to order. Thank you for being here, and I'd like to recognize our deputies of the day. Corporal Clyde Thornton, Deputy Mike Winnick, who is a great man, but he's also a Red Sox fan, and we won't hold that against you, and Deputy Victoria Henderson. Thank you for your service. Our invocation will be led by Commissioner Peters, followed by the pledge from Commissioner Scott. Heavenly Father, we come to you today asking for your guidance, wisdom, and support as we begin this meeting. Help us engage in meaningful discussion. Allow us to grow closer as a group and nurture the bonds of the community. We pray for wisdom, for strength, for courage to do what is right and good for all citizens. May we put the interest of others above our own. May we act with love for the common good. May we be good to neighbors recognizing your image and every person here. Amen. I apologize. Please remain standing for a moment of silence in honor of former County Administrator Fred Marcus, who recently passed away. With yesterday's countywide celebrations and recognition of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Day, today we would like to recognize and thank Pastor Clem Bell of Shiloh Baptist Church in Dunedin. Pastor Bell has been serving as pastor at Shiloh Baptist Church since 1991, and in 2008, Pastor Bell was instrumental in the establishment of the first celebration of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Day in Dunedin. We want to acknowledge and commemorate the pastor's efforts as he continues his pious work and community service spreading the teachings of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Thank you very much, Pastor. Good morning. I would like to read the proclamation that we have for you today. Whereas Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. devoted his life to advancing equality, social justice, and opportunity for all, and challenged all Americans to participate in the never-ending work of building a more perfect and just union. And whereas Dr. King's teachings continue to guide and inspire us in addressing challenges and injustice within our communities, including educational opportunity, academic achievement, economic empowerment, and the elimination of poverty. And whereas millions of Americans have honored the life and the legacy of Dr. King by serving their neighbors and communities on this holiday through service projects that are organized by various non-profits, community, public, and private organizations, and whereas the county recognizes that the legacy of Dr. King lives on through the tremendous work of many community organizations. And today, we thank Pastor Bell for his continued work and efforts spreading the teachings of Dr. King to all. We thank you. Good morning. Praise the Lord. We want to give special thanks to the United States of America, especially those that operate in Washington. If I had not been for them, we would not be having this celebration. They want to make a keen birthday, a national holiday. So we are grateful for that. That's a lot of progress. We thank the state of progress. We thank the state of Florida for embracing the idea of King celebrating his birthday. Then special thanks go to Pinellas County for the work that you have done in recognizing the work of Dr. King and honoring this celebration of his birthday. Um, and you have done a tremendous job doing that. And, uh, unlike Dr. King, I don't have no dream. I have nightmares. And, uh, but I do have wishes. I have wishes. And, uh, one of my wishes is, is, uh, a few moments ago, we done the pledge allegiance to the, uh, to the flag. And there's a, there's a portion of it that says, uh, we are one nation under God and see, uh, we have not completely accomplished that. So we hope that we'll work on that one and get that completed. Cause when you're under somebody, you do what they say do, right? All right. So we, I mean, it's, it's a good thought, but we are not under God completely. Cause if we was under God and a lot of things that took place, they would not take place. Then last but not least, it said, we are a nation of liberty and justice for all. So I wish that we would work on those two in liberty and justice for all. When I was a little boy between five years old and seven years old, I had a wish cause I had, I lived amongst, uh, uh, places where I had to go and go in the back door and, and, uh, rejected from a lot of places. So during that little young period of time, sometime I used to wish that I was a white guy. Why? Because there was white. No, I wish there was that because they got treated right. They got all the good stuff. So I had that wish. But later on, I found out that if you do good, you go to heaven and everybody's treated the same. So I no longer had that wish. But I do have these two wishes here that we would, uh, be one nation under God and that we will be out of liberty and justice for all. God bless you. Lord keep you. Picture time. Can you stay for a picture? Oh, commissioners, can you come up front? Can I entertain a motion to move item number 40 to this part of the agenda? All right. We will now consider a resolution supporting the renaming of Bayside Bridge as the Dillinger McCabe Bayside Bridge honoring the extraordinary service of Robert Bob Dillinger and Bernard Bernie McCabe to Pinellas County in the state of Florida. Mr. Dillinger joined the office of the public defender for the sixth judicial circuit in 1976 as an assistant public defender. As a member of the capital crimes defense team, he helped publish Florida's first comprehensive death penalty training manual for defense attorneys. He was elected public defender in 1996 and served the sixth circuit from 1997 until his retirement in 2024. His career was marked by an exceptional recognition, including the Nelson Poynter award, the 2011 Benjamin Franklin distinguished leadership award, the 2012 Jane Schaefer Outstanding Homeless Advocate Award, and the 2013 President's Call to Service Award, and many others. Importantly, Mr. Dillinger pioneered initiative programs addressing mental health and substance abuse, expanded diversion opportunities, and led efforts to reduce recidivism. These initiatives changed countless lives and became a statewide model for defender services. Bernie McCabe devoted 48 years to public service in Florida. Beginning as an assistant state attorney, he was first elected Pinellas Pasco State Attorney in 1992 and served in that role for nearly three decades. Known for pairing firm prosecution with fairness and compassion, he was a trailblazer in creating specialized units focused on domestic violence, child abuse, and white-collar crime, while mentoring generations of attorneys and law enforcement professionals. He championed juvenile diversion programs that connected youth to community services rather than incarceration and supported similar diversion efforts for adults accused of minor offenses. Prior to his passing in 2021, Bernie McCabe served as an adjunct professor and board of overseers, a member at Stetson University College of Law, president of the Florida Prosecuting Attorneys Association, chair of multiple state and county boards, and was inducted into the Stetson College of Law Hall of Fame. The one served as state attorney and the other as public defender. These two leaders consistently worked together for the public good, strengthening our justice system, enhancing community safety, and upholding the dignity and rights of all. Their shared legacy reflects the highest ideals of public public service and stands as a powerful example of collaboration and across roles and pursuit of justice worthy of our deepest respect. With that, I'll read the resolution. Whereas Robert Bob Dillinger served the citizens of Pinellas and Pasco counties with distinction as the elected public defender for the Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida for more than two decades, tirelessly advocating for justice, fairness, and the humane treatment of those accused of crimes. And whereas Bob Dillinger's leadership brought innovative programs addressing mental health and substance abuse, expanded diversion opportunities, and championed efforts to reduce recidivism, providing a model for defender services across the state. And whereas Bernard Bernie McCabe faithfully served as the elected state attorney for the Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida for more than 25 years, earning widespread respect for his dignity, dedication, and commitment to public safety in the pursuit of justice. And whereas Bernie McCabe was known for balancing firm prosecution with fairness and compassion, establishing specialized units to address domestic violence, child abuse, and white collar crime, and mentoring generations of attorneys and law enforcement professionals. And whereas together Bob Dillinger and Bernie McCabe embodied the highest ideals of public service, often collaborating to improve the justice system, enhance community safety, and protect the rights and dignity of all citizens. And whereas their longstanding partnership and mutual respect demonstrated that vigorous advocacy and principled prosecution can coexist to strengthen the fabric of our community. And whereas it is fitting to and proper that a major piece of infrastructure serving Pinellas County, the Bayside Bridge be renamed to permanently commemorate their legacy to inspire future generations of public servants. And whereas as at a public meeting held on July 22nd, 2025, a consensus of the Board of County Commissioners of Pinellas County, Florida directed that this proposal be brought directly to them for consideration at a future BCC meeting. Now therefore, be it resolved by the Board of County Commissioners of Pinellas County, Florida one that the Bayside Bridge shall henceforth be named the Dillinger McCabe Bayside Bridge in honor of the extraordinary service and contributions of Robert Bob Dillinger and Bernard Bernie McCabe to the citizens of Pinellas County in the state of Florida. Number two, the appropriate signage and recognition shall be installed to reflect this designation subject to applicable state and local requirements and communicated to the Florida Department of Transportation and other relevant agencies. And number three, this resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption. Is there any comments? We need a motion. I move approval. All right. I believe we had the tax collector on Zoom. Can we please recognize him? Hey, good morning, everybody. Can you hear me? Excellent. I just want to start by saying thank you to the County Commission for bringing this resolution forward and specifically to Vice Chair Chris Latvala who has championed this resolution. I'm not going to echo a lot of the stuff that Vice Chair Latvala just stated about both Mr. Dillinger and Mr. McCabe. But I do want to echo one part is that it's not just about the individuals. It's about their relationship. To put this in perspective, for more than two decades, Bernie McCabe and Bob Dillinger were never on the same side of a case. They were in the criminal justice system as adversaries, yet they were the best of friends and they worked together, whether it was at JWB or at other non-profits in this county individually to make Pinellas County a better place. And I feel like this bridge memorializes that relationship for future generations because, you know, in the decades to come, whether whoever it is, whether you're visiting Pinellas County or you live here, you drive over that bridge, you see those names, you Google it or who knows what's going to happen decades from now, it downloads instantly to your brain, something like that. You're going to find out who these people are and what they did together. And this bridge makes sure that that relationship is an example for all of us here in Pinellas County. And truly what makes Pinellas County amazing is how well our government works together to make it better. And I just can't say enough how much this means to me as I worked with both. I mean, obviously everybody knows Bernie McCabe was my mentor at the state attorney's office, but I also got to know Bob Dillinger very well as the state attorney's office took over the mobile medical bus, which was a passion project for him. And I worked with him on that for many, many years. So even in retirement, Bob Dillinger was still trying to make the citizens of the Sixth Judicial Circuit better. I can't thank you enough for bringing this resolution forward. And I hope that everybody votes in favor of it. Thank you for your time and have a great day. Thank you. Commissioner Flowers. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for bringing this forward. Thank you, Mr. Ross, for those kind words. I just wanted to share a side of Bernie that I got to know over the years. Of course, we all know that whenever he spoke, he meant exactly what he said. And if he wasn't going to change his mind, he did not. And we also know that Mr. Dillinger felt the same way. But when I worked at Gulf Coast Jewish Family Community Services, they still have residential treatment facilities for persons who are battling drug addictions. And then there's a separate facility for those who had mental health issues. And one of the concerns we had was that individuals were being arrested for minor drug offenses. And so they would be in Pinellas County jail. But once they were released, there was really nothing for them. And it was difficult to find funding to be able to provide services for them so that they could stay in in-house care, which took more than 28 days. And so we had a conversation with Bob Dillinger, who agreed to fund some of those beds, to financially fund through his office some of those beds. And then we had Bernie McCabe on the other side for prosecution, who said, I believe people deserve a second chance. So it took the working together of the two to be able to do that and give people a second chance at the facility on Darlington in Pasco County, right on the Pasco-Pinellas County line. And that meant a lot to me. I have an older brother who suffered from drug addiction. And I think all of us either know somebody who has been touched by it or maybe someone personally within our family who's dealing with that. So that meant a lot to me. And I got a chance to work with both of them on that. I also got a chance to work with both of them on juvenile offenses, low level offenses that juveniles would commit if they completed a program and provide community service in that program. Then their records were wiped clean. Again, that took Bernie McCabe saying he was willing to step out on faith with individuals. And that took Bob Dillinger's office saying that we want to work towards that end as well. So I think it's very appropriate to remember them in this way. And a bridge for me means that I'm leaving one destination. I'm crossing over to another destination. And I believe that the two items that I just spoke of certainly define their relationship. They believed in a person having an opportunity to cross that bridge to do better in life. So thank you, Mr. Chair, for bringing that forward. I miss both of them. It's not a day that goes by that I'm not thinking about something that they did or said, certainly to impact my life over the years. So thank you so much. I think this is a wonderful thing. Thank you. I think it's very fitting. And I wanted to thank my colleagues for bringing this forward. I think this is very fitting that the bridge that we're renaming goes to the courthouse where they spent many years working together as really as adversaries inside the courtroom. But outside the courtroom, they did so much for our community. Um, Mr. Dillinger, uh, one of his passions was feeding children and feeding hungry children in our schools. And, um, he wouldn't talk, he couldn't talk about it without getting emotional about, um, all of the, and, and his, uh, nonprofit was Nourish to Flourish. Um, and it was something that, um, it was impossible for him to discuss without being emotional. And he was a larger than life man. Um, and, and, uh, Mr. McCabe, uh, was the same way. They were both giants in our community. Um, and there's a famous picture, um, of them walking in the courthouse together, uh, down the hallway. And, um, you know, the state attorney and the public defender are not supposed to be buddies. They're supposed to be adversaries inside the courtroom. They were adversaries. As soon as they walked out of the courtroom, they did what was best for our community. And, and a lot of times, um, it was directed at, at the children of Pinellas and Pasco counties. Uh, years ago, one of them wanted to serve on JWB. And, um, um, so they needed the state law to be changed so they could serve on JWB. Uh, and then the other one decided they wanted to serve on JWB alongside of them. Uh, so to this day, uh, the public defender and state attorney in Pinellas County both serve on JWB. And that's because of Bernie McCabe and Bob Dillinger. Um, and so their, their legacies, um, are through, uh, their wives, but also through the thousands of attorneys and, and dozens of, and dozens of judges that sit on the bench, um, because of them. And, um, you know, their loss will be felt for really for generations. Uh, but their impact will, will be long after. Um, we don't normally do this, but it's in my notes. Uh, is there anybody in the audience that would like to say anything before we vote on this? All right. Um, we have a motion and a second. Can you pull up the board? Thank you. It passes unanimously. I was looking for the seventh person, but we're, um, thank you very much. And I would like to call up, uh, Ms. McCabe and Ms. Dillinger to the podium, please. Now we're on citizens to be heard. Each citizen will have three minutes and I apologize if I butcher any names. Uh, the first one, Martin Leventon. Good morning, commissioners. Uh, I'm going to move quickly. Martin Leventon from Bel Air Beach. Florida SB 1622 passed in 2025. It uses a customary use test to allow counties, municipalities to promulgate laws, giving public access to dry sands to get to the wet sand shoreline. Unfortunately, um, Bel Air Shores, our neighbor is closing gates at six 12 and 19th street access points, posting no trespass signs to the general public, basically, uh, prohibiting, uh, fellow citizens in Largo, Bel Air Bluffs, Seminole, Indian Rocks, Clearwater, et cetera, to access the wet sands through the dry sand access points at six street, 12th street and 19th street. The original 1944 deeds gave us access anyone living east of Gulf Boulevard. And I'll hand this up. Um, when I'm done. So basically friends, colleagues, fellow churchgoers, relatives who are not Bel Air Beach residents are not welcome at six 12 or 19th street access. So if you folks don't live, excuse me, in Bel Air Beach, you're not welcome. Um, my wife and I were stopped about 10 days ago by the sheriff's office and were asked where we live. Um, as a practicing attorney for 44 years, I can tell you, Terry versus Ohio, uh, basically indicates that, uh, a citizen does not have to answer that question and they can go about their business. Uh, that's what Justice White says. Unfortunately, my wife and I had trepidation and we felt that if we did not answer that question and proceeded to the beach as we've done probably three times a day for the last four years, we would have been arrested. Um, I think it's a chilling effect, uh, for Bel Air Shores to close the gates, uh, and to threaten people with, uh, trespass. And then on top of that, use the sheriff's office to try and enforce that. So, um, I think it's up to you folks to promulgate some ordinances via the county, which SB 1622 suggests that you can do so that you can reign in, um, this horror that's going on down on, uh, Bel Air Beach. Uh, thank you very much. And if I can hand up a copy of the deed that I was, uh, referring to, uh, I would appreciate it. Thank you. Uh, next, uh, we have Ken Warrington. Thank you for this opportunity. Um, just wanted to talk about homeless people and the cold or experiencing now. It's nice that some churches and when boys and girls club were open to homeless people Sunday and Monday, January 18th and 19th. Years ago, I stayed with my niece and nephew and family in Craddock, a part of, uh, Portsmouth, Virginia to help them through some difficulties. While I was there, I showed up at the monthly meetings that Portsmouth had concerning homeless people. All departments of the city government were there each month. The volunteer organizations were there. One group provided meals every day at lunchtime. Another group provided blankets on very cold nights. A group would submit proposals each year, both groups, for funds for the city to operate. Another group was a DAV in Craddock. They opened their doors to the homeless in Craddock during one particular cold spell. They fed them, let them sleep there, and let them stay during the day. The churches in Portsmouth took turns each month in opening the doors each and every night during the winter. The people in Craddock, part of the fortress, couldn't, Portsmouth couldn't get there because they didn't have bus fare to get there. Another successful service to the homeless people in Portsmouth was a central phone number that homeless people could call to find resources. I have found that our 211 resource has some inadequacies, maybe because there are so many options that people can call about that the system is overloaded. Possibly there could be an option the person newly homeless could choose to hear from recording of what is available. From there, that person could choose to speak to a real person. It seems to me that the greatest need to our homeless people is a warm and safe place to sleep every night. One suggestion is to give businesses with empty buildings a rebate in taxes for each month that they would open their building to homeless people. Such a building would have to be staffed with volunteers and the homeless people required to have responsibility to care for the building. Secondly, I feel the greatest need is to have a women's shelter. Our women need to be safe in this county and particularly women and children who age out of the, I'm forgetting the name of, sorry about that, I'm 80 years old and forget words every once in a while. But that's all I got. Thanks. Next, we have Dr. Alex Harris. Well, good morning, commissioners. It's a pleasure to be here with all of you. I'm Alex Harris and I represent the Arts Conservatory for Teens. Short is ACT, Pinellas County based 501c3 nonprofit organization for 14 years as that started in Midtown. ACT began with 30 students. Today, we serve over 1200 students every week in partnership with Pinellas County Schools, St. Petersburg Parks and Rec, faith-based academic institutions, home schools, charter schools, and private schools. To date, more than 16,000 students and families have been served through our program that we started in our model. Our mission is simple and urgent, education, empowerment, and enrichment for all students. ACT uses evidence-based interdisciplinary arts and technology curriculum to do two things exceptionally well. One, accelerate high school graduation and prepare young people for workforce and post-secondary educational institutions. 