Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
R-81-0395
Alit, 11.1 GEOP F K�(A A TEI?R1 STA. CITY :1'1'1'OIIN I'.1 DOCUMENT INDEX CITY COINIM-,ISSION tit 'TING OF I ITEM NO. it' VE t AY 1 r ih!'`�1=f�•C:.FFIC�E '.ii_t.it�f?AVUiJ`•1 14 Howard V. Gary ,. May 6, 1981 City' Manager ...: Downtown Special Tax District Pot, Additional Police Services 16, ?;eph W. McManus Acting Director Planning Department It is recommended that the Commission authorize the administration to submit the Downtown Miami Special Tax District Proposal to the Planning Director, Metropolitan Dade County as the basis for a subsequent petition to the Clerk of the Board of Count\ CoAninissioners for the establishment of a Special T. District as outlined in Section 18-3 of the Dade Count\ Code, per the attached resolution. In response to the perception of crime downtown, the Commission has considered a Special Tax District to provide additional police protection at a workshop on Fohrunr\ 11 , 1981 and at a public work- shop on April. 28, 1981 at Ra\front Park: Auditorium. f The "Downtown Miami Special Tax District Proposal for Additional Police Services" (attached) includos the follnwing itoms: 1. Downtown 11i:imi Special Trtx District Proposa]. For :Additional Police Sorviees - identifying the need for a Spacial Taxili� llistric.t; 2. Recommended Uniform Patrol Stuffing For Spacial Tax District .in([ Staffing Levo Is For Special 1'uxin District; 3. Spoeicil Scrt.iccrs Tixln!r District - A Cost Allocation >l We I ; and 4. 'Memo: Special Taxin:;, District.: Individual Property Cost Increments For Alternative Increased Police Service Levels - tho three properties are: I3er i tco Office liuildin";, Howard Johnson Mote] and Restaurant (Sr 2nd Avenue) and Burdine's Department Store. "SUPPORTIVE DODU [ITS FOLLOW q The Planning Department Proposes a cost allocation model thalue, at takes into consideration three (3) factors: property property building value, property street frontage. Each factor is assigned the wane level of importance in the formula - 330. The Police Department present�ld for thenning distrnctaovernandlabove~ (6) alternative staffing le the recommended staffing level. The cost allocation model was applied to the following three alternative staffing levels: A-1 - 100r; increase in Services officers = S1,104,657: All sworn in 50 (1 Increase in Services: All SWUI-1' 11 officers = $ 578,350; 25r"C Increases in Services: All sworn Officers = S 286,498. its were as follows for the three properties e�+amMed Revitco Office Building; A-1: $5,452 B-1: 2,640 C-1 : 1,309 .; Howard Johnson (SE A-1 : $9 , 986 B-1: 4,834 C-1: .2,395 Burdines ,a 2nd Avenue) } 1 tk P A-1.: $14,759 :.. B-1 : 7,145 C-1: 3,540 It is now in order that the Commission direct the administration District Proposal for to submit the "Downtown Miami Special the Tus Planning Director, Metropolitan Additional Police Services" to i_U'V�V>> m AM j: •L.T �' fly% Lt.:l+n:''� Boa �a000,�oo��a� DCC== a L��Vucc== a { allIC sa ' r { J{ ( k4 i �✓ I� �. s l z Jfj,� s i .^` Ii�, n S t a i { ��. � r, t{ s f� ,. y U i sii �('r az sil d f S . � F t � 1 � L � 1 • 1 r k�l 1 �k F y. SSSS O � PLANNING DEPARTMENT liSUPPO!"TIVE DC v T S FOLLOW" s i { F i k b t♦z, I 1 s� �. i ,#^ 1 s -� �tl t { e,. {{ {' r 3. } t{� �� fl s sk -s ,t�{ � - � �� rFs z s s e y_ ikr_! r •_ J o- �, I '^.. r S. k1'1 z t� � : : u } 1 F .'-'� r 1 �,. t I{ a -i F r , � . I 1 i 2 } 5t j Purpose r The p1trpose of this document is to identify the treed for a. Special. Ta:•:i.n, District to help provide special. police services in Downtown Miam, i. This docl.t I(- t is prepared for the ?•Iet:rr_,po1 }.tun Dace COuntV Plannin;; Director as a basis for a subsequent. petition to the Clerk of the Hoard of County Commis i oncrs for the estab l ishl;;ent of a Special Taxing Di.itri.ct a:, outlined in Sc-ction 15-3 of the Dade County Code. Additionally, this document should provide useful informa- tion in the future investigation by the Dade County Manager as to: (1) the bcmndari es of the proposed district (2) the co:its of the s1,10cial servir•� s (3) annual cxpen:-:es to be bnrnF, b the district (�l) confor;;tanr.(� With the l.�acic Count;: 'taster Plan (5) h i.s rIl(lc t i ons coricern.i nL; the need and desirability of a district, and . (6) his recom-men(lation: as to the Jevyi.nz; of spec.in]. and the: :iinount of such levy, Scw)e' and Content s study con is;t�; of t%%o sections. The first describes the ittlportance of DO:i:nt:o:i:tl's regional focus through an analysis of. current coil clitix,r,:; and future: trends. The second section ex - of the sltec:i al sc)curi ty need:: of Dcw.ntown as evidenced by crime+ i nci cIcnee data. 'I'hi.:; :-�ecti on detai_1:3 some of tho Special. COSt:; a:;S0C7i;Ltr'(I %V i.t.11 tI -L' prOvi::;ie1n of th(,se dcvwnI-own C'rvicus For the pul•p(,::(r : Of t}ti:; an;LI"':,i:;, the ;Lr(�LI of inl:ere:Jt: I-)1'01)0,( (1 for the Sp(w.i n1 di.>t:r-i ct. I)c)::•nt:o%�nl Develop!! wnt Ant h- o2 2.t:d' i t:l:: elL:�i:I'1C'1. n('I'LI1 Oi L11U }1;'.!;il lilvor, and heDt'tA011:3 Of thu kI'ick'_:II ;11•11:L :;c)ut.l1 i1i' th(r '1i;wii RLvor, ea.,t: oC tiw oral 1-I:C t:-of-t;:nv .;nut 11 t0 the SE 1:)t:h Rand, exclu�li.n;; the I� i.;;}1-1 :i:.;(� cundr,;r i n.i.u::t rlrr�'( :L(�l::nc,nt: on SOuLII Bay- shure Drive: LLt. Point: V.i.