HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem #01 - Discussion Itemi
i
i
i
i
i
r
1
1
r
r
f
1
•
NW:
EIR
MEM
MEW
MON
MEW
ffeg
MEE
EMIF
Mr
MIME
MEN
MEM
MEW
ENE
EM
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
A
1
June 12 ► 19 / 8
City Commission and City Manager
City of Miami, Florida
ToucheRss&CA
CERTIFIED FUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
At the request of the City of Miami, we have completed our
review and appraisal of the effectiveness of the existing
two-tier metropolitan government structure in Miami/Dade
County. The scope of our review as agreed, included an
analysis of local government throughout Miami/Dade County
and was not limited to a critique of the City of Miami's
relations with Metropolitan Dade County.
In the pages that follow, the report on our review, intended
to serve as a working document, has been organized to include
chapters which describe our understanding of the objectives
and scope of our review, our approach to conducting the
review and an executive summary of our major findings and
recommendations. Additionally, the report includes chapters
which describe in greater detail the results of our review
which provided the basis for our recommendations.
The analysis and recommendations outlined in this report have
been discussed with the Mayor of Miami and representative
City Officials.
If you should have any questions or wish to discuss any
aspect of our report, please contact Mr. William Goldrich
or Mr. Frank Miller in our Miami Office at (305) 377-4000
or Mr. Joseph Martin of our Toronto Office at (416) 366-6521.
Very truly yours,
Touche Ross & Co.
THIRD FLOOR - RIVERGATE PLAZA • 444 BRICKELL AVENUE • MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 - (305) 377-4000
EWER
m▪ ow
MAW
mama
MIME
MEIRE
MEW
Miint
MEER
MEEK
IMF
sari
MIMIM
MEND -
MBE
EiMErF
MERE
Emms
EM▪ MEft
M
A REVIEW OF TWO-TIER GOVERNMENT
IN MIAMI/DADE COUNTY
FOR THE
CITY OF MIAMI
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
APPROACH TAKEN
SUMMARY Or RECOMMENDATIONS
CHAPTER II
PAGE
1
7
10
MIAMI/DADE COUNTY: THE BACKGROUND TO REFORM 13
Introduction 13
Geographic Size 13
Population 14
Tax Base 18
Structure 22
Metropolitan Dade County Modifications 23
CHAPTER III
ALTERNATIVE STRUCTURES OF MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT
FOR THE GREATER MIAMI AREA 26
Introduction 26
Criteria for Establishing Structure 28
The Alternatives 31
Consolidation 31
Status Quo 34
Metropolitan Federation 36
Recommendations 39
CHAPTER IV
LOWER TIER RESTRUCTURING 42
Introduction 42
Criteria 42
Application of the Criteria to Lower -
Tier Municipalities in Dade County 49
CHAPTER V
REPRESENTATION
Introduction
Criteria for Effective Systems of
Representation
Alternative Electoral Structures
Representation in Dade County and Other
Major Metropolitan Governments
Recommendations for Electoral Reform
(i)
55
55
55
59
64
68
=IMMEMICi
MEM
maw
minima
•
MMIS
a
mmm
mmm
mmm
mmm
mow
mmw
mmw
ENO
mmw
talle
cosi
TOtt or COI Z ( Contihhued)
CHAPTER VI
PAGE
THE ALLOCATION OF SERVICES HETWEEN THE UPPER
AND DOWER TIER 71
Introduction 71
Review of Criteria 71
Dade County Functional Assignment History 78
Recommendations for Functional Allocation 82
CHAPTER VII
MUNICIPAL REVENUE 84
Introduction 84
Local Revenue Sources 84
Problems with Current Revenue Sources 92
Recommended Solutions to the Revenue
Problems 99
APPENDICES
A Dade County Population Data
B Dade County Taxable Assessment (1960, 1974 and 1976)
C Dade County Governmental Changes 1943-1957
D Referendum Efforts in Dade County 1957-1974
E Chronological History of Municipal Service Mergers
into the County Service
F Highlights of Previous Reviews
G Dade County Per Capita Expenditure
H Dade County Municipal Representation 1977
I Service Function Assignment Models
J Dade County Revenue Analysis
BIBLIOGRAPHY
MIN
MEM
NNW
MMIR
Ers
maw
MME
MEM
mmm
MMW
MEW
NEW
MEW
BMW
WNW
MEW
MMK
EME
Isimm
mlimm
MMW
IWR
MMU
MMWi
ILMtar
BMW
MIME
LIST OF TABLES
CHAPTER II
PAGE
MIAMI/DADE COUNTY: THE BACKGROUND TO RE "ORM
2.1 bade County Geographic Data 14
2.2 Dade County Relative Population Trends 16
2.3 Dade County Assessment Trends 19
CHAPTER IV
LOWER -TIER RESTRUCTURING
4.1 Dade County Per Capita Expenditure
Ranges
CHAPTER V
REPRESENTATION
5.1 Composition of Metropolitan Commissions
CHAPTER VI
THE ALLOCATION OF SERVICES BETWEEN THE UPPER
AND LOWER TIER
6.1 Distribution of Service Responsibility
(Metro Toronto Model)
6.2 Metropolitan Dade Two -Tier Recommended
Division of Functions
CHAPTER VII
MUNICIPAL REVENUE
7.1 1976 Ad Valorem Millage Levy Selected
Cities in Dade County
7.2 Per Capita Yield from 10 Mill Levy
in Four Selected Cities, 1976
LIST OF FIGURES
MIAMI/DADE COUNTY: THE BACKGROUND TO REFORM
51
66
75
83
95
97
2.1 Metropolitan Dade County Geographic
Size Comparisons 15
2.2 Dade County Relative Population Trends 17
2.3 Dade County Cities Assessment Growth
as a Percent of Dade County Mean 21
NIMMIE
MEM
MiNEME
MIMMIW
momm
mow
MEW
mme
MME
CHAPTER I
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
During the early 1950's two pioneering forms of local
government were created in North America: one, in the
State of Florida, the other in the Province of Ontario,
Canada,
The Canadian experiment, known as the Metropolitan
Corporation of Metropolitan Toronto, led the way.
A metropolitan federation with an upper and lower -tier
of government, it has survived a series of major changes
in the mid 1960's, as well as a number of minor changes.
In fact at present, it is subject to a comprehensive
review from which legislation is going forward. Still,
Metropolitan Toronto is regarded as one of the finest
examples of functioning municipal government in the world.
It has served as a model for other two-tier regional
federations throughout the Province of Ontario, where over
60 percent of the population now live in twelve two-tier
regional municipalities.
Miami/Dade County was created the year after Metropolitan
Toronto. Its creation was a major success because at
the same time similar reform attempts in Cayuga County,
Ohio and St. Louis County, Missouri were defeated. Change
1
MEE
IMMO
MEE
MEE
MMW
MMM
MEW
MOW
111M-
ommirAT
mmw
MEE
mom
mmw
MEMIEK
mmm
NNW
MEE
OBE
MMMEM
MMIMM
MMW
M
w
•
MIME
Rat
EME
END
ih municipal government restructuring does not Come
as easily in the United States as it does in Canada.
There are a number of key differences between Miami/bade
County and Metropolitan Toronto in spite of the proximity
of their time of creation. One major difference is that
Dade County is more a metropolitan county than it is
a true two-tier metropolitar Federation. Another
difference is that a large proportion of the residents
of. Dade County do not live in an incorporated municipality.
A third major distinction is that while there were once
14 lower -tier municipalities in Metropolitan Toronto, there
have been only six for the past decade. In Dade County,
there are 27 exclusive of the unincorporated district. A
final difference is that while, like Toronto, Dade County
has been subject to review and indeed there have been
changes, there was no comprehensive review a decade
ago resulting in major changes. What has taken place in
Dade County has been gradual and incremental and is
known in some circles as "creeping consolidation".
This creeping consolidation has occured not only because
certain people wanted it to occur, but for structural reasons
as well. Simply stated, the County has a stronger fiscal
•
a
a
e
1
1
base relative to service responsibilities than have the
lower=tier municipalities• The problems of the lower -tier
municipalities have been compounded by the fact that their
weak fiscal base relative to their service responsibilities
is further limited by State legislation on their taxing
powers. The limitation known as "millage cap" has
resulted in the municipalities shifting functions to the
County or upper -tier level of government as they
approached or reached their taxation limitation. The County,
in turn, was able to accept the lower -tier functions because
they could spread the cost of the single municipality's
service across the entire county -wide base.
This review has been initiated by the City of Miami because
of their specific problems. Miami's share of the population
and assessment of the total County has been steadily
declining.
Of more serious concern, is the
fact that its
tax base, as measured in terms of per capita assessment, is
below that of the average for the County. The City is
at its millage cap and is having difficulty providing the
services that citizens need. If current events continue
without change, the City of Miami as a separate municipality,
could well disappear before the turn of the century. This
is an obvious concern to all of Dade. County tax payers.
MEM
immz
MMW
MEW
MEE
mmw
mow
WNW
mmw
mom
mom
4
r
In spite of the very specific problems of the City of
Miami, the study has not been approached from a strictly
Miami point of view. Rather, it is an examination of
the current structure of municipal government in
Miami/Dade County. Chapter II analyzes the current
structure and compares it with two primary alternatives
complete consolidation or a true two-tier form of
municipal federation. The three alternatives, that is,
the status quo, consolidation, or true two-tier, are
measured against generally accepted criteria for local
government.
What emerges from this analysis is that in order to obtain
the twin goals of economic efficiency and democratic
responsiveness, the best alternative to the status quo is
not consolidation but metropolitan federation.
For metropolitan federation to occur,' there will have to be
a number of changes. First of all, the lower -tier
municipalities will have to be restructured. While this
will be a dramatic change from the present, it will be less
dramatic than the disappearance of the existing municipalities
into a consolidated form of County government. What is
recommended is a strengthening of the core city and the
creation of 10 other lower -tier municipalities in place of the
26 other lower -tier municipalities and the unincorporated district.
mmw
MME
mow
MIME
M&
UMW
a
This will obviously require changes in representation at
the upper -tier level, However, this should occur whether
or not the metropolitan federation takes place, under
either consolidation or the status quo. A comparative
analysis with other comparable jurisdictions shows that
the citizens of Dade County, especially those in
the unincorporated district, are among the most under-
represented in North America.
In the area of representation it is recommended that the
size of the upper -tier Commission be increased. This
should be done in two ways. First, a number of at -large
by district representatives should be increased from
8 to 13. In addition, the mayors of the 10 new
lower -tier municipalities, the mayor of Miami plus two
additional representatives from Miami should sit on the
upper -tier Commission.
These representatives plus a mayor elected at -large
would result in a Commission of 27 and would ensure greater
access to the Commission by the citizenry.
A third structural alteration would be the reallocation of
the functions performed by the upper and lower -tier
1
5
MMM
ffiMZ-
MMINW
nig
111
MEM
mmau
municipalities, Basically what is recommended in this
report is that henceforth the upper -tier municipalities
provide upper -tier services and shared services but not
lower -tier services. Conversely, lower -tier municipalities
would be responsible for providing similar lower -tier
services and shared services.
This report contains a detailed delineation of which services
should be provided by what level of municipality.
Finally, there is the matter of fiscal reform, often neglected
in proposals for structural reform. Chapter VII deals
with the problem of the inequities in the current tax base.
It also notes how these problems are compounded by the State -
imposed millage cap. This report recommends an amendment to
the Charter to prevent double taxation. Turning to the
revenue base, the report recommends the creation of an assessment
pool for the lower -tier municipalities of all non-residential
taxable assessment in the County. The assessment pool would
be redistributed on the basis of population and fiscal need.
This recommendation is basically modeled on the
Twin Cities plan in Minnesota.
Improvements in State revenue sharing are also recommended.
While recognizing the contribution State revenue sharing
has made to Florida municipalities, it suggests an adjustment
•
MEW
a
MMW
MMW
MEW
IMF
EWE
Ilk
lem
7
in the population weighting factor to take into account
the unique problems of the cities in the State.
APPROACH TAKEN
The City of Miami decided to have undertaken an independent
appraisal of the effectiveness of the existing two-tier
metropolitan government structure in Miami/Dade County. The
firm of Touche Ross & Co. was retained to undertake the
review. The terms of reference required an analysis of
local government throughout Miami/Dade County, not just a
critique of Miami's relations with Metropolitan bade County.
The review of two-tier government in Miami/Dade County
involved the following steps:
• initial meeting with City of Miami Officials;
• data gathering;
• data analysis and development of alternative
structural models;
• project review with Mayor of Miami and City
Officials;
▪ refining data and models;
• meetings with Officials from the City of Toronto; and
preparation of a final written report
The data gathered was limited to readily accessible financial
information at the State, County, City of Miami and association
levels. As well, a literature search was conducted for
MIK
mim▪ mim
OMB
IIMMK
MEW
AMMW
U MW
OEMEW
MIK
•
t
grA
I.
MEW
mom -
MEW
MEM
MEM
1
w
1
w
during the reviews Mr. Kingsbury, who participated in
a major role in the 1976 university of Miami Study
provided key data and analysis throughout the course of
the study,
9
OEM
NNW
NINIOSK
MI IR
sm
MIGM
MiMMEW
MMW
Lm
MN ff
MIME-
MMM
MINIM
MIME
MEW
MEW
EIMIV
MEM
w
a
1
a
1
1
1
1
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
CHAPTER II►__ _ MIAMI/DADE COUNTY; BACKGROUND TO REFORM
* THAT THE COUNTY CHARTER BE AMENDED TO
REQUIRE THAT FORMAL REVIEW OF GOVERNMENT
IN MIAMI/DADE COUNTY BE UNDERTAKEN EVERY
FIVE TO TEN YEARS
CHAPTER II. STRUCTURE
*
THAT A TRUE TWO-TIER FORM OF METROPOLITAN
GOVERNMENT BE ADOPTED FOR MIAMI/DADE COUNTY
IN PLACE OF THE STATUS QUO
CHAPTER IV. LOWER -TIER RESTRUCTURING
*
*
THAT DADE COUNTY BE COMPOSED OF A STRONG CENTRAL
CORE CITY SURROUNDED BY A GROUP OF TEN (10)
ECONOMICALLY VIABLE CITIES WHOSE POPULATIONS
ARE IN THE ORDER OF 100,000 - 150,000 PERSONS
EACH
THAT A LOCAL BOUNDARIES COMMISSION BE CREATED
TO REVIEW THE SITUATION AND RECOMMEND A TWO-
TIER STRUCTURE BASED ON THE ABOVE CRITERION
AND TAKING THE FOLLOWING POINTS AS GUIDELINES:
The core city should have a population
ranging from 25 to 30 percent of the
County total;
The remaining lower -tier cities should
have a base population of between 100,000
and 150,000;
The analysis should take into account
projected growth trends for population
both in numbers and geographic location;
• The per capita assessment of the lower
tier units should not vary by more than
50 percent; and
▪ The analysis should take into account
existing communities and historical
ties to enhance the political feasibility
of restructuring.
10
MEI
NM—
aawasm
IMM
MEE
MERM
11
CHAPTER V REPRESENTATION
* THAT THE DADE COUNTY COMMISSION BE ENLARGED
• THAT THE MAYOR OF EACH CITY SHALL BE
ELECTED AS BOTH MAYOR OF HIS ,JURISDICTION
AND REPRESENTATIVE TO THE METROPOLITAN DADE
COUNTY COMMISSION
• THAT TWO FURTHER REPRESENTATIVES TO THE
METROPOLITAN COMMISSION BE ELECTED ON AN
AT -LARGE BASIS WITHIN THE CITY OF MIAMI
• THAT THE EXISTING COMMISSION BE EXPANDED
FROM 8 TO 13 MEMBERS PLUS THE MAYOR
CHAPTER VI. THE ALLOCATION OF SERVICES BETWEEN THE UPPER
AND LOWER TIERS
THAT THE UPPER TIER SHOULD PERFORM UPPER —
TIER FUNCTIONS AND SHARED FUNCTIONS BUT
IT SHOULD NOT PERFORM LOWER —TIER FUNCTIONS
* THAT ALL LOWER —TIER MUNICIPALITIES SHOULD
PERFORM SIMILAR LOWER —TIER FUNCTIONS AND
SHARED FUNCTIONS
* THAT MUNICIPAL FUNCTIONS BETWEEN THE LOCAL
AREA MUNICIPALITIES AND THE REGIONAL
METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT BE ALLOCATED ACCORDING
TO THE MODEL PRESENTED IN THIS REPORT
CHAPTER VII. MUNICIPAL REVENUE
* THAT THE MILLAGE CAP BE ELIMINATED
* THAT THE DADE COUNTY CHARTER BE AMENDED SO AS
TO PREVENT THE COUNTY FROM TAXING PROPERTIES
WITHIN MUNICIPALITIES FOR SERVICES WHICH ARE
OF NO REAL AND SUBSTANTIAL BENEFIT TO THE
PERSONS AND PROPERTIES WITHIN THE MUNICIPALITIES
* THAT AN ASSESSMENT POOL BE CREATED IN DADE COUNTY
OF ALL NON—RESIDENTIAL ASSESSMENT AND THIS
ASSESSMENT POOL SHOULD BE REDISTRIBUTED ON THE
BASIS DESCRIBED IN THIS REPORT
•
■
es
•
•
•
MW
NEEM
THAT THt DADE COUNTY DELEGATION To THE
STATE LEGISLATURE BE URGED TO INTRODUCE
A PROPOSAL WHICH WOULD ALTER THE
POPULATION FACTOR CALCULATION USED IN
THE APPORTIONMENT OF STATE REVENUE SHARING
12
MEM
swisomen.
MIIIIMIE
MENEM
MEMOOS
•
CHAPTER It
MIAMl/DADE COUNTY: Tt!E EACK6;ROUND TO REFORM
INTRODUCTION
Situated at the southeast corner of Florida near the
end of the peninsula, Miami/Dade County is the oldest two-
tier form of government in the United States and the
second oldest in North America.
This chapter provides some basic data about the County and
its constituent municipalities. It then traces the history
of local government reviews leading up to this current
review.
GEOGRAPHIC SIZE
The Dade County area consists of 2,352 square miles, of
which 2,234 or 94.9 percent is unincorporated. However,
over 375,000 acres (nearly 600 square miles) of the
unincorporated district lies in the Everglades National
Park. Within the incorporated area, the City of Miami
encompasses 34.3 square miles or 1.5 percent. There are
26 other municipalities and they occupy 83.7 square miles
or 3.6 percent of the County's total land area.
Table 2.1 and Figure 2.1 summarize the data as follows:
11
mmmw
MENEM
:..:.....:::...
Eff
IMF
MIMM
M
MMW
MEM
TABLE 2.1
DADE COUNTY OtOCRAPRIC DATA
Square % of
Miles Total
City of Miami 34.3
A11 Other Cities 83.7
Everglades National Park 587.0
Remaining Unincorporated Area 1,647.0
Total Dade County
POPULATION
1.5
3.6
24.9
70.0
2,352.0 100.0
14
The 1976 census population for the County was 1,449,300
(see Table 2.2 and Appendix A). Over half of the population
(54 percent) was located within municipalities with the
balance in the unincorporated district. Miami is the
largest center with a 1976 population of just under 344,000.
Hialeah is the only other municipality with a permanent
population of over 100,000 (126,125). Miami Beach has a
combined permanent and tourist population in excess of 100,000,
but its permanent population was less than 100,000 (88,850)
in 1976. Six municipalities (Hialeah Gardens, Golden Beach,
Medley, Indian Creek,Pennsuco and Islandia) have a
population of 1,Q02 or less.
