Water shut off in Timberlake

As part of the SW 51st Street Water Main Tie-in Project, water will be SHUT OFF TONIGHT at 8:00PM until 4:00AM, Friday, February 21st. The areas of shut off are as follows:  SW 92nd Avenue, from 50th Place to 51st Street  AND SW 51st Place, from 92nd Terrace to 51st Street.   Residents of these areas have all been notified.  My apologies for the late notice but I received it just this afternoon... Keeping you informed, John Commissioner John Sims www.keepsims.com

OPEN LETTER REGARDING THE ISSUE BETWEEN MAYOR GREG ROSS AND THE PEMBROKE PINES POLICE

OPEN LETTER REGARDING THE ISSUE BETWEEN MAYOR GREG ROSS AND THE PEMBROKE PINES POLICE

COOPER CITY, FL --August 9, 2013

To Whom It May Concern;

Regrettably and most unfortunately, negative publicity has again been brought to the City of Cooper City and in turn to our residents. The alleged actions of our newly elected Mayor, as recently reported by the media regarding an alleged confrontational situation that occurred between the Mayor and law enforcement officers of the Pembroke Pines Police Department, has again cast a cloud of disparagement upon our great city. 

I am appalled that the Cooper City Mayor allegedly espoused his political position to attempt to influence a police officer. It is not an issue of exculpatory evidence and as such, I as a senior Cooper City Commissioner on behalf of my constituents, do not condone any actions or interference, personal or otherwise, of any police officer during a traffic stop. I am appalled by any elected official, commission member, city staff member or resident, who personally chooses to engage in interference, intimidation, ridicule, political pressure or any other form of verbal or other assault upon the integrity and honesty of any law enforcement personnel in any jurisdiction, or interference during the official performance of their duties whatsoever.  

The task of performing much needed law enforcement in today’s environment is especially difficult due to the risks to the officers and our citizens when potential violence occurs, seemingly so often. The extreme challenges essential for law enforcement officers to fully accomplish their duties must be viewed by the citizenry as a required function of society, and must be fully supported while being executed in a professional manner. We ‘The People’ who place our safety and security their hands, must not intervene regardless of any profession or political office one may hold, especially in such a manner that disrupts their life safety and critical tasks at hand. 

It is my firm belief that all of the residents of our communities are very thankful and very supportive of all law enforcement personnel regardless of their function or jurisdiction. Given the multitude of cities that surround us, the name of the jurisdiction on the sleeve patch is not important, but rather what is most important is that they are on the job every day and night providing the essential safety and security that we all require and insist upon. We all believe in the end that government’s number one function to the citizenry is indeed the safety of our communities and our families. 

I am extremely grateful that those who continue to serve in the line of duty and perform their daily and extremely hazardous duties in a professional manner, will continue to do so in spite of the efforts of a few to be disruptive, and in spite those who intentionally disregard the lawful processes required of our law enforcement officers. They do so in complete disregard of the oath that they have sworn to uphold and defend. 

Further, as a long serving city commissioner, I am extremely concerned with political corruption; appearances of impropriety, unethical behavior and of course any wrongdoing of our elected public servants. I most strongly condemn any action(s) by any elected official, commission member or member of city staff who decides take it upon themselves to ridicule, impugn or condemn any police officer, to engage in any unethical behavior, suggest, infer or to solicit any special favors or special benefit which may benefit themselves, or expect special treatment on behalf of others from any law enforcement officer during the performance of their official duties. 

Anyone who has concerns regarding this issue may feel free to contact me to express your views and concerns.

/s/ Commissioner John Sims

City of Cooper City, FL

Cooper City's Property Values increase 8.6%

Cooper City’s property values are expected to increase approximately 8.6% as per the Broward Property Appraiser, the highest in Broward County according to this estimate.

Real Property Values (does not include TPP or Centrally Assessed)

MUN
2011 WCC*
2012 EST
Diff
% Diff

COUNTY
119,008,960,880
122,539,381,960
3,530,421,080
3.0%

UNINCORPORATED
371,558,560
389,350,470
17,791,910
4.8%

COOPER CITY
1,853,919,930
2,013,671,130
159,751,200
8.6%


Best regards,

Commissioner John Sims
Cooper City, FL
954-445-6997

Cooper City’s 2012 Fiscal Year Budget - Just the Facts

My recent challenge to my fellow commissioners was “What’s the tough choice in 2011 that you’re going to make in order to make Cooper City better, more efficient and less costly to run?” As you witnessed in our recently approved budget, there were no solid initiatives by my fellow commissioners.

