Lauderdale Lakes Fire Final Report

7/31/2019 Lauderdale Lakes Fire Final Report

1/57

Fire / Rescue Assessment Program Update

LAUDERDALE LAKES, FLORIDA

1515 University Drive, Suite 231Coral Springs, FL 33071

v.954.509.2088 f.650.858.0509

August 4, 2008


2/57

TABLE OF CONTENTS

August 4, 2008

Chapter Page1. INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 12. CURRENT ASSESSMENT PROGRAM BACKGROUND 73. BUDGET AND FINANCIAL ANALYSIS 204. SERVICE DEMAND ANALYSIS 295. PROPERTY ANALYSIS 356. ASSESSMENT FEE POLICY OPTIONS 387. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE 46ATTACHMENT A ASSESSMENT PROGRAM HISTORY 47ATTACHMENT B SERVICE CALL APPORTIONMENT DETAILS 51ATTACHMENT C 2007 PROPERTY DATABASE SUMMARY 54


3/57

LAUDERDALE LAKES, FLORIDAFire / Rescue Assessment Program Study

Matrix Consulting Group Page 1

1. INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Matrix Consulting Group was retained by the City of Lauderdale Lakes to

conduct a Fire / Rescue Assessment Program Update Study. The study tasks included

a review of the basis of the existing non-ad valorem fire / rescue fee, comparison of the

fee structure to other area programs, an update of the apportionment methodology, and

preparation of various rate policy options for consideration by the City Commission. In

bringing forward policy options for the City Commission to consider, the project team

has assembled this report, which summarizes our findings, conclusions and

recommendations, where appropriate.

1. INTRODUCTION

The Matrix Consulting Group utilized a wide variety of data collection and

analytical techniques to prepare this study of the Lauderdale Lakes Fire / Rescue

Assessment Program. The project team met regularly with the Steering Committee,

comprised of the City Manager, Finance Director, and Fire Chief. The project team

conducted the following activities in order to prepare this report and the

recommendations herein:

We obtained and analyzed the City of Lauderdale Lakes assessment programenabling ordinance and all subsequent rate resolutions that provided for theadoption of annual rate adjustments.

We obtained and analyzed the City of Lauderdale Lakes current real propertydatabase provided by the Broward County Property Appraisers Office.

We obtained and analyzed the Broward Sheriffs Fire Rescue Division Lauderdale Lakes service call data from the computer-aided dispatch (CAD) /records management system (RMS) obtained from the Broward Sheriffs Office


4/57



Communications Division. This included detailed workload statistics for all fire /rescue / EMS service response types in calendar year 2007.

We obtained and analyzed financial and budget data documents.

We consulted with and provided interim reports and updates regarding studyprogress and received periodic direction from the project Steering Committee.

We developed three rate policy options for consideration by the City Commissionduring budget review sessions for the upcoming fiscal year 2008 - 2009.

The next section addresses some of the key questions related to the review of

the Citys assessment program.

2. KEY STUDY QUESTIONS

The City of Lauderdale Lakes Fire Assessment Program was established in

fiscal year 1998 1999 and is currently in its tenth year. The study activities were

geared toward identifying the existing program structure and policies and providing

recommended structure updates while also providing policy options. The program has

not undergone an extensive review of service demand apportionment and has only

undergone minor adjustments in policy since the programs inception. Key questions

answered by the review of current program policies include:

What are the current program policies, findings and determinations within theenabling ordinance, Initial Assessment Resolution and Final AssessmentResolution?

Are the program costs fairly and reasonably apportioned to benefiting propertiesbased on Florida Law?

What are the current policy elements within the existing Lauderdale Lakesassessment program regarding assessment categories, rates, and exemptions?

What legal provisions and restrictions should the City consider in designingprogram policies and rates?

What policy issues should be reviewed in more detail and/or considered foradjustment based upon review of existing case law parameters?


5/57



How does the Citys rate structure compare to other jurisdictions in BrowardCounty?

Are EMS costs separately budgeted and accounted for to exclude funding of

EMS services with assessment funds?

Are EMS calls for service excluded from the service demand allocationpercentages?

How are the property use codes apportioned within the current system and hasthe methodology been updated to exclude the medical calls in the apportionmentpolicy?

In order to answer the questions above, the project team performed a detailed

analysis of the history of the assessment program in order to develop recommendations

to update the program based upon existing case law as well as the current assessment

and financial environment in Broward County, Florida. Throughout the study process,

the project team reviewed progress and discussed findings with the project Steering

Committee. The section, which follows, provides an executive summary that includes

tabular summaries of the identified program policy issues, recommended changes to

the assessment program policy, and rate policy options.

3. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Prior to developing rate recommendations, the project team set about evaluating

the current assessment program policies, property categories utilized, the program

structure, and the rates as they compare to other fire assessment programs in Broward

County. This analysis resulted in identifying needed program changes, which were

discussed with the Steering Committee, so that recommendations could be formulated.


6/57



(1) Summary of Issues and Recommendations

The project team prepared the following summary of issues and

recommendations based on comparisons of rates and programs in Broward County.

Issue Recommendation

Program Structure: Establishment of a separate multi-family rate

in the residential property category

Non-Residential Rate Categories

Basic Program Rate Structure

Not recommended. The most commonapproach is to charge a per dwelling unit rate,which is how the current program is structured.Records database structure is also an issue(property vs. calls)

To be consistent with the 2002 Ordinancechanges based on Florida case law, the Cityshould combine the Medical, Assembly,Government, and Educational categories intoone, combined Institutional category.

The City should keep the per 100 square feetrate charge and continue without a cap on thebuilding size that the fee applies to.

Program Policy: Assessments on Governmental Properties

Assessments on other Institutional

Properties

Apportionment methodology calculations

Due to statutory interpretation, legal, andcollection issues, the City should formally adopta policy that exempts government property frompaying the assessment.

No policy changes are recommended.

The City should perform periodic updates to theprogram methodology due to changes in servicedemand percentages and the tax base uponwhich rates will be applied.

Rate Policy: Maximum Assessable costs: $4,487,802 Maximum possible rate (w/capital): $197.66 Maximum w/out Capital expenses: $157.39 Current residential rate: $149.36

Steering Committee guidance was to provideseveral options for the Commission to review.This guidance resulted in the formulation of fouroptions ranging from $141.38 to the maximumrate with capital expense of $197.66.

(2) Rate Options

After review and discussion of the analysis and findings, the Steering Committee

provided direction on development of three assessment policy options for consideration


7/57



by the City Commission. The following four policy alternatives and rate scenarios were

developed based upon Steering Committee direction:

Option 1 Revenue neutral rate of $141.38: Based upon the calculated

apportionment percentages, the rates that generate the same gross revenues asin the existing program require a reduction in the residential rate of 5%.

Option 2 Maintaining current residential rate of $149.36: Theapportionment percentages that maintain the current residential rate will result inan increase in revenues due to required rate adjustments for non-residentialproperties based on the service call apportionment.

Option 3 Rate necessary to fully fund operations without any capitalexpenditures is $157.39: This rate represents the amount of funding necessaryto fully fund the ongoing operational needs of the fire contract without any

investment in capital expenditures, which for fiscal year 2009 could beprogrammed as high as $914,500.

Option 4 Maximum rate to include operations and capital is $197.66: Thisrate option assumes that all of the required fire-related capital items are acquired($914,500 in fiscal year 2009) while also recovering the necessary funding toachieve the maximum assessable revenues for operational needs.

The table, which follows, provides a summary of the detailed rates by property

type for each of the above four options along with the total revenues raised and the

increase or decrease in revenues as compared to the current rates.

Rate Policy Options Summary

Property Type Unit Current Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4Residential Per

dwelling $149.36 $141.38 $149.36 $157.39 $197.66Commercial Per 100 sq.

ft. $15.90 $21.55 $22.77 $23.99 $30.13Industrial/Warehouse

Per 100 sq.ft. $3.77 $4.82 $5.09 $5.36 $6.73

Institutional * Per 100 sq.ft. $56.34 $38.40 $40.57 $42.75 $53.69

Vacant land Per acre $457.81 $324.78 $343.10 $361.54 $454.06Total Revenues = $2,939,212 $2,952,771 $3,119,514 $3,287,095 $4,128,181

Increase / (Decrease) = $13,559 $180,303 $347,884 $1,188,969

* The Current rate is the average of the Medical, Assembly, Government, and Educational ratesthat are recommended to be combined into "Institutional" under the new rate structure.


