Item F1
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGRNT')A I'rRM SUMMARY
TIME REQUESTED
1 : 30 P . m . /Mar . 16
Meeting Date: Marr.h lS-16, /.000
Division:
ROCC
Bulk Item: Yes
No X
Department: DjRt.r;r.t. S
AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Approval of a resolution of the BOCC recognlzlng the
need to split the budget of the Monroe County Sheriff for Fiscal Year 2000-
2001 to provide separate millages for the cost of services that benefit only
unincorporated Monroe County residents from the cost of services that provide
a benefit countywide; authorizing staff to take all steps necessary to create
a funding mechanism (MSTU, MSBU, MSTD) or- to utilize existing districts to
reflect the millage split; and providing an effective date.
ITEM BACKGROUND: Key West and Islamorada have repeatedly petitioned the
BOCC to split Sheriff's millage between the cost of services that benefit
only unincorporated Monroe County from the cost of services that provide
a benefit countywide. SEE ATTACHED BACKUP MATERIAL.
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION: BOCC voted on July 21, 1999 not to expand
the authorized uses of the countywide MSTU district to include law
enforcement. On June 10, 1999, the BOCC passed a motion asking the Sheriff
to separate the law enforcement portion of his budget between those services
that are countywide in nature from those services that are considered
unincorporated area municipal policing.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
TOTAL COST:
BUDGETED: Yes
No
COST TO COUNTY:
REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes
No
AMOUNT PER MONTH
YEAR
APPROVED BY: County Attorney
x
OMB/Purchasing
Risk Mgt.
DIVISION DIRECTOR APPROVAL:
)Jz ~ ~~
:~l (i~ tur") -. ,
A H. 1 ner
DOCUMENTATION: Included
X
To follow:
Not required:
DISPOSITION:
Agenda Item #
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, RECOGNIZING THE NEED TO SPLIT
THE BUDGET OF THE MONROE COUNTY SHERIFF FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2000-2001 TO PROVIDE SEPARATE MILLAGES FOR THE COST
OF SERVICES THAT BENEFIT ONLY UNINCORPORATED MONROE
COUNTY RESIDENTS FROM THE COST OF SERVICES THAT PROVIDE
A BENEFIT COUNTYWIDE; AUTHORIZING STAFF TO TAKE ALL STEPS
NECESSARY TO CREATE A FUNDING MECHANISM (MSTU, MSBU,
MSTD) OR TO UTILIZE EXISTING DISTRICTS TO REFLECT THE
MILLAGE SPLIT; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Monroe County Sheriff's Office (the "MCSO" ) is funded through ad
valorem taxes collected countywide through the Monroe County FIne and ForfeIture
Fund; and
WHEREAS, the Sheriff provides services that fall within the categories of law
enforcement, corrections and court services; and
WHEREAS, while corrections and court services provide a benefit countywide, a
portion of the "law enforcement" related services provide a benefIt only to
unincorporated areas of the county; and
WHEREAS, the cities of Key West and ISlamorada, Village of Islands petitioned the
SOCC to create a funding mechanism that would separate the cost of those law
enforcement services that provide a benefit solely to the residents of unincorporated
Monroe County ( unincorporated area municipal policing) from those services that
provide a benefit countywide; and
WHEREAS, in response to a motion of the Board of County Commissioners on June
10, 1999, asking the Sheriff to separate the law enforcement portion of his budget.
between those services that are countywide in nature from those services that are
considered unincorporated area municipal policing the MCSO determined that 25%
of the MeSO law enforcement category budget for the current fiscal year would be
utilized for unincorporated area municipal policing; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Monroe County Fiscal Year 1999-2000 budget created a
fund ( fund 149 ) fo~ unincorporated area municipal policing; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners on July, 21, 1999, voted not to
expand the authorized ,uses of the .existing-countywide MSTU district to include law
enforcement, and therefore not implement the splitting of the MCSO budget between
those services that are countywide in natblre from those services that are considered
unincorporated area municipal policing; and
WHEREAS, other mechanisms exist to implement the splitting of the MCSO budget
between those services that are countywide in nature from those services that are
considered unincorporated area municipal policing;
Now therefore, it is herecy,;re9Olved by the Board Of County Commissioners c:t
Monroe coUnty, FlorIda:
Sectioll-1" That starting with Fiscaf Year ~OOO-200'f, the Board of County
Commissioners will recognize a separation of the MeSO bUdget for "Law
Enforcemenr services, SUch that a minimum of 25% Of the budget WiU be
reflected in a separate millage category for unincorporated area municipal
policing.
SecttOn 2. Thar the Board of County Commissioners shall 8lther utn'ze an
eXiSting"fi1nlf{n'g m~n:tAftra~lTras-aothortzed''bY
Florida Statutes to use as a vehicle to fund the cost of providing law
enfoc'ceinem serViCii'That are consicler~ lIunincorporatea 'area 'muniCipal- "
policing. "
Saet~p 3.. That me county staff and county attorney are directed to take aU
necessary steps to timely create any fUnding mechanisms ( taxing distrIct,
benefit unit, speefaf. district) necessary to 'utlrrze tor the collection r:l these funds
for Ffscal Year 2000-2001 and to mget any applicable statutory deadflnes.
. -
Sectkm ~ .That for future budgetary forecasting by the munidpantles located
within the county as well as the MesO's bUdget, the county attorney is directed
to present an interfOcal. agreement to the. muniCipalities that reflects.the. COunty's
direction to take the action for Fiscal Year.200Q-2001. '. :.:.
Passed ano Adopted by the Board of County Commisioners
of Monroe County, Ronda, at a meeting of said.. .
Board held of the _ . day of __ '. I 2000.
Mayor WilhelmIna Harvey
Commissioner Shiney Freeman ,
Comm;S$ioner George Neugent
COmmissioner Mary Kay Reich
CommiSSioner.Nora WUJiams .
~ .'
..
( SEAl)
Attest. t?~nny L f(O'hage~ q~ .
By
Clerk
BOard or Co~ eoinmlssloners
. of. Monroe. County. .F.1orida
.By
. MayWlChairman
TOTAL P. 93
. Do\Te
~.
Exhibits for the;
Resolution recognizing the need to split the budget of the Monroe County Sheriff for
Fiscal Year 2000-2001 to provide separate millages for the cost of services that benefit
only the unincorporated area of Monroe county from the cost of services that provide a
benefit countywide:
Exhibit A. Resolution from Key West to the Board of County Commissioners
( BaCC).
Exhibit B. Resolution from Islamorada, Village of Islands to the BaCC.
Exhibit C. Minutes of June 10, 1999 vote by BaCC directing Sheriff to split his
budget.
Exhibit D. Proposed Fiscal Year 2000 Monroe County Budget pages; xiii, xvi, 21,
50,84, and 99.
Exhibit E. Minutes of July 21, 1999 vote by BaCC not to expand authorized uses of
the countywide MSTU district.
Exhibit F. Monroe County Code Article V. Section 2-235 to 248, in particular
Sec. 2-235 and 2-243; describing already existing municipal
service taxing or benefit districts that contain law enforcement as an
authorized use.
!
-
FKAA
1D:305-296-3348
JAN 22'99
15:39 No.014 P.Ol
, '0'~
~ / {fA RB80LUTZ::S::V:::N ::~y ~::eBXON OF TNE
f) O' , CIT~ OF KEY WEST, rLoRID~, URGINQ KONROE
~ t. COUKTY TO ADOPT A ~ULL COST AL~OC1TxoN
Y~Y APPROACH !O DBTBRMtXING COS~ OF SERVICES ~D
" APPROPRIATE XILLAGB Fea TH! SHERIrp"S
DZPARTKBMT ~ otH~ DEPARTMENTS IN RBLATXON
~n MONRoe COUH~~'S KUNICIPALXTX~S: PROVIDING
.OP. Nt lJ'rlle-tXn DATI
6.xhi b,4-
A
WHEREAS, tor. ~Avarftl years, the city of ~ey West and o~her
~uniolpalitiog loc.~~An ~n Monroe county have express~d their
concorn to th. r.nunt.y about the1ssue of double taxation w1th
rQ~poct to the Sh~~iff'A Op-partrnent: and
WHEREAS, tho Vlll~9Q of Isl~mo~^da ~nd th~ City of Key West
havo onqaqGd in n4qotiation~ w1~h MnnrnA county 1n order tu avoid
litigation; and
~ow, THEREFOR~, BE IT RESOLVHO BY THE CITY cnMNT~~TON OF ~HF.
CITY OF KEY W2ST, FLORID^, AS FOLLOWS:
~_cction 1:
Th~t Monroo County ie her$by U~9Qd to adopt a
full ~05t alloCAtion ~pproooh to d~torminin9 ooot of corviooa ~nd
appropridte ~illAqe for th~ Chcritt'o Dop3rtmont .nd othor
departments through the G&nernl Fund in ~clQ~ion to Monroo County'c
munlclVdll U:ett .
Stt~'t.lun ~;
That Monroe C01.\nty is hereby etro)'\~ly urqcd to
resolvQ It~ ~uu~l~ t~x4tion probl$m no l^t~p than the flsoal yoo~
1999-2000 bU~9~t.
FKAA
IlJ:jU~-L':::lo-jj4~
JHN ZZ''::l'::l
1~;4U Np.U14 ~.U~
t=. y ~'\\~ )~ A
section ~:
Thnt this Resolution IiJhall go into effect
imme~iately upon it$ passage and adoption and authentio~tion by the
signatute of the presiding officer and the Clerk or the Commission.
PasBed and adopted by tha clty Commission at a meeting held
t.his __" 20rh
day of
.TJlftllA r.y
, 1999.
Authenticated ~y the presir;ling ott1cer and clerk of the
COMmission on _..
_~, 1999.
Filed with the Clgrk
, 1999.
...
SHEILh K. MULLINS, MhYOn
A'I'TJ:ST:
JOOE~lrINE rAnKEn, crT~ CLERK
" .
E:)<h;b.:t
9
--
"te ..
RESOLUTION NO. 99-Q3-09
A RESOLUTION OF ISLAMORADA, VILLAGE OF
ISLANDS, FLORIDA, PETITIONING MONROE COUNTY,
FLORIDA, TO DEVELOP AN APPROPRIATE
MECHANISM FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999-2000, TO
FINANCE LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES RENDERED
SPECIALLY FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PROPERTY OR
RESIDENTS OF UNINCORPORATED AREAS AND
FINANCED FROM COUNTYWIDE REVENUES OR TO
RElliT TO ISLAMORADA, VILLAGE OF ISLANDS,
FLORIDA THE IDENTIFIED COST OF LA W
ENFORCEMENT SERVICES PAID FROM REVENUES
REQUIRED TO BE EXPENDED ON A COUNTYWIDE
BASIS, AS SPECIFICALLY SET FORTH IN SECTION
125.01(6) (a), FLORIDA STATUTES; AND PROVIDING
FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, Article VIII, Section 1(h) of the Florida Constitution, prohibits the
taxation of property within a municipality for those services rendered by a county exclusively
for the benefit of the property or residents in unincorporated areas; and
WHEREAS, Section 125.01(7), Florida Statutes, prohibits county governments from
expending county revenues, except those derived specifically from or on behalf of a municipal
service taxing unit, special district, unincorporated area, service area, or program area, to fund
any service or project provided by the county when no real benefit accrues to the property or
residents within a municipality or municipalities; and
WHEREAS, Section 125.01(6)(a), Florida Statutes, authorizes the governing body of a
municipality to petition the board of county commissioners to develop an appropriate
mechanism to finance services or programs rendered specially for the benefit of the property or
(: r-k', s: 1- ~
.... .
residents in unincorporated areas and fmanced from countywide revenues or to remit to the
municipality, the identified cost of service paid from revenues required to be expended on a
countywide basis that was expended on services or programs rendered specially for the benefit
of the property or residents in unincorporated areas.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE VILLAGE
COUNCIL OF ISLAMORADA, VILLAGE OF ISLANDS, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
Pursuant to Section 125.0 1 (6) (a) , Florida Statutes, the Village Council
requests the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County, Florida (the "County") to
identify those law enforcement programs or services provided by the Monroe County Sheriff
that specifically benefit property or residents in unincorporated Monroe County and are
financed from countywide revenues.
Section 2.
Pursuant to Section 125.01(6)(a), Florida Statutes, the Village Council
petitions the County to develop an appropriate mechanism for fiscal year 1999-2000, to finance
law enforcement services or programs rendered specially for the benefit of the property or
residents in unincorporated areas that are currently financed from countywide revenues or to
remit the identified cost of law enforcement services paid from revenues required to be
expended on a countywide basis to the Village within six months of the adoption of the County
budget in the proportion specified in Section 125.01(6)(a), Florida Statutes, or by any other
method prescribed by law.
2
l:: ~'" \ S ,Ot- 'S.1
Section 3.
Pursuant to Section 125.01 (6) (b) , Florida Statutes, the Village Council
requests the County to respond to this petition within 90 days as required by law.
Section 4.
This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption hereof.
PASSED AND ADOPTED on this 2.i day of March, 1999.
/
A TrEST:
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
LEGA SUFFICIENCY:
..
436001\resolutions\law enforcement financing
3
{:)( hi b'd' C.
(":
99/220
MINUTES
OF THE MONROE COUNTY _
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
j .
Regular Meeting
Board of County Commissioners
.Thursday. June 10. 1999
Marathon, Florida
; / ',:
A Regular Meeting of the Monroe County Board of County
Commissioners convened at 9:00 A.M., on the above date, at the
Marathon Government Center. Present and answering to roll call
were Commissioner Shirley Freeman, Commissioner George Neugent,
Commissioner Mary Kay Reich, Commissioner Nora Williams and Mayor
Wilhelmina Harvey. Also present were Danny L. Kolhage, Clerk;
Isabel C. DeSantis, Deputy Clerk; James T. Hendrick, County
Attorney; James Roberts, County Administrator; County Staff,
members of the press and radio; and the general public. ,
All stood for the Invocation and Pledge of Allegiance.
ADDITIONS, CORRECTIONS, DELETIONS
(;.-
There were no Additions, Corrections or Deletions to
the Agenda.
I
I '-
PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD
Attorney Tom Wright, representing the park~ and
Recreation Advisory Board addressed the Board concerning a
request that the Board consider an offer by Pepsi Cola
Corporation to provide electronic scoreboards for. Key Largo
Community Park and Harry Harris Park in exchange for the
exclusive marketing of "Pepsi" soft drink produc'ts. Motion was
made by Mayor Harvey and seconded by Commissioner Williams
directing Staff ~o begin the competitive bid process based on the
offer from the Pepsi Cola Corporation. After further
discussion, the maker of the motion accepted an amendment that
advertisement be for a pure water product. Roll call vote was
unanimous.
Mr. Wright addressed the Board. Motion was made by
Commissioner Freeman and seconded by Commissioner Williams to
accept the recommendation from the Parks and Recreation Advisory
Board for Staff to prepare a cost analysis for the installation
of a boardwalk at Coco Plum Beach. ,Motion carried unanimously.
~ ..~ ...
"" . t,
K Q-. -....J '\.. ~ \ (J) "'<'...
i: : "1
'~'\\" "
I.
I\.'
I
JUL - I 1999
't I'
:1
" \ ,i
."..... r.
(7'"
\ ':" .'.
E)(,' h \ 6 it c..
. ,
;; ..;:
1L.;',l
_... J _I
I
.9/226
'.
an agenda item is called). This would allow members of the
public to speak on a item even if they do not have time to be
called. After Board discussion, motion was made by Commissioner
Freeman and seconded by Commissioner Neugent granting approval of
the item. Roll call vote was taken with the following results:
Commissioner Freeman Yes
Commissioner Neugent No
Commissioner Reich Yes
Commissioner Williams No
Mayor Harvey No
Motion failed.
Commissioner Freeman discussed her appointments to the
Affordable Housing Task Force. Commissioner Freeman appointed
Danise ItDee Deelt Henriquez and Ginna Thomas Drake. Motion was '*
made by Commissioner Freeman and seconded by Commissioner Neugent
to approve two (2) at-large members: Mike proimos of Key West and
Barbara Kneel of Lower Matecumbe. Roll call vote was unanimous.
Mr. Robert~ discussed Board direction concerning the goals of the
committee.
j
i'
Commissioner Neugent and Mr. Hendrick discussed
Personal Watercraft zones of inclusion. The Board took no
official action.
Commissioner Williams discussed with the Board a Water
Quality Lab in Monroe County. Motion was made by Commissioner
Williams and seconded by Commissioner Neugent to adopt the
following Resolution requesting a water quality lab here in the
Keys at the state's expense. Roll call vote was unanimous.
RESOLUTION NO. 265-1999
See Res. Book No. 142 which is' incorporated herein by reference.
MONROE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
Mr. Roberts and John Carter, Senior Director _ Office
of Management & Budget discussed with the Board options for the
possible sharing of capital costs for the detention facility on
Stock Island, the collection and distribution of the
infrastructure sales tax, and other discussions of the Sheriff's
budget and millage as determined by the County Commission.
Sheriff Richard D. Roth and Councilman Ron Levy representing
ISlamorada, Village of Islands addressed the Board. IMotion was
made by Commissioner Williams and seconded by Commissioner
Neugent to breakout municipal POlicing along the lines as
recommended by the Sheriff. After consideration, the motion was
" '.
. _I'
'.,,',
~ I I~~
E~~b~ t
99/227
l.'i'
withdrawn. Mr. Roberts, Mr. Hendrick and Mr. Kolhage addressed
the Board. After further di~cussion, motion was made by
Commissioner williams and seconded by Commissioner Reich
requesting the Sheriff to segregate in the '99-2000 budget the
cost of municipal pOlicing, and directing the County Attorney to
prepare and advertise an emergency Ordinance to expand the
purposes of the unincorporated taxing district to include local
law enforcement. Roll call vote was taken with the fOllowing
results:
Commissioner Freeman ,
Commissioner Neugent
Commissioner Reich
Commissioner Williams
Mayor Harvey
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Motion carried.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
.
Mr. Roberts discussed with the Board confirmation of
the Administrator's appointment of Peter Horton to the position
of Director of Airports. Betty Vail addressed the Board. The
Clerk read letters from Thea Ramsey and Dick Rudell. Motion was
made by Mayor Harvey and seconded by Commissioner Freeman
granting approval of the appointment. Roll call vote was taken
with the following results:
Commissioner Freeman Yes
Commissioner Neugent Yes
Commissioner Reich No
Commissioner Williams Yes
Mayor Harvey Yes
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Motion 6arried.
Human Resources Director Sheila Barker and Mr. Roberts
discussed with the Board approval of a merit program for
employees under the Board of County Commissioners. Sally Ferland
addressed the Board. Motion was made by Commissioner Reich and
seconded by Mayor Harvey to adopt the merit program. Roll call
vote was unanimous.
COMMISSIONERS' ITEMS
Commissioner Williams discussed her item concerning a
k
I. '
I'.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
II
-
I
I
II
II
II
II
E ~h"~k\t J:>
. of allocation. . These are districts which will now reimburse the -
. general fund for indirect costs as detenilined by. an outside consultant.
2. Because of the Board's decision, $403,941 has been placed into the
general fund for the purpose of fmancing the Interlocal Agreements
with the School Board. Previously, funds for this purpose were
included within the Unincorporated Parks & Beaches fund. However,
there are schools as part of this program that are in the incorporated
areas and it would not be possible to fund those projects from the
unincorporated district taxes.
3. The Board of County Commissioners determined the policy to provide ~
for a split in law enforcement costs. Based on numbers provided by
the Sheriff , an amount of $4,250,932 for municipal level law
enforcement has been reduced from fund 101 and placed into a new
municipal policinl! district 149. This has the effect of lowering
taxation in the incorporated areas and increasing it over $4 million in
the unincorporated areas. IT WILL BE NECESSARY FOR THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COl\1MlSSIONERS TO PASS AN
ORDINANCE TO IMPLEMENT THIS POLICY.
4. In reference to other appropriations changes, the major areas have
already been discussed. There is a little over an additional $400,000
in the general fund for increases. This constitutes half of the 2.1 %
increase in nearly a $40 million general fund with the other one half
coming from the School Board interlocal funding. In the law
enforcement fund (101), there is a $2.2 million increase which
represents a major portion of the Sheriff's proposed increase for the
year. Actual appropriations are down significantly in Fire District 1
(141) even though the millage will be going up. The same is true in the
Growth Management Municipal Service Taxing District (148).