IOW
MEW
t:1GtJRE 2.1
METROPOLITAN DADS COUNTY GEOGRAPHIC
SIZE COMPARISONS
1.5%
City of
Miami
Cities
Unincorporated Area 94.9%
15
16
VOLE; 2,2
DALE dOUNTY
RELATIVE POPULATION TRENDS
1920 (., 1940 (2) 71.60 (%) 1976 (2) 1990* (Z)
City of Miami 29,5/1 (9.2) 172,112 (64,3) 291,688 (ld) 141,971 (23,7) 4100000 (21,2)
Other Cities L,JUG ( 5,4) 54,083 (20.2) 291,734 (31.2) 459,428 (31.7)
Unincorporated Area 10,B76(25.4) 41,550 (15,5) 352,247 (37.7) 659,432 (46 )
Total Dade County 42,753 267,739
935,047 1,449,300 1,930,000
* Projected by Bureau of Census and Miami City Planning Dept.
Dade County area -wide increased in population by 667,308 or
249 percent from 1940 to 1960. In this same period the City
of Miami increased by 119,516 or 69 percent.
A later
comparison indicates an even greater growth outside the
City of Miami with Dade County increasing 514,253 or 54.9
percent from 1960 to 1976, while the City of Miami population
increased by only 52,289 or 17.9 percent.
IF
RI
a
X
1
1
1
1
100 a•-•
90 -
80
70
Per Ccnt
of
Dade 60
County
Total
50
40 -I-
30 —
20
10
FIGURE 2.2
DADE COUNTY RELATIVE POPULATION TRENDS
1920 = 1916
City of Miami
Unincorporated Area
Other Cities
17
stimate
0
1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990
=1).
EMS:
•
IMIL
18
The municipalities, other than Miami, have also grown in
absolute and relatiNr'' terms. In 1940 their total population
was 54,083 or 20.'' percent of the total of Dade County. In
1976 the corresponding figures were 451,428 total population
or 31.7 pe._ tit of the total for Dade County. The greatest
growth in both absolute and relative terfis in recent years
has been in Hialeah, North Miami and Homestead.
The trend of declining relative population positions within
Dade County, will see the City of Miami and the other incorporated
areas continue to lose their "strengths" as -wealth and
numbers of registered voters shift to the unincorporated
area. In fact, this trend is not likely to reverse itself
in view of the increased out -migration of middle -income
families into the unincorporated areas.
TAX BASE
In 1976 the total assessed value was nearly $20 billion (see
Table 2.3 and Appendix B). The total assessment was split
nearly equally between the municipalities (50.5 percent)
and the unincorporated district (49.5 percent).
The trend in relative percentage of total County assessed
value is of interest. The City of Miami declined from
MEW
MOM
or MEW
maw
MEM
▪ PINAt
R
MWit
mm
R
M.
more
1/111.
mmm
▪ IEEE
MISEW
•
•
EIMER
.5
wwwww
Mai
MEM
mmurZ
UMW
-
i
i
i
'DASt,E 2x1_....
DADE COUNTY A$8E$ MENT TRENDS
1960 1976
19
Per Capita
Variance
Assessed Value Assessed Value $,of Mean
Per Per
_ Aggregates: ($000,000) % Capita ($000,000) % Capita
IAll Cities 1,417 71.0 2,431 9,988 50.5 12,645
Unincorporated Area 578 29.0 1,641 9,785 49.5 14,839
ITotal Dade County 1,995 100.0 2,134 19,773 100.0 13,643
.927
1.088
1.000
Selected Cities:
ICity of Miami 554 27.8 1,899 3,681 18.6 10,700 .784
Miami Beach 395 19.7 6,259 1,554 7.8 17,490 1.281
ICoral Gables 102 5.1 2,939 874 4.4 20,672 1.515
IHialeah 82 4.1 1,224 1,334 7.8 10,587 .976
North Miami 53 2.6 1,847 518 2.6 11,897 .872
i
i
i
North Miami Beach 36 1.8 1,682 441 2.2 12,339 .904
Homestead 17 0.8 1,858 164 0.8 8,059 .590
WOE
MWMEW
I
I II
mmwi
mmw
EMIR
MEL
MMM
MEI
OF
M
20
27.8 percent of total county talc digest in 1960 to
18,C percent in 1976, In aggregate all other cities lost as
well, declining from 71..0 percent in 1960 to 50,5 percent
in 1976, although there were exceptions like Hialeah which
increased from 4.1 percent of the total to 7,8 percent.
Conversely '-h, unincorporated area grew from 29,0 percent
of the total tax digest to 49,5 percent in the same period.
Per capita assessment value is an important indicator of
a community's fiscal capacity. There is a wide range in
the per capita assessments in Dade County as may be seen from
an examination of Appendix B. This point is simply highlighted
in Table 2.3. It is interesting to note that the unincorporated
area had a per capita assessment of 8.8% over the County mean
in 197E while the seven largest municipalities averaged 3.7%
under the mean for the same period with no indications of
forthcoming trend reversals. Figure 2.3 illustrates the
disparity of growth between the municipalities and unincorporated
Dade County.
1
ME
MMM
Mir
w
MMIW
Emmol
FIGURE 2,3
DADE COUNTY C1TtE5
ASSESSMENT GROWTH A5 A
PERCENT OF DADE COUNTY MEAN
1960 - 1976
City of
Miami 78%
...m...........1..........••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
All Cities 92%
Dade County Mean 100%
Unincorporated Dade County
180%
21
22
STRUCTURE
Miami/Dade County is a ,Metropolitan county rather than a
true two-tier me + oli.tan federa+-ion commission as exists in
Metropolitan Toronto. The upper -tier or Metropolitan
bade County level provides both regional functions (Lee
health, welfare, planning, transit) as well as more local
functions, such as fire, to the unincorporated district and
certain municipalities on a negotiated basis. The 27 lower-
tier municipalities provide a different array of local
functions depending on their size, wealth and history.
The county manager form of government exists in the Dade
upper -tier. The Metropolitan Dade County Board of Commissioners
consists of eight commissioners elected at -large, but residing
within and representing a specific district that crosses
incorporated and unincorporated boundaries. The Board of
Commissioners is chaired by the Mayor who is also elected at -
large, but who represents the whole area.
Fifteen of the 27 municipalities within Dade County have a
City Manager with elected bodies including the Mayor ranging
from five to eight members. The remaining 12 municipalities
have a Clerk as the administrative head of the city.
The Metro Dade structure as it relates to representation and
service delivery has been the issue of continuous debate and
R
INNEw
MEM
i
MET
MEE
mmx
MWffiW
NNE
R111112
■
Eli
MEM
MIST
it •
M EPEE
=MI it
ME M▪ a,
Ts
MEE
23
referendum beginning with its initial impleMentation.
The next section of this chapter traces sortie of the
major events leading up to this review,
METROPOLITAN WADS COUNTY MODIFICATIONS
Structural Reform Attempts
The structure of Metropolitan Dade County was produced in
the Home Rule Charter of 1957 after a history of changes
beginning in the early 1940`s (See Appendix C). Numerous
attempts at reform of the 1957 Charter have occurred since
that date. These reform efforts have included eight
referenda issues regarding structure, accountability
and representativeness from 1957 to 1974 ( Appendix D).
Service Delivery Transfers
Transfers in the assignment of service delivery
responsibility have been attempted and frequently realized
through the referenda process (five issues from 1957-74)
shown in Appendix D. Inter -governmental service agreements
between Metropolitan Dade County and individual municipalities
have also produced service transfers totalling over 60
transactions (Appendix E). These transactions range from
delivering a single service to all municipalities (i.e. Voter
Registration in State and County elections) to independently
negotiated services between a group or single municipalities
(i.e. crime lab and libraries, respectively).
MEM
OtW
MEW
MEW
ar
IMEIMIMM
Reviews
24
This current effort by the City of Miami to review
for improvement opportunities the lower -tier municipal
relationships with the upper -tier Metropolitan Dade County
follows several previous efforts to review that
relationship. Generally, previous
efforts addressed the
political implications of the Home Rule Charter structure
as opposed to the economic ramifications.
The major previous efforts were:
Government Sanctioned
1954 Public Administration
Service
1971 Dade County Charter
1973-76 University of Miami
Independent Research
1961 Chamber of Commerce/League
of Municipalities
1963 E.Sofen (University of Miami)
1967 P.N. Glendenning (University
of Michigan)
A review of the governmentally sanctioned findings is contained
in Appendix F.
These earlier studies indicate that a review of governmental
structure of Miami/Dade County is not a new phenomenon. It is
6
•
MWM
MW
mw
AMW
MEE
mmw
mmm
MIME
MEM
misrE
MINIM
MMre
•
•
MMIft
ffht
MMW
MMW
MEW
EMIWg
MOW
SIM
MEE
MCP
MEE
i
i
25
hoped that the current review differs in that it has
a combined struct-':ral and fiscial approach. This report
i5 not a formal review of the entire governmental process
in Miami/Dade County. It is a review of the major
issues. This report recommends
THAT THE COUNTY CHARTER BE AMENDED TO REQUIRE
THAT A FORMAL REVIEW OF GOVERNMENT IN MIAMI/DADE
COUNTY SHOULD BE UNDERTAKEN EVERY FIVE TO
TEN YEARS
This should guarantee continued accountable and fiscally
responsible government in Miami/Dade County.
The data presented thus far shows the decline of the core city
relative to the whole. A continuation of that decline could
result in consolidation of all municipalities in the not
too distant future unless action is undertaken now.
The next chapter of this report analyzes consolidation against
the established criteria for sound municipal government
and attempts to illustrate its weaknesses. Subsequent
chapters deal in greater detail with such key issues as lower -
tier structure, representation, the allocation of service
functions and fiscal improvements.
MIME
MEE
mmm
MEE
MEE
MB
mmw
MEW
CHAPTER IIt
ALTERNATIVE STRUCTURES OF MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT
t'OR THE GREATER MIAMI AREA
INTRODUCTION
There are numerous 7 irections in which metropolitan areas
can evolve. me possibilities for variation in structure,
i.e., in the assignment of functions and the distribution of
authority, are nearly unlimited. In spite of the variety,
there are three basic approaches to metropolitan reform.
These are: annexation, city -county consolidation, and
metropolitan federation.
Annexation simply involves the adjustment of city boundaries
in order to capture revenue bases and extend urban services
to surrounding fringe areas. Annexation has been used
chiefly in areas other than the Eastern United States and
has not been an effective tool for instituting metropolitan
government in recent years.1
City -county consolidation is broadly defined by the Advisory
Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR) as "the
merger of a county with one or more of its municipalities
within its borders into a single unit."2 City -county con-
solidations often differ on whether the city or county
emerges as the surviving or dominant entity. They also
differ on the existence or proliferation of autonomous
boards and special district governments.
26
R
s
•
MEW
MEV
w ww
mm
m▪ w
a
MMM
MMW
MMDA
•
EMU
•
MMW
Mir
▪ mmEk
mmm
▪ MEMW
•
mow
EMIR
mmw
MEN
a
1
1
1
City -county consolidation, like ahnexation, is hot a new
approachi but it has been relatively popular ih relent
years.
Metropolitan federation involves a two-tier form of govern-
ment. The upper tier is normally responsible for functions
which should be handled on an area -wide basis. The lower -
tier is responsikqe for local functions. Certain functions
may be shared between the two levels.
Four distinct structural alternatives utilize the basic
principles of federation for local governance. These
include the multi -purpose metropolitan district (e.g., Seattle
Metro), the state -backed regional council (e.g.,Twin Cities
Metropolitan Council), the urban county (e.g.,Metropolitan
Dade County), and the true, two-tier federation (e.g.,
Metropolitan Toronto). 4
It is the intent of the remainder of this section to discuss
the advantages and disadvantages of these general approaches
to reforms. Heeding the advice of the 1962 ACIR report,
Alternative Approaches to Governmental Reorganization in
Metropolitan Areas , this report will not delve into the
issue of annexation as it is not a politically feasible
approach to the metropolitan problem of the Dade County area.
27
MEOW
MBE
NNW
•
MMW
MEW
MMKT-
fl
28
MEZ
MEW
M
MEW
MEL
rim
The discussion of alternatives will be focused on the City -
County consolidation model, the urban county approach as a
depiction of the st--us quo in bade County, and finally on
the true federative ,rproach of a two -tiered system. Before
embarking on this discussion the neat widely accepted and
best conceived of criteria for judging local govern -
Mental structure will be presented. These criteria have been
developed by the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental
Relations in their seemingly tireless search for better
methods of dealing with the problems of urban governance.
CRITERIA FOR ESTABLISHING STRUCTURE
The criteria set forth by the ACIR in their 1974 report on
Substate Regionalism and the Federal System (Vol. III, The
Challenge of Local Governmental Reorganization) are essentially
a fine-tuned version of the ones they had published 12 years
earlier. As mentioned above these criteria are widely
accepted throughout the United States and have been utilized
in one form or another by each of the several reorganization
efforts undertaken in the urban areas of Canada.5
The criteria, as summarized by the ACIR,are as follows:
1. Economic Efficiency: functions should be assigned;
(a) to jurisdictions large enough to realize
economies of scale and small enough not
to incur diseconomies of scale,
(b) to jurisdictions willing to provide
alternative service offerings to their
citizens and to provide these public
services within a price range and level
r
i
mim
of effectiveness acceptable to local
citizenry, and,
(c) to jurisdictions that adopt pricing
policies '7Jr appropriate functions when
ever possible.
2. Equity: funs' ,ns should be assigned;
(a) to jurisdictions large enough to
encn" Zss the cost and benefits of a
function or willing to compensate other
jurisdictions for the service costs
imposed or benefits received by them,
and,
(b) to jurisdictions that have adequate
fiscal capacity to finance their public
service responsibilities and that are
willing to implement measures that
insure equity in the performance of a
function.
3. Political Accountability: functions should be
assigned;
(a) to jurisdictions controllable by,
accessible to, and accountable to their
residents in the performance of their
public service responsibilities,
(b) to jurisdictions that encompass a
geographic area adequate for effective
performance of a function,
(c)
to jurisdictionsthat explicitly determine
goals and means of discharging public
service responsibilities and that
periodically reassess program goals in
light of performance standards;
(d) to jurisdictions willing to pursue inter-
governmental means of promoting interlocal
functional cooperation and reducing inter -
local functional conflict, and,
(e) to jurisdictions with adequate legal
authority to perform a function and to
rely on this authority in administering
the function.
Administrative Effectiveness: functions should be
assigned;
(a) to jurisdictions that are responsible for a wide
variety of functions and so can balance competing
functional interests,
(b) to jurisdictions that encompass a geographic area
adequate for effective performance of a function,
(c) to jurisdictions that explicitly determine goals
and means of discharging public service
responsibilities and that periodically reassess
program goals in light of performance standards,
(d) to jurisdictions willing to pursue intergovernmental
means of promoting interlocal functional
cooperation and reducing interlocal functional
conflict, and,
(e) to jurisdictions with adequate legal authority
to perform a function and to rely on this authority
in administering the function.6
The ACIR's 1962 report stated in a somewhat different
fashion, but quite succintly, that "local governments
should serve the people effectively and efficiently, with
active citizen participation and control, with an adequate
and equitable revenue system, with a sufficient degree of
local initiative and self-government for traditional
or natural communities in the area, and with provision for
adaptation to growth and change."
30
s
•
•
w
mo- w
MMW
mat
Mars-
▪ MMW
mmm
MED
mmw
mm▪ w
TIME
mimm:
E▪ EE
MEE
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
tkt AtttkNATtVts
The three alternative options which are realistically open
to bade Couhty are:
(i) consolidation;
(ii) maintaining the status quo, and;
(iii) two-tier federation.
Each option is examined and related to the criteria
established by the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental
Relations.
CONSOLIDATION
The principal argument put forth by the proponents of
consolidation is that it satisfies the criteria of economic
efficiency. The theory is that a consolidated government
reduces cost by eliminating duplication of services and
achieving some economy of scale. This argument is not
substantiated by fact. 8
An examination of the literature readily discredits the
"savings" argument used by pro-consolidationists.
For example, mayors, city managers and financial officers
attending a conference in 1973, in Jacksonville, Florida
on the issue of "partial or total consolidation" could not
prove that economies had been realized in their jurisdiction
after consolidation.9
11
MEEK
MEM
IMMIE
MEOW
UMW
mmm
MME
MEW
MMIIIMIEft
Elm
slow
Nt
{
BMW
MIR
32
Consolidation almost invariably leads to higher government
spending.10 The evidence is inconclusive on whether the
higher spending is a result of increased service level or
caused by some diseconomy of scale, but the higher costs
are undeniable.11
Research on Miami/Dade County has also shown that when
individual functions are consolidated, the tendency is for
service level and cost to rise to the highest common
denominator (levelling up) because of labor considerations.12
Furthermore, research comparing expenditures in Dade
County and the other urban areas of Florida has demonstrated
that, even when other factors contributing to variation
are taken into account, the cost of providing services
which have undergone some consolidation in Dade County is
significantly higher than elsewhere in Florida.13
The consolidation model is also unable to meet the criterion
of providing alternative service offerings without violating
the concept of maintaining equity in the performance of common
function services. Some city -county consolidations have
adopted an urban -rural approach to taxation and service
delivery but this does not truly satisfy the criteria
of diversity.
•
•
•
•
•
MEW
MMIEW
11111.
mommimmc
MIR
MEM
mmemm
MEW
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
The consolidation model most certainly ]`fleets the criteria
of being large enough to effectiVe1y perform a function and
they do establish prlequate fiscal capacity, but as noted
above, the maintenance of interpersonal equity is
difficult to reconcilc with offering alternative service
levels depending upon citizen preferences.
political accountability is another weakness of the
consolidation model. Adequate representation is difficult
to achieve when there is only a single local government.
The most prominent examples of city -county consolidation
in the United States (Nashville, Jacksonville and
Indianapolis) have all created large metropolitan councils
with representation by districts in order to insure
representativeness and promote accessibility. This,
however, is not a solution to the problem of confusion that
the ordinary citizen faces when dealing with the giant
bureaucracies which are part of consolidated governments.
Accountability tends to be an inverse function of
size.
On the other hand, consolidated governments have made
special administrative efforts to involve'the citizens in
political process.14 This is true of Metropolitan Dade
County, but to a lesser extent than in some of the other
metro areas.
iffiM
MEff
MEM
MEMEL
MEOW
MENINEff
34
Consolidation satisfies the Criteria grouped under the
heading of administrative effectiveness fairly well.
It is a multi -purpose government. It encompasses a
wide geographi' area, and it generally has adequate legal
authority. Whether or not a consolidated government
determines specific goals and periodically reassesses
itself is something which is unique to each. It fails
by definition to promote interlocal cooperation. The
criterion itself assumes the existence of other units
of local government.
In summary, it can be seen that on the basis of these
criteria, the consolidation model fails four of the tests
and is neutral on one other. Most importantly, it
fails the very test for which its strength is purported
to be, namely economy.
STATUS QUO: THE COMPREHENSIVE URBAN COUNTY ALTERNATIVE
The comprehensive urban county is a special type of
metropolitan federation. It is distinguished from the
true two-tier form in that it is responsible for both
area -wide functions for the entire metropolitan area,
plus it is, as well, responsible for the full range of
goods and services for residents within its unincorporated
areas. Dade County represents the prototype of a compre-
hensive urban county.
s
A
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
IWO
35
When the Metropolitan Dade County Charter wais approved
in 1957, the population in the unincorporated area
accounted for approximately one-third of the total. The
unincorporated population today has grown to nearly
one-half of the whole. This amounts to a gross distortion
of the concept of a two -tiered federation. The
municipalities can no longer be considered equal partners
in the governance of the area.
The residents of the unincorporated areas are subjected
to the worst of all possible situations when you consider
the criteria set forth by the ACIR. Essentially they
reside under a consolidated system with all of its
negative aspects. They are precluded from the benefits
of lower -tier representation which the municipal residents
enjoy. Their "local" government has a split personality
and their bureaucracy has two sets of responsibilities.
Although property taxes have remained relatively low,
citizen satisfaction with the goods and services
provided by their local government is lower in the
unincorporated area of Dade County than in any other class
of jurisdiction. Research conducted by the University
of Miami has documented the trend of citizen satisfaction
through nine different sample surveys conducted since
1957 and the results consistently show a disparity between
limsrm
MEW
NEW
MEEK
MEM
IEM
15
the unincorporated area residents and the city residents.
