Sunday, July 24, 2011
Woman dies driving over Lake Osborne Bridge
Comment Up
Another Lake Worth car crash results in death.
Cars continue to drive over the speed limit on 6th Avenue South in Lake Worth west of I-95. The Sheriff does patrol sometimes during the week and sets up radar but on weekends, it can be a drag strip.
Another Lake Worth car crash results in death.
Cars continue to drive over the speed limit on 6th Avenue South in Lake Worth west of I-95. The Sheriff does patrol sometimes during the week and sets up radar but on weekends, it can be a drag strip.
Conquering the Slum and Blight in Lake Worth
Commissioner Scott Maxwell led a tour of run-down homes in Lake Worth with the city's code staff, sheriff's deputies and a representative from Congressman Alcee Hastings' office. I am not even sure that Hastings represents the City of Lake Worth as his District 23 is so gerrymandered. My representative is Allen West.
Lake Worth has had a serious blight and slum problem and the mortgage meltdown contributed heavily to it. Also a contributing factor, in my opinion, is the one day a week irrigation policy and the new landscape policy that does everything to discourage homeowners from having a good looking lawn. Consequently, the properties look run-down and then quickly become run-down. It is a snow-balling effect. We have over 1,100 properties in Lake Worth in pre-foreclosure.
The banks caused the problem with complex financial schemes and they are still playing games by delaying the foreclosure process. They don't want to pay for any of the costs involved by foreclosing early. Here in my community, we have been dealing with two properties for two years, one in which the bank never did take title. So far, all we have incurred are legal fees and thousands of dollars in monthly assessments that are due our association.
Trying to trace the parties responsible for the properties is a constant and costly challenge and lawyers just wait for the process to take effect which can be years. These financial schemes, that were hatched by predatory lenders eager to make home loans, have made it nearly impossible to trace ownership. Even if you have the resources to find out ownership, more often than not, the owner will not pay. To compound the problem, the new owners of some of these properties that were bought at auction, have no intention of moving into the property (they want to flip it when the market is right) and will not pay what is owed from the past or the present. They will not maintain the property, and the cycle of abandonment continues.
Abandoned houses cause all sorts of health problems by attracting vermin and other pests. Even when the property is boarded, squatters break in and occupy them attracting drug dealers and the homeless.
Squalor and slum are the biggest enemies of Lake Worth. The City has hired William Waters to conquer the problem. He is taking a whole new approach to the properties that have caused blight, attracted undesirables to the area and property values to free-fall. Read about it here.
Lake Worth has had a serious blight and slum problem and the mortgage meltdown contributed heavily to it. Also a contributing factor, in my opinion, is the one day a week irrigation policy and the new landscape policy that does everything to discourage homeowners from having a good looking lawn. Consequently, the properties look run-down and then quickly become run-down. It is a snow-balling effect. We have over 1,100 properties in Lake Worth in pre-foreclosure.
The banks caused the problem with complex financial schemes and they are still playing games by delaying the foreclosure process. They don't want to pay for any of the costs involved by foreclosing early. Here in my community, we have been dealing with two properties for two years, one in which the bank never did take title. So far, all we have incurred are legal fees and thousands of dollars in monthly assessments that are due our association.
Trying to trace the parties responsible for the properties is a constant and costly challenge and lawyers just wait for the process to take effect which can be years. These financial schemes, that were hatched by predatory lenders eager to make home loans, have made it nearly impossible to trace ownership. Even if you have the resources to find out ownership, more often than not, the owner will not pay. To compound the problem, the new owners of some of these properties that were bought at auction, have no intention of moving into the property (they want to flip it when the market is right) and will not pay what is owed from the past or the present. They will not maintain the property, and the cycle of abandonment continues.
Abandoned houses cause all sorts of health problems by attracting vermin and other pests. Even when the property is boarded, squatters break in and occupy them attracting drug dealers and the homeless.
Squalor and slum are the biggest enemies of Lake Worth. The City has hired William Waters to conquer the problem. He is taking a whole new approach to the properties that have caused blight, attracted undesirables to the area and property values to free-fall. Read about it here.
Although this home is located in suburban Lake Worth, it depicts another possibility--fire. It is just another pervasive problem of abandonment from the current collapse of the nation’s housing industry and one that has devastated Lake Worth.
Quote of the Day - Kitty Lambert on marrying her domestic partner at Niagara Falls
“I may be the first person standing here in history but I’m just an ordinary grandma.”~Kitty Lambert
The more things change, the more they remain the same - Lake Worth Utility
Comment Up
The title of this blog is a quote of Alphonse Karr, a French critic, journalist and novelist who lived in the 19th century. It is the theme of today's guest blogger, who wants to remain anonymous. He cares about our Utility and the way in which it is being "managed." Resigned former mayor, Rene Varela, said that one of his goals was a forensic audit at the Utility. After he was elected, it never again came up. This is where we get a huge portion of our revenue to operate our City. Therefore, the Utility must be audited and decisions challenged.