(';:. ALt.nr•.h:nc-nt: A i:; a n;orc, C:iaCt, de:sr.rip- ti.on of th(: pt'OpO::(�(I t'1:;i nt; di-;tri ct boundaries. ,1 )V i 1 f11 C yet 7 1 Sin l i 3now.r _ 4. rr t f,} 1 I Fyn ONO 7 1 a EF �z ,r �el�Glred 1.9�� ChatYacte�is•ti.cs- ��M111 Talin bistfict and Cite Of-1 Miami Special. Taxing District C tef'i,t c Number As Percent bf ,.1iaTai ' Retail Employment �'RJ EmEmployment39 , 96-1 Office iiotel-;,;otel Employment 1,789 Total Net AcreageS9Y4C `1%O t ,pry `t Estimated population 1:1,109 ' O :� ,; f 1 Source: City of MiamiPlannin Ma:Yttrent ,e �� 1� S �4 . r"mercinl �cturing, co:.y "R The concentration of Aiiami's nett-ma.nuf 1 FAY Figure 1 which shorts the percent of 'ra acti.�>it ies is seen in ure areb..- tag;tific zone a to com::t��rcial uses. : } total net s7 Pro pects for Future: Growth. t, i',et:etzt anal, ti Cal wor,: prepared, for the Dt�;rnto•,cn People ;Mover Study Area, vary ':� mi lar in area to the OT proposed t:ice district, „o7aj{ indicates a. continuing stren;?then i n„ of downtown Mi;uni a'S a focu:� Bo t�: uQn l.96 and 19 7 .3 threc-fourths of regional . space built in '.1i.:c: wa:; collstrucLed in the Do ntown- office 'ni Bricall arna. {)t:t�t' 4,8 Mil.ion square + fju feet of office Sh:1Ce waS Completed in nowntc;wn Brichul1 prior to 10 S (^). a` i Tf the trend +n;lt.]Iillt�:,, and the information specific sty devr_ lolrnc��lt: proposals indicates that i t will, the Downtown Brickell area in empec tvd, to capture about: 3.6 million squara fe+�t of actcliti.on:tl office space by 1985 (3). a e 77 bbwhtown Miami is unique in southeast Florida and It is the business, banking, and office employment center of the southeast Florida region. it is an eNpanding commercial vote with increasing national and international significance. bowntow! Miami is experiencing a resurgence in activities that once located elsewhere. Exptindinn retail, tourist, and resi- dential activities aro reversing a twenty-year trend,which is helping to produce once again a d!vc!rsified downtown e 4, s a lit(-)%vn with special needs, unique, special prob- Do��-A --tunities. %_j 7 virtually unlimite UP lems and most importantly, continues -tsre gional focus for certain activities. , Downtown is indicate an ijjcrea�:.,ijj; concentration of 901i� Recent PrOjcctiOl ss sectors. During 1970, vfwl,; downtown employ in many busine of population and Housing, Aw, ` the 1970 Census sm., as identified by located in the City YKAN erqlloyment bas 10 forty percent of DaWs ving table shows the importance of ,f Miami (1), The f0110% re a0ho ci. District compared to the entire Wu a al. pa..;i.jjgr the proposed Spe -Orr City of 'Mianij QUIT j R Pf A q, RHAQM, Rol Ad U QM MMUN " -ir Mauq WWIQ 41r.ar E1'R —Nn�U ""o ANIi N's 0i, JEA T D NE A t ill MA I - A i S Df� FOLLOW ........... I NAT"o_ HOW. on SOL WON OEM M� 6 1 w . . . . . . . . . . . 'A `0 INTO I I owl 9 E M I - - - - - - - - - - fi . 1� t • f u,$ i oil �1 i' �`e�.ectecl 1D7� C�iat'actrr�i:�tic tiecia� Ta ira: Distt'ict tLnd City of ;4ti.a& ChOrAter 100- Special Taxing District Numb.,As Percent 0 f lfiatti Retail Employment 7,109 27'° office L• mploy nient 39,964 5l o Ilotel-iotel Employment 1,789 6 5 o ..Total Net Acreage 6S9.46 Estimated Population 10,100 (1) Source: City of Miami Planning l3apartmen The concentration of Miami's non -manufacturing, col;uercial activities is seen in Figure 1 which shows the percent of total llut area bytrat.ffiC VOW devoted to commercial. used, Prr)�-,pc:cCs for Future Growth Recant- analytical work prepared for the I)owntown People ,`+lover Study Area, vc,ry i tmi lacr in area to the proposed tax district, indicates a continuing strengthening of downtown Mi,-unj. -IS a regional focus. R"Moun 19GH and 1978 three -fourths of .1.11 office: :.pacr, built in Miauni. wa:, coubtructud in this Downtown- Urichal l nr,• :L. Q:'{,r I. S I! 0l i.on square feet of UAW shacc t was completed in Do v.nto::n-Brinhul] prior to 197S (2). pMF KOMI - r'il { T f the trend con Li Iluos, a ncl the 1 altUl;t; information on specif is �rL4 � developpent: pro} oral s indicates that it will, tho Downtown- F t ." I3rickell aroa i:s expvetvd to cantttro about 3.6 million square feet: of additional offic,c spalco by 198,1) (3). Pl:111ni.nv; for a Strong Doxntown Mi am Public policy clearly identifies a strong, viable downtown Miami in the Aso's and 19901s. LOW' S Central. Business District (C.80. ) is the only recognized di_v(eV: ified, r.e;;i_onal activity center in Dade County according* to the Comprehensive Developmelit IMaster Plan (C.D.M.P.) Dadetor plan : t:Lt0:, that: thr? r_c?ticept of a regional activity center emphasizes growth around "centers of activity" rather than directionless sprawl, S S The Dado plan cotlti.tlllns,` I:a "transit facilities and services Should support: the Shaping and staging; Of devr.; lopment , redevelopment, and inten-. ten-• sification of the contral bn_:inpss dis•-• • (.• , A NEW �i1:2mi' S; CnR1n1'n},nnA \=r? I;rnit�ll?,c�?•flr�ocl 31 :,n 1 J7G ;�(' -lp„ ident:ifacs thrc�e ' objKtivc:� for cic� .,,; ;ji : rt c :Lcn i . (l) PrOm" dO ntoWn Mi nini. as a regional F office cent car Miami I (?) promote as a f � ufinancial center, an ,a�, (::) in�.rr,;l;:� clu.:cltc��:n cm}).ic,3t:►rr:t.WE C ttl.Llnl' plan also sLatos the ]i11,)c)1•t::lnC.'.rr Of "contrLlity of o ff ic location" 5 r �ls c that will he ruinio?�ad Ton rngional rapid tlansit. only is the `;t:2•ongti! of C.Inwntown MULt:I} :l stated planning goal., bits. a Mro"a public investments effort i:, currently ltnder- .<< ;� - ;1 . ti 1'�I1 ' lrt r),)„� r} ov`:?