HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 1981-04-28 Discussion ItemMETROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY
Department of
Human Resources
BROWARD
DADE CAU
L
a
t
a
ECCICMIC
a.
C(: NDTCNS
IN
Low -Income Areas in
Dade County, Florida
PROFILE OF SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS
IN LOW-INCOME AREAS
DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
1980
Jack Rose
Community Planning
Supervisor
Metropolitan Dade County
Department of Human Resources
Aileen R. Lotz, Director
Preparation of this report funded by the U.S. Department of H.U.D.
through the Metro Dade Office of Community & Economic Development.
-jjpw.,. - ..
CONTENTS
—
Introduction
1
1�
Part
—
I POPULATION AND ETHNICITY
2
Youth
3
Elderly
4
Dependency
5
Part
II HOUSEHOLD C0:TOSITION AND INCOME
10
Part
III EDUCATIO.IZ AND EMPLO"i'MENT
19
Appendix
24
r
r
J
7
INTRODUCTION
F
r
r
r
This report presents data from a 1078 sampIP survey of 24,700
households (16Y of the total) in the then 18 Community Development
low income target areas. Sponsored by the Metro Dade Office of
Community and Economic Development, and funded through Title VI of
the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA), the survey
was conducted by the Dade Department of Purr 2n Resources. Its
purpose was to obtain up-to-date social and economic data for
planning purposes.
Emphasized in the report are selected kev social and economic
variables, presented for each of the areas, and the
interrelationships among the variables. Comparisons are also made
between the 18 areas in agnreaate and the remainder or the whole
of the County. Multiple partial correlations (exclueina the very
atypical South Beach area) were carried out to separate out the
more complex interrelationships among the variables studied.
All correlations cited in the stud/ are statistically significant
at the 95, level of confidence or areater.
The Face of Povertv
A numher of basic findings are presented pitch help provide a
general description of the culture of poverty. Some of the more
salient of these findings are:
• High dependency ratios are related most
consistently not with the.percenta.ip of youths in
the areas, but, rather, with the percentage of
families that have only one parent,present.
• The percentage of low income renter households in
any given area is related to thc, prevalence of
families headed by a woman.
• A high percentage of adults
education is associated with
the workforce emp1oved in
occupations.
t":ithout a hiah school
a high percentage of
unskilled or service
• A high percentage of adults without O. high school
education is associated with a high percentage of
youths 20-24 without a high school education.
A more general finding, however, is that there is no one
description that can adequately describe the 18 areas. There are
some apparent commonalities amona perhaps as many as one half of
the areas on cne or two dimensions, hut, when all of the
dimensions are considered, it is clear that each of the areas has
its own individual character. This fact needs to be kept in mind
in planning specific initiatives to be undertaken with respect to
problems or conditions in the areas. One can easily construct a
profile of any given area by going from table to table in the
report and pulling out the information for the area in question.
-3-
�, Racially and ethnically, the total population of the 18 areas is 48%
Black, 34% Hispanic, and 16% non -Latin White (Other). In 14 of the
i8 areas, however, one or the other of these groups accounts for at
least two-thirds of the population of the area; in only three of the
areas (Homestead/Florida City, Naranja and Central Miami) is there
not a majority.
Differences in the economic fortunes of persons comprising these
groups can be seen most vividly by noting that three fourths (73%)
PP" of all blacks in Dade County live within these tarcet areas, while
the comparable figures for Hispanics and non -Latin Whites are one
fourth (24%) and one in eleven (9%), respectively.
Youth
In all, there were some 90,100 youth 0-14 years of age in the 18
areas, comprising one-fourth (24.5a) of the total population of the
areas. Goulds registered a high of 42"'. In number, over half of
the youth lived in the four tarcet areas of Model City, Little
Havana, Hialeah and Edison -Little River.
No. with
X YOUTH
Working
TARGET AREA
t)_rW_
NUVBER
Parents
II.
Goulds
41.7
3,417
1,682
North County
36.8
2,160
1,151
Model City
32.4
23,270
10,650
Population 0-14 Years
South Miami
31.8
845
477
Perrine
31.6
1,651
812
Edison -Little River 30.8
7,736
4,439
Number 90,099
Homestead
28.8
3,239
1,310
% of Total
Opa Locka
28.6
4,300
2,698
Population 24.5
Naranja
27.9
3,948
1,409
Youth 0-14
Coconut Grove
27.7
1,188
507
in County as
West Little River
26.7
6,088
3.675
% of County
Popul., 1970 24.2
Culmer
25.9
3,488
1,367
r
Allapattah
23.0
5,301
2,900
22.0
2,893
1.832
rWynwooa
1
AZ?rost hzZf of aZZ
Hialeah
21.5
11,652
5,598
youth 0-14 Wei°e in
Little Havana
14.8
8,401
3,505
^1�ioh
' hi-
80
each parent u.
Central Miami
11.0
206
South Beach
1.4
316
112
TOTAL
24.5
90.099
44,264
r
-4-
Almost exactly half (490 of the youth were in families in which
each parent present was in the workforce, either at work or looking
for work.
Contrary to what is generally believed, survey results indicate that
the low income areas in acarecate are no more youthful than the
County as a whole. In 1978, 24.5/' of the total population of the
target areas was 0-14 years of age, compared to a 241M figure for the
County as a whole in 1070. (Ih the 17 areas exclusive of South
Beach, the figure was 26°,; in the balance of the County outside of
the target areas, and excluding Miami Beach, it was 2510.)
Elderly
Persons 60 and older numbered some 76,000 in the 18 areas, or about
2.00' of the total population of the areas. (The comparable figure
for the County as a whole in 1970 was 23M.) The South Beach area
alone accounts for one-fourth (26M) of the total; adding the Little
Havara, Mb del City and Hialeah target areas brings that figure up to
nearly three -fourths (71"). r;ur4aFR
f',0
NVY4�tK AR �-
Population 60 F, Over
Number 75,974
% of Total
Population 20.5
Persons 60+
in County as 23.0
% of County
PopL,l., 1970
% 60 And
TPUT A'FA �j Or
South Eeach
84.2
19,189
7,659
Central Mia:-i
44.6
833
552
Little Havana
25.8
14,626
2,156
Coconut Gr•cve
19.8
8r)0
182
Naranja
16.1
2,277
262
Allapattah
16.0
3,682
788
Wynw•cod
15.9
2,095
514
Hialeah
15.8
8,567
969
Culrrer
15.2
2,040
424
Hcr-estezd
14.5
1,633
275
Model City
14.4
10,340
1,790
West Little River
12.5
2.852
267
Opa Locka
12.4
1,864
142
Edison- Little River
12.1
3,027
946
Perrine
11.8
616
131
South Miami
11.5
305
67
Goulds
11.2
915
127
North County
4.3
257
37
TOTAL
20.5
75,974
17,288
fill•>5 :."*U'a z't s^'x
-S-
W
■r One in four (23%) of the older persons in the target areas lives
alone. In the South Beach area, the figure is 40%, and that area
alone accounts for nearly half (45%) of the older persons living
alone.
Excluding the South Beach area, the 17 remaining target areas had a
combined population that was 15.8a elderly. This figure is not
appreciably different from the 16.3% figure for the balance of the
metropolitan area, exclusive of Miami Beach, in 1970.
