Good morning and welcome to our uh September 15th MO meeting. We're happy that you've joined us this morning. Uh please join us in a prayer by Reverend Brochious followed by the pledge of allegiance.
Good morning. Morning ladies and gentlemen. Nice to be back. Yes. Let's pray. Father in heaven, again, thank you for your mercy and your grace. Again, we just thank you that uh you've allowed us to live in this area with such uh beauty
surrounding us all the time. Thank you for these ladies and gentlemen that are at work to preserve, to help, to plan, to prepare for the future. Lord, we pray that you would bring encouragement to them today. You'd give them wisdom and direction. And Father, give them great
joy as they serve you through this capacity here in our community. So again, we we pray for your peace. We pray for your uh hope, your strength that we need here in this area. We just pray this in the wonderful name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.
Amen. 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.
Can we have the roll call? Commissioner Eileen Vargas present. Commissioner Sarah Herd here. Commissioner Stacy Hertherington is excused. Commissioner Jay Blake Camps here.
Commissioner Edward Campy here. Commissioner Christopher Collins here. Commissioner Ka Mayfield here. Mayor Carmine Depalo here. Commissioner Sha Reed here. We do have a quorum. Excellent. Uh, is there a motion to
approve the agenda? Move approval. Second. There's a there's a motion and a second. All those in favor? I opposed. That motion passes unanimously. Is there a motion to approve the minutes? Motion. Second. There's a motion and a second. All those
in favor? I opposed. That motion passes unanimously. Uh, it's now time for public comment. I have one request to speak for him and that's from Lucas Latham. Madam chair, I think he would like to speak under the Willoughby Boulevard extension project. All right, I will public comment. I will
make a note of that. All right. Uh then we'll take up item 8A, which is the fiscal year 26 through 30 transportation improvement program amendments, the tip amendments.
Yeah. Margie Tamblin, the senior planner for the NO will present this item. Good morning board members. Um this morning I will be presenting on the fiscical year 26 to fiscal year 30 uh transportation improvement program roll forward amendment. Um
let me see here. Looks like the wrong item. Here we go. All right. So amendments and modifications. Um the first amendment that we do each year is a roll forward report. So funding that wasn't utilized in the prior tip. So the fiscal year's
25 to fiscal year 29 rolls forward into the current tip which is fiscal years 26 to fiscal years 30. Um and the total rollover funds are $16.7 million. That's about $4.5 million in highway funding about um $12 million in transit funding.
And that's not just for our area that's for the Port St. Lucy urbanized area. about $61,000 in turnpike funding and then about $5,000 in miscellaneous funding. And the miscellaneous funds for this um roll forward report are in regard to the federal lands access program. And that's the the grant that's
between um Jonathan Dickinson State Park and the Hopetown National Wildlife Refuge. So briefly, we have a look at the fiscal year 26 rule forward report summary sheet. So we have the project, we have the FM number for said project, the to and from so the project limits, the work
type and the rollover fund amount and then you can see the total amount here at the bottom. The second amendment we have is the Alice Street project and that is to remove the Alice Street project and that was to um add sidewalk there. Um according to FEC they confirmed that the
sidewalks at this crossing are not feasible. Therefore the project will not be moving forward. Um, and here's that email from FDOT. And as a result of that email, we will be removing that project from the TIP. And then the modification that we have is a non-budgeted project. So, we
received an email from FDOT and FHWA in regard to adding this federal lands project. Um, and this is specifically for Hopetown National Wildlife Refuge. It's to replace the South um Hopetown South End boardwalk, repair the headquarters, and to um also repair the visitor center parking. Uh, this is not
an item that we are paying funds towards. is just to have consistency between plants. And with that, does anyone have any questions questions? Nice job. I don't see any. Is there a motion to approve?
Yes. Motion to approve. Second. There's a motion and a second. All those in favor? I opposed. That motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Next item is 8B which is the 2050 long range transportation plan draft cost
feasible. Um yes um Ricardo Vasquez he's the principal planner for the no and also the project manager for the 20150 LRTP. He will introduce this project and we have the consultant here to make a presentation for you. Yep. So good morning board members.
Today we are here to present to you the cost feasible plan draft that we have developed for the 2050 long range transportation plan. As you all know, we kicked off kicked off this project back in April of 2024. So, here we are uh coming to the end where we have to adopt our plan in October and the cost
feasible plan is the last component of our 25th LRDP. So, with that, we have the cost chain here, project manager for the project and he will present on the cost feasible plan. Thank you, Ricardo. Good morning. Good morning.
Thank you, Ricardo. Uh good morning, Madam Chair. Uh good morning members of the board. I'm the cost chain with Ty Lynn, consultant project manager for the 2050 LRTP. Excited to be here to uh share the draft
cost feasible plan uh for uh for this project. Uh here's an outline of my presentation. I'll start off with um a little overview of the uh development LRTP development process, touch on uh transportation needs and then walk you through various plan components before
wrapping up with next steps. Uh the flow diagram here shows uh the LRTP development process. As Ricardo mentioned, we started this process about uh more than 12 months ago. Uh we uh did present various components of the plan
over the 12 months uh uh to you all. Uh there were several of these components that you approved along the way. Um the graphic here shows some of the key milestones both from public engagement and technical analysis standpoint. And
one thing I would like to point out is uh public involvement and agency coordination that we did weave through this entire planning process. And that was a key uh part of what helped us uh develop the needs uh in ter in addition to the technical analysis which is what
is shown here on this slide. uh an extensive uh multimodal um uh uh multimodal area of projects here that are needed in the county to enhance uh mobility, safety and u accessibility um
of the transportation transportation system here in in Martin County over the next 25 years. Uh so what's the total cost of all the projects that are needed in the county? Uh it's a it's about $2.3 billion in
present day cost. If all the all these needed projects were implemented today uh over the life of the LRTP next 25 years uh the cost uh would balloon to $2.8 billion uh and that's uh because of
inflation. uh the different components the way the cost is spread and different uh plan components a majority of that you'll see is uh under highway roadway including SIS needs and also under non-motorized
projects and then the rest is spread uh in transit aviation and and other components. Uh the total funds that are available to build and implement these projects is a little over 700 million uh over the next 20 years. uh and this is a
combination of funds from local sources federal as well as federal and state and uh I should also mention that the that 700 million is available at the MO level. So in addition to those funds
there are some discretionary funds that are available uh and this slide shows uh about $730 million for capacity projects. These discretionary funds are available at uh FTA district 4 uh district-wide level. So uh those are
funds that uh the no would have to coordinate with uh FAT and in some cases for certain programs may even have to uh compete uh to to leverage those funds. And in addition to that there's non-capacity projects and uh that's
about 77.2 billion uh in year of expenditure. Again the focus of uh the LRTP is on capacity projects but there are certain types of projects where we can leverage uh non-capacity uh funds as well.
Uh so there's a clear mismatch between the funds that are available and the funds that are needed to implement all these projects. And in in addition to that uh there's also uh eligibility funding elig eligibility of certain projects which then further restricts
how funds that are available from these different local federal and state sources how they get allocated uh to fund these various projects. So we were cognizant in making sure that uh we have all those internal checks and balances
to make sure the the project and the different uh plan components that I'm going to share with you they are financially constrained because that's that's a federal and state requirement uh of the LRTP. Uh before I get into that just want to
uh touch on project prioritization. So since um there's limited funding and a lot of needs, we did prioritize projects. And what you see here is highway roadway projects prioritization. We used about in this case uh a dozen or
so um um different evaluation criteria, ran them through uh this datadriven analysis, did some statistical analysis and uh these are the results u that you see. So the the top band is projects that are in the transportation
improvement program. That's the current transportation improvement program. Uh some of these uh projects are fully funded, meaning they have construction funds. Uh and there's uh 710 uh projects here, a few of them. And then there are
others which are uh which do not necessarily have construction funds and those are programmed projects. The remaining projects we prioritize them from uh in different tiers, tier 1 through four. Uh tier one being the
topmost priority and so forth. Um within each tier, these projects can are a little fluid and they can move up and down uh to provide some flexibility uh to uh to the staff and to you all as funding becomes available and and things
need to to move. Uh so that said uh the total uh the total cost of all the projects that is in the plan is about $746 million and and I'll walk you through again the
different plan components, different modes, uh what's included uh and what's unfunded. Uh out of this uh I mentioned we have about $700 million. So this is about $45 million more than the funding that's available. And there are a couple
of projects that are identified as illustrative projects. So for those projects, if we are tapping into some of the discretionary funds that are available, uh those projects have to be identified as as illustrative. Um and I'll I'll point those out here uh in a
in a little bit. uh the total cost feasible plan 69% of the funding is for roadway highway projects including SIS and and the remaining is again spread over different plan components. So let me start with uh roadway highway
projects here. Uh about $214 million in year of expenditure. That's the total cost of all the roadway projects. There are funded projects. I touched on them. Uh 710 projects. Um there's a couple of
program projects. These are PDN studies that are currently ongoing. Um we also were able to fund uh four capacity projects. And again, if you recollect a couple of minutes ago, I mentioned the priority. So, based on that priority, we
allocated funds that were available. Uh, Cove Road, High Meadows, uh, High Meadow Avenue, and Southwest Newfield Parkway, uh, as well as Willoughby Boulevard extension. Those are the projects that, uh, we did find monies, uh, to fund, uh,
in this LRTP. There's a one there's one PDN study and uh there's a developer funded project here included as well. Uh the nine corridor projects shown here they remain unfunded. There's not enough
uh monies to uh to to fund these uh capacity projects. Uh SIS projects these are strategic intramotal system projects. Um the Monterey uh FEC grade separation is is fully funded. uh SR710
widening. There are two um there are two segments that are not fully funded. So there's u uh design funds but not necessarily construction funds and then a couple of other uh PDN and managed lanes uh study that are programmed as well.
