Welcome to our August 20th workshop. We've got a few items, but more discussion than there are items for sure. So we'll go ahead and get started with our new campus update. We have e-bikes report and the budget discussion and then agenda briefing. So we'll start with the new campus update. Barry? Okay. Good morning, Commissioner. Go on. You guys can start heading on up. So I'm going to introduce our HOK team and specifically Jonathan Raid that's going to kick this off. You know, we had a conversation back, you know, several months ago. We got a lot of feedback from both you. Also took this to the appointing authorities and constitutional officers to get their feedback. And so they've tried to come up with some design ideas. And so what they're looking for is more feedback so we can narrow this down. As we kind of shape the outside envelope, then they can finalize the details on what goes inside and how those layouts occur. And that change is based upon the design that you select. So for today, they're going to go over some different ideas. If you want to get your feedback, and I'll share with you kind of the appointing authorities thoughts for your consideration as we continue to try to get to a final design. Sounds good. On the new campus. And before we get started, I saw one of the deputies letting you in. So I want to recognize the deputies now because if I don't, I'll end up forgetting. So Sergeant Campbell, Deputy Mike Winnick, and Deputy Jeff Atkinson are here this morning. Thank you for being here and for taking care of us, as always. The floor is yours. All right. I appreciate that. Great summation, Barry. Exactly as Barry mentioned, we are looking for some input on designs we're presenting today. We took the feedback that we got from you last time. Very much appreciated and have advanced those thoughts and ideas into some additional designs. So my name is Jonathan Ray, Senior Principal with HOK. With me, I have Christine Bishop-Johnson, our firm-wide leader in civic and justice. And then we've added to the team Peter Glasson. He is our Regional Design Principal, and he'll talk about the design in more detail. Sounds good. Well, welcome. Welcome to the team. Thank you. Thanks, Jonathan. And a pleasure to be here. Really excited to share some development on the architecture and the planning of the project. So just quickly, the agenda for us today, we're going to hit meeting objectives really quick, and then we're going to hop right into the design options, option one and two, and a set of sub-options that look at the architectural character. And then we'll wrap up by just having open discussion on what we've looked at today. So the objectives, we really want to focus on the architectural character, specifically the top of the building and how it all comes together, the materiality, its setting and the site. We're going to look at two options for the lobby and entry location in relation to the civic plaza and the courtyard. And we also have two co-joining landscape site approaches or site plans that go with those lobby layouts and the approach to the architecture. So we're hopping right into the design concepts here. As I mentioned, we have two lobby options. The first option, option one, is a centered lobby that's on the north side of the court's wing of the building. It's centered on the main civic courtyard. And option two is on the eastern side of that courtyard, nestled between the admin wing and the court's wing of the project. We're going to look at a suite of sub-options for both of those planning configurations. Those go from 1A to 1D and 2A to 2D. And these really look at architectural refinement and character and detail of the buildings and how they kind of really come together, relate to the site, integrate into the campus, and have a level of detail and thoughtfulness in the architecture. As we look at these options, we often think about the setting and the scale of the building. It's a civic building. It needs to have the right posture. So this idea of civic scale and proportion is incredibly important to us. This idea of verticality and a portico and an entrance into the building is very important. There's also an idea of layered symmetry as we think about the positioning of the building and the top of the building. The idea of the entry and an axial entry and off-axis entrance is also an important part of the dialogue today as we think about the two planning options for the lobbies. As we get into the detail of the project, we're also talking about the character. So we want to understand its texture, scale, the idea of shadow and relief and detail is also very important, coupled with its materiality. So we want enduring, long-lasting materials. We're using precast, warm metals and wood, as well as local materials, maybe for some of the landscape elements that tie it all together and make it fit in with Pinellas. Okay, we're going to hop right into the option one configurations here. So the first option that we're looking at here, again, this is the center lobby configuration. We're standing in the civic plaza, the civic courtyard here, looking at the north side of the project. We've got strong vertical forms outside of the lobby here, round columns. And what we've really done since the last time you all have seen the project, we've looked at the kind of the ornament, the detail, the architecture, character, and style of the building, and really how that resolves itself over the colonnade and the cornice and at the top of the building. In this particular option, we've added additional vertical fluting on the top floors of the building to kind of accentuate the detail. We set back that cornice again to kind of give a little bit more definition to the top and really overall give it that next level of character and definition as it kind of sits in the site here. It's a strong figure. It has a rich detail to it. It's also warm, welcoming, and inviting as well. And the following options we build on this. So this is the stepped option for 1A. This is 1B, which we're calling the vertical crown. A lot of the same elements carry over into this. We've just accentuated the top of the building by adding a kind of metal panel crown around the top that would kind of wrap the typical penthouse area. We've also added that ornament to the top of the cornice over the colonnade. In this particular option, we have square columns as opposed to round. Those are fluted to, again, accentuate the sense of verticality and scale and magnitude of this important entry and lobby for the building. Moving to option 1C. Again, a lot of the same characteristics fold over into this option. We're adding a little bit more definition by stepping the top of the building and adding a sloped roof. So this is 1C. We've added a sloped roof to the top here. And again, a little bit more definition at the top of that sloped roof by another parapet and cornice. Okay. Option 1D. Again, these are centered lobby options. 1D is a slight deviation from the first three options. And what we've looked to do here really is lighten up the top of the building. We've added window wall or curtain wall to the top floor, which is the primary quartz floor of the project, to allow for a little bit more transparency. And we've also accentuated the horizontal nature of that by having overhangs on both the top cornice and the top of the lobby roof over the colonnade. And so that kind of bridges out into the site. It's a little bit more distinct and strong, creating a crown over that top floor of the building here. So this is 1D, and we're calling this the halo option. So zooming out and looking at the plan here, as I mentioned earlier, this is the center lobby configuration. So what you're seeing here is the typical kind of blocking diagram of the ground floor plan. You can see the position of the lobby, again, centered on the quartz wing of the building. It's an ample kind of space lobby. It kind of steps out into the Civic Plaza and Courtyard. It has space for screening and security. It has space for gathering and waiting as you enter the building and then direct connection to kind of the service desks on the first floor. And then directly adjacent to that, there's a secondary kind of lobby that gives you connection to the new commission space, as well as a connection to the vertical circulation core and elevators. Looking at that space in 3D here, you'll see that it's a triple-height space. Again, plenty of room for waiting and gathering if you're meeting a colleague here or you're waiting to kind of meet somebody and go into the spaces inside the building. Directly in the center of the view here is the screening area. So you'll come into the building through the doors. You'll enter a screening area. You'll queue up. And then you'll be screened into the building. Beyond that, there's a nice, strong, formal wall that kind of defines the space and an information desk that would be associated with that. And then directly behind that are the main service desks that a large majority of the public will be using on a day-to-day basis. Again, triple-height space, it's got the right amplitude and magnitude to it to really feel civic and really as a new front door to the community and to the campus and to the county. Looking at that in plan, we've also been refining the landscape and site plans. This particular option is a little bit more formal. We're trying to blend some formality with also the opportunity for casual use for day-to-day kind of county users and employees. And so what we've done here is we've made a big move and we've justified most of the public and outdoor space for the community on the east side of this courtyard. And that's really to maximize the direct connection from outside of the door to use that space. We have pavilions, shaded areas, natural landscapes. And then we've justified the drop-off to the west side of the site directly adjacent to the parking. That helps from a security standpoint. And it just maximizes the most usable space for the community and the county users. Okay. So that was option one, the grouping of option one sub-options. And I'm going to move into option two now. Like the previous option, we're going to go through four options here. And so the first one is, again, we're starting with a corner lobby here. So you can see that on the left side of the image. And it's kind of nestled in the corner there right between the court's wing of the building and the admin wing of the building. And this is the stepped option. So again, we're adding that kind of vertical fluting on the upper floors, a little bit more detail and articulation of the cornice of both the canopy roof over the colonnade and at the top of the building. On option two B, which we're calling vertical crown, again, we're adding that kind of next level of detail at the top of the building. So there's a vertical metal panel element that happens at the roof level to accentuate the top. And then for the canopy over the colonnade, we've made that out of metal panel, again, to just add a little bit of definition and kind of break up the materiality and add a little bit more richness over the lobby there. And again, in this option, we're showing square columns instead of round. And those are fluted vertically, again, to accentuate the verticality and the prominence of this lobby. Looking at option two C here, this is the slope roof configuration. So very similar to the option one version of this, what we've done is we've stepped back the upper cornice here. We've added a little bit more layering and definition. And then we've coupled that with a sloped roof configuration. And that would be a metal sloped roof. And it would match kind of the cornice line and the cornice material of the roof over the lobby. And lastly, option two D. So similar to, again, the option one configuration, what we've done is we've freed up the facade on the fourth floor of the building. We've made that curtain wall and window wall. We accentuated the horizontal of the roof at that level, while also still grounding the building in a solid precast material. So it does have both lightness and solidity in the option here. Looking at this in plan, again, a very highly efficient ground floor plan. In this case, we're taking that lobby. We're taking off a central access, but we're situating it between the two major programs, the administrative portion of the building and the court's portion of the building. And then that lobby is directly connected to the secondary lobby outside of the chamber space and directly adjacent to the vertical elevators that bring you up in the building. Stepping inside of that space here, and I'll just point out for a second, the view that we look at on the next slide is right here in this corner. So looking at that in three dimensions and understanding the space, you're beyond screening at this point. You're in kind of the corner of the lobby here. You're looking to that secondary space here directly in front of you or in front of the camera view is the connection to the elevators that bring you up vertically in the building. But again, we feel like this lobby steps out into the plaza in the courtyard. It'll give you ample connection to that outdoor space and great connectivity to all the programs across the whole project. For landscape on this option, very similar parti, but different aesthetic or kind of formal approach. So this is much more naturalistic and flowing in its approach, but again, we're trying to maximize the amount of usable space by justifying the outdoor space on the east side of the plaza here, natural landscapes, pavilions with shade, and then a more curvilinear drop-off configuration on the west side of the site, more closely associated with the parking garage and the drop-off configuration on that side. Okay, so we'll open it up for discussion. Hopefully that was clear. If you have any comments or questions, please let me know. I can hop back and forth on any slide. Yeah, well, I think we'll have some comments and questions for sure. Appreciate the presentation. Really well done. And I'm sure we'll each have different sets of criteria to consider and look at. Um, and we'll get to commissioners in just a second, you know, more modern versus less modern, standing the test of time versus not standing the test of time, um, cost, you know, the incremental costs for each of those options might be something that at least be considered at this point. Um, option one and two on the, it's interesting from the outside. It's one thing in the inside. It almost makes it feel different. So it kind of for me, but, uh, I will open it up for the commission first, uh, commissioner flowers. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Um, I appreciate you taking into account the comments that we provided, um, at our last meeting. Um, I really, can you go back to, I believe it was to see. I like that because it utilizes less glass. Glass is expensive. Um, my question is the, the glass, is it the kind where you can't see inside, but you can see outside. I'm only thinking about security reasons because the courthouse, you know, takes up this function as well as would that be us over here to the left where you can see a building like sideways. And when I say us, I mean, commission offices. Yes. It's on this side of the door. Okay. That's okay. So I, I just would want the glass to be that non-reflective where you can't see inside, but you could see outside only for safety reasons because then you could really see the movement of people, um, throughout the facility. But I, I like the slant, um, of that roof. I don't like the, the way you have that metal ribbon going across. Kind of looked like something just was plopped there. So I don't like that. Um, can you go to the one after this? Now I, I like that roof, but again, that's just additional glass, a lot of, um, glass, which increases the cost of the project. I think I love the landscaping that you have there. And I know what we talked about when it comes to parking so that we can have ingress and egress into, um, into the building from, as it relates to the judges that'll be going in and then where we will be going in versus where we will be parking. Um, for the columns, I would prefer square columns, round columns. Give me more of a, um, Roman Gothic kind of thing. Um, huh? Oh, well, they asked. Yeah. It gives me. We were just thinking about, we probably should send out around ballots with explanations because I love, I love your descriptions, but it's, we're going to get seven of those, but go ahead. I want to hear it though. We're taking notes. No, no, no, no, no. That's fine. So I prefer the square versus the round for all the way around, because if it were only the judicial building, then yeah, I would go with the round. Um, but I, I like the design. And again, thank you so much for listening to our comments and concerns and reflecting those here. So, um, did you like option one or two on the outside? Um, I like option two. Okay. In the corner. Yeah. I like option two. Um, I really liked the glass. I liked the building slope here because it's four floors. Um, but just worried about the increased costs when you have another level of glass. Um, so I would go with the slanted roof. Thank you for your comments. Great comments on the, um, on the glass and the transparency versus kind of opacity. That's something that we could study across all four options. Thank you. Barry, you had a comment? Just to add, I think, cause I think that we'll have the same questions from each commissioner. So, um, two things. First, the, the first two options are really cost neutral. They cost about the same. The, the, um, option, uh, one, one and two C is about $4 million more. And, uh, 2D is about $8 million more kind of to the point. Well, again, you're talking about. Very large, you're, you're talking a very large project. So, you know, it needs to stand 40 years, okay, 50 years, but, but I just wanted, so you have, so you have the understanding of the cost. That's kind of how that works. The other thing I was going to say is we had the same discussion and the same, you know, 10 people with 10 different thoughts at the appointing authorities meeting. They liked the grand entrance of the center, but they thought it was more practical to have it between the two buildings. So, and, and then they liked one or, or a, or D as kind of an overall from the appointing authorities, just for frame of reference for your discussion. Not that we care what they think. At that, at that point, I'm done. I said, I would share with you their thoughts, but I'm done. All right. So we'll go with the other commissioners. From a more modern versus less modern and standing the test of time, your comment on that real quick. Yeah. I think all of these are grounded in classical civic principles, right? You saw that kind of in the setup slide. So I think they can all stand the test of time. Okay. Um, they all have that kind of enduring scale, uh, their positioning on the site. They will all work from that perspective. Um, you know, I'm of the mind that you want to honor the past, but look to the future a little bit. And I think that's kind of up for you all to really think about which one of these balances that the most or, or, or kind of hits what you're looking for. Uh, but I think they all work really well. Um, I'm favorable to the D options, but you know, we have to understand there's cost constraints here too. So. Yeah. Uh, yeah. So I ran this by several different, uh, younger people, and that was the same thing. It was more about D than the rest of them. And I was like, of course I was at one or, or two more, more of the stand, not two, but I didn't like two too much, but more, you know, standard, but, uh, they're all kind of standing the test of time to your point. Um, maybe four or D is a little bit more, uh, maybe a little bit more flair modern. Yep. But you feel comfortable. Well, they all will stand the test of time. Yeah. And I, I think, um, the, a options are also very strong. There's a simplicity to them. Yeah. There's not too much over embellishment. Yeah. And so it's, it's maybe the bookends there that are, are kind of, to me, feel the strongest for my position, but again, that's just, no, I understand it's personal preference, but okay. Uh, Brian, did you, did you raise your hand? I didn't know if you raised your hand. Okay. Go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I really appreciate you bringing back some great options. I think any one of these options is, is far superior than the previous options that we were, that to me looked like something out of the hunger games. Um, so all of these are, all of these are way, way better. Um, I like the, that grand entrance of, of option one, but for just efficiency, option two just makes a lot more sense to me. And I, I'm right where you're at. It's either 2A or 2D, you know? I mean, the simplicity of 2A is just, it just does what it has to do. 2D is just very, it's just very classy to me. So that's, that's kind of where I'm at on them. But any one of these, I would take any one of these over what we had previously. So, uh, Commissioner Latt-Bowell. Which one, which one overall is the cheapest? Yeah. It's, it's, it's really 1A, 2A, 2B, um, or 1B and 2B. Yeah. My vote is for whichever one is the cheapest. I don't care how it looks. Well, at least he's, at least he's embracing his non-architectural taste. Commissioner Scheer, did you have? Yes. Thank you, Chair. Uh, first of all, wow. Great job. Uh, I really appreciate the work because this is vastly superior. The one, what we saw before, uh, a second. Um, I prefer, uh, the option one, the cost is good, but I, I think it's a cleaner look than the, the, uh, option two, which is, uh, I, you, you haven't presented an elevation for the other building and I'm worried about the conflict between, uh, the, uh, entryway and the second building and obscure that elevation. I think you could get a cleaner look on the second building and the elevation if we go with the central entrance, uh, for option one. And so I'm leaning to our option one, I haven't decided if I like one a or one C better, but either one of those would be great. I think so. That's kind of where I am. You're leaning for that, uh, the middle piece instead of the corner, right? The one in the corner, uh, for the second option or option two, if you put it in the corner, I don't know. I can't visualize what the other building would look like with that out there and we don't have an option to look at, but I think it'd be a cleaner elevation for that entire building. I'm sure they can provide us with that at some point. Yes. Okay. If we, if we come down to that kind of rustling between one and the corner or the middle, we will develop those extra. Yeah. Yeah. And I'm just assuming that we're going to eliminate the colonnade that was on the backside to facing the, uh, Olmerton road. So we won't have that expense, right? Yep. There will be some articulation there, so it kind of matches. It's a prominent facade, but it's not going to be a full colonnade. Right. I like the focus that it's on the interior where people come and so I like that. Anyway, I like option one. I really liked the one a one C is nice as well, but, uh, I don't care for the center, the option two. So that's where I am. Thank you. The center being the corner, the one in the corner. Yeah. I got you. Gotcha. Okay. I just want to make sure, uh, because option one, two and one, that's the, uh, location of the exterior piece and option one or two on the design styles. I want to make sure I'm clear. Yeah. Um, did you have anything, uh, commissioner Nowicki or commissioner Peters? Go ahead. Thank you, chair. Yes. Much, um, better, um, designs. You know, I think we're all really grateful and appreciative of that. Um, I mean, just over like the life cycle, I mean, one C kind