let's get started today in march 4th 2025 regular board of county commissioners meeting would everybody please stand for the implication and remain standing for the pledge of allegiance please bow your heads and pray with me heavenly father your word declares that you oppose the proud but show favor to the humble so we approach you this morning with humble hearts open to hearing from one another let your spirit guide us this morning so that the divisions decisions made here today come not from our own understanding but rather from your wisdom let all that we do here today bring you honor and glory and i ask this prayer in jesus name amen amen all right let's get started i don't think we have any presentations or recognitions so we'll go to the general public if anyone here wishes to come forward uh this is a public meeting and you'll be given three minutes to speak about anything that you would like to seeing none we're going to bring it back and approve consent agenda motion for approval got a motion in a second any further discussion all in favor aye it's approved motion carries miss butterfield good morning good morning today i have for you to approve and ratify payroll checks number zero three seven four three through zero three seven five six in the amount of fourteen thousand three hundred ninety eight dollars and fifty two cents we have two thousand seven and eighty three direct deposits in the amount of four million one hundred sixty one thousand five hundred forty seven dollars and twenty two cents dated february 7th 2025 we have wired electronic funds transfers of thirty million seven hundred thousand two hundred twenty eight dollars and eleven cents dated february 18th through march 3rd of 2025 and invoice checks numbered four seven eight one oh seven three four seven nine zero three four totaling eleven million eight hundred eighty four thousand eight hundred forty eight dollars and forty nine cents dated february 18th through march 3rd 2025 for you to approve and ratify please approval second got a motion in a second any further discussion all in favor opposed motion carries we also request the approval of your minutes of your regular board meeting that was held on february 18th of 2025 please motion for approval second motion in a second uh have a motion and a second uh any further discussion all in favor opposed motion carries all right randy you got anything all right mr beasley good morning mr chair members of the board uh mr chair if i could in the interest of our audience if i could go slightly out of order if i could move to h4 item first on my agenda um if i could ask chief sean smith to come to the podium please john good morning to you and your family mr chair members of the board item number h4 is to request the board to confirm the appointment of mr sean smith to serve as the polk county fire rescue services fire chief the polk county charter specifies that the county manager's appointment of executive service employees is subject to confirmation by the board of county commissioners sean smith's appointment uh as the interim fire chief was confirmed by the board on september 13th of 2024. i am now recommending chief smith's confirmation as the permanent fire chief for the polk county fire rescue services division effective today march 4th 2025. sean has been a polk county fire rescue member for 21 years starting his tenure in 2003. he has held every position in the fire rescue division and was initially promoted to the company officer in 2007. 2016 he was promoted to battalion chief paramedic where he effectively managed multiple stations including supervising and coaching crew members he has also led and coordinated emergency medical treatment and transportation firefighting rescue operations and hazardous materials incidents in 2019 sean became the deputy chief of training where he was responsible for planning coordinating and delivering training to 680 members he was responsible for introducing nine training officers to the training division while creating a new training platform the latest training platform revolutionized polk county fire rescues training division which included improved state-of-the-art promotion processes promotional academies and a mentorship program for new hires and newly promoted members he also gained local and state recognition by introducing qr codes in the training division and was recognized by a third-party consulting firm as providing the catalyst for a positive organizational change in 2021 sean became the deputy chief of operations as such he was responsible for the daily activities of 45 stations 100 emergency vehicles seven and 700 crew members he was responsible for a for a what i think is a creative daily staffing of policies during a global pandemic and he ensured that polk county fire rescue complied with national and accreditation standards while introducing a new standard operating procedure for those new tankers the old tankers as well as the new boat program sean spearheaded the initiative to replace an aging fleet working hand in hand with our fleet division as well as understanding the polk county fire rescues replacement fund as a chief of operations he has been the lead on the the new program of pilot and prototype station design and construction station remodeling as well as the new training center which is under construction today in 2024 sean was promoted to assistant chief of business services his division was responsible for enforcing city county and state fire codes establishing rules and regulations assisting and preparing and implementing the department's long-term management plan he worked closely with the finance administrator within fire rescue securing grants establishing annual budgets and managing the fire fund as well as the general fund's contribution to the fire operations inclusive of those capital improvement projects that have been ongoing and will continue to to take place chief smith holds a bachelor of science in public safety administration from columbia southern university and associates of science and fire science and has coursework in psychology funding for this position is budgeted within the designated fire fund the fire chief is an authorized position within the fyi 24 25 adopted budget where the existing appropriations are sufficient to cover the existing base salary and employment benefits so mr chair members of the board having had the opportunity to observe chief smith's day-to-day leadership style having talked with a number of the rank and file firefighters emts and paramedics uh as well as some on the command staff the medical director's office and several of the city fire chiefs across polk county it is an honor to recommend to the board's confirmation today mr sean smith to serve as polk county's fire rescue chief effective today march 4th 2025 move to approve sean smith as fire chief second got a motion in a second any further discussion sean thank you so much i can't thank you enough for this opportunity um like i said when they appointed me in september you know this is polk county fire rescue it's not me all those accolades that you read there uh mr beasley are it's not me it's not with all all them too so i really do appreciate you know the opportunity and the trust um i'd be honored to serve as a polk county fire rescue fire chief um i'm duly honored and it's something i never thought that was going to happen i mean not that i didn't think it was going to happen it wasn't in my career plan so thank you so so so much um i stand up here and i'm overwhelmed overjoyed and excited for the future uh that i actually get to uh help yield the pen with all of all our members here to write a new chapter in polk county fire rescue it's a great honor and and i thank you um i want to thank the board of county commissioners thank uh commissioner santiago commissioner troutman commissioner braswell commissioner scott and uh chairman wilson just thank you so much i want to thank mr beasley uh mr hallman i give them a big thanks i'll give dr banerjee a big thanks for all the support and uh obviously the trust that you instill with me this is your polk county fire rescue this is their polk county fire rescue and trusting me with it is a humbling experience for sure i also want to thank the polk county fire rescue family that has continued to support me pick me up when i've tripped on a hurdle a little bit of grace when i've extended when i've needed a little bit of grace and i i can't thank them enough thank you so much for all being here it means a lot to me means a lot to my family my family behind me my beautiful wife of almost 20 years my sons logan and elijah a big part of who i am and uh i give them everything i truly do it means a lot um i want to give thanks to my uh lord and savior lord jesus christ too for sure who uh who blessed me with the talents and abilities that i do have to be successful in the plan that he does have for my life and uh it's a big part of who i am um you know without him i wouldn't be here today without him i wouldn't have brought my beautiful wife into my life um one of my big sayings anybody that worked for me it's a faith family and fire and if that order ever gets out of whack your life gets out of whack so that's something i really stress to uh stress to this organization and stress and myself and my wife really uh very patiently and graciously offer helps me reign me in and refine me and mold me on that and thank you sweetie i appreciate it uh to the pope county fire rescue family and the residents and the bocc i pledge to you the passion integrity um the tenacity that i bring in everything i do i'll bring it to work every day um i i i pledge to you that nothing will waver we will work hard that's who i am and that's who we are and just thank you so very very very much i won't take up too much of your time but god bless pope county fire rescue and god bless america bravo zulu yeah hey chief hey chief we got one thing left to do we've got to vote on this i don't know we're still thinking about it you know no well we got a motion in a second all in favor opposed motion carries congratulations mr chair you want to take a five minute break and let them clear out yep sure we'll yeah i hope we don't have a fire anywhere because everybody's here mr beasley sir mr chair members of the board uh go back to the uh kind of agenda mr chair the manager's office will have three additional items to bring to the board's attention this morning item number h1 is to request the board to approve amendment number three to the existing professional services agreement with wright pierce to provide part four construction administration services in connection with the northeast regional wastewater treatment facility expansion project this amendment will add nine million six hundred and fifty eight thousand and ninety two dollars to the ongoing professional engineering services contractual responsibilities for the remainder of the project duration the polk county utilities division identified the expansion of the northeast regional wastewater treatment facility as a priority project given the population and employment growth that has occurred in the northeast polk county sector the 2015 northeast region utility service area master plan estimated this facility would exceed the annual average daily flow of six million gallons per day by the year 2029 however the latest ongoing updates to the master plan are now projecting that the facility will exceed the six million gallon per day permitted capacity sooner than the year 2029 in response to the updates the county entered into agreement number 2022-077 with wright pierce in october of 2022 to provide professional conceptual design services to expand the northeast plant from its current permitted six million gallon per day capacity to a proposed nine million gallon per day capacity facility which will meet wastewater demands beyond the year 2040 planning horizon this initial agreement also provided that right pierce will provide progressive design build construction manager at risk support services to the selected construction contractor warden smith amendment number one to the agreement was approved by the board in october of 2023 for part two services which included preliminary design and permitting services amendment number two to the existing agreement was approved by the board in uh september of 2024 for part three services which included final design and bidding services these final design services are separated into phases resulting in five design packages each phase would result in a guaranteed maximum price addendum to the construction agreement with wharton smith the first two construction manager at risk addendums have been recently approved by the board and total in excess of 72 million dollars proposed amendment number three includes part four construction administration services to support all five guaranteed maximum price construction addendums it is anticipated that all five construction phases will be completed no later than the year 2029 funding for this major multi-year utility capital investment project is available within the utilities community investment program as provided through a combination of bond proceeds connection fees and other fees for services within the utilities division so mr chair members of the board i think consistent with the board's commitment to a long-term utility capacity especially in the fast-growing northeast sector of polk county i would request the board approve amendment number three to the existing agreement with wright pierce to provide part four construction administration services in connection with the northeast regional wastewater treatment facility expansion project in an amount not to exceed nine million six hundred and fifty eight thousand and ninety