Mobility fee update objectives and incentive changes
What the county recorded
This item is not from the published agenda
This archive found it in the recording: a call to order, a recess, or business the board never listed. The county recorded nothing about it, so everything below is our reading.
The source document
The county’s agenda for Board of County Commissioners, Oct 17, 2017
The published PDF. Its text could not be extracted, because it is an image-only scan, so nothing in it is searchable here. It still reads normally.
The county’s minutes for Board of County Commissioners, Oct 17, 2017
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
What was said
Machine transcription of 44m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 63% of 288 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.
thank you. Mobility fees. Um Dandy do you want to lead off on this one at all? Okay. Well just
David, you want to leave up? Anybody wanna do this on the side of the page?
And our consultant is already funded through a non adorm revenue source. Let me start by saying that.
So
so this afternoon we're gonna try To do uh a number of very simple things. One, confirm the mobility fee update objectives. Two, we're gonna receive feedbacks on specific changes to the to the mobility fee project uh program, recommend advisory committee appointees. We're gonna talk about that, we're not gonna actually appoint folks today. Uh, and then we're gonna talk about the schedule for this. Um what do we have about?
There's no appraises, there's no fees, fee bumps.
Because some of you want some additional incentives and so keep in mind that mobility fees are like a balloon. Okay, so if you're subsidizing some people, there might be other people that have to pay more, so we need to talk about it. Okay? Right.
Exactly right. So that the other way to balance it is cut projects out of your capital program, which I don't think we want to do.
Mr. Chairman Mariano. I want to disagree with that statement. And I'm gonna tell you why about there's only so much money we've got to balance the capital plan as such, because when you look at if you have no growth and redevelopment in the nineteen corridor and you already have everything that's already built in, you're not costing yourself anything by taking away fees from that. Doesn't matter. It's already built. So to say that you have a fixed sum and you have to balance it for that, I I don't agree with that statement because you can bring more people in. You'll create more revenue sources elsewhere that
are coming in anyway for pre increase in property values, increase in investment that comes anyway. So I I don't agree with that statement.
I'll address that when we get to that. All right.
So the mobility fee update, the twenty seventeen update is a required update. It's for us to review all of the of the calculations that generate the mobility fee.
Update the fee schedule. So there's no guarantee there. That's what the study is for, to analyze it, to determine what might or might not be done. We're gonna update the transportation plan modal strategies, quality of service goals to make them consistent with our recent transportation plans. That's the tip: transportation development plan, the long-range transportation plan, and the county's capital program, et cetera. We're gonna update costs, growth rates, and revenue programs. Again, that's updating the basic foundational data for the analysis. We're gonna update mobility fee, administration fee.
We're gonna take a look and see if in fact it's covering what it needs to cover so that we don't have an unnecessary tap on the general fund for our costs. We're gonna look balancing the incentives by type and area consistent with available revenue, which is what you all were just talking about. Objective of the fee subsidies. Okay, so this is this is one of the optional objectives that you had all we had been talking to several of you about uh changes that might occur in the program. This first one is creating
a and the word fee subsidy I don't like, but it's changing the fee for large lots in rural areas. There's been some concern raised about uh people in land. Owners in rural areas being unnecessarily charged too much for their mobility fee based on the nature of the development that they might do. When we're already doing very low density 10-acre lots, why would they be paying more for a fee? Well, the answer is the when it was David, you want to mention.
So it was
that's the effect.
So the rural fees are hard higher to start out with because they're a trip length of Longer, that's one reason. They're what? They're trip length. You have to drive farther to get to a store in the rural area than you do in the urban area. So that's one reason they're higher. The other reason is we we generally do not provide transit to the rural area, so we do not we intentionally allow less congestion in the rural area because transit's not available. That being said, and I think Commissioner Oakley was the one I talked to the most about this, I think he
has
a concern with there's there could be some large landowners in the rural area that just want to build a single house on a very large lot. They're paying a fairly high fee, even though they have no intention of ever subdividing into smaller lots. So So one could argue, and this is really a policy decision for the board, that if somebody's willing to preserve their land for a large lot, that that's consistent with our rural objectives, and then maybe we should help subsidize that. Again, it's a policy decision
for the board, but if that's something you want us to look at, we can and and staff gave an example. If you were 10 acres or larger, maybe you could pay a reduced fee. be zero, but it might be the same as what you pay in the urban area.
