An Ordinance Creating The Road Rehabilitation Services Municipal Service Taxing Unit; Providing For Boundaries Of The Unit; Providing For Levy Of An Ad- Valorem Tax; Providing For The Municipal Services To Be Funded; Repealing And Replacing Pasco County Ordinance No. 22-64 And Ordinance No. 23-35; Providing For Severability; Providing For Inclusion In The Pasco County Code Of Ordinances; Providing For Limitations On Actions; And Providing An Effective Date.
What the county recorded
Staff recommendation
Approve
DispositionAdopted
Approved to adopt by roll call vote.
The source document
The county’s agenda for Board of County Commissioners, Jun 18, 2024
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
This case, across meetings
PIFBA-24-0326 in full →PIFBA-24-0326 was taken up 2 times between Jun 4, 2024 and Jun 18, 2024, continued 1 time — this is appearance 2.
- Jun 4, 2024BoardP47▶Continued
- Jun 18, 2024BoardP45▶Adoptedthis item
What was said
Machine transcription of 12m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 100% of 67 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.
Okay, P forty five was advertised in Tampa Bay Times May twenty-second, twenty twenty four. Um this item was continued from June fourth to today.
Okay.
Good afternoon, Justin Grant, Public Infrastructure, Fiscal and Business Administration Director. PIFA 24-0326 is an ordinance creating a road rehabilitation services municipal taxing unit, providing for boundaries of the unit, providing for levy of abilorum tax, providing for the municipal services. To be funded, repealing and replacing Pasco County Ordinance 22-64 and ordinance 23-35, providing for severability, providing for inclusion in the Pasco County Code of Ordinances. Providing for limitations in on
actions and providing for an effective date.
The full presentation from our June fourth meeting is attached here. We'll go through the first couple slides. We've got three or four slides here added as a result of the board's continuance and direction that we received.
Okay.
So the brief uh brief uh recap here on the timeline, right? Back in uh December twenty-two, Ordinance twenty-two sixty-four uh started us down this journey uh and it and established uh the local road MSTU. Then in April of 2023, structural and legal changes delayed that implementation by a year due to some challenges. Uh back then in September, uh ordinance 2335 amended boundaries and provided for an appeals process with the structure that was outlined in that ordinance. And then ultimately in January, as we started to work to implement that,
uh tax data revealed some additional implementation challenges, which has led us to the ordinance that is presented to you here today.
So a quick comparison between those two ordinances. The current coordinate ordinance that is adopted focuses only on local roads. Multiple excluded classes created some challenges there, and we've discussed those at length in prior sessions. And this would also require the formation of an appellate board to deal with appeals with some of those excluded classes. So there in the blue, we've got the proposed ordinance, and in brief, here this applies uniformly to all unincorporated. Uh parcels, it expands the services to arterial and collector road types, and it removes most of those implementation
challenges. So now we get to uh what happened last time in on June 4th, right? On June 4th, uh we presented this ordinance and and ultimately uh the board voted to continue that item till today and directed staff to create an option that would retire the PVAS program um and would eliminate billings and balances. So I'll give a quick quick synopsis here of uh the financial impact uh if the board chooses to take those options. So you see the graph here, um this is uh 8.5 million is presented here before you, which
is 8.1 is composed of current principal uh and 400,000 is current interest. And so this waiver would also mean that we would cease collection uh efforts on these assessments that are current.
The next set of actions that the Board would have to take to implement this would be it would also require the Board to uh cease placing unbilled PVAS projects on future tax rolls. We have an item after this in this hearing that ultimately we would recommend be continued to the July hearing. Um, and that would uh be composed of 16 projects, uh totaling an estimated uh principal amount of about four and a half million, and this would be this would not be. build to residents. This is an annual process that every year when PVAS projects are completed, the team works to aggregate all those
costs and then ultimately put them on the tax rolls pursuant to the entire PVAS process. Here in number three, uh, there's three PVAS projects that have an estimated $2.2 million in expenditures that were approved under the methodology. These have not yet, uh the horses not yet left the barn, right? So we haven't issued NTPs. And so the recommendation here under this set of actions that would need to be done would be that we would pause that and shift that over to the MSTU. Finally, uh the board would need to direct staff to take the necessary steps uh to
adopt an ordinance extinguishing current paving assessment debt. And in preparation for this item, uh staff is already working on something, should the board direct us to do it, to come back in the July hearing to provide the board with that ordinance that would provide them the authority to do this.
So I'll pause here because the rest of the presentation here is what was uh heard and presented at the last board meeting and feel questions if there are any.
Okay. Any Mr. Wateman? Thank you, Chair.
And the whole team's work on this post Last board we need so to confirm in layman's terms. This proposal that we're voting on today, we're going to forgive all existing PVOS Payments owed to the county.
