[1:34] Brian Scott: Hope everybody's doing well.

[1:35] Our our chair is under the

[1:37] weather today, so we wish her

[1:40] the best and we hope that she

[1:41] feels better soon. So the moral

[1:43] of that story

[1:44] is you all are

[1:45] stuck with me. So if you would

[1:48] please rise and join me with

[1:50] pledge. I pledge allegiance to

[1:54] the flag of the United States

[1:56] of America and to the Republic

[1:59] for which it

[1:59] stands. One nation

[2:01] under God, indivisible, with

[2:04] liberty and justice for all.

[2:09] Thank you for that. So let's go

[2:10] around the room and do some

[2:12] introductions, and we'll start

[2:13] over here with with my friend

[2:15] Mike.

[2:17] You. Yeah.

[2:21] >> Mike Eisner, Tarpon Springs,

[2:24] good afternoon. Yes, good

[2:26] afternoon to all. Thank you for

[2:28] allowing me here to share my

[2:31] ideas and thoughts.

[2:36] >> Good afternoon, Anne-Marie

[2:37] Brooks, mayor, Madeira Beach

[2:39] representing the beach

[2:40] communities.

[2:41] >> Good afternoon. Tom Reid,

[2:42] vice mayor of City of South

[2:44] Pasadena, representing PSTA.

[2:46] >> Good afternoon. Chris

[2:47] Johnson, vice mayor of City of

[2:50] Largo.

[2:51] >> Good afternoon, Council

[2:52] member Brandi Gabbard,

[2:53] representing the City of Saint

[2:54] Petersburg.

[2:56] >> Chris Scherer Pinellas

[2:57] County Commission.

[2:59] >> Good afternoon. Your

[3:00] executive director.

[3:02] >> Brian Scott, Pinellas County

[3:03] Commissioner.

[3:04] >> Tom Shelley, deputy mayor of

[3:06] Belleair and representing the

[3:08] North Inland communities.

[3:10] >> Good afternoon, Council

[3:12] member Mike Mannino, city of

[3:13] Clearwater.

[3:15] >> Council member Richie Floyd,

[3:16] city of Saint Petersburg.

[3:20] >> Mayor Karen Love of Gulfport,

[3:22] Florida, representing South

[3:23] inland communities.

[3:25] Brian Scott: Well, thank you, everybody

[3:26] for that. And I know Mayor Moe

[3:28] is on her way and will be

[3:29] joining us shortly. So with

[3:32] that, we'll move on to citizens

[3:33] to be heard. Tina, are there

[3:35] any

[3:35] citizens wishing to be

[3:36] heard on any items not already

[3:38] on the agenda for action by the

[3:40] board today?

[3:41] Tina Jablon: No, chair, there is not.

[3:43] Brian Scott: Okay. Thank you. Mayor Moe

[3:45] Welcome. Okay. Next we'll move

[3:49] on to the consent agenda. Does

[3:51] any board member wish to pull

[3:53] any item from the consent

[3:54] agenda? Hearing none. Do we

[3:58] have a motion?

[3:59] Chris Johnson: So moved.

[4:01] Brian Scott: Motion by Commissioner.

[4:03] Councilmember Gabbard. Second by. Okay,

[4:07] Vice Mayor Johnson. Okay. Any

[4:10] discussion? Hearing none. All

[4:12] in favor? Any opposed? Okay.

[4:15] Passes unanimously. Thank you

[4:16] very much.

[4:17] Tina Jablon: For the record, there were

[4:18] no citizens wishing to be heard

[4:19] on the consent agenda today.

[4:21] Brian Scott: Okay. Thank you.

[4:23] Okay. Now

[4:25] we will move on to our public

[4:28] hearing items. And the first

[4:30] one of that is we have item

[4:32] number five, A dash one, case

[4:36] CW26-08, City of Clearwater.

[4:39] And we do have two

[4:40] presentations on this item here.

[4:51] Good afternoon.

[4:56] Marcie Stenmark: Good afternoon, Marcie

[4:58] Stenmark with the Planning and

[4:59] Development Department. Before

[5:01] you is a proposed County-wide

[5:03] map amendment to the planned

[5:05] Redevelopment district within

[5:06] North Greenwood and the city

[5:08] has a companion future land use

[5:09] map amendment

[5:11] for the North

[5:11] Greenwood area. We've been

[5:13] asked to provide some

[5:14] information to you this

[5:16] afternoon regarding this

[5:17] amendment and the community

[5:18] engagement that has led to the

[5:19] amendment. Sorry.

[5:27] There we go.

[5:30] The overlay is was recommended

[5:32] by the North Greenwood CRA plan,

[5:34] which was a community led

[5:35] effort. The CRA plan was

[5:37] adopted in 2023 after extensive

[5:40] community engagement.

[5:45] The

[5:46] outreach included property

[5:47] owner and occupant mailings and

[5:49] surveys. There were meetings

[5:51] and workshops and also

[5:53] roundtable meetings with the

[5:54] Faith Leadership Community

[5:56] Roundtable.

[5:58] The CRA plan has

[6:00] several goals, including public

[6:02] safety, mobility, poverty

[6:04] reduction, housing

[6:06] affordability, quality of life

[6:07] and investing in use. I'm sorry,

[6:11] in youth.

[6:15] The CRA plan

[6:16] workshops included group table

[6:18] exercise, where participants

[6:19] talked about what types of

[6:21] redevelopment would fit and

[6:22] what kind of housing types they

[6:24] would like to see. The CRA plan

[6:29] also recommended a zoning tool

[6:30] wi

[6:30] th design guidelines to allow

[6:32] for more housing options such

[6:34] as duplexes, triplexes,

[6:37] townhomes and small apartments.

[6:39] The goal of the plan is to

[6:40] create more choices so people

[6:42] can stay in the community as

[6:44] their needs changed, including

[6:46] seniors,

[6:46] young adults, families,

[6:47] renters and property owners.

[6:53] Creating the overlay is a four

[6:55] step process. We are currently

[6:57] working on action items one and

[6:58] two. One is a comprehensive

[7:00] plan amendment to establish the

[7:02] overlay and

[7:03] bonuses. The second

[7:03] is the Future Land Use Map

[7:05] amendment to apply the overlay.

[7:10] And that is where this meeting

[7:11] fits in. Today is an action

[7:13] items one and two. Because it

[7:14] requires a county wide

[7:15] countywide plan map amendment.

[7:17] We will also then

[7:18] be working on

[7:19] a Community Development Code

[7:20] amendment and a zoning map

[7:22] overlay to apply design

[7:24] standards, because anyone who

[7:25] would wish to apply for the

[7:27] bonus would need to meet design

[7:29] standards for their new

[7:30] development. In

[7:34] 2024, after the

[7:35] CRA plan was adopted, we held a

[7:37] series of meetings, including

[7:38] listening sessions, a kickoff

[7:40] meeting and a game of zones

[7:42] workshops where participants

[7:43] looked at different development

[7:46] types and talked about how many

[7:47] units might fit per acre due to

[7:49] the impacts of the

[7:50] hurricanes.

[7:51] The department's focus was

[7:52] paused to work on post-storm

[7:55] permitting, we have resumed

[7:57] work starting last winter, and

[8:00] part of our discussion at that

[8:02] time was, how did we want to

[8:03] move forward with the

[8:04] community's goals to allow

[8:06] people to age in place and

[8:07] provide more housing types? And

[8:09] it was decided, after much

[8:11] discussion by the staff and

[8:12] consultant team, that an

[8:13] overlay would be the

[8:14] appropriate land use tool

[8:15] moving forward. And that is

[8:17] because people can choose to

[8:19] opt into the overlay. Property

[8:21] owners are not r

[8:22] equired to

[8:23] participate, and it provides

[8:24] flexibility for how they use

[8:25] their lot. Because it's a

[8:28] county wide amendment as well.

[8:30] A traffic study was prepared

[8:31] and we were evaluating the

[8:34] maximum potential build out. I

[8:36] wanted to mention that we don't

[8:37] expect that this area

[8:38] will

[8:38] develop to the maximum

[8:40] potential, because it is an opt

[8:41] in system. Not everyone wishes

[8:43] to participate, and also we

[8:44] don't expect everyone to

[8:46] develop the maximum amount. The

[8:48] traffic study found that there

[8:50] would be an acceptable level of

[8:51] service on all roads that we

[8:53] studied, except for one

[8:54] segment

[8:55] on alternate US 19 and Myrtle

[8:57] Avenue, and that the

[8:59] transportation network would

[9:00] remain acceptable, and this is

[9:03] likely due to the unique and

[9:05] street grid and connected

[9:07] streets.

[9:15] This is the language

[9:16] regarding the potential overlay,

[9:18] and we are proposing a bonus of

[9:20] up to 40 units per acre and a

[9:23] 1.1 floor area ratio bonus for

[9:25] residential.

[9:26] I'm sorry for non

[9:27] residential. So the residential

[9:28] bonus is up to 40 units. And

[9:30] the non residential is up to

[9:32] 1.1 floor area ratio. I wanted

[9:35] to note that the county wide

[9:36] plan allows for a maximum

[9:38] density of 45 units. And we're

[9:40] proposing 40 units. So what

[9:41] we

[9:42] 're proposing is a little bit

[9:43] lower. And also the countywide

[9:44] plan allows a maximum floor

[9:46] area ratio of 2.0. And we're

[9:49] proposing a maximum of 1.1. I'm

[9:52] going to go through a series of

[9:54] maps to show you the CRA area,

[9:55] as well as the areas to be

[9:57] exclud

[9:57] ed. And this is showing

[10:00] the CRA boundary which is over

[10:01] 600 acres. We're going to be

[10:04] excluding the central business

[10:06] district area, which is at the

[10:07] southwest corner of the CRA.

[10:08] And that's because it is

[10:10] already in the downtown old Bay

[10:11] character district and subject

[10:12] to those

[10:14] regulations, we will

[10:16] also be excluding water.

[10:21] Preservation, open space,

[10:25] industrial limited

[10:27] transportation utility, and

[10:29] also land within

[10:30] unincorporated

[10:30] Pinellas County. There are

[10:36] seven future land use

[10:38] classifications that would be

[10:39] part of the overlay listed here.

[10:41] There are four residential and

[10:43] three non residential and mixed

[10:45] use.

[10:51] I wanted to provide some

[10:53] information to you about the

[10:54] community meeting that we held

[10:54] on June the 30th. I also wanted

[10:57] to thank you very much for

[10:59] continuing the item on last

[11:00] month's agenda so we could have

[11:01] this meeting. The meeting was

[11:03] held at the North Greenwood

[11:05] Recreation Center, and we had

[11:07] approximately 50 people attend,

[11:08] not including staff. We also

[11:10] had several staff members and

[11:12] attendance staff from planning

[11:13] and development this year, and

[11:15] Economic Development Department

[11:17] presented informati

[11:17] on about the

[11:18] CRA plan, the ongoing

[11:20] implementation and the next

[11:21] steps. During the meeting, we

[11:23] provided the public hearing

[11:25] schedule, and we also promised

[11:26] we'd be back in September for

[11:27] some more community meetings

[11:29] about the upcoming Community

[11:30] Development Code, amendments

[11:31] and design standards, because

[11:32] we want to

[11:33] make sure that we

[11:34] are checking in with the

[11:36] community about those standards

[11:37] and that they could support

[11:38] them. How we're moving forward.

[11:40] I've been asked to share some

[11:42] information about the concerns

[11:42] that were raised during the

[11:43] meeting and how we responded,

[11:45] and I wanted to indicate that

[11:47] we heard from the community of

[11:49] a concern about increased

[11:51] property taxes. We did share

[11:52] some information there that we

[11:54] talked with the property

[11:55] appraiser. The overlay itself

[11:57] will not directly result in

[11:58] increased property taxes.

[12:01] However, the area is in a CRA

[12:03] area. It's a CRA. We're hoping

[12:05] for redevelopment and

[12:07] reinvestment. So over time

[12:08] those reinvestments may affect

[12:10] property values. There's also a

[12:12] Florida Save Our Homes program

[12:14] that limits how much the

[12:15] assessed value can be increased

[12:17] each year for homesteaded

[12:18] properties. There was a concern

[12:20] raised about the Marshall

[12:21] Street wastewater plant and if

[12:23] it can handle more development,

[12:25] and we mentioned that we

[12:27] recently did a water

[12:28] reclamation facility master

[12:30] plan, which calls for

[12:32] consolidation of the plants.

[12:34] There's also a concern raised

[12:35] regarding developers coming in

[12:37] and buying up property or

[12:39] gentrification. And we did talk

[12:40] about how the overlay is an opt

[12:43] in system. No one is required

[12:45] to participate. Property owners

[12:47] can choose if they wish to

[12:49] participate in the overlay. And

[12:51] also the CRA plan has a chapter

[12:53] and

[12:53] an equity statement that

[12:54] talks about reinvestment and

[12:56] redevelopment in the

[12:57] neighborhood and or in the area,

[12:59] and that gentrification can

[13:02] potentially occur over time and

[13:04] some at some level, because the

[13:06] area we're hoping for

[13:08] reinvestment and for

[13:09] redevelopmen

[13:09] t to occur. There

[13:11] was a question about impervious

[13:13] surface requirements and if

[13:14] they still apply, if a floor

[13:16] area ratio bonus is applied.

[13:17] And the answer is yes, we are

[13:19] not going to require an

[13:21] affordability requirement.

[13:23] Instead, we're going to be

[13:24] proposing

[13:25] a new mix of housing

[13:27] types that are not currently

[13:28] allowed today and encourage a

[13:31] diversity of housing types. And

[13:33] people were asking if their

[13:35] house burns down, could they

[13:36] rebuild based on current zoning?

[13:37] And the answer is yes. If it

[13:39] was non-conforming.

[13:41] We received

[13:42] some letters before today's

[13:44] meeting asking for a meeting

[13:45] with staff regarding concerns

[13:47] about anti displacement. We

[13:49] wanted to let you know that we

[13:51] will. We will be holding a

[13:52] meeting with the individual who

[13:54] requested the meeting to talk

[13:55] about those ideas,

[13:57] and I wanted

[13:58] to share with you the. We. We

[14:01] assessed the proposed amendment

[14:03] based on our Community

[14:04] Development code. We found that

[14:05] it meets the comprehensive plan,

[14:08] the county wide rules. It will

[14:09] not adversely affect the use of

[14:11] property in the area. There's

[14:13] sufficient public facilities

[14:14] and will not impact natural

[14:16] resources. Our next steps in

[14:18] the process include a county

[14:20] wide. I'm sorry. There's a CPA

[14:23] hearing on August the 11th, a

[14:25] City Council second reading on

[14:27] October the 1st, and then we

[14:28] will be having meetings with

[14:30] the community starting in

[14:31] September regarding the

[14:33] Community Development Code

[14:34] amendments. We anticipate

[14:36] finishing up those code

[14:37] amendments around February of

[14:38] next year, and I wanted to

[14:40] mention that they're all

[14:41] bundled together and that the

[14:44] overlay will not become

[14:45] effective until the Community

[14:46] Development Code amendments are

[14:47] passed. So the earliest that

[14:49] the overlay would be effective

[14:50] would be February of next year.

[14:53] Next, I would like to introduce

[14:54] Jesus Nino, our CRA director.

[14:56] He would like to provide some

[14:58] information to you about the

[14:59] CRA. Thank you.

[15:02] Brian Scott: Thank you Marcie.

[15:07] Jesus Nino: Good afternoon. Jesus Nino

[15:09] CRA, executive director for the

[15:11] City of Clearwater chair and

[15:14] board members, thank you for

[15:15] allowing me to speak. So

[15:17] first,

[15:17] I'd like to share briefly a

[15:18] little bit about the CRA

[15:20] perspective. So last night,

[15:21] which was July the 7th, the

[15:24] North Greenwood Community

[15:25] Redevelopment Area Citizens

[15:26] Advisory Committee took action

[15:28] on this particular item. So it

[15:30] was presented by staff to the

[15:32] CAC.

[15:33] And the unanimous

[15:35] unanimously voted for this

[15:37] particular initiative here to

[15:38] move it forward. In addition,

[15:40] the committee reaffirmed its

[15:42] support for the city's efforts

[15:44] to develop a local zoning

[15:46] overlay that does reflect the

[15:48] community's vision

[15:48] for North

[15:49] Greenwood. I'd also like to

[15:51] recognize the Clearwater Urban

[15:53] Leadership Coalition, who's

[15:54] here in the audience is also in

[15:56] support of this initiative. So

[15:59] this this amendment is the

[16:00] first step. It creates the

[16:03] foundation for future

[16:04] land use

[16:05] and zoning changes that do

[16:07] support the community's vision

[16:08] and help address long standing

[16:11] slum and blight conditions in

[16:12] the area. It also opens the

[16:15] door for projects like the

[16:16] recently approved The Grove,

[16:18] which is a mini container

[16:19] village in the North G

[16:20] reenwood

[16:20] area, which is led by the

[16:22] Clearwater Urban Leadership

[16:23] Coalition, also for new infill

[16:26] housing for future mixed use

[16:28] redevelopment along the Martin

[16:29] Luther King Junior Avenue

[16:31] corridor. And throughout this

[16:33] process, CRA staff, the

[16:35] Citizens Advisory Committee,

[16:37] residents, business owners and

[16:39] other property owners have

[16:40] worked together to try to move

[16:41] forward. The goal of the CRA in

[16:44] that area. So anything the CRA

[16:46] does CRA Staff Advisory

[16:48] Committee, we all work together

[16:49] to plan for that committee. We

[16:51] don't plan for them, we

[16:52] plan

[16:52] with them, and we collaborate.

[16:56] So those priorities are also

[16:58] reflected in the adopted. Like

[16:59] I mentioned, North Greenwood

[17:01] CRA plan. So this is a big tool

[17:04] that's going to help us move

[17:06] our vision forward to create a

[17:07] prosperous

[17:08] community. So from

[17:10] the perspective, today's action

[17:12] is about more than just land

[17:14] use designation. It's about

[17:16] creating a framework for

[17:17] redevelopment that reflects the

[17:19] community's vision. We believe

[17:20] that the best plans are created

[17:22] together, and our goal is

[17:24] simple to improve the community

[17:26] and create more opportunities

[17:27] for residents and businesses in

[17:28] North Greenwood. And thank you

[17:30] for the opportunity.

[17:32] Brian Scott: Thank you very much. Before

[17:34] we move on to the four

[17:36] panelists presentation, do we

[17:37] have any questions for either

[17:38] Jesus or Marcie?

[17:42] No. Okay. Move

[17:44] on to our next presentation.

[17:58] Good afternoon, Emma.

[17:59] Emma Wennick: Good afternoon. Thank you to

[18:03] City Clearwater staff for just

[18:04] giving a little bit more

[18:06] background on this. Before I

[18:07] dive into our county wide

[18:09] review for this case.

[18:15] Okay, so

[18:15] this case is a 461.5 proposed

[18:20] countywide plan map amendment.

[18:22] That's the acreage of the site.

[18:24] And this is within the North

[18:26] Greenwood Community

[18:28] Redevelopment area. And this

[18:30] amendment proposes to

[18:32] transition multiple existing

[18:33] countywide plan map categories

[18:35] to the planned Redevelopment

[18:36] District category, or PRD

[18:39] category. And the proposal is

[18:41] intended to establish a

[18:43] coordinated

[18:44] redevelopment

[18:44] framework. As the city

[18:46] mentioned. I did want to start

[18:52] with just kind of a broad

[18:54] overview of how a zoning

[18:56] overlay differs from base

[18:58] zoning. So basically, property

[19:00] owners within this overlay area

[19:02] that is being proposed can

[19:04] choose to develop over with the

[19:06] overlay standards or existing

[19:09] zoning regulation standards. So

[19:11] as Clearwater City staff

[19:12] mentioned, it is optional.

[19:20] So

[19:20] just a quick location depiction.

[19:23] This subject area is located

[19:25] within the North Greenwood

[19:26] Community Redevelopment area,

[19:28] and it's immediately north of

[19:30] downtown Clearwater.

[19:38] So again,

[19:39] the proposed amendment

[19:41] functions primarily as a

[19:43] redevelopment framework rather

[19:45] than direct development

[19:47] approval.

[19:48] And more importantly,

[19:50] the overlay operates as an

[19:53] incentive based framework. So

[19:54] future redevelopment projects

[19:56] would still require compliance

[19:59] with the comprehensive Plan

[20:01] amendments, community

[20:02] Development C

[20:03] ode standards, and

[20:05] qualifying design criteria. So

[20:14] this amendment comes to us as a

[20:15] tier two amendment. It's

[20:17] reviewed as a tier two

[20:18] amendment because it rep

[20:19] resents

[20:19] a substantive modification to

[20:22] the planning framework

[20:23] governing the North Greenwood

[20:25] CRA. And although this proposal

[20:27] does not directly approve

[20:29] specific development projects,

[20:30] it does establish a new

[20:32] countywide redevelopment

[20:33] structure intended to

[20:35] facilita

[20:35] te mixed use

[20:36] redevelopment and additional

[20:37] density and intensity through

[20:39] qualifying redevelopment

[20:41] standards. So the visual

[20:46] depiction of this this

[20:47] amendment would consolidate

[20:48] multiple existing countywide

[20:50] plan map categories into

[20:51] that

[20:52] PRD category, which is the

[20:54] purple that you see there. So

[21:03] the proposed overlay does

[21:05] establish the bonus density and

[21:07] intensity standards that are

[21:08] tied to the qualifying

[21:10] redevelopment projects. So just

[21:12] kind of reiterating what the

[21:14] city showed you. They're

[21:16] proposing residential densities

[21:18] up to 40 units per acre and

[21:22] nonresidential intensity up to

[21:24] 1.05, and mixed use intensity

[21:26] up to 1.5. And I did want to

[21:30] show that, again, these

[21:31] standards do remain below the

[21:33] maximum thresholds for our

[21:35] countywide category for the

[21:37] planned redevelopment district.

[21:47] So consistency with our

[21:49] countywide rules. The proposal

[21:51] is supporting redevelopment

[21:53] within an existing urbanized

[21:54] area tha

[21:55] t's already served by

[21:57] infrastructure, transit and

[21:58] public facilities. It also

[22:00] would support several adopted

[22:02] countywide strategies related

[22:04] to infill redevelopment,

[22:06] multimodal transportation,

[22:08] housing opportunity, and

[22:09] coordinated reinvestment as

[22:11] well. Touching a little bit

[22:17] more on the transportation

[22:18] impact analysis that the city

[22:20] did provide to us. It did

[22:22] identify an increase in

[22:24] projected trips under the

[22:25] maximum theoretical build out

[22:27] analysis, which did trigger

[22:29] additional transportation

[22:30] review requirements that the

[22:31] city did complete and provide

[22:33] to us. So we considered this

[22:36] area. We considered the

[22:39] surrounding strong multimodal

[22:41] characteristics. So that

[22:42] includes the t

[22:43] ransit services

[22:43] that do exist, including the

[22:45] Pinellas Trail. The city also

[22:47] has adopted a mobility

[22:49] management system that we took

[22:50] into account. This provides

[22:52] mechanisms for transportation

[22:54] mitigation, as well as project

[22:57] level reviews that would be

[22:58] requir

[22:59] ed as development

[22:59] proposals come forward to the

[23:01] city. Portions of this area are

[23:11] located within the coastal High

[23:12] Hazard area, so we did

[23:15] have our

[23:15] additional evaluation criteria

[23:17] that had to be met. So our

[23:20] staff evaluated evacuation

[23:22] access, shelter capacity and

[23:24] the potential population

[23:26] increase associated with the

[23:28] proposed overlay, while taking

[23:30] into account tha

[23:30] t it is an

[23:31] optional overlay. It's not a by

[23:33] right increase. So graphically

[23:42] showing the shelter capacity

[23:45] analysis that we completed.

[23:47] So

[23:47] basically under theoretical

[23:49] maximum build out scenario. So

[23:50] this would be maximum build out

[23:53] occurred the projected shelter

[23:56] demand associated with the

[23:57] amendment does remain

[23:59] substantially below the

[24:01] available shelter capacity in

[24:02] the

[24:03] serving area. So based on

[24:05] the submitted analysis analysis,

[24:07] we found that there is

[24:10] sufficient shelter capacity

[24:12] within the surrounding area

[24:13] that would be able to

[24:15] accommodate the projected

[24:16] increase in population at the

[24:18] maximum bui

[24:18] ld out. Staff finds

[24:30] this amendment consistent with

[24:32] the purpose and requirements of

[24:33] the planned

[24:34] Redevelopment

[24:35] District category. In the

[24:36] countywide rules, the area does

[24:39] contain the interconnected mix

[24:40] of uses and urban development

[24:43] characteristics contemplated by

[24:44] the PRD category that we've

[24:46] established in the countywide

[24:47] rules.

