Do your part and help reduce the mosquito population.

Visit HCFL.gov slash bite the bite.

Good.

Good morning, everybody.

Welcome to the May 13th meeting of the Hillsborough TPO.

Like to thank everybody for being here and remember to silence your electronic devices.

And if you would please stand and join me in the pledge.

I put allegiance to the plague.

Thank you.

Miss Dessiano, would you please call the roll?

Ross?

Here.

Wostall?

Here.

Miller?

Here.

Myers?

Here.

Cohen?

Here.

Bowles?

Here.

Councilmember Clenden is excused.

Hertag.

Carlson.

Kilton.

Here.

Member Gray is excused.

Klug.

Stevens.

Slater.

King.

Joseph.

Here.

You have a quorum, sir.

Thank you, Ms.

Desiono.

Um, board members, has everybody had an opportunity to review the minutes from our meeting of April 8th?

And if so, is there a motion?

Motion by board member King, seconded by was it Commissioner Myers?

Seconded by Commissioner Myers.

Any corrections to the minutes?

If not, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

No nays.

Minutes are adopted.

Before we move into public well, actually, this will be brief.

In this section of the meeting, there is a public comment portion later concerning the TPO priority list.

And we've had a few people join us, Councilmember Hertek and Board Member Klug have joined us.

So I do want to uh before we get into committee reports.

Do want to note that we have a several board members that have to leave at varying times beginning at eleven.

Um so we'll try to work through this as uh thoroughly but as concise as we can if I'm sure it would be appreciated.

So uh committee reports.

We have uh Rick Fernandez, our CAC chair, who is here in person today.

Good morning, Mr.

Fernandez.

Good.

Thanks.

We actually have a timer up here, that's nice.

Uh for the record, Rick Fernandez, your CAC chair.

Nice to see you all in person since I'm usually, I think, up there on the screen.

Um the Citizens Advisory Committee, uh, your CAC met on May 6 of 2026.

The CAC held a workshop on April 15 prior to this meeting, focused on the uh FY28 through 32 priority list.

We held the regular meeting on May 6th.

For the May 6 gathering, we met quorum with 14 in the room and litigated two action items.

Action item one was the FY28 through 32 TPO priority list, which mirrors your action item today, 7 Charlie.

Staff has prepared a summary of our discussion, which has been included in your package.

I'll incorporate that by reference.

What follows from this point is my personal reporting of the meeting.

One item on the priority list generated extensive discussion, that being project number 36 of 40, our old friend, I 275, the capacity project, widening 275 along the corridor from Hillsborough Avenue to Beers, also known as TBNEX Section 7 for those of you who have been around for a decade or so.

It was noted that this is one of 31 projects on the 40 project list, seeking, quote, community support only, and is an example of projects, quote, without funding applications, close quote.

In other words, it's currently unfunded.

We discussed topics familiar to this chamber but new to some of our members.

We have had some new folks join us over the last year.

Projected costs at the year of construction, which is projected as 2035, 400 million dollars.

FDOT's position that the project has already passed beyond the point of no return, although when that line was allegedly crossed is unclear.

A review of the project description on the priority list did not clarify the matter, as right of way and construction phases are still noted as TBD.

Planning is noted to be complete with no attached date.

The PDE is dated to 2020.

Design is dated to 2025, although the dollar amount attached to that design function is murky at best.

The list in your package notes 20 million dollars on the document, but that was not confirmed during the presentation.

In fact, expenditure of that amount was specifically disavowed.

The more recent projection, I suppose, or estimate is something on the order of 10,000 dollars, perhaps 20.

We don't we don't know, at least the CAC doesn't know.

We spent some time discussing the history behind the project, most notably this TPO board's action striking the project from the TIP in 2021.

There being no discussion of point of no return at that time.

And the reversal of that action, secondary to a motion made by Commissioner Wastel during the TIP public hearing in June of 2024.

We also discussed the history of community opposition to this project, dating back to the original rollout of TBX in 2015.

The status of I-275 as a hurricane evacuation corridor was also discussed, as this was the justification for the resurrection of this project in 2024.

TPO staff was asked to research the validity of that rationale.

It was noted by a committee member that there is no known emergency management doctrine suggesting the need to widen this segment of Interstate 275 for evacuation purposes.

To the contrary, modern strategies focus on navigating storm surge risks, the guiding principle being run from the water, hide from the wind.

If evacuation is necessary, plan to travel tens of miles, not hundreds, to reach safety, as high traffic long distance evacuation creates unnecessary dangers.

Against the backdrop of this discussion, the CAC litigated a motion duly made and seconded to recommend that the TPO board strike item number 36, that being again the Hillsborough Avenue to Barris Avenue widening capacity project from the priority list.

The motion passed by a vote of 9 to 5.

The CAC recommends that the TPO board strike this capacity project.

Following that vote, the CAC voted unanimously to recommend the TPO board accept the FY28 through 32 priority list as thus revised.

Action item 2 was the Henderson Boulevard Manhattan Avenue Vision Plan, which mirrors your action item 7 Bravo.

The CAC voted unanimously to recommend that the TPO board vote to accept the Henderson Boulevard Manhattan Avenue Vision Plan.

The CAC had two status reports, local resilience countermeasures, and an introduction to the FY27 through 31 Transportation Improvement Program.

Both will be on the CAC June agenda for action.

The CAC will hold a workshop on May 20 at 6 p.m.

on the TIP.

You're all cordially invited to attend.

Unless there are any questions, I'll submit respectfully.

Board members, other questions for Mr.

Fernandez.

Seeing none, thank you, Mr.

Fernandez.

Thank you, sir.

Oh, I'm sorry, Councilmember Hurtek has a question.

Yes, Council.

Yes.

Um, generally speaking, uh the CAC weighs in on our action items, and the one action item you didn't talk about this morning was unified planning work program adoption.

It wasn't on our action item list for the uh on our agenda.

Okay.

It wasn't one of our action items.

I don't know why.

All right, thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Fernandez.

Yes, sir.

Harmony McGee from our TPO staff.

Good morning.

Good morning, Harmony McGee TPO staff.

Regarding today's action items, the Technical Advisory Committee recommended that the TPO board accept the Henderson Boulevard slash Manhattan Avenue Vision Plan.

During the discussion, members asked whether any proposed expansion areas would impact the existing right of way.

It was clarified that some areas may require additional right-of-way acquisition to fulfill the full vision and depend on the design standards at the time.

Questions were also raised about how the vision plan addresses local flooding and coastal high hazard concerns.

Staff clarified that the project is currently in the concept stage and that stormwater considerations would be addressed during the design phase.

It was also noted that the planning commission partnered on the project.

Additional discussion emphasized the importance of evaluating bike lane placement in relation to bus stop locations during the design phase and coordinating with HART.

