Forward Pinellas Board meeting on 10/08/2025 - Oct 08, 2025

Good afternoon, everyone. We'll call to order the Forward Pinellas Board Meeting for October 8th, 2025. If you could join me in standing for our Pledge of Allegiance. Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, your God, indivisible. Thank you. And now we'll go around the room for our quick introductions, and we'll start to my right here with Commissioner Scherer. Mid-SIP, sorry. Pinellas County Commission, Chris Scherer, District 1. City of Largo, Chris Johnson, Commissioner Chris Johnson. Vice Mayor Mike Eisner, Tarpon Springs, welcome. Deborah Fick-Sanders, St. Petersburg City Council. Sorry, I couldn't see if there was someone over there. Richie Floyd, City Councilmember in St. Petersburg. Good afternoon, everybody. City of Clearwater, Councilmember Mike Menino. Tom Shelley, Deputy Mayor for the Town of Bel Air and North Inland Communities. Mo Franey, Mayor of City of Dunedin, proud home, spring training home of Toronto Blue Jays, who are going to beat the Yankees tonight to get to the next level playoff, so there we go. Wow. Thank you. Councilmember Patty Reed from the most amazing city, Pinellas Park. Dave Eggers, Pinellas County Commissioner. Gina Driscoll, St. Petersburg City Council. Whit Blanton, Executive Director, and I've been wearing my Blue Jays jersey because my Rays are not in it anymore. All right. Thank you. Tina, do we have any citizens wishing to be heard today on any items that are not already on the agenda for action by the board? Yes, Madam Chair. We have David Ballard-Gettis, Jr. Thank you. Good afternoon. Hi. Good afternoon. Good to see everybody. My name is David Ballard-Gettis, Jr. I live on Georgia Avenue in Palm Harbor. Again, under our current Constitution in Article VI, it states that this Constitution is under this Constitution as under the Confederacy. This Constitution is simply a hold, used as a hold on truth. This government is declared as arbitrary, as light and transient, as candid legislation. It's a cover-up operation while legislation captures the water supply based on Article I, Section 8, Clause 11, intending to dissolve this Constitution, dissolving this Constitution, using the 14th Amendment as a ring bolt operation to give rise to this Constitution, rising as fact, based on Article III, Section 2. So, as based on the Louisiana land purchase here in this map depiction, which is the, in actuality, the western half of the Mississippi watershed region, what was the original intent of the framers of this Constitution? The original 13 watershed region comprising the entire North American continent, the entire North American continent, based on watersheds, is the pursuit of, by, and for the people capturing both land and water in a confederation of who in pursuance thereto. And what is their ultimate endgame, and what is their ultimate endgame, as the Declaration of Independence clearly states that they are deaf to the voice of justice and consequentity, totally unworthy of heading up a civilized nation? Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else, Tina? No, Madam Chair. All right, we'll close public comment and go on to our recognitions and announcements. And we have a nice announcement today from Whit. I am always happy to recognize our staff, and we'll just do this from here. Kyle over there, you said he would wave, is our principal planner, who's our active transportation planner. And we have promoted Kyle to senior principal planner based on his accomplishment of a series of milestones. And this is significant because what we did previously is we just had one category for principal planners. And we have some principal planners with 25 years of experience and some principal planners with six or eight years of experience. And we wanted to give a path for growth in that category. So we created three different categories of principal planners. And we're happy to acknowledge Kyle's progression through that path and his demonstration of leadership for the agency. Thank you, Kyle. Thank you. And congratulations, Kyle. Thank you so much for your service. It's wonderful to see you progressing in your career while you do such a great job for everyone throughout the county. So congratulations. All right. We'll go on to our consent agenda. Do we have any board members who would like to pull any item from the consent agenda to be handled individually? Otherwise, I'll entertain a motion for approval. So moved. Second. Second. All right. We have a motion and a second to approve the consent agenda. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Madam Chair, for the record, there were no citizens wishing to be heard on the consent agenda. Well, that's good because I've forgotten. I'm sorry about that. We have our public hearing items. First, item 6A, a proposed amendment to the Transportation Improvement Program. And for that, presenting today from the four Pinellas staff is Ryan Hutton. Afternoon. Hi. Good afternoon, everyone. All right. So we have one amendment today. This is a little – we said this last time, but just in case anyone was curious, the purpose of the TIP. So it's a short-term planning document that outlines the transportation projects, regional and metropolitan area intends to implement using federal, state, or local funds. And as a refresher, there's usually two types of changes we make to the TIP. So there's an amendment or a modification. So all you need to know really is that an amendment usually impacts the fiscal constraint of a project, while a modification usually is something more like the change in project phase or funding sources. But today, we have one amendment. So today's amendment adds about $49 million in Federal Transit Administration Section 5307 formula funding for the PSDA. So these are federal transit dollars that are allocated each year based on factors like ridership, service miles, and population, and they can be used on things like buses, facilities, and planning. And so this increase comes mostly from two factors, the disbanding of the Tampa Bay Area Regional Transit Authority. So those redistributed funds can now be available for the PSTA. And then also the addition of the Sunrunner means that the PSDA has boosted funds under that formula, and now they're allocated more of those funds. So today, and here's the table in case anyone was curious how that budget's changing over the next five years. So today we're just recommending approval of this amendment to the 2026-2030 TIP. We also want to say that the TCC, the Technical Coordinating Committee, and the Citizens Advisory Committee both unanimously recommended approval. And if approved, this document will be updated and transmitted to FDOT and FHWA partners and posted online. And that's it. Any questions? Thank you. Questions? All right. And, Tina, do we have any citizens wishing to make public comment on this item? No, Madam Chair, we do not. Okay, great. This one requires a roll call vote, so if we could entertain a motion for this item. Move approval. Second. All right. We have a motion and a second to approve the item 6A. Could we do the roll call vote, please? Commissioner Eggers? Aye. Council Member Reed? Mayor Freeney? Aye. Deputy Mayor Shelley? Aye. Council Member Menino? Aye. Council Member Floyd? Aye. Mayor Ayub? Aye. Mayor Love? Council Member Fig Sanders? Aye. Vice Mayor Eisner? Aye. Commissioner Johnson? Aye. Commissioner Shearer? Council Member Driscoll? Aye. That carries unanimously. All right. Thank you. Thank you. I will go into our presentations and action items for today, starting with the PSTA activities report. Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes. Thank you. Our first item is the PSTA fiscal 2026 budget did pass. For the second year in a row, the Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority Board of Directors has approved a balanced budget that reduces the agency's property tax rate, while also advancing new services and improvements across the transit system. The rate for 2026 is set at 0.7300 mils, down from 0.7342 mils in 2025 and 0.7500 mils in 2024. This establishes the lowest tax rate to fund the public transportation services in Pinellas County at their lowest level in 15 years. The second are our new initiatives. After initiating successful new grouper airport shuttle service in the Clearwater Ferry in 2025, PSTA's fiscal 26 budget will support launching even more new initiatives. On October 26, the agency's connected community bus network will take effect, reorganizing routes and schedules to create a bus system that is clearer, more consistent, and more connected. The system redesign follows extensive public outreach and is cost neutral, achieved without any expected cost increases for the agency or the taxpayers. Third, I'm really excited about, is our SPARK. PSTA will also debut SPARK, which is in District 5, a high-frequency premium bus service connecting South Pinellas-Eckert College and the Skyway Marina District in St. Petersburg with downtown St. Pete and St. Pete Beach. The SPARK grand opening event will be at Eckert College at 10 a.m. on Monday, October 27, 2025. The SPARK launch reception will take place at the Allstate Center from 11 to 3 p.m., so please join us. The last update is our waterborne transit. The agency is also set to expand the Clearwater Ferry to the City of Dunedin in the coming weeks and is working toward launching a new Tampa Bay Ferry service as early as next year. And that completes the report, Madam Chair. Thank you. Any questions about the PSCA report? Mayor Franey. Just wanted to add that the ribbon cutting is at 9 o'clock tomorrow morning at Dunedin Marina for, you know, restarting the Clearwater Ferry operation. So we're very excited about that. Yes, thank you. Anyone else? All right. Then in that case, we'll move on to our regional activities report and we'll give us that update. Okay. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I want to just bring everybody's attention to your agenda packet. There's an item in there from the September 26 TMA Leadership Group meeting. We had a presentation from the consultants procured by the City of Tampa for the Regional Infrastructure Accelerator Grant Program, and they described the memorandum of understanding that they are asking all three MPOs and any other partners who are transportation providers in the region to sign. They presented a methodology for how they are evaluating projects that are identified in every MPO's 2050 long-range transportation plan for consideration as potential accelerator projects. The accelerator is just a reminder is not new money coming into the region. It is using tools like innovative finance and public-private partnerships, private equity bonds, things like that, to advance projects that have already been identified as a need and a priority in the region but lack funding. So what the – and they gave some examples at the TMA Leadership Group meeting, and I was particularly impressed. Some of these are big-ticket projects that require, you know, bonding, tolling, some of those traditional mechanisms. But the state of Oklahoma advanced a series of sidewalk projects, wide-shoulders, safety projects statewide, and they bundled them all together to get those projects done through this program. So it can address a lot of different types of projects, and it's certainly multimodal in approach. There's a federal office in the U.S. Department of Transportation called the Build America program, and this grant is through that program. What we're asking you today is to approve the MOU for just committing us to be good partners and work well with all of our other regional partners, which we do. And the Hillsborough TPO signed and approved this earlier today. Do you want to take action on that before I finish? Because we do need – this is an action item on this one. I can finish, talk about the other item. We can come back to it. Okay. So we're asking for a motion to approve. You have one. Second. Seeing that there's no request for discussion, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Madam Chair, forgive me. I didn't see who the second was. Oh, thank you. And for the record, there were no citizens wishing to be heard on that item. Yes. Thank you. Thank you all very much. I'll just keep going here. The screening methodology is in there for your review as well. So we're looking forward to how they evaluate all these projects and what they bring back. That shouldn't be too far into the future. The other item I wanted to mention is an invitation to the principal's workshop on November 14th related to the potential merger of our three MPOs. That date is a Friday, and we've set the time at 1230 to 3 p.m. I know how much everybody loves Friday afternoon meetings. The Pinellas County Commission is meeting with the Pinellas legislative delegation that morning, so we wanted to make sure we didn't present a conflict for any of our county commission members, since they are principals to any agreement. A decision to merge the MPOs requires the three county commissions and the city of Tampa. Collectively, they represent more than 75% of the urban area population, but county commissions are described in federal and state law as key components to that, and so is the largest city in the urbanized area. The purpose of the workshop is to present some alternatives and some options for people to consider. We have invited over 160 local elected officials to this meeting, so you'll be rubbing a lot of shoulders with people you know, and maybe some you don't, from the three counties. And while I don't expect all of those folks to show up, we would like to have one person at least from every local government in Pinellas County, and I do encourage all of our board members to be there if you can. I think it'll be informative. I think it'll be educational. We are looking to use this principals workshop as a basis for making a decision, a recommended decision of whether to merge the MPOs by spring of 2026. So our goal is not to draw this discussion out too long because we've been talking about it for many, many years and use this dialogue and forum as a basis for helping to reach that decision. And I want to assure you that if we're not able to merge, then we will look at Plan B fallback options on how to continue to work to strengthen our regional partnership. So it's, you know, still a lot to go and a lot of decisions to be made. And in the run-up to the November 14th meeting, I believe there will be a survey that is distributed as well so that we'll gauge, you know, interest and understanding and at least preliminary thoughts on the potential merger from each of the invitees. And there's information in the packet about that in terms of a flyer. I did present it to the city manager's consortium meeting last Friday, which had representatives from the county and all the cities in Pinellas County. And we had a really good discussion. And there were some questions from some of the cities about concerns that Pinellas might lose influence. And I think the county administrator did a great job addressing some of those questions, reinforcing that there's a lot of ways you can set up a regional organization to avoid tyranny of the majority or ensuring that all voices are heard in the process. So if you have any questions, I'm happy to try and answer them. Thank you. Any questions on that? And that will be at Creative Labs in the Caroline area. So it should be conveniently located and centrally located for most everybody in the region. All right. Sounds good. Well, hopefully everyone can make it. Thank you for that. Did you have any other items on your report today? All right. Thank you. November 14th. Yes, November 14th at 1230. All right. We'll go on to Item 7C, which is a presentation on the State Road 60 and Courtney Campbell Causeway project. And presenting today, we're joined by Craig Fox, Project Manager for FDOT. Good afternoon. Thank you for joining us. Good afternoon. Thank you for having me here today. My name's Craig Fox with the Florida Department of Transportation, here to present on the Courtney Campbell Causeway PD&E project. So we're happy here to present about the kickoff for this study. The study limits start in the city of Clearwater, as you can see on the map at the left at McMullen Booth Road, and they continue east along the Courtney Campbell Causeway into the city of Tampa, ending just before the Veterans Expressway. The length of the study corridor is around 9.4 miles. The Courtney Campbell Causeway is an important east-west connector for the region. It connects to Florida's strategic intermodal systems at US-19 and both at the Veterans Expressway or State Road 589, and also provides regional connectivity. The causeway also serves as a very critical emergency evacuation route. Now some information on the existing typical section. This is looking east towards the city of Tampa. The existing typical section consists of two lanes in east direction, ranging from 11 to 12 feet wide each. It also consists of a four-foot shoulder and access roads on both the north and south sides of the causeway. There's also a shared-use path along the south side of the causeway, extending the full length of the causeway. And the existing speed limits range from 45 miles an hour to 60 miles an hour. Now to review the project needs. First, starting with structural improvements. The oldest structure along the corridor is over 50 years old. So as part of the study, one thing we're going to do is run a life cycle cost analysis to determine whether it would be best to replace the structure or to continue to maintain the structure. Safety is another important factor. I'm sorry. Causeway vulnerability is another important factor that we're looking at with the study. As you all are well aware of, last year there were multiple storms that hit the Tampa Bay region, and there still is some repair going on from those storms. To mitigate and assess the vulnerability of the corridor, we have a separate assessment that's going on to determine some hardening that we can do along the corridor to increase the resiliency of that corridor. Safety is another project need. Currently, the corridor experienced a crash rate of around 1.39 million vehicles miles traveled, which is around 2.7 times the statewide average for a similar facility of its type. So there needs to be some significant safety improvements along the corridor. We do see the highest crash frequencies around Dr. Karen Patel Boulevard, the boat ramp entrance, and also the Rocky Point Drive. And within those three intersections, Rocky Point Drive does serve as a spike with bike and pedestrian crashes. So we're going to be looking, paying close attention to that intersection for improvements also. Traffic capacity is also another need that the study is going to address. Capacity is needed before the design year of 2050 for around 8.4 or 5 miles. So the vast majority of the corridor will have a need for capacity need before the design year of 2050. And that's shown a bit, you see kind of the worst of that congestion between Dr. Karen Patel Boulevard and Bay Harbor Drive. And again, it is an emergency evacuation route, so having capacity for that is also important to the region. Water quality is something that's also important that we're looking at with the study. Around 2018, the department constructed the Virginia Creighton Bridge that provides additional water crossing to allow flushing within the region north of the causeway. That has been shown to have very positive effects to water quality within to that region north of Old Tampa Bay. So as part of the study, we're going to look at potential additional openings to make further water quality improvements. So addressing the project's purpose is to address the vehicle capacity, safety, and emergency evacuation needs, and also improve the resiliency of the corridor to withstand flooding and erosion associated with adverse weather events. The environmental effects that the study will analyze include natural resources, cultural resources, social environment, and also the physical environment, covering everything from wetlands to noise and contamination. Now in regards to the consistency with the transportation plans. Currently, the project is not within the Ford Pinellas LRTP and is listed as an unfunded need within the Hillsborough TPO LRTP. We will look to work closely with both Ford Pinellas and the Hillsborough TPO to achieve planning consistency as we move forward with the project. My signal's getting through there. Yeah, I think my signal's not getting through for some reason. Oh, okay, perfect. Let me see, did I go? So the study began in June of 2025. The data collection is ongoing, and we held a kickoff meeting, and I have more information on that. A kickoff meeting was held on September 4th of this year. In 2026, we'll be preparing the documents, and we anticipate a public hearing in the fall of 2026 with a study approval in early of 2027. The table on the right shows the funding and also a breakdown of the design segments. We split it up into three segments. The first segment is largely in Pinellas County, and the second segment would be that main span bridge in the center of the causeway, and the third segment is from the east end of that bridge over to just west of the Veterans Expressway. As you can see, no phases are currently funded, so we look to seek funding for that as we move along with the study. Let's see if it's working now. If you could advance the slide, please. Thank you. Now, the kickoff meeting was held at the Doubletree by Hilton, Tampa, Rocky Point Waterfront Hotel on September 4th. The comment period ended September 26th. We had a pretty good turnout. It was just in person only, but we did have the information also simultaneously available online, and we also extended the comment period to allow folks more time to add their comments. 