Sep 09, 2021 MPO Board Meeting

ALL RIGHT.

[00:00:06]

[1. Call to Order and Pledge]

WE COULD TAKE OUR SEATS.

WE'LL START OUR MEETING MR. GABRIEL.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

IF YOU CALL THE ORDER AND WE HAVE THE PLEDGE, WE GET TO DO IT AGAIN.

ALL RIGHT.

PLEASE RISE.

GOOD MORNING TO ALL, GOOD TO SEE YOU.

IT SEEMS LIKE A LONG TIME.

ALL RIGHT, LET'S HAVE THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES.

JULY 1ST IS THEIR MOTION FIRST ROLL CALL, ROLL CALL, ROLL CALL.

[2. Electronic Roll Call]

WE HAVE ELECTRONIC ROLL CALL.

IF YOU WOULD, PLEASE VOTE.

MARK YOURSELF IN.

GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE.

ON YOUR MICROPHONE SYSTEM, THIS IS REBECCA BROWN AT MPO.

IF YOU HAVEN'T ALREADY IN THE TOP RIGHT HAND OR LEFT HAND CORNER OF YOUR MICROPHONE SYSTEM IS THE WORD YES, PLEASE PRESS YES, AND THAT WILL MARK YOU IN.

THANK YOU, REBECCA.

GABRIEL, IT LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE A QUORUM.

YES, SIR, WE DO, WE HAVE 15 MEMBERS PRESENT AT THE PRESENT TIME.

ALL RIGHT, GOOD.

WE CAN GO ON TO THE NEXT ITEM, WHICH IS THE APPROVAL OF MINUTES.

MR. CHAIR, JUST REAL QUICK, I THINK WE HAD A MOMENT OF SILENCE FOR THE.

.. I WAS JUST GOING TO DO THAT.

EVERYBODY, MR. WILLIAMS MOTHER.

MR. CHAIR, I HAVE A POINT OF ORDER.

GO AHEAD.

MAYOR PAUL IS PRESENT, I DID NOT, I CANNOT ACCESS THE ELECTRONIC BOARD.

HEY, MR. GABRIEL.

THAT IS NOT AVAILABLE TO YOU YET.

WE WILL BE ABLE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT SHORTLY AFTER WE DO THE RULE AMENDMENT IF THAT IS ACCEPTABLE, BUT IF THERE'S ANYONE ELSE WHO'S AVAILABLE, WHO'S ON THE ZOOM THAT WHO WOULD ANNOUNCE THAT NOW WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT THE RECORD RELEASE REFLECTS THAT YOU'RE HERE NOW .

THANK YOU.

YES, GOOD MORNING, COMMISSIONER SANDRA WELCH ALSO.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MAYOR PAUL.

VICE MAYOR BUZ OLDAKER, LAUDERDALE BY THE SEA.

VICE MAYOR, ARSERIO, CITY OF MARGATE.

THE APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA, APPROVAL OF MINUTES, YOU DIDN'T DO THAT.

[3. Approval of Minutes - July 8, 2021]

MAKE SURE YOUR MIKES ARE ON, PLEASE.

I'M MISSING SOMETHING, OK, MOTION WAS MADE BY ME, BUT I COULDN'T, I WILL SAY MOTION MADE BY VICE CHAIR, GOODE, SECOND BY DEPUTY VICE CHAIR JACKSON, AND HE DISCUSSED IT IN THE MINUTES.

ALL RIGHT, WE'LL SHOW THE MINUTES AS IT PROVES.

THANK YOU.

[1. MOTION TO APPROVE Amendments to the Rules of the Broward Metropolitan Planning Organization (BMPO)]

.

OK, AS AMENDED.

AS, WELL I'M GOING TO GET TO THAT.

OK.

MR. ATTORNEY.

OK.

SO FOR ALL THOSE BOARD MEMBERS, THERE'S A THERE'S BEEN A DISCUSSION ABOUT HAVING AMENDMENT TO YOUR RULES TO ALLOW FOR COMMUNICATION, USE OF COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY, MEDIA TECHNOLOGY, YOU HAVE AS PART OF YOUR BACKUP, THE MATERIALS FOR THAT, I DON'T KNOW, ARE WE ABLE TO PUT THAT ON THE BOARD? IT'S PAGE EIGHT OF THE RULES ITSELF, BUT IF YOU WOULD, I'LL JUST TELL YOU.

BASICALLY, THE RULE AMENDMENT WILL STILL REQUIRES THAT WE HAVE A QUORUM OF 14 MEMBERS IN THE ROOM FOR BOARD PURPOSES.

SO THERE MUST BE AT LEAST 14 MEMBERS BEFORE WE CAN PROCEED.

THE RULES THAT IS PRESENTED, THE RULE AMENDMENT IS 2.04.10, USE OF COMMUNICATION, MEDIA, TECHNOLOGY AND IT OH, HERE WE GO, BUT IT'S KIND OF SHAKY, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S ME OR THE SCREEN.

SO IF YOU CAN SEE THAT IT DOES PROVIDE THAT, THE MEMBERS MAY ATTEND AND PARTICIPATE AT REGULAR SPECIAL MEETINGS AND WORKSHOPS THROUGH THE USE OF COMMUNICATION MEDIA TECHNOLOGY.

WE HAVE MADE THE EFFORTS TO BRING THE COMMUNICATION AND TECHNOLOGY TO THE BOARD, AND WE'RE STILL WORKING ON THAT AND THERE WILL BE A DISCUSSION AS TO THAT IN A MINUTE AFTER I'M DONE WITH THE PRESENTATION OR STATEMENT.

AN ABSENTEE BOARD MEMBER MAY REQUEST THE CHAIR OR IN THE CHAIR'S ABSENCE THE VICE CHAIR, PERMISSION TO PARTICIPATE IN A REGULAR SPECIAL MEETING OR WORKSHOP.

[00:05:03]

IT'S ONLY AS LONG AS A QUORUM IS PRESENT, WHICH I'VE ALREADY INDICATED TO YOU.

ITEM C IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE EACH BOARD MEMBER IS EXPECTED TO DEMONSTRATE THE INTEREST IN THE MPOS ACTIVITIES THROUGH THE ATTENDANCE BEING PRESENT.

THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE HAS MADE A COUPLE OF AMENDMENTS TO ITEM C.

SO I'M JUST GOING TO BRING THAT TO YOUR ATTENTION.

I'M GOING TO READ IT INTO THE RECORD.

EACH BOARD MEMBER IS EXPECTED TO DEMONSTRATE INTEREST IN THE MPO'S ACTIVITIES THROUGH ATTENDANCE IN PERSON WAS ADDED AT THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETINGS, EXCEPT FOR REASONS OF AN UNAVOIDABLE NATURE.

TO AVOID UNNECESSARY MEETING DISRUPTIONS, NO MORE THAN 10 ABSENT BOARD MEMBERS MAY PARTICIPATE IN COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY AND THAT THIS WAS ADDED AS WELL, NO MORE THAN THREE TIMES IN A CALENDAR YEAR DURING ANY SINGLE MEETING.

APPROVAL SHALL BE BASED UPON FIRST COME, FIRST SERVE AS DETERMINED BY THE CHAIR AND THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR.

THAT IS THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT, BUT BEFORE WE START TAKING DISCUSSION ON THAT, I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A EXPLANATION OF WHAT THE RULE AND I'M SORRY WHAT THE VOTING PROCESS IS SO THAT YOU ARE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IS BEING ACTUALLY INTENDED BY OR IMPACTED BY THE RULE.

ALL RIGHT.

OK, THANK YOU, MR. GABRIEL.

I DO NEED MY PODIUM, MIC, THANK YOU.

PETER GIES WITH THE BROWARD METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION.

SO AS MR. GARBER ALLUDED TO, WE ARE NOW TRANSITIONING TO WHAT WE CALL A HYBRID MEETING OR A HYBRID VIRTUAL MEETING WHERE THERE ARE A QUORUM PRESENT IN THE BOARDROOM.

AND THEN WE HAVE MEMBERS WHO ARE THEN PARTICIPATING VIRTUALLY, SO OF COURSE, FROM A VOTING PERSPECTIVE, WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT IS ALL KOSHER AND THAT WE CAN RECORD THE PROPER VOTE.

SO AS PART OF THIS RULE CHANGE, THE FOLKS WHO ARE IN THE ROOM AND ARE PRESENT AS PART OF QUORUM WILL CONTINUE TO USE THE VOTING MACHINES.

YOU WILL PRESS THE YES OR NO BUTTON IN ORDER TO INDICATE YOUR VOTE.

AND THE FOLKS WHO ARE ATTENDING VIRTUALLY VIA ZOOM WILL BE ASKED TO INDICATE WHETHER THEY HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO THE VOTE.

IF THERE ARE NO OBJECTIONS TO THE VOTE ON THE ZOOM, IT WILL BE CONSIDERED THAT THEY HAVE AGREED THROUGH UNANIMOUS CONSENT AND THEREFORE THEIR VOTE WILL BE RECORDED AS A YES.

MR. GABRIEL, ANY ADDITIONS TO THAT? NO, THANK YOU, I BELIEVE THAT WAS WHAT WE'RE EXPECTING, UNLESS THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS TO THE VOTING PROCESS AND PROCEDURE.

QUESTIONS? SO WE'RE READY TO OPEN UP THE FLOOR, I GUESS, MR. CHAIRMAN, TO THE RULE PROPOSED AMENDMENT THAT'S BEFORE YOU.

ALL RIGHT, ANY QUESTIONS, MR. COMMISSIONER CARN, YOU HAD A QUESTION? I HAVE A QUESTION.

HOLD ON ONE SECOND, COMMISSIONER CARN, YOU HAD A QUESTION? GOT TO PUSH YOUR BUTTON.

MIC IS ON TO YOUR BOTTOM, RIGHT? NOW, IT SAYS MIC IS ON, I DON'T CONTROL THAT.

I DON'T GET PAID TO CONTROL THAT.

SO I HAVE A COMMENT ABOUT ITEM C, JUST THE PERCEPTION USING THE WORD ABSENT AFTER THE TEN.

I THINK WE SHOULD SAY THE 10 VIRTUAL BOARD MEMBERS, THEY'RE ACTUALLY NOT ABSENT.

THEY ARE JUST PARTICIPATING VIRTUALLY.

ITEM C, YES, I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE TAKE THE WORD ABSENT OUT.

THEY ARE REMOTE OR VIRTUALLY ATTENDANT.

THIS IS A QUESTION OF TO THE BOARD FOR THEIR CONSIDERATION.

I TAKE WHATEVER DIRECTION THAT THE BOARD MAY.

IT IS BECAUSE WHAT WE'RE GOING TO FURTHER SAY IS THAT YOU CAN HAVE SO MANY ABSENCES IN THE CONTEXT OF ABSENT MEANS THAT I'M NEITHER CONNECTED VIRTUALLY OR IN THE ROOM.

I'M NOT OBJECTING TO YOUR PROPOSAL, I'M JUST SAYING THAT IT'S THE BOARD'S AND I'M REALLY NOT TALKING DIRECTLY TO YOU.

WELL, LET ME TALK DIRECTLY TO YOU COMMISSIONER CARN, DID YOU WANT TO MAKE AN AMENDMENT? I'M MAKING A SUGGESTION, YES.

YOU WANT TO MAKE AN AMENDMENT.

HOWEVER, THE RIGHT THERE'S A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER CARN.

OH, HOLD ON.

IT WILL READ IF I CAN.

GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER MR. GABRIEL.

NO MORE THAN 10 VIRTUAL THE WORD ABSENT BEING REPLACED WITH THE WORD VIRTUAL BOARD MEMBERS MAY PARTICIPATE VIA COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY.

THAT'S WHAT I'M SUGGESTING.

ALL RIGHT, AND THERE WAS A SECOND BY WHOM? SECOND, BY BRIAN.

ALL RIGHT, DISCUSSION ON THE AMENDMENT.

I HAVE A QUESTION.

WHO IS THAT? OH MAYOR PAUL QUESTION? NO, I DIDN'T HAVE DISCUSSION ON THE AMENDMENT, I JUST HAD ANOTHER QUESTION ON THIS ITEM.

ALL RIGHT, WE'LL COME BACK TO YOU.

IS THERE A QUESTION ON THE AMENDMENT? ALL RIGHT, NO DISCUSSION ON THE AMENDMENT LETS, THE REQUEST TO REPEAT, WAS THAT

[00:10:01]

YES, MR. CHAIRMAN, IF I CAN REPEAT IT, PLEASE.

YES.

THE THE PHRASE WILL BE NO MORE THAN 10 VIRTUAL BOARD MEMBERS REPLACING ABSENT WITH THE WORD VIRTUAL.

EVERYBODY UNDERSTAND IT? DISCUSSION, VICE CHAIR GOOD ? SO, SO THE LIMIT IS 10, AND THE 10 IS BECAUSE IF IT WAS MORE THAN 10, WE WOULDN'T HAVE A QUORUM PRESENT IS THAT THE 10? IT'S ALSO THE TO THAT IS A POINT, BUT IT'S ALSO TO THE POINT THAT AT SOME POINT WE NEED TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE QUORUM IN THE ROOM, THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO.

SO THAT EVERYONE, SO IT'S THE 10 IS BECAUSE THERE HAS, THAT'S THE POINT IN TIME WHERE YOU HAVE TO HAVE MORE PRESENT THAN THAN VIRTUAL, CORRECT? YES.

ELEVEN WOULD THROW EVERYTHING OFF? WELL, I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND.

I'M HAVING DIFFICULTY HEARING THIS DISCUSSION BECAUSE THIS WAS MY QUESTION AS WELL HOW YOU ARRIVED AT THE TEN AND I CANNOT HEAR THE OTHER PEOPLE THAT ARE SPEAKING.

ASK THEM TO GO INTO THEIR MICS A LITTLE CLOSER.

CHAIRMAN, IF I COULD JUST ASK YOU TO VOTE ON, TO DEAL WITH THE AMENDMENT, THAT'S ON THE FLOOR FIRST, AND WE'LL GO TO THE QUESTION ABOUT THE NUMBER 10.

WELL, THAT'S PART OF THE I'M NOT GOING TO VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT UNLESS I.

.. OK.

IT'S PART THE WORD 10 IS PART OF HIS...

NO 10 IS THERE NOW, SO HE JUST IS, THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR IS TO REPLACE THE WORD ABSENT WITH THE WORD VIRTUAL.

THAT'S WHAT THE MOTION WAS.

IF YOU WANT FURTHER DISCUSSION, YOU KNOW, FINE.

HEY, I NEED AN AMENDMENT FOR DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, PLEASE PRESS, PRESS YOUR VOTE FOR THE AMENDMENT.

I DIDN'T SEE YOUR NAME.

SO WHERE ARE WE HERE, I SEE THAT WE'RE VOTING, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION ON THE AMENDMENT? HOLD ON, LET ME GET EVERYBODY BACK, ALL RIGHT, YOU HAD A QUESTION ON THE AMENDMENT.

YOUR MIC IS NOT ON PLEASE.

YOU CALLING ON ME? NO.

MR. CHAIR? YES, WHO'S THAT? OK, UM, HOLD ON, HOLD ON.

YOU KNOW, THIS VIRTUAL IS GOING TO START GIVING ME NO HAIR.

THIS IS THE PROBLEM WITH VIRTUAL MEETINGS ARE VERY DIFFICULT, HOWEVER, WHEN WE HAVE THE NEW EQUIPMENT FOR THE VIRTUAL, THEN THEY'LL BE OPERATING ON THE EXACT SAME.

LET'S TRY TO GET SOME ORDER BACK IN.

COMMISSIONER COLBOURNE, YES, THANK YOU, SECTION B ALSO TALKS ABOUT ABSENTEE BOARD MEMBERS SHOULD ABSENTEE BE REMOVED THERE? AT THE SAME TIME AS WE'RE DOING, WE'RE REMOVING IT IN SECTION.

YOU CAN MAKE AN AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT.

I WOULD ONLY SAY THAT IN THAT SCENARIO, THAT'S THE CHAIR OR THE CHAIR'S ABSENCE.

SO THAT'S BEING THAT THE CHAIR IS NOT AVAILABLE.

THE FIRST ONE, AN ABSENTEE BOARD MEMBER.

RIGHT, THEY HAVE THEY INTEND TO BE ABSENT IS WHAT THAT MEANS.

THEY'RE NOT VIRTUAL, THEY'RE JUST NOT REQUESTING THE ABSENTEE A POTENTIAL ABSENTEE BOARD MEMBER.

IT'S JUST A BOARD MEMBER THAT'S REQUESTING TO GO VIRTUAL.

THEN YOU WOULD TAKE OUT ABSENTEE IF I'M READING IT CORRECTLY.

THAT WOULD BE THAT WOULD BE FINE.

OK, SO I WOULD LIKE TO AMEND THAT TOO ALSO TAKE OUT ABSENTEE AND WE HAVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT.

SO HOWEVER, IN THAT SECOND AMENDMENT WAS TO DELETE ABSENTEE COMPLETELY AND NOT REPLACE IT.

THAT'S CORRECT, YES.

IS THERE A SECOND TO THE SECOND AMENDMENT? SECOND, BY VICE-CHAIR GOOD.

ANY DISCUSSION ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT.

HEARING NONE, PLEASE VOTE ON AMENDMENT.

SO THE FIRST AMENDMENT WAS TO REPLACE, CAN'T RAISE YOUR HAND BECAUSE I CAN'T HEAR YOU.

YOU HAVE TO PRESS WELL, BUT I'M NOT GETTING IT.

WELL, YOU HAVE TO DO BETTER WITH THIS ELECTRONIC STUFF.

WELL, I GOT BRIAN JAFFE UP NEXT, BUT WE'RE VOTING ON THE AMENDMENT.

THERE'S THE FIRST AMENDMENT.

NO HOLD ON, WE'RE VOTING ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT.

WE'RE TRYING TO GET A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT.

YES, SIR.

THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO.

OK.

SO I DON'T KNOW WHY WE'RE HAVING DIFFICULTY WITH...

THERE WAS A SECOND, I BELIEVE, FOR THE SECOND AMENDMENT.

THERE WAS VICE CHAIR GOOD, BUT THEN I HEARD SOMEBODY OVER HERE HAD A PROBLEM.

YOU HAVE A QUESTION ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT?

[00:15:02]

MY COMMENT WOULD JUST BE THAT I THINK ABSENTEE IN SECTION B MAKES SENSE BECAUSE IF YOU WERE A PRESENT BOARD MEMBER, YOU WOULDN'T BE REQUESTING TO PARTICIPATE VIRTUALLY LIKE YOU'D HAVE TO BE ABSENT TO REQUEST VIRTUAL ATTENDANCE.

ALL RIGHT.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT? HEARING NONE, ALL LET'S VOTE ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT.

THIS IS TO DELETE THE WORD ABSENTEE ON LINE ITEM B..

ALL RIGHT, EVERYBODY UNDERSTAND.

HERE WE GO.

VOTE.

SECOND AMENDMENT, MR. GABRIEL, UM, IT DOES SEEM LIKE IT DOES PASS.

SO ABSENT, SO WE'LL READ AN A.

A BOARD MEMBER MAY REQUEST THE CHAIR OR CHAIRS ABSENCE IN THE CHAIR'S ABSENCE, THE VICE CHAIR PERMISSION TO PARTICIPATE IN REGULAR SPECIAL MEETINGS OR WORKSHOPS VIA COMMUNICATION, MEDIA, TECHNOLOGY, ET CETERA.

EVERYBODY UNDERSTAND, EVERYBODY AGREEABLE.

ALL RIGHT, SO THAT MOTION PASSES.

WE ARE NOW ON ITEM AMENDMENT ONE.

WELL, I STILL HAVE A QUESTION.

HOLD ON, HOLD ON, I'M GOING TO GET MYSELF ORGANIZED.

THAT WAS A SECOND AMENDMENT.

MR. GABRIEL, DO WE HAVE TO GO BACK TO MR. CARN'S AMENDMENT? WE HAVE TO GO TO THE FIRST.

WE HAVEN'T VOTED ON THAT.

THAT'S RIGHT, OK, ON THE FIRST AMENDMENT.

ANY QUESTIONS ON THE FIRST AMENDMENT? MR. JAFFE, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION ON THE FIRST AMENDMENT? [INAUDIBLE] GO AHEAD, GO AHEAD.

MY QUESTION TO MR. GABRIEL WAS, I UNDERSTAND THE QUORUM HAS TO BE 16 FOR IN PERSON.

MY, THE QUESTION IS THE ONCE THE MEMBER, IF YOU DECIDE TO BE VIRTUAL FOR THE HYBRID MEETING YOUR VOTE, YOU'RE STILL A VOTING MEMBER ON EVERY ITEM ON THE AGENDA, CORRECT? WHETHER YOU'RE IN-PERSON OR HYBRID.

THAT IS CORRECT IF YOU FALL WITHIN THE 10 MINIMUM 10.

THAT WAS MY QUESTION.

ALL RIGHT, COMMISSIONER MARTIN.

I THINK THEY MAY HAVE ANSWERED MY QUESTION ALSO, BECAUSE I GUESS UNTIL THIS AMENDMENT HAS ACTUALLY TAKEN EFFECT, BECAUSE YOU MADE THE COMMENT THAT THE VOTING TEN WOULD BE QUERIED REFERENCE ANY DISAGREEMENTS TO WHATEVER EMOTION WAS, SO THAT DOESN'T APPLY UNTIL WE ACTUALLY TAKE THE VOTE FOR.

