Thank you for joining us today on October 20th for our regular BOCC meeting. We would please rise and we'll have Chaplain Hanley give us the invocation and then remain standing for the pledge. Good morning. I would invite you all to pray with me. Heavenly Father, as the events of our day continue to unfold, we seek your clarity and your peace. As we gather here today to make decisions for the good of our county, we take comfort in knowing that you are with us and for us as we seek your counsel. Lead us in the path of your peace today. And I ask this prayer in Jesus' name. Amen. Good morning, commissioners, staff, and visitors. I'm Caitlin Hoverkamp, Public and Media Relations Officer for Polk County Government. Today, we are recognizing three employees for their service to Polk County. I'd like to invite the employees to come to the front as their names are called. And then if the honorees will remain at the front while the commissioners return to the dais behind them, we'll take a group photo at the end. Lisa Conran has served the residents and visitors of Polk County for 25 years. In 2001, Lisa began working as a legal secretary for the Polk County Attorney's Office. She also served as a paralegal before transferring into her current role, serving as the legal office supervisor for the county attorney's office. Prior to joining the attorney's office, Lisa worked for Polk County Clerk of Courts for nearly eight years, serving as a deputy clerk in both the circuit civil and domestic violence divisions. She earned an associate's degree in paralegal studies from Tampa College in 1993. Lisa is a member of the Honorable Order of Kentucky Colonels. In her spare time, she enjoys spending time with her husband, Bill, her son, Scott, her daughter, Ashley, her six grandchildren, and her great-grandson. Looking ahead, she plans to continue serving the residents and visitors of Polk County. After retirement, she hopes to spend more time with her family, to travel, and to volunteer in her community. Juan Garcia Martinez has worked for Polk County Court Services as a probation officer for 25 years. He obtained a bachelor's degree in criminology from the University of South Florida and a bachelor's degree in biblical sciences from Southeastern University. Juan is a member of the Etzsheim Messianic Synagogue in Lakeland. In his spare time, he enjoys spending time with his wife, Helen, his stepson, Angelito, his numerous nieces and nephews, and his siblings. He also enjoys traveling to South America, watching Lionel Messi play football, and the New York Yankees. In the future, he looks forward to continuing to work for the county until retirement. Randy Mink has served the residents and visitors of Polk County for 20 years. In 2006, he began working for the county attorney's office as an assistant county attorney. He later served as a deputy county attorney before assuming his current role as county attorney. Randy obtained his bachelor's degree from the University of South Florida in 2001 and a jurist doctorate from Stetson University College of Law, Cum Laude, in 2006. He is board certified in city, county, and local government law and is a past president of the Lakeland Bar Association. Randy is a member of St. Joseph's Catholic Church. In his spare time, he enjoys coaching youth baseball, working outside, and spending time with his wife, Heidi, and their four children. Looking ahead, he plans to continue advancing the county attorney's office and providing timely, ethical, and professional legal services to support the Board of County Commissioners and county staff. Madam Chair, members of the board, that's 70 years of collective service and three employees. Thank you, guys. Congratulations, Saul, and thank you for your service. We will now go into public comments concerning agenda items. Amber, do we have anyone? Yes, ma'am, we have two. The first one is Catherine Ledlow. And what is she? What agenda item is that going to be? R-21. Okay. Catherine Ledlow. Yes, Catherine, if you come to the center here, bring the mic down to you, say your name and your address, and you have three minutes. Thank you. Hi, my name is Catherine Ledlow. I represent Central RV Park and Storage in Lake Wells on Thompson Nursery Road. What we're having an issue with on the development of the road there, which is very needed, and we do appreciate that as well because of the traffic flow. However, we are having difficulties with our business there. We have an RV storage as well as we are commercial and residential. So we have storage facilities as well as residential facilities. The median strip that is going in on Thompson Nursery Road is preventing traffic flow in and out of our business. And what we're requesting is to have a turn-in lane going into the business, at least going into, if you're heading west from Highway 27 on Thompson Nursery Road to make a turn-in to go into the park. The exit of the park, we have to, our residents and our business clients have to exit the park going to the right, go all the way out to 27, make a U-turn to come back around, and then go two and a half miles down the road in order to turn around an RV or any kind of a big rig kind of a situation. And this is what we are concerned with because of the difficulties. We have lost business. We have lost storage. And we have lost residents because of the situation of the difficulty getting in and out of our park and out of our storage facilities. So that was what I wanted to bring to the attention. I'm asking if there's any way that we can alter the plans to have a turn-in lane there going into our. Catherine, what I'm going to suggest, can you hear me? Okay. What I'm going to suggest is, Jay, would you raise your hand or, John, either one of you right there, if you would go to one of those two, Jay, specifically, and share your concerns with them so that we could look into it, and they'll get back with you as far as what can be done. Thank you very much. I appreciate your time and consideration. Thank you very much for coming over. Okay. Ma'am, we do have another one. It's for R33. Okay. And that would be Tina Polk-Kennemuth. R33. Yes, ma'am. Good morning, and thank you. State your name and address. Yes. My name is Tina Polk-Kennemuth. I live in Winter Haven at 2500 21st Street Northwest. I'd like to address the issue on the agenda number R33. You'll find it very near the end. This is to eliminate public comments on your social media page, to turn off public commenting, effectively shutting down anyone who dares to question or disagree with you. This is another clear attempt to silence the voices that you do not want to hear. It is censorship, and you should all be ashamed. It is evident by your previous actions that you want to be less visible to your constituency, and therefore less accountable. Not everyone can attend these Tuesday morning meetings, as the bulk of Polk County is at work today. Shutting off public comments is as telling as moving the public comments to the end of the meeting, which you have done in your public meetings. Fewer people in the audience at the end, as the developers and planners get to go first and then leave. The honorees leave, usually after being acknowledged, as you've just seen. You don't want them to see or hear how you are failing us. Actually, all of your meetings should be public, made available to every person in the county. You should be advertising how we can watch this government in action. It would be better for all of us just to have that availability. You seem to have forgotten that you were elected and entrusted, and part of our problem as a constituency is that we did trust you. We assumed that you would have our best interests in mind when you made decisions for us. We were wrong. We assumed that you could address and correct problems brought to you repeatedly. We were wrong. Aside from Bill Braswell, most of you are not even known to the people that you represent. The fact that we know who Bill Braswell is is not a good thing. Elected three times is a sad statement on our part. I'm thankful that he is not going to be eligible to insult his constituency again. I would say that your silence on his behavior and rude comments indicates either fear of speaking up or agreement. Neither is a good look. Going along to get along is a thing of the past. People are waking up and watching more closely. People are tired of being put last and watching you do nothing about the issues with the sheriff and the animals. We don't want you telling us that we have no say in the situations that we'll be pulling money out of our pockets. We want to preserve and protect the lands and the water. We want to be able to afford to live here and raise our families. And we want to be heard. Social media is to people today what the newspapers once was. Turning off the options to question, comment, and clarify is censorship. And we will not forget that. Thank you. Anyone else? No, ma'am. That is it for that section. Madam Chair, if I may. Yes. Just in regards to that, Amber, I don't know if we can look at it. I know other counties are streaming the BOCC meetings on YouTube and on Facebook as far as the stream goes. I don't see why we aren't doing that as a county. To find our PGTV link is a bit troublesome. Well, not sometimes, all the times. So, I just think as far as public access to these meetings, to have it on more channels would be more appropriate than less. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Moving on. County Comptroller, Ms. Stacey Butterfield. Good morning. Today, we have for you to approve and write a file payroll checks number 05079 through 05100 and the amount of $31,102.40. We have 3,172 direct deposits in the amount of $4,930,347.03, and those are dated October 16, 2026. We have wire and electronic funds transfers of $19,188,317.23, and those are dated October 6 through October 19 of 2026. And finally, we have invoice checks numbered 514-678 through 515-803, totaling $29,262,220, and 11 cents, dated October 6 through October 19 of 2026, for you to approve and ratify, please. Madam Chair, motion for approval. Second. I have a motion and a second. Any questions, discussion? Hearing none, all in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. We also request the approval of your regular board meeting that was held on October the 6th of 2026, please. Second. I have a motion and a second. Any questions, discussion? Hearing none, all in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Anything else? Yes, ma'am. I just want to follow up on, I think I mentioned a couple of weeks ago, but we will be actually closing the deal on the bond issuance that the county issued. Utility bonds a couple of weeks ago was, it was, in my opinion, a very successful sale, given the market conditions on the particular day of October 1st were very favorable for the county and I think produced a great result. So, just as a reminder, the bonds were a par amount of just a little over $219 million. We were able to issue those bonds with what's called the true interest cost, basically all in cost for everything, just slightly over 5%, 5.3 and some decimal points back there. But anyway, it was a great result. The bond themselves to actually bring it to sale, it takes a team. And I just want to say thank you to the county team because you had utilities involved, budget management involved, the county attorney's office involved, county manager. We had the comptroller team from my office involved, and then you have a team of financial people to make this happen, which includes the financial advisor, PFM. The underwriters on this particular deal were Bank of America and Raymond James was the co-manager of this particular deal, and they did a fantastic job. When you put the bonds out for sale, before the sale, they have put it out there. We had great ratings from the rating agencies to try to get interest, and on the day we were so what's called oversubscribed, we had plenty more entities wanting to buy the bonds than we had available bonds. So, that produced a fantastic result. We also have the bond council team from Holland and Knight, and then bond disclosure, which is Bryant, Miller, Olive. And I may have forgotten someone, but as you can see, there's a lot of players that come together for many, many, many weeks and months to put this whole thing in place. And it produced what I think was a great outcome for Polk County and for the utility system to be able to expand. We have many needs. Stacy, let me add to that, Madam Chair. The bond rating, the very good bond rating reflection of Polk County is a direct reflection on the last five or ten years' worth of financial stewardship in this county, and it shows well in those ratings. Yes. Thank you, county manager, because that was a key component. But thank you. Thank you. Great job, you and your team, everyone, for providing this wonderful service for us. Anything that we can save money, we will definitely, so we can utilize it in our community. Any comments from anybody else? No? Okay. Well, thank you, Stacy. You're welcome. Appreciate that very much. Moving forward, we county approve a consent agenda. And, Madam Chair, before we approve the consent agenda, I want to bring one item to your attention. After the agenda review, it was brought to my attention that I needed to add an item on behalf of the tax collector. This is an item that we routinely do. It's statutory required. Basically, it's item R35, and it's approved the extension of the Adverum and Adverum assessment rolls prior to completion of the value adjustment board hearings. This is necessary in order to send the tax bills out on time and for the funds to be received from all the tax authorities. Which one is that, Randy? R35. R35. Okay. And that was brought to my attention after the agenda review, but we have to prove it on this agenda in order to make sure the tax bills and stuff go out on time. Thank you, Madam Chair. Okay. Thank you. Move for approval. Second. I have a motion and a second. Any questions or discussion? Hearing none, all in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Do you have anything else, County? Okay. Great. Then let's move on to Mr. Beasley, County Manager. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board, members of the viewing audience. The Manager's Office will have five items for board consideration this morning. Item number G1 is to request the board to approve an agreement with Weikert Ford Incorporated to provide for Polk County's Ford Class I through V vehicle acquisitions and related support services. Board action today will reflect a five-year term agreement. With an estimated annual expense of $5,200,000. Polk County has completed the public process to solicit proposals from qualified vendors to provide standardized Ford vehicle acquisitions and support services for vehicle classes one through five. Vehicle classes one through five include automobiles, SUVs, pickup trucks, and other types of trucks weighing up to 19,500 pounds. Agreement services will include vehicle purchases, design assistance, parts and servicing, online technical access, and technical training for Polk's fleet staff. The county anticipates purchasing between 75 and 125 of these vehicles each year, depending upon the annual vehicle replacement schedule and any approved additional vehicles needed for a division's operational requirements. Request for proposal number 26208 was issued, and Weikert Ford was the only bidder. In August of this year, the board approved the selection committee's recommendation to enter into contract negotiations with Weikert Ford. This agreement reflects that when vehicle acquisitions or support services are needed, the Fleet Management Division will request a formal quote from Weikert Ford. Upon approval of that quote, a subsequent purchase order would be issued. Funds are budgeted within the FY2627 adopted Fleet Management Vehicle Replacement Fund and will be budgeted in subsequent years accordingly. So, Madam Chair, members of the board, I think in keeping with the board's commitment to the operational readiness of all county divisions, I would request that the board to approve the proposed agreement with Weikert Ford to provide vehicle acquisitions and related support services for those Ford Class I through V vehicles to reflect a five-year term and an annual expense of approximately $5,200,000. Second. I have a motion and a second. Questions or discussion? Yes, Commissioner. Just a question as far as you mentioned that there was no other submittals for that bid. It's kind of surprising being a commodity-driven – yeah, I know Weikert has had the contract in the past, but is there any reason from an advertisement perspective otherwise he wouldn't get multiple bids? I'm not sure I can answer that, Commissioner. We've done this with Weikert for probably the last 20-plus years, and there's been very few competitors who want to get into that arena with Weikert, but they've been very good to us. They've been very reasonable and fair with the county. I'm surprised that some of the other larger Ford dealerships aren't involved, but they choose not to engage. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Charmman, you had something? Okay. Anybody else? Okay, here we go. I do. Just to say that, I know that happens not a lot, but it's kind of like our underground. I mean, we have – our contractor on that was the only one that bid it. I mean, it just all depends. But it's nothing unusual, but it does happen. Anybody else? Okay, so we have a first and a second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Madam Chair, members of the board, item number G2 is to request the board to approve an agreement with Patel, Green, and Associates to provide professional engineering services in connection with the Kathleen Road Widening Project. Board action today will reflect a professional services agreement not to exceed $2,148,563.40. Since, Polk County has identified the widening and extension of Kathleen Road as an infrastructure priority given the population and employment growth projected for the region's areas surrounding Kathleen Road. The expected growth is evident in the increased traffic demands on nearby roadways and future development projects planned along the corridor. Polk County has completed the public process to solicit proposals for the purpose of providing professional engineering services in connection with the Kathleen Road Widening Project. Request for proposal number 25-421 was issued and nine firms submitted proposals. In April of this past year, the board approved the selection committee's recommendation and authorized staff to enter into negotiations with the highest-ranked proposer, that being Patel, Green, and Associates. These engineering services will be completed in two tasks. Task one services include an alignment study from widening of Kathleen Road from Duff Road to West Soclam Loop Road and for a new alignment from West Soclam Loop Road to Rockridge Road. Task one services are anticipated to take approximately 540 calendar days to complete. Upon completion of these services, the county will identify the preferred alignment and negotiated scope of work and a not-to-exceed amount for those task two services, which include, but it's not limited to, final design and preparation of engineering reports and calculations, construction plans and cost estimates, permits, specifications, and bid documents. Task two services will be brought back to the board for approval by way of an amendment to this agreement. The term of this agreement shall be through the anticipated construction completion. This initiative is almost entirely funded through a federally funded local agency project with the Florida Department of Transportation, totaling $2 million. The Florida Department of Transportation has reviewed and approved the proposed agreement with Patel, Green, and Associates. Funds for these professional engineering services are budgeted and available within the Roads and Drainage five-year adopted community investment program. So, Madam Chair, members of the board, I think in keeping with the board's commitment to roadway infrastructure projects, especially along high-growth corridors, I would request the board to approve the proposed agreement with Patel, Green, and Associates to provide task one, professional engineering services in connection with the Kathleen Road widening project in an amount not to exceed $2,148,563.40. First? Second. I have a first and a second motion for approval. Any questions or discussion? Yes, Commissioner. If we could just expand on, obviously, portions of Kathleen Road are a state road. So, for those that aren't aware of the state road to the county road kind of division, and then the question that's come up, too, once the expansion is done, would the state at some point take the road over have been questions that I've gotten from the community, just looking at long-term maintenance or if there's additional growth and cost and the expense more is the questions that I'm getting. Well, we certainly can pursue that, Commissioner Scott. We have done that with the state in the past where the state has taken over county roads that were improved and became more part of the state network, and the county, likewise, has reciprocated and taken over some state roads. So, yes, sir, we'd be glad to pursue that at the appropriate time. Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. Hearing none, all in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Next item, Madam Chair, members of the board, item number G3 is to request the board to approve amendment number 3 to existing consultant services authorization number 22088-01 with the HNTB Corporation to provide engineering services in connection with the Cypress Parkway at Lake Marion Creek Road intersection improvements project. Board action today will reflect a contract amendment for specific professional engineering services in the amount not to exceed $1,047,865.46. In March of 2023, the board approved CSA consultant services authorization with HNTB to provide professional engineering services to perform an alternatives analysis for improvements to the existing Cypress Parkway at Lake Marion Creek Road intersection at a cost not to exceed $102,255. That work effort included the evaluation of a single-lane roundabout and a traditional mast-arm signal. The draft alternatives analysis evaluation report was completed in August of 2023. Due to the potential for the widening of Cypress Parkway and Johnson Avenue in the future, it was recommended that the intersection be evaluated for an ultimate four-lane configuration based upon the anticipated four-lane expansion of Cypress Parkway within the limits of the study area. In December of 2023, the board approved amendment number 1 at a cost not to exceed $54,255 for the consultant to utilize the earlier completed traffic analysis in developing multiple intersection alternatives. During development of those conceptual intersection alternatives, various site constraints and design limitations were encountered, including horizontal alignment and site distance restrictions, access impacts to the Marion Creek Estates subdivision, the Arcos Concrete Plant, and the Duke Power substation, as well as right-of-way impacts to the South Florida Water Management District's adjacent property and several private properties west of Baker Dairy Road. To avoid these potential design constraints and impacts, the final recommendation was to modify the alternative analysis based upon a realignment of a portion of Lake Marion Creek Road to the north, approximately 2,000 lineal feet of its current intersection with Cypress Parkway. In September of 2024, the board approved amendment number 2 at a cost not to exceed $224,042 to allow the consultant to review construction efforts to prepare conceptual design layouts for the intersection and perform geometric and operational analysis to establish the roadway geometry and lane requirements based upon a realignment of Lake Marion Creek Road within the study limits. The consultant completed the intersection analysis, and the preferred alternative was a signalized intersection at the new location. Proposed amendment number 3 will allow the consultant to provide professional engineering services to utilize the results of the intersection analysis evaluation report to develop final plans for the alignment of the Lake Marion Creek Road as a two-lane signalized intersection at Cypress Parkway. Funding for these engineering services to align with the major intersection improvements project are budgeted and available within the Transportation Millage Fund that's specific to the Roads and Drainage Five-Year Community Investment Program. So, Madam Chair, members of the board, having said all of that, I do believe in keeping with the board's priority commitments to roadway infrastructure improvements, especially in the northeast sector of Polk County, I would request the board to approve amendment number 3 to consultant services authorization number 22088-01 in connection with the Cypress Parkway at Lake Marion Creek Road intersection improvements project in an amount not to exceed $1,047,865.47. Move for