HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem #53 - Discussion ItemLi
CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO : Honorable Mayor and Members DATE : July 2, 1997 FILE
of the City ommission
SUBJECT:
Discussion Item
FROM : Edward Marqu Z, REFERENCES
City Manager
ENCLOSURES:
�I
It is recommended that we have a discussion regarding the parameters of the Dissolution
Plan to be voted on by the City Commission on July 24, 1997, and presented to the public
as of August 4, 1997.
�1
To: Edward Marquez
City Manager
FROM : A.n
n�III
Cittar
CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM
DATE : May 15, 1997 JFtL*7.-250
SUBJECT : Special Municipal Election:
September 4, 1997
REFERENCES : Resolution No. 97-330
adopted May 7, 1997
ENCLOSURES:
As you know, the City Commission adopted Resolution
No. 97-330 on May 7, 1997, which called and provided for a
special election to be held on Thursday, September 4, 1997, for
the electors of the City of Miami to approve or disapprove the
question as to whether the City of Miami shall retain its
existence as a municipality and not be abolished.
Sections 3 and 4 of said Resolution direct the City Manager,
to prepare a proposal for the transfer of municipal functions,::..
etc. and to make said proposal available to the public for revie*
not less than thirty days prior to the date of the election.
Since time is of the essence, I am transmitting a copy of
said Resolution to you prior to its execution by the Mayor, to
assist you in the process of drafting the plan.
BSS:W125
CC: Joel Edward Maxwell
Deputy City Attorney
' ,1?' my e.,: - •.
•z,
r,
J-97-250
5/7/97
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION, WITH ATTACHMENTS, CALLING AND PROVIDING
FOR A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 1997, FOR THE PURPOSE OF
SUBMITTING TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI, FLORIDA, FOR THEIR APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL, THE
QUESTION OF WHETHER THE CITY OF MIAMI SHALL RETAIN ITS
EXISTENCE AS A MUNICIPALITY AND NOT BE ABOLISHED,
EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 30, 1998, IN ACCORDANCE WITH
RESOLUTION NO. 97-330 WHICH REQUIRES A PROPOSAL FOR
THE •TRANSFER OF MUNICIPAL FUNCTIONS, SERVICES,
RESPONSIBILITIES AND LIABILITIES IN THE EVENT OF A
FAVORABLE VOTE ON DISSOLUTION BY THE ELECTORATE;
PROVIDING FOR PUBLIC REVIEW OF SAID PROPOSAL NOT LESS
THAN THIRTY (30) DAYS PRIOR TO SUCH SPECIAL MUNICIPAL
ELECTION; DESIGNATING AND APPOINTING THE CITY CLERK AS
THE OFFICIAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CITY COMMISSION
WITH RESPECT TO THE USE OF VOTER REGISTRATION BOOKS
AND RECORDS; FURTHER, DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO
CAUSE A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE HEREIN RESOLUTION TO BE
DELIVERED TO THE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS OF
METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, NOT LESS THAN
FORTY-FIVE (45) DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF SUCH SPECIAL
MUNICIPAL ELECTION.
WHEREAS, a group, styled "Citizens of Miami for Lower Taxes"
(hereinafter "COMFLT"), filed a statement of organization on October 29, 1996,
pursuant to § 106.03, Fla. Stat. (1995); and
WHEREAS, COMFLT subsequently circulated a petition styled "Petition for
Public's Right to Vote to Abolish the City of Miami" (hereinafter the
"PETITION"); and
WHEREAS, said PETITION stated:
i
nr� Aga. 1
V
{
and
"We the qualified electors of the City of Miami,
Florida, in accordance with the provisions of Section
5.03 of the Dade County Home Rule Charter, hereby
petition the City Commission of the City of Miami to
draft a proposal to abolish the City of Miami, and to
submit the proposal to the qualified electors of the
City of Miami. The effective date for the abolition
of the corporate existence of the City of Miami shall
be no -later than September 30, 1998";
WHEREAS, on December 5, 1996, COMFLT amended its Statement of
Organization, renaming itself the "Coalition for a New Miami"; and
WHEREAS, the Supervisor of Elections of Metropolitan Dade County,
Florida (hereinafter "Elections Supervisor") certified that the PETITION
contained twenty thousand two hundred and thirty-six (20,236) signatures; and
WHEREAS, § 5.03 of the Home Rule Charter of Metropolitan Dade County
Florida (hereinafte_ "Dade 3-uni:y Charter") requires that at lsact ten percent
(10%-) of the total number of voters registered in the City sign a petition
before it can be certified to the City Commission for action; and
WHEREAS, § 99.097(1) and (2), Florida Statutes (1995), and Florida
Department of State Rule 1S-2.008 allow the Elections Supervisor to utilize
Random Sampling Procedures for Petition Signature verification in instances
where the number of Petition signatures submitted contain at least fifteen
percent (15t) more than the required number of signatures; and
WHEREAS, the Elections Supervisor, on January 7, 1997, certified that
the PETITION contained the valid signatures of at least ten percent (10*) of
r,
the registered voters in the City of Miami on the date the PETITION was
submitted; and
WHEREAS, Metropolitan Dade County, as a Home Rule Charter County, is
authorized by § 165.022, Florida Statutes (1995), and § 6(e), Art. VIII, of
the Florida .Constitution, to provide for the dissolution of municipalities
within its jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, said Section 5.03 of the Dade County Charter also provides,
inter alia, that any municipality in the county may revoke its Charter or
abolish its existence in a manner provided for therein; and
WHEREAS, said Section 5.03 also provides that the City Commission must
adopt a resolution submitting the question of abolition to the electorate no
later than one hundred twenty (120) days after certification of the PETITION;
and
WHEREAS, such an election must be held pursuant to said Section 5.03 not
less than sixty (60) nor more than one hundred twenty (120) days after
adoption of the aforementioned resolution by the City Commission; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission must make copies of the proposal available
to its electors at least thirty (30) days before such election; and
WHEREAS, the proposed question shall be submitted to the electorate at a
special municipal election on Thursday, September 4, 1997, as called for and
provided herein, and shall become effective upon approval by the electors;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI,
FLORIDA:
Section 1. The recitals and findings contained in the Preamble to this
Resolution are hereby adopted by reference thereto and incorporated herein as
if fully set forth in this Section.
Spction 2. in accordance with the provisions of the City of Miami
Charter (Chapter 10847, Laws of Florida, 1925, as amended) and § 5.03 of the
Metropolitan Dade County Home Rule Charter, a special municipal election is
hereby called and directed to be held in the City of Miami, Florida, from
7:00 a.m, until 7:00 p.m. on Thursday, September 4, 1997, for the purpose of
submitting to the qualified electors of the City of Miami, for their approval
or.disapproval, the following question:
"Shall the City of Miami retain its existence as a
municipality and not be abolished, effective
September 30, 1998, in accordance with Resolution
No. 97-330 which requires a proposal for the transfer
of municipal functions, services, responsibilities and
liabilities in the event of a favorable vote on
dissolution by the electorate."
Section 3. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to
prepare a proposal for the transfer of municipal functions, services,
responsibilities and liabilities, in the event of a favorable vote on the
municipal corporation's dissolution by the electorate.
Section 4. The City Manager is further directed to make the
aforementioned proposal available to the public for review not less than
thirty (30) days prior to the date of the subject special municipal election.
Section 5. Said special municipal election shall be held at the voting
places in the precincts designated, all as shown on the list attached hereto
and made a part hereof and referred to as Exhibit No. 1 or as may be
0
designated by the Supervisor of Elections of Metropolitan Dade County,
Florida, in conformity with the provisions of the general laws of the State.
The Precinct Election Clerks and Inspectors to serve at said polling places
on said :election date shall be those designated by the Supervisor of
Elections of. -Metropolitan Dade County, Florida, for such purpose in
accordance with the general laws of the State. A description of the
registration books and records which pertain to election precincts wholly or
partly within the City and which the City is hereby adopting and desires to
use for holding such special municipal election is as follows: all
registration cards, books, records and certificates pertaining to electors of
the; City of Miami and established and maintained as official by the
Supervisor of Elections of Metropolitan Dade County, Florida, in conformity
with the provisions of the general laws of the State of Florida, are hereby
adopted and declared to be, and shall hereafter be recognized and accepted
as, official registration cards, books, records and certificates of the City
of Miami.
Section 6. In compliance with Section 100.342, Florida Statutes (1995),
the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to publish notice of the
adoption of the herein resolution and of the provisions hereof, at• least
twice, once in the fifth week and once in the third week prior to the week in
which the aforesaid special municipal election is to be held, in newspaper(s)
of general circulation in the City of Miami, Florida, which notice shall be
substantially in the following form:
GuS��ry-
"NOTICE OF SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION
TO BE HELD ON
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 1997,
IN THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION NO. 97-330
A special municipal election will be held on Thursday,
September"" 4, 1997, from 7:00 A.M. until 7:00 P.M. in the City of
Miami, Florida, at the polling places in the several election
precincts designated by the Board of County Commissioners of Dade
County, Florida, as set forth herein, unless otherwise provided by
law, for the purpose of submitting to the qualified electors of
the City of Miami, Florida, the following question:
"Shall the City of Miami retain its existence as a
municipality and not be abolished, effective
September 30, 1998, in accordance with Resolution
No. 97-330 which requires a proposal for the transfer
of municipal functions, services, responsibilities and
liabilities in the event of a favorable vote on
dissolution by the electorate."
