Well, good morning, everybody. It's nice to see everybody on this beautiful fall morning, isn't it? I brought my fall wardrobe out, so, you know. So it's 88. I will, because it won't be 98. I would like to call our October 16th work session to order. And before we get going, I want to thank Deputy Manley, Deputy Winnick, and Deputy McSweeney for keeping us safe this morning. And also, it's my understanding that Sergeant Hinson has been assigned to a new position within the Sheriff's Office, so she will be leaving us. But we want to thank her for all of her help through the years and wish her all the best in her new endeavors. No, the Sheriff didn't ask permission. Right? I know. Okay. And also, just a note, too, our friend and colleague, Commissioner Latvala, continues to improve. He will not be joining us this morning virtually, but Dave did have a chance to visit with him yesterday on his way back from Tallahassee, and he's in good spirit. He did say hi to everybody and thank everybody, but he also said, you know, I think I might try to get to that workshop. I said, Chris. So maybe by the end of the month, he'll start doing it. All right. So let's get going here. Our first item is our Live Local Act update. All right. Michael's on his way up. There's going to be bills filed in Tallahassee this year, and so, you know, this is kind of a good primer to kind of watch, not only to give kind of an overview and the impacts that it's having on us, but also it'll set the stage for future legislative acts and how we interpret those bills filed. So, Michael, go ahead. Good morning. Michael Schroederbach, Building Development Review Services. This is an update to Live Local, which started a few years ago in 2023 with Senate Bill 102 when an effective date of July 1st, 2023. And this is a state bill that preempts our zoning requirements for affordable housing projects and also provide tax relief for affordable housing projects. So in 2023, it preempted our development for affordable housing on commercial, industrial, and mixed-use parcels that we would have to allow multifamily or mixed-use affordable housing developments with at least a 40% of the units being affordable at 120% AMI or below. And there's also provisions in there to provide property tax exemption for properties used to develop affordable housing. The map that's on the right of this slide, the areas in blue are unincorporated county. The areas in red are all the commercial, industrial, and mixed-use zoning districts that could be affected from when this came into effect in 2023. In 2024, with Senate Bill 328, they amended and expanded upon the affordable housing framework established from the original bill. They amended the preemption for unit density. The first language in 2023 was not very clear. This made it clear that you use the highest currently allowed density inside your comprehensive plan. They also added floor area ratio preemption. So our FAR, you cannot restrict it below 150% of our highest currently allowed in our comp plan. And they clarified maximum building height. So we're preempted on building height. However, they did add some protections when you're adjacent to established single-family neighborhoods. They also added clarification that only the affordable units are required to be rental. So that 40%, so any of the ones that are not affordable market rate units can be owner-occupied. And then this year, there was more amendments and expansion with Senate Bill 1730 that added language about clarifying that these projects shall be administratively approved. You cannot go through any quasi-judicial or board hearing to review them. All need to be reviewed administratively. They added definitions for commercial, what's a commercial use, what's an industrial use, what's a mixed use, allowable density, FAR, to avoid inconsistent implementation. With these added definitions and with this added flexibly zoned area definitions, this expanded the amount of areas that are opened up now for live-local projects. So as you can see on the map on this screen, the red were all the areas that were open in 2023. The green and the orange are the expanded areas now from 2025. They also clarified when parking reductions have to be implemented. And they also added that if you do a mixed use project, no more than 10% of the total square footage has to be non-residential. So you can't make it a 50-50. They only have to do 10%. So just here's a summary of the three years when it launched, how it expanded, and then how it was expanded again on here, and then the map showing when it started, what was affected, and what's affected now of today. These are the allowable zoning districts. Excuse me. It started with our commercial, industrial, and mixed use. And this year, with the addition of those definitions and additional language, it added our office, institutional, and flexible zoning districts. And these are our requirements that we have to use based on our comprehensive plan. Maximum density up to 150 units an acre. Maximum FAR of 7.5. And this year, they added that that also includes lot coverage, so not just floor area ratio, but lot coverage on a property. Your maximum height is based on your maximum height that's within one mile of a proposed development or three stories, whichever is higher. So our highest height is our industrial general, our heavy industry district, which allows up to 100 feet in height. A lot of our commercial and industrial districts are 75 feet in height. So if you're within a mile of any of those districts, you could get up to 75 feet. We can restrict the height when it's adjacent on two or more sides of a neighborhood that contains at least 25 single-family homes. And then parking, we must reduce it by 15% if they're located within one-quarter mile of transit, which just means a bus stop. So as long as there's a bus stop within a quarter mile, that qualifies. Or if they have available parking within 600 feet of the proposed development available for use by the residents. So this is an example. Just took a group of parcels. Let's say this was a hypothetical. Somebody came in, wanted to take these commercial properties, zone C2, for a development on 5.6 acres at the max density. That's 840 units with a minute at the 40% is 336 affordable. The max FAR is about 1.8 million square feet. Height, 75 feet based on it being near commercial. And 1,000 parking spaces. However, when a project like this would come in for review, we still have the ability to review for stormwater, flood if it's in a flood zone, landscape habitat regulations, also transportation impacts. So even though this is the maximum potential on there, when we've looked at a couple of examples, we haven't been able to see where it works at hitting the maximum, that it usually comes in less because you still have to have open space for stormwater, flood, landscape requirements. There was two provisions this year that were added, which are optional. And this is the main thing we're here today is looking for direction on this from the board. So the first one is, notwithstanding any other law or local ordinance or regulation, to the contrary, a county may allow an adjacent parcel of land to be included with a proposed multifamily development authorized under this subsection. So this example showing on your screen, the parcel that's labeled as eligible is zone C1. So that's eligible for live local. And say the property owner buys the adjacent parcel that's residential. With this provision, it would open up that entire property for a live local development. So regardless of zoning, if there's an adjacent parcel of land, which would could open our residential zoning districts for live local staff recommends, we don't choose this option. It does bypass our standard land use and zoning review process. If somebody wanted an adjacent parcel included in live local, we would like to see them come in and go through our process to see if it's feasible. And then the second optional provision they added is allowing live local projects on any parcel, including contiguous parcels that are connected to, which is owned by a religious institution. So we have religious institutions all throughout the county. They're on various size parcels. We don't have the ability, a way to map all of them. A lot of them are in neighborhoods. A lot of our religious institutions are on low-density residential districts, because when they were established, they were established as part of neighborhoods. But on these properties, you're only required to have 10% of the units affordable, which means 90% of the housing could be market rate. And it's on the screen here, just some examples. One is a larger parcel that's embedded in a neighborhood, and then a couple others that are smaller. But as you can see, they're all internal on local roads, not on major intersections. So staff also recommends that we don't allow this option, and that we require the applicants to go through our regular process if they wanted to pursue live local on any of these properties. That's it. We can answer any questions or go over the last two slides. Good morning. Good morning. Thank you. So I don't know if this is just a question or a comment, but the requirement to decrease the parking standard if there is adjacent properties where those individuals could park, that's pretty much nil. Most organizations, entities, restaurants, other housing facilities, their parking is for their residents, and the cars will be towed if they don't follow that. So I don't see that being an option. I understand and I support public transportation, so saying that if it's within a quarter of a mile of public transportation, so a bus stop or the trolley, that they would not have to meet the traditional parking standard. However, even though people use public transportation, we still are pretty much a vehicle community. So I'm not sure how that will work. This is nothing at you. I'm glad that the decision was made as it relates to religious entities for the optional provision, that that would still, our desire is that it still fall under our current zoning and land use application process, but I could see that being challenged, not in our favor. The only other thing I guess I would request, if you haven't already thought about it, we have had, of course, a number of residents that have come before us because a development is coming, and we try to hold that developer to the least amount of density, if possible, so it doesn't impede that community as much or increase the traffic flow as much or a number of their concerns. But according to this, in some cases, they may not have, we don't have an option anymore. So perhaps we, should this all come to fruition, we have some type of community messaging, not to say that they still won't come, you know, and that's fine, but just some kind of community messaging to let them know that this is coming on the horizon. There potentially could be a project that would come before them that we don't have a choice because this would be an administrative review process, nothing that needs to come before us for approval. So they could come here and they could share their concerns, but if it goes through the process that's being required, we don't get a say in the matter, if you will. So that just would be my suggestion. But those are my comments regarding Live Local. Thank you for your presentation. Thank you. Very. Just to give some context, you know, to this, we're really talking about two provisions that we have control over, but to Commissioner Flower's point, there's now not, that we've been preempted, and to where you take a mile zoning radius, miles could be a very different neighborhood than the proposed site. And really what you're talking about is making sure that developments fit with the character of the neighborhood and they don't impact the other residents in that neighborhood at a different scale than what the infrastructure and the roads and everything else was set up for. So there's going to be a lot that we can't control. The question on these two areas is, and staff's recommendation is, that we not expand it where the law does allow because of the potential for, you could always, like the one example where you got the adjacent lot, you could always say we want to allow, it makes sense and it fits for that neighborhood. But another area, if we allowed that, that would be allowed by right. And then you wouldn't have a say in that, you know, if you extended that provision. So I think the staff recommendations are, in these areas, it opens up too many opportunities for things that simply don't fit and they should go through our normal process for your consideration and you can make a decision based upon the totality of the proposed development. Yeah, thank you, Chair. Just wanted to, where I am on the options is that, you know, it's pretty clear to me that option number one is a may, so we may or may not. So I think that the staff recommendation holds there. But option number two is an or, which is on any parcel. And I'm not sure. Can you bring up the PowerPoint, please? So I'm not sure that we can follow staff's recommendation on the second provision without opening ourselves up to liability or challenges. That would be my thinking. So I'm not sure I can agree with recommendation number two. They both are a may. Both of these are optional provisions on here. It's not in the highlighted, but above that, the entire section is we may. We can adopt this if we want to have this as a policy to allow on these religious institution properties. Same with the adjacent one. They both are optional whether we want to allow it or not. Direction from discussion with the county attorney's office is we can't look at these on a case-by-case basis. It's either we have to allow it everywhere on all adjacent parcels, on all religious parcels, or we don't allow it. Well, then, I didn't see the may on the second one, so. Yeah, it's not highlighted. I just didn't see it. Yeah, it's not highlighted. It's in the, it's above it. It's in that whole paragraph. Yeah. Michael, I've got a quick question. So on slide number five, where it shows the map with all the parcels now for 2025, do we have an inventory or an idea of, bless you, for how many parcels that is in the total acreage on that? I don't have a total acreage count as of this time. We can get that, though. Any other questions? So, you know, sometimes, I mean, we see words, and it would be nice to see pictures that show some of the stuff that goes on. I don't know where you can find it. But some of this is very impactful that, you know, this, you know, within one mile, I, because this, this applies to all 67 counties, or is this? Yes, this is the entire city. So, so one mile, and I was just up in Tallahassee yesterday talking to a commissioner from Madison County that has, I think he said, I may be wrong, 50,000 people in the whole