Good afternoon and welcome to our Monday, May 12th, 2025 MO meeting. I'm calling the meeting to order and we will you please join me with a a prayer by Pastor Jim Harp. Good afternoon, sir. Good afternoon. It's really good to see
you all awake in the afternoon instead of in the morning. I kept checking my calendar, my watch all morning just to make sure I wasn't uh here at the wrong time. I want to begin my uh time with some with just a few scripture verses this morning. Um, and forgive me for
editorializing here, but I know that I would suspect that there are times when making these kinds of decisions and the things that you folks do that we appreciate very much as the public. Uh, you could consider it a trial, uh, hard
decisions, uh, needing wisdom. And I just want to show you some things today from the word of God in the book of James that maybe will give you some encouragement. It says this, "Consider it pure joy, my brothers, when you whenever you face trials of many kinds,
because you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance, and perseverance must finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything. If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault,
and it will be given to him. But when he asks, he must believe and not doubt. Because he who doubts is like a wave of the sea blown and tossed by the wind. That man should not think that he would receive anything from the Lord. He's double-minded and unstable in all he
does. The point is that God gives wisdom when we ask in faith. And that's my prayer today. Father, thank you for this opportunity this afternoon to come uh before your throne and to pray, to give an invocation uh invoking your presence and your wisdom and your direction and
your guidance for these folks, Lord, that you have placed in leadership over our county, our community. Lord, we thank you as a spokesman for this community. I thank you for them, God. I thank you for the calling upon their lives. Uh Lord, you have a calling upon
my life that's different. That Lord, you have calls for us to follow the direction that you lead. And Lord, I just pray today for that wisdom. I pray in faith, believing that you will give it and that God, you will guide and direct. And as I always pray, I ask for
protection and uh just your umbrella over the families of these folks. Lord, uh bless them, encourage them, and provide for all their needs according to your riches and glory in Christ Jesus. in whose name I pray. Amen. Amen. Please
join us for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Thank you. Could we have a roll call, please? Um, uh, Commissioner Eileen Vargas, present. Commissioner Sarah Herd, here. Commissioner Stacy Heatherington here. Commissioner Jay Blake Caps here.
Commissioner Edward Campy here. Commissioner Christopher Collins is excused. Commissioner Ka Mayfield here. Mayor Carmine Depollo here. And Commissioner Shan Reed is excused. We have a quorum. Uh, are there any
additions or subtractions to the agenda? If not, is there a motion to approve the agenda? So move. There's a motion. A second. And a second. All those in favor? I opposed. That motion passes unanimously. Are
there any additions or deletions to the minutes of April 21, 2025? If not, is there a motion to approve the minutes? Motion. Second. Second. There's a motion and a second. All those in favor? I opposed. That
motion passes unanimously. Now we'll move to the public. Uh the first request to speak form I have is from Tyrone Monty followed by Warren Newell. Please come to up to the podium.
Good afternoon. Afternoon. Uh allow me to thank the MO for an opportunity to express uh the collective uh concerns of Montego Cove Condo Association. Uh I am Tyrone Monty as we've heard. Uh I live
at 6050 Southeast Bartik Drive and I am one of the uh directors on the board for the community. Uh my comments concern the Cove Road expansion and to make publicly clear
that since the inception of the proposal going back to November of 2021, we oppose the expansion project. And in light of the most recent presentation, I cannot call it a public
hearing because there really was no dialogue. We were essentially told that um this is the status and progression of the project. We are
seriously impacted by alternative 2C which was presented at the April 23rd presentation. We will be reduced to sharing a bike
lane within approximate traffic in a four-lane expressway that will be essentially nothing more than a rapid transit cond car corridor a rapid transit corridor
for traffic to and from I95. We're concerned about noise, pollution, drainage. We're concerned about the uh dust, noise, and the loss of our entrance. We have only one way in and one way out. The community has stood
there for 43 years. If today we were a developer, that design plan would not be accepted if roles were reversed. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Newell is next. If you would like to address us, please fill out a request to
speak form, hand it to the baiff and we will be happy to hear from you. Good afternoon. Um I'm Warren Newell, 1870 Cove Road. Um here to address three parts of Cove Road that um that I've been involved with last couple years
now. the widening in the section of roadway that's proposed the elevation of the roads that's proposed and of course the drainage in the area I do have a little experience in this um I worked with Palmy County Palm Beach County Engineering years ago um of course I did
have my own engineering civil engineering survey firm for 30 years I sat on no for Palm Beach County for multiple years as a county commissioner four terms so I do have some knowledge the problem is that FDOT T has decided
that they need 150 ft of rideway now. So 150 ft of rideway is from point here to here. You could actually build Mr. New Pull the mic. Pull the mic over. Close. I apologize. Yeah, we want to hear every
word. There we go. Anyway, the roadway section now is from here to here. You could build the same roadway, the fourlane divided with a median center turn lane and 80 ft common roadway section of all counties 80
ft 150 ft. So what has happened is how' they get to 150 ft. Interesting from 1920 reservation from the state through a bill that was passed. Most people on Cove Road have no idea they lost 30 or
40 ft without being compensated. Their front yards are basically gone. And it through a 1920 bill called Murphy Deeds. I didn't know about it and I should have known. My title company didn't have it either. So basically everybody's losing their front yards. Now the state comes
back and says we need 10 more feet. I said, 'Are you crazy? 150 ft, that's wider than US1 for Cove Road because they want to make Cove Road the exit off 95 to get to US1. That's the plan. Ultimately, the bike paths are 12 ft
wide. That's as wide as the interstate travel lane. 12 feet. I don't understand why they want 12 feet. My bike's only a foot and a half. I don't need 12 feet, but they do. The road is five and a half feet at my
property over my grade. They're going six feet and seven feet. So, the cars are over my roof. The bikes are looking through my bedroom window. And it's just totally crazy. I
can't understand. It makes no sense. Just to give a little idea, I sketch something up. It's hard to see. I apologize, but here's my house. Here's the roof. The cars are over the roof. The pedestrian looks
in the uh bedroom window. And we have no idea how we're going to get our nursery trucks up 5 1/2 ft in 10 ft. It's crazy. It just makes no sense from a design standpoint.
The other thing that's important too is and I think everybody knows when the state bought the park land they made a commitment they would not maintain anymore the drainage systems. So the natural drainage systems are being
blocked controlled and just not maintained anymore. So there's no flow north and south it's being blocked. Mr. I'm sorry. Anyway, so that's the issue. There's no drainage. We're not looking at a base and looking at myopic system.
