11.18.25 Pasco County Board Workshop: Impact & Mobility Fees Update Meeting

All right, that's what we got.

Good morning. I'd like to call the Pasco County workshop agenda, Tuesday, November 18th, um to order. Please rise for the invocation and pledge. Good morning. Let's pray. Our father, we've come together for another important meeting today. And in this meeting, uh the hope for is to come to a balance, a balance between the fees that are required in order to continue to bring in uh the revenue that we need for the county and yet at the same time, Lord, a balance that will continue to make Pasco an inviting place for individuals and companies that want to come in and be part of our wonderful, wonderful county, Lord. So, as we struggle to find that balance, I would just ask that you give us all wisdom, that you give us all understanding, and help us to come to an equitable solution. So, when all is said and done, the growth will continue. People will still uh come and be part of our community and yet uh the bottom line will be maintained. So thank you Lord for being with us today and just lift us all up in your name. Amen.

Amence to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Okay. Can we have the roll call?

District one, Commissioner Oakley

here.

District two, Commissioner Wman

present.

District four, Commissioner Jagger

here.

District five, Commissioner Mariano

here.

District three, Chairman Starky

here.

Okay, I will now turn it over to the county administrator. Good morning.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board. Welcome uh this morning. Um actually, Chaplain Howie put it best. Today we are here to discuss mobility fees. Um, and I'm going to turn it over to Nick Urin here in just in just a second. And there there is a lot of discussion about balance. What is what are what are the right numbers? It's been a while since we've addressed mobility fees on the whole here in Pasco County. Uh but that's not without looking at the totality of of impact fees and other fees that that we assess uh on new development um both both for our infrastructure both for our schools utilities uh that we look in order to to make sure that the infrastructure is in place to support uh the growth in the development that has been quite honestly a boon for our county in a lot of ways but with growth come challenges. And so I'm going to ask Nick to give a brief presentation on the mobility fee study update and we'll look to the board for some guidance and discussion on um on various options on how we can address mobility fees going forward. So Mr. U need a screen like over there somewhere.

Well, we do have the handouts in front of you so we'll

Well, good morning Tom. Good morning. Let's see.

Good morning.

Yeah.

Uh Nick Uren, county engineer, and I'm going to do my best to walk you through the balancing act that is an update to the uh mobility fees for Pasco County. We have six items on the list. We're going to talk about the current impact fee for single family homes in Pasco County. I'm going to give you a brief overview of the history of mobility fees in Pasco County. tell you how we determine the need for transportation facilities, how we estimate the revenues that are going to be available over the next 25 years to fund our transportation needs, and then I'm going to show you some mobility rate options, and then we're going to get to the board discussion. So, single family homes in Pasco County presently pay just south of $25,000 in impact fees. And this is I'm I'm going to use a suburban context for most of the information that we share today. Even though we have differing fees in urban, suburban, and rural areas, a lot of the fees that are paid in Pasco County are in the suburban category. And so I'm going to focus attention on that just for simplicity, but there are parallels for urban and and rural areas. Mobility fees is $9,600 for a single family home of around 2,000 or more square feet. And uh then you've got a school fee. Well, and I need to emphasize the mobility fee. The purpose of it is to fund the land and the design and construction of the roadway network, the transportation facility network for Pasco County that supports the additional growth and development that occurs throughout the county. It is also there are components that fund the bicycle and pedestrian facilities. There are components that fund transit, shelters, and vehicles, but primarily the bulk of that amount is devoted to buying the land needed for roads and then constructing the roadway surfaces, the curbing, the drainage, and whatnot that allow people to drive around. In Pasco County, school fees are 9,300, just south of uh the mobility fee mark for today, and they fund the land and the building costs for new schools. You have a park and wreck fee of $3,500 and that funds both the land and the construction of the new park facilities on that land. We have a fire rescue fee of $674 per home and that funds land stations and vehicles for the new facilities, the new capital facilities needed to support and serve our growing community. We have a libraries fee of $145 and that funds land and buildings for new libraries. And then we have a few other fees, hurricane impact fees, administration, and a resource fee that add up to around $475 per home. So that gives you the general context

of not not shown in there though. Connection fees for utilities.

That's right. So county utility water, sewer, and if you have reclaimed water, um those connection fees add up to around $4,800 in addition to the amount shown here on the screen. Uh a little less if you are using reclaimed water and tying in. It's about a 10% reduction. So, how does this compare to other Central Florida counties for the same type of uses? So, a single family home in Ocola County puts you at around 37 $38,000 in um in total impact fees. And I want you to notice especially the blue bar on your chart here. The blue bar is the comparison of mobility fee rates in the various counties in central Florida that are experiencing a high level of growth and development right now. Uh Pasco County at 9600 is um is right in the middle, maybe a little low middle. Oyola County is the high water mark at 23,000 $22,000 per home. Um I also want to mention as you look at these comparisons, we've also got Pulk, Orange, and Hillsboro County on here. Two things stuck out to me when I thought of these these other four counties. The first is that twothirds of the population in these other four counties is unincorporated, which means that one-third of the people in these other four counties live in municipalities. And there's a partnership between the county and the municipalities in providing infrastructure to serve their growing their growing development and population. In Pasco, we are 92% unincorporated, which means the five of you are the main players. It it it means that we carry the heavy water when it comes to serving our communities as a county because all the growth and development is happening in the unincorporated areas of the county. Uh the other thing that that struck me about this is that Oyola County, even though they are the high water mark for mobility fees, has roughly on the market today 1,500 um new single family homes that are being made available for sale within their county. And I I say that to say there is a conversation to be had about whether increasing mobility fees too much will dissuade construction from occurring. And Oyola suggests that that's not true. that people are going to vote where there is desire for residential development to occur and that we need to make sure that we are balancing the fees that we charge on that new development with the demand that they are creating on our transportation network. As far as the overview for mobilities go, um, mobility fees go, the mobility fees were established in 2011 and they've had a very good run of relatively flat fee amounts. So, in 2011, the um, county adopted a mobility fee ordinance that said, let's move away from just road impact fees that focus primarily on roadway capacity and let's talk about multimmodal infrastructure. So they added the bike pad component, the transit component, and they when

they established the mobility fee in 2011, they also created a tax increment fund that allowed for us to subsidize or reduce the the amount of mobility fees that we charged on new development by allocating future property taxes to the transportation system to fund the amount that we were reducing in their upfront cost. So instead of charging the full amount for building new roads at the time of construction, we said let's charge a reduced amount at time of construction and then let's add property taxes, future property taxes to the transportation fund to fully fund the needed transportation infrastructure. That that's how the fee system was created in 2011, 2014, and 2018. We did four-year updates per Florida statutes. We did not have any significant rate increases in those first two four-year updates. Although, I do want to mention that in 2014, one of the ways we had we addressed and prevented the need for additional uh for a rate increase was by the county creating a second local option, gas tax. So, that's 5 cents of gas tax that's charged per gallon of fuel sold here in Pasco County that goes directly into transportation capital projects. In 2021, we did our next four-year update and we had a modest rate increase to fund the predicted need that was not going to be paid for from gas taxes and tiff funds and said, "Okay, we we have a small shortfall. Let's increase the u mobility fees a small amount and that will allow us to fully fund our transportation needs over the next 25 years." One key component I want to point out, and this will come up later, is we were predicting in 2021 that Pasco would only grow to 800,000 people in 2050. The current forecast suggests that we will be north of 1 million people. For context, our mobility fee system also has components that vary by land use. So residential uses as they get constructed charge are charged a different amount because they have different trip making characteristics. They are charged a different amount than say a retail use. A large box retail store that generates less trips per thousand square feet is generated is charged less money than a small convenience store that generates a very high number of trips per thousand square feet. Office spaces and industrial spaces are also treated differently in Pasco County. And I'll show this on the next slide. We have historically allowed for a 100% reduction in fees for office and residential because we wanted to attract any office and industrial employers to the county. So, we have decided to incentivize their their um construction by charging them no fees. Uh that's something that we definitely want to talk about this morning as we as we consider how to address our growth in infrastructure demands. The u fees are divided into three different areas urban, suburban, and rural. And then the fees also vary by form of development. We have a standard form. We have mixed use, meaning you've got um residential and non-residential pro um land uses together within the same property that

allow for trip internal capture to occur. You have a traditional neighborhood development which um you think of uh properties like Longaf or like um Starky Ranch as traditional neighborhood developments. And then you have transit oriented developments that are allowed to u increase their densities because they're along future transit investment corridors. Overall the the primary uses that are constructed in Pasco County fall into the standard category and the majority of them fall into the suburban area. So just wanted to mention that there are a lot there's a lot of complexity associated with our fee structure but the majority fall into suburban standard development patterns. How do we determine our need for transportation facilities? Well, we look at those three areas, the urban, the suburban, and the rural. And we look at the amount of growth expected in each of those areas and the amount of investment in roadway capacity that is needed to accommodate that future travel demand. And we actually I shouldn't say roadway capacity, we deal with it in terms of person miles of capacity because we are multimmodal and we look at the investment in not just roadway capacity for vehicles but also bik bicycle pedestrian facilities and transit facilities. When we're determining needs, if you look at this map, this is your count your this is the map from your comp plan. The the vision transportation network. The dashed lines are the roads that have not yet been constructed. The solid lines are roads that exist but may not exist in their widest or final form. Meaning we may have a um a road like uh old Pasco road is on the map as a two-lane road today, but we are widening it to four lanes in the vicinity of overpass road. So that would be a solid road that is going to become a bigger road and we're spending a significant amount of money. I want to say around $30 million to widen that section of Old Pasco Road from two to four lanes. So, we look at all of those things and those are the projects that feed into the amount of funds necessary to support our target volume to capacity ratios in each of these three areas, the urban, the suburban, and the rural. So, we again we predict the amount of growth that's going to happen in each of these three areas, the urban, suburban, and rural. And then we identify a target volume to capacity ratio, which is the the level of busyiness, the level of congestion that we're willing to accept within these three different areas. And we have generally said in an urban area, because we're allowing more people to be located closer together and because we're willing to accept a lower a higher level of congestion on our roadways, we don't need to spend as much per person in those urban areas. When you get into the suburban area, people are spreading out a little bit more and we we expect to provide a higher level of service or a lower level of congestion on the roadways in the suburban area. So, we

need to spend a little more per person when we add development in the suburban area. In the rural areas, people are spreading out even farther and we want to provide an even higher level of service. We expect no congestion or low levels of congestion in our rural areas. So, we need to spend even more per person. And that's part of what drives the various fees that we would seek to um to collect from development in each of these three areas. So, I talked about trying to get to a million people. And when you look at the population growth, that's the second row on your table, the 2050 population, we're showing a total of just over 1 million people being in Pasco County in the next 25 years. In order to and that that's a growth of 330,000 people in order to accommodate that growth, we need to build around 960 lane miles of roadways. And again, that's constructing new roads on the dash lines where we don't have roads at all right now. And it's constructing bigger roads on the existing corridors.

