Good afternoon.

Uh, thank you, and welcome to the December tenth, twenty twenty-five CPA workshop on water and wastewater impact fees public workshop number two.

Um, I'm gonna go ahead and call this meeting to order.

Uh, roll call by vote.

Here.

Thank you very much.

I will now turn this meeting over to Melissa Linehart uh with the planning commission to get you.

Good afternoon, commissioners.

Before I introduce item A one.

I have a custom audience.

Sure.

Yeah.

I muted and it seems to be helping Harry.

Madam Chair, would you like me to continue?

Um let's see if you continue.

Maybe if those folks can mute uh their uh systems, because it did help once I muted my system.

Okay.

Helped.

All right, thank you very much.

Can you all hear me okay?

Okay, thank you.

Um, so before I introduce item A1, I just wanted to let you all know that I have an update on item A8, which is HCCPA 25-32.

Um, the applicant has continued this item to the January cycle of plan amendments.

With that, we can start with item A1, which will be presented by Tyreek Royal.

Thank you.

All right, good afternoon, everyone.

It's our oil planning commissioner staff.

Today I'll be presenting HC CPA 2501 at 2002 West Highway 60.

This request is privately initiated, small scale map amendment with approximately 9.5 acres.

Request is a change of land use designation for residential one to suburban issue six.

Uh the location of the site is in the eastern portion of unaccorporate Hillsburg County.

This is a part of the October 2025 cycle, is within the rural area, well head protection area, and not located within the limits of a community plan.

Um this is aerial photo of the site outlined in pink is located north of State Road 60, south of Mud Lake Road.

The surrounding uses include agricultural uses to the west and south, single family uses to the north, white commercials uses to the east.

Uh, you may recognize this site.

Um, it came before you previously, um as office commercial uh proposed future land use examination, and um the board directed to come back to the planning commission to be reviewed under suburban issue six.

The site is in a residential one future land use category, allows for the consideration of agricultural farms, ranches, residential neighborhood commercial offices, and multi-purpose projects.

Commercial uses are subject to locational criteria.

The site is approximately 1.7 miles from the urban service area, and the public quasi public area is Madar Park.

Um the applicant is requesting the change of future land use category from residential one to suburban mix U6.

The SMU6 category allows for agricultural, residential, neighborhood commercial office uses, reach uh research corporate park uses, light industrial, multi-purpose, and clustered residential and/or mixed uses.

Office uses are not subject to locational criteria.

The change from residential one to suburban issue six would allow for an increase of development by allowing significantly higher residential density, greater commercial intensity, the density of one dwelling unit per gross acre would increase to six oil units per gross acre, and the commercial intensity would increase from a 0.25 FAR or approximately 103,000 square feet to a maximum of a 0.5 FAR or approximately uh 206,000 square feet.

And that does conclude my presentation up here with any questions if you have.

If folks have questions, you're gonna have to help me identify yourself.

I can only see you know one panel at a time here.

Madam Chair, I'll make like to make a comment.

Yes, sir, you're recognized, sir.

I would I would just like to point out that it this is a pretty still a pretty big jump up.

Um maybe I'll have to hear further details, but this is introducing uh pretty significant increase of user pattern in the area that you know, as we've seen, once one gets in, it just creates a kind of a snowball effect to the surrounding areas.

It's pretty far out there.

Typically, this is where you'd expect maybe like a res for come in, but that's just my high-level comments.

Thank you.

I have one question or comment related to that, uh, Commissioner Wistel, um, but directed at staff.

Because that's like right on the lower half of the city.

How does that come in, Melissa?

And when you're looking at the land use, so in other words, that's the rural and unincorporated Hillsborough County, but just to the north of that has been annexed in by the city and is pretty dense.

Can we talk about how that would look?

You mean the city of Plant City?

Ma'am.

Yes, we do experience quite a bit of development pressure on the eastern portion of unincorporated Hillsborough County, where we do abut the city of Plant City.

Um, that has been a discussion in the past, and we've actually been in discussions with them regarding similar issues with the I4 corridor study for the USA expansion area study that's going on currently.

Um, so that has been a discussion with plant city staff.

It has also consistently been a pressure that we have seen from a plan amendment perspective, just given the increased density and intensity that you do see in Plant City.

But ultimately, this parcel is in unincorporated Hillsboro County and it is in our rural area.

So there's no anticipation to serve it with public water or sewer, and we would expect it to carry a lower density and a lower intensity future land use category.

So we'll be reflecting that when we make our consistency finding in the beginning of next year for this item.

Well, I would agree with that too.

I'd like to keep that as rural as I can.

I just was wondering how much pressure you were getting because it is absolutely rack and stacked with dense housing going literally just to the north.

Have you been out that way recently, Commissioner Wistel?

Even in the last two months, it's unbelievable how many apartment complexes have gone out of it.

Okay, thank you.

And Commissioner Miller and Commissioner Wilson, you both make very good points about this plan amendment, and we will be sure to address those issues in our consistency finding report, which you all will see toward the beginning of next year.

Um, but I just wanted to mention that we'll be digging in a little bit.

This is just, you know, kind of a high-level briefing, but we will address those issues when we bring this back to you.

Thank you very much.

You're welcome.

Any other questions?

I don't see any.

Okay, well, then we can go ahead and move on to item A2, which will be presented by Victoria Duran.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

Are you guys able to hear me better now?

Okay.

Good.

All right, Victoria Duran Planning Commission staff.

Today I will be presenting HCCPA 2526.

This is a text amendment to the South Hillsboro County Plan, currently known as the South Shore Area Wide Systems Plan.

You can go ahead to the next slide.

Thank you.

For some background information, the South Shore Area Wide Systems Plan was originally adopted in September of 2003 and then later updated in September of 2015.

It was established to guide coordinated growth and development in South Hillsboro County by addressing transportation needs, environmental protection, cultural and historic preservation, and economic development.

This text amendment is a publicly initiated amendment directed by the Board of County Commissioners earlier this year on July 22nd to rename the South Shore Area Wide Systems Plan to the South Hillsboro County Plan within the livable communities element of the comprehensive plan.

And the map on your right shows the South Shore Area Wide Systems Plan boundary highlighted in blue.

And the plan also incorporates several other community plans within it.

You can go to the next slide.

So as a part of this text amendment, all sections and elements referencing community plans within the comprehensive plan were reviewed.

An effective policy was only found within the livable communities element.

Accordingly, the South Shore Area Wide Systems Plan, the Ruskin Community Plan, the Riverview Community Plan, the Apollo Beach Community Plan, and the Gibson Ton Community Plan will all be up in updated to reflect the new name and maintain alignment throughout the comprehensive plan.

And this proposed name change will not affect the intent of policy.

And you can go to the last slide.

And this concludes my presentation.

I'm available for any questions.

Thank you.

Any questions or comments?

I'll just make a quick comment.

Commissioner Miller, since this was my motion, um, and I appreciate everyone's support.

And hopefully this further clears up people's ongoing confusion on where they're at, um, whether that's the Sun City Umter Um Community Plan, et cetera.

Um, and that they're not just facing it based flat off of zip codes or thinking that it's all encompassing.

So I appreciate appreciate uh you guys bringing this back to me.

I know it was a little bit of an egg hunt, but hopefully it'll help clear up that confusion.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

See none other three, please.

Yes, ma'am.

Items A3 and A4 are interrelated, and um Lily Lynihan will be presenting those items sort of back to back.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, can everyone see my screen?

