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 Various Uses Beyond The Phase-In Limitations In Section 163.31801(6), Florida Statutes; And Other Amendments As Necessary, For Internal Consistency; Providing For Applicability; Repealer; Providing For Severability; Inclusion In The Land Development Code, And An Effective Date.
What the county recorded
Staff recommendation
No Action Required
DispositionNo action
No action was taken as this was the first public hearing. The adoption hearing was scheduled for May 5, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. in Dade City.
The source document
The county’s agenda for Board of County Commissioners, Apr 21, 2026
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
The county’s minutes for Board of County Commissioners, Apr 21, 2026
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
This case, across meetings
PDE-26-0524 in full →PDE-26-0524 was taken up 4 times between Mar 19, 2026 and May 19, 2026 — this is appearance 2.
- Mar 19, 2026PlanningP8▶No disposition in the minutes
- Apr 21, 2026BoardP36▶No actionthis item
- May 5, 2026BoardP41▶Approved
- May 19, 2026BoardP36▶Adopted
What was said
Machine transcription of 34m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 81% of 154 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.
Mr. County Attorney, should we go to the next item to follow up with
it? You might as well go to 36 and uh do the first first hearing on the ordinance. Okay. Mr.
Chairman can do publication.
Please.
Item P thirty-six was published in the Tampay Times on March 4th, 2026.
Thank you.
Oh
All right. Now we're going to run through a brief presentation summarizing the changes that are proposed to the ordinance, including those extraordinary circumstance fee increases that we just discussed.
Am I ready to go?
Okay, so this is an ordinance By the Pasco County Board of County Commissioners. Can I skip that one? Okay. All right, let me give you the overview. The overview is that mobility fees pay for only new transportation facilities. They pay for facilities that are needed to accommodate growth and development, not existing demands. The revenue generated by mobility fees, this is all a reminder to the board, but the revenue generated by the mobility fees
is also supplemented by gas taxes in Pasco County. We are fortunate to have a penny sales tax, a portion of which goes to transportation capital projects. And we also allocate a portion of property tax revenue to transportation capital projects through the tax increment fund. As I mentioned earlier, mobility fees can be updated no more often than every four years. And I want to emphasize again that the proposed increases in this ordinance will require a unanimous vote of the Commission to implement them. We want to remind you that our projected
need for transportation facilities is nearly $7 billion. Because we will add 330,000 new residents and we will require an additional 950 lane miles to support the demand for those 330,000 new residents. Our projected revenues, even with the current rates, are short of that need by round uh uh with the current rates that are not adjusted by this proposed increase, we'll be short of that funding that need by about two point nine billion dollars. And that's why we came to you in November,
we presented increases, we got your feedback at a workshop, and we are now showing you the proposed fee rates for mobility fees for various land uses in this ordinance, consistent with the following slides in the November workshop.
So, highlights from the workshop. You told us by all means keep the 100% subsidy or discount for hotel, office, and industrial uses. This is available to us as a Pasco County distinctive. We can use it for economic development purposes to attract these major employers to our area and entice them to locate their businesses here. You told us to retain the sing the discount for single family and accessory dwelling units on five acre or more lots, uh rural lots. You directed
us to increase the locally owned small business discount, which we have done. We've added uh increased it by twenty-five percent. You've directed us to create a new discount for long-term Pasco residents who are constructing new homes as owner builders, and the land development code allows for that. It's a new discount. We are also proposing to update the map showing the benefit districts where the fees can be spent once they've been collected. We're proposing, as part of this amendment, to simplify the surcharge tables for our two. special
districts, the connected city and uh villages of Pasadena Hills. And lastly, we're trying to simplify the language as much as possible without altering the regulatory substance of it to make it a little more readable and user-friendly to the people it's regulating.
Question, Chairman
Mariano. Uh Nate, go back please. Indeed. So the the discount for the uh
Remind me how we got to the five acre lots. We just approved a number of uh essentially rural lots Kishokley talks about it, they're two and a half acres of minor rural subdivisions. Should that pertain more to the what's considered a monorail subdivision instead of at the five acre limit? How do we get to the five acre or more?
So I'm gonna
defer to our Chief Assistant County Attorney because the the five acre is to encourage minor rural subdivisions.
I want to acknowledge this is an existing code provision.
