11,839,301 1,389,708 1,330,123 3,232,140 2,790,197
(322,129) (562.607) (586) 52.061 (85.637) 363.942
Schedule I-3
El
mm
mm
i
mm
mm
11'Y OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
Sjecial Tax Levy Funds
o ,' iftitig Statement of Changes in Fund Balahc S
Year ended September 30, 1977
Fund balances (deficit),
October 1, 1976
Excess (deficiency) of revenues
and transfers over expenditures
and encumbrances
Increase in reserve for noncurrent
delinquent taxes receivable
Fund balances, September 30, 1977
Publicity
attd Street
'total 1etisiob Tourism Lighting
$ 1,266,891 717,660 (42,084) 591,115
(146,604) (562,607) 52,061 363,942
(98,105) (81,083) (7,252) (9,770)
$ 1.022.182 73.970 2.725 945.487
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
1■II■I�IIIII 111 11111I11I111111111111111l■IIIII■1u111IIIThiiiuiii.II i
CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
Debt Service Funds
Combining Balance Sheet
September 30, 1977
Assets
Equity ih pooled cash and investments
Receivables:
Taxes receivable - delinquent (less allowance for
estimated uncollectible amounts of $257,547)
Assessment liens receivable
General accounts receivable (less allowance for
doubtful accounts of S37,720)
Liabilities, Reserves and Fund Balances
Accounts payable
Deferred income
Reserve for noncurrent delinquent taxes receivable
otal
5,436,300
212,542
2,395
839
$ 5.652.076
437
1'2,453
63,567
Fund balances:
Appropriated <�s_ " . 4,507,391
1 068,228
Unappropriated�k.; +"a,� ���>'� =�,r�;.,�`; ,
Total fund balances :..,! ' "`5":`n:i-`" :,;: 5,575,619
$ 5,652.076
Schedule II-1
■
i
ME
ME
gg
i
•
•
General Orahge Utilities
obligation Bowl incinerator service
bonds bonds bonds tax bonds
3,742,665 819,920 249,536 624,179
212,542
2,395
726 113
3,957.602 819.920 250,262 624.292
437
12,453
63,567
3,231,186 819,920 250,000 206,285
649,959 - 262 418,007
3,881,145 819,920 250,262 624,292
3.957,602 819.920 250,262 624,292
IIIIINNIIIIIIII0111111111111111111111111111011111111111111111111111•111111•111111111111111111111111111MIENNEMii.
art OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
Debt Service Funds
aib hiig Statement of Revenues, Expenditutes,
transfets and Changes in Fund Balance
Year ended September 30, 1977
ReVenues:
General property taxes
Interest
Assessment liens collections
Franchise and utilities service tax
Other
Total revenues
Transfers from other funds
Total revenues and transfers
Expenditures:
Bond principal
Bond interest
Fiscal agents' fees
Bad debt expense
Administrative charges
Uncollectible delinquent property taxes
Total expenditures
Transfers to other funds
Total expenditures and transfers
Excess (deficiency) of revenues and transfers
over expenditures and transfers
Fund balances, October 1, 1976
Increase in reserve for noncurrent delinquent}
taxes receivable
Fund balances, September 30, 1977
ota).
:.8,321,806
182,473
174,966
13,286,804
36,846
22,002,895
3,076,223
25,079,118
11,654,000
5,464,911
31,037
37,720
123,550
339,900
17,651,118
13,103, 700
30,754,818
Genetal
obligation
bonds
8,321,806
63,530
174,966
8,560,302
8,560,302
8,275,000
5,241,195
7,573
90,000
339,900
13,953,668
13,953,668
(5,675,700) (5,393,366)
11,314,886 9,338,078
(63,567) (63,567)
5,575,619 3.881,145
g
Schedule II-2
�1eo
capital Otaoge . � . �t1lititratot _
ce
--nrovetett Bowl ^
bonds bonds botido tax bonds
02,667 27^369 - 28,907
- � - 13,286,804
62,667 27,369 36,846 13,315,711
2,242,091 602,207 231,925
2,304,758 629,576 268,771 13,315*711
7 428'000 135.000 166,000 I50,000
-`'9/'906 ]7'3lO 319650 50,850
21^689 828 286 661
_ 37,720
� ~ 33,550
3,047^595 173,138 269,206 207"5ll
- - 13,103,700
2,047,595 173,138 269,206 13,311,211
(742,837) 456,438
742,837 363^482 250,697 819^792
250.�262 624.292
m
_
_
iMM
CttY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
thttagovertunental Service Funds
Combining Balance Sheet
September 30, 1977
Public
Assets r, to'tal properties
�
Equity (deficit) in pooled cash and investtnetits-;',��. . ,: 4 820, 316 23,415
Accounts receivable ; _ 6,704 -
Deposits and prepaid insurance : _?',; 519,814 Inventories -
':, (':" 294, 026
u,.r;;�;���,.,,:+;,.,,�....,._...
Property, plant and equipment:
Buildings and improvements
Machinery and equipment
Construction in progress
Liabilities and Retained Earnings
Accrued liabilities (principally salaries) `''''__ 45,560
724,489
7,510,741
533, 862
57,219
$ 11.409.952 80.634
aim
Accounts payable 129,545
360
Claims payable =-_ 800, 000 -
Contributed capital and retained earningsMEMEL
(deficit) - unappropriated 9,753,847 80,274
M.
Contributed capital and retained earnings -
681, 000
appropriated , �'::,;,.r��;;�j; :
MEMEL
$ 11.409.952 80.634 MEMEL
Kr-
■
■
■
■
City
garage
Motot ?ropetty
pool maintenance
Schedule III-1
Print Stationery
sho stock
680,517 219,632 (516,802) (14,921) (25,711)
(584) 1,408 5,579 541 (240)
119,933 69,764 74,77,0 '12,084 17,475
390,545
4,962,074
533,862
MMM
MEM
MMM..-.�
EMM
■
MEM
244,934
2,343,820
87,401
77,096
1,609
70,532
6.686,347 2.879.558 (271,956) 69.845
13,602
62,853
12,828
24,983
14,259 886
Self-
insurance
1,454,186
519,814
8 476) 1,974,000
26,243 5,238 9,111
6,609,892 2,841,747 (312
458) 63,721(17,587)
3,985
757
800,000
488,258
681,000
6.686,347 2.879,558 (271,956) 69.845 8 476) 1,974.000
•
•
•
CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
thtragovernmental Service Funds
Combining Statement of Operations
acid Changes in Contributed Capital and Retained Fattiings
For the year ended September 30, 1977
Revenue from operations
Operating expenses
Net income (loss)
Contributed capital and retained earnings
(deficit), October 1, 1976
Contributions from other funds
Public
bta1 properties
60814,557 144,173
6,139,102 119,902
675,455 24,271
9,225,530 56,003
533,862
Contributed capital and retained earnings
(deficit), September 30, 1977 °;,; �' $ 10.434.847 80.274
•
•
City
garage
Schedule II1-2
Motor Property Print Stationery
0o1 maintenance shop stock
2,555,131 1,699,605 962,806 130,278 107,904
2,354,395 1,529,688 1,212,660 146,076 130,245
200,736 169.917 (249,854) (15,798) (22,341)
5,875,294 2,671,830 (62,604) 79,519 4,754
533,862
Self-
insurance
1,214,660
646,136
568,524
600,734
6,609,892 2,841,747 (312,458) 63,721 (17.587) 1,169.258
•
■
laar
MitA
IIMEW
1111111111111111111MINIMION
CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
Enterprise Funds
Combining Balance Sheet
September 30, 1977
Assets
Equity (deficit) in pooled cash and
investments
Accounts receivable (net of allowance
for doubtful accounts of $25,000)
Property, plant and equipment:
Land
Buildings and improvements
Machinery and equipment
Construction in progress
Liabilities, Contributed Capital and
Retained Earnings
Accounts payable
Accrued liabilities (principally salaries)
Deferred income
Revenue bonds payable
Total liabilities
Contributed capital and retained
earnings - unappropriated
Contributed capital and retained
earnings - appropriated
TOtAi
437,903
'397,245
Marine Miami
Stadiuta Stadith
(51,175) 74,756
8,385 26,781
1,820,107 4,836 375,000
21,121,651 2,254,020 689,097
806,105 116,089 33,311
517,691 -
$ 25.100.702 2.332,155 1.198.945
33,300
39,978
268,850
267,000
5,356 2,268
1,725 998
6,000 13,393
609,128 13,081 16,659
24,375,851 2,319,074 1,182,286
115,723
25.100.702 2.332.155 1.198.945
NIMIN
WV
IMMO
MMEMMW
ffe
MEMMR
il
5
EMIR
MME
msimm
■
■
MM
_MM
MM
ME
Orange Bowl Watehouse Special
Stadium Marinas Auditoriui s Golf property properties
248,457
218,192
709,981
8,014,834
258,253
51,750
9.501,467
5,445
15,278
200,345
221,068
9,280,399
120,290
3,339,972
47,657
2,760
3.621.685
1,591
5,792
22,987
30,370
59,168
24,027 4,267
500,000
3,802,928
115,423
463,181
15,000.
1,156,406 444,394
232,536
(10,398) 51,035 68,181
95,000
1,420,000
2,836
4.964.727 1.397,811 495.429 1.588.483
3,452
2,503
6,125
7,593
12,164
20,000
267,000
12,080 19,757 287,000
7,595
1,518
9,113
3,485,315 4,952,647 1,378,054 198,706 1,579,370
106,000
9,723
9.501.467 3.621.685 4.964,727 1.397.811 495.429 1.588.483
•
MEMEMV
MEMEMIP
111111
mmmmWk
mmommw
mmmm
mumm
MEIR
CITY 0I' MIAMt, rLORIDA
Enterprise Funds
Cohbining Statement of Operations and
Changes itt Contributed Capital and Retained Earnings
For the year ended September 30, 1977
Revenues from operations
Operating expenses
Net income (loss)
Contributed capital and retained
earnings October 1, 1976
Contributions from other funds
Contributed capital and retained
earnings, September 30, 1977
3,049,866
2,797,250
252,616
23,720,650
518,308
Matine
Stadium
176,305
223,553
(47,248)
2,365,705
617
Miami
Stadium
147,225
176,277
(29,052)
1,211,338
Orange
Bowl
Stadium
903,526
718,037
185,489
9,043,160
51,750
$ 24.491.574 2.319.074 1.182.286 9.280.399
Schedule IV-2
4arehouse Special
Marinas Auditoriums Golf property properties
825,775 146,065 597,335 35,390 218,245
588,558 237,657 560,289 17,940 274,939
237,217 (91,592) 37,046 17,450 (56,694)
3,351,338 4,581,058 1,341,008 190,979 1,636,064
2,760 463,181
3.591.315 4.952,647 1.378.054 208.429 1.579.370
•
CITY OF MIA:41, FLORIDA
General Obligation Capital Projects Funds
Combining Balance Sheet
September 30, 1977
Storm Sanitary Pollution
Assets _ 1Thtal sewers sewers control
Equity in pooled cash and investments $;52,168,629 4,511,362 17,856,205 2,668,167
Assessment liens receivable 24,962 - - -
mm
mm
Due from other funds 688,000 - - -
•
•
Liabilities and Fund Balances
Accounts payable
Accrued liabilities (principally salaries)
Fund balances - appropriated
MEM
52,881,591 4,511,362 17.856.205 2.668,167
1,396,486
3,623
51,481,43?
$ 52,881.591
105,042 448,526 434
4,406,320 17,407,679 2,667,733
4,,511.362 17.856.205 2.668,167
MM
MM
■
1
■
Police
facilities
3,954,241
Parks and
recreation
facilities
8,578,911
3.954.241 8,578,911
124,257 320,126
2,021 639
3,827,963 8,258,146
3.954.241 8.578.911
Highway
improvements
Convention Fire
center facilities
Schedule V-1
Revolving
Sidewalks fund
5,300,976 3,768,894 5,096,293 108,080 325,500
_ = 24,962
688,000
5,300.976 4,456.894 5.096.293 108.080 350,462
347,807
4,953,169
5.300.976
1,579 48,715
1,013 -
4,454,302 5,047,578 108,080 350,462
4.456.894 5.096.293 108.080 350.462
•
MMnW
MI
•11-
■■1 ■Iuiui iuiIII IIIII■1ui■■ i i o i
CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
Genetal Obligation Capital Projects Funds
Combining Statement of Revenues and Expenditures
and Changes in Fund Balances
Year ended September 30, 1977
Storm Sanitary
Total sewers sewers
Revenues: 13,000,000
.ytx,` $ 28,000,000 2,000,000
Sale of bonds ;;,'.. r,: ,:;,;,.;;:
'4,; 2,370,699 166,158 743 568
Interest "', - - Y.:M ;_,:.,.:,.
.;<:�;,: 72,459 72,459
Other ,rl_ v�' :':'t'''.,�''�.�
Total revenues
Project expenditures
Excess (deficiency) of revenues over
expenditures
Fund balances, October 1, 1976
Fund balances, September 30, 1977
30,443,158 2,166,158 13,816,027
13,821,037 980,038 4,298,328
16,622,121 1,186,120 9,517,699
34,859,311 3,220,200 7,889,980
$ 51,481,432 4,406.320 17,407,679
Illit
MEMB
MEEK
MMEMW
MMMMW
Schedule V-2
•ii■liiii■■iii■nii il■i iiii
Parks and
Pollution Police recreation Highway Convention Fire
control facilities facilities improvements Center facilities Sidewalks fund
Revolving
3,000,000 - 5,000,000 - 5,000,000 - -
96,565 273,875 498,012 158,420 315,706 105,104 5,699 7,592
96,565 3,273,875 498,012 5,158,420 315,706 5,105,104 5,699 7,592
64,303 1,116,077 2,948,872 3,124,758 941,944 344,372 300 2,045
32,262 2,157,798 (2,450,860) 2,033,662 (626,238) 4,760,732 5,399 5,547
2,635,471 1,670,165 10,709,006 2,919,507 5,080,540 286,846 102,681 344,915
2,667,733 3,827,963 8,258,146 4,953,169 4,454,302 5,047,578 108,080 350,462
•
art OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
Trust and Agency Funds
Combining Balance Sheet
September 30, 1977
Assets and Other Debits
Receivables from other governments
Liabilities and Fund Balances
Deficit (equity) in pooled cash and
investments
Accrued liabilities (principally salaries
Accounts payable
Deposits refundable
Due to other funds
Fund balances (deficit)
Community
Total Development CETA
2,965,013 67,230 2,416,787
$ 2.965.013 67.230 2.416.787
911,603 (63,958) 2,203,219
159,005 3,576 142,402
604,698 124,880 85,016
301,825 - -
688, 000
299,882 2,732 (13,850)
$ 2.965.013 67.230 2.416.787
mmmw
MEER
Evir
.1,
111=11-
MEIMMIW
WEEW
MEN
immm
Schedule VI-1
■I■IIMMi111111111■II IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII111111IIIIIIIII I1111I1 III IIIIIII II1
Street
Maintenance Summer fiduciary
RDA Tax Refund LEAA Lunch Accounts
245,291 18,910 51,333 - 165,462
245.291 18.910 51.333 - 165.462
16,340 (89,296) (32,124) (25,076) (1,097,502)
5,992 - 4,729 - 2,306
222,959 4,629 10,551 - 156,663
- - 53,668 - 248,157
- - - - 688,000
- 103,577 14,509 25,076 167,838
245.291 18.910 51.333 - 165.462
Ctit OP MIAMI, FLORIDA
Trust and Agency Funds
Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures
and Transfers and Changes in Fund Balances
September 30, 1977
Comunity
Total Development CETA
Fund balances, September 30, 1916196,268 2,732 257
Revenues .; ;''..tki_ 10, 120, 618 1,723,169 6,650,265
Transfers from other funds 269,784 - -
Expenditures '': >'-`'_?`,j' 10, 286, 788 1,723,169 6,664,372
Fund balances, (deficit)
September 30, 1977 $ _ 299,882 2,732 (13.850)
i
MMEMMW
MIIIMMEW
MMMMMEZ
MMOMMMW
MUMEMW
MEER
MEMMW
Schedule VI-2
Street
Maintenance Sumer Fiduciary
EDA Tax Refund LEAA Lunch Accounts
- 59,100 15,555 7,809 110,815
893,740 73,114 273,223 140,318 366,789
_ _ - - 269,784
893,740 28,637 274,269 123,051 579,550
103577 14.509 25.076 167.838
MM
•
MM
MM
ME
MM
MM
•
CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
COMbiie'd Statement of Long -Term Debt Payable
September 30i 1977
Oetteta1 obligation bonds:
Fire fighting facilities
bonds
Coconut Grove incinerator
MM
Refunding sewage disposal
system
Dinner Key Marina
Land acquisition
Bayfront recreational. facilities
Recreational facilities
Storm sewer improvement
Sanitary sewer
Storm sewer improvement
Recreational facilities
Sanitary sewer
Sanitary sewer
Convention center
11111111111 IIIIIIIII
f`est
tates
Final
15aue Maturity
date date
iG;3 1/2`/ 3-1-58
3 i/2% 3-1-58
1%; 3 1/10%;
3 2/10;3%
3%;3 1/10%;
2/10%;3 1/4%
3% 3 1/10%
3 2/1O%;3 1/4%
3 9/10%;4%
4
4
4
4
4
3 9/10%;4%
3 9/10%;4%
3 9/10%
1/10%;4
4/10%;4
1/1O%;4
4/10%;4
1/10%; 4
4/10%;4
1-1-62
6-1-65
6-1-65
8-1-67
8-1-67
8-1-67
8-1-67
7-1-68
7-1-68
7-1-68
4 9/10%;5% 5-1-69
4%;4 9/10%; 5-1-69
5%
3-1-88
3-1-88
7-1-90
6-1-85
6-1-85
8-1-87
8-1-87
8-1-87
8-1-78
7-1-88
7-1-88
7-1-88
5-1-80
5-1-89
M- M▪ MMW
' IEEE
M• M
Schedule VII-1
III ■IIIIIII I III■IIII 11111
Annual
serial
payments
$ 35,000(78-80)
40,000(81-85)
45,000(86-88)
45,000(78-80)
50,000(81-83)
55,000(84-85)
60,000(86-88)
590,000(78-90)
Issued
850,000
1,100,000
14,565,000
125,000(78-84) -
120,000(85) 2,370,000
35,000(78-85) 700,000
120,000(78-81)
115,000(82-87)
55,000 (78)
50,000(79-87)
55,000 (78)
50,000(79-87)
150,000 (78)
2,250,000
1,000,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
80,000(78-88) 1.500,000
75,000(78-79)
80,000(80-88) 1,500,000
395,000(78-79)
120,000(80-85)
110,000(86-88) 5,000,000
300,000(78-80) 3,000,000
235,000(78-89)
4,500,000
8Ohds.
Itetir'ed Outstandin & Callable
410,000
525,000
6,895,000
1,375,000
420,000
1,080,000
495,000
495,000
1,350,000
620,000
630,000
3,160,000
2,100,000
do
440,000
lr
575,000
7,670,000 no
no
995,000
280,000 no
no
1,170,000 no
505,000 -
ne
505,000 -
150,000 no
880,000 no
no
870,000 no
1,840,000 -
900,000 no
1,680,000 2,820,000
no
1111111■11111111111111110I III 1 111111111111111 11111111111111111111111 IIIIIIII IIIII IIIII ill .i■
it
•
•
MME
Ell WC
GItY OF MIAM I FLORIDA
' 6 ibthed Statement of Long -Term Debt Payable
Fite fighting and rescue
facilities
Police headquarters and
crime prevention facilities
Pollution control and in-
cinerator facilities
Sanitary sewer
Highway improvement
Storm sewer improvement
Sanitary sewer
Highway improvement
Fire fighting and rescue
facilities
Sanitary sewer
Police headquarters and
crime prevention facilities
lhterest
rates
Pital
Issue maturity
date date
2/10%;5 4/10% 5 6/10%; 10-1-70 10-1-90
5 8/10%;6%;6 2/10%;
6 3/10%;7%
3 1/2%;5 4/10%;5 6/10%; 10-1-70 10-1-90
5 8/10%;6%;6 2/10%;
6 3/10%;7%
3 1/2%;5 4/10%;5 6/10%;
5 8/10%;6%;6 2/10%;
6 3/10%;7%
3 1/2%;5 4/10%;5 6/10%;
5 8/10%;6%;6 2/10%;
6 3/10%;7%
4%;4 1/4%
10-1-70
10-1-70
2-1-71
10-1-90
10-1-90
2-1-82
2 1/2%;4%;4 1/4%; 2-1-71 2-1-91
4 1/2%;4 3/4%;5%
3%;4%;4 1/4%; 9-1-71.,;:;; 9-1-91
1/2%;4 4/10%;4 6/10%;
4 7/10%;4 8/10%;5%
3%;4%;4 1/4%; 9-1-71 - 91-91
4 1/2%;4 4/10%;4 6/10%;
4 7/10%;4 8/10%;5%
3%;4 1/10%;4 2/10%; 6-1-72. 6-1-92
4 3/10%;4 4/10%;4 1/2%;
4 6/10%;4 7/10%;6%
3%;4 1/10%;4 2/10%; 6- 1-72 6-1-92
4 3/10%;4 4/10%;4 1/2%;
4 6/10%;4 7/10%;6%
3%;4 1/10%;4 2/10%; 6-1-72 °; 6-1-92
4 3/10%;4 4/10%;4 1/2%;
4 6/10%;4 7/10%;6%
Schedule VII-2
■
■
■
■
■
Annual
serial
payments
$ 55,000(78-81)
50,000(82-90) 1,000,000
l�su�ed
80,000(78-86)
75,000(87-90) 1,500,000
160,000(78-82)
155,000(83-90) 3,000,000
570,000(78-80)
565,000(81)
145,000(82-90)
300,000(78-82)
80,000 (78&
83-91)
75,000(79-82) 1,500,000
395,000(76-82)
120,000(83-88)
110,000(89-91) 5,000,000
110,000(78-82)
100,000(83-91) 2,000,000
Retired Outstanding Callable
330,000
480,000
960,000
7,000,000 3,420,000
3,000,000 1,500,000
55,000(78-83)
60,000(84-92) 1,100,000
425,000(78-82)
430,000(83)
85,000(84-88)
80,000(89-92)
80,000(78-88)
75,000(89-92)
5,000,000
1,500,000
400,000
1,975,000
550,000
670,000
1,020,000
2,040,000
3,580,000
1,500,000 no_
no
do
to
no.
1,100,000
3,025,000
1,450,000
230,000 870,000
1,000,000
320,000
3,300,000
1,180,000
rio
nb.
11M1111111111111111u11111i1■iiii iiiiiii iiiin IiiIiiiI
C1'tY OF flAMI i FLORIDA
Com1iitied Statehent of Long -Term Debt Payable
StOrth setwer improvement
Street and highway improvement
Public parks and recreational
facilities
Storm sewer improvement
Police headquarters and
crime prevention facilities
Storm sewer improvement
Street and highway improvement`
Sanitary sewer
Police headquarters and
crime prevention facilities
Sanitary sewer
Police headquarters and
crime prevention facilities
Ititeres t
rates
3%;4 1/10%;4 2/10%;
3/10%;4 4/10%;4 1/2%;
4 6/10%;4 7/10%;6%
3%;4 1/10%;4 2/10%;
4 3/10%;4 4/10;;4 1/2%;
4 6/10%;4 7/10%;6%
3 1/2%;5%;5 1/10%;
5 2/10%;5 1/4%;7%
3%;4 1/2%;4 6/10%;
4 7/10%;4 8/10%;
4 9/10%;5%;5 4/10%;
6%
• 3%;4 1/2%;4 6/10%;
4 7/10%;4 8/10%;
4 9/10%;5%;5 4/10%;6%
3 1/4%;6%;6 1/4%;
6 1/2%;6 1/10%;6 2/10%;
6 3/10%;6 4/10%
6 1/2%
6 1/2%
Pittal
Issue Maturity
date date
6-1-72 6-1-92
6-1-72 6,-1-92
10-1-72
9-1-73
10-1-97
9-1-93
9-1=73 .9-1-93
3-1-75 3-1-95
3-1-75 3-1-86
3-1-75 3-1-86
3 1/4%;6%;6 1/4%; 3-1-75 3-1-95
6 1/10%;6 2/10%;
6 3/10%;6 4/10%
3 3/4%;6 1/10%;6 1/4%; 10-1-75 10-1-95
6 4/10%;6 6/10%;6 7/10%;
6 8/10%;6 1/2%;7%;
7 1/10%;7 1/2%
3 3/4%;6 1/10%;6 1/4%; 10-1-75 10-1-95
6 4/10%;6 5/10%;6 6/10%;
isomm-
Schedule VII-3
■
■
1
■
■
■
•
■
Annual
serial
payments
$ 160,000(78-84)
155,000(85-92)
155,000(78-83)
55,000(84-85)
50,000(86-90)
45,000(91-92)
1,185,000(78-96)
1,115,000(97)
105,000(78-79)
100,000(80-85)
110,000(86-92)
105,000(93)
210,000(78-84)
200,000(85-89)
225,000(90-93)
160,000(78-87)
155,000(88-95)
300,000(78-86)
500,000(78-86)
430,000(78-82)
425,000(83)
420,000(84-86)
415,000(87-95)
355,000(78-86)
160,000(87-94)
170,000(95)
105,000(78-95)
Issued
Retired
Bonds
Outstanding Callable
3,000,000 640,000
2,000,000 620,000
28,350,000 4,720,000
2,000,000 315,000
4,000,000
3,000,000
3,000,000
5,000,000
8,000,000
5,000,000
630,000
160,000
300,000
500,000
2,360,000
1,380,000
23,630,000
1,685,000
3,370,000
2,840,000
2,700,000
4,500,000
430,000 7,570,000
355,000 4,645,000
2,000,000 110,000 1,890,000
tto
no
no
do
no
no
no
no
no
no,.
no
uIIIuuIIIIIIIIIuuIDIIIIuIIIIIIII.uIIIIiIIIIIIIIIII ii•iu•uiiuui
3.86%
1;$2$,183,02/
$3,275,022,632
744.179.862
4,644,604
4,023,847.098
195,664.076
$3.828.183.022
$ 156,996.000
9,071,000
$ 147.925.000
RAtIO OP fii t bEBT TO ASSESSED VALUATION
for fiscal year ended September 30. 1978
inclusive of Bonds offered hereunder.
1977 Net Assessed Valuation*
1977 Assessed Value*
Real Estate
Personal Property
Railroad Property
Total
Less Homestead Exemptions
Total 1977 Net Assessed Valuation ... , .. , i .
Total Debt (including the S18.250.000 Bonds)
General Obligation Bonds
Incinerator Revenue Bends
Utility Ser\ ice Tax Bonds
Orange Boml Revenue Bonds
Orange B0111 Warehouse Rental Bonds
Off Street Parking Revenue Bonds
Less: self-supporting honds including
honds payable from special assessments
NET DEBT
Ratio Net Debt. including the Bonds. to Net
Assessed Valuation
*Latest: assessment valuation.
i i lCvi
$147,925,000
512.000
1,500,000
635,000
249.000
6,17 5.000
1978 Estimated Population — 356,000
Per Capita Assessed Valuation — $10.753.32
Per Capita Net Debt — $ 415.52
IIIIIII■II■111IIII111111111111111111I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
CttY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
CdMbihed Statement of Long -Tetra Debt Payable
Storm sewer improvement
Street and highway improvement`'..
Sanitary Sewer
Firefighting fire prevention
and rescue facilities
Police headquarters and
crime prevention facilities
Total general
obligation bonds
Special obligation bonds:
Incinerator revenue bonds
Utilities service tax,
series "A"
Orange Bowl special
obligation bonds
Total special
obligation bonds.
