[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.