Most people to the untrained eye are going to sit here and say that this owner starved for dogs. We're going to head up to that dog call right now. We'll go out, we'll assess the situation. I'm looking at these dogs, I'm like garbage. I mean, that's just like, did you see those bags of food there? She was very upset about losing all of her cats. She called me up a few times in tears. I need my photos. I need to be able to paint this picture for the judge so that he sees what I see. It would help, wouldn't it? So good morning, everybody. I'll try again. Welcome to the May 5th special meeting of the Hillsborough TPO. If you would, please stand and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. Thank you, everybody. Mr. Secretary, would you please call the roll? Good morning, TPO board. Ross? Here. Wollstall is excused. Miller? Here. Myers? Cohen? Wolls? Council Member Clendenin is excused. Hertak? Carlson? Kilton? Gray? Here. Klug? Stevens? Here. Slater? King? Joseph? Here. Thank you. You have a quorum. Very good. Thank you. And just for the record, I'm told our colleagues at the City of Tampa were previously scheduled for a State of the City event this morning. And so some of them will probably filter in as they can get here. So if anybody's wondering where the City of Tampa is, that's where they are. And that meeting was scheduled before this one. So, okay. Has everybody had an opportunity to review the minutes from December 2nd? And if so, is there a motion to approve? We have a motion by FNU's board member Stevens, right? And seconded by board member Gray. Any discussion or corrections to the minutes? If not, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? No nays. We have two people signed up for public comment. Just a reminder that there's a three-minute time limit per speaker. One of them is on virtual and one of them is here in person with us. And the first one on virtual is Hong Mei. And so, Mr. Mei, you are recognized, sir, for public comment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Mr. Chairman Ross, member of TPO board, and Executive Director Wong. My name is Hong Mai, and my address is 14031 North Delmarie, Tampa Highway, Florida 33618. I thank you very much for the opportunity to me appear in front of you to offer my opinion as the capacity of the professional engineer with a strong interest in transportation industry. I had the opportunity to examine 11 different NPO, TPO, with multiple counties. They are falling in the 15 to 17 voting member ranks, with the exception of Volusia, Blacklist, or River to the Sea, TPO, and Metro, Plain of Glendale, are 28 and 25, respectively. Interesting enough, Volusia, Blacklist, TPO, creates six-member Executive Leadership Committee who provide a guidance to the 28th member of TPO governing board. I understand you are leaning to the regional NPO for 25 voting members, and I also understand the reason behind this decision. In this setup, Hillbrook County will have 12 voting members, panelists will be eight, TASCO will be five. I already heard other counties that Hillbrook County will always have the majority, and you might have some pushback, and you need to defend this selection. Between, I agree with you to include Tampa Port Authority and Hillbrook Aviation Authority in the voting members to the regional TPO. My points are the proposed 25-member voting risks slower decisions, disfueled accountability, and more politics in every technical choice, which is difficult for DOT District 7 to be your partner, coordinator, and implementer consistent with FDOT work programs. I understand you follow your federally-mandated regional planning transportation organization, but DOT District 7 with two other counties, Citrus and Hernando, they have to follow. Should you rest with the 25 governing board members? I respectfully ask for your TMA and consideration of five or six members of Executive Leadership Committee who provide guidance and decision-making to the entire governing board. Thank you very much for your time, and thank you for your dedication and service to Hillbrook, City of Tampa, Tampa Terrace, and Planned City. Thank you, Mr. Mai. Mr. Roberts is here in person. Good morning, Mr. Roberts. Good morning, members of the TPO board. Thank you for having me this morning. I'm Bill Roberts. I reside at 1000 North Ashley Drive in Tampa is my office. I'm a Hillsborough County resident. I'm here to speak to you this morning about regionalism. The discussion you're going to have today will lead toward, I believe, the creation of a regional MPO that will be representative of the entire area. This region continues to grow. Florida is growing. We are still seeing a thousand residents moving to the state a day. Hillsborough County is getting their portion of that representation. The housing is moving further and further away from the business center. Transportation is one of the top two or three issues on the minds of the residents who live here and who are coming here. So it's time for this county to participate in a regional MPO that will be able to implement with its partners at DOT and others a transportation plan to move people efficiently and effectively and pleasantly throughout our region. On this issue, I think it's important to keep in mind, as has been mentioned several times, the importance of the Port Tampa Bay and Hillsborough Aviation Authority as permanent voting members of any transportation planning organization. Many of you suffered with me through the TBARDA decade and that effort, although well intended, was a failure due in part to its inability to move effectively, make decisions and authorize projects. So I encourage you today to hear your report from your executive director and think on a regional basis as to what is going to be best for this county and this region in the next 25, 35 or 50 years. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for letting me speak. Thank you, Mr. Roberts. And so that is all the those are all the members of the public signed up to speak. Mr. Secretary, would you let the record reflect that Councilmember Carlson, Commissioner Myers and Commissioner Cohen all arrived at 10 07? Yes, sir. Thank you. Next up, we have a status report. This is a long awaited presentation from Waymo concerning their expansion to Tampa. Mr. John Tups from Waymo staff is online here and will provide a virtual presentation. Good morning, Mr. Tups. Thank you. Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Ford, for having the time today. Sorry I couldn't be there in person with you, but I'm nonetheless very excited to share information about our company and about where we're at when it comes to Tampa and the Tampa area. It's a really important area for us, and I really am excited about all the great things that are to come. So if you'll bear with me, I'll share my screen and get right into it. So, county staff, we've lost all the audio to this, and the volume was pretty low to begin with, and now I think he's muted. I'll keep talking, and you tell me when you can hear me. Well, we can hear you now, Mr. Tups, but we didn't get the beginning of this at all. Okay. Very good. Well, I'll start over. So, we are Waymo, and we're on a mission to be the world's most trusted driver. And the most important piece to this for me is the word trust. And throughout this presentation, I will walk through our technology. I'll walk through where we're at on a macro level with our company and some of the places we operate. And I'll talk about some of the things we're doing every day to build the trust in the communities that we serve. And I'll start off with a video here. We're serving more than 5,000 fully autonomous trips weekly, around 2.5 times higher than the same time last year. Waymo is gearing up for the interstates. Oh, no. We're in the future. So cool. We're already amazed. Wonderful experience. We made it safely. Not only will autonomous vehicles save lives, they will change our lives in many ways. Thank you, Waymo. Thank you, Waymo. Thank you. Thank you, Waymo. Thank you, Waymo. I really like to show that video because to me it demonstrates that although it seems futuristic to have fully autonomous ride-hailing service in the Tampa area, it's something that we're doing every single day in other areas of the country, which I'll get into in just a minute. So as the board, I'm sure, is keenly aware, there are far too many traffic fatalities and serious injuries on American and U.S. highways every single day. We lose about 40,000 people every year to traffic fatalities. And quite frankly, that status quo is unacceptable and something that our company, if we continue to deliberately and intentionally deploy our technology, will be able to help change working together in partnership with some of the areas that we operate. I love this slide because I hear a lot of times that it seems like Waymo's growth is happening overnight or is happening all of a sudden, but that couldn't be further from the truth. So we started in 2009 as the Google Self-Driving Car Project. And through a tremendous amount of investment in research and development and the world's brightest engineering minds, we are proving it every day and we are fully autonomous and serving customers in 11 markets currently. So right now we are doing 500,000 paid rides every single week and we're doing 4 million miles fully autonomously on U.S. roads every single week. And to put that 4 million miles in perspective, it would take the average human driver six lifetimes to drive 4 million miles. And it's something that we're doing every single week and our customers are getting a top-notch and world-class experience every single day. These are the markets where we are currently operating. So you'll see Phoenix, Arizona is our most mature market. We've been fully autonomous in Phoenix since 2020. Of note to the Hillsboro TPO, we are currently fully autonomous in Miami and Orlando. We recently announced in both of those cities that there's no more wait lists. So essentially, you can fly to Miami, you can download the app, and you can enjoy a Waymo ride in the area where we service in and around Miami. Same with Orlando, Houston, Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Antonio, Dallas. To the right there, you'll see Austin and Atlanta. That's a partnership with our partners in Uber. So you use the Uber app in those two cities to be able to hail a Waymo. And most recently, we announced Nashville, Tennessee, and a partnership with Lyft. So in Nashville, currently, you're able to hail a Waymo using the Waymo app. And then in the future, you'll be able to, we're going to give our customers the optionality to either use the Waymo app or the Lyft app in Nashville, Tennessee. A lot of areas and a lot of room for growth upcoming, including Tokyo and London internationally. We're also serving airports. So at the bottom there, you'll see the airports where we currently serve. And we're currently testing and working to serve airport riders in Nashville and also in Dallas. This is a great way to grow economic development for a city. We have found that people fly into Phoenix or SFO and then immediately want to take a Waymo and experience the cities for themselves. So with Waymo, we're giving our customers that option. And we're giving cities an innovative way for people to be welcome to explore everything that these cities have to offer. And let's talk a little bit about the technology. So what you're looking at there is the top of one of our all-electric Jaguar I-Paces. That's our current fleet of vehicle. And we use, primarily, we use three different systems to detect and to determine what the way, what's happening around the vehicle itself. This vehicle, the Jaguar I-Pace, is equipped with 29 external cameras, six radar detectors, and five LIDAR sensors. The iconic LIDAR that spins at the top of one of our vehicles you might have seen can map and see, essentially, three football fields away and 360 degrees. So all of these sensors collect data in real time and feed that data to our AI. And all of this working in congruence is what we refer to as the Waymo driver. So our AI and the Waymo driver navigate city streets after the city streets have been mapped and thoroughly tested by our team. And they're able