Board of County Commissioners - Special Meeting

Thank you.

Good morning, Commissioner Scheer. Can you hear us in the palm room okay?

I can. Yes. Can you hear me?

Good morning, Commissioner Scheer. This is Pete in the palm room. Can you hear us okay? Okay. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

this work session to order and thank uh corporal thornton deputy winick and deputy manly uh for being here today. And first on the agenda is the, oh, we also need a motion to allow Commissioner Scheer to participate. All in favor? All right, welcome Commissioner Scheer. First on the agenda is the post-veto legislative funding update.

Commissioner Tristan's on his way up, and he'll be introducing the team and the content for you. Consideration and questions.

Good morning, commissioners. I'm Tristan Sommer, Pinellas County's Intergovernmental Liaison, and we have our state lobby team, the Johnson and Stewart team over here. We have Anita Berry. We have Amanda Stewart and Jeff Johnston on this side. Do we have slides available? There we are. And before I get into the actual slide deck itself, I think it's important to note on the front end that this was an inherently difficult session to advance a lot of policy priorities. Executive leadership, legislative leadership, and a number of stakeholders across the spectrum all had a difficult time advancing their legislative priorities. And I'm sure we're all aware that local governments were in more of a defensive posture this past year with Homestead property tax conversation and all the miscellaneous preemptions that were coming down the pipeline But one of the few areas where most stakeholders could play offense was through the appropriation request cycle So now looking at a general state budget overview The final budget was approved at one hundred and seventeen point six billion dollars and that came after one point five six billion in vetoes and $810 million of which came from line item vetoes or your general member projects for the most part. If you jump down to the bottom of this page, you'll see other fiscal updates. The retirement package, which passed the legislature and was subsequently approved by the governor, included a 1.5% cost of living adjustment for special risk class retirees, and that includes law enforcement and firefighters. And then another high profile piece of policy is the sovereign immunity bill, which would have raised sovereign immunity caps for local governments to 350,000 per person and 500,000 per incident, but that was vetoed by the governor. Next we have our Pinellas County appropriation requests. This year we submitted five and we ended with around $15.5 million worth of awarded funding from the state. Just working through this list again. First, you'll see the East Lake Road Corridor Improvement Project Phase 1, which was awarded $7.5 million. Second on the list, we have the 31 Pump Station Control Panel Elevating Project, which came in just below $4 million. Third, we received $4 million for two generators at two separate special needs facilities, which was a part of a larger hurricane shelter hardening project. FORTH, THE ALLOWMENT EXCHANGE HURRICANE SHELTER HARDENING PROJECT RECEIVED $2 MILLION FROM THE LEGISLATURE, BUT IT WAS VETOED BY THE GOVERNOR. AND LAST ON THE LIST IS OUR SEMINAL JUNIOR WARHAWK FIELD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, WHICH LATE THROUGH THE BUDGET CYCLE WAS NOT AWARDED ANY FUNDING. NEXT, I WON'T SPEND TOO MUCH TIME ON THESE NEXT THREE SLIDES, BUT IT'S IMPORTANT TO KIND OF WORK THROUGH A LOT OF THE FUNDING THAT FELL WITHIN OUR GUIDING PRINCIPLES FROM THIS YEAR'S LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM. Starting with affordable housing, the SHIP program was allocated $165.7 million, the SAIL program received $70.8 million, and $50 million was awarded for the Hometown Heroes housing program. Second on this list is our beach renourishment block. Statewide, DEP received $64 million for their beach management grant program. Just over $43 million of that came to Pinellas County for the Sankey segment. So we're grateful for DEP's partnership within that grant program. And we're also grateful for Senator Hooper, Chair Hooper of Appropriations in the Senate, for his advocacy and his partnership on this issue. Last on this page is the Resilient Florida Grant Program, which ended with $160 million after $10 million in planning grants were vetoed. And there was also a $35 million allocation for resiliency activities and coral reef protection. On the emergency preparedness response front, the Emergency Preparedness and Response Fund was recreated this past year through Senate Bill 7040. Through the budget process, that received $250 million in allocation funds. This next one, the Statewide Web EOC Initiative, It's $3.6 million, so in the grand scheme of things, that's a drop in the bucket, but it's pretty imperative for a lot of local governments in partnership with the Florida Division of Emergency Management. But that $3.6 million was hard to come by, and I had late conversations with FDEM through the budget process, so just a little sidebar there. $4 million was awarded for the replanting of trees and timber impacted by natural disasters. And given the drought and recent wildfires in Florida, $104 million was allocated for that. On the cultural and museum grant front, we had 20 million allocated in the state budget. And at the bottom of this list, this wasn't captured by our legislative program, but I do think it's important to note because of the economic development impact that $80 million was awarded to Visit Florida. And then $40 million was also awarded to the Job Growth Grant Fund. And our last slide, there's a lot of information here, so I'll do my best to get through it briefly. But $396 million went to water quality improvement projects just across the board. And that includes wastewater, septic to sewer conversions, stormwater projects, and agriculture nutrient reduction projects. Of the 396 million, 301 million went specifically to local water projects to construct, upgrade, and expand wastewater facilities. 20 million went to the acceleration of projects to meet scientific nutrient reduction goals. And 30 million went to water quality improvements through water management districts. Next on the list is basically combating impacts of harmful algal blooms to improve water quality, which saw a $23 million allocation. Jumping down to the state transportation work program, there was $14.4 billion allocated, so a very substantial piece of the budget. And then last, we have our $4.9 billion allocation for highway construction and maintenance. And with all that said, are there any questions?