CORRECT.

SO THIS VOTING BODY NOW IS VOTING [INAUDIBLE] FOR THE WHOLE? THAT'S CORRECT.

THANK YOU, MAYOR PAUL, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION? YES, I THINK THERE WAS A LITTLE DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS BEFORE, BUT I JUST WAS UNABLE TO HEAR ON MY.

THE QUESTION WAS HOW [INAUDIBLE] BE INCREASED.

I THINK THAT WAS A NUMBER OF PEOPLE'S COMMENTS.

I'M SORRY, GABRIEL.

I DIDN'T HEAR THAT.

I DIDN'T HEAR IT ALL, EITHER, YOU'RE BREAKING UP MAYOR.

WHAT? BREAKING UP, DAVIE IS FAR FROM HERE.

I CAN'T HEAR YOU.

MAYOR, IF YOU CAN REPEAT WHAT YOU'RE WHAT YOU JUST SAID, PLEASE.

I SAID THAT I WAS QUESTIONING WHERE THE NUMBER 10 CAME FROM, HOW YOU ARRIVED AT THAT NUMBER AND IF IT CAN BE INCREASED, AND I KNOW THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ON IT PRIOR TO THIS, BUT IT WAS DIFFICULT TO HEAR.

OKAY, MR. GABRIEL, YES, SIR.

SO WE, BY STATUTE, ARE ONLY ALLOWED TWENTY FIVE VOTING MEMBERS AT A GIVEN TIME, THOUGH WE HAVE MORE THAN THAT, WE HAVE 33 MEMBERS.

SO THE IDEA WAS THAT AND WE MUST HAVE A QUORUM PRESENT IN THE ROOM IN ORDER TO PROCEED AND HAVE A LEGITIMATE LEGAL MEETING.

SO WHEN YOU TAKE OUT THE 10, WHEN YOU TAKE OUT THE 25 AND YOU START THE 14 FOR THE QUORUM PURPOSES, THERE'S A MARGIN OF THAT NO MORE THAN 10 WAS THE WAS THE RECOMMENDED NUMBER FOR THAT PURPOSE.

ALL RIGHT, MAYOR.

AND IT CAN'T BE INCREASED.

NO, IT'S DIFFICULT TO MANAGE A MEETING IN THE CONTEXT, AS YOU CAN SEE, IT'S DIFFICULT TO MANAGE A MEETING IN THE CAPACITY OF THE PEOPLE IN THE ROOM AND ALSO HAVING TO DO THE ZOOM MEETING.

OK, THANK YOU.

YOU'RE GOOD? CHAIR, BOARD MEMBER HARTMAN ALSO HAS HIS HAND RAISED.

BOB HARTMAN HERE, HEY, I NOTICED I'M MARKED ABSENT, I JOINED PROBABLY RIGHT AFTER ATTENDANCE, SO I JUST WANTED TO GIVE YOU A HEADS UP, THANK YOU.

A REQUEST.

I HAD RECOGNIZED VICE CHAIR GOOD, SHE WANTED A QUESTION ON THE AMENDMENT.

VICE CHAIR GOOD.

SO RIGHT NOW, WE'RE ONLY DISCUSSING THE AMENDMENT, THE WORD VIRTUAL AND

[00:20:03]

SO WE'RE NOT TALKING OF THE OVERALL AMENDMENT.

NOT YET, THAT IS CORRECT.

I JUST WANTED CLARIFICATION.

ALL RIGHT, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT, YOU HAD A QUESTION? SIR, YOU HAVE SOMEONE ON ZOOM, YOU HAVE.

HOW WOULD I KNOW THAT? I KNOW THAT.

OK, WHO IS ON ZOOM? MR. HARTMAN, OK, HARTMAN, MR. HARTMAN, YEAH, HI, THIS IS BOB HARTMAN.

I JOINED THE MEETING ABOUT PROBABLY RIGHT AROUND THE SAME TIME AS YOU WERE WRAPPING UP IN 10 MINUTES, AND I NOTICED THAT WAS MARKED ABSENT.

SO I JUST WANTED TO FIX THAT, THANK YOU.

GABRIEL, FOR THE RECORD, THOSE PARTIES WHO ARE WHO ARE ATTENDING BY ZOOM AT THE MOMENT UNTIL THIS RULE IS ADOPTED, YOU ARE STILL ABSENT AND WON'T BE COUNTED UNTIL OR UNLESS THE RULE GETS APPROVED.

I UNDERSTAND.

THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT.

LOOKS LIKE OUR DISCUSSIONS OVER ON AMENDMENT ONE.

IF YOU APPROVE ON AMENDMENT ONE, PLEASE VOTE.

EVERYBODY VOTE? AND THAT WAS APPROVED.

DID YOU PRESS YOUR BUTTON? YEAH, YOU'RE GOOD.

ALL RIGHT, AMENDMENT ONE PASSES NOW, WE ARE ON THE MOTION AS AMENDED.

WHO WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THAT MOTION? VICE CHAIR GOOD, MAKES THE MOTION, IS THERE A SECOND? AND VICE DEPUTY VICE CHAIR JOHNSON MAKES THE SECOND DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION AS AMENDED.

ALL RIGHT, THE MOTION IS THE MAIN ITEM AS AMENDED.

ALL RIGHT, LET'S VOTE UP COMMISSION VICE CHAIR GOOD ON THE MOTION AS AMENDED.

YES, THIS IS TO APPROVE THE USE OF COMMUNICATION MEDIA TECHNOLOGY AS AMENDED.

CORRECT.

ALL RIGHT.

SO IS THIS ALSO THE TIME WHERE WE WERE GOING TO ALSO INCLUDE HOW MANY TIMES YOU CAN USE THE MEDIA TECHNOLOGY? YES, MA'AM, I DID ANNOUNCE THAT WHEN WE STARTED THAT THERE WAS AN AMENDMENT, BUT MY MOUTH IS RIGHT HERE.

SORRY, I AM, THANK GOD I HAVE A MASK ON.

SO TELL ME AGAIN.

AS THE MEETING STARTED, I ANNOUNCED THAT THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MADE TWO AMENDMENTS AND THAT INCLUDED THAT THE ATTENDANCE MUST BE IN PERSON AT THE REGULAR.

I'LL REREAD THAT SENTENCE, SO IT'S CORRECT.

EACH BOARD MEMBER IS EXPECTED TO DEMONSTRATE INTEREST IN THE MPOS ACTIVITIES THROUGH ATTENDANCE.

NEW WORDS IN PERSON AT THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETINGS, EXCEPT FOR REASONS OF UNAVOIDABLE NATURE.

AND WHAT PARAGRAPH ARE YOU ON? ITEM C, PARAGRAPH C, IN THE SECOND LINE IS WHERE AFTER THE WORD ATTENDANCE, IT WAS IN PERSON WAS ADDED.

OK, SO EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS THEY ONLY HAVE THREE AND THAT GOING ON IS TO AVOID UNNECESSARY MEETINGS DISRUPTIONS NO MORE THAN 10.

NOW WE'LL READ BOARD.

VIRTUAL BOARD MEMBERS MAY PARTICIPATE VIA COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY AND THEN NO MORE THAN THREE AND THREE TIMES IN A CALENDAR YEAR WAS ADDED BY THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE DURING ANY SINGLE MEETING, ET CETERA, ET CETERA.

SO THAT'S THE THREE NO MORE THAN THREE TIMES DURING A CALENDAR YEAR THAT YOU CAN BE APPROVED FOR VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION.

THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING.

ALL RIGHT, EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS, EVERYBODY CLEAR NOW.

OK, THAT MOTION IS PASSED, SO EVERYONE VOTED, AND WE ARE READY TO MOVE ON.

ALL RIGHT, REBECCA, CAN YOU COME AND HELP ME WITH MY MACHINE HERE? I'M HAVING A LITTLE PROBLEM GETTING BACK TO THE AGENDA.

I DON'T KNOW WHETHER IT'S THE MOUSE OR I TRIED THAT DIDN'T WORK.

NO, YOU GOT IT.

ALL RIGHT.

THE LAST THING WE HAD WAS YOUR APPROVAL OF AGENDA.

WE JUMPED TO THE TO THAT ITEM ONE FOR ACTION, BUT WE'D HAVE WE DIDN'T ASK ABOUT PUBLIC COMMENTS OF ANYONE IN THE PUBLIC HAS ANY COMMENTS.

ALL RIGHT, ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS? ANYBODY FROM THE PUBLIC? HEARING NONE, WE'LL CLOSE THAT PORTION.

MR. GABRIEL.

WE HAVE APPROVAL OF EXCUSED ABSENCES, IF THERE ARE ANY.

[6. Approval of Excused Absences]

ALL RIGHT, IS THERE A MOTION TO EXCUSE THE ABSENCES? OH, AND MAYOR TRANTALIS, MY APOLOGIES.

ALL RIGHT.

WELL, MR. CHAIRMAN, IF YOU WOULD, BECAUSE WE DO HAVE PEOPLE WHO ARE VIRTUAL.

IF YOU WOULD JUST ASK IF ANY PERSON WHO IS VIRTUAL, ANY BOARD MEMBER WHO'S VIRTUALLY ATTENDING, IF WHEN MOTION IS CALLED, IF YOU HAVE AN OBJECTION TO THE MOTION,

[00:25:04]

OTHERWISE, IT WILL BE BELIEVED THAT YOU ARE VOTING WITH THE REST OF THE BOARD, WHETHER IT BE UNANIMOUS OR WHATEVER THAT VOTE MIGHT BE.

UNDERSTOOD.

UNDERSTOOD.

THERE'S A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER COLBOURNE, SECOND BY VICE CHAIR GOOD.

DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT IF NONE, LET'S VOTE.

MR. GABRIEL? YES, SIR, WE MOVED TO THE CONSENT ITEMS, THERE ARE TWO CONSENT ITEMS.

[ CONSENT ITEMS (All Items Open for Public Comment) ]

SECOND ITEM IS MOTION TO APPROVE LOCAL COORDINATING BOARD LCB MEMBERSHIP APPOINTMENT VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION.

OK.

COMMISSIONER CARN, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION ON ONE OF THEM? JUST PAUSE FOR REFRESHMENT.

THANK YOU, SIR, I WANTED TO PULL THAT ITEM SO THAT STAFF COULD GIVE US A LITTLE BIT MORE ON IT.

OK, WITHOUT OBJECTION.

WHICH ITEM? NUMBER ONE, THE TECHNOLOGY.

MR. GIES, STAFF.

GOOD MORNING AGAIN, PETER GIES WITH THE BROWARD MPO.

SO THIS WOULD BE AN EXTENSION OF THE CONTRACT FOR THE EQUIPMENT THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE IN THE BOARDROOM AND ALSO ALLOW US TO FULLY INTEGRATE THE VIRTUAL COMPONENT.

SO AS YOU SEE TODAY, ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT WE'RE HAVING IS THAT THE FOLKS WHO ARE PARTICIPATING VIRTUALLY DO NOT HAVE A VOTING SYSTEM IN FRONT OF THEM.

WHAT THIS CONTRACT WOULD ALLOW US TO DO IS TO INTEGRATE THAT VOTING SYSTEM VIRTUALLY SO THAT THEY CAN USE BOTH THE REQUEST TO SPEAK FUNCTIONS AS WELL AS THE VOTING FUNCTIONS FOR YES AND NO.

SO FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU ARE HAVING A DISCUSSION AS YOU WERE PREVIOUSLY AND FOLKS WANTED TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM WHO ARE PARTICIPATING VIRTUALLY, THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO HIT A REQUEST TO SPEAK BUTTON VIRTUALLY AND THEY WOULD GO INTO THE SAME QUEUE THAT THE FOLKS ARE IN HERE WITHIN THE BOARDROOM.

SO IT WOULD HELP KIND OF BRING A LITTLE BIT MORE ORDER TO THE MEETING.

IT'S CERTAINLY DIFFICULT WHEN WE HAVE A 37 MEMBER BOARD, AND AS WE WERE TRANSITIONING TO A ZOOM HYBRID FORUM, WE'VE KIND OF BEEN DOING IT IN PHASES.

SO THE FIRST PHASE IS COMPLETE, WHICH WE WERE ABLE TO EXECUTE UNDER THE EXISTING CONTRACT IN ORDER TO GET THE ZOOM VIDEO AND AUDIO STREAMED VIRTUALLY.

NOW THIS IS A SECOND PHASE OF THAT WHERE WE WILL FULLY INTEGRATE THE VOTING SYSTEM AND REQUEST TO SPEAK SYSTEM INTO THE VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENT.

IN ADDITION, THERE IS COMPUTER REPLACEMENT INCLUDED WITHIN THAT BUDGET, SO THE COMPUTERS THAT YOU'RE CURRENTLY USING ARE COMING UP TO THE END OF THEIR LIFECYCLE.

AND SINCE THIS IS A THREE YEAR CONTRACT WITH TWO OPTIONAL ONE YEAR RENEWALS, WE HAVE INCLUDED WITHIN THE BUDGET A FULL EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FOR THE DAIS.

SO THERE ARE TECHNICALLY TWO COMPONENTS HERE THEY ARE ONCE AGAIN THE VIRTUAL INTEGRATION OF THE REQUEST TO SPEAK AND THE VOTING SYSTEM, AS WELL AS AN UPGRADE TO ALL OF THE COMPUTER EQUIPMENT HERE IN THE BOARDROOM.

AND THAT'S HOW WE GOT TO THE FULL AMOUNT HERE.

AND AGAIN, IT WOULD BE FOR THREE YEARS PLUS TWO ONE YEAR OPTIONAL RENEWALS WITH THE CURRENT VENDOR INTENT DIGITAL.

ONE OTHER ITEM I'D LIKE TO ADD IS THAT OUR AGENDA QUICK SOFTWARE THAT WE USE TO PUBLISH AND CREATE ALL OF OUR AGENDAS INTEGRATES WITH IN THIS SYSTEM, AS WELL AS WELL AS OUR VIDEO STREAMING SERVICE SWAGIT, WHICH WAS APPROVED AS PART OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING IN THE PREVIOUS MEETING AT 8:30.

BECAUSE THOSE DID NOT TRIP THE THRESHOLD TO GO TO THE MPO BOARD, BUT THOSE THREE CONTRACTS THE STREAMING SERVICE.

OUR AGENDA AGENDA, QUICK SOFTWARE, AS WELL AS THE INTENT DIGITAL VOTING AND STREAMING EQUIPMENT ARE ALL INTEGRATED INTO ONE.

MR. CARN.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR, WILL THE PEOPLE THAT ARE VIRTUAL ALSO HAVE TO WAIT 15 MINUTES BEFORE THEIR MIC ACTUALLY COMES ON AFTER THEY HIT THE BUTTON.

OK, 20 NOW I DON'T FEEL SO BAD.

THANK YOU AGAIN.

MAKE SURE YOU COUNT THEM.

SO, MR. SCHROEDER, IT WAS RHETORICAL, OK, IT SEEMS LIKE A PRETTY COOL INTEGRATION, BUT KIND OF EXPENSIVE $300000 TO BE ABLE TO VOTE VIA ZOOM, ESSENTIALLY.

HOW MUCH OF ITS REOCCURRING COST SUBSCRIPTIONS WE HAVE TO PAY EVERY YEAR.

SO I BELIEVE THE RECURRING COST IS THIRTY SIX THOUSAND DOLLARS A YEAR.

I BELIEVE I'M LOOKING OVER IT.

MY TECH GUY IN THE CONTROL ROOM ONE IS THAT CORRECT FROM WHAT YOU REMEMBER? HE'S GIVING ME THE THUMBS UP.

IT'S THIRTY SIX THOUSAND DOLLARS A YEAR.

AND AGAIN, THIS IS FOR THE FULL THREE PLUS TWO ONE YEAR RENEWALS FOR.

SO IT'S FIVE YEARS.

SO OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, THAT WOULD BE ABOUT $180000 FOR THE SUBSCRIPTION SERVICES AND THEY PROVIDE US TWENTY FOUR SEVEN SUPPORT.

THEY MAINTAIN ALL OF THE EQUIPMENT, ALL THE AUDIO VISUAL EQUIPMENT THAT YOU SEE IN THIS BOARDROOM, AS WELL AS OFFERING THE SERVICE AS WELL.

WE DON'T REALLY MEET TWENTY FOUR SEVEN, BUT AND WE ACTUALLY HAVE STUART, WE

[00:30:02]

IS THAT TYPICAL JUST TO? YES.

SO THE $50000, I BELIEVE, IS A CONTINGENCY.

IF THAT'S THE LINE ITEM THAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO.

ENGINEERING, ALLOCATION FOR PROJECTS, UPDATES, MODIFICATIONS.

YES, THAT IS A LINE ITEM.

SO I WILL CALL THAT A CONTINGENCY LINE ITEM.

AND ONE OF THE REASONS WHY WE DO THAT IS THAT THE EQUIPMENT OVER A FIVE YEAR CYCLE, SOMETIMES WE HAVE EQUIPMENT THAT FAILS.

WE'VE GOT FOUR AMPLIFIERS IN THE BACK, WE'VE GOT VIDEO SWITCHERS, WE'VE GOT A LOT OF EQUIPMENT AND WE CAN'T NECESSARILY PULL THAT OUT OF OUR GENERAL FUND.

WE NEED TO HAVE THAT BAKED INTO THE EXISTING CONTRACT.

SO THAT ALLOWS US TO MAKE ANY REPLACEMENTS OR UPDATES.

EQUIPMENT ALSO GETS OUTDATED, SO THAT GIVES US SOME FLEXIBILITY TO MAKE SURE THAT THE BOARDROOM EQUIPMENT IS FULLY FUNCTIONING AND ALSO UP TO DATE AS WELL.

THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT, VICE CHAIR GOOD.

YES, CAN YOU JUST UPDATE THE THE ENTIRE BOARD ON OUR ADA COMPLIANCE AS HOW WE'RE GOING TO USE THE SYSTEM TO DO THAT AS WELL, BECAUSE I THINK IT'S AN IMPORTANT PIECE, THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, VICE CHAIR, GOOD.

YEAH, THAT'S AN IMPORTANT POINT AS THIS PART OF THE STREAMING SERVICES THAT ARE INTEGRATED INTO THE VOTING EQUIPMENT AND ALSO ALL OF THE CAMERAS AND EVERYTHING THAT WE USE, WE ARE FULLY ADA COMPLIANT WITH OUR CLOSED CAPTIONING SERVICES.

THIS IS A SERVICE THAT WE UTILIZE AGAIN.

THE CONTRACT WAS APPROVED AS PART OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE INTEGRATES INTO THE VOTING AND CAMERA SYSTEM THAT WE HAVE HERE, WHERE WE DO HAVE FULL CLOSED CAPTIONING SERVICES FULLY COMPLIANT WITH AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT REQUIREMENTS.

AND THAT IS DONE AFTER THE FACT WHEN THE VIDEO IS POSTED TO THE WEBSITE AND IT'S FULLY CATALOGED AS WELL.

SO IF YOU WANT TO JUMP TO AN AGENDA ITEM, YOU CAN DO THAT ALSO WITHIN THE STREAMING SERVICE.

AND JUST FOR THE RECORD, I JUST WANT TO LET YOU ALL KNOW THAT WAS ACTUALLY RECOGNIZED AS A BEST PRACTICE BY FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION WHEN WE WERE GOING THROUGH OUR FEDERAL CERTIFICATION REVIEW FOUR YEARS AGO.

ALL RIGHT.

IF I MAY MAKE ONE MORE CLARIFICATION ON THAT VICE CHAIR GOOD ALSO, SINCE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CLOSED CAPTIONING AS PART OF THE ZOOM MEETING THAT IS STREAMED LIVE AND WE HAVE CLOSED CAPTIONING SERVICES THAT ARE PROVIDED AS PART OF THE ZOOM MEETING.

AND THAT IS ONE REASON WHY WE DON'T USE OUR STREAMING SERVICE WITH ALL THE CATALOGED ITEMS LIVE IS BECAUSE WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WHEN WE POST THE FINAL VIDEO THAT WE HAVE THE CORRECT CLOSED CAPTIONING IN ORDER.

SO THERE IS THE LIVE ZOOM THAT HAS CLOSED CAPTIONING.

AND THEN WHEN WE POST THE FINAL VIDEO THAT INCLUDES THE CLOSED CAPTIONING WITH THE INDEXED ITEMS THAT YOU CAN CLICK AND JUMP TO.

ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER MCGEE, MEMBER MCGEE.

YES, NO, THE PRICE TAG KIND OF TOOK MY BREATH AWAY AS WELL.

IS IT JUST TO BE JUST SO I MAKE SURE I'M CLEAR THE THREE TWENTY EIGHT, THREE HUNDRED TWENTY EIGHT THOUSAND DOLLARS COVERS THE FULL THREE YEARS, IT'S NOT THREE HUNDRED AND EIGHT THOUSAND A YEAR? FIVE YEARS, ACTUALLY.

SO THAT ALSO INCORPORATES THE ADDITIONAL TWO YEARS? CORRECT...

OK, YEAH, A LITTLE BIT BETTER, THANKS.

YEAH, THIS IS THE MAXIMUM WE'RE EVER GOING TO SPEND, OK, OVER THE WHOLE FIVE YEAR SPAN, UNLESS IT COMES BACK TO YOU FOR FURTHER AMENDMENT.

OK.

RIGHT.