to safely navigate various situations that come up in everyday driving. And we're able to do that safer than a human driver. And let's see some of this in action. I'm going to play this video a couple of times because there's a few things I like to point out here. This was in Austin, Texas. And you'll see our driver was able to prevent a tragedy there. So as promised, let me pause right here. So what you're seeing at the top here is essentially what our riders, if you were in the back or front passenger seat of a Waymo, this is what the screen displays at the top here. And you'll see each yellow highlight is a pedestrian. And our vehicle understands that this pedestrian is indeed on a scooter. And you'll see before any, before the scooter, even before this pedestrian even begins falling into the street, our vehicle is already, has already made the decision to what we call nudge. It's already decided to give this pedestrian extra space. You'll see in this green line right here. And then, as this is happening, our vehicle understands. It doesn't have to check its left blind spot to know that the left lane is empty. It already knows that because of the LIDAR sensors that the vehicle is equipped with. And it's able to not just change lanes quickly, but apply a brake and change lanes simultaneously. One thing that I also find fascinating about this video is if you look here on the top right, it's picking up a pedestrian pumping gas there that cameras or a human driver wouldn't be able to detect. And finally, a bit of levity, pause there, our vehicle is able to detect this is actually a food truck. And then behind it, there's a pedestrian back there as well that it's detecting. So, as you can see, our vehicles navigate city streets every single day and prevent tragedies like that from happening and are able to safely navigate roads. And because of the amount of mileage and the amount of trips that we're doing, we encounter edge cases. We encounter anything that you can think of when it comes to driving that a human driver might encounter one of these in its entire, in your entire life. But because we're doing 500,000 trips a week and 4 million miles a week, our vehicles are encountering situations and are learning from these situations. And we're able to, when we experience one of these edge cases, we're able to make adjustments in our software. And we're able to make changes and perfect our software. And that's something that is simply not possible with human behavior. My favorite here is potentially the bounce house. Also, the occluded pedestrian here with the balloons, which is something that I've never seen while I was driving, but something that our service does see. And let's talk about safety. So, Waymo publishes all of our safety data online at waymo.com slash safety. It's been verified by third parties. It's been reviewed and it's been poked and prodded and everything that you can imagine when it comes to our data. And this benchmark was at 170, about 170 million miles was our last benchmark. We looked at the, our safety data and the numbers really speak for themselves. So, we are involved, compared to human drivers, we are involved in 92% fewer serious injury-causing crashes or worse. We are also involved in 92% fewer pedestrian crashes with injuries or worse. Fewer cyclist crashes, fewer motorcycle crashes, fewer injury-causing crashes in general. We are magnitude safer than human drivers. And this all goes back to, to that idea of trust. Not only is the data that we're seeing extraordinarily promising, but by releasing it online and being absolutely transparent about our data, we're working to build that trust. This is also a really smart thing that Waymo does, is that they don't send good old John Tupps out to train law enforcement and first responders. We actually hire former law enforcement officers and former fire rescue chiefs and first responders to, well before we began operating in a city, to train one-on-one and with large agencies, trained first responders. So, we have public safety experts and our employee that work directly with law enforcement agencies to ensure that they're getting the training that they need and deserve and that they get the attention they need and deserve. The first responder communities are the ones on the front lines every day working to keep all of us safe. And it's something that matters a lot to us is to make sure that not only are they getting trained, but we're listening to them and we're understanding what their concerns are and we're getting real-time information from our law enforcement partner agencies to tell us how we can improve, how, what we're doing right, and essentially what they need for them to be successful at their jobs. Let's talk about Tampa. So, in Tampa, we announced late last year that our vehicles are currently mapping the city streets of Tampa. We're doing that both in manual and autonomous configurations of the vehicle, so someone actually driving or someone having the vehicle drive itself, but currently that's done with a human driver in the vehicle at all times. We do this because we do this because we want to, we completely, the Waymo driver in the vehicle completely understands how to navigate city streets, but we want to make sure that we understand exactly how to navigate Tampa's city streets. So, that process is happening now, and on a public launch, we're still working towards nailing down a timeline on that. So, simply right now today, we're collecting data, and we're working with a human driver or a human safety specialist in the vehicle at all times to ensure that we're learning exactly how to navigate the unique nature of Tampa's city streets. And then, and then I wanted to take just a few minutes to talk about some of the programs we have happening, and maybe potentially even a look forward. So, we heard from a lot of places where we operate, their desire to, for us to share additional data with, directly with cities. And we announced a couple of weeks ago, an initiative, starting with the San Francisco Bay Area, LA, Phoenix, Austin, and Atlanta, where we're going to be sharing real-time pothole data with our partners at Waze that directly connects into these cities' planning organizations. So, these cities will be able to receive this pothole data, and we'll be able to make smarter decisions when it comes to their road maintenance. Also, we're working to safely integrate with transit. First, we know that we support transit by having a safer vehicle on the road. It makes it safer for people to walk, bike, get to transit any way they'd like. But we're also working to make it more convenient for people to access transit by serving as that first mile and that last mile. And we are working towards supporting less car-dependent lifestyles by effectively plugging into and integrating into transit systems. This is done through a variety of different partnerships that we have in some of our more mature markets. And it's something that we're really excited about bringing to new cities is learning about what their transit needs are and figuring out how we can connect this technology to the goals of a city's transit. And one thing that I always like to touch on and mention is our commitment to accessibility. So for some of our biggest advocates, and advocates not just for WAMO, but for autonomous vehicles in general, are a lot of communities that, for whatever reason, can't drive. We're talking about a lot of the blind community, the elderly community, people that are neurodivergent, or for whatever reason, are unable to drive independently. It really hit home with me when I've heard stories about people being able to be in an automobile by themselves for the first time in many years or perhaps ever. That's something that we are very proud of and something that we are honored to work with many of these organizations to help deliver this technology to make independence more attainable for a lot of different communities. And I'll finish just by touching on some of the economic benefits of autonomous vehicles. So this study was done by the Chamber of Progress, and it just shows the type of jobs that are created in and around an autonomous vehicle when it begins opening and operating in a city. I'll quickly go to this slide that talks about some of the people and some of the occupations that we need to hire when we begin operating in a city. Obviously, we need mechanics and vehicle technicians, dispatchers, facility managers. We need infrastructure. A lot of times we work with the trades to make sure that infrastructure is built out. We need a place to charge our vehicles. We need detailers to clean our vehicles. So I think this story isn't talked about, is often brushed over, the amount of jobs that are actually created by the investment that we bring into a community. But it's something that we're keenly aware of and something that we're really proud of. And last but not least, we had a study published a couple of years ago about the economic benefit that Waymo brings to a city. And they looked at San Francisco, where we've been in operation for several years, and the tourism aspect of autonomous vehicles, and particularly Waymo. And they found that Waymo does support and create a lot of jobs in the ecosystem when it comes to not just the direct jobs of mechanics and engineers and detailers, but tourism and hospitality and the security and the food service and everything that comes along that makes community vibrant, autonomous vehicles help support those jobs. And something that we've seen happen in Phoenix and in San Francisco and in Los Angeles, and something that we're really excited to be bringing to the Tampa Bay area. And with that, Chairman, that is what I have to share today. I'm happy to take any questions, sir. Thank you, Mr. Tubbs. I'm sure we have some. Before that, though, Mr. Secretary, I just want to make sure that you caught that Councilmembers Clint Denon and Hurtack have joined us. Yes, sir. It's notated. Thank you. Okay. We have some questions. Commissioner Cohen. Thank you. That was an excellent presentation, and I have a million questions, and I think this is, you know, technology that could potentially change the world. But I just want to ask you one thing about when you roll out in a city like Tampa, is there any manual override at all of the system? And, you know, what actually happens when vehicles do get into trouble? Is there a way that human beings can take control of the situation if they need to? Councilmember, thanks for the question, and that's a great question. The short answer is yes. And calling back to our slide about training first responders, that's one of the things that we train first responders is how to disengage one of our vehicles and get it out of the way. I will say, in the same breath, that that's never our goal. We hire and employ wrecking services. So if one of our vehicles gets a flat tire, we have a 24-7 system and operation in place to be able to get one of our vehicles off the road ourselves. But in an emergency situation or an urgent situation, law enforcement and fire rescue does have the ability to get our vehicles moved to the side or off the road. Board Member King. Thank you, Chair. In an at-fault accident with a Waymo vehicle, who would get the ticket if the Waymo vehicle is at fault? A great question. So we report all of our accidents to the federal government through NHTSA. I will say, though, that our vehicles receive citations, and we pay those citations regularly. So it's not something that is unprecedented. But we do follow the law and make sure that if we do receive a citation, that it's handled accordingly. Thank you. But I think my point is that your vehicle doesn't suffer the same consequences as a live driver if they're at fault. No points on their license. No citation. Well, there's a citation and a penalty, per se, but you're not going to appear before a magistrate. That's governed at the state level. So different states handle AV citations in different ways. And we'll just continue to follow the law. Mr. Stevens. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Tufts, a great presentation. When I'm thinking about this technology, I'm thinking about in the Tampa Bay market, the affordability aspect. What are your data points on the average trip cost compared to, say, an Uber or Lyft currently? Another great question. Thanks for the question. We're cost competitive with other ride-hailing services. I think what you'll find eventually in Tampa is what you will see right now in a Phoenix, San Francisco, or Atlanta, where our customers are able to take a look at how much does it cost to get there with a Lyft? How much does it cost to get there with an Uber? And now, how much does it cost to get there with a Waymo? So we're cost competitive with those groups. When it comes to serving as that first mile, last mile, we're actually working on ways and have implemented some ways to provide discounts if you're taking public transit as well. So open to a conversation about affordability and how we can connect those seeking to take a bus or get around with traditional public transit and how we can maybe alleviate some of those costs. If I could just maybe elaborate a little bit. When you say cost competitive, are we talking about a percentage of value higher, lower, or relative parity, one? And then on the back end of that, and again, I'm just looking at it from an accessibility standpoint, what are your wait times on average compared to, say, an Uber or Lyft with the technology currently in the markets you're serving? Thanks for the question. I don't have specific numbers to share on cost or wait times. I will say, first on costs, when I say cost competitive, I would mean a few dollars within that range, whether it's lower or higher than a traditional ride hail. On wait times, one of the things that we do to help control wait times is as we are beginning to serve a market. Let's take Miami, for instance, when we began serving public riders and our customers in Miami, we had a wait list of thousands of people ready to take the service. And to avoid very long wait times, we essentially onboard riders, we call it onboarding, where we just make the service available a little bit at a time as our fleet continues to grow to ensure that we keep wait times at a reasonable amount that people would want to actually wait for our vehicle. As a private sector business, this is something we take a really hard look at and something that we take real seriously because the trust goes back not just to safety when it comes to collisions and safety when it comes to pedestrians, but also providing our customers with the level of service that they've come to expect. Thank you so much. Board Member Gray. Thank you. This is so innovative. I represent the school board and within the city of Tampa, perhaps 50 different school sites. As it relates to the age group of students, do you have an age group, I mean an age, an age, let's say, level that you will accept? In other words, 18 or above, 16 or above to use these vehicles? Absolutely. That's a great question. It's governed by state law. And I am unsure of what that law says in Florida. Typically, it's 18. However, in Phoenix, Arizona, our most mature market, we have what's called Waymo teen accounts that are very popular. And I believe the ages for Waymo teen accounts are 14 to 16 years old, 14 to 17 years old, where parents can sign up and our vehicle will come pick up their teenager, take them to soccer practice while they cook dinner, and then bring them home, being able to be tracked by their parents the entire time. So, a great question, and something that we're looking forward to in the future is working with the state of Florida and working with this organization and communities, typically, on what they'd like to see and how we can connect this technology to make their lives easier. You know, that is so cool, and it's so relevant. I'm glad that you're picking up information from us. And as it pertains to our young ones, I can guarantee you they'll be very interested in the parents, especially. So, I love the idea and encourage that to be looked in further as far as the teen discount. I think that would go over very well. Again, thank you for your presentation. Very well done. Commissioner Bowles. Thank you. Can you just describe or provide what your service area limits are in the Tampa Bay area, and if there are any restrictions that you have are imposed upon you at this point? A great question. Right now, our service area in the Tampa Bay region begins, and it's still being worked on through that mapping. But typically, what we do is we begin at a city center, so it would be downtown Tampa, and then work our way out. And I believe the Tampa area we're looking at somewhere in the 40 to 60 square miles outside of downtown, encompassing the airport, and going up north towards Temple Terrace and covering Ybor is what you could expect to see with the first iteration of service area. It's important to note that when we begin driving in Tampa, just as we do in other cities, we began on surface streets only, so we don't plan initially to be on the interstate system in Tampa. However, once that gate is unlocked, and once it's something that we're comfortable doing in the Tampa area, it really helps grow the footprint. We are operating in the interstate systems, the freeways, in Los Angeles and Phoenix and San Francisco. Just have one follow-up question. So with 275 and I-4 are pretty heavily traveled, and they're pretty well relied upon to get around, what steps do you need to take to actually access those roadways? Yeah, it's not a red future. Yeah, that would be in the future. It's not necessarily a regulatory hurdle. We have a great working relationship with FDOT. It's more of an additional testing, additional data collection, and additional development into a market. So the technology is capable and able to do it. It's just another development gate that we pass when we come into a city. Councilmember Hurtag. Thank you. What are the... What do... How fast do these cars go? Do they follow the posted speed limit exactly, or are they allowed to go over? A great question. We follow the posted speed limit, and it's something that, yeah, we're going to go over the speed limit. And a lot of times when we get feedback from local communities that, for instance, this... In Atlanta, a month or two ago, I heard from a neighborhood that said, hey, the speed limit's 25 here, but 25 seems still a little bit fast to us. So we even were able to lower it down from there. Okay. Following along the lines of others, who pays for injuries when your car injures someone? Yeah, that's a great question. We're fully insured, and state law, it governs how much insurance we need to carry. When a rider is in our vehicle, they are covered by our insurance. So who gets the points if it's... Like, this is... So, I mean, Mr. King had a really good point. I mean, how many injuries, how many accidents can these vehicles get into before they face consequences? I mean, the rest of us have a limit. What is Waymo's limit? Yeah, that's governed by state law. So if the state of Florida has a law that says AVs adhere to this particular citation scheme, then that's something we would follow. But it's all done through state law. And how does a police officer pull one of your cars over? Yeah, absolutely. A police officer would have their sirens on behind one of our cars, their lights. We would pull over, and then a human being would come on to speak with that person through our microphones and recording in the vehicle. And where are those people located? Mainly in the United States. We do have some internationally because, as I mentioned earlier, we're an international company growing into Tokyo and into London. So you allow people who don't live in the United States to talk to law enforcement about U.S. laws? We allow people that don't live in the United States to serve as remote assistance. But again, by and large, that group is in the United States. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Dr. Wong. Hi, John. This is Johnny. I was wondering if you could tell us if the pilot in Tampa is successful and the fleet grows, if you can speak to the capital needs, maintenance facilities, parking, charging stations. And if you have the info available in the markets where you're already operational, if you can tell us how those were delivered, whether PPP, privately funded, publicly funded, any of that info would be helpful. Hey, Johnny. Thanks for the question. I really appreciate that. So we're still in development and the development planning process when it comes to our infrastructure in and around the Tampa area. In other markets, other cities, we have partnered with MOVE in Miami to help manage that. In Atlanta and Austin, it's done through Uber. So we're still early in the infrastructure planning, but typically what we do is we'll have a depot site where vehicles can come and be charged and cleaned. And then we'll also have paid parking and charging that we paid for and throughout the city to be able to effectively use these vehicles and to have them be able to charge and get maintenance without having to cross the entire, you know, from north to south of the entire service area. Thank you, John. I see you late. Council Member Carlson? Yeah. We are just getting into the rainy season. We have these torrential rainfalls, and those rainfalls or hailstorms pretty much disable the camera-only systems that are out there that are your competitors. Could you talk for a minute about the success of your LIDAR system in going through heavy snowfalls or rainfalls and the safety of that? And then secondly, for anybody watching, how do they get an invitation code? Great question. So you can – I'll take the second question first. You can download the app and sign up today, and you'll be added to the wait list in Tampa. And as soon as we're ready to start having riders, we will onboard. So that's a great question, and you're right. The LIDAR and radar that is equipped on our vehicles is designed to handle any sort of weather scenario. So it's something that we are iterating and working on every single day. We have done winter weather testing, which I know isn't necessarily an issue in Hillsboro. But we're working on ensuring that we're able to handle just as good, if not better, than human beings when it comes to inclement weather. I will say we also have a team that monitors weather and is able to quickly defleet and ensure that safety is always kept at the forefront when it comes to our service. It's all going back to that trust. We want to make sure that we are operating in a way that is safe. And safety is certainly at the forefront when it comes to our weather program. There was another question, Mr. Joseph. Yeah, I had one quick question. I was wondering, two-part question, in the video you showed where the scooter fell and the car shifted lanes, there was no car in the lane to the left of them. I was wondering what would the car do if there was a car in the lane to the left? And how is that information, the decision-making between which life gets affected, shared with elected officials and the local communities? Right. A great question. And essentially, our vehicle, if there was a vehicle in that left lane, it would have applied an extremely hard brake, faster than and harder than an attentive human driver can affect. So it's going to break as hard as possible. And I think what the question is getting at is kind of the trolley problem, right, of what life do you save? And instead of hypotheticals, our vehicle is going to take the safest route possible, which is normally stopping. It's just going to stop and prevent that tragedy from happening as best as it possibly can. Other questions, board members? I don't see any further questions, Mr. Tufts. Thank you so much for being here. I know this has been a long-awaited presentation, so very informative, and thank you for taking your time. Thank you, chairman, and thank you to the rest of the TPO for having me today. I look forward to being in Tampa in the very near future, and I'm happy to meet with all of you individually to tell you more about our company, and we'll just keep you informed as we continue to progress in the Tampa area. Thank you. Thank you. So next up, board members, we have an action item, which is of significance, regional MPO updates and discussion on the apportionment, areas of