That total cost

that we need to invest in our transportation system is $6.9 billion. So that's the amount of revenue that we would be seeking if we want to fully fund the transportation system in order to produce the targeted levels of congestion in the urban, suburban, and rural areas of Pasco County when we're at a million people.

Do you want to ask a question?

Very important number. Madam Chairman,

can we go back to the urban suburban rural costs because commissioner here is questioning it, but

yeah,

those of us who've gone to places and studied this, we know

it's 100% true.

I understand it. I understand the studies and conferences and and everything else,

but the folks that live in the urban areas require more services and needs and demands we hear from all the time than folks in in rural areas. But the cost for the service,

but the roads are being used more in in the urban areas. You hear all the time, we hear all the time in our district, we need Meadow Point widened from two lanes to four lanes. Old Pasco Road, which is being done, Wesley Chapel Boulevard, Curly Road improvements along 54, Collier Parkway Extension. Those folks are demanding and they're paying a lot of money to live in those areas. Common sense tells me that this is this is really kind of a backwards formula. But folks in rural areas, you don't hear them demanding for the roads and different things. They require less. Some of them aren't even on utilities. The folks that are in rural areas require less services from the county. They're paying higher property taxes because they have larger properties or more custom homes. Not calling police and fire as much as what's going on in the urban areas. And those guys need to get their their their times, you know, increase their their call their call times. So, I know what I hear and I listen to what the studies say, but common sense and kind of the way things operate in real life are really, in my opinion, is the opposite. It contradicts itself.

Sure. So, Commissioner, I want to I want to help make a what I hope to be a helpful distinction. You're talking about ongoing government services that are needed in the different

I'm calling ongoing road projects to be done.

I'm going to point you to the cost of the capital investment needed on the front side to allow for these rural developed rural areas to to be developed even at a low density. And the and the the fact is if I have to build miles of road and I can only spread the cost of those miles on a few properties with a few people in them because they're a rural environment that then it does generate a higher cost per person on the front.

Understand that you're missing my you're missing my point.

My point is the demand from the more urban areas is a lot higher than the folks in the rural areas. So therefore, I mean, they you go ask people that travel Metapoint Boulevard every day.

If if I may, I and I think and I think to your point, Commissioner, and this this gets into these volume and capacity ratios, right? If if I if I live in an urban area and I'm used to driving in a suburban area with a road at 80% capacity, if it's at 105% capacity, I'm going to be complaining about it. Even if it's at 110% capacity, I'm going to be complaining about it. versus your rural needs at 75% or even less capacity. You're right, they're not going to complain. They're not going to complain. The the average driver will probably complain at a V over C ratio of anything short of level of service A or B, you know, which is like free flow traffic. And I and I've seen it and when you compare traffic in different areas, you know, to your point to your point, you're not wrong, but I I think we're taking what people

what what people are but but here's where I'm going. Let's go back to the PAS and we can charge the people on their head.

But where but where we're going with this the decision the decisions that that M, you know, that Nick and the team have to make are what is what is what is our target? What are we shooting at? Are we willing to live with 105% or do we want to do we want to cut that back a little bit? You know, so if we were in Wesley Chapel for example, which is a suburban area, correct?

Urban.

Is it urban? suburban

the urban

currently urban 105% we may be sitting at that and and quite honestly they they probably will complain and hate that. Um they might they might not I I don't know but but you know at the end of the day we we kind of have to settle on what level of congestion are we willing to live with.

I want to say something about Wesley Chapel uh that area. I was out there on Saturday to go to dinner out there. I was backed up at least a half a mile on 75 waiting on the light on 56. I also see coming in the near future a project. I think it was King Ranch, but uh it could be another one, but it had 200 homes coming in it. And I get off and get on 56. I'm going to the west there. And this project I'm talking about is not very far from there. How do you add those developments without a huge impact on that road? Because it's already over capacity cuz it it was bumper-to-bumper on six lanes. We're not going to add two and four more lanes to 56, I don't believe. So,

or if we can,

it would lead to some of those new roads. Commissioner, you know, uh relievers, alternatives, alternative routes. commissioner is basically talking about, you know, we're we're at capacity in some roads and especially some facilities that may already be at six lanes.

You know, that's where you come up with parallel relievers

and some of 54 that's being redone right now will help that, I'm sure.

Yes, sir. Yes, sir. But I think what Nick's point here is is when it comes to allocating the cost, you look at what what the need is and and that density and it's it it does become a very simple formula, but that's just to maintain these averages. And I think later, Nick, we will talk about level of service and what type of um you know, VOCC ratios, if you will. What are we willing to live with in terms of of of congestion, especially as it relates to charging people for for new development because it is it's money. It's real money and it's real expensive. But the cost to build a lane mile of road is the cost to build a lane mile of road regardless of where we are in the county.

Um, can you go back to the map?

Something that really Oh, I'm sorry. No,

doesn't work.

Thank you.

Yeah. All right. So, so to the rural part, um it when you have a 100 people living in a in a development compared to a thousand people in a development and they got to go just as many miles, it costs more to do. So, I think that the numbers are okay there. I think part of the problem we're having is frankly I don't I think we got to look at going to 1.05% and just bring it to 1%. Um because I don't think people are happy with the congestion they're getting

and then with the development we've had all the apartments that have gone in it's just clogging these roadways and they can't be expanded anymore with the rightway we've got other than really spending a lot of money which we don't want to do. Um, so I think between that and the other thing we need to look at as far as we're going to make this transportation network better is we can't take these transportation studies we're given at the day is to say this is what the transportation study is based upon the growth you've got and how it works because when we had people out in Wesley Chapel saying our growth is okay we can take this and I got people standing out front saying I'm jammed in traffic so obviously what you're looking for data what we're getting for data is not corre correlating to what is actually in real reality. That's one of the things we need to change as well as as we look at this.

So, I'm hearing you say talking about the just the validity of the traffic studies that are presented to you that you believe that they don't account for reality in a lot of cases. Okay.

Okay. My question looking at this map, the dash lines are the roads that we want to um we plan to add.

I think that's correct. Those are the vision roads that are not yet constructed.

Okay. It's glaring to me that if you live north of 52, pretty much the only way you can go east and west is either on 52 or county line. There are going to be parking lots. Well, we already seen that at 52 in Bellamy, right? Um, every time I see the news there and they show the map there, it's red on 52 and Bellamy. So we have no vision road going east west anywhere north of 52.

Is that that what that airs road was about?

You have different roads going here.

There's nothing on here. That's what that's

you got think Joe. You have

Why is it not on here?

You got Derby.

Okay. Why is there nothing here?

We didn't do that map.

So this map this map this map is

Nick. Nick Nick, why don't we talk about the limitations of this map? When it was developed, what it represents? That's Hernando that's causing that pain. That's really

Well, we need our own people to be able to go east and west and not have to come down.

We have for for clarity and I apologize for not providing really any labels on this map.

Well, I know what that road is.

This is Bellamy Road, right?

And so when when you talk about St. Joe and Darby, it's these two or this corridor here is Darby and then you've got St. Joe

and what's to the left of that

and really we just have the one vision road

to the west.

There's a ranch.

What's north? What's Why can't you put something north of here? I mean, I don't I don't know what is Where's Heir's Road? I know that way Hernando County.

He's Road when you look at County Line Road from Shady Hills east to the Sun Coast as it goes east of the Sun Coast within Hernando County. It actually makes an S-curve and it hits 41 right around here, just north of the county line. That's Heirs Road and that's been widened as a it's been constructed within Hernando County as a four-lane divided roadway up to US 41. And the DOT, which you you heard uh some of you heard at the MO last week, the DOT has been asked to perform an a feasibility study to extend Heirs Road from US 41 east all the way to the I75 corridor. And they've identified a terminal point at Bllandon Road here in northern Pasco as a potential eastern connecting point.

But the prime the majority of that roadway would would be constructed within Hernando County. So, we have nothing planned.

As I am reminded, don't forget too that you've got the crossbar wellfield taking up about

Does it go all the way to the county?

Um, Keith, do you know the the extent of it?

No, but it's approximately 13,000 acres pretty much right between 41 and Bellamy Brothers to to the west going westward towards 41.

It just seems that someone should have a vision to put a road in there.

Well, I think we are in in the midst of redeveloping the comprehensive plan and taking a look at that. So,

you sure don't want to come all the way down to 52.

And and I agree with that. Something going in the middle of the county for that area going across. But let's go. Let's talk County Line Road. Rick, I appreciate that explanation.

I think County Line Road, if anything's going to connect out to 75, it should be that thing coming all the way straight across.

So, I don't know why we're we're messing around with Aerys Road. They had a choice. Fernando County had a choice to do the extension

to 41 on on Connelly Road across. They chose to go up there for the development. I don't think we should be caving the development. I think DOT should be either. That should just be straight coming across hidden to 75. Okay.

I think that's worthy of a discussion for us.

Is that a developer request to do?

I'm sure. Well, I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I'm just saying Nick's explanation right there shows me why that process is not a good one to go. Go straight across Countyline Road towards 75 to where it's got to bend down and connect. But that's where it should be going. So, I'm just saying

these are great feedback.

Rids are good

and we don't that's a huge glaring issue right now.

One one more thought to it.

Yeah.

And before they actually put that into their plan, whatever they do on that side of road, they need to finish county road out to 41 anyway.

Yeah. You mean finish finish before DOT does that extension to 75? That's more important to finish Conine Road going across the border all the way through as far as it's going to go.

You mean widen County Line Road west of Sun Coast Park.

Finish it. Yes.

Sure. And and we do have a project to widen the piece of County Line Road from Shady Hillser in Hernando County to Sun Coast Parkway to four lanes. That's moving forward. Design is underway. right ofway acquisition is funded in part and and we will fund construction in the next 5 to seven years.

Okay, so 5 to seven years, but they're talking about the other extension, but that should go all the way to 41 anyway. Not to stop at Sun Coast, right to 41.

Well, and again, the piece within Hernando County is a four-lane road already on the east side of Sun Coast Parkway to US 41.

He's Road.

Yeah. I'm talking about going straight across.

Yeah. Okay. I I hear you. That that's a significant revision to the way the roadway network was constructed in our par in our partner county to the north. Uh but I'm happy to investigate.

They did what they wanted to do for the developer. That's okay. That's their choice. I'm just saying if we're going to get DOT money, they're going to even talk about coming to our county. They need to finish that before they can have that discussion.

Well, and and I would like to remind the board that County Line Road is a unique corridor in Pasco. We have two of them. um this one and and County Line Road South which are partially owned by us and partially owned by our neighbors. And so the fact that DOT is involved at all is kind of a favor to be they are playing a neutral mediator for the two counties because they they don't have a dog in the fight. These are not state corridors. that the fact that they're doing heirs road at all is only because a um a member of the state legislature said do the feasibility study and that that's how that got funded.