A proposal for the transfer of municipal functions,
services, responsibilities and liabilities, in the event of •a
favorable vote on dissolution by the electorate, shall be
available for public review at the office of the City Clerk, 3500
Pan American Drive, Miami, Florida 33133, not less than thirty
(30) days before the subject special Municipal Election.
By order of the Commission of the City of Miami, Florida.
CITY CLERK
A list of City of Miami polling places follows:
(Insert list of City of Miami Polling Places.)"
i
r � �
Section 7. The official ballot to be used at said election shall be in
full compliance with the laws of the State of Florida with respect to
absentee ballots and to the use of the mechanical voting machines or the
Computes= Election System (hereinafter 'ICES"), and shall be in substantially
the following -form, to wit:
"OFFICIAL BALLOT
SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 1997
FOR APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF
THE FOLLOWING QUESTION:
-------------------------------------------------------
Question regarding whether the City
of Miami," a Florida Municipal
Corporation, shall continue to
exist.
YES Shall the City of Miami retain
its existence as a municipality
and not be abolished, effective
September 30, 1998, in
accordance with Resolution
No. 97-330 which requires a
NO proposal for the transfer of
municipal functions, services,
responsibilities and liabilities
in the event of a favorable vote
on dissolution by the
electorate"?
Section S. Electors desiring to vote in approval of said Question
described above, shall be instructed to punch straight down with the stylus
through the hole next to the word "YES" within the ballot frame containing
the statement relating to said Question. Electors desiring to vote in
disapproval of said Question, shall be instructed to punch straight down with
the stylus through the hole next to the word "NO" within the ballot frame
containing the statement relating to said Question.
Section 9. The City Clerk shall cause to be prepared absentee ballots
containing the Question set forth in Section 6, above, for the use of
absentee electors entitled to cast such ballots in said election.
7 -
t ^y
Section 10. All qualified electors of said City shall be permitted to
vote in said special municipal election and the Supervisor of Election of
Metropolitan, Dade County, Florida, is hereby requested, authorized, and
directed.to furnish, at cost and expense of the City of Miami, a list of all
qualified electors residing in the City of Miami as shown by the registration
books and records of the Office of said Supervisor of Elections and duly
certify the same for delivery to and for use by the election officials
designated to serve at the respective polling places in said election
precincts.
Section 11."For the purpose of enabling persons to register who are
qualified to vote in said municipal election to be held on Thursday,
September 4, 1997, and who have not registered under the provisions of the
general laws of Florida and Chapter 16 of the Code of the City of Miami,
Florida, or who have transferred their legal residence from one voting
precinct to another in the City, they may register Monday through Friday,
from 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. at the Metropolitan Dade County Elections
Department located at 111 N.W. 1st Street, Miami, Florida, within such period
of time as may be designated by the Supervisor of Elections of Metropolitan
Dade County, Florida. In addition to the above place and times, qualified
persons may register at such branch offices and may also use any mobile
registration van for the purpose of registration in order to vote in the
herein described election during such times and on such dates as may be
designated by the Supervisor of Elections of Metropolitan Dade County,
Florida.
Section 12. WALTER J. FOEMAN,' the City Clerk of the City of Miami,
Florida, or his duly appointed successor, is hereby designated and appointed
as the official representative of the Commission of the City of Miami,
i
Florida, in all transactions with the Supervisor of Election of Metropolitan
'tq
1
Dade County, Florida, in relation to matters pertaining to the use of the
registration books and the holding of said special
municipal election.
Section 13. The City Clerk shall deliver
a certified copy of this
Resolution to the Supervisor of Elections of
Metropolitan Dade County,
Florida, not less than forty-five (45) days prior
to the date of the herein
special municipal election.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of
May 1997.
'
JOE CAROLLO, MAYOR
ATTEST:
WALTER J. FOEMAN
CITY CLERK
PREPARED AND REVIEWED BY:
� L EDWARD MAXWELL
/16
/ D UTY CITY ATTORN
APPROVED AS TO FORM
AND CORRECTNESS:
A. QU , I
CITY ATTORNE
V/Mis
W1552/JEM/BS
A
C
. n r, 4 n ,+
•
�
PYA29
Draft #1 For Discussion Purposes Only
Dissolution Plan for the City of Miami
Dated: July 24, 1997
I - Introduction
On May 7, 1997, the City Commission adopted Resolution No. 97-330 (copy attached),
which called for a special election to be held on Thursday, September 4, 1997, for the
electors of the City of Miami to approve or disapprove the question as to whether the City
of Miami shall retain its existence as a municipality and not be abolished. The effective
date of the City's dissolution shall be September 30, 1998, if so decided by the electorate.
Pursuant to the resolution, the City Manager was directed to prepare a proposal for the
transfer of municipal functions, services, responsibilities and liabilities, in the event of a
favorable vote on the municipal corporation's dissolution by the electorate. This proposal
(the "dissolution plan") must be presented to the electorate no later than 30 days prior to
the election. This document is the dissolution plan.
The City Commission and City Administration have fiduciary responsibilities to ensure
that the citizens, creditors, vendors and employees of the City of Miami are as protected
as can be during the dissolution process.
The default government -- that is, the government to provide municipal services to the
geographic area of Miami should it be dissolved -- is Metro -Dade County, specifically,
the Unincorporated Municipal Service Area (UMSA). Although UMSA will be there to
provide municipal services if the electorate votes to dissolve the City, it cannot under
existing law absorb and pass through to all of its citizens the costs associated with the
past liabilities of the Geographic Area Formerly Known as Miami (GAFKAM). That is
the reason why a Special Assessment Taxing District will be created to pay for, over
time, those outstanding liabilities existing at the time of. dissolution.
Logistically, in order to ensure that the dissolution of the City of Miami is done legally
correct and in an equitable fashion, and to guarantee that municipal services to the
GAFKAM are adequately provided, literally hundreds of decisions need to be made and
items addressed. It is for this reason that this dissolution plan addresses the liquidation of
broad classes of assets and liabilities and the transfer of certain distinct municipal
functions.
II - General Operating Parameters
A) Should the electorate vote to dissolve the City, all sections of the City Charter other
than Section 1 though Section 4, inclusive, shall be immediately suspended and the
City of Miami shall be otherwise operating pursuant to this document.
B) The current City Commission shall remain in place through September 30, 1998, to
serve -'as the board of directors of the municipal corporation to ensure a smooth
transition during the dissolution process.
C) All actions of the City Commission during this time frame shall be approved by the
State Financial Emergency Oversight Board.
D) The City Commission shalt appoint a professional Receiver who shall advise the City
Manager throughout the dissolution process as to the best business methods to
employ in the liquidation of assets and liabilities.
E) As further elaborated below, one or more trust estates may be created as the end of
business on September 30, 1998. Competent trustees shall be named by the City
Commission and the expenses of the trustees shall be paid out of such trust estates.
F) All decisions dealing with the disposition of assets shall be governed by the "prudent
person" doctrine.
G) The City Commission and City Administration shall work with their counterparts at
the County level to ensure a smooth transition of municipal functions to Metro -Dade
County.
H) Services by the City of Miami shall cease to exist as of September 30, 1998, unless it
can be accomplished prior to that time.
III - The Payment of Outstanding Long-term Liabilities
A) Long-term Bonded Debt
1) There currently exists an escrow agreement with First Union National Bank
(the "Escrow Agent") whereby First Union receives all debt service payments
from the City for ultimate dissemination to the appropriate Bond Trustee or
Bond Paying Agent. The duration of this escrow agreement shall be extended
to cover the life of all existing debt issues and the scope of the agreement shall
also be modified to provide for the payment of other long-term liabilities
(such as certain pension liabilities). All expenses of the Escrow Agent shall
rld
be paid for by excess interest earnings related to the temporary investment of
escrow proceeds.
2) The debt service millage associated with existing General Obligation debt
(outstanding amount = $170.65 Million at 9/30/96 and projected debt service
and millage of $20.13 Million and 1.92 mills for FY 1998, respectively) shalt
continue to be assessed on the GAFKAM for so long as the debt is
�- outstanding. The Dade County Tax Collector will be obligated to transmit the
proceeds of this debt service tax collection to the Escrow Agent in accordance
to its normal tax distribution procedures.
3) On an annual basis and in accordance to State budgetary laws, the Dade
County Commission shall approve a Special Tax Assessment assessed on the
GAFKAM to pay for the debt service associated with existing Special
Obligation and Revenue bonded debt (outstanding amounts of $228.32
Million and $60.21 Million, respectively, as of 9/30/96). The Dade County
Tax Collector will be obligated to transmit the proceeds of this debt service
tax collection to the Escrow Agent in accordance to its normal tax distribution
procedures.