Any questions? Commissioner Scott.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to, Tristan, thank you for all your hard work. We did really well this, the county did really well this time in funding. Last year, not so good, but we did great this year. So I just want to thank you and Anita and Jeff and Amanda for all their hard work.

Thank you, Commissioner. I think Commissioner Scheer, maybe add one.

Commissioner Scheer.

Yes, thank you, Chair. Tristan, on those large amounts that were under the guiding principles, do those go to a fund that we can apply for for local projects? I don't understand the $300 million for these local sewer upgrades. Is this a fund that we apply to to try to get local projects approved or?

Yeah, so let's work through this list. I'll start with the bottom and work my way up. So on the highway construction and maintenance front, that's $4.9 billion, and that can fall kind of within FDOT grant programs. On top of that, the state transportation work program, I guess I kind of have Colin a friend here, but it's my understanding that that just goes to the work program and there's no grant opportunity within that, right? Anita's coming to back clean up in case I messed any of that up.

That's right, Tristan. So that goes to fund the five-year work program through FDOT. So there are planned programs, obviously, several here within Pinellas County and the Tampa Bay region. And so that goes to fund that pipeline of projects.

And those are the ones that the former Pinellas would make application for. I'm sure I for now, I'm sure has a role in the priority prioritization of some of these big numbers appear the local water projects are those already spoken for the stuff we can ask for.

It's both right so the one of the reasons why that $396 million is so substantial is because it's in part. grant programs, and it in part includes some of the projects that local governments had submitted and were awarded. So for example, like our 31 pump station project, which just came in at under $4 million, this technically would fall within that category. So this is all inclusive across the state, any county, any local government. Any of their requests that were submitted and approved falls into this bucket. But also you have, you know, like the state revolving loan grant program. THAT SHOULD FALL IN HERE AS WELL, VARIOUS PROGRAMS THROUGH DEP. SO THAT ONE'S ALL ENCOMPASSING. AND I THINK TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION ON THE TRANSPORTATION WORK PROGRAM FRONT, YEAH, SO IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT PRETTY MUCH LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND FORD PINELLAS AND EMPO FOR THAT MATTER WOULD BE IN PARTNERSHIP WITH FDOT TO KIND OF IDENTIFY CORRIDOR NEEDS, IDENTIFY REGIONAL NEEDS KIND OF ACROSS THE SPECTRUM.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

Commissioner Flowers.

Thank you for the presentation. Start taking your vitamins for January. But while they're here, I just wanted to say thank you to Johnson and Stewart for your support of the Florida Association of Counties. And thank you for your support of the programs that I had while I was there. So I wanted to publicly say thank you, even though I said thank you in a way.

And I wanted to echo what Commissioner Scott said. Y'all did a wonderful job this year in a very tough legislative environment in bringing home our projects. And I've known Amanda for probably over 20 years, we were legislative aides together in the Florida House. And she was, I think, the youngest of the legislative aides at that time. and I won't tell any embarrassing stories other than one year I transferred into her office, because every two years you get new offices, and she left me some presents. I thought it was going to be candy, but it was empty candy wrappers all in her desk. But other than that, they have done a great job for Pinellas County and our residents. So you do owe me some candy from 20 years ago. Anything else? Alrighty, thank you very much. Next is agenda review.

Excuse me, Mr. Chair, I believe Commissioner Shear had raised his hand.

We already moved past that. Commissioner share.

Yeah, thank you chair. I just I I had a question for Tristan and Anita regarding. I've just recently become aware that there's a new state law that budgets will require under certain circumstances of super majorities. And I was wondering if they could get us a memo on on on that new law and and how it affects the different. Our budget. coming up and also, you know, we all serve on different boards or taxing authorities as well. So, I don't remember ever seeing a memo on that law, so.

Yeah, Commissioner, just to clarify, so I think you're referring to the concurrent policy that was passed with the homestead property tax exemption, right? So, there was House Bill 1, which was the homestead exemption itself, and there was 4, which was the concurrent policy, which kind of changed some of the the structures to yes, those voting blocks, yeah, I can draft and work with staff on a memo to send you all. But that is state law now, right? I mean, that passed.