Judgment payable
Interest
rates
5% 4:6%;4.7%;4.8%;4.9%;5%;
5.1%;5.2%;6.3%;7%
4.6%;4.7%;4.8%;6.3%;7%
3.5%;4.6%;4.7%;4.8%;4.9%;
5%;5.1%;5.2%;6.3%;7%
3+5%;4.6%;4.7%;4.8%;4.9%;
5%;5.1%;5.2%;6.3%;7%
3.5% 4.6%;4.7%;4.8%;4.9%;
5%;5.1%;5.2%;6.3%;7%
3%;3 1/4%;3 2/10%;
3 3/1O%;3 4/10%
Final
Issue maturity
date date
5-1-77 5-1-97
5-1-77 5-1-88
5-1-97
5-1-17
5-1-75-1-97
5-1-77 5-1-97
7-1-81
2-1-88
9-1-82
Schedule VII-4
MIIIIIIIiimmoi
Annual
serial
payments
$ 105,000(79-96)
110,000(97)
500,000(79-88)
740,000(79-84) `
720,000(85-88)
630,000(89-93)
635,000(94-90)
625,000(97) 13,000,000
issued
Bonds
Retired Outstanding Callable
2,0001000 - 2,000,000
5,000,000
265,000(79-90) -
260,000(91-97) 5,000,000
�:;_°.:; ;-, ,5,000,000
5,000,000
3,000,,000
145,000(79)
150,000(80-84)
155,000(85 &
94-97)
160,000(86-88)
170,000(89-93)
3,000,000
3,000,000
$ 165.785.000 41.880.000 123.905.000
166,000(78-79) -
173,000(80-81) 3,300,000 2,622,000 678,000 -
150,000(78-88) 3,125,000 1,475,000 1,650,000 yes
no
140,000(78)
150,000(79)
155,000(80)
165,000(81-82)
1,900,000
1,125,000 775,000
$ 8.325.000 5.222.000 3.103.000
$ 750.000
yes:
yes
ct tY 0 ' MIAMI, FLORIDA
c6uibifiet Statement of Lorig4erin befit Paygibid
■Final
,;,;; .,, ,,,F�,,,,;
, ,. :'{i ,;:;,.:' ifttetest Issue i�Aturity
:Lr ``;ri'Krr
date;rri,'•`= }u?_'A, t =':<>:'",'_- mate date
_ ` 'ni,f:Fij1��';yjS �.F i,�Ae^, `'�Iy ;ty;1, {fit'. •,,'
Ei Orange fowl warehouse
.ka,:yy,i*,x,,, „$.%,; 6 1/2% 12-1-69 12-1-82
ME
= re�ienue bonds ,itb ':��i�� ��{'„��.,, ::,>?�;'' ,;r':'
ag
mm
mm
i':•-(t'�srxrdr;�:"'`,,: m;ii, r; r, h�,�i3':.,i{�y<;ttul`. -{.,
MO Orange Bowl warehousems
b revenua bonds ,. ..i;��.•is'.�;�;'�4i. �d;r`n:t:' }`�r' '�w���^jk.- I/2% 12-20-74 12-20-
89
mm
m.
mm
mm
' i , ?/,J,,rry�l`{F"s�?� �!.;i�!':'.4:" i;?'?a, »�E,�,:,�4;•` �nxti,,'�..%;i,:
•
„Total enterprise fund
revenue bonds
i
Schedule fl I-5
Annual
serial
payments
$ 8,000(77)
9,000(78-79)
10,000(80)
11,000(81)
14,000(82) 105,000 ,44,000
otids
1SSued ttetired Outstanding CAllibie
10,000(77)
11,000(78)
12,000(79)
13,000(80)
14,000(81)
15,000(82)
16,000(83)
17,000(84-85)
18,000(86)
20,000(87)
21,000(88)
22,000(89)
IIIII 111111111 11111111111011111111111111111
Aim
61,000
Imo ire Iwo
225,000 19,000 206,000
330,000 63,000 267,000
$ 174,440,000 47,165,000 128.025,000
yes
IIIII I II III IIII■III 11111 IIIIIm i iiii Un Ii1U1.
1■IIIINIM■■III
INIMW
IMMEMIC
Mir
oNF
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
=5,
A statistical comparison of ten years revenues and expenditures.
■ 111iiii iiiiiiiiiii iiiiii111iui1111111111111 1iiiiii■il
tfl' OF MIAMI. FLORIDA
GENERAL REVENUE B1 SOURCE
LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS
Citt StateTatUS I.icensec F'iftea
ha at Veit end - Property and
and and
Septetubet 311, Tares (:rants Permits Forfeitures
1977 34,848.936 12.271.365 3.911.212 1.125,302
1976 30.115.577 11.919.764 3.879.956 1.162.586
1975 26.239.664 12.456.546 3.761.602 1.225.870
1974 22.915.782 12.524.075 4.012.672 1.243.704
1973 21.011.368 11.452.073 4.25(1.789 1.090.420
1972 24.742.993 7.961.047 3.939.992 1.141.205
1971 23.967.489 4.674.990 ,431.840 1.103.873
1970 20.062.060 4.638.556 3.924.669 1,269,328
1969 ... , , 19.852.790 4.573.6(13 2.517.922 1.390.439
1968 18.810.150 3,794.872 2,394.184 1,129.873
Percentage of Total Re%enues
1977 39.3% 13.8% 4.45 1.3%
1976 39.4 15.5 5.0 1.5
1975 39.4 18.7 5,5 1.8
1974 37.8 20.6 6.6% 2.0.
1973 . 38.6 21.0 7.8 2,0
1972 49.8 16.0 8,0 2,3
1971 52.2 10.2 7.5 2:4
1970 50.2 11.6 7.3 3,2
1969 51.5 11.9 6.5 3.6'
1968 55.4 11.2 7,1 ;3�3
MEM
f,
-
si,MEM
MEM
MEER
5,8%
2.3
,9
.8
9.9%
8.5
8.4
5.0
7.2
Cohtributiohs
Use of ChaPges Ftorn Othet Fedetnl
Monet and Othet tot Funds and Revenue
Property Agencies Services Miscellaneous Sharing
798,920 5,111.683 2.436,838 19,398,298
1,232.227 1.732.458 2.140.251 18,012,183
1,543,687 574.739 1.566,713 13,698.361
1124,235 477,342 1.335.666 13,029,582
789,773 614.818 1,244,837 10.1 13.533
815.158 447,754 1.096,615 9,546,588
739.436 84.789 1.648.962 10,219, 226
948,934 68,302 1,072,311 8.983,120
817.715 83.790 992,050 8,346,545
689,472 83.929 1.017.758 6,048.999
8,762,903
6.563,430
5.600.000
3,000,000
3.907.364
total
88,665,457
76,958,432
66.577,182
60,670,058
54,474,975
49.691.352
45,870.605
39,967,280
38,574,854
33,969,237
% Increase
of Revenues
Over Prior
Year
.9%
1.6
2.3 '.
3,5
1.5
1.6
1.6
2.4
2.1
2.0
21,9%
23.4
20.6
21.5
18.5
19.2
22.3
22.4
21.6
17.8
15.2%
15.6
9.7
11.4
9.6
8.3
14.8
3.6
13.6
4.6
tlt% Off' MIAMI, FLORIDA
titNt1AL ttfltRNMENiTAL EXPENDITURES RV FUNCTION
LAST TEN SEARS
Parks Hirai
Pistil Veat bid P►iblic Public and and
,epteh_ibet3(1. Safets Improvements Recreation Sanitation Administrative
1977 37.155.82c 5.805.270 4.1(.16.84(1 10.375.192 6.833.585
1976 33.592.159 5.677.643 4.117.516 10.400.131 5.536.357
1975 3(1.226,057 5.797.969 3.831.500 9.630.421 4.795,299
1974 25,444.701 5.176.162 3.347.083 8.507.417 3.979.445
1973 23.146.577 4.713.406 3.059.575 7.785.445 3.201.220
1972 20,717,608 3,947.743 3.045,680 7.125.771 2.736.056
1971 2(1.22(1.729 3.717.559 2.821.648 6.970.912 2.688.011
1970 17,942.085 3.327.178 2.451,524 4.732.024 2,505.331
1969 16.472.030 3,2.09.982 2.465.029 4.001.667 2.298.287
1968 14.579.195 3.051.145 2.376.888 3.466.913 2.093.102
*General Purpose Accounts include Building Costs. Fringe Benefits and Other General Expenditures.
**The operations of the Libraries and the Hydrant Service were transferred to Metropolitan Dade
County.
***Prior to. and including 1975. the costs of the Group Insurance and Social Security are included in
Pensions.
Percentage of Total Expenditures
1977 4I.8`'i. 6.5 i 4.6% 1 I.7 7; 7.7qr
1976 42.7 7.2 5.3 13.2 7.0
1975 41.3 8.0 5.2 13.2 6.6
1974 42.0 8.6 5.5 14.1 6.6
1973 43.2 8,8 5.7 14.5 6.0
197" 43.3 8.2 6.3 15.0 6.0
1971 43.0 8.0 6.0 14.8 5.7
1970 43.7 8.1 6,0 11.5 6.1
1969 42.3 8.2 6.3 10.3 5,9
1968 42.0 8.8 6.8 10.0 6.0,.
■
i•
i
THIS PAG/ INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLA
MMEr
1-
•
•
1
1
•
II ` PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT IL.ANk -
MIR
Pensions
1 1,003.921
8.741.067
I0.266,025***
7 17 ,31
5.875.635
4.897,(169
4.537,380
3.612.402
3,645.687
3.347.920
Puhlicitj Lighting
1.292,173 2,739,047
1.288.725 1.380.178
1.483.296 1.188.716
1.398.783 378.754
1.204.927 1.216.546
1.151.801 1.060,828
924,406 892.995
901,222 812,251
974.901 758,339
906.159 781.861
Libtiiics
478.191**
2,635.865
2.218.4 35
2.208.053
2,038.233
Citiftet )1
tlytitafit h'utt use
SpF�icai , Accoutnts total
350,193**
344.391
9.594,558 88,906,411
7,984,693 78,718,469
5.873.041 73.092.324
5.015.178 60,524.754
3.386.870 53.590.201
2.576.508 47,737.255
1.540.664 46.950.169
2.531,804 41.034.256
2.538.6i5 38.922.823
1,757,868 34,743,675
Increase
I Decreases
of F:stpenditures
(her Prior ear
12.4r ;
1 1.0
14.1
12.0
11.0
10.2
9.6
8.8
9.3
9.7
'1,7` 1.8
2.0 ' 1.6
.6
2.2 2.3
2,4 2.2
2.0 2.0
2.2 2.0
2.5 ' 2.0
2.6 .2:2 '
1.3
10,8 r 12.9`-r
10.1 7.7
8.0 20.8
8.3 13.0
6.3 12.3
5.4 . 1.7
3.3 I4.4
6,2 5.4
12.0
8,1
s�F
MWMUS
MIN
a�LL
IML
INN
1111IIIII11I111uIIIIIIIII•IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
TlJIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLAND `
•
MM
IMCV
IMP
MMM
TIPS,PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANk
r
THIS PAGE INTENTIO VA LL Y LEFT BLANK
ffE
4
titV at' ,l_tAMt) a Florida
ThUnidipal corporation, ,
A-OHttititrrtMhttitrt Or rtiikpA
•.eAtt 'Not
) •
Petitioner, PttitIoNn,s MOTtOt4 FOR Rt.-
) REARING AND FOR ConsioERAttoN
Vs t or cotr9t1TuttoNAL PROVISIONS
) AND A POINT OF LAW NOT DEALT
ST, JOE PAPER COMPANY, etc.i WITH BY COURT'S OCTOBER 5'
et al., ) 1918 RULING
Respondents. )
Petitioner, City of Miami ("City"), respectfully moves
this Honorable Court to rehear and reconsider its order and
opinion in part affirming and in part discharging certiorari
in this cause, and for the Ccurt to consider and rule upon
constitutional bases and a point of law not addressed by this
Court's October 5, 1978 decision.
As yrounds therefor, the City would show unto the Court
as follows:
1. This cause is before the Court on "questions of great
public interest" jurisdiction, not upon "direct conflict"'
jurisdiction. See Florida Constitution, Article V, Section
3(b)3.1
2. The question certified is whether Florida Statutes
-'.:.Chapter 712 can constitutionally be applied to divest the City
of a grant deed to state soverignty land.
3. This Court has properly approved the City's contention
that respondent's putative root of title is a wild deed.
4. But this Court has rejected the City's challenge to
..Chapter 712's constitutionality if it is held to apply to a
wild deed.
5. The Court has indicated that other states have approved
the constitutionality of marketable title acts, but has over-
looked the fact that such approvals of constitutionality came only_
by construing such statutes as not according validity to wild
1The propriety of a partial affirmance and a partial discharge of
certiorari is therefore unclear.
HAILE., DAVvES,A PROF ESSIONAL ASSOC-NATION
SUITE oBEELONE BISCAYNE TOAEP,TWO SOUTH BISCAYNE BOultvABB.M;AMI. A.OR.OA 33131 TELEPHONE StAC.
otk
•
■
•
d>< See B:tchangelNat' 1. Bank tawndale, Nat'.1 Bank, 243
:2e# 191 Yi11. 1968); Wiche1ran v, Messner, 33 ,a.W,2d 800
"(Minh, 1957)6
66 The Court has misperceived the thrust of the Cit.'s
afqunent as being a blanket attack on all retroactive statutes.
Without conceding the point, but accepting for argument's sake
: that retroactive legislation may be constitutional, the point
here is that the City needed two kinds of notice to be constitu-
tionally deprived of its vested rights. One, it hadt notice of
passage of Chapter 712 in 1963, The second, it did not have:
Notice that there was an adverse claim to its property. This
Court's opinion deals only (and at length) with the first kind of
notice. But the Court fails to deal with the second,
76 Until this opinion, the law of Florida has always been
,'that a wild deed does not affect property or constitute valid
notice. That law was plainly part of the statute. See U.S.
-Trust Co. v. N.J., 97 S.Ct. 1505, 1515 Note 14 (1977) and
authority cited.
8. Until this Court's opinion, no statute, rule, principle
'or case law held that Chapter 712 (or any statute like it) became
operative by virtue of a void instrument.
9, Unless Chapter 712 is now construed to require that all
ested property right owners must re-record all deeds to protect
their property, it must be recognized that the 1944 wild deed did
riot trigger Chapter 712 as to the City.
10. Therefore, the Court's discussion,as to retroactivity of
the statute generally,missos the mark. Florida constitutional
decisions have always before recognized that void instruments do
not accord the notice required by due process. This Court's
opinion fails to address or to acknowledge that issue; yet the
issue is critical to the Act's constitutionality.
11. This Court acknowledges that the City claims to be .an
agency of the state and therefore excepted from the Act's purview.
But the Court fails to address the decisions holding cities to.
be agencies. Instead it points to the language of 'lcr;da Statute:;
-2-
BAILEY b DAl.ES,A PRCFCSS,ONAL A5$OCfAT,GN
SWTE I82O,0NE BISCAYNE TOWER, TWO SOUTH BI>CAYNE BOULE VARD,MiAM,, FLORIDA 33,31. TELEPHONE ,JCS, 374-5. O5
e•
MEM
MEM
MEM
off' iitiAYII i a Florida
hidipai Corporation,
Petitioner,
Vs,
Et, JOE PAPER COMPANY, etc,,
et al,,
Respondents,
fit stA,REME dbuiVt 0 i taiDA
dA8t 5iiil5
PETITION'R' S MOTION itroft RE=
iIEARING AND FOR COSiSIBERA IbM
OF CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
AND A POINT OF LAW NOT DEALT
WITH BY COURT'S OCTOBER 5,
1978 RULING
Petitioner, City of Miami ("City"), respectfully moves
this Honorable Court to rehear and reconsider its order and
opinion in part affirming and in part discharging certiorari
in this cause, and for the Court to
consider and rule upon
constitutional bases and a point of law not addressed by this
Court's October 5, 1978 decision.
As grounds therefor, the City would show unto the Court
as follows:
1. This cause is before the Court on "questions of great
public interests' jurisdiction, not upon "direct conflict"
jurisdiction. See Florida Constitution, Article V, Section
_ 3 (b) 3, 1
2. The question certified is whether Florida Statutes
Chapter 712 can constitutionally be applied to divest the City
of a grant deed to state soverignty land.
3. This Court has properly approved the City's contention
' that respondent's putative root of title is a
wild deed.
4. But this Court has rejected the City's challenge to
Chapter 712's constitutionality if it is held to apply to a
wild deed.
5. The Court has indicated that other states have approved
,the constitutionality of marketable
'looked the fact that such approvals
title acts, but has over -
of constitutionality camp only
by construing such statutes as not according validity to wild
1The propri.'ty of a partial affirmance and a partial discharge of
.certiorari is therefore unclear.
BAILEY f DAWES,♦ PROF-ESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
SUITE IBeO+ ONE. BISCAYNC TOWER, TWO SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 TELEP"ONE IJ0!.+314•5S05
4
g: fee Et<chancelNat' i. Bank art ,i.awndale Sint' 1 , Bank) 241
i4 2d 193 (Ill. 1968) , t•'iChelnan v, '•lessner, 33 ;4:P:.2d Sod
.-(Minn, 1957) .
6. The Court has misperceived the thrust of the City's
,Argument as being a blanket attack on all retroactive statutes.
Without conceding the point, but accepting for argument's sake
that retroactive legislation may be constitutional, the point
here is that the City needed to kinds of notice to be constitu-
tionally deprived of its vested rights. One, it had: notice of
passage of Chapter 712 in 1963. The second, it did not have:
Notice that there was an adverse claim to its property. This
Court's opinion deals only (and at length) with the first kind of
notice: But the Court fails to deal with the second.
7. until this opinion, the law of Florida has always been
that a wild deed does not affect property or constitute valid
notice: That law was plainly part of the statute. See U.S.
Trust Co. v. N.J., 97 S.Ct. 1505, 1515 Note 14 (1977) and
authority cited.
8. Until this Court's opinion, no statute, rule, principle
or case law held that Chapter 712 (or any statute like it) became
operative by virtue of a void instrument.
9.
Unless Chapter 712 is now construed to require that all
Vested property right owners must re-record all deeds to protect
.their property, it must be recognized that the 1944 wild deed did
not trigger Chapter 712 as to the City.
10. Therefore, the Court's discussion,as to retroactivity of
the statute generally, misses the mark. Florida constitutional
decisions have always before recognized that void instruments do
'not accord the notice required by due process. This Court's
opinion fails to address or to acknowledge that issue; yet the
issue is critical to the Act's constitutionality.
11. This Court acknowledges that the City claims to be an
agency of the state and therefore excepted from the i+ct's purview.
13ut this Court fails to address the decisions holding cities to
lie',agencies, Instead it points to the language of Florida Statutes
BAILEY a o*..ES,A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
Wag 1B2O,ONE RISC/.YNC TOWEN, TWO SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULfvARD, M.AM1, f'LORIDA 33 • TELFP..OP.E ,3:1A' 374 b'.OS
•
e
•
ort
i
:Chapter 7101.(1)4 €iut that re'terehce has no bearing oh the
dgehdy question. Admittedly the City is "singular' "governmental"
and "corporation" and therefore a "person" within Chapter 712.
But so is the "state"and so is "any political subdivision or
agehcy thereof." Florida Statutes Chapter 712,01(1). If the
Court teads Chapter 712.01(1) as determinative, then it must
read out of the Chapter the provision of Chapter 712.04. It is
simply incorrect to hold that Chapter 712.01(1) is determinative.
12. But accepting the Court's clear holding that the City
is, for purposes of the Act, just like a private corporation,
the Court's opinion fails to deal ,ith the necessarily con-
comitant result -- the state has deprived the City of a vested
property right and/or a constitutionally protected contract
right2 without compensation.
13, For this Court has failed to address two other constitu-
tional attacks on this application of Chapter 712: even when a
"taking" is accomplished with due process, and even when a
contract right is validly impaired under the police power, the
person losing the property or contract right must be fairly
compensated. See, e.c., C.S. Trust Co. v. N.J., supra, 1516
at Note 16. See also Contributors to the Pennsylvania
Hos::ital v. City of Philadclphia,36 S.Ct. 35 (1917).
14. Indeed the construction placed by this Court upon Chapter
712 and its application here is inescapably an inverse condemnation
of the City's land. That the City's grant is full and complete
was recognized by this Court in TIFF v. C1ivahton, 86 So.2d 775,
785 (Fla. 1956). That its ownership is proprietary and non-
governmental has now been declared by this Court's October 5, 197S
ruling. That it has been divested by operation of Chapter 712 has
also now been made clear. And that it has not been compensated
'is obvious. The result of the Court's decision, therefore, is
that a private owner has been permitted, for reasons of Florida
public policy, to divest a city of land owned in its proprietary
`See U.S, Trust Co. v. N.J., supra, 1315 at TJoto 14.
-3-
DAILEY & DANES A PPCFCSSIONAL ASSOCIATION
SUITE I82Q.OWC BISCAYNC TONER, THO SOUTH BISCAYNF. BOULEVARO,MIAMI FLOPIOA 3313. • TELE P..CONE 130t, 374-5t"r
C
1•
•
•
acit't )fonoring such a publid policy, however, renders the
e liable to pay the city fair Value for the land the state
hat allowed the private owner to take from the city.
15. Put another way, the Court's October 3, 1973 decision
fails to deal with the issues of (a) "taking" (just compensation)
and (b) impairment of contract. In the latter regard, the United
States Supreme Court has, in two recent decision, made it abun-
dantly clear that either course requires just compensation. The
discussion in U.S. Trust Co. v. S.J., supra, at 97 S.Ct. 1515
through 1521, including the _footnotes (14 through 27), and
especially footnotes 14,16, 17 and'27, plainly delineates the
constitutional proscription against Chapter 712's application
to these facts. See also Allied Structural Steel Co. v. Spannaus,
.98 S.Ct. 2716 (1978).
16. This Court's opinion, as are all of the briefs opposing
the City, are silent on this point. Surely this Court does not
Mean silently to vitiate the two concepts from Florida's own
Constitution as well as to ignore the clearly reiterated mandate
of the Unites States Constitution.
17. Finally, and of critical necessity to the result reached
by the Court's October 5, 1973 decision, the Court silently
accepts the state's unsupported position that the subject land
is not soveri'nt.: land. The state took this gratuitous position
in its aricus brief. The City sought leave to brief a response.
The Court never ruled upon it, "carrying it with the case."
Out of an abundance of caution, the City filed a proposed
responsi'.' brief en September 12. The Court's unexplained
.discharge of certiorari and its declining even to accept the
briefs appears to indicate that the Court has never examined
the law on what is and what is not soverignty land.
18. As pointed out in the City's September 12th brief, every
discovered decision on the point indicates that the 1919 transfer
to the City did not and could not destroy the soverign nature of
the property in question. See U.S. v. State of California,
S,Ct. 1401 (1965) ; Int'l. Paper Co, v. Miss. St. I1'..•y. Dept., 271
So.2d 395 ((Miss. 1973),eurt. denied 41.1 U.S. 827; Count'• —of=
-4
BAILEY f DAWLS,A PRCTESSIONAL A.00IA.sCN
EJITE I82O.ONE BIt.CAYNC TOKER.TKO SOUTH BISCAYNE BJULEVAFL1,141 01, f LOAIGA 33,3I • TELEP.+ONL 7:Y!'.• •%.. ,' ^`
4
•
•
dig e v, Heim, 106 tiai, Rptr, 825' (cal, App, 1973); People V.
f#e+rkei, 4 Cal, t?ptr. 334, 343 (Cal, 1960) ; People v . Pov^romo,
353 t4,V,8.2d 343 (1973); In Re East River Drive, 289 N,Y,S, 433,
439 (1936), af`'d „ 21 :d,Y.S.2d 507 (1937); and Twombley ;. City
''of Long Beach, 333 F,2d 685 (9th Cir, 1964), cert. denied, 85
S,Ct, 195 (1964).
19, The Court's discharge of certiorari is therefore predicated
on no known statute, rule or precedent, The discharge of certiorari
is simply an ad hoc refusal to deal with a question of great public
interest,
WHEREFORE, the City respectfully requests this Honorable Court
to rehear its October 5, 1978 decision, to reconsider its discharge
of certiorari and to reverse the decision below.
Respectfully submitted,
BAILEY & DAWES, a professional
association
Attorneys for. City of Miami
1820 One Biscayne Tower
Miami, Florida 33131
(305) 371-5505
Guy B. Eai1ey, Jr.
WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was mailed,
is 23rd day of October, A. D., 1978, to each of the following:
1, SHCTTS & BO:••'EN, 1000 Southeast First National Bark Bldg.,
Miami, Florida 33131.
2.
Si LEY, GIBLIN, LE ENSON & WARD, 1301 Dade Boulevard,
Miami,, Florida 33139.
3. STEEL, HECTOR & DAVIS, 1400 Southeast First National Bari:
Bldg., Miami, Florida 33131.
4. RUSSO, VAN DOREN & ALLEN, P.A., 4685 Ponce de Leon Blvd.,
,Coral Gables, Florida 33146.
A3i3I3;dn.
' 10/23/78
O f Counsel
BAILEY & OAWES.A pROFESSIONAI• ASSOCIATION
.SUITE IB$O.ONE BISCATNE TOWER,TWO SOUTH BISCAYNE BOU4EVARO.MI .MI. r..oRIOA 31.3, • TELFPHOh
II IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIII II IIIII I I111III III I IIIIIII I NI IIIIIIIII■ ilimm■
•
•
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES 70 FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF
FILED, DETERMINED,
i t tHE SUPP ME COCP.T CF FLO?iDA
lit t tr:0140 A. D. 191
it'1' OF` MlA5ti, A Fiotida
corporation,
Petitioner,
ST, JOE PAPER COMPANY, a
Florida corporation;
SOUTHEAST PROPERTIES, INC,, .
a Flcrida corporation;
nt,GH E. MATHESON, JR., -
individualll; and SALLY S.
DOSMZRICH, formerly SALLY S.
MATHESON, individually,
Respondents,
Opinion filed October 5, 1973
Writ of Certiorari to the District Court of Appeal, Third District
Gu•: B. Bailey, Jr. and Jesse C. Jones of Bailey and Dawes,
Miami, Florida,. for Petitioner
Wm. P. Simmons Jr. of Shutts and Bowen. Miami; and Marion . Sibley
and Eric3 Meyers
f Sibley, Gi:y y
' ILevenson and Glaser, E. Siami Beach,
and St.Joe PaperCompany; JosephP.Kiock, Jr. of Steel, Hector
nd Davis, ;•?ia..,_, for Southeast
:east Properties,
Inc.; and Edmund P.
,
Russo of Russovan Doren and Allen, Coral Gables, Hugh
?h E.
Matheson, Jr., Respondents
Assistant General Counsel; and J. Kendrick Tucker,
�lssc. G. Attcr ysGe .31,for Reubin C'D. Askew,
Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, see, -
- Governor ofthe State ,cf Florida,Reber_ 5nevi n, as
as Gt• - - � _ -..._
Attorney Genera_ sf the State of Florida, Curiae
C. Clarkson, John R. Lawson, Jr., Hume F. Coleman and
Chesterfield
f _ •• for Anicus
CheSt_r`:e1c Smith of Holland and Knight, Tallahassee,
Curiae
J. = RoycHarris and Loucks, Pair Beach,
Richard Harris of Scott, Burk, -,
for The Florida Bar, Amicus Curiae
ADINS,.J:
This cause is here on petition for writ of certiorari
supported by certificate of the District Court of Appeal, Third
District, that its decision reported in 347 Sc._d 5 is ore
which involves a 3uestion of great public interest. We have
.turisdicticn. See Florida Constitution, Article '1 „ Section 3ibl;3).
1111111•111111
•
6
Ali
Petitioner has attacked the donstitutidhality of
ida statutes, Chapter 712, the Marketable Record Title Adt.
5o'ih,.ol'ed in this case is the question of whether an
ihterloping or wild deed could constitute a root of title,
Petitioner, hereinafter referred to as the city,
filed a complaint to quiet its title tc a tract of land on the
north side of the Miami River at or near the river's entrance
into Biscayne Bay. Upon motion, the amended complaint was
dismissed On the ground that it appeared upon the face of the
dcnplaint that the city's claim was barred by the Marketable
Record Title Act. The District Court .f apFeal, in its opinion,
fcllowingf the as described in the
recited the history o� title,
city's complaint:
"—I. In 1�45, the State of Florida acquired
from the United States the lands under navi-
gable waters.
"2 By Warrant.: Deed recorded December 15,
1995, Henry M. F1ac1er conveyed to the
Florida East Coast Hotel Corporation portions
of the mainland north of the Miami Ri:•er and
adjacent tc Biscayne Bay:
'containing fourteen acres, more or
less, together with a'_ and singular
the riparian .. rights ansubmerged
landsappertaining thereto.'
"3.