I think we need a letter

state project.

I think we need a letter back saying we want to see county line going straight across all the way to 41 and then we want to come to the table to see how it connects to 75.

Okay. I and I can I mean

yeah you know my protocol and whatnot. I I can certainly provide that feedback to DOT as part of the heirs road extension study is that we would like to see a corridor u either as the county engineer based on this discussion or if we need to have a you know board letter

they use our land coming in to 75 later to go fix this thing first

and start it incrementally going where it's supposed to go

and I I think to combine the two comments but between Commissioner Mariana and Commissioner Starky what I'm hearing is we need a northern cap to an east west corridor and we need to investigate a another east west corridor between 52 and county line road as part of our comp plan I'm doing

I can't guarantee we can do it because we have significant obstacles you know same thing as you know I'm going to mention this and then I'm probably going to kick myself for saying it we

need to listen to that that

it's a it's a workshop

we we have we have challenges in the middle of the county as well that the whole concept cept of extending Ridge/conerton over to Old Pasco is a significant environmental obstacle.

Yeah, it is.

And so, you know, there it's not an easy thing to do. We But we will look at both north and south and if there is a feasible way to put a line on the map, we we hear you.

And if I Okay, real quick.

All right. And after that, then Commissioner W. Um, I I I think this this conversation is certainly timely because I think as as you look at Pasco County and the way we've developed over the years, our our primary focus has been the South Central portion and that's where a lot of our dollars and efforts have been at. And so I think it's really important that we get this feedback and input from the board in terms of kind of formulating what does the next phase of Pasco look like as we continue to grow um, you know, further and further to the north. And so um, we appreciate all the comments. Yeah. Commission.

Well, it' just be nice to figure out I mean, obviously this a lot a lot of this work that we're trying to figure out is to accommodate our our our neighbor to the north, right? So, it would be nice if we understood if we're going to invest our taxpayers money to accommodate people who don't live in this county. I I I really think we need to understand what their what their growth situation is in Hernando. We probably really need to understand what their future roads look like and how how they can be comp, you know, their southern portion of their county and our northern end of our county can somewhat complement each other because then we'll end up you know potentially at impasses and just everybody's frustrated. So if there's a ability for administrations to collaborate there

or maybe we have a joint commission meeting

we can look at you know similar to how we're working regionally with our neighbors to the south perhaps a similar model to the north understood

I don't I don't I don't nec

not as frequent maybe

I think it'd be good for starters to have the professional staff get together

and commissioners I want to make you aware we had a meeting earlier this week a collaboration meeting with Hernando County about the funding strategy to widen county line road. So, we are talking about that how to partner effectively on that corridor. I think what you're suggesting is we we also need to part partner with them on the north south roads. That's a heavier lift uh because they those are Pasco County roads entirely. They're not shared responsibilities between us and Hernando and and Hernando basically says they're your roads. You should fund them. I will put a caveat to that. The one the one way that we can fund and I I'll talk about Shady Hills for just a moment. Uh the one way we can we can seek regional investments in a corridor like that that is owned by Pasco County is through the DO's um the Florida DOT's grant funding programs that are available to the county. whether they're um county incentive grants or transportation regional incentive program grants, those are state gas taxes and uh vehicle registration fees and sometimes dock stamps uh that are paid into the statewide transportation trust fund. So Hernando County residents contribute Hernando County growth contributes to that pot of money and then that pot is made available to counties within District 7 for roads just like Shady Hills that run parallel to I to the Sun Coast Park rather. Shady Hills with that program.

Yes. And that's a that's why I bring it up is because that is a regional funding pot, if you will, that we can avail ourselves of. It's not huge, but it it it's something. It's better than zero. And it it allows us to buy down some of the cost of constructing a big project like Shady Hills in a rural context, which if we jump back to the um to the transportation needs um table, I only have 25,000 people predicted to to come to live in the rural areas of Pasco County. So, I can't put the cost of rural infrastructure on just that small population, which goes back to Commissioner Weightman's comment. Why are we charging so much in rural areas? Because there aren't that many people, but we still need $750 million of infrastructure

to support them.

So here, so here's my my causes me angst. Hernando County is building their Wesley Chapel along State Road 50, and all those folks are going to come south. So anybody who wants to live in in northeast rural or along some of the the more rural corridors is going to be footing the bill for the urban development to the county to the north. And that's not right. Folks choose to live in a rural setting for a reason.

They don't necessarily want everything perfect and they don't necessarily want the the best roads, but people who live in urban areas want their roads pristine. They want to get to and from and get out of traffic and if it means an extra lane, they're probably willing to pay for it. So the paradigm I'm just I'm just somewhat on the opposite side of the fence on on this as far as what we think folks need and what folks actually want. So,

I think that people in northern Hillsboro around um Odessa was

going to say Gun Highway.

Gun Highway would say the same thing to us that they're in the rural part of Hillsboro, northern Hillsboro County, and here comes

Yep.

Pasco County snaking down Gun Highway to get to work. Yeah.

Okay.

But it sort of self-regulates in a way because people are kind of forced to use the veterans in most cases because it's still a two-lane facility. But it it's veterans crowded. Well, and I was I was just going to close that loop by saying part of the reason that the turnpike authority who manages the Sun Coast Parkway within Pasco is looking at widening um the Sun Coast Parkway is because of growth both in Pasco and Hernando County that's attracted to the Tampa Bay employment centers.

Yeah. So they they are they are carrying that water by investing in additional capacity on that corridor where uh our job is to focus on the county arterial and collective roadways uh within Pasco and trying to ensure that we've provided that quality of service to our residents.

Madam Chair,

y

Nick, on that point, I've been I've had discussions now for the past year. We're actually going to look at some things on 54. What are they doing about park and rides all the way from Hernando all the way down? Because those bridges down in Hillsboro County, you can't expand those things or it's going to cost you a fortune, take a long time. But if you get trips off by having buses going up and down to the airport, etc., it's going to save a lot of traffic. Um, have they talked about anything to the north?

So, it's that's a complicated question and I'll give you my two cents and then I'm I'm sure there are other voices that you should hear from. Um first is transit operators need to have a vision for the corridors that they want to serve and then they need to implement their vision through local land development regulations that require set aides for park and ride facilities. So you have to have a designated operator who would who would serve those those um park and ride facilities in order to say let's make that land set aside happen. Uh and then the second one is u you know the turnpike is is happy to accommodate and even make reasonable accommodations uh for reduction in fees whatnot elimination of any any tolls for the transit vehicles they're just not going to be op they're not an operator so we've got to either figure out is it go Pasco is it some sort of Tampa Bay regional transit authority is it some partnership between Pasco Hernando transit where we would try to accommodate a service like that so it's land development regul ations vision by by transit operator and then a funding plan ultimately

to service that.

But it's still more than that. They've got land where the old lanes now verge out to the side that sits right there. It's now their

sure

headquarters. Whatever. That's the place it should be.

Prior to facilities, yeah,

that that's where the parking ride should be. But they say their rules keep them from doing it.

Well, they won't they won't construct that. But if we have a transit operation plan with a funding strategy that includes construction of a park and ride facility at that location, then I think they would be amendable to offering that land to us. But we need to have those. We need to have a plan, a funding strategy, and you a way to pay for capital and operating costs for a transit service like that.

If you can get that in writing, that'd be great because I've had conversations that give me the opposite.

Okay.

Thanks.

Okay. So we are on um you did the estimation of

slide eight

transportation. Okay, we're so

I think I can move to the next one because this one is this is an important slide because it shows you the estimated revenues available to pay for that $6.9 billion need. So we have essentially five legs to the stool, if you will. and and one of the the first leg is the federal and state revenues that are allocated towards transportation projects within Pasco County. Reminder, federal revenues are fixed at 18.4 cents per gallon. That is not an indexed um gas tax rate. It is a flat rate. It hasn't changed in decades. The state has a combination of flat and indexed gas taxes as well as uh paying for some of transportation capital funding needs through dock stamps and vehicle registration fees and vehicle license or or driver license fees. Uh those roads as a reminder are selected by the no and or DOT. It's a partnership between the MO board and the district 7 uh staff and that's a prediction of 700 give or take 700 million in revenue. Uh penny for Pasco sales tax you you're all familiar with this but just for the public it is a 1 cent sales tax. 45% of the revenue collected goes to the county. 40% of that revenue the county's share of the revenue goes to transportation capital projects. And those are primarily bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure projects that were identified in the 2022 uh board resolution authorizing the ballot initiative for the for the new era generation of the sales tax and then some categories that were established in the board resolution in 2022 as well. So $862 million there most of that goes to bicycle pedestrian infrastructure. A small portion of it is available for additional road capacity. I mentioned earlier you have a second uh second local option gas tax. That's 5 cents per gallon. You also within state law you can levy up to 12 cents per gallon in local option gas tax. Pasco has levied the full 12 cents. Seven of it goes to um operations and maintenance of our transportation system. Five of the 12 cents goes to uh transportation capital projects. So that is a revenue stream available to us but it is a revenue stream that is declining in purchasing power because it is not indexed and because people are driving more fuel efficient vehicles. So you look at the amount of revenue we generate from that gas tax over the next 25 years and it's not large. uh tax increment find the tax increment fund is about 15% of the increment and of that increment of that property tax increment from the base year of 2012 about 55% of that revenue goes to transportation capital projects to road capacity projects that are selected annually through the capital programming process by the commission that generates about $1.2 2 billion over the next 25 years. And then the last component is the mobility fees. And at current mobility fee rates applied to the forecasted growth in the next 25 years, the mobility fees will generate about $1 billion, which means your total revenue is at about 4 billion, but again, you need 6.9 billion. So we have a shortfall of about $2.9 billion. Showing that again in a very simple way.

This is the need in the pie chart shows the total need with the components of the revenue shown as pieces of the pie and the shortfall highlighted here. Looking at the actual fee amounts that we charge for the main categories of uses. I mentioned earlier we charge about $9,600 for a single family residential home in a suburban context. We charge about $8,400 for a multifamily apartment. Uh retail per thousand square ft pays around $10,500 today. And then office and industrial are both subsidized at 100% as an economic growth incentive to attract those kinds of employers to Pasco County. Uh and I want to mention any reduction in the in the amount that we are able to charge. So when you see these current subsidy percentages on the slide here, any reduction that we are providing is currently made up from other revenue sources. So we're either filling that gap, paying that subsidy with tiff or we're paying it with gas tax. We have historically fully funded the transportation need that is identified in each of our previous um mobility fee update studies.

Madam Chair,

yep. I'm looking at this multif family apartment current subsidy 6%. You voted to get rid of those subsidies. What happened?

That's a good history question that I might I might have to defer to um either our county attorney or our consultant. Um, but I I

I think the answer is essentially uh we were supposed to get rid of them, but in order to you fill in the gap, Bill Oliver is our is our mobility fee consultant and um he has more history to this than I do.

