Pasco County meeting record

On a calendar

Feb 25, 2025 → Mar 11, 2025 · click a mark to jump to that appearance

Every appearance1 of 2 are in a recording

TranscriptWhat was said at each appearance is below it. Machine transcription, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 78% of 366 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong. 1 of the 2 appearances are not in any recording, so what was said at those is not here.

1Feb 25, 2025
Board of County CommissionersR29Regular businessNo disposition in the minutes
Open this item →No recording
2Mar 11, 2025
Board of County CommissionersR33Regular businessApproved
Approved minutes
Approved to appoint Dr. Christian Sobky to the Emergency Medical Services Advisory Board.
Open this item →
1h 9m
StarkeyChair
Okay, so R thirty three. I didn't see him here so it's wonderful.
WeightmanSecond Vice Chair
The gang is all here.
StarkeyChair
She just left.
Unidentified speakerVoice A
I'm right.
All right. So Amy Farrell, Budget Director with Pasco County Office of Management and Budget. So today's presentation is both a follow-up and then a completion of the January 28th board meeting where we started talking budget and strategic direction. The board had asked us to come back and also do a deeper dive into municipal services taxing units. Talking about kind of how they work, pros and cons. And then some topics that we ran
out of time covering in the January meeting.
StarkeyChair
We we have a handout board members somewhere.
Unidentified speakerVoice A
Yeah. Yep, so you should have the presentation in front of you.
StarkeyChair
Do I have two? Maybe I kept some ones. Oh no, this is from last last week. Is it the same as last week? Okay. I have an extra one.
MarianoVice Chair
I never.
StarkeyChair
Uh is there one from Commissioner Mariano? Yeah, he can have this when we got
WeightmanSecond Vice Chair
the screen.
StarkeyChair
I can I can read a screen screen.
Unidentified speakerVoice A
All right, so the agenda today is laser focused on municipal services taxing units and our long-term capital planning.
All right, so just some general information around what I will continue to refer to as MSTUs rather than saying the full four words. So the intent is to fund municipal-like services and or essential facilities. It does require an ordinance to be established and trim notices and tax bills updated by July 1st so we can stay compliant with our trim process. If we have a current ordinance that we'd like to revise, the target date to do that would be by May, so we can make sure that we can include it in this year's trim
process. Um it does take five votes to establish a millage rate and typically um four votes to maintain. And if the cities were to be included and to contribute, they must adopt an ordinance to do so by that same um July 1st deadline.
Do we have any questions about kind of what I call the the rules of the road, so to speak?
StarkeyChair
When you say um I have a question.
Unidentified speakerVoice A
Yes.
StarkeyChair
When you say to maintain Is is there a vote on an MSTU every year?
Unidentified speakerVoice A
So for the millage. Yep.
StarkeyChair
And so it's five to create it, four to move it up or down?
Unidentified speakerVoice A
It's typically four just to maintain what that to maintain status quo and it has to do a lot with um the different criteria in how you calculate rolled back rate from the prior year and then what level of votes is required to generate a certain amount of revenue.
Unidentified speakerVoice B
So it follows similar rules to your general village in terms of rollback rate.
Unidentified speakerVoice A
All right. Any other questions before we move on? Alright, and we can always come back. All right, so um pros and cons. To be honest, I think pros and cons might be a little bit too strong of words because there might be some perspective that would say something in the con column should be moved to the pros column because it really is about perspective. Um but we did just try to divvy them out in a way that maybe makes some kind of sense. So when you have an MSTU, there is non-competitive
funding, meaning whoever is in receiving that tax revenue, i you're only competing amongst others who might be in that tax revenue. So for instance, our FIRE MSTU Our FIRE's the only one in there, so all of that tax revenue does go to FIRE, so it's less competitive in that sense. There's a lot of transparency on the trim notice because there is a very specific this millage that will equate to this much tax provides this level of service. So that is kind
of a one-for-one which we don't necessarily have in our general fund because there's a lot of services being provided with that one taxing source. to increase the tax, that particular business unit would make the case for that increase, not necessarily the board.
And ensuring that you're not paying for duplicative services. So we'll use law enforcement as an example. If that were in an MSTU, it would be carved out. Cities only the cities that aren't providing that service or opt into that service would be contributing rather than potentially a global contribution in the general fund millage where there might also be some county or city services that are the same or similar. All right, so we'll move on to the con side.
So cities do not inherently contribute, meaning they would have to opt in. The
What was that? That last bullet on this slide, the cities would have to adopt an ordinance to opt in for that municipal service taxing unit. Um if they don't Adopt an ordinance, it could lead to increased costs for cities. Administrative work. There is additional administrative work when you have an MSTU on the board side. For a property appraiser, our tax collector, whenever there's an additional levy, there's just going to be administrative
work associated with it. And the board does pay the cost of those trim notices. So if it were to, for example, generate an additional piece of paper in that trim notice, the board would pay those costs.
And then when we use an offset millage methodology where we reduce the general fund to increase an MSTU millage, there is a compounding revenue loss to the general fund, but there would also be potential for a compounding revenue increase to that business unit you were to slide over to an MSTU. And we have an example so you can kind of see how that shakes out. It's a lot of information. Do we have any questions before I move on to the next slide?
All right, so we have two examples here for you. We have one example of a parks MSTU assuming that the cities do opt in and contribute, and then we have a second example assuming that the cities would not opt in and contribute, just so we can see how that math works. It is important to notice that our current state in the general fund, we are not providing eight million dollars of program revenue to parks capital maintenance. So this would be new monies.
We do have $100 million dedicated for parks, but those are for projects at $50,000 or less that they can complete within one year. One million. What did I say? Huh, that's not what I meant.
StarkeyChair
Whoa,
Unidentified speakerVoice A
Here we go.
Alright, so So the actual millage number don't necessarily get tied to what that necessary that millage number looks like right now because, as you all know, in June we get preliminary taxable assessed value from the property appraiser. In July we get final taxable assessed values. So that number subject to change based off what those taxable assessed values are. It's really that third column where it says program revenue. that you would want to be paying attention to and then the last column
where it says new revenue or growth to parks over five years. So we'll talk about about that one in more detail. So let's use the Middle example of operations where we're looking at what millage would we need to generate roughly $23.7 million, which is PARC's current operating budget, if we were to just take that operating budget out of the general fund and move it to an MSTU. So, using the same growth assumptions that we use for our existing fire
MSTU, we've looked at assume a flat line budget of $23.7 million for five years. And then using our growth assumptions in the MSTU, we've looked at what is that delta from $23.7 million and what we anticipate additional revenue to be. Over five years, that program would grow by twenty-eight point nine million.
So that's that explains that compounding Revenue increase in the MSTU and then that would be an I
StarkeyChair
or two?
Unidentified speakerVoice A
You said it
StarkeyChair
increases by twenty-eight million. Do you mean it creases to twenty eight million?
Unidentified speakerVoice A
No, but that's how much additional revenue over a five year period the if you never change the millage rate would get generated in that MSU above and beyond the twenty three point seven million dollar operating budget.
