HASELDEN FIRST TO MEET REQUIREMENTS TO QUALIFY BY PETITION

Congratulations to Barb Haselden, Candidate for Pinellas County Commission, District 6, and her campaign team! Haselden is officially on the 2018 ballot.

Her campaign sent out the following Press Release:

HASELDEN FIRST TO MEET REQUIREMENTS TO QUALIFY BY PETITION

Haselden receives her Certifiate of Signature
Verification from the SOE

St. Petersburg, Fla., Dec 21, 2017 - In the midst of this busy Holiday Season, Barb Haselden announces she has met the requirements to qualify through petitions thus becoming eligible to place her name on the ballot in 2018 for District 6 County Commissioner. This achievement underscores the determination and commitment that Barb and her army of volunteers possess to work for the taxpayers of Pinellas County. 

Filing to run May 8th, she and her team have reached out personally over the past few months, mostly door to door, to obtain the now certified signatures of 1,719 Registered voters in the District. The District 6 seat is being vacated by John Morroni, who announced his retirement earlier this year. 

Upon receiving her Certificate of Signature Verification from the Supervisor of Elections on December 19th, Barb had these comments: "This is the first critical step now completed six full months ahead of schedule. By going door to door, we saved nearly $6,000 of donor funds that would otherwise be required to get on the ballot. Additionally, we met nearly two thousand District 6 voters in the process. Our team is IN IT TO WIN IT and will do the hard work needed to finish first on Election Day." 

Barb Haselden, first time Citizen Candidate and former Leader of No Tax for Tracks, publishes some of her initial priorities:

1) Secure Term Limits for County Commissioners. Pinellas voters passed a term limit referendum 20 years ago. It has never been enacted.
2) Press for undergrounding of the old power distribution and communication utilities in Pinellas to reduce disruptions during storms.
3) Lead efforts to upgrade, increase capacity to storm water/sewage systems and add more pump station generator power backup to eliminate spillages.
4) Base public policies on raw statistical data and economically sound conclusions.

Website: www.electbarbhaselden.com
Inquiries can be directed to John Burgess at 727-374-7883 or johnburge@gmail.com

------------------------------------------

Haselden will be a champion for the taxpayer.  Help her out. Go to her website and hit her Donate button.

Fix the Mess - Rescind Vote On Hagan's Retribution

We posted here that it appears there's deception and some incompetence regarding Hillsborough County Commissioner Ken Hagan's retribution motion to pursue those who filed ethics complaints against him. Hagan irresponsibly threw his controversial retribution item on the Consent Agenda and created this latest big mess at County Center.

We included an email from Tom Rask in our previous post. A response thread to Rask's initial email can be found here.

Mary Helen Ferris of the County Attorney's office responded to Rask stating

In response to your concerns, the agenda item approved by the Commission on November 15th only authorizes payment of legal fees. State law requires the County to pay for successful defense of charges against public officials, including ethics complaints. It was in the discretion of the Commission whether to include the claim for attorneys fees in the covered fees, and the Commission voted to include them. 

The matter itself is in Commissioner Hagan name alone. It is his and his lawyer s decision how to proceed with the case.

Ferris's response led Rask to respond back and point out the following:

When you say that "State law requires the County to pay for successful defense", presumably you are referring to FS 111.07. Said statute allows (but does not "require") your agency to "defend any civil action arising from a complaint etc. etc". There is no requirement, only authorization.You also say that such defense includes defense against ethics complaints. Quite the contrary, because an ethics complaint is NOT a "civil action". The Florida Commission of Ethics is under the Legislature, not the judiciary. See this Florida Attorney General Opinion (AGO), namely AGO 90-74, saying exactly what I'm telling you. It's an opinion that Hillsborough County itself sought in 1990. 

Unless that AGO has been superseded by a subsequent AGO or by court decisions, the county is definitely not "required" to pay to defend ethics complaints. 

Furthermore, citing from that same AGO:
If Hillsborough County makes a determination that acts alleged in an ethics complaint against an official or employee of the county arose from the officer's or employee's official duties and that a public purpose was being served at the time of such acts, the reimbursement of legal expenses for the officer or employee would appear to be authorized.
Note the "if, then" conditionality. If the county does X, then it may do Y.
In approving agenda item A-69, the BoCC made no such determination that the ethics complaint "arose from the officer's or employee's official duties AND that a public purpose was being served at the time of such acts."

In summary:
1. Mr. Hagan misrepresented his petition as being a future action when in fact he had already filed.
2. The commission has not made the required determination referred to in AGO 90-74
3. The County Attorney's office has failed to correctly state law to the commissioners, and likely did so before they voted.
4. The commissioners may have voted differently if they had known item 1, 2 and 3. 

The Eye received a copy of the Petition Hagan's attorney filed with the Ethics Commission to pursue reimbursement from one of the complainants, George Neimann.

Note the Petition was received by the Ethics Commission on Monday, November 13, 2017 - 2 days BEFORE the November 15, 2017 BOCC meeting where Hagan deceptively threw his retribution request onto the Consent Agenda. 

Hagan's lawyer had already submitted the Petition to the Ethics Commission the week before the BOCC meeting and before the commissioners ever voted.

Hagan filed Petition BEFORE BOCC meeting

Hagan failed to inform the commissioners publicly at the meeting when the agenda item was discussed that his attorney had already filed the petition. Hagan failed publicly to inform the commissioners he was asking the commissioners to approve something that he had already done. Every commissioner must answer if they knew the Petition had already been filed against George Neimann. The public deserves to know that answer from each of them.

In addition, what did the County Attorney know and when did he know it? 

This messy issue was brought up at the Wednesday, December 6 BOCC meeting during public comment from Tom Rask, Shirley Wood (one of the four complainants who filed an ethics complaint against Hagan) and from Yvette Neimann (George Neimann's wife). We captured their public comment from the county's online meeting transcript. The transcript and video can be found at HTV.

Rask's public comment reiterates the problems with Hagan's Agenda item A-69 vote that he included in his email back to Mary Helen Ferris. He asked the commissioners to bring the agenda item back so the commissioners, at the least, do things right and through proper procedure.

