Miami Lakes workshop previews special taxing district budgets as guard contract and formula changes push some assessments higher

At a Town of Miami Lakes council workshop held in the evening (the clerk recorded the roll at 6:37 p.m.), council members and staff reviewed preliminary budgets and proposed assessment rates for the town's special taxing districts, noting that the materials were for public input and are not final.

The review matters because assessment rates fund gate guards, lake maintenance and other services in the districts; staff warned residents that the draft numbers reflect recent changes to the cost-allocation formula and rising guard wages, and that final votes will come at later public readings. “What’s presented here is a preliminary budget. It is not something that even when this is presented to the council in May on first reading, we will have 2 readings. It is only to really approve the assessment,” Budget Director Melissa said during the workshop.

Staff described the schedule and purpose of the materials. Melissa told the group the council will consider an assessment rate (first reading in May, second reading in June) so staff can transmit the rate to the county for TRIM purposes by about July 10–11, and the town’s full budget will be adopted in September. JP, a town staff member working on the STDs, said the draft presented to residents is intended to give the council options on whether to increase, reduce or hold assessment levels.

Residents and district representatives raised multiple concerns about how costs were calculated. Esperanza Reynolds, a Lakeland Island resident, said the original ordinance had promised a much lower assessment and asked staff to restore rates closer to that figure: “the original ordinance promised that we would only pay 208,” she said. Boris Foster, a Royal Oaks resident, asked about the removal of license‑plate‑reader charges from district budgets, and several residents pressed staff for clearer documentation in advance of workshops.

Staff explained the main drivers of higher assessments in some districts. Melissa said the town now divides indirect costs among districts by the total number of units in each district, which can increase a single district’s share if it contains a large fraction of the total units. JP walked the council through Miami Lakes Section 1 numbers: 841 units, a preliminary assessment rate shown in the packet of $330 per unit, and a preliminary total budget figure of $312,125 that includes a 10% contingency of $28,528. JP explained that the town had to draw from contingency in prior years to cover increases in guard hourly wages (for one district Melissa said the guard wage rose from $15.50 an hour in 2022 to $22.10 in 2022–23), and that those increases fed into the current proposed assessment.

Several residents pointed to large year‑to‑year swings in specific line items. One widely discussed example was a jump in “direct costs” shown on the draft: direct costs for one district rose from $6,610 (2022 actuals) to $31,601 (2023 actuals). JP and Melissa attributed that in part to the change in cost‑allocation formula and to higher hourly rates paid to the security contractor after the council decided to piggyback on a county contract. JP said SFM Security — the contractor now covering multiple districts — has requested a change order that would raise the hourly rate for level‑1 guards and level‑2 guards; he summarized the request as an increase for level‑1 from about $21.40 to $22.75 and for level‑2 from about $23.43 to $24.13, and said Royal Oaks and Loch Lomond will be on the same contract starting Oct. 1. JP also said that because the town piggybacked on an existing contract the hourly rate for guards rose immediately for districts that were already on that contract.

Staff walked residents through operating and carry‑forward items. Melissa explained that some districts carry significant contingency reserves (for example, Lake Hilda’s draft showed a projected carryforward near $20,000) and that carryforwards are often earmarked as contingency per the town ordinance. She said the preliminary packet increases planned mailings for each district to cover quarterly meetings, a budget mailer and a possible additional emergency mailing — a change from the prior practice under advisory boards that budgeted only a single mailer.

Residents asked for more transparency and time to review detail. Several speakers, including Homer Cruz, president of the Royal Oaks HOA, said the prior advisory boards provided more granular review and voiced frustration at having to consider complex budget math in a short workshop. Melissa and JP said the May council agenda will include more complete backup, that the draft is preliminary and that the council will have further chances to adjust contingency levels (for example, changing a 10% contingency to 5%) before finalizing assessments.

No formal actions were taken at the workshop. Staff said any changes to assessment rates or contingency policy would be proposed to the council at later readings and that residents will have additional opportunities to comment before votes.

Looking ahead, staff said they will present the formal assessment‑rate ordinance for first reading in May and second reading in June, allowing time for public review and for the town to transmit the chosen rate to the county for TRIM processing.