Board of County Commissioners: Regular Meeting - 04.15.26

Welcome to a meeting of your Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners. Representing District 1, Harry Cohen. Representing District 2, Ken Hagen. Representing District 3, Gwen Myers. Representing District 4, Christine Miller. Representing District 5, Donna Cameron Cepeda. Representing District 6, Chris Bowles. Representing District 7, Joshua Wostel. The county administrator is Bonnie Wise. The county attorney is Julia Mandel. Time is set aside at the beginning of each meeting for citizens to speak on any issue. So we have time for everyone. Speakers are asked to limit their comments to three minutes. Today's meeting is brought to you with closed captioning by Hillsborough Television. Good morning. Welcome to the Wednesday, April 15, 2026, regularly scheduled board meeting of the Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners. Would everyone please rise for the pledge and invocation given by our Chaplain Commissioner, Gwen Myers. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Oh, gracious Heavenly Father, I come to you again, asking that you would bless this meeting, bless the leadership of this county, bless this board, bless the conservation recipients this morning who would be recognized in this board meeting. Bless our first responders and our employees in all that they do. In your holy name I pray. Amen. Thank you, Commissioner Myers. This morning we have a very special award to present, one that we look forward to every year, and it will be given by Commissioner Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning, everyone. I'm deeply honored to present this award once again. In January 2017, the Board of County Commissioners unanimously approved the creation of the Theodore Roosevelt Hillsborough Forever Conservation Award to celebrate an individual or group dedicated to preserving the county's natural resources. I want to thank the members of the Jan K. Platt Environmental Lands Acquisition and Protection Program subcommittee and committee who reviewed the nominations and recommended this year's recipients. They do a tremendous job. Do we have any members in attendance today? Please stand and be recognized. Thank you very much for your service to this important committee. Now I am proud to introduce the recipient of the 2026 Theodore Roosevelt Hillsborough Forever Conservation Award, Zoo Tampa at Laurie Parks, David A. Strauss, Jr. Manatee Critical Care Center. Would the following individuals from the Zoo Tampa please join me at the podium? Dr. Christina McCullough, Senior Clinical Veterinarian. Molly Lippincott, Senior Curator Florida and Marine Life. Come right here. Jen McLaughlin, Vice President of Conservation and Learning. Sarah Avilas, Grants Manager. And Mark Haney, Chief External Relations Officer. I'd like to begin by sharing a story that's uniquely Florida. In the fall of 2021, a manatee was discovered emaciated and nearly 100 pounds underweight in the Wikiwachi River north of Tampa. A dedicated team from Zoo Tampa at Laurie Park sprang into action by providing intensive, around-the-clock care, including supplemental feedings four times a day for several months. That manatee, named Flapjack, made a full recovery and was released back into the wild in August of 2022. Flapjack is one of the amazing success stories made possible at Zoo Tampa's David A. Strauss, Jr. Manatee Critical Care Center. Since 1991, the manatee care team has been at the forefront of manatee conservation. The multiple-dissenary team, spanning animal care, veterinary services, and nutrition, and supported by staff and volunteers across the organization, provides critical and rehabilitative care to manatees throughout the state while also supporting rescue and response efforts in the field. To date, the manatee care team has rescued more than 635 manatees and returned 356 to the wild, helping to preserve this iconic species. This work is made possible through close partnerships with the U.S. Fish, Florida Fish, and Wildlife Conservation Commission, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Further, their impact extends well beyond treatment. Through public engagement and education, this team helps residents and visitors understand how to protect manatees in the wild and preserve Florida's waterways. Through their expertise, collaboration, and unwavering dedication, the manatee care team is not only saving individual animals, but also strengthening the health of our ecosystems and the communities that depend on them. It is my pleasure to present the Theodore Roosevelt Florida Conservation Award to Zoo Tampa at Laurie Park in recognition of the manatee care team and their extraordinary contributions to our community, state, and nation. Your service, dedication, and advocacy embody the spirit of the Theodore Roosevelt Hillsboro Forever Conservation Award. Congratulations, and we have this beautiful plaque for you. In addition, your team will be able to choose an enhancement project valued at $2,000 at the Hillsboro County nature area of your choice. The nature enhancement project is courtesy of the county's late great friend, Gus Munich. Also, the name of your organization will be the 10th placed on the perpetual plaque honoring all of the winners of this award that hangs in a case here on the second floor of County Center. So, thank you for all of your amazing work. Would you like to say a few? Thank you, everybody. And we just really wanted to let you know how appreciative and thankful we are for the recognition of our team's dedication to the manatee critical care program. And we're proud to be the world's largest nonprofit critical care center for manatees. Zoo Tampa's conservation mission reaches a global audience through the continued airing of our TV show, Secrets of the Zoo, and through collaborative conservation work with partners around the world. Locally, our impact extends through partnerships throughout the Tampa Bay area, from Hillsboro County schools and community access programs like Nature Nurtures and under-resourced families. Together, we can reach 1.2 million guests who visit our zoo each year. So, thank you again for this recognition and our opportunity to be here today to accept this award. Thank you. Thank you. This is such a special award. I'd like to open it up to see if my fellow commissioners have anything to say. Any board member comments? I just want to say I was here when this award was originated or created many, many years ago. And it's something that I know that the recipients really honor and should honor. We're very proud of it, and we're proud of the great work of the zoo, and look forward to discussing how we can partner further in the future. So, please keep up the great work. We're going to get a photo. Would you all like to come up and get in the photo? We're going to get a photo. Thank you very much. Yes, thank you. Thank you. Yeah, it is. Every day. Thank you all very much. Congratulations again to Zoo Tampa, and thank you, Commissioner Miller, for bringing this item forward. This time, Bonnie, I want to review the changes of the agenda. Yes, good morning, commissioners. We have a few items that have been deferred or deleted. The first one is item B1 has been deferred to a date to be determined, which was to adopt a resolution approving the issuance by the Housing Finance Authority of Hillsborough County of its multifamily housing revenue bonds for the Oaks at Riverview. And item B2 also deferred to a date to be determined, was also to approve a resolution by the Housing Finance Authority of its multifamily housing revenue bonds for Cotaro Heights development. We have one item that has been deleted by Commissioner Wastel, item F4, which was an off the agenda item, to request the Tampa Sports Authority to review the raised memorandum of understanding and provide a recommendation back to the BOCC. You have two items that are for time certain. The first one is item D1. This is to hold a public hearing to consider a draft ordinance to revise the provisions relating to the special rate consideration for solid waste collection and disposal services. And item F3 by Commissioner Wastel at 1015, a presentation and briefing by the County City Planning Commission regarding the Planning Commission's board identified and discussed issues relating to the urban service area. 11.45 is a recess for lunch. Those are the changes to the agenda. Can we have a motion to approve the changes? Move approval. Second. Motion, Commissioner Cohen. Second, Commissioner Wastel. Please record your vote on changes to the agenda. Motion carried, 7 to 0. Okay, now we're going to public comment. The board welcomes comments from the citizens about any issue or concerns. Your opinions are valued in terms of providing valuable input to board members. However, at the same time, as I requested, that comments are not directed at staff or the commissioners, but rather the issues. We've set aside 45 minutes for public comment this morning. The chair will call on speakers by name in the order in which their names appear. Each person will be given three minutes. Please state your name and speak clearly into the microphone. First three speakers, Cassandra Santos, followed by Denise Herndon, and then Debbie Holliday. That's virtual. That's Cassandra here. Please come forward. Good morning, commissioners. Apologize for my frog throat. I lost my voice. My name is Cassandra. I am a resident in the Country Place community located in Carrollwood. Myself, my husband, and my three young children own a property on Fresh Wind Avenue. It borders the Bush Creek preserve space. It's on two. Actually, my property is a corner lot, so it's affected twice by the space. I'm speaking in relation to Agenda Number B4. So we chose this part of Florida because it is not designated as a flood zone. Because of that, the flooding we experienced during Hurricane Milton was unexpected and deeply disruptive to my family. My kids, we were in the home when the water came in, and the recovery process was especially difficult given the lack of the flood zone designation and limited support typically associated with that designation. I do want to thank the county for securing federal funding to improve this creek, and I strongly support the project. I have some photos that I was going to send over to Charlene of the space behind my home depicting the nature of the overgrownness of the space. I do want to emphasize that the creek today reflects years of little to no maintenance at all whatsoever. It is heavily overgrown in many areas, which likely contributed to the flooding that we experienced. We have previously submitted some requests for maintenance of the back, but it hasn't resulted with anything, unfortunately. In addition, which highlights a broader need for more consistent and accountable maintenance of the creek area. Because of this, I respectfully ask that a long-term maintenance plan be built into this project. This should include maybe regular clearing to pre-removal and scheduled inspections, along with clearly defined responsibility for ongoing upkeep. Without a consistent maintenance strategy, I feel like all the money that's going to be put into revitalizing this space will be null and void. Because I feel like that it just might go back to what it was beforehand. In addition to the flood concern, the overgrowth has contributed to a very much so an increase in wildlife activity in my backyard. And including a lot of snakes near residential areas, coyote sightings, which is a growing safety for me and a family of young children. Finally, I would appreciate some clarification from any of the resources you guys have available and who I could speak to, to ensure that this is something that is taking heed to moving forward. I thank you so much for your time this morning, and I hope you guys have a great day. Thank you, Ms. Santos, for coming down. If you stay in the back of the room, my aide will come speak to you. I don't live far from that area, and you're right, it was quite destructive, and I have the videos to prove it. Staff has the videos to prove it. So don't worry about submitting that information because they have it. Thank you, Commissioner Hayden. I appreciate it. Denise Herndon, followed by Debbie Holliday, which is virtual, and then Mark Kiddo. Good morning. I'm Denise Herndon. I've lived on my property 27 years, and I haven't gotten into local government as much as I am now. Our local government affects any resident in this county more than our state and our federal government. And you county commissioners are stewards of our money that we are paying you, either through land taxes or any other taxes. And I'm appalled that a few of you county commissioners have been in the county government for many, many years. And one, considering this head start, I have no problem with that, but is this a prelude to the African Arts and Cultural Center? To me, we have so many other things that need to be taken care of, such as roads and the county commissioner for this nonprofit that wants to start this African American Arts and Cultural Center on the same property where this head start is going to be relocated. And considering the raise, the other county commissioner that has been in our government for a long time has made it very clear that he wants this. The taxpayers don't want this. And from what I understand in both depictions of these two new facilities, it's going to be all glass. So we're going to be paying for the electricity to air condition this place. I don't agree with this and many others don't agree when we need sidewalks and roads. Once we get everything that we citizens, each and every one of us, use all the time, then maybe think about this. But we're funding rich people with the raise stadium coming here. It's not going to put that many jobs. How many jobs did it put when we redid the Buck Stadium? And we still have to pay for the Buck Stadium. It's 30 years old now. When are we going to need a new Buck Stadium that the CIT was originally for? I voted against that and county commissioner had town hall meetings that was misleading people to approve. We need fire stations and the CIT isn't going to pay for all of the firefighters. It's going to pay for the buildings. We need trucks and stuff. Let's get our fire stations, our sidewalks, our roads, then start thinking about other things. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Herndon. Debbie Holliday, virtual, followed by Mark Kiddo, and then Thomas Cobert. Is Ms. Holliday on the line? Yeah, go ahead. Okay. Good morning. I'm Debbie Holliday, and I live in Dover, Florida. I recently found out about an item on the agenda being presented today, item F3. After reading the letter sent to the BOCC, I have some concerns about this discussion. One of the items is the possible research of expanding the urban service boundary further into rural areas. The definitions of urban versus rural territories being removed and other comments that might reduce rural space. Removing rural versus urban means you would have no separation of identity for these areas. For those of us who live in the rural areas, our way of life is distinctly different than urban life. Also, one of the best things about living and visiting Florida is the wildlife and the green space in our rural areas. Our wildlife is unique and is already being affected by new development. We don't want to lose this unique characteristic of Florida. We need to preserve and protect our wildlife, our farms, and the unique way of life in these rural areas. If you need more homes, why not refurbish what we have in the urban areas? People living in the urban areas want these areas revived. Do we still have space in the urban areas for more homes? If your goal is to build more homes, is that happening in the urban area? Or are other things being built? How many homes have been built slash approved to be built in the rural and urban areas already? And how does that compare to the goals that have been set? Residents of Hillsboro are exhausted from all the development we have already had, and we know more is coming. We don't have enough infrastructure now to support what has already been done. We know change is going to come, but changes need to occur in phases with the proper infrastructure to support us. Historically, the county has had the right intentions to provide the proper infrastructure to support new development, but these intentions are not always carried out or partially carried out, or we don't have the money to do what is needed. Our roads, emergency services, schools, et cetera, all need updating. We are constantly putting the cart before the horse, and we keep building. Long lines in traffic, increased fatalities, slow response time from first responders are all making residents miserable. I encourage you and respectfully request you take a pause on changing anything about the rules of development and focus on resolving the issues we have now. Commissioners, you were elected by the people in this county who live here. I know your job is not easy, but the focus on these numbers is wrong. Our quality of life is more important. We are all miserable. Thank you for your time. I appreciate it. Thank you, Ms. Holliday. Mark Kiddo. Mr. Kiddo here. All by Thomas Cobert and then Natalie Belcher. Good morning. Good morning, Chair and Commissioners. My name is Mark Kiddo. I'm a resident of Baycrest Park, and I'm here because Baycrest Park is at a crucial point. The county faces a clear choice. Either enforce the existing single-family zoning and code framework in a way that is consistent with Florida law or allow short-term rentals and boarding houses to quietly erode the neighborhood and homestead integrity. The land development code already sets important limits. It prohibits running dwelling units for less than a seven-day minimum rental period, and that's exactly the kind of use-based zoning-focused approach we're asking the county to strengthen, not abandon. At the same time, we recognize the county must work within Florida's legal boundaries under Section 509. It preempts local governments from banning vacation rentals or regulating the duration or frequency of rental stays. That's why our proposal is not a stay-length ban. It's a zoning, safety, and code enforcement framework built around land use compatibility, registration, certificate of use, life safety standards, responsible party, accountability, and nuisance enforcement. The county also has legitimate concerns about SB 180 and the risk of creating new or restrictive land development regulations that that courts may treat as invalid. That's exactly why this framework focuses on the tools the county has already, already has zoning classification and all of those, those pieces that I had just mentioned. Maycrest is also different because it's tied to ordinance number 8537, which created the Baycrest special dependent taxing district. Under that ordinance, the district provides tax revenues to Hillsborough County. In a return, the county assumes responsibility for the continuing improvement, administration, and maintenance of the district and the properties that was created to support. Baycrest residents have upheld their end of the bargain. They should be able to rely on the county to uphold its end as well. Multiple Baycrest properties are now going before a special magistrate as possible homestead exemption violations to be adjudicated because there's a serious question whether the owners truly live there as their actual primary residence. This is a clear example of the benefit meant for real homesteads being stretched beyond its intended purpose. We also know that buyers are being encouraged, encouraged off the record to treat single family homes as boarding houses or short term rentals. That may happen quietly, but the damage is not quiet. Parking abuse, noise, repeated complaints, turnover, and the erosion of neighborhood stability are exactly the harms which single family zoning is supposed to prevent. So the question for the board is not whether to create a new state length plan. Thank you, Mr. Kiddo. Appreciate the comments, sir. Yeah, I would appreciate it if you guys would seriously consider. Thank you, sir. Thomas Cobert followed by Natalie Belcher and then Raymond Bauer. Mr. Chair, Commissioner, staff, and deputies, good morning. My name is Tom Cobert. I attended Commissioner Myers Town Hall last night, and I wasn't stalking her on one of her constituents. And while I was there, I was aware of the ICE team in Tampa, and they've made up to 3,000 arrests. And I was concerned about what they're doing because, to me, they act like the Gestapo. They're lawless. And she assured me this committee commission is keeping a close eye on them along with the sheriff's department, which I have a great respect for. And that alleviated a lot of concern. And that concern comes from a shooting that happened in March of last year, a 23-year-old male that freaked out and tried to drive away, and he was shot and killed. January, Renee Good, she was trying to pull away from agents. An agent in front of the car shot her, shot from the front of the car, hit her left arm, stepped out of the way, fired again, hit her right breast. And when she was even with him, he shot her in the head, killing her. And then there was Alex Predigt. And this one was personal. He was an ICU nurse for the VA hospital system. And he went to help a woman up. They grabbed him, threw him to the ground, sat on him. And an agent pulled the gun out of his back, which was legally carried, and they shot him 10 times in the back. They then went around and confiscated phones from everybody in the area because they knew that this was going to be a problem. They missed the guy that was videotaping it inside of a store. And that just blew up on the Internet. They shot that man 10 times in the back. And I'm a disabled veteran. I get excellent care at the VA hospital and the VA system here in Tampa. They shot one of ours. And that is unacceptable to me. And I'm not going to tolerate, you know, ICE out of control in this county. I moved down to Six Mile Creek in 67 when I was 13. And I didn't buy into the races. It was a Klan neighborhood. But I bought into their love for a good fight. And I'm very protective of where I live. And Hillsborough County is my home. Thank you for your comments. Next up is Natalie Bletcher, followed by Raymond Bauer. Is Natalie here? Raymond Bauer. Then we're going to move on to Quentin Robinson virtual. Quentin Robinson has not checked in. Not checked in. Next up would be Laura Lawson in person. Good morning. I'm Laura Lawson, a former legislative aide here to the county commission, 28-year resident of Hillsborough County, and also a real skeptic about stadiums. I came here last time. And I'm explaining how these deals typically get done. You avoid a public vote. You rush approval of the financial deal through local boards and councils, which is ongoing. You provide rosy projections about economic impact that never pan out. That's the AECOM study that y'all are going to be looking at tomorrow. And you make it a quest to get a team rather than a careful consideration of the relative cost to taxpayers versus benefits to the community. Let's just look briefly at the proposed MOU, the Memorandum of Understanding. The stadium project budget is $2.3 billion. About half of that is public funds. $251 million from the city of Campa. $750 million from Hillsborough County from these revenue sources I've listed. So the county will own the stadium and enter a 35-year lease with the team. Meanwhile, the team pays $0 in annual property taxes. They pay $10 a year in rent to the county. And the team also gets 85% of the allowable increase in value revenues from the Drew Park CRA, where they've got their mixed-use development. Now, so here is what I was mentioning before. This is the fiscal analysis update that you all are going to see tomorrow at the workshop. We're really fortunate that a couple of national experts in this field have already reviewed this report. First of all, we have Neil DeMoss. He's the author of the book Field of Schemes. He also has a blog. You can look it up. He reviewed it. And here's what he said. Most of AACOM's analysis is geared towards estimating economic impact, which is a garbage stat. It's just add up all the financial transactions that are happening regardless of where the money goes, regardless if it goes to the developer, regardless if it goes to the owner. What is worth quibbling over is fiscal impact. That's when local taxes are generated based on the activity that's going on. So he wrote this in his blog yesterday. He also spoke with a fellow expert, the author of The Baseball Economist. And here's what he has to say. It's not pretty. This is not a local person who wrote this report. He's from Chicago. But I've seen the report. It's mostly a pile of useless numbers of dubious origin. It's pseudo-economic drivel with the analytical rigor of a junior high science project. So please do not rely on that report. What we are getting is a stadium where you can go watch a team. You can pay to watch them. Among the things that the team gets is a long list of things that they retain. Thank you so much. Thank you, Ms. Lawson. Bye-bye. Last speaker this morning, Dr. James Davison. Good morning, board. James Davison, New Tampa. Through the grapevine we heard and in the paper today, we were disappointed to read that the outside counsel is going to say it's okay for you to use the CIT tax. Like I said, we were disappointed, but we were not surprised. Outside counsel always tells you that you can do that. I've been through this multiple times. They have never won. The bottom line is this is not an uncommon thing. It's not common, but it's not uncommon. You're very familiar with all of the all for transportation and the ballot questions on the transportation taxes. You lost. Just a year ago, a referendum that passed by 73 percent, city two hours north of here, dealing with public utilities, which was on the ballot language. The judge nullified the ballot. Now, I'm under the impression that the question addressed to outside counsel was that could you use the CIT tax? We are going to go and try to nullify the entire CIT tax. That will mean no money for Plant City, no money for Temple Terrace, no money for