.. By a special act of the Florida Legislature
cnJune _9 the State of Florida granted
tc the Cityof Miami 'for municipal purposes
only, all_s - title and interest . .
to all submerged lands, including wa.-= -cnt
and riparian _ ehts' tc an area which included
the mouth of the Miami River. The st' ,~ y
grant included the f-" rwing section:
"'Sec. 2. That this grant shall not affect any
other grant heretofore made to any individual or
corperazicn and ncth.ng herein shall be con-
strued as depriving any riparian owner or
proprietor of any rights under the laws of this
State.'
"4. Beginning in 1920, the Florida East Coast
Hotel Corporation bulkheaded and filled a portion
of the property in question but left a yacht
basin.
"5. On January 10, 1944, the St. Joe Paper Ccmpan;
(one of the defendants) recorded a warranty deed
from the Florida East Coast F:ct=1 Corporation
which conveyed tc it all of the lands with «hick
we are here concerned including the yacht basin
which was then in existence. Some time after
1944, St. Joe filled and bulkheaded the yacht basin.
2
Ati
0
464 Al/ the,defendants other thah St4 Joe Clai!h
Under recorded deeds frOM St, Joe Paper COMpany
subsequent to the 1944 deed to St: Joe Paper
dotpafty.
41, On February 3, 1949, St. Jce recorded a plat
(attached to the complaint) of the lands involved,
this plat was approved by the City of Miami ;riot
to roccrdation." 347 So.23 1.... 623 (Fla, 1977),
The Marketable Record Title Act is a comprehensive piaft
at refort in ccnveyancing prccedures. It is a curative act in
that it may operate to correct certain defects which have arisen
ih the execution cf instrIments in the chain cf title. Curative
Statutes reach back on past events to correct errors cr irregu-
larities and to render valid and effective attempted acts which
would be otherwise ineffective for the purpose the parties
intended They operate to ccmplete a transaction which the
parties intended to accomplish but carried cut imperfectly.
The Marketable Reccrd Title Act is also a statute of
liMitatiens in that it requires stale demands to be asserted
within a reasonable time after a cause of acticn has accrued. It
prescribes a period within which a rightmay be enforced.
The Marketable Reccrd Title Act is also a recording
act in that it provides fcr a simple and easy methcd by which the
cwner cf an existing cld interest may ;reserve it. If he fails
tO take the ste; cf filing the nctice as provided, he has only
himself to blame if his interest is extinguished. The legislature
dif nct intend tc ,,,-"Y wipe cut cld claims and interests
Without a"-,--"-g a means of preserving them and giving a reasonable
period of time within which to take the necessary steps to acccm-
plish that purpose.
This court in .ahccd v. Bessemer Properties, Inc.,
18 So.2d 775 (Fla. 1944), held that the lecislature may legiti-
mately use a recording statute as 3 means of getting rid :f stale
claims. Florida Statutes 695.20, enacted in 1941, voided
contracts for the purchase of lands which were left by the
ccIlapse of the Flcrida Real Estate bccm of the 1920's. T.nder
the terms of the statute, persons whc had ccntracted to purchase
:land prior to a certain date, but had not placed a deed on reccrd
or obtained a decree and were nct in pcssessicn, were declared ts
3
MM
•
•
•
•
■
•
•
•
t
ern
Pmmor
nC ihteiest in the land unless they had given notice of
•"their Claims by recordation in one of several ways specified and
+bithin si:? Months from the adoption of the statute.
Catsman, the Marketable Record Title Act and (:niforr
title Standards, Velure 3, Florida Real Property Practice (1965)
•
Section 662 describes the nature of the act as foiicws:
"The chief purpose of the act is tc extinguish
stale claims and ancient defects against the
title tc real property, and, accordingly,
limit the per::df. search. The act is
different from a statute of limitaticns. In
a statute of limitations a claim of a vested,
present interest is cut cff because of the
claimant's f" 1 "e to sue. If suit is not
filed, the ciao... :s lcst. S_ the Marketable
Record Title Act, an:. claim or interest,
vested cr ccntingent, present __ future, is
cut cff unless the claimant preserves his
claim by filing a notice witnin a 30-year
period. See 56.5. 1: a rctice is not
filed, the claim is lcs:. The act alsc goes
beyond a curative act. Curative legislation
on.ly cor_ects certain minor or technical
defects ...._ouch the passage of me, whereas
under the Marketable Reccrd .__le Act, most
defects cr clouds on title bevcnd the period
of 30 years are removal and tE.e purchaser is
made secure in his transaction."
This court has ac'ncwledged the ccnstituticnality of
the act in Marshall v. Xollywccd, Inc., 236 Sc.2d 114 (Fla. 1970),
,and Cdcr v. De1_cna Ccrtcraticn, 341 So._.. 977 (Fla. 1976). We
new specifically hold that the Marketable Record Title Act is
ccnst_tuticna1.
Courts cf other states have ruled that similar
Marketable title acts are constitutional. See tdicheiman ..
Messner, 33 NW2d 300 (Minn. 1957) (in depth discussion of the
P.ct's ccnstituticnality); Tesdell .. Hanes, 32 .:t:2d 119, 123
(Icwa 1957) ("We are satisfied the legislature had ample authorit:.
to make a limitation. . .S.b ect tc a ocnditicn that a reasonable
time must elapse before it becomes effective."): Lane v. Traveler's
Insurance Company, 299 NW 552, 555 (Iowa 1)41) ("little doubt cf
the desirability of statutes giving greater effect and stability
to record titles.") Sec alzc discussion in rote, Ccnstituticnality
•of Market Title Le,-is1a_i..n, 47 Iowa L.Rev. 413, 423-29 (1962).
Cther decisions by this court upholding the ccnstitu-
ttonality cf similar legi ;1ati:e enac_nnts :rake it clear that
4
MM
mm
mm
EE
mm
eyA
•
imm
•
the .ct daft Oc.^stituticnally be applied to bar the city clai:t,
Mahood_•., 9esserer Properties, Inc., supra, this court upheld
the constitutionality of the application, to a purchaser under
a 1925 contract, of a 1941 act which removed from titles to
realty the clouds of unperformed contracts of reco.d unless suit
be brought within six months. In In Re Estate sf Rrown, 117 Sc,2C
479 (Fla. 1950), .his court held constitutional the application,
to a claim arising before its passage, of a 1953 statute which
barred claims against an esta-e after three years. :n H. F. L.
Realty Corporation v. :cif 'e•, 74 Sc.2d 375 (Fla. 1954), this
court upheld the constitutionality applicat.icn of a twenty-
year statute cf limitations to mortgages on a given date after
one year from such given date :n the ground that a reasonable
time is provided for the enf:roement of a cause of action before
the restriction becomes effective. See Suck v. . _", 32 So,2d
753, 754-35 (Fla. 1)47) where the court said:
"We - l that statutes
are committed _.. the rule s s
of this nature :statute of limitation] are
gccd .:here a reason.. le time is allowed to
prosecute an asserted right."
• and Cantbell .. Horne, 3 Sc.2d 125, 126 (Fla. 1941) where the
court said:
"The law is well settled by decisions cf the
Supreme Court od the United States and in
other 'urisdictions, that statutes of
1....at_cn , no existing - chts are
nct unconstitutional if a reasonable time
is given for :he enforcement of the right
before the bar takes e " e^t.
The city contends that the application cf the Act to
bar its claim violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth
Arendment to the Constitution of the United States.
Although it is a most important limitation on state
action, due process has never bean an absolute prohibition
against state legislation adversely affecting property rights.
It has been held over and over again that general limitations
on state action do not extinguish the state's police power to
enactlegislation"reasonably necessary to secure the health,
safety, gccd _rder, comfort cr general welfare of the community."
See Atlantic Coast 'tine Railroad V. Goldsboro, 232 J.J. 543, 553
(1914).
5
MNIEEIW
leg;;;
MEW-
-
11111111111111 11111111
•
c•
Ifi deteritining whether state action violates due
odesd prindiples, a court ;lust choose between protecting the
hdiVidual's guaranteed rights on one hand and the welfare of
the general public on the other. This -tethcd cf determining
whether a state meets the requirements of due process is called
the ''balancing of interest" test. See Simes s Taylor, The
I;;tnrcvement of Ctnveyenoinq hy :ec• s_-___.., 255-55 (1960) .
The Marketable Record Title Act, designed to simplify
doht'eyances of real property, stabilize `' =s and :e certainty
t0 land ownership, is certainly legislation concerning the wel-
fare of the public. See Chicago 2ur_incton s Ku_n • 3� mad
'Company 7..._-Weis, 200 J.S. 561, 592 (1_06) .
The city contends, however, that the retroactive nature
of the Act makes it an arbitrary and ....reasonable exercise of
police power. But retroactive statutes have been almost univer-
sally declared coast' - ' nai when a reasonable time was given to
protect property interests by complying with the new re:" -=merts.
Atchafalaya Land Co. v. F. B. Williams Cypress Cc., 253 .S. 234
(1922); Wheeler v. Jackson, 137 J.S. 245 (1890); Vance .. 7ance,
103 J.S. 514 (1883).
Thus, the ccr.st --- ^na'- cb:ect_sn that retrcactire
application cf a statute results in a deprivation of due process
is obviated where the statute gives owners of old claims still
'enforceable at the time of the stat•itcry enactment a reasonable
time to take certain steps to preserve their interests.
For example, in Vance .. Vance, supra, the ccnst `••"^n
of Louisiana was amended in April, 1863, to provide that "the
tacit mortgages and pri•. '.'"'e. now existing .n the state shall
cease to have effect against third persons after the first of
,January, 1870, unless duly recorded." Despite the re__cactive
effect of the statute in barring property rights conveyed prior
to the enactment of the statute, the court held that the statutory
limitation affecting those existing rights was constitutional.
The court reasoned that such retroactive application was net
prohibited by the due process clause of the .curteentn Amendment
6
M=0
wi
bemuse a reasonable tine was gilein for the enfOrdeffient Of the,
adtion before the bar took place,
indeed, in Wicheltan v..Messfter, supra, the
Minnesota Marketable Record Title Act was attacked on the Very
grOund that its retroactive features violated due process of law,
fn upholding the Minnesota Act as a proper retroactive recording
act the Suprete Court of Minnesota held:
"The recordation provisions of the act
orovide for a simple and easy method by
which the owner of an existing old interest
may preserve it. If he fails to take the
step of filing the notice as provided, he
has himself to blame if his interest is
eXtinguished. The constitutionality of
imposing this duty would seem tc have
been settled beyond cuestion by the
decisions sustaining retroactive reccrng
statutes. Scurlock, Retroactive Leg:s',—
Affecting interest in Lana, Mort. Legal
Studies, p. :lasen v. Thomtson, sutra."
83 N.W.2.d am 817.
IOwa cases have similarly upheld tha va"4"-y of the Iowa
16.tketable Record Title Act as against the same ground of attack.
Tesdell v. Hanes, sutra; Lane v. Traveler's ins. Cc., sutra.
We are not confronted with the question cf whether
the Marketable Record Title Act can be utilized to divest the
people of the State cf Florida of sovereign lands held in public
trust for them. This case is not similar to Odom 7. 2eltona
Corporation, 241 So.2d 977 (Fla. 1977), where the Trustees of
the Internal Imprmvement Fund withcut any nctice to the public
conveyed certain properties. In the case sub -udice, the
Legislature did nct lcse control of lands "irrev-c,bly vested"
in the trustees, Trustees of imtrovement Fund v. Root,
59 Fla. 648, 51 So. 535 (1910), so the grant tc the city was
effective. The validity of Chapter 8205, Special Acts of 1919,
'has been reccgni-e'd by the Trustees of the Internal Improvement
:Fund. Trustees 7)f internal ---rovement Fund v. Claughton, 96
So.2d 775, 785 (1956).
yr: • :2:1.2'7;
The Special Act gtahted to the city "for ;:iunicipai
(it oyes only" ail of the state's "tight, title and interest
:ihto€ar as the same can be Granted, to all submerged lands
inciuding waterfront and riparian rights." The provision that
the grant was "for municipal purposes only" was not a reservation
or exception, as nothing was severed from that whi:h was granted:
See City of Jacksonville v. Shaffer, 107 Fla. 567, 144 So. 388
(1332) . This provision is a restriction on the .use of the
property and dces net fall w__hi.'. the category cf true ease-
ments. See Moore .. Stevens, 90 Fla. 879, 106 Sc. 901, 43 AIR
1121 (1925).
We next consider the question of whether the Marketable
_'Record Title Act applies so as to bar claims of 'n the
subject proper_, where it was previously held in public trust
by the state, but later conveyed to the city. The city contends
that certain exceptions _..Florida S`'`"`es, Section 712.94,
prevent the application cf the Marketable Record Title Act to
the city's claim. This sue= •`e reads as follows:
"Subject to the matters stated in 5712.03,
such marketable
record ` - shall be free
and clear of all estates, interests, claims
or charges wha_sce:'er, the existence of
which ;depends upon any act, title transaction,
event cr omission that occurred prior to the
e"=- :e date c: -he root cf title. All
such estates, interests, claims or charges,
however denominated, whether such estates,
interests, claims or charges are or appear
to be held cr asserted b': a person si'i j.iris
or under a disability, whether s::ch. 7'-
is within or without the state, whether such
person is natural or corporate, cr is
private or gc'er= entai, are hereby declared
to be null and :oi this chatter
shall not be deemed _.. azsect any rldnt,
:r _.._e_=st States,
F1cr .a cr any eta c___:ers, .:carts
,
cc.. .'.__sz:..ns d_ stner ad _^c:es r der'ledin
the :aunt cr deed tvsne _suited
Stases, . _cr_. a :r a- c: a:.. ___es
parted witn title." (emphasis supplied).
M11111111•111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
!p1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 111111E11
trP
• . •
Si 11,
the city says that it is an agency of the State of
4,iotide And thereby stands in the place of the state, The
langUage of this section discloses a sharp distinction between
the tights of the state and those of municipalities. Under this
SeCtion e reservation of an "interest in the state" is protedted
When expressly set forth in a conveyance from the state. The
interest of a municipality is the same as that of any other
person and may be extinguished by operation of the Act. The
term agency (as contained in this section) does not include
municipalities for Section 712.01(1) Florida Statutes, defining
terms used in the act, contains the following:
'The term 'person' as used herein denotes
singular cr plural, natural or corporate,
private or governmental, including the
state and any political subdivision or
agency thereof as the context for the use
thereof requires or denotes.
The city argues that its claim was not barred by the
Marketable Record Title Act because the root of title relied on
by St. Joe (i.e., the deed to it from Florida East Coast Hotel
''Corporation) is a wild deed. St. Joe counters with the argument
that Florida East Coast Hotel Corporation acquired
conveyance from Henry M.. therefore, St. Joe's root of
title was not a wild deed. Et. :ce relies uccn Marsnall 7.
Hollywood. Inc., aura, where Atlantic Beach Corporation, with
Marsnall as ma:orisy stockholder, acquired title to the
property in controversy in 1913. In 1924 a forged deed
to convey the same prsperty to defendant's predecessors.
real
purscrted
The
defendant, Hollywood, Inc., claimed under a 1931 deed. The
disputed .and had remained wild, unimproved, and vacant. :t was
held that the trial court properly dismissed the complaint.
Although the deed
defendant claimed
link in the chain
initiating the chain of
title under which
was forged and void, this deed formed but one
predating the
effective
root of title.
The
District Court of Appeal (Marshall v. Hollywood, Inc., sur.ra,)
affirmed the :',udgment dismissing the complaint with pretudice and
oertified its decision to this court as being one which passed
9
•
MM
•
•
•
•
M
•
a'ctestion of great public interest. We approVed the d4disioh
e bistrict Court of Appeal; saying:
":.Claims arising out of transactions,
Whether based upon forgeries or not, pre,
dating the effective rots of title are
extinguished by operation of the Act
unless claimants can come in under any
Of the specified exceptions to the Act.
In this case, petitioner faila.tc_
qualify under any of the exceptions to
the Act, and, therefore, petitioner's
claims are barred.
"4. .he certified question involved in
this cause was, in. effect, whether the
Marketable Record Titles to Real Property
Act, Ch. 712, F.S. confers marketability
to a chain of title arising out of a
forged or wild deed, sc long as the strict
requirements of the Act are met This
question is answered in the affirmative,"
Marshall ..Hcilywood, Inc., 236 Sc2d 114, 120,
In Whalev .. .:ct__. g, 220 Sc.2d 177 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969) ,
plaintiff's chain of title was based on his predecessor's 1908
deed, while defendant's root of title was a land patent issued in
189' . The court applied the Marketable Record Title Act and held
that the patentee's heirs were precluded from asserting whatever
claim, if any, they had under the 1397 land patent, since the
190.9 deed in plaintiff's chain of Title had beer. cn record for
more than thirty years. The court in its opinion said:
"The purpose of Chapter 712, Florida Statutes,
. ,S.A. , the Marketable Record Title Act, is
to render marketable any :state in '_and
recorded for thirty years or
more and to
hake sane free and clear of any interest
arising from a title transaction, act, event,
or omission :Third.• occurred prior to the
effective date of the root of title. 'Root
of Title' is defined as the last title
transaction recorded at least thirty :ears.
A11 interest arising prior to root of title
is declared null and void unless such
interest falls witnin cne of those classes
- specifically excepted. B•, legislative
declaration this act is to be literally
construed to effect the purpose of simpli-
fying and facilitating land title trans-
actions by allowing persons to rely upon a
deed recorded for a period of thirty years
or more. The Act contains a provision for
protecting these claims which it would
extinguish." 220 Sc.2d at 191.
In Wilson v. Kelley, 226 So.2d 123 (Fla, 2d DCA 1969),
the'plainti_fs contended that an instrument could nct qualify
as a root of title within the contemplation of the Act unless
it constitutes part of the chain of title emanating from the
sovereign, In rejecting this contention the court said:
1n
===
===
=E6.
.TO hold as suggested by plaintiffs would
•ftUstrate the Act'a intended beneficial
effectt. and the Act's utility would largely
be Confined to the elimination of ancient
use restrictions and to the curing cf fortal
irregularities, a function already perforted
by other statutes and usually more quickly
than the marketable title act.
"The Act, as a marketable title act, is not
concerned with the quality of the title
conveyed by the root cf title so long as
the root purForts to convey the estate
claimed. This can be so even though a deed
is nct Fart of the chain cf title emanating
from the sovereign and is therefore often
called an 'interloting' or 'wild' deed. It
can, uncle,- the marketable title acts, form
a root of title which may eventually cut
off the interest of a person who might
otherwise have a olaim. Therefore, a
marketable title act can cure a break in
the chain of ".-'>, if the break is suffi-
ciently old." 226 So.2d at 127,
Unquestionably the deed from Hagler to Florida East
:toast Hotel Corporation was a wild deed. The effective root of
title was the deed from Florida East Coast Hotel Corporation to
. St. Jce Paper Company on January 10, 1)44, and the wild deed
was merely a link in a chain commencing before the effective
root of title. The claim of the city would be barred under the
reasoning in Marshall v. Hollywood, Inc., surra.
However, the city says that Florida East Coast Hotel
Corporation did not have title to the submerged lands. The city
argues that the conveyance of 14 acres "together with all and
singular, the n rights and submerged lands appertaining
thereto" was ineffective sc that Florida East Coast Hotel Corpora-
tion held record title to nothing more than the '4 acres.
To say otherwise, the city contends, would result in Florida East
Coast Hotel Corporation holding '"7. a wild deed to the
Atlantic Ccean bottom. St. Jce contends that this is immaterial,
for the deed from Florida East Coast Hotel Corporation to St. Jce
on January 10, 1944, could constitute the root of tltle even
though this conveyance may be classified as a wild deed. Florida
East Coast Hotel Corporation bu.kheaded and filled a portion of
the property in question in 1920, but left a yacht basin. The
deed to St. J-e zonvey,,d all cf the lands involved and, after
1944, St. Joe killed and bulkheaded the yacht basin. We are
•
11
1
NIP
_.
•
Maw
M
• 1
k4d 'to Mold, without ec#uiVocatioh, that A wild deed :nay cohstis
a'fbot of title. We so hold.
The city argues that a wild deed is void and passes
%o interest whatsoever in the land. This being so, the city
eohtends that a wild deed cannot be the foundation for a vested
estate that would fall under the protection of the Act. The
city states that the Act requires that there be a "root cf title"
which involves a "title transaction." A "title transaction" is
defined by Florida .statutes, Section 712.01(3) as one which
affects title. The city contends that a wild deed does not
affect title.
This court, as well as the First, Second and Fourth
District Courts of Appeal have :Wade it clear that the Marketable
Record Title Act deviates from ccmxrr law and prior statutes
and, by dicta, have said that a wild deed, properly executed and
recorded, may establish a new and valid title after 30 years.
Marshall v. `ell cod, supra. Whale: .. ,;or___. _ supra: Wi_scr.
v. Re11e•. s:
This court in 177 Ravcnier, Inc., v. Wadsworth, 346
So.2d 1004 (Fla. 1377) rejected the argument that only a valid
deed could act as a rcot of title. In this decision the terms
"root of title" and "title transaction" were ccnstr.:ed as
follows:
"...It shculd be obvious that the deed 'purports'
to create or transfer an estate. Purport is
defined in Webster's 3d New International Dic-
tionary unabridged (1962, as 'profess outwardly:
have the oftenspecious appearance of being.'
Certainly the Legislature intended the word
'Pu_)-e__' to have its accepted meaning. The 1937
deed meets that meaning.
The deed 'a;"-- -s title' and, in turn, is a
title t_ansact_. as these terms have been con-
strued in Florida. In Marshall v. Hc11•wocd,
Inc., 224 Sc._d 743 (Fla. 4tn :CA tne
Fourth District Court, speaking through Judge
Reed,stated at pace 749:
'The word "affecting" as it is used in
the second sentence of Section 712.02
in the clause "aff_ct_ng the title to
the land" dces not carry the narrow
meanie of "changing :r a'`-' g", The
word is used in the broader sense
meaning
"concerning" or "producing an
effect upon". In this broad sense,
even a =Id :..str_nen` of recora
"affects" lard titles by casting a
cloud or doubt thereon. Clements v.
12
te:delSoh, 1915, 70 =1a, 60, 70 Sc. 439:
Brown v: Solar,', 139E, 37 Fla. 102, 19 So,
161'." 346 Sc.2d at 1010.
Zn this case it appeared that Wadsworth, Sr., died
.930 possessed of homestead property and survived by his
Wivdw and four children. The statute governing the descent of
homestead provided that the surviving spouse would receive a
life estate in the homestead property subject to vested re-
mainders in any children. In 1937 :Mrs. Wadsworth, the surviving
spouse, executed a deed conveying , the entire fee simple to her-
self and her son as tenants in=c['.:'cn. In 1942 Mrs. Wadsworth
and her son conveyed the property to Ra•: cr.ier. F.a: n:er claimed
a .arketable Record Title free and clear of the children's
Vested remainder since that interest arose prior to the 1937
root of title.
The children argued that Florida Statutes, Section
112.03(1) preserves estates, interests, easements, and use
restrictions disclosed hy and defects inherent in the muniments
of title cn wh._h the estate is based, beginning with the root
title. The ch' -'-.n said that this statute preserved their
interest because the 1937 deed had twc inherent defects: 1)
conveyed their remainder interest and, :) it conveyed ,roper:.
..rs. Wadsworth tohe'-r :here arguments were re•,ected
because the ter... "defect_ inherent in the muniments of title"
do not refer to defectsfailures in the transmission of
title, but refs:- to defect_ in the makeup or constitution of
.the deed. on which the transmission of title depends. The
children's arguments were geared to :erects in the transmission
and there was nothing cn the face of the deed to ind' that
it conveyed the children's remainder interest, so those interests
were not saved from extinguishment.
mhe 1944 deed to St. JCi? p urperted to create an estate
and Sat..=led as a "scot of title. The city gains no help from
the provisions of Florida Statutes, Section 712.02(1) pacauae
-tiler_ was nothing cn the face? of the deed to indi ...te ....__ it
conveyed any i.._ •-net of the city. This court made it r). er
13
V._
�5r
that e atida Statut-ds, Section 11:03(1) refefs oniit to defedt's
)i tie-'takeub Of the deed when we said:
"Section 712.03, Florida Statutes, provides
that Marketable record title will not ex-
tinguish six categories cf rights that pre,
date the root of title. The first of them,
found in subsection (1), is 'estates or
interests, easements and use restrictions
disclosed by and defects inherent in the
muniments of title en whioh said estate is
base hecinning wit:. the root of tit
The ohil dren argue that their remainder
interests are within the first category
because :e 1:inherent deed has two �
defects: (1; it conveyed their remainder
interests and (2) it conveyed property
.. from
. ,eta to he,--m`. The phrasing of
theirargument shows a misunderstanding
cf the statute. As the Fourth District
Court cf Appeal stated in Marshall:
"The terms 'defects inherent -..
themuniments of __.e' do not refer
to or failures in the trans-
mission of title, as the plaintiffs
argument suggests, b:._ refer to
defects it the make up
er consti-
tution cf the deer or other fun --
tents cf title on
which such trans-
mission de_.._..da. .�..�..Sc.... at
" 751.
"The :ace of the deed foes nct reelect the
defect of a conveyance __Cr Lctta to herself."
ITT Fa. _..ier, _nc`. , .. .:3d:wcr_.., sacra at 1013.
The 1:44 deed to St. Jce ..Cep not reflect that it was
ild deed nor does it appear that _here is any defect in the
Makeup of the deed. This wild deed may properly constitute a
"root of
The city also i. -es that the Marketable Record
`ie Act operates as a means whereby people can steal land.
i! a3 Statutes, Section .12.03(6; excepts the rights ..f any
person in whose name the land has been assessed en county tax
rol_afor a period of three ear.,. This section of the statute
requires that owners cf land ^.a, their taxes and hy doing so,
would stop any party from pirating their land. Moreover, an
interest in _and can be preserved by any party by _.__._
notice within the 30-year period subsequent to the root of title
in -accordance with Section 712.0E, Florida Statutes.
The tour: in Wilson v. tell'', supra, also noted the
'safeguards which would prevent an intcrlcti . _ deed fro ---"ng
14
EMU
EM
~R
y anath•ei Peisc:^.'s deseisring ihtereStifi fa�r'o Ot4h :� eSe 04
5efsohr ,In this case the court said:
"Fop those who are concerned with the likelihood
that the Act will alicw an interl:ping deed to
cut off another oeracn' s deserving interest in
favor of an undeserving person, there are safe-
guards in the Act tc prevent this from happening.
A claimant will nct be cut off if he has teen a
art'tit ransactirn recorded within a
party . to any title t
period cf not less than thirty _ear- cr if he
files a simple nctice prescribed by the :actimeduring the tie a1_cwedfcr this purpcse. Be
will nct be cut off if he rema_.ns in ressessi n
or if theEven __ _ land is assessed to him on the __..
roll. is no conger assessed to him
he is protected if it was aseessed to him at
any time during the preceding three ':ears. But
if he has teen a party to no title
whichrs tering
tireme hehas alsofelled
to filetransaction
y ftr at least
nct_oe, and
if for -lore than three :ea- he has allowed the
land te
_ assessed _e_ taxation to sc:::ecn_ else,
neither he ncr anyterse^ claiming under
and if -- ses7 _. the land, t wool not
him is in pos •: n of -�
seed u: 3t that his claim
Shcuid be subordinate
tc ancthers percn's claim that is based uccn a
chain of title going back to an inst_ement or
ccu__ ._tceeding that has been recorded at least
thirty 'cc create or
years, the,aC
estate'
_.'-aimed'y the second pperscn.
trans
= public interest of simplifyine and facil-
.'.
itat:C ~...__ansacticit dces not seen
the leg' legislature to create a
presempeien that ..ne '. h
is negligent in c .ai m: nC
his land has abandcned his claim. 225 Sc.2d at 127.
we pcintcut the eest_rn cf whether
In summary that.
theMarkarai.t.a Record ._tie Act can to et_1ices to divest the
cf re. n land _e nct nsidered, as it is not an issue
'state scse_ __ �-•
in the case. By this opiate.. we holy.
1) The Marketable Re^^r^ Title ?.ct is cor.stituti,.na1;
2) The city is net an agency of the state and does
the pace of the state the application of the
nct stand in place ... _... .
provisions of the Marketable Record Title Act;
3) A wild or in~er'^p'ng deed may constitute a root
title.
