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 MULTI-FAMILY IN THE URBAN, SUBURBAN, AND RURAL STANDARD FEE TABLE, TO DECREASE MOBILITY FEES FOR SHIP DEFINED “LOW INCOME” SINGLE-FAMILY AND MULTI-FAMILY, AND DECREASE MOBILITY FEES FOR VACANT PARCEL INCENTIVE ZONED AREA; AND OTHER AMENDMENTS AS NECESSARY TO ENSURE INTERNAL CONSISTENCY; PROVIDING FOR APPLICABILITY, REPEALER, SEVERABILITY, INCLUSION IN THE PASCO COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
What the county recorded
Staff recommendation
Approve
DispositionApproved
Approved Staff’s recommendation with a revision to the effective date to January 1, 2021.
The source document
The county’s agenda for Planning Commission, May 21, 2020
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
The county’s minutes for Planning Commission, May 21, 2020
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
This case, across meetings
PDD-20-0560 in full →PDD-20-0560 was taken up 4 times between May 21, 2020 and Jun 30, 2020 — this is appearance 1.
- May 21, 2020PlanningP3▶Approvedthis item
- Jun 2, 2020BoardP1▶Approved
- Jun 16, 2020BoardP1No disposition in the minutes
- Jun 30, 2020BoardP1▶Adopted
What was said
Machine transcription of 1h 41m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 73% of 489 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.
Taken up 2 times, not once through — set aside and returned to. Each stretch is below, in the order it happened.
1/2Taken up at Session 1, 0:00
Schedule um instead. And so the table um four dash four will be solely for transit-oriented development. And the only change that you will see there. is for the single family detached ship-defined units and the multifamily. ship-defined units. Those um incentives will change to a hundred percent. in the West Um West Market area redevelopment district schedule again now. The
the new title will be with the addition of the vacant parcel incentive zone schedule. And there will be no change otherwise because there was already 100% incentivized single family detached and multifamily ship-defined units.
In the suburban um tables, this is what the summary looks like. Again, is the same where the multifamily is the is uh Category is only increased in the standard fee and it remains unchanged in the other fee schedules.
And the rule is the same. You have in the rule, you actually have an additional ship define. uh large lot single family detached, um, which would also receive the hundred Percent incentive. Um And the multifamily in the standard rural fee schedule would see that increase in fees.
There are uh just minor tweaks in the text that needs to be amendment so they can um be consistent with the table changes and you'll see these two presented in this slide and in the next slide.
And with that, we hope that you will find that the proposed ordinance is consistent with the Pasco County Comprehensive Plan and recommend the approval of the ordinance to the Board of County Commissioners.
Mr. Chairman, before you take any um comment from the Planning Commission members, clerk will read the um the proof of publication into record.
Okay. Go ahead.
Item P two was published in the Tampa Bay Times on March thirteenth, twenty twenty, and item P three was published uh in the Tampa Bay Times May 10, 2020. Thank you.
Thank you.
Also on this item we do have two callers on the the phone.
All right, good. Thank you very much.
So do we have the first caller? One more.
One of our callers has hung up. Um let's try do you want to start taking public comment at the moment?
Do we have somebody there speak? We
do.
Okay. Sure.
Well come forward and state uh your name. Address?
Coller, you're on the phone. Would you please state your name and address for the record?
Yes, this is Ed Rogers with the consultants. My address is [address removed].
All right. And uh you need to be sworn, please. Uh So uh please raise your right hand. Uh And be sworn. Okay.
Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth to Helping God?
I do.
Thank you.
Okay, your three minutes will begin now.
Okay, thank you. So good afternoon, members of the commission. Again, I'm Ed Rogers of Florida Design Consultants. And I'm speaking on behalf of uh crown community development. Uh Crown Community Development currently has uh two projects under active development that are fully entitled and have multifamily components. Chapel Crossings is in the urban service area and Watergrass is in the suburban
area. In both projects, Crown has contracts pending with market rate apartment developers who are on the cusp of moving forward. And I wanted to relate to you that I have reviewed the video footage of the Board of County Commissioners Workshop that was held on February twenty fifth. uh where staff was given board direction to move forward with these mobility fee adjustments and other measures. And
it struck me uh the other day that we were living in a different economy back in February. Uh in fact the first item on the workshop agenda that day was the county budget for the next fiscal year, and the OMB presented to the board a glowing picture of the economy, which was very vibrant at the time. The Covet nineteen crisis and its significant economic impact hadn't yet made its imprint on
anybody's consciousness at that point. But we now live in a in a really different world where, you know, more than thirty million Americans have sought unemployment benefits because of the effects of the coronavirus. on the economy. Now the great uncertainty that surrounds the nature and timing of any recovery from the current economic cataclysm Um makes uh deals like Crown's pending multifamily
sales um jeopardized. a m a mobility fee increase at this time could be just the the thing to scuttle those deals. So On crown's behalf I would ask Um the commission to consider uh the currently proposed mobility fee adjustments, regardless of whatever their underlying good intentions are to be tabled until the coronavirus infections are on a demonstrable decline and
the nation's economic picture going forward is on a more certain and positive track. And uh that concludes my comments and I really appreciate Your time.
Thank you for for your comments. Thank you.
Does anybody have any questions of the uh Uh the gentleman just spoke.
All right. Uh do we have someone else there? Denise?
Yes, uh we have uh Barbara Wilhite who is probably still on as a as a panelist and we'll give her three minutes to provide her comments. So if you would please state your name and address for the record and uh we'll have the clerk swear you in.
And you'll um have to unmute yourself.
Can't hear you, Barbara.
Yeah.
Okay.
We go. Okay. Barbara Will Height, [address removed].
Andy, so affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth to help you God?
Thank you. Your three minutes will start now.
Thank you. Good afternoon again. Um I am as well here speaking to you on behalf of Crown Communities, a longtime client of mine, maybe a little different perspective. Um Crown Communities entitled um Watergrass in two thousand and six. including multifamily. And then many years ago, t a round twenty excuse me, twenty uh thirteen we entitled um We entitled uh Chapel Crossings. The point I make there is that, you know We
these projects have been entitled for a while with multifamily. Um I think a lot of the concern that we've seen over the multifamily issue is rezoning or people are seeking plan amendments and rezoning, um, not so much the projects that is entitled long ago. So Crown finally gets the opportunity to move these projects forward and get contracts on them and then comes COVID and then comes this potential increase. So it's a significant issue to them. They've been good partners for the county. They have produced
Seven Oaks, which is an outstanding project. uh tax base that has main been maintained there over the years. We have letters from the property appraiser saying seven oaks. um has maintained property values the best of all developments in Pasco County. So they're a good partner of ours and and what this increase would do is kind of stick 'em in the eye in a time when um when there's so much uncertainty right now. So I would also state that I have concerns about continuing to
burden the urban service area when I read in the paper, you know, that the struggle that the school district, the teachers, the students, their families, the administrators of trying to deal with the s the overcrowding that we've produced by these policies that we continue to perpetuate and not really review. We have undercapacity schools in Hudson in areas where you're about to raise if if the board if this commission and the board goes along with these fees in areas where you're about to raise the multifamily rate for market rate apartments. And
And we have I I read in the paper The Struggles about fights over who you know who's gonna get to use the these ball fields that are parks in the say in the urban service area when we have ball fields that we don't have those struggles with in other parts of the county. So think the the timing isn't good and I think that doing just a a policy change in a vacuum and not really doing it in a uh coordinated manner is going to potentially cause unintended consequences. And so uh
those are my thoughts on behalf of uh of my client, long term client at Crowd Communities as well as myself.
Thank you for your comments.
Thank you. Thank you. And uh Do we have any questions for Barbara?
Yeah, I have one. This is Peter Hansel.
Go ahead, Peter.