MEMBER MARTIN? REALLY QUESTION IN REFERENCE TO IS THERE GOING TO BE ANY POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE EFFECT ON HOW THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATES? SO AS FAR AS THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION THAT'S DONE ENTIRELY THROUGH ZOOM, WE CURRENTLY INTEGRATE THAT NOW SO THE PUBLIC WOULD PARTICIPATE AS THEY USUALLY WOULD.

THEY CAN RAISE THEIR HAND IN ORDER TO BE RECOGNIZED TO SPEAK.

RIGHT NOW, REBECCA SCHULTZ, OUR BOARD'S COORDINATOR WHO SITS AT THE END THERE, SHE WILL USUALLY NOTIFY IF THERE IS SOMEONE ON THE ZOOM CALL WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK AND THEY COME PARTICIPATE AND ASK QUESTIONS ON A SPECIFIC ITEM OR IN PUBLIC AS WHEN PUBLIC COMMENT IS OPENED AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING.

SO FOR 328, WE MADE IT THREE TWENTY NINE, COULD PUBLIC BE MORE INTEGRATED SO SHE'S NOT DOWN THERE HAVING TO KEEP HER EYE ON THE BALL ALL THE TIME? WE CAN CERTAINLY FIND SOME IMPROVEMENTS THAT WE CAN TAKE A LOOK AT AND SEE IF WE CAN MAKE THAT BETTER, SURE.

ALL RIGHT, MR. SCHROEDER.

MIKE, THIS QUESTION IS FOR MR. GABRIEL, IS THERE A WAY OR IS IT INCLUDED IN THE AGREEMENT THAT THE TECHNOLOGY WILL REMAIN ADA COMPLIANT, MEANING RIGHT NOW IT IS, BUT THEY'LL BE OBLIGATED WITH THE SUBSCRIPTION TO CONTINUE TO OFFER US ADA COMPLIANT TECHNOLOGY.

THE AGREEMENT ITSELF DOESN'T PROVIDE FOR THE ADA.

IT'S THROUGH SOME OTHER SERVICES THAT WE HAVE THAT THE ADA IS BEING MAINTAINED.

BUT THE QUESTION HAD COME UP RELATING TO ADA, WHICH IS WHY YOU HEARD THAT.

AND IF I MAY, BOARD MEMBER SHUDDER IS THE THE AGREEMENT THAT I REFERENCED EARLIER THAT WAS APPROVED AS PART OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE FOR THE STREAMING SERVICES IS SEPARATE FROM THIS ONE.

HOWEVER, ALL ADA COMPLIANCE IS CONSTANTLY MAINTAINED BY SWAGIT, THE COMPANY THAT PROVIDES A STREAMING SERVICES.

THEY DO THIS FOR MULTIPLE BOARDS AND COMMITTEES ALL ACROSS THE UNITED STATES, AND THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WHY WE CHOSE THEM.

AND ONE OF THE REASONS WHY WE WORK WITH THIS VENDOR AND 10 DIGITAL IS BECAUSE THEY HAVE A LOT OF EXPERIENCE IN THE REALM OF PUBLIC MEETINGS, PUBLIC AGENCIES AND PROVIDING STREAMING AND VOTING SYSTEM SERVICES TO THEM.

THANK YOU.

[00:35:01]

I DON'T HEAR ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION, SO I NEED A MOTION FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT.

SO THIS IS A VOTE FOR BOTH ITEMS, CORRECT, BEING APPROVED.

WE'LL HAVE A MOTION BY A MEMBER OF SCHRöDER SECONDED BY CHAIR GOOD VICE CHAIR GOOD AND A DISCUSSION.

HEARING NONE, LET'S VOTE ON THE CONSENT.

ANY MEMBER WHO MIGHT BE VOTING VIRTUALLY, WHO MIGHT BE VIRTUAL IF YOU DISAGREE OR WISH TO VOTE NO, PLEASE SPEAK UP.

ANY VIRTUAL COMMENTS? HEARING NONE.

MR. GABRIEL.

THAT'S APPROVED, THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT.

WE HAVE ONE ACTION ITEM ITS MOTION ITEM TO APPROVE.

WE DID THAT, THE RULE, RIGHT.

NUMBER TWO, MOTION TO APPROVE AMENDMENTS TO THE FISCAL YEAR, FY 2022 THROUGH

[2. MOTION TO APPROVE Amendments to the Fiscal Year (FY) 2022 - 2026 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP): A. Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) - Roll Forward Report With Staff Recommendations B. Changes to Florida's Turnpike Enterprise (FTE) Projects FM# 4379901 RESURFACE TPK MAINLINE IN BROWARD CNTY, MP 47.2 - 54.16 FM# 4379903 ROADSIDE IMPROVEMENTS IN BROWARD CNTY, MP 47.2 - 54.16]

AND THEN THERE'S TWO PARTS OF THAT, THAT'S THE A IS THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FDOT ROLL FORWARD REPORT WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AND B CHANGES TO THE FLORIDA TURNPIKE ENTERPRISE FTE PROJECTS.

ALL RIGHT, IS THERE A MOTION FOR ITEM TWO? THERE IS A STEP PRESENTATION, IF YOU'D LIKE IT.

OK, LET'S DO IT.

OK.

CHEN.

EXCUSE ME.

THANK YOU, MS. CHAIR.

YOU HAVE TO LOWER YOUR MIC, PLEASE.

THANK YOU MS. CHAIR, THANK YOU MS. STUART, BOARD MEMBER.

GOOD MORNING, [INAUDIBLE] MPO TODAY WE ARE PRESENTING FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2022 TO 2026 TIP.

THE FIRST AMENDMENT INCLUDED TWO PARTS.

FIRST ONE IS TO ADD FISCAL YEAR 2022 TO ROLL FORWARD REPORT INTO THE TIP.

THE OTHER ONE IS TO AMEND TO FLORIDA'S TURNPIKE ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS.

LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT THE FIRST PART FIRST, FISCAL YEAR 2022 TO ROLL FORWARD A REPORT.

AS ALWAYS, WE PRESENT YOUR FORWARD REPORT AT THIS TIME OF THE YEAR.

THIS IS AN ANNUAL ROUTINE PROCESS FOR THE BROWARD MPO.

YOU MAY ALREADY KNOW THE CORE PRODUCTS OF THE BROWARD MPO.

PRODUCTS IN THE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN MOVED TO MULTIMODAL PRIORITIES LIST AND THEN MOVE TO TRANSPORTATION.

IMPLEMENT THE PROGRAM FOR IMPLEMENTATION.

THE OTHER CORE PRODUCTS ALSO INCLUDE UNIFIED, THE PLANNING WORK PROGRAM, STRATEGIC BUSINESS PLAN AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN.

RIGHT NOW, WE ARE AT THE STAGE OF TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.

YOU MAY WONDER WHY IS YOUR FORWARD REPORT NEEDED? EACH MARCH OR APRIL THE BROWARD MPO RECEIVES A TIP DATABASE FROM [INAUDIBLE].

THE DATABASE IS GENERATED FROM THE DRAFT ALTERNATIVE WORK PROGRAM.

FROM HERE, IT IS SPLIT INTO TWO PATHS, ONE PATH INPUT LAW.

IN THE CASE, THE BROWARD MPO USES THE DATABASE TO PRODUCE THE TIP AND APPROVES IT IN JULY AND OTHER PATH IN RIGHT, INDICATES THE STATE APPROVES THE DRIVE ALTERNATIVE WORK PROGRAM, ON JULY 1ST.

AFTER JULY 1ST, SO IF THAT GENERATES A ROW FORWARD REPORT FOR EACH MPO, YOU MAY WONDER WHAT ARE PRODUCTS IN THE ROLL FORWARD REPORT? PROJECTS WAS SUPPOSED TO GET AUTHORIZED AND THE ENCUMBERED PRIOR TO JUNE 30.

BUT IT IS NOT BECAUSE OF VARIOUS REASONS.

THOSE PROJECTS, IN ORDER TO RECEIVING FUNDS FOR THOSE PRODUCTS, THOSE PRODUCTS HAS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE NEW WORK PROGRAM AND THE NEW TIP.

THOSE PRODUCTS WILL AUTOMATICALLY ROLL FORWARD IN THE WORK PROGRAM, BUT NOT AUTOMATICALLY GO FORWARD IN THE TIP.

AND ALSO, YOU'RE ONE OF THE WORK PROGRAM UNDER THE TIP SHOW THAT ALWAYS MATCH.

SO THE BROWARD MPO HAS TO AMEND THE TIP TO INCLUDE THOSE PRODUCTS IN THE TIP.

THAT'S IN SEPTEMBER OR EARLY OCTOBER.

THE BROWARD MPO PROCESSES THE ROLL FORWARD REPORT, AS APART OF THE ROLL FORWARD REPORT, THOSE PRODUCTS WILL BE INCLUDED IN THE TIP UNDER THE CAP TAKES EFFECT ON OCTOBER 1ST.

LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT THE ROLL FORWARD REPORT FOR THIS YEAR.

THERE ARE ONE HUNDRED FORTY ONE PROJECTS WORTH OF ABOUT 366 MILLION DOLLARS FUNDING ROLL FORWARD AMONG THE THREE HUNDRED AND SIXTY SIX MILLION DOLLARS, ABOUT TWO HUNDRED SEVENTY MILLION DOLLARS TRANSIT FUNDS, MAKING UP ABOUT SEVENTY FOUR PERCENT OF TOTAL ROLL FORWARD FUNDING AMOUNT.

ABOUT 93 MILLION DOLLARS, HIGHWAY FUNDS ACCOUNTS FOR ABOUT TWENTY FIVE PERCENT OF

[00:40:31]

THE BROWARD MPO STAFF RECOMMEND TO REMOVE THREE PRODUCTS FROM THE ROLL FORWARD REPORT, THE PRODUCT, FIRST PRODUCT AND THE SECOND PRODUCT AS RTA PRODUCTS.

THOSE PRODUCTS HAVE BEEN OBLIGATED, SO THE BROWARD MPO STAFF RECOMMEND TO REMOVE THOSE PRODUCTS FROM THE GO FORWARD REPORT, AND THE THIRD PRODUCT IS POWERED MOBILITY PRODUCTS LOCATED IN POMPANO BEACH AND THE DEERFIELD BEACH.

THESE PRODUCTS HAS BEEN COMPLETED, SO I'VE THAT RECOMMEND TO REMOVE FROM THE ROLL FORWARD REPORT AND THE FOUND IN THE ROLL FORWARD REPORT HAS BEEN RELEASED.

THE BROWARD MPO STAFF RECOMMEND TO MODIFY FOUR PROJECTS IN THE ROLL FORWARD REPORT.

THE TOP THREE PROJECTS IN THE TIP INCLUDE CARES FUNDS, BUT THOSE CARES FUNDS NOT REFLECTED IN THE ROLL FORWARD REPORT.

SO BROWARD MPO STAFF RECOMMEND TO ADD THOSE FACES TO THE ROLL FORWARD REPORT TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE TIP.

THE FIRST PROJECT IS AS [INAUDIBLE] PROJECTS.

A PORTION OF THE FUNDS HAS BEEN OBLIGATED IN ORDER TO REFLECT THOSE FUNDS OBLIGATED, SO WE MODIFIED THE FUNDING FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022.

THE GO FORWARD REPORT ALSO INCLUDES 14 PRODUCTS WORTH ABOUT ONE POINT FIVE BILLION DOLLARS OF MPO ATTRIBUTABLE FUNDS ROLLING FORWARD.

THIS SLIDE SHOWS THOSE PROJECTS.

NEXT, LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT THE SECOND PART OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT.

THIS PART IS TO AMEND TO A TURNPIKE PROJECT.

THIS SLIDE SHOWS THE TWO TURNPIKE PRODUCTS, TURNPIKE SEPARATED THESE TWO PROJECTS INTO SMALL PIECES.

THE FUNDING AMOUNT HAS BEEN INCLUDED IN THE TIP, BUT PROJECT THE LIMITS PORTION NOT INCLUDED IN THE TIP, SO TURNPIKE REQUEST TO MODIFY PROJECT LIMITS THOSE PRODUCTS ON THE TURNPIKE MAINLINE.

SO THE PRODUCT LIMITS CHANGE TO FROM FORTY SEVEN POINT TWO TO FORTY SEVEN POINT NINE.

IT'S ABOUT POINT SEVEN MILES.

SO WITH SIZE TODAY, THE BROWARD MPO ARE SEEKING A MOTION TO APPROVE AMENDMENT TO FISCAL YEAR 2022 TO 2026.

TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, A FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ROLL FORWARD REPORT WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS BE CHANGED TO FLORIDA'S TURNPIKE ENTERPRISE PROJECTS.

I HAVE NUMBER 4379901 RESURFACING, RESURFACED TURNPIKE MAINLINE IN BROWARD COUNTY, MILEPOST BETWEEN FORTY SEVEN POINT TWO AND FIFTY FOUR POINT SIXTEEN, AND I HAVE NUMBER 4379903 ROAD SIDE IMPROVEMENTS IN BROWARD COUNTY, MILEPOST BETWEEN FORTY SEVEN POINT TWO AND FIFTY FOUR POINT SIXTEEN WITH SIZE SO FAR WITH AMPLE STAFF AND ACTIVITY, STAFF

[00:45:01]

ALL RIGHT, MS. CHEN, THANK YOU SO MUCH.

QUESTIONS FOR MS. CHEN? MEMBER JAFFE.

THANK YOU, CHAIR.

YES, I HAVE A QUESTION IF MR. STUART CAN ADJUST, ADDRESS THIS.

SURE THING.

THANK YOU ON THE VERBIAGE FOR ROLL FORWARD.

JUST FOR THE PUBLIC AND THE TRANSPARENCY OF THE PUBLIC THAT MIGHT BE WATCHING THIS MEETING AT A LATER DATE OR SOMETHING TO UNDERSTAND THAT THESE PROJECTS THAT ARE BEING INCLUDED IN THE ROLL FORWARD ARE NOT PRIOR CANCELED PROJECTS OR PROJECTS THAT WERE SITTING IN THE CORNER GATHERING DUST AFTER WE APPROVED THE TIP LAST MONTH, AND WE'RE BEING THEY'RE BEING BROUGHT BACK ALIVE AGAIN AND HOW THE TIP IS AN ANNUAL PROCESS.

BUT IT LOOKS FORWARD FIVE YEARS FOR FUNDING, SO THE PUBLIC UNDERSTANDS A LITTLE MORE EXPLANATION OF THESE LITTLE FORWARDS THAT ARE BEING BROUGHT IN.

SO ROLL FORWARD BASICALLY IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OUR BUDGET YEAR, WHICH WE DO JULY ONE TO THE FEDERAL BUDGET YEAR, WHICH IS OCTOBER ONE, AND THE PROJECTS THAT DR.

CHEN WAS ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW, EXPLAINING TO YOU ARE THE PROJECTS THAT WE ALSO ARE IDENTIFYING CARES ACT FUNDING FOR.

SO THOSE PROJECTS WERE ALREADY IN THE TIP.

IT'S NOW WE'RE CHANGING THE FLAVOR OF MONEY TO ALLOW FOR MORE STPG MONEY FOR FUTURE PROJECTS.

SO THERE ARE TWO THINGS HAPPENING HERE THAT YOU'RE MOVING FORWARD WITH, BUT THIS IS AN ANNUAL PROCESS.

AND THEN THE TWO TURNPIKE PROJECTS OBVIOUSLY ARE JUST VERY SPECIFIC TO THE TURNPIKE AGENCY ITSELF.

BUT ALL OF THIS IS JUST BECAUSE OF BUDGET YEARS, AND THIS IS THERE'S THREE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT VOTES YOU'RE GOING TO TAKE.

IT'S GOING TO BE ONE IMPROVING THE TIP, TWO, ENDORSING THE WORK PROGRAM AND THREE DOING THE ROLL FORWARD.

AND THIS KEEPS THE ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION SIDE OF WHAT WE'RE PLANNING FOR MOVING FORWARD.

THAT ANSWER THAT ENOUGH? YES, THANK YOU, MR. STUART.

FURTHER QUESTIONS? VIRTUAL QUESTIONS? ANYBODY FROM THE VIRTUAL? NO, ALL RIGHT.

WE'LL NEED A MOTION FOR ITEM TWO.

AND MR. CHAIRMAN, THAT'S TO APPROVE BOTH A AND B AS PART OF ITEM TWO.

THAT IS CORRECT.

NEED A MOTION.

YOU HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER CARN AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MCGEE, HOLD ON, I'M TRYING TO FIND IT.

THERE COMMISSIONER CARN, SECONDED BY A MEMBER MCGEE.

ALL RIGHT, DISCUSSION.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE INDICATE.

AND ANYONE WHO MIGHT...

GABRIEL, ANYONE WHO MIGHT BE VIRTUAL, IS OBJECTING.

HEARING NONE AND EVERYONE IS UNANIMOUS.

VERY GOOD.

SO YOU JUST YOU CAN GO HOME AND TELL PEOPLE YOU JUST KEPT THE $5.1 BILLION TIP MOVING FORWARD IN OUR REGION.

THEY'LL LIKE THAT.

THOSE ARE BIG NUMBERS.

OK, LET'S GO THROUGH SOMETHING.

ITEM THREE.

I'M TRYING, HOLD ON.

THIS IS A MOTION TO APPROVE.

HOLD ON.

YES, SIR.

OK, NOW GO AHEAD.

THANK YOU.

[3. MOTION TO APPROVE Amendments to the Complete Streets and other Localized Initiatives Program (CSLIP) Policies and Evaluation Criteria]

THE MOTION.

PRESENTATION MR..

.

THERE IS A PRESENTATION BY STAFF.

ALL RIGHT, LET'S HAVE IT KERRY MACNEIL COME ON DOWN.

GOOD MORNING.

MORNING.

ALL RIGHT, I DO HAVE A PRESENTATION FOR YOU ALL TODAY.

MY NAME IS KERRY MACNEIL AND I AM CSLIP MANAGER AND I WAS HERE EARLIER IN THE MONTH OF MAY AT YOUR WORKSHOP, WHERE WE INITIALLY ACTUALLY DID A JOINT PRESENTATION WITH THE HUBS PROGRAM AND INTRODUCE THE, YOU KNOW, INTENT TO UPDATE THE CSLIP POLICIES AND CSLIP EVALUATION CRITERIA THIS THIS CYCLE.

SO WITH THAT, I'LL GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED IN THE PRESENTATION.

SO THIS IS THE COMPLETE STREETS AND OTHER LOCALIZED INITIATIVES PROGRAM, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS C SLIP POLICY AND EVALUATION CRITERIA UPDATE.

SO QUICK RECAP, WHAT IS CSLIP? IT IS A GRANT PROGRAM THAT PROVIDES FUNDING FOR SMALL LOCAL TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS, WHICH IMPROVE THE SAFETY MOBILITY FOR ALL TRANSPORTATION USERS IN BROWARD.

SO THE COMPETITIVE GRANT PROGRAM CAN FUND PROJECTS SUCH AS, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, COMPLETE STREETS PROJECTS.

OF COURSE, TRAFFIC CALMING INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS, ADA UPGRADES, MOBILITY HUBS, BIKE RACKS AND TECHNOLOGY ADVANCEMENTS SUCH AS TRANSIT SIGNAL PRIORITY AND TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES.

SO PART ONE OF THE PRESENTATION TODAY WILL BE THE POLICIES UPDATE AND THEN THE SECOND PART OF THE PRESENTATION WILL MOVE INTO THE EVALUATION CRITERIA UPDATE.

SO WHY ARE WE UPDATING THE POLICIES AND THE EVALUATION CRITERIA THIS YEAR? WE ARE MAKING UPDATES DUE TO CHANGES IN PROJECT MANAGEMENT.

MOST IMPORTANTLY, THE LOCAL AGENCY PROGRAM OR LAP, IS THE ONLY DELIVERY MECHANISM.

[00:50:02]

WE'RE PROPOSING GREATER DETAIL OF WHAT IT MEANS TO BE PROGRAM READY FOR A PROJECT, TO BE PROGRAM READY IN THE CSLIP POLICIES.

AND WE'RE DOING IT TO CREATE CONSISTENCY WITH THE 2045 METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN, OR MTP.

SO WE'RE REVISING PROPOSING REVISIONS TO THE CSLIP CRITERIA TO BE IN THE POLICIES, TO BE IN LINE WITH THE MTPS PROJECT PRIORITIZATION CRITERIA.

SO YOU'LL RECOGNIZE THIS SLIDE AND THE ONE AFTER IT FROM MY PRESENTATION IN MAY, SO THE PREVIOUS CSLIP THEMES WERE SAFETY, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, CONNECTIVITY AND MOBILITY.

THE PROPOSED CSLIP THEMES ARE SAFETY, ACCESSIBILITY, EQUITY, MOBILITY, ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP AND ECONOMIC VITALITY.

AGAIN, YOU SAW THIS TABLE BACK IN MAY, BUT JUST SHOWING IT AGAIN TO KIND OF SHOW THE PROPOSED WAITING, HOW THIS IS ALL DIVIDED UP, THE SAFETY AND ACCESSIBILITY THEMES ARE PROPOSED TO BE WEIGHTED HIGH.

THE EQUITY MOBILITY PROPOSED TO BE WEIGHTED MEDIUM AND ECONOMIC VITALITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP HAVE A LOWER WEIGHT AND THIS WILL BE REFLECTED IN THE UPDATED EVALUATION CRITERIA, AND IT'S REFLECTED IN THE POINTS THAT A PROJECT CAN EARN IN EACH OF THESE CATEGORIES.