Members also noted the limited vegetation remaining along the corridor and expressed support for incorporating additional trees into the project design.

The technical advisor committee also recommended that the TPO board approve the fiscal year 2028 to 2032 priority list.

Discussion topics included the Heart Heavy Maintenance Facility and several major projects seeking funding.

It was also noted that the inclusion on the priority list is important in demonstrating community support and project significance when pursuing discretionary grant opportunities.

Comments were also received via email and social media.

He also expressed support for transportation investments focused on safety, transit access, and neighborhood connectivity.

An additional email was received from Raymond Castro, who suggested implementing a citywide traffic signal safety improvement involving audible sound triggers when traffic lights change from red to green.

He shared that this could help improve traffic flow and reduce rear-end collisions by encouraging drivers to remain attentive.

On social media, Andrew Dorsey commented on the repost of on our repos of the Florida Department of Transportation's blocking the box video.

He suggested moving pedestrian crossings, a bus link behind the white stop lines to allow for safer median crossings and improved pedestrian visibility for drivers.

Elaine Cowell also shared concerns about drivers navigating roundabouts and four-way stops in Hillsborough County.

Sam Bowden Ogbari commented regarding the proposed MPO merger, stating that they believe it is inaccurate to say that there are not enough case studies of merged MPOs and provided a link to a national association of regional councils article explaining what a metric pollutant organization is.

Rick Fernandez, who you heard from also submitted a comment related to interstate expansion.

This concludes my report.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

McGee.

Next board members has everybody had an opportunity to review the consent agenda, and if so, is there a motion?

Move to approved.

Motion by Commissioner Myers, seconded by Commissioner Cohen.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

No nays.

The consent agenda is adopted.

First of our three action items is FY27 and 28 Unified Planning Work Program adoption, and Jonathan Nixon Elder from our TPO staff will explain.

Good morning.

Good morning.

I'm Jonathan Nixon Elder, TPO staff.

The purpose of today's presentation is to give you an overview of the final Unified Planning Work Program or UPWP for the upcoming fiscal years 27 and 28.

The draft presentation was brought before this board in April, and the final version up for adoption is provided in your agenda item.

The UPWP is a requirement of all TPOs and serves as a two-year budget.

It also sets the transportation planning activities and products to be developed by agencies receiving federal and state transportation planning funding for a two-year period.

The Unified Planning Work Program differs from the Transportation Improvement Program, or TIP, and Priority List or LOP, which Elizabeth Watkins will present on later this morning.

The UPWP focuses on transportation planning over a two-year period, whereas the TIP identifies specific projects over a five-year period, and the priority list prioritizes projects for inclusion in the TIP.

The UPWP becomes effective July 1st, 2026 and is valid through June 30, 2028.

What comprises the UPWP?

The task numbers in the UPWP outline the work that will be completed.

The use of task is a requirement for the UPWP.

Task one entails much of our administrative effort and UPWP development.

Task two contains all corridor and congestion studies.

Task three has a long-range transportation plan with its amendments and data collection.

Task four contains the transportation improvement plan development and amendments along with state TIP coordination.

Task five is all about outreach efforts, committees, and our board work.

Task six is all our local and state coordination with our agency partners, and that includes things like the Suncoast Transportation Alliance and the Tampa Bay Transportation Management Area or TMA.

Task seven will help us track efforts that we spend exploring a regional MPO.

Task eight is also regional in nature, but that tracks the transfer of funds between MPOs.

Here we have the FY2728 UPWP budget, $2,472,186, and FY2728 for consolidated planning grant funds.

For surface transportation, we have 600,000 for each fiscal year, as well as an additional 330,000 of de obligated funds from FY26 that will be available later in FY27.

An estimated 58,454 will be available in FY27-28 from the Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged.

This slide is a summary of completed projects from the previous UPWP.

Kindly note this list is not exhaustive and only provides a snapshot of some of our accomplishments.

Critical path projects are essential transportation planning activities that can be federally or state mandated.

It is important to note that we will also start developing the 2055 long-range transportation plan in the next UPWP cycle.

This is not a comprehensive list, but some projects we are exploring based on funding and partner interests.

Highlights include the Plant City Walkbike Plan Update, and since the business operations report was risk well received last cycle, it will reoccur.

Here we have our schedule and milestones.

The preliminary draft was submitted to FDOT, FHWA, and FTA for review.

And March ITS and CAC were also provided the opportunity to comment on the draft.

And the CAC recommended UPW pre-approval in their April meeting.

All comments received have been incorporated into appendix C of the UPWP.

Once the UPWP is approved and signed, FDOT, FHWA, and FTA reviews, the new UPA will UPWP will become effective July 1st, 2026.

Our recommended action is to adopt and finalize the FY27-28 unified planning work program and approve resolutions 26-2 and 26-3.

Thank you for your attention.

I'm available for any questions or comments.

Thank you, Mr.

Elder Board members or other questions.

Move for approval.

We have a motion by Commissioner Wastel, seconded by Commissioner Myers.

Is there discussion of the motion?

I just have one comment.

I usually I don't want to beat this horse to death, but I like to say this like once a year or so, and this seems like a good time to say it.

I I know that I'm not a transportation planner, I'm just a regular guy.

But I like to think that I'm reasonably of average intelligence.

And this and this is no dig on our TPO staff because they didn't invent this world, they inherited this world.

But this is an example of why I don't think we can get anything done.

And I mean, we have the UPWP, where now we're going to talk about the LOP.

And then next month we're going to talk about the TI.

And then all these things are like, and then the county has their thing going on, and the City of Tampa has their stuff going on, and Temple Terrace and Plan City have their things going on, DOT has their stuff going on.

The Expressway Authority has stuff going on, and somewhere along the line is this on the UPWP or the LOP or the TIP or the right.

It's programmed for PDE in 2032.

It might get constructed in 2040 if we can move it off the UPWP to the LOP, and then it gets onto the TIP and then it goes back to the right.

How much money do we spend in this industry for every dollar of construction we do?

I I'd love to know the answer to that question because it's got to be in the hundreds of dollars that we spend for every dollar's worth of concrete or asphalt we buy.

And so I don't know what has to happen.

If I were the president, which God forbid that's never going to happen, but if I were, I would the first thing I would do on day one is to commission a blue ribbon commission to study the world of transportation planning and come up with a new thing.

This system was invented, developed in the 1960s or late 50s when it made sense because the federal government was just paving over communities and the locals had no.

But this is 2026, man.

We're just spending this whole okay.

I'm gonna shut up now.

But I like to say this like once a year because I mean I'm here, we're all doing the work, but this is crazy.

This is just crazy, and and uh, but I'm proud to be the chair.

Thank you for letting me do so.