Shirley Wood and Yvette Neimann made impassioned pleas to the commissioners to rescind their previous vote. Shame on any commissioner who put the other complaininants under burdensome stress if Hagan is only targeting Neimann.

The county commissioners must take action to fix another smelly mess at County Center because proper procedure was not followed - again. 

The commissioners should rescind their previous vote. Even the Times wrote an editorial that Ken Hagan should drop effort to recover attorney’s fees in ethics complaint stating "Hagan’s strident position rings less of altruism than it does of bald-faced revenge." 

Because that is exactly what it is. Hagan's retribution makes him look small, vengeful and petty. What other commissioner wants to look like that? Why would any commissioner want to be tied to Hagan's deceit and vengefulness?

Apparently, Hagan wants to keep the Go Hillsborough crony debacle front and center. 

We will oblige. 

Tampa Streetcar Futility

Yet another taxpayer funded study trying to figure out what to do with the Tampa Streetcar was recently released.

The plan to extend the TECO Line Streetcar system north through downtown got its first positive reviews from the public on Tuesday night. 

The streetcar system already runs from Ybor City to the Channel District. The aim of a $1.7 million study to look at expanding service is to choose the path to reach more of downtown and extend the system north to Tampa Heights. 

The Invision: Tampa Streetcar study selected two preferred routes for the extension of the existing 2.7-mile streetcar line. Both routes travel an additional 1.3 miles from E Whiting Street north to E Palm Avenue.

In the Preferred Options Alignment Report, There are two finalist routes identified from the seven studied, both of which add a northern extension to the current 2.7 mile route.

Alignment A: N/S on Franklin Street

Alignment B: N/S Tampa Street - Florida Ave couplet

But it's not the first study. As recently as 2014, HART commissioned a study, which referenced several earlier studies. The one thing the Tampa Streetcar is good for is... more throw away studies, and wasting your money.

One benchmark for investment is to understand how well similar investments in the past have performed. Well, we have one... in the current Tampa Streetcar, which HART breaks out in regular reporting to the Federal Transit Agency. Here is some data from 2016.

2016 Streetcar metrics

Operating Expenses	$1,594,758
Fare Revenue	$566,665
Fare Recovery %	36%	*
Annual Unlinked Trips	286,685
Estimated Riders per Day	353	*
Operating Expense per Vehicle Revenue Mile	$24.10
Operating Expense per Passenger Mile	$3.16

* calculated

About 353 people per day use the Tampa Streetcar, for an average trip under 2 miles, of which 64% of the operating costs are paid by the taxpayers, not the riders. Not such good numbers.

So lets double down.

What does the extension study say about the proposed alternatives?

Preferred Alignment Characteristics

These characteristics are very similar for these routes, as expected, since they are very similar routes.

But it's interesting they have an estimate for the capital costs, when they've not figured out what they will build. From Section 4.1 of the study:

The project assumes enhanced transit service, whether provided by streetcar or another form of transit technology, will be provided along the extension and the existing historic streetcar alignment serving Ybor City, the Channel District, Water Street, and the Tampa Convention Center. The project assumes the full alignment—existing plus extension—will be designed to provide a “one seat” trip, maximize exclusive transit guideway opera ons, and over high levels of service with full-day and evening opera ons with 15-minute headways. As a result, a paramount assumption is that the same vehicle technology will be operated on the existing system and the extension.

As identified in previous studies prepared by HART and depending on the final vehicle technology decision, modernization of the existing system may require reconfiguration of stations, changes in guideway alignment and additional double-tracking, upgrading of tracks on power distribution, and improvements to or replacement of the existing maintenance and service facility.

In other words, they will want to do make the extension seamless with the existing track, and standardize the technology, buy and install a bunch of new technologies, but no decisions have been made on the technologies. But we know how much it costs.

The 2200 weekday boardings over the planned 2.2 mile route is suspect as well. The current 2.7 mile route averages 785 boardings per day, so they are planning hoping for a big jump in riders. Or, based on the 2020 population estimates of 5150 people living within 1/4 mile, nearly 20% of them will ride every weekday.

What else is missing? Well, it is a STREETcar study, that runs on the streets. There is no mention of potential impacts to vehicular traffic, particularly on the Tampa Street - Florida Ave couplet Plan B, both roads are major thoroughfares in and out of downtown Tampa.

But we're not the only ones skeptical of Streetcars. Others are as well:

A few weeks after the city of Detroit began charging riders a few bucks per ride on its brand-new downtown streetcar, ridership dropped 40 percent, according to the Detroit Free Press. Sadly, few observers were surprised. 

“The streetcar doesn’t even connect directly to the city’s primary bus station,” remarked the transit consultant Yonah Freemark on Twitter. “It runs a total of 3 miles in a huge region. Set up to fail.” 

The streetcar, dubbed the QLine, is carrying 3,000 riders per day, short of the projected 5,000 to 8,000 per day required to break even. Sure, it’s still early; the line opened in May. But a similar story is playing out across the country’s other 21st century streetcars: Pokey, infrequent, and generally disconnected from other transit, line after line keeps bottoming out. 

Atlanta saw a 60 percent drop in ridership after its 1.3-mile line, which opened in 2014, started asking for $1 per go. The line is in the process of being transferred from the city’s authority to the metro’s transit agency, which may consider making it free again. But it’s been bedeviled by administrative and financial issues. Since it opened in September 2016, Cincinnati’s Bell Connector line has seen about two-thirds of the daily ridership consultants predicted. Salt Lake City’s Sugar House line has fared even worse, with just about one-third of the passengers originally projected. Even Seattle, for all of its other transit successes, is seeing about the same sorry share of original predictions.

And that's from the usually transit friendly Citylab.

But developers love it! Transit oriented development to save the day, right?

Nothing is inherently wrong with a streetcar beloved by developers, so long as developers are paying for it. But they’re not, at least not on their own. Taxpayers are picking up most of the bill for the 21st century streetcar renaissance—money which could otherwise support more effective forms of public transportation. Overall mobility suffers when transit dollars are diverted to projects that are more about real estate than riders.

