Well, good evening, everybody, and welcome to the June 10th meeting of the Hillsborough TPO.

Um, if you would please stand and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Thank you, and good evening again.

Uh just for clarity for everybody.

We actually will be having two meetings tonight.

The first is the uh regular monthly meeting of the TPO to discuss regular business.

Uh then we will adjourn and reconvene.

We're not going anywhere, but we'll adjourn one meeting and um call to order the second meeting, which is to discuss the annual update to the transportation improvement plan commonly referred to as the TIP.

So if you're wondering what's going on as we're adjourning, that's what was going on.

Um so I'd like to ask Miss Bessana, would you please call the role for the first meeting, please?

Ross.

Here.

Wostel?

Here.

Miller is excused.

Myers, here.

Cohen?

Here.

Bowles?

Here.

Clandennon.

Here.

Hertak?

Here.

Young?

Can you please turn on microphones?

Here.

Thank you.

Kilton?

Here.

Gray.

Here.

Klug?

Here.

Stevens?

Here.

Slater?

Here.

King?

Joseph?

Here.

You have a quorum, sir.

Thank you very much.

And as many of you may have noticed, we have a new board member tonight.

Uh City Council Member Naya Young has joined the board.

Welcome aboard.

And would you like to introduce yourself and say a few words?

I'm happy to be here.

Looking forward to the meeting.

So yeah, that's happy to be here with you all.

Very good.

Well, welcome aboard.

We're happy to have you.

Yes.

So uh board members, has everybody had an opportunity to review our minutes from May 13th?

And if so, is there a motion to approve?

Move it to approve.

We have a motion by Commissioner Meyer, seconded by uh board member Stevens.

Is there any uh are there any improved corrections or adjustments to the minutes?

If not, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

The minutes are adopted.

Public comment on agenda items other than the tip.

Uh we currently have no members of the public signed up to speak at this meeting.

We do have some signed up to speak at the next meeting.

Um we don't have anybody signed up for this staff.

Did we miss something?

We have Chris signed up for the tip comments.

We do have you signed up for the tip, but I don't have you signed up for this one.

I did this my four.

Yeah, I this is my second attempt trying to do a first comment, and I I can't, I'm not successful in signing up for some odd reasons.

Okay.

Well, I don't have you signed up, but I don't want to cut you off either.

Since since this seems to be isolated to one person and it's three minutes, I'm gonna go ahead and allow you to set the timer, please, Ms.

Desiono.

Mr.

Villa, welcome.

All right, thank you all.

And these views are just exclusively in my own.

I do serve on the CAC.

Um, so let me begin.

So Chris Vella, 33605, Ybor City.

So lately I've noticed the sports behavior has been downright disrespectful for the exception of what you just said, of course.

For the past 10 years, we put up with backhanded remarks like quote, we do this all the time, unquote, because we still believe highway widening through our communities is bad.

We are appeared for this board, measured with historical evidence, the damages of I-275 and the downtown interchange has caused.

And it wasn't just us, it was the media, professors, industry pundits, the elderly, children from my community.

We pointed out that since the 1960s, every single operational improvement on the highway and the interchange has led to more crashes and congestions to the point where it looks like it hasn't even left the era.

Now let's talk about the May 13th board meeting.

Not even 24 minutes in, there was some complaints about managing projects.

And there was a comment made that if someone were to be made president, they would take a quote, blue ribbon approach, unquote.

I'd like to remind everybody here and anybody who supports the Trump administration that between 2020, 21, and 25, Trump gutted out a lot of environmental review and checkpoints on infrastructure projects.

What is before him and before all of y'all is the final process of what MAGA wants us to have.

Around 37 minutes in, board member King makes a comment that we should remove bike lanes.

And like board member Wastel said in 47 minutes in, implies that we don't see these bike lanes in use.

King takes it a step further saying that he hasn't been heard after noting positive feedback from the Henderson and Manhattan study.

There are many opportunities to provide uh provide feedback, but why now?

The City of Tampa reported to me that we had over a half million miles of pedestrian activities this past year on the bike infrastructure.

There were over 345,000 trips last year.

So these instances would have been noticed anybody coming to the county center.

It's quite obvious.

Later in the discussion, the board wanted to know about the pedestrian crashes.

So here's the figure I got from the city.

We had 832 alone, and we had 83 that are incapacitated, 23 of which were fatal, and 280 with injuries.

And I think on my way over here, I saw that we kind of made that top 10 for the most dangerous metro areas in the nation for bicycle riders.

Towards the end of the meeting, there was a remark about the 400 million dollars for I-275 going away.

This was a false narrative push by former Secretary Gwynn.

Under the LOP, there's no money for the project.

There's still no money.

If you look at the tip, FTOC competes with other districts to get airmount funding from Florida legislation.

They do this to be viable in front of Florida legislation, regardless if there's actual any liquid that exists in these projects.

The difference here, the next five years, there is no money.

And I want to remind the board that just because it's just a quarter of us in the county, we could gladly keep our tax revenues and watch the county go utterly bankrupt in less than a year.

But it it doesn't make sense to play these tip for TAC games.

Let's just be productive, guys.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Villa.

We'll move into committee reports and advanced comments.

Um Rick Fernandez, our CAC chair is here.

Mr.

Fernandez, you are recognized.

Thank you, Chair.

Good evening, everyone.

Pretty impressive group when you're all here.

Um for the record, Rick and the uh chair of your citizens' advisory committee have been for the last couple three years.

I'm here now to report on the uh meeting of our June 3rd uh gathering.

The CAC held a workshop on May the 20th.

Okay.

The CAC held a workshop on May the 20th focused on the uh on the TIP and held the regular meeting on June 3.

This presentation will focus just on the June 3 meeting when the CAC received presentations on the local roadway resilience countermeasures report and the crash mitigation and congestion management process, or CMCMP.

I believe both of those are on your action items agenda for tonight in the early part of the meeting.

The CAC voted unanimously to recommend that the TPO board accept both of these reports.

We spent most of the June 3rd meeting focused on the TIP, the subject of tonight's public hearing.

The questions and discussion focused primarily on two areas the projects in the vicinity of Hillsborough College and the I-275 capacity project from Hillsborough to Beers that you all are very familiar with.

On the I 275 issue, CAC members secured confirmation that no funding is programmed at this time, and that implementation is projected outside the TIPS target five-year window, a decade or more into the future.

There was extensive discussion on the role of the TIP.

CAC members expressed their procedural concern that the TIP is intended to publish projects with committed funding and proposed implementation over the next five fiscal years.

The Hillsborough to Beers capacity project does not satisfy these criteria.

Therefore, the CAC passed a motion by a vote of 13 to 2 to remove the item.

That would be 431821-3.

Let me restate.

That's the FPN number.

I-275 from Hillsborough to Beers from the FY27 to 31 TIP.

And actually, although the recorded vote was 14, or sorry, 13 to 2, the actual vote was 14 to 2 because one of the members reported almost immediately after the vote count that he had voted the wrong way.

So all but one member voted to remove the item.

I made this motion and defined it as procedural in nature, which is to say, one might vote to strike the project on procedural grounds, a failure to meet funding and the five-year implementation criteria, while supporting the project in substance.

And in fact, at least two of the members on the on the committee said they were doing exactly that.

They supported the project, but not the procedural misstep.

It would not be lost, and transparency would be maintained.

Following action on this motion, the CAC further discussed the TIP and the years of history we have written as a community in debates over transportation policy.

Members noted frustrations with the TIP in substance and process, as well as the disconnect between community supported projects and projects that are actually included in the TIP.

A motion was made to recommend the TPO board approve the TIP as amended, that amendment again being the striking of the Hillsborough to Beers section.

That motion, however, failed by a vote of 5 to 10.

This marks the first time in my nine years of experience on the CAC that the committee has recommended rejection of the entire TIP.

Staff has actually confirmed that they reported as well or did a little study of their own going back 10 years and found no evidence of this.

First, the vote to recommend removal of the Hillsborough to Beers capacity project.

I'll just refer to it as the project going forward.

This one's pretty easy.

The motion was surgical and procedural in nature.

The TIP is a work plan of federally funded transportation projects over the next five years.

Since the project is neither funded nor scheduled for implementation within that time frame, it does not belong in the TIP.

That's pretty black and white, and 14 of our members agreed.

Thus the removal recommendation.

The second vote was more complex and frankly unexpected for me, also more concerning.

As chair, it was concerning, and I hope to you as well as the appointing authorities.

Ten of 15 CAC members voted not to recommend approval of the TIP, rejecting the entire document.

One might ask why.

It hasn't happened in 10 years, and I suspect it's been much longer.

The CAC is essentially a well-informed focus group of your fellow citizens and in some cases your constituents.

Many of us have followed the evolution of the MPO, now TPO, for a decade or more.

I'm sorry, represented among our ranks.

That said, the vote of 10 members to reject the TIP was not so much a rejection of projects, at least of all projects, as it was a rejection of the process bringing those projects to us and a rejection of the way in which this board absorbs our recommendations.

The comments made during discussion reflected frustration born of the belief that this board does not respect our work and the knowledge that our recommendations are routinely dismissed.

One TPO board member thinks so little our contributions that they have failed to appoint a representative and apparently don't intend to do so.

Frequently, the board delivers a de facto vote of no confidence to the CAC, and the CAC has noticed.

This month, the CAC responded in kind.

My take is this was a protest vote.

Will you do anything about it?

I hope so.

Step one might be to spend some time talking to your appointees, assuming you have one.

And remember, we are all your appointees.

Step two might be to view the June 3 CAC meeting on YouTube.

I'm sure staff can get you to the appropriate timestamp.

I've tried to provide fair context, but there's no substitute for the real thing.

Finally, I posed a question to Google AI yesterday.

What is the significance of the CAC?

I thought that might be the kind of question that your layman who would be interested in appointment to the CAC might ask.

This is what comes back, and this is about the TPO in Hillsborough County, the CAC.

The CAC bridges the gap between everyday residents and decision makers on the TPO.

It ensures that community voices directly shape the county's transportation policies, project priorities, and funding allocations.

That may be the goal, but it is not the perceived reality.

Tonight, community voices on the CAC are telling you, asking you to strike the Hillsborough to Beers Capacity Project from the TIP.

To do that, you need only follow your own rules.

No funding, no five-year window, no TIP.

The alternative is to violate your rules and ignore the advice of your advisory committee.

That concludes my report.

If there are any questions, I'll be happy to stand for them.

Thank you, Mr.

Mr.

Fernandez.

Board members, other questions for Mr.

Fernandez.

Seeing none, thank you for your report.

Thank you.

We have uh Harmony Harmony McGee from our TPO staff.

Good evening, Harmony McGee TPO staff.

Regarding today's action items, the Technical Advisory Committee and the Livable Roadways Committee recommended that the TPO board accept the crash mitigation and congestion management process.

Discussion of the technical advisory committee included the sources used for speed data, with TBO staff clarifying that multiple data sources were incorporated into the analysis.

Additional questions focus on the threshold used to identify hotspot corridors, the timing of congestion measurements, and how the findings would be translated into action.

TBO staff explained that the purpose of the study is to identify crash and congestion hotspots, which are then overlaid with the project pipeline to help identify potential study areas and inform future project prioritization.

It was also asked whether the Tampa Hillsborough Expressway Authorities work program had been considered.

Staff noted it had not been incorporated but could be included in future efforts.

Livable Roadways Committee members inquired about tracking congestion over time.

Staff explained that while some efforts of the TPO date back to 2014, the CMCMP monitoring effort is relatively new and will serve as an ongoing tracking mechanism moving forward.

Questions were also raised about whether the removal of traffic signals had been considered and whether they could be replaced with other alternatives.