two dollars motion for approval got a motion in a second any further discussion all in favor oppose motion carries mr chair members of the board item number h2 is to request the board to approve an agreement with the black and beach corporation to provide part one professional engineering services in connection with planned improvements to the southwest regional wastewater treatment facility this contract action will reflect a one-time expense not to exceed three million one hundred thousand five hundred eighty six dollars polk county has completed the public process to solicit proposals from engineering firms interested in providing design permitting bidding and construction administration services for improvements at both the northwest and the southwest regional wastewater treatment facilities both projects include improvements to the filtration system the dewatering system the clarifiers and the electrical systems these systems are reaching the end of their useful service life and are in need of replacement request for proposal number 24 552 was issued and five proposals were received in october of 2024 the board approved the selection committee's recommendation to enter into contract negotiations with the black and beach corporation in connection with the southwest plant upgrades black and corolla engineers in connection with the northwest plant upgrades black and beach has proposed to complete the services for the southwest project in phases part one services will include conceptual and final design permitting and bid services part two services will include construction administration services it is anticipated these part one services will be completed within 20 months and the agreement will remain in place until all services have been completed an amendment to the agreement for part two services which which will include the construction administration services will be brought back to the board for approval once all phase one or part one services are completed a separate agreement with corolla engineers in connection with the northwest plant upgrades is currently being negotiated in and is anticipated to be presented to the board within the next eight weeks funding for these planned plant improvements is available within the utilities five-year community investment program so mr chair members of the board i think here again consistent with the board's commitment to a utility system that is designed constructed and maintained to meet demands of a growing customer base i would request that the board approve the proposed agreement with the black and beach corporation to provide part one engineering services in connection with planned improvements to the southwest regional wastewater treatment facility at expense not to exceed three million one hundred thousand five hundred eighty six dollars move for approval second got a motion in a second any further discussion all in favor opposed motion carries final item from the manager's office this morning mr chair item number h3 is to request the board to approve the seventh amendment to the long-standing cypress lakes alternative water supply agreement with the water cooperative of central florida relating specifically to the cypress lake wellfield alternative water supply project specific to amendment number seven and polk's share of this comprehensive alternative water supply project sponsored between multiple regional local governments is not to exceed one million eight hundred and forty thousand dollars in march of 2011 the board of county commissioners approved an interlocal agreement relating to the establishment of the water cooperative of central florida by and among the city of state cloud the toho water authority and polk county in august of 2011 um the cooperative entered into the cypress lake alternative water supply agreement that included then orange county as well as the reedy creek improvement district relating to the preliminary design and the permitting of the project after entering into the agreement orange county became a full member of the water cooperative as excuse me of the central florida cooperative the water cooperative of central florida uh in august uh in february of 2023 the reedy creek improvement district subsequently withdrew from the agreement amendments one through six to the existing agreement have defined each party's financial and administrative roles and obligations related to the design permitting and construction of the project this proposed seventh amendment covers related project work for the construction of two additional water production wells the construction of additional raw water mains additional property acquisition in connection with those two water production wells updates to the existing hydraulic modeling modeling and project cost estimating additional construction engineering and inspection services in connection with uh the construction of those additional wells additional construction engineering and inspection services in connection with the construction of the raw water mains consultant services in connection with funding applications and reports for federal wifia financing as well as other bond financing and in uh as well as expanded construction contingency accounts allocations to the various members. This seventh amendment will increase the total authorized expenditure under the interlocal agreement by $18,400,000, of which Polk County share is not to exceed 10%. Following approval of this seventh amendment by the individual governing boards, the amendment will be considered by the Cooperative Board of Supervisors. The amendment does not become effective unless and until all parties have approved and executed the agreement. Funding for this project support, specifically Polk's alternative water supply share for this longstanding regional partnership is currently included in the county's five-year community investment program, specifically listed under the Cypress Lake project assignment. So Mr. Chair, members of the board, I think consistent with the board's commitment to securing alternative water supplies in meeting Polk's future water supply needs and having demonstrated, I think, a longstanding commitment to the regional alternative water supply initiatives through the Water Cooperative of Central Florida. I would request the board approve the seventh amendment to the Cypress Lake alternative water supply agreement with the Water Cooperative of Central Florida at a cost to Polk County not to exceed $1,840,000. Move for approval. Second. Got a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. All right. Commissioner Troutman? Nothing to add at this time. Commissioner Brassel? Yeah. I want to start by wishing my mom a happy birthday. She turns 96 today. The other comment I have is, Mr. Beasley, for the last year, maybe two years, we have kind of shifted to bidding everything straight out as opposed to a construction manager at risk. And as I talked to Keith and some other people about this, in some cases, it's causing projects to be drug out longer. It's costing more money. So, and I think we're going to talk about this at the retreat. Maybe not at the retreat, but at a work session upcoming. Yes, sir. But we need you to use every tool you got to get jobs done as quickly, efficiently as they can, because that's the best way to do it, and that's what we want. So we don't need to emphasize to you one way or the other. You just figure it out. In some context for the other board members, I think you're right. Several years ago, the board seemed to gravitate back to what we call the traditional design, bid, build concept. If the board is, and I'm hearing that, my take from the board is that I'm being given some latitude to use the other tools in our bag to deliver projects, then there are probably a good half a dozen methods to do that, one of which is CM at risk. We're doing that right now on the Northeast plant. That's actually kind of a hybrid almost of that, a design, bid, build. But I'm taking the board, giving me the green light to get creative about the tools that are available to deliver projects so that we can do them faster and hopefully cheaper. I got it. I'd like to just add a comment. That's something I heard a lot as I was asking to have this job with the construction manager, and I think that allows, seems to, that we get more local people involved in that process. They are part of our community. They live in this community, and it's not just come in, bid the lowest, and out they go. So I'm excited to see the tools being used. That's all I got. That's all you got? Nothing right now. Thank you. Commissioner Scott? Yeah, just for, on the record side of things, I've received a lot of contacts here in the last week and a half, two weeks, with respect to Mulberry's issues on water supply, and I know we're going to talk about that. We've got some things forthcoming, but I think the community just deserves to know we are aware and are working on different potential tactics for approaching that. Is that all? That's it. Okay. No, I got a word. No, yeah, yeah. I move to reappoint Daniel Height as a member of the Citizens' Health Care Oversight Committee representing primary care physicians for the four-year term, April 6, 2025, through April 5, 2029. Second. I got a motion to second. Any further discussion? All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. All right. I'm going to, I see Ms. Richards sitting in the back. I just wanted to let her know that on our consent agenda on R15, you had a reclassification on your road. So we'll be moving forward. Just wanted to make you aware of that. All right. And I don't have anything else. So let's move on to the expedited hearings. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Before we go to expedited hearings, I will go over the public hearing general procedures. We ask that you please turn off your cell phones and 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 a 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 irrelevant 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 the sounds or utterances while others are 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 considered here today, you will need a record of proceedings and that for such purpose you may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes a 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 sworn. At this time, if you're going to address the commission or speak on any case today, please stand, raise your right hand, 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, I'll go over to expedited hearing procedures. Expedited hearings are held pursuant to resolution number 2022-089. Expedited hearings are used when no opposition was present at the planned commission hearing. The applicant agrees to the expedited hearing, and the recommendation of staff 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 an opportunity to respond. After public comment, the board will consider the land use case. At any time, full presentation for 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. Now, Mr. Chair, I'll turn over to Mr. Ziskell. Thank you, Mr. Mink. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Ben Ziskell, Land Development Director. Today's expedited agenda has four items. Item number 01 is an expedited public hearing for case LDCT 2024-21, Accessory Structures, Land Development Code, Text Amendment. To consider amendments to Chapters 2 and Chapter 9 of the Land Development Code related to accessory dwelling units and accessory structures, setbacks, and locations. There's really two main components to this, and I want to put a little bit of context. About a year ago or a year and a half ago, there was an amendment brought before the board to provide a definition of accessory dwelling units and to remove specific definitions of mother-in-law suites, garage apartments, guest houses, and call all of them accessory dwelling units. At the time that that amendment was approved, we were under restrictions from the legislature through Senate Bill 250, which was a hurricane relief bill that did not allow us to provide stricter regulations. So this is part two of an ordinance, and what this ordinance will do is provide size limitations on accessory dwelling units. And really this is in response to properties adding second residence on their homes that are almost equal the size of large structures. So we've seen some that are within one or two square feet of the primary residence. So what's proposed before you today is an ordinance to limit the size of an accessory dwelling unit. Staff has recommended that that limit be 1,000 square feet, and that is directly tied to our impact fee. Any structure in excess of 1,000 square feet pays a single-family resident's impact fee. Anything less than 1,000 square feet does not pay the impact fee. However, the Planning Commission has proposed an alternative, and they are recommending a size limitation of 50% of the primary structure. So if there's a primary structure in 3,000 square feet, they could have an accessory dwelling unit of 1,500. That would still be subject to the impact fee. However, we're essentially now saying there are two single-family homes on a property where the 1,000 square feet would truly be an accessory and not subject to impact fees. The other component of this ordinance is a minor change to reinstitute a setback for accessory structures, thinking sheds. Years ago, the setback was reduced to zero feet, and we've seen some challenges there with rain runoff and maintenance of structures that are placed right on the property line. So this proposal would move those structures back to a five-feet setback, so they would be off the property line from the neighboring property. This ordinance is at its first reading, so no action is usually taken by the