B) Insurance Claims Outstanding
On an annual basis and in accordance to State budgetary laws, the Dade County
Commission shall approve a Special Tax Assessment assessed on the GAFKAM to pay
for the estimated insurance claims payable for the upcoming fiscal year associated with
the existing Workmen's Compensation, General Liability, Group, Accident, and Health
Claims Payable (Actuarially determined, discounted at a rate of 3%, and valued on
9/30/96 at $77.23 Million). The Dade County Tax Collector will be obligated to transmit
the proceeds of this special tax assessment collection to the Escrow Agent in accordance
to its normal tax distribution procedures.
C)_ Outstanding Pension Fund Liabilities
On an annual basis and in accordance to State budgetary laws, the Dade County
Commission shall approve a Special Tax Assessment assessed on the GAFKAM to pay
for the estimated General Employees and Sanitation Employees Pension System
("GESE") past service payment obligation as dictated by a court decision related to the
"Gate's Case." In keeping with the court's approved settlement, the valuation of the
annual special tax assessment shall take into account certain pension system investment
earnings, if any. As of September 30, 1996, the outstanding value of future payments
totaled approximately $150 Million with annual payments escalating from $12 Million to
$17 Million to be made over the next ten years. The Dade County Tax Collector will be
obligated to transmit the proceeds of this special tax assessment collection to the Escrow
Agent in accordance to its normal tax distribution procedures.
11 k.
i
IV- The Payment of Current Liabilities
A) Generally Sneaking
Current liabilities will be paid from current assets (cash, investments, incoming revenues,
etc. ) through the end of Fiscal Year 1998. The Receiver, to be named by the City
Commission, shall work with the City Manager to help smooth out the transition of
municipal services to the County with the intent of minimizing the negative fiscal
impacts on the City's vendors and the negative operational impacts on those services
being provided by the City during the transition period.
B) Compensated Absences
City employees are entitled to payments of certain vacation and sick leave benefits upon
separation from City service. As of September 30, 1996, the accumulated unpaid
compensation balance amount totaled $ 49.4 Million. As employees are either laid off or
transferred to the County, this amount becomes a current liability and must be provided
for from current assets. To the extent that current assets are not sufficient as of
September 30, 1998, to cover this liability, then the County Commission will be charged
with establishing a one-time Special Tax Assessment to be assessed against the
GAFKAM and due in early Fiscal Year 1999. The Dade County Tax Collector will be
obligated to transmit the proceeds of this special tax assessment collection to a Trust
Account to be established for this purpose in accordance to its normal tax distribution
procedures.
C) Excess Current Assets or Current Liabilities As of September 30, 1998
1) If, at the end of business of September 30, 1998, there exist excess current
monetary assets belonging to the City of Miami, these assets shall be turned
over to the Escrow Agent so that it may serve to reduce the annual Special
Tax Assessment to be assessed against the GAFKAM.
2) If by July 1, 1998, it is projected that there will be an excess of current
liabilities over current assets as of September 30, 1998, the County
Commission will be charged with establishing a one-time Special Tax
Assessment to be assessed against the GAFKAM and due in early Fiscal Year
1999. The Dade County Tax Collector will be obligated to transmit the
proceeds of this special tax assessment collection to a Trust Account to be
established for this purpose, in accordance to its normal tax distribution
procedures.
4
• It
ti��;
V - The Disposition of Long -Term Assets
A) Real Estate Holdings that are under Lease with Third Parties
1) These properties shall be transferred to and managed by Metro -Dade County
pursuant to a Trust arrangement. All proceeds, net of reasonable management
expenses, from these lease agreements shall be transferred to the Escrow
Agent for either direct debt service payments or for the funding of a
defeasence account to liquidate long-term debt -- both of which serve to
reduce the annual Special Tax Assessment to be assessed against the
GAFKAM.
2) Whenever a lease terminates, the subject property shall be transferred by the
County to be sold pursuant to the arrangements contemplated by section "V-
B" below.
B) Real Estate Holdings that not under Lease with Third Parties (other than Parks),
1) Arrangements, primarily through the Receiver, shall be made to liquidate
these properties, in a business -like manner and not on a "fire -sale" basis, in
order to maximize the sale proceeds that can be generated and deposited with
the Escrow Agent for either direct debt service payments or for the funding of
a defeasance account to liquidate long-term debt -- both of which serve to
reduce the annual Special Tax Assessment to be assessed against the
GAFKAM.
2) If the FECBicentennial property is not under lease to the County, as of
September 4, 1997, then it will not be sold but rather transferred, in Trust, to
the Friends of Bayside Inc., or some other similar non-profit organization, to
be maintained as a community park in perpetuity for the benefit of the citizens
of the GAFKAM.
C) City Parks
During the course of Fiscal Year 1998, the City Commission shall, on a case -by -case
basis, determine whether individual parks shall be transferred to Dade County to be
operated and maintained as park land or to be sold pursuant to section "V - B" above.
D) Other Long-term Assets
All other long-term assets, e.g. rolling stock, equipment, art work etc., of the City shall be
disposed of in a business -like manner and not on a "fire -sale" basis through arrangements
recommended by the Receiver, in order to maximize the sale proceeds that can be
generated and deposited with the Escrow Agent for either direct debt service payments or
r }4
Y
for the funding of a defeasence account to liquidate long-term debt -- both of which serve
{ to reduce the annual Special Tax Assessment to be assessed against the GAFKAM.
1
VI - Transfer of Municipal Services to Dade County
A) Effective Dates of Transfers
Effective September 30, 1998, all municipal services provided by the City of Miami shall
cease. If prior to that date it is practical to transfer certain functions to Metro -Dade and it
makes good business sense to do so, it may be accomplished by City Commission action.
B) Transfer of Employees and Pension System Participation
It is solely the decision of Metro -Dade County whether to transfer, hire, or otherwise
retain City employees for those functions transferred to the County. Likewise, it is the
County's sole decision as to whether to allow the employees who are transferred, hired,
or otherwise retained to continue to participate under their pension plans or to require
participation under the Florida Retirement System.
i
C) Expectations as to Levels of Service After Transfer of Functions to Metro -Dade
1) Solid Waste
Citizens living within the GAFKAM can expect to pay the County's uniform rate
of $349 per household annually and receive services similar to that provided to
the unicorporated areas of the County.
2) Police and Fire Services and NET offices
j The City of Miami provides a much higher level of service for these functions
than that provided in the unincorporated areas of the County primarily due to the
density of the City. After the dissolution of the City, citizens living within the
GAFKAM can expect to either receive a lower level of service for these functions
or to pay an additional Special Tax Assessment (over and above the normal
UMSA operating millage) for a level of service which is different than what the
County provides in the unincorporated areas of the County.
3) All Other Municipal Functions
Metro -Dade County will have sole discretion to determine which functions shall
be provided and what level of service shall be maintained.
n
a;�
A
MEMORANDUM
107.07-17A uvAo*AoEoosAAmt. mat L.
TO: Mayor's Select Committee
on the City of Miami
FROWArmando Vidal,
County Manage k�g -
DATE: July 9, 1997
SUBJECT: Attached Update Report
The attached informational report, which was requested by the Chair of the Mayor's
Select Committee on the City of Miami, is provided for your review.
Attachment
CMO/16397
MEMORANDUM
107,07.17A uc rrq t )A 0EM—Af. uar
Armando Vidal, P.E. July 9, 1997
TO: County Manager DATE:
SUBJECT: Update Report on City of
Miami Dissolution
FROM:Stephen M. Spratt, Director
Office of Management and Budget
This report is in response to a request from the Chair of the Mayor's Select Committee
on the City of Miami.
As the Select Committee was informed at your January 31, 1997 meeting, it is not
possible, to accurately report the potential.impacts of abolishing the City of Miami until
the City has drafted and approved a proposal for City dissolution for voter
consideration. As of this writing, we are advised that the City has not drafted
dissolution proposal language. Based on conversations with City staff, such language
is expected to be drafted as early as this week but no later than the end of July.
As we have said repeatedly, there are answers to numerous questions which are
essential to any thorough understanding of the impacts of abolishing the City of Miami.
My report of January 31, 1997 to the Select Committee is attached for your reference.
This report outlines the many critical questions regarding the abolition of the City of
Miami which cannot be adequately answered until the City's dissolution proposal
language is drafted. In the meantime, in order to provide preliminary information to the
Select Committee and to assist in putting abolition issues in perspective, the following
analysis is provided.
At this time certain information is known, including:
• If the City voters approve dissolution of the City of Miami, unless the dissolution
proposal has language to the contrary, the Board of County Commissioners would
become the governing body of the territory within the dissolved city boundaries
• The Board must "provide for the acquisition or transfer of property, the payment,
assumption, or other satisfaction of the debts, and the protection of pension rights
of affected employees of any governmental unit which is merged, consolidated, or
abolished or whose boundaries are changed or functions or powers
transferred"... --Section 1.01(C), Dade County Home Rule Charter
• The County is not obligated to hire current city employees, though it may decide
to hire city workers as necessary under County terms and conditions
0
Armando Vidal, P.E.
