Confirmed! $16 Billion Rail Tax Never Intended for New Road Capacity

Former County Commissioner Mark Sharpe is now a spokesperson for the $16 Billion rail tax sending text messages in support of the massive tax hike. He helped lead the 2010 rail tax boondoggle that was overwhelmingly defeated 58-42%.

Sharpe was challenged on Facebook recently about All For Transportation's (AFT) rail tax hike not including any dedicated funding for new road capacity. He tried dancing around but finally admits:

Goings On At County Center in August 2014: Leytham, Merrill and Sharpe

We await the completion of the Go Hillsborough law enforcement investigation expected by the end of this month. Much of the focus of electeds has been on Mayor Buckhorn and County Commissioners Murman and Hagan. However, it was former County Commissioner Mark Sharpe who made the motion at a March 2013 BOCC meeting to start the transportation initiative that created the Transportation Policy Leadership Group (PLG) and morphed into the crony Go Hillsborough campaign.

Sharpe was also a member of the HART Board when County Administrator Mike Merrill proposed, with zero public input, a hostile takeover of HART by all electeds in May 2014. As we posted about that proposed hostile takeover here in June 2014

County Commissioner Mark Sharpe, who has been advocating for transit change for years, called the plan a "HART transplant" on Twitter. The changes will create a far more robust HART capable of running more buses, taking on larger projects and increasing opportunities for transit-oriented development, he said.

Sharpe was a commissioner when the PLG voted on August 12, 2014 to hire a transportation expert to do public outreach and when Parsons Brinckherhoff was handed the million dollar no bid contract on September 5, 2014.

Something changed with the direction of the PLG between May 28, 2014 and August 12, 2014 and it was done all behind the scenes. As we posted here, Merrill stated at the May 28, 2014 PLG meeting that transit projects would be the focus at the next [June] PLG meeting and both he and Mayor Buckhorn specifically stated that rail was included.

WE ARE GOING TO FOCUS ON TRANSIT SPECIFICALLY NEXT MONTH, BUT WE'RE RECOGNIZING THAT IT'S A CHICKEN AND THE EGG.IF WE DON'T HAVE THE DENSITY, IF WE DON'T HAVE THE PROPER DEVELOPMENT PLANNING, THEN WE CAN'T CREATE THE KIND OF TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM THAT WE NEED TO SUPPORT ALL THE PEOPLE THAT WE WANT TO COME LIVE, WORK, AND PLAY IN OUR DOWNTOWN AREA.  

BOB BUCKHORN: I THINK IT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT — BECAUSE IF -- OBVIOUSLY, EVERYONE HAS SEEN THAT WE PUT A RAIL PROJECT ON THIS LIST, SO NO SURPRISE TO ANYBODY, IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN, WE'RE GOING TO GET THIS DONE. 

WE WERE PLANNING FOR MORE OF A FOCUS ON TRANSIT IN OUR NEXT WORKSHOP AS THE MAYOR SAID, WE'VE GOT MASS TRANSIT RAIL ON OUR LIST.

LET ME JUST PREVIEW, AGAIN, OUR JUNE MEETING.WE'LL BE PRESENTING TO YOU THE FIRST PARTS OF THE BUSINESS PLAN, WHICH WILL INCLUDE ALL THE KEY ECONOMIC SPACES AND WHAT THOSE PROJECTS WILL COST; TRANSIT; AND A FURTHER MORE DETAILED DISCUSSION OF GOVERNANCE 

BUT OUR PLAN IS AS SOON AS YOU GIVE US AN ENDORSEMENT ON THAT BUSINESS PLAN, WHICH, AGAIN, WILL HAVE PROJECTS, FINANCING, GOVERNANCE, WE'LL GO OUT AGAIN TO A MORE DETAILED PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PROCESS WITH THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY AND THE REST OF THE COMMUNITY, SO THAT'S OUR PLAN FOR MOVING FORWARD WITH THIS.

A business plan with projects, funding and governance was going to be presented at the June PLG meeting for a decision to start public engagement. None of that ever happened. Instead Merrill cancelled the June and July 2014 PLG meetings and suddenly in August was asking the PLG to vote to hire a consultant to do public outreach.

There was never any discussion or a vote by the PLG in the Sunshine for this total direction change. There was no transparency for what Merrill was doing behind the scenes between the May and August PLG meetings. It appears he orchestrated outside of Sunshine his plan for the Go Hillsborough campaign. Who was directing Merrill to make this total direction change the summer of 2014 - Beth Leytham, county commissioner(s), special interests? The only assumption one can make is Merrill orchestrated this direction change, with no transparency and behind the scenes, with the county commissioners because no county commissioner asked any questions why they were being asked to vote on hiring a consultant for public outreach. No one questioned what it would cost either.

The goings on down at County Center in August 2014 appears to be key.

Noah Pransky's first article about PR lobbyist Beth Leytham on September 14, 2015 titled The Gatekeeper included the text messages below of August 8 and August 13, 2014 between Merrill and Leytham. Note the August 13th text was one day AFTER the August 12th Transportation Policy Leadership Group meeting but before Parsons was handed the no bid contract.

Text Messages from Leytham to Merrill August 8 & 13, 2014
 (click to enlarge)

From a Public Records Request, Sharpe and some other county commissioners received an email from a constituent on August 13, 2014 at 12:02 who said NO to rail. Lo and behold that email had a link to our Eye blog post Inconvenient Truths on Local Transit Conveniently Avoided that disclosed the AEComm transit assessment. The AEComm report stated that Hillsborough County does not have the ridership to qualify for federal funds for rail and fixed guideways and recommended "Hillsborough County should approach making transit investments cautiously and prudently" (emphasis mine).

Sharpe felt compelled almost immediately to forward that email to Merrill at 12:13 from his phone. Sharpe told Merrill the county needs a "media/messaging strategy" to respond to inaccuracies and introduce transportation facts.

Sharpe email to Merrill on Aug. 13, 2014
 (click to enlarge)

How can Sharpe insinuate my blog post was inaccurate? I quoted directly from the AEComm assessment. Sharpe knew about the assessment that the county paid for but Merrill refused to present publicly to the PLG or hand directly to the media as Merrill did other more less relevant documents and information. The County initially tried to hide the assessment by burying it within another document posted on the PLG website - until the County was at least shamed into posting it directly on the PLG website with an obscure file name that no one would recognize or understand.