It wasn't
really based on the minor rural subdivisions. It's actually a it was something that's in the existing mobility fee and it originated I think in 2014 and it it occurred because um we had there was some concern that the rural fees were higher than the suburban fees and we didn't want to penalize somebody who was building in the rural area and they were building consistent with our rural vision. And so So in our rural vision, we basically said,
well, if somebody's building on a lot that's five acres or greater, that's consistent with our rural vision. And so we shouldn't want to penalize somebody for building consistent with that rural vision. So we said they should be able to pay the same fees as if as if they were in the suburban area. area. So we had to come up with a lot size that would be consistent with that rural vision. That's how we came up with the five-acre lots.
Not saying we couldn't Come up with a smaller lot size, but that was what we came up with at the time is the lot size that was consistent with a rural vision.
Well the rural vi northeast rural is comprised of m multiple lot sizes for the rural vision in east Pasco. So and and it is true and I agree with you that if you want to live a more rural life you're being penalized by paying more for less
services. It costs more to deliver.
The people who live in the urban areas require ten times as much service than the folks who want to live more of a rural life. Therefore I think it should be opposite and they should pay more because there's a higher demand on everything. But whatever, that's a different conversation for a different day. But if we want to encourage the modern rural subdivision life and rural living, land's a luxury item today. It wasn't back in two thousand and four. Wouldn't you say fourteen? There was a whole lot more land that was undeveloped then than it is today. And so if we want to encourage
the more rural lifestyle, I think number two needs to align with today's market. Land's a luxury item today, and it's highly expensive. And so for someone to buy an acre or two acres of land, that's a pile of money. They're gonna pay the highest impact fee, that's a pile of money. They're gonna build a custom, semi-custom home, and then they're sitting on taxable value of probably a million plus on the low end. In that range. in the northeast rural end based
on real estate markets. So because of that, and if we want to encourage that, I think this five acres needs to come down and morally align with the lot sizes that are allowed Throughout the definition of what Northeast rule is, but I'll digress to Commissioner Oakley on that. Um that way we try to encourage that
type of it's it's up to the board. I mean really this goes to what glass sizes do you want to encourage in the northeast rural area because that was the goal of this is is
See we're reducing the rate for these lot sizes in the rural areas, so you were trying to encourage this type of lot in the rural areas, which we're basically doing. So we basically were trying to send a message that we were trying to encourage five acre lots and higher in the rural area. That was the goal of this. If you if the board wants to set it at two and a half acres and that's what we want to encourage in the rural area, that's up to the board. It's really trying to set a message of what lot sizes you want to encourage in the rural area.
I don't necessarily think it's an encouraging of a lot size more or less and and more of an encouraging of the lifestyle
which is what modern rule living is.
Well, lot sizes or lifestyle, I it's if you if you reduce the fee for this size lot, you are effectively sending a message that that you're encouraging that lot size. Well
yeah, we're
not going to
be that you want executive housing, you
know,
an acre Chair brought it up acre or more lots, but if we said two and a half acres, look at this is just being flexible to the way the market shifted. Right? It's incredibly expensive to live here in Pasco County. So If you want to encourage and not have people come in and subdividing their property, they're going to try to come and get more than five acres. We just saw it a couple months ago. People are gonna continuus continually push and push and push the
as much density on their lot sizes as possible. Yeah. So You know, I think that's a good idea They may not do that.
If we're a little more flexible on the five acre lot size. And it's down to the two and a half acre lot size.
My opinion. But uh
I should make it. I got my hand up.
I'm gonna go to you.
Let me finish. I love
it. Just wonder I got you. We can't go to start.
Um I'm not saying I'm against a two and a half acre lot, but you just have to understand the facts of the cost of suburban versus rural infrastructure. I sent Gina an email if you could put that up and I just did AI, which And I said, which costs less to deliver services? Rural and it came out Lands, but it's supposed to be Lands, but they knew what I was talking about. Or Suburban. Um and so you'll you'll see there that rural costs more. And but just thinking on the road
side Think of how much it's gonna cost to pay Bayhead versus the amount of people living on Bayhead versus a road here. You know, how many taxpayers we have on I don't know, Pick a Road, Darlington or whatever, versus Bayhead, it's all y we're subsidizing the you know The costs per capita are much higher in the rural area to deliver services. We've we've had a couple uh
meetings here. I don't know if it was Gladys Jackson or who. That taught us all about these things. And that those are some of the things you learn when you go to ULI conference or the CNU conference about these kind of numbers. Um and I I don't know where Terry is, but right behind Nick. You I if you wanna you're you're smarter on this than I am, I just know what I've learned. Um
I'm not sure if you're not going to be
I'm not saying I'm against the two and a half acre, but I I don't know if I want to subsidize it even more than we are already, but you want to espouse on what I'm trying to say?
