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
No Action Required.
DispositionApproved
Approved as part of the Public Hearing Consent Agenda by roll call vote.
The source document
The county’s agenda for Board of County Commissioners, Jun 2, 2020
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
The county’s minutes for Board of County Commissioners, Jun 2, 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 2.
- May 21, 2020PlanningP3▶Approved
- Jun 2, 2020BoardP1▶Approvedthis item
- Jun 16, 2020BoardP1No disposition in the minutes
- Jun 30, 2020BoardP1▶Adopted
What was said
Machine transcription of 31m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 86% of 148 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
Okay, good afternoon. Um Everybody, I'd like to call back to order the Pasco County Board of County Commissioners of June second, twenty twenty. I'd like to remind everybody that Please silence your phones or your electronic devices and mute your microphones. Gonna move on with our public hearing. Um Madam Clerk, do we have proof for item P one?
Yes, item P one was published in the Tampa Bay Times on May twentieth, tw two thousand twenty.
This is an ordinance by the Pasco County Board of County Commissioners amending the Pasco County Land Development Code, Section 1302.
Fee table to decrease mobility fees for ship defined low-income single family and multifamily decreased mobility fees for baker parcel incentive zone area. The other amendments as necessary to ensure internal consistency approved factability repeal subrability inclusion in the Pasco County Land Development Code and effective dates.
And
again this is the first public hearing, so this was an introduction. No action will be required. So Mr. Pitas, I think you're on board.
Mr. Chairman Mariano clarification. It's not introduction. This is the first public hearing.
Oh well thank you for that. I Bad notes, but that's okay.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is Darius Pitos with Planning Development. I'm going to go ahead and turn the mic over to Alexandra Lako, who's the uh project manager. Uh on this on this project.
Okay.
Good afternoon, Commissioner. I apologize. I can't see on my screen if the slides are up.
So we do not see a slide on our end. No. We're
getting up.
Oh okay. 'Cause I was unable to share my screen. So either way
There you go.
Thank you so much. Um As you mentioned, this is the first reading. The second reading and adoption hearing will is scheduled for June 16th and it will also be a virtual meeting. This comes before you out of the February 25th, 2020 BCC workshop where we discussed multifamily and affordable housing. The proposed changes to the mobility fee table
are consistent with the Harbors Redevelopment Plan recommendations to focus redevelopment efforts in the West Market area. Area, as well as the comprehensive plan policies that promote a more efficient use of infrastructure, adequate development, and more efficient growth patterns. On May 21, 2020, the local planning agency found this, in fact, to be consistent with the comprehensive plan and has recommended the approval.
Of these changes to the mobility fee tables to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation that the effective date for the increase of those mobility fees to be changed from August 10th, 2020, which is what is originally in your packet, to a January 1st, 2021 date. It again is for the increase of the fees. The decrease in the fees um would be
effective. Um immediately following the state. Um the this being submitted to the state.
Um those changes are summarized here and in your packet in the following ways. For the urban Um uh tables. The urban standard is the only one that you will see the increase for the multifamily um apartment units. Um the other uh categories of
the single family detached and multifamily shift-defined units, you'll see that the incentive has been increased to a hundred percent. And that will be across all urban tables. The multifamily, again, is only in the urban standard table that you'll see the increase of the fees. Next.
Um this also shows um again the um In the urban table series, there was also a change to the title. uh for table four seven um uh four-five um in order to accommodate the vacant parcel incentive zone fee scheduled to align itself with the redevelopment um fee schedule. So again,
it you'll see the changes for the single family detached and multifamily ship-defined units to be 100% incentivized as well as the vacant parcel incentive zone. Next.
Um here the summary is the same for the suburban, suburban standard. is the only one that you'll see the multifamily increase. Um and the same uh uh an a hundred percent incentivized for the ship defined units um alike urban. Next. Um and and the same for the rural. Uh next. In summary, just
to make clear that the multifamily in the mobility fee tables that will not see an increase to the net fee is the following: the low-rise condominium townhouses, the high-rise condominium, age-restricted multifamily, and congregate care facility. Additionally, the multifamily apartments in Mutterham, TND, or TOD will also not see an increase in the net fee. There
were some uh next. There were some minor text amendments to make sure that it was in line with the table changes, and you'll see these in your packet as well as in these two slides here.