OK, SO UPDATE TO THE POLICIES, I HAVE DETAILS HERE OF THE CHANGES, SOME SOME REDLINING AND THE BLACK TEXT IS TEXT THAT HAS NOT CHANGED.

AND THEN BLUE IS BRAND NEW.

AND THEN OF COURSE, RED IS TO BE STRICKEN.

SO WE ADDED A PURPOSE AND OVERVIEW SECTIONS TO THE POLICIES AND WHICH WAS NOT THERE BEFORE.

SO JUST TO PROVIDE SOME PURPOSE AND DIRECTION, I THINK I READ OFF PRETTY MUCH THE PURPOSE IN THE BEGINNING SLIDE THAT IT PROVIDES FUNDING FOR SMALL LOCAL TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS THAT IMPROVE SAFETY MOBILITY.

AND THEN THE OVERVIEW DETAILS THAT IT'S A GRANT PROGRAM AND IT LISTS THE TYPES OF PROJECTS THAT IT CAN FUND.

SECOND SLIDE, THERE ARE NO CHANGES PROPOSED HERE, THE CAP PER APPLICATION IS STILL $3 MILLION FOR CONSTRUCTION AND THE MINIMUM IS STILL $500000 FOR CONSTRUCTION AND THE LIMIT OF THE NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS THAT A LOCAL AGENCY OR AN APPLICANT CAN SUBMIT IS STILL THE SAME AS LAST YEAR.

SO I'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE IN TO THE NEXT SLIDE.

I THINK THIS MIGHT BE THE AN OUTDATED PRESENTATION, BUT THIS THIS BULLET HERE AT THE TOP, IT DETAILS THE ADDITIONAL TEXT THAT WE'RE ADDING JUST TO CLARIFYING THAT IF AN APPLICANT SUBMITS MORE THAN ONE PROJECT IN A CYCLE, THE LOCAL AGENCIES MAY LIST THEIR PROJECTS IN PRIORITY ORDER.

AND THEN WE ARE STRIKING, PROPOSING TO STRIKE THE PART OF THIS THAT SAYS THE PROJECT WILL BE DELIVERED.

THAT RESOLUTION SHOULD NOTE THAT THE PROJECT WILL BE DELIVERED VIA LAP IF LOCATED ON A LOCAL FACILITY, IF REQUIRED, IT IS REQUIRED.

SO WE JUST WANTED TO PROVIDE SOME CLARIFICATION THAT IF YOU'RE LOCATED ON A LOCAL FACILITY OFF THE STATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM, THE PROJECT WILL BE DELIVERED USING THE FEDERALLY MANDATED LOCAL AGENCY PROGRAM PROCESS IN WHICH THE LOCAL AGENCY SEEKS REIMBURSEMENT FOR PROJECT COSTS.

AGAIN, I THINK THESE ARE OUTDATED SLIDES AND I THIS WAS A CONCERN OF THE TAC AND WE ADDRESSED IT IN THE LAST MEETING WHEN WE WENT TO THE TAC IN AUGUST AND IT WAS APPROVED AS PROPOSED.

SO GO AHEAD AND GO INTO THE SECOND BULLET HERE, WE ARE ADDING SOME CLARIFICATION THE LETTER FOR OR SORRY PROJECT PROPOSED ON STATE FACILITIES THE THE POLICIES USED TO JUST SAY THAT A LETTER OF SUPPORT IS REQUIRED IN JUST A LETTER, BUT WE ARE, WE SPOKE WITH FDOT AND ARE ADDING SOME CLARIFICATION THAT IT'S CALLED A LETTER OF CONSISTENCY AND CALLING IT A DOCUMENTATION OF DETERMINATION FROM FDOT, RATHER THAN THE LANGUAGE LETTER OF SUPPORT.

SO NO CHANGES TO THE TOP BULLET AND THEN THE SECOND BULLET, WE ARE JUST ADDING EXAMPLES OF WHAT IT WHAT AN APPLICANT WOULD HAVE TO PROVIDE, WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR TO SHOW PROOF OF PUBLIC OUTREACH AND PUBLIC SUPPORT.

MEETING NOTES, MEETING RECORDINGS, LETTERS OF SUPPORT, AND THEN AN APPLICANT SHALL PROVIDE DOCUMENTATION OF OUTREACH TO POTENTIALLY IMPACTED PROPERTIES.

OK, AGAIN, WITH THIS TOP BULLET ADDING SOME CLARIFICATION THAT WHEN WE

[00:55:04]

AND THEN YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE PROOF OF RIGHT AWAY IN THE APPLICATION.

WE'RE JUST CLARIFYING THAT WE WOULD ACCEPT A RIGHT OF WAY MAP, SURVEY OR PLOT.

SECOND, PROVIDING MORE DETAIL OF WHAT IT MEANS TO BE PROGRAM READY.

THOSE PROGRAM READY REQUIREMENTS, OUR SCOPE OF WORK, COST ESTIMATE, RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT AND PARTNER COLLABORATION, AND THEN JUST DETAILING THAT A COST ESTIMATE MUST BE AND THE APPROPRIATE FORMAT PROVIDED BY FDOT AND PREPARED AND SIGNED BY PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER AND THIRD BULLET, NOTHING HAS CHANGED.

HERE WE ARE STRIKING THE PART OF THIS POLICY THAT DETAILS THE 4.0 MILLION DOLLAR CONSTRUCTION CAP WITH CONTINGENCIES.

OK, SECOND, PART OF THE POLICIES, THE PROCESS POLICIES.

AGAIN, AN ANNUAL PROCESS FOR SUBMISSION OF APPLICATIONS, NOTHING HAS CHANGED.

MINIMUM SIX WEEK PERIOD WILL BE PROVIDED FOR SUBMISSIONS.

NOTHING HAS CHANGED.

SO THE NEW LANGUAGE THAT WE ARE PROPOSING IS THAT THE DETAILING WHAT THE LEAD STAFF, WHO THE LEAD STAFF PERSON SHOULD BE FOR CSLIP.

THE LEAD STAFF PERSON SHALL BE A FULL TIME EMPLOYEE OF THE LOCAL AGENCY, WHO IS ALSO A QUALIFIED PROFESSIONAL WITH EXPERIENCE IN PROJECT MANAGEMENT, ENGINEERING AND OR PLANNING OR RELATED FIELD, WHO WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE COORDINATION WITH THE MPO AND FTOP STAFF.

PLEASE REFER TO SECTION 2.4 OF FDOT'S LOT MANUAL FOR THE DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE RESPONSIBLE CHARGE.

THIS WAS A CONCERN OF THE TAC, THE PART WHERE IT SAYS FULL TIME EMPLOYEE OF THE LOCAL AGENCY.

I THINK WE, YOU KNOW, WE PROVIDE SOME CLARIFICATION THAT IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THIS PERSON'S ONLY JOB IS PROVIDING OR IS MANAGING LACK PROJECTS.

IT JUST MEANS THAT, YOU KNOW, AS OPPOSED TO HAVING A CONSULTANT AS THE LEAD STAFF PERSON.

IT DOES NEED TO BE A FULL TIME EMPLOYEE OF THE LOCAL AGENCY.

AND AGAIN, THIS THAT THE POLICIES WERE PASSED BY THE TAC IN AUGUST AS PROPOSED.

LET'S SEE.

OK, CHANGES TO THE THIRD BULLET.

WE ARE UPDATING THE WEIGHTING OF THE REFERENCE TO THE WEIGHTING OF THE CRITERIA THEMES IN THE POLICY.

SO AGAIN, WE'RE GOING FROM THE OLDER FOUR THEMES TO THE NEW SIX THAT ARE IN LINE WITH THE 20:45 MTP PROJECT PRIORITIZATION CRITERIA.

THAT'S THE SAFETY, ACCESSIBILITY, EQUITY, MOBILITY, ECONOMIC VITALITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP.

AND YOU CAN SEE THE PROPOSED ASSOCIATED WEIGHTING PERCENTAGES NEXT TO EACH OF THOSE.

AND THIS WAS A CONCERN BECAUSE WE WENT TO THE TAC A FEW MONTHS AGO, WE DIDN'T HAVE THE FULL DETAILS OF THE EVALUATION CRITERIA.

THE POINT SYSTEM AND THE SCORING.

BUT WE DID WHEN WE CAME BACK IN AUGUST AND WE PRESENTED THAT TO THEM AND WE ALSO HAVE THAT FOR YOU TODAY.

AND AGAIN, THAT WAS APPROVED, AS IS.

OK, JUST ADDING SOME DETAIL, SOME CLARIFICATION TO OUR PROCESS ON THIS SECOND BULLET HERE THAT IT'S A...SORRY, AN ITERATIVE AND ITERATIVE PROCESS WE FOLLOWED, WHICH INCLUDES THE MPO BOARD APPROVAL OF THE RANK PROJECT'S INCORPORATION OF THE PROJECT INTO THE MPOS MULTIMODAL PRIORITIES LIST, THEN PROGRAMED IN THE FTOD WORK PROGRAM AND THE MPO'S TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.

SO AGAIN, JUST ADDING SOME ADDITIONAL CLARIFICATION AND LET'S SEE TWO NEW POLICIES AT THE END HERE.

THE SECOND AND THIRD BULLET ADDITION IS FINAL.

PROJECT RANKING WILL REFLECT THE PRIORITY OF THE LOCAL AGENCY AND THEN CHANGE IN PROJECT SCOPE AFTER THE SUBMIT AFTER SUBMITTAL MAY RESULT IN THE REMOVAL OF A PROJECT FROM CONSIDERATION FOR FUNDING.

THIS IS TO AVOID SCOPE CREEP OR CHANGE IN SCOPE AFTER A PROJECT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED AND RANKED.

AND AGAIN, THIS WAS ADDRESSED AT THE LAST TAC MEETING AND AS ACTUALLY AS AN ATTACHMENT TO THIS BOARD ITEM WAS THE WRITE UP THAT WAS STAFF'S RESPONSE TO THE CONCERNS OF THE TAC.

SO YOU DID HAVE THAT FOR YOUR REFERENCE, IF YOU WANTED TO READ THROUGH THAT, IT'S A PART OF TODAY'S AGENDA ITEM.

OK.

I'M GOING TO STOP THERE AND JUST SEE IF, SINCE IT'S KIND OF A TWO PART PRESENTATION TO SEE IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS ON THE POLICIES JUST TO BREAK IT UP, SEPARATE IT FROM THE EVALUATION CRITERIA.

THANK YOU, VICE CHAIR GOOD.

YES, THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.

SO TO THE A COUPLE OF SLIDES, I'LL START WITH SLIDE 14.

YES, SO YOU INDICATED THAT THERE WAS A CONCERN AND YOU REFERENCED THE FACT THAT

[01:00:04]

SO THE LEAD STAFF PERSON SHALL BE A FULL TIME EMPLOYEE OF THE LOCAL AGENCY.

SO WHO IS A QUALIFIED PROFESSIONAL? SO WHAT? WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? WHATIS WHICH PART MEAN THE QUALIFIED PROFESSIONAL? YES, SO SO THE PERSON WOULD HAVE TO HAVE SOME OF THESE SMALL CITIES ARE NOT GOING TO HAVE A FULL TIME EMPLOYEE WITH ENGINEERING PROJECT MANAGEMENT.

SO WHY WHY IS THERE SUCH A REQUIREMENT THAT, OK, THERE IS A REQUIREMENT BECAUSE WE ARE USING LAP THE LOCAL AGENCY PROGRAM PROCESS TO DELIVER THESE CSLIP PROJECTS AND AS PART OF THE LAP FTOD'S LAP REQUIREMENTS AS LISTED IN THEIR MANUAL, THEY HAVE A REQUIREMENT FOR WHAT THEY REFER TO AS THE RESPONSIBLE CHARGE.

YOU KNOW, OUR POLICIES JUST CALL IT THE LEAD STAFF PERSON THAT IS FDOT'S REQUIREMENT FOR THE RESPONSIBLE CHARGE.

SO FDOT IS REQUIRING THAT A CITY HAS TO HAVE AN EMPLOYEE, THEY CAN'T HAVE A CONSULTANT THAT MEETS THIS REQUIREMENT.

THE CITIES CAN USE A CONSULTANT.

BUT THE POINT OF CONTACT AND THE MAIN PERSON TO COMMUNICATE WITH FTOD HAS TO BE A THE WHAT THEY CALL THE RESPONSIBLE CHARGE.

AND THOSE ARE THEIR REQUIREMENTS.

IT DOESN'T PRECLUDE THE CITY FROM HIRING A CONSULTANT TO WORK ON THE PROJECTS.

IT'S JUST THAT THAT POINT OF CONTACT DOES HAVE TO BE A FULL TIME EMPLOYEE OF THE LOCAL AGENCY WITH PROJECT MANAGEMENT, ENGINEERING OR PLANNING.

CORRECT? YES, SO I FIND IT PROBLEMATIC, SO MY NEXT QUESTION IS THEN WE CAN'T CHANGE THAT REQUIREMENT.

IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE TELLING US? IT IS NOT OUR REQUIREMENT.

WE ARE JUST UPDATING OUR POLICIES TO BE CONSISTENT WITH FTOD'S REQUIREMENTS.

MY QUESTION, TO BE CLEAR, YES, WHAT YOU'RE SHARING WITH US IS ITS FDOT'S LAP MANUAL REQUIREMENT.

THEREFORE, THE MPO HAS TO JUST IS OBLIGATED TO ADHERE TO THAT.

THERE'S NO, YOU KNOW, WE'RE CHANGING THE POLICY TO, I GUESS, COINCIDE WITH THEIRS.

AND SO ARE WE SAYING THEN THE MPO CANNOT OBJECT TO THAT.

I MEAN, WE COULDN'T CHANGE IT TO PART TIME.

WE COULDN'T CHANGE IT, WE HAVE TO JUST GO ALONG WITH THIS LANGUAGE I'LL LET...

YEAH, I'M GOING TO GRAB INTO THIS BECAUSE THIS IS PART AND PARCEL OF A MUCH BIGGER ISSUE, AND I THINK THERE'S AN EQUITY ISSUE IN THIS AS WELL.

YES, ESPECIALLY FOR THE SMALLER CITIES.

I, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY WE CAN'T CHANGE DOT POLICY.

THIS IS INTERNAL POLICY THAT THEY'VE CREATED TO ADMINISTER FEDERAL FUNDS TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, AND THIS IS THE PROCESS THAT THEY USE.

I THINK IF THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE INTERESTED IN THIS SUBJECT, STAY AROUND AFTER WE'RE DONE WITH THIS ACTION ITEM, I HAVE A PRESENTATION WITH JAD AS WELL AS PAUL CALVARESI THAT WE'RE GOING TO SHOW YOU WHAT WE'RE DOING UP IN WASHINGTON TO RELIEVE THE BURDEN OFF OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS THAT ARE BEING PLACED BY THIS PARTICULAR POLICY IMPLEMENTED BY STAFF AT THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION.

SO I APPRECIATE COMPLETELY YOUR LINE OF QUESTIONING.

UNDERSTAND THE FRUSTRATION.

I WORK WITH A LOT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS HERE, AS WELL AS EVERYONE ON OUR STAFF AND RECOGNIZE EVEN THE LARGER LOCAL GOVERNMENTS DON'T HAVE THE CAPACITY TO DO THE CERTAIN THINGS THAT ARE ACTUALLY BEING REQUESTED OF THEM.

AND, YOU KNOW, THROUGH MAYOR STONER AND THE FEW OTHERS, COMMISSIONER MCGEE WORKING ON A PROJECT CALLED IMTECH, WE'RE ALSO TRYING TO SOLVE PART OF THAT PROBLEM AS WELL.

SO THERE'S MULTIPLE FRONTS WE'RE WORKING ON.

HOWEVER, YOU KNOW, EVERY TIME I'VE MET WITH DOT, THEY ARE NOT GOING TO CHANGE THEIR LANGUAGE.

THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT THEY MOVED FORWARD WITH AND NOT THE DISTRICT.

IT'S ACTUALLY AT THE STATE LEVEL.

SO, AGAIN, I ASK THE QUESTION THEN THE MPO CANNOT OBJECT TO THIS LANGUAGE AND ESSENTIALLY WE'RE JUST STAMPING IT.

WE CAN OBJECT TO IT.

BUT BUT WE HAVE TO FOLLOW THIS UNTIL WE CAN MAKE A CHANGE TO IT AND THERE'S OTHER WAYS TO MAKE CHANGES.

AND I APPRECIATE THE LEADERSHIP HERE AND THE WAY THAT YOU HANDLE, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE STRUGGLES THAT SOME OF OUR CITIES FACE.

YOU KNOW, I THINK THIS, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, I'M JUST SCHOOL A BOARD MEMBER REPRESENTATIVE ON THIS COUNCIL, BUT I WILL TELL YOU THAT FOR SOME SMALL CITIES, THIS IS A PROHIBITIVE TYPE OF MEASURE THAT THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DEAL WITH.

AND SO I, I REALLY HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT IT.

ONTO SLIDE 10, SO THIS SLIDE

[01:05:01]

WILL THEY GET THE REIMBURSEMENT? SO THE SEEKING SEEKS REIMBURSEMENT FOR PROJECT COSTS.

THE LANGUAGE IS IT'S WRITTEN THAT WAY BECAUSE LAP IS A REIMBURSEMENT BASED PROGRAM.

SO IT WAS THE LANGUAGE WAS ADDED IN THIS WAY SO THAT IT IS NOT ASSUMED THAT THE CITIES WILL AUTOMATICALLY BE REIMBURSED.

THEY HAVE TO APPLY FOR IT AND THEY HAVE TO BE LAP CERTIFIED.

SO THEY DO HAVE TO PROVE THAT THEY ARE LAB CERTIFIED, THAT THEY'RE FOLLOWING THE LAP REQUIREMENTS AND APPLY FOR REIMBURSEMENT.

SO IT'S JUST, YOU KNOW, OUTLINING THAT IS A PROCESS THAT IS NOT AUTOMATIC GUARANTEED UNLESS THEY PARTICIPATE IN LAB.

IS THAT NEW? HAS IT ALWAYS BEEN THAT WAY? OR HAVE CITIES ALWAYS BEEN REIMBURSED? ACTUALLY, ALL FEDERAL HIGHWAY MONIES ARE REIMBURSABLE, INCLUDING FEDERAL TRANSIT.

SO THERE IS AN AT RISK FACTOR TO IT.

I MEAN, EVEN OUR ORGANIZATION.

WELL, WE SAY WE HAVE THIS MONEY, WE BORROW THE MONEY FIRST AND THEN SUBMIT FOR REIMBURSEMENT.

SO AGAIN, IT'S THE CITY'S WILL NOT NECESSARILY BE REIMBURSED.

THERE'S ALWAYS A RISK.

AND WITH REGARD TO, I THINK THERE WAS ONE MORE SLIDE.

SLIDE 17, YES.

SO WHAT DOES CHANGE IN PROJECT SCOPE MEAN? IS IT MINOR, MAJOR, MEDIUM CHANGE, WHAT'S GOING TO TRIGGER THIS? SO WE WILL EVALUATE THE PROJECTS ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS IF IF, IF A IF A CITY OR POLITICAL AGENCY WERE TO SUBMIT A PROJECT, WE RECEIVED THE APPLICATION.

WE RANKED THE PROJECT AND THEN THEY SAY, HEY, WE'D LIKE TO MAKE A CHANGE TO THE SCOPE OR THE LIMITS.

WE WOULD LOOK AT THAT ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS AND DECIDE IF THE PROPOSED CHANGE IS, YOU KNOW, SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH TO, YOU KNOW, DISQUALIFY THE PROJECT...

WHO DECIDES? THE MPO STAFF WILL DECIDE.

SO WE'LL LOOK AT IT.

AND SO IF THEY SAY, FOR EXAMPLE, THEY CHANGE THE PROJECT LIMITS, SO SAY THEY SUBMIT A HALF MILE SEGMENT AND THEN THEY CHANGE TO A QUARTER MILE.

AND IT AFFECTS BASICALLY IF IT AFFECTS THE RANKING OF THE PROJECT AFTER IT'S ALREADY BEEN RANKED, WE WOULD WANT TO HONOR THE RANKING THAT WAS ALREADY DONE AND NOT OFFER A CHANGE AFTER THE FACT.

WHO APPROVES THE RANKING? SO THE RANKING, WE HAVE A RANKING TOOL.

IT'S AN AUTOMATED, MOSTLY AUTOMATED PROCESS.

IT'S AN OBJECTIVE RANKING PROCESS, WHICH WE'LL GO OVER IN THE SECOND PART OF THE PRESENTATION.

YOU KNOW, THIS HAS BEEN THE PROCESS SINCE THE BEGINNING OF CSLIP PROGRAM.

WE'RE GOING TO CYCLE SIX IF I'M IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN.

SINCE CYCLE ONE, WE'VE HAD A OBJECTIVE RANKING TOOL WHERE PROJECTS THE PROJECT LIMITS ARE DIGITIZED AND THEY'RE PUT INTO GIS AND THERE'S A LIST OF CRITERIA AND ASSOCIATED DATA SETS THAT ARE PLACED IN THE TOOL.

AND THE TOOL IS RUN AND IT PRODUCES A SCORE.

SO THE PROJECT SCORED WITH OBJECTIVE CRITERIA.

BUT ONCE THE AND I'M ALMOST DONE MR. CHAIR, SO ONCE THE PROJECTS ARE RANKED AND THEY'RE GIVEN A PRIORITY, BUT DOES THAT COME BEFORE THE MPO? THAT IS CORRECT.

