An Ordinance By The Pasco County Board Of County Commissioners Amending The Pasco County Land Development Code; Section 522.9 Connected City Master Planned Unit Development District; Section 901 Infrastructure Standards; Section 901.1 Transportation Corridor Spacing; Section 901.6 Street Design And Dedication Requirements; Section 901.7 Bicycle Facilities; Section 901.8 Pedestrian Facilities; Appendix A Definitions; And Other Sections, As Necessary, For Internal Consistency; Providing For Applicability; Repealer; Providing For Severability; Inclusion Into The Land Development Code, And An Effective Date.

1:21:21Moving to the ordinances here, item PC three, you are sitting as the local planning agency for. That's PDE 25-0332, an ordinance amending the Pasco County Attorney Development Code, sections 522.9, 901, 901.1, 901.6, 901.7, 901.8. Appendix A definitions and other sections as necessary for internal consistency. This is to be presented by staff.

1:21:51Okay, thank you, Chris.

1:22:03Good afternoon, members of the Planning Commission. Rebecca Bogue of Planning Development and Economic Growth. Here today to prevent infrastructure standards Land Development Code amendment.

1:22:15All right, so this slide I'm just illustrating that um the changes made to 522.9s for internal consistency with our proposed 901.7, updating a cross-reference. Uh I also need to note that the reference in the red line in the packet is incorrect. It should read 901.7 D, not 901.7E.

1:22:37We're also updating section 91.f to reference our current resolution for the county typicals for our major roads. Currently, our codes references a resolution from 2004, current resolution's from 2019. We're also adding language to indicate that we're putting these typical sections in our development review manual, which will hopefully make them easier to find.

1:23:03Okay. So here's um 901.7. We're doing some more updates for cross-references. We're also updating 901.64, the pavement design standards. Currently, our code's requirements for pavement design standards are in conflict with the pavement design standards in the green book, so we're updating that for consistency.

1:23:32And the Bigger change we're presenting here today is a rewrite of our bicycle and pedestrian facilities. We are consolidating sections 901.7 bicycle facilities and 901.8 pedestrian facilities into one comprehensive section. Our goal is to improve bicycle and pedestrian on-site connections, update it for consistency with the Florida Green Book. We're adding a new definition for multi-use paved trails. Um we're hoping that this is a little bit more than a little bit. Proposed LDC will

1:24:02improve safety for bicyclists and pedestrians and strengthen the county's position to require land development to construct segments of our multimodal network.

1:24:16All right. Uh kind of Overview of the biggest changes here. So currently our bicycle facilities is applicable in resident Res 3 future land use or higher in type 1 streets or subdivision collectors. And the facilities required include a bicycle lane. uh which is a four foot shoulder or a twelve foot multi-use path. What we're proposing is a land development code that would be applicable to all development sites, regardless

1:24:46of the future land use. And it would be by street type. So on our arterials and collectors would have to comply with our accepted typical sections, which currently reflect a 12-foot multi-use pale on the south or east side of the roadway. An eight-foot multi-use paved trail on one side, and no bicycle facil no bicycle facilities on our residential streets. When we presented this to the ODT and HRT, there was some concerns about requiring one side of the road versus

1:25:16the other. Um And questions about what we would do in the event that there is an existing alignment? Our goal with this rewrite is to ensure consistency. So it ensure consistency with our typical sections and to ensure that we have a consistent connected alignment for our multi-use paths on at least one side of our streets, specifically our major roads, our arterioles and collectors. We also have language in the proposed LDC that states where there's an existing alignment. You're

1:25:47to follow that existing alignment. So State Road 52 is an example where there's a multi-use path on the north side. If someone comes in with a development on the south side, we'd be requiring a sidewalk there and not an additional multi-use path.

1:26:03So on to pedestrian facilities. It's very similar to the way the bicycle facilities section is currently written. It's applicable to resident Res 3 future land use or higher on all street types except for alleyways.