of, or I guess one C and two C, I mean, obviously is a pitched roof, right? Um, I mean, is that metal on top? Yeah. It'd be a metal standing seam roof. And do any of the other roofs metal or? No. So, I mean, in terms of like a life cycle of like cost savings, I mean, you're gonna have to appraise a flat roof. I mean, on what, a 30 year, maybe, maybe you could get 30 years on a flat roof versus a metal roof. I mean, it would be, it'll last us forever, you know, in theory. Um, I mean, so is there any cost savings in terms of, you know, those costs? Yeah. I think that's something we could look at on, on that. We don't have that information at the moment. We know the initial kind of upfront cost difference, but not a life cycle. Yeah. I mean, I think that would be important. Like when we're making, you know, that determination if, you know, one C or two C cost $4 million more now, because maybe it's a metal roof, you know, versus, you know, a majority flat roof. But, you know, when we have to redo a whole flat roof in 30 years, it would be $40 million then. I mean, versus maybe you just have to replace a smaller part of a flat roof on one C or two C, mainly cost $10 million, you know, so I don't, you know, I think that's important for us to consider, for me to consider at least, um, before making a decision, um, you know, I could go either way with the center or, uh, to the side entrance, um, the center is much more prominent and I think would, you know, stand the test of time, uh, a little bit better. That would be what I would be more leaning towards or options one. And then does this, is this the actual, and the designs, is this actual, the mill working that, you know, we're, we've finalized or like, you know, um, way signage. I mean, I haven't seen any of that. So, I mean, are we not at the mill working and waste signage? Not yet. We wanted to get through this conversation and then we're really excited to layer in those other things. Okay. Yeah. I'm definitely looking forward, you know, cause I think that will definitely make or break, uh, you know, what's going to be, uh, the real details is really going to drive this home. But, uh, yeah, I mean, I would just like to see, I don't know if we can get that information of the life cycle costs on these. Yeah. And the types of materials, a lot of times they use that rubber membrane on the top and they have a long life cycle and they're easy to maintain, but it'd be nice to know that, that, that breakout. Yeah. To know what, what it looks like. Thank you. Um, thank you, commissioner. Commissioner Peters. So, um, I like the center entryway because when you look at like your plan diagram on the center entryway, there's plenty of room in that lobby area that there's not really a bottleneck. But when you look at the plan for the corner entryway, to me, it just feels like they're all going through that security. And then you've got a bottleneck right, like right there to me, I see a bottleneck there and I don't see room for expansion. And on the times that we have a whole lot of people that attend, they're all going to bottleneck outside that chamber anyways. And so to me, I think having that center entryway allows for a whole lot more space, less bottlenecking, less crammed right and what, and, and better flow through because if people are, uh, congregating in and around the chamber, then you don't have good flow. So to me, the corner to me just doesn't work because of potential bottlenecks and poor flow. So the, the center to me makes more sense on, you know, when the rubber hits the road, how does the flow work? How does the bottleneck work? I mean, it's a pretty big lobby. Maybe, maybe it's not a big deal, but, um, you have everything going right next to that chamber. Everybody coming in is right next to the chamber and we have days that that chamber is full and overflowing and I just think that that sometimes isn't going to work. So, um, and I like, I do like the center entrance better. I know it makes it easier for us to get to the chamber and everybody else when it's in the corner, but I think the center entryway facilitates less chance of bottlenecks. So, uh, as far as, uh, ABC, so I like the one, uh, cause of the center entrance and I'm kind of with Vince on the one and see, I like the sloped roof. Um, I know flat roofs don't always leak, but I feel like they leak more often than non sloped roofs. And, uh, and that's really important to me. So, um, I don't mind if it's all glass or not. I think the halo is gorgeous, but I would be fine with one a or one C. Um, that's like, and that C is going to have a flat roof as well. I'm, I'm, I'm looking, you're going to have the slope, but you're also going to have a flat roof. Yep. And one of the things that I think we, you know, talked about in the development of the C option is, is that actually an enclosed roof? Is it more ornament? Would it also additionally have a flat roof underneath it? Um, I think in the costing we're, we're still working through that. I get nervous when you have different types of roofs connecting and those little connection spots become problems, but you know, um, what the heck do I know? Uh, are we getting any input? Yeah. Commissioner's I, what I was asking, um, Robert was you've got on one C what, what type of a real structure is that? Um, because it may be, he was saying it may be a flat roof anyway, and you've got a decorative, right. Um, you know, so I was asking for clarification because it's pertinent to your question. Um, so that was what I was asking Robert about in the background. Robert Shaw with, uh, working with CBRE as a consultant. Good morning. So we haven't obviously designed that sloped roof, but what I anticipate it would be a flat roof underneath with a rain screen that creates that sloped roof. Um, we still have to have a penthouse up there with mechanical equipment. So there'll be a, there'll be a box underneath that, but I don't think we're getting away from a flat roof scenario on any of those options. I don't think we're going to have a full sloped roof. Obviously it still has to be designed, but more decorative than it is. Yep. They call them rain screens. Okay. All right. I mean, the nice part about it is it does provide some sun protection against the flat roof underneath, so it does help increase the life of your roof, but I don't think we're getting away from flat roofs. Um, were you finished? Did you have a comment? Yeah. Thank you, chair. Um, just, um, so, uh, in terms of that for like the rain screen, I mean, would it catch, catch the water and then run off, um, or we're just not there yet in terms of, um, and then, I mean, I guess, and then he brought up another thing like the mechanicals with all of these are flat, flat roofs for putting the mechanicals on top. I mean, are they all going to be exposed? So like you drive up to the building, you see big, you know, 50 ton AC unit, you know, they'll be inset. And I think the mechanical footprint is minimal on this particular wing of the building. There'll still be some equipment up there. Um, so. Yeah. Cause I would hate, you know, to be driving, you know, up the road and then you see like an AC unit on top, uh, you know, as you're pulling into the building. We're definitely going to avoid that. Oh, okay. No, no, it's a good question, but I'm looking at an architect with a design up there. It doesn't show those ugly mechanical stuff. So I'm assuming you've taken care of that. Yes. All right. They won't show the mechanical. I don't assume he gets us in trouble sometimes. So yeah, I appreciate that, uh, that comment. And I'll just add in a couple of thoughts. Um, so just a question on the outside of either option one or two, um, do we have coverage out there for people? If we have overflow there is from the elements. Yes. So we actually have a lower canopy that connects from the parking garage, uh, to the main lobbies. And then outside of the lobby, the actual frontage, there's an overhang. And I think that's at least 15 feet, 10 feet deep. So you have plenty of coverage in the event of a storm or you're waiting to queue if there's a ton of people coming in on a particular day. There is space. And there's not that much difference in the distance from the parking to either one, maybe a little further in the corner, but yeah, the two options are slightly further, um, but they're all, they're, they're both fully covered from parking to front. And so since I'm kind of an engineer by, by not by trade, but just by upbringing, I always look for, you know, so I, I look at the outside landscaping, but I kind of like that. The second design. Yeah. Is that only going to be with the corner one? That can work with both options. Okay. So that's not in stone either way. Yeah. Okay. All right. I didn't hear many comments on that. Um, but I kind of liked the little different, different look to it. Yeah. I'm, I'm, I kind of lean towards one, uh, on the architectural designs, kind of pretty simple, pretty straightforward, less costly. Um, I was being pulled in directions for D the halo. And then I asked somebody the question about costs and I, seven or $8 million, um, this could be an expensive project. I know the percentage of the total cost isn't that much, but as I look to like value engineer, um, I would, I would probably get rid of that right away. So I don't want to go down that path. And even though I like it and I think it's probably the most modern one and you know, um, but since I didn't hear the young people screaming and you know, the commission here is screaming for number four, I'm, I feel like we've, you know, covered the, the young vote. Every dollar counts. So I want to make sure we're making the right. Yeah. No, I kind of liked, I kind of liked the, you know, as looking outside, I liked that middle, it looks better to me, but when you get inside, I just, the inside seems more practical on, on two. Um, so I don't have a good enough feel for the, the flow inside. And, and maybe we could just have a brief look at the two in exterior. Yeah. Yeah. And then just kind of get a sense of that. Cause I, I heard from Barry, from the, the people that, you know, we actually do care what they think I was teasing earlier. Um, they kind of lean towards that too, from a practical standpoint. Uh, not all of them, I'm sure, but that was kind of the messaging. Okay. Yeah. Okay. All right. All right. So maybe you could talk to that flow a little bit, things that commissioner Peters brought up. I thought was a good, yeah. And I think that's right. The, the one options have a little bit better civic postures. I would describe it with the better, what civic posture, the way they position in the site there. It's more clear, right? Okay. Okay. Uh, on the inside, what I would say between both options, they are both highly functional and they both work really well. I think there's just a director connection, a more direct connection in this option between the main lobby and the service deck desks and the public counters, right? So you have plenty of connection directly off that lobby to those spaces. Uh, and then there is a little bit of a journey or a path, uh, before you get the, to the administrative part of the project is what I would say. And that's probably why people are thinking this option might feel slightly maybe disconnected, right? Um, but that space actually can be used, you know, because it's going to help filter people into the rest of the project, give space to Curing. Where, uh, which side of the buildings, uh, the court side or the administrative side is hurting for design space. And do either of these options affect the space that's available for, like, are we taking more space away from the courts than we should by option one? And so we should move to option two or, you know, that's one last question. Functionally, we can make either option one or option two work. Um, neither side is hurting for space except for potentially on the court's, uh, second floor that we are, are, are looking to resolve, um, pushing some things, pulling some things in different directions to other floors. Uh, we've got all stakeholders placed within this and we can make either side work to some of the other comments that were coming up between the center entry and the corner entry and the center entry you're filtering through. Peter mentioned, you kind of have alternate pathways. The majority of the people coming to the building, um, on a daily basis outside of things for meetings such as this will be for those surface counters. And, and having that kind of front and center, get them in through the security queuing and get them out. This is very convenient option. We can make that just, uh, the wayfinding just as clear with that corner entry for, uh, the bottleneck that was suggested at the corner. What we have that big yellow zone. Could you switch to that real quick? I, I'm not sure we can generate the side by side while we're, while we're live here, but, um, too good of a question and commissioner, before she gets going, what you'll see in both of these, which is a significant upgrade from original as we've increased the space for the circulation. So it's much more open, um, to address the concerns commissioner Peter's rate. What's, what's the width of that hall? What's the width of that area that's coming through there? Are we talking 20, 30, 40 feet, you know, where they come around after they've checked through where that arrow. So, yeah, I think we're at, in the 20 to 25 feet for this option for that range. Uh, right now we also are showing in this diagram and expanded chamber space. So a room that is accounting for kind of a worst case scenario when you have, um, a very high number of, of public, uh, coming into view. Uh, so we have in that yellow block that says commission chamber different from here, you have a sound lock, so you're filtering people through, you also have additional pre-function area in that brighter yellow space off of the lobby. So that'll have additional seating and be there for overflow. Um, so there's other spaces that are associated with those lighter blocks that will help with the bottlenecks, um, and provide additional seating and overflow on large volume days. So those arrows that are pointing down me, people can spill right into the court side. And that, that, that little area over there is about between these two posts. So that's, that's, it's actually probably larger than that. So is there a cost difference between the two? Cause now you're saying you got more sound, you got more seating, you got more, you got more, more, more, more. And on the other side, I just, it doesn't sound like you need all the more, more, more. So is there a big cost difference between the two? Between option one and option two? Yeah. He was saying option two would be slightly less expensive because of the front entry point. You're only, um, having two sides of a front entry where that lobby pops out on option two versus you have three faces of glazing popping out on option one. From a programmatic function, option one and option two, they're going to be level set from a square footage requirement. There's no additional programmatic space, um, that's happening between option one and option two. And the connection between the, the, the, this, that option two and the, and the administrative building, no issues on connection and rate, you know, leaks and all that kind of stuff. Yeah. There you go. Oh, thanks, Matt. Oh, so commissioner a wiki asks and they deliver. See? All right. So, so you were just talking more, more room for seating in option two. No, there's, there's additional room in the chamber for seating and options one and option two. So, so commissioners just to give you some scale. Um, I was actually meeting with them earlier this morning and you're talking a chamber that can hold 200 people, um, significantly more than what we have today. Right. And so we'll be able to have our work session and then our formal up on the dais meetings, right in that same room. We're also looking at the location of training rooms and jury assembly that can, that could also have a connection for that one time where we have a tides meeting or something where you have a lot more people that's directly connected to the commission chamber for overflow. Um, so they're looking at different options around how do they, how do they program the space? I was thinking more on the other side where, where the, you showed pictures of people kind of sitting in the lobby area. No, no difference. Doesn't look like that much difference. Not significant difference. And, and what we'll be looking at as we make a decision on moving forward on option one and option two is right sizing the space between the two buildings. If option one is selected, you have more of that outside seating area that happens. And then on option two, you have more of that seating area that's happening out front of the commission chambers. So right sizing how that approach works. Okay. So I have a question. Yeah. So that's a couple of times a month with the commission chamber, the rest of the time they're coming in and they're going someplace else. And in the corner option, do they have to walk significantly farther? First, you have to walk to the information desk to find out where you're going. And then, so now you're walking farther. So you're making the day to day people that come every day, walk more farther. You know, we're talking about that commission chamber is only four days a month, but for the other 26 days or 27 days a month, it's the rest of the lobby that's really being used. And so for convenience for the people walking in, is it more convenient for them to walk in the center and have the information desk directly in front of them? And then they have less direction to walk to elevators or to where they have to go versus the convenience of the four days a month. That's why I was asking about those arrows pointing down an option two over there. Those, those three little arrows, people can go directly from checking in straight down. So it doesn't, you don't have to go all the way over to that hallway. And when she says program space, the service desk is really a lot of the clerk of court functions, you know, where they're taking in money and things like that. Just so you have from a programming standpoint, that's what a lot of that is. But this commission chamber is also used by a lot of different organizations. So, you know, for Pinellas, you have a lot of different groups that do use it. Okay. Okay. Well, chair, I just, oh, sorry. Just for the record, I like option one. And I, I like option the outside option. Yes. I like option one the best. I think it's functional. I, I just think it's the best way to go. And from a elevation standpoint, all the way around, uh, one a or one C I'd be happy with either one of those. Uh, but if there's any chance that the mechanical equipment could be viewed from the ground, I would go with option one C, which would obscure that we won't have to look at any mechanical equipment. I don't know what kind of, yeah, if that's where I am. So, all right. So you said option on the, on the exterior piece, you said option one. I love option one. Okay. That's what I'm about. Uh, and the, and the elevations in particular, I would, I'd be happy with one a or one C, but if, if the, if the mechanical equipment that's sitting on the roof can be visible from the ground, then we should go with option one C, which would completely obscure that. And, and since we've gotten some rough, just to finish the picture at this point, since we've had a $8 million cost versus nothing on the, the architectural scheme, option one and two, you said option two might be a tad less expensive. Do we have a sense of like, are we talking half a million or 250,000? You know, I know, I know we're asking things you haven't done yet, but I'm calling on your years of experience. I think the correct answer is yes, it's cheaper. I don't think it moves the needle enough that you're going to recognize it, but I think it is. We're not talking about the, the same needle as we were outside, which is 8 million, 4 million. No, you're talking about curtain wall glass. Yeah. Right. And instead of three sides, you have two and a lot shorter, right? Yeah. And the overhang is more connected to the center knuckle of the building. So there should be some economy there too, but we're not moving the needle, uh, way far left or way far right on cost by choosing either option. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. I, yeah. Commissioner Nowicki. Thank you, chair. Uh, just one more question, I guess on the site plans of option one and option two for the drop off, if putting it option two in the corner, I mean, obviously the site plans aren't to scale and there's no, you know, numbers on there. Would it be a little bit further? Like if someone gets dropped off in a wheelchair on site plan two in the corner for them to go from the drop off to the entrance versus like site option one in the center, it seems like it's a little bit shorter on the site plan. Yeah. I think those can both be set to an equal distance and we're looking to optimize that for standoff that's needed from a security standpoint, but we could equalize that. And that's a concern that option two for a site plan seems a little bit too far away. There's some room to move it a little bit further, uh, closer to the building. Yeah. I would, I would just be, you know, to echo Commissioner Scheer, uh, you know, points, you know, I'd be in favor of the center. Um, you know, I think it's just universally done. Um, you know, I don't see like a corner entrance, I think in terms of wayfinding and just, you know, the everyday person coming up to the building, they're looking for a center entrance and it would be less signage, uh, maybe a little less walkway because it looks like there's a walkway from the garage, which is next to the building instead of far away, which makes sense. Um, so it looks like there's a cover, you know, from the garage. Um, so maybe a little less overhang you would need if it's in the center versus to the corner. So maybe a little cost saving there, a little less of an overhang. Um, so yeah, I mean, I would be in favor of a option one. So and, and, and, and you're on one a on the outside, um, and the same con comment about one a one, uh, C. Yeah. I mean, I think, um, conditioning unit thing. Yeah. I mean, I think the mechanicals are important. I mean, you know, if there is a way to look at, you know, a metal roof, you know, besides a rain screen, I mean, I know we haven't got into that, but, uh, you know, you know, long term, that would be a lot better in terms of maintenance and cycle. So I just don't know if we're at that, but, uh, well, you know, but yeah, so I would be in favor of, of one a, um, you know, obviously there's still needs a little more detail done. It's not, you know, complete, complete. Um, but, uh, if there's a way to trim the cost down a little bit on one C, maybe make the glass windows at the very top, just maybe a little corners versus maybe it says, so long gated, um, it could cheapen it a little bit. Um, we didn't give you that option at this point. Okay. So you're throwing a lot of curve balls at this argument. I appreciate your comment. Yeah. Thank you, sir. Yeah. And I'm going to vote for, uh, commissioner Latvala now because, um, he obviously wants the, you know, I'm kidding, uh, cheap, cheap. So that's option two in the corner, right? Yeah. Yeah. Okay. I just want to make sure I had an option one a on the outside. Um, I kind of, I always hate to always agree with commissioner Scheer, but I kind of agree. I'm teasing you commissioner Scheer. I kind of like option one on the outside. I, I, I have full confidence in the architect standing before me that we won't see any air conditioning stuff. Um, I would like to understand the different roof structures for another day that we can look at in terms of the materials. Um, and on the outside, I, I'm going to go back to the one, the number one, a, uh, I just kind of, I, I would like to, I would, you know, like to step outside my comfort zone and pick one D, but at $8 million, I have a different discomfort. So I'm going back to one, um, one. So, um, I'm going to go with, uh, the one a, uh, on the outside. So at this point we have three, one a's, so we'll, we'll continue to get the commissioner Scott. He was, I preferred, uh, to me option two seems just the most efficient option to do. So I, I was between, uh, two a and two D that's kind of where I was at on the, uh, outside. Right. One a or one B no two a or two D he was two. Yeah. I heard, I heard one. Okay. One, hold on, hold on one. That's why it was confusing between ones and twos because, uh, on the one or two, we're, we're just looking at the outside piece. And right now I've got, I've heard two ones and two twos. No, no. Okay. You've heard four ones on the, I'm not talking about the outside piece. You'd like the corner. Do you like the middle corner? Okay. So that's two, two. So we have one. I thought somebody else had the corner. Renee. Okay. We haven't gotten to Renee yet. I want to get back. Yeah. Okay. So you're the corner, but of the four that we've talked to already that we've talked about, I think he was two and you're two, right? And we have two ones at this point. Just raise your hand if you like the corner. And Vince Nowicki is a one. So we have three left to hear conversations. He has a two. You have a three. You have three twos. Okay. We have three twos and four ones. There you go. Okay. We got one. Okay. So we're going with one and now we just need one or C, A or C. We had three twos, three twos and four ones. So we're going with the centerpiece on the outside. We need Daryland for the... Stop it. Well, four ones is four. All right. And so let's, then we're going to talk about the architectural designs. All right. I'm hearing right now so far, what is your choice? And I'll know where we are. On the outside designs, the design... A, B, C, or D. From an aesthetic standpoint, I like D the best, but that also depends on whether you can see the mechanical stuff or not. If you can see the mechanical stuff, then I would probably go with probably C to hide that. But I think D looks the most classic. So your preference is D. My preference is D. Yeah. Okay. And we're going to... If I could, I just clarify that on none of the options will you be able to see the mechanical. Okay. Mechanical on both wings will be in a mechanical penthouse that's enclosed. So you won't be able to see it as you're approaching the building. It's enclosed on the roof and you just didn't show us where to be enclosed? No, it is. It's on these designs. It's enclosed as part of these designs. Like, for example, it's most obviously seen on option B and option C, that the mechanical would be enclosed within those vertical pieces. On the other two options, it's more centered on the roof. And from the pure perspective of it, you're not going to be able to see it from this particular view. But it, again, will be enclosed and look like part of the building. Commissioner Flowers? So I'm not a contractor person, so forgive me if this is not a good question. Is there any reason why there could not be an enclosed mechanical room that is off to the side or behind rather than on top of the building? Because once you start construction, you can underground cables and, you know, your half-back system inflows and things like that. Right. From a sound standpoint, obviously sound in courtrooms is very sensitive. It's something that we need to very much keep in top of mind. Putting the mechanical systems on the roof and having shafts come down and deliver the air, you don't have vibration, sound from those mechanical units intruding into the courtroom spaces. The only reason I ask, too, is because sometimes when half-back systems start leaking and you may not catch the leak and then they kind of trundle down and you look up and your ceiling is popcorning. So, anyway, but you guys, you know. Yeah. So, just with this little detour we're on as we're trying to get this other thing voted on, on the air conditioning system, is this a chiller system that'll be off on the ground somewhere else and it sends chilled water to our towers and then it comes, it cascades basically downward, right? You have it exactly right. Yeah, there'll be a central energy plant on the site. You have a significant amount of square footage here. That's the most efficient way to air condition that space over the long term and it also will allow you to utilize the unused portion of the site right now for future buildings where you'll be able to connect to that same central energy. That chiller going to be on the north, the northwest corner, kind of up the unused area north of the parking garage. All right. All right. So, right now I'm hearing one, I'm talking about the outside now. I'm hearing a D and three and three A's. So, let's go to, you said A. Yeah. He said A and I said A and you said A and he said C. What's your preference, Commissioner Peters? I want to know the difference of the cost from A to C. C is four million more, correct, Mary? Four million more. D is eight million more and A and B are the same. I mean, I like A and C. I just, I like A and C. Those are the ones I like. So, if you're going to figure it out that way, that's what I like is A and C. And quite frankly, I like C the best. Yeah, I know. Commissioner Flowers, what did you, what did you settle on? Cost-wise. You said C? Yes, sir. Okay. Yes, sir. All right. It's not on, please forgive me. That's okay. When they did share that the cost was more, C is four million dollars more, but I like C better than, I don't like the thing that they have going across that looks kind of ugly. Commissioner Scott? You can move mine over to one A. I mean, I don't think, I like the look of D. I don't think it's worth eight million dollars though. And one A is perfectly functional. It gets the job done and it looks good. So, just move me to one A. So, right now, I've got five on one A and one on C. I'm missing a vote, but it sounds like. Did you put me on one A? Yes, I did. Yes, I did. You got all the cheapest. You got, you know, you got you in the corner. Since my C has defected, I'll move over to one A. All right. I think we seem to have, we have one A is the architectural style. Yeah. And on a four to three vote, the outside piece is centered, not in the corner. Yep. So, that's one. And you'll be building the one out in the middle so that we don't get too expensive. Okay. All right. That's what we needed, commissioners. Okay. Yeah, because this is real important because now they can really start working on the interiors and the commission chambers and the, and, and all, all the other functional space. Uh, this was important to, to move this project to keep it on our timeline. So, I think the one thing you did here, there was a lot of interest in D. So, if the eight million went to, to one million, then we'd probably have more, but I, as it stands, you've got the, you've got your marching orders. Sure. Thank you so much for the feedback. Yeah. Just do we have a total cost of the building yet? It's not yet. A guesstimate, a guesstimate, a guesstimate. We're, we're, we're still working on that. We're still working with like they're meeting with Ken Burke, you know, here today at noon. And so there we're, we're getting there, but we're not there yet. 400, 500, 600. Oh gosh. Don't give me a heart attack. No, uh, no, we're not there, but we're, you know, obviously we had a, a price early on, but that was a couple of years ago. That was just an, you know, an estimate. They're getting into this design when they have this. Now they've got the footprint of the building so they can get into cost estimating. And that's next step. And that cost estimating will be building costs and then FF and E costs separately. Okay. Okay. So we'll have, we'll have, we'll have all of that. Um, but that's the, we first had to get what the envelope looks like and we've added square footage. You've heard Ken's concerns. They've addressed almost all those. Um, but that added square footage to the building. And so we're now, we're trying to bring this home to where we can get you a good cost estimate. Well, this multi-talented commission is going from architectural designs to e-bikes now. So we'll, we thank you for your time. Thank you so much. And we're going to go deal with, uh, vehicles now. So appreciate it. Thank you all. Great presentation today and much, much improved. So thank you. Good morning, commissioners. I'm Tristan summer, the intergovernmental liaison with Pinellas County and we do have Whit Blandon and Kyle Simpson with Ford Pinellas. What's going to stay over here in case we need to phone a friend, but Kyle's going to take the report itself. But to lay the foundation, um, I worked with Ford Pinellas to coordinate an e-bike work group to finalize the white paper that I sent you that Kyle drafted, identify certain findings and also provide policy recommendations or goals that the work group wanted to work through. Um, that we will need further direction on from the board. But with that being said, I will turn it over to Kyle so he can get into the report itself. Thank you. Good morning, Kyle Simpson with Ford Pinellas. Um, so today I'm going to talk to you about the existing definitions and regulations that exist, um, within Florida and kind of within the, uh, e-bike industry. Um, and then get into that work group that, uh, Tristan touched on, on the responsibilities and membership of it. Um, and then the white paper that came out of that and some, uh, recommended policy findings, um, that they, uh, debated and developed recommendations on. Thank you. So in Florida, um, Florida statutes, uh, prescribe e-bike operators, all of the same rights, privileges, and duties of a bicycle operator. Um, so they're not required to have a license, uh, not required to register device or carry insurance on it. Um, the statute says you may not modify an e-bike to go faster, um, than it was designed to go. Um, and the e-bike must comply with, uh, requirements that are, uh, have been adopted, um, by the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission. Um, and so this is what e-bikes are imported under. Um, and the legislature gave local governments the ability to require e-bike operators to possess a government issued photo ID. Um, you can adopt minimum age, uh, requirements to operate an e-bike on, uh, public property. Um, you can restrict use of e-bikes in specific facilities like sidewalks or trails, um, or beaches. And then you can also, uh, adopt maximum speed limits for e-bikes, um, either. Got a question by Commissioner. So is this the, the stuff, the Florida law that the governor vetoed? So this is not law. This is already. This is law. Um, the government, or sorry, what the governor vetoed is outside of, of this. Okay. So this exists currently. So we can adopt a maximum speed of 15 on sidewalks. Uh, we have, I think 20 on the trails. Um, is that right? That's the current speed limit. That's his current speed limit, but we could, we have the authority to change. When we first built the trails, there was no motorized vehicles allowed on the trails. Obviously the state changed that over time. And we almost all motorized, except golf carts and cars at this point are allowed on the trail. Correct. Uh, it's my understanding that, um, electric devices like, uh, e-bikes are allowed currently on the trail. Okay. That's what I want to make sure. And right now at 20 miles an hour. Yes. And we're still traveling on Paul Causey's design of everybody stay on the right side here. And yeah. So now we have the e-bikes at 20 and probably higher with the people on a, in a wheelchair side by side. Just wanted to make that point again, because I just don't like it. Go ahead. Um, and so e-bikes fall under this class system. This class system was established under the, uh, consumer product safety commission. So class one, um, is a pedal assist only. So that means the motor only activates when someone's actively moving the pedals and that motor assist a rider up to 20 miles an hour. Uh, class two, same thing. It'll assist a person pedaling up to 20 miles an hour, but it also has a throttle. Um, so they don't necessarily have to be pedaling. Um, and then class three is pedal assist only. So it does not have a throttle, um, but the motor will assist up to 28 miles an hour, um, within Florida statute. So existing, um, this was not related to what the governor vetoed. There's also personal assistive mobility devices. Um, those kind of cover things like the one wheels and the hoverboard things and kind of the new thing devices we've seen out that are electric. Um, and so they have a, speed limit of 20 or a up to 20 miles an hour or say, uh, less than 20 miles an hour per Florida statute. Uh, and then we talk a lot, um, kind of in the industry now about e-motors. That's not a defined term in statute, but it's kind of what the industry has come to define as the kind of electric dirt bikes and things that are sold as electric bicycles, but have a speed that is higher than what e-bikes, um, allow or a motor that is more than 750 Watts. So Florida law currently says an e-bike motor, um, has to be 750 Watts or less have pedals that actually operate, um, two or three wheels. So this allows for elect, uh, electric, uh, tricycles. Um, and then you have to have a sticker on the frame of the bicycle that says, uh, what the maximum motor wattages and the maximum assist speed that the device has. So the maximum motor, uh, the 750 Watts is allowed on up to 750 is allowed on our trails. Yes. It's allowed on in our parks. Um, but if you get these motor bikes that you're talking about, and I, and again, um, I'm looking at buying an e-bike. So this is the, these are the classifications that I would look at. Um, but the things that you're talking about and some of the commotion that we've heard from are, um, a different bike that you just recently described. It's more than 750 Watts. It's faster than 28 miles an hour. That is not allowed in our parks. It's not allowed on our trails. So yeah, there's different interpretations and we'll, this is a kind of an issue that we'll get into through this presentation. Some of our law enforcement agencies have began to interpret those devices as unregistered motor vehicles. Um, they're somewhat of a gray area and statute. Um, and so that's, uh, something that could be improved upon in the future. Well, that just cleared that up, uh, like, like mud. I mean, that to me is a real problem. I mean, that's where we're, that's what's elevating all of this is this, this piece of conversation that's gray. So I think that's where we need to, well, we'll go through the presentation and let's get back to that point because really that's our problem here. If we can keep them off the trails and keep them out of the parks, keep them on the streets. Again, we're talking about mostly our kids. So I'm not, I'm not void of that concept either, but somehow, somehow the parents system, the parental system with those have to come into play. So it'll be interesting as we go through this conversation. So go ahead. Uh, so to get into some of those trends and conditions, um, so this, uh, people for bikes is a industry group of the bike industry. And so these are, uh, electric bicycle sales at bicycle shops in the United States from, um, 2017 through 2023. And so they've, it's been growing rapidly. Um, and then when we get at kind of the, um, that looks at data from bicycle shops. So someone went into their local bike shop in Pinellas County, um, 99% of the time, they're going to get a legal e-bike. But in 2024, we saw, or they found that, uh, basically the same number of vehicles were bought online in a direct to consumer model. And in prepping for this, I Googled electric bicycle went on, uh, you know, popular, um, electronics, you know, online shopping sites and those, a lot of those devices were outside of the legal, you know, requirement. Commissioner Scott has a question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So Kyle, this is for the entire country, not just state of Florida. That's correct. Okay. I assume that I just wanted to confirm that. Thanks. Um, so looking at, you know, the, the crash side of things, it's something that we hear a lot of at forward Pinellas. Um, and there are some challenges that we face, uh, with our existing data on this. Um, so there's not a e-bike or e-scooter, uh, vehicle involved checkbox on the standard, uh, statewide crash report form. Um, so we've been relying on, uh, agencies, some agencies, um, in the county have began in the written narrative section of that. They'll check, say bicycle, and then write out that it was an e-bike. Um, so in 2023, we, as an agency began reading through the written narrative of any crash report that involved, uh, someone identified as a pedestrian or bicyclist to see if there was additional information. And so that other motorized category that includes someone that was on something that was electric assist. So it could be a scooter, one wheel, electric bicycle, things like that. And so this is a fatal crashes that occurred in Pinellas County. Um, this year through almost the end of July, um, we're looking better, but we have seen the trend go in the wrong direction. Just real quickly. And again, what we've talked about is all these, the e-bike concept. And I look at that and you've got motorcycles, obviously they're licensed and it only can be on the road. Correct. So this area that we're talking about that I just mentioned that gray area is kind of in between the e-bikes and the motorcycles, because those, those can go anywhere. They can go on the streets, they can go on the sidewalks. Well, that's what we're going to talk about. And they can go in the parks, they can go on the trails. That's been the, that's been the contentious area. That little group of bikes. Yeah. Okay. I just got to keep going. Um, so in February of this year, the Tampa Bay times looked into this as well, and they looked at it from an autopsy report standpoint. Um, and so they, uh, found that, uh, and so five years, basically 2020 through 2025, um, there were 18 fatalities, um, with, uh, e-bike, uh, riders and Pinellas County, six in Hillsboro, three in Pasco. Um, most of the crashes involved a motor vehicle, um, still. So it showed that we weren't necessarily, uh, there wasn't a huge amount that we weren't capturing, um, and that most in, uh, Pinellas and Pasco were, uh, men over 60 who were not wearing a helmet at the time of the incident. Um, that's cause we didn't wear helmets when we were, you know, when we were kids. So yeah, idiots we are. Uh, so getting into the work group that was formed, um, it included, uh, members from, uh, local governments in the County. So St. Pete, Fleerwater and Dunedin, uh, for Pinellas, obviously, um, Pinellas County had multiple departments involved. Um, and then we also had representatives from the St. Petersburg police department, as well as the, uh, sheriff's office and industry members from the shared, uh, fleets in St. Petersburg. So from line and line and spin, uh, and they developed the, uh, kind of worked on the white paper, uh, that was sent out to you. Uh, and the main components of that looked at the existing conditions that we've kind of touched on a bit. Um, also looking at the benefits of e-bikes, cause there are a lot of benefits to these, um, but there are obviously challenges as well. Uh, and then they looked at how do you address those, some of those challenges while trying to preserve the, the, the positives that come from them. Um, and so we'll touch on that. Uh, they looked at existing and proposed, uh, regulations, both, uh, within Pinellas County. There are a few jurisdictions that have existing regulations. Um, and especially after the governor's veto of the statewide legislation in June, um, a lot, more counties and local governments in Florida, um, are moving forward with legislation of their own. Um, and so then we get to the potential policy options, um, that they thought you all could consider. Um, so first off, they thought, um, building upon our existing, um, education enforcement efforts, um, specifically targeting those devices. Um, you've been talking about commissioner Eggers with the noncompliant ones, though they're outside of what is legally an e-bike, um, and focusing on reckless behavior. Um, and we've seen, so some avenues to, to do that. Um, certain cities and states throughout the country have kind of written stern request, if you will, to online retailers saying, please stop selling these noncompliant devices. Um, and they've had success with that. Um, we also continually work with our local partners, uh, from four Pinellas, um, and the local jurisdictions. We have the Pinellas Trail Security Task Force, which incorporates every law enforcement jurisdiction that interacts with the Pinellas Trail in the county. Um, and they have done, uh, coordinated education and enforcement days, um, for a few years now. Um, so there's the opportunity to, to continue that and potentially expand it. Uh, the city of St. Pete, uh, with St. Pete police, um, they're actually looking at, uh, speed limits from a different angle. Um, so they have a speed limit sign. Sometimes there's challenges with saying Johnny was riding their bicycle at 16 instead of 10. And so they're going to approach writing a ticket for failure to follow a traffic control device versus a specific speeding ticket. And the traffic control device is the speed limit sign. Um, and so they're going to see how that works through, through the courts, um, and if it sticks or not. Um, and then continuing to work with, uh, the schools and our law enforcement agencies. Yes. Hey, turn on your speed. Sorry. My understanding has always been that because the Pinellas Trail is not a road that they can't, law enforcement cannot write a speeding ticket because it's not actually a public roadway. So they're going to try failure to follow a traffic control device. That's correct. Okay. Yeah. I think there's different, um, from that's a topic that's come up at the, the trail security task force a lot, and there's different interpretations from different agencies in the county on, on that. And so this is the avenue that they're pursuing. So if you're 21 versus 20, you didn't follow the traffic control device, but it's not a speeding ticket. Well, uh, so they're, I believe they're first starting with the waterfront trail system in the city. So not necessarily the Pinellas trail itself. Um, but they installed the sign additional signage citing, uh, statute, um, earlier this month. And so it's, so they're going to test it there and then see how that works. Okay. Got it. Thank you. Yep. Oh, commissioner flowers. Um, I'm not sure if you guys recall, I, um, brought and distributed little pamphlets that we received from the school safety transportation committee that I serve on where the sheriff's office provided us with a presentation, um, because a lot of parents were buying their children, the e-bikes to get to school if they, um, didn't have a driver's license yet or whatever. And the concern and issue was some of the, um, bikes were, uh, moving faster than what the law allows that they could ride and whatnot. So the sheriff did say that what they're doing is basically stopping the person and having, uh, them reach out to the parent and having a parent come pick up the bike and the, the scholar. So hopefully some of that will, will put some things in line when people are utilizing. And I really think some individuals, because even in the room and our meeting, some people were not aware of the