Consent agenda additions and withdrawals

51:02Okay, uh we are now on to the consent agenda. Um So we have an addendum. I'm not sure how this runs. So we have some additions to the consent agenda. AC 137, AC138. A P one thirty nine and A P one forty, is that correct? Yes ma'am. So um I would add that to the consent agenda and we will look at the polls I have C9,

51:33withdraw, C28, withdraw, C thirty-eight, withdraw.

51:40Um So we are not pulling AC one thirty eight, I take it. Um we are pulling And revising C five. We are polling and revising C thirty three. And we are polling and revising C forty seven. So I will accept a motion.

51:58I'll move motion for accepting all the other items on consent agenda.

52:03Second.

52:04All in favor? Aye. Aye. We will take uh C five, Terry Petos.

52:19Thank you, Madam Chairman. Um Nicaragua Speedos Planning Development Economic Growth. Item C five is the task order for W.E. Oliver, PE L L C to do the villages of Acadena Hills Financial Plan 2025 update. There's a revision to the amount for the overall uh cost of the task order from $246,080 to do the study to $247,830. It's a $1,000 discrepancy there. Um

52:50and uh this is all being paid for out of villages of Pasadena Hills Development Administration review fees.

52:56Okay, and how long do you think that's gonna take?

52:59I believe August.

53:01August? Yes. Okay.

53:04This year in twenty twenty

53:05five. All right. Um I'll accept a motion.

53:12I was gonna pull it myself for the pull channel.

53:16You wanna talk

53:17do it now or

53:18yeah, let's do it now.

53:21Okay. So the uh proposed task order is divided into five uh tasks, and I'll walk through each one in brief. Uh task one is regarding a methodology for financing, and task two is the transportation impact analysis, task three is development forecasts, task four is the update itself to the financial plan, the actual uh drafting of that, and then task five is the public hearing. Process. So last year, around May

53:52or so, the Board of County Commissioners asked the Planning Development Economic Road Department to evaluate the performance of villages of Pasadena Hills and the MPUDs. And this was a preliminary study that was conducted that alerted the department to seek out an assessment on the Financial plan. What this chart is essentially showing is that we are under entitling properties within villages of Pasadena Hills and overextending or

54:22overexpending the land committed to those developments. So what I mean by that is if you take Village A as an example, it'll say planned according to the financial plan eight hundred and ninety-eight units. Um we have approved two hundred and seven units thus far in villages of Pasadena Hills. But over on the c on the uh on the right you'll see that the acreage that is intended um for Uh the plan is 46 acres, but we have approved 73. So we're using more land with less

54:53numbers. Keep in mind that the original financial plan intended uh eighty percent build-out. So it's not the full eight hundred ninety-eight that we would uh get in order to uh develop the infrastructure within villages of Pasadena Hills through mobility fees, et cetera. Um but it would be eighty percent of that. Nevertheless, the column in the far right is sort of indicating the general overage in acre acres that is happening. So this study uh

55:23prompted the ta the development of the task squared to assess the financial plan. It's also a good idea to uh go through the financial plan after two years of higher inflation rates, which has increased the cost of Of road construction significantly. Um and part of what we're going to do in the in the proposed task order here is to evaluate the current methodology that's used in the financial plan that was set up back in two thousand eight and amended uh one or two times ahead of the high inflation that we had back in Post

55:54COVID twenty two, twenty three. Um and then if the current methodology is appropriate, we'll continue on to task two, which is study uh study of the transportation impact analysis. If not, um the consultant will provide an alternative methodology to county staff. So So one idea is to um consider, you know, do we have to increase the den the overall density within V OPH and the remaining land? That's one option. Another option is do you keep the density levels where they are, and do you reduce

56:25the size of infrastructure that uh that is currently being planned? Those are some options, some ideas that will be Discussed during the financial plan update. Task two is the conducting of the traffic study regarding existing residential land uses and their trip generation. So we'll look at vehicular trips, we'll look at bicycle trips, pedestrian trips, golf cart trips, all that will play into the assessment of what kind of infrastructure is going to be needed in those Pasadena Hills. Task three is

