Good morning and welcome to our June 16th MO meeting. I'm calling the meeting to order. Uh please join us as we uh hear the invocation from Pastor Jim Harp. Good morning.
Let's pray. Father, I thank you for this privilege this morning of uh being here uh to pray to acknowledge your presence, Lord. And once again, as I uh anticipated this meeting and kind of asking you, Lord, where do what do I say? What do I pray? Lord, you
directed me, I believe, to Psalm 23, which is probably the most uh written out prayer at funerals and memorial services. But Lord, we we need to recognize it in our daily lives because it tells us of the leadership and the guidance and the direction that you as our shepherd desire to give us. It says,
"The Lord is my shepherd. I shall not be in want. He makes me lie down in green pastures. He leads me beside quiet waters. He restores my soul. He guides me in paths of righteousness for his name's sake. Even though I walk through
the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for you are with me. Your rod and your staff, they comfort me. You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies. You anoint my head with oil, my cup overflows. Surely
goodness and love will follow me all the days of my life, and I will dwell in the house of the Lord forever. Father, we thank you that this chapter in your word written by King David reminds us of your love, your care, your guidance, your
direction, your peace. Uh Lord, all those things that you desire to give us as we follow you. And so Lord, we just I just commit this meeting into your hands. I ask you to lead and guide these folks that have been raised up in leadership over us in this community. I ask you to give them wisdom and
direction and guidance as they make decisions that affect all of us. And Lord, may your blessing be upon them and their families. Continue to protect them, Lord, in this day. And God, we thank you that even in all the chaos and the conflict around us in our world today, we can still have peace and
comfort knowing that you're still in charge. In Jesus name I pray. Amen. Amen. Amen. Thank you. Please join us for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance 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. Uh, Miss Ortiz, would you please call the roll call? Uh, Commissioner Eileen Vargas, present. Commissioner Sarah Herd, here.
Commissioner Stacy Heatherington, here. Commissioner Jay Blake Camps here. Commissioner Edward Campy is excused. Commissioner Christopher Collins. Commissioner Ka Mayfield here. Mayor Carmine Depalo here. Commissioner
Sha Reed here. We have a quorum. Excellent. Uh, is there a motion to approve the agenda? Are there any additions to the an item G to the agenda? And that's an update for the um funding split letter that um the Martin NPO sent to the St.
Lucy TPO. Okay. Uh, Madam Chair, I would like to approve the agenda with the addition of item number G, letter G. Is there a second? Second. There's a motion and a second. All those in favor?
I I opposed. That motion passes unanimously. Is there a motion to approve the minutes? Motion to approve the minutes. There's a motion. Is there a second? Second. There's a motion and a second. All those in favor? I opposed. That
motion passes unanimously. Now we're ready for uh public comments. The first uh request to speak form I have is from Warren Newell. Can I speak on the items and it comes up? I'm sorry. You certainly can. Uh next 8C. Okay,
everybody's on 8C. Uh let's take up uh item 8A. Okay. Um I item 8A is the fiscal year uh 25 through fiscal year 29 transportation
improvement program modification and Margie Tamblin the NO senior planner will present that item. Good morning board members. I'm here today to present the fiscal year 25 to fiscical year 29 transportation improvement program modification number
two. So briefly, we had FHWA review the state transportation improvement program and our transportation improvement program that was adopted last June and there's some missing little links there. So essentially the document continues to shift and funding is allocated differently throughout um and all we
have to do is basically ensure that they are matching so that our tip matches the state transportation improvement program. So there's two project projects that came to mind and that need to be changed. So this is the old project sheet for state route 710 from Martin Okachchobee County line to FPL power
plant access road. And here in green you can see that there's an increase in funding. Right is a decrease in funding. And then um we have here about $4 million that it's been lowered because the previous slide was 35 million. This
is 30. I will say that this is just to keep us on par and make sure everything matches with the state transportation improvement program and our transportation improvement program. But in the current funding cycle, the fiscal year 26 to fiscal year 30 tip, we're supposed to have 47 million allocated
for to this project. So there's no funding that's being lost, so to speak. And then the second project that's of concern for them is the Willoughby Boulevard extension from Monterey Road to US1. And that one has had an addition of $62,631.
With that, does anyone have any questions, comments, concerns? Any questions? No. Is there a motion to approve? I'll move um staff's recommendation for approval. I'll second. There's a motion and a second. All those in favor? I
opposed. That motion passes unanimously. The next item is 8B which is a public hearing to approve the final draft of the tip. This is a public hearing. So I will open the public hearing. Perfect. Um this is a fiscal year 26 to fiscal
year 30 transportation improvement program. I brought this in draft form to all of you back in May. Um and briefly for the public involvement schedule, we're at the very end. It's to review and approve the final tip um here at the MO policy board meeting and the public hearing.
any changes? So, we received and added the fiscal year 25 capital improvement plan from Schools Point. Um, FDOT project managers had a few comments in regard to the project length and some changes there. Funding allocations have moved just slightly and um the funding phases just on our introduction sheets.
We received no public comments unless we have any today. Um, and the project lengths that were adjusted, so A1A from Northeast Shore Village Terrace to the Jensen Beach Causeway was changed from a length of 2.372 to 2.277.
And then the project below that, Monterey Road from Southwest Palm City Road to 400 ft south of US1 changed from a length of 1.234 to 1.399. We also changed the funding. So all the
funding moved over just one fiscal year from fiscal year 2627 to fiscal year 2728 and that is here in the updated project sheet. And then for this project the turnpike um from southwest Martin Highway to the St. Lucy County line um instead of
adding construction it's just there's funding available for PE and rideway. So preliminary engineering and ride ofway. Any questions? Any questions? Uh, Commissioner Reid, just for clarification, just so I understand it,
when you see lengths change like that, why do they do that? I think it might just be a result of them either not having the information for it or maybe they, you know, um, I think it might just be an error on FDOT's behalf. If anything, um, this comes from the state like work program, so we get the
information and then we just plug it in and if a project manager sees that things are a little arai, they'll adjust it accordingly. Okay. I don't know if that hopefully that answers your question. Kind of. Okay. Sorry. Okay. Any other questions? Are there any comments from the public? Seeing none, I
will close the public hearing. And is there a motion to approve? So moved. There's a motion. Is there a second? Second. There's a motion and a second. All those in favor? I opposed. That motion passes unanimously. Next, we'll
take up 8 C, which is the Cove Road presentation. Um yes, we have um the NO board requested that um you all receive an update on the Cove Road widening project and we have the FDOT project manager and consultant here to present that item.
Hi, good morning. My name is Venita Siny. I'm the FDOT project manager for Cove Road and I have here with me Amanda Ashley who's um a cons the PD consultant. So, uh, we're going to go over the Cove Road presentation and then
after that, we'll be happy to answer any questions anyone has. And with that, I'll have, uh, Amanda run the presentation. Thank you. Thanks. All right. Good morning. Good morning. Let me get set up here. All right. So, good morning. As Venita
mentioned, I am here on behalf of FDOT District 4 to present to you an update on the Cove Road project development and environment or PDNE study. That's financial project identification number 441700-1. The PD study limits are along Cove Road from State Road 76, also known as Caner
Highway to State Road 5 or US1, located in unincorporated Martin County. The project extends approximately 3.2 miles. Um, so we have presented this to you before, so I just want to refresh your memory on uh what we did previously present to you and the public. For
evaluation purposes, we broke the project into two segments. Segment one is from State Road 76 Caner Highway to Avalon Drive and segment two is from Avalon Drive to US1. The primary purpose of widening Cove Road from two lanes to four lanes is to
add capacity for all modes of travel and improve the local transportation network. The need for the project includes supporting economic and social demands, improving system linkage, increasing capacity, improving modal inter relationships, and improving
emergency evacuation. The existing roadway typical section from State Road 76 Caner Highway to Avalon Drive consists of two 12- foot wide travel lanes with a middle turn lane up to 4ft wide pave shoulders and a 6' wide sidewalk in each direction. The
total ride ofway varies from 97 ft wide to 203 ft wide at Southeast Legacy Cove Circle. Uh the existing signalized intersection will remain with designated east and westbound right and left turn lanes.
The preferred build alternative for segment one from Caner Highway to Avalon Drive is alternative 1B. Preferred pond sites are shown in purple in the exhibit. These sites are preliminary and subject to change in both size and location as the project moves through the design phase.