Mike Carballa
So what's happening is the parks budget being separate into the MSTU would organically grow by 28.9 million if the board did nothing else. So the board could either modulate that millage, right, to control the growth of the parks budget. Right now, that growth occurs in your general fund and then it is used to fund. other things. So if you move it to that MSTU, it's not available there, but it is available here. And I think that was the the last item that Amy was trying to hit on, that compounding
effect. I hope that makes sense.
Unidentified speakerVoice A
Right. So the compounding effect is the
Mike Carballa
park's budget does not I'm sorry, I mean the park's budget right now uh it it it maintains a pretty pretty flat growing in the general fund. So when when departments come forward and they they have budget requests and proposals, they're competing within the general fund for those dollars. So uh you know the parks budget would not increase much more over twenty three point seven million normally. only. But if it was in an MSTU and that MSTU was allowed to grow, that revenue would be isolated and kept in in parks or
the board could decide to reduce millage or do something else with it. Right now it grows within the general fund and then it is used to cover other things like corrections, uh you know, uh libraries, there could be other public safety, the sheriff's budget, etc., where those dollars are currently allocated. But
StarkeyChair
You saying that In five years our general revenue fund will more than double.
Mike Carballa
No, what she's saying here is Well
StarkeyChair
that's what she's saying there, that that in five years if the operations is twenty three point seven million
Mike Carballa
Yes, the parks budget could theoretically double, of course.
Your general revenue fund would not. Well why would that and Because that's not in your general fund anymore. You've taken it out. The assumption here that that what she's showing is is that we reduce it's been mentioned here before that pull parks operations and poll parks maintenance into their own separate MSTU. The example that she's showing is is if we took parks budget, which is currently 23.7 million, and we removed it from the general fund. That represents 0.4715 mills. So you establish an MSTU at that. Now
parks budget is set at 23.7. You make a commensurate reduction in the general millage, which lowers you from 747 right now, which is about where we're at, to 695. Okay, and so now your general your general has been cut. Your parks is running, so the dollars that would have grown in your general fund are not growing there anymore. They're gonna grow in your parks.
StarkeyChair
I just thought it grew to twenty eight. I didn't know it was an additional.
Mike Carballa
It actually would be a lar it would be a larger number in your general fund because you have a larger base and a larger millage. And again, those dollars would not be available in the general fund because Normally we we would not grow the park's budget at that rate.
StarkeyChair
Right. And and nor should we. Yeah. Okay.
Unidentified speakerVoice A
Right. And so to to Mike's point, it's important to to understand that the what we're bringing before you in terms of examples are assuming a net neutral impact to the taxpayer, right? So they would be paying the same taxes, it's just a little bit less for our general fund and then Taxes for the parks MSCU. So we did run these scenarios assuming net neutral impact to the taxpayer.
Yeager
So I just have a question. So this is just to operate the parks, right? That's not just
and that's not making any improvement. improvements or anything like that. Just operate.
Unidentified speakerVoice A
Correct. Just their ability to grow their program based off of taxable assessed value growth and then how the board decides to set that millage on an annual basis. The third scenario would assume that we're looking at building their operations budget plus eight million dollars of capital maintenance in there as well.
Which is not how they're currently funded this year.
WeightmanSecond Vice Chair
Amy for clarity, that's combining with the MSTU that the board last year coupled with into this new example, correct?
Unidentified speakerVoice A
Right. So so let's say the board wanted to opt into something like that third one, it would require an amendment to the current ordinance, which we would have to put that into action by around May. That way we can hit our trim trim requirements and deadlines for this year.
StarkeyChair
Um Are you wanting us to discuss this now?
Unidentified speakerVoice A
Well, so I just want to show one I would like us to discuss it, but I do want to show one more example. So this is um assuming that the cities raise their hand and says yes, we want we want to opt in, and they adopt their ordinance in order to do so. We do have a second example. If the cities did not raise their hand, opt in, adopt an ordinance and say they want to participate. Um it does look a little bit different. This one would have an impact to our homeowners. Um worst case scenario
uh a little over seven dollars annually based off a hundred and fifty thousand dollar taxable assessed value. So scalable based off taxable assessed value. Zach?
WeightmanSecond Vice Chair
Amy? So 'Cause they know what they think. So the municipalities, correct me if I'm wrong, after discussing this, and thank you all for using this as an example. This is exciting stuff for me. Uh the municipalities share into our park system is what, a million bucks collectively?
Unidentified speakerVoice A
For
WeightmanSecond Vice Chair
for within the parks system what we consider. Say say this goes through and we're not collecting to Commissioner Mariano's concern, is this the municipalities aren't paying in. What are we not collecting from them? Roughly a million bucks total? What's the what's the sum total of it? It's a de minimis amount.
StarkeyChair
We don't have because
WeightmanSecond Vice Chair
So my point is
StarkeyChair
I don't think
WeightmanSecond Vice Chair
we have that with me, but I can
Unidentified speakerVoice A
get it.
WeightmanSecond Vice Chair
might be able to get more out of our city partners to help. towards the fields and not right now they're contributing basically nothing. But they're using it and wear it out of the field so the current current formula doesn't doesn't work. Anyway, that's for discussion point, so anyway,
StarkeyChair
thank you.
WeightmanSecond Vice Chair
Thank you.
StarkeyChair
Um I do have a question on that too. Um so Uh we took over the baseball fields for the city of New Port Richey. Keith, you may need to stand up here, I don't know. Um we took over the baseball fields I think for the city of Newport Ritchie. Um, I can't think of any sports fields that the City of New Port Richey main operates and maintains, just off the top of my head. Um Are there any?
Keith
Uh no.
StarkeyChair
And um Dade City?
Keith
There's there's yeah, there's a handful uh in the city of Dade City.
StarkeyChair
Is Burks maintained by the city or by
Keith
the county?
StarkeyChair
Okay. Is there a soccer complex maintained by the
Keith
I wouldn't call it a complex, but there's some single field sprinkled within the city limits. That
StarkeyChair
doesn't count. And Zephyrhills, do they have any other people?
Keith
They also have a handful of fields as well.
StarkeyChair
So um
But to me there's two ways to go around this. Uh one Our cities are not that big. Um, so it's not a big issue to me, but It would be nice if they participated if we go to this. The other way around it is if you live in the city and you're on a county field, they could pay a fee. Do you use it? um depending on your your home address if we if that was an issue to a commissioner. Um But you know, m
and or maybe we say uh cities of a certain size Uh not I mean San Antonio, Saint Leo. Well how many people live in San Antonio?
Yeager
The only thing I have to add is living in this city I pay f of New Port Riusand Worth their chances to live in the city. I feel like they should contribute. Um I want our tax dollars going somewhere.
StarkeyChair
so um
Okay, so then um Do we want to look at J just taking I think what we talked about earlier was the maintenance being in an MSTU or do we want to discuss the whole Caboodle going in.