The decision of the District Court of Appeal, as well
as the opinion expressing the views of the court, are approved.
^'he writ of certiorari is discharged.
E:;GL?»if, C.S., BOYD, OVERTC:1, .':iiCBERC, HATCI:E_T and AL:E M'N .i.. ,
Ccnc•..-
15
■
in the
§u rrmr Qtnurt of ±Fiaribu
CASE NO. 51,775
CITY OF MIAMI,
a Florida municipal corporation..
Petitioner,
Us.
ST. JOE PAPER COMPANY, a Florida corporation:
SOUTHEAST PROPERTIES, INC., a Florida corpora-
tion, HUGH E. MATHESON, JR., individually; and
SALLY S. DOMMERICH, formerly Sally S. Matheson,
individually,
Respondents.
PETITIONER'S BRIEF IN
RESPONSE TO AMICI CURIAE
BAILEY & DAWES,
a professional association
Attorneys for Petitioner
Suite 1820, One Biscayne Tower
Two South Biscayne Boulevard
Miami, Florida 331:31
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INDEX OF AUTHORITIiES �.._ _. _..... �... ii
INTRODUCTION • 1
QUESTION PRESENTED.._.wh....
ARGUMENT :;
THE LAND IN DISPUTE IS SOVEREIGNTY
LAND 5
A. Sovereignty Land Is Held in Trust For
The People 5
B. Illegally Filled Land Retains Its
Sovereignty Nature
C. Sovereignty Land Conveyed To The
City Retains Its Sovereignly Nature . 9
D. Sovereignty Lands Cannot Be
Divested By A Wild Deed 12
CONCLUSION 1 t�
1�+
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
i
i
i
i
i
1
111111111
1110111!IP111RI
1111
rimill111111 ■
•'
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Case Page
Allied Structural Steel Co. t'. Spannaus.
9S S.Ct. 2716 (1978) 13.._1 - People v. Poceromo,
:359 N.Y.S.2d 848 (1973)'
Case
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES (Continued)
Count• of Orange t•. Heim,
106 Cal. Rptr. 825. 30 Cal.App.3d
89.1 (19 7 :3 )
Haves v. Bowman.
91 So.'_'d 795 ( Fla. 1957)
In Re East River Drive, Borough of Manhattan.
•289 N.Y.S. 4:3:3 (19:1(3). aft"d.
21 N.Y.S.2d 507 (19:37)
International Paper Co. L. Miss. St. they. Dept.,
271 Sn.2d :395 ( Miss. 197:3). cert denied.
414 U.S. 827
Martin v. Busch.
9:i Fla. 535. 112 So. 274 (1927). . ......
Odom c. Deltona Corp.,
341 So.2d 977 (Fla. 1977) .
Pembroke t . Peninsular Terminal_ C
lt►8 Fla. 46. 146 S. 249 (193:3)-
People t•. Hecker.
1 Cal. Rptr. 334 (19(301 .......
Page
10
People. Toren of Smithtott;n v. P over.onim,.
:336 N.Y.S.2d 764 (1972) ......._... __ _. _ ...._.. 10' T1
State ex rel. Ellis L'. Gerbing,
56 Fla. (30:3. 47 S. 353 (190S)=
6
Thiesen v. Gulf F&A Rv. Co.,
75 Fla. 28, 78 So. 491 (1918)
Ttromhley v. City of Long Beach,
2 3.3 F.2d (i85 (9t h Cir. 1964). cert.
denied. 85 S.C(. 195 (196.1)
go,
United States v. 2,899. 17 Acres of Land,. Etc-.,.
269 F.Supp. 9031 NI.D. Fla. 1967 )
United States t'. State of California,.
381 U.S. 1:19, 85 S.Ct. 1401,
14 L.Ed.2d 2h0 (1965) ..... _ ...__._.
6
7, 8
United States Trust Co. of New York. tr.,
Neu' Jersey,
97 S.Ct. 1505,(1974 t3, 14
Num
1111111! th,
1
i
1111111111111111111111
■
1111
s
11111111111111111MIN
IND1A OF AUTHORITIES (Continued)
Case
Other Authorities
Butler Act
Florida Statutes Chapter 712
United States Constitution. Contracts
Clause, Article I. Section 10. Clause t ....._.
Page
in theevi
§uprriur Qltutrt of Yi�riiu
CASE NO. 51,77
CITY OF MIAMI,
a Florida municipal corporation,
Petitioner,
rs.
5'I'.JOE PAPER COMPANY. a Florida corporation:
SOUTHEAST PROPERTIES. INC., a Florida corpora-
tion. HUGH E. 1IATI-IESON. JR.. individually; and
SALLY S. DOMIIERICH. formerly Sally 5. Matheson.
inclivid►ially,
Respondents.
PETITIONER'S BRIEF IN
RESPONSE TO AMICI CURIAE.
INTRODUCTION
Months after oral argument in this cause, two
amicus briefs have been filed — one by the Governor
and the Attorney General of Florida, another by the
phosphate industry.
111111
1111
11
111111
1111
1111
111
111111111111
11
11
a.)
Hoth•ir•gue this Court's holding in Odom c. 1)eltona
Corp.. :341 So.2d 977 (Fla. 1977). and the effect of the
1978 amendment t() Chapter 712 (the Marketable
Record Titles Act ). The State argues that Odom was in-
correctly decided. and. alternatively. that the 1978
amendment changes the result reached in Odom. The
phosphate industry predictably disagrees.
But the argument as to Odom's continuing validity
is not relevant to this appeal. For the Odors opinion
slakes clear its inapplicability to this case. Odour holds
that, when the State conveys land which is not
noticeably navigable to private citizens without reserva-
tion of public rights. Chapter 712 applies. Zlr. -Justice'
Boyd. writing for the Court. noted that the result would
he different "in the case of a large lake. such as Lake
Okeechobee." Odom makes clear that government
ownership of such land is not extinguished by Chapter
712.
Respondents have continually urged this Court to
misread its own holding in Odom. arguing that because
the State conveyed the land to the City in 1919 and St.
Joe then took a wild. void deed to the same land in 1944.
the City in 1975 could not quiet title. Odom does not
support this. Odom would he apt here only it' the City
(or ;he State) had purported to convey this property in
1944 to private grantees. Had that happened (and. of
course. it did not) Odom :s gloss on Chapter 712 might
preclude this snit. But even this rule would he subject to
the critical exception of notice of navigability.
studiously ignored by the Respondents. and apparently
not even perceived by the writers of the amicus briefs.
9
.j
11111 l'f INN
III ! 1111
Odom makes clear that Chapter 712 does not apply
to this action. There has been no conveyance to private
grantees of this property, and the Respondents are
charged with notice of the obvious navigability of
Biscayne Bay and the Atlantic Ocean.
The State, properly concerned about Chapter i 1'''s
applicability to sovereignty lands. and not aware that
Odom compellingly supports the City's appeal, bases its
entire brief on the unsupported and in fact insupport-
able statement that the land in dispute in this case is
not sovereignty land. This attempt to whistle past the
graveyard is completely contrary to all applicable law.
A
I
mirmin
I11■ NM
III MIN
r QUESTION PRESENTED ARGUMENT
WHETHER THE LAND IN DISPUTE IS THE LAND IN DISPUTE IS SOVEREIGNTY
SOVEREIGNTY LAND LAND
A. Sovereignty Lands Held In Trust For The
People
R. Illegally Filled Land Retains its
SoVerr'l:;nty feature
C. Sovereignty Land Conveyed To The City
Retain; Its Sovereignty Nature
D. Sovereignty Land Cannot Be Divested BY
A Wild Deed
The Land In Dispute Is Sovereignty Land
A. Sovereignty Land Is Held In Trust For The People
"I'he public trust doctrine t'a- created not for the
protection of the State. but for the protection of the peo-
ple. Accordingly. the courts have refused to allow the
State to abdicate its duties as trustee.
In Florida. tliis has meant that the State can convey
the waters. shores. and beds of navigable waters to
private grantees only after statutory notice and public
hearing and a studied conclusion by the 'Trustees of the
Internal 1inproveinent Fund that a grant of a limited
port ion of sovereignty lands will not harm the people of
Florida. And even then. the State retains the right and
Cute of control and regulation. A putative conveyance of
11.111111111111111111
1111111
1
1111
1111
11
so\•ei't•lgt.:y lands not meeting these stringent require-
ments will he held void by the courts. United States t'.
'?., 99. 17 Acres of Land. Etc.. 209 F.Supp. 903. 911,S (NI.I). •
Fla. 1907) ("II. by inistake or otherwise. sales or con-
veyances are made by the 'Trustees of the Internal Im-
provement Fund of sovereignty lands . . . such sales
and conveyances are ineffectual. . . I. See generally
Hayes r. Bowman, 91 tio.2d 795 (Fla. 1957 ); Penihrolie
(. P.'nin.sular 7'rrnlinal Co., 1t)- Fla. -tEi. 1•tli Su. 2-19
1 l�l:�:i►::llartin t'. Busch, 9:1 Fla. 5:15. 112 So. 2 4 11927 ):
Thie..en t•. Gulf F&A Rv. ('u.. 75 Fla. 28. 78 So. 491
11918): State ex rel. Ellis t'. Gerhim.,'. 56 Fla. (it)a. 47 So.
:15:1 i 1908).
In Odom, this Court considered the effect of Chap-
ter 712 on this established case law. Noting the frequent
difficulty of determining factually what is or is not
navigable water and sovereignty land. the court held
that where the State had conveyed land. thereby mak-
ing a l'loiltemporanel)11s factual finding that the land was
not soi'ereign, and the surface water on the land was in
fact not noticeably ruirigable. Chapter 712 precluded
the State from later asserting that the land was
sovereign and its conveyance invalid.
"I'he At t orney General's assu rapt ion t hat the land in
the instant case has somehow "lust its sovereignty is an
unwarranted abdication of the public trust and contrary
to all applicable judicial authority. The land is
sovereignty land. vested in the City. and chapter 712
does not and cannot apply.
B. Illegally Filled Land Retains Its Sovereignty
Nature
The land in dispute was illegally filled — this fact
has never even been disputed in this appeal.
As any good faith title searcher would have found in
19.4 (the date of St. Joe's wild deed), the grantor had no
title. nor even a colorable title, to the City's land. In
1919. the date of the conveyance to the City. the riparian
rights act of 1856 did give rights to certain riparian
landowners to dredge, fill. and bulkhead, and thereby to
acquire tit le — hut only to owners of land to the low
water marl:. Hayes c. Bowman, 91 So.2d 795 (Fla. 1957):
Thiesen i'. Gulf F&A Ry. Co., 75 Fla. 28. 78 So. 491
11918). St. .loe's putative predecessors in title owned
only to the high water mark. In 1919, the submerged
lands were vested in the City. Any filling subsequent to
this was totally det'oid of legal authority. Moreover.
even if FEC had owned title to the low water mark. the
riparian rights act itself would have authorized filling
only to the channel. and all of the disputed property is
outside of the channel.
Therefore, the land in dispute did not lose its
sovereignty nature by the unlawful filling. A public trust
cannot he divested by sheer theft. According to time-
honored property law. artificial fill belongs to the owner
of the submerged lands — in this case, the City. in trust
for t he people.
In United States v. State of California, :381 U.S.
139. 85 S.Ct. 1401, 14 L.Ed.2d 260 (1965). the federal
government challenged California's claim to certain
submerged lands contiguous to islands off the coast. The
i
i
i
I
■
Supreme °Court held. t hat artificially filled land
belonged to the State — in its sovereignty capacity:
•'IWIhen a state extends its land domain by
pushing back the sea . . . its sovereignty
should extend to the new land.. . '.
U.S. at 1771
This same principal was followed in International •
Paper Co. v. Miss. St. Hu v. Dept.. 271 So.2d :395 (Miss..
19 7:11. cert. denied, •11-1 U.S. 827. The plaintiff in t hat
case challenged t he state's ownership of filled land.
Emphasizing the special characteristics of sovereignty
title, t he court concluded:
"ITJhese changing characteristics of the land
slid not displace the trust imposed upon the
state for the public...
1271 So.2d :3991
In County of Orange r. Heim, 106 Cal. Rptr. 825.:30
Cal.App.:3d 694 (197:3). the court held invalid a grant to
a private owner of artificially filled lands. The court
reasoned that to hold otherwise would impede the
county from filling land to benefit the public.
The same conclusion was reached in People v.
Hecker. 4 Cal. Rptr. 3:34, :34:3 119(iMf►:
"IAjceretions . . . caused entirely by artificial
means . . . such as . . . the dumping of
material into the ocean — belong to the state.
or its grantee. and do not belong to the upland
owner.
I
7
II
The State suggests t hat t he applicability of Chapter
712 to illegally filled land should turn on the grantee's
notice of the illegality of the fill. Such an approach
might well he valid in cases such as Odom, involving
land adjacent to water which is not noticeably
navigable. Hut it is inapt to the facts of this appeal.
For when St. Joe took its wild deed in 19•1.1, it had
before it a deed purporting to grant 10.69 acres more
than the grantor owned of record. The City has been
precluded by dismissal on the pleadings from engaging
in discovery to prove St. •Joe's actual notice. But St. Joe
is clearly charged with legal notice — of navigability. of
the sovereign nature of the land, of the C'ity's title. and
)I' the illegality of the fill. Any good faith title searcher
would have discovered these facts.
The land in dispute therefore did not lose its
sovereignty nature by being illegally filled.
C. Sovereignty Land Conveyed To The City Retains
It., Sovereignty Nature
In 1845, by act of Congress admitting Florida to t he
Union. t he United States conveyed to the State all right,
title, and interest in lands under navigable waters. and
within or about its shores. "in trust for the benefit of the
people of Florida. -
On .June 2. 1919, by special act, Florida's
Legislature conveyed submerged lands to the City of
Miami. reserving its interest in having the sovereignty
lands remain public by imposing upon it the require-
ment that it he used, in perpetuity, for "municipal pur-
poses only.
111II4i11PPI11111
!I1II li��ll ii
NNW
.l'RII
■
MI 1111
The : ,orney General. in his brief. assumes.
without eit her author►ty or analysis. that «'hen the State
conveyed the property in dispute to the City. the
property "lost" its sovereignty nature. All the judicial
aut hority on t his newly -raised point is directly contrary.
Sovereignty land Conveyed to a muflicipality. as an
agent of t he state. plainly retains its sovereignty nature.
The public interest in sovereignty land can he alienated
only when the State. expressly intending to do so. con-
cludes. after statutory notice and public hearing. that a
linlitc'(l portion of sovereignty lands may he alienated
without harming the public interest. Otherwise. the
land retains its sovereignty — particularly where. as
here. the land is conveyed to the States agent. the (city.
for municipal purposes only.
In he instant case. the 1919 conveyance to t he City.
eyed had 11 not been expressed in the grant. carried with
it the liinitation that the land was sovereign — imposed
with a trust for the benefit of the people of H'lorida. In
other words. the State could and did convey to the City
only what it had -- sovereignty land indelibly imprinted
as "public.
The applicability Of the public trust doctrine to
sovereignty lands conveyed by a state to a municipality
has been most recently clarified in a well -reasoned New
York decision. People. Town of Smithtown v. Poveromo.
:3:36 N.Y.S.2d 64. 769 (19721. aff'd on point cited but
remanded on other grounds sub nom People v.
Poreronlo, :3:)I) N.Y.S.2d 848 (19
11pI,N911
"It therefore becomes apparent that no person
can became invested with absolute ownership
11111
I!
1(1
li
or
111111111111
IIIII■I
010111111111111111
of these lands.. . . Whoever succeeus to the
sovereignty succeeds to that right of property
and holds it in trust for the nation. . . . 1,00
t he 1 tit h day of .Lune. 19G:3, . . . t he people of
the State of New York granted the land under
the Nisse(fuogue to the "Town of Smithtown.
The extent of the conveyance was necessarily
limited 1>.y the trust in favor of the people, the
dos Ptihlicilnl. just as it affected the
proprietary ownership of the grantor state. The
people of t lie State of New York clearly have an
interest in the enforcement of the trust in their
favor that is ingrafte(t upon the ownership of
the Nisse(1uogue. . . . The state can no more
abdicate its trust over property in which the
whole people are interested, like navigable
waters ail(t soils tinder them, so as to leave
them entirely under the use and control of
f)i'ivate parties. except in the instance of par-
cels mentioned for the improvement of the
navigat ion and use of the waters. or when par-
cels can he disposed of without impairment of
the public interest in what remains. than it can
abdicate its police powers itt t he administra-
tion of government and the preservation of the
peace. . .
1etllphasis supplied)
Accord: In Re East River Drive. Borough of Manhattan,
289 N.Y.S. 4:3:3. 4:39 (19361. aff'd, 21 N.Y.S.2d 507
(19:3 ):
"The courts have held time and again that the
title such as the city holds is in its sovereign
rapacity. and not in any proprietary capacity."
tt
i
MIME
•
See also ( .,"rrty of t)rcrn e c. Heim, lilt; Cal. Rptr. 825.
:i1► ('al.app.:l(11;1)1 t 19 3) (sovereignty land conveyed to
(imply subject to public trust).
"hhe United States ('ours of :appeals for the Ninth
Circuit has also held that sovereignty land conveyed to a .
municipality retains its sovereignty Mature. neon/Hey
t'. Cit" of Lon,, f3e(telt, :i:;:i 1.2d 1;,ti;► t9th ('ir. 196.11. cert.
dertif•(l, ••15 S.Ct. 15►.—, i 1' ii.1►. In that case. a citizen and
taxpayer sued to enjoin the city from sharing revenue;
produced from submerged lances with the state. The
state had conveyed the land to the city. with a use
restriction to "establishment. improvement and con-
duct of a harbor " The trial court dismissed the com-
plaint. The Ninth Circuit attirnled. holding that the
land remained subject to the public trust. The United
States Supreme ('ouirt denied certiorari.
The stale cannot. by legislation. inadvertence. or
otherwise. alienate sovereignty land in a manner it1C(►n-
sistent with the public trust. The 1919 conveyance by
the State to the City of the land in dispute. "for
municipal purposes only." cannot he construed as a
divestiture of the public trust --- the State conveyed
Only what it had sovereignty title. The land is
sovereignty land. the land belongs to the City. and
Chapter 712 dot's not and cannot extinguish the City's
ownership.
D. Sovereignty Land Cannot Be Divested By A Wild
Deed
The attorney General. in his attempt to whistle
past the graveyard and avoid the public trust doctrine Of
sovereignty lands. does correctly point out that other
1'I
!I
12
dr-
i
■II■IS
1■I1IIIII
II
111111111
1
II
11
1111111
1111111111MINII
issues of great public importance are preseented: by the
City's appeal. Each of those issues compel a reversal of
the courts below.
Chapter 712 does not. and cannot constitutionally,
validate St. Joe's wild deed. And Chapter 712 does not
apply to the City's title as an agency of the State.
As the City has previously argued, under the
Federal Contracts Clause. Article I. Section 10. Clause
1, of the ['lilted States Constitution, a state may not
retrospectively exercise the police power to extinguish
vested rights which in no way conflict with the public
interest.
When t his argument was first presented. St. Joe
responded by saying that the Contracts Clause was
rarley invoked by Federal courts in limiting the powers
of the States. The United States Supreme Court then
issued its opinion in United States Trust Co. of New
York r. NOW Jersey. 97 S.Ct. 1:1U5 (1977). making abun-
dantly clear that the Contracts Clause is far from a
"dead letter." That opinion is discussed in the City's
Reply Brief.
The United States Supreme Court has subse-
quently struck another state statute as an un-
c'(►nst itut ional impairment of contract. Allied Structural
Steel Co. c. Spannaus, 94 S.Ct. 2716 t 1978). The statute
challenged subjected certain private employers with
pension plans to a "pension funding charge" if the plan
was terminated. The effect was a statutorily imposed
vest ing requirement. The Court, in an opinion by Mr.
Justice Stewart. held that the statute tailed con-
1:1
.1, .11. II fbl iI1i,,l1
i
i
1
i
i
i
1111
111
11111111111111111111111111
1
1
1
•
St it lit ional •rutinv. The opinion is fatal to the lower
courts application of Chapter 712.
"In applying these principles to the present
case. the first inquiry roust he whether the
state law has. in fact. operated as a substantial
impairment of a contractual relationship. The
severity of the impairment measures the height
of t he hurdle t he state legislation must clear.
Severe impairment . . . will push t he inquiry
to a careful examination of t he nature and pur-
pose of the state legislation.
198 S.Ct. at 27231
Here. Chapter 719 as interpreted below ex-
tinguishes vested property rights in favor of a wild deed.
"ITIhe statute in question here nullifies ex-
press terms of the company's contractual
obligations and imposes a completely unex-
pected liability in potentially disabling
amount . . . let there is no showing in the
record hehtre us that this severe disruption of
cont rac't teal expect at ions was necessary t 11 meet
an important ,general .social problem. The
presumption favoring 'legislative judgment as
to the necessity and reasonableness of a par-
ticular measure.' United States Trust Co.. 431
U.S.. at 23. 97 S.Ct.. at labs, simply cannot
stand in this case.-
19S S.Ct. ' 724. emphasis supplied]
The specialized and limited problems of title
searches clearly do not warrant the "severe disruption"
t.t
1
■I■Iii.III ■I
of divestiture of property. Chapter 712 as applied below
unconstitutionally impairs contractual rights.'
' ,b)re(tver. application of the Contracts Clause as required by
Allied might satisfy the State's apparently obsessive concern, with
the validity of prier State transfers of submerged lands to private
parties under the Butler Act -- those transfers as contracts by the
State tas velI as the deeds in Odorn might he protected by the
Contracts Clause. Respondents in this case. of course. have no such
protect lull. claiming title to the City's land by virtue of a wild. void
deed from a private grantor who had no colorable title.
15
i
I
i
111111111111
011111
CONCLUSION
In 1919 Tie St at e of Florida conveyed to the City of
iliami the disputed land. as sovereignty land. The land
was then. and is now. held in trust for the people of
Florida.
'cite City as trustee cannot he and is not divested of
this land by Chapter 712.
The courts below have held this public bind
divested on the basis of a void deed which was illegally
executed by persons %rho were on legal as well as. in all
probability. actual) notice of the public trusteeship of
that land. In so doing. the courts below have ignored
Florida case law. have ignored t he public trust. and have
imposed upon Chapter 712 an unconstitutionality s(►
pervasive that it runs afoul of almost every con-
stitutional protection accorded vested property rights.
Chapter 712 should be held inapplicable. and the
opinion below quashed.
Respectfully submitted.
BAILEY & DAWES.
a professional association
Attorneys for Petitioner
Suite 1820. One Biscayne Tower
Two Soul h Biscayne Boulevard
Miami, Florida :33131
1:3(15) :37.1-55(15
By.
Guy B. Bailey, Jr.
16
1�1
1u1 ■ i11■
and
Jesse C. Jones,
Iiiiuuiiiiiiiiuiiiiiiiiiiiiiii !
i
1..
ION
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the
foregoing Petitioner's Brief in Response tr' Amici Curiae
was mailed to Shutt:: & Bowen. 10I)1) Southeast First
National Bank Building. Miami. Florida :3:31:31: Sihle�•.
Gihlin .k Levenson. 1:31)1 Dade Boulevard, Nliami
Beach. Florida :3:31:39; Steel. Hector & Davis. 1490
Southeast First National Bank Building. Miami.
Florida a:31:31: and Russo. Van Doren .k Allen. P.A..
4(385 Ponce de Leon Boulevard. Coral Gables. Florida
331413. this l2th day of September. 1978.
OF COUNSEL
.11 11111l1l6!
16,
ui■i■iiiii•i1111
!1!
I1
1!!
Iliiiiiiiiiiiii11miim i ■■.iiuuu.
n.i
in
me Ql�urt of jlTturtba
CASE NO. 51,775
CITY OF MIAMI
a Florida municipal corporation
Petitioner,
ST. JOE PAPER COMPANY',.
a Florida corporation:
SOUTHEAST PROPERTIES. INC.,
a Florida corporation:
HUGH E. MATHESON, JR., individually: and
SALLY S. DOMMERICH. formerly
Sally S. Matheson, individually.
Respondents.
PETITIONER'S REPLY BRIEF
LAW OFFICES
GUY B. BAILEY. JR. -
Attorneis for Pemioncr
Suite 1820. One Biscayne Towe
Two South Biscayne Boulevard.
Miami. Florida 33131
I
III
IIIIIIIIII
i
1.�
1
1
111
III
■
IIIIN •III 1U1
CITATIONS OF AUTNORITIESti'�
Case
Judicial Decisions
Florida
llhury v. Central and S other ni .
Horida Flood Control District
99 So.2d 248 (3d Fia. DCA M
Biltn►ore Village tv. Royal
71 So.2d 727 (Fla. 1954)..•••-
Bradd v h Hale Fishery Co. v. Thonmi
4) 3 Fla. 326, 112 So. 55
City o/ Miami v. &nson
63 So.2d 916 t FIa. 1953)
City o/ Alianri v. St. Joe Paper Co:
347 So.2d 622 (3d Fla. DCA 197'T
Creary v. Estate of Creary
338 So.2d 26 (1st Fla. DCA l9TEr ...w. w==..r..
Page
117
.z 7
Ellis v. Brown
77 So.2d 845 (Fla. 1955)
Emhart Corporation v. Brantfey
257 So.2d 273 (3d Ha. DCA P9 L..
Gonzales v. City of Belle Glade
287 So.2d 669 (Fla. 1973) . .
i
ii
i
. b8
tOt
1
11111111111111
.4
CiTA'i'IONS OF AUTHORITIES (Continued)
Case
!lards v. Bowman
91 So.2d 795 (Fla. 1957) .
ITT Raronier. Inc. v. Wads►vorth
346 So.2d 1004 (Fla. 1977)
In re Estate of Jef fcott
186 So.2d 80 (2d Fla. DCA 1966) :.
Jef lerso►► National Bank at Sunny isles
v. Metro Dade County
271 So.2d 207 (3d FIa. DCA 1972)
Johnson v. State
178 So.2d 724 (2d Fla. DCA 1965) . .
Marshall v. Hollywood. Inc.
224 So. 2d 743 (4th Fla. DCA 1969),
afi'd, 236 So.2d 114 (Fla. 1970)
,McCord V. Smith
43 So.2d 704 (FIa. 1950)
Odom v. 1)eltona Corporation
341 So.2d 977 (Fla. 1977) 21, 22, 2
24, 30'
Page
Overstreet v. Bishop
343 So.2d 958 (1st Fla. DCA 1977)
Pembroke v. Peninsular Terminal Co.
108 Ha. 46, 146 So. 249 (1933) ..
1
.... 28
i
i
CITATIONS OF AU'THIORiTIES (0.(14Nued)
Case
Page
Poladian v. Johnson
85 So.2d 140 (Fla. 1950 _ _ _ . 7 . CO. 15,. 16
Price v. Stratton
45 Fla. 535, 33 So. 644 U190)w 28
Reed v. Fain
145 So.2d 858 (Fla. 1962)
Sayer v. ,tlodrall
286 So.2d 610 (4th FIa. DCA 1973) cert. denied`,.
297 So.2d 562 (FIa. 1974)
• 211,25'
Shelby v. City of Pensacola
112 Fia. 584, 151 So. 53`
Smith Bros. v. Williams
100 Fla. 667, 131 So. 335 0930.::;:'
... 22
State ex re!. Ellis v. Gerhing
56 FIa. 603, 47 So. 353 (1908)...
State v. Mitchell
188 So.2d 684 (4th FIa. DCA 1966)
Stone r. Town of Mexico Beach
348 So.2d 40, 43 (1st Fia. DCA 1977 ., : :, 10t 1+7
Thiesen v. Gulf F . t R r. Co.
75 FIa. 28, 78 So. 491 (191).... :., ......< 16
i
i
111111111111
1IIIF
11
CITA 'IONS OF AUTHORITIES (Continued)
Case
Trustees o/ Tufts College v. Triple R. Ranch. Inc.
275 So.2d 521 (Fla. 1973)
(Ferule v. Bellentead Der. Corp.
