Forward Pinellas meeting on 10/14/2026 - Oct 14, 2026

October 14, 2026 meeting of the Ford Pinellas Board. Please join me in standing for the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. And now we'll go around the room for introductions starting with Vice Mayor Butler. Thank you, Madam Chair. Ricky Butler, Vice Mayor, City of Pinellas Park. Mo Franey, Mayor, City of Dunedin. Tom Shelley, Deputy Mayor, Bel Air. Karen Love, Mayor of Gulfport. Council Member Deborah Fitzsanders for the City of St. Petersburg. Tom Reed, Vice Mayor, City of South Pasadena, representing PSTA. Chris Johnson, Vice Mayor of City of Largo. Brandy Gabbard, Council Member, City of St. Petersburg. Chris Scheer, Pinellas County Commission. Dave Albrin, Council Member, City of Clearwater. Whit Blanton, your Executive Director. Gina Driscoll, Council Member for the City of St. Petersburg. And serving as your chair. Brian Scott, Pinellas County Commission, Vice Chair. All right. Thank you. Next, we'll go to citizens to be heard. Tina, do we have any citizens who have signed up to be heard today? Yes, Madam Chair. We have David Ballard Geddes, Jr. All right. Thank you. Hi. Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you. David Ballard Geddes, Jr. I live on Georgia Avenue in Palm Harbor. About 20 years ago, the county placed a sidewalk down alongside of my house. And a few years after they placed down that sidewalk, they tore out the sidewalk to install reclaimed water facility lines, ad hoc, a third-party facility bond charge to my utility water supply for sewage abatement disguised as lawn irrigation. Then the county reinstalled the sidewalk, completely neglecting the fact that our essential potable water lines under the sidewalk at that point in time were like 65 years old and needed to be replaced then. Today, our potable water lines are between 80 and up to 90 years old in some places. The county knows good and well that that same sidewalk will soon have to be torn out again to install new potable water pipes when a stitch in time could have saved nine. Another reverse engineering scheme played by the governmental structure here was done with the water line. On Dunedin Causeway, it took four years to install one water pipe along Dunedin Causeway, knowing good and well that the Causeway Bridge was soon to be replaced. The Causeway is in need of reconfiguring, and thereby the water pipe will also need to be reconfigured and replaced as well, financially sodomizing us taxpayers. And this is a no-no. Yesterday, it took me 50 minutes to drive from an overpriced roundabout on Alternate 19 up to Tarpon Springs for a meeting there at their town hall. Almost an hour to travel four miles, and I feel as though this proactive planning of our government is needing to be called into question. Let's talk about the overpass on U.S. 19 and Curlew Road that should have been installed 30 years ago. How much fuel is being wasted, stuck in gridlock traffic on U.S. 19? Is that tax deductible on my taxes? If our government keeps this up, we're not going to be able to afford the tar and feathers necessary to properly clothe our politicians. Make some changes, please. Thank you. Thank you. Tina, do we have any other citizens who have requested to speak? No, Madam Chair, we do not. All right. We'll go ahead on to the consent agenda. Are there any board members who wish to pull any items from the consent agenda to be handled individually? If not, I'll entertain a motion for approval. So moved. Second. All right. We have a motion and a second to approve the consent agenda. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? The motion carries. Next, we have our public hearing items for today. Item 5A, proposed amendments to the Transportation Improvement Program, and that is presented by Ryan Hutton. Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Ryan Hutton. I manage the Transportation Improvement Program, or TIP, for Pinellas. So for those who don't know, the TIP is our short-term planning document. It outlines transportation projects going on within the county over the five-year window. This is our typical TIP cycle timeline. Every year around May or June, we'll analyze our annual TIP adoption. It's when we adopt our new TIP, but in between cycles, we can amend the TIP with certain modifications or amendments. So there are two, as I said, ways you can amend the TIP. The first is an amendment. The second is a modification. They have slightly different specifications. But today, we have four amendments for you. The first two are concerning ferry docks. So the first is a ferry dock at the St. Pete Pier, and the second is for the ferry dock reconstruction at the Dunedin Marina. The third TIP amendment is for the North Spring Boulevard bridge replacement. So this is an existing project that's already in our TIP. But what this amendment is doing is just moving forward the funds from 2025 to 2027. And our final amendment is PSTA Section 5307H Capital Discretionary Funds. So that's competitive ferry grants that PSTA can use for the purchase of a third ferry vessel for the Tampa Bay Ferry Service. And if anyone was curious, this is that North Spring Boulevard over Mineta Bridge project. Again, it's an existing project, but in case you're wondering where it was, up there in Tarpon Springs, that's what it looks like now. And so today, we're just recommending that approval of those four amendments to our TIP, keep it consistent with FDOT's work program. And then if approved, they'll be translated to FDOT and FHWA. And thank you. If anyone have questions. Thank you. Questions from board members? I had a question. Commissioner Scherer. Thank you. Thank you for the presentation. Where did the third request or the request for a third ferry come from? I don't remember ever speaking about that at the PSTA. Jacob, maybe? Good afternoon, everybody. I'm Jacob Labutka, planning manager at PSTA, here for the Phone a Friend segment of today's presentation. So the $16.5 million was from a discretionary grant that PSTA applied for from FTA for the construction of a third passenger ferry vessel. I don't ever remember. I'm on PSTA board. I don't remember ever talking about a third vessel or funding for a third vessel for a request. Well, this was just a grant application that was put in. Any contracts that would go forward with the vendor would still have to come back to the PSTA board. I'm unsure about the discussions at some of the prior meetings regarding that grant. Okay. It just seems strange to me. Okay. And just for clarification, this is for the big Tampa Bay ferry boats that we are buying, not the smaller Clearwater Ferry boats? This would be for the Tampa Bay Ferry Service. That's correct. So we're talking about another $250,000 to $300,000 vessel? Well, the grant award is for $16.5 million, so this would be for a purpose-built vessel. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions? Okay. Tina, do we have any members of the public who wanted to speak on this item? No, Madam Chair, we do not. Okay. We'll go ahead and close that out, and I'll entertain a motion for approval. So moved. Second. We have a motion and a second to approve item 5A, proposed amendments to the Transportation Improvement Program. This will be a roll call vote. Tina? Commissioner Scott? Yes. Vice Mayor Butler? Yes. Commissioner Flowers? Yes. Mayor Freeney? Aye. Commissioner Peters? Deputy Mayor Shelley? Yes. Council Member Menino? Aye. Council Member Floyd? Mayor Ayub? Mayor Love? Yes. Council Member Fig Sanders? Yes. Vice Mayor Reed? Yes. Vice Mayor Johnson? Yes. Council Member Gabbard? Yes. Commissioner Shearer? Yes. Council Member Albritton? Aye. Council Member Driscoll? Yes. That passes unanimously. All right. Thank you. Thanks, Ryan. Next, we have, for the Pinellas Planning Council, we have these public hearings. And for that, I just want to ask the board to affirm that you have reviewed the staff report and the materials that have been provided. If needed, for Pinellas staff is available with a presentation to answer any questions. And then any applicant, local governments should be here to answer questions as well. All right. We have Item 5B1 from the City of St. Petersburg. Again, just want to affirm everyone has received and reviewed the materials. Tina, do we have any proponents in the room who wish to speak? No, Madam Chair. We do not have any proponents, opponents, or other citizens to be heard. Okay. Thank you. Any questions from the board? All right. In that case, I will entertain a motion for approval. Second. We have a motion and a second to approve Item 5B1. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? The motion carries. Thank you. Next, we have Item 5B2 for the City of Safety Harbor, affirming that all board members have reviewed, received and reviewed all of the materials. Tina, do we have, oh, and we do have City of Safety Harbor staff here available for questions. Tina, do we have any proponents who wish to speak on this item? No, Madam Chair. We do not have any proponents, opponents, or other citizens to be heard. All right. Thank you. We'll go ahead and close the public hearing then. Do any board members have any questions on this item? Otherwise, I'll entertain a motion for approval. Move approval. All right. We have a motion and a second to approve Item 5B2. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right. The motion carries. Thank you. All right. Next, we have Item 5C, which is proposed amendments to the countywide plan, and this is presented by Linda Fisher. Thank you. So this is a significant package of amendments to the countywide plan that we have been working on for the past year. There are a couple of different items in the package. The first and most important is a proposal to streamline the countywide plan map amendment process to reduce the number of public hearings that this board and the countywide planning authority would need to hold, and that mainly came out of discussions of the special act review subcommittee. There are also additional supportive amendments, including some that this board recommended approval of back in September of last year. Those amendments didn't advance to the countywide planning authority because, at the time, the county asked us to wait for the streamlining discussion to happen and for us to bring it all together as one package. So some of these proposed amendments you'll be seeing today for the second time. As a reminder, the countywide plan has three parts. The strategies provide the policy guidance. The map has the designated land use category for each parcel, and the rules provide the standards for the land use categories and the process for amending the map. The majority of this package is proposed amendments to the rules, but there are a few housekeeping amendments to the strategies as well. So I'll start with the streamlining provisions. In the current rules, we have what we call a tiered amendment process. Tier one amendments are local future land use map amendments that don't trigger a change to the countywide plan map. They only require an administrative review by Ford Pinellas staff. Tier two and three amendments do change the countywide plan map, and they require public hearings of this board and the CPA. So the goal of the streamlining provisions is to move more land use amendments into that tier one category that can be handled with the staff level review, and then to reserve the public hearing process for amendments that have more countywide importance. There are some guardrails for how we can do that. Legally, staff can't make policy decisions. We can only evaluate whether an amendment has met specific criteria. For example, is this amendment increasing densities in the coastal high hazard area? That's a yes-no question, and as staff, we can answer that. But more nuanced policy judgments