negotiation, and upcoming steps. This is following the recent TMA meeting that a couple of us represented from TPO attended with Pasco and Pinellas, and Dr. Wong and Sarah Capers from our TPO staff will explain. Good morning, board members. For the record, Johnny Wong, you are executive director. As always, thank you for attending today's meeting, especially on this hallowed holiday of Cinco de Mayo. I appreciate you being here, and I definitely appreciate the time that each of you have invested in trying to solve this riddle of how we stand up a regional MPO. Before I begin, I want to emphasize just how important this work is. When we started this process, we knew that some parts of it were going to be messy, and we knew that it was going to be difficult, and that has proved true, as a matter of fact. There is no one-size-fits-all blueprint for MPOs to follow to lead to a successful merger outcome. There just aren't enough case studies for us to look to to establish best practices. So in many senses, we are charting our own path, and I think the work that you all have done with us, staff helping lead the way, but really your decision-making, this study and the outcomes will be very impactful and helpful to other MPOs that may have to one day go through this same exercise. My presentation today will recap what has been discussed and supported to date. I'll outline a proposal that's on the table from our partners over in Pinellas, and at the end of the discussion, we'll be asking you to decide how we should proceed. So for the benefit of the public who's here and those newer to this process, let me recap the journey that we've taken over the past two and a half years. For many of you, this will seem like old hat, undoubtedly, but this exploration began in response to a bill introduced by Senator DeSigley in Pinellas County, which passed and required Hillsboro, Pasco, and Pinellas MPOs to produce and submit a feasibility study on merging into one. The staffs worked together. We submitted that report to the legislature and governor's office in late 2023, and even after submitting that report, which was all that was requested, we decided to continue the work. Using our staff time, the three MPOs worked together with our respective boards and the TMA to establish areas of agreement and try to establish some principles that should guide a merger, and of course, with the goal of standing up a regional MPO in the coming years. Why? Well, simply put, because our collective needs and the backlog of projects is already quite large and growing rapidly, growing larger each year. As a matter of fact, this region has a cumulative backlog of maintenance and construction projects, totaling many, many billions of dollars. And so what is our path to get out of the hole? Well, simply put, we need to deliver more resources. If combined, the Tampa Bay MPO would have the largest metropolitan planning area in the state by population. We would lead Miami-Dade, Broward, North Florida, which is the Jacksonville area, Metro Plan Orlando. They would all be behind us. And so thinking about whose needs get addressed first in the state budget and in federal grants, it definitely makes sense to be the largest voice on the block and speak as loudly as we can. Is it a guarantee that we'll deliver more resources together than independently? Well, no, not necessarily. Well, nothing is guaranteed, but speaking with one voice and, again, speaking loudly certainly adds more credibility to the ask when we're looking for funding to deliver our projects. And in the funding environment that we're in now and in the funding environment that we're anticipating over the next several years and looking out into the future, we see that the feds and the state want to help deliver regional projects, but they want to know that there's buy-in from the community. They're not looking to allocate money to a project that does not have community support. And this year alone, FDOT is managing a portfolio of projects totaling more than $22 billion. And they look strongly to MPOs to help inform those investment decisions. There's a lot at stake in not communicating our needs loudly and often. The opportunity cost is tremendous if we lose out on money to Jacksonville, Miami, Orlando. Our population is growing. The needs are growing. From a funding perspective, we could certainly be made better off by delivering more discretionary grants, essentially growing the pot of money that's out there. And when I say that, I'm thinking primarily about money used to design and construct projects. But there's also federal planning grant money at stake, too. That money goes to support the work that MPOs do, which is allocated by formula. The surface transportation block grant funding and planning grants currently awarded to each MPO would be largely unaffected. Both of these funds are allocated by population. They have to be spent in each respective county that owns the population. So it's not the case that money intended to go to Hillsborough would leave to go to Pinellas. It's not the case that money intended to go to Pinellas would go to Pasco. That's not how this works. Each of the three counties, independently and together, has an interest in preserving the value that they get out of each MPO process. And not only preserving it, but looking to enhance it. And to know what is most valuable to each community, it made sense to have the tri-county TMA be the primary forum to discuss these issues. It was the TMA that helped staff draft the scope of the work for this study, as well as the deliverables and a timeline for completion, which was approved both by this Hillsborough TPO and the TMA last summer. You might recall that FDOT stepped up to the plate in a really big way. So thank you, Justin, and your team. They provided our organization with $500,000 to bring on a consultant to help with this study. When this board executed the contract, it was decided that phase one would involve creating a draft apportionment plan. Essentially, what does the board of the merged MPO look like? That deliverable would culminate in a go or no-go vote. If the decision was to go, then we would initiate phase two and begin working on the creation documents, things like the interlocal agreement that establishes the MPO, the bylaws, a staffing plan, and a transition plan. The thought at the time was, let's not jump to phase two unless we have buy-in from all of the local governments to move forward with the merger. We didn't want to waste the money, essentially. If we knew that the decision was going to be a no, why bother working on the creation documents at all? All of the work products in this study were chartered out to help inform decision makers, understand what each other's issues are, work together, and optimize a solution around this merged MPO. Generally speaking, what we've heard from the decision makers to date is that they want to be able to provide meaningful input to the planning process. They want to be represented fairly. They want to preserve their right to self-determination. They don't want others controlling what happens in their communities. And they want their needs to be thoughtfully considered in the planning process. We know that not everyone can have a seat at the table, but they don't want to be invisible to the process. And so we have to work on what the structures are in place to ensure that what they need is not lost or vanishing into thin air. At a high level, just about everyone who we've spoke with seems to agree on those points, but the devil's really in the details. Those operational tech memos that are a part of both phases one and two, but skewing heavily toward phase two, are where the details are going to be uncovered. So looking at the milestones of the study completed today, we've produced tech memos comparing and contrasting the operations and policies of each MPO. Things like how our advisory committees are structured, how often they meet, our funding obligations, financial policies, staffing plans, and even more. I'm forgetting all of the details. But we held a workshop last November with a decent turnout to discuss the desires and the deal breakers. And right now the study team's focusing mostly on finalizing the apportionment plan, but what we heard at the TMA very recently is that they still don't feel comfortable approving the apportionment plan without being able to review those technical documents. And so unless there are objections that I hear from you all today, I'm going to suggest that we move right into phase two. Again, what we heard at the TMA is that folks don't want to be presented with an apportionment plan without knowing the details of what's to follow. And so to make them comfortable and to provide full information, I think we need to start working on the phase two docs right now. The other topic of conversation, and this is the one that we're seeking action on today, is how we respond to a proposal that's on the table coming from the Ford Pinellas MPO. Like I mentioned, like we've already established, we're in phase one. The main deliverable is the draft apportionment plan. After working with our MPOs, the TMA, and the Suncoast League of Cities, we heard that the general preference was to have a board of 25 voting members, four non-voting advisors, one of those non-voting advisership seats going to each county's respective transit agency, and then the fourth one preserved for the FDOT District 7 secretary. Staff of the airport and port would be provided voting seats that come off the top of those 25 seats, leaving 23 to be allocated based on population. With that very clear direction, the staff directors felt like we were getting ready to land this plane. In fact, each of us was prepared throughout the summer to bring the draft apportionment plan to our MPOs, our respective county commissions, City of Tampa, Council, in my case. And the intention was to present the apportionment plan and get a non-binding resolution of support. That's actually what we intended to use this meeting time for today, but we had to pivot because Ford Pinellas was set to go first. At its meeting on April 8th, the Ford Pinellas board declined to take action on its draft apportionment plan. Instead, they issued a proposal, or rather a counterproposal, for Hillsborough and Pasco to consider. Let me speak to the why for a second. So this counterproposal that I'll be discussing with you all in just a moment is in response to a perceived concern that the airport and port would fall under the direction, or which fall under the direction of Hillsborough County and the City of Tampa would vote in alignment with the Hillsborough County commissioners, Tampa City Council members, any other modal operators that come out of Hillsborough's allocation. Now, whether or not you agree with that statement, the perception from Pinellas is that this large Hillsborough-centric voting block would be able to control the votes on the merged MPO and essentially have T-bar to 2.0, and that doesn't make any of us comfortable. To prevent that from happening, one Pinellas County commissioner proposed eliminating the off-the-top seats for the port and the airport. Instead, they proposed allocating all 25 seats by population, which effectively would require Hillsborough to determine whether or not we want to provide voting seats for the staff of the airport and the port. I don't think that anyone in Pinellas or Pasco, certainly not at the TMA, felt that the port and the airport don't deserve to be voting members. I felt strongly that they feel the appropriate position is for them to serve on the board as voters, but it was strongly implied that those voting seats should come out of Hillsborough's allocation. That was at Ford Pinellas. At the TMA meeting the following week, that proposal was discussed and an alternative proposal was offered in which the airport and the port remain off the top, but Hillsborough then donates one of its population-based seats to Pasco County. I'm sorry, I skipped forward. Let me stay on this slide for a moment. So again, the three options on the table are what Hillsborough TPO and the TMA voted on roughly two years ago, proposal originating from Ford Pinellas to not have the port and the airport