HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-83-0898J-83-799 40
RESOLUTION NO. 83--896-
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER
TO PROVIDE FINANCIAL SUPPORT IN THE AMOUNT
OF $3,000 TO THE JOINT CENTER FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL AND URBAN PROBLEMS TO
RESEARCH THE EFFECT THAT THE PROPOSED
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CURTAILING STATE
AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT REVENUES TO THE 1980-
'81 LEVEL WOULD HAVE ON STATE AND LOCAL
GOVERNMENT AND ALLOCATING SAID AMOUNT FROM
THE CONTINGENT FUND.
WHEREAS, a constitutional amendment has been placed on the
November 6, 1984 ballot by initiative petition; and
WHEREAS, said amendment would require state and local governments
to curtail their revenues back to the 1980-81 levels; and
WHEREAS, sucn curtailment of revenues would severely restrict
the ability to provide educational and governmental services; and
WHEREAS, there is very limited time before the election for
the citizens to understand the sometimes complex nature of govern-
mental funding; and
WHEREAS, the serious impact that the proposal can have on the
health and welfare of most citizens requires an in-depth review of
this issue; and
WHEREAS, the Joint Center for Environmental and Urban Problems
proposes to make such an in-depth study of this issue; and
WHEREAS, the City of Miami finds it in the public interest to
assist in the development of explanatory information for its citizens
to better understand this issue;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI, FLORIDA:
Section 1. The City Manager is hereby authorized to pay $3,000
to the Joint Center for Envircnmental and Urban Problems in support
of the proposal attached hereto and made a part hereof to research
the effect that the proposed constitutional amendment curtailing
state and local government to the 1960-61 level would have on state
and local government.
CITY COMMISSION
MEETING OF
OCT 255 1983
IRESOLU710N no. 8 3 �—/
•
.a►
Section 2. An amount not to exceed S3,000 is hereby allocated
from the FY 183-184 Contingent Fund.
PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 215th &iy of October, 1983.
ATTEST:
H G. NGIE, CITY CLERK
PREPARED AND APPROVED BY:
ROBERT F. CLARK
DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY
APPROVED AS TO FORK AND CORRECTNESS:
JQ'SE R. GARCIA—PEDROSA
XITY ATTORNEY
Page 2 of 2
,Maurice A. I:erre
M A Y 0 R
FLORIDA ATLANTIC INIVEASITY
FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY
Jur- 23, 19013
Hc�rard Gary, City I'lanager
Ci tv of *rliarli
3E 10 Pan A.neri can Drive
liar.;i, Florida 33133
Dear Ali-. Gary:
The citizens of Florida face a momentous choice to be made in
Novemter I a- They must vote on the so-called "Citizen's Choice"
initiative. This proposed measure will have substantial short and
long. ter:r implications for state and local government in Florida.
The Joirt Center is proposing to conduct an objective assessment
of this ir,�ortant issue. Because of our limited financial means, we
are turning to the cities and counties within our service area for
the needed financial support. We are absorbinq approximately S50,000
in support of this effort. Ho,Never, this leaves us S100,000 short
Oil the needed funding. We have asked the three county commissions to
cortribute S60,000 of the 100,000 needed. We are turning to the
cities to raise the other revenues.
The attached proposal detail s rrhat we propose to do wi thin our
rese-rch program. 1,,e believe that it will be beneficial to all to
conduct a coordinated and objective review of this proposed consti-
tutional amend,,.ent. Vle ask your financial support to attain this
cbjective.
I rill be pleased to discuss this with you and your staff and to
discuss the program and the request with your city council.
Si ncerel y ,
!c'
mesC. Nicholasting Director
JCN/1a
Enclosure
REPLY TO -
D 15151VEST CC '.'ERCIAL BOULEVARD. FORT LAUDERDALE. FL 33309 (305) 7761430
❑ FLORIDA ATLAIJIC UNIVERSITY AD"AI',ISTRATION BUILDING. Room 14. BOCA RATON. FL 33431 I3051 395 5100. ext. 2535,2534
❑ FLORIDA INTER*,ATIONAL UNIVERSITY, TRADE CENTER 320, SAY VISTA CAMPUS, NORTH MIAMI, FL 33181 (305)940.5844
FIJI Is �89 E.
