HomeMy WebLinkAboutM-89-0541fwa
0
L]
REPORT OF THE CITY OF MIAMI
AD HOC CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE
filed in pocket folder of Meeting #3926
DUNE 7, 1989
REPORT OF THE CITY OF MIAMI
AD HOC CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE
June 60 1989
Joseph J. Portuondo
Chairman
Manuel Alonso-Poch
Huber R. Parsons, Jr.
sill Perry, Jr.
Steve Suarez
OF CONTENTS
Fig
I. Introduction ..................................... 1
II. A Review of the Committee's Public
Hearings and Sessions ............................ 2
III. The Committee's Recommendations .................. 12
IV. Conclusion ....................................... 15
- 41
F19-542
INTRODUCTION
Following a series of public hearings and working sessions, — the Committee voted to recommend that the Charter of the City of
Miami be amended to provide for an executive mayor and for the
election of four commissioners at -large and five from districts.
This report was then prepared by the Committee's Chairman and is — -
structured to show those areas in which there were dissenting
--
views. In its final action, this report was approved by a vote of
the Committee.
1 89 - 41
89-542
A REVIEW OF THE COMMITTEE'S
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND SESSIONS
On April 27, 1989, the City of Miami Commission created the
City of Miami Ad Hoc Charter Review Committee and charged it with
the responsibility of recommending changes to the present form of
City government.3 Upon receipt of the Committee's recommendations,
the Commission is to consider submitting them to the electorate for
approval in the general municipal elections set to take place on
November G, 1989. On May 4, 1989, the Committee held its
organizational meeting in which it elected its officers,4 requested
assistance from the City Attorney and City Manager,5 and scheduled
1 Hereinafter referred to as the "Commission".
2 Hereinafter referred to as the "Committee". Each member of
the Commission appointed one member to the Committee: Joseph J.
Portuondo, Esq. (nominated by Mayor Xavier L. Suarez); Manuel
Alonso-Poch, Esq. (nominated by Vice -Mayor Victor H. De Yurre); Dr.
Bill Perry, Jr. (nominated by Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins); Mr.
Steve Suarez (nominated by Commissioner Rosario Kennedy); and Huber
R. Parsons, Esq. (nominated by Commissioner J.L. Plummer).
3 The Committee was created by Resolution No. 89-402 which
provided in pertinent part that "the Committee . shall review[]
the concerns expressed by the City Commission in regard to the
district system of electing City Commission members as well as
other questions in connection with the governance of the City of
Miami including, but not limited to, adoption of an executive mayor
form of government ..."
4 Messrs. Portuondo and Alonso-Poch were elected Chairman and
Vice -Chairman respectively.
5 In general, the Committee requested demographic and
geographic statistics, legal advice, information regarding previous
efforts to amend the City charter, and general logistical
assistance necessary to accomplish its task.
2 -541
8-52
public hearings throughout the City along with various working
sessions.7
The Committee heard from approximately fifty speakers during
the course of the public hearings. While the speakers offered a
wide range of views, the overwhelming majority spoke in favor of
the concept of "strong -mayor" and of some form of district
elections for commissioners. Most speakers complained that the
present government lacked both administrative and legislative
accountability. While many examples of this theme were offered,
the most dramatic was that of residents who complained that their
interests were not represented on the Commission even though
members of the Commission live in their neighborhoods.
Finally, many commented that the Committee had been handed a
politically unenviable task and that, in addition, the Committee
had been given insufficient time within which to accomplish its
6 Public hearings were held at Miami Senior High School on May
10 and 23; at Edison Senior High School on May 18; and at City Hall
on May 22.
Following the initial public hearing at Miami Senior High
School, the Committee received $10,000.00 from the Commission to
be used for advertising the public hearings. Since low attendance
at the first hearing at Miami Senior High School may have been
caused from lack of advertising, the Committee concluded that a
second and advertised hearing at that location was appropriate.
7 The Committee's working sessions were held at the office of
the City Attorney on May 4, 12, 15 and 24. The Committee also held
its deliberative session on May 30, 1989, in which the Committee
voted on the various proposals. A final working session was then
held on June 6, to review the Committee's written report. In all,
the Committee met a total of ten times during a one month period.
3 8 -541.
89-54
charge.$ Many also questioned whether any reform would come from
this process and whether the district lines would be drawn fairly.