WeightmanSecond Vice Chair
The maintenance MSTU is what made it all the way to being all the way across seeing the ordinance is in place. This would combine the maintenance piece that we made it to the end of the budget cycle but didn't fund and then the remaining pieces of the parks budget. And this is what I was advocating for last year. Within this, obviously you see the compounding growth, which gives the board an opportunity to manage that growth
and just if it don't like the growth, reduce the reduce the taxes and grow with it. And then Keith's department can can do what they they need to do, and they're not being their funds not being being rated. I'm for, and I'm going to continue, I'm for an all-encompassing parks MSTU based on, I think, the fantastic presentation that A.B. Steam put together, but why I think it's important that we go through the exercise and look. At the park budget through this
example. Um, and then obviously Keith Keith, I'm gonna speak for Keith, but I think Keith has probably had some conversations with the municipalities, and he may have a solution which may alleviate some of Commissioner Oriano's concerns. But again, I think this is a very healthy and fantastic discussion, and I'm very glad that we're we're doing the parks as an example of.
StarkeyChair
For for me, I it it doesn't matter to me as long as we get the money to safely Uh and professionally operate and maintain our parks. And we have more parks coming online with no money to maintain 'em. We shouldn't even open a park. You know, every time we open a park, it needs to have the corresponding maintenance in the budget. Yeah, I mean that's very irresponsible to open something and then And the maintenance is and you can't maintain it, you can't mow it.
Um So we we have to have a plan to get him the maintenance money he needs it.
WeightmanSecond Vice Chair
Chair Starkey, you what I'm hearing you so you're Favorable of exploring the opportunity of combining an all SMSTU for the parks.
StarkeyChair
Yeah. I'll I I would go either way. Um uh now obviously I don't think it's appropriate but I mean Keith's gotta we've gotta keep the parks budget at the right number. That's our job. Yeah. And so that MSTU um Delta that isn't needed by the parks needs to go back into general fund. And so so we just have to tweak that number every time. Right every year.
WeightmanSecond Vice Chair
And
StarkeyChair
we just do a
Mike Carballa
budget of a millage
StarkeyChair
reduction.
Mike Carballa
Clarify the last thing that you said about putting money back into the general fund, because once it's in the MSTU, that's where it is. So unless you make changes to your general operating village.
StarkeyChair
Right. That we can do that every year, right? We say how much does the how much should be in the park's MST?
Mike Carballa
You certainly you certainly can. I mean I don't know what that when I when I when I say modulate that may be increasing some years. cutting other years to
StarkeyChair
Well c can't they tell us what the number is?
Unidentified speakerVoice B
Well the it depends on growth. The problem that you you can reduce The M STU Millage.
Easily. Putting it back in the general millage You're going to still you ca it's not seamless. You're gonna have to then have an extraordinary vote likely because you'll be above the rollback rate. Right. So it You can't just take it and put it into the general back. It it's gonna the the way the statute uh operates is it's
gonna be considered an increase to your general millage that then has to go through the
StarkeyChair
Oh, and then people say we raise taxes?
Unidentified speakerVoice B
Right. Four
StarkeyChair
or
Unidentified speakerVoice B
five four or five mills.
Yeager
Well that's I was waiting for Jeff to finish, but that's what I was I was Say is that you know, everything from Washington DC is they're like trying to, you know, save and I know we run very thin. But to the taxpayer it's gonna look like we're raising taxes. So as soon as they see that M STU on their tax roll. So how do we How do we accomplish what we want to accomplish without having a tax?
Mike Carballa
Well, we can't. No, it I mean simply it would be a reprioritation of how you want to spend money. Right. I mean so right now we we we put money into various butt you know in various buckets during the budgeting process. If this board says, you know, look, we we wanna that eight million dollars we uh it will come from somewhere in within the existing funds and we reprioritize and that's that's how it would be spent. That's how you would do
WeightmanSecond Vice Chair
it.
We're pulling the millage. dollar for dollar essentially off the general operating fund. So there's seven mills, we pull four mills. So that's a good thing. You know, we have three mills and this is hypothetical in the generate fund, the four mills go to the parks budget. So it's flat. So there'll be a reduction in one and you're just taking that money and putting it to another, but the millage rates balance out. So there is no tax abord we have an opportunity as a board is when it comes time to renew the parks MSTU.
This board has an opportunity to reduce taxes by cutting millage in the parks MSTU to keep that fund where it needs to be. So there's an active vote, discussion, public hearing. People may advocate, hey, I want to have more money in parks, we may not, but it gives the board total autonomy to cut that tax. is a one in any board into the future. And that's why I think this MSTU is a is a is a good move and because it protects it. You you it's transparent to the taxpayer, it's transparent what the
needs are because it's a budget, a bank account. For that particular duty of those funds is to fund the parts. I'm all for this plan. Um,
StarkeyChair
let me let me follow up on I think I had something backwards. So because Keith Um if you don't mind. Can you go back to the slide that was there? Before this one? Um So operations in five years so n right now you're at twenty three point seven and maybe and like I I am not the finance person in my family. That's 23.7. If I understood what they were saying, you're gonna take twenty-three point seven and add twenty-eight
point nine in five years.
Keith
No, no.
StarkeyChair
Okay, well that's what you said. Is you
Keith
said that's the anticipated growth if the operation
StarkeyChair
is.
It is. That is that is what we would project. That's what it grows from twenty three to twenty eight. That makes more sense. Okay. Which is maybe what you than what you do need. Well that
Keith
so I think Mr. Karbala explained it. Yeah, that's over five years. But I think Mr. Carbala explained this great. So currently the parks operating budget is is not growing this way. So I think this example is an opportunity for it to grow like the jet like the Ad Valorum and the General Fund, but in its own dedicated taxing unit. So I I think what what OMB is trying to explain here is that uh as co cost of goods services and and and contracts increase just operationally we would
probably be able to address that through a dedicated ops MSTU. The piece that's not clearly called out yet or has not not been resolved is the third line, is the maintenance piece.
StarkeyChair
Which also needs to grow.
Keith
Right, but would also grow in its own taxing unit as well. Correct.
StarkeyChair
Okay. I I maybe I didn't ask it right, but The way I thought you were saying it that is the sum total.
Unidentified speakerVoice A
Yeah. So if you add the total of the
StarkeyChair
growth.
Unidentified speakerVoice A
Yeah, if you add pr and this is projected, right? So things are subject to change, especially five years out, right? But that's our projected year one plus year two plus year three plus year four plus year five.
Assuming we don't touch the mill. And our growth assumptions five year out are accurate.
StarkeyChair
I mean ev we're we're adding more and more parks and um and so his budget needs to his operations needs to grow and so does maintenance.
MarianoVice Chair
I'm sure?
StarkeyChair
Yeah.
MarianoVice Chair
So The bottom line is we control the budget. If we want to increase the budget, I don't need an MSTU to increase the budget. We can just do that and put it in there. And if you're if you're worried about protecting it, well, so be it. It's gonna take a vote vote every year as we do our budget every year to keep funding it. When the economy One to And the toilet back in 07, guess what? We had to cut. And we cut hard. Did we cut too much? Maybe we did, but guess what? That board made the decision and that's what we had
to go with. The problems I have, number one, you're gonna put ninety one percent of the population to pay for all these parks. And it's not right 'cause everybody uses them. Everybody needs to come to the table if you're gonna go this way. Then my major objection goes away. The other thing you've got to look at is you've got CRAs that are out there. I've got very wealthy people, very wealthy homes that are still in the CRA. The city of New Port Richey has no plans to ever get rid of the CRA. Poor Richie, they've cut a few things back.
