Most people to the untrained eye are going to sit here and say that this owner starved for dogs. We're going to head up to that dog hall right now. So we'll go out, we'll assess the situation. I'm looking at these dogs, I'm like garbage. I mean, that's just like, did you see those bags of food there? She was very upset about losing all of her cats. She called me up a few times in tears. I need my photos. I need to be able to paint this picture for the judge so that he sees what I see. We're at Upper Tampa Bay Conservation Park. It is a 600-acre conservation park, kind of in the northwest corner of Hillsborough County. We are releasing some bobcats today. Owls Nest Rescue has worked with us several times, releasing animals, not just at Upper Tampa Bay Conservation Park, but at many of our parks and nature preserves. And they pick them because they have suitable habitat, they have large spaces. This park in particular is about 600 acres, and only a small portion of that is actually used for human recreation. The rest is just kind of wide. For bobcats, you're looking at a year that you have to get them to where they need to be to be back in the wild. We've had to make sure that they know how to hunt native things. I've done this 40-some years, so I know if they get to a point that I know they're ready. You get anxious about it, and then you're almost at peace that they're going to be in a really good place, so they're going to figure it out. A meeting of your Planning Commission, the official local planning agency for the cities of Tampa, Temple Terrace, Plan City, and unincorporated Hillsborough County. The Planning Commission provides innovative leadership and long-range vision that contributes to the creation of a thriving, prosperous community that offers opportunity, fairness, and choice in how we live, move, learn, work, and play. For more information about the Planning Commission, please call 813-272-5940. Follow us on social media or visit our website at planhillsborough.org. Welcome, everyone, to the April 13, 2026 regular meeting of the Hillsborough County City-County Planning Commission. We thank you for attending this meeting. Your comments and participation are encouraged. For those attending in person and wishing to speak on any agenda item, please sign the register at the reception desk and turn off any devices that may be a distraction. To minimize feedback in the audio, all online participants in the meeting will be muted until it is their opportunity to speak. Planning Commissioners should unmute themselves to indicate that they would like to speak. Please be sure to state your name at the beginning of your remarks for the benefit of the clerk. There will be an opportunity for members of the public to provide comments. When your name is called, you will be unmuted when it is your turn to speak. Please wait until the chairman calls on you to begin speaking. State your name at the beginning of your comments and adhere to the time limits. If anyone has difficulties or is watching via HTV and would like to provide comments to be included in the record for the local government hearing, please email them to planner at plancom.org. For action items, the meeting will be conducted as follows. The agenda item will be introduced. Staff will give their presentation with a 15-minute time limit. The applicant will be given the opportunity to make a presentation with a 15-minute time limit. Following presentations, members of the public may address the Planning Commission when recognized by the chair. Public comment will be heard for three minutes per person. The applicant will be afforded a three-minute period for rebuttal or response. Planning Commissioners will ask questions. Public comment will be closed. Then upon a motion, a second and discussion, a vote will be taken. With that introduction, I'd like to ask Commissioner Linkus to please lead us in the invocation and the Pledge of Allegiance. Would all please rise? May all be well, we know the earth to be happy, and thoughts, words, and actions contribute to happiness and freedom. Amen. Amen. To the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. All right. Thank you, Commissioner Linkus. All right. Next up on our agenda is the roll call. Turn it over to the clerk. Here. Here. Here. Here. Here. Here. Here. All right. Thank you very much. Next up is the approval of minutes for the following meetings. Hillsborough County Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes, February 9, 2026. Hillsborough County Planning Commission Public Hearing on City of Tampa Plan Amendments, February 9, 2026. Hillsborough County Planning Commission Public Hearing on Unincorporated Hillsborough County Plan Amendments, February 9, 2026. and the Hillsborough County Planning Commission public hearing on City of Tampa redistricting February 9, 2026. Is there a motion to approve out there? All right, Commissioner Bowden moves to approve. Is there a second? Second. All right, motion to approve by Commissioner Bowden. Second to that, motion to approve by Commissioner Jemison. Are there any comments or questions from the commissioners before we take our vote? Then we'll all signify their agreement by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed, that motion carries unanimously. All right. All right, on to our next agenda item, two public input. We did have two people sign up for public input, though I don't see them in the room, but I'm going to call the names just in case to make sure everybody gets their time to speak. Susan Zeely, is Susan Zeely with us in the room? No. All right. Tegan Zeely, is Tegan Zeely with us? Nope. All right. Then we will move right on to our next agenda item, which is number three, our action items. And our first action item is item 3A, City of Tampa Land Development Code, LDC text amendments. And there are a few of them, so I will let the presenter go through each one of them. Good afternoon, Quinn Steel Planning Commission staff. This item includes five LDC text amendments to the July 2025 cycle. City staff will give their presentation, followed by Planning Commission staff's recommendation, and then we'll vote on each item individually. Okay. And with that, I will hand it over to Eric Cotton. Good afternoon, Planning Commission, Eric Cotton, City of Tampa. So this is getting towards the end of the July 2025 cycle. So as the Planning Commission knows, we have two cycles per year on a normal basis, January and July. And again, this is the July cycle. So here's where we're at, the Planning Commission public hearing. I presented last month for the briefing. This is going to be a very similar presentation, but with more questions if you have any. So the First Amendment was asked for by the – this is a council-initiated text amendment to increase the height in the Channel District to the FAA-HCAA height limitations, similar to what's in the CBD. So the proposed changes – right now the code limits it to 175 feet. This would go to whatever the FAA allows. And there was also a request to increase the maximum FAR with bonus from 3.5 to 10.5. And that's for the area west of Channel Side, east of Meridian, within the Channel District itself. There's a footnote in Table 19-2. So just for the proposed code, this is the existing code is on the left. The proposed code is on the right, and as you can see, the changes would be right here, just basically changing it to the FAA-HCAA height. And the footnote number four would be the change to the – to increase the bonus density if somebody were to request that. Before I turn it back over to Quinn, I'm going to make sure that's the last of my part of my presentation. Yes. Quinn Steele, Planning Commission staff. Planning Commission staff has reviewed Exhibit A related to Section 27-199 and finds that the amendment would streamline the development review process while ensuring the code remains responsive to changing trends and needs. Additionally, the Comprehensive Plan supports development within urban villages that promote increased residential density in a compact city form while maintaining compatibility with the surrounding area. Based on this, Planning Commission staff recommends that the proposed LDC amendment be found consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Tampa Comprehensive Plan, and we are available for any questions. Thank you. All right. No one signed up for the public comment on this one, so I'll turn it over to the commissioners for questions, comments, discussions. Not seeing a lot of action. I will go on ahead and close the public comment on this one and open it up to motions from the commissioners on this item. Commissioner Linkus. I'd like to make a motion to fine City of Tampa Land Development Code, Text Amendment, Section 27-119, consistent with the Tampa Comprehensive Plan. All right. Commissioner Jemison. Second. All right. We have a motion of consistency fined by Commissioner Linkus. A second to that motion by Commissioner Jemison. Any comments, questions, statements by the commissioners before we take our vote on this one? Not seeing any. They would all signify their agreement by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed? That motion carries unanimously. All right. On to our next one. 3-A-B. If I may, I just wanted to note that in the motion, I think you said 27-119 and not 27-199. I don't know if we can correct the record on that, but thank you. Perfect. Thank you. Eric Cotton again with the City of Tampa. So next up are the list of the Texas Amendments that are being proposed by staff. Three of them are relation to strict changes to the code as a result of preemptions by the state. One is an internal request that we discussed with our mobility department. So the first one is the updating of the plat language. The state did change some of the rules regarding platting. So what's I've shown on the screen, platts are now approved administratively. Our administrator for economic development signs off on platts previously used to go to city council for approval. The plat review is active for 12 months. That is a time that we put into our code. We have platts that have been active since 2018, 2019 that they're still working on. But there is no expiration date for a plat previously that will be in the code now. And we have a zoning covenant, which is an administrative process that was created in the 80s. It's never been codified, which allows if you're zoned multifamily, for instance, and you have a 5,000-square-foot lot, your density would allow for up to probably like four or five units. A lot of times people want to do semi-detached homes, which are side-by-side, and that gives the ability for people – the zoning covenant allows people to actually split the lot in half. It treats as one zoning lot for lot dimensional requirement and for density, but it allows people to sell them fee-simple. Again, if you do three or more lots, then it requires the actual subdivision process. And we're also going to reestablish the subdivision handbook. That has not been updated since, I think, the 80s also. Any questions? That was a little bit of a lot of information just now. Well, what, staff? Okay. Emily Phelan, Planning Commission staff. We reviewed Article 2, Division 8, Chapter 27, the subdivision procedures, and found it consistent with streamlining development review process, as this is a state-mandated change that needed to be made. And with that, staff found it consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Tampa Comprehensive Plan. And if you have any questions. Thank you. All right. No one signed up for the public comment on this one, so I will turn it over to the commissioners for questions, comments, discussions on this one. I did have a question for you, Mr. Cotton, just a clarification. I'm okay with it. I was just – as you were speaking, a thought just came up to me. So they can build two separate units, but they don't have to do the setbacks between the two units, is what you're saying. Well, our code allows for semi-detached, which a lot of people call them duplexes or the side-by-side units. Right. So they just have to build a firewall that's going to be simple. Okay. That's all right. All right. Are there any other questions? How much do you commissioners think? Actually, I have another – actually, just a request for clarification. So why does it stop at 2 instead of 3? Like, what's the magic number for 3 for it to take effect? Florida statute at 3 requires subdivision. Got it. That's the only reason. Got it. Okay. Awesome. Thank you. You're welcome. All right. Any other questions? Comments from the commissioners? Once going twice, then I'm going to go ahead and close the public comment on this one and open it up to motions from the commissioners on this item. Commissioner Bowden. Okay. Make a motion that we find Article 2, Division 8, Chapter 27, subdivision procedures consistent. All right. Motion of consistency by Commissioner Bowden. Is there a second out there? Commissioner Linkus? A second. All right. Second by Commissioner Linkus. So that's a motion of consistency finding by Commissioner Bowden. A second to that motion by Commissioner Linkus. Are there any questions, comments, statements from the commissioners before we take our vote? Not seeing any. They would all signify their agreement by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Those opposed? That motion carries unanimously. All right. Next up. So next on the agenda is basically the elimination of Section 27160. This has been in the code since the 1950s. It actually predates our 1956 code, which is when the date that City of Tampa considers the start of zoning for us. Basically what the section is, if you're on specific streets within the city, you have to have an additional setback on top of what would be required for your zoning lot setback. So, for instance, if you're CG, your setback is 10 feet. But if you're on Dale Mabry in a certain area, you may have to have a, from the center line of the road, you may have to have a 54-foot setback. This is probably before changes to laws regarding takings and all that kind of stuff. The city also has gone away from being vehicular-centric. We're trying to get into multimodal transportation needs. And we've had the discussion with mobility. They don't see a need for that additional street frontage anymore. And if the city were to need the street frontage for a road expansion or road improvement, we have to go through the process of, you know, the eminent domain, the acquisition that we normally do anyway. That's not changing. Elimination of this section of the code doesn't change any of those requirements. Quinn Steele, Planning Commission staff, we have reviewed Exhibit C and find the amendment would streamline the development review process while ensuring the code remains responsive to changing trends and needs. Additionally, the comprehensive plan supports development patterns that maintain consistent building setbacks along public right-of-way while ensuring compatibility with the surrounding development through underlying zoning standards. Based on this, Planning Commission staff recommends that the proposed LDC amendment be found consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the table. We have a comprehensive plan, and I am available for any questions. All right. We didn't have anyone sign up for the public comment on this one either, so I will turn it over to the Planning Commissioners for questions, comments on this one. I did have a question on this one also, Mr. Cotton. You spoke about the front yard setback. Does this impact the other yard setbacks in any way, or is it strictly the front? It could affect the corner, depending upon, like, you could be on Delmarie and Kennedy and have the special tree setbacks for both. The side yard, right. So