The URL can be used to link to this page

Ordinance 94-2936 ORDINANCE NO. 94-2936 AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING MIAMI BEACH CITY CODE CHAPTER 17A ENTITLED "RENTAL HOUSING" BY ADDING ARTICLE III THEREOF ENTITLED "TERMINATION OF TENANCY WITHOUT SPECIFIC TERM" BY PROVIDING THAT RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES WITHOUT A SPECIFIC DURATION IN WHICH THE RENT IS PAYABLE ON A MONTHLY BASIS MAY BE TERMINATED BY EITHER PARTY GIVING NOT LESS THAN THIRTY (30) DAYS' WRITTEN NOTICE PRIOR TO THE END OF ANY MONTHLY PERIOD, AND EXCEPT FOR THE NOTICE PROVISIONS SET FORTH HEREIN, PROVIDING FOR THE APPLICABILITY OF PART II, CHAPTER 83, FLORIDA STATUTES, GOVERNING "RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES" TO THE RENTAL OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS IN MIAMI BEACH; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEALER; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, that Miami Beach City Code Chapter 17A entitled "Rental Housing" is hereby amended by the addition of Article III thereof entitled "Termination of Tenancy without Specific Term" , to read as follows: SECTION 1. Miami Beach City Code Chapter 17A entitled "Rental Housing" is hereby amended to read as follows: * * * Article III. "Termination of Tenancy without Specific Term" . Section 17A-12 . Written Notice of Termination of Tenancy. A residential tenancy without a specific duration in which the rent is payable on a monthly basis may be terminated by either the landlord or tenant by giving not less than thirty (30) days ' written notice prior to the end of any monthly period. Section 17A-13 . Applicability of Chapter 83 , Florida Statutes. Except for the notice provisions set forth in Section 17A-12 hereinabove, all other provisions set forth within Part II, Chapter 83 , Florida Statutes, governing "Residential Tenancies" shall apply to the rental of a residential dwelling unit within the City of Miami Beach. % SECTION 2 . REPEALER All Ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith be and the same are hereby repealed. SECTION 3. SEVERABILITY If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, then said holding shall in no way affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE This ordinance shall take effect ten (10) days after its adoption, on August 7, , 1994 . PASSED and ADOPTED this 28th day of July , 1994 . / da/L VICE - ,Y0* ATTEST: ""'"\ CITY CLERK 1st reading 7/13/94 2nd reading 7/28/94 JO/ks (c:wpdocs\jean\commiss\landten.res) IORM APP ► U LE .T By ./ do, Date y 2 OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY 64 Weed F L 0 R I D A *‘MC\ORP ttD *i P O. BOX O LAURENCE FEINGOLD 4)/ � CITY ATTORNEY 'RCH26 MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33119-2032 TELEPHONE(305)673-7470 TELECOPY (305)673-7002 COMMISSION MEMORANDUM NO. 3 (11 -9V DATE: MAY 18, 1994 TO: MAYOR SEYMOUR GELBER, MEMBERS OF THE CITY COMMISSION AND CITY MANAGER ROGER M. C TON FROM: LAURENCE FEINGOLD CITY ATTORNEY 47%-cal.f0Z RE: EXTENSION OF NOTICE PROVISIONS FOR TERMINATION OF RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES WITHOUT A SPECIFIC DURATION As the attached opinion of the Office of the Attorney General, dated May 5, 1994 , indicates, the City has the power to extend notice provisions of the termination of residential tenancies without specific duration. It should be noted that the opinions of the Attorney General do not have the same force and effect as actual case law. Nevertheless, the opinions of the Attorney General are quite persuasive, particularly when there is no case law. The City Attorney desires instructions on how to proceed in view of the attached opinion of the Attorney General. LF: im (L' r 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE- FOURTH FLOOR - MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33139 COMMISSION MEMO PAGE 2 BACKGROUND: The economic change that has taken place in South Beach is well known and similar changes will occur in other areas of Miami Beach as its renaissance continues . There are numerous stores, shops and restaurants which are enjoying a great deal of success . The residential areas are also benefiting as a result of the popularity of Miami Beach as a positive quality of life community. Apartment buildings which were run-down and poorly maintained for years are being renovated with modern amenities . Although some units are being converted to condominiums, the remainder are still offered for rent . One consequence of the revitalization of any neighborhood is that rents often increase commensurate with the physical improvements to the buildings and the increased cost of services. For many people residing in South Beach and other neighborhoods, the combination of neighborhood revitalization, the increased popularity of South Beach, condominium conversions, and the housing shortage resulting from Hurricane Andrew have interacted to increase rents . As was discussed at the May 18, 1994 City Commission meeting, there is a need to address the issue of the required notice provided to tenants regarding termination of tenancies or displacement by their landlords for cause . The current State statute requires 15 days notice for persons on a month-to-month rental, and 7 days notice for persons renting on a week-to-week basis . The City Attorney, on May 18th in conveying Commission Memorandum No. 391-94 (copy attached) , advised that the Attorney General had opined on May 5, 1994, the City has the power to extend notice provisions of the termination of residential tenancies without specific duration. In response to the City Attorney' s request for direction from the City Commission, it was determined that this issue would be examined, and a draft ordinance or ordinances would be brought to the City Commission in 30 days . Commissioner Nancy Liebman convened a group of representatives from various organizations including the Miami Beach Housing Authority (MBHA) , Miami Beach Development Corporation (MBDC) , Legal Services of Greater Miami, the RAINMothers, Miami Beach Senior Center, and other interested parties, together with the City Administration and the City Attorney, for the purpose of examining the need to extend the notice on month-to-month rentals . Several meetings were held under the leadership of Commissioner Liebman, before this group determined that it wanted to address a broad range of affordable housing issues above and beyond the specific issue of the notice provisions related to month-to-month rentals . The group decided to form their own "Affordable Housing Coalition" under the direction of Denis Russ, who became the Coalition Chairperson. This recommendation does not address those issues which will be brought directly to the City Commission by the Coalition. It is important to address the issue of month-to-month rentals in the context of the overall affordable housing initiatives already undertaken and proposed. The City of Miami Beach has effectively provided decent and affordable housing for our low and moderate income residents by utilizing federal programs to leverage other resources, and to encourage private investment . These programs include : the Multi-family Rental Rehabilitation Program, Emergency Shelter Grant Program (ESGP) , Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) , and the HOME Investment Partnerships Program. % COMMISSION MEMO PAGE 3 Over the past decade, City sponsored programs have resulted in the renovation of approximately 1, 000 rental units, increasing the available stock of standard housing that was previously vacant , boarded-up, and sub-standard. Thus, not only were these units returned to the housing stock, but the City' s tax base was expanded. Following substantial rehabilitation, the majority of these apartments were required to be made available at affordable rents for a prescribed period of time . The City works closely with the Miami Beach Housing Authority (MBHA) , which owns and/or manages several buildings which are affordable to low income elderly individuals and families, and administers over 2 , 400 "Section 8" Rental Certificates and Vouchers which subsidize the rent for low income families . In March 1994 , the City funded $200, 000 in an Inter-Local Agreement for assistance to persons displaced from rental units due to actions of the City including Code Enforcement . In addition, the MBHA through its Rent Supplement Program (RSP) , provides emergency housing benefits to persons displaced or in imminent threat of becoming homeless . Further, in April 1994 the City provided $74 , 000 to the MBHA for the provision of services to adult homeless males who require treatment for alcohol and/or drug abuse . The City through the CDBG program, provides direct financial assistance to the Miami Beach Development Corporation (MBDC) , a not-for-profit entity, for both the agency' s overall administrative expenses as well as funds for capital improvements; thus enabling this agency to provide affordable housing. Currently MBDC receives CDBG funds for several programs including: $267, 136 for commercial revitalization, $100, 000 for a homeownership program which utilizes funding from the Dade County Surtax program for 2nd mortgages, $25, 000 for housing for persons with special needs; and $45, 000 for the RAINMothers Financial Assistance Program which provides emergency housing and related assistance. Within the last year, the City through its HOME Investment Partnerships Program funds, awarded $ 2, 248, 350 as follows : $1 . 25 Million to Affordable Landmarks, Inc. for the construction of 96 condominium units, of which, 25 to 30 will be available to low and moderate income families; $458 , 350 to MBDC for rehabilitating and reconfiguring an existing building to provide affordable rEntal units for families; $250, 000 to MBDC to provide first-time homebuyer assistance to 20 or more families, and an additional $90, 000 for their operating expenses for providing affordable rental housing. Also, the City under the terms of a Joint Venture agreement with the Miami Beach Housing Authority, has set-aside $380 , 000 of its HOME funds to be matched by the Housing Authority and used to provide affordable housing. The City supports the Housing Authority' s efforts in developing a Women and Children' s Housing and Resource Center. The Administration has worked closely with attorneys from Legal Services of Greater Miami, Inc . since they beg,.n repr€.senting clients in Miami Beach, providing both technical assistance and essential information to assist their clients . The City of Miami Beach is a strong supporter of the Fai- Housing Act and associated laws, and was the first community in llorida to adopt a Human Rights Ordinance which includes the prohibition of housing discrimination. The City requires that al.) owners or landlords participating in the above referenced City sponsored housing programs sign and enforce Affirmative Mar_ketiog Agreements . Further, the City has undertaken various educational activities in order to ensure equal opportunity and fair housing f.,dr all persons . COMMISSION MEMO PAGE 4 ANALYSIS: The "Affordable Housing Coalition" met on July 5, 1994 to review the City' s proposal to extend the notice period. After substantial debate, the Coalition requested that the City' s proposed Ordinance extending the required notice to 30 days, be further amended to require 120 days notice for all rentals of month-to-month or less, and the requirement that tenants receive notice of 120 days for either eviction or termination of lease or rent increases, and allowing for an exception clause for owners/landlords who agree to house displaced tenants who are referred, relocated, or assisted by a governmental agency or a non-profit agency. The second Ordinance in your agenda was drafted by Gale Lucy of Legal Services of Greater Miami, Inc . This Ordinance was the basis of the initial discussion held by the Coalition, and the basis for the above Coalition position that the recommended extension to thirty (30) days was inadequate . It should be noted that where the attached Ordinance states 180 days notice regarding month-to-month rentals, the Coalition supported at the July 5th meeting a 120 day notice period. While the Administration supports legislation that will extend the notice provision, there are several concerns regarding the legality of the Ordinance proposed by the Coalition. First is the concern about whether the 120 day notice constitutes an impairment of contract (i .e . the 120 day notice would preclude any tenancy for less than 120 days) ; second, the provision in the proposed Ordinance which mandates notice prior to a rent increase may be considered a "rent control" measure which would require a r -endum; third, the provision in the proposed Ordinance which exempts certain landlords from the mandatory notice may be challenged as giving those landlords unequal treatment . The Ordinance prepared by the City Attorney' s Office solely extends the required notice period from 15 to 30 days, for month- to-month tenancies . The City Attorney feels confident this Ordinance will withstand legal challenge since the State Attorney has opined that the City can adopt legislation to extend the notice period to 30 days and there is other legal authority to support the extension. It is important to note that this Ordinance is put forth at this time in response to the immediate need cited, (and which will be evidenced into the public record on July 13th) , and this Ordinance should be viewed as an important measure in addressing the overall shortage of affordable rental housing. We feel that the issues recommended by the Coalition need to be more closely examined prior to drafting Legislation. CONCLUSION: The City Manager and the City Attorney recommend that the Mayor and City Commission adopt the attached Ordinance amending City Code Chapter 17-A entitled "Termination of Tenancies Without Specific Term" , to provide that a residential tenancy without written lease with rent being paid on a month-to-month basis, shall be afforded thirty (30) days notice prior to termination of the tenancy. The Administration further recommends that the City hold a workshop for the purpose of allowing public comment from Miami Beach property owners/landlords and tenants to allow for the free exchange of views regarding appropriate notice extensions, prior to enactment of additional legislation requiring a longer period of COMMISSION MEMO PAGE 5 • notice prior to termination of tenancies without written leases paying rent on a month-to-month basis, and other remedial legislation enhancing tenant protection. Furthermore, the Administration requests that the City Commission direct the City Attorney to seek an opinion of the State Attorney General on the specific number of days in excess of thirty (30) days for notification of termination of the tenancy (e .g. 60 days or 120 days such as proposed by the "Affordable Housing Coalition" , and seeking direction from the State Attorney General on the method of implementation of such extended notice) . RMC/STP Attachments \FILES\MTH-TO.MTH RENTAL 3 CITY OF MIAMI BEACH CITY HALL 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE MIAMI BEACH FLORIDA 33139 OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER TELEPHONE: (305) 673-7010 FAX: (305) 673-7782 • COMMISSION MEMORANDUM NO. TO: Mayor Seymour Gelber and DATE: July 28 , 1994 Members of the City Commission FROM: gMIt.oger . ©ity Manager 1) /� City Attorney \\ d`r SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT THE ATTACHED ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER 17-A, ENTITLED "TERMINATION OF TENANCIES WITHOUT SPECIFIC TERM" TO PROVIDE THAT A RESIDENTIAL TENANCY WITH MONTHLY RENTAL ON A MONTH-TO-MONTH BASIS, WITHOUT A WRITTEN LEASE, SHALL BE AFFORDED THIRTY (30) DAYS NOTICE PRIOR TO TERMINATION OF THE TENANCY; AND DIRECTING THE ADMINISTRATION TO HOLD A WORKSHOP FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING PUBLIC COMMENT PRIOR TO ENACTMENT OF ADDITIONAL LEGISLATION REQUIRING A LONGER PERIOD OF NOTICE PRIOR TO TERMINATION OF TENANCIES WITHOUT WRITTEN LEASES PAYING RENT ON A MONTH-TO-MONTH BASIS; AND DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO SEEK AN OPINION OF THE STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL ON THE MAXIMUM LAWFUL NUMBER OF DAYS FOR NOTIFICATION IN EXCESS OF THIRTY (30) AND SEEKING DIRECTION ON THE METHOD OF IMPLEMENTATION FOR SAME. ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: In order to develop a proactive and humane position in dealing with the notice period required for termination of tenancies and displacement of tenants, the City Manager and the City Attorney are recommending that the Mayor and City Commission take three (3) actions at this meeting, as follows : 1) To adopt the attached Ordinance amending City Code Chapter 17- A entitled "Termination of Tenancies Without Specific Term" , to provide that a residential tenancy on a month-to-month basis, without a written lease, shall 'be afforded thirty (30) days notice prior to termination of the tenancy; and, 2) to direct the Administration to call a workshop meeting in September to elicit public comment from Miami Beach property owners/landlords and tenants to allow for the exchange of views regarding the need for additional notice extension, prior to consideration of additional legislation requiring a longer period of notice prior to termination of tenancies without written leases paying rent on a month-to-month basis, and other remedial legislation enhancing tenant protection; and, 3) to direct the City Attorney to seek an opinion of the State Attorney General regarding the specific number of days in excess of thirty (30) for notification of termination of the tenancy (e .g. from 60 days to 120 days, as proposed by the "Affordable Housing Coalition" , and seeking direction from the :37 State Attorney General on the method of implementing such extended notice) . AGENDA ITEM �� r DATE �� COMMISSION MEMO PAGE 2 BACKGROUND: The economic change that has taken place in South Beach is well known and similar changes will occur in other areas of Miami Beach as its renaissance continues . There are numerous stores, shops and restaurants which are enjoying a great deal of success . The residential areas are also benefiting as a result of the popularity of Miami Beach as a positive quality of life community. Apartment buildings which were run-down and poorly maintained for years are being renovated with modern amenities . Although some units are being converted to condominiums, the remainder are still offered for rent . One consequence of the revitalization of any neighborhood is that rents often increase commensurate with the physical improvements to the buildings and the increased cost of services . For many people residing in South Beach and other neighborhoods, the combination of neighborhood revitalization, the increased popularity of South Beach, condominium conversions, and the housing shortage resulting from Hurricane Andrew have interacted to increase rents . As was discussed at the May 18, 1994 City Commission meeting, there is a need to address the issue of the required notice provided to tenants regarding termination of tenancies or displacement by their landlords for cause . The current State statute requires 15 days notice for persons on a month-to-month rental, and 7 days notice for persons renting on a week-to-week basis . The City Attorney, on May 18th in conveying Commission Memorandum No. 391-94 (copy attached) , advised that the Attorney General had opined on May 5, 1994 , the City has the power to extend notice provisions of the termination of residential tenancies without specific duration. In response to the City Attorney' s request for direction from the City Commission, it was determined that this issue would be examined, and a draft ordinance or ordinances would be brought to the City Commission in 30 days . Commissioner Nancy Liebman convened a group of representatives from various organizations including the Miami Beach Housing Authority (MBHA) , Miami Beach Development Corporation (MBDC) , Legal Services of Greater Miami, the RAINMothers, Miami Beach Senior Center, and other interested parties, together with the City Administration and the City Attorney, for the purpose of examining the need to extend the notice on month-to-month rentals . Several meetings were held under the leadership of Commissioner Liebman, before this group determined that it wanted to address a broad range of affordable housing issues above and beyond the specific issue of the notice provisions related to month-to-month rentals . The group decided to form their own "Affordable Housing Coalition" under the direction of Denis Russ, who became the Coalition Chairperson. This recommendation does not address those issues which will be brought directly to the City Commission by the Coalition. It is important to address the issue of month-to-month rentals in the context of the overall affordable housing initiatives already undertaken and proposed. The City of Miami Beach has effectively provided decent and affordable housing for our low and moderate income residents by utilizing federal programs to leverage other resources, and to encourage private investment . These programs include : the Multi-family Rental Rehabilitation Program, Emergency Shelter Grant Program (ESGP) , Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) , and the HOME Investment Partnerships Program. 38 COMMISSION MEMO PAGE 3 Over the past decade, City sponsored programs have resulted in the renovation of approximately 1, 000 rental units, increasing the available stock of standard housing that was previously vacant, boarded-up, and sub-standard. Thus, not only were these units returned to the housing stock, but the City' s tax base was expanded. Following substantial rehabilitation, the majority of these apartments were required to be made available at affordable rents for a prescribed period of time . The City works closely with the Miami Beach Housing Authority (MBHA) , which owns and/or manages several buildings which are affordable to low income elderly individuals and families, and administers over 2, 400 "Section 8" Rental Certificates and Vouchers which subsidize the rent for low income families . In March 1994 , the City funded $200, 000 in an Inter-Local Agreement for assistance to persons displaced from rental units due to actions of the City including Code Enforcement . In addition, the MBHA through its Rent Supplement Program (RSP) , provides emergency housing benefits to persons displaced or in imminent threat of becoming homeless . Further, in April 1994 the City provided $74, 000 to the MBHA for the provision of services to adult homeless males who require treatment for alcohol and/or drug abuse . The City through the CDBG program, provides direct financial assistance to the Miami Beach Development Corporation (MBDC) , a not-for-profit entity, for both the agency' s overall administrative expenses as well as funds for capital improvements; thus enabling this agency to provide affordable housing. Currently MBDC receives CDBG funds for several programs including: $267, 136 for commercial revitalization, $100, 000 for a homeownership program which utilizes funding from the Dade County Surtax program for 2nd mortgages, $25, 000 for housing for persons with special needs; and $45, 000 for the RAINMothers Financial Assistance Program which provides emergency housing and related assistance . Within the last year, the City through its HOME Investment Partnerships Program funds, awarded $ 2, 248, 350 as follows : $1 . 25 Million to Affordable Landmarks, Inc . for the construction of 96 condominium units, of which, 25 to 30 will be available to low and moderate income families; $458, 350 to MBDC for rehabilitating and reconfiguring an existing building to provide affordable rental units for families; $250, 000 to MBDC to provide first-time homebuyer assistance to 20 or more families, and an additional $90, 000 for their operating expenses for providing affordable rental housing. Also, the City under the terms of a Joint Venture agreement with the Miami Beach Housing Authority, has set-aside $380, 000 of its HOME funds to be matched by the Housing Authority and used to provide affordable housing. The City supports the Housing Authority' s efforts in developing a Women and Children' s Housing and Resource Center. The Administration has worked closely with attorneys from Legal Services of Greater Miami, Inc . since they began representing clients in Miami Beach, providing both technical assistance and essential information to assist their clients . The City of Miami Beach is a strong supporter of the Fair Housing Act and associated laws, and was the first community in Florida to adopt a Human Rights Ordinance which includes the prohibition of housing discrimination. The City requires that all owners or landlords participating in the above referenced City sponsored housing programs sign and enforce Affirmative Marketing Agreements . Further, the City has undertaken various educational activities in order to ensure equal opportunity and fair housing for all persons . 39 COMMISSION MEMO PAGE 4 ANALYSIS: The "Affordable Housing Coalition" met on July 5, 1994 to review the City' s proposal to extend the notice period. After substantial debate, the Coalition requested that the City' s proposed Ordinance extending the required notice to 30 days, be further amended to require 120 days notice for all rentals of month-to-month or less, and the requirement that tenants receive notice of 120 days for either eviction or termination of lease or rent increases, and allowing for an exception clause for owners/landlords who agree to house displaced tenants who are referred, relocated, or assisted by a governmental agency or a non-profit agency. The second Ordinance in your agenda was drafted by Gale Lucy of Legal Services of Greater Miami, Inc. This Ordinance was the basis of the initial discussion held by the Coalition, and the basis for the above Coalition position that the recommended extension to thirty (30) days was inadequate . It should be noted that where the attached Ordinance states 180 days notice regarding month-to-month rentals, the Coalition supported at the July 5th meeting a 120 day notice period. While the Administration supports legislation that will extend the notice provision, there are several concerns regarding the legality of the Ordinance proposed by the Coalition. First is the concern about whether the 120 day notice constitutes an impairment of contract (i .e . the 120 day notice would preclude any tenancy for less than 120 days) ; second, the provision in the proposed Ordinance which mandates notice prior to a rent increase may be considered a "rent control" measure which would require a referendum; third, the provision in the proposed Ordinance which exempts certain landlords from the mandatory notice may be challenged as giving those landlords unequal treatment . The Ordinance prepared by the City Attorney' s Office solely extends the required notice period from 15 to 30 days, for month- to-month tenancies . The City Attorney feels confident this Ordinance will withstand legal challenge since the State Attorney has opined that the City can adopt legislation to extend the notice period to 30 days and there is other legal authority to support the extension. It is important to note that this Ordinance is put forth at this time in response to the immediate need cited, (and which will be evidenced into the public record on July 13th) , and this Ordinance should be viewed as an important measure in addressing the overall shortage of affordable rental housing. We feel that the issues recommended by the Coalition need to be more closely examined prior to drafting Legislation. CONCLUSION: The City Manager and the City Attorney recommend that the Mayor and City Commission adopt the attached Ordinance amending City Code Chapter 17-A entitled "Termination of Tenancies Without Specific Term" , to provide that a residential tenancy without written lease with rent being paid on a month-to-month basis, shall be afforded thirty (30) days notice prior to termination of the tenancy. The Administration further recommends that the City hold a workshop for the purpose of allowing public comment from Miami Beach property owners/landlords and tenants to , allow for the free exchange of views regarding appropriate noticextensions, prior to enactment of additional legislation requiring a longer period of 40 COMMISSION MEMO PAGE 5 notice prior to termination of tenancies without written leases paying rent on a month-to-month basis, and other remedial legislation enhancing tenant protection. Furthermore, the Administration requests that the City Commission direct the City Attorney to seek an opinion of the State Attorney General on the specific number of days in excess of thirty (30) days for notification of termination of the tenancy (e .g. 60 days or 120 days such as proposed by the "Affordable Housing Coalition" , and seeking direction from the State Attorney General on the method of implementation of such extended notice) . RMC/STP Attachments \FILES\MTH-TO.MTH RENTAL • • • 41 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING MIAMI BEACH CITY CODE CHAPTER 17A ENTITLED ',RENTAL HOUSING,' BY ADDING ARTICLE III THEREOF ENTITLED ',TERMINATION OF TENANCY WITHOUT SPECIFIC TERM" BY PROVIDING THAT RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES WITHOUT A SPECIFIC DURATION IN WHICH THE RENT IS PAYABLE ON A MONTHLY BASIS MAY BE TERMINATED BY EITHER PARTY GIVING NOT LESS THAN THIRTY (30) DAYS, WRITTEN NOTICE PRIOR TO THE END OF ANY MONTHLY PERIOD, AND EXCEPT FOR THE NOTICE PROVISIONS SET FORTH HEREIN, PROVIDING FOR THE APPLICABILITY OF PART II, CHAPTER 83, FLORIDA STATUTES, GOVERNING "RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES" TO THE RENTAL OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS IN MIAMI BEACH; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEALER; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, that Miami Beach City Code Chapter 17A entitled "Rental Housing" is hereby amended by the addition of Article III thereof entitled "Termination of Tenancy without Specific Term" , to read as follows: SECTION 1. Miami Beach City Code Chapter 17A entitled "Rental Housing" is hereby amended to read as follows: Article III . "Termination of Tenancy without Specific Term" . Section 17A-12 . Written Notice of Termination of Tenancy. A residential 'tenancy without a specific duration in which the rent is payable on a monthly basis may be terminated by either the landlord or tenant by giving not less than thirty (30) days ' written notice prior to the end of any monthly period. Section 17A-13 . Applicability of Chapter 83 , Florida Statutes . Except for the notice provisions set forth in Section 17A-12 hereinabove, all other provisions set forth within Part II, Chapter 83 , Florida Statutes, governing "Residential Tenancies" shall apply to the rental of a residential dwelling unit within the City of Miami Beach. ^r, AGENDA ITEM �",�`� DATE /- ( )- I SECTION 2 . REPEALER All Ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith be and the same are hereby repealed. SECTION 3. SEVERABILITY If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, then said holding shall in no way affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. SECTION 4 . EFFECTIVE DATE This ordinance shall take effect ten (10) days after its adoption, on , 1994 . PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 1994 . MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK 1st reading 7/13/94 2nd reading JO/ks (c:wpdocs\jean\cauniss\la ndt en.res) FORM APF' U LE Eq 4 By ./ di/ Date 2 43 OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY 624 (y. c(A- owl. need F L O R I D A LAURENCE FEINGOLD *ti(4trti) P.O. BOX O CI T Y ATTORNEY > Z6MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33119-2032 TELEPHONE(305)673-7470 TELECOPY (305)673-7002 ' COMMISSION MEMORANDUM NO. Lq I DATE: MAY 18, 1994 TO: MAYOR SEYMOUR GELBER, MEMBERS OF THE CITY COMMISSION AND CITY MANAGER ROGER M. C TON FROM: LAURENCE FEINGOLD CITY ATTORNEY RE: EXTENSION OF NOTICE PROVISIONS FOR TERMINATION OF RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES WITHOUT A SPECIFIC DURATION As the attached opinion of the Office of the Attorney General, dated May 5, 1994 , indicates, the City has the power to extend notice provisions of the termination of residential tenancies without specific duration. It should be noted that the opinions of the Attorney General do not have the same force and effect as actual case law. Nevertheless, the opinions of the Attorney General are quite persuasive, particularly when there is no case law. The City Attorney desS.res instructions on how to proceed in view of the attached opinion of the Attorney General. LF: 1m . 44 N- 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE -- FOURTH FLOOR - MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33139 ULH UF'1Pd1UN, UI ) . ILL yu4 y1L Jyby / Ma u5 ,,34 15 :52 Nu .uu4 -F' .ul.. • i 1.1i 4'00 -uo M1. STATE OF FLORIDA OFrIcE or ATTORNEY GENERAL ROBERT A. BUTTERWORTH May 5 , 1994 Mr. Laurence Feingold 94-41 Miami Beach City Attorney Post Office Box 0 Miami Beach, Florida 33119-2032 Dear Mr. Feingold: On behalf of the Mayor and the City Commission of the City of Miami Beach, you ask substantially the following question: May the City of Miami Beach by ordinance extend the notice provisions in section 83 . 57, Florida Statutes, for the termination of residential tenancies without specific duration? In sum: A municipal ordinance that merely supplements the notice provisions in section 83 . 57, Florida Statutes, would not conflict with the statute and would, there- fore, be valid. You state that present conditions in the City of Miami Beach create a hardship for tenants with month-to-month leases who are forced to vacate and relocate on fifteen days notice. The city commission is contemplating legislation that would require at least thirty days notice for the termination of residential tenancies of month-to-month or shorter duration. The question arises, however, whether the city would be preempted from legis- lating on this subject in light of the provisions in Part II, Chapter 83, Florida Statutes, or whether such local legislation would conflict with the state statute applicable to residential tenancies . Chapter 166, Florida Statutes, the "Municipal Home Rule Powers Act, " grants to municipalities broad home rule powers . This statute provides that "municipalities shall have the govern- mental, corporate, and proprietary powers to enable them to conduct municipal government, perform municipal functions, and render municipal services, and may exercise any power for municipal purposes, except when expressly prohibited by law. "' 45 llLH Ut- 1141 UldDIV . Hdy U::j , i4 I J • JJ Idle .UU4 �• .U� Mr. Laurence Feingold 94-41 Page Two Section 166 . 