We are not excited about wasting more money on the Tampa Streetcar. We've seen this movie before. We've lived it the last 20 years.

Tax Them To No End!

As the Tampa Bay elites continue to scheme behind the scenes to "invest" in our their future, they implicitly acknowledge they don't have a good way to pay for their plans.  Multiple referendums and plans to raise taxes for transportation have failed, while we are struggling to pay for the necessary improvements for water and sewer infrastructure.

Recently the news of the Rays have expressed an interest in relocating from St. Petersburg to Ybor City, with an estimated price tag of $800 million, with $650 million expected to be financed somehow. Even Tampa mayor Bob Buckhorn has no idea on how to pay for it, previously stating Tampa has no money.

But we can always to get someone else to pay for their schemes, right?

Hence, get prepared to hear plans how we can make someone else pay for it by raising hotel and rental car taxes -- make our visitors pay.

It's one of the oldest tricks in the tax raising books, and not solely the domain of Tampa Bay.

But we are already maxing out these taxes, which are already among the highest in Florida.

For example, to help pay for the Tampa International Airport "expansion" for zero net new passenger capacity, rental car surcharges were increased to the point that in some cases, the fees and taxes can exceed 100% on a 3 day car rental!

Payless rental from TIA with fees and taxes over 100%

The above screen shot shows a 3 day compact car rental booking from paylesscar.com, with a base rental rate for $30.93 for 3 days, and $35.67 in fees and taxes, for 115% fee and tax rate.

This is not unique to Tampa, as Miami airport is just under 100% for the same rental. However, Tampa does have the highest daily Customer Facility Fee at $5.95. compared to $3.26 at Orlando and $4.85 in Miami. There are some variance in the municipalities on the other taxes and fees, notably the Concession Recovery Fee, which Tampa at 9.29% is the lowest and Miami at 11% is the highest. A 9.29% tax is a good thing?

As a "smoke test" on the rental car fees and taxes, we note that the state and federal taxes in Florida are $1.34 per pack of cigarettes, in addition to the federal tax of $1.01 per pack, which purchase price averages around $6.30 per pack, for a mere 37% tax.

However, all this begs the question... How much more can we tax them?

Not to mention rental car companies are getting disrupted by ride sharing such as Uber and Lyft.

A new study out Thursday that tracks transportation choices by U.S. business travelers finds that travel by Uber, the ride-hailing startup, has surpassed rental cars. Uber accounted for 43 percent of ground transportation transactions, while rental cars had 40 percent. Led by Uber and Lyft, ride-hailing services surpassed rental cars for the first time in the fourth quarter of 2015 and have since widened their lead.

[snip]
The Certify study finds rental car transactions have fallen 15 percentage points in two years while taxis have dropped even more, by 23 percentage points over the same period. Taxis accounted for 14 percent of ground transportation transactions in the first quarter of 2016.

As we spend $1 billion on the airport Phase 1 (!), including a massive new rental car center complete with a $417 million people mover, the $5.95 daily Customer Facility Fee is expected to help recover those costs.

But with car rentals trending down, and already taxed to the max, its unclear how much increasing taxes and fees will cover costs, much less pay for more investments for us our elites.

Of course, our leaders now how to fix that.

Add more fees... on Uber and Lyft.

The Hillsborough County Aviation Authority board of directors approved contracts with rideshare companies Uber, Lyft and Wingz Thursday morning to drop off and pick up passengers at the airport. In agreeing to the contract, rideshare drivers will pay a per-trip fee of $3 for each ride beginning this month. 

The board approved a new user fee system to charge limos, taxis and rideshare companies per trip at the June board of directors meeting. User fees for ground transportation is used at many other major airports, including Orlando International Airport. The fees will rise each year, eventually to $5 a trip, in the third year.

Will it ever stop?

Perhaps there is a little hope.

In a possible blow to financing a new Tampa Bay Rays stadium in Hillsborough County, Florida House Speaker Richard Corcoran filed a lawsuit against the city of Tampa for what he called an "illegal tax" on hotel rooms.

Hillsborough County already charges 12% hotel taxes, among the highest in the state. Tampa started assessing $1.50 fee for Ybor City and Tampa hotels to further support marketing efforts, raising around $1 million per year. With some hope, of course, to expand into Hillsborough County.

If Corcoran's law suit is successful, it may hinder plans for the Rays.

That's because the financing of a new stadium may rely on another source of revenue, an entertainment tax, that could be levied on parts of the county that teem with nightlife and leisure activities. The $1.50 assessment is similar in that it is only charged in Ybor and downtown Tampa.

So far, no public funding for the Rays has been identified, and local support for increased taxes is non-existent. It is still early in the Rays relocation saga, so we are far from understanding what the Rays relocation taxing team will try next.

We are at the limit for what we are taxed for already, still waiting for roads, storm drainage and sewer fixes, while the elites are strategizing to tax us for their benefits.

The one thing we do know -- they will not give up trying to get them to pay for their profit.

But to the elites, "them" is you.

The Day Hagan Became Candidate Hagan, R - District Rays

Commissioner Ken Hagan is now Candidate Hagan, R-District Rays. How did that happen? Thru a baseball stadium escapade that began years ago. 

Candidate Ken Hagan, R-District Rays

Commissioner Hagan, a Hillsborough county commissioner since 2002, has spent at least half his time in office pursuing a new Rays baseball stadium. 

ABC (A Baseball Community) Coalition was formed in 2008 to study new sites for a new Rays stadium and according to this August 2009 article:

People can drive quickly to downtown Tampa or to the West Shore area. And Tampa's business base could support luxury suites, season tickets and corporate sponsorships. Hillsborough might explore the Rays moving to Tampa if the area is at risk of losing them to another city, County Commissioner Ken Hagan says.

The ABC Coalition provided a report and recommendation in January 2010.

It was assumed that any potential site would have a major public transportation hub when and if the system is constructed. The impact that changes in mass transportation could have on the evaluation of potential sites could be very significant.

