Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Special Taxing Districts topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Council approves non‑ad valorem assessment ordinance after residents object to Section 1 calculations

Town Council of Miami Lakes · June 16, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Dozens of written objections to the Section 1 special taxing district assessment were read into the record; the council approved ordinance 14A setting non‑ad valorem rates and added a one‑time line item for Llman guard‑house design work, while urging staff to continue outreach and consider alternatives.

After the clerk read a long list of emailed objections objecting to the proposed Section 1 special taxing district budget, the Miami Lakes Town Council held a contested public hearing and ultimately adopted ordinance 14A on second reading to set the non‑ad valorem assessment rates for security‑guard and lake‑maintenance districts.

Dozens of residents had sent written comments challenging the assessment calculations. "There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that the homeowners in district one have been treated wrongfully due to the erroneous way that their special taxing district has had their share of the taxes assessed," said Bonnie Cron, who testified during public comment.

Councilmembers discussed the fairness of the allocation and the technical basis used to apportion administrative and operating costs. Staff said Section 1 had one of the lowest per‑household administrative costs in the town but carries a larger share of overall district obligations because of population and system footprint. Members debated alternatives but noted the town had no readily feasible different formula to immediately adopt.

Following extensive debate, council approved the ordinance and passed an amendment to add a one‑time assessment line to fund planning and design for Llman (the Llman guard‑house) after representatives asked for help to expedite long‑delayed work. The manager explained the Llman capital project would require additional design and permitting funds and that including a placeholder in the assessment provides the option to fund planning; the council can later reduce or remove the assessment when final decisions are made.

What’s next: Staff was directed to continue outreach to homeowners in Section 1, provide clearer breakdowns of direct vs contingency costs, and explore options for how capital improvements and extraordinary costs should be budgeted and apportioned across districts.