Staff clarified that these considerations are part of the broader toolbox of potential strategies.

The technical advisor committee and the bicycle and pedestrian advisor committee also recommended that the TPO board accept the local roadway resilience report.

Discussion at the Technical Advisor Committee included considerations related to trees and ongoing maintenance requirements associated with some of the identified countermeasures.

The Technical Advisory Committee, Livable Roadways Committee, and Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee further recommended that the TPO board approve the fiscal year 2027 to 2031 Transportation Improvement Program.

At the Technical Advisory Committee meeting, questions were raised regarding whether projects had been delayed to accommodate new projects in the vicinity of Hillsboro Community College.

TBO staff clarified that the projects in question originated from FDOT Central Office and did not affect the scheduling of other projects.

It was also asked how project schedule changes initiated by Tampa International Airport would be handled.

Staff explained that such changes would be incorporated into the following year's TIP update.

Livable roadways committee members raised similar questions regarding projects near Hillsboro Community College, and additionally voted to request that a representative from FDOT attend a future committee meeting to explain how its central office prioritizes projects and how decisions regarding other state programming are made.

We also receive public comments through social media.

Questioning data related to e-bike stopping distances compared to those of a semi truck.

Brenda try, tag the TPO and a comment on X regarding property tax reform.

Another community member also commented commented on X in support of light rail.

This concludes my report.

Thank you, Ms.

McGee.

Board members, other questions from Ms.

McGee.

Seeing none, thank you very much.

Okay.

Has everybody had an opportunity to review the consent agenda?

And if so, is there a motion to approve?

Motion to approve.

Who made the motion?

I'm sorry.

Council Member Clenden, seconded by Commissioner Bowles.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

No nays.

Consent agenda is adopted.

Move into action items.

Action item A is crash mitigation and congestion management process.

And Harry Walsh from our TPO staff will explain.

Good evening.

Absolutely.

Good evening.

Good evening, TPO board.

Good evening, Mr.

Chair.

I'm here to present to you the crash mitigation and congestion management process update called CMCMP.

So tonight I want to talk to you about what this is, what this isn't, talk about the hot spots that we've identified across congestion, safety, and resiliency, and then talk about a very high-level uh case study and then the toolbox of strategies that we've uh developed in this effort.

So before we get to the CMCMP, what is a CMP?

What's a congestion management process?

So it is a federally required document for any MPO or TPO that serves a community with over 200,000 residents, which of course we have more than that here in uh Hillsboro County.

And it asks you to look at all your roadways, identify a subset of those roadways, identify performance measures along those roadways, and then identify hot spots for congestion.

And then do research.

Look at other organizations, uh, other MPOs, other TPOs, look at research organizations, and see what strategies have been effective for treating congestion.

So I'm happy to have inherited such a great history at the Hillsborough TPO in safety work.

And so we also included a crash mitigation and as a part of this to make it a crash mitigation and congestion management process or CMCMP update.

And we don't want this to just be a document that sits on a shelf.

We want this to be something that can be living and breathing and useful to elected officials, to partner agencies, to members of the public.

And so we're of course going to be posting uh this uh ultimate underlying uh tech memo online, but we also have a web map that we'll be updating.

Um, and ideally, I'm hoping in the future that we'll be able to have some sort of dashboard or something that's active that anyone can go onto our website and use.

So here is a CMCMP network that we've identified.

And there's gonna be a lot of uh images in this, so I really encourage all of you to look at the underlying tech memo.

There's a lot more maps and a lot more explanation of the data, but at a high level, uh we have about 5500 center line uh public road miles in our uh in our county.

And this CMCMP just covers about a thousand of them, so less than 20% of the total roadways.

So why did we do that?

Because we wanted to look at only the roadways that had above a certain volume uh of traffic.

So anything that was below 5,000 average annual daily traffic, that's so low that it really wasn't gonna register for safety issues or congestion issues.

And also we only wanted roadways that had consistent data that we could keep pulling from that had a history behind it, we can look today, and then also as we continue to monitor in the future and uh use this thing that we're developing that will consistently have good data.

So in the black on that map, you have your interstates, that's 132 miles of that a thousand.

Then in the red, you have your principal and minor arterials, that's 263 miles, and then the majority of it is those blue roads, that's all the other roads, and that's 614 miles uh of our of our area here.

So the first lens that we used was congestion, and we found through research looking at other CMPs than other MPOs have produced and just general good practice across the industry that one measure of congestion really wasn't sufficient.

And so we looked at four different aspects to hone in on what congestion is actually looking like on our roadways.

So the first is percentage of time spent congested, and we iterated over what is the exact uh cutoff, what what should be the metric that we use as a project team, and we settled on 50%, above 50% or more for percentage of time congested.

The next is delay, and so we used vehicle hours of delay per mile as the measure for that, uh, and we found 12 minutes to be the cutoff.

And this isn't 12 minutes added to your entire trip time.

This is 12 miles to get through a single mile uh segment, or you know, the equivalent of six uh minutes to get through half a mile, if you're understanding.

And we found uh just kind of an interesting fact the highest was 42 minutes to get through a single mile section, that was part of I4 at peak period, uh, so that was fairly significant.

Then the third was reliability.

Can you predict how long it's gonna take you to get through a part of our roadways?

And we used the planning time index for that, so that tells you how uh how long is it gonna take you to get through a segment of the roadway compared to free flow traffic, and we used two times double as uh twice as long to get through as compared to free flow, and then the high end was about five times as uh as slow.

So if you expect it to take 10 minutes, it's gonna take you 50 minutes.

And we identified, taking all of them together, the extent, which is the fourth measure, and that's what you're seeing on the map here.

And so we identified of that a thousand miles or so, 169 miles of congestion hotspots.

So the next lens we went to was safety.

And most of this data is from Signal 4, so that's a nice publicly available uh data source.

We know that's gonna keep going ahead in the future.

And uh we considered other efforts have used uh just fatality and serious injury.

We wanted to look at all types of crashes.

So we looked at a five-year period, so 2021 up until most recently available data.

Um, and we used the uh KABCO method of weighting, so fatalities are weighted much higher than just uh property damage only crashes.

And so through that we identified the segments that you see in red on that map as safety hotspots, and then FDOT also maintains a uh intersection uh map layer that we were able to use.

And so that just looks at the intersections on their own and uh fixes some data problems that we'd often have to encounter.

And so using that, we were able to identify the uh top intersections as well.

And you'd probably expect to see the intersections along uh the congested segments, right?

And generally you do see that.

Those are those gray dots that you see there.

But if you look to the east of the map, uh south of Plant City, you do see that there's like these two intersections that are floating out in space.

So that's indicating that those intersections themselves are probably starting to uh experience some congestion, but it hasn't started affecting the roadways.

But if you know population increases, if VMT increases, uh, and those roadways stay exactly the same, you might start to expect to see some congestion like radiating out from those uh intersections.

And so with all, and also in uh South County as well, the same principle stands.

And so with that, we identified 137 miles of safety hotspots.

And then the third lens, which was not a major part of the study, but we did include it, was resiliency, and so we looked at storm surge, one foot, sea level rise, one foot in the 500-year floodplain, and really no surprises here.

It's the areas that are along Tampa Bay, along the Hillsborough and Alifire River, those are most at risk for water-related uh issues, storm-related issues.

We had 113 miles of resiliency hotspots.

So now that we have these lenses, we took the two main ones that we were looking at, congestion and safety, and combined them.

So let's see where if we just look at anything and everything that's a problem on our roadways.

What do we identify as hot spots?

So we identified the majority of I-75, 275, and I 4 as issues, the majority of Hillsborough Av, Dale Mabury, Nebraska Av, and the area near USF.

There also were several uh South County roadways that we identified, including a lot of uh intersections with Lithia Pinecrest, especially uh Bloomingdale AV really lit up when we uh looked at this holistically.

And then that's kind of looking at a broad view, right?

Including either or it's either a safety or a congestion issue.

And you expect, we generally know that uh the worst crashes happen at high speeds.

So if you have congestion, you generally are not going to have a lot of fatalities or serious injury, and vice versa, where you're starting to see those fatalities and serious injuries, you probably don't have congestion.

That generally holds true if I flip back and forth between this.

You see, in this more conservative uh hotspot map that we're looking at here, where it has to be both a congestion and a safety hotspot, it's much fewer, uh, smaller selection of the roadways.

And so looking at that, it's interesting what pops out.

So we see for continuous segments, Hillsborough Ave, I 275, and Dale Mabry have both of these types of issues.

And other areas of note, as I mentioned before, are uh Bloomingdale AV and then also US 301 in South County.

And uh if you look, you see a lot of like uh little separated intersections.

And so we did identify through this effort that intersections and not necessarily the entire roadway segments or entire roadways are often the start of the problem.

So I won't keep this up for too long.

This will be in the underlying report, but this is an unranked list of those combined top hotspots here.

So you see a lot of usual suspects I-75, Selman, the Veterans Expressway, I-4, and also the extents, the Frubbin II.

So now that we've identified the problem areas, we know that our partner agencies are also looking at this, and you're already aware of many of these problems.

And so we looked at uh Tampa's CIP, Hillsboro County CIP, uh, FDOT's work plan, as well as our own TIP to look at what projects are already in the works, what are planned in the near future.

And then we took that and overlaid it with what are the uh the hotspots that we've identified to see where are the gaps.

And so the black areas uh on that map on the right are the areas that already have projects uh programmed from at least one of these.

The red areas are the ones that don't, with one exceptional note.

So zooming in a bit, you see we overlaid all of these projects, and then most of the hotspots we found do have projects.

People are aware of where the project uh the problem areas are, generally speaking.

Uh some of the gaps that we noted were parts of Hillsborough AV, many of the segments of Hillsborough AV do have projects, but not basically the whole extent, which is what we identified, as well as the same thing for Dale Mabry.

And I do mention the Selman Expressway here.

I do want to note that we did not have the Theo work program initially.

We do have that in the underlying document, so this map is slightly incorrect, but in the final document that'll be updated.

Because there's the South Salman Expressway uh capacity, or sorry, capacity project that I'll defer to our representative for details.

Um we also have Kennedy AV, Bloomingdale AV, as mentioned before, and parts of Ebor as uh areas that have stood out.

So this is really the map that I think is the biggest takeaway of this project, uh, this effort.

Here are the areas that we are uh recommending or saying that our partner agencies could look into or members of the public could look into for potential projects.

So this is a great uh obviously the uh tip is on everyone's mind tonight.

This is a great example of how this is the uh inverse or a good complement to the tip.

So this effort does not program or suggest any particular projects.

It identifies where some of the problem areas are.

We take a look at what projects are already going on, excuse me, and then we uh say, hey, here are some areas that maybe we should look into as a community.

And so we don't want to just leave it there, we want to also offer some strategies.

And so a large part of the report is the research we did on a strategies toolbox, and so we included a general strategies toolbox with five sections that we grouped uh many underlying strategies into.

Um, and we sorted them into these five tiers, is what we ended up calling them.

So the first is strategies to preserve the system, and the next is strategies to reduce person trips and vehicle miles traveled.

The third is strategies to shift automobile trips to other modes.

The fourth is strategies to improve roadway operations, and then finally the fifth is uh strategies to add capacity.

And this is just one of many of those strategies I've uh pulled out.

And so this is traffic signal coordination and modernization under ITS and operations strategies, and you can see what are the uh predicted impacts on crash and crashes and congestion, what's the scale, what are the general costs, we're not putting dollar amounts, but like the rough idea of what the cost might look like, and what's the implementation time frame?

And then generally, I mentioned as kind of a complement to the tip.

We're looking on a timescale of like one to five years for implementation and things that are generally lower in cost, so not giant capital projects that are gonna take 30 or 40 years.