Yes.

Okay.

Perfect.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

Lillian Lineah and Planning Commission staff here to present HCCPA 2527 located at Sapphol Road.

This is a publicly initiated map amendment that is small in scale and approximately 19.94 acres.

Um the request is to expand the urban service area, and this amendment is associated with HCCPA 2528, which is a requested change the future land use category from agricultural rule one to five to residential four.

This is the general location map.

As I mentioned in the last slide, it is associated with HCCPA 2528.

It is in the rural area and within the limits of the South Shore Area Wide Systems Plan and Waimalma Village Plan.

And it is located north of Saffold Road and west of County Road 579.

Here is an aerial of the site.

The site is outlined in pink, and the blue line indicates the existing urban service area.

And I do want to point out that the two parcels adjacent to the subject site on the west have privately initiated comprehensive plan map amendment applications under HCCPA 2519 and 2520 to expand the urban service area and change the existing land use designation to residential four.

Um these applications are currently scheduled to be heard by the board in January and they are not yet effective.

So none of the maps that you see for HCCPA25 and 2025 27 and 2528 today will reflect those applications, but I did want to make you aware of them.

The proposed amendment would bring approximately 19.94 acres into the urban service area, requiring at a minimum connection to public water and sewer.

And I'm here if you have any questions.

This is a publicly initiated map amendment that is small in scale and approximately 19.94 acres.

And the request is to change the future land use designation from agricultural rule one to five to residential four.

Again, this is the general location map.

The amendment is associated with HCCPA2527, and it's in the rural area within the limits of the South Shore Area Wide Systems Plan and the Wymama Village Plan and is located north of Saffold Road and west of County Road 579.

Again, here's the aerial uh an area of the site, and the site is online in pink with the blue line indicating the urban service area.

The site currently has single family uses on the property.

There are agricultural uses to northwest and further southeast.

Single family uses are located to the northeast and west of the site, and there are public quasi-public institutional uses to the south and the east.

Currently, the future land use designation is agricultural rule one to five.

This category allows for one dwelling unit per five gross acres and has a maximum floor area ratio of 0.25.

This designation allows for the considerations of farms, ranches, feed lots, residential, neighborhood commercial, office, industrial uses related to agricultural uses and mining related activities.

Other future land use categories shown in this map include natural preservation and residential four.

The applicant is proposing to amend the future land use category to residential four.

Residential four category allows for four dwelling units per gross acre and a maximum floor area ratio of 0.25.

And this designation allows for the consideration of agricultural residential neighborhood commercial office uses and multi-purpose projects.

Under the existing conditions, the site could be considered for three dwelling units or a maximum of 217,146 square feet of non-residential uses.

And under the proposed future land use designation of residential four, the site could be considered for a maximum of 79 dwelling units or 217,146 square feet of non-residential uses.

The proposed amendment would allow for the consideration of increased residential density and will not increase the potential of commercial intensity.

This concludes my presentation, so I'm here if you have any questions.

Yes.

HTV, would you mind sharing A5, please?

Yes, thank you.

This item will be presented by me.

So good afternoon, everyone.

Melissa Linehard, Planning Commission staff.

I'm going to present to you HCCPA 25-29.

Thank you so much.

And we can continue with the second slide if you don't mind.

Thank you.

As you all know, um, there's been a trend of plan amendments to suburban mixed use six or SMU6 and Office Commercial 20 or OC20 in the rural area over the past few years.

Um we've also seen several amendments to light industrial and light industrial planned future land use categories.

Um while those necessarily don't increase density, they do allow for a very urban scale floor area ratio or intensity.

Um so overall, especially the first two categories that I mentioned, um, they would allow a density and also intensity that's not supported by adopted policy direction in the past.

Some policies that have been highlighted in our reports include policies about the rural area and maintaining those densities, the transition of use policies, so having like uses by like uses, and then policies about compatibility and then community plan visions.

Based upon that trend at the August 14th meeting, um, you all, as the board of county commissioners directed planning commission staff to create a new rural future land use category that would allow for consideration of uses that are more intensive than neighborhood serving commercial, but not as intensive as something like a heavy industrial use.

So this would be a category that would try and meet those needs of what we're seeing from a plan amendment trend perspective, while also balancing the policies that we already have adopted in the comprehensive plan.

Next slide, please.

So this is a publicly initiated text amendment proposed by planning commission staff that would add a new future land use category, rural light industrial, to table 2.2 of the future land use section.

And it would also add a definition of limited light industrial uses to the definition section of the comprehensive plan.

Next slide, please.

In our research and comparing different future land use categories and also doing comparative research with other jurisdictions.

Next slide, please, HTV, if possible.

Thank you.

Um, as far as the comparison for impacts, the category does not exist today, so there's no existing impact.

Um, but staff was proposing this new category to have a 0.25 floor area ratio or 175,000 square feet of non-residential, whichever is less.

Um, this category would allow no residential development, um, similar to the light industrial categories, but would allow for limited accessory residential, like an on-site security guard.

Again, similar to light industrial categories.

Uh, this category would allow for the consideration, as I mentioned, of this new definition, limited light industrial use, which would be defined as uses that are compatible with rural residential development patterns and do not produce significant noise, odor, smoke, or vibration.

Examples include small-scale manufacturing, fabrication, and assembly of refined products, as well as warehousing or wholesale operations.

That definition is reflective of past requests we have seen.

And the inclusion of the language on noise, odor, smoke, and vibration is taken directly from the light industrial language that we have today in the plan.

And the last um point that I will make on this slide is that in order to control for things like compatibility issues, um, when you're talking about scale, building placement, buffering screening, things like that.

Um, a planned development or a PD zoning district would be required for this new future land use category.

Uh, this essentially means the rezoning would require a site plan and then subsequent conditions of approval to address those items that I just mentioned.

Next slide, please.

That completes my presentation, and I'm here for any questions that you all may have.

Commissioners, any questions?

U Yeah, I've got some comments, Commissioner Miller.

Go ahead.

Um, Mrs.

Leinhard, this is excellent work.

Um, but I hate to be the bearer of the bad news because none of us commissioners can support this.

And we can't support this because this would immediately entitle it to live local.

Um, which is so outrageous that we can't even have small course corrections out in the community.

But this would absolutely just allow people to buy land.

But this would absolutely just allow people to buy land, and we did we didn't we'd have to start trying to ask for deed restrictions on every single um comp plan that we approved to this, which is just another reason why I hope uh my my fellow commissioners are taking the time to look at the um item that I put on the 17th agenda uh because we we literally were handcuffed at even at this small tiny um correction that we know the community needs um to help us manage growth out in those areas and we just we just can't do it because it exposes us to so much risk um because of um live local act.

So I just wanted to point that out to everybody.

So I mean, and until we get a handle on Live Local, I can't do anything that would um continue to promote PDs in light industrial in the community because those are both entitlements under that law.

But um, it's great work for the back burner for when we can um hopefully implement it.

So thank you very much.

Thank you, sir.

Good comments.

Yeah, yes, thank you.

Anyone else?

Thank you, Melissa.

Next item.

Yes, item A6 will be presented by David Hay.

Thank you.

Thank you, Melissa.

If HTV could uh share my presentation.

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, uh commissioners.

David Hay again with your uh planning commission staff.

The next item is HCCPA 25-30.

It's uh generally located on the south side of 11th Avenue Southeast and east of 27th Street Southeast down in Ruskin.

Next slide, please.