Uh my your main concern is that this will be an additional financial burden, not just on your client, but on others within the county. Is is that the concern?
Yeah, that that is the concern that we've got delicate balance of trying to they're trying to hold projects together and hold deals together um during COVID and and hopefully an increase come in a time that makes you know scuttle those fields. And then I need to worry about the overall policy aspect of unintended consequences of of the action of especially beyond the urban service area.
So do you see this as as a financial burden? I read it here where it's basically looking at uh We call it the uh Urban Transit Development in the West Harbor Market Area. Plus they also indicated that the Uh Redevelopment. Yeah, there was a p sent in here about the uh Central area also. So what c what you're addressing in years by saying uh The concern I have is you're you're is that you
have some evidence that this would be a financial burden. to developers moving forward. In essence they're not getting anything in return from the county. We're just paying additional fees. Yeah, I'll put the third. Go ahead.
Oh we have so capital crossings within the urban service area and that's a seven percent increase. and um And Watergrass Promenade is in the suburban area and that's a seventeen percent increase proposed. Yes, my client has has told me that Um it could be a burden to air pending deals and scuttle the deals. I'm speaking on behalf of that client. I don't have any knowledge myself. My client had some outpatient surgery yesterday so he can't couldn't send us virtual
meeting himself. So I'm tending on his behalf.
Uh any any uh other comment, Peter, do you have more you want to say?
I I I'm reading on page uh and it says Gee, one of the goals is to provide for the creation and preservation of affordable housing for all of Pasco County residents, particularly the low To moderate income household. I I failed to see how uh adding additional fee. The developer will benefit low Moderate income households. That's my comment. So Right. Especially at the time.
So so can I can I this is David Goldstein. Can I explain
Oh.
I think we're confusing two concepts here. One Barbara's talking about an increase in Well called standard or market rate apartments. Argument is that by increasing the fees on standard or market rate apartments Adversely affect these deals that Crown was entered into. Thank you. There's a separate as part of the same ordinance, there's a reduction in the the mobility fees for ship-defined, affordable, multifamily, and single family.
In other words, Uh. They're standard apartments, but they're going down For Ship to find affordable apartments. In fact, they're going down so much they're going down to zero. Okay. Sure. So what
So I don't think Barbara's talking about that reduction. I don't think she's a p to that reduction. I think she's saying it's the increase in the standard fees that are that is causing concerns. Or her client.
That's correct.
the right-of-way. single family and affordable multifamily.
And let me just make one more comment. comment. Yeah, please.
Our mobility fee system is a system of subsidies. In other words, it uses Other revenue sources, gas tax, sales tax
to buy down or subsidize certain So in order to offset this reduction affordable multifamily, affordable single family, and the additional in the Harbor's West Market area There has to be a corresponding increase somewhere else to make it revenue neutral.
If for some reason the board did not improve the increase for standard market rate multifamily We need not be able to approve a decrease for the West Market area or the Um affordable multifamily and single family. In other words, they're they're linked together because there's a limited budget of subsidies. Am I making sense at all?
Yeah, I think uh I think it's what you're saying is very clear to me anyway, uh David. This is uh Chuck Bray. I uh I have a but I have a sort of the same perspective on it that Barbara has in that Um I think this is probably not a good time to uh increase Uh Ps. Uh to anybody that wants to bring a benefit to our county. I think it's uh a factor that would discourage them and And I want them to go. Some gross.
We need growth. And uh Obviously we have to manage growth, but we need I'll figure out. I don't think you know I think one of the I've probably been here longer than most of us. In this county. So I I know back when we first started building the homes, we thought it was a great idea to build uh six thousand dollar homes and sell 'em the home in the lot for six thousand dollars. Everybody was happy, but the problem is is that we ended up with A lot of low income type housing.
Mm-hmm. It's something that we're sitting there with now. I'm not sure we need it. continue to encourage more low income housing. I think we need to encourage I'll see. Self sufficient development. You know, because Healthy a healthy economy arises all votes. And uh I I just think that's where our focus should be. Our focus shouldn't be the lowest common denominator. Yeah So I j I just I I
think this is a bad time to do it. I don't I'm not saying there's a good time, but Uh A lot of people are hurting right now, including the people normally in good shape. Yeah. I just think this is a This is not a good time. Yeah. as was said before, you know, it might have been a good time when the county first started thinking about it. Planning war because the economy was booming, but right now Do we get through this crisis? I
think we need to to rethink about there's a lot of people out there that Aren't getting a regular paycheck. And uh Yeah, these contractors and construction workers. With the sir. You know, all kinds of people like that. We need to think about it. Growth for them. Yeah. Not so much about just cheap housing.
That's my thing.
Mr. Chairman M It's Chris
Port.
I'll go on the record of saying I agree with you, sir. I think that uh you know the economic uncertainty What we're dealing with on the backside of COVID and and reading that uh Florida State sales tax has been decimated in March and it's supposed to be The numbers are supposed to be even worse in in April, um, as well as another a bunch of other different factors. I really think it's it's um when this was when this item was looked at back in February, it might have been an appropriate time to to consider these changes
at at that time, but But given the uncertainty that we're facing, I I really think this is a an issue that should be tabled and and uh picked up at a at a later date.
All right. Anybody else?
Mr Mr. Chairman Mariano Gerardi. Um a couple of things to add here on this one. Um Not only just the timing of of the whole thing, but I really and and I raise this point 'cause I think I raised this point when similar mobility fee discussions came up on multifamily and on apartments along the fifty four-fifty six corridor several months ago. Um Yeah, you you have a lot of developers that have projects that are vested. in that corridor as well as in the county.
Um they got vested and they were getting pushed by county staff to increased density to they were I mean they were they were encouraging Multifamily and the and the density. And now these people have these projects vested. Barbara talked about it about Crown. I'm sure there's several others that either have projects under contract, have projects that are vested. But now they come in and and now they wanna get a slap on the wrist to these people that have these properties. I don't know if there's anything that can be done with the grandfathering provision. Um
I don't know. It looks like the you know, if these rates are adopted they go to into into effect in August. But um I just think you really hit those people hard that have projects and The contracts even to sell projects it Timing and I don't think it's good.
Michael, you had to say something.
Yeah, so I have a couple of questions of staff. Um uh I mean the way I'm reading this uh these table changes. the vast majority of it is going to incentivize the development, which therefore is going to help our economy here locally. Is that correct from the staff?
I'm sorry, Mr. Cox, could you repeat your question?
So uh the majority of of what I'm seeing in the table here is The proposed incentives are mainly going to a hundred percent. being incentivized. So Majority of projects would r actually receive a boost, correct?
Could can I try that can I try to answer that, Alexandra?
So I think you're correct, uh, Mr. Cox, that there are more decreases, there are more decreased fees in this table than there are increases. That's an accurate statement. However, You have to look at the amount of that type of development. So yes, the West Market area fees are going to be going down under these tables. The affordable housing fees will be going down under these tables. But the percentage of development that we get in Pasco County that's in the West Market area
or that's affordable housing is likely less than it is for market rate apartments. So You're correct in one sense that there's more fees, there's more categories of fees that are going down. With this proposal. But in terms of the amount of development they would receive a decrease, it's probably Lower than what will be receiving an increase in terms of the amount of development that would normally occur. Yeah. I think we kind
of skipped over one important point that Olive Dinger made, which is The fees for multifamily TND, Mutter M, T O D um are not increasing and and The county ha and to get to Mr. Girardi's point, a lot of the projects that are that were vested where staff was encouraging density, they tended to be those projects that were Mudderum the T O D projects. So those fees are not increasing at all. You could argue
that they now have a bigger incentive relative to standard multifamily because Their fees are not increasing. So Um You're correct in one sense, but There is still a a significant amount of standard multifamily that will receive an increase under these these controls.
