Sticks of Fire: a Tampa blog

HART’s next board meeting will be Monday, August 4, at 8:30AM. This may prove to be an interesting session. TBO reported yesterday that the HART Board of Directors plan to vote on whether to pursue a sales tax funded rail initiative in 2010. What didn’t make the papers is that HART is also scheduled to rule on a good many contentious issues; not the least of which are proposed service reductions, service improvements, a base fare increase and an ad valorem [property] tax increase.

Just before 4th of July weekend, HART made public their suggested service improvements and reductions for the coming year. The suggestions were subject to a two week period of public comment and review, culminating in a public hearing at the Marion Transit Center on July 16. Based in part on HART’s reaction to the public comment, the final staff recommendations for service changes in 2009 are as follows:

• Weekday midday service on Nebraska Avenue, Route 2, to increase from 30 minutes to 20 minutes, between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Peak a.m. and p.m. service on Route 2 is already at 15 minutes.
• The recommendation to eliminate Route 88, the Town N’ Country connector is rescinded and a revision has been recommended to include the new Westgate Library and community center
• Additional express buses for Routes 24x and 25x that serve MacDill Airforce Base
• Route 85, the South Tampa Weekend Connector, to be eliminated
• Service on Route 36, Dale Mabry Hwy/Himes Avenue, to be extended on weekends from Britton Plaza to MacDill AFB

An early service proposition that is now noticeably missing from the final staff recommendations is a proposal to spend an additional $1.2 million to increase weekday service on Route 30, between downtown and Tampa International Airport. Service on Route 30 is currently every 30 minutes but the improvement would increase service to 15 minutes only on the downtown-airport segment.

According to the agenda for Monday’s meeting, staff now want the HART board to defer a decision on Route 30 service improvements until March 2009. Officially, staff have requested the deferment because new buses that were intended for that service will not be available until that date. However, I had a conversation with a senior HART staff member this week, and he informed me that HART intends to write the funding for downtown-aiport service improvements into the FY2009 budget, for service beginning in March.

In order to fund the new service, pay for the increase in the price of fuel, and offset the losses in revenue of the ad valorem [property] taxes due to the actions of the Florida Legislature and the Save Our Homes Amendment, HART has proposed an across the board fare increase. The fare increase recommendations vary by category. At the low end, the base one-way fare is proposed to increase 16.7% from the current $1.50 to $1.75. On the high end, the monthly unlimited pass is proposed to increase 20% from the current $50 to $60.

Even with the fare increase, HART still comes up short on a balanced budget. As the County Commission learned earlier this month, the taxable value of property in Hillsborough is down 4% in 2008. HART budget planners had originally projected a $2.8 million loss in their ad valorem revenue. That decrease in property tax money was intended to be offset by the fare increase and by cuts to service. But the public comment on service reductions has lead HART to rethink some of it’s cuts and the cost of fuel for next year is still in flux. To make up the difference, staff will ask the HART board to approve a small increase in the ad valorem millage rate.

The staff recommendation is to increase the millage rate to the authorized maximum of 0.500 mills, which would generate an additional $5 million in 2009. Such an increase will require a two-thirds vote of the HART Board of Directors.

Elected representatives on the HART board include County Commissioners Rose Ferlita, Al Higginbotham and Mark Sharpe, Tampa City Councilmember John Dingfelder and Temple Terrace Councilmember Ron Govin.

If you’ve got opinions on HART’s plans for 2009, be sure to give them a call before Monday morning.

Mayor Pam Iorio says that Tampa needs to get started on rail transit now, and not wait for TBARTA to get it going.

TBARTA wishes she would just give ‘em time to analyze the entire region.

The Hillsborough County Board of Commissioners will have to decide if they want to ask for extra sales tax as soon as the 2010 election.

Sheriff Grady Judd has changed the menu at Polk County Jail:

The new menu, announced with much fanfare Wednesday, substitutes crackers, frozen egg patties and water for cornbread, fresh eggs and a variety of beverages, and will save an estimated $195,000, Sheriff Grady Judd said. He said he hopes to eventually cut $200,000 from the jail’s food services budget.