But then if you're reducing it somewhere, because you have to be if you need a hundred dollars and you're taking away ten over here, where are you going to get that other ten from the raise it somewhere else? So we'll get
we'll get to that. We have one recommendation on one fee incentive that maybe we should cut back on, but we'll get to that another slide. But
I I just want to remind I don't think some of these board members were here when we um uh talked about developing out in the rural areas and the cost of to deliver services. I think you just touched on it, but um they showed us, for example, the cost of a fire station in the rural area versus to service a certain amount of population versus an urban area. It's astronomical. the difference in cost of services to provide a a certain level of service in a rural area.
So I I I agree with all that. And for that reason there's no way we could subsidize the entire rural area. Okay? I completely agree with that. I just you may not have to do that. The question is if somebody is willing to preserve it as preserve their land as a very large tract, and I don't know if 10 acres is large enough, but let's just say it is, okay? One could argue that that that's consistent with our rural preservation objectives because it won't get subdivided into smaller lots. So you're not gonna have to provide as much service to that rural area because they're preserving this large
lot. I don't know if ten acres is the right number. I'm willing to take feedback on that issue but
is that and they're gonna down zone it whatever and say and so be definitely
cut
another house?
Well th if they ever try to if they ever try to subdivide it they go back into paying higher fees.
Right.
The idea would be if somebody's willing to preserve it for a period of time, we can talk about whether it needs to be deed restriction or not, but if if there's some large tract of land they're willing to preserve, I could argue that that's consistent with the preservation of the rural character of the area and doesn't require us to provide a lot of additional services because they're preserving that large tract of land.
Y you're talking, you know, percentage wise, development in a large loss in the rural area is minuscule compared to the development in the urban area. So even if you took those out You're you're moving. very you're you're not moving the needle hardly at all on the overall fee because of how few of these
not there's not that many lots that are developed on ten acre or larger tracks. I mean so I don't think it would cost us a lot of money to subsidize. I think we could fit it in the budget. The question is do you want to do it or not?
Right. I'd like to hear maybe Commissioner Oakley what he hears from maybe his constituents with the majority that is areas. What
happens it's imp mostly in my district 'cause my district's rural have a lot of dirt roads, have have properties that are being left to children of families have been for a long time. It might be a ten acre, it might be a twenty acre piece. But say it was zoned. That it could be one house for five acres, but you'd have to divide it to do that. If he decides he's going to keep it as a 20-acre lot for his home, one home. then don't charge them
the extra expenses, which they're paying out there and there anywhere from probably eighteen to twenty-three thousand dollars out here where they're only paying in an urban area of eight thousand dollars. And and I I think it's being equal and being fair to your citizens as as we're doing that. So and that's what I talked to David about if there's some way that that could happen. Because more and more we're having families that live here all their lives, gonna live over in this area, gonna like being in the rural area,
but they're not gonna subdivide our property, they're just gonna build this one home. Or somebody that's even just retiring. They're gonna build a retirement home and they're being hit with a big impact fee. And so and that's what we're trying to say.
So you've talked to some of your constituents, and that's the same.
They well
I would
also say, and I haven't spoken to Nansel Hazelwood directly about this issue, but I've talked to some of the rural preservationists. I think they would like it if that area stayed in large ten acre tracts. I don't think they want it. Their issue is they don't want to subdivide it into smaller lots. So if somebody I'm not sure they would even object to a lower fee for somebody that was willing to preserve a large tract of land. I don't know if ten acres Acres is the right number. I don't know if it needs to be twenty. I I don't know.
I
don't know. That's pretty hot.
Twenty is not that big. Well there
are examples.
I got three in there.
There are examples around the country that anywhere from ten to twenty-five, forty, even a hundred acres uh for this kind of pro protection area. It really is a policy matter for where you think that's comfortable in the for our for our region.
We will we will keep this in mind and look at that as we go through the process. And allow you to kind of see what the difference would be. Because you already
have some that are out there happening
now for that
type
of thing. Right. So I guess I'm really just asking for now is are you we okay are you okay with us at least exploring this concept through the update?
Yes. I I am, and I think what you just touched on is probably a good thing. Maybe we'll look at one for ten acres and maybe up to twenty five and bring it up into the back and then we'll get a
difference.
Yeah? Okay,
it's good.
All right. The next one is uh infill lots in the West Market area. This is you, Commissioner Oakley. So that as as you know, the mobility fees are already exempt for redevelopment lots in the West Market area. This is this would affect infill lots, things that are not developed currently. Um and so the question becomes do you want to exempt or create a variation in fee for the uh Uh potential infill lots in this area. Can I explain that? Sure, sure.