[24:54] I did also just want to

[24:55] note that for Pinellas did

[24:57] receive some public comment,

[24:59] mainly in the forms of phone

[25:01] calls, emails, and written

[25:02] correspondence. Many of the

[25:05] conversations that I had

[25:06] were

[25:07] informational and focused on

[25:08] kind of understanding what the

[25:10] proposed overlay would do and

[25:11] what could potentially happen

[25:13] to their property, how it would

[25:15] affect individual properties,

[25:16] and the timeline for any future

[25:19] redevelopment as well. And then

[25:22] all of

[25:22] this public comment did

[25:23] result in Clearwater staff

[25:25] holding those additional public

[25:27] meetings that Marcy spoke about

[25:28] as well. So we'll just conclude

[25:38] here that we

[25:38] find the proposed

[25:39] amendment consistent with the

[25:42] countywide rules and our

[25:44] strategies. We also found that

[25:46] the transportation impact and

[25:48] coastal high hazard area

[25:50] analysis could be adequately

[25:52] addressed through existing

[25:54] regula

[25:54] tory and mitigation

[25:55] frameworks that the city

[25:56] provided. So based on the

[25:59] submitted materials and our

[26:01] review, Forward Pinellas staff

[26:03] would recommend approval. And

[26:07] that's all that I had, and I'm

[26:09] open for

[26:10] questions now at this

[26:11] time.

[26:12] Brian Scott: Thank you. Emma, any

[26:14] questions for Emma? Mike.

[26:19] Mike Eisner: So when this is done, do

[26:20] they also take into

[26:22] consideration whether the

[26:24] infrastructure can

[26:26] supply all

[26:27] of these extra locations, or is

[26:30] that too early in the process?

[26:33] Emma Wennick: So with Clearwater's review

[26:35] and as part of their CRA review,

[26:37] they do look at infrastructure

[26:39] capacity.

[26:40] Mike Eisner: Okay. The other question I

[26:42] had is when you put up the

[26:44] amount of shelter area in case

[26:49] of coastal high hazard, do they

[26:51] figure in other locations that

[26:54] also might be utilizing these

[26:58] locations? Because I know for a

[26:59] fact Tarpon Springs does not

[27:00] have any shelters. So they are

[27:03] counting on Palm Harbor and. ET

[27:05] cetera. ET cetera. So when when

[27:07] we see these results, this is

[27:09] just for Clearwater or is this

[27:11] for Clearwater? Plus whatever

[27:13] else

[27:14] could come in there in the

[27:15] event of a hurricane.

[27:17] Emma Wennick: So we did a, we drew

[27:20] basically a radius around the

[27:23] area of the North Greenwood

[27:25] location. And we took in all of

[27:26] those shelters into account.

[27:28] And we did a build

[27:30] out analysis

[27:32] based on the resources that we

[27:34] have, kind of that stated the

[27:37] numbers that potentially would

[27:38] go there if a hurricane event

[27:41] was to happen. And then we

[27:44] factored in the potential

[27:45] population

[27:46] increase of the

[27:48] numbers of the amendment. Does

[27:51] that answer your question?

[27:52] Mike Eisner: That's that's for the

[27:54] project, not for the other

[27:57] places that could come into

[27:59] shelter.

[27:59] Emma Wennick: So our numbers that we did

[28:01] the study with were based on

[28:03] the national hurricane.

[28:09] Evacuation information that's

[28:11] online. So we took those

[28:13] numbers and then we factored in,

[28:14] yes, North Greenwood's

[28:16] population increase.

[28:17] Mike Eisner: I rea

[28:17] lize there's no clear.

[28:19] Emma Wennick: Yeah, there's not an exact.

[28:21] It's a guesstimate.

[28:22] Mike Eisner: I know. Okay. Thank you.

[28:24] Emma Wennick: But as you can see, there's.

[28:26] It's a

[28:26] Lot plenty of space. Yes.

[28:28] Mike Eisner: That's where I'm going.

[28:31] Brian Scott: Oh, good. Mike.

[28:33] Okay.

[28:34] Mike Mannino: Thank you. I do have some

[28:36] comments to make. Not

[28:38] necessarily questions for staff.

[28:39] So I can hold that until the

[28:41] appropriate time. I don't want

[28:42] to take up any body else's time.

[28:44] If they had questions for staff.

[28:45] Brian Scott: I mean you can go now.

[28:47] That's fine. Yeah, we'll go for

[28:48] you then we'll go to

[28:50] Richie.

[28:50] Okay.

[28:51] Mike Mannino: Perfect. Thank you.

[28:52] Richie Floyd: I want to hear what you.

[28:53] Mike Mannino: Thank you. I first wanted to

[28:55] thank this board for supporting

[28:57] the continuation of this item.

[28:59] I think that was an important

[29:00] decision to make. What it did

[29:03] was it gave our staff has been

[29:05] said a couple times a little

[29:06] more time to go back and sit in

[29:09] our community and do some

[29:12] additional engagement sessions

[29:14] with our Citizens Advisory

[29:16] Committee, as well as some of

[29:17] the community members that did

[29:19] have some opposition or

[29:22] concerns regarding this

[29:24] optional overlay district. So I,

[29:26] I appreciate this board's

[29:30] continuation. I appreciate our

[29:31] staff's willingness to get out

[29:33] in the community again and make

[29:34] sure that engagement in those

[29:36] deeper discussions

[29:37] were had,

[29:38] and I appreciate our North

[29:40] Greenwood Redevelopment Area

[29:42] Citizens Advisory Board in

[29:43] those deeper discussions that

[29:45] they had. I think it's

[29:47] important in these processes

[29:49] that the the quality of the

[29:52] process is as important as the

[29:54] policy and ensuring that it's

[29:56] handled transparently, that

[29:58] it's handled with patience and

[30:00] that the process is handled

[30:02] respectfully. And I commend all

[30:04] staff members from Forward

[30:05] Pinellas City of Clearwater and

[30:07] our Citizens Advisory

[30:10] Community

[30:10] Board for for handling it that

[30:12] way. This one caught me a

[30:15] little bit off guard because

[30:18] our CRA in the Greenwood

[30:20] community was, as it was noted,

[30:22] was formed in 2023, and it

[30:25] wasn't

[30:25] driven by City of

[30:27] Clearwater staff. It wasn't

[30:29] driven by electeds. It was

[30:33] truly a community vision. And

[30:36] that community, our North

[30:37] Greenwood community, worked

[30:40] hard,

[30:41] worked hard for a number

[30:43] of years to ensure that it was.

[30:46] It was their vision and it was

[30:48] their direction and guidance

[30:50] for the future of our North

[30:52] Greenwood community, and that

[30:53] they had the adequate tools and

[30:56] not just

[30:57] for growth and

[30:58] development, but for

[31:00] protections. And a lot of these

[31:02] concerns that I see that have

[31:05] popped out since this overlay

[31:07] district was proposed, are a

[31:09] lot of the very concerns that

[31:11] are legit. I don't want

[31:13] to take

[31:13] away from the legitimacy of

[31:15] them. Those are fears and

[31:17] concerns when these things come

[31:18] about. But these are also fears

[31:20] and concerns that were

[31:22] discussed in deep lengths

[31:25] within our community for a

[31:27] number of years, which led up

[31:29] to the creation of that CRA in

[31:33] 2023. So I think some members

[31:34] of the community were kind of

[31:36] caught off guard, like, we went

[31:37] through this, we've been

[31:38] through this, and now we're

[31:39] circling back. So I commend all

[31:41] sides for for having the

[31:43] patience to kind of go back

[31:44] over it,

[31:45] walk back through it

[31:46] and get a better understanding

[31:48] for it. I think at the end of

[31:50] the day, there are some

[31:51] important things with it. It's

[31:53] optional. This isn't required.

[31:55] I think that's an important

[31:57] distinction. I think it's also

[31:59] important to acknowledge a

[32:00] couple

[32:00] of things. This does not

[32:02] force density increases in our

[32:03] North Greenwood community. This

[32:05] does not remove residential

[32:08] protections, which is very

[32:10] important in our community. And

[32:11] it doesn't override homestead

[32:14] rights. And I think those are

[32:15] all very important

[32:17] components

[32:18] to this amendment. I know my

[32:21] myself, I'm going to fall right

[32:23] in line with our city staff,

[32:24] with our North Greenwood

[32:26] Redevelopment Area Citizens

[32:27] Advisory Board, with our

[32:29] Clearwater Urban Leadership

[32:30] Coalition, as well as with

[32:32] Forward

[32:33] Pinellas. And I think

[32:33] this this amendment should be

[32:35] unanimously approved going

[32:37] forward because it is a big

[32:38] benefit to the future of our

[32:40] North Greenwood community. So

[32:42] thank you.

[32:44] Brian Scott: Thank you, Mike. Richie.

[32:46] Richie Floyd: Thank you. Thanks for that

[32:48] context.

[32:49] You know, whenever we

[32:50] have cases like this, you I

[32:55] always view my goal as like

[32:58] determining where legitimate

[33:00] concerns are, mitigating them,

[33:02] eliminating them if possible,

[33:04] and then weighing and then

[33:07] determining if it's something

[33:08] that could actually have a

[33:09] negative impact on people. And

[33:10] I think we've done a good job

[33:12] of that. My one question is,

[33:16] and I don't know, it might be

[33:17] more appropriate for the city,

[33:19] but

[33:21] is there information on.

[33:27] Homeownership rates in the area

[33:29] that could be provided? Because.

[33:34] If you own a home here like

[33:35] this is no

[33:36] problem at all. But

[33:37] if you're a renter and all of a

[33:39] sudden the property you live in

[33:41] is much more valuable as

[33:42] redeveloped, that can lead to

[33:44] displacement. And I haven't

[33:47] heard about mitigation for that

[33:49] aspect of it, so I didn't know

[33:51] if anyone could p

[33:52] rovide any

[33:53] context for that.

[33:56] Emma Wennick: I don't have those homeowner

[33:58] numbers for City of Clearwater

[34:00] offhand right now. I will the

[34:03] city to speak on that.

[34:09] Or we

[34:09] can get back to you on that.

[34:11] Richie Floyd: Yeah. I ask because, you

[34:13] know, we have communities in

[34:15] Saint Pete that want to see

[34:19] certain things get done and

[34:20] open themselves up for

[34:21] investment. But there's

[34:22] concerns because

[34:24] like a portion

[34:25] of the community might be 80%

[34:28] renters and, you know, rezoning

[34:29] that area would probably imply

[34:32] that a lot of those people

[34:33] would be displaced. And so and

[34:35] I'm not opposed to still

[34:37] opening areas up for

[34:38] redevelopment and doing

[34:39] overlays and stuff like that

[34:40] because of it. Just usually

[34:41] want to see that aspect of it

[34:43] mitigated as best as we can.

[34:45] And so that's why I was hoping

[34:46] to get context for that.

[34:52] >> Gotcha.

[35:00] Lauren Matzke: Good afternoon. Lauren

[35:01] Matzke, planning and

[35:02] development. I went old school

[35:04] and brought my book, so it took

[35:06] me a few minutes to flip, but I

[35:08] brought the CRA plan itself. So

[35:10] this would be the data and an

[35:12] analysis piece from around 2023.

[35:15] And at that time, approximately

[35:17] 35% of the residential

[35:19] properties are owner occupied,

[35:21] according to the homestead

[35:22] exemption data published by the

[35:24] PCPA when looking at only

[35:26] single family residential units,

[35:27] about

[35:29] 47% are owner occupied.

[35:31] This indicates that about 65%

[35:33] of all residential units and

[35:35] 53% of single family

[35:37] residential units in the CRA

[35:38] are renter occupied, so there

[35:40] is a higher percentage of

[35:41] renter occupied to homeowner

[35:44] oc

[35:44] cupied.

[35:44] Richie Floyd: And has any consideration

[35:46] been given to mitigate, like

[35:48] the effect of the large

[35:50] financial incentive, you might

[35:51] have to redevelop your property.

[35:53] Once an overlay would go

[35:55] through.

[35:56] Lauren Matzke: So some of the conversations

[35:58] that we've been having are,

[36:00] you

[36:00] know, the partnership, of

[36:01] course, with the CRA and the

[36:03] Citizens Advisory Committee in

[36:05] terms of their role, helping

[36:07] prioritize the strategies as

[36:09] more tax increment comes in. So

[36:12] I wouldn't want to speak to

[36:14] exactly what the CRA itself

[36:16] has

[36:16] in mind for that. But certainly

[36:18] with all of the dialog that's

[36:20] taken place over the last month

[36:22] or so, it's it's definitely

[36:24] become apparent that we need to

[36:25] be having those conversations.

[36:27] We just respectfully think, you

[36:29] know, that's a different piece

[36:30] to this, but still

[36:31] an important

[36:32] piece.

[36:33] Richie Floyd: Yeah, I agree that the it's

[36:35] definitely a good place, a good

[36:37] thing for the CRA to tackle.

[36:39] But, you know, you bring a plan

[36:40] forward that could potentially

[36:42] amplify displacement of people.

[36:44] Like it's going to be part of

[36:45] the conversation.

[36:47] Jesus Nino: Again,

[36:47] you know, CR

[36:48] Executive Director for the City

[36:50] of Clearwater. And I hear loud

[36:52] and clear, like South Saint

[36:53] Pete, you know, we do have

[36:54] programs in place where we're

[36:55] always trying to help

[36:56] individuals improve their

[36:58] existing homes, especially

[36:59] individuals that are

[37:01] homesteaded so they can stay

[37:02] there. We actually even

[37:03] put in

[37:04] incentives for individuals that

[37:05] have been there a long time to

[37:07] stay there. But we also work

[37:08] very closely with our housing

[37:10] division to for down payment

[37:12] assistance programs, because we

[37:13] do want to encourage

[37:14] individuals to buy their homes

[37:16] there. But we are very new CRA.

[37:18] So we're trying to we're tryin

[37:19] g

[37:19] to learn from places like South

[37:21] Saint Pete, East Tampa, other

[37:23] places around Florida, so we

[37:25] can help those individuals stay

[37:26] in those communities and

[37:27] actually become homeowners.

[37:29] Richie Floyd: Yeah, I appreciate that. You

[37:31] could learn some from us. You

[37:32] could learn some of what not to

[37:34] do from us as

[37:35] well, because I

[37:36] think we could have done a much

[37:37] better job. So I'll give you

[37:39] that caveat, but okay. All

[37:40] right. I'll leave it there for

[37:42] now. Thank you.

[37:43] Lauren Matzke: Sorry if I, if I may add, I

[37:45] won't find the right page, but

[37:47] I would like to mention a lot

[37:48] of what came up in the

[37:50] development of the CRA

[37:51] plan,

[37:51] which I was part of as well,

[37:53] was just the, especially the

[37:55] current opportunity being that

[37:56] there's so many vacant parcels.

[37:58] So when we talk about that, it

[38:00] not being built out to its

[38:02] maximum development potential,

[38:04] we are still hoping that those,

[38:06] you know, vacanci

[38:07] es that exist

[38:09] throughout the area will start

[38:11] to fill in because, you know,

[38:13] that's, that's also, you know,

[38:15] can be perceived as a detriment

[38:16] to the community itself. I'm

[38:18] trying to flip, I found it,

[38:21] sorry, I totally s

[38:23] hould start

[38:24] bringing my laptop. So

[38:27] according to the property

[38:28] Appraiser's data, there were

[38:30] 350 vacant parcels within the

[38:32] CRA comprising 4949.7 acres, or

[38:37] 8.2% of the CRA area.

[38:40] Admittedly, some of those are

[38:41] city owned. And so with these

[38:43] changes, that gives us the the

[38:45] ability to work with the

[38:47] partners that we have long

[38:48] established to, to help, you

[38:50] know, lead by example with the

[38:52] type of development that we

[38:54] know that the the community

[38:55] has

[38:55] expressed an interest in

[38:57] particularly specifically

[38:58] starting to reinvest in the

[39:01] Martin Luther King corridor,

[39:03] rebuilding the historic main

[39:04] street. That's been clearly

[39:06] expressed as important to the

[39:08] community.

[39:09] Richie Floyd: Yeah, that's totally

[39:11] fair.

[39:14] And yeah, we have the same

[39:15] thing going on with like vacant

[39:17] parcels, but some of that

[39:18] speculation as to how much more

[39:20] valuable their property might

[39:21] be in the future based off us

[39:22] doing things like that. So

[39:24] doing things like this. So but

[39:25] yeah, I mean, I think, you

[39:27] know,

[39:28] obviously I would say I'm

[39:29] supportive of us moving

[39:31] something like this forward. I

[39:32] just want to make sure that

[39:35] there's a plan for people who,

[39:38] you know, rent and, and maybe

[39:41] push out because of that. Y

[39:43] eah,

[39:43] yeah, just that there's

[39:45] mitigation, same as any other

[39:46] topic that we've talked about

[39:47] that we're mitigating as best

[39:49] as we can. Sure.

[39:50] Lauren Matzke: The oh, never mind. I lost

[39:53] my train of thought. It's okay.

[39:54] Sorry.

[39:55] Richie Floyd: I understand where you all

[39:56] are coming from. So I feel good.

[39:58] So I'm good.

[39:59] Lauren Matzke: Yeah. Sorry I apologize.

[40:00] What I wanted to say was

[40:02] also something that was

[40:03] important. Marcie had touched on

[40:04] it, you know, post-storm where

[40:06] we regrouped with our team and

[40:07] part of the reason for doing

[40:09] the overlay, but specifically

[40:11] an optional overlay was, was to

[40:13] help reduce, you know, the

[40:15] potential for that speculation

[40:17] the city worked with for

[40:19] Pinellas in 2015 and did a

[40:21] wholesale rezoning of our U.S.

[40:23] 19 corridor. Different

[40:26] everything about that. But we

[40:28] immediately saw that the

[40:30] speculation went up, the pri

[40:31] ces

[40:31] for those properties went up,

[40:32] and we were aware of that, you

[40:34] know, being something we did

[40:36] not want to encourage in this

[40:38] area. The other part that I

[40:40] would say is. We've talked

[40:44] about, you know, residential,

[40:45] commercial and mixed use,

[40:48] and

[40:48] it was touched on the

[40:49] importance for us to protect

[40:50] our our primarily residential

[40:53] areas. And the overlay also

[40:54] allows us to do that because at

[40:55] the at the zoning level, we'll

[40:57] be able to fine tune those

[40:59] boundaries with the community

[41:01] as part of our community

[41:02] outreach

[41:03] and have a mixed use

[41:04] area, a residential only area,

[41:06] and then the commercial area.

[41:10] And that way we can continue to

[41:13] to maintain, you know, this

[41:15] area is largely residential. So

[41:18] when we w

[41:18] orked through the game

[41:19] of zones with the community, it

[41:21] became very clear the scale of

[41:23] development that they want is

[41:24] more compatible with more of a

[41:26] single family home. In the

[41:27] planning world, we talk

[41:28] sometimes about gentle density

[41:30] or, you know, things that just

[41:31] fit in the missing middle type

[41:33] of housing. And we wanted to

[41:34] reaffirm

[41:34] that vision with them.

[41:35] And that's where we brought the,

[41:37] the, the models and help place

[41:39] buildings. And it was very

[41:40] clear that the desire was, you

[41:42] know, two, three units, maybe

[41:44] not. They reaffirmed that they

[41:46] do not want wholesale larger

[41:49] complexes despite whate

[41:50] ver kind

[41:51] of ownership, condominium or

[41:52] apartment rental, you know,

[41:53] within the community because it

[41:55] breaks apart the fabric that

[41:56] they have. So those are all the

[41:58] things that we're going to

[41:59] continue to work towards. So

[42:01] ideally, we will end up with

[42:02] that mix of rental and

[42:03] continued home ownership

[42:04] because home ownership is also

[42:06] important. But the

[42:07] displacement

[42:07] back to the very original part

[42:08] is, is, is in our, in our game

[42:12] plan to continue to work on.

[42:13] Okay. Thank you.

[42:17] Brian Scott: Mike. And then.

[42:18] Mike Mannino: Thank you, Chair. Thank you.

[42:19] Staff Council member does bring

[42:22] up great

[42:22] points. And I think we.

[42:24] This is probably the perfect

[42:26] time to acknowledge the fact

[42:27] that those very concerns are

[42:31] part of what drove that

[42:33] community vision. And they were

[42:36] seeing the location, t

[42:38] he

[42:39] geographic location of their

[42:40] community is just on the

[42:42] outskirts of downtown. They

[42:43] were seeing hundreds and

[42:45] hundreds of millions of dollars

[42:47] being dumped into developing

[42:49] downtown. And we know what

[42:51] developments ripple effect does.

[42:52] It's also just down the

[42:54] corridor attached to the water

[42:56] and a Marina. There's a

[42:58] beautiful Pinellas Trail system

[42:59] that we're all familiar with.

[43:00] It runs through the

[43:01] neighborhood as well as we're

[43:02] now as a county building, the

[43:04] new multimodal transportation

[43:06] facility. And I think what the

[43:07] community did see is they saw

[43:10] what that could do to their

[43:12] community if they didn't have

[43:13] those tools and mechanisms to,

[43:15] to try to protect their

[43:17] community, to protect

[43:18] homeowners, to protect renters,

[43:20] to protect historical buildings.

[43:22] In the history was it could

[43:24] have just all went away because

[43:26] of mass development and people

[43:29] moving in and buying up houses

[43:30] and things. That was part of

[43:32] why the CRA was created, so

[43:34] that that community and our

[43:36] community could then have a

[43:37] little more control and have

[43:39] those tools and mechanisms to

[43:40] do the very things that

[43:42] staff

[43:42] are discussing on down payment

[43:45] assistance, helping build more

[43:46] affordable housing projects,

[43:48] rental assistance programs to

[43:49] the tune of hundreds of

[43:51] thousands of dollars, rehab

[43:53] services to help fix up some of

[43:54] those existing homes. So you do

[43:56] bring up a great point. And I

[43:57] think that

[43:58] great point is, what

[44:00] brought us in this direction of

[44:01] the CRA was to have those

[44:03] protections in place. I know

[44:05] staff will do a good job of

[44:06] continuing to move forward and

[44:08] ensure some of those

[44:09] protections and mechanisms are

[44:10] in place. But great, great

[44:11] point. Thank you for sharing

[44:12] that.

[44:16] Brian Scott: Thanks, Mike.

[44:16] Mike Eisner: Thank you, Chair. Councilman,

[44:20] that was a great point. You

[44:21] jogged my memory. That's what I

[44:22] love when we discuss these

[44:24] things. And maybe, Mike, you're

[44:25] the one that can answer this

[44:27] question. When we do these tow

[44:30] n

[44:30] hall meetings and you get all

[44:31] this information that you've

[44:32] been explaining to us, which is

[44:34] a wealth of information, do you

[44:35] do also check to make sure that

[44:38] you're getting feedback from

[44:40] the renters as well as the

[44:44] owners? Because I k

[44:46] now that we

[44:46] have a CRA that's that's fairly

[44:49] new in a new area. And the one

[44:52] thing that always scares me

[44:53] with that is who's giving me

[44:55] the information in order to

[44:57] compile the results. And so if

[45:01] you're getting it all from

[45:02] people that are in the

[45:04] investment or owners, I don't

[45:06] know, the question, I guess I

[45:08] got to ask is, are the renters

[45:10] as enthused as the owners?

[45:14] Mike Mannino: What is your measuring stick?

[45:16] That's a that's a

[45:18] difficult

[45:18] question, but it is a good

[45:20] question. And I think the

[45:22] Citizens Advisory Committee

[45:24] does a great job of spreading

[45:25] the word and via social media,

[45:27] via city staff newsletters and

[45:29] communications on calendars. At

[45:31] the end of the day, you can't

[45:33] force e

[45:33] ngagement and

[45:35] participation. But I do know

[45:36] that the web that they cast and

[45:38] that net that they cast to

[45:41] incorporate all of the

[45:42] community is large, and they do

[45:44] grab all of it. At the end of

[45:46] the day. Do you sit down at the

[45:48] end and question everybody that

[45:49] comes in and out? Are you a

[45:51] renter? Are you owner? What

[45:52] that is, that's a tough process

[45:54] to do in that. But I do know

[45:56] the attempt is there, the

[45:57] interest is there, and the

[46:00] community behind me could

[46:01] probably speak more to what

[46:03] that demographic makeup is.

[46:05] That does voice their opinions,

[46:07] but I can promise that they are

[46:09] invited to the table. The doors

[46:11] are open to all segments of the

[46:13] community, and not just those

[46:14] investors or developers or

[46:16] staff.

[46:17] Mike Eisner: So you want me to ask for a

[46:19] raise of hands behind you?

[46:21] Who's. No,

[46:21] I'm just kidding.

[46:22] But you know, I understand as I

[46:24] go to a lot of these meetings

[46:26] myself, and it's always the

[46:27] squeaky wheel gets the oil, and

[46:29] it's the people that have a

[46:30] vested interest in the income,

[46:32] you know, producing. But that's

[46:34] why Councilman Floyd's comment

[46:37] jogged my memory. When and my

[46:40] question when I hear that, I

[46:42] think I heard you say 65% was

[46:44] it that is renters. That's a

[46:47] lot of renters in that area and

[46:51] they could easily be displaced.

[46:53] I'm

[46:53] not against this, this CRA

[46:57] it's just I would like to not

[46:59] see, you know, a vast removal

[47:01] of people because everything

[47:03] has gone out of their their

[47:06] means.