Detractors are upset, since county jail holds those awaiting a trial, so some inmates may not even be found guilty.

The State of Florida, the City of St. Petersburg and Pinellas County have approved $34.4 million in tax incentives to convince Jabil Circuit stays in the area.

…The city would contribute $12.7-million and the county about $1.7-million through grants, tax refunds and new road and utility improvements benefiting Jabil.

… In return, Jabil must hire 858 new workers at an average annual salary of $42,685 a year, or 115 percent of the area’s average wage. Jabil must also build a new $49-million campus, generating about $300,000 annually in new tax revenue to the city.

The county and city estimate the deal would produce an annual economic impact in Pinellas of $68-million.

But we are not supposed to know this.

In two separate meetings, the County Commission approved the deal without mentioning which company would benefit. County Administrator Fred Marquis confirmed it was Jabil.

The city, however, took the secrecy further by quietly adding the incentive package to its council agenda just hours before a June 19 meeting. The council approved the incentives without any discussion or mention of what they were voting on.

It was buried with dozens of routine matters that were voted on as a group, making it nearly impossible for the public to know that the city was committing millions in public dollars to a private company.

That’s not “Government in the Sunshine.”

The City Council’s actions violated the spirit though not the letter of Florida’s Government-in-the-Sunshine Law, said Adria Harper, director of Florida’s First Amendment Foundation.

“The whole point of the Sunshine Law is to give citizens a window into the government process,” Harper said.

Florida’s “sunshine” law exempts economic development deals, so there was nothing illegal here. Still, I’d like more details. Is there a target date for hiring the 858? Is there a minimum amount of time they must commit to keeping them employed? Is there a deadline for building the new campus? Are they required to pay back the money if they fail?

I’m all for economic incentives to bring more jobs to the area. But good grief, let’s make sure all the t’s are crossed and they i’s dotted, and don’t leave taxpayers on the hook.

Like the city of Largo, all local government officials need to learn from what is happeneing at Neilsen of Olsdmar, where they continue to lay off workers, and outsource jobs.

Because of money restraints, universities in the State of Florida are losing nationally known and respected professors such as Robin Murphy.

So how can the State of Florida afford to buy land from US Sugar for $1.75 billion?

Hey, I’m all for protecting the environment so our natural lands can be enjoyed by future generations.  But if those future generations are going to be too stupid to know what to do with them, what is the point?

Property taxes are still a mess, and it’s because there is no “common” sense.

Taxpayers try to get around paying taxes, while governments try to squeeze every last nickel from taxpayers.

Why would governments want to use “highest and best use” as a valuation of property? Because sales price is just a number on a piece of paper.

You may have seen this in buying or selling a car. You gotta fill out the sales price on that title transfer, so the state can collect sales tax. Even though you bought the car for $5,000, you may have told the state you paid $50 (or a single dollar!) in order to rip off the state.

The same goes with property. You could sell a property worth $1,000,000 for a single dollar, but what kind of taxes would that bring government? Nil. So they came up with “highest and best use.” Makes sense.

But the pendulum swung too far.

The Times tells us that Juan Lopez paid $250,000 for a house in St. Pete in 2005. A new independent appraisal values the home at $237,000. However, the Pinellas County property appraiser’s office values the house at nearly $300,000. How did they come up with that number?

Lopez investigated. He was stunned to learn the county raised his 2007 property values by cherry-picking two lot sales during white-hot 2005. Most aggravating is a sale on 25th Avenue, 11 blocks away in Crescent Park Heights.

That lot sold for $200,000, but it turned out to be a speculative purchase by a builder who went bankrupt. He built a luxury home there. It’s in foreclosure. Yet this is what passes in Lopez’s case for a “comparable sale.”

This is not new information, and Pinellas isn’t the only county that has been doing it.

To relieve it a bit, the Florida Legislature passed HB 909:

Ad Valorem Taxation: Clarifies factors that property appraiser must consider in deriving just valuation; requires DOR to develop uniform policies & procedures manual for use in proceedings before value adjustment boards; requires certain persons in certain counties to attend special magistrate training under certain circumstances; revises information required to be provided on disclosure of tax impact form, etc.

