These are the jobs you may not see every day.

But just know we're working hard to make Hillsborough County a better place to live, work, and play.

Subscribe to our YouTube page for more Great County related videos.

Only on HTV.

Good morning, and welcome to the December 9th, 2025 Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners Land Use Meeting.

Would everyone please rise for the pledge and invocation given by our traveling commissioner Gwyn Myers.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic.

Oh Heavenly Father, as we come to our last meeting of the year, we thank you for all that you have allowed us to accomplish this year.

For every applicant who submitted an application that was approved, and for every applicant that we sent back that we did not approve, and hopefully they will have the opportunity to resubmit in 2026.

Thank you for our staff and what they have led us and given us doing this year.

Bless everyone that is here.

We know you are the reason for the season.

And I say thank you.

In your holy name I pray, Amen.

Thank you, Commissioner Myers.

Uh Mr.

Grady, we're reviewing changes to the agenda.

Good morning, Commissioners Brian Grady, Hillsborough County Development Services.

In addition to the withdrawals, continuances and remands on the published agenda beginning on page three of the agenda.

We have uh actually two changes of the agenda.

The first uh as listed on the addendum is on page agenda page nine, item E3, PRS 26-0008.

Uh staff is requesting this item to be continued to the January 13th uh 2026 border BOCC land use meeting at 9 a.m.

In addition, we've just been advised to the applicant for agenda item E1, which is uh PRS 25-1360.

They would like to request a continuance of their application to the January 13th, 2026 BOC land use meeting and the applicants here if you'd like to hear from them regarding that request.

Okay, clear motion to approve the changes.

So moved.

Commissioner Willstill second Commissioner Myers, please record your vote, changes the agenda.

Come here, motion to approve the consent.

So moved.

Motion uh Commissioner Willstone second Commissioner Myers for the consent agenda.

Please record your vote.

Welcome back to 70.

Okay.

So uh if anyone here it's for a B item, your application's been approved.

Uh if you're planning on testifying today, will you please uh stand, raise your right hand so the clerk can swear you in?

Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Thank you.

Okay, Mr.

Grady, I'm gonna do introduce the first item.

Commissioners, uh, with the continuance of E1.

The first item then is agenda item E2, PRS application 26-0005.

This is a request for a minor modification to a uh parcel within a larger PD that's located at the uh southeast corner of uh Cummington uh Garden Drive and Big Ben Road west of I-75.

Uh the requ the request includes a number of changes, including modification of the circulation design, stormwater locations, uh, maximum number of townhome units, and permitted location of the CI zoning district uses with respect to the relocation of the CI zoning district uses uh along the in the southeast corner.

They are required to have CG uses to provide a transition from uh for from the CI zoning district uses that are allowed in the in the balance of the property.

Uh the request includes commitment for a large storewater pond along this along that southern boundary, which provides for significant setback of uses along that boundary.

Therefore, staff is recommending approval of that change as well as the other changes to the request, and we're available for any questions.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

The applicant here.

Good morning.

Good morning, Cammy Corbett with the law firm of Hill Ward and Henderson.

I don't have anything further to add.

I'm here to answer any questions.

Should you have any?

Any proponent testimony?

Anyone here in support?

Any opponent testimony?

Can we motion approval?

Second.

Motion Commissioner Cohen.

Second Commissioner Wolstall.

Uh please record your vote on E2.

Motion carried seven to zero.

Mr.

Grady.

Commissioners, the next item is agenda item F1 rezoning PD uh 25-0929.

Uh, this is a request to rezone an 8.34 acre parcel uh on the uh south side of Memorial Highway, uh, west of uh the uh Veterans Expressway and the uh the airport.

Uh the request is rezoned the property from business professional office to plan development uh to provide for uh 71 units consisting of a mix of uh townhomes and single family detached.

Uh staff is recommending approval.

Uh Planning Commission found a consistent hearing also recommended approval and staffs developed for any questions.

Thank you.

Okay, is the applicant here.

Good morning, Cami Corbett with the law firm of Hill Ward and Henderson this morning representing Matamy Homes.

I have a brief presentation that I'd like to go through.

It's a little bit repetitive of what staff did, but I just want to show you some more graphics.

Subject properties on Memorial Highway.

The existing zoning is BPO with a future land use of R20.

We have 71 total units.

We're proposing 54 townhome lots on the easternmost boundary of the site, and on the western side, we have 17 single family dwelling units.