come off the top, but instead come out of Hillsborough's allocation, and then third at the TMA was to keep the port and the airport as off the top seats, treat them as regional authorities, but to prevent a majority voting block in Hillsborough, one of our population seats would be donated to Pasco. I'll walk you through the implications for each one of those options in a moment, but at this time, I'd like to recognize my counterparts in Pinellas, or from Pinellas in Pasco who are here. Whit Bland from Ford Pinellas and Tania Gorman from Pasco MPO are sitting behind me. At any time, if you'd like to call them up, I'm sure that they'd be happy to offer their version of the events and add a little color and texture to the conversation. All right, so now getting into the details. With these three options on the table, let's look at each one of them in turn, begin with what has thus far been supported. Again, the Hillsborough TPO voted on this option roughly two years ago. The TMA also voted in support of it. The starting point for all three of these options is an equitable population ratio basis, so based on the size of the county and within each county, the size of the city's populations, that's how the seats should roughly be allocated. And the second starting point is to provide some continuity on the merge board for what we have here. I'm not seeking to disrupt the synergy and the chemistry that you all have cultivated over the years. As I go through these slides, I'll ask you not to focus too much on the specific seat allocations of how many Hillsborough O's, so that 5, 3, 1, 1, 1, 1 that you see in the middle, that's just for demonstration purposes right now and to help start a conversation. Those are still subject to change. This option provides voting membership for the airport and the port coming off the top. The remaining 23 would then be divided across the three counties based on 2020 Census POP data. Hillsborough, as of 2020, has 49% of the regional population, so of the 23 seats in play, we would be entitled to 11. Pinellas has 32% of the regional POP. They would be entitled to 8. Pasco has 19%. They're entitled to 4. If a Hillsborough-centric voting block is a concern for Pinellas and Pasco and we want to stick with this option, one mechanism that could come into play is a majority voting provision adopted into either the interlocal agreement or the bylaws. So a majority voting provision would mean for the long-range transportation plan, the transportation improvement plan, program, the key documents that this board has to vote in support of. It would require not only a simple majority of voting members, but a majority of all the members representing each respective county. So with 25 voting members on a board to pass an LRTP, it would require 13 to say yes, and of Hillsborough's 11, six of them to say yes. Of Pinellas' 8, five to say yes, and three of Pasco's four. We believe that that provision would provide some reassurance that no individual county can control the outcome of these key decisions. The second option is the one that was presented at the TMA. It would still be a board of 25 voting members, staff of the airport and port still coming off the top, still non-voting advisership for the transit agencies and FDOT, but instead of Hillsborough allocating 11 population-based seats, we would donate one to Pasco, bringing our seats to 10. Pinellas retains its eight. Pasco gets five. If that option moves forward, it may not be necessary to have a majority voting provision because the balance of the population seats would be roughly equitable and no single county could control the votes. The third option that I'm presenting today is what was proposed at the Ford-Pinellas board meeting, which is essentially to allocate all of the 25 voting seats by population, which would give Hillsborough 12 seats, Pinellas would remain at eight, Pasco would have five. It would then be Hillsborough TPO, Hillsborough County Commission, and the city of Tampa's decision about whether or not to give voting membership to the port and the airport. This option also I think would likely not require a majority voting provision. So I've covered a lot. I'll take a moment to give you some time and review those three options, collect your thoughts, but what I'm asking from you today is to give us direction about how we respond to the proposals on the table, whether we are going to affirm or reaffirm our previous vote, which is option one and charge forward, or whether we will entertain options two and three. I will say that regardless of what decision is made today, there are still pathways to success. So I don't want you to feel like this vote could tank the discussion on the merger. What it will certainly do is delay the schedule a little bit, but given that we now have to produce creation documents, like the interlocal bylaws, staffing plan. Well, the people online won't be able to hear you. Is that good? All right. Thank you. Let me wrap up. So regardless of what decision is made today, it could delay the schedule a bit. But again, given that Penelope, Pascoe and Hillsborough members at the TMA would only feel comfortable voting on the apportionment plan with the interlocal agreement bylaws, transition plan, staffing plan also available to them to inform their decision. I don't think that it's problematic to extend the schedule. We're going to have to work on those documents anyway. And so we might not have a decision about apportionment plan as quickly as we anticipated, but we could still drive this home on time, on schedule, regardless of whatever decision is made today. So that's key. That is the action item that we're requesting of you today. Inform staff how you would like to respond to Penelope's proposal. We would also like to facilitate a discussion on Hillsborough's apportionment scenarios. We're still far away from that. Based on whether this board prefers option one, two, or three, we're going to have to go back to the drawing board and kick around some different scenarios for how that could play out. And we'll do that later this summer or early fall. And then I would also like to get your blessing to execute phase two and move into the part of the study where we can work on those creation documents. I've given you more than enough info that you need, I believe, but I'll be here to answer any questions. And again, my counterparts from Penelope's and Pasco are behind me. So thank you. Thank you, Dr. Wong. And so before we open it up for questions, we need to turn this down a little bit, staff, so we can talk. Testing. Okay. So Dr. Wong gave you a very thorough briefing, but in simple terms, what has happened is what we thought we had agreed on a couple of years ago in the Tri-County area has really largely evaporated. Some of this is due to personnel changes, elections, reassignments of different people on the forward Penelope's board and different people in Pasco and on the TMA. And so even some of the people from our counterparts in other counties that were previously in support of the apportionment plan are now wavering because of that. So I don't know because they haven't officially voted. I don't know what if this went before the BOCCs in those two counties today, whether it would pass or not. But I do get a sense that it wouldn't pass with a recommendation from Ford Penelope's or Pasco the way it is. And so after the meeting, Dr. Wong and I had some extensive discussions about where to go, what to present to the board. And so that's where these options came from. And really, it's very simple. We can either dig in and offer nothing, because I know that the airport and the port being off the top are important to several people on this board. My personal opinion is that they have more than established that they are regional assets, but that's up for you guys each to decide. We can offer nothing, in which case I'm pretty confident that Ford Penelope and Pasco's MPO will both recommend to their BOCCs that they won't support it. Number two is we can stay put, but offer the majority vote provision, which I personally think is a great idea, because it essentially prevents one county from taking over the block. You can, Hillsborough with the largest number of votes could vote all one way, but if Pasco doesn't have a majority of their delegation, it still doesn't pass for tip and for long range transportation. I think that is a fair compromise to counteroffer. The other idea that we came up with was part of their offer, part of their negotiation was for us to give up one seat to Pasco. So we ran the population estimates on the current population apportionment. That would not put us wildly out of range of apportionment, because if it did, we couldn't get approval through the state and federal for this anyway, if we were wildly out of whack. But if you, if we did decide to offer to give up one seat to Pasco, it would not put us wildly outside of the population apportionment. So just to simplify it a little bit, because I know we've heard a lot. So I do have some questions. Board Member King. Thank you, Chair. For the record, can someone concisely state what exactly it is we're going to be voting on that's being proposed by Pinellas? Well, a couple of things, but one is we need to decide as a group whether we want to counteroffer what's been presented to us or stay pat. And that's really up for this group to decide. And what we, the original previously approved apportionment plan involved the airport and the report off the top, the remaining 23 seats divided by population, which resulted in us having, um, 11, 12, 11, 11, and Pinellas was eight. Pasco was four. Pasco four. So that was what we, we can stick with that and do nothing, or we can just come up with an alternative proposal to take back to the, the other two counties. Okay. But we're under no obligation to necessarily approve any one of these three options. Correct. We, we are under no obligation. Although I do think that it is likely to come, um, in both of those counties, is I think the MPOs will recommend to their VOCCs that they not approve. Well, I understand. Um, of course, I think the devil is probably in the details. And I think the apportionment numbers from 2020 are probably no longer valid, considering the growth that's currently taking place in Pinellas and Philstro and, uh, not Pinellas, but, uh, Philstro and Pasco, whereas Pinellas is actually decreasing in population at the moment. I think you were first to a couple of things. Um, first of all, uh, I've been, it's more important to me that the airport and the port have a vote than whether or not they come off the top or not. I just want to make sure they each have an independent seat on the new board. Um, I, I agree with you that, that they should come off the top, but it's, um, it's more important to me that they actually have a seat, uh, whether it has to ultimately come from us or, or, or not. Um, so, uh, I mean, I, I think that could, could be worked out. My question is there's not a huge functional difference between any of these three proposals in the sense that all of them would have, for example, five County commissioners and three city council members from the city of Tampa. But it's really the other seats that are the question, particularly the small city representation. So I would just make the point that maybe I would throw it back at some of the small city representatives, the airport and the port, the expressway authority, the, those, because those are the seats that are going to ultimately be at issue, regardless of which of the three choices we make. Correct. I would say that that'll be a part of the conversations throughout the summer. If we can identify one, if not two of the options that would represent deal breakers for us, that helps us narrow down the options for seating either 10, 11 or 12 Hillsborough voting members or voting members hailing from Hillsborough in the cities. What it does to not respond and identify a deal breaker is create too many options for us to kind of focus in and work productively over the next few months. I'm just going to say I almost could go along with any of this. My real deal breaker is just, I want the port in the airport to have a seat on a voting member seat on the new