On May 30, 1989, the Committee convened to vote on the various
suggestions which had been expressed throughout the public hearings
and the earlier working sessions. Following a discussion
concerning the geographic and demographic characteristics of the
City,9 the Committee concluded that its discussions should include:
(1) whether any changes to the present form of City government
should be recommended; (2) the concept of an executive mayor; (3)
the election of commissioners solely from districts; (4) the
election of commissioners both at -large and from districts; (5)
compensation for the mayor and commissioners; (6) the manner in
which to implement the recommended changes to the City Charter; and
(7) the form in which the changes should be presented to the
electorate. All of these matters were discussed in turn.
8 While all members of the Committee were originally concerned
with the time available for completion of its charge, at the
conclusion of the process, none felt that additional time was
needed in order to make the recommendations.
9 While various population studies were available, the
Committee chose to base its districting plan on the 1985 Census
estimates (Exhibit A); neighborhood boundaries (Exhibit B); the
existing census tracts (Exhibit C); and current voting precincts
(Exhibit D). This approach was in part suggested by a
representative of the Dade County Elections Department and by the
Chairman of the Citizen's Charter Review Advisory Group on the Dade
County Charter.
4 89-5.
8 -542
While two members10 of the Committee were of the opinion that
no change in the present form of government was warranted, the
Committee concluded that the electorate should be presented with
an alternative to the present system at the next general municipal
election.11 Also, while there was some disagreement with respect
to the authority to be given to the executive-mayor,12 the Committee
was able to reach its recommendation in this regard without lengthy
debate.
The most difficult decisions made were with respect to the
creation of district elections for commissioners.13 Those in favor
of district elections generally argued that they promote greater
governmental accountability to the electorate,14 more
competitiveness in the electoral process,15 a voice for neighborhood
10 Messrs. Alonso-Poch and Parsons. However, these members
voiced no objection to the submission of a reasonable proposal to
the electorate.
11 Messrs. Alonso-Poch and Parsons did not consider the
districting plan (Exhibit E) to be reasonable and therefore
objected to its submission to the electorate.
12 Most of the disagreement centered on whether the Mayor
should be a voting member of the Commission.
13 This issue was also the main subject of interest and debate
at the public hearings.
14 Many speakers expressed a desire to have at least one
representative on the Commission who they could hold individually
accountable for the concerns of their neighborhoods. Furthermore,
many felt that such a system would promote better communication
between the electorate and City government.
15 Many speakers felt that the present system discourages voter
participation and discriminates against many qualified candidates
for public office. This is so as the present campaign costs for
City government are prohibitively expensive. Finally, almost all
speakers who spoke on the issue questioned the soundness of an
5 89-54 .
- 42
concerns,16 and more opportunity for minority representation in
government.17 Those against district elections generally argued
that such a system encourages geographical politics, more commonly
referred to as "ward politics". When it appeared that a majority
of the members18 was in favor of some form of district elections for
commissioners, consideration was then given to what form such a
system should take.
Two members19 steadfastly opposed any form of district
elections and one member20 urged the adoption of a plan whereby all
electoral system in which a candidate spends huge sums of money in
order to be elected to an office in which the compensation is only
five thousand dollars.
16 This was evident by the participation of various homeowner
groups and other local organizations in this process. This
sentiment was expressed most loudly by the African -American
community who argued that a commissioner of their ethnic group
could better represent their interest if he were not required to
be elected in a City-wide election. Moreover, this group felt that
the present system greatly contributed to an unequal distribution
of the economic benefits of the City.
17 While a system of single member districts is ordinarily the
preferred method of ensuring minority representation in government;
under some circumstances, such a system may actually operate to
dilute the voting interest of minority groups. This possibility,
along with the concern of creating "ward politics", ultimately
caused the Committee to reject a plan of single member districts
in favor of one balanced between at —large and neighborhood
concerns. Also, the Committee agreed with studies which conclude
that minority representation is not substantially affected in
district plans whereby some are elected at -large and others by
districts.
18 Messrs. Perry, Portuondo, and Suarez.
19 Messrs. Alonso-Poch and Parsons. See comments at notes 10
and 11. supra.
20 Dr. Perry.
6 -541
commissioners would be elected from districts. A proposal slightly
different from that offered by the Miami Homeowner's Coalition21
was then considered. This proposal called for four commissioners
to be elected at -large and five to be elected from districts.22
After accepting this concept, the Committee entered into a
long and vigorous debate as to how the district lines were to be
drawn. All members favored the drawing of district lines such
21 The Miami Homeowner's Coalition is an organization composed
of The Coconut Grove Civic Club, The Coconut Grove Homeowner's and
Tenants' Association, The Coconut Grove Park Homeowner's
Association, The Coral Gate Homeowner's Association, The Coral Nook
Homeowner's Association, The Miami Roads Neighborhood Civic
Association, The Parkdale-Lyndale Heights Homeowner's Association,
The Silver Bluff Homeowner's Association, and The Tigertail
Association.
