LTC 066-2004 Convention Development Tax - $15 Million Payment
,
. .
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
Office of the City Manager
Letter to Commission No. 066-2004
~
From:
Mayor David Dermer and
Members of the City Commission
Jorge M. Gonzalez ~ ~
City Manager ~ 0
CONVENTION D ELOPMENT TAX - $15 MILLION PAYMENT
SECOND AMENDMENT TO 1996 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
Date: March 25, 2004
To:
Subject:
I am pleased to advise you that on March 23, 2004 the County delivered the $15 million
Convention Development Tax (CDT) payment to the City of Miami Beach and the attached
executed Second Amendment to the 1996 Interlocal Agreement.
The administration will be developing and recommending for you consideration and future
action potential allocation and/or identified uses for the proceeds. In the meantime, if you
have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
JMG\CMC\rar
F:\cmgr\$ALL\L TC-04\CDT $15M Pymt - 2nd Amendment Inlerlocal.doc
attachments c~
0
-l &'"
-/ :'0
, :J.::
c: Murray H. Dubbin, City Attorney ("") .1> nl
,- ='.0
Christina M. Cuervo, Assistant City Manager rr; r-,' ()
Patricia Walker, Chief Financial Officer ;J:J CF'\ rn
-.
(j) " -<
0 =t:
"TJ W m
-n 0
.s::-
" .::-
r"1
SECOND AMENDMENT TO
THE INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT
DATED JUNE 21,1996,
BETWEEN MIAMI-DADE COUNTY AND
THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
This Second Amendment (the "Amendment") to the 1996 Interlocal, as hereinafter defined,
as amended by the First !Vnendment and Addendum, as each are hereinafter defined, made this
~ 5 day of A1~tt ,2004, by and between Miami-Dade County, apolitical subdivision of
the State of Florida (the "County"), and the City of Miami Beach, a municipal corporation organized
under the laws of the State of Florida (the "City" or "CMB").
A. The Parties have previously executed an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement dated June 21,
1996 (the "1996 Interlocal"), providing for the allocation of Convention Development Tax
(CDT) receipts, which 1996 Interlocal was amended by Amendment One to the 1996
Interlocal dated April 24, 2001, by and between the City and the County (the "First
Amendment") and the Addendum to Amendment One to the 1996 Interlocal on May 22,
2001, pursuant to Resolution No. R-563-01. The 1996 Interlocal as amended by the First
Amendment and the Addendum shall be referred to herein as the Amended 1996 Interlocal.
The Parties acknowledge and agree that the Amended 1996 Interlocal remains in full force
and effect, as amended by this Amendment.
B. To the extent that the terms and provisions ofthe Amended 1996 Interlocal are not expressly
amended herein, such other terms and provisions shall be deemed to be in full force and
effect, except that in the event of conflict between the Amended 1996 Interlocal and this
Amendment, the provisions of this Amendment shall prevail. All capitalized terms
contained in this Amendment which are not defined in this Amendment shall have the
respective meanings ascribed to them in the Amended 1996 Interlocal.
C. The definition of "Termination Date" is hereby deleted and replaced with the following:
"Termination Date" shall mean the latest of (a) September 30, 2040, (b) the latest expiration
of any agreement utilizing CDT Receipts for the issuance or payment of debt for any costs
associated with the Performing Arts Center, or (c) the latest expiration of any agreement
utilizing CDT Receipts for the issuance or payment of debt for any costs associated with a
baseball stadium.
D. Paragraph C ofthe First Amendment is hereby deleted in its entirety.
E. Section I.D.3 of the Amended 1996 Interlocal is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced
with the following:
3. A net capital contribution of$15.0 million to be remitted to the City within ten days
of the effective date of this Amendment (Remittance Date). These funds shall be
used for Convention Center Complex Area Projects to the extent such projects are
eligible for CDT funding pursuant to state law. To the extent the Two-Thirds Portion
of the CDT Receipts available on such Remittance Date is less than $15.0 million,
the County Manager shall remit to the City on the Remittance Date the balance due
as an advance from non-ad valorem general fund revenues. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, the County shall reimburse itself for the advance of such funds upon a
subsequent issuance by the County of bonds that are secured by a first lien on CDT
Receipts.
F. Section I.D. 4 of the Amended 1996 Interlocal is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced
with the following.