We are actually providing a transition from the R20 to the east, uh, which is developed at 16 units of the acre, and we are at 8.51 units the acre, so uh more than 50 percent less than what's allowed if by the curning current future land use.

Uh there are a variety of comprehensive plan policies in support of this application, which are sub uh in your planning commission report, and you will hear from them showing that this development is consistent and compatible with the comprehensive plan.

We have no objections from reviewing agencies, and it's been found consistent and compatible and also approvable subject to conditions.

Uh we are showing a we have a similar separation from existing single family to what exists today, and actually greater in some instances uh to the sweetwater subdivision directly to the west.

Uh we are asking for relief from the requirement that we increase the setback every two feet for one foot from the property line, only on the eastern boundary, though, and that's where we have the townhomes.

And we actually are comfortable with that because we have an 80-foot separation in between the townhomes and the multi-family.

Uh that allows us to provide a greater setback along the western edge.

If we were to not get relief from the two to one setback, we would have to shift the townhomes and then shift the single family closer to the canal.

So we thought overall, this was a more thoughtful design.

Uh, one reality about this site, it is zone BPO, which is commercial zoning, which means it is eligible for live local.

Uh, what you see is an illustrative site plan showing uh a layout that would comply with RM24 zoning district, and so that would be eligible for up to 35 units to the acre under Live Local.

That's not something Matamy would consider, but it is something that is eligible for this site.

Uh there were some concerns expressed in the record about wetland impacts.

This shows the wetland line, and you can see that our development, our site development does not impact the wetlands in any way.

Uh Abby Naylor, our biologist, is here.

Should you have any questions specifically regarding that, but we are not proposing any wetland impacts.

Uh we also heard some concerns about traffic, uh, but uh Steve Henry, our transportation engineer who is here, testified at the zoning hearing master that given that the site was zoned BPO, we are a significant reduction to the traffic that will be generated from this driveway.

Um and then lastly, we heard a lot about uh the the canal and the status of the canal and dredging.

That's not really before you this morning.

That's not something we're directly related to the zoning.

This is a canal front property.

Anyone that owns that property has reparian rights.

The status of the dredging is something that would be permitted and reviewed by other agencies, and that's not before you this uh this evening or this morning.

I'm sorry.

Uh got my time's mixed up.

Um ultimately the zoning hearing master heard the concerns of the residents and ultimately recommended approval, and we'd be asking the same of you this morning.

Thanks.

All right, thank you.

That time this time, any proponent testimony, anyone in support?

Any opponent testimony?

Anyone in opposition, please come forward.

Oh good.

Can we leave that map up?

You have to go first.

Oh, I didn't know the rule.

Hi, good morning.

My name's Rick Norgart.

I'm one of Jack's neighbors.

Uh I live at 4213 Saltwater Boulevard directly across from the property.

I've been there over 20 years, and my wife and I are very much for it.

Um we'd like to see capitalism work.

I feel that if people build their homes and have their home there, they're gonna take a lot better care of the property than some businessmen, maybe from Canada or Brazil or wherever.

And the the canal has been woefully neglected for my 20 years there.

Just we became many times a sewer from the properties up north, sewer breaks, everything else.

Um through the good work of Jack and the county.

About five, six years ago, we all chipped in and had a dredge, but the hurricane, Mother Nature fixed that last year real good.

And you know, people that have waterfront property pay a higher rate of taxes because the property is worth more.

That's fair, but we haven't been able to use our property much the last 20 years because all the silt from farther north, because whatever happened, the silt came down and it's ruined the boating.

And you know, it's one of our most precious resources in Florida.

People come to Florida for the water and the lifestyle and the boating.

We become a boating hub.

You know, big companies like Zuzuki and Marine Max have moved here because of voting, and we're not keeping the boating up.

We it's it's a precious natural resource, and we need to take care of it, all of us.

But my wife and I are 100% for it.

I want to see capitalism work.

I feel that people that are gonna own their live there are gonna have more responsibility than the like across the street in Memorial where they got a smoke shop and they're selling whatever that the drugs and all this other stuff.

We don't need any more commercial property over there.

And I saw how it worked farther down our neighborhood where the the shriners sold their land and they put homes in there.

That area is developed beautifully.

So we have a good roadmap.

I trust capitalism.

I trust people that own their own homes a lot more than I trust a business and what you know.