[47:06] Mike Mannino: Those are great

[47:08] points. I

[47:09] think we do have to

[47:10] recognize that the community we

[47:12] are talking about is the most

[47:16] poverty community in all of

[47:18] Pinellas County, and we don't

[47:20] say that lightly. Something has

[47:23] to be done as a

[47:25] community, and

[47:27] the community has stepped up,

[47:29] created the vision for their

[47:30] community, engaged the

[47:32] community immensely for years.

[47:33] And this is the direction that

[47:35] we're slowly moving as a

[47:37] community to ensure that we

[47:38] don't continue to share that

[47:40] same fact

[47:41] that our North

[47:42] Greenwood community is the most

[47:43] impoverished community in

[47:44] Pinellas County, and that takes

[47:46] all of us. It doesn't just take

[47:47] city officials, it doesn't just

[47:49] take North Greenwood community

[47:51] members. I would ask all of us

[47:53] to take an interest in it. And

[47:55] if we have such a deep concern

[47:56] as we do in

[47:57] here, step up and

[47:59] help as community leaders and

[48:00] let's make a difference in our

[48:01] Pinellas County and Clearwater

[48:03] region to ensure that this

[48:04] neighborhood isn't the most

[48:06] impoverished in all of Pinellas

[48:07] County.

[48:12] Brian Scott: Okay, any other

[48:13] questions?

[48:14] Thoughts? No. Okay, I got a

[48:18] couple. Are there any height

[48:22] restrictions in this overlay or

[48:23] in the current zoning?

[48:26] Emma Wennick: So for my review, this is at

[48:28] the county wide

[48:29] level, which is

[48:30] what we are voting on for today.

[48:32] So that's not something that we

[48:35] consider when we do our

[48:36] countywide review. But if you

[48:37] want to speak on the height

[48:39] more than welcome to for

[48:41] Clearwater City staff.

[48:44] Lauren Matzke: Hi, Lauren.

[48:45] Matzke again,

[48:46] that is that is the work that

[48:48] we're going to that we've we've

[48:50] started on the staff level

[48:52] translating the things that we

[48:53] heard in those earlier

[48:54] community meetings into the

[48:56] Community Development Code, our

[48:57] land development regulations.

[49:00] That will be the work

[49:01] that

[49:01] we're committed to doing in the

[49:03] fall with the community. So

[49:05] we'll write something and we'll

[49:06] get their feedback on it. But

[49:08] truly recognizing that

[49:10] residential properties, if the

[49:12] desire remains, the vision

[49:13] remains to have any new

[49:15] development consistent with the

[49:16] pattern

[49:17] that's there. Heights

[49:18] would need to be limited in

[49:19] those areas, whereas 3 to 4

[49:23] stories could be potentially

[49:25] compatible, of course, on a

[49:26] main street. So like Martin

[49:28] Luther King, transitions are

[49:29] always important to. And those

[49:31] are things that we've enabl

[49:33] ed

[49:33] elsewhere in in our special

[49:35] planning districts in the city

[49:36] of Clearwater.

[49:38] Brian Scott: Okay. I think I know the

[49:40] answer to this next question

[49:41] here, but are any of these

[49:42] properties, could any of these

[49:44] be properties be subject to

[49:45] live local?

[49:48] Lauren Matzke: Well,

[49:49] currently, anything

[49:50] that's zoned commercial or in

[49:51] our commercial general district

[49:53] would be would be available for

[49:55] live local project.

[49:56] Brian Scott: So that's already within the

[49:58] CRA. Some of those.

[49:59] Lauren Matzke: Yes.

[50:00] That's regardless of

[50:01] location in Clearwater.

[50:02] Brian Scott: Okay. So what we're

[50:04] being

[50:05] asked to do here today is to,

[50:06] is to not we're not approving

[50:08] any specific developments.

[50:09] We're just, it's just an

[50:10] overlay. So for the benefit of

[50:14] members of the public that are

[50:15] here now, or maybe watching

[50:17] when a project is being

[50:21] approved, okay, developer comes

[50:22] through a homeowner and says, I

[50:23] want to, I want to do this.

[50:25] Okay, walk through that step.

[50:26] What does that process look

[50:28] like? And what is that

[50:29] community input look like at

[50:30] that level?

[50:32] Emma Wennick: So first, I'll just

[50:33] reiterate. Yes. So this is what

[50:35] the recommendation

[50:36] for the

[50:37] countywide plan map amendment.

[50:39] So this is changing the

[50:42] countywide plan map from all

[50:43] the existing categories to the

[50:45] PRD classification, which

[50:46] allows City of Clearwater to be

[50:48] able to utilize their optional

[50:51] overlay.

[50:53] So in terms of when a

[50:55] building comes in, that would

[50:56] go to the city of Clearwater in

[50:59] terms of a development proposal,

[51:01] and they would review it. And

[51:03] it's my understanding that they

[51:04] have incentive based

[51:06] development with this overlay.

[51:07] So if they're opting in,

[51:08] there

[51:09] are certain criteria that the

[51:11] developer would have to meet in

[51:13] order to be able to utilize the

[51:17] bonus of the overlay, if that

[51:20] answers your question.

[51:21] Brian Scott: So it would be approved by

[51:22] the city of Clearwater. Yes.

[51:24] City Cou

[51:24] ncil.

[51:24] Emma Wennick: Yes.

[51:25] Brian Scott: Got it. All right. Any other

[51:28] thoughts or questions before we

[51:29] move to public comment? No.

[51:34] Okay. Thank you very much.

[51:35] Appreciate it.

[51:36] Emma Wennick: Thank you.

[51:38] Brian Scott: Okay with that, Tina, do

[51:40] we

[51:40] have any proponents, opponents

[51:43] or other citizens to be heard

[51:45] on this item?

[51:46] Tina Jablon: Yes, chair. We do. We have

[51:47] three proponents wishing to

[51:49] speak and one opponent today.

[51:50] And the first proponent that we

[51:52] will call on is Gloria Campbell.

[51:53] Okay, miss Campbell, if you

[51:54] could go to the podium, you

[51:56] have

[51:56] three minutes.

[52:04] Gloria Campbell: Good afternoon. Good

[52:05] afternoon. My name is Gloria

[52:07] Campbell. I am the executive

[52:08] director of the Clearwater

[52:09] Urban Leadership Coalition. We

[52:12] are the

[52:12] organization that

[52:13] Councilman Mannino talked about

[52:15] that led the grassroots effort,

[52:17] community, grassroots effort to

[52:20] create the North Greenwood CRA,

[52:21] the only CRA created in the

[52:24] county from a grassroots effort.

[52:26] We reached out and we

[52:28] had we

[52:28] have different organizations,

[52:30] everything from churches to

[52:32] civic organizations to people

[52:35] who are property owners,

[52:37] residents, renters were part of

[52:39] this effort. Councilman Mannino

[52:42] and Councilman Floyd actually

[52:44] told my

[52:44] story already.

[52:47] Councilman Floyd, I was part of

[52:49] the Southside CRA group when

[52:52] that started. And one of the

[52:53] things is we moved to North

[52:56] Greenwood that I said was we

[52:57] were going to try to correct

[52:59] some of the t

[53:00] hings that didn't

[53:00] go right in the South Side. And

[53:02] so that was one of our primary

[53:04] goals. Some of those things

[53:06] included being sure to, first

[53:08] of all, make sure that the

[53:09] community was engaged at every

[53:11] level. We literally walked the

[53:14] streets of North Greenwood,

[53:15] handing

[53:16] out cards to residents,

[53:18] whether they were renters,

[53:19] whether they owned property,

[53:21] whatever, and said, this is

[53:23] what's coming. This is what

[53:25] hold on to your property if

[53:26] you're a property owner. We

[53:28] also contacted people who owned

[53:30] property in the area

[53:32] who were

[53:33] renting their property to give

[53:35] them an idea of what was coming,

[53:37] because we saw that happen in

[53:38] the South Side. By the time

[53:40] people recognized what was

[53:41] happening. The property was

[53:43] gone. So we wanted to protect

[53:44] that. This overlay was a result

[53:47] of another

[53:48] tool that we talked

[53:49] about that we could use to,

[53:51] number one, protect and build

[53:53] and make sure that the

[53:54] community was engaged. We we

[53:57] were part of the selection

[53:59] process for the consultants.

[54:00] That actually helped us to

[54:03] develop the goals

[54:04] for the

[54:04] overlay. The criteria was

[54:07] someone who, number one, looked

[54:09] like us, number two, who had

[54:10] worked in an environment where

[54:12] this was the case and knew how

[54:14] to help the community be

[54:16] sustainable. All of those were

[54:17] met by the city. As menti

[54:19] oned,

[54:20] we did this two years ago. This

[54:22] would have already been done,

[54:24] we thought. But then who could

[54:26] have predicted two hurricanes

[54:27] back to back? We are here today

[54:29] in support of this overlay. We

[54:32] recognize that there are

[54:33] members of the community that

[54:34] are concerned, and they should

[54:35] be,

[54:36] and I welcome them because

[54:38] one of the things we've had to

[54:39] do and that we struggle with is

[54:41] getting all segments, everybody

[54:43] I often say to people when they

[54:45] say, oh, I didn't know that.

[54:46] The first question is, where do

[54:48] you get your information?

[54:49] Because obviously we're not

[54:51] putting it where you need to

[54:53] get it. And so that becomes

[54:54] then a gathering point for us.

[54:57] So we have engaged at all

[54:59] levels. We everyone is invited,

[55:01] as I often say, to have a seat

[55:03] at the table. We're about

[55:05] community and we're about

[55:06] making sure the c

[55:07] ommunity wins.

[55:09] Brian Scott: Thank you. Thank you, Gloria.

[55:12] Okay, next.

[55:13] Tina Jablon: Next we have Kathleen

[55:15] Beckman, Miss Beckman.

[55:16] Brian Scott: Okay.

[55:22] Tina Jablon: And you'll likewise have

[55:23] e minutes, ma'am. Thank you.

[55:23] thre

[55:27] Brian Scott: Good afternoon.

[55:28] Kathleen Beckman: Good afternoon. I'm Kathleen

[55:29] Beckman, former Clearwater City

[55:30] Council member. I served on the

[55:32] council proudly for four years

[55:33] from 2020 to 2024. And first,

[55:36] I'd like to say thank you,

[55:38] Council member Mannino. You just

[55:39] nailed it. As far as the

[55:41] history, the engagement, and

[55:43] the work that's been done, I

[55:45] was involved, I've been

[55:46] involved with this CRA work for

[55:48] the last seven years, proudly

[55:50] advocated for ARPA funds to

[55:53] jump start the work and

[55:54] I'm

[55:55] telling you, it has been

[55:56] work. It has been a labor of

[55:58] love for members of the

[56:00] community. I'm a member of the

[56:01] Clearwater Urban Leadership

[56:03] Coalition as well, which

[56:05] continues to be leaders in the

[56:06] community. The the

[56:09] intentionality in reaching to

[56:11] the

[56:11] community. And, and there

[56:12] wasn't, you know, we did reach

[56:14] out, but it was truly

[56:16] grassroots. So it was

[56:17] collaborative from, from the

[56:18] very beginning, the work that

[56:20] we've done with community

[56:21] meetings and, and allocating

[56:24] those ARPA funds. And so I

[56:26] would

[56:27] say, you know, strongly

[56:29] in favor of approving this

[56:31] overlay, it meets the goals of

[56:33] that plan. That plan is a

[56:34] phenomenal plan. The North

[56:36] Greenwood CRA plan, it's about

[56:38] this thick. It's probably, I

[56:39] don't know, close to 200 pages.

[56:41] But when I was approving that

[56:43] plan and going through it, we

[56:45] all went through it with a fine

[56:46] tooth comb, and it comes

[56:49] directly from the community.

[56:51] And it is it is the result of

[56:53] those meetings. It is the

[56:54] result of educating,

[56:56] collaborating, understanding,

[56:57] and it is a phenomenal pla

[56:59] n.

[56:59] And this overlay honors that

[57:01] plan and works towards those

[57:03] goals that were that were

[57:05] developed over a number of

[57:06] years from passionate, informed

[57:09] engagement. So thank you very

[57:11] much.

[57:12] Brian Scott: Thank you.

[57:16] Tina Jablon: Marilyn Turman. Good

[57:23] afternoon, Ms. Turman. You'll

[57:24] have three minutes to.

[57:30] Brian Scott: Good afternoon.

[57:31] Marilyn Turman: Good afternoon. Thank you

[57:34] all for allowing me a moment to

[57:37] speak. My name is Marilyn

[57:38] Turman. I am the vice chair of

[57:40] the Citizens North Greenwood

[57:42] Citizens Advisory Committee. I

[57:44] have had the

[57:47] pleasure of being

[57:48] a part of the Clearwater Urban

[57:49] Leadership Coalition since its

[57:52] inception. And I can tell you,

[57:55] when we got received word, of

[57:58] course, we can visually see the

[58:00] things that were not happening

[58:01] in North Greenwood, but

[58:03] understanding that it was the

[58:04] highest concentration of

[58:05] poverty in the entire county,

[58:07] it compelled the members of

[58:09] this community to come together

[58:12] and first educate our community

[58:15] on what a CRA was and how it

[58:17] would benefit us. So

[58:19] this labor

[58:20] of love, and the reason that I

[58:21] call it a labor of love is

[58:23] because since September 19th of

[58:26] 2019, we have had meetings

[58:28] every fourth Tuesday at 630. I

[58:31] have missed one meeting, and

[58:33] that was because I was at a

[58:35] candidate forum. So that being

[58:36] said, I am so committed to this

[58:39] work. I love my community. I

[58:42] want to see things be better in

[58:44] my community, and I know the

[58:45] hard work that we have put into

[58:47] this. There's a saying that

[58:49] says you can always make more

[58:50] mo

[58:50] ney, but you can never get

[58:52] your time back. And the time

[58:53] that we have put into this,

[58:55] Miss Gloria talked about,

[58:57] everybody had an opportunity to

[58:59] come to the table. And that

[59:01] meant from the person in the

[59:02] pulpit to the person on the

[59:04] corner, everybody, everybody

[59:06] had an

[59:07] opportunity to come to

[59:08] the table and be a part of this

[59:10] effort to revitalize our

[59:12] community and make it a

[59:13] community that we were all

[59:14] proud of. What I'm happy to

[59:17] know about the overlay plan is

[59:18] that it does give us the

[59:20] options. It gives us the

[59:21] options to be able to do t

[59:22] hings,

[59:23] to expand and grow beyond what

[59:24] we currently have. It's, it's,

[59:27] it's one thing to be a consumer.

[59:29] It's another thing to own some

[59:30] stuff. And I don't know how

[59:33] much you all know about the

[59:34] upcoming Container Village

[59:36] project called The Village at

[59:37] the Grove. We are so

[59:39] very, very,

[59:40] very excited about the

[59:42] opportunities and the

[59:43] businesses that will be housed

[59:44] there. And this overlay plan

[59:46] will give us the opportunity to

[59:49] do some things that we might

[59:50] not be able to do otherwise.

[59:51] And the last comment I want to

[59:53] make is about the

[59:54] housing. When

[59:55] I think about we all know

[59:56] there's been a housing crisis,

[59:58] and when I think about this

[59:59] overlay plan and the ability to

[1:00:03] have accessory dwelling units

[1:00:04] and those things in place, it's

[1:00:06] kind of like that village

[1:00:08] mentality in my mind where w

[1:00:10] I think about the fact that

[1:00:10] hen

[1:00:12] some family members have have

[1:00:14] had to move to distant places,

[1:00:16] and if we have the ability to

[1:00:18] come together and provide

[1:00:21] housing opportunities in our

[1:00:24] community, because we can

[1:00:25] expand and do

[1:00:26] ADUs or have

[1:00:30] duplexes, I think Triplexes is

[1:00:31] another middle housing, I think

[1:00:32] is the correct term for that,

[1:00:34] and my time is up. But thank

[1:00:36] you. I am in full support of

[1:00:37] this. Thank you very much.

[1:00:40] Thank you.

[1:00:40] Brian Scott: Thank you.

[1:00:48] Any other public

[1:00:49] comment?

[1:00:50] Tina Jablon: That's all the proponents.

[1:00:51] We do have one opponent who

[1:00:52] wishes to wishes to speak today.

[1:00:54] And that's Miss Katrina George.

[1:00:56] Brian Scott: Okay. Please come up.

[1:01:15] Good

[1:01:16] afternoon.

[1:01:17] Katrina George: Good afternoon. My name is

[1:01:18] Katrina George. I live at 1276

[1:01:21] Eldridge Street. I am within

[1:01:23] the CRA. The CRA jurisdiction.

[1:01:29] I want to address

[1:01:30] something

[1:01:31] stated stated publicly about

[1:01:32] this overlay. The city

[1:01:34] representatives have described

[1:01:36] participation in this overlay

[1:01:37] as voluntary, saying no

[1:01:39] homeowner is required to change

[1:01:41] their zoning. But the city's

[1:01:43] own ordinance language directs

[1:01:44] the land use

[1:01:46] designation itself.

[1:01:47] The actual factual land use map

[1:01:49] changes. Change applies to

[1:01:51] every parcel in the amended

[1:01:54] area, regardless of whether any

[1:01:56] owner uses the bonus provision.

[1:01:58] I'm asking the city to clarify

[1:02:00] in writing

[1:02:02] whether homeowners

[1:02:03] may decline the designation

[1:02:05] itself, separate from declining

[1:02:07] the bonus program. I also want

[1:02:12] to raise a specific question.

[1:02:15] Factual problem with the record

[1:02:17] you have today. The

[1:02:18] notice for

[1:02:19] case CW2 thousand 608 states

[1:02:21] that the amendment affects

[1:02:23] approximately 491.5 acres, but

[1:02:26] the city's own ordinance

[1:02:28] exhibits this the same

[1:02:29] amendment that shows two

[1:02:30] different acreages figures

[1:02:34] 674.2 acres in. In the one

[1:02:37] version and 627.8 acres in

[1:02:41] another. These figures don't

[1:02:43] match each other, and none of

[1:02:45] them match what's before the

[1:02:48] board. I'm asking that this be

[1:02:50] resolved before any

[1:02:51] recommendation is made. There

[1:02:53] is a related question about the

[1:02:55] industrial limit category. City

[1:02:58] Council minutes from March 30th

[1:02:59] show off shows that staff

[1:03:02] requested moving industrial

[1:03:04] limits parcels from the overlay.

[1:03:06] But the notice before Pinellas

[1:03:07] for today still includes

[1:03:10] employment, the countywide

[1:03:11] equivalent of land use limited.

[1:03:13] I'm asking which version is

[1:03:15] actually controlling beyond the

[1:03:17] notice today, my deeper concern

[1:03:19] is protecting the people who

[1:03:21] already

[1:03:22] live and work in North

[1:03:23] Greenwood. I'm asking for two

[1:03:25] specific things, both grounded

[1:03:26] in existing Florida law, not

[1:03:29] new authority. First, that the

[1:03:31] defined percentage of the North

[1:03:33] Greenwood CRA Trust Fund, the

[1:03:35] tax increment revenue. Florida

[1:03:38] Statute 163387 already allows

[1:03:41] to be used for affordable

[1:03:45] housing. Be dedicated to

[1:03:47] property tax assistance fund

[1:03:49] for the legacy owners facing

[1:03:51] rising assessments because of

[1:03:53] this

[1:03:53] overlay. Second, that the

[1:03:55] city adopts a temporary

[1:03:57] exemption of the increased

[1:03:59] amendment value for. Of home

[1:04:01] improvements for property

[1:04:02] owners who held exemption home

[1:04:04] status exemption before this

[1:04:06] overlay, modeled on the Florida

[1:04:08] existing Historic Preservation

[1:04:10] tax exemption under section one,

[1:04:14] 96.1997 and 196.111998, one of

[1:04:19] the. Thank you.

[1:04:23] Brian Scott: Mr. George. You can finish

[1:04:24] if you'd like.

[1:04:26] Katrina George: I'm sorry.

[1:04:27] Brian Scott: You can finish if you like.

[1:04:29] Katrina George: I'll close today. One of the

[1:04:32] issues that I want to also

[1:04:33] bring up is the fact that you

[1:04:35] all are stating that the city

[1:04:37] is stating that proper notice

[1:04:38] was provided to us as residents.

[1:04:41] That's not

[1:04:41] totally correct. One

[1:04:43] of the I didn't I have 104

[1:04:47] signatures that I've submitted

[1:04:48] to the board from residents of

[1:04:50] North Greenwood with no notices

[1:04:52] of these movements for the

[1:04:55] rezoning, what we were

[1:04:56] receiving, or what

[1:04:57] we actually

[1:04:58] saw within the community is

[1:05:00] actually notices of a container

[1:05:02] mall. That's the information

[1:05:04] that we saw or I was provided.

[1:05:06] Nobody knocked on my door. I

[1:05:08] didn't receive a card from the

[1:05:12] June 8th meeti

[1:05:13] ng. I didn't

[1:05:14] receive a notice. And from what

[1:05:16] I've spoken with Lauren, she

[1:05:18] stated that some of the

[1:05:20] churches weren't even notified.

[1:05:22] So again, it's proper notice

[1:05:25] and some of the timings of

[1:05:27] these meetings. Yesterday's

[1:05:28] meeting was at 530.

[1:05:29] Who can get

[1:05:30] to a 530 meeting leaving from

[1:05:31] work? These things aren't being,

[1:05:35] you know, and there are no real

[1:05:38] safeguards right now in this

[1:05:39] plan for our community. Again,

[1:05:42] as Representative Floyd stated,

[1:05:44] for the renters

[1:05:45] in the area,

[1:05:46] we're concerned about

[1:05:48] displacement. We saw this with

[1:05:49] the North Greenwood Apartments.

[1:05:51] They were kicked. All of the

[1:05:52] residents were kicked out of

[1:05:54] North Greenwood stating that

[1:05:55] they were upgrading the area.

[1:05:57] All of a sudden, 20% were able

[1:06:00] to be

[1:06:01] able to move back in.

[1:06:03] Those neighbors were never

[1:06:04] compensated, nor were they

[1:06:07] given opportunity to move back.

[1:06:10] So these are the things that we

[1:06:12] want. We want to make sure that

[1:06:15] we're not going to experience

[1:06:17] mo

[1:06:17] ving forward. My thing is,

[1:06:18] I'm not against forward

[1:06:21] movement. I'm against the way

[1:06:22] that it's set up where there's

[1:06:24] no protections.

[1:06:25] Brian Scott: Thank you. Tina. Any further

[1:06:30] citizens to be heard?

[1:06:31] Tina Jablon: No. Chair, there's no

[1:06:32] further.

[1:06:33] Brian Scott: Okay. All right. Hearing no

[1:06:35] more. We will close the public

[1:06:37] hearing. Do we have any other

[1:06:39] questions? Q & A from the

[1:06:40] board. Okay. Hearing none. What,

[1:06:46] Richie, did you have?

[1:06:47] Richie Floyd: I'll just say

[1:06:49] I want I

[1:06:50] wanted to get a full picture

[1:06:51] from the community feedback as

[1:06:53] well. I see no reason for us

[1:06:57] not to move it forward, but

[1:07:00] because we're just here like

[1:07:02] deciding on land use things.

[1:07:05] But yeah, definitely heard from

[1:07:06] the city that some of my

[1:07:09] concerns will be addressed

[1:07:11] going forward. And so I'll just

[1:07:12] rely on y'all to make

[1:07:16] considerations for some of the

[1:07:17] displacement concerns that are

[1:07:18] brought up. So and I see

[1:07:21] you

[1:07:21] nodding in agreement, so I'll

[1:07:22] leave it there.

[1:07:23] Brian Scott: Okay. Thank you. Anybody

[1:07:26] else? Okay. What is the will of

[1:07:29] the board.

[1:07:30] Maureen Freaney: Move approval.

[1:07:31] Chris Scherer: Second.

[1:07:32] Brian Scott: We have a motion from Mayor

[1:07:34] Moe and a second from

[1:07:35] Commissioner Scherer. A

[1:07:36] ny further

[1:07:37] discussion? All in favor?

[1:07:40] All: Aye.

[1:07:40] Brian Scott: Any opposed? Okay. Motion

[1:07:43] carries unanimously. Thank you

[1:07:44] very much. Okay. Now we will

[1:07:47] move. Yes.

[1:07:49] Maureen Freaney: Mr. Chair, I just want to.

[1:07:51] Brian Scott: Yes.

[1:07:51] Maureen Freaney: I'm headed to the

[1:07:52] Florida

[1:07:53] League of Mayors. I just made

[1:07:54] sure we had a quorum. So excuse

[1:07:56] me for coming in and leaving,

[1:07:57] so.

[1:07:58] Brian Scott: All right, we'll let you off

[1:07:59] the hook this time. All right.

[1:08:01] Whit Blanton: You might have to chair the

[1:08:03] next meeting.

[1:08:06] Brian Scott: All right, now we'll move on

[1:08:08] to

[1:08:08] item five. A 2KCW26-11. City

[1:08:12] of Clearwater. Does any member

[1:08:14] of the board like to would like

[1:08:16] to see a presentation on this

[1:08:18] particular one here? No. Okay.

[1:08:21] Hearing none.

[1:08:26] Do we have any

[1:08:27] questions?

[1:08:27] Thoughts ask if there's any

[1:08:29] okay.

[1:08:29] Any Tina, do we have any

[1:08:30] members of the public that

[1:08:32] would like to speak on this

[1:08:33] item?