Since 2007 our surplus funds have decreased from 50% of budget to just over 15% next year, due to continued uncontrolled spending. Instead of addressing a city on the verge of bankruptcy in 2013 per a recent city manager’s report, and the auditor, your elected representatives ignored making tough choices in order to make this next fiscal year a priority to maintain basic essential services, reduce taxes, fees and assessments, and improve customer service. The millage increased from 5.0479 mils to 5.0526 mils, yet rather than maintain or reduce your tax burden, the commission has increased it...again.

While Cooper City’s nickname has become ‘the taxing champions’ due to the fact that the city raised your total taxes at a higher percentage than any other government agency, the commission majority have again demonstrated gross fiscal irresponsibility. In fact, taxes for the less expensive homes increased more than the others. This regressive taxation scheme, along with the increased taxable amount due to the increase of the SOH assessment, and the double digit increases in the fire assessment negated the decrease in the debt levy millage.

This increase was a slap in the face of residents who have paid taxes for many years to pay off the debt incurred over the past years due to fiscal irresponsibility under the current Mayor, who viewed this with a glance down the nose at those who are currently facing the ugly prospects of unemployment, rising food and gas prices and those on a fixed income to mention just a few.

Special assessments are growing exponentially. In 20 years, assessments levied by government have tripled, increasing over 170%. This is faster than population growth (25%), inflation (27%), and growth in total personal income (76%). Cities have increased non-ad valorem assessments eight-fold in ten years and Cooper City is currently leading this trend.

As an example, the fire assessment, which we are being sued for, increased over 25% annually over the last 3 years which has hurt our lower income residents more than the others. I believe the assessment was based on a fire study which was flawed and incorrect for many reasons, which I have proven and was ignored. At most, residents should be paying less than $100, yet some city businesses are facing a 270% to 365% increase! Fire assessment collections have gone from $600K to over $1.4M in just 5 years. Currently, BSO is costing us over 65% of our general fund revenues and in 7 years BSO increases will be at 100% of our current general fund revenues.

The Mayor objected to lobbyist fees which have saved the city multi-millions of dollars and will continue to do so in the future, yet won’t address our skyrocketing city attorney fees, yet she falsely accued me of unethical conduct based on a picture of me and the lobbyist at a football game. Guess what Mayor, I don't discuss business at football games, and even if I did, it would be quite alright. The commission has again ignored this uncontrolled increased expense (city attorney) and litigation costs due to long term personal and political relationships that were undisclosed by the Mayor...

It’s past time for the commission to address the issue of actually implementing real solutions in order to reduce costs. The likelihood is that your commission majority will continue to be fiscally irresponsible and support 'feel good' non-essential programs. This may change since 2012 is an election year. My take is that the majority will try every way possible to raise taxes again except telling the candid truth; that the waste franchise fees, fire tax and the huge increases in EMS transport charges are just excuses to raise revenues when the city should be doing everything possible to cut expenses and join the citizens in being more cost efficient.

If you are concerned about the city’s fiscal condition, please forward your concerns to me. I will ensure that the commission continues to hear your voice.

Cooper City - The Taxing Champions of 2012; Mayor's Budget Article

Recently I received several emails and phone calls regarding the Mayor’s article in this month’s Davie & the Ranches (DRW) magazine (Attached). Sadly, the Mayor is being most disingenuous with the intended readers. The Mayor states, “As the economy continues to stagger and fami­lies strive to squeeze more mileage from every dollar, so too does the City continue to tighten the reins by reducing spending and implement­ing cost saving strategies.” I guess I must have missed that memo or the super secret staff meeting, as the facts very clearly tell another story...

The city now proposes to again increase fire assessment fees over 25%, increase EMS transport fees to 89% with no removal of the collections clause, and property taxes have gone up again under this Mayor’s ‘watch’.

The facts are very clear. In 2010 Cooper City’s General Fund budget was $28,778,798. The 2011-12 budget proposes an increase to $29,389,782. The 2009-10 Capital Expenditures were budgeted at $1,156,658, and in 2011 they are proposed at $1,479,900. The Expenses in 2009-10 were budgeted at $25,905,061, and in 2010-11 they are proposed at 26,308,673. On top of these increases, we have substantially increased attorney fees, and now at least two, and possibly more lawsuits that will cost us big money.

The city now proposes to:
+ Increase again the fire assessment fee over 25%,
+ Increase Emergency Medical transport fees 89% without removal of the strong collections clause for non-payment, although the city and staff say that they will not pursue collections (yeah right!).
+ Increase most of the other permit fees.
+ Increase Ad Valorem Property Taxes.
+ Increase business fire inspections fees. (They will pass up the prices to the business owner, and ultimately to the customer, some of which will pay well over 200% more)

In last year’s General Fund the budget was $28,778,798.
This year’s General Fund budget is projected to be $29,389,782,
An increase of + $610,984.