Uh the request is privately initiated as a small scale uh map amendment.

It's approximately 4.7 acres.

Currently, the subject site has a future land use designation of suburban mixed use six.

The applicant is seeking to go to the office commercial 20 future land use category.

Next slide, please.

Here we have the general location.

Again, it's down in the uh Ruskin area within the urban service area.

It does fall within the boundaries of the Ruskin Community Plan and currently named South Shore Area Wide Systems Plan soon to be changed.

Next slide, please.

Here we have an aerial of the subject site.

You can see the subject site in the center of the aerial there in the yellow.

Uh currently uh the site is listed by the property appraiser as vacant, but it is being utilized for a truck repair business and is currently zoned AS1.

There is uh other zoned properties AS1 to the north, also being used uh for um auto repair uses, potential non-conforming use.

Also to the north, along near the uh southeast corner of East College Avenue and 27th Street is the Moffitt uh South Shore uh campus.

Uh to the south of the subject site, we have some vacant land, and beyond that vacant land, there's medical offices, uh, some mobile home parks and single family detached residential.

Uh to the east, uh, there's a large retention pond, and then over on 33rd Street, there's a mix of multi-approved multi-family, which is undeveloped, and some commercial and residential uses.

Also, on uh further to the uh west down 11th Avenue, you have a mixture of single family detached and some non-conforming auto repair businesses again zoned AS1.

Next slide, please.

Here we have the adopted future land use map.

You can see the subject site and all the properties surrounding it in that kind of pink color is that suburban mixed use six.

Uh closer to the interchange of uh I-75 and college avenue, that that darker kind of pinkish color is the community mixed use 12.

Uh to the south, in that um yellowish tan color, that's residential four.

And then actually on the south side of I-75, uh, we have some residential one.

The blue line uh south of that blue line is the rural service area, and again, the subject site itself is located within the uh urban service area.

Next slide, please.

Uh here we have the map.

If this amendment is approved, it would the site would go to that uh red color, which represents the office commercial 20 future land use category.

Next slide, please.

So currently under the under the suburban mix two six, uh a maximum of 28 dwelling units or 102,000 square feet of non-residential uses can be considered.

Under the proposed office commercial 20, that uh those uh that density would increase to a potential maximum of 94 dwelling units, and non-residential square footage would also uh potentially increase to a maximum of 153,000 uh square feet.

Again, it does increase overall uh density and intensity, but under the office commercial 20, it would eliminate um some light considerate some considerations for light industrial uses, excuse me.

Uh next slide, please.

That concludes my presentation.

I'm available if you have any questions.

Thank you.

Any questions, comments?

I don't see any next item, please.

Thank you.

Yes, thank you.

Item A7 will be presented by Tyreek Royal.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh good afternoon, Tyler Grow, Plenty of Commission staff.

And today I'll be presenting HC CPA 2531 at 12780 draw uh Dr.

Martin Luther King Jr.

Boulevard and 2922 Shady Acres Road.

This request is privately initiated, small scale map amendment with approximately 4.45 acres.

The request is to change the land use designation from residential one to light industrial.

The location of the site is in the eastern portion of undercorporate Hillsborough County as a part of the October 2025 cycle within the rural area and within the limits of the September Mingo Community Plan.

Sorry about that.

Um there is an aerial photo of the site outlined here in pink.

It is located north of Dr.

Martin Luther King Deer Boulevard.

The surrounding uses include single family uses to the south and east.

Light industrial uses further east along Martin Luther King and public communication uses to the west.

This category is in the residential one, future land use category.

It allows for the consideration of agricultural farms, ranches, residential neighborhood commercial offices, multi-purpose projects.

Commercial uses are subject to locational criteria.

The applicant is requesting the change of future lane use category from residential one to light industrial.

Would it be eliminated?

And the FAR would increase from a 0.25 FAR, approximately 48,000 square feet to 0.75 FAR or approximately 145,000 square feet.

And that concludes my presentation.

I'm here with any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any questions, Commissioners?

Comments.

All right.

With item A8 being continued to the January cycle, we're on to item A9, which will be presented by Willow Mickey.

Thank you.

What's that presentation?

Good afternoon.

My name is Willow Mickey with your planning commission staff.

I will be briefing uh presenting HCCPA 2533, which is located at College Avenue in 18th Street Southeast.

Next slide, please.

This request is a privately initiated small-scale map amendment.

It is made up of two parcels that total approximately 19.53 acres.

The request is to change the land use designation of these parcels from suburban Mix U6 to residential 12.

Next slide.

Next slide.

This is an aerial photo of the site with the site outlined here in pink.

It is located north of East College Avenue, west of 21st Street Southeast, and south of East Shell Point Road.

Within the vicinity of the site, single family residential uses are located to the north, west, and east.

There are two family uses also located to the west and northeast of the site.

Directly to the east, there is a Tico Easman and across College Avenue to the south.

There is additional vacant land.

Further east of the site, there is a parcel with heavy commercial uses.

Next slide.

The site is in the SMU6 future lane use category.

This category allows for the consideration of agricultural, residential, neighborhood commercial, office uses, research corporate park uses, light industrial multipurpose, and clustered residential andor mixed use.

Office uses are not subject to locational criteria.

Surrounding land use categories include SMU 6 on all sides of the property.

To the northwest of the site, there is residential six and further south across East Avenue, College Avenue, there is residential four.

Not seen on this particular map, but there is also residential 12 approximately one mile west of the site.

Next slide.

The request is to change the site to residential 12, which allows for the consideration of uses such as agricultural, residential, neighborhood commercial, office uses, multipurpose projects, and mixed use development.

Next slide.

This slide outlines the potential impacts of the requested land use change.

Currently, under SME 6, the site can be considered for up to 117 dwelling units and 425,363 square feet of non-residential.

The change to residential 12 would allow for the consideration of 234 dwelling units and 425,363 square feet of non-residential uses.

The proposed amendment would increase development potential by allowing consideration of higher residential density.

Next slide.

This concludes my presentation on this item.

I'm here to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Does anyone have questions, comments?

I don't see any.

A10.

Okay, that brings us to item A10, which will also be presented by Willow Mickey.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Willow Mickey again with your planning commission staff.

I will be presenting HCCPA 2534, which is located at 8400 West Waters Avenue.

Next slide, please.

This request is a privately initiated small scale map amendment.

It is made up of a portion of one parcel that totals approximately 41.92 acres.

The request is to change the land use designation of these parcels from residential 9 to residential 16.

Next slide.

Next slide.

Here is an aerial photo of the site.

It is located north of Westwaters Avenue, west of Pinehurst Drive, and the east of Sheldon Road.

Within the vicinity of the site, there are single family uses surrounding the site on all sides.

To the east is a multifamily use and some light commercial uses.

Also to the east of the site is the upper Tampa Bay watershed.

The purpose of this request is to conform the existing development to the modern comprehensive plan and land development code and to ensure the current occupants are not displaced.

The use on the site has historically been mobile park units and assisted living facility.

Currently, the assisted living facility portion is no longer operating.

The balance of the multi-unit and single unit mobile homes on the property continue to be occupied on a unit rental or lot rental basis.

Discontinuation of the ALF use causes the density of the development to exceed the residential nine feature land use designation.

Since each mobile home unit has a kitchen, bathroom, sleeping, and living area and is now by definition a dwelling unit under the comprehensive plan.

Next slide.

To the south, there is residential four and residential two.

Next slide.

