Pasco 2050 Comprehensive Plan Chapter 11 Invest workshop
What the county recorded
This item is not from the published agenda
It is a stretch of the recording that this archive identified as a separate matter — a call to order, a recess, or something taken up that the agenda does not list. There is no official title, no staff recommendation and no disposition, because the county never recorded one. Everything below is inferred.
The source document
The county’s agenda for Planning Commission, May 21, 2026
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
What was said
Machine transcription of 39m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 57% of 271 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.
Okay, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon, Commissioners or Com Plan Commission members. Hi it Mozilla Planning Development Economic Growth. I know it's been a full afternoon, actually a full day already. So thank you for sticking around so we can uh Continue our progress through the PASCO 2050 Comprehensive Plan Chapters. Alright, back to my ultra C slide. So this morning we wrapped up the public facilities element, the second half of chapter 10.
And as a quick reminder, the plan includes 11 chapters, and we've already covered chapters 3 through 10. And that brings us to our next stop on the Pasco 2050 tour, and that's Pasco Invest Chapter 11. So let's take a quick look at Pasco Invest and all the updates that we had done so far. So what is Pasco Invest? Pasco Invest is the new name for our capital improvement element. This chapter
is mandatory, is a mandatory element of the comprehensive plan for chapter 163 of the Florida statutes. And it provides a it provides a unified framework for planning. Planning, prioritizing, and funding public facilities and infrastructure across the county. And that's done by identifying capital needs to meet adopted level of service standards, prioritizing which improvements are funded, and also linking land development decisions to available
infrastructure. So, what has changed in this update? Like we always do with all the chapters of Pasco 2050, we have reorganized and streamlined the structure of the goals, objectives, and policies. The chapter now includes one goal, five objectives, and 50 policies, four of which are brand new. We have also made several key improvements. We moved relevant policies from the administrative elements. Into invests.
We also removed outdated and redundant policies. And the old capital improvement project schedules have also been deleted from this chapter. All the level of service standards policies formerly housed in other elements, including the administrative element, recreation open space element, transportation elements, and public facilities. Elements as well as the public school facilities elements are now consolidated with an Invest to make sure
that we have convenient access and also consistency. So overall, these changes make the chapter more user-friendly, up-to-date, and better aligned with both state requirements and our county goals. This slide shows the proposed formal policies. These policies are proposed to strengthen to be added to the Complan or to this chapter to strengthen how we manage growth and infrastructure funding in the county. So first policy invest 112
and policy invest 1113. Both of these policies ensure that our county continues. To implement and regularly update impact fees for both fire combat and rescue and the library services. This means that as new development occurs, it helps pay for the additional fire stations, emergency equipment, and library facilities needed to serve our growing community. The second policy that we have added is Invest 1.2.8. So this
new policy streamlines how we update our capital improvement schedules instead of embedding the entire five-year schedule directly into the chapter, which would require a comprehensive plan amendment every single year. They the schedules get updated. incorporating the schedule by reference. This policy allows us to update the data and analysis document where the schedules now reside. It's important to note that the capital
improvements uh schedule um currently in the comp plan has n have not been updated since 2010. So this policy is a significant step towards ensuring that um we are consistent or the comp plan is consistent um with the annually um updated um uh CIP schedule or the capital improvement schedule. The third policy that, um, or the fourth policy that we have added is policy Invest 1.3.10. This new policy was developed in
response to state requirements for local government to study and plan for septic to sewer conversions. While this requirement is for the feasibility studies, this one, well, this policy is already addressed in Invest, in the Pasco SERVS. It is here to To ensure that the county develops a funding plan which considers all the funding sources such as grants, utility fee, state and federal programs, and adjustment to any local fee structure. So that way we
are ready to move forward with these important projects that we have identified in the feasibility study.