County Manager
Page 2
• Unless the dissolution proposal has language to the contrary, all City assets will
become County assets (land, buildings, etc.). Assets shifting to the County from
the City may be retained by the County to provide services, or sold on a case by
case basis, as appropriate, to help defray selected liabilities of the City
• Taxpayers outside of the city limits cannot be taxed to pay the debt of a dissolved
government unless they share in the benefit for which the debt was incurred
• The County would not be bound by the City collective bargaining agreements,
civil service rules or other administrative procedures
• Unless the dissolution proposal has language which would lead to the contrary, it
appears possible that dissolution of the City of Miami could lead to the need for
an unincorporated municipal service area tax increase, though such an increase
cannot be quantified without a determination of service levels to be provided in
both the current Unincorporated Municipal Service Area (UMSA) and City areas,
as well as through any proprietary operations or special taxing districts.
• Unless the dissolution proposal has language which would lead to the contrary
and assuming the waste collection service is operated as a proprietary entity as is
the County's practice, it appears likely that dissolution of the City of Miami would'
lead to an increase in solid waste collection charges in what is currently the City
of Miami. Any increase to the solid waste collection fee or any related decrease
to the municipal operating millage within what is currently the City of Miami cannot
be quantified without a determination of service levels and substantial amount of
additional analysis
Summary Service Impact Assessment
Prior to analyzing the City's abolition proposal, some preliminary service delivery
impact assessments can be made for major City services. They are outlined succinctly
below. However, since we do not have a final City budget for this fiscal year and since
the City has not completed its FY 1997-98 Proposed Budget, service comparisons are
extremely difficult to make and are subject to modification. Also, for purposes of this
analysis it is assumed that all outstanding obligations of the City, whether related to
bonded indebtedness, insurance liabilities, contracts or other legal obligations, will be
paid by property owners residing in what is currently the City of Miami through a special
taxing district -type funding approach or through the liquidation of current City of Miami
assets, to the extent permissible by law.
Solid Waste Collection Service
The City of Miami solid waste collection service is delivered and funded differently than
the waste collection service Metro -Dade provides in the unincorporated area. The City
currently provides twice weekly curbside garbage and separate weekly trash pickup as
`b �ScuS&�--
R
Armando Vidal, P.E.
County Manager
Page 3
well as curbside recycling service. Consequently, the City has no Trash and Recycling
Centers. The City charges $160 per year for waste collection service for a single family
residential unit (plus a $6 administrative processing fee). According to the Strategic
Financial Recovery Plan submitted to the Mayor and City Commission on November
15, 1996, the cost of providing waste collection services is approximately double the
$160 fee level. The balance of funding is provided from the discretionary or
quasi -discretionary revenues of the City including general and stormwater utility
revenue.
Alternatively, the County provides in the waste collection service area (the majority of
unincorporated Dade County, Sweetwater, Aventura and Pinecrest) twice weekly
combined residential trash and garbage service, with trash limited to five cubic yards of
bagged, bundled or containerized material. Weekly curbside recycling collection is
also provided through a private provider. The County also has a network of
approximately 15 Trash and Recycling (T&R) Centers where citizens can discard large
volumes of trash or bulky waste items unsuitable for curbside pickup. In addition,
residents are allowed one free residential bulky waste pickup per year. The annual fee
for these services is $349 per year for single family residences.
In the event of City dissolution, in order to ensure a uniform service to all residents in .'
the waste service area, it would be most appropriate that the County provide the same
level of waste collection services in the area which was previously the City of Miami as
is provided in the rest of the County's waste collection service area. Up to two
additional T&R Centers would have to be sited and built in the City. Under this
scenario, current City residents would pay the same $349 per year for waste collection
service as do all other households in the County's waste collection service area.
Police Service
Police service provided in the City of Miami is different than that provided throughout
unincorporated Dade County. The City of Miami is a heavily developed, dense area
with a population of 358,548 concentrated in an area of only 36 square miles. It also
supports a large daytime commuting population in its high employment centers. The
City of Miami has some of the poorest and highest crime areas in all of Dade County. It
is one of the poorest cities in America with one of the highest crime rates. The City of
Miami provides more community oriented policing from stations coinciding with
Neighborhood Enhancement Team (NET) area boundaries to provide more
concentrated, proactive policing.
The unincorporated area, with a population of approximately 1.1 million and a
geographic area inside the urban development boundary. of. 280 square miles could -not
receive such concentrated police service as is provided in the City of Miami without a
substantial increase in cost. The attached report, which was prepared in June of 1996
and is based on FY 1995-96 budget data, provides comparative information for a
number of municipal services. Based on the City and County budgets, the City of
� st>uSSsLo-z
,7�
v 2:
I
Armando Vidal, P.E.
j County Manager
j Page 4
Miami total police staffing per 100,000 population in FY 1995-96 was almost 25 percent
higher than the County's police staffing (335 positions per 100,000 population in
unincorporated Dade as compared to 418 positions per 100,000 population in Miami).
Sworn staff per 1,000 population was 3.0 in the City of Miami versus 2.5 in the
unincorporated area. It should be noted that crimes per 1,000 population were 31
percent higher in the City of Miami than in the unincorporated area.
In the event the City of Miami is abolished one of three possible scenarios would
appear to exist for police services in the geographic area of Miami:
1. Police services would be reduced to the level provided throughout
unincorporated Dade
2. Unincorporated area tax rates would be increased to provide for the higher level
of police service in the geographic area of Miami. It should be pointed out that
differential service levels are permissible and provided by municipalities,
including UMSA, for local services provided based on operational requirements
3. A special taxing district -type funding approach coinciding with current City of
Miami boundaries would be developed to fund the differential cost of providing
the current level of police service to City residents
We would need policy guidance on this matter before more detailed financial analysis
can be completed.
Fire Rescue Services
The issues surrounding fire rescue service are similar to those involving police
services. Due to its density, the City had more fire rescue personnel per 100,000
population than the County (1.9 versus 1.1 positions per 100,000 population). Due to
this higher staffing together with its smaller geographic area, response times in the City
were slightly better than in the Metro -Dade Fire and Rescue Service District (4.5
minutes vs. 5.5 minutes). In the event of City dissolution the possible service delivery
and funding scenarios for fire rescue service are the same as for police services.
Other Major Municipal Services,
It is difficult to determine the service implications that the abolition of the City of Miami
would have on public works and park and recreation services. In the case of public
works (primarily local street, sidewalk and right-of-way maintenance), per capita
spending is higher in the unincorporated area, however, the budget per lane mile of
roadway is higher in the City of Miami., A significant factor in- maintenance costs of
roadway infrastructure is the age and condition of roadways.
Armando Vidal, P.E.
County Manager
Page 5
In the case of Park and Recreation, the City of Miami budgeted more funding than the
County did in unincorporated Dade on a per capita basis ($32 vs. $24), had more staff
per 100,000 population (46 vs. 33) and more acres of park per 100,000 population (5
vs. 3) than the County. The County did, however, budget more funding per acre of park
than Miami ($9,061 vs. $6,779).
The City has_13 NET offices for an area of 36 square miles (one office per 2.8 square
miles and per 27,581 residents on average), while unincorporated Dade has seven
Team Metro offices serving an area of 280 square miles (one office per 40 square miles
and per 146,867 unincorporated area residents on average). Abolition of the City of
Miami will necessitate a complete reassessment of the NET concept and, as was the
case with police and fire, the consideration of the three potential funding and service
delivery scenarios discussed earlier.
Building and Zoning services are fee supported and should not be substantially
impacted with City abolition except that fees and charges for services may have to be
adjusted.
Conclusion
Far more data is required from the City in order to do a thorough, accurate comparison
of City and County municipal services and to estimate the fiscal effects of abolishing
the City of Miami. This information must also be accompanied with appropriate policy
guidance as to service level assumptions. It is clear that major City services, including
police, fire, NET and solid waste collection are provided at a higher service level and at
a higher cost in the City than similar services are provided in unincorporated Dade.
With dissolution of the City, these services could either be 1) reduced to current
unincorporated area service levels, 2) funded through a combination of unincorporated
areas taxes and a special tax district -type funding approach assessed exclusively on
property owners in the geographic area which is currently the City of Miami to preserve
current City service levels, or 3) funded at a differential level relative to the rest of
unincorporated Dade through unincorporated area tax increases.
Attachments
SMS/07397
�1 SU�I S4cd1-�
9
}
i
MEMORANDUM
107.07.17A uvmoo.orlysauo not
T O : Honorable Chairperson and Members, DATE: rune 25, 1996
Board of County Commissioners
SUBJECT:
Comparative Study of City of
Miami and Dade County
FROM: Armando Vidal, P.E.
County Mansge�o /
Background
Resolution R-269-96 directed the County "to perform a comparative study of the fiscal
parameters and service level delivery parameters of the City of Miami and Dade County in relation
to their respective geographic boundaries." The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and
the Department of Planning, Development and Regulation (PDR), as requested, have' completed a
draft of this study. It is attached for your review. The report was delayed primarily due to
difficulty in obtaining and trying to verify certain data.