4.(a) The following paymentsl:
2001 _ 25% ofCDT Receipts received by the County in Fiscal Year 2001 in excess of$31.522,748
2002 _ 25% ofCDT Receipts received by the County in Fiscal Year 2002 in excess of $33,729,341
2003 _ 25% of CDT Receipts received by the County in Fiscal Year 2003 in excess of $36,090,395
2004 _ 25% ofCDT Receipts received by the County in Fiscal Year 2004 in excess of $38,61 6,722
2005 _ 100"10 ofCDT Receipts received by the County in Fiscal Year 2005 greater than $40,547,558 but less than $41,536,146
2006 _ 90% ofCDT Receipts received by the County in Fiscal Year 2006 greater than $42,574.936 but less than $44,676,279
2007 _ 80% ofCDT Receipts received by the County in Fiscal Year 2007 greater than $44,703,683 but less than $48,053,806
2008 _ 70% ofCDT Receipts received by the County in Fiscal Year 2008 greater than $46.938,867 but less than $51.686,674
2009 _ 60% of CDT Receipts received by the County in Fiscal Year 2009 greater than $49,285,811 but less than $55,594,186
2010 _ 50% ofCDT Receipts received by the County in Fiscal Year 2010 greater than $51,750,101 but less than $59,797,107
2011 _ 50% ofCDT Receipts received by the County in Fiscal Year 2011 greater than $54,337,606 but less than $64,317,768
2012 _ 50% ofCDT Receipts received by the County in Fiscal Year 2012 greater than $57,054,487 but less than $69,180,191
2013 _ 50"/0 ofCDT Receipts received by the County in Fiscal Year 2013 greater than $59,907,211 but less than $74,410,214
2014 _ 50% ofCDT Receipts received by the County in Fiscal Year 2014 greater than $62,902,571 but less than $80,035,626
2015 _ 50% of CDT Receipts received by the County in Fiscal Year 2015 greater than $66,047,700 but less than $86,086,319
2016 _ 50"10 of CDT Receipts received by the County in Fiscal Year 2016 greater than $69,350,085 but less than $92,594,445
201 7 _ 50% ofCDT Receipts received by the County in Fiscal Year 2017 greater than $72,817,589 but less than $99,594,585
2018 _ 50"/0 ofCDT Receipts received by the County in Fiscal Year 2018 greater than $76,458,469 but less than $107,123,935
2019 _ 50% ofCDT Receipts received by the County in Fiscal Year 2019 greater than $80,281,392 but less than $115,222,505
2020 _ 50% ofCDT Receipts received by the County in Fiscal Year 2020 greater than $84,295,462 but less than $123,933,326
2021 _ 50% ofCDT Receipts received by the County in Fiscal Year 2021 greater than $88,510,235 but less than $133,302,687
2022 _ 50% ofCDT Receipts received by the County in Fiscal Year 2022 greater than $92,935,747 but less than $143,380,370
2023 _ 50% ofCDT Receipts received by the County in Fiscal Year 2023 greater than $97,582,534 but less than $154,219,926
2024 _ 50% ofCDT Receipts received by the County in Fiscal Year 2024 greater than $102,461,661 but less than $165,878,952
2025 _ 50% ofCDT Receipts received by the County in Fiscal Year 2025 greater than $107,584,744 but less than $178,419,400
2026 _ 50"10 ofCDT Receipts received by the County in Fiscal Year 2026 greater than $1l2,963,981 but less than $191,907,907
2027 _ 50% ofCDT Receipts received by the County in Fiscal Year 2027 greater than $118,612,180 but Jess than $206,416,145
2028 _ 50% ofCDT Receipts received by the County in Fiscal Year 2028 greater than $J24,542,789 but less than $222,021,205
2029 _ 50"/0 ofCDT Receipts received by the County in Fiscal Year 2029 greater than $130,769,928 but less than $238,806,008
2030 _ 50% ofCDT Receipts received by the County in Fiscal Year 2030 greater than $137,308,425 but less than $256.859,742
2031 _ 50% ofCDT Receipts received by the County in Fiscal Year 2031 greater than $144,173,846 but less than $276,278,339
2032 _ 50"/0 ofCDT Receipts received by the County in Fiscal Year 2032 greater than $151,382,538 but less than $297,164,981
2033 _ 50% ofCDT Receipts received by the County in Fiscal Year 2033 greater than $158,951,665 but less than $319,630,654
2034 _ 50"10 ofCDT Receipts received by the County in Fiscal Year 2034 greater than $166,899,248 but less than $343,794,731
2035 _ 50% of CDT Receipts received by the County in Fiscal Year 2035 greater than $175,244,211 but less than $369,785,6] 3
2036 _ 50% ofCDT Receipts received by the County in Fiscal Year 2036 greater than $184,006,421 but less than $397,741,405
2037 _ 50"/0 ofCDT Receipts received by the County in Fiscal Year 2037 greater than $193,206,742 but less than $427,810,655
2038 _ 50"10 ofCDT Receipts received by the County in Fiscal Year 2038 greater than $202,867,080 but less than $460,153,141
2039 _ 50% ofCDT Receipts received by the County in Fiscal Year 2039 greater than $213,010,433 but less than $494,940,718
2040 _ 50"10 of CDT Receipts received by the County in Fiscal Year 2040 greater than $223,660.955 but less than $532,358,236
IAlI years listed above are fiscal years ending September 30; all CDT Receipts are based on Current CDT Rate.