1:26:16Their developments now are required to provide sidewalks on both sides of the road. Currently they're required to provide a five-foot sidewalk on subdivision collectors and a four-foot sidewalk on residential streets. We're proposing a code that is applicable to all development sites. A five-foot sidewalk is required on the opposite side of the street of the multi-use paved trail. Subdivision collectors have to provide five-foot sidewalks, and the residential streets were upgrading to a five-foot sidewalk rather than the four

1:26:46it currently states. We got some questions on this regarding how this proposed LDC would affect rural areas. In section 604, which is the Northeast Rural Overlay Area, there's language there that would exempt developments in the Northeast Rural area from building sidewalks. Um and our rural typical sections for our major streets do require a multi-use path on the south s south or east side currently on our major roads.

1:27:20We're also adding a section here to require pedestrian circulation and connectivity on site. So this section would require site developments to connect all principal structures via sidewalks. They uh all principal structures have to connect to each other, to the public sidewalk, and where there are parking lots with a hundred parking spaces or more. Um they have to provide a safe direct path from the principal structure uh to the parking lot. We're also adding a payment in lieu of construction

1:27:50option. So this would apply to development sites where Site constraints would make it difficult to or impossible to build the bike or pedestrian facility, in that case they would Submit a cost estimate at the county, we'd review it, um and take a payment in lieu of constructing. or where we have a facility that's already programmed in the CIP. Uh we wouldn't make them build it just to come back and tear it out.

1:28:19This is a graphic depicting our vision, what we hope this proposed LUC would create. This kind of represents like an urban area where we have the 12-foot multi-use path on the south side on our major roads. Eight foot on the subdivision collector, no bicycle facilities on the residential roads, and nothing on our alleyways.

1:28:46Um I forgot to mention in prior slides that we did bring this to the Tampa Bay Builders Association for review and comment. Most of their comments involved construction materials, what would be allowed for the boardwalks, multi-use paths, and sidewalks. We did communicate with them that we're willing to work with them, review those comments, and continue to make revisions as we move this forward through the process. This was also presented to our internal staff from Public Works,

1:29:17Transportation Engineering, Parks, Rec, and Natural Resources. So, with that, we recommend the local planning agency find the proposed amendment consistent with comprehensive plan. And I'm available for your questions.

1:29:30Can you go back to the slide about the applicability?

1:29:33Yes.

1:29:35Ow.

1:29:37This one or bike?

1:29:38Yeah, that one. Okay. Um For pedestrian facilities under the new ordinance all development sites, is that include an M R S subdivision?

1:29:49No. Well The way I understand M R S usually fall within the northeast rural area and those would be

1:29:57anywhere. They can be anywhere where there's a Res one A G A R flu.

1:30:04Then I would say no, this does not exempt that. But if that's a concern we can certainly consider making that change.

1:30:14So then what's the necessity? So The MRS subdivisions and conservation subdivisions. are limited to I think that's a good thing. flu categories that are lower than res three. So what's the necessity to apply this Now I mean the c in the current code the applicability is to res three flu are higher, then why

1:30:44the need to Make all flues

1:30:50included.

1:30:51So the intent here is the way it's written right now with Res-3 future land use or higher, it makes it kind of difficult to interpret and administer because then there are questions such as does that include MPUDs? Is an MPUD uh future land use or higher? Is a commercial property higher than a future land use?

1:31:10Uh I'm I'm confused by that statement because you're mixing and matching. What does a zoning district? A zoning district is irrelevant of the future land use category. If there's a if an M P U D is a zoning designation, not a future land use designation. I'm so I'm Und not understanding the difficulty in ad administering this.

1:31:35I would say that a P U D is future land use. So I think the P D future land use. Yeah. Okay. So that same issue would be there. Is i the the issue is what do we mean by a res three future land use or higher? And there's some ambig ambiguity in that.

1:31:57Okay.

1:31:59And I'm just not seeing the ambiguity.

1:32:03Okay.