One thing we did in 2014 is the way our mobility fees work generally is if you redevelop a lot, you build you build a new use on a lot that was previously developed, you only pay the difference. You pay the difference you get a credit for whatever use previously existed there. So what we did in the West Market area is we said, not only are we going to give you a credit for what Previously existed, even if you built a bigger and better use, more homes, or a bigger commercial development, we're going to subsidize that difference. So no matter what you redevelop in the West Market area, as
of 2014, he talks about redevelopment incentives. In that particular area, no matter what you build, your mobility fee exempted.
If you're redevelopment, okay, that's what we did in 2014. Mariano asked us to explore is what if the lot never had any prior development? What if it was just a Vacant lot. But
that'd be like the Harvey Madison?
Well, I think my personal opinion is that's too big to be infill. Okay, okay but but there probably is some type of lot and that you could define as you know, it's an empty lot that's next to two developed lots and that that's your classic case of an infill lot. Um We could subsidize those. Um, I'm not sure I completely agree with Commissioner Oriana that there's no cost to it because we do have to legally we do have to make up that whatever we're not charging that info a lot, we have to make it up through some other revenue source.
That being said. If you define what an infill lot is narrowly enough, it wouldn't be a huge fit to our budget. I think it could be done. But it had to be a fairly narrow definition of infill. I wouldn't want it to be so broad that it includes Harvey Madison or the entire Harvey property off of Little Road. That's, in my opinion, too big to be infill. But there probably is some definition of infill. And I'll let Commissioner Oriano speak now as to what he he was envisioning, but there probably is some definition of infill that we could afford from a budget
standpoint.
And and I think Harvey Madison, Sun West, Guy Harvey's project, whatever, those projects that are big, let them pay their way. I'm good with that. But what I'm talking about is you could be uh an empty lot right on US nineteen that's surrounded by other things that aren't being developed.
That's
always
been empty?
That's always been up together.
Probably more up in your area, not not that many in mine.
Okay. So so th like I said, there's not a lot of it, so I can't think of it. It's just sitting there doing nothing. So One way or another guy may develop or may not. Either way it's not happening. uh at this point. Let let me ask you a question first before I get to a little bit deeper. Do you know how much you had to subsidize in the West Market area over the past three years? For
redevelopment?
For for no no.
Um I don't have that question answered. Well I'll
let's say for redevelopment first.
I don't have the answer. I'd have to have OMB answer that and I'm not sure if they're probably not a lot you would know.
Yeah, not a lot.
I will tell you that the biggest source of our subsidies is probably office, industrial, hotel, because those are all zero. And there's a lot more new so that's a
All right, so let's take a look at what right now would you say, let's say if you looked at how much is it gonna be that you'll you generated in revenue the past three years?
In terms of tax increment or in terms of
S something separate from let's say uh a Sun West or a Harvey Madison or other projects that would be separate from what we're talking about. How much should we generate up and down for the West Market area?
I don't know that we have we have a tax okay, if you're talking about generating terms of tax increment, because that is our primary way we capture the generation of taxes. We do measure that county why we don't measure it by West Market. But I I think I know where you're going with
mobility fee.
The whole concept of our mobility fee is that the reason we have the tax increment component of it is we're trying to capture that growth and avalurum revenue that occurs from new development. So I don't disagree with you that when a new use develops on an info lot, we get some. of that money back into the transportation system through the tax increment revenue.
Even even info you could say at this point, but Doing nothing, all of a sudden this guy's gonna come in and spend three million bucks. Let's say it's gonna gen generate ten million dollars uh thirty thousand dollars a year just for easier numbers. So it's going to generate thirty thousand a year. If you didn't build, you don't get that thirty thousand dollar a year in taxes. You're taking right now sixty-seven percent of that money that's going in. So there's ten grand you may be subsidizing this guy? But you're gonna give up. ten grand in taxes you're not going to collect. So anything we can get along the West
Market area is a good thing. And for what goes on in there, the extra tax base you're gonna create is gonna create another sixty seven percent in your regular ad valorem. The other thirty three percent goes back into this mobility mobility fee anyway, through the in increase in your extra tax revenue you generate anyway. Does that make sense?
I I I see what you're saying. I I think it's a good idea because it's Especially with you know, I I'm thinking forward the opportunities with the scalloping and everything like that too. Just tying everything together all at you know all at once. So even if it's a even if it's uh take you just mission Bahama Breach for example, and somebody said I think Mission Stark it'd be great to have it on the west side. Well, there's an incentive for even a restaurant to come in and even catch a break. But everybody's gonna benefit and the more American
Exactly.