8/57



For the remainder of this report, it is our intent to bring forth detailed information

related to recommended program updates in addition to presenting the City

Commission with the three rate policy options to consider for the fiscal year 2008

2009 budget process. The following subjects will be covered in the overall analysis of

the Citys fire assessment program:

Current Assessment Program Background

Budget and Financial Analysis

Service Demand Analysis

Property Analysis

Assessment Fee Policy Options

The next chapter provides background related to the current program policies.


9/57



2. CURRENT ASSESSMENT PROGRAMBACKGROUND

This chapter of the report provides historical information and comparative data

regarding the City of Lauderdale Lakes Fire Assessment Program. This includes

information regarding how the current program is structured as well as how it compares

to other fire assessment programs in Broward County. Attachment A provides details

about how the Citys assessment program developed over the past 10 years. The

following are highlights of the history of the Citys assessment program:

Fiscal Year 1998:

Fire assessment program and fee established at $82.20

Ordinance policy is to apply fee to all properties, including tax-exemptgovernment entities

Fiscal Year 1999: Fee lowered to $75.41

Fiscal Year 2000:

Policy update to recover 100% of net revenue

Fee increased to $191.49

Fiscal Years 2001-2006:

Policy remains constant with 100% revenue recovery

In 2002, ordinance is updated to eliminate references to EMS per Floridacase law. Interim Fire Assessments are also eliminated from the

ordinance.

January, 2005, City contracts with BSO for fire / rescue / EMS services

Maximum fee is in FY 2005 at $236.78

FYs 2007 and 2008: Fee lowered to current rate of $149.36 for past two years.


10/57



The section, which follows, provides data related to the Citys current residential

assessment rate as it compares to the rates of other municipalities in Broward County.

1. LAUDERDALE LAKES ANNUAL FIRE ASSESSMENT RATE IS CURRENTLY

ABOUT $10 GREATER THAN THE BROWARD COUNTY AVERAGE.

The first step undertaken in evaluating the Citys fire assessment program was to

determine how the current rates compare to the rates of other cities in Broward County.

The county is unique by Florida standards in the number of communities that have

implemented a fire assessment program. Assessments are not widely used in other

parts of Florida. The table, below, provides current rate data for residential properties:

FY 2007-08 Residential Per Res. Unit orSingle Family Multi-familyWest Park $299.27Southwest Ranches $296.00Weston $232.20 $245.50North Lauderdale $206.00 $323.00Unincorporated $190.00Lauderhill $188.00Pembroke Pines $153.48Parkland $151.00Lauderdale Lakes $149.36Oakland Park $149.00Tamarac $141.00Lauderdale By The Sea $130.00Miramar $120.85Coconut Creek $116.48 $104.84Hollywood $109.00Davie $104.00Coral Springs $99.95 $121.88Deerfield Beach $99.00Sunrise $97.50Wilton Manors $95.59Fort Lauderdale

$94.00

Dania Beach $93.57Hallandale Beach $90.00 $90.00Lighthouse Point $79.86Pompano Beach $75.00Cooper City $64.33 $61.12

Average = $139.40 $157.72


11/57



The following points highlight the data contained in the preceding exhibit:

The average assessment rate in Broward County is $139.40 while the rate for theCity of Lauderdale Lakes is $149.36.

Twenty-six of the 31 cities in Broward County, or 84%, have fire assessmentprograms. Broward County has a large number of cities, representing a full 8% ofthe total number of cities in the State of Florida (31/387). Palm Beach County isthe only county with more cities.

Some cities utilize a residential rate that is broken down into separate singlefamily and multi-family rates.

The table, below, provides a summary of the Citys residential rate history and

gross revenues since the programs inception, summarized from Attachment A data:

City of Lauderdale Lakes Fire Assessment Rate Policy 10-Year History

Fiscal yearAdopted

ResidentialUnit Rate % ChangePrior Year Gross revenues % ChangePrior Year

1998-99 $75.41 n/a $1,449,000 n/a1999-2000 $191.49 154% $3,762,600 160%2000-01 $191.78 0% $3,757,197 0%2001-02 $207.50 8% $3,866,698 3%2002-03 $207.50 0% $3,772,480 -2%2003-04 $229.42 11% $4,335,061 15%2004-05 $236.78 3% $4,513,720 4%2005-06 $226.30 -4% $4,362,626 -3%2006-07 $149.36 -34% $2,921,695 -33%2007-08 $149.36 0% $2,950,406 1%

The following points highlight the data contained in the table, above:

In FY 2000, the rate policy of the City Commission was to recover close to 100%of the net assessable Fire Department costs via the non-ad valorem fireassessment fee. This increased the rate 154% from $75.41 to $191.49.

Annual gross assessable revenues for the 10-year period ranged from a low of$1.4 million to a high of $4.4 million in fiscal year 2005.

After contracting out fire/rescue/EMS services to the Broward Sheriffs FireRescue Division in January, 2005, the City provided subsequent assessment feerate relief via a 34% rate reduction beginning in fiscal year 2007. The rate hasbeen constant at $149.36 for the past two fiscal years.


12/57



Given the current tax and fee environment in Florida, the Matrix Consulting

Group was instructed to develop rate policy based upon setting an acceptable

residential rate using two criteria:

A stabilized rate that does not deviate from the current amount substantially whilestaying relatively close to the County average rate, and

A rate that would provide at least the same revenue as is currently being raised.

Finding: The City Commission has several rate policy options and the MatrixConsulting Group developed four options based on staff direction.

2. LAUDERDALE LAKES CURRENT ASSESSMENT POLICY PROVIDES ONE,RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY CATEGORY.

The project team reviewed both the residential and non-residential rate structure

of all cities that use a fire assessment to fund Fire Department services in Broward

County. This included not only a comparison of the rates being charged, but also a look

at the number of residential and non-residential property categories being used in each

jurisdictions assessment program structure.

The residential rate comparison shown in the preceding section indicates that 6

of the 26 jurisdictions list both a single-family and multi-family rate, with 5 of the 6

having some rate variation between the two residential categories. Based upon the

number of multi-family units in the City of Lauderdale Lakes, the opportunity to charge a

separate multi-family rate was investigated. It was determined that the property use

code used in the Fire Records Management System, which is based on the National

Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS), for residential fire responses is broken into two

codes: Code 419, which groups together responses to both single-family homes and

duplexes, and, Code 429, which includes all multi-family dwellings, such as

apartments, condos, townhomes, row houses and tenements. The fire codes found in


13/57



the National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS) groups single family and duplex

responses as one code type (code 419: 1 or 2 family dwelling, detached). The Broward

County Property Appraisers Division of Revenue (DOR) coding system considers

multi-family as 2-9 unit buildings or 10+ unit buildings. The two-digit code number

used by the Property Appraiser for each of these property classifications is based on the

Florida Department of Revenue (DOR) property use codes reflected in Rule 12D-8.008,

Florida Administrative Code.

Because of the variation between how properties are classified in the two

systems used to determine service demands, coupled with the fact that developing

subcategories of residential uses treats residential property owners and renters

differently, most cities in the County have chosen to assign one residential rate to all

types of residential properties. It is possible that the other cities have performed

extensive research on their data to develop a valid multi-family rate or just treated the

duplexes as single-family homes, which diminishes accuracy. It may be possible to

establish an accurate multi-family rate by grouping together certain categories but

extensive analysis of the property database would be required to obtain an accurate

model and this approach is not recommended. Charging one residential rate continues

to ensure that everyone is charged the same rate based on the overall property use

being a residential dwelling unit.

Recommendation: The City should maintain the existing residential programdesign, which provides that all units are charged the same fee based on thenumber of residential units per building or single-family home.


14/57



3. LAUDERDALE LAKES CURRENT ASSESSMENT POLICY PROVIDES SIXNON-RESIDENTIAL RATE CATEGORIES WHILE MOST CITIES HAVETHREE OR LESS NON-RESIDENTIAL CATEGORIES.

The project team also reviewed the non-residential property categories being

used by the various assessment programs. The rate structure for non-residential

properties is dependent upon the policies adopted by the legislative body, which must

fairly and reasonably assess costs by adopting various rates for different classifications

of properties based on service demands. Whether a City utilizes many categories, or

only a few, depends on several factors. A review of prior policies and legal

considerations is important to determine if there should be an updates to the categories.