The Expenses last year were budgeted at $25,905,061,
and this year is projected at $26,308,673.
An Increase of + $403,612

The previous Capital Expenditures’ were projected at $1,156,658
This coming year’s Capital Expenditures are projected at $1,479,900
An increase of + $323,242

Maybe I just missed seeing the reduction in spending and the cost saving strategies, but these are the cold hard numbers. In fact, costs and expenses have been increasing under the Eisinger leadership model. (See the attached ‘Page from Mid-Year Budget Report.pdf file’) The 2012 proposed budget can be viewed here: http://www.coopercityfl.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={576852A5-BD98-472C-B9C6-A0C726D169C8}

A very clear $1,337,838 or nearly one and a half million dollar increase in a time where almost 50% of the homes in Broward County are ‘underwater’.

As most of you are aware your property assessment was also increased, and many, if not all taxes will increase. You do the math and if I am wrong you tell me.

This does not count the ever increasing cost of legal fees as a result of the unbridled city attorney and the current slate of lawsuits pending. Under this Mayor’s watch the cost of living in Cooper City continues to rise at what I would call an alarming rate.

The city recently had a presentation regarding the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for Cooper City. The results are not ‘pretty’. Below are some comments made by the Auditor and the City Manager. You can view my comments regarding our future financial obligations HERE and you can view the ‘CAFR’ HERE.

Grau & Assoc, Auditor - “The unrestricted Enterprise Fund Net Assets increased from $4.2M to $6.3M in profit to the Enterprise (Water & Sewer) due to a decrease in accrued interest. Next year it will be more. You have a lot of money in this fund.”
Re: General and Enterprise funds “You have two funds going in opposite directions here” (regarding revenues and expenses).
“Cooper City actually spent more than it took in”
“There are not enough revenues coming in to cover expenditures”
“Revenues increased”

Bruce Loucks, City Manager - “Our BSO Contract is increasing exponentially.”
“Our utilities debt is increasing, and we (the City) will be funding projects in lieu of debt”
“Hopefully we won’t have debt for the $3.5M pump station that the city will be funding”

So, Cooper City has proven that it has a history under the Mayor’s watch, as raising taxes and fees while the other government entities are decreasing them. Cooper City is the Taxing Champions AGAIN! AND, hitting the lower income folks hardest.

Regarding the Fire Assessment “fee’: to paraphrase Harry Truman…"If it is on your tax bill, looks like a tax, is collected like a tax and you pay it with the same check, it’s a tax."

This form of taxation is called regressive taxation, where you hit the lower income people by a higher percentage than those with higher incomes.

Tonight’s city commission meeting at 6 PM will tell exactly where the commission stands on protecting the future and financial security of our fixed income, low income, unemployed residents and struggling local business owners.

We already know their intent…spend more, raise taxes and assessments more, and hurt the fixed, low income, unemployed residents and local businesses of ‘Someplace Special’ while eliminating essential services in exchange for retaining ‘feel good’ programs. I’m not holding my breath…neither should you.

Cooper City Budget Hearing on Monday and More...

I am writing this evening to urge all of you to attend Cooper City's first budget hearing, regarding the 2010-2011 budget, which is going to be held this coming Monday, September 13th at 6 PM, City Hall. We must all show up and reject the commission's inflated and pork filled budget!

Let me say this loud and clear...Your elected officials in Cooper City have been feeding our local residents and business owners the same ol’ ‘stuff’ for a long, long time. They call themselves ‘fiscally conservative’, yet our budget alone has grown $6.6 million over the last 5 years.

They talk about reducing waste and expenditures but they are actually cutting vital services and raising taxes, fees and assessments, and also controlling what the residents say while continuing to grow their political bureaucracy and their already inflated budget with even more unnecessary and wasteful ‘pork barrel’ spending.

They say that they are looking out for residents and business owners, but we know that they are taking care of themselves, and their self-serving political agendas with your hard earned money.

The wasteful spending must stop now! Attend the September 13th & 27th public budget hearing on the proposed 2010-2011 budget, millage rates and property taxes at city hall (6PM) and voice your concerns.

Here is just one example (and a fine one I might ad) of an open letter from a concerned resident, Edward Wooley, a smart and well seasoned individual, regardless of what those that tend to discount him say, with a Harvard MBA and a man who is an economist...

