Board of County Commissioners on 2025-02-18 9:00 AM

Let's get started on the February 18th, 2025 Board of County Commissioners meeting. And would everybody please stand for the implication and then remain standing for the Pledge of Allegiance. Please pray with me. Heavenly Father, in our hearts we plan our course, but we pray that you would establish our steps. We place this meeting in your hands. We place our hearts and minds in your hands so that you may direct us. I pray that as we seek your advice, that we would not lean on our own understanding, but act. Based upon your wisdom. Please guide us and lead us, Lord. And I ask this prayer in Jesus' name. Amen. Amen. Good morning, Commissioners and staff and visitors. I'm Lauren McCall, Digital and Media Services Manager in the Communications Division. Today we are recognizing five employees for their service to Polk County. I'd like to invite the employees to come to the front as their names are called. And then if the honorees will remain standing at the front while the commissioners return to the dais behind them, we'll take a group photo at the end. Kyle Douglas. Kyle has spent 20 years with Polk County Fire Rescue. He started his career here as a firefighter EMT before moving up to firefighter paramedic and is currently an engineer paramedic. Kyle graduated from Lake County VOTEC with his state certification as a firefighter. He received his EMT license from Valencia Community College and obtained his paramedic license from Polk State College. He is a member of the Kathleen Baptist Church and a member of the International Association of Firefighters. He enjoys spending his time off traveling and taking his wife, Brenna, daughter, Kylie, and son, Paxton, to Disney. He is also a gun enthusiast. When he retires, he plans to travel with his family. Walter Godwin. Walter, who is better known by his nickname, Tiger, has spent 25 years as a mechanic welder with Polk County. Tiger enjoys being outside, fishing, hunting, and gardening, but the thing he enjoys most is spending time with his seven grandchildren, Savannah, Adeline, Elena, Isaiah, Jackson, Kinsley, and Cash. Tiger is also looking forward to retiring in three years, but said he's going to miss his coworkers in the utilities maintenance group. He has very specific plans for when he retires in three years. He and his wife, Angie, are going to travel and hunt and fly fish their way across the United States. Joseph Jones. Joseph has spent 30 years with Polk County Fire Rescue. He started his career as an EMT paramedic for Polk County EMS before getting his fire standards and moving into his current role of driver engineer. Joseph graduated from Polk Community College, not yet known as Polk State College, with his EMT and paramedic license. He received his fire standards certification from Lake County Votec. In his spare time, he likes to ride his motorcycle, travel, and watch his grandchildren, Colton, Addison, and Landon grow up. Joseph plans on working for a few more years and looking for a place in the mountains where he can spend his retirement enjoying life and time with his family. Mary Beth Moore. Mary Beth has worked for the Health and Human Service Division for 30 years. She is currently a Forensic Programs Manager. She started her career at Healthy Families as a Family Support Worker 1, then moving up to a Family Support Worker 2, and then 3. She also served as a Family Support Supervisor before accepting the position of the Forensic Intensive Case Management Project Manager. What a mouthful. She has held her current position of overseeing the forensic programs for community health care since 2019. She has a bachelor's degree in psychology from the University of Central Florida. She attended Polk Community College's Corporate College and received a certification in the Roadmap Corporate Managers Program. She also attended the Florida Center for Public Management at the Florida State University with certificates in Supervisory Management and Certified Public Management. Mary Beth is an Elder and Communion Deacon at Grace Lutheran Church in Winter Haven. She is also a member of the Homeless Coalition Governance Board and has participated in the annual Point in Time Count of Homeless Individuals in Polk County for the past eight years. Mary Beth enjoys both salt and freshwater fishing, taking cruises, camping, watching her grandson play baseball. She's a proud grandmother to Kara, Waylon, and Walker. Her best friend is her golden doodle, Twerp. When she retires, she plans to travel across Route 66 all the way to the Pacific Ocean, camping along the way and continuing to make memories with her grandchildren. Arthur Bell has worked for the Roads and Drainage Division for 40 years. He is currently a roadway masonry worker. Arthur is an alumnus of Bartow High School and graduate of Travis Votek. He is also a graduate of the County's Emerging Leaders Class of 2020. He enjoys collecting old currency, cooking, watching sporting events, including football and basketball. He has two sons, Jason and Karan, and three daughters, Jessica, Ashley, and Shanika. He is the proud grandfather to 13 grandchildren. Mr. Chair, while you do that, 135 years of collective service sitting right here. 135 years. All right. At this time, we'll take a request from the general public for comments, and I have some people that's already signed up, and I'll start with them, and then we'll go from there, and I see Ms. Richards right here. I'm going to get her up here early. Come on up, Cassandra. And while you're walking, I'm just going to go ahead and say that, yeah, we're working on it. I've been talking, so, yep, and we appreciate having you here. So, come on up and say hi to everybody. Good morning. So good to see you again. I'm Cassandra Richards, 2357 Freelander Road, Lake Wells, Florida. I just want to say thank you, thank you, thank you. I do have my petitions. I think we are going to get our speed bumps and traffic calming signals. Thank you. We're not finished yet because we're still working on the light at Lewis Griffin Road and Highway 60. We still have more work to do. They stay at the building houses. We have to free up some roadway every day. There's a wreck on 60 every day, and you have about 350 houses being built at this present moment. Where is the traffic going to go if we don't free up Lewis Griffin and Highway 60 because traffic is not going down there until we get a light? So, we have to flow the traffic over to Lewis Griffin to free up Hump Brother and Highway 60. You've got to spread it out. I appreciate your time. Thank you, ma'am. All right. Leroy Smith, Sr. I'm Leroy Smith, Sr. Lake Wells, Florida, 527 Lemon Street, Polk County. Born and raised in Polk County, Lake Wells. I'm a retired teacher, 30 years, and I come to speak on the issue with our HR director. And first, I have a statement to read. The Florida State Conference of NACP branches successfully sued Polk County in 1988 for racial discrimination in employment and retaliation. Mr. Braswell is about to take the county down that road again with his discriminatory actions against the only black director in the organization. We again oppose Polk County's unfair and inequitable treatment of black employees, especially the HR director. According to the Polk County Charter, Section 3.4, non-interference by Board of County Commissioners, you should not involve yourselves in personnel matters. You have made untrue statements about Mrs. Buford Baker based on false information. She has a strategic plan and SOPS, which Ryan Taylor and Bill Beasley has seen, yet they have not shared it with you. This is the most concerning. Equally concerning is that the commissioners are in the personnel weeds. Addressing reclassifies especially when only a handful of managers don't want to take guidance from a well-educated, and experienced it, black woman. I strongly encourage you to cease this unwarranted targeting of the HR director or risk another successful lawsuit against Polk County. And concerning minorities, I have a hard time understanding. I never could understand it, why white women were classified as minorities and given a special parental treatment when I know that most of the businesses owned by the white women were actually owned by their husbands. I never could understand how they got classified in that. I also emailed our county attorney this morning concerning the Sunshine Law. We don't hear much about it anymore, and I didn't get a response from that email. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Smith. Thank you, sir. All right. I have a Abdul. I can't really read your writing. There you go. Say your name. Give us your name and address, please. Mr. Chairman, commissioners, my name is Abdurrahim Al-Khatib. I reside at 1435 10th Street, Northeast, Winnehaven, Florida. And like Mr. Smith, I'm a lifelong resident of Polk County. I will address the majority of my comments to Mr. Braswell. Mr. Braswell, since you've led the charge against the two African-American directors in Polk County government, you said it was due to an efficiency study. How many other departments have had efficiency studies? And I note that item H3 on the agenda is regarding 75 positions, however many positions is going to be hired, and that's in the fire department. While I want fire, and I want fire safety, I'm concerned about that because you fired the fire chief, who happened to be African-American. And during that same time that you fired the fire chief, I think you went after the deputy county manager, Joe Hallman, as well. And isn't it true, and Mr. Smith addressed this, but repetition is the mother of learning. I'm not being redundant here. Isn't it in the charter that commissioners should not get involved in day-to-day operations of county government? He cited it as Article III, Administrative Branch to County Manager, noninterference. And such actions shall be malfeasance within the meaning of Article IV, Section 7A of the Florida Constitution. So by my comments here, I'm requesting a meeting with the county attorney as well as the county manager to discuss charges for malfeasance. Also, since you and the commissioners discussed this item, and you actually sent, I think it was an email, that's from the review committee that I witnessed, Florida government and the Sunshine Law applies communication between public and board members, including electronic communications emails. And then, number four, I would like to take this opportunity to commend Mr. Scott for not getting involved in this, which I consider to be a witch hunt. You've done yourself proud, and you and Mr. Beasley, in my opinion, are individuals of integrity, notwithstanding the remaining members of the commission. And my desire here and my intent is for the betterment of our county, and we need to do this, and I appreciate your time. Thank you. Thank you. Janice Sewell, I believe it is. Good morning, everyone. My name is Janice Sewell, and I'm a resident of Lakeland, Florida. And today I'm here as a resident that has some concerns over the article that was published. And would you please give us your address, please? To 527 Torrance Drive, Lakeland, Florida. Okay. So I'm here today because of an article that I read and some statements that were made with regards to the Human Resources Department. I'm not only a resident of Polk County, I'm also a former employee of the Human Resources Division. I was actually the Organization and Talent Development Manager for the team, which is a part of the Human Resources Division. I just wanted to take the time to clarify that there are some inconsistencies in that article and the statements that are coming out from the commissioner's office. They're stating there is no strategic plan and that 2017, 2018, strategic plans were done. They were done, and it was not only for the Human Resources Department. It was for the entire division. Every division has a strategic plan. In my hands, I have the HR strategic plan. You can see there are lots of notes in here because based on the review that happened in September, we have been working tirelessly on updating the strategic plans. I, as the OTD manager, reached out to the 24 other divisions to find out where they were with their strategic plan. No one has updated this plan since 2017, 2018. There are many things that the HR department has done. We have won so many awards within the last three years. I was hired in 2022. I left here January of 2025, and I left because of the disrespect that I have seen meted out to some of these individuals. Our county manager has done a phenomenal job. You have got to see him in action in our orientation. And what I have seen is the cherry-picking of the inefficiencies. There are inefficiencies in every organization. But the inefficiencies that they have cherry-picked from that report, they are not stating the things that we have done well. The HR department consists of 22 individuals, not just the HR director. Does the HR director need help? Absolutely. She is not only managing 700 people, which Fire Rescue has. She has over 2,000 employees, plus interacting with the 25 directors, some of them that are very, very inefficient at their job. So when you're talking about reclassifications, that has significant impact on legal issues because it can involve discriminatory practices. But when some of these directors want what they want, they don't want to be corrected. They don't want to follow their direction. And I'm just here to say that their SOPs, this can be public records requests. Thank you very much, ma'am. Cynthia Downing. Good morning. Cynthia Downing, 1051 State Road 544, number 1302, Haines City, Florida. I, too, am concerned about the HR direction, the HR director, and the direction that we seem to be headed in. After viewing, was not able to attend, but after viewing the meeting that was held, there are some major concerns that we are targeting her with unfair, undocumented, and incorrect information from this report. And that it should have been noted by Ryan that there were SOPs, and we continue to hear this from everyone that's speaking, that the plans were in place, the strategic plan was in place. So my colleagues have said that we represent the quiet city, NAACP, and I am the president, and I don't want to see us go down this road, and I don't want to have another lawsuit. It's not necessary, it would be cumbersome, and it would cost a lot of money. So let's just make sure that we are fair and equitable to all of our directors. Fair and equitable is what we ask for. And we can talk about the other directors, and we can talk about the SOPs and everything that's missing, but that's already been said. But what I am saying is that we need to be fair and equitable with each and every director. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Daryl Jones. Good morning. My name is Daryl Jones, 785 Baker Avenue, Bartow, Florida. I just happen to be the pastor of the First Providence Missionary Baptist Church of Bartow, where we've served there for 24 years. The church just celebrated 169 years, and I stand today in reference having read the article in the paper on yesterday concerning HR. It's very concerning to me. Having served with the CRAC, I watched and observed and worked with Ms. Buford for years, and I've seen and experienced her dedication to this work. Having read the article in yesterday, not knowing much of the back story, two words that came out. One word in particular that came out in my interest was there was a target, and then there was a study. And I know any time you put a target on anything, you can get a study to support everything. And I think it's only fair that we be fair and, indeed, equitable to all the directors. I think that I can appreciate concerns of efficiencies, but when there is a target, it shows to motivation. And I think Polk County needs to be very careful just based on her own past history. So I'm just asking that we be cautious in these efforts and give all of our directors the fair chance that they deserve. Thank you. Thank you, sir. All right. That's all the ones that had signed up. Does anyone else want to come forward? Come forward, ma'am, and give us your name and address, and you'll be given three minutes. Good morning. My name is Ashley Wussapiti. I live at 3811 Spruce Creek Corp in Lakeland. I was not planning on speaking today, so I don't have a nice little script for you guys. However, I have been listening in to what the gallery has to say today, and I would like to say a few words myself. I do applaud many of Ms. Baker-Buffer's friends and a former colleague speaking up on her behalf. It shows loyalty, and I do respect loyalty. I am Latina. I am a woman of color, and I was employed with Polk County Board of County Commissioners starting last March, and my employment was terminated last August. I was terminated for gossiping. I was terminated for falsifying county records, and I was also terminated for interfering with an investigation. Excuse my nerves. I'm a little rattled right now. That being said, ladies and gentlemen, the reason why the commissioners had to get involved is because I and many, many other Board of County Commissioner employees have taken their complaints of harassment, hostile work environments, and other racial complaints to the county manager's office. And unfortunately, nothing was done about it. I myself raised complaints about a hostile work environment when Ms. Baker-Buffer questioned my veteran status. There's other individuals in Human Resources, and I will not speak on behalf as much as I want to because they are probably listening in right now terrified that they are going to lose their jobs because I am up here speaking right now on their behalf. They are terrified of the retirements banging from them. They're terrified that accusations are going to be made against them, that write-ups are going to happen against them, false write-ups are going to be made against them, and they're going to be terminated just like I have. By the way, a lot of things that I've been terminated for have been proven false. Even today, something that I was told I did a, quote, bait and switch on has been proven false. Now that Ms. Baker-Buffer is in the spotlight, certain reclassifications are finally getting done, six months, nine months, 12 months later. If you're speaking about legalities of reclassification and equity across the entire county, why is it taking nine months for reclassifications to get done? Even when I was sitting in budget meetings last year and there were issues with reclassifications coming up, and I made some addresses on that, again, why is it taking so long? Well, because there's power involved. I have a lot more to say. I only have three minutes, and, again, I did not have a speech because I wasn't planning on speaking today, but there is a hostile work environment. It is not safe to be a human resources employee right now. There are no bait and switches happening. I am fearful for my safety at this point, and what's fair and equitable is not being done. What's fair and equitable by Ms. Baker-Buffer. Thank you very much. Anyone else? All right. Seeing none, we're going to move on. We need a motion for a consent agenda, I believe. I moved. Second. I have a motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Against? Motion carries. All right. I see Ms. Butterfield's not here today, but we got Dean. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Commissioners. Yeah, wedding hangover. This morning, we ask for you to approve and ratify your payroll check numbers 03731 through 03742 in the amount of $19,867.14, 2,786 direct deposits in the amount of $4,275,515.23 dated February 7th, 2025, wire and electronic fund transfers in the amount of $41,721,479.23, dated February 4th through February 7th, 2025. Invoice checks numbered 477142 through 478106, totaling $24,448,970.62, dated February 4th through February 17th, 2025. No moved. Second. Got a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. We also request approval of your minutes of your regular board meeting held on February 4th, 2025. Motion for approval? Second. Got a motion and a second. Any discussion? All in favor? Aye. Against? Motion carries. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That's all we have today. Thank you. All right. We have any electric officials. Mr. Mink. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, I have one item, G1. This was discussed at the agenda review on Friday and was requested to move to the regular agenda to deny the request for a road closure of West Lake Marion Road for 60 days, dated January 31st, 2025. The denial is recommended for approval and I stand for any questions. Any questions? All right. Move for approval. Second. Got a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just go on record as opposition. Okay. All right. Mr. B. Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the board, members of the viewing audience. The manager's office will have three items for board consideration this morning. Item number H1 is to request the board to approve the construction manager at risk guaranteed maximum price addendum number two with Wharton-Smith Incorporated in connection with the county's Northeast Regional Wastewater Plant Expansion Project. Board action today will reflect a one-time contract expense not to exceed $30,421,036. In December of 2023, the board entered into an agreement with Wharton-Smith to provide pre-construction construction manager at risk services for the Northeast region's wastewater treatment facility expansion project to increase its current capacity from 6 million gallons per day to a proposed capacity of 9 million gallons per day. In September of 2024, the board approved amendment number one to that agreement for additional pre-construction services in anticipation of the following five guaranteed maximum price addendums to be approved by the board. Guaranteed maximum price number one reflects phase A work, A1 work, to include deep filter beds, chlorine contact chambers, dewatering, and a chemical feed building. This element of the work was approved by the board in December of 2024 in the total amount not to exceed $41,644,133. Proposed guaranteed maximum price number two, which reflects phase A2 work that includes electrical and communications improvements and phase E work to include other plant-wide improvements such as generator replacements and switching the plant site from a medium-voltage site to a low-voltage site. Guaranteed maximum price addendum number three, which reflects phase B work to include head works, return pump station, and a new electrical building. This guaranteed maximum price addendum should be available for board consideration in the summer of this year. Guaranteed maximum price addendum number four, which reflects phase C work to include biological mechanical nutrient removal, equalization tanks, splitter box blower, and a motor control center building. And the final phase of the project would be reflected under guaranteed maximum price addendum number five, which reflects phase D work to include ground storage reservoirs, high service pump stations, and augmentation wells. In this case, pre-construction services for the phase A2 electrical and communication improvements and the phase E other plant-wide improvements has been completed, and Wharton-Smith has provided a guaranteed maximum price addendum number two in the amount not to exceed that $30,421,036 to construct those improvements. Also included in the proposed addendum is the purchase of equipment that have long lead items to be manufactured and fabricated in a timely manner for delivery to the project. The long lead time item equipment to be purchased includes the odor control system, submersible pumps, grit removal systems, and a packaged plant water system. The total contract time for all work and equipment to be procured included as part of this guaranteed maximum price addendum number two has been set at 824 calendar days. Funding for this major multi-year capital investment on the part of the Polk County Utilities Division is available in the Board's adopted utilities five-year community investment program. So, Mr. Chair, members of the Board, I think in order to address the growing wastewater utility demands within the county's northeast region utility service area, I would request the Board to approve the guaranteed maximum price addendum number two to existing agreement number 20-23-074 with Wharton-Smith in connection with the county's northeast regional wastewater treatment facility expansion project in an amount not to exceed $30,421,036. Mr. Beasley, does this, this gets us from like nine to 12 million gallons or six to nine? Six to nine, yes, sir. Is this tax tag and title, I mean, is this the full cost to get there? Yeah, this is the full cost for phase two. We're going to go through five phases to get us to nine million gallons and we'll get there within the next two and a half years. And then what do you, to get from nine, or get to nine million, what's the total going to be? I think we're looking at somewhere between $120,000, $140,000,000. Yeah, exactly, $120,000, maybe $140,000,000. So this is a quarter of that. At what point do we start borrowing money to accomplish? Dee, do you want to, we're there, essentially. Funny you should mention that. We were just approached, as a matter of fact, that's part of the reason Stacy's not here. She's on a call with your underwriters and your financial advisor to discuss opportunities that might be available right now with the market. But there is currently over about $47 million of bond proceeds that have not been spent yet on your most recent borrowing. So we'll be looking at that and comparing that with market. And when the timing, when it appears that the money is going to be needed and the market's right, we'll approach you with that at that time. Well, I guess my point for asking the question is this is typical of so many things. If you identify it, you know you're going to need it, it's quicker or it's much cheaper to go ahead and get it done because everything just keeps going up and up and up and up. Every material that you're going to use a year from now or two years from now is going to be much more expensive. I mean, it seems to me that we're taking the big step today to go down this path. We need to see what we can do to get as far down the path as quickly as we can financially. So in the long term, we're not spending more money than we need to. I mean, it's just a comment, not really a question. Okay. Commissioner Brown, let me just add, when you consider the first phase that the board awarded in December of this year, we're at $70 million obligated against that. 70 out of the $120? Yes, sir. Okay. So did he throw in a little bit of money and we got it covered? We also keep in mind that we want the money spent within three years of when we get it so that you can also use the interest earned toward the project. Okay. All right. Thanks. That's it. Mr. Chair? Yes. Tamara, a question. Once these phases are placed in, where does that put us for the future? I know we're going from 6 to 9. After we get to the 9, what happens here? We think the 9 is going to cover the build-out, but if things change, if the development changes as opposed to compared to how we projected it or additional areas come in or if anything changes, we did plan this for being able to expand it to 12 just in case, but we think the 9 is going to take us to build-out of the service area. So when you say build-out, what are you looking at more or less? It's serving now how many or will it serve how many going from the 6 to the 9? I'm not sure if the customer base in the Northeast, it's certainly our largest. It's probably, I'm sorry, that would be 200 gallons a day per ERU, but it depends if it's business. Commissioner Sontag, I think maybe the better answer to the question maybe is that given us going from 6 to 9, I believe, given the growth projections that we're seeing in the Northeast, we're probably good until 2040-2045 time frame. Probably in the 2040 time frame, we're going to have to be scratching our heads going. We're going to have to start looking at going to 12. 12, yes, if it's needed. If it's needed. We looked at the available land and what it potentially could be, and that's where we came up with the up going up to 9 million, and that'll take us to 2040. So when you say available land, are you saying not here, but in another place, we'll be looking for more? No, no, I'm sorry, available land for development. So in our service area, though, land that's going to be, that potentially could be developed, is included in the projections for serving for this plant. But this will take us to 12 if we need to. We planned it for, we may need to go to 12. Thank you. Anyone else? All right. I make a motion for approval. Second. Got a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All in favor? Opposed? Motion carries. Mr. Chair, members of the board, item number H2 is to request the board to approve an amendment to an existing agreement between the Polk Regional Water Cooperative and Polk County in connection with the Polk Regional Water Cooperative Heartland Protection and Sustainability Project. This amendment will ensure Polk County receives eligible reimbursements from the Polk Regional Water Cooperative for project expenses in connection with Polk's alternative water supply receiving facilities consistent with an existing pass-through agreement between the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the Polk Regional Water Cooperative. In 2017, the Florida Legislature passed House Bill 573 entitled the Heartland Headwaters Protection and Sustainability Act, which acknowledges the critical importance of Polk's aquifers to the economic and ecological health of the surrounding regions. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection has awarded state funds to the Polk Regional Water Cooperative under grant agreement number LPA-0212 for reimbursement of certain costs associated with the protection and restoration of the region's water sources. The state grant agreement identified the Polk County Alternative Water Supply Receiving Facility project in Polk's Northeast Regional Utility Service Area as that eligible project. In September of 2022, Polk County and the Polk Regional Water Cooperative entered into an agreement to provide for the utilization of those funds allocated in the state Polk Regional Water Cooperative agreement for Polk's specific project. Subject to the requirements set forth in the state Polk Regional Water Cooperative agreement as amended, Polk County will be requesting reimbursement of all eligible expenses from the Polk Regional Water Cooperative. Funding in the amount of $416,098 is available in the utility's adopted community investment program specific to the Northeast Region Utility Service Area Alternative Water Supply Receiving Facility Project budget. So, Mr. Chair, members of the board, I think in keeping with the board's commitment to sustainable potable water supply sources, I would request the board approve the proposed amendment to the existing agreement between the Polk Regional Water Cooperative and Polk County in connection with the Polk Regional Water Cooperative's Heartland Protection and Sustainability Project for which the Florida Department of Environmental Protection has awarded a state grant to the Polk Regional Water Cooperative for all eligible Polk reimbursable project expenses not to exceed $416,098. Do I have a motion? So moved. Second. Got a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Final item, Mr. Chair, from the Manager's Office, I think H3 could be a game changer in the future for Polk County. Item H3 is to request the board's approval to establish 75 new positions within the Polk County Fire Rescue Division in an attempt to significantly reduce the reoccurring mandatory overtime work hours across all fire rescue field operations. The annual expense for this initiative is estimated at $9.2 million. While the Polk County Fire Rescue Division continues to make positive strides in recruiting of new hires, the current divisional staffing levels continues to require extensive and excessive use of mandatory overtime in meeting normal shift staffing levels. The board's decision to add 75 new full-time first responder positions will, over time, allow for significant reductions of mandatory overtime. These additional positions will improve the work-life balance of all first responders within the Polk County Fire Rescue Division and should translate into a more productive and energized workforce. The initial hiring strategy for the remainder of the current fiscal year FY 24-25 budget will be to transfer approximately one-half of that annual estimated expense, which will total $4,600,000. Funding for this initiative is available for transfer from the General Fund Reserve for Budget Stabilization to the Fire General Fund. During fiscal year 25-26 budget process, the General Fund Reserve for Budget Stabilization will be fully replenished from the General Fund ending fund balance. Subsequent annual funding for these additional positions will be addressed through a combination of allocations from the County's General Fund and the County's Fire Fund. So, Mr. Chair, members of the board, I think consistent with the board's destination employer bonding of branding that we now have within the Fire Rescue Division, I would request the board to approve the creation of these 75 new positions that will reflect a combination of firefighters, paramedics, and EMTs, all of which is intended to reduce the mandatory overtime working conditions within the Fire Rescue Division. Move for approval. Second. Got a motion and a second. Any further discussion? 75 positions are a lot. Yes, ma'am. So, I would like to see how, or the plan that you're going to have to get to the 75 positions. Yes, ma'am. I think that's something that I would like to see. I don't know about the rest of my colleagues, but just the plan that you have to be able to get there and how long it's going to take you to get there. I'll just point out they've been hiring more than 75 every year for several years. So, it's not unusual. All right. And one other, just a comment here, to the regard of recruitment, with Polk County Fire taking in-house, the responsibility of recruiting, and having recently visited with them, to me, they've done an exemplary job of really getting great talent on board, and I'm excited that we're able to offer the additional funds, and kudos to the men and women that are there at that department. They've done a fine job, and I'm really looking forward to supporting them any way we can. Anyone else? I would just second that. We are not a destination department yet, but this is a big step to get us there. So, I do applaud the board and county manager for working to make sure that this happens sooner rather than later. All right. We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Oppose? Motion carries. That's it, Mr. Chair, from the manager's office. All right. Commissioner Troutman? No comments. Commissioner Braswell? Yeah, I move to reappoint Steve Bissonnette as a member of the Citizens' Health Care Oversight Committee, representing senior citizens for the four-year term, March 2, 2025, through March 1, 2029. Need a second? Second. Got a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All in favor? Aye. Oppose? Motion carries. That's all I got. Commissioner Santiago? Nothing, thank you. Okay, Commissioner Scott? Yes, I'd like to move to reappoint. Connie Bamberg as a member of the Citizens' Health Care Oversight Committee, representing the business community for the four-year term, March 3, 2025, through March 2, 2029. Second. Second. Got a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All in favor? Aye. Oppose? Motion carries. And I don't have anything, so I've got a Labor Board appointment. Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah, I move to appoint Chad McLeod as a member of the Tourist Development Council, effective February 27, 2025. Second. A motion and a second. Any further discussion? Yes, second. I just want to take this opportunity to publicly thank Commissioner Stephanie Madden for her years of commitment to the Tourist Development Council. She's done a great job. I hate to see her leave, but I understand the need for the switch. So I just want to say a special thank you to Stephanie and for everything that she's done. Anyone else? Okay, we have a motion and a second, I believe. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. All right. Expedited hearings. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Before we move to expedited hearings, I will go over the public hearing general procedures. We ask that you please turn off your cell phones or other devices that may distract from the public hearings. Please adjust the microphone and state your full name and address for the record before you begin speaking on a topic. Individuals speaking during public comment section of a matter will be strictly limited to three minutes. The Board is experiencing these matters and is able to discern what is legally relevant to an issue and what is not. Information that is relevant or repetitive only serves to frustrate and necessarily prolong the day's business. The Commission expects civility at all times during all public hearings. Speaking out of terms, shouting out from the audience. Disapplicable sounds and utterances while another is speaking are unacceptable and you will be asked to leave the chambers for the remainder of the day. If any person decides to appeal any decision made by the Board with respect to any matter, consider here today you will need a record of the proceedings and that for such purpose you may need to ensure that verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based, which you must gather at your own expense. Anyone in the audience who wishes to speak and present testimony today must be sworn in. All testimony given during public hearings shall be deemed to be sworn. At this time, if you're going to address the Commission or speak on any case today, please stand, raise your right hand, and answer out loud to the following question. Do you swear or affirm that testimony or evidence you provide to the Commission today is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank you. Mr. Chair, at this time, I'll go to expedited hearing procedures. Expedited hearings are held pursuant to Resolution No. 2022-089. Expedited hearings are used when no opposition was present at the Planning Commission hearing. The applicant agrees to the expedited hearing and recommendation of the Development Review Committee is for approval. Expedited procedures are the following. After staff briefly introduces the case, the hearing will be open for public comment. If anyone speaks during public comment, the applicant will be given the opportunity to respond. Any public comment, after public comment, the Board will consider the land use case. At any time, a full presentation from staff can be requested from a Commissioner, the applicant, or a member of the public. All documents attached to the agenda item are deemed part of the record of the land use case. Unless removed from the list of experts by motion of the Board, all individuals on the list of experts attached to the agenda item are deemed experts for the purpose of the land use case. At this time, I'll turn over to Mr. Ziskell to present the expedited hearing. Thank you, Mr. Mink. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the Board. For the record, Ben Ziskell, Land Development Director. There are five items on today's expedited public hearing agenda. Item number 01 is an expedited public hearing for case LDC-PAL 2024-12, North Prong Industrial CPA, to consider a future land use change from phosphate mining and agricultural rural residential to industrial. You see the subject site on the screen indicated in purple. This property has been industrial for decades. It actually has existing industrial buildings on it. It is located near the Nichols community, which is an old mining community established as part of the phosphate mining industry. The request here is to reuse this property for industrial purposes. This land use change is linked to a Land Development Code text amendment, which will provide buffering and additional landscaping near the residential community. This is an adoption hearing of this future land use map change. Your Planning Commission recommended approval unanimously, and the Florida Department of Commerce had no objection. Staff is recommending approval and adoption. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, it's time now for a public hearing. I mean, I'm getting all tongue-tied here. This is a public hearing. If anyone wishes to come forward and speak on this matter, please come forward and you will be given three minutes. Seeing none, bring it back to the board. Any discussion or a motion? Move for approval. Second. Got a motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Item number 02 is an expedited public hearing for case LDCT 2024-19 North Prong Land Development Code text amendment. This is the companion item to the previous item. And you see on the screen here there are two proposed buffers and landscaping enhancements to preserve one existing residential community and one future residential community. The first is the top box. This is the Nichols community that I mentioned. You can see in the yellow hatching here additional landscape buffering near that residential community. And then the second is the larger box in the lower part of the screen. And this is a 200-foot buffer to preserve and protect a future land development of residential community in the city of Mulberry that is entitled for residential. The yellow hash mark is additional landscaping. And then the larger see-through hatching here is a larger buffer up to 200 feet, which will prohibit intense industrial uses such as construction, aggregate, rock crushing, and those types of things that could be problematic to the future development of the residential community. So these buffers were negotiated and discussed with the applicant, and staff is recommending approval. Your planning commission also recommended approval, and this is the adoption hearing of this case. Any questions? Ladies and gentlemen, this is a public hearing. If you wish to speak on this matter, please come forward and state your name and address, and you'll be given three minutes. Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the board for a motion. Move for approval. Second. Got a motion and a second. All in favor? Opposed? Motion carries. Item number 03 is an expedited public hearing for case LDC-PAL 2024-11, Mosaic-Nichols-PM Comp Plan Amendment, to change the future land use designation on approximately 420 acres from agricultural rural residential to phosphate mining. And this really amounts to a mapping error at the time that the comprehensive plan was adopted. This subject site was owned by the Mobile Chemical Company back in the 1950s, and they operated their industrial use and started to build the gypsum stacks back as far as the 50s. So it has been actively used for the phosphate mining industry. When the comp plan was adopted in 1991, this property received an agricultural rural residential designation, and this is really just to amend that inconsistency and allow them to continue to use the property for phosphate mining. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval, and the Department of Commerce had no comments, and staff recommends approval of this item. Questions? Ladies and gentlemen, this is the public hearing. If you wish to speak on this matter, please come forward, state your name and address. You'll be given three minutes. Seeing none, bring it back to the board for any further discussion or a motion. Move for approval. Second. Got a motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Item number 04 is an expedited public hearing for case LDC-PAS 2024-27, LaRoche Road CPA to consider a future land use map change from employment center to residential medium on approximately 18.35 acres. The subject site was changed from residential medium to employment center back in 2015. The request is to change it back to residential medium to build a residential project. As you can see here on the map, on the right-hand side of the project, which is due east of the site, there is a large industrial user. So this request will change the bulk of the site back to residential medium. However, it will leave a small strip on the north side and the east side of the property to leave that as employment center in order to relocate the existing LaRoche Road that bisects directly through the middle of the site. So there is a companion item. Item number 05 is a companion text amendment to provide additional buffering. But staff has reviewed the request for the land use change. Your planning commission has unanimously recommended approval and recommends adoption of this hearing today. Any questions? I don't have a question. Just wanted to comment that I think this is forward thinking on your department, Mr. Ziskell, to be able to leave that little sliver in order to make the necessary changes happen. So thank you for doing that. Anyone else? Ladies and gentlemen, this is a public hearing. If you wish to come forward and speak on this matter, please do it this time, and you'll be given three minutes. Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the rural. Oh, there he comes, yeah. Please state your name and address, please, sir. 239 Ball Road, Davenport, 33837. My land connects into where they want to build. Okay, Ball Road goes in 20-foot entry into eight acres, and it goes along the land that they're talking about developing. La Roche Road is one road over. There's a lot of wildlife in this area. There's, you know, 2,000 more acres all owned by standard sand, and I'm in the middle of it. So I don't share no rights on Ball Road with anyone, not even Duke Energy. And where they're planning on coming over to my property, it butts up to it. So I just need to be able to discuss where Ball Road goes around. It wraps on around through La Roche, into La Roche. It's never used on the backside, but it comes in all 547 straight into my property, and it's all private. So that big piece of land there they're talking about developing has, you know, it's got wetlands in it as well. So I'm not sure, you know, how I'm going to come out here with the land that they're developing, butting against my driveway, and it comes up to my house as well. Excuse me. Ben, do you have any answer on that? The short answer is this proposal will not impact Ball Road. Ball Road is on the south side of this property. So, again, La Roche Road is being relocated to the northern portion of the property, but the subject property will take access from the west. So this will not impact Ball Road. The piece of land that y'all had surveyed butts into mine. It's like 10 acres right beside my 8, maybe even 20 there. And, like I said, there's a lot of wetlands in that area as well. So I'm just concerned about what you guys are going to put in there. And, you know, my land is private, and it's been that way for years. Me and the animals live there, you know, and my daughters. So I'm just concerned about what you guys got going on. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Anyone else? All right. We'll bring it back to the board for a motion. Move for approval. Second. Got a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All in favor? Opposed? Motion carries. And, Mr. Chairman, item number 05 is an expedited public hearing for case LDCT 2024-22, section 2.135, parcel-specific future land use amendments. This is the companion item to the land use amendment that was just approved to provide specific requirements along the realigned La Roche Road. In particular, those requirements are that the road be built to the current county local commercial standards, that an opaque fence and landscaping be provided on both the north and the south side of the road to provide buffering to the existing neighborhood to the north, as well as the future development on the subject site. These were negotiated with the applicant. Your planning commission recommended approval, and staff recommends approval and adoption of this ordinance. Any questions? Ladies and gentlemen, this is a public hearing. If you wish to come forward and speak on this matter, please come forward, state your name and address, and you'll be given three minutes. Please come forward right up here, sir. So what this item is, is during this development of the residential medium, which is the square that was just changed, La Roche Road, which runs in the middle of the property, will be relocated to the northern part. If you see my cursor moving, this small purple sliver is where La Roche Road will be built. What this item requires is that on both sides, of the north side and the south side of La Roche Road, we'll have a fence and additional landscaping. So it will provide buffering from this community to the north, as well as this property, which is being developed. But La Roche Road, where it currently runs, is going to be rebuilt north of this property. Ball Road would be on this side of the square? Ball Road is on the south side. Yes. So what do you got going on in there, in that piece of square? Nothing. The square here will be residential development. You've got homes going in there? That's what the application is. Yeah, that's what the application is for. Yeah, you're tearing out a lot of wetlands area, then putting in, you know, we've got a lot of wildlife there. You've got homes already everywhere else. And I see where you're coming from, but, you know, you had your time to speak earlier, and it's the same deal. And this is an expedited hearing, and all this could have been brought up. If you had any further questions, it could have been answered, you know, better, but I haven't. Okay, well, I see what you're doing. Be fine. Do I have to? Thank you, sir. You have a good day. Get somebody on y'all's level. Thank you. All right. Anyone else? So, you know, we'll bring it back to the board for move for approval. Second. Got a motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Chairman, that concludes the expedited portion of your public hearings. Good morning, commissioners. For the record, Mark Bennett, Land Development. I'll be presenting the next two agenda items that are related to the State Road 60 and Boy Scout Road intersection. This first item, agenda item P1, is for a small-scale comprehensive plan amendment to designate 6.5 acres from ARR, Agriculture Residential Rural, to Rural Cluster Center, and also change the text of our comprehensive plan, specifically Section 2.135, to allow for the adoption of the activity center plan for this intersection. You can see on the screen there the notice, actions related to the notice that occurred. I'll run through the slides quickly here. This is the location of the site, generally east of Lake Wales. A close-up aerial photo shows the 6 1⁄2 acres proposed for change. Current designation, ARR, proposed designation of Rural Cluster Center. And this is the corresponding text change that basically recognizes that there will be a subsequent land development, excuse me, a change or an amendment to our land development code to adopt the activity center plan. Compliance with our policies regarding rural cluster centers. As part of the changes that were done recently last year for rural cluster centers, we provided more criteria to identify where they should go. Minimum population criteria, minimum distances from other RCCs, and this request complies with those criteria that I've outlined here on the screen. At the last meeting, regarding the activity center plan, there was some discussion about urban sprawl. In our staff report, we identify how this request is not considered urban sprawl. Additionally, in our comprehensive plan, our land use element, we talk about urban form. And the intent with the comprehensive plan is to not have linear or strip commercial. Likewise, that's the idea behind the activity center concept is to cluster. And I'll try and read it here. Have basically clustered intersections as opposed to the road-clogging practice of placing commercial drives every few feet along our arterial or collector streets. And then the last sentence you see there where we put in policies from criteria for the minimum population support and distance criteria. This slide shows potential impacts. We don't believe there's any significant impacts. And our justification for approval, we consider logical an extension of an existing activity center, complies with the criteria, compatible with the area, and consistent with the land development code and comprehensive plan. And at this point, I'll stand for any questions. Thank you. Any questions? Yeah, I've got a few. So looking at this one, and I appreciate the input as far as the background on the RCC to kind of regulate the drives. State Road 60, obviously being a state road, DOT is the one that regulates the locations of entrances to businesses, correct? As far as the separation distance. So they're controlling that. So the county wouldn't have any input on where a driveway could or could not be on Highway 60, correct? We would review it as part of our Level 2 site plan and add comments as appropriate. Right. So the RCC wouldn't be one that's aiding and spacing out driveways. It's more so DOT on Highway 60. I just want to make that clarification. Okay. With respect to this particular site, when I look at the surrounding area and look at compatibility, this is ARR, has been ARR for as long as we have it on record. And looking at the surrounding areas, I know that the last meeting it was brought up that there was a need statement that there was a fuel station or something needed at this center for people coming from the east-headed west. Looking at east and west of the site, the 6.4 miles to the east, 1.4 miles to the west, there's an existing gas stations there. And this site's about seven miles from the east side of Lake Wales. And between Lake Wales and here, there's really not much of anything except for agricultural, rural land. So I would still look at this as, to designate this as RCC, I think, is not compatible with what's around it. And, again, the benefits stated of an RCC, what I'm looking at here, don't really apply. When you're looking at a location on a state road, it has the regulation there. So I guess the only question I would have, looking at the Dollar General that's to the west, that is currently RCC, is that correct? Yes. Okay. And that's the only parcel in this area that's RCC, is that correct? There are two parcels at the southwest corner of the intersection that are currently designated RCC. Right, that's the one that's kind of peninsular in form, kind of skinny? Right. Right. This one and that one, yes. And for that to be really utilized as RCC, or not even RCC, to develop that area to the southwest, that's the one, if I recall, there's some roadway realignment that would be required, potentially, on that access road to the south. Right. That was one of the issues covered in the proposed activity center plan, is a potential realignment of Rose Avenue to primarily address the close proximity of Rose Avenue to the intersection, and also a potential realignment would allow for more development potential. So, I guess that's what I look at. When we look at the what if for that, and then also this is a railway project on DOT's radar for, you know, fatalities at the intersection of Boy Scout and State Road 60, for us to approve additional traffic potential there on those what ifs, doesn't really make a lot of sense to me. So, new standpoint. Thank you. And, Bill? Just to clarify for me, the DOT project, the U-turn and all that, that's planned and moving forward, or is that just a possibility? Yeah, the most recent knowledge I have is that the project will be let by DOT on February 26th with a 300-day timeline. Okay, so it's moving forward, regardless of what we do here. Okay. Correct. Anyone else? Yeah, just one other back on that one. DOT, going back a couple years ago, had also said that this was going to be a completed project. So, I think maybe this is a project, in my opinion, that comes back to us later on when we see some improvements. But, right now, it's, again, there's several what ifs to be able to have this be successful. Sure. All right. Anyone else? All right. Thank you. It's time for the applicant, if you'd like to come forward. Mr. Bennett, before you walk away, one second, ma'am. We'll be there, ma'am. It's not time yet. I may have missed it. Was that you presenting P1 and P2 simultaneously? Oh, no, sir. My intent was to present P1 first and then take action and then present P2. Okay. Yeah. Okay. My intent was to explain the two are related. Okay. Thank you. Good morning, Commissioners. Chair, Tom Woodridge, TW Land Planning. Here with me also is Corby Myers to represent the client on this request. We had a discussion with you last month and, or last two weeks ago, and are here to answer any direct questions that you have. We've heard testimony today and understand the position. Commissioner Scott, the comments taken into consideration. Thank you for those. I will just mention that this RCC allows for a wide variety of uses. We mentioned a gas station, I think, just as an example, but there's quite a few other uses in RCC, the Land of Elmaco, will allow that are definitely viable for this site. But in terms of the other issues that were brought to light, I can address any questions that you have at this time. Any questions? I don't see any. Okay. Thanks. I just want to reserve rebuttal, please, for staff. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a public hearing. If you wish to come forward and speak on this matter, please come forward and state your name and address, and you'll be given three minutes. My name is Sandra Schindler, and I live at 9520 Oakwood Drive in Walkenwater Lake Estates. And my neighbor and I have spoken before on this, and we represent over 100 homes in Walkenwater Lake Estates. Since we spoke last time, there has been new information from two different sources. One is someone in the neighborhood knows the person that owns the property that adjoins that proposed property, and they said that they have not been able to develop their property because there is endangered species on that property, and they were told it was also on this corner property. And then a totally separate person said that the fire department wanted that property for the fire department, and when they investigated it, they were told that there was endangered species on that property, so they moved their proposal north up Boy Scout Road. So that needs to be pursued as far as a problem. We agree with Mr. Scott that the property around there is all rural, wildlife corridor is nearby, and that this RCC is not appropriate for the comprehensive plan at this time. And that it would be urban sprawl, create more problems there than already exist, so we'd appreciate you voting no against it. Thank you, ma'am. Anyone else like to speak on this matter? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the board for any further discussion. Oh, I want the applicant, would you like to come back? Okay. Bring it back to the board for any further discussion or a motion. Move for approval. Second. Got a motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed. Motion carries. Now for the second item. Agenda item P2 is a second hearing to consider adoption of the activity center plan. I won't go through in detail with this since we discussed it at the last commission meeting. Basically, the intent is to establish an activity center plan for the intersection to guide the future growth and development. You can see on the screen that the items that the activity center plan covers. And I'm happy to show any maps as needed or answer any questions. Any questions? Just checking. Our agenda says this is a second reading, so are we taking action? Yes, ma'am. Yes, ma'am. And the first reading was that last meeting, so yes. No questions? All right. The applicant have anything to say? Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a public hearing. If you wish to come forward and speak on this matter, please come forward, state your name and address, and you'll be given three minutes. Seeing none, I will close the public hearing and bring it back to the board for a motion or discussion. Move for approval. Second. I have a motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed. Opposed? Okay. Motion carries. And just for clarification, Chair, if I may, for the woman in the audience regarding endangered species and stuff, there is a Florida, we have the Environmental Protections, that they do a survey of all sites that will clarify that information that is out of our hands. But there is an agency that takes care of identifying and protecting the endangered species. Okay. Thank you. All right. P3, is it? Mr. Chairman, item number P3 was continued at the February 4th meeting until today's hearing. However, that item has been withdrawn by the applicant. Okay. Now this time, we'll turn it over to Mr. Lowry, who will be doing the vacations of right-of-way. Good morning. Scott Lowry, Real Estate Services Support Manager. I have two items today. The first is a request. Oh, let me start my presentation. The first is a request of the board by its own motion to adopt a resolution vacating a portion of deeded right-of-way from Mosley Road, as well as portions of reservation areas shown on the plot of Camp Monson. The county recently completed a project to realign a portion of a dead-end roadway known as Mosley Road. You can see the realignment here in white. To eliminate several hundred feet of roadway that is not needed and, through coordination with the city of Lake Alpha, allow for emergency connection to a planned residential development to the north. To accommodate the realignment, additional right-of-way was acquired from an adjacent owner. As part of that agreement, the county agreed to process, by board's motion, a request to vacate the existing right-of-way to the east of the realignment that was no longer needed. The requested vacation area includes a portion of deeded right-of-way described in a quick claim recorded in OR Book 261 at pages 56 and 57. In addition, the plot of Camp Monson filed in Platte Book 28 at page 25 depicts areas defined as a 15-foot reserve for a county road. Through research, that appears to be a reference to a reservation from an old deed book in 1925 recorded in Deed Book 292 at page 555. Also, a portion of the reservation area to the west of the realignment was previously vacated by the city but is being included here to release any potential interest the county may have in that area. The appropriate county divisions and utility providers were notified and have no objections. Staff recommends the board adopt a resolution to vacate a portion of deeded right-of-way from Mosley Road as well as portions of the road reservation as fully described in the legal description contained in the resolution attached. And I'll stand for any questions. Any questions? Did you say you need? I said no, sir. Oh, okay. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a public hearing. If you wish to speak on this matter, please come forward and state your name and address and you'll be given three minutes. Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the board for any further discussion or a motion. Motion to approve. Second. I have a motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Okay. The next and last item is a request of the board by its own motion to adopt a resolution vacating a portion of platted, unopened, and unmaintained right-of-way shown as Marina Drive on the plot of Poinciana Neighborhood 3 North, Village 7. The plot filed in 1974, dedicated various rights away to the public. The county recently acquired a large landholding on the east side of Lake Marion for a project known as Lake Marion Scrub. The county is coordinating with multiple funding partners, including the Nature Conservancy, which has agreed to reimburse the county for a portion of the purchase amount. But they've required certain items to be cleared from the title. Towards that effort, the county is working with the Association of Poinciana Villages, who has agreed to execute releases for any interest that they may have in the project area. But they've requested that the county vacate certain platter right-of-way, which is partially bisecting its properties near the project area. The subject area lies southerly of track KK and northerly of track LL. The county notified the only other adjacent property owner and received no response when they were down here. However, they do not appear to be negatively impacted by this vacation. Appropriate utility providers and county divisions were contacted and received one objection from Toho. The objection was for possible future needs, but they have no plans at this time. They've been notified of the public hearing to appear here today. Okay. Staff recommends the board adopt the resolution to vacate the platter, unopened, and unmaintained right-of-way shown as Marina Drive on the Plata Point Siena, neighborhood 3 North, Village 7, as fully described in the legal description contained in the resolution. And I will stand for any questions. Any questions? Ladies and gentlemen, this is a public hearing. If you wish to come forward and speak on this matter, please come forward and give your name and address, and you'll be given three minutes. Seeing none, I will bring it back to the board for discussion or a motion. Motion to approve. Second. I have a motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. All right. I believe it's time now that we're going to do our work session, but we're going to take a five-minute break. Yes, sir. Got some people that need to go to the little men's and boys' rooms. So we'll be back in 1025. It's a train rolling. Error one. Error one. Are you ready, Mr. Chair? Yeah, who's going to do all the talking here? We'll do a little bit, yes, sir. All right. Before we do, John, Mr. Chair, just kind of as we discussed at the agenda review, we're going through this process because, and if you recall, we went through the same process back in September to go through the extraordinary circumstances, work sessions. But the board did move transportation impact fees during that time, so out of abundance of caution, we're going back through the process to give the board the flexibility to decide what to do with the transportation impact fees as it applies to warehouses. So at this time, I'll turn it over to John. Good morning, Mr. Chair, commissioners. For the record, John Bodie, deputy county manager. I want to tell some of the board members who were here in September, we went through some of these same slides for the extraordinary measures because the same circumstances apply in this case as well. So some of these slides will look familiar, and then after I go through the extraordinary circumstances, I'll bring us back to the fees that I sort of are the scenarios that I presented on Friday and some of the options. So, again, background, methodology, we'll go through some of that, go through some of the extraordinary circumstances, and then the next steps. Let me give you some background on the transportation impact fees just in general. So they were last updated in March of 2023. During that study, that time, the consultant only looked at transportation fees, not all the other fees, and warehouse and industrial were combined. And I'll take you out of order in those real quick. If you look at the bottom, that's what the fees were before they were combined. So warehouse was $796. That's per 1,000 square feet. And then industrial was $855. That's per 1,000 square feet. So that's what the fees were. And then in 2023, they actually went down, and they were combined because, as I explained before, it was if you left them separate because the rates went down, the whole proportionality, because the board did not do extraordinary circumstances in March of 2023. So you had to follow the statutory requirements. And due to that, all those rates were coming down. Even single families, it was dragging a lot of fees down. So it made sense to combine industrial and warehouse. But the fee that got established was the $539 fee. That was 84% of the max study, which I think was $639. But you couldn't get there because you didn't do extraordinary circumstances back in March of 23. So that was to be the fee, the $539 fee through 2028. That was what was March 2023. So then fast forward to September of last year when we looked at all the fees and the board members who were there then, the decision was made, well, let's take the transportation up to the 100% mark, which you were able to do through the extraordinary circumstance. So that was that recalibrated schedule that takes it from 90%, 95%, and ultimately gets you to that 100% number, the $639. That's what's in place today is that $573 that kicked in in January of this year. So that's the current schedule. That's the current schedule for all the fees as part of that. So that's kind of some background. Let me give you a background. I know the board members have seen this before relative to the study and why you do them. It's really to reflect the most current and localized data. That's why you go through this and go through that to prove the burden of proof to the public agencies. I think the board knows it is a one-time capital charge for new development. You get one shot at impact fees. You can't come back later. It changes hands. It doesn't, if you get a one-time cost or a one-time chance. And then the other thing is it's to cover the cost of capital facilities. They are not for operation and maintenance type. They're not for resurfacing. It is for capacity related for new development. And what it does is the purpose really is it frees up having to use other monies that you may use for O&M type cost. It's dedicated just for that. It also implements your CIP. I think the board is very familiar with our CIP, all the voluminous amount of projects that are in there. Those impact fee dollars, whether it's roads or parks or the other facilities, EMS, it goes towards these new capital improvements as we move forward. So this study as well as I think most of, if not all, of the county's past studies have been consumption-based. That's what most use. The other would be plan-based where you might say, hey, I'm going to widen this road. It's in my five-year, it's even in my 20-year plan. I think as the board knows, those priorities of those roads change. You may not ever get to that road. You may not ever widen that road. So it just really makes more sense to do it on consumption-based, that particular methodology. So, again, charges new growth based on the consumption of that capacity. So new development comes in, they're eating up the existing capacity on roads. And one thing that's real clear in the statute is if there is a failing situation already, you cannot put that on new development to fix the deficiency that already exists. So if the intersection is failing, and you've seen that, if it's failing, you can't put that on a new development, and you've seen where the whole proportionate share situation comes in now, and that's in the statute. The impact fee components, it's going to look at the inventory of your roads, what you have. It's going to look at the service areas. We have three transportation impact fee districts. It's going to look at the level of service of those areas. There's a cost component. There's also a credit component, demand component, and then you get into all that, and you calculate that fee. So let me go through extraordinary circumstances, and let me explain how the law changed. You've seen this before, but for the new board members, if you follow the statute to the T, you can only increase them up to 25% over two years, and then you can only ever get to 50% over four years. This is if you do not do extraordinary circumstances. So you're maxed out at 50% over four years, and then you can't change them again every four years. Anytime you want to break from that, those first four bullets, then you've got to go through extraordinary circumstances. And so the exceptions are you have a study that's no more than 12 months old that demonstrates extraordinary circumstances, and then you have two public workshops. This is workshop number one today to demonstrate that, discuss these extraordinary circumstances, and then it has to be an approval by two-thirds, which equates to four of the five board members have to vote for whatever you vote for. So whatever you do through this process, I explained that Friday, you've got to have four votes. If you don't, then it'll stay at the current phasing schedule that exists today. I think extraordinary is easy to demonstrate here with the growth that's occurred in the county. These are not new numbers and new rankings, if you will, for the board. You've seen this. And then if you move down specifically to Polk or Florida, it's the ninth largest in population. It's estimated to add 300,000 new residents through 2050. I believe that is a Bieber number. That's the Bureau of Economic and Business Research at the University of Florida. They do a lot of population estimates. And then 10th in terms of projected growth rate, that's through 2050. And then in terms of residential permitting, we've been four throughout the state, and I'll show you some slides on that. This is county-wide residential permitting. And you may say, well, we're showing residential permitting. It's still a barometer, if you will, and a measurement of growth. And the board members, you know that. We always show that residential building permit number every year through our budgeting process. This is unincorporated. So that's county-wide. And then this would be just unincorporated right here. And the difference in the green is single-family versus multifamily is that gray number. Cost increases. I don't need to tell the board about cost increases. Again, this impact fee is going to be based on cost. What does it cost to build a lane mile? That's put into the formula to establish the fee. Because, again, new development is eating up capacity. And so there's a cost component that now I've either got to widen a road, I've got to add a turn lane. So there's a cost component. And you can see how these have increased over the really this goes back to over the last decade plus. So, again, no surprise to the board. You've seen us even come back for cost estimates for a project, a CIP project, that is now higher just due to that. These are roads that are on the county's CIP. Some of these are funded, not even fully. Some are almost fully funded. But these are projects that are on the list. I think the board is familiar. There's even more on this list if I'd run out of space on the slide, quite honestly. Next steps. This is workshop number one. You've got to have another workshop on March 4th. Certainly any feedback we get today, we'll address that at the next workshop should we need to. And then the public hearing is scheduled for March 18th. And then we were estimating an effective date of July 1, which was essentially 104 days. You've got to wait 90 days for notice before impact fees are effective. That's state law. So let me go back through what I kind of presented on Friday, but then some additional comments. I bolded industrial because I did not mention that. That was a comment I received Friday was to show you the industrial rate. And then also I just tried to really focus you in on the full fee rate and then the 90% adjusted rate. Again, you could see the difference. I'll go through each column. It's the current rate. If you look at the very top, the trip generation, the first row, that's the 1.71. That's the current rate. Your full fee rates, that's $639 number. If you move over and let's say you just apply the blockage factor, and I think I've beat that up ad nauseum what the blockage factor is. But essentially if you just take the current rate, apply the blockage factor, and if you move down to the capacity row, you see how it reduces capacity. And so that tractor-trailer is going to take up more capacity on the road than a vehicle. And essentially your capacity goes down from $10,100 to $7,800. You can see those numbers if you just keep the current rate. So then let me move you over actually to the local study, which is the 2.25. That's the second to the last column. That's the local study that was done with the blockage factor. Again, capacity stays the same, and that's the full fee rate, the $25.97, and then the 90% number to phase in is $23.37. So you take the $171 and the $2.25, you average them, you get the $1.98. So that's all that is. That's taking local, national data, and it's taking the local study. That's the $1.98 number. And just to remind you, that is per 1,000 