Correct. Correct. Okay, because it would be really important to know which, what kind of budget requires a super majority and what doesn't, because I don't have them.

Yeah, but it's for raising millages, right? Yeah. Right. That's pretty much the main structure, but I can put that formally in writing.

I would appreciate it.

Yeah. So I don't think there's a real change to the structure for Pinellas County, right? A little change, but...

There have been some heightened voting thresholds for quite a while in the budget statute, and it generally depends on the rate that you're seeking to impose, whether you're at 100%, if you go to 110%. I'm sure Chris can speak to it, but there's a... forms that you fill out every year for all of the different funds and it's based on the formula and what that formula kicks out. I couldn't even try to explain how that formula works, but it's basically dependent on the level of millage you're trying to impose and whether it's, you know, that 100%, 110% as you go up, the threshold goes up from like super majority to at times unanimous.

Good morning, commissioners. Thank you for bringing me up. And the county attorney was 100% spot on as was Tristan. and we're gonna actually be talking about that on Tuesday when we talk about the maximum millage rates, so Commissioner we will we will bring that to the body on Tuesday Okay, thank you.

Thank you Anything else All right, thank you very much Agenda review

Good morning, Commissioners. The agenda for Tuesday, July the 21st, is quite a large one, so I'm gonna try to walk you through all the exciting things in store for Tuesday. We do have our Purple Heart Day proclamation, so Father Bob will be here to accept that presentation. We'll also be recognizing National Parks and Recreation Month with a proclamation. Brian Loack and CVB will be here for the 727 day proclamation. And then we have a partner presentation that'll be made by our clerk of court, Ken Burke, regarding the annual comprehensive financial report. Citizens to be heard. Consent agenda is items six through 26. And following the reports for filing, we have item number 18. It's an agreement with Average Joe Landscape, Duvall Landscape Maintenance, and Rotolola Consultants for Mowing Landscape and Irrigation Services. There were six submittals to this competitive solicitation, and we are awarding Recommendations is to award to the top three firms, those that I just read, in the total amount of 2.2 million for an initial three-year term. The contract does include a provision for two additional 12-month terms with mutual agreement by the county. These are contracts that are used on an ongoing basis and the department that's bringing this to you can also share the contracts with other departments that require mowing services if needed. Item 19 is an agreement with Harper Limbaugh for heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems and related services. This agreement is with a top ranked firm, Harper Limbaugh. We received nine proposals in response to the solicitation. HLL, which is Harper Limbaugh, was ranked the top firm and is recommended for award. We did some negotiating for the final contract price. It's a three-year term, not to exceed amount of $911,007. So again, this is for use in facilities, maintenance, et cetera. All right, got a few county administrator reports and then public works. Item 21, we're asking for ratification of the county administrator's approval of the off strategic intermodal system funding application with DOT for construction of East Lake Road. This is for the section from Curlew north to Trinity. This opportunity presented itself after the normal notice of funding. following our conversations with DOT on East Lake and needing their participation for funding. So the grant request is for 140 million for construction of the project. This would be fiscal year 31 to 36. Our match would be 35 million and that would be, we anticipate to be funded from Penny for Pinellas. So this is a big opportunity and District 7 created a window for us to apply so we're, Hopefully gonna have your approval to do that. Item 22 is to ratify county administrator approval of an application to the U.S. DOT for the Safe Streets and Roads for All. It's a grant application for Keystone Road and East Lake Road emergency access improvements. We're asking for $7.96 million. Our match would be $1.99 million. This came with a very short window for us to apply, so we're asking the county administrator went ahead and submitted it subject to your ratification on Tuesday.

I got a quick question on the previous item. Sure. So the $35 million match from Penny, we're talking Penny 5 at that point, So if for some reason penny five didn't pass and we get awarded those 140 million,

So it actually straddles. So you're correct. The last few years of penny four and the first two of penny five. And we would either have to provide that funding from another source or at some point in the next four years, we would have to adjust either the project or the scope or something else.

Okay.

All right. Thank you. Thank you, Jill. On 22, what would be the actual improvements being made if we won the grant?

So I'm going to ask Kelly to come up to give you the specifics on this one. This is one of our hotspot locations with the fire department's access station, Eastlake Station 58. So she can better describe, but it's basically to make things safer when moving, coming and going with those emergency vehicles.

Just sharing, if you click on, you see the numbers to the left, if you're looking at your... If you're looking at just the regular screen with the item and it's like the case numbers on the left, if you click on that and then click on number four, it has the whole PowerPoint. You see what I'm talking about? When you go into Granica's, are you in Granica's? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, yeah, that's the PowerPoint.

Yeah, it was like 70 items, so I didn't have a chance to go through the 10 attachments.

I didn't know if you knew that that was present, so that's why I'm sharing. Thank you.