"YOUR BIGGEST TAX INCREASE IS COMING FROM YOUR COOPER CITY GOVERNMENT"

Yes, Cooper City is leading the tax hikes on your county tax notice! The Commission is proposing larger hits than the scandal-ridden school district and Broward County commission.

Proof? Like most of you, Broward County’s appraiser reduced my residence’s market value by 14% and State law increased my assessed values by 2.7%. That is typical. Here are the hard dollar numbers ranked by dollar increase for my home.

TAXES and FEES _____Tax Year_____________ Difference
______________2009____ 2010______$______%

Cooper City___ $1,206.87__$1,328.59__ $121.72_ 10.1
County Comm _$1,194.29__ $1,299.63__ $105.34_ 8.8
School district _$1,832.63__ $1,937.90__$105.27__5.7
Total _______$4,827.93___$5,214.26__$386.83_ 8.0
(small Items Not shown)

The biggest % increase in Cooper City’s taxes/fees is the Fire Assessment Fee—18.8% (and we don't even have a fire department!).

So, the big winners in the tax race seem to be our mayor and those commissioners and staff who are supporting such large increases. Remember, the cost of living index for property tax purposes is only 2.7%. Why is our city raising taxes by an additional 7.4%? Do you feel it is justified in these difficult economic times?

Think about the hurt to retirees on fixed incomes, to those living on social security, to the under and unemployed and to the residents living on modest incomes. For many, the impact can be the cost of two weeks of groceries or months of prescriptions. In these hard economic times, it is simply immoral to treat a large percentage of our neighbors this way. Particularly when it is not necessary to achieve a responsible city budget.

I urge you to let the Commission know quickly what you think about them being the tax champions. Contact info: mayor, commissioners and city manager
(954) 434-4300

Mayor: Mayor_eisinger@coopercityfl.org. Generally votes for $ tax increases

Mr. Curran: Commissioner_Curran@coopercityfl.org. Same as the Mayor

Mr. deJesus: Commissioner_dejesus@coopercityfl.org.
Has opposed some increases. Often open-minded. Fire fee sponsor

Ms. Mallozzi: Commissioner_Mallozzi@coopercityfl.org.
Opposed millage rate increase. Generally votes to raise city revenues. A leader in pushing for red light cameras.

Mr. Sims: Commissioner_Sims@coopercityfl.org.
Generally opposes tax and fee increases. Often the only one.

Mr. Loucks: Bloucks@coopercityfl,org. Proposes tax/fee increases in the budget.
City manager, no vote.

Respectfully, Ed Wooley Phone (954)433-1039 ed.wooley@comcast.net

Also, to add fuel to the fire, I had recently asked the commission to discuss the city attorney budget already over budget by approximately$72,000.00 as of last january, and the monthly billing on an average of approximately $27,000.00. The commission voted 4 to 1 NOT to address the potential overage of $180,000.00 for this year. Then the commission voted 3 to 2 to adjourn the meeting without giving me the opportunity to speak during the Commissioners Concerns. What does that tell you? Now we are in September and we have 'busted' the budget with 'rainmaker' attorney's fees!

In fact, we don't even have a year-end analysis of where we will end up as of September 31st, so how in the world can we know where to go from here? Take a look at the budget online here, and you tell me, what is it we need to cut? I can think of plenty of items, and I have already addressed them, that would in fact allow us to lower our taxes, but unfortunately, we are dealing with a commission who says it's a great budget...NOT!

Also, the Cooper City Civic Association Blog contains articles that will help inform and educate the city's residents about the budget and other issues that directly affect them, as well as their pocketbooks. Here is the link: http://coopercitycivicgroup.blogspot.com/

I want to also wish all of my Jewish friends, neighbors and the Jewish War Veterans 'L'shanah Tovah' and everyone a reverent Patriot Day. Please remeber those who died for your right to vote on November 2nd, and those who died on September 11th. We owe our freedoms to those heros, and I pray for their family and friends....

Please check out my website at http://www.keepsims.com/ or my facebook page at http://www.facebook.com/JohnBSims and I thank you for your donations, no matter how small, your valued support and vote on November 2nd.

The Sky Won’t Fall In Cooper City If Amendment 4 Passes

Opponents of Florida Hometown Democracy’s Amendment 4, developers and land-speculators, have been successful in scaring many local governments with misinformation.

Unfortunately, many local governments aren’t even researching these bogus claims. They’re just accepting them and passing resolutions saying that the sky will fall if Amendment 4 is passed.