MPO. You know, that's the most important thing to me, how we get there. I'd rather it be off the top, but you know, as long as we can get there, we can get there. We're great. I want to thank Dr. Wong for your time that you spent on the phone. I have an I'll agree with commissioner Cohen that the airport in the port, the airport and the port, excuse me are very notable to be included. But I also think there's a big question of why. So when you look at the interconnectivity of the amount of bridges, well, there are three main bridges. Um, you know, when we look at Pinellas and decreasing population and Hillsboro increasing population, I wonder why we have to have this apportionment because we are the ones that growing. They are limited. They're I want to say almost landlocked Pasco County is, you know, it is growing but not at this, not at the rate that we are and I wonder why, you know why we are doing and we went to the Orange County, but they're not the same. They're not dealing with a limited amount of bridges and population as Pinellas is. Um, I also think that what when we talk about federal money, is there any evidence that we have had less as a single TPO versus if we had two other, uh, counties in there? In other words, what is the evidence that we would receive less money when in fact this year, last year and years before we've done excellent job with gaining, uh, grants? Uh, yeah. Thank you. And that's a, that's a good point. Um, no, there, there is no data to show one way or another that we have lost out on funding decisions. We've heard some information from the folks who play a role in advocating for the needs of Hillsborough County, Pinellas and Pasco. Um, you know, certainly it is a hypothesis, but we have been, um, we have been, uh, encouraged strongly by the folks who are parts of funding decisions in the budgetary process at the state level that we would be, we would benefit if we were to work together. But that being said, uh, this conversation about benefits and cons assumes no other changes. Uh, a federal transportation authorization bill could add new uncertainties that we hadn't planned for. Um, changes in the regulatory framework could also create new uncertainty, but what we have to work from now is our legislators are telling us that merging would be beneficial. Um, some folks at DLT are telling us the same and certainly seems to be of interest. It is of interest and it sounds very, you know, uh, prosperous in the future. But right now, I wonder if this TPO is broken in the first place. It seems as though we have a pretty fine, uh, system here of, uh, high caliber individuals. So I, you know, I just don't, I'm not comfortable with a, you know, we're getting into a bigger regional. So that's my two cents. Thank you. Thank you. I'm going to let, um, our attorney, Mr. Clark inject here real quick before we move on with the comments. Just regarding the demographic changes, the, um, the, the fact that the 2020 census may not be reflective anymore of populations in Hillsborough or Pasco. All MPOs after a census are required to reapportion anyway. So essentially whatever is agreed to here, if the, if the jurisdictions were to merge into a single MPO after the 2030 census, we're going to have to go through the process again, looking at new population numbers. So changes may take place at that time, uh, because all MPOs have to do that. Board member Stevens. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a few points and a great presentation. Uh, Mr. Wong, uh, having attended that meeting, it was apparent to me that, um, doing nothing is essentially doing something. And that's essentially blowing up the fact that we would reach a regional MPO. I think anybody that attended that meeting, uh, that was relatively apparent, uh, to everybody there. And to that end, I think it's just important that we keep our eye on the big prize. And that is the whole notion of the regional MPO. If not, uh, this whole exercise over the past several years has been for nothing. And to, um, board members Gray's point, uh, while we have been effective perhaps in getting funding in our respective counties, the, the framework is changing dramatically. As we know at the national level with funding being constrained, there is going to be greater competition within regions, even here in the state. When it comes to funding, we're seeing that from an airport standpoint before we used to get significant federal dollars for a lot of big projects such as runways, a whole bunch of other things that's going away. I suspect some of the things at the port in terms of competitiveness. So the why that we're trying to solve for is to be more competitive with some of those other regions that we mentioned here in the state and more broadly. So to, to that end as, as I look at this, um, option one, the supermajority seemed to assuage a lot of the concerns that were presented at the last meeting. But I think when you look at option two, whether it is Pasco picking up an additional seat, considering the fact that the 2020 census says, as Mr. Clark pointed out, was the guiding basis for that apportionment. But even since then, based on publicly accessible data, they've grown by 15 to 20% since the 2020 census. And then lastly, I would say to Commissioner Cohen's point, if you look at it from that standpoint, we lose nothing, whether it's a supermajority, um, option or it is giving one, uh, seat to Pasco, which is reflective of their growth. We lose nothing essentially. Uh, but we do stand the opportunity to make this thing, uh, happen and bring this regional MPO about. So that's my perspective on it. I, I just strongly urge, uh, board members to consider those basic points that we need to kind of keep our eyes on the big prize that we're going to be competitive. Thank you, Mr. Stevens. Council member Hurtag. Thank you. Um, a lot of, you know, I started this process being absolutely anti-merger. Still not really thrilled with the idea. It's still not something that I wholeheartedly support. Uh, but I'm also looking at Tallahassee and I'm, I'm a realist. Um, the thing that was not talked about that happened at the TMA that I was per, I really thought was a great suggestion from one of the forward Pinellas folks was that they would be fine with port and airport off the top. If there was also a land off the top, meaning bus service. So whether that be a moving seat every year with the three bus, um, agencies or if eventually they get merged into one, however it works. Um, but that was something that was supported because then there's a dedicated voice and vote for transit. Um, which is one of my biggest concerns and my biggest interests. So, uh, fall and going along with the super majority. So having that was something that I could get behind. However, as we look at the apportionment for Hillsborough County, I am going to advocate strongly that the city of Tampa reserve receive a fourth seat because of, um, this, this is it. This is our option. This is all we get. So getting a fourth seat deals with the fact that Tampa feels like we're going to be run over and having the super majority helps to some degree, but also knowing that people come into the city. And this is something that I know that we've talked about commissioner Cohen at these meetings about looking at the city of Tampa. And how important it is that we still feel like we are at the table instead of on the table and three seats to me still feels like on the table, but at the table with four and having that land seat instead of going to Pasco, that seat would go to a bus service group. So that is definitely something that was talked about. And I don't want to not bring that forward because to me, that was a very reasonable move forward that for me, sitting in my seat helps. Secretary Hall, did you have something or did you change your, did the point, the point passed? Okay. Mayor Kilton. Yes. Um, I want to make sure I understand the super majority position again. Could you just explain that one more time, please? Dr. Wong. So for votes on core documents, the two that are treated, that are treated distinctly in state statute are the long range plan and the tip. Those two boats require us to do a roll call. So, you know, they feel like the ones that require special attention and special recognition. So when we are approving or amending either the long range plan or the tip, it would require a simple majority of the members present, as well as a majority, of the representatives hailing from each county. So if you assume that we have a board of 25 voting members and they are all in attendance to approve the LRTP, 13 at least would be required, as well as six of Hillsborough's 11 and five of Pinellas is eight and three of Pasco's four. If any of those four criteria are not met, then we couldn't pass the LRTP tip or an amendment. Yeah. So I have to say that I really don't like that option. I think that gives a disproportionate amount of control to Pasco County, for example, if they have to be in a super majority position on that. So I agree with commissioner Cohen that, um, I think the port and airport should be off the top and have voting seats. But if I'm, what if, what if what I'm hearing is that Pinellas and Pasco are afraid that Hillsborough County could vote in lockstep with the poor in the airport, then I would almost offer a fourth option and say, rather than a 50% on the tip of the LRTP, that it has to be 60%, then that way everybody in full concert on, um, the, you know, in Hillsborough County, uh, couldn't, couldn't get there on their own. Mr. Court. Yes. Um, so the, and I understand the supermajor, as I understand them, the supermajority requirement that's been discussed is creative. I think the hurdle is, and this is especially the case in what you just described. Mr. Mayor is the only voting requirements that are in state law on MPOs relate to the tip into the LRTP, which are, as Johnny said, those are the two major documents that the TPO votes on. And that's the one that does the roll call vote, but it also requires a approval by a majority of the membership present in plainest language. You know, if you've got a 25 member board, you need 13 votes to be able to pass the tip. It doesn't give any description of, I mean, imagine you have, uh, something that, uh, gets a majority, like a unanimous among Pinellas and Pasco voters, but you have one vote shot majority for Hillsborough where you're certainly above, well above majority of members present. Um, but if you being short one vote from any jurisdiction, it sort of creates a super majority requirement that may be contrary to what the statute's saying. The statute's just saying majority of membership present. This is state law. The legislature, if they really want this thing, uh, they can change this and it doesn't come from federal law. The federal law doesn't speak to voting requirements at all. It's just this one section of state law that potentially creates that problem, but it would, it would certainly create an issue regarding the 60% threshold because essentially that's us internally creating a super majority requirement where state statute, um, mandates to simply a majority of membership present, not even majority of full board, just majority of who's there essentially as long as you have a quorum. Okay. Well, if I have to pick with any of the options on the table, my preference then would be to, um, have the, the two seats off the top and to give up one, one to Pasco. Thank you, mayor commissioner Cohen. Um, yeah, I just wanted to, um, say just because commissioner her tech, councilman her tech, um, uh, referenced our, our back and forth, I guess the question of whether how many seats would go to the city of Tampa or to anybody really under Hillsborough's allocation, that would really be the last thing that would get decided, right? By all of us when the time finally comes and it would really be a group of us that isn't even here yet because it would probably be a couple of years down the road, right? So we don't have to tackle that yet. That is not the issue before the issue in front of us now. Remember we voted some time ago to allow each county to make their own decisions. Right. So I was just going to say, I, I tend to agree with mayor