021 (4 ) , Florida Statutes, further provides that the statute is to be construed so as to secure for municipalities the broad exercise of home rule powers granted by the Constitution, general or special law, or in charter counties by the county charter, and to remove any limitations, judicially imposed or otherwise, on the exercise of home rule powers other than those expressly prohibited . Thus, municipalities may exercise any governmental power for municipal purposes except when expressly prohibited by law and may legislate on any subject matter on which the Legislature may act , except subjects preempted by statute to the state or county.2 The municipal power to regulate, however, is subject to the state ' s paramount power to regulate matters in order. to protect public health, safety and welfare . A municipality' s attempt to regulate in an area preempted by the state or where the regulation is inconsistent with general law or regulations adopted by the state would be invalid. ' In City of Miami Beach v_ Rocio Cor$. , ' the court held that municipal ordinances are inferior to state law and must fail when conflict arises . The Rocip court acknowledged that local and state legislation - may be concurrent in areas not preempted by the state, but state law prevails over conflicting concurrent legislation enacted by a local government .' In Jordan Chapel Freewill Ba .fist Church v. Dade County, ' the district court reviewed a Dade County ordinance that imposed regulations on bingo operations more strict than those prescribed by state statute . In recognizing that local ordinances may not conflict with state law, the court discussed that "conflict" exists when compliance with a county ordinance requires a violation of state statute or renders compliance with a state statute impossible .' The Jordan court concluded that the state bingo statute constituted minimum regulations and contained no language that could be deemed a prohibition against additional stricter regulations by local government agencies .' Finding that the county ordinance merely supplemented the state statute, the court determined that compliance with the county ordinance was possible without violating the state law.' Chapter 83 , Part II , Florida Statutes, the "Florida Residential Landlord and Tenant Act , " applies to the rental of a dwelling unit . 10 The act sets forth the rights and duties of landlords and tenants in the rental of dwelling units . There is no ex- press preemption to the state of the regulation of residential tenancies . Section 83 . 57, Florida Statutes, however, states : A tenancy without a specific duration, as defined in s . 83 . 46 (2) or (3) , may be terminated by either party 46 1'LH OF 1 H 1 UMs DIV . May u ,'31-1 No .UU4 ' 1 Mr. Laurence Feingold 94-41 Page Three giving written notice . . . as follows : (1) When the tenancy is from year to year, by giving not less than 60 days ' notice prior to the end of any annual period; (2) When the tenancy is from quarter to quarter, by giving not less than 30 days ' notice prior to the end of any quarterly period; (3 ) When the tenancy is from month to month, by giving not less than 15 days ' notice prior to the end of any monthly period; and (4) When the tenancy is from week to week, by giving not_less than 7 days ' notice prior to the end of any weekly period. (e . s . ) Thus, the Legislature has provided minimum notification rights to both the landlord and the tenant regarding the termination of a tenancy without a specific duration. There is no language in section 83 . 57 , Florida Statutes, that may be construed as a prohibition against more lengthy notice requirements by a local government . The enlargement of the notification period by the City of Miami Beach by passing an ordinance requiring at least- thirty days notice before termination of a month-to-month or week-to-week tenancy by either party would be supplemental to the state statute and compliance with such ordinance is possible without violating section 83 . 57 , Florida Statutes." Accordingly, I am of the opinion that the City of Miami Beach may enact local legislation extending the notice requirements for the termination of a tenancy without a specific duration. Such action by the municipality would supplement the provisions in section 83 . 57, Florida Statutes, and compliance with the resulting ordinance would not violate section 83 . 57, Florida Statutes . erely, Robert A. Butterworth Attorney General RAB/tgk 1 Section 166 . 021 (1) , Fla . Stat . (1993) , implementing the powers granted in Article VIII , section (2) (b) , Florida Constitution. ULN UI'1N1UN;; DIV . May u5 .'34 15 :54 No .UUJ F'..us , Mr. Laurence Feingold 94-41 Page Four ' See, City of Tampa v Br xt=, 616 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (municipality opting for a code enforcement board under chapter 162, Florida Statutes, prohibited from enforcing its ordinances in any manner other than that described in chapter 162) . See., City of Miami Beach v. Rocio Corp__ 404 So. 2d 1066 , 1070 (Fla . 3rd DCA 1981) , appeal dis isle and petition foY review denied, 408 So. 2d 1092 (Fla . 1981) . ' 404 So. 2d 1066 (Fla . 3d DCA 1981) . ' Id. at 1070 . 6 334 So. 2d 661 (Fla . 3rd DCA 1976) . ' Id. at 664 . • ' id. at 664-665. 10 Section 83 .43 (2) , Fla. Stat . (1993) , defines "(d)welling unit" as : (a) A structure or part of a structure that is rented for use as a home, residence, or sleeping place by one person or by two or more persons who maintain a common household. (b) A mobile home rented by a tenant. (c,) A structure or part of a structure that is furnished, with or without rent, as an incident of employment for use as a home, residence, or sleeping place by one or more persons. 11 Rocio at 1070 (an ordinance that supplements a statute ' s restriction of rights may coexist with that statute, whereas an ordinance that countermands rights provided by statute must fail) . II 48 • !Ia! !SOt1TII1!NREPORT!2dSERIE ! S 3. Municipal Corporations X111(2) CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, Appellant, Although legislation may be concur- inevitable if rent, enacted by both state and local convert their v' governments in areas not preempted by the ordinances d ROCIO CORP., a Florida Corporation, and state,concurrent legislation enacted by mu- ing leases s Rida Corp., a Florida Corp., and Car- nicipalities may not conflict with state law. moratorium riage House Associates, a California by the City 4. Municipal Corporations 41=.592(1) ingthe City Partnership, consisting of Har- vey Rosen, David Rosen, Lawrence Local ordinance which supplements a we address Kates and Arthur Burdorf, Appellees. statute's restriction of rights may coexist sidered by t with that statute, whereas an ordinanceof the parti( • No. 80-626. which countermands rights provided by condontiniur statute must fail. the Florida District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District. 5. Condominium (is .3 Florida Stat Injunction X85(2) er the onlir April 7, 1981. Sections of Condominium Act regulat- Condominiu 1 ing conversion of condominiums conflicts the subject with city's municipal ordinances concerning state law w City appealed from order of the Circuit such conversion, and therefore the city was The trial co Court, Dade County, Herbert M. Klein, J., correctly enjoined from enforcing them. and conflict enjoining city from enforcing condominium West's F.S.A. §§ 718.101 et seq., 718.105, 1 both issues, conversion ordinances. The District Court 718.107,718.402, 718.501-718.504, 718.507. expressly pi of Appeal held that: (1) Condominium Act urn convers does not either expressly or by implication City was p1 preempt the subject of condominium con- John A. Ritter, City Atty., and Thomas the ordinar version to state government, and therefore M. Pflaum and Karen Alterman, Asst. City state law. city's municipal ordinances concerning such Attys., for appellant. Ordinanc conversion are not preempted by the Act, developer r but (2) sections of Condominium Act regu- Lincoln Diaz-Balarat, Miami Shores, Le- condominiu gal Services of Greater Miami, Inc., for the l dating conversion of condominiums conflicts shall have with city's municipal ordinances concerning City of Miami Beach as amicus curiae. lease for a such conversion, and therefore the city was Nancy A. Cousins, City Atty., and Leon- In the ord correctly enjoined from enforcing them. and Lubart, Asst. City Atty., for the City of Glares that Hollywood as amicus curiae. veto rs at Affirmed. Young, Stern & Tannenbaum and Nor- upon less man Malinski, N. Miami Beach, for appel- the tenant 1. Municipal Corporations '592(1) lees. Hance No. Condominium Act does not either ex- Before HENDRY and BASKIN, JJ., and multi-fami pressly or by implication preempt the sub- VANN, HAROLD R. (Ret.), Associate rental hou ject of condominium conversion to state Judge. period of t government, and therefore city's municipal ordinance. ordinances concerning such conversion are PER CURIAM, scrivener t not preempted by the Act. West's F.S.A. Cognizant of hardships endured by Miami First, tt §§ 166.021, 166.021(3Xc), 718.101 et seq., Beach apartment residents when landlords that the 718.507. repeatedly converted rental units into con- leases for dominiums without regard to the growing new legis 2. Municipal Corporations X111(2) apartment shortage, the City of Miami additions Municipal ordinances are inferior to Beach enacted emergency ordinances de- rain circa state law and must fail when conflict arises. signed to forestall the crisis' it perceived as 2. The prt I. The Florida Legislature recently recognized 80-3, Laws of Fla., which amends the Condo- but throt the problem and enacted the Roth Act, ch. minium Act by permitting renters to extend Ilollywoc Greater 49 • IIIIIIIIIIITIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMIIIMIIIIIIIIII- I ICITY OF MIAMI BEACH v. ROCIO CORP. Fla. 1067 •=.111(2) Che as,Flan vo-.404 sole 1004 may be concur- inevitable if landlords were permitted to erupt the subject of condominium convr_r- ttate and local I convert their remaining apartments. The sion and that absent express preemption to reempted by the ordinances delayed conversions by extend- the state, the City is free to enact ordi- I enacted by mu- 1 ing leases and by creating a ninety-day nances restricting condominium conversion moratorium on conversions. In this appeal under the authority it derives from the t with state law, x+592(1) by the City 2 from a trial court order enjoin- Municipal Home Rule Powers Act, chapter ing the City from enforcing the ordinances, 166, Florida Statutes (1979). i supplements a we address the preliminary issues 2 con- hts may coexist sidered by the trial court upon stipulation is an ordinance 1 in question are not in conflict with state • of the parties: first, whether the subject of law, but instead impose restrictions on ac- ts provided by condominium conversion wasreem ted P P by tivity already regulated by the state. It the Florida Condominium Act, chapter 718, contends, therefore, that the ordinances Florida Statutes (1979); and second, wheth- supplement rather than conflict with state i' er the ordinances conflict with the Florida restrictions and are permissible municipal urn Act regulat- Condominium Act. Either preemption of enactments. On this point we disagree. iniums conflicts the subject by the state or conflict with I. state law would invalidate the ordinances. 1. Preemption. [Hees concerning ore the city was The trial court found that both preemption enforcing them, and conflict existed. Upon consideration of �m the11 Municipalitiesderivetheir powersArticle et seq., 718.105, both issues, we hold that the state did not from Floridalr (b Constitution.Floraon 8.504, 718.507. l expressly preempt the subject of condomini- VIII, Section 2(b), Florida Constitution urn conversion; we hold, however, that the (1968) provides: City was properly enjoined from enforcing Powers. Municipalities shall have gov- t the ordinances because theyconflict with gov- ernmental, corporate and proprietary ty., and Thomas powers to enable them to conduct munici- rman, Asst. City state law. We affirm on that ground. pal government, perform municipal func- Ordinance No. 79-2169 provides that a tions and render municipal services, and ami Shores, Le- developer may convert a rental unit into a may exercise any power for municipal ami, Inc., for the condominium provided that each tenant purposes except as otherwise provided by amicus curiae. shall have the right to extend an expiring law. \try., and Leon- lease for a period up to eighteen months. The extent of municipal power or home rule for the City of In the ordinance, the city commission de- has been questioned in the courts. In City • Blares that leases allowing landlords or de- of Miami Beach v. Fleetwood Hotel, Inc., velopers at their option to terminate leases 261 So 2d 801 (Fla.1972), the supreme court bourn and Nor- upon less than eighteen months notice to each, for appel- ':�7. ,><• � held that the constitutionally provided pow- each, IF, :T' the tenant are against public policy. Ordi- err were insufficient to permit a municipals- d ,risa t Hance No. 80-2197 prohibits an owner of � "+ ;:;; ty to enact a rent control ordinance absent kSKIN, JJ., and ; ,� 3. multi-family housing units from converting ; .-, enabling legislation. In apparent response '........1 c ., ,,i. rental housing to condominium units for to Cityof Miami Beach v. Fleetwood Hotel, het.), Associatet ,, '; -, '�. ,,, period of ninety days from the date of the Inc, supra, the Florida Legislature, in 1973, •-,. ordinance. Ordinance No. 80-2201 corrects `�,'r•T' J � � clarified the scope of municipal home rule .(�; '� -' scrivener errors in Ordinance No. 80-2197.E A. and expressed a legislative purpose to r'e- idured by Miami ,- ;; ' y . First, the City of Miami Beach contends move limitations on the exercise of home when landlords iii«, that the legislature did not expressly pre- rule powers by enacting the Municipal units into con- leases foraprescribed number of days. The briefs in support of the to the growing .i-k_"*• y(is t-, PPo position advanced by VI, new legislation authorizes counties to permit the City of Miami Beach. City of Miami additional extensions by ordinance under cer- ordinances de- t tarn circumstances. 3. Other issues were reserved for future deter- ' it perceived as • f,,. urination. ,r 2. The problem exists not only in Miami Beach •Wends the Condo- �r, i: ' . but throughout the state as well. The City of 4. The injunction refers to Ordinance No. 80- enters to extend faze $, 1 Hollywood, Florida and Legal Services of " `�;, , :' 2220. The parties have stipulated that 80-220l 't Greater Miami. Inc. have filed anticus-curiae is the correct number. a; ' ,, I' :li;i: ' 4_'. *i 50 v 1068 Fla. 404 SOUTHERN REPORTER, 2d SERIFS Home Rule Powers Act,ch. 73-129, Laws of pressly prohibited by the Constitution, (1) To git Ha. (codified at ch. 166, FIa.Stat. (1973)). general or special law, or county charter condomini It acknowledged that municipalities may and to remove any limitations, judicially property. enact legislation on any subject upon which imposed or otherwise, on the exercise of (2) To est the state legislature may act unless express- home rule powers other than those so ation, sale ly prohibited by law. expressly prohibited. ums. 166.021 Powers.— § 166.021, Fla.Stat. (1979). , Every con (1) As provided in s. 2(b), Art. VIII of The City of Miami Beach thented in this ata enacted the State Constitution, municipalitiescions of t} shall have the governmental, corporate, another rent control ordinance under the and proprietary powers to enable them to expanded authority afforded by section § 718.102(1), 166.021(1). In an actionhalling the either in its challenging conduct municipal government, perform P rovisions, d municipal functions, and render munici new ordinance, the supreme court in City of pal services, and may exercise any power i empt 6 the sl Miami Beach v. Forte Towers, Inc., 305 for municipal purposes, except when ex- So.2d 764 (Fla.1974), ruled that municipals- Appellees pressly prohibited by law. ties now possessed the power to enact such which prohil (2) "Municipal purpose" means any ac- ordinances except when expressly prohibit- lion, placem tivity or power which may be exercised ed by law, stating: ings, subject by the state or its political subdivisions. Ch. 73-129 is a broad grant of power to ownership, p municipalities in recognition and irnple- gree. The I The legislature recognized certain excep- read as a w tions: mentation of the provisions of Art. VIII, \ (3) The Legislature recognizes that § 2(b), Fla.Const.r It should be so con- 274 owe pursuant to the grant of power set forth strued as to effectuate that purpose in s. 2(b), Art. VIII of the State Constitu- where possible.2 It provides, in new F.S. j statement of § 166.021(1), that municipalities shall prohibition i tion, the legislative body of each munici- nation. The polity has the power to enact legislation have the governmental, corporate and proprietary powers to enable them to con- must be read Pro concerning any subject matter upon P ry municipal government, perform mu- Yellow v. Miller, 31 which the state Legislature may act, ex- ductYellow Taxi cept: nicipal functions and render municipal i (a) The subjects of annexation, merger, services; it further enables them to exer- f (Fla.1961). cise any power for municipal services, We conclu, and exercise of extraterritorial power, which require general or special law pur- except when expressly prohibited by law. pressed its p suant to s. 2(c), Art. VIII of the State 305 So.2d at 766 (footnotes omitted); see home rule wi W Constitution; Juergensmeyer and Gragg, Limiting Popu- subjects. W (b) Any subject expressly prohibited by In tion Growth in Florida and the Nation: t subject of c the Constitution; The Constitutional Issues, 26 U.FIa.L.Rev. City is there - (c) Any subject expressly preempted to 758, 764 (1974)• power on tha state or county government by the Con- In light of these developments, we must eluded. stitution or by general law; and decide whether condominium conversion is 2. Conflic (d) Any subject preempted to a county a subject"expressly preempted to state . . . [2]pursuant to a county charter adopted un- government" and therefore excepted from derived One i der the authority of ss. 1(g), 3, and legis) 6(e), the City's powers under section 166.