board. However, in order to bring you back the version for adoption, we would ask that you clarify a position on either 1,000 square feet or 50% of the primary structure for the size limitation. If I may, Chair. Yes. So if we do the 50% and you're saying we would then, in essence, have two single-family units, how does that then work as far as taxes and that lot? Are we then creating a lot that is out of compliance with? So one of the challenges that caused this to be under staff's radar is someone can file to parcel off a piece of their property, and the property appraiser will process that subdivision. And we have come across some nonconforming lots as a result of that. So what they're starting with is one primary structure and then a second structure almost the same size, and then a petition is filed to parcel those out, and you've now got two separate parcels that are nonconforming. So this, by limiting it to 50% or 1,000 square feet, even if they were to parcel it, it wouldn't be two holistic properties. It would be an accessory and a primary structure. We can't necessarily solve the property appraiser's parceling off. That's something we've been in contact with them. We'll continue to be in contact with them regarding how they verify that lots are conforming with our code before they are separated. But that's a common challenge, and that is the impetus of us setting a size limitation so that we don't have two holistic structures that are then parceled off, and you've just turned one property into two properties without a zoning change or a proper platter or a subdivision of the property. Just so that I understand, so if they keep it at 1,000 square feet, then that would not be possible? Just because of the size, that doesn't necessarily make sense to me. They would still do that, but by keeping it at 1,000 square feet, we're saying that one is treated as an accessory, so they didn't pay impact fees anyway. So whether it was on the same parcel or a separate parcel, it's still operating as one primary structure and one smaller accessory structure. So the 1,000 square feet is about impact fees. If it's $9.99 or less, you don't pay any at all? Correct. Okay. But they could still subdivide that later, so then we do have a single-family residence, in essence, that has not paid impact fees. We still have that challenge, but at least it's a smaller structure, and if we can resolve the issue with the property appraiser to not do that, we're in a better shape. But, yes, there's still a possibility that something could be parceled out. I think Mr. Dunn has something. So if you have a structure that's 1,000 square feet or under, there is an impact fee, but we assess it as a multifamily because we recognize it's not operating as a true single-family unit. Okay. Mr. Chair? Go ahead, Ben. One more point, too. Just to elaborate on what Mr. Zisco said, the 1,000 square feet also came from we ran an analysis of accessory dwelling units that have been done over the years, and it came out as an average of 1,000 square feet. So that's part of the basis for that 1,000 square feet as well. I like round numbers like 1,000. I just want to know, what were the reasons for going from 1,000 to 1,500? How did that come about? It wasn't 1,000 to 1,500. It was instead of being 1,000 square feet, the Planning Commission recommended that it be 50% of your primary structure. Oh, I see. So that was their recommendation, and I feel that they probably thought that 1,000 was limiting in some properties, and that was the intent was to limit it. So the 1,000 came from staff, and then that's what, okay, that's what I needed to know. I mean, at 50%, you could build a 4,000 square foot house and a 2,000 next to it. Yeah. You know, it's kind of defeating what we're going to do here, in my opinion. The likelihood of, then, the subdivision is greater. On the variance process, is that a fairly straightforward process for them? I'm thinking more on the rural side of things. They want to put up a carport that's 30 by 50. Do we have a fairly clear path for them to apply for that variance? Yeah, the process for a variance through the land use hearing officer is not changing. That is a straightforward process. Yes, sir. Anyone else? What do we need on this? We've got to make it open in public. Right, but we need. Then the board's direction, and they all kind of say which way. Okay. There's not a vote. 1,000. But this is the first reading, am I correct? So you're not actually taking action, but they need some direction. Okay. 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. Seeing none, I will close the public hearing up. Seeing one, comes Bobby. I build a 3,000-square-foot house on five acres out in Fort Meade. Am I only allowed to build a 1,500-square-foot barn in my backyard? Unless you don't live in a barn. Well, it just says accessory structures. I mean, is that compared to a shed? I mean, a shed. So not just a barn, but if I wanted to build a, not a warehouse, but for all my toys. It says accessory structure because they're, one, specifically dealing with dwelling accessory structures for the 50% or 1,000 rule. But they also have a language in there regarding the setback. That's what's addressing the other accessory structure. So specifically on the 50 and 1,000, that's just for accessory dwelling units. Once you're talking about they dealt with accessory structures a while back ago that got rid of the 50% rule, if I'm correct. Well, I knew there was a 50% rule before. I thought, that's the reason I was questioning, is this kind of. No, and I think a couple, a year or so ago, or maybe even a little bit longer, we dealt with that, the regular accessory structures. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? All right. We're going to close the public hearing and bring it back to the board. So we got to. Yeah. If y'all could just kind of let direction. If you want to go by each one, just say which way you're. I, I, I'm going to go with 1,000, 1,000, 1,000. Yeah. I just have a, I got a question though. Where do I do that? A question? Yes. Jump in there. I'm going to jump in. So it's on the top of this, it says accessory structures, LDC tax amendment, but we're talking about accessory dwelling units. Specifically only, correct? No. So there are, there are a couple of components. So the, the, the size limitation is related to accessory dwelling units. The setbacks is for accessory structures. So a shed would now have a five foot setback as opposed to a zero foot setback. And the other part that I didn't mention that's on the slide is we are cleaning up language. And if you see this, this picture here, there's a primary residence on the land side of the road. And there is a gazebo on the water side of a road. We are clarifying that accessory structures are allowed on water side when you are, your property is bisected by a road. So accessory structures is a gazebo, a shed. That's what's related to the setbacks in the location. The size limitation of a thousand feet is applicable to accessory dwelling units where someone is living in the structure. Okay. Thank you. I was going to say, I think Mr. Scott, your concerns about barns and pole barns and stuff, and that's been addressed. And no means would be caught in this size regulation. Yep. Okay. All right. I think we've got three so far. A thousand. A thousand. Okay. Yeah. A thousand. It looks like the whole board. Yeah. It looks like it. Yep. A thousand. Got the direction. Thank you. Thank you. Item number 02 is an expedited public hearing for case LDCPAS 2024-28 Space Source, Inc. CPA, to consider the future land use designation change from development of regional impact to neighborhood activity center on approximately 7.49 acres in the Point Siena development of regional impact. The subject site is in Point Siena. It currently has a dollar general on the northwest corner, as you can see on the cursor. The request is to change the piece of land that contains the dollar general, as well as the portion to the east and south to neighborhood activity center to allow the construction of a storage facility. The applicants have worked together, and we will be developing the south and the east portion with this change. Staff had recommended that the entire parcel be changed to neighborhood activity center rather than just the portion of the storage facility so that we had compatible land use. The planning commission unanimously recommended approval. This is a small-scale comprehensive plan amendment, so this is the adoption hearing. And following any questions or comments, staff recommends approval. Any questions for him? All right, 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. Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing and bring it back to the board for any further discussion or a motion. Motion for approval. Second. Got a motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Item number 03, and you'll see that item 03 and 04 are related items, but they are separate. Item number 03 is an expedited public hearing for case LDCU 2024-38 South Fort Meade Mine DRI extension to consider an extension of the current development order expiration date for another 20 years for the South Fort Meade Mine. You'll see there's going to be one slight change. This item 03 is a continuation for the conditional use. Item 04 is going to be a continuation for the development of regional impact. So, again, this is a 20-year extension to the existing mine. It is an adoption hearing, and following any questions or comments, staff recommends approval. Ben, is that presentation both for 03 and 04? This is 03, and then 04 is next. We can take separate items, but they are the exact same extension. One applies to the conditional use. One applies to the development of regional impact. We will open public hearing both for 03 and 04, Mr. Chair. Okay. Any questions for Ben? 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. That's a public hearing on 03 and 04. On both 03 and 04? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the board for a motion. I'll move for approve 03. Second. Got to do them separate, right? Yes, sir. Okay. We've got a motion in a second. Any further discussion? All in favor? Opposed? Motion carries. Move to approve 04. Second. Got a motion in a second. Any further discussion? All in favor? Opposed? Motion carries. Mr. Chairman, that concludes the expedited portion of his agenda. Mr. Chair, we have a couple other items. We've got the installation of B-Humps, and that will be presented by Amy. Good morning. For the record, I'm Amy Gregory, Traffic Manager for the Roads and Drainage Division. And before you this morning is a public hearing to consider adoption of a resolution to allow the placement of three traffic calming devices on Shenandoah Street in Lakeland. Shenandoah is classified a local residential road 20 feet in width, 1,327 feet in length, with a posted speed limit of 25 miles an hour. Upon receiving a request for traffic calming, staff collected speed and volume data and reviewed the crash history. And with an 85 percentile speed of 33 miles an hour and an average daily traffic of 511 vehicles, Shenandoah Street met the board's traffic calming policy criteria for speed and volume. Staff subsequently distributed ballots to the homeowners with property fronting Shenandoah, and we received the required 80 percent favorable response from yes votes and from non-votes per the board's policy. On January 21st, 2025, a hearing date of March 4th, 2025, was set by consent agenda, and staff posted on-site notices as well. And as much as the board's criteria for the installation of traffic calming devices has been met, staff recommends adoption of a resolution to install three speed humps on Shenandoah Street. And I'll 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 state your name and address, and you'll be given three minutes. See, oh, yeah, right there. Hi, my name is Carol Brown. I live at 222H Shenandoah Street. I have lived on that street for nine years. I have a child on that street who walks down that street to George Jenkins High School every single day. That traffic is ridiculous and scary. I've seen school buses go down that street. People use that street as a thoroughfare to get to the rest of the neighborhoods that are behind our subdivision. And these speed humps are a long time coming, and we desperately need them. So vote yes. Thank you so much. Thank you, ma'am. Anyone else? Hi, my name is Sonia Fernandez, and I live on 2229 Shenandoah Street. I've been there since 1987. So I've seen the neighborhood grow quite a bit to the back of our street, east of Shenandoah Street. Anyway, the traffic is horrendous. And once Lakeland Highlands Road got the turns to go into either Shenandoah or Peterson, Roslyn no longer gets any traffic coming through it because there's a medium on Lakeland Highlands Road. So we get the majority of the traffic because a lot of the people don't want to go to Peterson and get the light. And it is high traffic. It is speeding. And like she says, her daughter goes to school walking, but we have little kids now, too, that are in the neighborhood. And there's no sidewalks. And it's a concern. It's a concern. And even though you try to tell people to slow down, it's like, you know, they keep doing it. But I hope you guys vote yes on that. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Anyone else? Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing and bring it back for the board. Any further discussion for anyone? Move for approval. Second. Okay. I've got a motion to approve. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. All right. P2, I believe it is. Good morning. For the record, Scott Lowry, Real Estate Services Support Manager. I have two items today. And the first one is a petition received from Robert Williams, Jr. as president of the Freedom Tour Incorporated to vacate and close the right-of-way for Florence Avenue, which is an existing county-maintained roadway shown as Florence Drive on the Platt of J.A. Leslie Subdivision, as recorded in Platt Book 19, page 27. The Platt, filed in 1926, dedicated various rights-of-way throughout the Platt to the public. The petitioner is requesting the vacation due to safety concerns for volunteers and others associated with vehicles driving the wrong way on a one-way road. The petitioner owns three of the four lots lying adjacent to the proposed vacation area. County staff contacted the other adjacent property owner and received no objections. Vacating the subject right-of-way will remove the public's interest and allow the county to cease maintenance responsibilities associated with the roadway. It will also allow the adjacent owners to assemble it with their properties, a majority of which will be associated with the Freedom Tour, and allow them to utilize it in conjunction with their operations. The appropriate county divisions and utility providers were notified and no objections were received. Tampa Electric did request an easement over the area for existing facilities, and the petitioner and the other property owner have complied with the request and executed easements. Staff recommends the board adopt the resolution to vacate the right-of-way for Florence Avenue as fully described in the legal description contained in the petition and the resolution, and I will remain standing for any questions. Any questions? All right, 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. Seeing none, I will close the public hearing and bring it back to the board for any questions or a motion. Move for approval. Second. We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. All right. P3. And the next and last item, the county has received a petition from C.B. Myers as authorized representative for Lewis Crumbly, Green Karma LLC, the Claremont Family Trust, Patrick J.W. Frankenberger, Moody LLC, and Harris Hartley to vacate portions of platted, unopened, and unmaintained rights-of-way lying within the revised plat of Crooked Lake, recording plat book 27, pages 47 and 47A. The plat filed in 1928, dedicated to the public various rights-of-way throughout the plat. The petitioners own parcels within the plat, which are adjacent to and or bisected by the rights-of-way. They have requested the vacation of certain rights-of-way to fully utilize their properties for agricultural use and future development. During a review of the petition, the staff discovered that there were certain rights-of-way not included in the petition, which would leave remnant sections in the overall area, and most of them are on the northern and northwestern area. Staff contacted the owner of the property adjacent to these areas, and she has consented to them being included in the vacation request. The appropriate county divisions and utility providers have reviewed and have no objections. Duke Energy did request easements from some of the property owners for certain areas within the vacation area, and they have all complied with that request. Staff recommends the board adopt the resolution to vacate the rights-of-way as shown on the revised plat of Crooked Lake subdivision. As fully described in a legal description contained in the resolution, and I will stand for any questions. Any questions for me? Ladies and gentlemen, this is a public hearing. If you wish to come speak on this matter, please come forward, state your name and address, and you'll be given three minutes. Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing and bring it back to the board for a motion. Move for approval. Second. Got a motion and second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chair, the work session doesn't start until 10 a.m., so we'll need to take a small break. Okay, we'll reconvene at 10 a.m. Thank you, Mr. Chair. All right, let's get started. Get back in. Get back. Hoping back up. All right. Who's going to start this thing off here? Mr. Bode? Yes, sir. That was the plan. Okay. Good morning. John Bode, Deputy County Manager. I am going to run through some similar slides. This is the second workshop that is required per Florida statute should you desire to change the impact fees. I'll run through, again, the extraordinary circumstances, give you some background that I went through last time. This slide here is to just show you what the rates currently are, how they are to be phased in. You'll see that on a subsequent slide. But at the moment, the warehouse and industrial are combined. That came from the March of 2023 study. That study was board-directed and just looked at transportation. So it broke out transportation from all the other fees. I think the board members who were there then recall that time and that discussion. The fees that are in place right now is that phase-in of the $539 that was originally set in June of 2023 and was and is to remain the same through 2028 or was at that time. Everything was recalibrated in September of last year when all the other fees were updated. Then the transportation fees phased in and got to the 100% number. So when you see the recalibrated 2024, that is the current phase-in of the 90, 95%, 100%. So it gets up to $639. The fees prior to the 2023 study, you can see warehouse, when they were separate, warehouse was $796 and industrial was $855. The extraordinary circumstances, which is why we're here, why we're doing this workshop, it limits how often and the percentage increase that you can increase impact fees, not just any of the impact fees, not just transportation, but up to 25% over two years, no more than 50% than over four installments, if you will. And you can't increase it more than that 50% number every four years. That is the situation if you don't do the extraordinary circumstances. If you choose extraordinary, which is the route we're going down right now, you have to have a study within the last 12 months. You have to have these two public workshops, where I had one, this is number two, and then it does require a two-thirds vote of the governing body. In this case, that means four have to be in favor of whatever is adopted. The extraordinary circumstances really is based around the growth that the county has seen. You have seen these stats on this slide ad nauseum, so I won't bore you with those again, but basically the growth has been the driving factor for this. The residential permitting trends, of course, that always is linked to it, as you see the permitting and how it has trended upwards. It was down in that 2010 time frame and trended back up. Part of that, and let me back up, that was overall countywide. This is just unincorporated. Again, a very similar trend. You've seen that. And then cost increases. No surprise to the board about cost increases. Again, everything costs more, so what a dollar used to stretch in transportation impact fees doesn't stretch as far on some of these projects. This is a slide. I verbally mentioned it, but it's memorialized here in a slide today, and it's really talking about using local data, the most recent and local data. That comes right out of the statute. That is the preferred method is when you have local data to use that local data. And the reason we sort of went down and did our own study is I had mentioned to the board that the studies, there were 31 studies that were conducted up through 2010. None were in Florida. And the last data was 2010. So you're talking about data that's the national data, ITE, which is old data at this point. So we studied our own local data. Again, the statute is really saying you should use local data. I don't need to tell the board about the needs. The needs are great, where these impact fee dollars are spent. These are current projects, almost totaling a billion dollars. Some of these have started construction. Some have not. But they're all in the pipeline. This is the second of the workshop today. The public hearing is scheduled for March 18th. You have to have the 90-day statutory phase in before the fees take effect. So should the board desire to change the fees on March 18th, we were looking at July 1 to be that effective date, which is actually 104 days from March 18th. So this is really that breakdown. I want to show you that again. These are really all the options. I probably won't bore you with all those details because you've seen that. I'll just really put it into this slide right here. And this is the slide. And as I mentioned Friday, the parts that you're stuck with are the 90, 95%, 100%. So whatever you choose to do, you have to stick to that phase in schedule. And then, of course, the goal with the 90%, we would reset all the fees from July 1 to December 31 of this year. That would be kind of the first phase. And then everything else follows as it was already previously adopted by the board. So it would start and kick in with the 95 on January 1, 2026. January 1, 2027 is the 100%. You can see out of the column the percent increase. That is the second to last column there. And then the very last column, you can see the typical 100,000-square-foot warehouse and how much that increased, what that would look like. Let me roll down the first column real quick. The current rate, that's what it is today. That's that 573 number you see, again, out to the $639 number. And then if you apply the blockage factor, that's the truck factor. That's the 1.71. That's the second row. That's what those fees, that's a 45% increase. And by the way, that percent increase is based on the 100% number. And then if you look at the 1.98, the difference between the two 1.98 numbers, one's without blockage, one's with blockage. The red is without the blockage. So that number is a little bit lower. You can see those rates are a little bit lower. The increase is 149%. And then the next 1.98 basically shows you that it has the blockage factor. The 1.98 is the blended between the local study and the national ITE data. So it's just an average of 2.25 and 171. And then, of course, the very last two rows is the local study trip rate, the 2.25. So you've got with the blockage, without the blockage. The red being without and then the bolder, darker color being with the blockage factor. That's the 308% increase. That's the last column. So these are sort of your options, really, not the 99, 95, 100, but the rows from all the way from leaving it alone, which that will be the case, if there's not four votes, or all the way down to the 2.25. Those are really your six options, and one of those being you do nothing. I think that – well, let me go back and show – let me show you this. So what I did is I plugged in all five options. Really, that probably has all six, it does, of how we rank comparatively. You've seen this slide as well, but you only saw it with the maxed-out 308% number. This shows you all the different options and where they each would fall in at the 100% rate. The one – I did not point out the asterisks that are there, but if you look at Duval Jacksonville, that is sort of an average. They have mobility areas or mobility zones. So that's sort of an average for Duval Jacksonville. And then Manatee County, they're in the process of being updated. So if you see, Manatee County has, I think, four – yeah, they have four different quadrants, if you will, of their county. And so those are those rates. But, again, they're being studied at the moment. And then there's the industrial rate. Again, the industrial rate is sort of just a de facto thing that has to happen because we only studied warehouse. We're pulling out warehouse, so we're separating them again. And industrial just falls to the national ITE standard because we did not study industrial. So – and I think that's it. It is. Milgen Camp's here today. So if you want to really get in the weeds, Milgen's probably better at that than me. But I'll be glad to answer any questions between the two of us. Any questions? Who's – okay, Mr. B. That's me. I'm not really interested in getting in the weeds. It's a little different than what we're talking about. When I – when this first came up, it was basically the impact of the trucks and what they do around here, traffic-wise, road-wise, all that. The turn lanes we have to add, the intersections we have to modify. Can you tell me – and I don't need exact numbers – but the difference between – I know what impact fees go for. The proportionate share calculation, is that a state-mandated formula? Yes, sir. Yes, sir. So there's no leeway in that. So when we have a warehouse at an intersection, and we're going to have to do major modification of that, the impact fees are going to be there to do that. And the proportionate share – it doesn't seem like that goes very far. Well, so it doesn't. The proportionate share is going to, one, be based on a traffic study that says, I've got this much impact on this intersection, and maybe this study says I've got to add a right-turn lane. That does not exist today. Well, I mean, just like we didn't calculate for trucks until this started here last year, do they not – do they just count Toyotas and go, that's the number? I think there's a distribution where they would say, okay, there's a truck. I don't know that normal traffic studies would consider the blockage factor, per se. It's going to probably look at just straight trips. And then, again, what are the impacts that are needed? But the way the proportionate share would work is they would say, let's say I've got to add that turn lane and it's $250,000. My share is only $100,000. So what would happen is they'd stroke us a check for $100,000, and then we've got to program that improvement. But here's the way the statute also reads is that that $100,000 