A PROPOSAL TO CONDUCT A RESEARCH PROJECT ON
7T[E PROPOSED "CITIZENS CHOICE" CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
BY THE
Florida Atlantic University/Florida International University
Joint Center for Enviromental and Urban Problems
PRESENTED TO THE CITY OF MIAMI
jU`NE 1983
rO CONDUCT A RESEARCH PROJECT ON
IZENS CHOICE" C0NSTITLTICtiAI. AMENDMENT
BY THE
iversity/Florida International University
or Enviromental and Urban Problems
PRESENTED TO THE CITY OF MIAIMI
jUNE 1983
83-89b-
0
i
BACKGI:CUND
1
In November, 1984; the citzens of Florida will be asked to
vote on a proposed amendment to the Constitution which would
place a limit on local and state government revenue. This
initiative within Florida must be seen within the context of
similar efforts around the country. The Florida proposal is,
however, quite different from the limitation proposals in other
states. The typical proposition does not limit government
revenue at all. Rather, it limits how government may raise its
revenue. Specifically, the thrust of most of the propositions
have been to shift away from property taxes and toward user fees
as a means of financing government operations and services. The
Florida proposition, unlike other state efforts, limits all
revenues regardless of source. Moreover, it does not seek to
redirect revenue away from property taxes. Thus the Florida
proposition is unique among the various tax limitations
proposals around the country.
The rapid rate of inflation during the 1970's, coupled
with the severe recession of the early 1980's, has caused all
American households to become more conservative in their
financial dealings. This can be seen in a number of ways, such
as the increased average age of automobiles. That the public
would look to government to do the same is understandable.
However, the proposed amendment to limit revenues will be the
most significant change ever made in local and state government
in Florida. As such, it is imperative that their be objective
83-89t--
46 2
and credible analysis of the amendment itself and what its
implementation would mean to the present and future households
of Florida.
While the proposed amendment is the matter of immediate
attention, it is equally important what it is that the public
would have Florida state and local government do with respect to
service delivery and revenue raising generally. The simple fact
that 600,000 registered voters signed the initiative indicates
that there is a degree of voter and taxpayer concern
irrespective of the outcome of the amendment.
The joint Center is proposing to conduct such an objective
research effort. In order to finance this research program, the
joint Center is turning, first, to the county governments within
its primary service area. We are requesting that the county
governments support one-half of the costs of the project. The
other half will be raised from private and civic sources. The
objective of this effort is to supply voters with an analysis of
the proposition to aid them in their decision of how to vote.
Additionally, local governments will be provided with
information on how to implement the amendment if it passes and
on what the public would wish its local governments to do if the
proposition fails.
83-89E.
� 3 1
PROBLE`•1 STATE-VV' T'
A number of fiscal limitations have been adopted
throughout the United States during the 1970's. Some of these
limitations, such as proposition 13 in California, were
surrounded by controversy and received a great deal of
Publicity. Here in Florida, voters are beginning to examine a
proposed fiscal limitation that may also elicit a large amount
of controversy. The provisions of this amendment require state
and local governments to restrict revenue collected, regardless
of the source, to the 1980-81 level plus annual adjustments of
two-thirds the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Ad valorem taxes on
new constuction, though, are excluded from this revenue limit.
The maximum level may be temporarily increased for a period not
longer than two fiscal years. Such an increase must be approved
through a voter referendum. All revenue collected above the
allowable limit will be held in escrow and be considered revenue
for the next fiscal year.
If passed, the proposed amendment will have measurable
impacts on revenues collected at the state and local level. A
report prepared by the Office of Revenue and Economic Analysis
for the state of Florida outlines the impact this limit would
have at the state level. It is asserted that;
A traumatic adjustment will be required in the
first year 1985-86, as about 1.5 billion will
have to be trinmied from the prior year's bud-
get. It will be virtually impossible to maintain
real per capita services with a cut of that mag-
nitude. All tax increases since 1980 and the
programs they supported would have to be re-
scinded.