anybody. This has got to stop. We feel confident that we have the evidence and the opinions to prevail in this lawsuit. Roll the dice. You want to play hardball? Let's play. The bottom line is you can stop all of this. The date of June the 1st put forth by the Rays is an artificial date, one they made up. MLB isn't making it up. They have the ability to play at the TROP until through 2030. They could play the last year before they finished the stadium. In Steinbrenner Field, that would be a great video. You have time to either tell them that I'm sorry we can't use the CIT tax and look for other revenue streams that you haven't even considered but are available or put it on the ballot in August or November. You have that time. You want to bring the community together with the Rays? You have to be kidding me. You will split this right down the middle. You may never get a sales tax passed again. Thank you very much for your time and have a good week. Thank you, Dr. Davison. All right, that closes. Public comment. Can we have a motion to approve your consent? So moved. Second. Motion, Commissioner Wellstow. Second, Commissioner Myers. Please record your vote. Motion carried, 7 to 0. Bonnie, I'm going to introduce the first item. Thank you. We can move to the regular agenda. The first item is item B3. This is to receive and accept a 2026 storm water rate study report. And Josh Bilotti will take us through this presentation. Josh. Good morning, Commissioners. Thank you, Josh Bilotti, Engineering and Operations Department. This item is to receive and accept the 2026 updated stormwater rate study report, which was performed and submitted by the county's rate consultant, Raph Tellis. The stormwater management program is established by ordinance, and the stormwater fee is a non-advalorum assessment appearing on residents' annual property tax bill. Revenue from the stormwater assessment goes towards the completion of stormwater capital projects, such as replacing stormwater pipes or culverts and making drainage improvements across the county. In addition, it goes towards operations and maintenance, like clearing out debris and obstructions from drainage inlets, stormwater pipes, and open drainage ditches. Investment in the stormwater system provides community benefit by reducing flood risk and negative impacts to the county's roadway and infrastructure. Black & Veatch's comprehensive stormwater evaluation included two key recommendations, funding stormwater capital needs and increasing stormwater maintenance. And the county's rate consultant, Raph Tellis, coordinated with Black & Veatch on the rate study and incorporated their recommendations. Raph Tellis looked at overall capital project needs across the major stormwater programs, which are spread out across the unincorporated county. Culverts are the largest program and greatest need for replacement of aging and failing infrastructure. The county has 1,400 miles of stormwater pipes that would stretch from here all the way up to Maine, and this shows nearly 400 culvert projects currently needed across the county. Taking all of those current and future capital needs into consideration, Raph Tellis' report proposes annual capital funding of $61.6 million. It's important to note that Raph Tellis took into account multiple funding sources for these capital needs in order to reduce the burden on the stormwater assessment. They applied projected revenue from the CIT renewal and CDBG-DR, which, based on the projected funding amounts, added up to $19.8 million annually that could be shifted to those other funding sources. Subtracting that amount, they determined a remaining need of $41.8 million annually for the stormwater capital program. And that does exceed the current funding level by $14.8 million, which is their proposed additional funding amount that would go largely to culverts and also towards neighborhood flood protection, pump stations, and ditch and channel restoration. Operations and maintenance activities can't be funded with CIT or CDBG-DR dollars, and so these rely on the stormwater assessment as well as supplementation by the general fund. Top maintenance activities include clearing and repairing pipes and ditches, mowing and cleaning canals, and repairing structures and washouts. In order to increase the overall amount of these activities by 10% across the county, an additional $1.8 million is needed annually. Additional percentage increases could also be achieved with corresponding additional funding. The previous stormwater rate study was conducted by Raph Tellis in 2019, and at that time, the average annual assessment was set to $76 with a five-year plan to incrementally increase to $96 annually. These were postponed due to COVID and then resumed in 2023 and 24 when the rate was set to $86.49 annually. Last year, there was no change to the rate as the county ensured that the ongoing rate study update could incorporate both the Black and Veatch recommendations as well as the county's CDBG-DR plan. Looking back at all of those areas where the rate study proposes additional funding, this chart illustrates each of their corresponding impacts to the annual assessment amount. These provide a menu of options for the board to consider with regard to increased investment in the stormwater program. There is rate relief that is built into the program currently with multifamily and condo properties assessed at one-third and agricultural properties exempt from the stormwater assessment. There's also a hardship program that can provide a full exemption for qualifying low-income property owners. Black and Veatch's stormwater report did reflect that Hillsborough County's current annual stormwater rate of $86.49 is among the lowest 25% across the state of Florida. This chart shows where we rank compared to some other counties and cities, both at the current level as well as the potential or proposed level. So as I mentioned, the purpose of this item is for the board to receive and accept the stormwater rate study. It would also be beneficial for staff to receive input or guidance from the board regarding the rates for this upcoming tax year. In order to update the tax rolls, the county holds a public hearing each summer, which will need to be noticed and advertised ahead of time. And if there is a rate change contemplated, individual notices will need to be mailed to each property owner advising of the new proposed rate. It is an option and up to the board's discretion to choose not to adjust the rates at this time or to consider either fully or partially implementing the recommendations from the rate study. For example, the board may consider deferring the additional capital investment at this time in light of the CDBG-DR funding. Staff is here to support as well as answer any questions that you might have. And we do have our rate consultant here with us as well. Thank you. Thank you, Josh. Appreciate the presentation. Do we have any questions, comments, direction? Commissioner Cohen? Thank you, Josh. That was a very good report. Thank you. What you just said at the end about the CDBG money that it effectively could be replacing some of the capital, explain what you meant by that. So our rate consultant did factor in the amount of CDBG disaster relief funds that the county will have to utilize towards stormwater. And so they factored those additional funding sources when they came up with their recommendations. So it's not exactly a substitute, although, as you mentioned, it is a significant amount of additional investment that we're able to make in the stormwater system. And so it will have a positive impact. And we're going to set this later on in the meeting? Is that what we're going to do? No. Right now we're just going to accept the report. We're just going to accept the report. Got it. Okay. One question I did have for Bonnie. Bonnie, if the board, not today, but we're inclined to consider any changes, how much time or leeway do you need in order to make the public hearings and all those things? I think what Josh was saying is that we would have the public hearings in the summer. So I think if we could get some kind of direction or range that the board would like to consider, that would give us some guidance. But it won't be until the summer. All right. Okay. Thanks. Commissioner Bowles? Along that same line, what would be the latest? Because you have to mail this out to 200,000 people who are affected by this. What would be the latest that we could make a decision on this? So working backwards from when we need to update the tax rolls in September, the public hearing is usually held in August, which means we would like the notices to be able to go out in late June or early July at the latest. Okay. So let's say another month or so. I'm not saying that we have to do that, but that's okay. Thank you. Commissioner Willstall. Thanks, Josh. One question I forgot to ask during the briefing. If you recall, I voted no on the increase of water and wastewater. And I think it's actually because I got Raftelis themselves to admit that 50% of that increase. Are they the same revenue consultant for all of the departments? I can't remember. Oh, that's negligible. I think it was Raftelis. But I got them to admit on the record that 50% of the increase was to absorb new impacts for new customers that were moving here. And that's why I said no, because I think that's inappropriate. Do we charge an impact fee for stormwater? I've never really asked that question. I do not believe that we do. No, sir. So when a new development comes in, they create new stormwater maintenance, though, correct? They may add additional infrastructure that's accepted by the county for maintenance. But, you know, there are also stormwater and floodplain regulations that are built into the land development code to reduce the impact on the community by the new development. And that reduced impact is down to zero. That's why we don't charge them any impact fees. I've never had this thought. I've just never – the question's never been asked. I guess my question then, Josh, is, you know, when a development comes in, obviously the maintenance is going to be collected through the stormwater fee. Yes. But is there any type of analysis to determine that the amount of new impact – excuse me, the amount of new stormwater maintenance fees that are going to be collected are the appropriate amount to maintain whatever new infrastructure the county is accepting for that development? So let's say it's a really low density, like residential one, but they had to put some really substantial stormwater in place that we collect, that we accept onto our own record, but they're a very low density. So they're going to collect less maintenance fees. Is there anything to determine that we're collecting an appropriate amount of that new impact to maintain whatever infrastructure we're accepting from new development? I don't think our rate consultant looked at that issue specifically. I think they look at it more from the bigger picture in terms of what's our current needs with the system. And they project into the future what our future needs are going to be with our infrastructure as it ages. But the new development does add new property owners that would be assessed to this stormwater fee too. So that assessment on the whole can increase as new property owners – They project it flat though, averaged out, among the population, the houses, whatever. They don't project it off of, hey, is what we're doing making sure that we're not shoving the burden of new development onto existing homeowners. So that's going to be a lingering question for me then. And for the same reason for the water increase, which was that 50% of that increase was absolutely to pay for projected new residents. That means that the other 50% is being subsidized by existing residents. That's why I voted no. And it would seem like it would behoove us to make sure that whatever we're doing, we're collecting 100% of the amount of revenue needed of new impacts. to make sure that existing customers are not continuing to have to subsidize new residents. So that's – I guess that was my question. And the answer is that no, we don't know that answer. So thank you. Okay, Commissioner Myers. I'm going to move to receive the report and hold a public meeting to determine if the rate remain unchanged or we have an increase in the rate. That's my motion. Question. We have a motion, Commissioner Myers. Do we have a second? Second. What do you mean a public meeting? Second by Commissioner Cohen. To determine if we're going to increase the rate later this summer. In other words, we should bring it back here. Bring it back here. We're just receiving the report. Right. That's all. Okay. Got a motion. Accept the report and schedule another discussion in front of the board by Commissioner Myers. Second, Commissioner Cohen. Please record your vote. Motion carried. Seven to zero. V4. Thank you. The next three items are related to the CDBGDR program. And the first one is item B4. This is regarding various infrastructure projects. And Rob Hendrickson and Josh Bellotti, Lisa Ray, and Forest Turboville are all available here for this presentation. This