different levels and different types of e-bikes versus what would be considered more of a motor scooter or dirt bike. So it was really, um, informative to be able to kind of clear that up, but I was very appreciative that the sheriff's office, um, is also providing that educational, um, information so that they'll, they should know what to do. And if they decide to purchase one for their child, then what it requires. Yeah. We've been working, uh, closely and they developed a good, uh, kind of trifold thing. Yeah. To give that might've been what you've provided. But yeah, they've been doing a good Largo, um, PD, St. PPD, uh, Clearwater as well. So thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Uh, so then another main focus of the work group was, uh, youth focused considerations. Um, and so you, some, some cities and counties have instituted class based age restrictions. So that means saying like, you have to be 16 or older to ride a class three e-bike or, or something to that effect. Um, or looking at potential helmet requirements that exist beyond the existing statute. So existing statute says 15, uh, I believe it's 15 or younger, um, or under 16. It's one of those two. Well, that's the same thing, but anyway, um, going beyond and saying, if you're riding an e-bike say under 18, you have to wear a helmet, things like that. Um, and then continuing, as you mentioned with the, the school district, that parental outreach and making sure that they know what's legal and they're not kind of setting up their, their kid for a situation they didn't even know was, was a problem. Um, and then they debated the, the pros and cons of, uh, photo ID requirements, um, for someone riding one of these devices on kind of, uh, the elephant in the room that we've been talking about is the vehicle classification. So kind of looking at how can we really, you know, set in stone that the E things outside of an E bike as currently defined are not allowed and what happens when we find them, things like that. Cause right now everyone, every law enforcement agency kind of has their own way of treating it. Um, there's different ways that they could under existing statute. Um, and then looking at penalties for when, you know, when we have one of these, do we, you know, just contact the parent first, do we go to impoundment, things like that. We also have a lot of, uh, rental shops. We have a lot of strong tourism economy. And so there are, um, you know, tourists that come here and rent these devices either from a shared fleet, like in downtown St. Pete or at a location, like a shop and bike shop in Dunedin or the beaches. Um, and so there was interest in working with, uh, to expand the move safe Pinellas program. That's been a really successful within the public works department. Um, and then also working kind of more directly with those rental shops to ensure that people that are coming to the Pinellas County and renting these devices, um, kind of have a baseline understanding of what they should and should not do. Um, my understanding again, that the, the area of ones that we're talking about that aren't, I don't know what the right word is legal. Um, they're not at the shops. They're ordered online mostly. Yeah. It's, um, my understanding that most reputable bike shops in the county, um, cause this is a big problem for the bike industry as well. Um, like, um, and so they, I'm not aware of any shops in Pinellas kind of brick and mortar, um, that sell devices that aren't, aren't legal. I know there was one at one point in, uh, in St. Petersburg, but it's no longer in business. So are you getting feedback from parents that spend the money buying these illegal bikes? Um, are they surprised or are they, I mean, are they, are they, I mean, how, how is it happening that they, that there's not, uh, a more regulation on, on that notification? Yeah. So, so like I said, if you just do an internet search for e-bike, most of the things that pop up for the, the least expensive option online are not compliant e-bikes. Um, and so we see people that buy it from a bike shop, 99% of the time it is a legal e-bike as current, you know, statutory definitions, but a lot of the devices that come from an online purchase are not. Is it easy for our, uh, enforcement officers to tell those illegal bikes by visual, just by looking at them driving by, is it easy to tell which ones are the legal ones versus the illegal ones? Um, I can't speak specifically for them, but there are some kind of trends that like wider tires, kind of more motorcycly if they don't have pedals, um, cause that's a requirement under statute. So some of them just had pegs, um, that you can't actually pedal. So if we're, if there was any kind of change, we'd have to look at it from a standpoint of probably multiple levels of warnings, making sure the parents got the warnings, you know, and if we, if we do that, then they have to have an ID on them that says who they are so we can get the warnings to the parents. I mean, if you get into that in the policy side, um, I mean, I don't know how else you, you'd, you have to go to the root of the problem, which is the parents may be buying something. They're not, they're not aware is illegal since it doesn't pop up on the screen when they're doing an internet purchase. This is an illegal purchase. If it was, I'm sure they, most parents wouldn't have bought them. Right. Um, I'm guessing. Did you have a comment? Just a, just a comment. I just pulled up Amazon and just put in e-bikes. So there's a Varla M 75 electric dirt bike with a 5,500 watt motor capable of 50 miles per hour for $1,799. And there's only nine left. So if you want one, I suggest you. Wow. No, I'm not going to go on anything. I mean, they're right. They're right here on Amazon. See that that's and I guarantee I've seen these on the trail. They passed me on the trail. Oh, no, they leave you in the dust on the trail. Right. Yeah. Commissioner, if I could, I just wanted to kind of frame something a little bit as part of your conversation. You talked about an illegal bike and what Commissioner Scott just pointed out. That's not an illegal bike. It's just not allowed to be used on the trail. If it's street legal, you can ride it on the road. If it's a dirt bike, there are places they can go ride dirt bikes, but the buying the thing in and of itself, it's not illegal. It's the use of the thing in a different way. So we have to be careful then that you can't telling Amazon, you can't sell that to someone in Pinellas County. It's simply not something you can do because they could use it for riding as a dirt bike somewhere, for example. So anyway, I'm just trying to point out that as a complexity. One, two, that's already illegal to ride on the trail, period. That's illegal to ride on the trail. Your issue is now one of education and enforcement, and you need to coordinate with your law enforcement people. As a practical matter, I can't imagine your code enforcement people having any ability to deal with any of that. So it's really a function of dealing with having buy-in from your law enforcement people, which are a different group. This is the county. On incorporated regulation, you're going to talk to the sheriff about how that works, and each of the cities are going to have their own individual enforcement issues with some of that. So I want to point that out because we keep talking in generalities about broad brush things here. Well, no, that's why I was specifically asking about how we identified them. They're illegal on the trails. They're illegal in the parks. They're illegal on the sidewalks. Yes? Yes. Are they legal in the streets? If they have appropriate things on them, they can be, yes. What does that mean, appropriate things? They might have to have, and I'm talking out of turn. They may have to be tagged. They may have to have lights, tail lights, turn signals, things like that. So if these, and these particular bikes, which are maybe easy to tell, I don't know that, but they're not really allowed to be anywhere legally if they don't have a tag. Unless they're off-road or somewhere else. Unless they're off-road somewhere, but not in our parks, not on our trails, not on our sidewalks. That's probably the case. I I don't want to speak totally in generalities, but probably yes. Well, that's why I was getting to the specifics. We're bouncing back and forth. I get that. This is not easy stuff. Understood. I just wanted to kind of frame that a little bit. Thank you. Appreciate that. Anybody else? Okay, go ahead. And then there's some things that are best handled from the state level. And so there's the points of some of these devices are sold as an e-bike, but there's the ability to make it go faster than the statutory allotments with a smartphone app. And so kids are smart with technology. So they figured that out. You could also kind of, again, solidify that when you buy a device that's kind of more appropriately categorized as a moped or motorcycle, that you have a license with the appropriate endorsement when purchasing that device. And then looking at standardized tracking on crash forms for e-bikes and e-scooters, things like that. That is something that the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles is. Again, we're not talking young people buying a moped and we're not talking about a motorcycle because there's something in between again, that we're talking about that you said is obviously legal to purchase. Well, but they're treated the same way. What's that? They're treated the same way under the law. Yeah. Okay. Just like a motorcycle dirt bike, you may or may not be able to ride it on the road if it has the proper lights and a tag and whatnot, but you can go ride it on a dirt motorcycle track somewhere. Private property. Private. Yeah. Or there's some public ones in some place. Not, I don't think of Patel's, but yeah. All right. Well, I can tell you they're riding it on the street and I saw one. It looked like he was 10 or 11. No plate. He cut me off on the road and then took up down the street. And so, I mean, they, and he was like 10 or 11. I couldn't believe a parent would buy that for their kid and let him drive it in the street, but he was on golf boulevard, even golf boulevard, no plate, no tag. And he was going way over 30, 35 miles an hour. So, um, Don, do you by chance know, I remember when there were a bunch of wave runner and jet ski accidents and fatalities in the County. And I believe the County, I thought it was the County and not the state that issued an age requirement to drive. That might've been the state to drive a wave runner. And I don't know if it's the County that did it or the state. Cause we, we, I know there's an age limit on who can drive a wave runner and we're having way more fatalities on these than we did on wave runners. I think. I don't remember that. I will look, but I suspect it's the state. Uh, so I don't let me look into that, but I've had the similar experience commissioner. I've been driving on East Bay before sunup and had an e-bike coming the wrong way, uh, on, on East Bay towards me. So it's, there's a lot of enforcement in the needs that could be done. I'll say it that way. Um, some other things, um, as I noted in the beginning, the current state statute says you can't, uh, modify an e-bike without changing the sticker, but there's no, uh, stick if you will, associated with doing that. So, um, kind of changing that. Um, and, uh, one of the, uh, one of the reasons that the governor stated he vetoed the legislation that passed the house and Senate this session was that bicyclists don't have a way of knowing that they're speeding. Um, and so one way of getting at that is requiring e-bikes to have a speedometer, uh, at time of sale. Um, and then also again, just the clear definitions on when it's beyond the scale or size speed of the existing e-bike, what is it, what's allowed and what explicitly isn't. Uh, the, the work group also really wanted us to continue our existing partnerships that we have. So we work closely with the Florida Department of Transportation on this, uh, the school board, and then at four Pinellas, uh, we have a lot of committees. I've already touched on the, um, the, uh, the trail committee, um, that is comprised of local law enforcement. Um, but we actually brought this to our bicycle pedestrian advisory committee on Monday morning. Um, and they kind of echoed a lot of the same considerations that you all have. Um, we attend the statewide pedestrian bicycle safety coalition. So that's, uh, MPOs and, uh, FDOT districts from throughout the state of Florida. We meet quarterly. Um, and this is a big topic on the agenda the past couple meetings. Um, and then also just continuing our strong partnerships with all of our local governments, uh, and law enforcement. How about, um, in your next meeting, um, checking with commissioner, uh, I think it's commissioner at Valor commissioner and a wiki's, uh, youth advisory group, uh, and letting them sit in on a conversation because they clearly even younger than you. Um, I'm saying everybody's young, but they're really, they're right there, right there. There are sophomores, our juniors, and our seniors in high school. And maybe they can provide some perspective, a different perspective that you guys might, um, be able to include. That's a great idea. The YAC open house was yesterday. Yeah. I might have found somebody too. Who'd like the guy to go to you guys for that? Well, yeah. He's kind of taken over. Um, so now the easy part, right? That's right. Um, no, it sounds to me like there's a lot of things and you, you had a couple of slides about what the state needs to be looking at. Maybe they are, you know, and some of it got vetoed. I don't, I really don't know. Um, and then you've got things that we might be able to control. And to me, it's that connection between the kids that are writing illegally, because there's, it doesn't sound like there's any place for them to really ride legally unless they get a dirt track or some other pro public or private place designated for them that they can't ride in our trails. They can't ride in our parks. They can't ride in our sidewalks. They can't ride in the streets without some kind of license designation. So connecting with those kids, it's not easy because when they kind of go out in groups, they tend to encourage each other in their activity because we have stories about it, but running through lights, you honking at them because they just about, they don't even stop for red lights. And then following me down the street on the sidewalk, flipping me off happens twice now. Um, and we've heard stories about, um, some seniors in our parks being, um, bothered by them. So this is a serious issue. It's not to be taken lightly. We don't want to have the police chasing them with lights flashing through the, cause they don't really listen, but if maybe if a cop was there and stopped them, they would stop and, um, you know, take the, take them back to their house and maybe educate the parent. It's almost like that point of contact. I don't know how else you do it. Um, yeah, I know one, um, opportunity that we've heard on the, the, the security task force is, uh, the sheriff's office, uh, specifically working with school resource officers. So if they get like a picture of, of one of the individuals that's causing issues, cause yes, they don't want to pursue someone in a, you know, right. It's fleeing. Um, and so it's, uh, working then with, if they notice the individual going to a certain school, working with the school resource officer to identify them and then connect with the parents and the, the one that, and they've had some success doing that. So that's, I was going to ask if they'd had those kinds of encounters with parents and what kind of, um, feedback or getting from the parents, uh, about their $1,800 purchase that they maybe thought had, you know, certain rights that they don't have. Or, um, so we locally have the right to implement certain, I think sounds like we're already have things in place. I'm not, what additional things can we consider? Uh, yeah. So I'll go back to the things that the legislature gives you, or gives a local government, the explicit ability to do is, um, minimum age requirements to operate an e-bike. Again, this is for, you know, this, the statutorily allowed e-bikes. This is not separate to the kind of e-modo, um, discussion that we've been talking about. Um, but, but isn't that what, isn't that where the problem is? So you're saying we can't do that first one with those bikes. There's, uh, the operation of something that is not an AB class, AB or C, I believe it is a one, two, three, a one, two, three e-bike as defined by statute. Those are e-bikes. Your regulatory authority is as to e-bikes. Once you get outside of that, there's the state prescribes how motor vehicles are treated and the rest of those things that aren't e-bikes for the most part fall in the category of a motor vehicle. So if they're more than the, the appropriate, uh, wattage, so the, the motos that we're talking about, that's treated as a motor vehicle. Now, whether or not it's legal, it depends on how it's equipped and where it is, but that's a state law regulation. It's not, you can't require a license. What does the state law talk about regarding age? What does state law require about identification on the bike? Anything? That is not an e-bike. Right. That by definition is not an e-bike. How about the other part? I believe it's a motor vehicle. So you'd have to be licensed to operate a motor vehicle. So 16 years old? Well, it depends. Motorcycles, I think you may be able to run at 15 at a certain place, but again, that's state law regulation of motor vehicles. So, so the kids that like commissioner Peters was talking about probably 10 or 11 years old, totally illegal. Yeah. Totally illegal to have that bike. So, well, it's totally illegal for them to be riding it. Oh, so be riding it. All right. I get the nuance of that, but, but that is also, again, you don't regulate who's riding on the road in whatever manner they're riding on the road. That's law enforcement under state law. Right. Well, we have, we have a relationship with our partners, right? Oh, no, you can certainly discuss it and, and, and policy help drive them to focus on those things, but you can't regulate it under state. Again. So all of these things that you're talking about are for e-bikes. Yes. Well, that's not the problem. The problem is in the other purchases. What's that? Oh, okay. I, I thought that most of the problems were from the other ones, but go ahead, uh, commissioner Scott. Well, I think, so there's problems with, with, with all of it. I mean, because some of these class, these class three bikes will go up to 28 miles an hour. So that's, that's, that's a problem too. If you've got something that's in our trails, right? That is behaving dangerously or recklessly. So the class three ones are a problem, but you know, I see, and I think we've all seen, we've all had personal experience here, the proliferation of the ones beyond the class three, the emotos. So those are becoming, I think the bigger problem, but the class three still presents a problem. I mean, if the maximum speed limit is 20 miles an hour on class one and two, that's not really a huge issue unless you're doing it in close quarters, right? If you're doing it Dunedin, all right, where, where there's a lot of people on the trail and you're winging through 20 miles an hour, that's a problem. But the problem grows exponentially once you get beyond 20 miles an hour. And that's where we don't really, doesn't appear. We have a lot of opportunity to really, really any opportunity to do anything about that, but we do have an opportunity, um, these items here, as far as class one, two, and three. And, and that's, you know, you know, commissioner, that's a, you know, it's a good, that's a good point. We can start sending a message that we're talking about mostly the class three, as you said, but that this is something that we're continuing to look at. And that's goes beyond the e-bikes. Right. And, and, and, um, and so we're, we're starting to look at them as, as the attorney said, we're starting to look at them as road vehicles. The e-motors in the electric, uh, personal assistive mobility devices is where the bigger problems are coming from. Cause like I said, once you get above 20 miles an hour, the, the, the problem grows exponentially. Yeah. But the, the ones that you were talking about, they're not class three, they're beyond class three, beyond class three. Right. Yeah. And they're the ones I was just looking at on Amazon, but, and they're not really, and they're not really legal anywhere. I mean, legal to be driven without a license on the streets. Right. So where can you drive them legally? Nowhere. If you don't have a license, if you're not 16 or 15 or, and if you don't have a license plate on it. So if we focus on, there's four things that we're allowed to do, right? So jet skis by state law, you can't ride those unless you're 14 state law have to be 14. Thanks for sending that down. So I think you could do a speed limit, even though there isn't a speedometer, it's hard to do it. If they do at St. Petersburg's classification is, I think you can do that. Um, we definitely can restrict where they can go. Right. Um, but we don't have that many, I mean, like Fort DeSoto, are we having a lot of problems with e-bikes and Fort DeSoto? Because on the beaches, we don't have a lot of beaches. So it's Sankey, it's Fort DeSoto, it's Fred Howard, the rest are municipalities. So, um, you know, I think the trail is a big problem and, and really you have to talk to the sheriff on, if it's enforceable, can he enforce the speed limit or do we have to put a different directive? And I think he's the one that we have to talk to about what it is we do. Uh, now I kind of like the government issue ID because, and, and I, you know, there, there might be some 11 and 12 year olds that are responsible on their electric bike and their parents will get upset if they can't drive them. But if you require them to have a photo ID, that could rein in a lot of kids that are doing this because they may not just take the time to, so I, you know, I think we got, we've got two, four tools here that we can use instead of just, you know, we know that those motos and those other ones are a problem, but we have four options right here that we could use as tools. And so I'd rather kind of discuss on what, what do those look like? Um, I think we need input from the sheriff on what he can enforce, but I kind of like that government issue photo ID because, you know, officer pulls over a kid and if he got an ID, no, well, uh, you know, you'll have to call your parents and take, pick up the bike cause you can't ride it. You know, I don't know if I want to go with age restrictions. Um, some of those scooters go pretty fast, but young kids are riding those to school. It's their mobility to get to school, but, and if they're doing it under 15 miles an hour, I don't really have a problem with it. So I'm not sure where I stand on these. I think it's worth the discussion on the age and the ID, but I think the age, the idea of the speed limit, um, are, are some real tools that we can use and that's worthy of a conversation. Yeah. I mean, I think this, this is a, I'm not saying simple. This is an area that we can focus on, but again, I think really the kids being able to ride to school, I don't think that's something that we're overly concerned with. And yet they're using the sidewalks and those that's not legal. I mean, so are we promoting illegal activity, letting them, I mean, to the parents know that they get them a bicycle and go on the sidewalk to school, but you can't use an e-bike or the one you bought on Amazon that can go 50 miles an hour, even though they're only going 