We're looking on the shorter term for this exercise.

And then we did a very, very high-level case study because the actual project identification is not really the point of this.

Um, but we basically, this was the extent of the case study.

And then potential strategies we thought were applicable to the issues there would be smart technologies, signal timing and coordination, and then safer pedestrian crossings.

And we did this kind of in a vacuum as the project team, just seeing what does the data point us to, what is our research point us to?

And we were really happy to hear basically the next day after we created this map from FDOT that they selected this segment as well as a little bit further east for phase two of their smart corridor project.

And so there they basically identified similar issues, and uh we'll be looking to install uh ITS and smart technologies uh along this roadway and uh extended.

So that's nice to see a little bit of maybe verification from separate project teams.

And so with that, uh my the requested action is to accept the CMCMP update.

We're hoping to do more updates in the future, maybe yearly as staff.

Uh with that, are there any questions?

Thank you, Mr.

Walsh.

Board members, other questions, Councilmember Hurtag.

Um, thank you so much for this.

Is this uh vehicles only?

Vehicles, pedestrians, bicyclists.

Like what are you looking at with crash that was on the Yeah?

Well, it yes, any crash that's that happens on a roadway, so it doesn't have it happens on a trail or something, it's not included, but we are looking at uh pedestrian bike, non-motorized, motorized, and uh automobiles yet everything.

Um and you you didn't have I didn't see a breakout of of those.

Not in this, but we do have that, and that's ultimately with uh signal four.

So all of that is publicly available.

We basically are using that data as is and then just mapping it onto our roadways, and that underlying data is there.

So that's something that you can get in the report or just generally.

Thank you.

Board member Slater.

Similar question.

I'd like to understand a little bit more of the crash.

I mean, you identified the Sellman Expressway, but we had zero fatalities on this element expressway last year, so I'm trying to figure out kind of where that correlation is in terms of the crashes.

So, you know, I just would like to understand a little bit more of how that calculation was made, sure, and kind of where that fits, and you know, pretty uh and coincidentally, how much of the crashes were somewhat related to congestion, like for instance, if congestion gets backed up, are we having little kind of fender benders, those types of things?

Which are a crash issue, but not necessarily a significant safety issue like we have on the pedestrian front.

Sure, absolutely.

Though that's actually fairly direct um to answer.

So uh for safety, what we did is well, obviously, for congestion, we followed this, and then for safety, we were looking at um the weighted so the K ABC zero, um, all types of crashes across all modes uh along the basically the entire roadway network that we were looking at, and then we identified um we normalized that per mile to try and figure out uh where exactly are kind of the biggest hot spots, not just looking at because you're obviously gonna see like on 275 is gonna light right up and everything else is gonna kind of fade into the background, so we normalize that a little bit.

But if you actually see if this is showing up on all of your screens as well, for safety hotspots, the Selman is not really lighting up.

That's not what made it to that final um that final measure there, it was more of the congestion, and the congestion is that method, so that's the only reason that the the majority of the cellment showed up.

Absolutely, thank you.

That was the reason for my question because where it was showing up was a list where you combine safety and congestion, so I just wanted to make sure that I was seeing absolutely there's a small segment county boundary to Kennedy is what we identified.

So it's not the entire extent, it is a part of it.

Yeah, other questions from Mr.

Walsh.

Oh, yes, Mr.

Hall, Secretary Hall.

There you go.

This is too fancy for me.

Now, first off, great job.

Oh, thank you.

Um you made a very complex uh presentation, very simple.

So uh kudos to you.

Um, just curious.

Do you know which section of I-4 that was that was 42 minutes for a mile?

I was expecting that about a few minutes ago, and it's like I wish I had that immediately ready, but we can get that to you.

No, I was just I'm more just curious.

I mean, it doesn't, it does not surprise me.

Um, and that's why we've had a focus on I-4 lately.

So it doesn't surprise me, but was more just curious, you know, which segment it was.

So good job, just great job.

Thank you.

Other questions, board members?

If not, Mr.

Walsh, thank you very much.

Uh board, is there a motion to accept the report?

Motion to accept the report.

Uh motion by Councilmember Clinton and seconded by board member Gray.

Any discussion of the motion?

If not, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed, no nays.

Thank you again, Mr.

Walsh.

The report is accepted.

Next presentation is concerns local roadway resilience countermeasures, and Lauren Brooks and Sharon Wright from HDR are here to explain.

Oh, after Wade.

Yes, sir.

Uh Wade Reynolds, TPO staff, just here to introduce Sharon Wright, who is online with HDR to present the local roadway resilience countermeasures study and guidebook.

And we're very thankful for this given our flooding issues both from storm surge and rainfall these last couple of years.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you, Mr.

Reynolds.

All right.

Good evening, Chair Mayor Ross and board representatives.

My name is Sharon Wright with HDR.

I'm a resilience practice lead focused in Florida, but uh sit right here in Tampa Bay almost always with you.

My background is in city planning and environmental science, and um with several years developing sustainability and resiliency programs in the public sector as well.

And I'm pleased to be able to present this local roadway resilience work to you today.

And with that, if Christian can pull up the presentation.

So real quick, why this study, why the local roadway resilience countermeasures study.

It's building on several studies.

Most of you, if not all of you, probably know because of your proactive communities like Hillsborough, Tampa, Pinellas, and the Tampa Bay region, as well as the Resilient Florida program coming along from the state.

A lot of studies have been done on the vulnerabilities of our infrastructure, including our roadways.

Those vulnerability assessments look at anything from water treatment plants to parks to these major roadways and evacuation routes.

And so the TPO wanted to take this step along with some of the communities that are starting adaptation plans.

With this step, they can look at some of the countermeasures to what these vulnerability assessments are finding.

And most of the vulnerability assessments are folk focused on flooding and some on heat.

We wanted to look at how we could counter that on the local roadway network.

And recognizing that the T T the TPO does not implement resilience projects on their own, but this study is meant to support collaborations with your partners for resilience and funding strategies on your local roadway network.

And what we're here, what we're doing here today is not to approve any one solution for one project, but more to include this study as part of TPO's toolbox similar to the previous presentation, giving you the tools to work with your partners for more resilient roadways.

Next slide, please.

And so not based on these studies that I just mentioned that are existing, as well as coordination with stakeholders and staff, and of course, what we've all experienced.

The weather impacts for this countermeasure guidebook were focused on primarily on flooding, and that's driven and the and the flooding that's driven by rainfall and by tidal influences, both of which are becoming increasing in severity, as well as extreme heat with the growing number of high temperature days that we have here each year.

Next slide, please.

And um, so we also use the studies because we can see what um out there is vulnerable, and we know that there is a there are a lot of vulnerable roadways.

But we use the studies and again more input from stakeholders and staff to develop kind of a longer list of corridors that we might be able to use as case studies, along with developing these countermeasure concepts.

And that list was narrowed down to the three areas that you see here.

Um, and that provides us with some different geographies as well as different roadway types to use sort of as such as examples.

So, what's in your package?

Um, and what one of the major results of this uh was the study was along with some backup was the countermeasures guidebook.

So through research development, looking at our in our own backyard at the roadways, countermeasures were compiled into this guidebook that includes the three corridors as I just mentioned is sort of as such as examples.

The guidebook, it's important to know it has a range of solutions.

Um sometimes one solution will offer many multiple sorry one solution will offer multiple benefits, and um often these are more effective when they're applied as a suite of solutions, not just using one.

So in your guidebook, you'll have these concepts and drawings.

Next slide, please.

Also in the guidebook, there you'll have a diagnostic framework.

The slide here is showing the rainfall diagnostic framework, and really what it is is a set of questions and maybe some opportunities that can drive your initial momentum and collaboration for resilience considerations on your local roadway projects.

Really thinking of uh leveraging this idea of resilience and coming up with countermeasures, um enables your tools to leverage it for sort of early and integrated approaches to design for roadway projects.

The framework set out for each impact type, whether it was the rainfall one you see here, title or heat, um can be mixed and mixed and matched as well.

These questions come up.

We know that most projects don't only experience one impact, and they often have opportunities for multiple countermeasures.

And so you have this diagnostic framework, you're asking questions, and then um we come up from those questions.

We have a speed of concepts or possible countermeasure solutions.

So, next slide, please.

So here is an example of one of the uh solution pages in your guidebook that shows green infrastructure concepts as well as photos, and sometimes it'll have drawings that give examples, mostly local, but sometimes maybe from other places as well, so you can see them in action.

Next slide, please.

This is another example for um the heat.

And we just want to show that you know, um, poor heat strategies, trees are a big focus in the guidebook.

They're not the only thing, but we know that trees are our great multitaskers, whether it's holding on to some of our storm or floodwaters, as well as providing that shade for heat strategies.

So there's a lot of discussion here with built-out um communities like we have.

There's some challenges and some great concepts to be thinking about applying.

Um, and we also talk about shade structures and some other things as an example for heat mitigation strategies.

And then the next slide is just one of the three corridors that we mentioned.

If you'll go to that, yep.

So um in the 78th Street um area, and so along here uh with the case studies, we sort of apply some of these countermeasure concepts to those to see what might work.

And here um you'll see for these examples of kind of looking at the findings of what some of the main drivers of flooding are and then what some possible countermeasures could be.

And here the example was um even a policy, not an actual construction project of that could expand pervious surface in the area.

Um that's probably true for a lot of places, but um that could have been a driver for this area.

And so this is just a little bit abbreviated.

We've had great presentations with the committees and have appreciated the questions and input that will be incorporated into this, and so we're just here today to share this information with you all, the board, and um hope that you consider recommending the study as another tool in your toolbox, and this will help TPO include resilient design elements in your local roadway projects.

And um, I want to thank you for your time and happy to answer questions or clarifying.

Keeps turning off.

Thank you, Miss Brooks.

Board members, are there questions?

Board member council member Young.

Um, not necessarily a question, just a comment.

I was actually very um happy to see um this report.

I really enjoy seeing though the the one would not think that there's a relationship between like you know, green infrastructure and trees and transportation, but there actually is a bit like the is a really big relationship, and so to see um you know, as talking about the green, you know, infrastructure concepts and you know, talking about the trees, which is something that we've spoken about on council, including on trees as part of your infrastructure.

So I was actually very happy to see this report, and I just want to say a very good job.

Thank you, board members.

Other questions for Ms.

Brooke?

Uh board member Gray.

Thank you.

My question is it's in line with the Mr.

Slater.

When we look at those hot spots, um I guess I'm talking to the screen.

Well, what about O'Palo Beach?

Because not only we have a school that's right in the flood zone, but that entire area goes underwater.

Um Shell Point Road.

So if you go south, you're looking at a huge amount of territory that even a steady rain will quickly fill up that area.

Um just curious as to why that's not included in the study.

Thank you.

Ms.

Brooks?

They got the the guidebook.

Um, I think there was a whole list, and I don't have that um handy.

What was started as lists, but this can apply to the whole service area for the TPO.

These countermeasures are concepts and can be pieced together from different solutions in different areas.

So some of these things will apply to that area, I'm sure.

Um, and the again, the three areas chosen were just as a such as based on looking at some of the vulnerability and says there's there's we're not lacking in areas that are vulnerable to look for solutions for.

So again, these were just such as, and these countermode measures can be applied anywhere where you want to take what makes sense from this guidebook to your area and build on that.

Well, I thank you for looking into this.

It's very, very helpful.

Thank you.

Other questions for Miss Brooks.

Seeing none, thank you, Miss Brooks.

Uh, board, is there a motion to accept the report?

So motion by Councilmember Clinton and seconded by Commissioner Myers.

Any discussion of the motion?

If not, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

No nays.

The uh report is accepted.

Thank you.

Any other business to come before the board before we adjourn and reconvene at the tip here.

