Good morning, everyone.

I'm Council Member Gil Schusser, Hart Board Chair.

Please silence all electronic devices for the duration of this meeting.

Welcome to the April 6th, 2026 Board of Directors regular meeting, which is now called to order.

The meeting hybrid, the meeting format is hybrid with board members physically present at the Hart Administrative Office 1201, East 7th Avenue, Florida Conference Room, and others participated via communication media technology.

Please join me if you can in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Under God's thank you.

Yes, sir.

Director Cameron Sabeta here.

Director Clendon.

Director Hobbes indicated he would be absent.

Director King?

Present.

Director Knight.

Director Mac Alpatrick.

Here.

Director McCannick.

Here.

Director Miller.

Here.

Director Myers.

Here.

Director Nieberg.

Here.

Chair Schisler.

Here.

Director Smith.

Here.

Director Vieira.

Director Williams?

Here.

Director Wolstall.

Here.

You do have a quorum, sir.

Thank you very much.

Okay.

Next is there a public comment.

We will start with a statement for board counsel, Mr.

Jeff Gibson.

Good morning, sir.

Good morning, Chair.

Thank you.

Members of the public have a right to speak on any relevant issue during the public comment process.

However, certain items may be rooted in contract pending legal recourse or prohibited by this board's policy, which prohibits involvement by the board in the normal employee employer employee relationship between the CEO and any other employee or employee union of heart.

While the public could address those matters, board members are advised not to discuss them during the meeting.

Okay, very thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Gibson.

The Hort Board Board of Directors welcomes comments from citizens about any issue or concern.

Your opinions are valued in terms of provide input to the board members.

When addressing the board, commerce shall be not directed personally against the board member or staff member, but rather directed at the issues.

This provides a mutual respect between the board member, staff, and the public.

The board has set aside a 30-minute period for public comment as stated in Hart Board Policy 2104 sub A.

The chair will call on speakers by name and order, which the request to speak be received.

When addressing the board, please state your name and speak clearly.

Up to three minutes are allowed for each speaker.

Please refrain from any discussions on any matter brought up during public comment until after all the public comment has been completed.

Currently have two people on the list.

Also for the stadium and the hotel coming up over there.

My main topic though is about uh having uh full service between a one bus service between the airport and UATC.

The UATC is the second most important uh area in the whole thing, yet does not have direct bus service.

Uh the there's a couple of different approaches.

Uh number one, we could extend the 45 from uh West Chase over to TIA.

That's one approach.

Uh approach two could be uh extending uh extending well, actually extending again the 275 to the way Miss Egan got it uh when she got it over a decade ago to go over downtown into the airport from downtown.

And finally, the last approach could be is try to get a private sponsor such as TIA or USF, or maybe both or whatever, to go directly first from the TIA over to the hotel and to the stadium as needed in pre with premium type transportation and then go over to UATC.

Now it's not like an either or thing.

It's you could be you could do more of the one things.

I aside from uh extending the um uh well aside from getting a new bus routes and all this, I don't see any particular great expense.

The one big aspect of it is that you won't have to get any new bus stops.

All you would have to do as far as the six and the forty-eight is concerned is just switch what buses are going to be over there at the time.

Because bus stops are expense are kind of a hassle, kind of a lot of red tape.

I don't know about expense, but certainly red tape.

Uh the uh the uh it would be a relatively inexpensive and a very important change, I believe, to get one bus with new people coming in here uh into the community to have go directly from T uh from TIA to UATC.

This I I do find uh I really do feel it's important.

These two these types of things, although I'm not presenting it particularly well, I really feel over the years will benefit this area greatly.

Thank you, and have a good day, everybody.

Thank you, sir.

We appreciate it.

Okay, next to the list is Mr.

John Green.

Good morning, sir.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Good morning once again.

I'm John Green.

Often I ask myself what's really happening here at heart.

This question I constantly ask over and over again.

What I realized over the two years from taking from talking and hearing with certain people in the community and looking back at the three minute grievances I've brought to this board attention along with employees themselves about the company policies is appalling to me.

I realize that as the for as a former employee and now an advocate in the community, heart has created an atmosphere and culture of microaggression with within management.

To the average person without understanding is what it is word, what it means, but to me is condescending and disrespectful.

This is what I call conscious undertones and ignorance by some who supposed to be setting the standards for the company.