56:55An update of the development forecasts. Task three also includes a workshop with the Board of County Commissioners to gain feedback and facilitate the assessment of the financial plan. So we'll be talking to various stakeholders in that part of the task, MPO, planning development, economic growth, the board of course, and various developers within the VOPH. Task four, these are the uh technical tasks associated with task four and what we're going to be looking

57:26at. Uh basically comparing uh compare the updated development forecasts against adopted infrastructure plans. are the forecasts going to pay for the infrastructure essentially is what we're trying to get at. Um update those infrastructure costs uh accordingly, update the revenue forecast for the for infrastructure financing, and develop three new infrastructure plans based on updated costs of projected revenues so so that an informed policy decision can be made moving forward. And then conduct five minimum stakeholder meetings

57:56and and uh uh workshops. Finally, task five is the drafting of the actual task uh of the financial plan, the the amended or updated financial plan, and bringing it to public hearing to the Board of County Commissioners.

58:12So basically we we need to I'm so glad we're doing this because if we don't generate the money to um build the infrastructure, if that development does, then it's on us. So we need to stop and see what's happening. Um because if the densities aren't there To build those roads and we don't do something, we're gonna be paying for a lot of the the roads. So Commissioner Mariano.

58:35Yeah, I think that's also the spectac the aspect that Terry brought up we should be looking at too. If the density is not going to be there, then we not need all the infrastructure that's been planned. Yeah. Uh when I look at the commercial office employment center, um I'm not I'm not thrilled that we don't have enough enough of that going on. That may be something that needs to get looked at as well. Do we need to help that more? Because I don't think the answer is just to build our way out of it with more apartments out there. I mean we need to look at what's going to create jobs. Because you create jobs, now people are working where

59:05they're living, it actually cuts down your traffic anyway. And I I will say we've done a great job all around the county doing getting jobs created. But I think we need more work here and that should be a a big part of the focus. And maybe David Enkel needs to be involved a little bit in the in that plan for the future as far as how that can look at what he can bring to the table and say, Here's what we can do to bring more in.

59:31And and I'll just note too, to the Commissioner's point, um parallel to this study Will be a mobility fee study update that will also be happening this year. That'll be coming to you all on January twenty-eighth. So

59:44which

59:45which we'll consider a lot of those ideas as well.

59:47So uh industrial pays no mobility fees, correct? That's correct. Um what about commercial? Commercial

59:55does pay mobility fee rates. They are subsidized, however, to a certain degree. Off the top of my head I don't know what that is, but they do get subsidized, they're not a hundred percent subsidized.

1:00:04And what about office?

1:00:05Office is one hundred percent subsidized.

1:00:07So we need to re-look at that because

1:00:12You know, so the residential part of our development is what's building all the roads. And um I I just think I'm so glad we're looking at the impact fee as well because I think I think Everyone needs to be paying a little bit to build out the roads that we need or we're gonna be in trouble. Okay. Anyone else? All right, uh approval of C five.

1:00:35We'll rule motion. There's a motion in the Senate.

1:00:37You have Are we under discussion?

1:00:39Did you make a motion? Um I just made a motion. I didn't want to move before. Okay, well I'll say it.

1:00:44Okay. All in favor? Aye? Aye. Okay, C three. C thirty-three, excuse me.

1:00:58Good morning, Commissioners. Madam Chair. My name is Alex Parnes, County Surveyor. C-33 belongs to me. There was a very, very small error that was caught on the agenda memo. Uh went through all of our eyes and missed the review and thank goodness the clerk's uh office caught it. So all of the uh The documents have been updated, already delivered this morning, and so we recommend and pull them revise.

1:01:24Move to approved. Second.

1:01:26All in favor? Aye. Thank you.

1:01:28Thank you.

1:01:29And lastly, C forty seven.

1:01:37Good morning commissioners. Paul Racaldo Support Services. We're correcting a scrivener's error on the memorandum. It should have referenced fiscal year twenty-five and not fiscal year twenty-six.

1:01:46Oh okay. Need a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. Thank you. Okay, um, so we are not going to have R fifty because Bill is out sick today. Um but we are going to go Two minutes early to R forty eight.