 |
 |
 |
 |
Week of January 24, 2008 |
Board agrees to seek court guidance on whether adopted tax-rate is valid By Catherine LacknerThe Miami Downtown Development Authority hopes to get a declaratory judgment on whether the city commission followed state law in adopting the authority's millage last fall. The dispute started last fall, when by a vote of 4-0 the Miami City Commission adopted the downtown authority's tax rate. Commissioner Tom·s Regalado had stepped off the dais before the vote was taken. The downtown authority had proposed the tax rate at one-half mil, the same as last year, instead of adopting the rollback rate that would have produced the same amount collected last year. A mil is $1 for every $1,000 of taxable valuation. Without rolling back rates, the authority capitalizes on increased property value assessments, yielding at least $4.27 million, up from the $3.75 million the rolled-back rate would yield. At stake is more than $500,000 in added funds the disputed rate would raise. The Downtown Development Authority considered four alternatives for action. The authority's governing board decided to put the $500,000 in escrow and seek the declaratory judgment. Other alternatives posed by city legal staff included requesting a clarification from the Legislature or seek a re-vote of the Miami City Commission. Several board members, led by Loretta Cockrum, said they felt the authority would be damaged by a re-vote. Florida law this year allowed independent special districts such as the authority, which promotes downtown development, to escape the Legislature's tax rate rollback through a unanimous vote of the governing body ó in this case, Miami's commissioners. The four on the dais for the September vote approved setting the same rate as last year's. The governing statute says that a unanimous vote must be reached, but it doesn't stipulate whether unanimous means all members present or all members who are eligible to vote. The state's revenue department construes the statute to mean the latter and is demanding a re-vote for the agency to be in compliance. Miami's city attorney construes it to mean the former, which is the position the downtown authority is taking. Meanwhile, some provisions of the statute need to be changed, said Veronica A. Xiques, a Miami assistant city attorney who works on the downtown authority's issues, because it stipulates that the group's governing body, which is the authority's board of directors, should also vote on the millage rate, which is a right it does not have. "We need to make a tough decision here," said Joe Sanchez, Miami city commissioner and authority chairman, at last week's meeting. "The way the statute is written, we can never be in compliance." Ms. Xiques told the board that it had four alternatives: to hold a re-vote and hope for the best; to do nothing, call the Department of Revenue's bluff, and risk a lawsuit; to request clarification from the Legislature; or to seek a declaratory judgment in court. In all alternatives, she recommended — and board members agreed — that the disputed funds be escrowed. The first alternative met a quick death, as Ms. Cockrum told the board that stakeholders, particularly those in the Brickell area, have mounted a campaign against the downtown authority because of what they call inefficiency and lack of accountability. "Brickell contributes 54% of the budget, and they feel the money is being spent elsewhere," she said. "It's a groundswell of opinion against the DDA." "We're under heavy fire," Commissioner Sanchez agreed. "This is not the time to go before the commission." During the vote under question, Commissioner Regalado, who stepped out, said he'd have voted no had he stayed for the vote. He said he left the dais "as a way to punish them. I didn't want to be there to rubberstamp something I didn't believe in. It's not fair for the downtown business owners to pay an extra tax for services that I think they are not getting." Ms. Xiques recommended maintaining the status quo, as there are no penalties for being out of compliance with the Department of Revenue. Board member Neisen Kasdin said he doesn't favor the do-nothing alternative because the authority would then not have access to $500,000 of its funding. He also dissuaded the authority from taking the matter to the Legislature, given the current anti-tax climate in the state. He and board member Jay Solowsky advised the board to seek a declaratory judgment in the authority's favor, only on the "unanimous" issue, not on the faulty provision of the statute that would have the board of directors setting millage. |
Top