For example, when the CEO can sit here and say employees don't read, and this was said during the time when we was uh reminding the board about the retirement, right?

He said that employees don't read, right?

Number two is when supervisor supervisor can actually say that he's a king through an email to the employees, right?

At some point in time, we're gonna have to deal with these issues, right?

It's gonna it's gonna come up and we're gonna deal with them.

So be prepared to answer some questions as I continue today.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir, for your comments.

I that's all the list I had.

Anyone else have any comments in the public?

Very good.

Thank you.

Thank you for all your comments.

Uh next on the agenda is approval of the many minutes meeting, minutes from March 2nd, 2026 Board of Directors, regular meeting.

Uh February said, Chislock.

Is there a motion to approve the minutes?

Move to approve that motion is second discussion appearing to be none.

All in favor, please say they could be saying aye.

Aye.

And the opposed motion passes.

Thank you very much.

Next one next is the consent agenda.

Uh the heart litigation of claims committee met on March 2nd, 2026, a recommended approval of item 4A.

Uh, the show finance and audit and operations of safety committee meeting met on March 23rd and recommend uh approval of agenda items 4B through 4D.

Are there any questions for staff about the consent agenda items?

Appeared to be none.

Is there a motion to approve the consent agenda?

Do we have a second?

Second.

Motion is second.

Any discussion on the motion?

Appearing to be none.

All in favor, please indicate by saying aye.

Mr.

Chairman.

That's the question.

I have and I apologize.

I should have done this before the meeting.

Who are the, if I may ask Mr.

Gibson or whoever may know who are the counsel on that case?

Just I I should I always check this up before.

Do you know?

I don't.

I would I would refer to uh Hart Council.

For the claims of litigation issue.

Well, take your time.

But we can we can continue just in case if I needed I just like to be clear.

We can get you that information.

Do you can you do it by the end of the meeting?

Okay, good.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I apologize.

Thank you.

Just under aware is Morgan and Morgan is counseling on that case.

Okay, so just again, this wouldn't preclude me from voting, but just for the record, I mediate cases for Morgan and Morgan as a mediator.

That's all.

Not a conflict, I assume.

Correct.

Okay, good.

That's all.

I had an idea they were involved, so there you go.

Thanks.

Okay, very good.

And um, all in favor of presenting ever saying aye.

I think I closed motion carries unanimous.

Um thank you very much.

Next item A.

Um, action item representation.

The Joint Finance and Audit Committee met on March 23rd, 2026.

We received a presentation from staff in support of this action item.

It recommended advancing it to the full board for approval.

Mr.

Shirley Shu Hurley, uh, Chief Financial Officer, you are recognized to present this item.

Oh, there she is.

Good morning.

Welcome.

Good morning, Chair Schesler, board members and colleagues.

My name is Shirley Shu Hurley, Hart's financial uh chief financial officer.

And this morning we're requesting a board authorization to submit a transportation improvement program amendment, a TIP amendment to Hillsborough Transportation Planning Organization and FDOT redirecting of 15 million in currently programmed SU FHWA funds from heavy minutes facility capital project project to bus replacement and midlife overhaul.

And uh SU funds can be allocated to transit capital as direct uh the discretionary of uh TPO, which capped at five million per year per project.

Um the strategic decision at its core, this recommendation is about making HART's existing dollars work harder.

HART has two near-term capital priorities, maintaining a reliable bus fleet for our riders and advancing the heavy minutes facility.

This tip amendment uh addresses both.

It protects the flee reliability in the near term, and it puts HMF project on stronger financial footing for the future.

Those two goals are not in conflict, and this amendment is how we accomplish both at the same time.

To answer the question why now, the flea need is urgent.

75 hearts fixed route buses have exceeded their useful life.

When you include buses approaching the end of useful life, that figure rises to 86 out of 131 active fixing bus uh rod buses, roughly two-thirds of operating fleet.

Older buses cost more to maintain, and they directly affected reliability of services our riders depend on.

Um before addressing the funding move, we want to be clear on the uh HMF project stance.

The habit maintenance facility remains a strategic priority for HART.

Work has been progressing.

Uh the site planning, design coordination, grant strategy, deployment are all active.

The slides reflect the milestone achieved to date.

The recommendation today is not a pause on HMF.