Next slide, please.

Thank you.

The request is to change the site to residential 16, which allows for the consideration of uses such as agricultural, residential, and neighborhood commercial office uses, multipurpose projects, and mixed use development.

Next slide.

This slide outlines the potential impacts of the requested land use change.

Currently, under residential 9, the site can be considered for up to 377 dwelling units and 913 and 17 square feet of non-residential.

The change to residential 16 would allow for the consideration of 670 dwelling units and 913,017 square feet of non-residential uses.

The proposed amendment will result in a potential increase in development by allowing consideration of higher residential density.

Next slide.

That concludes the presentation on this item.

I'm here to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you.

Any questions or comments on ATM?

Doesn't look like it.

It doesn't sound like it.

Okay, so items A11 and A12 are similar to the previous coupled items.

Um so we'll go ahead and present those one right after the other as well.

And that will be Miss Alexis Myers.

Thank you.

Yes, uh good afternoon, Commissioners.

Alexis Myers Planning Commission staff.

I'm here to um present HCCPA 2535 located at 6210 County Road 579 for the urban service area expansion.

Okay, um and can you see the PowerPoint for uh ACC uh CPA 2535?

Yes, we can see it.

Okay.

This is a privately initiated map amendment that is small in scale and approximately 34 acres.

The applicant is requesting to expand the urban service area.

This amendment is associated with HCCPA 2536, which is a request to change the future land use category from residential four to suburban mixed use six.

Uh this is the general location map.

As I mentioned, this amendment uh this amendment is associated with HCCPA 2536.

It is in the rural area within the limits of the Tonoda Sassa community plan.

It is located north of East Sly Avenue and west of County Road 579.

Here is the area of the site.

The site is outlined in pink, and a blue line indicates the urban service area boundary.

The subject property is the Lazy Days RVs of Pampa.

The site has wetlands and is in the uh evacuation zone E and FEMA flood zone X.

Uh agriculture and RV uses are to the west.

Single family uses are to the north and west.

The Hillsborough Heights landfill is directly east across County Road 579.

Industrial uses are to the north.

Lastly, there are commercial uses to the north and south, uh, just within the urban service area.

Next are the impacts.

This amendment would bring 34 acres into the urban service area, requiring at a minimum connection to public water and sewer.

And this concludes my presentation for ACCPA 2535.

I'm happy to answer any questions.

Commissioners, any questions or comments.

I think we're good to move on to A12.

Okay.

Um, Alexis Myers again here to present HCCPA 2536, located at 6210 of County Road 579.

Um, this is a privately initiated map amendment that is small in scale and approximately 34 acres.

The applicant is requesting to change the future land use category from residential four to the suburban mixed use six.

This is the general location map.

Uh this amendment is associated with HCCPA 2535 to expand the urban service area.

It is in the urban, I'm sorry, is in the rural area and within the limits of the Tonoda Sasa community plan.

Again, it is located north of East Sly Avenue and west of County Road 579.

Here is the area of the site.

The site is online in pink, and the blue line indicates the urban service area boundary.

Currently, the future land use designation is residential four.

The res four category allows four dwelling units per gross acre and a maximum floor area ratio of 0.25.

This designation allows for the consideration of agricultural, residential, neighborhood commercial, office uses, and multi-purpose projects.

Other feature land use categories shown in this map include suburban mixed use six and uh community mixed use 12 to the south, public quasi public to the east, and residential one to the west.

The applicant is proposing to amend the future land use category to suburban mixed use six.

Uh the SME six category allows six dwelling units per gross acre and a maximum floor area ratio of 0.25.

This designation allows for the consideration of agricultural, residential, neighborhood commercial, office uses, research corporate park uses, light industrial, multi-purpose, and cluster residential, and our mixed use.

Office uses are not subject to the locational criteria.

Next are the impacts as far as existing conditions.

Currently under res four, the site could consider 136 dwelling units or 370,281 square feet of non-residential uses.

Under the proposed future land use designation of SME 6, the site can consider 204 dwelling units or a maximum intensity of 740,563 square feet of non-residential uses.

During the rezoning process, commercial and locational criteria may affect the allowable square footage for potential non-residential development.

This proposed amendment will result in an increase in development potential by allowing higher residential and greater commercial intensity.

And this concludes my presentation for ACCPA 2536.

I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any questions or comments, Commissioners?

Next item, please.

All right, we can move on to item A13, which will be presented by Gillian Massey.

Thank you.

We don't hear anything quite yet.

At least I don't.

I don't either.

Okay.

So that helps too.

I was trying to unmute myself.

Can you all hear me now?

We can hear you now.

Okay, sorry about that.

I'm trying to mute myself, but then my screen, my presentation is getting in the way.

Um, can you see my uh presentation at the full presentation mode?

It's not in presentation mode, but we can see the presentation sharing the screen.

There now we can.

Okay, great.

So sorry about that.

Um, this is Jillian Massey with Planning Commission staff.

I'll be presenting a summary of HCCPA 25-37, which is located at 40 ranch road.

Uh, this request is privately initiated, and it's a large-scale MAC amendment, meaning that it's over 50 acres at a site located approximately on 7,944 acres.

The request is to change the land use category from agricultural mining 1 to 20, agricultural 1 to 10, agricultural rural 1 to 5, and natural preservation to planned environmental community 1 to 2.

The subject site is in the northeast part of unincorporated county, abutting the Casco County border.

It's part of the October 2025 cycle of plan amendment requests.

It's located in the rural area, and it is not within the limits of a community plan.

This is an aerial photo of the site outlined in pink.

Generally, it's bound by the Pasco County border to the north, Paul Buckman Highway to the east, Quayle Meadow Road to the south, and U.S.

Highway 301 to the west.

Across through one to the west is the Hillsborough River State Park, and further northwest, where you see the blue dotted line is the Tampa service area.

Currently, the site is undeveloped and contains a large area of environmentally sensitive land.

Within the vicinity of the site, there is natural undeveloped land, agricultural uses, and single family residential.

As mentioned, the site's comprised of a number of future land use categories that you can see outlined in the legend on the map.

Aside from the natural preservation category, which is the uh teal color on the map where no uh development is permitted.

The other categories generally allow for mining and related activities, farms, ranchos, seedlots, low density residential, neighborhood commercial offices, and industrial uses related to agricultural uses.

The site is surrounded by other rural land use categories, including agricultural estate one to two and a half and residential one.

Uh the planned environmental community one to two category is located to the west in that line green color across U.S.

Highway 301 in that development contains the two rivers development.

Um, non-residential land use categories that are within the vicinity include natural preservation, which again is that teal color to the east and west, and heavy industrial to the northeast, which is the dark gray across Paul Western Highway.

The request is to change a site to planned environmental community one to two, which allows for consideration of uses such as agriculture, residential, neighborhood commercial, office uses, activity-based recreation and mixed-use projects, planning, feed loss, and industrial uses are not permitted.

Residential development can be considered at a density of up to one dwelling unit for two gross acres, and non-residential development can be considered at an intensity of up to 0.25 floor area ratio, both subject to a variety of environmentally sensitive design criteria being met.

This category also requires connection to water and wastewater utility services.

The slide outlines the potential impacts of the requested land use change.

The current conditions allow for the site to be considered for up to 704 dwelling units or approximately 86.4 million square feet of non-residential development.

The change to planned environmental community one to two would allow for consideration of up to 3,972 dwelling units, or approximately 86.5 million square feet of non-residential development.