Sure. Uh Nicaragua Spito's playing development and economic growth. What I think Commissioner Starkey is uh referring to is the fact that when you have more people, more density, in other words, you have um more ability to spread the cost of the
infrastructure. I understand it all. I get all that. I disagree with that per. Yeah. I think it's hogwash, and I think when you go to these conferences, there's a level of brainwashing that goes on to fulfill the urban agenda and the high density development agenda. We're specifically here trying to encourage a certain way of living that's really expensive now. Land is a luxury item in Florida. and especially in Pasco County. So if in the comp plan we want to encourage a more rural
style living when they're already going to pay the highest level of impact fee. We're going to require the less services. Go look at the FIRE 911 call log. You know what I'm saying? You see where I'm getting at. I don't need to go we kinda debated this in the other workshop. I'm just saying If we want to encourage that and we want to have that type of buyer come into our county. You know, this is one of the ways we can do it because it's not cheap anymore. It's expensive. And if we want to have executive
style housing come in That's just one way to do it. I mean there'll be a little bit on wire grass and others, but Again, it's congen those folks aren't choosing to necessarily want to live in the more urban areas of this county. Right. So that's that's my point to this. I don't need a lecture on the
I don't think uh from a planning perspective. I'm Little bad.
Um with the East Pasco Rural Protection Ordinance. Is it five acres that you're supposed to have or is it two and a half? Or do we have to change those would what is the minimum that we set without there, eight? R right
now in the Northeast Rural Area, according to the comprehensive plan, one acre is the minimum rural acreage.
Okay, so two and a half acres would fit. Already in the
East Pasco
Rome. Okay.
All right, so I'm gonna jump in on close commission. Oakley wanna jump in. Okay. So and and we've talked about executive housing is is what we want. We want to get business to move here, they got right places to go. Um continually it's uh it's a problem when you only have, you know, sixty-foot, seventy-foot lots at best, where you're gonna go. Um Between all that stuff. I think that it is more expensive to have the services when you're more rural. However You brought
up a really good point. I thought you'd jump on it again. When they're paying a million dollars based taxes based upon a million dollar home compared to one that's four hundred or five hundred. Where are you going? There's money coming from that. The demographics are better. They uh the whole attribute to to the value of the the land um gets better and better the more affluent the people are. It's gonna drive the better service to get your uh fancy restaurants that you want to see in here that wanna come in. They gotta be a
demographic. You look you look at Hudson area. When Wesley Chapel was coming out of the ground, Gulf Hume was cranking. And I talked to a jewelry guy that was there. He said, I do about 70% of my business at the time, it was like fifteen years ago, from people from Westreach Chapel. Now that Wesley Chapel's got all their retail, guess what? The mall's not surviving. Now we wonder how what we're gonna do with that mall. It's not 'cause it's old, it's just Demographics have changed. And I mean I I see CVSs and Walgreens going out of business. Guess what's coming in?
Dollar Tree. What does that tell you? You want the athletes. I'm comfortable, frankly, to go look to really put a strong push out there, to go make these this discount go from the five acres, not even the two and a half. I don't care if it goes for a grant and I don't care where we put it in the county. Because I want to see those better demographics to get things going. I've seen enough of my educational folks out here telling me how great density is. Go to Wesley Chapel, go to Trinity Boulevard, drive around in that traffic and tell me that's what people really want. I'm going to say
I see a completely different world. There's a great hearing we just had at the Planning Commission up on Denton and people were pushing back about they don't want to see these small lots coming in, especially when you got larger ones beside it, to go forward. So I think I want to definitely incentivize that forward. And I'm I'm comfortable going on to an acre.
Nick? Uh Mr. Chairman I just wanna echo our uh Chief Assistant County Attorney's position that it is a board Discretion item. And then I also want to remind you that I'm seeking a unanimous approval of the proposed fee rate tables. So if you could Make sure that I understand what the unanimous consensus of this board is that will help me make the right presentation in May.