It is a step that positions the project for stronger and more sustainable financial strategy going forward.

The proposed move.

Right now, those EU funds are directed to HMF project, and the at Valorum dollars are being used to buy buses.

We're proposing to swap that redirected SU funds to the buses and free up edible R and dollars.

Critically, this is not uh net change to the budget.

Um the total amount of money going to bus replacement does not change.

The buses still get purchased.

What changes which type of dollars pays for them?

The reason that the swap matters in this as um in this is SU funds are federal dollars.

They cannot be used to match the other state or federal grants.

Adolarum dollars can.

So by putting a valorum in the position where it can be used as much, we unlock HART's ability to pursue larger competitive grants for HMF grants that could bring significantly more dollars into the agency that a valoran alone could have produced.

This stresses HMF.

A reasonable question would be raised.

Does the MIL weaken our commitment to HMF?

The answer is no.

It's just quite the opposite.

The project of HMF scale, approximately 140 million requires a full financing strategy.

And it can be built on, it cannot be built on single funding sources.

Stops have to be building a robust grant strategy for HMF.

But those programs require local funding.

By freeing a valorum from bus replacement duty through the swap, we give HMF financial funding it needs to complete for the secure and larger funding sources.

One local dollar matched against the competitive federal award brings far more into the agency that the same dollar spent directly.

So this is not a retreat from HMF.

It is how we build a credible path to get the funding in the future.

The board action, staff is requesting the board authorized summation of a tape amendment to TPO and FDA, redirecting this 15 million in currently programmed SU funds from HMF Capital Project to bus replacement and midlife overhaul.

And before we open to the questions, we just want to reiterate it.

This funding source swap, not a budget increase.

The bus is already planned.

The HMF remains a priority.

What this amendment does is putting the right type of dollar in the right place so that local advalorment funds, which can serve as much, are available to leverage the larger state and the federal investment that HMF requires.

SU funds have historically been used a bus replacement.

They were redirected to HMF in 2021.

This amendment return uh returns them to that use, and in doing so, phrased up at a valorum to do some uh more powerful, multiply heart's capacity for HMF project.

Staff is confident in this recommendation and welcomes the board's question.

Just good job and move for approval.

Aye, aye.

Oh, sorry.

Um again, all in favor, please say aye.

Anyone opposed?

Motion passes.

Thank you very much.

Okay.

Next we have the chief executive officer's report, Mr.

Drainville.

You're recognized.

So the first part of my report, we're gonna uh ask Ms.

Bailey to come up and discuss the TICO naming rights.

Okay.

Good morning.

Welcome.

Thank you, good morning.

All right, so at the February board meeting, Director Wastel moved that the status and the history of the TICO naming rights and the potential value that might be open for this board be brought back to this board.

Um, since this board had the duty to look at revenue generating options to decide if we would like to pursue an avenue to potentially monetize the naming rights.

In your packet, you should have several documents responsive to this request.

I'll give you the meat and the potatoes of each document.

But if you have any questions, please ask.

The first document you have is a 1998 letter agreement from TICO entitled with respect to the sponsorship.

The letter is from the CEO of TICO to the city of Tampa Mayor Dick Greco at the time.

Um and the letter, TICO makes a commitment of one million dollars to the endowment fund to support the operation and maintenance of the city of Tampa's proposed streetcar system.

TICO in that letter noted that they would have the right, but not the obligation to have the name or the affiliate's name on the streetcar system.

The following document is a 2001 triparty agreement dated December 17, 2001.

And in that agreement, we get into the ownership of the streetcar system, which specifies that the city and heart shall retain title to any real property, real property rights and vehicles, either provides for the project.

So in that sense, the city owns the the rights to the easements, the roads, and heart would own the vehicles.

Also, in that agreement, um further specifies the roles.

Was noted to be responsible for the operation, management, and maintenance of the streetcar system.

THS was noted to have the right to contract with another party to perform those duties.

With respect to the city and the heart, city and heart had the right to approve THS's annual budget, and the city and heart also were to cooperate to obtain additional contributions, operating revenues, and special assessment revenues to enhance the operation funding.

The following agreement would be the current operating agreement dated 2023.

And in that agreement, THS contracts with Hart to operate the streetcar system.