Um and again, uh there's no action required today.
Okay. Um anybody have any questions or do you want me to go ahead and go first to public comment and then come back to the board?
Let's do that.
Okay. Everybody hear me okay?
Yep, good.
Okay, you guys go with that? Okay. So we do have some people signed up to speak. I will go to um the clerk. And uh we'll go from there.
Yes, for item P one we have three people signed. Um and we start with Miss Dominic Hom.
Please state your name and address for the record and start your comment.
Hello, my name is Dominique Cobb. I reside at [address removed], and that is in Tampa, Florida.
Right.
And my comment My comment is I am uh first thank you to Jeffrey Jenkins, the executive planner, um, for letting me speak to him so that I can get a clear understanding of the ordinance um which is ordinance uh one three zero two point two and that is the increase of mobility fees so that affordable and adequate housing can be um in the area. I am in agreement, um with
that ordinance being passed so that um, more families can be attracted to the area and increase the um the living in that area and make sure it's affordable for um others to build in that area.
Well thank you, Ms. Cobb. Anything else, Ms. Cobb?
Um no, just thank you on behalf of Saint Pete College. I am a student of public policy and administration and I just want to thank you all for letting me speak today and also Mr. Jenkins for accepting my call and giving me insightful information.
Okay, thanks so much. Have a great day. We appreciate you.
Thank you. You too.
Okay, Madam Clerk, next person.
Next person. Um the the next two people are from Bay Area Apartment Association. I have Mr. Eric Garduno.
Please state your name and address for the record and start your comment.
Mr. Gardino?
Yeah, sorry about that. My name is Eric Arduño. I am the Government Affairs Director for the Bay Area Partners Association. Our address is PO Box 151958, Tampa, Florida, 33684. I'm here to speak about agenda item P one.
Go ahead.
Um go uh thank you. Uh good afternoon, Commissioners. Thank you for this opportunity to speak. The Bay Area Apartment Association is a not for profit trade association that represents the apartment industry. in the greater Tampa region. We're happy to see this proposal reduces mobility fees for affordable multifamily housing, but we are concerned that it increases fees for multifamily housing in the standard urban, suburban and rural categories. Uh we also note that if this proposal does go forward, we do support the Planning Commission's
recommendation that the higher fees for standard multifamily housing be delayed until twenty twenty one because of the coronavirus. Um it wasn't long ago that the Commission set mobility rates for for the county, which addressed fees for dozens of land use categories. Today's proposal looks to single out multifamily development and seems arbitrary in light of this recent action. Um we also note that uh the February workshop discussing this proposal, it was said that apartments would be built Even if the fees were increased. Uh
according to the county's data that was presented during that workshop though, um uh it showed that twenty percent of the apartment mobility fees collected by the county come from the suburban category and none come from the rural category. To to us that shows that actually for those two categories at least it it seems that more incentives are in line, not less. uh because the people just aren't building there. More importantly though, we are concerned that this action reflects sentiment that discount the importance of apartment communities to
the county. It's growing numbers of millennials, empty nesters, and members of our workforce uh critical workforce like first responders and school teachers uh are renters by choice. Apartments give them your constituents housing options that are comfortable and full of first rate amenities. Uh market data demonstrates actually there's strong demand for apartments in Pasco County with occupancy rates over ninety-two percent for the last ten years. Even as new apartments are added each year. The other thing to keep in mind are are the economic contributions
that apartments make to the county. Each each apartment community represents millions of dollars of investment. and each represents jobs, construction jobs to build them, on-site management to run them, and professional services like plumbers and electricians to fix them. As you consider this proposal, we ask that you please keep in mind the benefits of apartment committees and what they bring to the county. And um with that Uh just to end my comments, thank you again for this opportunity. I I think I
have maybe a colleague also online who will speak a little bit more to the affordable housing uh aspects of the of the proposal. Thank you.
