Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTest TPO Packet 4.02.08 TraesporEatioe Ptonniag d~yenizolion 5T. IUCiE Ufif3faN ARER St. Lucie Transportation Planning Organization (TPO) TPO Board Meeting Date: Wednesday, Apri12, 2008 Time: 2:00 pm Location: City of Port St. Lucie Council Chambers 121 SW Port St. Lucie Blvd Port St. Lucie, FL AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Roll Call 4. Approval of Agenda 5. Approval of Minutes: March S, 2008 minutes 6. Public Comments 7. Comments by Advisory Committee Members (TAC/CAC) 8. a. Consent Agenda Item: Appointment of CAC and LCB Members • Recommended Action: Appoint CAC and L,CB Members b. Consent Agenda Item: Transit Development Plan Grant (TDP) and Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plan (TDSP) Grant Agreement • Recommended Action: Approve TDP Grant Agreement 9. 2030 Regional Long Range Transportation Plan (RLRTP) Amendments • Recommended Action: Review & Discuss 10. FY 2008/2009 - 2009/2010 Unified Planning Work Program • Recommended Action: Review & Discuss 11. SR AlA Funding Request • Recommended Action: Review & Discuss 12. TPO Director Search • Recommended Action: Discuss 1 13. UO"1' ('ommcnts t~. Rcct~mrncndatiunti/(~on~~mcnts b~ Mcmbcrti l~. Nntc~l Itcm: ('A(' IVtcctin~ ('anc~ll~itior~ Polic~~ ~tatf Rcport 16. Nest iVlectin~-~I~h~ nc~t tit. Luci~~ I Nt) n~~~•tin~ is sci~cdulecl I~~r Wccinesday. May 7. ?008, in th~~ ('it~~ r~f [~i. Pi~~rcc ('unnnis~;i~,u C'I}anih~•rs. I l)O N~~rth l!.5. l, I~i. Picrcc N( )~IIC'I~ :.~1n~un~ ~~~itli ~i ~ii~~<ibilit~ r~~yuirin~.~~~c~~iiinw~i.iliuu t~~,itt~nd tliiti nicetin~; Sh~xild contactthc SL LueieCount~~ Cuniniunit~~ ti~~r~ ic~~s I~1ana~~r,it 77~i~{(,~-177? ur l I)I> 1 1uri~l;i lt~~la~~ 1 ~scr: I 1 at Icatil t~~rty-cight (-l8) hours priorto ~hc n~~~lint,. Itcm~ nut incJu~iccl un ~lir ~i~~~:n~l.~ ~~i,n ;il,~~ litarcl in run,i~icration ~~f ~he hest intrrests oi~the public's hcalth_ ,al~t~~, ~~~~ii~,u-~•. an~l u~ n~~cr~s~~~~ti~ It, ~~r~~ir~i .~~~rr~ ~~crum'; ri~lit ~,facc~~~s. If any person decid~s to appcal any ~Il~citii~~n inarlu h~ !li~ St. Lucir ~l~r;ins~x,rl.itiun I'I;innin~~ O ~a~:inir~ti~n~i. I~c~hnical /~c~visory ComiY~ittcc, or Citizens ~1~Ivi~ur~ t'uinn~iur~ ~~i~li r~~s~~~tt tu.in~~ nialt~~rc,,u,i~l~r~~~i ~~1 such ni~~tin~ «r li~arin~;, that pcrs~~n shali nccdarccordo(~ 1lic ~~n,~~:~~~iin~,. ;~n~1 li,r ~urli a pur~x~.v~~_ ~I~:~f ~~~~rsun n~,i~~ nc4~<I ~1~ ~n~urc th~it a verbatim rccord ~~f thc procccdings is nr;ici~•. ~~iii~:l~ rccur~l inclu~lc, thct~stinwn}~,~n~J ~~~~i~J~nc~ u~~un ~til~icli the~~~~r~c~~l istobebased. AnY'qucstiunscoricerning ~hl; ~~~~cn~i;t int~~ h~= rci~~rre~l tl~r f i'O 77'-~~Jf,'- I~`) ~ ST. LUCIE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ORGANIZATION (TPO) BOARD MEETING St. Lucie County Commission Chambers 2300 Virginia Avenue Fort Pierce, Florida 34982 March 5, 2008 ST. LUCIE TPO MEMBERS: REPRESENTING: Christine Coke City of For~Pierce Commissiqn Jack Kelly City ofPort St. Lucie Vice-Mayt~-(Chair) Paula Lewis St. L~ie County Commission Charles Grande St. Luci~s County C~~nmission (Vice Chair) Doug Coward St. Lucie ~ou~ty Comrnission Darrell Drummond Council on A~ing-Community Transit Michelle Berger City of Port St. L;t~~ie Council Joe Smith St. Lucie County "~ot~nission Linda Bartz p£ Port St. Lucie ~ouncil Reginald Sessions ~ City (if~G~~ierce C~immission Kathryn Hensley St. L.tucie Cdu~t't~ S~hool Board Representative Doug Smith Martin County:Commission (ex-officio) OTHERS IN ATTE1~~,4NCE: REPRESENTING: Mark Satterlee St. L,~a'cie Interim TPO Director Marceia Lathou ` ~ ~a ~~t. "T,ucie TPO Heather Ytt~uung St. Lucie County Attorney's office Corine Williams St. Lucie County Community Services Arlene T~ FDOT, District 4 Jack Andrews City of Fort Pierce Engineering Don West St. Lucie County Public Works Ken Justice St. Lucie County Grants Sebastian Gomez St. Lucie CAC Joseph DeFronzo Martin County BPAGCAC Maureen Vetro St. Lucie County Finance Rufus Alexander City of Fort Pierce Commission RECORDING SECRETARY: Karen L. Neal TPO Meeting March 5, 2008 Page 1 of 13 of a quorum. What is the reason for the cancellations? Vice Mayor Kelly asked how many meetings had been cancelled. Mr. Gomez responded that 3 or 4 meetings had been cancelled over the last year. Mr. Satterlee answered that typically there is no meeting unless there is a full agenda and/or they are anticipating that there will be a TPO meeting the following month. The TAC and CAC meetings are held a month in advance of the TPO meeting because the items are moved through the advisory committees to the TPO. We only have about g~P0 meetings a year, we schedule 12 but we cancel3 or 4 meetings during the year just ti~'eperiding upon what is going on. It is not in an effort to limit participation or limit th~;~bi~~ty of the CAC to meet. Sometimes we cancel meetings because we don't get all of our ag~i°da items together in time. Typically we only have 8 or 9 meetings a year in any event. Vice Mayor Kelly responded to Mr. Gomez that it is the same for the TPC), i~t~ere is not an agenda then they don't meet. But, if he thinks there are things that the CAC sl~o~lc~~~~iave meeting on then he should get together with Mr. Satterlee. Vice Mayor Kelly noted for the record that Councilwomar~;~erger and Councilwoman Bartz from the City of Port St. Lucie had arrived as did Fort Pierce ~~mmissioner Sessions. AGENDA ITEM #8 SCHOOL SIDEWALKS Vice Mayor Kelly stated that N~t~ Gomez could m~~~a public~cot~ment about this agenda item. Mr. Gomez stated that the CAC Comunittee diddt get a chance to look at the information but he did. He has been warking with M~rty Sant~ers from the St;~u~ie County School Board and he is also a part time worker for the County in~C~munit~ Servic~s~as a Ke11y temporary person so he attends the weekly Develc~~,~nt Reviev~~ommittet~~~I]R~) meetings every Thursday at the Growth Management~Deparfi~el~~:~His job~is~to review site plans for transit, ADA access and pedestrian safety. A~ot of these tliings 1~~ just took on himself they weren't really assigned to him. He has been working w,~th Marty Sandera:~~~ try to en~~urage the developers to provide sidewalks in all of their developm~nts because Sectio~ 705 of the County code, the pedestrian and sidewalk section, doesn't apply outside'~c~;urban services boundary. He has asked for those sidewalks and he has worked with Marty and they have, gotten thet~i' but there is nothing under the law that requires the developers to do it except maybe as a Condition of approval. He is not to sure how that works. We use to have a position here; he bas~ o~~,,been with the County almost 2 years, a Bicycle-Pedestrian Coordinator at Growth Management. "~"he position was more to coordination between the tri-county areas, standards, and to encourage sidewalks and bicycle paths. That hasn't been fulfilled he believes, because of the cut backs. He was wondering if there is any chance that the position that is being requested, the engineering position, be combined in some way. When you are talking about sidewalks, maybe they can be coordinated through the tri-county area. The safe pathways to schools is not just a St. Lucie County situation, it has to do with Martin, Indian River and Okeechobee Counties as well. We are talking about a massive job with all the miles of sidewalks that would have to be constructed under this program. Is this engineer, this person, meant to be the Local Agency Provider (LAP)? From what he sees, they would have to design, construct and plan, that is a full boat. Mr. Satterlee responded that Mr. Gomez brought up some very good points. He thinks once they TPO Meeting March 5, 2008 Page 3 of 13 make a presentation on this agenda item it will maybe become a little bit clearer why they have made the request the way that they have because of the LAP certification requirements, where the funding can be spent and how it can be spent, and those sorts of issues and certainly Don West and he will walk the Board through that and explain it so they can understand it. Commissioner Coke stated that the City of Fort Pierce, 3 or 4 years ago passed an ardinance requiring that all developers do put sidewalks around their developments on any street. It can be done by ardinance and that resolves the issue so that you don't have to listen to them beg, borrow and plead when they are up for approval and do it as a condition. If they already know that they have to do it. Vice Mayor Kelly introduced Don West from St. Lucie County Public Works to present agenda item #8. Mr. West stated he wanted to show his power point presentation t~a give spme background on the Safe Routes to School Program and one of the issues they are dealing v~ith. A copy of this presentation is available upon request. Mr. West stated that the Safe Routes Program is a federall~ funded p~gram that is adrrair~istered by the department of transportation. Federal funds have specia.l~~'ec~~airements in the grant'contracts. One of the things they are dealing with is that the way the prograt~t i~ set up through the department of transportation, the grants have to be applied for by the school board rather than by a city ar county. However there has to be a local sponsor, the city or county has to be part of that application because there has to be a maintaining entity that takes ~ver the s~4~ewalk once it'~ ~ui1t. So it is kind of a partnership grant arrangement. The funds are primarily ~tended for construction however; up to 10% of the grant can be used for design costs. The prajects require~d local agency program type agreement, what they call ~ LA~';~rocess. It is a pretty involved process. It is similar to what the department of transporta~~sn uses fAr their road projects and it gets pretty extensive. Just to give an overview of that, the 5 d~ferent phases of LAP and you go through all of these steps. There are categorical exclusions required which'are environmental studies through NEPA, that is similar to what you go through for a majc~r roadproje~t ~o it ~e$s into historical and archeological and environmental i~acts which is~ a lot to go thr~t,t~~'or a sidewalk but, nevertheless, the federal requirements force you~ tio ~o throu~l~ all of that. There are also requirements for federal construction, FEMA flpodplain and so or?, You get into traffic control plans, utilities; there are just a lot of steps that you have to go through in`managing the design and grant. Public Works has had a lot of experience at #he county working primarily through road projects with LAP and he can tell you that they have, in`~`act their LAP grant manger, Lori Rocky, is here today and she handles a lot of the grants and its very time intensive just trying to manage the grant itself. Nevertheless, it is a good program in that it brixl,gs you khe funding. The problem that Public Works is having at the County ~ level is that they have~ot~~idewalk projects that they are doing right now for the County Commission, using County funds and our staff is loaded up with road projects and bridges projects and sidewalks as well as storm water. We have a number of programs going on and to take on these additional sidewalks through the Safe Routes Program, we just don't have the staff to dedicate to the two functions that are required which are the management of the project and management of the grant. Because management of the grant is a big amount of work as well, there are a lot of fiscal steps. What they have thought about as we are all facing budget constraints and we are cutting budgets and we are cutting staff, we started tallcing about how can we get this done effectively. One of the ideas that we came up with was the idea of trying to perhaps share this in a partnership manner amongst all the entities in the community, where we could perhaps fund a position jointly. When we started having that discussion just among the county staff, we went and talked to Mark Satterlee and it really became, we sort of thought about the TPO as really the perfect place to do that because it's TPO Meeting March 5, 2008 Page 4 of 13 made up of a collection of all the entities that are involved, the school board, the county and the cities. The thought process was that if we could all share in the cost of a position that could be dedicated totally to sidewalks then it would cost each of us less money for that position. We could all throw in perhaps a fourth of the cost and we could all share that position. One of the advantages you have is when you look at sidewalks, sidewalks themselves cross jurisdictional boundaries and the county has just gone through a process where we have created a master plan, its greenways and trails master plan. It looks at not only sidewalks but also trails and it crosses boundaries. It crosses city and county lines. Often times when you look at a sidewalk construction project you might have a tendency, if you work for a city or county to terminate it at a boundary. If you had a person that worked under the TPO that had the ability to cross those boundaries and make those connectivity points for the sidewalks, we thought that there might be an advantage in ~~t, ~ So it would give us that kind of neutral ground where we could manage a project, it wouldn't ma~er if it was in the city or county, this position could be working for any of those entities as w~~l a~ xepresenting the school board and we could try to get the sidewalks put in the right place where ~tiey would serve the schools to the best ability and they would also make those impartant conn~tions In looking at it, we put together a sample of a project manager position and this is~a ,~b description that the county has from our own list of jobs. It would~'t have to be this one; this is just kir~d of a guideline. We could look at project manager positions ~i;~ cities a~ well and we could probably come up with something collectively. What we wanted to present #o you today was the idea of this concept and perhaps start the conversation to see if there is an~`iraterest in this idea. I can tell you I'm not here today looking for an absolute answer because I know thi~°may be the first time a lot of you have heard this idea. I don't want to put you i~ ~ position where you ~iave tq come back with a solid answer today, but just to start the conversation arir~i s~;if there is inter~st ir't it. We think it is an idea that may have some merit and we would like to~come ~~~~t a latter time and discuss it in more detail if the Board would so desire. Looking at a positiori, a pa~itica~`would probably cost in the neighborhood of $80,000-$100,~(?0 roughly. Depending on the salary range with the benefits, if you look at a$44,000-$45,OQ~ salary ~nd',then add in b~efits then you are probably at $88,000 a year. So, if you split that up ~aur ways, you may be lookin~, at $20,000-$25,000 per entity to create a position like this that could be dedicated solely to this ~ne function. Commissioner Co1~~ r~sponded that first of al~, when you are looking for the two cities, the county and schoolboard to"~o~.5ider something, she is not sure this TPO meeting is the proper place to be discussing it for a vote be.