Turnpike projects includes the ongoing uh PDN study. This is the new direct connect ramps between I95 and turnpike. Uh there's a turnpike widening project and um a few unfunded turnpike projects here as well.
Uh from transit uh improvement standpoint we were able to fund the existing uh transit service fixed route as well as paratransit service. um a couple of new fixed route uh services, scanner highway, Jensen Beach Boulevard
as well as microransit services and most of the capital improvement projects are state of good repair, fleet replacement uh and so on. There's two illustrative projects here um passenger rail and uh intermotal hub
uh transportation system management and operations TSM projects we allocated about $24 million in year of expenditure um and and these could be um uh the these could be programmed anywhere um on
these 13 congested corridors. These are improvements which are not necessarily capital intensive uh technology based improvements, travel demand management strategies, so on and so forth to manage congestion, improve reliability in these uh travel corridors.
A couple of other illustrative projects um park and ride uh three of them FC rail bridge double tracking over St. Lucy River. These are uh illustrative projects. Again, this is where we are tapping into uh some of the discretionary funds. Uh the pedestrian
overpass along FEC is uh remains unfunded. Freight projects, majority of these projects overlap with the SIS projects that I mentioned as well as some of the roadway uh improvements.
There's a number of unfunded freight needs. uh US 27 corridor rail bypass, some uh freight parking improvements as well as other uh technology based improvements. We also identified a variety of safety
improvements um different in different corridors uh as well as railroad crossing. These are all non-capacity projects. Um but again, safety is is a key component. Um and and we want to make sure that LRTP has uh these
projects. These projects could be funded uh through the highway safety improvement program if they are under a million dollars. And this is one of the areas where some of these improvements can be coupled with maintenance projects, uh resurfacing projects as
well as capacity projects if they overlap and can be imple implemented as such. There's an extensive um uh network of complete streets, non-motorized improvements. We have allocated about $35 million for these projects. These
projects are also illustrative and there's other state programs that can be leveraged uh to fund these these projects. infrastructure hardening projects. These are uh we identified and stratified them
into three different priorities uh depending on how quickly they can move from planning to design to implementation. Um the funding source for this would be uh the protect program and there's about 76 million that is still available for fiscal year 2026 at
statewide level. uh water-based transportation. Um the water taxi services shown here remain unfunded. Uh what we were able to fund is a feasibility study uh to investigate
um a variety of u uh you know routes as well as um operating plans and uh develop some concepts order of magnitude cost. make sure the no is doing prudent planning before advancing any of these
um projects further. Uh aviation projects are uh part partner agency projects. These are included u and referenced here to make to make sure uh the projects are eligible for receiving state funding. There's about
$3.2 2 billion from uh FTA's aviation program that's available uh over the next 20 years uh at statewide level. We think um Martin uh county should should be able to get its fair share to to fund these projects at least the uh the state
component. uh from next steps uh standpoint, we are at the at the tail end of the LRTP process and um we anticipate bringing this uh back to you in the uh early next month for for final adoption. So with
that, thank you so much. I'll open for questions. Questions for Mr. Jane, Commissioner Caps? Yes, I'm looking at page 10. And it says there the cost feasibility plan is a financially constrained plan.
And I think it's financially constrained because the projects in the CFP are 746 million and we only have 701. Correct. So million. Yep. And and this is where um the $45
million um extra that you see here, it's for a couple of projects. Majority of that goes for um cove road project which is an illustrative project. So this is where we are tapping into the state's um trip funds which is uh transportation
regional incentive program. So we are anticipating 50% of the cost for cove road would come from that program. Mhm. Uh now the FAT guidance says if you are using or anticipating those projects to
be funded from any of those programs, they have to be identified as illustrative. So about 40 million is from for that project. And then a couple of others that uh mentioned park and ride studies uh those are also funded
through a separate discretionary uh program and that's what makes up the $45 million. So, um, this is it's it's pretty much in line with what the state um recommends when you're putting the plan together. As long as they're
illustrative and they're identified as such, it would still be a fiscally or a financially constrained plan. Right. And and what you just said is described in that footnote there, right? Correct. Illustrative projects account for 45 million in and anticipated
discretionary funds at districtwide level through trip and nonsis transit discretionary program. So that's where we would get the difference. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Any further questions?
Uh is there a motion to I have a question. Oh sorry. So uh with regard to page 15 interotal hub passenger rail station, do
you have any information that you would like to share more in elaborating on what an interotal hub might look like since it's going to be presumably we're planning for this to be next to the Bright Line station that would be downtown. So the the interotal hub uh would Can
you not hear me? Yeah, I I I'll start and uh uh Beth if you want to jump in, please feel free. Uh so the way uh it's described in um in the project um list is this would be a location where a variety of different
modes would would come in. So you can think about you know transportation network companies, buses depending on what the location if if the tram can come in and basically feed into the station. Um all those um all those
interotal um intermodal facilities would would be at this hub. Uh again depending on if it has a land use component to it um you know there could be other concessions and other things that can happen at the interotal hub as well but
that's um you know the the program has to be developed but it could be um it could be as you know ticketing can happen there. uh there could be coffee shops, there could be a number of things uh in terms of
concessions that that can happen at that location again if if that is the desire u or it could be purely functional uh transportation interotal hub but I'll let Beth add to
yeah so just to follow up on that and this kind of explains I kind of the people that I met before this meeting I kind of explained the purpose and kind of the overview of a long-range transportation plan. It takes what 18 to 24 months to develop and this is a guide
book if you will. So we do have a transportation model, a scientific transportation model where we feed land use data, population data, employment data into this um model and it spits out the needs in the community. We also have a big public involvement um component to
this that we've talked about at past meetings at different open houses that we've had. We have surveys that went out that we had quite a few um responses and given all that information we put this in this guide with a guide which is the long-range transportation plan. This
guide is required to be updated every five years and um it has to follow federal and state guidelines and um and so that we have as he mentioned before about illustrative projects that's what the guidance said and that's what we
have to put in to it because what primarily what the MO and our staff works on is to position Martin County and all the cities in Martin County to be able to receive federal and state transportation funds. If you look at our
short range plan, the TIP, you see funding for um um the widening of 710, you see funding for the maintenance of traffic signals. You see all that funding from federal and state sources in that short-range transportation plan.
The reason it can be in that short-range transportation plan is because we follow the federal and state guidelines to develop this guide book every um every 5 years. We update it every 5 years. So the question I've had from some or that we've had I should say from advisory
committee members before this meeting and in this past 18 months that we've been developing this is um does this mean this project's going to going to happen? Does it are we going to see the information on this? It's like this is just a guide book. This is this is the
very beginning of conversations of different projects. You have three different FOP presentations on this agenda. Um and all of these um projects started out in this LRTP guide book. So
um so yes, what you what you're saying is absolutely correct about what is the definition of an intermoal hub or a passenger rail station and the areas behind it. That's that's correct as far as that's concerned. But as far as the purpose of this document, this is based
on the scientific input, our scientific model that we used and the public input in this whole process. This is what we're putting together to be able to follow state and federal guidelines to be able to get funding from those sources. To your point, it guides the projects
that we bring forth in terms of it guides projects and conversations and discuss discussions whether you're pro or against the project. It would be unusual for a project to be coming forth that's not in the long range transportation plan, right? I mean, the the long-range transportation
plan guides your it's yeah, it's and it can be amended during that five-year period. It can it can be a amended there. We do have an amendment process. We do have a modification process. Some in Martin County, you know, compared to other counties, a lot doesn't change in that
five-year period, you know, when we update it because we're a small county. We get um we get we don't have the funding sources that like a Broward has or the Miami Dade County has but we do get federal and state funding for projects like the 710 widening for the
maintenance of the traffic signals. We do get st you know state and federal funding and the reason why we do is because the MO you know follows the guidelines of what our requirements are to receive those funds. So are you is is your assertion that an interotal hub for
instance would be part of that guidelines that we would need. It's because that that's based on public input. Okay. That's based on that's not because of any requirement for for you know grants. Oh no no no. This is on public input. Yeah. All the public input that we
received you know that we go through that and compile that information and there's a whole big long chapter. Well, you all um approved the public involvement plan to this months ago and then there's there's a chapter and appendices that talk about the public input that re we received in the
development of this plan. So that's that's what that is. How long has an intermoal hub uh lived in our long range transportation plans? Is that a new addition or is that been I mean interotal hubs have been talked about in this area for specifically here
for a while. Well, I when I well I started here in with the Martin County in 2009 and there was a discussion of an inner hope motor hub in downtown um Stewart then can you excuse me can I finish is that okay that was a question just trying to click no that's okay I just I'm having you
need to speak up if that's okay and it's just very important for me to hear and to respond to everyone um so so when I started in 2009 there was discussion of an inter moal hub in downtown Stewart when I started I mean in I used to work for tri rail years ago
when there was discussion about Tri Rail actually coming through downtown Stewart and having an intermoal hub then. I mean that's a couple of decades ago. So there that's been discussed for a long time, but with the long-range transportation plan and this subject came up recently, well the last couple of months at a
chamber meeting where um you know people were discussing about you know um and this is everything from interotal hubs to like um um electron you know charging stations you know that's um are we going
to be this this we we're not ready for things like that. Well that's what a long range transportation plan does. It kind of kind of looks at um this may not happen, but we need to if this is the public input we're getting, we have to at least identify it. We have to at least mention it in the long range
transportation plan. I mean by I mean we're we're required to put the model results as well as the public involvement results in this. So that that's what that is that it's a it's this doesn't mean that all of this is going to happen. Well, we certainly
don't have the money for all of this to happen, but it is a guide book moving forward or or a plan moving forward until we update it again of um public input and data outputs from our model. So, to the original question, how long
has this lived in our long range transportation plans? Is this a new addition that it's us for a long time, but an interotal hub actually included in the long range trans? No. Well, like I said, we talked about it back in 2009 when I first started. There was discussion about a downtown
Stewart interotal hub, but was it in the plan? I think I I I would have to check. I know there was discussion and um they were developing we were developing the 2035 plan at this time. To your point, you said it seemed like it was a recent conversation in the chamber. We were trying to figure this
out. No, they were talking about something else and that they mentioned um you know can can um can can um can they were they were had the perception that some people do that transportation projects happen immediately but with a
long with the no we're a long-term planning agency that's why we have a 20 to 25 year plan so when we're talking about different projects like 710 is probably the exception where that is um being expedited by FDOT. FDOT has been a
great partner in that, but that the construction money hasn't even been programmed yet. And we've been talking about that project for years, for years. Um uh um you know, um so so projects if phases in in a project
that's funded through the NO process, each phase takes about 2 to four years. And there's the feasibility study phase, there's the PD phase, there's the design phase, there's the uh rightway phase, and there's the construction phase. So
that's five phases, and each one of them takes two to three years. So when you all are talking about a project, a priority on the tip about it being funded, that means there's a good chance it's going to get funded 10 to 15 years from now.