So, yeah. Right. And and there was an intent to completely eliminate the subsidies.

It wasn't intent. It was a vote.

Right. It was

not intent. But what also happened after that was the state passed some laws that capped the rates at which we can increase fees. And because we could not increase the multif family fees by more than the state prescribed limit, the 25% over two years or 50% over four years, we ended up having to toss in a little bit of subsidy to support that.

What were we at before? So you

uh zero the intent was zero.

Well I know but what were when you said you went with a little bit what were we did you reduce it to 6% or increase it whatever the right

yeah it it used to be zero. You you did not want to subsidize

what was it before we said we wanted to go to zero.

Oh my goodness. because you just said that we weren't able to do everything that we wanted, but we got to

No, no, no. We did. We did go to 100 a 0% subsidy for a brief while.

Then in a subsequent update, the state law capped the rate at which we could increase the fees. So, we had to come back with about with that 6%.

So, what I'm asking you was what was the number before we went to

Were you at 100% subsidy originally?

Yes.

100%.

Oh, no. No, no, not an apartment.

That's that that's the question is what that subsidy was

before we went to 0%.

Yeah,

I don't offh hand I don't remember. It was probably in the 30 to 40% range.

It was similar to all other residential. It was probably similar similar single family residential probably about 30%. Okay.

So,

if they kept the amount that we could change the rate,

how long is that period of time we can change the rate?

The the issue is you can only update your fees every four years. So what Bill is describing is that yes, the board voted to make a 0% subsidy in that year, but over the four years, we we lost the ability to keep it at 0% because the fees would have had to have gone up to keep up with the 0% subsidy, if that makes sense. You can't

It does. It does. So the next question is when is the fourear number coming up that we can actually get this

now? We're in the So we can we can readjust it to 0% now. motions.

So the answer to your question is we can adjust that back to 0% as part of this update.

What is not on here is the subsidy we have for hotels.

So why is that not listed here?

It it's not listed because these five categories make up 98 to 99% of the fee the mobility fee revenue that we anticipate collecting. But you're right, hotels are also subsidized at 100%. they just don't significantly move the needle with respect to revenue.

And and what I you know I'm all for hotels, but what I see happening with hotels because I have friends that have bought into and built some of these is that they immediately flip them because they're they're putting that mobility fee delta that that value in their pocket when they sell

our sub. Yes. So they're very valuable to build and flip and

that's why I think we should fix that. Yeah. They may be valuable, but I'll tell you what they bring is they bring people. They're going to spend money. They don't use services. It increases the money that's coming into this county. And hotels are a great thing for us.

I think they make money or not.

I think we should tweak that number.

I don't think they need

I would change it for keep it zero.

People making money off of us.

What about the single family?

Yeah. Are we we're going to get into options? Yes, we I I just

wanted to make sure the board understands why do we have such a significant gap between the predicted revenue and the predicted need and and there are because historically we haven't had a huge gap. Why is it so large right now? Uh and I think the first point is we're predicting a lot more people. We in 2021 our study assumed only 230,000 people. So we were only predicting the cost associated with transportation facilities for 230,000 people. Now we're predicting nearly 330,000 more people from today and that is 43% more than we were previously trying to accommodate. The second thing is our 2021 study was based on current cost to build roads and it said it was going to be around $384 per person mile of capacity. Right now, based on the road prices that we're seeing in bids and and developer projects, it's around $54 per person mile of capacity. 30% increase in cost. So, bottom line from this is we're building more and it costs more to build it. The third component is our federal and local gas tax revenues. I mentioned this earlier, they're flat versus inflation and that means they lose their value over time. And then the last point on this slide is that our our TIFF funding percentages for transportation have been declining over the past four years, but that's because they were only meeting they're meeting the target amount of TIFF funding from our 2021 mobility fee study. So that that we we carried that out into the forecast and said we're going to continue on that same trajectory which frankly allows you to spend more of your general fund revenues on government services for the people who are moving here and expecting that quality of life that Pasco is providing.

Madam chair, there is also another element to this discussion and it's also the time element. So our population forecast to 2050 is front and loaded over the next 15 years. Our pace of development now is very brisk and we have a moderating trend in the 2040s. So as well as the financial gap, we also have a time gap because we have to bring forward a lot of road improvements in in in uh rec in in in the short order versus projecting them out to 2050. So we have those that challenge as well. Now we get into the the options and this is really trying to facilitate board discussion on these various fee components or the fees for associated land use and we wanted to talk primarily about the first option. We were going to talk about the retail office and industrial land uses just as a benchmark. We're showing you the predicted level of development over the next 25 years. 20 million square ft of retail, 27 million square ft of office, and nearly 40 million square ft of industrial is planned for based on our current land uses and Florida area ratios and estimates and whatnot planned to come to Pasco County. So, option one has a discussion about adjusting the retail incentive. If we were to maintain our current fee, which is $10,500 per square per thousand square foot, then we would be incentivizing that at a level of 79%. So that would be a 79% reduction in the fee that we can justify by the costs and growth of this population and need study. So, if we wanted to charge the full amount for retail development, then it would be closer to 50,000 square u $50,000 per thousand square ft. That's a significant increase above the existing rate, but that's the component of the retail u demand that is associated with our overall transportation need.

Madam Chair,

yeah,

stay that point for a second. So you you're telling me based upon these numbers here,

that's what the revenues are. But are you factoring in that if you do raise up these things from 50% to no no incentive at all that there's going to be reduced demand to actually build these things or you keeping demand constant?

So I'm I'm I'm going to go back to the I'm going to go back.

We don't know what the elasticity of demand is.

Demandility. So, um, we actually had a we actually had an economist look at this. I don't know if you remember this, Commissioner, we had an economist look at this. The only land uses where there might be some impact on demand from fees is office industrial.

Mhm. that we had Fishkind actually study this for our fees and he concluded that for residential retail um I'm not sure where he landed on hotel but for residential retail that it wasn't going to impact the rate of growth the fees were not going to impact the rate of growth office industrial it might because office industrial can locate anywhere so if they can pay lower fees in Hernando they're going to locate in Hernando Hernando

but residential retail is probably not going to affect their their rate of growth.

Well, I'm tell the effect would be maybe not in the big guys,

but the small mom.

Oh, so what d Nick what Nick did not mention is that we have a separate rate for locallyowned small business

which the board created in 2021

and those rates are I think 25% of these rates.

Okay. But they're not part of this

and David Engles team monitor uh they implement that program. But it's not it's not part of what the options are given to us here. They're just going to stay.

But you could assume that any

proposed to are they proposed to stay the same for the small mom and pop?

I think you can assume that yes, the locally owned small business rates would be 25% of whatever we continue those at 25% of whatever rates you come up with for retail.

Okay.

However, um new old businesses like a remodeled um already built businesses don't pay a new impact fee. So it would probably incentivize some redevelopment of the older stuff, right? At at what point? So if you buy an old gas station and you knock it down and turn it into a coffee shop or whatever, do they pay a new mobility fee

or do they

It depends potentially.

Only if they were it was a higher trip generator, they might, but generally no.

They they pay for the increase.

Yeah.

Yes. the increase in impact is what they're obligated to a percentage

and if they're in the west market area they don't pay

some redevelopment of some of our older stuff commissioner Jagger

if if they're in the west marketer I'm sorry to interrupt you

I just want to answer the question if they're in the west marketer they any any

redevelopment

any redevelopment does not pay an increase

I'm going to have to talk about Hudson Gro

thank you

okay so just curious for the um other counties, what what what do their fees look like for these businesses?

It's so I don't have that information at my fingertips.

Okay. I'd love to know.

It's a little It's a little complicated because retail is subdivided into a number of categories and we're using a very simplified approach to presenting this for order of magnitude purposes. Uh, but we can we can show you that content.

Okay. I just feel like, you know, we're the lucky ones that have the land and, you know, if we can get more fees out of them, that would be great. But I don't I don't want the small businesses to feel the brunt of that.

Well, and Madam Chair, I I think to David Engel's point and to David Goldstein's point, we intend to continue the small business ex the locallyowned small business system that the commission previously has put in place. So, we would not be putting a heavy burden on locallyowned small businesses to fund transportation infrastructure. We're really looking at the the the larger retailers that are moving into Pasco to support the residential growth and development.

So, how does that rule work? Just so we all know, but the local small businesses.

So, uh back in January 1st, 2022, the board uh adopted previously, but it went into effect a locallyowned small business incentive reduction program. So we the board directed us to reduce the fees which was approximately I believe about 50% of the retail pace as long as the business didn't have in excess of 25 employees and the owner uh live within the region multiple county region and it couldn't be a national change. So when small businesses come into building and construction services for their permitting they come to us we qualify them at the office of economic growth and they pay the reduced fee. Does the planning department or central permitting send them to you? I mean, how do they know to go to you? Because most small businesses aren't going to know that.

Well, we we the the individuals that process the building permit application to do the fee estimates, they they screen the applicant and they'll ask and then if if it looks like they could qualify, they send them over to us for a formal qualification.

Okay. And and candidly, Commissioner, uh, you know, back to Commissioner Mariano's question about the elasticity of the fees and the impact on demand, we can

we essentially believe that retail is going to follow rooftops. And that's what we put down here in the analysis that these national retailers are going to come and these even statewide retailers. I don't know, there's a company based out of Lakeland that tends to open a lot of store storefronts in in residential suburban development. They're going to come whether we like it or not. So that that is one of the reasons why I asked because I my my in-laws live in Pulk and I mean there's a ton of of large businesses coming there. So I want to make sure that like they're paying their fair share in Pasco County.

Sure. And the retail also follows the jobs. So we have two things that are drawing them in here.

Okay. Commissioner Wakeman.

Yes. So for the local the local business fees

with just the expense of the world insurance they're going up 10% a year on their tax bill. I would not be opposed to lowering their fee under that 25. I think we take a look at it and recalibrate it but I would like to find a way to to lower lower from the 25% just because of all the other outside factors of expense in starting a business today. uh and really give our local mom and pop shops, you know, let let it be known that they can be competitive here and they stand a chance because to market today versus what it was

two years ago is completely different.

And and Madam Chair, if I would

Yeah.

We you've done the heavy lift of establishing the criteria for locally owned small businesses. if you wanted to just allow the fee rates themselves to persist into this fee update in order to ensure that these locally owned small businesses are not harmed by the update. I don't think we would have any concern with that approach. that that's really it's not it's not a move the needle component to funding the shortfall and we'd love to be able to take that off the table

for us but for them

right and we want to make sure that these local companies are adequately protected insulated from any increase that is appropriate for the external retailers coming

increasing it

sure and I'm okay

to be to what it was two years ago or less right because the cost today is higher than what it was several years ago so I mean

so a parallel reduction in a percentage to match Yeah. Okay. Understood.

Okay.

Commission Mariana.