Unincorporated Parks & Beaches increase in other appropriations
also reflects the need for additional personnel to handle the new Key
Largo Park and the forthcoming Marathon Park.
_5. Total tax impacts clearly show that the general fund (001) and the
Law .Enforcement-Fine and Forfeiture fund (101) are significantly
reduced in taxation. However, the new municipal police fund (149)
shows a major increase in taxation for the unincorporated districts.
The same is true of Fire District 1 (141), Fire District 6 (146), Parks &
Beaches (147), and the Planning MSTD (148).
TABLE #2 puts these dollar changes into a millage format. It shows what the dollar
impacts from TABLE #1 would be for each of the districts and the general fund. In summary,
, combining the two tables, the following is the case.
XVII
I. .,
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
~;
I
b
~,:
I..
~.
I.
l,
t-~.
1
~i ~
{",
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
;G.~h:~~'-+ 1>
The. overall proposed total budget figure for the ~ear. of $244,677,371 is only i l.!~-:-
increase. ($3,266,411) over the adopted IlScal year 1999 budget of $241,410,960. These figures
are the result of various increases and decreases, requirements for increased reserves and
cash balances, and "double counting," which is a side effect of a fund budgeting system. The
following is a listing of proposed appropriations for the coming year. It should be noted that
some of these figures will change during the budget discussions and adoption.
~ 1.
FUND 101- LAW ENFORCEMENT, JAIL, JUDICIAL
This fund shows a decrease of $2,183,201 (5.1 %). However, this is a result of the ~
policy to split the law enforcement millage between County-wide and municipal
services. This fund covers the County-wide services. Municipal policin~ services
are in fund 149 which shows a new $4. 250.932 bud~et.
2. FUND 102 - ROADS
This budget reflects the funds allocated from gas taxes for road and bridge
work. The reduction of $2,080,545 (13.70.10) is a reflection of changes in fund
balance as well as loss of revenue from the incorporation of the Village of
Islamorada and the conservative approach to the potential incorporations of
Marathon, Key Largo or both.
3. FUND 141- FIRE AND Al\1BULANCE DISTRICT ONE
This fund shows a decrease in appropriations of $121,283. This is notable even
though there has been a cost allocation figure attached to the fund of $764,000.
The difference is in the discontinuation of service to the Village of Islamorada
and other eliminations of positions (10 total).. Of course the County will also be
losing the revenue from the Village as a result of the purchase of the service this
year. The overall impact can be seen in this report in discussion of major issues
and millages.
4. FUND 146 - FIRE AND Al\1BULANCE DISTRICT SIX
This fund shows a $145,571 increase (18.10/0), primarily as the result of
$125,009 in cost allocation and the desire to begin a purchasing program for
capital equipment.
5. FUND 147 - UNINCORPORATED PARKS & BEACHES
This fund has increased $708,984 (48.7%). Over half of this amount is the
result of cost allocation with the balance the necessity of additional staff to
provide maintenance to the two new major park facilities under development,
as discussed previously.
6. FUND 148 - MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING DISTRICT
Xlll
Gy~.b:+ D
Appropriation'Summary by Fund
Fund Propoud 00 INC/(DEC) % OlAllce Adopted 99 Actual 98 Adopted 98
001 GENERAL FUND 39,986,864 822,179 2.1% 39,164,685 29,626,011 38,264,451
002 SUPP TO GEN FUND - LIBRARY 2,220,624 843 0.0% 2,219,781 2,009,602 2,008,653
100 AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAMS (F 108,n8 6,180 6.0% 102,598 97,695 150,000
101 LAW ENFORCEMENT, JAIL. JUDICIAL 40,564,515 (2,183,201 ) -5.1% 42,747,716 35,534,876 41,097,674
102 ROADS 13,070,475 (2,080,545) -13.7% 15,151,020 5,107,696 15,035,335
103 LAW LIBRARY 78,225 759 1.0% n,466 76,437 76,633
115 TOC DISTRICT 1 TWO PENNY 3,452,748 542,000 18.6% 2,910,748 1,837,654 2,814,040
116 TOC TWO PENNY GENERIC 5,363,707 (303,482) -5.4% 5,667,189 4,034,281 5,572,818
117 TOC DISTRICT 1 THIRD PENNY 3,353,732 329,936 10.9% 3,023,796 1,535,299 2,955,293
I 118 TDC DISTRICT 2 THIRD CENT 298,631 (33,661) -10.1% 332,292 148,696 298,959
.! 119 TOC DISTRICT 3 THIRD CENT 593,227 (30,62~) -4.9% 623,851 370,645 5-44,030
120 TDC DISTRICT 4 THIRD CENT 841,327 127,700 17.9% 713,627 408,300 633,492
121 TOC DISTRICT 5 THIRD CENT 841,012 (37,422) -4.3% 878,434 455,124 925,793
.; 125 GOVERNMENTAL FUND TYPE GRANT 617,265 (282,735) -31.4% 900,000 1,246,385 600,000
130 IMPACT FEES FUND - ROADWAY 7,322,782 1,667,284 29.5% 5,655,498 58,034 6,803,186
131 IMPACT FEES FUND - PARKS 642,750 58,246 10.0% 584,504 12,971 688,375
. 132 IMPACT FEES FUND - UBRARY 217,400 (189,000) -46.5% 406,400 200,503 206,400
133 IMPACT FEES FUND - SOUD WASTE 179,034 13,032 7.9% 166,002 1n 117,100
134 IMPACT FEES FUND - POUCE 585,543 129,683 28.4% 455,860 15,942 661,750
" 135 IMPACT FEES FUND - FIRE FACIlITIES 191,220 38,738 25.4% 152,482 210 111,695
141 FIRE & AMBULANCE DISTRICT 1 6,627,641 (121,283) -1.8% 6,748,924 4,717,302 6,491,487
142 TRANSLATOR 0 (40,000) -100.0% 40,000 0 0
~. 144 UPPER KEYS TRAUMA CARE DISTRICT 2,695,000 (100,000) -3.6% 2,795,000 324,213 3,300,000
..
. 146 FIRE & AMBULANCE DISTRICT 6 950,433 145,571 18.1% 804,862 501,784 729,335
. I} 147 UNINCORPORATED PARKS & BEACHE 2, 163,925 708,984 48.7% 1,454,941 1,066,614 1,374,109
. . -.j 148 MSTO - PLNGlBLDGlCODEJFIRE MAR 9,375,043 1,063,385 12.8% 8,311,658 6,354,403 8,244,834 -~
)f 149 MUNICIPAL POUCING 4,250,932 4,250,932 nla 0 0 0
: 150 911 ENHANCEMENT FUND 541,974 (312,858) -36.6% 854,832 284,279 767,545
152... DUCK KEY SP.EClAL SEC\.tRIlY DISTRI _ 113,650 0 0.0% 113,650 58,280 114,600
153 LOCAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE TRUST 1,335,680 555,364 71.2% 780,316 274,880 715,538
154 CUDJOE GARDENS MUNICIPAL SVC CU 0 (162,120) -100.0% 162,120 5,904 195,000
155 JOllY ROGER MUNICIPAL SVC CULVE 0 (49,612) -100.0% 49,612 5,132 75,000
II 156 WINSTON WA TERWA YS MUNICIPAL SV 0 (40,000) -100,0% 40,000 65,207 89,700
157 BOATING IMPROVEMENT FUND 503,900 0 0.0% 503,900 142,576 0
158 MISC SPECIAL REVENUE FUND 432,473 432,473 nla 0 0 0
159 FLORIDA KEYS MARINE-MARATHON 180,000 180,000 nla 0 0 0
" 202 1993 REFUNDING IMPROVEMENT BON 0 (626,337) -100.0% 626,337 210,017 551,337
203 1993 REFUNDING IMPROVEMENT BON 1,040,750 0 0.0% 1,040,750 664,587 1,100,250
205 1991 SALES TAX REVENUE BONDS 4,810,600 (95,400) -1.9% 4,906,000 4,503,176 5,100,000
II 206 CLERK'S REV NOTE, DEBT 247,000 145,000 142.2% 102,000 7,221 0
304 ONE CENT INFRA-STRUCTURE SALES 29,467,157 (2,484,091 ) -7.8% 31,951,248 8,994,641 22,760,525
305 1991 SALES TAX REVENUE BONDS. CA 1,270,000 70,000 5.8% 1,200,000 0 1,200,000
II 306 CLERK'S REV NOTE, CAPITAL 0 (162,000) -100.0% 162,000 351,237 0
401 CARD SOUND BRIDGE 5,050,000 (100,000) -1.9% 5,150,000 585,970 5,150,000
<C03 MARATHON AIRPORT - 0 & M 1,268,350 (128,250) -9.2% 1,396,600 622,292 1,322,600
404 KEY WEST AIRPORT - 0 & M 4,714,750 (428,000) -8,3% 5,142,750 2,504,845 4,549,000
II 414 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENTIMSD 21,360,328 678,501 3.3% 20,681,827 15,666,054 2O,4n,288
415 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT - DEB 3,315,000 (40,000) -1.2% 3,355,000 874,835 3,630,000
501 WORKER'S COMPENSATION 3,697,797 547,687 17.4% 3,150,110 1,736,243 2,838,116
502 GROUP INSURANCE 13,052,921 468,958 3.7% 12,583,963 8,481,157 11,671,006
III 503 RISK MANAGEMENT 2,896,705 176,570 6.5% 2,720,135 1,367,400 2,602,091
504'CENTRALSERVlCES 2,341,603 137,027 6.2% 2.204,576 2,319.992 2,418,085
600 LAW ENFORCEMENT TRUST FUND 1,900 0 0.0% 1,900 606,511 1,900
. 602 COURT FACILITIES FEES TRUST FUND 427,250 0 0.0% 427,250 0 427,250
603 CLERK'S DRUG ABUSE TRUST FUND 14,750 0 0.0% 14.750 0 5,900
To"" 'IJA <:17 111 ~7r;r;J11 1..(',(, 141.,(10,960 146.07:\.?ll1l 117,'(611,173
. ~)C\'~h~-\ D
I Revenue Summary by Fund
Propoaecl 00 INC/(DEC) "Ie OUlllCe Adopted 99 Actual 98 Adopted 98
. 001 GENERAL FUND 39,986,864 822,179 2.1% 39,164,685 32,850,131 38,264,451
002 SUPP TO GEN FUND - LIBRARY 2,220,624 843 .0.0% 2,219,781 2,027,060 2,008,653
100 AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRA 108,n8 6,180 6..0% 102,598 24,687 150,000
I 101 LAW ENFORCEMENT, JAIl. JUDIC 40,564,515 (2, 183,201) -5.1% 42,747,716 36,220,114 41,097,674
102 ROADS 13,070,475 (2,080,545) -13.7% 15,151,020 5,851,992 15,035,335
103 u...W UBRARY 78,225 759 1.0% 77,466 65,256 76,633
115 TOC DISTRICT 1 TWO PENNY 3,452,748 542,000 18.6% 2,910,748 2,328,166 2,814,040
. 116 TOC TWO PENNY GENERIC 5,363,707 (303,482) -5.4% 5,667,189 4,740,867 5,sn,818
117 TOC DISTRICT 1 THIRD PENNY 3,353,732 329,936 10.9% 3,023,796 1,957,117 2.955,293
118 TOe DISTRICT 2 THIRD CENT 298,631 (33,661) -10.1% 332,292 187,736 298,959
" 119 TOe DISTRICT 3 THIRD CENT 593,227 (30,624) -4.9% 623,851 413,186 625,518
120 TOC DISTRICT 4 THIRD CENT 841,327 127,,7.0.0 17.9% 713,627 460,688 618,649
121 TOC DISTRICT 5 THIRD CENT 841,012 (37,422) -4.3% 878,434 575,732 859,148
125 .GOVERNMENTAL FUND lYPE GR 617,265 (282,735) -31.4% 900,000 550,198 600,000
. 130 IMPACT FEES FUND - ROADWAY 7,322,782 1,667,284 29.5% 5,655,498 727,474 6,803,186
131 IMPACT FEES FUND - PARKS 642,750 58,246 10.0% 584,504 204,167 688,375
132 IMPACT FEES FUND - LIBRARY 217,400 (189,000) -46.5% 406,400 123,250 206,400
. 133 IMPACT FEES FUND - SOUD WAS 179,034 13,032 7.9% 166,002 36,m 117,100
134 IMPACT FEES FUND - POLICE 585,543 129,683 28.4% 455,860 115,609 661,750
135 IMPACT FEES FUND - FIRE FACllI 191,220 38,738 25.4% 152,482 47,032 111,695
141 FIRE & AMBULANCE DISTRICT 1 ~627,641 (121,283) -1.8% 6,7.48,924 4,962,205 . 6..C91 ,487
. 142 TRANSLATOR 0 (40,000) -100.0% 40,000 5,430 0
144 UPPER KEYS TRAUMA CARE DlS 2,695,000 (100,000) -3.6% 2,795,000 229,4n 3,300,000
146 FIRE & AMBULANCE DISTRICT 6 950,433 145,571 18.1% 804,862 539,986 729,335
~ 147 UNINCORPORATED PARKS & BEA 2, 163,925 708,984 48.7% 1,454,941 1,348,604 1,374,109
~"" 148 MSTD - PLNGlBLOGlCODElFIRE M 9,375,043 1,063,385 12.8% 8,311,658 7,346,146 8,244,834 Y.
, --' ~ 149 MUNICIPAL POLICING 4,250,932 4,250,932 nIa 0 0 0
II 150 911 ENHANCEMENT FUND 541,974 (312,858) -36.6% 854,832 355,266 767,545
152 DUCK KEY SPECIAL SECURITY Dl 113,650 0 0.0% 113,650 73,941 114,600
153 LOCAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE T 1,335,680 555,364 71.2% 780,316 644,474 715,538
154 CUDJOE GARDENS MUNICIPAL S '0 (162,120) -100.0% 162,120 11,087 195,000
- 155 JOLLY ROGER MUNICIPAL SVC C 0 (49,612) -100.0% 49,612 4,336 75,000
156 WINSTON WATERWAYS MUNICIP .0 (40,000) -100.0% 40,000 32,599 89,700
157 BOATING IMPROVEMENT FUND 503,900 0 0.0% 503,900 589,332 0
II 158 MISC SPECIAL REVENUE FUND 432,473 432,473 nla 0 0 0
159 FLORIDA KEYS MARINE-MARA TH 180,000 180,000 nla 0 O. .0
202 1993 REFUNDING IMPROVEMENT 0 (626,337) -100.0% 626,337 245,900 551,337
203 1993 REFUNDING IMPROVEMENT 1,040,750 0 0.0% 1,040,750 699,149 1,100,250
III 205 1991 SALES TAX REVENUE BOND 4,810,600 (95,400) -1.9% 4,906,000 4,914,126 5,100,000
206 CLER~S REV NOTE, DEBT 247,000 145,000 142.2% 102,000 16,115 0
304 ONE CENT INFRA-STRUCTURE S 29,467,157 (2,484,091 ) -7.8% 31,951,248 15,036,181 22,760,525
. 305 1991 SALES TAX REVENUE BOND 1,270,000 7.0,000 5.8% 1,200,000 41,210 1,200,000
306 CLER~S REV NOTE, CAPITAL 0 (162,000) -100.0% 162,000 565,317 .0
401 CARD SOUND BRIDGE 5,050,000 (100,000) -1.9% 5,150,000 1,303,507 5,150,000
403 MARATHON AIRPORT - 0 & M 1,268,350 (128,25.0) -9.2% 1,396,600 1,499,011 1,322,600
II 404 KEY WEST AIRPORT - 0 & M 4,714,750 (428,000) -8.3% 5,142,750 2,441,524 4,549,000
414 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENTIMS 21,360,328 678,501 3.3% 20,681,827 15,465,226 2O,4n,288
415 E~RONMENTALMANAGEMENT 3,315,000 (40,000) -1.2% 3,355,000 1,051,106 3,630,000
. 501 WORKER'S COMPENSATION 3,697,797 547,687 17.4% 3,150,11.0 2,371,968 2,838,116
502 GROUP INSURANCE 13,052,921 468,958 3.7% 12,583,963 9,315,117 11,671,006
503 RISK MANAGEMENT 2,896,705 176,570 6.5% 2,720,135 1,3n,046 2,602,091
504 CENTRAL SERVICES 2,341,603 137,027 6.2% 2,204,576 2,548,070 2,418,085
. 600 LAW ENFORCEMENT TRUST FUN 1,900 0 0.0% 1,900 sn,889 1,900
,602 COURT FACIUTIES FEES TRUST 427,250 0 0.0% 427,250 63,627 427,250
603 CLER~S DRUG ABUSE TRUST FU 14,750 0 0.0% 14,750 6,339 5,900
. Totii 24.un,371 3,266,411 1.4% 241,410,960 165,183,539 221,468,173
?,
. c ' \>
_ ~\, IS,,-\-
~
.
. Appropriations by Fund, OfcIJDiv, Cost Center
Proposed 00 INC/(DEC) 0/0 01lUlge Adopted 99 Actual 98 AlIopted 98
I orcUOlv: PUBUC WORKS
23S09 VEHICLE. REPLACEMENT 148 57,506 41,885 268.1% 15,621 0 0
. Subtotal PUBUC WORKS : 57,506 41,885 268.1 % 15,621 0 0
orcUOlv: GROWTH MGMT
. 50001 GROWTH MGMT ADMIN 407,197 (23,172) -5,4% 430,369 488,948 528,242
50500 PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1,501,935 22,144 1.5% 1,479,791 1,414,915 1,474,175
51000 2010 COMP PLAN 650,000 (50,000) -7.1% 700,000 89,737 900,000
I 51500 PLANNING COMMISSION 44,603 (4,603) -9,4% 49,206 43,162 59,233
5~ EN~RONMENTALRESOURCES 421,491 14,745 3.6% 406,746 445,455 418,617
52500 BUILDING DEPARTMENT 1,623,398 (107,995) -6.2% 1,731,393 1,540,757 1,550,202
I 53000 MARINE RESOURCES 174,863 (12,211) -6.5% 187,074 146,312 149,204
53500 ROGO IMPLEMENTATION 20,000 0 0.0% 20,000 0 500
54500 PLANNINGlBUILDING REFUNDS 18,000 (12,000) -40.0% 30,000 23,505 30,000
I ~ CODE ENFORCEMENT 1,093,169 (48,139) -4.2% 1,141,308 824,608 1,036,189
Subtotal GROWTH MGMT : 5,954,656 (221,231 ) -3.6% 6,175,887 5,017,399 6,146,362
II . . <?fclIDlv: COUNTY ATTORNEY
.37502 COUNTY ATTORNEY GROWTH 69,788 (194) -0.3% 69,982 0 85,288
II Subtotal COUNTY ATTORNEY: 69,788 (194) -0.3% 69,982 0 85,288
OfcUOlv: TAX COUECTOR
69004 TAX COLLECTOR -148 220,000 35,000 18.9% 185,000 0 0
II 76004 COMMISSIONS & FEES 148 0 0 nla 0 262,098 200,000
Subtotal TAX COLLECTOR: 220,000 35,000 18.9% 185,000 262,098 200,000
I OfcUOlv: PROPERTY APPRAISER
69204 PROPERTY APPRAISER - 148 135,000 0 0.0% 135,000 0 0
Subtotal PROPERTY APPRAISER: 135,000 0 0.0% 135,000 0 0
II )i- Subtotal Fund 148 : 9,375,043 1,063,385 12.8% 8,311,658 6,354,403 8,244,834
Fund: 1,u - MUNICIPAL POLICING
I OfcUOlv: B.O.C.C.
85545 RESERVES 149 300,000 300,000 nla 0 0 0
,
II Subtotal B.O.C.C. : 300,000 300,000 nla 0 0 0
OrcUOlv: SHERIFF'S BUDGET
04319 SHERIFF'S INSURANCE 545,490 545,490 nla 0 0 0
II 68608 SHERIFF'S MUNICIPAL BUDGET 3,405,442 3,405,442 nla 0 0 0
Subtotal SHERIFF'S BUDGET: 3,950,932 3,950,932 nla 0 0 0
II ~ Subtotal Fund 149: 4,250,932 4,250,932 nla 0 0 0
I 99
I
I.
I
I
.
.
.
.
.
I.
,
I
.
.
II
.