Okay, well let me let me let me then comment a little bit further then. Um You know, the the whole premise behind doing this mobility fee, and I remember it pretty vividly, was to really try to focus incentives where we wanted development. So um, you know, and it it has worked. I mean, there's no question that that whole uh idea has has helped a lot. The thing that
I think about here is that There has been a big boom on in the apartment developments around the county. Uh in fact, I mean, I think a lot of people think that maybe we have too too much, but you know, I am a believer in the market, and the market will determine how much is too much. But one thing that does come to mind is that these um developments have routinely been built and then sold for significant amounts of money
per unit. You know, when you read in in the in the paper about some of these uh developments um selling for three and four hundred thousand dollars per per unit. Um, it seems to me like that this increase is not going to have that big of an effect on it. That's that's number one. Number two, David, correct me if I'm wrong, but the ones that are already entitled All they need to do
is to uh poll building permits before this ordinance goes into effect and it wouldn't would not uh Correct? That's
correct. That if they pull a building permit before August 10th, which would be the earliest it could go into effect. Um It would not be subject to these increases. In addition The Planning Commission could recommend a delayed effective date till January one, or the board could recommend a delayed effective date till January. A lot of our impact fee increases tend to take effect on January one. So there's nothing magical about the August tenth
date other than that's the soonest it could happen under state statute. But Is it possible for Planning Commissioner Oakley Board to recommend a January one effective date? Yes, and that's kind of our historical practice is to implement new fees effective January one.
And if they got their building permit before that effective date, they would not be subject to these increases. Does that answer your question?
Yeah, it it it does. And so I mean I think that um You know, obviously they'll start with the BCC um And given the fact that, you know, obviously their their final say on it. Um I'm I'm more apt to per to support what we've been uh shown here today.
All right. Anything anybody else have a
comment? So I just one more comment, Mr. Chair. Um just a reminder of what your role is on this particular ordinance. Your role is to determine whether the Or did it consistent with the Pasco County comprehensive plan? Um So you need to make a recommendation on that issue one way or the other. Um, if you are inclined to send some Additional Comments to the board. Include that then in the In
your recommendation. But you do need to make an affirmative determination about whether the ordinance is consistent or inconsistent with the comprehensive plan.
Chairman Mariano. Okay. Yes. This is this is Nicaragua Spito's planning and development. Uh I just wanted to uh echo David's comments um and uh mention too that The increase in fees um on the standard table and the no increase in fees on the moderam, T and D and D O D tables results in an encouragement of development to go into these types of Um patterns such as
the mixed-use trip reduction measures, the tran traditional neighborhood design transportation-oriented development. No that sort of encouragement into Moderom, T N D and T O D is still consistent with the comprehensive plan, which we mentioned at the beginning during the presentation. Uh the other thing that I just wanted to mention really quick was uh with regard to the West Market area and the redevelopment and vacant land incentives, even for multifamily uh the
standard will still be zero in the in those areas. So they will not pay a fee if it's redevelopment or if it's vacant, um vacant land development. Even if you're going to build a multifamily apartment building, let's say. Um it would still be zero in the West Market area.
And what about single family? I d I don't believe we're we're uh changing anything with regard to single family.
So I'm trying
to
Well,
yeah. Mr. Chair, to be clear, if it's in the West Market area redevelopment area or the Vacant and set down, it's zero even for single family. The board made a very Strong statement that the harbors or west market areas should be treated differently. And they're doing everything they can to incentivize development in that area. So Defeat whether it's single family or multifamily, if it's in the If it's in that area, it's gonna be zero.
So why
are we calling it affordable housing?
So I I that's why I wanna make sure we're clear.
Okay, so In the West Market area, that that incentive to make the fee zero applies whether it's affordable or market rate or high end. It's it's it's an incentive for the area to encourage it to redevelop and encourage infill in that area. Doesn't matter whether it's affordable market rate and it could be million dollar homes in the West Market area and it would still be zero because our board wants to send a strong statement that that area is
in need of development. Redevelopment, infill development, any form of development. That it needs to it needs a jolt, regardless of of price. Okay.
Okay. Well that that's that was my major concern because I just don't wanna I don't see where the county benefits from uh reducing the tax base.
Right. So So for the West Market area, you gotta treat think about area differently because Most of what we talked about today doesn't apply in the West market area. The West market area is gonna be zero if it's redevelopment or in the incentive zone. It's gonna be zero regardless of the form of development and regardless of the type of development. The affordable housing incentive the affordable affordable housing incentive is really more applicable to the rest of the county.
Okay. So
that request is if you have an affordable housing project in Wesley Chapel or Trinity or Northeast Mm-hmm. Carry around the zipper hills. Those fees will now be reduced. Does your qualify as ship defying affordable housing?
So uh what are the boundaries of the West Market area?
Um Alexander, do you have a map that shows those boundaries or Terry? Can you pull up a map? Does it say the map? It's g just generally it's generally everything to the west of Little Road. But that's a very general statement of input. The I think Alexander has a map. Or something might have a map.
So it doesn't go as far as forty one. No, it does not include forty one.
Okay.
Yeah, I I have the map right here.
You want me to just share my screen?
One. Right.
Oh now I do. Yeah.
So can everybody see my map now?
Yep.
So these this here is the West Market area. Um as David said, generally Little Road, uh but it also extends a little further than Little Road. I'm here to listen.
This is the Westmark right here.
Okay. Is it the does it include the green? Where it says north.
Yeah. So the north market is what you see in green there. Central is what you see in in this lighter blue color. Uh South Market is this lighter green color here. And of course the market is way out on the east side of the money.
So to answer your question, Mr. Chair, it would not include the area that's in dark green.
Okay. Yeah. Well I don't that that explains it a little bit better to me. I don't feel quite as concerned as I did as It sounded to me in the initial that we were Come encourage just low income housing basically in the West Market area. So I wonder if it's a
yeah, so I wanna be clear, y Mr. Chairman it It's this isn't just about trying to encourage low income housing. It's it's uh if I had to summarize what the changes are doing. for development in the West Market area by fixing the incentives in that area. It's trying to encourage more mixed use multifamily in the in the form of TND, T O D, um And it is Also encouraging affordable
housing. That's the third problem of it. But Say that it's only about affordable housing would not be accurate.
And to and to offset those additional incentives, another fee increase. So The proposal was that increase would be on standard multifamily.
Thanks, so Just for clarification purposes, I'm sure everybody has Somebody has a besides me has a question. What is the standard multiple?
So Standard multifamily would be Rocco Market rate multifamily That is not in a C and D. Mixed use, mudderum. Or T form of development. And is not affordable and it's not age restricted. It's not a condo, it's not a townhome, not a it it's but all create apartments, basically.
That are not in a in a mixed youth form and development.
Right.
Mr. Chair, uh the caller we had on the phone previously who dropped off is back on the phone. Can we take his call on this item?
It's going on the this item.
Yes. He had dropped off, he had gotten disconnected and he reconnected.
Okay, we don't have a motion yet, so No, thank do we or did you make a motion, right?
I did not yet. Okay, all right. Okay, yeah Gus, go ahead.
Okay, so we'll put 'em on.
Sir, uh would you please state your name and your address for the record?
I'm sure. My name is Eric Gardunio. I um representing the Bay Area Apartment Association. Our address is PL Box fifteen nineteen fifty eight Tampa, Florida, three three six eight four, and I'm speaking regarding agenda item P three.
Okay, and we're gonna have the clerk swear you in.
Okay. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give is the truth, so hope you God?
I do.
Thank you. And your three minutes will start now.