So, I have a letter I'll turn into for the the board explains a little better too. Thank you. Thank you for your input both of you. This is a very very uh important significant proposal and we are going to contemplate it slowly,
wisely and safely. There's a a lot at stake here. Commissioner Heatherington. Um Beth, did you tell me when we were reviewing this that that um presentation for cove widening was going to come up at the
next MO meeting? Um yes. Um I have been in um conversation with district 4 staff about, you know, some of these comments that we've heard and um the project manager did say that they are going to come to the um June series of meetings, both the advisory committees and the NO
board. So, can we let these folks know and because I think your comments are very um valid, particularly the drainage and you know, some of that and that'd be nice for you to attend that meeting when they're doing the presentation. Absolutely. When is the meeting the
meeting? It's um June 16th at 9:00 in this room. June 16th, 9:00 in this room. And I certainly would appreciate all of you being here. his card again. Anyone else like to address
us? We will move on to 8A, transportation disadvantage planning grant. Um, yes. This is a housekeeping item. This comes before you every year. This is the planning grant that the NO receives from the Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged in
Tallahassee. It's in the amount of about $26,000. There is no local match and that is for the NPO. NPO uses this grant to staff the local coordinating board for the transportation disadvantaged. Staff is recommending approval of this
item. Mr. Campy. Uh motion to accept staff's recommendation of approval. Second. Any further discussion? There's a motion and a second. All those in favor? I opposed. That motion passes unanimously. On to number 8B. approval
of recommended community transportation coordinator. Um yes, this also has to do with the transportation disadvantage program. The Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged um asked the local uh planning agency which is
Martin Mo to advertise for a new CTC every year. And the CTC or community transportation coordinator is the agency that coordinates the transportation disadvantaged rides. In transportation disadvantaged or TD or um rides for
those people that are have a disability or elderly or due to income cannot transport themselves and one has to be eligible has to go through a process to be eligible for this program. Um the no worked with the county purchasing
department and they did advertise um for a new CTC. Senior resource association or SRRA, the current CTC um is the recommended um um agency to um move forward and be the um CTC for the next
five years. This item went to the local coordinating board for the transportation disadvantage this morning and they recommended SRRA to the NO board and um if you all do the same make this recommendation and approve the resolution in your agenda packet that will be sent up to the Florida Commission for the Transportation
Disadvantage for approval. They have a business meeting in early June and they look at u Martin's CT recommended CTC as well as all the CTC's that are um that are up for approval in other counties and they'll make that approval but they're the they're the ones that do the
final approval up in Tallahassee. So staff is recommending approval of recommending um senior resource senior resource association as the CTC for Martin County. Any questions for Miss Beltran? Commissioner Campy. Yes, I'm very happy
with that selection. I think they've done a remarkable job every time we've tked them to do anything. I've had the opportunity to meet with them in Indian River County uh with some of you all and um I think they do a perfect job. I'm happy to uh make a motion to accept uh
recommendation action letter A. I'll second. I agree. They do a good job and in the resolution as well. Yes. Any further comments? There's a motion and a second. All those in favor? I opposed. That motion passes unanimously. The next
item is 8 C, the 2050 long range transportation plan needs plan. Um, yes, this is the 2050 LRTP needs plan. I'm going to turn it over to Ricardo Vasquez. He's the project manager um for the LR 2050 LRTP. He will give you a
little background. And we have Akos Jane from Tin International to make the presentation. Good afternoon. So we started this process back in April of last year and since then you all have approved the public involvement plan. You have uh seen the goals and objectives and performance measures. Uh we've also
shared with you the our public involvement activities regarding the survey and our open houses. So today we are here to present on the update on all those processes and also our 2050 needs plan that we've been developing. So with that I will turn it over to Vicos Jane.
Thank you Ricardo. Thank you Ricardo. Uh good afternoon madam chair members of the board. Uh glad to be here. Really excited to share the needs plan for uh Martin Moves 2050 with you Vikas chain with Tyln. Quick outline of uh the discussion
topics. So I'll provide a brief project status update, touch on some of the public involvement activities, spend most of the time on needs plan uh and wrap up with next steps. So quick update here as Ricardo mentioned we have been working on this
diligently for the past 12 months. um conducted a variety of public involvement outreach activities, have completed a variety of technical analysis in the past few months and I'll share some of it with you uh this afternoon. We are anticipating hosting
uh an open house uh public meeting in August uh of 2025 which would be to share the draft cost feasible plan with the community get their input and then we'll bring that back to you uh in September and October for
adoption. Uh our public involvement activities I shared some of this information back in December. uh the promotional video, logo and the branding for the project and I'll touch on survey visioning sessions and stakeholder interviews
today. So we conducted um four visioning sessions, open houses. These were sort of listening sessions. We conducted these throughout the county over a 4-month period from um late to middle of November of last year uh through late uh
February this year. uh sessions were held in Stewart, Palm City, uh Indiantown as well as Hope Sound. Uh these vision visioning sessions, open houses were really well publicized. We used a variety of conventional, non-conventional methods
to get the word out, make sure people were aware and attended uh these sessions and provided input. We also conducted uh surveys. These surveys were administered both online and in person. Um we had online
surveys available on the project web page. They were available digitally uh at different events and openhouse sessions as well as uh hard copy surveys were available at multiple events that are uh listed here. We got about 30 300
complete surveys and um the two uh uh graphs that you see here on the on the right hand side are two questions that I thought are pertinent and you would uh want to sort of uh hear about that. The first one is uh top three issues transportation issues in the county and
it's number one is traffic congestion, second is safety and third is limited public transit service. We also asked uh what type of improvements would the uh public support and um that's what's shown on the bottom right side here. Number one was to reduce traffic
congestion using TSM or its which is intelligent public transportation uh system improvements. Second was uh improving um safety uh trafficcoming as well as uh improving transit service or expanding it. and tied at number three
was uh maintaining existing infrastructure roadways as well as improving bike ped infrastructure. We also continue to uh conduct uh you know very robust stakeholder and a agency coordination efforts. Um I had the pleasure of uh
interviewing um uh you a couple of months ago and thank you for your time and insights sharing your vision for transportation in the county. That's very important. and we included that along with the uh surveys and other input we received through this visioning
sessions as part of the needs plan. I'll also mention uh your targeted outreach events. These were conducted and all the heavy lifting was done by no staff. Before I get into needs plan, uh just want to touch on needs assessment.
So the needs assessment really serves as the foundation for the needs plan and that basically comprises these four different components that are shown on the slide. Public input, datadriven analysis and I'll share some of that analysis over the next couple of slides.
Uh studies that have been completed by the MO, its agency partners. We want to make sure we include those agencies. uh and uh of course uh all the internal and external agency coordination uh and stakeholder
input. So in terms of technical analysis um the slide here shows existing congestion. So we used uh multiple big data sources they are listed here on the slide. uh a number of key performance measures uh travel time index, planning
time index, so on and so forth, and looked at different types of congestion. And again, the map on the right here shows roadway segments that are congested. There's about uh 15 or 16 of these roadway congested segments. As you know, you can expect everything that's
in and around the urbanized area does show up as congested. Uh I would point out that Bridge Road here shows up as congested. We're doing a little more investigation into that. It's very likely that that project will fall off this list.
Um to evaluate future year needs uh and congestion as well as capacity issues, we use the travel demand regional travel demand forecasting uh tool and that's uh for Martin County. It's called Treasure
Coast regional planning model um TCRPM. This model includes um it's a regional model. It includes Indian River, St. Lucy as well as Martin County. Uh to evaluate these future needs, there's a it's a two-step process
to simplify it. You look at existing plus committed projects. Existing plus committed projects is all the infrastructure that is out there today plus improvements that would be constructed uh in the next 5 years. So they would be in the ground within the
next 5 years. This slide shows about uh uh seven roadway projects and seven intersections that are u included in the E plus C network as well as a couple of transit projects. So we take this um we take
this E plus C network we run the model TCRPM uh which has future year population and employment data which in this case it's 2050 data. We forecast travel uh and traffic that would be generated in the
year 2050 and load that traffic in onto the E+C network. And what that gives us is basically um it it identifies uh pro uh roadway corridors, roadway segments that are over capacity
basically where traffic volume in the future year is more than the available capacity. So there's about 29 of those corridors that are listed here. um on the right hand side and shown uh here on this map. Some of these projects are
appropriate for widening while others might be uh more appropriate for congestion management and its tsm type improvements. So that said, I'll over the next several slides I'll walk you through the needs plan. These are uh
projects that are needed uh in 2050 and they are under different categories or modes. Um starting with transit improvements. So for transit improvements, we want to make sure we maintain the existing service with appropriate modifications to make it uh
productive, efficient. There's some route restructuring here. a new microtransit service in five TNC zones, fixed route service as well as some regional projects. On the capital improvement side, we have fleet
replacement which would be needed uh as as the current fleet ages, 40 new bus stops, bright line station, interotal hub as well as some uh studies and funds for marketing
campaign on the roadway. uh needs. These are nonsis projects uh meaning nonstrategic intramotal system projects which you'll see in a couple of slides. So the projects that are already committed is um Martin highway
realignment uh widening uh of high meadow avenue as well as a couple of PDN studies 18 capacity projects. These are uh projects where we are looking at 14 corridors that would uh widen from two lanes to four as well as a couple of
projects going from four lanes to six lanes. I will mention there's a little segment of bridge road here uh on on this map. Um during uh our uh joint committee meeting last week, uh we were uh uh uh there was there was a motion
that was passed and uh it was for making sure that as these projects any roadway widening projects specifically bridge road as they go through the project development process uh we take into account uh all the environmental considerations uh specifically wildlife
crossing so on and so forth. So that is something that will be included in the LRTP. There's also two uh roadway projects. These are new uh roadway corridors. They were included in the previous 2045 plan and uh we continue to
carry them forward into the 2050 plan. Uh SIS improvements. These are uh improvements on the SIS uh system. Um I95 capacity projects. couple of interchange modifications uh SR710
widening as well as a very important grade separation project here at FC and Monoray uh 710 uh bypass as well as a few uh regional transit projects are included uh turnpike projects again part
of SIS uh this includes a PDN study interchange improvement widening as well as the new direct connect ramps between um the main line and I95. Where's this new interchange? So, the new interchange, this is a PDN
study that is currently uh ongoing and this would be at I believe milepost 125 on at I95 and I'll have to look at uh the project list for uh the connection. That's the interchange for the direct
connection between I9 that's one below it. I'm looking at at I'm sorry it is a direct connect. Okay. Just making sure we're not planning a new exit, a new interchange. Thanks. Uh transportation systems uh
management and operations. The this is the IT uh component plus uh other congestion management projects. The 15 corridor um uh roadway segments that are identified here are based on the congestion analysis that I shared uh with you earlier. And as I mentioned,
Bridge Road will uh very likely fall off this list. And this list will be refined based on um Florida Department of Transportation FO's TSM plan that is currently underway. In the other improvements category, we have three park and ride
facilities, two pedestrian overpasses, um as well as uh double tracking of FC rail bridge over St. Lucy River. Freight improvements are consistent with the SIS projects and the
other uh projects uh that I just um mentioned on the previous slide. And there are several other improvements that are included here. um truck parking improvements, shoulder widenings, so on and so forth. These projects are consistent with the MPO's uh freight and
good goods movement plan as well as the input that we received from uh FTAC uh um the technical freight technical advisory committee and other stakeholders. Safety improvements are improvements for all users and there's a variety of them
along the six corridors that are shown here on the slide as well as railroad uh crossing uh improvements. Uh complete streets uh about 14 miles of complete streets improvements um over across 16 projects.