On page 81 it says that the 138kv tie-lines will be located in different corridors providing a "true" back-up if one is disabled. This is an inaccurate statement. The plan design now is to tie sub-stations in a looped system. "Using a different corridor means absolutely nothing if you are going back to the same source."
Guest Blogger's comments:
Re: Pg. 81, 82 and 62 CM 2012 Budget
1) Do you remember back six months or so ago when Becky Mattey told you emphatically that the new 138 kV tie would not be back to Hypoluxo? She said at the time that there was no case for installing a second tie line back to the very same location. Well, she either lied or was forced by FPL to come to her senses. Remember, we had told both she and Clay at the time that Hypoluxo was the only tie location possible and that spending $4 million to tie back to Hypoluxo was a total waste of utility dollars, especially when this same money could be better spent installing new generation. (It also appears that your time spent repeatedly asking the City for the Garrison Report was also a waste)
2) The utility is also pulling the wool over the commission's eyes by saying that the conversion, even though they have taken the Smart Grid and Under-grounding out of the mix, will only cost $11 million. They are wrong! They will spend the entire $21 million on the conversion or be forced to cease all conversion activity when they reach the $11 million mark.
It is becoming more and more apparent that the more things change in LW the more they stay the same. Spending $4 million for an alternate feed to the very same source makes absolutely no business sense, especially when the city is is dire financial shape. And reducing the cost of the conversion (on paper only) by half is simply a way to pull the wool over the commissions eyes for a few years in hopes that everyone will forget it down the road? This makes me question whether or not LW has the correct management team in the utility department as this is not the way to conduct business.
If the city truly wants to get back on sound footing financially, one way to do that would be to eliminate the conversion, the 138 kV tie line and all of the apprentice linemen. While it would not put the city back in the black, it would help tremendously.
If pressed by a professional, the utility cannot make a business case for any of these items at this time. The load within LW has gone down substantially over the past few years, there is no need to spend dollars on a tie line that uses the exact same source, and apprentice linemen will simply move on to FPL once their apprenticeship is concluded because of the wage/benefit comparison. (It must be understood that a majority of LW linemen (Ed Womsley is the exception) are rejects from other utilities and could not work for a more professional organization).
A much wiser and more cost effective approach would be to construct new substations at Bryant Park and Elizabeth Streets, and add new generation.
If I were a commissioner I would challenge the Utility Director on her budget.
The title of this blog is a quote of Alphonse Karr, a French critic, journalist and novelist who lived in the 19th century. It is the theme of today's guest blogger, who wants to remain anonymous. He cares about our Utility and the way in which it is being "managed." Resigned former mayor, Rene Varela, said that one of his goals was a forensic audit at the Utility. After he was elected, it never again came up. This is where we get a huge portion of our revenue to operate our City. Therefore, the Utility must be audited and decisions challenged.On page 81 it says that the 138kv tie-lines will be located in different corridors providing a "true" back-up if one is disabled. This is an inaccurate statement. The plan design now is to tie sub-stations in a looped system. "Using a different corridor means absolutely nothing if you are going back to the same source."
Guest Blogger's comments:
Re: Pg. 81, 82 and 62 CM 2012 Budget
1) Do you remember back six months or so ago when Becky Mattey told you emphatically that the new 138 kV tie would not be back to Hypoluxo? She said at the time that there was no case for installing a second tie line back to the very same location. Well, she either lied or was forced by FPL to come to her senses. Remember, we had told both she and Clay at the time that Hypoluxo was the only tie location possible and that spending $4 million to tie back to Hypoluxo was a total waste of utility dollars, especially when this same money could be better spent installing new generation. (It also appears that your time spent repeatedly asking the City for the Garrison Report was also a waste)
2) The utility is also pulling the wool over the commission's eyes by saying that the conversion, even though they have taken the Smart Grid and Under-grounding out of the mix, will only cost $11 million. They are wrong! They will spend the entire $21 million on the conversion or be forced to cease all conversion activity when they reach the $11 million mark.
It is becoming more and more apparent that the more things change in LW the more they stay the same. Spending $4 million for an alternate feed to the very same source makes absolutely no business sense, especially when the city is is dire financial shape. And reducing the cost of the conversion (on paper only) by half is simply a way to pull the wool over the commissions eyes for a few years in hopes that everyone will forget it down the road? This makes me question whether or not LW has the correct management team in the utility department as this is not the way to conduct business.
If the city truly wants to get back on sound footing financially, one way to do that would be to eliminate the conversion, the 138 kV tie line and all of the apprentice linemen. While it would not put the city back in the black, it would help tremendously.
If pressed by a professional, the utility cannot make a business case for any of these items at this time. The load within LW has gone down substantially over the past few years, there is no need to spend dollars on a tie line that uses the exact same source, and apprentice linemen will simply move on to FPL once their apprenticeship is concluded because of the wage/benefit comparison. (It must be understood that a majority of LW linemen (Ed Womsley is the exception) are rejects from other utilities and could not work for a more professional organization).
A much wiser and more cost effective approach would be to construct new substations at Bryant Park and Elizabeth Streets, and add new generation.