Thank you. Uh good afternoon, uh Planning Commission members. Really appreciate this opportunity to speak before you. As noted, I'm representing the Bay Area Apartment Association. We're a not for profit trade association, representing the apartment industry and uh Champagne area. Um I am going to focus my comments uh specifically on removal of incentives for multifamily construction in the urban, suburban and rural standard categories. I believe my colleague is also online and she'll talk about the affordable housing portion
of the ordinance. Uh we do have concerns about the removal of these fences. Generally, incentives like these do encourage additional investment in multifamily development. More apartment units out there, uh the the less rent pressures there are generally for everybody in the county. And so removing incentives could could have an unfortunate uh consequence on on just raising prices. um, that I don't think anybody would like to see. Uh but
more importantly, I I think, you know, looking at uh what it's doing, i it's removing incentives on three specific categories for multifamily while not Which doing thing about uh dozens of other categories that are in the code Um acquaries that deal with things like fast food restaurants. Tire stores En Clark Mm categories in there were the only ones being singled out seemed a bit unfair and arbitrary. And uh but speaking out of it, it's
we're at least as important to have more multifamily as say uh another fast food restaurant. But on top of that I'd also say One of the things that we Um, we took away from the workshop back in uh February where this ordinance was uh you know, discuss that the um Data presented during that workshop actually uh indicates that eighty percent of the mobility fees being collected come from the urban, twenty
percent from suburban, and zero from rural. So that tells us that actually the incentives haven't been very effective in in the suburban and not at all effective in the uh urban I'm sorry, rural categories. So if anything, we would we'd ask the Commission to consider actually increasing incentives in those areas. Um I think uh the data that we have available to us Do market data research suggest the same thing. Uh the latest information
we have from a source called CoStar says that uh of all the department units that are being developed have recently been developed or or are in planning stages for development, they're all in the urban uh areas except for one. So indeed I I think the data points or suggests that uh if there if anything should be done for the r the role and suburban increases of incentives to actually spur investment posts. Uh makes a lot of sense.
Your time is up, sir. Did you s your time is up, sir? Did you state that there was someone else on the line or that is it Ms. uh Wendy?
Uh one of my yes, I believe one of my colleagues is also signed up.
It is she on the phone now or because we don't have her waiting in the queue?
Oh. Um she should be signed up and in the queue.
There's no one else in our queue. Okay, there is a person in our queue, but could you at least tell us what the area code, not the person's number, just tell us the area code.
Uh one second. I have the programs.
Because it doesn't it doesn't match eight one three. Eight one three. Okay. That's not the person we have in RQ. Okay, thank you, sir, for your comments.
Um Is there anybody else to speak then uh Denise?
No, the person we have signed up is not matching the phone number of the person who is on the phone with us right now. Who is waiting in the sheet?
Anyone on the board have questions or comments or uh Board of staff or questions from the staff.
I have question and comment.
Uh yeah, go ahead.
Yeah. Um this is Richard Tanella. I wonder if we're not going to be able
I think uh just that whole mobility fee uh there was a lot of time and effort put into it. Now it just seems like we're rushing through it for it's been less than four months. So I think we need to Maybe not rush through this and think about all the implications and Seems like almost with a whack a mole if you push one down, the other one's gonna pop up and Just I think we need to think about this a lot more. The other uh thing I had was a question of David if if I was gonna vote on this or not.
David, is she gonna vote on this?
Um I would say no. It's not it's not affecting the school site. It's not affecting um not an increase in residential density. So I can't think how You would be voting on this.
Yeah, that's what I thought. Okay, thank you.
Um
I do think uh there is some merit to that to consider Moving the date back a little bit if we if we do end up approving this, I think uh Probably it would be reasonable to give some of these people that are We'd become unaware of uh a long time ago we were going. Financial issues. Um
I would be much more inclined to support it if it
Started at a later date.
Mr. Chairman before before you s make any motions, um I don't want the caller who's on the line to not speak just because they may have called in on a different number than they registered for, so Can we ask the caller to identify who they are and if see if it's the same person who registered?
Okay, we'll do that.
No
way.
Collar. A lot more. Hello. Yeah, yeah.
Collar.
Hello?
Hello? Yes, caller, would you please state your name for the record and your address?
Yeah. It's
Wendy, I'm asking Millen Cabbage. Our address is The O Ba. One five one nine five eight
Okay, for right. Okay, and we're gonna have the blurk. Um we're going to have the clerk swear you in.
Do you swear or affirm that the s testimony you're about to give it is the true so help you God?
Did you hear that?
Hello? Mm it wasn't it was a little bit a little bit muffled, I'm sorry.
Do you confirm that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, so Helpy God?
Uh yes.
Thank you.
Okay, your three minutes will start now.
No. Good afternoon, Planning Commission members. Thank you for this opportunity to speak before you today. I am the Vice President of the Bay Area Apartment Association. I'm also a regional manager for Royal American Management. We manage apartment communities throughout the Tampa Bay region, including Pasco County. In addition to the points raised um that I would like to make. Um, according to the twenty nineteen rental market study conducted by the Schwinberg Center
for Housing Studies at the University of Florida, twenty-nine percent of Pasco County population is considered low income and paying more than thirty percent of their income toward housing. This is clear indication that additional affordable housing is needed in our county. Despite this need, it is often a challenge to build affordable multifamily housing between increasing costs for land, labor, and materials that go into buildings and maintaining apartment communities. It is difficult. to keep rent
at a level that low income households can afford without specific incentives provided by government. That is why we are grateful that the draft ordinance reduces mobility impact fee, changes the affordable multifamily construction. Mobility fees are reduced to zero across every zone within the county. According to the National Apartment Association, on average, 14 cents of every dollar charged in rent goes towards government taxes and fees. Reductions
in fees could create the margins that make the difference between a project being built or not. Providing incentives like these is an important proactive measure by local government. Thank you for your consideration. considering our concerns around this reduction of incentives for the market rate multifamily housing. And again, we applaud you for taking steps to better encourage affordable housing development in our county. Thank
you. Thank you for your call.
Okay.
So uh any more comments from our board? The question is on the staff.
Mr. Chairman Mari Chris Wool, I'll I'll just go on the record of saying that I I'm in agreement with you that uh I I would agree to this with the delayed um effective.
Mr. Chairman
Mariano. Yeah, Michael Cox here. So um I'm gonna move for approval finding it consistent with the comp plan, but recommending With the Board of County Commissioners to with um an effective date, January 1st, 2021.
Now it's much better to read. I'll I'll second Chris Poole. Okay, so now we have a motion and a second. Any further distinction of the motion?
All in favor uh by roll call signify by saying aye.
Jamie Girardi?
Michael Cox.
Aye.
Peter Hansel.
I can't hear you, Peter.
I couldn't you turn your mic on. There you go. Right.
Peter Hansel.
No. No. Okay.
Roberto Saez.
Uh yeah.
Christopher Poole.
I
Chris Williams represented uh Richard Tanello, he's not here. And Chairman Charles Gray.
Yeah, Mr. Tanello is not voting on this item.
Okay. Chairman Charles Gray.
All right, so I guess the eyes have it. No.
Sound good, Terry?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Okay, welcome home.
Been away for a few days, huh?
2/2Taken up again at Session 1, 25:54
All right, I think we have uh Ordinance to be presented through P3.
Yes, and that will be presented by Alessandro Laporte.
Okay.
So
For PDD 20-0560 for the mobility fee amendment for multifamily ship-defined location. low income housing, single family and multifamily, and vacant parcel incentive zone.
Right. Um I will read the ordinance title. Um 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 multifamily in the urban, suburban, and rural standard fee table. To decrease mobility fees for shift-defined, low-income,
single-family, and multifamily. and decrease mobility fees for vacant parcel incentive zoned areas. And other amendments as necessary to ensure internal consistency, providing for applicability, repealer, severability, inclusion in the Pasco County Land Development Code, and an effective date.