When you're in business like me, it's about dollars and cents and bottom line a lot of times.

But homeowners, it's your home.

And I want to trust homeowners.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you, sir.

Appreciate your comments.

All right, now those in opposition.

Good morning.

All right, my name is Jack Berlin.

I live at 4207 Saltwater Boulevard, directly uh on Sweetwater Creek.

Um I'm gonna go through this, but I'm not an opposition of building on this property.

What I heard them say was this is not the zoning board's responsibility.

Now it's not the OCC's responsibility, but once this property is built, it cannot be used for dredging.

So it's like punt, punt, punt.

There's no other option build.

Um some of you may know me, I've been around a long time.

So 30 years ago in 1995, the Hillsborough County stormwater officials looked out at Sweetwater Creek and said to a group of us, we need to fix this.

We are still waiting.

The Scottish right not only did not help, but actually hampered our creek dredging efforts over the years.

It was sweetwater homeowners that paid the plant their property, that paid to install fencing and signage to protect the wetlands area.

While they ignored the creek and maintenance of their own fencing.

Now that open field is the only economical means of dredging Sweetwater Creek.

How ironic.

I repeat what I said at the zoning hearing.

I am not opposed to developing this property.

I am suggesting that this development make modifications and offer protections before being allowed to proceed.

As the EPC and other agencies have pointed out, Lower Sweetwater Creek is an environmental disaster.

Not just the creek itself, but the entire watershed and its often flooded drainage area and ultimately upper Tampa Bay, it dumps into sediment into.

At the zoning hearing, I asked for more buffer and protections for the wetlands, to which their nice paid expert responded, no need, we're taking care of the wetlands.

Pull a few Brazilian peppers and all will be fine.

I was not given the opportunity to refute, even given my 20-year involvement with Hillsburg County conservation.

It is my bet that said expert did not inspect or notice the footpaths, the beer cans, the trash, the feral animals, and even campsites in that so-called protected wetland.

I suggested that the proposed density was too high, with 19 docks across from where our neighborhood has nine.

8.5 homes per acre versus sweet waters 4 per acre.

But the experts looked at the adjoining apartment density and said, it's all good.

So I suggested, given the apartment road abuts the proposed townhomes, that the existing infrastructure be used in order to save more green space.

No comment.

But I assume the new townhomes will be well protected from those apartments wanting not to associate with them at all.

So let me summarize.

They look east for density approval, but not for neighbors.

They look west for docks, but not for water.

They look north for a road, but not for easy access, which just leaves looking south for wetlands to play in.

It is my request is the following.

Prior to allowing the development of Scottish Wright property, complete the county dredge project on Lower Sweetwater Creek before utilizing this waterfront.

Increase and enhance the wetland set setback on the south end of the project.

Lower the density of residents by increasing the setbacks between homes.

Ours are 15 feet.

They propose 10 for this development.

Face the multifamily project eastward utilizing existing driveway.

Thank you for your time today.

Thank you, Mr.

Berlin.

This time Albucant has a five-minute rebuttal.

Tammy Corbett with Hill Ward Henderson.

Um, we are looking to the existing future land use of the exact property that we're talking about.

We're not looking east and saying that's multifamily to the east, and we should have something dense here.

We have residential 20 future land use.

We are proposing 8.51 units the acre.

We are a significant reduction to what's already allowed.

And since he somewhat somewhat tried to impugn Miss Naylor's uh character, I'm going to ask her to come up and testify as to the wetlands issues.

Good morning, Abby Naylor, 14706, Tudor Chase Drive, Tampa, Florida, with Naylor Environmental Solutions.

Um yeah, I just wanted to speak to the wetlands on site.

Uh where in the graphic where it says project boundary, kind of that yellow line along the west side.

That's all all seawall right now in its existing condition.

And the south side is where the seawall kind of uh fades out and and it's uh predominantly mangroves, which are more with a more natural shoreline.

You can see the what where the wetland line is on the on the site.

We are we're not impacting the wetland.

We are maintaining um buffers, and there is a there is a high density of Brazilian pepper, and and uh Mr.

Burlin is right.

I mean, like any um kind of coastal area, you get drift.

Trash does enter there, there are beer cans or things, but that kind of unfortunately occurs along any type of tidal coastal area.

Um, I think with the improvements proposed, homeowners take care of take care of their land.