II
II
.
~ ~ h ~ 6\'~ 1>
Revenue Detail by Fund
Faad: 149 - MUNICIPAL POLICING
,Proposed 00 INC/(DEC) -;. OIanCe Adopted 99 Ac(ua\ 98 Adopted 98
TAXES
311100 AD VALOREM TAXES 4,474,665 4,474,665 nla 0 0 0
TolaITAXES: 4,47.(,666 4,474,665 nla 0 0 0
OlliER SOURCES
389001 LESS 5% FL STATUTE -223,733 (223,733) nla 0 0 0
T~ OlliERSOURCES: -223,733 (223,733) nla 0 0 0
Total Fund 149 : 4,250,932 4,260,932 nla 0 0 0
.",.," '..'.J",'....;.j.1.""I..'.,),..~~'.J '\.~,I,.tJl:~f_l'll.l"J'I\....'t..l,;"~"'J."~.f"""\<<.'''Ji,'''i'' '1":j "jl:"'"
. . .....~....~ ".. '_._'~''''.,"^..,.~....._. " ':l.';
50
1;. x h\ bi-t E
..f(om 1)-;) I-gq I
Boce.. 111inme.5
99/255
. being required.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
A Public Hearing was held concerning adoption of an
Ordinance rev~s~ng the Library Advisory Board Section 10-40,
Monroe County Code, in order to amend the residency requirements
for membership; Providing for severability; Providing for the
repeal of all Ordinances inconsistent herewith; Providing for
incorporation into the Monroe County Code of ordinances; and
providing an effective date. The was no public input. Acting
Community Services Director Jim Malloch addressed the Board.
Motion was made by Commissioner Freeman and seconded by
Commissioner Williams to adopt the following Ordinance. Roll
call vote was unanimous.
ORDINANCE NO. 029-1999
See Ord. Book No. 52 which is incorporated herein by reference.
A Public Hearing was held concerning adoption of an
Ordinance amending Chapter 2, Article XIII, Section 2-388, Monroe
County Code, in order to add Law Enforcement as a District
purpose for the Municipal Service Taxing District encompassing
the Unincorporated area of Monroe County; Providing for
severability; Providing for the repeal of all Ordinances
inconsistent herewith; Providing for incorporation into the
Monroe County Code of Ordinances; and providing an effective
date. The Board accepted public input with the following
individuals addressing the Board: George Geisler, representing
ISlamorada, Village of Islands; Ron Levy, representing
Islamorada, Village of Islands; Key West City Manager, Julio
Avael; and Sheriff Richard D. Roth. Motion was made by
Commissioner Freeman and seconded by Commissioner Neugent to not
adopt the Ordinance. Roll call vote was taken with the following
results:
Commissioner Freeman Yes
Commissioner Neugent Yes
Commissioner ReiCh No
Commissioner Williams No
Mayor Harvey Yes
Motion carried. .
A Public Hearing was held concerning adoption of an
Ordinance amending Section 9.5-3, Monroe County COde, to
eliminate scrivener's errors, by clarifying that "Realtor"
includes a Real Estate Broker" Sales Person or Agent; Amending
Section 22 (J) of Ordinance No.' 004-1997, and by clarifying the
..;.-...--,....-..----
. ........_...'_,.._.~,-" ~;.. ... ")"J""'~'~','.\&l...", .... ...-...,.,"'-. '.' .);..~..._....""'.... . ..._.___
E)(h,h~-+ r
-
',r
'. '
ADMINISTRATION
S 2-235
Sec. 2-224. Disbursal of funds for Senior Community Ser-
vice Project.
The Cle~k or'the c6u~ts of Monroe County, Florida, is authorized
to disburse funds from any appropriate and lawful account to pay
the cost of transportation, rental of meeting rooms and noontime
meals in conjunction with the Senior Community Service Project
quarterly enrollee's meetings for as, long as such meetings are
required by the National Council on the Aging.
(Ord~ No; 13-1987., S .1)
Secs~ 2-225-2-234. ReserVed~
,
"
. ~. .,,~. ,: .. '~:."":~.'\..~':'~'(\' ..r',.:".;'. ....,; ).;~, ~.'_I.,: ~.~., .l." .
ARTICLE, V:MUNICIPAL:SERVtCE'TAXING OR
, ", "'",,. 'j , '. "', ' '
" .. - 'BENEFIT'D1STJtICTS* ; ,. "
;' .....:.. 'r.'. _'
.". '..,
'li",
. . ~ ~.-~:. .
DIVISION 1. GENERALLYt
(
\.
.. " - ." .. ,~ . .
, Sec., 2-2'35~ Incorporation;' p,orind'aries. "
,'~. . ' . " "'~.,. ":~ r"; ":.)~, '..... . . ~ ". .... . . .
Upon' this article beco,ming ; law,' .~ll of:,the unincorporated
lands in the ,county shall becom,e, and be ,in~c.>i-porated into twelve
. . . " . ... t . .. . '." , ' ."
(12) municipal service taxing or benefit units, as authorized by
Florida Statutes chapter 125, as;amended by chapter 75-63, Laws
of Florida~ for the purpose of providing municipal services as
hereinafter described within the'territorial limits of each district
financed from ad valorem taxes' -levied and' user fees collected
within each district only, ~ach of which shall be a public corpora-
tion to be known as and having the follbwing territorial bound-
. aries:
(1a) Stock Island Municipal Service District: Located between
Cow Key' Channel east to Boca\Chica Channel.
(Ib) Big Coppitt Municipal Service District: Located between
Boca Chica Channel east to Shark Channel.
(Ic) Sugarloaf Municipal Service District: Located between
Shark Channel east to Kemp Channel.
I
.Cross reference-Television translator taxing district, S 13-26 et seq.
tNote-See the editor's note to div. 2 of this article.
(: '. .-t:
, -J h \~\ -\i:, '
.- r , \
I
~ 2-235
MONROE COUNTY CODE
I)
(1d) Big Pine Municipal S~rvice District: Located betwe~n Kemp
Chan~el and the Seven Mile Bridge.
(2) District 2: Little Duck Key north to Banana Boulevard,
Va)halla Beach and the City of Key Colony Beach, Florida,
(3) District 3: From Banana Boulevard, Valhalla Beach north
'to Long Key Bridge.
(4) District 4: From the Long Key Bridge north to Snake
Creek. ,.,..
, ..~~\.,.
:~f
'o','t
"
i
. ....'
(4a) Long Key Municipal Service District: Located from Long
Key' Bridge north up to .Craig Key, j~cl~ding the, City of
. Layton, Florida.
(4b) Islamorada Muiii+ipal Service Pistrict:Loca.ted from and
.:. includtng Craig':K~y'p:orth>to'Snake Creek.,' ~ :; ,.,.','
. '~.:. '_~' ,)~. ; <":::'.-,' ~ '.... . : ;'.
(sf District 5: From Snake Creek north to' South Bay Harbor
, Drive and Lobster Lane.
.':. ". . : ,0 ~.':";"; /
(6) District 6: That part of Key Largo from South Bay Harbor
Drive and Lobster Lane, to the southern ,boundary of the
intersection','o('the !>:Mght-of-~ay' County' roads "90S 'and
.'\';90SA, ph.1s'Cross ~ey. :', ,.'
.. . .'~ ,", " ~"" -, .;. -, ',-...~."... " ". ,,~ ;..... .... t . , . "
.". (7):Dis~riCt '7: That part-of Key Largo' north of the boundary of
. ;' Do" t . t 6 ' " "
,; '. ',IS nc. ".
/'
)
:'?:::
, (8) District 8: All o~er properties situated in the unincorpo-
.rated areas of Monroe County, Flo~da, not included within
any of the above delineated seven (7) districts, including in
said District ,8 ,all of those properties situated on the
mainland of the State of Florida between ,:pade and Collier
Counties, and including all keys not connected to U.S.!.
(Ord. No. S-1977,'~ 1;,Ord. No. 14-1977, ~ 3; Ord. No. 12-1978, ~
f; Ord. No. 7-1979, ~ '1; 9rd. No. 11-1979, ~ 1; Ord. No. 4-1981, ~
1; Ord. No. 50-1987; ~ 2;' Ord. No. 44-1988, ~ 1; Ord. No. 35-1996,
~ 1)
Sec. 2-236. Each district to be separate political entity.
Each district shall be a separate and distinct political entity
from,the board of county commissioners and all revenues of each
district established hereunder shall be separate and distinct from
c::..,..,,.., N" III
128
)
(:.. ~ h ~~);-
~
-
ADMINISTRATION
~ 2-238
'the general revenues of the county, and shall be'separate and
distinct from each other municipal service and/or benefit district
'and, each district's revenues shall be carried 'as a supplement to
the county general'revenue funds and-- the end of the year
"surpluses of each district's revenues, if any, shall be carried over
in that district's " budget from fiscal year'tofiscal year.
(Ord, No. 5-1977, ~ 2)
r)
'-----,
Sec. 2-237. Interlocal agreements with municipalities.
At any time after this article becomes law, any or all of the
incorporated municipalities in the county may by adoption of an
ordinance setting forth their agreement to become a member of a
district, 'elect to participate in one of the taxing and/or benefit
'units created' hereby. Thereafter said ~unicipality and lands
,located therein shall be subject to the provisions of this article,
and said municipality shall be entitled to,voting membership in
said district, and said municipality shall by resolution directed,to
the board of county commissioners appo.int two (2) of its commis-
sion members to sit upon"said board.
(Ord. No. '5-1977, ~ 3; Ord. No. 12-1978, ~,2>. '
f
~,
Sec. 2-238. Governing body.
(a) The governing body of each newly created district, herein-
after termed lithe district" or "such district," shall be known and
designated as the board of county commissioners, but may consist
of city commissioners in the case of adoption of municipal
ordinance electing membership in a district, in which case the
goveming board shall consist of three (3),~county commissioners
and two (2) city commissioners, the members to be named by the
respective boards by resolution. Such board, constituted under
the ordinance, shall have all the power of a body corporate,
including the power to contract, interlocally, under the provisions
of chapter 163, Florida Statutes, or otherwise, and to be con-
tracted with in behalf of each district; to sue and to be sued; to
adopt and use a common seal and to alter the same at pleasure;
to acquire, to purchase, hold, lease and convey such real estate
and personal property, including equipment, as such board may
deem proper or expedient to carry out the purposes of this article;
to employ such experts, agencies and employees as such board
I
I
,.,. "''1
1,)Q
}
c: >" ~\'6\:+- f-
I
~ 2-238
MONROE COUNTY CODE
()
may require or deem advisable; to borrow money and to issue
negotiable promissory notes, certificates of indebte:dIless as here-
inafter provided;. and ,.to generally exercise the ,powers of a. public
authority organized and existing for the purpose of proViding fire
protection, ambulance, service, street lighting, ,parks, arid recre-
ation within the territorial limits, of each district.
(b) The board shall at all times consist of no less than five (5)
members,no less than three (3) of whom shall be county commis-
,
,
i
I
;,
;;'::!::"
'.
. " {O ~::(.~ .~:.'; ,
,'. j" ~ :' , . , " '. "
. -,' .~~:.
.. ':. :"f.:', ! ,.,~ ~: ":, i-~ . ~ ."..". .... . '. .
-; t.~. ::;t ,~',,' ',', . . ,
,.,...'~.::.::.-~";. ~ ~..,~ ;', ~'.:"'.
. .:.'~.\ r;.~'" .; ,., ..H..
~,'~ ~ ....1....: :i ~'., '-~ :...~~
. '.1..' ',: .:. ,..;.
. '. -. .:.,' . . ~ . . .
~: ~':":,.;,,
". .;
,',.' .'
.; :
~ ;.
,
. 10. '.,
.t.. ,.;." '..
'. ,;. ......
q
. I'.'.:
:' f\ . .. , ~ ) I ,
."..... ;.,"., 7
;....
. . '~.'
" . . .
:. ~ '. t. ,~ :. ;
;,
"
. .~
..i '.._4
'T' ,....,
l:iO
J
,(
;
f
J
r
(
~~h',~;t
~
--.
ADMINISTRATION
~ 2.241
. > '
sioners and no more than two (2) of whom shall be city com-
missioners. 'The members of the board shall serve until, their
respective terms as county or city commissioners shall expire or
,:until such time,:as their successors are appointed. It shall be an
essential qualification that the membership of the' board be county
and/or city' commissioners.; . . ' ';' , ,
(c) As s~on as practicable" af~~ ~this article bec~~es a law, the
board of each newly created dIstrict shall meet and organize by
the election from their board, a chairman and a vice-chair.man.
The clerk of the circuit court of the Sixteenth Judicial Circuit of
the State of Florida, as ex officio, clerk of the board of county
co'~nii:ssioners, shalr'bethe ex ,officio' ~l~rk~' auditor, r~order of
' the' 'minutes and accouri'is"a'iid:~u~tqai~~~'df i~ch,district's funds.
Three {3.> members ofthe'boa~~sh~lC'c~r;st'itute'a quqrum. A
" ,'.. .'.." .." _ ...'.. " ' .. -' I " .... .' j : .. t.,:~ .'~,.'. .
niajoritY~,ot~ quorum' shall,~e: ~e,cessa.Ij. tf~,r;theJtariC)aCt.ion of
business: The ~hairnian'sh1ilf~bte"at'iil'l;iiieeting~ of'said board.
.. ;,:t,:~.' .~"~':~ .1..(: ,.'.-.;:'..... '-':,1.1:.: 1"7;'1) .;..:.~l;!.:,~.:..:.,.. :.,- i'-..... . ~!j,." ~:;.~ .
(d) Theboar&shall-not receive:,coinpensation for their service
upon such board. '" ,": ';"'-', ':.;" .'
"' . ",.' .', ," c' .... . .~.,,' _~.. '......:... \....~(..'.".._.,r _.. . ..... ..:,
(e) 'The gove-rning' bOdy' 'of the-)s~v~Hii ;~p~c~al t~ingdistricts
shall have the right to establish rates o(u~er';fees' bf'resolution.
(Ord. No. 5-1977, ~~ 4-7; Ord. No. 12-1978, ~~ 3, 4; Ord. No.
50-1987,,~ 3; Ord. No. #-lQ88;t~ ,2L,
'Sec. 2-239. Auditing of bookS.
The books of each district created under this article shall be
audited by the same officers a:n:~ :in ;like manner as the books of
county officers.(Ord.,'No~ 5-19'(7, ~ 8)
,
,',
Sec. 2-240. Power to ,purchase, hold property.
The board shall have the power and authority to hold, control
and acquire, by right of purchase, forthe use of each district, any
real or personal property and to pay the purchase price in in-
stallments or deferred payments. (Ord. No. 5-1977, ~ 8)
See. 2-241. Authority to borrow.
The board is hereby authorized and empowered, in order
to carry out the purpose of this article, to borrow money anc
issue certificates of indebtedness therefor upon such tenn~
Supp. No. 33 1 ~ 1
f -r h ~b,.t- ~
~ 2.241
MONROE' COUNTY CODE
and at such rates' of interest as the board may deem advisable
and.in accordance with the provisions"of article VII, section
12 ,of the, Florida Constitution of 1968 and Florida Statutes,
chapter 125 ,and other special and, general laws and said cer-
tificatesof. indebtedness may be ,a charge upon all revenues
derived from taxes in, that year or maybe made payable from
budgetary requirements in due course of law, as the board
may ei~dt. (~rd~':~o.. &-1~77;, ~~) , ,
.:.:.:1:~
,Sec.' 2-242.,Deposi4.handling. funds., .
',' ,. The funds of eaCh' diStrict creaW ~nder this: a~i~i~' shall
, be depo'sited ~in ',:the" name of thedlstiictin a b~ authorized
, 'uf '~eive;' depositS :~i tit' (ct>untyfuiids';' 'whiCh '-bank 'shall be
, ,:;d~siiwited:by':fjregoltiti6'f{'of ,the bdatd>Su~ desi~ation of
- ... ....., "", . .". .,: '. t.. . ,"' J.",."... .... I '. I' ',~,' .. .. ,". "I \ ".. ". .'
. ",,~",,~~#i.~:~~k;'~9.( a~pOsit':,ot;fUn4s;.the~fri;',8ha~tbe': the "exercise
"')'of 'aiie'care 'and "diligence , orl'the' part of said clerk 'for' the
, ;"'ssfekeeping:,of. saidfunds~":No :funds;;of, a district' shall be
paid 'or. disbursed save and except by waiTant,' 'signed ,by the
chainnan of the board and attested to by the clerk. (Ord.
,,:.:,1,lN" ;, ~6": '97'~7"';~'-:1"O),:r.-:~." ;;";'. -' .; .; ,';y'" ' ' ,,' "
o. 1, , ),~, ' " ',,, .. ", . ,
!,.:.l~. .~...... \~....t ~'::.:.l ..:-.;<f".i... .....~t ~.:H:::~.. ~,.. J:... ':',.. .... .
~
:.', ,:'! ::. ......,;- . ';,:
.. . ;-. '.~ .", . ~ I '.~ ',~ ..'. ~ .:. . '.. " " "
1-7
Sec. 2-243. Lawful uses of:fuiids'; ..,~'1 : '
r '. I
No funds of districts la, 1b, lc, 1d, 2,:.3, 4a and 4b creiited
under this article shall be Used for any' p'urpose other than the
'adminiStration of the affairs and btisiness of such district, for the
construction, care, maintenance, upkeep, operation and purchase
of law enforcement, beach erosion control, recreation service and
fa~ilities, streets,~ sidewalks, street lighting, dr~inage or trans~
portation equipment 'as the board may determine. No 'funds of
districts ,5, 6, ,7 and 8 created,under this article shall be used for
any purpose, other, than the administration of the affairs and
,'business of such district, for the, construction, care, maintenance,
upkeep, operation and purchase of fire fighting, ambulance ser-
vice, law enforcement, beach erosion control, recreation service
and facilities, streets, sidewalks, street lighting, drainage or trans-
portation equipment for the district as the b~ard may de~rmine.
COrd. No. 5-1~77,g'11; Ord. No. 14-1977, ~ 4, Ord. No. 44-1988, ~
3)
Supp. No. 33
132
~~
...'j
(J
'.
I
/
\; r ~ : ~~ '-\
~
,
ADMINISTRATION
I
~ 2-245
~
Sec. . 2-2:44. Auth~rity to purchase services.
'The board ot districts' la, lb, lc, ld, 2, 3', 4li and 4b created
, under this 'article shall have the power and authority to acquire
by gift or purchase and to pay the' purchase price for such-J.a.,w ~ ~
-7 "enforcement, beach'erosion control, recreation service and facili-
, . ties, streets,'sidewalks,'street lighting~' drai~age and transporta-
tion equipment as is deemed reasonably necessary for the provid-
ing of municipal services related thereto within each municipal
taxing district and shall have authority to hire such pers.onnel or
fund such services and prescribe.:rules and regulations pertaining
thereto so :lo~g as the same is not inco,nsistent with the provi-
.. ,~!?nsof g~~e.ral. o~ speci~llaw. .
: .J,,' '. The :board of districts: 5, 6, -7 'and 8 created under this article
shall 'have' th'e power'arid au~hority to acquire ~y,lgiftor purchase
'~'and,to pay the purchase priceTor;such'fire protection; ambtilance
'service, law enforcement, be'ach' 'erosion control, recreation ser-
vice and facilities, streets, sidewalks, street lighting, drainage
and transportation equipment as is deemed reasonably ,necessary
for the providing. of municipal services related thereto within
: ~;{cb:im:uritcipa.l tiri:ing'diSfri~t "~lIid'shall ha.v~"'~tithority to hire
.. . .~. . *, . -.' .,.,"' ...., -: :. '-~', . '. . . . '. ,I ,_ . . ._
' such perSb'nneI" br~ ftin.d such services' 'and prescribe rules and
regulati6ns"pertaining'thereto so long as the same is not incon-
sis,te'nt' !Yvith the provisio~ of general or special law. (Ord. No.
. '5~'i977,~'12;' Ord. NO.,14-1977, ~ 4~ Ord.No; 44-1988, ~ 4)
". '. . . .. ,. '.
'"". ,'. '.'.:."
.,Sec.. 2-,245. ~nterlocal agreements. .