Motion to adjourn.

Second.

We have a motion to adjourn by Councilmember Clinton seconded by Commissioner Bowles.

All those in favor of adjournment say aye.

So I oppose we will stand adjourned.

We will now reconvene on call to order the public hearing concerning the transportation improvement program.

We do need a another roll call vote, Miss De Ciano.

Would you please help us out with that?

Ross.

Here.

Miller is excused.

Myers, here.

Cohen?

Here.

Bowles?

Here.

Clendennan?

Here.

Hertak?

Here.

Young?

Here.

Kilton.

Here.

Gray.

Here.

Kluge?

Here.

Stevens.

Here.

Slater?

Here.

King.

Joseph.

Here.

You have a quorum, sir.

Thank you, Ms.

Deciano.

First action item is the FY27 through 31 transportation improvement program.

And our presentation tonight will be given by Elizabeth Watkins from our TPO staff.

Good evening.

Good evening, TPO board.

Elizabeth Watkins, TPO staff.

I'm here today to present to you the fiscally fiscal year 2731 Transportation Improvement Program.

So what exactly is this thing that we affectionately call the TIP?

Well, it's a program of federally funded and regionally significant projects that we expect to advance at some stage of development through 2031.

We do this because we're required by both federal and state law with the intention of bringing added visibility to these important projects.

There are many things that are required for adoption.

The first is extensive public outreach.

So I'm really proud to share the great work of the team of putting out road signs, sending over 3,000 postcards, legal ads, meetings, social media.

We really do our best to put get the word out.

We do extensive coordination with all of our partners, but particularly FDOT and HART, as they are designated recipients of formula federal funds, and they really help us craft this transportation improvement program.

We screen all the projects to ensure that there's consistency with the long-range transportation plan.

And one way that this tip is different than your list of priority projects is it's not a wish list.

These are projects that are at some stage of its development.

So I'll go over just a few highlights.

So when you slice and dice those 180 projects, this graph is just showing you that the vast majority of the projects in this program are those that are maintaining the system we have today.

So many resurfacing projects, bridge repairs, money for heart to continue to keep their fleet up to good standard.

When you look at the tip from a financial perspective, that 2.5 billion dollars of investment, you'll see that about half go to what we consider major projects being interchange uh modifications, widenings, and that's no surprise to us because those are big ticket complex projects that cost hundreds of millions of dollars.

But um there are funds applied to all types of projects within this program.

Then when you look at it from the funds that the TPO board has primary um discretion and direction over, you can see a little bit of a shift to many different types of projects given we have there's the pot is a little bit smaller, so to really spread that um and get as many um investments out and built for our community as possible.

So I won't go through all 180 projects, but a few that I wanted to bring to your attention in this presentation.

There are um a few major projects.

One, of course, is the West Shore Interchange, which recently started construction the early stages this year.

This will be a transformational project, um, not only um modifying the interchange but adding the trail and the cross through streets and the uh west shore area.

Our partners at the Turnpike are continuing to advance their Suncoast Widening Project, and the first segment of that in Hillsborough County from Van Dyke to Lutz Lake Fern will start construction in fiscal year 2031.

And lastly, the I-4 express lanes, which will be one in each direction in the median from I-75 to Polk Parkway.

That is full steam ahead with construction planned to be let sometime in 2028.

There are some new projects in the TIP around the Hillsborough College Dale Maverick campus.

There are six that total about two 23 million dollars.

These are new projects, but they did not displace any existing projects in the pipeline.

As the plans for the Hillsborough College site and potential race stadium are evolving, so are the actual project details.

So DOT is looking very closely at those, and the details that we have available are their intention to widen and add one late in each direction on air cargo road, and then this segment of Dale Mabrie, uh excuse me, Tampa Bay Boulevard.

Also, there are plans to add a signal at Steinbrenner and Dale Mavery.

I also thought maybe you'd be interested in what we're moving dirt on next year.

So within the city of Tampa near Bush Gardens and Adventure Island, there will be an intersection improvement at Annie Street and 30th.

Down on Atomo Drive at 34th Street and re-inf going from concrete to asphalt given the high industrial area and the high prevalence of heavy trucks.

A repaving on Hillsborough Avenue in the central part of Tampa from Park Road to Central Avenue, and then near the University of Tampa, a traffic operations improvement at Kennedy Boulevard at Plant Avenue.

Then looking out into the unincorporated part of the county, lots of investments in resurfacing, both on MLK and US 92.

DOT is also continuing to advance their I-4 westbound auxiliary lane to help drivers get on and get off of I-4 in that segment, as well as near the Brandon area and intersection improvement and sidewalk at State Route 60 and US 301.

Hillsboro County is working to implement a signal at Mango Road at Old Hillsborough Avenue near Thinona Sassa.

And then down in South County near the new Moffitt Center at South Shore, continuing to install intersection improvements at State Route 674 and College Avenue.

And then out in Plant City, both middle schools will have sidewalks, which will be of great benefit to the students.

But as you can see here, there is no money programmed through 2031.

And this is consistent with what DOT has shown in their long-range plans with design beginning sometime in 2035 to 2040, and then construction further out.

Secretary Hall has also been very consistent in his message about this project not moving forward in the near future.

TPO staff's recommendation will be to keep this project in the TIP.

And while it we acknowledge that it is a little unusual to have an unfunded project project in the TIP, we feel that we should it should be remained because it is one of your stated priorities in your list of priority projects, and it just gives added transparency to see how much money is actually programmed to advance this project.

So we're really at the finish line, looking for your action tonight to uh adopt the TIP.

Looking forward to hearing public comment and your discussion, and I'll be ready to answer any questions.

But the recommended action before you is to approve the TIP by roll call vote.

Thank you, Ms.

Watkins.

We will have you come back to the podium for questions after public comments.

Ms.

McGee, would you come to the podium, please and read advanced public comments for us?

Welcome back.

Thank you.

Public comments regarding the fiscal year 2027 to 2031 transportation improvement program will receive via email and on social media.

The public was also given the option to call and leave a voice message, though none were received.

Keith Wagner emailed in support of constructing a noise and safety wall along the I-275 corridor between Hillsborough Avenue and Sly Avenue.

He cited incidents in which vehicles left the interstate and entered his neighbor's backyard and provided photos that are included in your packet.

While expressing a preference not to widen the highway to accommodate the improvement, he stated that if state policy requires a widening in order to construct a safety wall, that he would support moving forward with the widening to allow the barrier to be built and help reduce safety concerns and noise impacts.

Another community member submitted three articles included in your packet outlining concerns that highway widening projects are not an effective long-term solution for reducing traffic congestion.

We also received a comment from the Sun Sunshine Citizens Facebook group with the following recommendations.

Remove the widening of I-275 from north of Hillsborough Avenue to Beers Avenue from the Transportation Improvement Program.

Do not implement toll lanes on the Hillsborough County segment of I-275 unless the Florida Department of Transportation and the TPO first hold a public hearing identifying which portions of I-275 would be told.

And they requested also to not approve the I-4 Westbound Auxiliary Lane project from east of Bethlehem Road to west of Branch Forbes Road, or the project to add lanes and reconstruct I-4 from I-75 to west of Polk Parkway until completion of the county's I-4 Urban Expansion Area Studio citing concerns about proposed highway-oriented development patterns along the I-4 corridor.

On X, Amanda Brown commented on the agenda formatting requesting that the agency use the same agenda system as the county for easier accessibility on mobile devices moving forward.

This concludes my report.

Okay, thank you.

If not, we'll move into public comment.

We do have several people signed up.

Rick Fernandez, you are recognized, sir.

Good evening again.

I incorporate by reference the CAC chair's report given at the top of the meeting.

And stand now asking you to strike the I-275 capacity project, Hillsborough to Beers from the TIP.

That's item number 431-8213.

I'll spare you the arguments grounded in community opposition and focus instead on procedure.

Reading from the TIP package provided in your agenda materials.

The question is asked, what is the TIP?

A five-year work plan of federally funded transportation projects over the next five years.

The LRTP describes transportation vision and projects over the next 20 years.

The TIP brings the LRTP to life in five-year increments.

This project is neither funded nor does it have a five-year implementation window.

On the contrary, as you've already heard, implementation is projected out over a decade, well past 2035.

It's present in the its presence in the TIP tonight is an anomaly that is within your power to correct.

Please note the Hillsborough to Beers segment has never been a standalone item in the TIP until its unexplained appearance there this year.

How did it get there?

By whose order?

By what authority?

I hope someone asked those questions tonight.

It has been on the TPO priority list or the LOP.

That's where it's been found.

Whatever changes have been made in 2021 or 2024, the project has been in the priority list, not the TIP.

That said, with no funding and implementation much more than five years out, TIP inclusion criteria have not been met.

Nothing supports moving the project from the priority list to the TIP.

If someone is concerned about transparency or the project being lost or forgotten, such concern is misplaced.

It lives in both the LRTP and the priority list, regardless of what you do tonight.

In closing, NASA predicts humanity will have a semi-permanent crude presence on the moon in 2032.

Sometime after 2035, FDOT predicts they will start construction of two lanes widening I-275 north of Hillsborough.

I find that contrast embarrassing and depressing.

FDOT has led us into a ditch.

This board keeps handling handing them the shovels, the jackhammers, and the pile drivers, all of which shake our homes.

That's on all of you and your predecessor board members.

You can begin changing that course tonight.

I need one motion.

I need a second, and I need eight votes.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Fernandez.

Chris Villa.

Good evening again, Chris Bella 33605, Tampa.

In 24 years, will some of you you all be able to drive?

Will you still be living here?

Will your nephews, nieces, or grandchildren live here?

Do you think a highway project will not be that will not be completed by 2050 will matter to these folks?

And 24 years, my city's built a world class river wall, a new downtown museum, Water Street, Encore, Midtown, a new air side terminal, a streetcar extension.

We saw a hundred acre expansion of our port terminals.

We built hundreds of CIP projects and modernized the D SAL plant, which kept us alive during the strout.

In 24 years, FTOP will just complete a five mile long project.

The TPO actually saw this project 12 years earlier in 2014, and by 2050, it will be 36 years old, outdated.

Let's jump into the areas of the tip where the public still gets to short end.

And my committee, FTOP, will not commit saying whether I-275 will be told.

We are talking about 16 miles through Hillsborough County being told after asking two billion dollars worth of taxpayer dollars to bill these lanes.

Do you know that 24 years ago that the price of gas in Florida was a dollar thirty-six?

Do you know what it is now?

Let's talk about I-4.

Are you aware that some of your constituents are attending an I-4 urban expansion area study tonight, literally right now?

Were you aware that FDOT wants to fund two highways in a tip going through this area while the community is still getting feedback from the county?

Both the Plant City and Osprey Observer have noted public pushback to sprawl around I-4.

Are you prepared to tell these communities that you approve a highway winding through this area before the study is completed?

Why are you allowing FDOT's needs to outweigh the communities when they have no money?

Do you think it's fair that after 10 years, FDOT cannot tell you what these roads will be told?

Do you think building more lanes in I-4 would not affect the rural character of your constituents that want to maintain?

Is it fair that you want to lock neighborhoods around I-275 under more construction until 2050?

Take these recommendations, because right now it just seems like FDOT's running the show.

Remove project number 431821-3, I-275 north of the Hillsborough to Barris from the TIP.

And unless F DOT and the TPO create a series of planned public hearings on I-275 tolling, demand no toll lanes for the foreseeable future, the Hillsborough County Leeward segment of I-275.

And then I would just remove the I-4 projects going through the area that you guys are doing to study.

Just wait so you get the community feedback and then respond.

And I know there's some comments about getting a match, but really, you guys are the politicians.

You need to find a match.