Yeah, well I was insulted so I'm yes. So I don't I don't need to be insulted up here. I'm about to pack up and leave because it's the second time today and I'm not taking it. So So
my recommendation to you would be to to do a two and a half. Um I recognize that Terry did say an acre is allowed in Northeast Rural, but the comp plan also defines that as a sprawl. So I think two and a half is a good compromise for now. Um Because I don't think the Compline defines that as brawl. I think the Compline still defines two and a half as a rural level of density.
That would be my recommendation is to go to two and a half.
Okay.
Do you want to keep going? Or is that pretty much done?
I I'm prepared to continue.
Okay.
Our proposed rate table, I'm showing you a column for these are common land uses and the the rates that I'm showing you in this table are in the suburban area in a standard style or type of development. So not a traditional neighborhood development, not a TOD, just a standard form of development. Showing you a column for the current rates that we are charging for these different land uses and then based on the proposed fee tables, the rate that will become effective on July 1st of this year, and the rate increase that will occur one year from now on
July 1st of 2027. Again, these fees are proposed to be introduced in two equal annual installments. But we will not be able to increase the fees for another four years. So the intent would be the fee established in July of 27 would be the fee that remains in place for the following three years.
Uh, highlights on here, we've talked about the single family home rate. I did want to highlight the proposed discount in this code amendment for the single family home by a long-term resident as an owner builder. You can see that the proposed discount is substantial, recognizing the desire to attract and retain those folks who have resided here in Pasco, grown up here. We want them to make this. long-term home. Uh multifamily apartments eliminating any subsidy as per the board's direction in November
workshop. We are proposing to take that fee to the amount that the mobility fee study supports and do that over that two-year period. Small retail goes up s a moderate amount. This is one of those in between twenty-five and fifty percent. The medium retail, these are the corner shopping centers that tend to locate on two on your arterial intersections or arterial and collector intersections. These are the real heavy traffic generators and the fees associated with them reflect the trip making characteristics and the demand that they put on our
road network. So we're proposing those to increase. I want to mention that we are bifurcating restaurants into only two categories based on their physical construction. You either have a drive-thru and you are oriented towards automotive customers, or you don't have a drive-thru and you pay a lot less in mobility fees because you have less of a traffic impact. Very simple way to look at the restaurant uh our neighboring counties have done this. I think it was one of Commissioner Yeager's points in the November workshop was let's make sure that we're implementing things in a simple and consistent way to our neighboring counties, and this was something
we borrowed from them, and I think it's a good approach. We talked about um Convenience stores with gas pumps recognizing again they're driving a lot of the demand, so we're charging them appropriately. And then we are introducing only for this use the high cube warehouse/slash distribution. We are introducing a mobility fee for this use where it is currently subsidized at 100% because we are recognizing that these types of uses are not bringing in the high-paying jobs that we're seeking to attract. Pasco County, and frankly,
a lot of these uses are using our roadway network as inventory storage for their products. And so we think it's appropriate, and we heard from you in November, that it was supportable to introduce a fee on this type of use only while retaining the 100% reduction on traditional industrial uses because of their employment generation.
Uh we talked about rate comparisons with our neighboring counties and I've provided a summary of those same land uses, suburban area, standard form of development, what are we proposing to charge, and then what is Orange County charging, what is Osceola County charging, what is Hillsborough County charging. And I'm intending to demonstrate with this slide that we are right in line with our neighbors. We are appropriately assessing new development for the impacts that they're putting on our system and asking them to pay for those impacts through their fees.
Do want to highlight this item. We are proposing to change the boundaries of the benefit districts. We currently have a map that shows three benefit districts, west, central, and east. And we are proposing two changes to this. First, we're showing the two special areas, the connected city and V O P H areas, because the fees and the intention in the code already. is to retain the fees generated within those areas for development and infrastructure inside those areas. And we think this map should reflect that. We're also changing the boundary lines between the
zones and we're essentially proposing to use county roadways as the bounty as the boundary line between zones one and two and zones two and three. Because that's a good way to predict travel shed. It allows for us to say people on the west side of the road are tending to be attracted to one area and people on the east side are tending to be attracted to another area. And so that's that's the intent of that map update.
Could you go back to that map?
I can.
So difference from one and two is that
So in in the current code, one and the the boundary between one and two follows a power line easement, which really affects travel not at all. And the proposed map follows Shady Hills Boulevard, Shady Hills Road, and then it comes down to Sunlake Boulevard, follows Rangeland, and then goes down Livingston. So those are the four county roads that do a better job of bifurcating travel on a local level.