83-83E
/% 4 0)
Decreasing the budget by 1.5 billion represents a
16�- reduction in total revenue from 9.3 billion in fiscal year
1984-85 to 7.8 billion in 1985-86.
At the local level revenue collections will also be
contracting. In 1980-81 local governments had revenues of
approximately 10 billion. Preliminary indications are that up to
,�2 billion would have to be cut fron local government
expenditures to comply with this propostion. This would be a
reduction of 17;'0.
School districts will also be faced with a 1980-81 based
revenue cap. Given that school districts have only state
appropriations and their property tax few alternatives would
appear to exist other than a curtailment of expenditures and
therfore services. This is also true for special districts such
as the South Florida Water Management District, hospital
districts and library districts.
Voters considering fiscal limitations in other states
did not always have a clear understanding of the provisions
of their limitation nor of the impacts it would have on
services. A study conducted by The John F. Kennedy School of
Government shortly after the passage of Proposition 2 1/2 in
Massachusetts, stated that a majority of the voters believed
incorrectly that "...Proposition 2 112 limits state government
taxing and spending." The study also revealed that:
Opponents and supporters anticipated very different
results from proposition 2 1/2. With one exception,
supporters were much less likely than opponents to
expect 2 1/2 to force cutbacks in each of the fif-
teen services we included.
83-838
PN 1)
P]
Thus, voters did not full}, understand the proposition and were
divided on what service impacts to expect with its passage.
These findings reflect two problems: (1) poor
communication of information to the public and (2) not having
the information to communicate. Based on these findings
government leaders in Florida may reasonably wonder if an
informed public will go the polls next November.
The Joint Center argues that Florida voters will need to
know the costs and benefits that may be derived from the passage
of this amendment. Specifically, what sevices will experience
funding cutbacks, how will the the remaining services be funded,
and what kind and how much of a tax savings can be expected?
Since the costs and benefits will vary among households,
depending on their socio-economic characteristics, these
differences must also be determined.
OBJECTIVE
The Joint Center will produce a report that will assist
the public in making an informed decision concerning the
proposed amendment. The report,available in August 1984, will
allow the citizens of Palm Beach, Broward, and Dade Counties to
approximate both the tax savings and the service reductions that
their household would incur if the Citizens Choice Amendment is
adopted.
PROJECT DUSCRIPTIC)N
A method for collecting information and performing the
83�8�L�
� 6 1
analysis needed can not be based on research that utilizes
comparative studies i.e., research that examines the impacts of
fiscal limitations in other states in order to predict the
impacts in Florida. Such a study would require comparing Florida
to a state with similar fiscal and demographic characteristics
and having similar fiscal limitations. Currently, such a
parallel does not exist. Therefore an indepth study utilizing
public opinion surveys will be conducted.
The proposed project will last for 15 months, from July
1, 1983 to August 31, 1984 and consist of the following seven
phases which are described below.
PHASE 1. Literature Survey
This phase includes identifying and reviewing the
literature pertaining to fiscal limitations. A comprehensive
summary of reports, news clippings, and documents will be
produced. The California experience with Proposition 13 and
Masachusetts experience under 2 112 will be of primary concern.
The specific items for in-depth research will be of what
services have been reduced and how both the public and private
government are coping with implementation.
PHASE 2. Tax Savings from the Proposition
The reason that the proposition has been put forward is
to lower the tax burden on Florida tax payers. However, the
amount the burden will be lowered is not known. It is an
essential part of this effort to project the net savings, in
terms of tax dollars, that the taxpayers may expect to receive.
savings, however, will not be the same for all households.
83-89b-
7
Thus savings will be projected for various household types.
1. A middle -income family consisting of a
married couple with two children in public
schools.