THE MPO BOARD DOES SEE THE PRIORITY PRIORITIZE THE CSLIP PRIORITY LIST AND ULTIMATELY YOU VOTE ON IT AND YOU CAN MAKE ANY CHANGES YOU WANT.

WE DO THE TECHNICAL REVIEW, BUT ULTIMATELY IT'S THE POLITICAL REVIEW THAT IS ALSO AVAILABLE.

PERFECT, PERFECT.

AND SO IF THERE'S A CHANGE IN PROJECT SCOPE AND A PROJECT IS REMOVED, DOES THAT COME BEFORE THE MPO? CAN YOU REPEAT THAT, PLEASE? IF A PROJECT IS PRESUMED TO HAVE CHANGED SCOPE THAT STAFF FEELS THAT IT NEEDS TO BE REMOVED FROM CONSIDERATION, DOES THAT CHANGE COME BEFORE THE MPO? THE NEXT PROJECT IN THE PRIORITY LIST JUST MOVES UP, AND I WOULD LIKE THAT ANY CHANGE TO THE PRIORITY RANKING BASED ON, YOU KNOW, STAFFS GOING TO MAKE A DETERMINATION THAT SOMETHING CHANGED SUFFICIENTLY, THAT IT'S GOING TO CHANGE A LOCAL

[01:10:02]

I THINK IF WE APPROVE THE INITIAL, WE SHOULD BE APPROVING ANY MODIFICATION TO IT, AND I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR FROM MY COLLEAGUES ON THE MPO AND THAT'S THE EXTENT OF MY COMMENTS.

ALL RIGHT, BOARD MEMBER PLACKO.

AND WHILE YOU WAIT, I'LL SING, NO, I'M JOKING.

CAN YOU....

COMMISSIONER PLACKO'S MIC PLEASE ? AND I REALLY DON'T WANT TO SING.

GOOD.

GUYS, TRY IT AGAIN.

TALKING ABOUT, OK.

WE ALL GOOD, THANK YOU.

I'M WONDERING IF YOU CAN TELL ME THE PARAMETERS IN COMMUNITY CONSENT OR COMMUNITY APPROVAL? OH, FOR THE THE PROOF OF PUBLIC SUPPORT.

OK, UM....

YOU ARE ALWAYS GOING TO HAVE SOME PEOPLE WHO ARE FOR IT, AND SOME PEOPLE ARE FOR AGAINST IT, SO HOW DO YOU DEFINE THAT YOU HAVE COMMUNITY APPROVAL? SO THE YOU KNOW, THE POLICIES REQUEST DOCUMENTATION OF LOCAL COMMUNITY SUPPORT.

SO WE LOOK AT THE, YOU KNOW, THE MEETING NOTES OR THE MEETING RECORDINGS OR THE LETTERS OF SUPPORT THAT WE RECEIVE.

AND, YOU KNOW, STAFF MAKES A DETERMINATION IF THERE IS A MAJORITY OF SUPPORT FOR THE PROJECT.

IF SOMEBODY SUBMITS, YOU KNOW, A MEETING, RECORDING OR JUST A MEETING FLIER SAYING THAT THEY THEY DID THE OUTREACH, YOU KNOW, WE WANT TO SEE MORE THAN THAT.

WE WANT TO SEE THAT THERE WAS SOME POSITIVE FEEDBACK.

I DON'T HAVE I'M NOT AWARE OF A SPECIFIC THRESHOLD OR REQUIREMENT ON EXACTLY WHAT DEFINES WHETHER IT WAS SUPPORTED OR NOT.

HOWEVER, THE ULTIMATE PROOF OF SUPPORT THAT WE THAT IN THE POLICIES IS THAT THE CITIES HAVE TO PROVIDE A RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FROM THEIR, FOR EXAMPLE, THEIR CITY COMMISSION.

SO TO SEE IF THERE'S SUPPORT FROM THE COMMISSIONERS AND OF COURSE, THEY REPRESENT THEIR PARTS OF THE COMMUNITY.

SO AS FAR AS THE COMMUNITY SUPPORT, WE DON'T HAVE A STRICT DEFINITION OF IT.

WE REQUEST THE DOCUMENTATION AND THEN STAFF REVIEWS AND MAKES THE DETERMINATION OK AS LONG AS IT DOES GO BACK TO THE CITY COMMISSION.

BECAUSE THE LOUDEST VOICES WILL ALWAYS BE THE PEOPLE WHO ARE AGAINST.

SO I THINK IT'S ONLY FAIR THAT YOU HAVE A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD WITH THAT.

ABSOLUTELY, YES.

THANKS VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU.

MEMBER SCHUMANN.

THANK YOU.

I JUST HAD A QUESTION ABOUT IF YOU WERE TO REMOVE A PROJECT BECAUSE OF A MATERIAL CHANGE.

COULD YOU PUT THE REVISED PROJECT BACK INTO YOUR SOFTWARE THAT GENERATED THE INITIAL RANKING AND IF IT WAS UNCHANGED, THEN USE THAT AS EVIDENCE THAT THE IT SHOULD NOT BE REMOVED? IS THAT GOING TO BE PART OF YOUR PROCESS? MAY I ASK A QUESTION OF CLARIFICATION WHEN YOU SAID A MATERIAL CHANGE? CAN YOU USE THE WORD SIGNIFICANT? OK.

OK.

SO I MIGHT I MIGHT TURN TO JAMES CROMAR ON THIS QUESTION.

DID YOU GET THE QUESTION ABOUT IF A PROJECT WAS IF IT WAS JUST SAYING, CAN THAT SAME SOFTWARE BE UTILIZED? YEAH.

SO SO ONE OF THE CONCERNS WITH A QUESTION OF CHANGE IS, AS KERRY WAS MENTIONING, SOMETHING THAT MIGHT CHANGE THE OBJECTIVE RANKING THAT CAME IN.

AND THE REASON WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S OBJECTIVE IS SO THAT IT'S FAIR TO ALL SO THAT EVERYBODY WILL KNOW THAT, YOU KNOW, LET'S SAY CITY OF HOLLYWOOD, FOR EXAMPLE, SUBMITTED A PROJECT.

IS CARRIE MENTIONED? IT MIGHT HAVE SAID IT'S GOING TO BE A MILE LONG, AND IT SCORED SO MANY POINTS BECAUSE IT WAS SERVING THIS MANY DIFFERENT PEOPLE AND ALL THESE DIFFERENT THINGS.

AND THEN THE PROJECT CHANGES TO A QUARTER MILE LONG.

IT NO LONGER IS GOING TO GENERATE THOSE SAME NUMBER OF POINTS THAT IT WOULD HAVE BEFORE.

AND SO THAT IS SOMETHING THAT OUT OF FAIRNESS TO EVERYBODY TO SAY, WELL, THIS PROJECT DIDN'T SCORE HIGHER THAN MAYOR STONER'S PROJECT.

SO, YOU KNOW, LET'S LET'S SWITCH THAT AROUND.

SO THERE MIGHT BE OTHER CHANGES THAT MIGHT BE, WELL, WE ARE THINKING OF DOING A FIVE FOOT SIDEWALK AND NOW WE'RE DOING A SIX FOOT OR SOME OF THOSE DETAILS LIKE THAT.

IT'S STILL SERVING THE SAME AREA.

IT'S STILL A FACILITY THAT WILL MEET THAT FUNCTION.

YOU MIGHT CHANGE LIGHTING, MAYBE SOME LANDSCAPING THINGS OF THAT SORT.

BUT THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF WHICH ARE THE ELEMENTS OF A PROJECT THAT WOULD ACTUALLY CHANGE THE SCORING.

AND IT'S ALL TIED TO A GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM.

[01:15:01]

IN THE PAST, THE SCORING FOR SOME OF THE FUNDING FOR THE TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT PROJECTS WAS SUPPOSED TO BE OBJECTIVE, BUT THERE WAS A HUMAN FACTOR THAT WAS NOT MAKING IT FAIR.

SO THAT'S WHY WE'VE TRIED TO MAKE IT AS SANITIZED AS POSSIBLE SO THAT WE PUT A WE PUT A PROJECT IN AND THE SCORE JUST COMES OUT THAT WAY.

NO, I APPRECIATE THAT.

MY QUESTION IS IF A CITY WERE TO COME BACK WITH A CHANGE AND YOU RERUN THE RANKING SYSTEM THROUGH THAT SOFTWARE, OK? AND THEN IF THAT CHANGE DID NOT IMPACT, OH, RANKING, THEN THAT'S IT, RIGHT? YEAH, IT WOULDN'T.

IT WOULDN'T.

THERE WOULD BE NOTHING TO THE CLARIFICATION I'M LOOKING FOR.

KERRY WAS SAYING THAT IT WAS STAFF, BUT IT'S REALLY ONLY STAFF IF IT SOMEHOW KICKS OUT OF THAT INITIAL CHANGE IN THAT INITIAL PROGRAM.

YEAH.

OK.

AND AND YOU RAISE A VERY GOOD POINT TOO, THOUGH.

YEAH, WE COULD RUN IT AND SEE IF IT MAKES A DIFFERENCE OR NOT.

THAT'S EXACTLY MY POINT.

THANK YOU.

IT WOULD SEEM TO ME THAT AS LONG AS YOU HAVE THE SOFTWARE THAT YOU USE THAT AS THE FIRST EFFORT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S NOT THE CHANGE DOES NOT IMPACT RANKING, RIGHT? THAT'S THAT WAS MY QUESTION.

AND IT SOUNDS LIKE MAYBE IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT YOU WERE DOING, BUT IT WOULD NOT BE A BAD IDEA TO DO THAT RIGHT? THANK YOU.

AND KERRY CAN REMIND ME WE DID NOT HAVE A WRITTEN POLICY IN THAT REGARD.

PREVIOUS TO THIS, AND THAT'S THIS IS THE FIRST TIME WE'RE INCLUDING IT THIS YEAR.

IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.

YES.

OK, THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

MEMBER JAFFE.

THANK YOU.

I JUST WANTED TO FOLLOW UP ON WHAT VICE CHAIR'S COMMENTS WERE ABOUT THE LAP PROGRAMS, WHETHER IT'S A SMALL MUNICIPALITY OR A LARGE MUNICIPALITY, THAT IN THE RARE INSTANCE WHEN PROGRAMS THAT WERE ALREADY APPROVED BY DOT OR FDOT ARE FOR SOME REASON CHANGED INTO A LAP PROGRAM, THEN THE MUNICIPALITY IS FACED WITH PUTTING THE MONEY UP FRONT TO GET THAT PROJECT ACCOMPLISHED.

AND A LOT OF TIMES THE MUNICIPALITIES HAVE NOT BUDGETED IN THAT FISCAL YEAR FOR THAT FUNDING THAT THEY NEED TO DO.

SO, AND I KNOW THAT MR. STUART HAS BEEN VERY VOCAL AND SUPPORTIVE OF TRYING TO GET CHANGES UP IN WASHINGTON.

SO THESE LAP PROGRAMS ARE NOT THROWN OR PROGRAMS ARE NOT THROWN BACK INTO A LAP AND MIC] I THINK HIS MIKE WENT OFF, BUT I WANT TO ACTUALLY ANSWER THAT, AND MR. CRANE HI, GREG, GO AHEAD, JOHN.

IF YOU WANT TO TRY TO RESPOND AND THEN WE'LL PUT YOU ON MUTE AGAIN AND BRING IN THE OTHER QUESTIONS, YOU MIGHT MAKE A MOTION.

CAN YOU HEAR ME? YEAH, WE CAN HEAR YOU.

GO AHEAD, JOHN.

OK.

HI, MY NAME IS JOHN CRANE.

I'M THE DISTRICT FOUR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL ADMINISTRATOR.

I WANTED TO RESPOND TO ACTUALLY A COUPLE OF THINGS, BUT LET ME RESPOND TO THE QUESTION AT HAND.

SO I BELIEVE HE WAS TALKING ABOUT FLIPPING OF PROJECTS FROM DOT TO LAP.

YOU KNOW, THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT OCCURRED AND THAT WAS KIND OF A ONE TIME THING.

WE HAD BEEN ADMINISTERING PROJECTS, YOU KNOW, THROUGH THE [DOT] PROCESS AND AS RESOURCES DICTATED A SHIFTING OF OUR RESOURCES, WE HAD FLIPPED THE PROJECTS TO A LAB PROCESS, WHICH WAS A PROCESS THAT HAD BEEN USED FOR YEARS, RIGHT? AND THEN WE WORKED WITH THE MPO STAFF TO KIND OF GET THOSE PROJECTS BACK INTO THE WORK PROGRAM, WHERE THE MUNICIPALITIES WOULD THEN BE REIMBURSED FOR THAT DESIGN AND CGI PHASES.

SO WE HAVE BEEN MEETING WITH THEM THROUGHOUT THE PAST YEAR TO GET THOSE PROJECTS REALLOCATED BECAUSE ONCE THEY WERE FLIPPED TO LAP, IT WAS JUST A CONSTRUCTION ONLY PHASED PROCESS.

AND NOW WE HAD TO REPROGRAM THE DESIGN PHASE SO THAT THE MUNICIPALITIES COULD BE REIMBURSED FOR THAT DESIGN.

SO THIS FLIPPING PROCESS IS NOT GOING TO BE HAPPENING IN THE FUTURE.

SO WE'RE VERY SENSITIVE TO THE SAME ISSUES THAT THE MUNICIPALITIES ARE.

IF IT HADN'T BEEN PLANNED FOR, YOU KNOW, IT'S CERTAINLY A BURDEN UPON THEM TO, YOU KNOW, TO START PRODUCING THESE PROJECTS.

SO WE DID AGREE WITH THE MPO AND A NUMBER OF ORDINANCES THAT WERE RECEIVED TO REIMBURSE THE DESIGN, AS WELL AS CEI AND CONSTRUCTION.

SO THEREFORE, THE WHOLE PROJECTS, YOU KNOW, THE MUNICIPALITIES WOULD BE MADE FULLY HOLD FOR THOSE PROJECTS.

AND I BELIEVE THIS COMING DRAFT TENTATIVE WORK PROGRAM, HOPEFULLY WE'RE GOING TO SEE ALL THOSE PROJECTS BACK IN THE WORK PROGRAM WHERE WE COULD ACCOMMODATE THE DESIGN AND

[01:20:05]

I DID WANT TO ALSO ADDRESS THE QUESTION ABOUT BECOMING LAP CERTIFIED, THAT IS ACTUALLY NOT JUST A DOT IMPOSED PROCESS.

MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE FEDS FEDERAL GOVERNMENT REQUIRES US TO CERTIFY THE LEAD AGENCIES.

AND SO IN ORDER TO SPEND THOSE FEDERAL DOLLARS, SO THERE HAS TO BE A CERTIFICATION PROCESS TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE AGENCY MEETS, YOU KNOW, IS QUALIFIED TO ENFORCE ALL THE FEDERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS THAT GO ALONG WITH SPENDING FEDERAL DOLLARS AND THEN RELATED TO THE SECOND QUESTION ABOUT REIMBURSEMENT, I GUESS THERE ARE WHEN WE WHEN YOU ENTER INTO A LAP PROJECT, YOU ARE ENTERING INTO A MONETARY AGREEMENT FOR THAT REIMBURSEMENT AMOUNT, AND THAT'S WHY THERE WAS A QUESTION.

SO IS THERE A QUESTION ABOUT REIMBURSEMENT? ONLY QUESTION ABOUT REIMBURSEMENT WOULD BE IF DOLLARS EXCEEDED THAT AGREEMENT AMOUNT OR IF SOMETHING WAS DONE THAT IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR FEDERAL FUNDING.

AND SO PART OF WHAT THE FEDS WILL ONLY PAY FOR CERTAIN TYPES OF THINGS.

AND WHEN WE GO THROUGH THE LAP CERTIFICATION PROCESS, WE TRY TO MAKE SURE THAT THE MUNICIPALITIES ARE INFORMED ABOUT THOSE TYPES OF ISSUES AND ITEMS THAT WOULD BE ELIGIBLE AND ARE NOT ELIGIBLE SO THAT IT DOESN'T HAPPEN AHEAD OF TIME.

AND WE, I THINK, WORK WITH THE MUNICIPALITIES THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE PROCESS AS WELL.

SO IF THERE'S A QUESTION OR A CHANGE THAT'S COMING UP THAT THE MUNICIPALITY WANTS TO IMPLEMENT, YOU KNOW, THE COORDINATION WITH DOT TO VERIFY WHETHER OR NOT THAT ELIGIBLE THAT ITEM IS ELIGIBLE FOR REIMBURSEMENT SHOULD HAPPEN OBVIOUSLY BEFOREHAND.

SO MAKE SURE THAT THEY DON'T EXPOSE THEMSELVES TO THAT ITEM OR NOT BEING REIMBURSED.

AND IF THERE IS A COST OVERAGE, THE MUNICIPALITY, ACCORDING TO THE AGREEMENT, IS TYPICALLY ALLOW THE OPPORTUNITY TO PETITION DOT FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF THE OVERAGE IF FUNDING IS AVAILABLE YOU KNOW, WE'VE HAD MANY INSTANCES WHERE WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO INCREASE THE AGREEMENT AMOUNT TO REIMBURSE THOSE ELIGIBLE EXPENSES AS WELL.

SO HOPEFULLY THAT ADDRESSES THE THREE QUESTIONS OR THE ONE QUESTION AND THE TWO ADDITIONAL POINTS THAT I WANTED TO CLARIFY.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, OK, MEMBER SCHROEDER? YES, I WANT TO GO BACK TO WHAT BOARD MEMBER GOOD BROUGHT UP ABOUT HAVING TO HAVE A FULL TIME EMPLOYEE.

HOW IS THAT DEFINED? SOME MUNICIPALITIES CONTRACT OUT, SO, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW.

I KNOW CITY OF PINES CONTRACT SOME WORKS WITH SOME OTHER WORK WITH A COMPANY.

ARE THEY CONSIDER FULL TIME OR BUT YOU COULD HAVE A FULL TIME ENGINEER I WOULD IMAGINE THAT WOULD BE ABLE TO DO THAT AS WELL AND DEFINED UNDER FULL TIME...

AS LONG IT COULD BE A CONTRACT EMPLOYEE.

WELL, I'M NOT SAYING IT WOULD BE CONTRACTED TO BE AN EMPLOYEE OF THE CITY, THEN WE, YOU KNOW, LIKE A LOT OF SMALL MUNICIPALITIES, ARE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO.

.. IT'S BASICALLY JUST..

MS. KERRY, WHAT'S YOUR ANSWER? SO I MEAN, THIS REQUIREMENT COMES FROM THE LAP MANUAL FROM FDOT LAP MANUAL.

SO REALLY, I THINK THEY WOULD BE THE ONES TO PROVIDE THAT INTERPRETATION.

YOU KNOW, IN THE PAST, OUR POLICY JUST SAID, YOU KNOW, YOU MUST SELECT A LEAD STAFF PERSON.

AND THAT WAS IT JUST ENDED THERE.

SO WHAT WE'RE DOING IS JUST TRYING TO PROVIDE, YOU KNOW, BE TRANSPARENT AND PROVIDE A HEADS UP THAT IF YOU, YOU KNOW, IF YOU APPLY FOR THIS PROGRAM, IF YOU APPLY FOR FUNDING THROUGH THE CSLIP PROGRAM, THESE ARE THE REQUIREMENTS YOU ARE GOING TO MEET.

ONCE YOU KNOW, IF YOUR PROJECT IS AWARDED AND FUNDED, THESE ARE GOING TO BE THE REQUIREMENTS.

SO WE'RE TRYING TO PROVIDE AS MUCH INFORMATION AS POSSIBLE TO BE CONSISTENT WITH WITH FDOT IN THE LAP MANUAL.

BUT OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, I DON'T WANT TO OFFER THAT INTERPRETATION SINCE IT IS NOT FROM OUR IT'S NOT DIRECTLY A REQUIREMENT.

MAYBE WE COULD GO FOR LIKE WITH WEST AND BE PRECLUDED FROM PARTICIPATING, SINCE THEY TRADITIONALLY HAVE LIKE FOUR EMPLOYEES OR SEVEN OR WHATEVER IT IS, THEY HAVE LESS THAN WE DO.

WOULD THIS, EXCUSE ME, WOULD THIS QUESTION BE GOOD FOR MR. O'REILLY? I THINK WHAT WE'LL DO IS DIRECTLY MAKE SOME REQUESTS FROM...

OK, THAT'S WHAT I'M THINKING, NOT ONE OF THE DOT PEOPLE IN THE AUDIENCE? GOOD.

SO I'M SURE HE'LL BE HAPPY TO TAKE THIS, YOU KNOW, QUESTION BACK AND ASK THAT, AND WE CAN ALWAYS GET BACK TO US.

THEY'RE GOOD ABOUT THAT.

ALRIGHT, VICE CHAIR GOOD.

[01:25:02]

SO THE THE ISSUE OF NO LONGER AND I THINK IT'S IN THE POLICY I'M LOOKING AT NOT THE POWERPOINT, BUT THE POLICIES ITSELF, IT SAYS PROCESS POLICIES.

IT'S JUST A SIMPLE BULLET THAT REFERENCES CHANGE IN PROJECT SCOPE AFTER SOME MIDDLE MAY RESULT IN REMOVAL, BUT IT DOESN'T REALLY SAY HOW IT'S ACHIEVED.

AND THE TAKEAWAY I GOT WHEN THE QUESTION WAS ASKED IS IT WAS LIKE AN AHA MOMENT.

I DIDN'T GET THE FEELING THAT STAFF WAS GOING TO USE THE EVALUATION CRITERIA AGAIN, SO I'D LIKE THAT TO BE CLARIFIED.

