An Ordinance By The Pasco County Board Of County Commissioners Amending The Pasco County Land Development Code; Amending Section 802 Tree Preservation And Replacement; Section 802.1 Intent And Purpose; Section 802.2 Applicability; Section 802.3 Tree Removal; Creating Section 802.4 New Development; Section 802.5 Existing Problem Trees; Section 802.6 Tree Protection; Section 802.7 Trees Of Special Significance; Section 802.8 Heritage Trees; Section 802.9 Tree Mitigation Fund; Appendix A Definitions; And Other Sections, As Necessary, For Internal Consistency; Providing For Applicability; Repealer; Providing For Severability; Inclusion Into The Land Development Code, And An Effective Date.

45:33Okay, thank you. All right, moving right along. PC five.

45:38Item PC five is PDE 25007, an ordinance amending the Pasco County Land Development Code Section 802, presented by staff.

45:57Good afternoon, Plan Commissioner Mandela Hill, Planning, Development and Economic Growth. File number PDE 25 0007 is a proposed amendment to section 802, tree preservation and replacement.

46:14Recent activities regarding this section of the code include an LPA workshop on June 5, 2025. The adoption of resolution twenty-five-two nine one by the BOCC. This resolution clarified the use of funds, administration, and increased the contribution rates to the tree mitigation fund. There was also a LPA workshop on June on August seventh, twenty twenty five.

46:46As a reminder, the rates of contribution that were updated by the BHCC on 715 include the update of the rates from $50 per inch to $75 per inch for all project types. For trees that are classified as a heritage tree, a payment of $150 per inch. A heritage tree is hereby defined as a live oak that is equal to or greater than 34 inches DBH, or a southern magnolia that is greater than

47:16and equal to 24 inches DBH. Those trees would also have to have a condition rating of good or better, as determined by the ISA condition rating system.

47:30Uh diameter at breast height.

47:33And section one of that resolution states that the effective date of these contribution rates will be upon the repeal of section 802.3C1B3, subsections A to D of the LDC.

47:50The purpose of this amendment would be to remove the contribution rates that are currently referenced in that section of the code, as well as to remove the purposes and authorized locations that are referenced in section 802.3e. These sections currently conflict with the adopted resolution, and this amendment would resolve said conflict.

48:11Staff recommends that the LPA finds the proposed amendment consistent with a comprehensive plan. And I'm available for any questions that you may have.

48:20Mandel, the the first the first question I have is, I guess how did we get here in in Why did we not just change the fees in the ordinance rather than adopt a resolution?

48:31My understanding of the matter is that the fees and whether or not it changes at the discretion of the board through the resolution and not through the LDC. This language regarding the fees was not initially intended to be within the LDC.

48:45But it is.

48:46Correct. Well here's I mean

48:49it is but it's with a reference that says it'll be adopted by resolution.

48:53My my problem is and I We've we've gotten into this uh several times before. Um When we pull stuff out of the code and make it to where it can be modified, approved, et cetera, through resolution. The public never knows about it. I still question how many people really knew that. that this fee was being revised by the resolution when it got revised by the board. and the fact that there was absolutely zero grandfather clause for anybody that was even in current review. I

49:23mean the way the resolution was adopted and this was clarified at August seventh when we met and for the workshop. I mean, you could be literally waiting on staff to draft an approval memo And all of a sudden you get hit with these new fees. I mean that that's a huge problem for a lot of big projects that Pasco County has spent a lot of time and effort trying to bring to Pasco County. I mean we we had people come to the workshop and they they gave examples of three, four, five, seven million dollar tree impact fees that they were gonna have to pay. Versus

49:54a couple hundred thousand dollars that they were facing before these fees got modified and the and the maximums got eliminated. So I This one really This one just doesn't sit right.

50:08Just revising the fees in the ordinance.

50:15I would agree with you.

50:20Yeah, it's the issue I have is the lack of the grandfather

50:23Language. Well the T D B A and came in a and asked for a phase in schedule and I believe in the prior version of the tree ordinance that had been presented by staff and ultimately withdrawn. There had been some agreement. regarding how those new fees would be implemented and this seems to fly in the face of that.

50:50So I think there's two different issues here. One is with like where you put the regulation. The other issue is how much involvement there was by the development committee in the regulation. Because even if it was a resolution You in theory could have a resolution go through all the same processes that an ordinance change. I mean you could Go to have it go to the horizontal round table, you could have it go to Planning committee, I mean you could run a resolution through the same process as as an ordinance.

51:22So I think staff probably needs to address

51:27Why the resolution didn't go through those processes.