Generally, and as a rule, private contributions to stadium construction have averaged 20 to 30% of construction costs, though wide variations exist from virtually all costs financed publicly to virtually all costs financed privately. To the extent that private funding is limited, the remaining funds must be identified through federal, state or local sources

Suddenly in February 2010, Hagan signed a letter as BOCC Chair, without informing his board colleagues, asking the ABC Coalition to present at a BOCC meeting. Some board members were not happy Hagan unilaterally did that without informing them.

This was the same time Hillsborough county commissioners were considering putting the 1% rail tax on the 2010 ballot. It was the Transportation Task Force, then led by Ken Hagan, that recommended putting the rail tax referendum on the ballot. On May 13, 2010, Hagan voted with 4 other commissioners at a public hearing to put the tax on the ballot.

Days later the ABC Coalition presented to the BOCC on May 19, 2010, the transcript is found here. Some takeaways from the presentation about a new stadium:

• Air conditioned with a retractable roof, seating capacity of 37-40K, large suites, satisfy corporate needs, need a parking ratio of 2.7 or better - about 13,000 parking spaces for capacity of 37K.
• Create an entertainment center for "fan experience" for before and after game. Entertainment experience like being at an amusement park that happens to have a baseball game going on.
• Cost estimates $500-600 million (2010 costs), Rays pay 30%, need to somehow finance $400-450 million [Costs today will approach a BILLION dollars]
• Best sites were Carillon in St. Pete, Westshore and Downtown Tampa because it is nearer to wealthier, better educated, younger people (yes that's what was said)
• Critically important is the number of people within a 30 minute drive
• Need Corporate support, throughout league 2/3 of tickets are purchased by businesses and corporations and 1/3 by individuals
• "public transportation, whenever it comes, will serve wherever the stadium is" (Remember the rail tax put on the ballot just days before conveniently identified USF to downtown and downtown to Westshore as the two rail corridors)
• TBARTA said "where ever the stadium is, we'll have a stop..."
• When Hagan asked about size needed for an urban/downtown stadium, the answer was just the stadium footprint is about 12 acres but a fully functioning stadium with parking requires from 75-90 acres.
• Commissioners were supportive as long as it does not include public financing

Hagan clearly stated at that meeting: "Well, I want to say I appreciate the comments from all the commissioners, especially those regarding not using taxpayer dollars, I've said that repeatedly, but it bears - it bears being stated again, so I appreciate that."

Hagan then proceeded to get a motion passed that "when the Rays make their long term intentions known, this Board is open and interested in having a seat at the table and being part of the discussion in an effort to ensure that the Rays remain in the Tampa Bay region."

The rail tax was overwhelmingly defeated, 58-42% in November 2010.

In 2012, it was reported in this article Hillsborough leader willing to play "boyfriend" in Rays-St. Petersburg divorce:

Hagan said he wants a more active role in moving the discussion forward, including by courting the Rays, if necessary. He even volunteered to be the boyfriend in January when he saw team president Matt Silverman at a Rays charity event in Tampa.

Hagan was again BOCC Chair in 2013.

In February 2013, these interesting reports were made:
Who owns season tickets? 

Scouring Tampa Bay for Rays season ticket holders

Both Hillsborough County Commissioner Ken Hagan and Tampa Mayor Bob Buckhorn say they stand ready to seek a stadium solution on their side of the bay. Neither has season tickets, though Hagan once did before he ran for office.

By July 2013, the Transportation Policy Leadership Group (that morphed into the Go Hillsborough debacle) kicked off their first meeting in July 2013. We posted here how that kick off meeting was filled with the rail cartel.

At a July 25, 2013 Budget Workshop, Rick Homans, who was then CEO of the Tampa-Hillsborough EDC, was allowed to present his ask for $700K of funding from the county while stating the need to build public transportation and bring a stadium to downtown to create a "happening" downtown environment. (Note citizens/taxpayers at the budget public hearing that very same day who were asking the county to fund our roads got their usual three minutes allotted for a public comment.)

By August 2013, Hagan declared the stadium issue was "borderline dire."  

...he [Hagan] had a meeting Thursday morning with County Administrator Mike Merrill and County Attorney Chip Fletcher to begin plotting Hillsborough's course of action. He said the discussion was general and ranged from discussing what organizations should be participants in a committee he hopes to form to serve as a go-between between Hillsborough officials and the Rays. The discussion also touched on upcoming talks between the county and city of Tampa about renewing redevelopment areas and special taxing districts, one of which includes downtown Tampa and areas sometimes discussed as prospective stadium locations. 

Part of the discussion focused on the state's sunshine law and ensuring that any committee created doesn't include members whose participation would trigger open meeting requirements because they serve on other boards together. Hagan said he doesn't believe that will be a problem.

What was really dire then was the neglect by the county to properly fund our local roads and infrastructure.

It was also reported in this August 6, 2013 Tribune article:

A group of chamber of commerce leaders from Tampa and St. Petersburg formed a study group called the Baseball Stadium Financing Caucus and found that paying for a stadium would be difficult, but not impossible. Last November, it released a plan that considered, among other things, increasing hotel taxes on tourists, creating a new car rental surcharge at Tampa International Airport and tapping into Hillsborough County's Community Investment Tax, which among other uses helps pay for Raymond James Stadium's bonds.

The group even contemplated a novel way to raise money from wealthy immigrants. Through a program called EB-5, would-be immigrants essentially can buy a visa from the federal government if they are willing to invest either $500,000 or $1 million in a venture that creates jobs. The developers of the Brooklyn Nets' new arena used EB-5 money to pay for some infrastructure surrounding the arena.

The biggest source of money could come from a hypothetical regional tax, in which people from several local counties would contribute to a stadium fund. However, it would be hard to get people in one county to support a tax for a stadium located in another county, said Eric Hart, executive director of the agency that runs Raymond James Stadium, the Tampa Sports Authority.

In September 2013, it was reported that Hagan had been having conversations with Jeff Vinik and his team for the past six months or so about a downtown stadium.