There's no I mean that's that's when our advisory committees meet. Sometimes I have to say, you know, take off your short range hats, put on your no hats because we're talking long range. And the reason why is because, as you can see, transportation projects are very expensive and it takes a long time to
work with state and federal governments. Is whether it's 5 years or 20 years from now that the people who live right there would not appreciate having a an interotal hub, i.e. bus depot, cars flying around. That's East Stewart right
there. You've got a single family home neighborhood. Uh, and that that's why I'm bringing this up. I'm curious how long this has lived here because though it looks good on paper and it may make sense next to a Bright Line station, I don't think the people who live there would be happy about it. And I'd be very
curious to see if you don't mind sending me whatever public involvement you have that pointed you in that direction. And if you were able to actually go talk to that neighborhood, how they might feel about it, I'd be very surprised if because there's already a lot of
frustrations with traffic and and and um you know, people trying to walk around over there. uh se secondarily in the previous in the previous plan with regard to passenger rail and a station I remember that it included that
that would be u funded privately that one of those um caveats within that is that a passenger rail station would be funded privately. I I did not see that here uh included.
So that was an update within this plan was amending that. We have to be consistent with other plans and local government's actions. I mean all I mean across across the board. So from my understanding the county has submitted an um uh um grant application
for the a passenger rail station. So um so I mean that that's indicates that there's a possibility that it won't be privately funded. So that needs to be reflected in the plan. It it would be in non-compliance if we didn't we didn't didn't show it that way.
So in terms of authority, it is not the MO and this collective body that would drive policy. It is local governments otherwise that move in directions and then the MO updates its long range
transportation accordingly. Right. That's that's a good point because you think about land use for instance, land use decisions are made at the county level and the city level. Our plans have to be consistent with what you all have approved. So that that's
yeah that's it's required to be consistent. So then back to the interotal hub. If the city was to come to you and tell you that the residents over there are not looking for an interotal hub with some letter or something that would be more
official, is that something you would remove after what what we we we do we would have that? And so if if projects through the no process were going to address that, that would need to be considered that would be there because it seems like in this
particular instance with an interotal hub, this body is driving that in terms of a long-range transportation plan. But if the city was to come to you and say, "Hey, this is not something that our residents are interested in." Would that could that be updated?
We Yeah. Well, we body that would drive that. This plan is consistent with um county and city comprehensive plans, is it not? It is consistent with the comprehensive plans for both um the county and the city. So, uh, from my understanding in the county comprehensive plan, the a bright line
station would be privately funded as well, you know. So, I I would have to check. I would I don't know. I would have to check. We would have to It's um Yeah, that's okay. Now, uh the interotal hub does also show up in the TDP's um and transit
development plans. So that's also one of the requirements that the transit development plan uh whatever is being reflected in that the latest one was adopted for 2025 202034
May of last year uh and and that also includes both these projects. So again from consistency standpoint uh you know all the plans that uh Beth mentioned as well as the transit development plan uh and that there's you know guidance and
rules. But if municipalities can drive the policy that ultimately shapes this plan, if the city was to approach you and say, you know, remove that and and whatever mechanism is appropriate, you know, where the county has approved
policy around a Bright Line station being funded by taxpayers, what what would that look like from the city that would amend if if for instance just hypothetically? one one well I guess it depends on the
majority but it would come to the board for discussion and for for a vote. I mean would however you all wanted to do it. I mean I I you know that if the city has a a certain um concern that they have about you know the transportation
projects at a level that um is discussed and addressed during the no process. Um, and a good example is the US1 Palm City Road intersection improvements. That was actually um studied in part of our budget and
part of our um priority list because the city had a concern about that. So, they brought it to this board and this board discussed it as a whole and decided as a board that they wanted to do a feasibility study. So, if the city has a certain concern about a transportation
project or um an improvement or a safety um issue in a certain area of the city, they can, you know, talk to staff. We'll bring it to the NO board and they can talk about it and review it and discuss it. Um, like I said, as far as the
but but more specifically procedurally and just like authority around authority, you're you're saying that municipalities have the authority. The municipalities make policy and our plans have to be consistent with that with those
policies. If the city was to create policy that was, you know, antithetical to an interotal hub, for instance, hypothetically, totally hypothetical, the NO would have to adapt to that. The what because it can't just be okay for the county but not the city, right? So what
it has to be consistent what we're saying. Okay. Correct. Can I can I can I answer? Okay. Absolutely. If the county has a concern, whether it's an interotal hub or or whatever the concern is, if they pass policy and they send correspondence to
the NO, then I will this will become an item at this meeting and you all can can discuss it. Okay, good discussion. You have clear direction, do you not? You're asking me? Yeah. Yes. Okay, good. Let's move on. Is there a
motion to approve the 2050 long range transportation plan draft cost feasible plan? So moved. I'll second. There's a motion and a second. Commissioner Caps. I was just going to say second. Okay. There's a motion in a second.
Like he's supposed to. All those in favor? I opposed. That motion passes uh with commissioners Collins and Vargas. dissenting. Thank you. Um, I received a request to speak form
from Barbara and Patricia Despinos. Did you want to speak at public comment or at uh is there an agenda item? Pardon me. She said there is no agenda item. My name is
You have to come to the mic. You know, we we you missed public comment. There isn't another opportunity. So, please come forward um with your indulgence, uh commissioners, and we will allow this to be part of public comment. This is Barbara and
Patricia Despinos, and you'll have three minutes to give your comments. Good morning. Morning. Morning. [Applause] So, sorry. Excuse me. My name is Barbara Despinos. Thank you for allowing me to
speak this morning to you. Um, I'm here not just as a grieving parent, but so sorry as someone who hopes no other family um has to endure what mine and
multiple others have before me. My apologies. Good time. On June 8th, my son Samuel Despinos uh died by suicide. He jumped from the Roosevelt Bridge,
a bridge under your jurisdiction. Uh he was 19 years old and he was struggling like many others are
often in silence. But in his most desperate moment, the barrier between life and death was only a few steps away. a short climb
and with no resistance. The Roosevelt Bridge does have a history. My family is not the first to face this pain. Multiple people have jumped from that structure over the past
several years. Each of them had a story and a family, a life that ended in the same place. And I'm here today in hope that you would also see that there is some way or
prevention measure that can be installed. I have information to leave you if you wish and would allow me to do so. I don't know if that was my timer button or not for the three minutes, but when something is prevented
preventable and it keeps happening, it really drives the question. What will we do about it? What can and what will we do about it? Research and real world world data shows
that barriers do work. physical deterrence like fencing, netting, or even crisis signage and emergency call boxes, reduce suicide rates at jumping sites.
These aren't theoretical solutions. They are proven, and people in crisis often act impulsively. If the means are delayed at the least, lives are often and can be saved.
The impulse can pass. Help can reach them. And their story doesn't have to end there. I understand that there are budgets, engineering limitations, and decision making processes.
But I also understand loss and the cost of doing nothing at all is another life, another family shattered, not just another statistic, but another tragedy
that could very well have been prevented. I'm asking you today if you would please consider taking action whether it be conducting safety audit at the bridge bringing in mental health and
suicide prevention experts begin planning for more effectual physical barriers. Install signs with crisis hotline numbers. simple steps
that could make all the difference. I would give anything not to be here today, especially for this reason. But because I am, I will use my voice today. And I thank you for allowing that
for my son, for those who have already lost their life, and for those who may still have a chance to be saved. Thank you. Thank you. I am so sorry, Commissioner Campy. Yes, ma'am. I'm sorry for your loss. Um,
I think some of the suggestions that you made are excellent. And Miss Beltran, I don't know if we're the organization for this or if it's the commission. I'd love to get some further information on how often this happens. And I know that um
the Golden Gate Bridge is another bridge in California where a lot of people for some reason decide that's going to be their spot. And I've seen a documentary on a lot of signage and and um call buttons and safety buttons. So some of
your suggestions barriers barriers are probably trickier here, but a lot of your suggestions I think are doable. we can work with the staff that's behind you. A lot of it is state level staff, but uh if if a fraction
could be that your son's loss stops someone else from having to go through what you're going through, then we'd be more than happy to help assist you with that. Thank you for coming to see us. Uh, next item is US1 and Palm City Road intersection improvements.
Um, yes, this was a um no um study that um we had done several years ago, a feasibility study. As a result of that feasibility study, the city of Stewart commission recommended and the no board made it a priority and then um the FDOT
and their staff moved it um forward as as a feasibility study from the state and they're here to give you all an update on this. So with that, I'll introduce to Jose um the Sosa to um just introduce this item. Good morning. Good morning.
I'm Jesus Sosa. I'm project development manager for DOT. So um this project I understand there was a feasibility study done before by locals and then it came to the OT for the last two years in the list of priority projects. So we took
another look at the feasibility of what was being proposed and we're here to show you our proposal and here with me is Juan Calderon to give you a presentation on our results of our study.