~ause while'same have four votes the City of Ft. Pierce only has two votes and Cornmissioner Sessions ~d herself are not in a position to make a commitment on what the city would or w~r~tld not be willing to do. She has concerns at that level. When we talk about applying for these side~valk funds, she knows that the City of Fort Pierce for one or two years in a row has applied for these grants in a partnership with the school board and has received them and she believes the City of Port St. L;ueie has also. Her concern becomes on a lot of different levels here. We recently all heard the v~rs talk about tax cuts. Tax cuts are creating the budget deficit and from her standpoint and her opinion and it's purely her opinion, the fact that the voters voted to cut taxes and to put us in a budget deficit position didn't mean that they wanted us to find creative ways to gow bureaucracy. They wanted us to scale back bureaucracy. She is looking now at being concerned at being able to keep every employee that the City of Ft. Pierce has and not have to have lay offs as she is sure the County is and so is the City of Port St. Lucie with the budget cuts they are facing. To her, it would do a great disservice to the employees that are employed by each of our separate entities currently, for us to look at taking funds to fund a position outside of our own government agencies. She would like them to perhaps explore fully the possibility of applying for these funds on a greater scale and then leave the administration of the funds received to the entity under which the geographic jurisdiction falls. TPO Meeting March 5, 2008 Page 5 of l3 Ms. Hensley commented that she agrees with Commissioner Coke in that the school board is in a position that they have, like everyone is, we are losing money and we have millions of dollars that are cut out of this year's budget starting today and we have 140 some frozen positions of which we have a signi~cant use so for the school board to commit to spend any money outside of the already immediate needs that they already have, she thinks would be a very difficult thing. She can't speak for the entire school board but she does know that the situation that they are in right now does not give them the flexibility to create any new positions. They are trying to maintain the positions they have. Commissioner Lewis responded that to address the concerns, she thinks that this request is made as it's made, precisely because none of us can afford to hire a position at this ~4ipt in time; precisely because we are all short staffed currently. If it has become impossible within the county and she believes Mr. West, she knows how many fewer people he has tben h~°did.six months ago, and she knows what they are attempting to accomplish, if the county is unable to bandle these grants appropriately, we are saying a large number of these sidewalks wr?~'t get don~~~ecause the county simply won't be able to apply for tt~e grant. The county is lotrl~yng ~t a gant ~~pli~ation that is due Apri130"'. She thinks that asking the TPO to fund a partiai position when we are ~il 1>ooking at short staffs and shorter budgets was somewhat lesser than e~cting any of the entities of~~kixig~~n someone new and perhaps displaces someone they have< '~~e county too, at this point ~ time, is very concerned with maintaining the somewhat more limited stafft~ey,~iave ~eft. She doesn't see this as growing bureaucracy; she sees it as pooling the resources to fun~:a need which she thinks all the entities share. She appreciates the fact that Commissioner Coke t~nly,has two members on the TPO Board; it has kind of been a traditional, historical.thing that things a~ brought before the TPO board and then taken back to respective boards for ~ction, She thinks that the,~nefit of bringing it to the TPO for a first time look at it, you can hear otl~er points af view that y~u might not hear at your own board and you can take that information and you~`<thout~hts b~~k end come to a conclusion. Truly, she thinks this is a less wastefu~%perha}as, way of hanc~ling this. Her staff is telling her that they cannot handle another grant that ~teeds t~e ~nanaged in the way that federal gants do and she would hate to see this opportunity to pr~~ide further sidewalks go away. Councilwoman Berger stated:~hat s~e has to agree w~~r Commissioner Coke on this issue. She will ~ not be supporting,~ding a whole:t~~er po~i~ion tc~ the TPO to manage the program itself. When she takes a loo~ at what th~~i~ of Pot# 5t Lucie has done just in conjunction with partnerships with the school district and Board of County Cornmissioners last year, we should applaud ourselves in what is happening now and we have S~id, our board, and she knows the County has supplied a lot of funds to this, but the.~~ty of Port St. Liicie has said to their staff that they understand that it is more work but we still expect that you get it done. There is an expectation that we have given our staff that says public safety, es~ially sidewa~~s is the new priority and so as we take a look at how we can make sidewalks happen f~te~r, and at a better value, certainly working together is one step in making that happen but adding a pa~i~ion, she is not sure there is a real value to it at this point. Commissioner Coward responded that he agrees with the sentiment. The county commission is looking at having to cut $50 million dollars in the next two years alone and the county has about 110 frozen positions so he had the same reaction when it came to the Board of County Commission. He is asking the basic question of do we wish to pursue these grants? Is there anyone that doesn't? He thinks the answer is that they do want to pursue the grants. So then it is really up to us to figure out whether our existing staff can or cannot handle that. And the answer to that may be different depending on which jurisdiction is answering that question. The county staff, Mr. West, has made it clear that he doesn't believe the county has the staff at this time with the frozen positions, to handle this additional work. So, if the county doesn't have the existing staff, what is the most cost effective way to implement this program? If we are talking about a disservice, to him, not moving forward TPO Meeting March 5, 2008 Page 6 of 13 with these grants would be the greatest disservice of all. He has said this before but, there is a national publication called Mean Streets and the Fort Pierce-Port St. Lucie MSA has traditionally been ranked as one of the most dangerous areas in the nation for a city our size, has some of the highest per capita death rates due to bicycle and pedestrians fatalities. So, if we do not move forward with these grants then that is the greatest disservice of all. The idea in his mind is to determine what the most cost effective way for us to collectively work together. He doesn't know the answer yet but, that's what he wants to get from staff. He has one question, at the last TPO meeting there was a study that many of the members objected to the value of it and he thinks that the TPO was forced to pay some $40,000-$50,000 to do a study that many on the board felt didn't have a lot of substance to it. He is still of the mindset of can the TPO stop doing those studies and put the money into priorities such as sidewalks? If the TPO had not spent the $40,000 or $50,000 dollars 4~ that one study, then they could have funded much of this position. Does the TPO have any flexibility with existing monies, he knows there is money for planning and so forth, and can T~ TPO pull out money from that source to help us implement what is obviously a priority iss~ in this community? Ms. Tanis from FDOT responded that PL funds can be used ~?d ~nore towarc~~e ~osition that they are talking about right now, a portion of that could be used for let's say a planner ~~sition. What concerns her and she has had discussions with Mr. Satterlee and Ms. Lathou, is PL ft~cis a~e very limited in terms of what they can be used for. When we talk about design and constru~tion of sidewalks, they would not be eligible. Commissioner Coward stated that if they could get the state and t~e district office to agree to fund at least a significant portion that falls under the PLcamponent and the~'[t makes the remaining amount much more achievable, if we are talking about ~5t!{3~ ~r $10,000 doll~ars~for the county, city and school board to come up with as opposed to tens of thousands he thin~s there is an opportunity if we can refine the discussion and partnership with F`T~DT this cc~d t'~ll~~be an easy decision for us. He is sure that we can come up with a few thousand dol~ars to save ~ couple of kid's lives here in St. Lucie County. Vice Mayor Kelly respond~,~hat he~rnet with Mr. Sat~rlee before the meeting and there is TPO money in those PL funds to'da planning and go for the"grants. lt is the project and design. If you look at the letter that he gave from the City of Pt~"t St. Lucie's engineer staff, in the future sidewalk projects back up matc~ial in the agenda packet, the county administratar memorandum from Mr. Anderson, on the second page, half w~.y down, it says "in developing a solution the committee had to consider the following: #2 w~s only jurisdiction with LAP certified...." It assumes that the other cities don't l~k~ve LAP certi~c~tion. The City of Port St. Lucie does as he is sure the City of Fort Pierce does. The project development would be done by each city, it is just as Commissioner Coke said, if we go for the funds and we get them and then we disperse them and let the cities and the county do their own ~oject and construction management. That is what he is looking at. He has the same echo that everyone else does. We are looking at wants and needs and that's the way it's going to be for a long, long time. He knows there are PL funds available. Last time he checked it was $340,000 in that fund and it may be over a 5 year period but there was enough money for that. He is not concerned about the project and development if the money is given to the cities. Ms. Tanis stated that TPO staff is in the midst of developing the 2 year Uni~ed Planning Work Program (UPWP) and she would suggest to very specifically write this into the Bike/ Ped Greenways Transit Planning Task, 4.2. Mr. Satterlee responded that the staff is currently working on the 2 year UPWP and Task 4.2 does address sidewalks, trails, greenways, etc...directly and we can certainly make it more specific for use of the PL funds for sidewalks. The only problem that we get into is getting to the point where we can TPO Meeting March 5, 2008 Page 7 of 13 implement these projects. It is his understanding that the PL funds cannot be used for project implementation, construction or things of that nature. Staff's point, when we started loaking at this 2 and 3 months ago trying to figure out how we were going to get to this, we where in much different circumstances. Certainly conditions have changed fairly recently and fairly rapidly and we certainly understand the cities concerns with this. We are looking for a way to get these sidewalks built. The joint MPO/TPO meeting that we had in Port St. Lucie several months ago it was very much a priority so he thinks that staff took some of their lead from that. Councilwoman Berger asked for clarification, did she just hear that there is over $350,000 available in this PL fund that can only be used for salary? Vice Mayor Kelly responded that there was about $340,000 a year and„~ half ago but of course that changed because remember when the TPO board gave money for the B~cker Road study, which came out of the PL funds. , Mr. Satterlee stated that is planning money that is used for studiea, c~ata collectio~ traffic counts, salaries, the production of these documents, holding these ineetings, that is what ~ie-PL funds are used for. Vice Mayor Kelly responded that he thinks going after these funds is the TPO Director's job. Councilwoman Berger stated that she hope~~at all the entities ear~~vork together to make the next steps viable for each organizations. The letter fi~om the school board t~at is dated December 19, 2007, 2°d paragaph in it talks about submittal o~a gr~nt for this year ~oming up, for infrastructure in . the unincorporated county. Her concern from the City"o~P~'~ St. Lucie's standpoint is that those partnerships extend out to the cities as well. The City o~ort S~~ Lucie has the LAP certi~cation and we can apply and we bave in the past. She would h;~~e that whet~:~ie school board is looking to identify locations that it is not just ~e unincorpara~e;cl part of the county that they are identifying locations and we can ~ake. our priorities as such. Ms. Hensley responded that tl~is is a template letter t~,at came in the packet from the county. That is why it is only the`county letter. There woald be a similar letter that went to both of the cities. Vice Ma~~r Kelly asked i~the disbursement of the funds would come back to the TPO? Ms. Hensley ~~sponded that tttey need to find a way to take this to the next step. There is a concern and she doesn't k~ow if it needs zo be a concern at this point, they are working with both of the cities and the county and Mr. West made a statement of concern about connectivity and making sure that things work; she thi~ks that is an interagency agreement that we can talk to each other on a more deliberate basis to make sure that is in place. The School Board doesn't do infrastructure, they actually are infrastructure so the money goes to the entity that