- occurs when Art VIII of the State Constitution., 021(3Xc). See also City of Temple Terrace (4) The provisions of this section shall v. Hillsborough Association for Retarded of Ma which be so construed as to secure for munici- Citizens, Inc., 322 So.2d 571 (Fla. 2d DCA of Miami Be palities the broad exercise of home rule 1975), aff'd, 332 So.2d 610 (FIa.1976); City supra; see powers granted by the Constitution. It is of Miami Beach v. Forte Towers, Inc., su- (1975); cf. Cl the further intent of the Legislature to pra. The Florida legislature has spoken on O We are av, extend to municipalities the exercise of the subject of condominium conversion in plied from cc powers for municipal governmental, cor- Chapter 718, Florida Statutes (1979), which Corporations 6 E s rate, orproprietaryur Corporations Po purposes not ex- defines as its purpose: i ,114- j I. is 1111111111111111.111111111111.111111.1111111111111111111111111111.111111111111111111.. CITY OF MIAMI BEACH v. ROCIO CORP. Fla. 1069 Cite as,F7iApp.,404 So.24 1066 Constitution, I (1) To give statutory recognition to the 363 So.2d 555 (Fla.1978)(Authority granted , ounty charter condominium form of ownership of real by general law can be restricted by general ons, judicially property. law). Municipal ordinances are inferior to he exercise of (2) To establish procedures for the cre- state law and must fail when conflict arises. han those so ation, sale, and operation of condomini- Rinzler v. Carson, 262 So.2d 661 (Fla.1972); urns. City of Miami Beach v. Fleetwood Hotel, Every condominium created and existing Inc., supra; City of Wilton Manors v. Star- in this state shall be subject to the provi- ling, 121 So.2d 172 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960); then enacted sions of this chapter. 1979 Op.Att'y Cen.Fla. 079-71 (August 10, ice under the 1979); 1975 Op.Att'y Gen.Fla. 075-164 d by section § 718.102(1),(2), Fla.Stat. (1979). Nowhere, (June,9, 1975); 3 FIa.St.U.L.Rev. 137, 148- iallenging the either in its statements of purpose or other 49 (1975). Contra 1976 Op.Att'y Cen.Fla. ourt in City of provisions, does chapter 718 expressly pre- 076-212 (November 10, 1976). era, Inc., 305 empt 6 the subject to the state.' In Rinzler v. Carson, supra, the court iat municipali- Appellees argue that section 718.507, declared: to enact such which prohibits laws concerning use, loca- essly prohibit- tion, placement and construction of build- Municipal ordinances are inferior in stat- ings, subject to the condominium form of ure and subordinate to the laws of the ownership, preempts the subject. We disc- state. Accordingly, an ordinance must nt of power to gree. The language of that section when not conflict with any controlling provision on and imple- read as a whole, Alai, Inc. V. of a state statute,and if any doubt exists \ Florida Jai IncV i of Art. VIII, Lake Howell Water& Reclamation District, as to the extent of a power attempted to uld be so con- be exercised which may affect the opera- that purpose 274 So.2d 522 (Fla.1973), is clearly not a tion of a state statute, the doubt is to be statement of preemption, but is instead a es, in new F.S. prohibition against condominium discrimi- resolved against the ordinance and in fa- •ipalities shall nation. The plain language of a statute vor of the statute. A municipality can- corporate and must be read to mean what it says. Carson not forbid what the legislature has ex- le them to con- pressly licensed, authorized or required, v. Miller, 370 So.2d 10 (Fla.1979); Phil's t, perform mu- nor may it authorize what the legislature Yellow Taxi Co. v. Carter, 134 So.2d 230 der municipal has expressly forbidden. 23 Fla.Jur., Mu- (Fla.1961). them to exer- nicipal Corporations, Section 93, p. 116; icipal services, We conclude that the legislature has ex- State ex rel. Baker v. McCarthy (1936) nibited by law. pressed its purpose to afford municipalities 122 Fla. 749, 166 So. 280; Wilton Manors omitted); see home rule with the exception of preempted v. Starling (1960, Fla.App.), 121 So.2d ;uniting Popu- subjects. We find no preemption of the 172; Baltimore v. Sitnick, 254 Md. 303, Id the Nation: subject of condominium conversion. The 255 A.2d 376. In order for a municipal 6 U.F1a.L.Rev. City is therefore permitted to exercise its ordinance to prohibit that which is al- power on that subject unless otherwise pre- lowed by the general laws of the state eluded. there must be an express legislative rents, we must i grant by the state to the municipality •r conversion is 2. Conflict. authorizing such prohibition. McQuillin, ed to state • • • [2] One impediment to constitutionally Municipal Corporations, Vol. 5, Section excepted from derived legislative powers of municipalities 15.20. section 166.- occurs when the municipality enacts ordi- 262 So.2d at 668. The City maintains, how- temple Terrace nances which conflict with state law. City ever,that Rinzler v. Carson,supra,and City for Retarded t of Miami Beach v. Fleetwood Hotel, Inc., of Miami Beach v. Fleetwood Hotel, Inc., (Fla. 2d DCA supra; see Fla.St.U.L.Rev. 137, 148-49 supra, which provide for resolution of con- r la.1976); City I (1975); cf. City of Miami Beach v. Frankel, flict questions by favoring state law over ,veers, Inc., su- has spoken on We are aware that preemption may be im- Chapter 166, however, requires "express pre- plied from comprehensive state coverage of the emption". Conversion in subject. 6 E. McQuillan,The Law of Municipal s (1979), which Corporations § 21.34, at 250 (3d ed. 1980). 6. See generally Deal, Post-Mortem-Horne Rule, Fla.Municipal Rec., Nov.1980, at 2. 1.1 52,0 t 1070 Fla. 404 SOUTHERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES municipal ordinances, no longer have vitali- An ordinance which supplements a statute's D. Section power t ty. The City argues that the passage in restriction of rights may coexist with that of chap 1973 of chapter 166, Florida Statutes, Mu- statute, Eliott Advertising Co. v. Metropoli- of Flor nicipal Home Rule Powers Act, and the tan Dade County, 425 F.24 1141 (5th Cir. Condomi opinion of the court in City of Miami Beach 1970); Jordan Chapel Freewill Baptist E. Section v. Forte Towers, Inc., supra, provide munic- Church v. Dade County, 334 So.2d 661 (Fla. with th ipalities with formerly absent power. 3d DCA 1976), whereas an ordinance which Land P t [3,4] Although the legislature has ex- countermands rights provided by statute tended municipal powers in the Municipal must fail. Scavella v. Fernandez,371 So.2d F. Sectioncti closure Home Rule Powers Act,the issue of conflict 535 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). sale. with state law has not been addressed. In Cityof Miami Beach v. Forte Towers, Inc., [5] Do the ordinances in question con- G. Section flict with state law? The final judgment prospec supra, the court overruled Fleetwood only permanently enjoining the enforcement of with regard to the derivation of powers. The principle that a municipal ordinance is the subject ordinances specified that con- H. Section p p p flict existed between the ordinances and law, or inferior to state law remains undisturbed. which e Although legislation may be concurrent, sections 718.105, 718.107, 718.402, 718.501, ment cc enacted byboth state and local govern- Condominium 718.503, 718.504, and 718.507 of the cation, g Condominium Act. The purpose of the tion of ments in areas not preempted by the state, improve concurrent legislation enacted by municipal- Condominium Act, Section 718.102(1), is "to be used ities may not conflict with state law. If give statutory recognition to the condomini- conflict arises, state law prevails. Cf. umrform of ownership of real property and Appellant Board of County Commissioners of Dade to establish procedures for the creation, minium Act - County v. Wilson, 386 So.2d 556 (Fla.1980) sale, and operation of condominiums." The permits the (the enabling constitutional language of the statute does not restrict rights, but instead burden con: Dade County Home Rule Charter provides provides rights. see Seavells that in the event of a conflict between a A comparison of the Condominium Act merit. Wh county ordinance and the Florida Constitu- and the ordinances in question reveals ap- law is prohi tion or general law, general law prevails). parent conflict: become hot government • A. 5718.105: Recording of Declaration. Ordinance No. 80-2197 (as presented i (1) When executed as required by amended) prohibits filing of must yield 5 718.104, a declaration together Declaration of Condominium for government with all exhibits and all amend- conversion for 90 days. ments is entitled to recordation • In conclu as an agreement relating to the conveyance of land. condominiu pressly pre B. Section 718.107 pertains to "Re- of Miami E straints upon separation and partition of common elements." act ordinan version pre C. Section 718.402 permits "conver- Ordinance No. 80-2197, 53 (as state law sion of existing improvements to amended) prohibits as unlawful condominium." 4 the converting of rental apart- f nances cor ments for 90 days. court corre Section 718.402(2) (a) permits a Ordinance No. 79-2169, 517A-29 Affirnte< tenancy to expire no later than provides that a tenancy can 180 days from date of notice to expire no later than 18 months the tenant of the intended con- after notice to the tenant. version. Section 718.402(3) (a) prohibits Ordinance No. 79-2169, S17A-30 cancellations of leases upon prohibits cancellation of less than 120 days notice (with leases upon less than 18 months some exceptions) . notice. d' 53 v • I ORKIN EXTERMINATING CO. v. LEWIS Cite Fla- 1071 •ments a statute's D. Section 718.501 delegates as, �• .,404��1071 vinance No. 80-2197, 55 (as power to enforce the provisions Ord Coexist with that amended) gies the city power of chapter 718 to the Division to enforce the prohibition against Co. v. Metropole- of Florida Land Sales and 1141 (5th Cir. Condominiums. creating condominiums. • Freewill Baptist E. Section 718.502 requires filing Ordinance No. 80-2197, 53 (as 4 So.2d 661 (Fla. with the Division of Florida amended) prohibits ilinq of ordinance which Land Sales and Condominiums • Declaration as unlawful for ided by statute prior to sale or lease. 90 days. landez, 371 So.2d F. Section 718503 svidesdos- . Ordinance No. 80-2197, 53 (as closure requirements prioramended) prohibits sa a or conversion for 90 days. in question con- G. Section 718. 504 regulates the • final judgment prospectus or offering circular. Ordinance No. 80-2197, S3 (as enforcement of amended) prohibits sale or conversion for 90 days. cified that con- H. Section 718.507 ordinances and prohibits any Ordinance Nos.80-2197 (as amend- law, ordinance or regulation 718.402, 718.501, which establishes any require- ed) and 79-2169 regulate buildings which are or may id 718.507 of the ment concerning the use, lo- cation, placement or construc- be used as condominiums. purpose of the tion of buildings or other 718.102(1), is "to improvements which are or may , the condomini- be used as condominiums. 'al property and .r the creation, Appellant's contention that the Condo- r the r The minium Act merely regulates and therefore ORKIN EXTERMINATING COMPANY hts, but instead permits the City.to impose a supplementary and IL P. Hewitt & Associates, burden consistent with statutory purposes, see Seavella v. Fernandez, supra, is without Appellants, ndominium Act merit. When conduct permitted by state v tion reveals ap- law is prohibited by local ordinance,citizens Douglas C. LEWIS, A become hopelessly entangled in a web of Appellee government. Under the circumstances No. XX-154. 197 (as presented in this case, the local ordinances District Court of Appeal of Florida, filing ing of must yield to state statutes if stability in First District. jominium for jays• government is to prevail. May 29, 1981. In conclusion, we hold that the subject of Rehearing Denied June 26, 1981. condominium conversion has not been ex- An Appeal from an Order of Doris H. ) pressly preempted by the state. The City Housholder, Deputy Commissioner. of Miami Beach has been authorized to en- act ordinances relating to condominium con- Robert W. Elton of Smalbein, Eubank, 97, 5 3 (as version provided they do not conflict with Johnson, Rosier & Bussey, Daytona Beach, as unlawful state law. Because the challenged ordi- for appellants. ental apart- court conflict with state law, the trial S. Peter Capua and Fred O. Pasternack, court correctly enjoined their enforcement.. Miami, for appellee. 69, 517A-29 Affirmed. ancy can ( n 18 months PER CURIAM. tenant. AFFIRMED. This Court finds that the Iw record contained competent,substantial evi- 79, 517A-30 a NCYNUMeENSYSIEM dence to support the deputy commissioner's :ion of order. in 18 months MILLS, C. J., and SHAW and JOANOS, JJ., concur. 0. 51 • kRQFQ02ORDINNCE V A AN ORDINhb1CH AMENDING CHAPTER 17A OF TEE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BRACH, FLORIDA, ADDING PROVISIONS FOR THE STABILIZATION OF RENTAL HOUSING ACCOI* DATLONS; DECLARING THS EXISTENCE OF AN EMERGENCY REQUIRING SUCH REGULATION; PROVIDING DEFINITIONS; IMPOSING MINIMUM NOTIFICATION PERIODS FOR RENT INCREASES; IMPOSING MINIMUM NOTIFICATION PERIODS FOR THE TERMINATION OF TENANCIES WITHOUT CAUSE; IMPOSING RENT INCREASE FREEZE DURING THE PENDENCY OF SACH TERMINATION PERIOD; PROVIDING RELOCATION COSTS PAYABI,* TO TENANTS FOR THE REDUCTION OF THE NOTIFICATION PERIOD TIME; PROVIDING FOR PENALTIES FOR NONCOMPLIANCE. WHEREAS, a grave and serious public emergency exists With respect to the housing of a substantial number of residents of Miami Beach; and WHEREAS, the pressuro on the affordable rental housing market cauned by the gentrification of Miami Beach and the scarce housing situation caused by the hurricane of August 24, 1992; an insuf#i- cient supply of new housing; and the rapidly escalating housing conte, have resulted in a substantial and critical shortage of safe, decent and reasonably priced housing aaoommodations as i■ evidenced by the low vacancy rates prevailing in the City causing the dislocation of many low, fixed and moderate income residents; and WHEREAS, this emergency cannot be dealt with effectively by the ordinary operations of the private rental housing market, and unless residential rent increases are regulated and the termina- tion of tenancy notice periods are extended beyond the State minimum, such emergency pressures therefrom will produce a serious threat to the public health, safety and general welfare of the renidents of Miami Beach, Florida; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, that existing Chapter 17A of the Miami Beach City Code is amended by adding the following provisions: SECTION 1. Short Titi a. Thin Ordinance shall be known and may be cited as the Rdnb Stabilization Law. • SECTION Z. PPflnitIons. Unlees a different meaning clearly appears from the context, the following terms shall mean and.includes c * n EE : SI Ze-90-b661 55 • A. Rousing Accoamod_ ation. A residential unit ii any building containing one or more residential rental unite in hich said units are occupied or are intended to be occupied by • or more individuals as a residence, together with the 1- • and buildings appurtenant thereto; and all services, privi -gee, furnishings, furniture and facilities supplied in connectio ith the occupation thereof, including garage and parking facil 'lee. The term "housing accommodations" shall not include: 1. Dormitories operated by any hospital, convent, mona. ery, asylum, public institution, educational institution, o any institution operated exclusively for charitable or educe 'opal purposes on a non-profit basis; 2. Dwelling unite subject to condominium or coops - five ownership; unless three or more of said units are owned b an individual for the purpose of renting on a yearly basis; 3. Public housing accommodations; 4. Temporary residences, not to exceed six , (6) u, , t e, arranged and paid for by social service agencies for which ep : .itic short term written agreements are entered whereby the lane •td, tenant and social service agency are all parties; 5. Dwelling units customarily rented on a seasonal siva where: ( 1) the dwelling unit is rented only for a -Izort seasonal period at a seasonal rental; or where (2) in addit •'j to being rented for a short seasonal rental, it is also rented f. the remainder of the year or a part thereof to a tenant or t - -zeta other than the tenant or tenants who had ranted for the e© s•nal period, at a rental substantially lower than seasonal renta . To qualify under this paragraph, the housing accommodation mus lava been rented on a seasonal basis for a period of time bntwe-n , 1993, and , 1994 . Bxc aloft from control under this Ordinance shall not apply to any h . sing accommodation where on ,1994, the occupants t :• eof had been occupying their housing accommodation under a lease Ione term is not less than one year, have been in continuous occ . . -ncy for one year, or for which rent has been paid for one cont cue year, regardless of the method or amount of rent payment whi had been agreed upon by the landlord and the tenant. The dwelling unit shall not come within the defi ion of "housing accommodation' only so long an it shall continue o be rented on a seasonal basis. Upon termination of such : tea practice, the dwelling unit shall become subject to and go conned by this Ordinance. The seasonal rental period shall be the s .1 iod of the winter season, a period not exceeding six (6) mont s and generally including the months of December, January, Februa And March. -2- 4,0A ctn bE : St ee-90—b66 [ 5. Immediate Family. Parents, step-parents, grandpa :n s, children, step-children of either spouse or co-owner. 6. Rent. The consideration including any bonus, be •f t or gratuity demanded or received for or in connection with ti.. s or occupancy of rental dwelling units or the transfer of a e• s: of such rental dwelling unite. 7. 