I haven't seen any more cuts in a few years now. I think we need to go look at those CRAs too, because that's taking money out of our county operations that could be in there. That those guys are just gone. Poor Richie's a hundred percent b New Poor Richie's a hundred percent blighted? Do you think New Port Richey's ninety percent blighted? Our taxpayers for the county are paying the freight for them people to go work these CRAs and I don't agree the way it's being done. I think we're we're gonna go we should be looking at that if you want to increase and help this. But again, back to the basic points.
If you get every single city in, I think it it's okay to go this way if you want to separate it out. But if you don't have every single city in it, it's not fair to the regular county taxpayer.
StarkeyChair
Okay, and and I wanna clarify something that that um that if if the M STU grows more than is needed. All we have to do is roll that back. We don't There won't be necessarily any extra revenue to put back into the other and we don't have to touch We don't have to touch the other, although it wouldn't be a tax increase, it would be a tax decrease because we're potentially we'd be adding money to back into the general fund. So
Mike Carballa
right.
StarkeyChair
So
Mike Carballa
for example, if if that year one operations, right, so that sum total is twenty eight point nine, if that year one was two million dollars and we decided that the park's budget only needs to grow by one million dollars Then you could reduce the millage to only provide $1 million of residence and parks back here. Now, based on your current setup, and again I'm just gonna want to put stomp this, is that additional million would have normally revived residing in your general fund. But when you make the reduction, as this is you know a dollar for dollar reduction, you
will not have that growth in your general fund. Right now, what happens is other things get prioritized, and that's why your parks budget kind of kind of grows at the rate that it does. So you would have to make other decisions regarding what other expenses may be coming due to the board.
StarkeyChair
Well, we're not
Mike Carballa
throwing out there on
StarkeyChair
that item. We don't budget parks the way we should. And Commissioner Yeager, there is no eight million in our budget for there is no money in our budget for keys maintenance. That's that's why we are talking about MSTU. And it is the way that most many places fund their parks. Hillsborough County funds it this way. Um I don't know if you've done an analysis of how many counties they fund it through MSTUs. Sometimes it's the County wide, sometimes it's in districts, so Um Kate
have you talked to any of the cities?
Keith
So when we did the impact fee study, we did an analysis, and it's a mixed bag, Commissioner. So um I will say this though, uh talking about just the growth in the general fund. So my team did an analysis from 2017 to present. And we looked at our adopted budget on goods, services, and contracts to present day, and we compare that to an inflationary. six percent increase from twenty seventeen to present. And what we should have gotten through nort natural growth was almost two million dollars more than what we have currently today from twenty seventeen. So
I think the you know the county administrator is saying it very clearly you know, it's it's ultimately gonna come from some other place in the general fund. I so I've been your parks director for almost eight years. I haven't seen that growth come to this department specifically. So Uh w we are kind of continually falling behind. Yeah.
WeightmanSecond Vice Chair
Chair, it's it's my viewpoint of this and and maybe I didn't articulate as clear as last year, it's it's it's a restructuring of our budget. It's not an increasing in taxes, it's just restructuring the money that we have and putting that money to work. differently and have a better compounding effect. Look at the fire MSTU. It's performing really, really well. I think it's it's from when it was increased two years ago I think it's outpacing its projections, at least last budget cycle. Seemingly
it was performing really, really well. And that just further reinvigorates my my support for really considering something similar for for parks and then we tackled the other issues at hand. Uh Yeah. uh the way that that the board sees fit. Again, thank you guys, Amy, and the team for for doing and Keith for being patient with me. I I greatly appreciate it.
And Commissioner O Mariano's points are are very valid and you know I I think however we need to do it, get the buy-in from the cities need to have skin in this game too. And I don't disagree with that. But I don't want to rely on the cities for the overall greater good of our our park system and what needs what needs to happen. But they they need to to be uh in the room where this happens and have skin in the game.
StarkeyChair
And I and I'm gonna agree with you, Commissioner Weightman. Um I think this is actually I'm I'm more and more supportive of just putting it all in the MSTU. Um I'd be I'd like to know what the cities feel. Um we do. Yeah, so
Keith
Um I think one of the at least this is fun. Yeah, we should do this more often. So I appreciate using my department as an example. This is fantastic.
I feel a lot more comfortable talking about it. And I'm I'm probably more excited than Commissioner Weightman to discuss this. Um timing. So I think the reason we wanted to get this on the agenda quickly is timing is really important. I hear Commissioner Mariano's point uh in terms of the cities. We've had some conversations. With the cities, there's again mixed interest uh in terms of because no one really at the time knew what the number would be. Um I think we I think Amy, you said that we have to have the existing ordinance that the board approved for parks capital maintenance last year uh revised
by May, correct? Ultimately. So that's that's one paragraph. It's you know, we can work with the county attorney's office, we can get that section cleaned up, and then we can kind of
What I would ask is that maybe the board give us an opportunity if if we don't do that and we have the cities ahead of that, then we have to negotiate with the cities first before we do anything at all, which means that the parks department would fall another year or two behind in critical funding. So I maybe I guess when I'm asking for direction is is a modification of the existing ordinance to go to an all in MSTU number with the with the condition that we would work with the cities to structure some kind of ordinance or interlocal agreement after the fact. That's
the direction I think we're looking for because we need the time to do the work.
StarkeyChair
That's what I'm in favor of.
Unidentified speakerVoice A
So before we get before we get to that, there's a couple things I do want to add in.
MarianoVice Chair
Let
Unidentified speakerVoice A
me go,
MarianoVice Chair
please. Thanks.
Unidentified speakerVoice A
Okay.
MarianoVice Chair
So I've got some friends that played soccer. They played either in Penells or Hillsboro. When they went down to play down there, they surcharged them to come in. To play. So maybe the way to make it work to the balance of fairness I'm trying to get for the county employees is maybe If a city doesn't participate,
StarkeyChair
there's a surcharge.
MarianoVice Chair
You've got to do some calculations.
StarkeyChair
Yeah.
MarianoVice Chair
We're going to find out what the surcharge would need to be to balance it out.
StarkeyChair
Yeah.
MarianoVice Chair
And if you can do it that way Because let's say politics and whatever. They may not do it even though it's the right thing to go do. But if you can balance it out financially that does the burden doesn't fall on the county people, maybe that's a way I can get to that point. But it's gonna take the research, the numbers to go figure out the way to do it and that would keep it fair, which is what I'm trying to make it happen.
StarkeyChair
I I personally think it should it it should be for um We cities of a certain size. I mean everybody. Even a Saint Leo.
Unidentified speakerVoice C
Everybody.
Keith
So that's just a fee schedule.
