Lauderhill outlines $65 million GO bond plan; public survey shows majority support if debt rate holds or decreases

City Manager Kenny Hobbs Jr. described a proposed $65 million general obligation bond at the July 15 Lauderhill budget workshop, listing citywide projects and neighborhood‑specific improvements and reporting preliminary survey results staff said show voter support if the bond does not raise the city's debt millage.

What's in the bond: Hobbs said the $65 million package would fund citywide improvements including public safety facilities and equipment, roadway resurfacing and parking improvements, landscape and streetscape work, upgrades to public parks and athletic fields, digital marquees and parking at the Lauderhill Performing Arts Center. Neighborhood projects mentioned included sports lighting, turf and playground renovations at multiple parks, improvements to Lauderhill Golf Course, and restroom and pavilion work in several neighborhoods.

Survey results and priorities: The administration summarized results of outreach that included in‑person meetings and QR‑code surveys. The poll asked three questions: whether residents would support a GO bond to pay for city improvements; how they would rank proposed project types; and whether respondents would support the bond if their annual property tax bill increased, decreased or stayed the same. The administration presented the results as showing about 56–57% overall support when respondents were shown the project list. When respondents were asked to rank project types, improvements to existing parks and roadway resurfacing ranked highest, followed by public safety facilities and, lastly, land acquisition. When respondents were asked about tax impacts, Hobbs said that when the debt millage would remain the same or fall, roughly 70% of respondents said they would be willing to support a bond.

Debt model and resident messaging: Hobbs told commissioners the administration has been modeling ways to issue the additional bonds while maintaining or reducing the city's voted debt millage. He said the administration would rely on a combination of current cash and a new bond structure designed to keep the voted debt rate at or below current levels. Hobbs recommended a reimbursement resolution be prepared for September; that resolution would let the city begin design and planning work now and reimburse those costs from bond proceeds if the referendum passes. Finance Director Sean Henderson said the city has worked with bond counsel and financial advisors to craft an issuance approach intended to preserve the debt millage level, depending on market conditions and final project costs.

Timing debate: Commissioners debated whether to place the bond on a March 2026 ballot (a single‑item election) or on the larger November 2026 ballot. City Clerk Andrea and staff told the commission a referendum on either date carries similar election costs; the supervisor of elections advised there is no cost advantage to November. Commissioners split on strategy: some argued March would focus voters on the bond item and accelerate construction; others said November typically draws higher turnout and might improve approval chances. Hobbs asked for the commission's direction on timing; commissioners requested more modeling and community outreach.

Next steps: Hobbs said staff would finalize the list of projects, continue the tax analysis, and return to the commission with a reimbursement resolution and refined project list in September. He said the city would also prepare a voter education campaign detailing the city portion of the tax bill and distinguishing the city share from other taxing authorities.

Ending: Staff urged commissioners to provide direction on a referendum date and on the level of detail they want in the September workshop; the administration asked the commission to consider a reimbursement resolution to keep projects shovel‑ready if voters approve the bond.