As our blog post previously reported, we directly asked Sharpe for a copy of the AEComm transit assessment report on May 22nd. He refused to provide it at that time using the excuse that it was still a draft. That excuse does not hold water with our Florida Statute 119 Sunshine Laws regarding public records requests and we know Merrill has provided draft documents and information not yet complete requested by others via public records request. Merrill refused to even mention this assessment at his media briefing on July 29, 2014 so no media attention was brought to bear on it because it would totally blow their rail agenda.

We had to submit a Public Records Request to get the AEComm document.

Why is Sharpe, in his Aug. 13, 2014 email the day after the PLG voted to hire a transportation expert, and supposedly not a PR firm, worried about information that can sink campaigns? Was it because he knew the Go Hillsborough public engagement that was being orchestrated behind the scenes was really a campaign for another huge sales tax hike?

In Sharpe's email to Merrill, he stated he wanted a messaging strategy to introduce transportation facts. From what we now know about Go Hillsborough, that request is almost comical.

We have numerous posts regarding how flawed the Go Hillsborough campaign was. They introduced half-truths, ignored important information, made false claims, made claims with no facts to back up their claim, used misleading information and displayed misleading pictures at their meetings of traffic on I-5 in LA insinuating it was I-275 in Hillsborough County. Go Hillsborough was selective about the information they provided the public to advance their agenda that the only funding solution was another huge sales tax increase - that's why they proposed the tax before any plan. These tactics are not trivial, they are devastating - especially when the county has money to fund our roads and transportation needs but simply refuses to. These campaign tactics used by a crony PR firm, that cost taxpayers $1.3 million for the Go Hillsborough effort with little oversight, is what sinks campaigns and damages credibility.

Merrill responds to Sharpe's email the evening of August 13, 2014, conveniently after his text message exchange with Beth Leytham (see above) that afternoon.

Merrill email to Sharpe on Aug. 13, 2014
(Click to enlarge)

Leytham had told Merrill on Aug. 13 2014 to contact the local media editorial board writers and Merrill follows her direction and tells Sharpe he is doing that the very next day. Merrill also tells Sharpe that is he working on "communication outreach consulting assistance" and he will know more tomorrow.  Hmmm…more collusion with the media regarding a policy issue…Is that the role of a County Administrator?

The Merrill/Sharpe email thread can be found here.

How long has Leytham been directing Merrill what to do? Who's really running County Center? In what role was she directing him  -  as a PR lobbyist, a friend, a political consultant, a conduit for the media or special interests?  Merrill works for the county commissioners, not Beth Leytham. Was a county commissioner instructing Leytham to tell Merrill what to do? Were there any violations of our Sunshine laws?

Disingenuously, Merrill told Pransky he did not know Leytham. The tone of the text messages between them prove otherwise.

Beth Leytham is best buds and has a very cozy relationship with Guidry of the Tribune and Hill of TBT. Was Leytham roping Merrill in with the media to collude and collaborate to push the sales tax hike campaign they both knew was about to start with Parsons Brinckerhoff?

Because next thing we know, as Pransky reported, Leytham sends Merrill her August 19 text message below telling him the transportation expert will come in with their own communication team in tow. Again, what role is Leytham playing directing Mike Merill what to do? Was she directing Merrill as a conduit from some county commissioners or from some special interests? Was Merrill acting like a lap dog for whatever Leytham wanted him to do?

Pransky also reported:

Leytham told 10Investigates she wasn’t looking out for her client or herself; she was merely looking out for the community.

“That (text) is exactly what it is on its face,” she said. “It is a communications strategy and it is a recommendation and information.”

Leytham was "looking out for the community" with her expensive proposition? We don't think so. Public engagement was originally estimated to be about $200K but Leytham quotes over a million and, of course, she wanted a piece of those tax dollars.

And Voila! Merrill and the county hands Parsons Brinckerhoff, who happens to also be Leytham's client, a million dollar blank check no bid contract on September 5, 2014. It was never publicly disclosed by Parsons or the County that Parsons was bringing in their communication team in tow because the PLG had specifically stated they did not want a PR firm doing the public engagement.  We now know who the "communications outreach consulting assistance" is that Merrill was pulling together - a communication consultant team of one - Beth Leytham.

Leytham immediately started directing the Go Hillsborough show and colluding with the local media propaganda from the get go. Pransky's investigative report included this September 19, 2014 text message thread between Leytham and Merrill

Leytham/Merrill text message exchange of Sept. 19, 2014

Remember at this very same time Leytham was Mayor Buckhorn's campaign consultant.  What county perspective on September 19, 2014 is Leytham referring to that she knows Buckhorn agrees with? Leytham is behind the scenes directing the local media editorial propaganda on this issue.

Isn't it disturbing that no county commissioner ever raised any concerns about the direct violation of their request to not hire a PR firm to do the public engagement? Isn't it disturbing that no county commissioner raised any concern about using the CCNA procurement process, a procurement process governed by state statute to procure professional engineering services, was used to hire the politically well connected PR lobbyist Leytham through the back door and was never publicly disclosed?

Timeline:

• August 12, 2014: PLG votes to hire transportation expert on August 12, 2014
• August 13, 2014:  
• Leytham texts Merrill and directs him to contact the media 
• Sharpe contacts Merrill about needing a communications strategy and his concern about what sinks a "campaign"
• Merrill responds to Sharpe that he is meeting with media (as directed by Leytham) and working on a solution for communications outreach consultant assistance
• August 19, 2014:  Leytham texts Merrill that transportation expert brings their communication team in tow and quotes a cost of $1.2 million
• September 5, 2014: County hands Parsons a million dollar no bid contract with their communication team of one in tow - the politically well connected PR lobbyist Beth Leytham 
• October 2015: County hands Sharpe $2 million for his Tampa Innovation Alliance in the FY2016 budget

We asked for text messages between Mark Sharpe and Beth Leytham during this time period. The county stated since Sharpe no longer has his county issued phone they cannot access any of his text messages that were county business related. The county was not archiving them previously as they say they are now. The cell phone provider would have the archived text messages.

We hope the law enforcement investigation includes Sharpe since he was the commissioner who started what turned into such a debacle. Sharpe got rewarded in the 2016 county budget with $2 million for his non-profit Tampa Innovation Alliance that has held some events and recruits members but has no record of successfully doing anything.

The sequence of events associated with Go Hillsborough were not coincidental. They were deliberate and orchestrated. Too much of the entire transportation initiative was orchestrated behind the scenes with no transparency which has resulted in more lack of trust and credibility.

Whatever all the goings on were behind the scenes down at County Center between May and August 2014, it appears they directly resulted in the Go Hillsborough crony mess.

Mike Merrill was smack in the middle of the Go Hillsborough debacle and it all happened on his watch. Regardless of what comes out of the law enforcement investigation, the county commissioners must remove Merrill from the transportation issue.