100% of our ACT students have graduated from high school with a high school diploma, not a certificate of completion, regardless of their circumstance, and 90% have matriculated to higher education institutions. These results align, I think, with what research consistently confirms, that high-quality, sustained youth development programs reduce crime, improve educational attainment, and strengthen workforce readiness. Also, the U.S. Department of Justice and CDC shows that structured after-school enrichment programs reduce juvenile crime during peak hours, while arts integrated education improves attendance, graduation rates, and social emotional outcomes. But ACT is not just simple before, during, or after school programming. ACT is an economic and cultural engine designed to build real pipelines into Pinellas County's future workforce in the arts, technology, education, technology, education, and health care. And so the ask of us is very simple, is to, as we prepare for 27 budgets, is to consider our programs like ours to help continuing preparing students for greatness. That's high school graduation and workforce readiness. So thank you for all that you already do, and I just wanted to kind of reintroduce ourselves to those who didn't know us and how we would be continuing reaching out for your support. Thank you so much. Thank you. Mr. Chair, just a little note. Alex Harris is a world-renowned recording artist. He's made his appearance on showtime at the Apollo. He has cut several records himself and performed with a number of groups professionally. So we do have in our midst a little star, I guess, if you will. And I remember him as he was, you know, coming up and performing locally. And now he is on the big stage and he has availed himself to youth in the community to help them matriculate in that direction the right way. So I just wanted people to know that you are a world-renowned recording artist and doing a really good job at that. Congratulations. And I will attest that he is a wonderful teacher as well. I've seen some of his students perform last year in St. Pete. And my only complaint is he should have brought some of them today and perform for us. Absolutely. Thank you all so much. I appreciate it. Thank you. Sorry I embarrassed you. Good to see you. Next, we have Frank Bankard. Good morning, County Commissioners. My name is Frank Bankard. I live in Beller Beach, and I'm also a council person there. I'm addressing this commission regarding the building and planning department that issues permits, etc., regarding mine and your constituents' concerns. I understand this commission does not do a day-to-day management of this department, which falls under the county administrator. I do want to make both parties aware of two issues in the town of Bel Air Shores. In the town of Bel Air Shores, there are three lots of beach access, which were deeded to the homeowners and landowners east of Goff Boulevard by the Kirkabee Hotel corporations in the 40s. In the deeds, it so states, grantee, heirs, executors, administrators, and assigned shall have all irroquable licenses to pass ingress and egress to lands herein described free of let hindrance of or molestation of any kind by said grantor. The deeds further state, no permanent structures to be built. Last year, Bel Air Shores erected fences and gates on three of these three access lots after the storms of 2024. When I questioned the permit for the installation from the town clerk, she replied, none was sought. I then contacted the county unpermitted structure department. After volumes of emails exchanges without any proper responses and disregard of Bel Air Shores, Pinellas County, and Florida building codes for gates and fence installation, I contacted the head of building and planning about this, which did send out the area inspector. He further noted, fences, regardless of a permit, cannot exceed six foot in height, which I had provided numerous pictures as they do. I want to note, I also questioned unpermitted signs erected on these lots, which signs were not in Florida code chapter 26-30, ASCE 7, etc. Factually, they were installed on a single U channel that is rated for 90 mile an hour winds for a two foot square sign. The signs that I presented were 15 square feet. I then received a call from the area inspector and he noted the mayor of Bel Air Shores has the unfriended right to erect signs per his desire. He then noted the gates and fences were not erected, new, but repaired, which does not need a permit. While time does not permit me to get into the reply with the inspector, his statement flies against Florida code ASCE 7, 1869, etc. And to note, I did a rate to no request on this matter and no permits were ever obtained or repaired for fences or signs. I then sent an email to the inspector's position to the head of the department, which he sustained his findings. Simply, this county is ignoring state law Florida billing code section 105.1 ASCE. My wife will give me her three minutes. No. You're not allowed to do that, sir. If she wants to sign in a card, she can speak. Okay. Well, I emailed all you guys the video of the signs. I'll present this to you. Thank you. Next, we have Ronald Walker. Mr. Chair. Yes, ma'am. We've had really great public speakers today, and I just want to commend the public for coming and being engaged. And I mean, we had really good, thoughtful speakers, and I just want to acknowledge that. Thank you. And I thank them for coming. I think they knew I was going to be acting as chair today. That must be it. It's your juju. But, you know, we had really good, thoughtful speakers, and I really appreciate it when the public comes in. And thank you. Yes, ma'am. Yes, sir. Hey, Wynn. Yes, sir. You're up. Ron Walker, 7100 Almerton Road. We need a false claims ordinance, and only you seven can make it happen. We've got a $4.3 billion county budget, and we don't have a false claims ordinance to protect whistleblowers who will come forward and expose corruption, fraud, and theft. See what's just happened in Minnesota. The Somalis have stolen $9 billion. Whistleblower after whistleblower went to the corrupt elected officials and told them you're being stolen from. They didn't act. Had they brought a key TAM lawsuit under a false claims law, the corrupt governor could not have ignored them. So you guys have within your power to pass a false claims ordinance. Copy Broward counties. They copied Dade. Dade copied the state statute. The state statute copied the federal law. The federal law was established by Madison and Jefferson and improved by Lincoln. You're in good company, guys, and you'll protect the people you represent. And it doesn't cost you anything. You don't have to do any work. All you got to do is copy Broward counties false claims ordinance. These false claims ordinance in the United States collect tens of millions of dollars of stolen money stolen from the people. We're going to spend a billion plus to develop the ballpark. And the corruption's already setting in if you look at the plans. St. Petersburg is only hiring blind architects. Have you looked at the drawings and the plans? It's money, guys. You have within your power to pass a false claims ordinance. It should be on the books to protect you in the future. It's not rocket science, guys. It's easy for you to do it. The research will be small. Just copy Broward County and you're in hog heaven. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Next, we have David Ballard Geddes, Jr. Hi. Good morning, Commissioners. David Ballard Geddes, Jr. I live on Georgia Avenue in Palm Harbor. The residents received a mailer from the county last month requiring the homeowner to replace our water pipes under our homes, stating that this letter is to notify us of the material interest of the county in our replacement of our water pipes on our side of the water meter. This mailer is to inform the residents that every household is subject to new material regulations affecting the material fashion of the water lines, claiming that we are required to replace our water lines, which is now the material property of the county's water system, citing that lead in the old pipes as being the reason behind the required replacement of our water lines. The county knew good and well that lead was an issue when they originally designed the water system. The Roman Empire 600 years ago suffered from lead poisoning in its water system. And what about the mercury? I made a video 15 years ago concerning the county not testing for mercury on its consumer confidence report. The county water department is setting us up in its requisitions of such and is attempting to claim our property as their property and their system and their backbiting development practices when the county water pipes are upwards of 80 years old are upwards of 80 years old in many cases and are in need of replacement 35 years ago. Another issue is the surface water assessment fee charging us for the impervious area on our property. Common sense tells us that all the old Florida cracker homes being built up off the ground and the county developing all of its homes paving directly on top of the surface of the ground covering up everything. The county again is setting us up with its staged development practices standing us on our heads with their improper development intending to create such rainwater runoff. The surface water assessment fee is not an ad valorem tax lien and this charge is not based on the millage rate. The so-called rainwater levy creates a third-party mortgage against our property and serves as the beginning of a foreclosure proceeding against all the residential homes tapping into the title of our property in ordinance 97103 section 126 509a. That's called carpet bagging. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Gattis. There are no more cards. Would anybody else from the public like to speak on an item not on the agenda? All right. Seeing none, we will go to our public hearings and item number three. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Agenda item number three is case number LDR 2501. This is the second of two public hearings to consider the adoption of an ordinance providing for the amendment of the Pinellas County Land Development Code, Chapter 138, Article 2, and Chapter 154, Articles 1 and 5, amending the plotting requirements to come into compliance with Chapter 177 Florida statutes. The public hearing is properly advertised and an affidavit of publication has been received for filing. No correspondence has been received by the clerk and it matters properly before the board to be heard. What is the will of the board? All right. Any comments or questions? Please pull up the board and the item passes unanimously. And on to item number four. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Agenda items four, five, and six are companion items. So I'm going to read those into the record together. Agenda item number four is case number LDR 2502. This is the second of two public hearings to consider the adoption of an ordinance providing for the amendment of Pinellas County Land Development Code, Chapter 138, Zoning, and Chapter 166, Environmental and Natural Resource Protection to more effectively regulate the county's tree permitting process and revise tree replant and landscaping requirements for residential and commercial properties. Agenda item number five is proposed ordinance creating chapter 58 article 19 entitled tree protection providing for tree protection permitting mitigation and enforcement procedures. And agenda item number six is a proposed resolution establishing a schedule of fees for the tree bank fund contribution in lieu of planting trees as provided in chapter 58 article 19 and chapter 138 article 10. The public hearings were properly advertised and affidavits of publication have been received. We have received 45 emails in opposition, one voicemail in opposition have been received by the clerk, and I do have one individual who pre-registered to speak via zoom on item number four. All righty, and we have two public comment cards. The first one is Tara Hubbard. I have her on zoom, sir. Okay. How about Catherine Harrelson? Is she here? Sorry. It's been a while since I've been up here. Uh, Kathy Harrelson, um, St 32nd Avenue North in St. Petersburg. I got wind of this late last night around six did send in comments, but I realized that was past your deadline. I was very concerned about the direction that this ordinance is going. And I also was wondering how you get on a list to actually talk about this stuff at the county. Uh, I am working with the city of St. Petersburg on this as is Tara Hubbard. And, um, this, this was, um, exactly the direction that we don't think we should be going to make this a livable, you know, a livable community going forward. The heat is on and we, rather than coming up with some sort of fine structure, which does not work. You know, when you got a million dollar property, the thousand dollar tree fine or whatever it is, they just pay it and chop them down. Uh, I, it's time to stop the chop and get ahead of it. Um, I'm suggesting that we look at how can we incentivize builders, developers, homeowners to keep these big shade trees because they, they, they cool our homes, they lower our energy bills. They uptake a lot of stormwater, which is a huge concern here. And, uh, this is just something that, and the return on investment for an existing tree is huge. You know, maybe a little trimming, but that, you know, it's you planting is important, but we can't plant our way out of the rising heat that we're all experiencing the storms that are coming as a result. This is a resource for all of us and we need to see it that way. And I'm not suggesting to stop development, but we've got to find a way to get ahead of it and stop the chop. So I, I'm begging you not to pass this today. Let's take another look. I'd love to know how to get on that list. Um, former LPA member, long time LPA member for the county. Uh, I've, I've been involved in, in city and county work for decades. So it's critical that we stop what we're doing. Look at this in the longterm. This county is becoming unlivable as is our cities. The heat is on, um, you may not believe in climate change, but your insurance company does and they're doing the math. So let's find a way to look at this again, look at this in another way. Thank you. Thank you very much. And can you pull up, uh, Tara Hubbard please? Yes, sir. Ms. Hubbard, when you can hear us, please go ahead and raise your virtual hand in zoom application. We'll go ahead and unmute you. Please state your name and address. You have three minutes. Hello. My name is I live at 4751 6th Avenue South in St. Petersburg, Florida. I am a fourth generation Pinellas County native, uh, very proud to live here and, uh, wanted to speak on this topic. Uh, it was brought to my attention recently and exciting because I think there definitely could be updates to these ordinances, uh, but definitely interested in more of an incentive model to really help preserve these old growth mature trees, uh, due to many factors, rising property costs, uh, the fact that when someone buys a property to develop it, they're going to chop down the trees. We see it every day in this county, um, and definitely being able to devise a more innovative incentivization model, I think could really be beneficial. So, uh, I do implore you guys to revisit this, uh, possibly extend the, the approval, uh, to incorporate some of these ideas. We are a working group based in St. Petersburg, uh, but have been talking about this for quite some time. So, uh, seeing this ordinance change come up on the county level, uh, definitely late to the game. I know there was already one public hearing, but, uh, we are showing up today and asking if we can extend this and be heard and, uh, integrate some, some new adjustments here to really hopefully, uh, create the change that we want to see and preserve these trees. Uh, there's a multitude of benefits. I'm not gonna, uh, go into it right now. Um, but funny, quick story, uh, as I mentioned, I'm fourth generation native. And last night I was going through some old family archives, trying to find some photos for a local historian. And I actually stumbled upon my grandfather's campaign notes from when he ran for Pinellas County commission back in the seventies. And his topic points for his campaign was this exactly, you know, talking about overdevelopment in the county and wanting to preserve our green spaces. And that's when the county was probably at 50, 55% development. Uh, so here we are 2025, 2026, excuse me. And, um, the fact that I'm here asking for similar, which is just says a lot. I wanted to share that quick story because I found it quite comical. It was just last night. So hoping to be heard, uh, if there's a way that, uh, uh, county staff or commission can, uh, reach out to us and, uh, hear our concerns, hear our ideas, and, uh, really help to integrate this innovative tree preservation model in our, uh, zoning. That would be, uh, fantastic. So thank you guys so much for hearing me today. And thank you for your time on this and thank you for bringing this, uh, forward. I know it's, I think the, the goal is good, uh, that having a little bit of, um, a unique innovation and, uh, incentivization model, I think can make this very much. Thank you. Uh, commissioner share, you recognize? Yes. Thank you, chair. Um, I would like to discuss, uh, agenda item number five in detail. Maybe, I don't know if what requires to be polled or what you have to do to discuss it, but no, after you're, uh, anyway, uh, yeah, I'd like to make a motion that we pull number five for discussion. Um, Barry. So commissioners, just to put a little context, you know, to the discussion, you had a, uh, a little bit of an in-depth discussion on Thursday regarding this item. We saw a lot of support for, um, the concept that commissioner shear introduced, which is to do something different than what the staff proposal was. If at your pleasure, if you're willing to invite Kevin up to have that discussion, he also had a more detailed discussion with commissioner shear on some options and alternatives. And so I think just getting staff perspective and, um, talking about their conversation about maybe, um, some kind of a modified, a modification to the proposal, uh, may be helpful for your discussions. Great. Would y'all like to call Kevin up? Yes. All right. Kevin, you're recognized. Good morning, Mr. Chair, commissioners, Kevin McAndrew, director of building and development review services. Could I have the presentation pulled up? Because I think it'll be beneficial to, um, provide some greater context to a number of, of the items that are being proposed to be, uh, amended just at the highest level. Um, this is a comprehensive update that entails revisions to 166, 138. That's item four. Item five, um, is chapter 58, um, creating a standalone tree ordinance. And one of the real drivers to this update is a simplification of the code, which is going to benefit all users, whether it be a property owner, whether it be property managers, professionals, arborists, landscape architects, and our staff itself. Today, the code is overly complex. We're looking to also introduce flexibilities with regard to greater options with tree plantings. This is going to be guided by best practice, which is known as right tree, right place. Uh, we're looking at refining the landscape requirements for single family homes, as well as commercial properties, as our code requires a minimum number of trees to be on every property. And that has that separate and apart from tree removal. Um, and then lastly, the most significant amendment that we're looking to bring before you is a, is a, is a significant recalibration of tree mitigation, tree removal, um, as it relates to when someone's coming in to remove a tree. And I think it's really helpful to just briefly just touch on these two current code examples as to why we're bringing this forward. To the left, uh, is a, is a smaller lot, um, very typical within the unincorporated county to the right as a larger lot. But the two key areas of focus in this amendment are addressing, uh, the tree mitigation removal and, and replants and the landscape requirements. So on the left, an example, um, 5,500 square foot lot, um, a homeowner wants to modify their driveway, putting a couple of parking spaces in a spur. There's two trees that need to be removed. Those two trees, um, total 40 inches in today's code that would require 27 shade trees to be replanted on that property, uh, to remove those two trees or, uh, the payment in lieu option of paying $10,000, a little bit over $10,000. The number of trees has no practical application as to what could ever be fit on that lot. Likewise, the cost is so burdensome. It's, it's likely greater than the cost of the driveway improvement. So these are, these are, this is an area where if I take, if you can, uh, provide me a few more minutes to take you through this, you'll see where we're looking to find the right balance when it comes to how we're regulating this. On the, on the, on the right image, this is one where has a greater, a greater issue with regard to larger properties in the county, which we have, uh, quite a bit of in, in North County, where, uh, today there is no cap, um, as a property get larger as to how many shade trees need to be planted. And you may have a property that has full existing tree canopy, uh, two acre property, maybe has 20 trees on it with, with 50 foot diameter canopies that cover that whole property. It doesn't matter. You still, this, this homeowner would still have to plant the balance of those trees, 24 additional trees, which likely there isn't the ability to do so. So these were areas that we were looking to, to really, uh, again, address, um, in a manner that still is going to result in trees being planted, but one that, uh, is reasonable, uh, and, and encourages our residents to participate in the code. Unfortunately, when a homeowner is faced with these kind of numbers and dollar values, they're choosing not to even pursue a permit. They're not coming here, they're going elsewhere, whether they try to use the state exemption. So our, our overall goal here is an improved outcome. We want residents and professionals to use our code, which is going to deliver what, what we want. So the, um, one of the good examples of a simplification is we have a code, um, that has today a rating six different ratings and often staff, um, and