it. Second. I have a motion and a second. Any questions, discussion? Yes. Want to clarify? I think you said $0.47. Is it $0.47 or $0.46? It should be $0.46. Okay. All right. Good catch. Thank you. Question. When will this start? The design effort will start right away, and we believe it may very well take about 12 months to finish that design work, and there will be some right-of-way acquisition that will be brought back to the board for subsequent actions, but within 12 to 15 months, we should finish that design and right-of-way acquisition, and I'm guessing within 18 months or so, we'll be ready to start construction. Okay. Okay. We have a first and a second, and any further discussion or question? Hearing none, all in favor? All right. Opposed? Motion carries. Final two items, Madam Chair, items G4 and G5. Could I ask Ms. Nelda Blanco to come to the center podium, please? Both of these items are in connection with CareerSource Polk. Item number G4 is to request the board to approve the proposed FY26-27 final budget for the Polk County Workforce Development Board doing business as CareerSource Polk. Ms. Nelda Blanco, who is the CareerSource Polk interim executive director, is here, and this morning I think she's prepared to give the board a general overview of how CareerSource Polk's annual budget is developed and a broad overview of the program supported within the proposed budget. So, Ms. Blanco, please. All right. Good morning, commissioners. Thank you, Mr. Beasley. I just wanted to come back to you all and present our final organizational budget. Funds that are allocated in our budget are really based on funding allocations from the state that take into account economic factors such as unemployment rates, job openings, poverty rates. The programs that we receive those formula dollars for really support individuals that meet various criteria for participation. And so, there are dollars that support adults that are 18 and over that could require newer or additional training, adults who have been impacted by layoffs or company closures. We have funds that support young people between the ages of 16 and 24, whether they're in school or out of school. Obviously, we also have dollars to support our veterans and our community. And finally, individuals who are receiving social assistance, you would know those as programs through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known as SNAP, or the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, which is known as TANF. Originally, the CareerSource Polk Board approved a preliminary budget of $9.54 million in May. And then, based on final allocations from the state, approved a final budget in August of 2026. You, as a body, approved our preliminary budget back in June. And so, through our process, we're coming back before you all to present our final budget for this program year. The final budget does increase to just under $740,000. The exact is $736,943. And that increase is due to a couple things. First, we had projections going into closeout costs that didn't quite materialize, which then ultimately increased our carryover funds to $350,845. Additionally, when we received our final allocations from the state, we received additional resources to support adults, youth, and those individuals who are in self-sufficiency programs. So, our final budget being brought before all of you today for approval is just a little over $10 million, at $10,274,216. These dollars specifically support efforts such as job search assistance for individuals who come into our career centers or have virtual appointments, career planning, occupational skills training, work-based learning, such as on-the-job training or apprenticeship, youth programming, and obviously the summer youth employment program that's offered from June to July while students are out. Also, finally, the budget also supports organizational management and governance. And that specifically cannot exceed 10% of our budget. We have an administrative cap through our Code of Federal Regulations. So, before you all today for consideration is approval of our final budget, which, as I shared, comes up a little over $10 million. Madam Chair, these are 100% federal funds and they're passed directly through Career Source Poll through Florida Commerce. It has no effect on the county budget. Thank you. So, Madam Chair, I can make this in the form of recommendation. I think based upon the board's continued commitments to countywide workforce development initiatives, I would request the board to approve the proposed Career Source Polk FY26-27 proposed budget totaling $10,274,216. Can I ask a second? Second. Okay. We'll have a first and a second. Questions or discussion? Yeah. So, this seems odd to me that we're in the process. It's federal money that comes through the state to you. We don't have anything to do with it. You have a board of directors that approves or disapproves your budget. You're a nonprofit. Why are we involved in your budget at all? That's the statute. So, it's just written that we have to. Yes, sir. So, that's the state and federal government. I don't know if it's the federal government that requires it, but I know the state statute requires it. Okay. That's part of the oversight, I guess, of this board. I guess that's where I was going. I mean, the oversight part is kind of what got us here in the first place. Yes, sir. Um, but why don't we have a member on your board as opposed to a voting member as opposed to a liaison? I don't believe votes, right? Right. That's my understanding. Yes, that's correct. Is that normal? I mean, I know you've got a lot of experience at this. Is that the normal process? It's actually set out in WIOA, the Workforce Innovation Opportunity Act, as it spells out the CLEO, which is the Chief Local Elected Officials and their responsibility. Through your responsibility, you appoint a board, which, who should be coming back to you and giving you updates and working with the liaison. And so, the board is appointed by the commissioners, and then, ultimately, accountability through that board comes back to this commission. And so, it's how it was created so that the local elected officials have an opportunity to make sure that, A, dollars were spent appropriately, that there was connection to industry, that we were addressing the workforce demands of a county identified through other bodies or other strategic planning efforts that that area would have. And so, through statute and also through federal law, it's just how it's been constructed. So, and as you know, I've expressed it. I know Becky's expressed it and some of the others. The relationship of career source to Polk State, who decides how closely you are to them or the school board, which is the next item on the agenda? Is that also written in the state statute or some other federal regulation that you will connect yourself here or you will not connect yourself there? Yes. So, through the Workforce Innovation Opportunity Act, I joke when I train staff about the law, is that we are married to other programs. So, we're required to work with other strategic partners that are in the employment and workforce space. And so, through Perkins programs, which we'll talk a little bit about in the agreement that's coming to you for consideration for approval, there are other programs that are different titles under the law. And through Polk State, there are a lot of different programs that we would want to connect through. So, students with disabilities, their TRIO program. Ultimately, your community colleges are responding to industry and creating industry-relevant programming, which also leads to credentialing, which is an important factor for all of us. Because as Commissioner Troutman had shared before when we talked about performance metrics, we are on the hook for making sure individuals are increasing their skills, gaining relevant credentials, and ultimately going to work. So, our outcomes are the same outcomes for whether it's Polk State College, the school board, whether it's through adult education. We're all tied together to work together to achieve the same outcomes. And so, like in the case of Mosaic, laying off 199 people, I mentioned this the other day, but I mentioned it in talking about electricians or whatever. Is that part of how you re-evaluated? Will somebody look at this and go, oh, they had layoffs down there in Polk County. What career sources do about it? Do you get evaluated that way? It doesn't necessarily come out directly through the report card or our federal indicators of performance. But we are evaluated whether or not we are being that strategic partner, that we're being that partner in a community that's addressing not only opportunities for folks to get engaged in new skills or new opportunities, but making sure that those individuals that are displaced get back into the market and are able to get a job. So, there is accountability, both from engagement and strategy, but also there is some connection to our federal indicators of performance when we're thinking about how we're working with dislocated workers and how well we're doing that. This process has too many moving parts and too many government agencies with a finger in it and not enough control. You know, it really is a mess, but you're doing a great job. So, congratulations on acquiring a mess. And Commissioner Braswell, and I think some of what you may refer to as a mess is reflective of our lack of engagement thus far in this process. I think, I know my vision and I believe NILDA's vision for going forward is that this is a happily married situation where there is communication, there are changes, there are fluctuations, everybody's scheduling their events together, per se, and that just hasn't happened in the past with Mosaic specifically. I mean, as soon as we received that notice, NILDA was put in touch with somebody from Mosaic. They already have a plan of when they're going to do a career fair there and look, and of course, that one has an extra step because there's organized labor out there as well. But the vision of CareerSource, Polk, and the other workforce boards are more than just the dislocated workers. It is truly that piece of how can we work on and improve our workforce in this county. And in order to do that, it takes all of the various partners from the K-12 system, Polk State, private colleges, because in order to have that robust workforce, we need a variety of providers because one will specialize maybe in, you know, technical stuff. One may specialize more in medical stuff. So we're going to see that. And I think as this continues to develop, it will be viewed as less messy because we will, in essence, be at the table and understand and part of the development and ongoing situation at CareerSource. And that makes sense. Yeah. Yeah. We've been outside observers watching this, so. That, and also I think one of the pieces that's been expressed to me by our community members is there has not been involvement from CareerSource, Polk, back to our industry leaders. I've had some people in economic development tell me that their phone call went unanswered for three years. And so, again, I think our disconnected self from the process as well as previous CEO just not connected as well with the community has led us to where we are. Anyone else? So, for my understanding, we approve the budget and then you will, you meaning you, Blanco, Ms. Blanco, we'll go ahead and work with your board in making sure that the budget is dispersed the way it's supposed to be. And the liaison from the county will give us report as far as how things are going on, right? Yeah. Yes. So, everybody understands that? Yeah. Okay. Good. So, we have. We do have a motion and a second. We have a motion and a second. That's fine. Any further question or discussion? Hearing none, all in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Final item, Madam Chair, members of the board, don't go away, Nelda. You're not. Item number G5 is to request the board to approve a proposed memorandum of understanding and infrastructure agreement between CareerSource Polk and the Polk County School Board. Again, Ms. Nelda Blanco will present to the board a general overview of the Federal Workforce Innovative and Opportunity Act, what specifically it requires, and the intended program outcomes. So, Nelda, please. Sure. Thank you so much for approving our budget. And next is really talking about our infrastructure agreement and memorandum of understanding with the Polk County School Board. Under the Workforce Innovation Opportunity Act, on also our Code of Federal