Kilton because that we ought to go with the donate one to Pasco because first of all, 2030, it's going to get all jumbled up anyway. And, and this preserves the port and airport, uh, piece. Uh, so I, you know, I would even go so far as to move for that. If that's done. Yeah. Okay. Was there a motion in there? Cause I'm trying to keep track of, yeah, I moved for, uh, I, for option three, which is, I believe the one that adds that donates the seat to Pasco. Okay. Can you clarify the motion to, to include that you're not changing any other things? Just that? Well, it's, my understanding is that the two seats come off the top for the airport and the port, and then it will be divided by population. And once that happens, Hillsborough will donate one seat to Pasco County. Okay. I understand the motion. Is there a second seconded by mayor Kilton? There's a motion by commissioner Cohen seconded by mayor Kilton. We still have people in the queue to comment, but now we have a motion. So one of information on the motion. Yes. Is what is the requirement in the, as far as proportionate and population, can we just arbitrarily give our positions away and, and go away from the idea of population proportion? Cameron, I can handle that if you're okay with it. Councilman, the term appearing in state statute is population equity ratio basis. And so population is used as a starting point, but there's considerable flexibility in how you allocate seats after that. This board is a great example. We're not allocated by population to a tee. We, we started with that, but negotiations among board members have resulted in an apportionment that you see today. So ultimately it would be a question of whether the governor supports it. And if federal highway has any objections to it, but I wouldn't say arbitrarily, but yes, you can, you can modify the population basis with some considerable flexibility. Well, I'll speak to the motion. And I still think, I think it's, um, I think it's a wrong move to, uh, I don't want to say willy nilly, but to, uh, and, and without a lot of thought, uh, going away from more of a statistical allocation of, of membership, um, without a lot more going, you know, he diving into the details of the implications of that. I think I always prefer to fall back on something that is concrete that I can stand on rather than something that maybe seems to be, you know, politically, um, expedient at the moment. I, I think it's, I think, again, I think it's a mistake deviating from, uh, population or some other, uh, concrete way of allocating positions. Okay. Um, Dr. Wong and before we leave that topic, we've worked these numbers out. Can you share with the group? Because the population of enforcement is still within equitable parameters. Do you have those numbers, please? Um, Mayor Ross, no, I don't, um, but you're, you're right. We did crunch the numbers on this. If Hillsborough were to donate a seat to Pasco, um, 10 of the 23 would roughly be 42% of the population and we're at 49%. So that is fairly close. Uh, Pasco would be at, um, a little bit more than 20%. Uh, their current or their 2020 population is 19%. So they would inherit a little bit more. So we're within plus minus 5% of the actual 2020 cents pop figures. I would want to say for one, for one person on the TPO, how many persons does that represent? Period. So if, is it, is it one per a hundred thousand? Is it one per, you know, what is, what is that? What is that actual number? Uh, so you can actually see the, just if there's a disparity, our 2020 countywide pop figures are about 1.3. So if we had 10 members, they would be representing, um, you know, roughly 130,000 people. And if you gave that extra person to Pasco County, what would be there? What would they, what, how many would they be representing? Need to pull out a calculator. Give us one second, please. So, um, looking at the numbers here, and I do have the exact numbers, Sarah Caper assistant director. So the Hillsborough census population from 2020 is 1,459,762 countywide. So if you divide that by 11, you're at 132,705. And then if you take the 149,762, and you divide it by 10, you go from 132,705 to 145,976. And just doing rough numbers for the city of Tampa with three, that means one for, we're representing one for 140,000. So the city of Tampa, according to the 2020 census, has 384,959. Dividing that by three, you're at 128,319. Is that what you were looking for? Yeah, I guess I was using newer figures, because we're at 420, yeah. And unfortunately, as you heard, the census is what we're required to use, and it will change in 2030. So usually that does get updated around 2032. Commissioner Myers. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do agree. This is a conversation we keep going around and around and hear different opinions every time this subject comes up. I do agree with Director Stephens. We're not going to really lose a seat when we just give one to Pasco. So I'm going to go ahead and call for the vote at this point, so that we can vote on this issue and move on. Objection consideration. Mr. King, what's your objection? I would like to offer a friendly amendment. Mr. Clark, what is the proper procedure under this? We've had a call for the vote, call the question, and now we've had a- It's at the Chair's discretion. You can, I mean, you were still in discussion phase. If there's an amendment or an amended motion, it would have to be stated to see if there was a second. And if there's a second, you'd vote on it before you voted on the main motion. And if it succeeds, then you wouldn't need to have a vote on the main motion. The standard procedure, does that change because the question has been called? No, that's really up to the Chair. I mean, if you can have a vote on it without allowing the motion, you can do that. But we're still in discussion phase, so that's really at the Chair's discretion. Mr. Myers, I'm going to allow the friendly amendment to be heard. I think there's less questions surrounding that route instead of the call the question route. So, Board Member King, you're recognized for a friendly motion. Thank you, Chair. If Commissioner Cohen will accept this as a friendly amendment, I would propose that the transit agencies be re-included as voting members of the Board, changing the total numbers for Hillsborough County to 13, seven for Pinellas, and five for Pasco, and guaranteeing seats for the Tampa International Airport and the Port Authority. So that actually would read as a substitute motion? That's a, yeah. And I would offer it as a substitute motion. We have a substitute motion. Is there a second? Can you restate it? And what would be off the top? I'm unclear. Well, we would still guarantee seats for the Tampa International Airport and the Port Authority off the top. But what you would do is take the transit agencies and roll them back in as voting members as opposed to non-voting advisors and change the totals to 13 for Hillsborough County, seven for Pinellas, and five for Pasco. And you wouldn't have to donate one, and you wouldn't have to donate one to Pasco County. I'll second that. Board, if I may, the math on that would not be allowable. Currently, 25 voting members is the max allowed under state statute. That is only 25 members. So that would be 27. Actually, I heard port, airport, coming off the top. They're guaranteed as a part of the 13 or across the top as they're part of everyone's total. So the portion of the airport would come out of Hillsborough's 13, and then I believe I heard you say seven for Pinellas and Pasco with five. They're currently in our 16 sitting right here. I'm sorry. They're currently in the 16 and sitting in this room. I meant to say, if I said it incorrectly, I'm sorry. The max allowable number of voting seats of any MPO in the state is 25 total. Right. That would include the airport and the port. So maybe do a breakdown. What's included in your Hillsborough? You've got 13 right now. I don't know. I don't know how you would allocate them other than you would, other than the airport and the, port authority, a certain number would go to, would be a portion to the county commissioners and to the city of Tampa. Beyond that, I don't know. And adding the transit agency back in as a voting member. I'm just trying to. So the 13 would be, on your scenario, Hillsborough, your 13 would be the port, the airport, the transit agency, and then 10 members to be assigned. Right. I guess so. Okay. So before we lose control, I know several people want to talk, but let me just point out before the discussion begins that this would violate another previously decided issue. We would have to go back to Pasco and Pinellas because we have already agreed several years ago that each county would decide the composition of their number of seats. And so this would violate that by saying for Pinellas, you're going to have to have your bus. So there's more to this motion that I just want everybody to understand. There's more to this. Okay. Hang on. I think council member Clinton and did I hear a second? Was that intentional? Well, if we, if we resolve this issue, I'm, I'm, I'm getting warming up to the idea, but haven't they already said we, aren't we beyond violating agreement when they've already pushed back and said they want, they want Hillsborough to give a seat to Pasco. So we're all that, that's out the window. So I just want everybody to understand that we're opening up another. So is your, is the intention, so the transit seat, where does that transit seat come from? Whoever, whichever agency sits that particular time comes out of the, the, the meat of that county? Yes, sir. So one out of 13 or one out of five, seven or one out of five, whatever. Correct, sir. Okay. Then yeah, I'll second that. Okay. We have a motion by board member King. We still have a motion on the table. This is a substitute motion. The substitute motion has been seconded by board member Clendenin and Mr. Stevens is recognized for comment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would just say, um, as it relates to the addition of transit, I'm a huge transit advocate. However, the proposal as it stands is, is still unclear. Are we talking about heart PSTA and go Pasco? Because if we're talking about go Pasco, go Pasco is a sub department of Pasco County anyway. So they're not independent corporate body publics like heart or PSTA. So I think you have a, an issue right there. And again, I, I think based on the, the math and apportionment, um, what are we solving for? We're not giving up anything, uh, with the, the, uh, motion that commissioner Cohen put on the table and still have the ability to, to, you know, obviously be, um, in recognition of the importance of transit. Um, so that's just my two cents. I, I just don't know how the Pasco transit authority kind of fits in, uh, based on what was put on the table. Mr. Klug, you were in the queue and then several, this thing's gone kind of bizarre. So are you, okay. Yes, I just want to, um, perhaps clarify this issue and at the meeting, the TMA meeting, um, it was a clear, um, position by Pinellas County is not to try to avoid the West Coast regional water supply authority, typically water, water wars from years ago and to have a more cohesive type organization. And also the T Barty experience. So the very, it seems like there's a lot of trauma there about, uh, Hillsborough having more votes. That was one issue. But when it came to, um, the reapportionment with respect to the, the transit agency, I think it was that one position that Tampa, but having two up the top, but having as opposed to 11, um, for Hillsborough count, sorry, Hillsborough having 11, they would have 10 and the transit agencies would rotate that one seat between, uh, Pinellas, Pasco and Hillsborough, uh, not to have a, you know, that coming from one of the, uh, the actual, uh, counties representation. So it'd be a separate rotating position. And as, um, Mr. Steven says in Pasco County, it's different because they're a part of the county versus PSTA and heart or separate organizations, independent special districts, et cetera. And so just to clarify that, but there, there seems to be a real issue. Pinellas County said, we don't want another vote. Um, we're good with eight. We think