Regardless of the final location and configuration, the ponds and project will be permitted through the South Florida Water Management District and meet all state and agency requirements. The preferred alternative in segment one again is alternative 1B. And this typical section includes two 11 ft
travel lanes in each direction separated by a 22ft median. There are no on-road bicycle lanes included. and pedestrian and bicyclists are accommodated in 12-oot wide shared use paths along both sides of the road. This typical section
requires a minimum of 119 ft of rideway at Caner Highway and southwest south southwest Gaines Avenue. A traffic signal will remain at that intersection. Uh the Southwest Gaines Avenue intersection will be converted to provide two-way access at Cove Road. The
existing Gaines Avenue extension will be converted to a one-way road to accommodate westbound access to southwest Gaines Avenue and a new westbound turn lane from Cove Road. At the southeast Trace Bell uh circle intersection, access to the neighborhood
was revised following the alternatives public meeting. Originally, we had presented a full median opening at the entrance, but due to safety concerns we did receive at the meeting, the entrance was modified to a four-leg roundabout with grass medians. The preferred alternative within segment
one for the southeast Atlantic Ridge Drive intersection, uh, that will remain a signalized intersection. An eastbound left and right turn lane and a westbound left turn lane will be added to Cove Road. At Southeast Alt Avenue intersection,
the proposed improvement is a two-lane, three-legged roundabout to replace the existing full open median. The roundabout will provide a similar level of service as a traffic signal, but will have additional safety benefits when compared to a signalized intersection.
At Southeast Willoughby Boulevard, the existing signalized intersection will remain with designated east and westbound right and left turn lanes. And let me know if I'm going too fast. I had a lot of caffeine this morning. Okay. So, existing conditions within
segment two, that's again from Avalon Drive to US1. Uh that that will be a two that will be two 12- foot wide travel lanes with a middle turn lane up to 4 foot wide paved shoulders and a 6 foot wide sidewalk in each direction.
This segment also has existing transmission poles east of Montego Cove, an existing fence line and a perimeter wall around Montego Cove. The existing rideway varies but is a minimum of 90° in uh 90 ft in width.
The preferred alternative for segment 2 is alternative 2C, which extends again from Avalon Drive to State Road 5 or US1. Uh, alternative 2C includes 11T outside travel lane and 10T inside travel lane
in each direction separated by a 15 1/2 ft wide median. A shared use path will be provided along both sides of the road and varies in width between 8 and 10 ft to minimize rideway impacts. This typical section requires a minimum of 90 ft of rideway.
And then before we get into the evaluation matrix, I do just want to bring up um this month we have presented to the TAC, CAC and BPAC. Um so the technical advisory committee uh community advisory committee and bike and ped. And just to highlight some of
the comments that we did receive um from the TAC the committee requested that habitat and vegetation enhancements be added at the pond sites. For the CAC the committee expressed their concerns regarding impacts to flooding and Mr. Null's property um that
you will hear about. Um, they also requested that a roundabout be looked at for the intersection of Willoughby Boulevard. The committee questioned whether the proposed 8-oot noise wall or landscaping at the Hibiscus Park neighborhood from Avalon Drive to Cable Drive would make more sense.
Uh, we were also asked if wetland mitigation could be in accommodated within Martin County. At the bike and ped advisory committee meeting, the committee requested that the proposed median be used for landscaping opportunities and speed calming and requested that the project
team inform you the board regarding the process for including landscaping on offsystem roadways. So that's something we can go over following the presentation. Um they also requested that large shade trees be provided adjacent to the shared use path to encourage users and requested that in
the future um landscaping possibilities be displayed on typical section boards at public meetings. Um they also requested roundabout safety and success information be provided to the public during any upcoming meetings and that the design team look to accommodate
community concerns when possible. So just wanted to add that in since we've met with them recently. Okay, getting back into the evaluation matrix. Um, this was created to compare the potential costs and impacts of the proposed project alternatives. The matrix prioritizes evaluation criteria
based on the right-of-way impacts, natural, environmental, and physical impacts, and the estimated cost to design and construct the project. The preferred alternatives for segments one and two are compared to the no- build alternative shown here on the matrix.
So just a summary of that uh the preferred alternative will have a direct impact to approximately 6.96 acres of wetlands located within the study area. There are approximately 1.29 acres of secondary impacts anticipated and there are no impacts anticipated to the
existing contamination sites, cultural resources or flood planes. A noise study was completed during this PD&E study. There is one noise barrier near the Hibiscus Park community that was found to be feasible and/or reasonable as a method to abate traffic
noise impacts. The proposed noise wall will be 8 ft high and will extend between Avalon Drive and Cable Drive. This slide summarizes the comments and questions that we received during the public hearing comment period. General general comments included
support for the project, the desire for the project to be completed sooner, concern regarding the noise wall locations, safety, wildlife impacts, an increase in congestion, and proposed U-turn movements. Regarding drainage concerns, again, the pond sites are
preliminary and subject to change in both size and location as a project moves through the design phase. Additionally, residents of the Montego Cove and Trace Bell neighborhoods requested traffic signals be installed at their entrances. Um, so looking at rideway needs, one of
the un unavoidable consequences of a project such as this is the necessary relocation of families or businesses. On this project, we anticipate one potential relocation, residential relocation. The relocation is required to accommodate a new pond uh with a preferred alternative.
All rightway acquisition and relocation will be conducted in accordance with Florida statute 421.55 and the federal uniform relocation assistance and real property acquisition policies act of 1970 commonly known as the uniform act.
Um looking over project commitments uh to ensure the project will not adversely affect protected species and their habitats the following commitments will be implemented. US Fish and Wildlife Service standard protection measures for the eastern indigo snake will be utilized during construction.
FDOT will conduct a Florida bonneted bat survey 90 days prior to construction to ensure the project has no impact on the Florida bonneted bat. The anticipated effects determination for thericcolored bat is may effect not likely to adversely affect. Construction work will
be performed outside of pingping season and cold temperatures as applicable. FDOT will reinitiate consultation with US Fish and Wildlife Service to determine appropriate measures for the monarch butterfly. FDOT will provide mitigation impacts
within the service area of a service approved wetland mitigation bank or conservation bank for wood storks. Additionally, local coordination regarding landscaping at roundabouts will continue through the design phase. And FDOT is committed to the construction of feasible and reasonable
noise abatement measures specifically for the hibiscus park neighborhood as identified in the noise study report contingent upon final construction recommendations, design phase noise analysis, cost analysis, and community and engineering input.
Public involvement completed to date includes a kickoff meeting that was held March 29th of 2023, an alternatives workshop held on May 21st of 2024, and a public hearing held on April 22nd of 2025. Project documents and meeting materials
are available on the project website at coerroadstudy.com. Project documents are also were also available for public viewing um during the in-person public hearing that was on Wednesday, April 23rd. Um and that was held at the Indian River State College.
The project team also held two small group meetings where we presented project information to the South Forks neighborhood HOA on May 31st of 2023 and again on September 11th of 2024. We met with the Montego Cove Condominium Board of Directors on September 12th of 2024
and with the Trace Bell HOA on January 22nd, 2025. The next steps in the public involvement plan is finalizing the document, finalizing the documents and obtaining the location and design concept approval or LDCA to complete the study.
Going into more detail on the public hearing, again, it was held at the Indian River State College Chastain campus. Uh the hearing was set to begin at 5:00 p.m. The open house ran until 6 p.m. Uh and that's when the formal presentation began. The presentation was
livereamed from the in-person hearing and virtual attendees had the opportunity to participate via goto webinar. There were approximately 135 members of the public in attendance in person with an additional 59 online.