It should be noted that comparative studies of this nature can be informative and useful for botli
policy and management decision makers, but inevitably there are questions about the validity of
some of the comparisons and the relevance of some of the findings. It is always difficult to
accurately compare two jurisdictions even if they are the same size. There are just too many
variables to take into account. These may include different budget and service priorities;
allocation of certain revenues; unusual service demands and unique service needs; and charter
requirements.
Finally, as I have mentioned in the past, the County is working with the International City/County
Managers Association (ICMA), the Urban Institute and a number of other local governments in
trying to create national performance measurement standards for local government services. This
project is in its second year. The measurement problems related to comparability have been
difficult but may be resolved to a great extent by the end of this year. This will provide us with a
substantial data base of comparative measures that we will be able to use as part of our
management and budget process to improve our own service delivery. I will issue a report on this
important project later this year.
Introduction
This report compares the Unincorporated Municipal Services Area (UMSA) and Fire Rescue
Services District -(Fire District) -with and the City of Miami on services generally provided by all
municipal governments and supported for the most part with general revenues, with two
exceptions, building and zoning and solid waste collection. Accordingly, County data come from
UMSA and Fire District services and budgets and similar services in Miami. Unique proprietary .,
operations, such as convention centers and stadiums, were not reviewed and neither were certain
fiscal parameters. The items not addressed are discussed briefly in the section on method 6tM
1
Summary of Findings
Figures 1 and 2 summarize fiscal and budget related comparisons between Miami and the County.
Figure 3 compares general revenue by source for the two jurisdictions. Summary demographic
information as well as fiscal and budget related comparisons are highlighted in the following bullet
statements. ' w
• Miami has a greater percentage of Hispanics and Blacks, is older, poorer in terms of
property tax per capita and personal income, has a greater percentage of households living
in poverty, and has a higher unemployment rate than unincorporated Dade County.
• Miami raises 19 percent more per capita general revenue than the County (UMSA/Fire
District). (This comparison did notyadjust for.-Jifferent budget approaches to general
revenues.)
• Miami residents pay almost 75 percent more in property taxes on a per capita basis for
general services than residents of Dade County (UMSA/Fire District). (This domparison
did not adjust for differences in treatment of certain fee supported services such as solid
waste, which is supplemented by general revenues in Miami)
• The per capita voted debt is 61 percent higher in Miami than in UMSA/Fire District ($64
vs. $39). All $39 of County debt in this comparison is for the Fire District. There is no
voted bond debt in UMSA.
• UMSA spends more per capita for public works, waste collection, building, zoning and
planning than Miami, based on unconfirmed data in budget documents.
Figure 1: Per Capita Fiscal Data
City of Miami and Dade County UMSA/Fire District
IPV General Revenues Property Taxes Voted Debt
0 Miami ® UMSA/Fire District
Source: 1995.96 Budgets and Annual Financial Reports.
Computations by OMB.
•
0
Figure 2: Per Capita Operating Budgets
City of Miami and Dade County UMSA/Fire District
$300
$250
$200
$150
$100
$50
$0
0A
C�
❑ Miami 0 UMSA/Fire District
Source: FY 1995.96 Budgets; OMB catsutations.
• Miami spends more per capita for police, fire, parks, non -departmental and general
government services than UMSA/Fire District, based on unconfirmed data in budget
documents.
• From the general revenue chart (Figure 3) one can see that the major difference in revenue
is that Miami relies far more on property taxes than does Dade for its municipal general
Figure 3: Per Capita General Revenues for Dade County
(UMSA/Fire District) and the City of Miami
$600
$500
$400
$300
$200
$100
$0 r r
UMSA/Fire District
Source: 1995-96 Budgets
■ Permits and Licenses
❑ Charges/Fines/Forfeitures
Carryover
® Other
® Franchise Fee
® Revenue Sharing
M Sales Tax
® Utility Tax
❑ Property Tax
Miami
I A
3 � +
t
revenue, and Dade shows a higher utility tax per capita figure than Miami. Miami does
not budget 100 percent of its utility tax for general revenue purposes; of the $33.4 million
budgeted in Miami, $17.9 million is for general revenues, $3.9 million is transferred to
enterprise operations, $5.6 million to internal service funds and the balance for debt
service.
Selected service measure data are summarized in the following charts and highlighted in the
following bullets:
• Crime measures are higher in Miami
than in UMSA, reflected in Figure Figure 4: Selected Police Service Measures
4, showing crimes per 1,000 City of Miami and Dade County (UMSA)
population in Miami t6taling 198 60O 418
and in the County 151, a 31 percent
difference; Miami's police staffing 90o
per 100,000 population is almost 25 2oo 19B tst
percent higher than the County's. too , y _E'i .
• Fire rescue workload measures per
staff are similar in Miami and the
Fire District, but Miami has 1.9 staff
per 1,000 population compared to
the Fire District's 1.1 per 1,000
population. Residents of Miami pay the
equivalent of 3.57 mills on property for
fire rescue services as compared to the
Fire District millage of 2.518.
(Equivalent millage computed by
dividing the Miami fire budget, less
generated revenue, by the property tax
base times 95%.)
• The County spends more per capita for
UMSA public works than Miami, but
has fewer staff per 100,000 population
(this comparison does not factor in
contract employees); the public works
budget perlaae mile is higher in Miami
than the County ($1,675 vs. $1,136).
• Figure 7 shows the tons of waste
collected per 1,000 population with only
a 16 percent difference between the two
jurisdictions. The fees collected are
substantially different. The County
charges $349 per household, the City
$160; however, the City subsidizes its
0
Staff per 100,000 Crimea per 1,OOo
O Miami 0 UMSA
Savor, 1IISq Buyw. Ftr.i Ogrlmr. a lar Ertra.M
a— w.. lm.
120
100
ao
60
40
20
0
Figure 5: Selected Fire Rescue Measures
City of Miami and Dade County Fire District
Soft per 1.000 pop.
sa,aoe cv1166aat11ee1a
2s
20
1s
to
statla"per 100.000 Alarms per start
❑ Miami III District
Figure 6: Public Works Measures
City of Miami and Dade County (UMSA)
Per capita budget stannon,nno!ap
❑ Miami G UMSA
sales: Sfa&" &• .nl k*mraM can HtlC Ma.a.
waste budget with other revenues. The
$160 fee does not cover all costs of
residential waste collection. An equivalent 700
fully burdened fee for Miami was not
calculated. Based upon budget documents, 400
the per capita budget in Miami is 53 300
percentlower than UMSA ($45 vs. $95). 200
'00
• The City has more parks staff per 100,000 o
Figure 7: Solid Waste
Tons per 1,000 Population
population and more acres per 1,000 o Miami m UMSA
population than UMSA S""'T"""'°°"`°'�"�"• "��"�'°�^'"
• General government comparisons Figure 9: Parks
generally show the County to be so City of Miami and Dade County (UMSA)
jsubstantially lower in per capita cost so 40
and staffing per 100,000 population. 4e
Departmental figures do not adjust for • so ss
i differences in budget treatment 29
�,.
between the two governments. 10?�'' s
Staff 1100,000 pop. Acre+ per 1,000 pop.
❑ Miami d UMSA
ftsa : FY 1a1614 R." rd Mlstnft 0 F\ftf rat N,oa,aal.
Figure 10: General Government Fiscal Measures
Cori per Capita
s12
10.58
$10 911 e,7,
8,19
$6 7.50
$e s.s9
$4 3A2
2.40 L82
$2 2031.72 2-03, 72 1.10 1•� 9,
$0
❑ Miami M UMSA].
Figure 11: General Government Staff per 100,000 Population
25
20.4
20
15 12.e 12.e
11.2
10 e.a e.1
7.7
5 �F 4.5 4.3 ;i
1.7 t.e 6 FL
o.e
u
oo holl
?d 1 Mtd00 C�P�
❑ Miami M UMSA
SoLffoo: FY 19954e &,apata
5
aa�Y•�1�
Methodology
The purpose of this study was to compare fiscal and service delivery parameters of the City of
Miami and Dade County. The study focused on municipal services funded primarily by general
revenues and in two cases by user fees -- solid waste collection and building and zoning. Fiscal
parameters include such things as tax base, revenues, and debt. These data were obtained from
the jurisdiction's current year budget figures as reported in their respective proposed budgets for
1995-96, the latest financial reports from each government, and through research by county
departments providing these services.
Since municipal services were- the focus of the study, all data for the County came from UMSA
and the Fire District budgets and service parameters, which.v•over all of -the unincorporated area
as well as 24 cities for the Fire District. With the exception of waste collection and building and
zoning operations, which are funded primarily by user fees, no review was made of proprietary
operations such as the City's convention bureau, stadiums and marinas nor similar services in the
County.
In determining UMSA staffing levels for departments that provide both countywide and UMSA
services, a proration of staff based on the ratio of countywide to UMSA budgets was used. For.
example, support departments were budgeted at 34 percent for unincorporated area services and
66 percent for countywide services for FY 1995-96. Thus, the Employee Relations Department
with a total budget of $8 million and 137 positions shows an unincorporated budget of $2.7
million (34 percent of $8 million) and unincorporated area staffing of 47 positions (34 percent of
137 positions).