2
To the extent the Termination Date is later than September 30,2040, the City will continue to receive an allocation of50% of
CDT Receipts calculated based upon the Current CDT Rate and the formula established in the aforementioned schedule,
which represents County growth estimates of annual CDT Receipts based upon the Current CDT Rate between 5% and a cap
of7.56% growth. The county shall receive 100% of any annual CDT Receipts in excess of the 7.56% annual growth figure
based on the Current CDT Rate.
(b) Annual payments to the City as listed in Section I.D. 4.(a) above shall be capped at $50
million, provided, however, that beginning in Fiscal Year ending September 30,2030, the $50
million cap shall escalate annually at the lesser of three percent (3%) or the Consumer Price
Index for All Urban Consumers for the United States, all items, index base period 1982-84= 1 00
(commonly referred to as CPI-U), as published periodically by the United States Bureau of Labor
Statistics. These payments to the City shall be used for Convention Center Complex Area
projects to the extent such projects are eligible for CDT funding pursuant to state law. To the
extent that the City determines funds are not needed for the Convention Center Complex Area
projects, the funds may be used for other projects eligible for CDT funds under State law. The
County shall have ninety (90) days after the close of the County's fiscal year to make its
remittance to the City.
G. Section LD.5. of the Amended 1996lnterlocal is hereby deleted in its entirety.
H. It is expected the County will place on the November 2004 ballot a General Obligation Bond
(GOB) Program for voter consideration to fund major infrastructure and capital
improvements. If a GOB issue is placed on that ballot, the County will include in that GOB
Program funding to be paid to the City of Miami Beach for a project related to the expansion
or enhancement ofthe Miami Beach Convention Center. The amount of funding allocated to
such a project in the GOB Program shall be $55 million. The City will not be precluded
from requesting additional funding in the November 2004 GOB Program to be used for any
project other than the expansion or enhancement ofthe Miami Beach Convention Center nor
be precluded from requesting funding for any project in any future County general obligation
bond program regardless of the results of any November 2004 bond referendum or by any
provision ofthis agreement.
L Section N. A. of the Amended 1996lnterlocal is amended to include anew subparagraph 4
and to renumber the existing subparagraph 4 and all subsequent paragraphs as follows:
IV. MUTUAL OBLIGATIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES
A. ANNUAL PAYMENT
4. (i) In the event that the project related to the expansion or enhancement of the Miami
Beach Convention Center is approved by the voters as part of the November, 2004,
GOB Program, commencing October 1,2005, the County shall annually appropriate
and remit to the City, no later than January 1 of the following year, an amount
equivalent to twenty percent (20%) ofthe difference between (a) the amount of general
Countywide operating ad valorem taxes levied each year by the County, exclusive of
3
any amount from any debt service millage, on the assessed value of the taxable real
property contained within the geographic boundaries specifically described in Exhibit
A to this Amendment and (b) the amount of general Countywide operating ad valorem
taxes which would have been produced by the rate upon which the tax is levied each
year by the County, exclusive of any debt service millage, upon the total ofthe assessed
value of the taxable real property in the geographic area specifically described in
Exhibit A for the tax year 1976. Such annual payments shall continue until September
30,2016. In the year 2017, the payment amount shall be forty-five percent (45%) of
the difference between (a) the amount of general Countywide operating ad valorem
taxes levied each year by the County, exclusive of any amount from any debt service
millage, on the assessed value of the taxable real property contained within the
geographic boundaries specifically described in Exhibit A to this Amendment and (b)
the amount of general Countywide operating ad valorem taxes which would have been
produced by the rate upon which the tax is levied each year by the County, exclusive of
any debt service millage, upon the total of the assessed value of the taxable real
property in the geographic area specifically described in Exhibit A for the tax year
1976. The payments under this subparagraph 4(i) shall end the earlier of September 30,
2017, or when the total amount remitted by the County to the City under this
subparagraph 4(i) reaches $45 million. The total amount remitted by the County to the
City pursuant to this subparagraph 4(i) shall be expended by the City for any need
identified by the City, which need would be an eligible use for CDT or Municipal
Tourist Resort Tax receipts and all, or any, of the payments made under this
subparagraph 4(i) may be pledged by the City as security for any indebtedness incurred
by the City to fund any capital costs. The payments in this subparagraph 4(i) are in
addition to the GOB Program bond proceeds identified in paragraph H above.