And uh Next slide um pretty much just shows the policies that we have relocated from other chapters to this chapter. I'm not gonna go through each and every one of them, but I summarized them all in this table just to pretty much shows you what the policy number is and what it came from. And I did that, Mr. Moody, would you in mind because you had asked me when we discussed Pasco SERS
where those policies were gonna go so This is to pretty much showcase where those policies have moved to in this element or in this chapter.
I can open the floor for you gentlemen to discuss any policy that You would like a little bit more um explanation on or
More discussions.
Um yeah, I just have a a question. So
I guess I'm curious. So for So for roads, parks.
Water, sewer, solid I think solid waste. Yep. Um you have the level of service standards that you put in here, which is fine in schools. Okay. Um
For fire when you added fire, rescue, and libraries
You didn't put a level of service standard in. So what was the thought process there?
So we do not have level adopted level of service standards for fire and libraries. The thought process of adding those two policies um into this chapter is pretty much just to ensure we have impact fee L O S but we just want to make sure that we're continuing with the implementation and updating of of those um impact fee. But currently there are no adopted level of service standards.
For fire and libraries.
The the problem is the policies you've added refer to levels of service.
For impact fee.
So y by i by levels of service you mean the impact fee levels of service?
Yes.
Because obviously you don't mean the compliant levels of service because
nine. Yes. Yeah.
We discussed these policies with FIRE and libraries and they pretty much um were the ones that showed interest in having these policies in the Complan.
I don't I don't have a problem with them being in there. I just don't wanna know since you didn't add any levels of service
Right.
Through the comp plan. I d the r I don't know what the reference to needed to maintain levels of service is referring to, since there's no levels of service
lever service for impact.
have a level of service in the Com plan. So I if they if you asked me what the levels of service for parks, schools, water and sewer and drainage and everything else, I would I could point to something.
Correct.
But
For for the two you added for fire and libraries, there's a reference to levels of service, but I would have no idea what that is. Because there's no corresponding
Level of service standards for things.
So you would either need to add a level of service to the complan for those Or you need to
Say what level of s level of service you're referring to. So is it is the level of service in the impact fee study?
Correct, yes. That's exactly what it's referring
to.
Well then it needs to say that.
Okay.
In like in the most recent impact fee study?
I guess that's whatever that's what the reference was supposed to
I'm assuming you somebody intentionally did not want to put it in the comp plan. I guess. I d I'd
I I don't know, I wasn't part of these conversations, but
If somebody intentionally did not want to put 'em in the comp plan then you need to Say what levels
you're talking about.
S so the sentence would would uh read for both. Well, it would say to maintain levels of service.
As outlined.
You study and support future growth.
Or as I didn't know. Yeah, I
mean the only complicating factor is my understanding is that
The most recent impact fee study for libraries was never adopted.
Well and then does that mean that whoever's
study can just
be.
It is for fire. Right. I I just don't know if that's should be adopted in the most recent in in in an impact fee study for libraries.
But do we have to say adopted? I guess you can see
in the most recently adopted impact fee study, I guess, if it said that.
Okay. Why can't you
just define
a
level of service? Well I th I mean we that would be the other thing is you could just put the adopter level service in the comp plan. I but I mean it is a little odd to me that you have the adopter level service for everything else in the complan, but you chose not to put
What seems a bit bothersome is if you wanna say it's the level of service in the most recent adopted impact fee it's gonna require more. Uh well that means every time I do an impact fee study I can just decide change whatever level of service I want for to be convenient to justify the impact fee I wish to collect. Well,
that was one rationale in internal discussions is providing some kind of flexibility so that if a level of service needed to be adjusted, you didn't have to do a whole comprehensive plan amendment to send it to Tallahassee. For their approval.
Yeah, but you but for all the other f infrastructure facilities they're embedded in the comp plan.
B but I think so those other ones are state mandated. Whereas a library and a fire are not state mandated.
They're not.
I I don't look I I'm not been part of all these conversations. All I'm saying is that you can't reference a level of service and then not say what it you either need to put that level of service in the com plan or be more specific as to what you mean.
