Members: Clinton B. Forbes, FPTA Board Chair Kurt Scheible, FPTA Vice Chair Michelle Arnold, FPTA Secretary/Treasurer Jesus Gomez, FTAFC Chair Murriah Dekle, FPTA Past Chair Lisa Bacot, Executive Director, Non-Voting Member
FPTA Quarterly Meeting March 31, 2021 9:00 am – 12:30 pm Hotel Duval 415 N. Monroe Street, Tallahassee, FL 32301 Opal Ballroom (Lower Level) and Held Virtually: Zoom Meeting – Must Register in Advance for the Link
Breakfast served at 8:30 am for In-Person Attendees Item Time Agenda Item Discussion Leader Number 1. 9:00 am Opening: Clinton B. Forbes, a) Call To Order FPTA Chair b) New General Manager’s and Board Members: • Adelee LeGrand, HART • Michael Carman, SunRail • Lisa Marie Glover, City of Fort Lauderdale’s Transportation Division Manager and Nina Verzosa, SunTrolley • Jimmy Morales, Miami-Dade Transit (Interim) • Peggy Brassard, Martin County (Interrim) • Terry Jordan, SCAT- Brevard (Interim) Jeff Kramer, MPOAC (Interim) c) Roll Call 2. 9:15 am Action Needed- Consent Agenda: Clinton B. Forbes, a. Minutes- October 5, 2020 FPTA Chair b. Bronze Sponsorship of International Conference the Association for Commuter Transportation 3. 9:20 am Introduction of Brad Thoburn, FDOT Clinton B. Forbes, Assistant Secretary- Strategic FPTA Chair Development
4. 9:35 am Update on 2018 Transit-Related Voter Christina Barker, All Referendums For Transportation and
Page 1 Members: Clinton B. Forbes, FPTA Board Chair Kurt Scheible, FPTA Vice Chair Michelle Arnold, FPTA Secretary/Treasurer Jesus Gomez, FTAFC Chair Murriah Dekle, FPTA Past Chair Lisa Bacot, Executive Director, Non-Voting Member
Item Time Agenda Item Discussion Leader Number Tim Garling, Broward County Transit 5. 9:50 am Legislative Update Jim Magill and Mark Kruse, Government Affairs, Buchanan Ingersoll and Rooney 6. 10:15 am FTAFC Update Jesus Gomez, FTAFC President
7. 10:30 am Action Needed- Treasurer’s Report Michelle Arnold, • FY 20-21 Budget Update Treasurer • Statement of Financial Position 8. 10:45 am Action Needed- Annual Review of Clinton B. Forbes, Bacot Consulting, LLC Contract FPTA Chair
9. 11:00 am Ex-Officio & Business Member • FDOT, Liz Stutts Reports • CUTR, Lisa Staes • CTD, David Darm • MPOAC, Jeff Kramer • Floridians for Better Transportation, Sally Patrenos • Business Class, Harry White, Luminator & Robert Frick, FTS
10. 11:45 am Executive Director Items: Lisa Bacot, Executive • Status of Events/Virtual Director Conference • Strategic Plan Update • Other Informational Updates
Page 2 Members: Clinton B. Forbes, FPTA Board Chair Kurt Scheible, FPTA Vice Chair Michelle Arnold, FPTA Secretary/Treasurer Jesus Gomez, FTAFC Chair Murriah Dekle, FPTA Past Chair Lisa Bacot, Executive Director, Non-Voting Member
Item Time Agenda Item Discussion Leader Number 11. 12:00 pm Round the State: All Transit Systems • Status of Operations due to COVID-19 • Ridership Levels • Vaccine Updates • Other Related Updates
12. 12:30 pm Adjournment Clinton B. Forbes, Lunch will be Served FPTA Chair
Next FPTA Board Meeting Will be Held:
FPTA Board Meeting: June 10, 2021 9:00 am- 12:00 pm Location TBD
Page 3 FPTA BOARD OF DIRECTORS & VOTING MEMBERS UPDATED 2/22/21 Yellow highlighter designates FPTA Leadership/Executive Committee
Tier 1 (Budgets of $36 million or more) All are Voting Members (9 Members) Tim Garling, Broward County Transit (BCT) X Jim Harrison, Central Florida Regional Transit Authority (LYNX)/Tiffany Homler- X Hawkins Adelee Le Grand, CEO, Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority X (HART)/Lorena Hardwick Nathaniel Ford, Jacksonville Transportation Authority (JTA)/Cleveland Ferguson X Jimmy Morales (Interim), Miami-Dade Transit (MDT)/Robert Villar X Clinton Forbes, PalmTran, FPTA Chair X Brad Miller, Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority (PSTA) X Steve Abrams, South Florida Regional Transportation Authority (Tri-Rail)/Andrew X Watt Charles M. Heffinger, Jr., P.E./Michael Carman, SunRail X Tier 2 (Budgets of $4 million - $36 million) Six are Voting Members Michelle Arnold, Collier Area Transit (CAT), FPTA Treasurer X Tonya Ellis, Escambia County Area Transit (ECAT) X Jesus Gomez, Gainesville RTS, FTAFC Chair X Robert Codie, Lee County Transit (LeeTran) Bill Steele, Manatee County Transit (MCAT) Kurt Scheible, Pasco County Public Transportation, FPTA Vice Chair X Tom Phillips, Polk County - Citrus Connection Jane Grogg (Interim), Sarasota County Area Transit (SCAT- Sarasota) Terry Jordan (Interim), Space Coast Area Transit (SCAT- Brevard) X Angela Baldwin, StarMetro (Tallahassee)/Bill Hearndon Kelvin Miller, Votran X Tier 3 (Budgets of less than $4 million) Five are Voting Members Angela Bradley, Bay Town Trolley/Lamar Hobbs X Richard Kolar, Charlotte County Area Transit Joe DeGeorge, Hernando County Karen Deigl, Indian River County Transit (GoLine)/Chris Stephenson X Rod Delostrinos, Key West DOT X Jill Brown, Lake County Public Transportation (LakeXpress) Peggy Brassard (Interim), Martin County Public Transit Booker “Tyrone” Parker, Okaloosa County Transit- Not paid dues Murriah Dekle, St Lucie County Transit, FPTA Past Chair X Rachel Garvey/Phong Nguyen, St. Johns County/Sunshine Bus Nina Verzosa, Sun Trolley Steven Neal, SunTran (Ocala) X Tier 4 (CTC Members) Three are Voting Members Chris Harvey, Baker County Transit Shawn Mitchell, Big Bend Transit X Sharon Peeler, JTrans X
Page 4 Connie Conley, Levy County Transit X Scott Clark, Sunshine Line (Hillsborough CTC) Larry Sessions, Suwannee Valley Transit Authority Boyd Thompson, Ride Solution (Putnam CTC)
Business Members
Voting Business Members Harry White Apollo Video Technology/Luminator Robert Frick Florida Transportation Systems
Non-Voting, Ex-Officio Members
Non Voting, Ex-Officio Members Liz Stutts Florida Department of Transportation Lisa Staes Center for Urban Transportation Research David Darm Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged Jeff Kramer (Interim) Metropolitan Planning Organization Advisory Council Sally Patrenos Floridians for Better Transportation
Page 5 Florida Public Transportation Association ANNUAL Board Meeting Minutes October 5, 2020 @ 1:30 p.m. via Zoom Webinar
Meeting called to Order: The meeting was called to order at 1:33 pm via Zoom Webinar.
In attendance: The following were in attendance:
On Phone/Zoom Video Conference: Murriah Dekle, Brad Miller, Jesus Gomez, Clinton Forbes, Jim Harrison, Cleveland Ferguson, Alberto Parjus (for Miami-Dade Transit), Tim Garling, Andrew Watt, Steven Neal, Harry White, Elizabeth Stutts, Karen Deigl, Andrew Watt (for SFRTA), Angela Baldwin, Kelvin Miller, Angela Bradley, Rod Delostronis, David Darm, Michelle Arnold, Jane Grogg, Vicky Perk (CUTR), and Lisa Bacot.
Others Present: Joel Volinksi, Dana Rieding (FDOT), Bill Hearndon (StarMetro), William Slot (LYNX), Paul Strobis (BCT) and others
Consent Agenda • Minutes from August 20, 2020 Meeting
Action Taken: A motion was made by Karen Deigl to approve the Consent Agenda; it was seconded by Brad Miller. Motion passed unanimously.
Florida Transportation Plan (FTP) Update
Dana Rieding, FDOT, gave an update to the Florida Transportation Plan. Karen Deigl serves on the Committee for FPTA.
FPTA Hall of Fame
Joel Volinski gave a brief presentation on why Rob Gregg should be inducted into the FPTA Hall of Fame for 2020.
Action Taken: A motion was made by Jesus Gomez to approve Rob Gregg as the 2020 FPTA Hall of Fame Winner; it was seconded by Brad Miller. Motion passed unanimously.
Page 6 Treasurer’s Report
Lisa Bacot gave the Treasurer’s Report for Kurt Scheible. She discussed the current Budget vs Actuals and the Statement of Financial Position. She also noted several events have been re- scheduled or cancelled due to Coronavirus concerns, which has not had that much of an impact on our budget, given many of the events FPTA pays a large sum to hold.
Action Taken: Motion was made by Clinton Forbes and seconded by Karen Deigl to approve the Treasurer’s Report. Motion passed unanimously.
Annual Meeting
Lisa Bacot gave an overview of how the Annual Meeting is to be conducted. Each Tier must select their voting members for the Board of Directors. Lisa Bacot also announced that Michelle Arnold was voted as the new Treasurer.
Below are the new Voting Members of the Board of Directors:
• Tier 1- All Members
• Tier 2 (6 Members)- Collier Area Transit, Escambia County Area Transit, Gainesville RTS, Pasco County, Space Coast Area Transit, and Votran.
