PDD-20-0560

Every appearance3 of 4 are in a recording

Each appearance carries the official title above. Where the county’s wording changed, the change is marked: added and removed. Steps with no marks were worded identically.

TranscriptWhat was said at each appearance is below it. Machine transcription, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 77% of 653 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 4 appearances are not in any recording, so what was said at those is not here.

1. 1May 21, 2020
   Planning CommissionP3Public hearingApproved

   AN ORDINANCE BY THE … FEES FOR SHIP DEFINED "LOW INCOME" “LOW INCOME” SINGLE-FAMILY AND MULTI-FAMILY, AND … AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

   Approved minutes

   Approved Staff’s recommendation with a revision to the effective date to January 1, 2021.

   Open this item →▶ Play from 0:00
   ▶ 0:0047m1/2

   Planning and Development Department staff

   0:00Schedule um instead. And so the table um four dash four will be solely for transit-oriented development. And the only change that you will see there. is for the single family detached ship-defined units and the multifamily. ship-defined units. Those um incentives will change to a hundred percent. in the West Um West Market area redevelopment district schedule again now. The

   0:30the new title will be with the addition of the vacant parcel incentive zone schedule. And there will be no change otherwise because there was already 100% incentivized single family detached and multifamily ship-defined units.

   0:49In the suburban um tables, this is what the summary looks like. Again, is the same where the multifamily is the is uh Category is only increased in the standard fee and it remains unchanged in the other fee schedules.

   1:19And the rule is the same. You have in the rule, you actually have an additional ship define. uh large lot single family detached, um, which would also receive the hundred Percent incentive. Um And the multifamily in the standard rural fee schedule would see that increase in fees.

   1:46There are uh just minor tweaks in the text that needs to be amendment so they can um be consistent with the table changes and you'll see these two presented in this slide and in the next slide.

   2:05And with that, we hope that you will find that the proposed ordinance is consistent with the Pasco County Comprehensive Plan and recommend the approval of the ordinance to the Board of County Commissioners.

   Denise

   2:19Mr. Chairman, before you take any um comment from the Planning Commission members, clerk will read the um the proof of publication into record.

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:31Okay. Go ahead.

   Clerk

   2:34Item P two was published in the Tampa Bay Times on March thirteenth, twenty twenty, and item P three was published uh in the Tampa Bay Times May 10, 2020. Thank you.

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:46Thank you.

   Denise

   2:50Also on this item we do have two callers on the the phone.

   GirardiVice Chair

   2:58All right, good. Thank you very much.

   3:04So do we have the first caller? One more.

   Denise

   3:07One of our callers has hung up. Um let's try do you want to start taking public comment at the moment?

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:16Do we have somebody there speak? We

   Denise

   3:18do.

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:19Okay. Sure.

   3:25Well come forward and state uh your name. Address?

   Denise

   3:32Coller, you're on the phone. Would you please state your name and address for the record?

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   3:39Yes, this is Ed Rogers with the consultants. My address is [address removed].

   GirardiVice Chair

   3:52All right. And uh you need to be sworn, please. Uh So uh please raise your right hand. Uh And be sworn. Okay.

   Clerk

   4:02Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth to Helping God?

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   4:08I do.

   Clerk

   4:09Thank you.

   Denise

   4:11Okay, your three minutes will begin now.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   4:14Okay, thank you. So good afternoon, members of the commission. Again, I'm Ed Rogers of Florida Design Consultants. And I'm speaking on behalf of uh crown community development. Uh Crown Community Development currently has uh two projects under active development that are fully entitled and have multifamily components. Chapel Crossings is in the urban service area and Watergrass is in the suburban

   4:44area. In both projects, Crown has contracts pending with market rate apartment developers who are on the cusp of moving forward. And I wanted to relate to you that I have reviewed the video footage of the Board of County Commissioners Workshop that was held on February twenty fifth. uh where staff was given board direction to move forward with these mobility fee adjustments and other measures. And

   5:15it struck me uh the other day that we were living in a different economy back in February. Uh in fact the first item on the workshop agenda that day was the county budget for the next fiscal year, and the OMB presented to the board a glowing picture of the economy, which was very vibrant at the time. The Covet nineteen crisis and its significant economic impact hadn't yet made its imprint on

   5:45anybody's consciousness at that point. But we now live in a in a really different world where, you know, more than thirty million Americans have sought unemployment benefits because of the effects of the coronavirus. on the economy. Now the great uncertainty that surrounds the nature and timing of any recovery from the current economic cataclysm Um makes uh deals like Crown's pending multifamily

   6:15sales um jeopardized. a m a mobility fee increase at this time could be just the the thing to scuttle those deals. So On crown's behalf I would ask Um the commission to consider uh the currently proposed mobility fee adjustments, regardless of whatever their underlying good intentions are to be tabled until the coronavirus infections are on a demonstrable decline and

   6:45the nation's economic picture going forward is on a more certain and positive track. And uh that concludes my comments and I really appreciate Your time.

   Denise

   6:57Thank you for for your comments. Thank you.

   GirardiVice Chair

   7:00Does anybody have any questions of the uh Uh the gentleman just spoke.

   7:11All right. Uh do we have someone else there? Denise?

   Denise

   7:14Yes, uh we have uh Barbara Wilhite who is probably still on as a as a panelist and we'll give her three minutes to provide her comments. So if you would please state your name and address for the record and uh we'll have the clerk swear you in.

   7:34And you'll um have to unmute yourself.

   GirardiVice Chair

   7:38Can't hear you, Barbara.

   Barbara Wilhite

   7:41Yeah.

   Denise

   7:41Okay.

   Barbara Wilhite

   7:42We go. Okay. Barbara Will Height, [address removed].

   Clerk

   7:51Andy, so affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth to help you God?

   Denise

   7:57Thank you. Your three minutes will start now.

   Barbara Wilhite

   8:02Thank you. Good afternoon again. Um I am as well here speaking to you on behalf of Crown Communities, a longtime client of mine, maybe a little different perspective. Um Crown Communities entitled um Watergrass in two thousand and six. including multifamily. And then many years ago, t a round twenty excuse me, twenty uh thirteen we entitled um We entitled uh Chapel Crossings. The point I make there is that, you know We

   8:33these projects have been entitled for a while with multifamily. Um I think a lot of the concern that we've seen over the multifamily issue is rezoning or people are seeking plan amendments and rezoning, um, not so much the projects that is entitled long ago. So Crown finally gets the opportunity to move these projects forward and get contracts on them and then comes COVID and then comes this potential increase. So it's a significant issue to them. They've been good partners for the county. They have produced

   9:03Seven Oaks, which is an outstanding project. uh tax base that has main been maintained there over the years. We have letters from the property appraiser saying seven oaks. um has maintained property values the best of all developments in Pasco County. So they're a good partner of ours and and what this increase would do is kind of stick 'em in the eye in a time when um when there's so much uncertainty right now. So I would also state that I have concerns about continuing to

   9:34burden the urban service area when I read in the paper, you know, that the struggle that the school district, the teachers, the students, their families, the administrators of trying to deal with the s the overcrowding that we've produced by these policies that we continue to perpetuate and not really review. We have undercapacity schools in Hudson in areas where you're about to raise if if the board if this commission and the board goes along with these fees in areas where you're about to raise the multifamily rate for market rate apartments. And

   10:05And we have I I read in the paper The Struggles about fights over who you know who's gonna get to use the these ball fields that are parks in the say in the urban service area when we have ball fields that we don't have those struggles with in other parts of the county. So think the the timing isn't good and I think that doing just a a policy change in a vacuum and not really doing it in a uh coordinated manner is going to potentially cause unintended consequences. And so uh

   10:35those are my thoughts on behalf of uh of my client, long term client at Crowd Communities as well as myself.

   Denise

   10:43Thank you for your comments.

   GirardiVice Chair

   10:45Thank you. Thank you. And uh Do we have any questions for Barbara?

   Chris Williams

   10:50Yeah, I have one. This is Peter Hansel.

   GirardiVice Chair

   10:53Go ahead, Peter.

   Chris Williams

   10:54Uh my your main concern is that this will be an additional financial burden, not just on your client, but on others within the county. Is is that the concern?

   Barbara Wilhite

   11:07Yeah, that that is the concern that we've got delicate balance of trying to they're trying to hold projects together and hold deals together um during COVID and and hopefully an increase come in a time that makes you know scuttle those fields. And then I need to worry about the overall policy aspect of unintended consequences of of the action of especially beyond the urban service area.

   Chris Williams

   11:34So do you see this as as a financial burden? I read it here where it's basically looking at uh We call it the uh Urban Transit Development in the West Harbor Market Area. Plus they also indicated that the Uh Redevelopment. Yeah, there was a p sent in here about the uh Central area also. So what c what you're addressing in years by saying uh The concern I have is you're you're is that you

   12:05have some evidence that this would be a financial burden. to developers moving forward. In essence they're not getting anything in return from the county. We're just paying additional fees. Yeah, I'll put the third. Go ahead.

   Barbara Wilhite

   12:20Oh we have so capital crossings within the urban service area and that's a seven percent increase. and um And Watergrass Promenade is in the suburban area and that's a seventeen percent increase proposed. Yes, my client has has told me that Um it could be a burden to air pending deals and scuttle the deals. I'm speaking on behalf of that client. I don't have any knowledge myself. My client had some outpatient surgery yesterday so he can't couldn't send us virtual

   12:50meeting himself. So I'm tending on his behalf.

   GirardiVice Chair

   12:57Uh any any uh other comment, Peter, do you have more you want to say?

   Chris Williams

   13:01I I I'm reading on page uh and it says Gee, one of the goals is to provide for the creation and preservation of affordable housing for all of Pasco County residents, particularly the low To moderate income household. I I failed to see how uh adding additional fee. The developer will benefit low Moderate income households. That's my comment. So Right. Especially at the time.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   13:30So so can I can I this is David Goldstein. Can I explain

   Chris Williams

   13:35Oh.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   13:37I think we're confusing two concepts here. One Barbara's talking about an increase in Well called standard or market rate apartments. Argument is that by increasing the fees on standard or market rate apartments Adversely affect these deals that Crown was entered into. Thank you. There's a separate as part of the same ordinance, there's a reduction in the the mobility fees for ship-defined, affordable, multifamily, and single family.

   14:07In other words, Uh. They're standard apartments, but they're going down For Ship to find affordable apartments. In fact, they're going down so much they're going down to zero. Okay. Sure. So what

   14:26So I don't think Barbara's talking about that reduction. I don't think she's a p to that reduction. I think she's saying it's the increase in the standard fees that are that is causing concerns. Or her client.

   Barbara Wilhite

   14:40That's correct.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   14:47the right-of-way. single family and affordable multifamily.

   14:53And let me just make one more comment. comment. Yeah, please.

   15:03Our mobility fee system is a system of subsidies. In other words, it uses Other revenue sources, gas tax, sales tax

   15:14to buy down or subsidize certain So in order to offset this reduction affordable multifamily, affordable single family, and the additional in the Harbor's West Market area There has to be a corresponding increase somewhere else to make it revenue neutral.

   15:36If for some reason the board did not improve the increase for standard market rate multifamily We need not be able to approve a decrease for the West Market area or the Um affordable multifamily and single family. In other words, they're they're linked together because there's a limited budget of subsidies. Am I making sense at all?

   GirardiVice Chair

   16:01Yeah, I think uh I think it's what you're saying is very clear to me anyway, uh David. This is uh Chuck Bray. I uh I have a but I have a sort of the same perspective on it that Barbara has in that Um I think this is probably not a good time to uh increase Uh Ps. Uh to anybody that wants to bring a benefit to our county. I think it's uh a factor that would discourage them and And I want them to go. Some gross.

   16:31We need growth. And uh Obviously we have to manage growth, but we need I'll figure out. I don't think you know I think one of the I've probably been here longer than most of us. In this county. So I I know back when we first started building the homes, we thought it was a great idea to build uh six thousand dollar homes and sell 'em the home in the lot for six thousand dollars. Everybody was happy, but the problem is is that we ended up with A lot of low income type housing.