?urthermore, the last survey in the series conducted
by the University showed there to be a significant
unrealized demand for services that 42% of the residents
would have been willing to pay additional taxes to
support.16
To discuss the continuation of the status quo is
meaningless when the process of incremental consolidation
which is taking place is considered.17 The system
is not a static one; it is dynamic and the overall
balance of power is definitely and continually shifting
to the County. This coupled with the tax limitations
imposed by the State
constitution will eventually force
all but the wealthiest municipalities to surrender their
functions to the County. Therefore, the status quo is not
a true alternative. To choose the status quo is to
choose total consolidation.
METROPOLITAN FEDERATION: THE TRUE TWO-TIER ALTERNATIVE
The two -tiered metropolitan federation is uniquely designed
to meet the criteria of economic efficiency and political
accountability. Those functions which are amenable to
economies of scale are provided by metropolitan level.
Those functions which benefit from closer contact with
the people are retained at the lower level where there
36
• sow
EREOWNW
•
.
MEM
MEW
• mm▪ emit
mmw
EMIR
MEE
mm- w
mmm
m▪ ow
WM▪ IW
MOW
MEM
37
is greater political acdountability. Many functions
are shared to a certain degree,
One astute observer has noted that there is no logical
reason to expect that the unit which most effectively
articulates citizen demand, i.e. small, relatively
homogeneous units, can, at the same time, meet these
demands at a relatively low cost. Just as there is no
logical reason to assume that the optimal production
unit is the one that is best for articulating citizen
demands.18. This apparent dilemma is resolved by the
two -tiered approach. Under the two-tier federation, the
metropolitan government becomes the unit of production
for certain goods and services and the municipalities
are utilized as the more efficient instruments for
articulating and aggregating citizen demands. Given
the proper distribution of powers and functions the
metropolitan federation can satisfy each of the criteria set
forth by the ACIR.
There are no working models of metropolitan federation in
the United States on which an objective evaluation can be
made. But there are several eminently successful Canadian
examples which can be examined, the most prominent of which
is Toronto.
EF
MU
MEM
MEE
MEW
MEW
MEW
MINIUM
MEW
MMM
MEE
MIME
MMW
MEW
MEM
=aw_.
38
The most recent view of the progress of the Municipality
of Metropolitan Toronto stated that ".... the two-tier
system has served this area satisfactorily for more
than two decades by providing a government that is at once
local and metropolitan. The advantages of this system far
outweigh the disadvantages of its complexity." 19
The Report of the Royal Commission on Metropolitan Toronto
went on to recommend that the two-tier form of local
government in Metropolitan Toronto be continued.
The Provincial (State) government of Ontario subsequent to
the finalization of true two-tier government in Metropolitan
Toronto in 1965 has committed itself to a policy of two-tier
regional government in the urban centered areas of the Province.
Today there are 11 such regional municipalities (excluding
Toronto) governing areas up to 1,100 square miles, populations
up to 500,000 persons. Each governing body is an adaptation
of the two-tier federated model tailored to the needs of the
local regions. A formal review of each body is required
by Provincial statute every five to ten years.
MUM
• IEEE
EMIR
mmw
armw
MEW
MMW
MIK
MIMLW
.
MINEIL
MEW
mu-
MIER
MEIN
19
RDCOMMENbM IONS
Based on:
(i) the application of generally accepted criteria
to alternative governmental structures;
(ii) the preference of Dade County citizens to retain
municipalities as a viable form of government;20
and
(iii)the endorsement of federated metropolitan government
by the 1971 Metropolitan Dade County Local Study
Commission.
This report recommends
THAT A TRUE TWO-TIER FORM OF METROPOLITAN
GOVERNMENT BE ADOPTED FOR MIAMI/DADE COUNTY
IN PLACE OF THE STATUS QUO.
Implementation of a true two-tier metropolitan government
requires lower -tier restructuring; alterations in
representation, reallocation of service functions between
the two levels and the creation of an adequate fiscal
base. A separate chapter of this report is devoted to
each of these requirements.
MMW
w
M
maim
■r■
CHAPTER 3 FOOTNOTES
1, Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations,
The Challenge of Local Government Reorganization
Vol.III, SubstaLe Regionalism and the Federal System
(Washington, 1974), p.107.
2. Ibid, p.91
3. For a review of local government reform see the
ACIR publication Intergovernmental Perspective
Winter 1978, Vo1.14 # 1.
4. ACIR, Vo1.III, 1974. op cit., p.95.
5. See for instance Province of Ontario, Canada local
government reviews annotated in the bibliography under
Canadian Government Publications.
6. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations,
Op.Cit., p.15.
7. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations,
Alternative Approaches to Governmental Reorganization
In Metropolitan Areas. (Washington, 1962)
8. See Note 4.
40
9. National Association of Countries, Consolidation: Partial
or Total, National Association of Countries, 1973.
10. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, Vol.
A-44, 1974, p. 105.
11. See for instance Platon Rigos' comparative study of the
effects of centralization on expenditures. "A Comparative
Analysis of the Effects of Governmental Structure on
Public Expenditure Patterns in the Large Metropolitan
Areas of the United States." Chapter III of
Metropolitan Government Structure: Administrative,
Fiscal & Comparative Studies, (Washington NTIS, 1974),
p.202 R. P. Stiefbold and P. G. Kingsbury editions
Also see Erie, Kerlin and Rabinowitz, "Can Something
Be Done? Propositions on the Performance of
Metropolitan Governments", (Washington: Resources for
the Future, Inc., 1972) pp. 22-24, 30-32.
12. Richard D. Gustely and Thomas J. Wood, Fiscal Equity,
Efficiency and Government Consolidation: A Case Study
of Dade County, Florida, Chapter II of Metropolitan
Government Structure: Administrative, Fiscal and
Comparative Studies ( Washington: NTIS, 1974),pp.67-68
IME
MEW
w
Ali
a MEW
MMW
mmw
MMW
•
MilEW
w
MEE
MEM
mow
UMW
Now
omm
MEI
MEM
MMIliWfO
41
13. Richard D. Gustely, The Allocational.a and Distributional
ftpacts of GoVerhmental Consolidation:, The Dade County,_
Ecperiefice: Urban Affairs Quarterly, Vol. 12, No. 3,
March 1977.
14. Price Waterhouse & Company Study of City and County
Consolidations Prepared for the City of Memphis and
Shelby County, May 1977, p. V-123.
15. P.G. Kingsbury and R. P. Stiefbold, "Citizen
Perspective on Metropolitan Dade County Government,
1957-1973: General Support, Output Satisfaction,
Perceived Equity and 'Willingness to Spend' by
Incurring Bonded Indebtedness , Chapter I of
Citizen Support for Two -Tier Government, Kingsbury,
Stiefbold and T. J. Wood, editions, pp. 69-70
16. Ibid, pi 70
17. Georgia Pardo and Donald Morris, The Dade County
Political System and Its Evolution, 1957-1974:
The Meaning of Two -Tier", Chapter I of Metropolitan
Government Structure, Op. Cit. p. 78
18. Robert L. Bish, The Public Economy of Metropolitan
Areas , (Chicago: Markham, 1971) , Chapters 2 and 3.
19. Royal Commission on Metropolitan Toronto,
Metropolitan Toronto: A Framework for the Future,
Vol. I, June 1977, p .25
20. In a county -wide survey conducted by the University of
Miami in 1974 of 498 registered voters, 47% of the
respondents disagreed with the proposition that the
City of Miami merge with Metropolitan Dade County.
Only 24% agreed with proposal and 29% had no opinion.
The survey also found that 28% of the people were
opposed to the transfer of any further functions to
Metro and 36% specifically opposed the consolidation
of police function. This far outran objections to
any other functional transfers. Furthermore, of those
people who were dissatisfied with the performance
of their city in some specific function, (26%) , only
22% of them thought it should be transferred to
the County.
flEnt
MINIM
MEE
CHAPTER IV
LOWER TIER RESTRUCTURING
INTRODUCTION
Implicit in the recommendation of a metropolitan
form of government is the suggestion that the existing
lower -tier municipalities be restructured on a more
rational basis. This chapter makes that implicit
recommendation explicit. It does so by setting forth
major criteria to assist in the definition of the size and
attributes of a lower -tier municipal unit. The criteria
have been developed through an analysis of local government
reform in the United States, Canada, and Great Britain
the past decade.
over
42
CRITERIA
There are a number of criteria which can be applied to
lower -tier municipalities which are an extension of the
criteria discussed in the previous chapter. These include
such items as size, tax base, equity, economic efficiency
and representation. Because.of the importance of representation
that criterion will be discussed separately in the next
chapter. This chapter will focus primarily on size and the
other related matters.
Size
A number of local government review studies have addressed
the issue of the "manageable size" of a lower -tier governmental
F
•
•
MMW
MMW
MIMM
MIMM
r
w
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
43
uhit hbWever, few have committed hard numbers to their
analysis, Mort reformers agree that there probably is
an optimutn size range but a great deal of disagreement
exists as to the limits of that range,
A lower"tier municipal unit must be large enough to
efficiently provide the services demanded of it by the
electorate. This includes financial capability and staff
expertise. At the same time, the unit must be small enough
to be accessible through the democratic process to each
and every citizen. Closeness and responsiveness to local
feeling and the provision of effective channels for citizen
participation are important elements and demand a
proportionately smaller jurisdiction.
As the size of the jurisdiction increases the range of choice
of jobs, goods and services of all kinds increases. This
adds to the attractiveness and growth prospects for the
urban center. Studies have shown that economies of scale
exist for certain municipal services as the size of the
municipality grows. Other studies show that growth can
lead to diseconomies of scale. Growth therefore has its
limitations.
The most notable review study that offered definitive limits
to government size was the Royal Commission on Local Government,
London, England, 1966-1969 (the Redcliffe-Maud Report).
MENEM
EMEEfra
MEW
MIMIK
MEMM
MEOW
BMW
MIMIE
minim
mow
mmw
EMI
mimm
mow
LIM
wre
IEEE
44
The Commission's report concluded that diseconoties can
result both functionally and organizationally if a govern1Yeht
authority rises much above 1,000;000 in population. At
the opposite end it was felt that a unit below 250,000
population was ill-equipped to handle such services as
education, housing and personal services.
At the same time that the local government review in England
was being conducted, the Provincial Government for the Province
of Ontario, Canada, was implementing major recommendations of
the Goldenberg Royal Commission on government in Metropolitan
Toronto.1 That Commission recommended the amalgamation of
the nine smallest municipalities, populations ranging from
9,371 to 126,311 with the four largest cities. The result
would be slightly in excess of 400,000 persons. The government
chose to create six cities, not four. Thus the average
population of lower -tier units in Toronto became approximately
275,000 when reform was legislated in 1965. The lower -tier
units ranged in size from 100,000 to nearly 700,000.
A second major Royal Commission reviewed the structure of
Metropolitan Toronto government a decade later and completed its
report in 1977.2 An in-depth analysis of literature on effective
government led that Commission to a recommendation that each lower -tier
Illf
MEER
R
MEER
mmmft
mimmw
MEC
embi
MEW
mmm
MEN
REIM
sionot
45
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
municipality th Metropolitan Toronto should have no fewer
than 200, 000 persons. At the same time, the Comrnissio i s
report urged that the central core of the metropolitan
area, the City of Toronto, refiain very strong. Boundary
proposals left the core city with a population of 673,000,
smaller boroughs were accorded a minimum population of
222,000 (in the case of York), while the larger boroughs
were left with an average population in the order of
400,000 persons.
The Commission felt strongly that the well-being of the
City of Toronto, the core city, was essential to the well-
being of the Metropolitan region. Therefore, the Commission
in its recommendations sought to preserve on Metro Council
the political strength of Toronto relative to the remaining
five boroughs. This was because of the Commission's
commitment to equitable representation. This led to
the recommendation that the City of Toronto's population
base remain relatively unchanged.
The relationship of jurisdictional size to scale economies
in the United States was analyzed by Werner Hirsch in
1967.3 Hirsch stated that for private goods,increasing the
ME▪ ER
MIMS
U MW
IRE
maw
IMIi
MEEK
IMF
MEMO
EIMET
BMW
w
46
size of population tends to be associated with decreasing
average unit costa on the other hand, for public goods,
cost functions plotted against size indicated that governments
serving from 50,000 to 100,000 persons might be most efficient,
Units of size greater than 100,000 persons suffer, in his
mind, from inefficiencies of top-heavy administration and
the ills of political patronage. Large concentrations of
manpower in the public service also yield increased bargaining
power of labor which, in turn, can increase operating costs.
•
MIK
MEW
MIL
MMONE
w'
MINIF
WO- W
M- W
In conclusion, it would appear from the research examined, •
Elm
that local government units attempting to provide a full EmmE
range of "hard" and "soft" services to the electorate, should MEW
have a population in the range of 50,000 to 250,000 to be
fully effective. Unwieldy constituencies above 1,000,000
persons frustrate efforts to canvass them adequately,
whereas those below 50,000 persons fail to provide municipal
services in an optimal, cost-effective manner. These
jurisdictions are too small to take advantage of technological
innovations that can lead to better and more efficient
government.
Other Factors
The taxable assessment base of a local municipality dictates
in hard financial terms what level of service can be provided
for the residents of that jurisdiction. Given that the real
EMME
INEW
EN i:ez
IMES
mask
mmol
IMF
47
property tax still constitutes the major reVeliue source
for local government units in the United States,
jurisdictions of unequal assessment base have different
capabilities for funding expenditures:
The mix of commercial to residential assessment. also
dictates the economic viability of a local government unit
as commercially assessed property traditionally yields
higher taxation revenues. Therefore, for similar local
millage rates, municipalities endowed with extensive
commercial/industrial property can offer a higher level
of service to residents because of a healthier revenue
position.
Most, if not all, formal reviews of local government also
use the equity criteria as a principal focal point of
analysis. As far back as 1962, the ACIR in Washington, D.D.,
discussed the requirement for a local government to yield
equity in the revenue system, and to reduce disparities between
tax and service boundaries.4 According to the ACIR,
interpersonal and interjurisdictional equalization in the
financing of a service function defines a state of equity
in local government.
The ACIR published a second major review of local government
in 1974 .5 This second document goes further in enlarging
MEMME
MIME
SIMS
r:
mmw
MiW
MEE
wise
MN
48
the definition of equity to include the distribution
of economic or fiscal Capacity among individuals and political
jurisdictions. This highly respected body called for fiscal
equalization policies where inequity existed to ensure
that a jurisdiction or individual could buy a level of
•
public service at a price that was no greater burden than
the price to most other jurisdictions or individuals.
The Council for Economic Development (C.E.D.), recognized
the need for equity in their 1970 Report entitled,
Reshaping Government in Metropolitan Areas. In their
report, it was stated that,
"the haphazard arrangement of local governments
in metropolitan areas has created great
irregularities between resources and needs. In
the suburbs, the combination of superior fiscal
strength and fewer problems usually yields a
higher quality of public services; in the central
cities, the situation is reversed." 6
A final criteria for effective local government is that of
economic efficiency as discussed earlier in Chapter III.
A jurisdiction should be of adequate size to take advantage
of economies of scale in service performance, it should make
alternative service offerings to the citizen and fair pricing
w
R
ESIA
MEW
MBE
• NE EN EtVi
MMW
M
a
wma
w :
MNIMV
▪ Olt
•
•
•
10
MWM
MEM
MMW
MEMM
MMW
1
MOINIM
•
MEW
•
49
policies, A jurisdiction that is too small in population
or area cannot offer economic efficiency to the electorate which
can be translated as lower cost services.
The criteria discussed above will be applied to the
existing lower -tier structure in Metropolitan Dade County.
Discrepancies will be highlighted and alternatives will
be presented.
APPLICATION OF CRITERIA TO DADE COUNTY
The existing lower -tier governmental units in Dade County
range widely in population, from eight persons to 343,977
and in area from .3 to 34.4 square miles. There are 16
municipalities that have a population of less than 10,000
with only three of the 27 municipalities (Miami, Hialeah
and Miami Beach) meeting the minimum population criteria
of 50,000 established analytically by Werner Hirsch.
Only one, Miami, is larger than the 250,000 figure proposed
in the Redcliffe-Maud Report and the Robarts Study of
Metropolitan Toronto.
In terms of population alone, most of the existing
municipalities are deemed to be too small to conduct
effective government and provide their electorates with
adequate city management.
MEW
MMINag
EMIE
MEMI
MMW
•
MEMINg
MMIIM
EMT
MIR
fl
mow -
MEW
MEM
EBBW
MEW
MEW
mommog
MEEK
mammim
BMW
MIME
mimm
MAME
MEW
mler
Ir
r
Chapter II of this report identified major discrepancies
in the level of per capita taxable assessment among the
municipalities of Dade County, Appendix B, highlights
these differences. Generally, the smaller cities have per
capita assessment levels well in excess of the County mean,
whereas the larger cities such as Miami, Hialeah, North
Miami and Homestead, are below the mean. The mean for
all cities in 1976 was 15 percent below the mean for the
unincorporated area. It is evident that the real property
tax bases are not equal nor even close to being equal.
Furthermore,these discrepancies appear inequitable when
an analysis is made of the degree of reliance on the real
property assessment base as a major source of municipal
revenue. This issue will be dealt with in detail in
Chapter VII of this report.
Violation of the equity principle is further exemplified
by the variation in per capita expenditures on essential
services, such as police, fire, parks, refuse, streets and
highways, etc.
Table 4.1 below, illustrates the diversity in cities.
expenditure levels among the six largest Dade County
The variance between high and low in some cases is as much as
1,233 percent. Detailed per capita expenditures are tabled in
Appendix G.
51
TAE1,E 4.1
BADE COUNTY PER CAPITA
WENbITURE RANGES
Functions High Low % Difference
Police $99.29 $46.03 115
Fire 56.74 27.78 104
Parks 105.85 7.94 1,233
Refuse/Waste 44.92 17.46 157
MOM
Streets/Highways 26.00 4.60 465
Engineering 13.09 -0 - 100
Participant &
Spectator Recreation
36.04
6.35 467
Finally, many of the jurisdictions in Dade County are so
small that they cannot hope to experience economies of
scale advantages in the operation of many hard services
such as water, sewer or refuse handling. The resource
base is too small to utilize modern technology
(capital equipment such as computers or fire trucks)
that can streamline administration or enhance service
delivery in a more cost effective and efficient manner.
The above analysis demonstrates that the accepted criteria
for lower -tier government feasibility have been violated
in Dade County. Therefore, it is concluded that most
present lower -tier units are of unsuitable size and that a
MEMER
MEINWa
mmmw
ammrs
MIME
MMK
mmme
mmw
sr
MIN
52
different structure is Warranted at the lower tier.•
RECOMMENDED LOWER -Tin STRUCTURE
There are two keys to the recommendations in this
chapter. One relates to the average size of the lower
tier municipalities; the other relates to the importance
of the core city.
The consensus of "expert" opinion on the size of the
lower -tier government units indicates that a population
base in the order of 100,000 - 250,000 is suitable to
ensure a stable financial base and the effective discharge
of "hard" and "soft" services. The strong central core
philosophy has been one of the key reasons for the success
of Metropolitan Toronto and has resulted in a quarter
century of rapid population growth and intensive physical
development without any major problems.
In view of the literature surveyed, it is thought that
a compromise between the Hirsch theoretical model and the
time -tested Canadian model would provide the best solution.
It is therefore recommended
THAT DADE COUNTY BE COMPOSED OF A STRONG
CENTRAL CORE CITY SURROUNDED BY A GROUP OF
TEN (10) ECONOMICALLY VIABLE CITIES WHOSE
POPULATIONS ARE IN THE ORDER OF 100,000- 150,000
PERSONS EACH.