308 So.2d 97 (Fla. 1975)
Wright v. Blocker
144 Fla. 428, 198 So. 88 (1940)
Federal
City of El Paso v. Simmons
379 U.S. 497, 85 S.Ct. 577, 13 L.Ed.2d 446
(1965), rehearing denied, 380 U.S. 926 (1965)
Curtis V. Loether
415 U.S. 189, 94 S.Ct. 1005, 39 L.Ed.2d 260
(1974)
Er:no:nik v. City of Jacksonville
422 U.S. 205, 95 S.Ct. 2268,
45 L.Ed.2d 125 (1975)
Page
Home Building & Loan Ass'n v. Blaisdell
290 U.S. 398, 54 S.Ct. 231,
78 L.Ed. 413 (1934)
Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust'
339 U.S. 306, 70 S.Ct. 652,
94 L.Ed. 865 (1950)
i
iv ,.
(10
11
11111
III■ . III. .�
CITATIONS OF AUTHORITIES
('ase
Shaw v. ;Forth Penn.vylrania Ry. Co.
1O1 U.S. 557, 25 L.Ed. 892 (1879) ................ 10+
Rage
United States v•. State of California
381 U.S. 139, 85 S.Ct. 1401, 85 IL E& V4011.'
(1965), rehearing denied. 382 U.S. 889 (1196&)li.. _, E41
U.S. Civil Service Commission v.
;National .-lss'n of Letter Carriers
413 U.S. 548, 93 S.Ct. 2880,.
37 L.Ed.2d 796 (1973) ...........
United States Trust Co. of New York v. New- Jersey
U.S. 97 S.Ct. 1.505,.
I E'd'd (1977)
J'%'ontble'V r. City of Long Beach
333 F.2d 685 (9th Cir. 1964), cert.. d'enied„ i 5'
S.Ct. 195 (1965)
McKnight v. Broedell
212 F.Supp. 45 (E.D. Mich. 19&21 . __... 22,, 24
United States v. 2,899.17 : cres of Larrci _Et ., .
269 F.Supp. 903 (M.D. Fla. 19671
Other Jurisdictions
State v. Zimring
566 P.2d 725 (Hawaii I9771 . .
24
271
111
1111
teAPY,'r;NMMPV .744.1:EOliFt. 4 4
',...11.11.44.1itigOtet1074410- '-'14
00
01
1111
111
11
MOM
CFI., IONS 01:AUTHORITIES (Continued)
Case
Statutes
Florida
-
Florida Statutes Chaptei:„
Fla. Stat. §712.04
Federal
Title 43 United States Code P1301 et 'seci.,;
Title 43 United States Code §1311
Textual Authorities
American of Property §17.17
Barnett. Marketable Title Acts — Panacea or
Pandemonium, 53 Cornell L.Rev. 45 (1967)
Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed. 1951)
1 Boyer, Florida Real Estate Transactions (1976)
92 C.J.S. 1024 (1955)
Page
Dickerson. The Interpretation and Application
of Statutes (1975)
Johnson, Purpose and Scope of Recording
Statutes, 47 Iowa L.Rcv. 231 (1962)
Mil
vi
111E111 11
crrATIoNs OF AUTHORITIES (Contiaw:
Case
Sands. Sutherland Statutory Construction
18
(4th ed. 1973)
rage
L. Sims, A Handbook for More Efficient
Conveyancing (1961)
11
111111,111
11
•
•
1 II■II
III
11
TABLE OF ('ONTF.N"1'S
Page
STATEMENT OF TIIE CASE
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
QUESTION PRESENTED .
ARGUMENT
THE CITY"S OWNERSHIP OF THE SUB-
JECT LAND IS or EXTiNGUISHED 1)Y
l'liL MARKETABLE RECORD TITLES
ACT.
1. Respondent's "Title" !)erives From a Wild
Deed Which Is There(ore 1''oicl.
2. Chapter 712 Does Not Apply To [Wild !)eels. 6-14
(a) A Void instrument Cannot Be -
Validated 13y The Passage of Time. 6-10.
(h) The Concerns Expressed By Mr. Harris
Do Not Support The Applicability of Chapter
711 I1-13
(c) The inapplicability of The Act To Wild
Deeds is Supported By Textual Authorities. ...
(d) Even if The Act Applied to Void Instru-
ments, The City's Ownership Would Not Be Ex-
tinguished. 3-14;.
P
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
rage
3. As s Interpreted Below., The Act Is Vneon
.s ti tutionctl: - 14L2Q
(a) The Act As Interpreted: Below Con=
stitutes A Deprivation' of Property Without Due
Procesl 1s-l-t&
(h► Retroactive Application Of The Act
Violates Due Process 16-17
(c) The Act Should Be Construed To Avoid
Unconstitutionality.. 117-118
(d) Chapter 712 As Interpreted Below
Results In An Unconstitutional Taking of
Property Without Just Compensation.
(e) The Act As Interpreted Below Is An
Unconstitutional Impairment of Contract. 19-20
4. R'c spo►ulents Cite ,Nothing To Support The
Holdings of the Courts Below That Chapter 712
Extinguishes. The City's Ownership. As An
Agency _r of The State. of This Sovereignty Land. 20-26
5. The Trial Court Improperly Made a Factual
Determination of Estoppel. 27-29
w
I8
II
II
111111111111
IIII
11111111■
11111111
1
11
II
TAB1.E OF CONTENTS (Continued)
CONCLUSION
'CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE:
Page
1O-31
11111111111
1■111111II 1M
1E1
in tile
%ynuue (ltnurt of 3fturtha
CASE NO. 51,775
CITY OF MIAMI,
a Florida municipal corporation,
Petitioner.
1'.S.
ST. JOE PAPER COMP'ANY,.
a Florida corporation:
SOUTHEAST PROPERTIES, INC..
a Florida corporation;
HUGH E. MATHESON, JR., individually: and
SALLY S. I)OMMERICH, formerly
Sally S. Matheson, individually.
Respondents.
PETITIONER'S REPLY BRIEF
STATEMENT OF THE CASE'
The decision of the court below has now been reported.
City of Miami v. St. Joe Paper Co.. 347 So.2d 622 (3d Fla.
DCA 1977).
'The abbreviations used in. Petitioner's Main Brief will be continued
herein.
R
1
11
11111111
11
11
11
Ilmormln
111
IIIIuIIIIIuI
IN111111
11
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
Petitioner agrees with Respondents Southeast Proper-
ties. Inc.. and Sall) S. Dommerich. that the facts with
respect to all Respondents ;ire the same as those with
respect to St. Joe, eAcept that the Respondents other than
St. Joe claim by deeds from St. Joe subsequent to 1944. and
that the "yacht basin.' is claimed onl) b‘ St. Joe. See
Amended Complaint. ' ' 14. 15. App. 7S-79.
11
rii
111
11
Ql'EsTiON PRESENTED
WHETHER IT WAS ERROR TO DIVEST
THE CITY OF ITS VESTED GRANT OF
SOVEREIGNTY LAND BY RETROSPEC-
TIVE VALIDATION OF A WILD DEED.
111
111
1111111111111
Pi■■iiili■■ii1ii
i
1i.i.1iii111MIN.i.
ARGUMENT
MENT
THE CITY-S OwNERSIiIi' OF THE SUB-
JECT LAND IS NOT EXTiNGUiSHI.i) BY
THE M1:\RKET:\Bl.E RECORi) TiTLi:S
ACT.
1. Respondent's "Title" Derives From a ll'i/d
Deed il'hieh Is There/ore Void.
2. Chapter 712 Does Not Apply To iVild Deeds.
(a) A Void instrument Cannot Be
Validated By The Passage of Time.
(h) The Concerns Expressed by Mr. Harris
i)o Not Support The Applicability of Chapter
712.
(c) The inapplicability Of The Act To Wild
Deeds is Supported Bs Textual Authorities.
(d) Even If The Act Applied to Void instru-
ments. The Cit_y's O«nership Would Not Be Ex-
tinguished.
3. As Interpreted Below. The Act Is Uncon-
stitutional.
(a) The Act As interpreted Below Con-
stitutes A Deprivation of Property Without Due
Process.
(b) Retroactive Application Of The Act
Violates Due Process.
III
4
II
(c) The Act Should Be Construed To
U nconstitutionalit‘ .
(d) Chapter 712 As Interpreted Below
Results in An Unconstitutional Taking of
Property Without .lust Compensation.
(e) The Act As Interpreted Below Is .fin
Unconstitutional Impairment of Contract.
4. Respondents Cite .\othing to Support The
11o/clings of the Courts Below That Chapter 712`
I:ati►tgui.shes The Cit v'.s Ownership. .•l.s . l=n
Agency 'i o/ The State. o/ This Sovereignty Land.
5. The Trial Court improperly Afade a Factual
Determination of Estoppel.
r I [' , ,I ',..1: ii1, .1pf� . , 1 .w , „ a .
11111111111
i
ARGUMENT
THE CITY'S OWNERSHIP OF THE SUB-
JECT LAND IS NOT EXTINGUISHED BY
THE MARKETABLE RECORD TITLES
ACT.
1. Respondents' "Title" Derives From A IVild.
Deed Which Is Thera/ore Void
Respondents base their claim to the land in question on
a 1944 deed from ILC to St. Joe. FTC did not have record
title to the land. When it purported to convey that land in
1944. the deed was wild and therefore void.
St. Joe states that the 1944 deed is not wild because
FTC held record title to the initial 14 acres "together with -
all and singular the riparian rights and submerged lands ap-
pertaining thereto."
If St. Joe's contention were correct, FEC would have
held record title by a wild deed to the Atlantic Ocean bot-
tom. In fact and in law, the boilerplate language
notwithstanding, FEC held record title to nothing more
than the initial 14 acres. Land does not pass appurtenant to
land. Because Hagler owned only to the high water mark,
there were no "submerged lands appertaining thereto." The
boilerplate phrase is meaningless.
2. Chapter 712 Does Not I ppl r To Wild Deeds
(a) A Void Instrument Cannot Be Validated By
The Passage of Time
III11111IIIIIIMM
St..loe in its brief distorts the City's arg,7ient, the law
of property, and this Court's holdings in ITT Raronier.
Inc. v. Wadsworth. 346 So.2d 1004 (Fla. 1977). and
,Marshall v. Hollywood. inc.. 236 So.2d 114 (Fla. 1970), in
trying to defend the alchemy performed by the courts below
in breathing life into a wild deed.
The courts below have held that St. Joe's wild deed has
ripened into good title by the mere passage of time. St. Joe
argues that this result is supported by Marshall and: ITT
Raronic'r. `either case is on point.
A wild deed is one purporting to convey land to which
the grantor did not have title. Because the grantor did not
have title, the deed does not appear in the "chain of title" —
i.e.. the true owner oI' the land cannot discover the deed by
searching the grantor/grantee indices. Thus the deed does
not convey notice to the true owner. and is void.'
St. Joe and Mr. Harris' argue that the basis for
divesting a feeholder is the feeholder's "neglect" in failing
to protect his ownership from competing claims. But a fee -
holder cannot he negligent in failing to protect his
ownership from a claim of which he had no notice. Such
"neglect" cannot form the basis for title in a void
..competing claim." See, e.g.. City o/ ,Miami t'. Benson. 63
So.2d 916, 923 (Ha. 1953):
'Reed v. Fain. 145 So.2d 858 (FIa. 1962): Poladian v. Johnson. 85 So.2d
140 (FIa. 1956): Wright v. Blocker. 144 Fla. 428. 198 So. 88 (19401; Braddy &
Hale Fishery Co. v. Thomas. 93 FIa. 326. 112 So. 55 (1927); American Law of
Property § 17.17.
'See n. l 1, infra.
i
i1PuPIIIPJ1IPIIIIIiiuIIiPI I Ilimmommilmm-7
■
NI=
■
1111
04,
"Life) nnot be breathed into a void contract
[merely]because the completion of the void con-
tract would render a useful purpose in ac-
complishing desired ends or because it is ex-
pedient.'
Neither Marshall nor ITT Rarunier involved a wild
deed. liars/Ian held that the Act could extinguish
ownership in favor of a root of title arising out of a forged
deed — in such a case the forgery appears. albeit
fraudulently. within the same record chain of title by which
the true owner claims. ITT Rayonier held that the Act
could extinguish the remaindermen's interest in favor of a
root of title whereby the life tenant purported to convey fee
simple to herself and another as tenants in common. Again.
the root of title appears in the same record chain. In both
cases. the plaintiffs had notice of the competing claims. by
virtue of the fact that the claims appeared in their respective
chains of title — i.e.. they were discoverable by a search of
the grantor/grantee indices. No Florida case holds that
Chapter 712 can extinguish property ownership in favor of
a stranger to the title.
The City in its main brief argued that the Act should
not apply to wild deeds, that the Act could not con-
stitutionally apply to wild deeds. and that the Act by its
terms did not apply to wild deeds. Although ITT Rarunier
does use language which appears to he contrary to the
statutory construction arguments advanced by the City in
'See also Smith Bros. v. Williams. 100 Fla. 667, 131 So. 335.337 (1930)
(subsequent Legislation cannot validate an act void ab initio: legislation cannot
"breathe life into a corpse.").
1
11111111111111
its main brief,' the controversy there was of su' a nature as
not to he preclusive of a clarification of that case's actual
holding. This Court should now hold that a deed which is
"void- in the strict sense, i.e.. outside the record chain of
title. does not "affect title" and cannot he validated by
Chapter 712. A void instrument is "nugatory and ineffec-
tual so that nothing can cure it." Black's Law Dictionary.
p. 1745 (4th ed. 1951).:\ void deed is not a recorded instru-
ment affecting title.'
Recording statutes themselves drastically depart from
the common law rule that even a bona fide purchaser takes
no Netter title than his transferor had.' A purported con-
veyance of more than the transferor had may in certain cir-
cumstances create good title. if the instrument is recorded'
within the chain of title; the true owner has notice of this
competing claim. and he may he precluded from successful
challenge by his own inaction in the face of notice. Thus the
improper conveyance is merely "voidable" and may he
cured.
The same is not true of a deed outside the chain of title,
which imports no notice and: is- therefore not merely
voidable hut void.
`The court in ITT Rarunier quoted with approval the Fourth District
Court's opinion in Marshall v. Hollywood. inc.. 224 So.2d 743 (4th Fla. DC:\
1969):
"'In this broad sense, even a void instrument of record —affects' land
titles by casting a cloud or a doubt thereon.' "
224 So.2d at 1010.
"See n. 2, supra.
'See generally. Johnson, Purpose and Scope of Recording Statutes. 47
Iowa L.Rev. 23i (1962).
■
i
i
potoion
i
1
92 C.J.1". 1024-1025 (1955) states the distinction as fol-
lows:
"[Title word 'void' implies an act utterly of no ef-
fect, and. in its most unlimited sense, implies an
act of no effect at all, and a nullity ab initio.. . .
On the other hand. a 'voidable' act may he cured
by passivity. ratification. or acquiescence."
This Court has held that a voidable deed (a forged deed
in Marshall; a deed purporting to enlarge the grantor's es-
tate from a life estate to a fee simple in ITT Ravo►ric'r) may
be cured by Chapter 712. The plaintiffs in those cases had
legal notice of the adverse claims recorded within their
respective chains of title. A wild deed, on the other hand,
"hung out in the air like Mahomet's coffin,' cannot be
validated by Chapter 712. Such a retroactive validation
would he inconsistent with the basic principles of property
1aw4 and with the constitutional protections of vested
property rights."'
'Poladian v. Johnson. 85 So.2d 140. 141 (FIa. 1956).
"See Stone v. Town of Mexico Beach, 348 So.2d 40 (4th Fla. DCA
Ellis v. Brown, 77 So.2d 845. 847 (Fla. 1955) ("statutes are to be construed in
reference to the principles of the common law: fo: it is not to be presumed that
the legislature intended to make any innovation upon the common law further
than the case absolutely required." ): Gonzales v. City of Belle Glade. 287 So.2d
669.670 (FIa. 1973): State v. Mitchell. 188 So.2d 684.688 n.I 1 (4th Fla. DCA
1966): Johnson v. State, 178 So.2d 724, 728 (2d FIa. DCA 1965): scc also Shaw
v. North Pennsylvania R. Co.. 101 U.S. 557, 565. 25 L.Ed. 892 (1879).
'"See n. 17. infra.
10
9P1
IIII■■•
1
i
(h) The Concerns Expressed By Mr. Hat -it, Do
Not Support The Applicability Of Chapter
712_"
Mr. Harris's expressions concerning the history of
Chapter 712. though somewhat tinged with hyperbole,'
may he essentially correct, but are totally irrelevant to this
case. The City does not quarrel with the fact that the Act is
an attempt to deal with a legitimate problem. Bur a more
accurate description of the problem would he "pesky.'
rather than "fundamental." The prohlem of technical er-
rors and "stale claims" can hardly serve as a basis for dis-
regarding constitutional protections of property rights,
which are. by definition, fundamental.
' The brief is self-styled a "Brief of Amici Curiae for and on behalf of the
Florida Bar." The "Florida Bar" in this case is the executive council ()lone sec-
tion, energized by the written suggestions of St. Joe's counsel that St. Joe's
position should he supported. The brief is not tiled "for and on behalf of the
Florida Bar."
It is subject to some question that the pre-I963 life of Florida citizens or
even "title lawyers" (whatever they may be] was really the "intolerable burden"
of one conveyancing after another "fraught with danger." as Mr. Harris sug-
gests.
1
i
11
,.
Mr. 1, 'ris's "history" of Chapter 712 accurately
omits any legislative intent to resolve conflicts between two
separate chains of title to the same property, one traceable -
to the sovereign and one traceable only to a wild deed.' a
The Act's purpose is to remove clouds on title from
fees simple. The purpose is not to extinguish fees simple. A
fee simple does not cloud a non-existent title."
'An authority heavily relied upon both by 11r. Harris and by St. Joe ac-
curately expresses the real purpose of curative legislation:
'It is inevitable that minor errors appear in recorded instruments.
for human nature is not infallible. Thus there may he variations in
the names of parties. failure to indicate the marital status of gran-
tors, failure to comply with the precise requirements of the statute
concerning the form of acknowledgements. and many other devia-
tions from a standard of absolute perfection.. . . There are also
many facts necessary to a marketable title which are essentially ex-
trinsic. but which are commonly recited on the record. Thus if the
recorded dced recites that the grantor is a single man. or that his wife
is W. who wins in the conveyance. these recitals are not conclusive.
Vet the title examiner. as a practical matter must rely on them. and
will rarely investigate the actual facts. The great need is for some
legislative device to reduce the number of extrinsic facts which must
he considered by the title examiner.. . . As a practical matter. thc
only property interests which are generally marketable are fees sim-
ple absolute. leases for years. and fees simple subject to such leases.
Any future interest which is to take effect in possession at an uncer-
tain time, whether it be technically vested or not. is not readily
marketable. Nor is the present interest subject to such future in-
terests marketable."
L. Sims. a t landhook for More Efficient Conveyancing, 33-36 (1961). See also
Barnett, Mlarketahle Title Acts — Panacea or Pandemonium. 53 Cornell
L.Rev. 45 (1967).
"Before Chapter 712 was conceived, principles of law were developed to -
prevent a lax or negligent feeholder from inequitably restricting thc free
alienability of realty — e.g.. adverse possession and title by tax deeds.
Chapter 712 was not enacted to extend such doctrines. The Act expressly
exempts owners in possession and those on the tax rolls.
If upheld, the decisions below would mean that a record feeholder not in
possession. hut against whom a successful claim of adverse possession cannot
be made, is nevertheless subject to divestiture on the basis of a wild deed.
12
1111111111111111
11
II
I1111II1■II1111III111I111III■ I�III�I
vo% A statute enacted in the interests of ,'Ike security
should not be construed to divest a feeholder in favor of a
wild deed.
(c) The inapplicability Of The Act To Wild
Deeds Is Supported By Textual Authority
Making the accusation of misuse of 1 Boyer, Florida
Real Estate Transactions, § 14.I4-11 (1976),
"[A]ny interest reelected in the root or in the
recorded chain in that time, will have to be'
checked out hack to its source, -
St. Joe asserts this "clearly" only refers to those interests
enumerated in §712.03. St. Joe offers no support for this•
position. in fact, the December. 1976 supplement to this
text states, citing Marshall v. Hollywood. that "a root of
title nrat' arise out of a forged or a wild deed. but apparently
a forged deed itself cannot serve as a root of title" (At 78,
emphasis supplied). The conclusion is clear: a title searcher
finding a root of title at least 30 years old, wanting to assure
the marketability of any interests, must determine that the
grantor of that interest himself had title. The root must he
"checked out back to its source."
(d) Even If The Act Applied To Void Instru-
ments, The City's Ownership Would Not Be
Extinguished
The City has contended throughout this litigation that
a void deed has no legal effect, even under Chapter 712. If
this position were rejected, however, the City's ownership
has been reaffirmed, as a matter of law, by a "title transac-
tion" (as Respondents would have the Court define them)
i
111
t3
1
i
EMI
— for in 19.Y3 the United States quit -claimed its interests in
this property to the City of Miami.'
3. As interpreted Below. The Act Is Unc•on-
StitUtionerl
(a) The Act As Interpreted Below Constitutes A
Deprivation Of Property Without Due
Process
Respondents assert that the constitutionality of
Chapter 712 must be decided on the basis ofa "balancing of
interests." St. Joe portrays those interests to he balanced as
(a) the State's interest in title security, and (h) the burden of
re -recordation. In fact. the interests "to he weighed"
against title security would not be the burden of re -
recordation, hut would he the resulting divestiture of vested
property interests.
4.1 United State (ode g 131 1. 67 Stat. 30 (May 22. 1953):
-(at It is determined and declared to he in the public interest that
tI title to and ownership of the lands beneath navigabie waters
•
within the boundaries of the respective states. and the natural
resources within such lands and waters. and (2) the right and power
to manage, administer. lease. develop. and use the said lands and
natural resources all in accordance with applicable state law he. and
the) are, subject w the provisions hereof. rec ognced. eontinned. es-
tablished. vested in and assigned to the respective states or the
persons who were on June 5. 1950. entitled thereto under the law of
the respective states in which the land is located, and the respective
grantees . . ur .succe.ssurs in interest thereof." [emphasis supplied)
See United States v. State of California, 381 U.S. 139, 85 S. Ct. 1401.85 L.Ed.
1401 (1965). holding that the Submerged Lands Act. 43 United States Code
g' 130I. et seq.. is in effect a quit -claim deed from the United States of sub-
merged coastal lands.
Twotnhley v.City of Lung Beach. 333 F.2d 685 (9th Cir. 1964). holds that a
City to which the State conveyed submerged lands subject to a public trust did
not acquire such lands free of the trust.
14
■1■1111
111111111111111111111111111
St. Joe argues that this possibility of u •4stiture is
rendered irrelevant by the notion that all persons having
record title to real estate in 1963 had "constructive notice"
that they' had to file a notice of their ownership or be sub-
jected to divestiture within two years.
This legal fiction of constructive notice has no
talismanic quality. Due process requires notice "such as one
desirous of actually informing. . .might reasonably adopt
to accomplish it." Mullane v. C'entral Hanover Bank &
Trust Co.. 339 U.S. 306, 315, 70 S.Ct. 652, 94 L.Ed. 865
(1950).
Due process is not satisfied by presuming that the
enactment of Chapter 712 gave notice to property owners
that they must re-record their ownership or have it divested
in favor of a wild deed, of which — as a matter of Florida
law — they did not have notice.
Properly applying the Act only to deeds other than
wild deeds, holders of property interests could he deemed to
have notice of conflicting claims duly recorded. Here,
however. the courts below would extinguish the City's es-
tate before it had notice of the conflicting claim:
"The recordation of void . . . deeds is legally in-
sufficient to convey notice and affords no protec-
tion to the claimant thereunder."
Wright v. Blocker. 144 Fla. 428, 198 So. 88, 90 (1940).
This Court holds that recording of a wild deed is not
notice of a claim to property., a wild deed is one executed by
a stranger to the record title "hung out in the air like
Mahomet's coffin." Poladian v. Johnson. 85 So.2d 140, 141
(Fla. 1956).
15
i
1
1
■
pomius
The '4 conveyance was a wild deed in 1944, and can-
not he made valid by subsequent legislation. An act cannot
"breathe life into a corpse." Smith Bros. v. Williams. 100-
Fla. 667, 131 So. 335. 337 (1930).
St. Joe argues that the City in fact had notice of St. -
Joe's claim.' This argument is both incorrect factually and -
irrelevant. The question is not whether the City in fact had
notice. The question is whether the Act as construed below
provides the notice required by due process.
(h) Retroactive Application Of The Act
Violates Due Process
St. Joe and Mr. Harris respond to the City's argument
that the retroactive application of the Act renders it uncon-
stitutional by citing cases upholding retroactive application
of statutes of limitation. The distinction between Chapter
712 and statutes of limitation. which St. Joe and Nir. Harris
emphasitc in the introductory portions of their briefs. is
crucial. Retrospective legislation is invalid
. . . when a new obligation or duty is imposed
or an additional disability is established in con-
nection with previous transactions."
'But nothing has been alleged which would charge the City with such
notice. The recordation of a wild deed did not charge the City. The filing and
acceptance t't a plat did not charge the City. The payment of taws did not
charge the City. See Poladian v. Johnson. 85 So.2d 140 (Fla. 1956): Wcrnle v.
Bellemead I)cv. Corp.. 308 So.2d 97 (Fla. 1975): Thiesen v. Gulf I &A Ry. Co..
75 Fla. 2h. 78 So. 491 (1917).
In this regard, sec also the Amended Complaint. subparagraph f of the
Prayer for Relief. App. 88.
Furthermore, the event relied upon by St. Joe as importing notice to the
City. i.e.. the acceptance of a plat, did not occur until 1949, less than 30 years
before the City's Complaint. See Amended Complaint §16. App. 79.
•
111
1
16
11 I
1111111
1111111111
11111111
.Stone v. Town of Mexico Beach. 348 So.2d 40:.i (1st Fla.
DCA 1977), citing McCord v. Smith. 43 So.2d 704, 709
(Fla. 1950) (emphasis supplied).' Retroactive application
of statutes of limitation do not impose a new burden —all
claimants were already required to file suit to enforce their
claims. However, prior to the enactment of Chapter 712.
landowners were not required to re-record their interest to
preserve their ownership. Now, according to the Third
District's interpretation of Chapter 712, they are so re-
quired. If landowners are unaware of this new retroactive
requirement, they are subject to divestiture. This result can-
not he constitutional.'
(c) The .\ct Should Be Construed To Avoid Un-
constitutionality
Mr. Harris argues that the City is not a "person"
within the meaning of the Fourteenth .Amendment,. and
thus cannot assert the unconstitutionality of Chapter 712 as
applied. The argument is irrelevant to this case.
McCord ord is followed in Trustees of Tufts College v. Triple R. Ranch. Inc.,
275 So.2d 521. 525 (1 la. 1973) ("a statute should not he given retrospective ef-
fect when it jeopardves the validity of the statute.") See also Creary v. Estate of
Creary. 33S So.2d 26 (1st Fla. DCA 1976): In re Estate of Jeffcott. 186 So.2d
80 (2d Fla. DCA 1966). Cf. Smith Brothers v. w'illiams, 100 Fla. 667, 131 So.
335. 337 (1930) (void legislation cannot he validated by subsequent legislation:
legislation cannot. by subsequent act. "breathe life into a corpse.").
''In Biltmore Village v. Royal. 71 So.2d 727 (Fla. 1954). a statute cancel-
ling all reverter provisions in plats or deeds which had been in effect more than
21 years was held unconstitutional as an impairment of contract. Mr. Harris
seeks to distinguish this by saying that commencing a lawsuit is an intolerable
burden. while tiling a notice under Chapter 712 is not. This distinction finds no
support in Bi/unore. The case is more properly explainable by reference to AI -
Curd. Retrospective legislation imposing a new obligation or duty to preserve a
vested right is unconstitutional.
i
i
i
1111
111
IIIIII
II
1
This is ?1t a case where the City has brought suit to en-
join state action. Unlike .She/by v. City o/ Pensacola, 112
Fla. 584. 151 So. 53 (1933), the City is not challenging a
statute dealing specifically with the City. The City is saying
simply that Chapter 712 cannot he construed to mean what
the trial court and the "Third District held it to mean —if the
Act did mean that. it would he unconstitutional. it is
elementary that statutes should he construed to avoid un-
constitutionality.'' Surely Respondents do not suggest a
double -standard of the Act: it means one thing as to cities
and another as to private parties.