If I were a commissioner I would challenge the Utility Director on her budget.
Saturday, July 23, 2011
How many properties do we have in Lake Worth?
Depending upon whose report it is, we have anywhere from 12,165 up to 12,980 or maybe a few thousand more.
- According to the Willdan Report we have: 6,872 owner occupied housing dwellings and 6,108 renter occupied housing dwellings for a total of 12,980. The number of commercial dwellings are not listed.
- According to the Demographic section page 10 in the new Budget Report we have:12,165 households
- According to the Budget Report itself we have:16,473 units with 3,515 that are vacant for a total of 12,958 with 6,535 being renters. I guess vacant properties that are owned by someone are just not paying. We have 1,190 commercial accounts for Solid Waste. That would add up to 14,148 units involved in paying the proposed special assessment.
Lake Worth Crime Stats
Week ending July 22, 2011 for 33460
I feel safer.
Theft 9
Proactive Policing 15
Pedestrian Stop 15
Vehicle Recovery 2
Sexual Offense 1
Other Sexual Offense 1
Robbery 3
Quality of Life 27
Drugs 10
Disorder 5
Liquor 12
Property Crime 5
Property Crime 5
Other 35
Family Offense 1
Alarm 9
Other 24
Missing Person 1
Assault 6
Assault 6
Traffic 18
I feel safer.
Theft 9
Proactive Policing 15
Pedestrian Stop 15
Vehicle Recovery 2
Sexual Offense 1
Other Sexual Offense 1
Robbery 3
Quality of Life 27
Drugs 10
Disorder 5
Liquor 12
Property Crime 5
Property Crime 5
Other 35
Family Offense 1
Alarm 9
Other 24
Missing Person 1
Assault 6
Assault 6
Traffic 18
Friday, July 22, 2011
The Special Assessment for Fire Rescue
Comment Up
Update, see below:
From the latest City Manager's Report
City Manager Message---
Funding for Fire Rescue Services
As previously discussed, the City submitted a funding proposal for the fire rescue services to the County which would remove the City from the Fire Rescue MSTU and allow the City to establish a special assessment for the services and use ad valorem taxes for rescue services. By removing the City from the Fire rescue MSTU, City tax payers would no longer pay the MSTU millage rate of 3.4581 mills and the City could fund Rescue Services by levying a millage rate of 1.1496 mills. As shown on Table 16, the City would be able to fund $2,769,800 of the fire rescue services contract and $1,094,000 of the required contribution to the firefighters pension plan with a special assessment estimated at $300 to $330 on the 12,132 parcels in the City.
With the City nearly depleting ALL reserves since 2009, what IS GOING ON?
Scenario #1:
Typical house in the TRNA neighborhood:
1,676 square feet paying taxes on adjusted appraised value after double homestead or $25,000.
Present: 3.4581 mils = $86.45 for MSTU
2012: 1.1496 mils = $28.74 plus $330.00 = $358.74
Scenario #2:
Typical house off of HighRidge
2,051 square feet paying taxes on adjusted appraised value after double homestead or
$39,435
Present: 3.4581 mils = $136.37
2012: 1.1496 mils = $45.33 plus $330.00 = $375.33
Scenario #3
Typical house on N. Golfview Rd
3,114 square feet paying taxes on adjusted appraised value after double homestead or
$185,178
Present: 3.4581 mils = $640.36
2012: 1.1496 mils = $212.88 plus $330.00 = $542.88
Scenario #4
House on the Intra-Coastal in College Park
7,185 square feet paying taxes on adjusted appraised value after double homestead or
$738,704
Present: 3.4581 mils = $2,554.51
2012: 1.1496 mils = $825.98 plus $330.00 = $1,155.98
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You can see as the value of the house goes up, the owner pays less with this new Fire/Rescue charge. The less affluent will be subsidizing the wealthy. The only fair way is a charge per square footage.
And that's not all--A Special Assessment for those with street lights is being proposed with an estimated special assessment tax of "less than $50.00." Also, the City will be charging 0.3145 mils more for the cost of an Internal Auditor at $246,456 and the PB County Inspector General of $78,225.
Proposed Budget 2012
Update, see below:
From the latest City Manager's Report
City Manager Message---
Funding for Fire Rescue Services
As previously discussed, the City submitted a funding proposal for the fire rescue services to the County which would remove the City from the Fire Rescue MSTU and allow the City to establish a special assessment for the services and use ad valorem taxes for rescue services. By removing the City from the Fire rescue MSTU, City tax payers would no longer pay the MSTU millage rate of 3.4581 mills and the City could fund Rescue Services by levying a millage rate of 1.1496 mills. As shown on Table 16, the City would be able to fund $2,769,800 of the fire rescue services contract and $1,094,000 of the required contribution to the firefighters pension plan with a special assessment estimated at $300 to $330 on the 12,132 parcels in the City.
With the City nearly depleting ALL reserves since 2009, what IS GOING ON?
Scenario #1:
Typical house in the TRNA neighborhood:
1,676 square feet paying taxes on adjusted appraised value after double homestead or $25,000.