• .�. '� , (1�;��_in(l' - _ : , f:nt� i t_L1 ,1t�,_r c,\•r�cnrnt: Pl C::1!)J t.:l f J.r::'lt•C)Vrl.lC l .a 11c�;L] c.!) )ishould encnurngn lj(v 1):1 lanc:r, of basin: �' o, l;r:,\•c:rn::;k attci•�- i.tiQq (�� ). tll', residential F 0 L L ' V�,�" ^. f•�i :, 1 ; t �j t J . f 1 ♦ �� of �o«•nt.��. n s�ll.tl.itll This section describe, some of the ;�l,0ci4t,inicle needy of 1) %%,ttto;+:n as identified by an n11a].ySi8 of recent crime evidence: data- Cri1:i.: Ch:irae:t;�J1'l.:�t].CS 1.11 J)owntown The folloNviI g table: contrasts, tI10 cr.l.mec,i that Occur in This analysis howntolwn vcr: u:; crime:, i.n th(_ tie' the -e. at 7.arr, Police Denartrle:tt's I ba;sod oil d:lta cont:li.11(d in The :'.iiami. In� Imnact F'i.7c� for 197S :tnclt 1�'r"9. lvatecJlass�ultsns data on major cririe:; sued as rape, a�O - murder and breaking- and entering. TABLE l�ia 01` Critne.:�: trot}o :ed Special 'j' ; District ict anf: ].t�' Of i.Ji.attli T..� n Crime - Special Ta:.: D3st:-ict �i t .it• 4 I' ll nt t F C1 1Tot.l. 1 1.4urdeLer 16 10. G 1?: ne 3r1 11.0 Robbery G ?C, 0 Asr-^ltlt U0;0 1:? hntori.nf; 1,1:31 Larceny d , 5S, i 26.7 Z'(:Ili cic `1'hcfZ: 344 Ax'.00n 17 0 To t::.t. I ? Tit t ) 14!r:3 l Z�U1' ill(' 1'(l17 CC' J{C'11(il •t: I il;' lit ( 1:-; that: 11,(1:; C7O:;t'7}' allJ)1'O:il- mat:rt pr p,11 ;t'tl sp r'l:c.t. t.". 1GO , 1 G 1 , 1C,:)', 7 t.;t; , 1(;;;, 17.1 , 2',19 2G '1'llc��t'c'- arcs a17 - llro::j::ltt:7 y 3:>; Area.---, i.11 t.hct Cil*.y of A.. ,et_n in '1'•2., c; T T onc' r::l,j t11• c:r i mn in five in ili.L.li or.rur:; `� within tlltt 7imi :; Of the prr,;�c�::c.cJ t:r�: (lisl:t•ici 11 L' tr.'ninC:i cat j.otl t:II t::�('.(1 i L' j claal. nc}• pr1] j c , ,:; ' ec� � ;ar}' . c. �crt i cc arc II c:�_ T;ible T:i the trench' iu major cril!"o 1:1'pos for 1073 and 1979. tic NE D U G 11-� 11 1 S : 11-'k [+� • i i lt: • i � St TYPO of �r itne Nlttit,r. r of Crimes pettebt Chance jcJ7^ 107 10 16 + 60 ;lurc�er-in:Ltl31.:2ug11tC1` `4 •' tape 43 986 + 57. 8 a Robber Aggravated Assaults 450 608 1,18l + 35.1 9, + 82:0 Breaking and EntnVing 883 � 6c1 , 5t'3 � 12:9 . Larceny s RGI• - zl 4 , 7 0 Vehicle Theft 6,428 Total , 1 tXcludes Arson Which W48 not classified c) , �� � major crime in 197S. t The twenty percent increase in major critstes ill the proposed ` �'e district at a time when major crimes increased by eight ta:ng percent for Miami as a whole, time a cause for great concern, This large increase during a timeof general ecanrtnic upsurge, especially in Downtown-Prickell., is an indication that a00 ISM different kind of crime problem is emergitl? that necessitates F ram' v NMI special. cr is^c. prevF-nn t i on and protect;iotl tnc�r�:,urr.s. ,�£ It s 'that • during normal An analysis of the criru. l.ticldi.ric�� shows � -6:00 p.m.) two kinds of business, daytimehc�ttr; (?:00 ;1•m, x all major c:r 1.I �C':;'�O�C111': Thisdl_Lll't'. 7.1. pattern h Z i rClii.11tled j constant since 1072 ;ll.thntt„il t:he proposed district has ex- {�� ��- Table, . periencud a t;venity jl�sruent increase In ma ov crit OS- F � ocscttrrc,ncc of major crimes in Down- < $' , ,*£ IV su;:-mal-i•,:es: tile.: hnur:; of �€ town-Prichell. } 1 + �r "4 "" . ONE! i# kt• ? t4.• ,1 t � K 1 1 5 I � 't �' S L i! i � i � 1 r - • U F • �y +�T �p�•p 4/��� 1 ti040 1I LOW" ji z 1 , 77 I t i �� ,� 1'- tit t.: 3 s 1 � t k I t?"f t I }�F � j .,.. S 3 �ti : � w# I �. ?� 1 i s t 2 � :.?� { i {.. � i �1, Y z of �• z ? � tlt tf � a ��� f S I !� fi�l� t '. 6 Y d n d 1 a i l 4 �n V '!t � r� ti t 11. t a• " tl f I,,,a 1 311 �i I. ci pI �Fu t.. oaf a..{t 4 4i a Y7! j1 .� t. F I 1 4 Y 1t trz1�t t ��. �: J i l: .,. st;r t ;......s •i..� ...: �. s�F ,.1 �. � ...P.. . 1.1,t 5 y 3,1 -. F rJ 4 s r c � • 1 - I�`t yj jT trcttit�tCiiYtajo Cr►nc�s Tit, 0 of per,"t etice Ty of Percent of Total b j TYPO 00.1I11 7 t 00 am 7 : 00 pin G : 50 am 6 : ` 9 pin 11. 59 pm lturder-man 1auItt:e1' 12.G", .5.0 2t.9.. 26. 5'; 3,, ]`" ,9 Rake 25. G`,; :3J . W Robbery �1 �", 4�i.?, 0 32.1,0 A+"'TT'avatcd As saLiIt ' r � �?", 23.61 3reakin; and j;nterng .5 1t', "' 14 . G 0 7S.0,� t+ 7 1 � Larcen 17. �1`0 63.4:� 22.2;0 - Vehicle Tlleft 4 7: 2,"0 1 41.0 0 — y Arson pp nn e7; G5. J 0 20. J 0 13. ' t' ' r ►t� O10 l ot-a • i ; T11e Ca, tilie peak ci criminal act:, coincicjF :.� <<:ith therecitest (pt 'tCla\', shop - ,imp DC1:ilt0'.:il ec, etc. 'e.persurist:;, ; are c:.:uninc�d b PoliceArea, definite land- y When critre occurrr.nce i i f iecl . Gi.vt�n tilt expect(?d ad - are cic,u ar, ,. ^�, rctl t ic?tl:;l�:i ,�:, arc %cr i:... _ ilitio21:i1ro::tll itl t.ht� Dt,:ct7f:(,.�n-1)i�i-cl:r.11. arc:>, crime Lrellcjs Ueiore 1JS:, :ill i.nu.ic ;tc a cri.t:i.c:1.1 n( ecl for adclition:al police resources n3 available. o:cr �•CCL i{ Table V on t1w following pa ;(! sttin:n:ari::c?� r,r im!� itic.i.cicnces 1 subarc:a.s, within the propo:;c?tl t:1:: district, Note the lti fall 4 nt•+,:" in a.ticl .;rl, �• r j+ '. •t;" Lta t.if' .