By September 2014, Hillsborough county had just handed Parsons Brinckerhoff/Beth Leytham their crony $1.2 million contract to lead the failed Go Hillsborough campaign for another tax hike referendum. There seems to be a consistent connection between Hagan's push for tax hikes for costly transit and his push for a new baseball stadium. 

Coincidentally, as reported here on September 27, 2014, Hagan planned to ask the commissioners at the October 1 BOCC meeting, to designate the Tampa Sports Authority to lead discussions with the Rays and he would setup a baseball committee:

If other commissioners approve, Hagan said Saturday, he would then set up a working committee to focus on finding a location for a Rays ballpark in Hillsborough, and the money to pay for it. The committee ideally would include Hagan, Tampa Mayor Bob Buckhorn, Tampa Sports Authority CEO Eric Hart, and a prominent member of the private sector, Hagan said.

The BOCC agenda for the October 1 meeting had already been distributed and sent out on  September 25, 2014, as we receive the email distribution of the BOCC agendas. Hagan's agenda item was not on the 9/25 version.

According to the article above, Hagan had told the media by at least September 27th, that he planned to bring the stadium/Tampa Sports Authority request to the October 1 meeting that begins at 9am on 10/1.

At 5:29PM on September 30, 2014 (we have the email and timestamp), this addendum was sent out adding Hagan's stadium agenda item.

Hagan throws the stadium "discussion" on the 10/1 BOCC
agenda at the very last minute
(click to enlarge)

Hagan's last minute agenda addition simply states "discussion". Discussion is a noun not a verb. Thus Hagan's agenda item, as stated. was not asking for any action to be taken. Click on the addendum link above and read all the other agenda items that are asking for action by the commissioners. They all start with a verb such as approve, terminate, adopt, authorize, conduct.

Note that Hagan's last minute agenda addition was to be considered as "Pursuant to Rule 13 of Rules of Order". Who, except the commissioners, county staff and county attorney, have any idea what that means?

Rule 13 of the county commissioners Rules of Order is found here. It provides the procedure for scheduling of BOCC agenda items. Basically, commissioners are not supposed to throw agenda items out requesting action by commissioners without proper notice and background information, except for some type of emergency issues like public safety, health, etc. We doubt many think a baseball stadium "discussion" is an emergency no matter how "dire" Hagan may have thought it was.

But Rule 13 also states:

Commissioners may raise substantive, off-the-agenda matters only in instances where the County Administrator has been provided prior written notice thereof not later than 3:00 p.m. on the Friday preceding the regular Board meeting held the following week. Any item not meeting these guidelines, except for emergencies and external deadlines outlined above, will be scheduled on the subsequent Board meeting. 

The addendum to the Board’s agenda must be made available to the Board and to the public at least 48 hours prior to the Board meeting. 

Obviously, the addendum was not made available to the public 48 hours prior to the October 1 Board meeting.

According to the transcript of the October 1, 2014 BOCC meeting, Merrill told the commissioners that Hagan's agenda item for a "discussion" to designate the Tampa Sports Authority as the agency to negotiate with the Rays stadium was added "pursuant" to Rule 13. That does not appear to be true because Miller, a stickler for rules of order, immediately made a motion to "waive" the rules for item F-1. The motion was seconded by Beckner and passed unanimously to legitimize Hagan's agenda item.

We highlighted parts of the October 1, 2014 BOCC meeting transcript but below are some  takeaways:

• Hagan tells the commissioners they will be discussing extending the downtown CRA at the next BOCC meeting and stating it will have "long-term implications to redeveloping downtown but also as it relates to funding options regarding a potential stadium. 

• Hagan almost immediately turns his late agenda item labeled "discussion" (noun) into a substantive ask for action. Hagan asks commissioners to "approve" designating the Tampa Sports Authority as the organization tasked with negotiating with the Rays. Did the commissioners know they were going to be asked to take action on Hagan's agenda item and not just discuss? 

• Hagan proceeds to appoint himself to represent the county, appoint Mayor Buckhorn to represent Tampa, appoint Eric Hart, President/CEO of the Tampa Sports Authority. These three would then select some unnamed private sector representatives. Hagan makes his motion to do all this and Commissioner Murman immediately seconds. There is discussion about Sunshine (how to go around Sunshine laws), having minority representation, and about this action is supposedly only a "first step" in a multi step effort. Commissioners got Hagan's assurance that he will provide updates back to the commission and they will have input. (How did that work out?)

The entire premise for designating the Tampa Sports Authority as the agency to negotiate with the Rays was to ensure there were no Sunshine law challenges aka keeping everyone in the dark, including as we now know, Hagan's commissioner colleagues.

October 1, 2014 is now declared the day that Commissioner Hagan became Candidate Hagan, R-District Rays.

Stay tuned for updates about the Rays Candidate.

And as always follow the money.

Incompetence and Deception With Trying to Sue Their Constituents

As reported by WTSP and Florida Politics, Hillsborough county commissioners chillingly voted 4-3 on Commissioner Hagan's request at the November 15, 2017 BOCC meeting to use taxpayer money to seek reimbursement from those who filed ethics complaints against Hagan. 

There may be some issues and definitely some questions with what exactly the commissioners were approving regarding Agenda item A-69. 

Hagan inserted his retribution agenda item
on the Consent Agenda
(Click to enlarge)

The Eye has obtained a copy of a recent email sent to all Hillsborough county commissioners and the county attorney from citizen activist Tom Rask.

The entire email with its attachments can be found here.

An excerpt of this email is below:

To: Hillsborough County Commission 

Cc: County attorney Chip Fletcher, General Counsel Mary Helen Farris 

Bcc: interested citizens

The write-up for last week's agenda item A-69 says that "three ethics complaints were filed against Commissioner Hagan." This claim that there were three (3) is factually incorrect. There were in fact four complaints, not three [1]. 

Out of this misstatement of fact arises the critical question: which three complainants out of the four did the BoCC authorize to seek to recover costs and attorney fees from? No one is named in the write-up, and comm. Hagan only named George Niemann in his verbal remarks [2]. 

It is thus impossible to determine exactly who the BoCC authorized action to be taken against.

Therefore, the item must be brought before the commission again, and either voted on again or simply voided.