48 individuals attended in person, and we received 39 comments. Actually, that's up to 40 because I got one in the mail. And in regards to the topics brought up at the meeting, well, let me see from the comments so far, water quality, as you can see, is a very important issue for attendees. Around 59 percent of those that submitted comments mentioned water quality. Trail enhancements being number two, and also Dana Shores flooding and other items such as safety and hardening. So we are thankful that we had a lot of participation from that meeting, and we're looking to follow up with communities as we go along with the project. So here's my content information along with the project website. And now I'd like to open up the floor for any questions. Thank you. Questions? Yes, Council Member Menino. Madam Chair, thank you. Craig, thank you to your team and for the presentation. I do have a question. You talked a lot about safety, capacity, and resiliency, which is obviously important in this project. I see no mention in there, and I'm only asking because we've had several discussions and complaints over the years about lighting, especially post-storm. Is there any assessments into this project regarding lighting, or is that going to come kind of after the fact? So that comes after the fact. The P&E study, we don't really account necessarily for lighting, although we do make sure that our concepts are very conservative. So if we're looking at the concept and, you know, we look to have the one that has kind of the worst, when I say the worst impacts, I mean like the widest kind of footprint. So lighting is going to be really very easy to accommodate within our concept, but that's typically added on when you get in the design phases. But we're definitely going to make sure that it's in a space to include lighting within the concept. Thank you. Thank you, Madam. Thank you. Vice Mayor Eisner. Thank you, Madam Chair. So I have a couple of questions. Number one, post-storm, will there be a survey done on how much sand and debris was prior to the storm versus how much is there? Because I know we're doing a re-nourishment of a lot of the locations on the outside, you know, beaches, but are we going to be looking into putting some of that sand back? So I would actually have to follow up with our operations groups on that because the PDE doesn't really assess kind of sand nourishment. It's more something that's kind of an immediate need. So I can certainly follow up with them and get that information to you. But the PDE study itself doesn't necessarily look at, like, beach or sand or river nourishment. So then would it also not include a number of trees that went down along the pathway? And, of course, a lot of the soil and sand went in. And so you wouldn't be doing then a survey on maybe possibly re-dredging and putting it back up? I'm not saying you're doing it. I'm just saying, you know, whether you'd recommend that or not. So in regards to landscaping studies and our PDEs, so these are like a 30,000 kind of foot view. So at the most, what we'll do within the study itself is identify landscape opportunities to be improved on. But as part of the public coordination that we're doing, I can certainly take that to our design folks and see what we can do in the meantime. So the study is not going to evaluate it, like, independently. It's not part of our scope. But that's something that I can certainly take to our team to see what they're doing as far as that evaluation goes and see what they're doing to restore any trees that were not down. Well, the reason, of course, I bring this up is because a lot of the items that you had in there overlap this. So if we don't deal with this, then there's no sense. How do you use it as an evacuation zone if it's in the process of falling apart right now? I see what you're saying. Yeah, and to kind of a little bit add to that, and I kind of, sorry, I mentioned this from a really high level when I said there was like an ongoing hardening project that's going to look at making improvements to resiliency along the corridor. We're not only, so yes, we're looking at kind of the engineering solutions like those wads out by the Sunshine Skyway, but we're also looking at natural solutions as part of that too. So you don't really want to include in this study because honestly that's just going to slow it down. So we're actually having that, that study is ongoing right now, and that one's actually going to look at whether we can find it like engineered solutions or we can actually apply some natural solutions by increasing some of the vegetation along the corridor to increase the resiliency of it. So one last question that, it's maybe not a question, it's more of a statement. My team did a lot of flood restoration when the storm hit, and there's been a large report of cement turning into powder. I mean cement structures, literally foundations. Would you be willing or looking into anything like structure where the salt water could have, you know, done some damage to the roadways at all? So as part of this leading up to the project, we actually, so FDOT annually does, well, either, sorry, not annually, every two years it does a structural analysis of every bridge structure within our district, and all these structures were included in this study. The current status of the structures is that they are in pretty good condition. There was some damage done to them, but our bridge office has been addressing those needs. There are some other structural needs along the corridor that sort of aren't related to the storms, and so we are kind of incorporating that into our assessment to see what recommendations this study will come out of. So this study doesn't necessarily look at, you know, immediate kind of safety needs, but we are working closely with a structural office that has been looking at this corridor and has some proposed solutions that are in order. So somebody else would be looking into the bridge structures and things? Yeah, it's ongoing right now. Yeah. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, it's ongoing. That's all I had. Thank you. I appreciate the presentation. Not a problem. Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. It's interesting that there, of those who commented and weighed in on this, so many are interested in the water quality element, and rightly so. Is that something that you engage with the Tampa Bay Estuary Program to work on or to, you know, take advantage of those resources as you look at that part of the project? Yeah, so we have received information and been in contact with the Tampa Bay Estuary Program. We're actually all part of the Florida Scenic Highway Advisory Committee, so in those meetings we've certainly met with them, and I've got the content of information. So as far as the ongoing project's engagement, I do intend to follow up with the Estuary Program just to make sure that, you know, we're on the same page and get any input we can from them. So, yeah, they're our partner that we're looking forward to be working with within the study. That's excellent. Thank you. All right. Well, we don't have any more questions, but I wanted to give Whit an opportunity to say a few words about this project. Thank you, and thanks, Craig, for the presentation. We have been working with the city of Clearwater a little bit on this area. Speaking of water quality, the city is interested in that flushing and filtration in Cooper's Bayou, which is an area that doesn't have great water quality right now. The city also has developed a Cooper's Point master plan that I don't think is funded yet, but that is an opportunity for a trailhead and some observation towers and other amenities that complement the Courtney Campbell Causeway Trail, and we are going to be assisting the city of Clearwater with a strategic plan for the whole area because the water treatment plant on the southwest quadrant is eventually going away, and that might free up some space for events, parking, races, you know, different things like that that could happen on the Courtney Campbell Causeway Trail. And last year, the city of Clearwater had a legislative earmark to assist with funding to elevate Bayshore Boulevard in that area, which floods pretty regularly with even a pretty light rain. So we'd like to bring all these things together and complement the PD&E study, as well as the State Road 60 corridor study that is also underway to really highlight this area because it is such an important gateway coming into Pinellas County. So I'll keep you all updated as the strategic plan moves forward. That's something we think we'll do in-house and should be a fairly small level of effort, but it's really trying to tie all these different things together into one easily referenced document rather than having to go to the legislature with one thing and then another thing and then another thing. You kind of package it up, and they can see the bigger picture of how it all fits in. All right. Well, thank you. Thank you, everybody. Appreciate it. Yeah, great update. Next, we have our presentation on the strategic intermodal system unfunded needs. And for that, we have the one and only Chelsea Favreau. It's like the pit crew at the Daytona 500 here. Well, FDOT broke it, and they just left the room. So thank you for having me. This is actually the Department of Transportation put together a really nice video on their strategic intermodal system unfunded needs plan. After having watched it and run that video through the committees, we decided that it really might benefit you all to get a little bit more background on what the strategic intermodal system is and how it directly applies within Pinellas County. So I'm just going to give you a few slides, and then we'll go ahead and we'll start the video. Next slide, please. Thank you. So what is the strategic intermodal system? So the map up on the screen there identifies what the system is here in Pinellas County. It is a high-priority network of transportation facilities deemed most important to the state's economy and mobility. This was established by the governor and the legislature back in the early 2000s to really focus the limited transportation resources on the highest-priority corridor. The funding that goes towards the SIS is about 75% of the Transportation Trust Fund, and really it's just those highest priorities for capacity investments. As you can see in Pinellas, it's U.S. 19 North coming down to the Gateway Expressway and then over to I-275 corridor and then Gandy Boulevard going out towards Tampa. Those are the SIS corridors that are currently in Pinellas County. PIE is considered, on the label it says Emerging SIS. There's a different term for that now, but basically it's very important for the area, but it doesn't quite reach that threshold of SIS, so it is recognized by the department. Next slide. So there are different SIS facilities. One of them is highways. So in SIS, in order to be designated SIS, it has to be either an interstate or a high-capacity toll facility, a limited-access facility, maybe. Ah, we're working now. Thank you. A limited-access facility with an SIS or another limited-access at the end, a national highway facility that connects to an urbanized area outside of Florida, or a controlled-access facility that connects two or more urbanized areas with an SIS facility on each end. So it's pretty broad, but it's really just focusing on those higher-capacity roadways that move the most amounts of traffic and don't just kind of stub out and dead-end anywhere. So going back to the map, you can see the facilities here in Pinellas. None of them head towards the beaches and end abruptly. It's a connected network, and that's really the goal of the SIS. When it comes to airports, so in order for an airport to be designated as SIS, it has to meet a minimum activity level or determined to be of compelling state interest. For that minimum activity level, the facility