1:32:07The look the lower ones are the agricultural ones, conservation and res one. Everything else is a higher future land use employment center, town center. Plan development.

1:32:20So where's I'm I'm confused as to the ambiguity.

1:32:26And furthermore they're changing.

1:32:29And the future land uses changing and coup the couple updates. Hm.

1:32:34Yeah, so we're also trying to create something that we won't necessarily have to completely revise when we update our future land use.

1:32:43Well if you're gonna change all the If we won't even have a res three anymore, then won't you have to change this?

1:32:49Well I I've got a question, John. I'm Mr. Middy. Um actually I'm scrolling through this, Rebecca, and I'm not finding in the actual reference of the res three in the draft code. Oh I always viewed this when I was working on it with you as it's attached to street type and that was it. That's your only qualifier applicability. So I'm not quite sure where the land use is coming in now at this point, because I don't see the right-of-way. Because the land use is in that

1:33:11land development codes.

1:33:12It's in the current code.

1:33:16Sure. What section please?

1:33:21Of the red line.

1:33:22Yeah.

1:33:26The

1:33:26red line. The red line 9017 B on page. 9016 B of the red line.

1:33:36All development sites is defined in appendix A of the code.

1:33:39So currently uh

1:33:41Oh that's I was looking actually for the res three here. Okay. Got it. Okay. Rebecca.

1:33:50Good afternoon, Nick Uren, County Engineer. I think the MRS concern is is addressed because MRS access ways are not streets. So this says that you have to build sidewalks on streets. That are residential and on subdivision collectors, county collectors, arterials, MRS accessways don't constitute streets. So I don't think it creates an obligation to construct sidewalks along MRS access ways.

1:34:23I'm not sure there's a need for sidewalks in rural type subdivisions. Let's say somebody wants to come in Let's say we want to build a I'll use an example. I think one of the commissioners lives there, Aristida. They don't have any sidewalks.

1:34:42I mean in my own neighborhood I don't have any sidewalks and we all all live on a acre or better lots. And because our lots are big And we don't have a bunch of traffic, I can literally walk right down the middle of my street. any time of the day and not really worry about getting hit by a car. So I'm not understanding the need that just because

1:35:06it's a street that it necessarily has to have the sidewalk.

1:35:10Even better

1:35:10too. I do understand when we have dense developments, that does make sense to me, but when we have more rural type developments What's the n what's the need?

1:35:20Yeah, Aristide isn't even an a good egg as good of an example as like out, you know, by Bellamy Brothers, the five acre lots out there. You wouldn't need cybalks in a Right.

1:35:29I don't think it's our intention to to build sidewalks on in rural areas, and we have discussed internally with staff. But that's what this says. We have discussed internally with staff um r rewriting this to add something that would exempt those rural areas. We just haven't figured out exactly how to write that yet.

1:35:49Well then isn't it premature to bring this to the Planning Commission as a proposed ordinance if you haven't figured it out yet?

1:35:59We do our best.

1:36:02Something you might consider is maybe by lot size.

1:36:07Okay.

1:36:11Question on the multi-use passage just for my clarification, if you could flip back on one more slide.

1:36:18Is the specifying of the location, south or east, is that just Just to have typical schem schematics and all that is at

1:36:29Yeah.

1:36:31We're just hoping to align this LDC with what's currently reflected in our typical sections.

1:36:36Okay. So how does that work for a traffic circle?

1:36:43I think most of our traffic circles are done through with F dot standards and I believe that those are they eight feet along the traffic circles?

1:36:54But I know we build them right now, like in our various subdivisions, um, with multi-use paths on one side. And from what I've seen, the multi-use path kind of terminates at our traffic circles, goes to a wider sidewalk, and comes back down.

1:37:09So shouldn't that be reflected or should there be some language? The problem is there's now amp you you you create an ambiguity in the code. You say it must be on the south and east side and then Okay, I've got a traffic circle. Well I actually before I came here. Tried to sketch what that would look like and I'm like, was this a bull bunch of bullseyes? We would have to make concentric circles around the traffic circle?