   17:02Mm-hmm. It's something that we're sitting there with now. I'm not sure we need it. continue to encourage more low income housing. I think we need to encourage I'll see. Self sufficient development. You know, because Healthy a healthy economy arises all votes. And uh I I just think that's where our focus should be. Our focus shouldn't be the lowest common denominator. Yeah So I j I just I I

   17:33think this is a bad time to do it. I don't I'm not saying there's a good time, but Uh A lot of people are hurting right now, including the people normally in good shape. Yeah. I just think this is a This is not a good time. Yeah. as was said before, you know, it might have been a good time when the county first started thinking about it. Planning war because the economy was booming, but right now Do we get through this crisis? I

   18:03think we need to to rethink about there's a lot of people out there that Aren't getting a regular paycheck. And uh Yeah, these contractors and construction workers. With the sir. You know, all kinds of people like that. We need to think about it. Growth for them. Yeah. Not so much about just cheap housing.

   18:29That's my thing.

   Christopher Poole

   18:31Mr. Chairman M It's Chris

   GirardiVice Chair

   18:32Port.

   Christopher Poole

   18:33I'll go on the record of saying I agree with you, sir. I think that uh you know the economic uncertainty What we're dealing with on the backside of COVID and and reading that uh Florida State sales tax has been decimated in March and it's supposed to be The numbers are supposed to be even worse in in April, um, as well as another a bunch of other different factors. I really think it's it's um when this was when this item was looked at back in February, it might have been an appropriate time to to consider these changes

   19:03at at that time, but But given the uncertainty that we're facing, I I really think this is a an issue that should be tabled and and uh picked up at a at a later date.

   GirardiVice Chair

   19:15All right. Anybody else?

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   19:17Mr Mr. Chairman Mariano Gerardi. Um a couple of things to add here on this one. Um Not only just the timing of of the whole thing, but I really and and I raise this point 'cause I think I raised this point when similar mobility fee discussions came up on multifamily and on apartments along the fifty four-fifty six corridor several months ago. Um Yeah, you you have a lot of developers that have projects that are vested. in that corridor as well as in the county.

   19:48Um they got vested and they were getting pushed by county staff to increased density to they were I mean they were they were encouraging Multifamily and the and the density. And now these people have these projects vested. Barbara talked about it about Crown. I'm sure there's several others that either have projects under contract, have projects that are vested. But now they come in and and now they wanna get a slap on the wrist to these people that have these properties. I don't know if there's anything that can be done with the grandfathering provision. Um

   20:20I don't know. It looks like the you know, if these rates are adopted they go to into into effect in August. But um I just think you really hit those people hard that have projects and The contracts even to sell projects it Timing and I don't think it's good.

   GirardiVice Chair

   20:37Michael, you had to say something.

   Cox

   20:39Yeah, so I have a couple of questions of staff. Um uh I mean the way I'm reading this uh these table changes. the vast majority of it is going to incentivize the development, which therefore is going to help our economy here locally. Is that correct from the staff?

   Planning and Development Department staff

   21:03I'm sorry, Mr. Cox, could you repeat your question?

   Cox

   21:07So uh the majority of of what I'm seeing in the table here is The proposed incentives are mainly going to a hundred percent. being incentivized. So Majority of projects would r actually receive a boost, correct?

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   21:32Could can I try that can I try to answer that, Alexandra?

   21:36So I think you're correct, uh, Mr. Cox, that there are more decreases, there are more decreased fees in this table than there are increases. That's an accurate statement. However, You have to look at the amount of that type of development. So yes, the West Market area fees are going to be going down under these tables. The affordable housing fees will be going down under these tables. But the percentage of development that we get in Pasco County that's in the West Market area

   22:06or that's affordable housing is likely less than it is for market rate apartments. So You're correct in one sense that there's more fees, there's more categories of fees that are going down. With this proposal. But in terms of the amount of development they would receive a decrease, it's probably Lower than what will be receiving an increase in terms of the amount of development that would normally occur. Yeah. I think we kind

   22:36of skipped over one important point that Olive Dinger made, which is The fees for multifamily TND, Mutter M, T O D um are not increasing and and The county ha and to get to Mr. Girardi's point, a lot of the projects that are that were vested where staff was encouraging density, they tended to be those projects that were Mudderum the T O D projects. So those fees are not increasing at all. You could argue

   23:07that they now have a bigger incentive relative to standard multifamily because Their fees are not increasing. So Um You're correct in one sense, but There is still a a significant amount of standard multifamily that will receive an increase under these these controls.

   Cox

   23:30Okay, well let me let me let me then comment a little bit further then. Um You know, the the whole premise behind doing this mobility fee, and I remember it pretty vividly, was to really try to focus incentives where we wanted development. So um, you know, and it it has worked. I mean, there's no question that that whole uh idea has has helped a lot. The thing that

   24:00I think about here is that There has been a big boom on in the apartment developments around the county. Uh in fact, I mean, I think a lot of people think that maybe we have too too much, but you know, I am a believer in the market, and the market will determine how much is too much. But one thing that does come to mind is that these um developments have routinely been built and then sold for significant amounts of money

   24:30per unit. You know, when you read in in the in the paper about some of these uh developments um selling for three and four hundred thousand dollars per per unit. Um, it seems to me like that this increase is not going to have that big of an effect on it. That's that's number one. Number two, David, correct me if I'm wrong, but the ones that are already entitled All they need to do

   25:00is to uh poll building permits before this ordinance goes into effect and it wouldn't would not uh Correct? That's

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   25:10correct. That if they pull a building permit before August 10th, which would be the earliest it could go into effect. Um It would not be subject to these increases. In addition The Planning Commission could recommend a delayed effective date till January one, or the board could recommend a delayed effective date till January. A lot of our impact fee increases tend to take effect on January one. So there's nothing magical about the August tenth

   25:40date other than that's the soonest it could happen under state statute. But Is it possible for Planning Commissioner Oakley Board to recommend a January one effective date? Yes, and that's kind of our historical practice is to implement new fees effective January one.

   25:59And if they got their building permit before that effective date, they would not be subject to these increases. Does that answer your question?

   Cox

   26:08Yeah, it it it does. And so I mean I think that um You know, obviously they'll start with the BCC um And given the fact that, you know, obviously their their final say on it. Um I'm I'm more apt to per to support what we've been uh shown here today.

   GirardiVice Chair

   26:31All right. Anything anybody else have a

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   26:32comment? So I just one more comment, Mr. Chair. Um just a reminder of what your role is on this particular ordinance. Your role is to determine whether the Or did it consistent with the Pasco County comprehensive plan? Um So you need to make a recommendation on that issue one way or the other. Um, if you are inclined to send some Additional Comments to the board. Include that then in the In

   27:03your recommendation. But you do need to make an affirmative determination about whether the ordinance is consistent or inconsistent with the comprehensive plan.

   Nectarios Pittos

   27:14Chairman Mariano. Okay. Yes. This is this is Nicaragua Spito's planning and development. Uh I just wanted to uh echo David's comments um and uh mention too that The increase in fees um on the standard table and the no increase in fees on the moderam, T and D and D O D tables results in an encouragement of development to go into these types of Um patterns such as

   27:44the mixed-use trip reduction measures, the tran traditional neighborhood design transportation-oriented development. No that sort of encouragement into Moderom, T N D and T O D is still consistent with the comprehensive plan, which we mentioned at the beginning during the presentation. Uh the other thing that I just wanted to mention really quick was uh with regard to the West Market area and the redevelopment and vacant land incentives, even for multifamily uh the

   28:14standard will still be zero in the in those areas. So they will not pay a fee if it's redevelopment or if it's vacant, um vacant land development. Even if you're going to build a multifamily apartment building, let's say. Um it would still be zero in the West Market area.

   28:30And what about single family? I d I don't believe we're we're uh changing anything with regard to single family.

   GirardiVice Chair

   28:38So I'm trying

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   28:39to

   GirardiVice Chair

   28:40Well,

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   28:42yeah. Mr. Chair, to be clear, if it's in the West Market area redevelopment area or the Vacant and set down, it's zero even for single family. The board made a very Strong statement that the harbors or west market areas should be treated differently. And they're doing everything they can to incentivize development in that area. So Defeat whether it's single family or multifamily, if it's in the If it's in that area, it's gonna be zero.

   29:12So why

   GirardiVice Chair

   29:13are we calling it affordable housing?

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   29:16So I I that's why I wanna make sure we're clear.

   29:21Okay, so In the West Market area, that that incentive to make the fee zero applies whether it's affordable or market rate or high end. It's it's it's an incentive for the area to encourage it to redevelop and encourage infill in that area. Doesn't matter whether it's affordable market rate and it could be million dollar homes in the West Market area and it would still be zero because our board wants to send a strong statement that that area is

   29:52in need of development. Redevelopment, infill development, any form of development. That it needs to it needs a jolt, regardless of of price. Okay.

   GirardiVice Chair

   30:01Okay. Well that that's that was my major concern because I just don't wanna I don't see where the county benefits from uh reducing the tax base.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   30:11Right. So So for the West Market area, you gotta treat think about area differently because Most of what we talked about today doesn't apply in the West market area. The West market area is gonna be zero if it's redevelopment or in the incentive zone. It's gonna be zero regardless of the form of development and regardless of the type of development. The affordable housing incentive the affordable affordable housing incentive is really more applicable to the rest of the county.

   GirardiVice Chair

   30:39Okay. So

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   30:40that request is if you have an affordable housing project in Wesley Chapel or Trinity or Northeast Mm-hmm. Carry around the zipper hills. Those fees will now be reduced. Does your qualify as ship defying affordable housing?

   GirardiVice Chair

   30:59So uh what are the boundaries of the West Market area?

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   31:03Um Alexander, do you have a map that shows those boundaries or Terry? Can you pull up a map? Does it say the map? It's g just generally it's generally everything to the west of Little Road. But that's a very general statement of input. The I think Alexander has a map. Or something might have a map.

   GirardiVice Chair

   31:26So it doesn't go as far as forty one. No, it does not include forty one.

   Unidentified speaker

   31:31Okay.

   31:35Yeah, I I have the map right here.

   31:39You want me to just share my screen?

   31:43One. Right.

   31:50Oh now I do. Yeah.

   Nectarios Pittos

   31:56So can everybody see my map now?

   GirardiVice Chair

   31:58Yep.

   Nectarios Pittos

   31:59So these this here is the West Market area. Um as David said, generally Little Road, uh but it also extends a little further than Little Road. I'm here to listen.

   32:13This is the Westmark right here.

   GirardiVice Chair

   32:17Okay. Is it the does it include the green? Where it says north.

   Nectarios Pittos

   32:25Yeah. So the north market is what you see in green there. Central is what you see in in this lighter blue color. Uh South Market is this lighter green color here. And of course the market is way out on the east side of the money.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   32:42So to answer your question, Mr. Chair, it would not include the area that's in dark green.

   GirardiVice Chair

   32:47Okay. Yeah. Well I don't that that explains it a little bit better to me. I don't feel quite as concerned as I did as It sounded to me in the initial that we were Come encourage just low income housing basically in the West Market area. So I wonder if it's a

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   33:05yeah, so I wanna be clear, y Mr. Chairman it It's this isn't just about trying to encourage low income housing. It's it's uh if I had to summarize what the changes are doing. for development in the West Market area by fixing the incentives in that area. It's trying to encourage more mixed use multifamily in the in the form of TND, T O D, um And it is Also encouraging affordable

   33:36housing. That's the third problem of it. But Say that it's only about affordable housing would not be accurate.

   33:44And to and to offset those additional incentives, another fee increase. So The proposal was that increase would be on standard multifamily.

   GirardiVice Chair

   33:56Thanks, so Just for clarification purposes, I'm sure everybody has Somebody has a besides me has a question. What is the standard multiple?

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   34:06So Standard multifamily would be Rocco Market rate multifamily That is not in a C and D. Mixed use, mudderum. Or T form of development. And is not affordable and it's not age restricted. It's not a condo, it's not a townhome, not a it it's but all create apartments, basically.

   34:36That are not in a in a mixed youth form and development.