check that they wrote to us, we now have to give it back to them in impact fee credits. So essentially all they did was front us the $100,000. Yeah, and on top of the fact, if they weren't there, we wouldn't have to modify the interchange anyway. I mean, we're probably – the only reason we're doing this is because they're putting a warehouse at an intersection or somewhere. And you've seen, Commissioner Braswell, with those agreements, those infrastructure agreements that come through because we see that turn lane that's $250,000, and we say, hey, go do the whole thing for us because you can do it faster, cheaper, and we'll pay for that additional $150,000 difference. We're going to pay you for that, sometimes in the impact fee credits, sometimes cash, and yet the $100,000 is on you. Yeah. You know, that portion is on you. So it's been good government, I think, for us and good public-private partnerships. I can't disagree. I mean, letting them do it is a great idea because just for what you said, they do it faster, they do it – I'm not going to say better, they just do it faster. Do it cheaper. Probably cheaper, yeah. Cheaper, yes, sir. But to me, the whole point of this conversation has been when I came to work today, there's three semis going down the road that probably weren't there five years ago or ten years ago. We've got so many trucks coming into all these warehouses. We're having to modify all kind of intersections to accommodate these, and we haven't really accounted for it very well in the past. And I think this is just playing catch-up. I mean, you know, my druthers is the full amount, you know, at the maximum right away because it's not like this is some kind of punishment. I mean, we're just playing catch-up. We are so far behind on this. We've got all these intersections that are still a mess. What comes to mind is Dean Still Road. What a disaster that's become. And maybe they want to point the finger to us and say, well, you know, you didn't tell us or we didn't plan it or whatever. Well, it doesn't matter. We've still got to fix it. And to me, this is totally fair. I don't see any issue with it. I don't believe one bit this is going to impact any job or any construction because last time we talked about it, I went back and I looked up the warehouse down the road from me, the price they paid for the land versus the same company in Orlando paying six times the price for the land. That didn't stop them. You know, they still came. So, I mean, I'm stuck on one number, but I'll yield the floor to other conversations. Mike? I think this slide 12 tells us a lot when you kind of look at it for a scale where we currently are on a 100,000-square-foot warehouse of $63,900. The reality is you can't do a driveway, a culvert, and a ditch for $60,000 in construction costs today. And so when I look at it, I know we are not looking at how to pay for the errors of the past, but I think it would be foolish of us to not acknowledge we have to not commit those same errors moving forward. And so I definitely support, I think, more of the upper numbers here because the reality is, to Mr. Brody's point, you know, 2010 numbers on ITE for what it costs to make improvements is far off base from 2025 and moving forward. And so when we look at all those increases in costs and also the expectation of those companies, the expectations of our residents to be able to travel to and from, whether it's that place of business that's developing or if it's an existing surrounding community member, you know, those expectations are equal or higher each and every day. They don't expect to live there longer and have a lower quality of life, and that all takes money to make that happen. And to Commissioner Breswell's point, you know, these, whether it's speculative warehouse building or if it's a dedicated company, Polk County still offers a lot of value. And I think on a higher impact fee perspective, if everyone around us is selling coke for $4 a can and we're at $1, we can go to $3.99 and still be competitive. And I see us, even with these increases, the value, you know, it's higher on the impact fees, but we still have a lot of value, meaning location and the other benefits we offer as a county. We'll bring those businesses, warehouse and industrial, to us. I appreciate all the effort you put into this. Anyone else? The team. Speaking to you, yes, I know it's a group effort, but it's been, I think, a very large effort to take and a lot of numbers to crunch, and to put it in a way and a table that actually is, to me, fairly discernible on what our direction should be is appreciated. Thank you. Commissioner Stratton. I just want to ask about procedure here because I see members of our audience that are members of the industries. Okay. So I just wanted to ensure that we're going to get there. Didn't know what the process was decided. Thank you. And looking at the presentations that we had, I think we started this, what, around a month and a half ago, and we started with a presentation of the study, but we didn't have the actual study until Friday for us to review. So I think that was done in reverse. So I'm really concerned, talking about procedures, the process, I'm concerned that the study, we didn't get the actual study first, and what we did get was a presentation. So can you tell me why the study was given to us on Friday and not way before? We didn't get it until last week. I think it was really a draft study. We had generally just looked at the options and the scenarios, the framework of the study when we were first presented it, and we wanted to first present that to the board. So I'm going to suggest for future references, excuse me, that we always get the study first and then a presentation following that. I think that would help out tremendously in this thing because we just keep going back and forth. I know that Mr. Braswell, Commissioner Braswell said something about he's not, he thinks that we're still going to go ahead and have the warehouses come in here and things like that. But I think, I think going to the study with the blockage or without the blockage is like extremely high. And I'm concerned about the job, the job growth for, for Polk County. And I don't want anything to impede people coming here or warehouses going up or logistics going up because of the impact fees. That's my take on it. That it for everyone? I will reserve mine until after we hear more from our community. I see a couple people in the audience who wants to come up first. All right. We basically heard about everybody's complaints and everything on this. So let's, we don't need to rehear everything. It's good to hear it again though, because we forget. I don't forget. Keep it short. That is shorter. So Steve Scruggs, Lakeland Economic Development Council. And thank you, chairman and board members and yeah, audience. So this will be quick. Talk a little bit about impact fees, my favorite subject the last couple of weeks. So let's see. Do I hit down arrow maybe? There we go. Okay. Ooh, this is, this is the old one. So I need some help getting in. You don't want to see that again. It's this right now. No, I don't see that. Okay. Yeah. You want to call somebody else while they're doing tech. Sean, you want to come, come up while she's trying to, while they're trying to get back? We'll give you another minute. Okay. Here we go. Apologize for that. I'm not sure what happened. Okay. So, um, industry standards, I think we're talked about earlier and, uh, this is the Institute of Transportation Engineers, engineers, trip generation manual. It's widely considered the industry standard for estimating trip generation rates used in traffic impact studies, meaning it's the most commonly used method by professionals to predict how much traffic a new development will create based on its land use type and size. If you want to look at it, this is it. It's pretty long, pretty fit. Uh, Benesh uses the ITE trip generation manual to justify increasing industrial transportation impact fees from $539 to 1539 per thousand square feet by increasing the industrial chip trip generation from 1.71 to 4.87. And if it wasn't, if Benesh didn't do that, then it was staff, you know, suggesting that we go back. But, uh, I think, I think it's basically Benesh abandoned this ITE trip generation manual to justify increasing warehouse transportation impact fees from $639 to $2,597 per thousand square feet, increasing trip generation from 1.71 to 2.25. So my question is, are we using the ITE manual or are we not using the IT manual? But I don't think you can have both. So either you use it and we use it for the warehouse or the industrial, or you do an industrial study is what I would say. But I don't think you can use one study and then use another study for the same trip generation. Uh, with regards to, uh, Benesh only gathered detailed calculations on heavy vehicles from two companies in the study and used only one of them, Medline, in their final numbers. Based on that one company's data, the adjusted trip length in the study doubles from 5.15 miles to 10.44 miles. This is much different than past studies used in Polk and anywhere else for that matter up to this point. So I guess what I'm saying is one company has skewed these entire numbers, uh, Medline. So, uh, these are the studies that you guys have used in the past, uh, was mentioned earlier by John Bodie. The Polk study from 2023 is about five miles length in trip generation. The Polk study from 2010 was 10.2 miles. The Polk study from 2009 was 13 miles. And this new study is 23 miles. That's a huge difference in studies and what we're looking at. Really a big difference from last year going from five miles to 10 miles. There's some outliers we think in the study. There's two warehouses in the Benesh study that were significant outliers. Eagles Landing and FedEx. Not all warehouses are created equal. Some FedEx, UPS, and Amazon facilities are outliers when it comes to warehouses. They have a much larger impact on our transportation system than 95% of the warehouses in Polk County. They should pay more, a lot more in transportation impact fees. And we agree, but these are very unusual outlier facilities. We also think there may have been a mistake made with the Eagles landing project. There are no tenants in those two buildings that are large transportation users. So we asked the building owners for detailed information on their tenants. And you can see these are the two buildings. And there's some trucks in between those buildings, but most of it's office employees. So these are, according to the building owner, there are 500 average daily trips by employees and visitors and 126 by truck for a total of 626 average daily trips. These are the seven companies that are in those buildings. This is the number of employees they have. That's the number of trucks they have, and that's our estimated truck trips. According to the Binesh study, Eagles landing experiences 1,281 average daily trips. And we think Binesh's trip generation rates for Eagle landing is 5.78 according to their numbers. The building owner's trip generation rates for Eagle landing is less than half of Binesh's at 2.03. And granted, and I haven't had a chance to speak with the consultant, and I only got this on Friday too. Thank you for bringing that up. So I could be wrong, but there are two intersections that go into these two buildings, and there's warehouses on this side, and then there's a call center on this side that has 500 employees, and those entrances go together. And so I'm just thinking maybe they were counting the people that were going into the call center and not the warehouse. You're referring to Eagle's Landing? Yes, yes, I am. So they used Eagle's Landing warehouse as part of their study. Yes, it was one of the nine. It was one of the nine. Yes, Commissioner, it was. So, and the consultants here, so we could pull up the look, pull up look, but I just think it's a mistake on this one. This facility is nothing like the FedEx facility that has just millions of trucks coming in and out of it. So I just think there might be a mistake here. So, anyway, I would just say if Binesh's outliers are removed to FedEx and Eagle Landing, the average trip generation would closely reflect industry standards. So Binesh is at 2.25. This is the study that was just done. Without Eagle's Landing and FedEx, so if we take the two highest ones out, and I really think Eagle's Landing is not correct, then it would almost be exactly what's in this ITE 11th edition industry standard of 1.71, the one that you used, you are still using today. So, conclusions, and I'm done. Binesh is inconsistent when it comes to applying industry standards versus in-the-field research for this study, or if they're not, we are as a county. The ITE manual, which is recognized as the industry standard, includes more than 100 warehouse studies, not 30. They have about four or five different categories in here, so there's hundreds. There's over 100 warehouse studies in here, and it's been suggested that the industry standards don't apply here because they don't include a Florida study. But a warehouse is a warehouse, whether it's in Lakeland, Atlanta, Charlotte, Dallas, Chicago. A warehouse is a warehouse. The same traffic is coming out of the warehouse. So it really doesn't matter if the study was done in Dallas or it was done in Lakeland. Binesh collected data on many warehouses in Polk County that are not included in this study. Yet, Binesh chose one warehouse that has seven times as much traffic as the other warehouses they included in their study. And that's fair, but if you looked at 100 warehouses, you'd only find about three like that FedEx facility. Should we charge them more? Absolutely, we should charge them a lot more. Do we even want that type of facility? Not really, but those are the ones that go to the last mile that carry it to your house, and they should just pay more. Increasing the average strip generation from 1.71 to 2.25 was accomplished by including two outlier warehouse examples in the Binesh study. Without those two outliers in the study, the average trip generation would be 1.75, or effectively the industry standard. Doubling the average trip length from 5 miles to 10 miles based on the experience of one company in the study is not average. I've seen a lot of impact fee studies since 1908, and I've never seen anything like this study. Does Polk County really want to be the test case for extraordinary measures? And I will stand for any questions if you have one, and that was a lot shorter. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions? None at this time, but I do think with this, and maybe Nilga will address it, I know that there was some talk in whether we took a straight average or that you did, looking at your previous slides, the maximum of the 7.34 and the minimum of 1.20. Did you take those out of your calculations? Negan camp with Spanish. Can you hear me? Barely. Barely. Keep pulling it down. All right. How about now? Is that better? No, we included all of them. It's a range of 1.2 to 7.1 or so, and the weighted average, meaning all trips and all the square footage added together and divided, is about 2.25, basically leaning toward the low end of it. So we can make an argument just like the high end, low end is an outlier too, but we only have a sample of nine. I mean, how much can you cut after that? Okay. Okay. Thank you. I got a question for you. Is it common to select a company like FedEx and analyze them more or weigh them more than any other company? No, not really. It's more what we were trying to do working with your staff is pick some example warehouses that represents different types of warehouses in the county, just like high end as well as the low end. And again, it's a sample, but it's at least a localized sample. It's not like we were able to actually count trips at every warehouse. It's not that foolproof, obviously. Thank you. I got a question for you, John. Is it common to pick a company and charge them more for their warehouse than another warehouse? Is that legal? Not how we do it now, no. I mean, we used to have different iterations of maybe different types of offices and different types of warehouses back in other studies. We haven't had that for quite some time. We collapsed a lot of them, but, you know, Mr. Scruggs said there's probably 100 studies. That's true. There are different types, high cube and cross dock, and there are so many different types. We don't get into that. We have a blended rate, if you will, that captures all categories of warehouse. But we do not, and I don't think that's typical. I think Milgan would probably agree in her studies that she does in other counties and cities. I don't think they get that granular on the different types of warehouses and charging different rates. It's not loose focus, Mr. Commissioner, that any applicant could present their own study. If they disagreed with our study, they could actually, and we have that occur on, I guess, warehouses. It has happened. Yeah. I think I explained that before. If they say, hey, I'm in this community, I'm building the same thing, and I generate this, we will 100% accept that data. And that 2.25 is not accurate. It's this. So in that example, I think it's fair to say nobody's going to come to us and say, we generate a lot more trips. You should charge us more. It makes sense to me to set the rate high. And if they can justify the lower rate, that's perfectly acceptable. Anyone else? Just to follow up on that, John, as far as the reference to, sorry, I think it was the Eagle's Landing facility. So if that were being proposed to be a new facility and they were to come to us and say, look, we've got 500 trips for office staff and only 126 trucks, that would be a case on the study that would allow them to be at a lower rate. Is that correct? Absolutely. Yeah, absolutely. They could say that's not an accurate rate for me. But I believe the 2.25 includes everything. It's an office. So it's regular vehicle office and truck traffic. It is sort of a, it's not just trucks, how you arrive at that 2.25. It's everything. And the one study at Medline, all the other nine, we had cameras and we were counting everything coming in. No, fair enough. I just want to make sure, again, to Steve's point, if there were somebody coming in tenant-wise or a developer, that they could have an option to seek a lower rate if that was indeed the case. They could. Yes, sir. And keep in mind, too, you know, if it's approved as an office and they come in as an office, that's what they're going to get charged is an office rate. Warehouse isn't even on the table. But keep in mind, too, you only get one chance or one opportunity, if you will, to charge the impact fee. So if you have a change of use, we don't get another opportunity to charge impact fees. Well, I think that's the point, too, we can't lose sight of is that when you look at speculative building, you know, they're not going to come in and say, yeah, please charge me the highest rate. I mean, that's, it's a cat-and-mouse type test game. And so, yeah, I appreciate that. And one other thing I will say, too, when we talk about, I just was driving this morning to the airport, son-upon breakfast, you go down Hamilton Road where there's two new warehouses that just got built. And, yes, Hamilton got paved and it's a little bit wider. But that, I can already tell you, between Hamilton and Drainfield, this morning the queue time just to turn on the Hamilton was several minutes. And those warehouses aren't even online yet. So when we look at the defined need for improving the infrastructure to support all this, it is 100% clear, in my opinion, that we have to have something. Thank you. Anyone else? All right. So one correction, Ben corrected me. If there is a change of use, there is potentially the opportunity that you would charge a higher rate. The differential. The differential. Yeah. Did you want to add? All right. Anyone else? Who else wants to get up and speak? Sean? Hey, we got all of that. Good morning, Commissioners. Sean Mallott, Central Florida Development Council. And, again, I appreciate the time to have the conversation. Thank you for allowing to hear comments this morning. And so roughly 50% of our population leaves our working population, leaves the county to work in other places. We continue to want to create more job opportunities here at home. And I just kind of want to make this comment that I do have concerns from a competitive standpoint that some of those employers that would like to be in Polk County may get the perspective that we don't want them in Polk County anymore. And so I think that's my concern. So I do have concerns about job traders, businesses that are looking at our rates and thinking it is a symbol that we are not wanting to have that type of employment in our area. And I think they will go other places. I think some will still come, but I think others, you know, will go to other locations. And so employment is still a very important part of our message and what we need here in Polk County. You know, as we have more people coming here, again, jobs are a part of it. You know, part of the story in, you know, the transportation industry in particular has been very important and is a very important part of our, you know, part of our employment sector. You know, as a community that's kind of, you know, formerly built on, you know, agriculture and mining, in essence, you know, is kind of a natural transition from a transportation and an industrial standpoint from manufacturing. And so the message that we send, you know, is broader than just, you know, to what we are seeing here in Polk County. So I think that's an important piece to consider. So, you know, again, I would say that, you know, just keep that in mind as you make your decisions as well. So thank you. Thank you, Sean. Good morning, Council. Some of you know me. My name is Jim Ford. I'm originally a Chicagoan. I've been down in Florida here for many years, been coming here my entire life. I'm the owner-developer with my partner, Jonathan Tratt, in the Winter Haven Integrated Logistics Center, which all of you are familiar with. Some of you have been over to see us, and we thank you for that support wholeheartedly. I'm a realist, and from, I want to give you a little bit of developer's perspective maybe, I don't disagree with anything that anybody has a view on this at all. I believe John, Alfred E. Benish, actually, you know, I'm not here to pick on them. I've used them for 35 years all over the country. I've commissioned dozens and dozens and dozens all over the country, TIA studies. I've used the IT standards. I believe that we all have some subjectivity to our viewpoints, and there's nothing wrong with that. Commissioner Braswell, you're right. The amount of the world come in, the last month of fulfillment, the FedExes, a lot more traffic. There's no doubt about it. It's hard to segregate and realize with what I've seen in just my lifetime. First coming here in the 1980s as a young person, enjoying, you know, the county, Polk County, and what it has to offer. My parents, God bless, are still with me in their 80s living down in Manatee County. Look at what Manatee County is considering right now a moratorium altogether, because they're concerned about what's occurred so fast and so swiftly in our state here. Everybody's here opinion is valued to me because it helps me learn every day in your perspective. But I do have some reservations and concerns, mainly, you know, that literally the study area that was done with the study is all legitimate. I believe the results are all factual. I believe that the local perspective should be taken into the ITE study. But if you look at the study area, it is along the I-4 corridor. I don't believe it really encompasses all that's happening throughout the whole county. Give you an example as well is that 2022, my partners and I decided to break ground on a speculative building, which we've talked about, and it's true, and we did something that people thought we were nuts, and we still think we're nuts. We, you know, as you know, built a speculative building down in our park here of 1.2 million square feet. It had never really been done. It had been, you know, it kind of looked at other parts of the state in general, and many thought that Polk County at that time just wasn't ready for it. I'm here proudly to, I can't make an announcement yet, but I'm here proudly to say that we're under a letter of intent for an unbelievable name, corporate name that you'll all be proud of and be proud to call Polk County home for taking the entire building because of the assets that we have there with the intermodal, with the connectivity, with the inbound freight taking, you know, trucks off the road with, you know, with the system that the CSX created years back. So there's always these victories, win-win. When I built that building in 2002, I was informed by my friends at Winter Haven, and they're great friends and great friends to the county here as well, that we would owe just under a million dollar impact fee to the county. So I believe that was almost the whole year, probably, John, of budgeting for what the, you know, development impact fees were coming in. And I was happy to do it because that's the rules, number one, and I need to contribute, okay? But as giving the perspective of the developer beyond what you're seeing here, I just, I do fear that the study with my friends at Benish, and I literally, I pay them for dozens of studies over the years all over the country. They're a phenomenal firm. Did it by the book. Did it the way that with the local viewpoint as well as the IT standards, and there are standards for that. And there's many different classifications of warehouse, of fulfillment, of last mile, of those job creators or the major traffic creators that come into effect when you come, you know, try to read into the results and what they really mean. But I would think that maybe it would make sense just from my perspective, and naive as it sounds, is the study area even in South Pole County and where we're at down here is a different effect. To give you another example, I'm developing a project over in Brevard County in Melbourne, the city of Melbourne. I'm in for site plan approval right now. Brevard County is different, and I know a lot of the study areas with Manatee, Orange, many of the areas that, you know, Benish was very well thought out, even down the 75 corridor to put into their study, was kind of the study areas. Brevard County is an example. Well, unless we actually touch or go out to a county road, they don't charge an impact visa developers. It's a local concern. So fully understand that there's traffic issues. Fully understand, Commissioner Bresley said it well, that you don't expect developers, you know, moving forward to deal with issues that are from the past and whatever. I just, I would just, you know, be concerned at this board level, and I'll be fine. We'll be fine. We're doing well down there. Our model is about manufacturing with the Niagara's of the world, as you know. Our modeling is not about local delivery. It's not distribution. It's warehousing for a statewide, even in the southeast, going back up into Georgia because of our inbound connectivity with rail. That's a different story, you know, than to be told. But to put a blanket over it in general, I think just from a very naive developer's perspective, I don't want to see this board have to go through any, you know, future concerns or whatever or litigation