These are projects from the MOO's access to transit study. We also have um u an exhaustive list of non-motorized improvements. Here's a summary. Uh different types of improvements. Your agenda packet uh
includes a listing of these u various uh improvements, bicycle, pedestrian, shared use path, so on and so forth. Uh just quick note uh we will be reconciling some of the numbers that you see here on this slide with that uh list in the in the map uh that you have in
your agenda packet. So these these will change uh somewhat uh resiliency projects. There's about uh seven resiliency projects uh two sea level rise adaptation projects roadway stabilization as well as
drainage improvements. Uh we did include water taxi service based on input we received from um many stakeholders and and the surveys that we did. Uh there's pointto-point service as well as some seasonal service and u uh
feasibility study to to revisit some of these routes. I believe this is my last slide on the needs plan. Um aviation projects we wanted to be inclusive. We carried all the aviation improvements short, mid, long-term that are included in the
airport master plan that was completed a couple of years ago. So in as as I close uh my presentation, our next steps will be to incorporate input that we have received from the MPO committees. What we hear
from you uh the board will update the needs plan. We'll develop the project cost. uh we will also develop uh revenue forecast for the next 25 years and then assemble all this information to develop a cost feasible plan which is what we'll
come back present to you in uh September uh for your comments and then in late October for adoption with that thank you I'll open up for questions comments
commissioner caps yes I had a question about water taxi service. Mhm. Um, Sansspread Park to St. Lucy Inlet or St. Lucy Preserve State Park. That would be like some type of uh boat ride kind
of thing. Yes, possibly. Like uh and has it ever been investigated to do that at the end of Cove Road? Mhm. just uh straight across the river, a little short boat ride instead of a longer boat ride from Sand Spread Park.
Uh so these uh both these projects are from the regional waterways plan that was done about a few years ago. Um and I'm not positive if the route that you're talking about was investigated or not, but those are the kinds of things that uh again when the feasibility
studies done before any of these things are further formalized, they would be looked at. Okay. Yeah. I've often wondered about that and it'd be interesting to hear from Beth and others about what those discussions were. I've wondered before whether there's enough
room at the end of Cove Road to do that, like to have a a decent parking lot and, you know, to whether there's enough right over there or whatever, whether we would have to buy land or something like that. But um
uh I um had a some dialogue with some people at the uh Jupiter Island and they seem to be somewhat interested in that. uh to take pressure off the beaches on Jupiter Island. Um but uh so it it
caught my eye there and I wondered I guess I was assuming that it would have to be from uh the end of Cove Road over to the state park, but I suppose we could do it from Sandsprret Park as well. It' be a little bit longer
boat ride, but uh I don't know. Um any input anybody has on that would be interesting to me. But there was I remember when we we actually did it probably about eight or nine years ago the regional waterways plan. We did it um um with um in partnership
with St. Lucy TPO as well as find Florida Inland Navigational District and there were um different discussions because St. Lucy Inlet um regional or St. Lucy and Lakeland State Park. The state has put a lot of resources into that park and there's no other way to
access it except by boat. So there was a bit of dis um discussion I remember at that time um of how um even if it's like a seasonal ferry how that um state park could be better accessed by residents and visitors.
And with it being a state park, would the whole program be state funded if we were to put something like this in place like the the boat? Would it be supplied by the state and the boat captain and the lifeguards and the lifeguard station and all that? It's been since I've
looked at that study. I think some of the areas that they looked at, some of the peers or some of the similar areas they looked at were um areas that um you know I I think um the Federal Transit Administration does have um funding for a ferry service whereas you know the
state park um does want to um if if something like this is in their management plan um then they would be able to you know access some state funding to pay for that. So, I think it just depends on what the scenario is and the environment is. Okay. Thank you,
Commissioner Mayfield. Uh, yes. Um, it's page 30, it says page 36 of the agenda, I think 36 of 297. It's the um road roadway highway improvements. Um, and I actually need to give credit to SS Point Citizens
Advisory Committee appointee because he pointed this out to me, but North Souls Point Road is on there as a capacity expansion project from um two lanes to four lanes. But I just am noting that I don't see how that would ever happen because there's no no right of way. Like
we barely have the two lanes there. So and that's just my note. Um on I'll I'll make that note like I mentioned you know there's uh this is very objective data that is spit out by the model we will go back and look at some of these corridors
again uh what can happen you know if it's let me know if you come up with some it'll be great but or it might be one of the projects where you do some sort of you know congestion management type improvement. Yeah like I said let me know what those are.
Thank you, Commissioner Heatherington. Yeah, you might have just referenced on page 11, the 2050 needs assessment, slide 11, you talked to slide 11, you talked about, oh, that's so much clearer when you put it up. This these slides
are very little and I can't read I couldn't read what it said in yellow intersection improvement. So, is this based on you said there was modeling done? Is this human input? How did you come up with this list? Some of them
look familiar to me and a couple of them do not. So, so these are projects that are are fully funded. They are in the tip. I believe all of them all of them should be. Okay. So, for instance, [Music]
um where's the one I circled? Newfield Parkway number seven on the first section. Newfield Parkway from the SWPR. That's that's a project that Newfield is funding and installing,
right? Cuz it's done. Is that the new widening to the roundabout? What is P? What is S WPR Avenue? Park Avenue. Is that in St. Lucy County? Is that going north?
It's right in front of their place. Okay. And those are all funded. These projects are if they're not identified in the tip, there might be identified in a capital improvement plan of some sort. Um we did get input from the county regarding some of these projects. Same thing for like Indiantown. That number
five down there, that would be um Garcia Drive. That's the new road that's going in for Terra Lago. So um it might be developer funded or there's plans to to put that in within the next 5 years. Okay. Number eight is under construction. Constitution number and then there's two
number 10 and 11. There's two traffic signals going on Caner Highway. One at Warner Wateride Way and one at Gateway Place. That's Are those planned? Are they funded? Have you done the traffic analysis? That looks
very close together. The traffic signals are there's no CIP. Um, I'm not sure if they might be in the sky. I know Lisa gave input on that. Mr. Zama. Good afternoon, George Zama, Martin
County Public Works Deputy Director. Yes, a lot of these projects are are being implemented as we speak. Um, as you could see, it it is an existing plus and committed network that they're showing in the needs assessment. So, um,
as far as Wateride Way, we are almost done with completion of the roadway itself, and we're going to be bidding out a traffic signal and turn lane project on 76 to tie into the roadway. There was a warrant done that allowed a a signal at Gateway Place and at
Wateride Way on 76. Yes, that's correct. due to the amount of traffic because we're projected to have our operations facility there with traffic and all that warehouse traffic as well. They did the warrant on projected traffic
on what we will Yes. on what traffic that will be generated. Okay. And uh where's Gateway Place? New public works out by I thought that was wateride. I think they're real close
to each other. is they are on Caner Highway. And then um the questions to 84th and Newfield Parkway, those are going to be built by the developer. There's an extension from number two is an extension of 84th Avenue that will
extend um up around our um sheriff's gun range and tie into Newfield Parkway. And um the widening is going on as we speak out there for um
what is now Newfield Parkway. Mr. caps. Speaking of intersection improvements, how about Dixie and Crossrep in Hobound? And I don't see that on the list. Is that because that's happening
real soon? Yeah, those are in the U capital improvement plan, the county's capital improvement plan. So, there's no need to have it on this map. I got those are planned improvements within the 5-year work plan. Okay.