(d) Chapter 712 As Interpreted Below Results
1n :\n t Inconstitutional Taking of Property
Without .lust Compensation
St. Joe and Mr. Harris fail to respond in any way to
the C'ity's argument that the decisions below are an uncon-'
stitutional "taking" of property. This failure is not inadver-
tent. It is a necessary concession of the point by silence.
•l.mhart Corporation v. Brant'c.v. 257 So.2d 273, 275 (3d Fla. I)CA 1972)
t"courts will e\erctse judicial restraint to avoid declaring a statute uncon-
stitutional. and %till gne it a construction, if reasonable. which Mould preserve -
the statute."): 2a Sands, Sutherland Statutory Construction §45.11 (4th Ed.
197 31 t"the tact that one among alternative constructions Mould involve serious
constitutional difficulties 1s reason to reject that interpretation in favor of
another...): see also Lrtnotnik v. City of Jacksonville. 422 U.S. 205. 95 S.Ct.
22265.45 L.Ld.2d 123 (1'175): Curtis v. Loethor.-115 U.ti. I89.9.1 S.Ct. 1005. 39 '
L.f:d._d 26(1(1974) U.S. Civil Service Commission v. National Assn of 1 ester
Carriers, 413 1 .S. 54t+. 93 S.Ct. 2ntio. 37 1_1-:d.2d 796 (1973).
1 he result urged by Mr. Harris is that even if Chapter 712 as interpreted'
below is unconstitutional as applied to "persons." it is not unconstitutional as -
apphcd to the City — leaving a general act applicable only to cities. Such a
position is untenable.
l he fact that Mr. Harris resorts to this argument betrays the impossibility
of reconciling the interpretation of Chapter 712 rendered by the courts below
with constitutional protections of vested property rights.
18
(e)
1111111
I.l
11111111
N1111111111111
The Act As Interpreted Below Is An UnLn--
stitutional impairment Of Contract
St. sloe and N1r. Harris cite C'i►t' o/ El Paso v. Sinr-
mions. 379 (;.S. 497, 85 S.C1. 577, 13 L.Fd.2d 44f (1.965),,
and Home Building c1 Loan .•l.ss'n t'. Blaisdell, 2900 U.S.
398, 54 S.Ct. 231. 78 I..Ed. 413 (1934), as supporting their
argument that Chapter 712 is a reasonable exercise of the
police power and thus not violative of the contracts clauses
of the federal and Florida Constitutions.
Both of these cases, and the Contracts Clause in
'general. were discussed e\tensively by the United States
Supreme Court in L'ni►ed .States Trust Co. of ,\'c'W Fork v.
sett Jt'taet', 97 S.Ct. 1505 (1977). The plaintiffs in that case
challenged a New Jersey statute repealing a statutory cove-
nant made in 1962 that had limited the ability of the New
Fork and New Jersey Port :Authority to suhsidite rail pas-
senger transportation from revenues and reserves. The
court held that this repeal was prohibited by the Contracts
Clause. In discussing Simmons and Blaisdell. the court
stated:
"Both of these cases eschewed a rigid application -
of the Contracts Clause to invalidate state legisla-
tion. °'et neither indicated that the Contracts
Clause was without meaning in modern con-
stitutional jurisprudence, or that its limitation on
state power was illusory. Whether or not the
protection of contract rights comports with cur-
rent views of ° ►t'ise public policy, the Contracts
Clause remains a part of our written con-
stitution...
97 S.Ct. at 1515 (emphasis supplied).
1.9°
i
i
111111111111
11
1110tw.nlrt responded to the argument that the repeal
spas a valid exercise of the police power in the interest of
mass transportation. energy conservation. and environmen-
tal protection:
"Yet the Contracts Clause limits otherwise
legitimate exercises of state legislative authority.
and the existence of an important interest is not
always sufficient to overcome that limitation.. . .
Nlorcover, the scope of the state's reserved power
depends on the nature of the contractual
relationship with which the challenged law con-
flicts.-
97 S.Ct. at 1517.
The Court concluded that the statute could not stand if
there were available less drastic alternatives:
". . . it cannot he said that total repeal of the
covenant was essential: a Tess drastic modification
would have permitted the contemplated plan
without entirely removing the covenant's
limitations. . .
97 S.Ct. at 1522.
The interpretation of Chapter 712 rendered by the.
courts below is clearly not necessary to achieve title..
security.
4. Respondents Cite ,'Nothing To Support They
holdings Of T/ze Courts Below That Chapter
712 Extinguishes The City's Ott'nership. As
20
11I!ill!!,1111111
I I I'
t~1
11111101111111111
An Agency O/ The State. Of This
Sovereignty Land
Chapter 712 expressly exempts from its provisions:
"any right. title or interest of the United States,
Florida or any of its officers. hoards. commis-
sions. or other agencies reserved in the patent or
deed by which the United States. Florida or any
of its agencies parted with title.''
Fla. Stat. § 7 12.t1-4.
it has been held that the Act can in some instances ex-
tinguish governmental ownership of land. but only that
which has been conveyed away from the State without
reservation. Odom r. Deltona Corporation. 341 So.2d 977
(Fla. 1977): Sawyer t•. .tludrall. 2M1 So.2d 610 (4th Fla.
UCA 1973). It has not been and cannot he held that the Act
extinguishes governmental ownership of land which has
never left the State or its agencies in the first instance.
The State has parted with title only once — conveying
it to its agent the City of Ntiami "for municipal purposes
only." The City of Miami has never parted with title. The
City's title cannot he extinguished by the act.
The land in question is sovereignty land. The State of
Florida accepted this land from the United States. upon ad-
mission to the Union. subject to a trust for the benefit of the
people of the State.
The State cannot alienate this land in a manner incon-
sistent with this public trust. A general act, such as Chapter
712, cannot be construed to divest sovereignty lands in
favor of a wild deed.
111
21
i
1
■
i! ;!oil 4IL,
p.m
111
nur
".1 he ,tale cannot abdicate general control over
the lands under navigable waters within the state. -
since such abdication would he inconsistent with
the implied legal dutv of the state to preserve and
control such lands and the waters thereon and the. -
use of there for the public good."
State ex re/. Lli.t v. (ierbin,g. 47 So. 353. 355 (Fla. 190S)..
Mindful of this public trust. Florida courts and others
have scrutinised purported conveyances of sovereignty
lands.
In Odom '. 1)eltona.this Court held that %%here the Trustees for the.
Intetn.il Improvement Fund 1T111:). under authority of the Swamplands :\et: -
purpotted to curacy avv:ty sovereignty land %%hose nature %%as such as not to
port notice of navigability. the TIiF would be barred after 30 years by Chapter
712 from challenging their own conveyance. This Court said. however. that the
result would be different "in the case of it large Lake. such a. Lake
Okee,hohec." In such .1 case. Chapter 712 %%Quid not preclude a challenge to the
una tit hop tied conveyance.
In 1 nited States %. 2.599.17 Acres of Land. Etc.. 269 I .Supp.'U)3 (M.D.
1 Ia. I'+c,"). the TII1 had purported to convey sovereignly lands at a time when
they had no such authority. the court held that the grantees thereby did not
have title
by mistake or otherwise. sales or conveyances are made by the
1 rustees of the Internal improvement Fund of sovereignty lands . .
such sales and conveyances are ineffectual for lack of authority from
the State."
See also Ilay es v. Iloum:in. 91 So.2d 795. 799 ( Fla. 1957) ("Basically it is trust
property and should be devoted to the fulfillment of the purpose% of the Trust_
to wit. the service of the people.''). Pembroke v. Peninsular Terminal Co.,
4n, lob S. 249 (Fla. 1933).
(1. McKnight v. Broedell. 212 F.Supp. 45 (L.D. Mich. 1962):
"The title of the state to submerged lands in the Great Lakes is
impressed with a trust for the benefit of the public. The state has a
duty to protect that trust and may not surrender the rights of the
people thereto."
22
1111111111
11
1111
111111111
1111111111111111111111111
111111111111
in the instant case. the State has not even purported to
convey away these sovereignty lands. Nevertheless, the
courts below, the language of §712.04 notwithstanding.
have interpreted Chapter 712 to validate a wild deed and to
e‘tingui.h governmental ownership in sovereignty lands.
That this is not the law is made clear by this Court's
opinion in Odom v. l)cltonet Corp.. 341 So.2d 977 ( Fla.
1977). Chat ease holds that —when the State eonvey.s land
whir h i, not noticeably navigable to pritvate citizens without
re'.se•rta(Iun Of public rights —Chapter 712 applies. Justices
Sundherg. Overton and England dissented, opining that the
Act should not apply even in that situation. And Mr.
.Justice Boyd, writing for the Court, noted that the result
ould he different "in the case of a large lake, such as Lake
Okeechobee." Governmental ownership of such land is not
extinguished by Chapter 712.
5t. Joe misreads this Court's holding in Odom, argu-
ing that hecause the State conveyed the land to the City in
1919 and St. Joe then took a wild, void deed to the same
land in 1944, the Ciy in 1975 could not quiet title. Odom
does not support this.At most. Odom holds that it' the City
or State purported to convey property in 1944 to private
grantees. State authorities cannot. by the terms of the Act,
quiet title h} proving that their predecessor authorities in
1944 acted without authority. When it conveys land the
State is subject to the Act. But even this is subject to the im-
portant exception discussed above ("notice of
navigability") which is studiously ignored by the briefs of
St. Joe and Mr. Harris.
Therefore. under Odoni. even if the City or the State
had purported to convey the lands in dispute to St. Joe, the
City could nevertheless maintain an action to quiet title if
23
.11111111111111111
111
r
II■11111
the prior purported State conveyance were for some reason
voidable —St. sloe is charged with notice of the navigability
of Bisca\ne Bay.
In this case there is not even such a purported con-
veyance out of the State. The State and its agencies have
never parted with title. The City's ownership is therefore
protected from extinguishment by Fla. Stat. §712.04."
St. Joe and Mr. Harris argue that the express language
in the legislative grant limiting use by the City to
"municipal purposes only" does not constitute a reserva-
tion by the State within the exception in `712.04. This argu-
ment is irrelevant as well as incorrect." Mr. Harris urges
si .14,e ,tl•,a misreads Justice Sundhcrg's dissenting Opinion that the Act
cannot extinguish the State's interest in sovereignty land.. St. Joe refers to
.lustier Sandberg's point that the effect of;ipplying Chapter 712 to the (acts in
U,Lirii was to alienate suhinergcd land held by the Trustees of the Internal
Improvement 1 and absent the requisite safeguards of statutory notice and hear-
ing. Si Joe then otters the following distinction:
"In the cast at par, by virtue (lithe fact that the conveyance from the
State to the City of 's1ianii was cause„ by the legislature's enacting a
special statute. such requisite safeguards of public notice and hearing
obviously were met." (St. Joe's brief. page 8.)
The City would respectfully submit that St. Joe has missed the point. No one.
certainly not the City of Miami, is challenging the conveyance of sovereignty.
(ands from the State to the City of Ntiami..lustice Sundberg's point is that it is -
constitutional!) impermissible for the State to convey submerged lands away
from the State without the requisite safeguards. It therefore cannot he held that
state legislation (i.e.. Chapter 712) by implication extinguishes the ownership of
the Slate's agent in this sovereignty hind. "The piracy of sovereignty Lind
through recordation of a wild deed is wholly inconsistent with the public in-
terest.
:: fhe State of Florida is not directly in ,his litigation protecting its
property interests in this land. The Court is not called upon to determine what
rights and remedies the State of Florida would have against St. Joe if the deci-
sion of the courts below is upheld. However. acceptance of the St. Joe and Har-
ris position would result in the alienation of an inalienable trust. See Hayes v.
Bowman. 91 So.2d 795 (Fla. 1957); Pembroke v. Peninsular Terminal Co.. 108
Ha. 46. 146 So. 249 (1933); United States v. 2,899.17 Acres of Land, Etc.. 269
F.Supp. 903 (M.l). Fla. 1967). See also, McNight v. Broedell. 212 F.Supp. 45
(E.1). Mich. 1962).
24
I
91
111111111111111111111111111111111111
Sawyer v. ,tladrall, 286 So.2d 610 (4th Fla. DCA 1973),
cert. denied. 297 So.2d 562 (Fla. 1974) as support. The
court in that case held that there is no implied reservation
when the State conveys sovereignty land. But Sawyer did
not involve a conveyance by the State with an express use
restriction.
11!
The importance of the use restriction in the present -
case is that it establishes that the City in its ownership of
this land is acting as an agency of the State. St. Joe at-
tempts to distinguish the agentx cases cited in the City's
main brief hx arguing that they
. . . are not in point because they relate to
governmental functions that have been expressly
delegated to cities for implementation and do not
pertain to proprietary or land title matters where
cities compete with their citiicns and taxpayers on.
equal basis under the law." (St. Joe's brief, page
13.)
Mr. Harris adopts the same argument.
The legislative grant "for municipal purposes only"
preserves the puhlie trust in which the State held' the lands,
and reflects the legislative realisation of the limitations on
its power to alienate these lands. The City in its ownership
of this land is performing a governmental function express-
ly delegated to it by the sovereign."
See Albury y Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District, 99
So.2d 248, 252 (3d Fla. [)CA I957):
"Government exists for functional purposes. All during the course of
the nation's history, governmental functions have been transferred
from one agency to another. To have a rule of construction which
would obviate the transfer of functions from one agency to another
would merely thwart all efforts to improve government."
1III,
II
I
25
i
i
111
i
i
i
i
i
i
11
11
1111111
11
1111
1
1111
III
11
Faced wil:11 this agent:}' relationship, St. sloe and Mr.
Harris argue that because Chapter 712 at other points
refers to "political subdivisions." and because other
statutes use the word "municipalities." the exclusion of this •
term from ti712.04 establishes that a political subdivision
cannot he an agency of the State.' What the language of
;712.04 in fact indicates is that the legislature did nut in-
tend an all-inclusive list of governmental entities whose in-
terests are projected. Such protection is determined by
whether the entity is functioning as an agent of the State.
As the case law discussed in the City's main brief es-
tablishes. a City, when performing a State function. is an
agent of the State. The use restriction imposed by the State
upon the City delegated to the City the State function of
preserving the interest of the people of Florida in sub-
merged lands.
I he Icadmg n►o:iern :onunentalor on statutory construction puts this.
"expressuo unis" argument in perspectite.
"Social Latin maxims masquerade as rules of interpretation while
doing nothing more than describing results reached by other means.
1 he hest example is probably t' prteccio ratios est etctusio atterrrs.
%hush is a rather elaborate, mysterious sounding. and anachronistic
was of describing the negative implication. Far from being a rule, it
is not eten lexicographically accurate. because it is simply no: true.
ecncrdk, that the mere express conferral of a right or privilege in
one kind of situation implies the denial of the equivalent right or
prodeec in other kinds Sometimes it does and sometimes it does
not. and t%hether it does or does not depends on the particular cir-
cumstances of contest. without contextual support. therefore. there
is not e'.en a nuld presumption here. Accordingly. this maxim is at
hest a description. after the fact. of what the court has discovered
from context
Dickerson. i he Interpretation and Application of Statutes. pages 234-235
(1975).
And cf. Florida Statutes §20.03(111 (197.4) defining 'agency" as "an of-
ficial. officer. commission. authority, counsel. committee, department. division.
bureau. board, section, or other unit or entity of government.- [emphasis sup-
plied)
41,
26
1111
11
1,
tioN
The Trial Court Improperly Made actual
Determination o/ Estoppel
St. Joe contends that the trial court made no factual
determination of estoppel. Judge Harvie Duval did indeed
make the disclaimer quoted by St. Joe in its brief —the trial
jndite himself must have known that to rule on the basis of
estoppel was reversible error. The trial judge nevertheless
freely expressed his opinion on the issue.
" Tl1L COl;RT: Gentlemen, i frankly think that
712 is applicable. 1f it was not applicable, l think
that the deeds and such in the past are gooddeed's,.
and probably the Act of 1912 [sic] cures that, and
if all of that was not there. if anybody has ever
been estopped or waived any rights —the City of
Miami has been sitting here with this land having
been lined hack in the 20's. 1 would have to take
judicial knowledge that they have been getting
taxes on all of it all of this time. 1t is given or in-
dicated as owned property. There has never been a
protest of any kind.
Under your argument, we could he trying this
case IOU years from now and say that the City
owns some property. That is kind of like going
hack to the Indians and Manhattan. l am going to
dismiss it with prejudice."
The implicit decision of estoppel is both procedurally
infirm and substantively incorrect.='
'In State v. lumnng. 5bb l'.2d 725 (Hawaii 1977), in quieting title in the
state to land formed by a volcanic eruption extending the shoreline, the court
held the state was not estopped by collecting taxes on the property andremain-
ing silent when the land was leveled and landscaped`.
17
11111.111111111111
II
110
11111
IIII
II ll
101111111111111111
111
11
Furthermore. the grantee of a wild deed may not he
heard to argue that the true owner is estopped from clearing
title. St. Joe must he charged with notice in 1944 that FI:C
did not own the land. and that the land was sovereignty land
held by the City in trust for the people of Florida. This
Court held in !'rice v. Stratton. 45 Fla. 535.33 So. 644. 647
(1903 ).
"the rule applies only where the title is not equally
open to the parties, and in favor of one who would
be mislead by want of notice of the adverse right.
it is essential to the application of the doctrine of
estoppel that the party claiming the estoppel must
have been not only destitute of knowledge of the
true state of the title, but also of am convenient
and available means of acquiring such knowledge.
Where tihe condition of the title is known to both
parties or both have the saute means of ascertain-
ing the truth. there is no estoppel.
Ali of the Respondents took title to the City's land
before the enactment of Chapter 712. They were on notice
of the C'ity's ownership. They had no marketable record ti-
tles act to rely on to believe that they had good title;. There
has been no reasonable reliance. only hope (s:r calculated
risk).
"(O]ne's own wrongful act ordinarily cannot serve
as a basis of a claim of estoppel against another.
and it can he applied as an estoppel against estop-
pel.**
"Price is fulloacd in Overstreet v. Bishop, 343 So.7d 95R (1st Fla. DC1-
1977).
11
II
10 1111111111111111111111
1111
111111111111111111
1111
1111
1111
1111111111111111
Jefferson ;National Bank at Sunny Isles v. A',etro Dade
County. 271 So./1 207, 214 (3d Fla. DCA 1972).
Not only did the trial court reach an improper conclu-
sion that the City is estopped to quiet title, the City was
improperly denied the opportunity to plead and prove that
the Respondents are estopped to rely on Chapter 712.
iTi41Uw11111911111111
A
i
11
111111111111111
i
111111111111111111111
11111•111111111111111M1
CONCLUSION
The City brought this suit to quiet title to sovereignty
lands granted to it by the State in 1919. in 1944 Florida
East Coast lintel Corporation gave a deed to St. Joe pur-
porting to convey the land to St. Joe. That deed was wild
and therefore void.
The courts below have held that the City's ownership is
extinguished the Marketable Record Titles Act. That
holding should he reversed.
Chapter 712 was not intended and should not be con-
strued to divest a feeholder in favor of a wvild deed. Such a
retroactive validation would be inconsistend with the basic
principles of property law and with the constitutional
protections of vested property rights.
Nor was Chapter 712 intended to extinguish
governmental ownership of sovereignty land;. Section
712.04 expressly exempts such ownership. Odom expressly
preserves such interests.
Florida became State under the condition that it hold
such land in trust for the public. Neither it nor the City ever
had the power or authority — by act or omission — to al-
low others to steal the land. When those others were on
legal (as well as, in all probability. actual) notice of the
public trusteeship of that land. both law and equ..y compel
a ruling that the land belongs to the people.
Respectfully submitted`,
LAW OFFICES
GUY B. BAILEY. JR.
Attorneys for Petitioner
Suite 1820. One Biscayne lower
Two South Biscayne Boulevard;
Miami, Florida 33131
Gu B. Bailey. Jr.
111
Lill, .1 J.
I
111111111
p
111
1:R'I I1:1(:ti I.: OF SERVICE
WE Ill:Itl.BY (l.lt.Ill l' that a true copy of the
foregoing Petitioner's Reph Brief was mailed to Shutts &
Bowen. WOO Southeast First National Hank Bldg.. 1lianti,
Florida 33131; Sibley, (iihlin. Levenson & Glaser, P.O.
Box 3903611, Nliaini I3each, Florida 331 39; Steel, hector &
I)acis. 1411( Southeast first National Bank Bldg., Miami,
Florida 33131; and Russo. Van Doren & Allen. P..\..4685
Ponce de Leon Boulevard. (oral (;able`. Florida 33147:
this 29th da\ of .August. 1977.
flEr
i
i
1111
i
1
Iu
111
IIIIII
11
111
111
111
1111110111111111111
1111111
1
111111•111111111
ttle
%prElm (ihiuti of ifftoriba
CASE NO. 5I.. 775
CITY OF MIAMI,
a Florida municipal corporation.,
Petitioner,
L'S.
ST. •IOE PAPER COMPANY,.
a Florida corporation,
S()Ci'I'IlEAST PROPERTIES. INC.,
a Florida corporation;
11I:(;11 I?. MATHESON, .JR.. individually: and
SALLY S. DOyil\IERICH. formerly
Sally - . ilatheson, individually.
Respondents.
PETITIONER'S BRIEF ON THE: MERITS
LAW OFFICES
GUN" R. BAILEY..IR.
Attorneys %r Petitii npr
1S2 ) One Biscayne Tower
\liarni. Florida :131a1
pun
1111111
1
11
1
1
1111
11110I
III■
IIIMINI11111111111111
II
111111
11
111E1E11111111111
11
11111111
11
NIS
r
CITATIONS OF AUTHORITIES
Case Page
Alden v. Pinney
12 Fla. 348 (1869)
Banana River Props. v. City of Cocoa Beach
287 So.2d 377 (4th Fla. DCA 1974) .. _ ., ..- 33,
Biltmore Village. Inc. v. Royal Biltmore Village,
Inc.
71 So.2d 727 (Fla. 1954) 21, 24, 27
Blankner v. City of Chicago
504 F.2d 1037 (7th Cir. 1974) ........, _ .... • • • 26
Board of C'om'rs. of Everglades Drainage Dist. v
Forbes Pioneer Boat Line
86 So. 199 (Fla. 1920), rev'd on other grounds,
258 U.S. 338 23
Board of Education v. Miles
207 N.E.2d 181 (N.Y. 1965)
27
Brault v. Town of Milton
527 F.2d 730 (2d Cir. 1975) • 26
Brickell v. Trammell
82 So. 221 (Fla. 19I9)1 4,• 36
Broward v. Mabry
50 So. 826 (Fla. 1909 __... _.�:.:.�":«.::�• 9
i
1
i
i
IIIII
11
('ase
111111
1111
111111
Buck t•. Mouradian.
WU So.2d 70 (3d Fla. DCA 1958)
11
Burk tv. Triplett
So.2d 753 (Fla. 1947)
Campbell t'. Horne
:3 Su.2d 125 (Fla. 1941)
Chicago B & (c1 Ry. v. Chicago
166 lr.S. 22(i, 17 S.Ct. 581, 41 L.Ed. 979 (1897)
Page
Cit\ of Miami V. Lewis
104 So.2d 70 (3d Fla. DCA 1958) '31
('or)I: t•. C'arlson
:361 F.Supp. 24 (D. S.D. 1973) .......
Cornish c. Kinder Canal Co.
26 7 So.2d 625 (La. App. 1972) .. .
Cox tv. Holder
:14; So.2d 846 (1st Fla. DCA 1977)
C'rcary t'. ('rearys Estate
3:38 So.2d 26 (1st Fla. DCA 1976) . .
Croft t'. Young
188 So.2d 859 (1st Fla. DCA 1966) ...
Empire State Insurance Co. v. Chafetz
302 F.2d 828 (5th Cir. 1962)
ii
1=1111111111111111111
T Case
Exchange National Bank v. Lawndale
243 N.E.2d 19:.3 (Ill. 1968) .... _.....,_..... 13„ 14
1111111111111111111111111111
!4' Page
Franklin Life Ins. Co. v. Tharpe
179 So. 406 (Fla. 1938) ..... 190
Hayes v. Bowman
91 So.2d 795 (Fla. 1957) _ ....... ...
H.K.L. Realty Corporation v. Kirtley
74 So.2d 876 (Fla. 1954)
In Re Brown's Estate
117 So.2d 478 (Fla. 1960)
29►
29
Indiana ex rel. Anderson v. Brand
30:3 U.S. 95, 58 S.Ct. 443, 82 L.Ed. 685 (1938)= 23
Jefferson National Bank at Sunny Isles v. Metro
Dade County
271 So.2d 207 (3d Fla. DCA 1972) cert. denied,
277 So.2d 536 37, 38
Kaufman v. City of Tallahassee
94 So. 697 (Fla. 192:3) _ ... 31
L. C. Morris, Inc. v. Allison
277 So.2d 28 (3d Fla. DCA 1973),. appeal after
remand, 309 So.2d 9 (3d Fla. DCA. 19,75)... _ 36
Loeb v. City of Jacksonville
134 So. 205 (Fla. 1931) ....
�.Kk 31
1111111111111111111111111111
IIIIII
IIII
IIIII
11111111111111111
1111
Case Page
Mahood v. Bessemer Properties, Inc.
18 So.2d 775 (Fla. 1944) ...... 29
Mann L'. GOodvear T & R Co.
300 So.2d 666 (Fla. 1974) ....
Alarshall v. Hollywood, Inc.
236 So.2d 114 (Fla. 1970) .
Martin v. Busch
112 So. 274 (Fla. 1927)
McConville v. Ft. Pierce Bank & Trust
135 So. 392 (Fla. 1931)
McCord t'. Smith
43 So.2d 704 (Fla. 1950)
Missouri Pacific Ry. Co. v. Nebraska
164 U.S. 403, 17 S.Ct. 130, 41 L.Ed. 489 (1896)
Mover t'. Clark
72 So.2d 905 (Fla. 1954)
Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.
339 U.S. 306, 70 S.Ct. 652, 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950)18,20_
Murrison v. Fenstermacher
203 P.2d 160 (Kan. 1949)
Odom v. Deltona Corp.
341 So.2d 977 (Fla. 1977) 3, 10, 33,.;34
35,
iv
r
Case
Patton v. Los Angeles,
206 Cal. 662 (1929)` ..... .
Pearce v. Cone
2 So.2d 360 (Fla. 1941) _ _ _. _...: M- =-: -- -.. 39:
Pembroke v. Peninsular Terminal Coy
146 So. 249 (Fla. 1933)
P
Page
...r.... 32
Poladian v. Johnson
85 So.2d 140 (Fla. 1956) 2OE
Price v. Stratton
33 So. 644 (Fla. 1903) .....„.... 38
Reed v. Fain
145 So.2d 858, 870 (Fla. 1962) _., .. - 70
Reid v. Bradshaw
302 So.2d 180 (1st Fla. DCA 1974)„,..—.... 29
Schneider v. Dist. of Columbia
117 F.Supp. 705 (D. D.C. 1953) ....... ... 26
Shavers L'. Duval County
73 So.2d 684 (Fla. 1954) _ .... w . .
Smith Bros. v. Williams
131 So. 3:35 (Fla. 1930)
Sotomura v. County of Hawaii
402 F.Supp. 95 (D. Hawaii 1975
.__....... 24
�a... �.. 12, 20
26
II
III
II IIIIII
Case
111111
111111111111
Page
State v. Black River Phosphate Company
13 So. 640 (Fla. 1893) 9
State u. City of Auburndale
85 So.2d 611 (Fla. 1956)
State Dept. of Highways v. Tucker
170 So.2d 371 (La. 1964)
Thiesen v. Gulf, F & A Ry. Co.
78 So. 491 (Fla. 1918) 4, I1, 36
Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward
17 U.S. 518, 4 L.Ed. 629 (1819) 24
T.I.I.F. v. Claughton
86 So.2d 775 (Fla. 1956) 10, 32, 38
Turk v. Richard
47 So.2d 543 (Fla. 1950)
Walton County v. Board of Public Instruction o
Walton County
161 So.2d 45 (1st Fla. DCA 1964)
Waterman v. Smith
94 So.2d 186 (Fla. 1957)
Wernle v. Bellemead Development Corp.