• Tier 3 (5 Members)- Bay Town Trolley, Key West Transit, Indian River/GoLine, St. Lucie County Transit, and SunTran.
• Tier 4 (3 Members)- JTrans, Levy County, and Big Bend Transit
Action Taken: Motion was made by Cleveland Ferguson and seconded by Jesus Gomez to approve the new slate of FPTA Officers and Voting Members on the FPTA Board. Motion passed unanimously.
2021 Legislative Platform Lisa Bacot discussed the proposed 2021 Legislative Platform.
Ex-Officio & Business Class Member Reports Ex-Officio & Business Class Members gave their reports.
Florida Department of Transportation – Liz Stutts gave an update for FDOT, she noted that Secretary Thibault has been visiting several transit systems and that he will be speaking at the opening session for our Virtual Conference and will provide a full update from FDOT.
Page 7 Center for Urban Transportation Research- Vicky Perk gave a CUTR update from Lisa Staes and noted their Awards Presentation, which will be held virtually in November.
Metropolitan Planning Organization Advisory Council- Carl Mikyska was not present.
Floridians for Better Transportation – Sally Patrenos was not present.
Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged- David Darm discussed numerous items involving the CTD, most notably the Allocation Study that the Commission has been working on. He noted they had a lot of participation and held many public workshops. He stated that the CTD will be discussing this issue at their October meeting and encouraged FPTA members to participate.
Business Members- Harry White stated that the business members ae looking forward to the Virtual Conference and hope that everyone participates.
Executive Director Report Lisa Bacot gave an update on the Virtual Conference:
• An overview of the Virtual Annual Conference, including the number of registered attendees, registered exhibitors and sponsors and other highlights of the week.
Round the State
All transit systems discussed their current situation regarding COVID-19, such as their ridership levels, their mitigation efforts, fare collection, local government reductions, etc.
Meeting Adjourned: The Chair adjourned the meeting at 3:49 p.m.
Page 8 International Conference Sponsorship Levels
Platinum Diamond Gold Ruby Silver Bronze
Sponsorship Benefits Limit 2 Limit 4 Limit 8 Limit 10 No limit No limit
$20,000* $15,000* $10,000* $7,500* $5,000* $2,500*
Complimentary full registrations ($825 value) 6 4 4 3 2 1
Logo on sponsors signage at conference X X X X X X
Ad in conference program Full Page 1/2 page 1/2 page
One (1) promotional flyer or item in conference bag+ X X X X
Event list of attendees Pre/Post Pre/Post Pre/Post Post Post Additional discount on Special Conference Sponsor- 25% 25% 25% 10% ship Opportunities (see next page) Exhibit booth or 2 additional registrations X X X X X
Reserved theme table with signage X X
Opportunity to moderate session of choice X X Opportunity to sponsor session (including logo in pro- gram and signage during session (must sponsor by 1 1 April)
One (1) of the following Enhanced Opportunities (based on availability): - Lanyard X X - Exhibitor Happy Hour X or one of the or one of the - Afternoon Break items from items from - Member Center Premier Premier - Selfie Wall
Premier Opportunities for Platinum & Diamond - Conference App - Conference Bag Available - Registration X X after April - Attendee Wifi 1 - Opening Reception - Breakfast Keynote Speakers - Climate / Sustainability
Page 9 Complimentary Meeting Room in Hotel for 1 hour X *Non-Members add 10% Supreme Court of Florida
______
No. SC19-1250 ______
ROBERT EMERSON, et al., Appellants.
vs.
HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA, etc., et al., Appellees.
______
No. SC19-1343 ______
STACY WHITE, Appellant.
vs.
HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA, etc., et al., Appellees.
February 25, 2021
CANADY, C.J.
In these consolidated cases we consider the constitutional validity of an amendment to the Hillsborough County Charter that was adopted in an initiative election. Through that charter amendment the voters approved both a
Page 10 transportation surtax and elaborate directives for allocating the tax proceeds. But the spending directives are unconstitutional in that they conflict with a state law that gives the county commission the authority to allocate such funds. Because it cannot reasonably be said that the voters would have approved the tax without the accompanying spending plan, we must strike the charter amendment in its entirety.
I. Background
The charter amendment enacted a one percent transportation sales surtax coupled with various provisions governing the distribution and use of the proceeds of the tax. Subsequently, the Hillsborough County Commission entered an interlocal agreement “deem[ing] appropriate” the allocation of funds provided for in the charter amendment. The commission then authorized the issuance of bonds to be funded by a portion of the proceeds of the surtax. We have for review a judgment of the circuit court validating the bonds. See art. V, § 3(b)(2), Fla. Const.
And we have accepted pass-through jurisdiction—based on the Second District
Court of Appeal’s certification that the case involved issues of great public importance requiring immediate resolution by this Court—of a judgment of the circuit court in a declaratory judgment action brought by opponents of the charter amendment, which upheld the surtax levy but invalidated portions of the charter amendment governing the use and distribution of surtax proceeds. See id. art. V,
§ 3(b)(5).
Page 11 The circuit court based its invalidation of portions of the charter amendment on a conflict between the amendment and section 212.055(1), Florida Statutes
(2018), the statute authorizing enactment of the local transportation surtax by referendum, which specifically grants the county commission discretion concerning the application of surtax proceeds within the statutory framework.
Although the circuit court invalidated significant portions of the charter amendment related to the allocation and use of tax proceeds, it nonetheless upheld the validity of the surtax and certain other elements of the amendment, reasoning that the surtax and the other provisions it found valid could properly be severed from the invalid portions.
Contending that the trial court erred in its decision to sever the surtax and other provisions of the amendment from those parts of the amendment that it determined to be unconstitutional, the Appellants seek reversal of both trial court judgments. Hillsborough County and Appellees/Cross-Appellants contend that the trial court should have upheld the charter amendment in its entirety, arguing in the alternative that the portions of the amendment severed and upheld by the trial court—most importantly, the surtax levy—should not be disturbed.
We conclude that the charter amendment transgresses the authority reserved to the county commission by the surtax statute and that no portion of the amendment could properly be severed. Therefore, we reverse the declaratory
Page 12 judgment to the extent that it upholds any portion of the charter amendment, and we reverse the bond validation judgment, which necessarily falls with the invalidation of the surtax.
II. The Surtax Statute
Section 212.055(1)(a) authorizes charter counties to “levy a discretionary sales surtax, subject to approval by a majority vote of the electorate of the county or by a charter amendment approved by a majority vote of the electorate of the county.” The discretionary surtax may be levied at a rate “up to 1 percent,”
§ 212.055(1)(b), and any “proposal to adopt a discretionary sales tax . . . must be approved in a referendum held at a general election,” § 212.055(1)(c)1. Of crucial importance to the issues presented in this case is the provision of section
212.055(1)(d) that the “[p]roceeds from the surtax shall be applied to as many or as few of the uses enumerated” specifically in the statute “in whatever combination the county commission deems appropriate.” (Emphasis added.) A wide range of permitted transportation related uses are set forth in subsections 1 through 4 of section 212.055(1)(d).
The statutory provisions related to the surtax must be viewed against the backdrop of the specific recognition in the Florida Constitution of the Legislature’s authority over taxation in the state. Article VII, section 1, subsection (a) of the
Florida Constitution provides that “[n]o tax shall be levied except in pursuance of
Page 13 law,” that “[n]o state ad valorem taxes shall be levied on real estate or tangible personal property,” and that “[a]ll other forms of taxation shall be preempted to the state except as provided by general law.” Moreover, counties shall “be authorized by law to levy ad valorem taxes and may be authorized by law to levy other taxes,
. . . except ad valorem taxes on intangible personal property and taxes prohibited by [the] constitution.” Art. VII, § 9(a), Fla. Const. So it is clear that the
Legislature has plenary authority regarding the surtax.
III. The Charter Amendment
The “surtax for transportation improvements” amendment to the
Hillsborough County Charter at issue here—codified as article 11 of the charter— was adopted in a referendum conducted in the 2018 general election based on a citizens’ initiative proposal. See Hillsborough County, Fla., Revised Charter art.
XI (2018). Article 11 contains a detailed scheme for managing the distribution and use of the proceeds of the one percent sales surtax. Id. As stated in article 11’s purpose section, the “purpose of the surtax” is identified as funding a variety of categories of “transportation improvements throughout Hillsborough County.” Id.
§ 11.01. In connection with this broadly stated purpose, article 11 states that “[t]he proceeds of the surtax shall be distributed and disbursed in compliance with
[section 212.055(1), Florida Statutes,] and in accordance with the provisions of . . . article 11.” Id.
Page 14 The provision establishing the levy of the surtax specifies that all proceeds of the tax “shall be expended only as permitted by this article 11, [section
212.055(1), Florida Statutes], and in accordance with the purpose set forth” in the amendment. Id. § 11.02. The surtax, which had an effective date of January 1,
2019, “shall remain in effect for a period of thirty (30) years.” Id. § 11.03.
Article 11 contains an elaborate scheme with provisions governing the distribution to various entities of surtax proceeds, provisions governing the use by those entities of the funds distributed, and provisions establishing and empowering an independent oversight commission (IOC). The proceeds of the tax are designated for distribution in three “portions”—the general purpose portion, the transit restricted portion, and the planning and development portion. See id.
§ 11.05. Under the distribution formula, 54% of the tax proceeds—the general purpose portion—are to be “distributed to the [c]ounty and each [m]unicipality in accordance with their relative populations” pursuant to a statutory formula set forth in section 218.62, Florida Statutes (2018), to be expended “in accordance with” article 11. Id. § 11.05(1).