square feet is that trip rate. So that's how that all comes about. Let me, oh, let me, before I forget, there's the industrial rate. And the industrial rate is just taking the national data. You see it says ITE, the Institute of Transportation Engineers. That's just taking the national studies that have been done. Could be in Florida, could be anywhere all over the nation. And it looks at industrial. That's just taking that national standard. Yes, ma'am. Going, looking at your blended, your blended column. You only blended the trip generation. You did not blend the trip length. Is that correct? Correct. Just the trip generation. Yes. And, John, the only reason we're talking industrial is just because it came up. And we're not, we've decided that that ship has sailed. Is that correct or not? Well, I'm glad you asked that question because I did not mention that. We're breaking it back out now. Since we studied only warehouse locally, then an industrial was grouped in in the last study, we need to pull it back out. So, since we didn't study it, that's what you do. You just put it to the national standard, and that's what that does. Okay. Yeah. Yep. So, we do need, if the board chooses to move forward with something new on warehouse, that's, I want to say, that's the default to industrial. That'll be the default number. But the one thing I'll notice it, or notate for you, is if you look at the trip length, the 5.15, it does not use the local trip rate of the 10.44. So, again, you're just using national local data. So, that number, that's why that number's lower. That's why it's lower than, even though you see the trip rate's 4.87, I'm sorry, the trip generation's 4.87, the trip length is shorter. That's why the rate is a little bit lower in the cost. This is really just breaking it down, the phase in. The one thing, if you choose to change any of these fees, is you are locked in at that rate schedule. So, you're locked in at 90, 95, 100, and that's the proportionality. And that's the argument there is single family and office, and they're all phased in at that schedule. You cannot break out transportation and say, I want some different phase in schedule. You can't legally do that. So, you've got to maintain that same phase in schedule. The idea is that you stay at the 90% through the end of the year, and then you just pick right up where the current phase in is at 95 and 100 for all the fees. So, this breaks down what I just went through on each trip rate with blockage, the middle ones being with the, or I'm sorry, really they all have blockage, the last three columns versus the current. I just picked a typical 100,000 square foot warehouse as that last column, and what would be the impact fee. That's really just trying to give you some flavor for what that looks like. I was asked this. I think the board had seen this. Some of you had seen this. This was, I was asked about this Friday, is to show you the comparisons. You can see where Polk currently is over there on the left side at the top, the 639. This is based, by the way, on the 100% number, not the phased in number. If you did current, the current rate with the blockage, that $924 number, you can see where that kind of fares with us, with the surrounding counties, and then you can see districts B and C. Yes, ma'am. The districting. Are we required to use those districts in this warehouse piece? Yes. We are? Yes. Okay. They are all subject, all the fees are, yes. Are always subject to the districts, yes, ma'am, yeah. And the fees are spent in those districts as well. And then if you move down, so this takes the blend, the second to the last column over there on the right side, or row, is the blended 1.98 number. National data, local data, that's the $2,299 figure. And then if you went 100% of the study, the $2,597, you can see, and then you can see where districts B and C to the side fit. So if you go with the 1.98, you would be the highest of all these surrounding counties. The industrial, this is a breakout of the industrial. So you can see our current $639 number. You can see where it fits if you choose to do something. And you, again, by default, have to bust out the industrial. Those are those rates. Certainly, there are others around us that are higher in that category. That's all I have. I'll stand for any questions you may have. And then I know that some of the economic development groups are here, have some slides, would like to share some information, I know, with the board at your discretion. John, on this number, the 1.98, I mean, we're stuck with that. And it goes across the board. I mean, we can't say, OK, we want to reduce this a little bit because we don't want to get such a, you know, hit so hard. We cannot do that, can we? Well, the 1.98 is the blended. You're not stuck with that. You could do these three scenarios that you see right here. So the top row, that's the current. That's the way it's going to, if you do nothing, that's what it's going to stay at. It's going to stay at that. It's going to phase in just like you see it. The second row is taking that 1.71 rate, which is, again, the current rate, and applying the blockage factor. It's basically saying, hey, I'm going to reduce the capacity so the number's going to go up. That's that phase-in schedule. And then the 1.98 is actually the blended. It's taking national data. And let me explain the national real quick, the reason it made sense to do a local study. The national data, the latest study on it was from 2010, and it didn't even involve Florida, the studies that are in the ITE. So it made more sense to do the local study. But that's a blended. That's just a blended 1.98. That is just purely averaging the local and the national rates. John, did I understand you to say that these are our only options? So you, not only, I did not show you the options without the blockage. There is, so let me show you. If I take the 1.98 and the 2.25, those both have blockage. If I take that out, there is another rate. I can show you that. I didn't show it because I thought, really, and as I mentioned Friday, the whole point was that when we first set out on this was about the blockage factor and the tractor trailers and the capacity that they eat up. So that was where the focus went, but if you did not want to apply the blockage factor to the 1.98 and the 2.25, I can show you those numbers. I have them. I would like to see those numbers. Yes, ma'am. John, also, just to confirm, you had mentioned that per project, the applicant can present their own study as far as on the trip generation side of things. Like, there was a pathway for them to basically seek a reduced impact fee based on their specific operation, correct? That still stands? Yes, sir, Commissioner Scott, good point. Yes, anybody can submit local, their own study that we would look at. And a good example would be if, say, a national company says, hey, I've got these in another community, another county, even another state. This is my trip rate. Here's my numbers. Here's what I do. We would accept that. Okay. Yeah, we would accept that, which would say, hey, let's say you went 2.25, the local number. They're like, no, no, no, that's not what I do. I only do 1.25 or something. Yeah, we would look at that and accept that. Okay. Thank you. There's an opportunity to do that. Right. So, Commissioner Santiago, this slide right here will show you, if you look at the bolded columns, that's what you have not seen yet. That's not applying the blockage factor. That's taking the blended rate, the 1.98, and not applying a blockage factor. That's why you see the capacity is 10,100. If you see 7,800, it's got a blockage factor applied to it. So, you can see those numbers, and I think I can show you this slide right here, show you the actual numbers. So, what's in red, blended rate, local number, and does not have a blockage factor applied to it. And you can see how that scales out. So, Commissioner Sonny, I'll go ahead and answer your question. These are probably every option you have right here in front of you today that, again, you got to follow the 90, 9,500 phase in, but these are all your options, the top one being obviously you don't do anything and you leave it just like it is, which is going to be the case if we don't get four votes in favor, yeah, of one of these, yeah. And, John, I guess to the point, though, when you talked about the prior board, when the blockage factor is obviously a real deal. When you look at that county line and I-4, I think the other day it took four red light changes just to have the turn lane empty to get the next queue in there. So, it certainly is a real thing. Yes, sir. Well, the blockage factor is why we're here to begin with. I mean, it started out with how can a truck four times the size of a car not have, or have less impact than anything else, and that's what started this whole ball rolling. Mr. Chair, that's all I have. If you don't have any other questions for me, again, it's your discretion. If you want to hear some comments, they've got some slides I think they'd like to show. Do you have something back here? Oh, yeah. All right. Who's up first? Is there organized opposition? Perspective, right? That's all. Make sure I get pulled the right one. All right. Good morning, Commissioner. Sean Mallott, Central Florida Development Council. Our slide's up on the screen. Thank you so much. And so, really, you know, today is to talk specifically here to represent competitiveness and job opportunities. So, if you look at the Florida scorecard for Polk County, this is basically a document or a data set that the Florida Chamber, you know, tracks, and that 65,000 new jobs are going to be needed within Polk County by 2030. That has a lot of different factors of, you know, being a part of a growing area. And, obviously, you know, the county's experiencing cost increases. Again, our companies are experiencing cost increases as well. So, and specifically when we're talking about, we're talking about buildings. And, you know, these are buildings that, you know, businesses live within and that are important employers within our county. And so, as we look at the different fees discussed, and I recognize that the staff and the consultant didn't necessarily know what the fees would look like when they present, but in essence, the proposed initial fees are off the charts high. So, in essence, would make us by far one of the most expensive for industrial and, you know, warehouse development within the county. And you may see a box, but a lot of different types of businesses, you may operate within that particular building. And when it comes to, you know, our community, spec development has been a really important part of what we've had from a landscape perspective for competitiveness of projects. And so, you know, the business community locates within that framework. And then the rates that I think that have been proposed are just significantly higher and I think would set a message that we don't necessarily want job creators, or at least particularly this type of job creator within our community. And so, you know, I've been asked to, you know, kind of read a statement from the CFTC executive board, just to give some perspective. And then I'll kind of give the floor over. So, the Central Florida Development Council believes that our community should have fair and competitive impact fees to assist with needed infrastructure. From a strategic perspective, it's important that our fees are not the highest compared to Florida counties and cities that we compete against for quality jobs. However, they also don't need to be the lowest. We need an approach that supports infrastructure, but is balanced to encourage job growth in Polk County for our citizens. At the potential 300% increase, new industrial and commercial investment would significantly be discouraged, leading to slower economic growth and fewer jobs. To attract jobs and keep our economy strong for Polk County residents, we support a balanced approach to impact fees that supports infrastructure without driving businesses away. If extraordinary circumstances are deemed necessary to increase fees, we request that the Commission consider a modest adjustment at this time. Thank you. Thank you, Sean. Any questions for Sean? Okay. Anybody? I do. Oh, okay. I'm sorry. Sean, you put here a modest adjustment at this time. Tell us what that looks like. Well, I believe that you've seen some new rates today, and we talk about the blockage in particular. If you apply the new blockage rate that was determined through the study to your current fee structure, that is maybe considered a more modest than what is originally presented. So that is a way to be able to accomplish your goals without necessarily setting a record for the highest fees within the Florida area. So going back to the chart that, John, you presented with the options, can you put that back up for me? And on this document, it is, yeah, there you go. Yeah. And, John, just so you know, we're just asking, can you print these charts off for us so we can study? Because this is the first time, too. And obviously, we won't make the decision here today to be able to look at that. It would be helpful. Sean, looking at this chart, where would you consider the modest adjustment be based on the email that you just read? So if the, again, if extraordinary circumstances are deemed appropriate, then if you look at our current rate with the blockage factor applied, it would be the full rate of the 924. Second line. There's a loss of $300 increase. Okay. Yeah, so basically you would increase, you know, over $300, you know, right away, in essence. And then you would phase into additional creases over the next, you know, two years. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? All right. Do we have anybody else? Steve Scruggs, Lakeland Economic Development Council, commissioners, county manager, audience. And the first thing that I'd like to say is I want to thank John and Ben for helping me over the last couple of days gather information that isn't always the case when somebody might not have the same opinion. I just really appreciate you guys. I really do. So what I'd like to do is share with you a little information we put together at the LADC over the weekend, and I'm happy to answer any questions you might have. So the first slide that I have on here is, and how do we pronounce it? Is it Banash? Banash? Banash? Banash? So the Banash study, these are some warehouse examples by company location and square footage that are in the study. So these are the nine companies that were used in the study and where they're located in their square footage. This is the map that they shared with you of where those are located. And you'll note that most of them are on the I-4 corridor, a couple are interior, but most of them are close. These are the current impact fees those companies would have paid, or actually probably in 27 at $639, but we'll just go with the $639. So they would have paid about $3.8 million in impact fees if they all moved here at this time. But if they moved here during extraordinary measures, then you can see what they would have paid. Is that helpful? Okay. So I want to show you also what they pay in ad valorem taxes. So the first column there is what they would pay the general fund in ad valorem. The second one is the transportation millage, which is 1.2 mils at the county. That's what they would pay. The next one is tangible. This is something that you don't see very often as commissioners. That's what goes inside of a building. That's the conveyor systems or the equipment or those kinds of things. And when you see warehouses and you think, well, they don't have any equipment in them, well, they really do, a lot. And they pay taxes on those. And then the last column in that area is what they also pay in transportation on the tangible. So the final total numbers are what the ad valorem they're paying on general and transportation, the nine companies that were provided by your consultant in the study. So just giving you a feel for it's $4.3 million. And that's a year, correct? That's a year. Thank you. So the one thing that I would just highlight, though, is there is an incentive program. Two of these companies have received that incentive about eight or nine years ago, and that incentive is about to run out. It's a portion of the property tax they don't pay. Those are about to run out, but I just wanted to let you know that for full transparency. So also, this slide is kind of the one that brings them all together. So the current impact fees, the extraordinary, and then the ad valorem. And you can see on there that the annual ad valorem payments for the general and transportation by these nine companies in one year is more than they would pay in impact fees today. This would increase about three-plus years with the proposed increases. So even in a three-year period, you'd get your money back if you didn't have extraordinary circumstances. Finally, we kind of came up with our own list of ten companies in Lakeland, and I just wanted to see how it compared to the nine that were in the study. So this is kind of the little LEDC mini study. And so these are ten companies. The difference in this is that after I saw your last meeting, I noticed that industrial was going up as well. So the first five companies on here are distribution or warehouse or logistics companies. The second five actually would be in your industrial category, so manufacturers and those types of things. Maybe of note in this category is look at the tangible taxes for, let's say, Pepperidge Farm. Do you see that they pay $272,000 in tangible and only $66,000 in property taxes? So this is something, when you're looking and starting to compare, when we bring a manufacturer to Polk County, those are the kind of companies you want. If it's in the city of Lakeland, we make money on the water, the sewer, the electric, the tangible, and the property taxes. Not only that, when they put equipment in a building, they tend not to leave. If it's just a general warehouse, it's easier to move. But, boy, if they've got equipment in it, like Pepperidge Farm, they've been there since 1987. So, again, I think this validates the nine companies that were picked in your study because it's almost these ten are almost the exact same numbers that are in the nine that you have in the study, $4.2 million. As far as jobs, and, again, I think Sean mentioned this earlier, but we don't look at things just, you know, myopically of, okay, here's the impact fees or, you know, here's what they're going to pay in taxes. Jobs are pretty important. And so you can see that in the nine companies that are in the study, they have over 4,600 jobs. And then in the study the LADC did, we had over 6,000. And this is important, and we'll talk a little bit about that in a second. This is the comparisons in the Banesh technical study, county comparisons. And so these are the counties that they picked to compare Polk County to. And we like these six that they picked, Hillsborough, Orange, Marion, Osceola, Lake, and Duval. And the reason we like those is because we compete with them all the time. So what we weren't really excited about was some of these other ones. Without getting too technical, Martin County is the most anti-development county in the state of Florida. I don't know why they're in here. I don't know why Naples is in here. There's nobody that has big distribution centers in Naples because there's no population to distribute to. It doesn't make any sense. Charlotte, I mean, there is no distribution down there. Hernando and Sumter are starting to get some distribution centers. But, again, I think it needs to be apples to apples. And so we would suggest that these are some of the counties and cities that are missing. And I know you're doing county to county. But, again, we compete with cities, too. So if we were doing a study, this is who we would include. So then you might ask Commissioner Troutman, I want to see a comparison of Polk versus counties we compete with. You said that at the last meeting. Well, this is what it looks like. And this is what it looks like for industrial. So this would be our list versus the study, the Binesh study. And you can kind of see where, in 2024, Polk County and Lakeland stand with regards to industrial and where we would go with the extraordinary measures. Now, you might look at that and go, well, you're in the middle of the pack. That looks pretty good. What I would tell you is the people that we compete with on manufacturing are Jacksonville, Marion County, Ocala all the time. Pinellas has a lot of manufacturing. It's one of the heaviest manufacturers in the whole state of Florida. So that's who we typically compete with. We're not competing with Daytona Beach or Kissimmee, you know, for manufacturing or Volusia County. But for us, as I told you earlier, we think this rate should be really low because manufacturing is what we make the most money on, you know, when they bring their equipment here and they're tangible and those kind of things. The second one was warehouse. And I heard Commissioner Wilson say, I do want to see where we fall at with other counties. This affects a lot when it comes to our economic development. So we also did one for warehouse. And this one gets a little scary for us. I know it was scary in the Binesh study for economic developers, but this is what it would look like for us against our competition. And the reason that Lakeland's a little higher than Polk County is because we have fees on top of Polk County's. We collect your impact fees and send them back to you, but we also have our own fees. And by the way, Binesh is doing a study for Lakeland, which will drop. I think they're going to wait until you vote. And then they'll drop our study and, you know, it's going to go higher than this, right? There's, you know, unless I'm really persuasive and do a good job over there at a meeting. But this is not where we want to be when we compete with other areas. So I thought it would be helpful to see that. But Commissioner Braswell, you also mentioned the meeting, and I agree with you, that you can't just look at this one thing. There's a lot of categories that companies look at when they're moving to a certain area. And so I want to just give you some perspective of where we stand, Polk County versus other counties. And it's not just about impact fees because when companies are looking, they're not just looking at the impact fee. So this is where we stand, you know, on average wages. We've made huge leaps and bounds here in my career. I've been here for 38 years in the same job at the LADC. And we were way down the list. We weren't on this list when I first started. We had a 20% unemployment rate in 1987 when I started at the LADC. We've made a lot of progress, and you all have been a big part of it. This commission has supported economic development my whole career. I think, though, you know, we've made a lot of progress, but we're still the highest in this competition with unemployment. And you might say, well, that's 3.5, 2.9 to 3.8. Who cares? Well, if there's 350,000 people working in Polk County and there's a percent difference, that's 3,500 jobs. So it's just we don't want to be the highest unemployment with our competitors. Looking at millage rates, this is something I know you look at every year when you're passing your budget. But when we look at who we compete with, we're kind of in that higher spot. Don't like to really be in that spot. But in the 38 years I've been at the LADC, this is the first time I think I've spoken to the board in 20 years. We support you in what you're doing with millage rate. We've never been down here and complained about it. You can see where Lakeland is with regards to millage rate, but that's kind of an unfair comparison. Lakeland's got its own utility, right? They make a lot of money on that utility, and it helps. So that's where we are in millage rate. And then I thought this would be something that you would really find interesting. So commuting patterns, we have about 19,000 people that commute from Hillsborough County to, I would say, mostly the west side of the county for a job. And then amazingly, we have like 9,000 almost that come from Orange County and so forth. Commuting to Orange County, we have 28,000 people. Now, obviously, 10,000 of those work at Disney World or the hotels that are in those areas, right? So we know where that's coming from, mostly on the east side of the county. But Hillsborough, you know, we have about 25,000 that go there for a job. So just giving you those commuting patterns. So what does that mean, Steve? Well, let's look at the five or six counties that surround us, and you can kind of see that first column is where they live and work. So these are people that, you know, live in Bartow and work in Bartow or whatever, or live in Orlando and work in Orlando. They don't commute. The second column is people that commute into that county, okay? The third column is people that commute out of that county for a job. And then the differences on numbers and the differences on percentages. And I think it's really important for you to look at this and say, who do you want to be like when you grow up? We want to be like those guys on the top list. We want people to come to Polk County for a job. We don't want to be a bedroom community. There's a lot of reasons we don't want to be a bedroom community. We don't want to be this yellow line. We want to be on the other side of that. That's the goal that we have as economic developers is we want to, for everybody that wants a job in Polk County, we want them to be able to stay here and get a job, not have to go somewhere else. So, you know, West Polk is experiencing a deficit of 7,000 jobs, you know, where you saw 25,000 going to Hillsboro for a job and 17 or 18 coming back. East Polk's really, it's really pronounced there with 24,000. Most commuters traveling east and west are putting a significant strain on our city, county, and state roads. We don't want this. Again, the commuter's bad for us because they're leaving their house, they're hopping on 27, they're going north, they're going right on I-4, and they're heading to Orlando for a job. That's not good in all the neighborhoods that they have to go through. So we're currently experiencing a 30,000 job deficit from Polk County going east and west. So what are these deficit implications? Well, we don't get any ad valorem taxes from these employers, so these companies aren't moving here, they're somewhere else. We don't get ad valorem taxes from the residents because they don't live here. We don't get tangible taxes from the employers because they're not located here. There's less restaurants that pay taxes to serve those residents. There's less retailers that pay taxes to serve those residents. There's more commuters using our collector roads to get to their places of employment. More miles driven on our collector roads by non-residents who don't pay for them. There's less volunteers to serve in our nonprofits and our schools. And there's less density means less options and services for you to enjoy in your community. So boiling it down, landing the plane a little bit here. These are examples of future capacity projects that John showed you just a minute ago in the study. This shouldn't be a surprise to you, but it's almost a billion dollars in just these six projects. The good news about these six projects are they're impact fee eligible because they're capacity projects. How much do you think we have in our kitty to pay for these, for impact fees? We've got $61 million. Now, I know that's not the only place that you get money for for transportation, and you're saying, Steve, okay, you're making my point for me. But the point is, these are the three districts, and I think somebody asked, does the money have to be spent in the district? And it does. So this is how much you have to spend in each one of those districts. $350,000 was collected in county transportation impact fees in the unincorporated Polk County last year. Okay? That's a little unfair because each city also collects fees and sends them to the county. So what was Lakeland's? $2 million. So that was collected in county transportation impact fees in the city of Lakeland last year. Okay? So what are some of the projects? I'm giving you that background. Remember those numbers. We'll come back to them. What are some projects that are receiving impact fee funding right now? And one of those is Pipkin Road. That 3.8 stretch mile going from West Pipkin, South Florida Avenue to Medela Road, it's about a $60 million project. That adds up to about $16 million per road mile. Okay? Lake Wilson's another one. It's a little over a mile. $40 million project. $36 million per road mile. I think that's a little unfair because they had to buy all the right of way. There was a lot of stuff. So unfair. Okay? I agree. But those are two projects going on right now. So what does it cost per lane mile for these kind of projects? $17 million is the cost per mile for new construction of a four-lane urban road like the ones you just saw with a 22-foot median and a four-foot bike lane. This is DOT numbers. So Pipkin and Lake Wilson, I think they're similar projects, just to give you a feel. The price does not include those things that we just talked about, additional earthwork structures, intersections, driveway connections, signalization, right-of-way, safety upgrades. So that $17 million can balloon to $36 million pretty quick. The $2.35 million that was collected in county transportation impact fees in the unincorporated Polk County in the city of Lakeland last year, showed you that slide a minute ago. $8 million would have been collected if extraordinary measures were approved last year. So assuming Polk County commissioners adopt extraordinary measures last year, we would not have collected enough money to build a four-lane urban road from the courthouse to the Waffle House here in Bartow. That's my quote for the newspaper, okay? I know. That's supposed to be funny. But it's kind of just trying to give you a feel. We just, you know, impact fees are not going to fix the roads. They're a piece of it. They can help us. But, you know, $2.3 million isn't going to build the sidewalks on Pipkin Road. And so I think it's good to have that perspective. We really have limited resources. And so a median household price in Polk County today is $216,000. If you live in that house and you've been there a year, you have homestead exemption of $50,000. So the taxable value of that median home price is $166,000. They pay about $1,000 in general and transportation ad valorem per household. $4,200. That's the number of houses at Polk County median household price it would take to equal what the nine companies in the Binesh study pay in general revenue and transportation taxes, $4.3 million. $4,200 homes. And they'd have to build it on 1,000 acres. Because if you, and I think the standard's five houses, so I made it conservative and four houses. So if you had four houses on every acre and you built 4,200 houses, you'd have 1,000 acres that you'd need to use to build that. The acreage of those nine companies in the Binesh study is 579 acres, almost half what you would do with residential. The average household size in Polk County is 2.69. That means 11,300 residents living that would live in those 4,200 houses on 1,000 acres. There's 4,600 employees that work in the nine companies in the Binesh study located on 500 acres. The impact's half from this perspective. We're not talking about trucks versus cars, but I'll tell you the 11,000 people produce more trips than the companies at least going to work and back on the employees. But anyway, I'm not here to, listen, I'm not criticizing the Binesh study. I haven't really heard me say anything about it. I'm actually using their numbers to make the point. So what are the economic development reminders? 