15 to school. That's not legal either. I don't know if people know that. I don't know. So it sounds like we got the tiger by the tail right here. I mean, this is, um, any other questions or comments at this time? Go ahead. Back in, uh, back in May, I think it was, I sent out to everybody an ordinance that I think it was Palm. Yeah. The Palm coast had created, I'll resend that to everybody. And it's not, I don't think it's, I think it's, they've got some really good things in there. I don't necessarily think it's, it's totally perfect, but I think it's got some really good things to frame around. Right. That we can probably have a further discussion about. I think that's a good idea. Okay. Great idea. Thank you, Brian. Um, so I guess we'll leave item two. Um, so we'll, we'll go from buildings to e-bikes to now we're going to talk about budgets. Um, do we want to take a 10 minute break and continue or just keep going? Keep going. All right. All right, Pete, pull up the slight presentation. Uh, so commissioners, obviously this is our first workshop following the, uh, budget presentation we had last Tuesday. Um, so we wanted to really reserve the time to dig into the areas that you want to talk about further. Uh, there were some questions that were raised. We tried to, um, as we got questions from you, we tried to copy the entire commission on our response to those questions. Um, but we did want to go over a few items before we kind of get into your workshop and your discussion. So, uh, we had several different questions, uh, specifically on, uh, a few items that we wanted to cover, uh, in detail. One is there was a question on the rollback. So the rollback this year, outside of new growth, those things is approximately 10.4 million. But we also wanted to point out, you saw the reductions that were made in the board of commissioner departments. And that's important because we kind of forget they, they've actually met the rollback. So if you looked and you isolated them down, they've, they've actually achieved a full rollback, um, through the reductions that they've made to help balance the budget. We, we look, and so you can, you can kind of see, you know, where, where that cost is in the sheriff's office, it's, it's people. And so you give a 3% raise and healthcare increases and contractual increases over in like jail medical and things like that. It that's where our, our costs are adding up. Thank you, Whit. And so it's, it's very hard for without a programmatic reduction, you know, in those areas, it's very hard for them to achieve that. But, but that's, I think it's important to highlight that as we're going through options that we have, they actually did reductions, programmatic reductions department by department, um, throughout. But the, but Barry, just for clarification, the budget that you presented to us still needs $10 million more. Correct. For a full global rollback. That's correct. Okay. Just want to make sure I'm clear on that commissioner plus additional money to save Wheaton Island. Yeah. Oh yeah. We're, we're, we're going to talk about that. Um, you know, and, and we had some questions about, you know, kind of the historic funding and this kind of gives you a graph, um, of where, and, you know, and we talk about the sheriff because obviously it's almost, you know, half of the general fund. Um, and, and a lot of times we talk about the board of commissioner departments, but we forget that a lot of your departments are not general fund. Uh, they have other funding sources, utilities and, you know, transportation trust funds and things like that, that really drive, uh, their budget. Your budgets have largely remained flat and you can see with the sheriff and the sheriff will come in and defend, defend that. I mean, we can talk about the items that where, where we've had increases a few years ago. I mean, his officers weren't paid as much as Largo and Clearwater and we gave them, you know, some, uh, pretty significant increases to get them competitive with the area market. Recall back when he bid out jail medical and during, you know, coming out of COVID, it went through the roof. That's, that's an actual big contract that there's something that a statutorily has to provide as part of running the jail. And so there's, there's been certain touch points that we can talk about why, but this is a graph to show you the actual, um, uh, allocation of, of the resources. And then we talk about Wheaton Island and, you know, I told you before that this was a tough one, but you know, it, it is state land and we're looking at reductions, but this is, this is your cost. This, so we, we made it for nine months. Um, obviously, uh, these are the costs, uh, associated with that. Uh, it was, we had our state legislators in the same time we were doing our budget. And, you know, so that, that I think is a discussion we can have with them. Uh, but, but this is the, this outlines the cost and how we got there. Um, what we didn't do at the other presentation was go through, we, we put, we gave you a number on parking fee changes. We wanted to go through those in detail so you could see those clearly outlined. Um, and, and as you can see, you know, we, we changed, uh, for the three county parks, uh, the, from $6 a day to three 50 an hour. Um, but what we really want to encourage is people to get an annual pass, you know, and so you have an opportunity to do an annual pass that actually, you know, uh, it gives you, uh, uh, an option that's far cheaper if you choose to go there. And we have several different options available for people dependent upon, you know, the class that you're in that you fall into. So these were the recommendations that drove to the overall, um, increase in parking revenue. Um, but we just didn't call it out. Commissioner Nowicki had a question. Yeah. I mean, I'm probably really not in favor of increasing these fees. I don't think, um, I mean, if it's like an eight hour visit at the park, I mean, that's like a 350 plus percent increase in parking for an eight hour visit. Um, and the low income increase is 49%. I mean, it's, you know, I mean, I mean, I think we can, you know, maybe dial them back a little bit. Um, but as the current recommended rate increases, I, I wouldn't be in. You're talking about all of the discounted passes or you talk about that top line, which yeah, I mean, like per an hour, if someone's there for, you know, uh, you know, eight hours, you know, then it's a compounded increase. It's not just like, um, a one-time increase it's compounded. And then the low income, I mean, almost a 50% increase on the low income. I mean, we, you know, our parks are, as we get emails are the most, one of the most cherished assets in our County. Um, and so I think we just need to make them more accessible and not limit, you know, our residents, um, by increasing the fees so high. It's just my, you know, opinion. Yeah. Commissioner Scott, um, Barry, when was the last time we adjusted any of these? Many of these haven't gone up in 20 years. Um, how many, a couple 2004. Okay. The last time these, the last time it was, we, we changed it a few years ago from $5 a day to $6 a day. I think the rest of these haven't been touched in, uh, since 2004. Is that correct, Paul? Okay. Uh, commissioner. So, um, instead, I mean, you could do hourly and this is what we do at like Clearwater beach and stuff like that. They do hourly or you have a choice for the day. So it's $30 for the day or so much an hour, like three 50 an hour or $35 for, I think they're 35 or 40 hours for the day now. And I'm not saying I want to be the same as Clearwater beach, but I think you're right. Eight hours at three 50 is about $30 a day. So it kind of comes out to the same thing. Um, but if you give them an option where if you stay all day, it's cheaper, right? So if it's $20 for the day, it could be three 15 hour or $20 for the day, then, then, you know, I, I, the annual pass is great, but let's say you want to spend two days at the Fort DeSoto, you know, instead of, and you want to, you want to do like the all day for the weekend, you know, it might be, that might be a better option that you can, you can do the hourly or you can choose a day and then the day is, you know, whatever it is. And, and that could be a better deal than, than the hourly rate. If you're going to stay for a long time. And, and, and Paul, as you answered the question, um, do we have a breakout like where we're getting our revenues from? Like, or is it mostly the, the top line or, or, or people mostly in the, the annual passes? How does that kind of break out? Um, yeah, uh, most of it is daily fees. Um, when we look at the breakout on passes, um, you know, our annual parking passes, we only haven't selling about 700 a year for beach parking for, uh, boat ramps. Um, it's about number boat ramps, about a thousand, uh, seniors are our biggest pass purchasers, um, between the, the beach and, and boat ramp parking pass that they purchase. It's about 1100 or so. Um, and to your question, commissioner, we have the capability with the park mobile system. We can set, you know, whether it's 12, $15, $18 a day. You know, if you decide you want to be there for more than four hours in a day, you can set a cap and people can choose to, uh, do it by the hour or by the day. Commissioner Flower. Sorry. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, so there are a number of families that go out and visit the park because it's a form of entertainment where they can take, you know, their kids, they could spend the day, they can have a little picnic, not just for holidays, but you know, in general, it's, um, a form of, uh, recreation for people who may not be able to afford some of the other more luxurious, uh, types of entertainment like a Disney or Busch Gardens or whatever. So I am very apprehensive about increasing the rate to an hourly rate. I do recognize and thank you all for pointing out that we haven't raised these rates in quite some time. Um, but I think unfortunately, because of the situation that we are in now and we'll be facing, we are once again, having to make decisions to cut away things from our residents that, um, they could want to afford this. Some may not be able to afford. It may seem like it's really not that much, but if you're making minimum wage, um, and you're taking care of your family, $32, I'm just going to round up to $4 an hour for eight hours, you know, cause when you're at the beach, you go for a long time, $32 is, is a lot of money for some people, you know, to pay the part. So, um, um, I'm, I'm, I'm hesitant about increasing that rate. Um, and then, you know, our seniors that I see a lot of them out there, you know, sometimes they, they walk, that's their exercise question of the amount of money that we collect for parking revenues. What is the dollar amount that we pay for, uh, park upkeep that this, the money that is generated from parking revenues? Um, how much of that or what percentage of that actually, uh, covers for maybe re-asphalting the parking lot or, you know, park services that we have out there, maintenance, cleaning the bathroom. I don't know, but what's the amount? Do you know? We have a recovery rate. I can tell you that now, how things are collected and where they go, you know, that's all general fund stuff, but, um, we typically fall within the 36 to 39% cost recovery. So, and that's all of our revenues. That's just not parking. All of our revenues include, uh, the parking fees, boat ramp fees, camping, picnic shelter, rental special events, those types of things. Those are, those are just, you know, again, I think we do a wonderful job at our parks. I'm really appreciative of the work that you do as well as our rangers and whatnot that are out there. And, um, some of the classes, teachers take their scholars out there, you know, for learning opportunities. So I really like what we're doing. But, um, again, that's, this is just one of those things where our residents for a little bit of money can go out and enjoy the day with their family and have a really good time. And so to make it now be a potential for them not to be able to go because they can't pay the part, or if they don't pay or don't re up, they get a ticket. So that's on top of that. So I, I, I would like to keep the, um, I would like to keep the vehicle fee at a flat rate, not a three 50 per hour. I know some other places do do that along Clearwater beach. It is very expensive from time to time. We've gotten some folks that have complained about, I'm here, I'm visiting, I'm a tourist or whatever, and then I'm paying this to park and then I got a ticket or what have you. So, um, you know, I could see maybe going up to $10 for the day. Um, but I, I wouldn't like to do a, a three 50 per hour. So one of the things when we were originally discussing this, you know, Paul said, we could probably do a better job with this is really encouraging the annual pass, right? You know, and, um, and that, that's an area that we can certainly focus on because for our residents, for our visitors that are here for a few weekends, I think, I, I don't think we'd have the same thing, but we do have to set a uniform rates. And so, um, having, having them really emphasizing the annual pass is another way to do that. And I just want to point out though, within our budget, you know, again, this is a reason for the budget workshop. There's a $2.7 million swing. So these changes to this, we'll have to, yeah, between everything, we'll have to make other adjustments, um, accordingly, because we've included the $2.7 million as part of the revenue. So, okay. Commissioner Latval. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One of the benefits of almost dying last year is I don't have to go to the beach this year. Um, but when I had to go to the beach, we went to Sand Key, uh, which is the best value in town because you could park for $6 a day. And it's literally the same sand as down the street where it's like 30 or $40 to park. And then you, Clearwater gives you a ticket if you're five minutes late, uh, which I have gotten before. Um, and, uh, I would be in favor of like even $15 a day or $20 a day because we're still cheaper than Clearwater. And I think one thing that, that we could do with the communications department with, uh, especially with tourists is try to, uh, advertise Sand Key more and advertise Fort DeSoto more. And, um, you know, cause everybody knows about Clearwater beach is one of the best beaches in America, but, um, you know, Sand Key literally is part of Clearwater and it's the same sand, um, and it's less rowdy. And, um, uh, I think it's a much better value. Um, and maybe, um, you know, and especially, you know, advertise the, uh, annual passes for residents and, and get people, um, you know, here to buy those, I think would, uh, definitely help too. So, so on the rate issues, um, and I, and again, I, you can't probably break out tourism versus resident income, but is there a way to structure these passes so that if you're a resident, they're a little bit cheaper to get than, I mean, I don't know if tourists that come here a lot, is there a way to give our residents a little bit of a break? Again, you go to the CVB stuff, uh, you know, it's, it's all about, you know, the, the, our visitors paying for a lot of the things that we're enjoying here locally. Well, I think that's the idea of the six month pass. Um, that would be more of the tourist and, uh, it's not too much more for our residents for an annual. Uh, so I think that was the idea, but do you have any more? Yeah. Yeah. I, I can tell you, um, that we have based our, uh, passes this non-resident resident thing based on an attorney general's opinion, uh, that says counties cannot charge non-residents more than residents. It's a little different with municipalities because the source of the funding, but, um, because you will see Indian rocks beach, you know, they charge for non-residents residents get a pass. We don't have that same freedom. Okay. So my last question then on rates is I'm a, I'm a resident and I'm sitting here going an annual pass makes the most sense. Can I pay it incrementally or now you're talking, well, no, that's too complicated. Now it becomes a six month pass. There's somebody says like, I think that the, let's see the senior, senior pass, $55, it goes to 70. It can see, they can look at $15 a quarter easily. Um, is there a way to, no, you can't commit to it. And I think what you're, you're doing is you're probably hurting the other, the passes, but I'm just trying to figure out ways to help people get over a hump. I can see our staff thinking about the, uh, how, how to, how to work something like that in. So, I mean, I think this is a workshop so we can look at those types of ideas and whether or not we can do something like that. I just don't know. Yeah, it's probably, oh, he's saying there's a, there's a payment platform. So somebody's, I don't know what's going on. So yeah, that, that would be something we'd need to look into about what she was saying. What was she saying? Just that there's various payment platforms where people can plan that out to make that payment over time. I don't know what the legality is of paying for a service prior to it. You're basically, you're basically like a credit card. I mean, you know, and so you're going to pay, you're providing credit to, to be clear, commissioner, what I, what I heard, uh, Ms. Silverboard talking about was like PayPal as an example. We'll let you, that PayPal will actually pay the county, but you pay PayPal over time. It's a private side platform thing to be clear. Yeah. Interest. Um, so, you know, just kind of, I mean, so these, these are again, the recommendations we wanted to go through those. We didn't do that during the budget. So we wanted to show you that the other, the other piece to that is on the boat ramps. Um, and again, uh, making some modifications to the boat ramp, um, parking piece. Uh, you can see they added a diff, another one there with this military, which is, has both parks and the boat, uh, for 105. Um, again, together these generate about 2.7 million dollars that we have included within our total revenues, uh, as part of the budget recommendation. And the boat ramps not been touched since 2004 as well. Correct. Yes. Thank you. Yep. That was my question too. Yeah. Yeah. Commissioner Flowers. So that daily vehicle parking from $6 to $12 is for the day for your boat ramp. That's for the boats. Yes. Okay. So if we could do that for the boat ramp, then we could not do the 350 an hour for the car. And again, the, the real idea is to drive the annual parking pass for, you know, for the ramps too. And that gets you into the parks and to, you know, store your boat, you know, for the day. Um, and, and we can, yeah, that's for both. So it's, it's a, it's a great deal. It's only, you know, a little bit more, um, if you have a boat, the, the other, the other pieces that we can look at, if we set a cap of whatever, $15, whatever per day on that hourly to where there's a cap to it, I can come back to you and tell you how that impacts revenue, uh, based on their projections, but that's something we'd have to calculate. Yeah. Yeah. And if we're trying to drive, if we're trying to drive the annual passes, maybe we don't look as big, as big of an increase at the annual passes as we do the, the daily. They can, um, if you're really trying to drive them there, go from 110 to 125 or something, you know, we can, we can, we can tell you if we make any changes, here's the impact of that and the choices that we have to make. Absolutely. Yeah. Commissioner. Um, I've received some emails, uh, when, when this was first mentioned, uh, some, uh, concern about boat ramps, not being fully repaired. Yes. Well, Paul, since you're up there, you can, uh, go, we, we have received a lot of those, um, and he, and he can answer it. There's a, there's a lot to this story. Um, but I'll let him answer that. Um, commissioner, of course, uh, war veterans in Fort DeSoto parks were badly damaged during Helene and Melton. We worked with FEMA. We've had to go through a lot of permitting, but I can tell you that, um, contracts have been awarded. We have, um, um, work starting at war veterans now to be shortly followed by Fort DeSoto. The intention is to have, um, both boat ramps open and operating, uh, by the end of the year, January, uh, the latest right now, that's what the schedule we're working on. And talk about some of the changes. There were some issues with, it was damaged so much that you really had to get a new permit. You know, you just couldn't repair it. Right. And, and we also have, we have redesigned their sustainability, uh, issue, resiliency issues, I should say, uh, raising the height of the pilings, for instance, uh, so that in future storms, we don't lose the actual docs, like is what happened, uh, during Helene and Melton. Uh, so we're, we're having to re-engineer, redesign things. Um, but unfortunately it's taken longer than anyone has wanted, but there's a lot of, uh, hoops to jump through. And you also had contractors that were, had more work than they could actually complete. So, um, boat ramp access for the County, and I don't mean just us, but is it, do, have others experienced the same issues? Are we having a, a massive problem with access to the waters? Uh, because it's not just ours, but others as well. Yeah. It's not just ours. Uh, but of course we have the most boat ramps. Um, so we've been impacted more than others, but I think, you know, Dunedin's Marina, um, they've only got the one. So it's a huge impact. It puts pressure on everyone else as well. Just like when ours are done. Um, so about Clearwater, what? Clearwater Seminole is open, but Clearwater Breach Marina is, uh, under repair. Which one? Uh, Clearwater Beach Marina. Oh, Clearwater Beach. Okay. And how's the purchase, uh, uh, for Tarpon Springs looking that, you know, the extra, the extra land up there for a new boat ramp? Uh, right now we're, yeah, we don't have a seller right now. Yeah. I gotcha. Thank you. Okay. Um, another item that we raised again for your consideration is, uh, modifying the MSTU grant funding, um, based upon the discussion. Again, this is, this is based on the feedback that you provided. Um, we came up with kind of a modified grant funding scenario where, um, we would pro we still provide some funding opportunities there, but more limited, um, here are the criteria that's currently used. And if we, if you change that, you would go to this criteria and we recommended modifying it to 125,000 versus I think 225 or 220, it's currently 220. That would give you approximately six. The biggest thing is that it would reduce funding for special districts. It would add some criteria. Um, again, that would be more limited, but it would give you some flexibility to continue to do some things based upon the discussions about what happened in Palm Harbor or down in Tierra Verde or something like that. So we can, we can modify this however you want. We were just throwing out again between what we're currently doing and, uh, and this would, would be, uh, another option for you to consider. So you can read this and think through it and, you know, again, again, I think the, the concept behind this was that cities all over the County have opportunities for people. Um, and we have none or had none. And this was a way to help our, uh, 501 C threes or government groups, special districts or whatever to ask for the funding. What we didn't control maybe was how often they can ask for it. I think they can ask for it every year in the early goings. It seemed like the, uh, fix a groups were the only ones, the four groups up there were the only ones taking advantage of it. And we built up a pretty good reserve over because, and then, and then others started to understand the possibilities. Um, and maybe we can look at