[1:08:34] Tina Jablon: No, chair, we do not.

[1:08:35] Brian Scott: Okay. All right. Hearing

[1:08:37] none on that, then we will

[1:08:39] close this particula

[1:08:40] r public

[1:08:41] hearing. And what is the will

[1:08:43] of the board.

[1:08:44] Ricky Butler: Move approval.

[1:08:45] Brian Scott: Okay. Motion from Ricky,

[1:08:47] second from Tom. Okay. Any

[1:08:51] further discussion? Hearing

[1:08:53] none. All in favor?

[1:08:55] All: Aye.

[1:08:55] Brian Scott: Any opposed?

[1:08:56] Okay. Motion

[1:08:57] carries unanimously. Thank you,

[1:08:58] everybody, for that. Okay. I

[1:09:03] would like to just so we don't

[1:09:06] lose any other members here in

[1:09:08] case anybody has to leave early.

[1:09:09] I would like to move 6E

[1:09:12] up

[1:09:14] first, which is our last

[1:09:16] remaining action item, which is

[1:09:18] our fiscal year 27 PPC budget

[1:09:20] and millage rate recommendation.

[1:09:24] So Rodney, come on up.

[1:09:31] Rodney Chatman: Good afternoon. Good

[1:09:36] afternoon. Rodney Chatman

[1:09:37] Division Manager and. I guess

[1:09:43] I'll say

[1:09:44] I'm excited to present

[1:09:46] the FY 27 budget to you all. As

[1:09:50] you hear from me each year. I

[1:09:52] you know, I remind you all that

[1:09:53] I volunteered for this. And as

[1:09:56] a matter of fact.

[1:09:57] Brian Scott: That'll teach you.

[1:09:58] Whit Blanton: Yeah, that's not completely

[1:09:59] accurate.

[1:10:00] Rodney Chatman: This is 2017. And I always

[1:10:01] tell you all that it's complex.

[1:10:04] It's never easy. The goalposts

[1:10:05] always move. And definitely

[1:10:08] that is the case for FY 27. So

[1:10:11] I'll get right to it. The

[1:10:13] budget request that we're

[1:10:15] submitting to you

[1:10:16] all for

[1:10:17] recommendation to the county

[1:10:18] commission is about $8 million.

[1:10:21] What you see here is a

[1:10:24] breakdown of the. The revenue

[1:10:30] categories for the submittal,

[1:10:32] beginning with the beginning

[1:10:33] fund balance. In other words,

[1:10:35] that's the amount that we start

[1:10:36] with. Given that that sort of

[1:10:40] carry over from the previous

[1:10:42] budget year, we have about 2.3

[1:10:45] million in property taxes.

[1:10:49] And

[1:10:50] that's based on a projection

[1:10:52] from the property appraiser

[1:10:53] that the increase will be about

[1:10:58] 4.3% for FY 27. We get another

[1:11:04] 1.4 million in the revenue

[1:11:06] column for the MPO. Again, the

[1:11:09] Planning Council covers those

[1:11:12] costs for the MPO and then gets

[1:11:15] reimbursed. So that's the money

[1:11:16] that the Planning Council gets

[1:11:17] from the MPO. And then there's

[1:11:19] two

[1:11:20] supplementary line items on

[1:11:21] the revenue side that are very

[1:11:23] small in nature. It's just a

[1:11:25] projection from us as to what

[1:11:26] we can expect from our local

[1:11:29] assistance that we provide to

[1:11:29] the cities. And then just a

[1:11:31] small amount of interest we get

[1:11:33] from an interest bearing

[1:11:35] account

[1:11:37] . On the expense side,

[1:11:39] these are the six primary

[1:11:41] expense categories, about 2.5

[1:11:44] million in salaries and

[1:11:45] benefits, another 1.4 million

[1:11:47] in our operating expenses. And

[1:11:49] that includes everything from

[1:11:50] rent to

[1:11:52] our audit, our

[1:11:53] accounting, our

[1:11:54] intergovernmental service

[1:11:55] charges from Pinellas County

[1:11:56] and so on. We also pay the

[1:12:00] property appraiser and tax

[1:12:01] collector commissions for the

[1:12:04] tax revenue they collect on our

[1:12:05] behalf. So you see that they're

[1:12:07] about

[1:12:08] $67,000. And then just

[1:12:10] like last year, we have divided

[1:12:12] the reserves into three line

[1:12:15] items. There's reserve

[1:12:18] contingencies, reserve fund

[1:12:20] balance, and then reserves for

[1:12:21] future years. And you

[1:12:24] see the

[1:12:25] the ways those are unlocked,

[1:12:28] consistent with Florida

[1:12:29] statutes and parentheses. So as

[1:12:35] in prior years, we continue to

[1:12:37] find effective and creative

[1:12:38] ways to spend our reserves.

[1:12:39] That's often the message from

[1:12:41] the county commission. And our

[1:12:43] approach has been and continues

[1:12:44] to be an adjustment to the rate,

[1:12:47] as well as working with our our

[1:12:50] city partners to find ways to

[1:12:53] advance projects that are

[1:12:55] aligned w

[1:12:55] ith the mission of

[1:12:57] Pinellas. So for FY 27, that

[1:12:59] will continue to be the

[1:13:01] strategy. We will. Complete the

[1:13:04] final phase, hopefully, of the

[1:13:08] ordinance update for the

[1:13:09] county's multimodal impact fee.

[1:13:11] That's been a project that's

[1:13:13] been ongoing, and we've had to

[1:13:16] modify the approach because of

[1:13:17] some changes in state law,

[1:13:19] whether to send Bill 180, House

[1:13:21] Bill 429 and House Bill 1329.

[1:13:24] So the state continues to

[1:13:27] pass

[1:13:28] legislation impacting impact

[1:13:29] fee in our ordinance update.

[1:13:31] And so that hopefully will come

[1:13:34] to a close this year. And we

[1:13:35] can wrap up the ordinance

[1:13:38] update and FY 27. And you can

[1:13:40] see that is a jointly funded

[1:13:43] project between

[1:13:43] us, Pinellas

[1:13:44] County and City of Saint Pete,

[1:13:45] Clearwater and Largo. The other

[1:13:49] project that we plan to pursue

[1:13:51] for FY 27 is a partnership with

[1:13:54] the City of Largo. This project

[1:13:58] came to us

[1:14:00] because TD Synnex is

[1:14:02] one of three fortune 500

[1:14:04] companies in Pinellas County.

[1:14:06] They are located in the Bay

[1:14:08] Vista Office Park, which was

[1:14:09] built back in 1984. So some of

[1:14:13] you who have been on the board

[1:14:15] for a while may recall the term

[1:14:17] flight to quality when we did

[1:14:18] the teals update. The idea

[1:14:21] behind that is employers now

[1:14:23] are looking for a bit more in

[1:14:25] where they're located.

[1:14:27] Typically, employers like TD

[1:14:29] Synnex want class A office

[1:14:31] space,

[1:14:31] and Bay Vista office

[1:14:32] Park is more like class B,

[1:14:33] class C, and there's

[1:14:36] competition for employers like

[1:14:38] that to go to class A office

[1:14:40] space that have the amenities

[1:14:42] and services that these

[1:14:44] employers expec

[1:14:47] t. And we've

[1:14:49] seen in the past where

[1:14:50] employers like this have gone

[1:14:51] to Midtown and Water Street in

[1:14:54] Hillsborough County or into

[1:14:56] downtown Saint Pete. So Largo

[1:14:59] has asked that we work with

[1:15:00] them on developing a

[1:15:02] redevelopment master

[1:15:03] plan for

[1:15:03] Bay Vista Office Park to come

[1:15:06] up with a series of strategies

[1:15:07] to. With the goal of retaining

[1:15:12] and keeping TD Synnex, as well

[1:15:14] as other employers within that

[1:15:16] very important office park in

[1:15:18] the city of Largo.

[1:15:20] We also plan

[1:15:21] to work with the city of

[1:15:23] Dunedin to develop our downtown

[1:15:25] Master Plan update. This

[1:15:28] project is twofold. One is a

[1:15:31] market assessment to understand

[1:15:33] how the market has changed over

[1:15:35] time. Since downtown has

[1:15:38] successfully redeveloped a

[1:15:40] successfully redeveloped their

[1:15:42] downtown. And the other part to

[1:15:44] the project is to develop a. A

[1:15:51] set of guidelines or standards

[1:15:53] that memorialize the. The great

[1:15:55] things about downtown Dunedin.

[1:15:57] It's. It's got a lot of

[1:15:58] character. It's got a lot of

[1:16:00] amenities, but a lot of what

[1:16:01] you see down there is really

[1:16:03] coming from the. Their Housing

[1:16:06] and redevelopment

[1:16:07] manager. And

[1:16:07] so we're going to work with

[1:16:09] them to put that in a plan and

[1:16:11] a series of standards. We also

[1:16:14] plan to work with our partners

[1:16:15] at fDOT, at the county and the

[1:16:17] city of Clearwater to execute a

[1:16:21] corridor study for

[1:16:22] for the Gulf

[1:16:23] to Bay Boulevard corridor. The

[1:16:26] limits of that project will be

[1:16:28] basically from McMullen Booth

[1:16:30] road through downtown and end

[1:16:32] at the roundabout. The overall

[1:16:35] goal is to do a couple of

[1:16:38] things. One is to

[1:16:39] figure out a

[1:16:39] solution for that intersection

[1:16:41] there at Gulf to Bay and

[1:16:43] Belcher. It's been studied for

[1:16:46] quite a while, and there hasn't

[1:16:47] been a resolution to that. And

[1:16:50] so we we hope that the study

[1:16:52] will find a solution to one of

[1:16:54] the most

[1:16:54] dangerous

[1:16:55] intersections in the county.

[1:16:57] The other important piece to it

[1:16:59] is we've been in communication

[1:17:01] with county administration and

[1:17:04] think that the timing of the

[1:17:06] study could support the

[1:17:08] redevelopment of the downtown

[1:17:10] campus for Pin

[1:17:10] ellas County,

[1:17:12] which is going to be vacated

[1:17:14] and then redeveloped. So those

[1:17:16] are kind of the two signature

[1:17:18] pieces of that corridor study.

[1:17:20] The other couple of things that

[1:17:21] are in the budget. You've heard

[1:17:24] us talk about the countywide

[1:17:25] trail planning initiative.

[1:17:26] Ag

[1:17:26] ain, that's just that pilot

[1:17:29] program position for about two

[1:17:32] and a half years or so. That

[1:17:34] will work across jurisdictional

[1:17:37] boundaries to advance trail

[1:17:39] planning countywide. And then,

[1:17:43] you know, you've heard me talk

[1:17:44] about the need to have support

[1:17:47] from our lobbyists as we work

[1:17:50] to amend the special act. So

[1:17:53] all total those equal about

[1:17:58] $691,000. And that's our plan

[1:18:00] to to try and further spin down

[1:18:02] reserves. So I can't talk to

[1:18:06] you all about the budget

[1:18:07] without addressing property tax

[1:18:09] reform through the Joint

[1:18:11] resolution one F I'm sure you

[1:18:12] all are very familia

[1:18:14] r with it

[1:18:15] in your roles with your

[1:18:16] respective cities. I think I've

[1:18:19] shared with you in the past

[1:18:20] that it it also has impacts to

[1:18:23] us. Fortunately, the property

[1:18:24] appraiser has a great dashboard

[1:18:27] that estimates what the impact

[1:18:29] would be if it

[1:18:30] passes to all

[1:18:32] the taxing authorities across

[1:18:33] the county. So what you see

[1:18:36] here is what that reform would

[1:18:39] mean to the Planning Council.

[1:18:42] So the chart up at top is that

[1:18:45] blue

[1:18:46] line is the current tax

[1:18:49] law and homestead exemption,

[1:18:51] and how much revenue the

[1:18:53] Planning Council would derive

[1:18:55] from the current rate and the

[1:18:56] current exemption. The yellow

[1:18:58] line shows you what

[1:19:02] will happen

[1:19:03] if the referendum passes in

[1:19:05] November to those revenues the

[1:19:08] Planning Council collects for

[1:19:09] its operations. And you can see

[1:19:12] at the on the chart to the

[1:19:15] bottom, that's a percent

[1:19:17] breakdown of how much revenue

[1:19:19] will be lost over the years

[1:19:23] through 2030. And you can see

[1:19:24] it's anywhere between 14 and

[1:19:28] 24% of our revenue will will be

[1:19:30] lost if that referendum passes.

[1:19:33] So

[1:19:34] in order for us to be good

[1:19:37] stewards of the tax dollars and

[1:19:41] also provide you with proper

[1:19:45] information to inform a

[1:19:46] recommendation on our millage

[1:19:47] rate and budget, we've been

[1:19:49] working

[1:19:50] with the Office of

[1:19:51] Management and Budget to

[1:19:54] develop a five year forecast.

[1:19:57] Looking forward between FY 28

[1:20:00] and FY 32. We have done this in

[1:20:02] the past with them, but it's

[1:20:04] taken greater urgency

[1:20:06] given the

[1:20:08] potential impact to the

[1:20:09] revenues for the council based

[1:20:12] on the increased homestead

[1:20:13] exemption. So what we have done

[1:20:17] is and you know, all you all

[1:20:19] know, I'm I share your work

[1:20:21] kind of person. So

[1:20:22] I've got

[1:20:22] about ten spreadsheets up here.

[1:20:24] We've looked at scenarios that

[1:20:28] forecast what happens to the

[1:20:31] planning Council operations if

[1:20:34] the referendum passes and what

[1:20:37] that drawd

[1:20:37] own looks like on

[1:20:38] reserves, as well as what if

[1:20:40] the referendum doesn't pass?

[1:20:42] And again, what, what that does

[1:20:44] to to reserves. So. What we are

[1:20:50] comfortable with at this time

[1:20:51] is to recommend to you all that

[1:20:53] we could

[1:20:53] reduce the millage

[1:20:54] rate to the rollback rate. What

[1:20:58] that means from a revenue

[1:21:00] perspective is in that first

[1:21:03] year that is effective, we lose

[1:21:05] about $420,000 less in property

[1:21:07] tax revenue, and

[1:21:09] then about

[1:21:12] 620,000 less in property tax

[1:21:13] revenue thereafter. The

[1:21:16] forecast also has some

[1:21:18] assumptions that were built in

[1:21:20] on the revenue side. So what

[1:21:23] I've provided in your backup,

[1:21:25] and I'll show

[1:21:26] you a couple

[1:21:27] slides after this, what that

[1:21:30] looks like. So 5% annual

[1:21:32] increase in property tax

[1:21:33] revenues, some other increases

[1:21:36] in in revenues, and then a 10%

[1:21:38] increase in expenses. Again, to

[1:21:40] develop a forecast, you got to

[1:21:41] make some assumptions. I'm not

[1:21:42] saying that we have a crystal

[1:21:44] ball and we know what the

[1:21:45] future is going to be like. But

[1:21:47] OMB felt like these percent

[1:21:49] assumptions were pretty solid.

[1:21:51] So. What we have

[1:21:57] determined

[1:21:58] that by adopting the rollback

[1:22:00] rate, there would be a

[1:22:04] predictable drawdown on

[1:22:06] reserves over the next 4 or 5

[1:22:09] years to balance the budget. If

[1:22:13] you look at FY 31, the reserve

[1:22:16] balance will be about $700,000.

[1:22:20] Again, maintaining or adopting

[1:22:22] that millage rollback rate. So

[1:22:26] any questions on that. I know

[1:22:28] it's a lot,

[1:22:29] but I'll try to

[1:22:30] reinforce a little bit of what

[1:22:31] I just told you all. So what

[1:22:34] you're looking at here is one

[1:22:35] of the spreadsheets for the

[1:22:37] forecast. It is what we have

[1:22:41] calculated based on the current

[1:22:43] millage rate. So you can see

[1:22:45] that in

[1:22:45] yellow it's the 0.0175.

[1:22:48] Here are the five years. So FY

[1:22:51] 28 through FY 32. And then this

[1:22:54] top portion of the spreadsheet

[1:22:56] are the revenues with with our

[1:22:58] rate. And then those

[1:22:59] assumptions that I told you

[1:23:00] about about revenue

[1:23:01] growth.

[1:23:02] There's also assumptions that

[1:23:03] were put into the forecast to

[1:23:06] estimate our expenses going out

[1:23:08] those five years. The thing

[1:23:10] that I want you to kind of

[1:23:12] focus in on is what does that

[1:23:15] do to reserve

[1:23:17] s? So reserves are

[1:23:18] down here and you can see where

[1:23:21] we are right now at FY 27. And

[1:23:24] then that systematic drawdown

[1:23:25] of reserves in the intervening

[1:23:27] five years. And you can see at

[1:23:29] the very bottom how much extra

[1:23:32] or how much

[1:23:33] reserves are being

[1:23:34] drawn upon over time to balance

[1:23:35] the budget. So that's at the

[1:23:37] current rate. We also did

[1:23:42] various scenarios all the way

[1:23:44] down to look at the financial

[1:23:46] picture. If we reduce the

[1:23:47] millage rate down to

[1:23:50] 0.0145. So

[1:23:51] again, same assumptions for

[1:23:52] those five years. Now the

[1:23:55] reserve line item here you can

[1:23:58] see the drawdown there in 28,

[1:24:02] then 29. And then we're

[1:24:04] negative

[1:24:05] in 30 3132. So this

[1:24:12] last spreadsheet is what we're

[1:24:15] recommending. The rollback rate

[1:24:16] according to OMB at this point

[1:24:18] is 0.0171.

[1:24:21] Again same five year

[1:24:22] same assumptions reserve level.

[1:24:25] This is what the request looks

[1:24:26] like here and about $8 million.

[1:24:28] But again, even at the rollback

[1:24:30] rate, you can see the drawdown

[1:24:31] on reserves. And then we're

[1:24:33] okay. In FY 31 it's FY 32 where

[1:24:38] we're negative. But if we were

[1:24:40] to adopt a rollback rate, we

[1:24:42] would start to make other

[1:24:44] changes most likely next year

[1:24:47] on kind of right sizing our

[1:24:51] expenses to make sure that we

[1:24:52] ar

[1:24:53] e in a positive financial

[1:24:55] position. Again, going out

[1:24:56] those five years.

[1:25:00] Brian Scott: Rodney. Yes. These all these

[1:25:02] assume amendment three passes.

[1:25:05] Rodney Chatman: Yes.

[1:25:06] Brian Scott: Okay. Do you have one with

[1:25:07] the the

[1:25:09] rollback that if it

[1:25:11] didn't pass.

[1:25:13] It's out.

[1:25:19] Rodney Chatman: Pete, can you switch to the

[1:25:20] overhead. Commissioner, I don't

[1:25:21] have one with the rollback, but

[1:25:23] the closest I

[1:25:24] have to that. I

[1:25:29] know you.

[1:25:29] Probably can't see that.

[1:25:31] That well.

[1:25:33] This is at the current

[1:25:34] millage rate. And then if it

[1:25:37] doesn't pass and FY 32 we're

[1:25:40] still at about

[1:25:41] 3.2 million in

[1:25:42] reserves.

[1:25:43] Brian Scott: Okay.

[1:25:45] Whit Blanton: So the way we've been

[1:25:46] approaching this is just kind

[1:25:49] of really trying to be fiscally

[1:25:50] prudent for our agency. And

[1:25:53] this ballot is, you know,

[1:25:56] initiative

[1:25:56] is going to be voted

[1:25:57] on by the voters in November.

[1:25:59] We don't know how that's going

[1:26:00] to turn out. The voters are

[1:26:02] going to have an opportunity,

[1:26:03] and we will spend down our

[1:26:05] reserves to the tune of about

[1:26:07] $300,000 by the year 2032 if it

[1:26:11] passes. So the r

[1:26:12] eserves are

[1:26:13] going to get spent down. In the

[1:26:15] meantime, what we've outlined

[1:26:17] here is roughly $700,000 of

[1:26:21] reserve funding that we are

[1:26:22] putting into the 27 budget.

[1:26:25] That is a commitment to begin

[1:26:27] spending down those dollars. If

[1:26:28] the amendment doesn't pass and

[1:26:30] we only go to the rollback rate

[1:26:32] this year, we are going to come

[1:26:34] back to you next year with a

[1:26:35] with a little bit more

[1:26:37] aggressive millage rate

[1:26:37] reduction at that point, or

[1:26:40] another commitment to show how

[1:26:41] we're lowering the reserve

[1:26:42] reserve spending in the future.

[1:26:45] But I can't in good conscience

[1:26:47] recommend the aggressive

[1:26:49] millage reduction that we were

[1:26:50] talking about two months ago

[1:26:51] just because by fiscal year 30,

[1:26:56] we would be I think it's over

[1:26:59] $300,000 in the

[1:27:00] deficit

[1:27:02] situation, which would have a

[1:27:03] real impact on our staffing

[1:27:04] ability and ability to function.

[1:27:05] And as we've talked about a

[1:27:07] little bit with the

[1:27:08] subcommittee, you know,

[1:27:11] planning departments are

[1:27:12] probably not well protected

[1:27:14] when the millage rate, when the

[1:27:16] mi

[1:27:16] llage, when the homestead

[1:27:17] exemption is extended. And I

[1:27:19] don't think there's going to be

[1:27:21] a lot of capacity for local

[1:27:22] governments in Pinellas County

[1:27:23] to undertake planning

[1:27:24] activities. And with the

[1:27:26] charter requirement that we do

[1:27:28] countywide planning, we may be

[1:27:30] the last county planning

[1:27:32] department standing. And I

[1:27:34] think demand will probably

[1:27:36] increase on our services. It

[1:27:39] doesn't mean that everybody's

[1:27:39] going to cut their planning

[1:27:41] department, but it's kind of

[1:27:42] like Parks and Recreation. It's

[1:27:44] going to be one of those things

[1:27:45] that people will say, well,

[1:27:47] that's not police and that'

[1:27:48] s

[1:27:48] not fire. That may be something

[1:27:49] that that could could cut. So

[1:27:51] we're proposing we go to the

[1:27:53] rollback rate that that does

[1:27:55] not require a supermajority,

[1:27:58] which would be a requirement of

[1:28:01] keeping the millage rate as is.

[1:28:03] So and we do

[1:28:04] think we have more

[1:28:05] reserves than we need. So the

[1:28:07] way we've kind of balanced this

[1:28:09] out from a staff perspective is

[1:28:11] let's demonstrate to the voters,

[1:28:13] let's demonstrate to the

[1:28:14] elected officials that we can

[1:28:15] reduce our millage rate because

[1:28:16] we are bringing in more revenue

[1:28:18] than we need right now. But at

[1:28:20] the same time, if the amendment

[1:28:22] passes, we're going to be

[1:28:23] needing those reserves to keep

[1:28:26] us going for the next 3 to 4

[1:28:27] years.

[1:28:30] Brian Scott: Questions?

[1:28:32] Yes.

[1:28:34] Chris Scherer: Yeah. Thank you, Chair.

[1:28:35] Rodney, on the

[1:28:38] the charges for

[1:28:38] other services that that's what

[1:28:41] the local governments pay for.

[1:28:44] No.

[1:28:44] Rodney Chatman: No, those are the revenues

[1:28:46] that we receive from the MPO.

[1:28:47] So you remember me saying that

[1:28:50] the PPC fronts the costs

[1:28:52] of the

[1:28:52] MPO and then the MPO reimbursed

[1:28:54] the the PPC on a quarterly

[1:28:56] basis. So that money that we

[1:28:59] get back from the MPO shows up

[1:29:01] as revenue.

[1:29:02] Chris Scherer: So we're we're where are you

[1:29:03] showing the revenue that you

[1:29:04] get when you charge other.

[1:29:06] Rodney Chatman: Oh, I see right.

[1:29:09] Chris Scherer: I didn't see it on this.

[1:29:10] Rodney Chatman: Oh, it's it's very little

[1:29:12] right there. It's less than

[1:29:14] $5,000.

[1:29:15] Chris Scherer: Okay. All right. I didn't

[1:29:16] realize that. Okay.

[1:29:19] Whit Blanton: And that's an estimate

[1:29:20] because projects may come up in

[1:29:21] the fiscal year where

[1:29:24] we want

[1:29:25] to do a 50/50 commitment.

[1:29:27] Chris Scherer: So and I was confused about

[1:29:29] the personnel services. They

[1:29:32] they dropped 1,000,008 and 26.

[1:29:36] And then they're going to bump

[1:29:37] them back up to 2.5. I didn't.

[1:29:41] And for 27.

[1:29:42] Rodney Chatman: we take those numbers

[1:29:44] from OMB. So we only. We have

[1:29:49] control of most of those line

[1:29:50] items. But for the personnel,

[1:29:52] the salary benefits, those

[1:29:55] things

[1:29:55] , we get those figures

[1:29:57] from the Office of Management

[1:29:58] budget. So it's probably a

[1:29:59] question for Chris Rose.

[1:30:01] Chris Scherer: it's a $600,000 question. For some

[1:30:02] reason, I didn't see what the

[1:30:05] justification for that bump.

[1:30:06] Whit Blanton: It doesn't include any

[1:30:08] additional staff persons other

[1:30:09] than the trail planner position.