The transit restricted portion consists of 45% of the proceeds, which are designated for distribution to the Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority
(HART) to “be expended by HART in accordance with” article 11. Id. § 11.05(2).
Finally, one percent of the proceeds are designated for the planning and
Page 15 development portion, which is to be distributed to “the metropolitan planning organization [MPO] . . . whose jurisdiction includes Hillsborough County,” and
“shall be expended by the MPO on planning and development purposes” to assist the other entities receiving funds and the IOC “in carrying out the purpose set forth” in the purpose section of article 11. Id. § 11.05(3).
Each agency receiving proceeds is required to submit an annual agency
“Project Plan” governing its use of proceeds, which must be approved by the IOC.
Id. § 11.06. Detailed provisions establish the specific transportation-related uses to which the general purpose portion and the transit restricted portion of the proceeds are to be devoted. See id. §§ 11.07-11.08. The specific details governing use of the proceeds are of no moment to the issues presented in this case.
The IOC is established to provide “independent oversight of the distribution and expenditure” of the proceeds of the surtax. Id. § 11.10. The IOC is given the duty to review an annual audit provided for by article 11 and to “make findings” concerning compliance “with the terms of” article 11, including a determination of whether the proceeds “have been distributed as provided” in the article, and whether the proceeds “have been expended in compliance with applicable state law, [the] Article, and any additional requirements that [a receiving entity] may have lawfully adopted.” Id. § 11.10(1). In addition, the IOC may, by a two-thirds majority vote, direct the suspension of proceeds (other than any portion of such
Page 16 proceeds “encumbered by bond indebtedness”) if it determines “that an [a]gency has failed to comply with any term or condition of . . . article 11” and the noncompliance remains uncorrected for a specified period. Id. § 11.09.
Two additional provisions of article 11 are related to arguments presented in this case. One provision specifically addresses the issue of severability, and the other recognizes the supremacy of state law. The severability provision is as follows:
To the extent that any mandated expenditure category set forth in [s]ection 11.07 or 11.08 is deemed by a court of competent jurisdiction to be an impermissible use of [s]urtax [p]roceeds, the funds allocated to such impermissible use shall be expended by the applicable [a]gency on any project to improve public transportation permitted by [section 212.055(1), Florida Statutes,] and this Article.
Id. § 11.11(2). The provision of article 11 regarding state law supremacy states,
“article 11 shall at all times be interpreted in a manner consistent with the laws of
Florida, and in the event of any conflict between the provisions of this article 11 and the laws of Florida, the laws of Florida shall prevail.” Id. § 11.11(3).
The issue of severability is also addressed in a separate provision adopted when the Hillsborough County Charter was initially enacted. That provision states,
“It is the intent of the electorate in adopting this Charter that if any section, subsection, sentence, clause, term or word of this Charter is held invalid, the remainder of the Charter shall not be affected.” Id. § 9.05.
Page 17 IV. The Arguments
The opponents of article 11 contend that the circuit court erred in severing the surtax provision and certain other provisions of article 11 from the portions it declared unconstitutional. According to the opponents, the purpose of the surtax was to fund the transportation plan in accordance with the distribution formula and use restrictions. According to the opponents, once crucial elements of the structure established by article 11—including the distribution formula—were recognized to violate the authority of the Hillsborough County Commission to decide how surtax proceeds should be spent, the fundamental design of article 11 was vitiated, and it therefore must be judged unconstitutional in its entirety.
The proponents of article 11 argue that no inconsistency exists between article 11 and the requirements of the surtax statute and that the circuit court therefore erred in declaring any portion of article 11 unconstitutional. They contend that article 11 merely supplements the requirements of the statute rather than contradicting them. To resolve any inconsistency between the charter amendment and the surtax statute, they also rely on provisions of article 11 that refer to compliance with state law as well as the supremacy clause contained in article 11. They argue that these provisions allow any unconstitutional elements to be read out of article 11, leaving the rest of the article undisturbed. And they contend that any such inconsistency is cured by the county commission’s approval
Page 18 of the interlocal agreement deeming the allocation of funds under article 11 to be appropriate. The proponents of article 11 also argue that the challenged provisions of article 11 are justified by a statutory provision that authorizes charter limitations on the broad general legislative powers granted to the county commissions of charter counties.
The proponents of article 11 further contend that even if portions of the measure are unconstitutional, the trial court’s severability analysis was correct, and the validity of the surtax and the other portions of article 11 severed and preserved by the circuit court should therefore be upheld. In brief, they contend that severance was appropriate because the primary purpose of article 11 was to provide funding to meet the needs for transportation infrastructure in Hillsborough
County and that purpose can be carried out even without the portions of article 11 invalidated by the circuit court. They also contend that the specific severability clause in article 11, as well as the general severability clause in the county charter, require preservation of the tax levy.
V. The Constitutional Violation
Our constitution provides that “[c]ounties operating under county charters shall have all powers of local self-government not inconsistent with general law” and that “[t]he governing body of a county operating under a charter may enact
Page 19 county ordinances not inconsistent with general law.” Art. VIII, § 1(g), Fla. Const.
As we said in State v. Sarasota County, 549 So. 2d 659, 660 (Fla. 1989):
A charter provision or ordinance of a charter county will be unconstitutional under article VIII, section 1(g) of the Florida Constitution, if it is “inconsistent with general law.” We have consistently construed this phrase to mean “contradictory in the sense of legislative provisions which cannot coexist.” Laborers’ Int’l Union of North America, Local 478 v. Burroughs, 541 So. 2d 1160 (Fla. 1989); State ex. rel. Dade County v. Brautigam, 224 So. 2d 688, 692 (Fla. 1969).
A local ordinance or charter provision that interferes with the operation of a statute
“cannot coexist” with that statute. In brief, the Florida Constitution prohibits any charter county from supplanting or overriding state law through either an ordinance or a charter provision.
Core provisions of article 11 directly clash with the surtax statute’s assignment to county commissions of authority to direct the application of surtax revenues to various permitted uses. Under the statute, “[p]roceeds from the surtax shall be applied to as many or as few of the uses enumerated” specifically in the statute “in whatever combination the county commission deems appropriate.”
§ 212.055(1)(d), Fla. Stat. Most saliently, this statutory provision is inconsistent with the provisions in sections 11.05, 11.06, 11.07, 11.08, 11.09 and 11.10 of article 11, which together establish a detailed scheme governing and enforcing the distribution and use of surtax proceeds. These provisions of article 11 “cannot coexist” with section 212.055(1)(d). All these provisions of the article fly in the
Page 20 face of the commission’s statutory authority. Because the charter provisions are
“inconsistent with general law,” they are unconstitutional. Art. VIII, § 1(g), Fla.
Const.
The situation here is not one in which “the county simply chose to legislate in an area where the Legislature chose to remain silent.” Phantom of Brevard, Inc. v. Brevard Cnty., 3 So. 3d 309, 315 (Fla. 2008). Nor is it a situation in which the charter merely adopted “additional standards . . . without being in conflict with the minimum statutory requirements established by the Legislature.” Sarasota All. for
Fair Elections, Inc. v. Browning, 28 So. 3d 880, 888 (Fla. 2010). Likewise, this is not a charter amendment that is invalid in a particular application but valid in other applications. See D’Agastino v. City of Miami, 220 So. 3d 410 (Fla. 2017).
The offending charter provisions do not merely supplement or complement the statute. And they cannot sometimes be validly applied. If given effect, these provisions of article 11 would supplant the authority of the county commission established by the statute. And none of our decisions uphold any such displacement by a charter provision of county commission authority specifically conferred by statute.1
1. Sarasota All. for Fair Elections, Inc. v. Browning, 28 So. 3d 880 (Fla. 2010), is not to the contrary. It appears that a charter provision in question there provided for “voter-imposed restrictions on the Sarasota County Board of Commissioners not permitted by the statute.” Id. at 893 (Polston, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). But the majority opinion did not address the conflict
Page 21 The Legislature could have allowed the proceeds of the surtax to be allocated based on provisions of a charter amendment, just as it allowed the surtax to be adopted by charter amendment. But that is not the choice the Legislature made in the surtax statute. Our constitution does not allow the displacement of the choice the Legislature made in the statute.
Contrary to the contention of the proponents, neither article 11’s provision recognizing the supremacy of state law nor its repeated references to compliance with the surtax statute can be flourished like a magic wand to conjure away the conflict between article 11 and the statute. The magic does not work.
It is not reasonable to read article 11 provisions such as section 11.01— which requires that “proceeds of the surtax . . . be distributed and disbursed in compliance with [section 212.055(1), Florida Statutes,] and in accordance with the provisions of . . . article 11”—as obliterating provisions of article 11 that compose the greater part of its text. (Emphasis added.) Section 11.01 as well as other similar provisions of article 11 plainly contemplate that the distribution and disbursement of surtax tax revenues “in compliance with” the statute can be accomplished at the same time that distribution and disbursement is made “in accordance with” article 11. There is no hint in this provision that anything in
with county commission authority and in fact concluded that any dispute over the relevant charter provision had been rendered moot by subsequent legislation.
Page 22 article 11 would be required to yield to a conflicting provision of state law. On the contrary, given the mandate in article 11 to comply with the provisions of both the statute and the charter, section 11.01 and other similar provisions must be understood to presume the harmonious operation of the surtax statute and the provisions of article 11 governing the allocation and use of surtax proceeds.
Rather than the interpretation advanced by the proponents of article 11, it is most reasonable to understand the references to the surtax statute in section 11.01 and elsewhere in article 11 as designed to ensure that funds only be applied to uses within the scope of the uses enumerated in the statute. See § 212.055(1)(d)1.–4.,
Fla. Stat.