Mr. Jane, I'm on I'm on uh slide 14 and it's committed projects 26 to 30 are Willoughby Boulevard and Cove Road PD&E. So you expect the PD&E on Cove to not be completed until
2030. It should be completed probably this year. If not this year, it'll be next year. Uh it's just that it's all these projects in the next five years, but it doesn't mean that it gets, you know, stretched out to 2030. Okay. And
Willoughby Boulevard, that's in between Monterey and No. Yeah. In between Monterey and and US1, what's what's um uh right-of-way purchase look like on that segment?
So we have not yet done uh any cost uh for for any of these projects. That is something that we'll be looking at uh over the next couple of months. Yet the state is currently doing the highest level of um environmental study on that and interv an inter um
environmental impact statement and part of that EIS will include um we'll be looking at right ofway. Some acquisition. Some they are from Are you talking about the Willoughby extension? Yes. Some has been purchased already. I thought they lawyered up.
No, I'm not talking about the one the little the mobile homes. I'm saying past that off of Central Parkway that's been purchased. Um and also uh two new road projects. Same slide. Village Parkway Extension,
four new lanes. Where's V Village Parkway Extension? Village Parkway is located in St. Lucy County and it uh back in the 2040 plan it was proposed that Village Parkway in St. Lucy County extends south into Martin County and connect to Martin Highway in some way, shape or form. Um
so we have that included in our regional longrange transportation plan as well. So we're we're planning to spend money on their overdevelopment. We have plans to uh do a extension in our county to connect to them. What you
know that that would be develop in the 20 in the currently adopted LRTP that's developer funded and it was yeah it was the 2035 plan that there was discussion for a connection that they would bring a connection to that um um have a
connection in that area north south. So so let me let me be clear it doesn't exist in Martin County at this time. No. and it's developed. So there's no way for that extension to go down Village Parkway because there was a neighborhood developed and it deadends right there at
Becker. So there's no way to extend from Becker into Village Parkway. Correct. In our regional long-range transportation plan, there is a footnote saying that um what used to be called the Village Parkway extension needs to be in um the county needs or the St. Lucy TPO, the city of Port St. obviously and Martin
County need to discuss a potential alignment. Um maybe somewhere else other than Village Parkway, but still somewhere in that area. But yes, we are aware that um Village Parkway now dead ends at at that neighborhood. And also I'm on uh slide 10. Um and in slide 10 it's congestion
analysis and Cove Road is not congested. Cobra is not currently um showing us congestion with the data that we're using from 2023. Um future year projections it is showing congestion. So if it's not showing congestion then why on earth are we planning a a five lane
segment? Future year is showing congestion. Here on this map you'll see that when we did the um 2050 needs assessment for um highway capacity co here showing up as congestion by 2050. the who's making the determination about congestion? Uh we use like Vicas
mentioned we use our treasure coast transportation u or treasure coast regional planning model and we tie that in with the existing plus committed network and we based on population projections and employment projections. Um the model spits out you know certain roadways and corridors that by 2050 will
probably be congested. Any further questions? I just Commissioner Heatherington just a a comment when we're talking about these projections and the those traffic warrant signals and then I just want to put this comment on the record that it was it's interesting that some of these
signals are warranted based on future traffic analysis and I've been fighting for years to get a traffic signal at South River on Caner Highway and there have been warrants after warrants and they just opened a Costco right down the
street And I would like another warrant study done for that intersection based on current and future projections of traffic at that intersection. We will pass that along to FDOT. Thank
you. And how do you balance, for example, St. Lucy's TPO needs analysis with ours. Well, we share uh the the Treasure Coast Real Regional Planning model takes into account um St. Lucy's information and
data and that's why we're doing this village parkway extension. I can't speak as to like Beth mentioned it came up in the 2035. Um they are showing increase as uh this map is
showing along Alipata Road and Martin Highway and that's more than likely due to St. Lucy's population growth. I attended a joint meeting last week and uh we're talking about our needs assessments for 2050 and um St. Lucy
County ex is expected to double their population and is going to be uh in the southwestern portion of their county which is in the north uh central part of Martin County. So we are going to be impacted significantly
by um St. Lucy County and Port St. Lucy's uh overdevelopment which is a good segue to our next agenda item. Mhm. All right. Any further questions for Mr. Jane? Thank you, sir.
Thank you. We take this a discussion, so we don't need to approval item. Staff is recommending approval of the needs plan. Is the next one. Oh, okay. So, we will now take up 8D, which is correspondence from St. A
motion to accept the uh Oh, I'm sorry. C. Yeah. Second. There's a motion and a second. All those in favor? I opposed. That motion passes unanimously. Now we will take up the correspondence from the St. Lucy TPO.
You have the I'm going to Do you have the Yeah. Yeah. There you go. Can I Yes, we received um correspondence from the St. Lucy TPO. And just kind of as a reminder, the TPO is the same thing as the MO. they just call their NO,
transportation planning organization or TPO instead of MO. And um just to kind of give you the overview of kind of the environment that we're in, um urbanized areas are established by the US Census. And if an urbanized area is over 200,000
people, they are designated by US DOT as a transportation management area or TMA. and TMA gets special funds from um the the US DOT um if they have the population of 200 um thousand people or
or more. And just to let you know the um these funds are are not able to um you know they come they're allocated directly to the TMA. They're not FDOT can't take some off the top or change things. They're the allocation is made by Washington. when it comes to this
area and if there's more than one no in the TMA then they have to agree what the funding split is going to be the TMA funds have different names you know so um just so you're aware um and you know when reading a letter or listening to
discussion is TMA funds are also referred to surface transportation block grant funds or STBG funds those are how it's referred to in the current federal transportation legislation they're also refer referred refer to surface transportation funds for an urbanized
area or SU funds that the prior federal legislation um referred to it as um SU funds and also FDOT refers to it as um federal attributable funds because um that is the only funding source that can
come to the state um that doesn't have to fall under the 75% you know allocated to the SIS system that it's allocated um they're alloc allocated funds attributable to the areas of population over 200,000. Thank you. Um just to give you
a little history of the funding split of the um TMA funding between St. Lucy and Martin County. Um we are part of the what's called the Port St. Lucy urbanized area. And for years this funding split was 62% St. Lucy County
and 38% Martin County. Um and that is was the population in the urbanized areas of those two counties. Um when we were doing the 2040 plan when that was adopted in 2015 um the funding split changed a bit to
65% St. Lucy County and um 35% Martin County. St. Lucy County um has historically grown faster has more in population than Martin County. Uh in 2020 um uh the St. Lucy TPO sent a letter similar to the one that we
received that's in your agenda packet um proposing that the new split should be 68% St. Lucy County and 32% Martin County and that the funding split should always be based on population. During that time or at that time the no boards
agreed to that funding split because that was the urbanized area population. However, they said, "We're not going to um say that it should always be based on population because they were aware that um a lot of trips were coming to Martin
County from St. Lucy County, not only by commuters of people living in St. Lucy County and working in Martin County or working south of here, but also, you know, on the weekends, people were coming from St. Lucy County to the Martin County beaches or coming to downtown Stewart. So they were aware of
this increased um um trips that were coming from St. Lucy County. This current letter that we received from the St. Lucy TPO is proposing to change the funding split from to 71% St. Lucy County. So it would go from 68% to 71%
and then Martin would go down from 32% to um 29%. Uh so I just want to kind of give you kind of the current environment and kind of what's happened in the last couple of years um relative to you know studies
we've done and analysis um looking at the trips as well as kind of you know the differences or um um kind of where we are with the current um tpo and um no structure. And so I'll talk about a study that um St. Lucy did a couple of
years ago to revise the land use data in the current model that we used for the 2045 plan. I'll talk about um kind of the um the needs plan that we just actually that you just approved and also the differences kind of in philosophies
between Martin and PO and St. Lucy TPO about what they do with these TMA funds. This map is actually from a St. Lucy study. This is the uh study that I mentioned that St. Lucy did a couple of years ago and it was to revise the land
use data and use Bieber high projections for the development in uh St. Lucy County especially in southwest St. Lucy County and um this is just north of kind of the central northern part of Martin County and you can see from this map
that there's a a significant increase more than 50% on roadways such as Alapata Road coming into Martin County as well as Martin Highway going east to the I95 interchange. Um this was a the a concern at the time. Um, you know, when
I we uh received this, when I saw this, um, I did talk to FDOT as well as, you know, the growth management staff at the county and and we agreed to kind of, you know, be aware of this obviously, but wait till how we, you know, were using the model during our 2050 LRTP