your yard, you know, all of a sudden you're losing, you could lose a good deal of your developmental rights. Right. But this is removing that to make sure that they get them back, right, is what we're saying. Well, this is removing it because it's no longer really needed in today's code. Right. Right. All right. Thank you. Are there any questions, comments, thoughts from the Commissioners? I'm not seeing a lot of excitement. Then I will go ahead and close the public comment on this one and open it up to motions from the Commissioners on this item. Commissioner Jemisin, I see you moving. Motion to find SEC 27-160 consistent. All right. Second the motion. All right. We have a motion of consistency finding by Commissioner Jemisin. Second to that by Commissioner Bowden. Are there any questions, comments, or thoughts from the Commissioners before we take our vote? That would all signify their agreement by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed, that motion carries unanimously. All right. Next up. This is another state preemption. Probably about three, four years ago, I believe we put into our code the requirements that for new developments, 5% of all the proposed parking spaces had to be EV ready, electric vehicle capable, meaning the electrical was available. They just had to install the charging station. State preempted us on that, so we're here to take it back out of our code. All right. Staff. Megan McCarthy, Planning Commission staff. Staff has reviewed the proposed Exhibit D LDC amendment and found the amendment consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the comprehensive plan related to streamlining development review process to comply with state statute. I'm available for any questions. Thank you. All right. We didn't have anyone sign up in the public comment for this one, so over to the planning commissioners for questions or comments on this one. I did have a minor curiosity myself. I was wondering if the state preemption had to do with taking or what was the reason the state? That's, yeah, it's an attorney question probably. I'm just, I'm just in personal curiosity. Dana Crosby, Paul, your city attorney's office. The state's preempted the cities and counties in all elements regarding electric vehicle. Okay. All right. Were there any other questions, comments from the commissioners on this one? I'm not seeing any motion. I will go on ahead and close the public comment on this one and open it up to motions from the commissioners on this item. Commissioner Bowden. I find, I make a motion to find section 27-283.12 off street parking space standards consistent. All right. Motion by Commissioner Bowden. Commissioner Jemison. Second. All right. We have a motion of consistency finding by Commissioner Bowden. A second to that motion by Commissioner Jemison. Any comments, questions, thoughts from the commissioners before we take our vote? Not seeing any. They don't all signify their agreement by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed, that motion carries unanimously. All right. Next. Here at Cotton City of Tampa. The last one is in addition to both the definition section and to our different tables in the code. Basically, any of the ones that have the use tables, 27-156, 27-177, the downtown 199 for the center of business, or excuse me, for 198 for the center of business district, 199 for the channel district, and 211 for the Seminole Heights district, as well as regulation for specified uses. This is a state preemption. The state created a thing called a certified recovery residence and preempted local regulations. So, there's four different levels, as stated in the PowerPoint, and the city has to adopt this into our code. Actually, it had to be in effect by January of 2026, so we're a little late, but that's, you know, better late than never, right? So, thank you. Emily Phelan, Planning Commission staff. We reviewed this section that adds the certified recovery residence and found that it does streamline the development review process. And in addition to that, the use would not be a permitted use in the industrial designations, which does further the housing policy that limits residential in areas designated for industrial uses. And with that, Planning Commission staff recommends that the proposed LDC text amendment be found consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Tampa Comprehensive Plan. And we're available if you have any questions. Thank you. All right. No one signed up for the public comment on this one either, so I will turn it over to commissioners for questions, comments, discussion. Not seeing a lot of excitement. I will go on ahead and close the public comment on this one and open it up to motions from the planning commissioners on this item. Commissioner Linkus. Sure. I'll make a motion to find section 27-43, 27-43, excuse me, 27-156, table 4.4-1, and section 27-282. And I'm sorry, I'm having a hard time speaking today, of the city's land development code consistent with the city's plan. All right. We have a motion of consistency finding for the item. Is there a second anywhere out there? Commissioner Jemison. Second. All right. We have a motion of consistency finding by Commissioner Linkus. Second to that motion by Commissioner Jemison. Any questions, comments, thoughts from the commissioners before we take our vote on this item? Not seeing any. They would all signify their agreement by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed, that motion carries unanimously. All right. Thank you very much for your time. All right. Next up on our agenda, item 3B, City of Temple Terrace, Land Development Code, LDC Text Amendment, Sections 12-40 and 12-922, Commercial Vehicles. And the presenter is Krista Kelly. Good afternoon, Commissioners. Krista Kelly, Planning Commission staff. The item before you this afternoon is a publicly initiated plan amendment to the Temple Terrace Land Development Code, Section 12-40 and Section 12-922, related to commercial vehicles. I'll be turning this over to Alyssa Livingston, the Senior Planner for the Temple Terrace Community Development Department, and she'll present an overview of the proposed amendment. This is an action item to find consistency. Following Alyssa's presentation, I'll present the Planning Commission staff recommendation on consistency, and we'll ask for the Planning Commission's action. At this point, I'll turn it over to Alyssa. Good afternoon, I'm Alyssa Livingston, Senior Planner for the City of Temple Terrace. I'm here to present proposed text amendments to our Land Development Code regarding the definition and allowance of certain commercial vehicles within residential districts. This update is designed to provide greater flexibility for the residents across the city. Specifically, the revisions focus on Section 12-40, definitions, and Section 12-922, commercial vehicle restrictions in residential districts. The current definition of a commercial vehicle in Section 12-40 of our Land Development Code has led to misinterpretations of what qualifies as a commercial vehicle in the city of Temple Terrace. The proposed amendment provides a clear and easily understood definition of commercial vehicles. The proposed amendment to Section 12-922, commercial vehicle restrictions in residential districts, utilizes the gross vehicle weight rating scale from the Federal Highway Association to classify motorized commercial vehicles. For the purpose of this section, residential zoning districts, includes single-family residential, multi-family residential, and planned development districts that includes only residential dwellings. We recognize that many of the residents in Temple Terrace, business owners, and skilled professionals drive Class 3 vehicles, like larger pickup vans or cargo vans. This updated code will allow for these vehicles to be parked on residential streets and lots, given that there are no modifications of attached equipment or heavy racks. This will ensure that the parking of these commercial vehicles will be compatible with the residential character of these areas. Also, business-related branding on vehicles will no longer prevent vehicles from being parked on residential lots and streets, given that these vehicles comply with the established weight and modification criteria in Section 12-922. Thank you, Alyssa. Again, Krista Kelly, Planning Commission staff. Planning Commission staff reviewed the proposed changes to the regulations related to commercial vehicles and finds the amendment consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Temple Terrace Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the proposed amendment is consistent with Land Use Objective 8.5 and Policy 8.5.3, which relate to development approvals and consistency with the Land Development Code and state law. Additionally, the amendment is consistent with the Land Use Policy 2.1.1, which is under the Residential Development Policies. This policy focuses on neighborhood protection and incompatible uses or blighting influences. Based on the review, staff recommends that the Planning Commission find the Land Development Code amendment consistent and forwards that recommendation and forwards this recommendation to the Temple Terrace City Council. And at that point, that concludes my presentation, and we ask the board to take action. It's on there. I'm sorry. And this is our question. Does anybody have any questions? I'm so sorry. And we're both here available to help you. Okay. We didn't have anyone sign up in the public. Oh, did you have something more to say? These amendments replace ambiguity with certainty by providing clear, objective criteria for vehicle classification. We are giving our residents the increased flexibility they need while ensuring the unique character of our Temple Terrace neighborhoods remains protected and preserved. Thank you. All right. There was no one sign up in the public comment for this one, so I will turn it over to commissioners for questions, comments. Commissioner Linkus? Oh, your lecture just went from before. Commissioner Jemison? I'd like to confirm if HOAs can put more strict requirements in a subdivision. I'm sorry. I missed the beginning of your question. Can an HOA impose stricter requirements? Homeowners' association? I did a question for the attorney. I would think generally that's a private contract. That's about as much as I know. I'm sorry. I was – what context were you asking that question in? So we're in a subdivision, developed subdivision, and the homeowners' association, can they impose stricter requirements as far as commercial vehicles, signage, vehicles with decals, that type of stuff? It would have – well, I'm not an expert in this area, first of all. Well, they could impose additional rules and regulations to the extent that the declaration for the homeowners' association allows them to. But those additions or changes have to be made in accordance with the requirements of any regulations for, like, traffic and traffic signage that are imposed by the county or the city. There are uniform signage regulations that need to be considered. It depends on whether – you know, if they're city roads, it's definitely going to be governed by city regulations, for example. If they're private roads, there's somewhat more flexibility, but it would have to be determined on a case-by-case basis. Okay. Thank you. I had a question. I was wondering – oh, do you want to go, Commissioner Bowden? Yeah. Well, I think that's a very interesting question, and the reason I'm thinking is that, you know, a lot of times in these DD communities, you have these covenants that says no commercial vehicles can be parked on streets and or driveways. What does – does this override the covenants? Commissioner, I don't know the answer to that question, to be frank with you. I mean, to some extent, it depends on case-by-case, and different counties have different rules and regulations. I'm aware of some rules that Pasco County imposes on roadways that are not imposed in Hillsborough, for example, and to some extent it has to do with public safety and getting emergency vehicles through and those sorts of things. So there are a lot – there are a number of things that would have to be considered in that analysis. I think Temple Terrace is going to find out really quick. I mean, we're in other here. So I was wondering myself – I noticed when you were going over the part about vehicles can be parked on the road, but they can't have service equipment attached to them. And there's a limitation on that. Is there any distinction between the types of service equipment, or does that mean any service equipment? If there's any attachment to the vehicle, is it now incapable of being parked on the street? Thanks for that question. So when we mention attachments to the vehicles, what would make them be classified as commercial vehicles? We're referring to, like, you know, those large attached beds? And say, for example, you were putting – you were attaching heavy equipment on it. So that would change the classification. And then we also use a weight scale, which is in the – which I could provide for you. Okay. So I was thinking just off the top of my head, the facetious example, but a pool equipment truck, like the little trucks that go around and clean pools, they usually have, like, a special little hitch on the back to carry, like, a little whatever they use to clean the pool thing. I was wondering – but it's a small truck, right? It's a very small little vehicle. They go on cars sometimes, too, so I'm wondering, does that preclude that vehicle from parking on the street now just because it has that special little trailer hitch on the back? So that trailer hitch is what would – once it's within a certain class – You're still fine. Okay. So it's really dependent on the class of vehicle. It would depend on the class of the vehicle first and the weight. Which is the weight, right. Okay. All right. Are there any other questions, Ms. Renita? Well, I think just to be clear, today the vehicles, regardless of whether it has a trailer or not, if it has the logo and stuff on the outside, are not allowed to be parked. Oh, no. So right now the amendment will allow for Temple Terrace residents who are business owners to park their vehicles or have these markings as long as it abides by the certain – Right. But today they – Today they don't. They can't. That's what I wanted to point out, was that this is a big jump from what's allowed today. Yeah. So we're just giving the residents more flexibility. All right. Any other questions or comments from the commissioners before we take our vote? Going once, going twice. And I will close the public comment on this one and open it up to motions from the commissioners on this item. Commissioner Linkus. Motion to find City of Temple Terrace, Land Development Code, Text Amendment, Section 12-40 and 12-922, Commercial Vehicles, consistent with the Temple Terrace Comprehensive Plan. All right. We have a motion of consistency finding by Commissioner Linkus. Is there a second out there somewhere? Anywhere? Commissioner Jemison. Second. All right. We have a motion of consistency finding by Commissioner Linkus. A second to that motion by Commissioner Jemison. Are there any questions, comments before we take our vote? Not seeing any. They would all signify their agreement by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed? That motion carries unanimously. All right. Good deal. On to our next agenda item. 3C, City of Temple Terrace again. Land Development Code, Text Amendment, Section 12-834, Drainage Systems. And the presenter is Yannika Mills and Kim Ford. Good afternoon, Yannika Mills Planning Commission staff. I'm here to introduce Mr. Kim Ford, Temple Chair of Staff, who will be reviewing with you Land Development