Regulations, there should be or needs to be an agreement between the local workforce development board and the provider of adult education and literacy and the Perkins Career and Technical Education programs. And so, those programs here in Polk County are offered through the school board. The memorandum and the infrastructure agreement really talk about how we as entities are going to work together to make sure that we're leveraging existing resources and efforts, and we're thinking strategically of how to make sure that we are offering great services but ultimately creating outcomes where folks, again, are getting the skills they need to become more competitive in the workplace. The agreements really require us, again, to make sure that we are aligning existing resources. It is also required through the Florida Department of Education that the school board have an agreement with the local workforce board in order to access and draw down those funds. So, it is important for us to have these agreements so that we can bring those funds to Polk County, but I think it's even more important for those agreements to be in place to begin the conversation about how do we actually make these services align and we're actually able to leverage those resources. So, there is no financial impact to the county, but it provides us, one, the opportunity to work more closely and more strategically, but then, more importantly, it allows the school board to draw down those funds to serve the residents of this county. And so, with that, I ask for your support. Madam Chair, we have a recommendation. Again, I think this is indicative of now the county's initiatives to be much more engaged and be engaged in workforce development initiatives. So, I would request that the board approve the proposed MOU and infrastructure agreement specifically between CareerSource Polk and the Polk County School Board. Madam Chair, a motion for approval. Second. I have a motion and a second. Any questions or discussion on the hearing on all at home? Sorry, Becky. I'm sorry, Commissioner. Well, I do have a discussion, not particularly to this point. So, let's vote. Okay, so let's go ahead and go through this. All in favor? Opposed? Motion carries. Okay. Ms. Feldman? Chair, as we've heard a board mentioned many times during Ms. Blanco's presentations, we are at the stage where we are putting together a new board for CareerSource Polk. The plan is that I'm going to share with you kind of the individuals that I've had contact with and who have agreed to serve, working to fill some of the required components, whether it comes from state statute or from the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, known as WIOA. So, I just wanted to share those names, and if there's any concern or feedback, obviously that's part of the discussion, and then hopefully bring these names back officially to be on the agenda for our approval for the November 3rd. So, the individuals thus far, Amanda Walls, who is with Peterson Myers, Jenny Beakley, who is with Orlando Health, Travis Keys, which is with Polk County Public Schools, Dr. Kevin O'Farrell from Polk State College, Tim Phillips from the Citrus Connection, Jeff Kincart with ACT Environmental, Dr. Craig Collins, a small business owner with Sterling Consulting, Maggie McKeel with Florida Poly, Brian Dulem with Voke Rehab, and Lita McHugh, which is from the Clerk and Comptroller's Office. She serves as the Inspector General and is a CPA. There are a few other components that are required, such as a representative from organized labor, somebody who works with the veterans, but the hope is that we can move this slate of members forward, and then they would work together as a team and begin to perform their duties as a board. Well, I think Ms. Blanco needs her board immediately, right? So, Randy, what do we do? This will come up next time and in the next meeting? That's the plan is to bring these names back to the board on November 3rd under probably lay board appointments, and we'll have the resumes and stuff at that time. Commissioner Troutman, you think you could have names before then for the other positions that are missing? The reason why I'm not submitting those names and I think we need to send those final decisions back to this is in order to ensure, number one, that we are meeting all the requirements from the various acts and who has to be required, and then also just to let these individuals start to work together as a board and to say based upon their relationships and what they understand is the need for the remainder of the positions to fill that. We had a discussion with CareerSource Florida, Florida Commerce, and they were okay with us establishing a smaller board to start with and then knowing that it will be filled from that point forward. But, again, that was kind of strategic on my part. This does not need to be, quote, my board. It needs to be the board that these people are agreeing to represent and then bringing in the other components that will make this most meaningful for the community. Yes, Commissioner. So what you're saying is let this board, once we get them in place, be able to talk about and look at other people that they might would recommend to us to be on the board? Correct, because there are still some vacancies outside of the names that are required components based upon, again, the different laws and statute. So the intent is obviously to complete and to have a full board per the requirements, but those remaining pieces, as these leaders talk together, who do they envision would be best to fill those slots? Thank you. So how many is some? Is there just two or three or do you know? From my best ability to kind of understand the various people, because some people may own a small business. And be a veteran and qualify for both. Right. So depending upon how that is determined. But I definitely know we still need an organized labor representative, someone who works with veterans, and then private ed. I know those three seats. And then I think EDC. But the EDC is optional. No, that's required. Okay, I have a doubt that's required, but I know of four additional ones that need to be coming forward. And then as you... There's a slide there that will help you with what's in the law. And so I have the four, labor, veterans, private ed, and EDC. And then as you mentioned, as the board begins to talk about what are our needs, what are the industry alignments that we are seeing, they may choose to bring somebody in from the field of logistics. They may choose to bring somebody in from the field of, you know, advanced air mobility, you know, that kind of situation. So rounding out what does the community need to appropriately, in the best way possible, develop our workforce. And judging by that, you'll wind up with like 11 or 12 or 13 or something like that. Currently, we have 11. If we fill the four that I think we need to do still, that would be 15. And I do think most people understand that getting any larger, sometimes it makes it difficult to move forward because you're, you know, trying to move masses. So we want to meet the requirements, but we also want to have a board that is manageable and can be reactive, you know, to the needs of the community. And Commissioner Browser, one of the things that always throws it off is that second bullet point, more than 50% business representative. So anytime you appoint someone that's not a business representative, you have to match it with a business representative. So that kind of what throws the numbers off and stuff. So you try to capture two for one sometimes. So that's why you can't, we can't give you a definite number a lot of times because we're working with that. This career source thing is really an indefinite thing. Well, it is controlled by the federal government and their regulations. So that gives us some of the issues. Ms. Blanca wants her board so that she can go ahead and move forward with that. So hopefully that will be coming up soon. Good job with that. Any other questions? Yes, Commissioner. When will the resumes be available for review? They will be, I mean, they are being sent in now as we speak. I think as of this morning, out of these 11, we already had, I think, like seven back. So as soon as they are received, I will work with our assistants to get those out to the rest of the board here. And those are normally attached also to the agenda item. I know you want them quicker than that. But just we do attention to the agenda item, and I guess we'll send them out to the individual board too. Yeah, prior to that would be great. Thank you. Any other questions or discussion on this topic? I guess, Ms. Blanco, is there anything else you feel should be added? No, I think we have a lot of homework that we're working on. So I appreciate your support and your time and looking forward to moving the organization forward to what's next. Well, we appreciate what you're doing. Thank you so very much to helping us keep this together and moving forward. It's a great service for our community. We want to make sure that the services are there for them. So thank you for that. And hopefully we'll get through these difficult moments and come all to the other side much better than we were before. So thank you, Blanco. Absolutely. Thank you. Okay. So now we're at the expedited hearing. Am I correct? That's correct, Madam Chair. Yes, we did vote for it. Yes, we did vote on it. We voted on it. So now we'll go to the expedited hearing. Thank you, Madam Chair. Before we go into the expedited hearings, I will go over the public hearing general procedures. I'll remind everyone, if you wish to speak on any of the public hearing items, you need to fill out a speaker card in the back and give the card to a member of the communication staff. We ask that you please turn off your cell phones or other devices that may distract from the public hearings. Please adjust the microphone and state your full name and address for the record before you begin speaking on the topic. Individuals speaking during the public comment section of a matter will be strictly limited to three minutes. The board is experiencing these matters and is able to discern what is legally relevant to the issue and what is not. Information that is irrelevant or repetitive only serves to frustrate and necessarily prolong the day's business. The commission expects civility at all times during all public hearings, speaking out of turn, shouting out from the audience, that's disrespectful sounds or utterances while another is speaking are unacceptable and you will be asked to leave the chambers for the remainder of the day. If any person decides to appeal any decision made by the board with respect to any matter considered here today, you will need a record of the proceedings and that for such purposes you may need to ensure that verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony evidence upon which the appeal is to be based, which you must gather at your own expense. Anyone in the audience who wishes to speak or present testimony today must be sworn in. All testimony given during public hearings shall be deemed to be sworn. At this time, if you're going to address the commission or speak on any case today, please stand, raise your right hand, and answer out loud to the following questions. Do you swear or affirm the testimony or evidence you provide to the commission today is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank you. Madam Chair, at this time I'll go over the expedited hearing procedures. Expedited hearings are held pursuant to Resolution No. 2022-089. Expedited hearings are used when no opposition was present at the Planning Commission hearing. The applicant agrees to the expedited hearings, and the recommendation of the Development Review Committee is for approval. Expedited procedures are the following. After staff briefly introduces the case, the hearing will be open for public comment. If anyone speaks during public comment, the applicant will be given the opportunity to respond. After public comment, the board will consider the land use case. At any time, a full presentation from staff can be requested from a commissioner, the applicant, or a member of the public. All documents attached to the agenda item are deemed part of the record of the land use case. Unless removed from the list of experts by motion of the board, all individuals on the list of experts attached to the agenda item are deemed experts for the purpose of the land use case. And at this time, Madam Chair, I'll turn over to Mr. Ziscoll to present the expedited hearings. Thank