It's not going to fall in your lab.

It's your job to seek ownership and to find that match.

All I keep on hearing is straw man arguments, but no solutions.

And before I end, I just found out that I have asthma, and my doctor thinks it's environmental because I live next to the downtown interchange.

So we're getting really impacted badly.

Thanks.

Michael Marino.

Michael Marino.

Oh, here we go.

Uh good evening.

I'm Michael Marino, executive director of the Western Alliance.

Um, historically, we've supported the TIP uh to advance the Western interchange and related street level improvements.

Uh and um the thing for Westure is that there needs to be all forms of transitation for West Shore.

Better roads, more transit, and safer pedestrian facilities.

So the need for the pedestrian facilities is why we're speaking tonight specifically to the six projects that are proposed by Hillsborough College.

Elements of those projects are in our West Shore Transformation Action Plan from 2018, the West Tampa Multimodal Plan, or previous TPO walk bike plans.

We do traffic counts as part of our transportation planning.

So in 2023, we did traffic counts at Dale Mabury and Boy Scout Columbus and Tambay Boulevard, as you can see from the orange uh during the creamsicle game against the Lions.

So these two intersections had over 31,000 pedestrians for that game.

Uh and if you look at the the the top picture here, uh I circled those people are making a left.

Uh the cars are making a left into people crossing the street.

And then down here, basically the only thing stopping, you know, a major tragedy is TPD and that strategically placed left turn sign or right turn sign.

Um the thing is about that quarter at Dale Mayrie Corridor is that we've kind of accepted for the past 50 years that this is a function of going to games.

Um if you think about it, you can look on Google Earth.

My first Bucks game 1991, I basically crossed the exact same intersections that my daughter crossed going to the Stadium Series game a few months ago.

And so some of what has been proposed will help that uh uh make these changes.

And they're like I said, they're long overdue, 1991 to 2026, with or without a raised ballpark.

There's new apartment apartments on Boy Scout, St.

Joe's is expanding towards Himself Avenue with their partnership with Northwestern University, and there's gonna be interstate construction that sends more cars down Del Mabry.

So we shouldn't wait for you know potential of a tragedy here or to make these safe intersections.

So we hope they can support these additional projects and make the Dale Mayrie corridor safe for all users.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Marino.

Dana Lazarus.

Would you please come up also?

Mr.

Pullin, you're gonna donate your three minutes to Miss Lazarus.

Yes, sir.

Okay, you do understand that that will forfeit your ability to talk at this meeting.

Yes, sir.

Okay, very good.

I just wanted to make sure that was clear.

Thank you.

All right.

Um, Miss Lazarus, you are recognized.

Real quick, I'm gonna have something to show on this.

Okay.

Well, we'll give you a second to get that set up so you don't start the clock.

Okay, thanks.

Okay.

Okay.

Hello, TPO board.

My name is Dana Lazarus.

Um I'm an urban planner.

Um, I live in the East Tampa Ebor area, 33605.

Um, I'm also a member of your citizens advisory committee.

I've sat on the CAC for um on and off for about nine years.

So for the first time in 10 years, I asked um Sarah, uh TPO staff if a CAC has ever rejected a TIP outright, and they have not.

So keep in mind these last 10 years were the most controversial years of the TIP.

And for the first time, the Hillsborough Transportation Planning Organization's Citizens Advisory Committee voted to reject this transportation improvement program outright for not representing the wants and needs of this county, and ultimately for being, in my opinion, a sham process.

The primary advisory committee of this board, the CAC, one of the few committees mandated by the federal government, voted that you do not approve this document as it is written.

I've been on this committee on and off for nine years.

Normally we tinker with it, we make thoughtful motions, we do our research, and we make suggestions on how to improve the tip.

I myself have voted yes on tips that I didn't love in the past, but not this year.

To be clear, as vice chair of this committee, I did reject the tip for its content, not just symbolically.

There are a ton of highway and major roadway widening projects in this tip.

There are 11 widening projects, including descriptions like widen ad lanes, add auxiliary lanes, add-through lanes.

Of those, 10 are labeled SIS, aka strategic intermodal system, and of those, eight seem to be highway widening, including two TBX, also known as TB Next segments, to the tune of over a billion dollars.

I would have made motions to remove any of these projects as the CAC has done in the past, except that all of these projects, every last one of them, by some coincidence, had some smaller amount of funding scheduled for preliminary engineering, which according to state statute means they're all past the point of no return.

So I feel like I realized something insidious about how these projects work.

Is FDOT allocating preliminary engineering money just so the community by law can't stop these projects?

I did some calculations before coming before you today to explain what I mean.

I added all PE funding, preliminary engineering funding for these 11 major roadway projects, and it came out to 28 million dollars.

I then added all the total funds for these 11 projects, and it came out to one million 1 billion four hundred and thirteen million dollars.

So divide 28 million by 1.413 billion, and you get 1.98%.

Preliminary engineering funds represent less than 2% of total project funds in this tip.

Yet because they've been allocated, we're told we have no choice but to spend the billions on the rest of the projects instead of rejecting it based on community need and vision.

I did another calculation you all you all should hear.

I added all the miles represented by those 1.4 billion dollars for those 11 projects.

I added the miles, and it's 41.651 miles.

So easy calculation, 1 billion 413 million divided by 41.651 miles, is 33,924,756 per mile.

That's not even including the unprogrammed money for design build for the project widening I 275 less than seven miles from Hillsborough to Bears, which I've seen costs of between 400 million and 800 million dollars total for that project.

After years of making thoughtful amendments to the TIP and voting yes on the final tip, because I had some amount of faith in the system and the process, holding out hope each time that you all, the TPO board would listen to us and accept those amendments.

This process is not in the spirit of the federal aid act that established MPOs and TPOs in 1962.

When it was when that act was passed, it was so that the local people would have a say over how federal funding would be spent.

As you all saw that tall red bar on the bar graph of spending in this tip, I believe this is a bad tip.

Furthermore, I believe that nothing we try to do or say as a citizens' advisory committee will change that, and that we are therefore not properly collaborating on local federal funded, federally funded projects.

You may be asking yourself, why is the CAC against highway widening?

I urge you to look at the most recent dangerous by design report that was recently um published.

Tampa Bay remains at number eight out of the top ten most dangerous metros in the United States due to the investment that we put into roadway projects and the lack of investment that we put into all other multimodal projects.

Meanwhile, Miami has fallen down to number 18 in Orlando has made the list of improving metros.

So Tampa Bay really stands out as getting worse, and if you follow the money, you can see why.

Thank you.

And I didn't Keith Wagner.

Good evening, board members.

Uh, my name is Keith Wagner, and I live in old Seminole Heights neighborhood.

My property sits directly behind the I-275 exit off-ramp between Hillsborough and Sly Avenue.

I'm here tonight because my neighborhood is facing a severe public safety crisis.

Vehicles are repeatedly losing control on the off-ramp, crashing off the interstate, and breaching our neighborhood backyards.

Staff members Elizabeth Watkins and uh Cheryl Wilkening have already placed my formal email and photos of the most recent accident into your meeting packets.

I urge you to look at the photos right now.

What you see is a massive vehicle that crashed in a residential backyard on May 3rd.

Fortunately, my three-year-old border colleague puppy was not in the backyard at the time of the crash.

While this board has been locked in a standstill over highway widening, our physical safety is being completely ignored.

Holding out for a perfect political compromise leaves my home and my neighbors entirely unprotected from errant vehicles.

If state policy dictates that the only way to get a heavy-duty concrete barrier wall built to shield our homes is to approve the widening project, then I am asking you to stop the gridlock, fund the project, and build the wall immediately.

We cannot wait another 10 years for basic physical safety in our own backyard.

Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you, Mr.

Wagner.

That concludes public comment.

Um Ms.

Watkins, would you please come back to the podium?

So board, if we can keep this somewhat organized, if we have questions first, and then we'll have discussion and debate or after that.

But if there are questions for Ms.

Watkins, uh now would be the time.

Are there questions for Ms.

Watkins?

Mr.

Chair.

Yes, uh Councilmember Clinton.

Ms.

Watkins, uh in my briefing, and of course what we heard in public comment is this tip is normally um used for projects that have been funded that are anticipated funding in within five years.

Have we ever had a project in the tip that that met um that was not did not meet that requirement?

Yes, there have been some, and um in this current tip, there's actually another one, the I-75 at Gibson Trive Diverging Diamond.

That's also in there unprogrammed.

I I think maybe because it's part of the CIS.

So it's not unusual to have that.

So what's what is the purpose of if the TIP is as defined by programs that are anticipated funding within the five years?

What's the purpose?

What pup public purpose does it serve having this these programs in our TIP?

I think um one of the values of it is so that anyone could look it up and see zero dollars.

That's better than a promise or a long range plan.

This is a work program on dollars allocated, so having the zero does communicate some valuable information.

But wouldn't that be in the long-term plan as well?

The 20-year plan.

Um there's the long range plan, isn't a programming or a budgeting document, so we don't have the near term, you know, from now to 2031.

The long range plans is more high level.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Hurtek.

So just to follow on with that, then why don't we have all of the LRTP project?

I mean, because if you're if you're gonna if you if you're going to go ahead and show zero dollars, why don't we just do that for all of them?

That's a fair question.

Um Secretary Hall.

Yeah, I just I mean listen, so the the line item, that line item in the TIP document could be removed with no impact to the project.

The a lot of times the um choice to include, and this really is a choice of the MPOs.

The choice to include a project like that is if it had previous year funding that had been either expended and it wasn't completed, which that project has money in previous years that's been expended, but was not constructed.

And so a lot of times you may see a TPO or MPO show, hey, this is money was spent on this project, it was not completed, there's nothing currently funded on it to show that that transaction occurred in the past.

Gibson Ton and I T 75 North of Hillsborough both fall in that category.

There was funding spent, currently it's zero funding funded, there's no funding moving forward uh currently allocated.

You could remove it from the tip, like this is where I think a lot of people just really lose procedurally how this all works.

Removing it from the tip doesn't do anything to the project.

Yeah, it just strikes it from this document that it does it's not shown anymore, the past funding.

Uh and that I think that's what we're just trying to understand is if it so we heard from the public tonight that there are other projects that are not in the tip that have had money allocated to them for like P PDE.

Yeah, so the PDE allocation, the funding, if the PDE was completed, then that can be removed from the tip because that phase is completed.

The existing funding on Gibson Ton and 275 North of Hillsboro was designed funding, but it was not fully designed.

So that phase has not been completed.

That's what I'm getting at.

So it's an open phase.

It's showing that there's an open phase, there's been money spent, it was not finished.

And like I said, procedurally, just so you know, procedurally from the DOT, whether it's there or it's not there, we we don't care.

Um but that that line item doesn't make any impact for us because I have no funding on that in the next five years, so whether it's there or it's not there, it so I guess and then the the other question, because I'm just again just trying to figure out where all these projects should go.

So, are there any projects that are not in the tip that have that sort of funding?

Where they've already done some sort of design or there shouldn't be.

Okay, okay, thank you.

Not saying that there's not, but there shouldn't be.

Yeah.

Councilmember Clendon?

Yep.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Um, just a quick follow-up question.

The uh so there was a there was a statement that was made that this project was bifurcated somehow, that there was it was a bigger project and now it's a piece of project, and how did this get into this into the tip for this year?

Could you explain some of that for us?

Yeah, or Johnny, could you help me with that one?

Thank you, Councilman.

I'd be happy to explain.

This project dating back five years ago and beyond, uh, was originally part of a longer segment extending from about the DTI north up to Bears.

In 2021, by action of this board, uh motion was made to divide it into two different segments.

So one from DCI to Hillsboro was already funded for design.