Code Amendment regarding drainage systems. After his presentation, I'll come back before you all with staff's recommendation. Kim. Hello. My name is Kim Ford, Public Works Engineer. And this is the code amendment for the drainage systems to provide clarification to our engineers. They need help. And what they're providing to us for review is somewhat lacking. And we want to help them with providing more complete information in the beginning and give us a basis of review. And we've not created any rules here that don't already exist. We're trying to provide clarification in our code that has some inconsistencies and outdated information in it. Hopefully, you all have a red and black marked up version that you can read because I can't read this one. And I've highlighted some key items on this page. Pre and post basin maps, times of concentration are typically required as part of a drainage report with the modeling that for outfall control structures that have a timing of usually around 12 hours where it's a peak discharge. And we need our rainfall data included so that we know how many inches of rainfall they're being, they put in the model. There are some other ones in the middle of this page in red that includes several items that are lacking in the drainage reports that we get. And you can see there's kind of a mix there. And we can fall back on that if we need to. But we try to get specific when we can. And we have the, toward the bottom, about treatment. Treatment has changed with the water management district. So we're not trying to define what the treatment is required. And we're deferring to the water management district for that. But there are some, the NRCS, SCS methodology, and we do want that unless they have a good reason to use a different model. The stormwater tabs are required for street drainage and inlets that are FDOT standards and required typically in others manuals such as Hillsborough County. At the top, you're going to see a table that we have. And it has reference to specific design storms. The systems inside subdivisions are typically five to ten year designs because they'll contain their own water in their own stormwater pond. But when it gets out into the streets, it should be a 25-year design for our stormwater systems. There's open basins, which has an adequate outfall of 25 years and 100 years for closed basins or ponds for designs of ponds that have restrictions. We want justification for these pond designs where people want to have it considered an adequate outfall and it has to go through several smaller pipes or across the street. And we need them to show us and demonstrate to us that they have an adequate outfall all the way to the river or to a larger basin where it's clearly defined. There are separations of utilities that are required for stormwater pipes and pipe materials are classified. FDOT materials vary typically in their standard index sheets are being referred to. There are several options for different types of materials. Separation from the road, typically two feet for the base from the seasonal high water. It could be one foot if it's crushed concrete, for example, and they'd be able to demonstrate that. The volume of the discharge before and after is very important, especially in a closed basin or restriction, because if they discharge more than it was in the previous condition, it will cause flooding downstream and the 100-year elevations would rise. Once outfall capacity conditions are described, we want them to provide justification for them. Floodplain compensation is mentioned before. Cup for cup, which means if you fill a cup in the low area between seasonal high groundwater and the FEMA floodplain, then you have to cut another cup out somewhere else to compensate for it. Upon recovery, 72 hours has to do with after the treatment volume is and also recovering for the next storm. Laboratory tests are allowed, not just a double ring infiltrometer, and I've done that before with the laboratories, and we have under drains for seasonal high water. Where the water table is too high, Hillsborough County has very good information about what they require in a whole chapter in their manual about that. The six inches is something that we've included in our code. Rather than the four-inch and the sand pack around the under drain, this would be a gravel and a larger, more adequate system. I think I went past the, any question? Planning commission staff reviewed the land development code text amendment regarding training systems and found it to be consistent based on stormwater goal one, which encourages efficient delivery of drainage and stormwater treatment systems that support development and redevelopment of the city of Temple Terrace. Also stormwater objective 1.1, which maintains a, which encourages a maintenance of a drainage and stormwater treatment system that meets or exceeds adopted level of service for current and future development, as well as stormwater policy 1.1.1, which speaks to the specific measurement of what the level of service to be obtained or exceeded is. And based on those findings, planning commission staff found their request to be consistent and I stand for any questions that you may have. Thank you. All right. We didn't have anyone sign up in the public comment for this item either, so I will turn it over to the commissioners for questions, comments, thoughts on this item. I'm seeing a lot of motion going once, going twice, and I will close the public comment on this item and open it up to motions from the commissioners on this item. Commissioner Linkus. I'd like to make a motion to find city of Temple Terrace land development code text amendment section 12-834 drainage systems consistent with the city of Temple Terrace comprehensive plan. All right. Motion of consistency by commissioner Linkus. Is there a second out there anywhere? Oh, commissioner Cardenas with a second. All right. So we have a motion of consistency finding by commissioner Linkus. A second to that motion by commissioner Cardenas. Are there any questions, comments, thoughts, or discussions before we take our vote? Not seeing any, then we'll all signify their agreement by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed, that motion carries unanimously. Thank you. All right. Next up, we have item 3D, McDill Air Force Base AFB, proposed replacement and modification of floating docks. And the presenter is Mr. Diego Guerra. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, Diego Guerra, Planning Commission staff. Again, this is the agency's consistency review of Port Tampa Bay Standard Work Permit Application and 25037 McDill Air Force Base Proposed Replacement and Modification of its Floating Docks. The application was reviewed for consistency pursuant to Chapters 95488 and 97351 of Florida Laws of Florida, which are the Planning Commission and Port Authorization Authorizing Legislations. The site is located on McDill Air Force Base, which is located on the southern tip of the Tampa Peninsula, specifically located on the southern portion of the installation. South of the site is the installation's public beach. To the east, it's Fan Camp. To the west, it's natural conservation areas. And to the north is the main installation. This is an overview of the site itself. Again, north is located to the upper left corner of the slide. Again, Fan Camp is located across the street on the top of the slide. And then the natural conservation areas of the base are located to the bottom of the slide. The existing conditions of the site consist of a 32-slip marina, which is, I'm sorry, a fixed finger 32-slip marina, which is approximately 4,000 square feet. The marina itself consists of wooden mooring piles, finger piers, and excess walkways that can be seen on the bottom and right pictures on the slide. The environmental survey found that there was no submerged aquatic vegetation. However, there were red and black mangroves, as you can see on the pictures of the slide, in addition to Brazilian pepper, which is an invasive species. Additionally, oyster growth was observed along the mangrove roots and pilings, as you can see on the picture to the right. The proposed project consists of replacing the existing structure with a floating dock system, approximately six feet waterward of the existing dock. I tried to visualize that on the picture to the right. So the orange is the shore, the gray are the proposed ramps, the brown is the approximate location of the existing dock system or marina, and then the yellow is the proposed approximate location of the proposed marina. In addition to the proposed, a five-foot wide aluminum gangway with rails and non-skid surface that elevates with the tide is also proposed to be installed. In addition to, did I skip ahead? I must have skipped ahead. My apologies. I wanted to point out that there was, there is no, there is no proposed impacts to the mangroves on the site except the locations where the ramps are going to be, which there's two to the north, to the east, as depicted on the northern portion, on the eastern portion of the marina. And then to the south, you can see one of them on the southern southwestern edge of the site. The mangroves will be vertically cut to make way for the width of the new five-foot wide aluminum gangways. Proposed policy is consistent with future land use section 8.3.14, which discusses the clear zones of MacDill Air Force Base. The site is not located within any of the clear zones, and I wanted to clarify that. In addition, it's also consistent with coastal high hazard policies that relate to water-dependent uses, seawalls, riprap, and marina, and the city's marina siting guidelines. And finally, the wetland and floodplain policies that relate to the protection and conservation of wetlands and other surface waters. With that being said, ladies and gentlemen, this concludes my presentation. Planning Commission staff recommends that the standard work permit 25-037 be found consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Tampa Competence of Plan. The applicant was invited to provide a presentation. They did not respond, and they did not appear. So I am available for any questions you may have. All right. Thank you very much. We had no one sign up in the public comment for this one, so I'll open it up to the commissioners for questions, comments, discussions of this one. Commissioner Linkus, is that a question? No? All right. I did have a couple questions, but two questions, pretty simple ones. The first one is, did the capacity increase? Yes. The capacity increased on the marina from 32 slips to 34. 34. Okay. And my second question is, does Commissioner Berry now get a slip for his boat, or is it just the generals? What's, what's going on down there? Top of the room. All right. All right. Were there any other questions, comments, discussion items on this one? Not seeing any. Then we'll close the public comment and open it up to motions from the commissioners on this item. Commissioner Jemison, I see you moving. Motion to find MacDill, Air Force Base proposed replacement modification of floating dock consistent. All right. Motion of consistency finding. Is there a second anywhere out there? Second of motion. I think Commissioner Bowden beat you to it. All right. We have a motion of consistency finding by Commissioner Jemison. A second to that motion by Commissioner Bowden. Are there any questions, comments, discussions before we take our vote? Not seeing any. Then we'll all signify their agreement by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed? That motion carries unanimously. All right. Thank you, Mr. Guerra. Next up, we will go to our briefings. It was the last of our action items. And our first briefing is item 4A, urban service area planning commissioner questions for staff. And the presenter is Melissa Dickens. Hi. Good afternoon, commissioners. Melissa Dickens, planning commission staff. Yes, this item is urban service area planning commissioner questions for staff. This is not an action item. It's really intended to be an informal opportunity for you all. I'll just provide some context and then we can open it up to the questions that you all have. So at the February 2026 meeting, it was decided that by you all that you would like a future session on the urban service area, really an opportunity to do a deep dive into some of the things that you might have questions on or things that might require a little more information and background. That has been scheduled for next month for the May meeting. We will have our team as well as the Hillsborough County team coming to this meeting. We'll have folks from development services, public works, and water resources available to answer questions and elaborate on anything that you all want to know more about. There have been a number of both formal and informal discussions on this topic over the past few months and we recognize that some of the questions that you all might have might be a little more in depth. They might require a little more data crunching or looking into some of the historical files. So we wanted to make sure that we provided you this more formal opportunity to ask questions about anything that you're curious about related to the urban service area. So today is is really that that opportunity. If there's anything that is a little more complex or in-depth that you'd like staff to be looking into, if you know of a question that you want to ask about, today is really the the chance for us to hear from you and then go back and coordinate with our county partners. Make sure that we have the right folks in the room in May and we'll be able to respond to these questions. And I do see that we're missing a couple of folks today so I will reach out to them by email and just make sure that they have a chance to weigh in as well. And with that I think I turn it over to you. So happy to take notes and look forward to next month's discussion. All right, are there any questions? Commissioner Bowden. Yeah, one question I wanted to know is, is there a process for the measurement of the effectiveness of the urban surface area? Also, is there any type of best practice review as well as if there is a process, what is the present level of effectiveness? In the best practices, literature, or? Oh, your mic. Turn your mic on. No, so based on if there is a process, if there's a measurement process, what is, you know, what percentage of effectiveness are you achieving, is being achieved? Right. And I will inform everyone who's here that our letter, the letter that I sent, was received and we got called down to the principal's office, myself and Ms. Sornita, on this coming Wednesday. So tomorrow's Tuesday. Wednesday, I will be, we both will be appearing before the Board of County Commissioners to discuss this in more detail with them, try and get their sense of what they want to do, where they went ahead with this, whether they even want to deal with it. So any questions you put out here that I catch, I'll obviously also walk with when I go down there, just in case those things pop up at that discussion. So Commissioner Cardenas. Did they make any comments? No, but they reacted quickly. I'm going to appear before them this Wednesday. So clearly there's, you know, some interest somewhere down there, if only just to, you know, see what's going on, to hear what's going on as a sort of update. So I could fill you in once we come back from that. I'm sure Ms. Sornita will too. So I'll fill all you in on how that goes. So we'll see. Commissioner Linkus. One of the things I think might be helpful is, I don't know if it's geographic information, but the communities that would be most affected by looking at this beyond the current areas that are being studied, information about. So like the areas that are in