So this initially came from the fire station, yes, just to help them get out, but it also offered us an opportunity to make improvements to this intersection overall. It is a heavily congested intersection, especially with folks commuting in and out of Pinellas County. It includes extending left turn lanes, As you're going to head south on East Lake Road, we're adding a trip left there, and we're adding a second through lane to the west on Keystone. So it's more than just signalization improvements. It's a lot of structural improvements to that intersection as well as the technology. And we just had a public information meeting yesterday, couple of weeks ago we have a project website and the recording of that of that public meeting is is on the website as well so good attendance thank you

Okay, item 23 is the award of a bid to Accel, I think, Accel Construction LLC. This is for the Solid Waste Administration Building HVAC renovation. We received three bids and the award recommendation to Accel Construction in the amount of $893,148.50. As the lowest responsive responsible bidder, they have one year to complete the work. 24, award of bid to Waste Management Inc. of Florida. This is for the Lellman Residential Waste Collection Disposal and Recycling Services. We received three responsive bids. Waste Management ranked the highest as ranked best for being the lowest responsive responsible bid to provide twice a week residential collection in the amount of $11,748,000 for the initial five-year term, which covers January 26th through December 31st of 31. And obviously, you have the money coming in your recommended budget for the first year. Okay, item 25, ranking of firms in agreement with PCL construction for pump station 16 improvements. This is a design-build contract. We let the solicitation to have two phases. The first is to design the rebuild, and the second phase is to construct the rebuild of this particular pump station. We ranked, the top ranked firm was PCL Construction and the amount of 2.2 million, almost 2.3 million for phase one, which is the design piece. We would come back to the Board of County Commissioners with a lump sum guaranteed maximum price from the team at PCL once they have the construction details prepared and ready to go. They have indicated use of four small business enterprises for this particular contract and the funding is available in the sewer renewal and replacement fund.

26 is the report of lawsuits we have been served with over the last month and also includes appeals that have come in over the last quarter.

Item 27 for the airport is approval of a fiscal year 26 project application requesting $95,202 from the FAA. This is under the airport improvement program. The grant will fund 36 vehicle movement area transmitters which would be installed and configured to airport vehicles and equipment access to the airfield. The grant pays 90% of the cost with PI paying the other 10% and the funding is proposed in the coming year's budget to match should the grant be received. Item 28 is historical preservation ad valorem tax exemption for two historical properties in St. Petersburg, located at 7321 3rd Avenue North, known as the Mathis Residence, and 3243 8th Avenue North, a property in the Northwest Kenwood Local Historic District. The tax exemptions apply only to the increase of the value of the improvements. Item 29, first amendment term extension with BKN Creative LLC for marketing services as requested by the board and by human services. This amendment exercises the first 12 month extension per the terms of the contract that you already have approved. It increases it by $910,000, extends the term for one additional year from August of 2026 to August of 2027. The amendment gives 200 hours of marketing development and support from BKN each month for a total of 420,000 and an advertising budget of an additional 490,000. I believe that you've previously discussed this. The funding source for this is the opioid settlement funds and I believe the recommendation's consistent with what the board was seeking for BKN. Item 30 is a resolution declaring Pinellas County government as a hybrid entity for Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. The resolution designates Pinellas County as a HIPAA hybrid entity and identifies the specific departments, divisions, and programs that serve as healthcare components, covered entities, and business associates. We were previously designated as a HIPAA entity in 2003, an amendment in 2010 to reflect some departmental restructuring. There is no public hearing required for this particular item. Item 31, this is the funding recommendations for fiscal year 2027, Human Services Social Action Grant Program. This item was rescheduled for you from June 16th to the agenda for Tuesday. At present, the proposed fiscal year 27 budget will not include the full 1.7 million funding allocation that this particular agenda item represents. We would like to ask that you discuss this on Tuesday and make a decision or to continue this item again to August the 25th, which would follow your ability to review the budget and those specifics. Obviously, there's only five of you here today, but that would be our request or recommendation is that you go ahead and postpone it until you've had a chance to have your budget conversations. The entire is not included. It is not.

Commissioner Flowers, did you have a question or comment? Yes, sir. That was going to be the same thing in alignment is because one of the things I don't like doing is once an entity has already scored and marked applications, that then because there is a reduction in funds, we sit here and try to score and remark.

Correct.

Or try to figure out who's going to take the hit and who's not. So I do support putting this off until we know for sure what's what. And that way... whatever dollar amount that they're going to get, whatever process we use, because apparently they met the scoring guidelines to receive the dollar amounts that we received that they were going to be allocated if we had approved them at our last meeting. So some formula should be figured out that is consistent if the funds are going to be reduced because it may or may not mean that those individuals who were at the bottom will now be kicked off completely from funding. Because if I recall, when I read the backup documents, there were like two or three organizations that if there was money, they would roll up. It may very well be that some of those that were scheduled for money will roll down, so.