All that mumbo jumbo means is that county appraisers may no longer simply go with the “highest and best use” in determining value. Of course, the “highest and best use” is still the starting point. We’ll find out next year if it helps - the law goes into effect this September.

But it’s the greed and lack of community that necessitates constant changes in the law. People (Buddy!) will find ways not to pay, and governments will still attempt to get every nickel.

It’s a tug of war that wastes a lot of time, costs a lot of money, and makes government bloated with rules (and staff).

The Rays want St. Petersburg to build a $450 million ballfield on the waterfront in downtown St. Pete.  They have come up with a financing plan for Waterfront Stadium that they say doesn’t include any new taxes.  Here’s where the money comes from:

• $150-million up front from the team.
• $100-million from extending a 1 percent tax on Pinellas County hotel stays for an additional 25 to 30 years. That tax is now paying for Tropicana Field.
• $75-million from extending the city’s contribution to Tropicana Field for another 25 to 30 years.
• $70-million from the developer buying Tropicana Field.
• And $55-million in guaranteed parking revenue associated with the 34,000-seat ballpark.

There are supporters.  Fans for a Waterfront Stadium is a “citizen’s coalition made up of lifelong St Petersburg residents, downtown visionaries, teachers, baseball fans, business owners, parents and neighbors” who are pushing for Major League Downtown.  But St. Petersblog says the list of business supporters is suspect.

Meanwhile, Preserve Our Wallets and Waterfront (POWW) is a “group of concerned St Petersburg residents from all walks of life (and from all parts of town) who have decided to work together to provide the community with information regarding the proposed development of the Tropicana site and new baseball stadium at the current Al Lang Field.”  They want to “preserve our world-famous downtown waterfront for generations to come…”

POWW says sports stadiums don’t help local merchants, and instead those stores would see a “sharp decline in business.”

Meanwhile, Rays Managing General Partner Stuart Sternberg made it clear that the stadium would either be open by 2012 or it will not happen. If the referendum does not pass this fall, there will not be another attempt to get it passed.

Perhaps St. Pete doesn’t even need a baseball team.  The team is winning, and they couldn’t get 21,000 to show up for the Yankees.  Times Sports Columnist John Romano says that maybe “St. Petersburg has neither the wealth nor the civic roots to support major-league baseball.”

Opinion piece from Lakeland Local. Note that USF Lakeland has since been renamed USF Polytechnic. Chuck Welch takes issue with a recent Tampa Tribune editorial about USF Lakeland Polytechnic:

It seems the last couple of years have proved one fact to this new resident of Lakeland.

Tampa and Orlando media are afraid of Polk County.

To the Orlando Sentinel we’re often “rural Polk County” or “Orlando-area.”

To the Tampa Tribune we’re evidently a drain on their campus.

In [Sunday]’s Tribune is an unsigned editorial, USF Lakeland Campus Driven By Political, Development Ambitions

I’ll sum up the editorial for you, “Dear Lakeland, We got ours. Stay small. Wait for us to annex you.” It’s the same thing we hear from Orlando. Both cities look to Polk County as land for their growth.

The editorial starts with the statement: “One of the smartest things Gov. Charlie Crist did last year was veto funding for a regional campus of the University of South Florida in Lakeland.”

Now we well know that Crist was new to the job, and pulling the funding was a matter of misinformation. The campus money…unlike the commuter rail funds…was a matter of long public debate.

The Money:

As you read the editorial, notice how the writer wants you to believe USF Lakeland is taking money out of the hands of USF Tampa.

“and weighed against the cost to USF’s aging campus in Tampa” “A new university in Lakeland shouldn’t be built at USF’s expense.”

The fact of the matter is that Polk County and Lakeland officials have pledged much of the money to the campus. Money matched by other funds. And none of the funds would or could go to USF Tampa. The Tribune’s lone reporter based in Polk County, Billy Townsend, recently wrote:

Only $15 million in state money is currently budgeted to begin construction of a single building at the proposed I-4 site. Polk County and the city of Lakeland have both pledged $5 million, which makes the campus eligible for an additional $10 million in state economic development funds.