22 The Miami Homeowner's Coalition advocated a plan aimed at
achieving a balance between neighborhood and City-wide interests.
It suggested that this could be accomplished by electing three
commissioners at large and six from districts. The Committee
considered that a better balance would be achieved by a plan
calling for four commissioners to be elected at large and five from
districts. This is because under this plan eve elector votes for
a majority of the commission even though a majority of the
Commission is elected from districts. Furthermore, it was felt
that this plan would better accomplish the aim of proportionate
ethnic representation. Finally, this plan could very easily be
implemented with the current system of government as the only
change required would be the addition of new members to the
Commission. No disruption in the electoral cycle or existing terms
is required. In sum, the 114/5" plan maintains the benefits of the
current system, but it corrects its greatest deficiency - the
absence of representation of neighborhood concerns.
23 All members of the Committee agreed that the district lines
should be created in accordance with well -settled guidelines.
These guidelines call for districts to be equal in population,
contiguous and compact. Furthermore, these guidelines prohibit
district plans which operate to reduce a minority group's voting
interest. Finally, the guidelines encourage district plans which
respect established neighborhoods or communities of similar
interests.
The Committee's proposed district plan (Exhibit E) strictly
adheres to all of these requirements. The estimated population of
89-51
89- 542
as to promote proportionate ethnic representation on the =
Commission.24 A proposal that the districts be drawn geometrically
in a truly blind fashion received no serious thought and was
instantly rejected. = From the debate, a choice then emerged between the district
plan ultimately recommended2S and an alternative plan which would
have included a thin, narrow district along the entire coastline
of the City.26 This alternative plan was rejected27 because it would
have defeated the aim of promoting proportionate ethnic
representation on the Commission and because it was contrary to the
guidelines for districting.28
Having concluded the most difficult part of its task, the
Committee then addressed the remaining matters to be resolved. The
-
the districts are: Orange - 73,022; Pink - 74,107; Blue - 72,159; ---
Yellow - 73,333; and Green - 72,828. The Blue, Yellow, and Green --
districts are predominantly hispanic in both population and
registered voters. The Pink district is 69% black in population _
and 81% black in registered voters. The Orange district is 60%
black in population, but only 45% black in registered voters.
24 However, there was some disagreement as to how this aim -
could most effectively be accomplished.
25 See Exhibit E.
26 Both of these plans had been raised in the public hearings.
The plan which ultimately prevailed was in part dictated by the
suggestion of the Northeast Miami Homeowner's Coalition that a
district of the approximately 75,000 residents occupying the area
east of Interstate 95 be created.
27Mr. Parsons voted against the recommended plan and in favor
of the alternative plan arguing that it would better accomplish the
aim of proportionate ethnic representation.
28 See Note 23. Some members even considered that such a plan
could be legally challenged.
$ -41
R9- 54
Committee unanimously recommended the implementation of these
recommendations for the 1991 municipal elections.29 The Committee
also concluded that the new commission seats should simply be added
in the 1991 election and be incorporated into the existing election
cycle without disruption of the terms of the current seats. The
Committee further concluded that these new seats should be
structured into the current staggered practice for electing members
of the commission.30
The Committee also unanimously concluded that the current
charter limitations on compensation31 are unrealistic32 and should
29 The Committee had earlier considered the implementation of
these recommendations following the results of the 1990 Census.
However, the Committee rejected this notion when it was evident
that the results of that census would not be available until at
least the summer of 1992, and perhaps even later. This effectively
meant that the recommendations could not be implemented until at
least the 1995 municipal elections - almost six years from now.
On the other hand, the Committee felt that a significant
period of time before implementation was advisable in order to
permit the resolution of any legal challenge to the plan.
Furthermore, it was felt that some time following the approval of
the plan was needed in order to prepare for its implementation.
Finally, the Committee felt that the new commission seats should
be implemented without a special election in order to save costs
and so as not to disrupt the current electoral cycle.
30 The current practice has two commissioners and the mayor
elected at the same time with the two other commissioners elected
in the alternate election. To achieve balance, it is suggested
that all five new seats be filled in the 1991 elections but that
two of the seats be initially set for a two year term. Those two
seats should be determined by a lottery.