1:37:39I hadn't thought of that.

1:37:40And then at what point at some point that the the multi use path is no longer on the south end or the east side, if it's going around in a circle.

1:37:51Yeah, and you w may be difficult too with roads that are diagonal to try to figure out all right, we're gonna hold it to the North. Uh or the south uh parameter or the west parameter. So that's

1:38:02Well isn't the south and east just a recommendation for guidance. Isn't there language in there that's

1:38:07it It will be Other than unless it was a previously appewed approved MPUD.

1:38:14That's the way I read it.

1:38:19That's arising from my question.

1:38:31Yeah instead of specifying um a d d cardinal direction you may just want to say I'm one side of the road. You know, that you have your multi use on the other side of the sidewalk. That way it can be decided based on the the situation.

1:38:47I think the trouble we have with that is if we have the developer comes in, they're like, Oh, there's We wanna make make sure that everything's going to be consistently aligned and we don't want to run into Trouble where Well, we don't want to put it on this side, put it on the other side, and then it doesn't get built on either side because nobody wants to build it. On on even one side.

1:39:12If the ordinance is forcing them to build it Then You know what I actually sketched this out to myself as well. Just What does it look like if they're all on the south and east side? And the conclusion that I came to when I drew the sketch was Somebody's living in the world where they're fantasizing that no one ever, ever has to cross the street. Well, you do. So whether we

1:39:42decide to put 'em on the right side the south side or the north side or the east side or the west side, there's inevitably going to be a situation where s some pedestrian or some bicyclist or some golf carter Must cross the street. So as long as the appropriate intersection precautions are taken. I'm not sure I understand the difference.

1:40:06Well I think we're talking about two different things 'cause we're talking about the multi use trail which is more expensive to construct than the sidewalk and who's ultimately responsible for that. And I think she was trying to set the

1:40:15standard of the

1:40:16right-of-way.

1:40:19What I'm getting about is specifying and I think that's why the the builders when you met with the builders they had concerns that your Your trying to regulate by ordinance which side of the street it goes on, and I think that what you'll end up doing just like we have alternative standards looked at for every development that goes through w when we create an ordinance like that that is too rigid All you're gonna end up doing is produ processing a bunch of

1:40:50alternative standard requests to change it. because there's never going to be a situation in which everybody can comply with that. it would it makes more sense that the county engineer down here who's in charge of these transportation decisions. Looks at that and then decides What's the best thing for that project? Rather than regulate it. Otherwise you're gonna be processing alternative standard after alternative standard. Because there's gonna there's inevitably going to be Kate cases that it doesn't work.

1:41:23I agree a hundred percent.

1:41:24Yeah.

1:41:27Attacking on a case by case basis instead.

1:41:30I feel like that could be potentially problematic um because what we're

1:41:37Our goal is to kind of create a standard and just like we don't want a bunch of alternative standards coming in to request a different side of the street, I don't know if it's reasonable to ask one person on our staff to make that determination which side it goes on for each and every project that comes through the county.

1:41:55Well if I have a neighborhood that's not connected to another one, what difference does it make?

1:42:01Part of what this is proposing is to apply this to site developments. So to individual site developments, not just like amputees or larger developments. So if we're applying it to site developments, then in my perspective, we need to identify which side of the road it goes on. Because we're not planning to build the whole thing in one go, we're trying to apply two site development projects. similarly to

1:42:31how we build sidewalks right now, which is typically through site development and in combination with our CIP.

1:42:44I'm still not sure I see the logic, but

1:42:51Well I tend to agree with uh people are talking about this up here because There's there's a lot as you said, it's n never gonna be a consistent side that you wanna be on. And people are gonna have to cross the road.