53
mimmw
MMEg
Em▪ mw
Emmw
im▪ m
mmmg
U
mist
It is fitthet recommended
THAT A LOCAL BOUNDARIES COMMISSION BE CRATED
TO REVIEW THE SITUATION AND RECOMMEND A TWO. -
TIER STRUCTURE BASED ON THE ABOVE CRITERION
AND TAILING THE FOLLOWING POINTS AS GUIDELINES:
the core city should have a population
ranging from 25 percent to 30 percent
of the county total;
the remaining lower -tier cities should have
a population of between 100,000 and 150,000;
the analysis should take into account
projected growth trends for population
both in numbers and geographic location;
the per capita assessment of the lower -
tier units should not vary by more than 50
percent;
the analysis should take into account existing
communities and historical tiers to enhance the
political feasibility of restructuring.
Using these basic guidelines, Dade County would be reformed
from the present day structure of 27 municipalities and
a large unincorporated area to a fully incorporated area with
the core city of approximately 400,000 persons and 10 lower -
tier units having populations in the range of 100,000 to
150,000 persons each.
54
CHAPTER IV P061NOTt8
or
1, earl Goldenberg, Report of the Royal Commission on Metropolitan
Toronto, Queen's Printer, Toronto, 1965
2, John P. Robarts, Report of the Royal Commission on
Metropolitan Toronto, Queen's Printer, Toronto, 1976
3. Werner Hirsch, from Reform of Metropolitan Govern-
ments, Resources for the Future Inc., Washington,
D.C., 1972
4. Advisory Committee on Intergovernmental Relations,
Alternative Approaches to Governmental Reorganization
in Metropolitan Areas, Washington, D.C., United
States Government Printing Office, June 1962, p.12
5. Advisory Committee on Intergovernmental Relations,
The Challenge of Local Government Reorganization,
Washington, D.C., United States Government Printing
Office, February 1974, p.12
6. Council for Economic Development, Reshaping
Government in Metropolitan Areas, New York, 1970, p.9
=
i
i
i
i
i
i
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
CHAPTER V
55
REPRESENTATION
INTRODUCTION
The issue of representation is one which is central to the
development and functioning of local government in the
United States , yet it is one which has often been
accorded a rank of secondary importance in the structuring
of metropolitan government proposals. Reformers have too
often focused on the delineation of services and functions
in their attempt to engineer solutions to urban problems.
In this chapter, the report attempts to avoid that pitfall
by setting forth some criteria which a system of representation
should attempt to meet. This will be followed by a discussion
of the alternative arrangements which are available for
structuring the electoral system and their advantages and
disadvantages with respect to the criteria.
Subsequently, Dade County's history in this area and the
current status will be described along with the systems.
being utilized by other major metropolitan governments:
Finally, a model system of representation will be proposed
for implementation.
CRITERIA FOR EFFECTIVE SYSTEMS OF REPRESENTATION
In considering whether an electoral system is adequately
performing the function(s) for which it was designed the
following criteria are generally deemed appropriate:
MW
MAW
W
56
1. Does it provide for equal adcess by all
citizens?
2. Does it promote accountability on the part
of the '-lected officials toward their constituents?
3. Does it facilitate the representation of the
diverse characteristics and interests of the
community?
4. Does it maximize citizen p.trticipation?
5. Does it provide meaningful choices to the voters?
The first criterion, equal access, is embodied in the
principle of "one man, one vote". The criterion of equal
access actually extends beyond the simple act of voting and
includes other less traditional means of participation, such
as correspondence to, or personal contacts with, elected
representatives.
Each citizen is entitled to an equal opportunity to voice
his or her opinion. Thus, when establishing constituencies,
consideration must be given not only to the number of registered
voters, but also to size of the whole population. This is
particularly true where there exist large minority populations
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
57
which have hot been fully integrated into the local political
System and must rely on less formal means of participation.
The criterion of accountability of elected representatives
is defined as the degree to which officials are held
responsible for their actions by the citizens whom they
represent. The residents of a jurisdiction are entitled to
representation with which they can identify and to which
they can relate. Identification implies a certain degree
of closeness or familiarity between the represented and
their representatives. If the "distance" in population
rather than physical terms between an official and his
constituents reaches the point where identification is reduced
or lost, then it is impossible for the individual citizen
to pinpoint responsibility. There is then a tendency for
the entire system to experience a loss of general citizen
support due to the malfunctioning of the representation
mechanism.
The third criterion, representing the diversity of community
characteristics and interests, is more difficult to define.
It involves drawing a distinction between representing
individual or special, narrowly defined interests and the
interest of the community as a whole. This raises a
question as to what constitutes the "public interest" and
whether it is the summation of individual interests or a
concept which exists on its own merits. Without resolving
this issue, it can be concluded that local or sMaller
group interests tent to be neglected When a representative
body does not reflect the full range of characterist the
of the community,
5$
Another principal criterion used in assessing the effectiveness
of an electoral system is the degree to which it promotes
or maximizes citizen participation, The principles of
democratic government place a high priority on involving
individual citizens in the political process: It is
critically important that the system of electing the
representative of the people be conducive to the participation
of large numbers of individuals. The more people who participate
in the selection process, the more likely it is that the
representatives will reflect a true picture of the interest
of their constituents.
The final criterion which should be applied in judging
an electoral system is whether or not the voters are presented
with meaningful choices. This is perhaps the most significant
factor,for even when all preceding criteria are satisfied,
if the voters are prevented from making intelligent, rational
choices, then the underlying purpose of the system has
been defeated. It must be recognized that the individual
voter has a limited amount of interest in local government
and that there are constraints on the amount of time or
resources that he or she can devote to informing him/herself
i
i
1
about the issues and candidates. An electoral system
should be designed in a way which takes these factors ihh to
account.
ALTERNATIVE ELECTORAL STRUCTURES
There are a multitude of ways in which representatives
can be chosen, each of which is designed to fulfill certain
goals. The alternatives most commonly utilized in attempting
to satisfy the criteria which have been set forth are
related to the following questions:
(i) How large shall the representative body be?
(ii) How shall its members be elected - at -large
or by district?
(iii) Shall the representatives be elected directly
or indirectly?
Each of these questions will be discussed below, in the
hope of comparing the advantages and disadvantages of the
various options.
Size of Commission
The question of the size of a council or commission is
governed by a number of factors, not the least of which
is local opinion. What may be considered a sufficient number
MIMEM
MEM
MIME
MEM
Mit
MENIMIW
MIMINEett
mmmw
MIFF
MOP
EMIIF
mori
for one area might be judged totally inadequate for another.
Two other factors impinge on the size variable. The first it
the size of the population to be represented. The larger
the population, the more representatives are required to
maintain an acceptable level of accessibility. Additionally,
larger, more heterogeneous populations require a greater
number of representatives in order to effectively reflect
the diverse nature of the community.
While it would seem desirable to set a fixed ratio
of population to elected officials, as population increases
the size of the Commission would increase accordingly. Eventually
the body would become too large to operate efficiently.
Thus, in arriving at a compromise size, it is necessary
to sacrifice some accessibility and representativeness in
order to achieve some efficiency in operation. There is
no generally agreed upon optimum ratio of population to
elected officials, but a table will be presented later
showing what other jurisdictions with differing forms of
metropolitan government have adopted. In Dade County, even at
the lower -tier municipal level, the population per Commissioner
ratio varies considerably. A schedule indicating these ratios
is shown in Appendix H.
At -Large versus District Elections
A second option with regard to the structure of the electoral
system is the base from which the elected representatives
will be chosen. Here the basic choice is between at -large
or distridt elections. The advantages of the district 61
approach are that it:
(i)
ensures adequate representation of diverse
interests,
(ii) facilitates identification of elected
officials and thus promotes both access
and accountability, and
(iii) reduces the amount of information required
on the part of the individual voter in
order for him to make a meaningful choice.
A reduction in the degree of confusion also tends to
enhance citizen participation. Often, when voters receive
many conflicting signals on candidates and issues it makes
it difficult for them to make a decision. Rather than
risk making a wrong decision, they simply choose not to
vote. The main disadvantage of district elections is that
they are said to foster parochialism and lend themselves
to political corruption. The implication of the
parochialism argument is that it is inappropriate to
present local concerns at the metropolitan or even municipal
level.
At -large elections of representatives, on the other hand,
are said to ensure the promotion of a "metropolitan" outlook,
one which is unencumbered by local or sub -regional concerns.
MMIIMIllf
MOW
62
The emphasis• here is oh cohcetrt for the "public interest"
as opposed to more narrowly conceived local of special
group interests. At -large elections presumably mitigate the
corruption which is attributed to the district approach.•
A Mixed Approach
These two alternatives are not mutually exclusive. To the
contrary, as will be shown below, they can be and are mixed
in any proportion which is desired. The mixed approach
offers the benefits of both systems while counteracting
the negative aspects.
The unique aspect of the two-tier approach to metropolitan
government interjects a third dimension into the system of
representation, which is not available under a single
consolidated government. Representatives to the metropolitan
commission can either be elected directly by the voters or
their selection can be made by the elected representatives
of the lower tier from their memberships.
Furthermore,
as in the case of at -large versus district elections, the
two methods can be mixed. For example in Toronto, the
12-member delegation from the City of Toronto to the upper
tier is made up of the mayor who is elected at -large, and
11 aldermen who are elected from districts. The 11 are
chosen on the basis of obtaining the highest number of
votes in each of the 11 two -member districts. Among the
six municipalities comprising metropolitan Toronto, four
•
M
61
different methods are used to select their delegation ti
the Metro Council. All of this is in the process of Change, however,
that has been the pattern for 20 years ih what is generally
regarded as one of the most successful a {periments in
metropolitan government.
The most obvious advantage of the direct election method
is that it affords a higher degree of electoral accountability
at the metropolitan level. The individual voter is given
the opportunity to directly register his opinion, whereas
this is not possible under the indirect method. A disadvantage
to the direct method of election is the potential for
subordination of the interests of the constituent municipalities,
to those based on a separate, metro constituency. Indirect
election ensures that the interests of municipalities are
given sufficient attention.
Experience in Toronto has shown that the indirect method
caused metropolitan issues to receive too little emphasis in
the electoral process. Nevertheless, it should be noted that
no matter what its failings, the Metropolitan Toronto system has
worked, and most observers concur that indirect election was
necessary in the first two and one half decades of its
existence for its successful operation.
MMW
MMW
MGM
MEW
MMW
M- EM
mmw
mmw
mmw
m- ww
mmm
Ilr
MEM
MMMW
REPEEEENTATION IN DADE COUNTY AND OTHER MA'O2 METROPOLITAN
OOVEtNMENTE
The issue of repreE^.i.ation on the Metro Commission in
Dade County is not new. It is one which has stimulated
much debate and has been "decided" by the electorate on
six different referenda in which the voters have made their
choices from among nine alternative arrangements. Choices
have involved commissions ranging in size from five to
13 members. Five of the nine choices were based on strictly
at -large elections; three times the voters were asked to
choose district elections. The original electoral system
was a combination of district and at -large election.
The Charter of Metropolitan Dade County originally established
a system whereby five Commissioners were elected at -large.
Five more were elected from districts, and one was elected
from each city with a population of 60,000 or more. Originally,
only the City of Miami elected its own representative, but
by the time of the 1960 census both Hialeah and Miami Beach
had grown past the 60,000 mark, enlarging the Commission
to 13 members.
In 1963, the voters approved a change in the method of
election and composition of the Commission. This arrangement,
which continues in force today, provides for eight Commissioners.
Each is supposed to represent the district in which he or
a
•
MMEW
mmEK
EMEZ
mommanw
NEMER
MEM
-
MIK
.111116
65
she resides, but all are elected countywide, The formula
also provides for a weak mayor who is elected at -large,
but has only the power of a presiding officer. Commission
districts are not coterminous With municipal boundaries.
In 1963, with'13 representatives, the ratio of representative
to population was one representative for every 75,000 people.
With the advent of the nine -member, at -large Commission
that ratio increased by almost 50 percent to approximately
110,000 persons per representative. Today the ratio of
population to Commissioners is about 161,000 per representative
a figure which is more than double what it was fifteen years
ago. Table 5-1 shows how Dade County compares with other
metropolitan areas with either two-tier or consolidated
systems of government.
The comparison points out some glaring disparities between
Dade County and the other jurisdictions. First, in numbers alone,
with the exception of Columbus, Georgia, all the other
metropolitan areas employ substantially larger legislative
bodies. The average size of the other metro government
councils is 31, a figure more than three times larger than
that of Dade County.
When these figures are adjusted for population size the
picture presented is the same. The ratio of representatives
ffspau
MEOW
MOM
MEE
MEN
miaow
MEW
MMW
MEW
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
_ 1
i
TABLE 5.1
COMPOSITION OF METROPOLITAN COUNCILS
Total Number
Approximate
Ratio of Pop./
of Members Number of Members Elected Representatives
By Single Lower -
Member At- Tier
Districts Large Repr.
Consolidations:
Columbus, Georgia 10 4 6 - 1:17,000 167,3773
Indianapolis, Indiana 29 25 4 1:25,000 729,2293
Jacksonville, Florida 19 14 5 - 1:27,000 504,2653
Nashville -Davidson Co.
Tn. 40 35 5 - 1:11,000 426,0293
Two -Tier Forms:
Metropolitan Dade Co.,
Florida 9 - 9 - 1:161,000` 1,449,3004
Metropolitan Toronto,
Ont. 372 - - 36 1:57,000 2,124,0955
Ottawa -Carlton, Ont.l 382 34 - - 1:15,000' 506,6066
SOURCE: Research Staff
of Touche Ross
Study.
1 proposed changes in the process of being implemented
2 council chairman is selected by the council members
3 1970 population
4 1976 population estimate
5 1974 population estimate
6 1975 population
a ■ •
to population for bade County (1:161,000) is seven times
larrger than the average for the other seven jurisdictions. On
face value, this appears to indicate that at the metropolitan
level the people of bade Comity are grossly under -represented.
There are simply not enough elected officials to adequately
represent the widely divergent population groups residing
in Dade County. The present system is unduly restrictive
of both accessibility and representativeness. It is
impossible for a single official to maintain an effective,
open communication, which is necessary at the local level,
with that many constituents.
These problems are even more exaggerated when you consider
the imperfect nature of Dade County's two -.tier arrangement.
Nearly half of 1.5 million residents live in unincorporated
areas. This group does not have the benefits of any
representation at the sub -metropolitan level. They are
served directly by the "upper tier". Research has shown that
these people are significantly less satisfied with the govern-
ment services being provided to them than are residents within
the cities of Dade County.
The small size of the Commission, combined with at -large
elections, has served to exclude the large minority
populations, particularly the Spanish-speaking, from representation
on the Commission. No Latin has ever served on the Metropolitan
Dade County Commission and only one I31ack has ever been elected
to the Commission without first having been appointed to
fill a vacancy. The at -large election method forces candidates
for Metro office to appeal county -wide for support. This
serves to promote the interests of the more educated and
more affluent segments of the population who participate at
a higher rate in local elections.
Additionally, the apparent inaccessibility of the Dade County
Commissioners is confirmed in a 1974 survey which was conducted
by the University of Miami. In that study only a small
percentage (7 percent) of registered voters could identify
the Commissioner who was supposed to represent his or her
district. This lack of citizen identification can only
serve to discourage citizen participation, and promote
un-informed or mis-informed decision -making at election time.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ELECTORAL REFORM
Any recommendation for reform of the Dade County electoral
system must begin with an adjustment to the size of the
County Commission. The comparison of Dade to other
metropolitan governments leads to the conclusion that the
present system does not provide for sufficient accessibility
nor representativeness.
Therefore, it is recommended
THAT THE DADE COUNTY COMMISSION
BE ENLARGED.
If the same ratio is applied in Miami/bade County as is
applied in Metropolitan Toronto, the upper -tier Commission
would have 27 representatives (1:54,000).
Based on the proposal that the metropolitan area be
reorganized into a core central city and 10 satellite
cities of approximately equal population, it is recommended
THAT THE MAYOR OF EACH CITY SHALL BE
ELECTED AS BOTH MAYOR OF HIS JURISDICTION
AND REPRESENTATIVE TO THE METROPOLITAN
DADE COUNTY COMMISSION.
In addition, for the core central city whose population
shall be approximately three times as large as the
satellite municipalities, it is recommended,
THAT TWO FURTHER REPRESENTATIVES TO THE
METRO COMMISSION BE ELECTED ON AN AT -LARGE
BASIS WITHIN THE CITY.
These last two recommendations should ensure the
commitment of the lower -tier municipalities to the
success of the upper tier. In addition, the recommendations
ensure that the voters know when they elect their Mayor they
are also electing him to the upper tier.
69
76
In addition to the 13 representatives e1edted from
the lower tier ( 11 mayors plus two additional representatives
from Miami) it is re`Jmmended
THAT THE EXISTING COMMISSION $E
EXPANDED FROM 8 TO 13 MEMRERS PLUS
THE MAYOR
The 13 members would be elected from districts by an •
at -large vote as is the case now. This recommendation
would yield a 27 member Commission and ensure a blend
on the Commission of both regional and local perspectives.
•
CHAPTER 'VI
THE AL OCM tON OF SERVICES BETWEEN THE UPPER AND LOWE t TIER
INTRODUCTION
A key question to be answered in the development of a true
two-tier form of metropolitan federation is, which functions
or services should be provided by what level of government?
This chapter addresses that question.
First of all, it should be clear that there is no one answer.
However, this chapter reviews the criteria for assigning
functions to different levels. It then examines what has
happened in Miami/Dade County in terms of assignment and
transfers of functions. The status quo in Dade County is
measured against the criteria. Finally, a functional allocation
model is recommended.
REVIEW OF CRITERIA
The criteria for allocating functions between the upper
and lower tiers have been suggested by many renowned professional
bodies and independentlocal government scholars. In this
section, the work of the ACIR, and the Council for
Economic Development, which makes extensive reference to
Metropolitan Toronto, is highlighted.
In a 1974 Report, .the ACIR analyzed nine major municipal operational
activities, such as, planning, financing, service delivery and
suggested an assighfient of the various components of the
activities to the upper -tier, to the lower, or to be
shared (see Appendix I). Individual components were such
items as revenue riising and budgeting under the financing
activity or operations under service delivery.
All told, there were 38 component items whose assignment to
the upper or lower tier was based upon two major allocation
criteria; economic and political considerations. These
are detailed below:
Economic Criteria
1.)
The governmental jurisdiction responsible for
providing any service should be large enough
to enable the benefits from that service to be
consumed primarily within the jurisdiction.
12
2.) The unit of government should be large enough
to permit realization of the economies of scale,
3.) The unit of government carrying on a function
should have a geographic area of jurisdiction
adequate for effective performance.
Political Criteria
1.) The unit of goVerntnent performing a
function should have the legal and
administrative ability to perform the
services assigned to it.
2.) Every unit of government should be•
responsible for a sufficient number of
functions so that it provides a forum for
resolution of conflicting interests, with
significant responsibility for balancing
governmental needs and resources.
3.) The performance of functions by a unit of
government should remain controllable by and
accessible to its residents.
4.) Functions should be assigned to that level of
government which maximizes the conditions and
opportunities for active citizen participation
and still permits adequate performance.
It is interesting to note that the ACIR allocates all aspects
of service delivery to the lower tier. ACIR envisages the
upper tier being more involved in broad scope activities such
as planning and enforcement rather than in service delivery.
74
The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto is regarded as an e5scellent
working model of the true two-tier form of metropolitan federation.
In its Report oh Reshaping Government in Metropolitan Areas,
the Council for Eccnt nic Development prepared a Table
showing the distribution of responsibility of the various
service functions in Toronto. That table has been reproduced
here as Table 6.1
The model envisages such functions as administration of
justice to be clearly a metropolitan responsibility while
most services are lower -tier responsibilities. Finance and
taxation and road construction/maintenance are in turn
regarded as mixed functions.
Another Canadian illustration is the Oshawa Planning and
Development Study of August, 1970. Essentially the points
relative to service allocation were:
"In addition to the relative strength of the two
tiers, however, other factors are also of importance
when considering the division of functions. Chief
among these are:
(a) which functions require ready access by
the citizens if they are to be performed
satisfactorily, and in which functions are
the citizens primarily concerned with
efficient service rather than access?