you, Mr. Mink. Good morning, Madam Chair, Commissioners, members of the audience. My name is Ben Ziscoll, Land Development Director for Polk County. There are five items on the expedited public hearing portion of today's agenda. Item number I-1 is an expedited public hearing for case LDC-PAL-2026-6, Innovation Environmental Park Expansion, to consider a future land use map designation change on approximately 531 acres from phosphate mining to institutional. The subject site is located on the west side of Highway 37, south of the city of Mulberry. As you can see on the screen here, the subject site outlined in yellow has direct frontage on 37 and directly connects to an existing institutional land use designation. The 808-acre site that currently has the institutional designation has been previously approved for a solid waste management facility to include landfill operations and recycling operations. This request is an expansion of the institutional designation to house the recycling components of that operation. The intent is to provide greater access to Highway 37. This is in conjunction with a sub-district change, as well as a modification to that previously approved solid waste management facility's conditional use. This item appeared before your planning commission and received a unanimous recommendation of approval. As a large-scale comprehensive plan amendment, it is before you today for consideration to transmit to the Florida Department of Commerce, and staff is recommending approval of that transmittal. Any questions for staff? Yes. Ben, do we have a clearer image, that lower right one? I mean, for those that are looking now or later, just it seems really hard to read for people to understand kind of the different blocks that are on there, just graphic-wise, even on my screen it's the bottom, yeah, the lower right, I guess from a clarity perspective, just so they are able to actually read what's on there. It doesn't appear to be too clear. I can certainly take the time to pull that up again. I mean, the importance of today's change, really that small graphic will be part of the conditional use approval. The important thing today is that we're changing the land use from phosphate mining to institutional. I can certainly dive deeper into the conditional use if that's the board's desire, but that is another item that will be back before you in December. So the request today is the land use change. On December 15th, when the item comes back to you, I will actually have three items for you. I will have the land use change, adoption, the sub-district change, and the amendment to the conditional use. But if the board does want to see a better graphic today, I can take some time to pull that up. Yeah, I just think, again, for those that are viewing it, it's a disservice to have something they can't read. So I know it's not the main focus, but it is a condition of the approval. Well, I think that's what he's saying, and it's actually not a condition of the approval today. No, in the future, though, for those that are looking at this in the public, why should they wait until December? Just if we have it, I just want to make sure it's legible is my only point. We're providing something that's for informational purposes. Here we go. Perfect. So there it is. And you can see, again, in this image, now that we've zoomed in, the area with the blue dashing is what's already institutional and already has the approval for the solid waste management facility. And then the area in yellow is the subject of today's land use change. And you can see on this zoomed in conceptual plan, of course this is conceptual at this point, that this will house the recycling operations. There's several components of that. And the intent, as I mentioned previously, as you see on the graphic, is four access points to provide that recycling operation access directly to 37. And the question I got was specific to the buffer. So the reason I asked for you to bring that up is just so it's clear to now versus having some objections come December because of a buffer question. So thank you. Yes, sir. Any other questions for staff? Okay. Hearing none, we have a public, open it for public comments. Yes, ma'am. We have several. Okay. The first one is Whitney Ritchie. Hi. Good morning. My name is Whitney Ritchie. I am at 6890 State Road 37 South in Bradley Junction. Timer. I'm not sure how this goes my first time. Okay, let's go. I need, I read the development review committee staff report and it mentions Bradley Junction approximately 30 times and mentions the population of a Bradley Junction of 792 just once. There have been over 100 people increase in 2026 and there will keep coming due to overpopulation in Lakeland and Mulberry very soon. I understand there are 10 acre lots further down south to accommodate those future taxpayers. Bradley Junction was referred to in this report multiple times and having an existing fire station access and being the central water runoff location for this project, but also referred to as incompatible land use. These homes and agricultural rural areas and lifestyles have been maintained for decades. If not longer, not much, excuse me, not much in the report about Bradley Junction housing 792 Polk County taxpaying residents or being a Florida aquifer charging area and home to several Florida threatened and endangered wildlife. The report kept repeating more than 3,000, it kept repeating 2,000 feet from the closest resident from the site, but Bradley Junction Polk County taxpaying residents live within 500 feet from this proposed site. That's how some of us taxpayers got the notice because our property and homes are within 500 feet of this boundary. Bradley Junction Polk County taxpaying residents also will be very close to these landfills with odors, dust, noise, biomaterials, and chemicals used for cleaning and recycling processes. For the residents of Bradley Junction, the plan will have one side, ammonia, sulfuric acid, phosphoric acid, and gypsum from the chemical plant, and on the other side, a biohazard recycling landfill on mined land. What could possibly go wrong? The plan has a very extensive infrastructure undertaking and will decimate anything that looks like Florida landscape and wildlife along State Road 37, and any future plans will decimate, encroach, and extend into its surrounding areas. The main intersection of Mulberry is specifically mentioned in these plans. Excuse me. Does Polk County want to expand to taxpaying revenue, or does Polk County want Bradley Junction to be the next case study about environmental justice and racism as industrial zoning historically targets rural lower-income and minority communities that lack municipal zoning protections? Polk County, you can avoid that right now. Protect your citizens. There are some other unincorporated areas that also deserve mentioning on this exact topic. Washington, West Virginia, Wood County. Wayne Township, Illinois, DuPage County. Valverde, Castilla, California, Los Angeles County. These are all locations of industrial catastrophes that costed the counties and states billions of dollars and lives. They are also written from the same playbook for today's proposal that could have been avoided had counties had their residents' best interest in mind. Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, ma'am. Next would be Henrietta, I believe it's Pettis. Good morning. I'm Henrietta Pettis. I live at 6905 Eleanor Avenue in Bradley Junction. This is my first time here. I didn't have anything written down. Just some of my thoughts about the, it's not the first time that this came up. My husband bought his house in Bradley Junction right after the railroad tracks in 1998. We love being out there. We see a lot of wildlife, which is just wonderful to see out there because a lot of it has been taken away. Anyway, going to Bradley Junction, it is a crossroad going to Waimama, going to Sun City. The traffic has gotten really bad going down there. Besides, we have all the rock trucks. We have Tico. We have Mosaic. We have Stream Song. And yet my husband worked for Mosaic for 34 years. We've never been to Stream Song. And there seems to be a lot of traffic going down there. The last week, my daughter and I went to fill the truck up, and we went to Albendale. And it wasn't a problem going down there to take our trash to the transfer center. And now living within a minute of where they want to do this waste management, we're downwind. We're going to get all the smell. We're going to get everything that comes from building this thing. Sorry, a little nervous here. I'm just – we enjoy living out there and just having our peaceful – traffic is getting bad, like I said. But we still take the time out to go to Mulberry to do our shopping. And we just – it's just my point of view of just living out there and just like it peaceful as it is. Thank you. Thank you. Amber? Next is Brian Lynch. Good morning. My name is Brian Lynch. I live at 150 McCall Avenue in – technically in Mulberry, but much closer to Bradley Junction. Obviously, I'm here because I don't want a landfill in my community. The obvious question is, would you want a landfill in your community? If you wouldn't want one in yours, why would you put one in mine when, you know, I'm a person just like you guys are? Also, this is – I don't mean this to sound rhetorical, and I'm not actually looking for an answer right now. But I'm curious to know if any of you know why I can't drink my well water safely. It's not safe to drink my well water. I would love to get my well up and running. There's no use. I don't want to contaminate myself. So, if the groundwater is historically contaminated in the region historically known as Bone Valley, is that a reason to contaminate it further? I believe common sense says that's the wrong thing to do, and the right thing to do would be not only to not put a landfill in this region of Bone Valley, which is a delicate aquifer, and to move in the opposite direction and start cleaning up our nation. This is our land. This is our usable land. And you want to put waste in it. This is opposite thinking to the security and safety of our land. Your land. Your land. My land. Your land. Everybody's land. What are we dumping on it for? Let's go opposite from this direction. Clean up our nation. Take pride in our nation. Other nations do it. Why can't we? Other nations aren't as rich as we are, and they're doing a better job at it. Why can't we? This is our land. Let's not dump on it. Let's restore it. Let's rejuvenate it. Let's value the land of the United States of America. Thank you. Thank you. And the last one for this topic is Sharon Ford. My name is Sharon Ford. I live at 6618 East Street in Bradley. I've never done this before. I didn't come prepared. But basically, I think this is unfair. We moved in Bradley back in 1971, and I moved away in 79, came back in 2018, and things are just, I mean, we're not moving up. Everything is just going down. We have no streetlights. You know, and to put this landfill, it's just going to make things worse. Our property value is going to go down. It's just unfair. I don't think that, you know, it's just not healthy for us. I'm thinking about the wild animals, thinking about, you know, us, period. I oppose to this, basically. I don't think that's fair to us. Thank you. Thank you. No, ma'am. I have no more for this topic. Madam Chair, since we did have individuals speak, the rules allow the applicant to provide a response to the speaker. Thank you, Commissioner. I'm Tom Mims. I'm the applicant. I think there may be a little bit of misunderstanding here. They're referring to a landfill. The landfill on this project is already permitted and approved by the county. So this has nothing to do with the landfill. The landfill is already there, and that is on the green area that you see on the screen, labeled Institutional 2. The area we're talking about is addressing exactly what some of the concerns are, and that is not landfilling, but this is a recycling area. So the area that you see here is not landfill. This is strictly recycling operations. So you may say, well, why are you looking at doing recycling operations? Well, one, it's part of the landfill operation, but more importantly, if you see all the industrial uses in the area, the county, I believe it was around 2010, imposed strict restrictions on having recycling operations located within heavy industrial land uses, and it's only allowed in Institutional 2. So, for example, if you want any kind of recycling operation in the county, it's limited to Institutional 2 land uses only, not