31 The current salary of $5,000.00 for the mayor and
commissioners was set in 1949. The mayor is also entitled to
$2,500.00 for additional expenses.
32 While the current compensation is unrealistically low, the
Committee does recognize that it is in line with the compensation
9-5 4 .
9 89-542
be discarded in favor of a plan in which the Commission sets
compensation for itself and the Mayor in the ordinary budget
process.33
The Committee also considered whether the recommended changes
could result in increased cost of government.34 In this endeavor,
the Committee examined the current budget of the Mayor and
commissioners.35 The Committee concluded that the recommended
changes could easily be implemented with no additional cost
provided fiscal responsibility is exercised by reducing the current
paid to the commissioners of most other local major municipalities.
Hialeah - $ 2,400.00
Miami Beach - $ 6,000.00
Hollywood - $10,000.00
Fort Lauderdale - $48,287.00
Metropolitan Dade County - $ 6,000.00
33 Some members of the Committee were of the opinion that the
Commission should set a salary for itself consistent with that
which the State of Florida Legislature sets for State
Representatives.
34 This was a question raised by several speakers. The
sentiment expressed by most speakers was that some increased cost
in government would be acceptable in implementing district
elections and an executive -mayor as at least they would then have
"taxation with representation"; as opposed to the present system
which they consider to be "taxation without representation."
35 A majority of the Committee felt that it should not reach
a conclusion as to whether current budgets were in line with other
local major municipalities. However, two members felt that the
information received by the Committee was sufficient to warrant
discussion in this report and a conclusion that current budgets are
grossly excessive in comparison to other local major
municipalities.
10 89-541.
89 -542
expenditures of the Commissioners to a level more consistent with
the other major munieipali.ties.36
Finally, the Committee concluded that the recommended changes
with respect to executive -mayor and increased. commissioners should
be presented to the electorate as one item on the ballot as they
are inseparable and, furthermore, because to do otherwise would
simply be illogical. However, the Committee believed that the
recommendations with respect to compensation for Commissioners is
severable from the recommendations of executive -mayor and increased
commissioners and should therefore be submitted to the electorate
as a separate ballot question.37
36 It is also anticipated that there would be a merger of the
Mayor's office with that of the City Manager's under the
recommended changes. Such a merger would also reduce current
expenditures for both those offices.
37 The Committee noted that previous efforts to change the
compensation of Commissioners set forth in the City Charter have
been rejected by the electorate. As such, the Committee felt that
to combine both of these proposed changes on the ballot would
unfairly impact on the main and, more important, recommended
changes to the City Charter. By separating the two amendments, the
Committee felt that the electorate will have its voice more
accurately registered.
Messrs. Alonso-Poch and Parsons were of the opinion that
it is more correct to have this item joined with the main
recommendations on the ballot.
As a separate matter, Dr. Perry urged the appropriation of
public funds to inform the electorate as to these recommendations.
11 89-54 .
89-52
TE8 COPYMITTEE' 8 gzC
pNMXpATIoNS
The Committee recommends the following Charter Amendments:
City Commission
that the City Commission consist of four
Commissioners elected at -large and five
Commissioners elected by districts.
that the terms of office for all Commissioners be
for four years.
that the five district Commissioners be elected one
from each district shown at Exhibit E.
that all Commissioners be entitled to one vote on
all matters before the City Commission.
that the City Commission elect a Chairman and Vice -
Chairman as its first order of business
following every election in which a member to
the City Commission is elected.
that all commissioners be eligible to be elected
Chairman and Vice -Chairman.
that the terms of the Commissioners be staggered
such that a group of two at -large
Commissioners and two district Commissioners
be elected to office along with the Mayor, and
that a second group of two at -large
Commissioners and three district Commissioners
be elected in the alternate election.
- that the City Commission approve the Mayor's
appointment of the City Administrator.
- that the City Commission approve the Mayor's
appointment of the City Attorney.
- that the City Commission approve the Mayor's
appointment of the City Clerk.
- that the City Commission be given the power to
override a veto of the Mayor by two-thirds
vote provided it does so no later than the
first general regularly scheduled meeting
following the Mayor's exercise of the veto.
12 F39-, 54
89 -54Z,
that the City Commission set compensation for the
Mayor and for the members of the City
Commission.
that all Commissioners receive the same compensation
and staff assistance.
that the Mayor, or his designee, attend all meetings
of the City Commission.
that the City Attorney, or his designee, attend all
meetings of the City Commission.
that the City Clerk, or his designee, attend all
meetings of the City Commission.
Mayor
- that the Mayor be given all of the authority and
responsibility currently possessed by the City
Manager.