is going to do the work. She understands the need for a position to maybe draw it all together. Her concern is maybe we need to give it some significant time to come up with something more creative. She has a little bit of angst with asking for any new money at this time when we don't know what is going to happen so if we can come up with a way to fund the position which seems to be critical without impacting any one entity to much with using funds that already exist or reallocating funds that might exist in the TPO then she thinks we might be able to take the next step. Commissioner Coke wanted to clarify one thing. When we talked earlier about creating a new position and she expressed concern about keeping positions employed...As they are going forward in the City of Fort Pierce, she is seeing less people applying for building permits, less people looking to TPO Meeting March 5, 2008 Page 8 of 13 move forward with developments even after they have been approved, and her concern is she does not want to have departments with people ready to service those needs of those developers who are no longer developing and then what do we do with those positions. It's not that she doesn't want to move forward with sidewalks, sh~ doesn't want anyone to think that. But, what she doesn't want to have happen is have people at city hall who have been true and loyal employees now all of sudden when building slows down and inspections slow down and there are budget cuts and there is not wark to justify a position any longer that she would have to make the hard and fast decision along with her fellow commissioners that one of those positions should be unfunded or someone let go and in the same breath she would have a hard time sleeping at night if they just hired somebody from a third agency to do kind of the same thing. So, until things start falling out and they have a better idea of what the future of development is and the busy level of our departments ~~ing to be she would rather see if they could share the work load among the entities. Mr. Gomez stated that he is just a taxpayer but what he is hearin~ ~s that°ea~~ city wants to do their own planning and design and construction of sidewalks and may6e this posi~fa~;,would coordinate it. At some point in time there are going to be areas that are pr~rities ~nd how do ~~u deal with that. There are other pieces that have to be looked at. You jus~~eed someone to adrriFi~is~r this thing not design it, build it ar plan it. Vice Mayor Kelly responded that he did not want to be redunc~~r~ but that is what the ~`PO Board is saying. The PL funds are defined and limited. It is already dc~e~with teamwork with the school board and the TPO and everyone working ~o~ether. What we art~~lking about is like the City of Port St. Lucie is down 83 positions and the Coun~y is down 110 positiot~s and fo~ him to go back and ask for even one third of an FTE to pay for that wouli~ he,;~tless it was som~thing that they absolutely needed, and it isn't. They already have people t~at cai~~tpl~ for these funds, we have people that can plan far it, and it's disbursed to the cities that ar~ LA~ ~ertif`t~t ~~d ~tey can do the construction. Who is going to know better'~rhere to put sidewa~~n Fort Pier~ than the Commissioners from Fort Pierce and the people thaC work there? The City of Port St. Lucie's Public Works department has been told by the City Ct~icil that this'is a priority and they are ready to do the work. We have the staff and they will do it b~use they have been told to and it should be a priority everywhere. Councilwom~~ Ber~~stated that ~~?e hopes~~n fut~re discussions that they can also hear from the school boarc~'and how #hey can part~er with us on maybe being project manager of some of these projects ~oming together. Iti safe rout~s to schools, not to the libraries or to the community center, it is safe routes to schools so ~~tainly if we had to have one administrator it seems as though that would be ~te perfect spot for i~ t~ come out of and she knows there may be some management positions that c;c~~d easily enco~ass just the project management role. The engineering and construction and t1~t~se sorts of things would come out of each agency but with one person being a ~ project manager for~,~oritization coming back to the board. Ms. Hensley responded just remember that the school board is infrastructure and just because someone gave it a cute'name doesn't imply that it was well thought out about how the whole mechanism would work. It is Safe Routes to Schools and she does believe that is very important that it be part of the bigger picture of bike paths and all that sart of thing but she can tell you that since the school board is not empowered to do the construction as they are infrastructure then they would need to have a conversation about that. Commissioner Coward stated that he thinks the PL funds provide an opportunity to look closely at being able to bring some additional staff assistance onboard without having any fiscal impact to any one of the entities. If we then have that person doing the planning and some coordination and then have each governmental entity handling the design and project management in their own context, TPO Meeting March 5, 2008 Page 9 of 13 whether it is with existing staff or hiring a local yuali~ed firm. He would very much like to give direction to the Interim TPO Director to secure those funds. Chairman Kelly has mentioned that there are considerable monies that are in those broad planning categories and they are there for the TPO to use in these types of reasons. That is what he would like to see as a starting point. Vice Mayor Kelly requested that Mr. Satterlee let the TPO Board know at the next meeting how much money is in the PL funds so they will know exactly because that $340,000 has probably changed. Mr. Satterlee stated that there are currently two unfilled positions in the TPO; a Director and a Seniar Planner. Those positions are vacant but they are funded so he will make sux~>#hat the staff reports the amount of money for that. Ms. Hensley questioned that if the TPO classifies this position differentl~ ~C~ gives it to the Senior Planner position then it is okay? Mr. Satterlee responded the issue with that is the project and construction and th~ a~ount that it would cost to hire somebody with that level of expertise can also be a limiting factor ~ci he doesn't know that you could hire a Senior Planner that has that ability for tha~ amount of money that the TPO has. We will just have to see. Vice Mayor Kelly stated that he thinks the'consensus is that the TPO doesn't want to hire anybody for project and construction. We want to hii~somebody that can se~ur~ these funds. Mr. Satterlee responded that he understands. Vice Mayor Kelly stated that,is what we are conc~rned about. Vtre don't need to take any action. We have a consensus on this one. Commissioner Grande responded that he was with Vice Mayor Kelly until he said "we don't need to take any action". If he unders~ids correctly if the TFO funds the position for the person that will actually do the grant applications tk~e result of khat grant application filing wi11 be funding coming from pro~rams that we wouldn't otherwise get and that funding would be directed to the county, the city wh~ever the specific sid~walk praject was. Now if we end this meeting with a take no action we will not have the TPO at any point filin~~iese grant applications. So we are either going to go into a stop. Vice Mayor Kelty; stated that his "take no action" was on everybody kicking in to hire someone. Mr.Satterlee respondedthatl~e misunderstood what Commissioner Coward was saying so he apologizes. Commissioner Grande stated that he thought the alternate suggestion was to have the TPO go ahead and hire somebody, not out of funds that were split among these groups but out of the existing TPO budget and have that person filing these applications in concert with the area that the specific sidewalk project was in. Vice Mayor Kelly responded correct me if I'm wrong but he thought that was a TPO Director's job. His job is to coordinate it with the cities; that's his job. Commissioner Grande questioned when you say that's his job are you saying it's his job to file those TPO Meeting March 5, 2008 Page 10 of 13 applications or his job to fill that position? Vice Mayor Kelly responded both, actually. Commissioner Grande stated okay. He had a sense that the consensus the TPO board was working towards was that the TPO would actually fill a position whose function it would be to file those applications in concert with the various government units that were looking for these grant funds. Commissioner Coke responded for clarification; it was her understanding that the TPO Board was looking to move forward with a new TPO director and now it has come to our attention that we also have a funded position that is vacant for a planner. It would seem to her tl~~t the easy resolution to all of this is not whether the TPO hires someone for this project particularly. If we have a planning position vacant that is funded, we can hire that person and direct them tv move forward on different projects as time allows and as the need arises. If we don't have a planner iu.~lace now and we should have one, then we can tell that planner to go after the sidewalk money. Wl~~ii tl~ey are done with that they can go after something else. Vice Mayor Kelly stated he thinks it would be good to have a perrnanent TPO Direct~:~q help us do that. That is why he is not pushing it right now. Ms. Tanis responded the she doesn't want the TPO Board to 1~elieve that the construction or engineering aspects of this job would be funded. Vice Mayor Kelly stated that the TPO Board is acutely aware of that. Vice Mayor Kelly responded that he did have a quick question ~orMr. West. What does the County estimate per square foot for sidewalks with the proper drainage and everything? Mr. West stated that it r~~ly has to be looked at ind`t~adually. What the county has learned with the sidewalks that they have (~esigned in the past that really the drainage can be half of the cost. Often times when you put a sidewalk i~ the suaale area of the street you have a huge impact on your drainage so you can ac#ually spend half ofyour money piping your drainage and re-directing your drainage and`redesigni~tg that as w~1~ as putting in the ribbon of concrete that becomes the sidewalk. We can price out the concre?ke,part but not the drainage part. Vice Mayor Kelly responded tla~t if the county was going to put in 5 miles of sidewalk next year, what would your average price b~ per foot? Mr. West responded t~t the county has been running on the order of $250,000 to $300,000 per mile, including drainage ant~ sver~fhing. AGENDA ITEM #9 SR AlA FiJNDING REOUEST .Mr. Andrews stated that the City of Fort Pierce has submitted a funding request for the SR AlA (U.S. 1 to Blue Heron Blvd.) reconstruction/enhancement project which is currently under construction. The City is requesting approximately $9.6 million for completion of construction. Vice Mayor Kelly questioned where Mr. Andrews thought these funds would come from? Commissioner Coke responded that first of all she wanted to apologize for not having a better presentation. Unfortunately, this TPO meeting had been cancelled and then rescheduled without a lot TPO Meeting March 5, 2008 Page 1 l of 13 of notice. When she found out the meeting was going to happen she immediately requested this item to be put on the agenda. She wants to let everyone know that if they had more time they would have been better prepared with their presentation and we could have gotten with the TPO staff to see what projects were being funded in Fort Pierce in the near future that we might have been able to reallocate some of the funds, move them around and postpone funding of the other projects at a later date. Her concern is that despite the fact that she can't tell you which projects in Fort Pierce we would like to put off; she can tell you that this is the last section of Al A that needs to be funded. If you want to talk about drainage problems go swim home in your little car over on the beach any time that it does rain. This project has been going on since before she was born and it will be going on hopefully, not to much longer. The bid opening for the final phase of this project is tomorrow. It is not as if we are coming to the TPO and saying we've had some other presentations where v~~',ve been asked to allocate funds for a project that is not going to move forward in the City bf Fort Pierce unti12020 or 2025. It is the consensus of the Mayor and the Commission that they are~~n desperate need of moving this project forward. The Mayor went to Tallahassee to ask for funding. ~t ~~s been a comedy of errors with this and finally all of the permits are in place and the b~d thing is t~t if Fort Pierce doesn't get this funding, AlA will be done from US 1 down to~Bint~ey and thet~~t ~von't be done to , Gulfstream. Then it will be done from Gulfstream down the other end. The three ~:jor areas that are major drainage problems will not be done if they don't get this funding. What she~is<~,sking is to please direct the TPO staff to get with FDOT and reallocate funding fqr other Fort Pier~e projects and postpone those to a later date because this is the project tha.t ~s rt~ost urgent to the City: Vice Mayor Kelly responded that Fort Pierce wants to reprioritize tlay~ funding in their area. The TPO board is in consensus of having the TPO stat~`bring back information on the other projects in Fort Pierce. Commissioner Coke stated that the City will con~inu~Rto look ~~r ~ther sources of funding as well. So far the City has contributed million to the pro~ect:~ Vice Mayor Kelly res~onded that he wanted Mr. Satterlee to bring back the information at the next TPO meeting. AGENDA TTEM #10 TPO D~~CTOR VA~ANCY Ms. Hensley, Chairperson ofihe sub committee for the TPO Director, stated that the TPO has been pursuing a permanent Direc~r for a signifcant amount of time. She stated that the committee met on March 4`h to discuss the next steps. Mi~hael Williams withdrew after a contract had been mutually agreed to. He emailed her last w~ek and indicated that he wouldn't be signing his contract or arriving to work. Family i~es seemed to be