During the public hearing, 20 verbal comments were provided online, in person, or directly to the court reporter. An additional 29 written comments were received. Uh some of the during the public outreach efforts, there were three main concerns uh identified for the
intersection at Trace Bell. The first being, can a signal be installed instead of the roundabout? Um this intersection and the anticipated traffic volumes do not warrant a signal. If the roundabout is not included, this would be an unsignalized full median opening. The
roundabout provides several benefits that will aid residents entering and exiting the communities on the north and south of the intersection, including providing gaps in traffic to allow for vehicles to safely exit the community. Allows the existing I'm sorry, allows the exiting vehicles to focus on one
direction of traffic versus a full median opening that would require a two-stage left turn. Um, this also provides traffic calming, helping to lower speeds within the corridor. Roundabouts provide the following benefits that may be overlooked. Uh,
safety, it reduces conflict points and their uh, crashes. 90% reduction in fatalities, 75% reduction in severe injuries, up to 40% reduction in pedestrian and bicycle crashes. There's also a 30 to 50% increase in traffic capacity, less delay compared with a
signal or stop controlled intersection. Reduced construction and maintenance costs. Intersection operates during power failure, so there's no need to have police there to direct the traffic. Um, an additional concern that was brought up at the meeting was uh can the
wide pavement exiting trace bell be maintained? No. For the roundabout to function correctly, the entrance to the roundabout must be reduced to one lane to avoid conflicting movements. If a right turn is desired and supported by traffic, this can be added in the design
phase. Um, this would likely be a right turn bypass, meaning eastbound vehicles enter the flow of traffic downstream of the roundabout or east of the roundabout. An additional concern was uh can the shared use path be smaller? The shared use path must maintain its
proposed 12- foot width through the limits of the crosswalk. The width is critical to provide amp ample room for both bicycles and pedestrians to use the path at the same time. Um, please note that there are no bicycle lanes included in the preferred alternative and that they would be accommodated on the path
only. The proposed improvement with the wider shared use path does not impact the trace bell entrance feature walls features or walls. Okay, moving into Montego Cove. Again, during the public outreach efforts,
there were some main concerns identified for that intersection. The first being, can a signal be installed? Um, this intersection and the anticipated traffic volumes do not warrant a signal. A full median opening was considered. However, due to reduced median width of 15 1/2
ft, this was viewed as less safe than the proposed directional median opening. It should be noted that meetings with the community stressed the age of the drivers and the fact that it is a senior community. Concerns for entrance impacts and traffic queuing at the gate uh was was
another uh concern that was brought up. There's rightway acquisition in the form of a fee simple purchase or a temporary construction easement that will be required to reconnect the community to the improved roadway. The entrance island and sign nearest to
Cove Road will be reconfigured and enlarged. This may require the sign to be relocated and or replaced. Again, this is a design level detail and that will be coordinated by the design team as the project moves forward. The community will be compensated for these impacts through the FDOT rightway
acquisition process. Um during the community outreach efforts, it was noted that the gate does not provide sufficient queue storage to avoid vehicles blocking Cove Road. Uh so based on the concept plans, the gate is located 75 ft from the improved edge of pavement, providing sufficient room for
vehicles to clear the travel way when entering the community. The visitor call box is approximately 33 ft from the proposed roadway, which would safely accommodate two vehicles. The design phase, the position of the visitor's call box, I'm sorry, during the design
phase, the position of the visitor's call box will be reviewed and may be relocated to increase storage. Another alternative is to provide sufficient entrance width to allow residents to bypass vehicles waiting at the guest call box. Okay. So, the study is anticipated to be
completed in the fall of 2025 when the formal project approval is granted and the project achieves location design concept acceptance or LDCA. The design phase for this project is funded for fiscal year 2025. Although construction is not currently funded,
please use this information on the um on the slide to contact the FDOT project manager for additional project information. And really quickly here, I have an FDOT safety moment. Traveling throughout Florida can be just as fun as getting to your destination. During the holiday and
vacation seasons, Florida's roads can be some of the busiest in the country. The Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles is committed to the safety of all motorists on our roads. educating everyone on safe driving practices to always arrive alive. And
with that, we will take questions. Questions for Miss Siny or Miss Miss Ashley? Uh, Commissioner Heatherington, I have a question. Oh, two different topics. on Gaines Avenue, you mentioned that the traffic would be going, it
looked like, from Caner Highway one way down Gaines, and I was sort of trying to Google map it here to see the existing uh configuration right now is it's one way. Uh if you're traveling eastbound uh Cove Road and you want to
turn right on Gaines, you turn right. The new configuration will have it two-way. So, um you can when you're traveling eastbound on Cove Road, you can turn right and then when you're traveling north on Gaines, you can turn right. You can't make a left off of Gaines to uh uh to Cove Road to go 76.
But what you can do is uh if you're on Gaines Avenue, you're traveling north, you make a right turn on Cove and go eastbound, you can um at the roundabout turn turn around and go westbound at a Trey Bell roundabout. they will be able to turn um westbound at the roundabout.
And then we all also offering if uh folks are traveling um westbound on Cove Road, uh they can make a left into the frontage road uh that goes in back of Trey Bell to Gaines Avenue to access Gaines that way for PO folks that are traveling uh westbound on Cove Road.
Okay. And and no changes would be made to Gaines. I guess that would be on the west west west side of Caner. No changes are being proposed. No, you mean across? You mean a uh to cross?
Yeah, we don't have a full median opening at Gaines and Cove Road. It will remain with a median there. And that's to accommodate the left turns that are going to uh Kanor Highway westbound. Okay. Okay. And we had participants from Gaines Avenue in the public meeting.
Yes. And we also met with them twice. Uh South Fork River Estates. We met with them as well. Yeah. Okay. Good. Thank you. And then on the drainage and so I'm looking at your the one um exhibit where
you talk about where the ponds are going, but could you go in a little more detail? So the only thing you've described on the project as far as drainage and moving water cuz that's it's a very wet area particularly in the first between Caner and Avalon. So I see
where you've demarked ponds but can you give a little more detail? Is there going to be some kind of structures that push the water underneath the road? So give a little detail because it seems like already at Cove Road it inhibits
drainage moving to the south. So the existing drainage configuration on Cove Road is open swell system. Uh so the that means that water is just going to sheet flow off the roadway and into the adjacent swailes, the grass areas you see on Cove Road. The new drainage
configuration is going to be a closed drainage system. That means we're going to have curb and gutter and we're going to catch the water within the um the spread of the roadway uh through uh drainage um through drainage structures and then we're going to pipe it to the
retention ponds and then where we can add swailes which is you know the grass areas uh on adjacent to the roadway we will to collect some of the storm water but because of the tight uh rightway we have here and the you know widening two to four we're limited to do that. So
that's why we proposed uh four ponds within the corridor area. So for the PD phase, we haven't uh dived into uh you know the details on how many drainage structures are required and all that. That's what we're going to work on and focus on in the design phase. In
addition to that um we also are going to reanalyze the pond locations in the design phase as well. Okay. And you'll come back once you've done that or started the PD&E and talk to us about what kind of drainage structures and where they're located. Yes. Uh well, in
the design phase, we will be coming back to the county. We'll work with county staff on the drainage design as well as we'll uh present to the board. We will also have um design small group meetings with all the communities we met during the PD. We're going to go back and meet
with them um before we finalize the design concepts uh and meet with each of the communities to go over, you know, what we're actually uh building uh within their uh you know, within their intersections. Okay. Thank you.
Any further questions? I have some. Um would you also um as you proceed through design u give presentations to the board of county commissioners? Yeah, we're we're open to doing that. Okay. You haven't done it so far? Well, our design
is going to start end of next month. We're currently in the process of procuring a design consultant and we're wrapping up the PD&E study. So, uh once we get them on board, um yeah, we will do that. Okay. Also, um so it looks like they're going to be approximately 8
acres of impacts to wetlands. And how does that mesh with our uh comprehensive plan policies that prohibit any impact to wetlands? Okay. So, um we're we plan on mitigating. So, we have mitigation banks
throughout the state and we mit we have credit well uh the DOT we seek out uh mitigation banks and we um purchase credits for wetland impacts. So, that's the a quick summary of the process. So that's how we will um you know try to
mitigate the wetlands but we did get a comment and we are going to explore some innovative ways which we can uh mitigate um the wetland impacts that you know that would be created on some of the pond sites that uh we're looking at for the drainage. So that's some that's a
topic that we can follow up on when we get into design and get back to you on that. Okay. I this is this is new uh so I don't know how how you um the FDOT uh authority supersedes county
comprehensive plans tell me how that works no we don't have an intent of superseding any uh you know the county's plan I was just letting you know in general the DO's process on what we do on on our projects so we can
follow up on you regarding the wetland mitigation and and you know the approach and and the process of how we would um you know mitigate that and obtain credits. Okay. We don't have a process for that. Okay. We don't we don't allow mitigation. Okay. So, it's going to be
interesting to see how this uh um so uh the also on one of your uh illustrations it said that at Hosford Park which is approximately at uh Cove and uh Caner
there's a future dog park there. There isn't. So, I don't I think you should probably remove that from your from your illustration. Okay. Yeah, that was uh done probably over a year ago when we were coordinating with the county that
that was a potential site for a future dog park. So, that's what we indicated, but comment noted in the when we move to design, we'll remove that. And um Amanda, I think in the final documents you can update that too. Thank you. and and and tell me about about the Montego
Cove entrance. There's a a wall there currently. What's going to happen to that wall? Um there's impacts. Yeah, there's no impacts to the wall. Okay. That we that we we're showing in the PD, but we are adding a shared use path in front of the
wall. Okay. And also, um for the Montego Cove residents, how do they turn westbound? Um, I think we have a diagram there that describes it. Yeah.