- that the Mayor be given the responsibility of
presenting a budget to the City Commission for
approval.
- that the Mayor be given the ability to veto specific
items in the budget approved by the City
Commission.
- that the Mayor be given veto power over City
Commission actions not involving zoning
matters.
that the Mayor's veto be exercised within ten days
of the action sought to be vetoed.
that the Mayor receive the City's highest public
salary.
that the Mayor appoint the City Administrator
subject to City Commission approval. The City
Administrator shall report directly to the
Mayor.
that the Mayor appoint the City Attorney subject to
City Commission approval.
that the Mayor appoint the City Clerk subject to
City Commission approval.
13 89-541,
89-542
that the Mayor have the authority to remove the City
Administrator, City Attorney and City Clerk
without the approval of the City Commission.
14 89-54 .
CONCLUSION
All of the members of this Committee feel privileged to have
been given the opportunity to participate in this important
project. We respectfully urge the Commission to give this report
the serious consideration it merits and to submit those recommended
changes in City government to the electorate for approval in the
next general municipal election. Finally, the Committee encourages
the City Commission to enthusiastically endorse these
recommendations to the electorate.
Respectfully submitted,
For the City of Miami Ad Hoc
Charter Review Committee
15 89-O 54
89--54 2
EXHIBIT A
- THE 1985 CENSUS ESTIMATES -
89w_4
89-42
POPULATION
1985
REGISTION
1989
w wwrew►an ace®erww
wewwwwwwwwsn s awewweae s.swslwweew sn'w mecwwrwwwwwwu
ie �ewwwwwwwwww wieeewwac:www
TRACT
TOTAL
BLACK
HISPANIC
REGIST
BLKREG
HISPREG
1.01
14863
30
2612
7594
21
336
1.03
9145
184
1190
4238
136
330
1.04
5943
24
591
5259
17
113
1.05
6064
30
126
4260
9
50
1.06
5398
13
773
2732
14
153
2.01
7311
175
1210
1844
157
142
2.02
5405
50
727
2439
63
266
2.03
9482
17
471
5315
41
240
2.04
4530
542
998
1504
74
202
2.05
6223
442
1227
1526
424
127
2.06
4814
1762
1074
2807
812
380
2.07
11616
905
1863
3628
446
432
2.08
7181
174
1360
2702
193
338
3.01
5234
276
012
2551
233
251
3.02
1934
26
347
1334
ISO
105
3.03
8961
294
1512
2922
332
267
3.04
8149
482
2075
3222
295
450
4.01
5972
2020
1119
2378
1361
177
4.02
3920
3875
21
2745
2729
6
4.03
6668
6293
166
2658
2527
80
4.04
5908
5735
776
1954
1509
133
4.05
3601
1538
1033
1526
608
206
4.06
6115
2075
2537
2187
874
449
4.07
10544
9688
2051
4073
2076
420
4.08
5291
4867
334
2383
1827
139
5.01
5836
5442
463
2019
1453
178
5.02
8603
3058
5386
3522
1113
1377
5.03
6669
6602
913
1876
1229
273
6.01
4735
271
3893
1498
6
834
6.02
4844
112
3781
3202
9
1687
6.03
4937
15
4083
878
5
515
6.04
5783
8
4941
1483
3
971
6.05
3887
47
3209
2465
20
1541
6.06
10536
105
9385
1849
5
1216
7.01
21039
372
19825
5899
66
4426
7.03
10633
46
9737
1321
7
983
7.04
8320
1201
7112
3170
316
2202
8.01
9621
1418
$409
2746
23
1964
8.02
11307
158
10098
1856
20
1241
9.01
6520
2823
3199
779
227
311
9.02
6168
4512
2057
3362
2045
727
9.03
3903
2230
290
1411
1144
78
10.01
6780
6297
948
2480
1944
184
10.02
6401
6337
91
5119
4866
102
10.03
6330
6126
110
2621
2479
62
10.04
8123
7472
143
1669
1650
8
11.01
3736
602
1117
2207
313
399
11.02
3766
547
1111
930
90
70
11.03
3368
829
938
1188
346
199
11.04
4193
1115
443
2334
187
148
12.02
7660
90
642
4229
94
262
12.03
5353
189
1021
994
139
101
Page 1 9""'541
89- 542
{
POPULATION
1985 (
REGISTION
1989
/pRRIRR RISlRRBflf!l.ff
RflR Rff Rf Mf �f lQ lSf lReRf II.Rf fffRAf Rf
TOTAL
be.Rf RRI1f
Rf �'Rf Rfflf sllRRRRfRRf Rsff RfRRM
TRACT
12.04
5450
BLACK
HISPANIC
REGIST