county. So we were talking about different things. And to me, one mile there is, like, big time different than one mile here. And it just seems like context is important. So when we have the option to keep things, it seems like we're getting less options more and more each day. We should do it. And I think they both say may, so I would like to hang on to the mays while we can. I don't know. I find it, just all these changes on live local, I mean, and they come in and tell us in our residential areas that you can put, and this wasn't LAR, it was LLR, it was done 10 years ago on our housing, you know, the short-term rentals, bringing almost like commercial into our residential. And then they tell us we have to put, we can put residential into our commercial. And it just seems to me maybe we should put short-term rental and commercial and be done with it, you know. And then we've accomplished everything that they're asking for. I just, to me, whenever we can take advantage of mays, we should do it. But, and so I would support those two. Thank you. And we did this year one in the bill, it highlighted that a lot of jurisdictions were finding other ways to try to limit the impacts of live local. But in the bill, 1730 this year, they added preemptions that go back, retro back to 2023. So we had, last year we had amendment to lower heights in some of our commercial districts. We had to, those got unwounded, got preempted by the state in this bill. So just a quick question on the one mile, the maximum height, within one mile of the proposed development or three stories, whichever is higher. That second bullet point, is that the additional one so that we can then restrict it if it's? No, it's a, there's a limit. So if you're adjacent, they have, if you have a project that's adjacent on two or more sides to a residential subdivision that has at least 25 single family homes, then you don't use the mile height limit. They have a maximum, I think it's four or eight stories. It's very wordy, so I did not include it in the. Wordy, it worked, pictures for wordy at any time. So we may restrict the height up to 150% of the tallest building on any property adjacent to the proposed development. So if you're adjacent to single family, so you have one story, 35 foot height buildings, you would be restricted to 150% of that. So you could not go up to. In the proposed development, you're talking about. Proposed development, yeah. You just saw, I mean, commissioners, you've been very supportive and, you know, and you have within your conference there in strategic plan about affordable housing and advancing. It's really about the scale of these projects. 150% you take Ozona and you, you know, in interior to Ozona and you go over to Alt-19. You, I mean, it's a very different area where you have some of these, these, these neighborhood commercial nodes. That's the issue. And so we don't want to, we don't want to expand that, but we're going to have to live, you know, with what they have. But that's the reason they're making recommendations because each, each one of these is different, very different. They may make sense, but they may not. Those two, those two specific questions. Well, we want, we wanted to highlight the impact of, of what is occurring. I said in the beginning that, you know, there may be legislation. I, you know, I doubt there's going to be any legislation taken seriously, but there's going to be, you're going to see the impacts of these. Because to your point, can you give me a picture? Well, the legislation's new. And so I think it's going to take two or three years for developments to actually, you know, occur for us to be able to see how those impacts are occurring. There's good, I mean, there's a lot of people fighting this. There's lawsuits that's filed, everything else. But it's going to take time. I doubt you're going to see any new bills to fix this. I think they're kind of done with it. But, you know, but this is the concern, and these are the examples. We're only asking for these two decisions, but we, we did want to show you, here's, here are the things that, that the staff's going to have to deal with. Because they, they get it very right. Do we not have any modeling abilities in our, you know, software that can show some of the impacts in some, like you just mentioned Ozona and Alt-19, right? Yep. So we, we could take some, we could take some examples and show you the potential of that. Well, I mean, I think, you know, again, educating us is one thing. We're just talking about trying to maintain the decision here on some of this stuff, but to let them know in their own community what it's actually doing and showing some areas that I think that would be helpful. And, and Michael kind of started out with that, not in terms of pictures, but, but he's saying the practicalities, there's, there's just development considerations that limit people being able to reach the maximum. So if you take it and you said, we're going to build a thousand units, well, you're probably not going to get a thousand units just because you got to put in storm water. You got to put in this, and then when you get into parking, parking's very expensive. They have, they can restrict it by land, but you could actually do a multi, a parking deck, but then you get into the financials about whether the cost is, it's cost prohibitive to the overall development. You know, and so those are the things that's hard to model, you know, about whether a project really goes or not. So many variables, so many variables, but we're giving some examples is better than having it built and seeing it five years down the road. And then, oh, let's see what I told you. And then we're stuck. I understand. So be nice. Whatever we can do, be helpful. Commissioner Wicke, do you have any comments? Yeah. Thank you, Chair. Just wanted to, you know, thank staff. It was a good presentation. And, you know, I agree with their recommendations on those two policies. Thank you. Okay. And I, I do as well. I think whenever, as Commissioner Egger said, whenever we can take advantage of May in this environment, we should do that. All right. Everybody good? All right. Thanks, Michael. Appreciate it. Thank you. All right. Well, now we're going to move on to our 2026 legislative program. All right. So with, with our, our new legislative team, you can put them on the hot seat, you know, ask them tough questions and stuff. So here comes Tristan and Anita and away they go. All right. Morning, Tristan. Morning, Anita. How are you doing? Thank you, Chair. Good morning, Commissioners. Give me one second. So as noted, I'm Tristan Sommer. I'm the new intergovernmental liaison with the county. Hi, everyone. It's nice to see you all in this capacity. Anita Berry with Johnston and Stewart and your new lobby firm. So with that said, let's start it off. As mentioned, this is going to be our 2026 state legislative program. We're going to walk through kind of the timelines. I have calendars broken out. I also have kind of staff recommendations as well as appropriation requests. And on the back end, we have kind of your proposals as well to open up for discussion. Anything that didn't have direct overlap. So that said, here are the dates. As you see, we have a couple that are already behind us. This gives you a nice snapshot where we are, though. So on September 24th, we had our Pinellas County legislative delegation meeting. Per the delegation rules, there are two delegation meetings if there are the proposals of any local bills. The second one is going to be basically the presentation of the actual local bill as well as the vote of that local bill. But the first one takes in public input and introduces concepts for local bills. As noted, the second point, October 6th, that was last Monday. That was the first interim committee week in Tallahassee. So legislators went up on Monday, Tuesday, started having their committee meetings, started having discussions. A lot of bills were being filed as well. I haven't really seen too many appropriation requests, but we've seen a few come through. And then so kind of like in the snapshot of that as well, last committee week in Representative Jacques' committee, there were discussions on impact fees, and Chair Hooper's Appropriation Committee talked about revenue. And then this week, Vice Chair Eggers was up there yesterday talking about county districting. So those were kind of the talking points that were swirling in Tallahassee the last couple weeks. But as mentioned, November 12th is the second Pinellas County legislative delegation meeting. November 14th, two days later, we're going to have our joint delegation meeting with the BCC as well as the legislators and constitutional officers. There's January 9th, important date, because that's the bill filing and appropriation publication deadline. So we'll see kind of what a lot of the expectations are for any members, representatives, and senators in Tallahassee at that point. And then January 13th, the following Tuesday, is going to be the first day of the 60-day legislative session. That runs until March 13th. So these guiding principles. A lot of these ideas come from the core values that have been kind of introduced and developed by the county over the last couple legislative sessions. I removed a few redundancies and updated the list to kind of reflect the board's recent policy decisions over the last couple years. Furthermore, these principles highlight some of the important kind of operational encouragement that we've seen at the staff level. But I'll just run through these real quick because a lot of this hasn't changed. So first one, support adequate state funding for constitutional officers required to perform duties on behalf of the state. Next, we have support fully funding the Sadowski Affordable Housing Trust Fund. We have support a dedicated recurring source of funding for beach re-nourishment. As we know, that's a big talking point in the area. We have support fully funding the Resilient Florida Grant Program. Support assistance for disaster recovery as well as emergency management and planning. Support the continuation of policies that protect Florida's natural resources and scenic beauty, including the prohibition of all oil drilling or exploration efforts in state waters. Support maintaining Tampa Bay water as the regional supplier, water supplier, I should say. Support state funding for cultural institutions and the arts. And then these next two are kind of redeveloping a lot of conversation points that I've received. But support the prioritization of state funding to assist with local and regional infrastructure improvements, including transportation, septic to sewer conversion, damaged sanitary sewer laterals, and wastewater systems. And then last but not least, support innovative funding strategies that address the declining revenue source of transportation funding to adequately address future transportation needs with a specific focus on electric vehicles and allowing for the local indexing of gas. So now these next two slides are going to be the legislative priority. So I've included on this list any provisions that have overlapped from my conversations with you all or any input that I've received from the BCC as well as any of our county department heads. So when I was compiling this list, I took into consideration any policy areas that kind of had that overlap. So we had an operational need at the staff level as well as had input from the BCC. So starting with the first one, disaster recovery. I mean, I don't have to tell anyone. Obviously, Helena Milton last year had direct impacts, and before that, Idalia and Debbie, I mean, across the state. So this is going to be in a support posture for a statewide disaster recovery proposal to assist with recovery efforts, expedite procedures to get residents back in their homes as quickly as possible, and provide local governments with the flexibility to amend their comprehensive plans and land use requirements for properties not damaged by natural emergencies to promote community redevelopment, preserve water quality standards, and advance environmental conservation efforts. Next, touching on beach nourishment again, so support fully funding the Florida Department of Environmental Protection's Beach Management Funding Assistance Program for traditional beach and inlet projects, as well as supplemental funding to address damages from Hurricanes Debbie, Aleene, Milton, while also preparing us for future storms. Next, this is a big point, too. So there was a bill in 2021 that removed the ability for individuals to have anonymous code violation complaints. So basically, this is a fact proposal as well, and that will be voted upon in Tampa come November. But basically, support policy to allow for the delay in disclosing a complainant's name and address until a hearing officer determines that there actually was a code violation that existed on the property. This will further protect the complaints from any retaliatory actions resulting in property damage, threats, acts of violence, bodily injury, or even death. Chair? Thank you. I mean, I'm a little confused about that one because I think that allows really the weaponization of code enforcement so that by someone being anonymous, they're weaponizing code enforcement to go after people. And I thought the point of that bill was to, like, prevent that. So that is the intent, right? But now there is the opposite effect as well, where people aren't basically submitting any code enforcement complaints at all. So this isn't going to allow for anyone to be completely anonymous. It's just the delay. So if a code enforcement officer gets out there, determines that nothing was actually a problem, essentially, right, everyone's fine. If there was a problem, then, of course, the information would be disclosed to account for that issue, I would say. Yeah, I don't know how I feel, you know, about, you know, that one because I'm not sure how can we quantify that as a problem. I mean, I haven't heard from any, you know, my constituents and a lot of people I do, you know, business with appreciate the fact that, you know, you can efface your accuser here in America. You know, unlike other state agencies, you file a complaint, they can be totally anonymous, like DVPR. You can file a complaint, and it's totally anonymous, and there's zero recourse for someone taking action against you. So I don't know how we're quantifying this as an issue, and I haven't seen any data behind that. So that's something I'd like to see before moving forward with that. Thank you. Chair Joe. I understand, you know, the concern, and there's probably both sides on this issue. I literally had a case last night of an 84-year-old gentleman that's being terrorized by a neighbor because he filed a complaint. You know, and I forwarded it, obviously, to Bob Galtieri, and I've asked our staff to look at our own procedures in terms of trying to get compliance, but it's a short-term rental. He's got, you know, they filled in, you know, gravel into all the grass, and now you've got, you know, lots of cars, and you've got noise. But he filed a complaint, and they're driving past his house, an 84-year-old. They're honking their horn. They're blaring music. They're doing anything they can to terrorize this individual because he made a complaint. Now, that wouldn't stop this because eventually, once it's confirmed, the name would be released. But, you know, at least gives you peace of mind in order to be able to file a complaint and not be what, and he actually articulated it very well that his concern is that I would have to question whether or not I'd make that complaint if I knew what I was in for. And that's just not right, you know. You know, you should be, and I, but I understand both sides of the issue. But that's a real live example. And I forward it to Bob Galtieri because that individual that's doing that needs to be talked to, you know. But that's, to your point, that is a real live example that we were dealing with last night. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This item was taken up at our meeting in Gainesville where we initially set out the proposed platform that will be voted on for a final platform next month in Tampa. Instead of a unanimous vote for this, it was asked to be delayed just to bring about some additional examples. There were several examples that were provided by members who serve on that committee, and that's how this came about as one of the key items. It is unfortunate that people will call code enforcement on somebody they don't like. They play those games, and that is sad, and that's kind of what sparked this. However, much like what Barry just said, there are a number of instances, even here in St. Pete, in St. Petersburg, where people have not been treated well as a result of that. So what I'll be more than happy to do is just share some of those examples that were provided. I'll reach out to Ginger and Davin them and ask if they can give them, and I can share them with them. I shared a few examples as well sitting around the table, but it's got to be some kind of middle ground that we can find that protects individuals, and this was the middle ground, not to say that their name would forever be concealed, but as it is going through the process, only if it is founded would then the person's name be revealed, because once there is by a magistrate who oversees these cases, once that magistrate determines that, yes, a violation has occurred, et cetera, et cetera, then that person's name is revealed. The other question that came up is those individuals who have protected status. So if you have protected status, your name is not supposed to be available to the public, neither is your address. Well, your name, but not your address. Yes, I'm sorry. And so a large part of that conversation was what about these people? Because underprotected status, that's why it's protected. So how do we handle that? Well, the law says that once you receive that protected status, you are protected. Your information is not to be provided. So that was the end of that one. But I'm happy to provide you all with the write-up for the comments behind this. It was a very robust discussion from both sides of the table, both thoughts. I'm sorry. And I'm sure it will be a robust discussion in November. Because what we're trying to do is those things that we know is not going to get any traction and won't breathe any air, we know that. And we're trying to, you know. But there are quality of life issues like this one that we feel should be a topic of discussion. It could die in committee. Who knows? You know, but I just wanted to provide that update to my colleague. I appreciate your, because I get the same calls where people feel like, and it is true, they don't like their neighbors, so they just keep calling and calling and calling. And every other day they got a code enforcement officer or a police officer or something there, you know. But then there is the other side where people do feel like their safety is a concern. Just listening to the conversation, because you talked, you used the word weaponizing our code enforcement. So giving our code enforcement cover to go out and enforce our codes, is that, I just wanted to make sure I was clear. So like weaponizing, so like you don't like somebody or political dispute. You being the code enforcement officer or the neighbor? No, the person filing the complaint. Okay. Saying, hey. Doesn't like them personally. Yeah, I don't like how, you know, you made a Facebook post I don't agree with. So now I'm going to weaponize a department against you because I know you will never know who. Okay, I just want to make sure the clarification. Yeah, so code enforcement's not, you know, they're a good thing that is being used negatively by somebody if it's anonymous. But I think this process, just the thinking behind it, allows for that quiet investigation by the code enforcement officer and doesn't, I mean, maybe it doesn't elevate it to a level, you know, because you get those neighbors. Our neighbor issues are probably the ones you, you know, when somebody calls and they have a neighbor issue, it's like I just want to duck and cover because they're just never, there's always emotion involved and stuff. So I don't know, wherever we can keep that ratchet down, that emotional level, I think is a good thing while it's being investigated. And then, of course, if there's something there, it has to come out. The name has to come out. I mean, I understand what you're saying, but I'd rather encourage folks if their private property is being affected by actions next door to be able to do it and not get that retribution. Yeah, I mean, I would just want to make sure that, you know, if it's, I guess I was a little unclear that if it's a founded complaint or a violation that occurred, then your name would be disclosed. So it's not, if it was unfounded, your name's not disclosed. I mean, that's like something I would definitely, like you file an unfounded complaint and then someone has to go through providing documentation, wasted resources by the government, having somebody go out there doing an investigation that was unfounded. And then you don't know who filed that complaint, so now you're wasting taxpayer dollars. So, but I think the real issue to what, you know, Mr. Burton was saying and, you know, Commissioner Flowers is that, you know, we really need to protect people. So our legislative priorities shouldn't be supporting anonymous code enforcement complaints. It should be protecting people that do file a complaint. So we should have a stronger, that if you are terrorizing an 84-year-old man, that you drop the hammer down on you for doing that. That's really what our legislative policy and priority should be is protecting the people that are being terrorized, not supporting anonymous code enforcement complaints. It's strengthening the other side that if you are terrorizing someone, now you're breaking the wall. And that's, you should be punished severely for that, not just. The problem is it's the, it gets to that, he said, he said, or he said, she said, and then you don't get to take care of those people who are, well, you said you were, you said. I was threatening you, but I wasn't threatening you, right? I didn't do anything to you. And so you almost have to build cases with camera work and, you know, all that stuff. And it really is just about making sure that your property is protected. It's that simple. You've got to be careful how we elevate it too much. And it almost becomes, for one reason or another, just a painful process to protect your property. Maybe that's what you're talking about. Thank you, Chair. Just a couple questions. Very, is the, I don't see Jude here. If somebody files a frivolous complaint against their neighbor, is there any recourse for that with the code enforcement? Can they get, hey, I'm fining you. This is ridiculous. Well, Kevin is here, not Jude, but I don't want him coming up because he's hobbling today. So maybe you can answer it from your chair. What happens if somebody files a frivolous, I don't know how you define frivolous, sometimes you're just, you're not able to prove it. You're not able to get the facts. Any response on that? Yeah. There's no recourse against the neighbors. And I will tell you, over many years, even just the county policy, before the stakeout involved has gone from, you have to have your name to, we'll accept, you know, anonymous. And largely that's been a manpower issue over the years, at least for the county. But keep in mind, an officer, when there is a complaint, is going to go out and investigate it. So there's going to be, right up front, some good discretion used by our officers in identifying whether there is something that violates county code. So that's the first step of protection for somebody that's been complained about. And then, of course, they're either going to go into county court or they're going to go to the special magistrate and potentially have things determined. So, you know, those are really just protections as far as determining whether there's a code violation. But if there's nothing found, there's no recourse against the person that complained. There should be. And then the other question I had was, this is just for code enforcement on property, right? Yes. Because I remember decades ago when this all came up, anonymity was because people were sick in the Department of Children and Family Services on their neighbors. And that's where that came from. You didn't want to vote. So I, first of all, I'd like to see some kind of, for people who are just complaining, complaining or making things up to pick on their neighbor, there should be some kind of recourse on that. But I do like the delay. I think it's a good idea because otherwise people will be afraid to speak up when they see something, you know, that's wrong. It wouldn't be for this legislative, but we could really think about what you've stated today about, you know, just kind of hammering the neighbor and, you know, Commissioner Nowicki's, you know, point. But that would be something, you know, that we could look at for future, you know, potential legislation. I mean, that's harder, it's harder to do. I was just looking back and I sent you the email with the person I was referring to. You know, it's hard to catch somebody going down the street honking their horn and stuff like that. I mean, you know, it's just really hard to put resources into building a case around something like that, that counts a harassment. They're not going to do it when a cop car is sitting out there. It just makes it hard. But we can look at that. I mean, to that point, this one is specifically addressing a delay in that, and that's the only piece that's on the legislative side for today, at least. These instantaneous reactions is what worries me sometimes. So to the extent that we can minimize those or reduce them until there's something substantive found out, I think is a good thing. I mean, it's those instantaneous ones that just elevate fast and then, well, no, somebody pulls a gun out or, yeah, it just gets really crazy. Well, it's almost like there's a, that's why there's a three-day waiting period before you can. Right. Yeah. You try to bring it down just a notch or two while they're investigating. So if you're good with this component piece, you can kind of move on at least for today. Next one, there's appetite, I would say, at the state level already for this. And once again, we see some operational impacts and kind of the need for this overdose and suicide fatality review committee kind of at the statewide level. So support posture for the creation of a statewide overdose and suicide fatality review committee or committees under the Department of Health to review facts and circumstances of suicide and drug-related deaths. Local review committees would conduct individual case reviews of suicide and drug overdose or drug poisoning deaths, identify factors contributing to those deaths, make recommendations for system policy and practice improvements at the local and state level, promote interagency collaboration and data sharing consent are consistent with federal and state confidentiality protections and informed prevention initiatives through accurate, timely, and comprehensive data. And this mirrors, I guess, conceptually, some of the language that is already in existence for the infant mortality review committees. So it follows a lot of that same framework. This next one's a little bit of a doozy. It's on non-legislative priorities just because it has a series of steps. So I'll walk through what those are after I just tell you what it is. So this is the E911 fee adjustment. We've heard a little bit about that here already, but support adjusting the 911 fee to accommodate increased expenses and expansion of technology to continue providing high quality of service to citizens of Pinellas County. And this is also a fact policy proposal that will be voted upon in Tampa in November. So the reason why, once again, this is non-legislative is because it starts with the executive, right? So there's the Emergency Communications Board under DMS, and they have to approve raising that fee back to the statutory maximum that's already permitted under law. And then from there, if it's approved, DMS would provide that recommendation for rule ratification to the legislature. So the presiding officers of the House and Senate, the Speaker and the Senate President, would then, if they agree with, obviously, that need for promulgation of rules, direct the DMS to find a general bill sponsor, to kind of walk through the logistics of finding a bill sponsor, filing a bill, producing that bill through the process. And, of course, then it would be subject to the governor's approval thereafter. So this isn't a legislative priority at the first step, but we're asking for support of this just because, you know, after it's approved at the executive side, there would also be, you know, the need for the legislative action as well. Next, these appropriation requests are recurring for the most part from last year as well. These were compiled, once again, just based on the direct fiscal impacts that we've seen by our departments. And of these projects submitted, we've removed kind of everything that was either too large or an ask for the state pursuant to House rules, and then also removed parts of projects that had the ability to be recouped through other funding sources or avenues. So I'll just walk through these real quick. We have East Lake Road corridor improvements, phase one, up in the North County. Seminole Junior Warhawks field improvements, number two. Three, we have hurricane shelter hardening generators