Cool. I guess one of the questions I have is what's the problem you want to define a level of service for fire. And hopefully we don't want to decrease that level of service. We only want to increase that level of service.
How long does it take us to do a comp plan amendment to increase a level of service for fire? And send it off to the state. I mean How burdensome is that?
uh the preparation of the necessary data and analysis for the change you're going to make. So there's a some kind of study is going to take place. The public hearing at the LPA, a transmittal hearing by the Board of the Board of County Commissioners, a 30-day built-in or more waiting period for the state to review. then another adoption hearing by the Board of County Commissioners and then a forty plus day effective date time period associated with it. So it it drags out, it could get six
months and more.
Tell them
to drive
faster.
Two and a two and a half of those months are just state review. to which I would s also say that, you know, the pendulum swings back in the day you had a state review that was very uh involved. Uh then the state review wasn't as involved and now I'm not saying that they're not involved, but neither am I saying that they are involved. They they're they're producing more comments than The DEO days, let's put it that way.
And the other thing to that we talked about internally was, you know, what would happen if you had another Senate Bill one eighty scenario. Mm creating legislation is more burdensome and restrictive and if you're behind the ball on say parks, which historically the county was behind the ball on the park impact fee, We try to increase it.
you could run into challenges.
To be clear
we
still have sound number one eighty. Isn't
gonna work. Yeah yeah true, yes, yes. I'm thinking about the future, but yes. So that's where for fire rescue and for libraries, because they're not state mandated to be in the comprehensive plan, The idea was to potentially give the Board of County Commissioners a little bit more flexibility on local home rule type things.
Seems reasonable.
I'll defer to whatever you all decide. I'm my only point is that you you can't just leave that
We can we can
need or some references to what level of service Daniel you're talking about just not gonna be in the common point.
Yeah, we c we can specify it. I think the language where we've left it now says something to the effect of to maintain levels of service as identified in the most recently adopted impact fee study and support future growth.
Um then my other question is
There there's a couple of pla so y so it's very clear that the roadway levels of service are not concurrency standards. And it's very clear to me that the school levels of service are concurrency standards.
But for everything else
it's they're not really labeled. So I don't
labor labeled as
concurrency or not? We use them for concurrency or not. So do we need like is there somewhere that Or is that differ is do we just do that through the line development code? Like how do I know
I guess what I'm where I'm going with this is We decided for roads and schools to specifically label them as nonconcurrency and concurrency. Is there a reason we didn't do that with everything else? Like to make it clear that it is or is not a concurrency standard?
No there was no reason.
'Cause I think my understanding is that that Some of these are in fact like drainage Solid waste, wastewater, potable water,
that some of these are in fact concurrency standards If that's true, are we no is there any harm to actually labeling them as concurrency standards like we did for schools?
Yeah, there's no harm in doing that. It's
I mean you're right. They're being planned and discussed as they're proposing their projects, so concurrent in a sense.
I just And now that we're adding fire in and libraries, I'm just saying which I'm assuming those are not gonna be concurrency standards. So I'm just saying we should be crystal clear as to what if we're putting a level service standard in the com plan, I think we should be crystal clear as to which ones are concurrency standards and which ones are not.
Okay.
So the so the w the water infrastructure, the wastewater infrastructure, all that would be concurrency.
Same thing with drainage. I well I think the land development
code is clear. I mean you can look in the land development code, but I believe I'm pretty sure parks, drainage Water, sewer
Okay. Look at the land development code. Pretty sure parks, drainage, water sewer, and solid waste are all concurrency public facilities, but you can look at the land development code to confirm. But it's all the ones that are required by state law, which I forp believe are all the ones I just said.
We we do all the ones that are required by state law. Yeah.
I guess the schools.
What? It's yeah.
Not necessarily okay.
So I I'm just I just prefer that it you be crystal clear that which ones are concurrent to standards and which ones are not.
Okay, sure. We'll add that.