(a) The board of each district, created under this article
shall. have the power and express authorization to enter into
i,nterlocal agreement.s with any mimicipality,' politiCal 'sub-
division, agency,' or officer 'of the s~ate, including but not
limited to, state government, county, city, school d'istrict,
single or multipurpose special district, single or multipurpose
public authority; to provide for joint exerci~e of any power,
privile'ge "or authority which such district, may. have in com-
mon and which each might exercise separately.
, (b) 'In the event an 'interIocal agreer.1ent is entered .into
between a district and' a 'mlJnicip~..lity, such agreement' shall
be in compliance with the terms of Ch.apter 163',' Florida
Supp. No. 33
133
. ........ _.., ......~_._._____.~_____ ~'h~__...~.... ~ _-'-_---...;.~._... __...,...~._.._..... ......~ .... ...,......... .....,~~..................~~......_.~__~.:-...._...........~~..~_......._......_............,........._.................. ...'..._........_.
~ ,<~:b,;. ~
~ 2-245
MONROE COUNTY CODE
\')
Statutes, and shall" include an express' provision as to hoW'
such municipality, shall pay for its participation in a district
which may, be either from funds derived from service charges,
special assessments or taxes imposed within such municipality
by such municipality or from budgetary payments made in
the due course of law from such municipality to the district.
(Ord. No. 5-1977" ~~ 13, 29)
. :.
Sec. 2-246. Duties, of officers of board.
'h':';'
The 'officers of the board of each-district ,created under this
article shall have ,the duties usually pertaining to, vested in,
and incumbent upon, like officers. A record shall be' kept of
.aU ;meet~gs-, of . such board. ,The board. may -adopt -such rules
'. . and ,:re~Iations as"" it (may: deem, n~essary. in .and ;about the
"" ,~~tion of :its .business"and in carrying out the provisions
.' of this, article. , (Ord. .No.,,5-1977, ~~14) " .
I
I
. .. .... ...
Sec..2:247. Annual ,report of board-; ,fiscal year.
(af 'The, ,ooai:d' of 'eaCh distpct created under this article
8h~II:o'ri{)r ;qefo~ the :first da'y of'November, make' an 'annual
. re~rt ' of" ih~ actions arid accounting, of its' fund~' ~ of the
, thirtieth day of September of each, year in a m8:nner and in
accordan~e with the provisions of gen~l11l and special Iav/:>'1lg
that as is"required by the county and shall file said report' in
the office of the clerk of the circuit court of this county,
whose duty it shall be to receive and file such report and
hold. and keep the ,same as a public record.
r (b) ,The fiscal year of each district is hereby fixed as
commencing on October first and ending on September thir-
tieth. (Ord. No. 5-1977, ~ 15)
-
"',i ')
'-.,.1
)
Sec. 2-248. Funds to be paid out only on warrant of clerk.
The funds of each district created under this article 'shall
, be paid out only upon -rvarrant signed by the chainnan of the
board and attested to _ y the clerk and having thereto affixed
the corporate seal of the district; and, no warrant shall be
drawn or issued against funds of any district except for a
purpose authorized by this article, and no such warrant against
Supp. No. 33
"':::.
J
~4eriff
RICHARD D. ROTH. SHERIFF OF MONROE COt"T'
5525 COLLEGE ROAD. KEY WEST, FLORIDA )J040
(305) 296-2424 . FAX (305) 292-7070 . 1-800-27~~COPS
March 3, 2000
The Honorable Shirely V. Freeman
The Honorable Wilhelmina Harvey
The Honorable Mary Kay Reich
The Honorable Nora Williams
The Honorable George Nuegent
Re: Incorporation and taxation
Dear Mayor and Commissioners:
As we continue to debate the best way to fund law enforcement services in our
county, I would like to share with you some of the experience of our nearest neighbor,
Miami-Dade County.
Attached are studies prepared by Merritt Sterheim, Metro-Dade's County Manager,
that tackle the related issues of law enforcement services and the creation of new cities.
I think you will fmd them to be carefully written, thorough, and helpful in making
decisions for the future of our citizens.
Sffill &
Richard D. Roth
Sheriff of Monroe County
RDRlmg
attachements
p-" I
Frrpman Station
20<J~,O Chcc,cas IIw).. Cudjoe Key. Florida 33042
,We,' 715-318.\ FAX (305) 745.3761
Maralhon Stalion
3103 Overoeas Hwy.. Marathon, Florida 33050
(305) 289.2430 FAX (305) 289.2497
Spoll.wood Station
88770 Overoea. Hwy" Tavernier, Florida 33070
(305) 853-3211 FAX (305) 853-3205
Executive Summary
This binder contains copies of a report and recommendations by
Miami-Dade County Manager Merritt Sterheim to his Commission. Mr.
Sterheim grapples with two issues now facing our county:
-Planning for the incorporation of new cities
-Methods of funding countywide and local law enforcement services
The first item is a memorandum describing the adverse consequences of
unplanned incorporation followed by Manager Sterheim's recommendations.
Sterheim points out that continued unplanned incorporation will result in
taxpayers in unincorporated areas having to pay more taxes in order to receive
the same level of services. He states that this "will eventually lead to a county
balkanized by wealth and poverty, with unincorporated pockets in which no
viable municipal services are available or possible." Page 3. He recommends
that the Commission adopt a policy that future incorporation be supported
only if:
-The incorporation is "revenue-neutral," or
-The new city agrees to mitigate the adverse financial impact caused on
the unincorporated area, or
-The incorporation is approved by a vote of the entire unincorporated
municipal service area. Page 4.
Mr. Sterheim further advocates the concept of Safe Neighborhood
Improvement Districts as an alternative to "full" incorporation. He states, "For
some areas, the desire to incorporate may be less about becoming a full city and
more about improving and enhancing local services and retaining control over
the funds that provide for those enhancements." Page 5.
The second item is a study of the feasibility of a countywide police
district. Miami-Dade's current practice is examined, and alternative models of
service structure and funding are compared. The report then considers the
various methods in light of four different incorporation "scenarios":
-Total incorporation of the entire unincorporated area into one large
jurisdiction;
-Total incorporation of the unincorporated area into several large cities
(the size of the City of Miami or larger);
- Total incorporation of the unincorporated area into several small cities
(10,000 to 20,000 persons) with a residual incorporated area;
-Continued unplanned incorporation. Page 25.
In his comparison of different approaches, Sterheim identifies problems
to be avoided:
- Loss of capacity to provide specialized police services;
-The creation of redundant services;
- Lack of consistency in investigative and forensic protocols;
- Lack of consistency in recruitment and training standards;
-Jurisdictional confusion;
- Diminished capacity to respond to large-scale events; and
- Lack of consistent minimum service standards between jurisdictions.
Prepared by Mark. L. Willis, General Counsel
Monroe County Sheriff's Office
..
6)
MEMORANDUM
Agenda Item No. 12(A)4
To: Honorable Chairperson and Members
Board of County Commissioners
Date: April 27. 1999
Subject: Incorporation Plan
Attached is my April 12, 1999 report outlining my recommendations on the incorpora-
tion issue.
Also attached are draft ordinances and a resolution that would implement specific
elements of my plan. If you adopt this plan, we will schedule these for first reading on
your next agenda. The attached draft charter amendment language will implement
many of those aspects of my plan that require a vote. A charter amendment addressing
the issue of mitigation will require some additional consideration, I will schedule
these charter amendments on an appropriate agenda at a later date,
These items do not address annexation at this time. I intend to place on a future
agenda an ordinance that will apply the principle of fiscal equity to the annexation
process, while allowing for exceptions in the case of enclave areas or tt'1t;,' rl'~<;nn::>hlp
squaring-off of existing municipal boundaries.
Attachments
~pnl~7",(in I~'P
107.o~.17A __T,_',
@MEMORANDUM
TO:
Honorable Alex Pene1as. Mayor
DATE: April 12 J 1999
SUBJECT: Recommended Incorporation
Policies
Honorable Chairperson and Members
Board of C ty Commissioners
FROM:
After much deliberation, I recommend,the following policies and requirements .be adopted by the
Board to guide all future incorporations. I believe strongly that these policies and requirements,
taken collectively, are the best approach to managing future incorporations and represent a fair
process for all individuals impacted by incorporation. Each of the points in. the following
executive sum.mary is explained in greater detail in the body of the report.
EXEctrrIVE SUMMARY
First: ~peal the policy calling for the County to be out of municipal service deliv~ry by the year
2007.
Second: Adopt and implement a formal Board of County Commission pcE:j. ~::~ f~~~
incorporations Will only be allowed to proceed to their completion if A and B occur m A and C, as
described below.
A. The propo~ed new city agrees to remain within the Miami-Dade Fire and Rescue District, the
Miami-Dade Public Library System, the County solid waste collection system and to continue
to receive specialized law enforcement services from the Miami-Dade Police DepaI1ment; and
B. The boundaries of the proposed incorporation are drawn to ensure the area is revenue neutral
OT>> in the case of donor areas, the new city agrees to mitigate the adverse fiscal impact caused
by the new incorporation on the fCmaining wUncorporated area; or
C. The proposed incorporation is submitted to an UMSA-wide vote. The Board should deny
incorporation requests from all requesting areas that would have an adverse fiscal and service
impact on the remaining residents of unincorporated Miami-Dade unless an UMSA-wide vote
is held.
Third: Provide for the creation of Safe Neighborhood Improvement Districts (town concept) as an
alternative to incorporation.
Fourth: Put on the bnllot appropriate Chaner nmendments to implement the forgoing policies and
adopt modifications to the County Code as required.
;L.
Honorable Alex. Penelas, Mayor
Honorable Chairperson and Members
Board of County Commissioners
Page 2
Fifth: No further incorporations should be approved until these requirements are in full force and
effect.
BACKGROUND
I am aware of the mounting pressures to make a decision on pending incorporation requests. in
particular the three areas that have been deferred - two of which are in litigation with the County.
As I have repeatedly indicated to you, however. I do not believe we can afford to continue the
current ad hoc incorporation Dfocess. I am not opposed to incorporation if it is well thought out
and the process is fair to everyone. I am opposed to any incorporation that will have an adverse
financial and service impact on the remaining residents of the unincorporated area. The potential
impact of the continued incorporation of affluent areas on the remainder of unincorporated Miami-
Dade is simple to understand.
Picture two houses in unincorporated Miami Dade COWlty: House A bas 8 S300.000 taxable value
and House B has a $90,000 taxable value. Both houses contain a family with two parents and two
school age children. The houses are located two blocks apart. The two families have identical
service needs. They send their children to the same schools. drive on the same roads and rely on
the same police officers. firefighters. paramedics, librarians. sanitation workers, etc. The family in
House A, however, contributes significantly more property. taxes than the family in House B.
Essentially, Family A is a donor taXpayer who pays more taxes for the same level of services as
Family B. This is entirely proper and appropriate! If the family in House A withdraws from
UMSA by incorporating, there will be less revenue for public services for House B. 1::.,- :;:..-:.i~j. :::
House B will have to pay more in taXes than before to make up for the loss of revenue or receive
less service. That fact is beyond dispute.
The approach I am recommending will avoid this future outlook.
First: Repeal the policy calling for the County to be out of muni~ipal service delivery by tbe
year 2007.
Tha.t policy. adopted in 1991. has inadvertently led to a great deal of confusion. conflict and an
artificial sense of urgency. Many residents of unincorporated Miami.Dade are satisfied with the
services they receive and with their government. Since the Board's policy decision in December
of 1997. residents in areas that were not concerned with incorporation and not seeking to change
3
Honorable Alex Penelas, Mayor
Honorable ChaiIperson 6Ild Members
Board of County Commissioners
Page 3
their status have been forced to wonder whether they will have to incorporate or go without
services, Without a charter change, residents of the unincorporated area can not be forced to
incorporate in any case.
I believe it is unfair and unwise to create an artificial sense of urgency around such an imponant
issue. The Board should send a clear message to the 1.1 million residents of the unincorporated
area that they ,,;11 not be forced into a situation they may neither desire nor understand. That does
not mean that 011 incorporation should stop. Incorporation can proceed, but only under certain
conditions which will ensure fairness and equity to all.
Second: Adopt and implement a formal Count}. Commission policy that future
incorporations wUl only be allowed to proceed to their completion if A and B or A and C
occur as described below.
A. The proposed new city agrees to remain in the Miami-Dade Fire and Rescue District, the
Miami-Dade Public Library System, the County solid waste coJle~tion system and to
continue to receive specialized law enforcement services from tbe Miami-Dade Police
Department, and
B. The boundaries of the proposed incorporation arc drawn to be .revenue neutral or, in the
case of a dOllar area, the new city agrees to mitigate the adverse financial impact caused
by the new incorporation on the remaining unincorporated area; or
C. The proposed incorporation is submitted to an UM:SA-",ide vote.
ReS!ional .'MunitiDa}" Services
Proponent~ of incorporation typically talk about the value of having local control over purely local
services. The services most frequently mentioned, and those smoll cities typically provide, are:
local police patrol and some general police investigation, local park and recreation services. local
landscaping and roadway maintenance activities, code enforcement. local zoning regulation and
planning, and local government administration. These are the services that newly incorporated
cities and those areas that are seeking to incorporate are eager to take on. For these kinds of
services I 8greetbat thegovernmen.t closest to the people governs best.
On the other hand, certain functions and services, such as fire rescue, solid waste collection and
disposal and specialized police services, require both a more-than-local perspective and' a level of
resources and capacity that small local govenunenlS cannot, and should not have to. provide.
These municipal-type services must be funded and provided on a more regional basis to ensure that
a quality service is available to ell unincorporated area residents when needed.
Revenue Neutrality or Mitigation
No new city should be allowed to have a negative impact on either the w(ratc or the service levels
available to the remainiIig part of the unincorporated area. Currently, UMSA residents are paying
more in UMSA property taxes than they would b3.ve had the four newest cities. previously part of
II
Honorable Alex t'enel8.S, Mayur
Honorable Chairperson and Members
Board of County commissioners
Page 4
UMSA (Key Biscayne. A ventura, Pinecrest and Sunny Isles Beach). either remained
unincorporated or been configured in such a way to take a larger share of municipal service costs.
These are fine cities; but I do not believe that it is fair that areas that were donors to a larger service
area should have been allowed to freely leave with no consideration for the remainder.
Requiring that proposed new cities are configured in such a way that the projected revenue loss to
UMSA is substantially equal to the projected loss of service costs is the only mechanism currently
available to the Board to provide that the rest of UMSA does not suffer negative fiscal impacts
from future incorporations. If residents of an area are willing to work v,ith County staff to achieve
this. that area should be permitted to incoIporate. If residents of an area are committed to
municipal boundaries that are not revenue neutral. some fonn of mitigation must be proposed so
that the property owners and residents of the area left behind are not unduly impacted. An area
that commits to mitigate the negative fiscal impact of their proposed boundaries would be able to
avoid the requirement of an UMSA wide vote. A cbaiter provision requiring fair compensation to
the affected remainder of unincorporated Miami-Dade County would allow e. neighborhood--no
matter how small and affluent--to achieve local self-governance without eroding the capacity ofthe
remaining unincorporated neighborhoods to continue to receive mwUcipal services ot a millage rate
unaffected by the new city's withdrawal from UMSA.
UMSA-Wide Vote
At the last workshop, several Commissio'ners discussed the option of having an UMSA-wide vote
regarding incorporation. The intent of such a vote is to allow everyone who is affected by a
proposed incorporation to be heard. Surely this is the fairest and most democratic way to approach
the issue. However. I recommend that. rather than having a straw-ballot on the general issue of
incorporation. a vote should be held for each incorporation that has an adverse financial impact on
the remaining unincorporated area. A vote of all UMSA residents would ensure that all
individuals impacted by a proposed incorporation are allowed to vote on an issue that has a direct
economic impact on Jill UMSA residen.ts.
In addition. given the magnitude of the issue and the need for. transition planning. if an
incorporation moves forward that has an adverse impact on the remaining unincorporated area, I
recommend that each such incorporation vote be scheduled only for a general election to ensure the
highest level of participation and that only one incorporation be placed on the a general election
ballot at a time.
Third: Provide for tbe creation of Safe Neighborhood Improvement Districts as an
alternative to incorporation.
For some areas. the desire to incorporate may be less nbout becoming a full city and more about
improving and enhancing local services and retaining control over the funds that provide for those
enhancements. For these areas I recommend that the Board. through an enabling ordinonce.
provide for the creation of Safe Neighborhood bnprovement Districts as an alternative to
incorporation. Services such as extra local police patrol, more recreation services at parks. extra
code enforcement and londscaping or even local capital improvements can be obtained by any nrea
that is willing to become a Safe Neighborhood Improvement District. This vehicle enables the
5
Honorable Alex J.~enelas, !Vlt1YUl
Honorable Chairperson and Members
Board of County Commissioners
Page 5
creation of a disnict either by voter referendum (FS 163.511) or by Commission Ordinance (FS
163.506). That district is able to have up to two mills of municipal-type millage to provide for a
range of improvements, services and activities within that area. Once established, the area becomes
in effect a dependent taxing district with a great deal of flexibility in how its revenue can be spent
and control over that spending. Under either type of district formation,. the Commission may
appoint a local Board of Directors, with authority to develop a plan and budget for the district.
Under the non-voted district, the Board may also appoint a local advisory Council. Although the
County Commission appoints the directors, it may choose to identify those appointments through a
local election.
Clearly, this approach does not have all of the advantages of incorporation. However, as an
approach to immediately make available a greater degree of local control over truly local services
without requiring that an area be revenue neutral, it has much to offer,
Fourth: Seek appropriate charter amendments to ensure that these requirernents remain in
force.
Required chaner amendments will be prepared and advanced to the Board for voter consideration
at' the next general election (spring 2000). Also, all required County Code changes will be
promptly prepared and advanced for Board consideration,
Fifth: No further incorporations should be approved until these requirements are in full
force and effect.
I believe that taken together, these recommendations address incorporation in a manner that is fair
and equitable,
cc: Honorable Harvey Ruvin, Clerk of Courts
Honorable Joseph P. Farina, Chief Judge, Eleventh Judicial Circuit
Robert A. Ginsburg, County Attorney .
County Manager's Assistants
Department Directors .
Eric McAndrew, Chief Legislative Analyst
fo
..
Agenda Item No. (III)
MIAMI-DADE POLICE DEPARTMENT SERVICES
AND
THE FEASIBILITY OF A POLICE SERVICES DISTRICT
JANUARY 1999
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION ........... ................................ ............ .... ..... ........ ........
A. Background ... ..... ............. .................... ........... ................ ............. 1
b. Organization of the Report ............................................................. 2
II. POLICE SERVICES IN MIAMI DADE COUNTY 3
CURRENT STRUCTURE
A. Municipal and Countywide Services ................................................. 3
B. Variation in Municipal Law Enforcement Functions ........................ 3
C. Funding Structure ................................... ....................... .............. ....... 4
D. Advantages and Disadvantages of Current Service and Funding Structure 7
III. ALTERNATIVE MODELS OF SERVICE STRUCTURE: ADVANTAGES
AND DISADV ANT AGES .................................................................... 9
A. Consolidated Service Model .......................................................... 9
B. Regulated Service Model ................................................................. 10
C, Contract Model ,...........................................,.,...........,...................." 1 0
I. Los Angeles - the Lakewood Model
2. Broward County
D. Mutual Aid Agreements ............................,......,.......,............,....... 12
E. Models for Miami-Dade County......................................................, 13
I. Current - Complex Consolidated
2. Total Consolidation
3. Regulated law Enforcement
4. Contract Model
5. Mutual Aid
6. Summary
IV. ALTERNATIVE MODELS OF SERVICE FUNDING: ADVANTAGES
AND DISADVANTAGES ..................................................................... 17
A. Fee Based .................. ......................,................................................. 1 7
B. Contract ........... .............. ..... ......... ............ .......................... ............ 18
C. Special Taxing and Benefit Districts ..............,.................................,.. 19
I. Independent Special Taxing District
2. Dependent Special Taxing District
3. Special Benefit District
D, Municipal Services Taxing and Benefit Units - MSTU / MSBU ......, 22
E. Summary of Funding Alternatives ......,........................................,.,..., 23
V. MODELS FOR A COUNTYWIDE LAW ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT
IN MIAMI-DADE COUNTY UNDER FOUR INCORPORATION
SCENARIOS ... .................................................. ........................ ............. 25
A. Sheritrs Mandated Services and the Crime Lab ............................ 26
1. Model and Issues
2. Incorporation Scenarios- Advantages and Disadvantages
B. Sheritrs Mandated Services, Crime Lab and Limited Specialized
Services .... ........................... ..................... ..... .................. ................. 3 I
I. Model and Issues
2. Incorporation Scenarios - Advantages and Disadvantages
C. Sheritrs Mandated Services, Crime Lab and All Specialized
Services ........................................ .................................................... 33
1. Model and Issues
2. Incorporation Scenarios - Advantages and Disadvantages
D. Consolidated Police Services, Including Road Patrol and
General Investigation................................................. ..................... 36
1. Model and Issues
2. Incorporation Scenarios - Advantages and Disadvantages
E. Summary of Models and Incorporation Scenarios ......................... 38
VI. CONCLUSIONS AND POLICY OPTIONS
A. Countywide Sheriffs and Specialized Services Department with
Regulated Local Services and MDPD Contracts ..........................