51:33Well

51:33I I mean I I think th there was stakeholder meetings, I heard, and then I know it went to the board, but I I mean I I watched that board meeting for the resolution and it was I I've seen been to plenty of these meetings and I've seen things that people show up for. And when you're starting to hit somebody with multi million dollar tree tree payments or obligations, I find it hard to believe that nobody would have been in attendance if they'd have known that was gonna be approved as part of that resolution. On the consent agenda, correct. So

52:08I do recall that at the March 20th um hearing when the item regarding tree preservation was previously brought forward. There was a discussion with the Planning Commission regarding whether or not the fees could be adopted along with the other changes to Section 802, or if that was something that could be done separately. And my understanding was that the direction that was that we can go ahead and have the board update that separately as necessary, if that was the desire of the board. Patrick, I don't know if you wanted to speak anything additional to

52:38that. I know you were still working on the project. Mm-hmm.

52:44Um I don't know this.

52:52Uh Patrick Dedder, Planning, Development, Economic Growth. Um refr what is what is the question specifically again?

52:58So at the March twentieth um meeting when you brought the item forward and Planning Commission recommended that if the board desired that the fees could be adopted separately from the other changes

53:09Uh sure, yes, if I recall correctly, we withdrew the code amendments, but I think the Planning Commission did at the time say we'll move forward with changing the fees, which is a general statement.

53:22Right, but to play devil's advocate, I'm not sure Planning Commission said but don't get it. Don't get development community involvement in it.

53:30Right. Okay.

53:34Mr. Chairman David Engel, Planning and Development and Economic Growth. As I recall from uh recalling the BCC meeting, we were directed by Council at that time that we would have to come the Board approved a resolution changing the fees. We were directed that to perfect this, we have to amend the LDC and remove the old fees from the LDC because it says adopt by resolution. So we were just performing our task as directed by the board.

54:04Right, David. I think the question that Mr. Jardy is asking is What level of input did you get from the development community before having the board adopt the resolution?

54:16We've had extensive input with the T B B A. And um as I reported back to the board there were amendments We had incorporated their suggestions in the draft. They were removed and I failed to notify the T B B A from my last correspondence with them in April and I it was on the record already uh two meetings ago and I discussed it or you know, that that I'll take the I'll take the heat for it. So Worked through with the T B B A,

54:46um set up a meeting with the T B B A to meet with the BCC Chair. and talk about uh how their views can be accommodated and what the Policy goals and objectives are the Board of County Commissioners. I I can't speak for the Board, but the Chair has assumed that role and that meeting is already calendared.

55:06And can't this wait until that meeting happens would that doesn't that would seem very unfair to the stakeholders.

55:14Well that that is a fair proposition and you know I I certainly endorse that.

55:20Well, we've already issued an opinion that the changes to the fees don't take effect until this ordinance is adopted. So If the Planning Commission is not comfortable with this ordinance moving forward until you've seen the Or heard that the resolution has been updated consistent with this upcoming meeting. I you can continue the item until the that's within your prerogative. When's

55:52this meeting

55:52again?

55:53I believe it's next week.

55:59Yeah, I guess I know we have other people here to speak on this, so I guess any other questions for staff? And we'll go ahead and take public comment.

56:10Okay.

56:13Barbara Will Heights, [address removed], representing nobody. But somebody this is my thirtieth year doing this and I have a little different idea I think the fee should be in the ordinance and I think you should remove the the ability to do it by resolution because In theory things could have happened differently, but if there wasn't the ability to do this by resolution, they wouldn't have happened the way they did. This was on the consent agenda, nobody knew about it. This board Disc

56:44Planning Commission said, We think the uh a fee increase should go forward, but they didn't even come back to them. If it was if the ability to not have to have this done by resolution, if you take out the ability to have this done by resolution, this issue would have come to this planning commission and be vetted by you professionals who work with this all the time. And there would have been a recommendation going to the board that would have been had some Other input. You could have collected stakeholder input, you could have collected your own input, and there could be. You know, I sat through I can't tell you how many meetings I volunteered

57:14my time and and watched a back and forth between staff and the T B B A representatives who were volunteering their time too, to try to come up with a resolution on how to raise those fees and how to grandfather them in. This resolution was different from those conversations. So what as a process person and a fairness person in how we do things, when we take things out of the code, for example, there used to be in section three hundred there used to be a table that said the deadlines to get things done. And

57:44I remember when that came out of the code, I objected because no, oh don't worry, don't worry, it's going in the development manual. But since then Those dates have never been complied with and clients like to see those. They're like they like to look at the code and be able to see it. The unintended consequence is when you take things out of the code and you allow it to be done by resolution on a consent agenda that bypasses you all, it's not a public hearing. This way where in theory things can be done different, but they don't have to be. And so what I'm saying to you is If you pass this ordinance that's been

58:14r suggested by staff, you're condoning this process and allowing it to perpetuate itself in the future. So what you should be recommending is either table it or say we recommend that the fees actually be in the ordinance and that you have to we take out the ability to do it by resolution so that this Fact pattern. It should have never happened, doesn't happen again. So again, speaking of nobody other than, you know, making good policy, and I don't think the board made good policy that day. I don't think they knew what the unintended consequences or what the actually

58:44the consequences was of that action. And you heard TBBA come here and explain to you all what the consequences now, and now they're having to have meetings and all these different things, when if it was just followed a process and wasn't allowed to be done by resolution. Yeah. We wouldn't have to be trying to figure out what happened, why did it happen, what do we do about it now, because we would have a good process set up in the ordinance. That's my two cents. Thank you. Thank you, Barbara.