The project team reviewed the detailed assessment program resolutions as well

as the enabling ordinance (Code Section 46-251 to 46-313) that established the Fire

Rescue Services Non-Ad Valorem Assessment. The City made the proper adjustments

to the assessment program ordinance to reflect Florida case law. In 2001, the

assessment program resolutions provide language indicating that the rates were

established in accordance with the Fourth District Court of Appeals case law related to

legal challenges in both Pembroke Pines and North Lauderdale. Ordinance updates

were made the following year via Ordinance 2002-17, which eliminated the reference to

Emergency Medical Services being funded by the program. However, the City was

slow to adjust the funding being raised by the assessment. The City also did not

collapse the number of non-residential categories.

The exhibit, which follows, provides a summary of the non-residential categories

used in each City in Broward County as well as the percentage breakdown of those with

three (3) or less categories versus those with four (4) or more.


15/57



EXHIBIT 1NON-RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY

CATEGORIES USED BY BROWARD CITIES

CATEGORIESCity Comm. Indust./Ware. Insti. Acreage Other Category (Specify)

Coconut Creek X Commercial/Office/InstitutionalCooper City X X XCoral Springs X X X

Dania Beach X X X

Assembly Educational Hotel/Motels Medical

Davie X X X EducationalDeerfield Beach X X XFort Lauderdale X X XHallandale Beach X X X Office Pari-mutuelHollywood X X XLauderdale By TheSea Non-residential

Lauderdale Lakes X X X Assembly Educational Medical

Lauderhill X X X Nursing homesLighthouse Point X Non-exempt InstitutionalMiramar X X X Mobile Home Parks per DUNorth Lauderdale X X XOakland Park X X XParkland X none XPembroke Pines X X XPompano Beach X X XSouthwestRanches X X X X Vacant LotSunrise X X XTamarac X X X Nursing homesUnincorporated X X X X Vacant LotWest Park X X XWeston X XWilton Manors X X X

Government

Nursing HomeSummary Count Percent Comment

Cities with 3 or less Non-residential ratecategories = 16 61.5%

Most cities use Commercial,Industrial/ Warehouse, andInstitutional

Cities with 4 or more Non-residential ratecategories = 10 38.5% Only Lauderdale Lakes and DaniaBeach have 6 or more categories


16/57



The following points highlight the data contained in the exhibit on the preceding

page:

In Broward County, 16 of 26 cities, or 61.5%, utilize 3 or less non-residential

property categories.

Most cities use the following non-residential categories: commercial, industrial /warehouse, and institutional.

In Broward County, 10 of 26 cities, or 38.5%, utilize 4 or more non-residentialproperty categories.

Only 2 of 26 cities (including Lauderdale Lakes), or 7.7%, utilize 6 non-residentialproperty categories.

The current non-residential categories that are used by the City appear to reflect

both the desired City policies as well as holdover categories from when the City

program was first implemented. The categories used include separate property groups

and rates for Medical, Assembly, Government, and Educational. The need to make

detailed distinctions between property types that are accessible to the public has been

dropped by most programs unless there are special local circumstances. Collapsing

these categories in order to spread the calls and rates more evenly among a larger

group of properties, while eliminating vestiges of past policies that may no longer legally

supportable, are recommended program updates.

Recommendation: The City should collapse the number of non-residentialcategories from six to three by combining and classifying Medical, Assembly,Government, and Educational properties into a new Institutional category.

4. THE CITY OF LAUDERDALE LAKES IS NOT CURRENTLY BILLINGASSESSMENTS ON GOVERNMENT OWNED PROPERTIES.

The City has had an ongoing assessment policy that ALL properties within the

City receive benefit from fire rescue services and shall, therefore, be assessed the fee.

Section 46-313, Collection of Assessments Against Government Property, provides


17/57



that the City may assess government property and that a mandamus action may be

undertaken in the event of non-payment. However, the law also appears to provide the

option to choose whether or not to charge the assessment through via the following

introductory phrase: If fire rescue service assessments are imposed against

government property, . . .

The past policy of the City has been to assess government properties; however,

there are differences of opinion as to the interpretation of State Statutes regarding

legality, governmental immunity, and case law that prevent collection of assessments of

this nature on governmental properties. Because case law establishes that payment of

such assessments cannot be enforced by a lien against public property, the City has

included the mandamus language in the ordinance, which requires enforcement through

a judicial action to compel payment. Additionally, County or other subdivisions of the

State may argue that they are not authorized to pay the assessment because there has

been no budget appropriation providing staff the proper authority for the government to

make the assessment payment.

Governmental units have been sent separate bills for the assessment in the past,

but because of the matters discussed, there have been no payments received by the

City. The City has not legally pursued these matters through mandamus actions due to

the Citys desire to avoid costly legal battles with indeterminate results, not to mention

potential damage to inter-governmental cooperation. It appears that because earlier

attempts were thwarted for the reasons discussed, the City has opted to not impose or

bill the assessment on governmental, tax exempt, institutional properties, such as those

owned by the School Board of Broward County or the Board of County Commissioners.


18/57



The City is assessing all institutional property that is not government owned, including

churches and private schools.

What should be exempt from the assessment program is a matter of Commission

policy. Regardless of Commission desires, the fire rescue assessment program must

continue to meet case law standards for a valid special assessment. Any proposed

exemptions require special scrutiny to ensure that there is a rational nexus between the

assessment exemption and a legitimate public purpose. The Citys current program

follows this guideline by allowing an exemption only for governmental properties. This

policy preserves Federal and State Constitutional concepts of equal protection and

prohibitions against providing financial resources or aid to religious institutions via

program exemptions.

The Citys existing policy avoids the argument that extending the exemption to

institutions other than government has diluted the two-pronged legal test of special

benefit to real property and fair and reasonable apportionment. That being said,

some groups have argued in the past that exemptions to institutional properties should

be given in situations in which they are providing public services and programs widely

needed by the community. There must be a legislative finding and determination made

by the Commission that such properties provide facilities and uses to their ownership,

occupants or membership, as well as the public in general, that otherwise might be

required to be provided by the City (Florida Supreme Court in Sarasota County v.

Sarasota Church of Christ, 667 So.2d 180 (Fla. 1995)). It is difficult to identify an

institution that provides a required public need that is accessible to all community

members that is not otherwise being met by public programs or facilities in some way.


19/57



Should the Commission believe that such a situation exists and decides to alter their

existing policy, funding for any granted exemptions from the special assessment must

come from non-assessment resources and cannot be spread to the other property

categories. Therefore, to avoid failure of the fair and reasonable test, rates will not be

impacted by a policy to exempt additional institutions yet the City will lose revenue.

Recommendation: Due to collection and payment issues created by potentialmandamus actions on government properties, as well as legal, interpretativeissues, the City should formally exempt government-owned, tax-exemptinstitutional properties from the assessment via the FY 2008 2009 rateresolutions.

5. THE MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP CALCULATED FIRE ASSESSMENTPROGRAM RATES BASED UPON EXISTING FLORIDA CASE LAW BYUSING SEVERAL UPDATED DATABASES TO ENHANCE LEGALDEFENSIBILITY.

The calculation of assessment rates for fire rescue services is dependent on

three separate, but interconnected pieces of data. The first data element is the budget.

The budget is used to identify the full cost of providing fire rescue services as well as

services that are revenue supported in order to determine the net assessable costs.

The second data element is the analysis of service delivery data (fire rescue call data)

segregated by property use categories. The third and final data component is a

comprehensive analysis of all property use categories within the City to determine which

parcels receive a special benefit from the provision of fire / rescue / EMS services and

to identify a fair and reasonable method of apportioning the assessable costs among

the parcels within each property use category.

Service demands are separated into categories of real property uses as identified

on the real property assessment roll prepared for the levy of ad valorem taxes. State

Division of Revenue property use codes kept and managed by the Broward County


20/57



Property Appraisers (BCPA) Office are used as the determinant for how a property is

classified and used. The BCPA performs annual property inspections and maintains the

accuracy of the database. The assessable costs to provide fire rescue services are

then apportioned among real property use categories based upon historical service

demands. The historical demand for services was derived from fire rescue incident data

obtained from computer-aided dispatching records provided by the Broward Sheriffs

Office Fire Rescue Communications Division. Each of these three data sets is

addressed separately in the chapters, which follow.

Fire rescue special assessments must meet Florida statutory and case law

requirements for a valid special assessment, which are:

The service must provide a special benefit to the property being assessed; and,

The costs assessed must be fairly and reasonably apportioned among theproperties that receive the special benefit.