41
B. Other Options...................................................... .........................
I. Retention of Current Structure
2. Creation of an Independent District
3. Countywide Department with Limited Specialized Services
and Contracting
43
11
I. INTRODUCTION
,,--
A. BACKGROUND
At the Board's Incorporation Workshop on July 14, 1998, staff discussed issues related to the
delivery of police services. Staff were directed to come back with a more comprehensive
discussion addressing both the need for, and the feasibility of, a countywide police district.
The question of how to ensure adequate law enforcement services throughout Miami-Dade
County is both complex and critically important. Any crime -- no matter where it occurs in the
community -- has an effect on the entire community. Crime has serious economic and social
impacts on Miami-Dade County. The impact on the tourism industry of the murder of a
tourist or the extent to which crime statistics discourage industries to come to the area
underscore the economic impact of crime. On a personal level, few Miami-Dade County
residents stay within the boundaries of a single jurisdiction. Most cross municipal boundaries
and police jurisdictions every day to work, recreate, and visit family and friends. If any area
of the County is "off limits" due to the reality of -- or the perception of __ crime, the daily
lives of all are diminished.
Crime in Miami-Dade continues to be a very real problem, but, due to the combined efforts of
the Miami-Dade Police Department (MDPD) and the police departments of all of the municipal
governments, the Miami-Dade County area is in a better position today than previously to
deal with a wide range of criminal activity.
The current situation, however, depends on a delicate equation that involves:
· the current size and capacity of the Miami-Dade Police force;
· the continued funding of specialized services jointly through Countywide and UMSA taxes;
and,
· the cooperation and efficacy of all the municipal police departments in the County.
Any change in this equation, whether in the size and capacity of MDPD due to incorporation
or annexation, or in the willingness of all County residents, both in UMSA and the
municipalities, to support a fair share of the cost of law enforcement services through
municipal, UMSA and countywide taxes, can threaten it.
This report addresses the delivery of a range of law enforcement functions. For the purposes of
the report, the functions are treated as three types: countywide (sheriffs services and the crime
lab that are provided countywide); specialized (services that can be considered municipal and
mayor may not be provided by cities); and general municipal, local services. Generally, the
breakdown is as follows:
Countywide
(Provided to all
Municipalities and UMSA)
Court Services
Crime Lab
Warrantsl Civil Process
Juvenile Assessment Center
911 Communications
Specialized
(Provided to UMSA and available
to all Municipalities)
Tactical Services
Special Response Team
Canine (including all specialized
canine units
Aviation I helicopter
Motorcycle Patrol
Hostage Negotiation
Marine Patrol
Underwater Recovery
Bomb Squads
(detection & disposal)
Central Investigations
Homicide
Traffic Homicide
Robbery Investigation
Narcotics - Interdiction
Sexual Crimes
Domestic Violencel
Child Exploitation
Economic Crimes
Criminal Intelligence I Organized
Crime, including Auto Theft
and Arson
Juvenile Gang Unit
Serious Habitual Offender
Criminal Apprehension
Program (SHOCAP)
Public Corruption
B. ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT
The following sections of this report contain:
General Municipal
(Provided to UMSA
Only)
Routine Patrol and
Response
Bicycle Patrol
Community Policing
General Investigations
Burglary
Larceny
Assault
Auto Theft
Public Housing
Policing
Section II: A review of the current structure and funding of police services in Miami-Dade
County;
Section Ill: A description of different types service structures;
Section IV: A description of alternative funding structures;
Section IV: A discussion of four potential models for countywide law enforcement in
Miami-Dade County under four different incorporation scenarios; and,
Section V: Conclusions, recommendations and suggested strategies for their implementation.
2
II. POLICE SERVICES IN MIAMI-DADE COUNTY - CURRENT STRUCTURE
A. MUNICIPAL AND COUNTYWIDE SERVICES
Law enforcement services to residents and visitors in Miami-Dade County are currently provided
by the municipal police departments in the 30 existing municipalities, the Miccosukee Police
Department, and by MDPD which provides services both countywide and in the
unincorporated area. A complete analysis of all law enforcement services in the County is
beyond the scope of this report; however, a 1995 study of municipal services in Miami-Dade
conducted by researchers at Florida International University (FlU) provides some insight into the
current structure.
The municipal police departments in Miami-Dade County vary considerably in size and in the
ratio of law enforcement employees to population. Based on data from the 1993 Uniform Crime
Reports, the FlU study reported that Indian Creek had 12 law enforcement employees, for a
ratio of 272.7 per thousand population; El Portal had five employees, for a ratio of 2.0 per
thousand population; Virginia Gardens employed seven, for a ratio of 3.2 per thousand
population; and the City of Miami employed 1,495, for a ratio of 4.2 per thousand population.
These departments all provide, at a minimum, local patrol, response and arrest functions within
their own jurisdictions. (See Appendix I.)
Unlike municipal police departments, MDPD provides both countywide and municipal law
enforcement functions, The Department provides all law enforcement functions in the
unincorporated area. On a countywide basis, it provides all state mandated sheriffs services,
the crime lab, and a range of specialized police services involving major ;nvestiga~i0;i.>,
economic crimes, and other cross jurisdictional matters. MDPD also provides services to some
cities that could be considered municipal but that are in fact provided by few of the
incorporated municipal police departments (e.g., homicide investigation and aviation).
With regard to police services in the unincorporated area, the FlU report estimated 3,294 law
enforcement employees for a ratio of 3. I per thousand population. There are currently 3,200
law enforcement officers in UMSA, for a ratio of 3.0 per thousand population. That ratio is
expected to rise in FY 98/99 and FY 99/00 with the employment of additional officers.
Some law enforcement functions are also performed by the Florida Department of Law
Enforcement (FDLE). FDLE is primarily involved in very high profile cases and in
multi-agency efforts such as the Tactical Operations Multi-Agency Cargo Anti-theft Squad
(TOMCA TS), a task force consisting of personnel from MDPD, FDLE, the US Customs
Service and the FBI that was formed in response to growing commercial cargo theft.
B. VARIATION IN MUNICIPAL LA W ENFORCEMENT FUNCTIONS
Two surveys were conducted to determine variation in functions among the local jurisdictions.
An internal survey of the Miami-Dade Police Department collected information from various
units regarding the provision of specialized services to existing municipalities, These include:
3
tactical services, centralized investigations (e.g., homicide and robbery) and administrative
support services such as training. (See Appendix 2.) In addition, a questionnaire was sent to all
municipal police jurisdictions in the County asking for their view of service relationships. (See
Appendix 3.)
The internal survey indicates that, with few exceptions, MDPD provides, or assists cities in the
provision of, virtually all specialized law enforcement services. Only the cities of Miami, Miami
Beach and Hialeah, for example, were reported as not having been routinely supported by
MDPD in homicide investigations.
A total of 21 jurisdictions responded to the municipal police department questionnaire. Although
many jurisdictions report providing a wide range of services, most acknowledge at least drawing
on the assistance ofMDPD for many of these services. With respect to many specialized police
functions, only five of the 21 jurisdictions responding reported that they provided homicide
investigation, seven reported providing traffic homicide investigation and none reported
providing aviation or full bomb squad (detection and disposal) services.
It should be noted that this survey does not address the level of service that a city is capable of
providing for these functions. For example, a department that provides homicide investigation
may not have the capacity to handle multiple homicides at the same time or a very high profile
homicide such as the Gianni Versaci assassination
In summary, the surveys demonstrate two things:
.
In order to maintain high quality specialized law enforcement services, the region as a whole
is highly dependent on MDPD's ability to provide, support or enhance them;
.
There is no uniform delineation of service provision between MDPD and municipal police
departments. The level of services provided by municipal police departments is more a
function of past practices and funding availability than an organized plan. Some cities are
highly dependent on MDPD, while others offer a fuller range of law enforcement police
services.
C. FUNDING STRUCTURE
Local police departments are funded through local revenues. According to the FlU study, total
law enforcement expenditures among the municipalities varied from $428,448 in El Portal to
$91,737,000 in the City of Miami. Per capita expenditures for police services also vary widely;
for example, Indian Creek Village spent $14,553 per capita on law enforcement; South Miami,
$246; EI Portal $174; Hialeah $130; and the unincorporated area $206. (See Appendix 4.) In
an analysis of factors predicting police expenditures, community wealth was found to be the
major predictor of per capita spending.
MDPD services are currently funded in three ways,
4
.
Funding is derived from countywide taxes for those services that are a 100% countywide
function (i.e., Sheriffs functions, the crime lab, and the Juvenile Assessment Center _ JAC).
.
For "split" services - those specialized services available to existing cities and provided to the
unincorporated area - funding is apportioned between the countywide budget and the UMSA
budget, adjusted both for work effort in the cities and to account for UMSA residents'
countywide tax contribution.
.
Police functions that are performed only in the unincorporated area are 100 % supported by
UMSA taxes.
The following Table depicts some of the current funding allocations for MDPD. A full budget
allocation is contained in Appendix 5.
5
Director's Office
Office of Director
Police Legal Bureaus
Budget and Planning Bureau
Media Relations
Information Services - Communications Bureau
Investigative Services
Criminal Intelligence
Enhanced Crime Fighting
Criminal Investigations
Economic Crimes Bureau
Homicide Bureaus
Robbery Bureau
Sexual crimes
Narcotics
Domestic Crimes
Uniform Service
Community Policing
Special Patrol
Tactical Operations
Aviation Section
Special Events
Police Operations Bureau
Public Housing
South Operations: Chief, Doral Station, Cutler Ridge
Station, Kendall Station, Hammocks Station
North Operations: Chief, Miami Lakes Station, Northside
Station, Intracoastal Station, Carol City Station
Centralized Services
Court Services
Training, Personnel, Psychological Services
Sheriffs Services
Warrants Bureau
Crime Laboratory Bureau
Property and Evidence Bureau
Crime Scene Investigations
23%
23%
23%
23%
23%
100%
0%
74%
0%
15%
19%
22%
22%
28%
o
19%
4%
19%
19%
o
4%
o
o
100%
23%
-100%
100%
4%
56%
6
77%
77%
77%
77%
77%
o
o
26%
100%
85%
81%
78%
78%
72%
100%
82%
96%
81%
81%
100%
96%
100%
100%
100%
0%
77%
0%
0%
96%
44%
D. ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF CURRENT SERVICE AND FUNDING
ARRANGEMENTS
r-",
The current structure of police services and funding in Miami-Dade County has developed over
a long period of time and has proved fairly stable.
Advantages: The existence of a very large, unified and nationally recognized police
department such as MDPD within Miami-Dade County benefits the entire county. The current
method of funding MDPD has established a department that:
1) provides certain services (e.g., sheriffs services and the crime lab) to ail. residents of the
County, irrespective of municipal jurisdiction;
2) provides all law enforcement services - both local patrol and specialized law
enforcement services - in the unincorporated area;
3) enables independent cities to utilize the specialized law enforcement services of MDPD;
and,
4) has the ability to provide a countywide perspective on, and response to, crime.
The quality of services provided by the Miami-Dade Police Department is widely recognized.
At the same time, the ability of individual municipalities to provide at least some of their
local police functions through a municipal police department allows for some degree of local
prioritization of law enforcement activities. To the extent that their fiscal capacity allows, each
jurisdiction can set and provide for its own desired level of local service. In addition each
jurisdiction is able to depend on the support and assistance, when requested, of the Miami-Dade
Police Department.
Disadvantages: Despite these advantages, it must be noted that the structure allows for
significant disparity in local services between jurisdictions. Some municipal jurisdictions are
able to and do purchase a level of local road patrol that other jurisdictions would have a very
hard time funding.
In addition, the current method of funding "split" services has certain risks. These are:
I) The method of funding some services from both the countywide and the-unincorporated
area budgets, requires that the "split" be regularly revisited and readjuste&'tNot only is it
difficult to calculate the appropriate split based on work effort, but any readjustment is in
effect a "zero-sum" game. If the split does not reflect as accurately as possible the balance of
incorporated and unincorporated effort, either the unincorporated area property tax payer or
the residents of municipalities may be supporting more than a fair share of services. Finally,
the allocation of funding is difficult to understand and may lead to public misperceptions
regarding the funding of MDPD.
2) The current structure is inefficient in temlS of the aggregate cost of municipal and
county sen'lces. The current structure allows each municipality the option of providing
7
services that are already provided by the County thereby unnecessarily duplicating services,
and capital expenditures thus increasing the aggregate cost of law enforcement services.
3) The current structure creates fiscal inequities. Those jurisdictions which provide
certain services (e.g., homicide investigations in the City of Miami and North Miami
Beach) experience a financial burden that is not comparable to other municipalities (e.g.,
Key Biscayne, Bal Harbor or South Miami) that do not provide those services even though
they are treated equally with respect to their taxing capacity.
4) The current structure is also potentially confusing given the proximity and irregularity of
municipal boundaries within a largely urbanized metropolitan region. In most cases, the
boundary between adjacent municipalities is not clearly marked. A traffic accident or other
incident in the middle of an intersection may cross three or more municipal jurisdictions.
Confusion over which jurisdiction has first-response responsibility may delay response and at
a minimum cause inconvenience to those involved. In addition, the lack of uniformity
between jurisdictions in certain functions, e.g., traffic control or response priorities to calls,
produces uncertainty regarding what to expect from law enforcement within different
jurisdictions.
5) The capacity of different jurisdictions to provide local law enforcement services is widely
varied. As a result there is the potential for considerable inequity in important police
functions. One jurisdiction, with a low level of need, may be able to afford a far greater
level of neighborhood patrol than another with a far greater need. Variation in local
capacity also affects the conditions under which law enforcement officers wOlk, c.g.,
facilities and support staff.
6) Finally. the current structure is highly vulnerable to the impact of potential future
incorporations. The current system depends on the existence of a large enough and
financially healthy unincorporated area to support both the scope of services and the level of
manpower of MOPO.
At some point. given future incorporations, erosion of the size of the department and the
fiscal capacity to support specialized services. would lead to a seriously diminished law
enforcement capacity in the County as a whole.
In summary, despite the fact that the current funding structure has been stable and satisfactory
over a long period of time, it may be appropriate to consider changing the funding structure for
MOPD services, in particular for specialized services. Alternative methods of delivering and
funding these services must be considered and evaluated.
8
III. ALTERNATIVE MODELS OF SERVICE STRUCTURE
As part of the analysis, staff considered various models of seIVice delivery. In general, the
structure of any local seIVice delivery system can vary on three core dimensions: planning,
financing and seIVice provision.
Four principle models of seIVice structure are:
.
Consolidated - in which the same agency plans, finances and produces the seIVice;
Regulated - in which one agency plans or regulates the seIVice but either one or more other
agencies finance and deliver the seIVice;
Contract - in which one or multiple agencies plan and finance the seIVice but another
provides it; and
Mutual aid agreements - in which multiple jurisdictions coordinate certain seIVices under
special circumstances.
.
.
.
Each model has advantages and disadvantages and the selection of a particular model will
depend on a variety of local conditions and priorities,
This section describes the advantages and disadvantages of consolidated, regulated and contract
seIVice delivery and mutual aid agreements in terms of seIVice provision. The following section
describes alternative financing models.
A. CONSOLIDATED SERVICE MODEL
In a jurisdiction with a fully independent police department, police seIVices are, by definition,
consolidated. These departments may be small or very large. The New York City Police
Department, for example, selVes the five counties that make up the City of New York. The
Department's command structure includes the five boroughs and local precincts, but the overall
financing, planning and delivery of seIVices is under a single unified department. Although it is
rare for multiple jurisdictions to join in a single consolidated department, it can occur. In Metro
Toronto, for example, the independent local police departments of the 13 municipalities and the
City of Toronto that comprise the Metropolitan Council, were originally retained as local
seIVice functions in 1953 when Metro was formed. In 1957, however, in J~e interests of
economies of scale, the departments were "amalgamated' into the Metro Police Council.
Advantages and Disadvantages of Consolidated Services
In general, a consolidated model has the advantage of maximizing the likelihood of uniform
service delivery throughout a jurisdiction thus eliminating, or at lest minimizing, inequity in
service within the jurisdiction. As the simplest-to-understand model, it can also be the most
accountable - everyone knows who is in charge and who is responsible for a particular service.
A consolidated system also ensures a jurisdiction-wide perspective. Where crime is mobile. it is
9
sensibl~ to have a law enforcement jurisdiction that is large enough to view trends in crime and
to respond to them in a comprehensive manner.
On the other hand, the very uniformity that a consolidated model may provide can prevent
achieving a desirable level of local variation in service. In addition, if the system is very large
and becomes unwieldy, a consolidated structure may lead to a loss, real or perceived, of access
and accountability.
B. REGULATED SERVICE MODEL
Under a regulated model, one agency plans or regulates a service that is delivered by and paid
for by others. This model most typically applies to services for which there are clear and
measurable standards of activity and outcomes. In terms of law enforcement, a regulated
model would involve the establishment and enforcement of specific standards for municipal
police departments in terms of such matters as: the ratio of officers to population, the ratio of
officers to geographic area; the specific range of services provided and functions performed;
standardized protocols for matters such as evidence collection and record keeping; standardized
personnel and training requirements and standards for crime clearance.
Currently, there is no established model for such standards with respect to municipal law
enforcement. Local law enforcement agencies may through application and review by the
Commission for Accreditation of Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA) become nationally
accredited. The process is time consuming and voluntary, however, and is not designed to
serve as a regulatory system monitoring performance and outcomes.
Advantages and Disadvantages of Regulated System
One advantage of a regulated model of service delivery is that enforcing established and
appropriate standards can assure at least a minimum level of service for residents of every
jurisdiction. To the extent that the standards are sufficient and enforceable, there would be some
assurance that law enforcement basic needs would be met in every area of the County.
The major obstacle to implementing such a system is that meaningful, measurable standards are
extremely difficult to establish, agree to and enforce. Currently there are no such agreed on
standards nationally or in Miami-Dade County. As described above, local police departments
vary widely in terms of levels of staffing and functions performed. Each department has a great
deal of autonomy in personnel practices, hiring, screening and evaluation. Clearance rates vary
widely.
C. CONTRACT MODEL
In a contract system, individual jurisdictions enter into contracts with other agencies for the
provision of all or only certain law enforcement services. There are examples of such an
approach. Typically in law enforcement, contracting involves a very large department, often a
County Sheriffs Department, under the direction of a countywide elected sheriff, that routinely
10
provid~s major investigations (such as homicide and economic crimes) and, in addition, enters ,r-.,
into contracts with individual cities to provide a specified level of local law enforcement.
I. Los Angeles - the "Lake wood Model"
The Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department is the largest and the oldest model of police
service contracting. Starting with the then-new City of Lakewood in 1954, the Department
now contracts with 40 cities to provide the full set of law enforcement needs. Some services
. ,
including homicide and narcotics investigations, are provided and funded countywide. For all
non-countywide services (e.g. local patrol, routine investigations), cities may choose to contract
with the Sheriffs Department either individually or as partners in a regional contract with other
adjacent cities as an alternative to funding an independent police department.
The contracts are negotiated for specific levels of service and are currently based on a "one-cost"
model for different levels of service. For example, in FY 1998-99, a two-deputy, 56-hour
deputy-sheriff service unit is priced at $428,442 per year. (See Appendix 6.) The actual level of
service must be agreed to by the LA Sheriffs Department Station Captain for the area and by
city officials. That level of service must meet or exceed the Sheriffs Departments recommended
minimum patrol and investigative capacity for that particular city.