BLKREG
HISPREG
13.00
10721
99
2508
547
3119
3022
3341
49
159
14.00
10565
10459
0
2847
650
2261
546
2310
15.01
4954
4911
137
2352
2344
5
15.02
6906
6856
126
3419
3381
12
16.01
8049
1227
6811
2050
44
1276
16.02
5572
350
4929
1507
9
946
17.01
4401
3449
426
1013
996
6
17.02
3368
3069
147
1804
1788
6
17.03
4752
479
3728
1371
773
364
18.01
4716
4639
73
2346
2331
4
18.02
5570
5144
234
1711
1693
7
18.03
5615
4969
542
1294
1215
44
19.01
4143
4107
63
2101
2086
4
19.02
8759
8595
100
4787
4742
19
20.01
5461
5406
0
787
590
85
20.02
8277
8194
0
1430
1123
173
21.00
3085
392
1319
1284
119
202
22.01
5790
5732
222
1049
507
131
22.02
8508
7125
332
2632
2274
290
23.00
7074
6843
80
5005
4914
73
24.00
11887
2550
9425
2735
731
1508
25.00
7216
3957
3728
1674
926
595
26.00
4914
1524
3356
J209
284
749
27.01
9405
559
4605
1480
259
353
27.02
2896
710
1477
1372
135
383
28.00
3070
2318
438
1026
822
132
29.00
2833
616
2196
667
177
321
30.01
3687
1830
966
1397
908
231
30.02
8809
1476
6333
2097
369
1198
31.00
5814
5609
190
2486
2458
16
34.00
4633
4544
104
1301
1290
4
36.01
1740
1046
620
705
498
151
36.02
6444
267
5836
1030
45
832
37.01
1340
170
548
1535
137
182
37.02
1446
600
375
499
276
72
38.00
12338
86
1085
7285
23
494
39.01
8397
86
2978
4032
67
981
39.02
14560
96
2222
6369
78
646
39.04
4977
112
958
2407
68
309
39.05
8355
66
2967
3125
123
644
39.06
2948
19
525
1399
9
158
40.00
6687
152
1511
3568
20
431
41.01
9383
132
1974
5553
66
910
41.02
3556
22
821
492
3
84
42.00
14441
122
4501
4674
86
1035
43.00
11331
180
4264
4684
184
1250
44.00
16502
422
8070
5755
304
1571
45.00
3639
166
2061
1125
46
315
46.01
3865
8
1639
2556
9
557
46.02
3253
4
1111
1806
3•
414
47.01
5056
12
906
3025
10
485
Page 2 89- 541
89-342
I
POPULATION
1985
RBGISTION
1989
a.wMwwwwwwewwwrweMaam
Waft wwwwaoft wwnwwdewaew.es+RwaaewMawwwaimerrrerwaa,awwrwwrsarwr+waMMamma
TOTAL
,TRACT
BLACK
HISPANIC
RPGIST
BLKREG
HISPRBG
41.02
5623
259
2266
2602
8
620
47.03
4144
97
1422
1733
51
429
48.00
224
8
141
1201
11
795
49.00
10496
205
9464
4562
46
3242
50.00
10530
110
8923
1332
8
998
51.00
8113
419
6598
1888
58
1349
52.00
9563
232
8879
2112
108
1566
53.01
7564
149
6957
1029
20
883
53.02
6748
148
6422
1023
28
696
54.01
7416
191
6742
1518
13
1149
54.02
8800
125
$241
1504
22
1266
55.01
5364
48
4602
1262
10
909
55.02
6551
33
5763
1961
1
1507
56.00
4565
47
3877
753
3
461
57.01
5609
9
5250
1345
2
961
57.02
11114
209
9667
3053
46
2358
58.01
6213
25
5385
2933
11
2123
58.02
7779
61
6861
2831
11
1965
59.01
3985
26
2990
2386
5
1339
59.02
4197
17
3081
1189
6
678
59.03
4901
30
4394
1459
14
BOB
59.04
4826
26
3801
1015
9
603
60.01
6026
63
4446
2428
14
1163
60.02
5164
34
3644
4432
11
1116
61.01
5343
4
3625
2863
5
1280
61.02
6260
30
2473
3642
12
946
62.00
10391
125
6550
3822
32
1591
63.01
6596
111
5861
2054
15
1601
63.02
4818
63
3787
1859
7
1145
64.00
11651
142
10129
1672
9
1180
65.00
8346
55
7135
5518
41
3838
66.00
10826
173
9092
1523
43
1107
67.01
5880
68
3244
2910
28
801
67.02
4283
188
2630
1664
30
879
68.00
7445
186
2300
3590
25
603
69.00
5915
65
4683
2507
19
1536
70.01
6128
33
5276
1317
13
901
70.02
6004
733
4783
2245
25
1478
71.00
6121
2450
1433
3143
1545
276
72.00
3807
3634
156
960
846
9
73.00
3227
478
168
3035
821
155
74.00
6451
39
2303
3712
10
930
75.01
2766
5
1181
1596
1
419
75.02
5681
736
830
799
36
66
75.03
846
5
249
1235
9
236
76.01
2531
96
1398
2924
674
618
76.02
7542
1105
2702
1406
205
219
76.03
3839
3026
304
1545
890
117
76.04
5274
200
1141
2589
52
333
77.01
6806
34
5159
2922
18
1632
77.02
6204
21
3050
3948
25
1303
77.03
7275
109
2179
3983
47
733
Page 3
9-54
` 542
POPULATION 1985 i
REGISTION
1989
asww sew r.�w.ew.a eiwe�w�r.se.