<1 Col , ill "lloLol. Roo.". thi-QQ :11•0:1:. ac;rc;tt::t for nearly forty - OF :L11 cl•:ii::#,:, 1.1t the "Mixed C:oi•e" and "L'1•it i:c?l.l" :al•c i.ilci cs l::i lig the?i.r sltarc of total. cri.tt e , k Fa L L0W { tyL A 1 i {bl9L I t J Y {` e V Ems. L• �,,`' - - ,J t- Murder-Rapes vkobbe-y Af;: .II,1ts Breaking and Entering Larceny Veliic3c Tneft Total TABLE V T , CrimC OCCLI;2.I`E'TICOS bycaiFb-S2'E�1-107 Major y, T'�; t T� 1.J`' k c� 0 Foo t n c? :s ,. _ - _ S � 1 d C1) 1}3 v a — (? nT (3) 160,165 170 � t t (�) 171 (6) 174 7) 173` - { g) 169 (g) 173 (�0) 168 (11) 249,262 12) M� a„ F r s �Z{ fi tg e ly f t 1 t 1 The MPD recommends the hiri.nq of 16 now officers and the purchase and uquippi n; of S cars or three wheelers to provi do additional covorage over and above the current police c:ommit:ment. The l.G additional MPD officers would provi.dO plainclothes officers concen- trating on pick-pockots, street frauds, purse snatches, robberies, drug sales, muggings, panhandling, aIld shop- lifting. Additional. uniform coverage would concentrate on traffic flow, vagrancy*, park patrol truancy, walk- throughs of larger buildings, burglary of autos, im- proved arrival times and would provide a visibility- presence. The MI'D est:i.I7at0s that the yearly cost of plac.i.I1g one new uniformed officer in Downtown is $ 10, 000. This cost estimate includes pension costs, automobile, ins"rance, training and administrative support. A detailed cost breakdown is includod in Attach:mont R, providod by the Miami police Department. Total costs projected for a new, 16 man jowntown force I OIL, on i'llt of bef-, i till ![I ' 10 at Lho cnor Lntetlie t the ion of N - U , 5 L 11 5 t r Q L2 t a it (1 i1.t1. 3 t (I Av v it u 0 �ot•nL:i of the L.; t r tc t , L 110 n C Q t' U tl 11 i tl;', 0 U t 110 It- I 'I to the L,- it L L,- r I i nt,! of tb- t; t F la L! r S L r @-! o! t at the i 11 L r_1 t s Q u - t 1. o n of N . 14. 3rd Avowit! and Wo�j t F 1, a ,, 1. (! r Strupt, t It t-, n C c W03 t L! r Ly n.L n it ;,, t It i! c 2 it t: o r L L it (! of Vi!,; t F 1 a ,,, I e r Street L a t It L, (-- e it t r L i it L2 of L It !.! 'M j a m. L It i v v- r , L It o it c (! s o u L 11 unS, t (! r f o I L o w i it It!! c 1, it t: u r 1. i ne of tho tli.ami 1.Lver (meander L it;,, line)11,2 on:: t: (,- r 1. v r i,- h t. - o C -w a y 1 i ii :! of Mo t r o 1) o 1 ta ri D a d e C 0 11 ',1 L '.' Rapid T ra o f-, f L Corridor, thk-ticc rilliti i lig s o u L It o r Iy a L (-) it,,, said e a :; t e r it P a p i (I T r ;i ti i L C r) r r i d o r r i 11 t OL ti.-ly n '! t L) t rl t V. ct:i -0:1 It S 15 11 1to;1d, t 11 e ti c e * o u t It e. a -.3 t,� r ly a lo 11,, Lh c e n 1: ., r I i tic of S 1: . 15 'ch Road to * point mid,.:ay L Avi!mw and S. E. B ; i v s h o r o. D r i v o , thence nort:hoa(,t,-2rly to S.E. 14 L111 Street, L It (-, n r c e a F. or1y o it 5' 14t It S L r u o t-. to t it o wo s L 1. y bulkhead ( 1):1 0 C, L) U11 tt y b o 1 11., h,- -I Ll ) 1. i 1- 2 Oi' 11 i "; ca y 'i" - ";I y , t III L! 11 C u no.. the r iv al nn--' sa I '! 1), i (I "! C o 11:1 1) u 11 L! :i "! 1. i 11 (2 f 0 1, 10 .; i n t Ito b Ll I 'K. I 10 1) 1: C j 0 t' 11 11 0 17 L h -! I.- ar r o t h IM i a m i. B, i v t2 r to the 1)-1de Count-': b i i I '-'i o a (I ;i n ;11 th,-, soi.thorly boundary of the Lful'ont PlAzzi Ct2lltor propt- r t y , t e n o r t I i o a s : o on a I in o r 07.1 1". u 1 11 " -, p;1l-.11l(!1. to the southurly bcundar-., of the Duo:it Pia.,a and tho- St. Joe Pape_. Cuzmpany pro!1-!r,t.y It) a. point of tht! eFlsllerlll bulk head Mlle Of: t: h C S J o ,� Pa p o r C p ;i n tlhez,-,ce northerly alon;! the buillhoad line of Bjayfront: Park and the Bayfront Park Yacht D L.) C :. s , c L).1 'L: i. u 11 1 n -L L "no - I y along L h -! b u l': "-i e _ d line to a point o :i t I i t ' c e. : i t i r n .2 of 11. E , 17 L h S t r 0 C. t e x 1 "2 "l(1 t' d , t h - c e %.: u s t: e r I v a 1. c t I 1 .2 c e n IL :2 r 1 i n �_, o I;' N . :: . 17 t In Street to the eastern line of the FE*C Railroad, thence southerly alon. attic tic eastern side of the FEC Railroad right-of-way to the cunLorlino of N.W. 5t:I1 Street, thence wo Ig ce, -e- f, - sterly �lon � tit!_' - n I- :line in c o f 1: tti 51h, Street, to the point of beg.-nning. ml 01 AttACI =M E,yT "F3" . � Prolected yearly direct costs to Djace ft hel-V Po1iC0 Officer in Downtown Univot-m Patrol (cffectiVo October 5, 1Jg0). Starting salary 14clical Insurance Covr_rage ( h �) i2 pension costs (40.9.};,) k. 6558 wor}:ers Coinncn,ation (50:") • �° �I t1t11�Or:1:;, E-juil mcilt and Fireatth (first .k.: Veilicle mi.leagr, (F:,t. 50r per mile k ;: 36.G miles per day ., 208 'day. 1 Vell.LCle pt.lrcha,(-, (5 year pro -rate( Y 1.6 shift rr_lief: factor) ►C11Iift dZf rl�r,.ntial (n /. f01.r T1/ii }10L1r) . 1- It 1 ) t + _ +• i `•A 'n 7 ?ClLld � 5I-cat i cc ; ensat ors ti;ze) , ( (� nat.�� It' 2) ' . I:adio, 211.D.T., Port a'ble radio, 600 `7 year pro-rateci 1..6) Traitlinc (mouth i'....st Florc?ia95 a Institt:t.� Cr:�I;I :al Justice) - J on � _ t Year? v Phvsical 75 • Y 7 i F I G ...- t . c e F '7 , (Pro-rat.2d 1,000 !:::nl.) Fire Theft - Tort - Coll_.s10:1 Y Liabi-l► Su;.er�: ison (n,.se Salary - ; I r63 , _ Sn� g�a:1t, st=cp 3 + 7) + t`eC: llllstrat'..=��C::t ITIlr, ct, lla:,eou:; ( C01::: U.n Ca t1011 C, records etc. i 8E5 _ "3 $40,000 h'r7t:e nu;nb(7�11. o pit::: A .. - (32 hkz per $.`40) - 640 pit:: — Plt,: ,a �, r - (40 l'ir's, per wee%) (50 t.iC.�.a }: $• �}o -- Boo �--•-- t �V 9 S 0 Ovc• t L- I..,_ cc -nut- aL' ion ,r,,,,Mn�j-ci-halt $ +'',`72 1'.tic? n�'crt�s;t - a .. 2. c3o1�•:r7 - >: 1,00 raise 1980) $31.0,7G� : ill patrol pj� 3fJ0 Officers 1979) avC!rag0- t lr(' pail? patrol Overper + !