his reason for not signing. The Committee is recommending that contract negoti~~io~s commence with their second choice, applicant, Michael Brillhart, if he is available and still inter~sted. If he is not, they recommend opening the procedure and advertising for new applicants. Mr. Brillhart interviewed very well, has a vast experience with transportation planning and was the TPO interim director before Mr. Satterlee was employed. Vice Mayor Kelly responded that when you talk about proceeding with the contract are you talking about the committee doing that or are you leaving it up to the Chair? Ms. Hensley responded that the committee would handle it. Vice Mayor Kelly stated then he doesn't have any problem with that. Commissioner Coward stated that he actually voted for the other gentleman at the recommendation of TPO Meeting March 5, 2008 Page ]2 of 13 the committee but his honest opinion is that Mr. Brillhart should have been the #1 candidate because he is from the area and actually worked as the TPO interim director and did a fine job. He has zero hesitation about making Mr. Brillhart our fulltime TPO director immediately. Commissioner Coward made a motion to ask Mr. Brillhart to become the full time TPO Director immediately as recommended by Ms. Hensley. Commissioner Grande seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously. Ms. Hensley explained that the next step would be to see if the TPO Board can encourage him to come farward and deal with the contract hopefully by the end of this week if possible. Vice Mayor Kelly stated he wants to make that part of the deal. Time i~ of the essence. Can we make it by Friday, March 7`h? Ms. Hensley responded that we have a date; March 7`h, Friday morning. AGENDA ITEM #11 FDOT COMMENTS Ms. Tanis stated that she has a letter for the Chair that was finished and given to her righf "befare she left Fort Lauderdale. Prior to handing it out to the Board mernk~er~ she ~vvould like to rr~eet with the Chairman after the meeting and discuss the contents. It will Yie ~rought back to the next TPO meeting as an agenda item. AGENDA ITEM # 12: RECOMMENDTIQNSI~I~~IVIENTS BY ~IEMBERS Commissioner Coward stated that he wanted to thank the City of ~'ort St. Lucie. He had been contacted by some residents t~~t live off Gilson and<Harbor Ridge and there were some issues regarding traffic problems where T~~cker and Gilsonz hit and the stripping needed to be re done and there were trash issues. R?k~'. West had contacted the City's staff and they were out there immediately getting that issue fiYed and~he~~ing. ~Commissioner Cqward wanted to publicly say Thank-You for that. AGENDA`ITEM # 13 ,,,~1EXT 1V~EETING The ~ext~St. Lucie TPO meE;ting is schedu~led for Wednesday Apri12, 2008, in the City of Port St. Lucie Charnbers, 121 SW Port St. Lucie Blvd, Port St. Lucie, Florida AGENDA TTEM #3,~; ADJOURNMENT There being no further bt~iness, the meeting was adjourned at 3:05 p. m. Respectfully submitted by: Approved by: Karen L. Neal Jack Kelly Senior Staff Assistant TPO Chair TPO Meeting March 5, 2008 Page 13 of 13 AGENDA ITEM #1 AND # 2: CALL MEETING TO ORDER / PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Vice Mayor Kelly called the St. Lucie Transportation Planning Organizati~n Board meeting to order at 2:05 p.m. AGENDA ITEM #3: ROLL CALL The roll was called by recording secretary, Karen Neal at wl~~ch titine a quoru~,was determined. AGENDA TTEM #4: APPROVAL OF AGENDA Vice Mayor Kelly asked if there were any changes, additions or dele~ions to the agenda from staff ar members. ° Commissioner Lewis made a motion to ~j~prove the agenda. ~s. Hensley seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously. AGENDA ITEM #5: APPROVAL OF MINUTES ~'OR JANU%i`RY 30. 2008 Vice Mayor Kelly asked if there w~e, any changes, additions or deletions to the minutes from staff ar members. Commissioner Lewis made"s m~fiort ~r,~pproxe ttie January 30, 2008 minutes. Commissioner Coward secar~ii~eed ~ motion. The motion wa~approved unanimously. AGENDA ITEM #6: C01~ENTS FROM THE PUBLIC There were none. AGENDA ITElVa~ #7: COMl~~NTS FROM ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS (TAC/CACI Mr. Sebastian Gomez,`the chairman of the CAC introduced himself to the Board. He said he was commenting as a member and not the chairman. He stated that he has had some trying times as far as the cancellation of so many meetings. Some of the members of the committee are volunteers, they don't get paid to attend the meetings but they joined because they wanted to make a difference. They wanted to be a venue to bring concerns to the Board. He understands there are reasons for cancellations but it is frustrating that they can't do what they want to do, what they volunteered to do. He wanted to share that with the Board, that there are some concerns. Commissioner Coward replied that he wasn't aware of the meetings being cancelled and he wanted to better understand if that was a staffing decision or rather if that was due to a lack TPO Meetmg March 5, 2008 Page 2 of 13 ' T;an~po~~tdtion ~'lonniag ~~9ani:ation sT. ~.ue~E ur~r~r~r~ r~a~r~ 2300 VirginiaAvenue Telephone:772/462-1593 Ft. Pierce, FL 34982-5652 Facsimile: 772/462-2549 MEMORANDUM Consent Agenda Item No. 8A TO: St. Lucie Transportation Planning Organization (TPO) FROM: Mark Satterlee Interim TPO Director DATE: Apri12, 2008 SUBJECT: Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) and Local Coordinating Board for the Transportation Disadvantaged (LCB) Members Item Origination: Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) Task 1.1 - Program Managemerct/Administration Requested Action: Appoint Three New Members to the CAC and LCB SUMMARY According to the TPO by-laws, TPO action is required to appoint new members to the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) and the Local Coordinating Board for the Transportation Disadvantaged (LCB). Ms. Lenora Hurley has expressed interest in becoming a member of the CAC; Mr. Jim Dwyer and Ms. Stacy Malinowski have expressed interest in becoming members of the LCB. Applications for the three individuals are attached. TPO ACTION: Appoint new CAC and LCB members. ATTACHMENTS CAC and LCB member applications Transportation Planning for Ft. Pierce, Port St. Lucie, St. Lucie Vi/lage and St. Lucie County Mar. 1. 2008 12;51PM -DCf--~-- ~ . r~+TMf~irVTV No.5777 P. 1/1'•~ ' ST. LUC1E TRANSPORTATiON PLANNING ORGAN1ZATtON (TPO) APPLICA710N ~FCfR S$RV1Nt3 ON COMMITT6E3/BOARDS ~ , rr~ ~ ~ 1~D 4~ ~U~. ~ 2. Home Phone:~~~ AS ~ '7 ~O ~D 7~`" ~4 3, Home ~0.ddress: ''"T ! ~ ` ~ ~ ~ ~E ~ ~145 ~ ~ ~ 4. BusinossAddress: ~ ~ [ 1~/a• ~ ~T~ l~ ~ ~ ' [ ~r~ ~ Z ~,~~_~b ~I - ~ ! 3 ~lqS2 5. BusEness Phonc• ~ 6. £mail Address: ~/1~.~ _ ~Jhv~S~e A 7, rief S mmary vf Background; f~c~~ C~ , i ee,i~ i'~a~. ~ ~F ,ne 6r. E~ t W ~ 8. Do yo side in St, Luc~e Councy? Yes ? No ~ 9. ifyos. please chxk where you reside Port St Lncie Pt. ~ierce ~ Sx, Lucie Village Uninanrporett~d County 10. HDw long hevC you ~esided 'm this location? ___~.~t,,~.e~ 1 l. Arc you presently amployed by A government ageaey? Y~s ~No 12. bo you Qe'w serve an a loca) ~overnment board or committee7 Yes No v~ ~f Yoa, which one(s)? _ ~ 3. P~Eas~ CHECK'rrlE ST. LUCiB 7ttANSPORTATJON PLANNUVG ORGANIZATION (TPO) BOARD OR CQMMlTTEE YOU ARE 1NTERES'T£D iN SERVING ON: Transportation Disadvanta~ed Local Coordinating Board (LCB). 'hmnspvrtation Plannin~ Oceeniration Citizen~ Advisory Cem,mittee (CAC) 14. Until such time you arC selected for ~h~ BOard/Cpmmittee of your choice, may we submit your applicption when vacancies occur? Yes ? No 15. Wiit you be ebie to attend CAC moethly meetings or LCB quarcerly meotin s? Yes ~No SIGNATURE: Date: c~+ D ~ ~ . 'r~- Note: Application effective TWO Y~ARS fmm drto of completioa. Submit to: St. Lacie Transportstion Planning Organi2ation 2300 Virginia Avenva, Ft. Pierc~. FL 34982 Phone: 772l462-1 S93 Fax: 772/462-Z549 D---:...~ r:__ c_t nn n cnni~ ST. LUCIE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ORGA1~iIZATION (TPO) APPLICATION FOR SERVING ON COMMITTEES/BOARDS l. Name F"' ~ ~ ~ ~~o \ 2. Home Phone: y~"/ ~ 3. Home Address: ~G7 ?S. J'( l ~ 4. Business Address: ~y6 ~•t~i(/p~s ~ ~ji t~~l~A , ~S'~ ~ Y 5. Business Phone: llf,~' 1//G'C~ X 1C 7 6. Email Address: t/,~s'~ L~S'~~i r~~ q .~J i w. ~ d.u ~ .+c~eTz eu eJ, ~.ira. 7. Brief Summary of B~ dckground: ' i~e~+.f ~~c~ ~//ct~ ~°~`!6^ rY$~~ 3 v~ l~'~ca ~ 4 l ~'~4 ~~vr~ 8. Do you reside in St. Lucie County? Yes No 9. If yes, please check where you reside Port St. Lucie Ft. Pierce St. Lucie Village Unincorporated County ~ 10. How long have you resided in this location? S~iG ~ 9~~ 11. Are you presently employed by a government agency? Yes l'~No 12. Do you now serve on a local government board or committee? Yes No "l If Yes, which one(s)? 13. PLEASE CHECK THE ST. LUCIE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ORGANIZATION (TPO) BOARD OR COMMITTEE YOU ARE INTERESTED IN SERVING ON: Transportation Disadvantaged Local Coordinating Board (LCB) ~ Transportation Planning Organization Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) 14. Until such time you are selected for the Board/Committee of your choice, may we submit your application when vacancies occur? Yes ~ No 15. Will you be able to~ttend CAC monthly meetings or LCB quarterly meeti s? Yes ? No SIGNATURE: ~r ' Date: -3 ` Note: Applica effective TWO EARS from date of c Submit to: St. Lucie Transportation Planning Organiz , 2300 Vir inia Avenue, Ft. Pierce, FL 349 Childrens JIM DWYER g Services Director of Programming Phone:772/462-1593 Fax: 772/462-254 Council s~ u,c~.ce~ 546 NW University Blvd. Suite 201 Port St. Lucie, FL 34986 +nvest +n rne r~+~.e Tel: 772.408.1100 Fax: 772.408.1111 ~ invesi in children website: www.cseslc.org e-mail:jdwyer@csesic.org 03/14/2008 0B:56 4670372 MUSTARDSEEDMINISTRY PAGE 02 ST. LUCiT' TRANSPORTA'.~'ION PL,A.NNING ORGAN~ZAT.T0~1(TFO) APPLICAT.i.ON FOR SERV[NG ON COMMI~'TEES/BO.ARDS 1. Name stBCy n~a~lnowak~ 2. Home Pho~~e: 72-~6e-3~sz 3. HomE Address: ~~2 BOneflah CO~rt Fort PI6~e. Fiorldp 34949 4• Busincss Address: 3~3oso~n, us ~ Fo~c a~e~~ ,FL Ja982 S. Susine55 Phone: ~TZ-ass-6oz~ 6. Email AddreSS: etacy_mustardlnc~ballaouth,net 7• ~f'IC~ S Uf1lRISTy Of BBC~C$I'Olll'1(~: I heva waiied M wcial sarvloes forn~e ~eet 21 y~prs In 9t.LUdc Cwny. My carer Ineludae working with abused chlldren,pregnsnt teene,u~govameble yauth and dlaadv~taged famIN95 in Salnt Lucle CpUnty. I~n th~ arrent prpyrram dlractp~ (or Mustard Sead MNrfypigs of Fort Plarce t~, 8• T~o you reside in St. Lncic County? yes x No 9. ffycs, plea.se check whe~e you reside Port St. Lucie Ft, Pierce = St. Lucic Village z Unincocpotated Coimty 10. How )vng have yoo resided ir~, this lacation7 ~2 ree~ 1 l. Are you present~y employ~d 6y a government agency? Xes No K 12. Do you now serve on a loca.l gover.nment board. or commiltce7 Ycs No X If, Xes, wh.i.~h one(s)7 l3. PLEASE CHFCK 'f1-(E ST. I,UCIE TR,qNSPORTATION P~,ANNING ORGANIZAT1pN (TPO) BOARD OR COMM~TTEE XOU ARE IN7'ERESTED IN SERVtNG ON: Transportation Disadvaataged Local Coordi~aating 8oard (LCg) X rtt+nsportativn Planning Organization Citizens Advisory Commituee (CAC) ~ 14. Until such time you are selected for the i3oard/Committee ofyaur choice, may we subntit your application when vacancies occur7 Yes x Tio 15. Will you be able to attend CAC monthiy nneetings or LCB quartetIq meetings? Yes x No ~ SIGNATUR:E: pate; 03J14/2p0$ Note: Application ef'f'ective TWO XEARS frorn date ofcornp~et~oo, 5ub,nit to; St. Lucie Transppr~r.tipn p)anning prs~~Za.tion 23A0 Vizginia Av~~ue, Ft. Pieree, F.T_ 34982 Phone:7~2/462-.t593 Fax: 7'72/q62-Z549 ~A Ttan~rpo~E~~i~n , ~lannie4 '~~9oniza~ion ST. tUCIE Uf-if3fiN f~R+Ef~ 2300 Virginia Avenue Telephone: 772/462-1593 Ft. Pierce, FL 34982-5652 Facsimile: 772/462-2549 MEMORANDUM Consent Agenda Item No. 8B TO: St. Lucie Transportation Planning Organization (TPO) FROM: Mark Satterlee, Interim TPO Director DATE: April 2, 2008 SUBJECT: Transit Development Plan (TDP) & Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plan (TDSP) Grant Agreement Item Origination: Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) Task 3.2 - Transit Planning & Task 4.1- Transportation Disadvantaged Program Requested Action: Approve TDP & TDSP Grant Agreement SUMMARY Federal law requires a Transit Development Plan (TDP) in order to receive public transit funds. An annual TDP progress report is prepared or a major TDP update every five years. Florida Administrative Code Section 14-73.001 states that the TDP is the responsibility of the transit provider. In St. Lucie County, the transit provider is the Council on Aging (Cornmunity Transit). The TPO set aside funds in its current 2007/2008 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and draft FY 2008/2009 - 2009/2010 UPWP for the preparation of a major TDP. The attached grant agreement would allow these funds to be transferred to Community Transit for its TDP major update. Community Transit wishes to retain CUTR (Center for Urban Transportation Research, University of South Florida) to prepare the TDP. CUTR would also prepare the major Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plan (TDSP) update (required by state law). TPO ACTION Authorize the Chairman to sign the TDP & TDSP grant agreement subject to receipt of the signed originals from the Council on Aging ATTACHMENT: TDP & TDSP Grant Agreement Transportation P/anning for Ft. Pierce, Port Sf. Lucie, Sf. Lucie Village and St. Lucie County GRANT AGREEMENT THIS GRANT AGREEMENT, made this day of , 2008, between ST. LUCIE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ORGANIZATION, hereinafter called the "TPO", and COUNCIL ON AGING OF ST. LUCIE, INC., or its successors, executors, administrators, and assigns hereinafter called the "Council": IN CONSIDERATION of the mutual benefits received by each part, the parties mutually agree as follows: 1. The TPO shall disperse to the Council a grant in a total amount not to exceed one hundred fifty thousand and 00/100 dollars ($150,000.00) for preparation of the Transit Development Plan (TDP) Major Update and Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plan (TDSP) Update, as set forth in the TPO 2007/2008 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and draft FYI 2008/2009-FY 2009/2010 UPWP. The Council shall enter into an agreement with the Center for Urban Transportation Research, University of South Florida (CUTR), to assist in the preparation of the TDP Major Update and TDSP Update. The Council shall submit requests for payment to the County in a form acceptable to the County and in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. The Council shall coordinate the project schedule with the TPO Executive Director. The Council shall submit the final TDP Major Update and TDSP to the TPO on or before February 28, 2009. 