   34:42Right.

   Denise

   34:45Mr. Chair, uh the caller we had on the phone previously who dropped off is back on the phone. Can we take his call on this item?

   GirardiVice Chair

   34:56It's going on the this item.

   Denise

   34:58Yes. He had dropped off, he had gotten disconnected and he reconnected.

   GirardiVice Chair

   35:04Okay, we don't have a motion yet, so No, thank do we or did you make a motion, right?

   35:11I did not yet. Okay, all right. Okay, yeah Gus, go ahead.

   Denise

   35:16Okay, so we'll put 'em on.

   35:19Sir, uh would you please state your name and your address for the record?

   Eric Gardunio

   35:24I'm sure. My name is Eric Gardunio. I um representing the Bay Area Apartment Association. Our address is PL Box fifteen nineteen fifty eight Tampa, Florida, three three six eight four, and I'm speaking regarding agenda item P three.

   Denise

   35:37Okay, and we're gonna have the clerk swear you in.

   Clerk

   35:44Okay. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give is the truth, so hope you God?

   Eric Gardunio

   35:50I do.

   Denise

   35:51Thank you. And your three minutes will start now.

   Eric Gardunio

   35:54Thank you. Uh good afternoon, uh Planning Commission members. Really appreciate this opportunity to speak before you. As noted, I'm representing the Bay Area Apartment Association. We're a not for profit trade association, representing the apartment industry and uh Champagne area. Um I am going to focus my comments uh specifically on removal of incentives for multifamily construction in the urban, suburban and rural standard categories. I believe my colleague is also online and she'll talk about the affordable housing portion

   36:24of the ordinance. Uh we do have concerns about the removal of these fences. Generally, incentives like these do encourage additional investment in multifamily development. More apartment units out there, uh the the less rent pressures there are generally for everybody in the county. And so removing incentives could could have an unfortunate uh consequence on on just raising prices. um, that I don't think anybody would like to see. Uh but

   36:54more importantly, I I think, you know, looking at uh what it's doing, i it's removing incentives on three specific categories for multifamily while not Which doing thing about uh dozens of other categories that are in the code Um acquaries that deal with things like fast food restaurants. Tire stores En Clark Mm categories in there were the only ones being singled out seemed a bit unfair and arbitrary. And uh but speaking out of it, it's

   37:24we're at least as important to have more multifamily as say uh another fast food restaurant. But on top of that I'd also say One of the things that we Um, we took away from the workshop back in uh February where this ordinance was uh you know, discuss that the um Data presented during that workshop actually uh indicates that eighty percent of the mobility fees being collected come from the urban, twenty

   37:55percent from suburban, and zero from rural. So that tells us that actually the incentives haven't been very effective in in the suburban and not at all effective in the uh urban I'm sorry, rural categories. So if anything, we would we'd ask the Commission to consider actually increasing incentives in those areas. Um I think uh the data that we have available to us Do market data research suggest the same thing. Uh the latest information

   38:25we have from a source called CoStar says that uh of all the department units that are being developed have recently been developed or or are in planning stages for development, they're all in the urban uh areas except for one. So indeed I I think the data points or suggests that uh if there if anything should be done for the r the role and suburban increases of incentives to actually spur investment posts. Uh makes a lot of sense.

   Denise

   38:53Your time is up, sir. Did you s your time is up, sir? Did you state that there was someone else on the line or that is it Ms. uh Wendy?

   Eric Gardunio

   39:01Uh one of my yes, I believe one of my colleagues is also signed up.

   Denise

   39:05It is she on the phone now or because we don't have her waiting in the queue?

   Eric Gardunio

   39:12Oh. Um she should be signed up and in the queue.

   Denise

   39:18There's no one else in our queue. Okay, there is a person in our queue, but could you at least tell us what the area code, not the person's number, just tell us the area code.

   Eric Gardunio

   39:29Uh one second. I have the programs.

   Denise

   39:32Because it doesn't it doesn't match eight one three. Eight one three. Okay. That's not the person we have in RQ. Okay, thank you, sir, for your comments.

   GirardiVice Chair

   39:45Um Is there anybody else to speak then uh Denise?

   Denise

   39:50No, the person we have signed up is not matching the phone number of the person who is on the phone with us right now. Who is waiting in the sheet?

   GirardiVice Chair

   39:59Anyone on the board have questions or comments or uh Board of staff or questions from the staff.

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   40:06I have question and comment.

   GirardiVice Chair

   40:08Uh yeah, go ahead.

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   40:10Yeah. Um this is Richard Tanella. I wonder if we're not going to be able

   40:16I think uh just that whole mobility fee uh there was a lot of time and effort put into it. Now it just seems like we're rushing through it for it's been less than four months. So I think we need to Maybe not rush through this and think about all the implications and Seems like almost with a whack a mole if you push one down, the other one's gonna pop up and Just I think we need to think about this a lot more. The other uh thing I had was a question of David if if I was gonna vote on this or not.

   GirardiVice Chair

   40:43David, is she gonna vote on this?

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   40:47Um I would say no. It's not it's not affecting the school site. It's not affecting um not an increase in residential density. So I can't think how You would be voting on this.

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   41:04Yeah, that's what I thought. Okay, thank you.

   GirardiVice Chair

   41:08Um

   41:10I do think uh there is some merit to that to consider Moving the date back a little bit if we if we do end up approving this, I think uh Probably it would be reasonable to give some of these people that are We'd become unaware of uh a long time ago we were going. Financial issues. Um

   41:34I would be much more inclined to support it if it

   41:39Started at a later date.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   41:41Mr. Chairman before before you s make any motions, um I don't want the caller who's on the line to not speak just because they may have called in on a different number than they registered for, so Can we ask the caller to identify who they are and if see if it's the same person who registered?

   Denise

   41:59Okay, we'll do that.

   Cox

   42:03No

   Unidentified speaker

   42:03way.

   Denise

   42:04Collar. A lot more. Hello. Yeah, yeah.

   42:10Collar.

   42:13Hello?

   42:19Hello? Yes, caller, would you please state your name for the record and your address?

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   42:26Yeah. It's

   42:27Wendy, I'm asking Millen Cabbage. Our address is The O Ba. One five one nine five eight

   Denise

   42:36Okay, for right. Okay, and we're gonna have the blurk. Um we're going to have the clerk swear you in.

   Clerk

   42:46Do you swear or affirm that the s testimony you're about to give it is the true so help you God?

   GirardiVice Chair

   42:57Did you hear that?

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   42:58Hello? Mm it wasn't it was a little bit a little bit muffled, I'm sorry.

   Clerk

   43:04Do you confirm that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, so Helpy God?

   Denise

   43:10Uh yes.

   Clerk

   43:11Thank you.

   Denise

   43:12Okay, your three minutes will start now.

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   43:14No. Good afternoon, Planning Commission members. Thank you for this opportunity to speak before you today. I am the Vice President of the Bay Area Apartment Association. I'm also a regional manager for Royal American Management. We manage apartment communities throughout the Tampa Bay region, including Pasco County. In addition to the points raised um that I would like to make. Um, according to the twenty nineteen rental market study conducted by the Schwinberg Center

   43:44for Housing Studies at the University of Florida, twenty-nine percent of Pasco County population is considered low income and paying more than thirty percent of their income toward housing. This is clear indication that additional affordable housing is needed in our county. Despite this need, it is often a challenge to build affordable multifamily housing between increasing costs for land, labor, and materials that go into buildings and maintaining apartment communities. It is difficult. to keep rent

   44:15at a level that low income households can afford without specific incentives provided by government. That is why we are grateful that the draft ordinance reduces mobility impact fee, changes the affordable multifamily construction. Mobility fees are reduced to zero across every zone within the county. According to the National Apartment Association, on average, 14 cents of every dollar charged in rent goes towards government taxes and fees. Reductions

   44:45in fees could create the margins that make the difference between a project being built or not. Providing incentives like these is an important proactive measure by local government. Thank you for your consideration. considering our concerns around this reduction of incentives for the market rate multifamily housing. And again, we applaud you for taking steps to better encourage affordable housing development in our county. Thank

   Denise

   45:11you. Thank you for your call.

   Clerk

   45:17Okay.

   GirardiVice Chair

   45:19So uh any more comments from our board? The question is on the staff.

   Christopher Poole

   45:27Mr. Chairman Mari Chris Wool, I'll I'll just go on the record of saying that I I'm in agreement with you that uh I I would agree to this with the delayed um effective.

   45:40Mr. Chairman

   Cox

   45:41Mariano. Yeah, Michael Cox here. So um I'm gonna move for approval finding it consistent with the comp plan, but recommending With the Board of County Commissioners to with um an effective date, January 1st, 2021.

   GirardiVice Chair

   45:59Now it's much better to read. I'll I'll second Chris Poole. Okay, so now we have a motion and a second. Any further distinction of the motion?

   46:11All in favor uh by roll call signify by saying aye.

   Clerk

   46:17Jamie Girardi?

   46:20Michael Cox.

   GirardiVice Chair

   46:23Aye.

   Clerk

   46:24Peter Hansel.

   GirardiVice Chair

   46:28I can't hear you, Peter.

   46:31I couldn't you turn your mic on. There you go. Right.

   Clerk

   46:35Peter Hansel.

   GirardiVice Chair

   46:37No. No. Okay.

   Clerk

   46:39Roberto Saez.

   GirardiVice Chair

   46:42Uh yeah.

   Clerk

   46:43Christopher Poole.

   GirardiVice Chair

   46:45I

   Clerk

   46:48Chris Williams represented uh Richard Tanello, he's not here. And Chairman Charles Gray.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   46:55Yeah, Mr. Tanello is not voting on this item.

   Clerk

   46:59Okay. Chairman Charles Gray.

   GirardiVice Chair

   47:03All right, so I guess the eyes have it. No.

   47:10Sound good, Terry?

   Nectarios Pittos

   47:13Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

   GirardiVice Chair

   47:15Okay, welcome home.

   47:19Been away for a few days, huh?

   ▶ 25:5453m2/2

   GirardiVice Chair

   25:54All right, I think we have uh Ordinance to be presented through P3.

   Denise

   26:01Yes, and that will be presented by Alessandro Laporte.

   GirardiVice Chair

   26:06Okay.

   Planning and Development Department staff

   26:12So

   26:17For PDD 20-0560 for the mobility fee amendment for multifamily ship-defined location. low income housing, single family and multifamily, and vacant parcel incentive zone.

   26:34Right. Um I will read the ordinance title. Um An ordinance by the Pasco County Board of County Commissioners amending the Pasco County Land Development Code Section. 1302.2 mobility fees to increase the mobility fees for multifamily in the urban, suburban, and rural standard fee table. To decrease mobility fees for shift-defined, low-income,

   27:05single-family, and multifamily. and decrease mobility fees for vacant parcel incentive zoned areas. And other amendments as necessary to ensure internal consistency, providing for applicability, repealer, severability, inclusion in the Pasco County Land Development Code, and an effective date.

   27:28The recommendation is to find the proposed ordinance consistent with the Pasco County Comprehensive Plan and recommend approval of the ordinance to the Board of County Commissioners. The first reading is scheduled to be June 2nd. It will be a virtual meeting. And the adoption hearing is June 16th, 2020, also to be a virtual meeting.

   27:55In summary, this um stems from the February 25th, 2020 workshop. on the family and affordable housing in Pasco County. The Board of County Commissioners directed the Planning and Development Department to do a few things, one of which was to update the mobility fee tables. to further encourage vacant parcel development in the Westmarket area. Encourage the focus of multifamily development to be part of

   28:25a mixed-use project such as Mutch Rum TND TOD, and encourage more affordable housing countywide. Um the second piece of that what was derived from that workshop was to continue research in the and to establish um at a later date uh potential development standards for multifamily developments. Uh the directive uh by the board of county commissioners will occur in two phases, the first of which is this mobility fee table adjustment.

   29:00Here is a summary of the comprehensive plan policies that promote. the efficient use of infrastructure, adequate supply of affordable housing, and that support mixed use development and more efficient growth patterns. So the mobility fee update as well as the other standards would reinforce this and be consistent also with the Harbors Redevelopment Plan.