And this is a timing consideration, obviously. We started this process way back at the beginning of March. Actually, I think in late February, probably, because we were already out for the proposals. So from a timing perspective, what we thought we were gonna be able to recommend for fiscal year 27 and where we find ourselves today, it's just a little different. So you'll have an opportunity to discuss those. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Item 32 is the Service Area Competition Grant Award with U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. This is for the Health Care for the Homeless Program, which is intended for the four-year period March of this year through February of 2030. The federal funding in the amount of 1.926 million per year supports the provision of medical, dental, and behavioral health care for individuals experiencing homelessness and they receive the care through the BayCare clinic and the mobile medical unit. This notice represents the remainder of the current year's budget funding and includes a one-time award of funding in the amount of 67,000 in support of ending the HIV epidemic primary care, HIV prevention program. We anticipate applying non-federal funds to the program, totaling approximately 5.4 million per year. Moving on to item 33. This is a contract with, I'm gonna try to say this is, Suspeca LLC for painting services, for building exteriors, infrastructure systems, and pressure washing countywide on an as needed basis. Procurement actually issued this competitive selection on behalf of countywide services and departments that are available to use it. The proposed agreement is a not to exceed of 2.4 million for a duration of three years with provision for one 24-month extension. There is a provision for a unit price adjustment tied to the CPI. for those future years. We had 19 responses to this solicitation, and we do recommend to SUSPECA, they were the lowest responsive responsible bidder. Funding is included in the current year budget, and we do have a non-funding clause should anything impact funding in future years, but it's available for use countywide.

Commissioner Nowicki, did you have a question? Yes, sir. Thank you. Are there specific projects that this is needed for? In a tight budget year, is this really necessary? Do we have a backlog of pressure washing or touch-up paint that we need to do this year? Is it critical to our day-to-day operations for our residents?

That's a great question. So I think it is probably a combination. I can have Blaine come up if he or Chris want to come up and speak to the scope of this. The pressure washing, we generally need year to year. We typically will overspend, or basically there's more work than we have money for. And a lot of that's related to making sure that the entrances are safe, they're not slick, they're not overgrown, or that sort of thing. But the painting for the building exteriors and the infrastructure systems, we can get you a list of what the projects are. I believe that we are currently at a maintenance deficit. They're playing catch-up, some painting that's already been deferred. But we can get you that list before Tuesday if you'd like to see just for maybe the coming year what's on tap.

Yeah, I mean, because especially if we're looking to like vacating a lot of our properties, I mean, there's some touch-up paint on a few buildings that hardly get used or caulking by residents. Is that the highest and best use if we're going to leave the buildings in a few years? Is that...

And you can see the list. I mean, this is not all general funds. So this is buildings across your portfolio, including like the Star Center. It costs a lot to take care of that building, as you know. So we can get you the list, but utilities is included in here, surface water utility, all of that. But the work plan or the departments that would be using this contract, we can get those details for you.

Then I had one more question. In the bid, I didn't understand it 100%. If they use recycled materials, they could charge 10% more. It said that there was a price preference to be allowed up to an amount not to exceed 10% that the director of purchasing will recommend for recycled materials. So they would be able to say, oh, we use recycled materials, give a list, and then charge 10% more.

Let's ask Chris Rose to come up. Thank you. His staff prepared this one.

Good morning again, commissioners. Commissioner, we're going to have to get that back to you. I don't have it with me right now, but we will have it by Tuesday sooner.

Already. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Chair.

Good catch.