limiting, you know, to every third year that they can apply for a grant or something. I still think because we have no dedicated funding for downtown Palm Harbor zero in terms of it's not a, it's not a, um, um, uh, you know, like downtown downtown Dunedin has their own, uh, uh, special taxing district and they all have their own special. We don't do those anymore or try not to do them too much. Palm Harbor's never had anything in terms of dedicated funding source. So what they have to do there is get private sector folks to pony up money for lighting fixtures. Uh, lighting fixtures were ponied up by the County. Excuse me. The, the ongoing payment of the fees for the lights are born by the by the, so there's no, there's no incremental tax there. There's no incremental anything to help out the downtown Palm Harbor. So the idea behind some of this was to try to assist in different ways to infuse some extra money. And it takes pressure off of those individual groups and the taxpayers that are paying the tax dollars for those four entities, um, self-imposed taxes in Palm Harbor for sure. Eastlake is a mix, but I mean, I think the idea of just kind of getting rid of it because it's $220,000 is a little cavalier and that we ought to maybe look at, uh, this is a model. Yeah. Slowing down the process of how often you can ask for it. And this was an attempt to do that. Um, more limiting because if you have a special district, you already have funding source. So we eliminated them out. But again, you tell us what you're, you're wanting to do and we'll tell you the financial implications. I like the idea of an MS2 district or to have the options, but maybe once every three years and not every year or not even every other year, and maybe I still like the, I have to the 220,000. I don't think we have a lot of reserves now, do we? No, we spent those down with the lighting district. Uh, yeah. So we're, so maybe, yeah, maybe we drop it to, you know, somewhere in between the two 175. That's what we, we recommend it here. 125. So, so anyway, so this was an attempt to again, address the concerns, but I, I really wanted to go over how we got here because, um, you know, we got to a balanced budget, not by, uh, happenstance. There were a lot of decisions, uh, that we made in, in terms of making that recommendation. Uh, the opioid moving care about me funding over to the opioid abatement funding. That was $1.4 million, uh, modifying social action funding from $1.7 million to $667,000 to just current ongoing programs and no new programs. The sexual assault, I think it was more of a policy issue, uh, really that the, the, the hospitals, uh, are required to take that on, uh, by state law. And how's that going Barry? Well, you know, we've sent out the letter and, uh, we've kept funding in partial funding through December, uh, to give them time. Um, and then we'll evaluate that, but you know, they need a sense of urgency. Because anytime you ask somebody to take on funding, it's your fiduciary responsibility, try to try to minimize any cost impacts, but, you know, we've worked with them. Well, um, we should continue to be able to work with them. Um, and so Karen's working on that currently. Um, how, how is the, how are the improvements with the group that currently has the responsibility of doing it? I know there were several issues that were there. There were, I would have to get Karen to address those. I, I couldn't address those in detail because obviously the need, the need for that service in our County is without question, uh, important, critically important. A hundred percent. So, um, it's got to come from somewhere. The question is where, who, you know, who should pay for that? Yeah. Push the hospitals. I mean, we seem to work with the hospitals pretty well. Correct. You know, yes. Um, the, and then we talked about this, the shell key and Wheaton Island. Uh, that was part of it. The lifeguards, 374,000 for the 25 positions, um, building and developments or services. We did a reorganization there that saved three and a half positions, 200, you know, basically $50,000, um, planning pitched in with one position. We talked about the MSTU. We did nine internal positions just in my office, uh, with our internal services, uh, GLP ones. We talked about, uh, health insurance fund. Again, the savings there. Hey, Barry, those seven, that 727 that you're talking about, does that reduce the fee that gets charged to everybody to pay for the general services? You know how we get, they get an, uh, add on number for each department to cover those indirect cost plan. Yeah. Yeah. Through the indirect cost plan. So yeah, it'll impact that. It's two years that it will. It's two years in the rear, um, on your indirect cost plan. So it'll, it'll impact in a couple of years. Okay. Um, the 3% reduction scenario, this is, I asked Chris to calculate that. And, uh, when we have a better, uh, new modern budget system, it'll be easier to do, but, um, you know, and I don't know if you've, Oh, you, you, he, he does have a number for me. He didn't have that last night. Um, so we took, you know, as part and you saw that in the, uh, budget information sessions, we asked, you know, our departments, your departments to present, present a 3% reduction scenario. Um, we took those automatically and we've applied those to the departments to get there. That was $16.3 million. So under the 3% reduction scenarios, in addition to everything else, there's 3%, um, that's 16 million that the departments report to the commission have reduced down. And that was, Barry, that was before the, uh, without the pay increase, right? Or the pay increase is separate, but this is what I understand. So you have the 3% reduction, 3% pay. So it's kind of a same costs. You know, 3% budget reductions on their budget to pay is just on salaries. And so, so the 3%, this will be a lot lower. So this is 16 million. For instance, the total increase for the 3% is what? About $4 million. And the reduction was how much? 16, uh, over 16 million. So it's a net of a 12 million reduction. Is that what we're saying? Yeah. Commissioner in the wiki, you had a question. Thank you, chair. And, uh, appreciate the, the stress test. I think it's important. Um, but is that on what we're actually spending or just the budgeted amounts? It's on the budgeted amount. It's, it's out, it's out of balance from, and I, and I've got a slide that'll talk about actuals. We're actually lower than what we spent in 25 on actuals. Right. Yeah. Cause I'd like to see a, a 3% reduction scenario on over act, you know, actually spending because, uh, well, by doing this, we're actually lower. We've actually, we're actually spending lower than previously. Great. Oh, yeah. So if you're, yeah. And so the last piece is, as, as we've talked about, um, you know, we, we're also building towards the administrative campus or the, the new campus and, and what that bond payment will be. We, we think it's important to start that. It's only going to be a few years. Uh, now that you've made the decision earlier, so we can get going towards building that new campus and there's going to be a debt service payment on that. So we'd like to have capacity within the budget to be able to make that payment. And we're starting with building some funds for that. Very, as, as, as a, as a conversation piece going forward, we have a, we do have a sense. I think we've talked about this before, but just of what those, if we didn't do the campus, what the ongoing costs would be for, um, the existing facilities that we have, because that's, that's the number you almost have to compare to your, your bond payment because it's, it's really in the short term, we're not going to have a high maintenance cost on, on, on those facilities. So we're going to, so you're going to, you're going to have a savings for me, you know, the ongoing maintenance, but the real issue, if you recall back, and this has been several years when we did the cost comparison and, and there it was a $325 million new campus, but it was over 150 some million dollars for repairing the current campus. And that's before you open up a wall and figure out you got more there than you thought. Um, so, you know, we, and then you still have an inefficient old build, old building and design. And, and so there were, you know, we know you're going to have additional costs coming into that. So that difference really drove that business decision. No, I, I think that's always good to refresh because in this, in this time of what we're going through, I mean, I think it's important. And the new property tax that will be generated on this site, on our current site versus the place that we took offline out in Largo, um, makes it a financially feasible decision. I mean, it's, that's all incrementally important to understand for our residents. Yeah. Huge economic development issue. I mean, it made, it made a good business sense for, for the new campus. And that's the reason you guys voted for that. Excuse me, chair. I had a question. Go ahead. Um, Barry, uh, I was looking for the, uh, total dollar number on the building in the future for the, the campus bond payment that we're paying in advance. What's that going to be? It's, it's probably going to be around, you know, it depends on how much we bond as we get to the final cost, but it's going to be around 25 million. Well, I mean, how much is it going, how much are we putting aside on this budget for the future bond payments? So we, so under this scenario, we put about, uh, 4.7 of, of ongoing costs and additional money, uh, of totaling about seven and a half million towards reserves in this budget. We're putting that aside. Correct. Can we cut that by 500,000 and save weed nylon? That is certainly within your purpose. That's what I'd like to do. I agree. I agree. Well, that was good. I would, I didn't have the total numbers, so I couldn't figure out where. Yeah. We, we, we set aside about $4.7 of new money towards that's that gets that increment. So that's the, the increment you have to play with. Obviously, if you eliminate all that within, we were not setting aside money for the future, but you do have flexibility within that area. Well, I'd like to, I'd like to just get that done. And Mr. Flowers. Thank you. The only thing, again, I don't disagree with you, but we're, we're still trying to negotiate with the state that didn't even know that they were doing this about the proper responsibility. They could fund us the money to operate those two parks. I just want to make sure that that that's fun with me. And they keep talking about having the healthiest of budgets up in Tallahassee. They need to take responsibility for what they own. We can manage it. We can operate it. We can do all that stuff. I, I just, I want to make sure we get all of that considered, but I don't disagree. Well, the, the, the, the Wheaton Island proposal was very sudden and caught a lot of people by surprise. And I, you know, we haven't even figured out how, when we're going to sell the properties here. So I don't see that way. We couldn't at least have that, uh, as an option for our next, um, workshop to see what that, make sure we can get it done. Okay. So I'm sorry. Go ahead. Commissioner flowers. I'm sorry. No, I'm just going to get middle of two. You two. I'm not going to do that. Go ahead. Finish up. No, I did. So I was saying commissioner share. I certainly agree. I shared with Barry when he, um, brought up the subject. Um, my two selections was either from the general fund for the nine months until we had an opportunity to go into the next legislative session, which is in January. And for us to make the request to the state legislature as a part of our priority list, asking that they fund us commissioner, that they fund us in order to operate. And they make that a part of their ongoing budget, not just a one time occurrence. So I agree with you. It would be better to take it out of the funds for the construction and development, but should that not occur? I wanted to also have that option for us to look at our general fund to make sure that we were doing that to keep both of those, um, you respect whether the state says yes or not, but for us to continue. Yeah. I think it takes care of this coming year. Yes. 2020 to your point. Yeah. Yeah. For, for the following, for the next budget season. So yeah, but that's why I was sharing. Did you have anything else commissioner flowers? No, that's it, sir. Thank you. So yeah, I'm, I'm just going to reiterate. Um, I think we do it for one year. It gives us time to talk to the legislature and then, and then it's up for discussion again next year, depending on how amendment three goes. Um, and regardless, however, amendment three goes, if it passes, then we know what we have to deal with it. If it doesn't pass, something else is coming. Um, so I think it's a serious conversation that we have to have with our delegation about what the state owns and what the state's willing to fund. So I, I agreed to fund this for a year and, um, and then have the conversation with the legislature and see if they would, cause they, like I said, they do an outstanding job at honeymoon Island that state property and they do a great job. So there's no reason why we can't make an assumption that the state would do a great job at Wheaton Island. So, um, so I would, I'd recommend that. Um, I also support the change on the MSTUs. I don't want to eliminate the MSTUs completely. Um, but I, I'm okay with reducing the number. Um, but I, you know, and then coming up with criteria that makes it more competitive. So I support that as well. And I still hurt with, I don't know that we have an option on, on, on that. I really, it pains me to do that. We just had somebody pass away in the water and Fort DeSoto, uh, and, and the rip currents this year have been unbelievable. There've been so many rescues on, on Clearwater beach and I'm sure in our own beaches. And so, uh, and I know it's a, it's a program that is difficult to sustain what I would really, and I've mentioned this before and, and, and maybe it's a partnership with the fire department to do what Clearwater does and use the EMTs and use the lifeguards as a feeder system into a fire department, whether it's, uh, I know I see Jill shaking her head. Um, I, you know, I, I just don't know if there's a partnership, right? And you know, is there a partnership with Lillman, right? Cause Lillman's down at Terra Verde a lot. And is there a partnership that we could do with them that, um, allows that a feeder system into the fire departments? I, I don't know what that looks like. I don't know if it's possible. I don't know if it's being successful in Clearwater. I've heard good. I've heard bad. I've heard, you know, um, there's one thing for sure. It would cost, you know, a significant amount of money. We did meet with fire departments looking and pursuing those different options. So we could bring you all the options and there really wasn't a lot of interest, uh, to be real, you know, Frank, but, you know, but it, but it would also, you know, drive an issue within budget. I mean, it would, it would, it would cost significantly more. Um, and so, but we, we have pursued those options over the last several years. Commissioner Scott. Oh, are you finished? Commissioner Scott. Oh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. So I, I had, um, uh, asked Chris as well, um, to, if he could put together a list of, of discretionary programs that we fund over and above what our, our, our requirements are. Um, so I'm hoping that we'll, we'll get that here. They're not too, not too distant future. It is because I think there's a lot of things out there. We fund that we probably don't even realize that we're funding. And are we getting return on investment of those things? And one thing I found while just looking through the budget is we're funding, um, for the public defender, 776,000, or this is the request for next year, almost $777,000, which is not a requirement under, under article five, but it's something that historically we, we've done. So I've just, you know, reached out to Sarah to just try to understand where is that money going? And are we getting, you know, are we getting good value? Is there a return on investment on those, on those funds? So I think there's a lot of things that's things like that, that are in our budget that we probably don't even necessarily recognize. There's not a, there's not a department or a constitutional officer, and I'll throw them into it where just because the constitutional officer is required, there's things within their budget that they're doing because it's, they want to provide a good public service. But you know, it's also when you, it's really hard to break this down. Um, cause I, when I was a budget analyst, we had the same questions and you're trying to go through the departments and says, this function is mandated, but it doesn't say whether you have five people doing it or 50 people doing it, you know, and a level of service and response times and things like that. So it's really hard to break down. We certainly can look at the programs, but you got to go through each and every program. We have parks, but we have education pieces to it. So does that go with the park or not? You know, so we'll, we will try to get you more. Um, but that's the difficulty in coming up with something like that. Yeah. I just think, you know, the more information we have, yes. You know, are we getting good return on investment for the dollars? And those are the decisions we have to make. Well, I understand, uh, anywhere where attorneys are involved and I mean this, no, I'm saying it in a positive way here that whether it's the public defender's office or our own office, they're grossly underpaid compared to what the private sector. So again, what the, it's good to understand what you're talking about, but, but what's the alternative? And like in that particular area, we, we, you know, the stack program, we, we never had to fund the stack program, but that now we have a whole new technology with body cameras and you either have attorneys watching film or a technology that allows them to go to the incident that they need to for the purposes of their case. We also have diversion programs there. So we don't, we're not required to do that, but if we don't, is that person then sitting in the jail and the impact on that? It, there's a lot of different pieces like that, right? That you have. Yeah. And I'm not, I'm not calling Sarah out. No, I understand. This is just an example. I've just wanted to, it's definitely not going for attorney pay. Yeah. No, no. Um, I just wanted to know what's it being used for. Is it a good, is it a good use of taxpayer dollars? And that's it. And I just think there's a question that we should ask. And when I use the word grossly, I didn't mean that badly. I just meant it's a significant difference between what they're getting paid and what the, that private sector alternative is. And it's hard to keep people and her, her office tends to be able to, by definition, it's almost a revolving, revolving door. So anyway, well, I look forward to that list. That's thank you, commissioner Scott for asking for that. So I just wanted to go through a couple other clarifying points. There were some questions about number of positions. And as you can see in the County administrator departments, I wasn't here in 2016, the first budget, actually the 19 budget was passed when I, before I even got here. Uh, so the first budget I had, uh, was in 2020. Uh, so I had 2,156 positions today. I have 2,141 positions. Um, and that includes increasing the parks, uh, maintenance, uh, where we increased about 15 or 16 positions in parks several years ago, uh, like down at Fort DeSoto, we didn't have dedicated maintenance people and things like that. Um, so you can, those are just, those are real numbers. That's, uh, uh, we also had, uh, you can see vacancies are down. When I got here, we paid $12 and 50 cents an hour. If you started out at public works or parks or utilities, um, well, obviously that wage is going to drive how many vacancies you have. Uh, today we've, we've tried to improve that and we've tried to create career ladders to where people can actually make a career out. And it's not enough, but it's a lot better than it was at that time. Um, when we look at our overall budget, uh, when we, when we look at our overall budget, you can kind of see, we also had questions about where our actuals are versus our proposed budget. So this, this breaks it down in the 2025 budget. This is our actuals, uh, of personnel. So when you take out reserves, uh, you can actually see that we're $30 million less than what we actually spent in 2025. Uh, and that's budget, budget to actual. And again, but that I we, I offer those as just clarifying comments and welcome, um, your, your discussion. Okay. It's now 12 o'clock. Um, is there food coming for lunch or not? We do. Okay. So we can set that up. I think, uh, yeah, I think we go ahead and take a half hour break now and come get some food. Okay. Commission. I just want to remind you, we have the, um, attorney client session. I know, I know. So, but we've got to get some food in people. So let's take, all right, let's take a half hour break. We'll come back, work for half an hour and then we'll do our other thing. Okay. Great. Thank you. I know just so we have, it becomes like a moving target, but let's say before the discussions that we just had a minute ago, um, I just want to make sure we're clear that, um, what the estimated, you know, value, value increases are from the property appraiser's office. So what, what we have to do on our end, but to effectuate a no growth government versus the one you're proposing, I just want to make sure I'm clear on what you're proposing and what that really looks like for, um, um, you know, in terms of, um, uh, the reality of it, but also what we as commissioners can tell our constituents. So the, the difference is what, and what I was trying to articulate in the previous slide is it's $10.4 million is a full rollback. Okay. Um, what I was really trying to show is that the departments that people would generally say is, you know, common government. So the BCC departments, they've actually achieved that. The hard part is in the growth in the sheriff's office. And so, you know, they, they, they're, they go hand in hand because it's part of the overall general fund, but just because the sheriff's office is all people, you give salary increases, you have contractual increases. Uh, we've under this budget and, and, and, and the, and the sheriff worked with us. I mean, the sheriff reduced his budget requests down, but it's still a lot, right. Um, just to keep the lights on no new positions, no, anything, um, fancy and just, just to keep the lights on. Um, and so, you know, the sheriff's request was $22 million higher. He reduced that down by what? About $7 million. Um, but it's still a $15 million increase, uh, full rollbacks, $10 million. So, so the sheriff's original request was 23 million higher. Correct. He lowered it by seven, seven, seven. So now it's about 15 million higher. Okay. That's correct. And that's just to do a basic 3% increase, which is on the low end for area municipalities and police agencies. So, you know, that, that's kind of where, where we get, so we've, you know, the, the departments report to you, we've, we've tried to control that growth, um, you know, and, and they've actually made the 3% reductions and actually more than that in most areas, but we used all of those. Um, and, but it were, so we're trying to control the growth and our, and our property tax, um, through that, but, but it makes it hard because again, what, what we're also not seeing is before we start talking about a rollback, we had $13 million of unfunded mandates or, or revenue reductions by the state. And