Setting the Record Straight

The Tribune finally has acknowledged there are those out there with alternative ideas for how to fund our roads and transportation needs. Thanks to Mike Salinero for his Tampa Tribune article yesterday titled Surprise Hillsborough transportation plan came straight from anti-tax advocates.

It's about time the Tribune start publicizing what we have been saying publicly for the last year and half.

The irony is Salinero and the Tribune are so in the tank for a sales tax hike they have refused to acknowledge any other funding options. Why should they have an issue with Commissioner Murman deciding it was beyond time to finally have that conversation?

Salinero never called Mark or myself about this article so of course he left out some important points.

Salinero does not acknowledge we have for years consistently and publicly been asking the county to re-prioritize our current budget to appropriately fund our roads. He does not acknowledge that we have consistently advocated and been on the record for additional funding options other than just the sale tax hike proposed by Go Hillsborough.

Salinero also does not acknowledge that we have been offering funding alternatives to an unnecessary sales tax hike long before Murman ever presented her alternative funding plan. The Eye posted Hillsborough PLG: Where is Plan B? on July 12, 2015. We also posted Here's a Plan B back on October 3. Mark handed the Plan B to ALL the county commissioners when he made a public comment about it at the October 7, 2015 county commission meeting.

We came up with a Plan B for free.

The county paid Parsons Brinckerhoff and politically well connected Beth Leytham $1.3 million taxpayer dollars. All they came up with was one proposed funding option, Parsons standard template - a run of the mill sales tax hike. Why? Because that was the answer Parsons/Leytham was expected to deliver since Parsons was awarded, via a no bid contract, a scope of work titled "Hillsborough County Transportation Referendum Support. We don't ever remember the Tribune or Salinero questioning this.

County awards Parsons Brinckerhoff a no bid contract for
work titled Hillsborough County Transportation Referendum Support

Even Salinero's Tribune pal Joe Henderson stated it is time for a Plan B, C, D, E, F….when both Joe and I were on Florida This Week back in September.

Salinero's public records request apparently did not go back far enough or target all the right people.  He missed the unsolicited call I received from former county commissioner Mark Sharpe in early 2014 asking for our input on the transportation initiative. It was Sharpe who got us formally involved in the transportation issue long ago.

As citizens, we all have the right to contact our elected officials, meet with them and speak to them about important issues. I regularly advocate for citizens to contact our county commissioners, talk to them and establish a relationship with them. That's how our participatory form of government is supposed to work.

We know the special interests and politically well connected meet and speak with the commissioners all the time. We all now know about the politically well connected PR lobbyist Beth Leytham's influence. She's the one that got caught orchestrating behind the scenes outside of Sunshine and with NO transparency at the same time she was receiving hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars.

The fact is everything we have advocated for is very public knowledge. We have not been paid a dime and have never asked for anything in return. We are simply concerned citizens voicing our opinions.

Is Salinero and the Tribune trying to make the transportation issue about who spoke to who? Then Salinero should get all the phone records of the pro sales tax hike transit advocates and special interests who have contacted any of the commissioners over the last 2 years on the transportation issue.

While he's at it Salinero should get all the phone records and text messages between Beth Leytham and any county commissioner or Mike Merrill. We anxiously await that report.

Salinero had the courtesy to call Ken Roberts and Tom Rask for this article. Next time Salinero wants to write about me he should call me first so he can get his story straight.

Millennials and their future

Millennials are under-employed, have tough job prospects, burdened with debt, living at home with Mom and Dad at high rates, and they will be asked to pay our share of the public debt. Millennials are challenged to earn money for cars, homes or much of anything else except a cool phone and an occasional tattoo.

Otherwise, we're repeatedly told millennials are our future.  Perhaps they are, but they are facing some pretty strong headwinds to build their own future.

Recently, the Tampa Bay Business Journal reported  Millennials are moving to Tampa, but more are moving to Texas.

The Tampa Bay metro region is near the bottom of the pack of Sunbelt cities that've grown their college-educated Millennial population — but it did beat out Charlotte, N.C.

Think tank City Observatory released a report this week with data on how the nation's 51 largest metros are faring in terms of attracting a young, educated workforce. Between 2000 and 2012, the population of 25- to 34-year-olds with a college degree in Tampa Bay grew nearly 41 percent, from 74,341 to 104,532.

It's interesting to note that with Houston, San Antonio, and Austin, Texas is widely recognized for promoting the best business environment in the country, as did the TBBJ.  It is also interesting that those municipalities, along with Nashville, are pretty much the prototypes of suburban dispersion, and not the urban dream often cited for millennials desires.  Texas and Tennessee are low tax low regulation states, and each of the cities is often cited as a top job creator in the current economy. Perhaps that has something to do with it. None of those cities currently has a focus on transit as much as Charlotte, which Tampa beats as far as attracting millennials.

This is consistent with the recent Census data, according to Trulia:

The punchline: millennial population growth in 2012-2013 in big, dense cities was outpaced by big-city suburbs and lower-density cities and even by lower-density suburbs and smaller cities.

Trulia goes on to say nine of the 10 metros with the fastest millennial population growth were in the South and West.

Then there's the Times Robert Trigaux, who took the same bait as TBBJ from the think tank City Observatory

A study dubbed "The Young and the Restless and the Nation's Cities," released Monday by the new think tank City Observatory, shows that more 25- to 34-year-olds with a bachelor's degree or higher level of education are moving to close-in neighborhoods of large metro areas.

"This migration is fueling economic growth and urban revitalization," the study says. We can see it in downtown Tampa and Channelside, in downtown St. Petersburg and a bit so far in Clearwater.

The City Observatory report indicates the "Young and Restless in Close-In Neighborhoods" (basically downtown Tampa and St. Petersburg), grew from 4,673 in 2000, to 7,794 in 2010, or an increase of 3,121.  During the same time, Hillsborough County grew from 998,948 to 1,229,224, or an increase of 230,276.

227,155 more people moved into areas outside downtown.  Do you think they had a greater economic impact than 3,121 that moved into downtown, regardless of age?

Trigaux seems to have missed that point.

Who is City Observatory?

We’re studying where in cities new jobs are being created and how the nation’s urban cores are doing in generating economic activity.

If you're not in the cities, do you exist for job creation or economic activity?

They launched their site on October 14, 2014.  They've been thinking and tanking all of 6 days when TBBJ and the Times Robert Trigaux swallowed the hook.  City Observatory are "unabashedly pro-city".

Demographer Wendel Cox has run the numbers and demonstrated that most millenials are moving into the suburbs faster than the urban core.

