Pasco County’s growth has increased demand for its sports fields and recreational spaces, and the county can’t keep up with those needs.
It’s not a new issue, but the significant growth in recent years has exacerbated the problem.
To address it, the Pasco County Commission last September indicated it would support a sizable increase in the county’s park impact fees. The board directed county staff to take the steps necessary to bring back the item for action.
But the Pasco County Planning Commission pushed back on the proposed rate, during an April 20 planning board workshop and public hearing on the topic.
Keith Wiley, the county’s director of parks, recreation, and natural resources, shared details of the county’s proposal with planning board members.
He told them the current parks impact fee was adopted in 2002.
The county now has two residential rates for park impact fees. The charge is $891.50 for single-family units and $627 per multi-family unit.
The proposal calls for establishing a single fee of $3,450.15 per unit, regardless of dwelling type.
But planning board members raised concerns.
Planning board member Jon Moody put it like this: “I just feel that maybe the timing is not right. I understand that the board gave this direction, but conditions have deteriorated since the time the board gave the direction. They started heading south very quickly.”
Moody also questioned the estimated land values used to arrive at the proposed fee.
“I look at the numbers of the average value per acre for new parkland, and I just want to say whoever calculated them should be the richest real estate investor in history because their land value only ever went up. And, that doesn’t happen.
“I don’t know how we can make that projection, especially in the state of the economy we are in now. We have banks failing. We have credit tightening.
“People are having a harder time getting a loan.
“And I watched in 2008, home values dropped by a third, 40%, just like that.
“This makes the assumption that that will never happen again. This makes the assumption that land prices only ever go up,” Moody said.
Planning board member Derek Pontlitz, a professional wealth strategist, agreed that the timing might not be the best for a spike in impact fees.
However, Pontlitz said he thinks the estimated land values are in the ballpark.
“If I were a person laying out this projection, for projected real estate values, that’s probably pretty fair,” Pontlitz said.
Still, like Moody, he said the economic climate isn’t what it was a year ago.
“Mortgage starts are down 8.8%. The largest month-to-month decline,” he said.
Planning Commission Chairman Charles Grey voiced concerns about Pasco’s proposed fee, as compared to other nearby counties.
“It sounds to me like it puts us at a distinct disadvantage when people are thinking about: ‘Where am I going to develop? Where am I going to spend my development dollars?’” Grey said.
Grey also raised alarm bells about cumulative effect of the county’s impact fees.
“That (proposed park impact fee) would take the impact fees, overall impact fees, on a single-family home in Pasco County to $28,000. That’s just shocking,” Grey said.
The state limits increases in existing impact fees to 50% and requires the additional charges be phased in, unless the county can prove “extraordinary circumstances.”
The planning board’s workshop was to discuss the county’s justification for exceeding the 50% cap.
But Moody noted: “The state limits us to a 50% increase, and I think the state passed that law to make sure the developers had some certainty when they were planning projects.”
Moody added that he doesn’t think the county’s lack of action on park impact fees for 21 years constitutes an emergency.
Wiley said if the proposed fee is adopted by the county board, it is set to take effect on Jan. 1, 2024. No phase-in is planned.
Wiley said county staff fully understands it’s a big number. He also noted that the Tampa Bay Builders Association appreciated the specificity of the plan.
Wiley urged the planning board: “Try to look at it from my perspective, being the public servant, that is constantly being bombarded with the request for additional facilities.”
The planning board voted 3-2 against the determination of an extraordinary circumstance.
But board members unanimously supported a motion by Moody to recommend approval of the ordinance, to the county board, with a number of suggestions:
- That the county board do a more in-depth study of the rate, and if they should find there’s an extraordinary circumstance, they try to bring the new rate more in line with neighboring counties
- That any changes to the county’s capital plan be subject to a public hearing, not through board resolution
- That hotels also pay impact fees to support parks
- That other funding options be explored to pay for capital improvements for parks
- That impact fee increases be phased in.
In other words, Moody said, “ I guess what I’m saying (to the county) is that you need to study the issue a little bit more.”
Published May 03, 2023