Dependency
T A figure commonly used to describe populations is the ratio of young
and old persons to persons in their prime earning years. This is
usually referred to as the "dependency" ratio. In this study, the
mr, ratio was calculated on the basis of the number of youths aged 0-19,
the number of persons 60 and over, and the number of persons aged
25-59.
1� When this ratio is calculated for each area, two distinct groups of
_ areas, and two individual areas, stand out. In one group of 11
areas, the calculated ratio falls between 1.02 and 1.46 young and
old persons to each person between the ages of ?5 and 59. This is
very comparable to the 1.21 figure for the County as a whole in
1970. Five areas (Model City, Central Miami, Coconut Grove, South
Miami and Perrine) have ratios between 1.7 and 3.8. Goulds has a
high 2.23, and South Beach, as would be expected a much higher 7.0.
Correlations indicate that overall variations in these dependency
ratios are not consistently related to the number of youth aged 0-14
as a percent of the total population of the areas. (Goulds is one
clear exception, however.) Rather, the dependency ratios are most
consistently related to the varying proportion of single -parent
families. In other words, it appears to be the absence of adults,
rather than the presence of children, that has the most to do with
dependency ratios in the low income areas.
I
r
11
am
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
TARGET AREAS
J
NORTH COUNTY
jI t i E
;
1.
OPA-LOCKA
3.
WEST LITTLE RIVER
41
4.
HIALEAH
MODEL CITY
trhlq^KJ LITTLE tr RIVER
I
ER tT
T-ST'_
71
ALLAPATTAH
8. WYNWOOD
9. CULMER
10. DOWNTOWN
*1A
LITTLE HAVANA
COCONUT GROVE
13. SOUTH BEACH
14. SOUTH MIAMI
Ld
MvX,
6
5
4
.............
f
t
! ;.lAfJ5E%VAY
hI AM, I
INTERNATIONAL
AIRPORT
4 1
09
elo
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
7-4
YOUTH 0-14 AS %
TOTAL POPULATION
6
14 26-35 %
36+ %
I,
10
.. . . ......
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
TARGET AREAS
I NORTH COUNTY
2. OPA-LOCKA
3. WEST LITTLE RIVER
lvl oi z- .2 Pu�il' 4. HIALEAH
S. MODEL CITY
EDISON LITTLE RIVER
ALLAPATTAH
a,
WYNWOOD
2
0.
CULMER
Al
-4
10.
DOWNTOWN
11,
LITTLE HAVANA
COCONUT GROVE
ti
12
A 13, SOUTH BEACH
14 SOUTH MIAMI
3
to A U St!
cc Plzr--�L!t, Tu
3 T
h"! 4M I GAU'•EwAy
I N T E RNATIONAL -4- 8
tat? PORT 14
ISO
I i�
.............
PERSONS 60 4 AS %
OF TOTAL POPULATION
2 4 %
U4
10-20 %
i -,!NNLR K EY
2 6 %
4 4 %
84 %
J
cr.
I
0 f.7
`-K,�,
'R
-'q
.4ig'I
-10
II. HOUSEHOLD CO,"'POSITION AND INCOME _.
Table IV reveals the extent to which the 18 areas are low income _
areas. Overall, half (47%) of the renter households, which rra' e up
nearly three -fourths (71M) of all households, reported total
incomes under S4900.
There is a particularly strong relationship between household
composition and income. Confirming what many other studies have -
sho,.,rn, one of the strongest correlations found in this study via
that the higher the percentage of families headed by a woman, the
higher the percentage of low income renter households. (This holds '
true even when other influences are factored out with multiple
partiai correlations, with the South Beach area excluded.) R
TA=GET APEA X OF REINIEP P"!!'ENOLOS LOW INrCYE _
IV _
South Reach 74.0
Renter Households %.!/ Coconut Grove 70.4
Income Below sa900 Goulds 69.0 —
Model City 63.5 Renters as -
South Miami 62.6 —
% of Total Perrine 57.9
Households 71.0 Ediscn-Little River 55.4 —
of renter ✓ Central Miami 53.5
Households w/ Homestead 39.9
Income Below -
$4900 47.3 ✓ Allapattah 37.3
✓ Culver 36.1
"Little Havana 36.1 _
Opa Locka 34.4 _
Wynwood 32.5
Naranja 29.7
J
Hialeah 28.3
West Little River 28.2
North County 25.0 _
TOTAL: 47.3
In the 11 areas with low dependency ratios (see preceding section),
an average of 34;; of the renter households had incomes under $4900.
In the remaining, high ratio areas, the figure was 63". As was seen
in the preceding section, dependency ratios are related to the
prevalence of single -parent families, t%.ro-thirds of ti;,hich are headed
by a woman.
i
In half of the areas, two -parent families do not constitute a
majority of the households in the area. In the Culmer area, only a
little more than a third (36%) of the households are two -parent
families.
Appendix Table XII presents data on tenure (own/rent) and the extent
of overcrowding. It can be seen that the poorest areas have the
most overcrowding.
NO.
% OF FAMILIES
MALE
TARGET AREA
WN LE PA,EN-T
NUMBER
WrITU
V
Culmer
53.2
2,016
1,123
Single -Parent
Families
Coconut Grove
50.7
564
438
Model City
50.0
8,660
6,180
Goulds
45.9
825
640
Number
32,769
south Miami
45.5
282
239
Perrine
42.2
474
409
% of Total
Fami 1 i es
32.7
Edison -Little River 41.1
2,567
1,922
Nest Little River 36.7
2,213
1,040
No. Headed
by Female
21,531
Central Miami
35.8
146
80
hynwood
33.2
1.265
856
% of Single
Parent
South Beach
31.7
2,085
1,034
Fami 1 i es
65.7
Opa locka
27.7
1,095
736
Homestead
27.6
846
588
Allapattah
27.3
1,731
1,067
North County
24.1
288
239
Little Havana
23.1
3,955
2,399
Hialeah
19.6
3,102
2,105
Naranja
17.4
655
442
TOTAL
32.7
32.769
21.537
In half of thr, lra tiro - pIrr'r } f, 1 jC.' r'•r r.r,.,-+
majority of tfir' tlo,l;r'trnj,iS in t.tn aroi I ri
little more thin a third (?r,"') of t.hr' t , , aro 'V,r)-p?ron
families.
pla Ap-endix Tahle XII pr,,,�r'nt i r!at.a r)r, •nrra ahr,
of overcrow(ling. It can h- sr—rl ttl%:t i.Li: Ir r rC' irna i a Jr, thn
r'ost overcrowding.
u
Single-Parpnt Fiimi 1 ies
Number
a of Total
Families
No. Headed
by Female
% of Single
Parent
Families
r�.
r
32,769
32.7
21,537
65.7
Tl 'r' T i'
Culror
5:.2
2,0i5
l,i.'3
5�.7
erg
4-�
Model City
5^.0
'J ;
8,E?r'
6,1c0
Go�jlds
45.9
825
6-0
South Mia-i
45.5
"
2c2
229
Perrire
42.2
f +' =
474
409
Edi;en-little River
41.1
2,567
1,922
test Little River
26.7
'�
2,213
1,040
Central Mimi
35.8
="i
146
SO
6'yr�-.00d
33.2
>1'?