With respect specifically to the naming rights, July 16th, 2002, you have a letter agreement with TICO, and the letters from TICO directed to THS, and the purpose was to clarify the understanding with respect to the contributions in exchange for permitting the use of the TICO name by THS.

So in that letter, it specifies that TICO gave permission for THS to conclude official registration of the mark TICO line streetcar system.

And in consideration, TICO retained all rights, title, and interest in the uh in any use of the name TICO.

In 2009, you have an assignment of the trademark parties to that agreement being TICO and THS.

And in that agreement, in that agreement, THS as the owner of the TICO line streetcar system conveyed, transferred, assigned, delivered, and contribute all of its rights, title, and interest in and to the trademark to TICO Energy.

In 2009, you have an associated trademark licensing agreement.

And later, more recently, um, so February 28th, um, 2025.

I had took a call with um President English, the the president of TEHS board of directors, as well as um the Jimmy Adcock of TICO, Jan McLean was on that call, and also TICO general counsel.

And in that meeting, we discussed the potential naming rights issue, and they wanted to specify that the agreements were in place and based on their purview that the license and the trademark were held in perpetuity, that the naming rights were owned by TICO from the original pledge of one million, and um and they felt like it was in fact in perpetuity and would continue even if the TICO streetcar was expanded.

So, with respect to our legal hang ups here, we have substantial legal and practical obstacle uh obstacles that would tort any efforts by Hart to monetize any um naming rights.

Specifically, the first issue being standing, HART has no standing to challenge or renegotiate the naming rights, considering that we were not a party to the original agreement.

Um further, you know, the naming rights were conveyed by THS to TICO, and any uh effort to alter those rights would need to be initiated by TICO.

Uh for Hart to obtain those naming rights, TICO would have to agree to assign transfer for transfer or otherwise convey those rights.

And based on that conversation, um, they had no intention to do that.

Um, so based on the current structure of these agreements, the name and rights do not present a um revenue generating opportunity for Hart.

I'll take any questions if you have any.

I'm just I'm not an attorney, I just want to read this line out of the letter that Tico Energy having the right but not the obligation to have its name on the streetcar system.

That doesn't say that the whole streetcar needs to be named the TICO street.

It didn't.

That was that was the letter.

And right.

So where does where does it say that if this was the agreement letter, it says that it just needs to have their name on the streetcar system.

It doesn't say the streetcar needs to be named Tico.

The problem is the assignment of the trade um assignment of the trademark and then the trademark license and agreement.

So 2009, so subsequent to that letter.

Um and in that agreement, THS is the owner of the TICO line streetcar system trademark conveyed transfer to sign delivered and contributed all of its rights, title, and interest in and to the trademark to Tico energy.

And in the agreement, it's noted that TICO developed and established the Tico trademark.

THS owns, operates the treat uh the streetcar system.

The parties agreed that Tico would have the right to name the streetcar system in 2002.

THS agreed to assign and transfer all of its rights, title, interests in the TICO lines trademark to THS.

THS grants a license for T Tico Tico to use the trademark for goods services identification of the streetcar system and for the sale of t-shirts and other incidental souvenirs.

So that's our issue.

Um have we had a an actual, I mean, there's specific attorneys that focus on the use of trademark agreements and licenses.

And it would almost seem like there's I mean, besides the fact that I'm going to personally reach out to Tico, I mean, this is um I would hope that they don't they don't take the stance that that they should own the um rights of this in perpetuity.

And and since this was in place, when did the ownership of the lines of the carts themselves transfer to heart?

When was that?

I'm gonna have to get back to you on the exact date.

Do you was it after 2009?

No, I no, it was before, correct?

Absolutely, yeah.

And who did who did the um who made the agreement since you said that we weren't a party of record?

Who made the agreement that the street cars that we own would be named something else, and how did they have the legal authority to do so if they didn't own that asset?

That's my question.

So that would be the president English for THS.

Um just what is THS?

The historical streetcar system.

Okay.

Which doesn't own the asset, correct?

They do not.

They don't own the asset.

Okay.

So they made an agreement on an asset that they don't own, and by what legal authority did they do that?

So they're operating under the triparty agreement dated December 17, 2001, which gives them they're responsible for the operation, management, maintenance of the system.

They were noted to have the right to contract.

Right.

But this agreement was back in 2001.