Overdevelopment helped crash Florida’s economy. We currently have over 400,000 vacant dwellings. Local governments helped create the building boom by charging artificially low impact fees to builders, and not requiring them to fund the needed infrastructure (roads, schools, water, sewer, safety). In spite of what politicians tell their constituents, development doesn’t pay for itself, as numerous studies have proven (Jacksonville, Sarasota, Hillsborough, etc.). It costs government more to provide infrastructure and services for new development than it receives in new tax revenue. [Note: Some in the form of impact fees, or even 'donations' of fire trucks]

Our State-mandated long-range growth plans are meant to place services and population in an organized and efficient manner so as to improve our quality of life, prevent sprawl, and keep taxes lower. But these well-thought-out plans are constantly being changed, every time a developer wants to build something that conflicts with existing plans. Instead of asking developers to conform to our plans, our politicians quickly cave-in and approve the plan changes.

This is occurring everywhere at an alarming rate because our politicians can’t seem to say no to developers. If you look at most politicians’ campaign-contribution records, they receive a sizable amount from development interests (sometimes more than 50%). Is it surprising that they approve most of the plan changes submitted by developers? As an example, the Hillsborough County Commission approves over 92 percent of submitted plan changes.

Most counties are in dire straits because of overdevelopment and inadequate infrastructure. Do the Legislature, local politicians, chambers of commerce offer a solution? No, their solution is more of the same. They say, “Don’t change anything … we like it this way … we need to make it easier for developers so they can quickly build still more homes … we’ll have to raise your taxes to add and widen roads and provide basic services, but it’s worked well for us politicians, and our developer partners love it, too.”

What will Hometown Democracy’s Amendment 4 do?

• It’ll provide a simple and balanced approach to planning for our communities.

• It adds only one step – your vote -- to the existing process for changing growth plans.

Citizens will have a say in the future of their communities. Shouldn’t we residents have meaningful input in deciding where the next 3,000-home subdivision will go, or the next airport, or the next supermall?

• It’ll help force business interests/developers to stick to a community’s plan.

• Local governments will be more cautious in approving developer-initiated changes because citizens will veto bad-growth decisions.

• As the number of privately-initiated changes is reduced, process costs will decrease, and governments will be able to do more long range planning.

• The approval of plan changes will still be in the hands of elected officials and their staffs as it is today. The only difference is that voters can agree or disagree with the officials when the item reaches the ballot, as the last step in the process.

The only changes that residents will vote on will be major land-use changes to their growth plans. Voters will not vote on zoning, rezoning, variances, building permits, etc. Depending on the size of the city or county, the estimated number of ballot items would be from one to five per election.

• Amendment 4 won’t stop anyone from building. Florida is “shovel ready” as we speak. It does not require a change in any growth plan to build a building. Current land-use designations already in place allow enough home-building to accommodate another 100+ million people, without ever making another change. More than 1.3 billion-square-feet of additional commercial floor area (13,000 Walmarts) is already approved on our growth plans. Pre-approved land is everywhere. When the market rebounds there’ll be nothing to stop business from building. Amendment 4 will simply assure that building occurs in these pre-approved, appropriate, rational places.

Look at your own community. The bad growth decisions that we have to live with are all too obvious. Amendment 4 is needed. We need a seat at the table on land-use decisions that can directly and irreversibly harm our pocketbooks and our quality of life.

George Niemann (813) 662-7100
Tampa-area Amendment 4 regional coordinator
Hillsborough County
George_n@verizon.net

Reprinted with permission

Cooper City Red Light Cameras, and more...

On this coming Tuesday's commission agenda, your Mayor has placed on the agenda the issue of Red Light Camera's in Cooper City. The issue was previously raised by Lisa Mallozzi, and at that time it was apparently a 'done deal' with a full presentation by ATS, a well known vendor who is not thought of to be an 'above the board' vendor. The issue is a discussion regarding "Implementation of Red Light Camera Program (please read the attached information in the previous link) in compliance with recently adopted State Law". Unfortunately, the state law has not been made law and implemented, and may even be possibly veto'd by the Governor. I hope so!

This issue is one of the worst issues that could be thrust upon our residents and business owners. Many other cities have placed a halt on the red light camera issue based upon many factors, includint the fact that the red light cameras are a severe detriment to the safety of the public at large, the very core of what government is implemented to protect! There are many issues regarding this item, that we must address before even thinking about implementing this program, but five minutes won't allow us to address it in a clear, concise and detailed manner. I believe that the 'deal' has already been done.

Other cities decided to hold off because of questions about how their plans correspond with legislation approved last week by state lawmakers. Cities will now receive less money than planned because the Legislature requires that fines be divided with the state. The Legislature also bars cities from sharing revenue with camera vendors in exchange for using their equipment.