is phase three of infrastructure projects related to the CDBGDR program. Good morning, Commissioners. Robert Hendrickson, Management and Budget and Disaster Recovery Grant Program Manager. On February 18th and March 4th, you approved the first two phases of infrastructure projects for the county under this grant, $79 million. Today we are excited to bring to you our third phase of projects, 160 sites, bringing our total site number to 376 across all three phases. This set of projects is tallied at $95 million. And like the others, it's really designed to mitigate the impact of flooding in the future and keep our community safe. We have projects represented by public works, water resources, and lands management today we'd like to summarize for you. Again, Commissioners. So for public works, we have several important projects here for phase three. Two of them are drainage improvement projects. One is in Palm River to help reduce flooding risk and impacts in the area around 76th Street in Palm River. And one is in Dover that includes restoring two miles of roadside ditch along several streets along with storm side drain pipe replacement to help improve stormwater conveyance. There is a channel restoration project along Brushy Creek in the Northdale community to clear and remove excess vegetation and debris from the creek and help to improve flow and alleviate chronic flooding in the surrounding area. We have a culvert renewal and replacement project that will replace stormwater pipes at 105 sites across the county. And we also have power outage emergency beacons, which are backup traffic signal flashers that can keep a signal functioning during power outages. This can help enhance safety, support emergency services, and reduce traffic disruption in the aftermath of the storm event. And then finally, we have a storm pump station resiliency project, which includes rehabilitation and improvements at 14 of the county's permanent stormwater pumping stations. Good morning, commissioners. Lisa Ray, director of water resources. So water resources project is the Ruskin low pressure sewer system conversion. The LPSS system, as we call it, was installed 30 years ago. And during the storm, these systems proved to be a significant weakness for us. Each system has a small individual electrical and control panel located at the house, as well as a small submersible grinder pump. During the storms, we lost every system that was flooded. And so we had thousands of these residential units out of service. During recovery, that cost us over $8 million to maintain pumping and to restore the services. In fact, there are still a couple of systems that we are finishing up repairs on. This project would replace those with a new contained vacuum sewer system, which is resilient to flooding. Because each system is not an individual pump. It does feed into a main vacuum system. And it's going to make a big impact to the residents in the Ruskin area. Good morning, commissioner. Forrest Herberville, director of conservation, environmental lands management. As shown on the attached slide, our department has included three projects for your consideration today. Each of which is designed to mitigate flooding within areas impacted by hurricanes Milton and Helene. Our first request is for $2 million to construct approximately 25 acres of coastal wetlands. This will be on the county's Cracker Avenue Preserve located immediately west of US Highway 41 in Gibsonton. Now, this project is currently in the design phase and has been designed to maximize the site's ability to capture stormwater runoff from surrounding lands as well as from Highway 41. It also will mitigate the impacts of storm surge along this stretch of US 41, which is a major EMS route going from north to south to South Hillsborough County. And this particular section of roadway in Gibsonton near the preserve was significantly impacted by storm surge during Hurricane Helene. So our goal is to ensure that at least in this particular stretch of roadway, we mitigate some of those impacts in the future. Now, our second request is larger. It's for $6 million. And this is to construct 93 acres of restored wetland stream habitat on the county Stacy R. White Nature Preserve in South Riverview. This acreage was ditched and drained back in the 1960s and comprises the historic headwaters of Little Bullfrog Creek, which is a direct tributary to both Bullfrog Creek and Tampa Bay. Now, Bullfrog Creek in particular experienced record water heights during Hurricane Milton and actually exceeded the heights experienced during Hurricane Ian by an average of three and a half feet. And some of the aerials that you can see on that are pretty pretty amazing in a bad way. So this project is shovel ready bid documents are being finalized right now. And it has also been designed to maximize on site water storage, slow the velocity of stormwater flows and ultimately reduce downstream flooding within what we call peak sensitive areas of Bullfrog Creek. And this would be the stretch located between Riverview and Gibsonton going all the way to Tampa Bay. And then finally, our third request is for $10 million. And this is to acquire and restore county approved preservation lands that are located along the Tampa Bay coastline in the Ruskin and Gibsonton areas. This project will mitigate coastal high water hazard events by preserving coastal lands that are most vulnerable to storm surge. And again, we saw storm surge in these areas in particular Ruskin during Hurricane Helene. And then secondly, the restoration of disturbed wetlands will increase onsite water storage and attenuate storm storm surge flooding and impacts along US Highway 41 and also nearby properties. Lastly, I wanted just to bring to the board's attention late last week, we were excited to launch a dedicated website for all of our grant activities, our projects, our programs, and the reason why I'm covering it here. We've invested some effort and time in a mapping feature that will allow residents to essentially find all the projects the boards approved already see photos of the existing state learn about the benefits that we expect to accrue understand costs and also a notional schedule. This site is live. This site is live. I plan to email all of you the details. And this site is also being used in all of our press releases, social media outreach, and signage for the program in its entirety. Thank you. Well, thank you very much for the presentation. I want to thank you for all of your work with identifying projects that will provide a much needed relief and improvements to so many neighborhoods, particularly one that we heard from this morning from Miss Santos that came down and identifying the Brushy Creek restoration project. I worked very hard with staff on this. This area was devastated. I drove by in the aftermath and have videos of it, in fact, of debris that was piled 10, 15, 20 feet high. You couldn't even see the homes because the debris on the street of all the furniture and walls and drywall and everything, it really looked like a war zone. So thank you very much for ensuring that this was included. She did bring up a good point, though, as far as ongoing maintenance. I understand there are environmental issues that have to go into creeks and things like that, but it is a good point. And I want to make sure that we don't just, on all these projects, have a one-time fix and then forget about it. In 10 years we have another issue. So I want to ensure that we, to the extent that we can, that we include ongoing maintenance in our work plan. So that was an excellent point. Commissioner Bowles. Two questions, one for Lisa, one for Forrest. We'll go with Lisa first. With the low pressure systems, how many residents in Ruskin are affected by that, roughly? If you could guess. It's several hundred. I mean, we do have to, part of the funds needs to go into building the vacuum lift station. And once that main central infrastructure is built, then we go down the streets and connect the streets. So I can get you the exact number. I can email it to you. Yeah, that'd be fun. What we're anticipating we are in design, because it is part of our whole septic to sewer. So basically it is shovel ready. So we'll be able to get you those numbers. And if there's any new builds, would this be able to be integrated with that? Yes. Okay. So it is very clear. We'll be able to do that in the right place for any infill that happens in that area. So it could expand. Yes. Okay, great. Thank you. And Forrest. Excuse me, sorry for my voice. The Bullfrog Creek, is that part of that whole system that we worked on to dump into the Wolf Branch Creek? Is that part of the whole network down there that would… It is separated. So Bullfrog is a little bit further north and east. And then Wolf Branch actually has its headwaters down by 674. It kind of wraps north around HCC and then heads toward the coast. So they are very much separate. All right. Thank you. Commissioner Myers. Rob, can you show us the board the mapping, what you showed me yesterday, or what a constituent would see when they click on the mapping, if you can? Sure. If we can. Would you like a live demo, Commissioner? Absolutely. Can I describe what's on the screen? No, live, if you can. We just need to go to that. It's important that we see exactly what a constituent, when they click on the mapping. And you all have done an awesome job of making sure that the constituents, through the CDBGDR funding, would have access to see immediately results. Thank you, Rob. Certainly. This is our site. Rebuilding for tomorrow is the phrase we use to describe it. You'll hear that more and more. It's a lot easier than saying all those letters we use. If we go to impact, you'll see a drop-down called In My Neighborhood. Bear with my using this mouse. You can see there, we can drill in to any number of these. And when a user clicks on a given project, we will have current state photographs, but the plan is before and after photographs. We think that's important to show the impacts we made. It will summarize the scope of the project and the benefits we expect for residents to enjoy. And then we can click for more details where those who would like more information can reach in and read about the summary, the community benefit, the amount approved by the board, and then project locations. In some cases, like Culver Projects, there are many locations that are bundled. Same with lift stations. So all of that will be available. If the board approves our Phase 3 projects, they will appear here within about 7 to 10 days. If it's up to me, closer to 7. And then your constituents can go find out more information about this. Excellent. B4. A motion to approve by Commissioner Meyers. Second, Commissioner Bowles. Commissioner Wollstone. Just real quick for Forrest. I was trying to find how much are we paying to acquire that shoreline. So, Commissioner, we have requested $10 million. Currently, we have seven approved properties for preservation through the ELAT program. Likely, we'll probably get one or two of those with $10 million. But we're going to go after the largest sites first, especially those in combination with other preserves. The title of it said $10 million for acquisition and restoration. So I thought this was already approving something that had been negotiated. So, never mind. But good luck on the negotiations. Yeah. Okay. We've got a motion and a second. Please record your vote on B4. Motion carried 7 to 0. B5. B5. And Audrey will take us through this part of the multifamily and special population housing program, part of the CDBGDR. Good morning, Commissioners. Audrey Ziegler, Social Services Department Director and also the lead for the CDBGDR grant housing programs. Item B5 is asking for your approval today of the CDBGDR blueprints for the $60 million in funding that will be used for multifamily projects and $20 million for special population housing projects. Both programs will go through a competitive procurement process, ensuring accountability through a transparent process. Budget amendments will come before the board separately before any funds are spent. So approving these blueprints today does not obligate the funds. It authorizes overall framework to begin the notice of funding procurements. BOCC will retain final approval authority over all funding awards and agreements. And we are planning on community engagement with interested applicants in mid to late May, followed by the release of competitive applications in June. For the multifamily housing program, we will target projects ranging from small rehabilitation up to substantial rehabilitation to address storm-related damage and the potential for new construction. The competitive awards process will prioritize the rehabilitation of damaged property projects as much as possible over new construction projects. For special population housing, we will focus on projects for homeless residents or vulnerable residents with disabilities. Our consultants with BDO and I are available for questions. All right, thank you. Move approval. Second. Motion to approve, Commissioner Cohen. Second, Commissioner Meyers. Commissioner