has to have at least 2.5 percent of Florida's total annual passenger emplacements. PIE, or the St. Petersburg Clearwater International Airport, is of compelling state interest but does not currently meet that size criteria. So that's why it's reflected on the maps but doesn't currently get those SIS dollars. It's just identified. PIE did serve approximately 2.5 million passengers in 2024, and when I looked at their numbers about two weeks ago, they're on track to beat that number right now, which is a great number for PIE, but it doesn't currently meet that 2.5 percent of statewide total passenger emplacements. And at our Citizens Advisory Committee, we got a lot of questions about why is the map in Pinellas just roads and airports? What about transit? What makes this a multimodal plan? And in other areas of Florida, there are transit facilities that are designated as SIS, but there are some thresholds that need to be met in order to get there, and Pinellas does not currently have anything that meets those thresholds. So for an interregional passenger terminal, this could be, you know, a future hub in Hillsborough County that serves Brightline and other activities. It could be a future hub in Pinellas County that serves multiple modes, but it has to have more than 100,000 annual rail or bus passengers. And then for a fixed guideway corridor, so a designated transit corridor, in order to meet SIS guidelines, the facilities have to be dedicated to vehicles that are operating only on a guideway constructed for mass transit purposes. It can't be a bus sharing a lane with other traffic. And then another criteria is it has to be within or connecting multiple urban areas and serving regionally significant traffic. So TriRail in South Florida, the Brightline, SunRail in Central Florida, these all really meet that criteria, but in Pinellas County, we just don't have any of that yet, and that's why when you look at the list in your packet, it is roadways, all roadway projects, because that's what we have currently. So in order to be designated as an SIS facility, the state regularly reviews the SIS for new facilities, or even maybe there are some that might have to be removed. I'm not familiar with any that have happened, but there may be a couple examples out there. And then should Pinellas invest in facilities that are appropriate for the SIS in the future, FDOT would then review them for designation. A great example of that is the SIS used to include US-19 between 118th Avenue and Gandy Boulevard, and then Gandy Boulevard from US-19 all the way over. When the Gateway Expressway was opened, that designation was actually shifted, because now the Gateway Expressway is taking up a lot of that traffic, and it was more appropriate for that to be designated. So for the unfunded needs program that you're about to see, this is going to be explained in the video, but I kind of want to give you another crack at trying to explain it. The unfunded needs uses a travel demand model. We'll call it a black box. And it puts in a whole bunch of data, and it spits out what roadway or what corridors are going to need capacity improvements in the future. And that need is basically just based on how many vehicles are going to be assumed to be traveling on those roads. It does not consider available funding. It does not consider available right-of-way. It's just the quote-unquote need. The projects that we identify to help meet that need in the future, that's up to the local governments, Pinellas County, the cities, Ford Pinellas, and FDOT, to all work together to identify what those solutions are. So there is a table that says it includes recommended improvements to meet that need. That's just what the model is telling you would need to be done in order to meet the future capacity need. So adding a bunch of lanes to U.S. 19 where it's already been built as a partially controlled access facility, probably not going to happen in the future because there's no more room to do that. But per the model, that's the quote-unquote need. So I just don't want you all to get too hung up on what the recommended needs are in the table in your packet. This is more of an exercise. Once we know what the model says is quote-unquote needed, then we'll work together to come up with solutions to meet that need. They could be transit needs or transit projects. They could be technology projects, further timing of the traffic signals, ramp metering. There's a lot of different solutions that we can look at going forward. So if anyone has any questions on that, I'm happy to take them. Otherwise, we'll turn it over to the video. Any questions so far? Okay. All right, roll it. We'll start the video, and I'll come back up if you need me. To a process and coordination overview for FDOT District 7's CIS-2050 Multimodal Unfunded Needs Plan. The CIS-2050 Multimodal Unfunded Needs Plan serves to identify transportation improvements needed for CIS facilities. These improvements are unconstrained by cost and are not yet included in the FDOT CIS Work Program Second Five-Year Plan or Cost Feasible Plan. The plan ensures Florida's long-term transportation priorities are recognized, even if funding is not yet available. It is important to keep in mind that although a project may be identified as a need by the CIS program, it is not guaranteed to receive funding nor an endorsement. The goals of the CIS Unfunded Needs Plan are to identify unfunded transportation needs, cover all of the modes, include existing and future CIS-eligible facilities, and ensure all projects are documented. The update process takes approximately 18 months from kickoff to adoption. Months 1 to 3, initial review of the 2045 Needs Plan to determine which projects remain unfunded and should be retained. Months 4 to 9, we have pulled the LRTPs and are working to identify projects. We use traffic modeling to identify needs based on population growth and land use. We are currently starting months 10 to 15, which is the development of the draft plan, including district maps, tables, and regional profiles. MPOs, TPOs, and stakeholders will review the draft plan when ready. Months 16 to 18 are for the final review by FDOT Senior Management, then adoption by the FDOT Executive Board. MPOs and TPOs play a key role in identifying needs through their LRTPs and regional plans. Coordination also includes regional transportation authorities, local governments, and modal transportation partners. The FDOT district handles local coordination with partners and reports back to central office CIS program via their monthly teleconferences. Project needs are identified using MPO and TPO long-range transportation plans, regional transportation authorities plans, plans of partner agencies, traffic modeling and analysis, including statewide, regional, and local models, level of service analysis to detect future roadway capacity issues, statewide modal master plans for aviation, freight, rail, seaports, spaceports, and transit. GIS and data visualization help map project locations and priorities. The plan consists of individual district maps and tables that list cost and location of unfunded projects, regional profiles, showcasing economic and demographic overviews for each region, and an executive summary providing a high-level overview of identified needs by district and mode. For the final review, once the final draft is ready, the MPOs, TPOs, FDOT districts, and CIS staff conduct a review of the draft plan. After senior management approval, the final draft is presented to the FDOT Executive Board for adoption. Once adopted, the plan serves as a guiding document for future funding considerations. The CIS 2050 Multimodal Unfunded Needs Plan is essential for shaping Florida's long-term transportation needs. It assures that the MPOs, TPOs, and their regional priorities also align with CIS needs. It uses data-driven methods to validate these needs and also ensures all potential CIS projects are documented for future consideration. The next steps involve ongoing coordination, updates, and preparation for the next planning cycle. Thank you. This concludes our presentation. We will now open the floor for questions. All right. Thank you. Does anyone have any questions, having seen the video? No? Okay. Well, thank you, Chelsea and FDOT for the video. Next item, 7E, the State Road 580 Corridor Recommendations for Prioritization. This one is an action item. That's me again. All right. So just recently, the Florida Department of Transportation, in coordination with the local governments and us, wrapped up the 580 Corridor Plan. It looked at the entirety of the 8.5-mile corridor through Pinellas County. And the study, when it was wrapped up, you all received a presentation of those recommendations back in June. Since then, we have been working internally and with FDOT to try to prioritize those recommendations. And we'd like to start advancing them forward through adding them to our multimodal priority list. So we're going to go through how we're recommending that we group those recommendations with you today. And also, in your packet, there was a spreadsheet that also grouped them. But I'm going to kind of give you a reminder of what was included in each of those recommendations. So the first set of recommendations, they were all pretty low cost. And they were all pretty easy to do, which is why we grouped them as number one. So you're going to see several recommendations here. The first was at the intersection of Countryside Boulevard. And this involved adding new lane delineation signs to the southbound approach to the intersection. And the cost estimate on this was just under $5,000. A lot of these recommendations were really just to enhance safety and operations for vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians. The second part of the top priority grouping was at the intersection of Achieve Away. And this was, again, adding some signal-mounted electronic signs to the mast arms, fixing some of the curb extensions and the truck aprons at the intersections. Again, these are really safety-focused improvements that would cost about $12,000 at this location. And because these are all very low-dollar, we kind of want to group them together to make it worthwhile to even get someone out there to be doing the improvements in the first place. The third of that first grouping is at the intersection of Alt-19. This is, again, adding an electronic sign to the mast arm and ground-mounted signs. So really just improving signage to help alert vehicle drivers to yield to pedestrians at the crosswalk and improve safety. And this was about a $25,000 fix. The fourth is at Overcast Drive. And you can see on the top there's a little star where that is in the corridor if you're not that familiar with the area. This was, again, adding a signal-mounted electronic sign to alert of pedestrians. And the cost estimate for this is about $11,500. And then I believe this is the last of the Tier 1 priorities was at Pinewood Drive. And this is, again, adding that electric sign mounted to the mast arm to alert of pedestrians in the area at about the same cost as the last one, $11,500. Oh, I lied. There's one more. The bridge over Old Tampa Bay. This is a blind intersection when you're headed eastbound. So the recommendation was to