[1:30:14] Chris Scherer: Okay. So yeah, I really

[1:30:15] don't understand the number now

[1:30:16] because it goes from 1.8

[1:30:19] million to 2 point, almost 2.6.

[1:30:21] So I don't know why that number

[1:30:23] is jumping up. And the reason I

[1:30:25] asked, because the budget that

[1:30:27] I studied that I

[1:30:28] really liked

[1:30:28] was 6.0165, because I thought.

[1:30:34] That budget I really liked

[1:30:35] because, I mean, we don't need

[1:30:37] all these reserves. They can't

[1:30:39] be used for the MPO. This, this

[1:30:43] one

[1:30:43] that you gave me, gave us

[1:30:45] that says 0.0165 would actually

[1:30:49] provide not just a millage rate

[1:30:51] reduction, but would actually

[1:30:52] provide a small, you know, tax

[1:30:55] tax cut. And I think that would

[1:30:58] be something that we could

[1:30:59] show

[1:30:59] the citizens. Do we roll it

[1:31:01] back more than a millage rate.

[1:31:02] We're actually going to get a

[1:31:04] reduction in your taxes this

[1:31:05] year. And the deficits very,

[1:31:09] very small on that budget. And

[1:31:13] I believe

[1:31:15] I just don't

[1:31:16] understand the the number, but

[1:31:17] I think it's very close. It's

[1:31:19] manageable. So I think we could

[1:31:20] do more if we wanted to. I just

[1:31:22] wanted to point that out. 2.65

[1:31:24] everybody got in their packet.

[1:31:25] It works. It wouldn't run a. We

[1:31:28] wouldn't run out of reserves

[1:31:29] until 2032.

[1:31:31] If nothing else

[1:31:32] changes and something else

[1:31:33] would change. So just pointing

[1:31:35] that out, I mean, I love the

[1:31:36] rollback, but we, I think we

[1:31:38] could do better if, if the

[1:31:39] board wanted to. So a little

[1:31:42] bit, just a little.

[1:31:43] Whit Blanton: Ultimately, this is a

[1:31:44] recommendation to the Board of

[1:31:46] County commissioners, right?

[1:31:48] Rodney Chatman: That's correct.

[1:31:49] Brian Scott: Okay. Thank you.

[1:31:50] Commissioner Scherer. Share any other

[1:31:52] thoughts or comments, Mike.

[1:31:56] Mike Eisner: Just a statement. Last night

[1:31:57] we did our budget or our one of

[1:31:58] our first ones. And just the

[1:32:01] early feedback, what we have is

[1:32:05] 64% of the poll is in favor of

[1:32:07] this property tax, you know,

[1:32:10] cutback and savings. So I'm

[1:32:12] glad to see that we're doing

[1:32:14] this and that we're being

[1:32:16] conscientious because it's

[1:32:17] looking like it's going to fly.

[1:32:20] Brian Scott: Okay.

[1:32:24] Anybody else? All right.

[1:32:27] Tina, do we have any members of

[1:32:28] the public that wish to speak

[1:32:29] on this item?

[1:32:30] Tina Jablon: No, chair, we do not.

[1:32:32] Brian Scott: Okay. All right. What is the

[1:32:35] will of the board on this move?

[1:32:37] Ricky Butler: Approval. Second.

[1:32:38] Brian Scott: Okay. We have a motion from

[1:32:40] Ricky, second from Tom.

[1:32:43] Whit Blanton: Can we clarify what the

[1:32:44] motion is for? Is that for the

[1:32:46] staff recommendation of the

[1:32:47] millage rate reduction?

[1:32:50] Ricky Butler: Yes.

[1:32:51] Whit Blanton: 0.0171. The rollback rate.

[1:32:53] Ricky Butler: Yes.

[1:32:53] Brian Scott: Okay. Now, now exhibit A

[1:32:58] Rodney does not have the

[1:33:00] correct numbers on it. So we.

[1:33:01] Rodney Chatman: Have to be updated and

[1:33:03] attached to the resolution

[1:33:05] resolution that you all adopt.

[1:33:06] And that will

[1:33:07] occur after this

[1:33:08] action. And okay. Make sure

[1:33:10] it's all okay.

[1:33:12] Brian Scott: Okay. Just make sure that's

[1:33:13] on the record. Okay. All right.

[1:33:16] Is there any further discussion

[1:33:18] on this item? Okay. All in

[1:33:21] favor

[1:33:23] opposed? Okay. So we have

[1:33:28] Mayor Love was in opposition.

[1:33:30] Okay. All right. Motion carries.

[1:33:32] Thank you everybody. That was

[1:33:33] our last action item. So now we

[1:33:34] can go into our presentation items.

[1:33:37] Whit Blanton: Don't everybody leave.

[1:33:40] Brian Scott: All right. So now we'll go

[1:33:41] back up to item six a PSTA

[1:33:44] activities report.

[1:33:46] Tom Reid: Thank you, Mr. Chair. The

[1:33:48] state board met on Wednesday,

[1:33:50] June 24th, 2026. The board

[1:33:52] meeting began with a special

[1:33:54] presentation on the two

[1:33:55] marketing awards, PSTA one at

[1:33:57] the Florida Public

[1:33:59] Transportation Association

[1:34:00] Awards ceremony last month.

[1:34:02] First, an award for stars 40

[1:34:04] year history book, and second

[1:34:06] for the ridership and marketing

[1:34:07] of stars newest limited stop

[1:34:10] premium service

[1:34:10] route, the

[1:34:11] Spark in Saint Pete between

[1:34:13] Eckerd College and Grand

[1:34:14] Central Station. The board

[1:34:16] approved several items during

[1:34:17] the June meeting. These

[1:34:18] included a renewal of Stars

[1:34:21] employee health benefits for

[1:34:22] fiscal year 27, funding

[1:34:24] agreements with several

[1:34:26] nonprofits under the

[1:34:27] Transportation Disadvantage, or

[1:34:28] TD grant program that's

[1:34:30] administered by the state. As

[1:34:32] the Community Transportation

[1:34:33] Coordinator for Pinellas County,

[1:34:35] Psta is responsible for all TD

[1:34:37] services in the county, which

[1:34:39] includes the administration of

[1:34:40] TD bus passes, paratransit

[1:34:42] and

[1:34:43] nonprofit eligible trips so

[1:34:44] they can provide transportation

[1:34:46] to their own TD eligible

[1:34:47] clients. The nonprofits include

[1:34:50] Neighborly Care Network, Park

[1:34:53] Arc, and the Homeless Emergency

[1:34:54] Project, funding over 5.8

[1:34:56] million over the next five

[1:34:57] years. The

[1:34:58] board also heard one

[1:35:00] information update from Psta

[1:35:02] CFO Debbie Lewis, who presented

[1:35:03] a summary on the fiscal year 27

[1:35:05] operating and capital budget.

[1:35:08] We will receive budget updates

[1:35:09] again in July and August before

[1:35:11] final adoption in September,

[1:35:13] and the next Psta board m

[1:35:14] eeting

[1:35:14] is Wednesday, July 22nd at 9

[1:35:18] a.m. And that concludes my

[1:35:19] report.

[1:35:19] Brian Scott: Thank you Tom. All right.

[1:35:21] We'll move on to item 6 B

[1:35:23] Regional Activities Report.

[1:35:24] Whit Blanton: Okay, I'll handle this one.

[1:35:25] I'll go fairly quickly. I just

[1:35:27] wanted to let you all know that

[1:35:28] we have kicked off our

[1:35:30] regional

[1:35:30] transportation planning

[1:35:32] prioritization process. I'm not

[1:35:33] going to give you the full name.

[1:35:34] It's a bunch of peas, but this

[1:35:36] was a grant that was awarded to

[1:35:38] the Hillsborough County MPO or

[1:35:40] TPO, and we are partnering with

[1:35:43] them and Pasco County. So it's

[1:35:44] an early form of regional

[1:35:47] regionalization. We had the

[1:35:48] kickoff meeting about a week

[1:35:50] ago, and Chelsea and Caitlin of

[1:35:52] our staff are kind of the point

[1:35:53] people for that. And they have

[1:35:56] hired a consultant and we are

[1:35:58] integrating the regional

[1:35:59] benefit cost analysis tool that

[1:36:01] our staff developed. M

[1:36:02] achine

[1:36:02] gave you that presentation last

[1:36:03] week, and what we are doing is

[1:36:06] we were looking at

[1:36:07] transportation trends,

[1:36:08] transportation projects, and

[1:36:10] determining a methodology that

[1:36:11] will be consistent across all

[1:36:13] three MPOs for prioritization,

[1:36:16] prioritizing transportation

[1:36:17] projects. And

[1:36:20] we're all really

[1:36:20] excited about this project

[1:36:21] because we all do it a little

[1:36:23] bit differently. But as you

[1:36:24] know, transportation doesn't

[1:36:25] stop at a county line. So the

[1:36:27] goal is to begin outreach and

[1:36:31] engagement immediately. We'll

[1:36:32] have a website live in August.

[1:36:34] We will create a project

[1:36:36] dashboard that will guide the

[1:36:38] analysis and development of

[1:36:40] recommendations for

[1:36:41] prioritization for all of the

[1:36:43] MPOs to integrate best

[1:36:45] practices. And the goal is to

[1:36:47] bring a unified process to our

[1:36:49] committees and our boards this

[1:36:50] November, so that it's ready to

[1:36:53] use in our project

[1:36:54] prioritization for next year.

[1:36:57] And so I just wanted to give

[1:36:58] you a heads up that we are

[1:37:00] coordinating regionally on that.

[1:37:01] And the goal is to have this to

[1:37:03] where it can telescope and

[1:37:04] identify regionally significant

[1:37:06] projects, but also projects at

[1:37:07] the local scale that are

[1:37:09] evaluated similarly. That might

[1:37:10] not be regionally significant,

[1:37:12] but are still meaningful to

[1:37:13] local communities. So that's

[1:37:17] underway, basically just a

[1:37:18] heads up. And then another

[1:37:20] heads up is many of you have

[1:37:21] participated or at least

[1:37:22] seen

[1:37:23] the reports on the regional

[1:37:25] competitiveness report that the

[1:37:27] Tampa Bay partnership

[1:37:28] undertakes. And they've been

[1:37:29] doing that now for, I believe,

[1:37:32] about ten years, where they

[1:37:34] benchmark the Tampa Bay region

[1:37:37] against other

[1:37:38] comparable

[1:37:39] regions around the country.

[1:37:40] Some are a little bit bigger,

[1:37:41] some are a little smaller, but

[1:37:43] but they're all in many ways

[1:37:45] similar to ours. They are

[1:37:47] opening up that process to sort

[1:37:48] of reevaluate what we've

[1:37:51] accomplished, where our trends

[1:37:52] have taken us over ten years

[1:37:54] and where we need to go next.

[1:37:56] And so we are being invited to

[1:37:58] a meeting at the Urban Center

[1:38:01] two building in Tampa on

[1:38:03] Kennedy Boulevard, Wednesday,

[1:38:05] August 5th, to continue that

[1:38:08] conversation about what that

[1:38:09] means.

[1:38:10] And I wanted to let you

[1:38:11] know that I am going to be on

[1:38:12] vacation moving my daughter to

[1:38:14] Texas so I won't be able to

[1:38:15] participate. But our staff will.

[1:38:17] But I think you all are welcome.

[1:38:19] If anybody's interested in

[1:38:20] being engaged in the Regional

[1:38:22] Competitiveness Report, we can

[1:38:24] certainly RSVP for you if you

[1:38:26] would like to participate in

[1:38:27] that and share your thoughts

[1:38:28] from Pinellas perspective. So

[1:38:30] just food for thought on that

[1:38:33] and that's all.

[1:38:33] I have.

[1:38:34] Brian Scott: Thank you. Whit, any

[1:38:36] questions for Whit? All right.

[1:38:39] We will move on then to item

[1:38:42] 6 C East Bay drive, Roosevelt

[1:38:44] Boulevard.

[1:38:50] Nousheen Rahman: Good afternoon, board

[1:38:51] members. Good afternoon,

[1:38:53] principal planner at Fort

[1:38:55] Pinellas. And I have here with

[1:38:56] me Amanda Chornoby with

[1:38:57] Renaissanc

[1:38:57] e Planning, who was a

[1:38:59] consultant on this project. And

[1:39:01] I'm here to provide an update

[1:39:04] on our final corridor study for

[1:39:06] this for this roadway that we

[1:39:07] have been working on for well

[1:39:09] over a year now. And in that

[1:39:12] last year, this

[1:39:13] corridor study

[1:39:15] has undertaken has been

[1:39:16] undertaken in three different

[1:39:18] phases. First, a review of the

[1:39:20] existing conditions. The second

[1:39:22] phase involved a mobility

[1:39:24] evaluation, which you can think

[1:39:25] of almost as scenario planning

[1:39:28] and stress testing, the future

[1:39:29] conditions of the corridor. And

[1:39:31] then finally, phase three

[1:39:33] involved recommendations, some

[1:39:35] of which I provided a preview

[1:39:36] of here that I'll go over. They

[1:39:38] include recommendations for

[1:39:40] enhanced pedestrian crossings,

[1:39:41] as well as improved transit

[1:39:44] facilities such as

[1:39:45] opport

[1:39:45] unities for bus bays

[1:39:46] along the corridor. So I will

[1:39:47] present that towards the end.

[1:39:50] But to take a step back and

[1:39:51] tell you why we are studying

[1:39:53] this corridor, East Bay Drive

[1:39:54] and Roosevelt Boulevard is

[1:39:56] identified as one of our

[1:39:58] priority investment corridors,

[1:39:59] and this is a framework that we

[1:40:01] have

[1:40:01] adopted in our long range

[1:40:03] transportation plan, where we

[1:40:05] identify corridors based on

[1:40:07] their potential to link jobs,

[1:40:09] housing and job training

[1:40:10] opportunities. And this quarter

[1:40:12] in particular, serves both

[1:40:14] local and regional purposes.

[1:40:16] But what's really happened

[1:40:17] along this corri

[1:40:17] dor? There have

[1:40:18] been several improvements and

[1:40:19] planning efforts undertaken by

[1:40:21] various entities ourselves,

[1:40:23] fDOT, the City of Largo, PSTA,

[1:40:26] and what we have the

[1:40:27] opportunity to do is provide a

[1:40:28] cohesive vision for this

[1:40:29] corridor, which we try to do

[1:40:31] for our other investment

[1:40:32] corridors as well.

[1:40:34] East Bay

[1:40:34] drive, Roosevelt Boulevard

[1:40:36] connects directly to the other

[1:40:37] two investment corridors that

[1:40:39] we have completed or are

[1:40:41] completing, such as US 19. But

[1:40:43] something that's really key

[1:40:44] about this is while Alt 19 and

[1:40:46] US 19 those corridor studies

[1:40:49] required coordination among

[1:40:51] multiple municipalities, and in

[1:40:52] the case of US 19 multiple

[1:40:55] counties, this roadway actually

[1:40:57] just goes through the city of

[1:40:58] Largo. So we are looking at one

[1:41:00] land use vision that is

[1:41:02] involved in this corridor. But

[1:41:05] ul

[1:41:05] timately, the leads on this

[1:41:06] project were ourselves at

[1:41:07] forward, Pinellas and fDOT. We

[1:41:09] both jointly funded this

[1:41:11] project and coordinated across

[1:41:12] the phases the city of Largo,

[1:41:15] PSTA and Pinellas County were

[1:41:17] active stakeholders throughout

[1:41:18] the process. The corridor study

[1:41:20] looks

[1:41:21] at the segment from 20th

[1:41:23] Street, which is just west of

[1:41:25] HCA Florida Largo Hospital. If

[1:41:26] you are familiar and goes all

[1:41:29] the way east to Lightwave Drive,

[1:41:31] which is right before Saint

[1:41:32] Pete Clearwater International

[1:41:34] Airport. So we're looking at

[1:41:34] about seven miles of the

[1:41:36] corridor that we kind

[1:41:37] of looked

[1:41:37] at in different sections. And

[1:41:38] ultimately, the purpose was to

[1:41:40] evaluate how to improve safety

[1:41:41] and mobility and operational

[1:41:43] access along East Bay drive.

[1:41:45] And as I mentioned, we

[1:41:46] undertook this in three

[1:41:48] different phases, and I'll kind

[1:41:49] of break down the three phases.

[1:41:51] And today I'd like to provide

[1:41:53] context that we are presenting

[1:41:55] this as just an informational

[1:41:56] item to you. Our corridor study

[1:41:58] is often have a lot of

[1:41:59] information to digest. So we

[1:42:01] want to make sure that we

[1:42:02] answer your questions. But at

[1:42:04] the September board meeting,

[1:42:05] this will be in front of you

[1:42:06] for just a recommendation of

[1:42:09] acceptance, as we typically do

[1:42:11] with our corridor studies. So

[1:42:13] with that, I'd like to set some

[1:42:14] important context for the

[1:42:15] corridor, because there's a lot

[1:42:16] going on here, starting with

[1:42:18] the land use context. There are

[1:42:21] several activity centers within

[1:42:23] the city of Largo and

[1:42:25] specifically along this

[1:42:26] corridor. But the three I'd

[1:42:27] like to bring your attention to

[1:42:28] are the West Bay Drive

[1:42:30] Community Redevelopment

[1:42:31] District directly to the West,

[1:42:32] which you just a couple of

[1:42:34] months ago saw extensive

[1:42:35] presentations on. And know that

[1:42:37] Largo has updated their

[1:42:39] standards to really continue

[1:42:40] developing their

[1:42:41] downtown.

[1:42:41] Provide opportunities for mixed

[1:42:44] uses and similarly to the right,

[1:42:46] we have the tri city activity

[1:42:48] center. This is something that

[1:42:49] was adopted about 5 or 6 years

[1:42:50] ago. And while this area is the

[1:42:53] node surrounding US 19 and is

[1:42:55] very auto oriented,

[1:42:57] the City of

[1:42:57] Largo standards provides that

[1:42:59] opportunity to improve

[1:43:00] transportation access, as well

[1:43:02] as create more of a sense of

[1:43:03] place around this area. And

[1:43:05] then the last land use area I'd

[1:43:07] like to draw your attention to

[1:43:09] is the Target Employment Center,

[1:43:10] which Rodney actually talked

[1:43:11] about in his budget

[1:43:13] presentation. This involves Bay

[1:43:14] Vista Office Park, and I'll

[1:43:16] reiterate that TD annex is just

[1:43:18] one of three fortune 500

[1:43:20] companies in our county. And in

[1:43:23] addition to the land use in

[1:43:24] place, we also need to make

[1:43:26] sure that the transportation

[1:43:26] infrastructure surrounding this

[1:43:27] area is up to par.

[1:43:29] And this

[1:43:29] area is where the corridor

[1:43:31] turns into Roosevelt Boulevard.

[1:43:32] Of course, moving on to some of

[1:43:35] the efforts that have already

[1:43:36] been planned, implemented or

[1:43:38] underway, I won't go through

[1:43:39] every single one of these

[1:43:41] projects, but this table and

[1:43:42] this map here is meant to

[1:43:44] communicate to you

[1:43:44] exactly how

[1:43:45] much is being done on the

[1:43:46] corridor. The map on this slide

[1:43:48] shows you the areas for planned

[1:43:50] improvements, and you can see

[1:43:52] much of the corridor has been

[1:43:54] programed for resurfacing by

[1:43:56] fDOT. All of these resurfacing

[1:43:59] projects one, two

[1:44:00] and three, I

[1:44:01] can confirm, involve separated

[1:44:03] bike lanes. So for example,

[1:44:05] from Highland to Belcher, the

[1:44:07] bike lanes are separated or

[1:44:09] separated through race

[1:44:10] separators. So not flex posts,

[1:44:12] but something a little bit more

[1:44:14] visually appealing. But all of

[1:44:16] this is to say that this

[1:44:18] corridor is continuing to

[1:44:19] improve. And what we have the

[1:44:20] opportunity to do is fill some

[1:44:22] of those gaps in safety and

[1:44:24] operations. In addition to fDOT

[1:44:27] planned projects, Pinellas

[1:44:29] County does have jurisdiction

[1:44:31] over the roadway

[1:44:33] for from 20th

[1:44:34] Street to Clearwater Largo Road,

[1:44:36] specifically within our project

[1:44:38] segment. And they also have a

[1:44:39] resurfacing plan, namely to

[1:44:41] improve business access and

[1:44:42] also provide a wider ten foot

[1:44:45] sidewalk on the south side of

[1:44:47] West Bay drive.

[1:44:49] In addition to

[1:44:50] having roadway jurisdiction,

[1:44:52] Pinellas County also manages

[1:44:54] all of the signals along this

[1:44:56] corridor through the county's

[1:44:57] very robust its ATMs program

[1:45:00] and all of the signals along

[1:45:02] this study segment have

[1:45:04] either

[1:45:04] been implemented with signal

[1:45:06] retiming improvements or are

[1:45:08] going to be. For example, in

[1:45:10] the third bullet, you can see

[1:45:11] that the signal retiming are

[1:45:13] planned for seven signals from

[1:45:15] 28th Street to Fourth Street

[1:45:16] and from Highland to 58th

[1:45:18] Street. The signals have

[1:45:18] already been retimed, which

[1:45:20] essentially covers the entire

[1:45:22] corridor. So operational

[1:45:23] improvements have also been

[1:45:24] underway. In addition, if you

[1:45:26] aren't familiar, the county,

[1:45:27] through its ATMs program also

[1:45:30] has programed this corridor for.

[1:45:33] With intelligent Video

[1:45:34] analytics, which gives the

[1:45:35] county the ability

[1:45:36] to assess

[1:45:37] congestion and adjust signal

[1:45:40] timings in real time and in

[1:45:42] addition, monitor near-miss

[1:45:43] incidents. And this is

[1:45:44] something that we're tying into

[1:45:46] our Safe Streets study as well

[1:45:47] as we look at the intersections

[1:45:50] and segments around the county

[1:45:51] which hav

[1:45:52] e which haven't made

[1:45:53] it onto the high injury network

[1:45:55] yet, but are kind of on that

[1:45:57] edge of safety concerns. Lastly,

[1:46:00] with the transit changes, you

[1:46:02] might be familiar that Psta

[1:46:04] implemented its updated bus

[1:46:06] network in October of 2025, and

[1:46:08] that actually saw a doubling of

[1:46:10] frequency along this corridor,

[1:46:11] which is served by route 52. So

[1:46:13] it went from 30 minute

[1:46:14] frequency to 15 minutes. And

[1:46:16] you can see in the third and

[1:46:17] fourth bullets that since that

[1:46:19] implementation, PSTA has seen

[1:46:21] increased weekday ridership as

[1:46:23] a result of

[1:46:24] that frequency

[1:46:25] increase. On the transit side

[1:46:27] as well. We have been working

[1:46:28] with PSTA the last couple of

[1:46:30] months to identify potential

[1:46:32] locations countywide for bus

[1:46:35] bay implementation. This is

[1:46:37] something that has come from

[1:46:39] board

[1:46:40] members at both Ford,

[1:46:41] Pinellas and Psta. So this

[1:46:43] corridor study was an excellent

[1:46:45] opportunity to incorporate

[1:46:46] those recommendations. So that

[1:46:48] was a whole lot of improvements

[1:46:50] and activities that are already

[1:46:52] underway. And so I'll reiterate

[1:46:53] that the purpose of our

[1:46:55] corridor study is to bring

[1:46:56] that

[1:46:56] together in a cohesive vision

[1:46:58] and fill those gaps. And when

[1:47:00] identifying some of those gaps

[1:47:01] from a safety perspective, a

[1:47:03] very high level overview here

[1:47:04] is that you can see the crashes

[1:47:06] have steadily increased the

[1:47:07] last couple of years,

[1:47:08] especially in those post-COVID

[1:47:10] years, both overall crashes and

[1:47:12] bicyclists and pedestrian

[1:47:13] crashes. A lot of that has been

[1:47:15] due to the lack of those

[1:47:17] facilities along this corridor,

[1:47:18] which are now being implemented

[1:47:19] through those resurfacing, and

[1:47:21] generally where there are

[1:47:22] pedestrian hotspots. So lots of

[1:47:24] pedestrian activity. There was

[1:47:26] there is a

[1:47:28] commonality between

[1:47:28] that and the crash hotspots.

[1:47:30] Namely, you can see County Road

[1:47:32] one, alt 19 as well as Highland

[1:47:34] Avenue as well, which gives

[1:47:35] access to a lot of residential

[1:47:37] destinations. When we consider

[1:47:39] corridor capacity. I know that

[1:47:42] traveling east west on this

[1:47:43] co

[1:47:43] rridor feels like every

[1:47:44] single one of our corridors is

[1:47:46] at a deficient level. But this

[1:47:49] corridor actually, especially

[1:47:50] when compared to its

[1:47:51] counterpart directly to the

[1:47:52] south Ulmerton road, does have

[1:47:54] some capacity. I know it

[1:47:56] doesn't feel like that when

[1:47:57] we're driving it, but the

[1:47:58] numbers tell

[1:47:59] us otherwise. What

[1:48:00] I will say is that the level of

[1:48:02] service is varying depending on

[1:48:04] the segment and the

[1:48:06] intersection that you're

[1:48:07] approaching, and the highest

[1:48:08] traffic volumes are between

[1:48:09] Keene Road and which is County

[1:48:12] Road one and US 19. So it kind

[1:48:14] of points us to

[1:48:15] where there's

[1:48:16] opportunity for improvement

[1:48:17] there, but also gives us some

[1:48:19] wiggle room to consider where

[1:48:20] there is capacity. How do we

[1:48:22] implement these safety and

[1:48:23] operational improvements. So

[1:48:25] with that I'm going to turn it

[1:48:26] over phase two to Amanda. And

[1:48:29] then I'll be back to talk about

[1:48:30] the recommendations.