professionals and homeowners are into disputes over what the quality of that tree is. We're just simplifying this down to effectively fair, good, and excellent. Um, and the vast majority of the trees that we're really regulating fall within fair and good because excellent would be typically what we would call a specimen tree. Zero defects has, has ideal form. Um, and so yes, on occasion we'll get a specimen tree, but the vast majority are going to fall within the one or two. And how that relates to tree replants is that this is our biggest focus. We're, we're completely taking out, um, the current methodology and creating a simple table, uh, that within each of those grades, the number of tree plants, um, is established. And I can give you a couple examples comparing today to what is proposed here. Um, so if we look at the middle column, grade two, that would be a tree that's in good condition. And let's say we had someone come in removing one 12 inch tree today, removing that 12 inch tree would require eight trees to be planted or a fee payment in lieu of $3,832 versus where we're proposing, it would require two trees. So reduction from eight to two. And if they chose not to plant those trees, based on the fixed fee we're setting, which is $300 per tree for residential and $500 per commercial, um, that would be $600. Many times staff working with homeowners, they'd come back and say, you know what, we'll plant one tree, uh, going forward and then we'll pay 300. So there's a lot of flexibility. It doesn't have to be one or the other. So we're, we're just simplifying it and, and bringing it into what we think is a, is a, is a, is a happy balance here, um, on to, to work with, uh, to work with our property owners. Uh, one other example, let's say we were in that second category of a tree that falls between 14 and 24 inches. Today, a 22 inch tree would require 15 trees or a fee payment in lieu of $7,185. Again, that cost is so burdensome. Um, often, often again, having, having someone push away, that would change now to four trees, uh, or a payment up to $1,200. This is the other piece. Um, this is more of a refinement, but an important one, particularly as it's going to regulate, um, the number of required trees on, on larger lots. So the numbers hold effectively the same for, for, for required trees on a lot up to 10,000 square feet, but we're putting a cap, proposing to put a cap, um, that in, in no case would a property require more than, than 15 trees. Um, and I think another good example of how you could relate to this is that, um, our residential estate zone, which is 32,000 square foot minimum. Today, that would require 16 trees. Under the current formula that we're proposing, that would require six trees. Similarly, we do have our two acre lots in the north portion of the county, and this kind of falls in line with that first example I showed you. It would require 44 trees, where under this with the cap, it would be 15 trees. And that's reflected now. This is a before and after current to proposed, uh, on the left where I started, 27 trees reduced down to eight trees. Similarly, uh, uh, a reduction on the payment in lieu option of about 75%. And then on the right, uh, on that larger lot where today it would require 44 trees that's reduced down to 15 trees. So in summary, simplification, flexibility, finding the right balance where we get the improved outcome, uh, that we're seeking the LPA unanimously approved this six to zero staff supports all three of these, uh, ordinance updates. A couple of questions. Sorry, I didn't hear like Commissioner Sherry, you recognize. Okay. Thank you, Chair. Um, the reason I brought this up was that, uh, you know, first of all, uh, Tom and Kevin worked very hard on the new, uh, tree ordinances and codes and most of everything they've done is needed because it was confusing. It was burdensome. It was expensive. And it'll work great for multifamily properties. It's going to work, work great for commercial properties. Great. But my, my problem is with the residential requirements. Uh, I have, uh, you know, there's lots of reasons for a homeowner to want to take the tree out of their front yard or their backyard. There's, they may want to put improvements. They may, it may be a dead, a dying tree and it may be, they may be worried that the tree could fall down and destroy their, you know, their roof. They may be allergic to the tree. Uh, they may be worried about the damages causing their driveways. There's a lot of reasons for a tree to come down. And I just don't believe that philosophically I have a difficulty, uh, accepting the premise that I should have to go to the government to receive a permit to remove a tree that's on my property. It's in my backyard. It's in my front yard. I own the property on the tree. I should be the one that decides whether or not that tree should come down. I don't want to hire an arborist to argue with the County or come up with an idea. Well, the tree's sick, you can take it down. I just don't think that I should have to have the government's permission to take my tree down. That being said, I heard, uh, the, in a workshop, I heard the concerns of Commissioner Peters and a few others on the larger shade trees. And, and, uh, you know, if they're on the, uh, close to somebody else's house, they may, may not want it to come down. And so I worked with Kevin and I worked with Tom to come up with a compromise on what I feel is a property rights issue, which I provided to you before the meeting. Um, if you would be so kind to consider, uh, adding this verbiage to, uh, section 58, uh, 813, it's the, what I'm looking for adding is on residential property with existing single family detached residents that is actively used for a single family purposes. Protected trees will be those trees with the diameter, uh, at breast height of 24 inches or greater. So we're given, if this were to be accepted by you as an amendment to the, what they're proposed, if you had a tree up to 24 inches on your property that you wanted to remove on Saturday afternoon to put in a swing set for your granddaughter, you could cut the tree down yourself. If it goes over 24 inches, you would have to comply with the code as they have written, you'd have to, uh, mitigate and provide additional trees and, or you'd have to pay a little fine to the tree fund. I'm good with that because it provides flexibility to our homeowners, but they would not be required to, if we accepted this language, it would not be required to pull a permit or even ask for a permit to remove a tree that's on their property. And I just feel like, uh, we shouldn't require that anymore of our residents in Pinellas County, Mr. Scott. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Kevin, any idea how our proposed new ordinance compares with other municipalities? Sure. We, we did staff did an extensive, um, crosswalk analysis of, um, of other municipalities within the county, as well as looking outside regional county ordinances and, uh, where we're proposing, um, to take it overlays consistently, consistently with, with the majority. Some are more stringent. Um, in some cases, some have greater, uh, latitude, but I would say we're, we align sort of right in the middle of what we looked at. Commissioner Peters. I have a couple of questions if that's okay, Mr. Chair. Um, so first question. So when Duke Energy goes and cuts down all the trees like they did last year or the year before, whatever year it was, um, were those homeowners then required to put up 12 or 15 trees or did Duke Energy put money into a tree bank when they went and knocked all those trees down? The clarification here is, and I, I should have stated that everything that, um, I've presented is the regulation of trees on private property. Trees within public right of ways will continue to be managed through urban forestry and public works, uh, under a separate ordinance that, that today is not being changed. Okay. Cause I mean, some of those pictures we saw took total canopies out, um, where our house had significant canopy and when Duke Energy was done, there was no canopy. Um, and so I, I understood their, uh, how they were upset and why they're upset. And, um, and I would have been upset if that was my canopy that had been taken out. So, um, but I do, uh, agree with Commissioner Scheer. Um, I, I think on a private property, we have our own private property rights. And I think our old ordinance impedes on our property rights. And I think it was overreaching. I think it was too expensive, the cost. So I like this better to make it more affordable because right now it's very difficult and not affordable. You know, and I look at my son who's struggling. Luckily he's was able to get a house, but he's struggling to keep it. And he's got two little kids. And if he wants to put a swing set up and there's a tree in the way that he should be burdened with a 7,000 or $8,000 cost to remove a tree is unreasonable. So I like the $300. I like, I like that you're making it more affordable. Um, you know, I worry about the trees that would be put in my yard because I don't want my laterals being destroyed by tree roots. Um, and we know we have problems with that in this county where our lateral lines are, are getting impeded by tree roots. Um, but I think if we want to take a tree down that's smaller than 24 inches, um, I, I think that falls in our property rights and we should be able to do that. So I, I am agreeing with Commissioner Sheeran. If that was a motion he was making, I, as an amendment, I would second that motion. And I, and I would second that. I think a tree smaller than 24 inches is not a big canopy. So I don't think it's as destructive in the way of, um, heating if that's what the big concern is. Um, and again, if it's in the right of way, then they can't touch it, right? Because it's in the public right of way. Well, it would be subject to, it would be subject to permitting through urban forestry. There's a whole nother body of law. Right. So if it's in the right of way, that's a whole different ballgame. They have to get a permit. So we're not talking about anything in the right of way. We're only talking about something that's on public property. Again, if we're worried about, uh, something getting into our sewer lateral lines, uh, roots getting into our lateral lines, or if we want to put something in our backyard that is more functional for our family, I just don't think we should have the burden of the permitting and the cost, unless it's a major mature tree. Then that to me makes sense. So I would second his motion. Commissioner Flowers, you're recognized. Oh, thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, one of the speakers, uh, inquired about how is it that individuals from the public can get a better understanding of what's coming before us so that they can weigh in if they desire to. Um, and unfortunately that's by kind of paying attention to our agenda and seeing what's on the agenda for, um, consideration. Certainly when there are communities or a neighborhood that is opposing something or in support of something, um, then they have more, um, information and more time to be able to, uh, communicate and hear, um, what the county's position is on. So I wanted to answer that question for Ms. Harrelson who came before us. I am a little torn on this because, um, I, uh, I had a huge oak tree, uh, at my house that was wonderful for shade, kept my electric bill intact because my AC didn't have to run as frequently, but that oak tree got a fungus in it. Um, algae started growing on the base of the trunk. Um, and even though I could literally go up and peel off pieces of the trunk, it was like papery. I had to pay for an arborist to come out and declare that the tree was, um, was a dead tree, no longer viable. And then I had to pay to have the tree removed. So I know what it's like when you, um, have to fall into this. Um, and, and commissioner Peters, you are dead on when you talk about trees and tree roots, um, growing into laterals, plumbing issues, period on your property when those tree roots go in, because it could get to be very expensive. Um, but I also know that, um, Ms. Harrelson spoke of the city of St. Pete. They have an ordinance that addresses landscaping for new construction. So, um, apartment complexes or single family homes, um, you know, you're required to put in so much landscaping based on the impervious surface that you have on any given project. And really that's to try to help with, um, rain runoff, certainly flooding, um, so that the water, uh, matriculates down rather than just kind of sitting on the surface of a parking lot or a driveway or whatever. And then you have some additional flooding in that area. But I also know the importance of, um, having trees on properties and what that does do, um, when it comes to climate issues and or concerns. Um, Mr. Share, Commissioner Share, I do like your, um, I do like the language that you've, um, put in. Um, but when you say, um, and I'm, this is the staff, uh, protected trees are those trees with a DBH greater than 24 inches. What types of trees do you have an example of specifically what type of trees will fall into that category that could grow greater? I know Oaks can, but what other trees can grow that someone would plan as landscaping or have as landscaping that is indicative of what grows here in, in, um, Florida. Can you give an example of a tree that will be greater than 24 inches in diameter? So firstly, firstly, there's, there's many types of, of oak trees. I know we generalize that. Um, but there's laurel oaks that don't have the same, um, quality and longevity as a live oak. There's sandhill oaks. There's invasive, um, species banyans and the ficus tree that can grow massive, um, that over 36 inches. So there, there are a whole host of trees that ultimately can, can, you know, get greater than that over, over a period of time. But would banyan trees fall under the nuisance? Because we have that. It would, it would fall under, it falls under, it falls under the, the invasive. Okay. So, um, I want to hear what my other colleagues could say. I appreciate Commissioner to share the language that you've added in here because it does kind of zero in, if you will, on that. But, um, I also have a, um, an affection for trees, um, and what they can and can't do. I have this huge palm now in the back of my house that I have to have the limbs trimmed because it grows over, um, my cable wire and my Duke energy wire. And I'm just afraid during the storm, you know, those leaves could hit the wire and, and then, um, I have no power, no cable or whatever. So I know that's a whole different story, but I have to keep it trimmed up. But I appreciate the shade that it brings to my backyard, you know, when, when those things happen. There's a big educational side to this and staff does a great, a great job at that. That's the reference I made is right tree, right place. You can't always have a large shade tree, uh, because ultimately it can pose issues, proper offsets from a home, uh, proper offsets from subsurface utility lines. You know, I, I mentioned briefly at the work session, the value and, and the first speaker did a great job of hitting upon a number of the benefits of trees. Uh, you know, neighborhoods that have a strong tree canopy are seen to have home values 10 to 20% higher. So this is, this is very much, there's a whole host of those benefits, environmentally, economic, but we're trying to find that, that balance. I, I would also say that, um, we have the ability to, um, to track, um, tree, tree removal, because I, one of the data, data points that's probably helpful is that, 85% of our, uh, that trees that are removed and permitted are associated with some type of improvement. They're either part of a zoning clearance for driveway modification, or they're part of a, uh, a pool, a deck, a terrace. So what I would suggest is that if this goes forward, that, that, um, we have the ability to, to track because those who still have to come in for a permit, we would be aware of the tree or trees that would be, that would be removed. Uh, and we, we would be able to report back, uh, to this board six months, 12 months, just, just as to what impact, um, this, this might have. And so we have that ability to do that. I also think that, you know, I mentioned again, this on Thursday about there's always room for refinement, you know, codes are, are documents. And, uh, I'm a huge proponent of incentives. And I know that was referenced by both. I mean, there are municipalities that say, well, if you save that tree, we'll increase your FAR. We'll allow you to build a, uh, a bigger, you know, so down the road, we can look at, we can look at these as, as part of refinement if, if this goes forward as it is. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Commissioner Scott, you're recognized. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, so first of all, I, I appreciate the language here, Commissioner Scheer. I, I like, um, I like the direction you're going in with this. I think what it also does is it kind of removes some tree anxiety. People that maybe want to plant trees, but don't because they know as soon as they put it in the ground and it gets a year or two old that suddenly it's not, they don't really own it anymore. So I, I, I like that aspect of it, but a quick question for you, Kevin, the way I'm reading this is that short-term rentals would not, this would not apply to them because it's not a home that's being used actively for residential purposes. Would that be accurate? That, that would be my interpretation. Yes. So just purely residential, basically home, essentially homesteaded properties then more or less. I mean, it could be a rental, but it have to be, wouldn't be a short-term, it have to be a long-term. Yep. And that was the purpose of that language actively used as a, um, single family residential, uh, structure. Great. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, Commissioner Nowicki. Thank you, Chair. Um, and just one quick, uh, question piggybacking off of that, uh, Kevin, great presentation as always. Uh, so is staff supportive of this language change as well? Staff, staff recognizes that, um, there was significant need for, for an update. Um, and if this is part of it, like I said, staff, uh, staff will work with it and staff will, uh, again, be able to monitor whether it, whether it has, you know, any impact at all. So we were, we're, we will work with it coming forward. Well, I don't know. I mean, I'm not trying to put words in Kevin's mouth, but he gave you a proposal, right? But he saw that this commission wanted more. And so he tried to come up, he tried to hear you as policymakers of this, uh, of this county and come up with a modification that meets the intent of what you want with still trying to protect that tree canopy that I think he believes in. So this helps protect the tree canopy. We're confident that this, this in aggregate, this is going to have a, uh, the code updates will be beneficial. Perfect. Thank you. I'm, I'm comfortable moving forward then with this. Yes. Um, question for Jewel. Are we voting on four, five and six as amended? Are we voting for, uh, number five as amended? What I would recommend, um, is that, is that six be voted on separately because that's a resolution as opposed to the ordinance. And I was going to ask for clarification on the motion that was made and whether it was just to support the amendment or to approve the package with the amendment. So, but the amendment you made is on item five, correct? Right. Yeah. So then I would recommend that we go ahead and vote on the amendment to item five. Okay. And then take a subsequent vote on adopting the ordinances and the resolution. If the board wishes to adopt the two, the two ordinances together, after you take a vote on the amendment, I think that's fine. I would recommend doing the resolution separately. You can always vote on the ordinances separately. So clarification. So you, you amend item five, then you, she read them into the record. So you then can take up item four and five together. Right. And then separately vote on item six. All righty. I have a caveat. And I would take this to the motion maker. Um, when you, when Commissioner Nowicki mentioned homesteaded, that kind of perked up my interest. And, and if you hear me out, I would like to, if you would be, um, um, if you'd considered a friendly amendment to the amendment would be to make it for homesteaded properties, because we have a problem with our residential properties that have become commercial. We have a problem with our residential properties where the, the state, the, the RBOs are taking out all the trees and they're putting in bowling alleys and pickleball courts and they're doing all that kind of stuff. And I, I, so I'm, I'm kind of inclined to say the residential homes that are not homesteaded. I agree with this, but I would hate to have more corporations buying up our homes and just paving over so that they can put in their pickleball courts and everything for their resorts that they're renting in our residential neighborhoods. And so I'd almost rather do a caveat that this only be applicable, this amendment to homesteaded properties and not residential homes that are commercial. Does that make sense? That makes sense. And I, I would be in favor of that, but I don't know if, uh, we would want to have the onslaught of... I know Jewel put up on that comment, but... Hey, I think that you would have a legal argument the way it is currently written with some of the short-term owners because they're going, that you know that that's an area that's fraught with litigation already. And I feel like it's something if we took enforcement, we would find ourselves with litigation. Would we win? It's impossible to say. Commissioner, the, I think Kevin's interpretation is short-term rentals separately governed, so it wouldn't apply to the short-term rental. That's very different than if you have two properties, one's in, you know, one's in Massachusetts and one's here and you're, you know, and now you're trying to differentiate between whether it's a homestead or not. If he can control the short-term rentals that way, um, then it doesn't matter, you know. Well, the problem is these people and corporations are buying up homes. They're paving over the backyard. We don't know that they're going to make it a short-term rental until it's already done. And they are paving over the backyard for pickleball courts and bowling alleys and... Our short-term rental ordinance is currently in litigation already. And it would be much clearer from an enforcement perspective to stay homesteaded properties. It would make things significantly easier. I do believe we could expect some sort of litigation. Should we use this language from, from, you know, the LLC type owners that own, like you're saying, multiple properties, trying to claim that it's a residential use. It's very unclear, given the state of the law and all the current litigation that's pending. It would certainly make enforcement clearer for staff. Um, homesteads very easy to establish, very easy to establish. So, so, so, so from Joel, well, I know it's, I'm looking over to Kevin. I want to hear his opinion on this, but from what Joel is saying, that it would be better for us to say that it's just homestead of property. Commissioner Peter's point. It would be much clearer for staff, I believe. You, you concur with that, Kevin? Yes, absolutely. Okay. Okay. There you go. I, I'd like to amend my motion to add that it would be for, uh, homesteaded properties. Okay. So the language that you're looking at is for homestead property only. And I, I do, that makes me feel better, a lot better. Uh, it does. So thank you. Thank you for that. But what I was, what I would suggest is you let the county attorney's office work with staff on the appropriate language because there are two different concepts. You can be a homestead property and not necessarily for ad valorem purposes. Those are two distinct concepts and let us work on the property. I assume that you all are talking of traditional homesteaded property that's receiving an ad valorem of property exemption. Right. Yes. We can work on the proper language to accomplish your goal. Perfect. Good. Thank you. So he amended his motion. I will second that amended motion. All set. All right. Can we move to agenda item five? Well, we have to vote on the amendment on the amendment for item five. Sorry. Pull that up. Is that just a voice vote? Oh no, she's got it. Okay. Uh, this says item four on the, so you, well, we can vote on item four first. Well, you may want to do a voice vote. I would say on the amendment. Yeah. You can do a voice vote on the amendment. Yes. All in favor of the amended, uh, item on five. Aye. All right. Passes unanimously. Now we're back on item four. I think should you wish to take up items four and five as amended together, I think that would be appropriate. And then I would recommend taking six separately. All righty. Please pull up the board. Can we do a voice vote because it's four and five combined? Sure. Thank you. All in favor of four and five. Aye. Aye. As amended. Yeah. As amended. I'm sorry. I don't know that we had a motion. We need a motion and a second. We don't need a motion. We're doing things differently. Yeah. And I second. Thank you. All right. All in favor. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously. Second. All right. All in favor on item six. Any opposed? Passes unanimously. Now we're on item seven. Thank you, Kevin. And we have, um, a card from the applicant, uh, Daniel Vincent. Good, Daryl. Agenda item number seven is case number DES 2501. This is a request for designation of the historic resources located on the land parcel associated with 1334 Riverside Avenue in Anclote, unincorporated Pinellas County as a landmark on a landmark site. The public name is properly advertised and an affidavit of publication has been received for filing. One email and one letter in support have been received by the clerk and the matter is properly before the board to be heard. Uh, I'm sorry. We have a card from the applicant, Daniel Vincent. Would you wish to speak? And you have 20 minutes, but you don't have to take all that time if you don't want it, but you have it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and commissioners. I appreciate you taking up this issue. Uh, I assure you, I won't take 20 minutes. I probably won't even take three, but, um, I appreciate, uh, the county's interest in preserving this particular historic property. And, um, I think this item will ensure that it is protected. Uh, and that's, uh, very important to me. And I, and I think to the county as well, because of its special history. Oh, that's all. If you have any questions of me, I'll be happy to take them, but I think you probably have got all the information you need, but, uh, I just want to thank you. And I apologize for not being in a suit. I started to get in a suit today, but that old house is a little cold on a morning like this. Yes, sir. The suit, uh, lost the vote. So. Well, you get extra credit for leaving 19 minutes on the board. There you go. Thank you. I appreciate that. Yes, sir. Commissioner Scott, you're recognized. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to point out that the historic preservation board, uh, approved this unanimously seven to zero and I would move approval. All right. Please pull up the board. Passes unanimously. Agenda item eight. And the item number eight is case number LDR 2503. This is the first of two public hearings to consider the adoption of an ordinance providing for the amendment of the Pinellas County Land Development Code, chapter 138 zoning related to definitions and a process for the review of reasonable accommodation requests for certified recovery residences use pursuant to Florida statutes, section 397-487. The public hearing is properly advertised and an affidavit of publication has been received for filing. No correspondence has been received by the clerk and the matter is properly before the board to be heard. What is the will of the board? Yeah, this is first, so it doesn't require action and this is to meet statutory requirements. All right. Agenda item number nine. Agenda items number nine and ten are companions. I'll read those into the record together. Agenda item number nine is case number FLU 2511. This is a request by Galen Care Incorporated for a future land use map amendment from residential low to employment on approximately 3.49 acres located at 5200 62nd Avenue, North and Lelman. And agenda item number zero and 2509. This is a request by Galen Care Incorporated for a zoning change from residential agriculture to employment one on approximately 3.49 acres located at 5200 69 Avenue, North and Lelman. Since this is a quasi judicial hearing for all those individuals who plan to speak on this item must be sworn in. For those wishing to speak whether you are attending in person or virtually, if able, please raise your right hand. Do you swear a firm testimony you are about to give? Is the whole truth and nothing but the truth signifies by saying I do? The public hearings were properly advertised and the affidavit of publication has been received for filing for each. No correspondence has been received by the clerk and it matters properly before the board to be heard. Thank you. The applicant, Kevin Riali, and you have 20 minutes. Good morning again for the record. Kevin Riali, address 401 East Jackson Street in Tampa. I also will not be taking all of that time but I just want to point out to this property is near the hospital and Glencare is the hospital ownership and it's got a zoning and future land use that is aligned for single-family detached and that development hasn't happened. It's adjacent to the hospital and then a cemetery and so single-family detached uses don't really seem appropriate there and so we looked at what options might work for the property and if I could have the overhead brought up. The best map to go to to understand this because it's right on the border between the county and Pinellas Park is really the the county-wide map and of course that will come before you if you all approve today with a map amendment to this map as well. But you can see the property here and and there are similar uses in the area but if you look at the county map alone it does look like an outlier and so we were really focused on this map when we talked with staff and given that it's a significant change we don't have an end user identified yet because we just wanted to make sure that staff and and this commission would support the the request but without wanting to take all the time I'll just uh offer to answer any questions you all might have. Do you have any questions? What is the will of the board? All right. Uh please pull up the board. Passes unanimously. Thank you all for your time. Agenda item 11. Is that both items? And I would recommend that you do these separately. Oh I'm sorry. Yeah and I'm assuming that the motion was made for the land use case and since that was approved you should move on and take a motion on the zoning case. Um please pull up the board for uh agenda item 10. I'm sorry could you repeat the motion and second for number 10. And uh Commissioner Nowicki made a second. Passes unanimously. Agenda item 11. Agenda item number 11 is case number FLU 2509. This is a request by Green Energy for North America LLC for a future land use map amendment from residential urban to residential medium on approximately 18.43 acres located at 13400 Pine Street in unincorporated Largo. The public hearing is properly advertised in an affidavit. A publication has been received for filing two emails in opposition and seven email uh voicemails in opposition and one letter of concern have been received by the clerk. The matter is properly before the board to be heard. All right we have a card from the applicant Carlos uh Yepes. I apologize if I messed up that name. And you have uh 20 minutes. So I am the attorney for the applicant. Um can you go to. Yes. Are you uh Lauren? I am. I'm Lauren Rubenstein attorney. You'll be speaking for the applicant. Mr. Yepes is here as well and would like to speak but I thought it might be more productive for me to do the quick presentation and then you. I'm sorry. Uh would you like to do staff presentation first? Yeah. Thank you. Yeah we can yeah if we can set the stage and then they can make their pitch. Ladies and gentlemen of the board my name is Scott Swearingen. I'm the county's long-range planning manager. It's a pleasure to be before you and I respect your time. So I will jump right in. This case is FLU 25-09. It is a future land use map amendment uh on approximately just under 18.5 acres at 13 400 Pine Street in unincorporated Largo and that amendment would change the land use of the property from residential urban to residential medium. The zoning on the property is residential plan development and there is no zoning proposed um as a companion amendment to this case. It's just the land use um that is being proposed at this time. The property is currently vacant and it used to be. It's a former construction and debris landfill and burrow pit. And the applicant's expressed desire for redevelopment of the property would be for multi-family housing. Subject property is outlined in red and you can see it borders on three kind of residential collector type of roadways. You have 134th Avenue North which is to the south of the property where it says 128th Street North. Let's call that Pine Street. It's also known as Pine Street which is the address for it and that's on the west end of the property and then Toronto Road to the east side of the property. You can see the character um on the aerial it's primarily single-family residential detached surrounding the property. Uh the city of Largo property is um property within the city of Largo proper is uh to the north northwest and um to the west and you can start to make out um a redevelopment of an affordable housing uh development that's directly to the east and to the southeast. That's heritage jokes. The map on your left is a current future land use and the property designated as RU residential urban. You can see the property directly to the east and the southeast and that's the heritage oaks affordable housing development properties. Those are also designated as residential urban and then directly to the south and up to the northeast you can see residential low designated properties as well. What is shown in the white that does not have color on it is within the city of Largo and those are designated on Largo's future land use map as residential low. And then the map on the right side of your slide just shows that change it would go from residential urban to residential medium. Zoning on the property again is residential planned development and the city of Largo does not have zoning but within the unincorporated county you can see primarily you've got R3 and R4 to the south R3 to the northeast and then again the um affordable housing development property of heritage oaks is uh designated RM residential medium on the uh county zoning atlas. Give you some perspectives here. So this is a southwest corner of the subject property looking northeast. So to the left side of that photo is Pine Street and to the right side of the photo just kind of going back um you know back into the distance that's 134th Avenue North. And then on the opposite end this is the northeast corner of the property looking back southwest and this is off a Trotter Road. I think my clicker is dying if uh somebody could advance the slide for me. Thank you. Just to give you a little bit more perspective this is Pine Street facing southward subject properties on the left uh moving toward 134th Avenue. Just to give you a sense of kind of um the street character here the residential street character surrounding the property. Next slide please. And Trotter Road looking north. This is on the east end of the property so the property uh is just out of view um to the left side of the photograph and this is just north of 134th Avenue. Next slide please. And then the corner finally of 134th Avenue and Pine Street. You can see some of the development character um on the opposite side of the streets abutting the property. Next slide please. Thank you. And again the current land use is residential urban which allows for residential institutional recreational space type uses primarily but in some instances um office personal service uh retail commercial with limitations. Per our comprehensive plan verbatim it's it's generally appropriate locations between major employment centers and community and regional shopping centers and areas where development characteristics are urban residential in nature and finally an area serving as a transition between more suburban and more urban residential areas. Important to note is the permitted maximum residential density and the RU designation is 7.5 residential units per acre which would add up to on the subject property 138 dwelling units. So up to 138 dwelling units could be built on the property today and the 0.4 floor area ratio for non-residential uses. Next slide please. What is being proposed is a residential medium land use designation. It's pretty much the same types of uses that would be permitted under the RM versus the RU and they're kind of similar to the RU a little more um intensity a little more mixed use characters where this is generally appropriate so proximity to major employment centers community regional shopping centers uh areas where uses the development characteristics are medium density residential nature as a transition between uh less urban and more um urban residential mixed use areas and then finally in close proximity to and may have direct access from like an arterial thorough thoroughfare highway network so closer to busier a busier roadway network and per the residential medium designation up to 15 dwelling units per acre could be um built and that would amount to on a subject property up to 276 dwelling units that is uh doubling um the number of dwelling units that could be built on the property from 138 to 276 uh in this proposal and up to a 0.5 floor area ratio for non-residential uses so a little bit more far could be allowed on the property for non-residential with the change zoning again rpd residential plan development now this is a unique zoning category it allows a full range of residential dwelling types and then complementary non-residential uses as well and the zoning itself sets those development parameters like with height lot size setbacks types of units it's quite flexible and thus in doing so it requires a development master plan so a development master plan goes along with the zoning and that development master plan is to be uh reviewed um by this board by the board of county commissioners at a public hearing as well so it's it's a plan that would have to be approved by all of you um and to note while the property is zoned residential plan development there currently does not exist um a development master plan on the property there has not been one submitted as a companion item to this case either so that would be something that would have to come forward to you uh with the zoning at a future date this is important um i just want to there's some history to this property so to give you kind of a chronology of um of of what's happened uh back uh 21 plus years ago uh the board approved this property to be for a future land use map amendment like we're like before today to go from residential low to residential urban so that changed the allowable density on the property at that time was five dwelling units per acre and that changed it to seven and a half units per acre so it raised the density by 50 and that was back 21 plus years ago now that land use case also included a development agreement um and per that development agreement uh 207 multi-family dwelling units could be built and that number is is much higher than what normally would be under the ru because there was an affordable housing density bonus attached to that so with an affordable housing density bonus you can build um much more units than you normally could under the regular land use designation so it had a development agreement as well as a binding concept plan and affordability parameters all included in that for 207 multi-family units now that was never built and that development agreement expired fast forwarding to 2015 the board of adjustment improved what was called then a special exception as a type 2 use approval that would allow again 207 affordable housing units and that also included a concept plan that went along with that approval that also was never built and thus that agreement expired as well so what we have before us i can tell you that the applicant um in our um in one of our earlier meetings in our development review community mean um expressed an intent to build affordable housing units um which in the case of this property at the residential medium land use category could allow up to 414 dwelling units um that could be built maximum with that affordable housing density bonus with the rm land use however again no specific affordable housing development request has been submitted this time um so there's no concept plan right now development agreement um any of those things that's all we know is just kind of an expressed desire and i'm sure the applicant can speak to that a little more when they come up next slide please and then finally if you'll recall at the uh november meeting um representative of the applicant requested a continuance by this board at that meeting because the applicant was able was unable to attend due to a conflict and you all granted that continuance thus we are here today uh january 20th 2026 uh discussing the matter we'll quickly go over a few um potential impacts uh when it comes to transportation impacts traffic impacts going through the institute of traffic engineers trip generation manual based on future land use kind of the delta between the residential urban today and if it were moved to the residential medium category the property could see up to an additional 627 um daily trips on average which also equates to about 55 additional am peak hour trips and 70 additional pm peak hour trips the property has a low flood risk it's not in the coastal high hazard area it's not in the coastal storm area and as i noted before it is a past um cnd landfill so that may require some um environmental remediation that's not something that we review at this time it's not something that's um included in this at this at this time it would be something that would be reviewed in greater detail during the site plan review process to determine what remediation what other types of review might need to occur for that next slide please so in closing um staff notes that the subject property is surrounded mostly by long-standing lower density single-family neighborhoods to the north to the south and to the west and these neighborhoods also they're developed at about four to five dwelling units per acre um in these neighborhoods um we have compatible compatibility concerns with much of the surrounding community uh the three adjacent corridors to the property as it does one of those three as i mentioned um they're minor in function and have currently have limited capacity past approvals as i went through that kind of that chronology past approvals for multi-family on this property included additional assurances such as binding concept plans and affordability parameters the proposal if approved would allow up to an additional 69 additional units more than past requests and that's not even using the affordable housing density bonus as i mentioned there was an affordable housing um you know a development agreement for a project to allow up to 207 units using a density bonus just the straight land use itself would be an additional 69 uh units on the property then pass requests and again without those accompanying assurances of how the project would be laid out um how it would be built um ultimately staff recommends denial the local planning agency also recommended denial with a fortitude vote after october 8th meeting that concludes my presentation i appreciate your time and i'm here to try and answer any questions if i may are there any questions mr sure yes chair uh is there a height restriction with this change there uh height is not included uh in a land in the land use regulations that'd be included in the zoning what's the zoning allow for height there i believe the height is capped at 45 uh feet but that's also then others flexibility because the parameters of what would be the heights of the various types of units um would be written into that concept plan and was it your denial just it looks to me that like there's lots of uh access points for this property and traffic flow in and out in multiple spots so was it traffic that you were you just didn't think it was compatible or was it traffic problem or what was the the primary issue that staff had and formulating our recommendation was the development character and the surrounding densities to the north south and west it's probably predominantly four to five dwelling units per acre is the built density of those areas and then the land uses as well um that are existing surrounding the property um the land use designations um permit a much lower density than that of which is being proposed thank you mr scott uh thank you mr chairman um i'm just looking forward here in your uh with the affordable housing that would allow up to 414 yes and then the traffic trips was it was it based on that number no it was not the trip generation