� Officer ©1J4. Note nu,,!ber 3 3 %-.het:1 Patrol ,-:ould Ilot inc) u0c I.1. D•T• 's • . ", 6 • i i � � _ F ' 1�i t _. i' r- S (5" 'Mr,114DED AVERAGE PATROL WNTVING FOR SPECIP�t bt8TptCT (S.T.D.) AND CITY 01-7 MIAI.11 AS A WHOLE q-,A I p, M 4 CITY' AS A WMOL13 Sj,T8D, Units Men Units- meh To t a I 7 A,M, to P.M. (V Footbeats 10 10 3-Wheelers Horses 3 Paddy llacioft ........... Total 21 ix PSG 1.1onday thru Priclay 8 A I M i to 4 P 14 Total T - - - - - 9 - - - - - - 0 S.T.D. CITY AS A WHOLE 1,#�ORNI TOTAL: 24 Units 25 Men 67 Units 77 Men PST: TOTAL 9 unit,-, 9 Men 18 Units 16 mcwe';,; TOTAL 33 Units 34 Men 85 Units 95 Me S.T.D. 38.9%35.8 - - - - - - - - **1rNmt'. it it ,tom z r. A. - - - - i. - - - - - - - --- - - - 11 T. it FM 4— r -r s a Y (9L Ch OFFICERS NEEDEb FO(? Stiff) N wjys CC)%7};f?i1GL iblo bATArL AND 5FECTAL PATAOL tJN1fi (Spti) DAYS AS INDICAT8b rK" 9nIFT 41 Mori � et day y �, 2,870 man hours per wee}: y►h►` S i F ' • 46 inch Pet day_ �t210 man hours per week " i' SHIFT ffi 0 inen pet day _ 3, O10 man hours por week 'NFU: Wagon _ 2 tnen x 7 days 140 man hours per wee}: Pootbeats m 10 lien x 6 days 600 man hours per week 3=t`heelers _ 18 inert x 6 days 1,080 man hours per week Horses 6 men x 5 days 300 man hours per week TOTAT, MAN HOUnS PER t(MEft 11, 220 11 220 than hours 40 hours = 280 police officers need to staff for one week, each police officer uses an a"verage of 276 hours per year HVIt for 0 01 and o� w h two year study (1978 1979) inoicates that police officers use 276 hour;; of I'Vn, �f.011, and $lift per year or are available for 1,801 ho172':3 of. work (2,080 - 27G = 1,804) . Therefore: 2,08n hou2 :: ��v::ilabJe poli.ce offi.cers ?80 1, tt;O'S }iou2=c available _ ' o,i�11✓f bEb Uf31.rO1'21.1 PA11,110L 8111VIf•10 vorl S1'T;CIiiL T :XIffG t8thtCT ANb CITY Off` f M'.11 AS A WHOLE AT nUDIET STREIN(J'TH 8i4*. S, T, b, CITY A8 A Wjiott tfnits Men units Mef r S)f` 6: 30 A.M.TO: 30.M. 3 3 3 41 PSA, to PSA nO'� 51iIrT = 9 P,1i. to 7 A,m. K= 1 1 SPU a pro :imate time 8.410 A. M , to 6•: 30 P .1.1. : Pootheats 10 10 (6 days) 10 3-1-;heelers 7 7 (G days) 18 18 horses 3 3 (5 days) 6 Paddy Waaon 1 2 (7 days) 1 � 21 22 35 36 S.T.D. CITY AS A WHOLE TOTAL SWo1a:: 32 Units 33 Men 135 Units 166 Men S.T.D. 23.7:, Units 19.9 Men -- '.^OT',L I'S:. : % S.T.D. 9 Uni.t., 9 `ic,h 19. 46 U::its 46 2•!en G`c, Units 19 . G t,ten -- -- TOTALS 41 Unit, 42 M,en 1.81 Unity 212 Men % S.T.D. 22.7';, Units 1.9.8% Mon -- -- *This presun►es all Police Officers to be fully trained and capable Of functioning a , a One-man Unit (.January 1.982) . 2/2/8 i y w�T P&I ►r " SIi1 7' men per clad � * 010 man hours per week SP�f. Wagon Men x 7 days 140 man hours per week Eootbeats 10 men x 6 days 600 man hours per 3-Wheelers 18 then x 6 days 1#080 man hours per week Horses 6 men x 5 days 300 man hours per week TOTAL MAN HOUnS PER WT+ EF: _= 110220 11 2?0 man hours 40 hours _ 280 police officers need to staff for one wool:. - Each police officer uses an average of 276 hours per year uVii I �no and It two Year study (1978 - 1970) indicates that police officers use 276 hours of "V", "Ii0" , and "I" per year or are available for 1,80.1 hours of wort: (2,080 - 276 = 1, SO4) . Therefore: 2,080 hour :: ;iv;ii.Jcihle police officer:, 280 1, t;0a }ioiii=�-av;iilal�lc� Nur^her of police offices needod to cover V, EO, I. of Miami at �.,TEVE i l -:! + .III It � • � tti 5'C7 LD STe'�i'VINd ,LVS1�5 3'0?? S'DCI TAXING nI5'I')t7C' _- = 1980 COSTMOO- +� t G SPECIf�� TAXING DISTRICT (without additional assessment) - January 198: s Patrol Cars i i lI r p � t Yr i 13 M4. � t Pootbeats 7 -Wheelers L t Horses Paddy Wagon « 4 �r 4 4G1 f fi t A-2 C 100 o inctease sworn + PSA Total Staffing Net Oain t ie unit Men unit Men man, pattol Oat 13 15 4 6 k, $38,294 X�9 2 2 Asa ass rnn asmas Pootbeat i 200 10 1l� 84 , _ i, 21b 68,631or = 13j�55 35,976 - 71,952 iorses 294 = 76,588 Paddy Wagon38, PSA'S � � tl �' 8 .8 X 23t456 _ 187,648 TOTALS 71 75 3`0 33 $1,100, 317 p L 4 A-2 IQi ii - - - t100increase - - - - - - - sworn +'PSA) TOTAL COST - $1100,317 Plan 8-1 (50" increase staffing a1.1 sworn) patrol Car 12 12 3 3 �: 38294 - 114,882 K-9 2 Z Footbeat l`$ 18.. 8 7 x 34 t 121 272,968 3-t�lheeler 9 4 38, 6 31 154,524 if f " 1 1 35,976 - 35,976 Horses 4 L =4. .' •r } Padd1 V.agon PSA' S '9 9' " TO'I'F:LS 57 58 16 l6 $578, 350 V L.41 J 13-1 (50 increase all s w 0 3 - n `TOTAL COST - $578, 350 w _ rOLLO� r1 'fit r ('l■fJV Rim, • �:. t t n P, (501. increased sWoth PSA) Total Staffing Net Gain cost J�br TbTAL Type Unit 1.1r2n Unit Mcn tnah Patr01 oar 12 12 3 3 38,254 _ $114 t882 i 'ootbeat 341121 170 , 605 3-t1"heelers 11 4 38 631 " 154 t 524 I 1 horses 4 t '' ` ' 35t97G = 35976 , Paddy Paddy � } PsA's 12 a .: .. 3► 4 = 70 068 =u — '0'AI,S 57 58 6 16 fi546, 355 1fi i3 � i® ititi {la L.4 Y'i ii+i Y iG: i - i:i ti � Yit IGi - Yi Gii f➢. Y: -T.. ii Ci � YYC iG Yi LfL 1i ii ii i'i .t PLAN 13-2 (50 % increased sworn PSIS) TOTAL COST = ' $545, 355 ; 3 ; gym"R-11U,MA 5 ! I • ��r'�i� � `....1 ��° lncrer`3s(?d Stdorf'1 Total Staffing Net Olail typo unit Me-n Uhit MIeh Pat•tbl Gat F ootiSeat ; ` 31 1 68,242 3=�Iheele 10 lb 38.��1 = 10,605 Horses 8m wz_ adds► V,ac on p51�'S 3,4S6 = 70;368 TOTALS 4 50 8 8 $309,215 pL�1 C=3. C25increase sworn + P8jA TOTAL COST - $309,215 i V bjt, c tt(3 Y c•ai t c bt"Lt tb )rice a tic+ ' 3�e) i t ih Uni:orim PCO:-1•01 SU.rt ng Salary I:Zecl. II ?;eczx _cal 121.`7Ul'anCe COl'G?'ctdE' S• s pc' :clan Costs (.0.94�,) 9 + Sl4 t�or�:er's Co:np{.r.n�ttion (7, 4 2 ) oY;ns, F.c?uip:,.`n and Firea�ri vehicle miles (estimate 38G per mile Y. �16.6 miles per day x 208 days) Vehicle piirchr.se (five year pro-ratea 41.