Okay.

All those in favor say I'm done for the year.

Next year you'll hear it again.

But all those in favor say aye.

Aye, opposed, no nays.

All right, thank you very much, uh, Mr.

Elder, the no reflection on you.

I know you're paid to do this, but next do we have Lisa Silva from TPO staff and Catherine Telez from uh Fair and Piers are here to explain a Henderson Boulevard Manhattan Avenue vision plan.

Good morning.

Good morning, Lisa Silva.

I promise I'll be nice to you.

I can take it.

Okay.

I'm here.

Lisa Sulla, TPO staff.

As you know, I'm your multimodal safety planner for the staff, and so we're here to kick off another project that I thought it's set up the listening.

This one is a long corridor compared to your short one from last month with Bierce Um Avenue.

So um, and the request this time from our um partner governments was to do a big vision plan, like like long-term, so you're gonna see a different take on this one.

And our consultant Catherine Tilles will take you through the overview.

Great, thank you, Lisa.

Good morning.

I'm Catherine Telez with Fair and Pears, and I'm excited to uh be with you today to share with you what we've been working on the last 15 months or so.

Um so as Lisa mentioned, this is a long corridor, it's about four miles, so we're just gonna touch on some of the highlights of the the process and of the outcomes.

Um of the challenges that we faced are that there's a number of different jurisdictions involved.

A portion of the corridor is overseen by Hillsborough County, another portion by FDOT, and then of course it runs through the city of Tampa, who has land use jurisdiction along the corridor.

Um there's a lot of transportation challenges, sidewalk gaps, skewed intersections, um, people who drive maybe a little too fast for the the conditions and the posted speed.

Um, and really our challenge here was to identify a cohesive vision throughout the corridor.

That one implemented over time would improve transportation safety outcomes, increase transportation choices for everyone in the community, and then advance other community goals, including health, economic vitality, and stormwater management.

So over the course of our 15 month schedule, we collected a lot of data.

We did a lot of analysis and we talked to a lot of people in the community that helped inform the overall vision plan.

So just some key highlights here of our existing conditions analysis, sort of a lack of continuous sidewalks, minimal transit stops, a lot of driveways that made it challenging to see where you're actually supposed to be walking along the corridor, inconsistent bike lanes.

It's really long distances between crossings.

And so we also identified some good things along the corridor in terms of some great opportunities.

And then some other findings in terms of utility constraints.

When we were out there doing our walk audit, we noticed a lot of portions had some really nice tree coverage that we don't want to touch, and then other portions very exposed to the sun.

So we met with our our stakeholder team a number of times throughout the process.

So we had four formal meetings, including City of Tampa, Hillsborough County, FDOT, Sidewalk Stumpers, and we did a two-day walk audit along the corridor.

So we walked the entire length of the corridor.

And it was very eye-opening to kind of see all of the different things that you wouldn't necessarily see if you were just driving in a car.

We also went out at nighttime because we know conditions are different at night than during the day, and we wanted to understand what lighting was like along the corridor.

There are some portions of the corridor that have really good lighting, and then there's some areas where there are again some opportunities for improvement.

Based on the stakeholder feedback, we identified three different alternatives for the corridor.

So one would really focus on bike lanes, adding some bike lanes along the corridor.

Another alternative was sort of a pedestrian focus.

What could we do to maximize the pedestrian facilities along the corridor?

And then the third alternative was sort of a hybrid.

Can we find a balance between adding different facilities for people walking and people biking?

We had a number of different ways that we engaged with the public.

So we had online feedback where over a hundred people provided really great comments about what they're seeing and experiencing along the corridor and their ideas as well.

And then we also had an in-person charret as well, where we invited people in the public to come on out.

We had big roll plots of the corridor.

Again, it's a four-mile-long corridor, so these roll plots took up about three tables apiece.

We brought out Sharpies and people had a really good time providing their feedback and their lived experience on the corridor, and some really great ideas as well.

There were a few in the public that suggested that maybe we should even think about eliminating travel lanes along the corridor, and that was something we we did take a closer look at with our stakeholder group and based on what could happen along the corridor that was considered to not be a feasible idea to move forward with in the alternatives analysis.

So we then compiled all of our existing conditions analysis, the public feedback into our vision plan.

And so we'll just kind of provide some some brief highlights of what went into that vision plan.

But it's organized in six chapters.

So you have an executive summary, a project background, a summary of the existing conditions analysis.

Then we sort of went through the process that we used to develop the plan, and then walk through the vision plan elements that can then be used to move this forward into the next steps, and then some design considerations.

We know there's a lot of conflicts along the corridor, and we want the future teams that might be looking at this to kind of understand what we already know to be some of the constraints, so they're not reinventing the wheel when this moves to the next stages.

So again, here's sort of the length of the corridor, and we broke it down into nine different segments that had similar characteristics that are then presented in the vision plan.

So just a few of those key highlights.

So starting from the north end of the corridor at Kennedy, we identified that there was an opportunity to widen the roadway a little bit to add a median.

This allows us to do some more enhanced crossing treatments so that it's easier for people to get across the street.

Can also then do some landscaping in that median area, have a more consistent sidewalk.

South of there, we identified some opportunities to put in a roundabout at a few locations.

And again, some of these would require additional analysis and community feedback with putting a median along the corridor for access management and to eliminate some of those very skewed angles that people are turning out at.

The roundabout does help with people making a U-turn, so you're not having to have a lot of excess circuitous movements through the different neighborhoods.

At DeLeon Street, that would be restricted to right in, right out for vehicles, but people biking and walking would still be able to cross the street there.

At some of the other skewed intersections where a roundabout might not be feasible, this is a concept that could work again to kind of make it a little bit more clear where people driving should be turning, and then emphasizing where people can cross the street.

Then at Morrison Avenue, Morrison Avenue is a bicycle boulevard, but there's really no great way to cross Henderson Boulevard.

So this would add a bike signal.

So this way, if you're bicycling on Morrison, you have an easy way to get across the street.

And then once we get sort of to the moving south where it becomes more residential, we're showing adding in additional crossing locations.

Here we're keeping the curb line exactly where it is.

There's some really great trees in this section.

There's also a lot of houses that front the roadway here.

And so this is why we did not uh suggest putting in a landscape median because it would just make it that much harder for people to get in and out of their driveways.

Um the concept or the vision plan would also connect to what's already being planned for on El Prado Boulevard.

And then as we we move south along the corridor where there's existing bike lanes, there's an opportunity to narrow the travel lane, add a painted buffer in the bike lane to make that a little bit more comfortable.

And again, in this segment, we're leaving the curb line exactly where it is.

And then in some portions of the corridor on the northern portions, um, there's a lot of parking that just kind of enters and exits the roadway, and it's very unclear if pedestrians are allowed there.