specifically. And then four, we have hurricane shelter hardening for the Lummon Exchange, which we received some federal funding for. And then the last one is 31 pump station control panel elevating. We've got a quick question on the Seminole Junior Warhawks field improvements. Is that part of the Seminole Sports MSTU? Yes. Yes. This would just help them getting more fields done quicker. Or does that just seems like with all these other items on there, which are pretty big, that doesn't seem to have a lot of gravitas to it. It's probably not our first priority. But it's probably going to be separate type of funds that we'd be going after, so it wouldn't necessarily be competing against other projects. Is that a fair analysis? To expand on that, too, right, like these are all going to be in different pockets as well, right? Different members would be, you know, these are in different, so strategically these are in different districts across the state, right? So we have everything from, you know, all of our state representatives for the most part to, you know, being a few in these pockets for the senators as well. So it would be in different appropriation silos for the most part as well. We probably have most of these probably in TED. If you made us choose, we might go to shelter hardening. Yeah, right. Okay. So. Exactly. We've got all this hurricane damage, but we need a ball field. What's the definition up there for phase one of the corridor improvements? What are those? So from Kelly's team, Public Works, right, there are, I think, three phases, if I remember correctly. So there are three phase proposals to kind of handle different parts of that, like, I guess, roadway improvement. Phase one is kind of like that core structure on the east side, if I'm not mistaken. I'm pretty sure it's on the further east side of the roadway. So that's the first phase. And then I also have this on a separate slideshow, too, so I can connect with you after the fact. And it was also, I think, in the presentation from last year, too. Sorry, I just don't have that slide up. But the first one is, I think, further east. Phase two is kind of the middle portion of that roadway. And then phase three is the further west part of that. I think the phases are bridges, okay, and the corridor, and then the road widening, okay? Jill, is that correct? Yes. And so this is really talking about bridges and getting money into the project. If we're able to do this project, it's going to be multi-penny, multi-year state of preparations to be able to do that. And one of the key pieces that we still don't, I don't think, have an answer on is whether we can close the bridge over Tampa Road or whether we have to build new. That's a $50 million swing right there. So that's a key. We're waiting for the engineering analysis on that. When did that come up? I thought it was constructed to be able to connect. Well, it was constructed, and then, you know, anytime you do a project, the engineers have to go back and confirm that from an engineering standpoint, you can close that. That's what they're doing now. I've been waiting for an answer on that to make sure they can do that. But the project, the project scope, that's a key financial piece to that project. So we're wanting confirmation, we're hoping for confirmation, but that has a major impact on the financing of it. No, that occurring is critical, right? It is. But so, I mean, and again, I was going to ask specifically about phase one, and are we targeting intersections up through? Correct. So the changes to any intersections and the work with that would be considered in phase one. I'm not sure. Is that phase one or phase two? Which one? Do you know, is that phase one or phase two? So it's phase one. Okay. So the bridges, intersections, and then follow-on would be the final piece would be road widening. Okay. But significant state funding is going to be necessary for that project. Right now, it's at $230-some million. Is that phase one? No, the whole project. Okay. Obviously, the bridge over Tampa is key to that cost estimate. And so you can see, I mean, that's a significant amount of money. WIT's tried to work with us on how to package it to where it may open up for some federal money. I'm hopeful, not optimistic. But we're going to have to pull multiple funding pieces together in order to make this project happen. Well, sometimes the incremental improvements do what we want it done. I mean, when it comes to technology and intersection improvements, if you've driven that corridor at many times of the day, that makes all the difference in the world. If you had two lanes turning instead of one lane turning, if you had less crossway light access during rush hour, it makes a big difference. Because sometimes you just sit there and there's no cars passing, and you look in your rearview mirror and it's extended a mile back. So it happens all the time. The interconnect and having real-time lights that can measure the volume of traffic and adjust accordingly to get the maximum throughput of the existing roadway would be a huge improvement. There's also choke points that can be done as part of phase one where it doesn't make any sense the way it's laid out. So there are a lot of things that we could do under phase one that would have a real impact on people traversing, you know, that roadway right now. And it wouldn't be 220 plus 50. It would be a lot less. The 50 is a different story. Well, bridges are a big piece, and bridges are expensive. And there's areas where you're driving across a bridge you don't even know you're driving across a bridge, you know, over Brooker Creek, over the canal that comes out of the Ridgemore area, you know, and the old golf course. You really don't even know you're crossing a bridge. Have they been identified as a problem, or have they been identified as? Well, they'd be part of setting up for all those other projects. The other lanes. Correct. If you went that final phase. That's correct. If you didn't do the final phase, those bridges wouldn't necessarily need to be replaced. That's a great question. I can't answer, but you're exactly right. Maybe some of them wouldn't need to be until the final, but the intersections would need to be key to that. I think we'll find a lot of help in that work, technology and intersections. I mean, I just will wait and see. But what we don't know is for our legislative program, we need money. And so that's the reason. And there's nobody better to advance this forward. One, he's the appropriations chair. And two, he drives this roadway every day. His office is in Boot Ranch, and he lives in Trinity. So, Senator Hooper's it. What were you going to say? I'm sorry. Okay. But, Tampa, we can close it in? That's perfect. That's news to me. So that's perfect. That says $30 million, $30 or $40. And that map that she was referring to was the one from last year's presentation that I can share with you. But to your point, Commissioner, I think it's a great point. And we'll talk at staff level about rather than do what engineers do at Section 1, 2, and 3 and kind of move north to south, are there ways we can do the corridor and do some of the things and build it in a different manner? I don't know the answer, but it's a great question. Yeah, I mean, I think if we're going to do Phase 1, 2, and 3 by, as you say, south to north, then you avoid looking at making those intersection improvements only as the solution to the problem. And I just think that there's a lot to be gained there, and it's a lot cheaper than all the rest of it. Okay. But the flow of the overall thing, we'll go back and look at that. It's a great question. What's the cost of Phase 1? Well, it depends on how Phase 1 is designed, you know, and whether they're doing north. I'd have to dig into that more. I don't know the answer. And we have, yeah, we have, how much do we have designated in the penny? 40? Okay. So 40 or 50 we have. And so that's, you know, one piece. So the question is, if we get money from the state, if we got 50, what could we do with that $100 million, you know, until future? That's a great question. And we'll try to answer that for you. Keystone? Well, and I think to your point about, you know, we just have these, to have the appropriations chairs is important. When you travel these roads, and I had the privilege of driving on State Road 54 yesterday, about 4.30 in the afternoon, and I yelled at a couple of county commissioners from Pasco. It was kind of fun. How did you let it get like this? So their, you know, their argument is that's an inter-county. It's a state road, but it really serves us on evacuation. It serves Pasco. It serves, you know, and McMullen Booth is obviously a heavily traveled Pasco County traffic. I mean, so it's an inter-county. I mean, those are important connecting roads. Absolutely. There's a lot we can do on East Lake that would impact both our residents and Pasco County residents. Otherwise, I'm going to take that job that sits in a booth at the north end of the county charging Pasco residents. But then they might do the same in return, so we'll be in trouble. So anyway. All right. Thank you. All right. Yes. Maybe I'm remiss, but I thought when we had the long discussion about the one organization taking over the athletic fields and whatnot, I thought that they had money for the field improvements for. Well, we do. We have money through the penny, okay? So it's still our, we had funding through the penny. We wouldn't release that funding until we had one organization to be able to manage it all. That was the key for that way you didn't have three separate entities fighting over fields and shared use and things like that. And so now they have that, so we're moving forward. The question is, we can do a lot with it. We can't do everything with the amount of money we have designated in the penny. This would enhance our ability to get more of the fields done. So you'll provide maybe like an update. I would like an update on what we're going to pay for through the penny versus what we. Jill's got more information than I have. And the reason I'm asking, too, is because when that organization stood here, they talked about their capabilities of raising money to also, you know, help pay. I'm not saying they can raise all this, but. The fields were always ours. The fields were always going to be ours under penny. But go ahead. Jill Silverboard, County Admin, that's correct. What Barry said is correct, that the idea is we committed to our penny projects, which will provide capital investments into all three properties, starting with the Cross Bayou location. Those projects hopefully provide the three entities, as you'll recall, with an integrated system so that you're playing one sport here and another sport there. So they're not operating as three separate facilities anymore. They do now have their MSTU, but they don't have any capital funding. So right now they're just starting the levy, so it'll take them. So our commitment was to do capital investments. The Warhawks are making an appropriation request because that's the last facility in our capital strategy. So they're just trying to get money to advance some of their needs in advance of our strategy, which will come, you know, again, we're starting with Cross Bayou, and then I think it's SYAA, and Warhawks is last. So it'll take them some years to build up enough money to even consider doing these kinds of improvements, and they're going to wait until we finish our investment. And so if we are forced to choose, of course, that won't be our number one choice. I don't think Dave Eckers won't want to sit next to me anymore. Just kidding with you. So I guess there's a plan in place should we not get? It'll be several years before we get to the Warhawks facility. Are any of those things? Most of our MSTU entities come to you for capital anyway. So if the state were to give them some money, it actually helps us. So the next two slides after this are the separate, like, BCC-related conversations or requests that I've received from you all. So these didn't really have direct overlap with any of the operational recommendations from our departments. So that's why I'm including them on the next few slides. And if it's okay with everyone, I'm just going to kind of burn through them, and we can kind of discuss anything specifically after the fact. But whenever we are having this conversation, right, some of these provisions have, of course, you know, statewide implications. So they're not necessarily Pinellas-specific, whereas the other slides, like I noted, had operational overlaps and were more Pinellas County-specific. So first one, tourist development tax expansion helps to help pay for human costs like lifeguards-related tourism. I know that's circulated last year. And pay for other hard-cost-related construction redevelopment, especially in the wake of storms. Second point, short-term rental regulation. This has come up in Tallahassee a couple sessions ago, but basically we discussed policy to regulate the density and intensity of short-term rental properties. This one was on the program last year, indexing local option fuel taxes, and kind of pair that with electric vehicle registration fees. Policy to allow for indexing of local option fuel taxes and charge an annual registration fee for electric vehicles. Stay right there. So let's – I think the question here, Commissioner, what other items do you want us to take on? So we've put these up here so you can see everything that commissioners have discussed. The question is whether it's the right time, whether we want to go down that path, or whether we need to do more homework, working through FACT, because it has statewide implications. And, like, for these three, the tourism development tax, this has come up over the years. Many of you, you know, know this. And every time the idea is to open it up, then how far does it go, and does it erode from their mission? Because then you're, you know, paving roads and doing things, and then you don't have the money to be able to – or you're relying upon that to pave your roads, and all of a sudden you have a downturn in tourism. And, you know, so the idea, do you really want to – do you want to open it up? So that's a question on that. Short-term rental, we know that the intensity of which it's went over through the past year is probably just not a right topic. And then the same way on the last one. I just want to use these three examples because he's got more. The last one, we've got it in our policies that that is a goal. The question is, is this the right time? Unless they open up a transportation bill and address EVs and do registrations on EVs, we probably don't – and just staff recommendation – we probably don't want to take that issue on and trying to push that this year might be right better for next year in an off-cycle year rather than an election year