With fire rescue data, all figures, including population, reflect the Fire District, not just the
unincorporated area, and exclude air rescue, trauma and emergency management, which are
countywide functions and not functions of the Fire District.
Other fiscal data, including unpaid leave and pension liability, non -ad valorem backed bonds, most
enterprise and fiduciary funds, and capital budgets, were not analyzed due to time limitations.
Several methods were used to enable reasonable comparisons of these two jurisdictions, which are
substantially different in population, geographic boundaries and budgets. For cost data, the per
capita method was employed, that is dividing the budget for a particular service by the population
of the jurisdictidAA- '-get a measure that can be used for order of magnitude comparisons of
jurisdictions with dissimilar populations. This method does not adjust for differences in the way
functions are budgeted and also does not address such important issues such as quality or quantity
of services provided; it merely allows cost related comparisons between jurisdictions of different
sizes for specific functions. A second technique used various measures for population sizes, such
as staff per 100,000 population or acres of parks per 1,000 population. These measures also
allow some normalization in comparing data from jurisdictions of different sizes. Where standard
performance measurements were available, such as the crime index, these were used in the study.
� ISuASuoi-
6 9�ia -
W
This comparative study does not reflect the differences in the way municipal services are
delivered. Jurisdictions have different priorities, needs, service demands and physical
environments. These factors do affect the level and quality of services provided to the public and
to varying extent are not captured with methods such as per capita costs.
Demographic Comparisons
The City of Miami and UMSA reflect different demographic characteristics. Table 1 on the next
page summarizes a number of these characteristics. First, the population of the UMSA is
considerably larger than Miami's, about 3 times larger. However, due to Miami's center city
status, attracting workers and -visitors, the day time population of Miami may be higher by 50,000
to 100,000 than theocenstu population, but this may also be true for the unincorporated area, since
there are substantial employment centers there as well; thus no attempt was made to adjust data
for differing day time populations. As can be Seen in the chart below, Miami has more Hispanic
and Black mix in its population than the UMSA. The City of Miami's political boundaries
encompass 36 square miles; the UMSA boundaries cover 1,900 square miles with approximately
280 being within the urban development boundary (UDB), a more relevant boundary used for
some of the comparisons made in this study.
120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Figure 12: Population by Ethnic Origin
Percent of Total
nntami UIVI%jn
0 Hispanic ® Black ® Non -Hispanic White
Source: Dade County Facts, July 1995, Department of Planning, Development
and Regulation
Miami is far more densely populated than the UMSA with over 10,000 people per square mile to
the UMSA density of 3,672 per square mile. It is generally thought to be less expensive to serve
a more densely populated area than a less densely populated one, although Miami's daytime
1
Table 1: Demographic Comparisons
Characteristics
City of
Miami
Unincorporated
Dade
Percent
Difference
City to County
Population Total
Hispanic
Black
Non -Hispanic White
358,548
223,964
98,207
36,377
1,028.071
426,225
238,340
363,506
186.7%
90.3%
142.7%
899.3%
Percent of Population _
His anic
Black
Non -Hispanic White
62%
27%
10 ° �o
41 %
2_3%
- - 35%
-33.6%
-15.4%
248.5%
Persons Under 18 __-�_
F_'e_ rcent of_Po illation
82,495
268,184
26%
225.1%
13.4%
23%
Persons Over 65
59,347
112,E.22
- 9_9.8%�
Percent of Population
_
17%
_
11%
-33.8%
Square Miles UMSA within UBD
36
280
686.5%
Population per Square Mile
10,072
3,672
-63.5%
Median Age UMSA County avg.)
36
34
-5.6%
Personal Income per Capita
$9,799
$14,756
50.6%
Total Households
130,252
349,245
168.1 %
Number of Households in Poverty
40,104
42,390
5.7%
Percent of Households in Poverty
30.8%
12.1 %
-60.6%
Housing Units
144,550
384,515
166.0%
Vacancy Rate
9.9%
9.2%
-7.3%
Population per Housing Unit
2.5
2.7
7.8%
Percent Unemployment
11.0%
6.6%
-40.0%
Sources: U.S. Census 1990; Dade County Facts, July 1995, Planning, Regulation and Development
Departmen
Table 2: Fiscal Comparisons
Parameters
City of
Miami
Unincorporated
Dade
Percent
Difference
City to County
Value of Tax Roll 1995 000 +
$11,204,458
$39,740,000
254.7%
Tax Roll per Capita *
$31,250
$38,655
23.7%
General Revenues (000)
General Revenues per Capita
$195,369
$531
$425,417
$446
117.8%
-15.9%
Municipal Milla a Rates with Debt Service
11.7595
4.7850
-59.3%
Property Tax ---venues (000)
Property Tax Revenues per Capita
$111.900
$312
$199,616
$194
78.4%
-37.8%
Long Te_ rm Debt (GOB) (UMSA Fire) (000_L
^
$22,794
$48,970
114.8%
% Debt of Tax Roll
0.20%
-39.4%
Per Capita Debt
_
$64
_0_.12%
_ $39
-38.3%
General Revenue -Supported
o Expenditures per Capita
m o Eto ees ar.1 000 Po ulation
$_ 531
$446
_ -16.0%
Sources: 1995-96 Proposed Operating Budgets for City of Miami and Metro -Dade County
and calculations by OMB. Property tax figures for Dade Include both the unincorporated area and Fire District.
+ UMSA tax roll and population were not adjusted for incorporations that occurred after the budget was complet
UMSA only, Including valuelpopulation outside UDB. Other per capita calculations for Dade were adjusted ,
for different populations In UMSA and Fire Rescue District.
8
�k7
1
population, particularly the number that work for organizations in non-taxable property, may
increase the cost of providing services in the citywithout a corresponding tax revenue. (Thus
study does not address this issue.)
Miami is also poorer than UMSA as measured by personal income per capita ($9,799 vs.
$14,756), households in poverty (31 percent vs. 12 percent) and unemployment (11 percent vs.
6.6 percent). Miami residents also appear to be slightly older with 17 percent of its population
older than 65 compared to the UMSA figure of 11 percent.
Fiscal Comparisons
Table 2 summarizes overall fiscal data for the two jurisdictions. While the population of UMSA
is 187 percent larger than the City of Miami's, UMSA's tax roll value is247 percent larger. This
is also reflected partially in the per capita tax roll of $37,833 for the UMSA and $31,250 for the
City of Miami. If the UMSA per capita tax roll'figure were limited to properties within the UDB
only, UMSA's per capita figure would drop to around $31,000 -- about the same figure as
i Miami's.
I
With its millage rate of 11.7595 (operating and debt), the City of Miami raises approximately
$112 million in property taxes for its municipal services (police, fire, parks, public works,
planning, general government and debt). UMSA raises almost $200 million in property taxes with
its combined UMSA and Fire District operating and debt millage total of 4.785.
I
Overall general revenues per capita, supporting the basic mix of services listed above show
Miami's figure at $531 and the combined UMSA/Fire figure of $446 per capita. The UMSA/Fire
figure is about 16 percent less than the Miami figure. The lower spending figure per capita for
4 UMSA is also reflected in the number of employees per 1,000 population. Miami has 7.5
employees per 1,000 population and UMSA/Fire has 5.4, 28 percent less. Employee figures were
examined for each service discussed below.
Finally, Tables 3 and 4 show general revenue supported budgets for each service as well as per
capita amounts by service for both jurisdictions.
Police
Table 5 summarize"spolice service level parameters for Miami and UMSA. Again, population
serviced and square miles are substantially different. While UMSA's population is 187 percent
larger than Miami's, its police budget is 162 percent larger. Per capita police expenditures are
slightly higher in Miami ($258) versus UMSA ($236), and the sworn per 1,000 population figure
is also higher in Miami than UMSA (3 vs. 2.5) Miami also has more staff per 100,000 population
than UMSA (418 versus 335) and dispatches more calls (632,876 vs. 557,018). UMSA's crime
index (12,125) is 25 percent lower than Miami's (16,189). Miami also has more crimes per 1,000
population than UMSA (198 to 151). Metro -Dade also has a higher clearance rate for both part 1
and part 2 crimes than Miami's.