So we identified a few sort of low-cost quick build options to sort of highlight where pedestrians are supposed to be in those areas so that it's a little bit more clear where everybody should be.

And this is really just done either with paint or it could be done with some some textured elements as well.

So we included that as a something that could be implemented more in the near term.

We then also identified what are some you know future considerations and next steps.

So just highlight a few of those, really a need to update the right-of-way survey along the corridor to understand what the the right-of-way limitations are, doing a little bit more detailed land use analysis.

A lot of parcels on the corridor are prime for redevelopment, but understanding what that might be and how that might affect the vision plan would be an important next step.

Um, and then as bicycle facilities are improved along the corridor, we expect to see more people biking.

So updating some of the bicycle parking requirements for new uses along the corridor would ensure that you know those future residents would have a place to park their bicycle.

Um so um Lisa can talk about the the recommended action, but it's really just to approve the the plan here today, and happy to answer any questions.

I know we went through that um pretty quickly, so I'm sure there might be a few questions.

Thank you, Ms.

Twiz.

Board members questions from Mr.

Liz.

Yes, um board member Rodick.

We're board member.

Thank you, Chair.

I have yet to see anyone using any of the bike lanes we presently have in the city anywhere or the county.

So my question is why are we putting investing money into putting in bike lanes that nobody uses?

So we're not actually proposing new bike lanes along the corridor, it's really where there are existing bike lanes to make those a little wider so that people might feel safer to use them.

Why not take them out altogether and and and remove this restriction on vehicular traffic?

So that's a great question.

That was not an alternative that came up through all of the stakeholder engagement that we did.

Well, it's coming up now.

Okay.

I can add to that, Lisa Silva, TPO staff, vision zero coordinator.

Well, we've observed everywhere, and maybe not when you're traveling the corridors in our counties and cities, as there are a number of people using those.

We have the data and the counters that demonstrate that, and we have the public input on the corridors and the personal observations.

There are many of our community that are zero car households, either because of economics or because they're just elderly and cannot drive any longer.

So mobility scooters or e-bikes or just walking are some of their alternatives.

So that just really fosters other modes other than just vehicular.

Well, forgive me, but the but the roadways were primarily intended for vehicular traffic.

I'm just wondering how much money do we really need to expend and continue to impede the vehicular flow.

Okay, well, it it is not roadway, it's not just for vehicular traffic.

I said primarily, and and my question is largely rhetorical.

Right, and so you'll see that our our proposal primarily addresses congestion and vehicular mobility, but then balances some of the forgotten modes in the past that weren't designed there appropriate for our fatality rates.

So we're really about balancing needs and saving lives.

And what are our fatality rates?

Highest in the nation.

Florida, unfortunately, is number one in that category year after year after year.

We kill more people than any other state in the United States.

Bicycles and pedestrians sometimes we're number one in one category, number two in the other category, and sometimes Orlando and Miami beat us out, but Tampa Bay, unfortunately, continues to be highest in fatality rates.

How many in the last year?

Ah, it's off the top of my head.

It's like depends on which jurisdiction I'm talking about.

So it's like 200 and something, and then there's 42 in the city of Tampa.

Board Member King, if I may, uh staff would be happy to return at a later time and share the volume counts for some of the cycle tracks that are being uh used.

I do think it's a little bit of an incorrect assumption to assume that they're not being used.

Some of the cycle tracks in downtown see uh ice cyclist usage above a hundred cycles per hour.

I'm not but we we could come back with some data on the case.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, and um I'm only providing anecdotal information from from my experience, but I have to wonder why we're spending all this money to do something that is counterproductive in some ways as I see it.

And I I think somebody needs to ask the question.

So I'm um I'm sorry if I've uh upset anybody.

I don't intend to, and and uh I apologize to to the chair.

I don't want to monopolize the uh the moment.

So I'll um I'll end my question.

Board member Rhoda Christian.

Thank you.

First of all, I want to commend the staff.

This is a very comprehensive way that you're looking at the entire corridor, and there's so many opportunities to make this an effective reliever for Dale Mabry, and so be it.

It's it's a high density corridor, so really appreciate the the comprehensive nature of what you're looking at.

Uh the the one question I have, actually, two questions.

One is I believe there's a lot of extensive stormwater work uh that the city has undertaken, especially in the most egregious flooding flooding areas.

Is that accounted for is the limitations to what's being done right now that you are going to take as part of this vision and tie it up to the broader stormwater design that the city may be doing.

So that's one question.

And the second thing, um, this is not the full corridor, but there are a lot of retail locations where the front portion of the retail where the parking is is very shallow, where you know vehicles almost need to get into Manhattan or Henderson before they can reverse and get into the so please consider that as well in your study.

Great.

So to answer the first question, then this was primarily or this was a transportation study.

And so we do acknowledge there's a lot of the stormwater improvements happening along the corridor.

And we did note that as this project progresses to subsequent phases, that there'd be a need to kind of evaluate how well those projects are doing and then implement any additional stormwater management when additional transportation improvements happen along the corridor.

And then in terms of the parking for the retail uses, then yes, that was sort of a one of those core constraints along the corridor, just knowing that in while those businesses are operational, we can't really do do much to change the parking situation.

That's why we identified that sort of low-cost near-term opportunity to kind of paint where pedestrians should be in those parking areas, with the expectation that longer term as redevelopment occurs, there could be opportunities to place parking in the back and a whole host of other strategies to reduce those conflicts in the future.

Thank you.

Board member Cohen Commissioner Cohen, but I do want to remind everybody that the only expected action of this board at this point is to accept this report.

The people who are actually going to design the construction are not us.

So these are options.

So Commissioner Cohen.

I'll be very brief.

I I thank you very much for the report.

For people that are not familiar with this roadway, it is the most ridiculous design you could possibly imagine.

It is a it is a diagonal road that cuts through a perfectly straight grid and creates terrible conflict points every three blocks where three streets all come together.

I um don't know what the correct balance of bicycle, pedestrian, automobile um priority would be, but I can guarantee you that the way it is now doesn't work for any of them.

And uh uh I mean there are streets that literally end Morrison doesn't actually go through, it actually ends right before the intersection.

So you just end up at a dead end where you when you think that you're gonna make a turn.

It's it's a real mess.

So I I just want to say that whatever work gets done on the coroner is gonna be a welcome uh change from what is there now, and so um we should strive to get it right, but what we shouldn't do is get caught up in a nerve fight about what the the treatments are gonna be and then end up not doing anything because it it really and truly is is one of the most conflict prone stretches in the whole city.

And to the point about the stormwater work, my understanding is that the city's almost done with it, which means they're probably getting ready to strike again any time very very soon.

Councilmember Hurtet.