There is no question that the millennial population has risen in urban cores in recent years. Yet the growth in the younger population in urban cores masks far larger increases in the same population group in other parts of major metropolitan areas and in the nation in general.

20 - 29 Age group share in major metropolitan areas

Cox later states

[M]illennials, long said to hate suburbs, have embraced dispersion. The more recently built suburban areas saw their share of 20-29s rise from 20.6 percent to 24.4, an 18 percent gain. A smaller gain was registered in exurban areas, where the share of 20-29s rose from 13.2 percent to 14.3 percent; an 8 percent share gains (Figure 2).

The net effect from 2000 and 2010: a full five percent more of all 20-29s in major metropolitan areas lived in the later suburban and exurban areas, while 5 percent fewer lived in the urban cores and earlier suburbs. The later suburbs and exurbs added 1,500,000 more 20-29s than the urban core and earlier suburbs.

So much for downtown cheerleading.  

Hillsborough County Commissioner Mark Sharpe most recently brought forward his concern for millennials in the Transportation Policy Leadership (PLG) on October 21. From the transcript:

>>MARK SHARPE: I THINK A LOT OF
HEADS WERE NODDING WHEN YOU
DISCUSSED NOT DICTATING THE TYPE
-- THE SPECIFIC ALIGNMENT OR THE
MODE.
THAT'S CORRECT.
LET ME ASK YOU, YOU DID LIST A
LOT OF GROUPS THAT YOU'RE GOING
TO BE REACHING TO, VERY DETAILED
TO BE REACHING TO, VERY
DETAILED.
WHAT ABOUT YOUNG -- THE
WORKFORCE, THE FUTURE WORKFORCE?
YOU KNOW, I DON'T WANT TO USE --
I'M GOING TO USE THE WORD, THE
MILLENNIALS THAT EVERYONE'S
TALKING ABOUT.
WE HAD A LIST HERE.
I THINK WE LEFT OUT VEGANS.
>>MIKE MERRILL: HEY, LEAVE THE
VEGANS ALONE.
>>MARK SHARPE: I'M 75% ONE OF
THOSE.
SERIOUSLY, BLOOMBERG WAS
REPORTING SEVERAL DAYS AGO THAT
19% -- OR EXCUSE ME -- OF
19-YEAR-OLDERS, 30% DON'T HAVE A
DRIVER'S LICENSE.
NOW, AS WE'RE BUILDING A SYSTEM
AND WE'RE LOOKING OUT TOWARDS
THE FUTURE, ARE WE GOING TO BE
TALKING TO THE FUTURE?
DO YOU INTEND TO TALK TO THE
FUTURE WORKFORCE AND BRING THEM
INTO THE CONVERSATION?
>>KATHARINE EAGAN: THANK YOU,
COMMISSIONER.
I WILL ALLOW MARCO -- STAND UP,
MARCO.
NOT EVERYBODY KNOWS MARCO.
MARCO SANDUSKY IS THE MANAGER OF
COMPLIANCE AND PROGRAMS AT HART,
AND LAST WEDNESDAY, ACTUALLY,
HELD THE INAUGURAL MEETING FOR A
REGIONAL CHAPTER FOR YOUNG
PROFESSIONALS IN TRANSIT.
IT IS A NATIONWIDE ORGANIZATION,
AND THEY ARE TARGETING SPECIFIC
AND THEY ARE TARGETING
SPECIFICALLY MILLENNIALS, SO
THESE ARE THE FOLKS IN THAT
DEMOGRAPHIC VERY INTERESTED IN
TRANSPORTATION IN VARIOUS SHAPES
AND SIZES, SO WE'VE GOT A GREAT
OPPORTUNITY HERE.
NOW THAT YOU KNOW YOU'RE GOING
TO BE WORKING MORE -- SORRY.
BUT THIS IS JUST ONE EXAMPLE OF
HOW WE ARE GETTING IN CHARGE OF
THIS OUTREACH SO WE'VE GOT THESE
MILLENNIALSENING IN WAYS THAT
ARE BENEFICIAL FOR THEM.
I GUARANTEE THERE ARE A WHOLE
BUNCH OF OTHER THINGS LIKE THAT
LINED UP.
>>MARK SHARPE: AND YOU'RE ALSO,
THOUGH -- YOU'RE TALKING, THOUGH
THOUGH -- YOU'RE TALKING,
THOUGH, ABOUT BUILDING A SYSTEM.
THIS IS NOT EITHER/OR.
THERE SEEMS TO BE A DEBATE THAT
JOEL COCKEN AND RICHARD FLORIDA
THAT SAYS YOU'RE ONLY GOING TO
TAKE TRANSIT OR DRIVE A CAR,
WHICH SEEMS TO ME SILLY.
ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT A SYSTEM
WHERE PEOPLE HAVE OPTIONS AND
CHOICES AND CAN DECIDE, YOU KNOW
CHOICES AND CAN DECIDE, YOU
KNOW, TODAY I WANT TO DRIVE, BUT
TOMORROW I MIGHT BE GOING OUT
WITH FRIENDS AND IT'S JUST TOO
DIFFICULT TO FIND PARKING OR I'D
RATHER NOT HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT
MY CAR?
IS THAT THE TYPE OF SYSTEM
YOU'RE BUILDING?
>> YES.
I MEAN, WE HAVE TO LOOK AT HOW
THE COMMUNITIES ARE GOING TO
GROW, WHERE ARE THEY GOING TO
GROW, AND WHAT ARE THE
EXPECTATIONS?
IF WE'RE LOOKING ABOUT WHAT
WE'RE DOING TODAY, THEN WE'RE
NOT DOING OUR JOB.
>>MARK SHARPE: AWESOME. 

I'm not sure if it's awesome or not to be a millennial, or to make them a core of our rationale for our transportation future.

Researchers and commentators define millennials as those born in the years ranging from the early 1980s to the early 2000s.

In other words, those who are now mostly entering the workforce, early in their career, not yet in their prime earning years.

From an advertising demographic, millennials roughly fit in the 18 - 33 or so age group.

But the most valuable age group that advertisers target are the 25 - 54 age group.

Some overlap, but not much. Why do advertisers focus so much on the 25-54 age group?  That's the age range when people marry, raise children, expand their spending, move up the career ladder, and are in their prime earning years.  They have more income, and therefore, more money to spend.

The 25 - 54 age group are the biggest demographic driving our economy.

Millenials, on the other hand, are early in their career, unfortunately often have poorer job prospects in the current economy, are commonly heavily burdened in college debt (average $30,000), and delaying marriage and family formation. They have many challenges inhibiting their progress up the economic ladder, and they certainly are not out of the woods.