Commercial retail, is that that would you're I mean the same residential.
Commercial is generally a plus to the to service to the general general residential but the services you're providing residential will offset yeah will offset any any increase in taxes.
I would just keep it to commercial.
I I I I'm gonna I'm gonna beg the different with you, especially if you get people to redevelop along the water. Because those homes are gonna generally go for more money. And if you've already got all your services are in place, remember, for example our schools are at like seventy percent capacity up and down the coast. You bring those people in, you actually help your school board up, is it still going to pay that fee? But at the same time. You already get all your infrastructure in place. Everything you didn't need. You're not going to build any more roads, the roads are already built. You're not going to maintain the roads any more than you're going to spend right now anyway. But you could create a better base for demographics going up
and down. So the more development we get up along that court is good. So I I'm under contention economically, the more redevelopment you have it coming in, everything brand new is gonna number one increase your tax base there. One third of that is going to go back into this mobility fee no matter what the number he comes up with. I think it's gonna n net out where it's gonna be the same anyway. So I don't even think there's a fixed balloon subject where you gotta have a certain amount of money because when you add that money in, the extra tax base it's gonna come in is gonna fill that balloon up just as much anyway. There's
no downside. Incorporate this within almost the harvest plant. So right?
Okay, so what are you gonna do for that corridor, that 19th corridor, that west side, to incentivize people to come here? I mean we get that question all the time. There's certain things we're doing, but The more we can do
And I'll give you one other example too, if you wanted to talk residential, because I could
have that argument. Are there any comments to what he said, just so
Well, I d I just want to be clear, you kept saying redevelopment. Redevelopment's already exempt. Okay, so we're talking about
influence.
I'm saying anything along there.
Any construction.
Do we give them both fees on residential?
Yes, we do. And even redev redevelopment of a house. Because remember the whole purpose of redevelopment is you're trying to get rid of the old housing stock, the old so redevelopment's a no-brainer because you're getting rid of an old building and you're putting something brand new. Okay. That's easy. The reason it feels a little more gray is because you could that vacant lot doesn't have an ugly building on it. We don't there's no there's nothing to tear down on that vacant lot.
There's a lot of good reasons. Again, so the only comment I would make is that it depends on how you define infill. If it's a fairly narrow definition, I think we can develop a budget to do exactly what Commissioner Orion is asking for. If it gets too broad, where it's including the Harvey Madison of the world, it's gonna be a problem in our budget.
We said carve that out.
Okay. Well we still there's greater there's there's great Madison's the easy case. I'm talking about bring
us back and show us the gray stuff. Well, Commissioner
Weightman's
gonna keep moving because I I think with our plans that we have in place, we can go up and down. This is kind of like the map we have in the room at the Board of County Commissioners in Newport Ritchie. When we have this big map, it shows you all the developments are going up and down. You can probably go pick the one, two, three, four places, take it all up because everything else is already developed, take that. out, carve that out, and let everything else come in. I'm gonna give you my argument on residential at this point. Residential, if you're worried about that
already.
It's in
for redevelopment. It's not a good idea.
Yeah, you can have an empty lot in the Pecan Woods, Lakeside Woodlands or wherever else, river crossing, wherever it may be. That house that's gonna come in there, is it really gonna affect it anything? I don't think it's gonna affect anything at all. If you look at the increased tax row that's going to bring, it's going to help. The jewelry building was in front of the Gulfview Mall. Just got torn down, right? Now they're going to build something else in there. That gentleman told me 10 years ago, all right, Coran Kumar, he told me 10 years ago he used to look at the numbers. He used to do a lot of his business from people from Westleigh Chapel driving over. What's happened
now? A lot of those people in West Hill Chapel aren't going to make that drive to the Gulfview Mall. Anymore because they get all the shopping right over here. So what's happened is you go up and down, you talk to any business owner up and down, they're not doing anywhere near the density. They're all afraid of having an empty building, which they don't want to have between a series of issues including insurance and other things. So they want to just keep people in there. So their rents are really, really low. Your values then drop down really, really low. If you increase your demographics that are there, bring the new construction. coming in up and down, you will help regenerate
regenerate that whole side. But when it keeps on going down and down and down because of the restrictions that are in there, the taxes that are in there. I mean frankly before I got elected they had that US 19 tax concurrency plan, which put a tax on development coming in. It was the most ridiculous thing. Thank God we get rid of it. But that's what we need to do is increase the development there, the demographics up and down. And that will ne negate everything that comes in because all your Your school impact fee won't be affected at all because they're going to still be collected, but you're going to allow this tax money that comes in for your property
tax to go in, one third of it's going to go right back to these mobility fees anyway. And I think that's going to negate everything. It's going to be an issue.