[1:48:33] Amanda Chornoby All right. Good afternoon

[1:48:34] everyone. My name is Amanda.

[1:48:35] I'm a project manager with

[1:48:37] Renaissance Planning, the

[1:48:39] transportation and land use

[1:48:40] planning firm that was tasked

[1:48:41] with completing completing

[1:48:43] phases one through three of the

[1:48:44] East Bay corridor study. So as

[1:48:46] I mentioned, I'll

[1:48:47] be providing

[1:48:48] an overview of phase two that

[1:48:49] was completed earlier this year

[1:48:51] in February. So phase two had

[1:48:55] two goals, first of which was

[1:48:57] to gather stakeholder and

[1:48:58] public input to get feedback on

[1:49:01] corridor issues and potential

[1:49:03] improvements. And two, was to

[1:49:04] model future growth in the

[1:49:06] corridor based on the activity

[1:49:07] centers identified in the Largo

[1:49:09] Comprehensive Plan. To

[1:49:11] understand how this may affect

[1:49:12] travel demand, congestion and

[1:49:14] mode choice. So several

[1:49:17] outreach methods were utilized

[1:49:19] to solicit feedback from the

[1:49:21] community. This included a mix

[1:49:22] of in-person and virtual

[1:49:24] stakeholder meetings, in-person

[1:49:26] community events such as at the

[1:49:28] Largo Saturday Night Market and

[1:49:29] at Largo High School, and an

[1:49:31] online survey that received

[1:49:32] over 100 plus unique responses

[1:49:35] during these in-person

[1:49:36] community events, dots and

[1:49:38] poster boards were utilized

[1:49:40] with the public to identify

[1:49:42] where there were intersections,

[1:49:43] sidewalk transit, and bicycle

[1:49:45] concerns along the corridor.

[1:49:51] Additionally, these poster

[1:49:52] boards were utilized to

[1:49:53] identify prioritized

[1:49:55] improvements to address those

[1:49:57] issues. Key findings were

[1:49:58] consistent across all

[1:50:00] engagement methods. Safety

[1:50:01] concerns were primarily located

[1:50:03] at intersections along the East

[1:50:05] Bay corridor, and some of the

[1:50:06] most requested

[1:50:07] improvements

[1:50:08] were related to separated

[1:50:10] protected bicycle lanes, wider

[1:50:12] sidewalks, and improved

[1:50:13] lighting. Others emphasize the

[1:50:15] need for better bus stop

[1:50:16] amenities, and, as mentioned,

[1:50:18] pull out bays to reduce traffic

[1:50:20] delays and improve safety.

[1:50:22] Lastly, feedback from

[1:50:23] drivers

[1:50:23] noted concerns about congestion

[1:50:25] and aggressive driving behavior.

[1:50:30] So to test the impacts of

[1:50:32] potential growth and increased

[1:50:33] travel demand in the corridor,

[1:50:34] phase two modeled a scenario to

[1:50:36] shift an increase in jobs and

[1:50:38] housing to the

[1:50:39] corridor,

[1:50:40] reflecting adopted city land

[1:50:41] use plans, future land use

[1:50:43] regulations and defined

[1:50:44] activity centers. The analysis

[1:50:47] began with the planning

[1:50:48] assessment that modified year

[1:50:50] 2045 person trip tables from

[1:50:52] the Tampa Bay Regional

[1:50:53] Transportation Analysis model

[1:50:55] to efficiently test differing

[1:50:56] land use scenarios and the

[1:50:58] study corridor. And it should

[1:50:59] be noted that at the time, 2045

[1:51:01] was the latest when we

[1:51:02] completed the study, travel

[1:51:05] demand data from replica was

[1:51:06] also reviewed. To better

[1:51:09] understand walking and biking

[1:51:10] demand in the corridor,

[1:51:11] as the

[1:51:11] Tampa Bay model does not

[1:51:14] develop, walk and bike trip

[1:51:15] details. Insights from both the

[1:51:18] planning model and replica were

[1:51:19] used to create the future land

[1:51:21] use scenario. Year 2045 Traffic

[1:51:25] Analysis Zone forecasts were

[1:51:27] modified to reflect the

[1:51:28] scenario, and a full model run

[1:51:30] was made to estimate future

[1:51:32] year traffic levels in the

[1:51:33] corridor. Overall, the results

[1:51:36] showed that the land use

[1:51:37] pattern and vision, coupled

[1:51:38] with multimodal investments,

[1:51:39] can result in a significant

[1:51:41] modal shift along the corridor.

[1:51:46] So the map here depicts the

[1:51:47] resulting shift in the estimate

[1:51:48] at the traffic analysis zone

[1:51:50] level between the adopted 2045

[1:51:52] and the future scenario. As you

[1:51:54] can see in future scenario

[1:51:56] where there are multimodal

[1:51:58] investments coupled

[1:51:58] with the

[1:51:59] land use changes, there is a

[1:52:00] shift of jobs to areas like the

[1:52:02] places that mentioned West Bay

[1:52:05] drive, CRD, the tri city

[1:52:07] activity area, and the Bay

[1:52:08] Vista Office Park. Similarly,

[1:52:14] there is a

[1:52:15] shift of dwelling

[1:52:15] units near those same activity

[1:52:17] centers along the corridor,

[1:52:19] effectively creating a corridor

[1:52:20] that aligns people with

[1:52:21] transportation infrastructure

[1:52:22] to get them where they need to

[1:52:24] go. And so while the shift does

[1:52:29] not change the total

[1:52:31] number of

[1:52:31] trips in the corridor, it does

[1:52:32] change the distribution of

[1:52:33] trips and shortens the overall

[1:52:35] trip lengths by 20% and lowers

[1:52:38] vehicle miles traveled by

[1:52:39] approximately 30%. This

[1:52:42] basically means more users

[1:52:44] utilizing alternative modes of

[1:52:46] transportation. Besides

[1:52:46] a

[1:52:47] motorized vehicle, the modeling

[1:52:49] aligns with community feedback

[1:52:50] we heard to focus on

[1:52:52] improvements at key

[1:52:53] intersections near activity

[1:52:54] center areas. And so for

[1:52:56] anybody who wants to read more

[1:52:57] in depth about the corridor

[1:52:59] mobility evaluation, appendix D

[1:53:02] in the

[1:53:02] phase two report details

[1:53:04] this out more. If you're into

[1:53:06] the nitty gritty details. And

[1:53:08] so with that, I'll hand it back

[1:53:09] over to Nousheen to cover phase

[1:53:11] three.

[1:53:15] Nousheen Rahman: Thanks, Amanda. So with the

[1:53:19] context of the existing

[1:53:20] conditions along the corridor,

[1:53:22] and then essentially the

[1:53:23] scenario testing that we did,

[1:53:25] we worked closely with the

[1:53:27] consultant as well as the city

[1:53:28] of Largo to identify the

[1:53:31] priority recommendations along

[1:53:32] this corridor. And so today,

[1:53:33] I'll give you

[1:53:34] kind of an

[1:53:35] overview of those

[1:53:36] recommendations and some

[1:53:37] examples. But what I want to

[1:53:38] provide context on first is the

[1:53:41] varying right of way widths

[1:53:42] along the corridor, which

[1:53:43] essentially inform how much

[1:53:44] room we have to make certain

[1:53:46] improvements. And you can see

[1:53:47] we have a more narrow right of

[1:53:49] way more on the

[1:53:50] western end.

[1:53:50] And it widens as we get to the

[1:53:52] eastern end. So this is just

[1:53:54] context for how we looked at

[1:53:55] this corridor based on its

[1:53:56] segments and the feasibility.

[1:53:58] And while our recommendations

[1:54:00] are really on a project by

[1:54:03] project basis, identifying very

[1:54:04] specific improvements that can

[1:54:05] be made, it's also

[1:54:06] important

[1:54:06] for us to have a long term

[1:54:08] vision for the corridor. This

[1:54:10] typical section in front of you

[1:54:12] shows the potential for

[1:54:14] improvements from US 19 to

[1:54:16] Lightwave Drive, which is the

[1:54:17] last eastern portion, and you

[1:54:19] can see currently at the top

[1:54:22] there ar

[1:54:22] e no separated bike

[1:54:23] lanes, but then the potential

[1:54:24] shows the ability to

[1:54:26] incorporate that. And this is

[1:54:27] actually something that is

[1:54:29] under design by fDOT. This

[1:54:31] typical section is not the

[1:54:32] design plan itself, but the

[1:54:35] resurfacing that is under

[1:54:36] design currently will

[1:54:37] incorporate the

[1:54:38] separated bike

[1:54:38] lanes, and the lane widths here

[1:54:40] also reflect the lane widths

[1:54:42] that are being implemented

[1:54:44] through the remaining

[1:54:45] resurfacing that are underway

[1:54:46] from Highland to Belcher and

[1:54:48] then Belcher to US. 19 so

[1:54:49] there's an opportunity for this

[1:54:51] corridor to have a continuous

[1:54:53] bike lanes and

[1:54:54] the opportunity

[1:54:55] to connect into the Pinellas

[1:54:57] Trail, which is on the western

[1:54:58] side of the corridor. But that

[1:55:01] is the long term vision. And

[1:55:03] what we're really focused on

[1:55:04] with our corridor studies are

[1:55:05] trying to do with our corridor

[1:55:07] studies, is have projects that

[1:55:08] come out of them, because

[1:55:10] ulti

[1:55:10] mately projects need to be

[1:55:11] incorporated in our priority

[1:55:12] list in the transportation

[1:55:13] improvement program that you

[1:55:15] approve last month. So with the

[1:55:18] consultant with the city of

[1:55:19] Largo, we identified pretty

[1:55:21] much every single improvement

[1:55:22] that needed to be made. I think

[1:55:24] there was a list of maybe 800

[1:55:26] different improvements, and a

[1:55:27] lot of those were Ada

[1:55:29] noncompliance, like curb ramps,

[1:55:31] tactile warning pavers. So we

[1:55:32] got down to that level of

[1:55:34] identifying every single

[1:55:35] sidewalk, every single

[1:55:36] intersection. But then how do

[1:55:38] you prioritize that? How do you

[1:55:39] identify which projects we need

[1:55:41] to move forward now?

[1:55:42] So with

[1:55:42] the help of our consultant,

[1:55:44] they developed this scoring

[1:55:45] criteria. And then all of the

[1:55:47] projects were scored and then

[1:55:48] put into the buckets of the

[1:55:50] recommended strategies in front

[1:55:51] of you. And in working with the

[1:55:54] city of Largo based on their

[1:55:55] priorities, their community

[1:55:57] feedback. We also

[1:55:59] identified

[1:55:59] the kind of key intersections

[1:56:01] where improvements could be

[1:56:03] seen or should be seen, and

[1:56:04] those are listed in front of

[1:56:05] you as well, which are also

[1:56:07] supported by the data. But I

[1:56:08] will start to go over some of

[1:56:10] the recommended strategies, and

[1:56:12] I'll start with the enhanced

[1:56:13] transit facilities that were

[1:56:15] recommended. As I mentioned, we

[1:56:17] have been working with Psta to

[1:56:19] identify a methodology and a

[1:56:21] way to prioritize locations for

[1:56:23] bus based countywide. So while

[1:56:25] this corridor study was

[1:56:26] underway, we thought it would

[1:56:27] be great to have some

[1:56:28] recommendations that utilize

[1:56:29] that methodology. And we kind

[1:56:31] of scored these locations based

[1:56:33] on some initial criteria, the

[1:56:34] first being crash exposure at a

[1:56:36] bus stop, the number of routes

[1:56:39] serviced by a stop. So the

[1:56:40] number of times a bus or a

[1:56:42] different route might actually

[1:56:43] be stopping at a stop, as well

[1:56:45] as the land

[1:56:46] use context.

[1:56:46] Because of course, transit

[1:56:47] riders are going somewhere

[1:56:48] after the bus stop. And then we,

[1:56:50] based on all of the bus stops

[1:56:52] in the corridors, scored them

[1:56:53] based on these criteria. And

[1:56:55] the picture at the top of the

[1:56:57] slide shows you the highest

[1:56:58] scored location for East Bay

[1:57:00] drive specifically, which is

[1:57:01] the

[1:57:01] stop at second Street. This

[1:57:03] is right across from Largo

[1:57:04] Central Park, and I had to put

[1:57:06] a box around this bus stop

[1:57:08] because when I looked at this

[1:57:09] picture, I couldn't tell where

[1:57:10] the bus stop was. So that is to

[1:57:12] help you identify. And you can

[1:57:14] see that aside from a sign,

[1:57:15] there are no other facilities.

[1:57:18] And what we will do with PSTA

[1:57:21] is to kind of narrow down some

[1:57:23] of the locations, not just on

[1:57:25] this corridor, but countywide,

[1:57:27] because this is just an initial

[1:57:28] screening criteria. We have to

[1:57:30] determine right of way

[1:57:31] feasibility. We have to

[1:57:32] determine if, you know, the

[1:57:33] curb needs to be moved. All of

[1:57:35] those other design

[1:57:36] recommendations or

[1:57:37] considerations that go into

[1:57:38] this, and we will be working

[1:57:40] with PSTA staff to give an

[1:57:42] update to their board, as well

[1:57:43] as you all as we advance this.

[1:57:45] But this report does include

[1:57:46] some recommendations for bus

[1:57:48] bays. Moving on

[1:57:49] to pedestrian

[1:57:51] improvements. The study also

[1:57:52] identified mid-block crossing

[1:57:54] recommendations. This was

[1:57:55] something that the Largo City

[1:57:57] Commission also provided

[1:57:58] feedback on and wanting to see,

[1:58:00] especially due to some of the

[1:58:02] very long distances for

[1:58:04] pedestrian crossings. So, for

[1:58:05] example, on the eastern end of

[1:58:07] the corridor from 62nd Street

[1:58:08] to 58th Street, you have to

[1:58:10] walk half a mile until you

[1:58:12] cross. In this weather, I would

[1:58:14] not recommend it. So what we

[1:58:16] have done is identified those

[1:58:18] top locations and above. Here

[1:58:20] is an

[1:58:21] example of how a

[1:58:22] mid-block crossing could

[1:58:24] potentially be incorporated,

[1:58:25] especially where there's

[1:58:25] already a median, because you

[1:58:27] are crossing three lanes of

[1:58:29] traffic on each side. And these

[1:58:31] are the top locations, and then

[1:58:33] a little bit more of an

[1:58:34] extensive recommendation, which

[1:58:36] would be less in the short term

[1:58:37] an

[1:58:37] d probably more in the

[1:58:38] mid-term, is considering

[1:58:40] improvements to intersections.

[1:58:42] The picture here on the top of

[1:58:43] the slide shows you the

[1:58:45] existing intersection at

[1:58:47] Belcher Road. You can see that

[1:58:49] it's a very wide intersection.

[1:58:51] The pedestrian crossings are

[1:58:52] quite long

[1:58:54] and there are often

[1:58:55] lots of turning movement

[1:58:57] conflicts. And some of these

[1:58:59] improvements could potentially

[1:59:00] improve both the pedestrian

[1:59:01] safety as well as the

[1:59:04] operations along or within an

[1:59:07] intersection. And these

[1:59:08] locations that are

[1:59:09] scored here

[1:59:10] scored the highest in the

[1:59:12] report. And the one that I want

[1:59:14] to point out to you is the

[1:59:16] number one location at Bay

[1:59:17] Vista Drive, where while this

[1:59:18] corridor study was underway, we

[1:59:20] actually tried to start

[1:59:21] implementing the recommendation

[1:59:23] based on a request we received

[1:59:24] from

[1:59:25] TD from Bay Vista Office

[1:59:27] Park to incorporate a signal at

[1:59:30] this intersection. Given the

[1:59:31] very high speeds along this

[1:59:33] segment of Roosevelt Boulevard,

[1:59:35] and the fact that right now,

[1:59:37] the age of work from home and

[1:59:38] hybrid environments have been

[1:59:40] changing, TD S

[1:59:41] ynnex pretty much

[1:59:41] is completely back to office,

[1:59:43] which means that all those cars

[1:59:44] are now going back into that

[1:59:46] office park. So currently in

[1:59:49] intersection control evaluation

[1:59:50] is underway by fDOT, and we're

[1:59:53] awaiting the results of that in

[1:59:55] the next couple of weeks. So

[1:59:57] as

[1:59:57] far as the implementation of

[1:59:58] this project or of this study,

[2:00:00] as I mentioned, our goal is to

[2:00:03] identify projects and then

[2:00:04] ultimately move them into our

[2:00:05] project priority list and then

[2:00:07] coordinate with partners as

[2:00:08] needed. For example, in

[2:00:10] implementing a signal at Bay

[2:00:12] Vista

[2:00:13] Drive. And as I mentioned,

[2:00:15] today's presentation to you was

[2:00:16] just informational. I'm here to

[2:00:17] take your questions and

[2:00:19] comments, but we will be taking

[2:00:21] this to the Largo City

[2:00:23] Commission at their next work

[2:00:24] session. Our Technical

[2:00:26] Coordinating Committee has also

[2:00:27] received this prese

[2:00:28] ntation. I

[2:00:29] gave it to them last week, and

[2:00:30] they will be providing a

[2:00:32] recommendation to you all. And

[2:00:34] this will ultimately come back

[2:00:35] to you in September for

[2:00:36] approval, if that's how you

[2:00:37] wish to move forward. And

[2:00:40] immediate next steps include

[2:00:41] continuing to coordinate with

[2:00:43] fDOT and Bay Vis

[2:00:44] ta Office Park,

[2:00:46] as well as coordinating with

[2:00:47] PSTA on those shorter term

[2:00:50] transit improvements. But with

[2:00:52] that, I'm happy to take any

[2:00:54] questions. And Amanda is here

[2:00:55] as well. Thank you for your

[2:00:57] attention.

[2:00:58] Brian Scott: Thank

[2:00:59] you very much.

[2:01:00] Questions.

[2:01:00] Comments.

[2:01:01] Thoughts.

[2:01:04] Chris Johnson: I just wanted to say thank

[2:01:06] you for the team. We greatly

[2:01:08] appreciate the partnership with

[2:01:09] you all and also the fDOT. The

[2:01:12] bike lanes are already making a

[2:01:13] huge difference. So just thank

[2:01:16] you for that and

[2:01:16] we're excited

[2:01:17] to partner with you throughout

[2:01:18] this process. So just thanks to

[2:01:20] everyone involved.

[2:01:21] Brian Scott: Thank you

[2:01:22] Chris. Anybody

[2:01:24] else?

[2:01:25] Chris Scherer: I like all the bus bay ideas.

[2:01:27] Nousheen Rahman: That's great. I thought you

[2:01:28] might. Yeah.

[2:01:29] Whit Blanton: We did those just for you.

[2:01:31] Brian Scott: Particularly right there

[2:01:32] on

[2:01:32] that stretch there. Yeah I know.

[2:01:34] I that's my daily my daily

[2:01:36] route so I get it.

[2:01:38] Tom Reid: And as for your inability to

[2:01:39] see the sign, we have

[2:01:40] authorized new larger hire

[2:01:42] print signs. So I bet your

[2:01:44] point is well taken.

[2:01:46] Thank you.

[2:01:47] Whit Blanton: Board members, I just wan

[2:01:48] t

[2:01:48] to add one little thing. I

[2:01:49] think Amanda did a really nice

[2:01:51] job highlighting, you know,

[2:01:53] what we're really trying to

[2:01:54] accomplish here in Pinellas

[2:01:55] County as we redevelop. And

[2:01:57] that is, you know, the magic

[2:01:58] bullet here is shorter trip

[2:01:59] links. And if we can get more

[2:02:02] mixed use housing, housing

[2:02:04] closer to where jobs are,

[2:02:06] ensure that we retain those

[2:02:07] jobs here in Pinellas County,

[2:02:08] near where people live, then

[2:02:11] we're in a lot better shape

[2:02:12] than a lot of other counties

[2:02:13] because they're having to drive

[2:02:15] longer distances to get to

[2:02:16] those destinations. Look at

[2:02:18] Pasco County, for instance,

[2:02:19] which didn't really

[2:02:20] plan for a

[2:02:20] lot of commercial activity. And

[2:02:23] their residents are all forced

[2:02:25] to get on like one major road

[2:02:27] where we have more of a network

[2:02:29] of streets. And so this plan

[2:02:31] really does show that with

[2:02:34] redevelopment, with smart

[2:02:35] transportation investments,

[2:02:36] that we can reduce trip links,

[2:02:39] we can, you know, not

[2:02:40] everybody's going to want to

[2:02:41] get on a bike or walk, you know,

[2:02:43] as, as Nousheen mentioned in

[2:02:44] this heat. But if a small

[2:02:47] number of those people start

[2:02:48] doing that, that's fewer trips

[2:02:49] on the road, but it's really

[2:02:51] the shorter trip lengths

[2:02:52] because that's the death knell

[2:02:54] of transportation is forcing

[2:02:57] people to get in, you know, a

[2:02:58] 15, 25, 30 minute drive every

[2:03:00] time to go anywhere. You don't

[2:03:02] have to do that in this

[2:03:03] corridor. This corridor is ripe

[2:03:04] for that. So I think this

[2:03:07] demonstrates that even in

[2:03:08] a

[2:03:08] very developed roadway

[2:03:12] environment, you know, high

[2:03:14] speed arterial, we're not going

[2:03:16] to take away any lanes or

[2:03:18] anything like that. They're

[2:03:19] still measurable opportunity

[2:03:20] for improvement. I think that's

[2:03:22] the big takeaway I have for

[2:03:23] this.

[2:03:23] Brian Scott: Yeah. Great

[2:03:24] points, great

[2:03:25] points. Okay. Thank you very

[2:03:28] much. All right. Now move on to

[2:03:32] item 6 D 22nd Avenue North

[2:03:34] trail crossing study. And I've

[2:03:35] been looking forward to this

[2:03:36] one because I am extremely

[2:03:37] familiar with this particular

[2:03:38] trail crossing.

[2:03:39] Whit Blanton: So

[2:03:40] you're saying you've had

[2:03:40] some near-misses?

[2:03:42] Brian Scott: Yes, I have had a few along

[2:03:44] that stretch of road. Yes,

[2:03:46] indeed I have. So how are you

[2:03:48] doing.

[2:03:49] Kyle Simpson: Kyle Simpson for Pinellas

[2:03:50] staff. And as noted here to

[2:03:54] talk about the study that we

[2:03:55] did in

[2:03:56] partnership with the

[2:03:57] City of Saint Petersburg and

[2:03:58] Pinellas County, on the trail

[2:04:00] crossing of 22nd Avenue North

[2:04:02] in Saint Petersburg. So the

[2:04:05] crossing. Just for a little

[2:04:06] context looking bird's eye view,

[2:04:09] you have alt 19 kind of in

[2:04:11] Tyro

[2:04:12] ne Boulevard in the upper

[2:04:13] right corner and then Tyrone

[2:04:15] Mall. An important thing to

[2:04:16] note about Tyrone Mall is

[2:04:18] that's a huge transfer point

[2:04:19] for PSTA. They have nine routes

[2:04:22] that stop there and the stop

[2:04:24] itself is on 22nd. And so all

[2:04:26] nine of those routes

[2:04:28] cross the

[2:04:29] trail to make a loop in the

[2:04:30] neighborhood to head back east.

[2:04:32] So there's a lot of bus traffic

[2:04:33] across this crossing. So the

[2:04:37] cleaner look again from the top

[2:04:40] down. And then as a driver view,

[2:04:42] this is kind of what it looks

[2:04:43] li

[2:04:43] ke today. It's four lanes.

[2:04:45] There's kind of sort of a

[2:04:47] median. We wouldn't really call

[2:04:48] it a refuge, but there's a kind

[2:04:50] of planters there to enable the

[2:04:52] rectangular rapid flashing

[2:04:53] beacon to be put in the middle.

[2:04:56] And then again, there's the bus.

[2:05:00] There's pretty good sightlines,

[2:05:02] generally speaking, and it's

[2:05:04] there is traffic, but it's not

[2:05:06] that much traffic as we'll get

[2:05:08] into. So it's an interesting

[2:05:09] case study that really came to

[2:05:12] the forefront after a fatal

[2:05:14] crash that happened in late

[2:05:16] 2024, actually involving a psta

[2:05:18] bus. And so we worked with the

[2:05:20] city after that. And the county

[2:05:22] to identify this location was

[2:05:25] overrepresented for Pinellas

[2:05:26] Trail crossings for crashes.

[2:05:28] And so we wanted to take a

[2:05:30] deeper dive into why.

