The City Commission of Margate on March 19 discussed an ordinance that would authorize use of speed detection systems in school zones and agreed to return the item for a second reading in April.

Vice Mayor Arcerio, who said he had been an early supporter, urged the commission to adopt the ordinance now so the city could implement cameras quickly later if other municipalities show positive results. "Passing the ordinance does not mean we're gonna install the cameras. It just would allow us to if we wanted to in the future," Vice Mayor Arcerio said.

The discussion centered on two competing arguments: proponents said automated enforcement reduces speeding and can fund additional public‑safety measures, while opponents called the cameras a revenue stream that does not address distracted driving or gaps in police enforcement. Commissioners and residents repeatedly referenced a report from the city of Hollywood showing a 91% reduction in speeding after cameras were installed; city staff acknowledged results vary across jurisdictions.

Commissioner Rosano said he was skeptical about the effectiveness of cameras in preventing the kinds of incidents Margate has seen. "Am I for this? Not really. Am I for the safety? Of course," Rosano said, adding that some recent pedestrian incidents involved drivers who were not speeding. Other commissioners said the revenue could be directed to traffic‑calming, signage and additional officers.

Several residents and stakeholders addressed the commission. Resident Julie VanderMeelen urged rejection of cameras, saying those systems "do not effectively slow down drivers" and can prioritize revenue for outside vendors over local safety measures. Resident Nina Culver and resident Dave Albright told the commission they supported enforcement and said automated systems could supplement the department where manpower is limited. Hassan Devaja of Genoptic, a photo‑enforcement vendor, told the commission some companies focus on revenue while others prioritize safety; he described his company as oriented toward safety.

City Manager Kraljek and Major Stransky of the Margate Police Department told commissioners the staff report compiles local speed studies and vendor proposals; Major Stransky provided additional background the commission requested. Staff clarified that no cameras or contracts would be approved at the April hearing unless the commission votes to do so.

The commission took no formal vote on the ordinance during the March 19 meeting; staff said the ordinance will return for a second reading on April 2. Commissioners asked staff to provide additional implementation details — including how enforcement periods would align with school hours, calibration and contest procedures, and sample revenue and expenditure scenarios — before final action.

With the item continued to April, commissioners and residents were left to decide whether Margate should rely on automated enforcement or pursue alternative traffic‑calming and enforcement investments first.