1,265
856
South Beach
31.7
•'j
2,085
1,034
Opa Locka
27.7
-
1,095
736
Horestead
27.6
`,J w
846
5S8
Allapattah
27.3
�`'
1,731
1,067
North County
24.1
1
268
239
Little Havana
23.1
110
3,955
2,399
Hialeah
19.6
`'�
3,102
2,105
Naranja
17.4
- 'J
655
442
TOTAL
32.7
32,769
21,537
-12-
s 1 r . -"--a
1.z
-COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
TARGET AREAS
1 -1. NORTH COUNTY
2, OPA-LOCKA
3. WEST LITTLE RIVER
L
a HIAI EAH
5. MODEL CITY
...... ..... . . . . . . EDISON LITTLE RIVER 3 '�T. ALLAPATTAH
8, WYNWOOD iE
. ..... 2 9. CULMER
10, DOWNTOWN
11, LITTLE HAVANA
COCONUT GROVE
13. SOUTH BEACH
14, SOUTH MIAMI
t 1,0 y
, 21
..... .....
3 ......
14
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
%
. . . . . . . . . . . ...
...............
0
6
5
cl
LL, r
C AV E'WA
INTE! N AT I ONAL AIRPORT
I Fr, A% it
13
.71
10
If
in
...........
cy
12 % RENTER HOUSEHOLDS
4 WITH INCOME $0 TO 14 899
< 31 %
bINNI. KE:y
31-47 %
4 8- 64 %
r ..j 65+ 1/6
III. EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT
At the time of the study, unemployment in the 18 areas was three
times as great as it was in the remainder of the County (15.3a vs.
5%). The actuAl rate varied considerably, from 6% in the Naranja
area to 30% in Pt?Tine.
VI
Unemployment
Overall
Rate 15.3%
Rate in Rest
of County 5.0%
Rate among
Teenagers' 48.0%
o= L*,--r.;, r c e it
cation.
% OF LABOR
TARGET AREA
FO?CE UNDOPLOYEO
Perrine
29.6
South Beach
20.2
Culmer
19.4 —
Goulds
19.0
Little Havana
18.2 —
Model City
17.8
North County
16.6
Hialeah
16.5
Coconut Grove
16.0 --
Edison - Little River
14.9
Homestead
14.7
West little River
13.7
South Miami
12.9 --
Wynwood
12.3
Opa locka
10.7
Central Miami
9.2 --
Aliapattah
8.0 �-
haranja
5.9
TOTAL 15.3
The highest rate of unemployment for any age group was 59% for the
relatively few persons 65 or older who were in the workforce.
Hardest hit, in terms of total impact, however, were youths 16-19:
with 30% of that age group in the job market and a 48%, unemployment
rate (85% in Perrine), one in every seven such youth was reported as
looking for work and not being able to find it. The figure for
20-24 year -olds, one in eiqht, was only slightly lower. Although
their unemployment rate was a much lower 21%, a much higher
proportion of the young adults in that age group were in the labor
market.
9 i4,PrAS
ON
RA Pl 0
7—RANS/7_
T`o
xAG/I.
1 r,
Outside of the target areas, hriwPvPr, in the rest of the County,
40% of all persons 2'j-64 had less than hioh school education in
1970, but only 15% of thr, wrirkfr.rr�n wa-, rr-Dlr)yo.+ in unskilled or
service occupations. The disparity !,Pt tho;o fiqures and those
for the target areas su9gps,ts that thorn aro additional forces,
beyond that of ineornpletr, education, which work to limit the
occupational opportunities of the rpsir!ents of the target areas.
The problem of youths not completing high school is a continuing,
and serious, problem. 1n 197p, one-third; (32%) of youths 20-24 in
the 19 areas were without a high school education.
X.
Persons Without
H.S. Education
No. of Youth
20-24 w/out
H.S. Educ'n. 6,640
% of Youth
20-24 31.7
% of Adults
w/out H.S.
Education 57.2
ro Or aiurt-o 12-� out
high school c. ucztior
COI'I'GZQtcu L>Ztk i Of
uouth
schoo','
PEDSr,',*'� w/ojt
N.S.
EDUCATION
YJUTH
2u-24
ALULTS
TtPGET APF4
Nr,'U,Ep
!!
X
Central F'iar.i
25
57.1
68.5
Culrer
406
51.6
80.4
Nararja
431
46.2
50.9
North County
171
45.9
57.1
Hmestead
426
43.2
56.3
Coconut Grove
126
41.5
78.0
South rieri
67
40.7
63.5
Perrine
i69
40.3
74.2
Goulds
180
35.1
77.8
Wynwood
326
34.6
54.3
Edison -little
Fiver 516
30.0
55.0
kodel City
1,620
29.0
68.4
Hialeah
674
26.5
46.4
Opa Locka
311
26.0
53.7
South Beach
54
23.3
60.5
Little Havana
600
22.7
54.0
Allapattah
332
22.5
51.2
West Little River
206
16.3
$2.3
TOTAL 6640 31.7 57.2
The percentage of youths without a high school education was
correlated with such variables as their proportion of the total
population, the prevalence of low income renter households and
female -headed families, overall unemployment, and the percentage of
adults without a high school education. A statistically significant
relationship was found only with the percentage of adults without a
high school education. The cross -generational influence seems
clear, and suggests a strategy that also addresses opportunities for
the adults.
m
di
I
f
I
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
TARGET AREAS
I. NORTH COUNTY
2. OPA-LOCKA
3, WEST LITTLE RIVER
4, HIALEAH
5. MODEL CITY
6. EDISON LITTLE RIVER
7. ALLAPATTAH
8. WYNWOOD
2' 9, CULMER
10. D01,1114TOWN
It. LITTLE HAVANA
COCONUT GROVE
13. SOUTH BEACH
41
14. SOUTH MIAI
3
6
4
_. . , j a
. .........
............
13
•
10
RATE OF UNEMPLOYMENT:
< to%
16
to
30
TARGET AREA
1. North County
2. Opa Locka
3. West Little River
4. Hialeah
5. Model City
6. Edison -Little
River
7. Allapattah
8. Wynwood
9. Culmer
N
1
10. Central Miami
11. Little Havana
12. Coconut Grove
13. South Beach
14. South Miami
15. Perrine
16. Goulds
17. Naranja
18. Homestead
��,..����'�i
TABLE XII
TABLE XIII
TENURE AND OVERCROWDING ONE -PERSON HOUSEHOLDS
% OWNERS
89.7
68.5
52.0
32.8
39.6
26.5
34.8
15.4
3.1
2.1
11.6
20.0
8.6
27.2
37.4
39.5
56.4
30.0
% RENTERS
10.3
31.5
48.0
67.2
60.4
73.5
65.2
84.6
96.9
97.9
88.4
80.0
91.4
72.8
62.6
60.5
43.6
70.0
25.1
21.3
22.5
14.1
31.7
24.3
11.0
I6.9
40.3
12.2
17.2
24.4
5.6
25.0
25.0
42.0
21.3
22.5
TOTAL 28.7 71.3 20.0
*"Overcrowded" ! More than one person per room in household.