   29:30Um, I do want to clarify a couple of things before we dive into the changes, is that multifamily and the mobility fees. Only the apartments are the ones that are being addressed. The other multifamily forms of development. The low-rise condominium townhomes, the high-rise condominiums, age restricted multifamily and congregate care facilities will not have an increase to the net fee.

   30:01Additionally, the multifamily apartments in the Minorim, TND or T O D will also not see this increase in fees.

   30:15These tables that you will see in the subsequent slides are a summary of changes in your packet. You will have at your disposal the entire spreadsheet of all the tables. We just wanted to highlight what was changed. So in the in the urban grouping. Um you have several tables. Multifamily again, multifamily apartments only sees the increase under the urban standard.

   30:47And that increase of the incentive percentage currently is 7%. It would drop down to 0%. So a net the new net fee proposed is $4,280. the remaining the single family detached and multifamily ship-defined units in all these tables would change to 100% incentive.

   31:20In the urban TOD, you'll see two changes. One would be to the title. Right now the table title references both the transit-oriented development as well as the vacant parcel incentive zone. Um in order to um To do the to manifest a directive from the board for incentivizing at 100% the vacant parcel.

   31:50We have removed that title from the table. And it will be added to the redevelopment district fee schedule instead. And so the table um four dash four will be solely for transit-oriented development. And the only change that you will see there. is for the single family detached ship defined units and the multifamily. ship defined units. Those incentives

   32:20will change to 100%. in the West um West Market area redevelopment district schedule again now. The new title will be with the addition of the vacant parcel incentive zone schedule. And there will be no change otherwise because there was already 100% incentivized single family detached and multifamily ship-defined units.

   32:48In the suburban um uh tables, this is what the summary looks like. Again, is the same. Um Where the multifamily is the is uh Category is only increased in the standard fee and it remains unchanged in the other fee schedules.

   33:18And the rule is the same. You have in the rule, you actually have an additional ship define. uh large lot single family detached, which would also receive the hundred Percent incentive. Um And the multifamily in the standard rural fee schedule would see that increase in fees.

   33:45There are uh just minor tweaks in the text um that needs to be amendment so they can um be consistent with the table changes and you'll see these two presented in this slide and in the next slide.

   34:04And with that, we hope that you will find that the proposed ordinance is consistent with the Pasco County Comprehensive Plan and recommend the approval of the ordinance to the Board of County Commissioners.

   Denise

   34:18Mr. Chairman, before you take any um comment from the Planning Commission members, clerk will read the um the proof of publication into record.

   GirardiVice Chair

   34:30Okay. Go ahead.

   Clerk

   34:33Item P two was published in the Tampa Bay Times on March thirteenth, twenty twenty, and item P three was published in the Tampa Bay Times May 10, 2020. Thank you.

   GirardiVice Chair

   34:45Thank you.

   Denise

   34:49Also on this item we do have two callers on the the phone.

   GirardiVice Chair

   34:57All right, good. Thank you very much.

   35:03So do we have the first caller? Online.

   Denise

   35:06One of our callers has hung up. Um, let's try. Do you want to start taking public comment at the moment?

   GirardiVice Chair

   35:15Do we have somebody there speak?

   Denise

   35:17We do.

   GirardiVice Chair

   35:18Okay. Sure.

   35:24Well come forward and state uh your name. Address?

   Denise

   35:31Coller, you're on the phone. Would you please state your name and address for the record?

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   35:38Yes, this is Ed Rogers with

   35:43My address is [address removed].

   GirardiVice Chair

   35:51All right. And uh you need to be sworn, please. Uh So uh please raise your right hand. Uh M B Sworn. Okay.

   Clerk

   36:01Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth to Hopey God?

   Denise

   36:07I

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   36:07do.

   Denise

   36:08Thank you.

   36:10Okay.

   Unidentified speakerVoice A

   36:13Okay, thank you. So good afternoon, members of the commission. Again I'm Ed Rogers of Florida Design Consultants. And I'm speaking on behalf of uh crown community development. Uh Crown Community Development currently has uh two projects under active development that are fully entitled and have multifamily components. Chapel Crossings is in the urban service area and Watergrass is in the suburban

   36:43area. In both projects, Crown has contracts pending with market rate apartment developers who are on the cusp of moving forward. And I wanted to relate to you that I have reviewed the video footage of the Board of County Commissioners Workshop that was held on February twenty fifth. uh where staff was given board direction to move forward with these mobility fee adjustments and other measures. And

   37:14it struck me uh the other day that we were living in a different economy back in February. Uh in fact, the first item on the workshop agenda that day was the county budget for the next fiscal year, and the OMB presented to the board a glowing picture. of the economy, which was very vibrant at the time. The Covet nineteen crisis and its significant economic impacts hadn't yet made its imprint on

   37:44anybody's consciousness at that point. But we now live in a in a really different world where, you know, more than thirty million Americans have sought unemployment benefits because of the effects of the coronavirus on the economy. Now the great uncertainty that surrounds the nature and timing of any recovery from the current economic cataclysm um makes uh deals like crowns pending multifamily

   38:14sales um jeopardized. a m a mobility fee increase at this time could be just the the thing to scuttle those deals. So On crown's behalf I would ask Um the Commission to consider uh the currently proposed mobility fee adjustments, regardless of whatever their underlying good intentions are to be tabled until the coronavirus infections are on a demonstrable decline and

   38:44the nation's economic picture going forward is on a more certain and positive track. And uh that concludes my comments and I really appreciate Your time.

   Denise

   38:56Thank you for for your comments. Thank

   GirardiVice Chair

   38:59you. Does anybody have any questions of the uh Uh the gentleman just spoke.

   39:10All right. Uh do we have someone else there? Denise?

   Denise

   39:13Yes, uh we have uh Barbara Wilhite who is probably still on as a as a panelist and we'll give her three minutes to provide her comments. So if you would please state your name and address for the record and uh we'll have the clerk swear you in.

   39:33And you'll um have to unmute yourself.

   GirardiVice Chair

   39:37Can't hear you, Barbara.

   Barbara Wilhite

   39:40Yeah.

   Denise

   39:40Okay.

   Barbara Wilhite

   39:41We go. Okay. Barbara Will Height, [address removed].

   Clerk

   39:50Andy, Sarah affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth to help you God?

   Denise

   39:56Thank you. Your three minutes will start now.

   Barbara Wilhite

   40:01Thank you. Good afternoon again. Um I am as well here speaking to you on behalf of Crown Communities, a longtime client of mine, maybe a little different perspective. Um Crown Communities entitled um Watergrass in two thousand and six. including multifamily And then many years ago, t a round twenty excuse me, twenty uh thirteen we entitled um we entitled uh Chapel Crossings. The point I make there is that, you know We

   40:32these projects have been entitled for a while with multifamily. Um, I think a lot of the concern that we've seen over the multifamily issue is rezoning where people are seeking plan amendments and rezoning, um, not so much the projects that is entitled long ago. So Crown finally gets the opportunity to move these projects forward and get contracts on them and then comes COVID and then comes this potential increase. So it's a significant issue to them. They've been good partners for the county. They have produced

   41:02Seven Oaks, which is an outstanding project. uh tax base that has main been maintained there over the years. We have letters from the property appraiser saying seven oaks. um has maintained property values the best of all developments in Pasco County. So they're a good partner of ours and and what this increase would do is kind of stick 'em in the eye in a time when um when there's so much uncertainty right now. So I would also state that I have concerns about continuing

   41:32to burden the urban service area when I read in the paper, you know, that the struggle that the school district, the teachers, the students, their families, the administrators of trying to deal with the s the overcrowding that we've produced by these policies that we continue to perpetuate and not really review. We have undercapacity schools in Hudson in areas where you're about to raise if if the board if this commission and the board goes along with these fees in areas where you're about to raise the multifamily rate for marketplay apartments.

   42:03And and we have I w I read in the paper The Struggles about fights over who you know, who's gonna get to use the these ball fields that are parks in the say in the urban service area when we have ball fields that we don't have those struggles with in other parts of the county. So think the the timing isn't good and I think that doing just a a policy change in a vacuum and not really doing it in a uh coordinated manner, it's gonna potentially cause unintended consequences. And

   42:34so uh those are my thoughts on behalf of uh of my client, long term client at Crowd Communities as well as myself.

   Denise

   42:42Thank you for your comments.

   GirardiVice Chair

   42:44Thank you. Thank you. And uh Do we have any questions for Barbara?

   Chris Williams

   42:49Yeah, I have one. This is Peter Hansel.

   GirardiVice Chair

   42:52Go ahead, Peter.

   Chris Williams

   42:53Uh my your main concern is that this will be an additional financial burden, not just on your client, but on others within the county. Is is that the concern?

   Barbara Wilhite

   43:06Yeah, th that is the concern that we've got delicate balance of trying to they're trying to hold projects together and hold deals together um during COVID and and that's an increase it's come in a time that makes you know scuttle those deals. And then I need to worry about the overall policy aspect of unintended consequences of of the action of especially beyond the urban service area.

   Chris Williams

   43:33So do you see this as a financial burden? I read it here where it's basically looking at uh We call it the uh urban transit development in the West Harbor Market Area. Plus they also indicated that the Uh Redevelopment. Yeah, there was a sentence in here about the uh Central area also. So what what you're addressing in years by saying uh The concern I have is you're you're is that you

   44:04have some evidence that this would be a financial burden Two developers moving forward. In essence they're not getting anything in return from the county. We're just paying additional fees. Oh that's a third point. Go ahead.

   Barbara Wilhite

   44:19Oh we have so capital crossings within the urban service area and that's a seven percent increase. And um And Watergrass Promenade is in the suburban area and that's a seventeen percent increase proposed. Yes, my client has has told me that Um it could be a burden to air pending deals and scuttle the deals. I'm speaking on behalf of that client. I don't have any knowledge myself. My client had some outpatient surgery yesterday, so he can't couldn't send us virtual meeting

   44:50himself. So I'm tending on his behalf.

   GirardiVice Chair

   44:56Uh any any uh other comment, Peter, do you have more you wanna say?

   Chris Williams

   45:00I I I'm reading on page uh and it says G one of the goals is to provide for the creation and preservation of affordable housing for all of Pasco County residents, particularly low To moderate income household. Uh I I failed to see how adding additional fee. The developer would benefit well moderate income households. That's my comment. So Right. Especially if it's

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   45:28Mm-hmm.

   Chris Williams

   45:29So

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   45:29so can I can I this is David Goldstein, can I explain

   Chris Williams

   45:34That's one.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   45:36I think we're confusing two concepts here. One Barbara's talking about an increase in Well call standard or market rate apartments. Argument is that by increasing the fees on standard or market rate apartments Adversely affect these deals that Crown was entered into. Thank you. There's a separate as part of the same ordinance, there's a reduction

   Chris Williams

   46:00in the the

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   46:01mobility fees for ship-defined, affordable, multifamily, and single family. In other words, Uh. or standard apartments, but they're going down For Ship to find affordable apartments. In fact, they're going down so much they're going down to zero. Okay. Yeah. So what

   46:25So I don't think Barbara's talking about that reduction. I don't think she's a p to that reduction. I think she's saying it's the increase in the standard fees that are that is causing concerns for her client.

   Barbara Wilhite

   46:39That's correct.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   46:47single family and affordable multifamily.

   46:52And let me just make one more comment. comment. Yeah, please three.

   47:02Our mobility fee system is a system of subsidies. In other words, it uses Other revenue sources, gas tax, sales tax

   47:13to buy down or subsidize certain So in order to offset this reduction affordable multifamily, affordable single family, and the additional in the Harbor's West Market area There has to be a corresponding increase somewhere else to make it revenue neutral.

   47:35If for some reason the board did not improve the increase for standard market rate multifamily We knew we may not be able to approve a decrease for the West Market area or the Um affordable multifamily and single family. In other words, they're they're linked together because there's a limited budget of subsidies. Am I making sense at all?