can only be answered by you as elected officials. For example, is this amendment providing enough flood risk mitigation to offset higher densities in the coastal high hazard area? We can make a staff recommendation, but you have to make the decision. So as we set out to identify the types of amendments that we could move to a staff level review, we based it on a series of those very specific yes-no determinations. And this is how we're proposing to do that. For regular land use categories, residential, commercial, and so forth, we're proposing that if an amendment is five acres or less and doesn't negatively impact the coastal high hazard area, a scenic non-commercial corridor, a target employment center, or an area with underperforming multimodal transportation, then it would only require a staff level review. And when we say doesn't negatively impact those things, that'll be based on very specific criteria. Then there are the special categories. Those include activity centers, multimodal corridors, and planned redevelopment districts. These categories allow significantly higher densities and intensities in return for design that supports walking, biking, and transit. Local governments invest a lot of time and planning in creating these areas. Currently, after these categories are adopted, any change to the boundaries, even if it's just to annex one parcel, has to come all the way back through the countywide public hearing process. And we've heard a lot of frustration about that over the years. So we're proposing that local governments be allowed to increase the land area of these categories by up to 10% under their current land use standards with just a staff review, or up to 25% if the local government has adopted what we call the planning and urban design principles for transit-oriented development. Those principles are in the countywide plan already, and we would develop a process for the board to certify who has met that requirement. Again, this doesn't apply to density or intensity increases. It's just adding parcels to the current planning area under the standards that are already adopted. There's also a provision that even if an amendment meets all the criteria for a staff review, but it's of a significance that really should be a matter for elected officials to decide, then the executive director can make that determination, and it can be elevated to the public hearing process. And we have some precedent for that in the rules today. So based on a review of our past cases, we estimate that these changes would decrease the number of board and CPA public hearings by 60% or more. And for those applicants, that would save them about two months out of their approval process. So that is the streamlining portion of the amendment package, and the special act review subcommittee members were generally very supportive of this approach. Commissioner Peters. Thank you, Madam Chair. So I'm all for streamlining, but I have one area of concern. And, you know, I think if you're going to look at a slide, it would be seven, page seven. So, you know, I support in the activity areas, which is on page eight, I support that. But we have areas in unincorporated Seminole, which is one of the few areas left in South County that have one house per acre or one house per two acres. And there have been efforts in the last eight years that I know of where developers have tried to go in and increase the density and change the use, go from low, medium to low to medium or high. And it always seems to have passed this board, but when it gets to the commission, it does not. And it's because the citizens have made it very clear that this is not what they want. And by eliminating public hearings on this kind of a situation concerns me that they don't ever have an avenue on which they can voice their concerns. So, you know, I'm all for streamlining. I'm all for saving the developers money and time to keep the total cost of projects low and affordable. I get all that, but I have an issue with that one. And I'm using that very specific area. I don't believe it's coastal high hazard, so that's not a trigger. You have no trigger in here that takes one section of the county and preserves it. And we do up in North County, the county has gone very extensive to protect areas with one house per two acres, one house per one acre. And we have put caveats all around to protect that so that we protect the watershed there and that we don't have too much density up in North County. We have not done that in West County. And I personally agree with the citizens of Unincorporated Seminole and Seminole and don't believe that we should, I believe we should put protections there too. We have so much development in activity centers and corridors in central in the county and South County, North County, even West County and Largo. But I think that there should be some kind of protections for that one particular area where we have, when we planned it, it was planned to not be dense. And I would like to keep some part of Bunnell's County in South County not dense and protect that. And I don't know about you all, but I'm hearing from my constituents that they don't want more development. So we want smart development. We want it around activity centers, but to allow this to not have any public process to take up more rural land and make it not rural, I'm not okay with at all. So I cannot support this as a result of that, unless you have some other caveat that's going to trigger that these people have an opportunity to be heard. And I don't see that there. Commissioner, I recall that discussion in the North County, there was a community overlay in place that the unincorporated county had adopted, and there were issues with land being annexed and the provisions of that overlay no longer applying. Is there an overlay? There's not an overlay in unincorporated Seminole. But every time that it's come to this board, this board's passed it, and it hasn't passed at the county, um, and streamlining it so it never goes to the, I have a problem with that. I really do. Um, and it's, I think it's only happened twice since I've been on the commission, but each time I happen to agree with those residents. We have tons of density in St. Petersburg. We have density along the 19 corridor. We have density all over, all over these activity centers we have, Clearwater, Largo, tons of, of density and activity centers. That is not an activity center over there. And, and I just don't believe that we need to bypass any kind of public comments or ability to speak on a public issue that affects their community just for convenience on, on this one. I just, I'm not, I'm not there. I'm not supporting it. Thank you. That could be an instance where, um, that our executive director makes the determination that if it's a controversial amendment or something that should, uh, be voted on by elected officials, that that's something we could, uh, escalate to the public hearing process. Um, I would feel better if we could include some language that would, uh, address those areas specifically that you're talking about. Uh, if there were a community overlay in place, that's one criteria we could add. But, um, that's something that we would need to talk about a little bit further, I think, before, um, yeah, I, I'm just saying, you're not going to have support for me on this. I would love to have a community overlay on this, and then I would feel way more comfortable about this. Um, and I, I just, I mean, we've had to buy up land for flooding purposes in that area to begin with just for stormwater, not flooding, but stormwater. Um, and you know, this is horse land still. And I think that we need to protect it. It's just how I feel about it. And to me, bypassing these residents opportunities to be informed and know, and leaving it solely up to the direction of the executive director is not the right way to go on this community overlay. I, I'm completely behind you on that. And then I feel like now there's a protection there and that makes sense. Um, and it doesn't take away their voice. And I'm not ever going to be okay with taking away their voice. Linda, could you address how this board would have considered a case like that in Seminole? Why would it have come to us in the first place? Um, the, uh, what would happen is if the city of Seminole annexed an unincorporated parcel and then applied for a land use change that would have had to come through us. So the city council would have had to have voted on that and approved it, or the county commission would have had to voted on that and approved it if it stayed in the unincorporated area before we take it up. So, and there would have been public hearings associated with that. Well, I, I would like in the county, I plan to have some kind of overlay to protect that one area that's rural in South County. Okay. That's, that's, there's how I feel. I don't think we can initiate overlays that would have to be initiated by the county. They weren't open to it before, but maybe they're open to it now. Okay. So thank you. Any other questions? Madam chair. Yes. Thank you. Just a little bit of clarification, because I just want to make sure I'm understanding. I totally understand and agree with what you're saying, but if there was like, there would still be a process and that would be no different than some of the other examples we've run through as far as if it is very obviously going to be controversial. I mean, we had the Clearwater case in here, you know, a few months ago or whatever, we had some speakers on it like that, something like that, we'd be able to trigger it. So like, not to say I don't agree with you, but it would be the same with a handful of other scenarios for WIT to have to make that call. If I'm understanding this right, we would have a pre-application meeting with any applicant. We would note any public issues, public concerns, public questions. Our staff would certainly put that into any sort of report and bring that to my attention. And then I would, as the executive director or whoever sits in the seat would have to make a determination in consultation with the chair or whoever about whether this should be a public hearing item. Thank you. One change I would recommend today is to add the presence of a local community overlay limiting amendments that increase density and intensity to this list of things that would exclude you from having a staff level review. We'll need to get with our legal counsel on how we could word that. But the board could include that in its motion if you recommend approval of the package. Okay. Anyone else? She's got a few more. All right. Okay. So for the remaining amendments, I'll go through them fairly quickly. Again, the board already recommended approval of most of these last year, and I'll remind you of which ones those are. But first, we have added some additional amendments to support the streamlining process. We just want to make sure we very clearly spell out the criteria for amendments that are allowed to be reviewed by staff. For example, in the coastal high hazard area, the local government would need to show either that the amendment isn't increasing densities and intensities or that they've adopted the balancing criteria from the rules. So those are the same criteria that this board would use to make a policy judgment about the impacts of an amendment in the coastal high hazard area. So the local government would need to show that they have done that in their own public hearing process instead. We're also proposing some amendments to the multimodal accessibility index or max index. That's another tool that we use when evaluating countywide plan map amendments to help keep density and intensity increases from happening in places that don't have adequate pedestrian, bicycle, or transit facilities. These proposed amendments