2. The grant shall be used only for project expenses as set forth in this Agreement. 3. The Council shall have internal controls adequate to safeguard the grant. 4. If the grant cannot be used or a subsequent audit reveals the grant was not used according to this Agreement, any money not so used shall be reimbursed to the TPO. 5. The Council shall provide an audit, by a certified or duly licensed public accountant, of the expenditure of monies disbursed pursuant to this Agreement. In the alternative and subject to prior written approval of the TPD Executive Director, the Council may submit qualifying paid invoices in lieu of a certified audit. In addition, the Council shall provide the TPO with a copy of the Council's annual audit for each fiscal year during which the Council expends funds received pursuant to this Agreement. The Council shall submit all documents required under this paragraph within ninety (90) days after the end of its last fiscal year during which funds are expended under this Agreement. 6. The Council gives the TPO the right, until the expiration of three (3) years after expenditure of funds under this Agreement, to audit the use of the grant m~nies. Upon demand, the TPO shall have access to and the right to examine any directly pertinent books, documents, papers, and records of the Council involving transactions related to these grant monies. All required records shall be maintained until an audit is completed and all questions arising 1 therefrom are resolved, or until the expiration of three (3) years after the expenditure of the funds. 7. The Council is and shall be an independent contractor, responsible to all parties for all of its acts or omissions and the TPO shall in no way be responsible for such acts or omission. The Council shall and will indemnify and hold harmless the TPO from and against any and all liability, claims, damages, expenses, fees, fines, penalties, suits, proceedings, and actions and cost of actions, including reasonable attorney's fees of any kind and nature arising or growing out or in any way connected with the use, occupations, administration or control of the above described services by the Council or its agents, employees, customers, patrons or invitee, or resulting from injury to person or property, or a loss of life or property of any kind or nature whatsoever sustained during the term of this Agreement. The Council hereby acknowledges that the payments made under this Agreement include specific consideration for the indemnification provided herein. 8. The Council agrees to comply with all local, state and federal laws, rules and regulation, the terms of the Grant Agreement, and the certifications accompanying the Grant Application. 9. Any notice shall be in writing and sent registered or certified mail, postage and charges prepaid, and addressed to the parties at the following address: TO THE TPO: TO THE COUNCIL: TPO Executive Director President 2300 Virginia Avenue Council on Aging of St. Lucie, Inc. Fort Pierce, Florida 34982 1 SOS Orange Avenue Fort Pierce, Florida 34950 10. No amendment, modification or waiver of this Agreement shall be valid or effective unless in writing and signed by both parties and no waiver of any breach or condition of this Agreement shall be deemed to be a waiver of any other conditions or subsequent breach whether of like or different nature. If the TPO currently provides or subsequently provides any forms for agreement modification, the Council agrees to use said forms provided the Council has had an opportunity to review the forms prior to usage of said forms. I 1. The Council represents that it presently has no interest and shall acquire no interest, either direct or indirect, which would conflict in any manner with the preparation of the Transit Development Plan Major Update and Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plan update, as provided for in Florida Statutes 112.311 (2007) and as may be amended from time to time. The Council further represents that no person having any interest shall be employed for said performance. The Council shall promptly notify the TPO in writing by certified mail of all potential conflicts of interest prohibited by existing state law for any prospective business association, 2 ~_s~ ~ interest or other circumstance which may influence or appear to influence the Council's judgment or quality of services being provided hereunder. Such written notification shall identify the prospective business association, interest or circumstance, the nature of work that the Council may undertake and request an opinion of the TPO as to whether the association, interest or circumstance would, in the opinion of the TPO, constitute a conflict of interest if entered into by the Council. The TPO agrees to notify the Council of its opinion by certified mail within thirty (30) days of receipt of notification by the Council. If, in the opinion of the TPO, the prospective business association, interest ar circumstance would not constitute a conflict of interest by the Council, the TPO shall so state in the notification and shall, at his/her option, enter into said association, interest or circumstance and it shall be deemed not in conflict of interest with respect to services provided to the TPO by the Council under the terms of this Agreement. 12. In the event of a dispute between the parties in connection with this Agreement, the parties agree to submit the disputed issue or issues to a mediator for non-binding mediation prior to filing a lawsuit. The parties shall agree on a mediator chosen from a list of certified mediatars available from the Clerk of Court for St. Lucie County. The fee of the mediator shall be shared equally by the parties. To the extent allowed by law, the mediation process shall be confidential and the results of the mediation or any testimony or argument introduced at the mediation shall not be admissible as evidence in any subsequent proceeding concerning the disputed issue. 13. In the event it is necessary for either party to initiate legal action regarding this Agreement, venue shall be in the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit for St. Lucie County, Florida for claims under state law and the Southern District of Florida for any claims which are justiciable in federal court. 14. Except as otherwise provided, this Agreement shall be binding upon and shall insure to the benefit of the parties. 15. This Agreement embodies the whole understanding of the parties. There are no promises, terms, conditions, or obligations other than those contained herein, and this Agreement shall supersede all previous communications, representations or agreements, either verbal or written, between the parties hereto. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused the execution by their duly authorized officials as of the day and year first written above. ATTEST: ST. LUCIE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ORGANIZATION BY SECRETARY CHAIRMAN 3 APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: COUNTY ATTORNEY ATTEST: COUNCIL ON AGING OF ST. LUCIE, INC. BY: SECRETARY PRESIDENT (SEAL) g:\atty\agreemnt\contract\tpo. coa.tdp.do c 4 GRANT AGREEMENT THIS GRANT AGREEMENT, made this day of , 2008, between ST. LUCIE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ORGANIZATION, hereinafter called the "TPO", and COUNCIL ON AGING OF ST. LUCIE, INC., or its successors, executors, administrators, and assigns hereinafter called the "Council": IN CONSIDERATION of the mutual benefits received by each part, the parties mutually agree as follows: l. The TPO shall disperse to the Council a grant in a total amount not to exceed one hundred fifty thousand and 00/100 dollars ($150,000.00) for preparation of the Transit Development Plan (TDP) Major Update and Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plan (TDSP) Major Update, as set forth in the TPO 2007/2008 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and draft FYI 2008/2009-FY 2009/2010 UPWP. The Council shall enter into an agreement with the Center for Urban Transportation Research, University of South Florida (CUTR), to assist in the preparation of the TDP Major Update and TDSP Update. The Council shall submit requests for payment to the County in a form acceptable to the County and in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. The Council shall coordinate the project schedule with the TPO Executive Director. The Council shall submit the final TDP Major Update and TDSP to the TPO on or before February 27, 2009. 2. The grant shall be used only for project expenses as set forth in this Agreement. 3. The Council shall have internal controls adequate to safeguard the grant. 4. If the grant cannot be used or a subsequent audit reveals the grant was not used according to this Agreement, any money not so used shall be reimbursed to the TPO. 5. The Council shall provide an audit, by a certified or duly licensed public accountant, of the expenditure of monies disbursed pursuant to this Agreement. In the alternative and subject to prior written approval of the TPD Executive Director, the Council may submit qualifying paid invoices in lieu of a certified audit. In addition, the Council shall provide the TPO with a copy of the Council's annual audit for each fiscal year during which the Council expends funds received pursuant to this Agreement. The Council shall submit all documents required under this paragraph within ninety (90) days after the end of its last fiscal year during which funds are expended under this Agreement. 6. The Council gives the TPO the right, until the expiration of three (3) years after expenditure of funds under this Agreement, to audit the use of the grant monies. Upon demand, the TPO shall have access to and the right to examine any directly pertinent books, documents, papers, and records of the Council involving transactions related to these grant monies. All required records shall be maintained until an audit is completed and all questions arising 1 therefrom are resolved, or until the expiration of three (3) years after the expenditure of the funds. 7. The Council is and shall be an independent contractor, responsible to all parties for all of its acts or omissions and the TPO shall in no way be responsible for such acts or omission. The Council shall and will indemnify and hold harmless the TPO from and against any and all liability, claims, damages, expenses, fees, fines, penalties, suits, proceedings, and actions and cost of actions, including reasonable attorney's fees of any kind and nature arising or growing out or in any way connected with the use, occupations, administration or control of the above described services by the Council or its agents, employees, customers, patrons or invitee, or resulting from injury to person or property, or a loss of life or property of any kind or nature whatsoever sustained during the term of this Agreement. The Council hereby acknowledges that the payments made under this Agreement include specific consideration for the indemnification provided herein. 8. The Council agrees to comply with all local, state and federal laws, rules and regulation, the terms of the Grant Agreement, and the certifications accompanying the Grant Application.. 9. Any notice shall be in writing and sent registered or certified mail, postage and charges prepaid, and addressed to the parties at the following address: TO THE TPO: TO THE COUNCIL: TPO Executive Director Council on Aging of St. Lucie, Inc. 2300 Virginia Avenue 1505 Orange Avenue Fort Pierce, Florida 34982 Fort Pierce, Florida 34950 10. No amendment, modification or waiver of this Agreement shall be valid or effective unless in writing and signed by both parties and no waiver of any breach or condition of this Agreement shall be deemed to be a waiver of any other conditions or subsequent breach whether of like or different nature. If the TPO currently provides or subsequently provides any forms for agreement modification, the Council agrees to use said forms. 11. The Council represents that it presently has no interest and shall acquire no interest, either direct or indirect, which would conflict in any manner with the performance of services required hereunder, as provided for in Florida Statutes 112.311 (2007) and as may be amended from time to time. The Council further represents that no person having any interest shall be employed for said performance. The Council shall promptly notify the TPO in writing by certified mail of all potential conflicts of interest prohibited by existing state law for any prospective business association, interest or other circumstance which may influence or appear to influence the Council's judgment or quality of services being provided hereunder. Such written notification shall identify the prospective business association, interest or circumstance, the nature of work that the Council 2 may undertake and request an opinion of the TPO as to whether the association, interest or circumstance would, in the opinion of the TPO, constitute a conflict of interest if entered into by the Council. The TPO agrees to notify the Council of its opinion by certified mail within thirty (30) days of receipt of notification by the Council. If, in the opinion of the TPO, the prospective business association, interest or circumstance would not constitute a conflict of interest by the Council, the TPO shall so state in the notification and shall, at his/her option, enter into said association, interest or circumstance and it shall be deemed not in conflict of interest with respect to services provided to the TPO by the Council under the terms of this Agreement. 