TARGET AREA
Central Miami
South Beach
Edison -Little River
Wynwood
Allapattah
Culmer
Coconut Grove
South Miami
Model City
Little Havana
Homestead
Perrine
Naranja
West Little River
Hialeah
Goulds
Opa Locka
North County
TOTAL
% OF ALL
HOUSEHOLDS
65.7
56.8
25.8
24.8
23.8
23.3
21.6
17.9
16.2
16.2
15.8
14.9
12.6
11.2
10.9
10.5
9.5
4.4
NUMBER
778
8,640
2,167
1,260
1,972
1,148
307
135
3,350
3,319
571
196
546
756
1,944
212
414
55
21.7 27.770
A
Mayor and Members of the
City Commission
Howard V. Gary ,
City Manager
April 28, 1981
Budget Status Information for
Special Commission Meeting to be
Held on April 28, 1981
Upon adoption of the fiscal year 1981 Budget, the City Commission estab-
lished a fiscal policy that required the City Manager to reduce the current
budget by 7% or 10%. This policy reflected the City Commission's concern
that the development of next year's budget will be difficult, because of
rising inflation, the State imposed limitation on ad valorem taxation
(TRIM Bill), and impending union negotiations for Police, Fire and AFSCME
employees. These concerns have been further complicated by President
Reagan's economic policies which will result in the City losing approximately
$50 Million beginning in June, 1981.
To comply with the City Commission's request to reduce the current budget
by 7`'-•, a plan was prepared and approved by the City Commission on December
17, 1980 (See Attachment A). This plan projected that the City will ex-
perience a $4 Million shortfall, or $1.3 -Million less than the 7% reduction
if services and resources are maintained at FY 181 levels. It was explained
that if this shortfall was absorbed by reducing salaries and wages which is
the bulk of denartmental budgets, that departments would have to reduce 184
positions. However, the suggested plan to reduce $4 Million required im-
plementing efficiencies, increasing revenues and reducing resources.
The problem associated with making such a significant reduction in the
budget was the City Commission policy to exclude the Police and Fire Depart-
ments from anv reduction. These departments represent 51c; of the General
Fund Budget and would have been required to reduce approximately $3.2
Million of the $5.3 'Million necessary to achieve the 7% reduction. Hence,
the remaining departments would have to reduce their budgets by 48% to
offset the reductions not made by Police and Fire.
The actions approved by the City Commission on December 17, 1980, are on
Page 4 of Attachment A. These actions would have resulted in a $1.2
Million savings in FY 181 and $2.7 ?Million for FY '82 for a total savings
of $3.9 Million. These savings would have been $72,415 short of the $4
Million shortfall or $1.3 Million snort of 7. ($5.3 Million).
V_
w
Page 2
One of the points mentioned in the December 17, 1980 report to the
City Commission was that the estimated budget for FY '82 was based
on a number of assumptions and as the assumptions change, so will the
conclusions of our financial condition change. Therefore, to assist
the City Commission in its decision -making process, the Department of
Management and Budget has prepared a current budget status report for
the current fiscal year (Attachment B) as well as next fiscal year
(Attachment C).
For fiscal year 1981, it is estimated that the City will experience
a shortfall of approximately $1.3 Million if expenditures continue
at current rates (See Attachment B) and the reductions approved to
date are not implemented. This shortfall is primarily attributable to
a loss of $1.5 Million in Waste Disposal fees, $1.0 Million in ad valorem
taxes and $700,000 loss in Federal Revenue Sharing. However, if the
City Commission implements the reductions approved to date which totals
$470,000, the shortfall will be reduced to approximately $800,000.
--i For Fiscal Year 1982, it is estimated that the City will experience a
shortfall of approximately $10.0 :Million if the City Commission fails
to implement the reductions proposed to date. The assumptions used to
reach this conclusion are included on Page 1 of Attachment C. A summary
of this projection reveals a gain in revenues of approximately $3.0 Million
and an increase in appropriations of approximately $13.0 Million.
This shortfall does not take into consideration the policy expressed by
the City Commission at its April 23, 1981 meeting that 186 Police Officer
positions should be added in FY-'82. The cost of this action is $5.6
Million and must be added to the $10.0 Million shortfall resulting in a
total shortfall of $15.6 Million.
A shortfall of $10.0 Million (w/o the 186 additional Police Officers) woulu
require a reduction of 470 positions not including Police & Fire. A short-
fall of $15.6 Million (w/the additional 186 Police Officers) would require
the reduction of 736 positions.
If the City Commission continues the implementation of proposed budget
changes for the current fiscal year, $470,000 will be realized this fiscal
year and $1.2 Million next fiscal year for a total savings of approximately
$1.7 Million. This savings will reduce the $10.0 Million shortfall to $8.3
Million or the $15.6 million shortfall to $14.0 million.
In order to fulfill the City Commission policy that the current budget
should be reduced in sufficient amounts to begin the next fiscal year
budget with a balanced budget, the City Commission needs to continue the
proposed budget changes which will save $1.7 Million as well as reduce an
additional $8.3 Million in on -going appropriations from the current year
budget. This can be achieved by reducing the annual base of the current
budget by $6.3 Million (300 positions) which will save $2.0 Million this
year and $6.3 Million next year.
i
Page 3
If 186 Police Officers are added, the City Commission needs to continue
the proposed budget changes which will save $1.7 Million as well as
reduce an additional $14.0 Million in on -going appropriations. This can
be achieved by reducing the annual base of the current budget by $10.5
(500 positions) which will save $3.5 Million this year and $10.5 next
year.
With regard to the City Commission's concerns regarding the layoff of
approximately 37 employees on Friday, April 24, 1981, I have attached
two memoranda from Mr. Albert Howard, Director of Leisure Services. The
first memorandum (Attachment D) explains the statistical information with
regard to the changes proposed in the Department of Leisure Services.
The second memorandum explains the programs provided before and after the
layoffs as well as the effect on programs as a result of changes.
Mr. Howard will also present other data at the April 28, 1981 meeting
that will further explain the City's proposed recreational programs in
view of budget constraints.
a
or 77,3CEiv T A
CITY OF MIAMI. FLORIDA
INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM
so Richard L. Fosmoen DATE December 15, 1980 FILE
City Manager
SUBJECT FY '82 Budget Projection
and Proposed Reductions
FROM Howard V. Ga r,: REFERENCES
Assistant City Manager
ENCLOSURES
During the City Commission's deliberation on the Fiscal Year 1981
Budget, a Motion was passed instructing the City Manager to re-
duce the Adopted Budget. This action resulted from their concerns
that the development of next fiscal year's budget will be difficult
in view of rising inflation, the State imposed limitation on ad
valorem taxation (TRI111 Bill) and impending union negotiations for
Police, Fire and AFSCME employees.
The City commission did not officially express the amount of
reduction for the current budget, but some of them have indicated
that 70 or 10% seems to be reasonable. Before a reduction level
is established, a projection of next year's budget is needed to
determine the extent of next year's problem. This information can
then be used to determine what actions need to be taken in the
current Budget to address this problem if we continue on the policy
that we will address next year's problem rrmediately. It should be
noted that the projection is merely a reasonable estimate of the
future and may change as circumstances change.
