Forward Pinellas Board meeting on 5/12/2026 - May 12, 2026

May 12, 2026 meeting of the Four Pinellas Board. Please join me in standing for the Pledge of Allegiance. Thank you. And now we will go around the room for self-introductions beginning with Vice Chair Scott. Thank you, Madam Chair. Brian Scott, Pinellas County Commission. Ricky Butler, Vice Mayor, City of Pinellas Park. Renee Flowers, Pinellas County Commissioner, District 7. Good afternoon, everybody. Council Member Mike Menino, City of Clearwater. Richie Floyd, City Council Member in St. Petersburg. Good afternoon. It's Mike Eisner, City of Tarpon Springs. Afternoon. Tom Reed, City of South Pasadena, representing PSTA. Good afternoon. Council Member Brandi Gabbard, City of St. Petersburg. Chris Scheer, Pinellas County Commission. Blanton, the Executive Director. And I am Gina Driscoll, St. Petersburg City Council Member, and serving as your Chair this year. Next we'll go to Citizens to be Heard. Tina, do we have any citizens today who wish to be heard on any items that are not already on the agenda for action by the Board today? Yes, Madam Chair. We have David Ballard Geddes, Jr. Thank you. Madam Chair, Board, good afternoon. David Ballard Geddes, Jr. I live on Georgia Avenue in Palm Harbor. Again, let's pretend that 9-11 was an inside job, a two trillion dollar treasonous bank robbery designed to look like an act of terrorism, covertly attacking us while gallantly attacking the Middle East, simultaneously formulating a false pretense to base the Patriot Act upon, outfitting cameras at every intersection, establishing a total surveillance state here in the United States, constituted as a useful art in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8, recognized as an actual invasion in Article 1, Section 10, in and of our current Constitution, which is hypocritically being used as a form of reprisal, a bill of attainder capturing Christianity as constituted in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11, in a Constitution that is seen as inexcusably defective in Federalist Paper No. 64. And let's pretend that the COVID-19 outbreak was just phase number one to a future pandemic that is predispositioned to be transmitted through our sprinkler systems, using our sprinkler systems as a makeshift gas chamber, as a super spreader to transmit airborne pathogens such as Legionnaire's disease, cholera, typhoid, and Ebola, like bombs bursting in air. And those who don't die from such ramparts will be labeled as carriers of the virus, deemed as a threat, and will be eliminated using autonomous drones to desolate our existence, effectively consigning us to the oblivion, as based on George Washington's farewell to Christianity address, kind of gives you a new perspective on drone-assisted DoorDash, oh, say can you see, bringing us into focus of the phosphate pits, which are pre-dug as a future mass gravesite large enough to bury the entire population of Orlando, Tampa, and St. Petersburg when you knew it was time for a change. Everybody's got to go in this act of constitutional defilement and sacrilege at the dawn's early light. And what about the cruise ship industry? Are the cruise ships in the midst of the deep? Are they to be used as modern-day slave trading ships, transporting the Chinese over here to clean up the mess, waylaying the Chinese workers into signing a condolence agreement in indentured servitude, promising them Mickey Mouse and surfboards only to enslave them and eliminate them, too, at a later date? Thank you. Thank you, sir. Tina, do we have any other citizens who wish to speak at this time? No, Madam Chair, we do not. All right. Thank you very much, and we'll move on to our recognitions and announcements. First up, we have a three-year, we have not one, but two three-year staff service awards. I'm here today to recognize Valerie Brookins of our staff for three years in service to Ford Pinellas and Pinellas County. And, Valerie, I just want to say it's been a real pleasure to have you here. Valerie, for those who don't know, is Ford Pinellas' safety planner, so she has the responsibility of implementing our safe routes for all, safe roads and streets for all grant from the Federal Highway Administration. What I really like about Valerie is she's a great ambassador of the organization. She's cultivated a lot of partnerships with our first responder community, with the school district, and other stakeholders who help us address transportation challenges, particularly from a safety perspective. She previously worked for the City of Largo. She worked for Pasco County, so she's had a good history here in the region. She knows our area. And I just want to say thank you so much. Yeah, thank you. It's just been a real honor to work here with the organization, all the wonderful, dedicated elected officials, and great executive director, great management, and a great team. So thank you all. All right. Thank you. Sorry, I thought on my agenda here we had two, but just one today. We will recognize Emma at our next meeting. She's unable to be here today. Oh, okay. Well, we definitely want to do it when she's here. So thanks. All right. And then next we have an update. Oh, actually, the Bike Your City 2026 highlights presented by Witt. I just wanted to, first of all, thank Vice Mayor Eisner and the city of Tarpon Springs for their excellent hosting of our 10th Bike Your City event, and also credit to Kyle Simpson of our staff who worked with their staff to make this one of our best events ever. We think we had about 100 participants who signed up, and it was a fantastic ride all through Tarpon Springs. I never thought I would be on a bicycle on Alt-19 Dixie Highway, but there I was controlling the lane. Thanks to the help from the Tarpon Springs Police Department. That's the only way it would ever happen. But it was a great event, and I think a lot of the participants had no idea of all the great things that they saw in Tarpon Springs, all the bayous, great Sunset Park. I mean, just some really excellent. We have a little short presentation. No, we're not going to do the PowerPoint presentation today? Okay. I guess in your packet, there's some things you can click on, and you've got some pictures, and so look at that at your pleasure. All right. Thank you, and thank you, Tarpon Springs. Next, we'll have our vote on the consent agenda, and there is one change. It has been requested that item, or I've been informed that item 5B regarding committee appointments has been deleted from this consent agenda. Do we have any board members who wish to pull any other items from the consent agenda to be handled individually? Otherwise, I'll entertain a motion, or I'm sorry, Tina, do we have anyone speaking on the consent agenda? No, Madam Chair, we do not. All right. Thank you. And in that case, unless anyone wants to pull an item, I'll entertain a motion for approval of the consent agenda with the amendment of deleting item 5B. So moved. All right, we have a motion and a second. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? The motion carries. Thank you. Now, on to our presentations and action items for the day. We'll start with our PSTA activities report, and I believe Vice Mayor Reed has that update for us. Thank you, Madam Chair. The PSTA board met on Wednesday, April 29, 2026, where we welcomed two new board members, St. Pete Beach Commissioner Karen and Marriott, representing the beach communities, and Tarpon Springs Commissioner Lori Weaver, representing Tarpon Springs, Oldsmar, and Safety Harbor. We also thanked our U.S. Representatives Luna and Castor for their community project funding initiatives, providing needed funding for both the docks at the Dunedin Marina and in St. Pete. The board approved several items during the April meeting. These included the fiscal 25 audit report, the purchase of a second ferry to enhance the upcoming launch of the Tampa Bay Ferry service anticipated by the end of the year, and a task order to continue the planning work on a premium transit route on Alt-19, building on Ford Penelope's Advantage 19 study with the goal to eventually apply for FTA capital investment grant program funding. I believe Whit will comment more on that later. And PSTA hosted the first of two board workshops on the fiscal year 27 budget on Friday, May 8th, and the second one will be Friday, June 5th. And that concludes my report. Thank you. Thank you. Whit? I just want to amplify the action that the PSTA board took on the Advantage Alt-19 quarter planning effort. That is one of our defined investment quarters, which we adopted in our 2045 long range transportation plan way back in 2019. And then this board reaffirmed that strategy in 2024 when we adopted the 2050 long range transportation plan. And it is probably our most defining vision for how we see transportation and land use taking shape throughout Pinellas County, which is to begin connecting our communities through relatively higher speed premium transit service that would link opportunities for housing that's affordable with jobs and job training. This is something that the county administrator, Barry Burton, and I began talking about together in 2018. And it has really taken off. We've got the Sunrunner in operation. PSTA started the SPARC service on US 19, 34th Street South, connecting Eckerd College up to the Sunrunner. That was the second component. And then Alt-19 is the third component. And later today at this meeting, you'll see the fourth component, which is the US 19 corridor connecting Pasco County to our PIE gateway area. And then the next component is the East Bay Roosevelt corridor plan that we are entering. We've just begun phase three, which is developing recommendations. So you'll see all of that in the next few months. And it starts to come together to paint a picture of express bus service and redevelopment going hand in hand in our key commercial corridor. So thanks to PSTA for that action. And it's been a good partnership. We look forward to the next steps. All right. Thank you. Any questions about the PSTA activities report? All right. Thank you. We'll go ahead and move on to our next item, 6B, the Advantage US 19 report. This is an action item for us today. And it is presented by Kyle Simpson and Nicole Colasso. Good afternoon. Kyle Simpson with Fort Pinellas. And Nicole Colasso. So Whit gave a pretty good introduction to what I was going to cover right in the beginning, but starting from way back in the way back machine, why are we here today? One reason is Congress. In 1962, they passed the Federal Aid Highway Act, and that created metropolitan planning organizations. The reason was in 1956, they passed the Interstate Highway Act. And so the federal government was making one of the largest single investments in infrastructure in the country's history. And they noticed the need to make sure that within a region, the interstate system that they were funding connected to and collaborated with the other transportation assets and investments that were happening. So as part of that, they developed the 3C framework. And so that's continuing comprehensive and cooperative planning process. So we still have that today under U.S. Code 23, Section 134. How we accomplish those 3Cs and practice today is our long-range transportation plan, Advantage Pinellas. So that's our 20-year long-range where we want to be. And then the transportation improvement program is that five-year what we're engineering and what we're constructing. Our unified planning work program is the two-year cycle of kind of planning projects and smaller scale planning efforts that we're doing. And then also our public participation plans that highlights how we make sure that we have robust, continuing, comprehensive community involvement in everything that we do. So as Witt was saying, we have the investment corridor framework within Advantage Pinellas, our long-range transportation plan. And that identified corridors throughout our county and region that are the best to connect people from where they live to where they work or want to travel. So the airports are on there, key regional assets in Hillsborough County and Pasco County. And so this includes the U.S. 19 corridor. And so this had previously been looked at in 2022. There was an agency that you all talked a little bit about last meeting called TBARDA. So we worked with them on looking at the U.S. 19 corridor and would premium transit service, does it make sense to go there? The gist of the study is yes, it does. The existing employment and residential concentration on that corridor would support a premium transit service. And so we wanted to take that one step further to go from would it even work to yes, it does work, how do we align it for federal transportation funding in the future? So we've done that not in a vacuum, but with a bunch of different stakeholders. Again, that regional vision, it's not just us, it's all the local governments, the county governments and the transit agencies, as well as our partners at FDOT. We've all been working along this along the way through a study management team, making sure that this is a asset that local communities can use. We're not telling them what to do. We're saying, here's a resource that you can use. So this is phase one. This focused largely on the land use component. Phase two, which I'll touch on in a little bit, would look at how the transit operates and what needs are there. So chapter one is a broad overview of the existing corridor. Chapter two gets into analyzing the station areas. Three is the opportunities for transit-oriented development that exist. And then chapter four is how do we make it happen? So looking at the station selection, the initial TBARTA study in 2022 identified 15 potential locations throughout this 35-mile corridor. When you're looking at transit, what transit you're going to put there. If it's an express bus, which basically travels and travel the existing travel lanes, it doesn't have a dedicated right-of-way. You need a station at maximum three to five miles apart because you want the transit service to have a competitive travel time with someone driving themselves. So you can't have a bunch of stations because that would make the service take too long and people wouldn't want to use it. So we needed to cut down that 15 station number to between 7 and 12. To do that, we developed a formula to basically analyze how well each station area performed. On the transit-oriented development readiness criteria framework, we looked at things like soft sites. So let's think of there's an old strip mall that might have been constructed in 1990. It's kind of past its expected useful life and the land value it's on might be worth more than the actual building itself. That's kind of ripe for redevelopment, a regulatory framework that looks at your existing zoning and future land use code. Does it allow more than what's there today by right? What infrastructure is there? So that's sidewalks, local street network, existing transit service, things like that. And then community characteristics, that would be libraries. A couple of station areas have St. Petersburg College campuses up in Pasco County. Kaiser University is at the Newport-Ritchie staff. And then looking at transit demand. So looking at the Federal Transit Administration model for expected transit demand at these locations. So going through all that, we basically filter down to the 11 most performing station areas through that framework. And so that includes four stations in Pasco County and then seven in Pinellas, reaching from State Road 52 and 35 miles down to the Gateway area of St. Petersburg. And so now I'm going to turn it over to Nicole to get into the nitty-gritty of the land use component of all this. Thanks, Kyle. Good afternoon, board members. So I'm going to attempt to distill that 200-plus page report in your agenda packet down to a few summary slides. So bear with me here. So to begin, as we kind of set out on phase one, we set some goals and a framework for what our overarching purpose was, which is to really identify opportunities and demonstrate the potential to effectively integrate redevelopment with a future investment in Enhanced Transit for the benefit of both. And so after narrowing down those 15 stations to the 11 that Kyle spoke about based on their potential to support a future Enhanced Transit surface, we set out to then establish a land use and mobility framework to see how can we integrate those things if an express transit service were to be pursued along the U.S. 19 corridor, what other improvements would be needed to make that a success? So then we also outlined some high-level transit supportive recommendations that are context sensitive while also being cohesive to create the feel that it is a cohesive corridor, but we also know there's lots of different contexts along those 35 miles. And then finally, we visualized at a high level what it could look like if the station areas were to redevelop in alignment with some of those recommendations that we outlined. So let's get into it. Before we went into recommendations and creating visualizations, we started by taking a look at the market. So we examined both supply and demand at the regional and sub-market level, and we looked at 30-year historical growth patterns of each of those sub-markets you see outlined there across four property types, multifamily, hotel, retail, and office. And the purpose of that was to look at the historical trend and then kind of project out what is the capacity of each of these sub-markets to capture a share of the regional growth and regional demand that we can expect to see over the next 10, 15, 20 years. And so the preliminary findings of that were that multifamily and the office supply shows the strongest future demand with retail lagging just behind. And the reason for that is anyone who's driven along US-19 knows there's lots of retail, lots of commercial development along that corridor. We've seen some uptick in multifamily development in recent years. But, you know, looking at that 30-year historical growth kind of explains why retail lagged behind in terms of future demand. And then when you take a look at the sub-markets and what their potential is to capture that share of regional growth at the MSA level, we found that the southernmost sub-markets, the Gateway, Dunedin, Clearwater, Safety Harbor area, have the strongest kind of potential to capture that share of growth. So in addition, we also looked at regional employment trends, and we found that two of the top three fastest-growing industries in the region are predominantly office-using with finance and insurance and professional services. Healthcare occasionally needs some office space as well. And what this does is it signals that there are certain areas along the US-19 corridor that could provide that space for new Class A office development, which would attract employers within those fastest-growing industries. And then, of course, we also looked at population and in-migration trends, and unsurprising to all of us, there will be continued demand for housing in the future. So what this tells us and kind of helps to tee up the recommendations and visioning for the station area is that redevelopment that's focused on residential and office uses with complementary neighborhood-serving, employment-serving, retail spaces is most likely to attract interest from the market, especially in those southern segments of the US-19 corridor. So with some contextual knowledge in hand, we then looked at designing that TOD, transit-oriented development design framework. So these are the high-level corridor-wide recommendations that would be appropriate for any of the eight local governments along the US-19 corridor to take a look at further should, you know, this move into implementation. So we started kind of outlining that high-level goal. What are we really trying to accomplish here? Well, just like our investment corridor framework says, we want to provide those who live, work, and visit places along this particular investment corridor with many convenient and accessible options for getting around. That all sounds wonderful, right? But how do we do that? So we're focusing on mobility improvements that will expand travel choices, enhance connectivity both within the station areas, so to a future bus stop location, and also to the points of interest in neighborhoods adjacent to those intersections. And