1] Having made a public records request for those complaints from the Florida Commission on Ethics after your vote, I attach those four complaints for your convenience. I have also attached the final public report in which those four complaints are specifically referenced by their tracking numbers.

[2] Comm. Hagan's added to the confusion by verbally stating the following during the board's discussion before the vote:

"Now that its been shown that the genesis of this current complaint was less than honorable, the Complainant should make the county taxpayers whole". 

Note that comm. Hagan spoke in the singular, not the plural. Hagan was speaking of George Neimann. But who else did Hagan want to seek redress against? He did not say.

As always, thank you for your time. 

Regards,

Tom Rask

Hagan deceptively inserted his retribution request in the Consent Agenda of the November 15, 2017 BOCC meeting trying to ensure there would be no public discussion. Hagan did not even attach copies of the complaints to the agenda item as background information for the commissioners.

Thanks to Commissioner White who pulled Agenda item A-69 from the Consent Agenda to force discussion and to vote separately.

The Consent Agenda is supposed to be used for approval of regular or routine issues that come before the board, or matters where no debate is anticipated. Consent Agenda's are an efficiency tool to be used for non-controversial routine items that can be approved with one action, instead of separately filed motions for each item.

Hagan's request was not routine and certainly not without controversy. This item obviously did not belong on the Consent Agenda. But it does add fuel to our criticism that the Consent Agenda is being abused to ram thru non-routine items that should be transparently discussed and voted on separately.

All four complainants names were in the media reporting of the commission vote. 

The commissioners must answer the question what specifically they thought they were approving and who were they pursuing. Is Hagan and his commission colleagues pursuing reimbursements from 3 complainants, 4 complainants or just one complainant?

Yet another mess down at County Center.

County Commission Candidates Haselden and Paradies Hold Fund Raisers Next Week

Voters in Tampa Bay take note! Fundraisers are scheduled next week for two new candidates running for county commission seats in Tampa Bay. 

On Saturday, November 11th, a fundraiser for Barbara Haselden, Candidate for Pinellas County Commission, District 6, is being held at the home of John and Betsi Burgess from 5:30-7:30pm.  Invite with the logistics and to RSVP is found here.

Fundraiser for Barb Haseldon November 11, 2017
at Burgess home

Barb Haselden is a successful businesswoman and a champion for the taxpayer who led the successful No Tax For Tracks Pinellas campaign that saved Pinellas taxpayers at least $2 Billion. Haselden promises to pursue getting term limits on the ballot again. Term limits were passed in Pinellas County by 73% in 1996 but got tied up in legal technicalities and they were never implemented. Haselden's campaign website is found here to find more information and to hit her donate button. 

On Wednesday, November 15, a fundraiser for Chris Paradies, Candidate for Hillsborough County Commission, District 2, is being held at the Northdale Country Club from 5:30-7:30pm. Invite is below.

Fundraiser for Chris Paradies November 15, 2017
at Northdale Country Club

Chris Paradies is a West Point graduate who has a PHD and a law degree. He is a small business owner and practices intellectual property law. Paradies states he will fight for the forgotten taxpayer, implement cost savings and bring innovation to County Center. Paradies supports term limits and believes those limits should be respected. Paradies's campaign website is here to find more information and to his donate button

Both candidates are working to get on the ballot by petition. Help them out. Take the opportunities to meet these two new candidates, sign their petition and donate to their campaigns.

Time is ripe for a breath of fresh air for voters in Hillsborough and Pinellas to have real alternatives to the status quo.

Another County Mess: Taxation Without Representation

The Hillsborough county commission has created another mess. 

They continue to waive one of their own policies that has no waiver provision provided in it. In addition, the commissioners ignored the intentions of a Charter that created an independent special taxing district.

Why? Because they or someone(s) wants control of that taxing entity. The timing is not coincidental since it relates to the Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority (HART).

What the commissioners have done as a result of their recent HART Board appointments is disenfranchise HART's property taxpayers who reside in  unincorporated Hillsborough.

First, the background information.

Independent special districts have limited explicit - not implied - authority specified in its charter. 

Statutes, charters and policies provide the requirements, criteria and governance for establishing Boards, Committees, Authorities, Councils or Agencies and who may get appointed to them. In the interest of fairness, proportional and equitable representation is often a requirement, especially if the Board will be providing governance and oversight of a taxing authority.

Florida Statute 163.567 enabled the creation HART by allowing a home rule Charter to establish the transit agency. HART was founded in 1980 by a local Charter approved in 1979 by the county commission of Hillsborough and the city council of Tampa. 

HART's Charter defines a HART Member as "the unincorporated areas of a county or the incorporated areas of a municipality if such county or municipality has been admitted to membership the Authority.." 

HART's Charter states each HART member shall appoint one Director plus one additional Director for each 150,000 persons, or major fraction thereof, resident in that member's jurisdictional limits. In addition to those Board members, the Governor of Florida shall appoint two Directors.

HART's Charter specifies they are a special taxing district and may levy an ad valorem (property) tax not to exceed one half mill ($.0005) on taxable property within the jurisdictional limits of its members. Current jurisdictional members of HART include city of Tampa, city of Temple Terrace and unincorporated Hillsborough County. Plant City is not a member of HART and Plant City residents do not pay HART's property tax. 

To abide by the Charter's intent of ensuring equitable and proportional representation on the HART Board who oversees this taxing authority, Hillsborough County has a policy that appointees to the HART Board by the Hillsborough County commissioners MUST reside in unincorporated. From the county's website regarding HART Board applicants (emphasis mine):

Citizens appointed to this board must reside in the unincorporated area of Hillsborough County. 

In addition, according to Board of County Commissioners BOCC POLICY - SECTION NUMBER 0 1 . 3 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 for Appointing and/or Confirming Nominations of Citizens, Agency/Government Body Representatives, or Staff to any Board, Council, Committee and Authority (emphasis mine):

..applicants for certain boards/councils undergo background checks and/or be residents of the unincorporated area of Hillsborough County. All applicants must be residents of the state of Florida. 