So Shady Hills Road, if it's on both sides of it, how does it affect the funding?
That means that fees generated in zone one or zone two could be allocated to a capacity investment on Shady Hills Road. Okay.
I
have
a question for
the Chairman Mariano So Chairman your district on the north side of your district on fifty-two as you get further up in the Hudson and headed towards Ron Indo. They're still very similar properties to kind of what's in northeast roll with uh equestrian and whatnot in there. Would would this with his area and the folks that live that lifestyle With kind of the northeast roll type that's up in Chair's area. With
what he was saying earlier, would there be we could tie in the benefit if there's consensus on the one, the two and a half acre or whatever we land on this for people in in the chairs area if there was Remember you bought down rural to
suburban. If Chair's area is already designating suburban, they're already paying those rates. Yeah.
So the oil equestrian community
are paying these rates. That's a ball for
Hayden. David can weigh in, but but if that's if that was the rationale for that exem that exemption that it was we were subsidizing the r those large lot rurals into a more suburban impact or mobility fee rate It would depend on whether that air the chair's area that we're talking about is designated rural or suburban.
Surely that's our if it was already suburban, it would already be with paying suburban rates. If it was rural, then the lot size issue would matter. Would be covered. Well but it would be
covered by that exemption.
Yeah, but but these are not the right maps to discuss that issue. These are the maps where the government where we spend the money and not how much they pay pay us.
That's a different that's a different set
of maps. maps. Will that be upcoming in this presentation?
Well, he's not. I don't think Nick is proposing to change
those maps. Unfortunately we're answering based on the principle, not based on the an another slide showing the boundaries. But I I just want to echo what both of your attorneys have said. The the fee rate that someone pays is based on whether they are the development is within a suburban designated area. or a rural area. The only reason the reduction would apply is if a home was being constructed within the rural area, and then we would defer to lot size to determine whether it was eligible
to pay the reduced suburban fee or it would be obligated to pay the rural fee.
Between
I'm gonna say just With it be in Rural, suburban. If I get someone who wants to build a project and have one acre lots no matter where it is, I'm comfortable getting them the lower rate. Because just like I said, the density I've seen, we're not keeping up. You know, we talk about growth is never gonna keep up. But if I can get those better demographics for the people with larger properties, with the increased taxes they're gonna generate year to year, no matter what other benefits they bring by having their higher incomes, I I'm okay with that type of scenario. Commissioner
Oakley.
When you look at the rural area itself at five acre lots. If you change that The reason reason they pay more, as they have m more mileage to travel on the roads 'cause they're in a rural area to get to the services they're going to get to. And I was always told by mobility that's that's why they paid more is because it costs more on that to provide that road because they're less dense than what a suburban areas.
So you got more in a suburban area you got more people paying toward that road. And in the ruler you got less people paid for it.
However, part of the money that we get from these people is the pr in the property taxes, we're taking a a chunk of that for mobility. You've also got when these people are driving that much further, every put every gallon of gas are using the there's money falling back to us as well. And if it's sales tax benefiting from a penny, you're getting some money back from other things as well. So just It's like so it's not just all one thing or not. It's like I'm I'm looking at the whole big picture of it. And again, with all the density that I've seen, we keep on pushing density, density, we keep on getting more and more backed up.
I don't mind the approach to saying, look, I want to see some larger homes and maybe you get some different type of developers who aren't gonna compete with the guy who's gonna stick in forties and fifties and sixties.
I don't mind us shifting back a bit to say, I mean, let's give it a let's give it a run for a few years.
that that they feel like They're paying I mean they're paying less but the fact of it you don't want it to come dense the rural way of life in Pasco County and in the Northeast with the Rural Ordinance and all that, you gotta be careful or you'll you'll end up with everything in the rural area looking like suburb. I don't I don't think I don't think our citizens want that. All right, so what uh and don't get me wrong, there's people
out there and there's some projects that I know are coming our way in in this rural area that are gonna be ten acre lots or better and large homes, two, three million dollar homes on those lots. But there's a certain amount of people that want that kind of lifestyle and they don't want to lessen the density so it be or make it more density where they're like they're living in town. They don't want to live in town. They want out out and have bigger
lots.
So you gotta divide it some way. So you don't just do away with rural America.