9 �4
Table.3: —EY• 1995-96:.0perating Budgets Supported by General Revenues _
(Dollars in 1,000)
Percent
City of
Unincorporated /
Difference
Service
Miami
Fire Dade
City to Count
Police
$92,604
$242,842
162.2%
Fire Rescue - -
48,419
137,843
184.7%
Public Works
2,178
8,858
306.7%
Park and Recreation
11,439
24,302
112.4%
Non -departmental
17,761
16,804
-5.4%
General Government
21,5751
27,4141
27.1%
Total 1
$193,9761
$458,0631
136.1 %
Sources: City and County or000sed budgets for FY 1995-96_
Table 4: FY 1995-96 General Revenue Operating Budgets Per Capita
Percent
City of
Unincorporated /
Difference
Service
Miami
Fire Dade
City to Count
Police
$258
$236
-8.5%
Fire Rescue
135
111
-17.8%
Public Works
6
9
41.8%
Park and Recreation
32
24
-25.9%
Non -departmental
50
16
-67.0%
General Government
60
27
-55.7%
Total
$531
$446
-15.9%
Source: City and Countv or000sed budaets for FY 1995-96:
calculatlons by nadA MR
10
.4
Table 5: Police Services
Percent
City of
Unincorporated
Difference
Parameters
Miami
Dade
City to County
Population served
358,548
1,028.071
186.7%
Square miles served (UMSA UDB)
36
280
686.5%
FY 95-96 budget 000
$92,604
$242,842
162.2%
Total staff
1,500
3.441
129.4%
1,077
2,566
Civilian
423
875
__... .-138,3%._
Percent Sworn
- 72%
75"%
Per capita expenditures
$258
$236
-8.5%
Sworn per 1,000
3.0
2.5
-16.9%
Total staff per 100,000
418
335
-20.0%
Total calls dispatched
632,876
557.018
-12.0%
Total calls received
1.240.000
2,111,811
70.3%
Total case numbers issued
380,772
637.767
67.5%
61-6 of sworn assigned to patrol
43%
38%
-12.6%
Major Crime Index per 100,000 Population_
_ _16,189
_- 12_125
_25.1 %
-
---- 118.2%
Total Crimes
71,079
155,115
Part 1
59,170
--- 130,812
121.1%
Part 2
11,909
24.303
104.1 0
Crimes per 1.000_ pulation_Total_-
198
151
-23.9%
Part 1
165
127
-22.9%
Part 2
33
24
-28.8%
Crimes Cleared
_...__.. _.58.9%
Part 1
12.4%
19.7%
Part 2
- 43.4%
76.6%
- - 76.5%
Cost er'--att 1 crime cleared
-- - - $9,423
-25.3%
$12.621
Number of arrests
35.509
54,635
53.9%
Juvenile arrests
3,613
8,357
131.3%
% of total arrests
15.3%
10.2%
50.3%
Cost per call dispatched
$146
$436
198.0%
Cost per part 1 and 2 crimes cleared
$7,405
$5,471
-26.1 %
Cost per total calls
$75
$115
54.0%
Cost per arrest
$2 608
$4 445
70.4%
Sources: 1995-96 proposed budgets; Florida Department of Law tnforcement t;nme uata, i vaa,
Department information; calculations by OMB.
Table 6: Fire Rescue Services *
Parameters
City of
Miami
Fire Rescue
District
Percent
Difference
City to County
Population served
358,548
1,248,958
248.3%
Square miles served UDB+cites in District)
36
337
845.8%.
FY 95-96 budget 000
48,418
$137.843
184.7%
Budgeter capita
$135
$110
-18.3%
Budget per square mile
$1.360,056
$409,394
-69.9%
Property tax revenue 000
$39,993
$115,000
187.6%
Property tax revenue per capita
$112
$92
-17.5%
Property tax revenue per square mile
$1,123.399
$341,550
-69.6%
Milla a rate (equivalent for Miami
3.57
2.518
-29.5%
Total staff
677
1,435
112.0%
Total staff per 1,000 population
1.9
1.1
-39.1 %
Number of stations
7
38
442.9%
Stations per 100,000 population
2.0
3.0
55.8%
Total alarms
70.0001
153.039
118.6%
Alarms per staff
1031
107r7
3.1 %
Sources: 1995-96 proposed budgets and departments; calculations by ones. r1
Fire -Rescue District was used for comparisons, since the unincorporated area is a major •
component of the district. Excludes Air Rescue, Airport fire station, Trauma and Emergency Management. I ,/
11 &44-
Fire -Rescue
Table 6 summarizes service and budget comparisons for fire rescue operations. As with the
unincorporated area, the Fire District has a considerably larger service territory than Miami. The
Fire District population is 248 percent greater than Miami's, but the service territory measured
within the UDB and cities in the Fire District is 846 percent greater than Miami's. This is a factor
affecting the difference in average response times for fire rescue service for the two areas.
Because the Fire District's territory is so large, average response times tend to be a higher (about
5.5 minutes) than Miami's (4.5 minutes). Some areas of the Fire District have very low response
times; other areas have longer, response times due to their remote locations.
- -Budget measures indicate that Miami spends more per capita for fire rescue services than the Fire
District. It was estimated that property taxes make up 83 percent ofthe City's fire rescue budget
($39.99 million), or $112 per capita, while in the Fire District property taxes ($115 million)
accounted for the same percent, 83 percent, but only $92 per capita. Miami's estimated property
tax support for fire services equates to approximately 3.57 mills as compared to the 2.518 mills
levied for the Fire District.
The workloads for both fire rescue departments appear similar, with each averaging about 100
alarms per staff per year. Miami has more fire rescue staff per 1,000 population than the Fire
District (1.9 vs. 1.1), although the Fire District has more stations per 100,000 population (3 vs.
2).
Tables 7, 8, 9 and 10 summarize budget and service data for public works, solid waste, planning,
building and zoning, and park and recreation. Each service is discussed below.
Public Works
Based on general revenue support for public works activities, UMSA spends about 42 percent
more per capita ($8.62 to $6.07) for these services. A prime function of public works is to
maintain local streets and roads. The County is responsible for 7,800 miles of local streets and
roads; Miami for 1,300. On a population basis, UMSA has more than twice as many roads to
maintain per 1,000 population as Miami (7.6 vs. 3.6). As a result, the budget per lane mile is
higher in Miami than in UMSA ($1,675 vs. $1,136). - These data are summarized in Table 7.
Solid Waste Collection
Table 8 summarizes data related to solid waste collection. Miami recently made significant
changes in this service, implementing roadside collection and dropping commercial accounts. The
per capita budget in Miami is less than half in UMSA ($45 vs. $95). Tons collected per account
are similar, showing only a 16 percent difference with the City showing more tons per account.
However, the County shows more tons collected per 1,000 population by about the same 16
percent difference. This review did not verify the comparability of budget composition.
l2
Planning, Building and Zoning
t`.
These fee based (primarily) service comparisons indicate the County has more staff per 100,000
population (47 vs. 37) and spends more per capita ($33 vs. $22) for these functions. These data
are shown in Table 9.
Park and Recreation
Table 10 reports on local park and recreation services. On a per capita basis, Miami spends more
than UMSA ($32 vs. $24), has more staff per 100,000 population (46 vs. 33) and more acres per
1,000 population (5 vs. 3). UMSA budgets more per acre of local parkland than Miami ($9,061
vs. $6,779). These figures do not capture data related to the quantifies or quality of programs in
these parks.
General Government
Table 11 breaks out general government services by function, budget and staffing for legal,
manager, budget, finance, audit, personnel, information technology and general services. Overall !
per capita spending for general government is 125 percent higher in Miami ($54 vs. $24). In every
case, the County showed lower per capita costs and fewer employees per 100,000 population for
these services.
13
n,
1
Table 7: Rublic Works Services
Percent
City of
Unincorporated
Difference
Public Works
Miami
Dade
City to Count
FY 1995-96 Budget ($000)
$2,178
$8,858
306.7%
Staff
74
173
133.8%
Per capita expenditures
$6.07
$8.62
41.8%
Staff per-.l00,000 population
20.6
16.8
-18.5%
Number of lane miles of roads maintained
1,300
7,800
500.0%
Lane miles per 1,000 population
3.6
7.6
109.3%
Cost per lane mile
$1 675
$1 136
-32.2%
JUM-1 0. r r aarav ptupuaeu uuugets.
Table 8: Solid Waste Services
Parameters
City of
Miami
Unincorporated
Dade
Percent
Difference
City to Count
FY 1995-96 Budget ($000) '
$16,000
$98,093
513.1 %
Staff
224
516
130.4%
Per capita expenditures
$45
$95
113.8%
Staff per 100,000 population
62
50
-19.7%
Number of residential accounts
62,500
248.130
297.0%
Tons collected
179,000
594,000
231.8%
Tons collected per account
2.86
2.39
-16.4%
Tons per 1,000 population
1 4991
578 1
15.7%
wuit:ea. r t lava-= prupuseu ouugets anu ueparimen4s; caicuiauons oy umb.
Table 9: Planning, Building and Zoning Services
Percent
City of
Unincorporated
Difference
Parameters*
Miami
Dade
City to County
FY 1995-96 Budget ($000)
$8,063
$33,547
316.1%
Staff
132
480
263.6%
Per capita expenditures
$22
$33
45.1 %
Staff r 100,000 population
371
471
26.8%
ouuwtss; rr IUUO-ao proposes onagers ana aepanments; calculations by vMB.
Table M Park and Recreation Services
Percent
City of
Unincorporated
Difference
Parameters
Miami
Dade
City to Count
FY 1995-96 Budget ($000)
$11,439
$24,302
112.4%
Staff
164
342
108.5%
Per capita expenditures
$32
$24
-25.9%
Staff per 100,000 population
46
33
-27.3%
Acres of local parks
1,699
2,682
57.9%
Acres per 1,000 population
5
3
-44.90/6
Budget per acre
1 $6,7331
$9,0611
34.6°/
Sources: FY 1995.96 Budgets; excludes City cemetary budgeted in parks.