was based on the straight density of going from what would be 7.5 units per acre to 15 units per acre which we equated to 138 units versus 276 units so the delta of that would be 138 units it's a doubling of that so that that's about that's at about 138 dwelling units would be the traffic i mean i'd like to hear from the applicant on what their plans are but i'm very familiar with that area and and there's no room to expand those roads i mean it's it's pretty you have what you have and and that's going to be about about that so if if development came up here in the future 414 i that would just jam those streets commissioners you're addressing live local right is you know and and that's always i mean there's not a developer that hasn't walked into the county that hasn't kind of threatened live local on zoning issues we hear it every single day um as the reason to approve whatever they're proposing that's something less than that but but the reality is you got to look at the market factors that drive live local and and whether or not they they're they can make properties put them under live local and whether that's different than the market rate that they can command out there anyway and so you know is it a threat yes and they you know and if you also recall they did hold a public hearing with the residents and i'd like to hear from them on that on january the 6th um you know but but that's that's what the what the threat is is that you give me this or i'm going to take even more under live local and and and the reality is i you know i don't know whether they can do it or not but it is state law and so that's what you're kind of trying to balance uh commissioner flowers thank you um is there any reason why we don't have um a score for the level of service um i would presume that by adding up to 270 units it would certainly increase the level of service for traffic flow but i just noticed on the traffic analysis it just has na for level of service because we don't we do not have uh our our counts that we get from uh primarily from four pinellas that come from through the long train range transportation plan we don't have counts on those roadways okay thank you for levels commissioner nowicki thank you chair um thank you for the presentation um i think you kind of mentioned earlier you know that the site is you know bordered by these long established you know single family neighborhoods um are there like tools that staff would normally expect to see or other things before recommending an increase um in land use intensity um and there's some of those that are missing from this application well given the complexity of as we see as with doubling of the density that is currently there and then the the context surrounding it it would be helpful to have to understand a little better of of what commitments would be made um ultimately of the development with the land use going forward um as it's proposed now it's simply a land use change from ru to rm that's it and whatever happens after that we we don't know if if if there was a commitment sometimes commitments are brought forward in and say a development agreement um this is a resident this is an rpd zoning district so a development master plan is ultimately required anyway so having a development master plan that shows how the development would be guided and what and if there is affordable affordable housing what were those affordable housing parameters would be what percentage of units would be affordable um at what 120 ami 80 ami you know what would that be what would some of the um you know the building heights on the property be those types of things um helps you know there could be assurances that come out of that that gives us um a little more peace with the surrounding community the types of buffering that could go into place again building heights things like that but we but we don't have that we're just we're reviewing based on the information that we have in what is proposed which is a straight future land use map amendment from ru to rm and so if we thank you and so if we move forward you know with this change in favor let's say but there's no concept plan there's no buffering suggestions we can't change we can't go backwards you know if they come in and say hey we want to go as full as high you know as possible you know with no buffering and no design or anything that's good for the neighbors around them we can't go back and change it it would have to be um that would be very unlikely that the app that the owner would come back to rescind that but from the county's perspective i don't believe so okay thank you other questions all right thank you very much thank you sir now we will hear from the applicant uh miss rubenstein and uh mr yepus hello again lauren rubenstein for the record with the law firm of hill ward henderson and i'm here on behalf of the applicant bel air development group who is the contract purchaser for this property i'd like to thank staff for their presentation and work on this um always appreciate their thorough review and setting the stage if we could have the um presentation brought up y'all bring the presentation up please in the back there we go i think this was staff's presentation i know there was one that was um submitted previously by my partner katie cole before the lpa hearing and i had some communication with the board that are the clerk that that one would be available we can do a i can use the overhead and we'll go through it it wasn't resubmitted we don't have it's on that we don't we don't track past resident past the middle so it should have been submitted within the no would it need to be emailed to us okay it's probably on the old item not a problem either you if you can pull it up darlin or not probably just go through just as easily it won't be quite as close but thank you okay so as staff mentioned this property is located at 13 400 pine street it is currently vacant property the land use is residential urban the zoning is the residential plan development rpd which is very significant and something we'll talk about in depth and the land area is 18.4 acres so some history of the property which again was touched touched on by staff just briefly is there were private prior county approvals on this property for a 207 unit affordable housing complex and that that approval ultimately was delayed well the development was delayed due to a dispute that came out regarding housing funding some ownership issues and the development was ultimately delayed and never never came about to fruition there was a quiet title action i believe that paperwork was submitted as part of this application which resolved the ownership issue and the current owner has clear title through that quiet title action and so now we're bringing forward this proposal which includes a land use map amendment from ru to rm so just to discuss that current request a little more in depth certainly we are requesting that future land use map amendment to residential medium but keeping the residential plan development zoning in place the proposed development would allow up to 15 units per acre under that new land use if developed solely for single family that would yield about 276 units per acre not per acre i'm sorry for the property so that rpd zoning that's on in place on the property i think is very significant and i'd like to touch on that because a lot of the concerns that you've heard from staff regarding the compatibility and the single family residential that surrounds it as well as concerns that were raised by the residents and communicated to you prior to this meeting and were raised at the neighborhood meeting that the applicant hosted on january 6 deal with compatibility issues the traffic density overall and how to address those so your rpd zoning of course would require that master development plan that staff spoke about that's something that would still need to come before you so this is just the future land use map amendment and while you know i agree it would be helpful and it would be informative to have a rpd master development plan here with you today to go over there are some issues on this property that just prevent that from being able to be done at this point as you heard it was a construction and debris disposal site previously so there's a lot of geotechnical work that's been happening on the property a lot of research in that and trying to figure out exactly where those buildings could be what they could look like so prior to getting to the point where we could do an actual master development plan which would address certainly under your code it requires that it addresses buffers and additional setbacks from single-family residential properties it allows for multiple housing types which addresses a lot of the missing middle conversation and potentially a good fit for affordable housing on this site but those would be addressed in that rpd process that would come before you that still remains to be done i'd also like to talk about the location of this property just in general it is right off almerton road it is a great location for a multi-family property in the sense of it's near transit the two feeder roads that serve this property are vaughn and will wilcox i believe and both of those meet the level of service requirements on criteria under the 2025 level of service um pinellas county so the future land use ru versus rm again staff already went through this a lot very similar uses are permitted under the rm as the ru which is currently on the property the main difference is increasing that density which would would help fit this project and and make it more appropriate for the multi-family workforce affordable housing type project so why why residential medium fits best right it provides capacity for that multi-family workforce housing as i just mentioned supports mixed income community consistent with your comprehensive plan policies it's close to the uh transit almerton road and the beaches so it has good access to employment and regional destinations proximity to recreational opportunities largos southwest recreation center is nearby and it's adjacent to the affordable housing complex that heritage oaks it's directly west of heritage oaks that's being redeveloped and opening soon a pinellas county housing project uh as well as a new fire station it also really represents smart growth it's something that's uh talked about at length in your in your comprehensive plan but directing more medium residential density away from the coastal high hazard areas away from the coastal storm area and this project is out of both of those areas while still being in the western portion of pinellas county and mid-county which we know has really limited opportunities for redevelopment and especially at 18 and a half acres a true impactful uh multi-family project could go here to help serve that missing middle that affordable housing component see if this gives you a close enough picture this is across the street is affordable housing project and then the fire station as well and we did submit of course the traffic generation letter as part of this application as staff mentioned you know that it's really a you know a delta at this point because you're just looking at the residential urban to the residential medium future land use change we don't have as i talked about a specific number of units that would be built on the property certainly the applicant can speak more to what his plans are but until we're able to finish all that geotechnical research and and come up with what that plan would look like and how it would be appropriately positioned on the property and what can be supported by the property there then we don't really have real numbers to run down but that again is something that would certainly come into play and be addressed in that rpd master plan so with that i'd like to thank you all for your time and we would respectfully request your approval we did receive support for this project from the pinellas county housing authority as i mentioned earlier there was a neighborhood meeting on january 6 which the residents attended and a lot of the concerns that were raised are certainly a related to that construction and debris landfill you know many of the residents are long term they've lived there a long time and they have seen what has you know taken place there and they're concerned about housing i can tell you all the environmental studies that have been done thus far have not found anything inconsistent with that only being construction debris it's it's not dirty dirt it's not something that would be hazardous to you know building a apartment complex so i just want to make sure that that is that is clear a lot of the other concerns of course were about traffic and compatibility in your single-family homes and again you heard that in the staff report one of the you know main reasons for their recommendation of denial was the lack of assurances that previous applications had again i'd point you to the fact that there is an rpd process that would happen in that master development plan to address those and just to address one thing that the county administrator mentioned you know the threat of live local and i certainly don't want that to become a threat i think that that um more productively it's talked about as what those alternatives are right and we did receive confirmation from the county attorney's office last fall that rpd zoning would qualify for live local project it could be done the applicant will talk about that as you know when he looks at this as an affordability housing project but i think that the rm future land use designation is really more appropriate right it's looking at what fits what's that next door to single family next door to a affordable housing complex some other institutional uses the rm can be can be a very good you know in between residential density that mid-density in that location in western mid-pinells county where we need to see some real housing opportunity and this provides that so i definitely don't want it to sound like a threat i think that the rpd zoning with the master development plan is a great a great path forward for this project but there is that opportunity out there so we're not trying to hide the ball on that and with that i'd like to invite mr yepez over to make his comments yeah start it back up good morning carlos yepez bill air development 6654 78th avenue north for the record i've been sworn just want to say that this property is very unique with regards to most of the properties that we develop in the sense that the amount of construction debris that was put into this property is substantial so far we're doing all our due diligence we're i've been in contact with the ep in number of meetings with them discussing the results of what we have we're going to we have made an application for the brownfield designation which will come before you that would allow us some special tax credits to be able to remediate the site there are some remediation conditions that we need to do however it's an extensive extensive geological study has to be done to be able to place the buildings in this property and that is the reason you don't have the map today the master plan will tell you how many units we're going to build at this moment we like to have more geotechnical gpr studies to understand the underground conditions better we are going to develop it it's not going to stay vacant that is our plan we're going to do it one way or the other we're going to get it done but we need time to get it all done part of the process was to get this land use amendment and you'll mention live local yes if it doesn't there is an option out there for us but we what we chose to proceed with this plan right now to be able to bring a plan later to you get the rpd plan master plan approved and then built so first step was to get the land use correctly and that's the request we respectfully are requesting today we had a public meeting with the information meeting with the neighbors we explained to them exactly what we're telling you today we don't know the units we we are definitely just telling you that we haven't found anything that is toxic for a human person so far in the studies that we have so we're going we're going to continue doing studies for the next two months and we'll be able to come up with a plan and i'm here to answer any questions you may have any for me any questions from commissioners uh commissioner flowers or staff yeah you have five minutes and 16 seconds for a rebuttal let's say the five minutes thank you yes sir yes ma'am thank you all right thank you very much so i have a question um even in order to qualify for a brownsfield uh grant application there has to be some form of remediation on the site that remediation could or could not determine how much of the acreage is buildable and how much is not so my question is if that is the case i didn't see anything regarding their geotechnicals uh responses back from whatever firm they use i think that's still in the works would it not be best for us to wait for that because that would assist us in determining whether or not 276 units are actually applicable i support what uh the county is saying but would that not go further to help us determine whether or not 276 units are applicable or perhaps even fewer units than what our current ordinance says because of the viability or non-viability of that entire site well not confusing no okay no you weren't commissioner flowers um the additional information obviously is is helpful in understanding what could be built on the site whether or not um units um would and could be clustered into a particular area or not um i understand i understand the issue with wanting to you know do that that leg work in advance before providing you know before bringing forward the development master plan that's required by the zoning i get that um why it's why it doesn't come together that you know at the same time is you know that's i i don't know i mean the choice has been made to go forward with the land use now and then to see what happens later i'll note that the previous two approved master the previous two approved um development plans you know there were already approved development plans and you know the site had been in the past a construction and debris site so twice somebody went forward and you know prepared development master plans regardless of that um in order to in order to do that um the pro you know the amount of housing units that could be built today um with an affordable housing density bonus would be 207 dwelling units on the property when it comes to compatibility heritage oaks that was mentioned as you know hey we've got affordable housing next door we've got this higher density next door heritage oaks has a land use designation of ru residential urban with a 7.5 dwelling unit per acre density and they're in affordable housing development so they can have an additional up to an additional 50 percent the subject property today could apply for an affordable housing density bonus and have just as much density awarded to it as could be awarded to as awarded to the surrounding affordable housing project so it's not the change in land use doesn't get you closer to the affordable housing surrounding the property it gets you it gets you twice as far as this of the affordable housing surrounding the property because that affordable housing again is developed at the same land use designation that's on the subject property any other questions yeah uh commissioner i have a um so if he were to go the live local route does that now eliminate the ability to do that pdf whatever that is the the um prd it wouldn't be required under the live local act they could by right develop the additional units which would i don't know what the total is but it would far exceed you know the the 414 that would be permitted but isn't there an advantage to doing that rpd um you know i think there's a great advantage to doing that rpd rpd so if we can work with them um and come up with that master plan i think that's so much better than taking the live local where we just we're not even a player we don't even talk to them about anything um so i i'm kind of like having our hand in this one versus everything taken away from us which the state has allowed so i don't know i don't i that's just one of my thoughts yeah commissioner sure yes thank you chair i i'm in agreement with uh commissioner peters on that i'd like to be able to have some saying what they're going to do like they have a lot of streets surrounding them maybe we can get multiple access points so we don't have to put all the impact on one street or the other there just seems like it would be better to have some saying what they're going to do rather than none also uh from just a housing standpoint our beach communities need of housing in that area because they can't people can't find any place to to live out there and work on on the beaches and our a lot of our employers uh the sheriff uh 9-1-1 we we need more housing out there as well so i'd hate to slow this down by i i hate to slow this down we need housing out there we just do very commissioners the reason that's the reason i mentioned to live local because they do have that under state law as as an option and it would be at a greater density and to your commission to your point commissioner we wouldn't have our but this is a reason this is a right development agreement but that's not the path they chose um it would be nice for you to set and look at access points look at the things and the improvements that have of the impacts of that when when you're considering this and that's the difficulty from a staff standpoint so do you automatically provide for the higher that remember you can move to a higher classification there are certain pieces that have to come back but they're also still eligible for density bonuses under affordable housing so you're not just talking what's being proposed and allowed you but if you you do affordable there's they're still subject to that same affordable density bonuses that you could apply under the current property that would be compatible with heritage oaks and others so that's the difficulty that we're in to your to your point we would like to be work with the developer we absolutely agree that we need housing in this area and this site is right for redevelopment it's it's the challenge on how you go about addressing it questions uh so i'm not i you know i'm i want more if that's okay mr chair yes so the staff is requesting denial and i guess i'm not understanding the real reason on the denial because i think if we could work on that master development plan with them um i i just think there's a better way to get what our comprehensive plan and long-term range plan is versus not and i'm not saying that we're being strong-armed or anything i'm just saying um i'm not sure i understand