industrial, which can have more intensive land uses than actually some of the recycling operations. So that's the whole purpose behind this, is to establish more recycling operations, not the expansion of landfill like some people have thought that that's what we were doing. The landfill has already been approved by the county, and it's already in existence with regards to the approval process. And I stand for any questions. Any questions? Thank you. Thank you. And I close the public hearing, and I'll bring it back to the board. Question for staff? Madam Chair. Then just to confirm as far as... Well, let's go ahead and get in a motion and approval, and then we can go to the questions. Move for approval. Okay. Second. Okay, I have a motion and a second now, Commissioner. Specific to some of the comments that we're talking about on the landfill side, if this is approved today, would there be anything that would prohibit a landfill from... I know that the applicant said that's not the intent, but from a land use perspective, is there anything that would prohibit the landfill from expanding into this particular parcel? Yes. So as I mentioned, when this comes back, today's item is to transmit this land use amendment to Florida Commerce for their review. Once the state has done their review, the item will come back to this board on December 15th for adoption of this land use change, as well as a change from Institutional 1 to Institutional 2, which allows the solid waste management facilities items, whether it's recycling or landfill. But then the important part is a modification to the existing conditional use. That conditional use specifically provides the parameters on which this site can operate. So the item that will come back to you in December will clearly provide the recycling operations and not the landfill operations. That item is where really the rubber meets the road as far as what's allowed on the site, what buffers, what type of intensities and type of uses. So it's a three-part item that will come back to you on December 15th, and that's where those details are worked out. This big, broad industrial land use category allows a plethora of uses, but when we zero in on the conditional use for the operations, that's where those details are worked out. And, Ben, just to clarify, when we say allowed, those require a CU, so it's not automatic. Correct. I think that's maybe where Commissioner Scott may be going is there is another step to be done before such a use would be allowed. And one other question, just again, when you talk about recycling operations, obviously the county and the constituents in the county remember the B.S. Ranch debacle from decades of that. So I think when we talk about recycling, you know, there is a stigma to that topic specific to organic matters. And I know I don't know the details of this project yet. And, again, it's not part of this hearing. But, again, understanding what the concerns are that were expressed today, I think, from odors and other, you know, mismanagement practices, that's not necessarily going to address it. But I guess that's where to give some assurance, I think, to those that are looking at this that live around it, they don't want a B.S. ranch in their backyard. Certainly. Exactly. And that conditional use process provides all the controls for odor control, for enclosing certain portions of the operation, and all of those buffering and noise mitigation, odor mitigation, all of those particular items. And you're 100% right. Any other questions? Okay. So we have a motion and a second for the change of the future land use designation. Yes, ma'am. For the approval. Okay. No further questions or discussion. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? No. Motion carries. The presentation. Madam Chair, item number I-2 is an expedited public hearing for case LDC-PAS-2026-14, Knight Station CPA, to consider a future land use designation change from residential low to commercial enclave on approximately a half an acre. The subject site has been a retail operation since 1974. It's approximately a 2,400-square-foot retail building. To remind you of the process that was undertaken during the adoption of our original comp plan in 1991, at the time the comprehensive plan was adopted, there were isolated commercial facilities that existed prior to that requirement and state statute. This is one of them. As I mentioned, it existed in 1974. When the comp plan was adopted, the commercial enclave designation was created to map those isolated commercial properties. This particular property received a residential designation. It really amounts to an oversight or a mapping error in 1991, and the request today is to recognize that existing retail facility to give it the commercial enclave designation, which will allow the property owner to expand or change uses over time to keep the commercial operation viable on site. Again, it is a half an acre. It does contain an existing retail building. The Planning Commission reviewed this item and unanimously recommended approval. And following any questions or comments from the board or the public, staff recommends approval. Any questions for staff? Madam Chair? Yes. Just confirming, is this one of those cases where we'll end up either waiving or reimbursing the fees, whether it being a mapping error from our past, or how do we handle that? We have not done that at this time. This was an applicant-initiated. We did collect the fee. We staff cannot waive those fees. That would be a board decision. So if the board wishes to waive the fee due to the error made in 1991, we will handle accordingly. But as it stands today, they have applied. We have collected the fee and are moving it forward as an applicant-initiated item. Thank you. Any other questions for staff? Okay, hearing none. Do we have a speaker? Open for public comments. Do we have one? No, ma'am. I have not received any for this topic. Okay, then I close the public comments and bring it back to the board. Move for approval. Second. I have a motion and a second. Any questions or discussion? Madam Chair, just a question I had more so for Mr. Mink. Yes. On the fee side, we would vote on this, and then the fee would be a separate conversation, or do we have to put that? I think you can make that one motion just to make it clear that you approve it and also that your motion includes waiving the fees or, I guess, refunding the fees. But I would go ahead and just make one motion. And just to be consistent with what we've done in the past, and we've had mapping errors in the past, we have had the fee waiver or a fee reimbursement for applicants. So, again, it's an error on our part. Mr. Ziskel, can you speak to that as far as in the past what we've done or how that has been handled? We have collected the fee. I think what Commissioner Scott might be referring to is not too long ago we started bringing some items before you specifically with the phosphate mining land use designation changing to ARR, and really at the time the comp plan was adopted, the phosphate mining land use category was painted a broad brush across an entire swath of land. A lot of properties that were given the phosphate mining designation were never owned by a phosphate company. They never had mining operations. They had existing residential properties or existing residential features for decades, and the board did recognize that that was a financial burden or financial setback for those property owners to come before the board and get a land use that they probably should have had since 1991. Following that, the direction was to reimburse that individual and for staff to then bring items proactively as county-initiated amendments rather than requiring private property owners to pay the fee to go through those amendment processes. So there has been a precedent in recent times of these mapping errors being treated as a county-initiated amendment rather than an applicant-initiated amendment. So if I could... And this one is applicant-initiated? No. Is it? I thought it was the... So this is an applicant-initiated amendment. What Ms. Bennett has just informed me is one caveat, whether that is imperative or not, is that the owner of the property today is a different owner than was in 1991. So this current property owner did buy a piece of land knowing it had a commercial facility. They also did presumably know that it was residential and land use, whether that has bearing on your decision or not. That is a slight different caveat than the phosphate mining operations. But as it is today, it is being presented to you as an applicant-initiated amendment, not a county-initiated amendment. Has the applicant asked for the fees to be waived? Not to my knowledge. And what kind of fee are we talking about? It looks like maybe we have the applicant. These type of land use amendments are about $4,000. Okay. Well, let's have the applicant come. Yes. And Madam Chair, if I may clarify, I was assuming that the property owner was the same historical property owner. So if this has been a new purchase, then I would keep my motion as stated. I wouldn't ask for a reimbursement unless there's a plea by the applicant. Good morning, members of the commission. Thank you for this opportunity to speak to you. Tom Woodridge with TDW Land Planning along with the property owner, my client, David Wilcox. I think he has a point, and to this point, thank you for bringing this up, Commissioner Scott. He was under the perception that this was commercial because it's a long-term store, unaware of the exact zoning. But there's a lot of mis-notification of zoning when you purchase a property in real estate. They'll put C2 zoning on there. The person buys it, sees that in the listing, or the listing person communicates that to them. There's a store on the ground with a business in it. They just go with that information. And that was the understanding of my client. I'll let him speak just a moment just on that to clarify anything else. He pretty much said everything. Whenever I bought the property, it was an empty building and a convenience store. And so I just opened it back up as a coffee shop, and that's how it's been running for about three years now. Now I wanted to change the zoning on it, or didn't realize that I needed to, to bring it back to commercial. So the assumption always was, in his mind, that it was commercial to the point of kind of what we're discussing here. I understand the terms are a little bit different, but it was assumed that it was commercial. It did function as commercial, was operating as commercial when he purchased it. And it was mapped and communicated it was commercial. Not the same circumstances as the phosphate mining, but very similar in that it was communicated that it was, in that case, residential, in this case, commercial. So it's up to the board's decision. We appreciate the consideration of that fee, considering it's a substantial amount. So it was sold as commercial. When you purchased the property, it was being sold as a commercial piece? Yeah. Okay. Well then. Okay. But we're confusing the fact of, we're taking the responsibility of a broker who did not do their job. And now you're trying to say the broker did their job wrong, but we at the county are going to be responsible in essence for it. Well, I think the county made the mapping error in 1991. And if we don't make the error, then the broker never makes the error. So, Madam Chair, just to keep everything clean, we'd probably go ahead and do two motions. Sure. And then we can have, let's at least get the actual approval out and then go back and get the, whether or not the board agrees to the reimbursement. Well, I think you rescinded your, not. I said, I said, I said, yeah, I did not rescind it. Okay. I kept it the same. Well, again, having sat with six years on the planning commission and almost two years here, I think we have to be careful on precedents like this. Because one of the things that I've really worked with residents about is understanding what land use is. I feel very confident that, how long ago did he buy this piece of property? About three and a half years. So, three and a half years ago, when I pull up this map, it did not say commercial. It's public information. And I just, I get weary of saying, because a real estate broker advertised and sold a property a certain way, that we take on the responsibility of that. It's kind of like, Madam Chair, it's kind of like on some of this land uses went like five acres and somebody buys in this 4.9 acres. And because they didn't do their research. Right. And the broker told them it