In an effort to have boards/councils that include citizens who represent the entire county, the BOCC shall largely consider race, gender, and those citizens who actively participate in the community when making appointments and/or confirming nominations. Unless specifically approved by the Board of County Commissioners, no citizen may serve on more than one committee at a time. 

If an applicant does not meet the relevant requirements the application shall be rejected.  

Residency for appointment/confirmation applicants. The Board of County Commissioners has not established a general residency requirement for all board, council, committee, and/or authority appointments. However, citizens seeking appointments to the following boards councils, committees, or authorities shall reside in the unincorporated area of Hillsborough County.

• Code Enforcement Board 

• Code Enforcement Special Magistrate  

• Cross Connection, Backflow & Back-Siphonage Control Board  

• Enterprise Zone Development Agency 11 

• Hillsborough County City-County Planning Commission 

• Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority  

• Historic Resources Review Board  

• Land Use Appeals Board  

• Nuisance Abatement Board – at least five (5) members 

• Tampa Sports Authority * 

• Water Conservation Technical Advisory Committee  

*Unincorporated residency requirements for the Tampa Sports Authority only may specifically be waived by the Board of County Commissioners (see Waiver Procedure below).  

ARTICLE V. WAIVER PROCEDURE The notice of a vacant position for the Tampa Sports Authority shall include a statement informing the public that the Board of County Commissioners has the authority to waive its unincorporated residency requirement, that, notwithstanding residency status, all citizens may apply; and that all names shall be presented to the Board of County Commissioners for consideration. The Boards and Councils Coordinator shall list all names on the ballot and identify those persons who met the residency requirement and those who did not.

Note: there is only a residency waiver procedure for appointments to the Tampa Sports Authority. 

Since 2012, based on population, there are thirteen HART Board members, appointed as follows:

• City of Temple Terrace - 1
• City of Tampa - 3
• Unincorporated Hillsborough - 7
• Gubernatorial - 2

Now let's review the unincorporated Hillsborough appointments made by the county commissioners since 2012.

The make up of the 7 HART Board members representing unincorporated in 2012 included 3 electeds, Beckner (lived in unincorporated), Murman and Sharpe (both lived in city of Tampa), and 4 citizen appointees Wallace Bowers, Karen Jaroch, Ann Madden and Steve Polzin who all lived in unincorporated Hillsborough.

Then along came the county's Policy Leadership Group (PLG) transportation initiative in 2014 led by the unelected County Mayor Mike Merrill.

Everything that is done down at County Center is in context.... 

About the same time that Ann Madden resigned from HART on June 16, 2014, Merrill was proposing a hostile takeover of HART by all electeds and creating some transportation super agency - see our post here. 

The commissioners never sought a citizen appointee to replace Madden, who lived in unincorporated and resigned June 16, 2014. 

Instead they sneakily used a July 31, 2014 Budget Workshop meeting, where public comment is not normally allowed and actions are not supposed to be taken, to appoint Madden's replacement on HART. That agenda item was added at the last minute to a meeting that had been publicly noticed as a Workshop.

This action occurred coincidentally right before the county handed Parsons Brinckerhoff their crony contract to launch the Go Hillsborough tax hike campaign.

The Eye reported about the county commissioners shenanigans on July 31, 2014 in this post Sneaking in Les:

There was an interesting non-budget item added to the Budget Reconciliation agenda, not on the original agenda, created by Commission Chair Mark Sharpe or County Administrator Mike Merrill, to fill an open seat on the HART Board. A BOCC citizen appointee to the HART Board, Anne Madden, resigned on June 16, and the Board needed to approve a new appointee. 

They have 20 days to fill vacancies accord to the law. 

There have been 2 BOCC meetings since Maddens' resignation. 

45 days is my count. Reading through the statute above, can the Commission even make a legal appointment now? 

Yet they waited for a Budget Reconciliation workshop to take up filling a HART Board vacancy? 

They did not follow the law.

And they even knew they weren't following the rules because the workshop agenda noted they were supposed to have filled the vacancy within 20 days of the resignation.

July 31, 2014 Budget Workshop improperly used for
HART Board appointment (click to enlarge)

In perfect orchestration at that workshop, Sandy Murman nominated Les Miller and Kevin Beckner seconded her nomination. The commissioners voted 5-1 to appoint Miller, who lives in the city of Tampa, to replace Madden, who lived in unincorporated south county. Higginbotham was absent and Crist voted no. 

Appointing Commissioner Miller to the HART Board changed the balance of the HART board. It tilted it toward more county electeds and more Board members who live in the city of Tampa. 

As of 8/1/2014, the 7 HART Board members representing unincorporated consisted of 4 electeds (Beckner, Miller, Murman, Sharpe) with only Beckner living in unincorporated Hillsborough and 3 citizens (Jaroch, Polzin, Bowers) who all lived in unincorporated. 

What happened next?

The three citizen appointees terms were expiring in November 2014. In October 2014, 17 applicants had submitted applications for a county appointment to HART Board. All three citizen appointees (Bowers, Jaroch, Polzin) applied to be reappointed. Steve Polzin is our local transit expert who works at CUTR, our own transportation think tank at USF.

Having a transit expert on HART Board makes total common sense. And Polzin lives in unincorporated Lutz, satisfying the residency requirement.

Apparently not to the county commissioners. There were some political games to play. This appointment was occurring during the PLG transportation effort when Parsons Brinckerhoff had just been awarded their crony contract to kick off Go Hillsborough. 

Find all 17 HART Board applications here. A note below was included in the board packet of HART Board applicants stating that the BOCC can simply waive the residency requirement with their vote, without any discussion or a motion passed to do so. 

The commissioner's own BOCC policy 01.30.00.00 provides for a residency waiver only for Tampa Sports Authority appointments. When did the commissioners approve changing their policy to waive residency requirements for HART appointments? Or does Mike Merrill and the commissioners just make stuff up to fit an agenda?

According to the transcript of the October 15 BOCC meeting, there was no motion or discussion to waive their own policy. The commissioners just voted.
  
They reappointed Jaroch and Bowers, who lived in unincorporated and appointed Mickey Jacobs, who lives on Harbour Island in the city of Tampa. 