development to see what the needs plan showed. And that's what you all just um just looked at. This is obviously a familiar map you just looked at at the previous presentation, but you can see that the model and the um long range transportation plan is based on a
scientific model as well as public involvement. the scientific model. We put in data for land use, employment, populations, and it spits out like where the troubled areas are going to be or where, you know, those roadways are going to have capacity issues moving
forward in the next 20 to 25 years based on that da d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d da and you can see that the needs plan reflected what was in St. Lucy's study. We have bright red coming down on Alapata. We have um red, you know, a need along Martin Highway going
towards the I95 interchange. Um you know, of course we have 95, there's Citrus, even to the east with um Green River Parkway, US1, A1A. All these these roads coming in from St. Lucy County are showing over capacity as the um as we're
moving forward because of the population coming southbound. Um so that's I wanted you to be aware of that. And then also there are the two boards, the St. Lucy TPO board and the Martin NPO board have kind of a different philosophy if you will
for um um how they use TMA funds. The um um okay um the um we I have the two adopted list of project priorities that you all adopt and St. Lucy adopted on the next two slides. Um, the Martin NO, our number
one project is the State Road 710 widening project. And just so you are aware, this is the list of project priorities that's currently adopted that you all approved in June of 2024. You did just appro um in February approved
the draft list for the next fiscal year. So, this isn't the most recent list of project priorities if you're thinking about that draft that you approved, but but it's very similar, very very similar. You know, for instance, the number one project is the State Road 710 um um widening project. It just in the
draft, for instance, it was broken down into the two segments that haven't been funded yet. Um but all of these funds are um eligible for um TMA funds and they're all infrastructure type projects. St. Lucy County, when they approve their their list of project
priorities, as they've done the last few years, their number one priority is the administration budget for the St. Lucy TPO. They use that to supplement the planning funds they receive from Federal Highway for the St. Lucy TPO. This is their currently adopted list of project
priorities and the estimated cost is um 600,000 which when which was surprised me actually because when I looked in the unified planning work program or the UPWP the budget for an NPO or TPO that shows um the budget as well as planning
activities for a twoyear period um their budget for fiscal year 26 was actually 400,000 but um their estimated cost for their um um list of project priorities for fiscal year 26 is 600,000. They as a
year they they put the year they have here is the year it was adopted not the year it applies to when we when we usually or when you all usually um uh when you all adopt a list of project priorities um you all um we have the year that it applies to. So this that
was adopted in June of this year of to 2024. This fiscal year 26 through fiscal year 30 was the basis of what FDOT used on their tenative work program that they presented to you all in December that you all approved and that's what's going
to be reflected in the next agenda item of the tip. That's the end of the the funding cycle. So that's just a different way of doing things. So, I did but but I did want you to point out that their number one priority is is not an infrastructure project. Um it's a it's administration of their TPO office,
although obviously they do have um infrastructure projects on their list. Um and and it's a bit different from what they have in their budget. Um so what does this mean? You know, this different funding um this different funding split, how much are we talking about in dollars and cents? You
know, currently um the um the amount of TMA funds that come um into this area are with a 2045 plan. It was estimated to be about 6 million. It's actually up to about 7.1 million when you were look at FDOT's work program and that's what
it's going to be for the next 5 years or so. It's important to note though that this percentage split that's reflected in the long range transportation plan is what FDOT uses for other funding as well. It's not just going to be for the $7.1 million, but any any funding that's
coming to this urbanized area, they're going to use the funding split that was approved as part of the long range plan. Right now, given the um what's in the work program based on that um um when we're getting t $7.1 million of TMA
funds in this um urbanized area, um Martin gets 32% which is almost 2.3 million. St. Lucy at 68% gets 4 point almost 4.9 million. The change that St. Lucy TPO is proposing is 71%
um St. Lucy County 29% Martin. So that will be a difference of about $215,000 just in TMA funds. not that doesn't consider the other funding um that we get for this urbanized area but just which it'll apply to but just in
this case it's the um it just shows about a $215,000 difference in TMA funds. Now um this is important because I just wanted to give you an example. This slide is important. I wanted to give you an example of um like the funding sources
that come to this area and how they're split um and what and what like a project that is used um that money is used for. when Martin County was eligible to receive CARES fund from the federal government um as part of the um
when we had the pandemic um we received the 32% and that money was actually applied to um the State Road 710 left turn lane um at Southwest Tommy Clemen Street. um Martin was able to expedite that project because of the that CARES
funding and we were able to do it because we got the amount that we did from the federal government because of that percentage split and that project is completed now. So um and it would not have been if if um Martin had not been able to you know that that that that
funding that new funding source if you will or that other kind of funding source was what resulted in this project being expedited. Uh, speaking of Indiantown, I just wanted to show you um this is and I know you've seen this map before. This is the 2020 federal functional
classification and urban area boundary map. That's the federal highway adjusted urban boundary. When um F dot or when the um St. Lucy TPO did their math, if you will, to look at the percentage split. They did not take into account Indian Town, which is significant
because Indian Town is um a new um municipality in Martin County. It actually has a lot of development going on now and it is considered an urban area but they did not um you know they they I guess weren't aware of it or
wasn't you they didn't include those numbers in their percentage split. Um and when when one includes the Indian town numbers that changes the percentage split. If they were only basing it on population um it would be um instead of
29 or instead of um 71% St. Lucy County it would be 69.8% instead of 29% for Martin County it would be 30.2%. So I just kind of wanted to bring that to your attention as well is that that the um the the
funding split or that that was proposed did not consider um the Indian town urban area. And um and just kind of once again to kind of let you know the environment that we're in. The current federal transportation legislation is called the infrastructure investment and
jobs act. It is set to expire on September 30th, 2026. Uh when that happens, when Washington has a new um federal transportation legislation, a lot can change. You know, the funding and revenue stream can change, the NPO
structure can change. Um so I just wanted you all to be aware that you know we are kind of in the little over a year there's going to be you know discussion of how um how revenue and and the transportation funding process um may be
the same may be different. We just don't know. So I'll be happy to um answer any questions. I would like direction from the NO board on you know how staff can respond to this letter from um the St. Lucy TPO.
Uh, it's going to be tough, but okay. Commissioner Campy, Miss Beltran, thank you. I thought that was a very polite way of you presenting to us that your response would be absolutely not. I was
going to use a different phrase, but I I toned it down. um from the moment that you and I had this conversation a while back it's it's almost gling you know all of the development and I don't begrudge what they're doing up there
it's a separate m separate county they can do what they want but we obviously suffer the ramifications and I use the word suffer on purpose we suffer the ramifications of their growth patterns that they have there what we don't get
is the dollars. You've heard me as a commissioner or as a member of the MO talk about if we don't plan things differently in the county, the folks to the north of us will eat our lunch. And what's happening is this is another example of, you know, they build these
large neighborhoods shockingly bigger than what we would ever do here um by a multiplier. And then they have all of this industrial uh development. So, they're getting all of the tax base and all of the other revenue streams and
sources, employment, uh, sales tax, gas tax. They're getting all of the bonuses and the benefit of all of that development. We don't. But what we do get is the folks that live south of us that need to get to their new jobs in
St. Lucy and they drive all through Martin County, not just on 95 in the turnpike. Um what we do get is now with a new uh our big retail uh new person to come to town is thousands
of cars that will come from St. Lucy County. And a lot of them come right through Palm City. They come down 95 and then they come east on Martin Highway. They come down Newfield Parkway. They come down Murphy. uh and they drive all
through Palm City on roads that were never designed for that level of traffic or or just use. Our growth on our side is much more appropriate to the road structure and system that we have. I
think when you mention this to me, what they need to do is there should be a percentage change in who gets what. We should get more Yeah. than we have been getting. Not more than them, but it certainly shouldn't be going down. It
should be going up a couple of points. Can you go back to the to the history there you showed like 2014, 15, and 20? We should be going back to the 2014 number, not to a lower number. Now, it it almost doesn't make sense that they
are dramatically affecting our roadways and asking for more money when they're going to get, as I mentioned originally, so many other funding opportunities from what they've done up there. And I have friends that are on these boards. We all do. We're friendly with some of them.