1:43:06That's what I get. And if I'm riding on the south side of the street on my bicycle and they need to get something to something on the north side of the street, well Then I don't have a place to ride my bicycle on the north side of the street, do I? I've got I've got to cross the street. Inevitably at some point in my life you gotta cross the street. You know, I always used to joke in my office for many years the DOT would love a world we would never have to make a left turn. Well, unfortunately, reality is we have to make left turns. Yeah.

1:43:39So but I this is what this this is what these sessions are for. So I think these are good suggestions. I think we need to take them seriously because I think otherwise you're gonna be caught in the Situation where you're And inevitably put sidewalks where they don't need to be.

1:43:55I I think the intent, Mr. Chairman and Planning Commission members, are To make sure or try to have continuity with different site developments so they they work together because as Rebecca has said they're they're one offs. You know, we we approve uh you know a platinum site plan, then a platinum site plan. And we wanted to standardize our requirements as best as possible. That was the intent. Yeah, and I

1:44:20think that's Mr. Moody's intent to do it as best as possible, just give some flexibility that it doesn't just always have to be on one side or the Right.

1:44:30Well but I I mean I I don't know. I'm I don't know. This is very weird for me, but I'm kind of on the side of the county that I I mean I dare I I know. I don't know I mean I'm I'm hesitant on I'm hesitant on what the what the problem is with trying to come up with a recommended standard and then uh and then have somebody come in with an alternative standard and there's gonna be cases just like with any kind of ordinance, there's always cases where an alternative standard is gonna be needed. Um So I I don't I don't know.

1:45:00Makes more sense on the north side of the road.

1:45:03I agree with you. And that's that's my issue with being too rigid in My issue is the language of the ordinance, Jamie. I

1:45:11Yeah.

1:45:12They're I don't have a problem with them trying to standardize But you have you have to go into this with an understanding that That's an impossibility. you're not going to standardize that.

1:45:27I want to

1:45:27have they can have a recommendation that we want to recommend it or it's generally our policy to do these things. But I don't want to create something and I'm sorry because I didn't want to use this language that's more restrictive and or burdensome on the developer.

1:45:44by the language. I think we need to be very, very careful here.

1:45:51So I want to point out one

1:45:53requirement quickly.

1:46:03Yeah. In theory. stops us from passing any more restrictive um restrictive or burdensome land development code amendments, comprehensive policies, et cetera. And maybe they'll win in const in in front of the Supreme Court. I don't know. Who knows how that'll happen. But I think we should all be conscientious of that. And maybe try to think about that as in the language that we're proposing while we're under this period where there's some mystery as

1:46:34to the applicability of that particular state statute.

1:46:38Well I think uh from what Stringle said, I think that's exactly what your understanding of what we're trying to get done here is, isn't it, David? Yes sir. Uh They But the staff has to have some Flexibility to make those determinations without coming and asking for an alternative standard.

1:47:00Yeah, I mean I'll I'll use I mean just take one of the bigger take like the OPH or something like that where they have a approved sections for roadways with you know recommended you know past sidewalks on various sides of the road. That's essentially what I see this as. And um maybe there's cases there where there are certain situations where it have to deviate. Where you'd have to deviate in this situation too, but I it sounds like that's all all they're trying to do is trying to standardize it somehow.

1:47:26And Mr. Chair, we did extend this draft to the TBBA. They had had some comments that we were gonna handle uh uh between The LPA and the Board of County Commissioners just re regarding the m construction material and things like that. I I Rebecca, I don't recall that they had any questions about where we're gonna put the multipurpose pathways, on which side. They didn't object to that. Okay.

1:47:50All right.

1:47:53by designated okay multi-use paths are gonna be on the south side of these arterial roads. So if you had two identical pieces of property, one on the north side, one on the south side, in theory, by having this ordinance you would make the all the properties on the south side less valuable. than the one on the top because it's gonna be more expensive to develop that property 'cause you have to have the multi use path on that side. So, you know, peop property owners that are on the south side of an arterial may be upset about that because suddenly their property is a little bit more expensive

1:48:23to develop than it was before the ordinance. So I understand again. I I I I see both sides of it. Uh w what Jamie's saying that you know, very strongly both ways. Yeah, I feel very strongly both ways. It's uh you need to standardize it but at the same time it it's it creates problems.