The proponents of article 11 get no more traction with their argument based on the supremacy clause found in section 11.11(3), which provides that article 11
“shall at all times be interpreted in a manner consistent with the laws of Florida” and that “in the event of any conflict” “the laws of Florida shall prevail.” To the extent that this provision recognizes that state law prevails over any conflicting provision of article 11, it constitutes nothing more than a meaningless truism. To the extent that the provision establishes a rule of interpretation, it is simply a restatement of the presumption of validity, which requires that ambiguities in a text be resolved in favor of a reasonable reading that avoids a determination of invalidity. See State v. Fuchs, 769 So. 2d 1006, 1008 (Fla. 2000) (“It is well
Page 23 established that, where reasonably possible, a statute will be interpreted in a manner that resolves all doubts in favor of its constitutionality.”); State v. Lick, 390
So. 2d 52, 53 (Fla. 1980) (“[W]here the statute is reasonably susceptible of two interpretations, one of which would render it invalid and the other valid, we must adopt the constitutional construction.”); Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. Garner,
Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 66 (2012) (“An interpretation that validates outweighs one that invalidates (ut res magis valeat quam pereat).”). This is a rule of interpretation—not, as the proponents of article 11 would have it, a rule of revision. And as a rule of interpretation, it cannot justify the wholesale excision of the bulk of article 11.
We reject the argument that the Hillsborough County Commission could cure the constitutional infirmity in article 11 by entering the interlocal agreement
“deem[ing] appropriate” the allocation of funds mandated by article 11. The attempt by way of the interlocal agreement to ratify and cure an unconstitutional measure is as ineffectual as the unconstitutional measure itself. A county commission cannot legalize a measure that is “inconsistent with general law.” To approve such a course of action would be in derogation of the constitutional authority of the Legislature. It would incentivize the manipulation and coercion of the exercise of county commission authority by way of an unconstitutional charter
Page 24 provision. That would make a mockery of the surtax statute. Notwithstanding the interlocal agreement, the taint of unconstitutionality remains.
We are also unpersuaded by the argument offered by proponents of article
11 based on the statutory provision that authorizes charter limitations on the broad general legislative powers granted to county commissions. This provision is found in section 125.86, Florida Statutes (2019), a statute establishing general legislative powers of the county commissions in charter counties. After enumerating a number of powers, the statute provides that the legislative powers of county commissions extend to “[a]ll other powers of local self-government not inconsistent with general law as recognized by the Constitution and laws of the state and which have not been limited by the county charter.” § 125.86(8). This merely recognizes that a charter provision may limit the exercise by a county commission of unenumerated “powers of local self-government not inconsistent with general law.” But the power of the county commission at issue here—that is, the power to allocate the proceeds of the surtax—does not fall within the scope of such unenumerated “powers of local self-government.” Rather, it is a specific power conferred directly on the county commission, as distinct from the county, in a statute that authorizes the enactment of the surtax—but not the allocation of funds—by charter amendment. Nothing supports the conclusion that the general provisions of section 125.86 defeat the specific provisions of the surtax statute.
Page 25 Article 11’s elaborate scheme to control the distribution and use of surtax proceeds cannot be reconciled with the authority granted to the county commission by section 212.055(1)(d). All of the arguments offered to avoid this conclusion are unavailing. The constitutional violation is manifest.
VI. The Non-Severability of the Tax Levy
We come now to the question of whether the trial court correctly determined that the one percent sales surtax should be severed and preserved. On this point, we conclude that the trial court’s conclusion cannot be sustained.
Our Court long ago laid out the basic principles governing severability analysis in the context of unconstitutional statutory provisions:
The rule is well established that the unconstitutionality of a portion of a statute will not necessarily condemn the entire act. When a part of a statute is declared unconstitutional the remainder of the act will be permitted to stand provided: (1) the unconstitutional provisions can be separated from the remaining valid provisions, (2) the legislative purpose expressed in the valid provisions can be accomplished independently of those which are void, (3) the good and the bad features are not so inseparable in substance that it can be said that the Legislature would have passed the one without the other and, (4) an act complete in itself remains after the invalid provisions are stricken.
Cramp v. Bd. of Pub. Instruction of Orange Cnty., 137 So. 2d 828, 830 (Fla. 1962).
In brief, “[t]he question is whether the taint of an illegal provision has infected the entire enactment, requiring the whole unit to fail.” Schmitt v. State, 590 So. 2d
404, 414 (Fla. 1991).
Page 26 In employing the Cramp factors, we have recognized the cardinal principle of severability analysis: “The severability of a statutory provision is determined by its relation to the overall legislative intent of the statute of which it is a part, and whether the statute, less the invalid provisions, can still accomplish this intent.”
E. Air Lines, Inc. v. Dep’t of Revenue, 455 So. 2d 311, 317 (Fla. 1984) (emphasis added). In Ray v. Mortham, 742 So. 2d 1276, 1283 (Fla. 1999), we applied the
Cramp severability analysis to a constitutional amendment adopted through the citizen initiative process, concluding that the valid portion of the amendment (term limits for state officials) could be severed from the invalid portion (term limits for federal legislators) because they were “functionally independent.” The same framework for determining severability can appropriately be used in this case.
Here, the opponents of article 11 readily meet the “burden . . . placed on the challenging party” to establish that the measure is not severable. Ray, 742 So. 2d at 1281. The portions of article 11 that violate the authority of the county commission under the surtax statute are not “functionally independent” from the portion of article 11 imposing the sales surtax. It is clear that a surtax can be applied without provisions like the offending provisions of article 11 and that “an act complete in itself,” Cramp, 137 So. 2d at 830, would remain after excision of the offending provisions. But it is equally clear that “the legislative purpose expressed in the valid provisions” cannot “be accomplished independently of those
Page 27 which are void” and that the valid and invalid elements of article 11 are therefore
“so inseparable in substance” that it cannot be said that the voters would have adopted “the one without the other.” Id.
Article 11 manifests a dual purpose to impose a surtax and to require that the proceeds of the surtax be distributed and used in accordance with the elaborate and detailed scheme established in the article. One element of that dual purpose cannot reasonably be divorced from the other. The unconstitutional provisions of article
11 therefore are not merely ancillary to the surtax but are integral to the overall purpose of the surtax initiative. The tax and the distribution scheme form an interlocking plan. They are functionally dependent. The purpose of the voters in levying a tax that is designed to be distributed and used in a specified manner— with elaborate provisions to implement and enforce that design—is thwarted if the tax is levied but the provisions approved by the voters governing the distribution and use of the tax are set aside. The voters supported taxing with controls on spending the proceeds of the tax. They should not be saddled with the taxing without having the benefit of the controls. Given the functional dependence of the valid and the invalid provisions, the “taint of [the] illegal provision[s] has infected the entire enactment.” Schmitt, 590 So. 2d at 414. So the whole of article 11 is invalid.
Page 28 We reject the argument presented by proponents of article 11 based on the severability provisions in section 11.11(2) of article 11 and in section 9.05 of the general provisions of the county charter. Neither provision is applicable to the issue presented here.
It is plain from the terms of section 11.11 that it deals only with defects arising from the “mandated expenditure categor[ies]” in article 11 which result in
“an impermissible use of [s]urtax proceeds.” It simply provides for funds to be redirected from an impermissible use—as determined by a judicial judgment—to a permissible use. But the problem here cannot be cured by simply allowing receiving entities to redirect funds to permissible uses. Indeed, although labeled as a severability provision, section 11.11 is not structured as a typical severability clause. It does not in any manner address the provisions governing the allocation of proceeds to different entities and the directives regarding the three “portions” of the proceeds. The issue here is not “an impermissible use of surtax proceeds” but an impermissible shift of authority to determine how funds will be allocated to various entities and among permissible uses. Section 11.11 simply has nothing to say about a defect arising from provisions authorizing such a shift in the authority to allocate funds.
Section 9.05 speaks to the “intent of the electorate” at the time the charter— with its many disparate elements—was first adopted. It does not reflect the intent
Page 29 of the electorate in subsequently adopting the integrated provisions of article 11.
Indeed, the intent of the electorate with respect to the severability of article 11 is expressed by the specific, narrow—and inapposite—terms of section 11.11.
Section 9.05 therefore has no bearing on the severability issue here.
VII. Conclusion
Core provisions of article 11 are inconsistent with the surtax statute.
Because those invalid provisions and the remaining provisions of the article form an interlocking plan, article 11 is unconstitutional in its entirety. The bond validation judgment is reversed, and the declaratory judgment is reversed to the extent that it upheld the validity of any portion of article 11.
It is so ordered.
POLSTON, LAWSON, and MUÑIZ, JJ., concur. LABARGA, J., dissents with an opinion. COURIEL and GROSSHANS, JJ., did not participate.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED.
LABARGA, J., dissenting.
This Court’s jurisprudence on bond validation has properly established a reluctance to overturn the will of the voters in a home rule charter county unless absolutely necessary, and then, only to the extent necessary. See Phantom of
Brevard, Inc. v. Brevard Cnty., 3 So. 3d 309, 314 (Fla. 2008); Telli v. Broward
County, 94 So. 3d 504, 513 (Fla. 2012); D’Agastino v. City of Miami, 220 So. 3d
Page 30 410, 427 (Fla. 2017). To that end, our precedent has set a high bar for declining severability. See Ray v. Mortham, 742 So. 2d 1276, 1281 (Fla. 1999); see also City of Kissimmee v. Fla. Retail Fed’n, Inc., 915 So. 2d 205, 209 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
(calling on appellate courts to “indulge every reasonable presumption in favor of an ordinance’s constitutionality.”).