Um, no, you passed it. Yeah. Okay. So, um, for folks, um, exiting Montego, they would have to turn right and then, um, and then turn left into the, um, keyhole uh, and then make
a U-turn. So they make a U-turn at Avalon. Yes. All right. All right. Um and also some the one of the uh committees uh recommended shade trees uh for the the shared use path and
I certainly support that too. Okay. Any further questions? We do we do have uh request to speak for from the public. The first request is from uh Mr. Newell. Uh you'll all have three minutes to make your comments to us.
And um just as a reminder, you will hear a two-minute warning. So the first bell you hear is the warning and then you have one more minute after that. Good morning. Good morning. It's hot yesterday, I tell you. I was born here. I'm sort of not used to heat seems like.
Um three issues already brought to you. the the roadway section being ultra wide, uh the drainage, and of course the height. Uh I did attend the CIC meeting a couple weeks ago and FDOT said what they said, but not exactly. But one of the concerns was the wetlands and the
and the damage to the wetlands and the drainage issues. Um they also were concerned about the roadway section, as I discussed, being really wide. And think about it a second. They're building it in 90 feet one area and in my house they're building it 150 ft another area 200 feet. So, you know, you
can fit it in 80 or 90 feet. And the point is just because you have the rightway doesn't mean you got to use it all. Let's let's reduce the impacts to the neighborhoods and the surrounding properties. Let's pull it in. One of the things they said to CAC FDOT said was, "Yes, let's relook at that. We'll do
that for you." They also mentioned the bike paths being 12t wide, too. the uh CAC members. I don't know about you, but again, my bike is about a foot and a half. My butt's probably 2 feet, but you know, it's uh I don't need 12 ft to ride a bicycle, that's for sure. Um the other
thing that um we're trying to bring about is that this road is actually I think they're not over capacity today. I think it's not out to like 20 35 before you actually reach capacity on Cove. The point is that when you build Cove Road, I've been doing this a long time. When you make wide big boulevards, people
drive faster. They feel more comfortable. They want to let go and push the gas. Instead of being 45, they go to 55. In West Palm, we did a lot of two-lane, four-lane reductions, trying to constrain traffic, reduce the speeds, improve the safety, not make them wide.
And again, engineers like myself and road builders, we love big roads. They're beautiful and they're wide. They're great, but all you do is increase speeds. You don't reduce them. Yeah, roundabouts work, but people they haul ass to roundabouts. We know here in Stewart, we have plenty of roundabouts. So, the point I just bring it back is
that let's reduce the impacts. Let's get back and really think about this a little more. It's a big road. Thank you. Thank you. Uh Jacob Duce, am I anywhere close? We'll be followed by
Jacob Darus. Darus, sorry. Well, this is the time to ask uh the committee to consider the safety for our 182 units Montego Cove community. Our
condo association previous president received estimates from uh Florida uh department of transportation for an entryway a little bit further to the west at our northwest corner of the
property uh to cut a whole new uh passage into our community which would be a lot safer because there we have a potential um larger stacking area. The present plan that I'm looking at here
does not have sufficient stacking. Uh I just heard the presentation and it sounds good but it's not realistic. Uh the turn going going west and you turn east on cove and then make that you
cross two lanes of uh highway I call it now. Uh then you have your escape area and then you turn into two lanes that cross the other way going west. Uh that is a very dangerous maneuver. Uh and if
you look at the narrowing of the roadway right there um that is not a good solution. Uh so I'm asking them which have been done before to redesign uh our um area there uh to provide more
safety. There's a lot of risk in all those turns. Um the present designs are not going to be uh very safe for our residents. And another thing is our wall. Uh I I
noticed that the wall on the north side of Cove has been reduced from 10 feet to 8 feet but we are not getting any wall. So all the sound bouncing back into the road uh and into Montego Cove is going
to be our problem. Uh so that has to be addressed. Please consider uh to raise our wall. Also, I want to close by asking to really consider also the water problems because our entryway, the
present entryway is in a Martin County flood zone. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next is uh Tyrone Monty. Good morning. Morning. Thank you again for this opportunity to address you
regarding the uh expanded expansion of Cove Road. Uh my particular concern uh has been uh well amplified by uh the two previous speakers. Having said that, let
me just reiterate that we know that there had to have been an expert engineering report to prompt this project. I would like to know where is
the definitive analysis that justifies turning Cove Road into little more than a four-lane corridor to expedite a high volume of traffic transiting from I95
to US1 and back. Anyone with that much vision obviously knows that if you build it, they will come. It's like a magnet. Are we going to have another Indian Town Road? Are we going to have an expressway
that will be four lanes and then morph into six lanes? Right now, we're also concerned about safety, as has been mentioned, environmental impact. There's been uh a recommendation that we also
have a noise wall. How about going green? Why don't we have a wall of vegetation? When I inspected schools for the Palm Beach County School District, I was governed by the state requirements for
educational facilities that mandates requirements for every school in the state of Florida. One of the accepted means of protection and a barrier at that was vegetative. Why can't we have trees? We all understand that the trees
also protect buildings. Again, a mandatory right turn nosing out of Montego Cove to shoot across two lanes of accelerated traffic because coming off of the rotary they will be putting
the metal to the pedal. and trying to access that left turn lane so that we can go west is going to be a very real potential for collision. Not to mention our concern
over ebikes which are rather silent. They come up fast. They're unregulated and in a shared use, really a shared use pavement for pedestrians
and cyclists. Why don't we just keep the bike lane by habiscus on the other side? Thank you. Thank you. The next public speaker I have is uh Parker Bisad
and Besade. Um, hi commissioners. Morning. As a member of this county's youth, uh, the way I look at these road projects is stuff that my generation is going to have to, uh, handle later in life,
right? Um, and when I look at projects like Cove Road, I'm seeing physical barriers being put up in my community that are going to restrict pedest pedestrian traffic and other such things. I like the fact that they're implementing these shared use walkways
and roundabouts and that kind of thing, but the size of the median, the uh implementation of a four-lane road simply reduces the ability for pedestrian to cross the road safely, especially um I've noticed when I walk
through roundabouts, they implement a lot it it is much more difficult to cross. And as somebody who walks a lot uh simply because he wants to, not because he has to, um I I find it's incredibly useful
uh to have smaller roads. And especially I don't want to live in a community where I'm forced to drive everywhere I have to go. I want to be able to see, you know, my neighbor out and about all the time. I want to be able to see people biking to work and that kind of thing. I don't want to have a community
that's divided by roads. And I feel like as it currently sits, we have a pretty good set of bones for our neighborhoods and communities to develop. But I think projects like the Cove Road and other such road expansion projects that are happening across our county are kind of
going to get in the way of developing the kind of community I want to see for uh my friends and those around me, those who go to school with me. um when I ask uh around and talk to individuals
uh about projects like this and about developments that I hear going in, I think a lot of the sheer shock value is the fact that there is development. I know a lot of you got elected on anti-development platforms. Um so,
uh the implementation of projects like this kind of go to show to people that you kind of don't really support those platforms that you ran on. And I think that's the kind of thing that's going to get you unelected. Uh, thank you. Thank you.
Would anyone else like to address us? Seeing none. Um, how the at Montego Cove this how much how many cars how many feet are stacking? Two.