The assessment methodology used for calculating the fire assessment rates

included the following detailed steps:

Cost identification The full costs to provide fire rescue services wereidentified. This includes the contract costs for the agreement with the BrowardSheriffs Office Fire Rescue Division as well as any additional expenses that areentirely related to fire protection and suppression. In order to meet the specialbenefit to property requirement, the City has segregated emergency medicalservices costs, found in the tax-supported General Fund, from fire and firstresponder costs, which are budgeted separately in the Fire Services Fund. Thisis an excellent practice to follow in order to assure that EMS services are notfunded via assessment revenues.

Service Demand Percentages Calculation The percentage of fire calls byproperty use category was calculated and used to apportion the costs byproperty category based on the amount of revenue required. In doing so, theproject team identified a maximum rate and ensured the maximum rate is notexceeded. Calls that are EMS-related were not used in the calculation of servicedemand percentages by property type. The basis for the service demandcalculations was service call data for calendar year 2007.


21/57



Apportionment of Costs The percentage of fire rescue calls was allocated tothe property use categories found in the Broward County Property Appraisers(BCPA) real property database. The basis of the property database upon whichthe rates were applied was from a data set created by the BCPA on March 19,

2008.

Program Structure Updates In performing the above steps, the assessmentprogram was reviewed for required updates from both a legal and policystandpoint. In 2000, there was a landmark legal decision that impacted whatcould be considered a recoverable/assessable cost. The decision, in the case ofthe City of North Lauderdale vs. SMM Properties, Inc., resulted in the exclusionof emergency medical services call types as an assessable cost because theseservices provide a benefit to people and not a special benefit to real property.The project team used this case as a guideline in order to determine which callsare included and which calls are excluded from the service demand percentage

calculation to be sure only those parcels that receive a special benefit from theprovision of fire and first responder services are counted. A parcel apportionmentmethodology based on widely accepted assessment program practices inBroward County was determined for each property category (per dwelling unit forresidential; per 100 square feet for non-residential; per acre for vacant land).

Development of Rate Policy Options Assessment rates were calculated foreach property use category and a number of rate policy options were developed.These were based on a relatively narrow range of options per the direction of theProject Steering Committee.

Recommendation: To ensure the assessment program can withstand legalchallenges, the apportionment methodology should be regularly reviewed anddatabases periodically updated so that revised service demand percentages canbe recalculated against a new property database, which changes with newconstruction and redevelopment.


22/57



3. BUDGET AND FINANCIAL ANALYSIS

This section of the report provides budget and financial analysis that will allow

the City to identify current and future policy decisions related to assessment program

rate setting. The key objective is to determine the maximum amount of assessment fee

revenue that can be raised under Florida Law. This is known as the maximum net

assessable costs and is restricted based upon case law legal considerations. Simply

put, the calculation involves determining what Fire Department service costs are solely

related to fire or first responder services and netting out any supporting revenues in

order to identify the unfunded portion.

The budget and financial data that follows is intended to identify current and

future policy flexibility the City Commission may have given increases in the costs to

provide service. The data and tables that follow are not intended to evaluate or

determine the cost effectiveness of the Broward Sheriffs Office (BSO) Fire Rescue

Division, which has been providing fire / rescue / EMS services since January, 2005.

The table, which follows, shows the total Fire Department actual expenses over the

prior three fiscal years as compared to the current projection:

Fire Department Actuals and Current Budget, FY 2005 - 2008

Fire DepartmentExpenses

FY 2005Actual

FY 2006Actual

FY 2007Actual

FY 2008Estimated

BSO Contract Payments $3,921,774 $5,574,238 $5,854,445 $6,191,016

Other City Fire Expenses $2,040,629 $156,685 $201,850 $200,000

Total Fire Department = $5,962,403 $5,730,923 $6,056,295 $6,391,016% Change = n/a -3.9% 5.7% 5.5%


The BSO Fire Rescue Division merged with the Lauderdale Lakes FireDepartment in January, 2005. The FY 2005 actual of $5,962,403 is acombination of the Citys and BSOs costs.


23/57



There are a number of Fire Department expenses that are outside of theoperations contract that are shown as Other City Fire Expenses. These costsare estimated for fiscal year 2008.

The BSO contract increased by the agreed upon escalator of 5% over the pasttwo fiscal years.

Although the City had previously segregated their fire and EMS expenses by

placing them in separate funds, it was necessary for the project team to review the BSO

contract to identify the amount that can be allocated to the assessment program. The

contract review would enable us to identify how resources are deployed in the contract

as well as how much they cost in order to determine the maximum net assessable

costs. The table, which follows, shows the current year costs by position and are

inclusive of all salary, benefits, operating and overhead expenses. It also shows the

difference between the number of positions in the contract versus the number of staff

that transitioned to the BSO.

BSO Contract Total Costs by Position for FY 2008 - 2009

Position Title

FY 2009Contract

CostContractQuantity

Transitioned(Per Exh. A) Difference

Battalion Chief $186,371 1 4 -3

Captains $174,470 4 0 4

Lieutenants $154,265 13 9 4

Driver/Engineer $141,981 9 5 4

Firefighter/Paramedics $133,171 18 23 -5

Fire Inspectors (est.) $133,171 2 2 0

Administrative Assistant $79,354 1 1 0

Totals = 48 44 4

The following points highlight the data contained in the table above:

Fire personnel range in cost from $133,171 for a Firefighter/Paramedic or FireInspector to $186,371 for a Battalion Chief.

A total of 44 positions are listed in the contract as transitioning to the BSO whilethe contract provides for 48 total positions. This could have been related tovacancies on the Lauderdale Lakes Fire Department at the time of the transition.


24/57



The staffing allocation was changed as part of the contract implementation toprovide for a higher rank structure. This is evident by the reduction in Firefighterpositions and a corresponding increase in the number of Driver/Engineers,Lieutenants and the establishment of four new Captains. It is clear the transition

allowed for promotions that may not have been available in the Citys FireDepartment structure.

The manner in which the 44 contract staff are deployed as far as their

assignment to fire and first responder duties versus emergency medical services duties

is critical to determining costs that can be allocated to the fire assessment rates. There

are four, primary combat response vehicles. The table, which follows, provides the

staffing allocation totals among fire suppression resources as compared to medical

transport units, which must be excluded from the cost analysis since they do meet the

special benefit to real property test.

Total Fire and EMS Combat Staffing by Primary/Intended Unit Assignments

Classification

Fire Units Staffing:Engine 37 &

Quint 37

EMS Units Staffing:Rescue 37 &Rescue 237 Total

Captains 0 4 4

Lieutenants 9 4 13

Driver/Engineer 9 0 9

Firefighter/Paramedics 9 9 18

Staffing Total = 27 17 44

Percentages = 61.4% 38.6%

The following points highlight the data contained in the table above:

A total of 61.4% of the staffing costs are assigned to Engine 37 and Quint 37,which are assessable units.

A total of 38.6% of the staffing costs are assigned to Rescue 37 and Rescue 237,which are non-assessable units.

The 3 to 2 ratio (approximate 60%-40% breakdown) is reflective of the staffing ofthree (3) on the firefighting apparatus and two (2) on the EMS transport units.


25/57



In order to determine the exact costs that are assessable under Florida law, it

was necessary to determine not only the costs of staff assigned to combat operations,

but calculate an administrative allocation to the fire versus EMS side. Additionally, there

are certain functions that are purely fire prevention related and these costs are fully

assessable due to their special benefit to property based on impacts to community ISO

ratings. The table, which follows, provides details of the calculations of the gross

assessable versus non-assessable contract costs.

BSO Contract Gross Assessable Costs, FY 2009

Key Function andPositions Assigned

ContractUnit Cost

ContractQuantity Total

AssessableAmount

Non-Assessable

Amount

Central Admin. Support

Battalion Chief $186,371 1 $186,371

Captains 0

Administrative Assistant $79,354 1 $79,354

Subtotal = 2 $265,725 $163,155 $102,570

Combat Operations

Captains $174,470 4 $697,880 - $697,880

Lieutenants $154,265 13 $2,005,445 $1,388,385 $617,060

Driver/Engineer $141,981 9 $1,277,829 $1,277,829 0

Firefighter/Paramedics $133,171 18 $2,397,078 $1,198,539 $1,198,539

Fire Specific

Fire Inspectors $133,171 2 $266,342 $266,342

Grand Total = 48 $6,910,299 $4,294,250 $2,616,049

Assessable/non-assessable % = 62.1% 37.9%

The following points highlight the methodology used to develop the assessable

and non-assessable costs in the table above:

This more detailed calculation varies by only .7% from the prior apparatusstaffing breakdown percentage and is reflective of there being variations in thecost for positions of differing ranks.