Bowles. Good morning. Good morning. With the RFP process, is that going to go through our normal RFP process, so there's no streamlining of anything? It will go through our procurement process. What we'll do initially, though, is develop what the scope will look like, what the scoring will look like, what the prioritization will look like. So once we determine that, then we'll work with our procurement department. And we, and you said you were prioritizing repair over new build. At what point do we stop looking at repair and start looking at new build? Is it, you know, is it, if it trickles in for repairs and then new build, is it six months, a year, or is this, at what point do we prioritize one over the other? So our approach will be to put both out simultaneously and open the bids and see what projects we get. So the prioritization will happen at the scoring level. And the repair and new build is based on individuals making claims? It's based on projects, so multi-family projects, with 50 to, 5 to 50 units. And who's identifying those? Where are they being identified at? They'll be identified based when we put the procurement out in the notice of funding. So they'll be able to see if they qualify to apply. Is that correct? Yeah, okay. All right, thank you. Commissioner Wollstall. So I just want to be clear then, because I didn't realize the new construction was so open-ended. So if a multi-family developer who intends to just, intends already to build Section 8 somewhere, can just shift and be like, oh, well, I would like to apply for this, and I'm going to build it, you know, down on 674 and 301, and this is my location. So what we'll be looking at is what their funding stack looks like. If their funding stack is already developed, then those will be projects we are not interested in. We're looking where this funding will fill a gap for what we're looking for based on the hurricane damage. But the location is going to be entirely selected by the developer, or will it need to be geographically adjacent to a multi-family low-income that got damaged during the storm? They will have already had to secure the land, but I thought, am I understanding the question? But we're not looking to rebuild adjacent to multi-family projects that are already there. What we are looking for, though, is to score projects that are near employment, near grocery stores, near transportation. So we're not just trying to build a roof. Yeah. When you, maybe I'll just talk to staff a little bit more before those RFPs go out to just to not litigate it now. I just have so many questions that I didn't have before that work. Well, I think the RFPs are more developing the scope, so that would be a good time before our scope is fully developed. Right now? Now. Yeah. Well, I don't mean this minute. I mean, before, with staff. Oh, okay. Yeah, because I'd like the meeting to keep moving. I was like, you know. Yeah, yeah, yeah. No, I think I'm telling you, it's good timing because the scope is being developed now. So, yes, we'll take your feedback as we're developing the scope. Okay. And, Commissioner, one of the reasons we are only bringing our approach to how we'll be putting the funding out there is so that we can involve you all and take your considerations when we develop the scoring for the procurement. Yeah, and I just, I mean, I trust you emphatically. I just, we even had two items removed from today's agenda, unrelated, that had to do with this style of housing in areas that I would never agree to that were going to be funded through our own mechanisms. So, that's why I'm just like, these things are all over the place, and that's why I have so many questions. But that was a good question, and I'll think on that. Thank you. Thank you for tolerating my learning curve. Commissioner Bowles. Just to follow up, if we're developing that scope, would you make sure you share that with my office as well? Absolutely. How you guys are coming along with that? We can do that with every office. Okay, yeah, that'd be great. Thank you. Okay, we've got a motion, a second. Please record your vote. Motion carries, seven to zero. B-6. The final CDBG item is relating to the payment processing process for repairs and reconstruction to homeowners' reimbursements. And, Rob, if you could take us quickly through this one. Yes, Rob Hendrickson, management budget. I'm back. In February, the board approved our single-family housing program. We are launching that program in two weeks. As you can imagine, it will involve a lot of work directly with homeowners for reimbursements and with our contracting firms for repairs and rebills. As part of the work, we want to make sure we have a means to pay homeowners and contractors expeditiously. Contractors for the many small subcontractors who will be supporting this in the community and homeowners for the obvious reason. As a result of that objective, we began thinking about ways to facilitate those payments and to simplify the complexity around the bundling of invoices that we were hoping to receive. And as a result, what we're proposing for is a contract amendment for BDO, our consultant helping us with our housing program, to essentially be a pass-through and an invoice aggregator for us. The pass-through would allow for them to pay homeowners and construction firms within about a week, which is more rapidly than we would be able to. And then they could essentially aggregate all of the documentation related to home repairs, home reconstruction, and reimbursements, of which there are many. Schedules of variances, work orders, notices to proceed. As we were thinking about how we would manage this, I do want to mention and thank the clerk's office. We partnered with them on this from day one to really look at this as an option. And I'm pleased to say they fully support this model and believe it will reduce the effort and complexity for their staff as well. So we're asking for the board's approval. I don't see any questions or comments. Can I have a motion? Move approval. Motion to Commissioner Russell. Second, Commissioner Myers, please record your vote on B6. Thank you. Motion carried, 7 to 0. Okay. Bonnie, you got a first time certain. Our first time certain is item D1. This is a public hearing regarding the solid waste collection and disposal services. And Hank Ennis will take us through this item. Good morning, Hank. Good morning. Commissioners, this is a public hearing to consider an ordinance that addresses issues raised by our internal auditor with our solid waste code. The internal auditor recognizes inconsistencies in the code relating to the dates when individuals may apply for special rate considerations, specifically the senior citizen discount and the accessory dwelling unit exemption. To address the issue, the solid waste management department is recommending that the inconsistent dates be removed from the code, which will allow county administration the ability to set those dates and post them on their website to avoid any inconsistencies and to allow for flexibility for the county administration to assist those seeking the discounts. We also clarified a definition regarding public utilities. And when this ordinance was originally adopted, that term referenced the solid waste management department. Damien is here to answer any questions. And this is a public hearing. All right. Thank you, Hank. That's a public hearing. One individual, Denise Herndon, signed up to speak. Please come forward. Denise Herndon, I'm Denise Herndon. I'm under the understanding that I only had to apply for the senior citizen and low-income discount for my ad valorem garbage collection one time. I'm not understanding because I don't understand everything I read. The other thing I don't understand is when I look in the neighbors around me, why the ad valorem taxes for are different on different properties. And some properties don't even have ad valorem taxes, just stormwater. I don't understand this. And I don't believe this issue here is addressing that. Just the little bit that I read in it, they're just taking, adding her with him and different things. And just, I don't see it addressing why isn't people being taxed the same thing on non-ad valorem taxes for the solid waste. And some people that don't have senior citizen stuff, they're paying different on their stormwater. More needs to be looked into about this ad valorem taxing, or I should say non-ad valorem or however it's addressed because it's different than other taxes. So, that's my concern. I think what is being addressed here is just to dot your I's and T's. All you have to do is look at my property and check all the properties around me and see the non-ad valorem taxes and the difference that people are paying. Some are paying nothing. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Herndon. For that comment, Commissioner Bowles? Ms. Mandel. Ah, you got it working. I think I got it this time. We briefly talked about this to some degree yesterday, about the ability to have an exemption kind of extent. It has to be filed every year. That's correct? That's the way the ordinance reads. It's always been that way. If he has any other comments on that, but the way the ordinance reads, it seems to be… I'm sorry, did you repeat the question? That this, you're removing the dates, the date specifics. Right. But it still has to be filed every single year. You have to file a form for that. It doesn't, like, carryover. Let me speak to that issue. Good morning, Commissioner Damien Trammell, Solid Waste Management Department Director. Regarding the senior citizen discount, you do not apply every year. Once you apply, you stay on there until otherwise, until somehow we circle back with you to see whether or not you still qualify for the senior discount. Okay, so there would have to be, like, a change of residence or somebody else would have to move in. There's some other triggering event that happens. And so, if, for example, Ms. Herndon said she filed for it, she would not have to file again every single year. That's correct. She wouldn't have to. Okay. And how do we, I'll say, how do we advertise? How do we let the public know about that this is available for them? Commissioner, that's a great question. Right now, the senior discount program is one of our more popular programs that we offer. We use our website, which is a very dynamic website, here's what kind of website, to really advertise the discount. Is there, when we're sending out any notifications for, is it possible that we can ensure that there's notifications when they're going out for increases or something along those lines, that we could have some kind of insert that's placed in there to notify our senior citizen population? Because those individuals over the age of 65 tend to be more strapped for cash, you know, essentially, because a lot of them are, have, you know, their limited resources there. Commissioner Bowles, great, great advice. Absolutely, it's for all options to really get the word out there better than what we have in the past. I'm not saying you're not doing a great job, but just kind of expanding on that, if possible. Absolutely. Yes, sir. All right. Thank you, sir. If I could ask Hank to address the issue of the ordinance of what it says, when I think the way it's being interpreted, I'll ask him to comment on that. Regarding applications for senior citizen discounts, we do, it currently reads that it's an annual application, but we certainly can correct that and make it, once the person applies as a 65-year-old, they don't need to apply again until such time as a new owner moves in. We can make that change and bring it back to you. Okay. And that's kind of how we, I had looked at it like that, and we had kind of had some discussion, and I thought that maybe it could be tweaked, but I think that'd be great if that's the case. Commissioner Wollstone. How are you getting notified when someone moves out? How do you get notified of a change of ownership? Commissioner, we are not. We do not know when someone moves out. We don't. So, how do you know, does a new owner have to go on the website, I can't recall, and sign up for service? How do you make sure that you're not continuing to apply the discount to an address? That's my question, I guess. That's part of what the audit disclosed, Commissioner, that we need to do a better job of managing the discount program altogether. Oh, okay. There's nothing that the property appraiser can tie into, no API systems, nothing like that? Not that we're aware of at this time, Commissioner. Okay. That's tied to an address in the age of a person. No, it's not. Okay. All right. Thank you. Commissioner Cohen. Don't we know when someone moves out because they cancel their service? I mean, isn't that the most obvious trigger for, and then somebody else comes in, and they move in, and they essentially start the service under their own name? So, the assessment is tied to a folio number, which is tied to the property itself, and not the person, not the person. So, if the person moves out, if the person moves out, they can move out, but we assess the property and not the actual individual in terms of the person. So, it's tied to the folio. But