YES, MADAM VICE CHAIR.

IT ACTUALLY IS A VERY SHORT LIST OF PROJECTS AND THE SOFTWARE PROGRAM IS SO FAST.

I MEAN, IT DOESN'T TAKE A LOT OF TIME.

SO WE WOULD IF THERE WAS A SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE, THAT WOULD BE THE VERY FIRST THING THAT WE WOULD DO.

SECOND, IF IT TURNS OUT THAT THE RANKING WAS DIFFERENT, WE WOULD NOTIFY NOT ONLY THE STAFF THAT SUBMITTED THE PROJECT, BUT ALSO THE BOARD MEMBER TO LET THEM KNOW.

AND THEN THEY COULD BRING THAT FORM IF THEY WANTED TO MAKE IT PUBLIC.

THEY COULD AIR THEIR GRIEVANCE PUBLICLY, AND THAT DECISION IS ULTIMATELY UP TO ALL OF YOU.

SO THERE'S A CLEAR AND TRANSPARENT PROCESS THAT WOULD BE BROUGHT FORWARD TO EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU.

SO I DIDN'T I DIDN'T GET THAT FEELING WHEN THE QUESTION WAS ASKED AT ALL.

AND AND SO THE ISSUE OF TAKING OUT THE HUMAN FACTOR, AND I THINK YOU MENTIONED THAT, BUT THAT WASN'T WHAT I GOT WHEN SHE ASKED THE QUESTION.

SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE THE HUMAN FACTOR IS TAKEN OUT THAT THE SOME TYPE OF EVALUATION CRITERIA WOULD BE UTILIZED.

AND IF THE MPO, AS THE THE CORPORATE HEAR, APPROVES THE LIST OF PRIORITIES, IF SOMETHING'S GOING TO CHANGE, I DO BELIEVE IT NEEDS TO COME BACK AND IT SHOULDN'T JUST BE ON STAFF TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION, AND SOMEHOW WE ALL THINK THAT THE LIST IS LOOKING A CERTAIN WAY AND SOMETHING CHANGED ALONG THE WAY AND THINGS DO HAPPEN.

BUT I WOULD HOPE IT'S A MATERIAL CHANGE, AND I WOULD LIKE THE OPPORTUNITY AS A MEMBER OF THE MPO TO AT LEAST HAVE THE CHANCE TO BE AWARE OF ANY CHANGE THAT SUBSTANTIAL LIKE THAT, SO.

AND WE WOULD BRING THAT BACK.

IT HASN'T HAPPENED YET AND WE DON'T ANTICIPATE A DRASTIC CHANGE.

BUT IF THERE WERE, WE WOULD DEFINITELY BRING IT BACK FOR YOUR...

BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT I GOT WHEN I ASKED THE QUESTION EARLIER.

SO I'M GOING TO ASK COUNCIL, DO WE NEED TO TO SPECIFY THIS SOMEWHERE IN POLICY THAT ANY CHANGE TO THE LIST OF PRIORITIES MUST COME BACK BEFORE THE MPO? YOU CAN ALWAYS REQUIRE THAT.

YEAH, SO I WILL MAKE THAT MOTION.

THERE YOU GO.

THE SECOND TO THAT MOTION.

WHO WAS THAT? OK.

DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION.

ALL RIGHT, LET'S CHANGE OUR SCREENS AND VOTE.

YOU HAVE TO PUT YOUR THING THAT, OH, I'M SORRY.

SHUT IT OFF.

GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER.

YOUR MIC.

BOTTOM RIGHT CORNER.

THIS IS NOT LIKE SUNRISE, WE HAVE ELECTRONICS HERE.

I HEARD, JUST GO AHEAD AND ASK.

RIGHT, SO I JUST WANT TO SAY I FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH STAFF DOING WHAT THEY'RE DOING.

THEY TOOK OUT THE PERSONAL ELEMENT OUT OF THIS AND ADDED TO WHAT YOU'RE DOING NOW BY PUTTING IT THROUGH.

SO I FEEL COMFORTABLE.

I THINK US AS CITIES, I UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU'RE TRYING TO.

DOT HAS IT THIS WAY SO THAT SOMEONE WHO IS NOT KNOWLEDGEABLE DOESN'T JUST START CHANGING PROJECTS AS THEY GO, BECAUSE IT'S STAFF TAKING THE TIME TO GO THROUGH ALL THESE PROCEDURES AND GO THROUGH ALL THESE PROJECTS.

I UNDERSTAND YOU KNOW WHERE YOU'RE GOING WITH IT, BUT I JUST DON'T WANT ALL THESE LIKE EVERYBODY THEN COULD START CHANGING AND THEN EVERYTHING STARTS COMING BACK TO US, I FEEL.

YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A LARGE MPO, WE HAVE A LOT OF DIFFERENT CITIES, WE HAVE A LOT OF DIFFERENT OPINIONS.

I THINK THE WAY IT'S GOING THAT YOU'VE ALREADY CHANGED IT THAT WAY, THE SAME WAY THE COUNTY CHANGE THAT ON US, THAT WE CAN'T BE ON A SELECTION COMMITTEE BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU GOT TO KNOW THIS AND YOU GOT TO KNOW THE RANKINGS, YOU THROW SOMEBODY A FIVE AND SOMEBODY GETS A ONE AND REALLY MESSED UP THE RANKING.

I THINK GOING TO THIS IS A LOT BETTER.

I FEEL COMFORTABLE NOW THAT THE WAY YOU EXPLAINED IT TO ME, I JUST WOULDN'T WANT TO START CHANGING THIS PROCESS.

AND I THINK THAT IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO CHANGE A PROJECT THAT'S THAT MAJOR, YOU KNOW, WELL,

[01:30:01]

NOW, ALL OF A SUDDEN, AT THE END OF THE PROJECT, YOU WANT TO THROW A WRENCH IN AND WHERE YOU WERE GOING TO DO, LIKE YOU SAID, A MILE OF A BROAD WALK THAT'S GOING TO MAKE EVERY CONDOMINIUM HAPPY.

AND NOW YOU'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT, THAT ONLY FIVE ARE GOING TO BE HAPPY, THEN YOU'RE BACK INTO THE SAME PROBLEM.

SO I JUST FEEL THE PROCESS THAT YOU CHANGE IS COMFORTABLE.

I JUST DON'T WANT THINGS TO BE COMING BACK.

AND THEN NOW IT COMES TO THE FULL VOTE THAT, YOU KNOW, SUNRISE SAYS, HEY, I WAS DOING A MILE.

NOW I WANT TO DO A QUARTER OF A MILE AND I WANT TO CHANGE THE WHOLE PROCESS.

I WANT TO BRING IT TO THE BOARD AND GO FOR A VOTE.

I JUST IT'S TO ME THAT'S GOING TO BE LIKE, I DON'T KNOW, THAT'S JUST MY OPINION.

ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER.

I NEED A MOTION MR. CHAIR.

I STILL HAVE THE SECOND PART OF THE PRESENTATION BEFORE YOU VOTE.

OK, OK, THANK YOU.

IT WAS AN AMENDMENT.

OH, OK, THEY CAN VOTE ON IT ON THE FULL THING, KERRY AS AMENDED.

HOLD ON, GO AHEAD, MR. CHAIR, SORRY YOU CAN TAKE THAT VOTE.

WELL, ARE WE HEARING THE PRESENTATION AND ARE WE GOING TO TAKE THE MOTION, VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT AND THEN LET'S A MOTION.

I CAN'T SEE IT YET.

HOLD ON A SECOND, I'M TRYING TO GET THOSE.

THE MOTION IS I CAN'T GET ON MY SCREEN WHO MADE IT.

CAN WE CLARIFY THE MOTION? THE MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER GOOD OR SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER GOOD AND THE SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MCGEE, AND IT'S TO AMEND.

IF THERE'S A CHANGE, IT WILL HAVE TO COME BACK TO THE BOARD FOR FULL APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT.

OK, ALL RIGHT.

OK, AND I CAN'T CHANGE MY SCREEN HERE, I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON.

MIDDLE BOTTOM BUTTON, I KNOW...NOT WORKING.

NOPE.

SO WE HAVE A NUMBER OF YESES AND NO'S I HAVE WHEN I BRING UP MY SCREEN, IT'S GOT ALL THE VOTES.

YEP, THAT'S IT.

THAT SHOULD BE THAT.

AND WE HAVE ONE.

BUT I WAS LOOKING FOR THE MOTIONNER AND THE SECOND, SO I COULD...

AT HE BOTTOM OF THE SCREEN.

OK, IT'S MADE BY COMMISSIONER GOOD, BY MEMBER GOOD SECONDED BY MEMBER MCGEE.

ALL RIGHT, NOW LET'S VOTE.

AND ANY OF THE VIRTUAL MEMBERS PARTICIPATING.

IF YOU'RE VOTING NO, PLEASE SPEAK UP.

ALL RIGHT, MR. GABRIEL, IT PASSES.

THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT, COMMISSIONER GOOD, YOU HAVE A QUESTION ON SOMETHING? OK, COMMISSIONER COLBOURNE, GO AHEAD.

I'M GETTING THERE IN TERMS OF THE FULL TIME EMPLOYEE THAT WAS BEING DISCUSSED.

I'M JUST WONDERING, I KNOW IT'S PROBABLY A BURDEN ON SOME OF THE MUNICIPALITIES OR MAYBE PROHIBITIVE, BUT HAVE WE CHECKED TO SEE HOW MANY MUNICIPALITIES HAVE WE DONE SOME SORT OF A SURVEY WITH THE MUNICIPALITIES? DO WE KNOW HOW MANY ARE ACTUALLY AFFECTED BY THIS? WE'RE ACTUALLY GOING THROUGH AND DOING THAT PROCESS NOW THROUGH ACTUALLY THIS NEW BUDGET YEAR.

WE HAVE HIRED A PARTICULAR EMPLOYEE THAT HAS EXPERIENCE WITH THAT AND IS GOING TO BE SURVEYING NOT ONLY THE CITIES AND THE COUNTY, BUT ALSO DOT ITSELF, BECAUSE DO THEY HAVE THE STAFF TO DELIVER AS WELL? OK, SO THE OTHER QUESTION I HAD WAS ON THE LAP CERTIFICATION PROCESS.

THIS IS THIS IS JUST EVERY TIME A PROJECT IS AWARDED, ONCE IT'S AWARDED THAT MUNICIPALITY THAT HAS BEEN AWARDED TO, THEN THEY WILL JUST MAKE SURE THAT THEY MEET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS, THE RULES THAT WE ARE GOING THROUGH NOW.

YEAH, THEY WOULD.

THEY WOULD HAVE TO DO THAT EVERY TIME FOR EVERY LAP CERTIFIED PROJECTS THEY'D BE REVIEWING.

AND FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND NOT TO THROW EVEN MORE, CAN YOU KNOW, CONFUSION TO THE SUBJECT IS THEY WOULD DO A LAP CERTIFICATION REVIEW FOR YOU TO DO THE ORIGINAL DESIGN AND ENGINEERING.

AND THEN WHEN YOU GO TO CONSTRUCTION, THEN THERE'S A SECOND LAP CERTIFICATION THAT YOU WOULD GO THROUGH TO DO THAT.

SO THEY'D BE DOING THE LAP PROCESS MULTIPLE TIMES.

AGAIN, BUT THIS LAP, THE CERTIFICATION PROCESS STARTS AFTER IT'S AWARDED.

CORRECT.

OK, VERY GOOD.

AND THEN IN TERMS OF THE CHANGES TO THE AWARDS, I KNOW THAT IF SOMEONE IS IS REMOVED FROM IT, IT WILL COME BACK TO US BASING OUR VOTES NOW.

BUT IN TERMS OF RUNNING IT BACK THROUGH THE SYSTEM, I'M NOT SURE WHAT TIME FRAME WE WERE LOOKING AT BECAUSE IF IT AFFECTS PROJECTS THAT ARE ALREADY BEEN AWARDED, ARE WE

[01:35:05]

AND IT'S AT THAT TIME THAT YOU WOULD DISCOVER IF THERE WERE ANY SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES BECAUSE IT WOULD BE OUTSIDE THE SCOPE THAT WAS ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED.

SO IT WOULD BE AT THAT TIME THAT THEY WOULD GO BACK AND CHECK IF THOSE CHANGES THAT WERE IN SCOPE GENERATED A DIFFERENT VALUE THROUGH THE RANKING SYSTEM TOOL.

IT WOULD BE BEFORE ANY OF THE PROJECTS ARE AWARDED? CORRECT, BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO HAVE A SIGNED AGREEMENT BEFORE YOU WOULD GET ANY REIMBURSEMENT.

OK, BECAUSE ONCE IT'S AWARDED, YOU CAN'T, YOU KNOW...

YOU CAN'T MAKE SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES AND THAT'S THE BIG THING.

SO IN THE NEW AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PROJECTS IN THE NEW FIFTH YEAR THAT WOULD BE GOING THROUGH THIS PROCESS, EXISTING PROJECTS ARE ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW, IN OUR TIP CURRENTLY THAT $5 BILLION DOCUMENT.

SO THESE WOULD BE FOR ANY NEW FIFTH YEAR PROJECTS.

OK, SO THIS KIND OF COMPLICATES EVEN MORE BECAUSE IF IT HASN'T BEEN AWARDED, IT HASN'T COME TO US.

SO THEREFORE, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE VOTED ON REALLY DOESN'T COME INTO PLAY...

CORRECT, YOU WOULDN'T SEE IT UNTIL WE ACTUALLY PUT IT IN THE TIP IN THE WORK PROGRAM.

OK, BEFORE WE GO TO THE PRESENTATION, I HAVE A QUESTION MR. STUART..

I'M IN OFFICE TWENTY FIVE YEARS AND I SEE IN THESE ACRONYMS CHANGE BACK AND FORTH.

AM I CLEAR IN MY COMPOSITION OF LAP AGREEMENT THAT THE CITIES CAN STILL GO AHEAD AND DO THE PROJECT WITH THEIR OWN MONIES AND THEN GET REIMBURSED BY THE STATE FOR TIME ESSENCE? AS LONG AS THEY HAVE LAP AGREEMENT IN PLACE AND MEET FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS AND STATE REQUIREMENTS, THEN YEAH.

IT'S FOR A PARTICULAR PERSON, BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE, YEAH, NOT YOU.

OK, WE'RE READY.

THANK YOU FOR THAT EXPLANATION.

WE'RE READY FOR THE SECOND PRESENTATION.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.

OKAY, SO THE SECOND PART IS REGARDING THE EVALUATION CRITERIA, THE CHANGES, THE UPDATES TO THE EVALUATION CRITERIA.

SO THIS IS THE PREVIOUS CSLIP EVALUATION CRITERIA THAT WAS USED IN THE CYCLE FIVE.

SO THIS IS THE CRITERIA AND THE POINT SYSTEM THAT WAS, YOU KNOW, EMPLOYED THAT WAS RUN THROUGH THE TOOL.

SO THIS IS HOW THE PROJECTS WERE MEASURED AND SCORED.

AND SO WE DID SOME, SOME UPDATES AND BASICALLY THE PROCESS THAT WE WENT THROUGH.

AND I WILL JUST POINT OUT I WILL MAKE A NOTE THAT THE ATTACHMENT NUMBER TWO FOR THIS AGENDA ITEM, THIS CHART WAS UPLOADED AS ATTACHMENT NUMBER TWO.

THAT WAS A MISTAKE, WE ACTUALLY HAVE THE REVISED CRITERIA TABLE THAT IS INCLUDED IN THIS POWERPOINT PRESENTATION, WHICH WAS ATTACHMENT NUMBER FOUR TO THIS AGENDA ITEM.

SO WE DO HAVE THE DETAILS HERE, BUT I JUST WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT THAT THAT WAS THE THE OLD, THE OLD CHART.

SO BASICALLY WHAT WE DID IS WE SELECTED THE CSLIP CYCLE SIX, WHICH IS THE UPCOMING CYCLE PROJECT EVALUATION CRITERIA, WHICH WAS BASED AS I WENT OVER EARLIER ON THE SIX MTP THEMES.

AND THEN WE ESTABLISH DATA SETS TO MEASURE EACH CRITERIA.

A LOT OF THE DAY'S DATA SETS WE ALREADY HAD BASED ON THE CURRENT EVALUATION CRITERIA.

SO A LOT WE USED SOME OF THE SAME.

YOU KNOW, SOME OF THEM WE LOOKED AT, DO WE HAVE UPDATED INFORMATION? DO WE HAVE UPDATED MORE UP TO DATE DATA TO USE? AND YOU WOULD REPLACE IT, YOU KNOW, ACCORDINGLY.

AND THEN, YOU KNOW, ALSO GRAB SOME, SOME NEW DATA SETS.

SO THEN WHAT WE DID NEXT WAS WE DETERMINED THE PROPOSED SCORING METHODOLOGIES AND THE POINT SYSTEM.

SO WE LOOKED AT, YOU KNOW, REVISING ANYTHING THAT WE NEEDED TO REVISE, WE BUILT.

SO BASICALLY, WE BUILT THE NEW PROGRAM EVALUATION TOOL.

AN INTERNAL TEAM HERE BUILT THE TOOL FROM SCRATCH.

SO INTERNALLY AND THEN WE CONDUCTED TEST RUNS OF THE TOOL.

SO WE WHAT WE DID WITH THE TEST RUNS IS WE USED THE PROPOSED EVALUATION CRITERIA AND THE PROPOSED POINTS AND SCORING PLUGGED IT INTO THE TOOL.

AND WE USED PROJECTS, DIGITIZED PROJECTS THAT WERE ACTUALLY REAL PROJECTS SUBMITTED FROM CYCLES ONE THROUGH FIVE.

AND WE ALSO CREATED SOME DUMMY PROJECTS TO TEST AS WELL.

SO WE RAN THAT THROUGH THE TOOL AND THEN WE MADE ANY NECESSARY REVISIONS TO THE SCORING METHODOLOGIES OR POINT SYSTEM.

SO AGAIN, THIS CHART JUST SHOWING YOU THIS CHART TO POINT OUT THE WEIGHTING PERCENTAGES THAT WE'RE PROPOSING, APPLYING TO EACH OF THESE MTP THEMES OR THE EVALUATION CRITERIA.

SO SAFETY AND ACCESSIBILITY THAT WOULD HAVE A WEIGHT OF 20 PERCENT EQUITY MOBILITY

[01:40:01]

SO IN THE WAY WE DID, THAT WAS THROUGH POINTS.

YOU KNOW, IF IN THE SAFETY CATEGORY, A PROJECT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO EARN, YOU KNOW, 20 PERCENT OF THE OVERALL POINTS.

SO I'M JUST BREAKING IT DOWN.

THESE NEXT SLIDES ARE BREAKING DOWN THE CHANGES TO EACH CATEGORY, SO THERE'LL BE THERE'S A THE FIRST CATEGORY.

IT USED TO BE CALLED CONNECTIVITY.

WE'RE NOW CALLING IT ACCESSIBILITY AGAIN TO BE IN LINE WITH THE TWENTY FORTY FIVE MTP.

AND SO YOU'LL SEE THAT WE HAVE USED TO HAVE ACTIVITY CENTERS, SCHOOLS AND CONNECTIONS TO EXISTING FACILITIES.

WE NOW, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE ACTIVITY CENTERS, EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES AND CONNECTION TO EXISTING FACILITIES.

WE STILL HAVE THOSE.

WE NOW HAVE POPULATION DENSITY AND TRANSIT STOPS AS A PART OF THE ACCESSIBILITY CATEGORY OR ACCESSIBILITY THEME.

THE POPULATION DENSITY, WE HAVE PROJECTS AWARDED POINTS BASED ON THE CONNECTION TO OR ADJACENT TO ONE OR MORE OF THE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONES WITH POPULATION DENSITY AREAS BY PERCENTAGE, AND THEN THE TRANSIT STOPS PROJECTS ANALYZED IN A WORD OF POINTS BASED ON THE NUMBER OF TRANSIT STOPS PER ONE QUARTER MILE OF PROJECT LENGTH WITHIN THE BUFFER.

SO THE NEXT CATEGORY IS MOBILITY.

IT'S STILL CALLED MOBILITY.

BUT WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS WE USED TO HAVE TRAFFIC VOLUME PER LANE AND THEN TRANSIT BOARDINGS.

WE NOW JUST HAVE A TRAFFIC VOLUME PER LANE.

WE TOOK THE TRANSIT BOARDINGS.

WE DON'T HAVE UP TO DATE DATA FOR.

WE DIDN'T HAVE THAT DATA AVAILABLE TO US TO USE.

AGAIN, WE HAVE TO USE.

WE'RE NOT NECESSARILY COLLECTING DATA.

THE MPO IS NOT COLLECTING DATA FOR THIS.

WE ARE USING DATA SETS THAT ARE EXISTING THAT WE HAVE AVAILABLE TO US.

SO WE'RE LOOKING AT TRANSIT.

SORRY, I'M LOOKING AT TRAFFIC VOLUME PER LANE FOR MOBILITY AND THEN FOR THE SAFETY CATEGORY WE HAD BASICALLY IT WAS JUST SEPARATED INTO TWO COLUMNS THE NON VEHICULAR CRASHES AND THE VEHICULAR CRASHES.

NOW IT'S ALL IT'S COMBINED INTO ONE, BUT WE STILL ARE LOOKING AT BOTH NON VEHICULAR, MEANING PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE CRASHES.

AND THEN ALSO VEHICULAR CRASHES.