with something that would be viewed as a tax increase. So, you know, those are the considerations that you – that we want to get your feedback on, what you really want us to take on, and we're just trying to play it out with how that's going to play out in Tallahassee and what they would have to work on in order to be able to make these things happen. So, my thought on this is – and thank you, Tristan. You've done a great job. You haven't even had a conversation like this before, so I love it. You know, in a formal setting, like you – I think you're doing great already. So, we know the governor's intent on taking away property tax. What that looks like, we don't know yet. But we know that that's an intent. And so, I think as that moves forward, we may want to – TDT is going to be part of what they're going to do. I just – there's been conversation already. So, I think what we have to do is stay really alert about what they're talking about. And as – if they determine TDT is going to be part of how funding is going to happen, then we need to be really clear on what it is because it may be way more than this. Right. Right? Because they may do something. And so, I think that's something we have to stay watching and maybe not ask for something right now with that, but just watch and see how it plays out and then go, okay, if you're going to take away property tax, then, you know, we take on an additional burden because so many more toilets have to flush when tourists come in. So many more police are on duty when tourists come in. So, you know, the road takes more wear and tear when the tourists come in and rent cars. And so, I think as that conversation goes, we have to watch TDT and be very strategic and not just go for something like lifeguards. I think we have to look at it very comprehensively and watch it and have conversations about how we want to – and the same thing would go with the EV and fuel tax because we can't take care of our roads when that trust fund, you know, that optional fuel tax thing is declining. So, I think those are things that we have to keep at the forefront and be prepared to fight for it as that unfolds. I don't know that we want to go and say, oh, we're just worried about lifeguards. You know what I mean? And I think to your point, Commissioner, we're saying these are important topics, but we want to monitor – we want to watch it more in context. Like the last item, you know, I mean, you've been very, very clear that if we're able to index, gas tax, you're going to reduce property tax, right? I mean, you've been very clear about the tradeoff of that because we're – but over in another county, that's not what would happen because they're not using property tax to improve their roads, right? And so there it would be an actual tax increase versus here where you'd be offsetting that with property tax. And so that's a complication of something that plays out statewide versus trying to apply what would happen here locally and trying, as you know, trying to get that through a bill in Tallahassee. But if the opportunity comes up and they're opening up education, then we jump on that. Like, so it's not static. We'll watch all these as it goes – No, it's worth it as they start talking about eliminating property tax that we educate them about, well, here's other ways that we can help take care of our roads, right? And here are other ways that we can take care of, you know, what we normally would use impact fees for or something like that. So I think it's having that conversation and be ready to have that conversation. As they talk about eliminating property tax, when the rubber hits the road, what does that mean for the local government? Because, you know, maybe they – you know, we've experienced where people want lower taxes, but they still want equal to more services. And so how do you meet that need and that demand? But we have to be prepared to bring ideas and concepts to them that could be beneficial to help us and make sure they aren't restricting those even more in their effort to cut taxes. And, Tristan, when you're talking to them, I'd love for you to say, you know – well, I won't do that. Forget it. You and I will talk on a sidebar. I'm not going to say that. I mean, I just – I get frustrated sometimes, especially when there are bad actors out there that are doing a bad job, but then they punish the good actors, you know what I mean? But if they're looking to help people that have economic, you know, distress, you know, it's frustrating to me that every time you buy a used car, you have to pay a tax on it, but the tax on that car was paid the first time the car was sold. So why are they retaxing that car every single time it gets sold? And people with lower income or moderate income, they're not buying brand-new cars. They're buying used cars, you know? And it doesn't – if it's a worker that wants to buy a trailer and start his own business, and it's a used trailer, he has to pay a tax on that used trailer, but he didn't – but that tax was already paid. And, you know, when they talk about having to pay over and over, the governor says this about houses all the time. You buy your house, but you have to keep paying taxes. Well, it's no different than any used vehicle, whether it's an RV, whether it's a trailer, whether it's a car or a pickup truck, you know? And so maybe we just need to present that idea to them because that's where the multiple taxing is coming from as well, is on anything that's used that people buy. And if we want to help the people that are, you know, have income restrictions and want to be entrepreneurial, we ought to be able to let them buy a truck that's used and not have to pay that tax. And so that's just me venting. I'm sorry. Thank you. Well, I agree. So, I mean, this is part of a bigger conversation for us as far as it relates to capital for infrastructure improvements. Where do we get the funding from, whether it's penny, whether it's the gas tax, whether it's TDT money? I mean, again, these are numbers that I just kind of remember. They may not be accurate, but the description is that we have 15 million visitors here a year. Divided by 12, that's about 1.25 million a month. I know it doesn't come that way, but we have a million residents here. So the amount of wear and tear on our infrastructure and police services, as Commissioner Peters was mentioning, the whole picture I think is good to be prepared. And I'm not sure that we're prepared for that discussion yet. I just want to make sure that we are. I think about, like, you know, sitting out in the water trying to catch a wave into the shore, and maybe the wave's not there yet, so let's wait until it is there, but let's be ready when it is there so that we can describe exactly the wear and tear on our county. And so those TDT funds would be a very valuable asset to use if we choose to do that and if we choose to prioritize infrastructure like we say we do. And so, for me, it's about using revenue differently and not increasing taxes. So, you know, I mean, I don't even know exactly what the gas tax increasing and indexing would do for us in terms of total capital dollars, but I would suspect that our TDT funds and even further emphasizing or prioritizing the use of our penny for infrastructure further. I mean, we're going to talk about that going forward, but it's a big deal. It's a big deal, and I brought that up one time, and I got kind of funny looks, not from this body, but just from certain folks that, you know, we have a lot of infrastructure under the ground. And quite frankly, one of the things our residents are getting hit on hard are utility rates, whether it's Duke Utility or our own utility rates. And that's where we pay for everything, capital, operating. It gets buried into that number. So I think wherever we can get help on revenue dollars and how we use them, not increasing but using what we have available to us, would be important. So these are just three of the many items that you brought up. So the question at the end that they're going to get to at the end is what items do you want us to add to our legislative agenda, right? And it's not just a question of whether, you know, this is an item, but also whether it's right to be able to run it this year, you know, whether we've done the background, whether there's an opportunity, or whether it's a wait-and-see dependent upon where they go with the property tax discussion. And that's the type of feedback we need because we're coming up on, you know, to meet with our legislators. So we need to finalize. Well, since we never know what's ripe for them until it's ripe, I don't want them to think if we pull that off that it's not, you know, we're not pushing it this year unless you're pushing it this year because we really want to take advantage. And we could also put it in kind of a monitor category. That's fine. Just so they know it's not disappeared. But this is the type of feedback we need from you for them to be able to do their job. Okay. So keep going. Next slide. First one, consolidation of fire EMS, independent fire districts. So discuss the consolidation of fire EMS, independent fire districts, to alleviate the strain from state law that encourages a reduction of workweek hours to 42 hours a week for firefighters. Second point, this conversation has come up in Tallahassee in certain capacities over the last, I want to say, five years, if I'm not mistaken. But retail pet store enforcement implementation updates. So discuss potential proposals that would require new implementation standards and enforcement protocols for retail pet stores. And this next category right here has kind of been like a, obviously part of a larger conversation, but there were kind of three points of feedback that I've received. So I just put them all in there at the same point. This is dealing with MPOs and just public transit at large. First point within this category, discuss proposals for FDOT to study Ford Pinellas' performance metrics and efficiency specifically. Second point within that is discuss proposals to reduce the board sizes of Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority and Ford Pinellas. And then the last point being discuss further plans to consolidate Ford Pinellas with Pasco and Hillsborough requiring more BCC oversight specifically. And we can go through any of these on this page as well for additional comments. We do have representatives from Ford Pinellas here. Ford Pinellas was given instruction or directive to increase its board size for representation. That's not something that Ford Pinellas just did on their own. So now we're seeking to reduce the size. That wasn't something that Ford Pinellas requested. So I think there needs to be perhaps clarification on how that happened to increase that board size because that wasn't anything that, you know, Ford Pinellas just willy-nilly came up with. So, of course, the MPO, even before I got on Ford Pinellas, I believe the consolidation or the formation of an MPO is going to happen. That is something that the state legislature put in action, not something that Ford Pinellas and I believe they're moving forward in that way. I just think there should be more discussion about this. I'm not supporting placing any of these for discussion. Just a reminder, Commissioner, these came from you as body, individual commissioner. Yeah, I get it. I get it. I understand fully. I was here when we talked about it. I'm just reiterating that some of these things are not things that persons initiated. They were initiated from Tallahassee. And as a result, those organizations are following, with the exception of PSTA. I don't believe that expansion was something that came from. But anyway, that's just my thought. For the consolidation of fire, EMS, and independent fire districts, that's going to be very expensive if, you know, that happens. So my question will be, have we engaged with the fire chiefs from those fire districts to kind of chitter-chatter? So that was my thought because, you know, Pasco County and the city of Tampa have already gone to that shift, and that was a result of HB 929, I think it was. So I kind of put that on the radar of a couple of our legislative member, delegation members, because if something like that was to happen to find more efficient ways of delivering that service, it would require a local bill, which is not going to happen this year. But I just kind of put that on there, really somewhat as a placeholder, but to get people thinking about it. And I asked Senator DeSiglie if he could initiate an APAGA study on that as well. Yeah, just want to make sure, because I don't want them to think that we're trying to change and they not be a part of the conversation. So that's why I said, but yes, you are correct. And you did mention that in our last meeting, but I was just wondering if we had chatted with them to support the retail pet store enforcement implementation. But anyway, those are my thoughts, sir. Tristan? Sorry, I just wanted to follow up. That is a great point, too, and I didn't leave that disclaimer in there, too. Some of these provisions would require local bills and were past the deadline. I mean, with that next legislative delegation meeting coming up, too, they would have had to already discuss local bill concepts on the first end. So anything on here that would require a local bill, like changing the PSTA board size, for example, many of those provisions require local bills. So, I mean, this is part of probably a longer discussion as well for some of those elements, in case you were interested. The only thing I would support on that list would be the APAGA study for EMS. The other, the three, you know, I'm not opposed to the other ones on the bottom, the Metropolitan Planning Organization, but I think what we do is we wait. Since the deadline has already passed, then that's our focus, you know, then that's our focus, because it's all local bills, and you can't do anything about local bills because we missed the deadline. So that's something, and you weren't here yet, and, you know, so I think if that's something that we really want to do, that we make that a priority for next year. But the only, otherwise, the only one up there that I would support is the EMS, APAGA study. Dave? So the consolidation, I mean, I don't want it on our list this year. I mean, we just talked about the list, you know, putting it on that other, whatever Barry called that other list of items that are of interest to us, but not on our priority this year. I definitely would support the study just to see what we're talking about and see the political ramifications as well. And I don't mean for us necessarily, but I'm talking about for our 18, you know, fire districts that we have. And what that would indicate as we transition, maybe that's one of those things we transition to over time. But, again, I think a study is important there. And