4.3 million is the annual ad valorem and tangible property taxes. The nine companies in the Binesh study pay the county on an annual basis. 4.2 million is what's in the LADC study. It costs a lot less than land infrastructure and services, police, fire, and EMS, to serve a large employer, industrial warehouse, than it does a resident. Way less. Do you know how many telephone lines or power lines or sewer lines or water lines have to go to 1,000 houses versus one company? Do you know how many phone calls the Walmart distribution center gets for police, fire, and EMS versus the 1,000 houses that are 4,200 houses or whatever it is? It's a big difference. So jobs followed by schools are the primary reasons residents move to a city or a county. Can I say that again? Jobs followed by schools are the primary reason anybody in America moves to a city or a county. 10,000 jobs have been created by the Binesh and LADC companies. But $30,000 is the number we need to create to become a job surplus county. And I would say that ought to be one of the goals of the county commission right there is let's get rid of that deficit of $30,000. So adopting the warehouse transportation impact fee extraordinary measures proposal would place Polk County as the most expensive county in the Binesh and LADC studies and possibly the state of Florida. So until Polk County becomes a job surplus county, LADC recommends that Polk County commissioners keep industrial warehouse fees at their current level, 639, and seriously consider lowering them based on what I just shared with you. So how might we make it easier for companies to locate here with the goal of becoming a job surplus market? And becoming a job surplus market will increase our average wages, lower our unemployment rate, increase ad valorem and transportation dollars, and potentially lower our millage rates like our neighbors in Hillsboro and Orange. I'm basing that on what they have been able to do. So with that, I'm standing on questions. And thanks for giving me the extra time, Commissioner Wilson, Mr. Chair, because I know that was not three minutes. I apologize. That's okay. Mr. Brazel, I've got a question. So the Lakeland impact fee rate on a warehouse is how much? Yeah, we can go back and look at it, but it's, we can, let me see if I can do that. Here we go. Okay. So it's the green number there. $14.80, is that it? Yeah. There you go. Oh. $14.80. And Lakeland doesn't see that as anti-growth, anti-warehouse, the opposite of economic development. I mean, we're being told by various groups that raising our fees goes against economic development, and yours is already three times what ours is. You've never taken any, or I'm not aware of you trying to lower it. Yeah, sure. Happy to answer that question. The last time, and let me say this, the first time impact fees were implemented was in 1988. George Lindsay and I were on that committee together, and we supported it, and we still support impact fees. I'm not here to be against impact fees at all. In the last study that the city of Lakeland did, we really focused on the industrial versus the warehouse, and we felt like that rate where it went to the $14.80, which was a significant jump for us, Commissioner Braswell, we supported it because it was pretty close to Hillsboro and Orange. That's why we supported it. And so for us, we were more interested and more concerned about the – where's the industrial? There. We were more concerned about this, and you can see it still went up, but we kept it way, way on the lower end, way below Hillsboro and Orange. So on the warehouse one, we were amenable to getting close to Hillsboro and Orange, and as you know, everybody's doing these studies all the time. So we're, you know, we're moving back and forth, and so being a little bit ahead of them was fine for us on the warehouse, but not on the industrial. So I hope that answers your question. Sort of. One thing I've – you said you guys haven't shown up here to ask us to lower property taxes and that sort of thing. We appreciate that, but your city commission has certainly shown up here wanting us to raise taxes for roads. I'm not voting for those. And impact – well, you don't – you're not going to have the opportunity to. But these impact fees – and there was a lot of comparison to building roads. That's a little irrelevant because in all these cases, when a warehouse comes in, you're not going to build a new road. Obviously, a road's going to exist. You're going to be putting in turn lanes to accommodate the trucks. And the numbers you threw up there of transportation and impact fees collected would probably not pay for two or three of these, just turn lane projects. Right. Which, in my mind, is certainly justification to increase these things because we've been cheap. We continue to be cheap. Sitting up here, one thing we hear all the time is infrastructure, infrastructure, infrastructure. Why don't you guys try to get ahead on the infrastructure? Well, I'm not one that thinks we can, nor should we even try. I mean, I don't have a crystal ball where development's coming. But at the same time, I know when a warehouse comes in, it's going to have a tremendous amount of impact on interchanges, intersections. You know, Mr. Jarvis is in the back of the room, and I think he can confirm, you know, to put signals on some of these intersections is half a million dollars. So, my contention is we're way, way behind. There's nothing wrong with being number one, at least the economic development people are proud to say we're the fastest growing this and the fastest growing that. Then we shouldn't be, you know, unhappy with saying we're the highest impact fees for warehouses. I mean, it's all relative. The bottom line is, we can disagree probably on this. Nobody, now Amazon is not going to not come to Polk County because the impact fees are too high. Amazon came to Polk County because it's where they needed to be to put a distribution center. Amazon is going to go wherever they need. When they bought the land over there and put a million-plus square foot warehouse just to the west of the Orlando Airport, they paid twice the cost of land than what they would pay in Polk County for that land. So, I think, you know, you've got to put all this stuff together in the big hopper and spin it around. But right now, I don't, you know, the much higher impact fees make sense to me. Yeah. One comment. Appreciate your comments. I would say when I showed you the slide of the LADC companies, companies do have a choice of where they make their investment. So, Publix has three dairy plants, one in Deerfield Beach, one in Atlanta, and one in Lakeland. If the costs are higher in Lakeland, they can put it in Deerfield Beach or they can put it in Atlanta. Pepperidge Farm has eight plants around the country. When they want to put a new cookie line in, they don't have to put it in Polk County. They can put it in Pennsylvania or they can put it in Arizona. They can put it wherever they want. So, I respectfully disagree that that is not how economic development works, and that's not how you choose to buy a house or how you buy a car. You go to the cheapest place that you can find to buy a car, and that's what most people do, okay? So, I don't think that's human nature at all, and that's not how economic development works. I don't want to get into a big back and forth, but if that's true, everybody would be in Glades County. I mean, you can't get any cheaper than that. So, it's about location. It's the rule that realtors live by, location, location, location. That's what these guys are moving here for. But anyway. I got it. All right. Mr. Scott? I know you said that Orange County and Hillsborough County were kind of our two siblings, if you will, that we wanted to aspire to be. There was, I think it was on the industrial impact fee slide that you had. Sure. If you can find that. Yeah. There you go. So, when you look at, in this case, and I understand this is for the industrial, but on Hillsborough and Orange, for them to be, that's 4,200 and 3,400. Obviously, relative to where we are now, you're looking at, you know, 400% more versus our 639. And specific to Orange and Hillsborough, what would you attribute their success? Because me being not industrial, but on the engineering side, you know, for my entire career, I drove from Polk County to Hillsborough County to work. And interviewed in Orlando one time. But it's always because Hillsborough County firms paid significantly more than Polk County firms. And that's just where it was. But on the industrial side, what would you attribute, you know, their success? Obviously, the impact fees aren't squelching their growth. You see a lot of stuff popping up still in both of those counties. Great, great question, Commissioner Scott. And what I would say is Hillsborough and Orange are not getting a lot of manufacturers. They're getting a lot of offices. They are getting warehouses as well. But generally speaking, we see the manufacturing coming into Pinellas County. That's where they typically go. Or they go to Jacksonville. Or they go to Ocala. Sometimes Manatee County. So when we're competing for a manufacturer, for instance, right now, we're competing. Or Plant City. Sometimes we will see Plant City. So from a Hillsborough perspective, I would say that's true. But I shouldn't give specific projects. But all I would say is we're not really that concerned about Hillsborough and on the industrial because there's not a lot of big manufacturers moving to those areas. That's who we don't compete with for manufacturing. But they do get warehouses and they get a lot of office. Does that make sense? Yeah, I just think it's something to notate for this board that, you know, when we look at our surrounding counties, I definitely think us being the cheapest isn't necessarily the best. And I can say as a business owner, you know, we've not been successful with tens of thousands of customers by being the cheapest. It's always by the value that we add. So I think Polk County has a lot of inherent value. Location is one of those things. The people and the transportation that we do offer is all value adds that are kind of outside the purview of this impact fee. Thank you. Thank you. And I would just add on to that, I would just say manufacturing jobs tend to pay more than warehouse jobs. And so when you look at the average wages in Orlando and Tampa and how much higher they are than ours, this is definitely the kind. We want to be competitive and try to get these kinds of companies to Lakeland versus the Tampa and Orlando. But I guess just one other thing to add on that. When we were talking about this initially, I was inquiring about us having warehousing split from industrial because I saw value in industrial with respect to the jobs. And I will say what we are proposing is industrials at a lower fee than what warehousing is. But what you see of the explosion of warehousing and the deficit and detriment to the roadways and transportation infrastructure is significant. And while we can't fix those, we don't want to keep failing moving forward. So thank you for your time. Understood. All right. All right. Anyone else? All right. Does anyone else have, would like to come up and speak? Oh, okay. I did have one clarification John had. Why are you trying to help me? Okay. On this, on this fee right here. Yeah. That Lakeland number is the city and the county together. Right. So that's why it's so high. Commissioner Braswell, I think you asked that. So thanks for the clarification. But I guess on. Yeah. 841 is Lakeland's number. So again, just remember we, we collect for the county and give back to the county and then we have a portion that we get as well. So that's the nine plus the six gets to the 14. So ours is not at 1480. That's what we collect part of that. The 639 of that 1480 goes back to you. I have one other point. I guess bringing up that point with the city being $841, you had mentioned that at our current 639, you had in your closing statement said that suggesting that we should reduce that to attract even more jobs. Not saying that we would, but if we revert back to something less, how much would Lakeland be willing to go back in reverse from the 841? You guys would be, are you, I guess, are you actively looking, is the city looking to go backwards too? If you were willing to consider that, I would be the, I will go lobby the city of Lakeland for that. But is the city considering that at all right now? Well, they haven't got their study back yet. Okay. But maybe they'll get it back before you vote and I can come back and report to you on that. I'd be happy to. Yeah. And I just appreciate the open mind to listening. And just for you all to understand that economic development is pretty complicated. It's not just about impact fees. And so I just, the message that we send is important. And I'm concerned. That's why I'm here today. And thank you. Thanks for serving. Thank you for. Thank you for being here. Yeah. Like a copy of this. Absolutely. It's, it's on their desktop here so they can give you the entire presentation today. Thank you. All right. Anyone else? Thank you very much. We're done. All right. Hold on. Winter Haven is not going to, choosing not to speak. Yeah. I was just going to say, Bruce sent us a, you know. I just asked him if they wanted to speak. If you wanted to make any reference to your. If you want to make any reference to what you sent us. Or clarify anything. This is your chance. Okay. Anyone else? I just want, I just want to clarify for the process for the people either here or listening. This is our first workshop that we're required to do. We'll do a second workshop. Correct. March 4th. And then we will have a public hearing at which then we make a vote. The vote. Yeah. I would just mention to the board on the next work session, it would be, if there is some guidance of what the board wants to do, that would help us out as we move there to prepare an ordinance based on the guidance of the board. So, so, so be thankful about that. We'll give you the opportunity to prepare five different ones. Well, we, we, we're ready for that. We're ready for that also, commissioner. Thank you. And John, will you get us your information, specifically your slides where you've done that comparison? Thank you. All right. Thank you, everyone. Now we're done. Now we're done.