SO BUT WE'RE USING THE THE HIGH INJURY NETWORK TO ANALYZE SAFETY.

SO WE ARE ANALYZING AND AWARDING POINTS BASED ON PROJECTS RELATIONSHIP TO THE HIGH INJURY NETWORK, WHICH INCLUDES VEHICULAR AND NON VEHICULAR, SERIOUS INJURY OR FATALITY, OR FATAL CRASHES OCCURRING WITHIN WITHIN THE BUFFER DURING A FIVE YEAR PERIOD.

FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, WE HAD THE EMPLOYMENT, POPULATION, PROPORTION AND EQUITY.

EQUITY IS NOW ITS OWN CATEGORY, SO WE TOOK THAT OUT, BUT IT'S NOT, YOU KNOW, HASN'T DISAPPEARED, IT'S JUST IN ITS OWN CATEGORY.

SO WE ARE LOOKING AT FOR ECONOMIC VITALITY, EMPLOYMENT DENSITY AND THEN REGIONAL ACTIVITY CENTERS, WHICH ARE ACTUALLY THE MTP.

THEY COME FROM THE MTP ACTIVITY CENTERS, WHICH ARE MPO, IDENTIFIED CANDIDATE MOBILITY HUBS, COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AREAS OR CRAS AND BROWARD NEXT ACTIVITY CENTERS.

ALL RIGHT, THIS ONE HERE AGAIN, EQUITY IS NOW ITS OWN, ITS OWN CATEGORY.

SO EQUITY INCLUDES BOTH.

WE'RE LOOKING AT BOTH THE PROJECT'S EQUITY SCORE FROM THE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING EQUITY ASSESSMENT, WHICH IS AN ASSESSMENT THAT THE BROWARD MPO PRODUCED.

AND THEN WE ARE IN BASICALLY THOSE EQUITY SCORES, THEIR COMPOSITE SCORES, SO THEY TAKE INTO ACCOUNT MINORITY POPULATIONS AND ELDERLY POPULATIONS, COMMUNITY 65 AND OLDER, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE WHO ENGLISH ISN'T THEIR FIRST LANGUAGE.

THINGS LIKE THAT.

SO THERE'S ABOUT THERE'S SIX FACTORS THAT GO INTO THAT, CREATE THAT EQUITY SCORE, THAT COMPOSITE SCORE.

AND THEN ALSO WE ARE INCORPORATING ALSO FROM THE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING EQUITY ASSESSMENT.

WE'RE LOOKING AT ZERO VEHICLE HOUSEHOLDS.

SO WE'RE LOOKING AT PROXIMITY TO HOUSEHOLDS WITH NO VEHICLES AVAILABLE BASED ON THAT TRANSPORTATION PLANNING EQUITY ASSESSMENT.

AND THEN ALSO A NEW CRITERIA, ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP.

WE ARE LOOKING AT RESILIENCY, WE'RE LOOKING TO SEE WE'RE USING THE AGAIN THE BROWARD MPO'S DATA FROM THE EXTREME WEATHER AND CLIMATE CHANGE RISK TO THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IN BROWARD COUNTY, THAT STUDY.

SO WE'RE LOOKING AT PROJECTS THAT ARE IT'S IN IT'S TWOFOLD THE PROJECT WOULD

[01:45:03]

AND THEN ALSO THE SECOND PART IS THAT THERE HAS TO BE A RESILIENCY, A COMPONENT TO THE PROJECT SCOPE, SO THE PROJECT WOULD HAVE TO ADDRESS A RESILIENCY ISSUE.

OK, AND HERE'S THE FULL CHART INCORPORATING ALL THOSE NEW SECTIONS THAT I JUST WENT OVER.

SO YOU SEE FROM LEFT TO RIGHT, YOU HAVE ACCESSIBILITY AND SAFETY IN THE DARK BLUE.

AND SO YOU CAN SEE AGAIN THE 20 PERCENT, YOU CAN EARN A TOTAL OF 90 POINTS, SAFETY 20 PERCENT AND THEN IN THE MIDDLE AND THE MEDIUM BLUE EQUITY AND MOBILITY, 17 PERCENT AND 17 PERCENT EACH.

AND THEN ECONOMIC VITALITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP.

YOU STILL HAVE A PROJECT, STILL THE POTENTIAL TO EARN UP TO FOUR HUNDRED AND FIFTY POINTS.

THAT'S THE SAME AS LAST YEAR, BUT THE WAY THE POINTS ARE SPLIT UP ARE A LITTLE DIFFERENT, OBVIOUSLY, BECAUSE WE HAVE NOW SIX CATEGORIES.

SO THIS CHART CONTAINS THE PROJECT SORRY, THE EVALUATION CRITERIA, NAME, THE DESCRIPTION.

THE INDICATOR LIKE HOW THEY CAN EARN POINTS AND THEN THE DATA SOURCE AT THE BOTTOM.

SO AGAIN, THIS IS THE THIS IS THE REVISED REVISED CHART.

SO THIS IS WHAT WE WOULD USE IN OUR IN OUR TOOL FOR CYCLE SIX TO MEASURE THE PROJECTS TO GET THE RAW SCORE? SO WHEN WE WENT, WE WENT TO THE ATTACK [INAUDIBLE] AUGUST 25TH A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO AND THEY HAD A FEW.

THEY HAD A REQUEST FOR AMENDMENTS.

THEY APPROVED THE ITEM.

THEY RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THIS ITEM TO THE MPO BOARD, TO ALL BUT WITH REQUEST FOR AMENDMENTS AND THE MAJORITY OF THE AMENDMENTS.

STAFF BELIEVES THAT STAFF AGREES WITH THEM AND AGREES THAT THEY PROVIDE SOME MORE CLARIFICATION AND WE'RE NOT OPPOSED TO INCORPORATING THOSE AMENDMENTS.

SO ON THIS SLIDE HERE, I HAVE JUST LISTED THE AMENDMENTS THAT WE CAN MAKE TO THE TEXT IN THE EVALUATION CRITERIA TABLE THAT ADDRESS THEIR CONCERNS.

SO THE FIRST IS WITHIN THE ACCESSIBILITY THEME.

THEY POINTED OUT THAT THE USE OF THE WORDS ACTIVITY CENTER IS A BIT CONFUSING BECAUSE OF THE BROWARD LAND USE PLANNING FUTURE LAND USE PLAN.

THEY USE THE WORDS ACTIVITY CENTERS, SO WE'RE PROPOSING CHANGING LOCAL ACTIVITY CENTERS TO JUST COMMUNITY FACILITIES.

AND THEN A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE SCHOOL BOARD BROUGHT UP THE CONCERN OF USING THE WORD THE WORDS EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES THAT IT DIDN'T THAT IT WASN'T IN LINE WITH THE STATUTORY DEFINITION OF EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES.

SO STAFF IS PROPOSING REVERTING BACK TO THE NAME OF SCHOOLS, WHICH IS WHAT IT WAS BEFORE IN THE CRITERIA TABLE.

AND THEN THERE WERE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS ON WHETHER THE SCHOOL'S DATA INCLUDES PUBLIC SCHOOLS PRIVATE SCHOOLS.

DOES IT INCLUDE CHARTER SCHOOLS, THINGS LIKE THAT? SO JUST SOME CLARIFICATION WE CAN ADD TO THE DEFINITION OF SCHOOLS IN THE EVALUATION TABLE THAT COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES.

IT DOES INCLUDE PRIVATE AND PUBLIC COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES.

AND THEN ALSO THERE WAS A QUESTION ON WHETHER THE PUBLIC SCHOOL K THROUGH 12 DATA INCLUDES CHARTER SCHOOLS, AND IT WAS CONFIRMED BY BROWARD COUNTY THAT IT DOES INCLUDE CHARTER SCHOOLS.

SO THAT'S JUST A NOTE THERE.

AND THEN THE LAST THING WE PROPOSE WE CAN CHANGE REGIONAL ACTIVITY CENTERS TO MTP ACTIVITY CENTERS TO, YOU KNOW, TRY TO AVOID ANY CONFUSION WITH THE BROWARD NEXT ACTIVITY CENTERS.

THE LAST CONCERN, I BELIEVE, FROM THE TAC WAS THEY IN REGARDS TO THE C SLIP POLICIES.

THEY WERE LOOKING AT THE POLICIES AND THERE'S A POLICY, YOU KNOW, THAT SAYS THAT YOU NEED A RESOLUTION AND AN APPLICANT NEEDS A RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT, YOU KNOW, IN CONJUNCTION WITH THEIR PROJECT FOR IT TO BE PROGRAM READY.

AND THEN THERE IS ANOTHER POLICY THAT SAYS THAT IF A PROJECT IS LOCATED ON A STATE FACILITY, YOU NEED A LETTER OF CONSISTENCY FROM FDOT AND YOU NEED TO, YOU KNOW, PREPARE FOR SIX WEEKS, LEAD TIME TO GET THAT LETTER.

THEY PROPOSED THAT THEY REQUESTED THAT IT ALSO READ THAT, YOU KNOW THE COUNTY NEEDS SIX WEEKS LEAD TIME, THAT THE APPLICANT NEEDS TO START COORDINATING WITH THE COUNTY AND THAT THEY NEED APPROVAL FROM THE BROWARD COUNTY COMPLETE STREETS TEAM.

AND THEN THERE WERE CONCERNS ABOUT THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, HOW THEY DO NOT PROVIDE A RESOLUTION SUPPORT EITHER.

THEY JUST YOU HAVE TO HAVE A APPROVED PERMIT PROOF OF AN APPROVED PERMIT FROM THEM.

[01:50:07]

WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT ANY POLICY CHANGES WE DO ARE ALL INCLUSIVE SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO COME BACK NEXT YEAR AND CHANGE THEM AGAIN.

SO WE ARE LOOKING INTO IT AND DO AGREE THAT SOME CHANGES COULD BE MADE TO JUST CLARIFY THAT IF THE FACILITY OWNER IS IS NOT, YOU KNOW, IS NOT THE APPLICANT, YOU NEED A RESOLUTION OR SOME SORT OF APPROVAL FROM THIS FACILITY OWNER AND THEY DON'T ISSUE A RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT THAT, YOU KNOW, IT MIGHT BE CALLED SOMETHING ELSE.

SO THERE MIGHT BE SOME LEAD TIME THAT YOU HAVE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT.

SO WE'RE NOT WE'RE NOT PROPOSING ANY CHANGES TO THE POLICIES AT THIS TIME.

AND THAT'S PRETTY MUCH IT.

WE'RE GOING TO UPDATE THE APPLICATION INFORMATION PAGE ON THE C SLIP WEBSITE IF THINGS PASS AND WE'LL UPDATE ALL THESE DOCUMENTS SO THAT THE APPLICANTS GETTING READY FOR THIS NEXT CYCLE WILL HAVE UP TO DATE.

THEY CAN REFERENCE THE POLICIES, EVALUATION CRITERIA, ETC.

AND THEN WE ARE PLANNING ON HOSTING THE ANNUAL WORKSHOP AT THE SEPTEMBER 2ND TAC MEETING.

THAT IS A VIRTUAL WORKSHOP ALREADY, SO THAT WILL BE AT THE END OF THE TAC MEETING.

AND THAT'S PRETTY MUCH IT.

SO I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ENTERTAIN ANY QUESTIONS.

GREAT PRESENTATION.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER MEMBER SIMMONS.

YEP, THERE WE GO.

ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU SO MUCH.

I HAVE A QUESTION AND I'M NOT SURE IF IT IS OUTSIDE OF THE SCOPE OF THE C SLIP, BUT I JUST WANT TO ASK THIS.

AND SO, FOR INSTANCE, CORAL SPRINGS, WE ARE HAVING THREE VERY LARGE REDEVELOPMENTS HAPPENING AT UNIVERSITY AND SAMPLE, AND I'VE BEEN VERY I'VE BEEN WONDERING HOW WE CAN BEST IMPROVE OUR TRANSIT IN THAT AREA AND EMBRACING MODERN TECHNOLOGIES WITH THOSE REDEVELOPMENTS BECAUSE IT'S EASIER TO IMPLEMENT NEW THINGS WHILE EVERYTHING'S BEING BROKEN DOWN AND BUILT BACK UP.

AND SO WHEN YOU HAVE A CITY LIKE THAT THAT IS HAVING THESE MAJOR REDEVELOPMENTS.

I KNOW THAT MOST OF THE STUFF WE DO HERE, IT'S MORE OF, YOU KNOW, THE CITIES NEED TO REACH OUT AND APPLY AND DO THIS STUFF.

AND, YOU KNOW, BUT IS THERE ANYONE LIKE WITHIN THE MPO THAT WILL REACH OUT TO THE CITIES AND SAY, HEY, WE NOTICED THAT YOU'RE HAVING THIS MAJOR REDEVELOPMENT; HAVE YOU APPLIED OR HAVE YOU TAKEN A LOOK AT SOME OF THE THINGS YOU WANT TO DO AND APPLY FOR THESE PROGRAMS? DO WE HAVE ANYTHING LIKE THAT? AND I KNOW THAT MAY NOT BE A QUESTION [INAUDIBLE] YES, I SAID IT MIGHT BE OUTSIDE OF THE SCOPE, BUT IT'S ACTUALLY A LITTLE BIT OUTSIDE OF C SLIP.

BUT ACTUALLY, I JUST SENT OUT THIS MORNING AND I HOPEFULLY YOU GUYS ALL RECEIVED IT.

I THINK IT WAS ABOUT 6:30 THIS MORNING, AN EMAIL TO EVERYBODY SAYING, HEY, WE'RE HOLDING THESE GRANT WORKSHOPS FOR THAT EXACT SAME REASON.

AND ACTUALLY IT'S TO PREPARE YOU FOR THE REAUTHORIZATION BILL AS WELL BECAUSE THERE'S HALF A TRILLION DOLLARS WORTH OF DISCRETIONARY FUNDS IN THAT.

AND I'M TELLING YOU WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT BUILDING BACK THINGS, THAT IS THIS OPPORTUNITY THAT WE DON'T WANT [INAUDIBLE].

WE HAVE EXISTING MONEY.

BUT NOW THIS EXTRA MONEY, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY IS GETTING TO IT.

AND SO THAT'S THE FIRST OF A SERIES OF WORKSHOPS [INAUDIBLE] SIMONE AND I, ALONG WITH PAUL CALVARESI, ARE GOING TO BE HOSTING THAT WITH OUR TEAM MEMBERS, IT WILL BE VIRTUAL.

SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO PHYSICALLY BE HERE, BUT WE'D WANT YOU AND ALL YOUR TEAM MEMBERS FROM THE CITY TO BE PARTICIPATING.

SO YOU SHOULD BE THINKING ABOUT THE PROJECTS YOU DO HAVE AND THINGS THAT CAN BE USED TO MOVE FORWARD.

FOLLOW UP MR. [INAUDIBLE].

THANK YOU AND THANK YOU FOR THAT ANSWER.

I APPRECIATE THAT AND WE'LL MAKE SURE I KNOW.

I KNOW I SAW THAT EMAIL AS WELL, SO I'LL MAKE SURE WE'RE ON TOP OF IT, AT LEAST ON OUR END.

I GUESS IF A CITY PROPOSES A PROJECT OR THEY APPLY FOR A PROJECT THAT FITS ANOTHER TYPE OF PROGRAM, FOR INSTANCE, YOU SAID THE GRANTS, BUT LET'S SAY SOMETHING THAT COULD FIT IN C SLIP.

WOULD WE REDIRECT THOSE ENTITIES TO THE APPROPRIATE WAY TO GET THOSE FUNDS? POINT OF CLARIFICATION, IT WOULD BE FOR ALL I CONSIDER [INAUDIBLE] GRANT PROGRAM.

OK.

SO BASICALLY, EVERYTHING THAT WOULD BE THE WORLD OF OPPORTUNITY THAT WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO GET TO, WE WOULD HAVE THAT AVAILABLE FOR YOU.

OK, THANK YOU.

JUST, YOU KNOW, MY MY VERY SHORT TIME BEING HERE.

YOU KNOW, I JUST I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE CITIES ARE REALLY UNDERSTANDING WHERE THEY NEED TO GO AND TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY HAVE THE BEST OPPORTUNITY TO RECEIVE THOSE FUNDS TO IMPLEMENT SOME OF THE THE ITEMS THEY WANT TO TAKE CARE OF.

I KNOW THAT SOMETIMES STUFF CAN GET A LITTLE CONFUSING, GET A LITTLE A LOT OF JARGON AND THINGS THAT MAY CONFUSE FOLKS.

BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT, YOU KNOW, AND I'M NOT SAYING YOU HAVEN'T BEEN HELPFUL, BUT JUST REALLY MAKING SURE THAT IN THIS NEW AGE WHERE THERE'S A BIGGER PUSH TO

[01:55:04]

SO THANK YOU, SIR MR. [INAUDIBLE].

I CAN TELL YOU THAT WE OFTEN HAVE THE CITIES APPLIED TO MULTIPLE GRANTS AND SEE WHICH ONE WORKS OUT TO GETTING FUNDING FASTER.

[INAUDIBLE].

THANK YOU.

SURE.

I JUST WANTED TO.

BRING UP SOMETHING THAT JUST STRUCK ME WITH WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT WITH CHANGING THE TITLE FROM EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES TO SCHOOL.

WOULD THAT THEN OMIT OR MAYBE I'D BE WORRIED ABOUT MAKING IT TOO SPECIFIC AND NOT BEING ABLE TO BE BROADER TO INCORPORATE? MAYBE, I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE IT ALREADY DOES TECHNICAL INSTITUTES OR EXTRACURRICULAR THINGS.

THE ONE THAT POPPED INTO MY HEAD FIRST AND FOREMOST IS LIKE HANDY AND WILTON MANORS.

I KNOW WITH WORKING WITH THEM THAT BEING NEAR PUBLIC TRANSIT, IT WAS A HUGE PUSH FOR THEM FOR CHILDREN TO BE ABLE TO GET THEIR AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAMS. SO MAYBE WE SHOULD LEAVE IT AS EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES TO BE ABLE TO ENCOMPASS MORE THINGS THAT AREN'T NECESSARILY SCHOOLS.

IF I MAY RESPOND SO THE NAME, THE CURRENT, THE CURRENT C SLIP EVALUATION TABLE THAT WAS USED IN CYCLE FIVE, IT READS SCHOOLS SO STAFF WAS PROPOSING THE CHANGE TO EDUCATIONAL EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES, AND THE TAC HAD A CONCERN ABOUT THE USE OF EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES.

REALLY, THE NAME IS JUST THE TITLE, AND THE THING THAT REALLY SETS, IN MY OPINION, IS MOST IMPORTANT IS THE DATA SOURCE.

SO WHAT DATA SETS ARE WE USING TO MEASURE THAT CRITERIA? SO AT THE MOMENT, YOU KNOW THAT DATA WE HAVE THAT WE'RE USING IS PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND INCLUDING CHARTER SCHOOLS K THROUGH 12 AND THEN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES.

AT THE MOMENT, I DON'T I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY DATA SETS THAT INCLUDE THINGS LIKE, YOU KNOW, NONTRADITIONAL TYPES OF EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES LIKE TECHNICAL INSTITUTIONS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

I DON'T THINK THAT THAT IS THE INTENT OF THE SCHOOLS CATEGORY.

YOU KNOW, IF THE BOARD HAS, YOU KNOW, IF YOU HAVE ANY DATA SETS OF, YOU KNOW, COUNTY WIDE OF, YOU KNOW, NONTRADITIONAL TYPES OF OF EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES, I'D BE HAPPY TO TAKE A LOOK AND SEE IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE COULD INCORPORATE.

BUT YOU KNOW, ANYTHING THAT WE DO INCORPORATE INTO THE EVALUATION CRITERIA, WE DO HAVE TO HAVE A DATA SET THAT IS COUNTY WIDE AND LOOK AT THAT AND SEE IF IT WOULD BE APPLICABLE.

AND IF IT DOESN'T OR IF IT DOESN'T FIT UNDER THE SCHOOL'S CATEGORY, WE COULD SEE IF IT COULD FIT UNDER OR EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES, SEE IF IT FITS UNDER SOME OTHER TYPE OF COMMUNITY FACILITY.

YEAH, BUT IT'S YOU KNOW, AGAIN, IF STAFF IS NOT CONCERNED WITH AS CONCERNED WITH THE TITLE OF THE CATEGORY WERE MORE SO FOCUSED ON THE DATA SOURCE AND THE DESCRIPTION.

SO WELL, THAT SORT OF GOES TO MY FOLLOW UP QUESTION.

BUT YES, THEN I WOULD SUPPORT STICKING WITH EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES TO GIVE US JUST MORE MOVEMENT.

WHY DON'T? WHY DO WE NOT HAVE A DATA SET FOR K THROUGH 12 PRIVATE SCHOOLS INC.? BECAUSE IT IS PART OF TRANSPORTATION LIKE THEY'RE STILL MOVING BACK AND FORTH, AND IT AFFECTS THE TRANSPORTATION OF THE MAJOR HIGHWAYS, A MAJOR ROADWAYS ANYWAYS.

[INAUDIBLE] HEY, PETER GIES WITH THE BROWARD MPO.

SO OUR TEAM ASSISTED IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE TOOL AND WE PROVIDED A LOT OF THE DATA, AND I THINK ONE OF THE CHALLENGES THAT WE HAVE IS WE NEED TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE CREDIBLE SOURCES OF DATA AND WE REACH OUT TO ALL OF OUR PARTNERS, INCLUDING BROWARD COUNTY, BROWARD COUNTY SCHOOLS.