was five acres they could build a house on. And then they come to us. Yeah, and they come to us and want us to change, you know, grandfather or man or whatever. If you do one, you've got to do them all. The rules are the rules. And if I may, as the applicant, I mean, we're here for this discussion. We're not advocating for the other. We're just giving you this story and history. Actually, we're in agreement. We're well aware that, you know, there's miscommunication a lot in the land use world and zone and real estate world. And just to bring full conversation forward, you know, we don't expect anyone else to shoulder this for us. I appreciate the opportunity to have that consideration because this has been a discussion for other types. But I agree with you that, you know. You want your approval and move on. Yes, sir. Thank you. Again, I'm just, I'm concerned because, again, whether it's I bought 4.9 acres. I think we've all gotten emails about somebody bought a piece of land that's landlocked and now they want us to build a road. Well, why aren't we building that person a road if we're going to do this? That's where I fear. And, again, this isn't against residents, but there has to be some personal responsibility that we have of ourselves. And, again, the initial thought comes from if this is the original landowner from pre-1991, that's a valid point for me to raise. So that's why it was raised, but, yeah, my motion stands as previously stated, and I know we had a second on that. Second. Thank you. Well, let's open it up for public comments because we haven't done that yet. Yeah, there was no comment. No, we did the applicant, but not public comment. We do not have anybody signed up to speak, ma'am. All right. So let's have a motion. Randy, you're saying have a motion for the first one, which is the future land use designation. Am I correct? Yes, ma'am. And as I understand, we currently do have a motion and a second on the floor without the refund for approval. Correct. Okay. So we have a motion and a second. Any further question, discussion? Hearing none, all in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Now we go to your motion. No, Madam Chair. No? No, we're good. There's not going to be a motion. No, we're good. He's not making a motion. Yes. Okay. No further motions. We're good. All right. Let's move on. Madam Chair, item number I-3 is an expedited public hearing for case LDC-PAS-2026-9, Point Sienna APV-LR-CPA to consider a future land use map designation change on approximately 45.23 acres from development of regional impact to leisure recreation. The subject site is located in the Point Sienna area on the shores of Lake Marion, and it is owned by the Association of Point Sienna Villages. The site is approximately 45 acres, slightly larger than 45 acres, of which about 33 acres is in a conservation easement. This is a portion of the Lake Marion Shore that the county's Parks and Natural Resources Division has been working on securing conservation easements. As I mentioned, this particular piece is owned by the Association of Point Sienna Villages, and the intent is to construct a community center on this particular piece of land, approximately 6,500 square feet, in order to be used by the residents of the Point Sienna community. This item is a companion item to item I-4. The request is to change the land use designation to leisure recreation, which will allow community centers and some other recreation uses, including a community center. But the applicant in item I-4 is voluntarily restricting the list of uses that is to be allowed. So this item is the small-scale comprehensive plan amendment to change the land use designation The item did appear before your Planning Commission and received a unanimous recommendation of approval. And following any questions or comments, staff recommends approval. Questions for staff? Hearing none, I'll open it up for open comments. Do we have anyone? No, ma'am. We have not received any. Okay. So I close the open comments and bring it back to the board. Move for approval. Second. I have a motion and a second. Any questions or discussion? Hearing none. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Item number I-4 is an expedited public hearing for case LDCT 2026-6, Point Siena APV LDC text amendment to amend the land development code to provide the specific permitted, conditional, and prohibited uses on the subject property. As I mentioned, the Leisure, Recreation, Land Use Designation provides a list of different types of uses. The applicant is voluntarily restricting that list of uses. In particular, they are voluntarily prohibiting package sales, any retail stores larger than 10,000 square feet, convenience stores, drive-through restaurants, RV parks, medical marijuana facilities, veterinarians, and clinics. The result of that is truly a recreation and amusement uses, community centers, small sit-down restaurants, small retail stores. One item that I need to point out to you is that during the Planning Commission review, the Planning Commission specifically recommended striking through or prohibiting bars, lounges, and taverns. Now, the important part to understand here is bars, lounges, and taverns, by definition within the Land Development Code, means that they primarily serve alcohol and they can offer food as an accessory, but the primary revenue source is alcohol sales. If the bars, lounges, and taverns use is prohibited, that does not mean the facility cannot serve alcohol. They can serve alcohol at a restaurant use. They can serve alcohol at a community facility, a community center, a general recreation facility. So understand that bars, taverns, and lounges is a use. It does not mean we are specifically prohibiting alcohol. So that's before you, under your consideration, the applicant did request bars, lounges, and taverns as an allowable use. Staff's initial recommendation supported that, but the Planning Commission has asked that you strike through that as a primary use. So with that, we present this as a second reading to you for adoption and request your approval. Any questions for staff? Okay, hearing none, we'll open it up for a public hearing. I have not received any, ma'am. Okay, then we close it and bring it back to the board. Move for approval. Second. I have a motion and a second. Any questions, discussion? Hearing none. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. And item number I-5 is an expedited public hearing for case LDC-T-2026-17, Land Development Code Chapter 9 changes. This is an amendment to the Land Development Code to provide clarity for our development review committee process, as well as our pre-application and pre-design meetings that we hold with applicants. This item also provides specific guidance or specific code regulations regarding code violations that clarifies that a code violation is not cured until an improvement that is necessary is constructed. The code language currently provides some ambiguity, whereas if someone is required to make improvements to their property, that submitting a plan to do so could be construed as curing the violation, even though the improvement has not been made. So this clarifies that regulation. It also provides clarification regarding de novo applications or de novo hearing applications that allows an applicant to withdraw at any time prior to public hearing, and that notification to staff of the withdrawal automatically deems the withdrawal. The code currently requires the withdrawal to be within a certain time period before your hearing, or they have to come before the board to request the withdrawal. So streamlining that process, this is a cleanup item and a necessary change that staff has been working on for quite some time. It did appear before the Planning Commission and received unanimous recommendation of approval. It is before you today on second reading, which is the adoption hearing, and we recommend approval. Any questions for staff? Madam Chair, does one? Yes. Specific to the de novo hearing withdrawal, from a communications standpoint, how would that work on if there's an applicant that has a de novo and I decide to withdraw it the night of or the night before, from communicating that to the public so those that we're going to attend the meeting don't? I guess what would be our purview on how we disseminate that information? Yeah, I think we certainly wouldn't have time to send another letter at that point. But certainly we can work with the communications office to do a press release or some other notification on whatever digital items we have. We often also have a contact if there's opposition. Normally we have e-mails and stuff. So we've done that in the past where we will at least send out the e-mail out to the contact people we have. So we do make an attempt to reach out to the individual so they don't show up as long as we have their contact information. Yeah, so make sure I guess the timeliness of that, that we would do that the same day that we have that notice. That's normally our process is to try to get that information out to the individuals as soon as we receive it. And I think also we've allowed people to, we've opened it up for public hearings so people can make comments if we have not had enough time to send out information. So people still get to share their reviews about whatever comes up. So we've done that before. Oh, sure. More so just so people don't take a day off from work if they don't have to come in, if it gets withdrawn. We do our, like I said, there's normally a contact person for the opposition and stuff. So we do do that. We do our best to get the word out in any case when there's a modification, delay, a continuance. We'll do our best to reach as many people as we can. And for clarity right now, the way it sits, it's a 20-day notice. Otherwise, they have to come before the board just to say they're withdrawing the application. Correct. Very good. Thank you. Any other questions for staff? Hearing none, we'll open it up for public hearing. Do we have anyone, Amber? No, ma'am, we do not. Okay. So I close the public hearing and bring it back to the board. Move for approval. Second. I have a motion and a second. Any additional question or discussion? Hearing none, all in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Madam Chair, that concludes the expedited portion of the public hearings. Madam Chair, we have non-expedited public hearings. I believe the first three are all common devices, traffic common devices. Ms. Amy Gregory will be presenting those. The first is a public hearing to consider adoption of a resolution to allow the placement of four traffic calming devices on Johnson Road and Willow Oak. Johnson Road is classified as a local residential road, 18 feet wide, 1,960 feet long, with a posted speed limit of 20 miles an hour. Upon receiving a request for traffic calming, staff collected speed and volume data and reviewed the crash history. And with an 85th percentile speed of 40 miles an hour and an average daily traffic of 392 vehicles, Johnson Road met the board's traffic calming policy criteria for speed and volume. Staff subsequently distributed ballots to the homeowners with property fronting Johnson Road, and we received the required 80% favorable response from yes votes and from non-votes per the board's policy. On September 15th, a hearing date of October 20th, 2026, was set by consent agenda, and staff posted on-site notices as well. Inasmuch as the board's criteria for the installation of traffic calming devices have been met, staff recommends adoption of a resolution to install four speed humps along Johnson Road. Any questions for staff? What is the speed limit on that road? You said the average speed is 40. The posted speed limit is 20. 