All right, thank you sir for your comments. Um next, Madam Clerk.
The last caller for P one is Ms. Wendy Malenkovic Malenkovic.
I d and I apologize before she goes, I do see um Miss Woolheit is signed up too. Is does she not get on?
She's she's registered on WebEx.
Unfortunately her name was not on the list, but she's on WebEx.
Okay. I I I do have um I do have a list that says for P1. I have Dominic Cobb, Eric Cardino, um the next person, Wendy Melinvi Milinkovich, and I have Barbara Wilhite. That's on my list for public comment. So
Just letting you know.
But let's go ahead with the next person up and then I'll let you guys figure that out.
Please state your name and address for the record and start your comment.
Yes, hello. My name is Wendy Mellon Kevage. I am representing the Bay Area Apartment Association.
When I'm speaking on item P one.
Good afternoon, Commissioner. Thank you for this opportunity to speak before you today. I am the Vice President of the Bay Area Apartment Association. I am also a regional manager for Royal American Management. We manage apartment communities throughout the Tampa Bay region, included in Pasco County. In addition to the points raised by my colleague, we also want to commend work done on the draft ordinance as it relates to affordable housing. According to the 2019 rental market survey conducted by the
Shimbro Center for Housing Study at the University of Florida, 29% of Pasco County's population is considered low income and pay more than 30% of their income towards housing. This is c a 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 cost of land, labour and materials that go into buildings and maintaining apartment
communities. It is difficult to keep rents. 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 to affordable multifamily construction. Mobility fees for affordable housing 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. Reduction 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 considering our points around this important of multifamily housing to the people of Pasco County. And again, we applaud you for taking steps to better
encourage affordable housing development in our county. Thank you.
Thank you, ma'am. Um did we figure out if Ms. Woolheit is on the line?
Yes, sir.
Pardon me?
Yes sir. She's actually on WebEx, so She can hear us.
Oh okay.
Good afternoon, Commissioners. I apologize for the confusion because I'm also an applicant. I'm on WebEx. And I didn't know how to be on both at the same time 'cause on my phone ha you're on my phone and my computer. So I guess I'm gonna participate by WebEx and thank you.
Yeah, I got worried when you didn't say it. I was like and I was I was communicating with Denise about what did I do wrong, because that's very likely with all this this technology. I am here to on behalf of Crown Community Development. by long term client. Um they have the Watergrass project uh at Curley Road and Overpass and the Chapel Crossing project at 54 in Curley. Watergrass was entitled in 2004, always had a requirement for multifamily. in their town center, which now
they have uh worked with the county to become a business center called Promenade Business Center. They have a pending deal after all these years, since two thousand four to to two thousand twenty, sixteen years later, after a huge investment in the project, they have a pending deal for a multifamily um uh development. And midstream here they get notice that you're intending to take away the incentive which effectively increases their fees, the mobility fees for that project by seventeen percent. It
seems like an unintended consequence because your stated goal was the urban service area and and trying to specifically target um disincentivizing apartment projects along the 5456 corridor from 41 to 581. And it seems like this project has now got wrapped up into in that in that effort, um, i to the detriment of of something that they didn't do anything wrong. They followed the entitlements um that they were actually required by Mr. Gallagher
to put on that property as a as a town center back in uh 2004. They also have the Chapel Crossings project was entitled in 2015. Again has a multifamily component as an entitlement. They have a pending, finally have a pending contract on that. and now they've have a we're proposed seven percent increase. So it comes as quite a shock to them. Um they haven't done anything but what you approved over the years and moving forward with their projects, they've been great partners with the county. They pr Seven Oaks is an outstanding community. So
is Watergrass Chapel will be as well. So I know Planning Commission delayed the effective date or recommended that you all delay the effective date 'til January one. Problem with that is that doesn't really um if you have a pending deal that hasn't even gotten to a submittal of a site plan, there's no way to get building permits submitted by that deadline. So I would like to see some kind of consideration for this scenario and so that Crown uh doesn't get hurt um as you try to re-prioritize
and and re incentivize where you want future development.