Uh looking at the standards for potable water and wastewater.
Wastewater's a little bit better because it talks about equivalent residential units within Pasco County, but I think that's a bit It should be residential units within the utility service area.
What page are you on, sir?
Uh it's one one four, one one six. So it's page six of the red line. Stop and page. Mm-hmm.
Talking about capacity of both portable water and wastewater so it should be per day per equivalent resid residential unit within the utility service area I think is probably what we need to add to both of those.
Okay.
And I'm not sure why on one one six it's each new residential equivalent or each new equivalent residential unit. I'm not sure why the word new's there.
Should probably just be for each.
Yeah, uh I mean that was reviewed by wastewater staff and they added new but we can Mention
Okay, like right here. One one six. The new. The new the word new.
Okay. Those are noted, Mr. Mons.
One one eight, have we had a couple of questions? Of course. Can somebody tell me where the Pasco County Stormwater Management Practices manual lives today?
Well, I've been here a long time and I've never ever seen one.
About ten years ago there was discussions about revisions or making that and that died. And I don't know that I've heard that it came back.
And right now the stormwater rules and the land development code say that our rules are the same rules in effect at Swift Mud in December whatever twenty eleven. That's sixteen years ago, fifteen years ago, and by the way, the rules had a massive change on December twenty eighth of last year. So
No, nobody's online.
Set on their website. I don't think it exists, Terry. There was a not a I've never seen
a stormwater.
I have never seen a stormwater manual in this county.
Probably wasn't probably a fair question. I probably should have worded it for
it was a trick. Oh was that a trick question? Was it Girardi?
Yeah. That's all. At three o'clock that would have been a word. I think uh exist
and we could just simply strike.
I
mean I think there's it's a whole separate issue, but there is a lot of over duplicate review when it comes to stormwater. Water management district enforces the D P rules.
Mm-hmm.
Is this section required by the state law?
The the
standards? You do have t drainage is one a a required concurrency facility. Yes. But you did the reference to that manual is not required by state law. But easy to have the green and You need to have a level of service standard for drainage. But it could just be a reference to Swift Month Standard.
I I mean I'm okay if you just strike the the stormwater practices manual. J said that you could do it ten years ago.
Well I think that would be blind. Because
One, to Jamie's point. We already have a state agency.
That's charged with you know, managing stormwater. You've got to get that permit. For whatever reason, our county has not been able to update its rules or keep a staff that's actually capable of doing the analysis required to make sure those rules are complied with, why don't we just defer that to the state and save our local taxpayers the money and
time?
There's a duplication of services that's unnecessary and if your local rule is going to be If you look at our s the stormwater rules and our land development code says our stormwater rules are the rules in effect at Swift Mud on what whatever December twenty eleven. Well. Why would then why would do we need to have rules? We we're using their rules and they do it. Why do we need to have 'em? That doesn't make any sense.
Okay with that, Aaron.
Uh I think m making that decision isn't not my pre grade. I
just moved you up to my point. Well they're they're saying two different things. Mr. Artie's Mr. Artie's just suggesting striking the reference to the stormwater management. I agree with him because there isn't one. But there
has been.
Mr. Moody's suggesting also striking the reference to the land development code, which is a bigger request.
Because it's unnecessary.
But that would effectively require us to repeal the land development code too.
No, you just repeal that section of the land development. Repeal that section of land development code. That's kinda what he's after.
Well I mean if it's
that's the part that's above Terry's Bay Grade. I don't think I don't think striking the reference to the manual is above Terry Terry's Bay Grade if it doesn't exist. No, I think it's a promotion.
I mean if the if the landed on the code it continues to be referenced. Here, but the code provisions are updated to point To the
Swift Mud.
Swift Mud or whoever yeah.
I could be fine with that too, but
We
gotta get on with
it.