Present: 3.4581 mils = $86.45 for MSTU
2012: 1.1496 mils = $28.74 plus $330.00 = $358.74
Scenario #2:
Typical house off of HighRidge
2,051 square feet paying taxes on adjusted appraised value after double homestead or
$39,435
Present: 3.4581 mils = $136.37
2012: 1.1496 mils = $45.33 plus $330.00 = $375.33
Scenario #3
Typical house on N. Golfview Rd
3,114 square feet paying taxes on adjusted appraised value after double homestead or
$185,178
Present: 3.4581 mils = $640.36
2012: 1.1496 mils = $212.88 plus $330.00 = $542.88
Scenario #4
House on the Intra-Coastal in College Park
7,185 square feet paying taxes on adjusted appraised value after double homestead or
$738,704
Present: 3.4581 mils = $2,554.51
2012: 1.1496 mils = $825.98 plus $330.00 = $1,155.98
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You can see as the value of the house goes up, the owner pays less with this new Fire/Rescue charge. The less affluent will be subsidizing the wealthy. The only fair way is a charge per square footage.
And that's not all--A Special Assessment for those with street lights is being proposed with an estimated special assessment tax of "less than $50.00." Also, the City will be charging 0.3145 mils more for the cost of an Internal Auditor at $246,456 and the PB County Inspector General of $78,225.
Proposed Budget 2012
U.S. tanks in Egypt would threaten Israel
Rep. Allen West has called on the House Armed Services Committee not to sell military equipment to the Egyptian government.
Quote of the Day - Ron Klein
“Mr. West and I ran against each other twice. The races that we ran were definitely rough and tumble but I saw it then and I see it now - a person who can dish it out, but can’t take it.”~Ron Klein
The Democrats are still attacking West. They did it before the election, did it before he got sworn in and are continuing until the next election. Sore losers and attack dogs, all of them.
Ron Klein has one hell of a nerve saying what he just said when it was he that swift-boated Allen West at every campaign mailing and television ad, tearing West apart at every opportunity. The voters rejected it all. There comes a time when you no longer want to be a doormat to ugly political tactics.
Debbie Wasserman-Schultz got what she deserved. She attacked West in front of the entire Congressional Assembly--no class, no lady. Now she condemns and is gathering every troop she can find, to support her kicking below the belt twisted public attack. You have tackled with the wrong patriot, Ms. Schultz.
Blast from the Past - from a current Tom Ramiccio sign waver
Comment Up
As Tom has now commented on this blog that he just might run again this November, he still might have some of his supporters like the citizen below who flipped flopped from when he posted this on LakeWorthMedia back in September 30, 2007.
Guess who said the following when talking about the Chamber and Ramiccio!
"Tom Ramiccio like Rodney Romano and Mark Foley never met a Camera or a photo opt that they don't love.
It is obvious that Mr Ramiccio was given the ten (10) questions well in advance and was well prepared to put the Chamber in the very best light.
There were no follow up questions by the Interviewer either by design or he did not have enough information to challenge Ramiccio's answers.
Having said all that, I have a few comments and would like replies from Mr Ramiccio:
He is A political-He did not give recent candidates an equal opportunity for debate at the Chamber sponsored debate. Three sign boards rented by the Chamber and two members were turned over to the Chamber to promote, "Stop The Power Grab."
Mr. Ramiccio should have been able to convince other Tourist Board Members that people come to Fl for the Beach and LW is a major tourist attraction.
He says that he influenced disgraced Newell to give LW $5 million of County bond to LW. We need evidence of proof. Romano said that it was him.
He says the beach partnership is good for the local businessmen, he needs to expand on this and how it is a good deal for the city.
Ramissio (sic) at the request of Burns had the SWAT team try to remove signature gatherers from their table on Friday on the Avenue. Mr Ramiccio is in reality a bully when it comes to Friday night on the Avenue.
The Chamber is Transparent in financial matters. This really needs to be challenged under the microscope as there is a big cloud here. Where did the money for the building come from? Was it not county money to be earmarked for our roads? Who funds the Ramiccio leased auto and trips abroad. Who pays for Burns salary and how much.
I will comment more later but this will do for now."
As Tom has now commented on this blog that he just might run again this November, he still might have some of his supporters like the citizen below who flipped flopped from when he posted this on LakeWorthMedia back in September 30, 2007.Guess who said the following when talking about the Chamber and Ramiccio!
"Tom Ramiccio like Rodney Romano and Mark Foley never met a Camera or a photo opt that they don't love.
It is obvious that Mr Ramiccio was given the ten (10) questions well in advance and was well prepared to put the Chamber in the very best light.
There were no follow up questions by the Interviewer either by design or he did not have enough information to challenge Ramiccio's answers.
Having said all that, I have a few comments and would like replies from Mr Ramiccio:
He is A political-He did not give recent candidates an equal opportunity for debate at the Chamber sponsored debate. Three sign boards rented by the Chamber and two members were turned over to the Chamber to promote, "Stop The Power Grab."
