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