69204122,11. Repairs, replacement, maintenance, pai i• g, providing light, heat, air conditioning, hot and cold . t..r, electric services, window shades and ncroene, storage, ki 1 n bath and laundry facilities and privileges, janitor se s refuse removal, furnishing, parking, and any other be ;f t privilege or facility of any rental dwelling unit. Service •• - rental unit shall include a proportionate part of services pr iie• to common facilities of the building in which the rental u i i contained. 8. fkni.zup service Standar4g. Those 'services whic .r. provided on , 1994. SECTION 3. REQpjR1T QF. WBITTgN._WQTICE OF RENT 1 • �.L 1. gga _Increaee. It shall be unlawful for a landl• • t increase the amount paid for rent, as defined in Section 2.6 e without giving written notice as follow©: (a) When tenancy is from month to month, by giving no 1 = s- than 180 days' notice prior to the end of any monthly peri• • ; (b) When tenancy is from week to week, by giving no • s than 180 days notice prior to the end of any weekly period; (c) When tenancy is on an annual basis, by giving no : s. than 180 days' notice prior to the end of any annual period 2. Notice. A. Forty. All rent increase notices shall be w i ie notices. The notice shall be adequate if it is in substan i. 1, the following form: You are advised that the amount of rent you pay for unit will be increased by $ effective within 180 day■; to wit: on ,19 your rent will increase to The landlord must complete the notice by providing the landl • • o agent's full name, address and phone number or the notice sh. 1 b. construed as unenforceable and void. B. All such written rent in• r;. . s. notices shall be by ma ling or delivery of a true copy there . •r -3- LTn SE : St e —90—b66t 5'7 • if the tenant is absent from the premises, by leaving a •qa. thereof at the residence. C. Due Process Provision. To insure minimal •u- process, the written rent increase notice shall be bilia9 . 1 written in English and in the tenant's primary language. Fail r= to provide a bilingual notice shall be construed as unenforoe• 41: and void. SgCTION 4 . TERMINATION OF TENANCIES WITUOVT SPECIFIC TB: . 1. Wermieer,1011 of _Tenancy_. It shall be unlawful •r landlord to terminate a tenancy without a specific duration w t •u giving a written notice as follows (a) When the tenancy is from month to month, by givi g o less than 180 days ' notice prior to the end of any monthly p. r' . . and (b) When the tenancy is from week to week, by giving no I . s than 180 days' notice prior to the end of any weekly period 2. Renes Freeze. It shall be unlawful for a landl = t• increase a tenant's rent by greater than 3% during the pendeict o the termination period. 3. Buy-Out Provision. Any landlord terminating a t n- c under the provisions of this section may choose to "buy-ou. " 'h. tenant's right to remain on the premises at the following r- t : . t (a) If the tenant agrees to vacate the premises wit i i 30 days after receipt of the written notice, the la. dl •r• shall pay $1,000; (b) If the tenant agrees to vacate the premises witt i G days after receipt of the written notice, the la dl •r• shall pay $750; (c) If the tenant agrees to vacate the premises witt i i 96 days after receipt of the written notice, the la. d •r• shall pay $500; and (d) If the tenant agrees to vacate the premises with n 21 days after receipt of the written notice, the laidi •r shall pay $250. The written notice of termination must include the b y •u schedule and the landlord's statement of the landlord's int.-n o whether or not the landlord will to offer to buy-out the tea rights to remain on the premises. 2. notice. • A. Form. All termination notices shall be w{{i ie notices. The notice shall be adequate if it is in substantia 1 the following form: -4- 9E : Si eE-90—b66I u You are advised that your tenancy is term- inated effective 19 . You may remain as a tenant for a period of180 days, that is, until 19 However, I choose (yes) / (no) to exercise my option to offer to buy out your right to remain in possession. If I have checked "yes" and you agree to vacate at an earlier date, relocation costs will be paid to you at the following rate: vacate within 30 days: $1,000 vacate within 60 days: $ 750 vacate within 90 days: $ 500 vacate within 120 days: $ 250 The landlord must complete the notice by providing the landl. •d o agent's full name, address and phone number or the notice eh: 1 b. construed as unenforceable and void. The notice and b .0 provision will in no way interfere with the tenant's rights • h. return of any security deposit. B. Deliyery. All such written termination n . . e. shall be by mailing or delivery of a true copy thereof or, .h: tenant is absent from the premises, by leaving a copy then o' a the residence. C. Due Process Provision. To insure minima •u. process, the written termination notice shall be bilingual, i , e in English and in the tenant's primary language. Fail t• provide a bilingual notice shall be construed as unenforceab - . n. void. 5ECTXON 5. UAAABHHENT. 1. It shall be unlawful for any person, with the int, • t cause any tenant to vacate housing accommodations, to engage a ,n course of action or conduct, including, but not limited to: n .r ruption or discontinuance of minimum services; interforenc. t. or disturbance of the comfort, repose, peace or quiet of c tenant in his/her use or occupancy of the tenant's housing . c •m modations . 2. It shall be unlawful for any person to remove or a t- ip to remove a tenant from hie/her housing accommodation becau e •h: tenant has taken, or proposes to take, action authorize o required by this Ordinance or any existing building, ho si g health or fire codes. -5- stn LE : SI ea-90- '661 J9 3 3. If a tenant vacates his/her housing accommodation - s result of actions that are in violation of this Section, auc .c •. shall be considered "prohibited practices" and the tenant eh. • _ permitted to recover in an action at law three times the re • . damages, or actual incurred damages, as well as reasonable a :a ney's fees and court costs. Damages shall include the cos moving as well as the differential in rent between that r- t: which the tenant had been paying prior to vacating and th _ n rental paid. Said differential shall be computed for a two a- . period. Such action must be commenced within two (2) years r. , the date that the tenant vacates the housing nccommodatid question. BFCT_,IQN 6. SURV&VQ11SHIP. In the event of the death of a tenant, the rights of u -t deceased tenant shall inure to the surviving spouse or other • : a• then in tenancy. SECTIQB 7. WAIVER. Waiver of the provisions of this Ordinance by the tenant atm be unenforceable and void. SECTION 8. PENALTY. Any person who willfully violates any provision of Ordinance shall, upon hie/her conviction of a first violati.n . : subject to a fine not to exceed $1,500; and for each subs q. offense, shall be subject, upon conviction, to a fine of : t•. $1,500 and/or imprisonment for a period not to exceed 60 da a sggrION 9. PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION. A landlord who violates the provisions of thin Ordinance a : 1 be liable to the tenant for actual and consequential damage • • months rent, whichever is greater, and coats, including atto.n. ' fees. Subsequent or repeated violations which are not c n poraneous with the initial violation shall be subject to seta :t : awards of damages. SECTION 10. OTHER REH$DI1S. The remedies provided by this Ordinance are not exclusi a .n• shall not preclude the tenant from pursuing any other rem.d a law or equity which the tenant may have. -6- 7(14 qrn Eb : SI ZZ-90-bg1 VQ 3 DIOPLACEMEHT CHECKLIST instructions Please review your agency's files to complet tl i survey of displaced Miami Beach residents. Please circle to • no ( "Y/N" ) and provide any other available information. i . disclosure of any identifying information (such as names, oc'a security numbers, etc. ) is required. REASON VR DISPLACEMENT* 1. Increase in rent? Y/N if yes, from S to S Comments: 2 . Termination of Tenancy? YIN if yes, check . 1 applicable causes: A. Nonpayment B. Condo conversion C. Building sold to new owner D. Owner rehabing building E. Tenant locked out P. Termination notice G. Eviction in court R. Eviction without court I. Other (describe) 3. Was tenant displaced due to unsafe/unsanitary conditions? Y/N if yes, check cannel • A. City condemned building or apartment B. Apartment or building had fire C. Roof leaks D. Plumbing problems B. Other (describe) 4 . Did tenant pay rent by the week? Or by the month? rni nrn l;b ' Sl ee-90—b66t 61 • 5 . Address tenant displaced from 6. Address tenant moved to 7 . Did tenant remain in Miami Beach? Y/N 8. Was this tenant ever displaced in the past? YIN When? How many times? Unknown EMILY/STATISTICAL IN 'ORMATIOHt 1. Number in household 2. Number of children under age of 18 years 3. Ethnicity (please circle) : African-American Asian White, non-hispanic Haitian Hispanic Jewish 4. Ie there anyone disabled in the household? 5. Is there anyone elderly in the household? 6. Income of household $ per week/month/year thank you! AGENCY: ADDRESS: PHONE: FAX: PREPARED BY: -Z� pn.-r qrn 9b— St ee-90-17661 Vw I., Affordable Housing Coati July 7, 1994 To: Mayor Seymour Gelber and Members of the Miami Beach City Commission Fr: Affordable Housing Coalition Re: Housing Concerns and Proposed Legislation Representatives of concerned organizations were convened by Commissioner Nancy Liebman and the City Attorney's Office for the purpose of providing input into the development of an Ordinance to extend the Notice Requirement for termination of tenancy. The following organizations participated in the meetings: Legal Services of - Greater Miami, RAIN Mothers of Feinberg-Fisher Elementary School, Douglas Gardens Community Mental Health Center, UNIDAD, Miami Beach Senior Center, Miami Beach Development Corporation Miami Beach Housing Authority, and the City of Miami Beach Housing and Community Development Division. We believe that the Ordinance proposed by the City Attorney's Office does not go far enough in addressing the housing crisis now facing low income families in South Beach. Our collective experience leads us to recommend that the City strengthen the protections by extending the Notice Requirement to 120 days for termination of tenancy and also for rent increases, with a special exemption to cover relocation assistance made possible by a government agency or non-profit organization. We ask you to take expedited action to adopt a comprehensive series of steps to more adequately address the preservation and development of affordable housing in our community, including tenant protection and stimulating affordable housing development through incentives and appropriate requirements. We urge that the workshop meeting proposed by the City Administration address the full range of landlord tenant issues that could alleviate the current housing crisis, including all of those that have been proposed by Legal Services. We request that the City forward the legislation proposed by Legal Services to the Attorney General for advice. We urge the City to fully support and participate in the conference being organized by The Miami Beach Housing Authority to focus on stimulating affordable housing development through enactment of incentives and appropriate requirements. The enclosed letter from Matti Bower to Commissioner Liebman addresses some of the ways that the City can foster affordable housing. We also forward to the City Commission "The South Beach Housing Crisis: Options for Meeting the Needs of Very Low-Income Families," prepared for R.A.I.N. (Referral and Information Network) by Planning Consultant Xavier de Souza Briggs. While this report recognizes the central responsibility of the City of Miami Beach to plan and facilitate affordable housing, it also extends its proposed action steps to include not just the City but all of the responsible agencies and organizations that can contribute to that effort. We call upon you to fully address the crisis in housing faced by ouc community's low- income families, the disabled and our frail and elderly seniors. 63 MIAMI BEACH DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 1205 Drexel Avenue, Second Floor Miami Beach, Florida 33139 Telephone (305) 538-0090 - FAX 538-2863 June 30, 1994 • The Hononorable Nancy Liebman Miami Beach City Commissioner City of Miami Beach 1700 Convention Center Drive Miami Beach, Florida 33139 Dear Nancy: At the meeting you convened to focus on extending the Notice requirements for evictions, we also discussed ways to expand affordable housing through requirements and regulations as well as encouragements and incentives. The Florida I-Iousing Finance Agency evaluates the Local Government Planning Effort for Affordable Housing as a part of the LITC Applications. In the recent tax application round, the City of Miami Beach's planning efforts for affordable housing was scored 17-1/4 out of 50 points. The following criteria is used for the evaluation: 1. Adopted ordinance specified in s. 420.9072(2)(b), Florida Statutes (SHIP Program). 2. Local Housing Assistance Plan specified in s. 4209072(2), Florida Statutes (SHIP Program). 3. Resolution or ordinance adopting an Affordable Housing Incentive Plan as specified in s. 420.9076, Florida Statutes, reviewed by the Florida Housing Finance Agency (SHIP Program). 4. Expedited processing of permits for affordable housing. 5. Modification of impact fee requirements, including reduction or waiver of fees and alternative methods of fee payment. 6. Allowance of increased density levels. 7. Reservation of infrastructure capacity specifically for housing for very low-income and low income persons. G4 8. Transfer of development rights as a financing mechanism for housing for very low- income and low income persons. 9. Reduction of parking and setback requirements. 10. Allowance of zero lot line configurations. 11. Modification of sidewalk and street requirements. 12. Formal process for consideration, before adoption by the local government of the potential impact of policies, procedures, ordinances, regulations or plan provisions upon affordable housing. 13. Preparation and availability of a printed inventory of locally owned public lands suitable for affordable housing. 14. Local Land Bank or policy of contributing publicly owned land at no or low cost to developers of affordable housing. 15. Revolving loan fund capitalized with local public or private financing to create or preserve affordable housing., It would be very helpful to positively address these issues in order to attract State and Federal funding and to stimulate affordable housing. Sincerely, neate &wet Matti Bower, Chairperson Miami Beach Development Corporation cc: Shirley Taylor-Prakelt • 65 11 The South Beach Housing Crisis: Options for Meeting the Needs of Very Low-Income Families 9 June 1994 Report prepared for: Referral and Information Network (R.A.I.N.) The Healthy Learners Project Feinberg-Fisher Elementary School 1424 Drexel Avenue Miami Beach, Florida 33139 Planning ByDesign 423 west 120 street #66 new york, new york 10027 (212) 678 6590 Xavier de Souza Briggs President GG 3 CONTENTS Introduction 1 Overview of Conditions, Trends and Proposals 2 Recommended Strategies and Policies 5 a. City of Miami Beach 5 b. Miami Beach Housing Authority 10 c. Miami Beach Development Corporation 10 d. Metro-Dade County 13 e. U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development 13 - f. R.A.I.N 14 g. Healthy Learners Consortium 15 G7 • • • 9 June 1994 The South Beach Housing Crisis: Options for Meeting the Needs of Very Low-Income Families 1. INTRODUCTION Planning ByDesign was retained by the Referral and Information Network (R.A.I.N.) of The Healthy Learners Project, a model parent involvement and service integration initiative based at Feinberg-Fisher Elementary School in the heart of South Beach.' We were asked to identify strategies to alleviate the severe housing displacement impacting families on South Beach. Based on level-of-service figures provided by Legal Services of Greater Miami, between 30 and 60 families face eviction each month in South Beach. And while the South Beach community is home to a range of income levels—each with somewhat distinct housing needs—R.A.I.N. targets very low-income families (i.e., families at or below 50% of area median income) whose children attend Feinberg- Fisher. This report therefore focuses on their needs. Most of these families are immigrants, many of them Latino. Their need for stable, affordable housing is. acute and immediate. These are families at direct risk of homelessness— families for whom housing is one of the keys to self-sufficiency. While a host of opportunities and strategies have been discussed on the Beach, no local organizations have a significant track record of developing affordable housing, and City action on behalf of very low-income families has thus far been minimal in the housing area—limited primarily to relocation assistance. Not surprisingly, therefore, progress in addressing the housing needs of these families has paled before the progress of the private sector in consuming available properties for market-rate use. The clock is ticking for very low- income families who call South Beach home. A genuine window of opportunity may be lost if actions are not better coordinated and appropriately large in scale and if the private market is not leveraged to help expand the supply of needed housing. This is an action-oriented report and not a needs assessment. It assumes that readers are well aware of the gentrification reshaping the physical and social character of South Beach, of the bull real estate market driving this gentrification, and of the soaring rents and displacement of families which result. This report draws heavily on: the City of Miami Beach's Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) and Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan; background reports, planning materials, and grant requests by Miami Beach Development Corporation (MBDC) and the Miami Beach Housing Authority (MBNA); the R.A.I.N. Housing Survey; and discussions with MBDC. MBHA, Legal Services of Greater Miami, City and school officials, R.A.I.N.makers, and others. 