The Department reports that the size and structure of the department, in particular the ability that
contracting provides to draw on a large force of officers for major events or emergencies such as
an earthquake or major civil disturbance, is critical to maintaining countywide public safety
capacity. In this case, the structure guards against the potential fragmentation in law
enforcement capacity and performance in the metropolitan area and multiple jurisdictions of Los
Angeles County.
Although since the inception of the program, some contracting cities formed independent local
departments, all of those have since rejoined the contract program.
2. Broward County
In Broward County, many specialized functions are provided countywide through the Broward
Sheriffs Department. The Division of the Office of the Sheriff contains, in addition to the
Sheriffs office, a public information section, a legal section and the Metropolitan Intelligence
Unit which coordinates with other law enforcement agencies in the county to identify, prosecute
and seize the assets of narcotics organizations and other organized criminal groups.
The Crime Prevention Division consists of five districts. This division provides a full range of
police services in the small unincorporated area of the county as well as strategic intelligence,
specialized police and emergency services, including aviation and marine services, crime scene
and gangs throughout the county. The Department also contracts with six cities within the
county (Pembroke Park, Dania, Lauderdale Lakes, Tamarac, Deerfield Beach and Weston) to
provide all law enforcement activities.
II
Advantages and Disadvantages of the Contract Model
A contract model can provide significant benefits in delivering specialized and general law
enforcement services in a metropolitan area. Additionally, new and existing cites are able to
achieve some economies of scale in administrative functions. To the extent that the resulting
department i~ large enough to support a full range of specialized services that small departments
might not be able to afford, and to employ a large enough contingent of law enforcement
officers to assure capacity for large-scale events, a contract model can enhance the level of law
enforcement available to all of the participating jurisdictions.
There are, however, a range of difficulties associated with establishing this kind of model.
.
First, as described below under financing alternatives, it is exceedingly difficult to develop a
fair and predictable pricing system for law enforcement services. Contracts are also
voluntary and introduce a level of uncertainty that without long enough contract periods can
make long-term planning for staff and capital investments problematic. In Los Angeles, the
contract period is typically five years, subject to annual review.
.
Minimum levels of service must also be determined. The Los Angeles Sheriff's Department
establishes a threshold service level that must be met for each participating municipality.
This requires considerable cooperation and good faith on the part of all parties. For
example, it requires that the city officials agree to the Sheriff's Department's assessment of
their minimum service level - even if that level of service is more costly than they would
like or than they anticipated,
.
In addition, given the voluntary nature of contracts and the mobility of crime, there is a
threat that without some clear standards for service levels for all jurisdictions, including
those who provide their own services, the crime problems of a nonparticipating jurisdiction
may spill beyond its boundaries.
.
In the examples of Broward County and LA County, in which the same department provides
services to both contracting municipalities and to the unincorporated area, there is the
additional risk that the unincorporated area, which does not have a discrete contract for a
fixed level of service, maybe shortchanged.
D. MUTUAL AID AGREEMENTS
For some types of local services - typically related to public safety - service sharing through
mutual aid agreements provides a different mode of service delivery. In this model different
jurisdictions agree that, under specific conditions - typically of an emergency nature, they will
help each other out.
12
Advantages and Disadvantages of Mutual Aid
'-:--,
A mutual aid agreement recognizes and, to some extent, compensates for the fact that individual
jurisdictions cannot always provide adequate law enforcement on their own under all
circumstances. With mutual aid agreements, a small municipality retains local control over its
law enforcement services but is able to call on other jurisdictions for manpower and assistance if
needed. Thus the aid agreement acts as a kind of insurance policy against any individual
jurisdiction's unforeseen and unfunded emergency.
There are, however, many disadvantages to an over-reliance on mutual aid.
.
For many specialized law enforcement services that require complex and dedicated training
and equipment (e.g., complex homicide investigations, specialized domestic violence
programs, or bomb removal and disposal), the sum of many small departments cannot equal
the resources and equipment of one large one.
If no single jurisdiction has the capacity to dedicate sufficient staff and resources to a
specific function, then the function simply cannot be provided no matter how willing the
jurisdictions are to help each other out.
In addition, as a method of reliably and routinely ensuring adequate law enforcement, mutual aid
agreements have other serious disadvantages.
· The agreements are voluntary and are operationally complex. For example, the command
structure and protocols will vary depending on which jurisdiction has requested assistance
and the location of the event. The potential for non-uniform protocols or non-standardized
training in such matters as crowd control or evidence collection may compromise the safety
of residents and police officers or, in an investigation, the apprehension and prosecution of
criminal violators.
· Finally, the principal of mutual aid assumes some degree of common capacity. A mutual
aid agreement in which one jurisdiction provides far more aid than it receives from another is
out of balance because reciprocation may not be feasible to the extent that is. required by the
major, larger agency. This can lead to one jurisdiction, and one jurisdiction's tax payers,
being unfairly burdened for the cost of providing aid to another jurisdiction.
E. MODELS FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY
Each model clearly has a mix of advantages and disadvantages and it is difficult to fit anyone
model to the context and needs of Miami-Dade County,
13
Current Model
As currently structured, law enforcement services in Miami-Dade County are a complex
consolidated model - different police services are consolidated at different levels of jurisdiction.
Sheriff's services and the crime lab are consolidated countywide. Local patrol is consolidated at
the municipal level - each jurisdiction independently plans, funds and delivers local patrol
within its jurisdiction, with the County acting as the jurisdiction for the unincorporated area.
Specialized services - the "split services" described above - are harder to describe. Some cities,
in addition to financing and providing local patrol, also finance and provide a range of special
services including homicide. Those cities can, to some extent, be viewed as having a
consolidated service structure. Most cities, however, depend at least to some extent -- many
entirely -- on MDPD for such services. To the extent that Miami-Dade County both plans and
delivers these law enforcement services, makes them available countywide, and funds them
through a mix of countywide and UMSA taxes, these specialized services can be said to be
operationally consolidated. How~ver, the mix of funding sources and the capacity for
municipalities to self-provide the services complicates the picture.
Total Consolidation
To achieve a fully consolidated model would reqUire the merger of all police functions -
including all municipal law enforcement services provided in the incorporated and
unincorporated area - into a single large agency under the authority of a single jurisdiction.
Although there are examples of large police departments that serve populations larger than that
of Miami-Dade County, e. g,. the New York City Police Department which serves all five
boroughs of New York, it is extremely unlikely that this could occur in Miami-Dade County.
Existing cities or new cites are unlikely to voluntarily give up control over their own local
police departments. In addition, without an alternative funding mechanism, there is no capacity
within the countywide budget to fully fund a countywide consolidated police department.
On the other hand, the consolidation of at least ~ of the specialized services may be
somewhat easier to accomplish. Since many jurisdictions do not provide the full range of
services, there could be less resistance to fully transferring these functions to MDPD. Those
cities that either already provide or choose to provide the service in the future, could have the
option of doing so but there would be a clear understanding that MDPD has the primary
responsibility - and appropriate funding - for these services. Funding for such a department
would require capacity within the countywide budget.
Regulated Law Enforcement
With respect to establishing a regulated law enforcement model in Miami-Dade County, the
Miami Dade County Home Rule Charter provides that the County may set minimum standards
for a range of services, If those minimum standards are not met, the County may assume the
14
function and require reimbursement. Although not codified, those standards could include
minimum standards for the provision of some or all law enforcement services by a ,~'"
municipality.
Developing a regulated model, would require:
.
establishing reasonable standards to which all jurisdictions could agree;
developing a fair and accountable regulatory process for monitoring those standards; and,
achieving consensus on a clear and fair process for establishing the conditions under which
the County would in effect pre-empt a municipality's law enforcement functions and the
municipal revenues required to provide it.
.
.
Contract Model
At present, MDPD does not enter into long-term contracts for any services. For a new city, it
has been the practice for the department to continue to provide service at the level at which it
had been provided prior to their incorporation during a transition period through an inter-local
agreement in which the new city pays for the service. At the end of that period, local police
functions, at whatever level the jurisdiction has determined are appropriate, are assumed by the
new municipal police department.
For the newest cities, these locally assumed functions have not typically involved homicide
investigation or many of the other specialized services for which they remain dependent on
MDPD. As new cities have formed, both the significance of having these services available
countywide and the vulnerability of the current system has become more apparent.
The idea of a contract model for Miami-Dade has some attraction. The primary obstacles, which
are discussed further in the following section, are:
· establishing a pricing system. e.g. Does the contracting jurisdiction pay for only selected
services? If for a fixed number of patrol units does the contract price include full overhead?,
etc.;
· the voluntary nature of contracts;
· assuring that contractual obligations to one jurisdiction do not lead to any, degradation oJ
service in the area otherwise served by the contracting jurisdiction _ whether that is MDPD
or another municipal police department.
By policy, the Board of County Commissioners has required that Department not contract for
any services with new cities beyond the transition period unless it is eSlablished that there are no
unmet needs in the unincorporated area.
In addition, a contract model is especially problematic in relation to specialized services (e.g,
multiple homicides or hostages) which may be infrequently needed, and therefore not seen by a
city as a high budget priority. When those services are needed, they are needed urgently.
15
Mutu\1 Aid
With respect to mutual aid, the County and cities, with the exceptions of Key Biscayne, Bay
Harbor Islands and Homestead, have recently agreed that, in addition to providing mutual aid in
certain types of events, officers from each jurisdiction may make arrests within each others'
jurisdictions without a prior call for assistance under very specific circumstances - i.e., if the
officer witnesses a crime in progress while in a jurisdiction other than their own. (Appendix
7.)
This is clearly a step forward in acknowledging the metropolitan nature of crime in the county.
Without the scale and scope of MDPD to support specialized services, however, mutual aid
alone cannot address the metropolitan law enforcement needs of the County.
Summary of Models
In sum, there is a need to preserve the integrity of the specialized services provided by MDPD
and it cannot be guaranteed that this capacity can be preserved under the current structure if
there are future incorporations of any significant size or negative fiscal impact.
If we consider alternatives to the current situation from a purely operational point of view, a
countywide consolidated model for specialized services, in particular those that are clearly too
expensive for many of the municipalities to routinely provide (e.g., aviation, specialized canine
services, bomb disposal) and those that clearly address regional issues (e.g., economic crimes,
narcotics intervention) could assure the preservation of those services.
In addition, given the choice of most small municipalities to stress local patrol rather than
specialized services, continued local provision of routine patrol and local investi~ations
would allow individual municipalities the ability to tailor these services to their individual
desires and fiscal capacity. By clearly separating the funding for specialized servi.ces, some of
the current obstacles to MDPD contracting with new or existing jurisdictions for local services
would also be removed.
To minimize inequity in local law enforcement, explicit minimum standards could be
established for municipal police departments that would assure that each department had
adequate local patrol and response time and the capacity to appropriately conduct general
investigations.
If the Board were to pursue this strategy, the issues of how to fund specialized law enforcement.
how to establish a contract program, and how to establish a regulatory framework for local law
enforcement will need to be addressed.
Funding options for services are discussed in the following section.
16
IV. ALTERNATIVE MODELS OF SERVICE FUNDING
.~.
( '~
Financing for local services, both operating and capital, derives from a variety of sources,
including taxes and fees, grants (federal and state), capital and revenue bonds, entitlements-
such as state revenue sharing, interest earned, etc.. Anyone service may be funded from
multiple sources.
Law enforcement in the County, both for MDPD and for the individual police department, is
funded from a variety of sources, including general funds (municipal, Countywide, UMSA),
grants (e.g., COPS), and the Law Enforcement Trust Fund (LETF) established with proceeds
from the sale of seized goods and property.
Four basic alternative funding structures for municipal services are:
· Fee Based: The recipient of the service wholly or in part makes direct payment for service
received at the point of service.
· Contracts: The recipient purchases the availability of services over a longer term through an
arranged payment.
· Taxing District: (Independent or Dependent): Recipients of the service pay for the
availability of the service within an established geographic area through a uniform millage
rate.
· Benefit District: The recipients of the service are assessed for a service that has a direct and
common benefit to properties within the geographic area covered by the district.
A. FEE BASED:
With respect to specialized law enforcement services provided to cities, there has been some
discussion of directly charging any municipality that receives a specialized law enforcement
service from MDPD for the actual cost of that specific service on an event-by-event basis. This
would involve establishing a fee schedule for each type of activity, e.g., a homicide investigation,
the deployment of a bomb squad or SWAT team. The fee schedule could also take into account
the duration and intensity of an event and the number of staff dedicated to it.
Advantages and Disadvantages of A Fee Based Structure
Although this method has the apparent advantage of ensuring that Miami-Dade is fully
reimbursed for services rendered within a municipal jurisdiction, in practice it is neither
workable nor equitable.
· It would not be possible, without potentially bankrupting a small city, to fully recover the
cost of a major event or an investigation such as was involved in the series of murders
along the Tamiami Trail through fees and charges.
17
· Some incidents, such as the school-bus high jacking, cross multiple municipal jurisdictions
and there is no rational accounting basis that could establish a fair allocation of charges.
· There is also no method for a municipality to judiciously structure its municipal budget to
anticipate such charges. Few municipalities would be able to establish the level of reserve or
contingency funds that might be needed to compensate for a major and unanticipated
investigation or event.
· In addition, a direct cost recovery model would produce serious uncertainty regarding
long-term financing of MDPD.
It may be possible to establish a fee structure for certain very specific activities or programs,
such as special anti-auto-theft programs (e.g. VIN etching) or specific training programs for
municipal officers. However, as a means of supporting general law enforcement activities in
multiple jurisdictions over a long period of time, a fee-based structure cannot provide the
financial stability and predictability required to plan and provide adequate law enforcement
services.
Staff were unable to identify any general law enforcement program that IS conducted and
financed on a fee basis.
B. CONTRACT
Some examples of a contract system are described in Section III of this report. In sllch a syc;t('m
individual jurisdictions could enter into contracts with MDPD for the provision of all or only
certain law enforcement services.
Fiscal Advantages and Disadvantages of the Contract Model
A contract model can provide some fiscal benefits for the delivery of both specialized and
general law enforcement services.
.
To the extent that newly formed cities contract with an existing law enforcement agency,
they are saved the startup costs of a new police department.
.
New and existing cites are also able to achieve some economies of scale in administrative
functions,
.
Jurisdictions would also be assured of common training and reliable recruitment practices.
.
In addition, to the extent that the resulting department is large enough to support a full range
of specialized services and has a large enough contingent of law enforcement officers to
provide capacity for large-scale events, the economies of scale of a contract model can
enhance the level oflaw enforcement available to all of the participating jurisdictions,
18
There are, however, a range of fiscal difficulties associated with establishing this kind of model.
"
.
First, it is difficult to develop a fair and predictable pricing system for law enforcement
services. Since the inception of its contract system, the LA Sheriff's Department has
developed and negotiated a variety of pricing structures - including a detailed "menu"
based system and the current "one price" patrol unit model.
Immediately prior to the adoption of this model, the Department offered cities the option of
purchasing two types of patrol - general law patrol and traffic law patrol. The traffic-law
patrol officers, available at a lower rate, were expected to focus primarily on traffic issues
and did not have the same level of training as general law enforcement officers. Some cities,
however, came to depend on these officers for a full range of law enforcement services.
Those cities required more intensive district back-up for general law enforcement and the
district was not recovering its full cost for investigative services.
.
In addition, as described above, contracts are voluntary and introduce a level of uncertainty
that can make long-term planning for staff and capital investments problematic. In Los
Angeles, the contract period is typically five years, subject to annual review. Without a
clear expectation that a contract will be renewed, it is difficult to adequately plan for
staffing and for any long-term investments in technology, equipment or facilities.
.
Finally, a city that may clearly need a service, may not be able to afford to contract for it.
C . SPECIAL TAXING AND BENEFIT DISTRICTS
Special taxing and benefit districts, as opposed to general government districts, typically provide
services that are not otherwise available within a particular jurisdiction, or may provide enhanced
levels of service over and above what is otherwise provided. State law governs the method of
creating, and the authority awarded to, such districts. There is little flexibility under current state
law to design alternative funding methods for a countywide police district.
Depending on their governance structure and budget approval provisions, special taxing districts
may be independent or dependent.
I. INDEPENDENT SPECIAL TAXING DISTRICT
The establishment of an independent police services district to provide all or a limited set of law
enforcement functions would have to meet all state mandated minimum requirements for such
districts, These requirements govern the purpose of the district, the powers, function and duties
of the district regarding ad valorem taxation, bond issuance and revenue raising capabilities, the
membership and organization of the governing board, the methods of financing the district and
other requirements. These are described in Chapter 189.404(3), Florida Statues, Independent
19
districts are typically created by the state legislature by special act and cannot provide general
government functions.
However, under Florida Law, counties do have the authority to create certain types of
independent countywide districts. These districts are limited to children's services, county
health care, mental health care and community development districts. If the functions of such
districts were expanded to include specialized police services, the creation of the district, like
others, would likely be subject to the passage of a countywide referendum authorizing the
district's charter and the millage rate for the district within whatever limit was allowed by
stature. For example, current law caps a county children's services district .5 mills; while a
county health care district is capped at 5 mills. (Subsection 125.901 F. S.)
Thus, under current state law an independent police services district could not be created by
county ordinance without prior statutory authorization and voter approval or, if modeled after a
community development district, without the approval of 100% of the property owners. In
addition, in order to qualify as an independent district, the district must not meet any of the
criteria set forth in Subsection 189.403(2) F. S.. The County Commission would not provide its
governance and its governing board. The district's board would be wholly responsible for
policy-making, planning, operating and setting the budget of the police district in accordance
with the district's charter provisions.
No examples were identified of a special independent police services district that provided a
wide range of general law enforcement functions across multiple jurisdictions.
Advantages and Disadvantages of an Independent Special District
If it were possible to create such a district, an independent special taxing district for police
specialized services, that district could include all existing municipalities and the unincolJ>Orated
area and would clearly distribute the fiscal responsibility for supporting those services among all
Miami-Dade taxpayers.
There are however, substantial obstacles to implementation.
.
First, it would require legislative authorization in order to have taxing authority.
.
Second, the creation of the district, and the approval of a millage to support it, would likely
require a countywide referendum. It is unlikely that such a referendum would be approved
without substantial support from all the municipalities and a prolonged and vigorous
campaign,
.
Finally, even if these obstacles were overcome, the County Commission may wish to
consider whether or not it would choose to relinquish such an important function of what is
typically a general government function to an independent governing body.
20
2. DEPENDENT SPECIAL TAXING DISTRICT
Under the Miami-Dade Home Rule Charter, Section 1.10(A), the Board of County
Commissioners may establish a special taxing district by ordinance. Thus the Board of
County Conunissioners could, without a referendum, create a dependent special taxing district
for police services that could cover the unincorporated area and any individual municipalities
that choose to participate in the district.
The milllage required to support the services provided by the district would depend both on
the range of services provided and the taxable value of the participating area. As a dependent
district, the millage, like that of the Fire and Rescue District, would count against the
County's countywide 10 mill cap.
Advantages and Disadvantages of a Dependent Special District
The creation of a dependent district would be easier to accomplish than the creation of an
independent district. Unlike an independent district, it would not require legislative
authorization and, depending on the ordinance creating it, it may not require voter approval.
In addition, the Board of County Conunissioners would remain the governing body with policy
and budget approval.
However, there are serious fiscal and operational limitations on such a district.
· First, the millage required to support a dependent district Could count against the County's
10 mill cap. Depending on the number of services to be provided by the district, the li1i::dgl.:
currently available may not be sufficient to support the services.
· Second, should any city choose not to participate, the County would in effect be forgoing
potential countywide revenues for provision of services that are not countywide. This is
currently the case with the Fire and Rescue District. For that district, the County does not
collect Fire-Rescue District millage from the cities of Miami, Hialeah, Cora) Gables and Key
Biscayne despite the fact that the millage for the district is counted against the 10 mill cap.
· In addition, depending on the range of services to be included in the police district, those
cities that do not participate may no longer be entitled to critical law enforcement services
currently available to them, placing the residents of those cities at greater risk. Given the
mobility of crime and the countywide impact of crime in any jurisdiction, the County as a
whole could suffer.
3. SPECIAL BENEFIT DISTRICTS
A special benefit or assessment district requires a clear and direct Ubenefit" resulting from the
assessment paid and a clear method of establishing the benefit. There are many special benefit
districts in the County that provide for landscaping and infrastructure such as sidewalks or
21
, '
sewers, or lighting. Public safety benefit districts include guard gates and roving patrols. It
would, however, be legally impossible, absent a reversal of recent Florida Supreme Court
Opinions, to establish the necessary direct benefit for a more general law enforcement services
special benefit district as well as a defensible, measurable method for benefit assessment charges
to individual property owners.