Right now. the location of the uh the gate and the visitor call box allows for two vehicles to stack. Okay, that is something that we can also evaluate further and design looking at moving the call box out further, whatever um may be necessary or an
addition of um another lane that cars that are waiting at the call box um if I don't know if they have the the key cards or different passes that they could uh go around the cars that are waiting at the call box itself. Okay. No, they're all shaking their
heads. Um, let's see. Also, oh, also, uh, Mr. Monty, you asked about the scientific study that was prepared that prioritized this. I don't believe that there was one that was prepared. I think it was just
the uh, decision by the MO majority to prioritize this project. Is that correct? Is that how it got on this prioritization list? Um, actually it's been on the um it's been in the long range transportation plan since um the
2020 plan was developed back in 1994. Um we or the some of the studies that we have um you know analyze and talk about the um the the need to widen Cove Road such as um when we did um the um the freight movement study. But we do have
other planning studies is um an analysis that we can certainly forward to um to Mr. Monty if he we have his contact information. But ultimately it's the decision of this board majority that moves priorities. Um yeah. Well, it's
also um the u the fact that um concurrency issues. the board of county commissioners had um approved development along Cove Road and because of with that comes concurrency and and if you would have to um to be able to
accommodate that development you would have to widen the road and if it doesn't go through the NO process then the county would be responsible for widen the road using local funds and impact fees. So that's why I think it was the county looked at it. It was it was
better to take it through the no process because then state and federal funds would um pay for the roadway. It wouldn't be the you know it wouldn't come out of the the um local funds. Any further questions?
Uh Commissioner Mayfield. Yes. Got to move closer. Um quick question back to the ponds. you had said that um you would maybe um relocating them that it wasn't definite or whatever. I just was curious about the first one. I'm sorry, pond 1B and I am no drainage expert by
any means. I it seems a little bit far away from the project. Is that like you're planning the water moving that way? And isn't that where there's a relocation of one home? Yeah. Um we plan uh in the design phase to uh relook at that PL pond location and see if there is uh any
other suitable uh location. Uh these the drainage is divided into basins. There's five basins in this corridor and that's why you have the number of ponds. We combined one of the ponds uh basins four and five to the east. We combined um we were able to combine into one pond for
those two basins. So, uh, for the pond one, that's within the basin one limit. So, we we're only constricted within those limits. Um, we don't have the basin map here, but, uh, we can share that with you so that you could get a better idea on, you know, how we
strategically located these retention ponds, but we do have the pond sighting report that shows that, and it's on the project website for anyone that's interested. Okay. And, um, back to the Montego Is it Montego Bay co? Uh yeah,
I'm not a I'm not an expert in this area and this project is a little bit newer to me, but um I do think it seems a little inconvenient to have to turn out go across the road um and then do a U-turn or whatever to get back to Caner Highway. Um I know it said the traffic
signal wasn't warranted or um the traffic volumes don't warrant it, but I I seem somewhat reasonable in my opinion, but it's only my opinion. That's it. Any further questions? Any comments?
We do have another request to speak form. Please come forward. Seems like I'm really close to you if I'm nice on my microphone. Just a quick question. Lever Williams. Um, if they're going to be removing the stoplight at Willoughby, wouldn't it be
okay to replace that stoplight because they're going to replace it with a turnabout and put one here? Is is the uh is Willoughby That's the stop light remains, right? The traffic light. Oh, I thought we were going to do a turnabout. Okay. No, Trey Bell gets a a roundabout
and a Avalon. So, the light. Okay. So, we're not removing any lights. All right. Sorry about that. My pen doesn't work. Just just to clarify, that was a suggestion from one of the committees
for us to look at putting a roundabout at Willoughby, but currently the design is going to re keep it as a signalized intersection. Okay. Any further comments? Thank you. We will move on to 8D
which is the turnpike direct connect uh preferred alternative presentation. Yes. Um this is an approval item. The preferred alternative for the turnpike direct connection project and um turnpike staff as well as um the consultant is here to present this item.
Good afternoon. Sorry. Good morning. Morning. Good morning. Good morning commissioners. Uh on behalf of Florida's Turnpike Enterprise, we appreciate the opport opportunity to um present on this project. We have presented to the TAC, CAC, FTAC, and we have met with Martin
County um public works and fire rescue and here we are today at the board um to present on the turnpike and I95 direct connection interchange PD study. Uh we are first going to cover the project's purpose and need the two
project alternatives that were developed and presented for public input. We have um conducted a public hearing and we've settled on a per no sorry um we've set on a preferred alternative. We're going to a public hearing this year and um we also will speak about the schedule. The
graphic to the right shows FDOT's transportation development process and where a PD study falls in that process. Um so our next steps similar to the project that was just presented by district 4 would be design rightway acquisition and construction.
The project lies within the county and the um the bridge road is is where the project is located and so our study area is 2 miles north and south of Bridge Road and we're looking to improve system
linkage. At this point, there are no direct connections between I95 and Florida's turnpike. So, that's really the main focus of the project. Also, that doing so would enhance emergency uh response and evacuation and also enhance safety. So, we I just mentioned that there are
no direct connections right now between the two facilities between turnpike and I95. So, the local roadway network is used to switch between these facilities. one in Martin County at Martin Highway and the other in Palm Beach County at Indian Town Road.
So, we need that systemtosystem connection to improve linkage. So, we're looking at uh this PD study is looking at a direct connect interchange along Bridge Road or near Bridge Road and that would be halfway between where
drivers currently do that maneuver. Two project alternatives were prepared by the um project team and presented for public input in July. Uh those were virtual meetings and also in-person meetings. We
had 22 virtual participants and 16 in-person participants and combined we had 31 comments received. Um an alternative two was selected as a preferred alternative. I mentioned also some um we presented to to in to this
venue before. We presented to the commissioners all the committees and the board. We also presented to the um Martin County Board of County Commissioners um Palm Beach TPA Town of Jupiter Island. I already mentioned Martin County Public Works and Fire
Rescue. So we have received um the input needed as along with engineering and environmental analyses to select alternative 2 as a preferred alternative. Both alternatives um provide four connections between the two facilities northbound to northbound and
southbound to southbound. Alternative one would have required some modifications to the um existing I95 interchange with Bridge Road and we would have been um in constructing a ramp over an existing uh on-ramp.
But alternative 2 does not require any modifications to I95 ramps and provides the same four connections. So both alternatives will provide the exact same direct connections between the two facilities and both alternatives would require additional rightway.
How much right away? Sorry. Uh that off the top of my head is it about 70 something acres. Bill right away. How much? Yes. Both very similar. Um I do not have it but I could get the exact numbers if
you would like later on to you. Um so they both would require rightaway and the estimated cost will be updated as we go through and as we complete the PD study process. So here is just a more focused view of the preferred alternative the direct connections
northbound to northbound southbound to southbound. No modifications needed to I95 ramps and and and the potential rightway impacts. We um are proposing to add access roads because uh we're not providing all the
current uh movements possible movements but here we are for the emergency responders. Uh we did coordinate with fire rescue um and we made some changes to um to accommodate what they asked.
Previously the this access right here was further to the south between the two facilities. Uh the fire rescue access if we can put both um um of the access along off of Bridge Road. So we did that. So they're
happy with that. And that is the um I'll wait till the end to take questions and come back to any slide. But the 2050 traffic benefits if we of of this alternative would be that the alter the interchange is
anticipated to take two 26,400 vehicles per day in the design year which is 2050. So what that would mean in at um Indian Town Road would be a 36% decrease in traffic using the turnpike interchange and 16% decrease. So that's
um the that crossover traffic that's being removed is about 15,600 um annual daily traffic. And then up in Martin County, an 8% decrease at the Martin Highway interchange. Um, and also that crossover traffic removed
is about 3,000 vehicles per day. So, I mentioned that we're working towards a public hearing. We're looking to present this preferred alternative to the public for input and we're looking at not third quarter, but we're now into October. So, that would be fourth
quarter. And we're still looking to complete the study in the first quarter of 2026. And the draft documentation will be made available for public review about 21 days prior to the hearing. Questions? Did you say that uh 2050 was design
design year? So So that's what No, no, no. not not when the project would be under design but the that's where the traffic um engineers the lookout to make sure that whatever we're proposing can accommodate the traffic in 2050. Okay.
So that's where you get the percentages. It's not it's not under design. It's yes. Okay. When when is a a design scheduled? We are looking to um in this coming work program we're looking to fund it in the outer year and that outer year would be about 2031 at this point
for design. Yes. for design. Okay. Commissioner Caps, are there any other examples of these direct connect uh arrangements uh along I95 and the turnpike
uh in South Florida? No, but there's there's direct connections with a lot of other um this 595 and the turnpike, but no, not these two that not that I know of. Am I wrong?