■
•
•
MIME
MK
mow
MEIMEIM
Eng
mig
REInight
NIMILIMBEE
MIMIIMInrk
MIK
171-07
saw
.11
a
1
•
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
O S 'RtMOT Or1 OF...SERV'ICE__.RESFONS,I,BtL,ITY
Pinanct and Taxation
Water Supply
Health
Asstsstnent o/ property
Courts of revision
i rotation of property
Debenture borrowing
torn! improvement
charges
M
MA
M
A
Purification,
primping and trunk
distribution system
Local distribution
Collection of water bills
M
A
A
Public health services
Chronic and
convalescent hospital
Hospital grants
Ambulance service.!
A
M
A
M
-_..
Police and
Fire Protection
Manning
Sewage Disposal
Official plans
Subdivision approval
Zoning
MA
MA
A
Sanitary trunk system!
and disposal plants
Connecting systems
Storm drainage
M
A
MA
Police •
Fire
M
A
Administration
of Justice
Recreation/
Community Services
Garbage Collection
and Disposal
,
Magistrates courts
Court house and jail
Juvenile and
family court
Coroner's office
Registry and land
titles offices
M
M
M
M
M
Regionalparks
g
j Local parks
Recreation programs
M
A
A
Collection
Disposal sites
A
M
Community centres/
arenas
A
Air Pllu
Pollution
1tlruricipalgollcorrrses
Municipal zoo
M
M
Air pollution control
M
Licensing and
Inspection
;.
Regional libraries
Local libraries
M
MA
Public Education
Grants to
cultural societies
MA
Operation of
school system
A
Business licensing
Dog licensing
and pound
Marriage licenses
Buildings by-laws
M
A
A
A
Road Construction/
Maintenance
School sites,
attendance areas,
building programs
M
Expressways
Arterial roads
M
M
Operating and
capital costs
M
Civil Defense
Local roads
Bridges and grade
A
Housing
Emergency measures
M
separations
Snow removal
Street cleaning
sidewalks
MA
MA
D!A•
A
Low rental
family housing
Elderly person housing
M
M
Other Municipal ►
Secvices•
f
Collection of fines
Collection o/ vital
statistics
Distribution of
hydro power
Harbor
Island airport
Municipal parking lots
Preparation of
voters' lists and
administration of
elections
Redevelopment
MA
A
A -
A
A
A
A
MA
Traffic Control
Moderate rental
family housing
A
Traffic regulations
Cross -walks
MA
MA
Welfare
Traffic lights
Street lighting
f acement markings
M
A
MA
1Velfare assistance
Hospitalization of
indigents
M
M
Assistance to Children's
Public Transit Aid Societies
L..civic
M
Toronto Transit Comm:
1
M Homes for the aged
M
M - MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO
A - AREA MUNICIPALITIES
Source: Council for Economic Development,
Reshaping Government in Metropolitan
Areas, New York, 1970
75
MEE
M
(b) which functions are by nature primarily of
local concern, without regional implications;
which arr primarily regional or broader -than. -
local in their implications; and which have
both local and regional aspects?
(c) of those functions which are not readily allocated
entirely to either the local or regional level,
which are easy to divide, and which are difficult?
It is in the light of these questions, and the experience
of other bi-level governments with divided responsibilities,
that a functional division will need to be determined
for the proposed region.
The number, size, and capability of the lower -tier
units in a system are also of importance when
determining the division; the responsibilities which
may be left to the lower -tier units will tend to
vary directly with their financial and administrative
capabilities. And following this reasoning, it is
also possible to consider a different division with
regard to the urban municipalities as compared to
the rural in a region."
77
The analysis of criteria for allocation of service
responsibilities illustrates that there is no single best
Method of source allocatiofs. It also illustrates that
there are modcls against which Miami/Dade can be
measured.
The 1971 Dade County Metropolitan Study Commission Report
The common thread interwoven through these allocation
examples of source allocation is pointed out by reviewing the 1971
report of the Dade County Metropolitan Study Commission:
The Study Commission wrote:
"The concept of Metropolitan Government from
its inception in 1957 has included two distinct
layers of government in Dade County - the
metropolitan and the municipal. The intended
role of the metropolitan government was to
provide all the citizens of Dade County
with those services that are area -wide in
nature or which partially benefit from
central administration on an area -wide
basis. The local governments were to have
the function of providing those services on
a less than county -wide basis, and those
whose quality is improved when administered
by governments with close contact with their
immediate constituents."
■
111
a
IR
rs
The 1971 Report stated that the functional assignment
of services between the two tiers of a local government'
structure be the most effective means for meeting
the economic and political criteria that is essential
for optimum local government. This report fully concurs
with that conclusion.
A review of the initial 1954 recommendations on service
assignment between the two tiers as opposed to what has
developed to date will show that Dade County has not fully
implemented the two-tier system, and thereby not achieved
optimum two-tier potential effectiveness.
DADE COUNTY FUNCTIONAL ASSIGNMENT HISTORY
The Metropolitan Municipal Board commissioned a study to
be performed after a vote for consolidation of Dade County
was narrowly defeated in the early 1950's. Recommendations
that resulted from that 1954 study included the development
of a two-tier form of government and functional allocations
for each level of government (Appendix I). A table presented
in the 1954 study displayed the activities to be assigned
to the area -wide metropolitan government and those to be
MEW
MEM
70
assigned to the local municipal governments. (See
Appendix 1 page 1)
The 1954 chart of functional allocation varies from the
ACIR and other recommendations in two primary ways.
First, "discretionary" decision -making as to which service
to provide at what level and to whom is extensive. And
secondly, the Metropolitan government is allowed to perform
any functions in the unincorporated area that are ordinarily
assigned to the municipal governments for performance in
their respective incorporated areas.
Variation and minor flexibility is essential to a degree
as indicated in the criteria review section earlier in this
Chapter. However, complete flexibility to perform most local
functions on a negotiated base in the municipalities and to
perform those functions upon request (with appropriate
financing arrangements) in the unincorporated area exceeds
all principles of the recommended approach. The following
examples of transferred functions (for more detail see
Appendix E Chronological History of Municipal Service Mergers
into the County Service) illustrate the variation in service
delivery in Metropolitan Dade County:
•
•
MIIIB
80
Pire service delivered by Metro in 10 of the
26 municipalities.
• 'traffic enforcement, fine collection and motor-
cycle patrol performed by Metro for City of
Coral Gables.
Sanitary sewer collection systems maintained
for the City of Miami whereas other cities
maintain their own; treatment facilities and
area -wide interceptor lines also maintained
by Metro.
- Driver intoxication analysis performed
by Metro for all municipalities except three.
- Motor vehicle inspections
in six municipalities.
- Trash collection services
conducted by Metro
provided in the
unincorporated area by Metro with area -
wide disposal.
Hospitals administered through a Metro
Authority except for the City of Homestead
which maintains a separate hospital.
81
The Metropolitan S{-ndy Commission used the recommendationS
o
and findings of a comprehensive survey of the several v
approaches to orgariting local government conducted by the
ACIR to support the Study Commission's opinion. The Study
Commission quoted a summary of the ACIR research which
stated:
"This search has led to increased interest
in two broad approaches which, at least
in their most fully developed state,
incorporate two common basic elements: A
two level structure of government, and the
assignment of certain general purpose
responsibilities to each:"
The subsequent CED Report, Reshaping Government in Metropolitan
Areas,supported the Study Commission. The CED recommended:
"To gain the advantages of both centralization
and decentralization, we recommend as an
ultimate solution a governmental system of
two levels. Some functions should be assigned
in their entirety to the area -wide government,
others to the local level, some in part to
each leveL"
Since the two-tier form of government and the corresponding
service -function assignments between the two levels had not
been fully developed, the Dade County Study Commission noted,
"In addition to its responsibility for
providing area -wide services, Metro has
had to accept the responsibility for
providing to the unincorporated areas
those local services that are elsewhere
provided by the municipalities. Metro is
thus unable to focus its attention on much
needed area -wide services, because it must
apply so much of its resources and revenues to
providing local services."
Ih ConClusiot1, municipalities in bade County a speri.ehce
service delivery from a number of different sources,
the allocation of responsibility for service delivery has
been made on purely financial terms, and above all
else, the existing system violates the economic and
political criteria outlined in this chapter. The
system today differs greatly from the design of 1954.
Therefore it is time to change the service allocation
mechanism and reallocate service functions according
to accepted principles.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUNCTIONAL ALLOCATION
The first and most important recommendation of this
chapter is,
THAT THE UPPER TIER SHOULD PERFORM UPPER -
TIER FUNCTIONS AND SHARED FUNCTIONS BUT
IT SHOULD NOT PERFORM LOWER -TIER FUNCTIONS.
The second recommendation is
THAT ALL LOWER -TIER MUNICIPALITIES SHOULD
PERFORM SIMILAR LOWER -TIER FUNCTIONS.
AND SHARED FUNCTIONS
Turning to the specific municipal functions, this report
recommends
THAT MUNICIPAL FUNCTIONS BETWEEN THE LOCAL
AREA MUNICIPALITIES AND THE REGIONAL
METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT BE ALLOCATED ACCORDING
TO THE MODEL PRESENTED IN THIS REPORT
The model for service function allocation is included as
Table 6.2 below.
MENEM-
TARI,C 6.2
METRoL'oLITAN DADE TWO-TIER
erlttENDED bIVISION OF FUNCTIONS
Ailtinibtration
council agenda, minutes, etc
business licenses
Other licenses, including
control
Voters° lists and election
administration
purchasing
legal
accounting
auditing
alcoholic regulation-
Economic Development
industrial promotion
tourist promotion
Conservation
cat.'.._
Finance and Taxation
financial planning and
budget preparation
capital borrowing
taxation of property, including
local improvement charges
tax billing and collections
collection of fines
Health
public health services
hospital planning and
financial support
emergency ambulance services
Housing and Community Renewal
public housing
renewal/community development
Pollution Control, Sanitation
and Water Supply
plumbing by-laws, permits and
inspections
septic tank permits and
inspections (Health Unit)
sanitary sewer trunk mains
and disposal plants
sanitary sewer local collector
mains under Metropolitan
standards
storm drainage
garbage collection
garbage disposal
water quality sampling
water purification and
wholesale distribution
water'retailed distribution and
billing
Welfare
general welfare administration
child welfare
homes for aged
hospitalization of indigents
other services
Courts
A R
R
A R
A R
A R
A R
A R
A R
.rcement A R
A R
A R
A R
R
A R
R
A
A
R
R
R
R
A R
(A) R
R
R
A
A R
A
A R
R
R
A
A = Area Municipality Function
( ) = Subordinate Role
R
R
R
R
R
R
i
fl
R
to
i
•
M
••=mr
mmmmm
mow
MEP
MiMM
j>
•
w
•
•
•
Planning
Official Plans
subdivision approvals and
agreements
e*amining and licensing of
contractors
toning regulation within
Metro land -use plans
minimum zoning standards in
conjunction with Master
Land Use Plans
committee of adjustment
building by-laws, permits
and inspections
(A)
(A) R
R
A R
R
A R
(A) R
Protection R
police community, relations`
overnight lockups, and
citing municipal code
violators A
minimum law enforcement
standards, maintenance of
jails and emergency police
coordination R
police record keeping, crime lab.
and investigation coordination R
police: local traffic and patrol
functions and local communi-
cations, investigations
police: minimum patrol and
traffic control of major
arteries
civil defense
rescue or EMS
fire master planning, capital
improvements, training
fire staffing and hydtant
installation
Recreation and Community Services
regional parks
local parks
recreation programs
community centers, arenas
and ball parks
Museums and planetariums
libraries/cultural facilities
Transportation and Highways
air and seaports transit
regional roads
local roads
sidewalks
street cleaning
street lighting
traffic lights and crosswalks
parking meters and municipal
parking lots
traffic engineering
Other Municipal Services
cemeteries
grants to cultural
organizations
electric and gas systems
A
R
R
A
R
A
R
A
A
A R
R
A R
R
R
A
A
A
A R
A R
A
R
A
A R
A
R = Regional Metropolitan Function
84
CHAPTE1 'VIt
MUNICIPAL REVENUE
INTRODUCTION
This review of two-tier governMeht in Dade County has to
this point focused on the criteria and rationale behind
the selection of a suitable governmental structure. As
has been the case of most local government reviews, criteria
and alternatives become the focal point for discussion. The
financial aspects of local government (the heart of the
matter) rarely get due consideration.
It is the intent of this chapter to focus on the existing
municipal revenues of the municipalities within Dade County.
The next section will describe the various revenue sources
and the legal constraints surrounding their administration.
The following section will examine the problems associated
with existing revenue sources. The chapter will conclude
with a discussion of recommended solutions to those pro-
blems.
LOCAL REVENUE SOURCES
In order to properly examine the local revenue bases of Dade
County municipalities it was necessary to obtain a source of
reliable secondary data, in view of the inherent differences
in accounting methods of the various reporting units. The
document that was selected for analysis was the State of
Florida Local Government Financial Report for the fiscal
85
year 1575-76, This doctlfent cautions against an oveY,,reliance
oh the data presented because of the reason stated
above.
phis caution is repeated here. During the course of the
study thin aurning proved to be well-founded since extreme
difficulty was experienced in attempting to reconcile the
figures in the State book with those presented in the Dade
County and City of Miami audited financial reports. The working
papers forwarded by the City of Miami Department of Finance to
the State authorities were in turn analyzed and interpreted in
various ways by State officials to conform to their needs.
This made the reconciliation process difficult at best. Never-
theless, the State document has proven to be the best source
of comparative data on local government finance in Florida
and hence was selected as the primary reference document
for municipal revenue analysis.
Real Propery Tax
The real property tax is the major revenue source for the
municipalities in Dade County (See Appendix J). From total
revenues of over $250 million, over 30% was derived from
the real property tax. The City of Miami places greater
reliance on property tax (36.2%) than do most of the
municipalities in Dade County. Among the larger municipalities
Miami Beach is the only exception to this statement.
Metropolitan Dade County derives approximately $150 million
.
.
•
MIN
MMW
MMt
MIMW
1
a
1
or less than one Varter of its total reVehues of $640
million from the property tad{ source (see Appendix t) .
This is primarily because of a much greater reliance
on Charges for ser'vi.:e.
The property tax is levied against the assessed property
in Dade County and its constituent municipalities. Both
the assessment and tax functions are county responsibilities
1 although the municipalities, of course, determine their
1
own tax rates.
86
1 The State Government restricts both the County and the municipalities
in the levy they can legally impose by means of a
1 "millage cap" of 10 mills for operating purposes. The
City of Miami is at this millage cap. In addition it has
a levy for debt service charges. Of the nearly $30 million
levied for operating purposes in 1976, over one-third was
for pension purposes.
1
1
1
1
1
A
1
Utility Service Tax
The utility service tax is the second most important
revenue source in the City of Miami, just ahead of state
shared revenue. It is the third most important revenue
source for all municipalities just behind state shared
revenue, however, four of the six largest municipalities
rely more heavily on the utility service tax than they do
on state shared revenue. The County levies a utility service
tax in the unincorporated district but it is not a Major
revenue source for the County.
The utility service tax is a tax levied by local government
on the purchase of utility services within the jurisdictional
boundaries of that government. The tax Was legislated as
a revenue source by Florida State Statutes under section
166.231 and is subject to an upper limit of ten per-
cent of the payments received by the seller of the taxable
service from the purchaser of such service. The tax may
be assessed on electricity, metered or bottled natural
liquefied gas, water, telephone, telegraph and cable
television service. The tax is collected by the seller
of the taxable service item at the time of payment for the
service.
State.Shared Revenue
The third major revenue source for the major municipalities
and the second major revenue source for all municipalities
is state shared revenue. This revenue source provided
10.1% of all municipalities'revenue in 1976 as compared to
9.9% for the utilities service tax. In the County, it
provided 6.2% of all revenues.
87
The state revenue sharing formula is composed of three equally
weighted factors. These are:
The proportion of the population of a given munici-
pality to the total population of all eligible
c
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
municipalities in the State, (Various weighting
factors care applied to population depending on the
population level.)
The proportion of sales tax collected within a city
relative to the total sales tax collected by all
eligible municipalities in the State.
The ratio of the relative local ability to raise
revenue, to be determined according to a specific
formula laid down in State Statutes, Section 218.245.
These formula factors ensure that the larger municipalities
and those with lower tax bases are provided with greater
assistance. Part of the reason for this is to counter-
balance the federal revenue sharing program.
Federal Shared Revenue
Federal Shared Revenue provided $8.7 million (8.6%) for
the City of Miami in 1976. Metropolitan Dade County and
total lower -tier figures were $16.5 million (2.5%) and
$13.7 million (5.2%),respectively for the same year. On
a rank basis it is the fourth most important revenue
source for Miami and for all municipalities while it is
only a minor source of funds for Metro Dade County.
1
1
88
The Federal revenue sharing formula, based on a combination
of three factors (population of local jurisdiction, general tax
•
1
effort and relative inCofe fac9tot4 is adpinistered in dart
to the State and in part directly to the local jurisdiction+
The United States $ureau of Census determines the value of
each factor on an annual basis.
Other Federal Itevenue5
89
The fifth largest revenue source for the City of Miami
and for all lower -tier municipalities is the Federal Grants
program. This source provides $5.6 million or 5.5% of all
municipal revenues for Miami and $13.3 million or 5.0% for
all lower --tier units. These figures are considerably
higher than those of some other major jurisdictions. The
Metro Dade County government receives in excess of $95 million
or 14.8% of its revenue from this source, ranking it third only
to real property tax and mental and physical health
revenues.
Federal subsidies are composed of conditional and non -
conditional grants primarily for job funding (Comprehensive
Employment and Training Act grants, C.E.T.A.), Community
Development block grants for physical improvement of specific
economically impacted areas, and Economic Development Admini-
stration funds (capital investment for economic stimulation).
These grants are negotiated each year and are subject to
cancellation at any time. Therefore they cannot be relied
onus a continual source of funds.
Y
NEM
OMMIOMIW
MMM
MEW
MINIMILW
MOINEW
MEM
a
It tere st,
96
interest earnings on investfnents provide:-3 the City of Matti
with $6.0 million or 4.9 percent of all revenues. An analysis
of data (Appendix I) indicates that this is a larger proportional
revenue source for Miami than most major jurisdictions with
the exception of Coral Gables which receives 8.9 percent of its
revenues from this source. Investment interest revenue is a
minor source for Dade County providing only $17.2 million,
2.6 percent of the $640 million total. All lower tier
municipalities receive 3.8 percent of revenues from this
source (Appendix J).
A large part of earned interest comes from short term investment
of real property tax funds that are pooled prior to expenditure
requirements.
Franchise Taxes
Franchise taxes provide the last major revenue source for
Miami. In 1976, $4.7 million or 4.6 percent of revenue sources
came under this category. The franchise tax appears to be
a major revenue source for most larger municipalities (North
Miami 12.2 percent, North Miami Beach 8.7 percent, Coral
Gables 4.7 percent) yet it is a limited resource for Metro-
politan Dade County ($6.7 million or 1.0 percent). It has a
4.6 percent weight for all lower -tier municipalities. This
tax is levied as a business tax on businesses and
organizations providing the following public utility services.
•
electricity
gas
water
telephone
taxicabs
cable television
public transit
Other Revenue Sources
The remaining 15.4 percent of revenue for the City of Miami
accrues from such minor categories as occupational licenses
($3.1 million), charges for cultural and recreation services
($3.6 million), building permits ($879,000) and numerous
other small sources ($8.0 million). Another category includes
charges for such hard physical services as water, refuse collection
and sewers. These provide meaningful revenue contributions
for a number of jurisdictions, however, these are not revenue
sources for Miami. Charges for physical and mental health
yield huge revenues for county -operated hospitals($103.9 million
for Metropolitan Dade County) and for the City of Homestead
($4.6 million), which has a unique form of ownership of the
local hospital. One major revenue source that is available to
local municipalities in Florida is the collection fee for garbage/
refuse. The City of Miami is currently not utilizing this source.