aiwae w.e uewAeae.ee.s�eew�cwww��eew�swem
w.owwew«eetwtEwwrwas���e�aewwe«sa
TRACT
TOTAL
BLACK
HISPANIC
REGIST
BLKREG
HISPREG
78.01
928
6
122
1968
11
337
78.02
8063
100
1322
4528
17
375
78.03
8997
250
.1860
4545
92
652
79.01
3662
1115
799
1389
1
224
79.02
3219
127
486
2077
11
221
00.00
4079
77
1395
984
4
144
81.00
9085
80
858
5436
21
382
$2.01
7635
527
1114
3928
45
208
82.p3
7357
634
1038
3964
108
255
82.04
7375
2537
1707
3651
187
260
83.01
12871
7254
1204
6636
4694
257
83.02
11953
2994
2345
4550
1284
446
$3.03
10027
6148
1120
2958
1808
111
84.01
16719
495
5388
7461
209
2246
84.03
15969
265
2873
7861
484
911
84.04
10988
241
3117
5443
117
1144
84.05
7121
172
2252
3223
47
516
85.01
6796
29
4371
3261
18
1535
85.02
4582
68
2463
2138
26
779
86.00
8844
99
5645
3900
33
1555
$7.00
11678
119
7578
4733
22
1906
88.01
9214
42
7821
3117
11
1946
86.02
13915
202
13416
4782
16
3401
89.01
6690
31
5363
4154
8
1758
89.02
7508
132
6751
3199
22
2025
89.03
10616
51
9556
4187
19
2787
90.01
18515
1098
13796
8041
165
5340
90.02
22341
98
21623
4205
27
3205
91.00
5140
12
4635
553
4
399
92.00
4176
8
3402
1192
1
595
93.02
18938
449
15104
4130
92
2232
93.03
21450
607
18504
6382
97
3855
93.04
6189
1339
2298
1508
18
333
93.05
5425
223
1332
4425
91
833
94.00
6243
6181
752
3429
2932
156
95.01
4121
1149
748
1297
784
98
95.02
9343
9250
519
4728
3840
166
96.00
4873
208
'761
872
198
68
97.01
10200
157
709
4844
36
286
97.02
6555
5
6
4985
5
51
98.00
15238
245
1174
9161
353
510
99.01
2903
1021
442
1179
268
49
99.02
10739
2726
1683
3671
1682
263
99.03
5062
5011
496
1596
1396
38
99.04
2608
2582
298
816
773
13
100.01
7224
4678
2492
3088
2813
201
100.02
7545
6628
1707
3402
2797
297
100.05
7885
3772
4051
1314
715
331
100.06
6826
6758
1694
1792
1446
144
100.07
7815
501
3351
2437
400
998
100.08
12951
9384
6855
4315
2830
879
101.02
5982
84
4737
5643
86
3387
89-541
Page 4 89-542
i
���Rs �/1t ISRRRYI
TRACT
101.03
101.Q6
101.07
101.Q8
101.09
101.10
101.11
101.12
101.13
101.14
102.00
103.00
104.00
105.00
106.01
106.02
106.03
107.01
107.02
108.00
109.00
110.00
111.00
112.00
113.00
114.00
115.00
POPULATION 1985
'*a am a awe.M-. 11R flIE 14 !lifR lR1RSRR1l IR Rlt flRftlf
TOTAL
BLACK
HISPANIC
3440
1
3325
6155
15
2506
8838
484
$84
27118
168
19940
24418
554
0
25425
422
16640
4321
68
1506
10827
253
s 3420
20396
530
7272
5597
770
3140
25456
7005
12811
5818
183
545
1517
691
91
5504
4411
276
10200
589
1429
2452
2427
81
13764
677
2634
10538
1373
6820
7593
1568
833
8962
1563
957
4771
1268
2498
15138
1744
10701
9126
478
1520
10809
2540
1812
9760
6465
2331
6840
1429
2995
3556
271
1105
1,770,769 365,956 767,997
Page 5
REGISTION
1989
l ftR RlRRRlf!!®Rft!!fbR........RR!.. f!