I'm going to ask Henry Penzon from Florida's turnpike to help me out with this question. Yes. Uh uh this is kind of unique uh because of the location. Uh the median provide the spacing for the the ramps to be provided. So, it's kind
of unique. And then how how do you alert alert uh high-speed traveling motorists to this very unique uh situation uh on the turnpike, you know, when they're going fast? Advanced
signage. Mhm. Okay. Any further questions? One comment real quick. Commissioner Heatherington, I I just noted from your slides, this is a this is a massive project that impacts the entirety of Martin County, if not
the southern port of um um part of Palm Beach County, and you had 22 attendees. Yes. In and or 16 and 31 total comments. I think that third quarter public um outreach event needs to to reflect a lot
more activity and participation because I don't think many people other than those of us that sit up here are aware of that. And 31 comments, you're going to have a lot of very um interested um and engaged parties at the end of this project if we don't get them involved
now. Yes, agree. and our outreach methods. Um, in addition to mailing the property owners, ads, um, press releases, we also do a social media and now we're capturing we're doing something called geo fencing where we're
capturing people that that may not live in the area but drive the um drive through the these on these two facilities. But at the end of the day, we cannot uh they participate if they're interested and if they're not, they don't. But our
outreach meth methods, we we use everything available to encourage participation. Yeah. And we'll continue to do so. Any further questions or comments? Do we need a motion to approve or is this just Yeah, we do. Is there a
motion? I'll make a motion to approve. Second. There's a motion and a second. All those in favor? I opposed. That motion passes unanimously. Thank you. And we thank you as well. Thank you. Now we'll go on to
uh E, which is final draft of the fiscal year 27 to31 list of project priorities. Um yes, Ricardo Vasquez, the principal planner for the Martin NO will make this presentation.
Good morning. Good morning. So we brought this list to you all back in February in draft form. Today we're here to present the final list of project priorities. Uh it hasn't changed much since the last time you saw it. The first two projects are still the state road 710 widening projects. The first being from Martin Okchobee County line
to FPO Access Road and then the other segment from FPO Access Road to County Road 609. Project number three is the Southeast Cove Road widening that you just heard a presentation on. Project number four is the Southeast Bridge Road uh bridge replacement, Tabasco bridge replacement.
And then project number five is the state road 710 at county road 609 Alipata road uh intersection improvement project where they're going to be uh looking at adding a signal and some turn lanes. The at the advisory committee meetings the all advisory committee meetings they made a a motion to move
project number five to project number three and then the other uh project the current project number three and four moved down one slot. But that was basically the reasoning for that was to keep all the uh 710 projects together to show FDA that the safety need is there and that we we want that um those items
addressed as soon as possible. So that is up to you all if you want to make that similar recommendation to move project number five to number three and then have project number three and four moved down one slot. Then moving on with the list, project number six is Southeast Commerce AB from Southeast Indian Street to Salona Road. And that
is a roadway leveling, resurfacing, shoulder widening, drainage improvements, and the pedestrian crosswalks. Project number seven is the intersection reconstruction project for the US1 at Southwest Palm City Road intersection. And that was a result of the US1 at
Southwest Palm City Road feasibility study that the NO did. And then similar to that, uh, project number eight also kind of came out of that study was the complete street improvements along the corridor of Southwest Palm City Road from Monterey Road to US1.
Project number nine is the midblock pedestrian crosswalks uh at Monterey Road and East Ocean Boulevard between Kings Road Terrace and St. Lucy Boulevard. And then we have the Willoughby Boulevard extension which is that a new two-lane road being proposed from Mon or
to connect um Willoughby from Monterey to US1. Project number 11 is the widening of of High Meadow from I95 to Martin Highway. Project number 12 is the resurfacing of Citrus Boulevard from Hemingway Terrace
to State Road 710. Project number 13 is the resurfacing project and it includes shoulder widening and a left turn lane and traffic signal um county road 609 Alipata Road from 710 to 2,800 ft north of Minutemade Road. And then project number 14 is the other
segment from um on Alipata Road from north of Minute Main Road to the St. Lucy County line. Then we have the resurfacing of Southeast Pomemoroy from Caner Highway to US1. Number 16 is the resiliency project to mitigate for sea level rise at North
Fles Point Road from East Ocean Boulevard to Northeast Palmer Street. Project number 17 is the relocation of the masttorm at Ocean Boulevard and Monterey Road. And then we have the north uh the new southbound right turn lane at South
River Drive and traffic signal uh on Caner Highway at Southwest uh Southwest River Drive. And of course, you all moved that project to the last due to the um homeowners association not dedicating that right away to get that project done. So, you all decided to keep that project on the list. Just move
it to the bottom. So, that'll conclude the roadway list. And then we still have three other lists. You uh heard this presentation at the meeting of February. for doing a new safety priority list in order to be eligible for or these projects are
eligible for uh safety funds that were um in the past used to uh fund the realignment of County Road 714. And now that that project is funded for construction, uh we want to add some projects on here that are um that we want to see those funds being allocated
to moving forward. So, in February, we did present uh the application for Southeast Dixie Highway from Southeast Osprey Street to Southeast Gleason Street, and that was the signal improvements. And then the five other projects. So,
Southeast Commerce A number two shares a uh spot with the list of uh roadway project priorities, which I just presented, which is the roadway leveling, resurfacing, and shoulder widening. Project number three is the countywide railroad crossing, second train incoming warning system.
Project number four is the complete street improvements at Southwest Palm City Road. And again, that shares a list with the list of uh roadway projects. Project number five is the railroad crossing gates at Southwest Amarillis A and the CSX crossing.
And then project number six is the westbound left turn lane on Bridge Road at Powerline Drive. So that'll conclude the safety priority list. And then we have our transportation alternatives program. Again, in February, we presented the Fisherman's Cove sidewalks application
and that funding is still pending. And then we have our list of public transit priorities. So, with that, we'll be happy to answer any questions. We are looking for approval of this list that will be submitted to FDOT to help develop next year's transportation improvement program. Thank you, Commissioner Reid.
Yes. I had a question about uh number nine. Would this be like Dixie Highway where Golden Gate is where you have all those pedestrian crosswalks? Would it be similar to that? We We don't know exactly what it would look like yet, but yeah, it would be to include
some type of midblock pedestrian crosswalks somewhere along the corridor. That just makes people speed more in my opinion for anyone that drives through Golden Gate because you have a car here. It completely shuts down that lane and then people just merge over and speed up even more in my opinion. Mhm. So
hopefully it's not similar to that. Yeah. We don't know exactly what the the crosswalks would look like yet. That that would be identified during, you know, any type of studies when we move that project forward. That was um addressed during uh roadway as you're talking about number nine, the um midblock crossings. That was addressed during a recent roadway safety audit
that um FDOT developed. And um years ago they had actually um looked at that area that that would be a um a good place for a midblock crossing because of the distance between the light at East Ocean and Monterey and the distance at the gas station. A lot of people are crossing
across the street from the Fresh Market area to go to like Dunkin Donuts or or the diagnostic center. Is that the So you're talking about East Ocean because like when you're driving Golden Gate that's I don't know for anyone that drives it. I don't think it's safe for pedestrians or cars. It's just a matter
of time before something happens in my opinion. Yeah, but this would be midblock crosswalks along East Ocean as well. Correct. Cuz you don't have you lose the median and and I don't know if it's similar to that. So a car can't pull in fully. And what happens is if
you have a car going into Golden Gate and then another vehicle turning into the plazas, you can't see at all and someone's going to make a decision on who's going. Um, I've been in that situation personally and you can't see it's a blind spot. So, the the FDOT is
currently doing an analysis of that area now. Okay. Commissioner Collins, I agree with moving five up to three. So, I appreciate you saying that. My my question is one I had earlier when we were talking about this before with
regard to the Bascule Bridge, why that would be so high up on the list. Maybe I'm missing context with, you know, Palm City Road being further down. It seems like that artery of Palm City Road would be so much more valuable
unless I'm missing something to get that fixed up with what's going on on Palm City Road. Um the the the priorities that you see here today were were voted on by the previous MO board members and um I don't know exactly the reason why it was moved up so high. I think just that bridge
needs to be replaced um as soon as possible. And you be concerned that it's going to break down or something. What's I I don't think it's necessarily going to break down, but in order to to you know, we want to get we want to secure federal and state funding to replace this bridge and um you know, bridges are important to maintain and make sure
they're operating correctly. So, I think that was the reasoning why Bridge Road is so high. Commissioner Collins, that bridge was not new when we got it. it was used and we've spent a bunch of money redoing it
in the last couple years and a replacement bridge is costs about a gazillion dollars, doesn't it, Mr. Zama? George Zama, public works deputy director for Martin County. Yes, this bridge um it's uh I joke around that we
bought it used on the bridge trader and and uh in the 1980s because it is a used bridge. It actually is a huge structure from a municipality in Broward. I believe it was Hollywood. But um so we've had a lot of issues with this structure since since we brought it up
here. Um we actually spent uh recently spent $4 million in local funds on the electrical system. Um and we we still, you know, we're constantly shimming the bridge. We replaced the cylinders. We spent a million dollars on it uh several
years ago. So today's dollars, I mean, it's still, I mean, we're we're looking at, you know, upwards of 6 to7 million um in the past seven years or 7 to 10 years. So, um the bridge, you know, it's it's going to continually have problems.