And I tell I don't even mind going further than that because, you know, if you travel around different areas around the country, you'll you'll see that some areas are just loaded with small mom and pops and it's kind of a neat place.

Yeah.

Uh I think it

So if if we're going to go and kind of look at that and make a shift,

I could good shift is for the mom and pops. And if we can even favor them a little bit more, I don't think it's going to cost us a lot of money. And when you get those mom and pops, I know from years growing up in a small town that the local businesses support everything around, you know, running several golf tours, etc., you try to go get money from the big guys. It's hard.

Yeah. Well, we pay in our we support in our corporate home office.

Exactly. But the small group,

they'll they'll throw in every time

all over the place. So I think it's worthy of looking and if we change the culture of Pasco a little bit going that way a little further that's not a bad message I don't think

sold me. Hey, I started one. So,

um,

okay.

Well, I guess assuming we're able to reduce the locallyowned small business, could we get some feedback on how you want us to handle retail the the ones that are not locally owned small business, the McDonald's, the the the the large scale retailers that we get. I mean,

95% of the retailers we get in Pasco are not locally owned small business. So, we still need to know how we're going to treat

Well, let's go through all the options,

okay? Mhm.

Because remember, we have a shortfall.

Okay.

Sure. And and again, we put three three scenarios on there. We said, "Hey, you can retain your current fee rates. You can increase to uh to half of what the allowable amount for this per this study would be, or you could go all the way to the maximum allowable amount, which would be the 49,000 per thousand square feet.

Wait. Um

so that's those are your three categories. Are we allowed to what are

so there is a

what does

so there is a there was a change to the state law

so this would be appropriate time to mention it

as of January 1st if you're going to increase any fee by more than 50% it requires you to declare extraordinary circumstances but most importantly it requires a unanimous vote of the board so for example for retail if you were going to increase the fee by say to more than

$5,000

more than $5,000 It's going to require a unanimous vote of the board. You can do it and it's got to be phased in over four years, which we probably do anyway, but the important thing is that all five of you would have to agree to it. So, if any of you have concerns with that, that'd be good for you to tell us that. Now,

really good to know. I just would love my question answered

to just to weigh in on on that for that decision.

How um so how do you want us to tackle this? Do you want us to are you going to go through all these different scenarios and then we go back to them or I mean what do you how much do you how much do you guys feel we need to make up?

Yeah. Thank you ma'am. Uh so Nick let me ask you a question here. So these various options, these are to address, for example, we we go half green, half red here on your on your picture, you know, and I don't know if that's, you know, by design or just, you know, if there's an actual number associated with that. Uh, does this assume that if you implemented option C across the board that we make up that shortfall? I'm trying to

to the boards to the boards.

That's that's right. Okay. So, we've we've essentially got a slide that talks about non-residential fees. We have a second slide that talks about residential fees. We have a third slide that talks about, well, what if we what if we choose to build less roadways? What if we calibrate our service levels and construct less? Then we've reduce our need. And then we have a fourth slide that says help us find the middle ground.

And so, and so, Commissioner, I think these these options, it's not an eitheror. This is and so Nick maybe it is appropriate to talk about how does the board feel about non-residential incentives at this time because your next slide is going to be looking at residential that's right incentives. So I think it's appropriate that we we kind of gauge the board's temperature on how do you feel about retail today you know how do we feel about office and industrial incentives and we can we can take that information back recognizing that you know just to even get to you know the the current incentive is you're subsidizing 80%

of of retail.

That's a big number.

We're not I have no doubt that this board is gonna figure out today how to 100% fund that.

I

100% that can will be kicked partially.

That can will be kicked. Well, because because one of one of Nick's other options, ma'am, is

too painful

is is to look at kind of accepting a certain level of congestion in certain areas, right? you have to do something

or a a step-wise approach which is probably where where we need to go. So you know the question for the board here is looking at non-residential incentives where do you want to dip your toe in the water so to speak you know is it at office and industrial incentives is it you know reducing that incentive currently to um uh to retail because these subsidies are made up primarily with your tiff and other things and those affect your general fund. And let me add to office industrial because that fee is currently zero to even raise it $1, we need a unanimous vote.

Okay.

Because of the way the state law works.

So if even one of you have a concern about raising a dollar, we we need to know that.

Uh Commissioner Mariana has a question and then Commissioner Wait.

So I'm going to say listen to everything I've heard, especially where we can actually take care of small business even a better way. I'm comfortable going with the no incentive for the retail. And I think it'll do two things. It'll retail's coming, it's coming. If not, it's gonna even strengthen the other retails revenues that are here anyway. Uh it'll should minimize traffic to some way. When it gets to the office and industrial, I don't want to change that because if I get someone building offices, it bring in jobs. If I get industrial, which we need, we are on a deficit. Um it'll that creates jobs as well. I would I would just point out commissioner that there's we're the only county in the region that fully incentivizes office and industrial

madam chair if I could

I I do I do want to respond to the comment on office

the only other piece of information I want and I I see commissioners want to weigh in too um

I want I want you to know that there are two other tools in the toolkit that we would suggest to you are very helpful in attracting employers employers to Pasco County. One is um using your penny for Pasco economic development revenues to buy down the cost of moving them here. The other is giving them property tax reimbursements to buy down the upfront cost of relocating or remaining in Pasco County. Those are both targeted tools that are that are available to you for specific deals that you deem valuable as opposed to a blanket exception for all office and industrial.

This was similar to the board discussion on the fire impact fee. We raised that on commercial. The concern commissioner you raised the same concern but again we we we laid that if you find a targeted industry the board always has the purview to incentivize through through various tools.

Yeah. So, you know, if we if we incentivize if if we paid for the mobility fee, we're in this discussion. Okay. So, if the what you're saying is if the county um paid for the mobility fees through the penny, but we got a structural building, we're still ahead, right?

Yeah.

So, I just I have a comment. So my comment is I I feel like we shouldn't be incentivizing because again we have the land and other counties they're not doing that and they're still coming. They're still building. We're just not getting the money for it. So and we have a huge deficit. So I mean if other counties they're coming getting the money, we should be getting our money, too. So, um, and I don't think it's going to slow down our growth because, again, we're the ones that have the space.

Well, the board could address it on a case-by case basis. If they're if they have a project that they're considering incentivizing, we you could wave the mobility impact fees as part of that package. If it's an attractive use, you want to

be clear, David, we don't wave them. We pay them from other

sour penny for Pasco, right?

Commissioner Wait,

thank you. Yeah. So Nick, you beat me to it. I was going to bring up the the fire impact fee scenario on how to negotiate to negotiate a deal. I re I I think the seemingly there's I think the the elephant in the room is around the residential development. I think we need to we need to understand how we want to structure and manage the residential development which is impacting everything around us more so than our retail, industrial, and commercial uses. So, I I'm I'm of the opinion of figuring out what we're going to do with residential first and then understand how we want to address the job creating opportunities that we have here with with some level of Commissioner Mariano's comments. Uh, and then you know with Nick talking about how we can negotiate on a case-by case basis, I'll probably fall somewhere in the middle of those those two scenarios. But I the elephant in the room is on on residential. I I don't think we can I think we need to address residential first and foremost before we tackle any of the of the job creating uh zonings and entitlements that we have here. If it pleases the board, we could have Nick move to that slide and we can have that discussion and then kind of back into the other things.

I I had one more. I I wanted to follow up on something David said though. Um David, on that new law you said what is the percentage of impact fees that requires

anything above 50%.

Okay. Does that readjust annually or is that in the last 5 years or

it's your 50% of your current fee?

Okay. So every year that's a new number. No, you you can only increase your fees every four years.

Oh, every four years.

You can't touch your

So, every four years you're allowed to increase your fees. So, it's 50% of your current fee.

And so, David, by by way of example, that 10,000 if we increased it by 50%, which is right, and the board made a finding and unanimously voted it' be 15,000, but then that $5,000 increase is phased in over a four-year period.

And then four years from now, that is now your new base fee. that you could increase by 50% in four years from now. That makes sense.

I want to just land tell you where I'm a little bit with Commissioner Joerger on um on the uh the incentives for non-residential.

Okay.

I would adjust it a little bit. Um

maybe not zero, but something low.

Yeah. I just have one comment. I feel like our citizens are screaming for infrastructure and and they want these businesses to pay their their share of it and um I think it's very important because if not the burden falls on them and that's not fair. So if in other places they're able to get full pop, we can too.

That's that's

but while maintaining your incentives for small business a small business. Absolutely. That's a completely different thing. And then if we do have this massive thing coming in, we can incentivize and put a deal together. That's that's where I'm at.

I I um Commissioner Yeah. Commissioner Mariano. And then it's going to be Commissioner.

Thank you. Well, you want to let Commissioner go because you haven't spoken yet.

Go ahead.

No, I don't expect that. you've talked too much or

you got the

but you know all the developments of the residential that are coming in uh are and we hear it every day in in the Gmails and emails that we get about infrastructure no way to move it. I mean, back, but also part of that is our roadways that are due to be widened like down south between 56 and 39 or 301. That's going to be widened. That'll help an issue we've had for quite a while, but it hasn't happened yet. So the waiting period is a long time for some of these things to happen for infrastructure, especially mobility around the county and around these different developments of people being able to move the right way to, you know, do their business and and actually u make it more pleasurable rather than being in bumperto-bumper traffic every time you turn around. So every I mentioned it earlier, every development that I'm looking at right now is going to cause that infrastructure of roadways to to have an issue and and it's not you know connected city came in when I first started which is about 12 I'm in my ninth year so about seven years ago it started but it's taken a long time from then to now to some of these roads getting widened like currently being widened to handle some of this traffic and the and the homes already here by the time you get mobility to improve the roads. So somehow we need to step up the improving of infrastructure a little quicker than what we're doing because we're lagging behind and because we're lagging behind we've got all these traffic issues and people screaming and hollering and accidents happening each and every day. So,

okay.

Something we need to do about mobility and

so am I hearing consensus from the board then to

Oh, sorry, sir.

I just said you still want to go.

Oh, I still want to go. All right. So,

okay.

Each one of these items going to be individual vote. Correct.

Pardon me.

Each one of these things it's got to be unanimous

to go over 50% increase to 50% go 40%.

Just to be just to be clear. especially as you consider residential are coming up to it. Um we still have most of our people commuting out of this county to go to work. That adds traffic, that adds time, it's quality of life. When we had John Hagen here with economic development, he was talking about different incentives. And I know we had state people saying, "Well, they're going to come here anyway, and it's not going to really make a difference." That's what I'll just say legislators were saying from Tallahassee. you know, we started to study shouldn't be doing that. But when I talked to talking to John in the podium, you know, you could be 25%, it's a good incentive. Looks good. Looks like you want business to come. I says, but how about as far as like people having to calculate what's coming in if they know the numbers zero from mobility fees? Don't you think it's going to strike it stronger? And he agreed with that. And I was very happy the board at the time voted to say no fees for office, no fees for industrial. And because it's going to take an unanimous vote to put us put you all of these coming up, I'm not going to support any change, any increase or any fees for the industrial or the office. So just keep that in mind as we're going to try to go forward.