1 The Healthy Learners Project is managed by the Institute for Children and Families at Risk al Florida International University(FIU) in Miami; the project is funded by the Danforth Foundation. P/GS I 68 In a February meeting arranged by R.A.I.N., a group of housing advocates expressed to the City Manager their desire to work more closely with the City on the housing crisis—in part by generating a "community response to the CHAS" that would supplement the official document, elaborating on strategies to meet the housing needs of very low-income families. This report represents R.A.I.N.'s preliminary contribution to that supplement to the CHAS. Following • a brief overview, this report links analyses to specific action strategies and policy recommendations for the following groups: • The City of Miami Beach • Miami Beach Housing Authority (MBHA) • Miami Beach Development Corporation (IVIBDC) . • Metro-Dade County • The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) • R.A.I.N. and Other Community Residents • The Healthy Learners Consortium (including Legal Services of Greater Miami) 2. OVERVIEW OF CONDITIONS, TRENDS AND EXISTING PROPOSALS • The City's assessment of South Beach housing needs and its delineation of programs appropriate to addressing them is found in two documents: the Comprehensive Housing Affordnhiiity Strategy (CHAS), December 1993, filed to meet federal requirements; and the Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan (November 1993), amendments for which were filed in 1994 to meet state growth management requirements. Both documents are helpful as a starting point, but neither articulates a comprehensive recipe for housing development that would address the needs of very low-income families, given market conditions and institutional capacity in the area. The CHAS notes that 53% of all renters in the City of Miami Beach are very low-income and that there is a waiting list of 4,000 for Section 8 housing vouchers, of which Housing Authority Director David Nevel estimates that 2,000 are Beach residents—an astounding figure for a city of this size. While no precise figures on families displaced from housing or at risk of displacement arc available, the CIIAS cites the R.A.I.N. Housing Survey to highlight three problems facing very low-income families on South Beach: overcrowding, eviction, and difficulty finding landlords willing to rent to adults with children. The CHAS also identified six top priorities for City action. The third, "Develop programs to prevent residents threatened with loss of housing from becoming homeless," only mentions City support for "tenant counseling and tenant- landlord arbitration' as an appropriate strategy. There is no mention of an extension to the required 15-day eviction notice or expanding housing supply for families at-risk of homelessness. This is surprising, since in a bull real estate market like that found in South l3each, labor-intensive arbitration and counseling, while helpful on the margin, arc very unlikely to yield enduring benefits for families. Like the relocation assistance MBHA can offer, counseling Soni BEACH tiQW3I+cCraisi,/R.A.LN. JUNE 193.1 — —_ PAGE 2 f s. £9 and arbitration are provisional measures which should be pursued while housing supply is expanded; it is on the supply issue that labor, funds, and political will should be focused, now that the City and MBHA have made a joint commitment to provide relocation funds. Finally, although creating new rental housing (for which very low-income families are most likely to qualify) is not in the top three CHAS priorities, the City of Miami Beach clarified, in a December 1993 Commission meeting, that the CHAS is "resource-driven." That is, families should expect City action to reflect the fact that the six CHAS priorities are "on a level" and not hierarchically arranged. While not required by federal law, two important types of information are not found in the CHAS: • A target number of housing units (new and/or rehabilitated) that the City aims to make affordable for very low-income families, counting on support from public and private sector players. While the City cannot unilaterally commit to creating the needed units, involving a coalition of players in setting an annual or bi-annual housing target would serve as a benchmark for measuring progress on the housing crisis—a significant tool for holding all parties accountable for results. • Information on where needed housing should be developed. The "where" of housing production is missing in the CHAS, along with "how much." Other than projects in the pipeline, no target blocks or block areas are mentioned, and while identifying specific properties would be inappropriate in the CHAS, the City has not otherwise moved to consider suitable buildings, lots, and blocks. Given the small scale of this community and the pace of gentrification, taking such action now is critical. (See recommended "charette on affordable housing" below.) In addition to the CI-IAS, the City's official statement of housing needs and priority programs, housing advocates must also consider how the recent Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan Amendments address or fail to address—promote or inhibit—affordable housing development. Here, it should be noted that the "Comp Plan" is necessarily a "macro" statement of key goals and significant trade-offs citywide. It does not and cannot address South Beach in the detailed way that a neighborhood plan would (see below). Still, a number of elements in this Comp Plan are potentially significant for the housing crisis. First, the Plan reaffirms the City's support of mixed-use districts in South Beach but notes that the City must manage trade-offs between what is good for tourism/entertainment businesses and what is good for families residing nearby. It notes that most vacant land for new construction is found in South Pointe (10 acres) and the nearby Flamingo area (11 acres). The Plan also calls for housing unit enlargement to reduce the overcrowding of families and for infill housing development to complement existing uses in the South Pointe area—two development guidelines with implications for affordable housing development (see recommendations below). The housing element of Plan further states that the "main problem" facing Miami Beach as the year 2.000 approaches is not the lack of units but the need south BEACH HOUSING Cn si 'R.A.LN• JUNE 1994 PAGE 3 14- 10 J ' to raise the occupancy rate of existing housing units. This is clearly untrue where very low-income families are concerned, and it is surprising since the Planitself estimates a shortfall of 3,178 units for very low-income households (including but not limited to family households) and projects that this shortfall will grow over the next few years. The seeming contradiction in these statements suggests to us that the City should clarify what priority very low- income families and other households will be given in the planning and development processes. Participating in a neighborhood-scale and neighborhood-based planning effort led by residents and nonprofits would be one wav to do so (see recommendations below). On its own. die Comp Plan does not articulate how resources (say. vacant land) will be allotted to meet somewhat divergent goals—attracting middle and upper-income households and do\vnzoning to encourage private investment, for example, while meeting the acute housing needs of lower income families who fill an important niche in the City's labor force. The Comp Plan notes appropriately that "policies that discourage conversion of residential to non-residential uses would support housing goals:" But in a January planning commission meeting, the City proposed just such a conversion—rezoning a large apartment building on Washington Avenue to allow hotel use. While this rezoning would not directly impact an affordable property, if the building is bought and becomes a hotel, the rental market would be further squeezed—with effects rippling downward to the lowest income families. Such inditect and easily overlooked effects are typical of a rapidly changing, mixed-use area like South Beach, and housing advocates must do their part to track and inform government action. It seems reasonable to ask, however, that in the future, and in keeping with the Plan, the City assess planning and zoning decisions for potential housing market effects and not simply for traffic congestion, employment impacts, project feasibility, etc. Finally, the Comp Plan states that in interviews with community leaders, "there was no perception of financing or government regulations as a major blockage to housing production." This finding is surprising, since a 1990 study by the Center for Affordable Housing, a national group, found that 70% of developers consider local regulatory controls to be barriers to the production of low-cost housing. Although Miami Beach is historically "pro-development" and has engineered a remarkable transformation in South Beach, in part with developer incentives, the City has not yet established the "affordable housing friendly" measures used successfully by cities with similar housing needs. These include policies to cut the costs of development and expedite it. Overall, the Comp,Plan sends mixed signals about affordable housing and offers few specifics on how planning might be a tool for alleviating the housing crisis. While the state's growth management law (which generated the comprehensive planning requirement) is stricter on environmental than on housing issues, and while the Comp Plan cannot offer the specifics that a neighborhood plan would, the City is well-positioned, with the Comp Plan and CIIAS as starting points, to work more proactively on behalf of very low-income families. The next section suggests how. SOVTH BEACH 110VSo:G C raisis/R.A.LN JUNE 1994 - PAGE 4 7A i 3. RECOMMENDED STRATEGIES AND POLICIES While gentrification and displacement are by no means unique to South Beach, the community is special; its problems and opportunities call for more than a formulaic approach. Unlike the overview, which focused on the City role outlined in the CHAS and Comprehensive Plan, this section emphasizes the coordination and commitment of multiple players. Only collaborative action can hope to address the scale and complexity of this housing crisis, and such action must consider both the political and technical/financial challenges associated with affordable housing development. While few of these proposals are new, a number of them would be new on the Beach. A. The City of Miami Beach As outlined in the overview above, the City can take a more proactive approach to,the housing crisis, leveraging the private market, considering the housing market effects of planning decisions in the area, and taking more strategic action to facilitate the work of affordable housing developers. The City should continue to support projects currently in the pipeline, such as MBHA's Women and Children's Resource Center. These recommendations focus not on specific projects but on policy changes and special actions that would impact the success of all projects. 1. Set an annual or biannual target number of housing units to be developed for very low-income households (both family and non- family). Based on careful analysis and public discussion with all stakeholders, this target would drive the housing development process, clarify the priority that housing for very low-income families is to receive (relative to other needs), and help keep all players accountable for results. • 2. Explore fast-track design review and permitting, the waiving of fees, and other "streamlining" options to facilitate the work of affordable housing developers. 2 Orlando created a demonstration project in ownership housing using such streamlining, and the same benefits apply to rental housing development.3 This amounts to "greasing the skids" for housing developers once the site, project design, and financing are in place. It would lower costs and speed the development of affordable housing—two important things in a bull market like that reshaping South Beach. At present, the developer incentives in the Enterprise Zone on South Beach and the South Pointe Redevelopment Area do not appear to include such "affordable housing friendly" measures, and while such measures we're hinted at in the draft CHAS, the final version does not mention them. 2 A useful and up-to-dale reference is S. Mark While, Affordable Housing: Proactive and Reactive Planning Strategies (American Planning Association Press, PAS Report 4441, 1992). 3 See Marie L. York, "The Orlando Affordable Housing Demonstration Project," Journal of the American Planning Association (Autumn 1991). Dr. York is a planner and housing specialist based in Broward County at the Joint FAU/FIU Center for Urban and Environmental Problems. The Joint Center is a source of technical assistance and background research. SOUTH BEACH HOUSING Cnlsls/l1.A.l.N, JUNE 199,1 PAGE s 7N 3. Address the scarcity of developable properties and the pace of gentrification by creating a comprehensive inventory of development opportunities for affordable housing in South Beach. Such an inventory, a development opportunities map and database, would be a labor-saving, "one-stop shop" for affordable housing developers and, once created, the database and map could easily be updated. It would focus,the efforts of both private and public sector organizations and would be an excellent resource for a participatory housing charette (see below). It should include vacant land, rehabilitatable residential buildings, potential housing-over-storefront spaces. zoning, the status of projects in the pipeline and policies under review, etc, 4. Hold a siting and design workshop—a charette—on affordable housing construction, like that held for market-rate development on South Pointe, to identify specific sites, design issues, and social and financial trade-offs associated with various properties. Not only would this strong signal the City's commitment to mixed-income development of South Beach. It would be a concrete way to launch city planners into a more proactive role. Some of the country's most renowned architects, among them Miami's own Andres Duany and Elizabeth Playter- Zyberk, rely on charettes to promote clear planning and cost-effective implementation. They do this by involving a range of players up-front in -big picture thinking." The same creative thinking and coordination is needed to promote affordable housing. Many planning departments around the country are in fact "permitting departments" or top-down, long- range planning agencies. The urgency of the housing crisis on South Beach calls for a more proactive, participatory approach. 5. The City should leverage the bull real estate market and act on the stated goal of creating a viable, diverse community for families at various income levels by creating incentives for mixed-income housing development—through inclusionary zoning, for example. 4 A number of cities have used this successfully to help meet affordable housing needs; Montgomery County, Maryland has had twenty years of success and recently revised its statute requiring a set aside percentage of moderately-priced dwelling units (MPDUs) in all developments of scale. On South Beach, Affordable Landmarks is currently developing a mixed • - income building. And while inclusionary zoning and other measures that "piggy back" the private market would have been most helpful if they were enacted early in the South beach building boom, it is not too late to ensure that affordable units are included in large, market-rate residential projects. South Pointe, with acres of vacant land, represents one "frontier" for mixed-income developments. Its nationally renowned elementary school, marina, and other amenities make it the ideal magnet for market-rate renters and buyers in a nixed-income development. The City's CHAS emphasizes more efficient use of /and, but real estate markets can also be 4 Again, see White (1992) for a range of examples nationwide and a thoughtful discussion of the costs and benefits associated v.ith various models. See also Elizabeth Mutroy, "Mixed-Income Housing in Action," Urban Land (May 1991) for more on the social and financial issues associated with specific projects. SOUTH BEAcit HOUSING CnisisJfLAI.IJ. JUNE 1994 PAGE 6 ' '73 • • used efficiently to create substantial public benefits. In addition, mixed- income development makes market sense in two ways: a) lower-income workers in the area's tourism/entertainment industry can live near their jobs, reducing traffic, parking demand, and pollution; and b) the area would maintain a more diverse base of housing "slots" and be better prepared for market swings. A City or community with a housing stock almost exclusively made up of luxury housing is like a one-legged stool. While the area is likely to remain popular with the tourists, locals seeking entertainment, and the fashion industry for years to come, all markets experience swings. Mixed-income development is a tool for protecting financial and social integrity. It helps ensure high. year-round occupancy and predictable property tax revenues for the City. 6. As a complement to the mixed-income initiative, large-scale developers should be given incentives, through the design review process, for example, to contribute to an affordable housing fund. The difference here is that developers would be helping to develop housing off-site, as opposed to within their developments (see n4, above). In addition, whereas the Documentary Surtax is just that—a tax on all development—the housing fund contribution would be a voluntary quid pro quo—housing dollars for design flexibility, faster permitting, etc. 7. The City should advocate that Metro-Dade County modify the Documentary Surtax Program to better meet the acute housing needs of very low-income Miami Beach families. The existing program, a tax on development to rare funds for affordable housing countywide, is inadequate in two ways: 1) Miami Beach is not guaranteed its fair share of surtax monies, despite the fact that its building boom generates millions for the County fund each year; 2) Miami Beach cannot allocate an appropriate percentage of surtax monies to rental housing production. The County (see below) should create a fair share formula and allow localities greater flexibility in allocating funds to rental vs. ownership housing, according to local conditions. A homeownership conversion program would be appropriate and desirable over the long term—that is, the conversion of apartment renters to co-op owners (as in the federal HOPE II program). But in the near term, rental housing developments for very low-income families are more likely to be financially viable, and the Surtax Program is a constraint under current policy. 