the real reason for the denial and maybe you maybe i'm just not getting it because i i'm not getting it so if you could help me understand when the rubber hits the road why deny because the density that the property enjoys today we find is a density that fits very well into the neighborhood as it existed is the built-out neighborhood surrounding in addition uh if we when the argument of you know heritage oaks you know we need density because we could do something you know affordable housing of a higher density you could do heritage oaks today on this property so i don't really understand that argument um why additional density is needed in order to do an affordable housing development there's an affordable housing development on under development a neighborhood under development right next door under the same density um the surrounding neighborhoods to the northwest and south are at about a four to five dwelling units per acre build out right now the comprehensive plan does speak to concentrating and bringing into density into areas that are you know high and dry out of the chha chha out of the csa today you could build a significant number of dwelling units on that property so i think the comprehensive plan is already working to that regard we have a land use in that area that fits in with what the comprehensive plan policy is directing to do um we just staff felt that doubling the density above and beyond far above and beyond what is already either allowed in the neighborhood or built out at in the neighborhood made it such to be incompatible with the surrounding community and that was really the crux of our of our recommendation to you i i i get that and i get that the neighbors would not like this i get that um but if they have the ability to do live local which i believe they do then we have no say neighbors aren't going to get what they want anyways but if we have a say so in it we might be able to help make sure the neighborhood stays a little more compatible um traffic issues might be workable i mean we might be able to do some things to calm some of that stuff but if we if we take ourselves out of the equation then we got nothing there's nothing we can offer those people well it actually live local i'm saying am i wrong and yeah live local still they still have to meet traffic they still have to address all of our local regulations it really takes out the density issue yeah there'll be there'll be impacts that will need to be addressed as well we'll still have some we'll still have some but we just won't have that master plan process and we won't have the master plan process and we won't have the density be driven okay if if i may add one thing if if this property stays are you or if it goes to rm live local could still apply i mean in the future this property you know they can say well we're still gonna we could still go live local because that that's giving you a product if again if it's even marketable i don't know already that's giving you a product that's gonna that could look a lot different than the land use there today um and regardless of the land use the property is zoned rpd and that does require a development master plan so if the property is ru a development master plan needs to come forward and you all get a chance to review that um if the property is rm a development master plan comes forward so either way you'll you will you should see a development master plan unless there was a rezoning request or something unless it's live local then we don't unless live local as well that's correct okay sure scott um thank you mr chairman so um i i mean personally i'd like to see some more information before i'm comfortable with this in terms of what the plan is there but if i heard what you said right is based on the current land use you could do live local anyways yes all right so part of me wonders why we're even having the discussion you know live you don't have live local developments being built everywhere because remember you have to put 40 percent into affordable housing you got to manage that um and then that's driving down from market rates so you got to get that money from somewhere so you got to be able to make that up from a business model um so do they want to do that i don't know i don't know what the i don't know what the economics are regarding driving that because you've got market rate uh each each area is going to have a different market rate um and then then you overlay that with 40 of those being affordable units now does does that change does that make the project work or not i mean putting 414 units right right there would concern me without understanding how the traffic plan is going to be made that would be my big concern but you may or may not have a say in that anyway yes sir commissioner now lucky thank you chair um so wouldn't it kind of make sense um i mean with the live local act they would still need to submit a site plan geo plan affordable housing all of that stuff that they don't have today anyway and so if the applicant is saying oh well you know we need to do all this stuff before we can give you what we're going to build they can't go if it's denied today they can't go and apply for live local because they don't have the stuff that's even required that they're saying they can't give us that they want to give us but they can't because they need more time so can't we say hey well we'll give you a little bit more time come back to us when you have these geo testing because you can't even do live local anyway because you still need a master development plan and a site plan to apply for live local right yes now that would be that would be obviously to the pleasure of the board um the the what is before you at the moment is is simply the the future lang use map amendment and so our recommendation is very is void of any sort of speculation on what live local or what would happen here we're you know we're stewards of county policy and count and good county land use and so that's been our recommendation is based on that i understand there's a lot of you know unknowns out there um if you know i would i'm looking at our county i would um i i would i think that a decision made would best be predicated on um you know the land use in and of itself so the land use is appropriateness compliance with the comprehensive plan consistency with comprehensive plan compatibility which is always always a big issue in a land use case decision it's really the um you know those parameters of you know is the land use appropriate or not is is moving to that designation considering what's surrounding land uses and surrounding development is that does that make sense correct and i'm not you know comfortable moving forward with it without you know a master development plan buffering affordable housing from the applicant you know but trying to address some of the concerns that i'm hearing from my colleagues is that well they could go to live local you know absent of us denying it but i'm saying that you know the applicant would still have to give a master plan affordable housing buffering to apply to live local they would need all that stuff that they said they want to give us but they just can't and and having that that additional information one thing that we are trying to indicate in our report and our presentation maybe not so effectively is that um that additional information to go into the case like the develop it's not required to have a development agreement at this point this is a land use they don't have to do the do the zone they have to do the development master plan at this point but having that additional information can help us when we're looking at those issues of compatibility and how would this actually work you know are is there buffering what is what are the building heights what's the amount of affordability where you know where are the units going and what is the at the access you know points that are being proposed and we don't have any of that right now and so we're really you know we're looking at this at a very raw land use way of you know we've got uses permitted under this category uses on this category density here density there what's the surrounding character and a few other things and we're working with the information that we have which is sufficient to submit and make a request but that's all we've got correct and you know i appreciate you saying that i guess maybe i was just perhaps trying to add to the conversation that some of my colleagues are talking about with live local to say well you know they would still need all the things that they didn't submit to us that they would need to submit to move forward with the live local act and maybe there's a middle ground um somewhere that could be obtained so that everybody's happy is all thank you cool yeah just trying to lend scott a hand here and get some clarification from our development review staff and in fairness to scott he's not your staff that would be reviewing a development master plan or a site plan or things of that nature that would fall to your development review staff and in getting clarification from them if you all approve the land use today and this moves forward under the regular land use and zoning that's provided for in the county comprehensive plan and zoning code you would see a development master plan come back staff would deal with a site plan you could make the change today they could still move forward under live local they can move forward under live local if you don't make the change you would not see a development master plan if this moved forward under the live local act staff would work with the applicant on a site plan and that is still going to look at things like the internal roads to service the the development you know parking standards buffering things of that nature site plan would still address that and i couldn't speak to the specifics but when you have a development master plan you're going to have more input into some of the issues that you all have spoken about today but i just wanted to clarify you would not see a development master plan come back to the board if this proceeded under live local commissioner scott did you have a question or comment thank you mr chairman so if we if we denied this today is there a restriction on a period of time that they can come back i think it's six months i'm seeing nodding six months six months you you could say that you're denying without prejudice right and done something like that and something could go back sooner than that or if there was a will to continue it you can continue it to a date certain and we could keep you know having some discussions but if you if you denied six months if you deny without prejudice i think if you deny without prejudice they could come back within six months um or again you could continue it it's kind of it's kind of the direction i'm leaning right now is that we uh is that we i make a motion that we uh deny without prejudice we should have a public hearing yeah public comment all right well i'll hold on uh commissioner flowers um i'm glad we're going to hear from the public on that but that's one of the reasons why i was making the comments that i was because there's still so many other variables within this that um for whatever reason you know we don't have the additional information because they don't have to have it right now but it certainly helps us make the decision to be a better informed decision um while i wholeheartedly agree that we need some housing that certainly is not in um our high host high hazard coastal areas i also know that when we have construction um that's going on in communities where the fit is much tighter then you also look at stormwater sewer drainage um not issues but stormwater sewer concerns and things of that nature that still may impede some of the free flow of water should we have any flooding you don't have to have a hurricane or whatever to have flooding so that's kind of uh chair um chair i'm sorry commissioner scott is kind of why i was saying what i was saying but i certainly want to hear from the public uh commissioner uh chair oh thank you chair um i just want to say that um first of all um i don't like delaying projects speed speed can kill and so can the lack of speed that might might lose this opportunity to see this property get cleaned up and develop which it needs to be done i hate to see us lose this housing and over the idea that we need more information that we're going to be receiving on our master plan anyway so i just like to see it move forward so we can get housing in there quicker and get the site cleaned up quicker and get approvals faster so thank you all right um now we have some public comment cards thank you very much um the first is joe uh jane jane baldy hi i'm joe garibaldi i've lived in this community area that you're talking about boating today for over half my life uh i want to strongly recommend to you to turn this further development to higher density down the 207 that they talked about was ruled quite a while ago the density on this county i think if you talk to any residents of pinellas county they will tell you like i'm suggesting that we're the highest density people density in the state the state rammed down largo's throat down the end of eighth avenue they turned farmland or ranch land really into 480 units so we're begging you to not allow this in fact i would like you to consider to go back to residential low that the whole area is in and i think your your people here that just spoke this is really saying the same thing this community where i live is very limited access it's basically north and south if you put in 270 even 204 homes in them right in the basic of that you're going to cause a lot of untrue passage they put the lights on olmerton recently and they back up the other thing is please don't let them put massive buildings like they are completing the developer at the end of eighth east end of the eighth avenue with limited access joe garibaldi thank you for your time thank you sir next we have susie or morning thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today my name is susie or and my family has lived in this community for 55 years in fact we have four generations that currently live on pine street today we're asking you not to approve the request to change from residential urban to residential median for the 18 acres that we're discussing we have three points that we request that you revisit and rediscuss the roads are full we already live in a dense community and lastly the owner of the land can make 25 million dollars without ruining our neighborhood so let's get into each one of those can i have the overhead please so this is the 18 acres that we're talking about right here so as you can see that there's no roads that run east to west um that connect to the major roads of indian rocks road and allmerton road and that's because at the east or the west end is the cemetery and at the other end is taylor park so there are no roads that run this way so to get out of our neighborhood we need to go down pine street to 134th out to this light at allmerton or we need to go down to wilcox down to the light at allmerton and those roads are already backed up so if i want to go to largo mall everybody knows where largo mall is there's only two ways to get out and if we add all these houses it's going to make it worse than it already is if you approve this you're adding 276 new houses and increasing exponentially the number of cars approximately 400 in the neighborhood that can only use these two or three roads to get out of my niece currently lives at the corner of pine street and dryer right here there are several accidents every month at that corner so when you guys finally get your traffic report i urge you to look at that because these are problems that are happening now okay my point two is the overcrowding so this is a current map of the area that we're talking about this is the land right there pine hills county my then oh wow okay thank you thank you uh next we have marva perry good morning my name is marva perry i'm a 75 year old resident of pinellas county born here 25 year master gardener volunteer for the county for 25 years 22 years certified with the fngla as a certified horticulturist and a landscape contractor i have two complaints about this project number one we don't want two affordable housing projects back to back we already had rainbow village had a time with cleaning up that and we got that done uh the issue with the brown field everybody in who have lived in this area my parents moved to largo in 1959 uh we have three lots right there on 134th avenue we've seen what went on over there at terror everybody knows that terror is a brown field uh when you have a business there for 30 years you didn't dig 50 feet they dig down over 200 feet on terror and i was told that part when they did the tropical field uh the gas plant area they bought a lot of that soil down to terror and they dumped it there so we know that that place is a brown field there's no question about it and like he said they already applied to have it designated as a brown field the other uh thing is that uh they have already done reports if you go back to the 2004 when they turned this over to two uh guys to contract to build that uh affordable housing out there they get the county gave them 3.4 million dollars they wasted that county didn't get any of that back and at the time they told the county that it would take 10 million dollars to clean up that site so we know that that site is a problem if you guys go back and read your own documentation you'll find that also in 2006 they had a study done where they bored down 50 feet and they found out that that uh property was not stable enough to hold housing it's an already known fact check your own records it's known it's on your own public records that that site cannot sustain housing of the nature that they have so i wanted to say make sure that you consider the people who live there i live on trotter it takes me five minutes sometime right now to back out of my property to get to umington road and this is going to be a problem for all of the people who live in that community we don't need this headache we would like to see it cleaned up and the brownfield keep cleaned up but we don't need all these extra houses in this area i have a question for you mrs perry yes uh you mentioned that you are a master gardener here in pinellas county how long have you been a master gardener for 25 years so you're pretty you're pretty knowledgeable when it comes to soil yes i i have even i taught gardening at uh what is now the uh right across from where the park is the danceville park that they're building i yeah oh no no the extension is one place there they are building a danceville park that's not open yet and i taught gardening there i went to they asked me to teach gardening again and i walked the property i seen asphalt down on the property being that i'm certified i took samples over to applied uh labs in tampa and had the soil tested the soil came back that there was arsenic and all kinds of sedatives and elements in that uh field that we could not use that property you can ask paul uh cozy over parks and recs he got the report so we know it so i don't care what nobody say i lived there i lived across the street i seen what they did i'm not saying that you know and that january 6 meeting that was not advertised to anybody did you all send out anything to anybody to come to a january 6 meeting no you didn't send out anything nobody was notified in the community that there was going to have a january 6 meeting only a few people knew because they sent a notice to people who was connected with the friends of bridge those are the only people who knew my sisters lived there on 134 they didn't get no data from you guys that you was having a public meeting about this that's a lie tell you it's a lie to your face because it's a lie thank you people need to understand what's really going on you can't build out there anyway they did borings down 50 60 feet in 2006 and found out that the land was unstable so you think it's going to change all of a sudden that it's going to be stable that you can build something out there like that it's not and as far as live local get some guts other counties and other cities have fought against live local get some guts you're gonna have to have live local you don't have to battle me every time they come to you for live local get some guts thank you very much mrs perry uh next we have charles uh longley she is a hard act to follow my name is charles longley i'm a retired boat builder a licensed boat captain i live in largo and my property borders the parcel in question i've lived here for over 40 years as my wife is the original owner of the house from 1972 a company called terra excavating owned the property at that time they had been there several years the property was primarily used as a dump site for building materials and chemical waste products dump trucks were constantly rolling in and out of the gates there all day and all night dumping their loads i personally witnessed the dumping of toxic materials on several occasions including 55 gallon drums of toxic chemicals after heavy rains a brown toxic foam would appear in a runoff stream that would form on the west side of my property i had the water tested in march of 2011 by the city of largo and they found high levels of tolerance and nasty chemical used in manufacturing in the water but they told me they couldn't do anything about it as it was county property the reason i'm here today is because i never want to see this property developed because i know what is buried there if it were developed the land would have to be dug up and completely sanitized costing millions of dollars also our quiet peaceful neighborhood would be disrupted for years with noise toxic dust and congestion traffic lights and road access would have to be installed nobody in this neighborhood wants this and after hearing a proposal you know in the proposal is mentioned five home units per acre in the neighborhood they want to triple that in that confined 18 acres that's an absurd number of density in my opinion thank you for your consideration thank you uh next uh and i apologize uh clara marzynski all right okay good afternoon my name is clara marzynski and i live at 2800 fulton street in southwest in largo i urge you to deny this land use for the former terra excavating a poorly managed with no liner brownfield site especially given its proximity to the ongoing rainbow village development or redevelopment excuse me these two major housing projects are virtually next door to each other less than half a mile apart in a tight-knit ridgecrest area rainbow village is already expanding to about 400 units across the the four phases bringing hundreds more residents to our already saturated neighborhood adding the terrace