Mr. Ramiccio should have been able to convince other Tourist Board Members that people come to Fl for the Beach and LW is a major tourist attraction.
He says that he influenced disgraced Newell to give LW $5 million of County bond to LW. We need evidence of proof. Romano said that it was him.
He says the beach partnership is good for the local businessmen, he needs to expand on this and how it is a good deal for the city.
Ramissio (sic) at the request of Burns had the SWAT team try to remove signature gatherers from their table on Friday on the Avenue. Mr Ramiccio is in reality a bully when it comes to Friday night on the Avenue.
The Chamber is Transparent in financial matters. This really needs to be challenged under the microscope as there is a big cloud here. Where did the money for the building come from? Was it not county money to be earmarked for our roads? Who funds the Ramiccio leased auto and trips abroad. Who pays for Burns salary and how much.
I will comment more later but this will do for now."
Fire/Rescue Meeting
Comment Up
The hour long presentation by the Willdan Group was interesting and informative but I was there for the rest of the story and the meat of of it, not to eat dirt -- how much will it cost me for the imposed assessment by the City of Lake Worth? How many times do I have to hear that, "oh gee, because we have lost $1 billion in property values that all of us have to pay for fire/rescue," a premise in which I do believe but vehemently object to the poor subsidizing the rich. Scott Maxwell was the only commissioner who even brought up that aspect. The only problem last night, after three hours, was that we never got that meat and the city manager wanted the Commission to vote on what is a really big deal, without it.
Stanton has been meeting with the Fire Chief as she was told to meet with him directly, not any PB County Commissioner. What does Scott Maxwell do? He reveals, in his cunning way, that he has been meeting with Palm Beach County Commissioners (names unknown) in secret and says that he is "sensing a shift" in their thinking on the Supplement payment. He did not get into details as it was, well, secret. Any sort of unofficial talks should not be condoned by the Commission as they can undermine the City's position. The Commission should have had stronger objections to this rouge act as the City has been in serious discussions that affect all of us and just one word, one comment, could sabotage all of the hard work put into these negotiations no matter how good the intention.
Back in March, Fire Chief, Steve Jerauld, spoke and he was the one who gave Stanton the idea to put the supplement payment on the non-advalorem part of our tax bill. Right now we have not paid PB County the Supplement for 2011 Budget and according to the Contract, we will owe $1.3 million for every subsequent year going forward. The City Manager took the Chief's advice to heart and now wants to put the whole damn thing on a special assessment. She did say near the end of the meeting, as things were slipping away, to take the pension cost of $1.8 million a year and put that on the special assessment.
We did learn that starting up our own fire/rescue again will cost us about $1 mil more than we are now paying Palm Beach County for the same service. Start-up costs always are costly so I don't have a problem with that element. I would like to see, however, the cost projections for the next five years and a comparison with PB County. Vice Mayor Mulvehill asked for this information. We also need to know how we are going to pay for it all.
After three hours, with Chanel 12 there the entire time, a vote was taken to Table the Fire and EMS decision until July 28th meeting where the millage will be set. The vote was 3/2 vote with Maxwell and Waterman dissenting. I saw nothing wrong in the motion to Table as the only other choices were to accept or reject. We were told by the city manager, however, that we still will not have the numbers that have been requested in order to make an informed decision. Why not? We still won't know what the assessment will be and the city manager said that much of it will be explained in her tentative Budget set for release some time today. Then why not explain it last night?
Those in the Chamber who were sitting there all of this time did not get a chance to speak to the issue. The Vice Mayor, after her second on the motion to table, asked the city attorney if there could be discussion and comments from the residents. She gave some sort of explanation and said "no." The vote was then taken. The Fire Chief was the only person in the chamber who was allowed to comment after the vote. Why him and not anyone else? He gave a superb sales job on why we should stay with the County. The Dais did not want to be rude to him after sitting for three hours but those who pay the bills--let them eat dirt.
Robert's Rules are extremely challenging to learn. The vote had not been taken and the Chair could have called for public discussion. Also, the Commission could have made a motion to waive the rules to allow public commentary. Waterman did her best and relied on the city attorney for advice. The City Attorney did not give all of the facts.
Waterman had to ask for "quiet" in the Chamber three times during the meeting. The incessant chatter and complaints from a few continued for the entire three hours and after they learned they could not speak, several people behind me got loud and left angry.
The hour long presentation by the Willdan Group was interesting and informative but I was there for the rest of the story and the meat of of it, not to eat dirt -- how much will it cost me for the imposed assessment by the City of Lake Worth? How many times do I have to hear that, "oh gee, because we have lost $1 billion in property values that all of us have to pay for fire/rescue," a premise in which I do believe but vehemently object to the poor subsidizing the rich. Scott Maxwell was the only commissioner who even brought up that aspect. The only problem last night, after three hours, was that we never got that meat and the city manager wanted the Commission to vote on what is a really big deal, without it.