But I don't think we are talking about a 50% increase.

I'm just talking I wanted zero.

Um and then listen, there is no office market. Then we got nothing. We're about losing revenue anyway. I mean, right?

Then you're not losing money.

There's no office market.

Then you're not losing revenue anyway. Very,

very little professional office.

I want the image out there that we're at zero for office and industry. That's what I wanted him that Bill Cronin and David to be able to sell. You're at zero. Uh, Commissioner Oakley,

I know in the last eight years we have had a lot of development, a lot of people moving in, a lot of new houses coming and they cause this issue on infrastructure. But at at the same time, every time you see us putting in a development, you also see us putting in jobs somewhere near that development. I mean, it's happening. Um, double branch is a big example of a lot of jobs coming in to a certain area. So, I mean, it's important to bring jobs and I think in most of them and in my tenure as being here, I've seen us bring in more and more jobs along with the development of residential. So, it it's been coming. I think the only way we're going to change and I'm concerned about the West Chapel and Fit Six area with the traffic on that road is if we have a leap frog frog issue where it moves from Fit Six and it's coming up to 52 for more restaurants and things of that nature and some of that new development we have up there that will actually move some of those people out of the Wesley Chapel that are actually coming from the north that won't overcrowd that. We'll stop there.

That's right. So that that in itself would help if we have development like that. So in the future. So

Madam Chair, um so there's a selectivity discussion we could have. I've had recent discussions with Bill Cronin and logistics, distribution, warehousing, hotels are not not heavy job generators, nor do they pay a lot of wage. Right.

So, we could charge them something

because we have no competition with any of the counties in the region on mobility impact fees.

Well, I'm in agreement with you. Um, I have a question for you. Do non nonprofits pay mobility fees?

Yes. Depending on, you know, what their use is and the purpose.

Okay. So, so

they don't play adorum taxes.

Okay.

Answers that question.

Yeah.

All right. Um, so where are we?

So I I guess what I'm hearing is on office and industrial. I mean, Commissioner Mariano has made his his point very very clear, but you know, Commissioner to some exceptions perhaps with the quality of industrial perhaps

change your mind on some things. That's what David Angel is is really referring to. Is that something you'd be you'd be open to exploring?

I want I want the image to be zero. I want that to be marketing to be zero office. If there's no office market, we're not losing a dime. If I got industrial coming in, I got jobs coming in that are right there. If I can keep people working here, I'm saving trips on everything else. You know, I'm creating an economy that looks to go that way.

It would be interesting to know if the amount of jobs we've created has less people driving south as a per capita number. you know, have we made an impact or does it just do they both just keep growing?

The more people move here, the same percentage is still driving south while a certain percent.

That's a great question because the irony is we're the job shed, the employment shed for Hillsboro and Clearwater. And the flip side is our jobs, our job shed is now Hernando and Manatee County.

Yeah. Commission,

I just could Oh, go ahead. I just want to point out one thing with the selectivity discussion. So, um, we have limited amount of light industrial land in this county. That's why we had a Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council study

and we we're over supplied now in warehouses. They take up our valuable land. So, uh, that's why I'm partial to the selectivity discussion because we are incentivizing zero to get advanced manufacturing and highpaying jobs in the county, not tilt up, uh, empty

warehouses.

Yeah, the warehouses with nobody in them

with three jobs. Yeah, I I am in agreement with you. I

Dave, if you can if you can come out warehouses, I'll be I'll be I'll listen to that. That makes sense, David. To to commission Mariano. So, anything over 49% requires unanimous vote.

Well, it's 51% or more.

Yeah.

Okay.

Over 50.

And it's my goal as your chair to leave here today with some numbers

to tighten it up so staff knows where we want to go from each commissioner so we can

so we're not doing this in a board meeting that kind of hash. So on if I can move to retail. So I'm I'm hearing I mean to raise it $1. Back to Commissioner Weightman's question that that is mathematically an increase and would require unanimous.

No, no, retail is different because

No, not retail. I'm sorry. On office industrial

office industrial even $1 increase requires unanimous vote.

Okay.

Oh, really?

Yes.

Why?

Because our fee is zero

currently. Holy cow.

So any addition under under under those laws. But I am hearing willingness to discuss warehouses. So we'll we'll take that under advisement and then come back to you on that one. As far as retail goes, uh is there an appetite? It appears to be an appetite of the board to increase increase that um and and as much as we want to talk numbers, you know, Nick, would our conversation on retail does that does that matter or does that gravely impact or materially impact what we do with retail? If the board were to say to go to no incentive on retail, does that does that impact what we do on residential? And you

I don't think so. Okay.

And I think what I heard from the board is let's ask the the large national retailers to pay their fees,

but let's not get way out of alignment with our neighbors.

Yeah. Because that that encourages redevelopment, which is a good thing for us.

So help our locals.

Yeah. Mom and pops.

So we'll run some comparison. we can put a scenario together that we think that I think will hit that target.

Yeah. Okay. I think we can get there.

Can you um when we're done with this exercise today, can you give us a little number on what we might have a percentage of the apple we might have bit out with our baby steps here?

Sure.

I was going to ask I was going to ask the same thing like if we you know if we all come to an agreement on a number how big of a chunk

Yeah. We need to know how well we've done.

Okay. Sure.

Okay. All right. So where are we now?

Option two.

And now we talk about the residential and we really just look at single family and multif family here. And I've heard the board already say multif family the intent and the direction was zero subsidy. Um and so if that

can I suggest we pause for a minute?

Sure.

I mean Commissioner Waitton's stepped away. So

Oh well,

did you pause when I stepped away?

No. Go ahead.

Residential. He's concerned about the residential. family man when he gets back.

But you're talking about multif family. So

I Yeah. So item two on this option is the multif family subsidies. And I I think I've heard the board say, "Hey, the previous policy was no subsidy for multif family." So maybe that one we have the direction we need unless there's board discussion that want that you want to have regarding multif family. But

well, not only that, but removing that subsidy is a less than 50% increase. It wouldn't even require unanimous vote. So,

so I think really the the focal point is what do you want to do with single family residential fees?

I think we need to do something.

And again, for the board's context, current rate for a suburban area is 9600 per home. Uh the maximum amount supported by this fee study is $18,200 per home. And then if we wanted to do just a 25% subsidy, that would put you at around the $13,600 per home. And coincidentally, that 136 falls within the 50% range.

Well, I think I'm at the 25%. B. Anyone else want to throw out a number? So that would push Nick that would push the um deposit you put on a new home that would run it from about 25,000 up.

It would add 4,000. So it put it about 29,000.

So where would that where would we be on that slide with the with the

because you said I think they said the high one was like 36 or 37,000.

If I jump

quickly back to that slide. That would put us

here.

So it would add it would add roughly 4,000 to the to the amount. And we're

and your blue line, Nick, would shift up closer to the 15,000 or just under that.

We Yep. And so it would be similar in magnitude. Mobility fees would be similar in magnitude to orange and still significantly lower than Oyola.

But uh nowhere on here is a public safety impact fee. Um

we don't have one yet. I know, but we we I thought we were contemplating one.

Correct.

Although and I I think I see uh like an Oyola is that very top on the fire rescue. I mean, does anyone any of those counties have

a public safety impact fee? Do we know?

It's not listed there.

I don't think any fire rescues.

I don't recall in my research. Okay. Um, I think I grouped them together for purposes of comparison into the fire rescue category. I can't recall whether some of those counties have distinct public safety fees. But if I if they have one, it would have been in the purple category. So maybe Ocyola, you know, that I I would have added it to the total, but I would have grouped it in fire rescue.

Fire rescue.

Yeah.

We'll find out. Okay. Okay.

But even that I would imagine when we start off that would be a low number, not 13,000 a home or something like we're talking.

How long have we had that fee? The 96 9600.

Let me do that.

Good question.

Is that 2021, Nick? Is that when we went to the 9,000?

Yeah, I think I remember something in the 20s.

Back in 2011, we started at 8,500.

Oh, okay. And then we we retained that fee for the first 10 years. It was flat. And then in 2021, the study was performed that said we should increase the residential fee. We increased it to 8,800. So only $300 per home,

right?

And then staged the overall increase to 9,600 over that four-year period. So in 22 it went up a little more. In 23 it went up. 24 it went up. 25 it went up because you adopted a four-year set of tables fees for each year

and ultimately finished at 96.

Any increase we do will have to be phased in over four years.

That's right. Yeah, I heard that. So, yeah. So, so what David said it's important to make that note. What we're asking you is what what fee rate would you like for year four as part of this study? Because we would have to implement it over four steps, four four one-year periods. So we would if if you pick say jumping back to the residential slide uh if you say 13,600 that would be the fee that we would charge in 2030 but in 2027 2028 2029 we would charge essentially 25% of the increase between existing and the final number.

Yep. Commission. So let's say we went to the full increase and let's say after two years we says you know what we're going to stick to that 136 number we're not going to raise the years three and four. Could we do that?

You mean yeah you mean after your two sort of repeal your increase?

Here's here's my thought. The phasing in and I've got a ton of homes especially in the Hudson area coming in that I can't get stuff done. I know you're trying to jump

I want to jump the phasing to increase the money right off the bat,

but I'm thinking I don't I I I wonder if we went to the full implementation so you get a bigger increase year one bigger year increase too and then we can make a decision if we choose to or could we is my question could we say after year two all right we're not going to increase it anymore

the legislation says it has to be divided by into four years. Is it equal parts?

Yes, it's four equal increases if that's your question.

Okay.

But I forgo years three and four.

It's four equal parts. It's four equal parts. You can't

front limited.

I can't reverse to go back.

Yeah. Let me let me pull out it again, but I'm pretty sure it's going to be four.

You know why? While Dave is looking that up, the interesting thing in that chart showing for where we from 2011 to today, we haven't collectively we haven't kept up with the pace of inflation since 2011. Correct.

Not to say that about the tree

cap, but I forgot to. So, I'm going to bring it up the next.

Yeah,

we're just

Maybe we still be behind on Nick, do we know what an inflation adjusted from 2011 number would have looked like?

No,

I should have asked you that in my briefing, but I I didn't think about it.

I'm just curious because that was sort of we could calculate it if you like.

We'll just take you can do two. You can do it in two increments.

You want me to do that? You can do it real quick. I mean, that's

do it now. But

Oh, okay.

If you did that, wouldn't that just cause a bunch of uh empty inventory?

No,

I can't speculate on that.

I'm just curious because if you're upping the fees like that,

I mean, I can tell you that the development community, we've historically done it in over over four years. I mean, we did the school increase over four years. We did the park. Well, no, the parks we did not. Um, but the last mobility increase we did over four years. Yeah. So, if you ask TVBA, they're going to tell you they'd prefer it to be overstaged over four years.