You have the trademarks 2009, um, and we are what more than 15 years subsequent to that with no challenge.

Of course, we have not had any um any attorney that that practices um specifically or dealt deals with trademarks to look into it, and we can absolutely do that.

Um but there has been no challenge.

Yeah, it's not I mean, I've always supported your legal opinion on just in some of these niche areas of law.

So which part of this agreement are you saying that under their operations?

You're saying that they have the right to engage in contracts of naming in perpetuity.

The tri-party agreement.

The tri-party agreement gave gave the city and heart and THS entered an agreement.

So the the city and heart, they had limited roles, so the city and heart, their role was almost like an overseer, and THS was the governing agent, the administrator, so to speak.

And when so you're saying that this is what grants them the legal authority to do so, and you're saying in the assignment of trademark of 2009 that that's what um permanently named it without expiration.

Correct.

And that in that 2009 trademark associated um trademark licensing agreement.

So that's what we would need to explore.

Okay.

I I mean I'm just gonna take this for now and I'm gonna try the easy way, which is just to go have a con conversation with Tico.

But um I don't I don't believe I believe that there's a way to work around this and this would not stand in my opinion, but Director King.

Thank you.

Um as I understand it, at some point we assigned our rights over to THS.

No, we didn't assign any rights, we didn't have any rights to assign.

So THS assigned the right of the T well, let me specify what they assigned.

Okay, so THS as the owner of the Tico line streetcar system trademark conveyed, transferred, assigned, delivered, and contributed all rights, title, and interest in and to the trademark to Tico Energy.

Okay, so how was THS constituted?

In other words, how was it created?

Uh THS, I mean, I think I would have to come back to you with respect to how they were created, but what gave them the role to move in the manner that they did in with respect to this would have been that 2001 triparty agreement.

Okay.

Can we unilaterally uh defund and deauthorize THS?

No, they were created by I believe by the city.

Okay.

I think you would have to involve the city.

So we can't negate the contract or the agreement uh at this point.

We have no standing, we were not a party to the contract, and that's the issue.

Well, since we own the equipment and the facilities and everything that goes into it, except for the contribution that uh Tico's made.

Uh how is it that we don't have any standing at all?

Because we weren't a party to the agreement.

I think that's the basis for going to quote on it court on it because I think that we should have some standing under, you know, uh because we because we own the assets.

Right.

We can have an attorney.

Um we can see if Gray Robinson has any any specialized attorneys that could take this up and maybe explore the uh trademark agreement, the assignment of trademark, trademark like a license agreement.

I think that's probably what's um what sh could you know could benefit from an um opinion with respect to that.

Um, but I think the biggest hang up here would be the fact that it is 2026, that agreement was dated 2029.

I think we'll have we'll have some challenge, and we know that we are we will have some opposition on the other side.

So with the city of Tampa, no, with Tico with Tico.

Well, are would we be aligned with the city of Tampa on this, or were they uh are they on their own?

I'm not quite sure.

Okay, thank you.

Um directors is first Mr.

Gibson.

You're did you have something with germate to this comment?

I just want to go off where the Gray Robinson does have an intellectual property department, and so you the board, if the board desires, we could seek an uh opinion from that department.

Okay, very good.

Uh uh director Williams, you're recognized.

Thank you.

I I see that uh director McCannick signed the letter as a president, and I was wondering if he had additional insight or uh further clarity that he could provide around the assignment of trademark.

Director McCaddock, you have any comment to Ms.

Williams' question.

No, no, not really.

I mean I have uh general recollection of what had taken place during that time, but the city of Tampa was the lead negotiator in the in that uh arrangement with TICO because the city was the primary uh financial party involved in creating the streetcar to begin with.

So the the city was the primary player, if you will, in the negotiation.

Okay, thank you.

Uh direct council uh Clinton Hubert next.

Yes, um, the commissioner.

I appreciate the commissioner bringing this forward.

I've been actually working on this for months and months.

I've had multiple conversations, including with TICO about the uh contract, because it does seem absolutely ridiculous that uh these rights were given in perpetuity.

Um I guess that from my reading, and I haven't actually gotten a copy of that contract, supposedly somebody's gonna send that to me, the original.

But um, I understand that there was a lot of other things involved as far as what the future plans for that streetcar system was, which have never never occurred.