Meaning overall, the proposed amendment would allow for an increase in the potential residential density and commercial intensity.

Well, that concludes a summary of this request.

If you have any questions, I'd be glad to answer.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Any questions or comments, Commissioners?

I'll just make a quick um comment, Commissioner Miller.

Um I mean, this looks big and scary because it's so much square footage, but really this is one of those deals where people should be excited that it's not somebody coming in asking for res four over you know these thousands of acres.

And I don't know that I've done a planned environmental community since I've been here.

This might be the first one in at least at least three years since I've been here.

So in real it says 86 million square feet, but you know, this is the same thing where we went through with um the expansion of the urban service area.

This isn't accounting for all of the wetlands, preservations, etc.

That's gonna have to go into stormwater land that's gonna eat up, right?

This is just like a flat number, this liner.

Yeah, okay.

Yes, it's like it's a gross calculation, yes, sir.

Yeah, I just want to point that out since it's such a large thing, it can it can appear to be big, bigger and scarier than it actually is.

Um, so just wanted to make that point.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Anyone else?

I don't see anyone else.

Okay, that brings us to the last item for this workshop, which is item A14, and that will be presented by Lily Lanahan.

Thank you.

Lily, we can see your presentation, but if you're speaking, you're perhaps muted.

I apologize.

Can you hear me now?

Yes, we can hear you.

I think I was muted.

I apologize for that.

All right.

Good afternoon, commissioners.

Lillian Lenahan, planning commission staff here, and I am here to present HCCPA 2538, located at 11017 East Highway 92.

This is a privately initiated map amendment that is small in scale and approximately 4.36 acres.

The applicant is requesting to change the future land use designation from residential nine to suburban mixed use six.

This is the general location map.

It's in the urban service area and within the limits of the Sefner Mango community plan and is located south of East U.S.

Highway 92, east of Williams Road, and west of East Mobley Villa Drive.

Here is an aerial of the site.

Subject site is currently outlined in pink.

The site has a mobile home park, and there are light commercial uses to the north, east-west of the site with some heavy commercial to the west, and single family uses are located to the east, west and west and south of the site.

There are public quasi-public institutional uses to the north, and there is one educational use to the east of the site.

This designation allows for the consideration of agricultural residential, neighborhood commercial office uses, multi-purpose projects, and mixed use development.

I apologize.

The other future land use categories near the subject site includes suburban mixed use six to the north, residential nine and community mixed use 12 to the east and the west, and urban mixed use 20 to the west.

Under the proposed future land use category of suburban mixed use six, the category allows for six dwelling units per gross acre and a maximum floor area ratio of 0.5 and would allow for the consideration of agricultural, residential, neighborhood commercial office uses, resource research corporate park uses, light industrial, multi-purpose projects, and cluster residential and/or mixed use.

Under existing conditions, the site could be considered for a maximum of 39 dwelling units or 94,960 960 square feet of non-residential uses.

And under the proposed feature land use designation of suburban mixed use six, the site could be considered for a maximum of 26 dwelling units or 94,960 square feet for non-residential uses.

And during during the rezoning process, commercial locational criteria may affect the allowable square footage for potential non-residential development.

The proposed amendment would decrease residential density, would not increase the potential of commercial intensity, but it will increase the allowable ranges of uses to include light industrial uses.

This concludes my presentation for HCCPA 2538, and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you very much.

Any questions, comments, commissioners?

Well, thank you for everyone that presented today.

Is there anything else?

Not from RN Planning Commission staff's workshop appears to be completed after those items.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Yes, ma'am.

All right, good afternoon.

Um welcome back.

And um, there will be no action or vote taken by the board today.

And with that, I'm gonna turn it over to you, Mr.

Cassidy.

Uh thank you, Madam Chair.

Good afternoon, commissioners.

This is the second of two workshops of the proposed increases to the water and wastewater impact fees.

Uh the workshop today is dedicated to the extraordinary circumstances necessitating the need to exceed the phase in limitations for the South Central Service Area.

Uh, today giving our presentation is gonna be Lisa Ray, our water resources department director, along with our impact fee consultant uh Justin Grant with Stantech.

They will make a brief presentation and then we will follow up with the board discussion.

Lisa Thank you, Commissioner.

Uh Lisa Ray, Director of Water Resources.

Uh, we appreciate you taking the time to be with us today.

So HTV is going to be doing our presentation for us.

So I'll be asking them to move on to the next slide, please.

So we are here to talk about impact fees, but just as a high level, what are they?

And they're a one-time fee paid to connect new customers or construction to help cover the costs of expanding the water and the wastewater service to those new customers.

In a sense, it's so that growth pays for itself.

Next slide, please.

A quick overview of the system that we currently manage.

Hillsborough County Water Resources has two very separate utility systems.

Up in the Northwest area, we have a water and wastewater system that is pretty well developed.

Uh, does not have a tremendous amount of growth, and the plants have sufficient capacity to handle the projected growth.

However, in the south central area, we're dealing with a very different circumstance.

The amount of growth that we have seen in the south central area has been extraordinary.

And we are having to add significant number of projects and capacity in order to accommodate the needed services for the new residents.

Next slide, please.

And can you please hit forward twice?

So up in the Northwest, we're able to use the incremental phase-in approach as required under the Florida Impact Feat Law.

Since the water is less than 25%, and the wastewater increase is between 25 and 50.

However, in the South Central area with the large projects and the tremendous amount of growth, we're needing to look at an increase that is greater than 50%.

Because of that, we are required to demonstrate a need for this additional increase.

That requires a study, along with two publicly noticed workshops.

And this is the second of those two workshops.

In the end, we will be taking the resolution to the board.

However, at this time, we're going to focus on what the needs are that are justifying the extraordinary circumstance.

And to help us with that, I am going to ask Justin to talk about the study that Stantec conducted.

So next slide, please.

Justin, if you would like to start.

Can you guys hear me?

Initially it was a little low, but it got better.

So you might want to.

Okay.

Can you hear me okay right now?

Yes.

All right, perfect.

All right, I'll restart that.

Thanks for the introduction, Lisa.

Appreciate that.

And yes, as you mentioned, this is the second of two hearings.

So uh commissioners, thank you very much for listening to the same presentation again today.

And for all of you others that are listening for the first time, we'll try and be brief and go through this.

So as a part of the impact fee study that was conducted, a corresponding demonstrated needs study was also completed that identified multiple extraordinary circumstances that merit the condition of adjusting current fees beyond phase in limitations.

They're fundamentally revolved around three issues.

The county's nearing capacity of two wastewater treatment plants, and effectively is at capacity of one of its water plants in the South Central Service Area during dry weather conditions, driven by historical growth rates that are expected to continue in the near term that are driving the need for additional facilities that provide capacity.

And finally, the constant magnitude of these expenses, the nature of these facilities that are required is substantial.

On the next slide, I'll dive into each one of these three components more significantly, highlight some data that can give some context to each of them.

Next slide.

Okay, from simple demand data, observations have indicated that since 2020, the system is seeing about 22% in demand growth.

And if you look back prior to 2020, these figures are even more substantial.

Moving to the center of the chart here, cost increases have also had a dramatic impact on planned projects.

The metal chart shows an example of comparison of actual projects completed pre and post COVID, as unit costs have seen over a 300% increase to the cost to construct this infrastructure.

And finally, as we mentioned regarding capacity, really out of capacity at the lithium water plant in dry weather conditions and during normal conditions is projected to be out of capacity in the next few years.