the rural area that are not part of the current urban expansion area. Yeah, and maybe any kind of current, if there's any kind of community planning or relevant planning policies for those areas. I'd like to echo that, say, and flip it on its head to the opposite. Something we brought up earlier, actually, Commissioner Linkus brought it up and Commissioner Kona echoed it. Also, I'd like to know if there are any areas in the urban service area where we could be doing infill development and increasing density more efficiently, such that we don't have to always be going out to the edge of the urban service area. That would be a good sort of thing to know. An agency who you didn't mention that I'd be interested in hearing from is the property appraiser's office. The reason I started this and the reason I continue to talk about this is I'm interested in how this, how what we've done over the past 33 years has affected land values, right? I think that's an important, the market study is an important part of this. This agency has a good, and all the county agencies have a good handle on the sort of demand side. We know population's coming, we know there's demand. We have to somehow address that demand, whether it be gross acreage, we have to address it some way. But we don't, in my opinion, have a good understanding of the supply side. So we set aside all this land, we change the intensities and densities, but does that mean that people are going to come and build in those areas and fill those spaces that we think? Is that where the market is, I guess, if you will? Or is the market in other areas that we need to be looking at and jostling with those sorts of things? So understanding those sorts of market dynamics, I think, is important. Maybe not for us, because we're just a recommending body, as I keep repeating, but ultimately for the decision makers. The elected officials need to sort of keep these things in mind as these decisions are being made. So great. And so just to confirm, so looking at how the land values change, whether you're inside or outside the urban service area, is that? No, really how they've changed over time. How this policy that we've been applying in 33 years, how that's, you know, because I'm sure that hopefully the boundaries of the urban service area have to have changed over that 33 years. So if we go back 20 years and we looked at the last time it changed, what were the outcomes of that change? Did the land that we set aside to become more dense, more urban, did it actually become more urban? Was the development market able to actually build in those areas and fill those densities? Or did we just do it and then it wasn't really used in the way we thought? And what effect did that have, again, on the land values? In the way you say agricultural versus urban, but more also suburban versus denser urban. You know, what are the implications of those sorts of moves? Yes, Ms. Ornita. I did just want to mention that I also had a conversation with the fire chief, and fire rescue will also be here at the meeting in May because they have done quite a bit of infrastructure planning on their side as well. Very good. The sheriff's office too might be a good one. Mr. Chronister's people rarely show up, but I'd like to hear from them. They're very important. I mean, that's a very important part of all this. So if he could send someone down to speak to us or some sort of information, that's always helpful, beneficial. Any other thoughts on questions that staff could be looking at or information that anyone might be interested in seeing related to this? The agriculture community too. I know we're sort of doing that, but we've spoke about this a lot, how this urban service boundary is meant to protect the agricultural areas. So I'd like to, you know, I don't know where that information comes from, but as we move through this process, I think it's important to understand, again, what the implications are for the agricultural community. You know, again, in the past, because we have 33 years of information on this. This isn't something we did yesterday. How has this policy benefited or not benefited the agriculture community? Good to know. Thoughts or ideas from the commissioners? I'm seeing a lot of excitement. I think everybody's urban service area'd out. I'll send an email to the other Hillsborough County folks. Yeah, definitely. You see the excitables aren't here today. So definitely be sure to, and especially Commissioner Kugler, I'm sure he has some thoughts and ideas that he'd want to put in there. And of course, obviously, Commissioner Lauk, the troublemaker. So be sure to reach out to him and find out his thoughts. So, all right. Any last ideas or thoughts? I'm seeing anyone would thank you. Hopefully that's good. Thanks. All right. Thank you. And we will move on to our next agenda item, item 4B, 2026 Employee Engagement Survey. And the presenter is Megan Baturney. Sorry about that. We'll be right there. Okay. Are they ready? We can go to the next briefing and come back to you if you'd like, give you a little time to work on it. I believe he's able to move it on over now. Okay. Is this it? Thank you very much for that. So good afternoon, Commissioners. Megan Baturney, Planning Commission staff. No action required, just information only. So every two years, we conduct an engagement survey with the help of HR Soul, our consulting firm. Uh, this year, uh, we had 55 people participate, which means we had 100% participation. That the staff will, uh, are divided in demographics, such as department, years of service, and their level within the organization. So there are different categories. Uh, these are the same categories we've had since we've started this survey, which are my supervisor, working at Planned Hillsborough overall, my job, senior management, cooperation and teamwork, career and personal development, and total rewards. Uh, we're very happy to see that you could break down that my supervisor, working at Planned Hillsborough overall in my job are our top three categories that work that, um, staff rated. Um, a majority of employees also who completed the 2024 survey saw improvements, which means we're in a positive trend. So again, some of the highlights of what went well this year or what we saw, um, that all the categories have increased, including total rewards. Uh, we believe that staff really appreciates, um, how, uh, leadership balances being mindful of the budget and mindful about spending while also, uh, trying to keep competitive wages. And the hybrid schedule, uh, is continued to be a big positive for staff as well. Here are our results year over year within the category. Uh, as you can see in 2026, we have, um, we exceeded in, uh, than we have in the past. And I will say that in 2022, yes, we were very high, but that was also a post COVID time. So there were a lot of changes in transition in that time. Um, so that year while still high, we're still very excited that the 2026 continues to show in a positive trend. This, uh, slide is talking about, uh, all the benchmarks and the results, uh, because what we do is, or what the consulting firm does is they look at, uh, the survey results and compare them to our industry, which would be government. Also, the, the vehicle they use is Survey Monkey. So they're able to pull and see results. Um, so that's where that global comes. And then our earlier benchmarks, which is nice since we have been doing this since 2018, we're able to get some good data and really look at how we've been performing since 2018. Some key themes and, uh, comments. So again, uh, people are very receptive to the survey, are very appreciative, and show a lot of trust in us. Um, that is shown by the 100% participation rate that we have. Um, also, you know, I do want to underscore that, um, the external political environment, uh, that was indicated in here that there are uncertainties in planning in Florida. And so we saw that underscored in the comments. However, um, we see resilience and adaptability is recognized, and that was attributed to our leadership keeping the agency, um, on course and following our strategic plan. So in brief summary, you can see what our key drivers are, uh, our highest rated, um, and some areas that we want to further explore. So our next steps, we have focus groups. And since this has been published, we've had, uh, we determined that there would be three separate focus groups broken up by tenure. And then we've had one so far, and we're going to have two more. And during these focus groups, that's where, uh, the staff, again, is voluntary. Um, but we do have good representation from each of our divisions, and from the different, as I said, they're broken up tenures, but also different levels, um, within the organization so that we can get good feedback and the consultant runs these focus groups. So we can delve deeper into some of those areas and really see how can we continue to leverage our strengths while also working on some areas that we need continued development on. From those, we will create action items, um, for our staff. So in the past, we've listed, um, a list of action items or, and the staff can actually say, this is a priority to us. And so that way we can focus our energies on the areas that will have the most impact on staff. So at this point, uh, are there any questions? And I appreciate your patience as we were able to get this up. Thank you. All right. Are there any questions, comments, thoughts from the commissioners? Commissioner Bowden. Yeah, I had a question. I know you said you're having, uh, focus groups based on tenure. Do you, uh, has anyone thought about having a mixed tenure focus group? Sure. We have in the past. So what we do though is, uh, along with the recommendations from the consultancy, where maybe there was a bigger difference between the tenure groups. And so that way it helps us kind of focus in, um, on the different areas. Yeah, but still again, it's voluntary. We have the representation of the different divisions as well. So everyone's voice is heard no matter, no matter what. And if for instance, they're on vacation, we have a great consultant. She's willing to, uh, talk to someone offline. If maybe they don't feel comfortable sharing, uh, or if they are unavailable for the focus groups, she will still listen to them and, and have a conversation with them. Thank you. All right, any of the thoughts, questions, comments from the commissioners? I'd like to say, um, oh, you can go ahead to commissioner Lucas. Sorry. I just want to say, um, congratulations, because these are really positive results. And I just know from having, um, both interns here, as well as a lot of alumni who work here, just the reputation is stellar. And a huge reason for that is exactly what, what plays out in this information. The interesting work, um, the people who go into planning today are really passionate about what they do. And they really want to work somewhere where they can make a difference. And, you know, I think that, that the fact that they feel that they can do that here, and that's part of the job here is, is why, um, uh, this is so important. And I think I'll just reflect on, you know, this idea of like, should the staff make recommendations on, on decisions? I think this ownership of what's important in the community is so important to my understanding of why planners are drawn to what they do. And, you know, I, I, I do feel, I did react to that when that proposal came up, because I do feel like I understand the culture where people are doing this work and people work in public, public sector planning to commit to a place, to really have an impact on a place and to make a difference. And I just think this, this testifies to that and that this is really positive data. And everything that I've seen from folks who are involved in staff here has been really positive. Thank you very much. Comments, Commissioner Linkus. I was just wanted to make the statement that, um, this supportive and responsive culture makes me really happy to see because I've been here for so long that I can remember before COVID, that was kind of just the way things were around here was kind of like that. And then we went through this period during and after COVID where communication broke down a little, obviously because of COVID. And then we were kind of working towards building that communication and engagement between leadership at the staff level and lower level staff. So this is, I remember a couple of years back, it showed glaringly in the results we got from one of these that, you know, the staff was a little skittish about communication and engagement with the leadership and things like that. And there was, there was a sense of that going on. So it makes me really happy to see that, you know, they see the service, the survey process itself is evidence of leadership, listening and engagement. I think that is huge. And, you know, you obviously have it highlighted too, maybe for that reason, but I can remember and kudos to you all for, you know, swinging that around and getting that back in the right direction, because that was a huge concern of mine when that survey came out. And I saw that there was kind of that little rift going on. So I'm really happy to hear that that's been turned around now in this. And I wanted to ask on the heels of that, are we sure these numbers are good? You aren't, you aren't cooking these numbers on us, are you? I, I, no, I do not have such power, but that is why we engage with a consultant, so that there is that ability for staff to be honest. And so, and clearly they, they know we are not seeking, we just want input as a collective. Very good. Happy, happy to hear and happy to see it. Thank you. Thank you for your hard work. Thank you. You too, Ms. Zornita, and you too, Mr. College, and all the staff back there within the sound of my voice. So any other thoughts or comments from the commissioners? Not seeing any. We'll thank you for the information. You're welcome. Thank you. Move right along to our next agenda item. Item 4C, TACPA 26-01 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, 1605 North Waters Court. And the presenter is Quinn Steele. Quinn Steele, planning commission staff. This is TACPA 26-01, which is a map amendment for 1605 North Waters Court. The request before you is privately initiated in small scale, covering approximately 3.39 acres. And the request is to go from community mixed use 35 to urban mixed use 60. Here's a general location map. The subject site is located within the central Tampa Planning District, the Central Park Urban Village, the historic Ybor neighborhood, the Ybor City Local Historic District, and the Central Park CRA. This map shows an aerial of the site, which is outlined in yellow. I did want to mention that due to recent developments in the surrounding area, particularly within gas works, this aerial might not be or might not fully reflect the current conditions. This site fronts East 7th Avenue, which is a major commercial corridor in Ybor City, and it's located 230 feet east of North Nebraska Avenue, which is a transit emphasis corridor. Nebraska Avenue also marks the boundary of the CBD periphery, which allows density and intensity bonuses of up to 100% above the maximum permitted under the underlying feature land use designation. And then the red dash line here represents the Ybor City Historic District. If you can see my mouse, it's this area here. The surrounding area is mixed use with multifamily commercial and institutional uses. Immediately to the south are Booker T. Washington Elementary in Robert W. Saunders Library. To the west is a church in a drive-through restaurant with additional commercial to the northeast along East 7th Avenue. The law union apartments, which are a part of the gas