add bridge-mounted warning signs for approaching the blind intersection to alert vehicles when pedestrians are present. The cost of this is about $6,500. At Enterprise Road, the proposal was to close the median opening with raised concrete traffic separator. This will enhance access management and improve safety for vehicles. There are quite a few crashes at this location. As vehicles try to kind of gun it across the intersection to take a left turn, this would restrict that movement to hopefully reduce crashes there. The cost of that is just under $100,000. And at the U.S. 19 Frontage Road, there's quite a host of improvements here to enhance safety and operations for vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians, but all are within the existing right-of-way. And this includes some traffic separators, pedestrian refuge islands, moving the push buttons for the pedestrians to a better location, and then adding some high-emphasis-type treatments for the walking path. This one also is about $100,000. And then at Tampa Road, the improvements here would enhance driver expectancy regarding lane designation and safety for vehicles, really adding some overhead signage and pavement markings for a cost of about $217,000. So this is a list here of all the projects that were included in that corridor one priority. Again, this is being recommended as the number one priority because it's really focusing on operational improvements, signage, pavement markings, and traffic separators, all of them fairly low cost. When you put all these together, the cost of the project would be just under $500,000. So we're proposing to package them all together and advance them as one project. No right-of-way is required for this, and no significant access management changes are being proposed. So therefore, the process to get these projects done is much quicker than any more involved kind of project, which we're going to get to as we get further along. For number two, we are proposing a mid-block crossing. One is between New York Avenue and Patricia Avenue. Again, you can see up there the star. It's closer to the western side of the corridor. This is a mid-block crossing with a pedestrian signal along 580 with a cost estimate of just over $300,000. And the second part of that is another mid-block crossing between Keene and Achieve Away. Again, same kind of thing, a mid-block crossing with pedestrian signal. This one is just over $400,000 cost estimate. We are aware that there is some redevelopment that is coming quickly along this corridor. So some of the conversations we've been having involves whether this number two priority should be swapped with number one to try to get these pedestrian crossings out there before new residential moves in along the corridor. But that's something that we can discuss when we get to the end of the recommendations with you all. So just a refresher, those top two, the priority two projects include those two pedestrian mid-block crossings. The total is under a million dollars. No right-of-way is required. And just a note that the nearby redevelopment is advancing very quickly in these areas of the mid-block crossings. Priority rank number three is the PSTA bus transfer station. This is proposed to basically relocate the buses that are stopping along 580 on the north side of the mall property. They're currently stopping in the travel lane, causing some safety concerns and challenges as vehicles are trying to get past them. So the recommendation is to shift the bus bay off the roadway and onto the adjacent right-of-way. The construction cost estimate and right-of-way cost estimate on this one are to be determined. We're going to be working with PSTA on seeing how we can advance this project and maybe even other bus pull-off bays in areas that make sense throughout the county. But this is a pretty high priority, I believe, for the area. But we just don't quite have the numbers yet because we don't know exactly what it looks like and where it's going to go. So we're going to be working with PSTA very closely on that in the coming weeks and months. For number four, this is State Road 580 at Keene. There are quite a few improvements recommended here, including closing a median, adding traffic separators, and reconstructing the curbs at the intersection. The cost system on this is just over a million dollars. At Patricia, also the proposal is to construct raised concrete traffic separators, reconstructing curb, doing a curb extension. This is about $250,000, and really it's just to kind of tighten up the geometry and reduce the conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians in the area. At 580 and State Street, the recommended alternative is to close the existing eastbound U-turn movement that's allowed at that intersection, and then adding signage to direct traffic to Tampa Bay or Tampa Road westbound. The improvements here are just under half a million dollars. And then at 590 Philippe Parkways, there's lots of long queues for the westbound left-turn movement that's going onto Philippe Parkway. So the proposal is to construct a second westbound left-turn lane and a second northbound left-turn way. Left-turn lane, it'll widen out that intersection and is probably going to involve the movement of some utilities and possibly some right-of-way. Cost estimate on this is about a million dollars. At Countryside Boulevard, so there were some short-term ones at Countryside mentioned earlier. These are the more longer-term ones that are going to be a little bit more extensive. This includes adding a second left-turn lane heading in the eastbound direction and westbound approaches and adding a second right-turn lane to northbound Countryside Boulevard. This will really enhance the traffic operations there while also attempting to address some safety for bicyclists and pedestrians. This one's at about $1.5 million. So these are the priority five projects. And the reason that they're a little bit lower is instead of just signage and paint, these are a bit more intensive intersectional improvements that involve medians, channelization, and roadway widening. Altogether, this is proposed to be just over $3 million. Right-of-way might be required. And again, these are longer lead time kind of projects, and that's why they're a little bit lower on the list. It's going to take a little bit longer to get going. And then priority six is the bridge over Old Tampa Bay. The recommendation is to widen the bridge, typical section, to provide for a barrier-separated 10-foot shared-use path. The construction estimate on this is just over $5 million, and this is a lower priority because this is a much bigger project and all on its own. Priority rank seven, this is for from St. Clair Avenue to Tampa Road, further on the eastern end of the corridor. The proposal is to widen the median lane to provide buffered bike lanes and may also include narrowing the widths of some of the travel lanes in both directions. The cost estimate on this is about $10 million. One of the suggestions was also to install corridor-wide traffic separators because there are no raised medians through this portion of the corridor. It has just the wide open median with the bi-directional turn lane. So this would construct those raised medians throughout the corridor to improve access management and safety. The cost estimate on this is about $1 million. But this will impact access management, so this will require a lot more coordination with the businesses and property owners along the corridor. And then at U.S. 19 Frontage Road, the long-term priority there is to add a dedicated eastbound right turn lane going from eastbound 580 onto the U.S. 19 Frontage Road. The cost estimate on this is not very high, just to construct. However, there is zero existing right-of-way to do the project, so the right-of-way would bring that up. And that's why it's listed a little bit lower because it's going to take us some time to find out how to do this project with the right-of-way that it is available. So this grouping of Priority 7 projects is just over $11 million, and right-of-way will be required for these projects, and that is not included in that cost estimate. So the next steps, this total is almost $22 million in total recommendations. So we're looking for direction on the board. Are the groupings and the priorities and the way that we have them listed, do those make sense? If you'd like to suggest any changes, we can do that. But what we'd like to do is we'd like to start with our top priorities and start feeding them onto the priority list in order so that we can start getting these implemented and underway. The funds that these projects will go toward, or the funds that will go towards building these projects are the same funds that all of our other priorities compete for. So we want to be careful we don't put them all on the list at once because then many of them will just all sit there, and then our other priorities will get overlooked. So we'll be working with you every year on when we do the priority list, working thoughtfully as to how we advance those projects in a way that makes sense. And with that, I'm happy to take any questions. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Chair Eggers, and then. Wow. If you are part of 580 at all, this is a lot. So I'm not quite sure. I think the Phase 1 approvals are interesting. But, you know, from my perspective, and I mentioned this a little bit ago a couple of times, that 580 at 19 right-turn lane is probably one of the most important things that we could work on. I see that property right, property acquisition. We're working, apparently the county is working on Belcher Road, the southbound Belcher as it approaches 580, a two-lane turn instead of that one lane because it backs up almost to the firehouse on fire station up there. So we're talking about a two-lane turn to get basically rush hour traffic and sometimes weekend, Saturday morning traffic turning and to get on to 19. And that creates that problem that you're talking about there. And I think in a Phase 1, you could easily add a right turn only in that south lane during rush hour. And I just don't see enough of that going on in our system here to address specific uses at specific times. But you could easily sign it, you could color the pavement, you could make a solid line separating that one lane during that hour or two, whatever it is, 630 to 830. And that could be done relatively inexpensive, wouldn't take any right-of-way acquisition. And I think it's one of the most important traffic movement improvements we could make on 580. In that Phase 1, you talk about putting in medians between the eastbound and westbound traffic in front of a center that's across the street from BJ's. Yeah, right there. There's a little center there where businesses exist or try to exist and a tough place to get to. And you've yellowed that whole thing. So there's a little left-hand turn that goes into that center that you've now blocked. And I think you could effectively take a lot of those left-hand turns away but leave that one in place for the business sake. Since this is Phase 1, or I think Rank 1 or whatever, that's something that I would want to address. And then there was another one down at Keene. I think it was