Good morning. So, we're going to talk about the improvements at the intersection of US1 and Palm City Road. On September 2023, uh the MPO board selected alternative 5 to advance for final
stages of uh for this intersection. Uh the main goal of these efforts was to produce traffic calming features along Palm City road aiming to reduce vehicular speeds. Um the study was uh also did couple of
alternatives and they did an analysis uh at that time of the um before 2023. In 2024 and 2025, FDOT received an application for this intersection improvement as part of the list of priority projects, LOP.
The FDOT is supposed to fund roadway construction and uh construction of pedestrian facilities within the city right away. So, let me give you a timeline of how this process has happened until today.
So in 2023 the TPO yield the study. Uh FDOT received the application in 2024. And once an application is received by FDOT there is a process there is a due diligence that it happens where there is field inspections. Other offices of DOT
gather and provide input. Um they evaluate cost estimates they evaluate uh safety. They discuss with the consultant and the NPO and they consider other alternatives and that's where we are here in this in
this presentation. So this intersection uh I'm not going to say much about it because you live here you know well this intersection this is an intersection right in the in the Stewart right next to a bridge on US1.
Um there is a long history here. The Awing Triangle and Palm City Road serves as a collector for a residential area for an important residential area in the city. Uh Palm City Road is is used as a
bypass right now uh with over over 500 vehicles per hour during the morning and the afternoon peaks. And people what are they're trying to avoid is Caner Highway in order to reach to Montteray. that's their their route. So there is a lot of
vehicular uh volume and speeding and there is also constraints regarding routway and this there is a significant amount of underground utilities in this area and overhead utilities too.
These are some uh pictures of um information that was uh evaluated during our our field visit. We have a safety concern here where vehicular speed are coming southbound a very fast speed. There is some queueing at the
intersection. There is no exclusive right turn lane to access uh this this location. Uh and you can see traffic that are swerverbering from the inner lanes all the way to the right to to get into the
into the triangle basically. And we see a lot of traffic going performing that type of operation. So they are not only not traveling on the on the outer lane but there is people coming all the way from the inner lanes to to that direction. So you see this this is a a
constant uh operation on the con constant um behavior. Um there we also notice a lot of uh near miss events so almost crashes on on that on this specific intersection. Uh
obviously there are some need of lighting improvements on this intersection. There are some need some pedestrian features also associated to the intersection. This is the LP and I'm going to I don't know if you guys can see my my mouse
here on the on the screen, but the intent was to the when the alternative that was selected, the preferred alternative number five at that time was selected, the main goal was to create kind of like a a shift movement where
people coming southbound will shift and get into into the into the access lane. in into the so it's a it's a yeah some type of swervering in from the inner lanes on that um and the in the right
side you see several of the alternatives that were beded at that time you can see some type of median Iceland south of the intersection on the on the where I'm showing in the in the my mouse on the right bottom of the screen and obviously
um and when we received the application We noticed that there were those movements that I presented not only the lane shifting but at the same time some concerns regarding traffic redistribution there the study at that
time considered that almost 50% of the traffic will no longer use this road and that's a very high threshold for uh for in our opinion to to say that no longer they will use this but at the same time.
Um it it poses a concern regarding know that what if that doesn't happen? You know what I mean? What if that 50% doesn't? So FDOT uh team met and uh we
said maybe there are other alternatives that can be placed on this intersection. Uh an important thing is that part of this alternative number five included a traffic signal on the right on the at
the intersection um at the western side of the triangle. Basically a signal next to a signal. That's what we were going to have at this at this specific location. So we said maybe there are other
alternatives and we thought maybe there is a this is something that we call a peanut roundabout which is not a big roundabout. It's not a a typical circular roundabout but it's an enlarged roundabout and this is something that at the same time needs to be considered for
maneuverability. For instance, if we're coming if if a truck is coming southbound and a truck that is going into the Publix that is right there is going southbound, it needs to be able to maneuver. So, we create this geometry. We beded through the through the
internal uh offices and they consider that this concept is feasible. It may need a little bit of rattleway on the southwest corner there. There is this parcel that is owned by the city. uh this can be adjusted and is something
that at the same time um it it might be able to slow the traffic which is the main objective of what it was already aiming for from the original study. We did a level of service analysis which probably you guys have been presented
before from A to F. So we notice that it will operate at level of service A similar to what it was anticipated by the other improvements and the good thing of the roundabout is that it will have lesser amount of queue going
southbound. Um that's something that it was important for us. more importantly is that we have to have a concept that may be less compromised on potential rerouting and that's something that we
we also were looking for. Uh a cost estimate was developed an initial cost estimate for this project. It could be even uh less expensive the traffic signal. Uh obviously a roundabout comes with uh
ancillary aspects, landscaping, maintenance, uh different type of features that needs to be included. The lighting all these things are applicable with roundabout or without roundabout. So this is important to to consider.
So FDOT today recommends that the the revisit this alternative uh an alternative that with minimum impact to the Edwin triangle. We think that the the rerouting the what it was anticipated from the alternative five will have a a severe impact on the on
the triangle. Um I prefer alternative that takes uh in consideration right away and the constraint right away that there is uh that also uh avoids the heartbreaking on US1. Having that
swerving before an intersection was a big concern for us because people now are going to start breaking not at at a signal but before the signal and close to a close to a stopping bar. So that was another problem for us and and an an
alternative that is less sensitive to traffic redistribution with that. Any questions? Mr. Calderon, have you presented this to the city? Yes, ma'am. Okay.
Commissioner Caps, will we be hearing from the neighborhood uh on this alternative? My understanding is the city commission did request that the um that FDOT as part of this feasibility study have an open house or a public
meeting so they could come look at this concept and give input on it because I understand that this has been a subject of great interest on the part of the neighbors in the past. Correct. I mean our biggest we've ever had was our feasibility study. I think
the first open house we had over 88 people and the second o open house we had a hundred which that's the biggest um number of people that have attended our public events and we're and we're looking to have uh neighborhood input during the feasibility period.
That's what the city of Stewart um commission requested. Right. Right. To avoid wasting public funds basically. Yeah. I guess FDOT usually after they do a study like this they want to move ahead into the design. But the thing is if they were to do that then they would
spend money on the design and then if they have a public involvement at that time and the neighborhood doesn't like it then it could kill the project and that would have been money wasted. So, um um that would be I mean I I think it's reasonable that would be I guess
staff recommendation would be uh for this board to to write a letter to FDOT supporting the city's request to have a open house or a public meeting um for this neighborhood to look at this concept and to give their input on it.
Is that a motion we need to make? Uh yes, that would be a motion. And I would request that that um um you all direct staff to write a letter um um stating that and then it could be authorize the chair to sign it and then we can send it to district 4 and then um
the NO will work with at district 4. We do public involvement you know all the time about um how to set up a meeting a public meeting for the neighborhood to come give input on this. Well I would make that motion. Second. Commissioner Collins. Uh ju just to add
a little bit more to Beth's comment, she's spot on. These were very uh attended and uh engaged meetings. Uh the one that I went to, I wasn't at both, but I've not seen that kind of involvement. And my concern when this
came in front of us was there was robust conversation around each of the different alternatives. And through a process with that public engagement, it was and and uh engagement with this board and with the city, it was narrowed down to a very specific
option and that was totally changed. And I I actually think you're on it. I, you know, I think you guys have the right alternative here, but my only concern is it could be perceived as a bait and switch if you don't have that public
engagement where people can support it and get behind it. So, that that was at least my perspective when it came in front of the city. So, I would appreciate everyone's support in having a public meeting before it goes further. And I anticipate people will be very supportive. I just want to make sure
that you know, you know, people don't feel like they got tricked because they they were so involved and and invested in that previous option to somehow see something wildly different with no awareness could be ugly. And we are also aware of the situation.
We understand that typically projects do not are not sent back into a early stages. Correct. For us was significantly the safety concern. We discussed this with the design office, with the safety office.
All of them were exactly in the same um understanding that having people breaking on US1 and and the the the pictures speak by itself. People are very used to to this corer.
The goal was to create traffic coming, which is the main objective. Um, and all of them the the concern regarding safety was the paramount aspect on the process. To me, it comes across that you're trying to do the right thing. So, I
appreciate what you're doing and I think our our residents will follow along with that. I just want to make sure we're following process. Understood. Commissioner Mayfield. Uh, yes. Just a quick question. Not that it's a great idea to be walking that area anyways, but what is the pedestrian
route and looking at the new alternative like if you were on trying to go south on US one? So we don't have the the sidewalks here. This is a concept. Okay. Okay. So they uh obviously there will be ramps on every roundabout needs to have
pedestrian crossing features um and they should connect the existing sidewalks that they are in the corridor. One thing that if you see in this picture is that the triangle has a crossing right at US1 which is a little
bit of a concerning right at that point a race. Yeah. Run. So we think that probably this middle point somewhere here before the roundabout is where it should be probably there. Okay. Okay.