12. In the event of a dispute between the parties in connection with this Agreement, the parties agree to submit the disputed issue or issues to a mediator for non-binding mediation prior to filing a lawsuit. The parties shall agree on a mediator chosen from a list of certified mediators available from the Clerk of Court for St. Lucie County. The fee of the mediator shall be shared equally by the parties. To the extent allowed by law, the mediation process shall be confidential and the results of the mediation or any testimony or argument introduced at the mediation shall not be admissible as evidence in any subsequent proceeding concerning the disputed issue. 13. In the event it is necessary for either party to initiate legal action regarding this Agreement, venue shall be in the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit for St. Lucie County, Florida for claims under state law and the Southern District of Florida for any claims which are justiciable in federal court. 14. Except as otherwise provided, this Agreement shall be binding upon and shall insure to the benefit of the parties. 15. This Agreement embodies the whole understanding of the parties. There are no promises, terms, conditions, or obligations other than those contained herein, and this Agreement shall supersede all previous communications, representations or agreements, either verbal or written, between the parties hereto. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused the execution by their duly authorized officials as of the day and year first written above. ATTEST: ST. LUCIE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ORGANIZATION BY SECRETARY CHAIRMAN 3 APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: COUNTY ATTORNEY ATTEST: COUNCIL ON AGING OF ST. LUCIE, INC. BY: SECRETARY PRESIDENT (SEAL) g: \atty\agreemnt\contract\tpo.coa.tdp.doc 4 T~d~.,~~~~~~fo~ ~ ' P~~~,~~A~ '~'r9oniza~ion 5T. IUCtE Uf~f3fiN f~~iEf~ 2300 Virginia Avenue Telephone: 772/462-1593 Ft. Pierce, FL 34982-5652 Facsimile: 772/462-2549 Agenda Item No. 9 MEMORANDUM TO: St. Lucie Transportation Planning Organization (TPO) FROM: Mark Satterlee, Interim TPO Director DATE: April 2, 2008 SUBJECT: 2030 Regional Long Range Transportation Plan Amendments (Indrio Road, Kings Highway, U.S. 1, Jenkins Road) Item Origination: UPWP Task 3.1- Long Range Planning UPWP Task 3.3 - Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Development Requested Action: Review & Discuss SUMMARY The Florida Department of Transportation has informed the TPO that funding for the design phase for the Indrio Road widening project has been deleted from the FY 2007/08 - FY 2011/12 Adopted Work program due to inconsistencies with the 2030 Regional Long Range Transportation Plan (RLRTP) cost feasible plan (see attached letter). Two additional TPO priority projects that are inconsistent with the cost feasible plan are the U.S. 1 and Kings Highway projects: if RLRTP inconsistencies are not addressed these projects face removal of programmed design phases during the next tentative work program cycle. Transportation Planning for Ft. Pierce, Port St. Lucie, St. Lucie Vi/lage and St. Lucie County Resolution of the above-mentioned RLRTP inconsistencies would require plan amendments. SAFETEA-LU legislation required some changes to the planning process and, as a result, effective December 12, 2007, project cost/revenue information for all long range transportation plan amendments must be expressed in year-of-expenditure (YOE) dollars. The FDOT letter and staff's response to the letter were reviewed and discussed by the TAC and CAC at their respective meetings of March 19, 2008 (there was no CAC quorum). At the March 19, 2008, TAC meeting, St. Lucie County requested that the Jenkins Road improvement project be included in the next round of RLRTP amendments. The Jenkins Road improvement project is included in the 2030 RLRTP cost feasible plan; however, the County proposes to change the alignment. The TAC recommended including the Jenkins Road project in the next round of RLRTP amendments. REQUESTED ACTION Review and discuss ATTACHMENTS FDOT letter; TPO staff response letter; 2030 RLRTP Cost Feasible Plan; FDOT Work Program Miscellaneous; Project descriptions; Project location maps Transportation Planning for Ft. Pierce, Port St. Lucie, St. Lucie Village and St. Lucie County ~ Florida Department of Transportation CHARLIE CRIST INTERIM DIRECTOR OF TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT STEPHANIE C. KOPELOUSOS GOVERNOR 3400 W. Co~mnercial Blvd., Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33309-3421 SECRETARY Telephone: (954) 777-441I Fax: (954) 777-4197 Internet Email: stacy.millerC~a,dot.state.fl.us Toll Free Number: (866) 336-8435 March 5, 2008 The Honorabie Jack Kelly, Chairperson St. Lu~ie Transportation Planning Organization P.O. Box 148~ Ft. Pierce, FL 34950 Dear Vice-Mayor Kelly: SUBJECT: FPID 230338-3, Indrio Rd from I-95 to SR 607/Emerson Ave Project Deletion from the Adopted and Tentative Work Prograrn The Florida Department of Transportation regrets to inform you that the design phase for the subject Indrio Road widening project has been deleted from the FY 2007/OS - FY 2011/12 Adopted Work Program due to inconsistencies with the 2030 Regional Long Range Transportation Plan (RLRTP) cost feasible plan. The design phase, initially programmed for the Emerson Avenue to Kings Highway segment, was reprogrammed in 2006 to fund the I-95 to Emerson Avenue segment with an understanding that the St. Lucie Transportation Planning Organization (TPO) would promptly amend the 2030 RLRTP to move the project from its unfunded project needs list to its cost feasible plan. As you are aware, programming of federal funds for capacity improvement projects beyond the Project Development and Environmental (PD&E) Study phase is contingent upon the project's inclusion in the RLRTP cost feasible plan. In addition, the Department would like to take the opportunity to reiterate concerns regarding two additiona) TPO priority capacity projects that are inconsistent with the 2030 RLRTP cost feasible plan. These concerns, if not addressed, will result in the rernoval of programmed design phases for US 1 and Kings Highway projects during the next tenta#ive work program cycle. The US 1(Edwards Road to Virginia Avenue) project is currently shown as a four-lane reconstruction project at a cost of $3,000,000 rather than a widening project (four to six lanes) with an estimated cost of $69,000.000. www.dot.state.fl.us The Honorable Jack Kelly, Chairperson March 5, 2008 The Kings Highway projects (Okeechobee Road to US-1) are described as widening the roadway from two to four lanes for a combined cost of $60,645,000. The Department recently determined a re-evaluation of the 1994 Kings Highway PD&E Study was insu~cient, as our analysis found the preferred two to four lane widening alternative would fall short of ineeting projected needs. The estimated cost for a six lane corridor improvement is $274,000,000. The new Kings Highway PD&E Study is programmed to begin shortly. The Department is available to assist the TPO in proceeding with 2030 RLRTP amendments to address the issues noted. Due to project needs, escalation of project costs and revenue shortfalls; it is likely that other projects wil) have to be removed from the cost feasible plan and placed on the needs list. Since these concerns will need to be resolved via amendments rather than administrative modifications to the RLRTP, the TPO will have to meet the new "year of expenditure" requirements for all the project cost and revenue information. Thank you for your consideration ofthe matters presented in this letter. Arlene Tanis is the district's point of contact for assistance and can be reached at {954) 777-4651. Sincerely, Stacy L. Mi er, P.E. Interim DirectorofTransportation Development District Four SLM:at cc: ~1Aark Satterlee, St. Lucie TPO Marceia Lathou, St. Lucie TPO Nancy Ziegler, FDOT Lois Bush, FDOT Michael DeRosa, FDOT Vanita Sharma, FDOT Paul Lampley, FDOT i . Tf~fA1(~OfE~1t10A ~ ~ ~~fAAIAl~ • O (l~~1AIZ~1t10A ST. ~UCIE URf3AN f-~f~ER March 18, 2008 Stacy Miller, P.E. ~ Interim Director of Transportation Development FDOT, District Four 3400 W. Commercial Blvd Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309-3421 Dear Ms. Miller: SUBJECT: FPID 230338-3, Indrio Rd from I-95 to SR 607/Emerson Ave Project Deletion from the Adopted and Tentative Work Program TPO staff is in receipt of FDOT's March 5, 2008 letter to Port St. Lucie Vice- Mayor and TPO Chair, Jack Kelly regarding the deletion of the Indrio Road widening project from the Adopted and Tentative Work Program due to inconsistencies with the 2030 Regional Long Range Transportation Plan (RLRTP) cost feasible plan. This letter is a request that FDOT reconsider the deletion. Many factors beyond the control of the St. Lucie TPO have delayed initiating the necessary 2030 RLRTP amendments to create consistency and those factors are outlined in this correspondence. As you know, much effort has already been expended in attempting to address RLRTP inconsistencies; however, due to numerous unforeseen circumstances, our efforts are not yet complete. Moreover, a tremendous amount of effort has gone into creating a regional framework for transportation planning in St. Lucie and Martin Counties. As you are aware, an equally substantial amount of stafF effort is directed toward maintenance of the regional effort. As such, I strongly believe that removal of the project from the work program is very premature. The inherently complex nature of creating the 2030 RLRTP creates complexity in amending that plan. In addition, the changing nature of Kings Highway, Indrio Road and implementation of the Towns, Villages and Countryside (TVC) plan all serve to complicate our local planning efforts. Please understand that we fully appreciate the need to amend the 2030 Regional Long Range Transportation Plan (RLRTP) for consistency with other documents: However, as we have just recently completed the plan the nature of the proposed amendments raised several questions - as no one had attempted an amendment to a regional transportation plan under SAFETEA-LU guidelines. Both the St. Lucie TPO and the Martin MPO staff began asking questions of FDOT District IV Transportation Plcanning for Ft. Pi~rc~, Port St. ~ucie, St. ~uci~ Village and St. ~ucie Count~ Q300 Virginia Rvenue Telephone: 77Q/46Q-1593 Ft. Pierce, F~ 3498Q-565Q facsimilc,: 77Q/46Q-Q549 TtnA~ OfEnt10A Stacy Miller, P.E. • ~ Indrio Road ~ ~InAAIAl~ March 18, 2008 Page 2 O fl~~fA1Z~1ElOA ST. ~UCIE URf3AN Af~Ef~ staff about the extent to which the plan would have to be amended to include the revised Indrio Road project as well as the revised Kings Highway and US 1 projects. Getting a response to the questions took several months. The following are the reasons for the delay in amending the plan and why retaining the project in the Work Program is vital to St. Lucie County: 1. As prelude to beginning the amendment process last summer, TPO staff began asking FDOT staff questions about the extent of the necessary amendments. Two questions I asked in the summer of 2007 include: a. If in amending the 2030 RLRTP Cost Feasible Plan to include Indrio Road would we then also have to recalculate the cost of Kings Highway and US 1? The scope and cost estimates for those projects being developed in the ongoing PD&Es had changed significantly and recalculating their costs would likely absorb all the right-of-way and construction dollars dedicated to road constru~tion in St. Lucie County for the entire time horizon in the 2030 RLRTP. b. If we had to recalculate the costs in the Cost Feasible Plan, would the TPO then have to go through the process having to delete projects from the list if additional resources were not found? As it took a lot of long hard work to establish the Cost Feasible list, the prospect of having to completely redo it was not very palatable, nor was the prospect of having the TPO select which projects would be deleted. 2. Later in 2007, TPO staff became aware that, based on changes to the planning process outlined in federal SAFETEA-LU legislation, any amendment to the RLRTP might trigger a year-of-expenditure (YOE) analysis for the entire plan. St. Lucie TPO and Martin MPO staff communicated with FDOT and FHWA on several issues: the effective date of the YOE requirement (Dec 11, 2007); the extent that the Cost Feasible list would have to be amended to address YOE; and whether a St. Lucie plan amendment would necessitate amending the RLRTP's regional element. As TPO staff was awaiting clear direction on the amendment process, we also contacted our General Planning Consultant regarding preparing a scope of services for the amendments. In November 2007, staff was informed that`a St. Lucie amendment would not trigger a RLRTP regional element amendment. In January 2008, the MPOAC distributed final guidance from FHWA for amendments to LRTPs, Transportation Plonninc~ for Ft. Pi~rc~, Port St. ~ucie, St. ~uci~ Village and St. ~ucie County Q300 Virginia Flvenue Telephone: 77Q/46Q-1593 Ft. Pierce, F~ 3498Q-565Q Focsimile: 77Q/46Q-Q549 Stacy Miller, P.E. • TfNA~(~Oft~1t10A Indrio Road ~ ~ 1~1AAIAl~ March 18, 2008 . Page 3 O fl~~fA1Z~1ElOA ST. lUC1E Uf-if3AN AREA including guidance that any LRTP amendment would trigger a YOE analysis of the entire plan. TPO staff is just now in the process of finalizing a scope of services for consultant assistance in amending the 2030 RLRTP for the Indrio Road, Kings Highway, and U.S. 1 projects. The anticipated completion date for these amendments is by the end of 2008. 3. After my resignation as TPO Director in September, I agreed to act as Interim Director until December 31, 2007. The TPO made and had accepted an offer for a new director to begin mid-January of this year. The selected individual requested his start date be moved to February and then subsequently declined the position altogether. The TPO voted at its regularly scheduled March 5, 2008 meeting to restart the search for a new director. Unfortunately, the first priority of the new director was to move the 2030 RLRTP amendments through the hearing and adoption process. 