Contract unit costs were pulled directly from the BSO agreement for theupcoming fiscal year 2008-2009.


26/57



Non-combat, administrative support positions were allocated to both fire andEMS in the same percentages as the staffing breakdown of combat personnel(61.4% fire, 38.6% EMS).

Fire prevention costs were allocated 100% to fire.

The City could recover more assessment revenue if the higher ranked positionswere assigned to fire suppression units (i.e. move the Captain from the ALStransport unit to the Quint).

In order to verify the gross assessable calculations, the project team analyzed

the current contract amount and applied the contract escalator percentage over the next

three fiscal years. At full staffing, the prior table indicates that BSO costs this coming

fiscal year will be $6,910,299 based on the employee unit costs. It is recommended,

however, that the City limit the net assessable amount to a figure that is based on the

following formula:

The actual amount required to be paid to the BSO per the contract rate as brokendown into fire and EMS costs,

Plus, any additional fire-related costs that the City is picking up that are notalready within the contract payment amount,

Minus, any fire-related revenues credited to fire operations within the FireServices Fund. (EMS revenues are credited to the General Fund).

This formula is based on the requirement that the City must determine the

maximum net assessable costs based upon what is actually occurring. The group of

tables that follow provide the exact calculations necessary to carry out the above three

steps. The exhibit, which follows, provides details related to fire-related capital outlay,

apparatus replacement and fire station Capital Improvement Program (CIP) items.


27/57



EXHIBIT 2FIRE CAPITAL OUTLAY AND CIP COSTS

Capital Outlay FY08/09 FY09/10 FY10/11 FY11/12

Thermal Imaging Cameras $54,000

Mobile Data Terminals $39,800

Hydraulic Extrication Tools $73,047

Self Contained Breathing Apparatus $96,000

Mobile Radios $80,000

Portable Radios $121,000

Computers $15,000

SCBA Transfill System $25,000

Pick-up Trucks/SUV's; FireInspections/Command @ $35K/each $105,000 $140,000

Engine 37 Pierce Quantum $625,000

Engine 237, Southern Coach $625,000

Quint 37, Pierce Dash $1,100,000

Capital Improvements

Replace AC Unit 1,2&3 $10,500

Replace AC Unit 3&4 $7,000

Replace AC Unit 5&6 $7,000

Replace Emergency Generator $60,000

Resurface Parking Lot $45,000

Resurface Apparatus Bay Floor $80,000

Replace Bathrooms $45,000

Remodel Crew Quarters $80,000

Remodel Front Faade of Apparatus $150,000

Total Fire Outlay and CIP = $914,500 $922,000 $1,395,847 $351,000

Excluded EMS Capital

Nitrous Oxide $15,000

Automatic Defibril lators $6,300

12 Lead Monitor Defibrillators $150,000

Rescue 37, Ford 650, Vehicle 2205

Rescue 237, International, Vehicle 2074 $225,000

Rescue 337, Freightliner, Vehicle 2152

Total EMS Outlay and CIP = $21,300 $150,000 $225,000 $--

Once the total fire-related anticipated capital costs were calculated, the project

team needed to determine how much of the amount was covered in the current capital

outlay budget in the BSO contract so that these costs were not double counted. That

figure was provided by the BSO in their line-item budget detail at an amount of

$162,550 for fiscal year 2009. It is not known how much this will fluctuate from year-to-

year in future contract years, but it was assumed to be a core contract amount that


28/57



would increase by the contract inflationary adjustment percentage (5%). These

calculations represent the total fire related costs. The following table shows the results

of the described three-step formula through Step 2:

Total Fire Related Costs

Item Description FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011

BSO Contract Payments $6,191,016 $6,500,567 $6,825,595 $7,166,875

% Change Assumption from Prior Year n/a +5% +5% +5%62.1% Fire-Related Per Prior Analysis n/a $4,036,852 $4,238,695 $4,450,629Additional Fire Capital Costs n/a $914,500 $922,000 $1,395,847Less Capital Costs in BSO Contract n/a ($162,550) ($170,678) ($179,211)

Total Fire Related Expenses = n/a $4,788,802 $4,990,017 $5,667,265The following points highlight the data in the table, above:

The fiscal year 2009 figure represents the gross assessable costs prior to thededuction of Fire Fund revenues, which will generate the net assessable costs.

Anticipated capital expenditures related to fire equipment can have a significantimpact on recoverable revenues. FY 2011 is the year the replacement of theQuint 37 is programmed.

Revenues in the Fire Fund, where assessment proceeds are deposited, must be

deducted from the figure to determine the maximum net assessable amount. The

tables, which follow, provide the Step 3 calculations by deducting the Fire Fund

revenues related to ongoing annual fire inspections and new construction inspections

performed by the Fire Marshalls Office:

Fire Fund Revenue History

Revenue ItemActual

FY 2005Actual

FY 2006Actual

FY 2007To DateFY 2008

ProjectedFY 2008

Fire Inspection- Annual 214,133 239,956 280,863 267,612 290,000

Fire Inspection- New Const. 64,358 50,996 13,736 9,640 11,000Total = $278,491 $290,952 $294,598 $277,251 $301,000

The following points highlight the data in the table, above:

In order to determine the maximum net assessable amount, the anticipatedrevenues in the coming year should be deducted from the gross assessableamount.


29/57



The fiscal year 2008 projection of $301,000 should be used as the revenuededuction to determine the maximum net assessable figure.

To be conservative, the highest figure based on the actual and projected

revenues was utilized from the preceding table to determine the net amount that can be

funded via the assessment. Two options for a maximum assessable rate are available,

one that assumes capital expenditures will be made and another than assumes that the

assessment will provide full funding of remaining fire operational costs only. These final

calculations are found in the table, which follows:

Maximum Assessable Rates CalculationsGross Assessable Amount $4,788,802

Less Fire Revenues ($301,000)

Maximum Net Assessable with Capital Expenditures = $4,487,802

FY 2009 Programmed Capital Expenditures = ($914,500)

Maximum Net Assessable without Capital Expenditures = $3,573,302

The maximum net assessable amounts, with and without capital expenditures,

were entered into the rate calculator to yield the maximum rates with the following rate

results:

Maximum Assessment Rates with Capital

Property Type Unit CurrentRates MaximumRates Difference %Change

Residential Per dwelling $149.36 $197.66 $48.30 32.3%Commercial Per 100 sq. ft. $15.90 $30.13 $14.23 89.5%Industrial/Warehouse Per 100 sq. ft. $3.77 $6.73 $2.96 78.6%Institutional * Per 100 sq. ft. $39.98 $53.69 $13.70 34.3%Vacant land Per acre $457.81 $454.06 ($3.75) -0.8%

Total Revenues = $2,939,212 $4,128,181

Gross Revenue Increase / (Decrease) = n/a $1,188,969


30/57



Maximum Assessment Rates without Capital

Property Type Unit CurrentRates No CapitalRates Difference %Change

Residential Per dwelling $149.36 $157.39 $8.03 5.4%Commercial Per 100 sq. ft. $15.90 $23.99 $8.09 50.9%

Industrial/Warehouse Per 100 sq. ft. $3.77 $5.36 $1.59 42.2%Institutional * Per 100 sq. ft. $39.98 $42.75 $2.76 6.9%Vacant land Per acre $457.81 $361.54 ($96.27) -21.0%

Total Revenues = $2,939,212 $3,287,095Gross Revenue Increase / (Decrease) = n/a $347,884

* The Current rate is the average of the Medical, Assembly, Government, and Educational rates that arerecommended to be combined into "Institutional" under the new rate structure.

The following points highlight the data in the tables above:

The maximum residential assessment rate is $197.66, which would represent

about a 33% increase in the rate if all planned capital expenditures are budgeted.

The No Capital rates reflect the revenue that can be raised solely to provide thenecessary funding for operating needs per the Sheriffs contract and serviceapportionment. Should the City allocate capital outlay, the rate can be movedhigher.

Should the City assess the maximum fee, the additional revenue raised insupport of the fire-related costs in the BSO contract would amount to over $1.1million.

Recommendation: Based upon assessable costs calculations, the City shouldnot exceed the maximum net assessable amount that can be raised via theassessment fee, which results in a residential rate maximum of $197.66.