There is a motion to send a letter of support for a a uh meeting in the city. It has been seconded. All those in favor? Opposed? That motion passes unanimously. Thank you. We'll now move on to
agenda item 8, which is the Willoughby Boulevard Extension PD study presentation. Yes. the um FDOT project manager is here to and the consultant um are here to present this item. This has been an uh
priority for the MO for quite a number of years and they wanted to come give you an update on our PD study. All right. Um thanks everybody and thanks for having us here to present the Willoughby Boulevard extension PDE study to you. Uh my name is Chris Rizzo. I'm
the consultant project manager for this project. And with me is Maria Formoso who is the FDOT project manager. Um the financial project ID for this is 419669-3-22-3 and the ETDM number is 14512. This is the study tape. There's Maria
and me. And also Wallet is our community outreach specialist. And if you haven't seen her out and about um you will as the project progresses. So, first I just want to go through uh what the transportation development process is. A lot of you are familiar with this. Uh we're in PD&E phase right now and this
is where we determine a preferred alternative that addresses the purpose and need of the project um to move forward for development in the design phase. We also evaluate potential environmental um impacts of those alternatives and provide opportunities for public participation which helps to
shape the project. Uh the study will comply with the National Environmental Policy Act or NEPA and um all federal and state environmental laws in addition to meeting requirements um when federal funding is is uh involved which is the case for this project here. So during
the PD study the community has had and will have some more opportunities to provide input. uh potential effects of the project on the environment will be avoided or minimized and the project team will continue to coordinate with federal, state and local agencies and all project reports and plans that we
develop will be made available for public review as they are completed. Um the project limits for the Willoughby Boulevard extension are from Monterey Road where it ends today on the north end um up to US1. The scope of the project is to extend Willoughby Boulevard with one lane in each
direction from its current terminus at Monterey up to US1. And right now we're currently looking at two corridors. Alternative one or corridor one, it's about 3/4 of a mile. That's the straight shot that goes up Alhhamra Avenue um and
extends along a new roadway once you get past um San Jose Street. That's the last street in the Monterey community there. Um north to US1. Corridor 2 is a little longer. It's about one and a quarter miles long. What it would do would to peel off existing Willoughby at the back
entrance of Martin County High School. Um and then extend up to where Raiseway and Monterey Road have an intersection today, continue up Rayway to Central Parkway, head west, um and then meet up with corridor one to continue along that new alignment north to US1.
Um there are several adjacent projects in various phases of development. And I won't go through them um but you can see them here on the um on the screen. One that's closest is the FC railroad crossing at Monterey Road and uh Dixie. Um but I do want to point out that there
was a feasibility study performed called the corridor feasibility study report for Willoughby Boulevard from Monterey to US1. That's what we're building on for this project. So I want to go a little bit more into the purpose and need of the project. So the purpose of the project is to extend the north south
corridor and provide system linkage within the overall region. Um it's also to strengthen multimodal interconnectivity and mobility and improve safety for pedestrians and bicyclists. The need of the project is because essentially Willoughby Boulevard does not connect to US1. So it results
in routes for traffic. You go up Willoughby, you head left or right if you're headed north and then you go back up Caner or US1. So this is another link, another north south link in this area to the entire system. This existing routing, it increases travel time and
congestion on adjacent streets and there's also limited bicycle and pedestrian facilities available in the specific project area. Um in addition, Monterey and Willoughby, that intersection is a high bicyclist crash area. So, our objectives for this project are to optimize that regional
connectivity, improve traffic operations in the region, relieve congestion on those existing streets, and improve pedestrian and bicycle safety so we can obtain location design concept acceptance or LDCA as you've probably heard it for an alternative that meets the purpose and need of the project.
Um, the existing conditions out there, I know it's primarily a new road. Um, but each corridor one and two do overlap some local roads in the area. Um, Alhhamra Avenue and Rayway are two lanes, one in each direction, and Central Parkway is four with two in each direction. The existing Willoughby
Boulevard, it's an offsystem road. It has two lanes in each direction with sidewalks on both sides and a posted speed limit of 45 mph. Additionally, in the entire area that we're looking at, there's 12 key intersections, and we're performing inter intersection control evaluations,
or we shorten that to ICE on five of them. And on those new intersections, we're looking at potential intersection control of stop control, signalized or roundabouts. Uh from a traffic perspective, this isn't new to you guys. Um there is heavy
congestion during the morning and afternoon peak hours. Um if you look at the map, just of you know, green to red like a traffic signal, you know, red is stopped and green is go, right? And um so there are there are uh intersections in the area that do experience that
congestion. The existing Willoughby Boulevard corridor itself, the arterial level of service is C on it. However, both of our alternatives are anticipated to divert traffic from those adjacent roads, including US1 and Caner Highway, which would result in less congestion on those roads, which would also reduce
delay and also increase safety in the area. So, speaking of safety, um, from 2019 to 2023, because we look at five years, uh, there were about 1,700 crashes in the entire area with three fatalities. And that's you can see on
the heat map here. Um, the brighter the color, the more of the crashes. And obviously, the intersections are where we see most of those crashes. And that happens when it gets congested. Um the highest number of crashes occurred in the segment of US1 from Caner Highway to Central with 274 crashes and two
fatalities in that study time. And the second highest number of crashes occurred along Caner from US1 to Monteray with 214 crashes and one fatality. So if we look at those two alternatives again, um quarter one would require acquisition from residential and
commercial properties along Alhamra Avenue and there are vacant parcels to the north in the new corridor between San Jose Street and US1. That segment, if you look at my cursor here, which is from here up, actually is rightway that was, and I'm going to talk about this a
little more, set aside um as public rideway really for the road um years ago. And that's what this vacant these vacant parcels are right through here. Um, corridor two would involve mainly vacant non-residential parcels and uh
existing row segments and it could also require rightway acquisition from adjacent commercial, retail and industrial properties in the area and we are aware of there's a lot of new development in this area that we're tracking also. So that could shape the study as we move forward.
Um so again the extension itself is anticipated to have two vehicular travel lanes, one in each direction and will include bike lanes, sidewalks and appropriately marked crosswalks at each of the intersections. Those new intersections will include exclusive turn lanes and um the relief in the area
congestion and redistribution of traffic is expected to reduce the number of potential crashes in the overall area. Uh, corridor 1 will introduce two new intersections and corridor 2 will introduce three new intersections and modify two existing intersections. Now
the E in PD is environment and that's a big part of any PD study. So each alternative will be evaluated as it relates to the natural, cultural, physical and social environments with our goal being to avoid or minimize impacts on these resources. Um I did if you see the bold those are our key
project issues. However, we are looking at all of these issues in the study. In the natural environment, our key project issues include um analysis of protected species and habitat and also water quality and quantity. Um the cultural environment that um involves section 4F
properties, which is in this case public parks and um other recreation areas as well, because we have Pppleton Creek Park adjacent to the study area. Uh the physical environment um we're going to look at highway traffic noise and potential contamination. This was at one
time a flower farm. So there are there could be contamination issues out there which we'll take a look at. And the social environment um involves it's that's the human environment, potential impacts to communities, um economic aspects of the project, land use changes, mobility, aesthetics, and the
potential for relocations. um we will be coordinating with all the appropriate agencies throughout the project and all the results of our environmental analyses will be documented in reports and they will be prepared and made available as they're done later on in the PD&E study. So, here's our schedule.
Um, throughout the schedule, that was show you that bottom line, the bottom row there. Public involvement um starts at notice proceed and ends at LDCA. And throughout this schedule, we're going to have several opportunities for public involvement and continued stakeholder coordination.
Also, per the FDOT 5-year work program, only this phase PD is funded. Design, rightway, and construction are not currently funded. Now, talking about public involvement, we've already been out there and we've held several pop-up events. We've been to the BNA flea market. Um, we set up a little tent
there by the produce stand, talked to folks, and we were at the Martin County Fair this past February. We had a booth in the uh in the concourse uh for a couple of days. Um, we've met with the Treasure Coast Congregation of the Unitarian Universal Universalist Church. They are located there on Central
Parkway. Um and in June we had a public kickoff meeting both virtual and in person. Um you know so the public came we had good participation in that as well. Uh we anticipate to continue to go out. We'll likely be at Pton Creek Park
um here in towards the winter and we'll be back to you guys uh when we have alternatives together before the alternatives public meeting. The public can stay involved by attending any of these public meetings and also through our project website here at uh doot.fdoot.gov/projects. /pro/willibby
pde. Um there's a QR code for it too and also follow all the FDOT social media channels. Um and we'll again we'll continue to go out meet with elected and appointed officials, local businesses, local neighborhoods as folks request. We're always happy to come out and and
speak to people. So um I just want to end with a safety message because it is seat belt safety month. Um which is as everybody knows one of the best ways to save a life in a crash. But a lot of people still don't buckle up. And when they buck don't buckle up, their kids or other impressionable people might see
them not buckling up and think that it's safe to do so. So even if you're a cautious driver, you can't control what other people do on the road. We just saw that on the last presentation where people are weaving from the left lane to turn right. Um so be a good example for others. Please buckle up. Um have
everyone in your car buckle up when you get in that car every time. So I want to thank you guys. Um, again, here's Maria's project information on the right side of your screen. Um, please visit the website. We'll keep updating it as the project progresses and um, open for
any questions that anybody has. Yeah, Mr. Rozolo, I'll I'll lead off. My armchair assessment is that uh, the peak particularly afternoon congestion on Caner is due to Port St. Lucy traffic
uh, getting to look looking to to go onto US1. Mhm. And als and they're not going to go east to Willoughby for an alternative. Similarly, the US1 traffic is not going to go west to get on the Willoughby
alternative. Right. And I don't understand what the purpose of what this would do would take any north south traffic coming up Willoughby that diverts over to either US1 or Kenner Highway and continues them north. So,
anything we can pull off of Caner because you're right, they're coming across the bridge headed north. I mean, there's only two crossings in this area to get across the river. Um, that if any traffic we can divert coming up Willoughby from Canor or US1 would
relieve some of that congestion that's currently experienced. I don't I don't think that the traffic on Willoughby I think that the the the congestion on Indian is because of the Indian Street Bridge. I think that that's why there is traffic
there. I don't think it's a north barrier. I think it's an east west barrier. Um our uh our traffic analysis which is going to be made public very soon. Um it's under review right now. We do show up to a 15% reduction in overall delay
in the area. So it it it is a help. It is you know primarily for system linkage in this area just to provide another north south link. Commissioner Caps. Yes. I'm referring to uh page 10. If you look at page 10
looking at engineering alternatives and one alternative is corridor one which is Alhhamra Avenue and then one alternative is corridor 2 which is raise. It appears that in corridor one the
effect is largely on residential homes. Yes. And it appears that in corridor 2, the impact has more to do with uh an impact to businesses, commercial, retail, and industrial properties along
existing roadway segments of Ray's way. So, do we have any idea how many homes and alternative one versus how many businesses and alternative two would be affected? And um have have we heard from those
two groups of people much in the past? So we're doing that analysis right now. There will be right-of-way acquired should this continue forward into construction. Um I don't have that answer yet, but we will bring that to you for the next meeting. We're developing our concepts right now,
drawing them out, and that'll determine how much rightway is taken. Um what it looks like. you know, we have to look at the profile of the road whether we have to raise it or keep it keep it steady. Um, and I'm sorry, what was the second question?