[2:05:32] So the

[2:05:32] scope of this project included

[2:05:34] looking at how the existing

[2:05:37] configuration operates,

[2:05:38] basically, how people driving

[2:05:40] or on the trail interact with

[2:05:42] each other, and what are the

[2:05:44] volumes of vehicles and then

[2:05:45] trail traffic. And then based

[2:05:46] on that

[2:05:47] data, what are some

[2:05:48] improvements we could make to

[2:05:49] make it work better for

[2:05:51] everyone? So looking at vehicle

[2:05:55] operations, the posted speed

[2:05:56] limit out there is 35 and the

[2:05:59] actual speeds are really close

[2:06:00] to that, which doesn't happen a

[2:06:01] lot. And that was actually

[2:06:02] really good to see

[2:06:04] vehicle

[2:06:05] volumes. The darker bars are

[2:06:08] the weekday and then weekend is

[2:06:10] the lighter orange bars post.

[2:06:14] Pre-COVID, we saw, especially

[2:06:15] in weekdays, pretty defined AM

[2:06:17] and PM peaks, but now it's kind

[2:06:19] of

[2:06:19] consistent throughout the

[2:06:20] day with a more definitive peak

[2:06:22] in the PM. And then weekend

[2:06:24] traffic has always kind of been

[2:06:27] consistent midday and started

[2:06:28] later. And so this kind of is

[2:06:31] similar to any other roadway we

[2:06:32] would see around the county. We

[2:06:35] look at

[2:06:35] trail volume. So the

[2:06:37] graph on the top is weekday in

[2:06:41] 15 minute increments. So we

[2:06:42] actually see really consistent

[2:06:44] use throughout the whole day.

[2:06:46] And then the bottom one is one

[2:06:47] Saturday. These counts were

[2:06:49] taken November 12th through

[2:06:51] 15th in 2025. So that's a

[2:06:53] Wednesday through Saturday. And

[2:06:55] on the weekend we'd have well

[2:06:56] over 100 trail users crossing

[2:06:59] this intersection an hour. And

[2:07:00] so that's a really high volume

[2:07:03] for for crossing. So over those

[2:07:05] four days, we counted just

[2:07:06] under

[2:07:07] 3000 trail users crossing

[2:07:09] here, and 88% of those were on

[2:07:12] a bicycle of some sort, 8% were

[2:07:15] on their feet, and then 4% were

[2:07:17] on a scooter, in a wheelchair,

[2:07:19] on a one board, on a skateboard,

[2:07:21] kind of anything else that they

[2:07:23] could

[2:07:23] be moving on. So as I

[2:07:26] said, there's rectangular rapid

[2:07:27] flashing beacons, and those

[2:07:29] require the user to press a

[2:07:31] button to turn it on. Flashing

[2:07:34] beacons. They don't change the

[2:07:35] law. They just draw attention

[2:07:37] to somebody there, but they

[2:07:38] don't

[2:07:39] change right of way.

[2:07:41] State law says that a driver

[2:07:43] shall stop for someone in a

[2:07:44] crosswalk, so this just

[2:07:45] enforces that someone is there.

[2:07:47] But we were interested in kind

[2:07:48] of how trail users interacted

[2:07:50] with that. And we found over

[2:07:52] those four days that basically

[2:07:54] one out of every

[2:07:55] three trail

[2:07:56] users activated the beacon. And

[2:07:59] that could be because they

[2:08:01] arrived when there wasn't

[2:08:03] traffic. And so they just went

[2:08:05] when there was a gap, it could

[2:08:07] be that they waited until

[2:08:09] traffic cleared and then just

[2:08:10] went when they

[2:08:11] felt safe.

[2:08:12] There's different. We didn't do

[2:08:14] it. We didn't go out there and

[2:08:15] say, why did you do this or not?

[2:08:17] But just from the video footage

[2:08:19] that we had, that's what we

[2:08:20] found. And then another

[2:08:22] interesting tidbit from that

[2:08:23] review was that of the one

[2:08:26] third that pressed

[2:08:27] it, quote

[2:08:29] unquote, it only activated 64%

[2:08:32] of the time. So that could have

[2:08:34] been someone's biking by. They

[2:08:35] didn't like stop, kind of just

[2:08:36] hit at it, but didn't actually

[2:08:38] hit the button. So that was an

[2:08:40] interesting thing that we can

[2:08:41] take back with our design

[2:08:43] recommendations and

[2:08:44] considerations. We did find

[2:08:47] that on the week days, the

[2:08:50] number of people that activated

[2:08:51] the RFP was higher. So it was

[2:08:53] 40% on weekdays and 31% on

[2:08:56] weekends. That probably could

[2:08:58] correlate with

[2:08:59] the difference

[2:09:00] in traffic volume. So on the

[2:09:01] weekdays, there were around

[2:09:03] 12,000 vehicles a day passing

[2:09:05] through there. And then on the

[2:09:06] Saturday there was 9000. So

[2:09:08] there's opportunity for more

[2:09:10] gaps where someone would just

[2:09:11] feel comfortable continuing on

[2:09:12] because there's no motorist to

[2:09:15] alert to their presence. So

[2:09:18] then we looked at how do

[2:09:20] drivers interact with trail

[2:09:22] users. And so we found that

[2:09:25] when a trail user was at the

[2:09:27] crossing, 63% of the time,

[2:09:29] there was a vehicle

[2:09:30] kind of in

[2:09:31] the mix 91% of the time when

[2:09:35] that happened, the driver

[2:09:38] yielded to the trail user, the

[2:09:40] one on the bottom 95% of the

[2:09:42] time that the trail user turned

[2:09:43] on the flashing beacon, the

[2:09:46] driver yielded in

[2:09:47] accordance

[2:09:47] with state law. That's really

[2:09:49] good numbers. It's kind of what

[2:09:51] we see with most flashing

[2:09:52] beacon assemblies around the

[2:09:53] county. They are effective when

[2:09:55] used, but we do see they're a

[2:09:58] little bit more when someone's

[2:10:01] on a bike, getting them to

[2:10:02] slow

[2:10:03] down and turn it on. It's just

[2:10:05] a harder ask. So then we looked

[2:10:08] at near miss conflicts. So

[2:10:10] these are what are things that

[2:10:11] could cause concern and that we

[2:10:13] want to look into further where

[2:10:15] some things a close call but

[2:10:17] doesn't show up in our crash

[2:10:18] data because a crash didn't

[2:10:20] happen, luckily. So how we

[2:10:24] measure this is called post

[2:10:25] encroachment time. So basically

[2:10:28] if someone is going, oh, sorry,

[2:10:31] wake you up. So if someone's

[2:10:33] going in on the trail

[2:10:34] and then

[2:10:35] someone's driving on the street

[2:10:37] and they pass within a second,

[2:10:38] within two seconds or within

[2:10:40] three seconds of each other, we

[2:10:42] note that. And so there's

[2:10:44] different ways to interpret

[2:10:46] this. We saw that most

[2:10:48] instances of this were when

[2:10:50] someone on the

[2:10:50] trail passed

[2:10:51] within a second or two of

[2:10:53] someone driving. So that means

[2:10:55] kind of they yielded for the

[2:10:56] the vehicle and then went

[2:10:59] behind them. So it wasn't a

[2:11:00] close call necessarily. They

[2:11:02] both probably knew what was

[2:11:04] going on, but it shows up in

[2:11:05] our data.

[2:11:07] The second most

[2:11:08] common was when a driver kind

[2:11:10] of opposite of that. So a trail

[2:11:13] user is there and a driver cuts

[2:11:15] behind the trail user really

[2:11:16] close. So that's a little bit

[2:11:18] more concerning. It could be

[2:11:19] where someone on the trail

[2:11:20] thought a motorist was stopp

[2:11:22] ing

[2:11:22] and they didn't, or they cut

[2:11:23] close. That could be where we

[2:11:24] get into the situation where

[2:11:27] someone, a trail user, feels

[2:11:28] like it was a close call and it

[2:11:29] was uncomfortable. And then

[2:11:34] with this type of crossing

[2:11:36] where it's two lanes in each

[2:11:37] direction, there's the

[2:11:38] issue of

[2:11:39] multiple threat. So that's

[2:11:40] where the driver and the curb

[2:11:42] lane stops. But then the driver

[2:11:44] in the left lane does not stop.

[2:11:46] Technically speaking, that's

[2:11:47] illegal. If there's someone

[2:11:49] stopped at a crosswalk, you

[2:11:50] shall stop. But there's a

[2:11:52] difference between what we

[2:11:53] should do

[2:11:54] and what actually

[2:11:55] happens. And so that was a big

[2:11:56] focus of us, especially knowing

[2:11:58] that there's a lot of bus

[2:11:59] traffic here. And this actually

[2:12:03] was an issue that we noticed a

[2:12:04] few times through the review of

[2:12:06] the camera footage that some of

[2:12:08] the, the most close

[2:12:10] incidences

[2:12:11] occurred when someone in one

[2:12:14] lane stopped, but in the next

[2:12:15] lane did not. So then looking

[2:12:19] at the crash data from the last

[2:12:22] five years of 2021 to 2025, we

[2:12:25] maintain a system.

[2:12:26] And then we

[2:12:26] also looked at the state system

[2:12:28] signal for. And we had the one

[2:12:30] fatal crash in 2024 that

[2:12:32] involved a user. So someone

[2:12:36] walking activated the flashing

[2:12:39] beacon vehicle, stopped for

[2:12:40] them. They started crossing.

[2:12:42] Someone on a scooter, noticed

[2:12:44] that traffic had stopped and

[2:12:47] kind of went to cross. When

[2:12:49] they went to cross, a bus

[2:12:52] started continuing after the

[2:12:53] first pedestrian had crossed

[2:12:56] and there was a collisi

[2:12:58] on which

[2:12:58] resulted in a fatality. That

[2:13:02] instance, we found that 8% of

[2:13:06] the 3000 crossings that we. We

[2:13:08] monitored, 8% of those

[2:13:11] crossings happened where

[2:13:12] basically someone entered the

[2:13:14] crosswalk after someone else

[2:13:15] had turned the flashing beacon

[2:13:17] on. So the beacon is timed to

[2:13:19] if someone hits the button,

[2:13:20] it's at a walking speed and so

[2:13:22] it will flash, say for 20s and

[2:13:23] then turn off if someone else

[2:13:25] doesn't hit the button. So that

[2:13:26] was a concern that we noticed

[2:13:28] and has shown up in our crash

[2:13:30] data. Other than that, there

[2:13:31] weren't too many glaring issues

[2:13:35] for us. There were. It was

[2:13:38] pretty consistent with a trail

[2:13:40] user type. So most of the

[2:13:42] crashes involved bicyclists,

[2:13:43] but most of the trail use is

[2:13:45] bicyclists

[2:13:45] . And then the one

[2:13:47] scooter crash was the fatality.

[2:13:50] Most of these were in daylight

[2:13:52] hours with clear weather, kind

[2:13:54] of also consistent with when

[2:13:55] the trail is used. And just to

[2:14:00] note, when we look through the

[2:14:01] written n

[2:14:01] arrative, ten of the

[2:14:03] crashes occurred when it was

[2:14:05] noted that the RFB was

[2:14:06] activated, noting that would

[2:14:08] require either a witness or the

[2:14:11] driver or trail user saying, so

[2:14:13] again, that doesn't change the

[2:14:15] law necessarily, but it is an

[2:14:17] interesting fact. Three drivers

[2:14:20] directly said that a bus

[2:14:22] blocked their line of sight of

[2:14:23] a trail user that was involved

[2:14:25] in the collision, and then

[2:14:27] three of the crashes involved

[2:14:29] that kind of multiple threat

[2:14:31] issue, where you might have

[2:14:31] someone going northbound on the

[2:14:33] trail and someone

[2:14:33] coming

[2:14:34] southbound and they stopped for

[2:14:35] one person and then didn't see

[2:14:37] the other person coming. And

[2:14:40] then also two reports noted sun

[2:14:42] glare. That's a difficult one

[2:14:44] with roads that go due east

[2:14:46] west, but something that we can

[2:14:48] take into consideration with

[2:14:49] design recommendations. So

[2:14:51] based on all that, went back

[2:14:54] and developed some some

[2:14:56] potential alternatives,

[2:14:57] starting from kind of the least

[2:14:59] intensive to the most intensive.

[2:15:01] So the first option would be.

[2:15:07] The clicker. It's so good that

[2:15:12] we're we can't move forward.

[2:15:18] Brian Scott: Got a clicker. Thank you.

[2:15:19] There we go. There we go.

[2:15:21] Kyle Simpson: So the fir

[2:15:21] st one is just

[2:15:22] updating the signage with

[2:15:23] current standards out there.

[2:15:27] Can you advance the next. Thank

[2:15:30] you. Going forward would be

[2:15:33] formalizing the medians. So

[2:15:34] right now they're kind of just

[2:15:36] landscaped medians but not a

[2:15:37] refuge island. This would make

[2:15:38] it a refuge island and raise

[2:15:41] the the crossing. So this would

[2:15:43] be consistent with fDOT has a

[2:15:45] standard now for raised

[2:15:47] pedestrian crossings on state

[2:15:49] roadways. Currently it's not

[2:15:51] allowed in Saint Petersburg per

[2:15:53] their

[2:15:54] comprehensive plan. But

[2:15:55] it's our understanding that the

[2:15:57] city intends to work through a

[2:15:59] comprehensive plan update

[2:16:00] sometime in the near future to

[2:16:03] allow this in the future on

[2:16:04] their collector and arterial

[2:16:06] roadways, and so this could be

[2:16:08] a good option

[2:16:09] to address some

[2:16:11] of the issues that we saw.

[2:16:14] Another alternative we looked

[2:16:15] at was adding kind of chicanes,

[2:16:18] medians on the trail itself. If

[2:16:20] we go to the next and then also

[2:16:25] doing

[2:16:25] a, we call this like a Z

[2:16:27] crossing or a 45. So

[2:16:31] positioning trail users where

[2:16:32] as they cross the intersection

[2:16:34] A, they have to slow down if

[2:16:36] they're on some sort of wheeled

[2:16:38] device, and it positions them

[2:16:39] to look at the direction of

[2:16:41] traffic that they're crossing.

[2:16:43] And so it would have a kind of

[2:16:45] dual purpose effect if we go to

[2:16:47] the next. And then the most

[2:16:51] aggressive is doing a lane

[2:16:53] pinch through the crossing. So

[2:16:55] this would be just for the

[2:16:56] crossing

[2:16:57] location, going down

[2:16:58] from two lanes in each

[2:16:59] direction to one lane. This one

[2:17:01] would require additional

[2:17:03] analysis and study based on

[2:17:05] current Florida statutory

[2:17:07] requirements. So this was

[2:17:08] thrown as an option, but it was

[2:17:10] currently not being considered.

[2:17:12] We

[2:17:13] continue to the next. There

[2:17:17] we go. And then so this is the

[2:17:19] same lane pinch but with the 45.

[2:17:23] Next slide please. And then the

[2:17:25] preferred alternative that was

[2:17:27] come through. So we shopped

[2:17:29] all

[2:17:29] these around to our Bicycle

[2:17:32] pedestrian advisory committee,

[2:17:33] as well as the city's bike-ped

[2:17:34] advisory Committee and their

[2:17:36] Complete Streets Committee. And

[2:17:37] so this would add a raised

[2:17:39] crossing as well as the 45

[2:17:42] degree alignment for the trail.

[2:17:44] So this has the

[2:17:45] benefit of

[2:17:45] slowing down basically all

[2:17:48] users. We see that when when

[2:17:50] everyone is going at a slower

[2:17:52] speed, when things happen,

[2:17:54] everyone has more time to react

[2:17:56] to that and ability to, you

[2:18:00] know, prohibit

[2:18:01] basically

[2:18:02] conflict from happening. So

[2:18:03] this was a good option that

[2:18:05] everyone felt kind of addressed.

[2:18:07] All the concerns that we saw

[2:18:08] out there. If we continue to

[2:18:11] the next. So at this point, we

[2:18:15] pass this along this t

[2:18:16] o the

[2:18:17] county and the city. They were

[2:18:19] involved throughout the whole

[2:18:20] process. It will be it's a city

[2:18:22] road. So they're in lead for

[2:18:24] what happens in the future.

[2:18:26] They do have fDOT and a good

[2:18:30] partnership has identified

[2:18:32] fu

[2:18:32] nding in fiscal year 28 that

[2:18:34] could be available to implement

[2:18:37] these these improvements. And

[2:18:40] we will be provide all the

[2:18:43] assistance as required or as

[2:18:45] requested from the city and

[2:18:47] fDOT as we move forward with

[2:18:48] this.

[2:18:48] And if changes are made

[2:18:51] in the future, we have

[2:18:53] committed to go back and and

[2:18:54] look at what impact they had.

[2:18:57] And if it's something that that

[2:18:58] could be implemented at similar

[2:19:01] trail crossings throughout the

[2:19:02] county, and

[2:19:04] I'd be happy to

[2:19:05] answer any questions.

[2:19:09] Brian Scott: Questions or comments. No, I

[2:19:13] got oh, Mike, go for it. Yes.

[2:19:16] Mike Eisner: I'll answer to anything.

[2:19:17] Don't worry. So I'm going to

[2:19:20] ologize to start this off,

[2:19:20] ap

[2:19:22] because this whole situation of

[2:19:23] what I've just listened to has

[2:19:25] been a pet peeve of mine. I've

[2:19:27] been sitting on the School

[2:19:29] Transportation Safety Council,

[2:19:30] and for years I've been

[2:19:31] speaking about why can't we

[2:19:33] have a motion sensor at every

[2:19:35] one of these

[2:19:37] intersections? It

[2:19:38] is just beyond me. I, as Whit

[2:19:41] knows, I have a bike. I travel

[2:19:43] the trail all the time. Tarpon

[2:19:46] Avenue, they don't even

[2:19:47] consider going near that thing.

[2:19:48] They buzz across a 30 miles an

[2:19:50] hour, and then they dodge the

[2:19:52] vehicles tha

[2:19:52] t are going up and

[2:19:53] down on Tarpon Avenue. We've

[2:19:54] all seen it. That's what

[2:19:56] happens in all these things.

[2:19:57] You're going to have the the

[2:19:59] the weakened biker is the one

[2:20:01] that will sit there, push the

[2:20:03] button, hope for the best and

[2:20:05] whatnot. But the skin tight

[2:20:07] people flying

[2:20:08] across 30 miles

[2:20:09] an hour, they're not stopping.

[2:20:11] And you can't expect the you

[2:20:15] cannot expect the cars to be

[2:20:18] able to see everything that

[2:20:19] goes on. I know when you go

[2:20:21] down in my neck of the woods in

[2:20:24] mirror

[2:20:24] s, there's a huge area of

[2:20:27] grass that you cannot see going

[2:20:31] south. When you're traveling

[2:20:33] east, you just cannot see. So

[2:20:35] there is a stop sign there.

[2:20:37] Some people stop, some people

[2:20:40] almost

[2:20:40] run into the people, you

[2:20:41] know, the people that are

[2:20:42] coming down the trail. We have

[2:20:44] to have to not count on

[2:20:46] people's consideration. We have

[2:20:49] to think beyond the the, the

[2:20:53] ability, their abilities. And

[2:20:54] there has to be a motion senso

[2:20:56] r

[2:20:56] there to be able to warn the

[2:20:58] driver that somebody is coming

[2:20:59] and flashing. This will stop.

[2:21:01] Also, that next person that

[2:21:03] comes behind, the person that

[2:21:06] you know, you have that timer,

[2:21:08] the timer will be reset again

[2:21:11] by the. We have the

[2:21:12] technology,

[2:21:12] we just don't use it. When I

[2:21:15] delved into it, from what I

[2:21:17] understand, the fDOT didn't

[2:21:18] have anything on their list

[2:21:20] that warranted a motion sensors.

[2:21:23] They didn't have anything on

[2:21:25] the list for a school light,

[2:21:28] which is not what we're talking

[2:21:30] about. But we have to, you know,

[2:21:32] wake up and understand if we

[2:21:33] want to save, you know,

[2:21:35] pedestrians and we want to save

[2:21:36] people, we have to make sure

[2:21:38] that we put electronics into

[2:21:39] this. I, I'm seeing what you

[2:21:43] what you pre

[2:21:44] sented and I

[2:21:44] appreciate it all. But but

[2:21:46] that's not going to solve the

[2:21:47] problem.

[2:21:48] Kyle Simpson: Yeah. So you bring up a good

[2:21:49] point. And that is something

[2:21:51] that we looked into and we went

[2:21:53] around to. So basically today

[2:21:55] there are sensors that kind of.

[2:21:58] And there actually is one on

[2:22:00] the trail at an intersection in

[2:22:02] Clearwater when they're higher

[2:22:04] volume crossings. Good. Then.

[2:22:06] Yeah, the current, the

[2:22:07] challenge is if it's just

[2:22:08] always flashing, it reduces its

[2:22:10] effectiveness. And so we were

[2:22:11] trying to see if there is a

[2:22:13] kind of off the shelf item that

[2:22:15] we could

[2:22:16] recommend, where it

[2:22:17] uses camera technology to kind

[2:22:19] of see when someone's in the

[2:22:22] crosswalk versus not. So right

[2:22:23] now, if it activates, it

[2:22:25] activates for a walking speed.

[2:22:28] So whereas 90% of the people

[2:22:30] crossing are on bike, every

[2:22:31] time it turns on, it's going

[2:22:33] for as if someone's walking

[2:22:35] across. So we wanted to see,

[2:22:36] could we implement a passive

[2:22:42] detection.

[2:22:42] >> Reading.

[2:22:43] >> Your own accident?

[2:22:45] >> Have a yeah, where you don't

[2:22:46] have to press the button.

[2:22:48] But

[2:22:48] then it's also not activating a

[2:22:49] bunch of stale activation where,

[2:22:51] you know, the lights are

[2:22:52] flashing, but no one's in the

[2:22:53] crosswalk. Unfortunately, we

[2:22:55] weren't able to identify that

[2:22:56] at this point, but it's

[2:22:57] something that I know fDOT is

[2:22:59] interested in and some of the

[2:23:00] districts are working on. It's

[2:23:03] something

[2:23:03] that we noted in the

[2:23:05] report that passive detection

[2:23:06] is a good option, especially

[2:23:08] combined with noting the user

[2:23:10] type and trying to address kind

[2:23:12] of those, those concerns that

[2:23:14] you identified.

[2:23:15] Mike Eisner: Let me let me just go into

[2:23:17] this one more. Yes, there's

[2:23:19] always

[2:23:20] extenuating

[2:23:21] circumstances. And there is a

[2:23:22] spot in Dunedin. I know that

[2:23:24] the light could be going on all

[2:23:26] day. And in those particular

[2:23:28] areas we need to have a red

[2:23:31] light, not a flashing light.

[2:23:33] And it's to stop the the

[2:23:35] bicyclists. It's to

[2:23:35] stop the

[2:23:36] pedestrians from walking across.

[2:23:38] Just have a red light. I know

[2:23:40] I've spoken a number of times

[2:23:42] about Klosterman in 19. I just

[2:23:45] saw some posts that people

[2:23:47] don't even want to have that do

[2:23:48] not turn on red. They're. They

[2:23:50] just don't want it

[2:23:51] and they

[2:23:52] don't obey it. I was almost hit

[2:23:54] there because the person's

[2:23:56] looking to the left and

[2:23:57] straight sees nobody coming.

[2:23:59] The intersection there is at a

[2:24:02] acute angle, and there. If you

[2:24:06] don't put a

[2:24:07] arm down to stop

[2:24:09] the people, they're going to

[2:24:10] make that right on red. And I

[2:24:13] luckily was able to give it all

[2:24:15] the gas I had on my e-bike, or

[2:24:17] I would have been hit. So

[2:24:18] they're always going to be the

[2:24:20] one or 2 or 3 areas where we

[2:24:23] have to think

[2:24:23] outside the box.

[2:24:24] But for the most part, a motion

[2:24:27] sensor at each one of these

[2:24:29] intersections. Golden. That's

[2:24:31] all I have to say. It's my pet

[2:24:34] peeve.

[2:24:35] Brian Scott: Thank you. Mike. Any other

[2:24:38] thoughts?

[2:24:39] So I got a couple

[2:24:41] thoughts. So I agree with the

[2:24:42] preferred alternative. To me,

[2:24:43] that's the one that makes the

[2:24:45] most sense to me. Putting

[2:24:46] medians on the trail don't do

[2:24:48] that. That's going to get

[2:24:49] people hurt. They're going to

[2:24:50] run into them. They're not

[2:24:52] going to pay attention to them.

[2:24:54] I was thinking along

[2:24:55] the same

[2:24:55] lines as you were Mike. If

[2:24:57] there'd be a great way if we

[2:24:58] could just automate the RF, you

[2:25:00] know, the beacons, I think

[2:25:02] there may be a false sense of

[2:25:04] security in that, though, is

[2:25:05] that people think, well, it

[2:25:06] just it's off. I can just clear

[2:25:08] through and I worry about that

[2:25:10] a little bit too.

[2:25:11] If the

[2:25:11] technology certainly exists to

[2:25:13] to do that. I mean, I've got on,

[2:25:16] on, you know, any serious

[2:25:17] cyclist these days, you've got

[2:25:18] a Garmin up front and you've

[2:25:21] got a flashing red light on the

[2:25:23] back. That's actually a radar.