In addition, any benefit district requires majority voter approval. Past experience demonstrates
that approval for such districts is difficult to obtain, and may be especially difficult for a large
metropolitan area.
a. Inglewood. California
With respect to general law enforcement, as opposed to a single-purpose district such as a guard
district or roving patrol district, staff were able to identify only one existing law enforcement
benefit assessment district. That district is located in the City of Inglewood, California
(population 100,000 with an area of nine square miles) and grew out of a an anti-crime effort
similar to Operation Clean Sweep/Safe Streets that had previously been funded on an overtime
basis. Having determined that a 20-officer unit would be adequate to continue the service, city
officials and voters approved a Police Benefit Assessment District (P.B.A.D.) consisting of all
city parcels. The district funds a special anti-crime unit focused on the suppression of narcotics
and gang-related activity. (Appendix 8.)
Although Inglewood does provide an example of a successful benefit district, it must be noted
that the service provided is very limited in scope. It is also a small geographic area and the
funding is essentially for one specialized unit. It is difficult to generalize this example to
Miami-Dade County.
Advantages and Disadvantages of Special Benefit Districts
A special benefit district enables an area to receive a service or benefit that is not otherwise
available or at a level that is not otherwise available. To the extent that such a district requires
voter approval, they enable local areas to establish levels of services that are specifically tailored
to the desires of residents. There are many obstacles to creating such a district.
· Absent a reversal of current case law, it is impossible to establish the necessary direct benefit
and assessment methodology for a service such as specialized law enforcement.
· Given the requirement for voter approval, such a district would be difficult to establish at
the scope and scale that would be needed.
Do MUNICIPAL SERVICES TAXING AND BENEFIT UNIT:
Section 125.01, F.S.. enables counties to establish municipal service taxing or benefit units
(MSTUIMSTB) specifically for the purpose of providing '<municipal services and facilities from
22
funds ~erived from service charges, special assessments of taxes within such district only."
125.01 (5)(a)(F.S.). These MSTUs or MSTBs may include both incorporated and unincorporated
areas provided that the governing bodies agree to participate.
Advantages and Disadvantages of MSTU,
Although a municipal services taxing unit could allow multiple jurisdictions to participate in
funding general or specialized law enforcement, and while there are fewer restrictions as to the
purpose of this type of district, there are significant drawbacks.
.
State law requires the agreement of all of the governing bodies of the j~sdictions that
would be participating in the MSTU. In Miami-Dade County, the millage to fund the
services would count against the 10 mill municipal caps of the participating cities and of
UMSA. Many cities may be unwilling, or unable, to commit a portion of their municipal
millage to this purpose.
.
Given fiscal constraints, it is possible that those cities most in need of specialized services
would be least likely to be able to participate in the MSTU.
.
In addition, because an MSTU is voluntary, any jurisdiction, although agreeing to participate
for a fixed number of years, could, after the termination of the agreement, opt to leave the
MSTU. The remaining jurisdictions would have to reassess issues of cost effectiveness,
long term planning and funding.
No examples were identified of an MSTU that provided a range of law enforcement functions
across multiple jurisdictions.
However, in several counties, MSTUs are used to provide local police services in the
unincorporated area. In Penellas County, for example, an MSTU supports law enforcement
services provided by the Sheriffs Department in the unincorporated area. In addition, the
Sheriffs Department contracts with 10 small cities to provide full police services.
As in Broward, the Pinellas County Sheriff is a constitutional officer, elected countywide.
E. SUMMARY OF FUNDING ALTERNATIVES
Although there are several possible special district approaches to funding specialized law
enforcement services, they all have significant impediments and drawbacks.
· The most straightforward approach to funding specialized services would be to fund such
services through the countywide millage.
Unlike creating a countywide special district, this approach would avoid the statutory limitations
on independent districts created by ordinance and the requirement for voter approval. Unlike a
23
dependent district or MSTU, this approach would ensure that these services would be available
throughout the County, and not be dependent on the voluntary participation of each
municipality.
The major obstacle to this approach is financial. At present, there is little capacity to
accommodate significant additional costs for law enforcement within the 10 mill cap, without
potentially eroding or limiting other countywide services. In addition, for those cities that elect
to continue to provide some or all of the specialized services, an argument could be made that
that this approach constitutes double taxation.
If, however, in the future, funding responsibilities in the countywide 10 mill cap were removed,
and if the support for this approach were obtained from the existing municipalities, this
alternative could become more feasible.
Three possible sources of funding responsibility relief include:
· the establishment of a non-ad valorem fire rescue special assessment district;
· a dedicated funding source for mass transit (e.g., a local option transit sales tax); and
· a shifting of costs currently borne by counties is support of the judiciary to the state.
Revision Seven to the Florida Constitution which approves such a shift of court-support costs
was approved by the electorate on November 3, 1998. We must now monitor closely the
legislature's actions in response to this vote of the people.
Thus the extent to which this approach is both feasible and desirable, depends on the specific
services that would be provided and the costs of those services.
The following section reviews four models for a countywide police service, ranging from very
limited countywide services to full consolidation.
24
IV. MODELS OF COUNTYWIDE LAW ENFORCEMENT IN MIAMI-DADE COUNTY
!..---..~
To assist the Board in evaluating potential alternatives for establishing a police department to
provide services countywide by means of countywide funding, staff reviewed four models of
countywide law enforcement services. These models vary by specific functions that would be
available and funded on a countywide basis, with ail other services to be provided by existing
or new municipal police departments.
The four models are:
· Sheriffs Mandated Services and Crime Lab
· Sheriffs Mandated Services, Crime Lab and Limited Central Services
· Sheriffs Mandated Services, Crime Lab, Limited Central Services, and Specialized Services
· Consolidated Police Services - all of the above including road patrol
Each model is reviewed in terms of the following questions:
· What services would be provided by the Countywide department?
· What is the cost of those services?
· How could those services be funded?
· What services would no longer be provided countywide?
· What is the cost of those services?
· What are the fiscal implications to UMSA and the municipalities?
· What are the advantages and disadvantages of the model under four incorpOIati011 SCClIdlio:>:
Because many potential incorporation configurations have been suggested and considered, for
the purpose of this study we have focused on four incorporation scenarios. They are:
· Scenario A - Total incorporation (or annexation) of the entire unincorporated area into one
large jurisdiction;
· Scenario B - Incorporation of the unincorporated area into several cities of about the size of
the City of Miami or larger;
· Scenario C - Total incorporation into municipalities of 10,000 to 20,000 persons with a
residual unincorporated area;
· Scenario 0 - Continued incremental incorporation, with a gradually and unpredictably
diminishing unincorporated area.
These models and their advantages and disadvantages are considered individually In Sections
A through 0 and summarized in Section E,
25
A. MODEL 1: SHERIFFS' MANDATED SERVICES AND CRIME LAB
I. What services would be provided countywide by the County?
Court Services
Warrants
Crime Lab
2. How would these services be funded?
Countywide taxes would be available to cover these services.
3. What is the cost of these services (FY 98-99)?
$24,261,000 ($19,320,000 plus overhead)
4. What services would not be provided Countywide or to cities?
All other services, including
911
Juvenile Assessment Center
Aviation
Central Records
Central Investigations
Economic Crime Bureau
Homicide and Crime Scene
Sex Crime Investigation
Domestic Crime Investigation
General Investigation (including burglary, larceny, assault and auto theft)
Narcotics
Criminal Intelligence
Robbery
Special Patrol
Tactical (SRT)
Aviation - helicopter
Underwater recovery
Training
Local Patrol in UMSA would be the responsibility of a redefined department
that served only the unincorporated area)
5. What is the cost of these services (FY 98-99)?
$316,514,000
6. Fiscal Issues
26
.
This model substantially reduces the County's financial obligations for countywide services
to the minimum required by law. The countywide millage could be reduced as a result.
,~::s...
.
Existing and new municipalities, and UMSA, would be required to self-finance all services
no longer provided by MDPD. Cities could make voluntary arrangements to contract for
these services with other jurisdictions. The current cost for provision of these services to
existing municipalities is about $ I 4 million.
.
Smaller cities, and in particular those cities with high service needs and low tax base that are
not currently self-providing these services, would be at a serious fiscal and operational
disadvantage.
.
Given the current UMSA structure, a new UMSA Police Department would be formed to
provide local patrol and all specialized services in the unincorporated area only and all
non-countywide services would have to be fully absorbed into the UMSA budget.
.
UMSA property taxes would have to increase by approximately I (one) mill to cover the
additional expense of fully funding these services.
INCORPORA TlON SCENARIOS
Advanta2es
.
Under~ incorporation scenario, the state mandated services and the crime lab would be
continued,
.
This model is consistent with the Board's policy to shed municipal services.
Disadvantages
The major disadvantage of this model under any incorporation scenano would be the
disestablishment of the current Miami-Dade Police Department.
Specific disadvantages, and the extent to which there could be serious service disruptions, would
depend on the incorporation scenario pursued.
A single large city created out of the current unincorporated area (Scenario A) would have the
fiscal capacity to form a police department that could provide many, if not all, of the services
that would no longer be available countywide. However, that new police department would
be entirely under the political and administrative jurisdiction of the new city.
The potential disadvantages to creating a large new police department include:
27
, '
.
Loss of Continuity There would be no ability to ensure continuity in the pnontles,
performance and the overall values of the Miami-Dade Police Department which is
nationally accredited and widely recognized for its professionalism and expertise.
.
Start up costs and effort: The startup costs to initialize a new department of this scale could
be significant. Although arrangements could be made to convey some MDPD facilities (e.g.,
the district stations and other facilities) and equipment (including computer systems,
hardware, vehicles, etc.), the costs to the new city would be substantial. There would also
be a significant cost to either transfer or build up administrative infrastructure such as data
bases, financial systems, etc. .
.
Personnel: A new department of this size would face significant recruitment issues and, with
no assurance that current staff would be absorbed into the new department, the County could
face the loss of experienced and trained law enforcement personnel. For staff that were
transferred to the new department, a range of issues such as seniority, retirement, liability for
unused sick-leave or vacation days would have to be addressed.
.
Coordination with the Sheriff's Department and Crime Lab: Under the current structure
there is close coordination between the Crime Lab, the crime scene unit and investigative
units such as homicide, robbery, and sexual battery. Coordination between these units and
continuity and consistency in crime scene and forensic evidence collection protocols
minimizes the chance that the integrity of a case will be compromised by inconsistent or
improper procedures.
.
Juvenile Assessment Center (lAC). The JAC is designed to serve the needs of detained
juveniles by providing for quicker processing and appropriate referrals to social services.
The JAC also, by serving as a central drop off center for juveniles, enables officers to return
to duty faster than would otherwise be the case. Although a single large city may elect to
continue the JAC, that is not assured and the participation of other municipalities would
require negotiation.
Under Scenario B (several large incorporations) in addition to all of the above issues, there
would be a significant loss of economies of scale for certain specialized functions that, while
infrequently called for, are important elements of public safety.
The capacity of even a city of 300,000 to fund and retain these services is questionable. Those
services include:
.
HelicoPters: MDPD helicopters are used for a variety of functions, such as criminal search
and pursuit in UMSA and security for certain high profile events (e.g., visiting dignitaries;
the Summit of the Americas, and the Super Bowl, etc.). It would likely be cost prohibitive
for a jurisdiction of 300,000 to acquire and maintain this equipment, to provide staff and to
ensure the number of flight hours needed for certification.
28
.
Canine: Although several moderately sized cities may be able to fund a limited canine
function such as police dogs, the maintenance of specialty canine units would likely be cost
prohibitive.
".--~
At present MDPD has 26 canines. Of these, 13 are trained to detect explosives (six at the
airport and seven in the Special Patrol Bureau), seven are trained to detect narcotics, three
are trained for cadaver searches, one is trained for missing persons and one each is being
trained for cadaver and narcotics detection. It is not likely that smaller jurisdictions, even
of 300,000, would be able to support similar capacity.
.
Special Response Team (SRT): Several smaller police departments may be able to provide
some SRT coverage. However, it would likely be cost prohibitive to staff and provide
training to the level required to deal with major or highly complex incidents such as a bus
hijacking or a multiple hostage situation in a public or private facility.
.
Investi2ative Functions: Specialized investigative functions conducted by the Homicide
Bureau, Robbery Bureau, Narcotics Bureau and Sexual Battery Bureau require dedicated
training and manpower. It is unlikely that smaller cities would have the capacity to dedicate
the funding required to maintain current level of manpower, training, and expertise in these
bureaus.
.
Countywide Perspective: The independent police departments of the new and existing cities
would likely enter into mutual aid agreements and could develop inter-jurisdictional task
forces such as the RID program. However, the capacity for any single jurisdiction to
maintain a truly countywide "big picture" becomes significantly decreased.
Crime does not respect municipal boundaries and, given the mobility of crime, there is
significant benefit in having a large jurisdiction that has a substantial criminal intelligence
unit and the ability to deploy large numbers of officers. This is particularly evident in
the area of economic crime (fraud, embezzlement, large scale auto theft operations) that in
the long run effect the economic vitality of the region as a whole.
· Manpower Capacity: Certain events, such as a large-sale natural disaster or civil disturbance,
or a major incident such as a plane crash, require the coordinated deployment of officers
with comparable training and equipment. Without extensive inter-jurisdictional cooperation
among several large departments and inter-local agreements providing for a clear command
structure and common training for such events there could be a diminished capacity to
respond.
In addition, the capacity to accomplish the kind of large-scale inter-jurisdictional and
interagency coordination that is required to deal with major events of countywide
significance, such as a summit or national political convention, would be diminished,
(Appendix 9 is a brief synopsis of the planning and coordination involved in the
providing law enforcement for the Summit of the Americas. Similar arrangements would be
29
, ' .
required for any major event such as a national political convention or, on a smaller scale,
visits by major elected officials.)
All of these disadvantages are especially acute under Scenario C (multiple small incorporations
with the potential of a small residual unincorporated area).
Small jurisdictions typically provide local patrol and response with little or no
investigative capacity. Under this scenario, it is likely that many specialized and
investigative functions would be lost and adequate basic law enforcement could not be
assured.
Under Scenario D (continued incremental incorporation with a gradually diminishing
unincorporated area), the extent of - and the pace at which - these disadvantages would
become apparent would depend on the number and characteristics of any new cities that are
approved and the size and configuration of the remaining unincorporated area.
· Approval of incorporations that have a negative fiscal impact on the UMSA budget, will
require additional millage (both UMSA and Countywide) to fund the level of services that
currently exist.
· To the extent that any new city by virtue of its boundaries takes with it a balance of
revenues and expenditures, the impact on law enforcement services would be more
gradual and would depend on the size and configuration of the remaining unincorporated
service area. For example, if future incorporations were to create large several but non
adjacent and distant unincorporated areas, the cost of service delivery to those areas would
Increase.
· Finally, at a certain point, the continued erosion of the department would be such that the
department would no longer have the capacity to staff for and provide specialized services.
It is difficult to predict the point at which that capacity would be lost.
30
B. MODEL 2. SHERIFFS' SERVICES, CRIME LAB, JUVENILE ASSESSMENT
CENTER, CENTRAL RECORDS AND COMMUNICA nON
I. What services would be provided countywide?
Court Services
Warrants
Crime Lab
Juvenile Assessment center
Communications - 911
Central Records (Criminal History and Subject Identification)
2. How would services be funded?
Countywide taxes
JAC - Countywide taxes and/or joint financing by the cities
3. What is the current cost of these services (FY 98-99)?
$49,537,000
4. What services would no longer be provided countywide or to cities?
All other services, including
Aviation
Central Investigations
Economic Crime Bureau
Homicide and Crime Scene
Sex Crime Investigation
Domestic Crime Investigation
General Investigation (including burglary, larceny, assault and auto theft)
Narcotics
Criminal Intelligence
Robbery
Special Patrol
Tactical (SRT)
Aviation - helicopter
Underwater recovery
Training
Local Patrol in UMSA would become the responsibility of a new UMSA-only
police department)
5. What is the cost of these services (FY 98-99)?
$191.238,000
31
6. Fiscal Issues
· There would be some decrease in countywide service obligations. The countywide
obligation would be at a level below the FY 98-99 level thus the countywide millage could
be reduced.
· Existing and new municipalities would be required to self-finance and provide all services no
longer provided by MDPD. The current cost for provision of these serves to existing
municipalities is about $5.6 million.
· Smaller cities, and in particular those cities with high service needs that are not currently
providing these services, would be at a serious fiscal disadvantage.
· If there were no future incorporations and all specialized services not provided countywide
were absorbed in a new UMSA Police Department, UMSA police expenditures would
have to be increased to cover the $20 million additional expense. There is millage capacity
in UMSA to do so,
INCORPORA nON SCENARIOS
Advantages:
In addition to the advantages described under Model I, under any incorporation sce~ario t!ii~
model would have the following added advantages:
Retention of a countywide 911 system would assure a stable, countywide police call system.
The retention of the current 911 system would be especially advantageous for existing and
new cities that may not be able to afford independent communications systems.
The County would also retain the capacity to maintain centralized record controls for such
matters as criminal history and subject identification.
The lAC is a countywide function ,designed to serve the needs of juveniles that are arrested in
any jurisdiction by providing for quicker processing and appropriate referrals to social services
and to enable officers to return to duty faster than would otherwise be the case. This is
particularly important for smaller police departments.
Disadvantages
All of the disadvantages described above for Model I under each scenario apply to this model.
"'')
J_
, ' I
C. MODEL 3: SHERIFF'S MANDATED SERVES, CRIME LAB, LIMITED CENTRAL
SERVICES, AND SPECIALIZED SERVICES..F'\..
I. What services would be provided countywide?
Court Services
Warrants
Crime Lab
911
Juvenile Assessment Center
Central Records
Central Investigations
Economic Crime Bureau
Homicide and Crime Scene
Sex Crime Investigation
Domestic Crime Investigation
Narcotics
Criminal Intelligence
Robbery
Special Patrol
Tactical (SRT)
Aviation - helicopter
Marine Patrol
Training
2. How would services be funded?
Countywide Taxes
3. What is the current cost of these services (FY 98-99)?
The total cost of these services countywide is unknown.
Total countywide expenditures for these services include both MDPD allocations for these
services and part ufthe allocations of each of municipal police departments that provides
some of these services.
The current Miami-Dade County cost is $138,589,000. The cost of providing all of these
services to all municipalities (for example homicide in the City of Miami) would be
considerably higher.
4. What services would no longer be provided to municipalities?
None. All currently available services would be provided to municipalities.
33
,Individual cities that currently provide a service could elect to duplicate the service or
discontinue it.
5. What is the cost of these services (FY 98-99)?
NA
6. Fiscal
· The countywide millage would have to be increased. If, for example, the total cost of these
services were to increase to $116,600,000 - a reasonable estimate - the increase in county
wide millage would be about.5 mills.
This increase could be accommodated under the current millage cap, but would severely
limit remaining millage capacity and reduce or eliminate any budget flexibility to deal with
future countywide contingencies in law enforcement or other services.
· Those cities that currently provide these services could reduce their police budgets and
potentially lower municipal millage. Alternatively, they could elect to enhance or duplicate
a particular service.
.
The UMSA police budget for a new UMSA police department could be reduced by the
amount shifted to the countywide budget. That could represent more than one mill of
UMSA property tax.
INCORPORA nON SCENARIOS
Advantages
Under any incorporation scenario (A, B, C or D), there would be some clear advantages to
consolidating all special services in the Miami-Dade Police Department.
.
With respect to special investigations, provision by a single department would assure some
level of consistency in investigation and forensic protocols that could enhance success in
both uncovering and prosecuting criminal activity. Uniform training and standards in the
provision of these services and Countywide coverage and perspective could enhance
public safety in the region as a whole.
.
[n individual cities that are currently providing these services and in UMSA, tax payers
could see a reduction in municipal millage or an enhancement in other services.
.
This model would assure both that special services would be available to all jurisdictions.
including the jurisdictions that do not currently provide them, and that the cost of those
services would be shared countywide.