Item 34 is a reimbursement resolution to establish intent. Wait a minute, I'm sorry. Yeah, approval of a reimbursement resolution establishing intent for purposes of section 1.150-2 of the income tax regulations to reimburse certain costs related to the capital improvements to the North County campus with proceeds of future tax exempt financing. The adoption of the resolution doesn't constitute any authorization for the board or the county to incur debt, nor does it require us to do so in the future. This is basically setting this up to be able to have a tool in the toolbox for tax exempt financing in the future for the North County campus. I'm sorry, I'm hesitating because I made notes on a different page for this item. I don't have them on the right page. But we can answer any questions you have. Again, this was requested by the board. So staff brought this to you. And we can talk more fully, I guess, on Tuesday. But it's basically just giving you some flexibility should you want to do the tax exempt financing on North County Service Center when you go to fund it. Any questions? Okay. Sorry about that. My notes will show up on a different item somewhere. Item number 35, this is your approval to declare to the public pertaining to the closure of the 119th Street North Class III Landfill, as formerly known as the Pierce Landfill in Seminole. This action notifies the public and future owners and users of the site that any activity that involves disturbing that land will require consultation with DEP. It's essentially a... be forever into the future aware that if you're gonna do anything on this property that's gonna disturb it, you're gonna need to coordinate relative to the closure. Make sure anything we do in the future is consistent with that. Item 36 is approval of environmental assessment determinations and the compliance findings for State of Florida, the Department of Commerce. This is related to our block grant for the Joe's Creek Restoration and Greenway Trail Project. We have to have this assessment to determine any significant impacts on the human environment. The assessment has been completed. The termination found no significant impact and so we'll now file that as part of our CDBG documentation with the state. There's no money associated with that other than the cost of the assessments. Item 37 is approval of the grant application and adoption of the associated resolution requesting inclusion of county beach erosion control projects in the Florida Beach Management Funding Assistance Program for the coming two fiscal years in their long range budget plan. This funding would be used to reimburse the costs we've incurred for construction and monitoring for the Upham Beach re-nourishment in 2025. Eligible costs are 4.3 million. The grant application to DEP is $862,592, and that would go to reimburse the tourist development tax that we used. Item 38 similarly is a request of the same type and resolution seeking inclusion of our project in the long range budget plan for the Florida DEP beach erosion control projects. This funding will be used to reimburse construction and monitoring costs for the Treasure Island nourishment project last year. And our grant application to DEP is almost 5 million, a little under $5 million for that purpose. Item 39 is approval of a modification to the grant agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for air pollution control program support. This application approves a third modification in the amount of $250,610 for the current fiscal year. The county's match for these funds are a combination of TAG fee funds and locally generated air program revenue. Charges cost to the general fund that are not reimbursed by the US EPA are wholly offset by the air program resolution. So there's no impact to the general fund. We seek as much reimbursement for our air quality program as possible. Item number 40 is purchase authorization with AIP US LLC. This is to purchase Cisco data communication equipment from AIP. And these are four required components that go into our switches on our various control boxes and mechanisms for traffic components. This is a Utah, state of Utah contract that we're piggybacking on, and it's a one-time purchase intended to be $348,540.86, and we did look at other alternatives for procuring these costs and compared them. This particular contract gives us savings of $40,000 as compared with the next lowest competitive contract for those equipment pieces. So yay, Utah. 41 is approval of the state-funded county incentive grant program agreement and a resolution with DOT. This is for construction activities for advanced traffic management systems and ITS. This is on Doomey Road from Tom Stewart Causeway, Madeira Beach Causeway, north to Almerton Road for that section. This has been in our work plan and you have provided funding for this from the Local Option Fuel Tax and the Transportation Trust Fund. The agreement would give us 2.932 million with the DOT portion of that being 1.466200 and then the county match being the same amount for a project to be funded in fiscal year 27 and 28. That will offset our costs. Item 42 is agreement with three firms for the requirements of waste to energy facility continuing professional services, engineering services. This is on an as needed basis. We received five submittals. And those were ranked, and we are recommending the top three firms, HDR, CDM Smith, and Arcadis, in a total amount of $21 million, which would be $7 million per firm for a five-year term. And that's in accordance with the CCNA Act. These are, again, non... These are used on an as needed basis. So there are no currently defined projects. It's simply to have the expertise of engineering companies in support of the solid waste enterprise. And we come back with a contract portion on any use of those. So they get a specific proposal. So these are as needed, when needed. Item 43 is resolution, repealing resolution 559, oh, 559, terminating the municipal recycling reimbursement grant program. We can, there's my notes on the other item. Wrong resolution. This program has been in place with our partner municipalities to reimburse them for costs related to recycling. It's been in place for a number of years. We have been discussing, as you know very much, recycling and the costs and participations. The Technical Management Committee has reviewed this. They believe that the funding is better spent on developing alternative solid waste diversion programs because really what we think we were seeing is that the monies were simply reimbursing the cost to the municipalities of their existing recycling programs. It wasn't necessarily making them better or larger or improving the participation rates. So we believe that we can put together a joint program. You'll see that in your budget proposal for solid waste, that this funding portion of it would be redirected. Some of it will go back to the enterprise balance. So wanted to discontinue that. And all of our partners are aware of this proposed Item 44 is a change order on the amount of $5 million to our agreement with Roland DE for the annual sanitary sewer repairs and extension for fiscal year, fiscal years 24 through 26. The contract was approved by the board back in 24 for 10 million, 10.2 million with all the work to be completed. in 702 years change order number one was approved last year in july of 25 increasing the agreement by 5 million and so this order this change order would add an additional 5 million for a two-year period extending the contract through October 16th of 2027. This is again a contract that's available to us on an as needed basis. There's no obligation to spend any money and there's no obligation until we have a specific assignment and scope and a purchase order that's issued or a contract that comes to you depending on the amount. Item 45 is the first amendment to agreement with SAC Enterprises for flood barriers and termination of agreement for cause with Engineering Inspection and Restoration Services, LLC. This item does two things, as I just read. The first is we awarded agreements with two companies back in December of 2025, EIRS and SAK, The First Amendment basically revises the scope of work to include all flood barrier locations and reallocates the funding from a terminated agreement with SAK to an amended agreement, I'm sorry, terminated agreement with EIRS and then giving that work to the other vendor, SAK, for a new revised total for their contract of $385,400. We are terminating EIRS for their failure to perform, as outlined in your backup, and then reallocating the money. There is a time consideration related to this particular project because of the funding sources, and so we think this is the most expeditious way to go about getting the work completed. These flood barriers are primarily doors and barriers that can be installed at our primary utility locations, and it includes, I believe, Keller, Dunn, South Cross, and maybe, not sure about Logan, but, so it's a project that's been planned and has been initiated, but we've had a problem with one of the two vendors performing, and we wanna move that funding over to the other vendor to get the work done. So it's not new money, it's just moving it. Item 46 is a BTS item for purchase authorization with Granicus Inc for software maintenance and support for, a price of, can't see the word about, I know it's 3%, capped, here it goes, not to exceed 1.974 million through December of 2030. So it's a four-year coverage. Item 47, emergency medical services authority to issue and renew certificates of public convenience and necessity for non-medical wheelchair transport provider pursuant to the six firms, I'm sorry, there's currently nine and six firms providing non-medical wheelchair stretcher van and two firms providing stretcher van transport services. The vehicle inspections are performed prior to issuing the certificates and the records are kept on file. There's no financial impact related to these certifications.