308 So.2d 97 (Fla. 1975)
West v. Town Lake Placid
120 So. 361 (Fla. 1929) .............
vi
11
it
II' q
I!!
919
111
11
N111111111
Case
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
Whaley v. Wotring
225 So.2d 177 (1st Fla. DCA 1969) _ _ <_...... _ - • 17
Wichelman v. Messner
83 N.V. 2d 800 (Minn.:957)
Wilson v. Kelley
226 So.2d 123 (2d Fla. DCA 1969) ...
Wright u. Blocker
198 So. 88 (Fla. 1940)
Yamaha Parts Distributors, Inc. v. Ehrrrrare
316 So.2d 557 (Fla. 1975) ......... v .. .... 24,= 25
i
A
i
111111111111
1111 1■■1
OTHER AUTHORITIES
41 A.L.R.2d 1384
55 A.L.R.2d 554
1 Boyer Florida Real Estate Transactions ;14.15"
(1976)
Florida Constitution, Article I, §10
9
Florida General Laws, Ch. 7912 (1856) (repealed)
("The Butler Act") 11, 36
Florida Statutes > 6.01
Florida Statutes §20.03(11) (1974)
9
31
Florida Statutes Chapter 712 .. 3, 7, 12, 17, 18, 19, 20,
21,22,2:329,32,33
Florida Statutes § 712.01(2) 14.
Florida Statutes § 712.01(3)
Florida Statutes 712.02 13, 14
Florida Statutes > 712.03(1) 14
Florida Statutes § 712.04 3, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34
Model ;Marketable Record Titles Act
Session Laws of the State of Florida, Chapter 8305
(1919) 4, 33;
14
32
II
1
viii
III
II
1
111
'I'I
ilop!r11i11111l�
1.1.111111 111111111111
11111111
U.S. Constitution, Article I, § 10, C1.1 .......... 23, 24;
U.S. Constitution, Amendment X 18., 26
il
r115361i6'1111-1-41yG 9up
11111 i. ir
i ;
11111111
�■ 1
111111111111111
11
TABLE OF CONTENTS
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Page
S'I'ATF:11ENT OF THE FACTS
QUESTION PRESENTED
WHETHER IT WAS ERROR TO DIVEST."
THE CITY OF ITS VESTED GRANT OF
SOVEREIGNTY LAND BY RETROSPEC-
TIVE VALIDATION OF A WILD DEED....
ARGUMENT
WHERE FLORIDA GRANTED
SUUBME RGEI) SOVEREIGNTY LAND TO
THE CITY. EXPRESSLY PRESERVING
THE LAND'S PUBLIC CHARACTER BY
USE RESTRICTION, IT WAS ERROR TO
DIVEST THE CITY OF SUCH LANDS BY
ACCORDING RETROSPECTIVE VALIDITY
TO A WILD I)EEI) TO A PURPORTED
PRIVATE OWNER
1. The Private Interests "Title" To The
Land in Question Derives From A Wild Deed
Which Is Therefore Void.
2. The Act Cannot Divest The City of Its
Vested Property Rights
(a) Chapter 712 Does Not Apply To A
Wild Deed.
9
1 Page
(b) A Wild Deed Is Not A "Root of Title"
As Defined By The Act. 13
(c) The Inapplicability of the Act to Wild
Deeds Is Supported by Textual Authorities
And By Decisions In Other Jurisdictions.......
(d) Marshall v. Hollywood Does Not
Hold The Act Applicable To Wild Deeds... .
3. As Interpreted Below, The Act Is Uncon-
stitutional 17
14,
16
(a) The Act As Interpreted Below
Deprives Vested Owners of Property Without
Due Process of Law In Violation Of The
Fourteenth Amendment. 18
(b) Retroactive Application Of The Act
Deprives Vested Owners of Property Without
Due Process of Law. 21
(c) As Interpreted Below, The Act Im-
pairs The Obligations Of Contract. 23
(d) The Decisions Below Constitute An
Unconstitutional "Taki ig" Of Property .. 25
(e) Other .Jurisdictions Hold Similar
Legislation Unconstitutional Or Construe It To
Avoid The Constitutional Problems Created
Below. 27
xi
i
10
II
1■111111
11111111111111111111111111111111111minimm
�\ Page � .�
Jn ale
(f) Prior Florida Decisions Do Not Sup-
port The Constitutionality Of The Act. '?9
4. The Art .specifically Exempts An Agency
Of The Gorernrnent, Such As The City of
.Miami, Franz Its Operation 30
ftyreme (guurt of Ntvriba
CASE NO. six, 775
5. It Was Error To Make A Factual Deter-
mination
N AMI
���� CITY OF iVTf ,
O Estoppel In A HearingWithout = - _ ---
-wr-� f nn�=t4r
__ _ _ .: municipal corporation,
Evidence r Motion To Dismiss 3:i- - _ _ <��_, ___ - _ a Florida mu p p
Pet;it oner,.
CONCLUSION
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
cs.
ST. JOE PAPER COMPANY,
a Florida corporation;
SOUTHEAST PROPERTIES,
a Florida corporation;
Ht GI -I E. MATHESON, JR., individually; and
SALLY 5. DOMMERICH, formerly
Sally S. Matheson, individually.
Respondents.
PETITIONER'S BRIEF ON THE MERITS
1011111111
MOM
STATEMENT OF THE CASE'
The Certified Question
This is the City of Miami's petition based upon the
Third District's Article V, > 3(b) (3) certification of the
following question:
Whether The Marketable Record Titles Act Is
Constitutionally Applied When It Is Held To
Prevent The Claim Of A City Under A
Statutory Land Grant From The State
Granting The City All Of The State's Rights
To Submerged Land Including Water -Front
And Riparian Rights.'
The Trial Proceedings
The City sued to quiet title and to eject St. Joe from
10.69 acres of extraordinarily valuable, downtown,
bayfront land which was part of a specific statutory
grant to the City in 1919.
St. Joe obtained a dismissal with prejudice from
then Circuit Judge Harvie DuVal, whose expressed basis
Petitioner. City of Miami. was plaintiff and appellant below. Respon-
dents. St..luu Paper Co.. et al.. were defendants and appellees. Parties will
be called by name or as they stood in the trial court. Respondents will
sometimes collectively he called "St..loe." The appellate court below, the
('curt of Appeal. 'Third District of Florida, will he called "the Third
District.- The Circuit Court in and for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit. Har-
vie S. DuVal, .1., will he called "the trial court." The Marketable Record
Titles Act, F.S. Chapter 712, will be called "Chapter 712" or the "Act."
'The City's petition is, of course, not limited to the question. See peti-
tion at A. 199.
11
1
II
II
11111111
IIIII 1
IIII
II
q
I'I''
11p11Ip11111,1!II!Ipl
opo
■.
jv was a factual finding of estoppel and whop '1'mplicit rul-
ings were that St. Joe's acceptance of a wild deed in 1944
was constitutionally cured by a retroactive application
of Chapter 712 and that that act applied despite
>712.04's express exemption of state agencies (the City's
status here) from its purview.
11 it,
Appellate Proceedings
The Third District basically ruled that Marshall v.
Hollywood Inc.'s' dictum on wild deeds and Odom v.
Ueltona Corporation's' dicta on sovereignty lands and
Chapter 712 gave it reason to affirm, but it certified the
quoted question to this Court.
'236 So.2d 114 (Fla. I970lt:
1341 So.2d 977 (Fla_ I977h
■
1
11
■
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
In 18.15, by act of Congress admitting Florida to the -
Union, the United States conveyed to the State all right,
title and interest in lands under navigable waters, and
within or about its shores "in trust for the benefit of the
people of Florida."
On .tune '?, 1919, by special act, Florida's legislature
conveyed the submerged lands (and other land) to the
City of Miami. reserving its interest in having the
sovereignty land remain public by imposing upon it the
requirement t hat it he used in perpetuity, "for
municipal purposes only."' There is no other con-
veyance of this land out of the State from 1845 to 1977.
In 1898 Henry Flagler conveyed 14 acres of upland
property to Florida East Coast Hotel Corp." Flagler
owned no riparian rights in the adjacent submerged
lands.- In the 1920's and later, FEC illegally filled and
Florida's statutory grant to Miami was subject only to two exceptions:
(a) prior grants, and Oil existing riparian rights of upland owners. Since
there had been no prior grants and were no existing riparian rights, as to
the land in dispute, the exceptions were meaningless.
Florida's statutory grant to Miami for municipal purposes only was
otherwise absolute: the legislature expressly repealed "all laws and parts of
laws" which conflict with the grant.
'Now known as the Flagler System, hereafter "FEC."
Before 1921, owners of upland riparian lands had no rights in the
foreshore other than their common law riparian rights in the nature of ease-
ments (i.e., ingress, egress, fishing, bathing, etc.) except in the most un-
usual and extraordinary circumstances. It was settled law that one as-
serting a claim to such lands did so in the face of the state's presumptive
ownership. Thiesen v. Gulf, F & A Ry. Co., 78 So. 491 (Fla. 1918); Brickell
v. Trammell, 82 So. 221 (Fla. 1919).
II
II
4
IP
114
III
II
ill11l
'II
II
ICI
71111
I,�!II,IIIII
!I�III
III
IRO
bulkheaded part of the City's submerged''iand and, in
1944, FEC purported to convey to St. Joe the 14 original.
acres and the filled land. The putative 1944 conveyance
also purported to convey 4.24 acres of unfilled land
("Tract B") denominated as a yacht basin. In 1949, St.
Joe filled the yacht basin property; but no deed purports
to convey that area as filled land at any time.
Thereafter, St. Joe purported to convey portions of the
property to the other defendants or to their predecessors
in claimed interest.
In summary: (a) the City's title chain is as follows:
U.SFlorida—*- City.
(h) St. Joe's "chain of title" springs into being with
the wild deed of 1944.
A
■
i
■
i
1
1
QUESTION PRESENTED
WHETHER IT WAS ERROR TO DIVEST
THE CITY OF ITS VESTED GRANT OF
SOVEREIGNTY LAND BY RETROSPEC-
TIVE VALIDATION OF A WILD DEED.
PI I
jIIIIIIIUI IIIII' i'III
I!IIIj 1!!
■ 11
UPI lir 9
1111
ARGUMENT
WHERE FLORIDA GRANTED
SUBMERGED SOVEREIGNTY LAND TOY
THE CITY, EXPRESSLY PRESERVING
THE LAND'S PUBLIC CHARACTER BY
USE RESTRICTION, IT WAS ERROR TO,
DIVEST THE CITY OF SUCH LANDS BY
ACCORDING RETROSPECTIVE VALIDITY
TO A WILD DEED TO A PURPORTED
PRIVATE OWNER.
1. The Private Interest's "Title" To the Land in Ques-
tion Derives From a Wild Deed Which Is Therefore
Void.
2. The Act Cannot Divest The City of Its Vested
Property Rights.
(a) Chapter 712 Does Not Apply To A Wild Deed.
(b) A Wild Deed Is Not A "Root of Title" As
Defined By The Act.
(c) The Inapplicability of the Act to Wild Deeds Is
Supported by Textual Authorities And By Decisions In
Other Jurisdictions.
(d) Marshall v. Hollywood Does Not Hold The
Act Applicable To Wild Deeds.
3. As Interpreted Below, the Act Is Unconstitutional.
(a) The Act As Interpreted Below Deprives Vested
Owners of Property Without Due Process of Law In
i
7
I I lo "Moil
1
\'iolat ioi /:, rf The Fourteenth Amendment.
(b) Retroactive Application Of The Act Deprives
Vested Owners of Property Without Due Process of Law.
(c) As Interpreted Below, the Act Impairs The
Obligations of Contract.
(d) The Decisions Below Constitute An Uncon-
stitutional "Taking" Of Property.
(e) Other Jurisdictions Hold Similar Legislation
t Unconstitutional Or Construe It To Avoid The Con-
stitutional Problems Created Below.
(f) Prior Florida Decisions Do Not Support The
Constitutionality of the Act.
4. Thy' Act Specifically Exempts An Agency of The
Government, Such As The' City of Miami, From Its
Operation.
5. It Was Error To Make A Factual Determination Of
Estoppel In A Ilc'aring IVithout Evidence ()n A Motion
To Dismiss.
ARGUMENT +l1)
•r r
WHERE FLORIDA GRANTED SUBMERGED
SOVEREIGNTY LAND TO THE CITY, EX-
PRESSLY PRESERVING THE LAND'S
PUBLI(' CHARACTER BY USE RESTRIC-
'1'ION, IT WAS ERROR TO DIVEST THE
CITY OF SUCH LANDS BY ACCORDING
RETROSPECTIVE VALIDITY TO A WILD
DEED TO A PURPORTED PRIVATE
OWNER.
1. The Private Interest's "Title" To The Land
In Question Derives From A Wild Deed Which Is
Therefore Void.
The only title to the land in question traceable to the
sovereign is in and to the City of Miami.
Title to all lands under navigable waters has its
origin in the United States. In 1845, the United States
conveyed this title to Florida "in trust for the benefit of
the people of Florida." The State specifically accepted,
acknowledged and ratified this trust. F.S. > 6.01 (1845).
Title to such land is, therefore, held by the State
subject to this inalienable trust. The 1968 Florida Con-
stitution also expressly recognizes this trust." Prior to the
1968 Constitution and to the Florida statute, this trust
was recognized as a matte. of common law." Even
"Fla. Const. Art. X, §11 (19681.
'Hayes v. Bowman, 91 So.2d 795 (Fla. 1957); Browardv. Mabry, 50 So.
826 (Fla. 1909); State v. Black River Phosphate Company, 13:So. 640 (Fla.
1893); Alden v. Pinney, 12 Fla. 348 (1869).
9•
i
111111111
111111111
111111
grantees ,,om the State take with notice that lands under
obviously navigable waters are "sovereignty lands" sub-
ject to this inalienable trust. This Court acknowledged
this concept earlier this year in Odom v. I)eltona Corp.,
3-11 So.2d 977 1k* (Fla. 1977):
"Appellants also argue for the application of the
'notice of navigability' concept. i.e., that the
grantee of swamp and overflowed lands under a
Trustee deed takes with `notice' that the con-
veyance does not include sovereignty land. In
the case of a large lake, such as Lake
Okeechobee, a 50000 acre lake. we agree.
(emphasis supplied)
Biscayne Bay and the Atlantic Ocean are at least as
obviously navigable as Lake Okeechobee, and Flagler,
FEC and St. Joe were and are all on legal notice of the
sovereign) nature of this land. And they would he even if
the land had not been conveyed to another Florida public
entity.
The State, by statutory land grant, conveyed these -
submerged lands in 1919 to the City of Miami, imposing a
restriction of its use, in perpetuity, "for municipal pur-
poses only.'' The City took this property subject to this
inalienable trust, "for the benefit of the people of
Florida."'
The putative 1944 conveyance purports to transfer
from FEC to St. Joe 24.69 acres. FEC held record title to
'The validity of this grant was recognized in TIIF v. Claughton, 86
So.2d 775, 784 (Fla. 1956). See also, Pembroke v. 1'eninsular Terminal Co.,
146 So. 249 (Fla. 1933); Hayes v. Bowman. 91 So.2d 795, 802 iF1a. 1957).
10
14 acres of this land, by virtue of the 1898 eyance to
Henry Flagler. The City does not dispute respondent's
ownership of this 14 acres. As to the remaining 10.69
acres, however, the putative 1944 conveyance is a "wild
deed" — that is, one purporting to convey land which the
grantor did not own.
FEC did not own this 10.69 acres. The City did and
still does.
'I'he 1898 deed conveyed to FEC 14 acres "together
with all and singular the riparian rights and submerged
lands appertaining thereto." This clid not convey an es-
tate in anything more than the 14 acres. There were no
"submerged lands appertaining thereto." Land does not
pass as appurtenant to land.
In the 1920's, FEC bulkheaded six acres of this
land. FEC did not thereby obtain title." The land had in
fact been previously conveyed, in 1919, to the City of
Miami.
The 1944 conveyance thus purports to convey 10.69
acres, title to which was in the City and not in the pur-
ported grantor. Any good faith title searcher must have
• Respondents argued in the courts below that they obtained title to
the submerged lands by virtue of the so-called "Butler Act." The "Butler
Act.' did not vest title to the submerged lands in the respondents. As of
1919. the riparian rights act of 1856 di:l give rights to riparian owners to
dredge. fill and bulkhead, and thereby acquire title —but only to owners
of land to the low water mark. Haves v. Bowman, 91 So.2d 795 (Fla. 1957);
Thiesen v. Gulf F & A Rv. Co., 78 So. 491 (Fla. 1918). Respondents'
predecessors in title to the then -existing land owned only to the high water
mark. After 1919 the submerged lands were vested in the City. Any subse-
quent filling to this was devoid of legal authority. Moreover. all the dis-
puted property is outside the channel which bounded even the putative
claim by F.E.C.
11
I
■
1
found in 1.9-14 that the grantor had no title, or even a
colorable title. to this 10.69 acres, and that the only con-
veyance of this land out of the sovereign was to the City
of Miami. as an agent of the State and "for municipal
purposes only..'
The 19-14 deed is wild and therefore void. Yet on the
basis of this void instrument the courts below have
granted the land to St. Joe and have divested the City.
2. The Act Cannot Divest The City of Its Vested
Property Rights.
(a) Chapter 712 Does Not Apply To A Wild Deed.
The decisions below erroneously presume that the.
Act validates a wild deed and that the 1944 wild deed is
a "root of title" vesting the property in St. Joe.
But it has always been the law that a wild deed is
void and has no effect. See, c.g., Wright v. Blocker, 198
So. Sti I Fla. 1941)). As applied by the courts below,
however. the Act does exactly that —it validates a void
instrument. in clear violation of the ancient principle
that a legislative enactment "cannot breathe life into a
corpse... smith Bros. t'. Williams, 131 So. 335, 337 (Fla.
19:i()).
Such an interpretation goes beyond the Act's in-
tended and permissible scope. For the primary purpose
of the Act is not to resolve disputes between conflicting
chains of title, but rather to free the record chain of title
"from the burdens of old conditions and
restrictions which at each transfer of the
12
1111 i■l■
property transfer with its marketabiic , . The
statute does not operate to provide the founda-
tion for a new title."
Wichelman v. Messner,
19571. To the same effect,
v. Lawndale, 243 N.E.2d
83 N.W.2d 800, 819 (Minn..
see Exchange National Bank
193 (Ill. 1968):
"A consideration of our Act, including the sec-
tion declaring the legislative purpose of
`simplifying and facilitating land title transac-
tions by allowing persons to rely on a record
chain of title' leads us to conclude that the Act
contemplated the existence of only one record
chain of title holder. We deem that the applica-
tion of the statute in a case involving two com-
peting record chains of title as are presented
here was not intended... ."
The courts should therefore avoid interpreting the
act as validating a void instrument.
(b) A Wild Deed Is Not A "Root of Title" As
Defined By The Act.
The Act does not, by its terms, purport to validate a
wild deed. The Act protects persons who have "been
vested with any estate in land of record for 30 years or
more." Fla. Stat. ; 712.02. A f erson holding under a void
deed, even if of record for 30 years, has no estate of any
sort. He has never been "vested" with any interest in
land. Thus a wild deed is exempted from the protections
of the Act because it is not included within the defini-
tion of marketable title in § 712.02.
ta,
II
1
1111
1111111
Before there can be a "marketable record title" un-
der > i 12.O2. there must be a "root of title," 712.01(2),
wiich requires a "title transaction." "Title transaction"
is defined by 712.01(3) as one "which affects title." A
void deed does not affect title.
Even if a wild deed could he a "title transaction," it
nevertheless would be exempted from protection by
7 12.03(1). which provides in pertinent part that the Act
due not extinguish "defects inherent in the muniments
of title." A wild deed is inherently defective and thus
within this exception. It purports to convey ownership
by a grantor with no prior chain of title.
tc) The Inapplicability Of The Act To Wild
Deeds Is Supported By 'Textual Authorities And By
Decisions In Other .Jurisdictions.
1 Boyer, Florida Real Estate Transactions. 14.I5 .
(1976), states as follows:
"The statute will not automatically result in
abstracts of title going hack only 30 years . . .
any interest reflected in the root or in the
recorded chain in that time, will have to be
checked out back to its source.- I emphasis sup-
plied
Wild deeds are not honored by other states' in-
terpretations of virtually identical acts. In Exchange
National Bank c•. Latendalc', 243 N.E.2d 19:3 (I11. 1968).
the Illinois Supreme Court so held:
"Were we to hold otherwise it could result in
a 'wild deed' being enabled to serve as the foun-
14
dation of a new record of chain of tit, so that
it, as the more recent 40-year chain of title,
would he entitled to the benefit of the Act. This
could result in an unwelcome holding and pos-
sible constitutional complications, for it would
be then possible for the grantee of a complete
and even fraudulent stranger to title to divest
the title of a record owner, who may have
satisfied the usual responsibilities of
ownership, such as paying taxes, but who did
not file a statement of claim to preserve his in-
terest, as the statute requires. The legislature
not having so provided, we believe that it was
not intended that a chain could be founded on
a wild deed, or as one court expressed it, 'on a
stray, accidental or interloping conveyance.'
Too, the legislative purpose under the Act of
`simplifying and facilitating land title transac-
tion' would hardly be furthered by a contrary
holding. A purchaser, though he might trace
title hack to an original grant from the United
States and might have examined grantor -
grantee indices, could not be assured that a
chain of title based on a 'wild deed' did not in-
dependently exist, to the prejudice of his
rights." lAt 195-196, citations omitted]
In Wichelman c. Messner, 83 N.W.2d 800, 819
(Minn. 1957), the court statt.d:
"We do not think the statute lends itself to an
interpretation to the effect that title may be
founded on a stray `accidental' or interloping
conveyance. Its object is to provide, for the
recorded fee simple ownership, an exemption
15
tram :� burdens of old conditions and restric-
tions which at each transfer of the property
transfer with its marketability. The statute
(i,ies not i,peratc to prot•id('the foundation for a
,t(;( title... (at r..19. emphasis supplied]
«It Marshall v. Hollywood Does Not Hold The
:act Applicable to Wild Deeds
The Third District, relying on Marshall c. Nr,l-
i loc.. hell the :act applicable to wild deeds. But.
that decision (foes not hold. or even say. that a wild deed
an be a rout of title. it says that a deed subsequent to a
wild ci+•(-(1 may be a root (4f title. In Marshall, this Court
aniline(' the Fourth District's holding "that the Act
!naketability to a chain of title arising out of a
.;rr; :c ild deed so long as t he st rict requirements of
the Act are met.- (At 116. emphasis supplied]
i'he root of title in .! fars/tall was not the forged
deco. Rather. the root of title arose from a chain which
included. prior to the :30-year old root of title, a forged
deed.
"In summary, although the . . . deed initiating
the chain of title involved here was forged, this
deed tOtlned but one link in the chain coming
before the effective root of title in this case
defined by t he aet.. . . 236 So.2d at 120
Moreover. Marshall did not involve two conflicting
chains of title. The deed challenged was a forgery pur-•
r
porting to convey property owned by a corporation. The,
plaintiff was the administrator of the estate of a two-
thirds shareholder in the company, appointed in 1966,
1ti
43 years after the death of the shareholder � 1 4:3 years
after the forged deed. Unlike the City here, plaintiff -
administrator did not have a chain of title to the real es-
tate, but rather sought a decree establishing his
equitable interest in the land. as administrator of the es-
tate.
Applied here, this means only that the deeds subse-
quent to the 1944 conveyance, by which the other
respondents obtained purported title from St. Joe, can
form roots of title as defined by Chapter 712. None of
these subsequent conveyances, however, are 30 years
old.
Similarly, in Whaley V. Wotrinti, 22.a So.2d 177 (1st
Fla. DC:A 1969), it was not the purported root of title
which was claimed to he wild. but rather a. deed prior to
the root of title.
Wilson c. Kelley, 226 So.2d 12:3 (2d Fla. DCA 1969),
does state that a wild deed may serve as a root of title.
The statement is obitc'r dictum. The court, in fact, held
against the party seeking the benefit of the Act, con-
cluding that the appeliant's quit -claim deed did not
constitute a root of title.
Thus, it has not been and should not be held that a
wild (seed can constitute a root of title.
:3. As Interpreted By The Courts Below, The
Act Is Unconstitutional.
As interpreted by the courts below, =:he Act has
divested the City of property it has owned since 'an —
sovereignty lands title to which has never left the State
17
■
i
uIII
11111111
■
1
1 =II
i
I
i
I
i
i
since r.►sir acquisition upon admission to the Union.
The courts below have held that title to this property is
vested in private parties on the basis of a void instru-
ment executed in 1914. Such alchemy is not only incon-
sistent with t he law of real property and legislative in-
tent. it k also inconsistent with constitutional protec-
tions of property rights. If the interpretation of the Act
adopted below were correct, the Act would violate both
the due process clauses and the contract clauses of the
Florida and United States Constitutions.
(al As Interpreted Below, The Act Deprives A
Vested Owner Of Property Without Due Process Of
Law In Violation Of The Fourteenth Amendment.
'l'he Fourteenth Amendment to the United States -
Constitution provides:
"'NI() state shall . . . deprive any person of
life. liberty, or property without due process of
law . . . .,,
There can he no doubt that the City has been
deprived of property by Chapter 712 as applied below.
The only question 1s whether the deprivation comports
Frith due process. A threshhold requirement of due
process is notice "such as one desirous of actually in-
forming . . . might reasonably adopt to accomplish it."
Mullane v. ('►'ntral Honorer Bank & Trust Company,.
339 U.S. :tOIi. :t15. 7(1 S.Ct. 652, 94 L.Ed. 8(i5 (1950).
The constitutional notice requirement concerning
statutes of limitations is included in the general rule
that the statute does not begin to run until "there has
been notice of the invasion of a legal right or a person
,.x
18
,I
1111 .si•ul.M1
has been put on notice of his right to a cause of action."
Buck u. Mooradian. 100 So.2d 70, 71 (3d Fla. DCA
1958); Franklin Life Ins. Co. v. Thorpe, 179 So. 406 (Fla.
1938) .
Statutes affecting real estate, as well as valid deeds
within a chain of title may satisfy, by constructive
notice, the constitutional requirement. But as this Court
has note([ in Marshall c. Hollywood, Chapter 712 is
much broader in scope than the recording statutes. The
recording statutes in effect define the requirements for
"perfecting" an interest in real estate. Such statutes are
therefore similar to those defining the formal requisites
of a conveyance —form, attestation, etc. The latter
statutes define what is a valid conveyance of real estate,
and thus in no way can be deemed a deprivation of
property. The recording statutes determine the relative
priority of conflicting, valid conveyances. They do not
purport to declare interests valid or invalid, and they do
not purport to extinguish interests. They merely es-
tablish that to secure an interest which will be good
against subsequent interests in the same real estate,
that interest must he "perfected" by recordation.
Chapter 712 attempts to go beyond this. It purports
to define not how a vested interest is created, but to
define how it is maintained. As interpreted below,
Chapter 712 requires a vested owner to rerecord its in-
terest in the real estate. On th basis of its having failed
to do so, the City's ownership was held extinguished by
a void deed executed in 1944.
Constructive notice is a legal fiction on which much
of the law of property is based. However, constructive
notice has no talismanic quality with relation to real es-
19
•
11111111
i
i
i
IUI
11111111
i
1111
1111
1
111/1/1111
1
1
.1
111111111
Hill
11111111111111111111111
tate. Earl application should he scrutinized, to insure
notice "such as one desirous of actually informing . . .
might reasonably adopt to accomplish it. Mullane,
supra. '1'o hold that landowners have constructive
knowledge of a 1963 legislative enactment requiring
them to take affirmative acts to maintain their
ownership of real estate might itself violate due process.
.11c('ord 1'. Smith, -13 So.2d 70-1 (Fla. 1950).
But even if constructive notice of this Act were suf-
ficient. it is clearly not sufficient with regard to a wild
deed. 'I'o comport. with due process, a property owner
would have to be fairly held on constructive notice both
of the Act and of the wild deed.
Recording of a wild deed is not notice of a claim to
property: a wild deed is one executed by a stranger to
the record title "hung out in the air like X lahornet's cof-
fin. 1'uladiari t•. Johnson. 85 So.2d 140. 141 (Fla. 1956).
Recording of a wild deed is not even constructive notice
of ainything. Reed v. Fain, 1.15 So.2d 858 (Fla. 1962).