A presumption of constitutionality should be the starting point for this
Court’s analysis. Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of St. Pete Beach, 940
So. 2d 1144, 1146 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (stating that courts must, “if possible, interpret the amendment as constitutional”); see also Telli, 94 So. 3d at 513
(recognizing courts cannot infringe on “the ability of counties to govern themselves as that broad authority has been granted to them by home rule power through the Florida Constitution”).
Here, as noted by the circuit court, a majority of voters in Hillsborough
County expressed their desire to improve their transportation assets at the ballot box by approving this amendment to their charter. The majority, however, concludes that “[c]ore provisions of article 11 are inconsistent with the surtax statute. Because those invalid provisions and the remaining provisions of the article form an interlocking plan, article 11 is unconstitutional in its entirety.”
Majority op. at 21. The majority reasons that because the valid and invalid elements of article 11 are “so inseparable in substance, it cannot be said that the
Page 31 voters would have adopted ‘the one without the other.’ ” Majority op. at 19. I disagree.
The amendment presented to the voters, despite the invalidation of significant portions of its provisions, still adequately defined its primary purpose: to provide funding for transportation infrastructure. A majority of voters in
Hillsborough County understood it as such and expressed their desire to support it.
In addition, the majority’s focus of casting doubt on whether article 11 would have passed without the stricken provisions is a test more akin to what this
Court rejected in Ray v. Mortham. In Ray, this Court rejected an argument that the challenger of a citizens-initiated constitutional amendment “need only cast doubt on whether the amendment would have passed” and that unless the sponsor of the amendment “can ‘prove’ that the voters would have adopted the amendment,” it must be stricken. 742 So. 2d at 1281. Concluding that the proffered test “would be an inappropriate burden to place on” the party defending an enactment adopted through the citizens’ initiative process, this Court confirmed that the burden should be on the challenger seeking to invalidate the popular will of the voters. Id. The majority’s analysis therefore goes against “the purpose underlying severability—to preserve the constitutionality of enactments where it is possible to do so.” Id.
Page 32 Given our jurisprudence to “indulge every reasonable presumption in favor of an ordinance’s constitutionality,” City of Kissimmee, 915 So. 2d at 209, and the high bar we have set for declining severability, I respectfully dissent.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court in and for Hillsborough County – Bond Validations Rex Martin Barbas, Judge - Case No. 292019CA001382A001HC
And Certified Judgments of Trial Courts in and for Hillsborough County – Rex Martin Barbas, Judge - Case No. 292019CA001382A001HC – An Appeal from the District Court of Appeal – Second District, Case No. 2D19-2740
Howard C. Coker and Chelsea R. Harris of Coker Law, Jacksonville, Florida; and Derek T. Ho and Collin R. White of Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick, P.L.L.C., Washington, District of Columbia,
for Appellant Robert Emerson
Chris W. Altenbernd of Banker Lopez Gassler P.A., Tampa, Florida,
for Appellant Stacy White
Raoul G. Cantero, David P. Draigh, W. Dylan Fay, and Zachary Dickens of White & Case LLP, Miami, Florida; and Benjamin H. Hill, Robert A. Shimberg, and J. Logan Murphy of Hill Ward & Henderson, P.A., Tampa, Florida,
for Appellees Tyler Hudson, Keep Hillsborough Moving, Inc., and All for Transportation
Alan S. Zimmet, Nikki C. Day, and Elizabeth W. Neiberger of Bryant Miller Olive, P.A., Tampa, Florida; George S. LeMieux, Kenneth B. Bell, and Lauren Vickroy Purdy of Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, Florida; and David Harvey, Office of the City Attorney, Tampa, Florida,
for Appellees Hillsborough County, Hillsborough County Metropolitan Planning Organization, and City of Tampa
Page 33 Harry M. Cohen, Legal Counsel, Hillsborough County Clerk of the Circuit Court, Tampa, Florida,
for Appellee Hillsborough County Clerk of the Circuit Court
Kenneth W. Buchman, City Attorney, Plant City, Florida,
for Appellee City of Plant City
David L. Smith, Robert E. Johnson, and Julia C. Mandell of GrayRobinson, P.A., Tampa, Florida, and Kristie Hatcher-Bolin of GrayRobinson, P.A., Lakeland, Florida,
for Appellee Hillsborough Transit Authority
Andrew H. Warren, State Attorney, and Ada Carmona, Assistant State Attorney, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Tampa, Florida,
for Appellee State of Florida
Daniel J. Woodring of the Woodring Law Firm, Tallahassee, Florida,
for Amicus Curiae Associated Industries of Florida
Daniel Bell, General Counsel, and W. Jordan Jones, Staff Attorney, House Judiciary Committee, Tallahassee, Florida; and Jeremiah Hawkes, General Counsel, and Ashley Istler, Deputy General Counsel, The Florida Senate, Tallahassee, Florida,
for Amici Curiae Florida House of Representatives and Florida Senate
Diane G. DeWolf and Katherine E. Giddings of Akerman LLP, Tallahassee, Florida, and Marilyn Mullen Healy of Akerman LLP, Tampa, Florida,
for Amici Curiae the Greater Tampa Chamber of Commerce, the Tampa Bay Partnership, and the Tampa Hillsborough Economic Development Corporation
Page 34 CLICK TO EDIT MASTER TITLE STYLE
Broward County Transit
Broward County Transportation Surtax Overview
March 31, 2021
Page 35 1 BCT System Overview • Second largest Public Transit System in Florida • Provides over 30 million rides annually • 413 Fixed Route Buses • 65 Community Shuttles • 337 Paratransit Vehicles • Broward County Population 1.9 million • Service Area 410 Square miles
Page 36 2 Broward County Transportation Surtax • Approved by the voters in November 2018
• A dedicated source of funding for countywide transportation system improvements through the levy of: 30-year, 1 cent surtax
• Anticipated $16.4 Billion in Revenues over the 30- year Period, over $360 million annually.
Page 37 3 Transportation Surtax Capital Program Goals
• Alleviate congestion • Improve connectivity • Enhance transit service • Create more mobility options • Innovate “Strategic investments have already been implemented: mobile ticketing, real-time arrival data, trip planning, Wi-Fi, free library materials on some routes - with the long-term goal of attracting choice riders.”
Page 38 4 Surtax Means Business
• Goal: “30% of eligible contracts for small businesses over the next 30 years.”
• Estimated $53M annually or $1.59B over 30 years.
Page 39 5 Roadway Improvement Projects • Road Capacity Expansion • Adaptive Traffic Signal Control • Fiber Optic Network • Traffic Signal Mast Arms • Intersection Improvements • School Safety Zones • Complete Streets/Bike Lanes • Street Lighting • Sidewalks •
Page 40 6 9 C
Corridor Project Delivery Method • 9 Major Corridors in County • County, City, State Projects • Bundled Projects Delivered Through a Single Prime Contactor • Significant Subcontracting Opportunities
Page 41 7 Transit Construction Projects
Page 42 8 Potential High Capacity Corridors
• 26-miles of Light Rail Transit (over $4 Billion) • 7 Bus Rapid Transit Corridors
Page 43 9 North Bus Facility Rehabilitation ($61M)
Page 44 10 3rd Bus Facility ($75M)
Page 45 11 Bus/Rail Intermodal Center ($41M)
Page 46 12 Neighborhood Transit Centers
Page 47 13 Park and Ride Facilities
Page 48 14 CLICK TO EDIT MASTER TITLE STYLE
• 2,250 Bus Shelters (75 annually)
• Bus Stop Infrastructure
Page 49 15 Administrative Building/Downtown Terminal ($150 Million)
Page 50 16 BCT Studies, Design and Engineering Projects • Transit Systems Plan to Study Rail and Bus Rapid Transit Corridors ($10.6M) • Includes comprehensive public outreach and participation program • Provides funding for 30% design (1-Rail project, 1-BRT project) • General Planning Consultant for “as needed” services ($2M annually for up to 5 years) • Construction Engineering and Inspection (CEI) Contract ($3.8 Million) – To Be Advertised 10/20/20
Page 51 17 For More Information
Website: www.broward.org/PennyForTransporation
Page 52 18 The Florida Senate Senate Tracker
The red sun icon indicates an item is being tracked. It is a toggle (on/off) button. Click the icon again to stop tracking. For more information, view the Tracker Help page.
Bills Tracked for the 2021 Legislative Session
Below are the bills you are tracking. You will receive email notifications regarding bill actions according to your email frequency settings.