The next two sections of this chapter will be devoted to an
analysis of the problems with current revenue sources in Dade
County and to providing solutions to these problems.
mew
EMIL
MEER
ElEatt
wommm
mmmw
wimmwt
mumm
MEM
wwwwww
IMEIMMIW
min 11
s
Mir
mamile
MIEMIEE-
92
RROELEMS WITH CURRENT REVENUE SOURCES
A criterion of success in a metropolitan federation, i.e. a
true twos -tier form of government, is that both the upper- and
lower. -tier municipalities are able to raise adequate revenues
to finance t-bPir public services responsibilities in an
equitable manner. This is particularly important at the
lower tier where alternative choices will be made BUT they
should be made on an equitable basis so as to reduce great
degrees of inequality in standards.
As was noted in the 1971 Report of the Dade County Metropolitan
Study Commission, "the organizational structure of any govern-
ment, whether it be local, state or federal, is meaningless
unless it includes ingredients of a broad, fair and equitable
tax base".l This point was re-emphasized in the final
paragraph of that Report. "The most modern and streamlined
form of government is incapable of delivering services to
people unless it is adequately financed from a fair and
equitable tax base."
Since property taxes are still a major revenue source for
municipal government within Miami/Dade County, it is not
surprising that the major problems revolve around this tax.
The key problem relates to the wide discrepancies in the
property tax base among the lower -tier municipalities in
Dade County. This problem is compounded by the limitations
imposed by the State on the revenue derived from that base.
MINIM
MEM
ME
MEM
9
Inequities in Tax Base
Section 4.04 of the Home Ririe AfinendMent and Charter for
Metropolitan Dade county clearly establishes the County
as the body responsible for the assessment and collection
of both County and municipal taxes. Therefore, the tax
base for the County in the various municipalities is
determined by one body and should result in a fair method
of assessment among the various municipal jurisdictions.
In spite of the fairness of the assessments, there are wide
discrepancies in the per capita assessment in the various
municipalities in Miami/Dade County. Per capita assessment
ranges from a low of $6,369 in Florida City to a high of $132,855
in Medley (see Appendix B). Even after eliminating the more
extreme variations in per capita assessments, 17 of the 27
municipalities have per capita assessments ranging between
$9,597 (El Portal) and $20,693 (Coral Gables). This represents
a range of over 100 percent among "the moderate" situations.
Given the goal of a "a fair and equitable tax base" it is
clear that reform is required to achieve that goal.
Millage Cap
These wide variations in per capita assessment are compounded
by State legislation which mandates impositions on the
revenue -raising ability of local governments. The primary
problem in this regard in Dade County is the "millage cap"
•
MMMW
MMM
Emmone
MISMIER
Mit
WOR
MINNIkt
MEW
MMW
EMI
1
which places a 10 mill limit for all Municipal purposes
exclusive of taxed levied for the payment of bonds arc#
interest.
1 Additionally. tcreases in property tax rates beyond that
"certified" level must be advertised publicly and public
1 hearings must be held before millages are established. As
the Florida Advisory Council on Intergovernmental Relations
has noted, "These restraints...can 'disequalize' the partners
in Florida's system of government." The report also noted
11
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
94
"when it
is recalled that property taxes represent the most
flexible source of revenue for Florida's local governments,
the problem of State mandates becomes more acute and a solution
more compelling as municipalities...near or reach their
respective millage cap."
That report sets out those Florida cities which are at or
near the municipal cap.; Thirteen of the lower --tier
municipalities in Dade County fall into this category
(see Table 7.1 below).
MIEN
MEM
CABLE. 7 •..1
1976 AD VALDREM MILLA0E LEVY
SELECTgb CITIES IN DAtL COUNTY,
City
6
1976 Operating
Millage
Bal t#arbotir 6.50
Coral Gables 7.92
Golden Beach 10.00
Islandia 9.71
Medley 6.50
Miami 9.59
Miami Beach 9.96
Miami Shores 7.60
Miami Springs 8.00
N. Bay Village 6.12
N. Miami Beach 7.95
Opa-Locka 9.75
W. Miami 7.50
Source: State Mandates in Florida, Table 2, P. 12
For all but three of the above municipalities this situation
either was not improved or, indeed, was worsened in 1977.
The particular consequence of this in Miami/Dade County,
is that, rather than the service not being performed, it
is simply transferred by the lower -tier municipality to the
upper -tier, that is, Dade County. Since the County, by
judicial decision can perform a local, lower -tier service with
an area -wide levy as long as that service is "offered" to all
1
mmmw
WNW
ISMER
INERIM
MEINEW
IOW
flfa
NNW
milmw
MEW
-
MOB
MIR
36
Municipalities, a Catch 22 situation has developed That is,
When the lower -tier municipalities with restricted tax bases
Ate faced with an upper limit on taxation, they simply transfer
the function up to another body where it may, or may not, be
performed more efficiently but it will be performed because
the County has access to the total taxing power of the area.
Thus, the intent of the State legislation to reduce property
taxes is not achieved because the taxes are just levied by
a different body on a different group of people. The
consequence of the limitation is double taxation and a
reduction in the role of local government.
This is particularly unfortunate in situations where
municipalities wish to perform what are normally regarded as
lower -tier municipal functions, e.g. police, and are making
a major tax effort but, given their low tax base, may be forced
to transfer functions to the upper tier which they do not
wish to transfer. This point requires some elaboration.
First of all it is necessary to understand what is meant by
tax effort.
Tax Effort
Tax effort should not be regarded as the product of the
tax rate applied to the tax base. The reason for that is
that the application of the same tax rate to different tax
bases will result in very different yields and therefore
NiMMINE
MEW
MIME
RUN
97
are hot measurements of tax effort. Indeed,quite the
contrary could be true. Studies have shown that high Municipal
expenditures are more often indicative of an ability to spend
than of need to spend.
In order to illustrate this point, let us look at Table 7.2
which compares the consequence of levying the same rate on
four municipalities within Dade County. The Table demonstrates
the wide variations among four selected cities, and clearly
demonstrates that the same "tax effort" will result in nearly
twice as much revenue on a per capita basis for Coral Gables
as it would for Miami or Hialeah.
TABLE 7.2
PER CAPITA YIELD FROM 10 MILL
LEVY IN FOUR SELECTED CITIES
1976
MIAMI
HIALEAH
MIAMI BEACH
CORAL GABLES
$ 107
106
175
207
This argument is susceptible to criticism because of the large
tourist population on Miami Beach, which the per capita
figures don't take into account.
4
MECTIMMIIIN
a
a
OW
a
A sifnple example will further illustrate this point: 'ai
effort is translatP1 into expenditures on a variety of
municipal functions. In spite of the fact that the "tax
effort" is lower in Coral Gables than it is in Miami per
capita, expenditures are higher in Coral Gables than they
are in Miami for the key municipal functions of police,
fire and refuse collection by anywhere from 50 to 60 percent.
(See Appendix G)
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is clear
taxes in Miami/Dade County
that the problem of property
is a combination of extreme
variations in per capita assessment compounded by the millage
cap. This results in the transfer of municipal functions
from the lower tier to the upper tier and prevents the twin
goals of meaningful local autonomy and a fair and equitable
tax system.
State Revenue Sharing
It is not entirely accurate to include state revenue sharing
in a section on revenue problems because it is a major
revenue source and also a major contribution to removing
inequities in the system. However, it should be noted that
the sub -factor which is used in calculating the population
weighting factor does not differentiate among municipalities
with a population of over 50,000. Nor does it make a very
major distinction between municipalities which are over 20,000
99
i
populatien and those which are over 5O,000. This is a
matter which should be addressed.
Refuse Collection Charge
Unlike other municipalities in bade County, the City of Miami
does not chaLLJe for refuse collection. While not a major
revenue source it does account for $7 million of revenue or
2.6 percent of all municipal revenue sources in Dade County.
In Hialeah it accounts for 4.4 percent of all revenue sources
and in the smaller municipalities 10.02 percent. Based on
1976 data, a refuse collection charge in Miami could have
yielded between $2 million and $3 million.
While this report has dealt with county -wide issues this
matter is raised because the imposition of such a charge in
the City of Miami would serve to strengthen the fiscal base in
the core City.
RECOMMENDED SOLUTIONS TO THE REVENUE PROBLEMS
Millage Cap
The problem of the millage cap is well known. The solution
to the problem has already been described by the Florida
Advisory Council on Intergovernmental Relations. That solution
is simple and straightforward. The legislature should eliminate
local revenue restraints. The restraints would be applied
by the voters and taxpayers in the municipalities. Therefore,
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
•
•
this report reCoMMthde 160
THAT THE MtttACt CAP EE EttMtWATEb
If this recommendation is adopted, it should reduce the
tendency of municipalities in Dade County to shift municipal
services to the County when the municipalities approach
the "fiscal cap". The problem can be further alleviated if
the Dade County Charter is amended along the lines suggested
by the Advisory Council on Intergovernmental Relations
in their publication of The Double Taxation Issue (March, 1978)?
This report recommends
THAT THE DADE COUNTY CHARTER BE AMENDED SO AS
TO PREVENT THE COUNTY FROM TAXING PROPERTIES
WITHIN MUNICIPALITIES FOR SERVICES WHICH ARE OF
NO REAL AND SUBSTANTIAL BENEFIT TO THE PERSONS
AND PROPERTIES WITHIN THE MUNICIPALITIES
This is only a partial solution to the total problem which
requires addressing, however; that is the inequities in the
fiscal bases of the municipalities.
Equalization of Fiscal Disparities
While restructuring the lower -tier municipalities into fewer,
larger units will be a major step towards the solution of the
problem, an additional step is recommended and that is the
sharing of non-residential assessment on a county -wide basis
in order to provide a metropolitan revenue base for individual
MMIENEP
MIN
MEOW
MET
MM-
EEC
•
NEWER
101
political jurisdictions. While this practice is not
pfeValent, it is hot without precedent. The pioneer
example of this practice is the Minnesota Fiscal
Disparities Program in the Twin Cities region of
Minnesota. There, in 1971, the Metropolitan Council
proposed and the legislature enacted a Fiscal Disparities
Act in order to reduce the inequity of the property tax
base of the local governments within the Metropolitan area
The method chosen was to pool 40 percent of the assessed
value from new commercial and industrial property into a
special tax base which is divided up among the local
governments in the region on relative per capita property
value basis. It is important to note that the system
shares tax base rather than tax revenue. The municipalities'
own tax base plus its distribution from the common pool rate
form its adjusted tax base. Individual municipalities
then levy taxes on their adjusted tax base.
More recently, Governor Milliken of Michigan has: 1) sharply
increased revenue sharing for cities, 2) made a state
"equity payment" for services that Detroit provides its
suburbs, 3) enacted a 12-year tax benefit for factory improvement
or new construction, and 4) has asked the legislature to
approve the sharing of property taxes on new construction in
the Detroit area on a basis similar to the Twin Cities region
program.
162
All of Governor Milliken's proposals are worthy of
consideration for application in Miami/Dade County.
This report has incorporated the idea of increased
revenue sharing for the cities into another recommendation.
However, the proposal which would go the furthest to
reduce the inequities in the property tax base of the
lower -tier municipalities is some form of sharing of
non-residential assessments.
This idea has gone beyond the United States to Canada,
where it was recommended in October, 1976 in a Report
on the Ottawa -Carleton Regional Government - the home of
Canada's national Capitol. That report recommended that all
commercial/industrialized assessment in the Region be
"pooled" and allocated to the area municipalities on the
basis of population.
This concept, which has been in effect since 1974/75 in
the Twin Cities should be considered for Miami/Dade County .
This report proposed that the redistribution of the "pool
be on the basis of people and tax base as is done in the Twin
Cities. That is, rather than a straight per capita distribution,
the distribution should be on the basis of assessment as well.
MEW
101
The formula suggested is to multiply all commercial, tourist
and industrial assessment in Miami/bade County by the
proportion of population of the lower -tier municipality.
The product of that multiplication should be multiplied by
a factor of the average per capita assessment of the region
divided by the per capita assessment of the lower -tier
municipality. The result would become the lower tiers°
share of the assessment pool. The sum of this result plus
the residential assessment would yield the total assessment
base on which the lower tier municipalities would set
their millage rate.
Therefore this report recommends,
THAT AN ASSESSMENT POOL BE CREATED IN
DADE COUNTY OF ALL NON-RESIDENTIAL
ASSESSMENT AND THIS ASSESSMENT POOL
SHOULD BE REDISTRIBUTED TO THE LOWER -
TIER MUNICIPALITIES ON THE BASIS
DESCRIBED IN THIS REPORT.
While the results of such an arrangement would not be dramatic
they would redistribute the non-residential tax base to a
degree and permit the less favored lower -tier municipalities
to attain a more equitable tax base. This is the critical
fiscal requirement of any political or structural change.
R
Other I proVements
State revenue -sharing is an iMportaht and fair revenue
source. As matteis now stand, half the municipalities
in Dade County receive a relatively small weighting factor
for population because of their small size . Only three
receive the highest weighting factor.
Part of this problem can be overcome by restructuring of
the lower -tier municipalities which would ensure that all
the lower -tier municipalities were entitled to a population
adjustment of 1.791. However, this is only a partial answer
to the problem. Greater recognition should be given to the
problem of the larger urban centers and this can be done by
a simple adjustment of the weighting factor. The adjustment
suggested here is to create two new categories - one for
municipalities with populations of over 100,000 and another
for municipalities with populations of over 250,000. The
factors which should be applied to these centers would have
to be calculated but for discussion purposes this report
suggests a factor of 2.0 for those over 100,000 and 2.25
for those over 250,000.
Therefore, this report recommends,
THAT THE DADE COUNTY DELEGATION TO THE
STATE LEGISLATURE BE URGED TO INTRODUCE
A PROPOSAL WHICH WOULD ALTER THE POPULATION
FACTOR CALCULATION USED IN THE APPORTIONMENT
OF STATE REVENUE SHARING
104
Wit
INN
MEE
MilMEW
CHAPTtR VII FOOTNOTES
105
1, bade County Metropolitan Study Commission, Reportand
Recommendations of the bade County MetroPolitan St4dY
Commission, Miami, June 1971, p.74
2. Florida Advisory Council on Intergovernmental Relations,
The Double Taxation Issue, Tallahassee, Florida,
March 1978
or
MEW:.
swam,
=Miff
MEW
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
APPENDIX A
DADE COUNTY POPULATION DATA
Nowing
MIME
MENEM
m- mm
MEE
MEW
mmw
mam
ME▪ W
DABS COUNTY POPULATION
1976 CiSUS
Population X Area
1976 Populatioft S. Miles
Hiatt 343,977 23, 7 34.3
Hialeah 126,125 8,7 16.4
Miami Bagel. 88,850 6.1 7.5
North Miami 43,544 3.0 5.9
Coral Gables 42,284 2.9 12,2
N. Miami Beach 35,736 2.5 5.3
Hdmestead 20,351 1.4 8.6
0palocka 13,782 .95 4.5
Miami Springs 12,722 .88 2.8
South Miami 11,365 .78 2.2
Miami Shores 9,026 .62 2.4
Sweetwater 6,655 .46 .84
West Miami 5,589, .39 .70
Florida City 5,181 .36 2.4
Bay Harbour Island 4,709 .33 .4
N. Bay Village 4,389 .30 .38
Surfside 3,673 .25 .5
Biscayne Park 2,642 .18 .65
Virginia Gardens 2,447 .17 .28
Bal Harbour 2,155 .15 .35
El Portal 2,084 .14 .36•
Hialeah Gardens 1,002 .07 2.5
Golden Beach '875 .06 .31
Medley 557 .04 5.0
Indian Creek 89 .01 .42
•Pennsuco 51 - -
Ialandia 8 :8
TOTAL CITIES 789,868 54.5 117.9
Unincorporated Area 659,432 45.5 2,234.1
TOTAL DADE COUNTY 1,449,300 100.0 * 2,352.0
* This includes 587 square miles in
the Everglades National Park which
is unavailable for development.
Source: Dade County Department of Planning
MOWN
If OW
mmumMIME
mimak
t
EMU
MEM
MMEW
===9.
ffe
sao
MEW
A-2
bAbk COUNTY
popuiatfnn time Saties bats
Pet Cent Change
1960 1970 1976 1970-1976
2
Mimi 291, 688 334,00 343 , 977 2. 7
Hialeah 66,972 102,452 126,125 23,0
Miami teach 63,140 87,072 88,850 2.04
North Miami 28,708 34,767 43,544 25.2
Coral Gables 34,793 42,494 42,284 - .5
N., Miami Beach 21,405 30,544 35,736 17.0
Homestead 9,152 13,674 20,351 48.8
Opalocka 9,810 11,902 13,782 15.8
Miami Springs 11,229 13,279 12,722 -4.19
South Miami 9,846 11,780 11,365 -3.7
Miami Shores 8,865 9,425 9,026 -4.23
Sweetwater 645 3,357 6,655 98.0
West Miami 5,296 5,494 5,589 1.73
Florida City 4,114 5,133 5,181 .93
Bay Harbour Island 3,249 4,619 4,709 1.9
N. Bay Village 2,006 4,831 4,389 -9.1
Surfside 3,157 3,615 3,673 1.6
Biscayne Park 2,911 2,717 2,642 -2.8
Virginia Gardens 2,159 2,524 2,447 -3.1
Bal Harbour 727 2,038 2,155 5.7
El Portal 2,079 2,068 2,084 .77
Hialeah Gardens 172. 492 1,002 104.0
Golden Beach 413 849 875 3.1
Medley 112 351 557 59.0
Indian Creek 60 82 89 --
Pennsuco 117 74 51 --
Islandia 8 8
TOTAL CITIES 582,800 622 730,499 582 789,868 542 8.1
Unincorporated Area 352,247 382 537,293 422 659,432 462* 22.72
TOTAL DADE COUNTY 935,047 1,267,792 1,449,300 a 14.3
Source: Dade County Assessment Office and Department of Planniug
1
1
1
1
1
APPENDIX B
DADE COUNTY TAXABLE ASSESSMENT
(1960, 1974 and 1976)
s=1
Nat could,/
tAttABLL ASSCSSMENt
Att MuNiCtPAttTiES
($ 000000)
1960 1974 1976
$
Miami 554 3,186 3,681
Hialeah 82 926 1,334
Miami beach 395 1,428 1,554
Wirth Miami 53 471 518
Coral Gables 102 739 875
N. Miami Beach 36 375 441
Homestead 17 132 164
Opalocka 8 147 173
Miami Springs 16 146 175
South Miami 19 128 142
Miami Shores 23 137 155
Sweetwater 1 35 46
West Miami 5 44 56
Florida City 4 27 33
Bay Harbour Island 19 91 96
N. Bay Village 11 78 79
Surfside 22 93 107
Biscayne Park 4 25 28
Virginia Gardens 2 21 27
Bal Harbour 29 104 127
El Portal 3 19 20
Hialeah Gardens 2 37 45
Golden Beach 7 23 26
Medley 1 54 74
Indian Creek 2 10 10
Pennswco 1 1
Islandia - 1 .1
TOTAL CITIES 1,417 8,478 9,988
Unincorporated Area 578 8,197 9,528
TOTAL DADE COUNTY 1,995 16,675 19,516
Figures rounded to nearest million dollars of taxable assessment
Source; Dade County Assessment Office
MK-
mk
DADE COUNTY
TAXABLE ASSESSMENT
ALL MUNICIPALITIES
(% of County Total)
1960 1974
%
1.976
Miami 27,8 19.1 18.6
Hialeah 4.1 5.5 6.7
Miami Beach 19.7 8.6 7,8
North Miami 2.6 2.8 2.6
Coral Gables 5.1 4.4 4.4
N. Miami Beach 1.8 2.2 2.2
Homestead .8 .8 .8
Opalocka - .9 .9
Miami Springs .8 .9 .9
South Miami .8 .8 .7
All Others 7.5 4.9 4.9
TOTAL CITIES
Unincorporated Area
TOTAL DADE COUNTY
71.0
29.0
100.0
Source: Dade County Assessment Office
50.9
49.1
100.0
51.].