FY '82 Budget Projection
The Department of Management and Budget has prepared a projection
of next year's budget and their conclusion is that the City will
experience a $4 Million shortfall if services and resources are
maintained at the levels adopted by the City Commission for FY 181
(See attachment "A"). This projection was based on a number of
assumptions. As these assumptions change, so will the conclusion
of the projection chanco.
r
Although all of the assumptions will have an effect on the conclusion
of the projection, some are more significant than others. The most
critical assumption is that the City will increase its revenues
from ad valorem taxes by the amount allowable by the TRIM Bill which
is 8%. This action will generate 5.5 Million Dollars. Another
significant assumption is the cost of union negotiated salary in-
creases. Our estimate assumes that Police, Fire and AFSCME will
settle for a 10% increase. The Sanitation Employees Association
(SEA) is in its last year of a 3-year contract which requires a 6%
salary increase for FY '82. The cost of the 6`s for SEA and 10% for
all other unions is $6 Million. Other significant assumptions are
V
•, 4
A
Richard L. Fosmoen
City Manager
Page 2 '
those relating to Carryover Fund Balance, Federal Revenue
Sharing, Pensions, and the Enterprise Funds. With regard to
the Carryover Fund Balance, it is assumed that the City will
save $1 Million in the current Budget to use in the FY 182
Budget. This $1 Million is in addition to whatever reductions
that will be made to prepare for next year's shortfall.
It is assumed that the Federal Revenue Sharing Program will contribute
$8.5 Million to the General Fund. As you are aware, Congress has
not approved an appropriation for the current year Budget. However,
according to -our sources in Washington, both Houses have recently
approved an extension of the program for three years and a favorable
response is anticipated in the very near future. This is a critical
area that reauires close monitoring since lack of positive action
will affect the current year as well a-. the ensuing year budgets.
The cost of pension is increased by 5%. This assumption reflects
the continuation of the City Commission policy adopted that began
with the adoption of the FY '80 Budget. '
A significant assumption for the FY '82 Budget is that the financial
burden of the Enterprise Funds on the General Fund will grow at
prior levels. The current budgets of the Enterprise Funds require
a contribution from the General Fund of approximately $672,000.
This contribution is necessitated by the fact that the Coconut
Grove Exhibition Center, Municipal Auditorium, Marine Stadium and
Miami Stadiums, are not self supporting. For FY '82, the ant-icipated
burden is approximately $1 Million.
Effect on Departmental Budcets
To achieve the goal of the City Commission that the City begin
budget reductions in FY '81 in sufficient amounts to begin Fiscal
Year 1982 with no budget shortfall, departments will have to reduce
$4 Million from their current budgets by September 30, 1980. If
departments decided to achieve their reductions by reducing salaries
and wages, the result would be the reduction of 184 positions from
the current Budget. It should be noted that the earlier the imple-
mentation of the reductions, the more the City can save toward its
Carryover Fund Balance which reduces the estimated shortfall for
FY '82.
Attachment "B" represents departmental reductions that have been
used for discussion with the City Co:rriission. However, these re-
ductions amount to approximately $5.3 Million (7%) or $1.3 Million
more than the estimated shortfall. It is suggested that those
Richard L. Fosmoen
City Manager
Page 3
reductions approved using the 7¢ figure should be maintained
since they are reasonable and should be implemented regardless
of the amount of the shortfall. Future reductions should be
based on the $4 Million estimate. Obviously, any changes to
the $4 Million estimate will require change to departmental reduc-
tions.
Alternatives to Achieve Budget Reductions
Budget reductions will be achieved by implementing efficiencies,
increasing revenues and reducing resources. All departments have
been instructed to identify their services on a broad level and
to prioritize them in order of importance. These prioritized
services should be reviewed to determine where efficiencies can
be made. If this process results in a savings less than required,
departments are suggested to determine those areas where revenues
can be increased or implemented. Areas of particular concern are
those which are not self-supporting and where revenues have not
been increased for some time.
The last step in the budget reduction process is resource reduction.
Departments are asked to use their prioritized service level lists and
reduce resources and services based on the least important service.
Hopefully, the culmination of this last step will result in depart-
ments achieving their requires: reductions. This last step, in most
cases, will result in position reductions. It is the intention of
departments to achieve this process by attrition; however, in those
cases where attrition is very minimal, layoffs will have to be im-
plemented. -
It is recommended that actions approved by you be implemented before
the end of the second quarter (.•larch, 1981) . This time frame will
permit 1) irr.7euHate savings to offset next year's anticipated short-
fall, 2) operational adjustments to be made early and over a period
of ti-me instead of all at once, 3) the orderly development of next
year's budget, 4) the lifting of the hiring frieze and, thereby,
normalize operations, and 5) the City to inform its citizenry of
service changes and the reasons for these changes.
Even though the $4 Million shortfall has been allocated proportion-
ately to each department, the City Commission has agreed with your
philosophy that some departments may not be able to achieve their
proportionate share without undesirable results and that all depart-
ments should implement cost -saving efficiencies.
Everyone should be aware that Police, Fire and Sanitation represent
650 of the General Fund Budget and, therefore, is required to reduce
on a proportionate basis, approximately $2.6 Million of the $4.0
Million shortfall. Therefore, any reduction in these departments'
pro-rata share will have to be offset by reductions in the remaining
5
Richard L. Fosmoen
City Manager
Page 4
departments or additional revenues or a combination of the two.
The budget reductions, revenue increases and efficiencies that
have been proposed and accepted as of today are as follows:
1. Community Development $ 18,737
2. Computers and Communications 93,960
3. Planning 40,348
4. Management and Budget 99,384
5. Leisure Services 374,207
6. Parks 343,132
7. Solid waste 385,159
SUB TOTAL $1,354,927
8. Dinner Key Marina Management
and Rates 750,000
9. Miamarina Rates 450,000 `
10. Marine Stadium Management 150,000
SUB TOTAL 1,350,000
TOTAL $2,704,927
These figures represent the annual savings if these actions were
implemented at the beginning of this Fiscal Year. Since we are
into the third month of this Fiscal Year, the total savings can
not be realized. Ho -.,ever, if these actions are implemented in the
very near future, the City could realize $1.2 Million this Fiscal
Year as a contribution to the Carryover Fund Balance (which is
estimated at $1 ,Million and therebV further reducin- the $4 Million
shortfall). Furthermore, if these budc:et improvements are continued
in FY 182, the savings will be at least $3.9 .Zillion.
Therefore, the sa,;ing-- of $1,230,618 this Fiscal Year and the savings
of $2,704,927 in Fiscal Year 1982 results in a cumulative total
savings of $3,935,545 as ccmared to the $4 Million shortfall. The
rcmaining shortfall of $72,41_5 can be acccmplished upon analysis
of other alternatives.
• ~ • OF tkTTACHMEN T "A"
• ASSUMPTIONS FOR PROJECTING FY'82 BUDGET
1. The estimated carry-over fund balance for FY '81 will be $1,000,000.
2. The assumption for Property Taxes is that the City will receive 81 more
in property taxes than it received in FY '81 plus new construction.
3. This is based on a millage rate of 9.101 which will generate
$58,597,052 or $5,503,284 more than the FY '81 Adopted Budget.
4. Homestead Exemptions will not be funded.
5. $3,500,000 will be transferred to the General Fund from FP&L Franchise
Capital Improvement Revenues.
6. Federal Revenue Sharing will be funded at approximately $8,500,000.
7. No Countercyclical Revenue Sharing has been anticipated in FY '82.
8. The waste disposal fee charged to City residents will be $75. This
will generate $6,750,000 in revenue.10
- 9. Fees paid to Dade County for disposing of the City's solid waste will
-increase by $379,900 (from 33,799,000 to $4,178,9C0). .
10. •Workers' Com..Densation, Group Insurance, and Liability Insurance will
increase by S672,100.