the bill has to come to somebody in the mail. I mean, there has to be a name on it. And if you're receiving somebody else's bill, I would think most people change it to their own name, and they don't just keep paying it in someone else's name. That's great. But, again, Commissioner, it's tied to the folio of the property itself, not person. I see. Well, it sounds like this is a real thicket, then, in terms of collection. But I guess at least if we change the ordinance, that will be a step in the right direction. I'm thinking that the approach now with this conversation is for us to take a look at the ordinance and make sure it matches up with how we're implementing it and maybe putting in some other opportunities to require you to actually notify us. So, let's just talk about that internally, and we can go ahead and bring something back to clarify that issue. Yeah, I mean, I certainly – I'm sorry, Chair Hagan, I just jumped in there. But I think that it's not so much to burden the person asking for an exemption if we can do that, but also if we have no way of tracking the way a folio changes and, you know, maybe we can work with the property appraiser to get some data integrated or something like that up until that point that maybe it does need to be a renewal every year or biannually or something like that so that at the very least we don't have this issue that comes up to where we're losing dollars and cents because if it's – let's just use person X out there if person X has an exemption and then I buy the property, they're not getting a bill. I'm not going to get the bill either. I'm not going to know any different. So, there's nothing to cancel. All right, we need a motion. Motion to accept. Second. Motion to approve. Approve. Approve, yeah, okay. Motion, Commissioner Bowles, second, Commissioner Willstall. Please record your vote. Chair Hagan, would that be a motion to approve the – we're going to have some amendment with this or – You'd be a motion to approve what's in front of you, which is related to the notice public hearing for the ordinance in front of you. You can approve that – this ordinance and then you can direct us to go back and revisit for any necessary changes to implement the – to change the ordinance to the way we're implementing it. In a separate motion, let us pass. Yes, sir. Commissioner Bowles. Yes. Motion carried, seven to zero. All right, Commissioner Bowles, would you like to make a – Rather to restate what Julie said, since Julie's already on the record, please. I'd like – A motion to request the administration, the county attorney's office, to look at the ordinance and make any revisions to be in line with how we're implementing it. Yes, thank you. Okay, I've got a motion, Commissioner Bowles, do a second. Second, Commissioner Cohen, please record your vote. Motion carried, seven to zero. Bonnie. Thank you. The next item is the 1015 times certain, Commissioner Willstall, this is your item, item F3, and you have some representatives here. Yeah, and we have the Chair of the Planning Commission and the Executive Director, Melissa Zornita. This is really just a conversation. It's a concerning letter, and look, we've been dealing with the challenges of growth management for a long time here in the county, and I've brought up my pain points about the urban service area and if it's even working, and now we kind of have a letter here to substantiate a lot of my concerns. You guys can come on up. Come on up. You're the experts, not me. I did try to find one of the things that was put in here, which is what is the empirical criteria, and I couldn't find one instance in America that tracks, even though the urban service areas are used widely from here to Portland and beyond, I could not find one situation that empirically tracks the outcomes of an urban service area, and that is a challenge. Look, we know we're faced with traffic and congestion concerns. I kind of feel sad about the Lithia-Pinecrest situation because I know for a fact from one of the long-time residents there that that issue only exists because the county was trying to do that infrastructure improvement decades ago, and then the community was led to believe that if they fought the infrastructure improvement, that it would prevent growth, and that's just not the reality. That's not the outcome. Growth is eventually going to happen. The uses of lands eventually changes whether we like it or not, and the only way that we can have a control on it, in my opinion, things should have been in place like timing mechanisms probably would have been a great idea 33 years ago to put in that once population or the percentages needed to be tracked and once a certain metric was achieved, then, hey, this is the next target area, but now what you've got is kind of a bubble popping, and that's why you're getting these hotspot requests everywhere, even some of them in areas that we might not agree with. But growth is there, and it's hungry, and it's going to find a place, and so you can either be in control of trying to direct that, or you can be in our situation where now we're saying that we're basically achieved the goal, and we don't know where it's going to go, and so now it's being forced in, whether it's through Tallahassee or mismanagement or just saying, hey, this looks like a decent place, so we'll say yes. So before you give us some points, I did want to laugh at your very last bullet point that was on the suggestions, which was do nothing, leave the policies as they currently exist in the comprehensive plan, accept the existing gaps in institutional knowledge and capacity concerning the origination, empirical evaluation, and quantitative impacts to growth. I thought that that was a very tongue-in-cheek comment that was added in there, but I appreciated it because inevitably we could do that, and then the community would continue to suffer the pain. So can you just kind of walk me through what led to this, what you're thinking, and help guide the board on what we should do? Good morning. Nigel Joseph, Chairman, Hillsborough County Planning Commission. Really, this started back in December. It's been quite a long path to get to here today. What tripped this off originally was the astute view by Commissioner Myers, who a couple years back saw that we were coming up to this kind of threshold we were pushing against with population coming here and not having enough room to grow. She brought forward a motion to expand the urban service area, which was very timely and very wise on her part. She gave that direction. This board gave that direction to Ms. Zornita. Planning Commission staff has done that. We brought forth the expansion in Waimamo. We brought forth the expansion in BOM. We're currently studying two other areas for expansion, and that's great. Again, that was very wise. It was necessary. We had to react at that time. But what one of my commissioners, Vice Chairman Lau, sort of saw at the time was that while we're doing these expansions, we need to do that, but we also need to look at the things that you just raised, right? How can this board make changes to the policies or affect what goes forward from here forward such that we don't find ourselves in this situation again at some future point? You make a lot of astute points. I raise a lot of points in the letter too that a lot of this stuff from years ago has kind of a very vague and gray backing to it. We don't understand, again, the 80-20 number. Why do we use the 80-20 number? What are the impacts and outcomes of using 80-20? If 80-20 is a good number, I'm not against it. Let's just say it's a good number. Why aren't we going up to 85-15? Why aren't we going to 90-10 to make things more efficient? Nobody really has an answer to these questions, and I think this board, sitting in the back loving the conversation you've all been having this morning, this board is very shrewd and very astute when it comes to land development, when it comes to the management of infrastructure. So I, taking off from Commissioner Lau, thought this was a good time for me to send up a flare. I'm a countywide appointee. You all send me to the Planning Commission Board. I talk to you all all the time. I have access to you all, so I tend to not be afraid of you all and tend to not be afraid of bringing things to you all. I thought this was a good time to send up a flare to say, hey, good job on us expanding, but maybe we should also look at, you know, revising these policies, updating these policies, making these policies better for people going forward. Obviously, again, that was back in December. We're sitting here today in April, and as you can tell from the caller who called earlier in Dover, these problems are now at our doorstep. You know, what I saw coming in December, again, with the Lithia project that we just had at the Planning Commission Board earlier this week, these projects are going to come more and more. Keystone, I believe, just came through here not too long ago with one of these issues. We're going to start to see this a lot more and more, so I sort of feel it behooves this board, especially, again, the talents that are on this board and the way I've watched you deal with these sort of issues to if you think, obviously, you're the decision makers, you drive the bus, if you feel the time is right, this would be a good time to start to look at these issues and address them. In my letter, I spoke about some capacity gaps in the Planning Commission Board, and I did want to speak to that this morning. I wasn't throwing the Planning Commission under the bus. When I talk about limits to what the Planning Commission can do capacity-wise, I'm talking about the fact that the Planning Commission is not filled with economists. The Planning Commission is not filled with realtors. The Planning Commission is filled with planners who focus on the existing comp plan. The issue before us, in certain ways, goes beyond the existing comp plan, right? Again, we're talking about, you know, land valuation. When we expand in one area and we start to get more dense in that area, how does that affect rural land values? Again, how do we protect rural land? You know what I mean? So these sorts of things, in certain ways, can kind of go beyond the domain of planners. And so I think we need, again, the help from outside sources, whether they be department sources, whether they be consultants. I think that sort of help is going to have to come in this. And before we, as a Planning Board, because I'll let you know that my Planning Commissioners are chomping at the bit to go at this, planning staff is too. We're all ready to try and tackle this issue. But before we just go running off into the wind, we are public servants. We are put there by you. You all control the purse strings. You drive the bus. I thought it'd be a good idea, again, to come back to you all and make sure this is something we need to be doing at this point in time because it may cost us some money going forward. So I wanted to put it out to you for your discussion, for your deliberation, to see what kind of feedback we can get, if we could get some support, if Ms. Ornita could get some support, working possibly with the various county departments, the county administrator's office, public works, maybe the property appraiser's office, possibly some thoughts on if we need a consultant going forward, if we could feel comfortable bringing that back to you and having those conversations. Or if, like I put at the end of the letter, I know it's tongue-in-cheek, but it's very serious, you know, this might not be the time. Maybe we might just need to leave this alone for now and pick it up at some future time. So I wanted to put it before you to kind of get your thoughts and feedback on this. Yeah, I heard the comment, it's a lot, and it is a lot. And I know that you had put forward a separate proposal that, frankly, I don't know anything about. It's something to align it with a different kind of growth model that's out there. And is that one of your considerations? Could you briefly elaborate on that? Yeah, we've, like I said, we've talked about this at the planning board since December. So everybody's pitched in different ideas. That's one of the things we've talked about. You know, we were kind of looking at the FDOT sort of transit areas, because FDOT has a map that they look at urban service areas, and it has to do with corridors of roadways that we invest in. So just kind of wildly at the start, throwing out ideas, you know, that was one idea. Maybe we align it more with what FDOT is doing so we can align it with funding. But again, those weren't things that were run down extensively. This was just us at the planning commission board kind of talking out ideas. One planning commissioner said, well, maybe we should just remove the urban service boundary whole cloth. I know staff kind of graphed onto that and kind of took that forward a little bit. I doubt that's what anybody on the planning commission board actually wants to do. But we ran the whole gamete, again, from not doing anything to completely removing it or, like you said, looking at other different boundaries that we could use. There were a