We're talking about Fifteen years right
now. Fifteen years behind. Well, I mean there will be following the comprehensive plan update as part of the Communist Strategic Plan uh Land Development Code Update, through which the tables, the change tables that you see here that you've been getting at the workshop are not the end of the road. Um you'll notice that on the on the far right end of the table there's Land Development Code section updates. So with all the changes that are happening in the comprehensive plan, we're going to go through and identify the
code sections following as an exercise, and then we're going to be going to the constituent departments and telling them, hey, you guys got to update your parts of the land development. code here. So that's gonna be a big question that probably requires a bit more higher level discussion before it filters down into a into department adjustments to the land development code.
But m I I think my recommendation for this policy is uh keep the reference to the land development code.
and to the extent that the landed omicode design is updated to point in the right direction. I think that's what you would want to achieve during the land development code update following the this conference plan update.
Well, I would argue you should strike the reference to the manual anyway, because if there even if there was a manual, that's something that should probably be addressed in the land development code, not the comp plan.
Okay.
Okay. Next sentence. All new, then a parentheses, it's the word to include district. And retrofit and redevelopment. Buildings, roads and sites. What is that saying?
That all new development including but that report s struck.
Is that saying that n new is defined as retrofit and redevelopment? But what about all brand new development?
Just confusing to me.
Is it suggesting that the buildings and the roads and the sites that come out of retrofits and redevelopment are considered new?
But but so then table Invest two doesn't cover new development.
Make numbers all buildings.
I I see the confusion though.
It is confusing. Yeah.
Or maybe new comma retrofit and develop redevelopment. I d I don't know.
Well if it's new development, retrofit and redevelopment then isn't that all development? Yeah.
That covers everything. All new buildings
include
all new buildings, roads and sites.
Right. Whether it's a retrofitted or redeveloped
Well and why but to Mr. Moody's point, why isn't it just saying all development?
Like w what it what is it ex what is it not covering?
I guess it's grandfathering all the existing buildings, roads and sites.
Right.
But at what point does
new begin? I guess with the complex. That's a that's a that's a debate because
Without getting into too much specifics and d David d Engel is involved in this, but We're gonna have to fix what the definition of development is. in our land development code.
'Cause right now it's being interpreted in ways that it was never intended.
Delete new and then delete also retrofit. So everything it doesn't matter.
I think that I I believe I'm hearing from one from the LPA here that the sentence should read all buildings, roads and sites shall meet the design criteria outlined in table investors too. To clean up the sentence anyway. Well, I I
want
to hold
on.
Yeah, because I I don't think we're saying that the problem no no because existing needs to be brought to stand,
because the problem that I have is in that our definition of development, a change of use of that building constitutes development.
Okay, so if I go in and I take a building and I change it from a retail store into a restaurant by that then you trigger a stormwater review. That's not necessary. Yeah. I understood if I expanded the building or expanded the parking, but if I just simply changed the use.
Right. And that's why I said we're working on that that needs to get fixed in our
all new development or redevelopment as defined in the land development
code. Well right now that would include changing the use of the building.
But we could change that in the Land Development Code. Well, yeah, just as I'm suggesting we should change the stormwater regulations that are fifteen years out of date.
What I'm saying is that gives you the flexibility to change the definition of redevelopment in the land development code. Okay. Oh okay. Right. Yeah.
So is that to say all new development and redevelopment of buildings, roads and sites? No,
all development as defined by the land development code. So then that gives the opportunity in the land development code we can decide what is and what is not development.
Right.
So would so that means I think we'd read all development and then you could put in par parentheses as defined in the land development code. Close parentheses.
I guess do you want to leave uh you wanna say uh buildings, roads and sites? Do you wanna leave that in?
Well no, actually I think that your first just all development as defined in the land development code.
Just don't sell me the criteria. All right.
Right, because
then he defines different standards for buildings, roads, and the right-of-way.
Right, true. Yeah. Okay, right. Yeah, you're right.
Yeah, it's definitely. Idea Please.
Shall meet.
Yeah.
The criteria in the table?