I think that will actually be an improvement and be cleaned up, and we are going to be removing the nuisance exotics, and that's actually a requirement of the of the county's code, where we'll have to implement an invasive management plan under and when we get to site plan approval.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Thank you.

Again, looking looking at the totality of the evidence, I think that you will find that this proposed request is consistent and compatible with the future land use.

We are providing a reduction in density.

We have been sensitive.

We are transitioning from multifamily to town homes to single families, and we would respectfully request your approval this morning.

All right, thank you.

Planning commission.

Thank you.

Good morning.

The subject property is located within the residential 20 future land use category.

The site is in the urban service area, and the subject plan is located or subject property is located within the limits of the town and country community plan.

The site is located within the coastal high hazard area per future land use section policy 3.1.3.

Um per policy 2.2.3.5 density bonuses are not applicable to properties within the CHHA.

The applicant is not requesting a density bonus and is therefore consistent with this policy direction.

With 8.34 acres and a density maximum of 20 dwelling units per gross acre in the residential 20 future land use category, the site could be considered for up to 166 dwelling units.

With 71 units proposed at a density of 8.51 dwelling units per gross acre, the request is well under the maximum that may be considered for the site, which is in keeping with adopted policy direction.

The proposal meets the intent of future land use section objective 4.4 and policy 4.4.1 that require new development to be compatible to the surrounding neighborhood.

In this case, the surrounding land use pattern is comprised mostly of a public, quasi-public institutional, single-family, and multifamily use development pattern.

Policy 4.4.1 states that any density or intensity increase shall be compatible with existing proposed or planned surrounding developments.

Development and redevelopment shall be integrated with adjacent land uses through the creation of like uses or the creation of complementary uses.

The proposal meets the intent of these of this policy direction as there are residential developments made up of similar housing types in the immediate area.

There are no goals or strategies outlined in the town and country community plan that apply to this request.

Based upon those considerations, planning commission staff finds the proposed plan development consistent with the unincorporated Hillsborough County comprehensive plan, subject to the conditions proposed by development services.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The zoning hearing master review the applicant's request for a rezoning from BPO business professional office to the Plan Development Zoning District for the development of 71 single-family attached and detached dwelling units consisting of 17 single-family detached homes and 54 town homes.

This will equate to a residential density of 8.5 dwelling units per acre, which is under the 20 dwelling units per acre that could be considered under the Res 20 future land use category.

No waivers of plan develop of plan development or variations are being requested.

The property is currently developed with the Tampa Scottish Wright Masonic Center, located on the south side of Memorial Highway along the east side of Sweetwater Creek.

The county's transportation review staff stated in their comments that the development would reduce the vehicular daily trips by 2,116 trips when compared to the approved entitlements under the current BPO zoning district.

The applicant's environmental consultant testified that there will be no impacts to the existing wetlands.

The zoning hearing master concluded that the rezoning request to plan development for the development of 71 single family attached and detached dwelling units is compatible with the overall development pattern in the area and consistent with the comprehensive plan.

The conclusion of the ZHM was a recommendation of approval.

Okay, going to board discussion.

Commissioner Wolfson.

Thanks, Mr.

Chair.

I just like to always make a comment if someone does come and speak in opposition so that to make sure they don't feel unheard.

Um Mr.

Berlin, I I regrettably don't know you, and I um don't want to be the causation for ruining your Hanukkah or Christmas, but the reality is is that the comp plan is already have this as res 20, and when I see an opportunity to reduce density, it I mean it's the number one thing we're begged for is to avoid these high density developments.

And and the reality is that this site is at much greater risk of being significantly higher four-story apartments overlooking your backyard as is the way I see it.

And and I know it's complicated.

I would say though that if it is easily verified that this was just dredged prior to the storms, that there's no way that this redredging um wouldn't be applicable to the CDBG DR funds.

Um, and I believe that if the community did just use um their personal money to dredge this, that we should be using those taxes to um cure this creek.

So if someone could route that up to Bonnie when it comes time, hopefully very soon that we start allocating those dollars.

I believe that we should offer that relief to this area.

Um but uh um I see Commissioner Cohen is um is cued after me and it's it's his district, so I'll I won't make a motion.

I'll I'll let him speak first.

But I would say that I I have to support it, Mr.

Berlin, just because I know you if you stay for the very next items when we talk about the live local report, um, you're gonna hear where I'm coming from on this site.