34
. I
Disadvantages
Under any incorporation scenario, there would be some disadvantages to this model.
r:
\
· To the extent that any existing city is currently providing a service, such as homicide
investigation, the loss of that function would affect the staff and organization of that city's
police department. If the city opted to continue to provide the function, the cost would be
redundant and confusion over jurisdictions could occur.
· In addition, given the 10 mill cap on countywide taxes, there would be a substantial
decrease in the County's flexibility to enhance law enforcement or any other countywide
services or to plan for unforeseen contingencies that may require countywide taxes.
35
D. MODEL 4 - CONSOLIDATED POLICE SERVICES
I. What services would be provided countywide?
Court Services
Warrants
Crime Lab
911
Juvenile Assessment Center
Central Records
Central Investigations
Economic Crime Bureau
Homicide and Crime Scene
Sex Crime Investigation
Domestic Crime Investigation
General Investigation (including burglary, larceny, assault and auto theft)
Narcotics
Criminal Intelligence
Robbery
Special Patrol
Tactical (SRT)
Aviation - helicopter
Underwater recovery
Training
All Local patrol and all other local police functions throughout the County
2. How would services be funded?
Countywide Taxes
3. What is the current cost of these services (FY 98-99)?
Unkno'wn
The FlU study reported that for FY 94/95 the aggregate police expenditures for the
then 27 municipalities in Miami-Dade County totaled approximately $209 million.
This is over 2/3 of the current MDPD budget of $340,775,000.
It is not possible without a very detailed analysis of the police department budgets of all
of the existing cities to evaluate what costs could be reduced (e.g., administrative costs)
and what costs would be increased (e.g., to provide comparable salaries and benefits to all
personnel). However, it is safe to say that the additional cost would be significant _ and
could almost double the current MDPD budget.
4, What services would no longer be provided countywide?
36
, I
None
5. What is the cost of these services (FY 98-99)?
Unknown
7. Fiscal implications
.
To absorb the total cost of a consolidated police department (similar to the Metro Toronto
Police Department) in countywide taxes would exceed the 10 mill cap.
.
Existing cities could reduce their municipal budgets by the amount required to fund their
police departments.
.
If the UMSA budget no longer included any law enforcement costs, the UMSA millage
could be substantially reduced.
INCORPORA nON SCENARIOS
Advantages
As with Model Three, there would be some advantages to total consolidation under any
incorporation scenario.
· With respect to special investigations, a single department would assure some level of
consistency in investigation and forensic protocols that could enhance success in both
uncovering and prosecuting criminal activity.
· Uniform training and standards in the provision of all law enforcement services and a
countywide coverage and perspective could enhance public safety in the region as a whole.
· Providing police patrol countywide could reduce existing disparities in law enforcement and
could enhance existing service and response time in some existing municipalities.
· For individual cities that are currently self-providing these services and for UMSA, tax
payers could see a reduction in municipal millage or an enhancement in other services.
· This model, as the previous model, would also assure that special services would be
available to all jurisdictions, including the jurisdictions that do not currently self-provide
them and that the cost of those services would be shared countywide.
· This model would ensure the size and capacity of a large countywide department.
37
I ' ,
A fullY,consolidated department, would have the greatest benefit under scenarios C and D.
Disadvantages
Under any incorporation scenario, however, there are significant obstacles to and disadvantages
of this model.
· The administration and coordination of such a large department could prove difficult.
· To the extent that any existing or new jurisdiction may currently, or in the future, choose
to continue to provide a service, there would be a cost to duplicate the service.
· For existing municipalities, there would be a loss of local authority and control and in some
instances response time could be degraded.
· Most significantly, the total cost of a consolidated police department in countywide taxes
could not be absorbed under the countywide 10-mill cap without serious reductions in other
countywide services.
· This would leave the County without any flexibility to enhance countywide services such as
social services, transit or traffic signal coordination or to plan for unforeseen contingencies
that may require countywide taxes.
E. SUMMARY OF MODELS
It is apparent that the need to create a separate police district for special services varies
considerably depending on the combination of service model and incorporation scenario. It is
also clear that any transition from the current structure will not be easy.
Model A
If only those services considered under Model A (sheriffs services and the crime lab) were
provided countywide, the need for a special district would be most acute under incorporation
Scenario Three - many small incorporations.
Currently many municipalities do not provide a full range of law enforcement services and many
would not have the capacity to do so. If the County were to be comprised of upwards of 60
independent cities with 60 independent police jurisdictions and there were no hirge agency able
to provide specialized services on a countywide basis, general public safety would be put at
risk. Under this conditions, there would clearly be a need to develop alternative means of
funding and providing such services.
38
j l f .
-'-
On the other hand, if there were to be one large new city established in the unincorporated area
through a combination of limited annexation and total incorporation of the remaining
unincorporated area (Scenario One), the large municipal police department of that new city
would likely have the capacity to provide specialized services, at least within its own
jurisdiction, and could potentially - through contracts - provide some services to other
jurisdictions. The actual nature and scope of the new city's police department would be a
function of the policy and financial decisions of the governing body of that jurisdiction.
~
\, ~,
Under this scenario, smaller cities that currently depend on MDPD for services to which they
are now entitled under the "split" of countywide and UMSA funding would be at a serious
disadvantage. Those cities' municipal budgets would have to absorb the full cost of these
services - either by adding services to their own department or by funding a contractual
arrangement with the new large city. It is also unclear who would provide specialized law
enforcement services to those cities that need it but have not contracted for it with another
jurisdiction.
Under Model AlScenario Two (countywide provision of sheriffs services and the creation of
several medium sized cities) many law enforcement functions could be provided such as are
currently provided by the City of Miami.
It is likely, however, that certain very expensive services, such as the police helicopter and the
full range of canine and SWAT services, would be lost unless some other arrangement were
made to fund them.
Model AlScenario Four (incremental incorporation with a gradually diminishing unincorpo:-~t~:::!
area) presents the least immediate threat of a loss of specialized services. However, at some
point, and it is not possible to clearly predict when, staffing levels of MDPD would be seriously
eroded and it would not be possible, without significant increases on the countywide side of the
MDPD budget to retain those services.
Model B
Model B, (provision of sheriffs services and limited central services) under any incorporation
scenario, would provide some assurance that certain minimal central functions could be
performed. As with Model A, the need for some kind of a district to ensure and provide
coordinated specialized law enforcement would be most acute under Scenario Three.
Model C
Model C, (provision of all specialized services), would assure that under any incorporation
scenario specialized services would continue to be available throughout Miami-Dade County.
The question of funding those services through the countywide budget, however, is currently
problematic.
39
I . ,
To the extent that this model cannot be accommodated under the countywide 10 mill cap without
seriously eroding the County's capacity to perform other countywide functions, alternative
funding mechanisms such as long term contracts and or a special or general purpose district
would be required.
Model D
Model D, the consolidated provIsIon of all law enforcement services by one countywide
department, would eliminate the need for a separate agency to provide special services under
any incorporation scenario.
Like Model C. this model cannot be funded under the current millage cap without seriously
reducing the county's capacity to provide other needed countywide services and, as with Model
C, alternative funding mechanisms would be required.
This model would also require existing municipalities to give up control over their local police
departments -- an option that most, if not all, municipalities would strongly resist.
40
VI. CONCLUSIONS AND POLICY OPTIONS
'.
The Miami-Dade Police Department, under its current operational and funding Structure, is a
department of which we can all be proud. The quality of the specialized law enforcement
services provided by the department are widely recognized and the fact that few cities, even
those that could afford to do so, have expressed any interest in duplicating these services is a
testament to the Department.
Funding for these services, however, is and, under the current system, will continue to be
problematic. It is also abundantly clear, however, that the County cannot afford to be without
these services or to allow them to gradually diminish in the face of future incorporations.
Most proponents of incorporation speak of wanting only the "bread and butter" local law
enforcement services. These include more frequent and visible local patrol, more community
policing programs and quicker response time for all events - even non-emergency events in
which rapid response is more a matter of reassurance than crime prevention.
Although the Board could pursue the creation of a special district to fund all or some of the
specialized police services currently provided, any currently available approach has substantial
obstacles and drawbacks.
Given the range of obstacles identified, the following are a set of options for approaches to
providing law enforcement services in Miami-Dade County.
A. Countywide Sheriffs and Specialized Services with Regulated Local-Municip::.! Scr;kc:i
and MDPD Contracting
On balance, the option that may be both the most feasible and the most likely to ensure that
quality law enforcement is available - in all jurisdictions - would involve having specialized
services retained by MDPD by providing them countywide under the countywide millage while
allowing municipalities (new or existing) the ability to provide truly local law enforcement either
through self-provision or through contracts. This option will require considerable discussion
with existing municipalities regarding the potential argument of double taxation.
To the extent that the Board could create the capacity within the Countywide millage to
accommodate an appropriate range of specialized services, the continuance of the specialized
services would be assured. Potential vehicles to achieve that capacity are:
· Adoption of a non-advalorem assessment method of financing the Fire and Rescue District.
· Adoption of a transit sales tax.
· Realizing the Revision Seven court funding relief.
41
I . ,
In addition, by establishing clearly countywide funding for these services, the Board would
remove a significant disincentive for new or existing cities to contract with Miami-Dade for
truly local law enforcement services.
At present, if the Board were to pursue a strategy allowing MDPD to contract for law
enforcement services, the Department must charge for the full range of both local and split
services in order to fully capture the cost of special services. Any new or existing city that
believes it can count on MDPD to provide specialized services, can, to the extent its fiscal
capacity allows, provide local-patrol, enhanced response times and traffic enforcement at a
lower rate than would be charged by MDPD. By separating clearly funding for local and
specialized services, MDPD could compete on price as well as on quality for local municipal
law enforcement functions.
Providing MDPD with the capacity to enter into long-term contracts with new and existing
municipalities would also address the issue of having a large force that could, in specific
emergencies, be called on to mobilize under a single command structure and would provide a
pool of law enforcement officers with comparable training and experience eligible for
assignment to specialized units.
Minimum standards could be developed both to assure that an adequate level of local law
enforcement services are provided in both UMSA and in the municipalities (either through
independent departments or through contracts) and to better structure contracts for services that
individual municipalities could enter into with MDPD.
If the Board concurs with this option and additional capacity is available in the countywide
millage, the transition to this structure, including the delineation and cost analysis of precisely
which services will be provided countywide can be begun and be accomplished within two to
three budget cycles.
It would be advisable for the Board to allow the County Manager to obtain the services of a
nationally recognized auditing and management consulting firm to help establish the minimum
standards and a contract price structure. This firm could working with the Miami-Dade League
of Cities and others, to define minimum standards for local law enforcement, including such
measures as the ratio of law enforcement officers to population adjusted for density and reported
crime, personnel screening and training requirements, and other standards as desired.
This approach would not require legislative approval and would not require either voter or
municipal governing body approval. It will, however, require considerable discussion and
consensus building with the existing municipalities, their governing bodies, managers and police
chiefs.
42
.. . , , .
........
B. Other Alternatives
>.
Should the Board not create or have available the capacity required to accommodate a full range
of specialized services under the countywide millage cap by the methods described above, there
are three remaining options.
1. Retain the current structure
To some extent this is clearly the easiest option. If:
.
the Board does not approve any future incorporations, or,
.
if any future incorporations are small and service neutral in their impact on MDPD; or,
.
if only one or two very large new cities are created with significant capacity to provide
specialized services,
this approach could be sustained for the foreseeable future.
As described in Section 1, however, a number of risks that, even under a low incorporation
scenario, would remain. This option would require no further implementation steps but would
depend wholly on the incorporation policy adopted by the Board.
2. Pursue state legislation to enable the creation of an independent special police services district
similar to a Mental Health District.
This would require establishing a clear definition of what services the district would perfonn and
making the issue a key part of the county's legislative agenda.
If enabling legislation were adopted at the state level, the risks and benefits of having an
independent governing board for such a district would require serious deliberation. In addition,
achieving local support and consensus is critical to this choice because it would require approval
by county voters. This approach would also require considerable discussion and consensus
building with the governing bodies, managers and police chiefs of the existing municipalities
3. Transfer a limited number of specialized services to the countywide budget; establish a
contracting structure for other specialized services; and establish a contracting structure for
local services.
If the Board were to shift only some of the specialized services (e.g" canine, helicopter/avaiation,
economic crimes, bomb squad, etc.) to the Countywide millage. leaving others (e.g., homicide,
narcotics, etc.) wholly within the UMSA budget, the Board could direct that MDPD establish a
contracting structure for a two tiered set of services:
43
· local patrol and general investigation; and
· specialized, but not countywide, services such as homicide and sexual battery.
Local patrol and general investigation would be provided to UMSA through the UMSA budget
and would be available by contract to cities.
For the second tier of services, specialized but not countywide, a price structure that assured
the availability of these services to those cities that enter into contracts for the service could be
established. That price structure could be a per-capita figure adjusted for density and historical
levels of activity.
Under this option, UMSA would contract with MDPD for these services and both new and
existing cities would be able to contract with MDPD, or another agency, for these services and
pay for them from local revenues. However, those cities who do not enter into contracts, would
not be able to receive the service. This would be a difficult policy decision and public safety
could be put in jeopardy.
If this, or any variation of a contracting approach is taken, it is advisable for the Commission to
authorize the Manager to obtain the services of a nationally recognized auditing and
management consulting firm to help establish the contract price structure.
A transition to this structure could be expected to take up to three years.
44
. III . ~
,-
,/_.
Appendices available on request.
45
MAR-16-00 18,07 FROM,MONROE COUNTY ATTY OFFICE 10,3052823516
PAGE
1/2
Commissioner GE!orge Neugent
RESOLUTION NO.
-2000
A RESOr...UTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, RECOGNIZING THE NEED TO
DESIGNATE A SEPARATE LINE ITEM WITHIN THE LAW
ENFORCEMENT BUDGET OF THE MONROE COUNTY SHERIFF FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2000..2001 FOR MUNICIPAL POLICING;
AUTHORIZING STAFF TO TAKE ALL STEPS NECESSARY TO CREATE
A fUNDING MECHANISM (MSTU OR MSTD) FOR FY 2001-2002 TO
REFLECT A MUNICIPAL POLICING MILLAGE SPLIT; AND
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Monroe County Sheriff's Office (the MCSO) is funded
through ad valorem taxes collected countywide through the Monroe County Fine
and Forfeiture Fundi and
WHEREAS, the Sheriff provides services that fall within the categories of
law enforcement, corrections and court services; and
WHEREAS, while 'corrections and court services provide a benefit
countywide, a portion of the "law enforcement" related service~ provides a
benefit primarily to unincorporated areas of the Countyj and
WHEREAS, the cities of Key West, Islamorada, and Marathon petitioned the
BOCC to create a funding mechanism that would separate the cost of
unincorporated area municipal policing from other law enforcement services; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners on July 21, 1999, voted not
to expand the authorized uses of the existing countywide f',STU district to include
law enforcement; and
WHEREAS/ other mechanisms exist to implement the splitting of the MeSO
budget to segregate muniCipal policing from other law enfol-cement services;
now, therefore
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COIVIMISSIONERS OF
MONROE COUNTY,}L~RIDA: ::JJ-I-)
Section 1. fh~t~t::th Fiscal Year 2000-2001, the Board of County
Commissioners will designate a separate line within the ~lCSO buoget for "Law
Enforcement services for unincorporated area municipal pOlicing.
MAR-18-00 18.08 FROM MONROE COUNTY ATTY OFFICE ID.3052823518
PAGE 2/2
Section 2. That the Board of County Commissioners intends to create a vehicle
to fund the cost of providing law enforcement services that are considered
"unincorporated area municipal policing" in FY 2001-2002.
Section 3. That the County staff and County Attorney are directed to take
al/ necessary steps to timely create a funding mechanism (taxing district(s) or
special district(s)) necessary for the collection of taxes for municipal policing for
Fiscal Year 2001-2002 and future years.
Section 4. That for future budgetary forecasting by the municipalities
located within the County as well as the MCSO's budget, staff is directed to
present an interlocal agreement to the muniCipalities that reflects the County's
direction for Fiscal Year 2001-2002.
Section S. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Resolution, no
municipal policing milJage shall be established, nor will the MeSO budget be
separated as contemplated in this Resolution, until an intedocal agrE!ement as set
forth in Section 4 has been executed by each muniCipality and Monroe County.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County CommissionE~rs of Monroe
County, Florida, at a regular meeting of sclid Board held on tne day of
March, 2000,
Mayor Shirley Freeman
Commissioner Wilhelmina Harvey
Commissioner George Neugent
Commissioner Mary Kay Reich
Commissioner Nora Williams
(SEAL)
Attest: DANNY L.KOL~iAGE, Clerk
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
By
Deputy Clerk
Mayo riCh ai rperson
JreslvMCSOgn
Mrp.-16-00 17,48 FROM,MONROE COUNTY ATTY OFFICE 10,3052823516
PAGE
1/2
Board of County Commissioners
RESQl.-UTION NO.
- 20(~O
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, RECOGNIZING THI: NEED TO SPLIT
THE BUDGET OF THE MONROE COUNTY SHERIFF FOR FISCAL YEAR
2000-2001 TO SET A SEPARATE MILLAGE FOR MUNICIPAL
POLICING, SEPARATE FROM THE OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT
PORTION OF THE MeSO BUDGET; AUTHORIZING ST,~FF TO UTILIZE
THE EXISTING MSTU DISTRICTS TO REFLECT THI: MILLAGE SPUT;
AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE NOT TO SE IMPLEMENTED
UNTIL SUCH TIME AS INTERLOCAL AGREEMENTS ARe IN PLACE
FOR ALL MVNICIPALITIES WITH THE EX(;l=PTION OF KEY WEST
WHEREAS, the Monroe County Sheriff's Office (the MeSO) is funded
through ad valorem taxes collected countywide through the Monroe County Fine
and Forfeiture Fundi and
WHEREAS, the Sheriff provides services that fall within the categories of
Jaw enforcement, corrections and court services; and
WHEREAS, while corrections and court services provide a benefit
countywide, a portion of the "law enforcement" related services provides a
benefit primarily to unincorporated areas of the County; and
WHEREAS, the cities of Key West, Islamorada, anct f\1arathon petitioned the
BOCC to create a funding mechanism that would separate the cost of
unincorporated area municipal policing from those services that provide a benefit
countywidej and
WHEREAS, tn rc:ansc: to a motion of the Board of County Commissioners
on June 10, 1999, ask' the Sheriff to separate the law enforcement portion of
his budget between those services that are countywide in nature from those
services that are considered municipal policing; now, therefore
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUN1Y COMMISSIONERS OF u-
MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA: tV C 70 wi S-AA' ~~ I..
;\ tld CosT cH(1UJl/. ~. f'e.
Section 1. That starting with Fiscal Year 2000-2001, the Board of County
Commissioners will recognize a separation of the I\1CSO budget for "Law
Enforcement" services, for unincorporated area municipal policing.
MAR-18-00 17,48 FROM,MONROE COUNTY ATTY OFFICE 10,3052823518
PAGE
2/2
. ot=."fk ~VI'fe~ Ofliin4iDz I
Section 2. That the Board of County Commissionem ~hal/J utilize the existing
MSTU as a vehicle to fund the cost of prOviding law enforcement services that are
considered "unincorporated area municipal policing. II
Section 3. That the County staff and County Attcrney are directed to take
all necessary steps to timely create a funding mechanism (taxing district(.r)or
special district) necessary to utili:u. for the collection of these funds for Fiscal Year
2001-2002 and future years.
Section 4, That for future budgetary forecastirlg by the municipalities
located within the County as well as the MeSO's budget, the County Attorney is
directed to present an interlocal agreement to the municipalities that reflects the
County's direction to take the\sction for Fiscal Year 2000-2001.
q~-~'1fa(
Section 5, Notwithstanding any other provision ()f this Resolution, no
municipal policing millage shall be established, nor will the MCSO budget be
separated as contemplated in this Resolution, until an im:el"local agreement as set
forth in Section 4 has been executed by each municjpaIity~ Monroe County.
'(>Mt2r --Mt!JIIl(~ ~ "'Vi by
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe
County, Florida, at a regular meeting of said Board held on the day of
March, 2000.
Mayor Shirley Freeman
Commissioner Wilhelmina Harvey
Commissioner George Neugent
Commissioner Mary Kay Reich
Commissioner Nora Williams
----
(SEAL)
Attest: DANNY L.KOLHAGE, Clerk
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
Deputy Clerk
By
Ma')'or/Chairperson
jresivMCSO