Yeah, so all is c basically gets taken up.
Okay.
Okay, then then my next question goes to the table itself. I'm assuming these standards all came from the existing comp plan.
Yes. Existing comp plan in what's in the L D C right now.
And maintained by the constituent departments that reviewed it.
I just I mean I guess they're in place. We're not changing anything but
I I I have trouble following the wording. You know, the example I'll give you, the first one says emergency shelters shall be designed to accommodate. Does that mean they can handle it? I mean it can come in the doors and go out the doors. Is there not a standard for emergency shelters built above just like there is for habitable structures? We're supposed to be one foot above One hundred year flood elevation. Um
I I've s I've never seen I've never seen it defined as like a level of service where they can accommodate it. I mean usually it's a To a certain thing.
Yeah, what does that mean? I agree. What does that mean? Accommodate a minimum one hundred year storm event in twenty four hour peak duration. To deal with it.
Well no, it should say something, Terry. I think what the intent is is that it should say something to the effect of that the emergency shelters shall be located at such an elevation such that a will not flood during a 100-year storm event with 24-hour peak duration.
Yeah, I mean I I think when they look for Or you know like an EOC or something like that, I mean th there's certain standards that they look for and certain properties I think are ruled out when they're looking for those sites. Yes, that's correct. So I I just think that just needs to be better defined.
Just I'm just looking at the second one. All habitable structures shall be designed to accommodate a minimum hundred year storm event, twenty-four hour d duration. Okay, well does that mean the building won't implode during that event or it won't get wet?
I mean it says finished floor elevation shall be one foot above the hundred year elevation, but
Um
Well, and then there's
You have two two terms. in the same box, one hundred year storm twenty four hour duration and one hundred year flood elevation are not necessarily the same thing.
She deferred me to somebody else and I
And this is exactly why we should get rid of people doing stormwater in the county because it takes a certain level of expertise construct which is what the state agency has.
Should these standards live in the land development no do not? Sorry. Should these standards live in the land development code anyway, or should they be here in the comp land?
Well
I think here you're trying to define what the minimum level of service is.
Right. What we uh sounds like we have to define what accommodate is the meaning in each of these statements.
I
mean
I I think this whole level of service section needs to be looked at. I'm not suggesting material change to it, but I mean I think I I would guess, and I don't know exactly the dates of the history, but there's also I mean there's there is other closed basin criteria, space basins and special concern criteria. There's other things, and everything in here is lumped. Are those really all the same for every I mean you start to get into the road level service, start talking about evacuation? evacuation routes, arterials, neighborhood and collector
roads. It gives a less than or equal to six inches of depth on the outside edge of pavement. That starts to get pretty specific.
Yeah, and I don't understand the one for sites. The standard says flooding refers to standing water in agricultural land developed open or green space, yards and parking lots and undeveloped lands designated for future development. This does not include areas incorporated into stormwater basin master plan as flowways, floodplains, flood storage areas. Okay, well what's the standard? That just defined what flooding was.
That's a good point. That's not a standard.
So the we're gonna check the land development code really quick on
That's fifteen years out of date.
Check the land of all my code, see what it says.
So you might want to talk about it.
What's ponding on the roadway? So it should be less than six inches to make it passable. Well it's ponding.
Sorry.
I mean that
Can we come back and continue this workshop?
Well in the morning you mean? No.
Next month. Yeah.
Because this is pretty much the
We would recommend uh the if we're going to good if there's a request for continuance. We would not recommend the June eleven because it's a pretty heavy meeting so far. Um probably looking at the June versus July ninth for invests. Good. Okay. If if
that's at the that's at the pleasure of the board. We're not actually in
a hearing, but yeah, so we'll make a motion anyway. I'll second the non-motion
motion. Okay. All right. All in favor? And we can't say you didn't know about it.
Aye.
Aye.
All right, thank you. All right, thanks you guys and gals.
That was about third certainly third. I know. I'm frankly motion to