4. The expansion of Indrio Road is an important component in the future of this part of St. Lucie County - including implementation of the road network envisioned for the TVC planning effort. Reliance on establishing the road network, including the funding for Indrio Road, was an important link in creating consensus for the TVC plan amongst a very diverse group of stakeholders in northern St. Lucie County. As I think has been amply demonstrated, there are very good reasons why the initiation of the 2030 RLRTP amendment process has been delayed and why it should be restored in the Work Program. By this letter, staff requests that the Indrio Road widening project be reinstated into the FY 2007/08 - FY 2011112 Adopted Work Program based upon ongoing efforts to rectify the above- mentioned RLRTP inconsistencies and the importance of the road in the network. Please inform me at your earliest convenience regarding this request. If you (or the District 4 office) are unable to reinstate unilaterally, please inform me of the steps that must be initiated in order to do so. If you should have any questions regarding this letter, please do not hesitate to contact me at (772) 462-1960. Transportation Planning for Ft. Pi~rc~, Port St. ~ucie, St. ~uci~ Village and St. ~uci~ Count~ Q300 Virginia Rvenu~ Telephone: 77Q/46Q-1593 Ft. Pierce, FL 34982-565P Facsimile: 77Q/46Q-Q549 Stacy Miller, P.E. Ttt1AlPOftaEiOA Indrio Road ~ ~I~fAAlA9 March 18, 2008 Page 4 O fl~~1AIZ~I~IOA 5T. WCIE URf3AN f~RER Sincerely, Mark S~atterlee Interim TPO Director Cc: TPO Board BOCC Douglas Anderson Faye Outlaw Lee Ann Lowery Don West TPO advisory committees Lois Bush, FDOT Arlene Tanis, FDOT Marceia Lathou, St. Lucie TPO Ann Perrotta, Martin MPO Kara Wood, NC Manager Transportotion Planning For Ft. Pierce, Port St. ~ucie, St. l.ucie Villcage and St. Lucie County Q300 Virginia Rvenue T~lephone: 77Q/46Q-1593 Ft. Pierce, F~ 3498Q-565Q Facsimile: 77Q/46Q-Q549 FDOT OWP - 5 Year Work Program; Item Detail Page 1 of 1 FI DOT - Office of Work Henry Lewis - Director Program Five Year Work Program 2008-2012 AD (Updated: 3/16/2008-19:15:01) District 04 - St Lucie County Item Number: 230338- 3 Display_curr__ent records in_ a_Re~rt S~e Transportation System: NON-INTRASTATE STATE HIGHWAY District 04 - St Lucie County Description: Sr-614/Indrio Road From I-95 To Sr-607/Emerson Type of Work: ADD LANES & RECONSTRUCT View_Sched_uled Activities Item Number: 230338-3 Length: 2.583 Highways/Preliminary Engineering Fiscal Year: 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Amount: $1,418,454 _ _ r-- This site is maintained by the Florida Department of Transportation Office of Work Program, located at 605 Suwannee Street, MS 21, Tallahassee, Florida 32399. For aditional information please e-mail questions or comments to Henry Lewis: He.nry.Lewis@dot.state,f~.US_ orca11850-414-4649 Return to Wo_r__k_. Program_ Home Return _to Office of_Work_Progr__am Ho_me Return To the Florida_De~artment_of Transportation_Home Paae View Contact Information for_Work Pro_gram___O_ffice http://www2.dot.state.fl.us/fmsupportapps/workprogram/Support/WPItemRept.ASPX?RF... 3 / 17/2008 ~ ~ ' ~ # t 7 ~ _ ~ . . ~ _ a', ~s~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ M. , . , . r ~ 2 ~ rf/ t ~•ti ~ ~I ' ~ . ~ ~ . . . . . ' . . . n l ~ . . .'t . _ . . . . ~ r.' . . ~ , . ~ . ~ . . . . . . ~ s~ . , . . . . . . i' ~ - . . . ~ . ~ _ i , . =':..7.. ~ . . ~ ~ . ~ . . f 11 i \l\ , 1 , . ~ ~ , . . , ~ . . . a F . . . , . . ~ ~ . . . . . . ~ ' ' / ~ ~ \ . . ~ ~ . . . . . ~ . . . -e.~ 1lil , ~ , : ' . , ~ . . a ~ ' '1 ~ ~ ' ~ , - ^ _ . ~ ; . , ~ ~ , ~ O N l0 M ~ . . , O ` . ~ O ' ~ C ~ O O O ' If1 . . O . p . N 7 ~ 4 O l0 ~D ~ d~ ~ . . • . O . V ~ ~ , O d~ l~ O Q ~ : 0~ . ~ ~ ~ : 01 n ~ % y~ O l0 r-1 ~ . aI . jp ~ ~ U . r1 . y ~~p : ~ . 'a~ . . ~ , o ~o . ~o ~ ~ ~Q ' d. N . ~ ~ t? v G y . J a., . . . F- , +~ia ,`~-i +Nir ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ +~r ~ J ~ F . W ~ F ; . ~1 ~ ~ w v}. J O~ ~ a ~ Q (L aG)~ ~ ~7 ~ a a a Q. i~ GC o tv .~o ~ ~i N C7 ; r,.~ . d N ~ o~ d ~ o t ~ E, °o ~°c; °m .~c m E w E °o " o ~ Q A _ _ ro w ie . m , ~ ~a . o a= r ~ m~ vui a~ ~ a+ vi d' p~ ~ W W ~ .~j O: o ~ F~- ~OC ~ ~ w. f !n ~ ~ t~- ~ ~ w . . 0 d N~i N p~ a.~ Q a"~ `a N Y ' `h +~ir ; ~ ~ ~ Z Z Y `o- ^ > ~ ~ . R N y fG ~ ~0 ~ l0 ~ *k Z N ~ V V H~ V ~ V N ~j ~ ~ w ~ ~ O ~ a : i ~ 9 C ~ ~ . 9 ~ . ~ _ . ~ 9 C Z 9 ~ p~ d . C ~ . ~ C. O M 7 ~ 7': ~ ~ I V 0 l°~ w (d w v- 7 J Y 7' O 7 ~ ~ rv o ~ w o C7 ~ p O ;0 1~ ~ o ~ W ~ ~O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . T M ~ N ~ ° ,C ~ . M1. N ~ z N +~~rr . p . ~ N ~ N ~+v~r € ~ ~i ~ ~p ~ Q ~i Vi ~ . ~ . . ~~J Q V` C ~ Z ~ u . ` r~.i . ~ -Zr+ > a:Q ' ^ ~ d._ . ~ o. ~ ; o i w= i 0 c ~ o ~ ~ W . ; 0 1 0 oZf 47 ~ CG N; Z d . eV ui W ~ N f ~ d ap o; y 4Q o: `y Nw o' ~ y~ o~ ~1 ~H Z. N~, O1 ~ ~ N~ p~ (J : N as ~..W N~, tn ~ , 0 ~ ~ oCa ~i e a e ~o. e ~oJt~ C iQ~ A m ~o m a ~ ri ~ 'c o ; ' ~ vwi ~ a ~ ~ N , ~ ~~E..~ ~ ~ ~ j r: W~~Z II~ i,~ o~ ~p o ~ ; ~ b o~M ,d~~ O~ o ,d~? ;o Q .a~c~ M ~ ~c7a ~ Q wSyp~ ~ ~ a LL' ~ N. a'~ 6 Y: (1~~.J N~, ~ ~ N . N-: +~ia N: +~ir ~ o `~g G~~ ~ Ga 'a a ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ o ~ m z o 0 0 0 ;o ~ 3 a o' ~ ~ a o, ~n cI ~ z°' o; ° = n, ~ _ . {~y ~,c~ N + _ _ uJ ~~,~r N N ~ O ~ N . vr IW- p Q ~y ~ W Q Z ~ ~ ~ O ~ Z ~ ` o ~ d ~ d ~ j 10 ~ s~ Q o Q o W H W . ~ ' y`n, ~ 0}~ ~ ; o~ J W ! o ~ O~ ~ 01 O~ Z 0~ ~ ~ m V ~ ~o a Q~~. r Q O H z t7 0? ° H ~C ev rv . a n n,„~ ~ ~ ~ y a o~ ~ W ~ ~ O~C o ~ o ~ ~ ~ u~. ~o z ~G ' ~C o ~ N ~ a;o ~ LL ~ p! ~ ~ p J O~ ~ (A O. ,y O O ~ , a ~ N- Z a~i~: ~ ~ a~+': t~/t ~ x ~ ~ ' o' °L ° ~ v~ o, a o: U o~t u'a' d a d ¢ a a ~ i LL ~ p ~ n Z pf y Z ~ ~ W W p'q W W ~ ~ . U N 'i..~~. ~ . ~ ' Z p ~ Z U n'~ U ~ ~ U ~ ~ g = ~ S ~ ~ LL ° ~ ~ , r~ u°Ci °a ~ ~ ' v°~i °a W ~ Ci ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g; ~ d N E ~ ~ ti (A y~ R y~ A y 10 v N ~ CI d~~ dl a~ N d' Q ~ d . ~p M 1f ~ ; o ~ M K ~ ~-1 ~ ~p a N K ~ , E ~ U V t 2 O~ ~o o` ~ ' C 3~ M o ~ w o 0 3 ? o. o o ~ Q 'o = ev 3~ 8~~ ev 3~ a a 3~ ' c'3 ar 3~ ~ z Mdian River County ~ v ~ ~ ~ 713 `N ~ a 0 ~ ~ c o Y ~ a~ w y ~ Indrio Rd 614 713 . Project Location: Indrio Rd from I-95 to ~ SR 607/Emerson Ave ~ 0 r o ~ ~ ° 'Y a~ ~ ~ `o a ~ St. Lucie Blvd ~ c a~ ~ Angle Rd Y 9~9 N a S't.-.~~ W~E y a,.~hx.rt.pen.u.~ ve~r~..r~el Map prepared March 17. 20U8 S SR 713~ KING'S HIGHWAY CORRIDOR ST. LUCIE COUNTY Project Overview NEEDS ASSESSMENT This corridor is located in a highly developing area of St. Lucie County. The projects are needed for added capacity along the corridor due to extensive current and future land use changes. Growth projections in the area reflect a continued upward trend in vehicular traffic. Traffic volume in this corridor is projected to increase over 400% by 2035. The added capacity required is beyond the initially planned widening from two to four lanes. Also various safety improvements are required and will be incorporated into the proposed widening. PLANNING~ DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION A Project Development and Environment (PD&E) study for a 4-lane facility was completed in 1994. A new PD&E study will begin in the fall of 2007. This study will evaluate the need for 6-lanes. The final design of these projects are proposed to begin fall of 2010/winter of 2011. St. Lucie County is currently designing interim improvements to four intersections according to the approved 1994 four-lane PD&E study. PR07ECT OVERVIEW SR 713 / King's Highway is currently a 2-lane facility located in St. Lucie County that extends 10.2 miles from the Florida's Turnpike Interchange at SR 70/Okeechobee Road northward to it's forked connection to SR 5/ US. These projects consist of the widening of the existing 2-lane facility to a 6-lane divided urban highway. The corridor is divided into four projects: FM 230256-2 from SR 70/Turnpike Entrance to south of the I-95 Overpass FM 230356-3 from south of the I-95 Overpass to SR 614/Indrio Rd FM 230256-4 from SR 614/Indrio Rd to SR 5/US 1 FM 230256-5 from SR 70/Turnpike Entrance to SR 5/US 1(PD&E Study) Public Information Office SR 713/King's Highway Corridor 3400 W. Commercial Blvd St. Lucie County Ft. Lauderdale, FI 33309 Florida Department of Transportation Telephone: (954) 777-4090 February 1, 2007 Toll Free: (866) 336-8435 ext 4090 SR 713~ KING'S HIGHWAY CORRIDOR ST. LUCIE COUNTY Project Overview FINANCE A portion of these projects are split funded between the Florida Department of Transportation and St. Lucie County. FM 230256-5 PD&E Study: $3 million FM 230256-2 Design: $2.57 million FM 230256-3 Design: $3.27 million FM 230256-4 Design: $2.66 million The property acquisition and construction costs for the corridor are currently estimated at $317 million. PRO]ECT CONTACTS For additional information, please contact the FDOT's project manager, Richard Young. He can be reached by phone at (954) 777-4323 or by e-mail at Richard.Young@dot.state.fl. us. Public Information Office SR 713/King's Highway Corridor 3400 W. Commercial Blvd St. Lucie County Ft. Lauderdale, FI 33309 Florida Department of Transportation Telephone: (954) 777-4090 February 1, 2007 Toll Free: {866) 336-8435 ext 4090 lndian River County so ~ i AIA a Y ~ y 713 6 v ~ Q ~ o m c c ~ O 'a. 7C ~ ~ - ' W ~ ~ m ~ Indrio Rd 614 Project Location: ~3 Kings Highway from SR 70 to SR 5/ US Highway 1 ~ ~ ~ - o ~ s o ~ o = _ ~ s~s ~ ° o scc ~nr ~ a,pon ~ St. Lucie Blvd so AlA r ~ ~ Juanita Ave Noc~` Angle Rd Y ~y Ga~sg '9~9i@ in ,Qa ~ ~ . AIA c~ c~ov z ~a`! Avenue D Ga~S Orange Ave 68 ~ ~ ~ 713 ~ ~ M ~ M - ~ E r 1° Virginia A e c 7p7 = c 615 ~ 70 ~a c ~ Y ~ ~ N Ra Edwards Rd ~'~..c~ Go.., w E K~chobee ~rhx.~.rny~...r..,.. ~ O Map prepared March 17, 2008 S US 1~SR 5 CORRIDOR ST. LUCIE COUNTY Project Overview NEEDS ASSESSMENT Throughout the 1990's numerous studies were preformed by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) to examine the existing conditions and project the future traffic demands of US 1 in St. Lucie County. FDOT utilized numerous factors including safety, capacity analysis, environmental concerns and community involvement to explore future roadway alternatives and projects. The Florida Department of Transportation, Indian River County, and the Metropolitan Planning Organization have worked collaboratively to prioritize these projects to improve the functionality and appearance of US 1/SR 5. ` PR07ECT OVERVIEW The proposed projects will consist of the following: . Widening and re-construction to a 6-lane roadway with 12 ft. travel lanes, bike lanes and sidewalks . Signalization upgrades . Landscaping . Drainage improvements FM 230288-2 from Rio Mar Dr to north of Midway Road FM 230288-3 from north of Midway Rd to north of Edwards Rd FM 230289-1 from north of Edwards Rd to north of Virginia Ave FINANCE The estimated project costs are: FM 230288-2: Construction underway FM 230288-3 Property Acquisition: $14 million FM 230288-3 Construction: $40.25 million (unfunded) FM 230289-1 Design: $0.65 million FM 230289-1 Property Acquisitian: $25.6 million (unfunded) FM 230289-1 Construction: $30.5 million (unfunded) Public Information Office US1/SR5 - St. Lucie County 3400 W. Commercial Blvd. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309 February 1, 2007 Telephone: 954-777-4090 Toll Free: 866-336-8435 ext. 4090 US 1/SR 5 CORRIDOR ST . LUCIE C OUNTY Project Overview PR07ECT STATUS FM 230288-2 Construction underway FM 230288-3 Final Design underway, Construction Letting is not scheduled FM 230289-1 Final Design to begin fall 2007/winter 2008, Construction Letting is not scheduled PRO7ECT CONTACTS For additional information, please contact the following project managers: FM 230288-3: Jim Scully, telephone at (954) 777-4633 or e-mail at James ScullvC~dot.state.fl.us FM 230289-1: Beatriz Caicedo, telephone at (954) 777-4336 or e-mail at Beatriz CaicedoCa~dot.state.fl.us Public Information Office US1/SR5 - St. Lucie County 3400 W. Commercial Blvd. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309 February 1, 2007 Telephone: 954-777-4090 Toll Free: 866-336-8435 ext. 4090 ~ i ~ ~ M ~ M ~ ~ N ~ Virginia A e ~ p ~m 615 0~~ ~,a ~ ~d c` ' Gj~ s?. G s~ ~ ' ~ 7 . N07 Project Location: U.S. Highway 1 from ~rginia Avenue - to Rio Mar Drive c ca a~ O ~ - ~ ' ~ ?r~ N ~ r~ d „ a~ Q ~ ~ ~ N U ~3 _ ~N ~ ~ N B shore W E ~ ~ Bivd _ ~o o S loresta Dr ~ ~~uc~ ~s~ " " e"`~ yrowtiF.A[anqg~r~ssst D~arlsnent 'rima ~sta Bivd ~ Map prepared March 17, 2008 T ~ ~ _ ~ C ~ p~ ~ O C C ~ ~ StCInPlAfrport 615 ~ ~ L Q ~ ~ St. Lucie Blvd sa ~ ~ Project Location: ~ Jenkins Road from northern terminus Angle Rd ~ Y to Taylor Dairy Rd ~9 ~9~~ ~ 'Q .c O' ~ N Z ~ Ave Orange Ave sa ~ ~ ~ . \ ~3 ~ M C M ~ ~ ~ ~ Virginia A e ~ ~ ~ 615 _ ~ ~ -~~j 70 ~ C Y N S~-~'..~ y~~E yror~hX.syq.,.