That project is moving forward, and um for all intents and purposes is is done.

Um the segment that some of the public commenters have discussed this evening, uh Hillsboro North to Bears now is a standalone.

There was funding for the longer segment to design just the first half, and what DOT has told us is that some of that design work was put toward the Hillsborough to Bears segment.

It's now appearing in the TIP as a standalone for the very first time, but previously it was you know, it appeared, but it was longer.

But previously it was, you know, it appeared, but it was longer.

How did it get how did it how did it magically appear in this tip?

Um well for public transparency per transparency purposes.

I think what Secretary Hall was trying to say is the TIP is now showing that some design work has been complete, but not all of it.

Certainly not all.

There's about $50,000 that has been spent, and we're not expecting any more, at least for the next five years.

Was it a request from this from F F dot?

It was not a request.

I think at their discretion they chose to include it because F DOT, just like your TPO staff, several times a year, we get phone calls from the public media elected officials asking what's the status of this project for FDOT.

They made the decision to show it is not funded over the next five years and included in the TIP, even though you know that's not standard budgetary practice.

So I mean I just clarification because it was a question that was brought up.

So just it came into the TIP because it was submitted from the FDOT.

Yeah, it was this was purely last year in the TIP, and in between, people have consistently asked us that.

Uh we were actually accused of like pulling a fast one and like having funding somewhere else.

So we basically said here's the open book, like there's nothing on the project.

Gotcha.

And so that's it.

And it's like I'm saying, if today you want to strike that line item and say, hey, uh, we appreciate you showing it, uh we don't care.

That that's fine.

It was just purely so people could see there's there's nothing, there's nothing there.

We don't need funding there.

Okay, thank you.

Board member Gray.

So what would be the harm, if any, if we just took it right off of the TIP, would remove it.

Would there be any repercussions?

I mean, if we made a motion to remove it, would that be an upsetting event or uh no?

I don't think there would be.

So it would be staff's recommendation to um accept it as presented, but as Secretary Hall, no impacts to project delivery.

So I I would like to make a motion, if I may, to take it off, uh remove it from the tip if there's no objection.

There's uh Mr.

Clark, Mr.

Chair, can I interject real briefly?

Just to make sure, because I I don't get pulled into the budgetary stuff on this, but just to make sure uh it's this is out there for consideration because this conversation about this having sort of like zero dollars in this in this line, I think is what the secretary said.

Just to make sure we're compliant, the state statute, there is a sentence in the provision regarding the tip that says the tip may include a project or project phase, only if full funding can reasonably anticipated to be available for the project or project phase within the time period contemplated for completion of the project or project phase.

So just to to the people who work on the numbers in this, just making sh putting that out there to ensure that this including it would be compliant because just as somebody who's a lay person with pretty much anything to do with numbers, if it's got straight zeros, I just want to make sure that there's a staff position that it complies with that that's uh section of state statute.

Okay, thank you, Mr.

Clark.

And so Ms.

Watkins, I realize we have a motion, but just to clarify for everybody, it seems from the previous discussion that this would apply to two projects currently in the tip, not just this one, but the one at Big Bend and two seven or I 75 also is that correct?

So we would if using that legal rationale, this would apply to two things, two items in the tip, not one.

Is that correct?

Um I believe the motion was just for that one project, but well, I know I don't want to clarify this before I mean we do have a motion, but I want to make sure in light of the legal advice that the motion is crafted the way the motion maker wants it to be crafted based on correct information.

Yes.

I bel my understanding of that statute is the way it's presented follows the code of federal regulations and U.S.

uh code.

Um I think I think that motion would be fine.

Secretary Hall.

And just to highlight, just so you know, the reason why I-75 Gibson is there, is for similar purposes, design was started and was not completed.

And also that is a project that's often been discussed with Hillsborough County BOCC about pursuing a grant for, and one of the grant requirements is that it's identified in the TIP as a viable project.

So, like if you want to look at them differently, you can.

If you want to take them both out, you can't like it's it, it's the same thing, it doesn't impact the project, it just impacts the communication up.

So if you want that to continue to be considered for a federal grant, you can leave it if you would like to strike it just to be clean.

Okay, go for it.

I think that adds some clarity.

So board member Gray, you have a motion on the floor to remove the 275 seconds.

Okay, I have a second by Commissioner Myers.

Uh discussion, Commissioner Wastel.

Thank you.

I was just waiting for that.

Um there's actually more than there's actually more than two items.

There's another one on pages 138 and 139 of the TIP, which discusses guardrails.

There might be others, it's very difficult.

Um it's clear that this item was cherry-picked by the CAC and that's why the Gibson one, that's literally one page below this item.

So it would have been impossible for them to miss if they were truly going through and auditing the procedural claims that were discussed.

Um, that's not the role of the CAC.

And you just said that there is harm to remove it then because we're removing eligibility for grant consideration of these priority projects that we've picked, correct?

Yeah, so if you if we were to pursue a grant, this is if any of the projects that were moved were being considered for a grant.

If we were to pursue a grant, we would come back and be asking the board for some kind of an action to show that they want this project to be viable for grant funding or whatever.

So there'd be another action that would be needed.

And and you find money all the time.

I mean, you just you just found money for I-4 you were given.

You found money for a road I've been trying to fund for three and a half years in East Hillsborough.

It's not even your road, and you just found money for all of these Del Mabry projects and air cargo road projects.

So you could leave, we could remove this negligently.

You could find money for the 275 um project next week, and if we needed grant matching funds, well then now we're at a negative because we need to come back and find a way to get it back on here.

There's no harm though to leaving it though, correct?

But there is harm to remove it.

Yeah, the TIP document as it was presented is compliant.

Okay.

So like there's no there are no laws, rules violated with the TIP as it's been presented to you.

Look, colleagues, this is one of those documents where not everybody's getting everything that they want.

Um we're not here to target certain people's line items, we're not here to hurt um advancing, moving forward public safety.

What is 275 get like a 200,000, 175,000 riders like a day on it?

It's it's pretty high up there, right?

Yeah, okay, depending on the segment.

So um for all of those reasons, I don't understand the issues at hand.

I'm gonna make a substitute motion to accept the TIP as was recommended by staff.

That is my motion.

Second time.

You have a substitute motion seconded by Mayor Kilton.

We have a substitute motion by Commissioner Wastel to approve the TIP as and seconded by Mayor Kilton.

Is there discussion on the substitute motion?

Hold on a second, Dr.

Wong.

May I thank you, board members.

Um, I am actually going to agree with the assertion of Commissioner Wastel, but for a different reason.

I would say that there is no harm in leaving it in the TIP.

Um, however, there was also no harm in removing it from the TIP if the federal government were to award us funding to move this project forward in an accelerated manner.

It would still have to come before this board via a TIP amendment to bring it back.

Um funding change of greater than two million dollars or 10% requires a TIP amendment, and so there would still be opportunity for this board to discuss it in the public to weigh in.

If it were removed but funded to add it back in, we would have this same public process once again.

Well, this is not a discussion really, in my opinion, about whether or not to leave it on the tip or to move it to LRTP.

Um it's a discussion about overall transportation for our community at the end of the day, right?

So you know, we could just have left things like they were, you know, 100 years ago and still have bare roads, right?

But growth happens, things move on over time.

Um we talked about earlier what the impact was to I-4.

Well, uh, you know, I don't have to have the stats to know.

I I drive it all the time.

And you can pick your mile from county line road and pole to downtown, you know, Tampa and figure out where that's congested any given day.

So obviously we know that there's a need for increased capacity.

The stress that we have is um trying to figure out how that works.

Obviously, we need to have some transit involved and those types of things, but at the end of the day, we have two options.

We can stop being awesome, or we can make sure that we meet the demands of our folks.

And I feel very badly for the people that are right here in this community that are getting the most impacted by it.

But at the end of the day, we all have to recognize that you have to get folks from North County, from East County, from South County, from St.

Pete over into Tampa.

And how are we going to do that?

Okay.

So are you going to get people out of their cars?

Maybe some will.

But at the end of the day, we have so many people moving here, and they have to get around.

So to take this off is to say that that's not a reality.

And so I don't agree with that.

I think the reality is that we have to have more capacity in one way, shape, or form.

That's a fact.

And if I voted to remove it, then that would be dishonest for me.

And that's why I seconded our commissioner's motion on this, because that's where I'm at.

It's not about the legality of the TIP or the LRTP.

It's about stating the facts that we need increased capacity for moving people around Hillsborough County.

Okay.

So board members, I have everybody whose light is on, I have on a list as the order that your light came on.

So other than Mr.

Slater, if you could turn your lights off so that we don't get the feedback, then I will call you in the order that I saw your light come on.

Mr.

Slater.

Absolutely, thank you, uh, Mr.

Chair.

You know, just want to make one point two points really.

One is uh needing to be in the tip for any kind of eligibility for any of those projects for grants and grant opportunities come up for a variety of reasons at a variety of times.

The other thing that I would really want clarification on, and it's been a long time since I've administered a federal program, but under some federal guidelines, if you have spent federal dollars on preliminary stages of a project, and then you remove from the TIP, you are required to pay back those federal dollars.

I just would want to make sure that that is not a case that we would have to address uh unknowingly.

Thank you, board member Slater, board member Gray.

Okay, um, you know, I think the obtaining of grants, it's a hypothetical um situation because we can or cannot, or may or may not, um speaking on the Hillsborough County Public School Board, where we do grants, hopefully we get them.

Sometimes we do, sometimes we don't.

Um what we're feeling, and this is uh Mayor Kilton, you make a very good point, um, at least out of all the respect from this room to constituents, I think it's fair to say that the constituency will appreciate their hard work, the diligence coming before this committee for probably over a year, maybe two years, that if it doesn't do any funding harm, and uh I note the uh possibility of grants, um, Mr.

Wastel, I appreciate that.

But if it doesn't do any harm funding-wise, um, and we are wanting to serve the will of the people, then I think it's a uh a very good will uh gesture because it's not going to make a big big difference either way, just to take it off.

Um, and that's how I feel, and I uh mayor kill you know I respect your feelings and and your philosophy because you're near and dear to the heart of Plant City, and I know that.

But I'm also near and dear to the constituents of this entire district, and I know the district pretty well.

So those are my two cents.

So where the motion goes, it goes uh as far as we've got a second subsequent etc.

Thank you.

Thank you, board member uh council members Clinton and Hertek.

To be honest, I saw both your lights at the same time.

I don't know who was first.

So Councilmember Clinton and then Councilmember Hurtek.

Yeah, this may be a point of order, and it's reference to the uh uh procedure is I believe that this body cannot enact um rules or regulations that would violate uh higher authority, state or federal rules, and our attorney uh who is designated to provide legal advice to this organization read the rule about the five-year plan and what the requirements are for that particular plan.

And again, I d I think there's it would be a consensus, and I think if you'd asked you'd see that this this does not meet that requirement.

Within five years, they have to have anticipated funding to show up on the tip.

Now, long you know, obviously our long-term plan, yes, but the five-year tip it doesn't meet that requirement.

That is the that is the advice that the attorney that has been designated by this board to provide us, legal advice has provided us.

And again, this is this is and that falls back into that honesty program.

Um we have to be we have to follow procedures, and if that is the advice, and that is what the tip is intended to be, and that's what the rules are, we should comply with those rules.

Um I also want to speak to the issue of that um um uh Commissioner Bostle discussed about not being on there and getting money.

Well, clearly we have money that came on Del Maybry, which was not in the tip.

We've made we're meeting to place that into the tip now.

If for some reason money was to become available, I can't imagine that this board wouldn't reconvene to to have a TIP amendment.

So I think again, uh a point of order that this would not be in compliance with law and it should not be considered Councilmember Hurtek, then Commissioner Myers.