For example, millennials do want to purchase homes, but don't have the money to come up with the down payment.

So say you’re this average Millennial and you’ve got $30,000 in loans, on which you pay $500 a month at 5 percent interest. It’ll take about five years to pay your loans off. With incomes for graduating college students at $45,000 a year—and honestly, I think that number is a bit generous, National Association of Colleges and Employers--that’s nearly a quarter of your take-home pay.

That’s not to say you’re necessarily struggling, but you’re starting to look at your early 30s as the first available opportunity to buy a home.

And then there's that 20 percent down marker that so many housing experts hold paramount:

“When buying a home today, it's critical to be conservative and to safeguard your purchase,” advises Trulia real estate expert Michael Corbett in the news release. “Forget the 'no money down,' or the 5 and 10 percent down payment purchases. Many banks will be hesitant to give you a mortgage otherwise, and a 20 percent down payment gives you some equity right from the start and usually gets you a lower interest rate. Best rule of thumb: If you can't scrape together the 20 percent, then you probably can't really afford to buy just yet.”

That’s all well and good, but home ownership still holds a solid piece of the Millennial heart. We want to own just as much as our parents did.

Home ownership has historically been one of the key drivers in our economy. Millennials are having to wait to buy that home.

Currently just 26% of millennials — those between age 18 and 33 — are married. At the same age, 36% of GenX and 48% of the Baby Boomers were married. And 69% of millennials say they want to get married, but the lack of jobs is holding them back.

AP has reported almost 6 million young people are neither in school nor working.  There are many implications, starting with those young people unable to get in the workforce, start a career and build skills.

The Federal Reserve Bank of New York reported (PDF)  around 44 percent of recent college graduates (ages 22–27) were underemployed in 2012—meaning they had jobs that didn’t require a college degree.

Yet, more young adults are living at home, as the Wall Street Journal reported earlier this year (subscription required).

In a report on the status of families, the Census Bureau on Tuesday said 13.6% of Americans ages 25 to 34 were living with their parents in 2012, up slightly from 13.4% in 2011. Though the trend began before the recession, it accelerated sharply during the downturn. In the early 2000s, about 10% of people in this age group lived at home.

The figures are the latest evidence of the recession's continuing impact on young Americans, who are finding it harder to land jobs and take on the costs of setting up their own homes.

Not to mention the huge national debt overhang the millennials and upcoming generations will have to deal with, leaving them an even harder hill to climb than they would otherwise with our recent economy.

Sure, a few millennials have dramatically driven the new tech economy, such as Facebook and Twitter.  But what are the odds of more of those for us in Tampa Bay?  Even then, what does it really portend?

In contrast celebrated social media firms, overwhelmingly concentrated close to the venture capital spigot, are both geographically constrained and employ shockingly few workers. The darlings of the bubblicious tech boom — Twitter, Facebook, Zynga, LinkedIn and Google — employ roughly 58,000 people combined; in contrast the old-line tech firm Intel employ 85,000 people, half in the U.S., while ExxonMobil provides livelihoods to 80,000.

In term of profits, the supposed holy grail of business, it’s not even close. In Exxon’s disappointing last quarter it racked up $6.9 billion. By contrast Google earned $3.1 billion, while Facebook made $333 million and LinkedIn $3.7 million. Yet what the new tech oligarchs lack on the balance sheet, they seem to make up for with a combination of presumed potential and PR panache.

The old established businesses still have something going for them too, even for millennials.

Commissioner Sharpe seems to be weighing in on other reports that indicate millennials have less interest in owning cars.

A large majority of Millennials want access to better transit options and the ability to be less reliant on a car, according to a new survey of Millennials in 10 major U.S. cities, released today by The Rockefeller Foundation and Transportation for America. More than half (54%) of Millennials surveyed say they would consider moving to another city if it had more and better options for getting around, and 66% say that access to high quality transportation is one of the top three criteria they would weight when deciding where to live.

Perhaps we didn't need to bail out General Motors if we don't need as many cars in the future.

As the article stated, "Saving money is a key driver for many Millennials looking for more public transportation options, particularly among low-income respondents."

In other words, it's the economy stupid. (PDF)  People drive less, and are less able to afford cars, due to the poor economy.  Millennials included.

Most affected have been men, of all age groups.

Most men are driving less

Given the challenges we've outlined above, millennials have to save money... and earn more money than they currently are earning.  If they had more earning potential, they'd have more money to spend and contribute much more to the overall economy... and their future.

Perhaps the driving boom is over, or perhaps it will be augmented by autonomous vehicles, which may increase travel more.  There are many changes occurring now or in progress from online shopping, increasing telecommuting, increase in social network technologies,  to car sharing that may affect miles traveled and car ownership.  We really don't know where all this will end.  But many of the same affects will also affect public transit options.

Millennials will be challenged to move up into the middle-class and be the big driver of the economy that we all want if they continue to be underemployed or not employed at all.  

Millenials and the rest of use we will all be better served if we improve their economic and employment prospects rather than simplifying the solution as more transit.

Then they may want to help support the economy and buy a few more cars.

Greenlight Pinellas Supporters: Preaching To the Choir AGAIN

Yesterday pro rail advocate Tampa Bay Partnership hosted a Transportation Forum that the Tribune disingenuously called a "regional transit forum". It apparently was more of a "rah rah" event for the pro Greenlight Pinellas echo chamber than anything else. According to the Tampa Tribune  today:

The conference room at the north St. Petersburg hotel appeared to be filled mostly with supporters of the Greenlight Pinellas plan and included speakers from city and county governments around the region, business owners and officials from Florida’s Department of Transportation.

But much of the energy at Wednesday’s conference focused on Pinellas County’s much-debated transit expansion plan, which would drive the county’s sales tax to the highest rate in the state — 8 percent (emphasis mine).

Mayor Buckhorn apparently realized he was "singing to the pro Greenlight Pinellas choir" because he said:

“I’m reminded all the time that when you’re preaching to the choir, you turn your back on the congregation. We need to talk to the congregation, not to each other."

And this is quite comical from St. Pete Mayor Kriseman:

Kriseman illustrated the problem with the region’s existing transit options by recounting a recent experience: Asking his mobile phone for directions from St. Petersburg to downtown Tampa, the device told him the trip would take nearly three hours.

Can someone inform St. Pete Mayor Rick Kriseman that at other airports such as DC and elsewhere, as soon as one lands, one can call up on their smartphone App a ride share with Uber or Lyft and the car will be there when you're ready to depart the airport. Does public transportation buses include space for your luggage, especially if there's more than one traveling? 