59:09Mr. Chairman I just want to uh just inject a little bit of disclosure and discovery for the Planning Commission. Uh the staff didn't arbitrarily remove the TBBA suggestions and recommendations that were in the original draft. We were we we had vetted that with our Board of County Commissioners, and it was requested that we remove these items. And I understand that there maybe have not been appropriate. dialogue about it and allowing the T B B A to uh lobby for their position and I I regret that. Um

59:40And I and I apologize to everyone.

59:44The only point I'm gonna make I I'm not saying I agree or disagree with Barbara, but um what I do agree w disagree with her a little bit on is The code right now says they will be adopted by resolution. I mean so that that's The issue is that The code is somewhat inconsistent because it says it'll be adopted by resolution, but then includes the fees. So Well the code is sort of internally inconsistent today.

1:00:12of not allowing them to be adopters and just put all the fees in. But

1:00:21Is is is sort of a mix of the two. That's the problem.

1:00:25Mm. Couldn't you get rid of the saying they'd be adopted by resolution portion? You could. I'm just saying

1:00:30I don't know that uh that's a policy change that they could be adopted in the code. I'm not saying I'm not opining one way or the other. I'm only saying that the existing code does say they will be adopted by resolution, and that's how they were originally adopted these fees. They were adopted by resolution. At some point after that. Somebody decided to put them in the code too. I don't know w how How it happened, but they got put in the code too. But even when they were put in the code, it says They'll be adopted by resolution. So

1:01:02The fees were originally adopted by resolution. I that's a that's a fact. I don't think Barbara can disagree with me. That's how they were originally were adopted. She worked on that resolution when it was adopted. So Um she can't deny it now because she was heavily involved in that.

1:01:15It was in two thousand five.

1:01:16Yes. So So at one point she blessed this being adopted by resolution. She won't admit it now, but she did. Um Okay.

1:01:27Okay. So That has been the historical way they've been adopted is by resolution. I'm not saying that can't change, but Gotcha.

1:01:39Okay. Is there anybody else here to speak?

1:01:44Great, back to us. Anything else from up here?

1:01:50Or motion.

1:01:51I'd move that we continue this um to the Planning Commission here in Newport Ritchie a month from now, uh in order to at least let that meeting take place with uh T B B H. Or T B B A, rather.

1:02:06Okay, so that'll be the na September eighteenth? Eighteenth, yeah.

1:02:10So I just want to clarify the purpose of the motion or the intent. So are you are you wanting to make sure a meeting took place or are you wanting to see a revised resolution? I'm not sure what your

1:02:21the intent's to make sure that um the stakeholders have their voice is heard and then you know, and then we can yeah, we can review the the outcome of that meeting. uh when we're making an opinion on On this. Yeah, month.

1:02:35I I I do recall um the Planning Commission had asked us to look at other pure counties. And I I believe um are we done with that?

1:02:44We're still in the process of looking at it actually.

1:02:46Yeah, so you don't even have all the information that you requested at the last meeting.

1:02:52what which

1:02:53county?

1:02:53Alchua. Alachua. Alachua.

1:02:55Are you are you talking about on the fee issue or on the larger amendment to the larger amendment? Oh the larger amendment,

1:03:02excuse me. I thought it was the

1:03:03fees also. I don't think you're they're waiting on any additional information if it was related to fees. Um Well, let me ask the question a different way. When it comes back in a month, are you expecting Staff to Bring you a revised resolution? Because I know you all raise the issue of grandfathering, regardless of what the board decides to do on the The amounts you all raised the issue of grandfathering. Are you wanting Staff to bring this back with Language related to grandfathering? Or

1:03:34are you letting that sort of play out in terms of whatever happens with the T B B A at that meeting.

1:03:42For me, for the purposes of making the motion, I think I'd be fine with that. I just want to have them give an opportun uh th I want them to have an opportunity to be able to s to speak on it.

1:03:54Yeah. So if if they are if they're fine with the the f fees as written without any kind of grandfather language, then I I guess I'm fine with it too. It's but ultimately we should they should be heard.