And I get that they're asking on behalf of their residents. I would assume, and I see you got a lot of lights on there, Madam Chair, I would assume we have to give them a resounding no. Thank you, Commissioner Heatherington.
Yes. Well, I couldn't I agreed with everything you just said and I resounding no. I say that we have to authorize the chair to send a letter basically. Um we'll hear from our other members, but I I think that we should
talk about not even having a level funding that we're going to be expecting more funding in the future. So, I had an opportunity, this is a couple years ago, and I know I'm the alternate on the TCTC, to sit at one of these meetings where it's St. Lucy County, Martin
County, and Indian River County. And they and I'll never forget it and I kept the slide that they presented at that meeting. And it was a similar conversation where they wanted Martin County to to have a project priority
that wasn't um in their priorities. And they passed out these population projections. In 2045, they say Martin County would have 181,000 uh residents. And even on their own slide, they had they had 525,000 in St.
Lucy County, but then they crossed it out even on their slide and put 581,000 people projected. And I think that was a low estimate um at the time. And I almost fell out of my chair. That's that's got to be from two from
1985, then the jump to 2015, a 232% increase. Do you want to show or something? you want to show that on the um can Thank you. And though this I think the slide you're referring to was a slide that um was presented when the the 2045 regional
long range transportation plan was being developed that just it made an indelible mark on my and I I I have not ever let go of that slide since then and I keep it in my office on my desk and I talk to people when they're sitting and
sometimes in traffic in US1 and and different regions in Martin County and wanting wanting to know what our population increase is year-over-year. And I point this out because we experience tremendous impacts from the south of the north to the with the
counties growing larger. I think this um this MO and its leadership has done a good job of prioritizing planning and being fiscally conservative. So, I I would suggest that and maybe that I don't know if you made a motion that we
authorize the chair to send back a letter. Um, not only do we really would would like this the same split, but we would be looking into the future of how to increase our percentage.
Just write no in the envelope and send it back. Commissioner Heatherington, their latest estimates 581710 is looking in the rearview mirror. Yeah, that's commissioner grossly underprotected. That's right. Commissioner Vargas. Yes. Uh with the
amount of Thank you so much, Miss Beltran. You really are very thorough all the time uh when we've had a discussion and breaking it down into simple pieces here. With all the development we have here in Martin County, it's already been approved by this commission. we can ill afford to be
surrendering any type of funding to another county that's made their own decisions. We don't want to be like St. Lucy County. Um and so we have to harness what we can. Is it possible to maintain the 62 38%
funding the um can you go can we go can we go back to the slideshow? Just say no. Um that's going to be I think a harder I don't want to say a harder cell but or um a harder um it's I think it
because we have something in place now. I think the easiest thing to do would just be to stay where we are but to to say that that we need to look at how that though needs to be changed in the future based on the traffic projections
moving forward. I mean, I think because we do have our deadline for our long-range transportation plan is in October of 2025. Their long range transportation plan is that deadline is February of 2026. I think to leave it the same right now would probably be the
easiest thing to do, but to let them know that this needs to be, you know, readress in the future to to have a bigger percentage for Martin based on what we're seeing from the model. So, so you're saying that it would be the 68 to 32%.
68% 32% which is what it is now. What about the 65 to 35? Um, I think all the developments we have here in Martin County and then we know about the traffic coming through also. So, that hasn't been addressed here. Sure. I think I think with a long range transportation plan, the amendment
process would um it would have to go through the amendment process which is which is re reasonable which certainly can be done. I think leaving it how it is is would be um even though in the future that not may not be something that the board wants to stick with. I
think for the purposes of meeting the federal deadlines be and um and then um readressing it um in a year from now to to kind of look at perhaps a bigger percentage may be correct because if we we meet the deadlines that means we're
in a in a state where we're eligible to receive the funds. you know, we don't um I I don't think we want to well, it's up to you all, but to put yourselves in a position where you're kind of in limbo and the the required document has not been approved, then that could we don't
want to be in a situation where um federal highway or FDOT is putting a hold on funds until something gets resolved. And I I think leaving it how it is might be the the the better way to to um especially given the argument, you
know, you show I mean we have a model that is a scientific model that has data that shows of the um increased tra traffic coming into this county. Um as well as you know I mean I think the the fact that you know there's the different philosophies with the list of project
priorities is significant too. you all use the um this kind of funding on infrastructure projects and that's all you know I mean they use it for for for other kinds of priorities um and so I I think that would be the the the safest
um um move forward is just to request what was um adopted in 2020 would remain the same 68% 32% with the understanding that this board is going to talk about it more going forward. um um that that
that percentage split may need to be increased for Martin given the traffic that's coming in because if you look at the map if you I mean it's it's you know it's all the roads coming in from St. Lucy County. It's I mean it shows Alipata, Citrus, Murphy, um um I95, the
Turnpike, US1, um Green River Parkway, even A1A um are are all showing a significant increase in traffic. Right. Exactly. Every $100,000 counts towards betterment and
ease of moving oneself throughout the county. So, you know, I I say you should try because it doesn't hurt and certainly you'll be able to make the amendment change and the request within time. So, Commissioner Caps, so this is
a request by the St. Lucy TPO for a new split. So, so it's just a request. So, we have the power to say no. Correct. Correct. And and then how do how does a long-term dispute about something like this
ultimately get resolved? Like who who did who makes a final decision down the road? Like say say we want to change the split later um kind of as a future thing. Sure. Sure. And and we want it to go to, you
know, where we have like 6040 or something a good bit stronger for Martin County. who would make that ultimate decision and what would that look like? Sure. Sure. So, what happened just to give you a little history that that doesn't that he that the um TPO letter
doesn't mention back in 2015 when the NPO board was about to approve its uh 2040 long-range transportation plan. The letter that we got from St. Lucy County um did not propose a new funding split. They said that they were just going to
use 68% St. Lucy 32% Martin based on the population and um when the NPO board got that they were very concerned because they said you know another NO can't I just make that change they they can't just unilaterally unilaterally make that
decision so what happened was and we were about our deadline back then was December it was December of 2020 so what happened was that the district secretary of FDOT um um because we contacted them. Um he had a meeting with the chair of
the no as well as the chair of the TPO in a publicly advertised meeting to sit and talk about a compromise. Um because the St. Lucy said that they were going to increase the funding split to 68% 32% and Martin said um we were planning to
leave it the same with our LRTP because we hadn't heard anything till this 11th and a half hour. So in that meeting the three of them compromised to make it 65% St. Lucy 35% Martin. So I think that might be a way to you know move forward
where um and then at the last and when then when we adopted our 2045 plan when St. Lucy proposed in their letter letter before that plan they did it early like they're doing at this time and they're they proposed a 68% 32% the Martin NO
said well based on population that is the percentage split but you but the no board was aware what was coming they were aware that there was rapid growth north of the county line that was going to significantly impact the roads in
Martin County so they said as part of that mo as part of that motion We do not agree moving forward. This should be based only on population data. It will, you know, there's more to that conversation. It should be based on other factors. And that's the
conversation we're having now where once again, you know, St. Lucy County is sending or St. Lucy TPO is sending a letter saying we want a new funding split based on population 71% 29%. Let's always base it on population data. And
um and that's it. It just so happens to be at a time where we're looking at our needs plan where we're looking at the outputs of the model where you know it really is not reasonable to just base it on population data given the amount of traffic that's coming into this area. So
the way that dispute got settled before was bringing in the district secretary to kind of act as an intermediary between the two counties. Correct. Correct. I got you. And that's probably the way it would ultimately get resolved with us, assuming there was some type of
impass. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. So, to bring it home, there's a motion by Commissioner Heatherington, seconded by Commissioner Campy to leave it alone to maintain the the uh the split as it was established in 2020 with the
understanding that uh based in part upon St. Lucy TPO 2023 needs assessment that there are going to be huge impacts in Northern Martin County in the future and that we expect to uh reassess the
percentage splits in the future because we think that our split should be more generous. Right. Correct, Commissioner Vargas. But how does that change then? They'll still be hanging their flag on population.