Shouldn't our elected officials be embracing the private sector transportation solutions people actually want? Hasn't Kriseman heard that these new innovative services are taking ridership AWAY from public transportation?  Who is stuck in the past?

At least some are embracing these services as reported by the Tampa Bay Times:

Hillsborough County Commissioner Mark Sharpe and state Sen. Jeff Brandes said it is not a matter of whether companies such as Uber and Lyft will be able to operate here with support from local governments, but when.

"We need to offer what most business leaders and tourists want, which are these types of options," said Brandes, R-St. Petersburg, who faces re-election this November. "We'll work through all these other issues, both the insurance issues and the background check issues. …I'm 100 percent confident that we can find a reasonable solution to those issues."

Mayor Kriseman must have missed that panel discussion. He must've missed the discussion also about autonomous vehicles which Congressional House Transportation Committee Chairman Bill Shuster recently stated Driverless cars are ‘the future of transportation’.

It was interesting that Commissioner Sharpe, who has been one of the biggest cheerleaders for rail, was the only Hillsborough County commissioner to attend and he participated on the ride-sharing panel not one about transit and rail.

The problem the pro rail echo chamber has with Greenlight Pinellas is simple.  It's a bad plan! 

It's becoming more apparent that voters and taxpayers in Pinellas do NOT see the value of paying more taxes, including having the highest sales tax in the state, for something that does nothing for them.  

The Greenlight Pinellas "rah rah" supporters, preaching to their choir again at this event, could only provide anecdotal evidence in support of the Greenlight plan. Why? Because there is no real data to support it. Anecdotes can't sell a bad product. 

Why is Greenlight Pinellas a bad plan?  Here's are a few reasons (there are more):

• Greenlight Pinellas train does NOT go over the Howard Frankland bridge no matter how many times the pro rail echo chamber claims it will.  To do that will take another huge bucket of tax dollars from "somewhere".

• Pinellas County will have the highest sales tax in the state to pay for a multi-billion dollar train few will ride.  Most of the money goes to the train, not to buses, and that's why PSTA needs the $100 million a year tax increase.

• Greenlight Pinellas financials do not include the interest that must be paid back on the huge debt Pinellas taxpayers will be incurring to build and operate the train nor the replacement/major rehab costs that all rail systems require 25 years down the road.  Where is the money coming from to pay the interest on the loans and where is the money to pay for the replacement costs down the road? How come Ernst and Young who reviewed the financials did not catch that these costs were missing?  Makes one wonder what else they may have missed....

• PSTA's ridership is so low they do not qualify for federal dollars.  Greenlight Pinellas requires over 36% of the train's capital costs to come from the feds and those federal dollars are dwindling. Who will pay when PSTA can't get federal dollars to build the train? There's a good chance that PSTA will be collecting hundreds of millions of tax dollars for a rail system that will NEVER be built. Those tax dollars will have come directly out of the Pinellas County economy and Pinellas County taxpayers pockets that could have been spent on something else.

• PSTA can fix their bus service at a fraction of the cost of building a train from downtown St. Pete to downtown Clearwater few will ride. The train will do nothing to actually reduce congestion as PSTA CEO Brad Miller admitted last year when asked why the train was included in Greenlight - he said it was included for "economic development". So the truth is - Greenlight Pinellas high cost train is NOT about mobility.  

• The bottom line, as we previously posted here, is that Greenlight Pinellas has a 4th grade math problem. The numbers simply don't add up.

Websters Dictionary defines Boondoggle as an
expensive and wasteful project usually paid
for with public money.

Boondoggles don't do math and neither do the special interests and elected officials who are the boondoggle supporters.

Is it beginning to look like "2010 ALL OVER AGAIN"?

Let's Correct the Record about County Road Funding

Hillsborough County Commission is currently in their budget process for FY2015.  It is very clear  that Hillsborough County has a critical County road funding gap. From the recommended FY2015 budget for Hillsborough County, county road funding is a mere $6.5 million - for a county that has 1.3 million residents. That's $5 a year per resident. That's a problem.

FY2015 Hillsborough County Transportation budget
Click to enlarge

We're still perplexed how a one-time amount of $47 million highlighted in yellow for next year pops up from a funding source called "Undetermined". And the undetermined funding source is being spent in 2016 under "Construction". What is this?  Where's this money coming from and what is it paying for? Does it have anything to do with roads?

As stated before, there is no CIT tax dollars available for roads.  Most of our county transportation funding is sourced from our gas taxes, which may continue declining with more fuel efficient vehicles and vehicles fueled by other fuel sources such as natural gas, electric, hybrids, etc.

The commissioners know we have road funding issue. When I spoke to Commissioner Sharpe back in 2010 when he was pushing for the rail tax referendum, he knew there was no CIT for roads and stated then his concern about no funding for our roads. That was four years ago. What has been done since then to resolve our road funding gap? Nothing. Why? 

Our county budget and revenue has been going up but our road money has been going down. Perhaps some of the "gaming/casino" discretionary revenue should be directed to a higher priority of roads. Who is holding our road funding hostage?  

We've got champions for more transit on the county commission but where's the champions for our roads that 98% of use everyday? The public and taxpayers deserve an answer and a resolution to this problem.

I attended the Hillsborough County Commission meeting Thursday, September 4 and made a public comment about the lack of county road funding.  Go to the HTV video link for the September 4 meeting to find my comment starting at about 36:25 but below is basically what I said:

The Federal Highway Administration just released a Press Release stating that vehicle miles travelled has increased back to what was seen in 2008 prior to the recession. Americans are back driving again. They stated we must invest in our highways to bear the growing volumes of traffic. It is estimated that 5-600 thousand new residents may move to Hillsborough County over the next 25 years. They will probably move to where the last 600 thousand in the county moved to – in the county but not in downtown towers. Roads are our county's biggest asset. Our roads must be maintained, they must be improved and we must build new roads, especially if all those new residents move here. However, Hillsborough County has a critical road funding gap. Our roads have been neglected for years as approved road projects were shelved due to lack of funding. This cannot continue. FY2015 budget at $4B is approaching levels before the recession forced cuts and our tax revenues are inching up. Yet our road budget for a county of almost 1.3 million people is a mere $6.5 million for 2015. This lack of road funding needs some resolution NOW. You are in the budget process today and road funding needs to be a priority for FY2015. This issue cannot wait. It cannot wait to be bundled in with some proposed future referendum that may or may not ever happen. County road funding cannot wait on the Policy Leadership Group. There are road projects that were approved – they need funding. Our roads should not be held hostage for other transportation or transit projects some may be attempting to pursue for the future. HART, our local transit agency, does not have the immediate critical funding gap today that roads do. 98% of us use our roads everyday. Maintaining our roads is a major responsibility of local government. Our 2015 budget and our current CAFR needs to be scrutinized.and this commission needs to begin addressing our road funding gap now.