   GirardiVice Chair

   48:00Yeah, I think uh I think it's what you're saying is very clear to me anyway, uh David. This is uh Chuck Gray. I uh I have a I have a sort of the same perspective on it that Barbara has in that Um I think this is probably not a good time to uh increase Uh Ps. Uh anybody that wants to bring a benefit to our county. I think it's uh a factor that would discourage them and And to want them to go. Some gross.

   48:30We need growth. And uh Obviously we have to manage growth, but we need I'll figure out. I don't think you know I think one of the I've probably been here longer than most of us. In this county. So I I know back when we first started building the homes, we thought it was a great idea to build six thousand dollar homes and sell 'em the home in the lot for six thousand dollars. Everybody was happy. But the problem is is that we ended up with A lot of low income type

   49:00housing. Mm-hmm. It's something that we're sitting there with now. I'm not sure we need it. continue to encourage more low income housing. I think we need to encourage I'll see. Self sufficient development. You know, because Healthy a healthy economy arises all votes. And uh I I just think that's where our focus should be. Our focus shouldn't be The lowest common denominator. And uh So I j I just

   49:31That's I think this is a bad time to do it. I don't I'm not saying there's a good time, but Oh. A lot of people are hurting right now, including the people normally in good shape. Yeah, no. I just think this is a This is not a good time. Yeah. as was said before, you know, it might have been a good time when the county first started thinking about it. Planning war because the economy was booming, but right now Will we get through this crisis?

   50:02I think we need to to rethink about it. There's a lot of people out there that Aren't getting a regular paycheck. And uh Yeah, these contractors and construction workers. With more. You know, all kinds of people like that. We need the acabama. Growth for them. Yeah. Not so much about just cheap housing.

   50:28That's my thing.

   Christopher Poole

   50:30Mm Mr. Chairman Mariano. It's Chris Paul. I'll go on the record of saying I agree with you, sir. I think that uh you know the economic uncertainty What we're dealing with on the backside of COVID and and reading that uh Florida State sales tax has been decimated in March and it's supposed to be The numbers are supposed to be even worse in in April, um, as well as another a bunch of other different factors. I really think it's it's um when this is when this item was looked at back in February, it

   51:00might have been an appropriate time to to consider these changes at at that time, but But given the uncertainty that we're facing, I I really think this is a an issue that should be tabled and and uh picked up at a at a later date.

   GirardiVice Chair

   51:14All right.

   Christopher Poole

   51:14Anybody

   GirardiVice Chair

   51:15else?

   Unidentified speakerVoice C

   51:16Mr Mr. Chairman Mariano Girardi. Um a couple of things to add here on this one. Um Not only just the timing of of the whole thing, but I really and and I raise this point 'cause I think I raised this point when similar mobility fee discussions came up on multifamily and on apartments along the fifty four-fifty six corridor several months ago. Um Yeah, you you have a lot of developers that have projects that are vested. in that corridor as well as in the county.

   51:47Um they got vested and they were getting pushed by county staff to increased density to they were I mean they were they were encouraging Multifamily and the and the density. And now these people have these projects vested. Barbara talked about Crown and I'm sure there's several others that either have projects under contract, have projects that are vested. But now they come in and and now they wanna get a slap on the wrist to these people that have these properties. I I don't know if there's anything that can be done with the grandfathering provision. Um

   52:19I don't know. It looks like the you know, if these rates are adopted they go to into effect in August. But um I just think you really hit those people hard that have projects and The contracts even to sell projects it Timing and I don't think it's good.

   GirardiVice Chair

   52:36Michael, you had to say something.

   Cox

   52:38Yeah, so I have a couple of questions of staff. Um I mean the way I'm reading this uh these table changes. the vast majority of it is going to incentivize the development, which therefore is going to help our economy here locally. Is that correct from the staff?

   Planning and Development Department staff

   53:02I'm sorry, Mr. Cox, could you repeat your question?

   Cox

   53:06So uh the majority of of what I'm seeing in the table here is The proposed incentives are mainly going to a hundred percent. being incentivized. So The majority of projects would r actually receive a boost, correct?

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   53:31Could can I try that can I try to answer that, Alexandra?

   Eric Gardunio

   53:35So

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   53:36I think you're correct, uh, Mr. Cox, that there are more decreases, there are more decreased fees in this table than there are increases. That's an accurate statement. However, You have to look at the amount of that type of development. So yes, the West Market area fees are gonna be going down under these tables. The affordable housing fees will be going down under these tables. But the percentage of development that we get in Pasco County that's in the West Market area or that's affordable

   54:06housing is likely less than it is for market rate apartments. So You're correct in one sense that there's more fees, there's more categories of fees that are going down. With this proposal. But in terms of the amount of development that would receive a decrease, it's probably Lower than what will be receiving an increase in terms of the amount of development that would normally occur. Yeah. I think we kind of skipped over one

   54:36important point that Olive Dinger made, which is The fees for multifamily TND, Mutter M, T O D um are not increasing and and The county ha and to get to Mr. Girardi's point, a lot of the projects that are that were vested where staff was encouraging density, they tended to be those projects that were Mudderum D T O D projects. So those fees are not increasing at all. You could argue that they

   55:07now have a bigger incentive relative to standard multifamily because Their fees are not increasing. So Um You're correct in one sense, but There is still a a significant amount of standard multifamily that will receive an increase under these these schedules.

   Cox

   55:29Okay, well let me let me let me then comment a little bit further then. Um You know, the the whole premise behind doing this mobility fee, and I remember it pretty vividly, was to really try to focus incentives where we wanted development. So um, you know, and it it has worked. I mean, there's no question that that whole uh idea has has helped a lot. The thing that

   55:59I think about here is that There has been a big boom on in the apartment. Developments around the county. In fact, I mean, I think a lot of people think that maybe we have too much, but you know, I am a believer in the market, and the market will determine how much is too much. But one thing that does come to mind is that these developments have routinely been built and then sold for significant amounts of money per. unit.

   56:30You know when you read in the in the paper about some of these uh developments um selling for three and four hundred thousand dollars per per unit. Um, it seems to me like that this increase is not going to have that big of an effect on it. That's that's number one. Number two. David, correct me if I'm wrong, but the ones that are already entitled All they need to do is to uh

   57:00poll building permits before this ordinance goes into effect and it wouldn't would not uh Correct?

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   57:08That's correct, that if they pull a building permit before August tenth, which would be the earliest it could go into effect. Um It would not be subject to these increases. In addition The Planning Commission could recommend a delayed effective date till January one, or the board could recommend a delayed effective date till January. A lot of our impact fee increases tend to take effect on January one. So there's nothing magical about the

   57:38August tenth date other than that's the soonest it could happen under state statute. But Is it possible for Planning Commissioner Oakley to recommend a January one effective date? Yes, and that's kind of our historical practice is to implement new fees effective January one.

   57:58And if they got their building apartment before that effective date, they would not be subject to these increases. Does that answer your question?

   Cox

   58:07Yeah, it it it does. And so I mean I think that um You know, obviously they'll start with the BCC um And given the fact that, you know, obviously their their final say on it, um I'm I'm more apt to per to support what we've been uh shown here today.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   58:30All right. Anything

   58:30anybody else have a comment? So I just one more comment, Mr. Chair. Um just a reminder of what your role is on this particular ordinance. Your role is to determine whether the Or did it consistent with the Pasco County comprehensive plan? Um So you need to make a recommendation on that issue one way or the other. Um If you are inclined to send some Additional Comments to the board, we can we can Include that in

   59:01in the In your recommendation. But you do need to make an affirmative determination about whether the ordinance is consistent or inconsistent with the comprehensive plan.

   Nectarios Pittos

   59:13Mayorman. Okay. Yes. This is this is Nicario's Pito's planning and development term. Uh I just wanted to uh echo David's comments um and uh mention too that The increase in fees um on the standard table and the you know increase in fees on the moderum T and D and D O D tables results in an encouragement of development to go into these types of Um Patterns such as

   59:43the mixed-use trip reduction measures, the tran traditional neighborhood design, uh transportation-oriented development. No that sort of encouragement into Moderam, T N D and T O D is still consistent with the comprehensive plan which we mentioned at the beginning during the presentation. Um the other thing that I just wanted to mention really quick was uh with regard to the West Market area and the redevelopment and vacant land incentives, even for multifamily uh the

   1:00:13standard will still be zero in the in those areas. So they will not pay a fee if it's redevelopment or if it's vacant, um vacant land development. Even if you're going to build a multifamily apartment building, let's say. Um it would still be zero in the West Market area.

   1:00:29And what about single family? I d I don't believe we're we're uh changing anything with regard to single family.

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:00:37So I'm

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   1:00:38trying to

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:00:39Well,

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   1:00:41yeah. Mr. Chair, to be clear, if it's in the West Market area redevelopment area or the Vacant and set down, it's zero even for single family. The board made a very Strong statement that the harbors or west market area should be treated differently. And they're doing everything they can to incentivize development in that area. So the feature whether it's single family or multifamily, if it's in the If it's in that area, it's gonna be zero.

   1:01:11So why are we calling it affordable housing? So I I that's why I want to make sure we're quick. These are two different issues. Okay. so In the West Market area, that that incentive to make the fee zero applies whether it's affordable or market rate or high end. It's it's it's an incentive for the area to encourage it to redevelop and encourage infill in that area. Doesn't matter whether it's affordable

   1:01:41market rate, and it can be million-dollar homes in the West Market area, and it would still be zero because our board wants to send a strong statement that that area is in need of development. Redevelopment, infill development, any form of development. Did it need to it needs a jolt. Regardless of of price. Okay.

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:02:00Okay. Well that that's that was my major concern because I just don't wanna I don't see where the county benefits from uh reducing the tax base.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   1:02:10Right. So So for the West Market area you gotta treat think about area differently because Most of what we talked about today doesn't apply in the West market area. The West market area is gonna be zero if it's redevelopment or in the incentive zone. It's gonna be zero regardless of the form of development and regardless of the type of development. The affordable housing incentive the affordable affordable housing incentive is really more applicable to the rest of the county. Okay. So that request

   1:02:40is if you have an affordable housing project in Wesley Chapel or Trinity or Northeast Mm-hmm.

   1:02:49Those fees will now be reduced. To zero if they qualify as ship defined affordable housing.

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:02:56Okay. So uh what are the boundaries of the West Market area?

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   1:03:02Um Alexander, do you have a map that shows those boundaries or carry? Can you pull up a map? Is it a map? It's g just generally it's generally everything to the west of Little Road. But that's a very general statement, but The I think Alexander has a map. Or something might have a map.

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:03:25So it doesn't go as far as forty one.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   1:03:28No,

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:03:28it does not include forty one. Okay.

   1:03:34I I have the map right here.

   1:03:38Do you want me to just share my screen?

   1:03:42What?

   1:03:49Oh

   Nectarios Pittos

   1:03:50now I do. Yeah.

   1:03:55So can everybody see my map now? Yep. So these this here is the West Market area. Um as David said, generally Little Road, but it also extends a little further than Little Road. I'm easier.

   1:04:12This is the best mark right here.

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:04:16Okay. Yeah, is it the does it include the green? Where it says north.

   Nectarios Pittos

   1:04:24Yeah.

   1:04:27Central is what you see in in this lighter blue color. Uh South Market is this lighter green color here. And of course the market is way out on the east side of the money.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   1:04:41So to answer your question, Mr. Chair, it would not include the area that's in dark green.

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:04:46Okay. Yeah. Well I don't that that explains it a little bit better to me. I don't feel quite as concerned as I did as It sounded to me in the initial that we were Come encourage just low income housing basically in the West Market Area. So I wonder if you're not going to be able

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   1:05:04to I want to be clear, Mr. Chairman it it's this isn't just about trying to encourage low income housing. It's it's a if I had to summarize what the changes are doing for development in the West Market area by racing the incentives in that area. It's trying to encourage more mixed use multifamily in the in the form of TND, T O D, um And it is Also encouraging

   1:05:34affordable housing. That's the third problem of it. But Right. Say that it's only about affordable housing would not be accurate.

   1:05:43And to and to offset those additional incentives another fee increase. The first proposal was that increase would be on standard multifamily.