Thank you, Ms. Wilhite. And uh correct that was the last person. Three of us. Okay. All right guys, put it um I guess go back to staff now.
I will I will Wait for you guys to fix the um camera there.
Um You're believing poor Miss Will hide up there.
It's whoever talks next. So somebody has to talk for it to change. Okay.
Okay, so we heard from our from our um I know I'm just going back to the workshop that we had. Um And we seemed uh everybody was in agreement to move forward with this. Staff, I appreciate the job you did. You followed our direction um exactly as we gave it to you. Um just uh going back to some of the comments that were made. Um
I mentioned the a certain area personally around that fifty-four-fifty six corridor, but there was other commissioners that had concerns about other areas. I know Commissioner Oakley had concerns. I'll let you guys speak for yourselves, but just want to bring that up. Going down further into Zephyrhills and area, Commissioner Starkey mentioned she had concerns going all the way up into if I'm not correct Odessa, but I'll let her state that hersel. But I know what the Planning Commission did. Um I watched the video of the Planning Commission meeting. I'm just gonna be a hundred percent honest with you. I don't know if they fully
understood what was going on. I thought I saw some confusion there. I felt there was confusion. To be honest with you. Um, you know, I I think the date needs to be set. I'm talking to staff. I mean, we could get this done and easily you know, by the in September, if not the uh first of September by the end of uh September. But With that I saw Commissioner Starkey's hand up, I think, if I'm I'm not correct, I think I saw her hand up.
Yeah, so I had a couple questions for Barbara. Um Barbara, if they're doing a multifamily in a downtown called Promenade, wouldn't that get the be exempt because of the TOD requirement?
Wait um we're at this is not uh she's not this is an ordinance, guys. We can't talk to um speakers.
Okay, let me ask Jeff. Jeff, um So I I thought I read in here or the planner um that That A multifamily within a T O D does get the discount. Am I misreading that?
That's my understanding, but I think David's on the line. He can answer that question for you.
There's no increase for You Yeah Yeah, Moder on And we have had discussions with Barbara about her her client qualifying for the Mudderham Rip if he does he would not put it to the increase.
Okay. Um I also wanted to say that I do recall in the conversation that Um All right. Felt that the nineteen corridor and um holiday and anything east of west of Gun Highway, I think is where we put the line. Still needs. Some multifamily um and would love to see some redevelopment of multifamily. So I thought we were stopping this line at Dighway.
David Gold and Smark area
David, we can't hear you. We're gonna you're gonna need to fix that, buddy.
Wesley now? I can't the web market error no For redevelopment, the fee is already zero.
And this ordinance will also these throw of course vacant parcels in the Westmarket area as well. Okay. Let me have half
of those
if you
want to see it. Dave David, we cannot hear you. You're having technical difficulties.
Okay, so there's so just to stop what you said, um multifamily within a mudderum or to is still incentivized, the wealth market is still incentivized, and low income is still incentivized, and the way we're getting money to build the low income of workforce housing is with the offset of the um discount that we were given before. Correct? Correct. So I think it's
important that we do raise some of this money. I if my fellow board members felt this way, I would be okay with maybe Uh Say it in suburban um A fifty percent or twenty five percent incentive for a little while and see what we get and then You know, maybe have it sunset in three years or something if you wanted to um incentivize it a little bit but um
Why?
Throwing it out there for discussion.
Um I mean, you know, I I thought we were in pretty much agreement at our workshop, so I don't I don't know why we're Change it. But you know, and one of the things we talked about was, you know, the issues along those corridors and wanting to keep and have um job creating sites. And if somebody says it's gonna discourage them from building a from Those apartments and Well, guess what? It goes then it goes commercial or office, which is better. It's better for the community, it's better for the county, it's better for a long term. Um
Again, I mean I I don't I can I don't wanna beat a dead horse, my everybody knows my opinion on it. Anybody have anything else to say? Or any questions?