Um, just u contrasting resial. Have we contact them? And yes, we have been out there. We we because we knew that this project could have an impact on the communities. We went out um and we did a lot of footwork. We were in the neighborhood.
We we put door hangers up. We have a very extensive um uh mailing list that everybody's gotten notification within this entire area here. Uh so we we had a good turnout at the kickoff meetings for the public. So we've been very involved
speaking to people. We got on the streets. We had our pop-up events and we're going to continue to do that throughout so everybody's voice can be heard. We've heard, you know, one way or the other. We've heard a no go here, no go, you know, this one, which you get a lot, but it's been um you know, our goal is to get out
there to have people be aware of what we're doing. So, so we've been out and we'll continue to go out. Are there have uh there have been any thoughts yet about whether any imminent domain would be required? Would the
rightway needs uh issues be so severe that perhaps it would require eminent domain and the the removal of buildings or homes altogether potentially potentially that would go through the uniform
relocation process the federal process um in this phase in PD that's what we'll identify as part of it and that's part of our that's part of the social environmental analysis that we do for this market. Mhm. So all of that information gets identified during this PDF. Yeah.
Okay. Thank you. Welcome, Commissioner Collins. So I I tend to agree with Chair Herd. Uh you know, sometimes what we're trying to achieve isn't necessarily worth the cost. You know, I know this has been a long plan in the
making. people have been wanting to do this for a long time, but the prospect of displacing a poor Hispanic neighborhood and running uh you know the highway through their single family home, well not necessarily always homes, but single family neighborhood
uh I think is a a bad idea. Cutting through part of Pppleton Creek I think is a bad idea. And you know, with Central Parkway, before I was elected, I sat through some of the meetings with Central Parkway
with the the proposal for the lofts and and this is this is not your issue, but but I do think it it gives more context to the issue of the people who live on Central Parkway. Those residents have endured
overdevelopment of Central at the hands of the city commission at the time. But now facing this as well, whether you know what's worse, just cutting across central or going on rays and actually putting
people on central before they get back on that main uh thorough affair north. I it's not good. Um my my questions are you know what what if any um authority does this have board have
to not see this potentially happen would would be my question maybe for Beth. You know can is this something that doesn't have to happen? And I know we're discussing this today, but is the discussion limited to are we going to go one or two or is it does if this even
potentially happens? So, this is a discussion item for the NO board. Um, just to I can give you a little bit of history. The city manager here is from city the Stewart, so he could give you a longer history, but as far as the NO process, this um extension
has been included. It was included in our first long-range transportation plan that was approved in 1994 in our 2020 plan. And so it's been on our um on our priority list for a long time. And um so the first phase, this is the first phase
which is the PD knee study. And the PDN study, you did a very good job talking about looking at the environment, the social environment, um the physical environment, but it it comes up with different alternatives. So these were the two of the concepts and one of the concepts and I don't know if this is on a former slide is a no build
alternative. Yeah, I didn't put that in here. Okay. Yeah. So there's always with a PD study that's why you do a PDE study. That's why the federal government requires it because they want the analysis done and they want to show what alternatives conceptually could be what
is feasible. But there's always a no build alternative as part of that study. Thank you for that. Yeah. And that'll be taking taken through the public hearing. It's always as part of NEPA that is always an alternative and I I just hope you'll take special care to really communicate to that
Hispanic neighborhood what's going on. And we h we have been what the implications are for them. And you know we that's why on this study we we've done we've been out there a lot. We've done a lot of public involvement and we're going to continue that public involvement because everybody we want everybody to be
involved in this and let us know what they think because this has been on the plans for gosh decades I guess. So, we're in that PD phase now, and this is the phase where we quantify everything and go out to the public and make that determination whether or not to move forward into the design phase.
And is that a NO determination in part or is that just DOT? It's in in partnership. It's a it's a federal requirement. Um, but we are partners with the city and the county in this as we move forward. So, as we do our in terms of authority, the city would
not really be able to say no. you know uh um I can answer laterally but this board would be who hypothetically hypothetically in terms of authority this board could say no we want to do no build sure I mean that's part of the public involvement process I mean that's
yeah the public involvement is not just the folks who live there but but you guys as well agencies it's the elected appointed officials it's the public Thank you welcome Commissioner Mayfield yes I was just going to say in my opinion I think the quarter makes sense um I do understand the concept of the
traffic coming off the bridge going down Caner, but someone who lives on the east side, this can enable you to get a lot done without having to go on Caner Highway. Um, but I do agree with the quarter one going through a residential neighborhood will really probably completely change that neighborhood and
that's not an attractive option to me. We have one request to speak form and that's from Lucas Latham. You will have three minutes to speak, Mr. Latham. Good morning. Good morning, members of the NO. My name is Luke Laam. I live in the Seaside Town
Homes off of Central Parkway in Stewart FDOT. The city and county commissions have already received numerous emails calling for a no build on this project from C the Seaside HOA president, the Villa Bella HOA president and treasurer, as well as many other residents from
this these communities. Before I get started, let me remind you members of the MO of what's included in your mission statement. Quote, preserving the environment, enhancing the quality of life. But for whom are we enhancing the quality of life is the real question. Some may argue this is a simple fifth
grade government issue of majority rule versus minority rights. I argue this is not in the best interest of the majority either. However, let's start off with the minority rights. If this project is approved via corridor 1, you'll have 17 families moving out of the seaside town
homes. Far more disastrous is the right of way that will be pulled on the lowincome ethnic minorities of Alhamra. Can anyone in here say with a straight face that will even consider pulling eminent domain on the affluent residents of Jupiter Island or Sailfish Point?
While corridor 2 is a less bad option, it's still a bad option. Construction on the Pleton Creek wershed project began in 2007 as a multi- agency effort to quote improve water quality and create wetland and upland habitat. How is paving over a 40 foot wide 500 foot long
wildlife containing north canal enhancing resiliency as FD claimed back in June? The Pleton Creek Park was a multi- agency effort established in 2010 as quote an important natural area to the citizens citizens and vis visitors of this region. Despite FDA's contention
that this extension will have no impact on the park, I argue that the extension will be within 30 ft of both the north and south and east west wooden bridges, ruining the vistas, creating noise pollution and scaring off wildlife. From there, the project will hack into the Pleton Creek woods, one of the last
bastions of green space in the city of Stewart, and likely adding another stopway onto US1. As you continue the discussion with FDOT, please ask why there wasn't a no- build slide in this PowerPoint or their previous ones as as is required if through trucks will be
allowed on this extension. If so, how's that improving pedestrian safety? And lastly, if they're a adding a stoplight onto US1 and how that will affect everything. Thank you very much for your time. You're all welcome to come uh take a stroll with me over at Pleton Creek Park and see the true effects of this project.
Thank you. Thank you. Any further questions or comments? Okay, we'll move on to Mr. Mortell. Did you want to address us? I don't. Unless you had any questions, I don't need to. But thank you. Any questions? Nope. No.
Thanks. Okay, we'll move on to the next item, which is the uh County Road 708 Bridge Road, Hope Sound Bridge feasibility study presentation. Um yes, the um
FDOT project manager and consultant are here to give um the board an update on the um Hope Sound Bridge feasibility study. The Hopesound Bridge replacement project has been um a priority of the NPOS's for the last several years. So
with that, I'll turn it over to Asa again. That's correct. Just as Beth mentioned, uh the county road 708 bridge hub sound bridge has come through our list of priority project for the last two years and the request was for whole
um not rehabilitation, a whole replacement of the bridge. I understands there's some issues with the drawbridge opening and closing and some delays. So we did a feasibility study and we're here to present the results of our feasibility study. So, Ron Sanchez is
here to present our feasibility study. Sorry, my leg fell asleep out there. Apologies. All right. So, uh start with an agenda or what we I'll be covering over the next few slides. Uh I'll be talking about the purpose uh of the project, existing characteristics, alternatives.
I have a comparison matrix including some costs analysis and then um a draft recommendation. So the purpose uh of the project was to investigate a bridge replacement. This was included in Martin County's 2024 and 25 priority pro project list which of
course generated a uh resolution number 22-2.15 which requested a bridge replacement from the FDOT and that prompted FDOT to um uh initiate a feasibility study which we performed. So I'll just back up a second. We'll
talk about the existing characteristics of the existing bridge. Of course, it's a movable basial bridge, uh, double leaf. Uh, the existing bridge was built in 1985. The span that's out there now is actually relocated from another location. Uh, the bridge has two 12T lanes, 4'6 in
shoulders, and an 8ft sidewalk on the westbound side of the bridge for a vessel traffic for navigation. The vertical clearance in the closed position is 21 ft. And the width of navigation channel is 90 ft, which by the way is the old standard required by US Coast Guard. I'll be talking about
the new standards in a little bit. Uh and then uh uh as a result of a traffic investigation which was uh we anticipate approximately a 20% volume increase through 2045 which is the uh design year for replacement alternatives.