Number Tracking Title Filed By Last Action On/Off SB 54 Motor Vehicle Burgess Last Action: 3/22/2021 S Placed on Special Insurance Order Calendar, 03/25/21 HB 57 Transportation Tourism, Last Action: 3/2/2021 H 1st Reading Infrastructure (Committee Substitute 1) and Energy Subcommittee HB 59 Growth Civil Justice Last Action: 3/15/2021 H Added to Second Management and Property Reading Calendar Rights Subcommittee HB 91 Use of Wireless Slosberg Last Action: 3/2/2021 H 1st Reading (Original Communications Filed Version) Devices While Driving SB 138 Electric Vehicles Brandes Last Action: 3/23/2021 S Subcommittee Recommendation: CS/CS by Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Tourism, and Economic Development; YEAS 11 NAYS 0 SB 140 Fees/Electric Brandes Last Action: 3/23/2021 S Subcommittee Vehicles Recommendation: CS/CS by Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Tourism, and Economic Development; YEAS 11 NAYS 0 HB 273 Motor Vehicle Plakon Last Action: 3/8/2021 H Now in Commerce Insurance Committee Coverage Exclusions SB 278 Traffic Offenses Baxley Last Action:Page 53 3/2/2021 S Introduced -SJ 57 HB 365 Motor Vehicle Caruso Last Action: 3/16/2021 H Now in Ways & Rentals Means Committee SB 376 Jacksonville Gibson Last Action: 3/3/2021 S Now in Rules Transportation Authority Leases HB 389 Tampa Bay Area Mariano Last Action: 3/2/2021 H 1st Reading (Original Regional Transit Filed Version) Authority SB 420 Motor Vehicle Hooper Last Action: 3/11/2021 S CS by Judiciary read Insurance 1st time -SJ 241 Coverage Exclusions SB 422 Tampa Bay Area Rouson Last Action: 3/2/2021 S Introduced -SJ 65 Regional Transit Authority SB 496 Growth Perry Last Action: 3/22/2021 S On Committee Management agenda-- Rules, 03/25/21, 9:00 am, 412 Knott Building SB 566 Motor Vehicle Perry Last Action: 3/24/2021 S CS by Banking and Rentals Insurance; YEAS 11 NAYS 1 SB 708 Peer-to-peer Car Brandes Last Action: 3/2/2021 S Introduced -SJ 86 Sharing HB 719 Motor Vehicle Grall Last Action: 3/11/2021 H 1st Reading Insurance (Committee Substitute 1) HB 729 Transportation Gregory Last Action: 3/2/2021 H 1st Reading (Original Projects Filed Version) HB 753 Broadband Clemons, Sr. Last Action: 3/10/2021 H Now in Commerce Internet Committee Deployment SB 980 Battery upon Perry Last Action: 3/10/2021 S CS by Criminal Public Transit Justice read 1st time -SJ 232 Workers SB 1126 Department of Harrell Last Action: 3/24/2021 S Subcommittee Transportation Recommendation: CS by Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Tourism, and Economic Development; YEAS 10 NAYS 0 HB Broadband Goff-Marcil Last Action: 3/5/2021 H Now in Tourism, 1339 Internet Service Infrastructure & Energy Subcommittee SB 1364 Transportation Brodeur Last Action:Page 54 3/2/2021 S Introduced -SJ 135 Projects HB Department of LaMarca Last Action: 3/5/2021 H Now in Tourism, 1385 Transportation Infrastructure & Energy Subcommittee SB 1500 Transportation Harrell Last Action: 3/16/2021 S CS by Transportation read 1st time -SJ 253 SB 1560 Broadband Ausley Last Action: 3/18/2021 S CS by Commerce and Internet Service Tourism read 1st time -SJ 277 HB Jacksonville Duggan Last Action: 3/2/2021 H 1st Reading (Original 6015 Transportation Filed Version) Authority Leases
Senators
Below are the media and publications posted by your tracked Senators in the past 7 days. You will receive email notifications when media and publications are posted; according to your email frequency settings.
You are not tracking any Senators.
Committees
Below are the meeting records and publications posted by your tracked committees for the next or previous 8 days. You will receive email notifications when committee meeting records and publications are posted; according to your email frequency settings.
Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Tourism, and Economic Development (2020-
2022) Meeting Date Meeting Records March 24, 2021 - 2:30 PM — 4:00 Meeting Meeting Attendance Expanded Audio PM Notice Packet Agenda March 23, 2021 - 8:30 AM — Meeting Meeting Attendance Expanded Audio 10:00 AM Notice Packet Agenda March 17, 2021 - 12:30 PM — Not meeting 2:30 PM
Transportation (2020-2022) Meeting Date Meeting Records March 24, 2021 - 8:30 AM — 11:00 Meeting Meeting Expanded Audio AM Notice Packet Agenda
Offices Page 55 Florida Public Transportation Association, Inc.
Budget vs. Actuals October 2020 - September 2021
TOTAL ACTUAL BUDGET OVER BUDGET % OF BUDGET Revenue Advertising 750.00 5,000.00 -4,250.00 15.00 % 1/2 Page 275.00 275.00 Business Card 150.00 150.00 Full Page 1,600.00 1,600.00 Total Advertising 2,775.00 5,000.00 -2,225.00 55.50 % Annual Conference 85,525.00 100,000.00 -14,475.00 85.53 % FDOT Annual Conference 5,000.00 10,000.00 -5,000.00 50.00 % Mid-year PDW 10,000.00 -10,000.00 Op/Mech. Roadeo 35,000.00 -35,000.00 Transit Leadership Program 20,000.00 -20,000.00 Total FDOT 5,000.00 75,000.00 -70,000.00 6.67 % FTA Finance Corporation 15,000.00 -15,000.00 Interest Earned 52.73 52.73 Membership Associate 3,750.00 1,500.00 2,250.00 250.00 % Business Class 33,000.00 35,000.00 -2,000.00 94.29 % Corporate Corporate F/R 262,550.08 260,000.00 2,550.08 100.98 % CTC 4,000.00 5,500.00 -1,500.00 72.73 % Total Corporate 266,550.08 265,500.00 1,050.08 100.40 % Ex-Officio Florida DOT Membership 500.00 500.00 0.00 100.00 % Florida for Better Transportation 500.00 500.00 0.00 100.00 % MPOAC 500.00 500.00 0.00 100.00 % T. D. Commission 500.00 500.00 0.00 100.00 % USF/CUTR 500.00 500.00 0.00 100.00 % Total Ex-Officio 2,500.00 2,500.00 0.00 100.00 % Total Membership 305,800.08 304,500.00 1,300.08 100.43 % Miscellaneous Event Revenue (PDW & Transit Leadership Fees) 5,000.00 -5,000.00 Op/Mech. Roadeo 65,000.00 -65,000.00 Transit Day 3,000.00 -3,000.00 Uncategorized Revenue 341.79 341.79 Total Revenue $399,494.60 $572,500.00 $ -173,005.40 69.78 % GROSS PROFIT $399,494.60 $572,500.00 $ -173,005.40 69.78 % Expenditures Accounting/Review Harvard & Associates 2,715.00 3,800.00 -1,085.00 71.45 % Wadsworth, Humphress & Hollar 2,200.00 6,600.00 -4,400.00 33.33 % Total Accounting/Review 4,915.00 10,400.00 -5,485.00 47.26 %
Page 56 Accrual Basis Friday, March 19, 2021 08:24 AM GMT-04:00 1/3 Florida Public Transportation Association, Inc.
Budget vs. Actuals October 2020 - September 2021
TOTAL ACTUAL BUDGET OVER BUDGET % OF BUDGET Additional Training 25,000.00 -25,000.00 Administrative Support Bacot Consulting, LLC 73,243.20 154,500.00 -81,256.80 47.41 % KW4N Design Group, LLC 7,250.00 17,300.00 -10,050.00 41.91 % Virtual Conference Support 2,500.00 -2,500.00 Total KW4N Design Group, LLC 7,250.00 19,800.00 -12,550.00 36.62 % Tax Attorney Services -2,272.50 10,000.00 -12,272.50 -22.73 % Total Administrative Support 78,220.70 184,300.00 -106,079.30 42.44 % Advertising Expense 4,000.00 -4,000.00 Bad Debts 4,100.00 4,100.00 Bank Charges and Fees 1,120.24 10,000.00 -8,879.76 11.20 % Conferences Annual Conference 48,935.05 70,000.00 -21,064.95 69.91 % Mega-Roadeo 125,000.00 -125,000.00 Mid-Year Conference (DOT & FPTA) 35,000.00 -35,000.00 Transit Day 3,000.00 -3,000.00 Transit Leadership Program 25,000.00 -25,000.00 Total Conferences 48,935.05 258,000.00 -209,064.95 18.97 % Copying/Printing 136.60 12,000.00 -11,863.40 1.14 % Dues & Memberships 1,320.00 4,000.00 -2,680.00 33.00 % Governmental Consulting 22,885.00 48,000.00 -25,115.00 47.68 % Insurance Business owners Policy (General Liability & Contents) 1,000.00 -1,000.00 Commercial Crime/Employee Dishonesty 750.00 -750.00 Directors and Officers Liability/Employment Practices Liability 1,000.00 -1,000.00 Event Insurance 300.00 -300.00 Total Insurance 3,050.00 -3,050.00 Miscellaneous 50.00 500.00 -450.00 10.00 % Office Equipment & Supplies 500.00 -500.00 Office Rental 2,926.45 6,350.00 -3,423.55 46.09 % Postage 86.37 1,000.00 -913.63 8.64 % SEP IRA Match 2,499.96 5,000.00 -2,500.04 50.00 % Sponsorships 750.00 25,000.00 -24,250.00 3.00 % Taxes 61.25 500.00 -438.75 12.25 % Taxes & Licenses 238.77 238.77 Telephone 200.00 -200.00 Travel 1,287.20 34,500.00 -33,212.80 3.73 % Meals & Entertainment 336.83 336.83 Total Travel 1,624.03 34,500.00 -32,875.97 4.71 % Web Page/Computer 2,292.72 2,500.00 -207.28 91.71 % Total Expenditures $172,162.14 $634,800.00 $ -462,637.86 27.12 %
Page 57 Accrual Basis Friday, March 19, 2021 08:24 AM GMT-04:00 2/3 Florida Public Transportation Association, Inc.
Budget vs. Actuals October 2020 - September 2021
TOTAL ACTUAL BUDGET OVER BUDGET % OF BUDGET NET OPERATING REVENUE $227,332.46 $ -62,300.00 $289,632.46 -364.90 % Other Expenditures Reserves 49,800.00 -49,800.00 Total Other Expenditures $0.00 $49,800.00 $ -49,800.00 0.00% NET OTHER REVENUE $0.00 $ -49,800.00 $49,800.00 0.00 % NET REVENUE $227,332.46 $ -112,100.00 $339,432.46 -202.79 %
Page 58 Accrual Basis Friday, March 19, 2021 08:24 AM GMT-04:00 3/3 Florida Public Transportation Association, Inc.