2. A retired married couple with no children present
3. A lov.-income family consisting of a married
couple with two children in public schools.
4. A young single professional.
The 1980 Census will be utilized to determine the "average"
characteristics of these household types. In this manner we will
be able to provide tax savings estimates in such a way that the
vast majority of households could project their own individual
savings. The ability of a household to project their savings is
essential in order that the same household can balance these
savings against the public services which they will have to
forego.
PHASE 3. Citizen Survey
In this phase a telephone survey of twelve -hundred
randomly selected households within Palm Beach, Broward, and
Dade Counties will be conducted. The respondents will be
randouly distributed among the municipalities of the three
counties. Public preference for reducing, increasing, and
maintaing current levels of state and local services will be
identified. Additionally, respondents will be asked to express
preferences on, first, how they wish to receive services, i.e.,
public provision vs private provision, and, second, how they
would prefer to pay for the public services which they receive,
83-8.9t .
S4?,r
8
I
i.e., taxes vs user fees. Similar surveys in Massachusetts
yielded very significant insights. Unfortunately, the
Massachusetts survey was done after the passage of the
proposition. The objective of this survey will not be to project
voter sentiment with respect to the proposed amendment. In fact,
no such questions will be asked.
PHASE 4 Interim Report
Given that the results of the public survey may be of
assistance to local government, an interim report will be
prepared after the completion of the survey.This interim report
will cover all subjects taken up to in Phase 1 through 3.
PHASE 5. Implementation Stratagies
During this phase fifty elected and appointed local
government officials will be provided with the results of the
fiscal impact study and the citizen survey. The officials will
be asked to specify the services they would recommend for
funding cutbacks and to denote the revenue sources they would
advocate for funding each of the services. In this way it will
be possible to construct post implementation budgets. These
budgets will be used to assess service delivery changes which
would occur from implementation.
PHASE 6.Privatization
Turning services over to the private sector is one means
of implementing the proposition. Thus, it will be fully
examined. In this phase the services which are likely candidates
for privatization will be analyzed to determine the user costs
83-83�
9
I
which households would incur from such turnovers. The point here
is that an informed household would have to know any increased
private costs which may be a consequence of reductions in public
costs. For example, if the City of Fort Lauderdale stopped
collection of solid wastes to reduce expenditures in line with
the mandated revenue limit, households would then be required to
pay a private collection firm to remove their wastes. The
savings would be the net difference between the lower public
costs (taxes) and the higher private costs.
Phase 7. Dissemination of Information
The Joint Center will prepare a clear and comprehensive
report for sponsoring agencies which may be reproduced for mass
distribution. The final report will be made in two sections. The
first will be a detailed report setting out the methods and the
findings. The second report will be designed for mass
distribution. Thus it will focus on the findings with only a
brief statement on methods and related issues.
Other Reports. At the completion of each component of this
project reports of findings to date will be supplied. These
reports will be submitted with the objective of providing the
findings in as timely a manner as possible.
83-89E,
I
im
10
I
TIMIE SCHEDULE
Activities
1.Literature Survey
1.Tax Savings
3.Citizen survey
3.I.Development of research
instrument
3.2.Select and train
interviewers
3.3.Pretest and revise
instument
3.4.Collect and process
data
3.5.Analyze findings
3.6.Write report
4.Interim report
1983 1984
J A S O N D J F M A NI J J A
5. Implementation Stratagies
5.1.Seleet individuals to be
interviewed
5.2.Development of research
instument
5.3.Collect and process
data
6.Privatization
7 .Writ e report
8.Submit final report
83-89E-
BLUGET
Expense Description
Amount
I.Personnel:
Principal Investigators;
Dr. James Nicholas at 10% time
4500.00
Dr. Lance deHaven-Smith at 1015time
3200.00
Research Associates;
1 at 1004'o time
24,000.00
2 at 50cc, time
24,000.00
Secretarial/Clerical at 255, time
8600.00
Survey Interviewers
5600.00
II.Fringe Benefits
3137.00
III.Travel
2000.00
IV.Printing and Duplication
2000.00
V.D1ai1 i n g
500.00
VI.Supplies
500.00
VII.Telephone
2000.00
VIII.Computer Time
1500.00
IX.Overhead at 201,', of project
16,507.55
total 98,045.30
REQUEST:
Btoward County 20,000.00
Dade County 30,000.00
Palm Beach Counties 10,000.00
Other Sources 40,000.00
83-895,
12
PERSCNNEL :
JAMES C. NICHOLAS,
Acting Director of the Joint Center and Professor of Economics,
Florida Atlantic University. PhD in Economics, University of
Illinois. Dr, Nicholas has been with FAU since 1969 and with
the FAU/FIU Joint Center since 1972. He has had extensive
experience in local government finance. One particular
experience of relevance is that he was on the staff of the
Florida Tax Reform Commission where he was responsible for local
government finance.