11. Provisions have been „lade for 517.0 million in Pension costs, which is
5% (SCO'3,504) greater than the current year's appropriation.
12. FICA costs will increase by 100.
13. Funds have been provided for a 10'. union-nenotiated salary increase for
r Fire, Police and general employees which total $6,014,875. , Funds have
been provided for a 60 salary increase for SEA members which total
$4149335. "
14. Street'Lighting costs will increase y $533,369.
15. The deficits for the Enterprise Funds for FY '82 will be $675,737 (an
increase of S4,044).
16. The contribution to the Department of Building and Vehicle Maintenance
will be $2,011,626 higher than the current year's Adopted Budget.
17. All non -payroll items are adjusted to reflect anticipated increases.
18. No provisions are included for the $2 million Public Safety Fund.
RY OF FY '82 B►MuET ESTI'•1NTE r►o
I. BUDGET SL' :'1ARY
ATTACHMENT "A"
Adopted Budget Budget Estimate
1980-101 19S1-12
REVENMES $121,849,447 $127,823,651
APPROPRIr,TIONS 121,849,a47 131,R36,611
SHORT FALL S -0- $ 4,007,960
II. SUYY4RY OF REVENUE'S
Gains $ 7,671,693
Losses (1,692,489)
Gain 5,979,204
Gains
1.
Property Taxes
$ 5,503,254
2.
Waste Disposal Fees
�27,500
3.
Carryover Fund Balance
500,000
4.
Utility Ser,rice Taxes
39,55,995
5.
Building Permits
143,150
6.
Electrical Inspections
133,213
7.
Plumbing Permits
82,609
8.
Certificate of Use Accessory
37,500
9.
Public Hearing Fees
35,CCO
10.
Payback's from Self Insurance
31,;54
.11.
Boiler Inspections
31,000
12.
Cicar2tte Tax
23,000
13.
Other
22.9°3
Total Gains
Loses
1.
Homestead
ExeTption
$ 1,067,069
2.
Interest
- Intera,ia
500,000
3.
Dade County
Schcol 3tard
1C0,000
4.
Severa;e
Licenses
19,370
S.
Traffic Permit
Fees
5,550
Total Losses
Net Revenue Gain
III. AP?P"^?I' '0"
I'IC^E"`'FS
Salaries and Wages S 7,1°04,913
Other Pay 1,736,486
Operating Expenses .2,107,326
Capital (1 ,041 ,Sh6)
Increase in Appropriations
IV. SHORTr;.LL
Difference
$ 5,979,204
9,9E7,164
$ 4,007,960
0
S 7,671,693
S(1,692,489)
$ 5,979,20.1
$ 9,937,164
$ 4.C�' 96O
r--
9
• ATTACHMENT "A"
SUNMARY OF APPROPRIATION INCREASES
I. Salaries and Wages
$
7,184,918
II. Other Pay:
1) Pension
$ 7.72,444
2) Self Insurance
497,914
3) FICA, Overtime, Holiday Pay, etc.
4E5,128
$
1,736,486
III. Operating. Expenses:
1) Building and Vehicle Maintenance
^' $2,011,626
2) Public Safety Fund
(2,000,000)
3) Capital O;itlay
(1,041,566)
4) Street Lighting
583,869-
5) Scale Fees
379,900
6) Unputer Repairs and Maintenance
• and Telephone
183,650
' 7) Self Insurance
174,136
8) Utilities
131,926
9) Severance Pay
143,616
10) Election
11l-,000
11) Enterprise Fund Deficit
4,044
12) Other
377,509
S
1,065.76C
$
�
f ATTACHMENT "B"
r City
of Miami
F i sca i
ear y-1
7°a Budget
Reductions
70
Mayor
$ 10,978
Board of Cor:-�issioners
14,030
City Manager
52,766
Information and Visitors
29,139
Building and Zoning Insp.
129,656
City Clerk
18,422
Civil Service
8,351
Corymunity Development
41,104
Computers and Co„�unications
75,755
Convention Bureau
10,192
Finance
99,591
Fire
1,243,690
Hc-nan Resources
67,702
Law
53,492
Leisure Services
179,766 ,
.' Management and Budget
77,510
Parks
273,326
Planning
35,350
Planning & Zoning Eds. Admin.
9,S5
Police
1,920,110
Public Works
364,393 '
Solid Waste
597,379
'. Trade & Commerce Develop -rent
24,430
.TOTAL GENERAL FU.';D
$ 5, 3a2,470
. ENTEPPRISE FU';DS
Coconut Grove Exhib. Center
$ 21,779
Municipal Auditorium
18 :)l
Marine St adi;;,m —
14,429
M i am i St ad i u-m
28, E03
TOi,-,,L ENTZ^PRISE FU';DS
83,622
TOTAL OPEP- ATI,;G APPRCPS.
$ 5,425,093
I
Howard V. Gary April 2R, 1981
City Manager
Status of FY '101 Fund Balance
Manohar S. Surn O)rector
Department of Ma p"ement and Budget
The Department of Planaoement and Budget has completed a review of the fiscal
year 1981 budget.
Attached are our projections which reveal that the City of Miami will re-
ceive 5120.6 million in revenues and expenO g121.8 million in operatina
costs for a net -projected shortfall of S1,240,177. The prniected shortfall
is attributahle to a loss of S2.5 million in revenues offset by a savinas of
$1.3 million in operating costs. This projection is primarily based on the
following assumptions:
1) The fund balance fnr FY 'din will he S2,220,591. This figure includes
encumbrances of S1,22n,591.
2) The City will rnaintain current vacancies until the end of the fiscal
year. Hov;ever, adiust^ients have been provided to fill positions clas-
sified as critical.
3) Savinrls of 5800,000 are anticipated from the Public Safety Fund of
S2 mi 1 l inn.
4) It is anticipated that Federal Revenue Sharinq will he reduced by ap-
proximat-ly 1-6<'Q,n00 or ?-°'.
5) '1epartmental reductions will not he implemented.
Overall, it is projected that the City will receive S2,5n3,00F less in reve-
nues than hudneted and will expend S1",2E2,82R less in operational costs than
budgeted. The net result is a nrojected shortfall of S1,240,177.
I. Revenues
With regard to projected revenues, the g120,572,188 represents a net
decrease of S2,503,nO5 from the Modified Midget of �123,07F,19?. The
factors contributing to this net decrease are as follows:
I f
Status of Fund Balance
Page 2
A. Losses
Our projections show revenue losses of 45,272,276. Significant
losses are as follows:
1. Peduction of ►.waste f.isposal Fees by S1,522,5nO. This reduction
is primarily based on a drop in the collection rate.
2. Reduction of Ad Valorem Taxes by 51,000,000. This reduction is
based on present collections and historical data.
3. Reduction of Cost Allocation by S700,n00. This reduction is
based on a FY '80 audit.
4. Reduction of Flectricitv (Utility Service Tax) by
This reduction is attributed to increased consumer enera_v con-
servation.
5. Reduction of Fines and Forfeits (Metro -Dade Countv Court) by
S2n0,On0. This reduction is due to a drop in the collection
rate.
6. Reduction of FPS funds by approximately S680,000 or P`,.
B. Gains
Our pro.iections show revenue Gains of S?,76Q,2FQ. Sianificant
gains are as follows:
1. An incrF,ase in Franchise Taxes of �533,124. This increase is
attributed to thr, ov(,rlap of the Southern Pell annual franchise
pay,iont end the ronthIv franchise pavr,:ents Which comrnenced
Fehruary 25, 19P1 as a result -of the adoption of Ordinance
90611.