lot of different ideas put out throughout the conversations at the planning board. And we're, like I said, ready to continue having those conversations. But I didn't, as chairman, wanted to be cognizant of our time, cognizant of the money you guys invest in us and make sure that we're doing something that's going to take root. Ultimately, you guys make the final decision, right? So I don't want to be spinning our wheels on all this conversation to have you just say, no, we don't, we're not interested in it. You know, let's move on. So that's kind of where those ideas came from. It's a mishmash of everybody at the planning commission board kind of having these open conversations. Well, I'd certainly like to hear from my colleagues so we can start figuring out what's next. Commissioner Myers. Thank you. Melissa, can you address, because I know back in March 2024, we scheduled to do, with the board voted for, to expand the urban service area. You look into that, you have a consultant now. What will this be discussed now? Is it any way we can tie all this into the workshop that we have on June 10th? But I'd like you just share your comments of what we received this morning also. Sure. So I did have a couple of slides about sort of the context of the urban service area, but I'll just jump to the ones about what brought us to those studies. So the adopted metric in the comprehensive plan is about this 80-20 mark, as the chairman mentioned, of growth within the urban service area. In the update of your comprehensive plan, and we identified for the first time in decades, because the urban service area has historically been established as quite large, that the share of population that would go into the urban service area under our projections would not meet that 80% goal. And that is the adopted metric that we have. Staff follows what's adopted in the comprehensive plan. And again, we're happy to look at other metrics, but it wouldn't be appropriate for staff to just establish those willy-nilly. So we'd be happy to work with the Planning Commission and the BOCC on those. The, so once in, it was actually in 2023, as Chair Joseph mentioned, that you brought the, asked us to look at where would be appropriate to study for expansions of the urban service area. And then in March of 2024, we brought forward a recommendation about that. And that recommendation was to start with the Waimama Village Residential 2 and the RP2 areas, because those already had that, those unique land use categories, they were sort of quasi in the urban service area and quasi out of the urban service area. And then we have, since that time, seen an uptick in the number of applications to expand the urban service area. As part of that March 2024 motion, you also asked us to look at two other areas. So we have completed the expansions in Waimama and BOEM, those have, those were adopted in May 2025. We are still working on a couple of little pieces to remove those land use categories out of the comprehensive plan, make the kind of cleanup amendments. But all of those properties are in the urban service area and designated residential for. We are in the process of studying the Little Manatee South and I-4 corridor areas. Those areas total 47-some thousand acres. And it's not to say that all 47,000 acres will, at the end of these studies, be proposed to be in the urban service area. That's part of what we're studying is what is appropriate within those areas. What makes sense to begin to transition for new growth, how are we going to transition those areas to rural? What would we perhaps need some new land use categories? How are we going to handle infrastructure investments to go alongside of that? We hear just a lot, just like you all do, about the need for infrastructure to come alongside new growth. And so are there innovative ways that we can address that that might be different than how we have handled it inside the urban service area in the past? So we're working very closely with a whole host of county departments and outside agencies on this work because it's going to take input from public utilities, public works, development services on, you know, how are we getting going to be able to implement some of the new ideas that our consultant team comes up with? The project for these two areas started in July of 2025. It is scheduled to conclude by the end of the year with the consultant work. So we would be able to present that to you in early 2027. And we were planning it based on my last update memo to Ms. Wise to utilize one of the plan amendment workshops in June to give a more in-depth update on where that study is going. We will have gotten through some of the outreach. We actually have some of the outreach in the I-4 corridor this week. Okay, Commissioner. Commissioner, why are you still going? Yeah. Okay. So with item F-3, I know we can't do committee work, staff work in the board meeting, but could we combine and add everything to the June 10th workshop and address all those issues at the same time as we're looking at the comprehensive plan amendment? I'm just asking. Well, I do think that the study will provide information about some of the aspects that were raised in the letter in terms of as it looks and plans for these new growth areas. It may, we've asked the consultant to look at innovative techniques to address some of the questions that have been raised by the planning commission. How can we do better about tying infrastructure and growth together? How can we address the housing needs, the job needs? So it will provide important information to, I think, some of the questions, but their scope of services will not directly evaluate the urban service area and whether it is working well. And I shared this one piece of concern about the timing of all of this with the planning commission that as you saw by some of the public comment you received today and in the emails that came in prior to the meeting, this item alone created a bit of confusion amongst the community members. And that is one concern that I have about the timing of all of this is we're out in the community working on these important studies for you all about future growth areas. The community, there's a lot of education that we do as a part of that to help them understand what we're doing, what about planning and about the change that may be needed. And we could already see some of the perhaps misconstruing of this item. And I would hate for there to be confusion that then plays into the urban expansion area study and delays that in any way. Richard Cohen. I think it's really great that you brought this issue up because we sort of deal with it piecemeal as we move through our regular land use and some of our comp plan amendment meetings. I think, Ms. Zornita, that you were on the right track when you talked about tracking what FDOT is doing as something that needs to be looked at. Or excuse me, Mr. Joseph, whichever one of you said that. But I think it's more than that. I think that one of the things that's lacking in our discussions about this is the context of what infrastructure work is already programmed. Tampa Bay Water, as Commissioner Wastel and I sit every month, they are building an enormous pipeline to deliver water to South County because so much growth has occurred that's requiring so much more water. That's being backed by the rate payers in Pasco, Pinellas and Hillsborough counties. And it's very important when we're analyzing our urban service area that we recognize where exactly that investment's being made and that that investment needs to be paid back by rate payers who are actually consuming the water. We're making a huge county investment in our one water plant in South County that is going to provide water and wastewater services. We are building, at this point, we have, as part of our CIT plan, nine new fire stations that are, those need to be overlaid over the maps that you're studying. And then finally, we've increased impact fees recently. And it's very important, you know, we were, no one wants to increase fees, but we have recognized as a board the need to fund these infrastructure improvements going forward. But the only way that that's going to work is if there are actual houses built to pay the impact fees in order to keep it going. So it's very, very important that the urban service area, if it is going to exist, gives us real guidance as to where the investments are actually being made as opposed to just sort of, you know, not having that be part of the analysis because it's not just traffic. It's not just schools. It's a lot of different things. And unfortunately, our spending lags behind the result. So we maybe made these investments already a year or two ago, but it's going to take time for these projects to be built out. Like the pipeline is a great example. It's going to be 2028 before that comes online. But when it does come online, it's going to be providing something that there need to be consumers for. And we don't need to be building houses in other places that aren't on that line. So I think it's really important that you all have the benefit of knowing exactly what we're doing to overlay whatever considerations you're making. Commissioner Wilstle? Yeah. Try and bring this in for a close. I don't think we need to make the decision today. You can do it in two weeks. But what I would say to both of you is that, and you know this very well, Mr. Joseph, that planners love the concept of an urban service area. So I would personally be very cautious of any consultant being just a planner and not an architect who's going to look at that 30,000-foot view. And I do agree, it probably needs, I see Dr. Wong is in the audience. His organization probably needs to be included. It's going to impact him. I see Adam Gormley in the audience. It's going to impact him. And even if it has to be something completely different, whether or not it used to work a long time ago, the urban service area, I don't know about you, Mr. Chair. I've never once in the past three and a half years had an application come to me and say approved because it's 20% outside of the urban service area. Have you? Nope. Right. It's always 100% of the time inconsistent because it's not inside the urban service area. That to me is a failed system, right? Because it's only working one way and it's being treated instead of a guiding tool, it's looked at by, in my opinion, anti-property rights folks as a, hey, this is a weapon I can use against anybody that's trying to sell their land. And that to me is unacceptable. Developers have a duty to pay 100% of their new impacts onto the community, but people also have property rights and using heavy-handed government to restrict those property rights to me is fundamentally inappropriate. So for now, I'm gonna just remove to accept the report and then I'll probably have a conversation whether if it's just a motion to empower you guys to determine the consultant and the appropriate resources that you need and I can bring that motion forward. Now that we've had this and I think that Commissioner Cohen brought some thoughtful items about making sure assets are included in that big picture view. So now I'll just, I'm gonna be moved to receive the report and then I'll get back with you guys on what that motion needs to look like so we know how we're moving forward as a board and we're not trying to do, just for the public, I saw the emails, we're not trying to do anything that would have explosive unexpected outcomes. That's the point of the conversation and that's the point of the letter so that we don't keep having unexpected applications arise. So I will move to receive the report. Second. Motion to receive the report, second by Commissioner Myers, Commissioner Cameron Cepeda. I'll please record your vote. Motion carried, seven to zero. Thank you. Bonnie, next item. Thank you. Our next item is item F1. This is several board appointments to one, two, three, five boards and Glenda will take us through this item. Good morning, commissioners. The first board is anti-bullying advisory committee. We have three available positions. Terms are for three years. Appointments to this committee is contingent upon passing a criminal background check. All applicants have been clear. The board is to consider the number of terms an applicant have served on that board or council. It may give preference to those applicants who have not served on that board or council. We have two positions, two different positions. For the first one, we need to choose one and for the second position, we need to choose two. Commissioner Hagan. Two, three, four. Commissioner Miller. Two, four, six. Commissioner Myers. Commissioner Cohen. One, four, five. Commissioner Cameron Cepeda. Two, three, five. Commissioner Bowles. Two, three. Two, four, six. Two, four, six. Number four, and we have a tie between three and six. Commissioner Hagan. Three. Commissioner Miller. Six. Commissioner Myers. Commissioner Cohen. Commissioner Cameron Cepeda. Three. Commissioner Bowles. Three. Three. It's number three. The next board is the Health Care Advisory Board. One position will expire. Terms is for four years and the board is to consider the number of terms an applicant has served on that board or council and may give preference to those applicants who have not served on that board. Commissioner Hagan. 