that, uh, Pasco should have one additional vote to five. If they didn't have the five, there should be a rotating, uh, transit. Remember just to clarify that. Thanks. Mr. Koo, council member for tech. Thank you. Um, and thank you for that, uh, reminder. And so, so that would be my issue. I wouldn't want the transit person to come out of the counties individually. I would like it across the top because I, I do envision eventually. I don't think there will be three transit agencies. That's the goal. If we're, if we're going toward a regional transit system, we would like to have a regional transit agency. So I don't, I don't anticipate the three regional transit systems to even make it ideally to the 2030 census. Our goal would be to combine them. Um, if we're really looking at a regional motion. So, so that would be my only concern and I, I can't vote for it unless that third is off the top. Okay. I put myself in the queue here a while back. I promise it wasn't, but the bad part about being chairs, you don't get to be part of the conversation. But so I put myself in the queue. And so I would like to comment. Um, I can support the original motion for a variety of reasons. It keeps us within the population apportionment. It shows good faith to our partners in the other two counties. Um, I still think the airport and port should be kept off the top, which it does. Um, and I, I don't think we're giving up much of anything by giving Pasco a seat. And I think we all anecdotally know that their population is growing exponentially. They would probably deserve a seat in 2030 anyway. So let's just give it to them now. I'm fine with the original. I have grave concerns about the substitute motion, because I think if we want to blow this up, this is the way to do it. Because we, we are not moving the conversation forward. In my opinion, we're going back three, three years. And, and we've already decided really that one of the few things that all three counties have agreed on is that we all are want the ability to decide our own representation of who we want to put on the board. And if Hillsborough wants to put a heart representative on the board as a voting member, Hillsborough is free to do so. So is Pasco. So is Pinellas. I don't think all three counties agreed very, I mean, this is, like I said, this is one of the few things that we agreed from the start on was that we don't want the three counties telling every each county how to break up their seats. Like mayor Kilton and I, you know, we may wind up each with a seat. We may wind up alternating between plant city and temple tears, or we may wind up out in the cold. Who knows? But I mean, this is not for somebody in Newport Ritchie to decide. This is for this group in Hillsborough to decide. And I don't think we should be telling each of the counties you got to put like Pasco. I mean, it's part of their county government. We're going to dictate to them that they have to have that. If we want to put heart on this board as a Hillsborough seat, we are free to do so. And so, um, I, I think the original motion by commissioner Cohen preserves the intent. We're moving forward because now we're haggling over the number of seats by apportionment. And I think the request to give Pasco another one is a reasonable request. If I were sitting in Pasco, I'd probably be making that same request. So, um, okay, that's my two cents. And who's next? Mr. King, board member King. Um, oh, we did. Yeah. Well, we have a substitute motion. So I'll let Mr. King. My impression from earlier is that we agreed that we're not under any obligation to accept any one of these proposals as submitted. Correct. Okay. The substitute motion would give Pasco an extra voting seat when they regain their vote for their transit agency, which is a part of their county. So that would give them five as opposed to four. If it's more amenable to have, let's say Hillsborough at 12 and Pinellas at eight, that would tend to balance it out. And, uh, you could still have room for, uh, the airport and the port authority as standing members of, of, uh, the, uh, regional MPL. Okay. That, that, that's how I, um, understand what I'm trying to propose. Okay. So can we call the question? Yeah, I was gonna say, I think it's time to vote. So we're going to, um, the substitute motion is first. There is a motion in a second by council member Clendenin. All those in favor of the substitute motion say aye. Aye. All those opposed. Nay. Okay. It's a record reflect that board member King and council member Clendenin voted aye. Now we go to the original motion council, uh, commissioner Cohen, would you mind restating the original motion since we've been left that so long ago? Um, my original motion was to, uh, agree to option three, which is, uh, essentially that it will be a 25 member board with the port in the airport coming off the top and then a, uh, population apportionment that, but then would, uh, add one seat to Pasco County from ours. Very good. And that was seconded by, I'm trying to recall who's seconded that Mayor Kilton seconded that. Okay. All those in favor of the original motion say aye. Aye. Opposed. Okay. Can you raise your hand real quick so we can see the nays please? It's board member King, council members Hurtak and Clendenin voted nay. All right. Uh, Dr. Wong. Thank you board members for sticking with us. I appreciate the feedback. We will, we'll make that announcement to Pinellas and Pasco. Um, and I heard no objections about us expediting and moving into phase two. So we will authorize that second scope of work later this afternoon. I, I had my light on. Oh, I'm sorry. Are you, we're on executive director's report right now. Are you have questions regarding that? I can call you in a new business. If it's not, I was just trying to figure out where the word. Okay. I just, I just, I mean, it's telling that there was one council member not here, but the two of us in Tampa said this isn't going to work. And I think y'all need to pay attention to that. And I, I was playing off and this is reference. We're just discussing what, uh, director Wong just said about moving forward to this phase two. Um, I don't know how we do that again if you're not going to have support of the city of Tampa without some of the extra work here. We just bent over backwards for Pinellas County, but the city of Tampa still gets the middle finger. There we go. Well, let me be blunt. You want, you talked about a population apportionment and yet the population apportionment doesn't, it doesn't reflect you getting four seats. So why is population apportionment important when it comes to the other two counties? But it's not important when it comes to Tampa. I, I did not discuss a population getting, I wasn't my idea about the four seats. I'm talking about other accommodations and what we look at how this, how this, how this board is going to work and how it functions. Again, it's, it's something clear to me. Again, as you look at urban planning and the city of Tampa and the importance of, as we piece together, what is going to look at as a, um, a transportation model, you look at the, at the density of the city of Tampa as a whole and you, how are you going to grow this out? The emphasis, you've got to start from the center out. I mean, that's, that's, what's going to have to work to make this practically applicable. What we're building is basically a road construction, board is what it appears from my perspective. Looking at this is promote is promoting a road construction board and without any kind of emphasis on other types of transit opportunities within the three, uh, three county area. Um, again, that's just how it appears to me. And I think it how it appears to the city council, I, you're not going to get this by city council without something else. There's got to be something else in this for the city of Tampa or, or, or, you know, that's just, it's just not going to happen. So Dr. Wong, executive director support your board members. Our next TPO regular meeting will be next Wednesday beginning at 10 AM, May 13th. That will be a very important meeting because we'll be looking for approval of the list of priority projects. That list is what we provide to FDLT and make recommendations for programming decisions that go into the transportation improvement program. So there is money at stake. I would encourage everyone to attend if they're able to. And then, um, we have a sun coast transportation planning alliance meeting, June 5th at 10 AM in Lakeland at the sun tracks facility. We'll be conducting a joint meeting with the central Florida MPO alliance that represents Orlando and, uh, the central part of the state that that joint meeting will begin at 11 AM. Any questions for me? Thank you, Dr. Wong board members. Other questions for Dr. Wong? Thank you very much. Any old business or new business to discuss? Seeing none. Council member Clendenin. Yeah, just more food for thought. And I know Johnny and I've had this conversation about what trying to make this process look better. Again, when I look at the region, I look at St. Petersburg as a sister city. I could see that if the interest of the city of St. Petersburg is very similar to the interest of the city of Tampa. If there was if there was some cooperative way we could, you know, weight this the these two cities and how they're represented, I see that there's maybe possibly a solution. I think Councilwoman Hertek's discussion about the transit authorities being incorporated in this, I think, is something that you need to look at to make this more palatable to the urban core. So, I mean, I it's not that I'm saying in fact, I voted an affirmative every time as far as moving forward and continuing to pursue this. I have not been up. I have not voted in opposition to it because I think it's worthy of exploration. But again, if you're looking for a result that is palatable to the urban cores, I think we need to just be a little bit more creative and look a little bit and dig a little bit deeper and figure out a way to make it something that we can vote for and be successful for and just don't assume that the city of Tampa is going to be there. So that's I'm we have to dig harder, look harder, and figure out a way to make it more palatable to the urban portions of our community. Mayor Kilton. Just add to that as well that I'm I'm not across the finish line on this either. I don't think any of us are. We're just in the beginning stages of the conversation. I think what we're trying to accomplish today was to get past first base here. So that conversation about transit and all those other things can come into play when we decide how those seats are in portion by county. So I'm not disagreeing with you in any way, shape or form. I just don't think we've gotten to that stage in the conversation yet is my opinion on where we are and how this whole process is shaping out. Chair. Mr. King, Board Member King. Question. This was a non-binding vote or a binding vote? Binding in what way? This was binding in terms of this was our counter proposal to the other two counties. The way it was represented to me was this was basically to get to test the waters to see where everyone stood and would be a quote non-binding vote. Is that not correct? The recommended action written on the agenda item is to give us direction for how to respond to Ford Piniella's proposal, whether whether we were going to stand by our previous Hillsborough TPO vote on the allocation or whether we were going to entertain the two alternatives on the table. So was this to get a sense of where we're all at or was this an actual commitment to do X, Y or Z? What I heard was direction to report back to Ford Piniella's that we're going to keep port in their staff of the port in the airport off the top. The remaining 23 would still be divided by population with Hillsborough's 11. We're willing to donate one to Pasco. So we now have 10 seats to sub allocate and those conversations needed to need to take place over the summer and fall. So the final version of this will not be voted on until later. No, not until staff is prepared to recommend some sub allocation scenarios. Okay, thank you. Are there older new business for discussion board members? If not, we will stand adjourned.