The recommendation is to find the proposed ordinance consistent with the Pasco County Comprehensive Plan and recommend approval of the ordinance to the Board of County Commissioners. The first reading is scheduled to be June 2nd. It will be a virtual meeting. And the adoption hearing is June 16th, 2020, also to be a virtual meeting.
In summary, this um stems from the February 25th, 2020 workshop. on the family and affordable housing in Pasco County. The Board of County Commissioners directed the Planning and Development Department to do a few things, one of which was to update the mobility fee tables. to further encourage vacant parcel development in the Westmarket area. Encourage the focus of multifamily development to be part of
a mixed-use project such as Mutch Rum TND TOD, and encourage more affordable housing countywide. Um the second piece of that what was derived from that workshop was to continue research in the and to establish um at a later date uh potential development standards for multifamily developments. Uh the directive uh by the board of county commissioners will occur in two phases, the first of which is this mobility fee table adjustment.
Here is a summary of the comprehensive plan policies that promote. the efficient use of infrastructure, adequate supply of affordable housing, and that support mixed use development and more efficient growth patterns. So the mobility fee update as well as the other standards would reinforce this and be consistent also with the Harbors Redevelopment Plan.
Um, I do want to clarify a couple of things before we dive into the changes, is that multifamily and the mobility fees. Only the apartments are the ones that are being addressed. The other multifamily forms of development. The low-rise condominium townhomes, the high-rise condominiums, age restricted multifamily and congregate care facilities will not have an increase to the net fee.
Additionally, the multifamily apartments in the Minorim, TND or T O D will also not see this increase in fees.
These tables that you will see in the subsequent slides are a summary of changes in your packet. You will have at your disposal the entire spreadsheet of all the tables. We just wanted to highlight what was changed. So in the in the urban grouping. Um you have several tables. Multifamily again, multifamily apartments only sees the increase under the urban standard.
And that increase of the incentive percentage currently is 7%. It would drop down to 0%. So a net the new net fee proposed is $4,280. the remaining the single family detached and multifamily ship-defined units in all these tables would change to 100% incentive.
In the urban TOD, you'll see two changes. One would be to the title. Right now the table title references both the transit-oriented development as well as the vacant parcel incentive zone. Um in order to um To do the to manifest a directive from the board for incentivizing at 100% the vacant parcel.
We have removed that title from the table. And it will be added to the redevelopment district fee schedule instead. And so the table um four dash four will be solely for transit-oriented development. And the only change that you will see there. is for the single family detached ship defined units and the multifamily. ship defined units. Those incentives
will change to 100%. in the West um West Market area redevelopment district schedule again now. The new title will be with the addition of the vacant parcel incentive zone schedule. And there will be no change otherwise because there was already 100% incentivized single family detached and multifamily ship-defined units.
In the suburban um uh tables, this is what the summary looks like. Again, is the same. Um Where the multifamily is the is uh Category is only increased in the standard fee and it remains unchanged in the other fee schedules.
And the rule is the same. You have in the rule, you actually have an additional ship define. uh large lot single family detached, which would also receive the hundred Percent incentive. Um And the multifamily in the standard rural fee schedule would see that increase in fees.
There are uh just minor tweaks in the text um that needs to be amendment so they can um be consistent with the table changes and you'll see these two presented in this slide and in the next slide.
And with that, we hope that you will find that the proposed ordinance is consistent with the Pasco County Comprehensive Plan and recommend the approval of the ordinance to the Board of County Commissioners.
Mr. Chairman, before you take any um comment from the Planning Commission members, clerk will read the um the proof of publication into record.
Okay. Go ahead.
Item P two was published in the Tampa Bay Times on March thirteenth, twenty twenty, and item P three was published in the Tampa Bay Times May 10, 2020. Thank you.
Thank you.
Also on this item we do have two callers on the the phone.
All right, good. Thank you very much.
So do we have the first caller? Online.
One of our callers has hung up. Um, let's try. Do you want to start taking public comment at the moment?
Do we have somebody there speak?
We do.
Okay. Sure.
Well come forward and state uh your name. Address?
Coller, you're on the phone. Would you please state your name and address for the record?
Yes, this is Ed Rogers with
My address is [address removed].
All right. And uh you need to be sworn, please. Uh So uh please raise your right hand. Uh M B Sworn. Okay.
Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth to Hopey God?
I
do.
Thank you.
Okay.
Okay, thank you. So good afternoon, members of the commission. Again I'm Ed Rogers of Florida Design Consultants. And I'm speaking on behalf of uh crown community development. Uh Crown Community Development currently has uh two projects under active development that are fully entitled and have multifamily components. Chapel Crossings is in the urban service area and Watergrass is in the suburban
area. In both projects, Crown has contracts pending with market rate apartment developers who are on the cusp of moving forward. And I wanted to relate to you that I have reviewed the video footage of the Board of County Commissioners Workshop that was held on February twenty fifth. uh where staff was given board direction to move forward with these mobility fee adjustments and other measures. And
it struck me uh the other day that we were living in a different economy back in February. Uh in fact, the first item on the workshop agenda that day was the county budget for the next fiscal year, and the OMB presented to the board a glowing picture. of the economy, which was very vibrant at the time. The Covet nineteen crisis and its significant economic impacts hadn't yet made its imprint on
anybody's consciousness at that point. But we now live in a in a really different world where, you know, more than thirty million Americans have sought unemployment benefits because of the effects of the coronavirus on the economy. Now the great uncertainty that surrounds the nature and timing of any recovery from the current economic cataclysm um makes uh deals like crowns pending multifamily
sales um jeopardized. a m a mobility fee increase at this time could be just the the thing to scuttle those deals. So On crown's behalf I would ask Um the Commission to consider uh the currently proposed mobility fee adjustments, regardless of whatever their underlying good intentions are to be tabled until the coronavirus infections are on a demonstrable decline and
the nation's economic picture going forward is on a more certain and positive track. And uh that concludes my comments and I really appreciate Your time.
Thank you for for your comments. Thank
you. Does anybody have any questions of the uh Uh the gentleman just spoke.
All right. Uh do we have someone else there? Denise?
Yes, uh we have uh Barbara Wilhite who is probably still on as a as a panelist and we'll give her three minutes to provide her comments. So if you would please state your name and address for the record and uh we'll have the clerk swear you in.
And you'll um have to unmute yourself.
Can't hear you, Barbara.
Yeah.
Okay.
We go. Okay. Barbara Will Height, [address removed].
Andy, Sarah affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth to help you God?
Thank you. Your three minutes will start now.
Thank you. Good afternoon again. Um I am as well here speaking to you on behalf of Crown Communities, a longtime client of mine, maybe a little different perspective. Um Crown Communities entitled um Watergrass in two thousand and six. including multifamily And then many years ago, t a round twenty excuse me, twenty uh thirteen we entitled um we entitled uh Chapel Crossings. The point I make there is that, you know We
these projects have been entitled for a while with multifamily. Um, I think a lot of the concern that we've seen over the multifamily issue is rezoning where people are seeking plan amendments and rezoning, um, not so much the projects that is entitled long ago. So Crown finally gets the opportunity to move these projects forward and get contracts on them and then comes COVID and then comes this potential increase. So it's a significant issue to them. They've been good partners for the county. They have produced
Seven Oaks, which is an outstanding project. uh tax base that has main been maintained there over the years. We have letters from the property appraiser saying seven oaks. um has maintained property values the best of all developments in Pasco County. So they're a good partner of ours and and what this increase would do is kind of stick 'em in the eye in a time when um when there's so much uncertainty right now. So I would also state that I have concerns about continuing
to burden the urban service area when I read in the paper, you know, that the struggle that the school district, the teachers, the students, their families, the administrators of trying to deal with the s the overcrowding that we've produced by these policies that we continue to perpetuate and not really review. We have undercapacity schools in Hudson in areas where you're about to raise if if the board if this commission and the board goes along with these fees in areas where you're about to raise the multifamily rate for marketplay apartments.