So it's it's kind of the the full scope of that supposedly has not ever been accomplished, which is probably a crack in the door.

I don't necessarily know that Tico is opposed, and it also was limited to the streetcar system from the convention center to Ybor City.

Not necessarily what we're talking about, expansion, so there's opportunity there as well.

Um but obviously I I can't speak on you know necessarily on behalf of the city, but I cannot see uh a situation where the city wouldn't be on board with doing whatever we need to do to be able to uh regain control of this issue.

Um it's definitely again I've I've I've I've spoken just about everybody that wants to hear me speak, and it's uh and nobody's really pushed back hard, but of course, when you get down to the dollars and cents of what I'm sure the TICO will they their their franchise agreement is coming up.

Okay, director no you were next again and like uh thanks for the information and also the uh different opinions I feel also uh like communicating with Tico.

Yeah I don't see after about 40 years uh part of Tico even after retirement that the good things can come out of it.

So working together and a lot of stuff we talk about probably need to go that route that um I'm I've seen every experience that it been real fair, so I would love I would love that approach however you go about it.

Commissioner Wassel?

Yeah, I wanted to gauge the board's temperature on just soliciting heart now.

Who has the right to ask for a change to this then?

Do we have standing to go and ask for a friendly amendment or who who has the right to and what and what happened with the million bucks?

And what happened, what was it used for?

We don't know.

I'm not quite sure.

So who can since it's our are you telling me that it since we own it, we don't do we have the right to go and just request that we ask for a friendly amendment for them to consider, even if we rename it powered by Tico, but we're allowed to rename the the body of it.

Right.

I think we I think they think based on the last conversation, they were willing to have a conversation.

So I think the the there is a temperature for or an appetite to have some kind of conversation, even though they were pretty firm with their position.

Um but I think THS definitely has to be at the table.

Um with respect to that tri-party agreement, I believe we can work collectively.

Tri-party, I mean sorry, with respect to heart, the city, and um THS.

And and not to box THS out, but why do they can have continued standing even though we own the streetcar?

I think the problem is the fact that they actually gave they operate it, they manage it, they were created to do just that, right?

Administer all necessary with respect to the streetcar.

So considering that they executed that document, I don't think we can I think we'd have to deal with that issue before um heart can step in.

Who sits on President?

Perhaps President English is he's on he's on the call.

Is he is he still that's uh do you have any comments on on the current discussion?

Uh not really okay.

All right.

Um I have a question.

Yes, directly.

Thank you, Chair.

Uh for for council.

So uh looking at the triparty agreement, one the severability clause um seems it's very vague um in in its current standing by design, I would assume.

Um, but dropping down to Article 6, Section 9.

So the term of the agreement is for an initial period of 30 years, which is coming up 2031.

Um, and but it says here that any party um can uh express the intent not to renew, so that would be either THS, the city of Tampa or Tico.

Could we lean on, I would say THS or TICO, uh not Tico, um the city of Tampa to express that intent not to renew or to express the will so terminate early.

Is that is that possible?

To terminate the tri-party agreement, yes, and then so I see there is no termination clause here, which is right.

So I mean that that is absolutely an avenue we can explore, but I don't think that that does not resolve your issue with respect to this trademark.

Right?

We still would have to deal with that.

So it's a two-fold issue.

Exactly.

That it's held in perpetuity.

Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Marsh, you're recognized.

Uh thank you.

Is it possible that the parties can call a meeting and come back to us in 60 days with the report to find them before we decide we want to have outside legal counsel for billable hours we cannot afford, but I think we can with your leaderships um sit down with the parties that we're identifying right now, and then come back to Hart, and that would be my motion.

Okay, we have a motion on the floor to to answer it to study for 60 days and come back.

Uh Director Knight.

How about 30 days?

We can get it done.

Okay.

I think if we can also identify someone specifically at TICO if you have any contacts.

Um adcoc and general counsel who are on that call wouldn't, I mean, they were very clear.

So if you have anyone else that should be on that call that could be helpful um to getting us to a favorable resolution, that would also be helpful.

Jimmy Adcock.

With Tico has retired.

Oh great, great timing.

Council.

Joel Gray is the government person that you coordinate, and he he's the one that could release the wheels.

Thank you.

Okay.

Yeah, excuse me, this is like one wash.