I don't I don't think that you guarantee The assumption that you're going to get a million dollar home on a one acre piece of ground is not necessarily what I think will end up happening. I mean hopefully at one acre you're at that sort of as yeah. That's sprawl, that's defined as being sprawl. You're gonna get some large homes but you're gonna get some small homes too.
you know, they mobile uh mobiles would be in a different category, but but there's I don't think I don't n necessarily th think it equates that that if you by encouraging one acre lots you're going to get higher property value homes. You may. But I'm not I I just don't want yeah you to make that assumption Well
I know that's not I know for a fact there's some projects coming in that are ten ac gonna be ten or acre home sites and the homes are planned to be two three million dollar homes and there's only like forty-five in this one project. But that covers over 450 acres, and you're gonna have all these nice homes on that. They don't want The density. They want more room. But not everybody is like that.
Just like they w in a suburban area, there's many people that are right up next to people and the fact of it is, would they rather have an acre lot? Yeah, they'd rather have an acre lot. But there's a cost of that.
So the cost will be when you're paying your taxes is not just on the proper it's not just on the building itself, but it's the property too. Right. The the key is you're gonna minimize the amount of trips that are gonna go. because of being a winner lot. No when I look at the No upper part of Hudson, do they like to see all these dense units next to their rural stuff? I'm gonna tell you they don't. Oh, you know they don't. Right. And if you have any doubts, watch the last Planning Commission meeting we just had. And there's a big push for that. So And
then some of those that were in the rural area, oh, you're pulling it up, good.
I I was just gonna mention that we have the map on the screen so now you can know where the rural, the suburban and the urban area boundaries are. in order to determine where someone might be paying a rural fee unless they qualify for the discount, the five-acre lot discount. So that would only be within area C. on this map, the salmon colored Portion of the map.
The boundary between B and C in the h in the Hudson area there, is that Dentonav there?
What's that road going across? I should know this.
That's state road fifty-two. But then as you go north and it zigzags
up to up to um Hudson. Yeah the re the red line is Hudson. Hudson, okay. All right. So so
up in that area, you got some rural that's been there for many, many years. Now there's the influx coming in. Uh Denton Place I think was the project that was that would that came in. Um place Summer Chase came in years ago. So people around there with these giant lots are dealing with these smaller influx. And when we do have when we get these two-lane roads without sidewalks, without other infrastructure around it, it makes it crowded and it's gonna get even more crowded as it's coming. Do I think I'd like to see an incentive for these people to go You know, even if you could
try to go to a larger lot, like a seventy foot size lot, if I could get you to go to an acre lot, that would take a lot of stress off that whole area. 'Cause otherwise I gotta rebuild. And if I gotta try to go rebuild and try to make those two lane roads four lane roads. That's gonna be a lot more money. So as much as it's
yeah
less impact the fees we're gonna collect, it's also a lot less road I'm gonna have to build too. that could possibly work with everything else around there.
I think they're all good ideas. It's a matter of where we land to get to unanimous vote. I I think I'm confident we'll land somewhere. It's just a matter of where I don't think there's an adversarial on this nick. I think we just gotta
Well we got a couple of weeks to gel on to think about it, talk about it, and um I think the presentation was
wrong, this is literally one word in the code, right? It's one sentence. Right now it says five acres, right? That's right.
That's correct.
This is a text element so in
the proposed update. It's not hard to change five acres to something else. Else but we just need more direction. Can we make that decision in two weeks? If it's just that one it it's it's one word, so yes, we could easily make that change. All
right,
so
anyone else want to add anything else more to the conversation? It's been a good conversation, I appreciate it. Because there were definitely different perspectives, different thoughts, and uh different ideas about how it all works. Okay.
Very good.
All right. Thank you, sir.
My last slide was the recommendation slide, which is accept public comment and reminding you that no action is required today. Um the second hearing, the adoption hearing is scheduled for May fifth in Dade City. Okay.
Uh is there anyone else in the in the audience uh from the public that would like to speak to this item?
Okay, we'll close public comment. Is there anyone online?
There's no one on WebEx and no one has signed up either.
Okay.
Okay. David Allen? Chair, if I may, then um you know following uh Mr. Uran's presentation what we'll do um we'll follow up with each of the board members um individually between now and the next reading and get us gauge in terms of where we're at so that when we come back on May 5th with the updated um ordinance then And I'm hoping that we'll be at a place where we get unanimous decision as as Nick uh had indicated that we need for this item. Thank you. Thank
you.