20. Okay. When our data came back at 40. Wow. Any other questions for staff? Okay. Hearing none, we'll open it up for public hearing. Amber, do we have anyone? No, ma'am. We do not. Okay. Then I close the public hearing and bring it back to the board. Move or rule? Second. I have a motion and a second. Any question or discussion? Hearing none, all in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. The next item before you is a public hearing to consider adoption of a resolution to allow the placement of one traffic calming device on Llewell Street in Willow Oak. Llewell is actually a continuation of Johnson. So this is Johnson. This is the piece that connects it. They're separate roads, so we evaluated them separately for accounting purposes. Llewell Street is classified as a local residential road, 18 feet wide, 1,110 feet long, with a posted speed limit of 20 miles an hour. Upon receiving a request for traffic calming, staff collected speed and volume data and reviewed the crash history. And with an 85th percentile of 28 miles an hour and an average daily traffic of 253 vehicles, Llewell Street met the board's traffic calming policy criteria for speed and volume. Staff subsequently distributed ballots to the homeowners with property fronting Johnson Road. We received the required 80 percent favorable responses from yes votes and from no votes for the board's policy. And on September 15th, a hearing date of October 20th was set by consent agenda and staff posted on-site notices as well. And as much as the board's criteria for the installation of traffic calming devices have been met, staff recommends adoption of a resolution to install one speed hump along Llewell Street. And I'll stand for any questions. Any questions for staff? Hearing none. I'll open it up for public hearing. Amber? No, ma'am. We do not. Okay. Thank you. I close the public hearing and bring it back to the board. Move or roll. Second. I have a motion and a second. Any questions, discussion? Hearing none. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. And the last item I have for you this morning is a public hearing to consider adoption of a resolution to allow the placement of six traffic calming devices on Plymouth Road and Auburndale. Plymouth Road is classified as a local residential road, 20 feet wide, 2,800 feet long, with a posted speed limit of 30 miles an hour. Upon receiving a request for traffic calming, staff collected speed and volume data and reviewed the crash history. With an 85th percentile speed of 40 miles an hour and an average daily traffic of 302 vehicles, Plymouth Road met the board's traffic calming policy criteria for speed and volume. Staff subsequently distributed ballots to the homeowners with property fronting Plymouth Road, and we received the required 80 percent favorable response from yes votes and from non-votes per the board's policy. On September 15th, the hearing date of October 20th was set by consent agenda, and staff posted on-site notices as well. Inasmuch as the board's criteria for the installation of traffic calming devices have been met, staff recommends adoption of a resolution to install six speed humps along Plymouth Road. And I'll stand for any questions. Any questions for staff? Hearing none, I'll open it up for public hearing. Do we have anyone, Amber? Yes, ma'am. We have one, Audra Atkinson. But she also had checked that a Sheila Berry will be a representative speaking for her. Okay. Good morning. I'm Sheila Berry. I grew up on Plymouth Road. My daughter still lives there with her family. Plymouth Road and Moss Road are the only two roads that help commuters avoid a major red light intersection on Berkeley and Old Dixie Highway. So when Plymouth Moss Road, which used to be dead end, they opened up warehouses like Saddle Creek and Margaritaville, and it became very busy. They opened that dead end up, so it opens up onto Old Dixie Highway so people can avoid the red light now, this big intersection, by cutting through Plymouth or going up Denton and coming down Moss. And so they like that. They put the calming bumps on Moss, and so to avoid those bumps, they now use Plymouth. So we have a lot more traffic, speeding. Also, I wanted to mention that Plymouth Road does not have sidewalks, so the children ride their bikes and scooters on the side of the road. So as a grandmother, I'm very concerned about that. So thank you for your attention. Thank you. Anyone else, Amber? No, ma'am. That is the only one. Okay, then we close the public hearing and bring it back to the board. Move for approval. Motion for approval. Second. I have a motion and a second. Any questions, discussion? Hearing none. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Madam Chair, the last item, J-4, is a public hearing that's in accordance with your charter to consider the adoption of an ordinance set in the yearly salary of commissioners in accordance with section 2.5 of the Polk County Charter. The proposed ordinance will adjust the salary with a 2.7% increase, which is the lesser of the average percentage increase in the salaries of the county employees for fiscal year 2025-2026, which was 4%, and the percentage change of the U.S. consumer price index for 2025, which was 2.7%, and it's recommended for approval. Okay, do I have a motion? Are we in the open public hearing? Public hearing. Oh, public hearing, yes. No, ma'am. We have not received any. Then we close public hearing and bring it back to the board. Move for approval. I have a motion and a second. Any questions or discussion? Hearing none. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. And that's all we have for public hearings, Madam Chair. Thank you. We'll go now to Kay, where we'll have the opportunity for the general public to be heard. Do we have any signed up? Yes, ma'am. Debbie Hicks. Okay. Ms. Hicks. Good morning. Debbie Hicks, 236 Alderman Road, Lakeland, Florida. My topic today is growth. Well, hey, we talk about that all the time with animal control and the dogs and cats. But I actually want to look at the wildlife, and we've had some of that mentioned today with the phosphate mining and all the different stuff. I happen to live on Alderman Road and developments all around us. You know, it's I-4 and County Line Road. I mean, give me a break. The realtor told me when we bought it 30 years ago there was going to be growth, so I'm not complaining about the growth. But I do want to mention what I've seen with the wildlife. Wildlife, the wildlife, we had wildlife. And then when the eight acres next to us, and most of this is all annexed into Lakeland, so you guys really haven't had anything to do with it. It's all annexed. But anyway, when it came, it has just run all the indigos, all the king snakes, all the good snakes. Well, snakes can be good. And then we got the black racers. Oh, my goodness. They chased everything out, including me. So, I mean, you know, we just had a difference. Right now, I used to buy a lot of bird seed. I don't even have birds anymore. I don't have to feed them much anymore. We've got a few doves left, maybe one cardinal here and there. So, because the development that backs up to my property is in full force. And since then, we have not seen the large gopher tortoise. I'm assuming he was moved, but the neighbor that's right next to there has not seen him anymore. But we have a young gopher tortoise that has moved in right next to me. So, he's there, which he can have it. I don't have a problem. But we also have the homes that are going across the street, eventually, the 151 homes that's been approved over there. So, we have fox squirrels. We now have a young gopher. We have different things in the area. And when these developers come in, I guess what I'm asking is that when these developers come in, they seem like they just take out everything. So, because they want a clean slate. Now, of course, some of them have to stop at certain areas because of swift mud, you know, the low property, the property next to us, the very back, they can't touch it. So, there is some regulation to them. But I guess my thing is, is there some way to get the developers to have to leave in a few mature trees, try to work within the ground that's there? Across the street, we've got the fox squirrels. I've got a gopher here. I don't know whether or not they're over there. But I just would like to see the county remember the wildlife. I just recently got back from northern Wisconsin. And the reason I went there was so I could see the trees and the stars at night. Light pollution is terrible. Thank you very much. Next is James Abercrombie. More pictures for you. Good morning. James Abercrombie for the record. 2737 Gibson, Galloway Road. The pictures you're about to see, the first four or five of them are from Walker Park, Walker Road Park, out northeast, northwest. I told you about this two weeks ago when I was here. The same pictures, the same first two pictures should be the same two pictures you saw. That panel is still laying there. The light is still not working. We're talking about, I'm estimating about a $20,000 installation on that, just the one light. The rest of the pictures, the next set of pictures, about 20 of them are so. It's all Duff Park, every bit of it. And that's not the whole park yet. That's still a lot of stuff that I just could see, obviously. It's just so devastating to me that we paid $500,000 to have all that fence replaced, every bit of it. Less than a year ago, folks, or right at a year ago. Now, I haven't been to the other nine parks, but I will be going to them, or the other eight parks that was in that bundle. It was an agreement, not a contract, but an agreement. The last part of those pictures are the rest of the maintenance that has not been taken care of for well over 40 years. That park has been there 40 years, and it's gotten into this kind of shape. And once again, you feel like you need to build a new park now. Why can't we just fix this one up and forget the other one, or put it out in Kathleen area where it really needs to be, because it has no parks, period. This is getting outrageous, folks. You people are not watching anything, these contracts, these nothing. You're not reading them. You're not understanding them. You're not listening to these folks right here. I keep telling you, a county manager and a county attorney is running this county. They gave you three names last session, too, for a new manager. Did you look into, did you do any investigations on any one of the three guys to see who was more appropriate, or you just take his word at one of the three? You just pick the worst out of the three? That's the way I do it when I vote. I need some answers. I need to know what we're going to be doing about this, because once again, that's not your money. It's our money, and you just wasted it. By the first pictures of Walker Park, that was five years ago. That's been there for five years, so you should know the management, the management for the parks, the management for the county, the county attorney. All these folks are responsible for all this stuff not being taken care of, just like the career stuff last week, too, or last session. It was all her fault. I don't believe that. I believe it was management coming down line, starting at the top, coming down, not doing what they're supposed to do, take care of we, the people, and our services. Thank you. You keep the pictures. Tabitha, would you look into this Walker Park and let us know what needs to be done? Thank you. The manager, if I may, that's specific on that, too. As far as the warranty goes on the fence or on the fence at Duff, if we need to install tension wire at the bottom, because there are several spots that are getting blown out. It's being used athletically. I get it. We may just need to have additional infrastructure installed to provide better service long term. Thank you. Thank you. Next. We have no more, ma'am. Okay. Thank you. So we close the public hearing, and now we go into the commissioner's report. We'll start with Commissioner Troutman. Thank you. Commissioner Wilson. Yeah, just quick. Everybody should know, early voting started yesterday. So I would suggest that you go out and get your early voting in or make sure that you do vote. As they always say, this is the most important election there is and the one we're up against right now. So go out and vote for the people that you think that you want to be in because the people elect us, and that's why we're here, and if they don't like us, they can vote somebody else in. So thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Braswell. I don't have anything. Commissioner Scott. Just two things, Madam Chair. One, on the communications side of Facebook, I know we turned the comments off, but, Amber, if we can just make sure and look at the analytics as far as our reach goes. I know it's not only Facebook. We have other platforms. I just want to make sure that we're still getting the reach out there with it not having the engagement. I know sometimes Facebook and other platforms will throttle how successful that can be deployed. So if we can monitor that. And then secondly, just on the ease of access for the meetings, I had mentioned that before, but I think if we can communicate other ways in directing people of how to watch these meetings live or the recorded portions would be a benefit to those constituents. And that's all. Thank you. Thank you. And I have nothing to report, so we're adjourned.