site proposed 276 base units or up to maybe 414 or more or cram over a thousand or more people into an area less than a mile in diameter this isn't sustainable olmerton pine street 134th avenue and trotter road are already congested it's been projected 627 more daily trips with tara alone this is not including all phases of rainbow village when it is completed flooding has become an issue in this area and our schools utilities and emergency services cannot handle this strain there is no school bus service for this area which is zoned for ridgecrest elementary it is a recipe for reduced quality of life safety risk and infrastructure overload in this already dense densely populated community the developer claims extensive testing but there is no public record of it my husband has taken aerial drone shots of terra since january of 2025 no evidence of testing has been witnessed either or either from this or from my neighbors whose properties are right up against terra then there are the massive decades of old brazilian pepper plant grow overgrowth removing it improperly poses real community health risk health risk it release it will release irritants causing rashes and respiratory issues residential areas like ours need geotechnical certainty not assumptions we pride ourselves in being yimbies we celebrated rainbow villages redevelopment and concur it's been a long time coming but developing terror is too close in proximity to it and it is for these reasons i respectfully ask you to please deny this request thank you is there anybody else from the public that would wish to speak on this agenda item none uh what is the wish of the oh i'm i apologize the uh applicants has five minutes and six minutes and 31 seconds i thought it was 5 16 that's for staff staff got 5 16 they have 6 31 okay you are recognized miss rubenstein thank you give me just a second hold on let me um set my clock absolutely you recognize thank you so uh just to address a couple of those concerns um the neighborhood meeting and i apologize i don't have all the details but that was um hosted with staff um i'm sure they can speak to um how they notified residents but um that that was done in conjunction with staff um on that january 6 um as far as the browns field um you heard from the applicant they're in the process of that of course the required remediation will have to be done in order for the project to be developed um all of those issues will have to be addressed i certainly understand those concerns from the neighborhood and um would assure them that those those those will be properly addressed for any development on this property providing a path forward at this stage on approving this future land use request does give the developer some assurances as far as density on the property and what he would be looking to do there so while i certainly understand development agreements have been talked about coming back with the rpd at the same time has been talked about but in order for them to move forward and continue with this geotechnical research and continue with their you know expense and coming up with the plan for the development certainly this is like the first stage first approval to get that validation of those number of units and what would be permitted on site um short of of course the live local and you know i i respect and appreciate commissioner peters comments on you know going to live local that's purely an administrative site plan review um does take the commission a little bit out of the equation and i think there are some real advantages to that rpd master plan coming back before you for input um especially in light of the community's concerns and being able to address those appropriately so happy to answer any questions thank you all for your time thank you uh commissioner chair thank you chair um the uh applicant does it has the applicant purchased the properties under contract it's under contract so um just thinking that you probably have time constraints in your contract where you need to get answers things need to happen by certain times or you'll lose the contract to purchase the property and develop the property sure absolutely thank you any other questions all right thank you very much thank you commissioner scott um thank you mr chairman i would uh make a motion to deny uh without prejudice any other comments um okay i didn't have any cards and i asked for comments um did he already speak yeah he already spoke sir did you already speak if you already spoke we can't if you already spoke we can't call you back i apologize um so no more questions or comments from the board uh please pull up the item 11. just to just to clarify it's a it's a motion to deny so you're approving the denial motion passes to deny four to two all right uh next we'll move to agenda item 12. agenda item number 12 is a petition of pinellas county land assembly trust lehmann housing finance authority to vacate three-foot public utility easements located within lots 1 through 5 and lots 11 through 16 uh 4058 avenue north magnolia park subdivision platform 19 page 16 lying in section 34 30 16 pinellas county florida since this is a quasi-judicial hearing all those individuals who plan to speak on this item must be sworn in uh for those wishing to speak whether you are attending in person or virtually if able please raise your right hand you swear a firm testimony you're about to give the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth signify by saying i do the public hearing is properly advertised in an affidavit of publication has been received for filing no correspondence has been received by the clerk and the matter is properly before the board to be heard what is the wish of the board second no comments please pull the board up motion passes unanimously uh item 13 agenda item number 13 is a proposed resolution to adopt an increased solid waste tipping fee for fiscal year 2026 the public hearing was properly advertised in an affidavit of publication has been received for filing no correspondence has been received by the clerk and the matter is properly before the board to be heard the board any questions or comments uh please pull the agenda item up motion passes five to one agenda item 14 agenda item number 14 is a proposed ordinance amending section 11832 of the pinellas county code relating to the tourist development plan the public hearing is properly advertised and an affidavit of publication has been received for filing no correspondence has been received by the clerk and the matter is properly before the board to be heard what is the wish of the board seeing no questions or comments please pull the item up motion passes unanimously so this used to be my favorite portion of the meeting uh but i got word that lunch is here would y'all like to break for lunch all right um so we will come back at uh y'all want to do 10 after one all right we're in informal recess until then next let's take up the consent agenda items 15 through 36 all right we can take a voice vote all in favor any opposed consent agenda is approved now for the regular agenda item 37 item 37 is a public transportation grant with the florida department of transportation for the parking garage at st pete clearwater international airport we bring the board up for 37. can we just go ahead with a voice vote for that all in favor of uh agenda item 37 motion passes uh 38. uh item 38 is reappointment of special magistrate candidates pursuant to planillas county code chapter 2 this is for our code enforcement uh special magistrates what is the will of the board is the board working and that passes unanimously now to 39 item 39 are revisions to the capital projects funding uh program guidelines for the tour from the tourist development council for years 20 to 26 i do have one um uh change to that so um it's correct on here um and down under item that says eliminate defined point system uh but keeping the same evaluation criteria um there was a provision in the uh on the document though on your attachment um that says the evaluation criteria in the tourism development program red line version should that should not have been struck so it says to the extent that capital projects achieve geographic distribution for the funding throughout pinellas county that should not be not have been stricken because you do want the geographic uh distribution with with that with taking off that as being a strikethrough um we recommend approval ask a question do we have a second okay uh uh commissioner now lucky you are recognized thank you chair uh so the strikethrough of the geographical location so that would continue to like penalize the city of st pete and clearwater for projects coming out of there well since i wasn't part of that discussion brian lowak's on his way up to answer those questions thank you brian lowak visit st p clearwater um on the contrary commissioner and what we did was we kept geographical distribution in there as a rating criteria but we struck the the defined um point system um so now we just we know and and we want folks to know when they apply that we're going to be considering geographical distribution uh to make sure we spread projects out hopefully across um the the county but no no one will be penalized because of where they're located perfect great thank you commissioner flowers you're recognized thank you mr chair so um i have just a small concern with um number five established minimum annual attendance of 25 000 that i don't have a problem with but i do have a concern with the room night of 10 000 requirement you know why i'm asking the woodson african american museum um typically when people come to the woodson and we're hopeful that there'll be a new woodson but we don't know how long that'll be and all that other good stuff but typically when people come to the woods and they're not just coming to the woods and they come they don't come to the woods specifically they may be here to see the dolly and as a result so they're they the tracking wouldn't be that their room nights associated with a specific exhibit you know what i'm saying like with the dolly when they have certain exhibits persons come specifically for that with the woodson they have their normal um art displays but then they piggyback on the art walk that happens on saturdays and sundays or um something else may be going on in the community the collard green festival so people are coming so they're not going to hit those 10 000 requirement eligibility eligibility room night nor would some others so i just i'm sharing my concern and and is there a way to address that because i am going to ask them to uh i'm going to ask us to consider assisting them with construction and development for a new museum so this would disqualify them yes so in the current guidelines prior to these recommended changes we had a tiered system and the the lowest tier is the 25 000 annual attendees in the 10 000 room nights so our recommendation is we keep the lowest criteria like the entry level we keep that as the as the floor which is what that is but it wouldn't be addressed any differently yeah so the the option or the opportunity that was had before because i believe it was chihuly that came in was it julia that came in and they were requesting to go outside of the parameters because of whatever so that opportunity goes away or that desire or request to come before the board to request consideration yeah we did take out the if you do not meet any or all of these criteria or you're requesting over 10 million dollars in funding you go to the bcc separately request um a waiver from the program we did remove that from the guidelines so nothing against the tdc but i i can't support that in this we have so many different organizations that um they're building they they don't have the capacity um to create something that may necessarily get them independently to where people would come and it will provide um 10 000 um room nights that's that's a lot of room nights um so anyway i that's the only reason why i can't support this because i i just believe that there has to be a way that we can support and assist those individuals um rather than um because you know the dolly started out small they started out right over there the university of south florida in a little teeny tiny room when i was on city council we gave them money to help build and expand and they forged a partnership with the actual dolly family they started getting in larger exhibits and so now they're they're huge they're big but there are others who uh may not have that opportunity so it's not personal thank you mr chair no i wanted to see where the board wanted to go with us uh thank you again chair and i guess to maybe piggyback a little bit off of what commissioner flowers is saying so like let's say like the phillies project um or you know the rays you know like so we're removing the waiver per se when it's like over a certain amount um i mean how does that like didn't you know just the rays i mean they wanted a hundred million dollars so to specifically address your question there with the the phillies or the rays or a large project like that one of the other clarifications that we are recommending in the guidelines is that we remove those projects those projects go through a different process anyways they don't come through the capital funding process that we're doing here so one of the changes that we have in our recommendations is to wipe that right out of the guidelines because right now it it references those as non-eligible projects under this program and so we're striking those so this has nothing to do with those projects this is only related to projects and defined in category d in your tourist development plan but it's like the rays came and like asked for a waiver or no they don't go through that's handled separately and that has nothing to do with the capital project funding um guidelines that the rays blue jays phillies those um come directly to us i get direction directly from the commission this is an advisory board to the commission therefore um we we take it to them for advisory information but it's not part of the same the same process where tbc evaluates it okay i just want to make sure like those large projects aren't going to be impacted by these changes that's correct okay thank you i have a question commissioner peters um so on the park facilities so does that include like fort desoto or sand key beach park facilities so then the county can be the applicant it doesn't have to be somebody else that owns that or or a non-profit that's gonna correct it can be uh it can be the county can be a municipality anyone who with a beach park facility if it's a non-county applicant then they would we would require a one-on-one match if it's the county's applicant we would not require the one-on-one match okay so if sunset beach wanted to replace that pavilion that could destroy that kind of because they use that for weddings and blah blah blah and so it's a it's a beach park facility and that would that would um apply it's a beach park facility that they can demonstrate it's a tourism uh generating yeah it's a bunch of wedding that comes so they would be a that kind of thing um so what about like walkovers beach walkovers and stuff like that um so we we did not specifically define the beach park facilities because um it's a little bit unclear of what could be and we don't want to list out what yeah so all those walkovers got destroyed and so if treasure island brings in so many hotel nights and saint pete beach brings in so many hotel nights and clearwater beach i don't think has walkovers but um doesn't that if they're generating those room nights anyways would that then apply for those walkovers we will take any any of these we'll have discussions with potential applicants for projects and we will discuss with the county attorney's office to get their initial input on what they believe would be eligible okay via state statute because i know we also talked about lifeguards too yeah but commissioner and also those walkovers were all female eligible for reimbursement yeah yeah i know and when they get their money they're going to decide where they're all going so just saying um i would i would also kind of um just point your attention on this last one that they um one of the other changes are we're asking for uh in the past it's been just we open it up applicants ask for as much money as as they as they ask for um and what we're suggesting here is that prior to opening up we get direction from you guys on a defined pot of allocation that you're willing to invest in these projects and a portion of that will be defined by you all on how much would be set aside for beach park facilities so all those projects that come in they would compete against each other for that funding pot okay all right and and lifeguards was that included in this or not it was not okay thank you any other questions all right we had a motion in a second please pull up the motion passes five to one and i apologize we had a comment card on an agenda item 28 uh joshua you want you won't and i apologize sir good day everyone and that's quite all right i'll take just a quick moment of your time only because item 28 and that contract as well as pinellas means a lot to us my name is joshua veltri and i'm representing secure tech of florida llc along with our owner mr john xanthos we are here in support of the agenda item it's 25-0996a for the award of a bid to secure tech of florida llc for security services at county locations we'd like to thank the county commissioners county staff citizens the deputies as well as the county procurement team they withheld a compliant and smooth process for all bidders i'm too fast the secure tech family of companies operates throughout 39 states however florida is our home our first field office was established in pinellas county we're honored to be awarded this bid today and we are honored to provide security services for your county i'll leave you my business card up front for the record we're available day or night thank you all very much for your time we appreciate you thank you for being here and i apologize again next agenda item 41 this resolution is adopting the mstu project funding guidelines that we previously presented to you what is the will of the board seeing no comments please pull up the board motion passes unanimously agenda item 42. this is infamous to you for whispering souls african american cemetery to support uh irrigation infrastructure and the acquisition of a storage shed sixty two hundred twenty five dollars pull up the board passes unanimously 43. this is the acceptance of the city of deneans downtown community development downtown community redevelopment area midterm review report into the record um bob was here but i see he has since uh left but uh this is just our mid review uh report uh for your consideration you really can't make any changes um there's is it yeah you're just accepting it they've issued debt you can't change their plans that's the reason we didn't bring them in for further discussion saying no discussion please pull up the board passes unanimously item 44. it's affordable housing um project uh this is a 60 90 or 90 apartments um recommendation is 6.7 million dollars depending for finalists funds for 204 multi-family apartments uh located in st petersburg 122 those being 80 or below 82 at market rate this will take up 85 million of the 99 million that we have committed to under our affordable housing program in not yeah six years into this decade what is the will of the board saying no discussion please pull up the board passes unanimously uh item 45 this is the second amendment uh to boyd centers for the permanent support of housing this is one-time funding in the amount not to exceed nine hundred and seven thousand dollars um and this is uh in response to the uh things we discussed with you previously seeing no uh discussion please pull up the board passes unanimously 46. second amendment to an agreement with playmore west this is for um recreational products for playground removal and installation this is uh equipment at 13 playground locations please pull up the board passes unanimously unanimously 47. this is an agreement with the uh organizations listed here this is actually uh for psta but we have to provide permission for them to advertise on our right-of-way passes unanimously 48. an amendment to the advanced life uh advanced life support first responder agreements with three municipalities uh this is madeira beach for the reddington station ems station for dunedin at the major incident support unit and then a small piece in clearwater please pull up the board passes unanimously 49. issuance of one new certificate of public convenience and necessity for a non-medical wheelchair structure van service the firm's completed the application meets the criteria please pull up the board i'm at yes resolution to improve the emergency medical services water rescue grant program this is always a pass crew grant but it's to increase it from 300 000 to 400 000. safety and emergency services dave harris here um who's coming in as are at the end of the month as a new um acting director uh if you have any questions i'm a yes jim fogerty is retiring at the end of the month passes unanimously 51. item 51 is a proposed initiation of litigation in the reference case it's a foreclosure on a special magistrate lien please pull up the board i'm a yes passes unanimously 52. it's also proposed initiation of litigation in uh in a case uh seeking foreclosure on a special magistrate lien please pull up the board passes unanimously 53 53 um i believe the confidential memorandum uh was circulated and discussed uh christy pemberton came and met with each of you and and i believe jewel spoke with you commissioner flowers today uh and we're seeking your approval of the proposed settlement um as reflected in that confidential please pull up the board i just had that i just got that too under county attorney reports we have uh another item that was discussed with you by our litigation manager uh christy pemberton and commissioner flowers jewel spoke with you today um this this was a proposed settlement that we are um seeking your action as referenced in the confidential memorandum that's all i have today okay 55 under my report um a couple things one um reminder that we have tampa bay days um next wednesday in tallahassee so several commissioners and staff will be up there um on february 5th we have strategic planning at a magnolia room um i also wanted to let you know we're going to be hosting employee forums it's where we go out and meet with all the staff throughout the county um that is a we have a large staff so that is a large undertaking so that's going to occur for about the next four weeks um so a lot of various meetings at staff but it's very important for us as as you talk about the the priorities and things