I think most sources seem to be in agreement with that.
Do we have to take something away from somewhere else? Are the numbers that they're gonna do?
I can't answer that question definitively until we go through the full update I need you to go through that all I'm trying to figure out is this a goal you want us to try to achieve in the update. Yes. And we'll try to make it work. Sorry, the other thing
we have to define what it is.
someone of impact.
All right. So the other question, are there any other areas or uses that you'd like us to reduce or subsidize? We're just asking the question generally as a catch-all. Pardon?
Most more we can do on 41 to help them out too. I don't know. We greatly appreciate it.
So do you mean one or all of four?
I mean there's that there's that you know that that section obviously between um I'm thinking the section um forty one and fifty four up to you know around the Connerton, Willow Dis Lakes Preserves, that area.
That whole commercial commercial center. Which will ultimately become the Land O' Lakes town center area, but north and south of that by about two to three miles. So
because you know we have so we know the deal with the setbacks and everything there, unfortunately, you know, but it's because of the you get the CXX rail on one side, you've got the the lakes on the other side, it's a little bit difficult for when it comes to redevelopment. in that area right now that's just more of a burden on
that's probably more of a land development code redevelopment standards issue than it is a incentivizing mobility fees. Because you're you're gonna you're you're gonna start to run into a into a concern segmenting areas out that you want to set rather than use types. But but what you're describing I think is more how can they redevelop the site because it's a constrained feast property.
Make it more attractive for people obviously to redevelop the those buildings. I mean we know the buildings. I mean some of them are great coming down because of the body ordinance and other things that you know that have happened. Um but um any assistance we can give you a lot of people.
Yeah, as I already mentioned for redevelopment, we already exempt whatever was there before. So if somebody builds a new use there, they get credit for what so if they tear down that old building, they're gonna get credit for whatever.
But certain uses just like we talked about on the on on nineteen, there's only certain uses.
No, any use. You get credit for whatever you tear down.
Tear down, yes, yes, tear down. Redevelop, you get credit for the original use.
manufacturing home parks along there that we run into some issues with when it comes to code enforcement with the sheriff's office and things like that and and those people are just kind of holding on to run their quote businesses and you know listen I don't need to explain what's up there the buildings and things that are up down there that we anything we can do to help those folks out. You're looking to see if there's what about yeah not just a tear down too but somebody that's willing to go in there
Right. If they just renovate they pay nothing. What else can
I do?
Well I'm not sure that's a m I agree with the county attorney. I'm not sure that's solely a mobility fee issue. I mean I we can
look at that as Is this question only for the other thing? This is a mobility.
Well we can look at that as part of the replacement.
So unless you have a strong so I've heard about the we talked about rural, we talked about infill You know, I'd like to not I this is kind of an open and ended question, but if we're trying to keep the fees about where they are and not raise any, I don't want to try to subsidize too much more than what we've already talked about. Unless you have a strong desire to subsidize something.
Signs
back goes to What?
Signs.
Signs of not
capabilities. I do I do hope I have good news. Is Kevin Guthrie still here?
Let's go let's go to the next slide.
So anyways, just you think in areas like Commissioner Mariano mentioned earlier, you know, anything anywhere else within the county that we think.
Okay, so let me explain this one quickly. Um a big part of our buy down budget goes to subsidize office in Pasco County, which I fully get. That's something we're trying to encourage. Um, but I want to be clear with you that right now we are subsidizing even small condo offices. That's a good point. And so our economic development staff has asked whether the board is willing to sort of cut back on that subsidy and maybe help some of these other things we talked about to just target industries in
class A office. Um again this this So something that was discussed in 2014 at the time the board didn't want to go there because they like the zero advertising zero for all office. I'm okay either way. It would free up some of our buy down budget if we if we narrowed this.
I'm okay with that. We we
have
a lot of condo office right now.
Well,
what do you think?
So so it's a tough list. So staff thinks we probably subsidize too much. I do.