I just
MarianoVice Chair
want to say one more thing. Yep. Keith, you are doing a phenomenal job with the party. What you're doing is incredible. I got some slides up at Sunwest, the improvements are going on there, the ones that are coming right up. What you're doing with parks is phenomenal. And I think You know, we we saw uh Jim Walter say get his uh re resolution. The involvement of sports with families is phenomenal, right? It's it just keeps the families together, keeps them going playing. And for the seniors who want to go out and just go for a walk and be able to place to go. Um parks are critical to to the livelihood of
this of Pasco County making us premier. So you're doing a phenomenal job with it. I want I want to help you get there, but But I think we might have a path at this point. Can I
Yeager
wonderfully can I just throw something out there and they could we could talk about it at a different time? But maybe see like how our pennies spent and maybe some of our 'cause I'm I'm on Penellis right now and that's how they pay for their infrastructure, their parks, helps with the jails, things like that. Is there any way we could re
StarkeyChair
Um I would have the county attorney answer that question because we already
Keith
Madam Chair.
StarkeyChair
Past our pinch.
Keith
So there is already a portion of the E Lamp uh penny that is actually going to parks infrastructure for natural resources improvements. So I think it was ten percent of all revenue proceeds over the life of the penny.
StarkeyChair
And just just to remind you, Commissioner Yeager, uh Forty what is it, forty percent goes to the school district of our penny. Ten percent goes to the cities. which maybe that's where they pay for their park part out of. And Um forty percent comes to the county, of which that is divided into specific categories, transportation, economic development, and the Elamp program. So it's it's kind of um set in its lane already. Is
that right? County Attorney.
Unidentified speakerVoice B
You've renewed for fifteen years. You could have that discussion in fifteen years. Yeah. Um
Keith
But but to commissioner Yeager's point, there's already um an allowance at least for some infrastructure to the tune I think of eight to ten million dollars. But those are specifically within e-lamp
StarkeyChair
infrastructure.
Keith
So natural resources based amenities. So it could be like a wilderness park, um, it could be an E Lamp infrastructure project, yeah, things like that.
Yeager
So we're giving the cities ten percent?
StarkeyChair
Yes, cities get ten percent of that.
Yeager
So I say they
StarkeyChair
They participate.
Yeager
They participate to for our parts.
StarkeyChair
Um you know, I had a talk with Keith this morning, uh my monthly, where is my uh Anklet River Park plan from health? It seems like it's been years. And he you know, we're renovating that park. It's way overdue. We bought half of it. From Duke years ago. And um when he said, Well Commissioner Yeah, they're I don't know, sixty, seventy, whatever percent. But he doesn't have the money anymore to renovate it. It 'cause he had to take it from that. to renovate
and fix some other parks. So We he is woefully behind. I know we want to add a little league field. Um in Commissioner Yeager's district. We've got the Little Lee Complex coming up in Bexley. We hopefully we're gonna do uh Mag Maggie Valley, make it into a park. We've got some parks over here that are desperately needed. And he has had no no increase in his maintenance budget that kept barely kept what he's had in the past. So, you know, how do we
add a new park without maintaining it? So we have to we have to Take a step. Um and remember that this would be a reduction in the general equal to So it's not a uh a bottom line increase per se just depends on what we do with the general the millage wouldn't that time. Yes. Hey so Keith to
WeightmanSecond Vice Chair
For the sake of this conversation on direction, in the paragraph that you have to tweet, can you add The Commission Mariano goes forward with it because it's a unanimous deal. Can you add the surcharge like the and or something in the surcharge language in there?
Keith
I'm looking at Mr. Surgeon.
WeightmanSecond Vice Chair
To cover at least you know, preliminarily like last year. If we get this thing we can bring it all the way to the finish line and not fund it. But the structure's in place, which to me is important, which is a foundation of what we did last year. So
StarkeyChair
We can't go another year without
WeightmanSecond Vice Chair
the Commissioner Mariano on this.
Scott Galvin
Mm.
StarkeyChair
Um well the the attorney was gonna answer that and
Unidentified speakerVoice B
then
StarkeyChair
I'll go to you.
Unidentified speakerVoice B
I'm not sure how you would do a fee or surcharge that was not on league play to begin with. Uh it may be legal. It's not something we've been asked to look at. Um but it's not part of the MSTU even if it even if it it is legal to to put it on. So I wouldn't it would not be part I wouldn't say it would be part of the ordinance you
can
It's really a a resolution, a fee resolution f or a parks operational resolution. It's not part of the financing vehicle called the MSTU.
Keith
Madam Chairman M I think maybe a way to do this would be to estimate the loss revenue the you know of all the cities, develop the surcharge I think that Commissioner Mariano was referencing and then kind of get that into the fee structure at a separate time. Um I don't think it necessarily needs to be included into the ordinance language for the MSTU. But but to identify that gap and the and the desire for them to you know to participate, I think that's how we can and then to Commissioner Starkey to your point, it would obviously maybe the surcharge is based on population by jurisdiction. I'm
just literally Amy and I are just kinda come Hang on I I it's over it's an oversimplification of I think how to get there, but that would be the path I think on the analysis, in my opinion.
Unidentified speakerVoice A
And and so to the what is that number that the we would need to make up from the cities? So my team ran the number based off that second example of operations, and it comes out to roughly two point one eight million that the cities would be or would not be contributing. Okay.
StarkeyChair
Commissioner Mariano.
MarianoVice Chair
I'm comfortable trying to find a way. I I wouldn't expect it in the M STU but as long as we're making policy for us setting it up with a resolution. probably simultaneously pass them at the same time so we know and the people know his why we're doing his his how. I think it'll be tougher to get I mean the league play is the easier part to get done. I think it's we harder with the passive parks when you factor that in. So that number could be really small anyway, so it may not be worth chasing. Um so if it doesn't meet all the money revenue loss, that's okay, as long as we're close to uh
offsetting it so that people of the county aren't paying the the full burden.
Unidentified speakerVoice B
Yeah. the the multiple employees you're gonna have to hire for parks to chase down the single person that just like
MarianoVice Chair
it's not just like we had the two dollar fee at Hudson Park it didn't make sense. We we spent more money collecting than we did go in Fort. So for for all that reason not worth it but I think for the leak pay it It kinda mirrors what Penellas Hillsboro does for out of out of county people. Yeah. Now we're just gonna do it for the the same
StarkeyChair
Out of county people.
Commissioner Oakley, you you good with uh pr proceeding?
Oakley
Well I'm just just trying to make sure that we're we've got the money we need for the parks. Um I think I need j just to sit down with Amy and them and and Keith and figure this out myself, so
StarkeyChair
Okay, well I've got it sounds like you've got board support to move forward. Yep.
Unidentified speakerVoice A
And so I just wanted to remind the board, you know, secondary order effects with a reduction to the general fund, the millage, you would also see a reduction to Commissioner Mariano's point to what we actually contribute to the CRAs, because that is based off of that's based off of that as well. Okay. And then just a reminder that the the current agreement with the board with between the board and the sheriff. is forty percent of additional um growth. So you know, just big picture all of the different muscle
movements on how this thing plays out.
MarianoVice Chair
Mm sure? Yeah. I mean that's a
great
point with the C RA, so you can factor that in too and I'll be comfortable with that too.
StarkeyChair
Yeah. Okay. That's a good point. Yeah. Okay. Wow. Is there any more in this
Unidentified speakerVoice A
life?