The Land:

The Tribune editorial writer can’t determine if holding the campus off a year would keep or lose the donated land. That’s an important point to remember. The campus would be built on donated land.

“As much as anything, this campus is about helping a large landholder build a new community.” The implication is that the company thinks having a university close by would be a good thing. Guess what? It is. I am sure if I went to the Tribunes archives I could find all kinds of editorials arguing against USF Tampa getting donated land and grants.

What’s worse is the writer is confused about the land grant. On one hand they warn if the university doesn’t attract a certain number of students the land grant is revoked. The Tribune claims “USF Lakeland says it expects just 1,522 students by 2014-15,” but the USF
Lakeland Educational Plant Survey states: “Projected student headcount enrollment for the 2009-10 academic year will be 3,472 with 1,736 FTE and in 2014-15 headcount is projected to be 8,688 with 4,344 FTE.” (FTE = the number of Full Time students plus a percentage
of the part-time students)

Then the editorial writer counters with “However, it’s hard to believe the company will walk away if the deadline is not met, given the money it stands to make on the development.”

The corner of I-4 and the Polk Parkway is a perfect central for an university in as growth blooms along the freeway in Polk County. A company wants to give USF Lakeland the land. And Tampa thinks USF Lakeland should walk away. The Tribune opines that some other landowner would donate land. Does that make sense to you?

You’d get the impression that the editorial writer has an argument with the Williams Company. The Tribune editorial writer says, “Problem is, USF has said the Lakeland campus will not focus on research, but on extending the university’s reach to people who can’t make the drive to Tampa. So why build a research park?”

First, USF Lakeland faculty do perform research. Second, companies like to have research parks next to campuses.

Isn’t that a novel idea! A place for USF Lakeland students to intern and get good jobs. Right here in Polk County.

Of course, the Tribune has argued against USF Tampa having a research center located near the campus. Wait, no, they haven’t. In a
recent editorial they argued that USF Tampa should run next door neighbor Byrd Alzheimer Center “The Byrd center should become part of USF, where scientists are doing great work on Alzheimer’s research. It’s a natural fit.”

We’ve got ours. You get yours on your own.

The Buildings:

The Tribune editorial writer was also under the belief that money for USF Lakeland could be spent on improving infrastructure at USF Tampa, “money that will not be spent for upgrades at the Tampa campus’ less-than-new facilities.” USF Tampa started in 1956. I went to a university much older than that. They had buildings a lot older than 50 years. I can’t seem to remember that classes held in older buildings were inferior.

The Tribune counters with crowding, again in Tampa, “where professors face overcrowded classes and students sometimes have to sit on the floor.”

We have overcrowded classes because the Florida voter is more concerned with saving pennies in taxes than funding salaries for more teachers.

Admission Standards:

The writer claims that USF Lakeland admissions standards will be lower. The fact is USF Lakeland would be able to set their own standards. But what if they do allow more students to attend?

“Especially since the admissions standard for the campus will be lower than in Tampa, which means a USF Lakeland degree will hold less standing.” the writer claims.

Under that logic an USF Tampa degree holds less standing than those from hundreds of universities in the US. How elitist. When you decide which Media General editorial writers to keep, do you decide based on their alma mater?

Finally:

In true editorial fashion the writer ends with a bevy of unanswered questions. I thought I’d help out with a few answers.

• The manner in which USF Lakeland is being built isn’t good public policy.

– You mean it isn’t good for Tampa Tribune public policy.

• It is, however, good for The Williams Co. and the ambitions of a handful of Polk legislators.

– And quite a few people I call my neighbors.

• When balancing funding choices in this difficult year, Gov. Crist should call a time-out on USF’s ambitions for a campus in Polk. Instead, the governor should ask the state board to come back within a year with a plan that makes sense for the state, including the possibility of a
12th university.

– Why not move all of USF Tampa here to where the population growth is projected. I am sure Tampa could use the land for another freeway.