As I walked back to my seat, Commissioner Sharpe (who is the chairman of our BOCC and chairman of our MPO) made this statement which is at 39:03 of the video:

At the MPO meeting yesterday the Board approved a lot of changes to our prioritized roads and it's good to know we have $1.4 billion dedicated to road projects over the next four years, five years.

First of all, was that statement appropriate? I or anyone else had no opportunity to rebut it or question it, though some of the other County Commissioners could have corrected Sharpe's false statement.

What MPO list was Commissioner Sharpe speaking about? I found the transcript of the Tuesday MPO meeting, which Sharpe chairs. (Very interesting meeting transcript worth reading in its entirety). The $1.4 billion list Sharpe was talking about is the MPO's Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).  The September 2 meeting was to approve the updated TIP for 2015-2019. The TIP document can be found on the MPO website here.

What is the TIP? It is defined in the document as:

The primary 5-year spending plan of state and federal revenues anticipated to be allocated to the urban area as well as major transportation projects of ALL types (emphasis mine).

It is required that the federally mandated MPO's (Metropolitan Planning Organizations) update these documents annually as part of their certification process to ensure continued federal funding of transportation projects in Hillsborough County. MPO coordinates with a number of other organizations to complete this list.

Other organizations MPO coordinates with
 to complete TIP

But what is actually in this $1.4 billion list? Lots of transportation projects including for the Port Authority, for the Airport Authority including the huge expansion being done at TIA as well as projects for the 3 other general purpose airports and HART transit projects. There are numerous projects for sidewalks, safety improvements and for trails.  Those projects have NOTHING to do with improving our roads to help reduce congestion.

From the transcript of the September 2 MPO meeting:

• Page 9 - "WE ARE NOT RECOMMENDING THIS YEAR A LOT OF ADDITIONS TO THE PRIORITY LIST BECAUSE OF THE DISCUSSIONS AND THOSE COORDINATION ACTIVITIES WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, SO WE ARE RECOGNIZING THAT WALK/BIKE SAFETY IS A TOP PRIORITY (emphasis mine)."
• Page 11 - "THE WESTSHORE MULTIMODAL CENTER, WHICH YOU'LL HEAR ABOUT LATER ON THE AGENDA, IS ANOTHER REGIONAL PRIORITY THAT WAS
• ADDED AS WELL AS THAT TRANSIT CONNECTION THAT WOULD GO FROM THE WESTSHORE MULTIMODAL CENTER UP TO THE TAMPA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT.  ON THE MAJOR REGIONAL TRAILS PROJECT WE'VE KIND OF REORGANIZED THOSE FIRST TWO, THE UPPER TAMPA BAY TRAIL AND THE SOUTH TAMPA GREENWAY (emphasis mine)."
• Page 11 - "THE ONE CAPACITY PROJECT THAT WE'RE RECOMMENDING ADDING TO THE LIST IS U.S. 92 FROM U.S. 301 TO 579, SO THIS IS RIGHT AROUND THAT I-4/I-75 INTERCHANGE AREA IN SEFFNER (emphasis mine).

We  note our previous post that the Westshore Multi-Modal Center is NOT yet funded and many other projects must be completed first. The MPO adds a transit connection to a multi-modal center that's not funded and one road capacity project and states that walk/bike safety is their top priority. 

The MPO, as rail proponents, included in the MPO's priority list projects that would need addition funding, rail from the airport to Westshore. Why? Does that project help anyone in Hillsborough County get from where they live to where they work? 

Rail Project added to MPO's TIP that needs additional funding
Click to enlarge

Commissioner Sharpe, Chair of the MPO, then asked at the MPO meeting what the total amount of money was being spent on the existing priorities already funded. The response on Page 13 of the meeting transcript:

>>WALLY BLAIN: IT IS A LARGE NUMBER.I HAVE THIS GRAPHIC.THIS IS WHAT'S CURRENTLY -- ON THIS GRAPHIC HERE, THIS IS WHAT'S CURRENTLY IN THE 2014/2015 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, SO IT'S ABOUT $1.4 BILLION OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS, BUT THAT INCLUDES A LOT OF MONEY THAT SPECIFICALLY GOES FOR THE SUPPORT -- YOU CAN SEE IT THERE -- UNDER THE PORTS, AIRPORTS, AND RAIL.WE HAVE A MAJOR AIRPORT AND A MAJOR PORT FACILITY AS WELL, SO YOU CAN SEE THAT MONEY IS GOING TO THOSE AS WELL, SO ABOUT $1.4 BILLION IN TOTAL FOR OUR TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IS BEING SPENT OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS.>>MARK SHARPE: OKAY.SO ABOUT 1.4 BILLION OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS?>>WALLY BLAIN: MM-HMM.>>MARK SHARPE: EXCELLENT.

The thimble sized $6.5 million of County funded projects that are listed in the FY2015 budget, and funded almost totally by our local gas tax, are in the TIP:

• $5.2 million for repaving/resurfacing
• $400K for Bridge work
• $250K for paved shoulders/bike lanes
• $550K for sidewalk safety/ADA improvement

The road improvement projects in the TIP that will help address congestion are for state roads and interstate highways NOT County roads. While the State is doing its job to fund our roads, the County is not. In addition, a large portion of the projects in the TIP are not for roads and have nothing to do with roads. Many of the projects in the TIP for 2015 are part of the airport expansion.

The truth is and to correct the record - Hillsborough County does NOT have $1.4 billion dedicated to roads. It was disingenuous for Commissioner Sharpe to state that directly after my public comment.

Commissioner Sharpe signed off on the TIP as chairman of the MPO. Did he know what he signed?  

Commissioner Sharpe signed TIP

The MPO's TIP is a comprehensive list of projects across the spectrum of our local transportation system for the next four to five years. It is not a $1.4 billion list of projects dedicated to roads. 

We'll report and let you decide whether Commissioner Sharpe felt compelled to make his statement directly after I spoke to discredit my public comment about the lack of County road funding.

However, the record needs to be corrected because the public deserves the Truth!

Readying for a Referendum?

This is Part 2 covering the HART Board Strategic Planning Workshop held Monday, June 9, reporting on the update from the County Administrator on the Hillsborough County Transportation and Economic Development Policy Leadership Group.  