Thank you.

I'm actually just gonna echo it um with what Commissioner Um Cohen said.

It's definitely an area where people have been begging for help for many, many years.

And uh I really appreciate this plan.

And as we find the funding to move forward with it, whether it be you know, city treatments or county or state money, um, I really do appreciate the work that went into this.

Um, we are getting a lot of complaints from the community about pedestrian and bikes bicycle safety, um, and a lot of it has to do with with speed.

So um I know it's a very difficult road, and I really do appreciate the fact that we aren't reducing traffic lanes because that would not work in that area.

So, again, thank you for the detail and the thoughtfulness, and I really look forward to seeing what happens as this moves along.

Board member Slater.

I was gonna make three points, but Smith had made two of them for me, so I'll just leave you with uh I love seeing the roundabout on there.

I think they can be extremely effective when people learn how to drive in them.

Commissioner Waspel move to accept the report.

I'll second it.

We have a motion by Commissioner Cohen, seconded by Commissioner Wastel.

Commissioner Walsh, will you record just very briefly?

I I agreed with the the roundabout comment.

I'm I'm sold on them.

I think that they actually work.

The the bike lanes are empty.

I mean, I I've talked about it.

I have to drive through one where a whole street was taken right here on county center harder objects, it's on one.

I've had to dodge a car that went into it one time, and that's basically all that you say.

I could put a trail cam on it, and you're gonna see that it's empty in the downtown core.

Um, you probably have a nominal amount um of people that enjoy it, but the reality is it's Tampa, Florida, it's the lightning capital of the Western Hemisphere, and it's extremely hot and humid, and we have a lot of senior citizens.

So I I um would have rejected this proposal if you wouldn't have uh made clear that you're not doing on the amount of calls I filled it for El Prado, which citizens get confused about um who's got jurisdiction, but the road diet that's going on in El Prado is just has a massive build opposing it right now, and I'm I'm getting a lot of calls about it, and and I don't want this project to in any way facilitate or help that road diet that's going on on there um to move forward.

So um, as long as I don't see that in the engineering, I'll continue to support the item for the most part.

Um but I I do believe that the comments about the bike lanes were actually germane, and you said you had 22 people, so um, after we move forward, I would like to see the the data that you collected and the amount of money that it's going to take.

So the data that was collected for actual um bike trips and pedestrian trips that were collected prior to this recommendation moving forward.

I would like to see what those numbers are and what the potential financial cost is to move them forward.

So thank you very much.

I thought it was a good item.

Commissioner, we have a motion and a second, Mr.

Kluge recognized for discussion of the year.

Yeah, just quick comment as far as that roadway.

It was, you know, it basically falls a cattle trail.

You probably remember that as uh William Denton uh Henderson drove his cattle down to Spring Lake, which is a Sunset Park, and then down to Port Tampa first cattle.

But that's where the roads away is is the way it is.

It's a diagonal.

But uh having said that, there were a number of intersections or six-way intersections.

So I'm glad we're trying to address that because it is a real problem trying to address those six-way intersections.

Also, with the um Manhattan, Manhattan was expanded about 25 years ago, and um that was to take traffic off of West Shore Boulevard.

So I hope we don't lose that concept is that West River Borderwater, we can't widen it any wider.

Now there's Newport Tampa Bay and all those other developments to the south.

There's a lot more traffic on uh West Shore, and I think Manhattan was widened to address that issue.

We have to make sure it's not going to be a speedway.

You know, the speed limits are you know enforced, et cetera, on that area, but there is a need to have that four-lane, you know, portion of Manhattan Boulevard.

Thanks.

Mr.

Clue.

Okay, board members, all those in favor of the motion of approval say aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

No nays.

Thank you very much.

Um our last item, uh, action item, I should say, is fiscal year 28 through 32 TPO priority list, and our very own Elizabeth Watkins is here to explain.

Good morning.

Good morning, TPO board.

Elizabeth Watkins, DPO staff.

So, what is this priority list and how is it used?

It's one list, but it does a lot of work.

The first thing that it does is help prioritize the TPO board suballocated portion of federal funds.

That's about 20 to 25 million dollars per year.

And these funds are being requested not for tomorrow, but for five years out.

And that's just due to the federal transportation work program process, which um I can understand there might be some uh you know concern about that.

But the other thing it can do is communicate a need to DOT on their facilities.

District Shriven is great partners, but this list is timed well because it is synced up with how they are programming funds or budgeting them.

And then finally, the last thing it can do is help bolster um can help bolster discretionary grant applications.

So this list is an all hands-on deck effort.

Our local agencies are instrumental, so cities, county, heart.

They're the ones that actually submit the applications because they're the ones that are gonna develop, design, implement, and operate and maintain it.

The TPO plays an important role in setting that long-term vision, developing priorities, and using data to evaluate and then monitor the investment performance.

Our partners at District 7, they're the ones actually programming the funding.

So they are tracking the balances, understanding how much is available, and actually programming the dollars.

And they also have a big responsibility of oversight of these projects that are federally funded.

I know you all know this, but for the general public, I wanted to make sure it was very clear that not all transportation needs our projects are gonna be in this 40 project list.

Your staffs do an amazing job through their capital improvement programs or work programs and illustrating to the public what's in what's in the works and what's coming soon.

So the LOP, the CIPs, the work programs, they all work together to advance transportation in our county.

A few things have changed since last year.

So the first thing is you're seeing this in May rather than coupled with the TIP in June.

We did this because we thought it was important to be really clear about what the party lists can and can't do and how it's different from the TIP.

The priority list is sort of a wish list.

Hey, DOT, these are the things that we want funded, while the tip is here is what here is what is funded over the next five years.

Another thing that has changed has been the format.

So this is the same project, just has more detail and more information because we thought it was important in this list to explain more clearly what projects are, where they are in the phase of development, and what specifically is being asked and recommended.

So now we'll talk a little bit about the projects on that list.

So there are 40 projects total.

The vast majority or 31 are ones that are only seeking community support or direct support through the TPO board support of being on this list.

Nine of the projects had a higher barrier to entry, which means they had a detailed project application, an engineer's estimate, and an application to go along with this request for those 20 to 25 million dollars per year.

So I'll briefly touch on that pot of the 31.

So there are a variety of projects that are fall within that category.

So streetcar extension, Tampa RTL BRT.

These are fixed guideway, expensive, complicated transit projects that will likely have their own financing mechanism, but they're on this list just to show the TPO board supports the advancement of these projects.

I 275 widening from Hillsborough to Beerce, which was mentioned in public comment.

That project is also on the list at your direction to include it as a capacity project.

The South Coast Greenway Trail is a project that the county is working on but still developing, as well as Van Dyke Road widening and trail.