works development, are located to the southeast with channel side further beyond the frame. This map shows the adopted future land uses community mixed use 35, allowing medium density residential and commercial uses at 35 units per acre or 2.0 FAR, which surrounds the site on all sides. To the east along East 7th Avenue is urban mixed use 60. To the southeast are additional UMU 60 and RMU 100 parcels associated with the gas works development. To the west across Nebraska Avenue is the Encore area, which includes UMU 60 and RMU 100. Further south is recreation open space, which is Tampa Park Plaza, and further north is residential 20. This map shows the proposed future land uses urban mixed use 60, which would allow high density and intensity mixed use development up to 60 units per acre or a 3.25 FAR. This amendment would increase the maximum density from 118 to 203 dwelling units, and the allowable intensity from just over 295,000 square feet to just over 497,000 square feet of residential or non-residential uses. This amendment would introduce the potential for commercial intensive uses and increase the allowable density and intensity on the site. That concludes my presentation. I'm available for any questions. Thank you. Are there any questions from the commissioners on this one? I did have one quick question. This is a privately initiated. Correct. And is the site currently being used or is it vacant? It's currently vacant. It was previously the Tampa Park Apartments. I thought so. Okay. All right. That's the only questions I had. Thank you. Yep. Next up, we have item 4D, TACPA 26-02, Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, 1701 East 2nd Avenue, and the presenter is Megan McCarthy. Good afternoon, Megan McCarthy, Planning Commission staff. This is the briefing for TACPA 2602, located at 1701 East 2nd Avenue. The amendment is privately initiated, small scale, and is approximately 0.39 acres. The request is to go from light industrial future land use designation to urban mixed use 60. The subject site is located within the central Tampa planning district, the historic Ybor neighborhood, the Ybor City local historic district, as well as the coastal high hazard area. This is an aerial of the subject site with the subject site outlined in yellow. The surrounding area includes industrial directly to the east and south, as well as further east along Adamo Drive. To the north and west are scattered commercial uses, as well as residential further north of east 2nd Avenue. This is the adopted future land use map with the subject site outlined. Directly to the east and to the southeast are light and heavy industrial. Mixed use categories, such as UMU 60, CMU 35, GMU 24, and CC 35, comprise the rest of the surrounding area to the north, south, east, and west. The teal line, if you can see my mouse, I can't see my mouse, there it is. The teal line delineates the coastal high hazard area. The portion of the subject site located within the CHHA is just over 72 percent. This is the proposed future land use map, showing the site under the proposed urban mixed use 60 designation. Under the adopted flue of light industrial, the site is not eligible for residential development. Currently, the site could be considered for 25,482 square feet of industrial uses. Under the proposed UMU 60 designation, the site may be considered for 23 residential development units, or 55,211 square feet of residential or non-residential uses. The amendment would introduce the potential for residential uses and increase allowable residential and non-residential square footage and remove the consideration of industrial uses. This concludes my presentation, I'm available for any questions. All right, are there any questions? That's one from the commissioners. I have a question, next slide is, I know it's planned for in the light industrial, is it being used for industrial or? At the moment, it's considered vacant, but it's being used as a parking lot for the recreational pickleball court to the north. Ah, I knew it had something to do with that pickleball. All right, all right, there's no, are there, there's no like red tags or any, you know, sort of violations they're being hit with or anything like that? Not that I know of at the moment. All right, all right, any other questions? Not seeing any, well thank you very much. I look forward to it coming back to us and we will move on to, oh, an action, oh, okay. Uh, agenda item number five, action item, it's the compensation review of the executive director. And the presenters are myself and Tracy Robin. So, I will turn it over to Mr. Robin for the, well, I guess I'll tell the new commissioners, we have to do Mrs. Zornita's annual review. You filled out the forms last week or turned in, turned in last meeting, her review items to rank her performance. Um, the results were, I think, sent to all of us. So, we had a chance to look at those. Yeah, it's attached to the agenda item. Um, I didn't know if anyone had any questions on that. Um, at this point in time we can discuss those or talk about those and we can take any sort of action we want, whether we want to take a look at her contract and extend it, whether we believe we should give her some sort of increase in salary based on that. We can have these discussions at this point in time. I know Mr. Robin usually, uh, advises us to look at extending her contract when we start to get within a certain tolerance of it being over. I believe we may be there if I'm not, not incorrect. Um, when, when is your contract up, Ms. Zornita? It concludes at the end of 2028. 2028. And yes, historically, um, what I sent out on Friday had the history of when it's been extended. And this has typically been the time frame. Uh, I would also add that Ms. Paterni is here if there are any questions about how staff has been treated in terms of, um, compensation raises, that sort of thing. Okay. I did want to ask you before we get down into this. Um, I noticed commissioner Lauk and commissioner Seban didn't complete certain parts of your review, which I found a little bit concerning. Um, I wanted to get their input as to why I thought they would be here, but the rascals that they are, they didn't show up today. So if you could reach out to them and tell them, you know, or have them talk about it, or maybe we can put an agenda item to discuss it. I, I get the sense that there may be some input on your review categories. Like we did a member many years back. We went and redid the questions and look for more, you know, I also wanted to put the same question out to commissioner sink. He's new here. And this was like his first time going through that, what his thoughts may be about the questions and the categories. You know, I know sometimes when people are new here, they have a lot of good thoughts and ideas on how we can improve, you know, the categories to make them more meaningful so that the decision can be made one way or another. So just if you had any input on any of that, you know, and that's where the struggle is when I came on in December. So to, to run off of, you know, just a few short months is very difficult. Um, so you do your best to understand where they're coming from on it and the question and where it went. Um, you know, these are kind of standard operation questions that we're used to answering in private sector. So that part was, is pretty normal. Um, it's just sometimes it's hard to be new and how to do it. Right. But, um, that's why, that's why next year's still here too. I don't know. Mr. College, you collected the results from folks. I don't know if they indicated anything to you about that. Sean College planning commission staff. And I collected some of the, um, some of them. And, uh, no, I was not giving an explanation exactly why. I don't want to speak for them, but they did not overtly tell me why. I just, um, just declined. Yeah. I'd like to, I'd like to dig into that. Cause this, you know, that review forms the basis of your compensation, which is wildly important, at least to me, you know, and it also gives you a direction on how to improve or where you need to improve or things you need to look at. If any of you noticed, I'm usually the most critical. That's why my review isn't just all fives. Like some people do. It's usually pretty nitpicky in my review. It's not because I don't think she does a great job. Ms. Zornita has my supreme confidence. If she didn't, she'd be the first one to know immediately. She knows that, but you know, I do have to give her things to work towards. Everything can't be just all sunshine and roses all the time. So I try to be sort of critical and really look at the categories and judge them based on, you know, honesty and try to give her things to aim for and give her kudos where she deserves her kudos. So, and she deserves a lot of kudos because it's not an easy position for her to be in. So, um, if we could definitely put a note to find out what's going on with those commissioners. Commissioner Crona may have some good input on that too, being on the different boards he's been on. Maybe some new categories or things we can look at. We could put an agenda item. Maybe we won't do it in May since we have that workshop on the urban service area, but, um, maybe for June to revisit the review form. Okay. And I'll get some insights from them as well about why they didn't complete it. All right. Um, anybody have any thoughts or questions they wanted to raise to Ms. Zornita? Sorry, Commissioner Cardenas. Yeah, um, you know, I kind of sit back and I look at things from a wider perspective and I kind of look at seeing how our community's changing and things are changing and we're questioning things, you know, like the urban service boundary. Exactly. And, and in that questioning of that, it, it almost changes and broadens their scope in a weird way. You know, how, how the commission, how the planning commission as an organization functions and evaluates the things that they do. And I, and I think that, um, as we think about that, um, how to approach that, the direction that I think we give as the planning commissioner, as a planning commission to Ms. Zornita and staff is, is really what creates the, that, that, that to evolve, to change. And, um, it, it just makes me think of, um, how that, how we need to, as of right now, as we're, we're, as it's going in that direction, how we consider the way we evaluate her as those changes are happening. Mm-hmm. Um, and, and with that said, we've got so many different things that are happening that they've got big projects that they're working on and, you know, I, I think about it and I say, okay, as we, as we evolve and as we change it, I, I think maybe it, it, it's going to be more from us and maybe even more from the BOCC and that's why you're going there and that's why this is going in that direction so that we can all evolve together, if that makes any sense. Yeah, definitely. Yeah. Commissioner Link is, I saw you moving maybe, no? Um, I guess I had a couple of comments. I just want to reflect upon how tremendously difficult I perceive for this job to be. Um, you know, I, I'm watching, you know, city of Tampa is now hiring a planning director and I, I think that, you know, that's a, it's a struggle to find people who will step up and do these jobs. These are very, very difficult jobs and it's incredibly important to have longevity in some of these, if, if someone's willing to do it, and that's part two of my questions is, yeah, does it already know what to do this? How to exactly, you know, what her rights and, um, options are with this too. Um, so I guess I just, you know, just want to reflect on, um, I, I, I, and maybe I'm thinking a little bit, so I, there's, if anyone follows Temple Terrace politics, which is probably, you know, a limited set of folks, there's, there's a dynamic where, where there's been, um, a lot of kind of, there's a commissioner who frankly has, has been in the newspaper. So it's not, it's not news who, who criticizes staff and who, who, who, um, it's, and there's been a public outcry about that. I just, I just really feel like the culture cannot be one where we, um, are, are overly critical during this time where these positions are incredibly important and incredibly difficult to fill. So I, I just want to emphasize that, you know, I, it might seem like I'm all, um, roses, but I think you all know, I do have a backbone and I, I'll stand up for stuff I believe in. And in this case, um, I do think that this is, um, an incredibly difficult job, that longevity in it is so important because it does bring so many folks together and the sense of stability in this, um, piece is incredibly important. A lot of times I think, um, from my observation, you know, maybe as a trained planner, sometimes things that are very frustrating that I think sometimes when there's questions around staff or why the agency is doing certain things, a lot of times it comes down to like state law or, you know, something that, um, like what the, you know, what the city's policies are or things like that. So it's, it's a tough role. And I just want to reflect on that. I think, you know, that we see exceptional results from staff, everyone I know in the community speaks very positively of this organization and of, of Miss Ornita in particular. Um, and you know, it's not just all roses in my outlook, but I think in this case, um, I, I serve here because I really think it's an impressive organization and I'm really proud to be part of it. So then part two of my question is, you know, I, I guess I, I, maybe I haven't been part of this process before, but I wondered, you know, what, what we recommend in terms of number of years or, you know, I, I guess I'm not really sure what that process of making our recommendation is. Does there a certain number of years that we're, we're proposing and what options Miss Ornita has to negotiate on that? I, I'm not, it's not quite clear what, what action we would be appropriately taking at this point. We could take any action we want to. I mean, really, it's why it's wide open to us. There's obviously a history, historic basis of actions that we've been taking. I think we usually try to set it out to, what is it five years or something like that? We usually try to extend your contract too, or? Yes, that I do think is what has historically happened. But we don't have to stick to that. And if you want to get wild and make it crazy, you know, that's it. It's your, you sure. So, but we do have whatever levity we want here. And usually she, you know, unless we ask her question, she's going to sit here quiet, like an innocent because she doesn't want to, she doesn't want to go about one way or the other. But yeah, five years, I think is typically the usual extension. And there's, you know, she sent out the basis of what the salary increases are. We can look at those separately. Obviously we want to make sure she's contracted. I do, at least again, I'm just going to put my opinion out there. I would like to extend her contract and make sure that she's here and we don't have to do some sort of national search for someone to fill her role. Because I don't, if we do, somebody else is going to be chair. Let me just say that. So, but yeah, I think we should definitely look at extending it and then we can also talk about compensation. And again, it's really up to us. I'm also in favor of an extension and five years sounds like a good norm. And I'll just, I know I've told Ms. Zornita this, but I just, I just going to reiterate why sometimes if I have something really challenging going on, I say, what would Zornita do? Because I just think she has such balance in her approach on really complicated issues and is such a resource to the community. So I, I think we're lucky to have her and I agree. I wouldn't want