Like, I don't have a problem with a little bit of an increase, but I also like we're having an affordable housing crisis, too.

Well, the market so we've already So, let me be clear about that. We already had, if you remember, the board adopted

fee waiverss for affordable housing. So if it's affordable housing, Habitat for Humanity, etc., they get they pay nothing.

They pay no impact for you.

No, I just meant like our missing middle like that. That's what I'm saying.

Okay.

But that's that's what I'm I'm nervous about

because like you have a lot of projects coming in at Hudson and I think they're coming in at a good price point, aren't they?

Um they may be, but $4,000 is not going to affect them, won't you? I mean like a hospital they just raised this up because they know they need to do it

well and I think

that's pain traffic up this road

pennies

and they got toll roads everywhere because they didn't do what they're supposed to do. Matter of fact, we're at Hills at uh Tampa Bay Water yesterday. One of the commissioners there from Hillsboro was saying Pasco did a great job with their fees right off the bat and he wishes he had done the same. But literally when you get people stuck and you can go in that whole Hudson area, North and South Kitten Trail, Hudson Avenue, you go in the morning, it's jam-packed. You can't get anywhere.

Well,

when I get a thousand homes coming above and I, you don't have the money for the infrastructure to go fix the stuff in that area,

it's going to be disaster. I got

people at Ross Lane coming over the project and they're going to give me like $150,000 total of light I need. They're not talking about put a lane in. We need infrastructure to put in in here to minimize this. I mean, down at 54, you're stuck in traffic. Brutal.

Brutal.

I don't know.

It's just brutal. So, if we don't if we don't collect it now,

we're going to be stuck in traffic. And I think in the last four years, I bet your inflation rate is probably about 30%.

Maybe 40%. Okay. So, it's 30% right there. Just in the past four years, never mind what happened before. We We've got to catch up. We're We're falling behind on it. In the residential, it's going to keep coming.

Yeah. It's going to keep coming. There's there's studies out there. Well, I was reading I don't know how accurate is, but news report saying another 9% of New Yorkers are looking to leave flee the city, but I don't know what 9% equates to, but they're probably going to land in Texas and here in Florida and Tampa Bay.

11 million people.

So, I mean,

I'll give you one example. Down at Coral Gables, a friend of mine's got a condo down there. He said 20 condos are on the market. These things are going from like 800 to 1.1 million. Six of them sold in the past week and a half.

New Yorkers or New Yorkers. Excuse New Yorkers. It's definitely coming.

Well, and that comes back to the point as I think Nick made it earlier with Ocola County as an example. It does not seem to be a lot of elasticity with that. And I I would still maintain that, you know, our subsidies for affordable housing are already in place to to promote that. And then the remainder of your your housing inventory, it's market driven. And so the price of a house is a price of a house regardless of how much it costs to build or to invest in it. And I think I overheard Commissioner Weightman, you know, as as you advertise that over a 30-year mortgage. It's it's not a lot. And it again, it addresses your infrastructure your your infrastructure pieces. So I, you know, I mean, I'm I'm hearing some desire to to relook at that. Are there any particular I mean you see the full freight of this

is 18 is at 18,000. Now, I don't know what the inflationary costs have been since since 2021, but you know, we we have to look forward. This is these are numbers that are with us. Um,

I I tell you the piece of this that gives me the most heartburn. I've said it before when we've talked about impact fees.

It's not so much the folks that are moving here, it's the folks that have been here before COVID and lived here a long time and want to just

change their housing situation or they finally saved up to to build their their their dream home. And um it it hurts it hurts the local resident and it puts it out of reach for the folks that have that have been here and at no fault of their own this crazy market shift over the last six years. Um and those folks and I and I agree with them. They feel like they they've been punished and they're getting pushed out of their home. So, I don't know how to how to if there's a way like we're like we've discussed with oneoff cases with with negotiating with businesses or whatever, but if there's somebody who's lived here 10, 15, 20, 25 years before they were living in Pasco before Pasco was cool and they want to continue to live here, if there's a way to not club them over the head because of market changes, that that's I'm I'm very that's where my sensitivity is in my hesitation. It's not for all the new folks that that are moving here. It's for the folks that have been here a long time and want to stay here and upgrade or change their living situation. Can't afford it, so we're we're moving. And um that really is not a good thing to hear,

David.

Well, Mark, the market sets the price on housing. I get correct. And the if if

we they set the market on housing, we set the fee structure on what they pay for.

Fees are high, I mean the seller's going to get whatever they can get. So if there's any there's any impact on the fees, it's not the buyer, it's the seller that'll leave it because they have to if the fees generate a cost in excess to the value of the home, then to sell that home, they have to bring the price down.

Correct. But you're you're not going to pay a mobility fee on a on a existing house. It's only if you build a new house.

It's on a new home.

Yeah. But if you sell your old home, again, I think David's kind of saying it the market is efficient and it kind of comes out in the wash a little bit. Although, if you go and you directly going to want to go build a custom home, you're stroking that check. And I I I understand what you're what you're talking about. I mean, I moved within the county and I paid impact fees again, you know, on on new construction. I bought from a builder. But I think really the scenario you're talking about is that that true

I'm talking about the minor real type living.

We could have an incentive just like we have with small locally owned small businesses. If you're if you're building your own home if you're a resident or a future resident then you could have an adjustment.

That would be a good idea.

I'm talking but you'd have to put like you have to live in that house for 5 years or something. You can't repeat.

Well, if it's the if it's the board's desire to explore that, we can we can run some

traps for

the more rural way of life on acre or more, five acres or more a true homestead, right? Not not living in a in a in a CD.

Well, ah,

let's chair.

Yeah.

So, think think about this though. You know, just graduated college, going to start your family, you grew up in Pasco. We want those people to stay here. If there's an incentive way that we can keep someone who's a res resident, you know, grew up here, etc., buying their first home. If there's some type of incentive for a resident to get some type of assistance for that, I'm good with that because I want the young people, the bright stars to stay here.

Yeah.

Right. That's what you want.

I know we do have that, but I think it's it's for it's income based.

Yeah. It's just like, excuse me, chair.

Probably new graduates going to be 12. It's just like um here in Pasco County, 40% of our employees need affordable housing and probably 40% of our citizens in the county need need those same kind of housing. And that's what we're talking about is helping them be able to go in a home and have their first home. And they've lived here their entire life. They they I'm sure they expected over the years they were going to build their own home away from their parents. But you find a lot of them are living with their parents because they can't afford.

That's right, Commissioner. And the average age of a new home buyer is now 40 years old and 10 years ago was 32 years old.

Yeah, that's the change.

Yes, sir.

But to Commissioner Raymond's point, it's the people who, let's say, bought a home and want to upgrade. No,

I I agree with that.

The family's grown or whatever.

Yep.

They're getting hung.

Yeah. I don't know what the answer is there, but I just

Yeah, because we're supposed to be finding money, not taking away money from the road construction here.

So, great.

Well, that kind of takes me to the next option, which is

Okay, Commissioner.

So, so David, what could we do for people that have lived here, whether they're a family that's growing or a first-time buyer that's lived here? What type of incentives could we do for those folks there to separate? Because the people coming from New York, let them pay full price. Well, I think

but if we're gonna if we're going to get someone that's lived here and grown up or a family that's grown and wants to make an investment, how do we how do we help them?

I mean, Commissioner, I guess what what what I think the point David was trying to make is if David upgrades his home and moves with his family, but he sells it to someone from New York for, you know, double what he paid for it. It kind of comes out comes out in the wash with with the with with the economics of the situation.

You know, Commissioner Weightman, I No, I I know. But but uh what I'm trying to key in on is is is what the the rural discussion was very very specifically to a very specific set of set of circumstances. So it's really kind of up to the board.

I'm not sure because if you don't make those one type of lifestyle over another either that makes me uncomfortable.

What do you think the affordable housing is?

Um

it's income based if you wanted to move up.

We're getting off topic here but I mean

you want to move up to a bigger house but you only get a subsidy if you're out in the country where it costs more to deliver services. It's like a double whammy to everybody else. Um, let me

I would just like some time to think through it with with the team recognizing that the

What is our first-time home buyer program and who funds that?

Don't we have

Yeah, that's run out of community development, I believe.

And also the federal government provides a subsidy for first time home buyers.

Okay. So, we do there is something maybe one day if we have

extra pot of money we can add to that maybe.

That's right. You don't have to focus on the mobility impact fee. focus on the user and what

we can see if we want to help that

because I agree with you. We want them to be able to stay here.

Okay.

But maybe that's not part of this discussion. But we find

Madam Chair, maybe I'll make a last remark on this. I love the discussion that you're having. By the way, um to answer Mike's question, if we had started with our 86 or whatever it was, 80 8650 in 2011 and we had ramped that up$8570 in 2011 and we had adjusted that for a consumer price index based inflation, not a producer price, but consumer price, it would put you right around 13,000

today. Oh boy.

That's what we ought to be charging today just to keep up with inflation on the consumer side. produ producer price index inflation has been a little higher recently. That's why we told you our justified need is so great because it costs more to build roadways today than it used to. Um that that 13,000 level would also fall within the 50% threshold and it would also maintain a healthy balance between the single family rate and the multif family rate as far as their transportation impacts and their relative fees go. you keep the single family a little higher than multif family because they generate more traffic his historically from a data statistics perspective. All food for thought. I think we've got very good feedback. Um

I I want to try and give you numbers here today before we leave.

So a 25% increase on single family would bring you up to parody with inflation.

Correct.

Then that's the minimum we

and and that's the number you will reach within two years up to four years. these four years.

Well, they can either do it in two two year in two two year increments or four.

So, my my suggestion would be is if we're going to maintain parody is that we sort of predict out where we ought to be in two to four years and and and target that. But if we want to go higher, that's still below what your need is. I mean, clearly it's better than where we are. Um, but it does not fully fund where we where we put the need and what the true impact is.

Okay. I'm going to quiz my fellow commissioners here. Commissioner Oakley, where are you on that number?

If we do it the way you're talking about where we should be now,

it's 20 25% is

we're still going to be behind in two to four years. Yes, sir.

You know.

Okay. So, what what number are you comfortable with there?

Think about it. If you

Well, I'm I'm good with the 13,000. So,

Well, that's then that's just par in two years. We'll still be behind in two years then.

We're always going to be par. You're always going to be behind because you lag behind.

Okay. So, you like the 25%.

Commissioner Waitman.

I'm not ready to make a decision right now.

Right. Commissioner Mar,

this is a lot to

It is. Yeah.

So, at a at a minimum the 25% and if I'm going to do that, I want that number in two years rather than four years. I

I am for doing it within the if whatever we land on doing it within the two-year time frame, I'll commit to that.

Commissioner Joerger,

I will too.

That's three.

