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
Approve
DispositionAdopted
Approved to adopt by roll call vote with the amended change to zero out the golf course.
The source document
The county’s agenda for Board of County Commissioners, May 19, 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, May 19, 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 4.
- Mar 19, 2026PlanningP8▶No disposition in the minutes
- Apr 21, 2026BoardP36▶No action
- May 5, 2026BoardP41▶Approved
- May 19, 2026BoardP36▶Adoptedthis item
What was said
Machine transcription of 13m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 89% of 64 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.
Item P36 was published in the Tampe Times on March 4, 2026. The item was continued from the May 5, 2026 BCC meeting to today.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the Commission. We are here to talk about Land Development Code amendments to update the mobility fee schedules and to make other text amendments to simplify the code and streamline its implic its application. The ordinance 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 various uses beyond the phase in limitations in
section one hundred sixty three dot three one eight zero one, paragraph six of Florida statutes, to make other amendments as necessary for internal consistency, Providing for applicability, repealer, providing for severability, inclusion in the land development code, and an effective date.
As a very brief reminder, mobility fees pay for new transportation facilities. They are part of the four-legged stool that we use to pay for our roadway and transportation infrastructure. We also use gas taxes, penny sales taxes, and tax increment funds. A portion of our property taxes go toward constructing transportation facilities. The proposed fees in the fee schedule will cover approximately 25% of our just south of $7 billion cost of needed transportation facilities to
support growth anticipated to occur in Pasco County. As a reminder, the proposed fees do exceed the statutory thresholds. But the state allows for that to occur subject to compliance with the four items on the slide in front of you. We need a recent study to justify the extraordinary ext circumstances for this increase. We have that. We need to have conducted two public workshops soliciting input on the proposed fee increases. We have done that. We need to
implement the fee increases in at least two. equal annual increments. The table does that. And lastly, we need the fees to be adopted by unanimous vote of the Commission as a whole. So all five of you need to be present and supportive of the proposed fee increases in order for this ordinance to be adopted today.
There are three outstanding questions that have come up in the discussion in the prior presentations. The first question is regarding the minimum lot size for a single family home in the rural areas to be granted a decreased, a reduced fee to be able to pay instead of the rural lot fee, they would pay the suburban lot fee. So first point I want to make is that our existing ordinance has the discount in place for any single family homes on a five acre lot or
larger Second point is this conversation only pertains to development from within the rural area. The suburban areas already pay the reduced fees, so we're not talking about development within the purple areas. We're just focusing on area C on the map, the rural areas in the mobility fee ordinance.
The board discussion previously was should we reduce the lot size minimum from five acres to two and a half acres to make additional homes eligible for the reduced mobility fee rate with if they are two and a half acres or more. We didn't get a final decision on this, so I want you to understand the ordinance as proposed retains the five acre minimum. And if there's a desire to change that, then we would need the board to ensure that that is a part of your motion. Adopting this ordinance. Mr.
Sherman.
Open discussion when the commissioner wants to discuss a bullet point or do you want to wait till the presentation's
let's go through it because we've we've gone through it before and then we'll we should be able to get right back to it and hit one point by by the other. So let's go through and then we'll
hit them. I only have two more slides. Okay. Yeah. Uh so this is item number one. The second item is a proposal to fully incentivize the construction of new golf courses within Pasco County. Current mobility fee structure says golf courses should pay based on the traffic impacts that they introduce onto our roadway system, the transportation impacts. And there was a discussion at the at the uh prior meeting. regarding fully discounting new golf course construction and incentivizing the
mobility fees that they would have paid. So we would essentially be zeroing out the fees to be paid by golf courses if the board is supportive of that request. The third item was a conversation of regarding fully incentivizing an ice hockey complex, with the complex being defined as an a project that has four or more ice hockey rinks within the project itself. The concept behind that was that these types of facilities at four or more ice hockey
rinks are large enough to conduct a regional tournament and they function as an economic attractor and an economic development engine for Pasco County and therefore it may be uh desirable of the board to incentivize these to one hundred percent. The conversation also said. uh standalone ice hockey rink would continue to pay the standard rate according to its tran transportation impacts. So we have three outstanding questions, rural lot size, five acres or two and a half acres, fully incentivized golf courses,
and fully incentivized this new land use called an ice hockey complex with four or more ranks. And at that, I'm asking the board to accept public comment and then either adopt as presented or adopt as you desire to modify
in
your discussion.
Okay, so we're gonna
we're
gonna have the board discussion before we go to public comment. So if you will, let's go back to the two and a half acre, five acre slide. Sorry please. Thanks, Commissioner Starkey.
Um as I stated before, I'm probably not in favor of That's not me. What was that? Um probably not in favor of this. Um I don't wanna incentivize development at smaller lots in the rural area. Um and uh as I said before it costs more to deliver services in the rural area, so um And I'm not in favor of this one and as the the uh county attorney said,
just because you have a Five acre or two and a half acre lot doesn't mean you're getting executive housing on it. And as we all want for big nice houses that I think they can pay the mobility fees. We have a 75% deficit in funding the roads that we need. And while I don't think there's gonna be that many of these, I just don't feel it's fiscally prudent to chip away at even 25%. So I'm I'm not for this one.