31/57



4. SERVICE DEMAND ANALYSIS

Critical to the development of the apportionment methodology for fire

assessment programs is the communitys service demand by property classification.

The project team obtained the service call data for the Lauderdale Lakes Fire Rescue

Division from the BSO 911 Communications Division. Service call data from the Fire

Records Management System (RMS) includes the previously discussed NFIRS data

field that classifies the type of property the fire personnel responded to. This is the most

accurate possible method to identify the calls to the various property types because it is

based on personnel who must complete required State reports who were actually on

scene. The table, which follows, provides a summary of all the incidents (service calls)

as well as the total number of apparatus responses for the calls responded to in

calendar year 2007:

Fire Department 2007 Service Calls Summary

Total number of service calls (incidents) = 5,431Total number of unit responses (apparatus) = 13,987Average number of units per call = 2.6


Service calls responded to in 2007 totaled 5,431 for an average of about 15 callsper 24-hour period.

Apparatus responses in 2007 totaled 13,987 for an average of about 38 unitresponses per 24-hour period. This equates to 2.6 average unit responses per

service call.

Although there are nearly 14,000 unit responses, not all of these will meet the

legal requirements for a valid special assessment. The next two sections of the report


32/57



detail the process for determining which of the calls shall be used in the apportionment

methodology.

1. A TOTAL OF 5,745 UNIT RESPONSES, OR 41.1%, OF THE TOTAL 13,987

UNIT RESPONSES MEET THE SPECIAL BENEFIT TO PROPERTY TEST.

Prior to assigning percentages to the types of property responded to, the data

must be quality reviewed and analyzed. The key objective of this analysis is to exclude

service call responses that do not provide a special benefit to property, a necessary

ingredient for valid special assessment programs. This means that service calls

involving solely emergency medical services must be excluded from the apportionment

of calls to property type. Because the project team obtained both the Fire RMS data as

well as a separate 911 Computer-Aided Dispatching (CAD) database for all the calls,

we were often able to review CAD notes to identify call response patterns to determine

if calls were people or property related. Our analysis of the data resulted in the

identification of call types that failed to meet the special benefit to property

requirement. These are summarized in the table, which follows:

Calls Failing to Meet "Special Benefit to Real Property Test"

Call Header Type Count % of totalEMS Calls and EMS standby 7,470 53.4%Water rescues 20 0.1%Other/Special Service call, other, distressed person 105 0.8%Animal problems and rescues 10 0.1%Civil assists and invalid assists 389 2.8%Bad data (No NFIRS Property Use Code) 248 1.8%

Total units non-eligible for apportionment = (8,242) 58.9%Grand total unit responses = 13,987 100%

Total units eligible for apportionment = 5,745 41.1%The following points highlight the data contained in the table, above:

In reviewing the call data obtained from RMS and CAD, it was determined that7,470 of the apparatus responses related to emergency medical servicesmatters; 248 responses had bad data, such as no property use; and there were


33/57



several categories of responses in which the activity was solely related to helpingpeople, not protecting property.

A total of 58.9 % of the unit responses had to be excluded as people and notproperty related. This left 5,745 responses, or 41.1%, to be apportioned in the

assessment program.

A further look at the call types and unit responses that are apportionable is

contained in the table on the page, which follows:

Fire Department 2007 Apportionable Service Calls SummaryApportionable number of service calls (incidents) = 1,654Apportionable number of service call responses (units) = 5,745Average number of units per call = 3.5


The ratio of unit responses to service calls (fire incidents) indicates 3.5 unitresponses per fire-related incident.

The higher ratio of 3.5 units per call, as compared to 2.6 for EMS, is reflective ofprogrammed CAD response protocols, which require more equipment for fireincidents than EMS incidents.

The table, which follows, shows the specific type of apparatus that responded

broken down by total unit responses as compared to the units for the calls that are

apportionable to the fire assessment program:

Unit TypeTotal All

UnitResponses Total ApportionableUnit Responses Difference % Change

Chief officer car 1,366 1,099 -267 -19.5%Engine 3,498 1,578 -1920 -54.9%HazMat unit 79 72 -7 -8.9%Helicopter 8 5 -3 -37.5%Other apparatus/resource 118 106 -12 -10.2%Rescue unit 5,892 1,884 -4,008 -68.0%Truck or aerial / quint 3,018 996 -2,022 -67.0%Unknown 3 0 -3 -100.0%Urban search & rescue unit 5 5 0 0.0%

Totals = 13,987 5,745 -8,242 -58.9%The following points highlight the data contained in the table, above:


34/57



The unit responses that are deleted from the apportionment calculation aremainly comprised of rescue unit responses. These represent a total percentageof about 49% of the deleted calls (4,008 / 8,424).

The quantities of deleted engine responses and truck / aerial / quint responsesare similar, and when added together approximate the quantity of rescue unitresponses deleted since there are two, fire apparatus and two, rescue units total.

Although there were 5,745 apportionable unit responses, it is necessary to

ensure that each of these responses is properly allocated among the property uses in

order to meet the fair and reasonable test. This requires in-depth study of the data to

ensure only calls with good data and good location addresses are allocated. The next

section of the report explains that process.

2. A TOTAL OF 4,272 UNIT RESPONSES MAY BE APPORTIONED TO REALPROPERTY YIELDING A UNIT RESPONSE DEMAND PERCENTAGE OF64.9% FOR RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES.

The key use of service call and unit response data is to determine how to

apportion the units to property types in order to determine the percentage of fire

services demanded by each property classification. Section 1 of this chapter shows a

total of 5,745 unit responses that meet the special benefit to property test. Of that

amount, 4,272 are apportionable to real property. The difference in the two figures is

the result of calls that were to non-specific property types, were unclassified or

unidentified property types, or had bad data, such as inconsistent NFIRS property

classification codes. Where there were questions, the data was provided to the Fire

Department to review the property type in order to allocate the highest possible

percentage of the calls.


35/57



Attachment B shows the details of how these numbers were calculated and the

reasons unit responses had to be excluded. The table, which follows, is a summary of

the data contained in Attachment B:

Classificationcategory

Classification total unitresponses

Cost ApportionmentPercentages

Residential 2,771 64.9%

Commercial 603 14.1%

Industrial/Warehouse 59 1.4%

Institutional 791 18.5%

Land 48 1.1%

Totals = 4,272 100%


Residential property types account for about 65% of the fire service unitresponse demands.

Institutional property types account for the second highest demand percentage at18.5%, while commercial properties demanded 14.1% of the unit responses.

The data utilized to analyze unit responses also identifies the station location

where the apparatus response originated. A review of primary combat unit responses

within the City of Lauderdale Lakes is evaluated in the next section.

3. PRIMARY UNIT RESPONSES CONSIST MAINLY OF APPARATUSASSIGNED TO THE LAUDERDALE LAKES STATION, AT 82.4%, WHILEREMAINING UNITS RESPOND FROM NEARBY STATIONS.

In order to take a closer look at the service call history from within the City limits,

the project team broke down primary unit responses (excludes specialty units) into City

units and units from other areas. The table, on the page which follows, breaks down the

primary unit responses further as to which units were City units versus those coming

from out of the area:


36/57



Primary Command and First Responder Call Responses by Unit Type and Location

Primary Combat Unit Type Total Unit AssignedDetails City Units% OtherUnits %Chief officer car 1,099

BC 37 726 66.1%C237 63 5.7%Other stations 310City or Other % Breakdown = 71.8% 28.2%

Engine 1,578E37 1,104 70.0%Other stations 474City or Other % Breakdown = 70.0% 30.0%

Rescue unit 1,884R37 836 44.4%R237 856 45.4%Other stations 192City or Other % Breakdown = 89.8% 10.2%

Truck or aerial 996Q37 992 99.6%Other stations 4City or Other % Breakdown = 99.6% 0.4%

Total City or Other Units = 5,557 4,577 82.4% 17.6%The following points highlight the data contained in the table, above:

A total of 70% of the engine responses are from City units.

A total of about 90% of rescue responses are from City units.

Nearly 100% of the aerial truck responses are from Quint 37, a City unit.

The data indicate that the most likely scenario in which the City of Lauderdale

Lakes will receive support from a non-City unit involves engine responses by Engine 14,

which is located at791 NW 31st Avenue, Fort Lauderdale. This unit represented 385unit responses of the total 13,987, or 2.8%, which would be considered minimal. The

number that would be apportioned would be even smaller.


