Pasco planners advance tree-preservation code rewrite as builders press for phased fees

Planning Department staff told the Pasco County Planning Commission on July 24 that the county will pursue two related but distinct actions to strengthen tree canopy protections: a land development code amendment updating preservation and mitigation standards, and a separate change in how mitigation fees are adopted and used. The discussion mattered because county staff and the Board of County Commissioners say current fees have not been updated in years and are insufficient to fund canopy-protection programs, while builders say an immediate fee increase could make many projects financially infeasible. David Engel, planning and economic growth director, described ongoing negotiations with the Tampa Bay Builders Association and said the development community sought grandfathering, an acreage cap on mitigation fees and a phased-in schedule. "They wanted a per acre cap on the fees ... and they wanted to have a 3 year phasing process to phase in the fees," Engel said. He said staff reduced the proposed phase-in to two years in an early draft, then removed grandfathering and phase-in after direction from county leadership. "The view was, universally, that our fees have been too low for years, and we have to immediately address protecting our canopy," Engel said. Staff clarified that two separate code paths are in play: the fee schedule historically has language in the land development code but the county also adopted a Board resolution to raise fees; legal staff is reviewing whether the fees must be moved entirely to resolution language or remain codified. An assigned county attorney, Elizabeth Blair, is reviewing the path forward, Engel said. Discussion at the Planning Commission focused on process, stakeholder engagement and timing. Staff said the land-development code provision that will carry the preservation standards is section 802 (referred to in the presentation as section 8 0 2) and that the fee schedule was embedded in that code section in the past. A staff attorney observed that a simple cleanup would be to strike the fee numbers from the code and adopt them by resolution, which could resolve a discrepancy between the code text and the board action. Commission members and staff also discussed outreach. Engel and staff said they had substantial engagement with the Tampa Bay Builders Association over the past year and that the TBBA had opposed immediate implementation steps the association considered harmful to project economics. Engel said the TBBA "are not against the fees" but requested phasing for business reasons. Staff agreed to circulate a cleaned-up draft and suggested a stakeholder meeting — including TBBA — before the ordinance returns to the Planning Commission. No formal county ordinance was adopted at the meeting. Staff indicated a target to bring the tree-preservation code changes to the Planning Commission for review on Aug. 21, 2025, and said they would circulate a working draft to stakeholders before that hearing. The Board of County Commissioners previously approved a resolution raising fees, staff said, and the CAO's office is reviewing legal steps needed to align code text and resolution language. Follow-up steps include staff circulation of the working draft, a stakeholder meeting (staff proposed inviting TBBA) and further CAO/attorney review before the item is scheduled for formal public hearings and potential adoption by ordinance or resolution.