8. All zoning and other land use changes for South Beach, those included in the November 1993 Draft amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and others that arise, should be examined for their potential effect(s) on housing affordability. Assessment should distinguish potential effects on very low, low, and moderate-income households. 9. Extend the 15-day eviction notice requirement to 2 months, and continue relocation assistance as the supply of affordable housing is being expanded. Equity demands that sonic of the fees generated by the building boons be used to fund the relocation that mitigates the hardship created by displacement—a direct social cost of rapid, luxury-oriented real estate development. In addition, the State Attorney confirmed recently SOUTH BEACH HOUSING C ruse VR.A I.U. J;R:E 1994 Pt.GE 7 "11 11 that state law does not prevent the City of Miami Beach from enacting a local extension of the eviction notice requirement. 10. Establish and provide staff support for a working group to consider trade-offs associated with the current definition of "overcrowded housing." The CHAS and Comprehensive Plan mention the inadequate configuration of the City's housing stock for families, and some large families are surely without adequate space. But reconfiguring one- , bedroom and studio apartment units for occupancy as two- and three- bedroom units is costly, and it reduces the number of families served by each dollar invested. As a number of housing experts around the country have reminded us in recent years, space standards are not only about safety but about culture. Room shares among family members—for example. Young siblings—that may violate occupant per bedroom standards may be perfectly acceptable to families. Many of this country's immigrants lived decently in less space than that required by local law— relying on large families in small quarters to maximize earnings under one low-cost roof. Cities like San Diego have added flexibility to space requirements in certain affordable housing developments, and the Beach should explore it as another lever on the housing crisis. The proposed working group of residents, planners, and developers would use site visits • and focus groups to develop a thoughtful and balanced discussion of the trade-offs associated with such flexibility. The group's report could be used to secure project-specific waivers from the County and, where necessary, from HUD. But City support is the critical starting point. 11. Explore zoning changes to allow the development of affordable "housing over the storefront—for example, in the retail zone between Fifth and Sixth Streets. Not only would this open up competitively priced second floors for residents—those who want to buy luxury condos are not anxious to live over bicycle shops—it would also add "eyes on the street" around the clock to promote safety. Street fronts that would normally have little or no pedestrian traffic or surveillance late at night would now be home not only to businesses but to families invested in keeping them safe. Once a common feature on main streets and an important component of housing affordability in northern cities with tight rental markets and many low-income workers, housing over the storefront is coming back. Toronto has a model program underway.5 In addition, some second-floor retail spaces are probably already in use as housing on South Beach. \Vhile making such housing allowable is unlikely to create a large number of units, it represents a potential low-cost element in a larger strategy and would offer multiple benefits to the mixed-use area. 12. Work with a consortium of residents and community-based organizations to develop a short/medium range neighborhood plan for South Beach. The area is begging for an integrated, neighborhood plan. It has: clear boundaries, a diversity of residents by racial/ethnic group as well as income level, a mixed-use character, and a bull real estate market that is quickly transforming the community's visual, economic, and social character. \Vhile MBDC has prepared several detailed commercial 5 See Don Procter, 'Living Over the Store in Toronto," Planning (August 1992). Soum E3EAcHH Housv:G C nisisiR.A.Lt4. JUNE 1994 PAGE 8 75 • revitalization plans for key streets (Lincoln Road, Washington Avenue, and Ocean Drive) in the past decade, no neighborhood-wide plan has been developed since the Deco District Plan written 13 years ago—well before . the boom. The new neighborhood plan would emphasize housing opportunities and needs but would also address schools, economic development and employment, community safety, human services, urban design, and other quality-of-life issues. Around the country, community planning has been used successfully to trigger and direct collaborative efforts around pressing needs and opportunities, but two caveats are in order: a. Ensure a community-driven plan. This means "bottom up" in the current jargon. but that phrase is often used loosely. There are concrete ways to promote community ownership of planning processes—relying on players perceived as legitimate by a wide variety of constituencies is key. So is finding the right planner—a good facilitator, consensus-builder, and creative mind—and involving residents throughout the palnning in defining the parameters and objectives of the process, proposing alternatives, discussing trade-offs, and approving final proposals. The important distinction is that community planning is a community process that government is invited to participate in—as a resource, technical assistant, and implementor—not the other way around. • b. Do not use planning to postpone "doing." It is not only possible but preferable to plan and do at once—e.g., to hold the affordable housing charette this summer (perhaps in a first phase to complement MBHA's participatory fall housing workshop), to pursue sites suitable for housing over the storefront, and to enact streamlining measures to facilitate development. These "win-win" opportunities may be lost if action is not taken quickly. 13. Focus federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) monies on very low-income households, rather than moderate-income • households, and ensure the long-term affordability of units. The City's Comprehensive Plan does not indicate a shortfall in the number of housing units affordable to moderate-income families comparable to that found for very low-income families (3,178 units citywide). In addition, the rental properties rehabilitated with CDBG funds were returned to market- rate rents within 3-4 years; that is, the requirement that the units be affordable to lower-income families expired after 3-4 years. The City should seek federal waivers, if necessary, to ensure a minimum of 10-15 years in the expiring use clause. Given the enormous effort that goes into most affordable housing developments, a 3-4 year turnover only defers the crisis a few years for most families. Longer expiring use would help families become significantly more self-sufficient, seek training and better jobs, find quality childcare and stay involved in local schools, etc. SOUTIi BEACH HOUSING C r��s�s/R.A.IJI• JUNE 1994 --- PAGE 9 i • • B. Miami Beach Housing Authority (MBHA) MBHA is to be credited for its recent activism on behalf of very low-income South Beach families. It has added a human services department and secured an agreement from the City to share the costs of relocation assistance for displaced families. In its first significant move as a developer of housing, MBHA has proposed an innovative, residential resource center with on-site child care for women and their children—child care to be staffed by community residents. Emergency assistance to families at direct risk of homelessness is critical, but as longer-term responses to the housing crisis evolve, MBI-IA can help as a developer of affordable housing, as a fincuicer for other developers, and as a source of project-based Section 8 vouchers—a key ingredient in the financial viability of housing built to serve very low-income families. It is also noteworthy that the agency has an operating surplus of approximately $10 million and the authority to issue tax-exempt bonds to finance affordable housing. These are hints that MBHA's optimal role in the short-term may be that of financer and limited partner, given its lack of experience in housing development. 1. MBHA should make the development of housing for very low-income families a high priority. MBHA works to address a range of housing needs—those of the elderly, the disabled, families with children, and others. But families with children are the bedrock of any community, and children are the key to its future. New housing development should focus on their needs. 2. MBHA should commit a portion of its multi-million dollar surplus to finance projects by other developers or to enter into joint ventures. MBDC has used the latter strategy to compensate for its lack of experience in affordable housing development, and MBI-IA could do so successfully as well. 3. MBIIA should continue to seek an increase in the number of Section 8 vouchers allocated to Miami Beach and any waivers needed to allocate a greater number of vouchers to projects for very low-income families . The federal government (see below) should expand the allotment of vouchers, given the area's acute displacement problem, and should allow MBIA greater flexibility in the allocation of project-based vouchers. Given the Clinton Administration's emphasis on preventive approaches to homelessness, and to the special needs of children and families, federal officials—in particular, the 1HUD Office of Special Actions—should be receptive. In addition, residents and community leaders can work with MBHA to secure support from South Beach's congressional representative. C. Miami Beach Development Corporation (MBDC) Founded in 1981 , MBDC figures prominently in the revitalization and preservation of South Beach over the past decade. It has orchestrated important public-private partnerships and exercised the leadership needed to bring about change. In a very real sense, the agency's reputation gives it poli(ica( capital-----a critical complement to the funding it raises for projects. In SOUTH BEACH HOUSING C faISISJH.A.P.U. JUNE 1994 PAGE 10 127 • • • • • addition, as explained in the CHAS, MBDC is the City's designated community- based housing development organization (CHODO). But while the agency can play an important role in addressing the area's housing needs, it has not yet done so, and key opportunities have no doubt been lost. MBDC is relatively new to housing development and is undergoing transition. With revitalization of South Beach's key commercial streetfronts essentially complete, major new commercial projects are likely to be few. On the other hand, South Beach faces a serious housing crisis, and as discussed in a recent Herald article, the area's success as a tourist mecca and investor magnet is so great that residents of all incomes are being priced out of the market—in stores as well as housing. MBDC is therefore at a crossroads, along with its community, and real estate speculators are able to move more quickly on properties MBDC might develop. To its credit. Ole agency has retained a consultant to conduct strategic planning for its housing program. It should make housing for very low-income families a higher priority and should significantly enhance its capacity as a housing developer. 1. Emphasize rental housing for very low-income families in all new housing development, acquisition, and rehabilitation projects. These families are at risk of homelessness, their children attend the area's schools, and the City lacks some 3,200 units to serve them. Homeownership would be a boon to these families and to the community, but in the near term, most are unlikely to meet the income requirements of ownership projects. MBDC should look to generate a substantial rental portfolio, involving R.A1.N. and the Healthy Learners Consortium to ensure social service and child care support. MBDC should also target-the long- term conversion of rental units to ownership. Such conversion would clearly depend on the availability of financing at the appropriate latter stage, 2. To support the focus on family rental housing and ensure its community base at a key transition stage, MBDC should add R.A.I.N.makers to its board of directors and should give residents a majority on its Affordable Housing Committee. Only one member of R.A.I.N. is a board member now, and resident representation is low overall. 3. MBDC should hire an experienced affordable housing specialist as soon as possible. As mentioned above, the agency lacks a track record of housing production. The complexity of designing project funding proposals and applying for financing, the permitting and other requirements of local government, the politics of siting and occupancy, and the evolving nature of the field make it essential that MBDC have an experienced staff member dedicated to housing development and planning. Given the composition of this community, this staff member should be bilingual. Other CDCs in the Greater Miami area should be enlisted to refer promising candidates for the position, and NII3DC should utilize the low-cost national electronic networks now serving housing and community development professionals to cast the net wider. 4. MBDC can also enhance its capacity to produce needed housing by strengthening its relationship to the Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC). LISC is a housing finance intermediary, working with SOUTH I3FACH HOUSING CRISIS/il.A.I.i1. JUNE 199.1 PAGE 11 78 • local governments, private investors, and community-based developers like MBDC to create affordable housing nationwide. LISC is highly regarded as an experienced, results-oriented catalyst. It understands city agencies as well as nonprofits, and its special strength, tax credit financing, is increasingly important as a source of funds for nonprofit rental housing development. As such, LISC represents an important source of financing and technical assistance for MBDC-led projects. 5. MBDC should conduct a housing survey and hold focus groups to create a profile of housing needs, conditions, and preferences in South Beach. This would provide a more up-to-date and detailed look at families and housing than the 1990 Census on which much of the CHAS is based. It should use a sample that is randomly chosen and stratified by income level and family composition, unlike the R.A.I.N. housing survey. The rich information generated by such a survey would not only support the MBDC's planning and priority-setting; it would also serve as documentation to make MBDC more competitive for public and private funds. Ideally, the survey would be conducted as part of the neighborhood planning process proposed above. This would facilitate fundraising for the survey, enhance the planning process, and allow MBDC to survey a variety of quality-of-life issues beyond housing. South Beach is changing; a good, random-sample survey would be a powerful tool for documenting that change and tracing its implications. 6. MBDC should play a lead role in the affordable housing charette and neighborhood planning process. As the designated CHODO, the agency should allocate staff and other resources to these projects. Concerted action to recruit more R.A.I.N. members to its board and Affordable Housing Committee would also strengthen MBDC's role in community planning. 7. Set a target for the number of rental housing units to be developed by MBDC December of 1996. MBDC needs an agency target to direct its own energies, just as the community as a whole needs a target. The target figure should include joint venture projects. 8. MBDC should play a lead role in organizing advocacy for affordable housing in South Pointe. As discussed above, the area's vacant land, renowned elementary school, and considerable amenities make it an ideal magnet for residents of a mixed-income community—as well as one of the "final frontiers" of new housing opportunity on South Beach. MBDC should help lead a collaborative advocacy effort to: (a) make affordable housing a key element of the South Pointe Redevelopment Plan; and (14 secure inclusionary zoning or other incentives for mixed-income development'of the arca. SOUTH BEACH HOUSING C RISISJft.A.LU JuI.E 1994 PAGE 12 i • • D. Metro-Dade County • Modify the Documentary Surtax Program to create a "fair share" formula and to allow localities greater flexibility in the allocation of funds between rental and ownership housing developments. (See City of Miami Beach, item #6, above) E. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 1. Expand the allotment of Section 8 vouchers for MBHA. The City's housing crisis, generated by acute displacement of very low-income and low-income households, calls for greater subsidy through this important channel. If the expansion can be linked to affordable housing development (see #2), new vouchers would be a direct investment in long-term housing affordability and not an interim measure to mitigate the bite of soaring rents. 2. Allow MBHA to award a substantially greater proportion of its vouchers, especially additional vouchers, to projects. Section 8 vouchers are often the critical element in making projects viable for very low-income families, but at present, MBHA can assign a very limited proportion of its vouchers to projects. SOUn1 BEACH HOUSING Corsi ✓R.AtN. JUNE 1994 PAGE 13 80 F. R.A.I.N. and Other Community Residents Created to be a mechanism for empowering very low-income families and connecting them with needed services, R.A.I.N. has become the linchpin of community advocacy on the South Beach housing issue. Indeed, its families live directly in the path of the bull market gentrifying the area. R.A.I.N. is currently working with the Healthy Learners Consortium (see below), a group of service providers which includes MBDC, MBHA, Legal Services of Greater Miami, and others active on the housing issue. In addition, the R.A.I.N.makers are about to incorporate as an independent nonprofit organization, R.A.I.N. has a draft communication strategy to centralize and direct the group's advocacy around the city on the housing issue. and the R.A.I.N.makers have established relationships with key community leaders and interested professionals. The building blocks are in place for more systematic and substantive participation by R.A.I.N. in policymaking and housing development on the Beach. 1. R.A.I.N. should continue to monitor city council, planning commission, and other actions that impact the needs of families its represents—including, but not limited to, their housing needs. An active, visible, ongoing presence is critical, and R.A.I.N. should maintain the independence needed to be constructively critical of all other organizations on the Beach—even the other housing advocates. 2. R.A.I.N.makers should seek additional membership on the boards of directors and key working committees of local organizations. This holds not only for the policy-setting groups of local housing • organizations—MBDC and MBIiA—but for organizations that play complementary roles (Legal Services of Greater Miami) and indirect roles (e.g., the Design Preservation League) in the development of housing on South Beach. R.A.I.N.makers who are unfamiliar with nonprofit organizations and "board dynamics" but are nevertheless motivated to serve and encouraged to do so by R.A.I.N. could receive technical assistance from a variety of independent sources. 3. R.A.I.N. should enhance and formalize its housing needs communication strategy, seeking local pro bono technical assistance as needed. Developing affordable housing is a political as well as technical challenge. By matching key messages with the audiences that should hear them, a coherent and consistently used communication strategy would help R.A.I.N. address both types of challenge, in part by helping the group work with the media more strategically. Moreover, developing such a strategy would complement the group's move toward greater institutionalization and independence. Finally, the communication strategy would highlight the fact that families who have thus far been disenfranchised by the political process and displaced by the real estate market have not only organized themselves around shared needs but have also arrived at a high degree of consensus on how key organizations should respond to those needs. This is the critical next phase. Sounl BEACH HOUSING Cr�isieJf7ALtr JuuE 1994 PAGE 14 • • 81 • 4 - 4. Beyond enhancing its role as the principal community voice on housing policies and programs in South Beach, R.A.I.N. should become a partner in key projects. There are many ways to be a partner. Developing and staffing the child care program within MBHA's proposed resource center is one example of acting as the family support element of a housing project—a critical addition to the "bricks and mortar" which promotes genuine self-sufficiency for families. Such a role would be a natural outgrowth of R.A.I.N.'s ongoing family support activities at the elementary school. But R.A.I.N. can be more proactive as well. It could request funding to manage the public involvement component of the neighborhood planning process proposed above. The group could involve itself in screening, families during the rent-up of new housing—by acting to ensure fair, culturally sensitive occupancy policies on the part of the property manager, for example. Eventually, the group could be a financial partner in housing development or in the cooperative ownership and management of housing units developed by other organizations. Such evolution from advocacy to service provision and then to management and ownership of properties would require careful planning and patient development of the group's capacity, but these steps are well-precedented in the experiences of other community-based groups around the country. G. The Healthy Learners Consortium Established to promote a more integrated approach to family self-sufficiency, the Healthy Learners Consortium now attracts a large and enthusiastic group of service providers and residents to its monthly meetings at Feinberg-Fisher. Some of these standing-room-only gatherings bring 80 or more persons who share an interest in the quality of life for families on South Beach. Among the members is Legal Services of Greater Miami (LSGM)—not a housing organization but a key advocate and important source of legal assistance for very low-income tenants. LSGM has led the request for an extension of the 15- day eviction notice requirement and supports needed reforms in city policy that would promote mixed-income approaches to affordable housing development. LSGM should build on these initiatives to strengthen its support for structural changes in the development trends impacting South Beach—over and above the very important arena of individual landlord-tenant cases. It can do so as a source of technical assistance in legal reform and, of course, as a litigant aid. LSGM, more than any other organization addressed in this report, confronts the challenge of addressing the near-term emergencies created by displacement without losing sight of the longer-term supply problem which drives that displacement. For this reason, and like MBDC and MBI IA, LSGi1I should actively involve community residents in its priority and policy-setting—through board membership, membership on working groups and planning committees, etc. On the whole, the Healthy Learners Consortium appears to function in cooperative and not collaborative fashion. That is. members share news and views on important projects and events but not the joint program and planning responsibilities that define collaboratives. This is not only understandable. SOUTH BEACH HOUSING CnISIs/R.AJ.U. JUNE 1994 PAGE 15 3 • 82. I V - given the group's youth and the fragmented, categorical quality of public and philanthropic funding, it may be desirable. That is, the Consortium may function best as a gathering point where sub-groups with more tightly focused agendas can maintain contact, remain broadly informed, and arrange collaborations with one another that do not directly involve the larger Consortium. The group has already achieved notable successes with this approach. On the other hand, the Consortium enjoys a large and diverse membership given the small scale of the Beach, and it has shown consistent interest in the housing issue. As such, the group may choose to be a more proactive. two-way communication mechanism—beyond its role as a "gathering point" or nexus. That is, the Consortium might serve as a channel for shared, non-partisan messages on housing that support the self-sufficiency objectives of R.A.I.N. and the Healthy Learners Project and as a source of feedback on those messages—a set of eyes and ears around the city that is at once informed and committed. Specifically. the Consortium should: 1. Monitor the efforts of the City, MBDC, and MBHA, and advocate the steps outlined in this report as part of a comprehensive approach to the housing crisis on South Beach. Consortium members can help ensure that affordable housing for very low-income families, as opposed to "affordable housing" more generally, remains high on the public agenda. Members should be on the mailing list for planning commission events, should encourage accurate and regular media coverage of the crisis, etc. • 2. Shape the way that affordable housing—in particular, rental housing for very low-income families—is talked about around the city. In a 1992 study conducted by FIU, 70% of local elected officials and planning department directors in Florida said that "concern for property values" is a strong barrier to affordable housing development in their localities; a smaller percentage said that "concerns for safety" and "opposition to integration" are also barriers. Like all cities, Miami Beach is home to a variety of constituencies, each with somewhat distinct interests, collective experiences, and beliefs. By connecting R.A.I.N. and other housing advocates to these constituencies in formal and informal ways, Consortium members can play a vital and substantial role in the public education that successful affordable housing development requires. In particular, the city-at-large—over and above city government—must hear that: (a) The housing affordability problem on South Beach is a crisis (in scale and rate of displacement), and the sense of urgency should be echoed widely and regularly. (b) Being in favor of housing affordability is not "anti-development," since cities have guided the development process for many years—to limit social costs and create enduring benefits. Such guidance is simply a part of lar-sighted and human-scaled "planned growth"—a key tenet of city and state policy. SOUTH BEACH HOUSINGraisiJll.A.I U. JUNE 199.1 PAGE 16 83 3 (c) Affordable housing development for very low-income families is "preventive medicine" for urban areas, since it represents homelessness prevention and is a key element of family self-sufficiency. Experience shows that like quality education, affordable housing is a prudent public investment—far less expensive than frequent crisis intervention in the near-term or crime, incarceration, and substance abuse treatment in the long term. (d) Far from being "special interest ghettos," mixed-income communities create multiple benefits in the long run, since a wider array of housing types makes them more resilient in the face of housing market fluctuations than cities with a base of luxury condominiums ("one- legged stools") and because entry-level jobs can more readily be filled by people living in the community, cutting commute time, traffic congestion. auto pollution, and parking demand; (e) Affordable housing is not "poor housing" that scares away investment or retards property values. Needed housing can be designed and managed to fit the existing scale and character of the area— can be integrated effectively, even aesthetically, into the mixed-use "village" character of South Beach. Moreover, years of empirical evidence—study after study—suggests strongly that affordable housing does not have the negative property value impacts that some homeowners, developers, and public officials expect. (f) Miami Beach should,contribute its "fair share" of housing for very low-income families. The scarcity of affordable housing for low-income • workers, who fill an important niche in the area's service-sector economy, is a regional problem, and Miami Beach, with its strong real estate market, should contribute a fair share of units for these families.6 • 6 The region's affordable housing needs are analyzed in reports by the South Florida Regional Planning Council, and the principles and practices underlying the fair share approach are well-developed in New jersey's statewide affordable housing program. Souni BEACH HOUSING C Risis/R.A.LN. JUNE 1994 PAGE 17 84 • CITY OF MIAMI BEACH NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING • NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS NOTICE IS HEREBY given that during a Special City Commission meeting, public hearings will be held by the City Commission of the City of Miami Beach, Florida, in the Commission Chambers, City Hall, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Thursday, July 28, 1994, at the times listed below, to consider adopting the following described ordinances: at 9:00 a.m. : AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING MIAMI BEACH CITY CODE CHAPTER 25, ENTITLED "OFFENSES- MISCELLANEOUS" , AMENDING SECTION 25-28.4, ENTITLED "AEROSOL SPRAY PAINT AND BROAD-TIPPED INDELIBLE MARKERS-PROHIBITED SALE TO MINORS" BY REQUIRING DISPLAY • OF A SIGN PROHIBITING SUCH SALE, REQUIRING STORAGE OF SUCH AEROSOL SPRAY PAINT OR MARKER PENS WHERE NOT READILY ACCESSIBLE TO MINORS, PROVIDING FOR ENFORCEMENT, CIVIL FINES FOR VIOLATIONS, APPEALS AND COLLECTION OF FINES; PROVIDING FOR INJUNCTIONS FORBIDDING SPRAY PAINT AND MARKER SALES IN STORES, HAVING THREE VIOLATIONS WITHIN ONE CALENDAR YEAR; PROVIDING FOR A REPEALER, SEVERABILITY AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. at 9:20 a.m. : AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND, CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 1605, WHICH ESTABLISHED POSITIONS IN THE UNCLASSIFIED SERVICE AND STEPS FOR SALARIES FOR UNCLASSIFIED EMPLOYEES, BY PROVIDING THAT SALARIES FOR ALL EMPLOYEES IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY SHALL HAVE RANGES SET BY THE CITY ATTORNEY AND APPROVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION; PROVIDING FOR REPEALER, SEVERABILITY AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. INQUIRIES concerning these items should be directed to the Legal Department at 673-7470. at 9:45 a.m. : AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 89-2665, AMENDING SECTION 7 , ENTITLED "PARKING REGULATIONS" , AMENDING SUBSECTION 7-2, ENTITLED "OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIRED" BY MODIFYING THE PARKING REQUIREMENT FOR SUITES HOTEL UNITS; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE; PROVIDING FOR REPEALER, SEVERABILITY AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. INQUIRIES concerning this item should be directed to the Development, Design & Historic Preservation Services Department at 673-7193. at 10:00 a.m. . AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING MIAMI BEACH CITY CODE CHAPTER 20, ENTITLED "BUSINESS LICENSES" , AMENDING SECTION 20-32, ENTITLED "PARKING LOT; EXEMPTIONS, APPLICABILITY; VALET PARKING" BY PROVIDING FOR LEASE OF PARKING SPACES ON PUBLIC PROPERTY TO VALET PARKING OPERATIONS AND ESTABLISHING RENTAL FEES; REQUIRING VALET PARKING OPERATIONS WHICH UTILIZE SPACES ON PUBLIC PROPERTY TO OBTAIN A PERMIT FOR EACH LOCATION UTILIZED; ESTABLISHING STANDARDS FOR THE OPERATION OF VALET SERVICE ON CITY PROPERTY, AND REQUIRING VALET PARKING OPERATIONS WHICH LEASE PUBLIC PARKING SPACES TO ADHERE TO RULES AND REQUIREMENTS; PROVIDING FOR ENFORCEMENT OF PENALTIES FOR VIOLATORS; PROVIDING FOR A REPEALER, SEVERABILITY AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. INQUIRIES concerning this item should be directed to the City Manager's Office at 673-7010. 85 AGENDA R ' E- 1 ITEM \\\ DATE �B"01 'f • • • at 10:15 a.m. : AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING MIAMI BEACH CITY CODE CHAPTER 17A, ENTITLED "RENTAL HOUSING" BY ADDING ARTICLE III THEREOF ENTITLED "TERMINATION OF TENANCY WITHOUT SPECIFIC TERM" , BY PROVIDING THAT RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES WITHOUT A SPECIFIC DURATION IN WHICH THE RENT IS PAYABLE ON A MONTHLY BASIS MAY BE TERMINATED BY EITHER PARTY GIVING NOT LESS THAN THIRTY (30) DAYS' WRITTEN NOTICE PRIOR TO THE END OF ANY MONTHLY PERIOD, AND EXCEPT FOR THE NOTICE PROVISIONS SET FORTH HEREIN, PROVIDING FOR THE APPLICABILITY OF PART II, CHAPTER 83, FLORIDA STATUTES, GOVERNING "RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES" TO THE RENTAL OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS IN MIAMI BEACH; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEALER; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. INQUIRIES concerning this item should be directed to the Development, Design & Historic Preservation Services Department at 673-7193. ALL INTERESTED PARTIES are invited to appear at this meeting or be represented by an agent, or to express their views in writing addressed to the City Commission c/o City Clerk's Office, 1700 Convention Center Drive, 3rd Floor, City Hall, Miami Beach, Florida, 33139. Copies of proposed ordinances are available for public inspection during normal business hours in the Office of the City Clerk, 3rd Floor, City Hall. Richard E. Brown, City Clerk City of Miami Beach "Pursuant to Fla. Stat. 286.0105, the City hereby advises the public that: If a person decides to appeal any decision made by this board, agency or commission with respect to any matter considered at its meeting or hearing, he will need a record of the proceedings, and that for such purpose, affected persons may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. This notice does not constitute consent by the City for the introduction or admission of otherwise inadmissible or irrelevant evidence, nor does it authorize challenges or appeals not otherwise allowed by law. " 86 4 •••••• • _ • • • frA ' 4 (1) (1) a,I 4`) 4..) o C.J <1 to " r-O o vci 04 b.0 •,-{ • th 0 bOZ co 4_) 1) r:4