It's a huge issue that's targeting our communities, and it would it would be way more abusive to you than a some very nice, probably high-income homes across the river from you.

So I will be advocating though, and making sure um in my power that we use some of those DR funds to redredge this area, that you just spent your own money.

Um, but for many reasons, I I have to support the um the lower density that's being offered to us today.

So, sir, this isn't time for you.

You had your opportunity to speak.

I'd be happy to talk to you afterwards, though, Mr.

Berlin.

Thank you.

Uh Commissioner Cohen.

Thank you very much, um, Mr.

Chair.

And and um, Commissioner Wassel, I I'll pick up where you left off, I I think.

Um first of all, um, the the issue of the dredging really isn't in front of us at this moment, but it's important to point out uh all of us have advocated for money for dredging and water quality projects to improve um the whole entire situation in Upper Tampa Bay.

We get reports regularly about the problem of of all of the water that flows down.

There are projects in the work, including uh one directly involving Sweetwater Creek.

We did Baycrest recently, and I think Commissioner Wastel, I'll just say I look forward very much, and I'm sure the residents do, to your support of using the CDBG money for this type of purpose, because it's certainly an appropriate one.

There are a couple of things I that I would point out about this.

First of all, um I am always uh when this particular area is the subject of a development request.

Always um there is the issue of the coastal high hazard area that is very serious that has to be overcome.

But the the issue here is that uh not only are they asking for about half of the density that they would be entitled to, but we have a state law that Commissioner Wostall uh referenced, uh the Live Local Act, that would give them an automatic entitlement to something much larger, much more intrusive and and much more dense than what they are proposing.

And they would be able to get that as of right without having to even come here for a hearing.

Um the other thing is that it's already proposed for it it's already allowed to have commercial development on the property.

So even if nothing happened, it it would have the possibility of being something much more obtrusive.

I agree that single family residential on the canal is the best possible chance to make sure that the canals get maintained properly, because as the other speaker mentioned, people are going to be investing in their homes and caring very much about what's going on back there.

So for that reason, um and and and those reasons alone, I am gonna make a motion to support it.

We are going to continue to follow through, however, on the dredging projects that are scheduled and planned for this area.

And um, you know, we can't control Mother Nature, and unfortunately, a lot of the good work that was done prior to the hurricanes is going to have to be is going to have to be redone.

But it doesn't mean that we still don't have a responsibility to do it.

So uh with that, like I said, I'm gonna make a motion for approval, and I do think that this is ultimately uh a good outcome for this property, because it's uh I think much more in keeping with the general character of the neighborhood than what some of the other possibilities would be.

Second.

Okay, we've got a motion to approve by Commissioner Cohen, second Commissioner Wolstall.

I don't see anyone else in the queue, so please record your vote.

Motion carries seven and zero.

All right, thank you.

Mr.

Grady.

Next item.

Commissioners, the next item is the staff item, the the uh monthly uh status report on live local active element projects.

As noted in the report, we had two new applications uh filed for uh since the last uh update.

And staffs are built for any questions.

Thank you.

I thank you.

Commissioner Wilson.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um board, I'd like to point out that one of the new items on this live local report is exact location that in a bipartisan effort between myself and Commissioner Cohen.

We presented salient, reasonable arguments about why we denied that location.

We had comments from emergency management, um, a variety of other reasons.

I pointed out that our affordable housing um requirements of the comprehensive plan requires it to be on a bona fide fixed transit route.

That that time the applicant had pointed to a PSTA route across the street that's not even um in our county.

Um and for those many reasons.

I intentionally added an item onto the agenda prior to the draft agenda going out for all of you to see because of sunshine to give you all ample time to have discussions with our new county attorney um on the direction that I hope to proceed on the December 17th board meeting.

I believe that um this item on Sheldon Road and Gunn Highway intentionally disrespects the three countywide commissioners and Commissioner Hagen in District 2.

I believe that the um renewal of the racetrack um Hillsborough site intentionally disrespects the three countywide commissioners and commissioner Cohen of District 1.

I believe that the six story and four story apartments in Apollo Beach intentionally disrespects the district four commissioner and all three of the county wide commissioners, and I think that it's time for us to respond to the legislature on those issues on December 17th.

So I hope you have ample time to do your due diligence before that on that item.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

All right, appreciate your comments.

Uh don't see anyone else in the queue.

Can we have a motion to start the report?

So moved.

Motion Commissioner Wolstall.