would add a few more options for local governments to meet the requirements and create a process for our staff to offer technical assistance. The board recommended approval of those amendments last year, but this time we did add a little bit more clarifying language to go with the streamlining process. We're also proposing to clarify use of the target employment center category. We greatly expanded this category back in 2023 to continue protecting land for target employment, but also to allow other supportive development like retail or residential to be built with employment, to create employment mixed use. Since then, we've gotten a lot of questions about how to adopt and amend the new provisions of this category. It's just not stated as clearly as it could be, so we want to fix that. And again, the board previously recommended approval of those changes. This time, we're proposing an additional amendment, and this is fairly substantive. We've gotten some feedback from our planners' advisory committee that even though this category provides a lot of incentives for employment mixed use, it's still not enough to compete with the Live Local Act, which allows solely residential development to take over employment land. So we were asked to consider increasing some of the allowable densities for employment mixed use in target employment centers to make them more competitive. So we did include those proposed changes. And then we are proposing to incorporate recommendations from the Housing Regulatory Toolkit, which the board approved back in June of last year. That document is a menu of recommended best practices and model regulations to encourage more housing choice and affordability in our communities and to encourage more consistency across communities as well. Based on those recommendations, we're proposing to adopt new definitions and standardize the language for our housing density bonuses that are available to local governments. And we're also proposing to expand the current bonus for mixed use developments in senior housing. And the board recommended approval of all of that last year. Finally, we just have some housekeeping amendments, cleaning up obsolete citations, bringing definitions up to date, clarifying notice requirements, and so forth. Um, and, uh, most of these were amendments that the board recommended to approve last year. And that is the proposed amendment package. Uh, this is the first of three public hearings required to amend the countywide plan. Uh, if you vote to recommend approval today, then it will continue on to the countywide planning authority to be heard in November and December. And if there are any additional questions, I'll be happy to answer them. Thank you. Um, yes, Mayor Franey. Well, I just want to make sure I understand Commissioner Peter's thing again, just to clarify what was being said. So, um, if something like that happened in Dunedin, which we actually did have something like that happen in Dunedin, which we didn't go with, uh, higher density or more houses. Um, so, so it was fully heard. Um, so the only, so if it was an annexation type of thing, again, you'd see it in annexation requests. Um, so this would just be on top of already having public hearings. Um, I just want to make sure I'm understanding because it sounds like there's a lot of coverage in public hearings for people to kind of yell and scream and he will know it is, this is controversial and I better let this go to, I, I, I just want to make sure I'm understanding because I agree with you. So, and the ones that came before us were not, um, necessarily density. They were changing residential into commercial because it's on a main road, but it's on a main road that isn't really a main road. It's a main road to the beach, but it's not like a main driver road, right? So it is Park Boulevard, but when you get West on Park Boulevard, just for the bridge, um, where you're, where the narrows are, that is not a highly traveled other than going to and from the beach. And so they were going to lose residential for commercial and, and we had many, many, many, many show up, whether it came before you guys or not, they, and maybe it didn't. And maybe that's my mistake, but, um, um, we got a recommendation of a, an overlay, if that would protect it and give me a little more comfort, if you all would agree with that, if it gives us a little more comfort, if it isn't doing anything, then let me know. But, um, those residents have made it very, very, very clear that they don't want more density there. They don't want more commercial there. They just want to leave it quiet and residential and the way it is. And the County is so dense and growing exponentially in dense population that I think we can, and if I have to get the County to do an overlay, then that's my job and I'll work on them doing an overlay. So if putting the, and if I'm successful at getting that overlay and putting that overlay would be that safety criteria, then I would feel much better about it. And I will put that on me and my colleagues to get that done, um, and, and focus our development just like we, you know, you're planning, you're planning on activity centers, you're planning, we're, we're planning, um, good planned development, but in certain areas of the County, like that unincorporated area of Seminole, there are not targeted centers. There is not, there's not trails. There's not transportation there. There's not, there's not. So, so, um, I just don't want it easy for residential to suddenly be turned into commercial because it's less than five acres in an area where these people don't want it. And I happen to agree with them. So that's just, that's, that's my thought. I think from a staff perspective, we'd be very receptive to that. I think that would be very helpful and Linda suggested some language that came out of her mouth better than it would mine, but adding that overlay, um, planned overlay district or something like that as a, as a criteria would, would make sense. Yeah. I think that does make sense and it does protect North County where we already have a planned overlay. Totally agree. So I think what we're, we're saying with our rules is that we are using all the tools in our toolbox to encourage and incentivize higher density development in the right areas, but you're taking it, um, in a logical other direction, which is let's make sure we're using all the tools in our toolbox to disincentive and discourage higher density development in the wrong areas. You, you just read my mind perfectly with, thank you. That's exactly what I was saying. Just said better. Um, just said better because there are just pockets left in the County that I think we need to. So I would make a motion to utilize her wonderful language that she would have to repeat for me, um, to, um, move this forward and add in that little extra protection. And then it's on us. It's on my colleagues and I to, to get that overlay, uh, in, in unincorporated Seminole. Is everybody clear with the motion when that motion would be in addition to the recommendation of all the others. Okay. Thank you. All right. And we had a second from, from vice mayor Johnson. So Tina, did you get that? Yes, madam chair. And there are no citizens wishing to be heard on this item. All right. Terrific. Thank you. All right. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed motion carries. Thank you. Thank you so much. And thank you commissioner Peters for that input and for making this better. Next, we have our presentations. I'm sorry, just for clarification, was that? The approval of the motion to add in addition to approving the entire packet or just the motion to add? The whole thing plus. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So we'll go on to our PSTA activities report. Vice mayor Reed. Thank you, madam chair. The PSTA board met on Wednesday, September 23rd at 6 p.m. at PSTA headquarters. The board meeting began with the second public hearing of the proposed fiscal year 27 millage rate and proposed fiscal year 27 budget. After the discussion and recommendation of the PSTA board at the first public hearing, staff presented a final millage resolution for adoption with the .7168 millage levy representing a full rollback. Following the staff presentation and board member comments, the PSTA board adopted the FY 27 final millage rate and the FY 27 final budget based on the full rollback. The board also approved several other items during the September meeting. These included the federally required triannual update to the agency's title six policy, board officer and committee appointments with commissioner Brian Scott, now serving as our board secretary and treasurer, and the adoption of a new vision statement. PSTA's vision is to provide safe, reliable, and efficient public transit that connects our riders to the opportunities that keep their lives in motion. We deliver smart, innovative, and cost-effective public transit that positions our region for vitality. The next PSTA board meeting will be Wednesday, October 28th at 9 a.m. And that concludes my report. Thank you. Any questions on the PSTA report? Okay. Great. We'll go on to regional activities report from WIT. I have nothing. No, I'm kidding. A few things going on at the regional level. So just a reminder for those who may be watching or weren't here, we had a workshop last month to discuss the potential merger of our three MPOs, and I really want to appreciate the, or thank you all. I was appreciative for the conversation and productive dialogue we had at that workshop. On October 2nd, we had a TMA leadership group meeting of the representatives of all three MPOs who met to review the conversations that were held in Pasco Hillsboro and here in Pinellas County to determine how best to move forward. And at that workshop, we essentially kind of reiterated the key components in the proposed language of all the documents, the interlocal agreement, the draft bylaws, the apportionment plan. And there was no action taken by the TMA leadership group or recommendations to move forward. So the consultant team and staff have committed to documenting all of the issues and concerns that have been expressed through this process and creating an annotated document that is in parallel or supports the draft documents. Those will be provided and delivered to all four principals who must enact the memorandum of understanding in order to move the process forward. And those four principals are the three boards of county commissioners and the city of Tampa. We heard from the city of Tampa at the TMA leadership group that their city council likely in its current configuration would pretty resoundingly vote no on the apportionment plan. Um, and then we've heard similar discussions here with the Pinellas County commission in your packet. You have a letter from a state representative Adam Anderson in his role as the chair of the Pinellas legislative delegation, urging the Pinellas County commission to vote no on the apportionment plan or the merger as it stands today. Um, we have had discussions with several elected officials at the state level. Uh, you may remember that representative Michael Owen in Hillsborough County has proposed to submit legislation, uh, requiring the merger. If we don't take action by March previously, the Pinellas County commission was mailed a letter from representative Danny Alvarez, uh, also outlining similar concerns. So there's a lot of legislative action right now. Um, I don't need to tell you all this, but it's election season. Um, so, um, I'm not able to talk to our state reps, um, about this issue until after the election. We'll have those conversations at that time. Um, so we are kind of in a holding pattern, uh, on this at this point. I am not currently in a position to make any specific changes to this, but if this