2. An increas.o from Telephone ,)rid Telegraph (I;til ity Sery ice Tax)
of ,4nF,;f;B due to a Growth in telephone ►►sane of 11`/ rathpr
than an ,anticipated 5q.
3. An increase in the FY '8n Carrynver Fund Palance of S5nO,nnn.
4. An increase in Licenses and Permits of S457,P2 primarily due
to increased receipts from Euildina Permits of S2°n,150,
Elpctrical Inspections of and Plumbinn Permits of
$t)O, 609.
5. An increase in Char(jes for Services of 53n4,051 as a result of
contracting out the i•liamarina (e117,?32), ninnpr Vey ",arina
( 512 . , p55) and >lat snn Island (S2P, 964) .
4
Status of Fund Balance
Page 3
II. Expenditures
With regard to projected expenditures, the Ql?1,P12,365 represents a
savings of 51,262,828 from the Modifed Budget of S123,n75,193. The
factors contributing to the savings are as follows:
A. Projected salary savings are �,497,365.
B. A saving of S115,461 in Dade County Scale Fees.
C. A saving of 55n,000 in Street lighting.
0. A savinn of 5800,000 in the Public Safety Fund.
S um, m ar v
In sui,imar v it is projected that the Ci t v of f•ii ami wi l l ex oer i ence a short-
fall in the dll,nunt of S1,77,1777T)"I-S--shortfall is attributable. to prOjec-
ted receipts of S120,572,1,RP aoainst nrolected expenditures of 2 ,Q 2.,3h5.
s M c
i]
11
I. BUDGET SUMMARY
Revenues
Less: Expenditures
Projected Fund Balance
Shortfall
II. REVENUES
Losses
Gains
Net Loss in Revenue
Losses
SUMMARY OF FUND BALANCE
FISCAL YEAR 1981
Adopted
Budget
$121,849,447
121,849,447
-0-
$(5,272,274)
2,769,269
2,503,005)
Plod i f i ed
Budget
$123,075,193
123,075,193
$ -0-
Projected
Budget
$120,572,188
121, 812, 365
1,240,177)
Difference
(Projected
Less Modified
$(2,503,005)
1,262,8213
1,240,177
1.
Waste Disposal Fees
$ 1,522,500
2.
Property Tares
1,000,000
3.
Cost Allocation Plan
700,000
4.
Federal Revenue Sharing
680,000
5.
Electricity (UST)
329,488
6.
I'letro Dade County Court
200,000
7.
Homestead Exemption
160,060
8.
County Occupational Licenses
111,406
9.
Dade County School Board
100,000
10.
Interest on Investments
100,000
11.
Unclaivied Monies
73,000
12.
Community Oeveloprient
69,211
13.
Other
226,609
Total Revenue Losses
$(5,272,274)
Gains
1.
Franchise Taxes
$ 533,124
2.
Carryover Fund Balance
500,000
3.
Telephone & Telegraph (UST)
496,388
4.
Building Permits
286,150
5.
Miainarina
147,232
6.
Dinner Key
127,855
7.
Electrical Inspections
91,218
8.
Public Hearing Fees
85,000
9.
Plumbing Permits
30,609
10.
Auto Pound Fees
73,500
11.
State Revenue Sharing
66,906
12.
Energy Code Fees
52,000
13.
Other
229,237
Total Revenue Gains
S 2,769,269
Net Loss in Revenue
$(2,503,005)
f f
III. SUMMARY OF EXPENDITURES
Modified Appropriation $ 123,075,193
Less; Projected Expenditures 121,812,365
Projected Savings $ 1,262,828
Savings
Salary Savings 3 497,365
Waste Disposal Fees 115,463
Street Lighting 50,000
Public Safety Fund 800,000
Contingent Fund 200,000)
Total Savings $1,262,828
ASSUMPTIONS FOR PROJECTING FY'g2. RunGET
1. The estimated carry-over fund halance for FY '81 will have a shortfall
of $1,2nn,177.
2. The assumption for Property Taxes is that the City will receive 8% more
in property taxes than it received in FY '81 plus new construction.
3. This is based on a millage rate of 0.101 which will oenerate
$58,597,052 or $5,503,2MI more than the FY '81 Adopted Budoet.
4. Homestead Exemptions will not he funded.
5. $3,500,000 will be transferred to the General Frond from FPRL Franchise
Capital Improvement Revenues.
6. Federal Revenue Sharing will be funded at approximately S7,800,000
7. No Countercyclical Revenue Sharing has been antic_ipatpd in FY W .
8. The waste disposal fee charged to City residents will be S75. This
will generate $6,000,000 in revenue.
9. Fees paid to Dade Countv for disposina of the City's solid waste will
increase by S524,000 (from S3,799,000 to S4,323,000).
10. Workers' Corpensation, Group Insurance, and Liability Insurance wi 1 1
increase by S2,083,510 or 31%.
11. Provisions have been grade for S17.0 million in Pension costs, which is
5% (SE08,6n4) greater than the current year's appropriation.
12. FICA costs will increase by lno/.
13. Funds have been provided for a 10°1 union -negotiated salary increase for
Fire, Police and General en,pinyees which total S6,n14,875. Funos have
been provided fnr a 6`' salary increase for SEA members which total
Sa1.1,33r,.
14. Street l_iuhtina costs will increase by S973,n00 or ?5`,'.
15. The deficits for the Enternrise Funrts for FY 'f,? will be I�°3?,977 (an
increase of S161,2R4.
16. The contrihution to the nepartment of Building and Vehicle 'Maintenance
will be 52,6,133,014 higher than the current year's Adopted BUdnet.
17. All non -payroll items are adjusted to reflect anticipated increases.
18. No provisions are included for the S2 million Public Safety Fund.
r
5
SUMMARY OF FY '32 BUDGET ESTIMATE
I. BUDGET SUMMARY
REVENUES
APPROPRIATIONS
SHORT FALL
II. SUi•1MARY OF REVENUES
Gains
Losses
Gain
■ Gains
Modified Budget
as of 3-31-81
$123,075,193
123,075,193
-0-
1. Property Taxes
2. Utility Service Taxes
3. Dinner Key
4. Miamarina
5. Building Permits
6. Franchise Taxes
7. Marine Stadium
8. Electrical Inspections
9. Public Hearing Fees
10. Pl unbi ng Per7ni is
11. Auto Pound Fees
12. State Revenue Sharing
13. Watson Island
14. Energy Code Fees
15. Other
Total Gains
Losses
1. Carryover Fund Balance
2. Homestead Exemption
3. Cost Allocation Plan
4. Federal Revenue Sharing
5. Interest - Interama
6. Metro Dade County Courts
7. County Occupational Licenses
8. Dade County School Board
9. Interest on Investments
10. Unclaimed Monies
11. Community Development
12. Other
Budget Estimate
1981-82
$125,935, 026
135,736,417
9,801,391
$ 9,559,089
6,699,256)
S 2.859.333
Total Losses
Net Revenue Gain
$ 5,503,284
1,439,417
758,218
585,830
280,150
141,033
100,000
91,213
85,000
80,609
73,500
66,906
5 7, 768
55,000
$ 241,156
$ 2,960,768
1,067,069
636,393
680,000
500,000
200,000
111,406
100,000
100,000
98,000
69,211
$ 176,409
Difference
$ 2,859,833
12,661,224
9,801,391
$ 9,559,089
$ (6,699,256)
$ 2,859,833
v r
SUMMARY OF FY '82 R110GET ESTIMATF
III. APPROPRIATION INCRFASES
Salaries and Wages S 7,534,91P
Other Pay ?,7P2,105
Operating Expenses 2,852,334
Capital (508,133)
Increase in Appropriations S 12.,6AI,224
IV. SHORTFALL S 9,801,301
M
SUMMARY OF APPROPRIATION INCREASES
FISCAL YEAR 1982
I. Salaries and Wages
$ 7,534,918
II. Other
Pay:
1)
Pension
$ 772,444
2)
Self Insurance
1,543,533
3)
FICA, Overtire, Holiday Pay, etc.