Heavy maintenance facility through HART, phase one is funded, and phase two still seeking discretionary funding, but it remains on this list to just show support as these projects find different ways to advance.

And that's those nine projects that submitted project applications.

So pleased to see that we had all types of projects from technology to maintaining the assets that we have, safety, trails, and widenings.

So one of our top priorities is smart cities, using technology to get the most out of the investments that we have to move traffic, alleviate congestion.

So the county requested five million dollars to design and construct essentially traffic signal cabinets, cameras, sensors, different types of hardware that they can do to maximize traffic flow on key intersections in eastern Hillsborough County, as well as racetrack road, which is in the town and country area.

Looking to the next program is the Good Repair Resilience, so maintaining the things that we have.

We received two requests from HART.

One was to support their bus stop capital improvement program.

It's a big program.

Their request, I think, was 40 million, but staff is recommending two million to help continue to implement shelters where possible, ADA improvements, other transit amenities.

The second request from HART was a contribution to continue to help them keep their vehicles in a state of good repair by either doing midlife overhauls or doing full replacements.

Currently, HARTS fleet, so 75 out of 130, over half are beyond a state of good repair.

That means over half are pushing 600, 700, almost 800,000 miles, and the HART team is doing an amazing job keeping those buses, getting every last, every last drop out of them.

So the recommendation would be five million dollars to continue that program and try to get out of that situation.

The other two projects were bridge rehabilitations, both within downtown Tampa, Bra-Rayne Bridge Street, as well as the Cash Street Bridge, and the staff recommendation would be to help fund the construction of Cast Street Bridge just due to the total project cost.

So the rec the ask from the city of Tampa was $8 million, which we think we can help get funded while brewery was much higher at 20 million.

Then in our vision zero category, we had a request from Plant City to continue the work that's happening on Collin Street, which is an important corridor in downtown Plant City.

So this will be the third and final phase of Collins Street from Alsa Brook to Alexandra, and the city was requesting about $2 million to do preliminary engineering or design on that project.

Segwaying to our trails category, the county submitted an application for the Bypass Canal Trail Segment 6.

So that is from Bruce Bowns to Morris Bridge Road.

It traverses Flatwoods, Trout Creek Park, and the request was 2.5 million to get that constructed and build up to standard.

And then the final two projects with applications was a request from Hillsborough County to widen Gibson Drive from Fernhill Drive to US 301.

The request was for design to get that, get the design started at 750,000.

We think we we think that that'll be able to be funded.

And finally, the last request was from the city of Tampa to help with additional phases of the Ashley Drive realignment project.

So currently the project is envisioned to reconnect Ashley Drive to the grid.

And phase one is funded through a discretionary grant.

But the submit city submitted an application for phases two, which is closer to the interchanges or the ramps with I-275, and then building out the grid with the rest of downtown.

And because that request was higher, about I think 15 million dollars.

Um we believe that the funding is kind of run out, but it will remain on this list for support.

So overall, we were pleased with the outcome of this process.

The majority of the applications that were submitted, we believe they could get funded.

You can see investments in all modes, whether it be transit, trails, highways, a nice geographic distribution between the cities, unincorporated county, and heart, and then of course, maintaining a balance of getting things built, but continuing to keep projects in the pipeline and get things started for design.

So the recommended action before you today is to consider accepting this party list, but I'm happy to answer any questions or comments you might have.

Thank you, Ms.

Watkins.

Prior to questions, we do have public comments.

So we do have three people signed up for public comment, and we will call them and then we'll open it up to board questions.

Chris Vella is online, I believe.

Chris, can you hear us?

Yes, I think we can hear you, but it's low volume.

Okay.

Is that better?

Yes, that's a little better, yes.

Okay, thank you, Chair.

I appreciate it.

So uh Chris Fella, 33605, Tampa, Florida.

I'm asking you to remove items 36, I 275 Hillscore Avenue to Bears Avenue Widening as a capacity project and a TIP priority list.

This vote matters because the priority list is not just paperwork, it is formalizing public support.

The TPO's guidelines say the degree of public support should be considered in the project prioritization and scoring guidelines for FDOT's work program as a tip update.

But over the past 10 years, we have had public outcry against the widening of I 275.

During that time, we brought over a petition of 2,000 signatures, spurred thousands of emails, calls, and pleas to remove highway widening.

Why did TPO leaves this ongoing chapter out is a mystery?

For neighborhoods north of the downtown interchange, this project has been a long and painful history.

Its science is anchored into a 1987 Tampa Interstate study, which was supposed to offer a final fix with high-speed rail once the highway work was completed.

That fix was a manufactured lie.

We saw no transit, the neighborhood improvements promised by FDOT never materialize, and surrounding neighborhoods face unfair economic and environmental impacts.

If anything, just waste this massive waste of projects provided two things mistrust between the taxpayers and FDOT and more gridlock.

For decades since communities in Silinal Heights, Ebor, and Tampa Heights have raised serious concerns about rewidening I-275 through our neighborhoods.

This is an outdated plan allowing other cities and counties to surpass us.

We are not asking you to ignore gridlock.

We're asking you to choose a better transportation project for the area.

Prioritizing highway winding through dense neighborhoods does not solve Tampa's long-term mobility needs.

It just locks us more into road expansion, more costs with tolls, ignoring gas prices while transit neighborhood-based alternatives remain underfunded.

The TPO board history matters.

Past efforts by Commissioner Pat Kemp remove the winding language from I-275.

Unfortunately, in 2024, Commissioner Wasser restored that winding language without fair notice to the public over fears of evacuation despite major hurricanes we've had in the past, literally cover the entire state of Florida.

As you're aware, the TPO already adopts resiliency studies, and none have formalized any highway widening as a strategy.

As you're you're actually set to adopt another such study in June.

Again, that doesn't include any highway widening.

Please vote no on any motion that accepts I-275 as a capacity project and a tip.

Remove it.

It isn't the 80s anymore.

And out of the entire population, only 9.5% of it uses I-275.

I know it's crazy, but we're ignoring the all their bulk, which are the local roadways in our community.

So why don't we just use some money there?

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Vela.

Jason Marlowe.

Good morning, members of the TPO.

I'll say swiftly that having the pleasure of knowing many of the members of this board, I am incredibly grateful to you for your service to our community, and I apologize in advance for the venom in my monologue this morning.

It is not aimed at you.

I'm proud to take time out of my day to once again voice my vociferous objection to the proposed expansion of 275 from Bears to Hillsboro.

I will spare this board a painful review of the decade plus of civic opposition to this project and how it has rallied individuals from different neighborhoods throughout Tampa's urban core.

However, let it be known that from Forest Hills to Tampa Heights and everywhere in between, we as civic associations are united in our opposition to this boondoggle.

Instead, I will focus on the scope of the costs.