But it's job it's jobs. I mean, you know, think about it, you're bringing in ten it could be ten jobs. But can we steer them into
this kind of
it's like a mutual fund? Sometimes it's better to have, you
know,
a hundred a hundred or two hundred small companies with a hundred you know, ten or fifteen employees than it is to have one big one at two thousand. If that one drops,
but
are
they that's why you buy a mutual
fund, right? You're you're hedging your bets. So
But if you've got a condo developer coming in and I'm I'm talking about office condo coming in and he's building fifty units and only Five of them are rented. Uh is it better to for a little while, while we maybe have a lot of condo, small condo office, think about steering them towards Um a bigger More class A.
I think we're too early. I think that's something we could reevaluate in the future and maybe do away with. I I don't think we're there just yet, but Commissioner Yeah Oakley too. Sorry, do you mean
I mean w when you read the Urban Land Institute report, it says that Pasco County is gonna get its strength, not from bringing big people in, but it's letting the small people get started. And the small company's gonna grow ten ten employees or less. So I think this the incentives are good just where they are. I think it's it advertises well for us. And the market will decide when it needs to build more condos and when not to.
So I'm hearing just leave it the way it is.
I'm just throwing that there for just
a job. Okay, so the last question is gets to Commissioner Moore's question, which is I don't know whether any fees need to increase yet because we haven't done the study. Um but if there was a fee in any area or any use type that you the board was willing to increase, this would be a good time to tell me. Um I I know there was one prior workshop where one of the some board members said they thought that we were subsidizing commercial in the urban area too much. Now maybe your p opinion has changed
on that and that you'd be willing to raise commercial in the urban area. But if there's some if there's some fee you're willing to raise, I it'd be good to know that now so that we can deal with that in the update.
You're presenting that in a weird way.
I understand yes to that question. So so okay, so let me give you an example. Okay, that's probably better. So during there was one particular workshop where some of the board members thought that we were subsidizing residential and retail in the urban area too much because that growth was gonna come anyway.
Oh yeah, I know.
So and there were some more members that said that we shouldn't continue to subsidize residential and retail in the urban area because since the growth's coming anyway, why are we subsidizing it? So I'm fine taking away that some of that subsidy. It How do you know
the growth's gonna come anyway?
But I mean how do you know that's gonna come anyway? I just read that Maybe there's a big reason why they're coming across county line into Pasco County versus being in portions of Penales or Hillsborough County.
So I I don't know that I have a strong opinion on this because to a certain extent what you're saying is our mobility fees are working. And it's focusing our growth in the urban area and so maybe we should just leave it alone. Um Which I'm okay with that answer.
Where would the money go if we had w you were collecting more money from?
Well one is I would use it to help the infill subsidy, I'd use it to help the rural large acre subsidy. Um or is there something else?
Yeah, the other the other complication here is I heard at least two board members earlier say they wanted to double the park impact fee, and so I don't know if that's Well
you say double. You said race. We didn't say we didn't put a number on it that I recall. That was a that's an attorney for
the you wanted to follow your consultant's right-fit. Now when this when we had this conversation it was before you doubled school impact fee. So I if if there's no appetite for the board if you raise any fees, I'm okay just saying that's not a non-starter. I'm I'm okay.
Well you I think you need to bring back to us um what the cost of the changes might be and see if it imp impact us any
I think those the small amount of homes you're gonna find out in the rural area compared to what's happening in the urban area is gonna be a very small difference.
That's that's my point is even a small increase in the urban area would probably easily offset the incentives. You want and the incentive that you want. He's right.
So we need to see what we're doing. And I'm thinking
that's what you're talking about that you might have to do that. So let me just ask you another question.
You wouldn't look at the revenues you're gonna gain from doing the incentivizing the infills. You know Hopefully. Why do you have to offset that? What do you offset that?
There's a legal reason because you're not assessing them the impact fee. And so there's I understand his point, but they still have an impact on the transportation system. They're still driving on our roads. Whether we like it or not, they are. They're not walking, these people that develop in the Westmarket area driving. So they have an impact. We have to subsidize it. I agree with him that the tax increment can help subsidize it. I don't disagree with that point. But
for the first year and
I also agree that it's probably not a lot of money. If we define this narrowly, it's not a lot of money. All I'm mapping let me rephrase this. If your choice was raising commercial in the in the urban area or residential in the urban area we always
said we're not interested in raising.
Either one.
Well I I know what we said was I you can't ask that question yet. You need to go back and do the math. Run the math. Run the math on what we agreed on and tell us what it costs us. The cost may be so insignificant we don't need to do anything. But if the cost is significant we need to do something, then let's talk about it then. That's
you might be talking about a hundred dollars raising in the urban compared to what's happening in rural and it
means nothing. Okay, we'll we'll figure it out. And we have to check so we which gets the next point, which is we have to take this to a committee to get their recommendations. Commissioner Weightman.