Uh moving over to structural condition. The bridges has been and is in struct in satisfactory or good condition as of the latest inspection reports are available. Structural components are in good or satisfactory condition. The bridge is
listed as scour critical. Um so scour counter measures are recommended but the channel bottom has been stable since 2001. Um uh the electrical systems were replaced in 2023 into and actually that project ended in 2024 and there were
mechanical uh repairs done at that time. Actually my firm HDR performed that work uh under contract directly with Martin County. Um and then finally the mechanical systems may need to be rehabilitated in the next 15 to 20 years. That is the
normal period of reh rehabilitation for machinery systems. Kind of like uh routine tuneup on your car. So moving on to alternative number one, which is no build. Of course, as was just mentioned, it's always included as
an alternative uh just primarily as a baseline. Uh the advantage would be uh no new no new no expenditures for roadway or bridge design, no uh severe inconveniences to traveling public and no impacts to the natural environment. This of course does not address the
county's desired improvements and it does not directly address scour concerns. Although I understand that uh I learned in attending these meetings that the county has in their in their longrange plan to do perform scour counter measures at this bridge location. I didn't know that before I
came here. So uh I have three more proposed alternatives to look at and they all use this proposed typical section. Uh that was done really so that uh none of the alternatives were um preferred over the
others. Um so it would be 12t lanes increasing the shoulders from 4'6 to 8 ft and incre increasing the shared use path from 8t to 10 ft. I'll point out that Martin County uh public works had requested a shared use path in both
directions. However, there's no existing eastbound connectivity. So, we omitted the eastbound shared use path uh in order to not uh prejudice against the replacements that would have made those alternatives bigger, more costly and
less likely to be selected. So alternative two is a rehabilitation uh widening the existing bridge to the new proposed section. Um this is actually made more possible because your bridge happens to have particularly
short canal levers which usually uh makes it difficult to widen a movable span if if the because normally the cantvers are much longer. Um of course when we widen the span uh there's an interference with the control house. So the control house would also have to be
completely replaced in this alternative. Um the disadvantages would be that there would be no improvement in navigational clearance and it's a relatively large expense after the recent mechanical electrical systems were repaired and
replaced in 23. Alternative 3A is a uh uh investigates a bridge replacement with a highlevel fixed bridge. Um, so it's approximately 13 spans of FIB 72 beams. Those are Florida I-beams, a standard FDOT, uh,
concrete pre-stress beam. Um, the substructure would be reinforced concrete, pre-stressed concrete piles. I'm just describing what concept we used in the alternative development. That's necessarily that doesn't necessarily mean that some eventual fixed bridge would be exactly like this. Uh, this
bridge would provide a 65- f foot minimum vertical clearance for vessels, meaning no vessels taller than 65 ft could pass, and would also make the navigational clearance 125 ft wide. Um, that is would be the what what the US
Coast Guard would require for any bridge replacement. Of course, it would the advantages are the elimination of the inconveniences of a movable bridge. Um it's less expensive in construction and maintenance compared to movable bridges. However, it does disallow a small portion of the boat
traffic uh approximately 4% according to the uh boat counts that we performed. And of course this uh structure also has a large impact to natural aesthetic and cultural features um especially uh the tunnel of trees uh
to the west. There would never go. Oops. Click. Okay. Alternative 3B was a uh replacement with a movable structure. Uh this Bascio bridge is similar in concept to the existing bridge but accommodates the widened and widened
navigation channel I mentioned earlier. There are minimal impacts in natural aesthetic cultural features at least in comparison to the highle fixed. Uh predominantly because this bridge has about the same length as existing bridge. Um, you may not be aware the the
current hope uh bridge over hope Sound is not the original bridge at this location is actually replaces uh I believe it was a swing bridge but I'm not sure. Uh so that bridge is has a has an the existing bridge has an alignment shifted to the north. So any of these replacement alternatives would be
constructed offline to the south but they would be wider than the ex bridge. So they would extend past uh to the south from the original uh alignment. Uh this alternative is uh very expensive in comparison to the other alternatives.
Um and the local community would still continue to need to deal with the inconvenience of movable bridge operations. Uh this slide contains uh the costs that we developed. The top table are construction cost in present dollars and then below is a life cycle cost estimate
which includes uh uh future uh future rehabilitations and in the case of the no build it includes a future replacement uh expected I think we
placed it about 25 to 30 years out. Oops. Hm. Okay. This is a comparison matrix that we made that we developed as part of our feasibility study. Um, this was presented to Martin County Public Works. We received some feedback which
modified some of the weights and scoring. So, this is after that coordination. You can see there's a modest um preference to the no build alternative at the bottom.
So, at this point, our recommended alternative is the no build. It's the most practical and cost-effective. The bridge isn't satisfactory to good condition. It was recently rehabbed. Uh, editorially, I would say that this is a result of the county's good
stewardship of their facility. Uh, you've been taking care of your bridge. A bridge in this condition for any other client would not be under consideration for replacement. This avoids the high costs, environmental impacts and disruptions. Um the existing infrastructure meets current and
predicted traffic uh and uh bike and pedestrian needs. Um it is scour critical but the mud line has been stable for 20 years and this provides serviceability. Major work can of course can be reconsidered if needed. One other thing that came out of our uh this is
the the fourth time we presented this in the last couple of weeks. So, we did get some other questions from the other boards. Um Um Shoot, it's gone. It'll come back. It'll come back. Sorry, guys. Anyway, I guess I'll open it for questions now and it'll come back as I'm as I'm talking. Shoot.
Anyway, just an another armchair assessment. The the one alternative that I that I think we can absolutely reject right now is the high level fixed bridge. Of course. Okay. Have you met with Jupiter Island?
Uh we have not. We did reach out to a local historian and got information that's was included in our feasibility study. We understand the importance of the tunnel of trees. Uh you know um I'm a movable bridge engineer. Usually
uh there's a strong preference for fixed bridges because movable bridges are expensive and they are inconvenient. Um but you know in this case we we would the high level fix would not be the second alternative on this list. I would take that slide out before I
would do it's that that alternative is just going to chew up so much land. It's right uh commission that is always a consideration when we include these alternatives. We include them for completeness. Sure. You never know where we're going to go but
yeah sometimes they're unpalatable. Yeah. Commissioner Mayfield. Uh, yes. Help me learn something new. What does scour mean? Okay, so a scour is uh the action of uh the ground being sucked away by water.
Imagine you're standing by the beach and you're standing still and as the water moves in and out, your feet slowly sink into the ground. Well, this happens to bridges, too. All right. So, uh the way you avoid that is you have foundations that are deep enough that the scour doesn't affect them. Uh
your structure is what's considered an unknown foundation. In other words, we don't know what the pile depths are. And as a result, it ends up on a list because you cannot do the analysis. You can't determine what the scour capacity of this bridge. There's hundreds of bridges like this in Florida. Um and so
when these bridges come up for rehabilitation, usually uh scour counter measures are installed. Imagine a concrete carpet placed on the mudline uh to keep the scout from happening. Um those counter measures are usually not
wellreceived by environmental agencies um due to seaggrasses and things like that. We they they are being so we recently completed scour counter measures on the Sunrise Boulevard bridge in Fort Lauderdale. Um the permitting process was lengthy. Um
think of these counter measures as an insurance policy. Will something happen? I and I will say that I'm not competent to talk about uh scour and its effects or predict. I'm you know I'm a structural engineer, not a hydrarology engineer, but I've worked on these projects in the past and that's where this information comes from.
You guys can't shoot LAR or something. See what's down there? Oh, we know what the what what we know what's going on with the mudline. It's actually pretty stable. And in terms of foundation, oh no, it's it's ineffective. Um, we can't we there are companies that um
provide that service and they put a lot of caveats on the data that they provide you. Got it. Commissioner Caps. Yes. Um, so there has been some engineering evaluations and it appears that we're in good shape structurally.
U can you comment a little bit more about that? Um, okay. You just made me remember what they were asking me about. All right. So, um, you know, when when we when we undertake a feasibility study like this, you know,
one of the first things that we do is start asking questions about what are you experiencing as an end user that's driving you to want to undertake the expense and difficulty of a bridge replacement. And the responses that we
got were that uh the bridge moves around a lot. It was kind of you know anecdotal and I think you know although we didn't get much more than that my understanding is that there have been uh failures of operation. In other words the they've wanted the bridge to close for traffic
and it refused to close. So a common um and I'll get to structural capacity in a moment. I want to talk about the uh mechanical systems first. So um one of the things that we found on the existing structure is that the live load shoes
were poorly shimmed. So imagine the leaf falls into its closed position. Uh there are it's a two girder system. So when it sets it's it it's a two can levers right? So at the base it sits on two bearings that really define what the
shape of the bridge as it closes where it's going to land. Um we found that those shoes were not shimmed properly. So what happens is as the leaf sets every time it sets it's kind of like sitting on one side and then shifting down to the other. And what that when
that occurs the bridge will operate five fine 10 times and then on the 11th time the span locks will will fail to engage. So it's imagine closing a door and it just doesn't quite sit where it needs to. So you can't turn the dead bolt.
So the so the the you know now the door won't lock. The sensors tell the control system that the bridge is not prepared for traffic and you cannot allow traffic. The gates won't go up. you can't let traffic on. Part of the rehabilitation that we did, we had them reset the live load shoes, basically
remove them, readjust them, and seat them. We also made adjustments to the span locks that hold the leaves together when the bridge is closed. Uh we expect better service operationally after those repairs. We are eager for any feedback
if that's not the case. We have not heard anything from the county or FDOT that there are any, you know, continued operational failures uh due to that. As far as the um um oh, one of the other concerns that we got was um I was
reminded uh by TAC that uh the this bridge is not is not the its original use. the span was relocated from another location and presumably the intent was to tell me
that you know the bridge is older than I might think. Steel spans steel well preserved, well painted will last much longer than the conventional what is known as a 75 year design life. You know, um concrete has more of a time
scale on it in that, you know, chloride ions penetrate concrete over time and the corrode the steel inside. But if you preserve steel and you paint it and you take care of it, it doesn't just deteriorate on on its own. It needs to if you know if it's exposed. I'll go
further. Although this is kind of maybe not that dire or not not that important to you all, but the railroads have stopped painting their bridges entirely. They stopped painting their bridges in 1985. Um, and the their bridges don't go up in a puff of smoke.