Stanton has been meeting with the Fire Chief as she was told to meet with him directly, not any PB County Commissioner. What does Scott Maxwell do? He reveals, in his cunning way, that he has been meeting with Palm Beach County Commissioners (names unknown) in secret and says that he is "sensing a shift" in their thinking on the Supplement payment. He did not get into details as it was, well, secret. Any sort of unofficial talks should not be condoned by the Commission as they can undermine the City's position. The Commission should have had stronger objections to this rouge act as the City has been in serious discussions that affect all of us and just one word, one comment, could sabotage all of the hard work put into these negotiations no matter how good the intention.
Back in March, Fire Chief, Steve Jerauld, spoke and he was the one who gave Stanton the idea to put the supplement payment on the non-advalorem part of our tax bill. Right now we have not paid PB County the Supplement for 2011 Budget and according to the Contract, we will owe $1.3 million for every subsequent year going forward. The City Manager took the Chief's advice to heart and now wants to put the whole damn thing on a special assessment. She did say near the end of the meeting, as things were slipping away, to take the pension cost of $1.8 million a year and put that on the special assessment.
We did learn that starting up our own fire/rescue again will cost us about $1 mil more than we are now paying Palm Beach County for the same service. Start-up costs always are costly so I don't have a problem with that element. I would like to see, however, the cost projections for the next five years and a comparison with PB County. Vice Mayor Mulvehill asked for this information. We also need to know how we are going to pay for it all.
After three hours, with Chanel 12 there the entire time, a vote was taken to Table the Fire and EMS decision until July 28th meeting where the millage will be set. The vote was 3/2 vote with Maxwell and Waterman dissenting. I saw nothing wrong in the motion to Table as the only other choices were to accept or reject. We were told by the city manager, however, that we still will not have the numbers that have been requested in order to make an informed decision. Why not? We still won't know what the assessment will be and the city manager said that much of it will be explained in her tentative Budget set for release some time today. Then why not explain it last night?
Those in the Chamber who were sitting there all of this time did not get a chance to speak to the issue. The Vice Mayor, after her second on the motion to table, asked the city attorney if there could be discussion and comments from the residents. She gave some sort of explanation and said "no." The vote was then taken. The Fire Chief was the only person in the chamber who was allowed to comment after the vote. Why him and not anyone else? He gave a superb sales job on why we should stay with the County. The Dais did not want to be rude to him after sitting for three hours but those who pay the bills--let them eat dirt.
Robert's Rules are extremely challenging to learn. The vote had not been taken and the Chair could have called for public discussion. Also, the Commission could have made a motion to waive the rules to allow public commentary. Waterman did her best and relied on the city attorney for advice. The City Attorney did not give all of the facts.
Waterman had to ask for "quiet" in the Chamber three times during the meeting. The incessant chatter and complaints from a few continued for the entire three hours and after they learned they could not speak, several people behind me got loud and left angry.
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Boynton Beach's Fire/Rescue Assessment
Comment Up
FIRE RESCUE ASSESSMENT
What Is It?
It is a special assessment levied since 2001 on the annual tax notice that equitably allocates less than 50% of the cost of the City’s eligible fire rescue services among all residential and non-residential property in the City that the Fire Rescue Department protects. All such properties are found to be specially benefited by the provision of the fire rescue services.
How Much Is The Assessment?
That depends on property use.
For residential property, the proposed annual rate is $88.00 per dwelling unit or $7.33 per month.
For non-residential property, the proposed annual rate is calculated on a square foot basis according to the following use categories:
Use Categories Rate Per Square Foot
Commercial $ 0.20
Industrial/Warehouse $ 0.05
Institutional/Nursing Home $ 0.22
What Is The Total Fire Assessment Revenue The City Receives?
For the coming fiscal year 2011-12, the City estimates it will receive a net amount of about $4.7 million based on the above rates.
Why Isn’t The Fire Assessment Just Included In The Property Tax Rate?
There are two reasons.
First, it would require an increase of about 1.5 mills on the ad valorem tax rate. A homeowner with even a $100,000 taxable value on their home would experience a $150 added property tax versus the $88 noted above.
Second, there are large numbers of homes that pay no property taxes, yet they are still protected by fire rescue services. With the fire assessment, those residential properties share equally in paying for those services. Sound familiar?
What If Some Taxpayers Can’t Afford The Assessment?
If the fire assessment is a hardship on certain residential property owners in the City, affected property owners may request a total or partial waiver of the special assessment for hardship reasons.
FIRE RESCUE ASSESSMENT
What Is It?
It is a special assessment levied since 2001 on the annual tax notice that equitably allocates less than 50% of the cost of the City’s eligible fire rescue services among all residential and non-residential property in the City that the Fire Rescue Department protects. All such properties are found to be specially benefited by the provision of the fire rescue services.
How Much Is The Assessment?
That depends on property use.
For residential property, the proposed annual rate is $88.00 per dwelling unit or $7.33 per month.
For non-residential property, the proposed annual rate is calculated on a square foot basis according to the following use categories:
Use Categories Rate Per Square Foot
Commercial $ 0.20
Industrial/Warehouse $ 0.05
Institutional/Nursing Home $ 0.22
What Is The Total Fire Assessment Revenue The City Receives?