I mean I don't want I want to make it simple for you as well and I think the rural is a good idea because those homes you're gonna build are gonna increase taxes dramatically. I don't think you're gonna see that many more roads built out in the rural area anyway, so I don't think there's that you know pressured on the system it's not gonna lead to anything any more than you know build any more hurricane shelters with the two hundred dollar fee on that. Um When you look at these, do you calculate in the increased taxes you get for the ad valorem? for that mobility fee collection.
We do the ta the tax increment that we get county wide. We factor that into the equation.
So when when you when you're gonna come back and you're gonna study this formula, you're gonna look at how much money you're gonna talk about this infill area as you're talking about. You're gonna look at how much money you generated from that area from before. And then kinda what your what your loss would be?
Well we don't do that on a area by area basis. We do it on a countywide basis. Then okay. Then that's the floor of the formula. Okay, well but to a certain extent because we do it that way, the rest of the county is helping subsidize the West Market area.
And and again I'm gonna disagree with you other than the way the formula is set because when these new businesses come in, they're gonna pay a lot more property taxes than you were collecting already. It's not gonna change much of your service levels and that demographic that comes in one way or the other, it's either gonna get new business that's gonna raise the level of everybody everybody else around it, or you're gonna just get more people spending money that have lived there l live there as well, thereby increasing your
So I I think let me start. I think we'll find the budget to do what you want. I'm sure. Okay. Let's let's let's just move on. Alright, so so so so so.
I said yes. What else can I say?
Okay. And just for your own protection, if you if you Raise like take a look at maybe raising it up a hundred dollars. Not gonna affect anything and then you can cover yourself.
So here's you wanna cover it? Raise it for apartments.
Oh because he thinks now see, I I think there's a huge need for rent uh rental people are being priced out of um first homes. Yeah, Wynn County. I just read I just read in the the report, the real estate report that came out today, how strong the rental market is.
Yeah, we well talk to some people in Hillsborough County and tell 'em to ask 'em how Brandon's working out for them. Apartments. How who is it? How brain and this how brain is working out when it comes to apartments. How okay, how how that's working out? How about this? You can yeah, raise the apartment um vote.
Let me make please. Let me make a suggestion. Okay, because we still have to go to an advisory committee, which Chris Chris is about to cover. Okay. So I'll go when we go to the committee, we'll say that here's two incentives we want to incorporate. Okay. And then I'll get a recommendation from if some fee needs to increase, let me
Okay. That sound okay?
Yeah.
Department the apartment
folks may not like my uh statement. Yeah, but
but they're they
but they can voice their but
they can voice their concerns. But they're outvoted by
twenty there, so Um a a question on the houses. Um and I remember Michelle saying I've heard her say two numbers, baked two fifty and four hundred. So um on the residential, what uh do we know what that number is now where a home costs more than it brings in after the first year? Remember when a new home comes in we get that we get a tax bump the first year and then Save our homes kicks in and all the exemptions and so there there's a certain number
where Do y does anyone know what that ha number is?
I know I know a number that Dan Rosola came up with last year, but I don't think it's correct. Uh he had said a hundred and forty two thousand dollars. Oh good Lord. But that's way low. Other studies that I've seen have been in the two hundred fifty to two sixty. That's what I remember seeing. You're talking about the break even about the the the net amount of services that is required by the residents versus the revenue generated by it.
Right, exactly.
Um
okay, so Sorry. Don't have an exact number right now. And there's a lot of assumptions we have to add. Well
I will tell you that most of the developers I talk to say that because of our impact fee the way they are, they don't build housing that cheap. There's all anymore because the impact fee are too high.
That's a that's a good reason to have money in that money.
We should raise them higher. Um I wanted to go back to something I'm sorry, I needed to go back to something uh when we were talking about incentivizing in in your conference of menus pin. One of the things that I would like to see incentivized and we've talked about this briefly is or fixed, I don't know what the word is. On the corridor of the Orange Belt Trail, which is on the state opportunity map and is one of the top-ranked trails in the MP Tri-County MPO.
It would be good to incentivize development along there trail frontage. Uh on trail frontage so that um it became more of an economic driver for land and lakes in that area. So I'd like you guys to figure out some creative way to do some kind of overlay on the orange belt that gave it that economic uh incentive. Okay.