Statement of Financial Position As of February 28, 2021
TOTAL ASSETS Current Assets Bank Accounts Ameris Checking 826,590.09 BOA-2830 0.00 Fifth Third-8825 0.00 Total Bank Accounts $826,590.09 Accounts Receivable Accounts Receivable 22,000.00 Due from FTAFC 0.00 Total Accounts Receivable $22,000.00 Other Current Assets Accounts Receivable2 0.00 Allowance for Bad Debts 0.00 Petty Cash 25.00 Prepaid Expenses 17,250.02 Uncategorized Asset 0.00 Undeposited Funds 0.00 Total Other Current Assets $17,275.02 Total Current Assets $865,865.11 Fixed Assets Accumulated Depreciation -8,018.00 Furniture & Equipment 8,018.00 Total Fixed Assets $0.00 Other Assets Ameris Bank - 3 Year CD 104,240.67 Total Other Assets $104,240.67 TOTAL ASSETS $970,105.78
Page 59 Wednesday, March 24, 2021 04:30 PM GMT-04:00 1/2 Florida Public Transportation Association, Inc.
Statement of Financial Position As of February 28, 2021
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND EQUITY Liabilities Current Liabilities Credit Cards AMEX-1000 0.00 Total Credit Cards $0.00 Other Current Liabilities Accounts Payable2 0.00 Accrued Expenses 0.00 Unearned Revenue 0.00 Total Other Current Liabilities $0.00 Total Current Liabilities $0.00 Total Liabilities $0.00 Equity Net Assets-Unrestricted 476,057.26 Opening Balance Equity 0.00 Restricted Annual Conference Funds 61,260.11 Restricted Roadeo Funds 29,268.86 Restricted Transit and TD Day Funds 13,468.27 Restricted Transit Tuesday Funds 5,250.00 Net Revenue 384,801.28 Total Equity $970,105.78 TOTAL LIABILITIES AND EQUITY $970,105.78
Page 60 Wednesday, March 24, 2021 04:30 PM GMT-04:00 2/2 Page 61 10/25/2016
Page 62
Scope of Services
Job Purpose: The Consultant will act as the Executive Director will have overall strategic and operational responsibility for the Florida Public Transportation Association’s (“FPTA”) programs, contracts, staff, and execution of its mission. Duties: • Ensure ongoing programmatic excellence, rigorous program evaluation, and consistent quality of finance and administration, communications, and systems. • Implement the FPTA Strategic Plan and recommend timelines and resources needed to achieve the FPTA Strategic Plan. • Implement FPTA’s Legislative Goals and Objectives. • Serving as an advocate on behalf of FPTA and its members. Actively represent FPTA at local, state and federal meetings, committees, events, and in front of the Legislature. • Plan and coordinate at least four (4) full board meetings each year. • Plan and coordinate all FPTA Committee meetings and the FTA Finance Corporation meetings. • Send weekly updates to all board members, and others, with important information and updates related to the Association and the transportation industry. • Create and distribute four (4) quarterly newsletters to members and stakeholders. • Plan and coordinate an annual Conference and a Mid-Year Professional Development Workshop. • Plan, attend and participate in State Roadeo Events. • Plan, attend and participate in Conferences and events to promote and represent FPTA. • Engage and energize board members, committees, partnering organizations, stakeholders, and regulatory agencies. • Network and pursue relationships and programs that will advance FPTA’s visibility, influence, and reputation throughout the state and nation. • Deepen and refine all aspects of communications—from web presence and social media to external relations with the goal of creating a stronger brand. • Establish and maintain relationships with stakeholders and regulatory agencies at the state and federal level. • Use external presence and relationships to garner new opportunities. • Recruit and obtain new members. • Maintain and coordinate all administrative duties of FPTA. • Execute special projects, as needed.
Page 63 Page 64 Page 65 Page 66
Page 67 Administrative Goal- Perform job duties of the Executive Director focused on effective management of the limited resources of the association and increasing the benefits to the membership.
Executive Director Job Duties: Marketing and communication of FPTA activities, plan all FPTA events, manage internal infrastructure for operating the association, diversify and increase revenue.
Priority ACTION RESOURCE OUTCOME IMPACT EFFORT/ DURATION TIME FRAME
Governance Activities Priority IMPACT EFFORT/ DURATION (1- High, 5- ACTION RESOURCE OUTCOME TIME FRAME (1-High, 5- Low) (1-High, 5-Low) Low) Increase authority of Exec Committee and repurpose 1 Executive Committee Create consent agenda 3 5 Completed- 2018 Board meetings Board alternate program- all GMs must have an alternate Amy collected Alternates for all GM's/Greater 1 and agency attends a minimum of 1 Board meeting per Executive Director/ Board 2 5 Completed - 2020 participation by all agencies year Focus Board meetings on ideas to address current Agenda item that focuses on ideas at each 3 Executive Director / Board 2 3 Ongoing strategic issues impacting transportation board meeting
Review by-laws to explore opportunities to refine or Make recommendation to Board for Bylaw 4 Executive Director/ Board 2 3 Completed- 2018 expand membership categories change- Altered CTC and Trolley annual dues
5 Establish goals for committees All Committees Goals created 3 4 2020
Infrastructure and Internal Operations
Priority ACTION RESOURCE OUTCOME IMPACT EFFORT/ DURATION TIME FRAME
Work with Membership Coordinator on development of an Creation of an integrated registration and 1 Membership Coordinator 2 4 Completed- 2018 integrated registration and database system database system
Develop a social media strategy and implement use of 4 Marketing Committee/ Consultant Greater exposure, branding and visibility 2 5 2021 social media
Generation and Diversification of Revenue
Priority ACTION RESOURCE OUTCOME IMPACT EFFORT/ DURATION TIME FRAME
Page 68 Evaluate potential new revenue for the FTAFC. i. Determine level of interest in potential other consortiums, such as: 1 FTAFC Board Survey of members 3 3 Completed- 2018 1. Commuter bus, articulated bus, electric bus and trolley bus. 2. Survey Members.
Review opportunities for non-dues revenues, create Increase revenue- Moving forward with 2 Executive Director / Board 3 5 2020 proposal and implement Electric Vehicle Consortium
Membership Services and Relationships
Priority ACTION RESOURCE OUTCOME IMPACT EFFORT/ DURATION TIME FRAME
Executive Director/ Membership Events held: Legislative Day and PDW 1 Complete and Plan all FPTA Sponsored Events. 1 3 Completed - 2020 Coordinator (Virtual)
Executive Director/ Membership 2 Continue to Recruit and Increase FPTA Membership Increase membership 3 3 2020 Coordinator
Could not complete Attend/Plan three (3) transit advocacy events around the Held one (1) Safe Transit for Life in Winter 2 Executive Director 3 3 due to pandemic- state. Park 2020
2 Create and Update FPTA Documents and Publications. Executive Director Create/Update all documents and publications 3 3 Completed - 2020
3 Begin Implementation of a Transit Insurance Fund Executive Director Creation of a TIP 3 3 2021
Personal Development
Priority ACTION RESOURCE OUTCOME IMPACT EFFORT/ DURATION TIME FRAME
Continue to Grow the Executive Directors’ personal Executive Director attends conferences and 3 Executive Director 3 5 Ongoing development skills. events that grow her skills
Goal- Advocacy
Increase advocacy at the state, federal and local levels to benefit Florida’s transit industry.
Priority ACTION RESOURCE OUTCOME IMPACT EFFORT/ DURATION TIME FRAME
Connect the Board to a Federal level on a quarterly basis Hold Quarterly conference calls/webinars for 1 APTA/CTAA 2 3 2021 through APTA or other channels Federal updates from APTA
2 Increase reputational brand in state capitol Executive Director / Board Hire a Governmental Consulting firm to assist 1 1 Completed- 2019
Page 69 2 Advocate for legislation specific to some agencies Executive Director / Legislative Committee Agencies pass legislation 2 2 Ongoing
Draft positions description of advocacy role on behalf of 2 Legislative Committee Position description- with options 2 2 Completed- 2019 FPTA membership; include options for filling role
Hire person, consultant or other resource to match scope 2 Executive Director/ Board Resource hires 2 1 Completed- 2019 of work/ position description
Recast purpose of Legislative committee to focus on Executive Director/ New hire/ Legislative New scope for committee focused on coalition 2 3 3 Completed- 2019 coalition activities Committee activities
2 Determine strategy for Advocacy Executive Director/ new hire Measurable performance goals 2 3 Ongoing
Build an Urban Coalition while maintaining balance with 2 Executive Director / Board Creation of an Urban and CTC Coalition 2 4 2021 rural/CTC constituents
Capitalize on multi-modal projects in progress to increase 5 ?? ?? ?? 2021 awareness of FPTA
GOAL- EDUCATION
Provide and coordinate education and training opportunities to address the workforce development needs of the membership.
Priority ACTION RESOURCE OUTCOME IMPACT EFFORT/ DURATION TIME FRAME
Modify committee communication to be more aligned to 2 Executive Director/ FDOT Modification of committees 3 3 2021 FDOT
Creation of a monthly education email to Provide more training and education to members through Ongoing for 2020 2 Education Committee members/Creation of a Transit Leadership 1 2 members and 2021 Program
3 Re-engage the Education Committee with a goal Education Committee Creation of a goal 3 3 2021
Increase awareness of events in monthly newsletter- get 2 Executive Director/ FDOT Increase awareness 1 4 2021 access to FDOT communications
Conduct a needs assessment to determine members 3 Education Committee/FDOT/CUTR Training and Education needs 1 3 2021 needs for training and educations
Capture existing training and development resources and Increase awareness, exposure and 3 Education Committee 3 3 2021 curriculum to connect and communicate to members participation
Determine gap between needs assessment and existing 3 Education Committee Training Plan 2 4 2021 training and develop a plan to close the gap
Page 70 GOAL- PARTNERSHIPS
Build collaborative external and internal partnerships in order to increase value for all members and attract new membership.
