Pasco County holds extraordinary‑circumstances workshop on proposed fire/rescue impact fee increases; first hearing set for May 20

Pasco County commissioners heard a workshop and held a first hearing April 22 on a proposed increase to the county's fire combat and rescue impact fees, after staff and a consultant said extraordinary circumstances justify exceeding state phase‑in limits.

The workshop presented a 2024 impact‑fee study and an ordinance (item P51) that would raise the county's fire/rescue fees to reflect updated capital needs, construction‑cost inflation and rapid population growth. County staff and consultant Peter Napoli of Santech Consulting said the existing combined fire/rescue fees have not been updated in more than 20 years and would not cover planned stations, equipment and an operations/training center without higher fees.

The study, presented by Ryan (identified in the transcript as the county's fire chief) and Peter Napoli, shows a mix of new and existing capital projects totaling roughly $153 million for fire combat and $99.5 million for rescue included in the fee basis. Napoli described the methodology as a hybrid approach that counts existing assets and planned capital improvements, then allocates the growth portion of new projects to new development. He said the county's population growth since 2004 (cited in the workshop as 43.2 percent vs. a 13.4 percent national average) and large increases in construction prices are key justifications for exceeding the statutory phase‑in limits.

Why it matters: impact fees pay for expansion‑related capital that new development requires — fire stations, apparatus and training/operations facilities. A higher fee shortens the time between capital projects and preserves service levels as new homes and businesses are added.

Key figures and proposals from the study - Current combined fire/rescue fees (county presentation): about $420 per residential unit (fire and rescue combined). - Proposed fire combat residential fee: $416 per dwelling unit (broken out as $36 per unit for land and $380 for facilities/equipment). The consultant said that figure represents about a 67% increase for the fire combat portion and exceeds the 50% statutory threshold that triggers the extraordinary‑circumstances process. - Combined proposed fee (fire + rescue): cited by the consultant as about $674 per residential unit, roughly a 60% increase over current combined fees. - Nonresidential treatment: the county's current ordinance caps nonresidential square footage at 50,000 sq. ft. for fee calculation; consultant recommendation and staff proposal would remove that cap so fees apply to all square footage. The consultant said removing the cap increases projected revenue and shortens the interval between needed capital projects. - Cost drivers highlighted in the workshop: construction cost escalation (presenter cited a 150% rise in construction costs in recent years and 143% change in CCI from 2002 to 2022), land‑value increases (presenter cited an average of about $65,000 per acre and ~160% increase since 2002), and rapid residential growth in Pasco County.

Discussion and concerns raised Commissioner Mariano said the fee update is overdue but raised concerns about the impact on large industrial or distribution projects and on economic development. He asked whether the county could offer incentives or reimbursements for target industries so that job‑creating projects would not be discouraged. David Angle, Planning & Economic Development director, said the county has used Penny for Pasco economic development funds for targeted projects and that reimbursement (rather than fee waivers) could be examined on a case‑by‑case basis.

Mariano and others asked about the effect of removing the 50,000 sq. ft. commercial cap. Napoli gave examples: a 1,000,000‑sq. ft. hypothetical facility (commissioner estimate cited during the meeting) could face roughly an $800,000 fire impact fee under the proposed schedule; a Walmart supercenter (just over 50,000 sq. ft.) would see a modest increase under the proposal (presentation cited $26,000 currently versus about $28,000 under the proposal for a supercenter example). Commissioners discussed options such as a graduated cap or targeted reimbursements for incentive‑approved projects; staff and the consultant said they could run alternate calculations if the board wanted a specific square‑foot cap tested (e.g., 250,000 or 500,000 sq. ft.) to see how fees would change.

Legal and procedural points The consultant and staff explained the statutory steps: the county must hold extraordinary‑circumstances workshops if it proposes to exceed the phase‑in limits set by section 163.31801, Florida Statutes; a two‑thirds supermajority is required to adopt fees that exceed those limitations; and if the board approves new fee levels the county must publish notice and wait 90 days before collecting the higher fees.

Action taken The board conducted the required extraordinary‑circumstances workshop and then took first‑hearing action on the ordinance (item P51), moving the ordinance to a final adoption hearing scheduled for May 20, 2025. The May 20 meeting was placed on the calendar as the final adoption hearing for the ordinance. (The transcript records the first‑hearing motion and a second; the final adoption vote is scheduled for the May 20 meeting.)

What remains Staff and the consultant said they will provide any follow‑up analyses requested by the board (for example, recalculations that would apply a different nonresidential cap or a graduated treatment for very large industrial buildings). The board also discussed whether and how the county might reimburse targeted economic‑development projects, noting reimbursements would come from other funding sources rather than being an outright waiver of the impact fee.

Next steps and deadlines - May 20, 2025: final adoption hearing on the ordinance to increase fire combat and rescue impact fees (statutory notice periods apply if the board votes to adopt higher fees). - Staff to run additional fee scenarios if the board requests alternatives to a no‑cap approach for nonresidential square footage.

Speakers quoted or referenced in this report are identified in the county record and in the transcript excerpt for this item.