Jacobs is an architect who is a member of the Downtown Partnership and Tampa Chamber. According to this October 16, 2014 Times article 

Jacob's experience as an architect made him a favorable option because of his focus on economic development, a key issue for the area.

The county commissioners tossed Steve Polzin off HART who was the only transit expert on the transit authority board for someone who's focus is economic development. 

By October 2014 the HART Board tilted more towards members who lived in the city of Tampa. Only 3 of the 7 county appointed HART Board members lived in unincorporated. 

Subsequently Commissioner Sharpe was term limited and Stacy White elected in November 2014. White, who lives in unincorporated, replaced Sharpe on HART Board.

Then in November 2016 Beckner was term limited and Pat Kemp was elected. Kemp who lives in the city of Tampa replaced Beckner (who lived in unincorporated) on HART. 

What happened next?

The three citizen appointees terms were expiring in November 2017. Two of the three county citizen appointees, Jaroch and Bowers who both live in unincorporated, reapplied and Mickey Jacobs, who lived in the city of Tampa, did not reapply. 

The county received only 7 applications which can be found here. Again there is a note in the Board packet that the commissioners can simply waive their own residency requirement. 

Note to commissioners regarding residency requirement
for HART Board appointees

The commissioners actions were perfectly orchestrated again at the October 18, 2017 BOCC meeting. When the appointee agenda item came up, Commissioner Miller immediately made a motion to waive the residency requirement and Commissioner Murman seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0. 

This go round the commissioners formally passed a motion instead of just voting as they did in 2014. But there was no discussion about the motion - it just passed unanimously 7-0. 

The HART Board appointee vote then proceeded as follows:

• White chose Karen Jaroch, Marvin Knight, David Mechanik
• Murman chose Adam Harden, Marvin Knight, David Mechanik.  
• Miller chose Wallace Bowers, Marvin Knight, David Mechanik
• Crist chose Wallace Bowers, Karen Jaroch, David Mechanik
• Hagan chose Adam Harden, Marvin Knight, David Mechanick
• Kemp chose Adam Harden, Marvin Knight, David Mechanik
• Higginbotham chose Adam Harden, Karen Jaroch, David Mechanik

Murman prefaced her vote by some carefully worded mumbo jumbo about the two current board members being on the board quite a while and she wanted to rotate her appointments. Wallace Bowers had been on the board for about 18 years but Karen Jaroch had served for 6 years, less time than Sandy. 

Jaroch was the only county citizen appointee that was a woman and Murman tossed her off to vote for 3 males. We found this Times article highlighted on Murman's campaign website about her efforts to help women get appointed to committees and boards and that women should be helping each other.

That was 2014. Do those statements still mean anything or just more mumbo jumbo? 

Ironically, David Mechanik already had served as a city of Tampa HART Board appointee for 16 years between 1994 and 2011 - so much for worrying about being on the HART Board for "quite a while".....And Mechanik, who all 7 commissioners voted for, was on HART Board when HART gave us the Alternatives Analysis for the 2010 rail tax that was overwhelmingly defeated.
Hmmm.....

Three males, including Adam Harden and David Mechanik, who both live in the city of Tampa, and Marvin Knight, who lives in unincorporated were appointed to the HART Board October 18th. The county commissioners tossed Bowers and Jaroch, who live in unincorporated and abide by the residency requirements, off of HART Board. They were replaced by 2 appointees who live in the city of Tampa. 

According to the University of Florida BEBR, about 50% of Hillsborough county's population is female. The only county citizen appointee who was a woman and officially qualified, according to county policy and the Charter by living in unincorporated, was not reappointed. No woman was appointed by the county.

The commissioners could have delayed their HART Board appointments if they had wanted more applicants. They did not and that is telling. 

How did their actions impact the representation of the governing board of this independent special taxing district?

Five of the 7 (over 71%) of the HART Board members appointed to represent HART's unincorporated jurisdiction reside in the city of Tampa. An overwhelming majority, 10 of 13 or 77% of all the HART Board members reside in the municipalities of Tampa and one member from Temple Terrace. That leaves 3 of 13 or 23% of the Board members who reside in unincorporated.

Over 2/3 (67%) of the total population of Hillsborough county resides in unincorporated and about 2/3 of the property taxes paid to HART comes from unincorporated and the city of Tampa receives most of HART's services. 

The issue is the HART Board is totally upside down now with regards to who is paying the vast majority of HART's taxes and the overwhelmingly majority of HART Board members governing HART who reside in city of Tampa. 

HART's Charter clearly defines HART members as unincorporated OR incorporated municipalities that have been admitted. We are not lawyers but the use of the word "or" represents alternatives (apples or pears) when separating nouns. "Or" is used for exclusiveness because unincorporated Hillsborough or an incorporated municipality could withdraw as a member of HART. 

HART's financial documents, as seen in their 2016 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) includes the following:

It [HART] was originally chartered for the purpose of providing mass transit service to two charter members, the City of Tampa and the unincorporated areas of Hillsborough County

The commissioners have created another mess. Their own policy that requires HART Board appointments must live in unincorporated has no waiver provision. They just made it up. Merrill used the waiver procedure that county policy states is only for Tampa Sports Authority appointments on the board packet for the HART Board appointments.

It's never a good idea to simply waive policies without any discussion of the ramifications. Policies are put in place for a reason, especially policies affecting a governing board of an independent special taxing district created by a governing Charter.

Did the commissioners also violate HART's Charter? That is a legal question that should be answered. 

Is a remedy needed? Does anyone have standing to sue the county?

At the very least, taxpayers in unincorporated should put a microscope on HART and watch their every action.

This mess smells. The timing is not a coincidence. We can certainly speculate why some politicos want to stack HART Board with those who reside in the city of Tampa at the same time numerous transit initiatives are underway in Tampa Bay. Special interests....

This time the commissioners created an issue of taxation without proportional and equitable representation. Their actions have disenfranchised the vast majority of HART's property taxpayers who reside in unincorporated Hillsborough. 

No wonder there is little or no trust left with County Center.