37/57



5. PROPERTY ANALYSIS

This chapter provides data related to the analysis of the ad valorem tax roll

obtained from the BCPA in March, 2008. The table, which follows, provides facts and

figures related to the tax roll:

Updated Property Tax Roll Data Analysis

Date of Property Tax Roll Creation 3/19/08

Total number of property folios 12,259

Current Taxable Value as of 3/19/2008 $1,271,535,560

Final Certified Taxable Value Prior Budget Year (DR-422, 10/11/2007) $1,341,544,355

Loss of Tax Base through 3/19/2008 ($70,008,795)

General Fund Revenue Loss @ 5.4309 @ 95% ($361,200)


Recent housing market declines are reflected in the reduction of the Citystaxable property values, which so far have declined by a total of $70 million.Some of the reduction may be the result of Value Adjustment Board actions toreduce taxable property values based on petitions from property owners.

At the current operating millage rate of 5.4309 mills, the tax base reduction willresult in a General Fund revenue loss of over $361,000.

The tax roll provides the basis for development of the fire assessment roll. The

property types are assigned a letter code based upon their actual usage as determined

by BCPA assessors. These codes are known as the fire classification code when used

to apply the rates to the tax roll in order to create the non-ad valorem fire assessment

roll. The table, on the page that follows, provides an analysis of the property roll from

last year to this year:


38/57



Fire Assessment Roll Analysis

Property Type Fire ClassificationLast

YearCurrentYear Change

R RESIDENTIAL 11,866 11,909 43

C GENERAL COMMERCIAL 109 109 0

W WAREHOUSE/INDUSTRIAL 26 26 0E MEDICAL 12 12 0

U ASSEMBLY 13 13 0

X GOVERNMENT 51 52 1

Z EDUCATIONAL 6 6 0

Y MISCELLANEOUS 7 8 1

A VACANT LAND 97 72 -25

V COMMON AREAS 52 52 0

Total parcel folios = 12,239 12,259 20


It appears that formerly vacant parcels were converted to residential use andhave subsequently hit the tax roll since vacant land parcels were reduced by 25parcels while residential parcels increased by 43.

Generally, the new residential parcels would each be required to pay taxes andthe fire assessment fee. At the current assessment fee rate and assuming eachof the new residential parcels contained one unit, new fire assessment revenueswould amount to only $6,422.48 (43 x $149.36).

The properties above list includes both taxable and tax exempt parcels.

The two key determinants of assessment rates are the demand percentages by

property type and the total property base upon which the rates will be applied to. The

table, which follows, provides the rate basis for each of the property categories within

the BCPA tax roll along with the year-to-year change in units (residential), square

footage (non-residential), and acreage (vacant land).


39/57



Change In Fire Assessment Roll by Category, FY 2008 to FY 2009

Category Code Rate basis Last Year This Year Inc./Dec.

Residential R Resi. Unit 14,633 14,735 102

Commercial C Square feet 2,130,325 2,100,147 (30,178)

Warehouse/Industrial W Square feet 933,270 933,270 -

Medical E Square feet 698,705 698,705 -Assembly U Square feet 132,366 132,366 -

Government X Square feet 669,696 669,697 1

Educational Z Square feet 45,651 45,651 -

Vacant land A Acres 143.90 108.72 (35.18)

Common areas V Square feet 4,588 4,588 -


The 43 vacant parcels shown in the earlier table, which were converted toresidential use, resulted in a total increase of 102 residential units. This is

indicative of multi-family residential development rather than single family.

It is possible that a portion of a former commercial property was converted toresidential use since the number of commercial folios did not decrease but theassessable square footage in the commercial category was reduced by over30,000 square feet.

Land that was previously vacant may have also been converted as a result ofmulti-family development since that category declined by about 3,500 square feetas well.

The next chapter provides the details related to applying various rate policies

against the updated non-ad valorem assessment roll.


40/57



6. ASSESSMENT FEE POLICY OPTIONS

There are many possible assessment rate options for the City to consider. One

of these options is the make no changes option. The section that follows provides the

analysis of leaving the rates unchanged.

1. TAKING NO ACTION TO CHANGE ASSESSMENT PROGRAM RATES WILLRESULT IN A SLIGHT DECREASE IN REVENUE DUE TO CHANGES INPROPERTY USES.

The last section of the previous chapter showed that as development occurs

there are changes in property uses which impact the property tax roll. The table, which

follows, provides the revenue impacts if assessment rates remain unchanged:

Revenue Change if Current Assessment Rates Remain Unchanged

Category CodeCurrent

Base Rate basis Rate New Year Last Year Inc./(Dec.)

Residential R 14,735 Resi. unit $149.36 $2,200,819.60 $2,185,584.88 $15,234.72

Commercial C 2,100,147 per 100 sf $15.90 $333,923.37 $338,721.68 ($4,798.30)Warehouse/Industrial W 933,270 per 100 sf $3.77 $35,184.28 $35,184.28 $-

Medical E 698,705 per 100 sf $32.34 $225,961.20 $225,961.20 $-

Assembly U 132,366 per 100 sf $61.76 $81,749.24 $81,749.24 $-Government X 669,697 per 100 sf $- $- $-

Educational Z 45,651 per 100 sf $25.85 $11,800.78 $11,800.78 $-

Vacant land A 108.72 Per Acre $457.81 $49,773.10 $65,878.86 ($16,105.76)

TOTAL REVENUES = $2,939,211.58 $2,944,880.92 ($5,669.34)


Although the number of residential units increased by 102, the revenue gain ofover $15,000 in assessment fees will be more than offset by reductions in non-residential categories.

The revenue reduction is due to the abnormally high rate being charged forvacant land, which means that small changes in that category due todevelopment result in higher than normal revenue losses.

Recommendation: The City needs to keep the program structure current andshould periodically update the apportionment methodology based on new servicecall and property data; therefore, the do nothing option is not recommended.


41/57



2. AN ANALYSIS OF ASSESSMENT PROGRAM RATE POLICIES ANDAPPORTIONMENT METHODS IN BROWARD COUNTY WAS CONDUCTEDIN ORDER TO ASSIST IN UPDATING THE NON-RESIDENTIAL RATESTRUCTURE.

Fire assessment rates on residential properties in Broward County were detailed

in a previous section. This section focuses on non-residential rates and rate structures.

Many of the 26 Broward County local governments who have fire assessment programs

use rate ranges to group non-residential properties into variable fee ranges based on a

sliding scale that increases the fee charged as the building size increases. Most have a

cap on the rate, which is often based on a maximum figure that large buildings shall be

charged. Buildings above the cap are charged the maximum rate regardless of how

much it exceeds the cap charge. Other cities use a per square foot or per 100 square

foot model, with the City of Lauderdale Lakes using the latter.

In order to analyze non-residential rate policies and structures, the project team

developed a comparison of non-residential rates by converting all per square foot

models into a 100 square foot figure so comparisons with the City could be made. The

table, beginning on the page that follows, shows the results of the non-residential rate

comparison for those cities that do not use rate ranges.


42/57



Non-Residential Rates per 100 Square Feet for CitiesCharging by Square Foot Rather Than Ranges

City Commercial Industrial/Warehouse Institutional Square FootMax = CapCoral Springs $16.45 $2.50 $21.03 400,000Hallandale Beach $28.58 $2.31 $49.19 No capLauderdale Lakes $15.90 $3.77 $39.98 No capMiramar $22.67 $7.20 $15.90 100,000Parkland $17.00 none $12.00 No capPompano Beach $19.00 $11.00 $24.00 150,000Southwest Ranches $48.00 $48.00 $12.00 No capUnincorporated $30.00 $3.90 $14.00 No capWest Park $19.00 $8.00 $74.00 115,800Wilton Manors $22.93 $1.59 $10.12 100,000

Average = $23.95 $9.81 $27.22The following points highlight the data contained in the table, above:

At $15.90 per 100 square feet, the Citys current commercial rate is the lowestand is about 50% lower than the County average.

The industrial/warehouse rate of $3.77 per 100 square feet is about 38% of theaverage rate.

The Institutional rate does not exist yet and this comparison was made byaveraging the Medical, Assembly, Government, and Educational rates, which arerecommended to be combined into "Institutional" under the new rate structure.The current average of these rates are high in comparison to other.

As far as capping the amount of square feet that the rate will be applied to, half ofthe cities using the per square foot model cap the charge while half do not. Inlooking at the commercial properties, there are three properties in LauderdaleLakes in the 236,051 to 288,424 square foot range while the fourth largest is atabout 133,000 square feet.