or anything that could possibly happen of really not just thinking this truth. So I'm here to support this board and your efforts and whatever you decide wholeheartedly. You know, we're going to make a billion-dollar investment in the county here, and a lot of it is more driven by manufacturing. But I see where the traffic come from. I understand the concerns. I would just, you know, be careful of the many different factors that are involved with making a decision as you move forward. So I'm here for you, and thank you for your time. Thank you, sir. I've got a question. Can I ask you a question? What do you think of the model of set the fee higher and give you and anybody else the opportunity to explain why it shouldn't be higher and adjust it down? See, to me, Commissioner, I can see your perspective, and I think that's a good model, a good way to think about it. The difficulty, especially in us doing speculative development or the difficulty in the fact that, you know, our park's unique and its size, as you know. We have a lot of users that come in and say, we have to own, and we say, well, Jonathan, my partner, and I, we want to develop it and lease it to you. And when they see that up front, there's no guarantees. I'm dealing with the same situation right now in a deal that we're doing with an unbelievable other name who wants to own the facility. We've agreed to sell them the property because they have to have that. It's a privately held, huge company you can be very proud of. But if we tell them up front, well, there's no guarantees, so we have to go to the county to hopefully work with John and a great staff to figure out it's a case-by-case basis because that's a great tool to have. They're still going to say, in their scorecard up front, Commissioner, they're going to say, well, no, the fee's supposed to be X amount, and that's what they program for, and they try to figure it out. But you're willing to, with no guarantees, build a building for tens of millions of dollars, right? With no guarantees. I just did it, as I told you, and paid you just under a million-dollar impact fee because that's, to me, we have to contribute. I believe developers do have to contribute. You know, in Brevard, as an example, we did a whole TIA, and what came out at the end of our study for the 500,000 square feet, we're looking to develop two buildings off a county road. We're going to build a new feeder road in Melbourne to help them out because they need it, and that's understood. I'm paying for that, John, so it's, you know, local improvement, shall we say, because of our development. But our study, actually, the TIA did not warrant, so we talk about warrants, it did not warrant any need for public improvement. But the county came to me and said, we're concerned about public safety. I am, too. In my business, I don't know about other developers, but in my business, if everybody doesn't go home safe at night, I'm not happy. I've seen too many tragedies, too many accidents by not planning. So we end up agreeing to pay a million and a half dollars of improvements off a county road that we don't even touch because it's fair. It's fair. So we did it on a spec basis. So, yes, to be able to say that individual studying, as you've offered in this committee, has always, you know, viewed as a possibility, individual studies, case-by-case basis, is a great thing. My fear is, though, when you're talking about the economic development end that a lot of my friends and constituents in the room have talked about, is that companies and corporations that you want here, not pure just warehousing, you know, that are going to create traffic and not create a lot of jobs or good-paying jobs, they should want here. They're going to see it and just say, well, there's no guarantees unless we go ask, you know, the county or the committee to help us. And they might very well just move on that it happens. So would it be fair, then, that what you're building in Brevard, when you factor in, you've got to build the road and all this other stuff, it's cheaper to build over there than it is here? I wouldn't say that necessarily. I would say overall, you know, you look at the total capital stack, you know, shall we say 100% of capital needed for development. I would say it's on par. I would say that they're getting more rent over there because it's an unknown market, as you know. I mean, that whole quarter I developed up in Daytona Beach, a big development recently up there with multiple buildings. It was actually the state pension fund of Florida who owned it. And we've gotten some good successes, mostly on a spec basis, that we did it up there. But you've got to analyze, just like, you know, Bendish would do in their traffic impact studies, every area, every county, every, you know, is different. It's unique. And only from witnessing myself of first being welcomed to this community over 15 years ago as a business person and investing here is that I've seen what's happened. You're no doubt off the I-4. I've seen what's happened in Lakeland. And I've seen the challenges there from a development standpoint. And it probably, you know, it does need some upgrading and work in general. But as an example, as I said, our property, you know, we're on a city road that we built privately way back when. I was involved with it back then with the railroad. And we go right out to a state highway. And eventually, when the traffic is warranted, the CSX railroad and someone else as a developer has already committed to FDOT to put a signal in there right at 60 and an intermodal, you know, logistics parkway. We've already committed to that. That was committed years ago in the development agreement. So, whereas that local impact is important as well, I fully understand it. And you're not going to get any complaints out of me. But as I said, I think as you look, you know, at the overall study area that was recently done for your team here, I would have some reservations in your thoughts and in your decision making that is it really segregated because of, you know, the FedExes and the Medlines and the Saddle Creek. Saddle Creek's been a company. That family's been in here forever. They're great friends of mine. You know, they have 2.2 million square feet of property that was part of the study area there. But if you really look at it overall as a county concern, it was studied from 27 down the I-4 and almost to, you know, Hillsborough County. That was the linear aspect of the study. And it is. There's a big traffic problem there. There's a big congestion problem. Every one of you are correct. There's no doubt about it. So I just have concerns that, you know, kind of put in a blanket, as I said, over the entire county that you might get even some of our southern communities down here, you know, worried about it, worried about these job careers. Opportunities, worried about businesses just up front saying, here's our score sheet, and if they're plugging in this impact fee up front, they're not going to even – they're just – they're gone, the opportunity. So that would be my fear. If I may ask you, I'm a numbers guy, and I just want to make sure. Sure, Mike, yeah. On the – you mentioned you committed the $1.5 million to the construction of roadway improvements. Was that for the Brevard project or was that for a different – was that for the Brevard project or that was a different project? Correct. So Brevard County does not collect impact fees unless you feed out or touch one of the county roads. Right. Volusia, I'm doing a project up there, is different. Okay. So, you know, we have – their system is a little bit different. Brevard, to be specific, you asked about, yes. The county requested of me, said, Jim, we're worried about some safety concerns off of the new road you're building, which is a Melbourne city road, okay, and no, you have no warrant for impact of any improvements, not even a diesel lane or anything, Commissioner Scott, nothing. And you're an engineer, so you understand this, nothing. But they said, well, we're concerned about safety. They said, what can I – what can we figure out to do together, and we agree to pay for $1.5 million of improvement specific to our project that they felt would be a safety concern. Safety is number one to me, period. I don't care what the IT says. I don't care what, you know, what local people are concerned about safety. And, obviously, I know a lot of you live it every day, as I do, mostly in the northern part of the county here. But I just think there could be a better thought process collaboratively in the methodology of how you restate these fees. I do believe – think about it, three years ago, you were higher for warehouse. I paid more of a fee, and then it went down last year. Did it not, John? Okay. So I don't know why it went down. I guess I wasn't part of the conversation. So, you know, but to say we're talking about going up just automatically 300 percent by data that might be, you know, not a good test area or study area, that would be my concern to, you know, think about all of you and what that might mean for the future. And just one last thing. That's why I appreciate your – what I consider more real-time data when you talk about the Brevard project. So if we look at that one, and this doesn't bring it up, saying – I'm glad that you presented the data, right? But for a 500,000-square-foot facility, $1.5 million needed to make the improvements that I would agree, as an engineer, you're going to have to make to a lot of these developments. Right. Right now, if we look at our current ones for Polk County, round numbers, 500,000-square-feet is only 350 grand. So how would we in Polk County develop something like that and provide the improvements necessary on, you know, one-fifth or one-fourth of the same amount for Brevard County? So in those cases, when we look at, you know, if you're going to do 1.2 million square feet, and I appreciate you bringing, you know, great customers to our county, it's good stuff. But for us, when we look at that as a new project, then that 1.2 million on our – you know, you pay just under a million. And again, 2022, different than 2025 cost. When we look at future costs, because this is essentially a four-year lock for us. We can't go back and, you know, reevaluate and increase again until at least four years from now, if I'm correct, John, right? Unless you do – right, correct. But for the most part, I mean, four years is kind of our lock phase. So when we look at, okay, we're going to have a million square feet, what does it take to provide the improvements? I think it's realistic to say it's going to take two to three million dollars on a million-square-feet facility to have that. So I just – I think real-time data, to your point, and ITE, anything printed is going to run out and expire quickly, because that's how fast technology and data moves and markets move. But I think there's certainly some significance in understanding real-time costs relative to something that's four or five or ten years old. So I really do appreciate you coming here and giving us some good information. No, and that's it, you know, Commissioner. Just to all of you, I literally – I guess I was taught well or my parents, whatever, is they said, you know, listen to everybody's concerns because they're all legitimate. They really are. And I see that, you know, the county has had challenges now facing. And, listen, it is true fact. There's 1,500 people moving from northern states where I grew up, baby boomers, whatever, ready to retire to paradise down here. And even as a state, you know, I see that the infrastructure and stuff needs help. So Polk's, you know, beautiful, land's still available, as you know. It's a phenomenal place to live. It's a phenomenal place to work, and that's what we're seeing. But then again, to say that one concern of one region within the county is just a blanket over everything, I would – that scares me. That scares me. So – All right, sir. But thank you. All right. Thank you, sir. Anyone else? Good morning. Brandon Clark, president of the Ruthvens. Good to see all y'all, and thanks for the time and the deliberation. I really appreciate the last couple weeks being able to have kind of lots of different stakeholder conversations, and y'all have been very open to all of that. Not really to rehash anything else. I do just think, you know, our portfolio and our business since the 50s has been built around providing space for smaller companies, larger as well, but not the size that has been talked about, but smaller companies to be able to choose Polk County as a place to land and then grow their businesses. And we've seen that, you know, since our founding, and a key component to that is the cost of, you know, being able to do it. And at the end of the day, a lot of – you know, the cost that get – the inflation that we've seen and the cost as a result over the last several years in constructing a building just go into how the rental rate of that building gets calculated. Otherwise, it just can't be constructed. It can't be financed. It can't be justified. And so this is a component, always has been a component, but it's just an additional component of the cost to build a building, whether it's a custom building, you know, build to suit or buy a company, or in our case, most of our stuff being speculative, but for the smaller companies. So, you know, we don't have perfect data on this, but, you know, we have 360 companies that operate in our building. You know, a ton of people work in our buildings, and our view is just that, you know, having a posture that balances need for investment in infrastructure, which, again, I was here, you know, a couple years ago advocating investment in infrastructure through increasing the sales tax. And, you know, my view is