466,128 $ 2,782,105
III. Operating
Expenses:
1)
Building and Vehicle Maintenance
$2,683,074
2)
Publ is Safety Fund
(2,000,000)
3)
Capital Outlay
(508,133)
4)
Street Lighting
973,000
5)
Scale Fees
524,000
6)
Ccciputer Repairs and Maintenance
and Telephone
321,539
7)
Self Insurance
539,977
8)
Utilities
131,926
9)
Severance Pay
148,616
10)
Election
112,000
11)
Enterprise Fund Deficit
161,284
12)
Other
477,509 $ 2,344,201
13)
Prior Year Encmiberances
1,220,591)
$ 12,661,224
u
0
CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
-� Howard C. Gary
City 11anager
INTER-CFFICE MEMORANDUM
•+ `;,tl� rt H. Howard, Director !
Det,artment of Leisure Services
CaiF: April <a, 1951
51.t71F.. Layoff Effect on
Department of Leisure
Services
REFc RE'J.: ES
ENCLOSLIt.f s
Prior to La:•of_`s:
A. Swirj-:inc Pools - Seven (7) Pool Managers were available to
operate nine (`-') Pools.
B. Park s:'Plro,:n:is - Fifteen (13) Recreation Leader II's were
available to `,,•crk with full-ti:-e Recreation Leader III's and
numerous part-time Pocreation Specialists.
Ater the ..av:f r .
rTLE
cols - seven (r) full-tii:,.e' >=nol Xan aver positions
4:0`11 ei�.,.•,,.i:C a n replaced .:ith I i,... part-time/
SC.-iS:lal :i ll Of r,t CrC it-:l S�t:C1a11:it (; OOi n Co`)
a.,d o,nte position of A.ecr'2at1o:; Specialist (P001S
Supervi--or) . In 3(.Jiticn, throuct:out the sursr..cr months of
Jun•?, July and Aucust, each c:e(-)l will be staffed with one (1)
Huai Life:;uard ar-1 thrt!e (3) Lifecu,irds.
B. Par ; p13''r rCll:, ?c - Fifteen (15) full-time Rt_-creatiun Leader
II'i)031t1G.,., F:nulci h,2 cll:^i:,.itCd an] roplacuci Stilth an ade-
quate nu: -a er ;ua11 f: 'd a;: 3 kllii'd i-art-tl ,c Recreation
SF ialists. All staff '..•oul,.i be working u::cer
tI-,. direction of full-time Iiecroatlon Leader III's and would
only :.0 t-ho need for a specific activity has
L)r ..hi n Li ivarmit to t.ise a facility has L•t?en
A recent .;urv?;• fuu:, : ,in ur:usu.Llly high number of part -tide (tetn.'orar':
and/or 1.Uur1y) in ;ark and recrt ation .ie; artments nationwide.
4:ltn Fart-Cli^.t?.. 1 ,,2t -;av1I:gn In liolht of their
lower 4:anus, tower ht•Ilc'Llt:;, .tRJ flexiL)le sci,,,dulinq opportunities,
only 15 pttrct,rlt t:d? :;llrYc 't't' i chit_•'_; t M-10yoki toll -time activity
SI-.'12C1311St..; anv! only 12 pt.r:erit rocreat.un prodrarl leaders
on ,3 _a11-rlr ha:,.s• It i:, our that t;:Iallfie•.1 _..:ii.....:als,
thc`;e3 wnU !l,iv4 _;r:111:, .it:. intt'rt?its .L::i a t!esiro to hare? them with
-1-
6�
Howard V. Gary
City '•'onager
April 24, 1991
Page 2
others, can be found within the neishhorhoods in which "their" parks/
playareunds are situated. Many teachers look to supplement their income
today b;• working evenings, weekends and holiday,. Housewives who have
unique talents in the arts (dance, drama, music, crafts,, etc.) enjoy
sharing their talents while at the same time earning some "spending
money." Inasmuch as staff would he selected from the community in which
they work and/or live, and placed in "their" neighhorhood parks, the
concern for vandalism :y'ouli be no greater than it is now. In fact, we
might even see an improvement in the situation.
AHH/P-LH/.n1f
Fiscal Irpact: #1
1
A. Effect of layoffs on FY-81 budget
using an effective
date of
May 3, 1981. (11 pay periods)
Poo?
F'i-cl bu:Cet
SI•;•;,42_ .72
11/25
$
51,103.19
9 ter.,rorar' ;:zinaaerc,
hr/40 hr wk/13 wr: ;
3n n:C
Salary saving
Fri nods
$61,103.11) x 37q,
; 22C8.18
less $30,420 x 14?.
4, R0
Saving_ in frin^es
1?,3•+n 3�i
Total savings
$
43,U3::.57
RecrQation Leader II's
FY-81 budcet $2 66, 325. 30
11/26 $113,S22.24
40 part-ti^c E:ec. Leaders
0 4. 50 hr/ 20 hr w}:/
22 wks 79,200.00
$ 34,322.24
Fringes
$1I3,52 .24 x 375 42,CO3.23
_ less $79,200 x 14% 11 0
Saving in fringes 3n,115,23
Total savings t)4,43747
Total saving from la•.nt:s $113,470.0.3
B. Effect on on FY-�i2 bi.?:>t using current salary rates.
.. .. .... .. 'tz J.i'. _.
$144, 425.I2
FY-=2 - 9 t... _c_ar, :' ^• _
s `) 6.50
40 hr ,'i3
30,•;20 C'0
Salary s
SI14,C,'5.72
Frir.aes
$144,425. ,,. :; 37�k
$ 53,437.52
le:-,,; $30,420 :.: 14'4,
4 25 5.?0
on IY�. _.
.r 4� 1 72
T tal saving
$163,164.44
F?olcrr•ation L'aC-_ r II's
$268, 1125. 30
F'.-82 - 40
Lt:aders
t •1.50 ;:r,'00 hr wr:/52
w?.,;
lri7 2^�, '0
scil-!ry oavirgs
$ 8� 125.30
Frin-7es
;� ..c;-Fi'25. 30 :: 37 b
$ an 2S0. 36
less '^ H / , 200 x 144
2- r10
Savinrl on fr-, I es
Total .tea'. ing
y11 .iY, 197. 66
':ot'Ll .;a' inq for re
I,tcinq
ar.,? ii.rr rI' 1t1Cn
Lt_adier !I's
will: i:art-tire t:*.�lofE�es
$31',,382 10
APl?/ RLIH /rtf