And and we have I w I read in the paper The Struggles about fights over who you know, who's gonna get to use the these ball fields that are parks in the say in the urban service area when we have ball fields that we don't have those struggles with in other parts of the county. So think the the timing isn't good and I think that doing just a a policy change in a vacuum and not really doing it in a uh coordinated manner, it's gonna potentially cause unintended consequences. And
so uh those are my thoughts on behalf of uh of my client, long term client at Crowd Communities as well as myself.
Thank you for your comments.
Thank you. Thank you. And uh Do we have any questions for Barbara?
Yeah, I have one. This is Peter Hansel.
Go ahead, Peter.
Uh my your main concern is that this will be an additional financial burden, not just on your client, but on others within the county. Is is that the concern?
Yeah, th that is the concern that we've got delicate balance of trying to they're trying to hold projects together and hold deals together um during COVID and and that's an increase it's come in a time that makes you know scuttle those deals. And then I need to worry about the overall policy aspect of unintended consequences of of the action of especially beyond the urban service area.
So do you see this as a financial burden? I read it here where it's basically looking at uh We call it the uh urban transit development in the West Harbor Market Area. Plus they also indicated that the Uh Redevelopment. Yeah, there was a sentence in here about the uh Central area also. So what what you're addressing in years by saying uh The concern I have is you're you're is that you
have some evidence that this would be a financial burden Two developers moving forward. In essence they're not getting anything in return from the county. We're just paying additional fees. Oh that's a third point. Go ahead.
Oh we have so capital crossings within the urban service area and that's a seven percent increase. And um And Watergrass Promenade is in the suburban area and that's a seventeen percent increase proposed. Yes, my client has has told me that Um it could be a burden to air pending deals and scuttle the deals. I'm speaking on behalf of that client. I don't have any knowledge myself. My client had some outpatient surgery yesterday, so he can't couldn't send us virtual meeting
himself. So I'm tending on his behalf.
Uh any any uh other comment, Peter, do you have more you wanna say?
I I I'm reading on page uh and it says G one of the goals is to provide for the creation and preservation of affordable housing for all of Pasco County residents, particularly low To moderate income household. Uh I I failed to see how adding additional fee. The developer would benefit well moderate income households. That's my comment. So Right. Especially if it's
Mm-hmm.
So
so can I can I this is David Goldstein, can I explain
That's one.
I think we're confusing two concepts here. One Barbara's talking about an increase in Well call standard or market rate apartments. Argument is that by increasing the fees on standard or market rate apartments Adversely affect these deals that Crown was entered into. Thank you. There's a separate as part of the same ordinance, there's a reduction
in the the
mobility fees for ship-defined, affordable, multifamily, and single family. In other words, Uh. or standard apartments, but they're going down For Ship to find affordable apartments. In fact, they're going down so much they're going down to zero. Okay. Yeah. So what
So I don't think Barbara's talking about that reduction. I don't think she's a p to that reduction. I think she's saying it's the increase in the standard fees that are that is causing concerns for her client.
That's correct.
single family and affordable multifamily.
And let me just make one more comment. comment. Yeah, please three.
Our mobility fee system is a system of subsidies. In other words, it uses Other revenue sources, gas tax, sales tax
to buy down or subsidize certain So in order to offset this reduction affordable multifamily, affordable single family, and the additional in the Harbor's West Market area There has to be a corresponding increase somewhere else to make it revenue neutral.
If for some reason the board did not improve the increase for standard market rate multifamily We knew we may not be able to approve a decrease for the West Market area or the Um affordable multifamily and single family. In other words, they're they're linked together because there's a limited budget of subsidies. Am I making sense at all?
Yeah, I think uh I think it's what you're saying is very clear to me anyway, uh David. This is uh Chuck Gray. I uh I have a I have a sort of the same perspective on it that Barbara has in that Um I think this is probably not a good time to uh increase Uh Ps. Uh anybody that wants to bring a benefit to our county. I think it's uh a factor that would discourage them and And to want them to go. Some gross.
We need growth. And uh Obviously we have to manage growth, but we need I'll figure out. I don't think you know I think one of the I've probably been here longer than most of us. In this county. So I I know back when we first started building the homes, we thought it was a great idea to build six thousand dollar homes and sell 'em the home in the lot for six thousand dollars. Everybody was happy. But the problem is is that we ended up with A lot of low income type
housing. Mm-hmm. It's something that we're sitting there with now. I'm not sure we need it. continue to encourage more low income housing. I think we need to encourage I'll see. Self sufficient development. You know, because Healthy a healthy economy arises all votes. And uh I I just think that's where our focus should be. Our focus shouldn't be The lowest common denominator. And uh So I j I just
That's I think this is a bad time to do it. I don't I'm not saying there's a good time, but Oh. A lot of people are hurting right now, including the people normally in good shape. Yeah, no. I just think this is a This is not a good time. Yeah. as was said before, you know, it might have been a good time when the county first started thinking about it. Planning war because the economy was booming, but right now Will we get through this crisis?
I think we need to to rethink about it. There's a lot of people out there that Aren't getting a regular paycheck. And uh Yeah, these contractors and construction workers. With more. You know, all kinds of people like that. We need the acabama. Growth for them. Yeah. Not so much about just cheap housing.
That's my thing.
Mm Mr. Chairman Mariano. It's Chris Paul. I'll go on the record of saying I agree with you, sir. I think that uh you know the economic uncertainty What we're dealing with on the backside of COVID and and reading that uh Florida State sales tax has been decimated in March and it's supposed to be The numbers are supposed to be even worse in in April, um, as well as another a bunch of other different factors. I really think it's it's um when this is when this item was looked at back in February, it
might have been an appropriate time to to consider these changes at at that time, but But given the uncertainty that we're facing, I I really think this is a an issue that should be tabled and and uh picked up at a at a later date.
All right.
Anybody
else?
Mr Mr. Chairman Mariano Girardi. Um a couple of things to add here on this one. Um Not only just the timing of of the whole thing, but I really and and I raise this point 'cause I think I raised this point when similar mobility fee discussions came up on multifamily and on apartments along the fifty four-fifty six corridor several months ago. Um Yeah, you you have a lot of developers that have projects that are vested. in that corridor as well as in the county.
Um they got vested and they were getting pushed by county staff to increased density to they were I mean they were they were encouraging Multifamily and the and the density. And now these people have these projects vested. Barbara talked about Crown and I'm sure there's several others that either have projects under contract, have projects that are vested. But now they come in and and now they wanna get a slap on the wrist to these people that have these properties. I I don't know if there's anything that can be done with the grandfathering provision. Um
I don't know. It looks like the you know, if these rates are adopted they go to into effect in August. But um I just think you really hit those people hard that have projects and The contracts even to sell projects it Timing and I don't think it's good.
Michael, you had to say something.
Yeah, so I have a couple of questions of staff. Um I mean the way I'm reading this uh these table changes. the vast majority of it is going to incentivize the development, which therefore is going to help our economy here locally. Is that correct from the staff?
I'm sorry, Mr. Cox, could you repeat your question?
So uh the majority of of what I'm seeing in the table here is The proposed incentives are mainly going to a hundred percent. being incentivized. So The majority of projects would r actually receive a boost, correct?
Could can I try that can I try to answer that, Alexandra?