that we need to invest in infrastructure, and figuring out how we do that is complicated. But, you know, doing so in a way that continues to increase, you know, increasingly pose risks towards new jobs being created in Polk, I think, is at least something to balance and take into consideration. So, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions, anybody? Anything to say? I don't particularly to Brandon, so he's sitting down. I guess my first question is I want to go back to the blockage factor and the methodology. Where is this used in our country and then in our state? So, it is a national formula published by the National Highway Institute, and it is typically used, when truck-heavy land uses are studied, like whether it's landfills, mines, that kind of thing. I guess my question, then, is if I pick up my phone and I search for blockage in traffic congestion, blockage in traffic studies, it is not found. Where is this data that shows that this is an industry standard? That's what I have yet to be able to find. Again, we can, I think we have the source included in the report where we got it, as well as we had it in the presentations, too. So, if you go directly to that source, you should be able to find it. Right. I see the numbers. I mean, I understand that, but I just haven't been able to find it used in traffic information as far as a blockage factor. Yeah, I mean, okay, I will look there again. If I may, because Commissioner Troutman wasn't here, this was something that was directed by the board for us to look into, and at the time we did inform the board this would be something that could be cut an edge as far as the blockage factor, as far as a lot of studies don't do that, but that's what the board directed us to look at. So, you may be correct that it may not be used throughout the county or throughout the country, but the board direction at that time was, here's what the issue was. Y'all go find out a solution to address that issue, and that's what we've done with this. Right. And, right, I guess the whole purpose was to have more refined, more accurate measurement of warehouses, the starting point, and that's a piece of it. It may be, yeah, just like you said, people may choose not to look at it, but that doesn't make it a valid point or a valid data item to review. Okay. And I think exactly to what Mr. Mink just stated is, you know, we were kind of sent out on a mission, we being the consultant, to really look at this, and about 12 months ago now, I think we saw, to use this term that's in the statutory requirements for this, we justified a rational nexus that actually lowered the price. Now, some 12, 16, 18 months later, whatever that number is, now we're trying to say there's a rational nexus for a 308% increase. And I cannot support being on the cutting edge of a methodology that will kill our economic development. We are looking at two issues, economic development and impact fees related to transportation and infrastructure. These impact fees that we could possibly collect, which I would say there's a chance that we're going to collect no impact fees because people are going to go elsewhere, we will kill our ability to create and recruit new jobs. And as a commissioner, when I cannot locate a point of data that is critical in all of the different formulas and choices that we have, as far as where we go with this, it is very hard for me to adopt any part of this study because it doesn't seem to have methodology that is truly accepted within the industry. And that is what I am going to utilize to impact economic development in my county. And I'm not able to do that at this point. Just to clarify, the methodology itself, the strip characteristics methodology is actually you are already using. Your 2023 study is using studies from our strip characteristics studies for all of the trip lengths, you know, the office strip length, this, that, they are all conducted the same way that we did for a warehouse. So that methodology is pretty well established. Other consultants are using our data because it's the most localized data, Florida data at least. So, and whenever we don't have it, obviously we have to go to IT. That's the secondary data source. So from that perspective, it's pretty well established. And I think the way we calculated this is, I mean, at this point, it's still very conservative because their actual non-truck trip lengths were longer. We didn't use that. We took out a lot of outliers. We took out Saddle Creek, which had much higher trip length. So in my mind, from a technical perspective, this is a very conservative approach. But obviously, the board has the policy option, and that's, you know, there's a lot of other variables for you to consider. So that's besides the study. All right. I think. I would like. Mr. Ford, thank you for speaking to us this morning. You bring some valuable and different perspectives to this equation. Your statement, we need to be concerned for putting a blanket general. When I was looking at the study that was given to me on Friday and the presentations that we had, I noticed that out of nine warehouse studies, six were in Lakeland, two in the northeast area, which is Davenport and way, way up there, one in Arbondale, but nothing in Winnerhaven. And we had the logistic center, nothing in Winnerhaven, nothing in Lake Wells, nothing in the area. So the, in my perspective, the study is geared to that I-4 corridor, which does not apply to the rest of the county. So I agree with you on that. And someone said about being competitive. I agree we need to be competitive. But it's not okay to price ourselves out of the competition. And I think if we go this route with what's proposed, we're going to go ahead and price ourselves out of the business, basically going along with what you're saying, Commissioner Troutman, which absolutely concerns me. And we are competitive in our assets. We offer a lot of things that I think businesses will come here. But they, like you said, they want to come here because of what Polk County offers. So we need to be careful with what decisions that we make. So we appreciate that. Mr. Clark, thank you for bringing it to our attention that there are also smaller warehouses that meet the needs of different businesses in Polk County and how this will affect them. And that's a perspective that I was not thinking of. So I appreciate you bringing that to the table. That's all I have. Thank you. Thank you. One more. Just going back to the conversations that have been had, and I appreciate the input from those in the audience today and from this board. We talk about different areas of the county. Construction of a road in Lake Wales is no cheaper than it is along I-4 as far as the cost for a contractor to implement that. How we arrive at what it takes to make and keep our county great and moving in the future is truly what we're discussing. And to have jobs alone, whether it's warehouse or industrial, isn't the entirety of the equation to make Polk County great. We have to look at how we get there, how we leave there, how we are home safe and work safe. If we talk about that, and I would, you know, if there's some understanding still to be had, I think a benefit to this board to have in front of us would be, what is, you know, what are some current costs of construction for road improvements? If in Brevard or other counties there's a desal lane and a signalization that's, you know, a million bucks that's required for a building of size X, that gives us even further clarity on what we're talking about here. Because to say that we could stay at our current rates and just stay on the forecast of a million square feet is only going to cost, you know, $350,000 in impact fees, knowing very well that we can't even put in a desal lane, a medium break, and a signal for $350,000, and that's based on my own personal knowledge, that to me is a red flag for us planning for failure in the future as a county. And so if we don't prepare today to be able to pay for that to keep our county safe and to keep those new residents and those new workers safe, what are we truly doing? And that does take money, and that does take potentially in this case the impact fees. So potentially, again, if we need more information, I don't think it's dismissing the information in this study. I think it's looking at what are some real-world costs to making those transportation improvements and how that relates to what we're proposing to collect. Because, again, we don't want to produce in a company, you can't produce a product to lose money. You need to at least break even to stay in business. We're looking at the same thing as the county. We can't go into reserves to subsidize a losing equation long term. Thank you. Thank you. Just to add, do you want to go first, Brago? He's first. Exactly what Mr. Scott just stated is, you know, we have to look at the total picture. And there has not been a single stakeholder that I have spoken to that is not in favor of making sure that our impact fees are reasonable and fair and really make an impact to our county. Unfortunately, because of the questionable, whether we're looking at just the locations of the study points, that we're not looking at the county in its total, they're unable to support it based upon their feelings that this study truly does not draw a picture about what the impact is across all of Polk County. So to be able to say, yes, I know that there's a problem, then we're challenged with trying to solve that problem on data that isn't representative of the entire picture of Polk County. Okay. I'm going to say something. I've been letting you all talk for 20 minutes here now. So thank you. You know, when this all got started, we decided what we were going to do. It got brought to our attention. It could be something there. We need to look at it. So we brought in everybody that, you know, we could. Great reporting and some numbers. We hear it. We've heard some people all over because we got everybody excited. But all we've been doing, well, all I've been doing is taking information in, seeing what makes sense and what doesn't make sense. There's, I don't think I've built, I have talked to very, not all the builders of the warehouses, but quite a few. They all understand they probably could use, it could, it wouldn't hurt to have some increase on it. But, of course, when you see this 300% markup, it scares everybody to death. Hey, it scares me too. But a lot of information. We still got information to take. And I'm sitting here listening to all the different situations, all the different areas. I agree with all of it. So, at the end of the day, it's going to be up to each individual commissioner of what they think because in this vote here, we've got to have four to one to do nothing or to change something. So, what I'm hearing, I'm just talking out loud. What I'm hearing, we're kind of scattered across the board here. So, I think, you know, we've got to use our heads a little bit if we've got choices probably of not doing anything or doing something to benefit and not to kill everybody and move forward. So, I just wanted to throw that out there because, like I say, we have to have a two-thirds, I think it's two-thirds, I mean, four to one. So, I mean, I just like taking in the information. I've learned a lot, just not from different people and builders that do it every day all over the state. And that means a lot. Of course, I want everybody that I can, I want our county to grow and be prosperous. And it has to all work together to get that done. And so, I just want to throw that out. Go ahead, Mr. Brown. To be blunt, I could care less about the people that don't live here already or the companies that don't work here already. What's not been even mentioned in this conversation are the people who have to live with this, the people who have to sit through four cycles of the lights, who have to make all these deviations to try to get through all this truck traffic. They're the ones that we need to be thinking about. And we're not going to be thinking about them if we do nothing. We're not going to be thinking about them if we don't assess enough or tax enough or whatever you want to call this to cover the cost of keeping these debacles like Dean Still and 27 from happening in the future. And I think that needs to be part of the conversation and what you think about. And I think the people of this county deserve better than kicking the can down the road. All right. Anyone else? If not, we can wind this up, can't we? I'm going to wind it up before somebody jumps up. Can you tell me what's the next step? March 18th, we're bringing back the ordinance. And based on the conversation, we'll bring back all five versions of the ordinance. There's going to have to be a 4-1 vote to increase them. If y'all can't come to an agreement of 4-1, then at that point, I think the ordinance dies because there will be no change. So that's really what the plan is at this point. What's the time limit on when that? I know we had to do it within a certain time of the study. Is March 18th our last and final? No, no, no. It's within 12 months of the study. So I guess right now we've got a year. We're fine. We're okay. Close to a year to do it because the study is just not being completed. Okay. So is in the next meeting people allowed to also speak and bring? Yes, ma'am. Okay. It'll be a public hearing like any other order. So in other words, none of us can be out that day, right? That would be a really bad situation. No one's sick, no personal days, no anything. Make my life a little bit more interesting. It is spring break. That is spring break, yes. So on March 18th the plan is to bring back all five versions and then hopefully get the final vote on the board. All right. Thank you, everyone. We're done.