Keene, County Road 1, and 580. County Road 1 and Keene, yeah. County Road 1 and 580. And there's this little, little yellow thing there in the median. It's a left-hand turn going into that. I think it's a Winn-Dixie Center grocery store. That, I mean, it is, I mean, we did this study kind of work, I want to say, 15 years ago. City of Dunedin did a study there. And one of the things that jumped out is all of these, you call it traffic access management or something. And really what it means is blocking businesses from being successful. That's how they view it. And so we had these grand plans to beautify 580 and make it all of this, and it really came down to that issue. And it's very strategic. So I don't think we can just say, do this, and it works. It might work in some areas. It might not work in other areas. But if it's traffic flow and traffic, those are good things. But in phase one that we're talking about, I definitely would like to address those three things because I really think it could be done, especially that one at 580 and 19. And then I would just say that with all of this, there's just so much to absorb. It makes me a little nervous to approve stuff like right now, and then off we go. It might be good to bring it back again for another little bite at the apple, at least for this phase one stuff. And I will say that you all don't actually approve the priority list until, like, next May or June. So this is just kind of giving us the direction on how we should consider putting the projects on the list. You'll definitely get another crack at this when we update the priority list and adopt it. All right. Well, I didn't get that when you were telling us about approving this phase one. So those are some of the concerns that I have, and there's others. But anyway, I was just addressing the first phase. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner, this is an action item today, but we certainly don't need to take action today if that's the will of the board is to consider this either at the next meeting or in January or whenever. What we wanted to do was give you a sense of our methodology and our thinking of why to prioritize some of these lower-cost projects first. I have a few more points I can add, but I want to hear from the other board members first. Thank you. Council Member Floyd. Thank you. Thank you for the wealth of information. I'm by no means an expert on this corridor, but I am familiar with a lot of it. Really, I just wanted to ask a little bit about the bridge replacement. You sort of just went over and said, like, it's expensive, so it's a low priority. I assume that means that, you know, we're not concerned with the condition or anything. I just didn't know if you could speak to that a little bit more outside of just its cost. Yeah, so it's actually not a full bridge replacement. It would be kind of cantilevering off the side and widening on one side to add that crossing. Currently, the bridge does have some pretty wide shoulders. Not the greatest option to get people across, but there is still some room for someone to navigate across. So, that's why it kind of shook out a little bit lower on the list. Okay, cool. I just wanted to get a little more info. All right. Yeah, I mean, as far as the last comments, like moving this forward today or bringing it back later, I'm happy with whatever everybody else, how everyone else feels as well. I'm leaning on you all a lot for your expertise on the corridor, but I feel comfortable because these are things that are going to be added to priority lists later on that we'll see again. So, I appreciate everything. Thanks. Thank you. Anyone else? Mayor Freeney? Yeah, I mean, my questions, I guess, were more processed. It's a lot, and obviously, there's a lot in Dunedin. So, just as you did the priority listing, any involvement from, like, say, City of Dunedin staff, or this is just you guys' take looking at everything, what you think is the best priorities? So, the City of Dunedin, City of Clearwater, and Pinellas County were all involved in the corridor study and all had a hand in reviewing the final recommendations. I will say the final recommendations that came out of the study were in a bit of a different priority order. So, we had gone through and reworked it. We had, I'd say, probably pretty minimal communication with the City staff on this actual part of it, but they are involved in how we put together the priority list and everything going forward, for sure. Yeah, and I mean, I think you voiced a little bit of mine. It's a lot, and of course, it's important to Dunedin, so I don't want to screw up by making a vote and not having a second bite of the apple, because there's stuff here I'll want to go talk to staff about and make sure we're on the same page. But, I mean, it looks good, and there's a lot of good stuff here. So, again, I don't want to hold anything up either, but if we have another bite of the apple, that's great, because that just gives me a sense of getting back and making sure I'm in sync with our staff. If I could interject, I did meet with the City Manager, and we went over some of these projects before Chelsea put the ranking together, but we talked about the recommendations, and that's where we really wanted to look at that mid-block crossing between Keene and, I forget the name of it. Achieva? No, maybe it is. No, it's the other one, not this one. Yeah, between Keene and Achieva, because that's where you have the 170 units of affordable housing on the north side. So we spoke to the Department of Transportation yesterday about that. That cost may be a little low based on our discussion yesterday. It may be closer to a million dollars to do the mid-block crossing, maybe even more. But what they asked us to do is go ahead and prioritize it, and then we could work with them to try and time that with the opening of the project if that's possible. But it would be our funds and not safety funds, because there's not a whole lot of safety funds for that. So we had that conversation, but I think what we can do is take this presentation and share it with the city manager and her team, as well as the other jurisdictions along the corridor. That little crosswalk is about a block away from where that project is going to be. Not that I've ever been to Lucan's Liquor Store before. It's a little bit to the east of there, where it actually crosses where that, so it's not there. Yeah, that was kind of my issue, too. It's not, yeah, it's more like Lake Haven, you know, to, it's between Lake Haven and Keene. And Achieva Way is the other way. Okay. On the other side, so it may, I think. Maybe it's the other, mid-block crossing. Am I forgetting something that's going to be there? Because here's your right. Lucan's is literally in between. Maybe it's between New York and Patricia, then? No, that's further the other way. Yeah, that's, yeah. Yeah, I think it's in the wrong place. Okay, that's something we'll look at. And I'll, oh, go ahead. You can finish. You can finish. Okay, I was just going to mention that the PSTA transfer facility, we've had a conversation with PSTA about that one. And I think one of the things that we want to do is align that with our U.S. 19 corridor plan that ties Pasco County into the gateway area and address this safety issue because buses are in the travel lane today and in the bike lane. And when there's any passengers, they're all standing on the sidewalk. So as a bicyclist, you're really in, you've got to go out in the middle of 580. So what we thought about doing as staff is offering to PSTA some funding to come up with a concept that they can then look at and work through from an operation standpoint. And then we could see about making that a priority with FDOT, assisting with the right-of-way acquisition if needed, or some type of right-of-way easement until the mall redevelops, which might buy us some time. So those are some things we're willing to spend some of our planning funds on in partnership with PSTA, if that helps move that along. Thank you. Council Member Menino? Madam Chair, thank you. Thank you for that. I attended in person to the presentation, and I agree with Commissioner Eggers on there was a lot of little stickers getting stuck on those maps regarding U.S. 19 and frontage road safety concerns. My other thing is if the word priority is being used and we're ranking these so often, when I think priority, I think safety priority. And it seems like we're ranking these not based necessarily on priority safety-wise, but cost and ease versus safety. So I'm having a little hard time juggling because, to me, there's a handful of those projects in that 5, 6, 7 range that probably address safety concerns far higher than just cost and ease. But I'll let you speak to that if you want. It is a big project. I'm glad that you included the new housing project that, I know you don't know where it is, but that liquor store that's, I'm glad you included that because we have heard from a lot of people that they're concerned that at some point there's going to be accidents and that we're going to go backwards and say, we probably should have put a light. And can we, you know, look at that now while we're addressing it. Countryside Boulevard, definitely a challenge, trying to turn and head east on Countryside Boulevard. But that backs up pretty bad. And I do like that we're finally addressing just west of Patricia. There's people that pull out of that shopping center all the time and turn their head west. And it is a turn, bending turn, and a blind. Cutting that access off, I think, will address a handful of safety needs. But very big project. I was glad to be a part of it. But I do, I agree with the commissioner, the U.S. 19 and frontage definitely should be a higher priority, even though there's a lot of moving parts with it. Okay. And that's fair. And I will speak a little bit to the safety part. We were really kind of looking for, you know, since those top-tier priorities were all such a low cost, while others may have a bigger safety benefit, we thought cumulatively that investment, if we could get that done, like, really, really quickly and just get it knocked out, then the safety benefit would be pretty high, given the small investment it would require. But I don't disagree with you. There are some other safety challenges along the corridor that we definitely need to address. I get it, and I thank you. I think my fear sometimes, especially when we are, you are, like so many of our governmental entities and organizations, we're limited on manpower, for lack of a better word. And if we're putting our limited focus and resources on some of these, well, the main that we're saying, yeah, they are larger safety concerns. They're not being addressed. We're kind of putting them off to the side and coming back to them later. It would be nice if you had the ability to kind of work on them kind of at the same time. But you are limited, and you can't push an easy button. I appreciate it. We'll do the best we can. Deputy Mayor Shelley. Both of my sons and their families live in Clearwater Countryside, so I travel these every single week. I certainly agree with the U.S. 19 priority if we can do it. And the intersection at Patricia, I wish there was no way to pull out onto 580 without going