1:04:06Okay. All I'm saying is if you are if anybody on this planning commission is expecting staff to bring back a different version of the ordinance You probably need to help provide that direction now. Because right now the motion is basically saying bringing it back as is as long as this meeting occurs. I just want to make sure that's the direction.

1:04:23Well it seems to me that we were all interested in a grandfather clause, as was the T D T B A. Okay.

1:04:32I can show what the language would currently look like right now. So essentially it strikes through all the references to the fees in section eight oh two point three C one B three A to D. And then it removes the references to the purpose and authorized locations in section eight oh two point three E. That's the extent of the proposed amendments with this item.

1:04:55Right. But currently it does not address the effective date. of the new fees. Correct. Now that can either be dealt with in the resolution or it can be dealt with in the amendment to the code. I I'm really just asking and we can figure out where that goes. I'm I'm really just asking, are you expecting staff to draft grandfathering language before this comes back to you in a month?

1:05:23Yeah, I mean I think we all would like to would like to see that of some sort or at least uh at least get feedback from the stakeholders regarding that.

1:05:33either suggested or agreed to at this meeting with D B B A, right? Right.

1:05:39I mean I again I personally I mean I I I d I can't support getting rid of this out of the ordinance and modifying the ordinance. So I mean I I agree with And I'm fine with moving it down to the next two meetings from now after the T B B A meeting, but I I just think we set a bad precedent by approving these fees as part of that resolution and the way it got approved. I don't like the language in it and and I don't like how the process happened personally.

1:06:16Mr. Chairman we'll have the meeting with Chair Starkey and the T B B A. Uh bring it back at nine eighteen. We'll either have a Have uh satisfied the T B B A. If not, uh we'll report back to you um and you can act as you see fit whether you're not gonna recommend it or n or you would. How's that?

1:06:39I'm I'm fine with that.

1:06:41Could

1:06:41that exercise also explore how we get The issue resolved that we're now doing it by r resolution rather than in the the ordinance? If there's a way to do that in this process? I don't know that they're

1:06:54not going to be able to do that.

1:06:57Well, i it's it's a l it's actually a legal issue in this case because the ordinance is very specific as to how these fees should be increased or modified.

1:07:05Well, it currently says they're going to be done by resolution. I do uh It doesn't I mean Could that be changed to say it'll the the could that language be struck and then you put all the fees in the ordinance? Yes it could. I don't know that it's a legal, it's more of a policy issue than a legal issue.

1:07:21Well, I uh

1:07:22legal issue is that the was that we gave the opinion that In the absence of this amendment, you could not have the ordinance am the ordinance fees take effect. Mm-hmm. But could the ordinance be changed so that you don't adopt it by resolution? Yes you could. That's a policy issue.

1:07:42All right. Well I I'll raise that with the with the Chair. I mean the T B B A is more interested in getting these fee issues resolved. Right. But uh we will I will speak to her about it when we meet.

1:07:54I mean, I'm not sure. In theory, the resolution could have had grandfathering and the resolution could have had phases in. I mean the resolution could have done all the things that T B A wanted. So I think it's it's probably two problems here. Right. One is that we had adopted a resolution that was inconsistent with some of the requests the TBBA made. The second is that it was done sort of outside the normal ordinance process.

1:08:20Right.

1:08:23Well, priority one is to address the T B B A's concerns, and that that's what we'll be doing. I will mention to the Chair that there was a process discussion and uh maybe the Planning Commission would make a recommendation to the Board to to to change the process and then we could bring that forth. Well,

1:08:41Well I mean I I don't think anybody up here's a little bit more than a little bit. o opposed to the to changes to the fees. I think everybody up here acknowledged that the fees were I mean we all wish we could pay two thousand and five fees on everything we do. Um but we we can't. It's reality. It's just uh I mean I I heard T B B A they came in here, they they had problems with the no grandfathering or the phasing in. They had problems with the elimination of the of the maximums. Um so I mean I think those are real issues that

1:09:10And not taking sides. The the flip side was added was well they've been getting away with low fees for ten years or something. Sure.

1:09:20But it it's it's not fair to change the rules in the middle of the game either. I mean the grandfathering should definitely at least be considered.

1:09:27By the way, I don't I don't want to put too much weight on this resolution versus ordinance issue because In theory, if this language said established by resolution of the Board of County Commissioners based on a recommendation from the Planning Commission, it would go through the same process.

1:09:40Right. Well.

1:09:42So it still still could be by resolution. You could just have it go to the Planning Commission first.

1:09:46That's right.

1:09:47The issue was that that resolution didn't go to the Planning Commission. And didn't do all the things that an ordinance would do.

1:09:53Okay. Right, there's a motion to continue. Is there a second?

1:09:57I'll second it.

1:09:58Alright motion and a second. Any other discussion? All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries.

1:10:05Yeah.