board, uh, or the County commission would like to provide any direction, we can certainly take that up with our partners. Um, so as far as I'm concerned right now, we've completed the consulting assignment. We've done our due diligence for the merger. We've developed a recommendation and then it's really up to the four, one of the four principles or the state legislature to make something happen. Um, and just a reminder, the state legislature really does not have a role in designating or redesignating an MPO. They can certainly make it easier and they can certainly make it harder. Um, but the discussion is in federal law between the local governments and the governor. Um, and we are following federal law and we are following state law in this process. So, like I said, state reps and senators can influence the decision, but they are not party to the decision explicitly, um, meaning they could incentivize or they could disincentivize. Um, so I'm at a point of, at a staff level saying, we're going to take a step back. Um, we spent a lot of time on this over the last three years and let the political process play out, um, either now or after the election or after the next election. And, um, if y'all have any questions for me, I'd be happy to answer them. Yeah. Um, comes to member Floyd. Thank you. Uh, yeah, I just wanted to add that based off the conversation of the TMA meeting and what I've been hearing, it does seem like there's just not like a consensus built in general. And so, uh, I think similar to what Witt said, uh, you know, there's no reason for us to, if it doesn't feel like we could advance, like what we've come up with, I see no reason for us to keep working on it, uh, right now. But I do see that there's a few things, uh, that came out of the process that were worth our time and could potentially, uh, be moved forward, like sort of in the background. And so some of the like legislative changes, like we discussed, uh, particularly around voting, um, within MPOs to allow maybe assuage concerns if this were to happen sometime in the future. So there was a lot of discussion around super majorities or majorities of county delegations having to approve something like a TIP and so, um, or work program. And so, uh, I think trying to get those things through the state legislature would be a useful activity for us to just sort of have, like, I guess, sort of on the back burner, but like, you know, it's not, I don't think it would take up a lot of our time. And then, uh, in case we ever wanted to have this discussion again in the future. And then the other thing I wanted to mention was, uh, I think a lot of the friction, this is my opinion and perspective, uh, and my other people might disagree. A lot of the friction was between like, um, Hillsborough and Tampa. They don't, they don't have a great like functioning relationship on their MPO board right now, or it's, it's strained, I would say. And then, uh, the friction between like Pinellas County and the potential for Hillsborough to continue growing and get an outsized voice there. And, uh, but then I didn't see a lot of friction between Pasco and anyone. And so, uh, to that, I'd say I'd be interested in one, continuing to talk about regional collaboration with all the parties involved, but to, uh, maybe special attention to regional collaboration with Pasco, um, because they just seemed like a really willing partner the entire time and recognized their, uh, position and their reliance on being able to connect to the other counties. And so, um, I don't know. I mean, literally one thing even crossed my mind is like, what about if we just had this discussion just with Pasco for now, uh, about some sort of merger or something? I don't, I'm not recommending that at all, but that's something that did cross my mind because they seem to be really willing partners. Uh, and I do think that there was, uh, an attitude for more regional collaboration from everyone. Uh, but I specifically saw a very easy way to collaborate with Pasco. And so I just wanted to mention that. I thought of that the other day, um, but I do think there's like a couple of things we can still do to make regional collaboration better, uh, that does stop short of like continuing down this merger path. I see no point in continuing down the path right now without us working on other things first. Thank you. Um, uh, council member Floyd, uh, you, you've triggered a couple of things in my brain that I forgot about. One other piece of potential legislation would be to look at the statute governing the aviation authority in Hillsborough and the port Tampa Bay to provide for more inclusive, inclusive board representation, um, either helpful, even if there wasn't a merger, right? Um, so that's something that we could certainly pursue. Um, the other consideration, um, uh, that that brought to mind is, is, you know, I'm not sure how successful it would be for us to pursue a merger just with Pasco County and how valuable it would be, but there are certainly things that at a staff level, we all agree we could do much more to strengthen our regional process. And you'll see a little bit further on the agenda. There's another item I'm going to cover in a minute, uh, but doing one long range transportation plan. Now we certainly don't need a merged MPO to adopt a single long range plan. We would just adopt it three times. Um, and it would need to speak to each of the three counties as well as the region. But we're in talks about doing that already, um, strengthening our prioritization process. So there are some things that we can certainly do. And maybe this attempt at a merger has a fallback position that still strengthens how we work as a region and how we operate, uh, without addressing the, you know, the, um, sovereign nation status of each three counties. Thank you. Anyone else? Yes. Uh, vice chair Scott. Uh, thank you, madam chair. And I had, uh, had reached out to, uh, haven't got to all of them, but to, um, several members of their legislative delegation, just to try to understand where this, you know, what was sort of driving this letter. And I've had conversations, um, with Senator DeSigli, um, Representative Burfield and, and Jacques. And the main concern I heard was that they were worried that local projects would not get approved by Hillsborough County or, or another county. And I said, you know, and, you know, I explained why PI, uh, doesn't have a dedicated seat on the board because the board of county commissioners serves on that board and that, you know, we've been working on this for about three and a half years and we continue to massage this. And this is not a finished product, but we've made really pretty exceptional progress on it and said, let's not just, you know, throw the baby out with the bath water. We're, you know, this is a work in, a work in progress. And I mentioned things like, if we're truly going to be regional, then let's look at potentially opening up Hillsborough County Aviation Authority and Port of Tampa for membership from Pasco and, uh, Pinellas County. And I think doing those sorts of things, if we get those accomplished sort of breaks down some of those barriers. And the fact that we've been having tri-county meetings for a couple of years now has, has built some relationships and some trust that didn't exist before. So I just wanted to encourage them to just, you know, let's, you know, let's not, I didn't, I was afraid this was going to land with a thud in this room and, and in other, other board rooms around the region. Uh, so I said, let's just, you know, be patient. And, um, and if you have questions or concerns, reach out, you know, cause I, you know, as, as, as I've been on this board for three and a half years, almost four, four years now. And, and Commissioner Egger's been on this board probably a decade prior to that and was chair. And neither one of us got a phone call about any of this. So we were a little surprised that this sort of showed up out of, out of the blue. So anyways, I continue to have those discussions just so you know. That's encouraging. Thank you. Mayor Freeney. I mean, reading this, it does land with a thud to me. I mean, I mean, because what it shows is with all due respect to the delegation, um, doing a letter and again, not asking some basic questions of people that have been involved. Um, so, um, you know, somewhat disappointing, um, because I know there's a lot of work done in this and, you know, at the end of the day, we want efficiencies. We want to be better. We've met the enemy. It's us, right? Because we somehow we can't come to terms with some of that. But, um, I agree with everything that's been said. I just think this is, this is disappointing, but I agree with you. I think it's about trying to reach out and, and make sure, um, we're educating on kind of some of the questions. There's no questions in here that I think have been, um, really, um, vetted out in my opinion. I mean, especially the airport. Um, so, so I guess it is about staying positive and, you know, trying to stay in the game and try to educate each of our own representatives about the process. And because again, it just seems logical that, that we do want to be regional because that's just going to make us better. So, um, I appreciate the councilman's comments. Those were great. I know you've been heavily involved. So, um, but that's all. I mean, it is a little disappointing, but I, I, I agree. I think, um, stay positive, take a deep breath and, and try to contact our representatives and make sure they understand everything that has been done. Thank you. Yeah. Great point. Um, council member Menino. Uh, thank you, chair. I think some, all, um, great, great points. I think five, six months ago, I attended one of, uh, one of the, the tri-county meetings and it was evident when I left that we were as a group trying to have very important discussions, um, on policy and formation of boards and rules and bylaws. Uh, but the true barrier was trust and a lack of trust in relationship building. And that was evident from the first meeting I went to. Um, and I don't, it doesn't matter to me how great of, uh, of bylaws and formations we try to put in policy. If, if we're not truly fortifying working on that trust and that relationship, uh, there was always going to be a problem at some point in the process. So while it is disappointing for some, I think there is some, some good that came out of it, especially with our neighbors in Pasco, um, and possibly some on the other side of the bridge. But while we should step back and put it on the back burner, I think we should continue to capitalize on some of the positives we had. Uh, and that's truly continuing to concentrate on relationship building and trust building. And I think that's vitally important and find, find those little wins where we can work together and whether it's inclusion and other boards or, uh, regionally having discussions together, um, just ensuring that we're massaging the trust and relationship building is vitally important, regardless of what happens happens in the future. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? Uh, council member Albritton. Yeah, I just want to say that, uh, I, I agree with commissioner Scott and, um, council member Menino, uh, you know, when we started talking about this years ago, uh, that was everybody's concern was trust because we knew it was going to be a hard thing going in to all these different, I mean, we just think of the, the, uh, how hard it is for us just in our County. And then you're bringing on more counties into, you know, into the mix, you know, who's going to have the upper hand, who's going to be, you know, that was the big concern. And, but, but I think you have to look at the big picture. The big picture is a tri-county MPO is going to be more powerful. I mean, you know, all you have to do is look at, you know, um, Orlando and, uh, Jacksonville, you know, Dade County. I mean, those guys, they get a big share of the money. So if everybody can just think of the big picture, I think we can get through it. Thank you. Anyone else? Yes. Vice Mayor Johnson. I had an opportunity to attend the MPO AC training, uh, in Ocala a few months ago. And I want to say after going to that, I really understand the process a lot, lot better. So I recommend it if you haven't been to go. But, uh, one thing I really learned is like, you know, a lot of our concerns about how the money's spent are really not going to be an issue because the money's going to get spent in the county, a portion by your population period. It doesn't, you know, so yes, Hillsborough could say that shouldn't be your priority, I guess, if we don't fix that, uh, issue. But I, that, that became way less of a concern for me after attending this. And I think, you know, that, that information getting out to, you know, maybe inviting our Pinellas legislative team to go to one of those trainings and learn about what the MPOs do. They may already know this very well and maybe they don't, I don't know, but it's certainly eyeopening for me because I've, I've gotten all the information in bits and pieces over time, but getting it all in one day was supremely helpful in understanding the process at a federal level and what we're really doing to bring money back to the counties. So I just want to say it's super helpful. If you haven't been, uh, I'd love to, you know, I think I'd happy to talk to anybody about it more. Thank you. Commissioner, if, um, if my experience is any indication from the 2023 session or 24 session, there was an MPO bill filed by a state representative south of here. And there was a lot of language in there that led me to believe that many in the state legislative delegation don't understand anything about MPOs. Um, you know, there, there was language like they develop a long range plan, but all it does is sit on the shelf and they never use it for anything. I think if you sat here for a, uh, at least a few months, you know, that we use our long range transportation plan every meeting. Um, and it's, uh, it's an important guiding document. So, um, that bill fortunately didn't pass. Uh, there was a lot of negative language in there about MPOs. I think there is a lack of understanding, um, to the MPO advisory council's credit. They have stepped up a lot in their education and outreach efforts and engagement with the state legislatures, legislatures, members. And, um, I think that will pay off, uh, and it, and it takes time. It's just like the relationships council member, many, you know, referenced building relationships takes time and then you have an election and then you've got to build them all over again. So we, we stay at it because we have a continuing cooperative and comprehensive process. Thank you all. No one else. All right. Well, thank you for the update on that. And, um, you know, hopefully it's sometimes it's just about timing and it sounds like there is an opportunity for more, uh, folks to, um, increase their understanding of, um, not just the merger, but how MPOs work and the importance of that and the regional significance and opportunities that could be presented by a merger. So, um, I won't be around to help you keep fighting the good fight, but I wish you all the best. Um, we'll go next to, um, item six C that is the, um, East Lake road PD and E study. Hi, good afternoon. Good afternoon. Uh, my name's Raf Kodai. I am, uh, with Pinellas County public works in the capital improvement division. And, um, I am here to present on the East Lake road corridor PD PD and E study kickoff. Um, so before I kind of get into the meat and potatoes of the presentation, uh, I want to do a quick overview of some of the key things that I'll be covering. Uh, one of the items will be kind of the background of the project and why it's come about, um, kind of show the existing layout in the corridor for those that are not familiar with that portion of the County, um, also look at the PD and E study process and schedule, um, some of the key issues that are looked at during a PD and E study, and then what opportunities there will be for public engagement. And then finally, um, where the, where some of the project funding could come from. So some of the background project location, um, basically the Southern limits start at Curlew road and run all the way North, uh, just past Trinity Boulevard to the Pinellas Pasco, uh, border. Uh, currently the roadway, um, is a mixture of different, um, let's say, uh, line or lane quantities, uh, on the Southern end, uh, it goes anywhere from six lanes to portions being five lanes with, you know, uh, southbound having two lanes in one direction and northbound having three. Once you get, uh, north of Tarpon Woods Boulevard, it's predominantly a two lane roadway, um, that is divided with a grass median. So the purpose and need for this, um, essentially, as we all know, um, if you've traveled through that corridor, especially during some of the more peak rush hour, uh, times, um, there's a lot of traffic that occurs on the roadway. We've seen that at the County, um, you know, we have the data that backs that up and essentially what we want to do is, is address that. Um, not only that, we want to make sure that whatever we do addresses, um, any kind of traffic operations and safety concerns that are out there. So kind of to, to back up that, that data, we have crash history, um, within the corridor, um, and these are from 2020 to 2025. Um, there've been, uh, you know, almost 1800, uh, accidents within that span between Curlew and, and Trinity Boulevard with 58% of those accidents occurring at signalized intersections. Uh, 54% of the accidents have been rear end crashes. And then, um, there have been some, uh, bicycle and pedestrian incidents as well. So the existing roadway layout, and this is predominantly when you're north of Tarpon Woods Boulevard, it's two lanes in each direction separated by a grass median. And then in this case, we're looking in the northbound direction, um, to, to show that the Pinellas Trail is on the west side of the roadway, and then there is an existing sidewalk on the east side of the roadway. Now, previous studies, um, have looked at potential alternatives, um, that could help facilitate or ease, uh, some of the, some of the traffic, uh, congestion that is out there. Uh, the most recent study that was performed looked at providing an additional lane to the inside or adding another, uh, left through lane. Um, but in addition to that, to be able to, um, realize any gains from adding those lanes, intersection improvements had to be, uh, proposed as well. Um, so as part of the PD&E study, you know, the consultant will be looking at further evaluating, um, this kind of, uh, scenario and see if maybe there are other scenarios that might work. So the PD&E study process, um, currently we're in the data collection and analysis, um, um, segment of the study. Once we have all of the engineering data that is needed with the traffic counts and whatnot, um, we're going to be moving on into the step of developing and evaluating alternatives for design. Um, then we'll have a, um, process where we're going to select and refine the preferred alternative, which is what we're, we're going to be looking at, um, going into design and construction in the future. Um, in the meantime, you know, we'll hold public hearings, um, to basically, um, allow the public to, to, um, um, provide their input. And that is one of the requirements of the PD&E study. And then finally, you know, we're going to be doing a, um, or we're going to be preparing the final engineering environmental reports as part of the study requirements, um, to then be approved by FDOT. Now, in that entire range, um, you know, which is shown from 2025 to, to about late 2028, there's going to be continuous public involvement because, you know, we want to hear from the public and, and get their, um, you know, sentiment as far as what we're trying to propose for the East Lake Road corridor. So some of the key issues that get looked at during a PD&E study. From a traffic standpoint, looking at, um, operations and safety through intersections, looking at alternative methods for, um, um, getting, you know, traffic through intersections. And then we go into also concept development, um, looking at both bicycle and pedestrian safety, looking at roadway widening, different types of intersection improvements. And then making sure that currently, um, let's say some of the neighborhoods that tie into East Lake Road, we maintain that access for them. And then from an engineering standpoint, you know, we look at what kind of utility impacts there might be, any sort of right-of-way impacts, and then the constructability of whatever is being, uh, proposed as an alternative. Um, from an environmental standpoint, making sure that we're not impacting any floodplains or, or wetlands that are, are there, any kind of protected species. Um, also making sure that we're not, um, impacting the residents that might live out there from adding additional noise with, with, um, the future constructed project. And then finally, from a public, uh, engagement standpoint, you know, making sure that all, uh, relevant agencies are coordinated with, um, making sure that the stakeholders, which, you know, includes the residents, um, are, um, properly engaged. And then making sure that we hold the public hearing. So the public engagement standpoint, you know, right here, I'm with you guys today. Um, so, you know, we met with the different forward panels committees, um, and I'm here presenting to the board on top of that, we'll have a public hearing once alternative, um, has been, um, ironed out. Um, and then we have a, uh, regularly updated project website where residents can go, um, and see where we're at with the current study and then future design and construction. And then we're also having additional coordination with stakeholders. Um, if any of, um, you know, the members here live in the East Lake corridor, you might've received a, uh, postcard letting them, you know, letting you know where you can, uh, get updates to the, um, project at hand. But on top of that, you know, we're coordinating with the local HOAs, um, out there and, um, making sure that, that their voices are heard. And then the funding. So right now, um, the project funding is completely funded by Penny for Pinellas. Um, however, you know, by doing this PD&E study, it will, um, allow us to be eligible for, for federal funding through grants. Um, so, you know, as we go through the process, we'll be applying for state and federal, uh, grants to help offset some of that burden. Um, that the penny would carry. And I guess, are there any questions? Thank you. Questions. Um, council member, many, no. I, thank you, chair. I do have a question. Um, can you help me understand why does the study stop at Curlew and not continue south? I mean, I know there's a lot of growth on that north end of the county, but I feel like a lot of that traffic is, is workflow to and fro traffic where so much of it is Carl on in St. Pete and into Tampa. Uh, why did we stop there at Curlew and not continue? Um, might have to ask Mona regarding that question. Phone a friend again? Mm-hmm. Yeah, I told him, you know, to just make eye contact. I'm right up. I was going to cacau. Thank you. Um, Mona Gabriel, division director for Capital Improvements Division Public Works. Um, well, the reason really is, um, you know, all the, the, the section of the McMullen Booth Road south of Curlew is already, um, has been widened to the ultimate corridor that has been, um, you know, planned for. Uh, the study currently covers the, the northern