Um, did that answer your question? I didn't really talk about structural capacity. Um, your bridge is not load rated. Your bridge is carrying the capacity fine. There's no there were no no signs of significant deterioration. or at least nothing that could not be repaired.
Good. I that's reassuring and I'm glad uh remedial things have been done to make it more operational. Um here's another question. Um if we go with no build and that means we
would be recommending that we make a change and uh to our list of priorities by the uh no and take it off the list for this period of time. Well that would be um up to the board. I
mean, you know, um this board has certainly um left projects on their list of pri project priorities and just moved them down um the list um because of various reasons. Uh one example is the um right-hand turn lane on Caner moving
uh turning right into South River. Um they that was moved down the list, but it's still on the list of project priorities. Another uh project that's on the list um is the pedestrian improvements and crosswalks along East
Ocean Boulevard in Monterey. Um FDOT has said that it it doesn't warrant a pedestrian crosswalk at this time, although I think they're analyzing it again. Um but that's been left on the on the list. So you you all can certainly leave it on the list, but move it down
the list for um whatever reason you see see fit. I I do think as a staff um position I I do think it's reasonable to ask the consultant and FDOT to give a presentation to Jupiter Island. I think they're going to be impacted by any work
on this bridge probably more than anyone. So that would be the staff's recommendation for the NPO board to send a letter to FDOT requesting that they present to the Jupiter Island Commission present this presentation to the Jupiter Island Commission and that would be a motion now, right?
That that's yes, that would be my recommendation. Well, I'll make that motion. Second it. Anything else, Commissioner? Yes. That was basically um Miss Belt Train, you read my mind. You know, the most affected impacted government entity at
least that's not represented on the NO is Jupiter Island. And um I didn't realize that they wouldn't be getting this presentation without us recommending, but I think it's very important even before we make a determination on where we would put them in the ranking. Uh if they if it's a no
build and it's the issue is over for the next 25 years, we don't need to keep it on the list just to keep it on the list. Um, but I wouldn't want to personally make that determination without getting feedback from first off their staff and secondly their elected officials. So,
good suggestion which I think now you'll have. But beyond just telling FOT to send a letter to FDOT to do it, I think it's important that FDOT would be willing to do that, not receive the letter and say, "Well, we're not doing it." Thank you.
There's a motion and a second. All those in favor? I opposed. That motion passes unanimously. Thank you, Mr. Sanchez. Thank you. Thank you. I bet bridge engineer conventions are interesting. Completely different vocabulary.
Uh we will now take up our uh state road 710 projects update. District 4 staff is here to give you all an update on the state road 710 projects. Um we have been working with central office um one of the funding
alternatives is SIS and we have been shifting over some projects that the costs went up tremendously almost double where we put them in the second five-year program. So we have offered so some openings in the first five years we
have offered a portion of 710 to be advanced. We're waiting on a decision. It should be made in the next two weeks in central office. So, we'll see if we have more funding allocations where we're still working on. Um, another one is 710. Do you know which segment that is? Which
was it? Would it be the one closest to Indian Town or the one um closer to Okachobee County? Yeah, that's why I brought my phone to see if I have the table, but it would take me a while to to get to that one. So I I can give another update and then
I I'll check on other items. Uh another uh state road 710 at alipata uh traffic signal warrant analysis was being conducted. The volumes are very low to warrant a signal. So there was a meeting last week to discuss other
alternatives. There's always the option of the realignment with MLK that will help the signal be warranted. that closeness to the railroad that that adds another warrant. So we're looking at other alternatives of to see how this can be
warranted. The 710 projects construction start approximately fiscal year 2030 and completion is around 2035. So we're already looking even at 2035 for volumes to see if at that time it can be
warranted and how we can advance it. So, that's another op another one that we're working on and the consultant is going going back to see what other options on that signal warrant. Anything else? I'll I'll check if I have
the the project that we were looking at advancing when we found an opening. It's it's be it's actually that one is not even SIS. It's because we moved something else to SIS funding. We open FDOT funding on 2030. So we were looking
at at least if we can get more funding given the cost that we have. Um was there um I understand you all are moving ahead with a dedicated right turn lane on 710 turning into Tommy Clemens. Is that correct? Um my
I can talk about it now or we can talk about it next. Yes. Okay. Well, Chris and I'll see if it's a 710 update. So I don't it's they they're doing a tag team. Don't go away because I'm sure they'll have questions for you. Thanks Beth. Uh good morning board. Uh
just a brief update. Chris Carris operations in Fort Pierce DOT. Uh just a brief update on the right turn lane at Tommy Clemens. Starting a week from today. We will be starting the process of constructing that right turn lane in Tommy Clemens. That that project is scheduled to be
complete January of 2026. Good. So, we've got a good contractor on board and we are moving forward with the installation starting next week. Thank you. Great. That's a lifesaving uh project. Unfortunately, there were some delays in getting this pro we wanted to try to time things where the the other project
where the left turn lane was installed uh and and sync it up with the installation of this right turn lane. However, there was a an FPL pole that was in the way that necessitated relocation and then unfortunately the relocation area ended up being CSX right ofway which then necessitated another permit from CSX. So, we had some delays
in that but we are at the finish line here to get this project started. Thank you. Awesome. Questions for Mr. Caris or Miss Sosa? Do you have an update or we do we need to wait for two weeks to get the update?
The update I I cannot give you an update if they will move the project. We propose some funding, some extra funding allocation, but we're waiting Tallahass on Tallahassee have the numbers. Good. Thanks. Any further questions?
Yes. I'd like to say that if we're thinking about realigning Alipata Road with Martin Luther King, we need to get with the land owners like as soon as possible because I can tell you there's plans being made for all that
property right there. So they they we all met last week and there's a big project coming on that property. Oh. So Oh, yeah. Mayor Depalo, I I I think maybe that I don't know that's really
not in the realm I don't think of the NO yet because I think I don't know if the village has talked to the county about that. Okay. So that that needs to that would be the first step. I mean um that would be the village of Indiantown would need to write a letter or let the county know that they're interested in this. So
because that is a county road. So any kind of changes to that road would be um and also the development really adjacent is it terramar the development that we're talking about terramar has several driveways and one
of the one of the options we were looking if the driveways could be consolidated that would help funnel more traffic to the one that access the signal which will help with the warrants but even on the main line the volumes are go for a signal warrant at the time.
So, we're working. We're trying to see what can be done. Okay. Thanks. Uh, anything else, Miss Beltran? Um, not on this item. Anything else? We're at the end of our agenda. Okay. Yeah. Um, a couple of notes. Um,
the UN Thank you. Hey, so we're good. Um, um, couple of notes under the unified planning work program. As you know, that's the NO budget and planning activities. a small modification for the development review interactive u map. Um you all approved having that updated um
quarterly on a quarterly basis instead of bianually. We were a little short with funds. So we moved money from the staff staff salaries line item to the development review interactive map in order to have that updated every um four years on a quarterly basis. Um the
second item under notes is the bike ped facilities um map that we have a new one. Um Margie Tamblin put this together so I'd like her to talk a little bit about it. You all have a hard copy in front of you and then we also have this online as well.
Good morning again. Um we had a previous map in 2019 and we worked to update it to map all the facilities here in Martin County. Whether that's a shared use path, whether it's a sidewalk, a bike lane, lots of mapping went into it. Um, we have the transit map on the back. We have some frequently asked questions.
Um, an ABC quick check just to kind of keep you a breast of what you need to check on your bike before you take a ride. We have the full map if you open the whole um handout here. And we have the same map present here um online and you can find this on our website. We
have um restrooms, libraries, uh fire departments, police stations, bicycle stores, things of that nature. Anything that you would need and more um to find your way through the county. Um let's see here. I also have indicated the sher, so the various types of bicycle
facilities. So a sher um which is indicated by a bicycle and the two chevrons. Um, we have bike lanes, protected bike lanes, green patton bike lanes and why we have that shared use pass and we also have information on F DOT's website as well um regarding their
um bicycle safety information. And with that, any comments? Thanks to staff for all their help in uh editing this. It was a lot of mapping and you know a big undertaking to make sure that we have everything um that the county has but it's a good step in moving forward right to know what we have and then build more in the future to make it safer for
pedestrians and cyclists here in Martin County. That's terrific. Good effort. Commissioner Campy. Thank you for your efforts. Now that it is done and it's really well done. Is there any way to make it an app so that people can just have it on their phones instead of having to go to the MO website? Because if you're out on your
bike and you have this an app would probably be the most functional option. So you can access it on your phone. It might be a little tighter, but you can access all this information on your phone. If you went to the website, though, like if it was an app, somebody could just have the icon. We'll see about making an app. It might
be an undertaking. Just you're young enough. I'm sure you could turn that into an app. I'll I'll try my best, but um it's currently an experience builder with ArcGIS Pro and um yeah, I'll see if I can conjure up an app perhaps.
Yeah. Any other comments, concerns, questions? Commissioner Reed. Yeah, you might not need an app. Just add it to your homepage and it's basically easy on also could do that too instead of building an app. Yeah, that's all.
Any other questions? Uh any comments from advisory committee members? Any comments from board members? U Miss Beltran? Um the uh next meeting is the our special meeting to adopt our long 2050 long range transportation
plan. That's October 8th at 9:00 in this room. And then our next regularly scheduled um meeting in October is October 27th at 9:00 um here in the chambers. Um and the district secretary Steve Braun will be here to present the draft tenative work program and so
hopefully at that time we'll have received hopefully good news about the um the state road 710 widening project. So just for clarification, October that meeting is when the long range transportation plan will be voted on
final. That that's October 8th is when the Yes, the long range transportation plan is scheduled to be adopted and then the 27th is the regular meeting in October and that will have the district secretary will be there be here for that.
Thank you. Any further questions, comments? We are adjourned. Thank you. Have a good day.