Sign Commissioner Cohen.

Please accord your vote.

Motion carries seven to zero.

Okay.

So one meeting down, two more to go.

So we'll adjourn the land use meeting and then commence the LDC public hearing.

Uh good morning and welcome to the second of two public hearings on a proposed amendment for the county's land development code.

Uh the board will hear will vote on the proposed amendment after the close of uh today's public hearing.

Uh the board will also consider approval of a related amendment to the development review procedures manual.

So with that, I'll pass it over to staff for the introduction.

Good morning.

Staff is a monsiato present this item.

Thank you.

Good morning, Commissioners.

Uh Israel Monsanto Development Services.

Uh, we only have one item in this agenda, uh, and there is also the related D RPM uh amendment.

Uh LDC 260189, implementation of the requirements for Senate Bill 154 for certified recovery residences.

This amendment will uh provide procedural requirements for reasonable accommodations requests for certified recovery residences that are necessary to implement uh the chapter 2025 182.

Uh state legislation requires now that the county to adopt an ordinance that establishes procedures for review and approval uh for certified recovery residences within its jurisdictions, and this also includes consideration uh for procedures of request for reasonable accommodations from land development co regulations that would prohibit the establishment of a certified recovery residence.

The original accommodation is a waiver to our requirement of board policy that allows disabled persons to use the residential plan.

Um code part 2020 of the of the land development code will add section uh new section 2020 seven procedure for the review and approval of certified recovery residences, uh, and these will specify the requirements and review procedures.

Also, the like like we stated the development uh review procedures manual is gonna be updated, section 9.8 to add those procedures uh for the review process.

Um these item went to the planning commission meeting uh yesterday, and it was found consistent with a comprehensive plan.

And that concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

Uh, this is a public hearing.

What do you want like to speak to the item?

Seeing none, um, can we have a vote on the adoption of ordinance uh for amendment to the LDC?

So moved.

Motion Commissioner Wolstall signed Commissioner Cohen.

Don't sit in the queue, please record your vote motion carries seven to zero.

Second item.

The second item is an amendment to the development review procedures manual.

Uh this includes some procedural elements to this amendment uh as required by state law regarding uh submission of documents related to uh a reasonable accommodation request.

This would be adopted by uh resolution.

There is no public hearing necessary for this item.

Okay.

Any other staff comments or move resolution?

Second.

Okay.

Motion to approve uh Commissioner Cohen, send Commissioner Wilson.

Don't see anyone else in the queue, please accord your vote.

Motion carries seven to zero.

All right, so we'll adjourn the LDC amendment hearing and commence our final uh meeting of the board workshop.

Uh this is the first of two public workshops on the proposed water and wastewater impact fees.

Today's workshops uh for presentation and discussion only, and no action or vote will be taken today.

So now I'll pass things over to staff for a brief introduction.

That's good.

Good morning, George.

I don't ever remember seeing you sit up here with us.

This will be a new experience for me.

Don't worry, we're gonna well thank you, Mr.

Chair, and good uh good morning, Commissioners.

Um today we've got the first of two workshops planned for the proposed increases to the water and wastewater impact fees.

The workshop is dedicated to extraordinary circumstances necessitating the need to exceed the phased in limit for the South Central Service.

Um as you know, the Florida Impact Fee Act uh has very strict guidelines on how you can increase an impact fee.

Uh there's a zero to 25 percent um level, there's a 25 to 50 percent level, and then anything over a 50 percent requires uh a pretty extensive discussion and also review of the extenuating circumstances that gets us there.

Uh we have a short presentation plan for you.

Lisa Ray with our water resources department and also uh Ednie Bur Andy Burnham with uh Stantec, who is our impact fee consultant, will make a presentation and then there will be a brief board discussion if you so choose.

All right, thank you, George.

Good morning.

Good morning, uh Lisa Ray, Director of Water Resources.

So just real quick, an impact fee is a one-time fee paid to connect new customers to help cover the cost of expanding the water and wastewater system, so that in a sense growth pays for itself.

Uh in Hillsborough County, we have a unique situation in that we have two very distinct service areas.

The Northwest area, which does not have a lot of growth, it's a pretty stable area, and then we have the South Central, where we have tremendous growth and very large investments that we are making into the water and wastewater system.

Now, as George was saying, the Florida Impact Fee Act has some very specific conditions.