Under item number 48, this is a request to initiate litigation on the referenced matter. This is a housing discrimination case that was investigated by the Office of Human Rights. Under item 49, this is a ratification of authority that was provided by the Chair in an animal cruelty case where we had filed a petition after taking custody of the animal. Under item number 50, this is a request to initiate litigation in the referenced matter. This is actually a matter that came out of an Inspector General investigation and this relates to a former employee who we are seeking compensation from related to fraudulent time cards. Under item 51, this is a ratification of a counterclaim that the county attorney's office has already filed. The original lawsuit is actually reported on the consent agenda item from when the county was served. This is a ratification of a counterclaim that we filed in this same action. We bring counterclaims to you all for ratification if we need to file them given time constraints or prior to, because really a counterclaim is very similar to an independent lawsuit. Under item number 52, this is a ratification, unfortunately, of another animal cruelty case where we have taken petition of the animal and needed to file that petition within 10 days. Under item 53, this is another ratification. This is a matter that we filed due to the... Very rapidly tolling of the statute of limitations in this matter. This is to seek recovery for damages to some infrastructure, some county infrastructure. And the remaining two cases are confidential settlements. I think I see the folder has made it over to you, Commissioner Scott. I'll retrieve that. at the end of the meeting, but those two cases are both discussed in the folder that you have had access to. And under item number 56, I currently do not anticipate any county attorney reports.