� _ shift relief factor)�b Shift di.ffc_rential H40fi per hours) $0 Average paid overtime (excluding compensator+ ti.r,,e) R3(2io, 2.1.n.T. , Portable Radio (seven years 4 ebb - pro -rated 1.6) F t; Training (coui.heast FIorida Institute 5 Cris final .7uctice) '? - ;25 Stange Tun„ uniti on 'early Physical 75 City Self -Insurance Fund (Pro -rated 1,000 " fire, Theft - Tort - Collision 728 Liahiii t•) • Su��civ1. ,Inn (h.a :e salary - Sergeant - r step 3 + fringe 7) �`414 r � _..... .. .- 4 .--.4- 111lt fl r+• ntltl tni r-nl l ny-so ]tir, .. r 4 y.# 1;w 1 z f z a 1 ' Commander P lannin-g and Inspections i tubAc* Cost Factors 'i1 G�f Lt. B'i/Ricgs itEktatPir.Es 5pedial TaYii r bistfiCt S.P.U. -tNCL6tunEs..� .1-� t . • It, The following represents cost factors as requested! (1) (2 ) 1 Foot beat officer: (per yr.-,�;�_I_; r•t',• �1r' ,,J I Starting Salary 15,912 r..Ljwrlf'^" Medical Insurance 856 Pension 6,514 5 , , Workman' s Comp. 1,181 Uniforms, Equip & Firearm 1,200 Average paid O.T. 1,035 Radio (Portable) 600 Training(S.E. Fla.) 495 ka Institute �4t�rz� r s �lr Fi 3 n cj C to S' L^.O 2 �i Yearly Physical 75 City Self -Insurance 728 Fund Supervisa.on 4,614 j!a Administrative & Zlkt 2fisc. � � e i! IY 1 Total $34, 121 .00 One tiuunted officer same as 53�9,; 121.00 One horse(donated) o ,r k ; Wit -Feed & upkeep per. year 1,85ti.00 Total 535,97G.00 3 Fr SUPPORTIVE J ^ ' /I i' V PP ORTI VE TSr tl t 'f 31 t k 4 4 S1 Y v FOLLOVV I ! — t t � of x � � ,� s� �r 1 (t t r-r•� -`�k` t� r�z 7 ✓ {� F � to t t'4,�i,"rr a 1 kt u, �� c i, r" 7� tt.z.{ � it''ut ; i_ t k` t r� '✓ti fl � 4 ,�i 1�.. �t t} • � � 3 t t P f J �. iYN � r � t j � ti '$ 1 I' ? } t { ! x [v i ' F i r r' i j t Lt. Thamas `:Comnander rt{ Planning and Inspections t i t f (3) Ofie 3-wheel offices y� l.' � t. Cost of vehicle (Trident Wheell motorcycle { Cyst er � � 3 p Year pro-ratedyeah for 5 years Maintenance including gas, , oil � service etc. (peY err) ���, 00 be yt. Total �3$rfi�l.00 f .i ; r ✓. r� t £� °r tt t ri ('.i i4 tt t 7 rt. J f i i r tt u:. t t t�Ktt so NMI foil'� L r i V`) I 1 �, li j 1 7 �. -7 I!i €• f: i r `r t t[ lfL 1 i �y f t 5a y MAI s- rt��7l +t�4 .,tta1 JJI ass �{ a rt ti } NNW s� tu,i �yFa 4t r S It r�. r 4! f 7 tz t3 .a t 1 it k{ i 1 t e 1 1 }. k •j :. � � i f t_ it i L 'r f` �. t - t , y ilk } ' i its - r 4 j t � � 1 t 3 4rt e r�� ¢�, t t',{ f i ✓ K �t� � log Ag Ego n}� dG,oS x�.It ( ttit {E y t 'xf I f t �� N{ t 4 : r_ f a t i mum r: tii r 1 �ww F U LL.U .. WAS Qm� { � , ,aT R l°I� 1 "irr P� v✓ )f�� t�s it i � l�r � ti t pf} � i f�::� sat � � � I t i ti . t s }i � :3i t�, {i -. r � 3 t J .fr t � { t �1 > tit S, i .. 1 i ) >s 4 r ;_ t t t k �s ;t I i r F tL a 1 za 4 � Y t 1 t 3N v rt . f t k tj k 4 i k ! ran p rt t 3 ri i! ti� EVA 1 � t { 4 tit'? bjt- MIAMI. VLOMDA 1NfU4-OFr1Ct-: MLMOPANDUM sckqtgnt V, Woog bat[. J a ii u at y 2 1 , 19 8 1 Fit.E PT L - 2 - 2 TO Supcivise't Cost Factok (yen and kspectioq's Manning oA FUtt?4g a Canini! 066"A on the Sttek 06A,icn D. L CaZdweZf REFEWMES Acting SUVnKViSWL cani"c DOW twwaswl S p,ejcctcd dikcct costs .toW01 a new Caw'" " 06"c ycaoZy u"j6o,,,m NUN: Satany (avekage 5 yeas.oj6iced 21 396 K 856 P InSu,"tancc COVCtage 83 772 F Pension Cysts yeas 066MA Sth 1) 497 ME Wokken is Cvnp�2nlativn 1600 0 U, jceA in year) TWO 262 UnijoAms Kcst A Yca"q issue) x 14,000 Ates 2 n7��!Mj Vch We WC6 I cst4matc Q wite hone) 20 S, 3 PCs- cat 1 2 0 0 Vehicte Punchase (5 ycaa plo-lated) Nil 4 80 Shj6t Vjti 6jenenat (at .404 PUL -time) 1 035 Avetage Paid OveNtime c x c C u d i n p c o m p C ns atV' ' y -Wed 600 Radio, MY.T., PetaWn Radio (seven YWAS SO 26 Range Ammunition 75 Veanty PhyOcK 728 City SM-Munance Fund (We satrny-snpeant-step 3+ Kinge 2, 307 Supcivisiciz 885 AdminiMative Suppwt and Miscettaneou, 360 Vetinanian (avehagalcM pet deg yizwty) A- Misectiancous dcg suppLies and maintanance 06 city ASYTOON A 2VO issued Ffasheight- 250 Dog Focd PROM 0 60 Covu'atts 14 paiA put yeas) j its 1YA Maining SuppLies (avnage cos t pet dog 2ti 15 dogs): 30 46,339 it i -N, ........... i i e 1 Sa a a t z 1 tJ31. 5fii�T'�`f�5 AIDI La I VACTOP Co7T TOP y ry! RIM IM Ally Now ENV �3 nnuns (INS 2,460.76 „. 7 y+ TOTAL $14 10 3 0 . 3 2 1 � lo �'U]�'I'IOi� ?dl�::`�iI1�eDE 1 8500 y � C f e `OUTSIDE MEDICAL! a L 1 S EKG 1 � , 1 - }.P1:1 k 1 11 UNIFORM COST PER YEAR 206.00 " MDT RADIO (7 YEARS PRO k � f RATED F YI r 7 t ki VEHICLE PURCHASE (5 YEARS 1 y t 1 f PRO -RATED 1.6 SHIFT � l^j RELIEF FACTOR) 800.00 VEHICLE MILEAGE (ESTIMATE 4 4 q 384� PER 36.6 MILES PER DAY }: 208 3 00 209 � sUI I V ISIml (L�»I:SALARY SERGEANT -STEP 3 + 7 `Y x r 1� TCT' l COST PER YEAR - $ 23 , 4 5 G �js ID i. �. V C FOLLOW Ir , a t t V Ita L t 23 ij7!'.,� i I .t € hs t= 4 If { Tile C; ty of �1,11 ii 110e al Service district -A Cost Allocation ititetliodoloy ii s paper will propose a taxinfr formula. to coven the the City's dosts of additional police services within The need for , protlosecl Special Service Taxing tiistri.c.t . iiicreaseds police Protection in the Dist-rict was outlined P.li in an earlier Planning Ucpartmont stud,,,- Do�,ntown ami ticlnll Police Ser- , f Special Ta:; District Pro}lcls:�7. for ticicli Thi.s need has bran transformed into t Vice (se(, att:lchrcl) • the required incremt�ilt of police set ice and cost; for this s service as set forth in a stud% prepared by the Po] ice For Special Departm- nt staff: Prorosrci Staf ring 1 r_ vrl.s } Tatiin ; District (see attached) W As the "special services" have alreac.been clearly quan- this total �r 5 �; tified, the problem