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:05:55Yeah, so Just for clarification purposes, I'm sure everybody has Somebody has a besides me has a question. What is a standard multiple?

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   1:06:05So Standard multifamily would be Rocco Market rate multifamily

   1:06:14C and D Mixed use, mudderum. Or T U D form of development. And is not affordable and it's not age restricted. It's not a condo, it's not a townhome, not a it it's but all cart grade apartments, basically.

   1:06:35That are not in a in a mixed use form and development.

   1:06:41Okay.

   Denise

   1:06:44Mr. Chair, uh the caller we had on the phone previously who dropped off is back on the phone. Can we take his call on this item?

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:06:55It's calling on the this item.

   Denise

   1:06:57Yes. He had dropped off, he had gotten disconnected and he reconnected.

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:07:03Okay, we don't have a motion yet, so No, thank do we or did you make a motion, right?

   1:07:10I did not yet. Okay. All right. Okay, yeah, Gus, go ahead.

   Denise

   1:07:15Okay, so we'll put 'em on. Sir, uh would you please state your name and your address for the record?

   Eric Gardunio

   1:07:23I'm sure. My name is Eric Gardunio. I um representing the Bay Area Apartment Association. Our address is PO Box fifteen nineteen fifty eight, Tampa, Florida, three three six eight four, and I'm speaking regarding agenda item P three.

   Denise

   1:07:37Okay, and we're gonna have the clerk swear you in.

   Clerk

   1:07:43Okay. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give is the truth, so help you God?

   Eric Gardunio

   1:07:49I do.

   Clerk

   1:07:50Thank you. And your

   Denise

   1:07:50three minutes will start now.

   Eric Gardunio

   1:07:53Thank you. Uh good afternoon, uh Planning Commission members. Really appreciate this opportunity to speak before you. As noted, I'm representing the Bay Area Apartment Association. We're a not-for-profit trade association, representing the apartment industry in uh Tampa B area. Um I am going to focus my comments uh specifically on removal of incentives for multifamily construction in the urban, suburban, and rural standard categories. I believe my colleague is also online and she'll talk about the affordable housing portion

   1:08:23of the ordinance. Uh we do have concerns about the removal of the incentives. Generally, incentives like these do encourage additional investment in multifamily development. More apartment units out there, uh the the less rent pressures there are generally for everybody in the county. And so removing incentives could could have an unfortunate uh consequence on on just raising prices. um, that I don't think anybody would like to see. Uh but

   1:08:53more importantly I I think, you know, looking at uh what it's doing, i it's removing sensors on three specific categories for multifamily while not Which doing thing about uh dozens of other categories that are in the code Um acorde that deal with things like fast food restaurants Tire stores T categories in there were the only ones being singled out seemed a bit unfair and arbitrary. And uh but speaking uh it's

   1:09:23we're at least as important to have more multifamily as say uh another fast food restaurant. But on top of that, I'd also say One of the things that we Um, we took away from the workshop back in uh February where this coordinates was uh you know, discuss that's the um Data presented during that workshop actually uh indicates that eighty percent of the mobility fees being collected come from the urban, twenty

   1:09:54percent from suburban, and zero from rural. So that tells us that actually the incentives haven't been very effective in in the suburban and not at all effective in the uh urban I'm sorry, rural categories. So if anything, we would we'd ask the commission to consider actually increasing incentives in those areas. Um I think uh the data that we have available to us Do market data research suggests the same thing. Uh the latest information

   1:10:24we have from a source called CoStar says that uh of all the department units that are being developed have recently been developed or or are in planning stages for development, they're all in the urban uh areas except for one. So uh indeed I I think the data points or suggests that uh if there if anything should be done for the r the role and suburban increases of incentives to actually spur investments. Uh it makes a lot of sense.

   Denise

   1:10:52Your time is up, sir. Did you s your time is up, sir? Did you state that there was someone else on the line or that is it Ms. uh Wendy?

   Eric Gardunio

   1:11:00Uh one of my yes, I believe one of my colleagues is also signed up.

   Denise

   1:11:04It is she on the phone now or because we don't have her waiting in the queue?

   Eric Gardunio

   1:11:11Oh. Um She should be signed up and in the queue.

   Denise

   1:11:17There's no one else in our queue. Okay, there is a person in our queue, but could you at least tell us what the area code, not the person's number, just tell us the area code.

   Eric Gardunio

   1:11:28Uh one second. I have the programs.

   Denise

   1:11:31Because it doesn't it doesn't match eight one three. Eight one three. Okay. That's not the person we have in RQ. Okay, thank you, sir, for your comments.

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:11:44Um

   1:11:46Is there anybody else to speak then uh Denise?

   Denise

   1:11:49No, the person we have signed up is not matching the phone number of the person who is on the phone with us right now. Who is waiting in the machine?

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:11:58Anyone on the board have questions or comments or uh Board of staff or questions from the staff.

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   1:12:05I have question and comment.

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:12:07Uh yeah, go

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   1:12:08ahead. Yeah. Um this is Richard Tanella. I wonder if you're not going to be able

   1:12:15I think uh just that whole mobility fee uh there was a lot of time and effort put into it. Now it just seems like we're rushing through it for it's been less than four months. So I think we need to Maybe not rush through this and think about all the implications and Seems like almost with a whack a mole if you push one down, the other one's gonna pop up and Just I think we need to think about this a lot more. The other uh thing I had was a question of David if if I was gonna vote on this or not.

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:12:42David, is she gonna vote on this?

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   1:12:46Um I would say no. It's not it's not affecting the school site. It's not affecting um not an increase in residential density. So I can't think how he would be voting on this.

   Unidentified speakerVoice D

   1:13:03Yeah, that's another thought. Okay, thank you.

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:13:07Um

   1:13:09I do think uh there is some merit to that to consider Moving the date back a little bit, if we if we do end up approving this, I think uh Probably it would be um reasonable to give some of these people that are would become unaware of um a long time ago we were getting Financial issues. Um

   1:13:33I would be much more inclined to support it if it

   1:13:38Started at a later date.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   1:13:40Mr. Chairman before you s make any motions, um I don't want the caller who's on the line to not speak just because they may have called in on a different number than they registered for, so Can we ask the caller to identify who they are and if see if it's the same person who registered?

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   1:13:58Okay, we'll do that.

   Denise

   1:14:02And

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   1:14:02we're waiting.

   Denise

   1:14:03Collar. A lot more. Hello. Yeah, yeah.

   1:14:09Collar.

   1:14:12Hello?

   1:14:18Hello? Yes, caller, would you please state your name for the record and your address?

   Unidentified speaker

   1:14:25Yeah. This is Wendy, I'm asking no one Kevin. Our address is Theoba. One five one nine five eight

   1:14:35Okay, four.

   Denise

   1:14:37Okay, and we're gonna have the clerk. Um we're going to have the clerk swear you in.

   Clerk

   1:14:44Do you swear or affirm that the s testimony you're about to give it is a true so help you God?

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:14:56Did you hear that?

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   1:14:57Hello? Mm it wasn't it was a little bit a little bit muffled, I'm sorry.

   Clerk

   1:15:03Do you confirm that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, so Helpy God?

   Denise

   1:15:09Uh yes.

   Clerk

   1:15:10Thank you.

   Denise

   1:15:11Okay, your three minutes will start now.

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   1:15:13No. Good afternoon, Planning Commission members. Thank you for this opportunity to speak before you today. I am the Vice President of the Bay Area Apartment Association. I'm also a regional manager for Royal American Management. We manage apartment communities throughout the Tampa Bay region, including Pasco County. In addition to the points raised um that I would like to make. Um, according to the twenty nineteen rental market study conducted by the Schwinberg Center

   1:15:43for Housing Studies at the University of Florida, twenty-nine percent of Pasco County population is considered low income and paying more than thirty percent of their income toward housing. This is clear indication that additional affordable housing is needed in our county. Despite this need, it is often a challenge to build affordable multifamily housing between increasing costs for land, labor, and materials that go into buildings and maintaining apartment communities. It is difficult. to keep rent

   1:16:14at a level that low income households can afford without specific incentives provided by government. That is why we are grateful that the draft work reduces mobility impact fee, changes the affordable multifamily construction. Mobility fees are reduced to zero across every zone within the county. According to the National Apartment Association, on average, 14 cents of every dollar charged in rent goes towards government taxes and fees. Reductions

   1:16:44in fees could create the margins that make the difference between a project being built or not. Providing incentives like these is an important proactive measure by local government. Thank you for your consideration. considering our concerns around this reduction of incentives for the market rate multifamily housing. And again, we applaud you for taking steps to better encourage affordable housing development in our county.

   Denise

   1:17:10Thank you. Thank you for your call.

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:17:16Okay. So uh any more comments from our board? The question is on the staff.

   Christopher Poole

   1:17:26Mr. Chairman Mari Chris Well, I'll I'll just go on the record of saying that I I'm in agreement with you that uh I I would agreed to this with the delayed um effective

   1:17:39Mr. Chairman Mariano.

   Cox

   1:17:42Yeah, Michael Cox here. So um I'm gonna move for approval finding it consistent with the comp plan, but recommending to the Board of County Commissioners to with um an effective date, January first, two thousand and twenty-one.

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:17:58Now it's much better to read. I'll second Chris Pool. Okay, so now we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion of the motion?

   1:18:10All in favor uh by roll call, signify by saying aye.

   Clerk

   1:18:16Jamie Girardi?

   1:18:19Michael Cox.

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:18:22Aye.

   Clerk

   1:18:23Peter Hansel.

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:18:27I can't hear you, Peter.

   1:18:30I couldn't you turn your mic on. There you go. Right.

   Clerk

   1:18:34Peter Hansel?

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:18:36No. No. Okay.

   Clerk

   1:18:38Roberto Saez.

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:18:41Uh yeah.

   Clerk

   1:18:42Christopher Poole.

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:18:44I

   Clerk

   1:18:47Chris Williams represented uh Richard Tanello, he's not here, and Chairman Charles Gray.

   Unidentified speakerVoice B

   1:18:54Yeah, Mr. Tinemel is not voting on this item.

   Clerk

   1:18:58Okay. Chairman Charles Gray.

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:19:02All right, so I guess the eyes have it. No.

   1:19:09Sound good, Terry?

   Nectarios Pittos

   1:19:12Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

   GirardiVice Chair

   1:19:14Okay, welcome home.

   1:19:18Been away for a few days, huh?

2. 2Jun 2, 2020
   Board of County CommissionersP1Public hearingApproved

   Approved minutes

   Approved as part of the Public Hearing Consent Agenda by roll call vote.

   Open this item →▶ Play from 0:00
   ▶ 0:0029m1/2

   Mariano

   0:00Okay, good afternoon. Um Everybody, I'd like to call back to order the Pasco County Board of County Commissioners of June second, twenty twenty. I'd like to remind everybody that Please silence your phones or your electronic devices and mute your microphones. Gonna move on with our public hearing. Um Madam Clerk, do we have proof for item P one?

   Oakley

   0:21Yes, item P one was published in the Tampa Bay Times on May twentieth, tw two thousand twenty.

   Mariano

   0:29This is an ordinance by the Pasco County Board of County Commissioners amending the Pasco County Land Development Code, Section 1302.

   0:39Fee table to decrease mobility fees for ship defined low-income single family and multifamily decreased mobility fees for baker parcel incentive zone area. The other amendments as necessary to ensure internal consistency approved factability repeal subrability inclusion in the Pasco County Land Development Code and effective dates.

   County Administrator

   0:57And

   Mariano

   0:57again this is the first public hearing, so this was an introduction. No action will be required. So Mr. Pitas, I think you're on board.

   Unidentified speakerVoice F

   1:06Mr. Chairman Mariano clarification. It's not introduction. This is the first public hearing.

   Mariano

   1:12Oh well thank you for that. I Bad notes, but that's okay.

   Nectarios Pittos

   1:18Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is Darius Pitos with Planning Development. I'm going to go ahead and turn the mic over to Alexandra Lako, who's the uh project manager. Uh on this on this project.

   1:32Okay.