section because this is where most of the congestion and where, this is where most of the challenges that we're seeing with traffic overall. Um, not to say that, you know, the section south of Curlew, um, you know, is not due for a study, probably, probably, possibly. Uh, we can certainly start looking into, into that, but our focus now is the section north of Curlew because the section is not at its ultimate, um, you know, ultimate configuration. Okay. And what, what kind of data? Is it crash data only? Is it cars on the road data? What kind of data was used to support only doing that portion and not going any further? Um, the, the data that we are relying on to, um, you know, to support the study happening, uh, north of Curlew is, mainly, um, traffic counts, uh, crash data and, uh, but traffic counts is the, is the most, uh, thing that we're relying on. Um, and traffic count and, you know, congestion and, and, um, length of the queue at those, um, at those intersectional lights. Thank you. You're welcome. Council Member Menino, if I could add, um, part of this is really in the long range transportation plan, uh, that we adopt every five years. And, um, you know, we have been thinking about the overall quarter and certainly when we begin to adopt the next long range plan, which is due, I believe in 2029 for adoption, um, and we'll begin developing that in the coming year. Um, so it's about a two year process to do all the analysis and, and develop the plan. We'll be looking at that entire quarter. And just for your interest, um, the Drew street, uh, and McMullen booth intersection has long been an issue that I think we've, we've acknowledged the counties acknowledged in the past. And it's looked at some operational improvements in that area. And as we are looking at that whole, um, um, um, special area plan for that part of, uh, East Clearwater, that could be something that could be examined as part of that. So I think operationally the whole quarter is something we're going to continue to pay attention to, but really needs to be identified in the long range plan. And then the PD and E and more detailed analysis would flow out of that. Any other questions? Okay. Thank you so much for that presentation. There was no action required on the item for today. Um, next we'll have our, um, safety performance measures and targets presentation. You have the presentation. Okay. Good afternoon. My name is Caitlin. Today I'll be presenting on our 2027 safety performance measures and targets. So first of all, as a little caveat, um, there are three different performance measures that we're required to report on federally by law, by federal law. Um, today I'm just going to be reporting on what we call PM one. It's the safety performance measures. There is also PM two and PM three, um, which are infrastructure and mobility. You all have seen them before as, as pavement and bridge condition, and then also travel time reliability. The reason you won't get that information today is because it's not available yet. You can see down there at the bottom, the source we get the data from for all three of these performance measures is from the FDOT source book. So FDOT did go ahead and release the PM one data. And that's why we have that available ready for you today, but they have not yet released the data for PM two and PM three. They have assured us that that should be available sometime in October. So we'll keep you updated, um, as soon as we receive it. So for PM one, the safety performance measures, there's five different performance measures that we are federally required to report on. Um, they are number of fatalities, number of serious injuries, number of non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries, and then rate of fatalities and rate of serious injuries. And that's per a hundred million vehicle miles traveled. The number of fatalities, serious injuries, non-motorized, everything is calculated as a five-year rolling average. So whereas a lot of times you may see us talk about it by year, um, the FDOT source book looks at it as a five-year rolling average between 2021 and 2025. One thing that I do want to mention, um, early on in the presentation, just so that you understand as we're walking through it, is that this data does include e-bikes in the non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries. Even though a lot of times in our data, um, that I bring from our CDMS, we separate it out. FDOT has it included in that category. So in August, 2026, FDOT declared all five of these safety targets to be zero. Um, and while in principle and policy, we absolutely fervently support that it should be zero. Absolutely. Um, we do have the option to either adopt that target or set our own. And historically we have set our own because we want the targets to be something that's achievable, um, particularly within the next year, the next couple of years, something that we can really look at and measure and build momentum towards. This slide is really just to give you a broad overview of the way we're trending and the changes we've seen over the last, um, five-year average. So from 2021 to 2025, that's the current section, and then 2020 to 2024. So you can see in all five of the, or all four of the, um, first performance measures we have made improvements. The only one where we've maybe backpedaled a little bit is bike ped series injury and fatalities. And we have some theories as to why that may be, and I'll discuss that, um, at a later slide. But this is just to give you an idea of what the change in, in numbers or rate was over those last two rolling averages and what the 2025 target was, um, set at. This is to give you a good idea of the way that we're trending, particularly for number of fatalities. I'm going to go through each of the five performance measures, and you'll see a graph like this. But the first is number of fatalities. Again, this is the five-year average. So you can see there that I have that red line that, that was our 2026 target. It was set at 97.4. That's what it's been set at since 2019, when we initially set our targets. And so to give a little bit more detail, that's why I go back as far as 2013 to 2017, because that was the five-year rolling average that was used to set our 2019 targets. And the way that we set that initial target was we took the year with the highest number of fatalities between that 2013 to 2017 period and the year with the lowest number of fatalities, and we calculated the percentage difference. And that's how we came up with the target. And the idea there is that if we had fatalities that low at one point, we should certainly be able to get back there. So that's where we set our goals. You can see that we've made improvements. It did go up a little bit a few years ago as we saw population increase and all of those other things around the COVID time, but it has been steadily decreasing since then. And year over year, there's been a 2.13% decrease. Next is number of serious injuries. So this is one that we have been able to lower, a target that we have been able to lower once before. In 2023, it was 895.1. And then in 2023, we lowered it to 657.3 because we met our target. So you can see that this is declining very steadily at a 4.44% decrease year over year. Fatality rate. So something I want to say about the rates with fatalities and with serious injuries is that you will see that these have a steeper percentage decrease. And that's likely because, as I said earlier, they're calculated based on 100 million vehicle miles traveled. And so what we're seeing is even though our vehicle miles traveled are going up significantly, our fatality rates are going down, even if it's slightly. And so that's why you see that steeper decrease there with the rate. Again, we set that target in 2019 at 1.18, and last year we retained it. So that's why it says 2026. It stayed steady all that time. There's been a 5.52% decrease year over year. Again, we're looking at serious injury rate here. That was lowered at the same time that the number of serious injuries was lowered. We met them both in that 2023 year. Went from 10.6 down to 7.9. And see, there's an even steeper reduction there that we've seen, 8.34% decrease. So here's a slide where I have a few more points. Non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries. Again, we're looking at the five-year average. As a reminder, this does include e-bikes, and so we'll talk about that does play a role in why we think that there may have been a slight increase in this. There has been a 5.14% increase year over year. We were able to lower the target once before in 2024. We had met our target, and then unfortunately, you can see it went down. The next five-year rolling average, and then started to go up a little bit after that. And we really believe, some theories we have, is that this is due to the prevalence of bicyclists and pedestrians. We are a very urbanized county. We simply have more bicyclists and pedestrians over time as our county continues to grow than our neighboring counties do. Additionally, it does coincide with the increase in purchase of e-bikes. So the idea is that, and this isn't to rag on e-bikes, so I want to be careful there. The idea is that, from what we've seen, the people that purchase e-bikes are not people that were riding regular bicycles and then switching to an e-bike, typically. It's people that were likely not walking or biking at all before and then go out and buy an e-bike. So they are entirely new riders now on our road. So that's what we're anticipating, is that there is a good increase in the number of bicyclists, including e-bikes, on our roadways. Unfortunately, we don't have a rate for this. That would kind of tell us whether that theory is correct, is if we did have a rate for miles traveled for bicyclists and pedestrians. That would be wonderful, but that data is not available. So we can't calculate a rate. That is the idea, though. That's what we think is going on there. Next, I want to give a quick geographic comparison for fatality rate, and then the next slide will be serious injury rate. So you can see that we are a tad lower than Florida and Hillsborough, and we're definitely lower than Pasco. The reason why Pasco is a little bit higher is because, as many of you are familiar, I'm sure, they are not nearly as urbanized as we are, and so they have often higher speeds on their roadways that lead to more fatalities when crashes occur. Next, a serious injury rate. So this is something that Witt and Chelsea and I have talked about for a while because we do see that it is a little bit higher, especially compared to Florida and Hillsborough, and we've discussed why that might be so that we can be better prepared with how to address it. One of the things that we're thinking is, similar to what I just explained, is that we are just simply more urbanized than many areas of Florida and many areas of Hillsborough. There, of course, are areas of Hillsborough and other areas of Florida that are very urbanized, but they also have areas that are much, much more rural than anywhere in Pinellas County. And so the sheer volume of bicyclists and pedestrians, we think, plays a role in our serious injury rate being a little bit higher than the state of Florida or Hillsborough. Additionally, one thing to remember is that crashes are often not fatal or nothing at all. The idea is that we think with the improvement of vehicle safety, and, of course, we hope with the improvement, the safety improvements that we've made to our roadway through our long-range transportation plan and our transportation improvement program, that there are crashes that may have been fatal, but now are only serious injury instead. So this is an action item. The staff recommendation is to retain all the targets that we set for 2026 for the 2027 