I'd absolutely support, number two, and you know I've been pretty strong on that retail pet store enforcement thing. And so I absolutely, absolutely need to get, we need to get on the same page with our state and hold these folks to the high standard that some of them use and some of them don't. So whatever we need to do there, I'm not sure what that really means. But anything that says pet store enforcement implementation or updates or improvements, I'm for. So I just want to make sure I understand what that is. As it relates to the MPO, I think they're all interconnected. The size of our MPO right now, we kind of wanted to make sure that more people in this county had a voice, more entities in this county, reminding everybody we have 24 cities in a large unincorporated area that we want to make accommodations for. So, and as it relates to the potential possibility or whatever word you want to use of consolidation, kind of came from the board itself a little bit, kind of came from the governor's office a little bit, kind of came from the state statute of state, the state of our House and Senate, that we should look about consolidating. For effectiveness of dollars to this area, more dollars for infrastructure improvements. I just talked about 54. They're talking about an overpass of 54 over 41 or 41 over. It's been talked about for 15 years. It is critical that that gets done. So consolidation, getting more funds here to do the work, whether it's in our county or not. We talked about State Road 60, I-275 interchange. We got that because we came together one year. They asked us to do that just to see what would happen. And more efficiently. So it's not like we're going to do this consolidation and get more money for the area to do infrastructure that our residents demand, but we do it less expensively administrative cost-wise. I'm not trying to build, we're not trying to build a fiefdom here. There's some large corporation of more government. It's really about bringing governments together to try to do it more effectively and efficiently for the residents of our community. And so they're kind of intertwined. If we were going to have that merged area, it made more sense that we had a larger board here. And learning how to work together with a larger board starts now. That may not happen, and this may then be able to constrict a little bit. It's just they're kind of tied together the way I see it. So I just, you know, for me, it's, you know, I think working on the getting support at the state level, whether it's qualitative or quantitative, for the merged effort, comma, so long as we're doing it more effectively and efficiently along the way, is important. And it should be part of our agenda to talk to our legislators up there. And the other stuff, reducing the size, is a local thing. It's not really with our legislators. We kind of did that. I don't think so. Maybe Witt's telling me. Is that, we made that decision here locally. It's not, but that change was approved by the governor. Okay. So, I mean, to me, they're kind of intertwined. And I think since I'm supporting that merger investigation, because we're not there yet, that I would like to see that on there. I'd like to see the other on there as well, since it does involve the governor's approval of that effort. I'd like, I don't want to, wait a minute, proposals to reduce the size. I don't want to talk about reducing the size at this point. So I'd take that one off. But I think, yeah. So, yes. I was going to say, to expand on that as well, so last year's Senate Bill 462 created the framework for FDOT to have some of those efficiency standards reported for all MPOs in general. So consolidation or otherwise, there is kind of a framework and implementation in place currently to address that side of it, too. Reduction of the board doesn't make sense if we're proposing the other one. At least we felt that way locally. We need more voices in the room here to tell our representatives on a consolidated board what their thoughts are. So we have a bigger board. I don't want to be reducing it if that other effort is going forward. So that's just my thought. Mr. Chair. Thank you, Chair. I actually, I support the three at the bottom. I specifically requested they be on there, on this list, to talk about. PSTA currently has 15 board members. Ford Penelis has 19. These large boards, there's a constant ebb and flow of new members coming in and members leaving, and I think that influences or decreases the influence of the board, and it empowers the administrators, the division. You know, it does. I also think it encourages absenteeism. There's so many members on the board. A lot of times we, I mean, we've had a lot of Ford Penelis meetings that we couldn't get a quorum, even though we have 19 members. So that's a problem. And it's difficult for the administrators to get a hold of all the members, you know, and talk to them about important issues. Like, Barry, can you imagine having 19? I had it before. 19? I had 23. Well, 19 commissioners here. So I just, I would like to see those boards pared down to seven. Seven what? You know, four commissioners, two mayors, and a citizen, but. For what? Seven for what? Seven total board members. That's what the whole idea is. What board? I'm sorry. PSTA and Ford Penelis. I'd like to see these boards shrink. There's just too many cooks in the kitchen, and I just think it's too much. And so I don't think it's a problem. So that's that. And then on the MPO, I'm glad Commissioner Eggers is all about it. I'm still on the fence on the merger myself. So I think we should look at the efficiency of Ford Penelis and whether or not we want to merge. You know, I've spent a lot of time building homes in Pasco County and Hillsboro, and I can tell you, I know what caused the problems on 54 is tens of thousands of homes. And there's going to be tens of thousands more. And Hillsboro and Pasco County, they need hundreds of millions of dollars to build their arteries east where the open land is, and there's big money afoot. And there's, you know, Lenar and MI and there's, you know, D.R. Horton. And they are going to spend a lot of money to get people in position to be on any agency we set up for funding for roads because they want those roads. They want that funding to build new roads to get to these pastures that they have in the eastern Pasco and Hillsboro counties because they need them to sell tens of thousands of homes. And I'm very leery of those, and don't think that they won't try to influence who's coming from Pinellas County to represent Pinellas County. And I just think we're setting ourselves up to see a lot of funds that could be coming to Pinellas County go out to build new interchanges on I-75 to feed eastern expansion. So, that's why I wanted to have these three things on this agenda. So, thank you for that. Thank you, Chair. Obviously, I support the last three MPO. I mean, I support the discussion for all of them, really. I mean, just to kind of see, you know, where it's at. Maybe timing is off on some of them, but at least I support any time there's more discussion, more daylight, more sunshine, you know, I think it's better for everything. And in terms of, you know, the MPO, I mean, the board could be a minimum of five seats, according to state statute. So, to say, oh, the state, you know, made us increase the size, while the state also says it can be. I did not say that the state made us increase. We decided here locally. Well, I apologize. I was the one that said it. Whoever said it. I'm sorry. So, it was said that, so just to, you know, be clear that the state allows the MPO board to be five seats. So, I just wanted to clarify that point. Vice Chair and Commissioner Flowers, thank you. And so, I don't think we can really talk about an MPO merger of the effective or efficiency of it without first looking at the effective and efficiency of, you know, how we do land planning. And so, you know, Commissioner Shearer has brought up several times of, you know, it starts, you know, at one MPO, Fort Pinellas, then comes back here, then goes back to them, and then comes back to us. So, I mean, I think we really can't talk about efficiency and effectiveness without first addressing the effective and efficiency of how our land plan process works. I mean, created by, you know, given to us by this, given by the state, taketh away by the state. So, the state did it, you know, a decade ago. And so, I think it's worth looking at getting our land planning back here at the commission level. And that's why, you know, would support that. So, thank you. So, the two parts of the MPO include the land planning piece, as you described, and it's that countywide plan piece, not necessarily the other pieces. But, and that might make sense to bring back. I don't know about that discussion. That's for another time. We do have a millage that's associated with that right now to provide that service. And when we talk about consolidations of the MPOs, it's a little different animal than the land planning side. So, I just want to make sure that we're clear. This is about getting federal and state funding for this area. And when this area speaks with one voice, it is powerful. And whether it's motivation to build homes or it's motivation to have for evacuation or for us and our residents to travel from here to 75, however they do it, whatever that effort is in place, the idea would be to have more funding come here. So, if we're getting $100 million a year here, and I just made that number up, it would not make sense if together we're going to get $100 million a year here. I mean, the idea is that we capture more dollars. This is an incredibly powerful region. And if you listen to the University of South Florida make that investigation or research into the power of this area, it is amazing. And if you can get to their annual review, sometimes they get into that a little bit. If the politicians get out of the way and let this region take a life of its own, companies don't care. You know, they don't care about the specific county lines. And neither do the universities. We do. The residents who live here probably do to some extent. So, we just have to make this area as powerful as it can be. And getting more money here for infrastructure is a big deal. That money that was set aside for 275 and State Road 60 interchange, now that it's happened, it's like, oh, it just happened. No, it didn't just happen. We came together as a region, and we were told that year, pick one, one project that you really want that's most important in the region. And by doing that, that's the power of this region. We got it. The money didn't go to the south end of the state. And that's a big project. And, I mean, aside from being construction weary that we're all going through with all these improvements all over the place, it was important. And we wouldn't have gotten it had we not come together. That was kind of the impetus, at least somewhat, from the state, both levels of government, and us, to look into this item. And I don't think anybody's decided. I haven't decided yet. So, I think if you want to take the word reduce under that second one, discuss proposals about board size, about board sizes, then I'm fine. Because it may go one way or the other, depending on what we get. Instead of take the word reduce out, then we have that open discussion about the board size. I'm fine with that. But does that, Commissioner, to your point, though, these are legislative items we want to take to our state legislature. So, the question is, what type of guidance do you want to give staff in terms of what we're going to go to our legislators and to the governor and ask for, not what discussions you want to have. And it's too late to do any of this stuff this year, anyways. That's the point. That's a great point. Right. Unless there's going to be a statewide bill that talks about MPOs. Yeah. Right. And that's happened before. So, if there is a statewide bill that talks about MPOs, then we bring this forward. But to get a local bill, it's too late. So, it's not that I don't think they're good ideas. I think they're worthy of exploring. But, you know, that's the only reason why I said I think it's because we lost the deadline. Right. But if an MPO bill were to come up in the legislature, there's no reason why we can't give input or feedback on whatever it is that we think we want for MPOs. And I do remember when we added people because the cities felt they had no voice. The cities felt that the county and the two big cities were making all these decisions, and they had absolutely no voice when it came to planning or transit or anything else. And so, that's really why – and then we combined the planning council with the MPO to save money. I believe that was done to save money. But, again, we had a planning council where city members were on it, and then they got upset when we combined it because they were like, well, you're taking my voice away. I won't be able to have input. And so, the MPO didn't need that many people. It was the planning council that the cities wanted all that – they wanted to have a voice in the planning council. And so, I remember we wrestled for a long time on how the cities would be represented, how they rotate, and, you know, is it the best thing for the county? Is it the best thing to do today? I don't know. We've done it as a pilot to see if it's good. And, you know, I'm okay with reducing it, but you're going to hear from the cities because then you're taking their voice out of the whole process. And they don't have an opportunity to have a voice, and decisions are made about everything around them, and they have no voice if we do that. And so, that's what you're going to hear is the cities get back up and get upset about it. And I know this was a little over 10 years ago because I was the mayor at the time, and, you know, some little cities just don't have their voices taken away. Now, a great example where South Pasadena and St. Pete Beach didn't want anything to do with Sunrunner, and they had representation on PSDA, and it was just completely ignored. But they were able to have their voice. They were able to say something. They were able to have their voice heard. It went nowhere, but they were able to have their voice heard. So, that's what their argument was. And, you know, they don't always prevail, but at least they have somebody representing them to say something. So, anyways, that's... But to your point, Commissioner, maybe what we ought to do is just say discuss, continue to seek support for the discussions and planning of this. Because I do think if the states change their position from what we've... That, you know, oh, no, that's not the thing we're interested in, then we want them to know that we're interested in continuing to look at it and making sure to check the box. They are, too. I mean, I just think