1:48:41I just think this is Just Bringing it to us at this time with a lot of unanswered questions just seems premature. There may be some good things in here. And I think there's some good intentions. I think the staff has good intentions. I think it needs to go back and think about the different situations and scenarios and how will we handle this and how will we handle that. And maybe tweak this. And then bring it back.

1:49:11Can we liken this discussion as more of a workshop? I mean, if you have if if this is the only questions you have, that's good and we'll go back and and look at it and come back with something better. Is there any other is there if there may be something else that you pick up that you want to discuss with us today so we're on target?

1:49:30Well I think those are the biggest. For me.

1:49:36I hate to Over regulate. Which side? But The other one was the applicability. I'm Right now

1:49:51Making Making subdivisions that go in res one forced into sidewalks I don't think is reasonable. People. People in rural neighborhoods don't demand sidewalks. They don't need sidewalks. Like I said, in where I live, I can walk right down the middle of the street. I don't need a sidewalk. It's all good.

1:50:14There's enough property between the edge pavement and the right-of-way line. that that's not actually necessary. And In all honesty, if I'm walking down the street it's only to go see my neighbor, because it's a long way for me to walk to. It's not like I'm gonna be walking to Publix from where I live. Yeah. Is that all? I'm just not sure that that's necessarily applicable in all c that sidewalks are applicable in all

1:50:42cases. Well then taking this merely two items into consideration that we could just handle it as a workshop. Does everybody agree?

1:50:52Makes sense to me.

1:50:55Okay. We still need to take a look at the

1:50:58right-of-way. Uh Mr. Chairman Mariano two things. Um I owned a home. I had a six-acre lot. We had sidewalks. I was in the end of a cul-de-sac. And number two, I think the commissioner that Mr. Moody was referring to would love to to have had sidewalks on our street. So it's uh it it can work either way.

1:51:18Yeah.

1:51:20Okay. There's places where it's obviously needed for s n you know, near schools. I mean we talked about the sidewalk and five A, you know. So it's Okay,

1:51:28so is there

1:51:29anything

1:51:29else you need to bring? No, on a positive note, because I don't want you to think I'm just critical of your ordinance, I think a sidewalk fund in this county is long overdue. What I would ask Though is that you speak to Pinellus County.

1:51:51Penellas County does it a little bit differently, and the first time I was ever involved in it. I was a little taken aback. I'm thinking, how is this my problem? It was involved in a development. where they asked us to build what amounts to a sidewalk to nowhere, and there was no impetus for any of the other sites around there to develop or redevelop and build sidewalks so have been a complete waste of taxpayer dollars. Or I'm sorry, of developer dollars. and of no benefit

1:52:21to the taxpayers. And they said Well we don't take a payment in lieu. Of the sidewalk. Your obligation is to build four hundred and seventy some odd feet of sidewalk along your frontage. I need a sidewalk. Over on this street so that these kids can get to school, and it just happens to be about four hundred and seventy some odd feet, you need to go build it.

1:52:49I'd ask you to consider that approach Because one of the things that happens is this if If I'm asked to do a cost estimate for my client for a sidewalk, I'm doing it in today's dollars. By the time the county gets around to building a sidewalk, it's gonna be in five years or ten years from now's dollars and potentially by your Language in the ordinance, fifteen years. Later dollars. And I just actually just checked it I looked up What was the average

1:53:21rate of inflation From two thousand five to today, it is sixty five percent.