Oh so we do have a couple more slides. So We wouldn't be doing our job if we didn't hear what all five commissioners had been saying. So we also put together some other ideas if the entirety of the board did not want to move towards um adjusting and amending the current park. So we did throw up a couple more options that you would have. So I'll just go over them really quickly. Um requesting B one of our commissioners, I believe it was Commissioner Weightman, had brought up constitutional officers getting moved into an MST
as well. Um So just a reminder, another way we could still maintain that level of transparency that would we would like that an MSU would give us could be more detailed budget budget submissions and presentations from our constitutional officers, or maybe leveraging an earmarked um policy in the general fund, which is not something that you would vote on or adopt, but we could just say this much of our general fund millage will earmark for this particular purpose. And then as we see, you
know, contracting and suspens um growth in the general fund, that program would grow and contract in by like amount.
WeightmanSecond Vice Chair
Chairman in in the whole organic conversation of MSTUs Since our constitutionals, you know, we're this job of this board is to to manage its budget. And my thought process was since the constitutionals don't have budget authority, they have their own MSTU, then it gives them a business case to come before this board to raise or lower their MSTU and have input over their MSTU. uh and
and engage them more in their in their budget process. They're duly elected, they have their shops to run. Um and I've always thought it was a bit disingenuous that they didn't have budgetary authority and all the onus falls on this board. So if constitutionals have their own MSTU, it gives them the ability to make a business case if they need more funding. Yeah. County Commissioner O need a bump in our millage rate or we're healthy and they can come and say, Please cut my millage rate to to stay in line and We're
working together to to cut taxes and save the taxpayer money. So that was the premise behind the constitutional um idea that I brought up with County Administrator again, it would be pulled off the general revenue, shrinking that general revenue portion, adding more transparency and accountability to the funds of the general revenue pot. And um you know, again it's just a a restructuring of our budget and the way it's it's been managed. So So that's just that was my idea behind
StarkeyChair
it. I've talked about uh um putting Putting the sheriff you know, working towards an M STU on the sheriff. Now I hadn't thought about the whole budget. Um but I am I mean that's that's the biggest one that that's where I would start first. That's the biggest one. And um
I'm I'm you know, maybe we set it up and then next year have more discussions or, you know, r roll one out a I don't know.
Unidentified speakerVoice B
it's really only the sheriff I think that you're gonna be able to do the constitutionals as as an M STU because Tax collector is a fee officer. Property appraiser has his budget approved by the Department of Revenue, not by this board. You just have to fund it. Uh clerk's office is half and half, half state funded, half county funded. Um supervisor
of elections, you're gonna have the fluctuation of his budget goes up in a in a election year and then goes down the next year. So you're gonna have the the rollback rate issue for his budget. So I think that leaves you with the sheriff as the only one that it makes sense for. Um Completely up to the board.
StarkeyChair
Do we know if there's any other county that funds law enforcement like that?
Mike Carballa
Uh huh. We can research and report back.
WeightmanSecond Vice Chair
Yeah.
StarkeyChair
I mean I think there has to be a lot more to a lot of discussion on that one.
WeightmanSecond Vice Chair
Well again I I think the MS Two the same way protects the parks budget if you want to use the Sheriff's Budget as an example, it protects the Sheriff's Budget.
StarkeyChair
Yeah.
WeightmanSecond Vice Chair
It gives him the compounding growth within the fund to to to to use what the sheriff or future sheriffs need. And uh if it gets a little high, it gives that sheriff opportunity to come back and say, hey, I'm watching watching out for you taxpayer, roll roll it back a pinch. Um, you know, and like Commissioner Oakleyano said with politics. The makeup of this board could change over time. And uh with the whole we saw the defund the police movement and everything that goes into it. To to mess with the MSTU, there's more opportunities for public comment, public engagement.
It takes more than three votes to to move the needle on these. It's an added layer of protection for a very critical service in this county. And I I think it's the healthy way to go in the long in the long run of the budget.
StarkeyChair
I'm willing to talk about it. Um where are we on the Um public safety impact fee. Because we also want to
Mike Carballa
Well that's listed on this as a discussion item. I mean we have the fire uh impact fee which is undergoing review right now, but you do not have a all encompassing public safety impact fee. We need one. Amy here'll make a case uh when you look at some of these long term capital expenses, but it's not a silver bullet there either because.
StarkeyChair
We have to build the jail. Growth is causing us to expand the jail. Growth is causing us to build a courthouse. Correct should be
Mike Carballa
helping pay for
it.
Unidentified speakerVoice A
Um so my team had did some research. We asked who what counties had the sheriff or their sheriff law enforcement in MSTU Olachua, Clay, DeSoto, Escambia, Glades, Marion, Penellas, Saint Lucia, and Volusia. Penellas? Mm-hmm.
MarianoVice Chair
Can you get us the some details on those on those countries so we can take a look and see how the how exactly they do it and whether it's like eight percent, twenty percent, whatever, and let's go take a look at it. This is the transparency. What's going on in DC right now? Everybody's looking at every single budget, every single item going through. Um I don't know how many pages of budget we get, 10, 10, 15 pages, and I think Penellas County they get like 600 pages in a full day's presentation. Maybe
StarkeyChair
it's more than one day.
MarianoVice Chair
Okay. So maybe it's a
StarkeyChair
couple days pressure.
MarianoVice Chair
So may and maybe that's what we need to get to because I mean I we w we
want
to fund the police, we want to make sure our people are getting done, but we want to also make sure that the taxpayers are getting the good value too.
Yeager
Yeah, and I just want to add, I know you know, with the the Sheriff's Office they assist the cities a lot. So So I mean when we're talking about, you know, the cities you know joining forces with us, I I I really do again go back to I feel like if we could collect that money from them, if we can get them on board, I think it's really important.
StarkeyChair
Well some some we've taken over, right? And then uh d uh Port Ritchie and New Port Richey still have their own. Yeah, we do. Does Dade City still?
Unidentified speakerVoice D
Dade City has its own police department. San Antonio, Saint Leo contracted services for the sheriff. If I might add just a comment, having lived through many of these same discussions back in the nineties as to Sheriff's Office M S D Um the and a caution too to be considered is be sure you're looking at a charter versus a constitutional county where the uh and the the attorney will say, Shut up, you don't know what
you're talking about. But i the again Pasco not being a charter county, the statutes are very clear and are the underpinning baseline for your smaller counties and historic that have not gone to a charter as to how budgeting of constitutional officers can be done. And therefore, in order to change that and go away from that, you're looking at some significant Yeah. statutory provisions uh
and god help me from using the word charter uh when you write a charter county then you changed all the rules uh basically uh as to how you fund things. Well the legislature's
WeightmanSecond Vice Chair
looking at doing that anyway. So
Unidentified speakerVoice D
can I
Unidentified speakerVoice B
if I can respond. So I think
Mr. Clerk is correct in that used to be the way it was. Um but since the constitutional amendment that basically said that charter counties can't regulate their constitutionals. I think we're all sort of on the same footing. But Yeah.
StarkeyChair
Hot C.
Yeager
Sorry to show the spot.
StarkeyChair
Chase does a good job. I know, I want to hear from you.
WeightmanSecond Vice Chair
Chase does a great job.