(ii) In the event there is no GOB Program placed on the November, 2004, ballot or in the
event that the project related to the expansion or enhancement of the Miami Beach
Convention Center is not approved by the voters as part of the November, 2004, GOB
Program, commencing October 1,2005, the County shall annually appropriate and
remit to the City, no later than January 1 of the following year, an amount equivalent to
twenty percent (20%) ofthe difference between (a) the amount of general Countywide
operating ad valorem taxes levied each year by the County, exclusive of any amount
from any debt service millage, on the assessed value of the taxable real property
contained within the geographic boundaries specifically described in Exhibit A to this
Amendment and (b) the amount of general Countywide operating ad valorem taxes
which would have been produced by the rate upon which the tax is levied each year by
the County, exclusive of any debt service millage, upon the total ofthe assessed value
of the taxable real property in the geographic area specifically described in Exhibit A
for the tax year 1976. Such annual payments shall continue through September 30,
2016, at which time payment amount shall increase to forty-five percent (45%) ofthe
difference between (a) the amount of general Countywide operating ad valorem taxes
levied each year by the County, exclusive of any amount from any debt service millage,
on the assessed value of the taxable real property contained within the geographic
boundaries specifically described in Exhibit A to this Amendment and (b) the amount
4
of general Countyvvide operating ad valorem taxes which would have been produced by
the rate upon which the tax is levied each year by the County, exclusive of any debt
service millage, upon the total ofthe assessed value ofthe taxable real property in the
geographic area specifically described in Exhibit A for the tax year 1976. The
payments under this subparagraph 4(ii) shall continue until the total of such payments
reaches $55 million. The total amount remitted by the County to the City pursuant to
this subparagraph 4(ii) shall be expended by the City solely for capital costs for the
expansion or enhancement of the Miami Beach Convention Center, and all, or any, of
the payments made under this subparagraph 4(ii) may be pledged by the City as
security for any indebtedness incurred by the City to fund any such capital costs.
(iii) In connection with any pledge by the City of the payments to be received from the
County pursuant to subparagraphs 4(i) and 4(ii) above, the County shall cooperate with
the City.
Subparagraph 4 becomes subparagraph 5
Subparagraph 5 becomes subparagraph 6
Subparagraph 6 becomes subparagraph 7
Subparagraph 7 becomes subparagraph 8
Subparagraph 8 becomes subparagraph 9
Subparagraph 9 becomes subparagraph 10
J. Section N. A. 8 and 9 of the Amended 1996 Interlocal are amended to read:
8. It is understood and agreed that the amounts payable by the County under sections N.A.
2.,3.,4., and 5. above, are calculated by reference to certain ad valorem tax collections,
but said payments shall be paid solely from non-ad valorem revenues of the County, and
the obligation of the County to make such payments shall not create any debt, liability,
obligation, or pledge ofthe taxing power, on the part of the County that would require
said payments to be subject to referendum.
9. The provisions ofthis Section N. A(I) through (8) shall survive the termination of this
Amendment, Amendment One to the 1996 Interlocal, and the 1996 Interlocal, regardless
of the reason for such termination.
K. Section VI. of the Amended 1996 Interlocal is amended to read as follows:
VI. Entire Agreement. This Amendment and the Amended 1996 Interlocal constitute
the sole and only agreement ofthe Parties with respect to the Two-Thirds Portion of
the CDT Receipts and correctly sets forth the rights, duties and obligations of each to
the other as of its date. Any prior agreements, promises, negotiations, or
5
representations not expressly set forth in the Amended 1996 Interlocal and this
Amendment are of no force and effect.
K. Upon adoption of this Second Amendment to the Interlocal Agreement, the pending claim
of the City processed under Chapter 164 Florida Statute shall be withdrawn, and the
parties agree that this instrument represents the understanding under which the Parties
shall proceed in accordance with its terms.
George M. Burgess
County Manager
Miami-Dade County
APPROVED AS TO FORM
AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY:
APPROVED AS TO FORM
LEGAL SUFFIC NC .
p~ f~~
~~
Cl k fthe Board
City Clerk
..flttliJ.~.lii,
....~ COMtl/ww.
..~....... ~ {r.",
I.f::' 'i}A{)~..~ ...:;. \
=g C~)iS~
~ f.) (-"\,,, P f~:;.;
. 'RI\i~I.:i) ;'
0_. ,. '~~..... l:..1 Of.?
"'It :+ :)'!t
......'V ...,........
6
'to
ApprovedG
Veto
Override
_ \/ n
"t- \~~avor
Not On
Agenda Item No. 11(A)(3)
3-16-04
RESOLUTION NO.
R-37S-04
CIfICIM fU-~, .
CLERK OF THE SCARi..