~U flryw,n..u Map prepared March 17, 2008 S Edwar Tra~urpoctatioo ~lanni~g ~~ga~i~atio~ ST. l.UC1E Uf~f3C~N flf~iEf~ 2300 Virginia Avenue Telephone: 772/462-1593 Ft. Pierce, FL 34982-5652 Facsimile: 772/462-2549 Agenda Item No. 10 MEMORANDUM TO: St. Lucie Transportation Planning Organization (TPO) FROM: Mark Satterlee, Interim TPO Director DATE: April 2, 2008 SUBJECT: Draft FY 2008/2009 - 2009/2010 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP), and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and Transportation Disadvantaged Grant Applications Iterri Origination: UPWP Task 1.2 Program Development (UPWP) UPWP Task 3.2 Transit Planning UPWP Task 4.1 Transportation Disadvantaged (TD) Program Requested Action: Review & Discuss SUMMARY TPO planning activities are funded by Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged funds. Annual preparation and approval of the UPWP is required in order for the TPO to receive these funds. The current UPWP will be a two-year program which identifies transportation planning activities to be undertaken in the metropolitan planning area in fiscal years 2008/2009 - 2009/2010. The objective of the work program is to promote continuing, cooperative and comprehensive (3- Cs) transportation planning. Staff recommends that the TPO review the draft UPWP, and FTA and Transportation Disadvantaged Grant Applications and provide comments and/or suggestions. TPO staff also requests that staff be authorized to revise the draft of the UPWP based upon comments that may be received from the TPO, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), and others. The final draft of the UPWP Transportation P/anning for Ft. Pierce, Port St. Lucie, St. Lucie Vi/lage and St. Lucie County will be presented at the regularly scheduled April meeting of the TAC & CAC and the May 2008 meeting of the TPO. The final UP WP must be adopted by the TPO by May 15, 2008 and transmitted to FDOT and FHWA. BACKGROUND Each spring the TPO is required to submit to federal and state agencies a draft Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP). In addition to the tasks the TPO is required to perform each year, the proposed UPWP major work tasks for the coming two years and the business plan include: • The Becker Road Corridor Study (pending March 24, 2008 Port St. Lucie City Council decision) • Implementation of the 2030 Regional Long Range Transportation Plan (RLRTP), RLRTP amendments, and setting aside funds for the 2035 RLRTP • Major update of the Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plan • Major update of the Transit Development Plan • Major update of the Congestion Management Process • Premium Transit/Rail Corridor Study - the TPO indicated their desire to move forward with evaluating passenger rail service beyond simply studying feasibility. Rather, members indicated an eagerness to begin actually evaluating and planning for future service. • North/Mid County Collector Study to look at improving the road network associated with the TVC (Towns, Villages, and the Countryside Comprehensive Plan Element) • Purchase of software system to assess traffic impacts on the road network • Consultant assistance far the County's traffic count program The final FY 2008/2009 - 2009/2010 UPWP will include revisions based upon comments received from the TPO, FHWA, FDOT, and others. The TAC & CAC reviewed and discussed the FY 2008/2009 - 2009/2010 UPWP at their respective meetings of March 19, 2008 (there was no CAC quorum). As part of the TAC discussion it was noted that major changes are expected to the Becker Road project. REQUESTED ACTION Staff requests that the TPO review the draft of the UPWP and FTA and Transportation Disadvantaged grant applications and provide comments and suggestions. Staff requests that the TPO authorize staff to revise the draft of the UPWP based upon comments that may be received from the TPO, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), and others. Transportation Planning for Ft. Pierce, Port St. Lucie, St. Lucie Village and St. Lucie County ATTACHMENTS Draft FY 2008/2009- 2009/2010 UPWP, FTA Grant Application, and TD Grant Application Transportafion Planning for Ft. Pierce, Port St. Lucie, St. Lucie Vil/age and St Lucie County T~a~p~~~dr~~~ . ~I+~nni~q ~'re~+~nizalion ~ ST. LUCl+E Uf~f3f~N f~fiEf~ 2300 Virginia Avenue Telephone: 772/462-1593 Ft. Pierce, FL 34982-5652 Facsimile: 772/462-2549 MEMORANDUM Agenda Item No. 11 TO: St. Lucie Transportation Planning Organization (TPO) FROM: Mark Satterlee Interim TPO Director DATE: Apri12, 2008 SUBJECT: SR AlA Funding Request Item Origination: Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) Task 3.3 - Transportation Improverreent Program (TIP) Development Requested Action: Review & Discuss SUMMARY The City of Fort Pierce has submitted a funding request for the SR AlA (U.S. 1 to Blue Heron Blvd) reconstruction/enhancement project which is currently under construction. The City is requesting approximately $9.6 million for completion of construction. At its March 5, 2008 meeting, the TPO board directed staff and the advisory committees to work with the City of Fort Pierce to re-prioritize projects in the Fort Pierce area to address the SR A1 A construction shortfall. The TAC & CAC reviewed and discussed the SR A1 A funding request at their respective March 19, 2008 meetings (there was no CAC quorum). The TAC recommended that the City of Fort Pierce and FDOT continue discussions and bring the issue back to the advisory committees at a later date. REOUESTED ACTION: Review and Consider Recommendations ATTACHMENTS Letter from City of Fort Pierce; 2030 RLRTP Cost Feasible Plan Transportation P/anning for Ft. Pierce, Port St. Lucie, St. Lucie Village and St. Lucie County `o~`tRPiE'~~ CITY OF FORT PIERCE ` 5 ~ . ~ . y'~ ' DEPARTMENT ~F ENGINEERING y ~ ~~G'~ ~Cj~ Roadway Design, Engineenng Reviews, Stormwater Uti(ity Management, N R~S Pr%ct Management, Tra~c Contro! and Maintenance February 21, 2008 Mark Satterlee, Interim TPO Director 5t. Lucie TPO 2300 Virginia Avenue Fart Pierce, FL 34982 SUBJECT: FUNDING REQUEST S.R. A-1-A (US 1 to BLUE HERON BLVD.) FDOT FISCAL PROJECT ID: 230297-7-58-01 Dear: Mr. Satterlee: The City of Fort Pierce respectFully request to be placed on the March 5, 2408 agenda of the St. Lucie County TPO. The City is petitioning for additional funding to be directed to the S.R. A-1-A (US1 to Blue Heron Blvd.) project which is currently under construction. This project began in 1999 as a F~OT resurfacing project, but was elevated to include reconstruction and enhancements through a joint project agreement (JPA) with the City. The JPA was entered into on May 8, 2003 providing funding of $12.5 million for both design and construction. Construction was delayed due to permitting and hurricanes until March 2~06 when the first phase of construction beg~n. To date approximately $1.3 million has been encumbered for design and construction engineering services, with $9.7 million for construction of two of the four phases. Utilizing current canstruction costs, we have identified a shortfall of approximately $9.6 million. At the February 19, 2008 Fort Pierce City Commission Meeting the commission approved the motion requesting the St. Lucie County TPO to iden#ify and appropriate additional funding in the amount of $9.6 million for the completion of the A-1-A project. This is a vital project to the residents of South Beach as well as all of St. Lucie County. The City of Fort Pierc plores the TPO to support this request for additional funding. Sincerely, John R. Andrews, P.E. , City Engineer Attachments: Project overview cc: Mayor and City Commissioners City Manager Deputy City Manager \~ENOSR~/IMPl1BLIC12W7 FILE5ISTREETSIAIA\STREET PRQIWSI TO ~LUE HERONIALL PHASE3~20081FUNDING REQUEST TO TPO - 022108.DOC P.O. Box 1480 O FORT PIERCE, FL 34954-1480 0 772-460-2200 EXT. 143 ~a~`~ ~~~g~~, CITY OF FORT PIERCE ' . • DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING ye~~:~:„=~h~ fu ~C Roadway Design, Engineering Reviews, Stormwater Utility Management, M~~S Project Management,Tra~c Control and Maintenance SR A-1-A (US 1 to Blue Heron Bivd) Joint Project Agreement Fiorida Department of Transportation and the City of Fort Pierce Total Project Length: 3.89 Miles Project D+escription: Reconstruction of the existing 2-lane roadway extending from the southern city limits on the barrier island to the intersection of US 1. Construction consists of paving, drainage improvements, curbs, sidewalks, lighting, landscaping, irrigation and construction of a round-about at Seaway and Ocean Drive. Background: The A-1-A project was initially conceived in 1999 as a resurFacing project. The City coordinated with the FDOT through the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO} to enhance the project to total reconstruction. Funding was allocated and a Joint Participation Agreement was executed in May 2003. Delays resulting from design, permitting approvals and hurricanes have stagnated construction for over three years. With the constant escalating construction costs, we are estimating a shortfall of $9.6 million. Project Status: Engineering design compfeted on three of the four phases, final design scheduled for April 2008. One phase of construction has been completed to date and the largest phase, approximately $9.6 million, is currently under construction. Bids , for Phase 2B are scheduled to be opened March 6, 2008. 11ENGSRI2MPUBUC12007 fILE51STREETSWIA\$TREET PROJ1U51 TO BLUE HERONVLLL PHASES\PRESENTATION MATERIAI FOR FUNDING-020808.OOC P.O. Box 1480 O FORT PIERCE, FL 34954-1480 0 772-460-2200 ExT. 143 ~ ~ I o~~~o m I ~ ~ ( R/Yl L7NE ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ .j ' N O a a a A ~ ~ ° - n p ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~d ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Vd r m ~ ~ T~ ~ N ~ ~ f~~'i Vd µ ~ ~ ~ ~ X~ ~ ~ ~m~ A ~9 ~ ~ ~ ~ Z ~ ~ 0 ~ A ~ ~ ; ~ O 9€ ~ : ~ ~ ~ Riw ~traE I ` ~ ~ ~~~N ~ ~ ~ ~y~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s ~ ~~~~c~~ ~ ~ SR a-1-A (US a to BLUE HERON BLVD.) February 8, 2008 Page 2 FINANCIAL STATUS JPA Total Funding: $12,500,000 Estimated Design / Construction • Phase 1 $ 9,237,334 • Phase 2A (~ompieted) $ 994,g74 • Phase 2B $ 4,494,555 • Phase 3 $ 9,751,846 Tota! Design / Construction $23,478,709 City Contribution for aesthetic 1,370,791) featu res. Funding Shortfall $ 9,607,918 ~ . ~ ...~r. , ~ ~e~~po:~~+~~i~~ ~la~r~~i~~ ~rgaa~st~~i~?n ~7. ~.uc~~ ~r~~r~nr r~r~~r~ 2300 Virginia Avenue Telephone: 772/462-1593 Ft. Pierce, FL 34982-5652 Facsimile: 772/462-2549 Agenda Item No. 9 MEMORANDUM TO: St. Lucie Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) FROM: Mark Satterlee, Interim TPO Director DATE: March 19, 2008 SUBJECT: Meeting Cancellation Policy Item Origination: UPWP Task 1.1- Program ManagerriendAdministration Requested Action: Review 8t Discuss SUMMARY As many of our long-term CAC members recall, prior to the 2030 Regional Long Range Transportation Plan (RLRTP) process, TPO Board meetings were held every other month. Because the purpose of the TAC/CAC (according to the TPO by-laws) is to "advise the TPO by reviewing, reacting to, and providing comment on transportation planning issues and needs", TAC/CAC meetings were likewise scheduled every other month. In 2006, for the first time, a TPO monthly meeting calendar was developed to accommodate the 2030 RLRTP process, with the understanding that some meeting dates would be cancelled. In 2008, although the 2030 RLRTP process has ended, the TPO again adopted a monthly meeting calendar again with the understanding that certain meetings would be cancelled. If no TPO meeting is held, the TAC/CAC meeting in the month before the cancelled TPO meeting also will be cancelled. On occasion, the TPO agenda conta.ins only administrative items that require no Transportation Planning for Ft. Pierce, Port St. Lucie, St. Lucie Village and St. Lucie County TAC/CAC input, and this has led to the cancellation of TACICAC meetings in the past. Throughout the year, there are more than 50 transportation planning-related meetings held in which the public is invited to comment. These are: meetings of the TPO Board (6+), joint Martin/St. Lucie NI/TPO Board (3), TAC (6+), CAC (6+), LCB (4), Treasure Coast Transportation Council (2), Regional Advisory Committee (2), School Board Bus Stop/Sidewalk committee (12), Community Traffic Safety Team (4), and the Treasure Coast Coordination Coalition (TC3) Transportation Committee (4), among others. Various steering committee meetings for planning studies are scheduled throughout the year as well. If a CAC member chooses to attend other transportation meetings in the community, and matters which may come before the CAC will be discussed, it is the responsibility of the CAC member to make sure such meetings are publicly noticed due to issues related to the Sunshine Law. REQUESTED ACTION Review and discuss ATTACHMENT 2005 TPO meeting schedule; 2006 TPO meeting schedule Transportation Planning for Ft. Pierce, Porf Sf. Lucie, St. Lucie Village and St. Lucie County meltopolilae . plaqniny ~~gaaizeliow S~ Lucie Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) ST. IU~IE Uf~f3faN RAEA 2300 Virginia Avenue Telephone: 772/462-1593 Fort Pierce, FL 34982-5652 Facsimile: 772/462-2549 2006 MONTHLY MEL"iZNG SCHFI~ULE (MPO) (TAG9 (CACI St Lucie Met~politan Planning Technical Advisory Committee Citizens Advisory OrganiT.ation $oard Commit~ee January, ZODfI ~No Meetinq) Januu-y 18, 2006 January 18, 200fi u~February l, 2006 rebruary 15, 20U6 February 15, 2406 ~2>Marcl~ 1, 2006 Marcki 15, 2006 Marcli 15, 2006 cuApril ,5, 24QF April 19, 2006 April 19, 2006 t~May 3, 2006 May 17, 2006 May 17, 2006 u~June 7, 2006 June 21, 2006 June 21, 2006 (2~UIY J, 2006 July 19, 2006 July 19, 200fi ~uAugust `l, 2006 August 16, 2006 Augvst 16, 2006 ~2?Septeinber 6, `1006 Septeinber 20, 2006 Sepcember 20, 2006 ~uUctober 4, 2006 October 18, 2006 October 18, 2006 t2~November 1, 2006 Novemher 15, 2006 November 15, 20p6 ~uDecember 6, 2006 Deceinber 20, 2006 Deceinber 20, `1Q06 (ist Wednesday every month @ 2:00 (3~ Wednesday of every (3~ W~nesday of every L.m.Z Locations: month ~a io::~o a.m, month @ i2 noon and/or (1) BOCC Chambers Con£ Rm. g) joint meetings with TAC (2) PSLChambers ~nf ~ 3~ Note: Please contact the MPO Office at ~2/462-~93 for any changes or cancellations prior to attending any meeting. All meetings are generally held in the (i) St. Lucie County Administration Bu7ding, 230o V'ug~~ia Avenue, Ft. Pierce, Florida, and/or in the City of Port St. Lucie Council Chambers, i2i SW Port St. Lucie Blvd., Port St. Lucie, Florida unless otherwise noted. Draft Meetirtg Schedule: Sept. 28, 2005 Transportatlon Planning fw FL Plerce, Port St. Lucie, Sk Lucie Villaye and Sk Lucie County ~etropolilan P~OwA~Af~ ~tyaaization St. Luc~e Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) ST. IUCIE Ufif3f~N RAEf-~ 2300 Virginia Avenue Telephone: 772/462-1593 Fort Pierce, FL 34982-5652 Facsimile: 772/462-25~49 (Adopte~ 2005 MEE'ITNG SCHEDULE (MPO) CTAG'~ S~ Iucie Metro~olitan Technical Advisory Citizens Adv~isory Planning O~aniz~ion Board Committee Comm~itLee February 2, 2005 January 19, `2005 January 19, 2005 (I.ocatiou - City of Port Sl. Lucie) Mardi 16, `2005 Marcli 16, 2005 April G, `1005 ~ May 18, 2005 May 18, 2005 ,ill11E 1, 2n~J August 3, 2005 luly 20, 2005 July 20, 2005 Septe~Yiber 21, 2005 Septe~Yii~er 2I, 2D05 Uctot~er .5, 2005 November 16, 2005 Noveinber 16, 2005 Dece~nber 7, 2005 *(ist Wednesday every other (3~a Wednesday of every other ~3`~'N'ednesday of every other month @ 2:0o p.m. BOCC month @ io:~o a.m. month @ i2 noon Chambers) Conf. Rm. 3) Conf. Rm. 3) Note• *~Please contact ~the MPD Office at T72/462-1593 for any changes or cancellations prior to attending any meeting. All meetings are generally held in the St. Lucie County Administration Building, 230o Virginia Avenue, Ft. Pierce, Florida, unless otherwise noted. "Note change from i~ 11~ursday to im Wednesday due to CSTC meeting contlicts. DateAdopled: December2004 Transportation Planning fw F~ Pierce, Port St lucie, St Lucie Village and 3t. Lucie County