Chase Daniels
Chase Daniels, Pasco Sheriff's Office, 8661 Citizens Drive, New Port Richey. Under Sheriff.
so so thank you very much, Com Commissioner Yeager, and thank you for uh for the discussion. Um so so just a couple of points for us. As Commissioner Yeager noted, um you know one of the big issues is is that city issue, as Commissioner Oriano noted with the parks with ninety one percent of the county being unincorporated. For instance on Saturday Uh Newport Ritchie had a shooting on US 19 with an innocent bystander that was shot. They called us out to assist with that. They call us out frequently for forensics. You know, to the point uh there is Dade City, Zephyrhills, Newport Ritchie, and Port Ritchie PD. Um, but again, th those are often small departments
that we assist greatly with. So there would be some concern about the city aspect of that. Um And then, you know, just in general regarding the budget, um, you know, we have certainly heard uh loud and clear from the commission. So this year you will see a much more comprehensive budget. I know the the sheriff has um meetings scheduled with each of you as as well in the next couple of weeks. Um we are looking this year, just so the board knows, you know, guesstimating based on some very early numbers that our entire budget increase this year is basically going to be uh taken up by $2 million in self-insurance costs. A projected two and
a half million in state mandated retirement, three and a half million in what we consider contract escalators, so bullets cost more, IT services cost more, uniforms cost more, uh, and then we may have a million to two million dollars left for raises. But but we're preliminarily not looking at any new positions this year because of the constraints of that budget. Um but to that point we're we're certainly open to discussion, you know, if if that's uh the board's desire, but I guess. the the big thing would certainly be to make sure that we uh had those cities um bought in as well because we we do assist a lot and uh whenever someone calls nine one one
they don't necessarily want to hear well you you don't pay into the MSCU so we're we're not gonna we're not gonna respond. So that that would be a a significant point for us.
StarkeyChair
So uh if we heard right, this money comes before they get their CRA money. So in effect we are I'd like to know that those numbers. 'Cause in fact we are getting some money that we would have been given them for in the C R A. So that that does help. Um I and I do have a question. F uh our bullets and uniforms. What else did you say? Uh bullets and uniform.
Chase Daniels
Bullets uniform and and information technology. So like our our
StarkeyChair
cloud services and capital. Is that capital?
Chase Daniels
No ma'am.
StarkeyChair
Okay, so but are bullets and uniforms capital costs? Why not?
I was thinking that can be helped in an uh uh impact fee. Amy
Mike Carballa
could give us the strict definition, uh the accounting definition of what capital is, but that does that doesn't fit in.
MarianoVice Chair
Madam Chair? Yeah. Chase, first I want to say I really appreciate being able to reach out to you every time we got an issue that goes on. You're always responding well, finding solutions, so I greatly believe it. We appreciate the relationship. Um when you mentioned as far as going self-insurance, two million dollars more, is this a good move or a bad move if we're spending more money?
Chase Daniels
So uh it it it is um I I I I would head to call it a bad move, but it's certainly impactful. Um so so the Sheriff's Office, so so we we do fully self self-insure our members, um, and we do not have have reserves, so we have to make sure that every year our our health insurance is is fully capitalized. So unfortunately we have had an issue this year where we had uh two of our members who who passed after significant battles with cancer. Um as this board can can imagine it's certainly there there are significant insurance costs that go along with that which has uh significantly impacted our our self-insurance fund so so we have
to make sure that that is uh gonna be hold this year.
MarianoVice Chair
I don't know how our insurance works, but have you guys looked at maybe joining with us and say sometimes you spread out the risk better it works out better? Have you guys looked at that?
Chase Daniels
We we would certainly be op be open to that discussion. Um the the one the one big issue with that is you know to make sure um you know whenever it comes to catastrophic and and reinsurance and things like that, but we would certainly be be open to to that discussion.
StarkeyChair
Yeah, we're self insured as well.
Chase Daniels
Yeah, we we would certainly be be open to that discussion because you know, like I said, whenever it comes to those reinsurance costs and catastrophics, um, you know, last year, unfortunately, we did have a we we did have a couple of catastrophics that did significantly impact our our self-insurance fund. And so the the the business discussion for for the sheriff and the sheriff's office as a whole is you know, at what point do we increase the the cost on our members for the health insurance versus what what we can cover? Um but you know this year, like said we're we're looking at a fairly small raise that you know we so we are trying to avoid members losing money to to
increase their health insurance. Have
MarianoVice Chair
you have you guys joined with us with the clinics?
Chase Daniels
Y yes sir. So we are uh we're we're part of the care here clinics uh with the school district.
Unidentified speakerVoice C
Let's go back.
StarkeyChair
Um m Mr. Carballi, any thoughts on the uh joint health you know, bringing the sheriff in under our health insurance?
Mike Carballa
I mean that's
StarkeyChair
uh something savings.
Mike Carballa
I mean they're you know what what the sheriff pays and how he self-insures and what he charges his members versus how we run our programs could be different. Um but can we can we get a meeting on that?
I'll certainly take that direction. And then we'll look forward
Yeager
too.
StarkeyChair
Yeah. I mean who knows, you know, they're it
Yeager
could be saving the money.
StarkeyChair
But it could increase ours 'cause their job is very dangerous. So it just we just need to look at it all. Yes,
Chase Daniels
ma'am. Yeah, and and we certainly appreciate we like I said we we don't have those details. Um I said the the one thing for us would be um Um you know, we we certainly would would not want to necessarily impact that that forty percent of of new revenue agreement either with that. So we could basically put put those funds to to better use, you know, additional positions, things like that.
StarkeyChair
Can I add that they have a no smoking policy and we don't?
Mike Carballa
We have a
StarkeyChair
We do? We're not hiring any more smokers?
Mike Carballa
Well we have a policy that essentially uh you don't get the payment work if you're a smoker. Okay.
StarkeyChair
But you have a policy that you don't hire smokers.
Chase Daniels
Correct. We we are strict non-smoking and in fact um our our first our first training campus um
Sorry. Um
so our our our father did so our our our first uh our our first training campus, um we have actually recently implemented a a policy that we're not allowing uh even smoking on that campus. So if an outside entity comes in and they are doing a training on our on our training campus, uh it is a smoke free campus completely. So I like
StarkeyChair
that. Okay. Um good. Well, you know, lots of discussion. Um we're just trying to find the best way to move forward for our citizens and with the most transparency. And you know, I am not nervous about what the governor wants to do because You can go to my favorite little book, How Florida Counties Compare, and you can see how where we are on uh on the numbers compared to the size of our county. And
and the cost of our government services, we are killing it. I mean we're doing very well. We are not. We are not a high tax county at all. So I feel very confident we will shine. shine in any kind of um government look at look see in in our county. So um okay, is there anything else? Did did you want to go over anything else?
Mike Carballa
So there's still more to the presentation. Okay, let's go.