A similar story applies to the two wastewater plants pictured in the bottom right corner of this chart, uh, to be effectively out of capacity in the next few years as well.

Next slide.

There's a significant number of sources out there that aim to look at population growth.

And the data appearing before you here comes from census data that shows the county as having the third largest increase in population and ranking fourth overall in the state in just last five years.

You can see 115,000 residents added and then one point almost 1.6 million in population as of July of 2024.

Next slide.

So with that population growth is an increase in demand, and 57,000 of the population growth is in the South Central Service Area.

This has driven the substantial increases in demand we've highlighted previously.

As you can see in the chart here, depicting growth in the water demand on the system, this increase in demand ties back to the diminishing capacity remaining in the system.

Next slide.

Now, if we look at the unit costs of construction, constructing additional capacity, it's changed significantly over the past few years.

Using some example projects for pipeline and wastewater treatment plan expansions provided by the county's engineering staff, we've seen unit cost increases of over 300% for treatment projects and over 200% for pipeline projects in just the past couple years.

Next slide.

What this has resulted in is a significant significant amount of system investment requirements.

And I'll pause here and note that this chart is in billions of dollars, which we can't emphasize enough as the magnitude and put this in perspective.

The current entire utility system after depreciation has a net book value of approximately 1.8 billion is illustrated by the small blue bar in the left bottom left corner of the chart.

Over the next few years, the planned capital investment in both renewal and replacement, RR, and the expansion projects is over two times that amount.

And just looking at the expansion-related infrastructure, that totals two billion over the next few years alone.

And that's the equivalent of constructing an entire another utility system.

And the magnitude of these expenses to serve growth and provide additional capacity are truly extraordinary.

And of that $2 billion in expansion projects, as you can see there in the highlight in the bottom right corner of this uh slide, uh, over 98% is in the South Central Service Area.

And so now I'll take a minute here to turn it back over to Lisa so she can highlight three of those notable projects that are included in the two billion dollars.

I'm sorry, I was muted still.

Next slide, please.

So these are projects that many of you have already heard about.

In fact, the South Wastewater Conveyance and Treatment Project is the single largest project that the county has ever undertaken.

This is a 1.15 billion dollar investment into a new wastewater treatment plant, associated pipelines, and a super lift station to convey the wastewater to the brand new facility, which, as you saw from the prior slide, the two of the existing plants in the South Central Service Area are at capacity.

We are required to protect public health and safety, provide these types of services and make sure that these new plants are built.

Next slide, please.

In parallel with expanding the wastewater system, we also need to explain finish expanding the drinking water system.

There have been several projects that have been delivered over the last few years, including additional pipelines, some booster pump stations.

And this is the one fine one of the final pieces to the puzzle.

This is a half a billion dollar new water treatment plant that will be situated in the fast growing balm area.

We are coordinating the placement of the plant and the timing of construction with Tampa Bay Water, since they have a new pipeline that will be bringing drinking water down to this area.

We're starting construction on this in the very near future.

And at this next board meeting, we will be asking the board to approve the design phase for this project.

And the next slide talks about the Falkenbirth wastewater treatment plant.

And this is one of our existing facilities that is nearing capacity.

We are finishing up bringing it to 15 million gallons per day.

But even with bringing it to the 15 million gallon per day, within the next three to four years, it will be out of capacity again.

And at this point, we have about a hundred million dollars scheduled to finish the 15 MGD increase, but we will need additional increase in the future, which has not been planned yet.

And with that, those are just three of the main ones that are driving the need in South Central.

So I'm going to go ahead and turn this back over to Justin and let him talk some about what we're proposing.

Sure.

Thanks, Lisa.

Yeah, the project uh context is extremely helpful.

And so we just heard about three of those main projects totaling about 1.7.

And you can go to the next slide, by the way, uh administrator.

Perfect.

Thank you.

Uh about 1.7 of that $2 billion expansion we looked at earlier.

And so as such, you can see the associated fees per uh equivalent residential connection ERC are about $500 $5,865 there in the South Central region.

And so given that these new facilities that are in process are being designed to serve for new growth.

This provides the basis for these updated fees.

That updated cost is a result of our study and the project data provided is about $13,270 per ERC.

Hence the reason we're here and discussing extraordinary circumstances.

Also notable on the left side of this chart, while it's not the topic of today's hearing, this impact fee analysis did also conduct a study for the Northwest Service Area and where there is still some remaining capacity to serve growth.

Next slide.

All right, as you can see, the fee adjustments for South Central are significant.

And in light of the extraordinary circumstances, we wanted to take a moment to discuss the uh the failure to acknowledge these circumstances and to move forward with updated fees has significant impacts in South Central Service Area and on the county as a whole.

The failure to acknowledge extraordinary circumstances in the service area could have a variety of financial impacts based on current growth projections.

This could accumulate to approximately 200 to 250 million in revenue losses over the next 10 years.

If funding for growth and related infrastructure was not able to be addressed through growth-related fees, it could create philosophical issues as it would have to come through other mechanisms like rates and additional borrowing.

This could also result in additional impacts to the overall utility financial health, including credit ratings, interest rates, and added borrowing.

We just want to make take a moment to highlight some of those things in consideration, and I'll turn it back over to Lisa to discuss the next steps in the timeline.

So next slide, please.

So the timeline moving forward is uh pretty aggressive.

We are finishing the second public notice workshop right now as we speak.

We will be holding the public hearing at the December 17th Board of County Commissioners regular meeting.

It's scheduled for 10 a.m.

to consider the impact fee rate adjustments.

And that will be a public hearing where we will be taking comment if there is comment.

Uh and then pending board approval or board direction at that point.

We will uh begin preparations for implementation in sept in the spring of 2026.

At this point, it looks like that will probably be late March.

And with that, I thank you for your attention, and we'd be happy to take any questions.

Thank you, Justin Lisa and George.

I know yesterday and yesterday's uh meeting, both uh Commissioner WhatsApp and Commissioner Small mentioned that they wanted to comment.

I'm not sure which one of you would like to go first.

Harry's far more eloquent than me.

He can start first.

And we'll start with Commissioner Cohen.

Um thank you.

I'm gonna be try to be brief.

Um you can I've got a lot of feedback.

Um what I wanted to say are things.

Um there's a question that we need to do this.

It's very important.

And uh philosophically, I agree that we grow pay for itself.

I'm concerned that the ramp in the county is extremely pain to implement all at one time.

And I think that we should consider some sort of things in that in that of the um of the thing that you're gonna raise.

I'm gonna stop you.

I was trying really hard to get what you're saying there, but I don't think your audio is quite good enough.

Can we um pause your thoughts?

And I'm really sorry because I'm sure it was eloquent as Commissioner WhatsApp.

Can we jump to him and have him fix your audio?

Sure.

I can't understand you even.

And if and if Lisa, you could uh mute your mm.

That would help.

Should we try again?

Let me see.

Go ahead.

Maybe after we should be used up.

Um is that any it's not better for me.

What about um I don't know where it's um let me let me try to mute everybody's mic to uh uh instead of uh Commissioner Owen?

Let me see if that fakes it one second.

Okay, Commissioner uh Cohen.

If you can turn off your webcam, that might help improve the bandwidth.

Is that bad it does seem to be a little bit doesn't sound much better to that bad sure?

I don't go ahead and try and talk, Commissioner.

Okay, can you understand me now?