Recommendation: The project team recommends that the City keep the basicstructure of the per 100 square feet non-residential rate charge and continue tocharge the full square footage without a rate cap.


43/57



3. THE CITY CONTINUES TO CHARGE A VACANT LAND RATE DUE TOLOCAL CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING THE HANDLING OF BOTHINSTITUTIONAL AND DEVELOPMENT PARCELS.

The review of assessment programs in Broward County revealed that in addition

to non-residential property categories, some cities also utilize a charge for vacant land,

however, there are only three local governments and the County that continue to do so.

This is likely due to the urbanized nature of Broward County, resulting in a limited

amount of vacant lands remaining, as well as the small percentage of the call response

service demands that can be attributed to land only service calls. More rural areas,

including those towns with substantial open space in western Broward that experience

brush fire activity would be likely candidates for such a category. Call response data

analyzed several years ago in Southwest Ranches indicated a significant number of

brush fire calls. The table, which follows, provides a comparison of the per acre charge

each of the four entities is currently charging:

Acreage Rates for Cities Charging byAcre for Vacant Land

City Acreage(per Acre)Dania Beach $48.00Lauderdale Lakes $457.81Southwest Ranches $51.74Unincorporated $28.00

Average = $146.39The following points highlight/supplement the data contained in the table, above:

Lauderdale Lakes has a very high per acre vacant land charge when comparedto other Broward programs.

The average rate, excluding Lauderdale Lakes, would be $42.58, which meansthe Citys rate is over ten times the average of the other cities.


44/57



Due to the recalculation of service demands performed as part of this study, thevacant land rate would be reduced by 25 - 29 % under the three rate optionsprovided.

The City advised it prefers to maintain the vacant land charge since certain

development parcels and associated plans that were previously promised havenot been implemented.

Recommendation: Continuation of the vacant land rate category is consistentwith existing policy and program structure.

4. STABILIZED RATE OPTIONS PROVIDE SLIGHTLY LOWER RATES ANDWILL GENERATE NEW REVENUES BETWEEN $0 AND $180,000.

The project team was requested to initially develop three rate options that were

within the parameters previously discussed. After a meeting with the Steering

Committee, it was determined that a fourth option falling somewhere between the

current rate and maximum rate should also be available to give the City Commission

further flexibility to raise revenue that would support contract increases. The option is

shown as Option 3 below. The final options provided are summarized as follows:

Option 1 Revenue neutral rate of $141.38: Based upon the calculatedapportionment percentages, the rates that generate the same gross revenues asin the existing program require a reduction in the residential rate of 5%.

Option 2 Maintaining current residential rate of $149.36: Theapportionment percentages that maintain the current residential rate will result inan increase in revenues due to required rate adjustments for non-residentialproperties based on the service call apportionment.

Option 3 Rate necessary to fully fund operations without any capitalexpenditures is $157.39: This rate represents the amount of funding necessaryto fully fund the ongoing operational needs of the fire contract without anyinvestment in capital expenditures, which for fiscal year 2009 could beprogrammed as high as $914,500.

Option 4 Maximum rate to include operations and capital is $197.66: Thisrate option assumes that all of the required fire-related capital items are acquired($914,500 in fiscal year 2009) while also recovering the necessary funding toachieve the maximum assessable revenues for operational needs.


45/57



The tables, which follow, show the new rate options, the rate change when

compared to current rates, the % change, the gross and net revenues, and the

additional revenues generated by each option:

FIRE ASSESSMENT RATE OPTIONS

Option 1 Revenue Neutral Rate of $141.38

Category BaseRequiredPercent Revenue New Rates Change % change

Residential 14,735 64.90% $2,083,290 $141.38 ($7.98) -5.3%

Commercial 2,100,147 14.10% $452,610 $21.55 $5.65 35.5%

Industrial/Ware 933,270 1.40% $44,940 $4.82 $1.05 27.7%

Institutional 1,546,419 18.50% $593,850 $38.40 ($1.58) -4.0%

Vacant land 108.72 1.10% $35,310 $324.78 ($133.03) -29.1%

Gross Total = $3,210,000

Net Revenue Total = $2,952,771Current Policy Revenues = $2,939,212

Additional Net Revenues = $13,559

Option 2 Maintain Current Residential Unit Rate at $149.36


Residential 14,735 64.90% $2,200,820 $149.36 $- 0.0%

Commercial 2,100,147 14.10% $478,144 $22.77 $6.87 43.2%

Industrial/Ware 933,270 1.40% $47,475 $5.09 $1.32 34.9%

Institutional 1,546,419 18.50% $627,352 $40.57 $0.58 1.5%

Vacant land 108.72 1.10% $37,302 $343.10 ($114.71) -25.1%Gross Total = $3,391,093

Net Revenue Total = $3,119,514

Current Policy Revenues = $2,939,212


Option 3 Maximum Rate without Capital Expenditures of $157.39

Category BaseRequiredPercent Revenue New Rates Change

%change

Residential 14,735 64.90% $2,320,243 $157.39 $8.03 5.4%

Commercial 2,100,147 14.10% $501,979 $23.99 $8.09 50.9%

Industrial/Ware 933,270 1.40% $50,023 $5.36 $1.59 42.2%Institutional 1,546,419 18.50% $375,955 $42.75 $(13.60) -24.1%

Vacant land 108.72 1.10% $38,808 $361.54 $(96.27) -21.0%






46/57



Option 4 Maximum Residential Unit Rate with Capital of $197.66


Residential 14,735 64.90% $2,912,583 $197.66 $48.30 32.3%

Commercial 2,100,147 14.10% $632,780 $30.13 $14.23 89.5%

Industrial/Ware 933,270 1.40% $62,829 $6.73 $2.96 78.5%

Institutional 1,546,419 18.50% $830,243 $53.69 ($2.65) -4.7%

Vacant land 108.72 1.10% $49,366 $454.06 ($3.75) -0.8%




Additional Net Revenues = $1,188,969

Result: The City Commission chose the above Option 3 when they set theirPreliminary Rate Resolution at their July 8th Commission meeting. By August4th, the rate resolution will be sent to the Property Appraiser and Revenue

Collection so rates can be noticed on the TRIM notice. Final implementation willbe at the Initial Budget Hearing (September 15th) when the Annual RateResolution will be adopted.

5. RECOVERING THE MAXIMUM ASSESSABLE FUNDING AMOUNT WILLGENERATE NEW REVENUES OF ABOUT $1.2 MILLION AND RESULT IN ARESIDENTIAL RATE OF $197.66.

A prior section of this report details the calculation related to the maximum

amount of revenue that can be raised via the fire assessment. This section provides

details as to the rate and revenue impacts should the City determine the need for

additional revenue. A residential rate somewhere between the current rate of $149.36

and the maximum rate of $197.66 provides the City Commission with the option of

raising additional revenue in support of increasing service costs as well as capital outlay

and Capital Improvement Program (CIP) needs. The table, which follows, details the

impacts of charging the maximum rate:


47/57



Option 4 Maximum Residential Unit Rate with Capital of $197.66


Residential 14,735 64.90% $2,912,583 $197.66 $48.30 32.3%

Commercial 2,100,147 14.10% $632,780 $30.13 $14.23 89.5%

Industrial/Ware 933,270 1.40% $62,829 $6.73 $2.96 78.5%

Institutional 1,546,419 18.50% $830,243 $53.69 ($2.65) -4.7%

Vacant land 108.72 1.10% $49,366 $454.06 ($3.75) -0.8%




Additional Net Revenues = $1,188,969


These rates include the capital outlay and CIP improvements previously listed

and would require that the City spend those resources on those fire-relatedprogram needs.

The difference between the gross and net revenues is reflective of tax exemptgovernment owned institutional properties.

The preceding analysis shows that the City has substantial flexibility to raise

additional revenues in support of fire rescue services. Should the City choose to do so,

it must take into account the method in which the maximum rate and net assessable

budget amount were determined herein. A more substantial increase in assessment

revenues needs to take into account the fact that the maximum assessable amount

calculated in this report included capital items that must be purchased if the maximum

rate is to be charged. This avoids subsidizing EMS services with assessment fee

revenue. The next chapter provides a summary of the implementation requirements

and schedule of events.

Lauderdale Lakes Fire Final Report

Documents

Transcript of Lauderdale Lakes Fire Final Report