that we be able to communicate that those items directly with our staff um hear their concerns and have that direct interaction we'll be both meeting with employees and separately with our managers and then we on the 14th we did our budget kickoff meeting with all of our senior staff and it's uh scary to think about budget season but we're already beginning that process that's how long it takes so um so we discussed a lot of the things that are on the table what's happening in tallahassee what's happening within you know our our own budget forecast and the board's priorities um so we began that process um and then finally knock on wood but you know we had on the 12th had a very good meeting with the corps of engineers um right you know commissioner scott may be you know speaking to this more but um you know representative luna has um her staff has really been instrumental in trying to get the corps of engineers uh to to come off some of their policies we they they were saying the right things for the first time ever and so i just wanted to share that and and it did sound like they meant it which is what commissioner scott said um they're they're they're pushing it's actually department of the army and it's a secretary's pushing the um the corps of engineers which reports to the department of army on some of these items and so it's very good news the fact that you have you're asking somebody for an easement that says that we can go onto your property it was never intended that way but that's the way they took it and that's the reason people wouldn't sign easements um there's a lot of reasons why people sign easements but but that's a major one and and they're willing to look at the language on those things so i only tell you that for to keep you you know informed we have future meetings scheduled with them they're supposed to bring back items for discussion so we're hopeful at this point that we can actually make progress on this and put a permanent solution in place that we document and and they even said this to make sure we put this in place to where somebody else in the future can't interpret it differently which is exactly what happened in this situation so just wanted to give you an update on that it is good news um it's not done at all um but we certainly made progress yeah we we did that's a great great summary barry you know the um uh milton uh boyd kind of just started the meeting out and he said well before we even get going he kind of cut us off a little bit and he said i just want us to set the tone of the meeting and and basically said you know we're okay with you know where sand has to be put adjacent to private property where there is an easement we're okay with you paying for that and that right there was almost like almost fell out of our seats right yeah that's right it's different yeah okay so um so that that right there was almost a you know we we about fell over just hearing that um and as far as the the you know the easement language and things if there's we have as you look up and down the beaches there's several municipalities municipalities that already have ordinances on the books that guarantee public access and if they can point to an ordinance then they don't even then it satisfies them right right so so we're there there's significant significant movement on their on their part and still probably some legwork that we're going to have to do on on our part um to encourage some of these municipalities that may not have an ordinance already already in place we may need to get them to pass something but uh that discussion continues i think we have a follow-up with them i think february 10th yeah we do and then um i will be up at uh at naco commissioner shearer will be there as well and we have a we're going to be meeting with them at the pentagon as well so really really good news and uh we'll just you know keep that uh keep chipping away at it but i feel like i feel like we're finally getting somewhere and this is a lot of efforts commissioner peters put a lot of time into helping educate our um our federal delegation um so it's been a process kelly's lived with this for so long um you know i mean we're we're at there there is a lot of work to still still to be done this is not that easy it's not just as easy as adopting an ordinance there's legal considerations and things like that that we have to dig into but there's some pathways here and so we we need to figure out the pathway and package that to where we can actually uh deliver on this so thank you it's it is very good news and it was a productive meeting and kept and and they took them out on site you know um they they loaded them up in vans kelly did and hit her team and they took them out to where they can actually see it and they were they were like shocked that you know i mean they they they don't understand until you get on the ground so we were thankful for them taking their time to come down it's not hard to get somebody to come down from washington you know at sub-zero weather but but they took the time to come down and meet with us face to face and go out and actually visit on site and see what we're talking about now as we have future conversations they'll be able to reflect on that in in much greater detail and i think it was very very productive so i wanted to just give you an update on that and that concludes my report all right agenda item 56 emergency medical services advisory council all in favor any opposed congratulations captain um see that approved uh item 57 move approval of the two candidates that are listed i i second that motion i did reach out to the executive director just to ask her about attendance um because i had gotten a couple of calls but she did verify one was five out of six meetings the other was four out of six which falls in line with their board policy all right um all in favor aye any any opposed see that passed uh agenda item 58 new business uh commissioner scott you're recognized thank you mr chairman all right well since our uh since our last meeting i had um uh four pinellas work session and uh board meeting uh last week and uh commissioner eggers um has um stepped down from that uh from that board and i uh will be replacing him uh as vice chair in our meeting next month uh we plan to give him a good and proper send-off and speaking of good and proper send-offs i had my final tdc meeting last month and and brian and and and the team um uh it was uh it gave me a great send-off and i just really enjoyed working working with the team i felt like i was part of the team last year with with tdc and this really great great group of people brian does an awesome job and um you know when you when you go out and you and you you travel with them and you go on these sales missions and you realize just how hard they really do work uh to promote this destination and um and they're doing they're doing great work so so i will definitely uh definitely miss them um we just updated on the meeting with the core um i had a chat with uh representative linda cheney at one of the governor's press conferences i don't know a week week or two ago and her and i were talking about uh you know dunedin causeway and and desire to see if dot would take that over so she whips out her phone and calls and calls justin at fdot and uh and says hey the county wants you to take this over and he says well yeah i'm open to that but we got to trade something um not goff boulevard and he's no it wasn't that he what what what he did say though was it doesn't necessarily have to be an even trade but he's looking at this district from a just kind of holistic standpoint dot is good at doing really big things but they hate maintaining a mile here and a little piece over there he said put together some things right that you can take off of my hand and make it easier for me and let me worry about the big stuff so we agree with that staff we've discussed that and we have proposed items but kelly just i think left we'll follow up with her and with justin on that absolutely okay so that was the message straight from justin great all right so there's that um let's see let's see had the the privilege to deliver uh right before christmas the the first recovery check to a family in seminole so that was a lot of fun those are the fun things we we get to do right so i really enjoyed that also um joined the lelman fire district uh team along with commissioner flowers for the push-in ceremony for the new fire uh engine at station 19 um let's see attended the governor's press conference at the coast guard station to share support for more transparency in governments uh with uh attended by rep luna as well as the governor on talking about her bill to ban uh congressional stock trading and the governor's desire to uh put some things in place in the state as well um had the opportunity last week to speak to the leadership pinellas class of 2026 about county government give them an update i did that at psta after they were done touring the facilities there that was a lot of fun um attended um the visit uh st pete clearwater partner summit at the clearwater aquarium along with uh commissioner eggers and this weekend i attended the tarpon springs um mlk uh breakfast uh which was which was great and um and just thinking ahead to um strategic planning um i'd like us to one of the things i want to bring up is start by thinking about is particularly as we get into budget discussions is is define what a core function of government is and really kind of look as we're looking at departments and programs and line items is is this a core function of government or not and it should it should we be doing if it is are we doing it the right way um and are there better ways of doing it so just some food for thought in advance of our strategic planning with that that's my report thank you very much commissioner nowicki thank you chair um i uh toured sawgrass lake park uh with paul and a constituent um and you know learning about the park and and some issues um that he's been working on with commissioner peters and her office and so hats off to commissioner peters for working hard with constituents to improve sawgrass lake park um i intended the uh martin luther king breakfast with commissioner flowers yesterday and she did a great job reading the proclamation signed by everybody and represented the board very well um so hats off to her i met with the office of human rights last week and learned a little bit more about what they do and for me i didn't know that landlords could reach out to the office of human rights if they feel that they have a tenant you know that's abusing um you know a support animal or you know that's abusing um you know an abusive tenant you know the landlord can file a complaint against a tenant so that was something um that i didn't know and i said well maybe you guys should promote that a little bit more uh you know because i've been a real tour for a decade now in pinellas county and i didn't know landlords had rights like that so they're also open to changing the name you know i suggested office of equal enforcement um and that didn't seem to bat an eye so i know that's uh something we've talked about here at the dais um so i thought it was good um had a licensing board meeting where we'll be updating our cpr requirements and regulations uh the state scaled back uh cpr uh requirements that you only need one um like certified cpr uh person in a daycare and so but there's a local carve out uh where we have two bless you uh where we had two cpr licensed professionals and so we're able to have a local regulation that will help protect infants and babies by having two registered cpr staff members on site um i had an onboarding with brad miller over at psta uh so looking forward to joining the board there i met with our communications director um you know i sent out an email to you know everybody a little bit after christmas um how you know there was a lack of a merry christmas post from our social media and so our you know communications director was gracious enough to meet with me kind of show me their facilities and what they do and he said you know as long as the board is uh supportive of doing a merry christmas post um you know they'll be happy to make a merry christmas post in 2026 so you know i don't know if you know we give a thumbs up or uh any if if anybody doesn't support merry christmas i guess now's your time to to let it be known or hold your peace um so i'm looking forward to merry christmas in 2026 um and and then lastly you know um you know as commissioner you know scott brought off you know having our strategic planning you know i think it's worth looking at our you know comprehensive plan and even today you had agenda item number five agenda item number 11 you know both where we talked about our comprehensive plan and so i think you know we have a new board um a new direction and so i think it's worthwhile to maybe hold a workshop on our comprehensive plan and and to see what that looks like um so maybe there'll be support for you know future workshop on looking at our comprehensive plan and with that chair i yield back thank you maybe with the board's approval before christmas we can discuss uh posting your poem online your christmas poem that you so eloquently wrote and read to us uh commissioner peters um i want to thank paul causey as well he's just doing a really great job and and i appreciate all the effort that he's doing um i joined uh forward pinellas that was my first workshop meeting i was on it last year for one meeting and then was taken off so put back on um but uh i had other things to report but not a whole lot since the holidays so i'll move that on to the next person commissioner sure mike please mike on january the 6th i also uh attended uh governor desantis and uh representative luna's a meeting a press conference to describe their fight against and started trading which i think is huge i think that's uh something worthy of their cause uh i also uh met with the wentworth community homeowners association meeting up in the east lake woodlands area um just to hear their issues and visit with people up there uh that don't get a lot of our attention because they're far away from downtown clearwater um anyway that was a good good informative meeting to see what people are their concerns are on the 7th uh i attended uh my first psta meeting executive meeting uh i'm new on the executive committee and uh it was a good good to meet those uh work with them and uh commissioner now wiki was uh elected to serve on the legislative committee for the psta at that meeting so i thought that and i i actually proposed you so there you go just thought you should know where that came from now you need to go to tallahassee go to tallahassee um also on the 7th i attended my early learning coalition board meeting with uh commissioner wiki on the 14th um i attended uh our four pinellas workshop meetings that was good to have a workshop with four pinellas we don't do that very often it was good uh on the 16th of january i had a good meeting in my office with yashira gonzalez and tim burns who are pinellas county staff and they're charged with uh preparing the meetings for the pinellas county safety council which is you may or may not know that the work is supposed to work towards preventing recidivism and also coordination of our of our uh safety net our social services and so we had about an hour and a half talk about what the goal goals for this uh council should be and how we're gonna work with the other community leaders to to make them happen once we decide what we really want to focus on this year uh i also on the 16th i i had a nice long conversation with john holbeck who is the new incoming chair for the palm harbor community services for fixa uh he's got a great vision for that organization what they're doing and i was happy to confirm that uh the uh ymca uh war was over and that the factions of the uh the latvala uh eggers factions are all at peace which is good good for now so that was good to know and then uh also um later that day i met again with uh with um yashira and tim and also karen uh at the safe harbor and and uh over at the uh government center on 49th street uh and i toured those facilities to see how they're doing uh taking care of our homeless people who who don't have a place to sleep and uh and it was an eye-opening experience but also i was glad to see it was there uh and uh so that's part of the safety council's uh priority is to get people to places they they should go and i'm just glad that resource is there and then uh last saturday night i attended the usf celebration reception for outgoing president real law uh that was a great uh that was a great event she's done a lot so much for usf uh and uh she used to be my attorney many many years ago and i hadn't seen her in a long time it was great to see so many people there and while i was there i had the opportunity to meet with several board members uh and let them know how important usf is to pinellas county because i believe it is i love our st pete campus so i let them know that if they need the pinellas county commission to give us a call because we don't hear from them much but they're very important to us so um on the um strategic planning meeting myself i would like to say i'm looking forward to the meeting one of the things that i would like to focus on is our legislative agenda uh i thought we need to do a better job our agenda to me seems a little unspecific and i think this year it would be nice to actually come up with some specific things that we want to accomplish at the agenda what we maybe even come up with some own bills that we want to push to help help us here in pinellas county i got a few ideas on that uh and then if we could do that it'd be great i also wanted to look at the uh our mission statement and and uh what commissioner uh uh what he proposed and uh uh i just looking forward to that meeting and i'm hoping to bring you some a few of my own proposals so there you go there might be a limit to how many you can bring uh commissioner flower thank you mr chair um so on january 8th um horace construction had a um academy scholarship um event at ecker college several scholarships were awarded to students on site so congratulations to that company um specifically in the areas of engineering and things like that so um i was excited about that on january 9th north side hospital celebrated 50 years of being in service so congratulations to them on the 12th of january i attended the resiliency coalition retreat that was held at the tampa bay regional planning council just looking at those areas that need the greatest attention so that we could adjust our deliverables with the tampa bay regional planning council so there will be more to come there i attended the skyway lost two um ribbon cutting on the 13th that was 66 affordable units get this the lowest rent is 306 income at 16 000 which is a little over seven dollars an hour all the units are full of course and there's a rate a waiting list um there are other units there that go for 60 80 ami but i think this is um a um step in the right direction for what the county is doing we put in 3.4 million dollars through our penny for pinealas funding to partner on that um on that development uh ever health had a men's health summit um at greater mount zionami church on the 17th it was packed very well attended um if you've never attended a men's health summit it's really um good some men don't take their health seriously not all but some i was the speaker at the largo women's club uh to talk about dr monmouth king day and um uh african-american history so i really enjoyed that and then i had the pleasure of serving as the grand marshal for the st petersburg mlk parade uh the weather ended up being pretty nice it wasn't as cold as we thought it was going to be um earlier that morning as commissioner nowicki already shared um we attended the 40th um uh anniversary of the st petersburg metropolitan section of the national council of negro women one of the things that we are most proud about is um providing 1.5 million dollars in college scholarships to um seniors and um it was a total of 19 students that received scholarships so today i'm going to be heading up to tallahassee and um certainly um meeting with individuals to talk about what our platform is what it is that we're asking for um and see where we can go on that in attending committee meetings um i hope i don't get in any trouble but if so please keep your phones um on so y'all can come get me no i won't do that i promise i won't do that but i just look forward to the dialogue and conversation where everybody knows you know what the main tenants are property tax property tax property tax so i look forward to uh bringing back any information that i can in those areas thank you very much sir and i it was a pleasure serving as the uh assistant to commissioner lovala today you did a good job thank you and uh travel safe no speeding um i wanted to give my well wishes to chair eggers who is a little under the weather today um tomorrow we have our uh first tdc meeting that i will be uh participating in um recently we had a yak toured st pete clearwater airport i wanted to thank uh michelle roth uh who from the airport who facilitated the tour uh yesterday i attended the clearwater uh mlk breakfast in north greenwood uh which was a lot of fun uh january 6th i attended the governor desantis and rep luna press conference in clearwater on um stock trading in congress um and i can take it off my bucket list on friday i took photos uh with gucci at uh coachman park uh with with chair eggers yeah there's proof there on the screen yeah allegedly um yeah and i didn't have to uh adopt gucci but i imagine gucci's already adopted because there was he was a cute cute guy uh but i believe he's four years old uh in the shelter um but thank you to commissioner scott for starting that program and now i don't have to take any more dog pictures um but i wanted to close my reports um with a little bit bittersweet news uh the palm pavilion which is a staple in clearwater beach uh was recently sold by the hamilton family uh they've owned the historic business for more than 60 years it's built in it was built in 1926 and recognized as the oldest operating beach pavilion in florida the hamiltons bought the palm in the 1960s and were a part of transforming it into a full-scale restaurant in the mid-1990s and early 2000s and they renovated and opened the palm pavilion in in 1988 and i believe sunday will be uh the last day that the hamilton brothers will be operating it as a restaurant so try to get there this week and have a grouper sandwich um because i've had many grouper sandwiches there um it is a good place and i wanted to congratulate them on their uh upcoming retirement is there any other uh comments all right seeing none we uh we are adjourned uh uh uh uh