Jf COUNTY COMMISSIONER:
OADE COUNTY. FLORIDA
RESOLUTION APPROVING SECOND AMENDMENT TO
INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT DATED JUNE
21, 1996 BETWEEN MIAMI-DADE COUNTY AND TIlE CITY
OF MIAMI BEACH AND AUTIIORIZING COUNTY
MANAGER TO EXECUTE AND DEUVER SAID
AMENDMENT UPON COUNTY AITORNEY'S APPROVAL
OF ANY MODIFICATIONS
WHEREAs, this Board desires to accomplish the purposes outlined in the
accompanying memorandum, a copy of which is incoIporated in this resolution by reference,
NOW, TIlEREFORE, BE IT RESOL YED BY TIlE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA that the Second Amendment
to the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement dated June 21, 1996 between Miami-Dade County
and the City of Miami Beach in substantially the form attached as Exhibit "A" to this
resolution is approved and the County Manager is authorized to execute and deliver the
Second Amendment upon approval of any modifications by the Office of the County
Attorney.
The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner Sally A. Heyman , who
moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Dermis C. Moss and
upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Dr. Barbara Carey-Shuler, Chairperson absent
Katy Sorenson, Vice-Chairperson aye
Bruno A. Barreiro aye Jose "Pepe" Diaz
Betty T. Ferguson aye Sally A. Heyman
Joe A. Martinez aye Jimmy L. Morales
Dennis C. Moss aye Dorrin D. Rolle
Natacha Seijas aye Rebeca Sosa
Sen. Javier D. Souto aye
absent
aye
aye
aye
aye
w
Not On
Agenda Item No. 11 ( A) (3)
Page 2
The Chairperson thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this -
16lh day of March, 2004. This resolution shall become effective ten (10) days after the
date of its adoption unless vetoed by the Mayor, and if vetoed, shall become effective
only upon an override by this Board.
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY ITS BOARD OF.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Approved by the County A~
to fonn and legal suffiCieD~
.jJY.
RESOA:10404
7
--
MEMORANDUM
Not On
Agenda Item No. 11(A)(3)
TO:
Honorable Chairperson Barbara Carey-Shuler, Ed. O. DATE:
and Members, Board of County Commissioners
March 16, 2004
FROM: George M. Burgess C'O'r)
County Manager ~
SUBJECT: Second Amendment to
Miami Beach Interloca1
Agreement
,
~
Recommend.tioD
'.,
It is recommended that the Board adopt a resolution approving, in substantially the fonn attached
to the resolution, the Second Amendment to the 1996 Interlocal Agreement with the City of
Miami Beach and authorizing its execution and delivery following approval by the County
Attorney's Office.
Baeuround
The Convention Development Tax (COT) is a three percent tax imposed on transient rentals.
The COT was approved, in part, to recognize the importance to the local economy of the
continued maintenance, improvement, and expansion of the Miami Beach Convention Center. In
accordance with state law, two-thirds of the COT revenue was used initially for the extension,
enlargement and improvement of the Miami Beach Convention Center. Upon the completion of
such improvements, the two-thirds portion of the CDT revenue may be used for other qualified
projects throughout the County which has been the case since the initial financing for the
Convention Center in 1987. The one-third portion of the COT revenues was limited by the state
law to use in the City of Miami. The one-third share of the COT for use in the City of Miami
was used for the Miami Arena initially and subsequently for various projects, including support
for the American Airlines Arena and for the Performing Arts Center. In 1996, the Board
approved an Interlocal Agreement with the City of Miami Beach, which clarified that the County
could allocate the CDT receipts for eligible projects, in particular, for support of the Convention
Center and the Performing Arts Center.
In April, 2001, the InterlocaI Agreement was amended to provide for certain payments to Miami
Beach including a one-time, CDT-backed $15 million payment for Convention Center-related
projects (to be made from CDT -backed financing proceeds or available CDT funds on December
1, 2003), annual CDT payments of $4.5 million for operating costs associated with the
Convention Center, additional annual payments from available residual CDrReceipts (Residual
CDT Receipts Payments), annual payments through 2020 following the tenmnation of the South
Pointe Community Redevelopment Agency, and a possible $50 million payment depending on
the pledging of revenues to a baseball stadium. In return, the City agreed to the termination of
rtonorable Chauperson Barbara Carey-Shuler, Ed. D.
and Members, Board of County Commissioners
Page 3
date of the amendment. The source of the funds will be an advance to be reimbursed
from a subsequent CDT -backed financing; in particular the financing that is projected
to be required this year to continue construction of the Performing Arts Center and
the Neighborhood Cultural Facilities, including the South Miami-Dade Cultural
Center, the Coconut Grove Playhouse renovations, the Caribbean Market Place, the
Lyric Theater, and the Civil Rights Museum.