us to be doing a search. Did you have some comments, Tracy? I'll say your line. I just wanted to share with the new members of the board. Yes. My recollection is the same as yours. It started out as a five-year contract and is several years burned off. Um, you know, the board's previous discussions have been along the lines that, um, a renewal should be considered at some point because it takes a bare bones minimum of 12 months to put together an RFP and invite people in and interview them and go through a process of replacing your executive director. So the boards have been sensitive to that. One year is a little tight. It can run longer than that. Um, cause there's, when you do hire somebody, they need several months to transition out of their job. They might even need to move here from someplace else. So something more on the order of 15 months is probably a minimum that I would think of a time period. So that's kind of how, uh, as I've observed the board doing this in the past when it got down to, sometimes the board's done it at three years, more frequently, I think, uh, two years, but they, the board kind of made it had a consensus at that point about whether they were comfortable and would like to go forward and wanted to ensure that that Ms. Zornita would continue or whether they needed to head, head in a different direction. So that, that's really a lot of the background for, for an extension of that sort. Um, I did want to share, I was waiting to see if what the board's interest was in this. Uh, I, I do have a, um, an email that I received from commissioner Seban and I'll just read it to you for the record. Uh, this came to me. I was the only one copied on the, there was nobody copied on the email. It was sent directly to me. Commissioner Seban says, I may not be able to make it, uh, to the earlier meeting on Monday. If I am unable, if you would mention the following on my behalf, I'd like to note that I'd be in favor of instead of extending executive director Zornita's role and contract for an additional three years as is customary. Thanks. Alyssa. Okay. Thank you. All right. And I did also want to add to, oh, commissioner Robin, please go ahead. Oh, Cardenas. Sorry. I keep missing you. So, uh, actually, why don't you go ahead? Okay. I, uh, well, uh, oh, I'm in favor of the, the extension to five years sounds great to me. And I made the comment as you know, my experience on the board and, um, seeing Ms. Anita and her actions and things and decisions, you know, it's been fantastic. And, uh, sort of like, uh, was said earlier, this is a pretty heavy job. I mean, doing that and juggling all the things and different people and, and leveraging, you know, what assets and resources that you have. So that's pretty good. Being a, on the board that had it, executive director that we were shredding executive directors, like once every nine, 12 months to where for two years, I was an executive director unpaid. So I know that job is, the job is not easy. So when you find someone that's good, you don't let them get away. All right. Good comments. Commissioner Cardenas. So, um, you know, the thing that comes to my mind is density, right? And when I think about density, I think about complexity in every single way that we probably haven't even seen before. So it'd probably be good to rope her in before it gets too, too difficult or too complicated as things continue to get more intense, because you know, as that density happens, we're going to, the community is going to come up more. It's going to push more, you know, our review of the urban service boundary, that direction that we're going, I am imagining that the back end of that is going to be right along the lines of, yeah, it needs to change and the density is going to go up and parking is going to go down and we're going to have to rely more on, um, more on the transportation that we don't have. And that's going to need to get figured out and it's going to be a complicated process and it's going to get a little bit more intense. So, um, I, I think that her being able to do that and feeling comfortable and confident in her position and her contract is the most important in that process. Good points. All good points. I did want to say too, because I'm usually one of her largest or most critical critics usually said, but she likes it. She loves the fact that I'm very straightforward and I tell her, she tells me that all the time. Don't let her deceive you. She's sitting here quiet. Um, I did want to give kudos where kudos are due because in our last review of you, I was pretty, pretty critical and you've made a lot of changes. You brought Mr. College on board as a second in command. And I can see the differences that all the moves that you've been making have helped to make the agency a better place. The staff review that we just got, you know, the survey that we just spoke about is one example, you know, staff feeling a lot more comfortable talking to leadership now. So I just wanted you to know that I can see the hard work. And then last year you were running around like a chicken with his head cut off, trying to get out to public meetings, because I said, I wanted to see you out in the public more. So you're always very responsive. You always have an ear to the things, not just me, but all the planning commissioners say, I know you all don't get to work with her necessarily as close as I do. We're constantly talking her and I, you know, you just see us at this meeting, but going into this meeting, we must've met and talked like a hundred times before, even before this meeting started, we were in the back room, you know, just gabbing for a half an hour, 45 minutes. So we're very close. And I, you know, I can see the hard work you put in and then the fruits of that hard work that most people can't see. So I wanted to thank you. And I also wanted to thank Mr. College because the presentations we get at the dais have also improved because of the changes and the focuses they've made. There was a time when staff would come before us and things were a little skittish and, you know, mistakes were being made and we haven't seen that nearly as much over the past year. And I would assume it's going to be even better going forward. So I definitely wanted to give you both your kudos on that and say, keep up the good work there. Um, so if we wanted to extend her contract, I'll take it one by one. We'll start off with the contract extension. We definitely need a motion to be made by one of the planning commissioners, you know, a year, a length, uh, whatever the do sure is. Commissioner Jemison. I motion to extend the contract to five years. All right. All right. All right. We have a motion to extend Ms. Ornita's contract by five years or to a five year period. How we, how we, what is that exactly? Five years from now or five years from next year? Because next year is technically where it ends. So well, it technically ends in 28. Okay. And how you all did it in 2023 was in 2023, it was extended to be five years again. Okay. Okay. But it's what, whatever you all want to do. Was that the intent extended to be five years? So from today, it would be five years. Right. Okay. Go to the end of 2031. 31. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Is that the intent? Okay. You good with that second, Mr. Kernan? Yeah. Okay. So the motion in the second stands to extend it to five years, to the end of 2031. Are there any thoughts or input from the commissioners before we take our vote on that? I'm going to send it to the clerk for a roll call vote, just in case we keep everything above the board here. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. All right. Now we can also discuss her compensation. I don't know if anybody had any thoughts on that. I think you sent out a sheet on compensation increases we've done in the past. I did. That was sent out on Friday afternoon, but, um, Ms. Paterni also can, has, um, can go over what staff received this year as merit increases. Okay. Yeah. Did you want to come forward and talk about that, Ms. Paterni, if you could, just briefly just what the, give us an idea of what staff has gotten so we can have an idea of what ranges or zones we're in here, making sure we're not giving her way beyond staff or way under staff? Sure. No. We've been, uh, with the budget, uh, staff received at least 3.5 percent for meeting expectations, all the way up to, uh, 4, 4.25 percent. 4.25. And what is your salary at right now, Ms. Ornina? It's at $187,899. And what was, you'll forgive me, what was the increases we've done over the past couple years? I know one year we didn't give you one. Right. Well, last year it was a 6% increase. Um, the year before that, it was a lump sum cost of living increase of $9,000. Um, and the year prior to that, it was a 4.25, which I think that the two years prior to that were 4.25, I think more in line with staff. Okay. Yeah. You've been here a long time. It was 2021 that had no increase. Too long. Too long. But that was, and that was because all of the staff got no increase. I, I do like to be treated comparable to staff. Comparable to staff. Yes. Yeah. I think that 6% was actually, what was that 6%? Was that because of inflation or something like that? Yes. If, if my recollection was that Commissioner Seben made that suggestion, yes, to cover cost of living. Yes. I believe it's because you may not have received the cost of living that staff did. So that included what was in line with staff plus the cost of living. Okay. All right. Well, we'll entertain any conversation or discussion on compensation increase. Commissioner Seen? Yeah. I guess I've got a question of, um, in the public sector, does anyone have an idea of what someone with Ms. Zornita's experience would pull in the market? And then on the private side, I know that the city and other agencies have seen a huge number of really good talent go out to the private side, um, in recent years. And I know compensation has been, um, a big part of that. So from a HR specialization or anybody in this room that might even know what that looked like from public and what it looks like on private side. Sure. From private side, I think, uh, Ms. Zornita would at least at the very least be commanding 200,000 out in private sector. And that's at the very least for someone of her tenure. And then also with our size of staff, um, you know, we have 55 plus. So, and that's again, at the very least, um, then also within public sector, we do try to look at, uh, staff directors and division directors who are in a comparable position, because obviously we can't always do apples to apples here because again, staff size, et cetera. Um, so I would definitely recommend, um, an increase of at least, uh, the highest that we gave our staff. And then a follow-up question to that is, and Ms. Zornita might actually be able to do that. The cost of loss of staff because of bad leadership is huge, because your numbers can be 10 people leaving in a year, 15 people leaving a year, and recruitment is expensive. In the last year, could someone give me an indication of how many people left and how many new hires were brought in? And basically, what is the level of green employees that the agency of that 55? How many of those would be considered green or in a development plan? Because they're extremely high maintenance to maintain people going through that learning process. So, Megan, do you, I mean, we've had a number of retirements. Um, so, um, but I think we had two leave? Sure. So, outside of the retirements, we've probably had, I would say, and? I feel like there's a second person that I'm just not thinking. That was outside of retirement? Yeah. Sure. Maybe it was just one last year. Yeah. Um, so, yeah, it's mostly been retirements, which luckily we can anticipate, but of course, that is still a cost, but that is not a reflection of leadership. And I, for what it's worth, I do believe the person who left went to the private sector? That is correct. She went to, uh, be a planner with a law firm. So, just to clarify, so, with retirees and the person or persons that left, how many people are considered being green or in a, um, growth modular of their career? Like, I don't want to say baby planners, but like, what is that? No, we do have a, uh, a fairly large, that zero to two, um, range of tenure is about how many people? If I have to go off top of my head, at least like, at least 10 in the zero to two. Yeah. Cause I would say, um, that has been the biggest thing is that we've had a large number of retirements in recent years. And so we have been, and we try to backfill with lower level, you know, entry level staff to the degree possible to maximize our budget. And, um, and to some degree, if we're able to take one position and make it into two, that sort of thing. Um, so yes, our, our large, we have a, a large group of newer tenured staff. Um, but I would say we do a pretty good job of hiring and we've hired a lot of quick studies. And then one more follow up to that is, um, you know, right. Um, how many positions are currently open to be filled in the organization? Just one, just one. All right. Other questions or thoughts on the compensations? I've done some figuring here at a 4% increase. We're talking about 7,500, four and a half percent. We're talking about 8,455, 5%. We're talking about 9,300, 5.5. We're talking about 10,300, 6%. We're talking about 11,000. Does that be percentage based? There can be just a number. It can be, it can be a number. It can be percentage based. It can be anything we want it to be. It's our, it's our world. She's living in it. Are we looking for motions? Uh, it will take a motion when the time comes. I was, if, if anybody has any thoughts or any other comments they wanted to put there, if anybody wanted to throw out a motion, they could. I've got one more question. All right. If Mr. Neida's position went out for, um, being open, and what is the cost associated with finding somebody new? Either headhunting, acquisitions, all that stuff. What does that cost? Sure. So that really depends. Um, so for instance, if it's obviously a cost savings, if you were to use me, uh, but still that is my time that then I have to, you know, prioritize. Um, but if we went out, it would cost quite a bit of money for an outside firm because you have to think then they have to learn the organization. They have, we have to incur travel costs. So it's in the thousands if we went out with a headhunter or a consulting firm. And now again, if you use me, there would be a cost savings, but that is still technically my time. And as we've said, time for training, time for transition. Um, and also we'd have to remember that if we did bring in someone new, they may have, say we did go private sector, say we brought somebody big in from private sector, we'd have to look at matching some type of compensation as well. So we also just want to be mindful when we're talking about Ms. Zornita's compensation that we're not giving her so-called the short stick because she's been here and, and that. So that's not fair. If she went out, made more in the private sector, then came back to try to negotiate, we'd be looking at even more. So I think we just want to be really fair when we're, we're looking at her compensation. All right. Commissioner Lucas. I guess offhand looking at the, the data provided with the, um, staff increases where that was, like commendable. I think we, we all agree that her work is at least commendable and that's 4.25% and then remarkable with 5% as far as the staff norms. So I'm, I'm personally, um, in the remarkable range in terms of my evaluation of her performance. So I would be comfortable with the 5%, but I think we're at least looking at the, the commendable 4.25%. But I think in light of this discussion, and I, I, I definitely