48.9
100.0
•
W
=10-
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
B-3
DADE COUNTY
PER CAPITA TAXABLE ASSESSMENT
(1960, 1974, 1976)
1960 1974 1976
$ $ $
Miami 1,899 9,076 10,700
Hialeah 1,224 7,590 10,S76
Miami Peach 6,255 15,796 17,490
North Miami 1,847 10,618 11,897
Coral Gables 2,931 16,949 20,693
N. Miami Beach 1,682 10,507 13,072
Homestead 1,858 6,534 8,059
Opalocka 815 10,849 12,553
Miami Springs 1,424 10,895 13,756
South Miami 1,930 10,807 12,495
Miami Shores 2,594 14,262 17,172
Sweetwater 1,550 5,432 6,912
West Miami 944 7,260 10,020
Florida City 972 4,849 6,369
Bay harbour Island 5,848 19,415 20,386
N. Bay Village 5,483 16,428 18,000
Surfside 6,969 24,105 29,132
Biscayne Park 1,374 9,035 10,598
Virginia Gardens 926 8,061 11,034
Bal Harbour 39,889 49,312 58,932
El Portal 1,443 8,979 9,597
Hialeah Gardens 11,627 34,101 44,910
Golden Beach 16,949 26,651 29,714
Medley 8,929 97,826 132,855
Indian Creek 33,333 104,167 112,360
Pennsuco -- 18,571 19,607
Islandia 137,500 125,000
TOTAL CITIES
Unincorporated Area
DADE COUNTY (MEAN)
2,431 10,612 12,645
1,641 15,256 14,839
2,134 13,153 13,643
Source: Dade County Assessment Office and Department of Planning
APPENDIX C
DADE COUNTY GOVERNMENTAL REFORM EFFORTS
1943-1957
NW-
FrAi
C-1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
•
GOVERNMENTAL C8ANOES 1943 TO 1957
FORMAL CONSOLIDATION MOVEMENTS
1943 Creation of county -wide health
department.
1943 Consolidation of tax assessing
and'collection amendment approved
for referendum.June 10, 1943 -
defeated in Supreme Court October 5,
1944.
1945,June 11 Greater Miami Port Authorization to
D.C. Port Authorization.
1945,October Consolidation of 10 area school
districts to the county.
1945,April 3 The Dade delegation refused to
submit to the state legislature
the plan of City of Miami Mayor
Leonard K. Thomson for consolidation
of all governmental units in Dade
County.
1948,May 25
1952,Nov.4
1953,June 9
The voters of Dade County, Florida,
rejected a proposed amendment to
the Florida Constitution which
would have consolidated Dade County,
the City of Miami, and four small
cities, and would have provided for
optional consolidation of other
municipalities.
A permissive state-wide home rule
amendment was rejected by the voters
of the state. The vote in Dade
County, however, was favorable.
In a city-wide referendum City of
Miami voters rejected a proposal
which would have abolished the city
and transferred its functions to
Dade County.
C-2
CREATION 0P METRO
1953,July 1 The City of Miami created the
3M (Metropolitan Miami Municipal)
Board.
1954,March 9 Under a 3M Board contract, the
University of Miami's Department
of Government agreed to supervise
a fact-finding survey of the
governments in the metropolitan
area.
1954,March 24 The University of Miami's Committee
on Municipal Research recommended
that Public Administration Service
be engaged to prepare a study of
metropolitan Dade County.
1954,December 31 The PAS report recommended a
federal form of metropolitan
government.
1955,January 14 The 3M Board approved the PAS
report.
1955,June 23 The first Charter Board was created
by the state legislature.
The Florida Legislature approved a
Senate joint resolution providing
for a Dade County home rule amend-
ment to the Florida Constitution.
1956,August 9
1956,September 7
At an extraordinary session of
the legislature, a second Charter
Board was created. It superseded
the first Charter Board.
The Florida Supreme Court upheld
the constitutionality of the proposed
home rule amendment.
•
C-3
ALLOCATION OP POWERS BY THE CHARTER
1955,June 27
1955,August 26
1956,June
The first Charter Board met for
organizational purposes.
The first Charter Board adopted
a policy decision that guaranteed
autonomy of the municipalities.
26,27,28 The first Charter Board conducted
public hearings on a proposed home
rule charter.
1956,December 6
1957,January 10
1957,April 2,3,4
1957,April 15
The second Charter Board held its
first meeting.
The second Charter Board reaffirmed
the principle of municipal autonomy
for purely local matters.
The second Charter Board conducted
public hearings on a proposed home
rule charter.
The final draft of the home rule
charter was officially signed by
the members of the second Charter
Board.
FOR AND AGAINST THE CHARTERS
1957,April 29
1957,April 30
A special Committee of the Dade
League of Municipalities voted
to recommend to the full league
membership that it oppose the home
rule charter. A group led by
George S. Okell, Sr., the only
Charter Board member to oppose the
charter, formed a Citizens Committee
Opposing Metropolitan Charter.
S.D. Phillips, Jr., Charter Board
Chairman, accused the Special
Committee of the Dade League of
Municipalities of misrepresenting
the Charter Board's position with
regard to the demands of the league.
Wolf
M
mnesic-
1957,May 9
1957,May 10
1957,May 21
State Senator Joe Eaton and
State Representatives John t. Orr,
Jr., and George L: I Iollahan, Jr.,
publicly announced their support
of the home rule charter, while
Representative W.C. Herrell adopted
a neutral stand.
The 3M Board voted 14 to.1 to endorse
the charter and to work for its ratif-
ication by the .voters.
A temporary injunction prevented
Hialeah from spending $2,000 of its
funds to fight the proposed charter.
The home rule charter, as drafted by
the second Charter Board, was approved
by the Dade County electorate.
Source: Sofen, Edward, "The Miami Metropolitan
Experiment", Bloomington, Illinois, 1963.
E_
IF
APPENDIX D
REFERENDUM EFFORTS IN DADE COUNTY
1957-1974
1
KEY REPERENDUM ELECTV5N8 IW bAbt COUNTY
Structure Accountability Assignment of
Year talahce of lower Representativeness ?unctions
1 1957 Home Rule Charter
1958 AUton0My Amendment
1
1
1
1
1
1961 McLeod Amendments
1962
1963 Restricting Metro's
Power over Munic.
Boundary Changes
1964 Limiting Metro's
Power over Urban
-- 1 Renewal
1966
1 1968
1972
1
1
0
p
1974
Elective Sheriff and Assessor
Five-Man/Seven-Man/Nine-Man
Commissions
McLeod Amendments
Crandon Amendments
Kelly Amendments
GRC Amendments
Appointed Sheriff
Strong Mayor and Dist.
Election of Metro
Commissioners
Source: Sofen, Edward, "The Miami Metropolitan Experiment",
Bloomington, Illinois, 1963.
Crandon Amend-
ments
Police and Fire
Consolidation
Coral Gables
Bus System
Transfer
Miami Shores
Fire Dept.
Transfer
WM-
•
D-2
128F8I2SNbUM ELEC1'IbNs 1N bAb8 tOUNIt
Year.... Issues
1957 Rote Rule Charter
1958 Autonomy Amendment
1959 Elective Sheriff
Elective Assessor
Five -Man Commission
Seven -Man Commission
Nine -Man Commission
1961 McLeod Amendments
For Against
ter,. Ceht......_
51
1962 County Dual Office Holding 89
Qualifying Periods for County Commission
Offices 91
Election of Metro Commissioners by District
Only
Commission Approval of County Manager
Appointments 52
Commission Approval of County Department
Reorganization 51
Independent Port Authority 54
1963 Elective Sheriff 51
Elective Assessor
Restricting Metro's Powers Over Municipal
Boundary Changes
Area -wide Election of Metro Commissioners 55
Increased Requirements for Petitioning to
Amend Charter 51
Missouri -Type Plan for Selecting Metro
Court Judges 67
Election of Metro Commissioners by District
and Cities 77
1964 Limiting Metro's Power Over Urban Renewal 55
1966 Appointed Sheriff 53
Police and Fire Consolidation
1972 Water and Sewer Board 76
Strong Mayor and District Election of
Metro Commissioners
1973 (Repeal of Utility Tax in Unincorporated
Areas)
1974 Transfer of Coral Gables Bus System 52
Transfer of Miami Shores Fire Department 56
60
56
58
82
87
85
52
54
51
58
72
68
1
1
to
1
1
1
1
1
1
A
1
1
-
A
1
APPENDIX E
CHRONOLOGICAL HISTORY OF MUNICIPAL SERVICE MERGERS
INTO THE COUNTY SERVICE
E-1
1
Date
10/59
10/59
0 10/59
0 10/59
11/59
7/60
1
1
1
1 7/60
7/60
1
1/1
1
6/64
1
1
2/62
1/62
10/62
6/63
111
bAbt COUNTY
CitICINOIDOICAL1 'Tn c oFMUNICIPAL S i E WIMPS
Unction
Traffic Enforcement and Fine
Collection
Voter Registration County
and State Elections
Municipal Traffic Court
Crime Lab
Comaunications (PSD)
Traffic Engineering and
Maintenance
Police Motorcycle Patrol
Seaport
Bus Operations
Traffic Court
Crime Lab
Alcohol Breath Analyzer Tests
River Patrol
Municipality
Coral Gables
All Municipalities
Miami
All Municipalities,
except Miami
North Miami
Miami
Coral Gables
Hialeah
Miami Beach
North Miami
Coral Gables
Miami
Transit Authority
Miami Beach
Miami
All Municipalities
except Miami Beach,
Homestead and Hialeah
Miami
#_ e
trflP101Pes
12
35
5
30
5
1
8
1
8
38
874
1
01
E-2
10/66
4/67
10/67
10/67
1/68
1/68
1/68
9/68
10/68
6/69
10/69
1/71
10/71
Date tfictioh
7/66 Mental Health
10/66 Beach Maintenance
(Park & Recreation)
Nieipalty #,.._of 0Yee4
State 10
Miami Beach
10/66 Tax Collection Miami
" Miami Beach
10/66 Tax Assessment Miami
Coral Gables
North Miami
South Miami
111
it
Fire
Soar Park
Neighborhood Rehab.
Bridge Operations
Housing Authority
Arterial Streetlighting
Stockade
Fire
Trade Standards
Motor Vehicle Insp.
Fire
E.O.P.I.
Motor Vehicle Insp.
Miami
Miami
Miami
Miami
Florida City
Miami
North Miami
North Miami
Federal
Miami
10
3
1
14
15
26
163
31
3
4
4
42
640
it-
w
E=3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Date
LCt1Oh
10/71 Fire
10/71 Fire Hay Harbour Islands 7
11/71 Library Miami 220
5/72 Jai1 Miami 42
10/72 Municipal Court (Penal Section) Miami 13
10/72 Motor Vehicle Insp. Hialeah 13
10/72 Fire North Bay Village 6
10/72 Fire Opa-Locka 14
3/73 Fire Surfside 7
4/73 Water & Sewer Authority Miami 460
/74 Voter Registration All Municipal Elections
10/74 Motor Vehicle Insp. Miami Shores
1/75 Library Homestead
7/75 Water & Sewer Sweetwater
10/75 Fire Department Miami Shores
10/75 Fire Department City of Sweetwater.
10/75 Bus System Coral Gables
12/76 Motor Vehicle Insp. Florida City
Inspection Stations Homestead
ivitedcipality #,..:o t lfsyees.
Hal Harbor 10
1/77 Courts South Miami
Opa-locka
Coral Gables
A11 Municipal Courts
4
2
6
60
5
E� 4
NOte! The above information is current to April 19, 1978,
Negotiations are currently underway to transfer the
North Miami Beach and Homestead fire protection
functions to bade County,
Source! Dade County Manager's Office,
Division of Managenent Budget
EM1=-
=Mt
Mi=
I
=
=
-sr-
It-
a
APPENDIX F
HIGHLIGHTS OF PREVIOUS REVIEWS
1
F=1
Public„ Administration Service (1554) - Recommendations
included:
(a) Creation of area -wide government in Dade County
for the purposes of perforating those functions
best performed on a regional basis;
(b) Retention of municipal governments to perform
those functions "essentially of local character";
(c) Encouragement of annexing unincorporated urban
areas into existing municipalities or "to seek
incorporation for the provision of their own
services";
(d) Delivery of local services outside incorporated
areas through the financing of user charges or
special service districts;
(e) Election of legislative body chosen at large
from specific representative districts of com-
parable population, plus representative elected
from municipalities which possess at least eight
percent of the metropolitan population - "Thus
both the general public and the cities of suitable
status would be represented in the metropolitan
government";
(f) Development of a local charter to define pattern
of government, duties, responsibilities and
authority of the metropolitan government retaining
the functions and rights of the existing county
F-2
gover1 Ment; and
(g) amendment of the Constitution of the State Of
Florida to provide Eor the "reorgani2ation of
local self-government".
Dade County Metropolitan Study Commission (1971) - Recommenda-
tions included:
(a) Creation of a Strong Mayor form of government;
(b) Combination of district and at -large elected
Commissioners with districts comprising at least
116,000 and not i.o exceed 125,000 people and
at -large elected Commissioners to equal number
of U.S. Congressional seats (3);
(c) Modification of recall petition process;
(d) Establishment of an Office of Public Inquiry
or Ombudsman;
(e) Creation of Service Districts to provide funding
for those local services rendered within its area;
(f) Specification of those regional services to be
provided by the upper -tier Metropolitan government
and those services to be provided exclusively by
the lower -tier (service districts and municipalities)
(g) Creation of a Zoning Review Board to perform an
appellate role.
•
MEC
F-3
MAW
flENNIM
1
1
1
1
t
V
1 University of, Miami/National Science Foundation/ ANt
Project (1g7=76) Findings and conclusions include:
1 (a) City site has more of an influence on functional
integration with Metro than does socio-economic
1
indicators as in ". . . situations of financial
1 exigency, the smaller municipalities have found
it to be more expedient to transfer functions to
1 the county than run the risk of having a tax
increase defeated by the voters at the polls.";
(b) `The net effect of all these factors has been that
1while the integrity of the municipalities has not
been lost, the overall balance of power has
1 definitely shifted to the county.";
(c) The City of Miami is the largest net gainer and
the unincorporated area is the largest net loser
in terms of benefits received versus per capita
income by municipality;
(d) " . . . while the net result of consolidation might
be increased expenditures, in terms of costs per
unit of output, expenditures may actually decline.";
(e) " . . . centralization can reach extreme and in-
efficient levels, where services may suffer from
too much bureaucratization, serial work stoppages
and extreme costs (e.g., New York).";
(f) " . . . exploitation is a phenomenon which affects
central cities differently, and that the govern-
mental role they play in the metropolitan area
determines the extent of the burden placed on it.
C haMber of Commerce/League of Municipalities (1961) - Findings
included:
(a) Dade County could increase its revenue by incor-
porating the unincorporated area producing ap-
proximately $6,500,000 from utility taxes , related
cigarette taxes and increased occupational licenses;
(b) Utility taxes and waste remand charges should be
tapped by local governments as a revenue source
and could be accomplished without "undue burden"
on the taxpayers;
(c) Establishment of the Metropolitan Court has resulted
in a net loss of $640,000 to the municipalities;
(d) "The most significant finding concerned the expend-
iture by the county government for services
of primary and sometimes exclusive benefit to the
residents of the unincorporated area . . . In other
words, the municipal residents pay on the average
$4.28 per year for services which are available
only in the unincorporated areas."
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
11
01
APPENDIX G
DADE COUNTY PER CAPITA
EXPENDITURE COMPARISONS
all a s a a a 11111 al at
DADE cotmrrY
PER CAPITA EXPENDITURE COMPARISON
MAJOR CITIES
1975 - 1975
Selected North
.Functions Miami Hialeah Miami Beach North Miami Coral Gables Miami Beach Others Total All
Police 62.80 46.03 91.21
Fire 37.51 27.78 38.29
Parks 36.90 7.94 105.85
Refuse/Waste 30.24 17.46 31.53
Streets/Highways 13.09 8.73 13.51
Engineering 13.09 - 5.63
Participant & Spectator
Recreation 13.38 6.35 36.04
TOTAL INCLUDING ALL OTHER
369.50 240.23
39.08
20.69
20.69
4.60
13.79
637.02 270.71
Source: State of Florida Local Government Financial Report: 1975-76
99.29 47.62 59.47 62.79
56.74 33.61 10.06 31.01
40.19 I1.2011.89 34.69
44.92 36.41 31.10 2N.99
26.00 5.60 25.61 14.05
4.73 - - 6.58
35.46 - 36.57 I8.60
470.62 461.71
11111111
416.08 390.57
I
APPENDIX H
DADE COUNTY MUNICIPAL
REPRESENTATION
1977
x-1
NM:
Miami
Hialeah
Miami Beach
North Miami
Coral Gables
N. Miami Beach
HoWestead
opalocka
Miami Springs
South Miami
Miami Shores
Sweetwater
West Miami
Florida City
Bay Harbour Island
N. Bay Village
Surfside
Biscayne Park
Virginia Gardens
Bal Harbour
El Portal
Hialeah Gardens
Golden Beach
Medley
Indian Creek
PennSuco
Islandia
DADE COUNTY
bAbE COUNTY
MUNICIPAL REPRESENTATION
1977
Number of
Comibtssfooers
Population
1976
Population per
Cotnmiasioner
4 143,977 85,994
7 126,125 18,017
6 88,850 14,808
4 43,544 10,886
4 42,284 10,571
6 35,736 5,956
6 20;351 3,392
4 13,782 3,446
4 12,722 3,181
4 11,365 2,841
4 9,026 2,255
7 6,655 951
5 5,589 1,118
4 5,181 1,295
6 4,709 784
4 4,389 1,097
4 3,673 918
4 2,642 660
5 2,447 489
4 2,155 539
6 .2,084 347
5 1,002 200
5 875 175
4 557 139
4 89 22
5 51 10
4 8
8 1,449,300 181,163
Sources: Florida League of Cities and Dade County Planning Department
1
APPENDIX I
SERVICE FUNCTION
ASSIGNMENT MODELS
i-1
al
PROPOSED btVisioN OF FuNCI'tONAL RESPoNSiBtt1tY
bttNO.N'METROrot1TAN ANb MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENTS
(As proposed in 1954 by the Public Administration Service)
METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT
MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENTS
Policy
Policies affecting Metropolitan Miami
ormulation
Policies concerning local affairs
Executive
Management of metropolitan government
Management
Management of municipal governments
Planning
Metropolitan planning; technical
assistance to municipalities.
Municipal planning within the framework
of metropolitan plans
Financial Administration
Financial administration for metro- Financial administration for municipal
politan government. governments.
Property assessment and property tax
collection and distribution for
all local governments.
Personnel Administration
Personnel administration for metro-
politan government; technical
assistance to municipalities
Personnel administration for municipal
governments.
Legal
Legal services to metropolitan
government.
Services
Legal services to municipal governments.
Streets and
Development and maintenance of
arterials and major off-
street parking facilities;
construction, maintenance,
cleaning, and lighting of
local roads and streets in
the unincorporated area.
Highways
Construction and maintenance of local
municipal streets and secondary
off-street parking facilities.
Street cleaning and lighting within
corporate limits
Source; Public Administration Service for the Metropolitan Miami Municipal Board
1954.
7-3
PROPOSED DIVISION OF FUNCTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
BETWEEN METROPOLITAN AND MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENTS
Water
Full authority to regulate or operate.
Service
I
Refuse Collection
Refuse collection in the unincorporated
area. 4
Full authority to develop and operate refuse
disposal facilities within the metro-
politan area.
and Disposal
Refuse collection within municipalities.
Light and ower Utilities
Discretionary authority to operate. Discretionary authority to operate.