Unidentified speakerVoice A
Did my clicker fall asleep? Oh what? Okay. All right. So I'm not gonna belabor the slide because we have already looked at it, but this is just a reminder of where our current levies sit. And um some change over the past two years. All right, so here we've got a list of long term capital. Criminal Courthouse, which we talked during the January 28th meeting, Public Safety Operations Center, a consolidated records, which my understanding is
our facilities team is working on a solution for that for us. So that will be removed here momentarily. And at least as of a month ago, the sheriff's top three project priorities going into this next year. And we do know that we've got a need internally in the county for additional fire stations to meet growth and all of that. So when we look at um Like I said, removing that consolidated records solution off the table as our facilities team is working
on something for us. We're looking at roughly $394 million of need just with what you see up here. If we remove that public safety operations center because we find another way to possibly fund that, you're looking at roughly $244 million. Yeah. So um some things, some options that we would have for funding that public safety impact fee, um general obligation bonds, um other
revenue bonds, things like that that we would have to talk through. So that's another thing that we'd like to just kind of discuss with you all today. Board's appetite for those things. Um and we do have some information in terms of if we were to go general obligation bond for any of these, what would that timeline look like? Um the earliest we could do a referendum would be the twenty twenty six election. And if that passed, then funding could s we could start pulling down funding in twenty twenty-seven. Yeah.
StarkeyChair
Well do you have any numbers on the imp uh public safety impact fee?
Mike Carballa
No, that would require a study. Um and in fact some of these, for example, if you were to look at your criminal courthouse, one one might argue that that's been a deficit and so it would be difficult to prove an impact fee for new bills going forward that they should pay something that's already been a deficit. So your impact fee, for example, in the courthouse is to say you already you need you need ten new courtrooms and you need Five today, but the impact fee could only cover those last five. The first five, we we've already developed we
have to find a way to do that. That would probably be what Amy talks about going towards a general obligation type on or putting to the vote to the voters. But I guess the question is: is the board comfortable with a strategy? You know, does the board want to try to move with these projects? And if so, a funding strategy that would be a combination of a general referendum um as well as impact fee to cover the large costs associated with these public safety options.
WeightmanSecond Vice Chair
So the big nuts, the criminal courthouse, public safety operations center, I think we need to put those up to the voters. Um
I would like to take an overall look at the impact fee if it needs to be restructured. I'm not overly excited about increasing the impact fee. We don't have
StarkeyChair
one.
WeightmanSecond Vice Chair
I think no, I know that. I'm not overly excited to increase the impact fee. The net impact fee. But by doing this, but I am intr I would be interested to take a closer look at the structure of the impact fee and what maybe needs updated or you know
StarkeyChair
we can update something we don't have.
WeightmanSecond Vice Chair
Take over a look at it.
StarkeyChair
We don't have a public safety impact fee.
WeightmanSecond Vice Chair
I understand that, but we might be higher in some areas than others. I think we need to take an overall look at the impact fee. I mean we have some of the highest correct we have some of the highest impact fee around. And it hasn't slowed us down. And um no, but it's hurt some people in this county. People that own land that want to subdivide their land, they've had land for generations and they can't afford the impact fee to subdivide their property and build a house on it. There's ex anyway, that's a different discussion. Um So
those are the way, go volunt put I think a lot of these need to put up put up to the voters.
StarkeyChair
Commissioner commissioner.
Yeager
For the um for the EOC it That new some of that grant money we might be able to use or
Mike Carballa
home? So we uh so in the current universal notice, um emergency operations centers and those types of facilities are specifically stricken. In other words, it it can't based on universal notice. However, we have been told that um federal government is rewriting that universal notice. We've been having conversations with our federal delegation and then agencies about restructuring that universal notice to perhaps be a little more friendly in emergency operations.
Yeager
Okay, because that would be helpful if we could take you know a big chunk out of that and then maybe help the criminal courthouse.
Mike Carballa
Yes ma'am, we're we're we're pushing for that.
StarkeyChair
Okay. And and we learned um in Washington when we were making the rounds that Other counties. We need to connect connect with Hillsborough and Penelis on that one 'cause they both apparently Pinellas also wants to expand theirs already. um they would be in favor of this also. So
MarianoVice Chair
Um Madam Chair? Yeah. I wanna just touch on something that Commissioner Weightman brought up because I think it's a really good thing to look at. We we do have the highest impact fee and I think that's helped out keep our taxes down. Let's let growth pay for itself all the way through. But I think one of the best things we can do is we have families whether we're pushing these ADUs coming in, additional dwelling units. It helps a family keep people together. So whether someone's got a twenty acre parcel, they want to keep their family together on it. Or whether it
be
I think I would love to have us go take a look at an exemption or
StarkeyChair
I don't think we should be having impact fee for ADUs personally.
MarianoVice Chair
Well not for ADUs.
Two hundred acres and I want to go. put ten acres over for one of my family members. There's really no impact with that family because they're still living there. But it gives them a separate way to go. Um and maybe David can can look at it and think about it maybe this afternoon, talk about it a bit. But I think that's a a really good way to go. And would justify make it easier to say, okay, we're gonna charge all the other folks that are coming and just coming into the regular subdivisions that aren't really having an impact, and the other ones that aren't. And if we can keep us more rural in bigger lots,
bigger state lots, that's a good thing for this community long run anyway.
Unidentified speakerVoice A
So Chase did just give me an update. So the District Three expansion, um the sheriff is trying to get some state appropriation dollars and for Where
StarkeyChair
which one is District Three? Ron Wright? Trinity. It's co located with Trinity. Oh yeah, the one on Trinity Boulevard, they want to make that bigger. Okay.
Unidentified speakerVoice A
And for the Wesley Chapel Field Office, they have been gifted some property that they're able to use, so our total ticket number um just dropped down to two eighteen million. Keep going. What else do we have, right? Anything?
StarkeyChair
Well, I you know, we had a great meeting with Senator Scott. And um Belleracus and Lee's office and Um I I only heard positive that they thought that it made sense with this EOC rewrite. So I'm optimistic and You know, we need to talk with our lobbyists of who else do we need to talk to? I mean who are who are the real people involved in that rewriting which departments and Or which who who sits on the committees that
are charging. We
Mike Carballa
also had subsequent meetings too with with FEMA and FEMA's working together with us as well. And so it's a good vibe up in DC. Very good vibe. Commissioner Mariano's statement.
StarkeyChair
We learned that um we were in one of the meetings with um Walton County. And this wasn't on their agenda. And um and they said in their they had the southern accents. So I but I I can't copy. Um, but they decided that was a really good idea and they were gonna support it because their EOC is actually an old bomb shelter. They don't even have one. So they're like, Yeah, we would be in support of that because we don't even have an EOC. Yeah, and they're a coastal community
that gets hit by hurricanes. Yeah.
Okay. Anything else
Unidentified speakerVoice A
on that, Amy? No, I think we heard what we need to hear to move forward with putting together a strategic package to then bring back to you all for consideration.
Alright, so We talked about the different merits of MSTUs, our approach to MSTUs. I'm pretty sure, Mike, we got the direction we need to move forward with that as well. And we engaged on our long-term capital needs and various funding mechanisms. So thank you again for your very important dialogue with us and direction so we can march forward and bring back some solutions to you. Anything else?
Yeager
Thank you for
Unidentified speakerVoice A
what you guys do,
Yeager
Amy. Yeah.

OMB-25-0031

Official title

On a calendar

Every appearance1 of 2 are in a recording