Um you might also consider adding David Smoker, who um is uh THS general counsel and his firm.

Um he's part of the original firm that um uh represented us from the very beginning, and so he has all that history.

Okay, Brent, do you think 30 days would be sufficient to pull together all the parties and and get the information we need?

Absolutely.

Okay, uh you okay with okay.

We have a motion on the floor, excuse me, for uh uh and a second for 30-day uh report to come back to the board in 30 days on what we can do to possibly uh remediate this issue.

Any discussion on the motion?

All in favor, please by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you, Brenda.

Good good report.

Um Chair Supreme, I have nothing at this point.

Uh board counsel's report, Mr.

Gibson you recognized.

I also have nothing to report.

Okay, very good.

Um let's see.

Board com uh board heart board committees are in section nine of the packet, and the reports from the heart board representatives are section 10 of the packet, and information reports are also provided section 11.

Is there any old business?

Period.

Now is there any new business?

Councilor McCluddy, you're recognized.

Yes, I've coordinated with uh Mr.

Drainville and also our mobility department and the mayor that I would like to make a motion to have Hart start the process of uh changing control of the Marion Street Transit Corridor back to the city of Tampa to give a signal to developers that area is open for business to kind of join the area between Water Street, Channel Side and downtown.

So but right now it's kind of an artificial barrier and it has been limited use that corridor uh corridor, well, the best of intentions, like a lot of things that occurred back in that day, like you know, Franklin Street turning into pedestrian mall.

It was it was a great intention, but it did it was not good.

It was not it didn't the function of it didn't actually function the way it was initially initially intended.

So uh that's it.

Thank you.

Okay, so we have a we have a motion on the floor to uh um initiate moving the control of the marriage Marion Roy back to the city.

Um anyway, let me add one something too.

It doesn't prohibit buses continuing to use that, but it just means that it's not exclusively buses, so that we can open up that real estate to give us a hard signal to the developer community that they can they can redevelop that area and have more forward-facing businesses because right now it's it's it's desolate, nobody's developing in that area, so it's an artificial barrier to development.

Okay, we have a motion second or before discussion.

I have a question though, and maybe not appropriate VS point, but will this this all affect Hart's funding formula calculation if the uh buses um I mean if if cars are allowed to go on this this this pathway?

I think it's de minimis, but it's something we can work out with an agreement.

Okay, that's it's it's a bit chunk for us.

So anyway, okay, okay.

Um honestly the ad lorum and the the increase in development that would potentially be achieved in that area, I think would I mean in multiples would be you know, even in a year would outweigh what would happen.

I'm sorry.

Well, just yeah, just for the record, we we do receive federal 5337 funding right currently right now, just under 200,000 because it's transit only.

Because it's transit only, uh, I would request that the city initiate the transition uh and all and be consistent with all prior documents that the city attorney's office uh actually uh started all the paperwork and then transitioned.

So uh I would I would request that the board ask the city's city attorney to start the process.

I thought you asked me to do that from that motion here.

That's how I would have done that, but I thought I was I was conforming with what you had requested.

But okay, I mean I can do that, but I just wanted to make sure that so that would make the motion moot then.

So if you want to if you want to reverse and have the city do it, I can do that as well.

But I was just conforming with what you told me to do.

Well, so just to just to clarify the record, uh is opposed to doing the transition because we we lose our federal funding, but to be consistent with prior documentation, uh it should be initiated by the city and not our again, 200,000 for the city with the ad valorum and the increase of development of that corridor would be would would we can absorb that through an agreement.

So I don't know if that should be a stopping point, but yes, I can go back to the mobility department and ask Brandon to initiate that that transfer.

Not necessarily a um Mr.

Chairman, this is Dave Mechanic.

I'm not gonna support the boat because I don't understand what the initial impetus was for the transition to begin with.

So I'd want to know all about that before I voted to change it back to the way it was.

So I'm not gonna be support mode.

I understand.

I believe okay, what a time.

Um director Knight, you had your hand up first.

Thanks.

And then I like the information, but I feel that something like this, like we always have, we always do a great job bringing it to the board.

I feel that it should gather information, take it to the committee, operating financing committee or our committees, we can scrutinize, we can get information, even additional whatever, then bring it uh to the full on vote and that's the protocol, and that's what we asked for from the beginning.