KATHLEEN SHEA ABRAMS ,
Associate Director of the Joint Center and Assistant Professor
of Public Administration, Florida International University.
PhD, University of Florida. Dr. Abrams has been with the Joint
Center since 1979. She has gained extensive experience in local
managerial affairs having served on the South Florida Regional
Planning Council and having been its chairperson,
LANCE DEHAVEN-SMITH,
Associate Director of the Joint Center and Assistant Professor
of Political Science, Florida Atlantic University. PhD in
Political Science, Ohio State University. Dr. deHaven-Smith
joined the FAU faculty in 1981 and joined the Joint Center in
1982. He has extensive experience evaluating the implementation
of social services and tax expenditures. Before coming to FAU,
he led national studies of the Targeted Jobs Tax Credits and the
Help Through Industry Retraining and Employment Programs for the
U.S. Department of Labor.
J . ARTHUR FE I SE ,
Director of the Institute for Public Policy Opinion Research of
the Joint Center and Associate Professor of Public
Administration, Florida International University. PhD in Public
Administration, Syracuse University. Dr. Heise joined FIU in
1975. He has been associated with the Joint Center since 1976
and became Director of IPPOPR in 1983.
R I CYiARD G . ORMAN ,
Assistant Professor of Public Administration, Florida Atlantic
University. PhD in Public Administration, Syracuse University.
Dr. Orman has been with FAU since 1978. Prior to joining FAU,
Dr. Orman was a practicing public administrator and immediately
prior to joining the faculty was City Manager of Riviera Beach,
Florida.
83-89EO
t
14
T1:E JCI: T CE`.`i_F•
The Jeir.t Center for Environmental and Urban Problems was
established by the Florida Legislature in 1972, It was the
first coo.e:ative program betweer. Florida Interr.ational and
Florida .-atlantic Universities. Its mission is to conduct
research of relevance to state and local environmental and urban
issues. For :G years the joint Center was directed Dr. John
't. DeGrove. In April, 1983, Dr. DeGrove took leave from the
Joint Center to serve as Secretary of the Florida Department of
Com=unity Affairs. Dr. James C. Nicholas assumed the role of
Acting Directo: during the period of Dr. DeGrove's lease.
The Joint Center maintains its headquarters at a joint
FUl"FIu facility in Fort Lauderdale. It also has offices or. The
FAA Campus in Boca Raton and at the Bar Vista Campus of FIU.
The joint Center is currently staffed with one director, 3
associate directors, i professional research associates, 6
graduate assistants and an a6ministsative staff of 6. The
Center has 4 microcomputers of its own and access to the Univac
1100 operated by SERDAC.
In its 11 Fears the Joint Center has conducted a wide
range of reseaach projects for many public agencies. It has
done an extensive amount of work in the subject of "growth
mar.a,ement" and the fiscal management of growth. A
representative group of sponsoring agencies would include the
L.S. .T`.' partme:.t of Azriculture, L.S. Environmental Protection
Ager.c•.•, L7. S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Department of
Housin, and U:ban DeveIopment, The National Scier.ce Foundation,
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, Florida
Department o`. Corr; unity :affairs, Florida Departmert of Natural
Resources, The Executive Cffice of the Governor, The Florida
Ser.ate, The Florida House, South Florida Warcr Managcment
District, Collier County, Brois-ard County, Dade County, Lee
County, Vartin County, Palm Beach County as well as numerious
cities such as Boca Raton, Fort Lauderdale, Hialeah, Hollywood,
:•'iami Ber:ch, and Pest Palm Beach.