Recently, our county commission has been discussing what we can and cannot afford.

I say to this board, if we are not meeting our most basic responsibilities in repairing sidewalks and paving potholes, then we assuredly do not have over a half a billion dollars to unnecessarily widen a highway.

If we waste this money to widen 275, we will literally incentivize more of the traffic already clogging Tampa.

Let's set things straight.

Our traffic problem is specifically connected to the number of cars on our roads.

The efforts of this board should be oriented towards offering our residents and tourists actual alternatives to individual automobiles.

We should not spend over a half a billion dollars of the taxpayers' treasure to subsidize corporate welfare for those who would contribute to certain political campaigns.

It is not hard to read someone's supervisor of elections report and see the regulatory capture that has been at work in this specific endeavor.

We should not spend over half a billion dollars at the taxpayers' treasure to reduce the property values and quality of life of tens of thousands of tampeños.

We cannot claim to care about public health if we are willing to pump more particulates into people's lungs when there are plenty of other more important projects worth funding to reduce fatalities on our roads.

And lastly, we should not spend over a half a billion dollars of the taxpayers' treasure on building additional lanes when the cost for this endeavor is more than double the annual funding of our county's public transportation agency.

We could utilize this money to help working class citizens cut their costs at the pump by providing them with the world-class alternative transportation options that this community wants and deserves.

Thank you for your time and consideration and have a wonderful day.

Thank you.

Mr.

Fernandez.

Thank you, Chair.

Rick Fernandez, I uh appear today as president of the Tampa Heights Civic Association and in my individual capacity, and stand opposed to the widening of Interstate 275 north of Hillsborough to Beers.

Your CAC has recommended that you strike this project from the priority list, item number 36, and I ask that you uh you support the CAC and the community we are appointed to represent.

This is not the first time such a recommendation has been delivered.

I have been on the CAC since 2017.

We have been asked every year to litigate the merits of FDOT's interstate widening initiatives.

Every year we have recommended rejecting some or all of the TBX TB Next capacity projects.

For instance, in June of 2021, the CAC recommended striking Section 7 of TB Next.

That is your priority number 36 from the TIP.

The board agreed.

There was to be no further expansion, and that was the way of things until 2024.

In June of 24, during the TIP public hearing, one of you advanced a motion without notice to the public seeking to reinsert capacity language in Section 7.

That motion passed, and the clock was set back three years.

The CAC and community at large have sought to overturn that action during hearings on the TIP, the LRTP, and now the priority list.

So far, no joy, but we have several years to work on it, and who knows, maybe a few of you or your successors will eventually have an epiphany.

To that end, when your colleague offered their motion in June of 2021, it was based primarily on the argument that road widening was necessary to support I 275 as an emergency evacuation route.

There is no support for that argument.

There is no emergency management doctrine that suggests the need to widen this stretch of highway.

In fact, your continued support of this project is an evacuation enhancement, communicates the wrong public safety message.

Modern strategies concentrate on navigating storm surge risks, with the guiding principle being run from water, hide from wind.

If evacuation is necessary, we should plan to travel tens of miles, not hundreds, to higher ground and a sturdier structure.

High traffic, low dis or high long distance evacuation creates unnecessary danger.

High traffic, long distance evacuation is exactly where you are promoting with this project.

You want to spend 400 million dollars in 10 plus years to strand your future constituents on a larger parking lot.

That is the developing legacy, and it is yours to change.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Fernandes.

I'm gonna call Ms.

Watkins back up if there are questions, board members.

If there are questions at this time, and then we'll have discussion and/or a motion after.

But are there any questions for Ms.

Watkins?

Commissioner Wilson, do you have any questions?

Are you moving?

Okay.

If there are no questions.

Move for approval.

Motion by Commissioner Wassel, seconded by Mayor Kilton.

Discussion of the motion.

I'm sorry.

The motion.

Motion to approve.

Oh.

Um I I would like to say that um uh I'm gonna make a substitute motion to uh remove item number 36 from the tip.

There's a substitute motion.

Is there a second to that substitute motion?

Uh second.

Seconded by Commissioner Myers.

Discussion of the substitute motion.

Commissioner Walshville.

We do this every year.

But um I will just say that um as former Secretary Gwynne highlighted at the previous meeting.

The precedence in which the 275 expansion was added back onto this list was the precedent set by the motion that removed it in the first place, and that's how that order of operations proceeded.

It has been stated and supported numerous times by the Secretary of FDOT, whom is not here today that this expansion is needed.

It was on the list long before it was removed abruptly by the former Commissioner without notice to the community, which is why it was placed back on abruptly in the exact same manner.

We all know that that we have congestion needs.

We all know that by this time Bright Line is going defunct and bankrupt and seeking multi-billion dollars of bailout, and that the realities of that transit making it to Tampa are very slim at this point.

Um, when former City of Tampa Chair Greedo Manascalco moved to um heighten the level of various transit that was needed by the City of Tampa, the streetcar expansion, et cetera.

I believe I was the one that seconded that motion, and it passed unanimously, which is more to the point that we all know that we have different competing needs and priorities in Hillsborough County.

The City of Tampa barely represents a quarter of the entire population of Hillsborough County in the 1,100 square miles that we have many different competing needs, most of which the highest by far percentage is used by cars and not other forms of transit.

We're doing our best to create a balance, but I believe that removal of this item would be inappropriate, and I will not be supporting it.

Thank you.

Commissioner Cohen, there's a point of order before your response, and that is that I believe your motion was to remove that item from the tip, and really this is we're talking about the list of priority projects, not the tip.

I mean the priority projects.

Okay.

Excuse me.

So just a clarification.

Yes, I apologize.

Commissioner Myers, that was your intent when you seconded Okay, Commissioner.

We're good.

Having gone through this discussion year after year, I would just briefly say this.

Um 275, there is there are enough shoulders there to be restriped to create an extra lane without ever having to do any additional construction, number one.

And number two, uh, the people that live along that corridor have lived with construction for five or six years.

They're finally on the other side of it.

And I do think at some point that you you have to recognize construction fatigue in a neighborhood.

I agree with all of the uh points that were made by the public, but I wanted to add that, because one of my primary reasons for feeling this way about it is that all of the people that lived along that route have have suffered from noise, various different issues with air pollution, just the general inconvenience that goes with this kind of construction, and I think to impose it on essentially the same areas again is just is just a road too far.

But with with all that, uh that's that's my motion.

Commissioner, Commissioner Myers.

Uh thank you.

Um I do agree with everything Commissioner Cohen has said.

One of the things I want to commend the residents for keeping this in front of us.

This is a part of my district.

I'm going to support my residents and uh what be opposing this project because um they continue since I've been on this board, have expressed the same thing year after year of asking us not to support the project, and plus um with no rail coming, you know.