that's important. Maybe not the specifics of the three things, but just, I mean, I keep assuming that the governor pushing it and the legislator pushing it is still in play. And they may say, oh, well, we're glad to see that because, you know, we feel strongly about it, and we want to get behind it with money if the studies prove out. I mean, I don't want to just... I think that might be a good one to consolidate and just ask for, you know, we find that a priority to investigate. The future consolidation and or board sizes, that's it. Period. Renee? Just real quick. I was going to say exactly what Commissioner Peters stated about representation, because I don't think we should be making decisions for those communities. I think they should have a voice at the table. But also remember that for some of those communities who may not have a robust planning department, like some of the other municipalities, well, Pinellas is the planning department that's utilized for that, and they receive, you know, they apply for grants and other funding sources in order to provide those services and partner with those communities to make it happen. And so, you know, now who's going to do that? They'll be looking at the county. Someone's already... We have a small community already talking with me about, you think the county can take this over, where we're kind of undated enough. So, and, you know, when you're asking... For me, when you're asking for something to be done, you should also have a potential outline behind it. So you're not just saying, I want to reduce the board sizes. I want to reduce the board sizes to this, and this is the rationale behind it, and this is who will serve, rather than just kind of like a general. So I'm game for any conversation and discussion. You know, I'm not going to continue to reiterate where I fall on these. But, you know, when you're asking for something, I think you should have a plan behind it. And I also think that if... So I apologize for me misspeaking when I said it was Tallahassee that told Fort Pinellas to expand its board. Fort Pinellas made that suggestion, went up, and the governor approved it. So apparently he saw or agreed with the rationale behind that. And I'm assuming it is because he also supports the consolidation in forming that NPO that would speak for the region rather than a smaller one. So anyway, thank you. Yeah, the expanded board was a result of the census, which, you know, done every 10 years, which requires you to at least look. It doesn't require you to reapportion the board, but Fort Pinellas decided to make sure everybody had a voice that wanted a voice, too. We had a lot of discussion about that. It's a very, very lengthy discussion about that. And that was the conclusion that we gained. There were a lot of different proposals that were floated about what that board membership would look like. But we felt it. This is the one we landed on, and we just felt it was important to make sure that everybody that wanted a voice had a voice. And the concerns about that I've most often heard anyways about a consolidated NPO is we're going to lose our voice. And, you know, so this was where we landed to make sure that everybody, at least in Pinellas County, had a voice. And, you know, those are going to be really important in the discussions going forward of, you know, is there going to be a merged NPO? What does it look like? And how do we ensure that everybody has a voice? So this was just, I think, an important step that we took locally to just make sure that we had that. Thank you. Just two quick questions, Tristan or maybe Anita. When's the deadline for local bills? It was, yeah, for the first delegation meeting, which was on September 24th, right? I think it was on September 24th. Nobody can. No local bills. So the only local bill that's in play right now is DeSiglie's local bill concept. And I don't know if they're going to produce a bill, but it's to have all municipal elections during regular election cycles. Okay. That's the only one that's in play. Thank you. And then do we know how many other county commissions have their land planning taken away from them by a local act? I'm pretty sure, and we'll have to ask staff or, Jewel, you might know the history. I believe we merged it at the time because it was duplicative effort, and that's why it was decided. Am I right, Jewel? If we're talking about the Pinellas Planning Council, which Forward Pinellas is two agencies. It's the Pinellas Planning Council and the MPO. So it marries up land planning with transportation planning. And that was the goal back in, I think it was around 2014 maybe, that we brought those two groups together. So the Pinellas Planning Council has been in existence since the 1970s. My understanding is that it was originally formed because of some of the conflicts that were starting to happen between our cities located within the county as they grew. Things like, you know, one city would put their, you know, offensive facility on the border of the other city and things like that. So it does not usurp local planning. It adds a layer in between, just like how once upon a time there used to be multiple layers with regional, like the regional planning map from the RPCs and states. It's morphed over the years into something different. And at this point in time, there's not nearly as many land use cases before the PPC as there once was. But it is something that, you know, has been around for quite a long time and has been useful as our cities have grown and their boundaries have come to butt against one another. So, you know, certainly something up for discussion, but I will say just from a historical perspective, when the issue of the Pinellas Planning Council has come up in the past, the county commission at the time, of course, different members, have always wanted to maintain that authority because it is a countywide power that Pinellas County has and is sanctioned in the Pinellas County Charter. So I guess I was mostly like referring to, you know, local bill, House Bill 869 that was done in 2012. So I guess that was kind of my, that's, was my understanding was when that was really kind of given to the MPO, that layer was done by, I mean. 2012, I was, I was close. I said 2014, but that is it. The Pinellas Planning Council has been around for a good long time. Right. Um, the MPO doesn't have land use planning authority, but the same members sit on both boards. So it really just, the thought was, is to bring together the transportation planners with the land use planners, which in a county like Pinellas makes absolute sense. But the, um, the countywide plan has been in existence for many, many decades. Yeah. So I guess I would just, so do we know Tristan or is there any other counties that really have that or? Broward County has had something similar for quite a while. And I believe Volusia County does. Um, you'll find it in some of the more urban counties that, that developed, you know, roughly wrong kind of the time, time frame that Pinellas County did. Because I roughly remember it being two or three, so. Okay. Marty. Thank you. All right. So I guess we have to give some direction here of whether we're in, in, in support of further studying this or. So if we can, like the first item, if we can change the wording to an APAGA study. Right. Yeah. Okay. Um, you can leave if you want that, and then you need to tell us what you want to do with the last one. Let me go back to the last slide, too, since there were items on there as well. Yeah. Okay. Mike. Mike. It's usually not me that does it. Uh, I think on the first three, they need to know about them. So you had said some, some other kind of designation, um, because, because. We could put the first two into a monitor kind of category. Um, the last one we have on our, on our, uh, guiding principles. And, you know, and my concern about run, I mean, we can't run, well, you can, but I, it wouldn't go anywhere, which is a, just a, uh, um, the indexing of the gas tax. If you ran it as a standalone, it's not going to pass, especially this year. Right. Um, but, and we've always tied it to, if you open up a transportation bill with EVs, that's when you would do it. Well, we don't have to run it, but if, if the opportunity presents itself, it's already in our guiding principles, we could then jump on it based upon that guidance. Right. Yeah. I think all of these are just in monitor stage. If there's an opportunity, we jump on them if there isn't. Okay. Yeah. And we can always bring, if, if there's things, obviously the issue is timing, what, when things happen in Tallahassee. So we can, we'll work through you. We'll, we'll have these can, and if something comes up, we'll try to get guidance from you as these things kind of advance. I guess the only thing I'd say, if we have, I agree, do we want to put these on that other list that we were talking about? If, as long as we have four or five commissioners who, who agree with them, I think we should do that. Okay. And I think that's important. If you do, if you want to add the, I think the third item is handled, my personal opinion. It's up to you. Um, if you want to put all three of them on a monitor list, that's fine. However you want to do that. Yeah. I think the third one's, I think the third one's on our guiding principle. I don't know that we need to duplicate. You mean on that other list? Yeah. Okay. Then put the first two on the other. I can go back real quick. If we, if we have, I guess we have to have consensus, right, for that? Yeah, that's what we're trying to get us, some guidance here. Okay. So that one loft is the last bullet point here. Okay. So we've already got it there. Capturing EVs as well. Okay. Yeah. Go back forward, too. And how many items are on that list? Good question. I don't, I'll count them up real quick. You don't want it so, and it's voluminous that it loses impact. So, I mean. And I don't know if I call them guiding principles. I think they're priorities. I mean, there's nine, there's 10 of them. I think that 10's probably, you get too many and loses. Correct. Loses impact. So those first two we're going to put on that additional list of monitoring, a monitoring list. And the third one we're going to take off because it's already in the first part. Can you look at those other, that other page, please? And the first one's going to be in a PAGA study or some similar study. And everybody feels good about that around here? I mean, I guess, right? Yeah. I think it's, we've got to, we've got to start thinking in that direction, I think. Okay. Well, then that's. So that's guidance on that one. Excited for retail. Right. I'm not going to support that. Yeah. I definitely am. So we need to make sure we have at least more that support it. I've got lots of reasons why I don't want to support it. And I don't know if I want to bring it out right now. But. Well, I'm not saying it has to be, it can be on that other list. Yeah. That's fine. I, you know, no, I don't, I'm not there. Statewide standards, I think, would probably be good. I feel like we play, we're playing whack-a-mole. None of this makes any difference because it's all local. Is that what you're saying? We missed the deadline. No, retail, they're asking for state, he's asking for state law. Oh. Yeah. These are all state. And that one came up a few times. Like I was mentioning, I think over the last five years, there have been different iterations and they haven't moved, right? So in terms of having something that potentially has legs at a statewide level, may not be the right time for it, just historically from the last few legislative sessions. You know, I can tell you, if we push on retail, and I'm surprised this has not happened, because they're very big at preempting. And I am shocked, especially when I was there, when the retail, pet retail stuff was going on, that they did not preempt local government from taking a stand at all. So on retail sales. So, you know, you open that up and then there's a good chance they preempt us and say, you can have all the retail pet stores you want. And it would not surprise me that they would do that. Retail pet stores aren't going to want that. No. We only sell about 1,400 pets in this whole county through those retail stores. No, I get that. But once you ask to put a bill out, you risk opening up the whole thing, right? And I think, you know, we just shut down a store. So clearly, we have the means that we need to shut down a store if they're bad players, if they're bad actors. They should have been shut down sooner. They weren't. But we had everything we need in place as far as our policies to shut a store down. So why do we have to go and ask for the state? And a lot of times when the state does stuff, we don't like what they do. You know, we don't. A lot of times we don't. So, you know, I don't know that I want the state dictating to us on what our policy should be. And then you always risk something else. So I definitely am not. And like I said, I was there when retail stuff was being discussed when I was in the legislature. And it wasn't pleasant. And it was – so I understand your feelings on it, Dave. I really do. But it's just not something I support. And maybe it's the wording of it that causes, you know, angst. All I want is to make sure that the state is continuing to look at those things. And they have been. There's been more action at the state level, also on the legislative side as far as courts are concerned. So things are happening. So maybe it's discussing furthering the protection of animal rights in the state. I don't know. Something that's more general. That I think – that I get, okay? Because, like, the USDA doesn't do a great job. There's a lot of things that aren't our control. But that is taking away our control. Okay. So let's change it to make it more about furthering discussion about protecting animal rights in our state. Animal rights? Or is it – can you take out the retail pet store? I take out retail pet store. Yeah, maybe animal welfare. Yeah, animal welfare. There you go. Thank you. So support animal welfare policy? Yeah. Yeah. Well, or maybe state implementation or state – State guidelines regarding animal welfare and protection. I don't know if it's guidelines. See, that's when you get into them dictating what we can do. But, you know, are they doing the job that they're supposed to be doing, right? Because I don't know that – That's – okay. We need that support. Right? Because the other is the federal, right? Yeah. The federal isn't really doing the job that they need to do. Well, we've got to bring this back to you. When are we bringing this to a vote? Huh? 21st. Next week. Next week. Why don't we send out some draft language? Okay. And we'll – and we can – and so you'll be voting on this on Tuesday. So we'll get you some modified language, and then you can decide on Tuesday what you want. Because this is – we need your guidance on this because this is what we're going to ask our legislators. Yeah, and we should all be in consensus on it because we don't want – some of us saying this is what we want, and then others going later individually and saying, no, no, no, kill that. So I just don't want them dictating and taking away our authority to make our own policies. That's fine. As long as what we talked about in the general terms, without the specific guidelines, specific policies, but a general approach to animal welfare. Matt will work on some language. Matt will work on some language around this, and we'll send that out to you probably today or tomorrow. And that way, and then we can discuss it on Tuesday. All right. So now moving on to item number three. Didn't – Tristan, didn't you say there was already – that already exists? So, yeah, Senate Bill 462 last year created that framework for performance metrics, basically MPO to FDOT, right, kind of monitor that at – yeah. So that first one is captured under there. So I knew the talking point that kind of circulated was monitor for future consolidation of efficiency and board sizes. So I could reword it to say that to capture kind of all those provisions aside from – And I think that we really do need guidance here because I don't think that – I mean, I've heard just today differences of opinion amongst the board members, right, regarding the whole MPO concept. I mean, I'm okay with, you know – But item – the third item. Metropolitan Planning Arts Public Transit. Further consolidating board panels, Pascoe, requiring more BCC oversight. Oh, we're on the third of that one. Okay, I got it. Third section. Well, it's whatever you want. Well, I think we got rid of the word reduce in number two. So we're just going to discuss proposals regarding board sizes. I think we seem to be okay with that. I mean, so that we're having the discussion, not saying one way or the other. I mean, and then – Would that have to be a local bill, though? For PSTA, it would. Yeah. But not for forward panels. The governor would have to sign off on any changes for forward. Okay, so do we take PSTA out of it if it's not a local bill because we're already past our deadline on that? We need to give them specifically what we want them to do. We're trying. We're trying. First off, on that first bullet point, right, discuss proposals, FDOT to study, forward – that could be an OPGA study, right? That part should be captured under 462 from last year. Right. That's already – I don't even think we need that one because it's already captured in – Okay, so then we can get rid of that. Okay. So I think – that one, in my mind, can just go away. Okay. Number one. So how would we get a study then? Can you maybe send out an email or something of how we could go and use that? Just as you all are talking, I just wonder if there's a way to almost combine number two and three under MPO. I'm sorry. I talk quiet, as you all know. So to combine number two and three under MPO in a more general sense of just discussing plans to, you know, improve efficiencies or whatever the term is that you would like within Ford Penelis. And, you know, perhaps that includes a consolidated, but kind of just combining them generally to give you all some flexibility as that discussion continues. That's fine. But I would use the word effectiveness and efficiencies, both. It's not just – I mean, we don't want just efficiencies. I want it to be a better model and done more efficiently. So I think both of those words are important. But, yeah, I think general's good. All right. So you'll put together some language for us to – Try to modify that. I think we're going to have this discussion and get on Tuesday. But we can – we'll come up with some wording, and you look at it, and then as a board you can decide because ultimately you're going to vote. All right. Question. Quick. Quick. You said – I thought we were doing pretty good on time. All we have is the agenda. It just seems like we beat this. We probably haven't. Is there any way – I canceled lunch today. Can we just see if what we've talked about has created angst for Whit and see if he has any thoughts, just briefly? No. No, you don't want to do that. I'd rather not. I mean, we just – come on. Okay. I just want to make sure you're – I want to make sure we're being accurate in our comments. That's all. There you go. All right. Okay. I think that was it, right? The next slide's easy. Thank you. Thank you, Tristan and Anita. You guys did a good job. Thank you. That was his introduction to sausage making. Chris, did you have a final thought? Well, yes, Chair. I just would like to generally say that I kind of wish we had this discussion prior to the drop-dead date that I just discovered exists. And, you know, I didn't know the difference between the local bill and the state bill and when the timelines – and I'm sorry about that. But I would have made these suggestions – I saw it coming up, and I was like, I'm going to be ready for this meeting. Now half the stuff I want to talk about, I can't do or talk to. There's next year. There's next year. Anyway, but if we could put a – The session happens every year. A thumbtack on the calendar somewhere. Generally about the same time. Great point, though. Thank you. Yeah. And every time – Right. Every time you see it. All right. Thanks, Anita. Thanks, Tristan. All right. And, Whit, thank you for being here today. We appreciate it. All right. So now we're moving on to agenda briefing. Okay. On the agenda briefing, we have a Veterans Day proclamation, various reports all the way back through item 10. On to item 11, housing finance authority approving their operating fund and land assembly funds. This is modifications to their 2025 budget, and item 12 is their 25-26 operating budget, and the land assembly fund budget. Item 13 is ranking of firms with the seventh highest ranked firms for on-call professional services for post-storm recovery. So we took the lead and bid out services and allowed municipalities to be able to jump on those contracts, so they can also select from these various vendors. They won't enter into a contract with that vendor off of this bid, and so it'll be theirs. It'll be up to them to manage it and seek their own reimbursement. So we're just facilitating the process for all of them, and we invited the municipalities to settle in the selection process for these firms. Are the municipalities pretty satisfied with? Yeah, I think they've been very appreciative, you know, and we went to the Big C and sought their participation, and so I think they've been very, very happy that we helped, you know, kind of lead this process. Yes, Kevin? Yeah. Yeah. Item 14 is funding agreement with Catholic Charities. This is for the Pinellas Hope Emergency Shelter, continuation of that. Item 15, service area competition grant for U.S. Department of Health and Human Services for our Health Care for the Homeless Program, $1.9 million. Item 16 is a memorandum of understanding with the University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences. This is renewed every five years. The county pays. This is for our extension agents, one director and five extension agents. So this is a renewal of that. The county payment is 40% of the salary and fringe benefits. Excuse me, Chair. Yeah. This is a work. Can I? I said five. I'd like to ask some questions about this. Oh, yeah. Your agenda says six. It's actually five agents. Okay. Okay. Chris, you have a question? Yeah. I read the memorandum, and we're basically subsidizing the employment of six employees of the State of Florida, or the University of Florida, which has their own $4 billion budget. And, you know, they're supposed to disseminate knowledge and applicable technologies in agricultural, human, and natural resources, implement education programs. We don't have a lot of agricultural production in Pinellas County. And to work directly with local advisory committees, I'd like to know more about what we're paying $297,000 a year for, because I don't see it in the memorandum of understanding. I just see a bunch of – we're going to – These are extension agents, so it is a vote for you to consider. If you choose not to do that, you have that opportunity on Tuesday. What we can do is they can get you more information about what they do. Okay? They work with our local residents. If you want Florida-friendly landscaping, you can come out there. They can meet with you. They can help you with that. But I'll let them make their pitch in terms of what they do. I'll get that to you in advance, and we'll have Paul Cozzi there on Tuesday to be able to answer the question. Or we could actually have extension service staff themselves to talk about what they do. Well, that's what I was kind of hoping. I'd like to know. I mean, it's $1.5 million over the next five years. Yeah. I just got a text saying that this is based on federal law, so that would be a jewel question. It's required of the designated land-grant university in each state, so we'd have to look into that. Do you know about that? Oh, it is correct? Maybe, Joe, if you could speak to it. I'm unfamiliar with that. I know they help with YAC, so Chris Letvalo would like to keep them around because they do a lot with YAC, yeah, with the youth in government. That is correct in terms of how it comes down from the federal level to the state to the counties. We'd be the only county without one. But you do have discretion and control over how you supplement, how you utilize the services to perhaps do something that we currently do or to amend that. So as the administrator said, I think it would be interesting for you to hear from them, and I think it would be interesting for us to have this on our list of fall studies because Paul Cozzi and I have talked about this. We talk about it every year, actually. And we've reduced some positions. We used to spend more, and we've been trying to sort of curtail that and be very specific about their expectations. Let's reach out to JP and get JP in. Yeah, yeah. It would be good to have him come. JP's the head of that. Yep. I appreciate that. Is this a calendar year approval or fiscal year? Is this fiscal or calendar? Fiscal. Cool. Yeah. Yeah. And, again, I'm just, you know, saying this, and I think we're doing a – we've all submitted some things that are to you back in October that we want to maybe have some discussion about. These things come to us kind of like in some ways on the fly. Yes. Because it's just something that we've been doing. Let's do. And I hate to just, like, stop something without having that good discussion. I mean, it may warrant it being stopped, but I think we just have to be careful, again, how we're – Well, commissioners, you know, I never thought about this to be, you know, it's kind of a renewal, and you were saying we should be looking at this. Before Tuesday, we'll, one, answer better what they do. Two, also look to make sure there's a termination provision within there. Okay? So if – Yeah, there's a non-funding provision. Yeah. So – And my point being is if we do a study and you choose to do something different, well, then you still have that option by exercising that. Okay? And then we – we're going to come back to you and talk about fall studies. That list has gotten really, really large. And there's a lot of work to do. But we're going to have that discussion real soon. And not necessarily to, like, eliminate things, but also to prioritize them. What is it that you really – you know, what's your biggest priority to where we can jump on those? Okay. All right. Next item is First Amendment to an Agreement with Polydyne for Wastewater Polymers. That sounds exciting. It's – I was lucky to be able to pronounce it, but you spend $575,000 annually on it, so it's important. Next item, and we do have Jeff Roers and Brian Zumwalt if you have questions on this. This is the Agreement with Iron Brick Associates. This is our ERP cloud solution. So this is a licensing support for our workday that you got a presentation on from Ken Burke at, I think, last meeting. So this, obviously – Yeah, he was here a little while ago. Yeah, he was here. He had an 11 o'clock meeting. We went longer than he could wait. So they're here, and they can answer any questions. Obviously, this is a big contract. But it's consistent with what we discussed last time. This is replacing our ERP system. It is a monumental task that we're going into. There is a return, obviously, but it's also unsupported under our current model. Anybody have any questions while we have Brian and Jeff here? We're good. Okay. We're good. Next item is a resolution approving issuance of multifamily housing revenue bonds. This is for a project up in Tarpon Springs, a little over $24 million. I'm not anticipating any county attorney reports. I will have a county administrator's report. Item 22 is appointments to historic preservation by Commissioner Flowers. 23 is appointments to the Greenwood Community Redevelopment Area Citizens Advisory Committee by the board as a whole. 24 appointments to Parks and Conservation Resources Advisory Board by Commissioners Eggers, Lavala, Peters, and Scott. 25 is appointments to the Educational Facilities Authority. You received two applications, and then you've got the county commission new business. On to our public hearings. Item 27 is a request for future land use map from institutional to residential rural, 4.8 acres. This is over at Keystone and Woodfield Boulevard in Eastlake. So this actually is changed. Oh, yeah. This is changed. It's due to the development agreement expiring, and so it reverts to the previous designation, and the property owner agrees with the revision. Item 28 is a request for a zoning change from limited institutional wellhead protection to residential agriculture wellhead. Again, 4.78 acres, corner of Keystone and Woodfield. Again, this is the same thing. It's a design development agreement expiring, and the property owner agrees with the change. 29, a future land use map amendment, mixed-use corridor from commercial to commercial general, 0.6 acres in Lowellman. This will allow a variety of commercial uses in conjunction with a vehicle towing business. One person appeared in opposition. It was approved 5 to 1. One letter of opposition received. This is a companion. Item 30 is a companion to 29, and this is the zoning change from the Lowellman form-based code on that same property. Item 31 is Twin Cities. So this is a request for a future land use map amendment from residential, urban, and commercial to residential medium, 8.98 acres. The staff recommendation is a recommendation for denial based upon the intensity of the development. And 32 is a companion item to 31. That's it. All right. Any questions, thoughts, nothing? All right. Well, then, everybody have a great weekend, and we're adjourned. We'll see you all on Tuesday. Thank you.