Planning commissioners review Pasco Partners chapter; public‑school provisions held for later workshop

Pasco County staff presented the Pasco Partners chapter, a consolidation of intergovernmental coordination and public school facilities elements, and commissioners asked staff to withhold the public‑school facilities section until the interlocal agreement (ILA) with the School Board is further developed.

The chapter matters because it organizes how Pasco County coordinates with municipalities, the School Board and regional agencies on service delivery, transportation priorities and school facility planning.

A county staff presenter summarized the update and new items: the chapter combines two prior elements to remove duplication, clarifies dispute-resolution approaches between jurisdictions and adds three new policies under Objective Partners 1.1: coordination with FDOT and the Pasco Metropolitan Planning Organization to identify transportation funding priorities; coordination to address affordable housing needs and funding; and coordination to identify locally designated historic landmarks. The presenter said the public school facilities language is pending because the interlocal agreement with the School Board is still being updated.

Commissioners asked whether they would see the updated public school facilities text before a final vote. One commissioner said the planning commission should vet any regulatory items in that section, especially proposed levels of service and concurrency rules, before formal adoption. Morgan Dean, County Attorney's Office, said the county will bring the public school facilities section forward once the ILA is "further along" and noted the goal to adopt Pasco 2050 by December. "Our intent was not that the entire agreement has to be wrapped up before we can bring the public school facilities part of this element, but just that we need to be further along than where we are now," Dean said.

Commissioners also reviewed the new intergovernmental policies. Several commissioners supported a transportation coordination policy but asked staff to tone down mandatory language in one sentence that read, in part, that coordination "shall ensure standards and schedules for roadway improvements are met." One commissioner recommended changing "ensure" to a less absolute formulation such as "shall strive to" or to remove the sentence; staff agreed to revise that language.

The commission asked staff to consolidate comments from today's workshop, revise the draft chapter, and then hold a wrap‑up workshop focused on items that require additional negotiation, particularly the public school facilities element and its levels-of-service provisions. Staff committed to circulating revised drafts and scheduling a separate session on the schools section prior to a final recommendation to the board.

No formal votes were taken at the workshop; commissioners provided direction to staff and asked for a clearer timeline for the ILA and for prioritizing the portions of the schools element that could be most consequential for development approvals.