In addition to its own staff, the Joint Center can call
upon'the cor.'rined faculities of it host institutions. It this
Proposed research projcct tl:e Center will do just that.
Cne of the primary functions of the Joint Center is its
conznunity outreach program. This progr air, involves frequent
workshops, se,..inars and other forms of public presentation.
T::us ti.r Center has the capability and experience to make its
Product avails'. -le to the public upon its completion.
83-898,
k - .
•
0
Howard V. Gary
City Manager
Clark -Merrill
Assistant to the
Intergovernmental
CITY OF MIAMI. FLORIDA
INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM
August 24, 1983 "LE
g Proposed Constitutional
Amendment to Restrict State
and Local Government Spending
FS
City Manager for
E.,c.cS. RF5 Yes
Affairs/Cable airs/Cable
"It is recommended that the attached Resolution
authorizing the City Manager to provide financial
support in the amount of $3,000 to the Joint Center
for Environmental and Urban Problems to research
the effect that the proposed constitutional
amendment curtailing State and Local Government
revenues to the 1980-81 level be presented to
the City Commission for their approval."
On November 6, 1984 the Florida voters are scheduled to vote on a
restrictive constitutional amendment that could seriously impact
on the City's ability to administer local government.
Sometimes referred to as "Proposition One", this amendment would
require State +nd Local Governments to limit all revenues collected,
regardless of source, to the 1980-81 level plus annual adjustments
of two-thirds the Consumer Price Index (CPI). There would be no
limitation on ad valorem tax revenues from new construction.
It is estimated that the adoption of this constitutional amendment
would have a substantially negative effect on Miami's ability to
provide needed services in a growing urban city.
Because of the potentially devastating social and economic effects
that this proposal can have on Miami, it is vital that we completely
investigate its impact on this year's budget and all future City
budgets.
The attached proposal from the Joint Center for Environmental and
Urban Problems estimates that State cutbacks may be necessary to
comply with this revenue rollback proposal. Such a rollback could
cause reductions in funding to public education and a loss of State
revenue sharing funds which this year are estimated to be over $12
million for the City of Miami.
83--89&
-
- -- � .. � t nisenps�!cststirwsteenas.v -
-� Howard V. Gary
City Manager
=R��+ Clark -Merrill
Assistant to the
Intergovernmental
CITY OF MIAMI. FLORIDA
INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM
LATE August 24, 1983 VILE
yg Proposed Constitutional
Amendment to Restrict State
and Local Government Spending
REFERENCES
City Manager for
Affairs/Cable ENCLOSURES Yes
"It is recommended that the attached Resolution
authorizing the City Manager to provide financial
support in the amount of $3,000 to the Joint Center
for Environmental and Urban Problems to research
the effect that the proposed constitutional
amendment curtailing State and Local Government
revenues to the 1980-81 level be presented to
the City Commission for their approval."
On November 6, 1984 the Florida voters are scheduled to vote on a
restrictive constitutional amendment that could seriously impact
on the City's ability to administer local government.
Sometimes referred to as "Proposition One", this amendment would
require State and Local Governments to limit all revenues collected,
regardless of source, to the 1980-81 level plus annual adjustments
of two-thirds the Consumer Price Index (CP1). There would be no
limitation on ad valorem tax revenues from new construction.
It is estimated that the adoption of this constitutional amendment
would have a substantially negative effect on Miami's ability to
provide needed services in a growing urban city.
Because of the potentially devastating social and economic effects
that this proposal can have on Miami, it is vital that we completely
investigate its impact on this year's budget and all future City
budgets.