Let me just give you a thought. As far as going from the five to two and a half, and I don't think there's a tremendous amount of it either, but if I can get a project coming forward with that Not only are they gonna pay uh s they'll pay the smaller fee up front But if you get more of those two and a half acre lots that are out there The demographics it brings is huge. The taxes they pay are huge, which is also part of the mobility fee.
Well anyone who's got a big house usually got more money.
We can have two and a half acres and they slap a trailer on there. So um what about maybe you know a compromise just came to my mind. If we left some wiggle room Because let's say we got an equestrian community that came in and had bigger lots, two and a half acre lots. Like Aristida is one acre and you can have a horse if you have one acre in Aristida. What if we have a development that comes in that is something that we desire that's two and a half acres with you know a certain
qualifications then we can Plug that in. But I'm not for it and you need five votes. You're not for it. I'm not for it for anything goes and we're sub and the sub suburban people are subsidizing that. So
you bring a good point. Dave,
is there a way we can make that work?
I think you can if it's an M P U D. There's a way to make that work. Yeah, see the answer is yes, if it's an M P D, I think you can make that work. So how can we incorporate it into the language to But I d I I don't think he would change it in the ordinance, you would be doing that through the MPUD conditions.
So do we need to cheat? You would be leaving the ordinance at five acres. Yeah. Just as it currently stands. You would be addressing any special discounts for that MPUD in through the MPUD conditions. Yes. Okay. So I don't need to add anything in this mobility field ordinance at all. We can just do that. You would you would be addressing the discounts for that particular M PUD through its MPUD conditions. But there's a way to do it. We've done it before. Okay.
Okay, next. All right, next bullet. Unless we're I mean
it's gotta be unanimous so there's not a a long debate. And we've got the out that we've got my
own.
We've got the out and and and again if I don't think anyone would do with the trailer, but that takes care of the argument and we have the flexibility, it's stated here that we do have the flexibility, we can move from there, I think. Okay.
Next slide.
Not that there's anything wrong with the trailer. I just don't want to I just don't want to subsidize it and put more burden on the other people for traffic. Okay. Um I'm trying very hard to get my husband to do one of those container homes that I would like to help build, but he has no interest. Um okay, hockey rink. There's been great discussion about a four rink hockey rink coming into the Trinity area and it and it's talked about going at Mitchell and Little.
And if I don't have impact if I don't have mobility fees, I cannot build Mitsubart. And if I can't build Mid to Boulevard, then the traffic's gonna fail for a hockey ring. So I'm not okay with that one again. Um I think there's other ways to get help for a hockey rink, but to to not help build the road network when it's gonna cause a lot of traffic. is a problem. So That I guess that depends on the location.
Is that another one we can be flexible too when it comes forward? I know we did it before Wesley Chapel with the hockey rink. It was verse it could make a million dollars worth of fees. We brought those fees down. I was just trying to simplify it so
Well if it's part of an economic development project the the county can always find ways to buy down the fees for a particular project and you've done that before. And we did it at at that nice. Yes. So i if it's a if it's a particular project that you feel is an economic development project, you can't there's ways to do that. Okay.
Right, I mean I'd rather do it up front, but it's gotta be a new problem.
It could be a problem. I mean it could not even be able to get off the ground because it doesn't have the the roads fail already.
And you'd be okay if it was even a full subsidy. If it was in the right location.
Say that again?
You'd be okay if it was even a full subsidy if it was in the right location.
Um I I think it just has it it has to be negotiated. I would not do it like this. If it's a Yeah.
There's no traffic issue. I don't know, three oh one and Is that for Hills or I don't know your area well. Somewhere else? But if it's in Trinity and I and it's gonna affect my traffic on Little and Fifty Four and I 'cause we were planning on using that money to help build Mentor Boulevard and so If we can't have that road, we can't have any development down there. So I I think it would hurt us. Uh
if we've got the flexibility we can move on. Yeah. Next.
I think that's it.
The last one was the golf course question.
Oh I I I don't I uh is this public or private or does it matter?
Uh to me right now you've got golf courses that have closed down pre COVID and there's such demand for golf course right now, prices are going through the roof. We've shut down a few of them over the years from stormwater, et cetera. I think any time you're building a golf course and it could be a public golf course, could be a private, you're gonna cut down trips, it's gonna save and it's gonna help
the overall cost. I'm okay with the golf course.
No, that's good. Would that be associated with residential or independent or doesn't it matter? It doesn't matter. I'll just leave
it open. Okay. All right. So those are the three key points. We're okay with that? All right. Time for public comment. Anyone here from the public like to speak to this item?
Okay. Anyone online?
No one's online.
Okay. All right to the board.
Move approval. With the uh amended changes.
Okay. So to be clear, the only change that Nick has to make is zeroing out golf course, correct? Yeah. That's what I heard.
Okay. So I have a motion, got a second. Roll call vote.
District One, Commissioner Oakley. Aye. District two, Commissioner Weightman. Aye. District three, Commissioner Starkey. Aye. District four, Commissioner Yeager. Aye. District five, Chairman Mariano.
Aye. Motion passes five all the time. Thank you very much. All right, now we'll start with our public hearing. Mr. County Attorney read the rules of consent agenda?
Be happy to