3. The $50 million COT obligation to the City would be eliminated from the First
Amended Interlocal Agreement, regardless of the results of negotiations regarding a
baseball stadium. Although the pledge of $35 million for the baseball stadium backed
by CDT revenues is the maximmn projected to be available for such a pwpose at this
time, future residual revenues and receipts above those currently projected could
address other projects such as any increased costs associated with the .construction of
the Performing Arts Center or ope.tAting support for the Performing Arts Center and
other museums. In the event that the baseball stadimn project does not go forward,
the $50 million commitment to thc City could affect CDT support of those other
projects. Thc requiremcnt in the First Amendment to the 1996 Interlocal Agreement
that thc City of Miami Beach support initiatives related to the financing and
development of a baseball stadium is also climinated.
4. A $55 million Convention Center Expansion Project would be included in the general
obligation bond issue to be considered by the votcrs in the fall. That project funding
would replace the CDT obligation if successful.
5. In the event that the Convention Center Expansion Project is approved as part of the
general obligation bond issue, the current payment schedule replacing the South
Pointe CRA Tax Increment Payment would be increased from the current payment
schedulc (the equivalent of a 75 percent payment of the tax increment through 2016
and a fifty percent payment of the tax increment through 2020) to the equivalent of95
percent payment of the tax increment until a total of $45 million more than required
under the First Amendment to the 1996 Interlocal Agreement is paid to the City from
non-ad valorem County sources or until September 30, 2017, whichever comes first.
Once the additional payments reach $45 million, or in 2018, the payment schedule
would revert to that in the First Amendment to the 1996 Interlocal Agreement. The
City could use the additional payments for any needs identified by the City, which
needs are eligible uses for COT or Municipal Tourist Resort Tax receipts. The
additional payments would partially offset the loss of the annual COT payments
anticipated by the City in the First Amendment to the 1996 Interlocal Agreement.
6. In the event that the $55 million Convention Center Expansion Project is NOT
approved as part of a general obligation bond issue in November, 2004, then the
current payment schedule replacing the South Pointe CRA Tax Increment Payment
would be increased to the equivalent of95 percent of the tax increment until a total of
$55 million more than required under the First Amendment to the 1996 Interlocal
Agreement is paid to the City from non-ad valorem County sources. The City would
be required to use those additional funds for the planned Convention Center
Expansion Project. It is projected that the additional payments would be made
through 2018, depending on the growth in the assessed values"in the South Pointe
area. Once the additional payments reach the level of $55 million, the replacement
payments for the South Pointe CRA would revert to the schedule in the First
)
eligible for COT funding pursuant to state law. To the extent the Two-lbirds Portion
of the COT Receipts available on such Remittance Date is less than $15.0 million,
the County Manager shall remit on the RemittanceDate to the City as an advance the _
balance due from non-ad valorem general fund revenues. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, the County shall reimburse itself for the advance of such funds upon a
subsequent issuance by the County of bonds that are secW'Cd by a first lien on CnT
Receipts.
F. Section I.D. 4 of the Amended 1996 Interlocal is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced
with the following.
4.(a) The followingpaymcntsl:
2001 - 2.S% fIlCDT RIIlCipII razlwd by IbIl Caualyln.... y....2001 in __ of 531,522,748
2002 - 2S% oC COT RIIlCipII receiwd by the County in F'IIC&I v..,. 2002 ill _ of $33.729.341
2003 - 2.S% ofCDT ReceipIs Ja:eiwd by the County in F'acaI V_ 2003 in _ ofS36.090,395
2004 - 2S% ofCDT RecciptllllCCiwd by the County in FlKaI V_ 2004 in _ of 531,616,722