For the coming fiscal year 2011-12, the City estimates it will receive a net amount of about $4.7 million based on the above rates.
Why Isn’t The Fire Assessment Just Included In The Property Tax Rate?
There are two reasons.
First, it would require an increase of about 1.5 mills on the ad valorem tax rate. A homeowner with even a $100,000 taxable value on their home would experience a $150 added property tax versus the $88 noted above.
Second, there are large numbers of homes that pay no property taxes, yet they are still protected by fire rescue services. With the fire assessment, those residential properties share equally in paying for those services. Sound familiar?
What If Some Taxpayers Can’t Afford The Assessment?
If the fire assessment is a hardship on certain residential property owners in the City, affected property owners may request a total or partial waiver of the special assessment for hardship reasons.
Residents of Lake Osborne Heights
Designed by Nancy Kumpulainen
New Logo
New Logo
Membership is open to all resident homeowners and renters within the area bounded by the center of Twelfth Avenue South (on the south side), Lake Osborne Drive (on the west side), Interstate 95 (on the east side), and the most eastern point of Lake Osborne (on the north side) but not including residents of Murry Hills, Lakeside Point Gardens, and Parkview Estates, or the Sixth Avenue trailer park.
Fire/Rescue Special Assessment in Boynton Beach
Although Commissioner Ross did not mention what the special assessment covered, she just replied to what they charge in Boynton:
Here you go, Lynn...best wishes. Marlene
Our current rate structure is as follows. We have two rate categories:
1) Residential Property Use Category:
Residential... $68 per year per dwelling unit:
2) Non-Residential Property Use Categories:
Commercial $ 0.16 per sq. ft.
Industrial/Warehouse $ 0.04 per sq. ft.
Institutional $ 0.17 per sq. ft.
Nursing Home $ 0.17 per sq. ft.
Recently we tentatively set a higher rate for residential for next fiscal year: $88 per dwelling unit + higher rates as well for the non residential categories as proposed:
Commercial $ 0.20 per sq. ft.
Industrial/Warehouse $ 0.05 per sq. ft.
Institutional $ 0.22 per sq. ft.
Nursing Home $ 0.49 per sq ft.
Here you go, Lynn...best wishes. Marlene
Our current rate structure is as follows. We have two rate categories:
1) Residential Property Use Category:
Residential... $68 per year per dwelling unit:
2) Non-Residential Property Use Categories:
Commercial $ 0.16 per sq. ft.
Industrial/Warehouse $ 0.04 per sq. ft.
Institutional $ 0.17 per sq. ft.
Nursing Home $ 0.17 per sq. ft.
Recently we tentatively set a higher rate for residential for next fiscal year: $88 per dwelling unit + higher rates as well for the non residential categories as proposed:
Commercial $ 0.20 per sq. ft.
Industrial/Warehouse $ 0.05 per sq. ft.
Institutional $ 0.22 per sq. ft.
Nursing Home $ 0.49 per sq ft.
Fire/Rescue Meeting tonight in Lake Worth
Comment Up
To be totally truthful, I am embarrassed to even be posting this and confess that I do not understand the intent of the City in its proposal to tax everyone the same. I have read it and have asked questions but still am confused.
It is Susan Stanton's desire to have our own Lake Worth Fire Department if the County does not eliminate the Supplement payment due to them. She has suggested levying a fixed assessment charge per-building on homes and businesses to pay for most of the cost of providing fire rescue service minus the cost of EMS that cannot be tacked on to our tax bill. She says, "Boynton Beach and West Palm Beach levy fire assessments." I have a call into Commissioner Ross in Boynton Beach regarding how they charge for their special fire assessment and what it covers. It is definitely not for the entire cost of implementing and running their fire department. She will try and get back to me today. If so, I will post.
Not considering any extra costs for starting up our own fire department, we will use the figures provided by the Willdan Feasibility Study:
There are 12,980 residences within the city of Lake Worth according to Willdan. No where in the report do I find the number of buildings for businesses housed in separate buildings but let's average that at 1,000. Rounding up we would therefore have
14,000 units.
Cost in year one: $5,659,084 divided by 14,000 = $404.27 per property owner
Cost in year two: $5,721,581 = $408.69
Cost in year three: $5,949,257 = $424.95
Today's PB Post says that we all will be paying between $230 and $280. Perhaps we have twice the number of buildings.
Tack on an additional $2 mil a year, the cost would be another $150 a year higher.
Other City Budget Impact Year One, Year Two, Year Three
Plans Reviewer, 1 FTE $ 85,000, $ 86,700, $ 88,434
Finance Technician $ 72,839, $ 74,296, $ 75,782
HR Technician, 0.5 FTE $ 45,000, $ 45,900 ,$ 46,818
Legacy Pension Contribution $ 1,800,000, $ 1,800,000, $ 1,800,000
TOTAL $ 2,002,839, $ 2,006,896, $ 2,011,034
GRAND TOTAL $ 7,633,174, $ 7,728,577, $ 7,960,291
When asking the city manager about throwing costs of fire/rescue onto the non-advalorem portion of our tax bill, this is her answer:
Lynn ….. the proposal is to include both the cost of fire suppression and fire pension plan……minus the cost of EMS which can not be assessed to property. So, total assessment is based on about $6.5 million dollars. The proposed property tax this year will also include the EMS cost (about $1.4 million) plus $300,000 for an internal auditor (and staff support accountant …plus the Inspector General cost of $78,000).