1:53:28So A dollar in two thousand five is a dollar sixty five today. So by the time you guys get around to building the sidewalk the cost of the sidewalk is going to have gone way up and you won't have enough money to build the sidewalk. That's one of the problems we have with collecting mobility fees and building roads. seven, six or seven years later. The road costs a lot more money than we ever collected in mobility fees. So maybe it's maybe it's a better approach and I'm not suggesting that we have to do it this way. I'm just asking you to

1:53:58go consider it. Good. Where can you put those dollars to use? Don't make a developer build a sidewalk to nowhere today, go make them build a sidewalk to somewhere today. Where Somebody where the people can benefit from the sidewalk. Not just stuck in a bank account. We did the same thing with the trees, and I know we're gonna get to that later.

1:54:19Yeah, that's a good idea.

1:54:20We stuck all the money in the tree fund. We've had the money in the tree fund for years and years and years and now I got a room full of citizens down here going, Hey, where's all the trees? Well that's Maybe we could get the money, let's do something, build something.

1:54:32Maybe we could refer um the list of priority projects that the MPO adopts and the board sits on it. Um and there's sidewalk projects on that that are unfunded. Maybe we could prioritize the use of funds to get out on the street.

1:54:45Great thing to consider.

1:54:46Yeah. All right, so we'll we will. Yeah, and yeah, David.

1:54:51Okay. Is that all?

1:54:53Uh I wanna make sure I understand your primary concerns here before I leave. Um so changing applicability to address land use specifically rural areas and addressing how we deal with diagonal streets and traffic circles. Is that is that it?

1:55:11I think just the restriction of the language

1:55:13and the South and East s south and east side. Yes.

1:55:16The language reads right now shall be. Um I think there should be some flexibility in that.

1:55:21Right. I I understand that it may be the desire but it's when you use the word shall and you're mandating it that where we're having some um heartburn over it. We we understand that it can be our general policy to require it on this side or that side. Right. But there's always gonna be an edge case. You gotta You gotta be able to do that with You you guys have to be able to be nimble and to move. You're you're hamstringing yourself.

1:55:47Understood. Thank you for your time and your comments.

1:55:50We're gonna have public comment.

1:55:55For both?

1:55:58Okay. Is there a list?

1:56:02Mr. Chairman there are no individuals pre registered to speak on this auto.

1:56:06Okay.

1:56:06I just wanted to say that I I live in a rural place. And I've

1:56:11We still need your name and address.

1:56:13Melody Lamberson, [address removed]. Thank you. Um I live in a rural place and I have walked and run in my neighborhood. It's not really a neighborhood, it's just rural. And uh I have felt like that. I agree with Mr. Moody that I can run or walk down the middle of the road some of the time. But um it as a matter

1:56:43of safety, I would feel safer uh on a sidewalk off the road, not because I think somebody's gonna mow me over, but because cars would slow down and just be scary, you know. Um this is this is just a safety thing for women. Uh I wondered why there, you know, it's It's kind of far to go where I live,

1:57:14it's kind of far to go to a gym. Uh I like being outdoors. I would prefer to be running and walking outdoors, but it can be kind of creepy. So I just wanted to throw that in the mix.

1:57:28All right. Thank you.

1:57:29Thank you.

1:57:32Forget. Anybody else on that subject?

1:57:39Okay.

1:57:43Do you need to continue or

1:57:47Just

1:57:48Well, I think he's asking for a workshop so that there's no motions.

1:57:52Well, you need to continue this or it's gonna have to be readvertised. Do you wanna continue to a date, sir?

1:57:59That's fine with me.

1:58:02I think uh Mr. Ingall was trying to avoid any excess time taken up on it if we all had

1:58:10to do it. think we have enough um Material. And uh what I'd like to do if we could just continue it to the next meeting, it doesn't matter which side of the county's on and if we're not ready we'll just ask for another continuance. But we're gonna try to the board has wanted us to expedite this, so we wanna keep it. Thank you.

1:58:27I think everybody okay with that? Sure.

1:58:30I think that would be ten two.

1:58:31All right. I'll move to continue this item to the October second meeting in Dade City. Second.

1:58:39Second. Further discussion. All in favor? Signified by saying aye. Aye. Like sign? No.