   Planning and Development Department staff

   1:33Good afternoon, Commissioner. I apologize. I can't see on my screen if the slides are up.

   Mariano

   1:41So we do not see a slide on our end. No. We're

   Planning and Development Department staff

   1:44getting up.

   1:46Oh okay. 'Cause I was unable to share my screen. So either way

   Mariano

   1:51There you go.

   Planning and Development Department staff

   1:53Thank you so much. Um As you mentioned, this is the first reading. The second reading and adoption hearing will is scheduled for June 16th and it will also be a virtual meeting. This comes before you out of the February 25th, 2020 BCC workshop where we discussed multifamily and affordable housing. The proposed changes to the mobility fee table

   2:23are consistent with the Harbors Redevelopment Plan recommendations to focus redevelopment efforts in the West Market area. Area, as well as the comprehensive plan policies that promote a more efficient use of infrastructure, adequate development, and more efficient growth patterns. On May 21, 2020, the local planning agency found this, in fact, to be consistent with the comprehensive plan and has recommended the approval.

   2:55Of these changes to the mobility fee tables to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation that the effective date for the increase of those mobility fees to be changed from August 10th, 2020, which is what is originally in your packet, to a January 1st, 2021 date. It again is for the increase of the fees. The decrease in the fees um would be

   3:25effective. Um immediately following the state. Um the this being submitted to the state.

   3:36Um those changes are summarized here and in your packet in the following ways. For the urban Um uh tables. The urban standard is the only one that you will see the increase for the multifamily um apartment units. Um the other uh categories of

   4:06the single family detached and multifamily shift-defined units, you'll see that the incentive has been increased to a hundred percent. And that will be across all urban tables. The multifamily, again, is only in the urban standard table that you'll see the increase of the fees. Next.

   4:41Um this also shows um again the um In the urban table series, there was also a change to the title. uh for table four seven um uh four-five um in order to accommodate the vacant parcel incentive zone fee scheduled to align itself with the redevelopment um fee schedule. So again,

   5:12it you'll see the changes for the single family detached and multifamily ship-defined units to be 100% incentivized as well as the vacant parcel incentive zone. Next.

   5:30Um here the summary is the same for the suburban, suburban standard. is the only one that you'll see the multifamily increase. Um and the same uh uh an a hundred percent incentivized for the ship defined units um alike urban. Next. Um and and the same for the rural. Uh next. In summary, just

   6:01to make clear that the multifamily in the mobility fee tables that will not see an increase to the net fee is the following: the low-rise condominium townhouses, the high-rise condominium, age-restricted multifamily, and congregate care facility. Additionally, the multifamily apartments in Mutterham, TND, or TOD will also not see an increase in the net fee. There

   6:31were some uh next. There were some minor text amendments to make sure that it was in line with the table changes, and you'll see these in your packet as well as in these two slides here.

   6:50Um and again, uh there's no action required today.

   Mariano

   6:57Okay. Um anybody have any questions or do you want me to go ahead and go first to public comment and then come back to the board?

   7:05Let's do that.

   7:07Okay. Everybody hear me okay?

   Mariano

   7:10Yep, good.

   Mariano

   7:11Okay, you guys go with that? Okay. So we do have some people signed up to speak. I will go to um the clerk. And uh we'll go from there.

   Oakley

   7:18Yes, for item P one we have three people signed. Um and we start with Miss Dominic Hom.

   Paula Baracaldo

   7:30Please state your name and address for the record and start your comment.

   Dominique Cobb

   7:34Hello, my name is Dominique Cobb. I reside at [address removed], and that is in Tampa, Florida.

   Unidentified speaker

   7:45Right.

   Dominique Cobb

   7:46And my comment My comment is I am uh first thank you to Jeffrey Jenkins, the executive planner, um, for letting me speak to him so that I can get a clear understanding of the ordinance um which is ordinance uh one three zero two point two and that is the increase of mobility fees so that affordable and adequate housing can be um in the area. I am in agreement, um with

   8:17that ordinance being passed so that um, more families can be attracted to the area and increase the um the living in that area and make sure it's affordable for um others to build in that area.

   Mariano

   8:34Well thank you, Ms. Cobb. Anything else, Ms. Cobb?

   Dominique Cobb

   8:38Um no, just thank you on behalf of Saint Pete College. I am a student of public policy and administration and I just want to thank you all for letting me speak today and also Mr. Jenkins for accepting my call and giving me insightful information.

   Mariano

   8:54Okay, thanks so much. Have a great day. We appreciate you.

   Dominique Cobb

   8:57Thank you. You too.

   Mariano

   8:59Okay, Madam Clerk, next person.

   Oakley

   9:01Next person. Um the the next two people are from Bay Area Apartment Association. I have Mr. Eric Garduno.

   Paula Baracaldo

   9:11Please state your name and address for the record and start your comment.

   9:18Mr. Gardino?

   Eric Gardunio

   9:19Yeah, sorry about that. My name is Eric Arduño. I am the Government Affairs Director for the Bay Area Partners Association. Our address is PO Box 151958, Tampa, Florida, 33684. I'm here to speak about agenda item P one.

   Paula Baracaldo

   9:35Go ahead.

   Eric Gardunio

   9:36Um go uh thank you. Uh good afternoon, Commissioners. Thank you for this opportunity to speak. The Bay Area Apartment Association is a not for profit trade association that represents the apartment industry. in the greater Tampa region. We're happy to see this proposal reduces mobility fees for affordable multifamily housing, but we are concerned that it increases fees for multifamily housing in the standard urban, suburban and rural categories. Uh we also note that if this proposal does go forward, we do support the Planning Commission's

   10:06recommendation that the higher fees for standard multifamily housing be delayed until twenty twenty one because of the coronavirus. Um it wasn't long ago that the Commission set mobility rates for for the county, which addressed fees for dozens of land use categories. Today's proposal looks to single out multifamily development and seems arbitrary in light of this recent action. Um we also note that uh the February workshop discussing this proposal, it was said that apartments would be built Even if the fees were increased. Uh

   10:37according to the county's data that was presented during that workshop though, um uh it showed that twenty percent of the apartment mobility fees collected by the county come from the suburban category and none come from the rural category. To to us that shows that actually for those two categories at least it it seems that more incentives are in line, not less. uh because the people just aren't building there. More importantly though, we are concerned that this action reflects sentiment that discount the importance of apartment communities to

   11:07the county. It's growing numbers of millennials, empty nesters, and members of our workforce uh critical workforce like first responders and school teachers uh are renters by choice. Apartments give them your constituents housing options that are comfortable and full of first rate amenities. Uh market data demonstrates actually there's strong demand for apartments in Pasco County with occupancy rates over ninety-two percent for the last ten years. Even as new apartments are added each year. The other thing to keep in mind are are the economic contributions

   11:38that apartments make to the county. Each each apartment community represents millions of dollars of investment. and each represents jobs, construction jobs to build them, on-site management to run them, and professional services like plumbers and electricians to fix them. As you consider this proposal, we ask that you please keep in mind the benefits of apartment committees and what they bring to the county. And um with that Uh just to end my comments, thank you again for this opportunity. I I think I

   12:08have maybe a colleague also online who will speak a little bit more to the affordable housing uh aspects of the of the proposal. Thank you.

   Mariano

   12:16All right, thank you sir for your comments. Um next, Madam Clerk.

   Oakley

   12:22The last caller for P one is Ms. Wendy Malenkovic Malenkovic.

   Mariano

   12:29I d and I apologize before she goes, I do see um Miss Woolheit is signed up too. Is does she not get on?

   Paula Baracaldo

   12:36She's she's registered on WebEx.

   12:40Unfortunately her name was not on the list, but she's on WebEx.

   Mariano

   12:43Okay. I I I do have um I do have a list that says for P1. I have Dominic Cobb, Eric Cardino, um the next person, Wendy Melinvi Milinkovich, and I have Barbara Wilhite. That's on my list for public comment. So

   13:04Just letting you know.

   13:07But let's go ahead with the next person up and then I'll let you guys figure that out.

   Paula Baracaldo

   13:10Please state your name and address for the record and start your comment.

   Unidentified speakerVoice E

   13:16Yes, hello. My name is Wendy Mellon Kevage. I am representing the Bay Area Apartment Association.

   13:26When I'm speaking on item P one.

   13:31Good afternoon, Commissioner. Thank you for this opportunity to speak before you today. I am the Vice President of the Bay Area Apartment Association. I am also a regional manager for Royal American Management. We manage apartment communities throughout the Tampa Bay region, included in Pasco County. In addition to the points raised by my colleague, we also want to commend work done on the draft ordinance as it relates to affordable housing. According to the 2019 rental market survey conducted by the

   14:01Shimbro Center for Housing Study at the University of Florida, 29% of Pasco County's population is considered low income and pay more than 30% of their income towards housing. This is c a clear indication that additional affordable housing is needed in our county. Despite this need, it is often a challenge to build affordable multifamily housing between increasing cost of land, labour and materials that go into buildings and maintaining apartment

   14:31communities. It is difficult to keep rents. at a level that low income households can afford without specific incentives provided by government. That is why we are grateful that the draft ordinance reduces mobility impact fee changes to affordable multifamily construction. Mobility fees for affordable housing are reduced to zero across every zone within the county. According to the National Apartment Association, on average

   15:0114 cents of every dollar charged in rent goes towards government taxes and fees. Reduction in fees could create the margins that make the difference. between a project being built or not. Providing incentives like these is an important proactive measure by local government. Thank you for considering our points around this important of multifamily housing to the people of Pasco County. And again, we applaud you for taking steps to better

   15:31encourage affordable housing development in our county. Thank you.

   Mariano

   15:36Thank you, ma'am. Um did we figure out if Ms. Woolheit is on the line?

   Paula Baracaldo

   15:40Yes, sir.

   Mariano

   15:43Pardon me?

   Paula Baracaldo

   15:44Yes sir. She's actually on WebEx, so She can hear us.

   Mariano

   15:49Oh okay.

   Barbara Wilhite

   15:51Good afternoon, Commissioners. I apologize for the confusion because I'm also an applicant. I'm on WebEx. And I didn't know how to be on both at the same time 'cause on my phone ha you're on my phone and my computer. So I guess I'm gonna participate by WebEx and thank you.

   16:08Yeah, I got worried when you didn't say it. I was like and I was I was communicating with Denise about what did I do wrong, because that's very likely with all this this technology. I am here to on behalf of Crown Community Development. by long term client. Um they have the Watergrass project uh at Curley Road and Overpass and the Chapel Crossing project at 54 in Curley. Watergrass was entitled in 2004, always had a requirement for multifamily. in their town center, which now

   16:38they have uh worked with the county to become a business center called Promenade Business Center. They have a pending deal after all these years, since two thousand four to to two thousand twenty, sixteen years later, after a huge investment in the project, they have a pending deal for a multifamily um uh development. And midstream here they get notice that you're intending to take away the incentive which effectively increases their fees, the mobility fees for that project by seventeen percent. It

   17:10seems like an unintended consequence because your stated goal was the urban service area and and trying to specifically target um disincentivizing apartment projects along the 5456 corridor from 41 to 581. And it seems like this project has now got wrapped up into in that in that effort, um, i to the detriment of of something that they didn't do anything wrong. They followed the entitlements um that they were actually required by Mr. Gallagher

   17:40to put on that property as a as a town center back in uh 2004. They also have the Chapel Crossings project was entitled in 2015. Again has a multifamily component as an entitlement. They have a pending, finally have a pending contract on that. and now they've have a we're proposed seven percent increase. So it comes as quite a shock to them. Um they haven't done anything but what you approved over the years and moving forward with their projects, they've been great partners with the county. They pr Seven Oaks is an outstanding community. So

   18:10is Watergrass Chapel will be as well. So I know Planning Commission delayed the effective date or recommended that you all delay the effective date 'til January one. Problem with that is that doesn't really um if you have a pending deal that hasn't even gotten to a submittal of a site plan, there's no way to get building permits submitted by that deadline. So I would like to see some kind of consideration for this scenario and so that Crown uh doesn't get hurt um as you try to re-prioritize

   18:40and and re incentivize where you want future development.