I'm willing to commit. 25% but would also look at you know what the what if we're going to be behind you know maybe bumping it up a little bit.

Okay.

Yeah. I think that um

somewhere between 25%

I think that I would be with go a little more

just you know a 50% increase would be 14,469.

Let's go 1416. I would

give someone an out.

So, what's a 20% sub?

I don't know. I only calculated the 50% increase because I know that's what requires the unanimous vote.

We're going to do a six.

Yeah.

Okay. Well, we're at least at 25 within two years, maybe more.

Okay. 50%.

All right. More people.

Multif family.

All the way.

What did you say,

guys? Where are multif family? We're multif family.

I'm here. I

mult families go all the way to

right to the max.

Yeah,

but they require out of just public safety alone.

Yep.

Can we move them up in two years? Well, that's the family.

You can only increase your fees every four years.

So, we're stuck for two more years.

We can max them out. You can max them out and but you can you can do it in a

actually this one you're you're not increasing by more than 50%. So you could do it all now.

Oh do it all.

Okay.

All right. So you got everyone in agreement on that one? Okay.

Yep.

Woohoo. All right.

Okay. So calibrate service levels

in a century. This is this is your opportunity to say that we we need a lot more roads than we can afford and let's just reduce the number of roads that we're committing to build.

14 question.

I don't like that.

I understand the new program we're doing roads Brford and his team worked out for us all. Uh really has worked out very well. Even to the point that I get calls people if they're not on those lists that they can see.

They said our roads been bad like this for 25 or 30 years it should already be done. So there is a need for more money to go toward roads that we've because of peas lag behind

the fees and to catch it up you've got to get a little more money in to do and we've done a great job in using the money we have to repair a lot of new roads. So thank you. But this is this is building new roads.

That's right.

That's what we're talking about.

This is constructing and widening. This is not repaving.

This is not repaving points on here, Nick.

Thank you.

Put your hand up for all of them.

You need them all.

Reduce urban spending areas by 50%. So you're saying don't No, that's not an option to I mean there's those two are right there in on the 54 corridor. That's a parking lot. So, um um two reduced suburban areas,

build first two lanes of new roadways.

Vision roads increases.

It comes down to you need to put those vision roads in because that's your connection going different directions to move people around rather than the same roads that we have today. So that would help the network.

That's right.

Spreading the traffic out

and and for legal access purposes, if you want to allow development, you have to provide minimal infrastructure to support it. So the first two lanes provide legal access to the lots that we would allow to be subdivided and sold off.

Then then you would deal with the complaints from the residents because they have moved into an area where there are four lanes of demand and only two lanes of capacity.

Exactly. So, how much money did we get you here today? And how does that affect option three?

Can we tweak those numbers?

Well, and I think the short answer is probably closer to half of the shortfall is what you were able to generate with the fee discussion that occurred on the first two options. So then you could say reduce urban area spending by 25%, reduce suburban by 13% or does it not work out that way?

And ultimately without getting too into the details, we we can we can make those adjustments and say let's make smaller reductions in in the in the investment level. This really the the slide four or the option four is the hybrid where we say look the discussion that's occurred this morning regarding some level of fee increases now is very appropriate. Any corresponding shortfall would be equivalent to a reduction in service levels but honestly it would also be a mandate to your county staff to figure out how to be more efficient, nimble, fast in delivering the infrastructure. I mean, I'm hearing we we've got a timing issue. We we've got to figure out how to accelerate delivery of projects. If we can frontload and accelerate, then we might also prot insulate ourselves from some of the inflationary impacts of production costs. So we build stuff quicker by either partnering frontloading um we we had talked about person

and I'm gonna say this with trepidation bonding um the infrastructure costs against some of the tiff revenues that would be uh that would come online later so that we can accelerate delivery of some of these projects and then ultimately we we have to uh and partnering with the department I mentioned um to commissioner Waitman we are partnering with them on the resurfacing of 56 to add the turn lanes at me point uh to relieve that bottleneck intersection. Th those opportunities when you've got a developer out there building something, when you've got DOT out there building something, if we can tag on to them and deliver a project more quickly, it buys down cost and it accelerates implementation, it it makes the world move a little bit faster.

I agree. And when we go for appropriations, it should be only for collector arterial roads, vision roads, not

and that's item 2C on this slide is we would also look to fill the funding gap with external revenues, grants and appropriations specifically. Uh and then we're we're committed to collecting additional transportation data so that we can define our needs, focus our investments, and and deal with, you know, you get to do this again in four years. So, we would deal with a a funding gap as we go forward in future mobility fee updates.

So, Nick, what I'm hearing you say is um you know, short of being able to actually do a a calculation that we've made significant progress towards addressing that gap, maybe the right answer is is let's let's take a look at what those actually do and implement some of these uh some of these suggestions. I like the ideas of of partnering with with the development community and as well as being nimble and and more quicker at uh at quicker at at pulling pulling things in and then come back and you know weigh where we've been. All right.

I think

I think that'd be good uh to you to have some kind of meeting at a high level once you come back. Meet with each commissioner prior to the prior to a workshop like this and then you'll have your questions that you want to ask that

that'll make this meeting go better and quicker to

Yes, sir.

Yeah. No, Chad.

Yep.

So, I think the dialogue's been good. Um I think it'd be good to engage the TVBA. Yes, sir.

In years past, they've been supportive of us getting our infrastructure in place. So, I think if we can get their support, even if it's the higher numbers, they may say, you know what, we need to have the roads in place. Otherwise, you're going to gridlock. No one's going to come here anyway and only turn this place into Miami. Um, if they get supportive to it, maybe it may make it easier for uh the rest of us to look at it because if the market goes to say we want to see you put the infrastructure in place, maybe they will too.

Understood.

Yeah. Um, something that we have not talked about here today is the regional MPO. Um, and also microtransit. So, you know, I don't know where we are with our microtransit study. Um, but, uh, Seol County is going 100% microtransit in their county. Uh, we learned that at the, um, Metro Plan Orlando u meeting. And um um but we're going to have a respons somewhat of a responsibility when we do the regional no to put some of our federal money into a a pie of some sort.

Kansas City did the same thing. They're almost all microtransit now.

And also um Arlington, Texas is doing the same thing.

Yeah, we're we're the largest MSA that hasn't done anything like this. So, but and you know we when we had Tarta we had a plan for BRT on State Road 56 and and 56 54 going down along 275. Um I think there's a chance that project could come back. Um we're also talking with Penllis County about BRT on 19th.

Okay.

Um so you know we're talking transportation here. I don't know if if our MPO folks are here. Look out, see who's but we should be including them when we talk about transportation in the county because that the federal monies really come to them, right?

Federal transit dollars go to the transit operator.

Yeah.

Not not to the MBF.

Okay. Well, yeah, we just need to include those discussions here.

Yeah.

Okay. I just want to say Nick, you did a great job today. Thank you.

Yeah,

I love the tool. Thank you for Thank you for spending so much time on it. It's It's my favorite topic.

I appreciate it.

It's a toughy. I mean, this these it affects everybody.

You know, more and more I see people going to work on on on electric bikes, which is good and bad

because sometimes they're going to work too fast on our

trails on electric.

Yeah. So um

madam chair our last slide is just the timeline for adoption and we are essentially the the keys for you as a commission we are going to get the feedback from private uh industry the development industry stakeholders uh we're going to go through the planning commission and the horizontal round table and then we're going to come back to you our target is March and April for a first reading for the ordinance amendment and then an adoption in April. Uh, I hear Commissioner Oakley. We will do the one-on-one briefings to make sure that we have addressed the targets and uh have a reasonable approach to you. I I don't think we were planning a second board workshop. Um,

I think we got far enough.

I think we'll be okay without

we can do it in an ones will take care of that. Sorry,

I I do want to mention as far as the effective date, we have an ordinance coming to you in December to maintain our 2025 fees until they are modified by this process. So, they will extend into 2026. Um, right now the effective date of updated fee amounts because of the time it takes to bring back the ordinance for adoption and the time it takes to then program those fees into our backend uh financial accounting system with respect to Asella and and making sure that it plugs into all of the funds appropriately. Our effective date is targeted January 1 of 27. So, we're just acknowledging to you right now the 2025 fees will continue throughout calendar year 2026 until the new rates are established and become effective January of 2017.

That question just because I was wondering if we're grandfathering in

so my thought would be I would like to speed this process up. I mean literally we're missing out on revenues we need for impacts we need for shortfalls we guess. What could we do to speed this process up? Especially with an industry stakeholder. I bet you they meet with you tomorrow.

Look. Well, you can see February to April. There's

March is missing.

I mean, I I think timing because we can if we if we have this ready today, we could start implementing. Correct.

Mike said

the part you could definitely speed up and Nick, I'm not sure why. I'm not sure you could speed up the adoption process too much more,

but I don't know why you have to wait till January of 2027 to start implementing if you're adopting. And

so, Commission, I've I've I've spoken with with the team and with David about that. You know, we that the programming and there was some there were some questions that we had that perhaps could be done parallel if we if we know the numbers and and increase that. So there's there's probably um some float in this schedule that uh we will attempt to implement as expeditiously as possible. Um David, do we have to set when when the board passes the ordinance, it it sets the effective date.

So

if you want to delay it, you need to delay you need to specify that.

I mean, you do have to have 90 days. You have to notice any increase 90 days advance of the increase. That's got

that's the law required.

So if we stayed on if we stayed on that on that track then July of 26 would be the soonest then that they that they could be implemented. So uh David Allen and I have we'll be having some discussions on implementation piece of that. There there are some complications because of how the zones and there's calculations and things with how building department implements these things that challenges that need to be addressed. But um I I share your I share your zeal for wanting to get these implemented as soon as possible.

When I look at number two, you got December and January including the horizontal round table and the ordinance development team. I think you should do a workshop kind of like this with them. Put everybody in the room, talk it through. You you've got our comments to talk about

and then you can even I think you'd be able to shorten your recommendations up. I think we've kind of given you some decent direction, but uh if there was support to go stronger, we'd like to hear that from them. But I think if you can move that into December, I got to think

December is like next week.

That's right.

Two weeks.

This is this is important enough.

I got to think it's important enough people get rolling. So all right. So even for the first part of January.

Yeah.

But then as far as planning commission planning commission of BCC,

I think your adoption timeline is probably pretty realistic.

Well, let me ask let me ask you why the planning commission's on there. And I and I say that they're a planning group. Um

they're still your local planning agency. They have to make a recommendation.

No. Okay.

On on the

I'm just saying they're not in the financial parts of it. They're they're looking at things with

the fastest I've ever seen him roll over on anything.

It's a good group. But again,

that if it could be moved up to just again, if we can condense it, the quicker we can turn this, the quicker we can deal with these shortfalls we get.

Okay. I think we'll we'll we'll take that.

We take a look at the at shortening it up as much as possible. Okay, then I think we are done.

Yeah, thank you.

Good job everybody.

Thank you very much. Good.