Below are some slides from County Administrator Mike Merrill's presentation: (click slides to enlarge) with my takeaways. When Merrill showed slide 1 (below), I thought I was looking at a stack and pack city out of the movie Bladerunner not any rendition of downtown Tampa.

• Goal is to move people and goods with cost-effective, convenient, reliable and safe interconnected mobility
• Merrill said reducing or mitigating congestion was not called out but inferred

Here's a closer view of Merrill's pic:

And here's a scene from the 1982 movie Bladerunner set in the year 2019:

At least Bladerunner had flying cars.

Make you wonder why our elected officials want to tie our transportation solutions so closely to land use?  Do they want to coerce (force) densification and stack and pack us to pursue their agenda, including more public transit?

More slides from Merrill's presentation follow:

• Some of the success factors were defined as walkable streets and denser development in certain areas
• The plan needs to be consumer driven and multi-modal to force/coerce a cultural change to "get us out of our cars"

What is the Livable Centers Initiative?  
It was started in Atlanta in 1999.  Livable Centers Initiative encourages local jurisdictions to plan and implement strategies that link transportation improvements with land use development strategies to create sustainable, livable communities consistent with regional development policies.

Reason Foundation found issues with this initiative in 2012:

• LCIs use federal gas tax funds to support local projects. Funding for this program comes specifically from the L-230 funds in the highway section of the state’s transportation bill, not the transit section or the intermodal section 
• ...non-motorized transport (sidewalks and bike paths) receives most of the resources from LCI grants. 
• ...most of the projects have little to do with transportation. Transportation funds should not support economic development projects.
• LCI often fails to spur any development.

When our politicians complain that roads don't pay for themselves, well, neither, apparently, do "livable centers".

• What Are We Agreed On? The Policy Leadership Group or who? 
• Who says we "must" attract choice riders and taxpayers must highly subsidize choice riders? 
• Why wouldn't choice riders pay market price?
• Agree we must optimize our existing infrastructure - biggest bang for the buck

Transportation doesn't pay for itself......but transit is much more highly subsidized than roads.  According to this Heritage Foundation article published last year highway user fees supported each transit passenger mile 17 times more than each highway passenger mile ($0.1130 for transit; $0.0067 for highways). 

Federal Gas Tax User Fee Expenditures roads vs transit 2010

• According to Merrill, this plan is "something for everyone" 
• BRT would be the foundation and the plan would not exclude rail  
• As transit ridership grew over time and we became more transit-centered, we would grow into rail and into a fully functioning multi-modal system. 

Where's Ride-sharing services like Uber & Lyft, Jitneys, De-regulated Super Shuttle?

We will note that roads are multi-modal as vehicles, buses, bikes, pedestrians and even sometimes golf carts use them.

• A one cent sales tax increase would generate $200 million/year, a half cent sales tax increase would generate $100 million/year and there is an assumption of a 3% growth rate per year
• The bedrock of the funding plan is federal (which is ever dwindling) and state grant money and local sales tax

• Social Impact Bonds aka Pay for Success is a new financing mechanism for private and philanthropic organizations to finance projects that provide a specific social outcome with a modest return on investment

Merrill mentioned another long term 30 year tax. (HART can bond and borrow and go into debt like the county commission did with our 30 year CIT tax)

• Good to see Public Safety at the top as highest priority
• Good to see next highest priority is preserving our existing infrastructure

Economic Development has totally different drivers; there are numerous other agencies and organizations, some whom get our tax dollars, responsible for Economic Development 

Transportation solutions must be for mobility

Merrill mentioned that the CIT tax "worked well". That was a bit disturbing because the CIT did not deliver what was promised the voters and it was all spent less than halfway through the 30 year life of the tax. There are at least $127-$130 million of projects Merrill stated should have been paid for through the CIT tax but were shelved due to no funding.

Merrill stated there will be a comprehensive list of proposed projects at the next Policy Leadership Group meeting on June 26 that will include a BRT demo project, people movers, etc.  When asked by a Board member what the BRT demo project was, Merrill didn't answer the question. We'll have to find out more at the June 26 meeting because no details were provided by Merrill about the list of proposed projects.

Merrill stated "there is no more capacity in our budget and we cannot move forward without a tax increase". Really? Did he say that on behalf of himself, the County Commissioners or the Policy Leadership Group? The proposed FY 2015 Hillsborough County budget is almost $4 Billion. Are our spending priorities in the right place?  Do we have existing assets that could be repurposed to a higher priority like roads?  

Commissioner Sharpe voiced concern about "the plan" being "road-centric". What plan? There's been no official plan made public but Merrill stated the sales tax increase would probably be a 50/50 split between roads and transit.  We already spend more money in Hillsborough County for transit than we do on our roads.

If 50% of the transportation dollars are spent to serve 2% of traveler’s ‘passenger miles’, the remaining 98% of travelers that use roads will suffer increasing gridlock and congestion. HART does not have this critical funding shortage today that our roads do: 

It is estimated that the county needs approximately $160 million per year to add 200 lane miles of roads every 5 years to keep county roads up with current population growth.

The plan must be road-centric!

Regarding the hostile takeover vote by the Policy Leadership Group we reported here, there were a number of concerns raised by the existing Board members about the proposed restructuring and re-purposing of HART. Below, with a few edits I added, is the chart Merrill presented that reflects this new Governance entity.

Proposed Restructured Politicized HART

This new entity would oversee a huge bucket of money. How will this work considering our strict Sunshine Laws? The biggest risk is our transportation solutions will be politicized which then enables wasteful spending, cronyism and corruption. The money starts flowing but where is it going?  

In addition, why is money going to TBARTA?  That's the same as handing our tax dollars off to part of the rail cartel Tampa Bay Partnership.

We did find out that the hostile takeover vote by the Policy Leadership Group was non-binding. Maybe that was why they voted without allowing any opportunity for public comment. The vote didn't actually do anything except provide a perception that it did or serve as a trial balloon.

It also appears that the existing HART board would have to vote to make the changes the Transportation Policy Leadership Group is proposing. That would basically mean the existing Board would have to vote to kick most of themselves off the board. Would they?

The restructuring and repurposing of HART still remains murky and there are questions that will need answering. 

Was this the start of a push for a referendum?  Was Merrill's presentation a sales pitch that seemed to conveniently coalesce with the new Super Sized expensive HART plan revealed at the beginning of this workshop that we posted about here?

But before any referendum is pursued to increase taxes, the county must put our "checkbook online". Then when money starts flowing, taxpayers know where it's going!

UPDATE:  The June 26th meeting that was going to be about transit and provide a list of transportation projects has been postponed to August 21st.