Okay. So moving on to the next slide, we have a list here of uh recommended advisory committee positions. This is by category of member. This is the existing list that we had previously in the last uh mobility fee update, except for two. We've added the MPO CAC Citizens Advisory Committee member, and we added an apartment developer, which was at the request, I think, when we had a school impact fee. the apartment folks and said they were very interested in being on the list. So so those those are two additions to this list. That's
thir that's 13 members. Um and we'll see when we get to the proposed schedule next, which I presume we'll modify slightly.
Are you o okay with this list? I mean we realize we have to bring in back specific names, but is the makeup general okay? That's
good. There's no planner on there?
That's what you you have on staff. No approved
No, I mean from the outside private planner. Private planner. I would just add a private planner. I if you thought it would be good. Or is that
another side? Is that is it engineers slash land development? Is that slash those sorts of consent? That's usually a planner or engineer.
That was developed by Pat Gashaway last time when they
Or engineer, yeah. I mean or both. If you want us to say engineer slash planner, we can change that to that. Okay. I think that's a great idea.
That's one person.
That would just be an engineer or a planner?
It's probably both. So we tried to keep an odd number. Do you want us to eliminate one of those or
We got thirteen
right now. That's good.
That's thank good. You could take off apartment developer and ad pioneer.
Okay, well we I'm just telling you we got a lot of criticism during school impact fee that we didn't have an apartment developer on our committee.
It's amazing that you have a specific apartment developer category then.
Who yeah who's who's in the who's the actual
department developer?
Oh the guy from Orlando? Yeah he asked to be on if we did a committee for mobility easy asked to be on it.
He represents the regional apartment owners and
builders association. You
right,
Commissioner Oakley
asked when we were at
our DT.
I'm good with it. Okay. All right, so what we'll do is uh if any of you have individuals uh we we had provided you the list of the previous people that'd been on the committee. Uh there's a mix of folks who were very good attendees and others that weren't. They're all good people. Uh if there's anybody on that list that you'd like us to try to get involved again, uh let us know. Let me know. And we'll and we'll make the call. Um and we'll come back to you um we'll look at the schedule here in a minute. You're gonna send us the list? We'll send you the list that
we come up with and then we'll do a polling of everybody. Um Mr. Chairman, I don't know how you want to proceed with that uh in terms of appointments to a committee. I think that's probably your call. Yeah, that was the board's call. It was the board board as all we need to take a resolution.
So we'll do a poll. Well we need to take a resolution. Yeah, we we need Take a resolution to the board that actually sets up the committee and appoints when we do that, we can take a list of names.
Just take the applications and the board will decide. We'll just have
to do that.
If they have specific preferences, they can communicate that to you.
That's fine.
So you'll we're not doing much to the mobility fee except adding uh what it looks like incentives in the rural area. Is that the only tweak we add? Well, and then
We talked about infill. Oh, I saw it.
There's a lot that goes into it that I did we didn't get into that we just have to do. We have to update costs, we have to update growth rates. There's a lot of things that we get into in the update that we didn't even cover today.
This is to make your feed defensive. Okay.
So doing the schedule on the next page. So go let's go to the schedule now. I mean we don't that's You know, we're not involved until well for October here.
That's our hope.
We can. That's excellent. This was our best this was our this was our estimate of the fastest we could get this done if if everything went well. It's great if you can pull it off. Our only obligation was to start this process in 2017 and then we'll finish up the
skin.
Well, it is incredible. And we've had some suggestions already
t to do a
little bit longer in some of the analysis time frame uh in the early part of the
year.
Wait,
is there really that much to analyze analyze? There
is We have to redo all the numbers and there's a lot of economic analysis.
That's that's six months though.
Six months, Don.
Is is
He is, is but we we will try to go as fast as possible. We don't know what the committees like the school impact fee is. We don't know what the committees gonna want to know or see, so you have to give us some flexibility because if they have an issue with growth rates or cost or something, any kind of issue from
taking
more
time. And so
what will but I generally agree this will not be a major update of the mobility fee. We're not gonna be proposing any new revenue sources, we're gonna assume gas tax stays the same. Same, penny for Pasco stays the same, tax increment stays the same. We're not doing any new revenue assumptions.
Everybody give us a the schedule? Yeah. All right, thank you. Appreciate it.
Now just s we'll also bring back an update to you as soon as we've met with the group and let you know if we need to adjust it.
Thank
you
all. We appreciate any last minute things, Dan, that'll take less than five minutes? What's up?