City staff on Oct. 8 presented a proposed method to apportion the costs of a full-depth roadway reclamation in the Pine Tree Estates subdivision and said the meeting included no formal vote. The estimated project cost is $4,560,000; staff and its consultants described two payment options for affected homeowners: a one-time prepayment or a 20-year tax-roll assessment backed by a note.

The presentation, delivered by Kelly Schwartz, the city’s finance director, and Richard (Rich) Hans of Governmental Management Services, outlined that about 783 parcels in the assessment area translate to 794 “buildable lots” for apportionment purposes, and that 96% of those lots would be assessed at a single-lot rate. Hans said dividing the construction cost by the 794 buildable lots yields a per-lot upfront cost of about $5,743.07. If the city issues a 20-year note under the consultants’ assumptions (5.5% interest, 12 months capitalized interest, a one-year debt-service reserve and a 7% gross-up for collection costs), the principal allocated per buildable lot would be about $6,697.46 and the grossed-up annual tax-roll amount would be about $602.62 per lot, Hans said. He also said the estimated bond/note sizing would be approximately $5,317,785 and the maximum annual debt service for the portfolio would be roughly $444,989.

Heather Encinosa, the city’s special counsel for the program, reviewed the legal standard for Florida special assessments: courts require (1) a special benefit to the assessed property and (2) a fair and reasonable apportionment among benefited properties. Encinosa emphasized that courts give legislative deference to a local government’s findings and that the city must make findings in an initial-assessment resolution that will be presented at a later meeting. "The benefit is to property, not to people," she said, stressing the legal framing used to defend assessments in Florida.

Several Pine Tree residents spoke during public comment. Marjorie Golan, who identified herself as a Pine Tree representative and a participant in the settlement process, said the assessment arises from a settlement of litigation and that the neighborhood never conceded the existence of a special benefit. "We never agreed that there was a special benefit," Golan said. "We compromised. The city paid $2,000,000. We agreed to pay the rest just to get the thing over with and to get our roads fixed, not because we ever agreed." The city’s counsel responded that the settlement included authority for the city to specially assess to fund the repairs under the compromise terms.

Resident Pam Durie asked procedural and practical questions: whether combined tax parcels that have been merged would be double-assessed, whether the assessment would appear on the 2026 tax roll, how prepayment would work, and who would maintain the roads after construction. Staff confirmed preliminary collection timing would be via the 2026 tax roll under the proposed schedule and that a property owner could prepay the construction cost (approximately $5,743 per buildable lot) before bonds are issued to avoid the long-term assessment. A city representative stated that the settlement agreement requires the city to maintain the roadways thereafter "in the same manner as the city maintains its own roadways."

City staff and the consultants repeatedly noted tonight’s presentation was informational only. Kelly Schwartz told the commission, "there is going to be no formal action taken tonight," and that the city will bring initial assessment resolutions, with required advertisements and readings, to the commission at its Oct. 22 meeting.

Discussion items that remain to be resolved include final note sizing and terms, the precise parcel-to-buildable-lot mapping derived from the Broward County property appraiser’s data, and the formal findings the commission will need to adopt in the initial-assessment resolution to satisfy the legal sufficiency test Encinosa described. The city’s consultants presented multiple financing assumptions (interest, term, capitalized interest) that will be revisited as plan details and market conditions firm up.

No formal action or vote was taken on Oct. 8; the presentation and public comments concluded with staff scheduling the formal adoption steps at a future meeting.