The attached proposal from the Joint Center for Environmental and
Urban Problems estimates that State cutbacks may be necessary to
comply with this revenue rollback proposal. Such a rollback could
cause reductions in funding to public education and a loss of State
revenue sharing funds which this year are estimated to be over $12
million for the City of Miami.
40.
•
TO: City Manager
FROM: Clark Merrill
August 24, 1983
Re: Proposed Constitutional
Amendment
The Joint Center for Environmental and Urban Problems is staffed
by the Florida Atlantic University (FAU) and Florida International
University (FIU). Their first report should be completed in about
two weeks. The entire study is expected to take 15 months from the
time it began in May 1983. The most expensive and time consuming
part will be a state-wide random survey of citizens responses to
questions relating to governmental funding. They have estimated that
the complete cost of the 15 month study would be $150,000. The
university is providing $50,000 for the initial report. Counties
and cities are requested to provide a share with private sources
contributing the rest.
The City's share is $3,000 plus administrative participation and
cooperation in certain phases of the study.
This study could provide citizens with a better understanding
of how government uses revenues to assure the continuation and growth
of society's economic, social and physical infrastructure, a process
that is not often explained in simple terms and sometimes misunder-
stood by those who report on the activities of government.
CM/mmm
Encl.
Page 2 of 2
-
- -- � .. � t nisenps�!cststirwsteenas.v -
-� Howard V. Gary
City Manager
=R��+ Clark -Merrill
Assistant to the
Intergovernmental
CITY OF MIAMI. FLORIDA
INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM
LATE August 24, 1983 VILE
yg Proposed Constitutional
Amendment to Restrict State
and Local Government Spending
REFERENCES
City Manager for
Affairs/Cable ENCLOSURES Yes
"It is recommended that the attached Resolution
authorizing the City Manager to provide financial
support in the amount of $3,000 to the Joint Center
for Environmental and Urban Problems to research
the effect that the proposed constitutional
amendment curtailing State and Local Government
revenues to the 1980-81 level be presented to
the City Commission for their approval."
On November 6, 1984 the Florida voters are scheduled to vote on a
restrictive constitutional amendment that could seriously impact
on the City's ability to administer local government.
Sometimes referred to as "Proposition One", this amendment would
require State and Local Governments to limit all revenues collected,
regardless of source, to the 1980-81 level plus annual adjustments
of two-thirds the Consumer Price Index (CP1). There would be no
limitation on ad valorem tax revenues from new construction.
It is estimated that the adoption of this constitutional amendment
would have a substantially negative effect on Miami's ability to
provide needed services in a growing urban city.
Because of the potentially devastating social and economic effects
that this proposal can have on Miami, it is vital that we completely
investigate its impact on this year's budget and all future City
budgets.
The attached proposal from the Joint Center for Environmental and
Urban Problems estimates that State cutbacks may be necessary to
comply with this revenue rollback proposal. Such a rollback could
cause reductions in funding to public education and a loss of State
revenue sharing funds which this year are estimated to be over $12
million for the City of Miami.
40.
•
TO: City Manager
FROM: Clark Merrill
August 24, 1983
Re: Proposed Constitutional
Amendment
The Joint Center for Environmental and Urban Problems is staffed
by the Florida Atlantic University (FAU) and Florida International
University (FIU). Their first report should be completed in about
two weeks. The entire study is expected to take 15 months from the
time it began in May 1983. The most expensive and time consuming
part will be a state-wide random survey of citizens responses to
questions relating to governmental funding. They have estimated that
the complete cost of the 15 month study would be $150,000. The
university is providing $50,000 for the initial report. Counties
and cities are requested to provide a share with private sources
contributing the rest.
The City's share is $3,000 plus administrative participation and
cooperation in certain phases of the study.
This study could provide citizens with a better understanding
of how government uses revenues to assure the continuation and growth
of society's economic, social and physical infrastructure, a process
that is not often explained in simple terms and sometimes misunder-
stood by those who report on the activities of government.
CM/mmm
Encl.
Page 2 of 2