feel like not only would, if, if, if she were to leave, would there be that replacement, but I feel like that would really impact a lot of staff, other staff's decision too, about whether this is the right place for them too. So, um, 5% would be my proposal. All right. I'd, I'd throw, oh, go, Commissioner Bowden. Sorry. Yeah, just kind of, uh, giving some more information in regards to acquiring, uh, executive director. Like I said, we went through them for four years. We kept churning over and over and over again. Low was 8,000, 12,000 was the high that we actually paid a outside firm to actually find someone for us. I'd be willing to go up to six, like commissioner Seban did. When commissioner Seban went through her little figuring out, she had a lot of those same questions you just raised commissioner Sink. She was very shrewd and as commissioner Seban is and wanted to find out about every penny and why every penny and what are other people getting paid. And at the end of all that, she was the one who ended up making the suggestion that we pay Mrs. Ornita 6%. And at that time, I was kind of like commissioner Linkus. I was like, well, in the past, we've kind of gone down this trail. I'm with a lower number. So, you know, I'd be, I'd be willing to go anywhere from five to 6%. I wouldn't, I wouldn't necessarily go above that. I'm still going to be me, but I mean, so give you all some ideas, commissioner Sink. Yeah. I mean, so, um, I have a ton of experience in recruiting and the, I don't think we would lose somebody like Ms. Ornita to the public sector. I think we honestly would lose her to the private. And I think anything, $200,000 is going to be a position where, um, the opportunity for people to come in and have conversations would be open. Um, so my suggestion and where I kind of think about from is looking at it is if someone from the private sector was to look for some of her experience, we're going to be talking at 200. And so maybe we're not talking about a percentage. Maybe we're talking about getting her to a threshold income level that is commensurate with her experience and who else will be out there poaching talent. All right. Thoughts, questions or comments on that? Silence. Commissioner Jemison. Um, kind of agree with, uh, commissioner Sink on that at 6% slightly, just a little bit more to reach that number. That makes sense. All right. With a, with a lump sum rather than a percentage. Any other thoughts from the commissioner Sink? I guess the other way that I've always thought about this too, is a percentage plus a bonus or a lump sum can also be helpful in situations too. Cause I know that budgets can change depending on revenue and you know, we can't stretch our resources for the taxpayers. So sometimes going with an increase with a bonus amount can be giving flexibility down the road. I know in private sector, we did this a lot. Um, and so maybe that'd be another approach that we could take to get over the threshold for this year and then next year have the same conversation and see where it lands. Right. Ms. Renita. You know, I don't like to weigh in in the middle of this, um, cause this is very awkward for me, but, um, I do appreciate what you just said. And, um, given that there is some uncertainty, um, in future years, given what may or may not happen with property taxes, um, I, uh, if, if you wanted to look at a portion of it as a bonus for this, then it would just come out of this fiscal year and not necessarily be reoccurring. So, um, uh, so maybe there's a way to split it between the two. Right. Cause I don't want to put an, uh, X on your back, um, when they start making money and we've also been in that situation. Yeah. I personally have. So, um, yeah, that's my thought process on that too. I was going to, I was going to find that I'm, you know, I, I hear you all, but you're not going to get me, get me to budge above that 6%. Like these are, I know you all just come to these meetings and cash for votes and leave, but I know what goes on behind the scenes. These are very precarious times we're living in. So to lock ourselves into 200 K, I mean, I, you know, she, I think she's well worth it. I think she deserves it, but until she's in my ear that that's what she wants, which she hasn't necessarily been, you know, and I mean, no one's, I guess I'll put that question out there, Mr. Ornita, what do you want? I'm gonna put you on the spot because we've all been, we've all been going back and forth about this and that and the pine and this and that what, you know, what do you think would be fair to you? I, I do not have a specific number in mind. I, um, I, I, as I told you, I, I certainly was interested in having the contract extended. There's work that, um, we're in the midst of that I would like to see finished and that's very important to me. Um, and, and I'd like to be treated fairly like staff and, um, but I, I do think, uh, if you all want to do something in excess of that, maybe a bonus might be an appropriate way to handle it. Yeah. I'd be, I'd be willing to go with the bonus thing. I wouldn't want to, again, lock us into something too high there, but again, motion will be the motion and the vote will be the vote. That's how we do it. Commissioner Orton. I just have a question. So as executive director, you are over TPO also or no? Well, all of those staff are technically planning commission staff. Um, but Johnny Wong is the director over the TPO functions and work. So as it relates to any of the work products that go to the TPO, Johnny supervises all of that and is responsible to the TPO board for that work. And, and they hire and him and do his performance reviews. I do not have, um, review over Johnny. Okay. I didn't know if you were over him or not, because if you look at Orlando's MPO director, he's like 200 plus, uh, that's where I was just curious. You don't have to go to Orlando. You could look at some of those County directors right here in Hillsborough County. And yeah, we've looked at that before too. Right. Any other thoughts or questions or anybody? Commissioner Sink? I see you moving, calculating. If I'm playing the math right, if we did a, um, 4.25% increase, put a $5,000 bonus. That would put her just slightly over 200. My math is right. Someone please check it. 4.2545. Are you sure? You might, you know, check the math. Here at 187, you need like 12, right? No, 187, 900 times 4.25 is 78.85. Okay. That puts us at, that puts us at 195, 855, 885 plus a $5,000 bonus. Okay. It would put us, um, at 285. Okay. If you want to, or anyone wants to make a motion or does anybody have any thoughts or opinions on it? Did you want to make that a motion? Uh, if I could make a motion of, um, compensation increase to, um, the executive director's position of, um, 4.25 with a $5,000 bonus. Okay. Is there a second? Commissioner Linkus? I'll second. All right. We have a motion to increase the executive director's salary by 4.25% and then to also reward her with a one-time $5,000 bonus for this year. All right. And the second to that was by commissioner Linkus. Are there any other comments or thoughts from the commissioners before we put this one to a vote? Not seeing any, then I'll turn it over to the clerk for a roll call vote. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. All right. You good? Great. All right. Our next agenda item is item number six, executive director's report. And the presenter is Melissa Zornita. Well, thank you so much. Um, Melissa Zornita, executive director, and, um, um, I'm very honored by the trust you put in me, um, by extending my contract. Um, that really means a lot to me that you have that kind of confidence in my leadership. Um, I really love this job. I love the team of people I get to work with. I really enjoy working with all of you. We've got a great board. Um, so I look forward to what's ahead. Um, but a recap of what's been going on because there's been a lot going on in the last month. Um, we've been continuing our work with temple terrace on their visioning, um, had a couple of an in person meeting and a virtual meeting, but also the team has been going out and meeting with lots of community groups. Um, and that, uh, survey continues to be live. So feel free to share that if you have ideas about places where we should be in temple terrace to share that, uh, survey, please let us know. Um, we've had a number of meetings with county administration and with DOT coordinating on, um, one of the plan amendments that you'll be hearing about tonight, the Fort Hammer Roge interchange, just making sure that we were all coordinated and had all the ducks in a row on that. Um, we've had a number of meetings on the river view community plan update. Um, there was a technical advisory committee meeting this month, as well as, um, a meeting we had with Thea on specifically and the coordination on that their us 301 study of the extension of the Selman Crosstown expressway down to big bend road and possibly beyond, um, is, is take is started and taking a little while to get underway such that, um, in my conversations with Mr. Slater, we think that it's important probably for the community plan, which has gotten to the point of, uh, identifying goals. But if, as we get into the next layer down and strategies, we need to kind of pause a little bit and let their study catch up. Um, so that the strategies really can be geared towards what they're proposing and their alternatives and the community can really be reacting to that and having the community plan reflect some of the ideas that they would like, um, as it relates to that project. So, um, he and I discussed going to the board of county commissioners later this summer after this next round of outreach in Riverview in May, um, to give them an update about both projects and sort of how we see the timeline going forward on that because it will mean that the community plan update takes a little bit longer than we typically like to get them done. Um, Yasser Gonzalez and I went to the Tampa charter review commission and he made a great presentation on redistricting and that process because they had some questions about that section of their charter. Um, we've had one meeting with the county administration and department heads on that, uh, future workshop for next month. Um, I had an opportunity to meet with the new county attorney, Julia Mandel to talk about, um, she wanted to check in since they provide services to us on issues related to HR. Um, and, uh, also she's got quite a background in land use issues. So she was curious about some things, um, and how they were going. I had an interview with heart as part of their, uh, due diligence on their vision plan. Um, and we had a presentation by the urban and regional planning program at USF planning studio. They did their study. This, um, semester was on a Fowler Avenue land use analysis for the section that's in temple terrace to help us with extending the work of that Fowler Avenue vision study that we did a couple of years ago into temple terrace, which is something that, um, mayor Ross was in particular very interested in. And we wanted to be able to address as part of temple terraces update. Um, they did a fantastic final presentation and from what I wasn't able to be there, but from what I heard, um, from staff who were was that it was really outstanding and some of the best work that they've seen from the USF planning students to date. So kudos to them. Um, let's see. One of the big things that has happened since the last meeting is that, and I sent this out an email, um, but I wanted to take a moment to mention it is that some sections of the Tampa comprehensive plan, um, update were sent back to us from the department of commerce with the identification of some policies as more restrictive or burdensome under, uh, Senate bill 180. Um, and so they're two, they were in two different batches. One, um, was the future land use and the coastal management, which went up with housing and they were at the transmittal stage of review. And, um, in the future land use section, they identified four policies out of all of the pages of policies, um, that were, they identified as more restrictive and burdensome in the coastal, they identified on that mixed up my pages here. Uh, they also identified four policies. Um, so in our meeting with DOC, what they indicated, um, because under the statute, it says that your, those amendments are supposed to be null and void. Um, that's what their letter said. Um, we of course just disagree that these policies are more restrictive or burdensome. Uh, in fact, some of them are adopted in the plan today. Um, when we met with DOC the day after the letter came out, they said there is a path for us to reconsider what we've issued. If you put together you're a justification for why you believe them not to be more restrictive or burdensome, um, we'll review that. Um, so we are in the process of putting that together, uh, in conjunction with city legal and city planning. Um, because in many cases, some of the things that are being deemed as more restrictive or burdensome may be in the land development code or in the building code. Um, and we were just writing policies that said promote doing this support doing this because it's already there. Um, and, um, so we're, we're hoping to make a case on that. If we are not successful in making that case on the future land use and the coastal management sections, they will have to start the comprehensive plan amendment all over and, um, come back through all of the public hearings. So we're trying to avoid that. Um, the other item that was, um, we received a letter on was amendments that had already been adopted by city council. So they had been transmitted to the state. They had had an opportunity to comment. We did not receive any comments, city council adopted them. Um, and then after adoption, the state identified that two policies in the capital improvement section were more restrictive or burdensome. Um, so we did ask them about that because that seemed unusual that we, we thought we were good because they'd already reviewed it. Um, and they said that the identification of things is more restrictive or burdensome can happen at any time in the process. Um, so, um, in that case, if we're not successful in, in changing their mind and reconsideration, it will, they have said we can go back to as if it had been transmitted since they did not have any objections at that point and city council can readopt those amendments with changes. Um, so we're working through that process and, um, uh, trying to make our best case, but it does feel a little bit like a moving target when things can pop out at later points in the process than you and we anticipated. Um, with that, there is a list of the comprehensive plan amendments that were heard by the county and the city at the end of my report, but for the sake of time, I will not go through them. Uh, if you have any questions, I'm happy to answer them. Thank you. Any questions from the commissioners? Commissioner Saint. I think, I think this might be appropriate time to talk about it. Um, so I was looking at the BOCC, um, agenda about, I believe, um, both you and the chair are gonna, got requested in. Yeah. Okay. So I might be reading the form wrong, but it says action by BOCC is marked off, but I don't actually see an action. I love like normally in TPO, they're like the action item is this. We are requesting X, Y, Z. I didn't see that anywhere in the filing or the report. So is there an action item or how, how are you guys going in there with the presentation? Like what's included in the presentation, um, that you guys will be presenting? Um, I guess that goes for both, both of you guys. I'm not sure. Yeah. I, I don't know of any, um, action. I guess the board would have the ability to take