through the light. Just close off that access. There's probably 10 accesses into that shopping center on Patricia. That's all I have. Thanks. All my shortcuts are being cut out. I know, I know. Vice Mayor Eisner. Thank you, Madam Chair. So my question is a little bit bigger than the 580, but it includes 580. And I brought this up at the School Transportation Safety Council because we were discussing safety. And we're also discussing finances, economics. I just recently came back from Austin, Texas, and they have these little pods to protect the bicyclists. Do we look into any other state procedures for safety versus, because every time I drive on 19, ours is a white line that protects the bicyclists, which is not a protection of safety at all. I know in Tarpon Springs, we have these little plastic things just screwed onto the floor, the ground, and they could just be knocked over. Do we look into any other types of items that might protect, because I can't see that being anywhere near as costly as us putting, you know, dividers in to stop that from happening. And like I said, I just don't know if we're doing that, if we look into that, what the cost is, you know, there versus here. I know you can't do it in the north because we have, you know, shovels that go by for the snow season, but we don't have that. So I'm just curious if you do get into that or not. Absolutely. We are always looking to other states to see what they're doing, if it's working, if it's not working. There are some raised separators that aren't just the flex posts, but I think they call them armadillos. Yes, that's exactly what it is. There are some of those, and I believe, Kyle, correct me if I'm not, they're looking to do those somewhere in Pinellas County, in St. Petersburg. Okay. So they are being kind of tested and rolled out here on a limited basis because they are so new to the area. And you mentioned, like, it's called the bike box, the green box for bicycles. They are starting to implement a couple of those in St. Petersburg as well. And we are monitoring those to see what the, how people are reacting to them and how it's working to improve safety or not improve safety. And once we can get a better handle on that, I'm sure they'll be implemented further countywide. They don't eat much, those little armadillos. They really are. I'm just kidding. Thank you. All right. Anyone else? What I'm hearing from the board is it will not take action on this one, and that's fine. What we'll do in the meantime is we'll coordinate with FDOT to see about a pilot operational improvement at that intersection at Frontage Road and 580 to see about a dedicated right turn by time of day. I know Billy Hathaway is in the audience over there, and downtown Orlando did that for, and still does, for Orange Avenue, the main north-south road through downtown, where certain times of the day it's on-street parking. Other times of the day it's a travel lane. So, you know, it's management. We'll talk with the department about how feasible it is on the state highway system right there, but Orange Avenue is a state road through downtown Orlando. So that's a conversation we'll have. We'll bring that back to you. We'll also confirm the location of the mid-block crossing relative to the affordable housing project and clean up any other things. Just, I do want to point out, those median separators that Chelsea mentioned, all of this would have to go to design, and so in the design phase, I think they would be very sensitive about blocking off any business access. Okay. Is that fair, Chelsea? Got it. Board, you good? Okay, we'll try to bring this back to you, if we can, next month, if not, early in the year. Okay, great. Commissioner Sherrod, did you have? Just really quick, Chair, thank you. Bus bays are very important to me, getting the buses off the road. Could you tell us, who are we relying on to find locations for bus bays? Are you looking for PSTA to do it, or? I can answer that one. Okay. So, this has been a conversation that's come up here a few times, and we've had conversations with PSTA about it. It's going to be a joint effort. So, what we've agreed to do is develop some criteria that we would look at for bus bays countywide. And then identify some potential priority locations for them. This is a perfect example. Commissioner Eggers has mentioned US-19 North, where we don't have the overpasses, is another possible location. 66th Street. I mean, you can pick all the big, wide, high-speed roads. Right-of-way is always an issue, but I think there are some opportunities, and PSTA is willing to work with us on that. So, it'll be a joint effort. I just didn't know who's going to jump in their car and go run around and look. I'm not sure who's jumping in the car, but we're at least advancing the conversation. Okay, great. Thank you. All right. Thank you so much. Next, we'll have a discussion on the establishment of a nominating committee. And, apparently, we have some options, so I'll let Whit start us off with that discussion. Okay. So, we do this every year. I'm just going to set a little context. So, we have one-year terms for the chair, vice chairs, secretary, and treasurer. We have all those people here except for the treasurer today, who's Council Member Albritton, and he's out of state today. So, the bylaws have all of these as one-year terms, but as a courtesy, historically, this board has allowed the chair, the vice chair, the secretary, and treasurer to have two-year terms. But it's the will of the board, and it's certainly contingent upon remaining in office and all those other good things. So, you've had one year. Everybody's had one year. So, we're entering the second year of the term. I have spoken to Council Member Albritton, and he's interested in continuing or giving up that role for somebody else if they want to take that opportunity. He has served his two years already in the treasurer role, and he has been out of state quite a bit this year since the hurricanes. I have spoken with Commissioner Scott and Mayor Freeney as people who would be interested in serving that role. So, I think, you know, the board has the option today of either establishing a nominating committee, or you can make a decision today to extend the terms into next year. Or you could make a motion to appoint somebody to replace Council Member Albritton if that's your desire, or any of the other positions for that matter. So, I guess first would be to make sure that those who are currently serving, the three of you to my left, are interested in continuing to serve. That would be maybe the first question to ask. And then the second would be, is there an interest in reappointing Council Member Albritton or a desire to appoint somebody new to that role and give somebody else a chance to serve on the executive committee? Okay. Got it. All right. So, I don't know if any of the other members of the executive committee would like to speak first with their thoughts. We have selections in November in the county commission for our officer position or chair or vice chair. So, I think if things go in a certain direction, I probably would want to step down as vice chair and let somebody else have that opportunity. I guess if we're going to do that today, is that the idea of making that selection today? It's up to the board. We're prepared to do it today. We could also defer and wait until the November meeting to make that. Will decisions have been made by the time we get to our November meeting here? I don't think so. I think we make ours on November 18th. Oh, okay. And I think this will be before that. This will be before that, yeah. I would just say probably to be safe just to withdraw my name as the vice chair and let somebody else have the opportunity. And when would this go into effect? January, since we don't meet in December. We don't meet in December. Right. We could do it the other way where I just keep it. And then if I do get the other position, we could make the change later. I'm at the will of the board. Another, well, if you don't mind. No, go ahead. Go ahead. So, since, and I believe it's always good to have a county commissioner on the executive committee because. What we've typically done, this might help, is we typically alternate between a county commissioner and a city elected official as chair. So, there's that. And there's the fact that Commissioner Scott, I'm sorry that he, it's too bad that he's not here. I think he'd be willing to serve in any role. And since he, both he and Mayor Freeney are willing to serve, and of course this is open, you know, I'm just sharing my initial thoughts here. I agree with him. We could have Commissioner Scott take the vice chair role because we trade off between city and county as the chair. So, he could take your spot in the event that you. Yeah, I think that's a good idea. Step down. So, you could stay. He could be waiting in the wings, you know, for, and, and, you know, nominate himself next year. And then we have Mayor Freeney as the treasurer. So, that is one scenario that we could consider. And Mayor Freeney, thank you for stepping out. So, that's. Do you want to confirm this? Great news. No, I want to go to Council Member Reed next. Yeah, I'm, I, I like that. You know, I, I would like to stay on and do that as, you know, as we go through the chairs. And then I also, if we looked at in January, when everybody, because you have quite a few things coming up with elections and all that coming up. In January, we would kind of know what, what direction everybody's going. Might be a good thought, too. Because I, I'm good with that. And I'm good with also doing it in January. Except for what's making it a face. Well, I don't want to wait until January. Okay. We want to point for the January meeting. So, we have a chair in January. Yeah. And I will still. But you're, you're willing to continue to stay as secretary in your. Yeah, as secretary, I mean, I eventually would like to move up. I mean, that's kind of usually that you go up the chairs and do what you do. Right. You know what I mean? So. Yeah. Okay. And just so everyone knows, I have no election coming up. And next year is my final year serving on St. Petersburg City Council. So, um, I would be more than happy to, um, spend my last year serving as, as chair of this, this board again, if, if you all desire. Okay. Great. Um, council member Figg Sanders. Thank you, chair. Um, in my discussion with, um, went on this, I thought because of timing and basically what everyone has said, um, I would recommend, I would be a minimal to whatever the majority, but that everyone remains in those positions, especially with what commissioner Eggers has just, um, stated. And then if something should happen, we have a nominating committee that, um, and other organizations that I sit on and it makes it so much easier. Um, to talk about the process of attendance and the flow and transition. Um, so that would be a good thing. Um, but going forward, because of timing, um, I would definitely be supportive in extending, um, another year for those current officers. And if commissioner Eggers has to step down, then we also have another plan for that. I, I, I don't want us to make decisions with commissioners that are not here, like commissioner Scott is not here, commissioner