The 19-1-1 conveyance was a wild deed in 1944. and
cannot be made valid by subsequent legislation. An act
cannot "breathe life into a corpse." Smith Brothers v.
Williams, 131 So.:335, 3:37 (Fla. 1930).
Therefore. by this Court's own repeated decisions,
to apply Chapter 712 to validate wild deeds would divest
owners of existing interests in real property without
notice. Yet this was done below in clear violation of the
United States Constitution.
20
,trio
(h) Retroactive Application �_- The Act
Deprives A Vested Owner Of Property Without Due
Process of Law.
Retrospective application of Chapter 712 below has
destroyed vested property rights and constitutes a viola-
tion of due process. See, e.g., Creary v. Creary's Estate,
:3:38 So.2c1 26 (1st Fla. DCA 1976); Biltmore Village, Inc.
U. Royal Biltrnvre Village, Inc., 71 So.2d 727 (Fla. 1954).
Yet the courts below have interpreted Chapter 712
as validating a void instrument recorded 19 years prior
to the legislative enactment.
The basic thrust of Chapter 712 is an attempt to ef-
feet what may be a legitimate state interest: to lessen
the burden of title searches.
As interpreted below, however, Chapter 712
obliterates the vested rights of property owners and
awards them to persons whose interloping claims arise
from the past mistakes or calculated risks or even
deliberate omissions, made by a title searcher.' By this
interpretation Chapter 712 not only retroactively alters
the duties of title searchers, it actually validates void in-
struments. Such a result is wholly inconsistent with due
process. And here it would divest the public of land
which by law the private claimants were bound to know
was sovereignty land.
''And the early dismissal with prejudice precluded any discovery on
this subject. it seems clear that St. Joe must have actually as well as con-
structively known of its illegal acquisition in 1944. Its failure to develop or
deal with this prime property for more thanthree decades supports this
conclusion.
i
i
i
1
i
I II
I II
\,
:As iihiicat ed. statutes of limitations which preclude
a person from bringing suit after a reasonable time set
by the statutes may not be unconstitutional depriva-
tions of property, but a statute of limitations does not
begin to run until "there has been notice of the invasion
of a legal right or a person has been put on notice of his
right to a cause of action." Such statutes may he held
valid. therefore. hecause they give a person a reasonable
time after effective notice to seek adjudication of a claim
to property rights.
Even retroactive statutes of limitation may be valid
"where a reasonable time is allowed to prosecute an as-
serted right." Buck t'. Triplett, 32 So.2d 75:3, 755 (Fla.
1947). However. chapter 712. as interpreted below, dif-
fers in effect from statutes of limitations in two signifi-
cant nays. First. it would divest not merely a cause of
action, hut an existing. vested right in property. Sec-
ond. it would impose a new obligation or duty to
preserve a vested interest -- an owner would he required
to re-record his interest. As interpreted, therefore,
Chapter 712 is unconstitutional, for retrospective
legislation is invalid
"in those cases wherein vested rights are
adversely affected or destroyed or when a new
obligation or duty is created or imposed, or an
additional disability is established in connec-
tion with transactions or considerations
previously had or expiated."
McCord v. Smith, 4:3 So.2d 704, 709 (Fla. 1950).
In this regard, it is important to note that Chapter-
712 is nut merely curative of technical or administrative
22
..
MI11111
MI
irregularities. It is not merely remedial Idh thcaerefore
perhaps protected by the rationale s
as
Board of ('omtn'rs of Everglades Drainage Dist. v.
Forbes Pioneer Boat Line, 8G So. 199 (Fla. 1920), rev''d
on other grounds, 258 U.S. 338 (1921) ). And unlike
Aloyer c'. ('lark. 72 So.2d 905 ( Fla. 1954), where referring
to the general recording statute this Court stated that
"the statute obviously was not intended to have the
result of requiring a grantee to record his own deed
within a specified time or lose an otherwise valid title,"
it is not merely a recording statute.
Instead, the Act as applied divests vested (as op-
posed to contingent) property rights in a retroactive way
which Florida courts have repeatedly held violates due
process.
(c) As Interpreted By The Trial Court, The Act
Impairs The Obligations Of Contract.
United States Constitution.
Article I, Section 10, Clause 1, of the United States
Constitution provides in pertinent part: "No state shall
. . . pass any . . . law impairing the obligation of con-
tracts. . . .
„
Chapter 712, as interpreted below, actually ex-
tinguishes vested property rig 'its, rights which are clear-
ly protected by the constituIional prohibition against
impairment of contract. A state may not be prohibited
from validly exercising the police power for the public
interest, and such laws as exist are implied into contrac-
tual obligations. Indiana ex rel. Anderson e. Brand, 303
U.S. 95, 58 S.Ct. 443, 82 L.Ed. 685 (1938). A state may
23
1
■
not, hu retrospectively exercise the police power
to extinguish vested rights which in no way conflict in
and of themselves with the public interest.
The State of Florida may well have a legitimate in-
terest in relieving the necessity for lengthy title
searches. and may have the authority to enact legisla-
tion which alters the inethods and substance of creating
obligations. The State of Florida may not. however. ex-
tinguish otherwise valid vested interests. if the Act is to
he interpreted. as the trial court and the Third District
have interpreted it, retroactively to extinguish a
property owner's vested interest in property. the Act im-
pairs contractual obligation in clear violation of Article
1. Section 10. Clause 1. of the United States Constitu-
tion. See Trustees of Dartmouth College r. Woodward,
17 U.S. 518..1 I,.Ed. 629 (1819); Empire State Insurance
Company i'. ('h ifet:, 302 F.2d 828 (5th Cir. 1962).
The Florida Constitution
The Florida Constitution, like the United States
Constitution, provides that "no . . . law impairing the
obligation of contract shall be passed." Article I, Section
10. Florida courts have made clear that the State is not
prohibited by t his provision from exercising the police
power in t he public interest. See, e.g., Shavers e. Duval
('utinty. 73 So.2d 684 (Fla. 1954); McConville v. Ft.
Pierce Bank & Trust Co., 135 So. 392 (Fla. 1931).
However, as the Florida Supreme Court noted in
Yamaha Parts Distributors. Inc. v. Ehrman, 316 So.2d
559 (Fla. 1975), "virtually no degree of contract im-
pairment has been tolerated in this state." It is clear
that the police power does not allow the State to ex-
tinguish vested rights which in no way conflict in and of
24
themselves with the public interest. The F'Tida case of
f3iltmore Village, Inc. c. Royal Biltmort`- Village, 71
So.2d 727 (Fla. 1954), has become a leading case for the
rule that reversionary rights in property cannot be
destroyed by subsequent legislation. See 41. A.L.R.2d
1384.
Retroactive legislation is particularly suspect. In
Yamaha, this Court held that a statutory requirement
that a motor vehicle manufacturer
on of a franchise notice
to a franchisee prior
con-
tract did not apply retroactively.
" To justify retroactive application it is not
enough to show that this legislation is a valid
exercise of the state's police power because that
power, however broad in other contexts, here
collides with the constitutional ban on laws im-
pairing contracts." [at 5591
(d) The Decisions Below Constitute An Uncon-
stitutional 'Faking" Of Property.
The Fifth Amendment of the United States Con-
stitution provides in pertinent part: ".
. nor shall
private property be taken for public use, without just
compensation."
This provision applies to the states by virtue of the
Fourteenth Amendment. See Chicago, B & Q Ry. Co. v.
Chicago, 166 U.S. 22(i• 17 S.Ct. 581, 41 L.Ed. 979 (1897).
When state action goes beyond mere regulation of
property rights and actually deprives an owner of title to
property, compensation is required.
25,
i
1111
i
i
1
1
■
" his inconceivable that a state could con-
stitutionally authorize the taking or expropria-
tion of property without just compensation,
even if it did so after providing a hearing in all
of the other procedural rights which are embed-
ded in the concept of due process. Taking
property, whet her by the United States, by a
state, a county, or by a municipality, requires
just compensation."
Brault r. Town of Milton. 527 F.2d 730, 741-742 (2d Cir.
1975). See also, 5otomura v. County of Hawaii, 402
F.Supp. 95. 101 (I). Hawaii 1975); Cook v. Carlson, 364
F.Supp. 24, (I). S.D. 1973).
Even following procedural safeguards, the state is
restricted to taking property for public use.
"The taking by a state of the private property
of one person or corporation, without the
owner's consent, for the private use of another,
is not due process of law, and is a violation of
the Fourteenth Article of Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States."
Mo. Pac. Icy. Co. c. Nebraska, 164 U.S. 403, 417, 17
S.Ct. 1:30, 1:35, 41 I..Ed. 489 (1896); Blankner v. City of
Chicago, 504 F.2d 1037, 1043 (7th Cir. 1974); Schneider
t•. District of Columbia, 117 F.Supp. 705, 716-717 (D.
D.C. 1953).
The decisions of the courts below have deprived the
City of its title to real estate and vested title in the
respondents, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment
of the United States Constitution.
26
(e) Other Jurisdictions ° Constrdue,It�Ttoar AvoidLegisla-
tion Unconstitutional
Constitutional Problems Created Below.
Murrison L'. Fensterrnacher, 203 P.2d 160 (Kan.
1949). held unconstitutional a statute which provided'
that deeds which had been of record more than 25 years
prior to the effective date of the statute were conclusive-
ly presumed to have conveyed perfect title,
notwithstanding any defect in the grantor's title. The
statute had a proviso that the presumption was not to be
applied in any action brought within one year from the
effective date of the statutory enactment. Noticing the
distinction between the disputed statute and curative or
limitation statutes, the court opined:
"The power of the Legislature to prescribe
within what reasonable time one having a mere
right of action shall proceed is unquestionable;
but there is a wide distinction between that
legislation which requires one having a mere
right to sue, to pursue the right speedily, and
that which creates the necessity for suit by con-
verting an estate in possession into a mere right
of action, and then limits the time in which the
suit may he brought. The mere designation of
such an act as an act of limitation does not
make it such, for it is in its nature more than
that." Dingey v. Paxton, 60 Miss 1038 . . . [at
1621
In Board of Education u. Miles, 207 NE 2d 181
(N.Y. 1965), a statute precluded all reverters created
prior to September 1, 19:31, unless recorded on or before
September 1, 1961. The court acknowledged that, unlike
27
Ell
the ret.=,rding acts, t he statute was not designed "to
protect subsequent purchasers for value and without
notice. hut for an object more akin to that of title
registration acts which are designed to perfect the
marketability of titles." 'i'1>e court found that recording
acts are a valid exercise of the police power to protect
subsequent purchasers. while the purpose of the instant
statute was merely to avoid lengthy title searches.
Citing Biltmorc 1,illa4,,e. Inc. cv. Royal Ililtmorc Villa�,�c.
71 S .2d 727 ( Fla. 195-1), the court concluded that under
the circumstances. the statute "cannot be sustained
. . . since it purports to bar the remedy before the right
to enforce it has matured." lat 1891
In State, Dept. of Highways cv. Tucker, 170 So.2d
:;71 (La. 19641. the Louisiana Supreme Court struck
down a statute t hat raised a conclusive presumption
that deeds to land abutting a right-of-way included the
seller's right-of-way unless the seller filed suit or
recorded a notarial declaration.
"Such an alteration disrupts established land
tenure, transfers land from persons holding
clear titles, and defeats the reasonable expecta-
tions of landowners who have relied upon the
law in effect at the time of conveyance. As
retroactively applied, the statute impairs the
obligation of contracts and divests vested
rights. Consequently, it violates the federal and
state constitutions." lat :374, footnotes omit-
ted)
See also Cornish v. Kinder Canal Co., 267 So.2d
625, 631 (La. App. 1972).
28
(f) Prior Florida Decisions Do Not iipport The
Constitutionality Of The Act.
'I'he 'Third Dist riot assumed that Chapter 712 has
been upheld as constitutional by Marshall v. Hol-
lywood, Inc., 236 So.2d 11-1 ( Fla. 1970). This Court in
that case in fact expressly reserved ruling on the issue of
constitutionality, because it was not "framed as an is-
sue" in the lower court;
"we join with the District Court in declining to,
consider such arguments because the con-
stitutionality of the Act was not framed as, an
issue in petitioner's amended complaint, which
is the only complaint now before us. For pur-
poses of disposing with this litigation, we wilt
act on the assumption that the Act is con-
stitutional." [at 118, emphasis supplied]
To say that this is a determination of the con-
stitutionality of the Act is to ignore this Court's express
language.
The "Third District also cited, as supporting the con-
stitutionality of Chapter 712, Campbell v. Horne, 3
So.2d 125 (Fla. 1941); Mahood v. Bessemer Properties,
Inc., 18 So.2d 775 (Fla. 1944); Buck v. Triplett, 32 So.2d
753 (Fla. 194 7 ); H.K.L. Realty Corporation v. Kirtley,
74 So.2d 876 (Fla. 1954); and In Re Brown's Estate, 117
So.2d 478 (Fla. 1960). Eacn of these cases involves
statutes of limitations, and is wholly inapposite.
Finally, it should be noted that the Act has been
construed to avoid conflict with constitutionally
protected property interests. See Reid v. Bradshaw, 302
29
i■
1111
1
111111
So.2d 1r \1st Ha. 1)('A 1974).
4. The Act Specifically Exempts An Agency Of
The Government, Such As The City Of
Miami, From Its Operation.
Thu question raised here is whether the City of
Miami as an agency of the State is exempted from the
:1ct with respect to t his property. FS:1 712.04 provides:
"... Mhis chapter shall not be deemed to af-
fect any right, title or interest of the United
States, Florida or any of it officers, hoards,
commissions or other agencies reserved in the
patent or deed by which the United States,
Florida or any of its agencies parted with title."
(emphasis supplied]
Miami is an agency of the State and, therefore, ex-
empt from the entire chapter. See State v. City of
Auburndale, ST) So.:2d 611 (Fla. 1956), where dealing
with tax proceeds distributions. this Court said:
"Within the orbit of the authority granted to it
by the state, a municipality is an instrumen-
tality or auxiliary agency of the state es-
tablished for the more convenient administra-
tion of local government. While it does not
share the state's sovereignty and enjoys only
such powers as are specifically granted, or
necessarily implied from powers specifically
granted. nevertheless, subject to these restric-
tions. a municipal corporation is in substantial
measure merely a projection of the state
30
IIIIIIII
111
III
government to the local level." [at 613]
Similarly, see Loeb v. City of Jacksonville, 134 So. 205,
(Fla. 1931), in which this Court defined a city:
"A 'city' is a mere auxiliary to the state govern-
ment. It is a public institution for self-
government and "local administration of the
affairs of state. It is appointed and empowered
for that purpose and is therefore an agent of the
state for local administration of governmental
affairs." [at 207, emphasis supplied]
Accord: Kaufman u. Tallahassee, 94 So. 697, 698 (Fla.
1923); Turk u. Richard, 47 So.2d 543 (Fla. 1950); and
West v. Town of Lake Placid, 120 So. 361, 366 (Fla.
1929); City of Miami v. Lewis, 104 So.2d 70, 72-3 (3d
Fla. DCA 1958). And cf Florida Statutes >20.03(11)
(1974) defining "agency" as "an official, officer, com-
mission, authority, counsel, committee, department,
division, bureau, hoard, section, or other unit or entity
of government." ]emphasis supplied]
The patents or deeds by which both the United
States and Florida parted with title reserved the right
and the interest of both the United States and the State
of Florida to have the use of the land restricted to public
use or more specifically, as to Florida, that species of
public use subsumed in the phrase "for municipal pur-
poses only." [ 7, 81
When it conveyed the "submerged lands, including
waterfront and riparian rights" to Miami in 1919,
Florida delegated its duty as a trustee to Miami. For
purposes of application of § 712.04, therefore, Miami
31
111111111111111111
111111
11111
1
I
II
III
i
stands ii;'the place of the State, an agent with an in-
terest (fee simple title in trust) reserved in the patent or
deed, and is. therefore, exempt from all of Chapter 712.
The legislative intent revealed by the broad limita-
tion of ;712.04 is clearly to preserve governmental in-
terest in land. This legislative intent is more emphatic
when Chapter 712 is compared to the Model Marketable
Record Titles Act, from which it derived. That Model
Act preserves only the "interests of the United States."
Florida's Legislature specifically wrote in the expansive
limitation of 712.04.
The analogy to adverse possession is compelling.
One cannot assert adverse possession against the
State'. the City'' or other governmental body.'''. The
same should be true here. St. Joe should not be allowed
to perfect an interest in the 10.69 disputed acres against
the City, an agency of the State and a governmental
unit of the people of Florida, by mere passage of time.
Chapter 712's purpose is to simplify and facilitate
land title transactions by permitting good faith reliance
upon records which have existed not less than 30 years.
But a grant in derogation of sovereignty must he strictly
construed in favor of sovereignty. TIIF v. Claughton,
.•upru, at 766. Contrary to the position espoused by St.
Joe. the "strict requirements" of Chapter 712 are not
See Appendix.
'Pearce v. ('one. 2 So.2d 360 (Fla. 1941) (title held by Trustees of the
internal Improvement Fund).
Waterman v. Smith, 94 So.2d 186 (Fla. 1957).
.55 ALli:2d 554. See Esp. Patton v. Los Angeles, 206 CAL 662 (1929)
32
met by the mere passage of 30 years of a line of title. A
title searcher must not only in good faith examine the
records for a 30-year period. He must also ascertain that
the statute applies in the first instance — he must
review the conveyance out of the state. §712.04. The
purpose of the Act was not to relieve the title searcher of
the burden of determining the validity of title. A good
faith title searcher is charged with notice of all statutes
affecting title, in this case with notice of the 1919 Act
and the fact that the foreshore of navigable waters was
held by the State in trust for the people of Florida.
Moreover, Chapter 712 does not in any way purport
to repeal the June 2, 1919, statute. Since it does not (and
totally apart from the constitutional prohibitions which
would arise), the two statutes must be read if at all pos-
sible so as not to conflict with one another and so as to
give meaning and effect to each. Mann v. Goodyear T &
R Co., 300 So.2d 666 (Fla. 1974); Banana River Props. v.
City of Cocoa Beach, 287 So.2d 377 (4th Fla. DCA 1974);
Walton County v. BPI, 161 So.2d 45 (1st Fla. DCA
1964).
'Phis property has been conveyed out of the State
onto' in a limited way, by conveyance to its agent, the
City of Miami. A good faith title searcher in 1944, fol-
lowing even the liberalized standards of the Act (had it
then existed), must have found that the land belonged
to the City as agent for the ;state. Chapter 712 should
therefore he construed not to work a retroactive
forfeiture of the City's interest.
The Third District did so construe Chapter 712,
citing Odom v. Deltona Corp., 341 So.2d 977 (Fla. 1977).
33
1111
11
111
11111
IN
The 'Thin, '‘:istrict ruled that interests reserved in the
State can lie extinguished by the Act. notwithstanding
the Act's own language. 'Therefore, the City's interest
was extinguished whether or not it is an agency within
712.01's meaning. Such a holding is clearly not
sustainable on the basis of Odom. In Odom, the State
was challenging a deed over 30 years old from the
Tru,tees of the Internal Improvement Fund. deeds
which indisputably purported to convey certain lakes to
private persons. This Court held the State's arguments
precluded by the Act. What the Court had before it,
however. were "valid Federal and State grants of title to
real property without any reservation of public rights in
and to waters thereon." The Act, in fact, protects only
those rights "reserved in the patent or deed by which the
United States. Florida or any of its agencies parted with
title." Such reserved rights were not presented in Odom.
Such reserved rights are clearly presented in the present
case. In (glom the State itself had conveyed the lands to
private parties more than :10 years prior to bringing suit.
In the present case, title has never left the State to go to
any private party, but remains in the State's agent, the
City of Miami.
"Phis Court in Odom further stated that
notwithstanding the Act, if the state had previously pur-
ported to convey to private persons submerged lands un-
der navigable waters. an action by the State to establish
its title to such lands would not he precluded by the Act.
"Appellants also argue for the application of
the 'notice of navigability' concept, i.e., that
the grantee of swamp and overflowed lands un-
34
der a trustee deed takes with `notice' thh- he
conveyance does not include sovereignty land.
In the case of a large lake, such as Lake
Okeechobee, a 500,000 acre lake, we agree;
however, it seems absurd to apply this test to
small, nonmeandered lakes and ponds of less
than 140 acres and, in many cases, less than 50
acres in surface." [emphasis supplied]
The opinion in Odorn compels the conclusion that
the State's interest in lands beneath obviously
navigable waters, vested in its agent, the City of Miami,
cannot be extinguished by the Act. The Third District
ruled directly to the contrary.
5. It Was Error To Make A Factual Determina-
tion Of Estoppel In A Hearing Without
Evidence On A Motion To Dismiss.
Even a cursory reading of the transcript leaves the
unmistakable impression that the trial judge was
precuaded by his conclusion that the City's vested right
would ultimately he defeated by estoppel:
"If anybody has ever been estopped or waived
any rights —the City of Miami has been sitting
here with this land having been tilled back in
the 20's. I would have to take judicial notice
that they have been getti ig taxes on all of it all
this time." (R-208)
A trial court may not raise the issue of estoppel on
his own motion. Cox c. Holder, 345 So.2d 846 (1st Fla.
DCA 197 7 ).St.Joe should have been required both to
plead and prove such affirmative defenses, and the City
35
11
i
i
i
11
i
i
■■1
1
should ha‘, I►een allowed to plead and prove any affir-
mative defenses to tit. Joe's claim of estoppel.'? The trial
judge's actions directly violated the rules of procedure.
See t•.:;.. Croft t'. Fount;, 188 So.2d 859. 860 (1st Fla.
1►('A 190;): l ('. al'u-ris. inr. t'..11lison, 277 So.2d 28
t:;d Fla. I)('A 197:1), appeal after remand.:309 So.2d 9
l: ,d Fla. 11('A 197.51.
Furthermore, if defendants had plead estoppel and
waiver. t hat would have served only to raise a factual is-
sue. A hare allegation of estoppel is not a legally suf-
ficient ground for dismissal. See Thiesen v. Gulf F & A
li v. ('o., 78 So. 491 (Fla. 1917); Brickell v. Trammell, 82
So. 221 (Fla. 1919); Wernle t'. Bellemcad !kt'elopment
('nrp., 308 So.2d 97 (Fla. 1975).
Although this case was not allowed to proceed to
discovery. the deeds alone support the conclusion that
as a matter of law the City would not he estopped from
asserting this claim.
To the extent that the trial court held the City estopped, it denied the
cm its r: ht to a trial on this and other important issues. Counsel for the
City. at the hearing in the trill court on the motion to dismiss. objected
that :t the trial court were going to hold that the respondents had title by
virtue of the Butler Act, factual allegations could and would he made show-
ing that FE("s putative dredge and fill rights were only to fill out to the
channel. At the time in question, the channel was located at the approx-
imate present location of Biscayne Boulevard, thereby making all of the
property east and south of Bis.7ayne Boulevard illegally tilled and not a
proper basis for any claim of title by any of St..loe's predecessors in
putatne interest.
The trial judge refused to accept such an amendment. saying that
would he something "fur the appellate court to consider." Such a refusal to
all amendments is improper. The pleadings also allege that the 4.2•1 acre
yacht basin in question was not filled until 1949. No title transaction took
place after the tilling and, therefore, the 30-year period has not yet com-
menced to run. Even if the 30-year statutory period commenced after the
tilling was completed. the statutory period would not expire until 1979.
36
"While the doctrine of estoppel can Ix )plied
against the state or its subdivisions (Trustees
of Internal Improvement Fund v. Claughton,
Fla.1956, 86 So.2d 775), the instances are rare
when the doctrine will he so applied. It will be
invoked only under very exceptional circum-
stances, which must include some positive act
on the part of an authorized official, and in no
instance does it appear that the doctrine of
equitable estoppel has been applied to divest
the state of its land. Bryant v. Peppe, F1a.1970
2:38 So.2d 8:36. See also Adams v. Crews,
Fla.App.1958, 105 So.2d 584."
Jefferson National Bank at Sunny Isles v. Metro Dade
County, 271 So.2d 207, 214 (:3d Fla. DCA 1972).
Estoppel requires a reasonable reliance directly
upon the misleading acts or negligence of the party
against whom this estoppel is being asserted, all to the
asserting party's injury.
Here, there was no reasonable reliance on St. Joe's
part, only hope (or calculated risk). St. Joe was on
notice of the City's title not only under the "notice of
navigability" doctrine of Odom but because the 1919
grant of submerged lands to the City was a matter of
great consequence. especially to commercial landowners
around Biscayne Bay. Certainly, there was no mis-
leading act or negligence which encouraged St. Joe in its
unreasonable hope that it could steal this land from the
City.
Though, as noted above, there are cases in which
the particular facts developed at trial compelled the
37
1
i
1I
1
111111
11
III IIII
11
1
11111
11111111111111111111111
1111111111
conclusion that estoppel should lie against a governmen-
tal agency,' it has long been the law that where the con-
dition of the title is equally available to all estoppel will
not he.'"
St. Joe has never disputed that it had knowledge of
the City's title. Any acts on its part were made not in
reliance but in hope.
"Moreover, one's own wrongful act ordinarily
cannot serve as a basis of a claim of estoppel
against another, and it can be applied as an es-
toppel against estoppel. Florida Land Inv. Co.
v. Williams, 98 Fla. 1258, 116 So. 642."
Jefferson National Bank at Sunny Isles r. Metro Dade
County, supra, at 214.
Finally, before there can be an estoppel there must
be an injury to the asserting party. Clearly, St. Joe has
not been injured by the rents which it has been col-
lecting over the years. On the contrary, it has greatly
benefited. St. Joe has no investment in this land which
it has not long ago recovered.
'Odom v. The Deltona Corp., supra; TIIF v. Claughton. supra:
'Trice v. Stratton, 33 So. 644 (Fla. 1903); see also Martin v. Busch..112
So. 274 (Fla. 1927►; and Odom, supra, page 988 at note 9.
38
11
i
i
—I
CONCLUSION
The courts below have construed an act so as to
validate a demonstrably void deed which was illegally
placed of record nearly two decades before the passage of
the Act. They have ignored Florida case law which has
uniformly accorded no validity or even notice -ability to
wild deeds.
By so doing, the courts below have imposed upon
the Act an unconstitutionality so pervasive that it runs
afoul of almost every constitutional protection accorded
vested property rights.
Moreover, the courts below have disregarded the
expressed, specific legislative intent not even to have the
entire chapter apply at all —where, as here, the con-
veyance out of the state not only i.. directly (and ex-
clusively) to a state agency, but a specific, public use
restriction is expressed in the conveyance.
Finally, in order to achieve this completely er-
roneous and unconstitutional construction, the courts
below have looked the other way and ignored the most
egregious procedural violations. Pleaded exceptions to
the Act, though unchallenged and unstricken. are
treated as non-existent. And the trial judge's engaging
in a one -eyed fact-finding role at a hearing on a motion
to dismiss is approved: "it doesn't matter."
But it does matter. Sovereignty land has been
usurped by private parties. Those private parties
knew —or must be charged with knowing —that they
were taking sovereignty land. Even were there really a
theory of estoppel against the City (and there is not),
i
II
i
39
11111
111
I
1
it
•NIM=
11111111111
11111111
i!II
III
III
they would be estopped to assert it.
The opinion below should he quashed. The statute
should he construed so as to comport with constitutional
standards. And. in any event, it should he enforced only
according to its own terms. It cannot therefore be ap-
plied to the City.
i
!1
Respectfully submitted,
LAW OFFICES
GUY B. BAILEY, JR.
Attorneys for Petitioner
1820 One Biscayne Tower
Miami, Florida 33131
By —
Guy B. Bailey, Jr.
1111111111111111011MON
f
'1
I�II�
CERTIFICATE OF SERVIC
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the
foregoing Petitioner's Brief on the Merits was mailed to
Shutts & Bowen, IOUO Southeast First National Bank
Building, Miami, Florida 33131; Sibley, Giblin,
Levenson & Ward. 1301 Dade Boulevard, Miami Beach,
Florida 331:39; Steel Hector & Davis, 1400 Southeast
First National Bank Building, Miami, Florida :33131;
and Russo, Van Doren & Allen, P.A., 4685 Ponce de
Leon Boulevard, Coral Gables, Florida 33147; this 7th
day of July. 1977.
A
I
I
Of Counsel