20l1S - 100% of CDT ReceipIs received by 1hc County in FiIcaJ V_ 200S .-...... S40,547.558 but _ ..... 541.536.146
2006 - 90% of COT ReceipIs received by 1hc County ill FiIcaJ Year 2006 palI:r ..... 542,574.936 but _ ..... $44.676,279
2007 - 8O%oCCDT ReceipIs received by1hcCountyin FiIc81 Vear2OO7 palI:rlban $44.703.683 but lessllwl S48,os3.806
2008 - 70% oC CDT ReceipIs received by 1hc County in FiIcaJ Year 2008 ..-..... 546,931.867 but _ ..... 551.686,674
2009 - 60% of COT ReceipIs receiYed by 1hc County in FixlII V_2009 areuer..... 549,285,811 but less .....555,594.186
2010 - SO% ofCDT hccipIs received by the County in FiIc81 V_ 2010 JVC*rlban 551.750.101 but _..... 559.797.107
2011 - SO% oCCOT Ra:eip!sreceived by 1hcCountyin Fiscal V_lOll pator..... 554,337.606 but_..... 164,317.768
2012 - SO%ofCDT RecciptI received by the County in FiIC8!V_2012 JVC*r..... $S7,ll54.487 but _..... 169.180.191
2013 - SO% oCCDT Receipts RCeiwd by the County in FiIc81 V_ 2013 pator..... 559,907.211 but _Ibm $74.410.214
2014 - SO% oCCOT ReceipIs received by the County in FiIcaJ V..,. 2014 areuer lban S62,!102,S71 but _..... $80,035,626
20IS - SO%ofCDTReceipIs RCeiwdbytheCountyin FiIcaJ V_2015.-.lhan S66.047.700but_lhan S86,()l16,319
2016 - SO% oCCOT ReceipIs received by IheCoulltyin F'1ICaI V_2016 arcata"lhan S69,35O.08S bullcss lhIII $92,.594.445
2017 - SO% ofCDT ReceipIs received by the County in FiIc81 V_2017 ..-lbanS72,817,589bul_lbanS99,594.s85
2018 - SO% oCCOT ReceipIs receiYed by 1hc CoImty in Fiscal V..,. 2018 avcakr ..... $76,458.469 bul _ lban $107.123,935
2019 - SO% of CDT Ra:cipts received by die County in FiIC8! V_ 2019 \Ilader..... S80,281,392 but _ ..... $1 15,222,S05
2020 - SO% oCCDT ReceipIs receiwd bydleCouatyin FiIc81 Vear 2020 JVC*r1lwl $84.295,462 but leu lhan $123,933,326
2021 - SO%ofCDTReceipIs received by the County in FiIc81 V_2021 JVC*rthm S88,s10,235bul1ess thin $133,302,687
2022 - SO% oCCDT ReceipIs receiYed by the County in Fiscal V..,. 2022..- thm $92,935.747 but _ thin $143,380,370
2023 - SO% oCCDT Receipll received by die County in FlKaI Y_ 2023 avcatcr..... $97.582,534 but loss thin $154,219.926
2024 - SO% ofCDT Receipll n:ceiwd by the County in Fiscal Y_ 2024 avcatcr..... $102,461.661 but less Ibm $165,878,952
202S - SO% oCCDT ReceipCI receiwd by dleCouotyin Fiscal V..,. 2025 areuerlhlll $107.584.744 bul_than SI78,419.400
2026 - SO% oCCDT Receipts received by 1hc County in Fiscal Year 2026 avcatcr than $112.963,981 bul1ess than SI91.907,907
2027 - SO% oCCDTReceipIs received by 1hcCountyin Fiscal Y_2027 JVC*r than $1 18,612,180 but 1ess IIwI S206,416,145
2028 - SO% oCCDT Rec:cipts receiwd by 1hc County in Fisca\ Year 2028..- t\wa $124,542.789 but lesslban $222,021,205
2029 - SO% oC CDT Ra:eip!s received by die County in Fiscal Year 2029 JVC*r tIwt $130,769,928 bulless than 5238,806.008
2030 - SO% oCCDT Rcceipll received by the County in FISCal Y_ 2030 avcatcr than $137,308.42S but 1ess Ibm 5256,859,742
2031 - SO% oCCDT Receipll received by the County in Fiscal Year 2031 avcatcr than SI44,173,846 but less lban 5276,278,339
2032 - SO% oCCDT Rec:eipts n:ceiwdby 1hc County in Fiscal Year 2032 avcatcrthan $151,382,538 but less lban 5297,164.981
2033 - SO% oC CDT Receipt! received by die County in Fiscal Year 2033 avcatcr than $158,951,665 bulless lban 5319,630,654
2034 - 50% oCCDT Receipls receiVlOd by the County in Fiscal Year 2034 avcatcr lban $166,899,248 bulless lban 5343,794,731
2035- SO%oCCDT Receipt! receiwdby the County in Fiscal Year 2035 JVC*rlban $175.244,211 bul1ess lban 5369,785.613
2036 - 50% oCCDT Receipt! receiVlOd by the County in Fiscal Year 2036 avcater than $184,006,421 but less than $397,741.405
2037 - SO% oCCDT Receipls m:eiwd by the County in Fiscal Year 2037 greater t\wa $193,206,742 but less lban 5427,810,655
2038 - SO% oCCDT Receipt! received by !be County in FiIc81 Year 2038 avcatcr lban $202,867,080 bUlless lban $460,153.]41
2039 - SO% oCCDT Receipt! receiVlOd by the County in Fiscal Year 2039 greater than $213,010,433 bulless than 5494,940,718
2040 - 50"/0 oCCDT ReceiplS receiwd by the County in Fiscal Year 2040 greater than $223,660,955 bulless lban 5532,358,236
'All years listed above are fiscal years ending September 30; all COT Receipts are based on Current COT Rate.