This is the very reason why the Legislature and our Mayor want to implement this program...money. Your hard earned money. Let's be very clear...this issue has absoultely nothing to do with safety, and if anyone tries to tell you differently, they are being dishonest with you. There are no studies that show red light cameras as being effective in increasing safety. In fact, every study available shows exactly the opposite. They are a detriment to the safety of motorists.

In fact, a Miami-Dade County judge ruled that one city couldn't use red-light cameras to issue fines without a police officer present. Again, let me emphasise, all studies on the issue show that red light camera's don't work. In fact, they increase the amount of crashes and injuries as driver's attempt to abruptly stop at camera spying intersections. As one report stated "Running a red light can cause severe traffic crashes especially when one vehicle runs into the side of another. Red light cameras photograph violators who are sent traffic tickets by mail. Intuitively, cameras appear to be a good idea. However, comprehensive studies conclude cameras actually increase crashes and injuries, providing a safety argument not to install them."

"This paper explains red light running trends in Florida; effective solutions to reduce red light running; findings from major camera evaluations; examples of flawed evaluations; the automobile insurance financial interest in cameras; and the increased likelihood of even higher crash and injury rates if cameras are used in Florida due to the high percent of elderly drivers and passengers. The theory behind red light cameras as potentially effective is that they rely on deterring red light running primarily through punishment of a specific driving behavior and secondarily by changing drivers’ experience. Because the rigorous and robust studies conclude that cameras are associated with increased crashes and costs, any economic analysis of cameras should include these newly generated costs to the public.

Indirect costs to the public are usually not considered in the calculation of total revenues and profits generated from red light cameras. Florida should be cautious in using traffic safety information from the automobile insurance industry. Insurance financial goals are to increase their revenues and profits, which do not necessarily include reducing traffic crashes, injuries or fatalities. Also, public policy should avoid conflicts of interest that enhance revenues for government and private interests at the risk of public safety." (Florida Public Health Review, 2008; 5: 1-7)

The National Motorists Association (NMA) represents driver interests and opposes cameras. In addition to concluding cameras do not improve safety, the NMA is concerned that local governments will not use effective methods to reduce red light running when earning money from cameras. For example, lengthening yellow light timings at traffic signals is effective in reducing red light running (NMA, 2008). theNewspaper.com, 2006). The majority of the red light running safety issue can be resolved through inexpensive engineering remedies that address the timing of yellow lights. In Cooper City, the average yelow light is three seconds or less.

Increases in crashes can raise the risk rating of drivers in a community, which can lead to disproportionately higher automobile insurance premiums, and, subsequently, rising profits for insurers. The Greensboro evaluation was conducted by the Urban Transit Institute at the North Carolina Agricultural & Technical State University using 57 months of data (Burkey & Obeng, 2004). The study concluded that in many ways “the evidence points toward the installation of RLCs [red light cameras] as a detriment to safety.” Cameras were associated with:
• A significant increase (40%) in accident rates;
• A significant increase (40-50%) in possible injury crashes;
• No decrease in severe crashes.

The Virginia Transportation Research Council (Garber, Miller, Abel, Eslambolchi & Korukonda, 2007) analyzed camera programs in five jurisdictions using seven years of data. The study concluded their findings “cannot be used to justify the widespread installation of cameras because they are not universally effective.” They used a comprehensive statistical method of analysis (i.e., Empirical Bayes) that found cameras were associated with:
• A significant increase (29%) in total crashes;
• A significant increase (20%) in angle crashes;
• A significant increase (42%) in rear-end crashes, which did not decrease over time;
• A significant increase in injury crashes (18%), with the impact on injury severity
reported as “too close to call”;
• Increases in crash costs.

A study conducted for the Ministry of Transportation in Ontario by Synectics
Transportation Consultants (2003) evaluated two interventions (cameras and stepped-up police enforcement) in six jurisdictions following a public information campaign. Camera intersections had a:
• 16% increase in crashes, compared to an 8% increase at comparison intersections;
• 2% increase in injury or fatal crashes, compared to 10% and 12% decreases
respectively at stepped-up police enforcement and comparison intersections.

The public health policy implications using red light cameras are shocking. Automobile insurance companies can profit if camera tickets are moving violations that add points to a driver’s license. Moving violation tickets allow insurers to charge higher premiums while incurring no additional cost.

Cameras could create an even larger increase in crashes and injuries in Florida since the state has the highest percent of elderly population in the U.S. The elderly have slower average reaction times and may be less likely to stop abruptly as other drivers do so at camera intersections.