So
I think you're correct, uh, Mr. Cox, that there are more decreases, there are more decreased fees in this table than there are increases. That's an accurate statement. However, You have to look at the amount of that type of development. So yes, the West Market area fees are gonna be going down under these tables. The affordable housing fees will be going down under these tables. But the percentage of development that we get in Pasco County that's in the West Market area or that's affordable
housing is likely less than it is for market rate apartments. So You're correct in one sense that there's more fees, there's more categories of fees that are going down. With this proposal. But in terms of the amount of development that would receive a decrease, it's probably Lower than what will be receiving an increase in terms of the amount of development that would normally occur. Yeah. I think we kind of skipped over one
important point that Olive Dinger made, which is The fees for multifamily TND, Mutter M, T O D um are not increasing and and The county ha and to get to Mr. Girardi's point, a lot of the projects that are that were vested where staff was encouraging density, they tended to be those projects that were Mudderum D T O D projects. So those fees are not increasing at all. You could argue that they
now have a bigger incentive relative to standard multifamily because Their fees are not increasing. So Um You're correct in one sense, but There is still a a significant amount of standard multifamily that will receive an increase under these these schedules.
Okay, well let me let me let me then comment a little bit further then. Um You know, the the whole premise behind doing this mobility fee, and I remember it pretty vividly, was to really try to focus incentives where we wanted development. So um, you know, and it it has worked. I mean, there's no question that that whole uh idea has has helped a lot. The thing that
I think about here is that There has been a big boom on in the apartment. Developments around the county. In fact, I mean, I think a lot of people think that maybe we have too much, but you know, I am a believer in the market, and the market will determine how much is too much. But one thing that does come to mind is that these developments have routinely been built and then sold for significant amounts of money per. unit.
You know when you read in the in the paper about some of these uh developments um selling for three and four hundred thousand dollars per per unit. Um, it seems to me like that this increase is not going to have that big of an effect on it. That's that's number one. Number two. David, correct me if I'm wrong, but the ones that are already entitled All they need to do is to uh
poll building permits before this ordinance goes into effect and it wouldn't would not uh Correct?
That's correct, that if they pull a building permit before August tenth, which would be the earliest it could go into effect. Um It would not be subject to these increases. In addition The Planning Commission could recommend a delayed effective date till January one, or the board could recommend a delayed effective date till January. A lot of our impact fee increases tend to take effect on January one. So there's nothing magical about the
August tenth date other than that's the soonest it could happen under state statute. But Is it possible for Planning Commissioner Oakley to recommend a January one effective date? Yes, and that's kind of our historical practice is to implement new fees effective January one.
And if they got their building apartment before that effective date, they would not be subject to these increases. Does that answer your question?
Yeah, it it it does. And so I mean I think that um You know, obviously they'll start with the BCC um And given the fact that, you know, obviously their their final say on it, um I'm I'm more apt to per to support what we've been uh shown here today.
All right. Anything
anybody else have a comment? So I just one more comment, Mr. Chair. Um just a reminder of what your role is on this particular ordinance. Your role is to determine whether the Or did it consistent with the Pasco County comprehensive plan? Um So you need to make a recommendation on that issue one way or the other. Um If you are inclined to send some Additional Comments to the board, we can we can Include that in
in the In your recommendation. But you do need to make an affirmative determination about whether the ordinance is consistent or inconsistent with the comprehensive plan.
Mayorman. Okay. Yes. This is this is Nicario's Pito's planning and development term. Uh I just wanted to uh echo David's comments um and uh mention too that The increase in fees um on the standard table and the you know increase in fees on the moderum T and D and D O D tables results in an encouragement of development to go into these types of Um Patterns such as
the mixed-use trip reduction measures, the tran traditional neighborhood design, uh transportation-oriented development. No that sort of encouragement into Moderam, T N D and T O D is still consistent with the comprehensive plan which we mentioned at the beginning during the presentation. Um the other thing that I just wanted to mention really quick was uh with regard to the West Market area and the redevelopment and vacant land incentives, even for multifamily uh the
standard will still be zero in the in those areas. So they will not pay a fee if it's redevelopment or if it's vacant, um vacant land development. Even if you're going to build a multifamily apartment building, let's say. Um it would still be zero in the West Market area.
And what about single family? I d I don't believe we're we're uh changing anything with regard to single family.
So I'm
trying to
Well,
yeah. Mr. Chair, to be clear, if it's in the West Market area redevelopment area or the Vacant and set down, it's zero even for single family. The board made a very Strong statement that the harbors or west market area should be treated differently. And they're doing everything they can to incentivize development in that area. So the feature whether it's single family or multifamily, if it's in the If it's in that area, it's gonna be zero.
So why are we calling it affordable housing? So I I that's why I want to make sure we're quick. These are two different issues. Okay. so In the West Market area, that that incentive to make the fee zero applies whether it's affordable or market rate or high end. It's it's it's an incentive for the area to encourage it to redevelop and encourage infill in that area. Doesn't matter whether it's affordable
market rate, and it can be million-dollar homes in the West Market area, and it would still be zero because our board wants to send a strong statement that that area is in need of development. Redevelopment, infill development, any form of development. Did it need to it needs a jolt. Regardless of of price. Okay.
Okay. Well that that's that was my major concern because I just don't wanna I don't see where the county benefits from uh reducing the tax base.
Right. So So for the West Market area you gotta treat think about area differently because Most of what we talked about today doesn't apply in the West market area. The West market area is gonna be zero if it's redevelopment or in the incentive zone. It's gonna be zero regardless of the form of development and regardless of the type of development. The affordable housing incentive the affordable affordable housing incentive is really more applicable to the rest of the county. Okay. So that request
is if you have an affordable housing project in Wesley Chapel or Trinity or Northeast Mm-hmm.
Those fees will now be reduced. To zero if they qualify as ship defined affordable housing.
Okay. So uh what are the boundaries of the West Market area?
Um Alexander, do you have a map that shows those boundaries or carry? Can you pull up a map? Is it a map? It's g just generally it's generally everything to the west of Little Road. But that's a very general statement, but The I think Alexander has a map. Or something might have a map.
So it doesn't go as far as forty one.
No,
it does not include forty one. Okay.
I I have the map right here.
Do you want me to just share my screen?
What?
Oh
now I do. Yeah.
So can everybody see my map now? Yep. So these this here is the West Market area. Um as David said, generally Little Road, but it also extends a little further than Little Road. I'm easier.
This is the best mark right here.
Okay. Yeah, is it the does it include the green? Where it says north.
Yeah.
Central is what you see in in this lighter blue color. Uh South Market is this lighter green color here. And of course the market is way out on the east side of the money.
So to answer your question, Mr. Chair, it would not include the area that's in dark green.
Okay. Yeah. Well I don't that that explains it a little bit better to me. I don't feel quite as concerned as I did as It sounded to me in the initial that we were Come encourage just low income housing basically in the West Market Area. So I wonder if you're not going to be able
to I want to be clear, Mr. Chairman it it's this isn't just about trying to encourage low income housing. It's it's a if I had to summarize what the changes are doing for development in the West Market area by racing the incentives in that area. It's trying to encourage more mixed use multifamily in the in the form of TND, T O D, um And it is Also encouraging
affordable housing. That's the third problem of it. But Right. Say that it's only about affordable housing would not be accurate.
And to and to offset those additional incentives another fee increase. The first proposal was that increase would be on standard multifamily.
Yeah, so Just for clarification purposes, I'm sure everybody has Somebody has a besides me has a question. What is a standard multiple?
So Standard multifamily would be Rocco Market rate multifamily
C and D Mixed use, mudderum. Or T U D form of development. And is not affordable and it's not age restricted. It's not a condo, it's not a townhome, not a it it's but all cart grade apartments, basically.
That are not in a in a mixed use form and development.
Okay.
Mr. Chair, uh the caller we had on the phone previously who dropped off is back on the phone. Can we take his call on this item?
It's calling on the this item.
Yes. He had dropped off, he had gotten disconnected and he reconnected.