It does sound better if you can keep keep resuming, yeah.

Okay, well let me let me see if I can try again.

Feel free to keep you know, I could already understand.

Um not sure to do.

Uh Commissioner, do you want to maybe your work?

Sorry, they hit muted me as well.

Um, can I I'm sorry, I cannot understand you.

If I can understand you, then the public probably can't either.

And I would really like to hear, so I'm not sure if they can fix it, or perhaps you can come down to one of our offices and and why not do this.

Somebody's working.

Christine here's working, I'll come down to your office.

Yep, that'll be perfect.

I'm just gonna walk.

Okay.

Yes, sir.

We're gonna give Commissioner Cohen a minute to get down here and let him jump into somebody's office.

I'm not sure if it was on his end.

Staff might want to mute his computer because it's still giving feedback.

Come on, yeah.

Let's see if this works.

All right.

Is this any better?

Much better.

Okay.

What I was going to say is that um obviously we need very much to do this work.

It's very important, and the growth demands that Tampa Bay water is already our partner in some of it.

Uh my concern is that with ramping these fees up without um imposing it all at once without any kind of phase in is going to increase the cost of a new home by like $13,000 starting on January 1st of next year, according to my my understanding of how this will work.

And I think that given the crisis in homeownership, given the expense of things, and the fact that this is most likely going to be passed directly on to consumers, we need to find a way to um to do something more similar to what's been proposed in the northwest part of the county.

So that is my that's my first uh statement about it.

The second is that um we really need to we are in a the beginnings of another drinking water emergency that will probably lead Swift MUD to impose a one-day-a-week watering ban uh on residential properties fairly soon, notwithstanding the recent rains that we've had, as Commissioner Wastel knows, we're we're behind and we're rapidly approaching the point where there's going to be imposed conservation methods.

The city of Tampa, after the last time that we had that, did not go back to two-day-a week watering.

They remain at one day a week.

And if everyone remembers, um 50% of our potable water use is irrigation.

So making an adjustment like that could really help us reduce our consumption of water, which would also be something that would help us in terms of the bottom line of this whole project.

So those are really my my two general comments uh about it.

The main thing being that I just think there needs to be a uh a phase in uh of this and not impose it all at once.

And Commissioner Wistel, um, you can go ahead.

Great.

Um George, you and I had a a conversation that I'll dive into a little bit now, and colleagues will just have to hear me repeat it um during the actual adoption hearing on the 17th.

But um that's going back to the rate study that I mentioned that 50% of it um for our annual for a monthly water bill, um was found to actually be increases for new users, meaning one water.

Is that correct?

Is that what was established at that past meeting?

You know, Commissioner, when um when we when we talked about that and the raftella statements, I'm gonna have to go back and review what Raphtell has said because I'm not sure um that I recall that.

Um, and and I trust that you heard what you heard right, but uh, you know, in terms of recovering cost for capital construction, we rely on our impact fees to do that.

We don't rely necessarily on user rates to do that.

But but with that said, I'd like to go back and review that um that that discussion.

Okay, because right now one water we're saying is we've been saying for years it's paid for.

It's paid for bonding it, right?

Well, it's going to be paid for with bonding that we haven't secured yet.

But yes, it is paid for through borrowed money.

Um you go back and review that and you hear him say that.

My question is going to be that 50% of those increases were in fact for new users.

And this is to actually capture the costs of those new users.

I want to hear what the plan is from the water department to phase down those increases that were said to be increased for new impacts once we start capturing impact fees.

That's that's my first point.

My second thing is that I want this easier to understand on who how many units are we saying is going to pay for this.

And you and I did a quick math scenario, and I'd like to um rework through that math exercise, which is how did we get to um this amount of money per house?

You must know how many predicted households we're going to be able to grow.

It's we're planning for, right?

This one water is for planning for new growth, not just existing customers.

So we must know how many new households we're planning for.

What's that number?

So you're absolutely right.

So our planning staff works very closely with the planning commission staff and other planning groups to look at what the forecast is.

What's the current anticipated growth capacity with the current land use that we have today?

We don't project into the future to play the what if game.

You know, what if there's a comprehensive plan amendment that adds more urban space?

We look at the existing uh uh land use and look at what the possibilities are for added uh rooftops, and so we look at that and we project into the future.

Um, as we mentioned before, we're planning on building a 24 million gallon per day wastewater treatment plant.

If you look at what a single family resident typically generates, and our planning model is 225 gallons per day, one one number into another number yields a little over 100,000 uh single family residents, but it's not going to be all single family residents.

In our planning model, there's gonna be commercial space, you know, there's going to be schools, there's gonna be strip centers or malls.

There's all kinds of commercial development um that certainly use a lot more than a single family or would generate a lot more wastewater than a single family resident.

So we have those numbers.

I don't have them in front of me, but I'm happy to gather that up at Lisa's team, she's got that.

We can bring that to the table.

Yeah, I mean, I just we have to see that number.

I mean, the planning commission keeps saying that we're gonna be at two million people by what 2050?

So 400,000 people over the next 25 years, and and we're predicting this will cover 106,000 households.

Um is that what is we ever work off of predicting what two and a half people per household?

Is that about what you say?

So I mean, you see where I'm going with basic math here.

I mean, are we saying that one water is going to um effectively service most of the future planned for growth um through 2050?

It stops short of 2050.

I think um Lisa's planning horizon is about 2040, that this phase of the 24 million gallons is is gobbled up, and then we'll be looking at another expansion.

Because you said that you guys don't do it off of um future expected um growth areas, but you must.

I mean, by you you must be doing it off of because the little manatee, I haven't looked at what numbers that'll produce, nowhere near um 250 plus the I-4 um expansion.

I mean, we must be looking beyond what the current urban service area expansions are going to be.

I mean, which would be fine with me, it would make sense, but um what I'm it's just it's been hard for me.

Um, you know, Ms.

Mr.

Grant, I know you know you're the professional in this field, but I'm pretty good at numbers.

Um, and it's difficult for me to just read this, and and there not be an executive summary for not just the commissioners, but the community to say, hey, um, they don't care about acronyms like MGD.

Say this is how much water for this many households, it's this many households times this amount of impact fee, and here's the number that you get to to pay for the costs of the new construction.

It should be very A plus B plus D.

See where I'm going?

Clear as mud.

I mean, that's that's how these things should be pitched because when it's confusing to me, I I almost guarantee it's I mean, I was following um staff's social media post on the announcement of these impact fees, and the comments were you know, F you commissioners, you're raising my water bill.

And I was like, Yeah, this is not your water bill.

This this is just impacts for developers whom you scream that you hate.

So like this this is for their fee.

And and the point of me telling you that is that that is the level of education that the average citizen has about our jargon, our terminology um in this space.

So something that makes it much more clear that if it's 106,000 households, um I don't see the need for us to immediately jump the impact fees on January the first, like Commissioner Cohen said, because the the planning commission has been studying for, I mean, it's a slow process.

Uh we're gonna have to go back to them and ask them to expedite at this point about hey, when is the expansion area?

When are the expansion areas coming?

Um those aren't gonna come anytime soon.

The the land is not going to be um zoned, uh platted and graded and then constructed, which is the time that we actually capture, we don't collect impact fees at zoning, we do it when they actually um complete um the construction.

So that's that's years out.

So I don't I don't understand why it has to be January the first.

Um if if that's what we're saying is that it's for 106,000 people for for new customers.

Do you see my challenge with making the math math on this?