then becomes how to allocate �. � eo};ra hie area, cost among properties in the District's g p � s nonts are levied against; Like property taxes, sll(�cial as.;r5.;1,,. S}"te- rath(,r than l aiilst pers�,n�: or or„aniNations. property Cial aSsc ss^u nt.s are oftell included on the prclpc!rty tali are � statement, and cu]lection and foreclosure procedures similar. t On the other hand, there is an i.mport.ant c}i f fc�l•(�tice between ta;(�, and special. gssr•ssr::eliI s , Pro}�c rty taxes are property ].eti i.ecl for };(�nrra7 public purro!'o, , and there i s not rcclui.re- bc'nc�- ricn t th:lt the taxed propc�rtr J, u:,t scrvi ce , or ]('vy. S}lt�cial assessment:, fi.ts in proportion t(7) the tali vied to finrulce sprcif'ic projects in contrast, are]c l;; capi t;ll i r.:}pro ;•c rlc nts - and the l ��vr is distributed Usual oil the of a i'ornlul :l or procedure whi cil relates the Uelle- Y c}lar€;r. again:;`t `a parcel of pro}lrl•ty to t}1c� services or fits received. „r �s.,irents Lcentlmi.c ,"ju:,t:i fi cation for tho ucu� of Special :issc t ( 1 ) �romot.ion of � rests upon throe- arf,111',wilts, (1.) 0(pli y, economic e f f i.ci erlcy , and ( ) revonur. production.1 �ifllpl'-'r t fi72'1'1, t}1'? ot7111 i,�' j;llt^:'Ile lti that l.f t}lt' t"el ell(' benc:li.ts Ut 1<�cal liP}ll'U�'t'1:u�J11.S ell tii�IWLCO atSC1'Ue? thetl these otrnrrs, ra- t. o::ner:; cif sp��t .i 1'i c pi ecc :; c.lf pro}�c�rty ,hould be a:;:,es:�c�d for the thc,r th:ul the puh:li.c.lar};ca, ;. costs. Fisher , Glenn W. , pi nancing Local Governments by Speci aI 1974.'?e--� Asse:.sment Municipal Finance officors A:Soeiation., D`•'cL,;I*V`, "L _ r•�. . . M such fir is hot equitable ablerevenuestico�lectedf fromclthen gone We benefits �Ltb j1e at from ',I small group of individuals other than those benefited. Special Assessments when properly used may contribute to economic efficiency. Since it would be extremely Costly �rties in the District to establish their for individual prop a level equal to j own security systems and maintain thc;.l at that of the City Police _force, oll di Strict.�tcidemic eservicecv This be prompted by estabtish]tl•, district-wi.cic. service is «h It is l;nc)u in economic from „ *nod". By definition, a public `' a public .� those whose Consumption it is not ossibl toonlylbecachieved ho do not pay. Therefore, ety if equity is en forced. In this case, theCi �t:hich stantd��touthority it would require that all those prop ; benefit from the service- a I)ublic 900d, bear their share of j4 the cost. r,assessments, are On a so:lle��hat more pragma tic basis, sp _cial a:,. u�tifi.(,d a:; a revenue so�.u•ce Irhich avoids some of the often j `' and which, u. taxpayers legal restriction:; on Loral taxation and borro�t�in�;, In:. • be more acceptable to tarp: y under certain condit;icn:;, „' ' eNtO than are other sources of i:evenor• �ro�(�ctCs desiredtbytasl.a.rge are utilized 1 sass^rents vial. ass,�ti:i'::C?Ilt:: ss((1, sp('.cial. a`� pera e Of those . centwho will be a: My b(3 t QT'eLblo to cit i :3<?nti than -areincreased tar levier. rtt � �c nssessments assume t Economic and l.e�;:ll LIIE'UriCS Ot S}:(. ] 11 �:,e�;:_,ments bene- } that increa` ed :;Orvices finance by S1)'Ctal '1rCel s Of pro- fit both the:lnatbl.ic at l:tr:;e, an(1 sn�-cific p. perty. It i assumed for 1)uT•pn:;c s of this study that public , (? E;i:tall til co!]t,:Ll'1 Snn t0 tllC)•`;(' private benefits benefits are received by th( individual. propc!l•t:i.c:; in thc� Dulllcost ofllthc fore, to siin,]1i.1'v t:hc! all.ocat.i.on pi•oces:� F incrcra;(:(} :�c�rvic:c:: �4i71. he as:;uined by i.ndividu;il property }t NON o 1101's in the Dist:ric;t. In order to under:;Ladd the Procedures, follc�uc�d, it �r is itnporLnnt to di:;tin:;tli.;:h Uc:L\:een tho tion Of costs ln the �fi.rsttPlace, benefits a►ld the allocation of bonefits. � ;Olnc' more or 10";s arbitrary unit, often are C'::j1t`eti:i('Cl ill 7tt� dollars. benefits The t:licc)reti cally i.doal methc�cl of allocatingarcol},before the in - involves subtract i n:r the value. of c .tc h t Cr('a:i(l(.} :;CT'\'lC,E� 1:; ill the picture from the Value Of the par- cel �LfLc�r it has inc:rc�a :(�cl as a result of the incre:isecl service. � K t i parcel c .vicied t) the total bohnfit Would 'i(1t benefit to Each costs to bea�ltlie allocated Pin be the, proportion of increases A case can be male for the improvem(,,nt even though this may Value dial. results from racticc in }1 lot _ql tile probably exceed the total coati suchThisface aprocedurea.q v•ould the United StatC.S, .Ln barrier.;;. ActllallC little use has serious cons tl tiltlonal m t.hc- d conmon practice )rai.:�aI been made Of thy direct al)l or more factors formula involving on(, has been to us(.! a ' for benefits. Among the ,• l n:;v which serve ,ts an index or p for:lul:cs ba:;ea on front footage or area. simnl ��r of. thesetheseare anpt'�)ach is to asstt^ ? that all lots benefit An evensirtpl(�r ulas in - equally, often however, ►coTo.htl`o�lordmore mfactors are volving a weighted appl i c.ation used. is ts For purposes of this stlAdY, itarti�s�\�i11 fartebceedltheta the District's individual pto;. cost of providing the increased thartlindividual propertvobene- ti_on is mc�t on t1l, IISSUI.rp ion that \rirtu::l.l ;• no chance exists for fits v:ollld beso ,at to be as: t sed a service c h rg in xcthe a property c l ;ee problem benefit.; it t�,011lel receive. This b in., o` whereby than tram'Turn;:; Z t. r�l l' to foi,:rtll.:Laing a bi l it `►atolt�)a . ltise x— :t proporties are :L:;:;ess d on thud' for the servi co , as measurC'd �. 