Um so, we wanted to get it on this list. Um we um you know we want to put it on the list for schedule replacement and get it get it um uh uh like I said on the list but there was a recent um
feasibility study conducted by the state. It hasn't been finalized yet. Um so that I'm sure that will be um presented and that may have an effect on uh this project priority list. Um but but for now we recommended you know
keeping it here until that study is complete and presented and then you can adjust accordingly. Thanks Commissioner Heatherington. Yeah, I I absolutely would move um the signal at 609 and Alipata up with the
other 710 projects and hopefully and kind of to Commissioner Collins point and Beth correct me if I'm wrong. While this is our list of priorities, it's very likely that even the widening of 710 that that number, let's say eight Palm City Road
that it's very likely that that will be designed uh funded and constructed prior to priority number one based on when the funding how the design is going. So while these are prioritized projects, they're not necessarily going to happen
1 through 18 in that order depending on fund design funding and construction. Correct. The look there's a lot correct. The FOT doesn't fund the projects like one and then after that's funded then project number two because a lot has to do with the timing and the availability
of the kinds of funds that are available and the timing of the projects. So that's correct. another project on the list may have a phase funded before we get the construction funds for the number one project because that that project has all the phases funded except
construction but it's a big I mean projects one and two together probably will be close to $300 million I mean it's a very expensive project so potentially some of those projects that are prioritized lower could move up and I think that's important to note too
because in my opinion that traffic signal at 710 Pen is top priority for um safety. There are people there that it it cannot afford to wait until the road is widened. I know that that's why we
had that as its separate priority, but I was there yesterday and you watch people there will be a head-on there will be another death there. Um if it does not get a signal, you watch people pass as people are waiting to pull out. And um I
believe that that needs to be uh emphasized and that's a small project. So it's very likely that could be completed first of all these priorities, but I do agree with moving that up. I if I may, that that's a great point that you bring up, Commissioner
Heatherington, because there's different buckets of money for different types of projects. And um the uh FDOT District 4 local programming office has also encouraged us. Now you know a lot of these projects are primarily um going to
be either facilitated or coordinated with the county but any other municipality that wishes to have a project on those list. Um the the FD district 4 local programming office also encourages us to apply for different not
only list of project unfunded project priority applications but also other grant applications such as small county outreach or any you know there's other types of grant programs out there within um FDOT. So we actually have on some of
these projects have upwards of three grant applications in. So, it's good to keep these on the list. You know, a lot of this is um you know, Beth can correct me, but a lot of it's program, you know, the target is the SU funds. You know, we're limited on our SU funds, but really, how do you want your SU funds
prioritized? And, you know, a lot of it is, you know, going through 710, but they also look for other um you know, buckets of funds for these types of projects. Commissioner Caps. Yeah. I had a question about the
unfunded safety priority list on page 273 and its relationship with the larger list on 271 which is called federal attributable unfunded list of project priorities. Um is the
safety list a lower priority than the larger list? No, it's just as George just mentioned, it's just a different bucket of money. Okay. It's not necessarily the timing of things is not necessarily out further or anything like that for
the for the safety list. No, it's just um um it's a the specific b uh funding bucket for safety projects and it can only be spent on local offsystem road. So a state road could not be on this list. So So like state road 710 couldn't
be on this list. Mhm. Okay. Okay. And then on number one there, the Dixie Highway, Osprey to Gleason Street, signal improvements at the railroad crossings. Are there other signal uh other railroad crossings in Martin County that also need signal
improvements besides the ones in Hope Sound? Not that I'm aware of. Uh the county did look at this and submit an application for these specific signals at these intersections. Um, and I believe those are just all the crossings along the FC to the south of the county that need
improvements. Right. Right. Commissioner. Yes. So they they are prioritized um well identified. Um we just for for this list we identified this encompasses five crossings. Um so we want to get this in the work program
and you know once once it's implemented in the work program we can identify more intersections. Uh I will say in the county's um uh uh preliminary capital improvement plan for fiscal year 26 um
it was approved for rail safety improvements. We did add another CIP sheet for that. So that's really you know the the yearly the annual funding really is is uh was was estimated based
off of the costs for um this project. So, this identified five five crossings and it was around $3 million. So, it was around $600,000 a crossing that we're estimating. So yes, I mean moving forward, we we still want
to if if if we can't get these in the um these projects um approved by by a grant, you know, we still want to move forward with with some have any any thoughts about the timetable of of what we might expect on
on the crossings in Hopetown? I mean, like can you kind of map that out for me uh in some way? I know it's preliminary, but staff just did a walk through with um the DOT District 4 local programming
office to scope out the grant. And it's my understanding they threw out that it's going to be in a 5-year work plan, which is um so which means it's the funding is 5 years out for construction, which is which is typical for a roadway
lap project. However, the TAP program is a three-year cycle. So, we have yet to get confirmation on that. We're still working through this. This is relatively new to us. So, we'll find out for sure and we'll we'll outlay the schedule at a at a future meeting. Hoping for fiscal
year 30 um 31 because that'll be the fifth year of the draft tenative work program that's presented to you all in the fall. So, that that's the hope. That's the And do you think the crossings in in this area of southern Martin County are
uniquely different than other portions of the county? It seems to me like I mean I cross those crossings all day long every day and uh they seem kind of unsafe like they need additional
safety measures taken. um to protect the public. Um and I'm curious about from you all's perspective if there are unique things about our crossings down there that are somewhat different than some of the other
crossings. Are they more compressed? Uh are you more likely to find yourself on top of the tracks with a car right in front of you and run one right behind you and you're stuck? You know, that kind of stuff. I'm sure our traffic engineering and administrator can can
greatly expound on this, but the simplest uh way, you know, that's the the most unique um feature is that is it's pro the rails proximity to Dixie Highway. It's very close. There's not a
lot of um stacking area, especially with respect and the intersection is is right there right at these crossings. So, that's where we need these additional improvements. It'll also implement additional um signs and signals um for
and and and another thing that we want to add is um second train crossing um second train um signals and um you know we can have our traffic engineer um expound on that but you know the the
biggest feature is its close proximity to the to Dixie Highway and the intersection. So that's what makes it unique. I appreciate you bringing that up because uh that that does seem to be the case. Thank you, Commissioner Vargas. Yes. Um I know you've talked
about Hope Sound and very respectful of that district. What about district one, Jensen Beach? That should be right up there on the list. Also, um I know that there have been some studies. We just had a meeting recently and there are a lot of safety
concerns there. It's very hard to negotiate that roundabout. You have to be pretty good. And um folks have um have have had their cars crash right into buildings. Uh we are moving the crosswalks to mid Jensen Beach stretch
there rather than right as cars are coming off of the roundabout right after they go over the tracks. Um we do need second train incoming warning signals. We need the signal improvements. Um, this should be on here. Absolutely. Um,
I I don't know why. Is there a reason why it isn't on this list right now? The second train incoming warning system is on there. That's number one. That's countywide. Exactly. What about signal improvements? What about what? Signal improvements. Number one. The number one. I think that Well, that's that's as
George said. I mean, this is just this is the first year we've had this list. So, there's going to be a lot of discussion about what projects need to be added to this list and going forward and kind of weighing what the county wants to do as far as short-term and long-term. You know, these these
projects if they're funded for construction are funded in the fifth year of the following program. if it's an immediate need, is that something that the county needs to look at sooner with other local funding sources or is this something that can be part of this process where it can have funding in the
fifth year of the next work program? Hopefully, I mean, that's, you know, we're we're competing against these funding this funding with the different other district other counties in this district. So this is this is a working this is an approval for this particular
list for a screenshot in time right now but this will certainly evolve moving forward because like I said this is the first this is a new funding s source and this is the first year we've had this list. I I understand I heard everything that was said. Um, however, um, I think
that if you look at the northern end of the county and the southern end of the county, those should be the first two. And I did you mention three years. You could expedite this up three years or it's going to be five years. Three years is for the transportation alternative program that George mentioned. That's for young safety priority list. That's
not for these that's not for this funding. That's the thing. So where Okay. So my question is how soon could this start to be implemented? Did you mention three years? We don't know. We don't know. I mean, if is these We're hoping for the first the first project.