[2:25:24] And it tells you when a car is

[2:25:27] approachin

[2:25:27] g before you can ever

[2:25:28] hear it. So you're aware of, of

[2:25:30] something that's coming up on

[2:25:31] you that's going to overtake

[2:25:33] you, you know, long before you

[2:25:35] can ever hear it. So that type

[2:25:37] of technology is certainly out

[2:25:38] there. I just the only concern

[2:25:41] I have is that people get a

[2:25:43] fa

[2:25:43] lse sense of security with

[2:25:44] the lights on. I can just keep

[2:25:46] I can just.

[2:25:46] Kyle Simpson: Yeah, that was another

[2:25:48] concern with it being not a

[2:25:49] regulatory device. Right? Yeah.

[2:25:51] Brian Scott: Right. But but I like the,

[2:25:52] the preferred alternative here.

[2:25:54] I think that's the best option.

[2:25:56] So anything else.

[2:25:59] No. All right.

[2:26:00] Thanks, Kyle.

[2:26:00] Kyle Simpson: Thank you.

[2:26:03] Brian Scott: All right. So my

[2:26:04] understanding is on the Special

[2:26:06] Act review subcommittee you all

[2:26:07] wanted to meet one more time.

[2:26:09] So we're going to we're going

[2:26:10] to hold on that one until next

[2:26:12] meeting. And then we'll move on

[2:26:14] to data center overview.

[2:26:17] Whit Blanton: As Linda is coming up, I do

[2:26:19] want to say that the

[2:26:20] subcommittee made a lot of good

[2:26:21] progress today. So I think

[2:26:23] we'll be ready. And we've just

[2:26:24] got a couple of more things to

[2:26:26] work out. So stay tuned on that.

[2:26:31] Linda Fisher: Thank you.

[2:26:32] I need to say at the

[2:26:34] beginning that giving credit

[2:26:35] where it's due that this data

[2:26:37] centers project was mainly the

[2:26:40] product of Emma Wennick. I

[2:26:42] helped out and I'm helping out

[2:26:43] today with the presentation.

[2:26:44] Thank you Tina.

[2:26:47] So we have been

[2:26:48] asked to look at this very

[2:26:50] important emerging issue. We've

[2:26:51] drafted a white paper which is

[2:26:53] in your packets. We looked at

[2:26:55] trends for data center

[2:26:57] development and the planning

[2:26:59] implications that our

[2:26:59] communities need to be aware of.

[2:27:02] Our goal is not

[2:27:03] to advocate for

[2:27:03] or against data centers, but

[2:27:06] just to provide information.

[2:27:12] Could someone advance the slide

[2:27:13] for me, please?

[2:27:14] Tina Jablon: You can do it from that

[2:27:15] touch screen.

[2:27:17] Linds Fisher: Okay. Right there. That one.

[2:27:19] Thank you. So why are data

[2:27:22] centers suddenly such an urgent

[2:27:23] issue? Well, the industry is

[2:27:26] being driven by an explosion of

[2:27:28] demand for artificial

[2:27:30] intelligence or AI, as well as

[2:27:32] cloud computing and other

[2:27:35] industry trends. The amount of

[2:27:37] data center capacity in North

[2:27:39] America has increased by more

[2:27:40] than 12 fold since 2020, and

[2:27:44] demand is still outpacing

[2:27:45] supply, so these facilities are

[2:27:49] needed to support the digital

[2:27:51] economy, but they're also

[2:27:53] causing growing public concern.

[2:27:56] Some of these facilities take

[2:27:57] up enormous amounts of land.

[2:28:00] They can consume very large

[2:28:02] amounts of electricity and

[2:28:04] water, which can drive up costs

[2:28:06] for those

[2:28:07] utilities or even

[2:28:08] create scarcity in local

[2:28:10] communities. And they some of

[2:28:12] them can also create pollution

[2:28:15] or intrusive levels of noise

[2:28:17] and other impacts on the on

[2:28:19] their surrounding communities.

[2:28:21] And for all of

[2:28:22] those impacts,

[2:28:23] data centers actually generate

[2:28:26] relatively few jobs. They are

[2:28:27] mostly automated. So all of

[2:28:30] these issues have put them on

[2:28:31] the forefront of our land use

[2:28:33] planning concerns.

[2:28:39] Still not

[2:28:40] working. Thank you. I need you

[2:28:45] to click two more times. Thank

[2:28:50] you. So one of the most

[2:28:53] important findings from our

[2:28:54] research

[2:28:54] is that not all data

[2:28:55] centers are alike. Much of the

[2:28:58] public discussion centers on

[2:29:01] the very large, what are called

[2:29:03] hyperscale facilities. And

[2:29:04] those are extremely large

[2:29:07] campuses that can occupy

[2:29:08] hundreds of acres and consume

[2:29:10] utilities at a rate that can

[2:29:11] rival cities. But there are

[2:29:14] smaller types of cities

[2:29:15] referred to as edge or

[2:29:17] enterprise centers that operate

[2:29:19] very differently, and they can

[2:29:21] often coexist in developed

[2:29:23] areas. The ones shown on the

[2:29:25] left is one

[2:29:26] of a handful of

[2:29:27] data centers. It's actually

[2:29:28] located in downtown Tampa. And

[2:29:31] then there are some medium

[2:29:32] sized facilities that can fit

[2:29:33] into office or industrial parks.

[2:29:35] A particularly if there's some

[2:29:37] distance from residential areas.

[2:29:40] So it's important to understand

[2:29:42] the differences in impacts

[2:29:43] between the different sizes and

[2:29:45] types of facilities and to

[2:29:48] tailor our regulations for them.

[2:29:51] And we talk about that. Those

[2:29:52] issues in the white paper. Next

[2:29:56] slide please.

[2:30:00] Thank you. As far

[2:30:01] as we're able to determine, we

[2:30:02] don't have any data centers in

[2:30:04] Pinellas County currently, but

[2:30:06] it's been fairly well

[2:30:08] publicized that Pinellas Park

[2:30:09] has received an application to

[2:30:11] build one. It's for a small

[2:30:14] er

[2:30:14] edge facility on just three

[2:30:15] acres of land. But even so,

[2:30:18] it's projected electricity use

[2:30:20] would be four megawatts, which

[2:30:22] is the equivalent of about 2500

[2:30:25] houses. And there are just a

[2:30:27] lot of unknowns about its

[2:30:28] potential impacts.

[2:30:30] So the city

[2:30:31] has come to the conclusion that

[2:30:32] they need more time to draft

[2:30:34] regulations to address those

[2:30:36] concerns. They are pausing the

[2:30:39] application and exploring the

[2:30:41] possibility for a formal

[2:30:42] moratorium. And that is a

[2:30:45] decision that is e

[2:30:46] choing around

[2:30:46] the state. There is a growing

[2:30:49] list of jurisdictions, mostly

[2:30:51] counties, that have enacted

[2:30:53] either limited moratoriums or

[2:30:55] outright bans, and that is to

[2:30:58] give them more time to evaluate

[2:31:00] the impacts of these data

[2:31:02] centers and to develop the

[2:31:03] regulations that adequately

[2:31:04] protect their communities. Next

[2:31:07] slide, please. Thank you. So

[2:31:15] our staff is supportive of

[2:31:18] the

[2:31:18] city's determination after

[2:31:20] studying this issue. Our

[2:31:22] determination is that data

[2:31:24] centers don't clearly fit in

[2:31:25] with the county wide rules. We

[2:31:28] haven't been able to identify a

[2:31:29] land use definition or a

[2:31:32] category that can accommodate

[2:31:33] them.

[2:31:34] The closest thing we have

[2:31:35] in terms of addressing the

[2:31:37] potential impacts that they

[2:31:38] have would be heavy

[2:31:40] manufacturing. But these aren't

[2:31:43] manufacturing uses, and their

[2:31:44] impacts aren't quite the same.

[2:31:46] So we have talked with our

[2:31:48] planners advisory committee

[2:31:51] ,

[2:31:51] and we determined that no other

[2:31:53] community as of now has, has

[2:31:55] heard of any serious proposals

[2:31:57] to build these. And everyone is

[2:31:59] really just at the very

[2:32:01] beginning of thinking about how

[2:32:02] to address these, these issues

[2:32:04] as they arise.

[2:32:06] So after a

[2:32:07] discussion at last week's

[2:32:08] meeting, pack voted to

[2:32:10] establish a subcommittee to

[2:32:11] begin working through the

[2:32:13] potential policy and regulatory

[2:32:15] implications. And one more time.

[2:32:18] Next slide please. The

[2:32:21] se are

[2:32:22] not just technical planning

[2:32:24] issues for staff to solve. This

[2:32:25] is also a matter of policy. So

[2:32:28] we are requesting your

[2:32:30] direction for how you would

[2:32:31] like us to approach the issue

[2:32:33] as countywide staff. Should we

[2:32:36] work toward a single

[2:32:37] countywide

[2:32:38] policy approach? That could

[2:32:40] include a formal determination

[2:32:42] that we don't have a land use

[2:32:45] category that can accommodate

[2:32:46] data centers? That would be

[2:32:48] something that the local

[2:32:49] governments would need to be

[2:32:50] consistent with as well. We

[2:32:53] could

[2:32:53] also potentially explore

[2:32:55] whether something like a

[2:32:57] countywide moratorium would be

[2:32:58] possible or desirable. And

[2:33:01] should we begin working to

[2:33:03] develop amendments to the

[2:33:04] countywide rules again, every

[2:33:07] community would need to be

[2:33:08] consistent. We

[2:33:09] would work with

[2:33:10] the pack subcommittee. That's

[2:33:12] not something that would happen

[2:33:14] overnight, because there's a

[2:33:15] lot more research that would

[2:33:16] need to be done, so it would

[2:33:18] likely be sometime early next

[2:33:19] year at the earliest, but those

[2:33:22] things would be our recommended

[2:33:25] approach. As staff. There is

[2:33:27] strength in numbers. If we are

[2:33:29] all on the same page across our

[2:33:31] local governments, then that

[2:33:33] gives us stronger, a stronger

[2:33:35] legal foundation for responding

[2:33:37] to these applications in a way

[2:33:38] that protects our communities.

[2:33:42] So that is our report. I'm

[2:33:45] happy to answer any questions,

[2:33:46] otherwise I will request your

[2:33:49] direction.

[2:33:50] Brian Scott: Questions? Thoughts? All

[2:33:54] right Mike. And then we'll go

[2:33:56] to

[2:33:57] Richie.

[2:33:58] Mike Mannino: Thank you, chairman. I have a

[2:33:59] couple. I would be a little

[2:34:01] hesitant on a single county

[2:34:03] wide ban and my kind of issue

[2:34:08] unresolved stems from, you know,

[2:34:10] Clearwater Gas Company serves

[2:34:12] over 17 local

[2:34:13] municipalities.

[2:34:14] And two of the biggest

[2:34:16] pushbacks we hear so often on

[2:34:17] data centers are stresses that

[2:34:19] are put on the grid, as well as

[2:34:24] the use and or waste use of

[2:34:26] water and consumption, which is

[2:34:27] obviously

[2:34:29] rightfully so, should

[2:34:30] be concerns. But when you have

[2:34:31] the ability to convert

[2:34:33] something like to natural gas,

[2:34:35] where there's plenty of it, and

[2:34:37] a local company that supplies

[2:34:39] all the municipalities as well,

[2:34:41] as I think a lot of our

[2:34:43] municipalities have

[2:34:45] challenges

[2:34:45] and how we get rid of

[2:34:47] wastewater. Is there ever

[2:34:49] discussions about natural gas,

[2:34:50] as well as how we use recycled

[2:34:52] wastewater versus. I'm just

[2:34:54] wondering how that if that's

[2:34:55] come into the discussion.

[2:34:57] Linda Fisher: There are different impacts

[2:34:58] based on how these facilities

[2:35:00] are p

[2:35:01] owered and what type of

[2:35:03] cooling they use, which is

[2:35:04] where the water consumption

[2:35:06] comes from. So that would be

[2:35:07] part of what we would study.

[2:35:09] When I say county wide approach,

[2:35:11] I don't mean to say that this

[2:35:13] would be exactly prescriptive,

[2:35:14] that every local government

[2:35:16] would need to do it. This

[2:35:17] need

[2:35:17] to regulate these uses the same.

[2:35:19] The coordinated county wide

[2:35:21] approach would mainly be taking

[2:35:23] a pause, crafting county wide

[2:35:27] rules before local governments

[2:35:29] start to approve these

[2:35:31] proposals.

[2:35:31] Mike Mannino: Thank you. Thank you, Chair

[2:35:33] Brian Scott: Richie.

[2:35:35] Richie Floyd: Thank you. And to that point,

[2:35:38] yeah, I think I would be

[2:35:40] supportive of a pause

[2:35:43] moratorium. I don't know what

[2:35:44] language we're using because I

[2:35:47] don't have answers to things

[2:35:48] like that.

[2:35:49] And. To hear at

[2:35:53] first I was like, oh, the one

[2:35:55] in Pinellas Parks, you know,

[2:35:56] not very large. And then to

[2:35:57] hear that it was the amount of

[2:35:59] electric usage is 2500 homes

[2:36:01] was kind of stunning for me.

[2:36:06] And I just don't feel like I

[2:36:09] have enough info to be able to

[2:36:10] make any sort of educated

[2:36:12] decision on uses like that. But

[2:36:15] beyond that. I just I don't

[2:36:19] know if you could speak

[2:36:20] more to

[2:36:21] like what we anticipate seeing

[2:36:25] over time or what other

[2:36:26] communities have seen as far as

[2:36:28] like demand for these things to

[2:36:29] be built. Because we don't have

[2:36:34] any here. And there's only been

[2:36:35] one tan

[2:36:36] gible proposal. So I

[2:36:37] don't know if you could speak

[2:36:38] to that.

[2:36:39] Linda Fisher: We are working to reach out

[2:36:41] to some of our local industries

[2:36:44] that have a presence in the

[2:36:46] data center field. We haven't

[2:36:48] made a successful connection

[2:36:49] thus far, but we are we are

[2:36:51] trying to get a better se

[2:36:52] nse of

[2:36:52] that.

[2:36:53] Richie Floyd: Okay. Yeah, that's yeah. I

[2:36:54] mean, that's another reason for

[2:36:56] me to have hesitations. I'll

[2:37:00] leave it there for now.

[2:37:02] Mr. Chairman.

[2:37:04] Brian Scott: Thanks, Richie. Any other.

[2:37:07] Sorry,

[2:37:10] Chris.

[2:37:10] We'll go to you and then

[2:37:12] we'll go to Mike.

[2:37:12] Chris Johnson: I think, you know, our

[2:37:16] city would be for a coordinated

[2:37:18] policy approach. We definitely

[2:37:20] are starting to talk about this

[2:37:22] now in our planning board.

[2:37:24] So,

[2:37:25] you know, having some some

[2:37:27] coordinated efforts on this and

[2:37:28] some and a pause while we

[2:37:30] figure it out. You know, it

[2:37:31] seems wise.

[2:37:34] Ricky Butler: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[2:37:36] Totally agree on the pause and

[2:37:38] figuring out. But I will just

[2:37:39] tell you all, you know, one

[2:37:41] of

[2:37:41] the most interesting things

[2:37:42] about being an elected official

[2:37:43] is kind of that balance between

[2:37:45] this incredible staff that does

[2:37:46] their work. And we have the

[2:37:48] same staff at the city, but

[2:37:49] then balancing that with the

[2:37:51] public and their understanding

[2:37:52] of things. And I can tell you

[2:37:54] that I have never seen a more

[2:37:56] unifying t

[2:37:56] opic in the year of

[2:37:57] our Lord 2026 than data centers.

[2:38:01] And, you know, the way our

[2:38:02] county is built and built out

[2:38:05] in some senses, the way a lot

[2:38:06] of our zoning works is, you

[2:38:08] know, my concern is, you know,

[2:38:11] it comes before us as

[2:38:12] a

[2:38:12] conditional conditional use.

[2:38:13] There's no formal application,

[2:38:14] but it comes before us that way.

[2:38:16] And if we approve that, it

[2:38:17] opens the door. And we have a

[2:38:19] tremendous amount of zoning

[2:38:20] that's adjacent to

[2:38:21] neighborhoods. And I just I'm

[2:38:23] usually the guy that's like,

[2:38:24] hey, let's, let's be reasonable

[2:38:26] and let's get to the facts.

[2:38:27] This one, I'm like,

[2:38:28] nope, nope,

[2:38:28] not doing it. So it's not worth

[2:38:30] it. So definitely study more.

[2:38:33] There are places that are

[2:38:34] definitely appropriate for them,

[2:38:35] but at the rate at which the

[2:38:37] legislature decides what we can

[2:38:39] and can't zone whatever, and

[2:38:40] the changes that can come from

[2:38:41] that, it's it's not worth the

[2:38:43] battle for me here in Pin

[2:38:44] ellas

[2:38:44] County. So definitely

[2:38:45] supportive of, of a pause that

[2:38:47] probably ultimately goes

[2:38:48] towards go elsewhere.

[2:38:51] >> Right.

[2:38:54] Tom Shelly: I just wanted to say, we do

[2:38:57] need a one year ban and we need

[2:38:58] a policy in place before

[2:39:00] we

[2:39:00] accept these. Thank you.

[2:39:03] Ricky Butler: Mr. Chair. One more thing.

[2:39:04] Sorry. The other thing too,

[2:39:06] because obviously there are

[2:39:07] data centers in Pinellas County.

[2:39:09] They're part of other uses,

[2:39:11] hospitals and so on and so

[2:39:12] forth. We all understand that.

[2:39:14] But part of that discussion,

[2:39:15] just put

[2:39:16] ting it out there, is

[2:39:17] when you have a data center

[2:39:18] that supports, you know,

[2:39:21] infrastructure, cloud computing,

[2:39:22] those things that an AI data

[2:39:26] center, so that I can make

[2:39:27] really great AI images of

[2:39:29] myself should not be held to

[2:39:31] the same standard or

[2:39:32] expectation. I think that

[2:39:33] should be definitely a thought

[2:39:35] process that, you know, hey, if

[2:39:36] this is supporting critical

[2:39:38] infrastructure for government

[2:39:39] health care, what have you,

[2:39:41] that's got to be different than,

[2:39:43] you know, I know it's a hard

[2:39:45] it's not something we can

[2:39:46] decide, but just putting that

[2:39:48] thought out there because

[2:39:49] that's a, that's a difference

[2:39:50] to me as well.

[2:39:51] Brian Scott: Right.

[2:39:51] Linda Fisher: And I should have clarified

[2:39:53] when I said there were no data

[2:39:55] centers in Pinellas County.

[2:39:56] We're talking about the

[2:39:57] standalone.

[2:39:57] Ricky Butler: Right.

[2:39:57] Understood, understood. Just

[2:39:58] the public is like, we're

[2:40:00] already here. The three

[2:40:01] proponents of data centers that

[2:40:02] showed up.

[2:40:03] Brian Scott: Right.

[2:40:04] Right.

[2:40:05] Yeah. I agree with pretty

[2:40:07] much everything that's been

[2:40:08] said here. And, you know,

[2:40:10] Pinellas County does not have

[2:40:13] as as you mentioned, we don't

[2:40:14] have a land use, you know,

[2:40:17] category for data centers, but

[2:40:19] because we don't have one, if

[2:40:21] it's not listed, then it's then

[2:40:22] it's excluded is the way it's

[2:40:24] been told to us. So do we need

[2:40:28] to update that? Maybe we do. I

[2:40:30] think an approach that we're

[2:40:31] going to consider looking at at

[2:40:34] the county level is, is

[2:40:35] more of

[2:40:36] is resource based. If we're

[2:40:39] going to get an application for

[2:40:40] something that's going to use,

[2:40:42] you know, pick a number, X

[2:40:44] amount of water or X amount of,

[2:40:47] you know, electricity, that it

[2:40:49] has to be voted on by the board

[2:40:51] of county comm

[2:40:51] issioners. You

[2:40:52] know, so there's a level of, of,

[2:40:53] of accountability and process

[2:40:56] that has to go through that. So

[2:40:57] I think that's something that

[2:40:59] we're going to look at at the

[2:41:00] county.

[2:41:01] Richie.

[2:41:02] Richie Floyd: I want to add one more thing,

[2:41:06] sort of just context for

[2:41:07] the

[2:41:08] conversation. My main concern,

[2:41:12] or at least the thing that's

[2:41:13] concerned me the most when

[2:41:15] these have come up has been

[2:41:16] impact on our energy grid. And

[2:41:21] we're going to be reliant on

[2:41:22] what other

[2:41:23] counties do around

[2:41:25] what the utility companies

[2:41:28] approve, because our energy

[2:41:30] grids are all interconnected.

[2:41:32] So I hope that we can use our

[2:41:36] relationships with our

[2:41:38] colleagues in nearby

[2:41:40] jurisdictions to have this

[2:41:41] discussion as well. I've seen

[2:41:43] like a hyper scale one I

[2:41:45] believe was approved in Citrus

[2:41:46] County not too long ago. And

[2:41:48] that's going to impact, you

[2:41:50] know, energy usage for us as

[2:41:52] well. It's all the same grid.

[2:41:54] It could impact our

[2:41:55] energy

[2:41:56] bills. And, you know, at

[2:41:57] crucial times, whenever the

[2:42:00] grid is under high demand,

[2:42:01] that's there now. And so that's

[2:42:04] one of been one of my biggest

[2:42:05] concerns. So I think the

[2:42:07] conversation needs to be broad,

[2:42:09] needs to include, y

[2:42:11] ou know,

[2:42:12] jurisdictions nearby. And I

[2:42:16] don't know if we have any

[2:42:17] leverage, but like a

[2:42:19] conversation with utility

[2:42:20] companies, at the very least.

[2:42:23] Linda Fisher: One positive is that we're

[2:42:24] seeing a lot of counties and

[2:42:26] some nearby that are

[2:42:27] looking at

[2:42:28] that are either passing or

[2:42:29] considering moratoriums as well.

[2:42:31] Richie Floyd: Thank you, thank you.

[2:42:35] Brian Scott: Okay. Anything else? All

[2:42:38] right. So now we will move on

[2:42:40] to the director's report.

[2:42:42] Whit Blanton: Well, the good news is

[2:42:43] I

[2:42:43] don't have much. I just wanted

[2:42:44] to let you know that tomorrow I

[2:42:46] should be getting a draft of

[2:42:48] the preferred scenario for the

[2:42:50] regional MPO in terms of the

[2:42:52] structure of the staffing

[2:42:54] outsourcing. Cost, full time

[2:42:58] equivalency of sta

[2:42:59] ff. And I

[2:43:00] will pour into that review it,

[2:43:01] and I will let you know what

[2:43:04] that looks like. But the good

[2:43:06] news is they're making a lot of

[2:43:07] good progress. We have we're

[2:43:09] going to have a lot of good

[2:43:10] information, and I think that's

[2:43:12] setting us up to have all that

[2:43:14] information availab

[2:43:15] le in August.

[2:43:16] And then we'll distribute that

[2:43:18] to you all, and we'll have it

[2:43:19] ready for the next TMA

[2:43:20] leadership Group meeting. So

[2:43:21] that'll be early October.

[2:43:23] Brian Scott: So okay, great.

[2:43:24] Whit Blanton: That's all I've got.

[2:43:26] Brian Scott: All right. Upcoming events.

[2:43:29] We have informational items

[2:43:31] which is in your packet. If

[2:43:33] anybody has any questions about

[2:43:34] that, you can.

[2:43:35] Whit Blanton: I do want to note that

[2:43:37] there's an MPO Advisory Council

[2:43:39] training in Gainesville that's

[2:43:41] in your packet. And if you're

[2:43:43] interested in that, it's just a

[2:43:44] one day. But I highly encourage

[2:43:46] you all. If you

[2:43:47] haven't done

[2:43:47] the MPO training, it will make

[2:43:49] this job a lot easier for you.

[2:43:50] I promise.

[2:43:51] Brian Scott: It will. I did it, it's

[2:43:53] worth it.

[2:43:54] Whit Blanton: And Gainesville is a fun

[2:43:55] town to go to.

[2:43:57] Brian Scott: All right. Anybody else have

[2:44:00] any other business to bring

[2:44:02] forward?

[2:44:04] We're good.

[2:44:05] Mike.

[2:44:05] Mike Mannino: Just the last comment. Just

[2:44:07] wanted to thank you for

[2:44:08] stepping up and stepping in as

[2:44:09] our substitute teacher today. I

[2:44:11] think you did

[2:44:11] I

[2:44:12] think you did a phenomenal

[2:44:14] job.

[2:44:14] Brian Scott: I hope I did. Okay, so you

[2:44:16] were stuck with me for the day.

[2:44:18] Mike Mannino: So you did

[2:44:19] a great job.

[2:44:19] Brian Scott: All right. Good. All right.

[2:44:21] Well, today was a longer

[2:44:22] meeting. So I appreciate

[2:44:23] everybody coming in and and

[2:44:24] sticking it out here. So thank

[2:44:26] you very much. And with that we

[2:44:28] are adjourned.

[2:44:28] Thank you.

Forward Pinellas Board meeting on 7/8/2026

Agenda

Transcript