The theory behind red light cameras as potentially effective is that they rely on deterring red light running primarily through punishment of a specific driving behavior and secondarily by changing drivers’ experience. There are already laws on the books addressing this issue. By definition, the punishable behavior and resulting potentially harmful action will already have taken place when a ticket is issued. In other words, the crash, injury, and mortality risks do not change immediately, if at all.

In contrast, the engineering solutions such as lengthening yellow lights show immediate reductions in red light running and potential crashes. Thus, even if red light cameras could be effective in the long run, which is debatable, they are associated with an added cost, consisting of fines, crashes and injuries that could have been avoided by using traffic engineering solutions, which are effective in both the short term and the long run.

Further, red light cameras are an inefficient means to raise revenue for local and state governments and can disadvantage the state’s economy. This occurs from the significant amount of funds, paid by local drivers, that ultimately accrues to private special interests from camera use.

Cooper City should be very cautious in using traffic safety information from the automobile insurance industry. Insurance financial goals are to increase their revenues and profits, which do not necessarily include reducing traffic crashes, injuries or fatalities. Also, public policy should avoid conflicts of interest that are a detriment to the safety of the public.

The problem herein is, we all know it's not about your safety, it's about revenues, and the city making more money at all costs...more than likely to pay for a new city hall, and pay for a high priced lawyer to prosectute red light runners, although we have plenty of money in the bank to already pay for that new city hall that Commissioner's Neal De Jesus, Jamie Curran and mayor Debby Eisinger so desperately want!

Please come to the commission meeting on Tueday and voice your objection to this detriment of your safety. One more thought...George Orwell was right.

When a Tax is not called a Tax in Cooper City...

When a tax is not called a tax in Cooper City...

Municipal budgets are shrinking rapidly and money is getting really tight at all levels of government. While it's no secret to savvy residents and smart Commissioners, some wonder how the city can keep up its spending habits on non-health, safety and welfare issues without eventually becoming bankrupt. In response to this immediate and legitimate challenge, municipalities like Cooper City are going to be soon looking for new, imaginative ways to finance municipal services, including that of extra feel good programs along with necessities such as police protection. One of the options that were addressed by one commissioner is the imposition of a ‘special assessment’ relating to police and ‘crime’ services.

Commissioner Lisa Mallozzi (Dist.2) has asked about the possibility of imposing a law enforcement assessment. The Commissioner is on the Broward League of Cities Sustainability Transportation sub-committee that meets later this month and would apparently like this to become a legislative agenda issue, apparently statewide. Specifically, she asked for a definition of what would constitute a property crime. Apparently, the purpose would be to determine the proportionate amount that those crimes are of the total crimes to be the basis for the development of a law enforcement special assessment. The interim City Manager has asked the City Attorney and the BSO Commander to develop that information. The attorney stated that any property that is impacted by the crime would be improved real property and the crimes would likely be burglary, criminal mischief, etc.

It sounds like the Commissioner is talking to the wrong people; other politicians in government, and not her constituents. My immediate response was that "We already have an assessment in place. It's called TAXES!" This is nothing but a ploy by some municipalities, and now a Cooper City Commissioner, to double tax and to that end we must not follow. It is improper by any means. Any special assessment tax would also require enabling legislation to authorize it by the Florida legislature that finds that such services would yield a special benefit to real property.

A special assessment is a term used in to designate a unique charge that the government can assess against real property parcels for certain public projects. The most universally known special assessments are charges levied against lands when drinking water lines are installed; when sewer lines are installed; or when streets are paved. A special assessment may only be levied against parcels of real estate which have been identified as having received a direct and unique "benefit" from the project.

While this type of assessment holds some merit for certain municipal services, it should be equated with simply imposing an additional and somewhat unnecessary tax. In fact, a law enforcement special assessment has been deemed unlawful because those services provide no special benefit to real property. See this opinion by the State Attorney General.

The test for determining whether a special benefit is bestowed to real property is not whether the services confer a ‘unique benefit’ or are different from the benefit provided to the community as a whole. Rather, the test is whether there is a ‘logical relationship’ between the services provided and any direct benefit to real property. Only certain real property can be specially assessed. The "property" to be assessed must be real estate as opposed to "personalty". Personalty is a taxation term which means personal property.

Special assessment levies are not ad valorem property taxes even though they may be collected on a property tax bill. A special assessment is based strictly upon the concepts of "need" and "benefit." Special assessments must confer a specific and special benefit upon the real property affected by the assessment. A special assessment is like a tax in that it's an enforced payment from the real property owner and may possess other benefits similar to a general tax. However, it is entirely different and governed by entirely different principles. It is imposed under the theory that the portion of the community required to bear it receives some special or outstanding benefit in the enhancement of value to the property against which it is imposed as a result of the improvements made with the proceeds of the special assessment. This equates to the fact that if you do not pay the special 'tax', they can sell your house on the courthouse steps.