I am number 57, County Administrator Reports. As Chris indicated, you'll be discussing your maximum millages. And it's possible that Barry will have more things. We'll know when he gets back. Let's see, you have appointments coming up to item 58, Emergency Medical Services Advisory Council. And you're gonna be using a voice vote on that one. And then you have item 59, which is appointments to the Parks and Conservation Resources Advisory Board. These are from the commission as a whole. Item 60, appointment to the Solid Waste Technical Management Committee. There will be a ballot for this vote. You've got 10 applicants. And 61, appointments to the Suncoast Health Council. Again, commission as a whole making three appointments. And then you have County Commission New Business as item number 62. And then we go have a little break. We come back at six for our public hearings. 63 is a countywide planning authority amendment. So let's see, this applicant's requesting to increase the allowable residential equivalent density associated with an existing assisted living facility to support a potential future increase in bed capacity. would increase the density from 10 units per acre to 15 units per acre. And the Forward Pinellas and Planning Advisory Committee each unanimously recommended approval of the proposal, which is for the facility at 2446 Nursery Road. Item 64, case number whatever. This is countywide plan map amendment in the North Greenwood Community Redevelopment Area regarding 491 and a half acres, more or less. City of Clearwater is making this application and all the property owners have been notified. The item has gone to the Forward Pinellas Board. They unanimously approved a continuance of the case to its July 8th meeting, which they did have and has now been recommended for your consideration on Tuesday. 65 is a countywide plan map amendment in the town of Reddington Shores. Seeking an amendment from commercial general to residential low medium for property that's within an established waterfront residential neighborhood and historically containing a nonconforming single family residence. The site's currently vacant following demolition. Forward Pinellas and the Planner's Advisory Committee each unanimously recommended approval of the proposal. Item 66 is requested to be withdrawn at the request of the city of Pinellas Park. They had submitted this application to amend the countywide plan after receiving communication from the state of Florida, citing the proposal violated Senate Bill 180, the city requested the case be withdrawn. And Florida Pinellas Board voted to support that withdrawal. I'm 67 is resolution adopting an increased solid waste tipping fee for fiscal years, 27 and 28. Um, this item was discussed with you in your budget information sessions and is a part of the three year rates that you have previously established to be put in place. Um, the rate is an 8% increase over the 26 rate based upon the rate study that you approved and, um, included in your current year budget. The tipping fees revenues are receded to the solid waste fund, of course, and included right now in the fiscal year 27 proposed budget in the amount of $64,175,640. Item 68 is annual certificate of non-advalorum assessment role and resolution increasing the non-advalorum assessment for the Lowman Solid Waste Collection and Disposal District. This is the method by which you charge, gain the revenue from the residents to pay for the solid waste services in Lowman. The resolution increases the assessment fee to $288 per year per unit January 1, 26 through December 31 of 26. The increase equates to $48 increase over the previous year. It is included in the fiscal year 27 budget and the notices for this have gone to all of those residents who received the service. Item 69, Taxed Equity Fiscal Responsibility Act resolution for the reissuance for federal tax purposes by the Pinellas County Education Facilities Authority. These are for revenue refunding bond in a principal amount of not to exceed $3,528,367.30 on behalf of St. Paul's School. which is located in Clearwater. This is basically a TEFRA resolution is what we call them. So you've seen these before and you have this one before you for Tuesday. Item 70 is an amendment by resolution to realign appropriation and reserves for fiscal year 26 budget, so within the current year budget, to recognize unanticipated revenue, realign appropriations, and they are outlined in your backup, but there's a couple of them that are the larger, portion, we're realigning one point, almost five general fund reserves to supervisor of elections, a little over half a million, the sheriff, a little over 850 million, and human services state mandates, 133,700. Also realigns 4 million from reserves to maintenance north and south and south operations, which is South Cross. This is in the sewer revenue and operating fund. This is related to unanticipated repairs. We've had a number of large, large breaks and people keep hitting our pipes and stuff has to be fixed. So just more than we would typically see in a normal fiscal year. Then we also would be, you would be realigning 793,000 from reserves to the general fund, from the general fund to the building services fund. This is to recognize 793,000 in unanticipated revenue from building services. And it was mainly related to the substantial damage efforts and that entire process, so it's kind of a one-off almost. And then we also need to recognize a little over 1.2 million unanticipated revenue in the ARPA fund and to transfer, and to appropriately transfer to general fund to complete the ARPA transactions. We are fast running out of time. Those ARPA projects have to be finished before the end of this calendar year. So we need to make this shift so we can spend the money. We're also, you see there's the other side of the ARPA transfer and then realigning it, as I said, to spend the money. Part of that, about half of that is to add a playground replacement because we already have that contract and we can move quickly to move that up. Chris would be happy to give you more details on that, I'm sure. Item 71 is the ordinance amending the code relative to the towing ordinance. You approved rate adjustments in June but you requested additional ordinance revisions for consideration on Tuesday. The draft ordinance has been properly advertised. However, our team, the staff team will not be here on Tuesday to present these. And we're here to figure out how to staff that on Tuesday, or we would recommend that you consider amending, I'm sorry, rescheduling the item to August the 25th to allow us to have the right team here and allow you to have the proper amount of time to review the proposed recommended changes. Happy to discuss it on Tuesday. It's already on your agenda. It's advertised, so they would have to continue to a date certain, I believe, County Attorney? Okay. Yeah, so, but staff would like to move it a month if possible. Mr. Chu.

Commissioner Flowers. Thank you. If you all haven't already done so, I would strongly suggest that I reach out to Commissioner Peters, because this is her hot button topic. And the concern that was expressed was that we have had continuation after continuation after continuation, and so now we're asking for a continuation again because persons aren't in place. I'm assuming they're on vacation or something? Yes, that's correct. So my strong suggestion would be that somebody speak with her before Tuesday. I don't mean this to sound rude, so please don't take it this way, but business shouldn't stop at the counter because somebody's on vacation. Persons, just like with us, if one of us are missing, business continues, meetings continue. You present the information. We've talked about this a number of times. Yeah.

And we will be prepared to staff it on Tuesday. We just wanted you to know that your resident experts, because they thought it was going to be done, right? We didn't think it was going to be continued to July. So they thought they were safe.

And like I said, I'm, I'm, I'm hoping I'm not sounding mean and curt or whatever, but I just know that we've been talking about this since I became a commissioner in 2020. So, yes, sir. I saw you wink your eye. How you doing?

Good. How are you? Assistant County Administrator, so I just want to be clear. We do have staff that will be here that can do the presentation. We just don't have a full team, to your point. We have two members of our team that are on vacation. We will be ready to do what the commission wants to do on Tuesday, and we will have a presentation, but we will not have the full team. That's all.

It's advertised. You're ready to go if that's what you choose to do.

Just...

Yeah, just sharing because I'm sure representatives from their community will be here. So anyway, just sharing.

It's on the agenda. You're right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, ma'am. Thank you.

Does anybody have anything else? Any good jokes? No. I just want everybody to see what time it is compared to when the other guys presiding over our meetings and asking tons of questions and comments. All right. See you all on Tuesday.

Thank you.

Thank you.