Um I believe I believe other people have have spoken about the amendment being taken off, but since the substitute motion is to just pass it, um I have I have some comments I want to make on that.

Um so uh Mayor Kilton talked about um us being awesome, and we are.

We're awesome at killing people.

We are the eighth highest most dangerous places for people to uh for pedestrians in the country.

We're good at killing people, and we're getting better at it.

That's the problem.

So capacity isn't helping that.

If we were to take the money and spend it on transit and not on roads, we could stop killing people.

I mean, that is the reality.

If you look at that money, that's basically what the CAC is telling us today.

That you aren't look that we are not listening to them, and that we are choosing capacity over lives, and that's what this vote is today.

If you vote for this, you're choosing capacity over lives.

And the reason I know this, Orlando and Miami, who both have a lot of cars, have been able to reduce themselves.

They are now Miami's 17th, Orlando is 25th.

And where did I get this?

Um, creative loafing, actually, it was Florida Phoenix, just printed it today.

This this is this is information that just came out today.

We are the eighth most dangerous place for pedestrians in the nation.

It is absolutely embarrassing.

It's embarrassing for all of us.

And I don't believe that that is what any of us want.

I don't believe it's what FDOT wants.

I mean, very clearly, but we don't, we are not taking the money that would really save people's lives and putting it where it needs to go.

It doesn't mean we can't do widening projects.

It just means if we took even a portion of that money and put it toward what we heard about earlier, um, signal improvements, crosswalk improvements.

I mean, we're not even talking about adding bike lanes.

Like I'm not even talking about that stuff that we work on in the city, and FDOT has partnered with us very well on that.

We're just saying, what are our priorities?

Do we need to add capacity in places?

Absolutely.

I don't disagree with that.

But right now, I don't I don't want to go to another wreath hanging or funeral service or anything like that, because we we aren't strong enough to say we want some of this money to go towards saving lives.

Commissioner Myers.

Uh, thank you, Mr.

Chair.

When I joined this board in 2021, no, 2020, is the same conversation then that I'm hearing today.

Nothing has changed.

We still talking on the same project, the same project.

So if we're going to find funding, I would say we need to find funding for rail.

If we want to move people, because we're stuck.

You can agree, board.

I I mean, everybody wants to get home early, and with a number of people moving here, we just can't.

So what is best right now?

And I don't agree with if we take it off, then we'll find funding.

Why can't we say if we really want to do this project and find funding just like we just added some projects for the dip?

But that might be a call from the governor.

Who knows?

Up on the secretary from high up from Tallahassee to say add this because what they're looking with the raise.

I don't know.

But I do hear my constituents in my district.

At the last meeting, I voted no.

Because I hear my constituents, and I've heard them five years ago.

It's the same.

Nothing has changed.

So if we want to look at something as a TPO, let's focus on how we can get some rail here to really move people and make things much better, then widening all of our roles.

And we still, the more we wide, the more people move here, and so you still can't really get around and get home as quick as you would like.

I mean, I'm in East Tampa.

And there are days I can't even get on the inner state just to come downtown.

I got to take the back road to try to get here quick enough when I'm leaving home 30 to 35 minutes just to come three miles.

This is what we should be looking at as an organization.

Could we really sit and talk about the really need Israel?

That's what we should be focusing on, and not in the get off the subject uh tonight with the TPO, but are we going to find some money and find some grant money?

That's what we need to start presenting because we have a list that's with how many projects on there.

They've been the same projects ever since I been on the board.

Some move up, some move back, but they're not moving too fast.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Board members, are there well?

Let me make sure nobody who hasn't spoken yet doesn't want to speak.

Is there further discussion from somebody we have not heard from?

Can I make a point of order on that motion to amend?

Because the there's a no there was a motion on the floor and uh the on approving this with just uh stripping out the uh 43182 uh one-three, and then the motion to amend was approving it with that basically included, which is it is is really inappropriate for parliamentarian procedure.

The proper way to dispose of an issue would be to take up the first uh motion and then it was up or down, and then Commissioner Wastel could come back in and and have make a motion to approve it as a whole.

But basically he's he's he's doing a double negative on this, and that that's that is an improper motion.

Well, I Mr.

Chair, it was I believe it's a substitute motion.

It was a substitute motion, and that's been but is it not a substitute motion?

He's actually is it's actually just basically reversing the motion that was made.

So a substitute motion is a motion on the same topic that in contradicts the for initial motion.

So there's gonna be a vote on the substitute motion first.

If it succeeds, there will not be a vote on the main motion.

If it fails, then it reverts back to the main motion.

That that is consistent with what we've done here before.

Did we rule on the point of order on this whether this was the pro properly legal motion to be made by the GPO?

Councilmember Clinton, I'm not sure what you're expecting from me because our lawyer has told us one thing, and our secretary of DOT has told us something that is somewhat different.

So I can ask for some discussion between the two of them if that will satisfy your point of order, but I am not qualified.

And I think we deferred to the attorney on these issues, do we not?

Okay.

Well, you asked for a point of order, and I'll do the best I can.

So, Mr.

Clark, Secretary Hall, you've said, I mean, I know you were reading from a document.

Secretary Hall, you talked about the practice of having several projects that don't show funding because we are trying to move them forward with alternate funding.

I know we also have the regional accelerator grant program running here, which the whole purpose of that is to try to identify alternate funding for projects that are not currently funded.

So would you two please try to reconcile these positions for the board so we have our eyes fully wide open on this?

And Councilmember Young, I do see you.

I will get to you when we can resolve this issue.

And I can start, Mr.

Chair.

I understand, like you said, I'm I'm simply reading a sentence from the state statute on MPOs.

Um the Secretary's advice he's familiar with it and is advising that it's compliant with that what uh this being remaining in the TIP isn't is compliant with state statute.

That's fine.

I I'm not at my level, I'm not pulled into sort of the drafting of these documents, the compliance of the individual lines within the TIP with state statute that I don't get pulled into those reviews, and that's fine.

I just uh was putting this out there because of the way this was being described, but if this is a common thing and the secretary is advising it's compliant with state statute, then that's just fine with me.

Dr.

Warren.

I'm sorry, I'll be very brief.

CPO board members, I want to offer two comments that address some of the procedural concerns that were raised around the table.

I'll start with uh Mr.

Slater, the federal funding, and if this project is removed from the TIP, would that have to be paid back?

I'll look to Elizabeth and Secretary Hall to confirm that this design money was state, not federal.

Um the procedural and statutory compliance issue that we're just discussing.

I will note that the draft tip with both the 275 widening project and the Gibson Tin Drive interchange projects, all showing zeros across the board were already reviewed by FDLT staff in a previous version of the TIP.

That review came back clean with no issues flagged.

Ultimately, compliance would be satisfied by the TPO reviewed by F DOT before it's sent up to central office to be included in the state tip.

Okay, Miss Watkins or Secretary Hall, can you shed any light on the potential for a refund of design money that has been spent to the best of my knowledge it's state funding?

I'm not concerned about reimbursement, the best of my knowledge.

And just just for Cameron's sake, um, because what Cameron's reviewing um the the statute does not contemplate directly CIS, which uh cis is a longer plan than five years, and so um that's just really that's the that's the differential, and um that's the reason why I can say that it's compliant because the projects that are in there that even though there's zero fund in the five year, it's consistent with the cis plan.

Okay, thank you.

Council member Young.

Uh just a few comments.

Um, just you know, listening to the conversation, but you know, listening to public comment.

I think that there's something to be said that you know, our CAC feels as though they are not being listened to or heard.

Um, you know, they are just as invested as we are, and so you know, for them to feel that you know they're not being taken seriously or they're time, they're taking their time to meet um and you know, go in depth with these issues and they feel as though they're not being heard.

I just think there's something to be said about that.

Um I will also say to um uh Commissioner Myers' point with light rail, I you know, living in DC, um the importance of having transit, public transit is you I have a friend in New York who just got her license at the age of 35 because she doesn't need it.

So if we're continuing, we're growing as a city, that's obvious.

Um, and part of that transportation is how we're moving people from one way to another without using a car.

So I think that you know, as we're talking about transportation, you know, we're talking about finding money, finding dollars.

I think that does need to be a part of the conversation.

And also with us being, I think you said what that we're the eighth most dangerous for pedestrians, you know, as council members, we get you know, you get these emails of things that happen to see an email come in that a pedestrian was hit on a bike not too far from our office.

I mean, that's that's the reality.

So if we're gonna we're continuing to grow as a city, I think we really have to.

I I've said this already.

We have to, we're in 2026.

We have to start being a little bit more innovative about how we're moving people.

The I mean the options are endless.

We're in 2026.

There are other ways that we can move people, and then just to um you know, to public comment, from what I heard, um, it's just the I-275 from Hillsborough to Bears.

I'm listening to the conversation, and it's sounding as if we're talking about the entire project from what I heard is just Hillsborough to Bears.

So I don't see why we're saying if we remove this, it's like there's gonna be you know, this this huge effect, and we're not gonna be able to do anything.

It's from what I see on this paper, and from what I'm hearing, it's Hillsborough to Bears.

So that's all.

Is there further?

Yes, Secretary Hall.

So I'll I'll just say it again because I said it before.

Whether it's in the tip or not, it does not impact DOT.

So just understand that.

Like that this was included for information, it is compliant by law because of CIS.

If it's not in the tip, it changes absolutely nothing for us.

So just to understand, like, because there's a conversation of compliance versus you know, I don't know what you want to call it, practice.

And so by compliance, it's compliant because of cis.

It's does it need to be in there?

It does not need to be in there.

So just I mean do as do with it what you may, but just want to make sure it's clear.

Board members, is there further discussion of the motion?

Commissioner Myers.

Yeah, then why why do we keep discussing this project?

Justin, why don't we keep discussing it?

Because it really gets the community upset all the time when we have the same project coming before us, and then we hear a statement tonight in out.

It makes no difference.

Commissioner, respectfully, I don't I don't keep bringing it up.

The DOT doesn't keep bringing it, it keeps getting brought up.

And so every year we try to find uh in the at least in the past couple years.

I'm not gonna say in the past, like you know, the history that there wasn't things that DOT was doing, but in the recent history with me, I've been trying to reassure everybody that I'm not doing anything out there.

Um and I really am like running out of options on how to show I'm not doing out there.

So like I put out a thing that says zeros, and like it still became a conversation uh here tonight.

So I j respectfully, Commissioner.

I I don't I don't know.

I don't bring it up.

I don't talk about I'll talk about I4.

You want to talk about I4 Express lanes?

You know, I'll I'll I'll uh I'll speak my mind on that and the need for that, but I 275 North of Hillsborough, I'm I don't bring it up.

Okay.

Oh, so then Johnny, uh why do we keep adding this on to be discussed?

Uh Commissioner, that that was not TPO staff's decision to include it in the tip.

It was transmitted to us from F D O T.

To communicate to understand to communicate straight zeros.

Like this is a response to feedback from previous years where we've got money hidden somewhere, we're trying to fund it secretly, we're trying to I mean like I mean I just being honest.

I spend an I spend more time on this.

I have five counties that I'm responsible for.

I've got 3.3 million drivers daily in my district, and I spend more time on talking about this one project than anything else in my almost five billion dollar work program.

So I'm we put straight zeros out there to be like it's straight zeros, and uh it's still become quite the topic.

Okay, and the last thing I just share, I heard um tonight some other projects, but we should focus on our agenda of the projects as before us and approve and not add something different.

That's that's all so council member her tech and then board at some point we are gonna have to vote on this.

We have two motions that are still alive and um so uh I think what um commissioner Myers is asking is why is this project still here because people clearly don't want it, and I mean if it is the topic project project you hear about the most, then the public has made it very clear they don't want it, and the reason we have it is because Commissioner Wastel put it on the LRTP at our last TIP meeting.