Regulatory authority in the metropolitan Regulatory authority within municipal
area. boundaries
Health and Welfare
Basic authority to provide uniform health
and welfare programs for metropolitan
area.
Services
Discretionary authority to increase
standards within municipalities
Education, Recreatioi,
Development and administration of a public
education system for Metropolitan Miami.
Development and operation of a metropolitan
system.of major parks.
Administration of a comprehensive library
program for metropolitan area.
and Library Services
Discretionary authority to provide
facilities supplemental to those
of the metropolitan system.
Basic authority for municipal park and
organized recreation programs.
Discretionary authority to provide local
library services.
Law Enforcement
Minimum patrol and traffic control throughout
the metropolitan area; provision of full
patrol services, at cost, in municipalities
which choose to abdicate their basic
authority.
Development and administration of central
training, communications, records, crime
investigation, jail and stockade
facilities and services.
Basic authority to provide full patrol
and traffic control services within
municipalities.
Supplemental police training;maintenance
of local police records; discretionary
authority to investigate crimes
committed within municipalities;
operation of detention cells.
Fire Protection
Development of uniform fire code for
metropolitan area and execution of
minimum fire prevention program.
Development and administration of central
fire training and communications and
services.
Fire fighting on a cost basis within fire
service districts of the unincorporated
area.
Discretionary authority to increase
standards'and to administer
supplemental fire prevention
programs.
Supplemental training for fire
personnel.
Fire fighting within corporate limits.
I-2
PROPOSED btVfstoN off' rd-IONAL RESPONStBtLW1
DETVELN Mt'tkOPoLI1AN AND tti1NtCtPAL GOVERNMENTS
Traffic and
Master traffic engineering plan for
Metropolitan Miami.
Traffic control devices on all arterials
and on local roads and streets
in the unincorporated area.
Development and operation of air, water,
rail, and bus terminals.
Regulation and control and discretionary
authority to operate public
transportation systems.
'transportation
Traffic engineering for local municipal
streets
Traffic control devices on local municipal
streets
Building and
Uniform building and related technical
codes for Metropolitan Miami;
enforcement in unincorporated
area, and review of enforcement in
municipalities.
Examining and licensing of building
contractors.
Development and enforcement of zoning
regulations for unincorporated area.
Zoning
Enforcement of uniform building code and
development and enforcement of more
rigid requirements within municipal
boundaries.
Development and enforcement of municipal
zoning regulations within the
framework of metropolitan land -use plan.
Public Housing, and Urban
Administration of metropolitan housing
authority; technical guidance to
local authorities.
Development and supervision of urban
renovation and conservation programs
for Metropolitan Miami.
Renovation and Conservation
Administration of local housing
authorities.
Local.renovation and conservation within
the framework of metropolitan programs.
•
Flood Control and
Cooperation and liaison with federal
and regional agencies.
Development and maintenance of subsidiary
works including major storm sewerage
systems. .
Construction and maintenance of local storm
drains in special assessment districts
of unincorporated area.
Surface Drainage
Construction and maintenance of local
drainage facilities within
municipal boundaries. ,
Sanitary Sewerage
Full authority to regulate or operate I
and Sewage Disposal
1
7-3
1
1
1
a
1
1
PROPOSED DIVISION OF FUNCTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
BETWEEN METROPOLITAN AND MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENTS
Water Service
Pull authority to regulate or operate. I
Refuse Collection
Refuse collection in the unincorporated
area. '
Full authority to develop and operate refuse
disposal facilities within the metro-
politan area.
and Disposal .
Refuse collection within municipalities.
Light and over Utilities
Discretionary authority to operate. Discretionary authority to operate.
Regulatory authority in the metropolitan Regulatory authority within municipal
area, boundaries
Health and Welfare
Basic authority to provide uniform health
and welfare programs for metropolitan
area.
Services
Discretionary authority to increase
standards within municipalities
•
Education, Recreation,
Development and administration of a public
education system for Metropolitan Miami.
Development and operation of a metropolitan
system.of major parks.
Administration of a comprehensive library
program for metropolitan area.
and Library Services
Discretionary authority to provide
facilities supplemental to those
of the metropolitan system.
Basic authority for municipal park and
organized recreation programs.
Discretionary authority to provide local
library services.
Law Enforcement
Minimum patrol and traffic control throughout
the metropolitan area; provision of full
patrol services, at cost, in municipalities
which choose to abdicate their basic
authority.
Development and administration of central
training, communications, records, crime
investigation, jail and stockade
facilities and services.
Basic authority to provide full patrol
and traffic control services within
municipalities.
Supplemental police training;maintenance
of local police records; discretionary
authority to investigate crimes
committed within municipalities;
operation of detention cells.
Fire Protection
Development of uniform fire code for
metropolitan area and execution of
minimum fire prevention program.
Development and administration of central
fire training and communications and
services.
Fire fighting on a cost basis within fire
service districts of the unincorporated
area.
Discretionary authority to increase
standards and to administer
supplemental fire prevention
programs.
Supplemental training for fire
personnel.
Fire fighting within corporate limits.
I-4
Abt.tsoRY CoMMitnt IOR iNtERGOVERNMENTAL RELAT.tbNS
HYPOTHRTtCAL ASSIGNMENT FOR COMPONENTS
OF FUNCTtONAC ACTIVITIES
Activity/Component Areawide Shared Leal
PLANNING
Intelligence X
Forecasting x
Plan Formulation
Operations Review
Liaison/Coordination x
N
FINANCING
Revenue Raising
Revenue Distribution x
Fiscal Control
Budgeting
STAFFING
Selection
Recruitment
Training
Appointment/Removal
ADMINISTRATION
Supervision
Management Analysis
Productivity Analysis
Technical Assistance
STANDARD SETTING
Formulation of Rules
Rule Interpretation
Rule Adjudication
Rule Evaluation
Rule Amendment
Rule Enforcement
ENFORCEMENT
Investigation
Inspection
Licensing
Certification
SERVICE DELIVERY
Operations
Construction
INFORMATION
Record -Keeping
Communication
Data Collection
Reporting
Public Relations
EVALUATION
Fact -Finding
Public Hearings
Testing/Analysis
Consultation
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x•
x
Source: ACIR Tabulation DA-45 Vol. IV Continual Functions & Processes
Local 6 Areawide
r
1
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
APPENDIX J
DADE COUNTY
REVENUE ANALYSIS
(slr$IP1III11IU!°i01111 .11111i'1I01,1110lyeolIitlm 1111 11111$111111111
111(ll I'iI'!II ! .I111 ,, Il,ij
DADS fOrNry MUNICIPALITIES
Revrzur. ANALYSIS
1976
(S 000,000)
OTHE& ALL
MIAMI HIALEAH MIAMI BEACH NORTH MIAMI CORAL CABLES N.M.BPACH HOXESTEAD M[1iICIPALITIEs MUNICIPALITIES
REVENUE SOURCE
$ $ $ $ $
;cal Property tax 36.5 5.0 18.8 3.3 4.7
Utility Service Tax 12.7 3.2 3.1 1.6 2.4
State Shared revenue 12.0 4.5 3.0 1.5 1.4
Fe:cral Shared Revenue 8.7 1.4 1.4 0.3 0.4
3tver Federal Revenue 5.6 1.9 1.6 0.2 1.4.
Interest Earnings on Investments 5.0 0.5 0.8 0.3 1.7
Franchise Taxes 4.7 1.3 2.0. 1.6 1.1
Mibcrllaneous
- Water 4 Sever Combined 0 5.2 .4.2 3.7 0
•- Whet 0 .3 0 C 0
- Sewer 0 0 0 0 0.8
- Refuse 0 1.2 0.9 0.4 0.6
I. All Other 15.6 2.6 7.3 0.2 3.6
2' Total 100.8 27.1 43.1 13.1 19.1
NOTES:
5 S
3.2 1.1
1.2 0.I
1.3 0.8
0.4 0.2
0.1 0.2
0.2 0.4
1.2 0.0
3.9
1.2
0.6
0.4
0
0.3
. 0.2
0.3
12.7";
13.7 16.3
1. .:.•.elusive of Non -Revenue Receipts
2. Summation will vary from TOTAL within 1.01 due to rounding
3. 9ouestead has a unique form of ownership of the local hospital for which $4.6 million in receipts were reported.
The health function is normally provided by the county as it is in e11 other Dade runicipalitiee. Further. Homestead
has the only municipally-ocned electric system in Dade which accounts for $7.2 million in receipts. These two unique.
revenue sources total $11.8 million.
Stescce: State of rlorida Local Government Financial Report Fiscal Iear 1975-76
111,107111107Ill,
I� I,LIIII
1w11IIlE lI�';i�ifili���717�
i� 11'
wl.
l!'I11I1
l
I
�I II ll'III !
7.8
1.9,
3.3
0.8
3.3'
I.2
0.3
4.4
0.2
I.8
1.8
3.0
4.4
82.5
26.2
26.8
13.7T
LILY
10.1
1Y.T.
46.8 (1%
13.1
6.3
4.0
7.0
46.8
30.0 263.2
t.
i d' 4::: SOG:Ca
i.•".,: !'raperty TJx
1,.1it; Se:aice Tax
.. ate Sn•:.•1 Revenue
i.•.i.•r..l Shared Sevenue
r.deral Revenue
lrt.rca Farntr.;.c on Investments
rt.-I.:'..ise Tapes
..^runs
- Vatr t Sower Combined
- Later
- Stuer
- f it.St
1. Alt 0rter
.J1.1
MIAHI
DARE COUNTY MU::ICiFA:.ITIZS
FEV1::.Cw ANA:XS:S
(PERCENT OF COUNTY TOTAL).
1976
HIALF.11! MIA.MI BEACH NORTH MIAMI CORAL CABLES
1 .. 2 Z
36.2 18.4 43.6 23.1 35.0
12.5 11.8 7.1 12.2 12.5
11.9 16.6 6.9 11.4 7.3
8.6. 5.1 3.2 2.2 2.0
5.5 7.0 3.7 1.5 2.0
4.9 1.8 1.8 2.2 8.9
4.6 4.7 4.6 12.2 5.7
15.4
1:0.0
Exclusive of Non -Revenue Receipts
19.2 9.7 26.2
1.1
4.4
9.5
10C.0
2. Summation will vary from TOTAL within 101 due to rounding
2.0
' 16.9
100.0
4.1
3.0 3.1
1.5 18.8
100.0 100.0
lizmeste.td iiva a unique form cf oonership of the local hospital for which $4.6 million in receips were reported.
V-e health Sanction is normally provided by the county as It is in all. other Dade municipalities. Further.
h.c.stead has tLe only municipally -owned electric system in Dade which accounts for $7.2 million In receipts.
7he.e two unique revenue sources total $11.8 million.
3aurcc: State of Florida Local Govern. rt Financial Report Fiscal Year 1975-76
• A
8
OTHcc`, ALL
H.1:.B£ACH HO/1=2AD MUNICIPALITIES KINICLPALLTLC£"
Z 2
23.3 6.7 26.3 31.1
8.7 0.6 6.3 9-9,
9.4 4.9 11.0 10.1
2.9 1.2 3.0 5.2
0.7 1.2 11.0 5.0
1.4 2.4 4.0 3.6:
8.7 0 .0' 4.6
O 0.4 5.0
28.5 1.8 6.0 2.Y.
6.7 1.2 b.Q 1'.S
4.3 1.8 I0.E 2.6
2.9 77.9 (3} 14.6 17.7
100.0 100.0 100.0 106.W
m M In a IIIa a a
ttm^�u".SI�IIIfl�l91 �I'EII!�II I' III
1 111I l l l 1 g l 111 11111 II I
II
II11111ililll1 I
IIII
II�IpI,I I�
III,III1I1I!I! II
Il ill! I I
II
IP�III�,I, III III
II
�fl
Imp;
L
II�III
III �! plllll
I I
III II
III
uudl
I
II
III
I, II �I II I II I� I II I I IIIL I
�%II1��I,1�11,,�61 �N�11 I;III,L I I I �, I II. I ICI I �� II I� A�,I�II � I�
1
J'63
•
btbt COUNTY
ktVtNtit AN LYS1S
1976
($ 0000000)
bade Total A11
County Municipalities
($ 000,000) ($ 0000000)
Revenue Category
s 2 $ x
Property Tax 151.7 23.7 82,5 31.3
Utility Service Tax 23,0 '3.5 26.2 9.9
Federal Grants 95.3 14,8 13,3 5.0
Federal Shared Revenue 16.5 2.5 13.7 5.2
State Grants 12.2 1.9 1.5 0.5
State Shared Revenue 39.9 6.2 26.8 10.1
Charges for Services
- Transportation 69.8 10.9 3.7 1.4
- General Government 12.7 1.9 0.5 0.1
- Mental & Physical Health 103.9 16.2 4.5 1.7
- Culture & Recreation 2.3 0.3 8.3 3.1
- Interest on Investment 17.2 2.6 10.1 3.8
Rents 6 Royalties 28.4 4.4 0.4 0.1
Utilities
- Water 18.4 2.8 6.3 2.3
- Water & Sewer Combined - - 13.3 5.0
- Sewer 12.0 1.8 4.0 1.5
- Refuse' 12.5 1.9 ' 7.0 2.6
Franchise Taxes 6.7 1.0 12.3 4.6
All Other 17.5 2.7 28.8 10.9
TOTAL REVENUE RECEIPTS 640.0 263.2
Source: State of Florida Local Government Finance Fiscal Year 1975-76
1
1
1
1
f
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
BIBLIOGRAPHY
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
1
I3II3LIOG12APiiY
Books
haldirlgUr, Stanley, Planning and (overnin The_Mt.lr2pplii:
The Twin Cities Experieticc, NeW Yore, 1971
Bollens, J.C., and Henry J. Schmandt, The Metropolis Its
People, Politics and Economic Life, New York, 1965.
Feldman, Lionel D., and Goldrick, Michael D., Politics and
Government of Urban Canada: Selected Readings (Third
Edition), Methuen Publications, Toronto, 1976.
Public Administration Service, The Government
politan Miami, Chicago, Illinois, 1954.
Zimmerman, J.F., Government of the Metropolis
ings, New York, 1968.
Selected Read-
United States
Government Publications
Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, Alter-
native Approaches to Governmental Reorganization in Metro-
politan Areas, WDC, USGP , June 1962.
City Financial Emergencies: The Intergovernmental
Dimension, WDC, USGP , July 1973.
. Factors Affecting Voter Reactions to Governmental
Reorganization in Metropolitan Areas, Washington, D.C.,
U.S. Government Printing Office, May, 1962.
. Fiscal Balance in the American Federal System,
Volume 1 and 2 (Metropolitan Fiscal Disparities), ACIR,
Washington, 1967.
. Governmental Functions and Processes: Local and
Areawide,Volume IV, ACIR, Washington, 1967.
. Performance of Urban Functions: Local and Area -
wide, Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office,
September, 1963.
. The Challenge of Local Governmental Reorganization,'
WDC, USGP , February, 1974.
City of Miami, Annual Financial Report Year Ended
September 30, 1976, Miami, Florida, 1976.
WiL
of Metro
2 -
•
budget .EstiMates., 1977=78, Miami, September 191/,
Miattti Comprehensive Neighborhood plain 1976-1986,
M� t , October, 1976.
Council for Economic Development, Reshaping Government in
Metropolitan Areas, New York, The Council, 1970.
Dade County, Proposed Budget Metropolitan Dade County 1977-
1978, Miami, 1977.
Florida Advisory Council on Intergovernmental Relations,
State Mandates in Florida, Tallahassee, Florida, March, 1978.
Florida Advisory Council on Intergovernmental Relations,
The Double Taxation Issue, Tallahassee, Florida, March, 1978.
Metropolitan Dade County, Annual Financial Report Fiscal
Year Ended September 30, 1976, Dade County, 1976.
Metropolitan Dade County Planning Department, Comprehensive
Development Master Plan for Metropolitan Dade County, Miami,
March, 1975.
Sofen, Edward, The Miami Metropolitan Experiment, Blooming-
ton, Illinois, 1963.
State of Florida, Local Government Financial Report: Fiscal
Year 1975-76, Tallahassee, Florida, March, 1977.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Regional
Government Arrangements in Metropolitan Areas: Nine Case
Studies, Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office,
January, 1974.
Canadian and British Government
Publications
Archer, William, Niagara Region Study Review Commission,
1975-1977, Toronto, Queen's Printer, 1977.
Goldenberg, H. Carl, Report of the Royal Commission on
Metropolitan Toronto, Toronto, Queen's Printer, June, 1965.
Government of Manitoba, Proposals for Urban Reorganization
in the Greater Winnipeg Area, Winnipeg, Queen's Printer,
June, 1974.
Jones, Murray V. and Paterson, Donald M., Final Report
and Recommendations: Ottawa, Eastview and Carleton County,
MEW
WOJS
MEW
IMO
PO
ale
Kates, Peat, Marwick and Co., Oshawa Area Planning and
bevelopment Study, Toronto, Queen's Printer, May, 1970.
Mayo, H.B., Report of the Ottawa Carleton Review Commission,
Toronto, Queen's Printer, 1976.
P.S. Ross and Partners, Public Safety Services in Metro--
politan Toronto: A Background Report to the Royal Commission
on Metropolitan Toronto, Queen's Printer, April, 1975.
Plunkett, T.J., Peel -Halton Local Government Review, Toronto,
Queen's Printer, 1966.
Redcliffe-Maud, The Right Honourable Lord, Royal Commission
on Local Government in England 1966-1969, Volume 1, London,
England, June, 1969.
Robarts, J., and W.D. McKeough, Design for Development
Phase Two, Queen's Printer, Toronto, 1968.
Robarts, John P., Report of the Royal Commission on Metro-
politan Toronto, Volumes I and II, Toronto, June, 1977.
Smith, L.T., Ontario Committee on Taxation Report, Queen's
Printer, Toronto, 1967, Vol. II, Chapter 23.
Steele, D.R., Hamilton -Burlington -Wentworth Local Government
Review, Toronto, Queen's Printer, November, 1969.
Reports, Periodicals, Papers
Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, Inter-
governmental Perspectives, Vol. 14, No. 1, February, 1978.
Council of Planning Librarians Exchange Bibliography, The
Unanswered Question: How Does Metropolitan Governmental
Reorganization Affect Municipal Service Delivery?,
Monticello, Illinois, September, 1977.
Dade County Metropolitan Study Commission, Report and
Recommendations of the. Dade County Metropolitan Study Com-
mission, Miami, June, 1971.
Glendenning, P.N., The Metropolitan Dade County Government;
An Examination of Reform, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1967.
Gusteley, Richard C., The Allocational and Distributional
Impacts of Governmental Consolidation - The Dade County
Experience, Urban Affairs Quarterly, Vol. 12, No. 3, March,
1977.
IFi
MINIM
mow
•
•
4
I,aWrehce, DaVid M. , and Turnbull lll, t . Rutherford, UnigoV:_
City=Council_,ConsOiidation in Indianapolis, Popular Govern-
lent magazine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill,
November, 1569.
Legislative Research Commission, City -County Consolidation:
Research Report No. 64, Frankfort, Kentucky, December, 1971.
Martin, Richard, A Summary of Consolidation: Jacksonville -
Duval County, Convention Press, Jacksonville, 1968.
National Association of Counties - New County U.S.A. Center,
Consolidation: Partial or Total, National Association of
Counties, 1973.
Price, Waterhouse & Co., A Study of City and County Con-
solidations, Memphis, Tennessee, May, 1977.
Resources for the Future Inc., Reform of Metropolitan
Governments, Washington, D.C., 1972.
Wood, T.J., and Edward Sofen, Municipal Finance in Dade
County for the Fiscal Year 1960, Municipal Research
Department, University of Miami, Coral Gables, 1961.
Wood, T.J., R.P. Stiefbold and G. Kingsbury, Metropolitan
Federalism: An Evaluation of The Dade Experiment in
Governmental Reform, Volumes II and III, Coral Gables,
Florida, University of Miami, May, 1976.