   Mariano

   18:46Thank you, Ms. Wilhite. And uh correct that was the last person. Three of us. Okay. All right guys, put it um I guess go back to staff now.

   18:58I will I will Wait for you guys to fix the um camera there.

   19:05Um You're believing poor Miss Will hide up there.

   Unidentified speakerVoice F

   19:17It's whoever talks next. So somebody has to talk for it to change. Okay.

   Mariano

   19:24Okay, so we heard from our from our um I know I'm just going back to the workshop that we had. Um And we seemed uh everybody was in agreement to move forward with this. Staff, I appreciate the job you did. You followed our direction um exactly as we gave it to you. Um just uh going back to some of the comments that were made. Um

   19:50I mentioned the a certain area personally around that fifty-four-fifty six corridor, but there was other commissioners that had concerns about other areas. I know Commissioner Oakley had concerns. I'll let you guys speak for yourselves, but just want to bring that up. Going down further into Zephyrhills and area, Commissioner Starkey mentioned she had concerns going all the way up into if I'm not correct Odessa, but I'll let her state that hersel. But I know what the Planning Commission did. Um I watched the video of the Planning Commission meeting. I'm just gonna be a hundred percent honest with you. I don't know if they fully

   20:20understood what was going on. I thought I saw some confusion there. I felt there was confusion. To be honest with you. Um, you know, I I think the date needs to be set. I'm talking to staff. I mean, we could get this done and easily you know, by the in September, if not the uh first of September by the end of uh September. But With that I saw Commissioner Starkey's hand up, I think, if I'm I'm not correct, I think I saw her hand up.

   Starkey

   20:48Yeah, so I had a couple questions for Barbara. Um Barbara, if they're doing a multifamily in a downtown called Promenade, wouldn't that get the be exempt because of the TOD requirement?

   Mariano

   21:05Wait um we're at this is not uh she's not this is an ordinance, guys. We can't talk to um speakers.

   Starkey

   21:11Okay, let me ask Jeff. Jeff, um So I I thought I read in here or the planner um that That A multifamily within a T O D does get the discount. Am I misreading that?

   Unidentified speakerVoice F

   21:27That's my understanding, but I think David's on the line. He can answer that question for you.

   Unidentified speakerVoice G

   21:33There's no increase for You Yeah Yeah, Moder on And we have had discussions with Barbara about her her client qualifying for the Mudderham Rip if he does he would not put it to the increase.

   Starkey

   21:50Okay. Um I also wanted to say that I do recall in the conversation that Um All right. Felt that the nineteen corridor and um holiday and anything east of west of Gun Highway, I think is where we put the line. Still needs. Some multifamily um and would love to see some redevelopment of multifamily. So I thought we were stopping this line at Dighway.

   Unidentified speakerVoice G

   22:24David Gold and Smark area

   Mariano

   22:28David, we can't hear you. We're gonna you're gonna need to fix that, buddy.

   Unidentified speakerVoice G

   22:33Wesley now? I can't the web market error no For redevelopment, the fee is already zero.

   22:42And this ordinance will also these throw of course vacant parcels in the Westmarket area as well. Okay. Let me have half

   Mariano

   22:53of those

   Unidentified speakerVoice G

   22:53if you

   Mariano

   22:54want to see it. Dave David, we cannot hear you. You're having technical difficulties.

   Starkey

   23:03Okay, so there's so just to stop what you said, um multifamily within a mudderum or to is still incentivized, the wealth market is still incentivized, and low income is still incentivized, and the way we're getting money to build the low income of workforce housing is with the offset of the um discount that we were given before. Correct? Correct. So I think it's

   23:33important that we do raise some of this money. I if my fellow board members felt this way, I would be okay with maybe Uh Say it in suburban um A fifty percent or twenty five percent incentive for a little while and see what we get and then You know, maybe have it sunset in three years or something if you wanted to um incentivize it a little bit but um

   Mariano

   24:03Why?

   Starkey

   24:05Throwing it out there for discussion.

   Mariano

   24:08Um I mean, you know, I I thought we were in pretty much agreement at our workshop, so I don't I don't know why we're Change it. But you know, and one of the things we talked about was, you know, the issues along those corridors and wanting to keep and have um job creating sites. And if somebody says it's gonna discourage them from building a from Those apartments and Well, guess what? It goes then it goes commercial or office, which is better. It's better for the community, it's better for the county, it's better for a long term. Um

   24:40Again, I mean I I don't I can I don't wanna beat a dead horse, my everybody knows my opinion on it. Anybody have anything else to say? Or any questions?

   Planning and Development Department staff

   24:50So I just wanted to make clear that we don't have a a different boundary as um discussed in the workshop for the mobility fee. So the mobility fee map stays the same in terms of urban, suburban, rural. There isn't a further delineation as perhaps um Ms. Wilhite suggested, you know, if it's outside of that boundary. Along the corridor between 41 and 301, or something like that. That is not in this ordinance. I just wanted

   25:20to clarify that.

   Starkey

   25:22But I thought that's what was discussed at the workshop that we would um say from Gun Highway West was not um being targeted for disincentivizing.

   Nectarios Pittos

   25:36Commissioner Starkey, this is uh Nicario Speakers with Planning and Development. Um, I think what you're referring to there is the land use part of the discussion that was at the workshop. But with regard to the mobility fees, um it was uh the direction we re we received was to address the mobility fee tables, which apply countywide.

   26:01In the various categories, urban, suburban and rural.

   Unidentified speaker

   26:06Yeah.

   Mariano

   26:09Um Mr. Petos.

   26:21If this is adopted How soon can we get this? implemented. What's the early September first, October first? What'd you What? Or David.

   Nectarios Pittos

   26:33Well i if the mobility fee uh ordinance amendments here get adopted the earliest I believe is August of tenth. And at the Planning Commission the discussion was with the recommendation to begin it on January first, twenty twenty one. mean

   Mariano

   26:51we still we we're gonna lose Uh job creating sides we're gonna we're gonna add six more months to it, but That Um Mr. Mariano.

   Mariano

   27:00Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So I'm I'm not sure if I quite understood with Chapel Crossings and Watergrass. I mean we we planned the promenade of town center in there which is appropriate for it. Is that going to work from what has been designed or no? Can I get an answer from either David or Jeff?

   Unidentified speakerVoice G

   27:19So Staff? Already had this box for about Common A Business Center qualifying as a Mudderum project.

   Mariano

   27:27Okay.

   Unidentified speakerVoice G

   27:28If it qualifies as a muttering project, it will not be subject to

   Mariano

   27:32Okay. Thank you.

   27:36Anything else from everybody else?

   27:39Okay. So we're all good with how it stands then?

   Mark Stober

   27:45Yes, sir.

   Mariano

   27:48Yeah.

   27:52Dan and I spoke yesterday, I know one issue could be when you mentioned Terry, you mentioned August tenth, is that I think um the team would probably prefer that it's at the beginning of a month and make life a little bit easier for everybody. So it's say you say as soon as it'd be August tenth, so we might have to, even though I only pushing it back, we might have to look at September I guess first instead of August. Is that true, Dan? Is that what you told me? Yeah.

   County Administrator

   28:22first of the month is always easier than a day in the middle of the month for something like this. So whether it's September first, October first, That's always easier from an implementation standpoint.

   Mariano

   28:34Okay. Again, I'm gonna make it easy on the team. Is everybody good with September first?

   28:41Great.

   28:43All right, thank you all. No action at this time.

   Unidentified speakerVoice F

   28:48Yeah, your second hearing on this will be on June sixteenth at one thirty PM and you'll still be doing them as virtual meetings.

   Mariano

   28:57Thank you, Mr. Steinsnyder. I appreciate it. And then P two, Madam Clerk.

   ▶ 1:01:412m2/2

   Mariano

   1:01:41them. um the d decrease immediately and wait on the increase. But according to um Mr. Bios, it would be easier to do both at once because it'd only be a couple weeks apart. And um it'd be more of a challenge for them to have to do one in two weeks and the next one in two weeks because implementing the code in a cell does take some time. So is everybody good with the increase and decrease being the same date on nine one so they don't have to

   1:02:11split it?

   Mariano

   1:02:13Ms. Chairman Mariano.

   Mariano

   1:02:14Yes, please go ahead, sir.

   Mariano

   1:02:16I I would like to see the decrease happen right away.

   Mariano

   1:02:20Okay. So the early

   Oakley

   1:02:24that's gonna happen

   Mariano

   1:02:25so yeah so if the decrease happened right there there could be financial just you know there could be financial implications too of doing the increase the decrease right away without the um increase being done, just to let you know. That is a possibility. So you'd be looking at doing the earliest August 15th, which they do prefer to do at the beginning of the month, that of the decrease, then two weeks later the increase would happen.

   1:02:57Commissioner Starkey you said okay on that?

   Starkey

   1:02:59Yeah.

   Mariano

   1:03:00Okay. Everybody's okay? Consistence? Commissioner Weightman? Yeah, okay. We're all good then. So 9-1 increase and increase, which will be brought back to us at the next commission meeting. So thank you everybody for that. Um I

   Starkey

   1:03:16wouldn't call it an increase. I would call it a removal of the incentives.

   Mariano

   1:03:20I that's I would agree with you. How well? Commissioner Yeah is what it is actually it's not an increase. Okay, P eight. Um petition in your direction there, Mr. Biles. That's what you need, right?

   County Administrator

   1:03:32Yeah, yes, sir. Thank you. That's what we needed.

3. 3Jun 16, 2020
   Board of County CommissionersP1Public hearingNo disposition in the minutes

   Open this item →No recording
4. 4Jun 30, 2020
   Board of County CommissionersP1Public hearingAdopted

   Approved minutes

   Approved to adopt by roll call vote with Commissioner Oakley absent from the vote.

   Open this item →▶ Play from 0:35
   ▶ 0:353m

   Madam Clerk

   0:35Good afternoon. We have proof for P1. It was published in the Tampa Bay Times on May twentieth, twenty twenty and June twenty-first, twenty twenty.

   Mariano

   0:49Thank you. And who's presenting?

   Oakley

   0:54I am Mr. Chairman Mariano. This is Nicarios Pitos with Planning and Development. Item P1, PDD 200560, is an ordinance by the Pasco County Board of County Commissioners amending the Pasco County Land Development Code Section 1302.2 mobility fees. To increase the mobility fees for multifamily in the urban, suburban, and rural standard fee table, to decrease mobility fees for ship-defined low-income single-family, multifamily, and decrease mobility fees for

   1:24vacant parcel incentive zone area and other amendments as necessary to ensure internal consistency, providing for applicability. repeal or severability inclusion in the Pasco County Land Development Code and an effective day. Next slide, please. Um this is the approval hearing if I If I'm not mistaken, to accept public comment and adopt the proposed ordinance by roll call vote and authorize the chairman to execute the ordinance amendment and direct board records to transmit the

   1:54ordinance to the Department of State by electronic email within 10 days after adoption of the ordinance. Mm-hmm.

   Mariano

   2:02Thank you, Mr. Titos. Appreciate it. This is a public hearing. Madam Clerk, do we have anybody signed up for this item?

   Madam Clerk

   2:11No sir, we have no one signed up for this item.

   Mariano

   2:13Okay, do we have any questions?

   2:18If not, I'll entertain a motion.

   Mariano

   2:21Move approval. Jack Mariano.

   Mariano

   2:23Motion by Commissioner Mariano.

   Mariano

   2:25Commissioner Yeah, Commissioner

   Wells

   2:26Weightman.

   Mariano

   2:27Second by Commissioner Weightman Madam Clerk called the role.

   Madam Clerk

   2:33District One, Commissioner Oakley. District three, Commissioner Starkey. Yes. District four, Commissioner Weightman. District 5, Commissioner Mariano. Aye. District 2, Chairman More.

   Mariano

   2:46Aye. MASH motion. Motion passes 4-0. Commissioner Oakley will not be with us the rest of this afternoon, so he won't came out the rest of the day, I guess. Thank you, everybody. I'm glad we got that done. All right, move on to item P. And Madam Clerk, do we have proof, please?