1)t?Ct�'cl that tll(' abi.l) t:; to p'L`; valltt? COrr('1 :Lt('S highly with by sumu proxy for lI1C'C):'.a' or , s1I1c'C. t}1C' pUteilt) al da►;1a„E, rho bCllt'flt:; to })(' rC'cC'1.v'Cd correlate lli }tly with its to a property froo c;ri of goods and property. income or wall►e One mot:1106 1.-oul d be to (list' 'i})Ut(? tlls f:31 11C`iI'tl,incre� relative Pro - service service anonprQp('1't,.1C`; otl tht b:l:) C h2 }lc r Laud ral.ue:; would pay prrt�� value . Proport i c :; with with lll►lnd\hli(lll.d-• f•111'lT (i'L\'a111C'ter a 1.:11'i;er !:.hare is would proportion i the sullt C ] t Total pr(:)p( ►•t!; value s i:-; Cal('illat:CC1 11:+721'; ldliltl \''slut' fC)1' a prt)l!t�T'1.�' In, valuo, ', , , sul•roundinn are:, In thu il:�:'l ,ll:l..c.ld co:••'):Lrable pr��P017t�• sal" lfrrrnt at t:ne Lime of t.ile v:lllt;lt .ism. �lla!;vOciatedl with diilsLrict land \• }lave rou!,lily 5 d) fft.knt. Those land values, cule"lat.c•d total part:; of thy' District. be u:.t ;l i.11 drturrlinin, would ., .•,,. �,.,,•„•;� font 1)n::i.:;, �� �.,... ,�;..+,•;�•r Ibmage of the building and extent of functional; Monomic and extraordinary physical. depreciation. The adjusted and deflated per square foot figure is then ap= Plied to the f0ure for number of total square feet on the buirding to arrive at the property's building values This building value can than he added to the land value to arrive at the property's total value. A final factor which will be included in the allocation formula is the len th of property frontane on streets. this factor is included to account for the added benefits which Mould accrue to properties with wider frontages on streets, especially corner properties.,. These properties are considered to more susceptible to crime, and therefore, more likely to benefit from increased police service. This factor is mathematically calculated for a particular property by dividin7 that property's front foot- age lenzth by the total lon_;th of front footage in the District. This figure istly� w"inhted by a factor of .33 and ,iclded to the land and building property value figure which is weiahted by .Gi. The resulting figure then rep- resents that property's sharp of the Districts total annual cost for the increased service. pit a� 's u t i►x r� � e � si 1e � �t `�c � i fi r ? i� Uv� r c� t 7 � J �. i niG�F9 .rP¢r . . �>_��Gt �, t� U, _ .«, ..•1_ 'k.A, ,;.8 . rlu. i1 a. ,.. . ,'�� A. �..,.. �,£x , . u� ., a,. _ .au.d, �, ,k., o..r ,�'. , i �?i . ..,r, , t, .! .,_.. i Reid, Director To j)(Ipartttleil t Ianl inh i 1 €t�€ DATE Fel)rttary 4, 198, ,U,,L,TSI)c-ci,tl Ta:;inn District _ Incli.vicl- ual PrOpertv. Cost Increments For A1Le.rila.tive Increased Police Sc)ry i ce Levels R4:FF.R° Nl: k i' FROM Mike 1.,evinson, Chlc11* -,\, �, \�.i ENCLO URF. cotlo;nit p1:lt\nin L +'• C: c Depurtmen �lannl.n., The purpose of thi:; memo is to provide estimates of assessed annual costs to three (3) individual lerelPsl+o E'increasedrties in tpolhe licen torn Area for three al ternative Protection for the proj)osc'cl City of t.lia!lli Special. Taxing District. •� in�li�iclual. j)1'ol1e'ltics %�'i.17 be assc'�secl usin;; the Tllrc.c. P ) rrent.'s c():;t al7OC;at i.U11\ 1 gl'It'ittl`)GC1.:\1`sorOlcic Plannin„ Depart!" )c,l. _ "The CitS' of ,.li.a;ni Special ill the eI1CIC);LCj j)aj 15 Tax lli.strict - A Co:;t Allocat:iotl �iethoclol.o�� .�� r- t rt , o be cc�nsi.d��l'e are: t The three i.nclividua7 j)rol�c.:rLic. t t Al Office hui WiM� 7` 1.70 adj, sq.ft. 1. hr_vltco 1;1 f]c�r Street 44 Westr z, 2 Howard Jolln:cJn llot:cl anti 260 tltlits r" Restaurant. 3 a '.d nue 200 SI; <ttd r1t' ; 2. 13urdi nr.' Dc�p:irtment Store QG7 1.5S adj 5q. 2`� T:a:st F]:ii;lcr St.re"t ` t 1+Y 'lle cost allcJc:ctic)Il fot•mul;� collsicic!rs three <j'1LcturS: h�+ Prc;:•t:;;tac�: 2. Prc)j)erLy ]illi ld i n;; V.tluc� tv r' .51:c Ct. 1'rr,nt.:lj;c' 3• I "OP . t• t:lll'c'e f:1Ct01.5 1S as,s-11CtI A fill 1 c�xj)7 ann t, these' f act.ol•: i a ne.lucled in ore - the :lfore- 1(10llt I Un('ti j)1a;inj n:; ;tud� ]:.icl1 of t.h� an ecuat trcit;ht: of once -third of the wc'ra1] cost. a:,Sc�:;stticnt.. j 1 ;11LIC' - $s7�) , 562, 000 1)cn�tlt,o•,�m Are:' r Ot-'1 Lund alld 'I3ui l(linn c - 11O c;c)i) let t. Dc:)«ntu�:n Are" 'Total Strc cat I'ronLut;c' .`.UP_' - PDPTIVt D . I;p� VT F0 1 �1 � �L L Q vV„ , AItorti:il;i.yc., - - Carr 11-1 (.' 00.15G,1) :: $1. , 19 1 , G57 = $ 5.152 B 1 (.004564) x 5750 :350 = 26r10 »1 (. 00-1564) 2SG , 10ti _ 1305 Ic ' r 1 , � A F l J 1 t, of I S l 1 � j i Sty 4 f 1 ! r t .. - t ! 5 F ryry yymn `{ �.{ Y"{ 1lc 1 { (� x i(l ; bl i,ectnI4 1 i Y jtit 1 r Y't � anhih part)neht "„Iu qly Y{ L , l t t1391 i7 ! 1 1 r 1! z i Xt L % t 111 P'epr-,rtr Hnwar(l Johns ; ahcl Value $2,421,320 , i '(� 0,19�A OM0) — ,`t�O754 13u.i l cl i. n, , 40 7, 3a0 879,5620000 �`ttlue Total Value 50 01s 650000800 140,600 tYeet Iyronta e 343 feat ! Ovcvall Propert,,f L Cc)5t T at Ur - 008 350 , Teta�. Set' ICG' elItern'ativ.e Cost a - A j. (.0083:� 1., 10 _ :��)s0 ;rr); 13`1 1., 11. PT`c)t)r-1"i:l 3 - l3ttT cI "Ind, V.11"jc; $7,358,1-70 .67 ($l2,S77,3S0)+ 000808 13ui ldiu'; ' 5,489,110 {:5IT36: OOO) + va I lie Tot,' I Value ` 1.2 , S 7 r , 200 . 3 i ( +, :) 1.Q45 OO:'•1C� 1. } ; 1.1() , GOO < t i)v(!T'.11'lCOSt Factor .01:13.5.1 �1 a.;t,rn ;it:iy.o Cast: Ox ( 23,5riG57 759, 7 , I.�1;i i 4