They did last time and they will absolutely. So, how do we counter that at that time? Well, um well, like I said, your um deadline for the um 2050 long range transportation plan is in October. So,
um I suggest that you know if you if that's the way you all want to go that we move ahead with the current funding split or with the current p percentage split and then um if then after that time um if they want to have a meeting with the district secretary kind of like
that what they did before. I mean it's up to Madam Chair if if that would be something that that the board or or she would be willing to do um to have a meeting with with yourself and the district secretary and the chair of the St. Lucy TPO and kind of work out if if
they don't you know if they don't agree with that then what would be what would be um agreeable and last time it was a um it was um kind of they kind of used the the numbers in the middle it was 6238 they were asking for 6832 so the
compromise was the 3565 for the 2040 plan and so moving forward if there is a you know percentage change we will uh Martin will have adopted their 2050 long range transportation plan. So we'll be in a situation where you know there's
nothing in limbo keeping money from from you know being accepted or being approved for this area. Okay, Mayor Depal. Yeah, I'm I'm all good with the way it is right now, but if they don't accept that, then all bets are off. We can ask
for more. If if we have to go into negotiation, we're not going to negotiate for the 32%. Right. I mean once once Yeah. Yeah. After after um Sure. I mean whenever you all want to whenever the chair or whenever you all I I think what what was I think beneficial
when there that negotiation happened was having the two chairs with the district secretary years and years ago when the 2035 was developed there was a joint meeting with both entire boards. It that just was very counterproductive. It was very it was not productive at all and it
was um I think that is um I think that's a a a good way to negotiate because you have you know it's the leadership having a conversation and it can be changed however however you all see fit.
Yeah. I think that what what Miss Bel Miss Beltran is most concerned about is our needs plan is due shortly. Correct. Correct. And we don't we don't want to dispute over the percentages right now. We'll we'll figure this out later.
There, Mayor Dalo. And is that your an old light? No, I mean that's Oh, I'm sorry. Just a quick question. So, you're saying it's highly likely that's what I'm getting from you that if we go back and say keep it at 6832, they will agree in
time or keep it the way it is so that you we can get the money that's needed. Correct. Well, they they yeah, they could either agree or disagree, right? But you're you're encouraging the 6832 because you think that's likely, correct? I think yes, because that that's what it is now. I mean, if we had never gotten that letter, that's what we
that's the adopted percentage split now. That's what FDOT has been using for the last five years, five to six years. That's how you know that's that was the percentage split of the CARES funding that we got or and any money coming into this urbanized area for the last five to
six years has used that funding. Right. So you you don't think that the TPO is going to try to they they would probably acquies. Well, yeah, they may they may they may object to it, but I think because we are on a deadline for a document for the LRTP, I think it I I I
would suggest that we move ahead using that deadline. I mean, before what happened was 10 years ago when they surprised us with the change with their what they wanted to change. Um we, you know, we had to we had to um do we had
to um redo some of the costs in our long-range transportation plan before the adoption deadline, which was very very stressful. Um but but it would but it happened. but to avoid that kind of um um situation to leave it how it is
and then if we have to do an amendment in the future whether it's a bigger percentage split to Martin or whatever then then that that we can do that. So this is really just I'm just trying to make sure and this is really just kind of a um a a deadline for our adoption
not a deadline to have an agreement. Correct. Correct. Yes. Absolutely. It sounds basic but it was all over. Okay. Yes. Absolutely. Commissioner Vargas. Yes. So, I they're they're promoting a 71 to 29% split. That's what they're
promoting. They're they're proposing. Yes. That's what they're promoting. That's what they want. And, you know, as I said before, because of the amount of growth we have just in this county, not to mention the transit from St. Lucy County, I I don't agree with saying,
gee, 68 and 32 is enough for us at this point. I mean, if you start moving backwards, in other words, we don't have the funding that we need, it's very hard to go back again and say, "Well, no, we really should be at 65 or 68% whatever
it may be or 35% and 65% here." My thoughts. There's a motion and a second. All those in favor? I opposed. Oppose. That motion passes uh however many people there are with Commissioner Vargas desenting and everybody else.
Now we will move on to the next item which is uh on E. Is that what we're on? Yeah. AE, which is the uh draft tip.
Uh yes, the draft fiscal year 26 through fiscal year 30 transportation improvement program. I'm going to turn it turn it over to Margie Tamblin. She's the senior planner for the NO. Good afternoon board members. Um I'm here to present the fiscal year 26 to fiscal year 30 transportation improvement.
Could you please speak up? We can't hear you. Sorry. Mhm. the transportation improvement program draft for fiscal years 26 to fiscal year 30. Oh, I just wanted to to add and you know um while you're doing that is that this is a draft that's coming before you now.
It's part in the public involvement process now. It is going to come back next month in the final draft form for adoption when you all will have a public hearing. So with that, I'll turn it back over to Margie. Okay. All right. So, I should have the
PowerPoint now. Okay. Briefly, the tip purpose is to have a short-term planning document. So, this is our five-year planning horizon planning document. Um, and we have this plan and it's updated annually. Um, it's a comprehensive list of funded transportation projects that are federally funded, state funded, and
locally funded. They're regionally significant. Oftentimes, or MO priority projects, and it's consistent with our 2045 LRTP, which is our currently adopted long-range transportation plan. Um and it is financially constrained as well. So briefly the organization of the
draft tip is the endorsements and certifications and abbreviations and codes at the top in the beginning section. Um and section one is the overview and major projects. Section two is the project selection priorities and performance measures. Those are set by FDOT. Um and then section three is our
public involvement. The final part of the document is the appendices and that includes the project funding summaries for the next five years. the local capital improvement plans that we've received, the planning area map, and the project sheets. So, they're separated by highway, turnpike, transit, aviation,
etc. And then briefly, our public outreach has been some newspaper ads. We did one on May 1st, 2025. We have information on our NO website. We have information on our social media. We talked to our advisory committees. We're here talking to the board today. Um, we will also be back because this is a as a
is a draft document and we'll be back in June to do the uh final adoption of this. The local libraries and our county administrative center all have a draft document at their research desk and we will have a public hearing June 16th, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. for our policy board
meeting and to adopt the tip. Um, that's what was advertised in the newspaper ad. And briefly the selection project for this process um is that we get the list of project priorities that we adopt in June for fiscal year 26 to fiscal year 30. We have our draft tenative work
program that comes in October and our adopted work program and tip um that occurs in June. So we look at roadways enhancements to said roads roadways non-motorized facilities and transit improvements. Um, and this also includes uh plans that are uh consistent with the
long-range transportation plan and local plans and also any kind of changes that we may have to our local project priorities. A recently implemented project that we have is the Southwest Mer Highway widening project and there's some aerial images and also just images on the ground as well.
And as Beth mentioned, you saw a more recent draft um of the fiscal year 27 to fiscal year 31 in February, but this is our current adopted project priority list. Um you may all be fairly familiar with it. I'm sure you are. Um there we
go. We also have for fiscal year 26 and fiscal year 30, we have some additional project priorities. So that's transportation alternative programs. Um those are sidewalks, multimmoal facilities, things of that nature. And we have a list of public transit priorities as
well. To give you a sample project ship or project sheet for the the tip, um this is Willoughby Boulevard from State Route 714 Monterey Road to US1. And this is a two-lane roadway that's proposed, the new two-lane roadway. Um and roughly
you have the project limits up here from and two. Uh we have the section which is the highway. We have the workway work summary. So basically give you an idea of where it is in the in the process within FDOT, the agency that's leading it, the length we don't have just yet because they're still in the design
process for it. Um where it is in the long range transportation plan and also the funding that is allocated to it as of late and also in the prior years as well. And roughly we have our tip public involvement schedule. And this is
anywhere that the draft tip has been um put into an agenda packet. Um if it's at a local center, so whether that's the library or the government center here. Um and anywhere the final draft will be also implemented to in our local meetings and when it will be presented on. Um and as a note again, our public
hearing is June 16th, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. at this uh policy board meeting. So with that, any questions? questions about the tip? No. Well done. Is there a motion to approve?