So I just wanted to make clear that we don't have a a different boundary as um discussed in the workshop for the mobility fee. So the mobility fee map stays the same in terms of urban, suburban, rural. There isn't a further delineation as perhaps um Ms. Wilhite suggested, you know, if it's outside of that boundary. Along the corridor between 41 and 301, or something like that. That is not in this ordinance. I just wanted
to clarify that.
But I thought that's what was discussed at the workshop that we would um say from Gun Highway West was not um being targeted for disincentivizing.
Commissioner Starkey, this is uh Nicario Speakers with Planning and Development. Um, I think what you're referring to there is the land use part of the discussion that was at the workshop. But with regard to the mobility fees, um it was uh the direction we re we received was to address the mobility fee tables, which apply countywide.
In the various categories, urban, suburban and rural.
Yeah.
Um Mr. Petos.
If this is adopted How soon can we get this? implemented. What's the early September first, October first? What'd you What? Or David.
Well i if the mobility fee uh ordinance amendments here get adopted the earliest I believe is August of tenth. And at the Planning Commission the discussion was with the recommendation to begin it on January first, twenty twenty one. mean
we still we we're gonna lose Uh job creating sides we're gonna we're gonna add six more months to it, but That Um Mr. Mariano.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So I'm I'm not sure if I quite understood with Chapel Crossings and Watergrass. I mean we we planned the promenade of town center in there which is appropriate for it. Is that going to work from what has been designed or no? Can I get an answer from either David or Jeff?
So Staff? Already had this box for about Common A Business Center qualifying as a Mudderum project.
Okay.
If it qualifies as a muttering project, it will not be subject to
Okay. Thank you.
Anything else from everybody else?
Okay. So we're all good with how it stands then?
Yes, sir.
Yeah.
Dan and I spoke yesterday, I know one issue could be when you mentioned Terry, you mentioned August tenth, is that I think um the team would probably prefer that it's at the beginning of a month and make life a little bit easier for everybody. So it's say you say as soon as it'd be August tenth, so we might have to, even though I only pushing it back, we might have to look at September I guess first instead of August. Is that true, Dan? Is that what you told me? Yeah.
first of the month is always easier than a day in the middle of the month for something like this. So whether it's September first, October first, That's always easier from an implementation standpoint.
Okay. Again, I'm gonna make it easy on the team. Is everybody good with September first?
Great.
All right, thank you all. No action at this time.
Yeah, your second hearing on this will be on June sixteenth at one thirty PM and you'll still be doing them as virtual meetings.
Thank you, Mr. Steinsnyder. I appreciate it. And then P two, Madam Clerk.
2/2Taken up again at Session 1, 1:01:41
them. um the d decrease immediately and wait on the increase. But according to um Mr. Bios, it would be easier to do both at once because it'd only be a couple weeks apart. And um it'd be more of a challenge for them to have to do one in two weeks and the next one in two weeks because implementing the code in a cell does take some time. So is everybody good with the increase and decrease being the same date on nine one so they don't have to
split it?
Ms. Chairman Mariano.
Yes, please go ahead, sir.
I I would like to see the decrease happen right away.
Okay. So the early
that's gonna happen
so yeah so if the decrease happened right there there could be financial just you know there could be financial implications too of doing the increase the decrease right away without the um increase being done, just to let you know. That is a possibility. So you'd be looking at doing the earliest August 15th, which they do prefer to do at the beginning of the month, that of the decrease, then two weeks later the increase would happen.
Commissioner Starkey you said okay on that?
Yeah.
Okay. Everybody's okay? Consistence? Commissioner Weightman? Yeah, okay. We're all good then. So 9-1 increase and increase, which will be brought back to us at the next commission meeting. So thank you everybody for that. Um I
wouldn't call it an increase. I would call it a removal of the incentives.
I that's I would agree with you. How well? Commissioner Yeah is what it is actually it's not an increase. Okay, P eight. Um petition in your direction there, Mr. Biles. That's what you need, right?
Yeah, yes, sir. Thank you. That's what we needed.