That's what we should do, and I think on this we should do the same.

Well, I think the initial the intention here is to at least initiate the discussion.

So I believe um uh councilman BR.

Yes, sir.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

And yes, uh, you know, when I second it, I I think it uh upon initial impression sounds like a positive idea, but obviously with the inference that we would discuss it and have it go through the proper channels, but again, to get the ball rolling, I I strongly support that.

But you know, perhaps uh a board discussion on it or something of that nature to Commissioner Wassail.

I agree with the other board members, it seems rushed and out of the left field.

Most of us don't even know what's going on.

And as for the representatives that were appointed here to represent the unincorporated area, if we begin to start nitpicking things, we've heard repeatedly how um Hart is incapable of properly servicing the 1.1 million residents of unincorporated Hillsboro that are taxed to their property taxes at Valorum to pay for this agency.

So I would hate to be forced to bring an issue to the Board of County Commissioners on those laurels to separate Hart um from Hillsborough County government.

So let's be just very careful in the direction that we start moving and breaking contracts.

Thank you.

Mr.

Gibson, do you ever I don't.

Okay, all right.

Yeah, in response to that, I wanted to be clear what I said was initiate.

You know, so it was it was a that was a open door for discussion.

I mean, maybe that wasn't as clear as it should have been, but initiate was uh never the intent of again, and that's why I asked Hart to go back.

It wasn't it wasn't a motion for this board to make take up this decision today.

It was because of conversation I had with uh Mr.

Drainfield that the it was to initiate that discussion at the heart to be be able to transition this back to the city.

I've had multiple discussions, including with the downtown partnership, uh the city, mobility, and the developer community.

You know, and just just to also to phrase this intent is Marion had was again it was a it was a great idea, but in unfortunately, I mean I don't know how many decades uh does anybody here remember when that was first transferred over?

But it's been a long time.

It was uh September of 1987.

So 1987.

So we're I mean we're talking about almost 40 years of time this is used, and it's it's been unsuccessful.

It's a desert.

I mean, it's a desert that is now you know attracts homeless.

There's very little there's no commercial activity to speak of on on this large swath of property through downtown Tampa.

Um discussions with Justin Pryor, uh we we've had that I've had this discussion for the last three years.

There was an initial intent was to have a South Transit station and you know turn this into a vibrant type of transit.

But again, you can't change human behavior, and human behavior has not adopted this area as in almost 40 years, has not adopted this area as viable as a viable true transit corridor, similar to like 16th Street in Denver.

I think everybody points to 16th Street as in Denver as a as a uh example, but again, 40 years it's it hasn't it hasn't worked.

So my goal is to not restrict buses on it, but to be able to open that area up to the development community because right now again, as I said earlier, it serves as a uh kind of a uh artificial barrier on our artificial wall between the current central business district and the development we're seeing in um channel side and gas works and encore.

So we've got this kind of big desert in that area.

So that's that's the intent.

It was just to that's why I came to Scott because we had this conversation, and he said he wanted to bring make he wanted me to make a motion.

But I think I really do believe honestly, Scott, that it should have um some of that work should come here because all the background and information, so this board could be briefed as well, rather than be just one sided on the city.

Okay, so um at this point, your mobility office could come up with some suggestion in the meantime.

We your staff could put together um our position and the whole on the whole project and issue.

Is that reasonable with everybody?

I and I think just to clarify too, to add uh the city of Tampa owns the transit way.

So at the end of the day, if the city of Tampa wants to the transit way, I think uh they we didn't have rights to take the transit way back.

So just so everybody's underware of the financial impact of that.

Staff staff will come back at the next board meeting and and uh move forward accordingly.

Absolutely.

Okay, very good.

Everybody okay with that?

Any questions or concerns?

Ms.

Williams?

I have no questions.

Okay, very good.

Okay, um the other new business.

This meeting is adjourned.

Oh, yes, I'm sorry, we're a standing motion.

I thought it was withdrawal.

I apologize.

I thought it was a withdrawal.

Um, if it's if it if it is the request of uh Mr.

Drainfield, I will withdraw it and I'll start this on the on the city side and then we'll bring it back to heart after the city side doesn't.

I apologize.

I thought you had withdrawal.

So I would withdraw the motion.

Okay.

Motion's withdrawn.

Meetings adjourned.

Thank you.