so you're, you're trying to achieve that. You can't, and you know, I'm not trying to, you know, pick a fight or anything, but you, that's something that you have to deal with the sheriff, the sheriff, um, mandate that they give a cost of living adjustment on, um, police pensions costs additional $5 million this year. And so it doesn't go to, into the officer's paycheck. It goes into a future retirement, but it's still a pay that we have to make into the full retirement system starting this year. They redo, they changed the sales tax. You saw the sales tax number. We're down over $6 million on sales tax revenue. About five of that is due to the change on the business, the sales tax on business rental that they changed. Again, that, that then lowers our revenue to, for what you guys been trying to do, which is to roll, uh, the property tax rate back as much as possible. And then, and then they passed an additional one where we have to pay the fees to the tax collector for school board, uh, levy. And we, we've always had to do portions of it. There was one piece that we didn't. And so they changed the state law to make, make us pay that. So, so you're starting with $13 million in the hole before you even take care of your employees, um, take care of your healthcare, you know, healthcare cost increases and contractuals. Um, and that's the reason we did everything we could for the County administration departments, uh, to reduce our costs. But again, that is a small portion of your overall general fund. So you're trying to take, you know, a, a, a, a, everything out of a, a very small percentage of the overall general fund. Barry, how, in the fiscal year 26, um, positions on that page 12 that you have, um, what, what kind of, what's the, that look like? I see from 20 to 27, there's only a hundred and looks like 120 people that were added, um, of which mostly, mostly in the constitutional office, probably mostly in the sheriff's office. Um, is that fair to say? Yeah, I would imagine I'd have to go back and look within the constitutionals. And so from last year, this current budget that we're in versus next year, are we seeing increases in people or is it mostly just in? No, it's we've, we've been black for several years. Um, so we, we, we really haven't been increasing people. And like I was saying with the, with the sheriff's office, there's, you know, it's not like they've had a, a lot of positions, you know, remember back during COVID, um, people bought boats. We have a lot more boats out on the water that we did. And they were only running, I think four days a week back then. And so we, we increased by just a few positions to where we could have coverage, uh, when people are out on the water. Um, we did another time where we added mental health, uh, folks into the sheriff's office for a dual coverage on response. And he's done a great job with that on tracking the data and making that a countywide program. But we gave him like six positions for that. Um, other than that, you know, it's, it's been contractual increases, jail medical, um, skyrocketed, you know, uh, over the several years ago. Um, and, and so it's, it's things like that. And just, you know, keeping his salaries in line with area, area police agencies. So, um, I can tell you where it is, but, but the impact at such a large, you know, department is, I'm getting there. I couldn't remember where is that, you know? And so, you know, you, when we talk about trying to control your budget, well, I mean, I think that this slide kind of articulates that, that, you know, the, if you go down into the yellow, you can see that it's largely flat and coming down a little bit each of the last several years. Um, but you know, when you're a, a service base, a people-based program like the sheriff, um, that's been very, very hard to control that cost. Um, and, uh, of the people that frontline, uh, officers versus, you know, administration at the sheriff's office, do you have a sense of the numbers? I have no idea. Okay. All right. So we don't know if it's 50, 50 or 75 on the streets. We just don't have any concept. We don't. I mean, cause it, they're both two different issues. Right. I mean, um, no, yeah. Okay. Just trying to get it over. Anyway. Yeah. Commissioner. Thank you, chair. I guess going back to the line graph, um, you know, obviously I wasn't here in 2019 and I don't have the context. I mean, so like reserves were at a hundred million. Now they're approaching 200 million, you know, I think, you know, that's like a big jump and you know, they're separated out, obviously the general fund departments and the reserves cause it would be higher. Um, you know, like if you took the sheriff, I assume he has reserves in his budget. No, he doesn't. Oh, he doesn't. No. Oh wow. So he's okay. Well, um, but if we added reserves into ours, it would be up there. So like, well, I guess back around 2019 or like when those reserves jumped, I mean, what's the, what was the process for that or reasoning or logic in 2019 to 2021? Chris, uh, well, I mean, reserves really haven't, um, jumped except proportionate to the budget. Um, but we've had, we've had, um, we have seen some reserves increase. We also then started setting money aside, for instance, for the new campus. Um, and so, you know, and so you, you, you've got to look at our, our dedicated reserves, which is the blue line, um, versus, uh, dedicated projects, which is like a capital project where you're setting aside money for that. Uh, so we, there are certain years where we increased them out, but we increased it for a specific purpose, which was to get ready for the new campus. For instance, when we bought that property, we were able to pay cash because we had set aside money for that property. Um, and, and then when we, when we go into building, we'll come back with you for a schedule. We won't need to take bonds to start the project. We'll have cash available to be able to get it. And then we'll issue bonds at a certain point as we draw down. So, so Barry, he could, we could get a detail of that makeup of the, of the reserves, because I think we also had, and I didn't support it, but we did have a change in policy also from 15% level to 20.8, I think on reserves. And I'm, I'm, I'm assuming that's a reflected in that, in that 16. Yeah. Cause if you're saying the reserves are I'm talking about the regular reserve, not the stuff that he just talked about. There was a reserve, a reserve policy change that went to 20.8. Yeah. It was 16.7 to 20.8. Yes. But if you're saying that the reserves are those capital improvement reserves in that blue line or no, that's just dedicated reserves, right? So if you're saying that's relative to the budget of the county admin departments, which, you know, overall departments, so the entire general fund, that's right. This, I know this, it becomes, it becomes a little confusing to know which question to ask, right? Yeah. Cause I was saying if it's relatively to the admin departments, well, that's flat, but yet the reserves. The extra money we set aside for the purchase of the land is not in those blue numbers. That's correct. Okay. Yeah. But, but it, to the point it was, it's, it's a total general fund, which includes a sheriff, constitutionals, et cetera. So what did that blue, the reserve? Yeah. Okay. So we can get a breakdown as to where those reserves are, where they're slotted. Well, the reserves is just your reserve policy for everybody. Correct. Okay. 16.7 moving up to 20.8. But we're not there yet, but yes. Well, we were, we were. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. We drew them down out of the storms. Correct. That's right. That's right. Say that again. Well, we're really not bringing it back up because we're just trying to, we're trying to get ready for the new. That was a pretty big hit. And yet we had plenty of reserves. I think I still argue on the 20.8%, but that's a policy decision. And that's a policy. We can, you know, we can make that change. It doesn't, it doesn't affect us this year. It doesn't affect our budget this year because what are we at now? We're just over 17%. Yeah. So it's, it's really, we're right there with our old lower reserve policy. Yeah. So you're not going to find it there, but yeah. Cause I'd like to, I mean, keep our reserves flat for 27. Cause we're adding almost 5 million into reserves. I mean, and that's half of what we need for a full rollback. The right. I mean, we're adding 4.9. We're not, we're not adding them into reserves. We're adding them into the new campus debt service payment. And so, you know, you have, you absolutely have flexibility there, but we, you know, if you take $4 million this year, okay, let's just take 4 million cause we have about 4.7. You want to find Wheaton Island. I get that. Um, if you, if you put 4 million here, we're going to be about three years, four years until we're making a debt service payment. So you want to have capacity within your budget to where, you know, you, you can make that payment. Otherwise you're going to have to come up with that $25 million all in one year, but you are every year. Each year, if we add $4 million, then it'll be, it will be ready for the first, the first year, the debt service payment the first year. Well, but if we do it as ongoing, and then next year we do an additional four next year, we do. So you're, you're, you're building it. We're building the capacity for that debt payment and, and we'll have to borrow less because it'll be, that'll be money set aside as a down payment also. Right. Well, and I think that's another piece that we're, we, we don't have any clue right now. We don't know what the total cost of the campus is going to be. I think for the purposes of planning, you can plan on about a $25 million debt. Um, there's, there's lots of different ways that we can schedule that out. That's 30 years. That's 20 years, 25, 25. So I'm just chair, just to piggyback on commissioner. I, I agree with him that it's too much to be putting aside. And I don't see why we can't use 500,000 for weed and Island and, and, and pull hold a little back on that reserve, uh, to get us a little millage rate reduction, at least start picking away at that millage rate. Cause right now we're not talking about any millage rate reduction. I'd like to start talking about millage rate reduction. So I see that as a, a place where we can make some effort. I mean, those are, those are, as they say, low hanging fruit that we can. Well, that's fine. I'll take that for now until we find some better hanging fruit. I don't know where we're going to find the money, the additional money, unless, unless we talk to, uh, the sheriff. I have some recommendations. To me, to me, that's where the money is. It's either in those reserves or the sheriff's budget set aside, right? I mean, that's where else, where else do you have it? The value adjustment board. There's a few hundred thousand there that they've increased in legal fees. Um, which there was really no justification for. I mean, I got a whole list if you'd like, I mean, well, we can start. Okay. Well, we're also waiting on Chris is going to give us a list of, uh, programs that we're funding that we can pick on next time as well. Right. So we're, we're working on it. It's, it's, it's very, it's very broad. Um, it's, I was explaining the difficulty in doing that. I mean, we can almost start October one and bring each department and have them break down each division in each area. Um, it's the only way you get through that. I mean, and, and I, I say that because, uh, each, each program you got to look at. We've, we've been driving. I mean, we've done, you know, four out of the last five years, you know, we've done property tax rate reduction. We've done that by driving dollars and budgets out of the BCC department. So if the BCC departments represent 18, 19% of your budget, you've taken a hundred percent of the reductions and, and rate reductions out of that 20% at 18, 20%. Now it, the percentage is skewed because we all have, so I have a reserves in there. I get that, but you're, you know, it's, it's not out of the biggest, you know, pie. Um, so, you know, we've, we have really pushed our, our departments have delivered for you. You asked for that and they have delivered because they've constantly looked at how to reduce and deliver the same services at a reduced cost. Well, I just, for my, I I'm really interested in seeing this list of, of, of, uh, programs that we're funding. You know, there's a lot of things that we're funding that would not affect, uh, our level of employment and things like that. Like, uh, how much money are we spending, uh, supporting, uh, supporting chamber of commerces around the county? Uh, we, uh, spend about $300,000 a year of supporting the Tampa Bay regional planning council that we really need to be doing that. Um, uh, there's, there's a lot of those, uh, uh, programs that we're supporting that I'm not sure we need to. So again, anyway, I don't know when that list is coming out. And that, that's not general fund base, but I, it's still a something we can talk about. Those are the chamber of commerces are coming from, they're coming from our TDC economic development. Okay. We can still talk about it. It's just, it's just not from the general fund as we're discussing today. Well, there's some from the regional planning councils coming from the EDC fund, some chambers, which is from the general fund. That's what I thought. The EDC economic development. Hold on. Hold on. We were talking about chamber of commerce funding. Where does it come from general fund or TDC? And that's pretty straightforward. It's, it's both. Okay. So that's how straightforward it is. And so, so, and, and I'm, I was glad that that that come to me before I did. I actually didn't know that, but over in EDC, um, uh, over in economic development, they have some, we can get the breakdown for you. I don't have that here. There you go. The, the CBB funds, the visitor centers. Okay. What's our house within the chambers? Yeah. Okay. That's what I thought. That's what we were. That's the difference. I thought that's what we were contributing to the chambers. They're visitor centers. We, we do for that. I'll have to get you the number for economic development. That'll be on that list. Probably it will. We're taking notes here. So as you guys come up with ideas, we're going to, we're going to go back and staff that. Okay. Yeah. Well, I mean, go ahead, Commissioner Flowers. Simply going to say for those who have ideas or suggestions about where you think we would be able to pull some revenue from that. You share that with the other commissioners as well as with staff, and then maybe allow staff, uh, to come back when we're having the additional discussion to say, if you do this, this is how it would look. And that way we could have, I think, a more robust, informed conversation, um, versus we could do this, this, this, this, and this. And then I have not had a chance or others to look at, okay, so what does this mean? So I, I know we've done that in the past, excuse me, where, you know, we just share what it is that our thoughts are. And in that way, all of us can take a look at it budgetarily wise. I don't, I don't disagree, Commissioner. I do think there's some value in, in sharing some ideas here from different people that, you know, just like, there was a thought the other day, and I think it was Commissioner Nowicki, but as soon as I say that I may be wrong, that talked about, you know, uh, the, the next budget being a dress rehearsal for our voters on the referendum in, you know, in November. Now that course we're only one of 67 counties and if we prove it right to our counties and we vote not to do it, you know, so that we can control the pace at which we roll out those, those, um, uh, additional tax reductions, um, instead of the way they're proposing it, that's the idea. It doesn't mean the other 66 counties will have done what we did. Like if we all do agree to do a rollback, every county swears by, you know, with their little pinky that they're going to do a rollback, then we can really state the case that we're talking about. But I think there was something to that that says, Hey, you know, we can do what, you know, we can do smaller government. We, and here's our dress rehearsal. We did a full rollback and it hurt and it, and here's what we did, but we delivered. I mean, there was something, I don't know. It just sounded like, you know, easier said than done, but there you go. And this is the conversation we're talking about. And that, and this is a conversation because you know, it's how do I, how do I do that with a sheriff? Yeah. When it's all people and he wants to give a raise that is absolutely justified. And I get a state mandate for $5 million of additional pension costs. Mr. Chair, if you don't mind, I, I, I agree. I wasn't saying to stop the conversation here. I was just saying, I think, I know for me, I don't mind communicating, but sometimes when I also have it, you know, in my hand where I can look at it and kind of massage it a little bit better. So I wasn't saying to discontinue, you know, that the conversation here wasn't a good lively one. That's number one. Number two, there are a couple of other counties and I'm happy to email it to you guys that have gone through the exercise that, um, are creating a budget with amendment three and a budget without amendment three, even right now for next year so that the residents can, can see him and make those determinations. So just throwing that out at throwing that out as they're doing that, even though that won't affect next year. Yes. Yep. So I I'll share that with you as well. Cause those individuals are reporting it back to FAC so that we could try to compile the data when we're sending out our spreadsheet of the 67 counties, you know, this is what others are doing and this is how it looks. So I'm happy to share that with you guys as well. Thank you. Mr. Chair. Well, you know, the, and I'm on a call with all the County managers around state, everybody's doing a little bit different. I'm also on a call with the city managers and everybody's doing a little bit different. You know, the politics is going to get real on preparing another budget because you know, the area that I'd have to go to, to get $184 million, um, you know, is, is around our law enforcement calls. I mean, there's no way to get around that. And so how much, do we cut parks versus sheriff versus, you know, pick another function, you know, uh, those are, those are going to be the difficult discussions if, if that passes and we will have those and you did it back in 2010, um, you know, 11, you had to go through that and, and we will too, but you know, those are, those are really difficult discussions because, uh, that's the way our budget is made up. Um, and so try to do that twice. I'd rather do it once. Um, you know, because I think people are throwing out numbers. And as soon as I say, we're going to cut the sheriff, then everybody says, well, then you're crying wolf, but this is a fiscal reality. There is no way to do $184 million out of the general fund without it affecting police and fire period. There is no possible way to do it. After November, after November, if it passes, correct. So why, you know, so let's wait and see what the voters decide, because you know, if we took, okay, the $184 million and we took that completely out, if we just funded our constitutional officers at the rate that they've been funded over the last several years, we're still minus, um, $60 million minus $60 million to even meet what the constitutionals need, including the sheriff. You can't do it without it. Barry, did I, is there anything in that constitutional thing, or is this more going to be driven by the, the house and the Senate next year about, you know, changing the way, you know, that, that whole, I'm trying to, there's an implementing bill that would go along with the passage of amendment three. It excludes first responders. It, this did not exclude first responders. Okay. And that's, I know this didn't, but the constitutional amendment does not exclude first responders. That was one of the comments. I think, uh, governor DeSantis stated, um, that the reason it wasn't his bill. Um, but he, but even so, even so if you, if you, and we're going to, you know, we're, we're going off budget and we're going down a rabbit hole with amendment three, but you know, for instance, everybody thinks about the general fund. They talk about wasting government. Okay. How many different property tax funds do we have on our property tax bill? That is not County general fund. We have an EMS fund, an EMS fund pays for seats out on the fire department. It's a, it's the emergency medical response out on the fire trucks. We will lose 20. It is a separate fund. It's no general fund, no support from anywhere else. It loses $28 million under amendment three. The only way you can do it is to cut the number of seats or the funding out to the fire departments. It is a separate fund. And I use that one as just one example. And that's just one fund that needs some work. And that's just one fund. And that needs work to balance it by itself. Right. Cause we're not, we're not balanced in that fund. There's no other way to do it unless, unless I'm talking about in that fund itself, we're losing money. Our reserves are going down every year. That's correct. Okay. So we're spending more than we're bringing in. That fund will be out of money in 2031, 2032 under today's environment. Right. I understand. This will speed that up to where we're going to have to make serious decisions sooner, much sooner. That's correct. That's just one of our, how many, how many of those are there? How many property tax funds? 23 property tax funds. Okay. So everybody thinks about the general fund, not the other 22, but the real, you know, the health department, you have a health department fund. You have emergency medical, you have all these MSTUs, library services, you know, recreation services, they lose funding. East Lake recreation loses 44% of their funding. East Lake fire loses 44%. Palm Harbor recreation loses 41%. Palm Harbor fire loses 44%. So those, those are real. It's, it's bigger. It's bigger where you have, where you don't have commercial or non-homesteaded properties. And so in the North, you know, it's a bigger percentage. And down in the middle of the County where it's more like 28%, you know, percent or something like that. Cause you have offsetting commercial and non-homesteaded properties. And on your, on that pleasant note that you just said, we're going to pause because we're going to go to this one o'clock meeting. It's going to start. I've gotten about a minute and a half, so we're going to go ahead and break from this meeting. Um, and I'm going to turn it over to our County attorney. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, I have an announcement to make about the specific matters arising in and from the case of Pinellas County versus American empire builders incorporated at all six judicial circuit case number 24-005416CI. As stated last week in an open meeting of the County Commission, the County attorney desires advice concerning this litigation and is asking for a settlement negotiation or strategy session related to this litigation expenditures to be held in private. Since this matter is strictly regulated by state law as set forth in 286.011 sub eight Florida statutes. The entire session will be recorded by a certified court reporter whose notes shall be fully transcribed and filed with the clerk of the board records. This transcript will be made part of the public record upon conclusion of the litigation. The meeting has been duly noticed for today, Thursday, August 20th, 2026 at 1 PM. At this time, I'll turn it over to the chair to announce the commencement and estimated length of the attorney client session and the names of the persons attending attorney. At the conclusion of the session, the public meeting will be reopened as to this shade meeting portion and any necessary public business as a result of the private meeting will be handled and the chair will announce the termination of the attorney client session at which time we can move back into the prior workshop meeting. In accordance with the county attorney's request for a closed attorney client session to discuss the currently pending litigation involving empire, American empire builders, Inc. and its surety. As just described the board, the board will enter a closed session to discuss settlement negotiations and strategy related to litigation expenditures. The persons attending the closed client attorney client session will be myself, Chair Dave Eggers, Vice Chair Chris Lettvala, Commissioners Renee Flowers, who will not be in attendance at the meeting, correct? Yeah, she just had to leave. Right. Commissioner Brian Scott, Commissioner Vince Nowicki, Commissioner Kathleen Peters, and Commissioner Chris Shear, County Attorney Jewel White, Chief Assistant County Attorney Don Kroll, Managing Assistant County Attorney Christy Donovan Pemberton, your outside counsel, Brett Henson, County Administrator Barry Burton, and Court Reporter Kara La Cognata of Executive Reporting Service. The session is commencing in this open public meeting and is estimated to last one hour. The entirety of the closed session will be transcribed by a certified court reporter. The transcript will remain exempt from public records until the conclusion of the litigation. At the conclusion of this closed session, the public meeting will be reopened. Any necessary public business as a result of the private meeting will be handled, and I will announce the termination of the attorney client session. The public meeting at this point is now in recess, and the private meeting will commence in Studio B. Thank you. All right, let's go. The shade portion of the meeting, at this point, seeing no members of the public here, we had made a recommendation during the shade meeting that action needs to be taken at the public portion of the meeting. So in order to act on the recommendation that was explained to you during the shade meeting that we private session we just had, we would ask that the board entertain or the chair entertain a motion and a second to accept the recommendation that had been expressed to you during the shade meeting. Motion by Commissioner Peters, second by Commissioner Scott, and do we need, we'll just do a roll, no, we'll just do a voice vote. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. The attorney private, the public portion of the private attorney client shade meeting is now over from the county attorney's perspective. We'd ask the chair to close that meeting and then feel free to open back up with your workshop meeting. Okay, so we are officially adjourned on that meeting, but we are reestablishing our current meeting, and we're back to talk additional budget. I think where we left off pretty much is that there seems to be an interest on getting additional information from you guys before our next budget workshop. We'll get you additional information on, so there's several areas, and if you want to discuss it, we can, or we can save it to the next time. You want us to get additional areas on programming areas and possible programs that you could, you know, consider. You want us to look at parking and whether you want to put a cap on that. I heard a little bit of interest in not having them as steep, you know, but then that gets onto the revenue side. So we'll give you some options that way. I heard clear direction that we'll look at restoring the funding for Wheaton Island for one year, and that we'll ask the state as part of our legislative program to help fund that state land, the cost associated with maintaining it. And then, let's see, what else, Chris, am I missing off of that? Or Chris or team in their notes? If I could interrupt while they're doing that, I just want to give a reminder. Commissioner Flowers talked about each of you submitting your own other ideas for potential reductions. I encourage you guys to send those to County Administrator and to Chris Rose, and you can copy each other. Just be sure you do not comment back to one another or create any kind of dialogue when you do that. Yeah. So you can do that. We also talked about, we'll get you more details on reserves. That's another discussion that you had. And what else? We talked about the MSTU, I didn't get real clear direction. Some seem to be okay with the modified recommendation. Compromise maybe between what you proposed and what we've been doing somewhere in between. That's what I, that's what I'm suspecting. But I, that's, maybe that's my own preference. We'll just save for the dialogue. I mean, whatever, whatever, I mean, that, that difference. It's a hundred grand. We can work, we can work that out. Um, and you know, and so then we'll, we'll share that and we'll have it on for the next discussion. Um, when you talked about the parking and Paul, uh, just emailed me, uh, regarding that. And based upon his averages, if you set a cap of $15 for a day for a cap, um, that would not impact the revenue numbers because he was, he was based on about a three and a half hour stay. Um, so if you set a cap that, that would, you can do that without, um, uh, impacting our estimates. Um, and so that's easy to accomplish. And I think that pro that makes a lot of sense. And that, that includes the proposed increases that for the annual passes and that kind of thing. Well, yeah, the annual passes, we, we didn't make any adjustment on that. I'm just saying that the, the $6 to the three 50 an hour, we can, we can cap that at $15 a day. And without impacting the revenue estimates that we have from the overall parking plan, if you want to do something different than that, well, then it will impact that. And then I'll have to find the funding that to be able to, to, to make that up. Um, other than that, um, that's what we had. Yes. Uh, chair, I want to remind you that we also talked about, uh, we were going to look at programs that programs, chamber of commerce and chamber of commerce, and specifically for me, I want to know about this, uh, Tampa Bay, our Tampa Bay planning council, because we spent a lot on that and I just don't see a big fruit. I, I was going off of my notes. I've got other staff taking notes, so I haven't conferred with them, but I gotcha. Um, the economic development, the, the chambers of commerce out of ED, out of economic development, um, the Tampa Bay regional planning council. And so we'll also look at those. Great. Commissioner Scott, you said, yeah, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I've got a meeting tomorrow with, um, with Sarah Mollo to discuss that line item, $760,000. So once I get a better understanding of that, I'll share that with, with, with everybody and, and just share one way, right? Yeah, I will. One way for sure. Uh, and just thinking out loud on something here, probably not something that would affect the fiscal year 27 budget. And I don't know this a good idea or not a good idea. I'm just throwing this out for, um, for discussion purposes. Have we ever looked at just contracting out the jail of what that would cost or potentially save? Um, no, um, we, we haven't. Um, you know, they got a lot of sworn officers there that are paying a lot of pension for and hiring bonuses for and et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Uh, it wasn't, I don't know how long ago, but Pasco County did that. I believe did they not go from now? They just brought it internal to Pasco County. So the sheriff's no longer running at County. The County administrator is. Oh, so they, Oh, they didn't, they didn't outsource it. They brought it into the, that's correct. Okay. So are there examples of that? There, there are, I mean, you're just assuming those contracts, so it doesn't mean you're necessarily going to save anything unless, you know, a jails just like anything. I mean, it, it has a post, it has a post here. It has a post here. And so you got to eliminate a post to save money. Um, so how, you know, how you're going to do that by switching it over to a different person overseeing it. I don't see how that saves money. Um, we can look at it. That would be a very involved study. It won't be for next year. You know, and, and, uh, and, and it would affect so many pieces within the sheriff's office. Uh, that's a pretty complicated issue. You know, I mean, the sheriff, regardless of his costs, you got to admit, I mean, he, he, he knows his business and, and he runs a really good operation. Um, whether that reduces cost, I just don't know. It just seems to me like it'd be worth having a discussion at some point, particularly if I'm in the three passes. Well, I was going to say probably we're going to have to get creative on a lot of different things, whether it passes or doesn't pass. So I just think it might be worthwhile to have it. So the sheriff and I had this discussion, you know, like if I said, I'm going to come back to the sheriff and say, you got to give us, you know, three more million. Well, he'd look at safe Harbor. It's not required to do it. They started it up because of the need. Um, so what, what does that mean? Well, that that's going to have a community impact. It's no, it's no different than some of our recidivism type programs. Cause you know, it's not just a sheriff that runs safe Harbor. We have mental health, uh, professionals and stuff in there, uh, trying to connect people to services. So then are there less people that get connected to, I mean, those are the hard things that I'd have to get. I'd have to get folks at work in that area to, to talk about the impacts. So, so the other impact is the legislature passed a law that said, if a homeless person sleeps in a business's doorway, that business can sue the local government. So if you get rid of a safe Harbor and those people are sleeping in a business, now we've just set our set up for her to be liable for a lawsuit because a homeless person fell asleep in a doorway. Yeah. Uh, it's, it's almost. Yeah. So we, so the sheriff and I, sheriff and I started that program, um, a couple of years ago when the law passed, we met with all the chiefs of police. Uh, we actually worked with Karen and her staff along with homeless leadership, uh, group about how, how to work, you know, with all the law enforcement agencies about the public camping. Um, and so the law enforcement agency worked together, but that was part of, we put additional mental health counselors in safe Harbor because that became the relief valve of where somebody could go. And so it's, it's all integrated in some shape or form. I'm not the expert on that, but you, you, you squeeze a balloon, you know, and it's going to come out. And so, you know, if you, if you don't have that, we'd have to understand what the community impact would be. So it may be worth talking to the sheriff about a study on transport and, and just other things where there could be efficiencies, maybe have someone come in and do an analysis and look for efficiencies. I know he doesn't like to spend money that way, but I don't think he does. Uh, I shouldn't speak for him. I apologize. But, um, it could be that there's things we haven't thought of, or he hasn't thought of that there could be efficiencies, whether it's transport, whether it's, um, I, you know, I don't, I don't really know. I can certainly talk to him about it. That is not my expertise. So I just don't know. But, but there could be a way that he could do some kind of analysis of some efficiencies that can be found, um, within the detention department or center or transport or how we're managing courts. When we have our new campus, is that going to save him money on courts? I don't know. It's less transport. I don't know. I, most of that's all at the criminal justice system, not here. So I, I, I don't know, but even if amendment three doesn't pass, something else is coming and that, that exercise is going to have to be done. All right. Commissioner, I agree with you. Um, I mean, you, you guys have stated it very clearly that this is, you know, something more is going to occur. Right. And so we've got to somehow limit that growth in government. You know, I, I think it's implausible to eliminate it, but you know, that you certainly can, um, uh, limit it. And, and so we've got to figure that out. And the sheriff's been very open to looking at different ideas. Um, but you know, we'll have to have those conversations. Yes. Uh, just one, one other thing, uh, uh, Barry, I was trading emails back and forth with Blaine before he gets his surgery, uh, about the use of drop employees and I'm just confused of, uh, uh, on drop employees. If, if you have a full-time person at there, they retire, but they choose to be in the drop program. Does that save us money every year? It's exactly the same cost. And the other big question is, are we required to allow them to participate in drop? So, um, I give you a good government answer as, uh, both. Um, okay. Uh, so when you, you're any employees allowed to go into drops, you say, I'm going to retire in three years or five years or whenever eight years, right? You know, well, that's what I'm trying to get at. It's, it is eight years max, but for the first five years, it's the employee's choice. Okay. And so it used to be five years maximum and drop and you had to leave. Right. Um, and so you pay a premium and that goes in, it's not goes to your FRS benefits. It goes into a separate drop fund that then goes, it's like a 401k for that employee. It costs you, it's a premium pay. It's about 5% more, but it's limited at that five years. That is the employee's choice to go into that under state law. The, what happened is a couple of years ago, they extended drop to eight years. So if an employee wants to stay for eight years, then it becomes our choice. If we want to let them stay out to eight years for just that three years. So it's basically the three years. Um, and, and so, you know, we have an approval process and it actually comes up to me to, uh, extend beyond that. Cause I want to make sure, you know, it's employees that we want to stay. Um, you know, and so we, we do have an internal review process for the first five years. We have, I mean, we absolutely have to. Okay. All right. Well, that kills that idea. Yeah. No, you, you were bringing it up and, and Blaine was trying to get answers, but remember Blaine's new. So, and I've been here and, and, and I, and I've dealt with it and, and we, we had to go through that when they changed the state law. It's the reason I understand it more. Anything else? All right. When's the next budget workshop? The, yeah. September 3rd. Can I throw something out there before we go on to agenda review? Go right ahead. So, you know, we talk about affordability and, you know, I publicly stated, I think a lot of the affordability problems is because corporations have bought up our housing inventory. So I learned of a new business model and I don't know if you've heard about this, but now instead of buying up inventory of housing, the new business model is you buy up leases and apartments and condos that are for rent. And then you Airbnb those apartments and those condos. So therefore the business is not buying the inventory. They're buying up leases. So we already have a problem with people having affordability issue with rentals. And now if the inventory of rentals get bought up by people that are Airbnb and their rentals, then we no longer even have an inventory of rentals. And I don't know if there is anything that we can do that can curb that because that's the new business model that's going out there. It doesn't take a lot of money for investment. It's just your first and last month and then what your monthly fee is, but in what you're marketing your Airbnb for, but they're making more money on their Airbnb than they are on their rentals. And so that is the new business model. And I don't know if we can get ahead of it based on statutes. If it's Airbnb, it's Airbnb, but they are buying up all of the leases in, in rental apartments and condos that, that get rented. So I, I don't know, but this is the new business model and I just don't know if there's something we can, I would, I would suspect there's nothing that we can do at a local level, but I will follow up with the county attorney's office, uh, to review that. Thank you. Okay. Anything else before we jump into agenda? Well, I, I was just going to answer one question. Commissioner Nowicki brought up to me and separately, we have an ICMA fellow position. Uh, we've had two of those. We use it as like an internship. They come on for two years and we rotate them around two departments. We've hired most of them. Some of the best and brightest Aubrey is a, was an ICMA fellow. Um, you know, and so we've used that in next year's budget to answer commissioner, but just for transparency of all, we we've only kept one and that's the one that's one year in. So it's part of a two year cycle. The one that was due to start as part of next year's budget, we've eliminated that out of the budget. Okay. Um, so we could stop the internship, but I hate to do it. It's in the middle of a two year. They moved here for this. So, but instead of two, we have one, we just have one. Yeah. So, okay. Um, all right. Then I'll move to agenda review. Thank you, Chris. Um, and Chris and his team have been working tirelessly and I, you know, for, to get answers, uh, the best we can. Um, and, and I really do appreciate him and Jim, you know, and, uh, so, um, okay. Going on over to, uh, our, uh, agenda at first real item besides receipts and file or, um, item 11, uh, which is, um, ratification. So we had a, um, a grant that opportunity that we had to apply for. And so we couldn't meet that. So it's just ratification of me, uh, going after a grant for, uh, Lillman gymnasium hardening. Item 12 is an award, a bid to, uh, for a replacement of existing 24 inch force main. You got a County attorney, um, report, but I don't think any, I don't think there was anything there for 14. I'm done. Doesn't move good with one. No County attorney reports expected. Um, item 14 is a word of contract for the rental car concessions at the airport. Item 15 is elite event funding for Clearwater offshore nationals. Item 16, uh, it's actually the next two items. It's an amendment to the crisis stabilization unit and PEMS, um, through this is the, uh, it's to add, um, uh, care connect, which is an electronic information exchange, uh, for the medical records. And so this adds it to this group. And then also on item 17 to the, uh, permanent support of housing and the safe Haven agreements with Boyd centers or Bully centers, um, item 18, a resolution. So this one is resolution authorizing me to, uh, waive certain budgetary controls. That doesn't sound good, but this is for our American Rescue Plan Act. We have to spend the money by the end of the year. We have a defined list of eligible projects. And so if I come up $1, uh, extra in one, I can move it over and pay it over in a different account. They're all pre-approved. These are, it would only be within that defined list. And it's just so we can spend every dollar of the ARPA funds. Um, item 19, and they have to be completed by the end of the year is the reason we're adding that. Um, item 19 is third amendment to precision sidewalk safety for tripping, um, hazard and prevention and maintenance. Item 20 is a resilient Florida grant for the South, uh, cross Bayou advanced water reclamation facility for pump station improvements. Item 21 is an agreement, uh, for, uh, their banking services. Item 22 is an amendment to a legal services agreement in the case of Pinellas County versus American Empire Builders Inc. Uh, we'll discuss that. Uh, item 23 is proposed initiation of litigation in the case of Pinellas County versus John Kreps, uh, estate and that's an action for foreclosure on special magistrate liens. Uh, item 24 is proposed ratification of initiation of litigation in the case of Pinellas County versus Brittany Statton and Michael Carey, uh, which is a petition for custody, uh, of cruelly or neglectfully treated animals. Item 25 is the, um, resolution proving the early extension of the 2026 tax rules. This is a statutory process you do every year that allows early extension for the benefit of the tax collector. Okay. Uh, and on, uh, actually on, uh, I, I misspoke. There will be no attorney, uh, reports under 26 expected. However, back under 13, there is a receipt and file of civil lawsuits. There's a report attached. Okay. I will have county administrator's report and we got, then we can go over to our public hearings. Uh, so the first is a zoning from general office to R3, um, unincorporated Pinellas County, um, make the current single family home consistent with the zoning district around it. Um, you voted unanimously. Um, item 30 is a petition for vacate a 33 foot wide, uh, right away. Um, staff recommends approval. Um, 31 is a petition to vacate a portion of this avenue. Uh, let's see, it's a vacate a portion of the petition roads internal to the petitioner's property. So staff recommends approval. Uh, next is a, a petition to vacate, uh, a 17 feet right away on East Lake Drive. Um, let's see. It's adjacent to the front of the petitioner's property and, uh, staff recommends approval. And 33, uh, this, all this, an ordinance amending the code related to tourist development council. This is what we discussed previously. This takes the amount from 3.3 to 3 point, um, or 3 million to 3.3, um, for a one year increase. It does not permanently change that. And that was what Brian briefly on before. So you have to really decide whether you want to stick to the $3 million, which is then the current, current programs, or if you want to, uh, increase it, which is what the TDC recommended and cover the additional program recommendations. And he's here. He was here to answer any questions. I guess he left. Um, 34 is elite event fundings. Uh, this is the recommendation from elite event funding, and that's the modification to the plan. So the first question, why is it, uh, the boat races for Clearwater taken out of this one? You have one on the regular agenda for the boat races, which is typically an elite funding. And so why isn't it in this one? Just out of curiosity. Well, I think we'll, did it get missed and they added it in or I don't know the answer. Commissioner will get you an answer. Um, since, uh, he's not here and we'll send that out to the entire commission before Tuesday. Cause I, I don't know the answer to that. Okay. Well, that's fine. Thank you. Um, and then, then finally is, uh, recognize an unanticipated revenue. So it's a budgetary adjustment. So there's several listed within your packet. If you have any questions specifically regarding anyone, then we can certainly get you answers to those. And that concludes the agenda. Chair. Yeah. Thank you, chair. Uh, Barry on, uh, 18, the ARPA funds, it said it was like a pre-approved list of things. I didn't see that list that it was things that were pre-approved. Chris, we have, we do have a pre-approved list that, so we can certainly get that to you. Yeah, we can, we can get it to you. It's just all the, all the projects that are still ongoing and we've spent 93 million, uh, 93% of ARPA so far. Yeah. The real concern is any projects that underspend, we need a place to put those. So the flexibility. So if we can, we'll, we'll email you the list and then we'll upload it, um, onto the agenda. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Anything else? Well, thank you all. That's a, a bit of a long day, but appreciate your all being here and, uh, we are adjourned.