In the Northwest, we are able to comply with the phase and requirements for the 25% and anything below 50 percent.

However, in the South Central is where we are really seeing that tremendous growth.

And this workshop is one of the two public notice workshops dedicated to the demonstrated needs study that shows the need for increasing beyond 50 percent, specifically for the South Central Service Area.

Now I'm gonna ask Andy Burnham from Stantech to take it from here and talk some about the needs assessment since they officially conducted that for us.

Andy?

Thank you, Lisa.

Uh, good morning, commissioners.

So, as part of the analysis that was conducted of the impact fees, this corresponding demonstrated needs study was also performed that identified multiple extraordinary circumstances that are really merit consideration for adjusting your fees beyond those phase in limitations.

They fundamentally revolve around three issues.

The fact that we are nearing capacity limitations at two of our wastewater treatment plants and really are effectively at capacity with one of our water facilities in the South Central Service area during dry weather conditions.

This has been driven by historical growth rates that are expected to continue over the near term that are driving the need for additional facilities that provide capacity, but the cost and the magnitude of expenses for the nature of those facilities that are required are substantial.

And I want to dive into each of those kind of three components a little bit more significantly, and pointing to some of the specific data that really supports the those extraordinary circumstances and helps put some context to each of them.

So just from simple uh demand data observations have indicated that your demands have increased just since 2022, about 22 percent from growth over the recent few years.

If you go back even a few years before that, it's been about a 61% increase in the water demands on your system since 2017.

In addition, we've seen significant increases in cost of infrastructure projects that we'll get into in a moment.

This example just shows for wastewater treatment facilities, two projects, one conducted pre-COVID and one just recently, how the unit cost has increased over 300 percent to construct this infrastructure.

And similarly for capacity, we're really out of capacity for our lithia plant on the water side, especially during dry weather conditions, during normal conditions.

During normal conditions, we're projected to not have any remaining capacity over the next couple of years.

And for the wastewater systems, two plants in the South Central Service area are estimated to be effectively at capacity within the next couple of years.

The growth rates, there's a significant number of data sources out there that help us understand these from census data.

We can see that we're the third ranking population county growth over the last few years.

So we've had about 115,000 increase in residence population over the past five years, placing us third of counties in the state, and our total population now ranks us fourth.

And attendant with that growth in population is an increase in demands.

Of that growth in the county, about 57,000 of those increased population is in the South Central Service area, which has driven in large part those substantial increases in demand that I've mentioned over the past few years.

You can see that notable increase in going back to 2017, you can see that about 61% increase in our demands on the water system, which are really reflected in us utilizing all of our available capacity.

Similarly, looking at the unit cost of constructing additional capacity, it has changed significantly over just the past few years.

Example projects for water pipelines as well as for wastewater treatment plant expansions like projects as determined by your engineering staff.

We've seen unit cost increases in excess of 300% for wastewater treatment facilities and over 200% for pipeline projects just in the past few years alone.

And so what that's resulted in is a significant amount of system investment requirements.

So this chart is in billions of dollars.

I just want to I can't state that enough as we look at this chart and the rounded figures.

Our current entire utility system for the Northwest and South Central Service area, the original cost that we've invested after depreciation has a net book value of just under 1.8 billion dollars.

Over the next few years, our planned capital investment for renewal and replacement facilities and expansion facilities combined is over two times that amount.

And just looking at the expansion related infrastructure, it totals nearly two billion dollars over the next few years alone.

That's the equivalent of investing in essentially another new utility system just in the next few years in the South Central Service area.

The magnitude of these expenses to serve growth and provide that capacity are extraordinary, truly extraordinary as compared to our current system assets as it exist today.

And of that two billion of expansion related projects, 98% are in the South Central Service area.

And I'd like to turn it back over to Lisa to just walk through three of the most notable projects that are included in that two billion dollars that really serve as the basis of the conversation today and what we're seeing in terms of updated impact fees.

Thank you, Andy.

So these are projects you've heard of.

All of you are familiar with them.

One of them is the South Wastewater Conveyance and Treatment Project, part of our one water program.

This is a 1.15 billion dollar investment in wastewater infrastructure that includes a new wastewater treatment plant, the associated pipeline to get the wastewater to the plant, and then the reclaim water back out to the reclaim system, and a super lip station.

That'll be capable of pumping on an average day 22 million gallons per day.

This investment is key to making sure that we are able to meet the wastewater demands in this fast growing system.