Priority ACTION RESOURCE OUTCOME IMPACT EFFORT/ DURATION TIME FRAME
Board members participate on partner boards, 1 ??? ??? 5 3 2021 committees, associations and bring connection to FPTA
Establishment of a joint list and/or process to 2 Integrate FPTA and FDOT contact lists Executive Director/ FDOT communicate meetings, trainings, and other 2 3 2021 items
Increase communications and connections with FDOT Creation of a monthly education email to 2 Executive Director/ FDOT 2 3 2021 and FDOT/CUTR Transit Networks members Allow Business Members to present at our Increase business member involvement in Board, Board Meetings for the cost of 3 committees and events while making involvement more Executive Director/Board breakfast/lunch/reception 3 2 Completed- 2017 valuable to them Include Business Members in Committees Add to Webpage as a Benefit Creation of a monthly education email to Partner with other associations and agencies to provide 3 Executive Director/Other Associations members/Coordination with other 4 2 Completed- 2020 training, to communicate, for events etc. Associations
Invite business to sponsor lunch at Board meeting to 3 Invitation to Business Members Increase value of business membership 3 1 Completed- 2017 spotlight their companies
3 Communicate through social media Marketing Committee/ Consultant Increase awareness of events 3 3 Ongoing
Email Invitation to Speak at our Board 4 Expand Invitation to Business Members Increase % of meeting participation 4 1 Completed- 2018 Meetings
Increase membership through broader channels than 4 Alternative mode providers Increased membership 4 4 2021 traditional transportation
Build more strategic business partnerships to address 5 Alternative mode providers ??? ??? 2021 changes in transportation (alternative modes etc) Provide additional services to members such as: fleet discounts, insurance coverage, free prescription cards, Research conducted, and Services created, if 5 Executive Director/Other Associations 2 5 2021 telephone service contracts and collaborative language beneficial to FPTA translation services
Page 71 Tier 1 Meeting Notes
Palm Beach- they have been taking riders to vaccination centers, and they are not charging fares for the trip. It was noted that minority groups are hesitant to take the vaccine and he will do the best he can to educate that it is safe. They expect regular service to begin in May. Clinton gave an overview of his testimony to the legislature.
LYNX- Fixed route ridership is around 50-55% of what it used to be. Fares were re-instated in September. Paratransit is a little higher at 65% of pre-pandemic levels. They are transporting to vaccination sites, when requested. If the rider is not already ADA/TD, they r3equet is supposed to go through the EOC. CARES funding is sustaining them for now. They had 109 positive cases at LYNX.
JTA- Ridership is down 34% and in October nearly all service was restored. They had a few driver issues and have mandatory testing for employees. Some employees are working from home or doing some type of hybrid situation. Working on getting employees vaccinated, and may expand the use of TNC’s to get vaccination trips done.
HART- Less than 45% of their employees were interested in getting vaccinated, they believe their employees will be considered in 1B. Anyone who test positive is sent home but is on paid leave. They have updated some standards to help stave off fatigue of their employees. They have had to hire 5 more maintenance workers to clean.
MDT- Bus system is down 36%, they are still not charging fares. Weekends appear to have better ridership than the week. Metrorail is down 45%, Metromover down 72%. Some express routes are not running yet. They are contracting out the routes that have lower ridership and they did install barriers and AC disinfectant.
SFRTA- Most people have been using masks without a problem; however, they did have one indecent of a rider not wanting to wear a mask. Police got involved. Ridership is about at the 50% mark. They have put in new posters and PSA’s. They have not had any major staffing issues.
PSTA- Ridership is down 30% and they are fare free at the moment. Might go back to fares in June. Weekends are down only 10%, paratransit is starting to grow again. Some new services started on Monday. They have used APC to find where there are 15 passengers and they are added plug buses to these routes. It is built into the schedule/apps. They are still employing a late night TNC service for essential workers. They are also having a homeless issue and have met with local non-profits and others to help this situation out. They got some new board members on January 1 and think they may be in 1B or 1c for vaccinations for employees. Concerned it may be more difficult to keep track of if more pharmacies take over. They surveyed their employees and only 50% were willing to get a vaccine, but, 80% if PSTA helped to administer it.
Page 72 Tier 2 Notes
Escambia- Not doing trips to vaccination centers yet, but their workers over 65 have been able to get the vaccine. She thinks the rest will get it in phase 2 or 3. They restored fares in January.
Votran- Stopped 1 route, but everything else is up and running. They are down 25% on FR, 30% on paratransit. Mask mandate is in effect. They have been providing paratransit trips to vaccination centers, haven’t heard where their employees will fall in the vaccination phases. Full fares since June.
Collier- Resorted fares in August. Have had some issues with staffing due to call outs, their workers over 65 have gotten their shots, but, haven’t heard where the else will fall. Asked for the CTD language regarding transit workers and where they fall in the order of vaccinations. Lisa will send.
SCAT/Brevard- Ridership is still down 25% on FR and 30% on paratransit. Fares started back in October. No news on priority of their workers for the vaccine.
Pasco County- The mask mandate has been pretty well adhered to. Budget was taken away from them. They have an arrangement with their health department that if there are leftover vaccines, he sends his employees to get them. However, he finds that a lot of his employees are saying no to the vaccine, due to rumors and conspiracy theories about it. Ridership destinations have been changing.
Lee County- Not too many positive cases with staff, he feels they have very strict protocols that have been working. FR buses have safety barriers installed. Working on paratransit and should be done by June. Transportation to vaccination sites is occurring. Only 10% of the black riders have registered to set up a vaccine, they are using the churches to help. In some cases, they are using their paratransit vehicles to allow the health care worker to board and vaccinate on the vehicle itself.
RTS/Gainesville- Mask mandate has been in place and everyone seems to follow it. Some riders have claimed exemptions to the mandate. Fares have been reinstated, FR is down 70%. Been very difficult with ridership.
MCAT- Full service was restored last summer, fares began in December, FR ridership is down 25%, even more on paratransit. They have installed bio shields and dispensers for masks. They are working with the EOC on vaccinations and have supported transportation to the vaccination sites.
StarMetro- Some lower performing routes have been cut, masks are required, they are using temperature checks on employees. They have had 23 test positive.
Page 73 Tier 3 and 4 Pandemic Update Notes
SunTran/Ocala- Ocala, is doing well. We are redesigning our routes to be more productive and conducting our public outreach at this time. We still have a loss of 40% of ridership and enforcing the Federal Mask mandate.
Key West- Ridership is low, people that have found alternate means and are still a bit leery about catching something. Still doing ionization and anything else they can afford. They have also installed self-cleaning tape. Had to cut down two routes. They are focusing a little more on frequency. If they can make the 2 lines better than what it was pre-covid, they may be able to do better in terms of ridership. Key West to Marathon is doing better at 90% ridership. Rod asked about the potential of waiving the block grant match. FPTA is working on this, but, won’t have an answer till the end of session.
Indian River/Martin CTC- FR down only about 8%, almost back up to pre-covid levels. Local health department has prioritized their workers who were over 65. They are indeed taking individuals to vaccination sites. Making a special lane at the vaccination site for transit vehicles. Making everyone wear masks, taking temps for employees. 2 of their routes they have stopped due to low ridership. 4 drivers got covid, no deaths. Office staff have small children and that’s been an issue with schools being shut down. For Martin, things are fine, working on vaccine visits.
Sunshine Line- They are also getting a separate line for vaccinations. They will take riders to vaccination sites wherever they want to go. Air filtration on all of the vehicles. About 40% of trips compared to last year. If they took group trips out, they would be the same. Group trips are lower.
St. Lucie- is coordinating vaccinations. Struggling with paratransit and their operation is struggling, like others have experienced. FR isn’t doing quite as bad. Waiver of block grant would be huge for us. Everyone is being respectful of the mask mandate. She is reiterating during her budget process that transit workers are essential workers.
Martin County – FR isn’t down too bad and paratransit isn’t down as much as others. Veteran riders are down. VA medical center is not taking as many people and stretching appointments out further. Doing OK overall.
Lake County- paratransit is down 50%, mostly group trips, like Sunshine Line. A small dip in ADA trips. Most trips that are missing are group trips. FR is at about 60%, as more people get comfortable, they will come back. No issues with the mask mandate. Masks required at facilities, vehicles, and stops. Doing vaccination trips for TD passengers now. Vaccination site is appointment only and they can wait inside.
Page 74 Okaloosa County – para is at 53%, fr is about 60% of previous levels. Making trips on paratransit to vaccination sites. Their maintenance shop created and installed barriers on all vehicles. Sanitizer units have been installed on vehicles. Requiring masks on all vehicles and facilities.
Community Shuttle in Ft. Lauderdale/Water Trolley- phasing out older brand and re-branding a new look, with new vehicles and a new air filtration system. Ridership has declined, tourist routes down by 90%. Residential routes stayed pretty stable. Beach route has increased 90% over the last month, however, so they will be increasing routes. Providing trips for vaccines.
Jtrans- We had a nursing facility that allowed some of our drivers to come In and get vaccines at their agency. 2 of our drivers have had Covid. We are still taking employee temps each day. It is a requirement for our drivers and riders to wear mask. We sanitize rider hands before they board vehicle. We are distancing on our vehicles as good as we can. We have been taking people to the health department and VA for their vaccine appointments, it has worked out good without long wait times. We aren’t transporting any Seniors at this time but we are delivering meals to them. Transporting about 10% of our APD trips; however, we are very busy with TD and Medicaid Broker trips. We are definitely at about 75% on those trips. Overall at about 60% of pre pandemic trip levels.
Page 75