The county submitted a application for the first project and we're hoping um and they're working with FOT now. They just did a site visit and and we're all hoping that that's going to be funded for construction in fiscal year 31, which is the fifth year of the next work
program. So, um the three years that he mentioned was another funding source. If you go to the next project, go to the next slide. The transportation alternative program, that's on a different that's on a different cycle. That's a three-year cycle. So, that that would be a different kind of funding,
but for safety, I'm sorry, if you can go back to the for these projects, it would be and like I said that Martin is is competing for these um fun this funding with other with other counties. So, I mean, it's it's, you know, we hope to to
work to with the FDOT to, you know, provide applications for this funding going forward and for other areas. Do you want to chime in? No, I mean, Beth Beth said it correctly. I don't I didn't mean to cause confusion. It's as of now, it was mentioned to us that it's
programmed in the fifth year. So, that would be FY31. We're hoping that it's sooner, much like other programs like TAP, that's a three-year. We just don't know yet, but we will certainly inform you when we
find out for sure. Yeah. And then as far as the other rail crossings, you know, that's something that we can, you know, I encourage we can discuss. Um, you know, the the county can discuss and we can identify crossings. when we have more definitive
projects, then I recommend adding it to this list. You know, we've been working down in Dixie just because of the close proximity of the intersections. They've been they they've been identified for a while. So, that's why it was, you know, we're able to we have the scope all that
was prepared and and easily um ready to apply for this type of grant. Commissioner Reed, bring that to your attention today. My comment was already addressed. Thanks, Commissioner Heatherington. Yes. And I I understand
that while this is a newer list that's unfunded, so I think where it bears a little confusion to me is the ranking of it. Um, I agree with all the projects on there, but for instance, Palm City Road,
um, from Monterey to US1 is prioritized in the, um, in our top priorities. It is number eight. So, it seems inconsistent to me that if
that's a priority in this first list that it should be ranked higher in the unfunded safety priority list so we can get that checked off the list. So I would say you either unrank them, give
them equal ranking all those projects or you try to be consistent with this second this new unfunded safety priority list with the first priority list. So what we were um doing with the with the Palm City Road as well as Commerce
Avenue, both of those are actually on the roadway list as well because both of those um projects actually are eligible for the safety fund. So that's why we added number two and number two and number four are also on the roadway list. Okay. And because those two
projects are eligible for the safety funds and so that's why they're included on this list. Um numbers four number five and six at the time that this list was being put together when the NO is working with the county. Those weren't they that was in the works. So we're
hoping that those projects will be ready next year to actually have a scoping application submitted for those projects. So some of these projects um like for instance the Dixie Highway number one that project because it had been discussed for quite a few years
that project was ready for the county to put together a scoping form that has to be submitted to FDOT by March 1st to be able to be considered for funding in the fifth year of the next work program. So that's why that application was me was
submitted for number one. A project like Palm City Road from Monterey to US1, there's some local discussions that have to happen before that scoping application can be submitted. That's a county road in the city of Stewart. So the K county and the city would need to
have some discussions about what they would want. Priority ranking is based on reality of having the scoping element submitted. I mean there there's a lot of factors but that's a big one like how when when the scoping application can be um submitted to developed and then
submitted to FDOT. Okay, that makes sense. And I will move um the priority approval with moving uh item number five up to item number three with the other State Road 710 projects.
Second. Is there any further discussion? There's a motion and a second. All in favor? I opposed. That motion passes unanimously. Thank you. We will now move on to item F, which is an update on
State Road 710. Yes. Um, we have Caesar Martinez from the District 4 office to give you all the update today. Good morning. Morning. Cessor Martinez, District 4 Planning Environmental Administrator. Um, thank you for having
me here to give you an update on 710. Um, so talking in pieces, 710 corridor widening, so the design phase is still ongoing. We're still pursuing um the construction dollars funding that is needed, right, to deliver the ultimate
project. Um, as you may know, the state budget still being processed. So, we're expecting to hear back in the next two weeks for funding allocations. Then after that where normal process starts in July uh work program balancing and why not then we'll come back here um in
the fall presenting the draft of the work program with any updates in the funding side um regarding the signalization lapa which there was some discussion earlier today we're looking into that we executed a supplemental agreement with the design consultant um
to look into the traffic warrants basically assessing whether or not a signalization is warranted And from an engineering perspective, um we will have an update on that by October or sooner. Um then as of now the signalization is
part of the design contract or for the widening. Um I heard you um about the need to kind of decouple that signalization uh from the corridor. So we'll explore that um along with the county staff. Questions for Mr. Martinez?
I don't see any. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Uh next up is our additional item which is uh G which is concerning the funding split. Um yes. Um at the last board meeting the um the MO board
um directed um staff to write a letter for the chair's signature to send to um the St. Lucy TPO stating that the MO board wanted to um keep the funding split for the SU funds or the TMA funds 68% St. Lucy 32% um Martin for now but
in the future have um discussions about changing that for um additional money for Martin to improve the roadways in Martin based on um the traffic coming in from St. Lucy County. The TPO board did have a discussion about the letter at
their last meeting and they decided to respond to the letter, but they're actually going to respond to the letter to the district secretary, Steve Braw, and they'll be copying that Martin and Peio with the letter from what I understand. And when we get that letter, when staff gets that letter, of course,
I will forward it to all of you all to um to to review. But what may happen before our next no board meeting which is scheduled for September is that um and this was discussed at the TPO meeting that um there they may want to
or the district secretary may suggest that we handle it the way we did last time 10 years ago which the TPO chair and the Martin and PO chair would get together in a publicly publicly advertised meeting to discuss the funding split and the the factors that
um weigh into the funding split. Um, so I would like to recommend that the MO board authorize um the chair um Commissioner Herd to be able to have a meeting with the TPO chair and the district secretary
um to be able to discuss the funding split if that happens before the September board meeting. I just, you know, I don't want to I just if she were to have that meeting, I think it's important, especially since our um LRTP is due in October and if you know,
hopefully that meeting could be scheduled in July or August, but you all don't meet again till September. So if you all the staff recommendation would be for the NPO board to authorize um commissioner the chairman the chair uh um commissioner herd to be able to meet
with the TPO chair and district um secretary to talk about the funding split if if that happens if if that meeting comes about. Commissioner Heatherington. I'll make a motion that we um authorize the chair to meet with the TPO chair and district
secretary if that comes before the next meeting. Second, Commissioner Vargas. Yes. So, let me understand. Um, I know that there this letter that's sent directly to the district secretary, but when would the public meeting be held?
We don't know if there even is going to be a meeting, but what was discussed at our meeting the last time and also the TPO um board meeting brought it up 10 years ago when there was a discussion about the funding split, how they ended up um uh res how we ended up resolving
it, if you will, is the chair of the NO, which at that time was Troy McDonald, met with the chair of the St. Lucy TPO which was J Daryl Drummond at the time with that the District 4 secretary which was Jerry O'Reilly. The three of them met and it was a publicly advertised
meeting just because there were two elected officials there. So we would definitely, you know, they there would need to be a publicly advertised meeting, but if if if the if the district 4 secretary who suggested it last time, if he suggests to have that meeting again, this would be to
authorize uh chair heard to be able to attend that meeting and and go to this meeting. Hopefully it would be a public meeting. Oh, it would be a public meeting. Absolutely. This is just an action to take now so that we don't have to if there's a
meeting so that we don't have to call a special meeting just to make one motion. So any further comments, questions? There's a motion and a second. All those in favor? I opposed. That motion passes unanimously. Are there any comments from
FDOT? Any comments from our advisory committee members? Comments from board members. Next meeting is September 15th. Just under notes, excuse me, under notes, um we do have the development
review map. It's it's updated for the fourth time this fiscal year. It's on our website. Um just as a FYI. Um also we have the state certification packet which are is our annual state audit that's included in the agenda packet. we had no corrective actions which is
always good news and that this summer in the end of August um we will have an open house for the 2050 LRTP cost feasible plan and that you all will receive more information on that. Any questions or comments? Any members
of the public like to address us? Seeing none, we are adjoured.