REGIST
BLKREG
HISPREG
5056
120
2735
3566
45
1178
7292
1228
2001
11675
61
7500
13411
337
4206
8123
141
3906
1615
25
257
10051
358
2273
7222
196
1540
3260
522
649
7670
2915
1720
1896
22
64
1116
228
69
1575
1449
20
7813
399
640
883
861
5
3303
176
622
3440
775
511
1041
155
51
4530
801
265
1532
160
348
2709
238
724
4276
226
316
4672
102
132
3669
2470
185
4515
1187
233
2483
40
211
699,614 135,432 188,040
89-541.
8J-542
EXHIBIT B
- CITY OF MIAMI NEIGHBORHOODS -
8"54
t 11
CITY QH MIADAI
SEIGHBORHOODS
o
con �l —
111
nIR1 tiNt
11�
t1{RI will .
ill
—
hlli
1~t{~w lNtlf _
a
{If
1MihnlM
Ill
1llidt 00.11 -- —
1n
sn 01tMS
pI
Ntii situ _
•
M
Nt
�wytlpl..-
14
l0111�M �,
„
151.
s.ttpn _—
t1
!i
vwpk 1s1NK '�-
�1
gnkt "dam
>R
tM
tM'wlllMt ,- - -
t/1
NRNR 11N
w
PIT
op"an
to
pie" mot
no
IsI"ww.t
ru
lltNr Rep
n1
10111 twt
��' �"•
!R
tit
z1M N9lt
=
11{
on
N/i am
IN 411M tm!1 —
vl .
slll 111m1 slum ''
• t�
eq
sera lhl Lllftt --
"I
OAVN"g
M
total toot — — -
,,,�
MI
SKt11llY -
Mp
KM
nl
Nlt gsGMM
{p'
ISIRMu ®-
111
lulus "At
1a
4111M1 "am
to
to
lrtlsly - --
IN61Nl
' IN
("In lot
to
tail Wal -
•
tN
JttNn
w•• ••
NI
mote t1N1t11n
qt
IMIa 111411 !=—
Hl
IONN sm ln+t=
M
;era 1tNtl
• NI
i0/11 tsstll� .� —
rrl
lof tlim —
tit
Wall Nw NM
m
NON"" nag �-
tt.
meta /N nun -
tn
M" ter Ilmwll
to
lMmtftR =
Ill
lullwa�gl '—
In
(All MA N4 :=
EISIBIT C
- CITY OF MIAMI CENSUS TRACTS -
89-541.
89- 542
EXHIBIT D
- CITY OF MIAMI VOTING PRECINCTS -
89-54
89-542
953
n;
--
•�
i�. E• P7 tsr . -��-
HVI 71--SL.
54iI S07
_Sol
505 I)p
506
r
514
51`►
S1 2
•
51).
i 17 .��
Mq 36
t..
524
52U 529
537
53
536
�-
., E
550
526
514--
��
55 1
531
y
--'--j-
549
546
53, i
540 s_
— 545
NI
560 54$
y44 r 42541
-
554 G -- 547
�- 556 s51 559 'A 562 5G.3 5r)I 56, 566
�VI O SRO S�. U
567
572 �--
575� Mr �. -570
576 573 571 r,613
579
578 58I 577
+'
57 p
5E34 5U'3 -
rS.--
5(101 5 & 7
...-_ fir•
89-542
EXHIBIT E
- THE COMKITTSEiS RECOMMENDED DISTRICTS -
-5, 4
-542
3o CL::NSUS TRACTS
.f
004
"-V
l30J
T siQ,
t'� u
9
PLANNING DEPARTMM
ECONOMIC PLANM"G UNIT
JUNE 19811