then, of course, improve safety. So just highlighting some of those major buckets of recommendations. We have some related to new streets and mid-block crossings integrated with public spaces and surrounding development to create smaller blocks and thus enhance walkability, create more direct human-scale routes. We also looked at siting additional sidewalk, bicycle trail, and micromobility facilities, again, to provide those first-last-mile connections for those who maybe don't live in an adjacent neighborhood but work or want to visit family or friends nearby. We also, of course, looked at intersection improvements. How do we improve the flow of traffic on US-19, reduce turn conflicts and enhance pedestrian visibility? And then, finally, traffic calming measures, streetscaping and beautification in appropriate locations. So not necessarily traffic calming on US-19. That's meant to be a roadway where you kind of go fast and get through places. But as soon as you get off and you start to get into kind of those immediately adjacent areas, how can we ensure that it's safe for those who are walking and biking to and from a future transit stop? So when you say mid-block crossing, are you talking about on US-19 having mid-block crossings? No, no. So, like, within the station area. And I think this will help demonstrate that. So that's why I also said we don't mean there won't be speed bumps on US-19, at least none that are envisioned currently. So those are those high-level buckets. Then we actually zoomed into each of the 11 station areas and looked at that quarter-mile radius around the intersection of where a future-enhanced transit stop may be sited. And then we started to define where those mobility improvements would be most appropriate. So, for example, this is from the Bay Vista and Roosevelt Boulevard station area. You'll see with the red lines, those are all new street connections. So those would all be connections that would deserve a look at, are we going to need, you know, some sort of mid-block crossing to help people get across to the new developments that are there? And then, you know, we also looked at where is it important to fill sidewalk gaps? Where would it be appropriate to site bicycle and new sidewalk facilities? And then, finally, where are those intersection safety improvements needed? So those are the two yellow circles you see. Not necessarily mid-block crossings. The actual treatment would have to be decided at the time in collaboration with those with jurisdiction in each particular area and, you know, the various kind of planning, design, and studies that go into it. And the reason that we're highlighting this particular one is to show how, you know, we're maximizing those connections with other investment corridors, such as East Bay Roosevelt, as Whit aptly mentioned at the start of this. And so just like with mobility, we also looked at some high-level land use recommendations, and then we got more granular as the report went on. So what is our overarching goal with these land use transit supportive recommendations? It's to facilitate redevelopment that supports transit while remaining context-sensitive to each community because, again, it will ultimately be up to each of the eight jurisdictions along the U.S. 19 corridor to decide what is relevant to them, what is needed to fit their particular context. So we looked at some targeted land use and zoning changes, but we also really wanted to emphasize leveraging the existing planning frameworks in place today. And then also, you know, zoomed in even a little further and looked at some site design recommendations that would promote internal circulation, connectivity, walkability, and makes places great to visit. So, again, just showing an example of how we started at that high level and then got more granular with each of the 11 station areas, just sticking with Bay Vista and Roosevelt Boulevard because I wanted to give a little shout-out to our friends at City of Largo who recently adopted one of our target employment center overlays to help advance, you know, their goals for their community. This is highlighting how this report is not to override what has already been done at the local level but actually build on it and, you know, bring some of those other station areas that don't have that level of planning work up to where the others are so they can, again, capture some of that growth and economic opportunity that we can expect. And then, of course, we took it one step further, as we usually do with planning studies. We further defined station typologies. And, again, the reason for this is to guide context-sensitive TOD or redevelopment, inform regulatory changes, and, of course, differentiate the station roles while also maintaining a level of cohesion along the corridor. So we define these three typologies, and you can see how each of the station areas was sorted into those. We have mixed employment center, which is most of our southernmost station areas. Regional center, which is East Bay Drive, as well as State Road 52, the northern terminus in Pasco County. And then neighborhood community center for there's more infill stations in between. And so this just provides a snapshot of what that context sensitivity looks like. We, you know, differentiated the land use mix in each with mixed employment centers serving as more that highest intensity, regionally significant employment centers, perhaps where Class A office would be most appropriate to locate, along with housing and employment and entertainment uses. And then you'll see there with density, intensity, and height how it steps down from each. For regional center, that's more of a mix of vertical and horizontal mix of uses, kind of sticking with more of the current context you see there. But also, again, an opportunity to spur economic activity. And then finally, our neighborhood community center. Those are primarily residential with some neighborhoods serving retail and really looking more at those opportunities for infill and offering more choices and fostering a sense of place, creating community gathering spaces and connections to nearby recreational amenities. And in addition to kind of the land use and design framework buckets of recommendations that went along with each typology, we have some overarching best practices for each of our local governments along the corridor to consider. So for land use and zoning, you know, those recommendations really focus on utilizing the typology toolkit in a way that makes sense for each community, for mobility and connectivity, an emphasis on planning for future technologies, such as signal timing improvements to help with the flow of traffic, and also looking to secure future right-of-way needs early. For housing, of course, coordinating with each of the housing affordability targets set, amongst the two counties and various local governments. We also have some recommendations for the public realm, you know, encouraging those active ground floors, pedestrian-friendly streets, creating new public green spaces. For resilience, we know stormwater comes up all the time, so there are some recommendations around seeking opportunities for regional stormwater facilities or working with developers to work that into the agreement for master-planned redevelopment. And then finally, we have recommendations for implementation, mostly around collaborative governance. How do we get the eight local governments, as well as our transit agencies, the MPOs, to all work together to coordinate their planning decisions and funding needs? And so now I'm just going to give you a kind of short preview of each of the visualizations that we provided. So for one of the station areas in each typology, we went and did a 3D visualization concept to show how could a station area in this typology actually look if it were to redevelop aligned with these recommendations. So for Mixed Employment Center, we looked at the Drew Street intersection, and the kind of area that we'll be zooming in on is on the southwest corner of US-19 and Drew Street. So we started by defining a plan view of that area and calling out some of those key TOD principles that I've mentioned throughout this presentation. And then we extruded that in 3D to show how it aligns with the typology recommendations and also how might it fit into the context of the surrounding community. So for this particular station area, everything you see here could actually be done today because of the city of Clearwater's previous planning work on their US-19 Activity Center. So again, maybe it's not aligned with what we see on the ground today, but it is aligned with the regulatory framework. This could come in the form of a development permit application tomorrow. So just to call out some of the key facts here, we're looking at a gross floor area ratio of 2.0. The building height ranges from, I think, 6 feet to 8 stories. So again, this is well within the realm of what could be done today in this particular area. And then just to call out some of those key features, you'll notice parking is integrated internal to the site. There's some hotel uses perhaps to help, you know, kind of piggyback off of the Phillies ballpark redevelopment deal that's going through. And then, of course, that provision of green space and employment office space. And this is a photorealistic visualization to give it further kind of context. And you really start to see how this area could become alive and kind of be its own contained development that also connects to surrounding areas, some of that other activity that's going on at this exact intersection today. And then finally, for each of these, we then went back to that market analysis and we compared how much development we put in this test fit buildout against what the market analysis showed for what the sub-market could capture as a share of regional growth. So what the sub-market could capture is what you see there in the blue boxes. And then the actual amount of development that you just saw on that redevelopment concept is what is an orange. And the key takeaway here is that there's plenty of additional room for this sub-market to grow. This is well within the context of what the market can handle. And it, again, still leaves room for other areas within that larger sub-market to grow as well. So I'll walk you through the other two. For regional center, we took a look at East Bay Drive. So we are looking at the southeast corner of US-19 and East Bay Roosevelt. And, again, the purpose of selecting this one was so that we can ensure our recommendations are aligning with that East Bay Roosevelt corridor study that's going on simultaneously. And just like with True Street, we started with a plan view kind of outlining how these spaces could all work together and then extruded it in 3D to compare against the recommendations. And what we found, again, is that Largo already has an activity center in this area. This could also be done today with some public and community benefits. And, really, the big goal here was to show that, one, this red area, this is big-box retail. So to show that, one, we don't have to say goodbye to big-box retail along US-19. There's maybe just smarter ways to design it to create more walkable and compact areas. Anyone who's ever been to Tampa, thinking about that target off of Dale Mabry that has integrated parking. And then, of course, you'll see here a higher concentration of residential, but also some employment uses as well as those green spaces. And, again, a photorealistic rendering to really bring that to life and show what that injection of activity could look like. And, again, we're showing here that the test fit that we're looking at is well within the range, actually well below the range, of what this entire sub-market could handle. And then, finally, for neighborhood center, we focused on the US-19 and Main Street intersection in downtown Newport-Ritchie. For those who've been up that far north, this is the gateway to downtown NPR. So the focus here is really on creating that connection to that activity center while also creating some new opportunity for mixed-use and residential development. And so because this is a neighborhood center, you'll see a much heavier focus on residential. There's ground floor retail, though, of course. And one thing I do want to call out on this one is that in the provision of green space, when we presented this to the PASCO MPO board, they mentioned how there's a real need for stormwater here. So one thing that we were sure to note in the report is that these are just high-level kind of visioning for illustrative purposes, but there's kind of some more technical recommendations related to how could you work out within the development agreement for potential master plan redevelopment to include maybe more stormwater that's even than is what would be needed here, but that could serve as a more regional facility. So just wanted to highlight that to note that these are not necessarily saying that this is exactly what should or will happen. It's really more of a vision to help people imagine what's possible. And then again, you'll see the photorealistic rendering. And, you know, we haven't touched as much on Pasco County's submarkets, but something that was an interesting finding for us is that they actually will see a stronger demand for retail in northern portions of US-19 than in southern portions. And the amount of retail that was provided in that test fit is well, well below what the market could handle. So while this was heavily focused on residential, you could also imagine that because of the market data we have, perhaps there's actually more commercial or office development, you know, based on what market forces are at play should redevelopment occur. And so to kind of tie a bow on all of this market and kind of analysis that we've done, the key takeaway again is that the scale of the proposed redevelopment test fits, it's appropriate and it's feasible from a market perspective. So the number of residential units and square footage of retail and office is well below and makes up only a small portion of what each of those submarkets could demand over the next 15 years. And so what is the implication for us, right? Well, we also took a look at the assessed tax value of existing development on the ground today, well, in 2024, and then kind of did a tax revenue projection for those test fits. And what we saw is that if those redevelopment concepts were built out in 2024, they would generate nearly $4 million more in tax revenue than current conditions. And so what we have here is the ability to foster local growth and capture that share of regional demand and growth that's coming to our three counties without overwhelming the market or existing development patterns. And then also this demonstrates the return on investment that transit improvements could potentially have when integrated with some transit-oriented development kind of land use recommendations. So again, reinforcing the economic opportunity that's to be had regionally and our potential to capture that here. So I promise this is the last time I'll say finally, since this is my last slide. So, and then I'll hand it over to Kyle. So if I really had to sum it all up, I think I'd say our region is growing regardless. We know that we'll see more population, more employment, and there's an opportunity here for Pinellas County and West Pasco to capture a share of that growth and develop a strategy for where, when, and how that growth should occur and phase it and time it alongside transit improvements so that when we have that growth, people can still move freely, conveniently around our region. And then, you know, just a few other things to note here is that our local governments really have already laid a lot of the groundwork for this, and this is just taking it one step further. And this is an incremental approach. Additional changes can always be made alongside or after transit investments to support ridership, accommodate market demand, adjust to what those community goals are at the time. And so with that, I will hand it back to Kyle. All right. So in closing, we took this presentation on a road show up to Pasco County in March, and we went to the Pasco MPO's Technical Advisory Committee and Citizen Advisory Committee. Both of those committees were very favorable. They both recommended approval to the Pasco MPO board, which they did approve phase one of this report on March 12th. We came back home and went to our advisory committees later that month. All of our advisory committees recommended approval. There were a few comments on our CAC about wanting the transit to kind of be more than what's proposed in this report, like have dedicated space. But at this point, we're kind of, this is the first step. It's like, I like to explain it as I did a triathlon a couple weeks ago. I didn't choose to just do it. I had to train for years and things like that. So this is kind of like that, where we're taking one bite at a time, and this is a good first step. It'll be the first of its kind in the region of a transit service. So that's where we're at. But so today, before you, we're asking for your blessing on phase one of the report and then authorization for the scope of services for phase two. Back when we initially brought this to you last year, there was a request that the land use component be cut out from the transit operations component. So that's why we're back. If phase two is blessed, then we would begin on that in July, and it would be anticipated as about a year-long effort. Within phase two, we would develop a preliminary service plan. So that's basically what does the bus service look like? How does it integrate with existing PSTA and go-pass-go routes? This is not intended to replace any existing transit service but supplement what's out there. The local trips would remain, or local services for the local trips, and this would be, think of it as like you could drive from here to Orlando on state highways, but it's a lot faster to take I-4. So it's the same thing of where the local bus service will still exist because you still need that local access, but we would be providing a faster option for people looking to travel further. We'd also look at the capital and operating costs, so how many buses do we need to run this, and how much does it cost to operate? And then how do we make it happen? And with that, we're happy to answer any questions you might have. All right. Thank you so much. Before we go to our discussion, Tina, do we have any members of the public who would like to speak on this item? David Ballard, Geddes Jr. Thank you. Thank you again. I'm a little perplexed as to how the county moves forward. It seems as though things are being half-revealed, and at the same time, they're half-concealing things. For example, we used to drive on our roads freely. Now we have these traffic-calming areas complete with roundabouts, which, as things evolve, will most likely involve some sort of a sun-pass toll charge to go through these traffic-calming devices, which used to be roads we could freely travel on. Our water supply, we used to be able to access without having to pay the toll charge of a reclaimed water availability fee. So am I overthinking this toll charge roundabout concept based on this toll charging of our water supply using a reclaimed water availability fee? Half-revealing, half-concealing these issues. It seems to be the mode of operation that's taking place within a lot of these initiatives, phase one, phase two. For example, let's say, for instance, the bicycle path. These bridges that they've designed across Alternate 19, north of Dunedin Causeway there, and on U.S. 19, over by the Olive Garden, there's another bicycle path. What if somebody dropped all of these bicycle bridges, so to speak, in the road at the same time? They'd gridlock the entire town. If I can think of, you know, wartime strategies going on in my head, should we ever revolt against the government? Have they predispositioned to gridlock us and shut off our water with smart meters and shut off our cell phones? I like the convenience of certain things that we're being given, but at the same time, I have to take a look and see if there's built-in tactics, snares. For example, the city conceals the jurisdiction. The county conceals the district. The state conceals the region. So half of what we see in our government, the other half is being covered up. So I'm a little perplexed as to how we're going to unravel that perplexity that we're getting ourselves into. So thanks for letting me share. All right. Thank you. Tina, do we have any others? No, Madam Chair, we do not. All right. Thank you. We'll lose a public comment and go to our discussion with Vice Mayor Reed. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the presentation. Very interesting. I think it was slide 41. I don't know if you can go back to that. But it's more of an overview. You showed a significant increase in tax revenue, which is obviously ideal. But if you factored in the overall cost, increased cost of services and figured out a net out of what, using those numbers, what a net difference would be, potentially. I know it can't be specific. We didn't factor in the cost of services into this analysis. Okay. But just to add on to that, that's because that's part of the Phase 2 scope of work is to dig into the service operations plan and generate some planning level costs. So, certainly, you know, there's potential to compare whatever those costs are against these numbers that were generated, you know, in Phase 1. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to clarify, we'll be looking at the transit costs of services, but not local services like PD and water and sewer, things like that. All right. Thank you. So, next, Commissioner Eisner, and then we'll have Commissioner Flowers. Thank you, Madam Chair. So, first of all, thank you. It was a lot of information. I'm actually speaking for one of the Citizens Advisory Committee reps who was not able to make it today. He sent me a little email. So, it's, I'm not likely to make the forward Pinellas meeting today, but wanted to remind you to weigh in on the Advantage 19 investment card, a study, which we previewed at the Citizens Advisory Committee meeting. It highlights U.S. 19 and Tarpon Avenue as a potential transit-oriented development hub and possible express bus stop to help define it. They hope to engage in local governments to adapt a zoning regulations to accommodate the mixed use that would meet the TOD definition. It has worked well up north with areas that have existing express transportation. He is an ex-New Yorker, so he's talking not north here, north. But not sure how that would shoehorn it down here without a dedicated express lane during rush hours, which I didn't see anything up there. Also of note is the change of county representation allocation for the proposed MPO merger, which I know we'll get to with Pasco and Pinellas now outweighing Hillsborough County. Small victory, but more importantly, is what will remain of the majority of current forward Pinellas board members not elevated to the merged agency. Will they then serve as an advisory committee to the new organization? What will happen to the current advisory boards in the place now? These are the questions that he said Witt should have answers to before any merger goes down. Thank you, Witt. I think regional, but act locally was always one of my civic mantras, and I will still believe that Pinellas needs its own boards to make sure that we stay in the lanes and prioritize what's needed and wanted here. So, again, that's not my comments. These are from Robert Rockline. Thank you. And Commissioner Flowers. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the presentation. Just a couple of questions and then a comment. So, for just going back to slide 41, since you're already there, this would just be my ask, since we have some changes that may or may not be coming in the month of July. What we do know is if there is a reduction in property tax for homeowners, the way to make up that revenue would be what we do for businesses. Businesses, then, would potentially say we'd like a reduction. So, I would just love to see maybe after July, when the dust settles, maybe we come back and just look at these numbers and see if they change any at all. So, that's my ask. Thanks. For slide 17, I was really surprised that manufacturing wasn't in there. I know here in Pinellas County, our Small Business Development Center, with Dr. Johnson and her team and others, we've taken a lot of phone calls about requests for warehouse space for manufacturing. And there have been a number of key targets, you know, that do some pretty good federal stuff and, you know, Pentagon stuff. And they have moved here, especially along the U.S. 19 corridor of Pinellas Park area. So, I was just really surprised that that wasn't, that it didn't make the hit. It didn't make the list. So, that's just my observation. And then, I do love the traffic control devices. We had one of our commenters talk about the roundabouts. And, you know, a lot of communities went through a lot of changes with the roundabouts because some of them you couldn't maneuver real well around them, especially public transit buses. They were eating up the curbs on them. And then, those who couldn't get out of the circular in Clearwater because, you know, you try to dot in, dot out, dot in, dot out. So, I got stuck in that once. I felt like I was in Paris. No roundabouts planned on U.S. 19. I know that. As of that. I just want to clear it. I was just commenting on, you know, what he was asking. And, I don't foresee us ever charging for any type of traffic control devices, you know, for persons to pay to go across them. But, I do love them, especially in, when I've gone up to Newport, Ritchie, going over Little Road and to their little downtown that's kind of quaint but moving up. I've really enjoyed the way that, first of all, when you come off of U.S. 19, it makes you slow down because when you go over that little humpy hump, it requires, even if you didn't want to, it just kind of requires that you bring it in. So, I do like those added amenities that you had there. But, overall, I see the validity in the entire report. I just, the income-generated revenue component piece of it. And then, I would like to see if, perhaps, you know, going forward, those numbers change for manufacturing because there are a lot of manufacturing businesses that are moving in. And so, it's not considered office space, they would be considered manufacturing a warehouse, I guess. Only because I just recently looked at a lot of employment data for our region. This is something we could definitely prepare as maybe, like, a quick data fact at the next board meeting. But, I want to say that Pinellas County does have a locational advantage in manufacturing industries in comparison to the surrounding counties. But, that information was summarized at the MSA, so Metropolitan Statistical Area Level. So, maybe at that level, manufacturing isn't one of the fastest-growing industries regionally. But, we do, I want to say we do have a locational advantage in manufacturing here in Pinellas County. It's certainly one of our most mature industries, making up a, you know, large amount of our economic base, especially as it relates to higher wages. So, again, that'd be something we could, you know, readily prepare. Just some quick facts to share at the next board meeting if you're interested. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Council Member Floyd. Thank you. I'll be quick. This looks good and eager to go on to the next phase. But, in some of the, I guess, renderings, they just appeared, like, quite, like, an urban scale of development. Like, and I just wonder how realistic that kind of thing is in this area. And if maybe there's, you know, some examples as to where this has been successful in other places or at least attempted in other places. I know, I think you said not in this region, this kind of thing. But, you know, because I just struggle to imagine, like, you know, what looked like walk-up storefronts next to U.S. 19. And so, anyway, if you can speak to that a little bit. Yeah, I'd say locally the best kind of example, it's standalone, but would be Midtown Tampa. So, I mean, that's kind of a little island that's surrounded largely by single-family residential. And it's kind of a destination to itself. And so, we don't anticipate, say, if this is adopted. It's up to every local government on how hard they push foot or not. And the market forces at the time will dictate. So, it's not like this is going to all happen tomorrow. But we're just highlighting that it can and that the market has room to kind of adopt that style or that intensity. No, of course. Yeah, I know that you're not saying that. Yeah, I was just wondering, like, you know, what it just, I was wondering, I guess, what felt most likely going forward. But thank you for that. We'd be very rich if we knew what was there. Yeah, of course, of course, of course. That's why I mentioned examples. But thank you for mentioning Midtown Tampa. Yes. I do encourage the board members, if you haven't been to Midtown, park there. Walk around there. The REI store is there. There's a lot going on. And, you know, we have Johnny Wong here from Hillsborough County. I don't think many people envisioned that 10, 15 years ago. It's been remarkable. And if it's possible on Dale Mabry, it's possible on US-19. All right. Vice Chair Scott. Oh, wait. I'm sorry. You want to follow up? Yeah, okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think it's a great, Commissioner Flower's great point on manufacturing. This, to me, there's a lot of information unpacking here. But I think this is a great, great phase one study. And in my mind, US-19 has been ripe for this for the last 20 years. Because the amount of investment that we put in, the flyovers in US-19, and with the explosive growth that's happening in Pasco County, I mean, I think this is a real opportunity for enhanced transit service. And just anecdotally, that's where the cars are, right? I mean, that's where everybody is. So excited to accept this report and move forward with phase two. Just remind me, have we already approved and voted on funding for phase two? Yes, the funding is in place. What we did last year was to bring you back the recommendations at a midway point so that you could, if you weren't comfortable, stop the ball from rolling. But that was kind of how it was presented, is we've authorized the funding, but we agreed at that time to just break it into two phases and have an interim report back. All right, well, I would make a motion to accept this report, and I think there's a lot of comments. All right, so we have a motion and a second. Tina, did you get that? I have Commissioner Scott making the motion and Deputy Mayor Shelley making the second. Excellent. Yes, Chair. Thank you. Yes, I know we have more comments. I just wanted to make sure that we know what's on the floor. Oh, thank you, Chair. Commissioner Scherrer. Yes, Witt, first of all, great report. There's a lot of information there, and you all have done a lot of work. I'm just assuming it's quite expensive. And last time we talked about this, it was my understanding that, you know, this is probably 25 miles of Pasco County roads. If we go forward with Phase 2, do we have an agreement with Pasco County to share in the costs of not just the Phase 2 study, but the Phase 1 study? Because for me, we're doing it for the benefit of both counties, and if they're not going to be sharing in this cost, that these costs should be spent on studies on Pinellas County roads. Now, I'd like to see us get a final agreement with Pinellas County to help us pay for those studies. Well, we've fully funded Phase 1 ourselves, but I think we've got an agreement that we will partner on Phase 2. And, you know, I think it's good for us to do things on behalf of the region periodically and lead and show the way. But I think the way their board has reacted, I'm pretty confident that Pasco will be able to step up the plate for Phase 2. Well, I'd like to see an interlocal agreement with them to help us pay for some of these big things before I move along. And, I mean, I appreciate the work. I know it's important, but, you know, come on. We've been carrying a load now for a while. So, that's how I feel about it. All right. Thank you. Who else? Vice Mayor Butler. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you all for the presentation. Kind of more of just a, I don't know if it's a question or a comment. We'll see. I can only play this new guy card for so long. So, with the TODs, I would like to see, and it may already exist, so if it is, just get it to me, but the TODs around the county and how this plays into them. So, I ask because late in session, earlier this year, there was a bill that mandated that local governments hit basically maximum density and height within their TODs. And that's why I think it's really important that we get ahead on the ball on this because then we don't have to worry about people wanting to build really big buildings in parts of our communities. We don't want it, and we know our residents, at least a lot of mine, don't want anything else, so that's a fun dynamic. But if we could make sure that existing TODs and some of those arterial conversations and whatever are a part of Phase II or if there's something that supplements this that kind of mentions those relative to these centers you're discussing, I would appreciate it because it's super important, I think, that we get this moving. But, you know, the legislature, they, you know how that goes, so we'll see what we get next year with that. But that was something we were really concerned about late because you have municipalities that are trying to be progressive and get ahead of this stuff, but then developers are getting a free-for-all, and it may not align with what we're trying to accomplish. So, thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Peters. Thank you. Great point, Vice Mayor Butler. That was a really great point. So, I concur, and I think that's critically important. And I also think critically important is looking at the infrastructure because, you know, developers come in and they do it, and we have seen where the cities have not invested in that infrastructure prior to that going on. So, I think the infrastructure piece is critically important. It would be valuable to the cities to have a general idea on how much they have to invest to get that kind of a return because their investment is going to be significantly higher than that return. So, I think that's really important. I think this plan is great for U.S. 19. I think PASCO is ripe for having this kind of planning, and as they're planning more flyovers in North County, I think this planning is critical to be, like, in place and overlaid while they're doing that. So, we're kind of ahead of the game, and we know. And we've already learned a lot of lessons from those flyovers the first round and how what happened to development and business on that frontage road. So, I think this is very valuable, but I think we need to have what the investment is going to be for this return. I think the TOD stuff that, Vice Mayor, I think that's really critical because I can tell you people in Pinellas County don't want more building. Now, it makes sense on U.S. 19, but they don't want more building. They don't. They don't want more density. They don't want – they just don't want it. And traffic is a real problem, and they're frustrated. So, I think if we do it smart and we do it planned, you know, very planned but not, you know, I think this is good. Not a designated lane for a bus, I take it. Okay. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Anyone else? I just want to add to that. We do have more work to do on the planning and design for U.S. 19 north of Curlew Road, really Nebraska. And so, as the Department of Transportation initiates that, we'll have the transit service plan, and they can incorporate that into the design. And I don't want to stand here today and preclude that there would never be a dedicated lane for transit if you're expanding, not to take away, but if you're expanding. And that's something that could be incorporated into a future FDOT corridor plan. So, just right now, we're not assuming that, and any service that got initiated, say, in the next three to five years would probably just be express bus operating in regular lanes. But with the construction of U.S. 19, that does open up more possibility. Thank you for that clarification. Yes. Deputy Mayor Shelley. This is a great report. And I will mention that in a lot of counties, manufacturing is an important part of employment centers near transit-oriented development. I worked with Jake Stowers 15 years ago working on Pinellas County TODs, but are they completely up to date to support this? I didn't hear the question. Okay. Are transit-oriented development rules, regulations, up to date for Pinellas County to support these stations? I think it varies by jurisdiction. So, the countywide plan is up to date and supports all this and provides guidance for local governments that they can follow. As Nicole mentioned, Clearwater and Largo have embraced this already, so I think they're well set. It's maybe not so certain when you get out of those two jurisdictions how ready they are. But that's something that we'd be happy to work with the local governments on if they are indicating an interest. Great. Anyone else? Excellent. Well, thank you for their presentation and all of this work. I really geek out over this stuff. I'll talk with anyone about TOD any day of the week. Yeah. One of the things that I like about how this is being presented is that you've got the big concepts, but it's very clear that when it gets down to the station areas, it's not a cookie-cutter approach. It's really treating each neighborhood, the surrounding area right there with respect to its current identity, and I know from experience that a lot of time is spent getting consensus, getting support, getting buy-in from the existing community as you determine what would go into those particular station areas. And you've given a couple of examples of that here with the economic development opportunities that come with this. I don't see how we don't keep moving forward, and I appreciate the work with Pasco, the acknowledgement that we are not islands or neighbors, and there is a lot of movement across that county line. And we want to make sure that we are not islands or neighbors, and we want to make that better for people in Pinellas, if by doing so, it also benefits the folks in Pasco, and if they are acting as partners with us, then everybody wins. But I appreciate that Pinellas is taking the lead on it, and I'm excited to see that you have the full support from Pasco's NPO board and for Pinellas' different committee meetings. I mean, it looks like this has been thumbs up all the way, and with a presentation like this, and the backup was a lot, I appreciate the presentation. It kind of helps break it down for me. You guys did an amazing job, and I can't wait to see what you do in Phase 2. Thank you. All right, we have a motion and a second to approve the Advantage U.S. 19 Phase 1 report and to authorize the executive director to execute a notice to proceed for Phase 2 with the consultant, which is WSP. Tina, do we need a roll call vote on this? Okay, fantastic. So we have a motion and a second. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? The motion carries. Thank you so much. Excellent. Next, we have item 6C, which is our draft transportation priorities. Aren't you glad we deferred these two items from last meeting? Oh, my goodness, yes. Thanks for the reminder. And for this one, we have Chelsea Favreau. Good afternoon. They're just pulling it up on my screen here. So we're here today to talk about our draft priorities. Our priorities, this is one of the major functions that we do as a Metropolitan Planning Organization, or MPO. We annually adopt a list of priorities that we then transmit to FDOT, and they use it to develop the next work program. Now, at your meeting next month, you're going to see the final work program, the list of projects that are going to be funded in the next five years. Those are based off of the last priority list. This here today is a draft. You'll get a final of it next month, and these will be used to do the next five-year work program. A few reminders. Members, projects do remain on our list until they are 100% complete. That's why in your packet, you're going to see it's broken into two sections, the priority list. The top ones are unnumbered. They just have the letter P. That stands for programmed. And then the numbered ones at the bottom, those are the priority order for the projects that yet to have funding. Highlighted portions on the list indicate that some kind of change has been made, and there are two different lists in your packet. One is the multimodal list that is kind of our catch-all for any and all transportation projects, and the other is transportation alternatives. That is a federal grant program that is restricted to bike-ped projects, and it's a pretty small pot of money. So for that reason, we keep the two lists separate. I'd like to draw your attention to some of our previous projects that have been completed in the last year. Those include Skinner Boulevard in Dunedin, U.S. 1934th Street South in St. Petersburg, the Corridor Study along State Road 580 spanning multiple jurisdictions, and the State Road 60 Duke Energy Trail Crossing near Old Coachman, Northeast Coachman, one of the Coachmans, Old Coachman Road. So we're very happy to see that these have been completed, and they are struck through on the list in your packet. We have a number of newly funded projects. Now, there's a lot of funding in the work program in various phases, but these are ones that actually have construction dollars on them, and we're very, very excited to see that. They include closing sidewalk gaps on state roads. This is a little bit of a catch-all because there are a few gaps spread all over the country, all over the county. But FDOT, with this newly funded project, is going to be filling in all of those gaps within the next five years. So all state roads in Pinellas County will have sidewalks along them. The next funded priority is 3rd and 4th Streets in downtown St. Pete. This is converting the one-way pairs into two-way facilities and adding bicycle and pedestrian and also vehicle safety improvements that are needed when converting them. The third is 60th Street in Pinellas Park from 78th up to 82nd Avenue. This was our local grant application last year that you all recommended funding for, and we're happy to see that move into the work program. And then the last one is Bel Air Road from Lima Way to US-19. This is actually part of a much larger project, but the bigger the project, the more expensive it gets. So we have been asked to segment this one out, so this will cover the eastern end of Bel Air Road and improvements to that section. We have a number of new priority projects that we're looking to add. And these priority projects, they come from a wide range of places. On the list in your packet in the far right corner, you're going to see, I think that's a source of the project, and that's really just where these projects came from. The first one I'm going to highlight ended up at number five. These are signal upgrades citywide. This is the local government grant project that was submitted by the city of St. Petersburg in this past year and you all recommended funding for based on the recommendations from our advisory committees. And then further down at the list, what we try to do is, so that we're not constantly reshuffling the priority list and telling FDOT, well, no, fund this one this year, and, oh, next year, just kidding, fund this one instead. We try to keep our priorities relatively stable. So new projects we're adding to the bottom. Number 31 is a traffic signal at Alt 19 and 16th Avenue Southwest in Largo. This came out of our Safe Streets and Roads for All grant project, where we studied five different locations countywide, and this was one of the ones that we studied in the city of Largo. Number 32 is a crossing of Gulf Boulevard near 146th Avenue North. This was a request of FDOT and local government for that mid-block crossing. I understand there's a parking area on one side of the roadway and some hotels and rentals on the other, and there's a lot of people running across the street. So pretty big safety concern there. Number 33 is East Lake Road. Pinellas County has asked us to prioritize this project, and it's a PD&E study or project development and environment study from Curley Road all the way up to Trinity near the Pasco County line. So this is going to be looking at intersection improvements, potential widening, technology improvements. It's a pretty large project, so we're hoping that getting it on the priority list will help move it ahead for funding in the shorter term. And then the last, number 34, this is for the State Road 580 corridor. I have a later slide where I'm going to talk about that. As of right now, that is just a placeholder. We brought you the recommendations from that study about, I'd say about six to eight months ago, and so we had a placeholder on it, but we're holding it for you all to give us direction as to which project you'd like us to advance first, and I'm going to touch on that in just a minute. A couple more new projects. This is a project development and engineering study along the Courtney Campbell Causeway. This is a request of FDOT. The study is underway, but FDOT can't really finish the study unless they show a linkage and a connection to the Ford Pinellas priority list in our long-range plan. So we're adding it for planning consistency purposes. And then the last is the intersection of Alt-19 at Virginia in the Palm Harbor area. If you've gone through there, you've noticed it's under construction and there's some mast arms up. Those mast arms for a signal, that's a temporary treatment. The ultimate treatment there is going to be the installation of a roundabout. Because of some safety concerns identified by the department, they didn't want to wait a few years to get the right-of-way and the design to get the roundabout in, so the signals are going up just for the short term so that we can make sure that the safety issues are addressed while the roundabout is moving forward. A number of our priorities are under construction, and we're really happy to see projects move from the planning to the implementation stage. So I just wanted to draw your attention to some of them. Alt-19 north of downtown Dunedin going up towards Curlew. Median modifications are underway. There are trail connections under construction going from St. Petersburg up into the Howard Franklin Bridge, and those are along 4th Street and Ulmerton Road. The downtown Clearwater Intermodal Center is well underway, and then the express lanes along I-275 coming from the Howard Franklin Bridge down to 38th Avenue North. There is one project that we are striking through, and we are removing from the list. This is 62nd Avenue North from 49th Street to 34th Street. This project is still going forward. The reason that we're taking it off the list is the county had received a $1 million grant from Ford Pinellas to help advance the project. Because they accepted the grant money that federalizes the project, it increases the cost of the project overall, so much so that the project cost exceeded well over $1 million, so it wasn't worth the county to keep accepting the money to move the project forward. So they're going to be moving forward with local funds so that they can keep the same timeline for the project, and it won't slow anything down. So federalizing projects does come with a lot of extra rules and stipulations, and sometimes it's not worth it. We were aware that some of these challenges were happening with our local government partners, and that's why we increased our local government grants to $3 million a year or two ago, so that hopefully the dollars are still worth going after for our partners. So the State Road 580 Corridor Plan, that one placeholder that we have for a project, is a very long corridor, over eight miles. The study was completed last summer. In October, we brought you the recommendations, and we need to advance those recommendations via the priority list. So what we are proposing to do as staff is we try to bundle together the lower-cost projects and then the way that we prioritize them or the projects that we know that can get done pretty quickly, we put as a higher priority because there are some other priority projects. They need right-of-way acquisition, a lot of public outreach. Those are the ones that we know are going to take some time, so we can't get them moving forward right away. This is a bit of a catch-all, so I apologize for all the words on the screen, but the first priority project that we'd like to move forward with is that first bucket over there on the upper left-hand corner. These are all intersections where signage and striping is being proposed. Nothing major, no major access management changes, no moving of lanes or widening. These are all pure signage and striping. So it's a pretty low dollar amount. I think it was about $500,000 for all of those improvements at those locations. So we're proposing to put those together as priority one, add that to the priority list this year, and then next year let's come back and look at what's next and what's still moving forward. So in total, all of these projects here come to about just under $22 million. So this does not include the PSTA bus bays that were talked about at Countryside Road. That one's kind of moving in parallel. We're working very closely with PSTA on that. But we are looking for some direction, how we should move forward on those 580 projects, and then we'll go ahead and add them in the priority order that you ask for. Transportation alternatives list, no substantive changes. Those projects are moving ahead, many of them, at a very good rate. There are still a number of unfunded transportation alternatives programs or projects, so we were not proposing to add any new ones at this time. We don't want the list to get so long that the ones that are on there, the local governments give up. They don't want the funding anymore. So we try to keep that one nice and short. So what we're doing is we're continuing to refine the lists. I actually got a call from one of your staff people earlier today pointing out problems with the list. I had some typos in there, so we're going to keep cleaning them up. And what we want to do is bring it back to you next month for your final approval, and then we'll go ahead and we'll transfer it over to our partners at FDOT for use in developing the next work program. And with that, I'm happy to take any questions. Thank you. There's no action requested on this item for today, but does anyone have any questions or comments that could serve as good guidance for staff at this point? Commissioner Eisner. Thank you, Madam Chair. When you spoke about Keystone and Eastlake, what kind of repair or changes would you have there? At that intersection, exactly what those changes being proposed are, I'd have to defer to county staff since that's their project. I do know that they're going after some grant funding to look at there's some issues there with the signal and the fire station with the traffic backing up and the fire trucks having some problems coming through. So I know that they're looking at some turning lane challenges. There's some safety challenges with the trail crossing right there. So there's a pretty comprehensive list of needs and wants at that intersection, but I can get back with you separately and at least share what I can get from the county with you on that project. I was just asking because some of the major complaints we get is from the bikers. Yes. And that's really scary. So scary intersection. Yes. And county staff is aware of those comments. I know that we've seen a few via email and online in the last few weeks, and those have all been shared with county staff. That's it. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone? Oh, Council Member Menino. Madam Chair, thank you. Chelsea, thank you for the report. Two quick questions. Number one, check with Mayor Freeney to make sure I'm not overstepping, but they did a wonderful job on the Skinner Road, came out very nice in Dunedin. Question is what we've said from the finishing point was heading west on Skinner at the Main Street split, where Clear Sky is, that lane merge gives traffic maybe 15 yards after the light to merge over. I know there were discussions at the time. Has anything followed up on being done on how to mitigate that problem? I mean, I've almost seen bumper accidents. It's obviously slower speeds because we're just getting through a light, but they're constantly there. Has there been discussions on how to make any changes to that on the back end? It has been a conversation. I know that we've forwarded some concerns to our departments at the state. Brian, I don't know if you've had an opportunity to look into those at all, not to punt. No, you're fine. State Road 580. Hi, Brian. Hey, good afternoon, everybody. Brian Hunter with the Florida Department of Transportation. I know we got those concerns forwarded to our traffic operations folks who really dive deep into those types of concerns, and I apologize. I just haven't followed up with them, but I will, and we'll get back with you all. Thank you. I appreciate it. My other question, Chelsea, was regarding the Clearwater Intermodal Facility. It might be a better question for PSTA, but currently Clearwater is going through the process of a road vacation, not even a block away from that unit. I'm wondering, has there been discussions internal with Ford, Pinellas, or PSTA to what that, if that vacation is successful and goes through, what that might do to the intermodal, and do we need to change things while it's early enough so maybe there's enough room to do a turnaround and get back on Myrtle if that does, because it will obviously drastically change how buses pull out. Whit, do you have anything on that? We've had some internal conversations about that. I think it may affect some operations, but we have Nicole Dufa. I don't know if, Nicole, you want to come up and just maybe share any conversations you've had internally about that. That would be the Garden Street vacation, right? Hello, Nicole Dufa, Director of Planning at PSTA. As far as the vacation, I know that we have had some internal discussions on that, but what I can do is I can refer this question to our Director of Project Management, who is leading the construction implementation of the Transit Center there, and get back to you with any further information. I don't want to say anything out of turn. No, I appreciate that, and I would appreciate any follow-up. I mean, we do get those questions. It would be nice to not speak on behalf of, but to know what the stance is. Yes, sir. Because it definitely will affect it if it happens, but I appreciate your time. Yeah, for sure. Thank you. I'll work with Nicole and her team to respond to you on that. I know we were looking potentially at a signal at Franklin to allow the buses to access Myrtle in that direction, but I think it's too close to Court Street, and so that signal won't be allowed. But I'm not sure what other interventions we may be looking at, so I'll try to follow up on both those items for you. Thank you. At one point, I heard they were going to give a bigger runway so the buses could make a wider turn and facilitate them safely getting on to Myrtle versus I appreciate it. All right. Thank you for being so thoughtful about how PSTA might need to navigate that whole process. And since Nicole is here today, I just really feel compelled to share with everyone that standing before us just a moment ago was the recipient of the University of Florida's Department of Urban and Regional Planning's Emerging Alumna of the Year Award for 2026. I was just so happy to see that the other day. And since you're here, I had to mention that we're so lucky to have such talent in PSTA and Forward Pinellas and within our own city staffs. It really, you know, projects like this and the way that we work together to get this funding, get these projects done, is because of a lot of hard work that happens behind the scenes by many unsung heroes. So we'll sing it when we can. Anyone else have any comments? Yes, Mayor Franey. Yeah, so first of all, I want to clarify that Council Member Menino could always speak on Deneen's behalf. As a big user of Deneen's stuff, we love you. And actually, you reminded me of that. I wasn't catching it first. But yeah, actually, that whole issue of the merge on the Skinner, I think actually Commissioner Eggers brought it up at one point. And then I chimed in, and we had a discussion about it, and it's quick. I get a lot of comments about just how quick you merge, and depending on your speed, it's like it can definitely be a thing. So that would be great for a follow-up. My question was, and I apologize because I meant to go back and look at the prior report on the 580 project, but the crosswalk between Keene and Achieva, and I think we talked about it because it seemed to have been going to be put in for the purpose of the affordable housing complex, and it's not by the affordable housing complex. It would be on the Achieva and Keene, I think it's away from. It's on the other side of Keene. So I think it was intended to match up with that, and that's reiterated by nearby redevelopment advancing quickly. So am I right about that, Whit? That's my recollection. Yeah, so it would definitely be in the wrong place if it's intended to answer to that, which makes sense. So again, I think it got brought up last time, and I knew there was something with that. So maybe you guys can just recheck where the location of that would be. I know it's a priority, too, but still. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? All right. Well, I hope this has been helpful for you. All right. Thank you. For our next item, we'll discuss the election of a new secretary. This is an action item for today, and Whit will start us off with a discussion. Sure. There's a heavy load of responsibilities for the secretary. They have to engage in two meetings a year to help with my performance evaluation, and that's really it. We have a chair, a vice chair, a secretary, and a treasurer on the executive committee. The term would be, just to complete Patty Reed's term through the end of the year, in November, you will meet at your meeting to select an executive committee for 2027. So it's just filling out that term, and the executive committee will be meeting in the near future to go over the results of the survey of my evaluation and developing a recommendation for the full board. So there is a meeting coming up. We don't have it scheduled. It was originally going to be this morning. I have talked to several people who I know are mulling it over and interested, so I don't know if you just want to take nominations from the floor. Yes, I think that would be good if we have anyone who would like to volunteer to be nominated or nominate themselves, or if we have anyone who has someone else in mind to nominate, let's make it easy. Who would like to go first? No one? Okay, let's back up for a minute. I know it could be someone who now isn't here today. I don't know. I don't know either. I don't know either. Can we start with that first? Council Member Figgs-Sanders. Ah. I nominate Deborah Figgs-Sanders. All right, we have a motion and a second, but, so we have, and Tina, did you get that? I nominated Council Member Deborah Figgs-Sanders for secretary. Oh, okay. Okay, great. Is there? I wasn't trying to be funny. I was just saying, you know, whoever was it. Well, it was funny. Oh, sorry. It was good, buddy. Tina, did we have any citizens who would like to speak on this item? No, Madam Chair, we do not. Fantastic. And do we have anyone else from the board who wishes to speak at this time? Great. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you, and congratulations. Great. That's wonderful. So, the first order of business would be that Tina will get in touch with you as we're figuring out when we're going to have that meeting that we had talked about to discuss the evaluation. All right. Item 6E, the appointment of the new MPOAC representative. This also is an action item, and again, Whit will tell us about it. This is an easy one. You only have to drive to Orlando four times on I-4. A much heavier commitment for the MPOAC representative. We had Council Member Reed serve in that role. We also had Vice Mayor Johnson, who's been the alternate for that, and in years past, we've had multiple alternates. We are allowed by MPOAC to have an alternate to the alternate. I just want to say one thing. The MPOAC has hired a new executive director who began in January of this year, I believe. She is a breath of fresh air. She is an amazing person, Amanda Carpenter. She previously worked for the Florida Department of Transportation and has really made these meetings much more effective, much more efficient. The content has been outstanding. She's, last meeting a couple of weeks ago, we had FDOT Secretary Jared Perdue come speak to us. We've had a great dialogue, and they've been extremely active addressing, although we're not allowed to lobby, educating and informing our legislative members about the work that MPOs do. And we need an arm like the MPOAC to bring together all 27 MPOs in the state of Florida to share best practices, transfer knowledge, and also just remind you all that as MPO board members, you're also representing your local governments. And being able to take back to the local governments the actions of the MPO and the work of the MPO is critically important. And you all are, you know, ultimately implementing the projects that the MPO prioritizes at the local government level. And really, that's where sometimes our biggest challenge has been in keeping projects on track, keeping funding in place for projects, and ensuring that there are no surprises as the projects advance to construction. And I think the MPO AC is a great forum for bringing that knowledge and information to people. So I think Vice Mayor Johnson's expressed an interest in potentially serving in that primary role. So that takes some of the pressure off. But assuming he's willing to be nominated for that role, we still would need to have an alternate because he was not able to make our April meeting and may have some other conflicts. The meetings tend to be on Thursday. So that probably takes out all the St. Pete council members on our board. Microphone, Commissioner Flowers. Hello? Do you want them separate or you want them singular? I don't think it's up to the chair. That's why I'm asking. If there's agreement by the second person that you're nominating, then I would think we could do it together. Yeah, there is. And I mentioned it to Whit that I was happy to be the alternate. All right. Then just to make sure that it's clear and recorded, could you restate your motion? Sure. I would like to nominate Vice Mayor Chris Johnson as the representative to serve on the MPOAC. And I would like to nominate Mayor Mofrini to serve as the alternate on the MPOAC. Thank you. We have a motion and a second. Tina, do we have any members of the public who wish to speak on this item? No, Madam Chair. We do not. Okay, great. And is there any other discussion? Any other nominations? Okay, great. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? The motion carries. Thank you. And congratulations to you both. And thank you for driving to Orlando. Next, we will go to item 6F, which is the preliminary fiscal year 2027 PPC budget. And for that, we have the one and only Rodney Chapman. Hi. Hi. Thank you for taking some time to have me talk with you about how the budget, excuse me, the budget is shaping up for fiscal year 27. As I come before you each year, you're going to hear some of the same things you probably heard the last two or three years. First thing is the numbers will change. So at this early stage in the process, we are working with county administration and the Office of Management and Budget to put the contours around the budget submittal. And we've gone through the early checkpoints with the county, and I'll speak about that a little bit later on. But again, the thing to remember is the numbers will change, so don't focus necessarily down to the dollar or to the penny because there's a lot of moving parts at this point within the process. The second thing is that I'm going to take a different approach this year than I normally do. Typically, I'll get up here and we dive right into the numbers, and I feel like this time we're going to switch it up a bit, and I want to begin by just highlighting some of the work of your staff because I think it oftentimes goes a little bit unnoticed. And the fact that we have this countywide planning agency is a great benefit to not only the citizens of the county, but also to each of your respective cities. So I want to take a few minutes to highlight some of the work of the dedicated and talented team that you have here at the agency. The first thing I want to touch on a little bit is the Targeted Employment Industrial Land Study policy implementation. Commissioner Flowers touched on it earlier when it came to the question about U.S. 19 and manufacturing. For those of you that were not on the board fairly recently, you wouldn't have been around for the update that we made to the countywide policy back in 2022. The purpose of that was to evaluate the effectiveness of those policies that had been in place for about 10 years to preserve land for high-paying jobs. I would admit, as planners, we don't often do the best job of doing that. Typically, we will adopt policy, and then you move on to the next thing. You know, I challenged our group, let's take a fresh look at the effectiveness of that policy, and that 2022 update was pretty effective in showing us while we did have some successes, we also had some challenges or things to pay attention to. And I'll just highlight a couple of those. We did find that there's about 3 million square feet of demand for classy office space up through 2032 in the county, as well as another 6 million square feet of industrial demand by 2032. The disconnect was our policies were treating all land the same. So whether it was very large land in Tarpon Springs or it was in the Gateway, it all was governed under the same policy. And what we learned was industry and business has different needs, different desires, different locational characteristics. So what we came up with was a sub-categorization. I don't know if I get that right. Basically, we broke down that target employment center overlay into four subcategories and developed a set of incentives to support different types of target employment uses associated with each of those subcategories. Now, at our level, that was sort of a countywide policy that was reflected within the countywide plan, but it didn't impact the city's local regulations. So what we have been doing for the last bit of time is to work with the city of Largo and the city of Pinellas Park to actually adopt those subcategories into their local codes and standards. That's really where the rubber meets the road. It's sort of like a two-step process. So we make changes at the countywide level, and then we've been able to come alongside the city staff and work as an extension of their team to reform their regulations so that they can adopt new policies to compete with some of the preemption that Vice Mayor Butler was talking about. In this particular case, it was about Live Local. And you all have heard me talk about Live Local and the fact that that preemption makes it harder for local governments to preserve land for high-paying jobs. So happy to share with you that the city of Largo has adopted those subcategories. They're reflected there on the map to the bottom, both suburban industrial subcategory as well as suburban office. And you see that sort of yellow diagonal line that's splitting the two. That's U.S. 19. And so that explains how within the city of Largo, they have now reformed their regulations to make those target employment clusters that you see there, those seven, more attractive for private industry. Pinellas Park is a little bit behind Largo. No fault of their own. They had some hiccups with the state. And so they will be bringing forward their adoption of the target employment center subcategories that are shown on the map at the top. It's the purple and the red, again, that suburban industrial and suburban office subcategories. Again, the idea is to make our land use policies more attractive to private sector investment that align with those seven target industry clusters that you see there. The other thing that we spent a lot of time on, and believe it or not, we started the update to the county's multimodal impact fee ordinance back in 2024. This is a jointly managed project that we're leading at the request of the county administrator in partnership with the city of St. Pete, city of Clearwater, and city of Largo. Each of us have funding dollars into the project. Again, the idea is to review what's working and what's not working with the county's multimodal impact fee ordinance and recommend a series of changes. We thought we would have been done by now, but unfortunately, the state has intervened in three specific occasions, and I have them noted here. The first was Senate Bill 180. The issue with that is that the ordinance is in the county's land development code, and so 180 restricts you from making any burdensome or more restrictive changes in your regulations. So that caused us to have to revise the scope because we had to take things out that we considered or at least delay the ones that could be considered more burdensome or restrictive. The next gift the legislature gave us was House Bill 479. This was a new requirement that required cities and the county to adopt an interlocal agreement to ensure that developers aren't being charged twice for the same transportation impacts. So we spent, boy, probably five, four, five, six months working with each of your communities and the county to craft and execute an interlocal agreement to memorialize how we are assessing impact fees here in Pinellas County, and we had to do that all by October 1 of that year. And I know we were very proud of being able to pull that off because it did require us to, and oftentimes, go out to some of your communities to talk about why this is a requirement. Again, coming down from Tallahassee, it sort of slowed down the update because we had to stop and then address the requirements of House Bill 479. And the last one is just a recent gift as of the end of the last session, which is House Bill 1329. This is a new requirement for the impact fee program, and essentially requires us to utilize a plan-based methodology. Essentially, what we have to do is now go back and forecast about 10 years of growth and then come up with an associated list of capital projects that could be funded with those impact fee revenues. So, what we've done in trying to get this project over the finish line is to split the second phase into two. So, you'll see the graphic on the right where it's phase 2A, which is really more of the administrative and operational changes that don't trigger Senate Bill 180. And we think we'll get that done in the fall. And those recommended changes will come to this board and also be acted upon by the Board of County Commissioners. Once that phase 2A is done, we'll then shift our efforts to phase 2B, which is more of the technical fee study where we will look at the rates and the costs and other improvements to the ordinance. So, again, think of it as a two-step process to update the Pinellas County Multimodal Impact Fee Ordinance. I want to commend your staff collectively because this is another project where we've had to go out to your communities to meet with various folks within the development review process to kind of learn what's working and what needs to be changed with the administration of that important funding program. The next thing I want to share with you is probably a little-known thing that we do for you all, but our local planners are well aware of what we call our Knowledge Exchange Series program. It's an information-sharing program we created back in 2018 to explore emerging planning topics. These topics are often given to us by the Planners Advisory Committee because they're struggling with a particular issue. In the early years, one of the questions was how do we regulate urban agriculture in downtown St. Pete? Because at the time, Brook Street Farms was operating out of a shipping container, and so we had to do a deep dive on how to address that pressing need. And for this last year, we were able to do a deep dive into hurricane recovery and disaster response, but look at it from a planner perspective. You know, what do planners need to think about when it comes to hurricanes, natural disasters? How do you respond and recover from those? One of the things I was proud of is the in-depth case studies that we did for the project. We talked to folks in Fort Myers who were impacted by Hurricane Ian, Panama City after Hurricane Michael, and then folks in Mississippi going way back in Hurricane Katrina. And so there was a lot of information that we learned, and we packaged it up into report, presentation, and web video and did share that with our planning network as well as the Pinellas County Public Information Officer Network. You all have seen some of what we've been doing with ArcGIS Urban. Since we have, since Nicole presented some of our work to you all, we've also had the opportunity to work with South Pasadena, Dunedin, Reddington Beach, and Palm Harbor in using the software as a decision support tool. I thank Mary Freeney with your rezoning. It was very helpful, too. It was fantastic in showing, you know, size and scale. Yeah, and so in meeting with George, you know, of your staff and putting that together, we thought there is some pretty compelling ways to show the visual impact of what that development proposal was all about. Again, the high-level takeaway from that is our staff is becoming highly proficient in technology, and we want to work with you and your staffs to use the software to look at zoning parameters, look at site constraints, and just have a better understanding of what the implications of development decisions could be. The image to the bottom is an example of the viewshed capability within ArcGIS Urban that we put together for Reddington Beach because they were contemplating increasing height by five feet, and so the software was good to help them come to a decision on that. And, again, we've talked to you about some of the awards that we've gotten for our use with Arc Urban. And there's other things that we do. This isn't inclusive of everything, but the idea is, to a large extent, what we do is support your staff and your community's needs. What you see here is really the nuts and bolts of current planning, essentially. The state-mandated comprehensive plan updates in a couple communities. We've done a major zoning code update for Reddington Beach. We're working on mixed-use regulations in Indy Rocks Beach as well as in South Pasadena, but really more for having a commercial corridor focus. And we're also doing work on accessory dwelling units in Gulfport. So, again, a very comprehensive review of some of the work that our team has been able to accomplish over the last year. Okay, there we go. So now let's talk about numbers. So, as usual, we work with county administration and OMB to execute the guidance they give us. So, as I've shared with you in the past, the Board of County Commissioners sets our budget and millage rate, and we work with the county administration to meet those broad budget parameters. Much like every year, we have been given a flat budget directive as well as service reductions of 3% and 5%. Basically, they want us to demonstrate how we would cut an additional $110,000 and another $184,000 from the budget submittal. And we've met that requirement by showing that we would have to make cuts in those six line items, everything from printing to legal advertising, contingency, training, education, and professional services. The county commission hasn't asked us to implement these cuts, but they do want us to go through the exercise of showing that if these additional cuts were requested, then how would we plan for those? So, we've met that requirement. We have also had discussions internally about further reducing the millage rate. We have a few scenarios that I'll share with you in the next slide, but we have information that would take the rate all the way down from its current rate, all the way down to 0.0110. But one of the challenges we're having with the flat budget requirement is that the reserve level can't really be drawn down if you're not increasing those expenses for those one-time costs. So, we've had that discussion with the county administrator as well. So, at a high level, this is a snapshot of what the actuals have been for the agency from FY23 to FY25, as well as the budget for FY26 and then the proposed budget for FY27. We don't really deal with the revenue side of the equation at this point. Again, the process, because it's too early and the property appraiser hasn't released any guidance. So, from an operations perspective, it's $2.5 million, another million in operating, and you see the constitutional officer amount and then the reserves. You'll notice that the reserves are projected to increase by a substantial amount. The reason for that is two things. One is our beginning fund balance, which feeds into the reserves, is based largely on your audited financial statements for the previous year. When we got the audit back from this last audit, we determined that the contingency amount that we were budgeting, which was around $600,000, wasn't spent down very much, so that money just rolls over. We have since fixed or reduced that amount in the line items significantly for FYI, the current year budget. So, it's down to $50,000 that we budget now for contingency. The other thing is there was about $335,000 from the county for intergovernmental service charges that weren't charged. So, we had budgeted for a much larger amount for intergovernmental service charges, and when we get the invoice for the county for that cost, it was much less to the tune of about $300,000. So, I shared earlier that we have worked with OMB to come up with different millage rate and reserve scenarios. So, you'll see that information there. The information is oriented vertically. So, at the top are the various millage rates. Our current rate is at 0.0175, which is all the way to the left. And then we have calculations that take the rate all the way down to 0.0110. The next row below that shows you the amount of Avalon tax revenue that would be available. The next row below that gives information on that total budget amount, and then the last row in that white section shows you what the reserve amount would be at the various millage rates. And then OMB also was able to calculate what the property tax impact would be to the average single-family home, which is that last row at the bottom. So, at the lowest scenario that we are evaluating, it's $6.19 to the average single-family homeowner. And then just also wanted to share that going back in the archives, the lowest rate for the planning council over the last 30 years was at 0.0125. So, any comments or questions on any of this information? I think I have a budget one-on-one meeting coming up, but in my one-on-one meeting, can you provide for me where you had reduction in services? I presume that is the reduction in the services you provide to other municipalities. Yes. If you could provide me with kind of what that will mean as it relates to work that other municipalities need from you because they don't have the internal staff and any projects that may or may not affect, you know, going forward, please. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. I do have just one kind of wrap-up. So, as Commissioner Flowers mentioned, we are meeting with each of the county commission beginning next week. We'll sit down with them and have a discussion about their priorities. We will then reconvene with the county administration and OMB the first week of June. We'll have a budget information presentation before the county commission in mid-June, and then we'll bring a budget and middle rate forward for your recommendation at the July 8th meeting. And the whole process will wrap up with the board of county commissioners adopting our rate and budget at two meetings in September. Right. Thank you. Tina, do we have any citizens requesting to speak on this item? No, Madam Chair. It's not an action item, so no. Okay. Thank you. But you would like feedback today. That's the... Yes. Does anyone... I've got something, so I'm wondering if anyone has anything else. Okay. Could you go back to slide seven with the budget guidance? Yes. And I'm not going to put anyone on the spot. If no one wants to respond or give any input on this part, it's fine. But I'm wondering about what you called the exercise that you were asked by the county to go through on the 3% and 5% reduction scenarios. So, that happened also on the city level, only to start to see that the intention and the plan behind those requests were not what departments thought they were. We don't have the numbers yet. What I see with Florida Pinellas is an entity that already operates on a shoestring budget, really. I mean, considering all that they do, all the ways that Florida Pinellas helps our cities, to see some of that have to get cut back at a time when we need more. You know, we need more help within our cities. I just, I really struggle with that because you guys have, I mean, I've been on this board for several years now, and I just always see you guys operating on a really tight budget. But you make it work, and you make it work with some of the best people around, the best people in the business. I know that when you hear about this, oh, everyone has to do this exercise, everyone means everyone. But I do hope that those who are making decisions on the county level on this budget will please keep in mind how valuable Ford Pinellas is. And when you're asking for a 5% cut, when you're even asking for a 3% cut, that cuts deeper here than in a lot of other places. And I do hope that the importance of their work will be kept in mind as the budget process moves forward. That's all I have to say about that. I would like to add. Vice Chair Scott. Oh, I'm sorry. I just want to add one thing that Rodney maybe didn't cover. We've heard very clearly from the Board of County Commissioners and from this board over the years about having too big of a reserve balance. And our reserves are well above what you would consider normal in a city operation, 20%, 25%. We're above that. What we've done in response is we've put our reserves in three categories that require, depending on which category, a public hearing or an action by the Board of County Commissioners to unlock those reserves. So on May 19th, we are asking the BCC to allocate a substantial amount of our reserves towards the trail planner position and to assist funding the State Road 60 quarter study. And that will draw down some of those reserves that Rodney mentioned. So they're there for a reason, but it's not something that I can just on a whim say, let's go pull those reserves. And in some cases, even this board can't do that. So, and we did that to address some of the concerns by the County Commission about having too much reserves. But I cannot spend down those reserves by submitting a flat budget every year. So something's got to give at a certain point. And that's money that's been collected by, you know, from the taxpayers to spend on planning activities. So I can't give the money to the sheriff. I can't give the money to the parks, you know, to hire a few more rangers. And I can only go at the pace of our cities. So in some cases, we had money to spend, you know, on the Gateway Master Plan implementation for the county and for St. Petersburg. And for different reasons, they weren't ready to proceed with those. So we went ahead with Largo and Pinellas Park instead. But that's just an example of, you know, I'm not going to go out and authorize us to do a planning study for Tarpon Springs if Tarpon Springs hasn't approached us and asked us to partner or we haven't sat down and gotten their commission's approval on that. And I can only go at the pace of our partner. So just kind of keep that in mind when you look at the reserves. So I think what you're saying is that when the cities are ready, you need to have the money ready, too. That's true. And so we just met with Indian Rocks Beach that talked to us about reforming their 1981 land development code. And we're happy to do it. But that would require another action by the Board of County Commissioners to take that money out of reserves. So by going from a $600,000 contingency, which we used to have, down to a $50,000 contingency, which is not really reflected in these reserve numbers, it will be next year, it's reduced our flexibility a lot. And I'm confident if we bring a good project to the county commission, they'll approve it. But that's one more layer that the old way didn't have to address by having a $600,000 contingency, if that makes sense. Thank you. I share. Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. Oh, no problem. I just wanted to just make a point that Fort Penhouse isn't being picked on here. This is an exercise that every department goes through every year. It's just a decision point, just so we know. I mean, they'll say, I mean, we're going to do this with Public Works and Utilities and BTS and, you know, about three dozen other departments are going to say, you know, here's a flat budget. If we did a 3% reserve or cut, this is what it would look like. And if we did, this is where service is going to suffer. And it's just a decision point. And I honestly, in my couple of years of doing this now, can't remember too many times if we've ever taken those decision points. So it's just a snapshot in time for informational purposes. So I wouldn't get too rattled or too worried about it at this point. But the reserve discussion plays into it plays into all this stuff. And in the final analysis, I'm sure it's all going to work out fine. Thank you. Thank you. That provides me with some comfort, personally. Anyone else? Just for historic safe, I'm the one that brought that to the county because that's the same exercise we did at the state. So every department and state government does the exact same thing for the very exact same reason. So we would know how many fewer case managers would be at DCF. We would know. And so if you were going to do a press, and much of this came in after the recession, 2009-10, when people had to cut budgets. And they were just randomly cutting budgets without looking at what was going to be the impact. So this was just a way to have an exercise to go, okay, I think I can live without this. But I can't live without this, and help make priorities. Now, we haven't had that kind of a recession, but it has just been an exercise. And it also helps us value, you know, where our priorities are falling. So it's not a bad exercise. Absolutely not a bad exercise to do. And just, you know, you don't like it. Sorry, but that is something I brought into the county because it's what we did in the state. I did not do that when I was mayor in Pasadena. And I was one of the few mayors that didn't lay off any employees back then. And so, of course, we spent on a lot of reserves in Pasadena, and they didn't appreciate that afterwards. But, yeah, it's just a different way to look at if you're going to have to make a cut, what's going to be the impact so you know. Because in 2010, people were cutting and had no idea what that really meant. And so I don't think it's a bad exercise. I don't think it's something to be, you know, it's a good exercise. It really is. Thank you. And I actually agree. The reason I brought it up is because I really want to show support for Forward Pinellas and all that they do. And it is, hearing from you all, it is really encouraging to know that at this level, it's being done with great integrity. I certainly appreciate that. So thank you. Anyone else? No, just to piggyback on what they were saying, that's why I asked for that data. So that when we're having our discussions, because that's what we do, we talk about what they have, what this will mean to the department. So I don't want to just say it would mean I want to be able to share, you know, this is how it will affect them, if this should happen. And we do have some that stay the same. You know, we say, nope, they can't take it. And then there are others that get a bigger WAP than others. And, yeah, so it's a jubilant discussion. Thank you. Yes, I'm sure it is. And I did notice that those are coming up next and soon. And I know that those will take a bit of a deeper dive into what we're looking at here. And I feel really good about how those conversations are going to go with the folks that we have here. So thank you. Anyone else? Yes, Vice Mayor Johnson. I just wanted to say, you know, how much our city appreciates for Pinellas as a partner. Obviously, we're involved in a lot of different planning operations with you all. And, you know, we are trying to think about what Largo is going to look like in 10 years. And it's a location that's, you know, kind of a hub of a lot of different transportation and industry, as well as Pinellas Park. You know, we are proud to be thinking ahead and thinking, you know, how do we preserve some of these work centers in our county and be forward thinking so that we're not just throwing apartments up in every single empty lot. And we do appreciate that partnership and the planning that goes into that. And, again, we don't have the resources in-house to do that, but we certainly have funds to, you know, join in and help pay for those things. So thank you very much for the work you do. And thank you very much for your partnership. We appreciate it for sure. Thank you. Anyone else? All right. Really quickly. Oh, yes, sir. Rodney, this is your second year volunteering to be the budget administrator, right? Because I think you're doing a good job. I've done it for – I volunteered many years ago, more than two. Okay. If you give me just a little bit of liberty, just one more comment I'll leave you with. Well, two things. One is we've asked OMB about any guidance for property tax reform because I didn't mention that in my remarks, and they told us there's nothing we can tell you. So depending on what happens in the legislature, I'm not sure how to inform and advise you all. Well, maybe something will happen between now and when we bring back the budget recommendation in July so there'll be some clarity. But, again, that's not part of anything that we are addressing right now. The other thing is I think it was Vice Mayor Butler that talked about preemption and to talk about Vice Mayor Johnson's comment about staff capacity. I've told the planners around the county the preemption is real. I think you all see it. And I think one of the ways to deal with it is if you're really serious about making change in the community, you probably need to do it sooner than later because if you don't, then the state is probably going to consider preempting you being able to plan for your own community. So that's the way in which we frame these conversations with your staff is that just if you have something you want to get done, you probably want to get it done sooner than later because the state has shown that they will sort of rule from on high and then limit what you can do. All right. Thank you. Mayor Feeney. Well, I think that's a really good reason why to make sure that there's flexibility with some of the reserves and contingency money because, I mean, truthfully, since I've been on this board and now I sit as treasurer so I sign checks, I've never, you know, I see very responsible thinking about how the money is spent. And also Dunedin got turned down for its small grant this year and it's a project that actually, you know, we still want to do. It's got a lot of merit. So I just think proactiveness, especially for that reason, is good. So that's all. All right. Thank you. Anyone else? All right. Well, thank you so much for that update and for all that you do. Next, we have a presentation on the MPO and PPC annual audits and this is an action item. Presenting for this today is Julie Davis of Rivera, Gordimer & Company. Good afternoon. I'm Julie Davis. I'm a shareholder with Rivera, Gordimer & Company. I'm pleased to go over the results of your 2025 independent audits for Forward Pinellas. I would like to start off by saying thank you to the entire team here at Forward Pinellas. There's two audits that we get through, two different organizations. As you heard, there's a lot going on here. So the fact that they can do the audit on top of their normal day-to-day functions to get us here on time and on schedule. Just really want to commend Rebecca, Madison, Chris with your entire teams here. Again, it's a big team effort to get through everything and really want to commend them for all their hard work and effort. As I mentioned, we are doing two separate audits. First and foremost, we're doing the Pinellas Planning Council, which is a component unit of the county. And then on the other side, we're doing the MPO as well, which is a federally funded organization. So on the PPC side, we did start the audit back in December. That one has to go to the county by February. So that was issued back in that timeline to be able to get it to the county in time. It was issued on March 4th. And on the MPO side, we started that in February and just recently issued that last week. So I'm excited to go over the results of the audits with you today. So starting off here on the screen, you'll see is the results of the audit. So for both audits, we did issue an unmodified or clean opinions on the financial statements. And what that means is anybody who needs to rely upon them can do so to make an informed decision. We had full cooperation from the entire team and no disagreements over any accounting matters. Our responsibilities for both audits are first and foremost under generally accepted auditing standards. This is where we are going to provide reasonable but not absolute assurance that your financials are free of material misstatement. And what that means is we're using a risk-based auditing approach and sampling and materiality throughout the audit process to be able to render our opinion on your financials. Moving on, our responsibilities for both audits are further under government auditing standards. And this is where we're looking at just general compliance with laws, rules, regulations, contract, grant agreements, things of that nature. I'm pleased to report that we did issue a clean opinion on that as well. And then we also do look at internal accounting controls to the extent necessary to render our opinion. We're looking mainly at the disbursements process. We're looking at budgeting. We're looking at making sure that things are being spent appropriately. We're looking at payroll processes, looking at financial reporting, segregation duties, all those key areas. And we're pleased to report that there were no material weaknesses noted during the audits to report to you all today. And then on the MPO side, again, as I mentioned earlier, that is a federally funded organization. So we do have to do what's called a uniform guidance audit or a single audit. And this is where we really dive into the specific of that funding sources, looking to make sure that it's in compliance with the federal terms and conditions of those awards. And so I'm pleased to report that was also a clean opinion and no compliance matters on that as well this year. So just some of our required communications to go over with you all today. And included in all the financial statements are significant judgments and estimates. And so what we're required to do is communicate the ones that we deem to be significant to your financials. So those are listed out here on the screen. That's the allowance for doubtful accounts, useful life and depreciation of capital assets, the actuarial assumptions for FRS as well as OPIB on the county side, the fair value of investments, and the fair value of the lease asset and lease liabilities. We did review all of the estimates and concluded they were all reasonable in the circumstances. Just some other matters. So at the end of the audit, we do issue what's called a communication letter. It just kind of is a two-page letter that goes over any of our findings if we had any. We like to summarize them on a bullet point form for you. So first and foremost, at the very top, probably the most important pieces, no fraud, no illegal acts noted during the audit. I always do like to say that if you're hearing from us at the very end of the audit, that means no news is good news. If you're hearing from us during, don't need to fret. It's not always bad news, but that's when we would be reaching out during the audit process if we did find anything. We would not wait until the very end. There were a couple items here just to kind of go over that's included in the letter. There were some new GASBs that were adopted in both the financial statements. We did have a couple journal entries. These were pension-related. These are expected journal entries each year. FRS issues their financials in January. And as I mentioned, we started back in December of the audit for PPC. So, again, those are expected journal entries that we assist with each and every year just due to timing of the information flowing from the state. As far as the other items, there's no significant audit findings, no uncorrected misstatements, and no consultation or opinion shopping with other accountants. So, that's really a summary of the actual audit results themselves. I'm going to touch on a highlight of the financials for you and where those numbers ended at the end of the year. So, overall, starting on the PPC side, you'll see here on the balance sheet, the total assets this year ended up to end at just over $4 million at the end of the year. Your largest increase was in cash and cash equivalents, and that was mainly due to a result of operations. You'll notice accounts receivable is down slightly this year. This was actually just some intercompany billing between the MPO and the PPC and the timing of those intercompany transactions. And then capital assets did decrease slightly this year. That was mainly a result of depreciation that was recorded during the year. The deferred outflows of resources you'll see right under total assets. These are all related to pension and OPEB items. Overall, we saw a reduction in all of the pension numbers this year. So, over the last couple of years, FRS and all of their investments have been making a lot of earnings, bringing down a lot of those liabilities and other things that flow onto your balance sheets. So, you'll see those reductions as we go throughout the rest of the numbers as well. Total liabilities are also down this year. They were down about $570,000. They ended at about $2.9 million. Again, the largest change you'll see is in that net pension and OPEB liability, a decrease of about $360,000. You'll notice other decreases, accounts payable and accrued expenses, just year-end timing. And then your lease liability is also down this year just due to lease payments. Your deferred inflows of resources, again, are down as well, another FRS-related item. And then overall, this brings your net position to $472,000 for the end of the year. And again, this is the government-wide level, not the fund level. And that increase from last year we'll go over on the next page here. So, on the income statement side or the statement of activities, you'll see that overall your total revenues for the PPC were down this year, about $368,000. So, it's still a good year, though, about $4.3 million in revenues overall. Program revenues, you'll see, had the largest decrease, about $447,000. Some of these were intercompany payables and receivables. The PPC does provide services to the MPO. As well as we noticed that the time spent, there's a lot of completed projects this year compared to last year. Property taxes, you'll see just a small increase there. Again, no big changes in the millage rate, but an overall increase in the property values. Moving down to expenses, total expenses were down this year as well. They ended at just over $3 million. Overall, those big changes year over year were intergovernmental services that are billed from the county. I think you heard earlier in the budget talk that that invoice came in a lot lower this year from those services. That was really the overall result of your reduction in expenses this year. And that led to your change in net position of about $1.2 million for the year on the Pinellas Planning Council side. And then finally, moving over to the MPO side, starting off on the balance sheet, overall total assets were relatively consistent year over year. You'll notice some big changes. There was a swing in cash as well as grants receivable. So, cash is down, but your receivables are up. Again, this is just a result of timing. No big concerns there. Just those timing of those year-end grant to the federal government just took a little bit longer to get in this year. Total liabilities were relatively consistent. There was a small increase. Again, when we looked at it and we looked at the cutoff and making sure things were in the appropriate periods, we just noted that there was some timing of payments. Again, I believe AP was just paid prior to year-end versus at year-end this year. And overall, your net position did decrease slightly this year to $980,000, and we'll go over that on this last page here. So, overall total program revenues for the MPO were down about $192,000. They ended about $2.6 million for the year. Program revenues, which is your grant income, was down this year. Again, this is billed based on actual work product and time that you all spend on these projects. So, again, a lot of those projects wrapped up last year. Some of them are in the earlier stages this year, so just timing of when those grant income is coming in. Program expenses were slightly up this year, mainly as a result of hiring some outside consultant for some of the ongoing projects this year. And this led to your overall change in net position of a loss of about $120,000 for the year. So, again, high-level summary, high-level of the audit results, high-level of the numbers. As you all are diving into $27,000, I'm looking at $25,000, so I'm sure it's very timely information, but great information to have, and I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. Any questions? No. All right. Fantastic. Well, thank you so much for that presentation and for that work that you've done. Again, this is an action item. So, since we – great. And do we have any citizens who wish to be heard on this item, Tina? No, Madam Chair, we do not. All right. Thank you. Well, in that case, we have a motion and a second to approve and accept the audit reports for the VPC and the MPO. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? The motion carries. Thank you. Next, we have our director's report, so I'll turn things over to Witt for a while. I don't have anything. No? No? Well, first, I want to say thank you all for the discussion last meeting. I thought it was really helpful and thorough, and, you know, sometimes you just need to have those kinds of discussions. So, we listened to you, we heard you, and I'm happy to report today that I think we continue to make progress on development of a regional MPO, an agreement for a regional MPO. But I want to say that, you know, this has been a pretty heavy lift, and it takes time because it is a big deal, and it is something that, you know, all of us here, and we have Johnny Wong from Hillsborough County. We have Tania Gorman from Pasco, MPO. Both of them are here and able to come up and speak at any time. But before I turn it over to Chelsea to just walk you through today's decision, is I really do think that the spirit of collaboration is starting to emerge. I feel good about the progress we're making, and I wish I could snap my fingers and be done with it. I'm sure a lot of people do, and just move on. But having these kinds of conversations and the debates and the guidance has been extremely helpful. What we're asking you to do today is not approve a resolution like we were last month, and the reason for that is we've already moved into phase two of this work based on the direction from the TMA leadership group and the discussion that we've all had here. And what I've heard loud and clear, particularly from Commissioner Scherer, but from others as well, is that you'd like to see the full package of the bylaws, the interlocal agreement, operating procedures, before you vote on a decision to move forward with an MPO, before you approve a resolution. So we have a very limited focus today to really just respond to the action that was taken by the Hillsborough TPO at their meeting, I believe it was last week. So with that, Chelsea's going to buzz through the first couple of slides because they're redundant, and then get you to the question at hand. Can you pull up the slides for this item? There we go. Yeah, so some of these slides are a little bit of a repeat from last month. But really just, again, why we're here today, this all stems from work back in 2023 after a request from the Florida legislature to explore the merger. So we've been working towards this merger really just to create a single local decision-making policy board to prioritize those federal transportation investments in the area. As we say, commuters, residents, they don't really know when they cross from one city or one county into the other. So they just want their transportation challenges to be solved, and they want to be heard. So, so far, we've completed an employee culture survey, a summary of MPO operations, and all of these documents are included in your packet. We had a great workshop with many of you back in November. And then our consultants helped us out with doing an operational comparison report to really compare and contrast the various MPOs and how similar and also how different we are amongst the three of us. So working towards that draft apportionment plan, this has been a very long process that started back in October 2023. And we've had a series of touch points along the way where various decisions have been made by the TMA leadership group. We sought input from the Suncoast League of Cities. And then back in February, the TMA leadership group met again to talk about how to allocate the various seats. So really what we're working towards today, and as Whit mentioned, this is a very limited focus, we want to be talking about how those 25 seats are going to be allocated and also if there are any other deal breakers from you. Again, we heard that you all want to see more before you make a decision on anything. So we're looking for spring or early summer, the principals, which are the three county commissions and the city of Tampa, they're going to be receiving some draft documents. These documents will be very draft, but it'll be a draft in our local agreement and some bylaws that'll really just be a sketch that will be there for conversation purposes and to seek that feedback before finalizing everything. In the fall, we're going to be moving into really what the service offerings of a merged MPO would be, a funding plan, and then just further finalizing those bylaws. And then we'll move into policies and procedures. So there's going to be a lot more opportunities for input and to craft these final documents as we move forward. Just a reminder about the size, the relative size of the three MPOs or the three counties that the MPOs oversee. And then when we talk about those 25 seats. So when we brought this to you last month, the proposal was for the port and the airport to come off the top, uh, for Hillsborough County to have 12 seats, or I'm sorry, 11 seats, uh, for Pasco to have four and for Pinellas to have eight. Now this went back to the TMA leadership group, uh, where they discussed, uh, the comments made by the Ford Pinellas board. And there was a lot of really positive feedback where they said, okay, you know, we see, we hear what Pinellas is saying and we don't think that, you know, it's a deal breaker to take another look at everything. Uh, so the Hillsborough TPO met last week and discussed the Pinellas proposal. And what in front, what you see in front of you, uh, is what the Hillsborough TPO board, uh, voted to recommend. Hillsborough would now have 10 seats that are, would be designated by the Hillsborough County, uh, local governments. Pasco County would have five. And I put up the population percentages there. So you can see Pasco about 19% of the population. They'd end up with about 20% of the vote. Pinellas would still be at the eight, which is the number that we discussed last, uh, last month. It's about 32% of the vote, which is about spot on with our proportionate representation. And then the port and the airport would still come off the top. So I know there's a lot of, uh, yeah, a lot of conversation about the port and the airport off the top, um, and how they may have been considered, quote unquote, Hillsborough seats. Uh, but as you can see, even when added back in, if you want to consider them Hillsborough seats, it comes to about 48%, which is right about where that Hillsborough population is anyways. So this is again, based on our 2020 decennial census number as required by law. Um, and this is what we're looking for action on. If we can get to action on that today, we'd love to also get your input on how to allocate those eight seats, uh, within Pinellas County. This would just be for conversation purposes. This is not finalized. Uh, but again, the main recommended action that we'd like to get some direction and move forward on from you today is the allocation of those 25. I want to add one thing to your presentation. Um, thank you for that. Um, on June 5th, I'll be presenting to the tri County BCC along with my colleagues. Um, this meeting is in Tampa and I've been asked by, um, County administrator, Barry Burton to walk through, uh, a draft set of bylaws. So the team is working very quickly, uh, to take what is a, like a bylaws template, uh, and incorporate some of those guardrail provisions that we've talked about in terms of the supermajority. Language for the adoption of an amendment of the long range transportation plan, the transportation improvement program, as well as how we select a chair, how we, um, to ensure that there's leadership, um, uh, of the MPO from all three counties, um, decisions about, uh, staffing and other kinds of agreements will come. Um, what we have not talked about, uh, in the bylaws, it will take more time or the composition of the committees, for instance, how we handle our citizens advisory committee. When I went to our citizens advisory committee and asked them for their input, they said, we'd like to be able to vote by zoom. Um, you know, um, because, you know, for everybody crossing the bridges is a bit of a challenge and convening 70 citizens, which is probably what our three CAC members comprise would be a challenge. And we're going to put that in the parking lot of ideas to maybe bring to the legislature if we can pull this off. Um, so there's a number of things that the bylaws probably won't be able to address by June 5th, but I do intend to have a set of bylaws that will include the key parameters, um, of how we ensure that this is a, an equitable organization, um, that respects the needs and, and interests of all the partners, uh, in it. Um, so, um, that's why we're not asking you to vote on anything today because we don't have those ready today, but we have initiated phase two of the work and, um, I feel good about our ability to get there shortly. All right. Thank you. So, so basically you're saying there's recommendations, but we're not expected to vote today. Just on the 25 seats because Hillsborough took a vote on it. Um, and I would like this board to acknowledge that they have heard you, uh, and they have responded. Um, and I think the discussion was very healthy. You know, Johnny can probably characterize it better than I can, but I was there. Tania was there and, um, it was a very productive conversation. Uh, there was one board member who expressed some concern about the, uh, majority, uh, provisions for, um, each delegation to be able to, um, maybe hold up adoption of a, a TIP or a long range plan, but that person's alternative suggestion was to have a 60%, uh, super majority threshold. And that is not allowable by state law. Um, because when you adopt the TIP and the LRTP, you need a roll call vote and the Florida statutes are very clear. It is a simple majority. Um, so we think that this is a good alternate workaround that is true to the statutory guidance because we're still having a majority. It's just a majority of three entities plus the overall board. All right. Thank you. Um, council member Gabbard. Thank you, chair. And, uh, what, I just want to thank you for, um, you know, all of your work that you've done on this. And really just for hearing our concerns last week or last month, um, I feel much more comfortable with where we are now. Um, especially Chelsea with it being laid out like this, because I think that, you know, there is hopefully in the future opportunity around the port and the airport to maybe be able to work with them on some sort of regional, uh, you know, representation. We talked about that in our one-on-one could, you know, things be changed to make it to where it doesn't have to be Hillsborough seats. I think, you know, there's a lot of work to be done there, but certainly seeing it laid out like this and recognizing, and also, I just want to say if they're listening again, which obviously they were before, um, the letters that we received from them, I think gave me a lot of, uh, relief to kind of understand where they're coming from. Um, and then to see that if you take those two off, I mean, if anything, I think it ended up even more so balanced, um, for what some of our concerns were. So, uh, I feel very confident in this. Um, I'm glad with the approach that you are going to be working on the bylaws and all of those things that people have asked for and that we are not being asked to vote on anything that we would not be seeing yet. Um, I think that's a good approach as well. So, I think that, you know, it didn't quite maybe turn out the way you hoped that it would to move things forward, but I always appreciate that you're willing to kind of ebb and flow with the way that the board, you know, is moving. And then also thank you to Hillsborough and to Pasco, I know she's here too, um, just for being good partners in this conversation and the TMA leadership group. Um, it could have gone very differently after our meeting last week or last month. So, um, with that, Madam Chair, I'll make a motion to approve the proposed apportionment as presented. Second. All right. We have a motion and a second on this. And we will go to, uh, Commissioner Scherer. I think you had your hand up second. Yes. Thank you, Chair. Uh, just, uh, real quick. No, actually not quickly because we have plenty of time, uh, to work on this apportionment. Um, you know, uh, I think we're jumping the gun. I, I appreciate all the work and everybody, uh, got it last week or at our last meeting. And we did have a team at TMA leadership committee meeting after our meeting here. And that TMA did not approve this apportionment. That's our leadership. They did. We did not. We were there. We had, we talked about a lot of issues and we did, as which said, we, we all agreed. We agreed that we needed to have the interlocal agreements in hand. And so we start reviewing those. We needed to have the bylaws in hand. We still don't have that. So for me, it's a little early to be still, to vote on apportionment. Now, I'm glad that Hillsborough County is happy with 12 votes. I think that's great. I'm not very happy with eight. I still believe that we, we need to, uh, see the bylaws before we vote on an apportionment and show our hands and say, oh, we're willing to decade vote. And then, and the other thing about that is, you know, the bylaws can be changed. So, I mean, if, if we do have a, we get our bylaws and the bylaws said they can be changed, then we're right back to where we, one census away from Hillsborough having 52% of the vote and running the whole thing. So we've got to be very, very careful. We need to see these bylaws before we vote on the apportionment. Also, I floated at the TMA meeting on numerous occasions, the idea that this board could resemble, uh, Tampa Bay water and where everybody has the same amount of votes, Tampa Bay water, everybody has three votes. We can do that here. Now you've been told we can't do that here, but I've given you the, the state and the federal laws on apportionment. The federal law says apportionment will be that we have to consider population. It doesn't say we have to use it. It's consider. So we don't have to do an apportionment based on population for federal law. State law does, but I have spoken to three state representatives and a, a, one of our state senators who'd be happy to place, uh, an amendment to this voting membership rule law on the agenda for the next, uh, legislative session. And like I said, we don't have to hurry. I believe that the state would be happy because we have an example of an MP, uh, we have an example of an inter, a tri counting agreement that works great. And that Tampa Bay water. And I believe before we tell everybody, oh, we're happy with our eight votes, that's the best we're going to get. Well, I want better than what we have. I want better than what we have. And I don't want to take just what we can get. I think we can have a true, uh, even vote and we can sit it out like Tampa Bay water. So I really want to do that. And I just, and also what's the hurry on this vote? The, the, the June 5th tri county, uh, meeting is coming up. I want to be able to talk to those, the county commissioners there about this. And then we have another TMA meeting coming up. So I don't see the reason to rush this vote. And so I don't want to vote in favor of it. I don't think we should vote at all until we see these documents. Uh, we have a lot of city council members here from cities that are going to get a vote. What is your vote worth? We don't know yet. So before you vote on apportionment, we need to see these documents. That's what I think from here. Thank you. All right. Thank you. I would like to just report that the TMA leadership group had a good suggestion, which is that the bylaws be subject to the same supermajority requirement as the long range plan and the, uh, TIP, which I thought was a brilliant suggestion that came from the city of Tampa. Um, and the TMA leadership group has been generally viewed as a recommending body back to the MPOs. Um, and I know, uh, in Hillsborough County County's case, their MPO board authorizes the TMA to take actions prior to the TMA meeting. So, um, they were the TMA, the TPO was the right forum to consider the, the action that the Ford Pinellas board or the direction that the Ford Pinellas board provided them. Um, just so you know why they voted. Thank you. Thank you for sharing that. And as someone who has served on the TMA for, I think three years now, something, I mean, it's been a long time we've been talking about this and, um, I, I have to say, if you had asked me three years ago, if we were going to get to this point, um, I would have laughed because not everyone was cooperating as much as they are now, but we have really evolved into being regional in our interactions with each other during the meetings. I mean, you can just tell that people are coming around and seeing the benefits of, of doing this. Um, I look at how this is, um, divided up and, and I do agree with the idea of doing this by population. That's how this board is comprised. Um, I, I was really encouraged that after the last TMA meeting, we saw that Hillsborough, um, got to work, that Hillsborough was listening and the letters that we received. I mean, all of this really shows support for this direction that we're going in. And I am very supportive of it too. I agree. It's, it's, it's hard to, to see things or to, uh, make a decision on some things because we don't have bylaws right in front of us and all of that, but this wouldn't be the first time that any of us has voted on something that's happening by steps. Okay. So I'm very comfortable with, with having this vote today. Um, with that, we'll go to, um, council member Floyd. Thank you. Uh, I just wanted to, uh, share my perspective from the TMA meeting. So we went there and we described, uh, what the conversation was like last month and in our meeting here at Fort Pinellas, uh, what some of the concerns were, uh, that board members brought up. Uh, and I mentioned like T Barta and the experience there that was shared here last month. And I felt the immediate response from the Hillsborough representatives there was, okay, yeah, we can consider what you're saying. And, uh, we don't want this to die here. And a lot of them were like, oh, one seat for Pasco. And you can see that they took it back to their MPO and immediately made an adjustment for what, uh, our biggest concern last meeting was. And so I think that really speaks to their willingness to engage in this process and, uh, have it be a partnership, um, and not, uh, and immediately set a precedent. That's like, uh, good cooperation instead of, I guess what, uh, we had, had