So the proposal today, uh, and what we've worked very closely with the County Attorney's Office to draft is to eliminate all current debt. And so we would stop uh assessing anything moving forward. So um so say someone was in a ten-year assessment, right, and they were in year seven, right, we would not uh Pursue collection efforts on the remaining three years. And so I know one of the goals that was outlined by this commission was uh was in consideration for this MSTU was the appearance of two items for like purposes, right, albeit different, on
the same tax bill. Right. This would eliminate that.
And then we would also, though, for those that paid in full upfront would receive essentially a reimbursement. We're outlining a process to do that, yes sir. Okay. Two good points. And We would still have the ability to work with the C D Ds and potentially some HOAs individually on a case by case basis. to work through some of their potential concerns and challenges. Mr. Roach
within the standard star.
If
We would not be working with HOAs. We would we could work with C D Ds. Um The HOA's roads would be private. And so there's not unless you were gonna take their roads and make them public roads, which I don't think is in the cards. that wouldn't be a that wouldn't be a choice. But Um C D D's roads are quasi public public roads. Um
we could, as I discussed with the commissioner, we could enter into interlocal agreements to take collectors from them if that was the board's desire. Um because there are some some C D Ds that are maintaining What function as a county collector that are ungated that we could fund through this MSTU. Okay. Thank you for clarification, County Attorney.
That's
it.
Okay. Anyone else? Any other questions?
I'm just glad we're here today. Um you know we are one of the only counties in America who does it still this old fashioned way and Um It was not a good use of our staff's time and the public's time to go through that petition process, neighbor against neighbor. and and to come up here and then do all that work and then have it fall apart. Um so I I'm glad we're moving on to more more uh
A better way. To do this program. Right,
exactly. So this is a public hearing, so Uh no one signed up for it but I believe we have some people that would like to speak to P forty five. And if they will they'll come line up behind the Podium and to speak to P forty five. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this item?
And I can't can't be sure, but I think we've answered your most of your questions. So
You gotta wait till you get here. So give me your name and address for the clerk. Yes, sir. Ha ha ha.
My name's Angeline Middle and the Show.
Pull that mic down right right on the end, just turn it down. Okay.
Can you hear me?
That's good. Yes.
Okay. My name is Angeline. Middle initial Ziaz and Zebra, last name Figaroa. And I'm here to object to the paving assessment. I don't know what he mentioned. I didn't understand what he was talking about. I don't know if he was against it or for it. We need your address, ma'am. I'm sorry? Address. Oh I'm sorry. It's [address removed]. That's in the Bear Creek subdivision. I received a letter Uh accepting
taxes to pay for the uh paving assessment and the amount was for to collect from me. But that's if you guys uh Okay, that's that bit. That's not this item but
for the
paving assessment?
This is this collective
To do away with the paving assessment program.
Okay.
Which I assume we would in support of.
My apologies.
But that's okay.
Yeah, I oppose it. I'm not I'm I wrote a letter and I uh submitted it uh and I had it um notarized. At the uh
So your items. Yeah, put a letter would be the would be the Addum ninety one. Um but if You wish to go ahead and make your comments now, we can probably take them.
Well I so you received the letter. It was just basically uh I'm disabled, I'm a senior citizen. Okay, I live by myself at home. And uh I pay property taxes, which again I oppose that as well because we all know it's unconstitutional. and uh it sa as I s wrote on the letter, I am a disabled senior with limited income and do not own tangible assets. But I had but had I My financial strain could have been eased. Why is the Department of Public Works Paving Assessment Program in times
of hyperinflation, also economic crisis, want to enforce these costs on property taxes billed under your uniform tax collection method? Thus compounding more hardship to lives of families with children and disabled seniors. Why not create positive, constructive solutions? and not inflict the brink of destruction. Adding more misery, we pay for absolutely all in this world and feel the pressure as well as are awake
to this corrupt governments. No disrespect to you, but we mean this to the corrupt governments. This is not freedom. I object to this in just. We the people want to live a free, peaceful, and loving, caring, compassionate world. Please remember that graduated taxation is unconstitutional. I digress. Respectfully, Angeline Z. Figueroa.
Okay. Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you for your comments. Yes, ma'am.
Peace and love. Thank you.
Is anyone else in the room wish to speak to this item?
Seeing no one? Pleasure of the board.
Oh my goodness. Move to approve.
Okay, got a motion. Second. Second. Roll call vote. Roll call vote. It's a big E.
All All right. District 2, Commissioner Weightman. Aye. District 3, Commissioner Starkey. Aye. District 4, Commissioner Yeager. Aye. District 5, Commissioner Mariano. District two, yeah. District one Chairman Oakley. Aye.
Motion pass four zero.
Yeah, yeah.
A lot of people will be happy in the country.
That's a milestone
in this country is
Pasco County.
You will have another ordinance you'll need to vote on in the your July meeting to complete this process. Right.