And it will alleviate the pressure on the South County and the Falkenburn plant that you saw in one of the prior slides.

Parallel to that, we do have a new drinking water plant going in.

Now we have done significant investment in the drinking water site already.

However, this is one of the final components to put a new plant up in the fast-growing balm area.

That'll help a lot with pressure, system resiliency, and make sure that we are able to provide the needs to those customers living in the area.

And that is almost a five, I mean a half a billion dollar project.

And then there is the Falkenberg improvements.

We are currently working on permanent installation to get that plant up to 15, but even going to the 15 MGD, we're still going to be nearing capacity by 2028-2029 timeline.

So we will be working, though it's not listed here yet, on additional views for that facility and what we would need to do there.

And Andy, I'm going to go ahead and turn it back over to you.

Certainly.

And I think the project context is really important to understand.

I mean, those three notable projects by themselves are about 1.7 billion dollars of that $2 billion expansion.

So it's it was worth going through those.

And as you look at this table, the South Central fees that were calculated from the impact fee study are based on those estimates of capital project cost and capacities in that capital improvement program for South Central.

So you can see the current fees per equivalent residential unit for South Central for water and wastewater, and in total it's about $5,865.

Given that these new facilities that are uh planned and currently in progress to be constructed are providing the capacity to serve growth, that provides the basis of updated fees for the South Central Service area.

And that updated unit cost based on the current cost that we have for those projects is about $13,270 per ERC, hence the conversation today around the extraordinary circumstances.

While not the topic of today for the Northwest service area, the impact fee analysis was conducted, and there's available capacity fundamentally to serve growth in the northwest portion of the service area.

So that fee was based on the current cost of existing infrastructure in that area, adjusted to today's dollars in accounting for depreciation.

But those increases can be accommodated within the limitations identified within the Florida Impact Fee Act.

But again, the fee methodologies selected for both areas were really based on the facilities needed to serve growth over the next few years.

And so the the fee adjustments for South Central are obviously significant in light of these extraordinary circumstances.

And one of the things that also was acknowledged as part of our analysis was that the failure to acknowledge these extraordinary circumstances and to move forward with these updated fees has significant impacts in terms of revenue losses that ultimately over 10 years could accumulate to 200 to 250 million dollars based on current growth projections.

And that translates to really philosophical issues of then additional interest expenses having to be captured through user rates as opposed to capacity fees.

And the funding of the growth-related infrastructure ultimately is not able to be sufficiently addressed through growth-related fees and would ultimately have to come through mechanisms like rates and additional borrowing, which may have impacts on the utility overall's financial health and potential impacts to its credit rating and future interest rates as well as we take on additional borrowing beyond what was planned and contemplated.

So I just wanted to highlight those things and turn it back over to Lisa real quickly to talk about the remaining timeline, and then of course we're happy to answer questions as appropriate.

Thank you.

So this is the first of two public notice workshops to discuss the demonstrated extraordinary circumstances.

The following one is tomorrow.

It is a virtual meeting and in the afternoon, and then we will be bringing to the board for a public hearing the cons to consider the rate adjustment at the December 17th board meeting.

Implementation would be at some point in spring of 2026.

Thank you very much.

And we are happy to answer any questions.

Well, thank you very much for your presentation.

Board members, do we have any questions or comments?

Commissioner Woolston.

I'm just I'm gonna save most of my dialogue for the second and final hearing.

Um, but I will say that we have a variety of policies that require us for cost recovering in our enterprise funds to be from capacity assessment units, which is exactly what we're talking about today.

And remind everyone that I did, I don't know if it was Stantec, which revenue consultants that I have to pry the 50% increase out of that was for new users.

I believe that was wrapped test.

That was rough television.

Okay, I would like to point out that the previous revenue consultant did finally admit when we raised our monthly user bills that 50% of those increases were to serve capacity for new residents, which is antithetical of the all of our variety of policies that are in place today.

And um currently in Odessa, I'm paying for the impacts of new residents that are gonna go into YMAMA, and I think that that's unacceptable.

Thank you.

Commissioner Cohen.

Um I'm also gonna reserve my comments uh for tomorrow more because my voice is going uh than anything else.

Um so I'll I'll we'll we'll talk tomorrow.

Okay, I don't see anything else in the queue.

George, you need anything?

We good?

No, sir, we're good.

All right.

With that or adjourn.