Transportation is just an ISO here in Hillswood County, no matter what which way we look at it, but I do have to support my residents that's in my district.

Thank you.

Commissioner, other discussion of the substitute motion.

So at the risk of paying a price for this, I do want to comment on my perspective.

Um, and I'm sure I'll pay the price like I mentioned.

But I I'm gonna support, as I have in the past, the the project, but maybe for a slightly different reason.

If you go up to Hillsborough Avenue, the there are no well, there are a couple places where there are sound walls north of Hillsborough Avenue, but it's spotty.

So there are some places between like Bush and Boganville, there's some sound walls up there hit or miss.

I think the people that live north of Hillsborough Avenue to bear deserve sound walls, just like the people how south of Hillsboro.

And now I don't go door to door there because that's not in Temple Terrace, but I would imagine if you went and knocked on those doors, the people whose kitchen window looks out at 275 and they're at grade and people are looking into their house, and I said, Would you like to replace that fence with a wall?

I would imagine that probably a lot of them would say, Yeah, I would love to have a wall.

They've got a wall south of Hillsborough.

How come we don't have a wall?

Well, we know from DOT that they're not gonna they can't use federal money to build that wall unless it's tied to a construction project.

They can't just go build a wall.

They're not gonna build a wall.

We've been told that over and over again.

I think that this those people deserve to have a sound wall.

And I gotta think that if you're getting a sound wall behind your house instead of looking at the interstate through a chain link fence.

How much do you care if they add another lane on the other side of that sound wall?

You got a sound wall now instead of just looking at it through a fence.

Now, I won't be on this board when the construction comes around.

I'm hoping that our successors will not approve DOT building this project with if it doesn't include walls.

I would that I mean, I've told DOT from day one the only reason I'd be supportive of this project is if it includes sound walls.

If it doesn't, I'll I'll flip over and I'll join with these people in the fight against it.

But um I know that's not you know, I'm gonna be like, okay, it's just capacity.

I am not anti-transit at all.

But they're not gonna spend federal highway dollars on transit.

The reason we don't have transit is not because we're doing capacity projects, it's because we don't have a local match to meet the transportation project.

I mean, that this these are different pots of money.

We're not spending a half a billion dollars to do capacity that we could locally use to build a train.

If that were true, I might be have a different opinion of this because I'd love to see some transit, but I don't think it's one or the other.

These are different pots of money, and if we lose this project for 400 million dollars, that federal money is not going to build a train somewhere, it's gonna go build a capacity project in some other city.

And so I just I just think um I'm sorry, I I don't think the opposition makes a whole lot of sense, and for me, this is about the sound walls.

So okay.

Now we have the substitute motion.

Um all those in favor of the substitute motion say aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

No.

No.

All right, let's raise your hands if you're opposed so we can get an accurate count.

Opposed, I have Commissioner Bowles, Mayor Kilton, Commissioner Miller, Commissioner Wastel, Mayor Ross, Board Member Klug, Board of Member Rada Christian, Board Member Slater, Board Member King, and Board Member Joseph.

Those are the opposed.

So I'm sorry?

Yes.

And raise your hand if you were yes.

It was Commissioner Cohen and Commissioner Myers.

Okay.

Now we have an original motion for approval of the list of priority projects, and it was seconded.

Is there discussion of the original motion?

If not, let's do a roll call vote on that, Miss Deziona, just to make sure the record is clean.

Ross?

Yes.

Wostall?

Yes.

Miller?

Yes.

Myers?

No.

Cohen.

Yes.

Bowles?

Yes.

Her talk.

She she had to excuse herself.

Kilton?

Yes.

Kluge?

Yes.

Stevens.

Yes.

Slater?

King?

Yes.

Joseph?

Yes.

Motion carried 11 to I'm sorry, 11 to 1.

I'm sorry, 12 to 1.

Commissioner Myers voted no.

Very good.

Thank Ms.

Dissian.

I'll also let the record reflect that board member Rada Christian has been sitting in for Tampa Airport today instead of board member Stevens.

Yes, sir.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay.

Executive director's report.

Thank you, board members.

I have a few items to report.

The Sun Coast Transportation Planning Alliance will meet on June 5th at 10 a.m.

Um after that meeting wraps up.

We'll have a joint meeting with the SCTPA and the Central Florida MPO Alliance at 11.

The location has been changed.

It was originally scheduled to be held at the Sun Trax Sun Track Center.

Due to scheduling conflicts, it'll be moved to a different location in Polk County, which hasn't been decided yet.

But as soon as it's selected, we'll get that meeting information out to you.

Our next regular TPO board meeting and tip hearing will be June 10th, beginning at 6 p.m.

downstairs on the second floor.

That is the most important arguably the most important meeting of the year.

Well where we'll be approving the tip.

And specifically the funds that the TPO controls, the transportation alternatives and surface transportation block grants are entirely funded out of the gas tax.

So that's something that we'll be monitoring with our partners and provide you with updates as they become available.

I also want to share that I had the pleasure of attending the forward Pinellas board meeting yesterday afternoon.

Um presented our response to their proposal from a month ago to have the Port and the Airport removed from the merged board.

Um and instead what we decided last week was to have Port and the Airport remain off the top, but with the 11 seats that we're entitled, we would donate one to PASCO.

Um happy to report that that um merged apportionment passed 10 to 2, I believe, in Pinellas, or I'm sorry, 10 to 3.

Um the three dissenters, two from Pinellas County Commission and one from the city of Clearwater.

I do want to note that uh I was a little surprised that uh the county commissioner who originally offered the proposal to us, which we entertained and ultimately accepted, did not vote in support of the of that apportionment yesterday.

Um comment that I heard was he thinks that they could still do better.

Um I'm sure that there will be more conversation about that in the future.

I'll return with updates as I have them.

Any questions for me that I can answer?

That commission is here.

How many um Pinellas Commissioners sit on their board over there?

I believe it's four.

Um Commissioner Scott's Commissioner Flowers, Commissioner Schear, and Commissioner Peters.

Okay.

So the vote, the vote yesterday was split to two among the county commissioners.

Um I believe it's only four.

I could be mistaken.

Um, but Peters, Scott, Flowers, and Sharer.

Who's the other no?

Uh City of Clearwater Council member.

County Commissioner.

Who's the other note?

Um, Peters.

I'm sorry.

Other questions for Dr.

Wong.

Mr.

Slater.

Just want to make one point that uh bills that have been introduced on the federal gas tax so far have all included uh automatic transfer mechanisms for the general fund to replace that funding and make that program whole.

Other uh new business, old business, anything to discuss, any announcements?

Anything for the good of the order?

Very good.

Well, thank you all, and we will be adjourned.