Albritton is not here. Um, so if we can wait or if we can extend it, um, that would definitely be a plus to the process. But I agree with commissioner Reed. Eventually people do want to move up. Um, but in this particular, um, case, I can see you remaining in those positions, extending it for another year. So Madam chair, thank you. Um, I did want to bring up something for the board to consider on October 2nd. I got a email from you. Um, yes, well, it's, it's a fake email. I just wanted to share that with you that, um, councilman, uh, David Albritton is no law. He's not around and you needed, uh, $2,950 from me, um, for, um, it's just, I just wanted people while we're discussing this, just so that people know it's, it's Joe, it's, these are spoofs or whatever they are. But I did get that. I turned it over to my IT department. I just figured I would bring it up, you know, say again, I should have started by saying that's a spoof. Well, I'll, I'll take that on the consideration, but yes, I, I just wanted you to know that I know that it didn't come from you. It's just while we're discussing this, that, you know, we have these things out there and that's all I wanted to say, but thank you. No, I, I actually, that was forwarded to me by, um, uh, or I, there was an email that came from Mayor Love, um, to that same effect saying that she knew that it was a phishing email. Yes. And, and you all will find, I mean, if you serve on PSTA, we get those all the time too. They get the, all the board members emails and send them out. I mean, as elected officials, we just, um, get those on a pretty regular basis and, uh, it's unfortunate, it's unfortunate, but thank you for bringing it to the attention. Did you have anything to, um, to, um, comment on regarding the nominating process and the executive board? I, I kind of agree that we should keep things as they are until we find out, you know, what's moving on with that. So that's, that's, that's where I'm at. Okay. Thank you. Um, commissioner, share, and then I'll go over here. Oh, thank you, chair. Uh, I agree with, uh, commissioner Sanders and extending for a year. And then when, uh, commissioner records becomes the chair of Pinellas County commission, we can find a replacement for him at that time. So I would be good to go. I don't know if we need to make a motion of that or what, but after everybody's been done talking, I'd be happy to. What if we, what's up? You want to hear the, from the others first? Yes, I do. That's what I was going to do. I would like to see us move this to, um, the November meeting. And if you could, um, confirm with commissioner Scott, et cetera, I think it's a great idea to have the same people in the seats for another term because of the, uh, merger that you've worked so hard on for so long. Thank you. Council member Menino. Thank you. I guess we're all going to take a stab at this one. Uh, appreciate the thoughts. I agree that it is tough to make those decisions with individuals that are not present and that's not a opportunity to punish them. And though it is only a year, totally makes sense not to appoint somebody when it comes to, uh, my fellow council member, David, who has filled his two year terms. I think he was under the understanding that we're not, if we extend this because he's not here, we're now setting a new precedent of somebody serving going into three year terms. And how are we going to set that precedent and go forward? I think I'm, it makes sense to hold off and, and see, um, what the good Lord has in store, uh, for commissioner Eggers on his board and what responsibilities he has and maybe fill in that. Uh, I would be in favor today of appointing Mayor Freeney, uh, to replace the, replace the treasurer's position, uh, as that two year term has ended. And just to clarification, I did speak with Council Member Albritton. He was fine with either option of continuing or not. And I spoke to him today, so he's aware that we may be taking action today. So we're not, yeah, that's, that's very good to, um, point out. Mayor Freeney. No, I was just going to say, I'm happy to step up. I'm happy to step back, whatever helps the organization. I like flexible people. Yeah, there you go. It makes my job a lot easier. Council Member Menino, is that a motion that you wish to make? It can be. I just wasn't sure. I wanted to make sure we're talking about extending terms and I, well, one year makes sense to extend to a second. We're now extending somebody that's already served two to a third. And if we're setting that precedent for this seat, why would we not move forward in doing it for the others? I just wanted to make sure we are aware of that in the discussion. Yeah, that's a good point. Motion to, uh, second mayor, um, I'm sorry, Council Member Menino's, um, motion to make Mayor Mo Feeney, our treasurer next year. And is that motion including reappointing all the other three positions as well for clarification? Okay. Okay. Okay. That was my question. I just wanted to get clarification on that. So are you comfortable with that, Council Member? Okay. So we have, so we have the motion on the floor. Did we get a second on that? I thought so. Yes, we did. Shelly, okay. Um, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Thank you. I know that was a little awkward, but I appreciate everybody's efforts to do that. And I guess Commissioner Scott may get a chance. We'll find out in January. Right, right. And no matter. Just, Madam Chair, may I interject? Yes. Just so you all are aware with the conversation about Commissioner Eggers. Does the board operating procedures dictate that if someone steps down or a vacancy due to a, whether that could be a lost election or someone stepping down, that we make that appointment at the very next meeting. So it is possible that we could make that adjustment. We would just have to do it within the confines of the operating procedures. Thank you. And thank you all for your confidence in my, um, continued service as chair. All right. We will, um, go ahead to our director's report at this time. Great. And I will point out that we are right on time with what's on your agenda, uh, five minutes ahead of time, actually, um, just a little reference to, we like to stick these little, uh, data minute, uh, items on your agenda. Uh, we did a summary of population and housing changes here in Pinellas County between 2020 and 2025. I won't read all this to you, um, but, um, just identifies how the countywide population has grown, uh, by 8,000 residents since the 2020 census. Um, how much of that is, uh, permanent, uh, and, um, where we've seen some decreases. So there was a decrease, uh, between 2024 and 2025, which we think was related to the two hurricanes that happened, uh, a loss of about 5,000 residents. And then there's some information that I think is pretty interesting on housing supply in Pinellas County, considering that we have a housing action plan. Um, but you can see that there's been a breakdown here of missing middle housing, multifamily housing, and single family housing and manufactured housing, uh, breakdown. Um, and these are all part of our trends and conditions that we track here regularly at Ford Pinellas. So, um, just for information, no action required on that item. Um, and then I'd also point to, um, your agenda item, uh, right behind it is the Reason Foundation's reauthorization proposal. And I include the Reason Foundation because I get a monthly newsletter from them that I share with the staff. And in your packet, uh, we've had a series of reauthorization proposals that have come from different interest groups. And I want to make sure that we're not feeding you one particular partisan perspective on those. So we try to provide all views on reauthorization, the infrastructure investment, uh, and jobs act expires in 2026. So Congress is, uh, already having hearings about the next surface transportation law. And I'll just make a little quick joke. It's the first time in my almost 40 year career that the state of Florida has eliminated surface from the transportation planning responsibilities of MPOs. We are now dealing with Spaceport Florida and advanced air mobility in our transportation plans, but at the federal level, it's still the surface transportation reauthorization. So you have the Reason Foundation's, uh, positions here just for reference. Um, I think previously I gave you the MPO, um, position statements and the city, uh, and county, um, position statements and the state highway officials statements. And that's really all I had here under, under my director's report. Um, did want to just quickly reference that the board of county commissioners approved our budget, um, last month, uh, we did have a slight reduction in our millage rate. As you may know, um, down to 0.0175 mils. And, um, we are, um, looking forward to the new fiscal year and getting some things accomplished. That's all I have. All right. Thank you. Um, and then did you have any new info for us regarding the, um, Orlando meeting? Uh, the field trip, uh, is scheduled for October 27th. I've sent a revised itinerary to the MPO director over in Orlando. Um, we've all agreed to travel kind of on our own to get there. Um, so I will be- I think you called it Mad Max style, didn't you? Mad Max 3. That's right. Fury Road. That's I-4. Um, I will be providing you all with parking and driving instructions for everybody who's on that list. We'll also be getting shortly a, um, lunch menu order that I'll be sharing with each of you. So I'll give you the, the driving directions when we get the lunch menu. I will also be giving you sunshine law, uh, directions as well. Um, since we won't be traveling by bus, no worry about that. Um, but this will be a noticed public meeting in Orlando and, um, I'll have guidance from our attorney to, to share with you as well for that, uh, for that meeting. And thank you all for agreeing to commit a day of your time to go to Orlando and learn. Um, I did provide some questions, uh, to the NPO director as well, um, so that he and, and the elected officials over there can be prepared, uh, to address some of those questions. That's the update. All right. Thank you. Any questions about that or anything else for the good of the body? Yes. No, I just wanted to say, um, that Skinner Boulevard is officially open and I don't know that we talked about that last meeting, cause I think it happened between the two meetings and of course there's two roundabouts on it and we're getting great feedback on the roundabouts. And, um, so it's going well. I mean, a lot of the beautification stuff has to be done, but Daniel White of, uh, DOT was this project manager and, but you know, kudos five months early. They got that open. So we always complain if it's late, but here we go. So just wanted to say that. We love to see it. And, and a reminder that we will be doing a before and after study of that project. We've got all the before data. We're going to wait a little while for it to settle down and, and traffic patterns, but then next year we'll probably be doing the, uh, after study. There's only problem will be not to speed around the roundabouts. They're really easy. So it's great. All right. Thank you. Anything else for the good of the body? All right. Thank you, everyone. We're adjourned. Thank you.