described as having happened in the past. And so I think that really sort of made me feel good about the direction this was headed in and made me feel like there are people who want to work together. Now we got into a bunch of discussion about all sorts of other things that are going to come up over the next few months. Uh, but, uh, as far as this, this one really, uh, crucial aspect of it, they immediately were willing to come up with some sort of compromise. And I think that that says a lot, uh, as far as, you know, some of the stuff that's written on the paper we got here. And, uh, you know, I mean, personally, I, I understand the argument that anybody can make, but personally, I think you're seeing something quite equitable being presented on the screen right here, uh, no matter how you look at it really. And so, uh, I'm comfortable with it. And I think that, uh, we've grown a lot as a region since even I started on the TMA. I think I was on there for part of the year last year and then, uh, now I've been on there this year and some of the same people that were, uh, really, uh, pushing back on a lot of the work that we were doing for this, uh, have come around. They still push back, but they, they see themselves in a partnership now is what I would say in a way that they never did before. So that was my experience at the last TMA meeting. Um, I thought that we might be moving in that direction, but even I was surprised as to how much we had moved in that direction. So I just figured I'd share that. Thanks. All right. Thank you. Anyone else? Commissioner Peters and then Menino. Yeah, so I have served on Tampa Bay water for more than six years now and that board is seamless and it's equitable across the board from Pasco to Hillsborough to Penelis. Um, and what we do on that board is remarkable and we don't have the nitpicking arguments like our MPOs have gone through. We don't have that, like you guys have had some real difficulties with Hillsborough and all you need is one election to change that, right? And then all of a sudden you could be right back to that. And if they have the majority, I agree with commissioner Scheer completely because you don't know what one election is going to do. You don't know how it's going to change. Um, but if you have something set up just like Tampa Bay water, um, that, that board, that organization for decades has operated so smoothly without the tension of one is more power than the other or one is more authority or one County is strong arming another County that has worked seamlessly, beautifully for decades. I want to say it's been over 30 years at that or about 30 years that they've been together. And when you have something that works so well, why would you not replicate that? And I completely, I completely agree with commissioner Scheer. And like I said, I've served on it for, for over six years. I know, uh, Brian was on it for one year when I, when I was not on it. Um, and, and we even had tumultuous stuff, but we never had experiences that you all have experienced with other counties. Um, and I'm going to name names, but those of you that have been here know, know who I'm talking about, but all you need is one election to change something and everything you've worked for, regardless of bylaws, when you give one, one authority more power than the other, it's, it's just won't, I don't believe you have long-term success. We might have short-term, but I don't think we'll have long-term success. So I, I believe the model we should follow is exactly what commissioner Scheer said. And that's the Tampa Bay model. And I don't see how anybody could come up with a reason why that is not an acceptable model when it has worked beautifully for about 30 years. So I, I don't care if you're Pasco Hillsborough or, or Pinellas, the people that have served on that board have witnessed for 30 years, how it has worked amazingly. So I just, yeah, this is closer, but this is not equitable. And I don't believe it'll bring long-term success. I, I have very little confidence in long-term success, success because any election can change anything. And, um, so, so no, I, I wouldn't support that at all. All right. Thank you. Um, council member Menino. Thank you, chair. Uh, thank you, commissioner Peters for those words. And I agree a thousand percent with you. Wanted to take a second to appreciate commissioner Scheer, uh, and his, his voice and work that you've put into what is protecting the best interests of Pinellas County. And that's where it's coming out at the core. And I greatly appreciate that and respect that. I think, why would we try to reinvent something that has been working for 30 plus years, um, trying to weigh forward progress and movement and the urgency that we feel of pushing this forward, um, cannot outweigh what's in the best interest of Pinellas County and our local municipalities. And that's what we are elected and sit in here and serve to do. Um, I share the same hesitancy regarding making a decision like this before bylaws are even seen or touched or even looked at. I mean, after all, let's refresh ourselves that bylaws are operating constitution of an organization and we're making a decision, uh, based on, on bodies without those bylaws in front of us. Uh, and that can be risky. So I appreciate your voice. I appreciate your strength and looking out for what's in the best interest of Pinellas County. I know in your heart, you do believe that something like this in the future could work and could be great. Um, but taking the right steps and making sure the right conversations are being had, I think is important. So I, I appreciate, and I too support if, if we have a roadmap that has worked, uh, and is a model of success for over 30 plus years, uh, why, why try to recreate it, um, and why not follow suit of it, uh, because it does work. It has worked and it's worked very well for our region, but I appreciate the time. Thank you. Thank you. Um, deputy mayor Shelly. Um, so I, I just did the math and with the apportionment, Pinellas County has 280,000, um, unincorporated citizens. Um, St. Pete has 267,000 Largo and Pinellas Park. I, so the other small cities have a total of 283,000, so I'm, I'm wondering why the other cities don't get a total of two seats and St. Pete get one, um, instead of two. Just a thought. All right. Thank you. I, I don't know that that part of it is, are we voting on that part as well? No, no, we're just, we're doing this part now, but I really respect what you're saying and, um, I think that's going to be an interesting conversation. I think, uh, okay, um, so, you know, there are different ways to make up different boards and as we talk about doing it this way, I can't help but think that, um, this approach is actually what makes up this board. I don't find us to be dysfunctional at all. Um, I think we really do listen to each other. You've got four people representing just the city of St. Petersburg. I don't feel hated for that. And I actually like leaning in and learning about what's going on in Largo and what's best for Largo. And I'm listening to Largo for that. And I know that everyone here, um, intends to do the same thing when something from another city is brought forward for us to look at that insight from others is extremely important. But I, I, I can't think of a single instance where someone might've left this meeting saying that St. Petersburg strong-armed anybody on a vote. And it's one of the reasons that I, that I enjoy serving on this board. So, um, I don't know that one is worse than the other here. I think it's just two different ways to bake the cake. And, and, and in terms of the bylaws, it sounds like those, um, will be up for review at some point, one of the next steps. And yes, they could be changed at some point, but I have never dug in and refused to vote on an ordinance or voted against an ordinance in St. Petersburg, just because in a couple of years, somebody might change the ordinance. We have to, we have to apply what we do in our jobs all the time in these positions to scenarios here and on this board and in our respective seats back home. I just wanted to share those few thoughts with you. I, I have, I have been, um, knee deep in the talks with, in TMA on creating this regional NPO for a long time and it's actually this board that gives me the confidence that it can work this way. Madam Chair, if I could add, go ahead, Commissioner Scott. Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. So I did serve on Tampa Bay water for a year and, and that is it. That board works flawlessly. It really does. But I think managing natural resources and transportation planning are completely two different animals. I think transportation planning touches people's lives in a very, very different way than natural resources does. So I think the more input that we have for this type of a board, the better. And Commissioner Scheer, I thought it was great that you brought this up last meeting. We had a very robust discussion about it. And I think this is, this is a great equitable apportionment and, and, and I support this. And I think it's important that we send a positive signal to keep these discussions going. There are off ramps in the future if this is going sideways and we don't like it. So I'm comfortable with what we have here today. Thank you. All right. I just wanted to add, um, just to remind you, cause I thought about making it a core part of the presentation and we got our wires crossed a little bit. Um, the guardrails that I mentioned before on the adoption or amendment of the long range plan means that five of our eight representatives can say, wait a minute, we don't think we're getting a fair shake. A project cannot go forward with funding if it's not adopted in the long range plan or amended in the long range plan more appropriately or more importantly, every year and frequently several times a year, we amend or adopt the transportation improvement program. Nobody gets any funding. If we can't agree on the transportation improvement program. And we have a safeguard that a majority of our representatives have to agree three out of five. Now Pasco people have to agree for that to go forward. We would put the bylaws under the same provision and then the bylaws fine, but you need five Pinellas County representatives to vote on that as well. I don't know how we can make it more equitable. And Brian Hunter is in the back of the room who could stand up if he wants to and tell you that every year he has to certify that the five-year work program is fair and equitable to all the counties by what Brian by population. So population is in our DNA. It's in the laws that we have to follow. I can't say let's apportion the board and then try to seek a law change. We can do that, but we're already taking a legislative change to our delegation, hopefully to amend our special act. And I'm worried that if we try to do too much at one time, we're going to confuse them and we're not going to be successful in either one. So we're just following the law. And we've got an attorney here who will testify that we're following the law. There is some flexibility and some wiggle room, and we don't have to get the percentages 100% accurate, but we have to be in the ballpark of a reasonably population-based board. And I'm not aware of any MPO in Florida that does not apportion by population. So if you change the law for us, you're opening up a can of worms for 27 MPOs. And I'm just worried about that because I know how the other MPOs might react to that. Unless you just carve out Pinellas, Pascoe, and Hillsborough, and that often doesn't go very well. So there's some hurdles there, and I just want to make you aware of that. All right. Thank you. Mayor Franey. So I went to the TMA so I could fully get myself educated on everything and kind of hear from some of the players there. And I stayed till almost the bitter end. Um, and, um, and I do think, uh, Hillsborough going from 11 to 10 shows a lot of good faith. Um, and I, at the end of the day, as, as I'm taking all this in, and I appreciate what you're saying. It's really given me some thought about, um, you know, that complete equity. Um, and I understand your point, and I think it's a good one. Um, of course, I asked myself, is a regional MPO a good thing? And, of course, I, my predecessor was concerned, Mayor Bajowski, because she thought small cities would lose their strength. Um, but I think that, again, um, it's important from a regional perspective to do it. Um, that being said, I personally, looking at everything that I've looked at, I think this is a reasonable apportionate plan based on good faith by a lot of parties that have worked hard. I'm assuming wit that nothing's in stone if something changes in the law, you know, we're all going to be saying, oh, wait a minute, let's make, let's rethink that. But based on existing law, you know, there's a lot of work that got done to get to this point. And, um, and I share the concern that it would send the wrong message. And, um, so, I mean, obviously, and I heard it again, I heard it at the TMA. I mean, everybody's concerned that we look fully look at all the bylaws. Again, nothing's in stone until it's all laid out. But it feels like this is a good faith gesture, not in stone, to just, again, show our good faith that we should keep it moving. So those are just my thoughts. Thank you. Anyone else? Oh, yes. Vice Mayor Johnson. Yeah, I, uh, I, again, appreciate Commissioner Scheer, uh, bringing up, uh, you know, the inequity of the original plan and, and, and, and getting us to where we are today. But I do have to echo Commissioner Scott that, um, I think, you know, we've got to put in a lot of work to get us to here. Uh, I, I do, I like the fact that we're going to have some small city, you know, involvement in this, because if we only had three seats and three seats and three seats, if that's how it worked, certainly there would be zero small cities sitting on that board. Uh, so we definitely want to, you know, we, I appreciate that the fact that we're going to have a larger board so that we can have some representation from small cities and, and medium-sized cities. And so, uh, I, I'm, I'm in support of this, uh, knowing that we can stop it if we don't like the bylaws or, or, uh, you know, the, any other makeup that we, we, we, we, we, you know, how we apportion, um, votes and how we, you know, super majorities per, uh, county, uh, I think those are all great things and I think that'll help us make sure we don't, don't have one county running over the, all the other ones. And again, it's all, the money's still got to get apportioned by county anyway, or by population anyway, so I, I don't have much concern on that. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Commissioner Flowers. Thank you, Madam Chair. So I was on the opposing side, um, and I was very vocal being on the opposing side, but what I was asking for has been, um, generated here, which was to see how we could get additional representation that would, um, allow for our voices to be heard and not, um, be counterintuitive in the discussion. So that has occurred by giving Pasco County and wherever the Pasco lady is, I know she was like, we don't want any more seats. I was like, don't say that. I'm like, don't say that. Um, but, um, I, what I was asking for occurred, I, I, um, since that time we had a presentation before the County Commission from the head of the Tampa International, um, airport and I've had a chance to meet him prior to, and I do trust that because he is a very engaged individual. I do trust that he himself, cause that was one of my concerns as well. Are you sending somebody who can make decisions or are you sending somebody who says, well, I have to go back and ask, well, that's not what we need at the table because we need for a decision to be made. Um, and so he has been very ingrained. Um, he shows up himself. So I feel confident with him, the Port of Tampa folks, I don't know so well, but I do feel very, um, confident with the Tampa international airport. Um, the other, uh, piece that I had to go back and think about was when we were re-merging, um, career source from Hillsboro Pinellas to Hillsboro Pinellas. Um, there was the consortium, which was made up of two commissioners from Pinellas, two from Hillsboro. And we had the delightful pleasure of really trying to put all the pieces together to create one entity. That board, the, the larger board wasn't formed until after we did all of that work. Um, and so I had to think about that honestly, um, because coming together with a draft is what we essentially did. And then with that, once we came together and we got our stuff in order, when that board was formed, when the members were selected and formed and they began to have their meetings, they then could make whatever changes to, uh, those bylaws, um, and then adopt them as their own. Um, so that is how I'm looking at this. Um, I would invite, um, anyone who would like to come to our tri-county meeting. They are open to the public. Um, it's over at the airport. Usually some little vittles before the meeting starts and we stay on track, we stay on task. So you, you won't be over there for, you know, for a lifetime, but I would, um, you know, ask you to come just so you can hear and see what's being presented and what some of the questions may come from the other, uh, entities, which is Pasco, um, Hillsboro, and of course, Pinellas. So I would invite you to do that. So I am going, I am going to support the recommended action because what I was most concerned about has been addressed in what the presentation is for us today. And like I said, I had to go back and look at how we merged two separate boards to become one entity and even how large that career source Hillsboro Pinellas board is because it's a nice size entity. Um, and it was a lot of, um, it was a lot of negotiating, you know, between representatives to kind of get it to where they could now just move and create, um, the opportunities that they were designed to create. I just wanted to share that since I was the one that started all the upheaval last time. All right. Thank you. Anyone else? All right. We have a motion in a second. Tina, can we do a roll call vote on this one? Commissioner Scott? Yes. Vice Mayor Butler? Yes. Commissioner Flowers? Mayor Freeney? Aye. Deputy Mayor Shelley? Yes. Council Member Menino? Council Member Floyd? Aye. Council Member Fig Sanders? Yes. Commissioner Peters? Vice Mayor Reed? Vice Mayor Johnson? Yes. Council Member Gabbard? Yes. Commissioner Shearer? No. And Council Member Driscoll? Yes. That motion passes. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Chelsea. Thank you, Whit, for all the info you provided. And I look forward to hearing what's next on this. Can you give us a little preview of what we might see by the time we meet again? Regarding this topic. Just so we're all prepared. In case we need to bring extra snacks. You know, whatever. Well, the first thing is you will see. I'll give you a rundown of the June 5th Tri-County BCC meeting. Okay. You will have a set of the bylaws that they saw. We'll give that presentation. I don't think we'll tee up any actions for your June meeting. We've teed up enough actions for a little while. But we will probably bring this back for you all to make a recommendation later in the year. You know, the other thing we're running up against are the elections in November. So we are, you know, there is a sense of urgency to kind of pull a whole package together and get some commitments by the end of the year. Although we do not want to transmit this to the governor with the full interlocal agreement and all that. Because that will give us a six-month runway to stand up the organization. So that probably won't be until the spring of next year. But I am hopeful that by the fall we can work out any concerns and kinks. And ultimately, the county commissions and the city of Tampa are going to be the deciders on this. So thank you for your recommendations. Thank you for your discussion. And onward and upward. All right. Thank you. As you can see, we've lost some folks. No further action. For that, you had some, any information items that you wanted to share? There's information items in your packet about some upcoming meetings, but nothing super urgent. Okay, great. Does anyone else have anything for the good of the order? All right. In that case, thank you, everyone. We are adjourned.