whatever action they wanted to at the end of discussion. Um, I guess that maybe is to give them latitude, but there is not, you're correct on the agenda item. There is not a prescribed recommended action, like, um, some agenda items come with, um, in terms of staff's presentation. We are in, in case the board wants it, um, cause, uh, I'm, I'm, we will have prepared a few slides about the history of the urban service area and about the urban expansion areas that we have, um, underway. Um, cause those studies were the last thing that the board gave us direction on. And I want to make sure if they have questions on that, that we're prepared to answer them. Um, but I, I don't know if you want to add anything. I don't have any presentation to make. I'm going to go down there and they have questions about the letter. I'll fill them in on the letter, but it is the board's purview to take whatever action they want. They're the elected officials. So if they make an action item and they decide to take an action, that's their decision. Again, we're just a recommending body. I don't know of any action that they intend to take. I presume that they want to bring us down there and have a conversation, try and understand what's going on. And then if they feel they need to then take some action, they then have the authority to take the action at that meeting, as opposed to putting it off to another meeting would be my assumption. Again, I don't know. So thank you. I mean, I guess my question just comes down to as a board, we vote on things. If they're asking questions that we haven't necessarily taken on as a board, how is that conveyed to the Board of County Commissioners? Like, so we vote on things that they're asking questions. How, how would you answer, I guess, or Ms. Zornita, if those answers, those questions would be something that normally we would discuss, debate, and then vote on, I guess is my only question. If we don't have an action item or a request for them to do something, I guess. I mean, from my perspective, if it's not, well, one, I wasn't necessarily planning to speak to the substance of the letter since Chair Joseph was going to be there. Um, uh, but if it is outside of what the Planning Commission has taken action on, I would say that to them that that is, um, unless it's something that they're asking about other work that we've done, about plan policy, about, you know, uh, the work, the history of the urban service area, you know, I'll be prepared to address that. Yeah. Commissioner Linkus. I don't, I don't want to change the subject if, if you have anything more on that. Um, I guess I was just curious that, you know, just some of the conversations I've had in the last week about the, the city of Tampa piece. Um, I, I, you know, I tend to be in planning circles, but I hear so much about the, from the development community frustration with local planning processes and interest in finding ways to create more density, to create more housing and affordability. And to me, this was such a fantastic effort to create more flexibility and so much time spent in the community, so much work. And I guess I just, um, curious what pathways for sort of advocacy at the state level there might be, because I think this is a, is an important place where the highlights very specifically the interests of, of a lot of folks coming together and having a really good product. So I don't know if our, if our local state representatives are in any way being informed about this, but just strikes me as a moment where, um, you know, I, I think this is an important case in point where the state policies are working against what I think people are frustrated with local government. Um, yeah, I do think we, you know, the, the Tampa plan was maybe unique to what they constructed the law for because we, we created a lot of incentives and, and flexibility and, um, you know, the challenging part about restrictive and burdensome is it truly is in the eye of the beholder. I can see that in how they're reading or in this case, FDOT read some of these policies and I never would have read them the way that they're reading them. Um, and so, um, hopefully us clarifying the, the intent and how they, they work, um, will, will address it. Um, you know, I, when not that there was, I want to go back to how things were before 2011 by any means, but there was a process at that time when we had the department of community affairs where they could provide objections to your amendment. And if you didn't address them when you adopted it, then they challenged the amendment and that, that part of the process, um, I do think would be a bit more constructive than this, where we are sent back all the way to the beginning. Um, because that's a lot of time and unpredictability in the process, because I don't know what stakeholders are going to come out to your hearings, city council hearings, and whether the whole package gets changed up in that process. And, um, so perhaps, I don't know, it would take a change in state statute, I think, um, to allow for something like that. But I, I think there's a, I don't think it's, at least it's not our intent to be doing anything that's more restrictive or burdensome. So there, but, so there might just be a better process for this. Yeah. Your suggestion strikes me as a very thoughtful idea. And I guess it's, it seems like a moment for advocacy that could unite things like Kona, you know, the local city county associations to kind of look at, at this and say, what could we be doing better and to bring that information to the state? Um, but I, I, I do, you know, I guess I'll just comment that it, um, it's, it's very frustrating because I did understand this effort to be very much about finding ways to, to do better development and to provide more options for the community. I did have a question along those lines also too. I'm going to stay out of the state municipality business. I don't like getting in between the electeds when they go at each other, but this thing about us going back to the start again, concerned me a little bit. Is there no way for us to just put it back how it was and leave it be where we actually have to go all the way through the process of like receiving it through us and then going back through the city council and then sending it back up to the state again? We couldn't just like leave things how they are, I guess. Is that not an option? Well, I think we're stuck between two parts of statute. Right now, the comp plan, city of Tampa's comp plan is not, does not have a 20 year horizon for their future land use element. So it has to get updated somehow. If that's just changing the date on the front of it, I mean, that's one approach. I don't love it because we've put all this energy and I think we have some really good ideas in the update of the Tampa plan. Um, but trust me, staff has suggested there have been staff who've suggested that is an easier path. Um, with Senate bill 180 is just leave everything as it is. I guess I feel like that's not us doing our job that we should be when we're updating the plan, really updating it and, and that we've done all this work. We should continue to carry it forward. But I think that's something if we are deemed null and void that we will have to evaluate with city legal and, um, it is to date been their opinion that null and void means that the amendment is done and we have to start over, um, the process. And I, you know, I partially agree with you. It's a lot of good work. There's a lot of good things. I don't like throwing babies out with the bath water, but I've said this to you in private and I'm crazy enough. I'll say it in public. Like I don't, we've put a lot of work into this stuff with the city of Tampa. And at a certain point, like the electors just going to do what they're going to do. And it may at some point again, behoove us to stop, you know, shooting ourself in the foot and just leave things alone. Sometimes better to just leave well enough alone. You know what I mean? Then to keep burning our hours. There's the only reason I say that is there's a lot of things we serve the city of Tampa. We serve the city of temple terrace. We serve plant city. We serve unincorporated Hillsboro. The MPO is housed within us. We deal with the airport, the port, the expressway authority. There's a lot going on here. Okay. So like if somebody wants to just have us spin our wheels at a certain point, we got to say, well, we need to put that, you know, in better places and better directions, you know, so that's my only thought. So definitely keep that keep that in mind as we go back through this process again. That's it's well, I'm going to be optimistic that we're going to get them to reconsider, but we'll see. Okay. Any other questions for our executive director on any of this stuff? I did have another quick. Did the heart thing go well? How are we doing with heart? I know in the past we haven't been too connected with heart. There's been some. Yeah, I would I actually that was one of the questions they asked me and I feel like the coordination has has grown considerably with the staff that they have over the last maybe two years. They're really integrated with our studies. They've been including us in a lot of theirs. So yeah, it was really good. I appreciated them asking my input on um, on their vision plan and areas that needed to be served things like that. So it was great. And this Tampa charter review commission thing, what was that they were just you said you mentioned the redistricting, but whenever the charter people start, you know, calling us in, I'm always like, what are they trying to do now? What's what's going on there? I think similar to the county commission, there was some discussion about number of city council members, um, timing of terms, things like that. And they wanted to understand how the redistricting process played into that. Um, so we just gave a presentation about the redistricting that we just concluded and how the process standard works. They like that there is a section in the laws of Florida. It identifies one date that we need to be concluded with the redistricting and then in the, um, charter, it has a different one. And so we said if there was the opportunity to match those up, that would be a great opportunity for the charter review board to do something that would help us. So, um, we took that that opportunity. All right. Okay. All right. Were there any other questions for our executive director not seeing any? Well, thank you for the information and we will hurry on to our next agenda item. Other business chairs, business, I have none old business. We have this recommendation to establish structured public comment time limits. Did we want to get into that or? Well, I'll just say for the sake of time that we, um, provided some initial research on time limits that other jurisdictions here in Hillsborough County use, um, as well as other planning commissions across the state, um, use as information. Um, commissioner Kona is not here, so it's probably best to save the discussion until next time. Okay. Yeah. Right. Is everybody cool with that? Anybody has any places you'd like us to research? Commissioner Orton provided the school board's information for me to add. We can certainly keep adding to it. Okay. Sounds good. All right. New business. Anybody have any new business? No. All right. Committee reports. Anybody have any committee reports for us? I have TPO to TPO meetings went past, uh, the March meeting. We took action on the Temple Terrace multimodal connection study and accepted it. We also took action on the safety treatment effectiveness evaluation study and accepted that, um, minor conversation around those. It was pretty unanimous on both of them. I think it was totally unanimous on both of them. We also got a status update on the heart transit development plan update, um, which is always a bitter pill when we kind of see the things that heart is struggling with, but we're glad to see that their staff is excited and pushing forward and trying to move that, uh, organization in a better direction. So kudos to heart. That's why I was glad to hear miss Ornita was linked up with them and we're getting back connected with them. We also received a draft United work program update from TPO staff. We didn't take action on any of these things and we celebrated the retirement of miss Gina Torres, who was assistant director. She'd been this agency for many, many years. She was here when I got on. She was one of the first people who pulled me aside and talked to me like a normal person. Um, so Jean is very dear to my heart. I was sad to see her go and we celebrated at the same time the reclassification of Sarah caper to new assistant director. Sarah is a very sharp young lady. She's also, if you ever see her around in the hallways, feel free to stop and twist her ear. Very knowledgeable, very competent. So I was happy to see her elevated up to Mr. Wong's Dr. Wong second in command. Look for good things, continue to get things out of TPO. That was the March 11th meeting. And then last week we had the April 8th meeting of the TPO. So we've had two TPO meetings since our last meeting. We took action at the April 8th meeting on the obligation and unified, uh, planning work program amendments. Um, we took action on a tip amendment to add lighting on. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I had to say Adam. Oh, yeah, I'm from Tampa. So we call it Adam. Oh, not Adamo. But and then we also took action on the bears, uh, Avenue multimodal study safety, multimodal safety study. All right. So they're putting safety treatments along bears, basically from Buchanan high school, all the way over to the other side of the two 75 by the train tracks down there headed towards Bruce B downs. Um, so we looked at some treatments, some suggestions of treatments for making that area a bit safer. Um, we also looked at took action on the certification of the Metropolitan Transportation planning process process that the MPO uses. And there were many kudos given to the MPO by the secretary, the district secretary. I believe the quote he used was that our MPO in Hillsborough County is now the gold standard for this district. So all other members of this district should be looking at our MPO for how to do things, um, which is a very big pat on the bat to Dr. Wong and the hard work he's done since becoming executive director of the MPO. It wasn't too long ago where FDOT did not feel that way about our MPO. So we're the board members were very happy to hear that and spoke about that and the good work Dr. Wong has been doing with the MPO and all the MPO staff. So hats off to them. Um, we also looked at, um, status and priorities for the various areas, Tampa temple, terrorist plant city in Hills Hillsborough County, where it comes to transportation. And we had their department leaders come and talk to us about the things that we should be keeping on our radars. Cause there are things that they have on their radars when it comes to transportation and development in the various municipalities and authorities having jurisdiction within Hillsborough County. And that was the past two meetings at the TPO board. Does anybody have any questions for me on that? Want to grill me in any sort of way? Any of you? No. All right. I'll put it out there one more time for any other committee reports. Anybody has any? No, not seeing any at this time. Then that looks like our last business item and we are running way behind the time. Is it 5 33? So what do we want to come back at like six o'clock for the public hearing? We're gonna have to eat really fast or grab your coffee really fast. So we're going to come back at 6 p.m. and do our public hearing for Hillsborough County and at 5 34 p.m. this regular meeting is adjourned.