Okay, we don't have a motion yet, so No, thank do we or did you make a motion, right?
I did not yet. Okay. All right. Okay, yeah, Gus, go ahead.
Okay, so we'll put 'em on. Sir, uh would you please state your name and your address for the record?
I'm sure. My name is Eric Gardunio. I um representing the Bay Area Apartment Association. Our address is PO Box fifteen nineteen fifty eight, Tampa, Florida, three three six eight four, and I'm speaking regarding agenda item P three.
Okay, and we're gonna have the clerk swear you in.
Okay. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give is the truth, so help you God?
I do.
Thank you. And your
three minutes will start now.
Thank you. Uh good afternoon, uh Planning Commission members. Really appreciate this opportunity to speak before you. As noted, I'm representing the Bay Area Apartment Association. We're a not-for-profit trade association, representing the apartment industry in uh Tampa B area. Um I am going to focus my comments uh specifically on removal of incentives for multifamily construction in the urban, suburban, and rural standard categories. I believe my colleague is also online and she'll talk about the affordable housing portion
of the ordinance. Uh we do have concerns about the removal of the incentives. Generally, incentives like these do encourage additional investment in multifamily development. More apartment units out there, uh the the less rent pressures there are generally for everybody in the county. And so removing incentives could could have an unfortunate uh consequence on on just raising prices. um, that I don't think anybody would like to see. Uh but
more importantly I I think, you know, looking at uh what it's doing, i it's removing sensors on three specific categories for multifamily while not Which doing thing about uh dozens of other categories that are in the code Um acorde that deal with things like fast food restaurants Tire stores T categories in there were the only ones being singled out seemed a bit unfair and arbitrary. And uh but speaking uh it's
we're at least as important to have more multifamily as say uh another fast food restaurant. But on top of that, I'd also say One of the things that we Um, we took away from the workshop back in uh February where this coordinates was uh you know, discuss that's the um Data presented during that workshop actually uh indicates that eighty percent of the mobility fees being collected come from the urban, twenty
percent from suburban, and zero from rural. So that tells us that actually the incentives haven't been very effective in in the suburban and not at all effective in the uh urban I'm sorry, rural categories. So if anything, we would we'd ask the commission to consider actually increasing incentives in those areas. Um I think uh the data that we have available to us Do market data research suggests the same thing. Uh the latest information
we have from a source called CoStar says that uh of all the department units that are being developed have recently been developed or or are in planning stages for development, they're all in the urban uh areas except for one. So uh indeed I I think the data points or suggests that uh if there if anything should be done for the r the role and suburban increases of incentives to actually spur investments. Uh it makes a lot of sense.
Your time is up, sir. Did you s your time is up, sir? Did you state that there was someone else on the line or that is it Ms. uh Wendy?
Uh one of my yes, I believe one of my colleagues is also signed up.
It is she on the phone now or because we don't have her waiting in the queue?
Oh. Um She should be signed up and in the queue.
There's no one else in our queue. Okay, there is a person in our queue, but could you at least tell us what the area code, not the person's number, just tell us the area code.
Uh one second. I have the programs.
Because it doesn't it doesn't match eight one three. Eight one three. Okay. That's not the person we have in RQ. Okay, thank you, sir, for your comments.
Um
Is there anybody else to speak then uh Denise?
No, the person we have signed up is not matching the phone number of the person who is on the phone with us right now. Who is waiting in the machine?
Anyone on the board have questions or comments or uh Board of staff or questions from the staff.
I have question and comment.
Uh yeah, go
ahead. Yeah. Um this is Richard Tanella. I wonder if you're not going to be able
I think uh just that whole mobility fee uh there was a lot of time and effort put into it. Now it just seems like we're rushing through it for it's been less than four months. So I think we need to Maybe not rush through this and think about all the implications and Seems like almost with a whack a mole if you push one down, the other one's gonna pop up and Just I think we need to think about this a lot more. The other uh thing I had was a question of David if if I was gonna vote on this or not.
David, is she gonna vote on this?
Um I would say no. It's not it's not affecting the school site. It's not affecting um not an increase in residential density. So I can't think how he would be voting on this.
Yeah, that's another thought. Okay, thank you.
Um
I do think uh there is some merit to that to consider Moving the date back a little bit, if we if we do end up approving this, I think uh Probably it would be um reasonable to give some of these people that are would become unaware of um a long time ago we were getting Financial issues. Um
I would be much more inclined to support it if it
Started at a later date.
Mr. Chairman before you s make any motions, um I don't want the caller who's on the line to not speak just because they may have called in on a different number than they registered for, so Can we ask the caller to identify who they are and if see if it's the same person who registered?
Okay, we'll do that.
And
we're waiting.
Collar. A lot more. Hello. Yeah, yeah.
Collar.
Hello?
Hello? Yes, caller, would you please state your name for the record and your address?
Yeah. This is Wendy, I'm asking no one Kevin. Our address is Theoba. One five one nine five eight
Okay, four.
Okay, and we're gonna have the clerk. Um we're going to have the clerk swear you in.
Do you swear or affirm that the s testimony you're about to give it is a true so help you God?
Did you hear that?
Hello? Mm it wasn't it was a little bit a little bit muffled, I'm sorry.
Do you confirm that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, so Helpy God?
Uh yes.
Thank you.
Okay, your three minutes will start now.
No. Good afternoon, Planning Commission members. Thank you for this opportunity to speak before you today. I am the Vice President of the Bay Area Apartment Association. I'm also a regional manager for Royal American Management. We manage apartment communities throughout the Tampa Bay region, including Pasco County. In addition to the points raised um that I would like to make. Um, according to the twenty nineteen rental market study conducted by the Schwinberg Center
for Housing Studies at the University of Florida, twenty-nine percent of Pasco County population is considered low income and paying more than thirty percent of their income toward housing. This is clear indication that additional affordable housing is needed in our county. Despite this need, it is often a challenge to build affordable multifamily housing between increasing costs for land, labor, and materials that go into buildings and maintaining apartment communities. It is difficult. to keep rent
at a level that low income households can afford without specific incentives provided by government. That is why we are grateful that the draft work reduces mobility impact fee, changes the affordable multifamily construction. Mobility fees are reduced to zero across every zone within the county. According to the National Apartment Association, on average, 14 cents of every dollar charged in rent goes towards government taxes and fees. Reductions
in fees could create the margins that make the difference between a project being built or not. Providing incentives like these is an important proactive measure by local government. Thank you for your consideration. considering our concerns around this reduction of incentives for the market rate multifamily housing. And again, we applaud you for taking steps to better encourage affordable housing development in our county.
Thank you. Thank you for your call.
Okay. So uh any more comments from our board? The question is on the staff.
Mr. Chairman Mari Chris Well, I'll I'll just go on the record of saying that I I'm in agreement with you that uh I I would agreed to this with the delayed um effective
Mr. Chairman Mariano.
Yeah, Michael Cox here. So um I'm gonna move for approval finding it consistent with the comp plan, but recommending to the Board of County Commissioners to with um an effective date, January first, two thousand and twenty-one.
Now it's much better to read. I'll second Chris Pool. Okay, so now we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion of the motion?
All in favor uh by roll call, signify by saying aye.
Jamie Girardi?
Michael Cox.
Aye.
Peter Hansel.
I can't hear you, Peter.
I couldn't you turn your mic on. There you go. Right.
Peter Hansel?
No. No. Okay.
Roberto Saez.
Uh yeah.
Christopher Poole.
I
Chris Williams represented uh Richard Tanello, he's not here, and Chairman Charles Gray.
Yeah, Mr. Tinemel is not voting on this item.
Okay. Chairman Charles Gray.
All right, so I guess the eyes have it. No.
Sound good, Terry?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Okay, welcome home.
Been away for a few days, huh?