I'll make a motion to approve. I didn't mean to press my button. Okay. There's a motion to approve. Is there a second? Second. There's a motion and a second. All those in favor? I opposed. That motion passes unanimously with Mayor Dupalo and Commissioner
Heatherington absent. Uh and we now will move on to uh 8F general planning consultant contracts. Um yes, every three years the NPO advertises advertises for general
planning consultants and this um um the NO uses the GPC's for planning studies and um work and um to be able to to use some on retainer as opposed to going out for as a competitive process for each study or each um work effort that we do.
Um and so we have general planning consultants in place. The board of county commissioners approved this at their last meeting and this agenda item is an action item and it's to approve using the standard Martin County approved consultant contract for the four for firms that were selected during
this competitive process and those four firms were Kimley Horn and Associates, Ty Lin International, Marlin Engineering and WSP. So um staff is recommending approval of this item and I'll be happy to answer any questions. Any question
about the consultant contracts? Is there a motion to approve? So move. I'll second. There's a motion and a second. All those in favor? I opposed. That motion passes unanimously with Mayor Depalo and Commissioner
Heatherington absent. We now move on to 8G uh State Road 710 projects update. Um, yes, we have Tony Nora from F. District 4 to give the 710 projects update.
Good afternoon. Good afternoon. How are you, board? Great. Um, my name is Tony Norat. I'm the planning supervisor for the district. Um, normally Ron Kariva is the one that comes and gives the update, but he had a little emergency today. Um
since the uh the presentation that we gave last month um there hasn't been very many updates. Um what I can say is here let me get my notes here that he gave me. Um so in regards to uh 710 from uh
the widening project from Okichchobee to um I have it here from Okchobee to where are you to Alipata sorry um everything this remains our number one unfunded priority uh we're continuing to
look for eligible funding um but that's still in progress. Uh, regarding the signal warrant analysis on State Road 710 at Alapata, um, everything uh, is still ongoing and is expected to be finalized by the end
of June. Okay, any questions? Commissioner Heatherington, I would just add I got a report this morning. There is a Martin County school bus bus stopped on State Road 710 and there was a box truck that apparently stepped on
its brake um almost missed the bus but ended up hitting the bus. The bus had all of its arms and lights and and a semitr almost then rearended that. Um,
fortunately there were no serious injuries of any of the stu there was a student entering onto the bus on 710. So I think that we should document that and let DOT know that this is an ongoing hazard there. That could have
been a very different story this morning with many injured passengers andor a fatality and that's it's just completely unacceptable. Thank you. We'll just document that.
Yeah, please. Any further questions or comments? Thank you. Oh, there is one. Mr. Caps, the the proposed light at Alipata and 710. I see two different sentences there
that suggest two different things about it. Uh, currently segment D includes a warrant study for a traffic signal at the intersection of 710 and 609. On the MPO's currently adopted list
of projected priorities, a traffic signal at this spot is also listed as a separate priority. So, which is it and where where is it? What kind of priority is is this getting and when is this likely to happen? is this is a this is a
high priority for the no board as they've stated in previous meetings. Um and because of that it's included in two different priority projects. Can you bring up one of the the priority list? Um it is included in if you look at this is the um priority list that was adopted
back in June. It's changed a little bit. Um if you look at item um state road 710 from Van Beern to the Okachobee line, the widening from Vanurren to Alipata is a short segment that has been funded and
part of that project includes a warranty study for that traffic signal. But because this is a high priority for the NO board, they actually made a separate priority just for that traffic signal in um in item seven. If you look at
priority number seven, so depending on what the warranty study says, if it says for instance, if it's not warranted, it's this is this signal is still a priority for the NO board even though as part of that widening process, FDOT might find that it's not warranted. So
that's why it's it's you know, my apologies for if that there's confusion on that, but it is because it's such a high priority for this board that we made it part of two different priorities on this list that you all approved. When do we expect the the warrant to be done
and the result from the warrant to be revealed? The end of June. End of June. Okay. Okay. So, we'll kind of say it is warranted then it's likely to happen within a couple of years maybe. Or we don't that we don't have the answer. It
just depends on on the information they get back and they're they're trying they understand the urgency in getting the signal there. Al so they're trying to move everything as quickly as possible. Mhm. Okay. Thank you. Any further questions? Oh, here's one. Mayor, I've
said it before and I'll say it again. I think that Alipata Road should be aligned with Martin Luther King to make a four four-way intersection right there because if we don't do that and put a traffic light at Alipata and 710, it's going to cause more problems.
It's already hard getting out of Martin Luther King, especially during rush hour traffic and especially if you're going to turn and go west towards Okachchobee. I coming into two lanes of traffic. It gets pretty heavy there around 6:00 in
the morning till 7 8:00 in the morning then again in the evening. So I mean we have a community there, people living there. So, I think we ought to with all the development that's going on, I'm pretty confident that that property to
the west of of Alipata Road where it stands now is going to be sold soon. And I think that something can be done with the developer to bring a road the road in through his community back out to Forfield Boulevard where we have a
four-way intersection. Yeah. Has the council sent a letter to the um county commission about that? Because that that's really that that those two entities would be the ones that talk about that. FOT as well as the NPO just deals with the environment that's that's in place. But if there's
um you know, no, but I'll get one I'll get one sent. Okay. That that would be where that I was going to state the same thing is that you know if if it's something that's a a big concern then we can submit it or you guys could submit it and we can take a look into that. Any further questions?
Thank you. I do have one. I'm sorry. Thank you, Commissioner Caps. So, if if we did aim to do what the mayor is suggesting, would that elongate the process significantly? I mean, that that's
you're talking about adding several years to a solution, right? Whereas don't we need a traffic light there for the next few years to for as a safety measure because you know connecting it with Martin Luther King that sounds like
another 5 to 10 years to me that would be a long-term project whereas that's having the signal as its own priority would be looking at it in the next you know two years two to three year time period because I think we kind of have a a safety concern in the interim right
right absolutely Any other questions? Nope. Uh, let's see. Thank you. Uh, comments from advisory committee members. Miss Priest, good afternoon. Afternoon. I serve on BPAC. Originally, I started serving even
before Beth came here on on uh citizens advisory committee. So, I've been on this for years. I don't know how long you've been here. 16 years. 16. And I would I go beyond 16. Um just wish to remind you that we must remain v
vigilant when it comes to defending our county's transportation needs uh with regard to our funds and St. Lucy County a few years ago and Beth because of my memory I would I would say I need your assistance. Didn't we have to go and defend they wanted to merge and
eliminate our MO and we were going to merge with the TPO. Is that what we were fighting back then? And um yeah, actually when I came on board, there was um discussions they were they were planning to merge this NO Martin with the St. Lucy TPO. Um there was a lot of
discussion back then and and that's still the case today where NPOS's don't merge. I mean NPOS's have been around for a long time. And there's over 450 NPOS in the I'm sorry, NPOS's in the um this is so long I'll try to be brief but
over 450 NPOS in um um the country and and I think maybe one has successfully merged. I mean one situation where there have been two that have merged. So we were getting that pressure and we did go to meetings. You asked how how and we prevailed. I don't remember how we
prevailed, but we prevailed and we were able to keep our portion of the money and keep our no going. Um, Beth also has studies by consultants that I know I viewed that provide numbers on the number of trips from both the north and the south into our destinations here in
this county for employment, entertainment, and retail. I think you could look at those studies and use those in the letter that you're going to be writing defending our needs with regard to these splits between us and St. Lucy County. Thank you very much.
Thank you. Would anyone else like to address us? No. Uh comments from board members. Any notes? Our next meeting is June 16, 2025 and that one is going to be at nine
o'clock in the morning. We are adjourned.