So that is why it's still there, because he added it back and other people voted on it.

That's why but my question then and I I'm gonna ask uh Chair if this is the appropriate place or not.

I I really believe that we have to talk about the CAC.

Um I'm very disappointed to hear that they feel unheard, but not surprised.

How many of you meet with your CAC representative before this meeting?

I meet with my representative every single month between the CAC meeting and this meeting.

Mine, by the way, is Dana Lazarus.

She does a great job.

We actually had coffee.

We're I think it was like hour and a half on Saturday, where we talked about this very thing.

How many of you have talked to your CAC members at all?

Point of order.

Oh no.

I this is a very important discussion.

Commissioner Watson.

And if you if you want to have this afterward, that's fine.

We do have we have a point of order.

Mr.

Chair, this is completely in germane to the conversation.

We have she's no longer even speaking to the um seconded motion that's on the floor.

If there's nothing germane to the motion, then we need to proceed with voting.

Well, it is germane to the motion because the CAC voted against this, and that's my point.

We are not connected to the public anymore, and the public is letting us know.

Okay.

So we do have a motion under discussion.

If there's further discussion of the motion, uh we will have it, but I would like to stick focus on the just on the vote that we have pending on the motion by Commissioner Wastel to approve the tip.

Uh if there is no further discussion, I'm gonna call Councilmember Clendon.

I would just implore you to want to listen to the folks in the city of Tampa and also listen to secret the secretary that there's no harm in removing this and with the input uh to give us that deference on this vote, and let's remove this from the tip.

Thank you.

Okay, all right.

So we're voting now on the com then the motion by Commissioner Wastel, which is to approve the tip as is.

Uh so Ms.

Dessiana, could we please have a roll call vote?

Wastel?

Yes.

Myers?

No.

Cohen?

No.

Balls.

No.

Clendennan?

No.

Hertack?

No.

Young?

No.

Kilton?

Yes.

Gray?

No.

Klug?

Yes.

Stevens?

No.

Slater?

Yes.

Joseph?

Yes.

Ross?

Yes.

Motion failed.

Six, two, one, two, three.

Six to eight.

Commissioner Myers.

Commissioner Cohen.

Commissioner Bowles.

Councilmember Clenden.

Councilmember Hurtalk.

Councilmember Young.

School board member Gray.

Member Stevens voted no.

Thank you, Ms.

Desion.

Motion fails.

Now we go back to the main motion, which was originally made by board member Gray, which was to strike the 275 widening project from the which was duly seconded by Commissioner Meyer.

Mr.

Chair.

Can I interject?

Uh could Dr.

Wong just for itemization purposes, can you identify what is the line number or whatever the so that it's it's clear for the record?

Yes, I can.

Uh board members.

That is FPN number 431821-3.

Mr.

Chair, just a point of clarification.

Are we voting on removing that one item or all the items that have no funding?

Yes, board member, good question.

And for clarification, that was the main motion made by board member Gray was to remove that one item.

The question will then be whether to we will still have the tip on approved to have further discussions, but the motion on the floor right now is just to surgically remove that one item.

Is there discussion on the motion?

Commissioner Bowles.

I have a question for you, Secretary.

You're getting hit tonight.

And that's what kind of I think spun a lot of some of us into a different direction.

That there's no federal grant currently pending for that.

But it just adds that layer or that element in there that should we need to do that.

There's a there's a grant that's been applied for on that project on that particular one.

Correct.

So there is something that's possibly pending.

Pending, yeah.

So that probably needs to stay.

I mean for the for that for that particular purpose, but Dr.

Wong pointed out that it would still have to come back here anyway.

Yeah, so understand that leaving it on the tip does not mean that when we receive the grant money that the grant money is automatically added.

The grant money would have to come before the board is a tip amendment.

Leaving it in the tip is just signifying to the federal government because one of the questions they ask in the application is is this consistent with the tip?

Is this consistent with the LRTP?

Those are a few of the questions we get asked.

So we said yes on the application for that because it was.

So it's not this is not the same situation as 275.

This is not like the first new appearance for I-75.

So it would probably be more prudent to leave that one in just because of those little nuances.

My advice, but like I said, I mean, if it's removed, the application was a point in time, the application has been submitted.

I mean, if if it like I said, the funding has to come before the board for addition anyway.

So just being candid, I don't know if it really matters.

I'd have to ask Federal Highway if they would change their opinion because it was strict, it was struck from the third.

I don't know.

I didn't ask.

And the last thing for the guardrail ones, for example, that are on page 138 and 139.

Those type they're so far down that I mean just being candid, I I would need to go back and look into those.

Okay.

I'm only aware of Gibson Tim because I know that we submitted a grant for it, and I know that was a request in the grant.

Is it consistent?

Yeah, all right, thank you, sir.

Councilmember Hertag.

I just had a question because I thought the motion was just to take out the Hillsborough to Bears.

Is that correct?

That was the original.

Okay.

I just oh yeah, so I I wanted to just want clarification.

Absolutely, but my my follow up was kind of because he chairs kind of indicated that there may be some furtherance in them.

I don't want to keep drafting.

Is there further discussion on the motion?

Exactly.

Okay.

Um because of the thorniness of all this, let's do a roll call vote on this one too, Miss Deciano.

Wostall?

No.

Myers?

Yes.

Cohen?

Yes.

Bowles?

Yes.

Clendennan?

Yes.

Hertac?

Yes.

Young?

Yes.

Kilton?

No.

Gray?

Yes.

Kluge?

I'm sorry?

No.

Stevens?

Yes.

Slater?

No.

Joseph?

No.

Ross?

No.

Motion carried.

8 to 6.

Wostel, Kilton.

Kluge, Slater.

Joseph and Ross voted no.

Thank you.

All right.

So we're still left with the move that tip is amended.

Second.

Motion by Commissioner Cohen, seconded by Councilmember Clendennan.

Is there discussion of the motion?

If not, almost made it.

Councilmember Hert.

Sorry, but I I really do again believe that this is a good reckoning for us to think about what are the priorities of the public.

The public wants more money for transit.

We need more money for transit.

How do we get capacity?

Transit.

So I really believe the next tip needs to have more money for transit.

I don't have a problem with capacity, but that really it's not we we cannot build roads our way out of this.

And if anybody's showing that that that can happen, it's Miami and Orlando right now.

So we have neighbors that are doing this.

It's our time to start thinking about that.

Okay, Ms.

Deziona, can we have yes, Mayor Kilton?

Yeah, I just have to reiterate that what I'm making is a protest vote.

Um just in general on the conversation on transportation, right?

I understand and give deference to my colleagues that are Tampa focused.

I understand that.

But you have to re recognize and and understand that without people coming from East County, from Pasco, from South County, from St.

Pete, you economically will die on the mine.

You're not gonna get everybody you need coming from those areas just by transit.

And I understand that transit has to be part of the conversation, and that needs to be in a dense area in Tampa.

That should be part of the conversation.

But I'm just I'm telling you that I'm trying to look at this from a holistic regional perspective, and that's where my vote's coming from, and that's what I need to state publicly on why I'm voting the way that I am on this.

So again, I'm um a volunteer that had to be elected, and I have the luxury of being able to make that comment where I understand that some of my colleagues don't have that same laundry, but I have to state that before I place my vote.

Board member Gray, did you wish to comment on the motion?

Okay, with your lights on there.

Okay, further discussion of the motion.

Okay, Richard real quickly.

Is that somebody who hasn't spoken so much?

Okay, so much.

Council member Clendon.

Yeah, I I want to and um Mayor, with respect, what I think what you're looking at, and to uh kind of go off of what my co uh co-worker, Councilwoman Hertek said, it's it's not that we don't understand that we have to have capacity, and but we're looking for more balance, and when you look at the billions and billions of dollars of pavement versus a relatively insignificant amount of transit in these long-term, there's going to have to be a reckoning that at some point we have to start shifting that balance, and you know, obviously that point is not tonight, it's not for the discussion tonight, but it's it's an appeal to every one of the decision makers in our community and in our counties that we have to start pushing, pushing down on this side and pushing up on that side.

So it's trying to find some type of balance where we can actually have an environment where we can have a viable transit system to relieve some of that congestion.

Thank you.

Okay.

There's no further discussion, Miss Deciano.

Would you please call the roll?

Wostel?

No.

Myers?

Yes.

Cohen?

Yes.

Bowles?

Yes.

Clendennon?

Yes.

Hertak?

Yes.

Young?

Yes.

Kilton?

No.

Gray?

Yes.

Klug?

Yes.

Stevens?

Yes.

Slater?

Yes.

Joseph?

No.

Ross?

Yes.

Motion carried.

11 to 3.

Wostel, Kilton, and Joseph voted no.

Thank you, Ms.

Deziono.

Dr.

Wong report.

Thank you, board members.

I'll be brief.

Thank you all for attending this evening and for a good healthy conversation.

If you've had enough, well, you're gonna get a break.

Uh reminder that this board will recess in July.

Our next regular meeting will be on August 12th.

Uh moving on to item B, Tri-County BOCC June 5th meeting recap.

Last Friday, the three executive directors of Hillsborough, Pasco, and Pinellas attended the Tri-County BOCC meeting where the commissions received a status update on the regional merger study, and they were shown a very preliminary draft of the interlocal agreement and bylaws per their request.

As I understand it, the Hillsborough County Commissioners and PASCO County Commissioners were only provided those documents a couple days before the meeting, so there wasn't much time for them to digest and comment.

But some of the reactions uh that came up were with respect to the 25 member board size still being too large, and there was some contemplation about whether or not the state legislature should help direct this outcome.

While the next meeting date for the Tri-County BOCC hasn't yet been set, some of the commissioners requested that city managers or council chairs of the other uh uh across Pasco Pinellas and Hillsboro should be invited to participate in that discussion.

Uh moving on to C Bright Line Station Area Study.

Happy to announce that the TPO's Bright Line Station Area Study was awarded the one Bay Macintosh Award at the TBRPC's future of the region's award program.

One bay is the highest honor, so thank you for allowing staff to lead that planning study, and thank you, Mayor Ross, for attending to accept it.

Um and then lastly, for legislative updates, I'll be very brief.

Um there is a lot to discuss when we come back, but the Build America 2050 Transportation Reauthorization Bill was heard and approved by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

Still has many committee steps before it's brought to the House and Senate floor.

Uh but for MPOs, the amount of planning funds are relatively consistent to the IIJA.

Um there is uh a greater amount of money in this bill, however, a greater portion of it is not guaranteed.

Uh about 20 percent of the uh of the funds would be subject to annual appropriations and hence also subject to future budget cuts.

Funding for highways and bridges will increase by nearly 10 percent, whereas transit funding across multiple modes would decrease by more than 20 percent.

Um the primary sources of funding that the TPO uses to get local projects up off the ground, surface transportation block grant and transportation alternatives are held steady compared to the IAJA at 75 billion and eight billion dollars respectively.

So in this initial draft, which can still change, MPOs are faring quite well.

Uh transportation funding overall is projected to increase, but again, less of that money is guaranteed.

Any questions for me?

Okay, thank you very much, Dr.

Wong.

Old or new business board members.

I have one quick thing.

Dr.

Wong, could you talk to somebody at DOT about the issue that was brought up by Keith Wagner in public comment?

Um it seems like there must be some interim solutions to this problem.

We didn't have to wait till 2045 for um could we could you report back to us and let me know because I'd like to ask the chair like to reach out to him and let him know that there's some follow-up on this.

Yes, maybe give him a point of contact, give him some information.

Well, I've got his contact here too, but um good.

Any other old or new business to come before the board?

Okay, we will stand adjourned.