13. Commissioner Miller. 13. Commissioner Myers. 13. Commissioner Cohen. Commissioner Cameron Cepeda. Eight. Commissioner Bowles. 13. Commissioner Wostel. 13. The board has selected number 13. The next board is the Health Council of West Central Florida. One position is vacant and the term is for two years. Commissioner Hagan. Can you come back to me? Yeah. Commissioner Miller. 16. Commissioner Myers. Four. Commissioner Cohen. 14. Cameron Cepeda. 16. Commissioner Bowles. 14. Commissioner Wostel. Seven. Commissioner Hagan. 14. Okay. The board has selected number 14. The next is Hillsborough County Hospital Authority. One position will expire. The term is for four years and it will begin on July 1st. An annual financial disclosure is required. The board is to consider the number of term an applicant has served on that board or council and may give preference to those applicants who have not served on that board or council. I have one question, Chair. Yeah, Commissioner Miller. My question is if somebody was just selected for another board, can they serve on multiple boards? No, they can. So in this case, Mr. Jones, since he was selected for West Central Florida, he will not be... Oh, I'm sorry, Ms. Jones. Sorry. Yes. So number 14 will not be available for this selection. 19. Commissioner Miller. 19. Commissioner Myers. 19. 19. Commissioner Cameron Cepeda. 16. 16. Okay. Commissioner Bowles. 19. Commissioner Wustle. 19. The board has selected number 19. The final board is the public library board. For this one, we have multiple applicants and we have to select applicants for each district. So we will have... We have two applicants for District 1, two applicants for District... No, one applicant for District 2, two applicants for District 3, and one applicant for District 4, but you will have to pick one for each. Okay? Appointments to this board are contingent upon passing the criminal background check and all applicants have been cleared. The board is to consider the number of term an applicant who can have served on that board or canceled and may give preference to those applicants who have not served on that board or canceled. For Commissioner Hagan. 20 and 22. 20. I'm so confused. You will have to select one for each position. Well, there's only one for two and four. Oh, sorry. You're right. Sorry. It's by default. Yes. Okay. Commissioner Miller. 5, 21, 22, 24. Commissioner Myers. 5 and 22. Commissioner Cohen. 5 and 23. Commissioner Cameron Cepeda. 5 and 22. Commissioner Bowles. 5 and 22. Commissioner Wollstone. 20 and 22. Okay. The board has selected number five, number 21, number 22, and 24. There's a motion to confirm. Still moved. Motion. Commissioner Wollstone. Second Commissioner Cohen. Please record your vote. Motion carried. 7 to 0. Okay, Bonnie. Next item. Yes. The next item is item F2. This is Commissioner Cohen's item regarding Airbnbs and whether regulations can be tightened or enforced more effectively. Commissioner Cohen. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. On August 20th, I brought this up and we started a research project with the county attorney's office to look at really trying to rein in some of the bad actors who rent homes in residential neighborhoods and great big parties ensue or things that are inconsistent with the sort of good guest behavior that we would expect. And we paused our consideration of this because we thought we were going to get some relief from some of the preemptions that have been created at the legislative level. We unfortunately did not. However, the county attorney's office has come up with some approaches that they are going to explain to us today. I want to particularly thank the Baycrest neighborhood for all of their suggestions. This is a problem that really I know we all deal with in all of our districts. It's really gotten a little bit more out of control lately. And I'm confident that we can give our county attorney the ability to help us rein this in. So, Ms. Mandel. Yes, thank you. Johanna Leningran of the county attorney's office is going to do a short PowerPoint just to say where we are and I'll have one comment to make after her presentation. Morning, commissioners. May I have my PowerPoint? Thank you. I'm going to present a brief presentation regarding the legal structure that applies to the regulation of short-term or vacation rentals and a potential option to strengthen enforcement. Next slide, please. The applicable chapter in Florida statutes defines a vacation rental as a dwelling unit that is rented to guests more than three times in a calendar year for periods of less than 30 days or one calendar month. Whichever is less, which is advertised or held out to the public as a place that's regularly rented to guests. As commissioner Cohen noted, there is an important preemption that constrains local government abilities with regard to vacation rental regulation, which is section 509.032 Florida statutes, which prohibits local governments from enacting any law ordinance regulation that regulates the duration or frequency of rental of vacation rentals. However, the statute does grandfather regulations regarding duration or frequency that local governments had enacted prior to 2011. Next slide, please. The county's land development code does prohibit rentals of dwelling units for less than a seven-day minimum rental period unless located in a resort dwelling overlay district, which is a specialized district to which rezoning would be required. These regulations were adopted prior to 2011, and therefore the county is allowed to continue utilizing and enforcing those regulations. However, the county is preempted from enacting any additional regulations that would act to prohibit short-term rentals or regulate their duration or frequency. Next slide, please. So within the county and local government's authority is the potential to have some regulations of vacation rentals as long as those do not affect duration or frequency of rental. So the regulatory authority granted in 509.032 would authorize the use of a registration requirement or certificate of use type of business regulation to assist in the identification and monitoring of short-term or vacation rentals for enforcement purposes. Next slide, please. And other local governments throughout the state have implemented registration or certificate of use requirements for vacation rentals. Here are a few examples, and there are a number of sort of templates within the state that can be looked towards. And the intent of a registration type of program would be to collect current and accurate information regarding vacation rental properties, encourage the appropriate management of the properties, and protect the general health, safety, and welfare of residents, visitors, and the public. So some features of registration requirement ordinances would include requirement for registration and renewal of a vacation rental so that code enforcement staff is able to identify and monitor the properties. Another important aspect is identification of a local responsible party for contact and quick response in the event of a complaint or a compliance issue, and the ordinances generally cross-referenced to applicable regulatory requirements such as occupancy standards, parking, property maintenance standards, a noise, et cetera. Next slide. So with that, there are potential options for further consideration, coordination with code enforcement staff, Mr. Gross and his staff would be involved. The board may direct the preparation of a registration program ordinance and the requirements, procedures, and financial impacts of such an ordinance would be further explored with staff and a draft ordinance could be brought back. That concludes my presentation. Yes, Julia. And if I can just put a further point on this, the registration program that we're discussing today we believe would not be a violation of Senate Bill 180 as it would be deemed a business regulation, but it is probably about as far as we can go right now as it relates to regulation of the Airbnbs or the short-term rentals without going into a land development regulation. And while it's not probably the best way to do this, it is a way for us to at least acknowledge where these properties are and have some better teeth into what we can look at. Commissioner Cohen? Here's the thing, code enforcement really cannot help unless they at least know what's supposed to be going on at the property at any given time. And this will give them the most important tool of all, and that is that knowledge. It also allows all the other ancillary issues that Joanna mentioned, the occupation limits, parking, noise, all these things then can be considered. So I want to make a motion to ask the county attorney's office to go ahead and draft an ordinance setting up this type of business regulation, bring it back to the board. I want to ask you to work with the neighborhood groups that have reached out to us as well as the industry. We don't want to penalize the good actors. We want to make sure we have a mechanism for controlling some of the bad actors. And some of these neighborhoods have been subjected to noise and really just inappropriate activity to a point where it's really become a nuisance. So this is something that I think will give code enforcement the tools they need to be of assistance when this is going on. Second. I motion to Commissioner Cohen. Second, Commissioner Myers. Commissioner Bowles? Ms. Mandel, when we're drafting this ordinance, is this something that you can also fold in some safety concerns because these Airbnbs have public, there's kind of a public use component to it where we are looking at smoke detectors, fire extinguishers, those kind of things that may kind of fold into that, or is that something that once we put them on a registry, then those other type of uses come in? Because I don't know, you know, if you're a hotel, you have to have these things available. You've got to have fire extinguishing systems. You've got to have, you know, ways to get out. So just from the safety aspect outside of the nuisance aspect of it with parking and parties and noise, there's a safety aspect to that, you know, we want to make sure that if we're renting homes out, even for these short terms, that we're able to do it and do it the safest way possible. It's my understanding that some of the programs that we have all over the state also do include an inspection provision. I'll ask if Johanna can comment on that further. Yes, the ordinances that we've looked at do have requirements either for the applicant for the registration to certify by affidavit that those types of features are present or in some cases, they do use inspection requirements. So at the very least, can we have those considerations placed in there so that, you know, I don't know if we have to go way to the right or to the left, however you want to look at it, but somewhere that we have those safety components put in there. Certainly. Thanks. And I just want to thank Commissioner Cohen for bringing this forward. As we all know, this is an enormous problem throughout the county. And it's a frustrating problem for us because, which is common these days, the legislature essentially prevents us from protecting our neighborhoods and communities, which is not unusual. Okay, so we've got a motion. Commissioner Cohen, second Commissioner Myers. Please record your vote. Motion carries. Seven to zero. Okay. Thanks. Bonnie? The final item is future discussion items. Do you have any future issues with board members? Commissioner Cameron Spada? Yes. So the county currently maintains more than 300 unpaved roads, and many of these roadways are increasingly impacted by growth and development as additional homes have been constructed along them over time. As a result, these roads are experiencing higher traffic volumes and greater wear, yet they remain unpaved and vulnerable to deterioration. Constituents have expressed significant concerns regarding the condition of these roads, particularly during and after rainfall events, heavy rains can render these roadways difficult to traverse, limiting residents' ability to safety access to their homes. Of even greater concern is the potential impact on emergency response times as compromised road conditions may hinder first responders from reacting quickly when needed. Given these challenges, I'm requesting that staff develop and present a comprehensive plan along with a detailed cost estimate for implementing a dirt road paving program. This plan should evaluate feasible strategies for prioritizing roads and greatest needs and include options for establishing dedicated sustainable funding mechanisms to pave a select number of roads annually. Addressing this issue is critical to improving public safety, supporting reliable access for residents and enhancing the overall quality of life in our community. Okay, Bonnie, you got that? Okay. I don't see anyone else in the queue, so we're adjourned. I don't know. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.