I do, and you're making some really good points, and I'd like to point out that we have to borrow the money to build the infrastructure up front.

And it would be like you building a house and nobody moves in for six months.

You still built the house, you spent the money and you're paying the mortgage on it, even if nobody lives there.

So similarly, we're gonna build a 24 million gallon per day plant.

If we don't hook up anybody in the first two years, we've still borrowed that money and spent that money.

And so we need to start collecting back on it as soon as the first rooftop goes up.

And then we wouldn't anticipate you know, collecting all of it until the last rooftop is built sometime down the road, whether it's 15 or 20 years down the road.

So, but you're asking some good questions, and we can certainly help simplify the discussion in terms of the planning horizon, the number of homes, the number of businesses of square footage, whatever, uh, that's anticipated to be connected over the foreseeable future.

So I do have one question, Commissioner Wussel on that topic.

For clarification in the presentation, the timeline says 90 days post adoption, which would be the beginning of quarter two, well, our quarter three, right?

So of 2026.

Beginning of March.

Yeah, it'd be uh we would we would begin a set the first uh house built in April or the first uh March 23rd is the date that we it's a Monday, March 23rd.

So we wouldn't start any assessments in January, correct?

Correct.

Okay.

Thank you.

I just want a clarification on that.

I was a little confused.

Thank you.

Um so if you did a phase and approach on this area, would you not be able to do the bonding?

Would it kill the deal?

You could.

We we could do bonding still.

Um so your options would be a two-year, three-year, or four-year phase in.

And and we can uh Lisa is prepared and Justin is prepared to bring those scenarios to the table.

And yeah, I mean, I I guess my point is and unless the planning commission is bringing us like a Christmas surprise and says, hey, just kidding, we finished all those studies that we've had for like almost I don't know, two is it two years now ago we asked them to do that, 18 months?

I don't know.

You know, um I just we don't have the future growth anyways.

I mean even the the W VR2, even though we said 10,000 units, two-thirds of it was already developed at residential two, and so it's like significantly less than 10,000 units.

So that's why I'm like, you know, well, how much is the little manatee expansion area um going to out of this 106,000 households, how many is that potentially gonna bring?

And I know these are gross numbers, it's not it's not the actual real numbers, but um I it's this why I chose not to speak yesterday because I mean no one came anyways, and um I I just I want the numbers.

I'm not trying, I'm not saying you've lost my support, and I'm not trying to talk anybody out of it.

It's it's it's it was my motion to do full cost recovery, but I want the numbers to be very clear and also to be workable for the community.

Got it.

Um so I just I looked at your graphs and and and honestly, like I thought when you guys first came, I thought the study was done, but the study was not done until eight days ago, which then and you know, part of my conversation was that I want to make sure that all of the community is notified that they have their own opportunity, they can get their own person to refute um Stantech if they want and say, hey, we disagree with these line items or their modeling because of you know whatever reason they say, and then we can have that, we can have that dialogue and that conversation.

Um I didn't realize that it was not done until I had asked for it on the second.

It was basically done that day.

So it's like, you know, it kind of so I'd like to clarify, Commissioner, that the study was done.

All of the numbers were done months ago.

Um, what was not done was finalizing the report and signing the report because we were still not sure exactly what direction, whether we were going to go full cost recovery, or whether we were gonna do only up to the 50%, or if we there were still unanswered items.

So all of the calculations and all of the study had been completed already at that point.

It just needed to be wrapped together with the direction that we had received.

Yeah, I mean, it's okay.

I mean the the report wasn't done and available for the community to review.

It's it's this the same the same scenario.

Um I guess it's you know, I this schedule eight down near the bottom.

I just think that it's really important that people have an opportunity to to scrutinize it and say, hey, we you know, we disagree with you know, whatever these numbers are.

Um we disagree with the formula that was used, whatever it might be.

Um, and we hear that, you know.

I'm I'm not the type of person that's trying to railroad anything, uh, except for the the fake affordable housing community, but not normal things like water and wastewater, you know.

I just want to make sure that it's the real number and the cost of doing business is the cost of doing business, just like the cost of a corrugated box at my UPS store was the cost of the corrugated box, and it and it was what it was.

And I just want to make sure that we have that real number that value engineering was done and scrutinized, and that there's not a lot of fluff in here in this report that I don't know.

You know, I don't know Stantex models, I don't know the variable inputs that they use to determine, you know, if it's based off of flat ratios, you know, what's the what's the measurability of waste that you guys calculated in there?

Is it something significantly higher?

Then um, we might, you know, you see where I'm going is there's a there's a lot of different things that it since this was so rushed, and then I tried to get through the report the best I could.

Um I definitely think that we need to see the phased-in approach options and what that would look like, how that would impact bondability.

Um I still want full cost recovery.

I believe that's what we should do.

Um, because if not, you know, our existing families are gonna be the ones that are um subsidizing those losses.

So um, those are my comments right now, and then we'll see what what gets done on the 17th.

Thank you, Commissioner Miller.

I have a few questions.

Thank you, sir.

Uh, for the presentation.

Um, but I am concerned about the increase, the cost increase for the rate.

Um, we have the opportunity to have community engagement um with the communities because at 10 o'clock in the morning, we know we're not gonna get that many people.

And we asked them for the rate that we're asking.

Have y'all gone out to the community in the afternoon to have a email?

Commissioner is that's a great comment.

And so the community that we're talking about is the development uh community, the developers, uh, because they are the ones that pay these impact fees.

Our our existing customers do not pay these in their rates at all.

But have you gone to them even in the afternoon of when they meet to share with them what's coming.

Because we know one light it's going to be passed out.

Yeah.

Okay.

Some of it's going to be passed down if not all of it, some of it.

We've interacted with the uh the TBBA who's very active and engaged in these kinds of matters and discussions and so it's the information in the reports that uh Stan Tech has produced has been provided to the the development community they've got they've got the information and they're ready to move forward in the new they're ready to come they're ready to come to the public hearing next uh Wednesday and speak their mind is what they're ready to do I figure that okay because I think I think there's an opportunity and I and I get it what we need to do and what we have to do but it's a timing it's just right to do this increase that we're talking about like next year and I I get it I and I agree with what you're saying when it comes to bond it's like building the house and you still got to pay the mortgage but you know we're projecting so much out in the 2040 but then my next question will be when is the next time we're going to ask for the rate increase because when you talk about thirty seven dollar increase and even though we're talking to developers and it's going to be passed down okay then what is the next one we can't wait like five and ten years before you ask for a rate another rate increase we need something that can be affordable that people can pay and even when a developer passes down to a potential homeowner yes ma'am I mean everyone don't have the extra money they just don't you know times are tough for people who want to become a homeowner you know we just can't say it's just a developer because they're selling it to a homeowner and people are already talking now that they cannot afford a home it costs too much people moving back home with their parents because they can't afford you just can't afford out there whether they're trying to get an apartment whether they're trying to have a family whether they're trying to buy a house take all that in consideration and I know and I get it we have to move the county forward and plan for the next phase to build what we need with the growth that we expect but I just wish it was other scenarios we can look at the balance the whole situation that's built in my partner.

Very thoughtful discussion anyone else that I'm missing Mr Cassie do you have anything you'd like to add uh madam chair I've taken some notes um I'm gonna see if I can get with the team and we'll circle back with uh a few suggestions based on the comments excellent thank you um the last call before I join this meeting anyone if not we're adjourned thank you very much have a great afternoon