I think that if something waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's more than likely a duck. In simple, plain English, if it seems like a tax, it probably is a tax (of some sort, just by another name). However, there is an important distinction between special assessments and taxes. A legally imposed special assessment is not really a tax per se looking at it from a legal sense. While the payment of both taxes and special assessments is actually deemed mandatory like property taxes, there is not a requirement that general taxes provide specific benefits to the property. Instead, they are levied throughout the city for the general benefit of residents, business owners and real property.

The City of North Lauderdale attempted to impose a special assessment on owners of property for the purpose of providing an "integrated fire-rescue program." The city created an ordinance that would fund the cost of an integrated fire, rescue and emergency medical service program through a special assessment tax levied on all property owners in the city. A group of commercial property owners sued the city in opposition to the tax and the case of City of North Lauderdale v. SMM Properties, Inc., wound up in the Florida Supreme Court.

The property owners agreed that a portion of the special assessment that provided services imposed a special benefit on their properties and did not oppose it. However, they sued on a portion of the special assessment which was deemed as improper because their properties were not deriving any special benefit from the services. They argued that the assessment provided a service to all citizens in the city.

It appeared that the city had a good case regarding the commission’s support of the special assessment. Another Florida case, Lake County v. Water Oak Management Corp., 695 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 1997), delineated a two-pronged test to be used in reviewing the validity of any special assessments. The first prong was whether or not the services at issue provided a special benefit to the assessed property. The second prong was whether or not the assessment for the services was a properly apportioned tax. In the City of North Lauderdale case, there was not an issue as to the apportionment of the assessment. The only issue to be reviewed by the court was the determination of whether the services provided a ‘special benefit’ to the property.

In the Lake County case, the court upheld a special assessment imposed for fire protection services that was correctly opined by the 5th District Court of Appeal in Case No. 94-2729. The City of North Lauderdale said that Lake County's fire-rescue program was similar to its own as both programs were funding more than just fire protection and suppression services.

The property owners argued that Lake County's program was limited and did not confer a special benefit. The opponents further argued that the assessment was paying for a function provided by employees as part of their normal duties, the property owners in Lake County were really only paying for the normal services, and the special assessment in Lake County did not assess property owners for services outside the employee’s regular job duties. The court looked at the differences between the Lake County program and the North Lauderdale program. Having made a determination, the court then went on to ruling whether the assessment met the first prong of the test by providing a special benefit to the assessed property.

The city went on record to say that their services would enhance the use of property in the city. This, in turn, would enhance the value of the property, and this enhanced value could be anticipated to be reflected in the real estate tax charge for value of the property.

The court disagreed, finding that the service was not a special benefit to the property. The court noted that services benefit people, not property. The court ruled that the city's opinion that the assessment conferred a special benefit on property was frivolous and had the indication of a tax because it was proposed to support many of the general sovereign functions of a general tax.

The court said that the city made comments its ordinance that there was a 'special benefit' to the assessed properties but stated that there was nothing in the record to support these assumptions by the city. There was no evidence of any special benefits that would be provided to the property from the provisions of such services, no studies conducted by the city documenting any specific benefits, and no testimony or expert witnesses were offered to indicate how the portion of the assessment providing for special services would specifically benefit the real property.

The court ruled that the services portion of the special assessment by the City of North Lauderdale was a general tax because it failed to provide any unique or special benefit to real properties. There were no indicia how the services would directly enhance the value of the real properties of which the assessment was imposed upon.

Although some services, particularly those of police or fire services, may provide a sense of security to individuals, neither the service nor the sense of security is provided to the real property. Consequently, the court concluded that the services in question did not provide any special benefit to the property, and therefore that portion of the program could not be funded by a special assessment.

Of the utmost importance to any property owner who feels aggrieved by a special assessment levy is a legal concept known as the "presumption of validity". This means that the courts must regard the actions of local government with deference and presume that the government did everything correctly. At a minimum, any challenge to any special assessment must prove that the government did not act lawfully. That challenge is vey difficult, time consuming, costly and significant. For all of these reasons, it is critical for any person or property owner, particularly a business facing a special assessment, to fully participate in any and all public hearings and monitor the special assessment process from its earliest stages to completion.

Tighter budgets will require greater creativity in funding at all levels of government both county and local. However, when considering the use of special assessments as an additional revenue source under the guise of some alleged 'special benefit', particularly at the local level, keep the following in mind...it’s still just another tax.