2
C\
taxes which would have been produced by the rate upon which the tax is levied each
year by the County, exclusive of any debt service millage, upon the total of the assessed
value of the taxable real property in the geographic area specifically described in
Exhibit A for the tax year 1976. Such annual payments shall continue until September
30,2016. In the year 2017, the payment amount shall be forty-five percent (45%) of
the difference between (a) the amount of general Countywide operating ad valorem
taxes levied each year by the County. exclusiye of any amount from any debt service
millage. on the assessed value of the taxable real property contained within the
geographic boundaries specifically described in Exhibit A to this Amendment and (b)
the amount of general Countywide operating ad valorem taxes which would have been
produced by the rate upon which the tax is levied each year by the County. exclusive of
any debt service millage, upon the total of the assessed value of the taxable real
property in the geographic area specifically described in Exhibit A for the tax year
1976. The payments under this subparagraph 4(i) shall end the earlier of September 30,
2017. or when the total amount remitted by the County to the City under this
subparagraph 4(i} reaches $45 million. The total amount remitted by the County to the
City pursuant to this subparagraph 4(i) shall be expended by the City for any need
identified by the City, which need would be an eligible use for COT or Municipal
Tourist Resort Tax receipts and all, or any, of the payments made under this
subparagraph 4(i} may be pledged by the City as security for any indebtedness incurred
by the City to fund any capital costs. The payments in this subparagraph 4(i} are in
addition to the GOB Program bond proceeds identified in paragraph H above.
(ii) In the event there is no GOB Program placed on the November, 2004, ballot or in the
event that the project related to the expansion or enhancement of the Miami Beach
Convention Center is NOT approved by the voters as part of the November, 2004,
GOB Program, commencing October 1, 2005, the County shall annually appropriate
and remit to the City no later than January I of the following year an amoWlt equivalent
to twenty percent (2001o) of the difference between (a) the amoWlt of general
Countywide operating ad valorem taxes levied each year by the County, exclusive of
any amount from any debt service millage, on the assessed value of the taxable real
property contained within the geographic boundaries specifically described in Exhibit
A to this Amendment and (b) the amount of general Countywide operating ad valorem
taxes which would have been produced by the rate upon which the tax is levied each
year by the County, exclusive of any debt service millage, upon the total of the assessed
value of the taxable real property in the geographic area specifically described in
Exhibit A for the tax year 1976. Such annual payments shall continue through
September 30, 2016, at which time payment amount shall increase to forty-five percent
(45%) of the difference between (a) the amoWlt of general Countywide operating ad
valorem taxes levied each year by the COWlly, exclusive of any amount from any debt
service millage, on the assessed value of the taxable real property contained within the
geographic bOWldaries specifically described in Exhibit A to this Amendment and (b)
the amount of general COWltywide operating ad valorem taxes which would have been
produced by the rate upon which the tax is levied each year by the County, exclusive of
any debt service millage, upon the total of the assessed value of the taxable real
4
I {
.
ST ATE OF FLORIDA
)
)
)
SS:
COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE
I, HARVEY RUVIN, Clerk of the Circuit Court in and for Miami-Dade County,
Florida and Ex-Officio Clerk ofthe Board of County Commissioners of Said County,
Do Hereby Certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of
Resolution No. R-375-04 adopted by said board of County Commissioners at its
meeting held on MARCH 16, 2004.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal on
this 241li day of March A.D. 2004.
HARVEY RUVIN, Clerk
Board of County Commissioners
Dade County, Florida
By
Board of County Commissioners
Miami-Dade County, Florida
SECURITY PEATURES UCC liOIO PANTOGRAPH, ERASABUi INK IN AMOUNT AREA AND eLEED-THRU ARABIC AND MICR NUMBERING
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
GENERAL OPERATING ACCOUNT
108
. DATE
qST UNION NATlONAl. BANK
OF R.OFlIDA
MIAMI, FlORIDA 33131
03/22/2()04
AMOUNT
$ *15.000.000
U:lYa
e70
,y
FIFTEEN I~LLIDN_'DDL~AJ1:S AND NO CENTS
...
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH,
PO BOX ,19000
MIAMI BEACH FL 33119
VOID AI'TU llIOIAl
:':I:,::I
II
tw
....
II
. ,,'4~
'~~'1~~'
J
. . .
u.OOOq ~ C!q..~ [f:p~'?op.&"':' C!I: i!&'1& ~Q'l;~Ea&'4" ...
L.,...'" .'''' '. ,". :.._' -:, . ""', . ':-::,,";;,~.,.:,::~, ,_;:<:,.,,:,,;
\... .
r...
.
~
5'.:"'e,000372 08
03/22/2004
108
-00091294
DDCLJMENT NUMBER
DESCRIPrION
VNFl\I0400214001
'Il-l'JR:~52041 *
DOC REF NUMBER
AMOU!
15,000,000.00
?y-2:rf/{
0:;1/2:,2/2004
15,000,000.00
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH .
PO BOX 190()O
MIAMI BEACH FL 33119