Susan A. Stanton
For Fiscal Year 2011-2012, and future years, the City Administration has proposed the establishment of a Special Assessment for Fire Services irrespective of whether the County is providing this service or whether the City reconstructs a Fire Department. The actual assessment would depend on the total costs included in the assessment such as fire fighter pension costs.
Directly from the report: "Because the City has so many properties which pay little or no property taxes (due to the homestead exemption and current low value of the homes and commercial property) this assessment will allow the City to more fairly and equitably recover the cost for providing this critical public safety service."
Lake Worth Towers will cost the city $1 mil more for an aerial platform apparatus because the building does not have sprinklers.
So, if I am understanding everything correctly, the entire cost of fire/rescue minus the cost of emergency medical services will be transferred to the non-advalorem portion of our tax bill with every property paying the same tax. Today's PB Post agrees with Stanton on what's "fair." Obviously I am not understanding this at all and hope by the time I leave the meeting tonight it will be clear. Surely this can not be right. When fire/rescue has always been based on the value of our property, how then can this be fair?
To be totally truthful, I am embarrassed to even be posting this and confess that I do not understand the intent of the City in its proposal to tax everyone the same. I have read it and have asked questions but still am confused.
It is Susan Stanton's desire to have our own Lake Worth Fire Department if the County does not eliminate the Supplement payment due to them. She has suggested levying a fixed assessment charge per-building on homes and businesses to pay for most of the cost of providing fire rescue service minus the cost of EMS that cannot be tacked on to our tax bill. She says, "Boynton Beach and West Palm Beach levy fire assessments." I have a call into Commissioner Ross in Boynton Beach regarding how they charge for their special fire assessment and what it covers. It is definitely not for the entire cost of implementing and running their fire department. She will try and get back to me today. If so, I will post.
Not considering any extra costs for starting up our own fire department, we will use the figures provided by the Willdan Feasibility Study:
There are 12,980 residences within the city of Lake Worth according to Willdan. No where in the report do I find the number of buildings for businesses housed in separate buildings but let's average that at 1,000. Rounding up we would therefore have
14,000 units.
Cost in year one: $5,659,084 divided by 14,000 = $404.27 per property owner
Cost in year two: $5,721,581 = $408.69
Cost in year three: $5,949,257 = $424.95
Today's PB Post says that we all will be paying between $230 and $280. Perhaps we have twice the number of buildings.
Tack on an additional $2 mil a year, the cost would be another $150 a year higher.
Other City Budget Impact Year One, Year Two, Year Three
Plans Reviewer, 1 FTE $ 85,000, $ 86,700, $ 88,434
Finance Technician $ 72,839, $ 74,296, $ 75,782
HR Technician, 0.5 FTE $ 45,000, $ 45,900 ,$ 46,818
Legacy Pension Contribution $ 1,800,000, $ 1,800,000, $ 1,800,000
TOTAL $ 2,002,839, $ 2,006,896, $ 2,011,034
GRAND TOTAL $ 7,633,174, $ 7,728,577, $ 7,960,291
When asking the city manager about throwing costs of fire/rescue onto the non-advalorem portion of our tax bill, this is her answer:
Lynn ….. the proposal is to include both the cost of fire suppression and fire pension plan……minus the cost of EMS which can not be assessed to property. So, total assessment is based on about $6.5 million dollars. The proposed property tax this year will also include the EMS cost (about $1.4 million) plus $300,000 for an internal auditor (and staff support accountant …plus the Inspector General cost of $78,000).
Susan A. Stanton
For Fiscal Year 2011-2012, and future years, the City Administration has proposed the establishment of a Special Assessment for Fire Services irrespective of whether the County is providing this service or whether the City reconstructs a Fire Department. The actual assessment would depend on the total costs included in the assessment such as fire fighter pension costs.
Directly from the report: "Because the City has so many properties which pay little or no property taxes (due to the homestead exemption and current low value of the homes and commercial property) this assessment will allow the City to more fairly and equitably recover the cost for providing this critical public safety service."
Lake Worth Towers will cost the city $1 mil more for an aerial platform apparatus because the building does not have sprinklers.
So, if I am understanding everything correctly, the entire cost of fire/rescue minus the cost of emergency medical services will be transferred to the non-advalorem portion of our tax bill with every property paying the same tax. Today's PB Post agrees with Stanton on what's "fair." Obviously I am not understanding this at all and hope by the time I leave the meeting tonight it will be clear. Surely this can not be right. When fire/rescue has always been based on the value of our property, how then can this be fair?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)