EW
Table 11: General Government Services �.
Percent
City of
Unincorporated
Difference
Parameters / Department
Miami
Dade
City to Count
Legal
FY 1995-96 Budget ($000)
$2,938
$3,516
19.7%
Staff
45
32
-28.9%
Per capita expenditures
$8.19
$3.42
-58.3%
Staff per 100,000 population
12.6
3.1
-75.2%
Manager
FY 1995-96 Budget ($000)
$729
$1,769
142.7%
Staff
6
16
166.7%
Per capita expenditures
$2.03
$1.72
-1 &4%,
Staff per 100,000 population
1.7
1.6
-7.0%
Budget
FY 1995-96 Budget ($000)
$1,475
$591
-59.9%
Staff
16
6
-62.5%
Per capita expenditures
$4.11
$0.57
-86.0%
Staff per 100,000 population
4.5
0.6
-86.9%
Finance
FY 1995-96 Budget ($000)
$3,324
$1,224
-63.2%
Staff
73
17
-76.7%
Per capita expenditures
$9.27
$1.19
-87.2%
Staff per 100,000 population
20.4
1.7
-91.9%
Audit
FY 1995-96 Budget ($000)
$860
$1,371
59.4%
Staff
11
21
90.9%
Per capita expenditures
$2.401
$1.33
-44.4%
Staff per 100,000 population
3.11
2.0
-33.4%
Personnel / Civil Service
FY 1995-96 Budget ($000)
$2,688
$2,693
0.2%
Staff
40
46
15.0%
Per capita expenditures
$7.50
$2.62
-65.1 %
Staff per 100,000 population
11.21
4.5
-59.9%
Information Technology
FY 1995-96 BudgAt-'-,($000)
$3,795
$8,952
135.9%
Staff
45
83
84.4%
Per capita expenditures
$10.58
$8.71
-17.7%
Staff per 100,000 population
12.6
8.1
-35.7%
General Services / Procurement
FY 1995-96 Budget ($000)
$2,004
$932
-53.5%
Staff
26
15
-42.3%
Per capita expenditures
$5.59
$0.91
-83.8%
Staff per 100,000 population
7.31
1.5
-79.9%
Sources: FY 1995-96 proposed budgets and departments, calculations by OMB.
15
MEMORANCIUM
IOt,Ot•17A uemoasacAs�4�c uos.
T O , Mayor's Select Committee
on thWVVia
i
FROM.A n.
County Manager
DATE: January 31, 1997
SUBJECT: Update Report
There are numerous and complex issues which will ultimately impact any answers to
questions regarding taxation and service delivery. The following is an abbreviated list
of such issues:
DISSOLUTION PROCESS
• Potential language and implications on any County analysis of taxation,
service delivery, and liability/asset management issues
• Timing and/or phasing of any dissolution
• Annexation and/or reincorporation possibilities
• Possibility of "poison pills" from either direction in dissolution proposal
• Possibility of an interlocal agreement outlining terms surrounding dissolution
CITY LIABILITIES
Outstanding debt service
Do City residents continue to pay or is debt service on general
obligation bonds passed on to all UMSA or County residents
depending on County's determined use of property or assets?
What are all special obligation debt pledges and how are they
affected by City dissolution?
Contracts and leases
Are contracts and leases binding on Dade County or are some or
all null and void upon dissolution?
Can the dissolution plan impact transferability or
non4ransferrability of contracts and leases and related City of
Miami obligations?
Can/should City contractual obligations be passed on to UMSA
residents? Can such obligations be isolated to just the residents of
the current City of Miami?
Worker's compensation and other City self insurance program liabilities,
including tort liability
0
I �► 0AQ4_4�
Mayor Select, Committee ~}
on the City of Miami
Page 2
Can/should UMSA residents be obligated to help pay such costs?
Can such costs be isolated to just the residents of the current City
of Miami? .
Pension obligations
Is the County obligated to continue providing the pension benefits
_ and contributions at current City levels to any city employees hired
by County?
Is the County obligated to fund the current unfunded pension
benefit obligations of the City?
What is the extent of any required County contribution toward City
pension obligations for all current City employees as well as for
any current City employees which may be hired by the County?
Labor agreements
Do municipal bargaining units cease to exists upon City
dissolution?
Separation costs
Is the County obligated to pay accumulated City employee
separation benefits upon City dissolution?
Are any such accumulated benefits assumed by the County when
any ex -City employee(s) are hired by the County?
• General Issues
What options does the County have to address outstanding City
liabilities? Can the County establish a special taxing district
coinciding with the current City of Miami boundaries to fund all or a
portion of City liabilities?
CITY -ASSETS
Now do City assets transfer to County? What stipulations on asset use may
remain with assets?
Do assets/should assets be liquidated to address related and/or unrelated
City liabilities?
Is the County bound by current City lease, management, use, or concession
agreements, permits or licenses? Can/do such agreements, permits or
licenses have to be renegotiated or rebid?
PERSONNEL
Are there any circumstances where City employees automatically become
County employees or have automatic rights to County jobs?
i s&A
nry
f-
a4 $i' ll
Mayor Select -Committee
on the City of Miami
Page 3
Do any current City employees who are hired by the County subsequent to
City dissolution have:
rights under previous City civil service,
rights to compensation and benefits at City levels, or
any rights whatsoever under previous City collective bargaining
agreements?
• What are any and all County obligations or responsibilities to current or past
City employees?
REVENUE AND TAXATION_
Ad valorem taxation
Does outstandirig general obligaiion debt'service on which the
voted debt service millage is based remain an obligation of only
those property owners in the current City of Miami?
Does the Downtown Development Authority millage, if it continues
to exist, fall under the countywide or UMSA millage cap or is it
outside any cap?
To what extent is the UMSA millage impacted by the dissolution of
the City of Miami?
How will the current property taxes of City of Miami property
owners be impacted by the dissolution of the City?
• State revenues
How are sales and municipal revenue sharing receipts of the City
impacted if the City dissolves? Does the County receive, dollar for
dollar, such state shared revenues?
Utility taxes and franchise fees ,
Do such revenues automatically become county revenues? Will
such taxes and fees have to be renegotiated and/or reimposed?
Are current City franchise agreements null and void upon
dissolution of the City?
Grant funding
How are state and federal grants and entitlements (e.g. CDBG)
impacted by dissolution? Can the County expect to receive, dollar
for dollar, such grant or entitlement funds from the state or federal
governments?
How will entitles which presently rely on such funds through the
City be impacted by City dissolution?
• Local Option Gas Taxes (LOGT)
'��5,CA
Mayor Select Committe�
on the City of Miami
Page 4
How are City of'Miami LOGT receipts impacted by City dissolution?
Can the County expect such revenues, dollar for dollar?
Other municipal revenues
How are tourist taxes (tourist development and convention
development) impacted by the dissolution of the City of Miami?
Will any statutory amendments be required?
- Will all other City of Miami revenues be received, dollar for dollar,
source by source by the County? What steps are involved in
receiving such revenues?
SERVICE DELIVERY
How will the County prdvide services in ghat was the City of Miami? Will
services be provided in the manner and at the same level as that currently
provided in UMSA? Will a differential or premium level of service be provided
(e.g., police, fire rescue, solid waste collection service)? If yes, how will such
premium service be funded?
How will solid waste collection service be structured and at what costs if the
County provides the service?
CITY AND QUASI -CITY AGENCIES AND AUTHORITIES
How are the Downtown Development Authority, the Department of Offstreet
Parking, the Miami Sports and Exhibition Authority, the City's Health Facility
Authority, the Southeast Overtown Park West Redevelopment Agency and the
Omni Redevelopment District affected by dissolution of the City? What are
the implications to the County regarding these entities?
This list includes just a few of the many complex issues and questions surrounding
dissolution of the City of Miami, To quantify service levels and costs, and tax and fee
levels will require much more analysis, which would involve constructing a pro forma
County budget which incorporates the area which is currently the City of Miami. An
understanding of all city contracts, leases, liabilities, agreements, assets, revenues,
debt, services provided, etc. is necessary. Most importantly, however, any such
analysis must be based on the dissolution proposal language to be framed and
approved by the City so that the information conforms most closely with the intentions
of the City.
Over the next several weeks we will continue analyzing the legal and policy questions
surrounding the issues outlined above as well as others we identify. At this time we
recommend the following:
Y
Mayor Select Committee
on the City of Miami
Page 5
i 1. chat the Select Committee identify any additional issues not outlined in
this report which need to be addressed and provide any relevant
guidance to staff on the analysis. It is our intent to develop to the best of
our ability, factual answers to these questions for use by the City in its
information dissemination efforts
2. That staff begin discussions with the City in order to allow the opportunity
for proper consideration and understanding of mutual issues surrounding
City dissolution which could be the basis of the upcoming dissolution
proposal to be drafted by the City. Such discussions could lead to the
development of an interlocal agreement, similar to the one entered into
with the Town of Pennsuco in 1986 prior to its dissolution, which would
help clarify many of the questions outlined above
CMO/015a97
i
I
1
i
1
i
Wi W-1
�t^