year. You would be approving the targets there in the green column, those proposed targets. They are the same as they've been since 2024. One thing I do want to point out, a new column that I've added, is the percentage over-slash-under target so that you can compare it between the 2020 to 2024 rolling years and the 2021 to 2025. One thing I really want to point out there is that you can see that in the previous year, we were 11.42% over our target for serious injury rate, and now we're only 2% over. So while, of course, we would always love it to be lower, getting so close to hitting that target should be very exciting for all of us. The goal is that ideally next year or the year after, we can lower that target yet again and continue making those strides. But we're not there yet. And so that is the idea with retaining these targets until we hit them. I also want to restate the goal of zero fatalities. This isn't something that when we talk about and we talk about fatalities, it can sound very far removed from the fact that we're talking about people that were killed. And I don't want that to be the case at all. And so I do want to reiterate that we absolutely support FDOT's target of zero fatalities on the roadway. The idea really here is really just for it to be something measurable and achievable for us to present to you and bring back every year and be able to make progress towards. And then, of course, we'll continue to monitor this performance going forward. So especially with a bike bed serious injury and fatalities, that increase is concerning to us. That's something that we want to make sure that we're keeping an eye on and that we're doing something to address. So it's something that we'll continue to monitor moving forward, and we'll be sure to present any changes on it throughout the year and, of course, next year when we update our targets again. Does anybody have any questions? And board members, before you vote on this, I just want to remind you that the way we operationalize these targets is when we build our draft list of priority projects and begin building that future transportation improvement program. We are looking at evaluation measures that consider these safety targets as key indicators of projects we are asking you to include in our list of local priorities. So just to kind of close that loop. Thank you. Any questions? Council Member Floyd? Thank you. I don't necessarily have a question I want to say. First, I'd support the targets, I guess, staying the same for the reasons you outlined. But to Witt's point, I do kind of feel like we get this presentation, I guess, every year. And then throughout the year, I just don't feel like I hear enough about these targets and the steps that we're taking to get there. And I understand that it's baked into the work that's being done, particularly by staff. And it's a consideration in a lot of the things that we do. But I just wanted to sort of articulate that I felt like we could talk about it a little more during the year and be a little more cognizant of it. But from my perspective, this is one of the main things that I'm on this board to work on. You mentioned it yourself. Like, we show the numbers, but this is someone dying. Like, what is our job as elected officials if not to make our community more safe? And so I just wanted to articulate that. I don't know what that looks like, but I just wanted to explain the feeling that I had about it and hope that, you know, it can sit in people's minds and we can maybe work on a little bit as time goes on. So that's great feedback. Thank you. What it looks like is when we do our call for projects for the local government grant program, safety is a huge criteria. And we have to actually, we ask the applicant to show what are the safety trends and conditions on the project that they're applying for. And that's key evaluation criteria. Same thing for the prioritization process that we adopt as well. So, um, we'll try to be more, um, intentional about making that an issue. We are currently updating our safe streets Pinellas action plan as well. All right, good. Any other questions, comments? Tina, did you get that? I have a motion by council member Fig Sanders and a second by council member Floyd. And there are no citizens wishing to be heard on this item. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Excuse me, Madam Chair. David Ballard Geddes Jr. would like to speak if that's okay. Okay, that's fine. I do have a question, you know, regarding bringing forth the amount of bicycle crashes, uh, that are occurring. And I'm not doubting that, but where is it going? Is it going to the point where we're going to start requiring bicycle insurance like car insurance? And then it calls into question who's in position for that? Um, we've got Fran Hash, who in a sense is a two wheel attorney, right? So is that for just Harley Davison's or now does it kind of bifurcate into bicycle attorney, electric bicycle attorney? So she's kind of in position early for this apple to fall into her lap, you know, like Sir Isaac Newton kind of gets in position. He doesn't pick apples. He just sits there and they'll fall in his lap, right? That's called the setup. Um, so in a sense, you know, I, I feel as though there's particulars already in position for a future. We have to require you to wear a helmet on your bike. You got to have bicycle insurance to ride on the bike path. Otherwise, you're not allowed on the bike path. You got to prove insurance and here's the cops. And I don't like being set up. That's all I'm saying. Where is this going? I understand we have crashes, but where are you going to take it? And how far are you going to take it in regards to, you know, taking away our liberties and our freedoms that we have today? Thanks. Thank you. Um, anyone else, Tina? No, Madam Chair. All right. We have a motion and a second to, um, approve the targets. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? The motion carries. Thank you. Um, next we will discuss the potential for an establishment, the establishment of a nominating committee. Whit, did you want to explain that one? Sure. We can be quick on this one. It's, um, uh, that time of year where we consider board, um, leadership appointments for chair, vice chair, secretary, and treasurer for the coming year. We typically take those up at the November meeting. We want to wait till after elections and all that. Uh, the only question before you today is whether, uh, you want to establish a nominating committee of a minimum of three people who wouldn't be running for that, any of those positions. You're not obligated to do so. You can certainly vote from the dais, um, at the November meeting if you choose. Um, we typically, it's not written down anywhere, but we typically have an unwritten rule that we rotate between a chair who is a county commissioner and a chair who represents a city. Um, and, um, that's, you know, about the only thing we truly consider. However, if there are parts that are moving, for instance, one of the secretary or treasurer positions wants to elevate to a vice chair role or a chair role, then we would need to backfill those positions. So, it's board discretion. All right. Thank you. So, anybody? I think we could, um, if anybody has intent on running for it, could send an email and we can just do it at the board meeting. We can just make a motion at the board meeting. I don't know that we need a committee for it. All right. That's perfectly fine with us at the county. Okay. Is there consensus? If that's the case, then what I would ask, if anybody has an interest or Tina can prompt you, uh, we can send an email and she can ask if anybody wants to show interest in any of these seats to please do so in advance of, um, before we get the packet out. So, let's say in the next two to three weeks, but she'll follow up with an email after this meeting and, and go from there. Does that seem good by everybody? Member Gavard, did you? Yeah. I was just going to. Mike, please. I was just going to ask if anyone had shown interest at this point, but there's plenty of time to do that between now and the November meeting. Yeah. I've asked around. I've got some interest. Um, but also we wanted to see how the election shakes out as well. Yeah. Okay. Very good. Thank you. So, I have a motion by Commissioner Peters to elect the officers from the dais. Was there a second for that? Okay. Thank you. All right. We have a motion and a second. Any other discussion? Any other discussion? Tina, do we have any, did we have any citizens who wanted to speak on this item? No, Madam Chair. All right. Thank you. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? The motion carries. Thank you. Now, the director's report. Okay. The moment you've all been waiting for. Yeah. One less committee meeting. That's what you were waiting for. Um, okay. So, I have a few items for you. The first is, um, asking your approval to send a letter, uh, clarifying or, um, requesting that some of our priorities, uh, uh, become action items in the next five-year work program or as soon as thereafter possible. Uh, the letter, uh, in your packet identifies segments of Interstate, uh, 275, uh, south of 38th Avenue North, uh, Gandy Boulevard, um, east, uh, of 4th Street, um, to west of the Gandy Bridge, um, and including the Gandy Bridge, if you want to do that, because we have a completed PD&E study for the Gandy Bridge, uh, and then U.S. 19 north of, um, uh, County Road 95. These are all three priority projects that were priority projects before I was hired as executive director. And to the department's credit, they've made good, good, uh, progress on other segments in these corridors. Um, but we want to make sure that, um, from a strategic intermodal system standpoint, which is the largest share of the state's transportation trust fund budget, that Pinellas County gets its fair share of those dollars. Um, so we are advocating as our own MPO in this case, um, for those. And, uh, you will get a draft tentative work program presentation coming up shortly. It's typically in the November timeframe. And then we have, uh, until, um, a month or so after that to send a letter of objections or comments, which we typically do. So we may not make this cycle, but we certainly hope we can, uh, advance one or more of these projects in the next cycle. There is design underway for the I-275 segment. I'm not aware of, uh, detailed engineering and design for the other two segments that are underway. We do have, uh, Brian Hunter here in the room. If you would like to ask the department, any questions about this? All right. Thank you. And, you know, if you look at the letter and these three projects, you know, we've got some good examples here of how a project that's taking place in Pinellas County is beneficial for Pasco or Hillsborough County. And these are the types of projects that could move forward, even in a stronger way, if we had a regional voice, uh, speaking up for it. So I just wanted to point out that this is a great example of, um, where there's regional significance and it's not really like a silo type project. It has benefits for, um, like beyond Pinellas County. So I just wanted to point that out. Council Member Gabbard. Thank you, Madam Chair. And, uh, Whit, I just want to thank you for including the, uh, Gandy improvements in the overpass there in this letter. Um, you know, I've only got a couple of meetings left here on this board and, uh, this is obviously, um, something that I was really hoping would have come to fruition in the time that I have been serving. Uh, this is definitely a high, uh, injury impact area. Um, it has continued to grow. It will continue to grow. And so having that overpass there is going to be very important to help people move to the chair's point around, uh, Hillsboro and Pinellas in that area. So thank you for including that. And, uh, we just encourage everyone, um, to continue to keep that top of mind and move that forward. So thank you. All right. Thank you. Um, any other questions or comments, Tina, do we have any, any citizens who wish to speak on this item? No, Madam Chair. We do not. All right. Thank you. So the request is that we, um, um, authorize this letter on project prioritization. We have a motion. Second. All right. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? The motion carries. Thank you. All right. The next item, next item on the agenda is an update on the Countywide Data Center's working group. Um, you have, um, in, in your packet, a draft model ordinance, um, that the committee has, um, reviewed. And I want to credit Emma Winnick of our staff, uh, and others on our team. Uh, we've had two meetings with the working group on what is a very volatile and sensitive topic across the country, not just here in Pinellas County. And I think they've done an excellent job outlining this issue. There are a couple of overarching parameters that we need to keep in mind. The County has passed a resolution, um, restricting, uh, data centers in Pinellas County, uh, by direction of the County Commission. It's also, um, their interpretation that because their, uh, comprehensive plan and Countywide code or Pinellas County code are silent on this, they are not allowed in the County. We have a similar approach to this. It's not reflected in the Countywide rules or the Countywide plan or the Countywide strategies. Um, so we kind of have that same attitude. And then I recently saw the city of St. Petersburg, um, uh, a memo from Derek Kilburn outlining the same, uh, restrictions in the city of St. Petersburg. However, having said that, we think that it's, uh, extremely important to have protections in place and a set of standards for the consideration of data centers, standalone data centers. And that's what this addresses. If you read quickly through the model ordinance, um, it has restrictions on, uh, you know, standards really not restrictions, but standards for development review, for energy usage, for noise, um, for compatibility, uh, residential compatibility and other things like that. Uh, use separation, uh, noise management. I mentioned water and cooling, energy consumption, all those factors, even decommissioning, uh, these things. So I think it's very comprehensive. We are restricted somewhat by Senate bill one 80, which limits our ability to, um, adopt, uh, burdensome or restrictive policies. Um, however, we can certainly approve a model ordinance, but then it would be, um, a period of time before local governments could then enact the model ordinance. Uh, but I wanted to bring this to you for any additional guidance or direction. We have not gotten specific legal guidance on either the ordinance or any other protections we could put in place as the countywide planning authority. Uh, but that is certainly something we will do, um, in the coming weeks as we continue to work with the, uh, the working group. So this is an information item, but, uh, any additional guidance would certainly be welcome. Thank you. Any questions on this or comments? Can you talk a little bit about this applying to standalone data centers as opposed to other types? Because I could see that question coming up. Like, is this, does this mean there's a loophole? No. Um, what we are really looking for is, um, protection for the standalone data centers, because we already have data centers that are attached to hospitals or universities, um, and they are smaller in scale and they are complimentary to that use. Um, and they are typically housed within that use structure. So this would be a facility that is on its own and they're, uh, in the model ordinance or some restrictions on even expansion of that in future years. Okay. Uh, it limits the size and scale of those. Um, so it's really more appropriate for us to focus on those standalone than it is for the attached data centers, because that would come in under a different land use category typically. Got it. All right. And this limits it to industrial areas. Uh, that's another, and keeps them out of our target employment areas, for instance, because we know that there are not typically a lot of jobs associated with data centers. Right. Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? All right. What else you got? All right. Uh, fun stuff. The next item that I alluded to earlier under the regional activities report is the regional project prioritization process. And this is a, an effort that's ongoing. It's being led by Hillsborough County. They were awarded a grant from the federal highway administration, I believe about a year ago. Uh, we have just begun some initial meetings, correct? Chelsea. We've just had a couple of initial meetings on this. Uh, the, um, the team has developed a tool that allows us to, um, uh, enter our projects that we have prioritized and test them, uh, using different criteria. Uh, we are also linking this with a new benefit cost analysis tool that we have developed, uh, on behalf of the region. And, um, we will be giving you a presentation on the benefit cost analysis tool here, um, coming up. Uh, and this, I think is a real, uh, promising opportunity for us to better quantify what we define based on data such as traffic congestion, safety, um, uh, access to regional activity centers and the like, um, for those regional priorities that the Suncoast transportation planning authority and TMA leadership group adopt annually. Um, at a minimum, we should agree on some common, uh, quantitative analysis surrounding those. And then if we choose, we can all three MPOs adopt similar, uh, criteria and methodology for our annual prioritization process. That is not a mandate of this process though. We can choose to keep our respective procedures slightly different if we want, but this informs us. And right now we're all over the place. We, we all do things very differently. So this will align the region a little bit further and it's really just an information item. There's a website here. You can click on and get, um, a pretty high level intro to it. And we'll be bringing back to you any recommendations that come out of this process in the coming months. And that's it for me. Um, oh, I do want to mention one other thing. Um, while commissioner Scott is looking at me over there, um, last week we had a, uh, productive discussion with the board of County commissioners on, um, e-bike regulation and, uh, Sheriff Gualtieri was there. And, um, I really appreciated having the sheriff there because, uh, any regulation or, um, effort at reining in e-bikes, um, to use a term, um, is going to require support from the sheriff's office. And most of our law enforcement agencies at the local government look to the sheriff for guidance. Uh, I think the sheriff was very clear that they have the tools that they need, um, right now, um, to enforce safety on our trails and on our sidewalks and on our roads. However, there are some statewide changes, uh, that the sheriff welcomes. And he did participate in the development of the legislation last year that the governor vetoed. And he was very clear that legislation is coming back, uh, in the coming session. So we will continue to make it a priority of our agency. We will continue to work with the sheriff's office on it. Um, but for now, the board of county commissioners elected not to move forward with any ordinance at this time. But if the legislature doesn't deliver something or we're not happy with that, then that can be revisited. And I'll open it up to any of the county commissioners if they'd like to add anything to that conversation. All right. Vice Chair Scott. Yeah. Thanks for bringing that up, uh, Witt. And thank you, Madam Chair. So it was really great to have the sheriff there. And, um, the sheriff is, is paying attention to e-bikes and he is paying, paying attention to trail enforcement. So that was, that was a really great to see, uh, that his agency is taking it serious and is putting resources, um, where, where they need to be and said, basically, you know, even though we don't have an ordinance specifically for e-bikes, he can still, they can still write citations for reckless endangerment or careless driving or, you know, DUI or because it is still classified as a vehicle. So he has vehicle and, and, and traffic enforcement capabilities, um, that they are using. So, so that was really good news, but his suggestion was rather than try to, you know, have a different standard, you know, for the county or the municipalities is just, let's wait and see what, uh, what Tallahassee comes up with. And as Witt suggested, if they don't or come up with anything good, then we can revisit it. And we are continuing to work on the education efforts. In fact, uh, Valerie Brookins of our staff, who is our safety planner is working with the school district, um, on additional education, uh, outreach and engagement with the schools. So I think that's very positive. Well, thanks to both of you for your commitment to the issue. It's really important. It'd be great to see something happen on the county level. Yeah. All right. Anyone else? All right. Well, thank you everyone. Madam chair. I'm so sorry. Sorry. Whit, in case I'm stealing your thunder. I just wanted to remind the board members that our meeting next month is on Tuesday, not Wednesday due to the holiday. Thank you. I missed that. Um, I had one other item. It's not in our upcoming events, but you may want to make note of it. Um, on November 9th and 10th, the Florida greenways and trails foundation is having a trail summit, greenways and trails summit here in St. Petersburg, uh, for two days, uh, at the, I believe it's at the Hilton downtown and, uh, it's pretty affordable. It's about $150 to register. I went to the one a couple of years ago in Venice. They have them every two years and, uh, it's, um, really great. Um, and there's such passion for trails and we are, um, you know, I think we're Mecca for trails in Florida and, um, we have a number of projects that have been funded through the state sun trails program. So if you're interested, I would certainly encourage you to look into that. Our staff is going to be promoting that on social media, uh, and in our newsletter and getting that information out there. Um, and the St. Pete chamber has been instrumental in getting that meeting relocated to St. Petersburg this year. So credit to them. That's great. Madam chair, if I may. Yes. Thank you. I don't, I overlooked something and I just wanted to make it since we're in the sunshine since I was reached, I just looked at my calendar since I was recently appointed as secretary treasurer. I just wanted to put my name in the hat again for the next election. However, looking at my calendar, the next meeting that Tina brought up is at our next meeting is on Tuesday, November 10th. And I needed to know if I needed to be present because I'm scheduled for surgery on November 9th. So I won't be here. Oh, so I just wanted to voice that interest. Thank you. You do not need to be present. In fact, if you're not present, we might volunteer you anyway. Thank you. Thank you for expressing that. And again, just, just to make sure everyone knows you said sending an email expressing interest is the best way to go about this. That would, and I, and I, what I'd like to do is maybe have Tina just email you all. And if you could just respond to her email, but if you want to just do it on your own, that'd be fine as well. Yeah, that's good. Cause we've got folks who aren't here today. So that way everyone will know and have the opportunity to put their name in the hat. So, okay, good. All right. Well, if there's no other business for the board at this time, the meeting is adjourned. Thank you.