AND THERE SIMPLY JUST ISN'T A COMPREHENSIVE COMPOSITE DATA SET OF ALL THE PRIVATE SCHOOLS IN BROWARD COUNTY.

WE COULD POTENTIALLY LOOK AT OTHER SOURCES, BUT THEY'RE NOT NECESSARILY RELIABLE DATA, RIGHT? WE DON'T EXACTLY KNOW WHERE IT'S COMING FROM.

AND IN OUR SCAN OF ALL THE DATA THAT WAS AVAILABLE, WE UNFORTUNATELY COULDN'T FIND THAT.

IT'S CERTAINLY A RECOMMENDATION THAT WE CAN LOOK INTO IN TERMS OF ASKING MAYBE IF SOMEONE CAN GO AND COLLECT THAT FOR US TO DO IT ON OUR END, IT'S A PRETTY MAJOR LIFT, RIGHT, TO MAKE SURE THAT WE FIND EVERY PRIVATE SCHOOLS.

AND WE MAY NOT NECESSARILY BE THE BEST ENTITY TO DO THAT EITHER, BECAUSE THERE'S MANY DIFFERENT TYPES OF THOSE PRIVATE SCHOOLS.

SO AGAIN, AS KERRIE WAS SAYING, WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE USING RELIABLE, COMPREHENSIVE DATA SETS SO THAT NO, SO THAT WE LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF QUESTIONS THAT WE CAN POTENTIALLY GET ON THE DATA ITSELF AND THE INTEGRITY OF THE DATA.

SO FOR THAT, THAT'S WHY WE DON'T HAVE ANY PRIVATE SCHOOLS.

WE TALKED ABOUT IT INTERNALLY AND SAID WE WISH WE HAD THAT DATA SET TO INCORPORATE.

BUT UNFORTUNATELY, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE STICKING WITH BECAUSE INTEGRITY IS THE NUMBER ONE CRITERIA FOR US WHEN WE INCORPORATE DATA SETS INTO OUR RANKING CRITERIA.

SO HOPEFULLY THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION.

IT DOES AND MY FOLLOW UP WOULD JUST BE THAT I HOPE WE PROBABLY SHOULD TRY AND GET GET THAT DATA PUT TOGETHER BECAUSE LIKE I'M THINKING, LIKE IN MY DISTRICT, THE ONES THAT ARE

[02:00:01]

I DON'T DISAGREE WITH YOU.

YEAH, SO WE'LL WORK ON THAT FOR SURE.

OKAY.

AND WE DON'T HAVE ANY TRAFFIC PROBLEMS IN PEMBROKE PINES, BY THE WAY.

[INAUDIBLE] YES.

I THINK TO TO THE POINT THAT MAYBE THE INDIVIDUAL MAY HAVE REFERENCED CHANGING IT TO SCHOOL WAS BECAUSE IT'S STATUTE DEFINITION.

AND THAT'S WHY AN EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES AND STATUTE, IT'S NO LONGER DESCRIBED THAT WAY.

IT'S IT'S IT MEANS INSTRUCTIONAL FACILITY, INSTRUCTIONAL PURPOSES AND OF COURSE, ALL MULTIPLE LEVELS.

SO THAT'S WHY THEY WERE JUST TRYING TO ALIGN WITH A STATUTE DEFINITION OF WHAT A FACILITY IS A SCHOOL.

UNDERSTOOD.

YEP.

AGREED.

OK.

ALL RIGHT.

GOOD.

GOOD STUFF.

VERY GOOD.

LET'S GO ON MR. GABRIEL.

WE STILL NEED A MOTION NOW FOR TO APPROVE THE AMENDMENTS.

THE C SLIP WITH THE AMENDMENT THAT WAS APPROVED ALREADY.

COMMISSIONER LEWELLEN.

ANY DISCUSSION? LET'S VOTE.

AND THAT'S APPROVED, IT APPEARS, WITH THE AMENDMENT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, ANYBODY FROM THE VIRTUAL MEETING SPACE.

NO ALL RIGHT.

LET'S GO ON.

OK.

REGULAR ITEMS. GO AHEAD, SIR.

COMMENTS FROM THE CHAIR.

[7. Comments from the Chair]

GREAT MEETING MEMBER COMMENTS.

[8. Member Comments Click here to submit a comment to go before the Board.]

JUST REAL QUICK, I COUPLE OF WEEKENDS AGO, I ATTENDED THE FLORIDA LEAGUE OF CITIES CONFERENCE AND I MODERATED A PANEL DEALING WITH AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES.

AND I WAS JUST WONDERING IF THE MPO HAS HAD ANY CONVERSATIONS OR WORKED WITH ANYONE WHO SAT THROUGH ANY PRESENTATIONS WITH AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES.

AND IF NOT, OR IF YOU'RE STILL WILLING TO HEAR OTHER FOLKS WOULD LOVE TO CONNECT THE MPO WITH ONE OF THE ORGANIZATIONS THAT WAS ON THE PANEL THAT I MODERATED AT THE CONFERENCE.

WE'RE ALWAYS INTERESTED IN AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES.

THERE'S ACTUALLY AN ANNUAL CONFERENCE AT THE STATE LEVEL FOR AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES.

THERE'S A TESTING TRACK ACTUALLY IN TAMPA THROUGH USF.

AND YOU KNOW, WE'VE BEEN ACTIVE ON THAT.

PETER GIES, WHO IS RESPONSIBLE WITH OUR LONG TERM PLANNING, HAS BEEN FOLLOWING ALONG WITH THE SEVERAL OTHER TEAM MEMBERS.

AND, YOU KNOW, BE ALWAYS HAPPY TO FIND MORE BECAUSE IT'S REALLY KIND OF INTERESTING WHERE THIS IS HEADED.

WE ACTUALLY HAD A REALLY GREAT AND DYNAMIC CONVERSATION WITH BROWARD COUNTY TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DIRECTOR ON THIS, AS WELL AS THE DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS AT DOT AND WHERE WE NEED TO GO JUST WITH OUR OWN SIGNALIZATION PROCESS TO GET INTERCONNECTED VEHICLES MOVING IN OUR REGION.

SO REAL EXCITED.

I'M GLAD YOU'RE LEADING THAT AND WE'D LOVE TO GET ANY INFORMATION WE CAN.

THAT WOULD BE GREAT.

ALL RIGHT OTHER MEMBERS.

AT THIS POINT IT IS.

I THINK YOU HAD SOMEBODY ELSE ONLINE.

YEAH.

MAYOR PAUL.

MAYOR PAUL, GO AHEAD.

MAYOR PAUL HAS HER HAND UP.

MAYOR, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK? YES, THANK YOU.

I JUST WANTED TO SAY A FEW WORDS.

AND SO THIS WOULD BE ON THE RECORD, I WANTED TO THANK THE MPO, ESPECIALLY MR. CALETKA AND REPRESENTATIVES FROM FDOT, WHO MET WITH ME ON AUGUST 11TH TO PRESENT THE ARTERIAL CONNECTIVITY ALONG I-5 95 STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS.

IT WAS AN EXCELLENT EXCHANGE.

I WILL BE SENDING A LETTER TO THE MPO IDENTIFYING THE AREAS I FOUND HELPFUL AND THOSE SHOWING SOME CONCERN.

YOU CAN LOOK FORWARD TO THAT WITHIN A WEEK AT WHICH TIME I WOULD LIKE YOU TO ADD IT TO THE BACKUP FOR THE REPORT AND THANK YOU AGAIN FOR ALL YOUR ASSISTANCE.

THANK YOU, MAYOR.

ALL RIGHT, ANYTHING FURTHER, MR. GABRIEL.

NO, WE GO TO EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS REPORT AND I'M GOING TO SKIP STRAIGHT TO THE FEDERAL UPDATE.

WE HAD A QUICK UPDATE EARLIER.

I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND DO THAT, PAUL, IF THAT'S OK.

OH, YOU LOOK GREAT ON CAMERA.

ALL RIGHT.

SO BASICALLY SO BASICALLY, WHAT WE'RE GOING TO TALK TO YOU QUICKLY TODAY IS ABOUT THE

[10. Monthly Federal and State Legislative Reports: https://browardmpo.org/13-who-we-are/13-legislative-priorities]

[02:05:04]

AND THIS IS A SIGNIFICANT MILESTONE FOR ALL OF US.

WE ANTICIPATE THAT THIS WILL GET VOTED ON IN THE HOUSE.

IT'S ALREADY BEEN APPROVED ON THE SENATE SIDE.

WE BELIEVE IT WILL BE APPROVED IN THE HOUSE SIDE STARTING ON THE 27TH.

AND MORE THAN LIKELY, IT PROBABLY WON'T GET PASSED UNTIL AFTER THE FIRST, BECAUSE WHAT'S WASHINGTON WITHOUT A LITTLE DRAMA ON FUNDING? SO THERE'S A LOT GOING ON IN D.C.

[INAUDIBLE] ON THE INFRASTRUCTURE ACT ITSELF, THE SENATE ACTUALLY PASSED THAT ON AUGUST 10TH.

THE PACKAGE INCLUDES TWO THINGS, AND THIS IS SUPER IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER AND TAKE HOME.

AND, YOU KNOW, COMMISSIONER SIMMONS KIND OF ENCAPSULATING OF WHY WE'RE DOING WHAT WE NEED TO DO.

THE REAUTHORIZATION OF BOTH USDOT AND MPO FUNDING IS IN THERE, AND IT'S A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE FOR ALL OF US OVER BASELINE WHAT WE'RE CURRENTLY GETTING AND IT ACTUALLY INCREASES THIS DISCRETIONARY.

AND THIS IS WHERE I WAS TALKING ABOUT A HALF A TRILLION DOLLARS OR FIVE HUNDRED AND FIFTY BILLION, DEPENDING ON HOW YOU LIKE TO TALK TO YOUR FRIENDS AND THAT IS OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEAR PERIOD.

SO IT'S A REALLY LARGE ONCE IN A LIFETIME NUMBER.

WITH FEDERAL HIGHWAY FUNDING BEING INCREASED BY A 49 PERCENT OVER CURRENT BASELINE.

SO REALLY, WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS IN OUR HIGHWAY PROGRAM, THERE'S ALMOST A 50 PERCENT INCREASE IN OUR BUDGETARY AMOUNTS.

WHAT DOES THAT MEAN OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS? THAT MEANS WE'RE GOING TO DO A LOT OF TIP AMENDMENTS.

WE'RE GOING TO BE DOING A LOT OF PROJECTS COMING IN AND WE'RE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT A LOT OF CASH FLOWING OUT.

THAT'S A GOOD THING FOR LOCALS.

USDOTS DISCRETIONARY BUDGET OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS, AGAIN, IS FIVE HUNDRED AND SIXTY SEVEN BILLION.

ALL RIGHT, THERE'S YOUR HALF A TRILLION DOLLARS AGAIN CONVERSATION.

IF YOU LOOK AT WHAT WHY THIS MATTERS TO US AND THAT THAT IS THAT BOTTOM LINE, IF YOU LOOK AT OUR 2021 BUDGET NUMBERS AND ALL THREE OF THOSE THAT COLUMN RIGHT, THERE IS BASICALLY FUNDING THAT COMES TO THIS MPO OR ALL TO MPOS AND THEN ARE DISTRIBUTED OUT.

THEN YOU LOOK AT THE FUNDING INCREASE, YOU SEE THE YEAR OVER YEAR INCREASES HAPPENING.

TYPICALLY, WHAT WE USED TO HAVE IS ANYWHERE BETWEEN A ONE TO ONE AND A HALF PERCENT INCREASES.

THESE ARE A MUCH LARGER NUMBERS, BUT THE SIGNIFICANT THING ABOUT THESE NUMBERS ARE THE LAST TWO YEARS.

IF YOU LOOK AT THOSE NUMBERS IN THE LAST TWO YEARS, THE VOLUME OF CASH INCREASES EXPONENTIALLY.

YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT 10 PERCENT, 20 PERCENT, 30 PERCENT LIKE WE'RE SEEING NOW IN THE BUDGET, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A 50 TO 100 PERCENT INCREASE.

SO WHAT WE NEED TO DO TOGETHER TO GET READY FOR THIS POTENTIAL HUGE INVESTMENT IN OUR COMMUNITIES, BUILDING BACK OUR INFRASTRUCTURE IS HAVE ALL THE PLANNING DONE AS MUCH AS WE POSSIBLY CAN TO BE READY TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE FUNDS THAT ARE GOING TO FLOW? AND THOSE AREN'T DISCRETIONARY NUMBERS.

THOSE ARE ACTUALLY MONIES THAT WILL BE COMING THROUGH THE MPO PROCESS [INAUDIBLE] NATIONALLY, NOT JUST YET.

JACK, DO YOU WANT TO GO AHEAD AND EXPLAIN THIS REALLY BEAUTIFUL CHART? GOOD MORNING.

BOARD MEMBERS [INAUDIBLE] MPO, SO THIS CHART IS BASICALLY COLOR CODED WITH THE NEW GRANT PROGRAM AMOUNTS THAT ARE GOING TO BE WELL THAT ARE PROPOSED IN THE [INAUDIBLE].

WE HAVE LARGE TRANSIT PROJECTS AND LARGE, LARGE SCALE INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS IN THE FORM OF THE BRIDGE DISCRETIONARY PROGRAM GRANTS AND THEN FAMILIAR PROGRAMS LIKE INFRA AND RAYS, FORMERLY BUILD, FORMERLY TIGER.

THOSE ARE THE SAME, BUT WITH LARGER, LARGER BUDGETS, LARGER AMOUNTS.

IN RED WE HAVE OUR SAFETY PROGRAMS AND MOBILITY PROGRAMS, THINGS THAT OUR MPO STAFF WORKS ON CLOSELY AND THEN AS WELL AS NEW CLIMATE AND RESILIENCY PROGRAMS THAT ARE NEW ADDITIONS TO THE REAUTHORIZATION PACKAGE.

SO I'M HERE TO TALK ABOUT TALK TO YOU GUYS ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS NEXT TO THIS PACKAGE.

SO THE BILL IS CURRENTLY IN THE U.S.

HOUSE AWAITING A FINAL VOTE WHICH SOME DEMOCRATS WISHED TO TIE TO A THREE POINT FIVE TRILLION DOLLAR BUDGET RECONCILIATION MEASURE, WHICH OUR [INAUDIBLE] PARTNERS MENTIONED EARLIER.

IT WAS LARGELY BILLED AS A HUMAN INFRASTRUCTURE PACKAGE.

AN AGREEMENT, HOWEVER, BETWEEN MORE MODERATE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE AND HOUSE LEADERSHIP RESULTED IN A RULE STATING THAT THEY SHALL CONSIDER THE [INAUDIBLE] BY SEPTEMBER 27, REGARDLESS OF PASSAGE OF THE RECONCILIATION BILL.

SO THE BIPARTISAN INFRASTRUCTURE PACKAGE NEEDS ONLY A SIMPLE VOTE RIGHT NOW IN THE HOUSE TO PASS, AND IT IS EXPECTED THAT SOME HOUSE REPUBLICANS WILL VOTE IN FAVOR OF IT AS WELL.

AFTER PASSAGE, IT WOULD MOVE DIRECTLY TO PRESIDENT BIDEN'S DESK TO BE SIGNED

[02:10:04]

THE DEADLINE FOR TRANSPORTATION REAUTHORIZATION IS SEPTEMBER 30TH.

AND IF THE HOUSE WERE TO POSTPONE THE FINAL VOTE OF THE [INAUDIBLE], AN EXTENSION OF THE FAST ACT WOULD NEED TO BE WOULD BE NEEDED TO CONTINUE FEDERAL FUNDING FOR PROGRAMS AND AGENCIES, INCLUDING THE MPO.

WE DO NOT EXPECT THAT TO HAPPEN, THOUGH IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S GOING TO BE PASSED BY THE 27TH.

WITH THAT, WE CAN TAKE ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE.

ACTUALLY, I KIND OF ALSO FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO'VE BEEN ON THE BOARD FOR A WHILE, THIS IS MY FOURTH REAUTHORIZATION ACT.

AND YOU KNOW, FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO WERE AROUND WAY BACK IN THE DAY AND I THINK [INAUDIBLE], YOU KNOW, YOU AND I CAN KIND OF COUNT ON EACH OTHER ON THIS ONE AS WELL AS COMMISSIONER JOHNSON.

WE'VE ACTUALLY SEEN WHERE THE REAUTHORIZATION BILL WAS A CONTINUING RESOLUTION FOR FIVE OR SIX DIFFERENT TIMES, SPANNING ALMOST A TWO YEAR PERIOD.

TO SEE WHAT'S HAPPENED IN WASHINGTON RIGHT NOW IS PRETTY DARN AMAZING, AND OUR REPRESENTATION THROUGH HOLLAND AND KNIGHT HAS DONE A YEOMAN'S LIFT IN MAKING SURE THAT ALL THE THINGS THAT THIS ORGANIZATION NEEDS HAS BEEN TAKEN CARE OF.

NOW I'M GOING TO BRING THIS BACK TO OUR VICE CHAIR GOOD'S COMMENTS ABOUT C SLIP AND WHY THIS IS ALSO IMPORTANT BUILT INTO THIS LEGISLATION THAT WAS PASSED ON THE SENATE SIDE IS A THING CALLED LOCAL CONTROL.

WE HAD STARTED WORKING WITH HOLLAND AND KNIGHT WITH HAVING A PILOT PROGRAM FOR HIGHER PERFORMING MPOS TO ACTUALLY RECEIVE DIRECT ALLOCATION OF FEDERAL FUNDS TO ADMINISTER TO OUR LOCAL GOVERNMENT PARTNERS.

THE WHOLE IDEA BETWEEN BEHIND THE SURFACE TRANSPORTATION COMMUNITY BLOCK GRANT FUNDS, WHICH FUNDS C SLIP WAS FOR THAT MONEY TO GO DIRECTLY TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS FOR LOCAL ISSUES.

AND THE STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT, ALSO KNOWN AS FDOT, WOULD ACTUALLY BE DEALING WITH THE REGIONAL CONNECTIONS FOR ALL THE OTHER MONIES BECAUSE THEY GET HALF OF THE PERCENTAGE.

NOW WHAT THIS LOCAL CONTROL DOES, WHICH IS EVEN MORE ROBUST THAN WHAT WE WERE EVEN PROPOSING, IS WILL ALLOW FEDERAL DOLLARS THROUGH THE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY BEING US TO GO DIRECTLY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT.

SO THE LAP PROGRAM ITSELF, INSTEAD OF BEING ADMINISTERED OVER BY FDOT AND ADDITIONAL RULES AND REQUIREMENTS BEING PLACED UPON THEM, WE WOULD ACTUALLY HAVE DIRECT ALLOCATION AND HAVE DIRECT COMMUNICATION WITH FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION AS AN EXAMPLE OF OUR ORGANIZATION'S EFFORTS IN THIS REGARD.

IS THE $12 MILLION TIGER GRANT WE RECEIVED YEARS AGO.

WE ARE ACTUALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ITS ADMINISTRATION.

HOWEVER, THE DOT IS DELIVERING THE PROJECT FOR US.

THAT SAID, WE ALSO HAVE THE FTA FUNDS THAT WE'RE ADMINISTERING, AND I'M GOING TO USE THE CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE AS AN EXAMPLE AND THEN HOLLYWOOD AS THE NEXT EXAMPLE OF MONIES THAT WE'VE BEEN PASSING DIRECTLY THROUGH AND TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF PROJECTS, THINGS THAT AREN'T NECESSARILY AND THAT'S ALL ON REIMBURSEMENT.

THAT SAID, THINGS THAT AREN'T REIMBURSABLE AND THAT'S ONE EXAMPLE THAT HAPPENED IN FORT LAUDERDALE WAS THERE WAS A BUY AMERICAN REQUIREMENT.

THE CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE BOUGHT SOME BENCHES.

THOSE BENCHES DID NOT QUALIFY.

THE CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE HAD TO EAT THE COST OF THOSE BENCHES.

SO THAT IS THINGS THAT YOU WOULD LOOK AT IN THE QUALIFICATION SIDE.

NOT VERY COMPLICATED, BUT REQUIRE ADDITIONAL EFFORTS ON BOTH MUNICIPAL SIDE AND THE MPO SIDE, AS WELL AS THE DOTS.

SO I JUST WANTED TO KIND OF BRING THAT ALL FULL CIRCLE TO YOU.

SO YOU RECOGNIZE NOT ONLY WHAT THIS BILL MEANS FINANCIALLY, BECAUSE IT'S JUST I'VE NEVER SEEN ANYTHING LIKE IT IN MY CAREER.

THAT SAID, THIS IS ALSO SOMETHING THAT IS BEYOND THE EXPECTATIONS OF WHAT WE WERE ORIGINALLY WORKING FOR UP IN WASHINGTON.

NOW THE RECONCILIATION BILL THAT'S OUT THERE, THE THREE POINT FIVE TRILLION DOLLARS, THERE'S A LOT OF OTHER MONIES THAT MAY GO INTO TRANSPORTATION AND TRANSPORTATION RELATED INVESTMENT.

WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE AS AN MPO BOARD TO START DEALING WITH AFFORDABLE HOUSING, WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT AND SO FORTH.

THAT'S ACTUALLY ALSO IN THAT TRANSPORTATION BILL.

BUT IN THE HUMAN CAPITAL SIDE, THAT'S WHERE THAT.

MONEY MAY SHOW UP.

SO IF THAT BILL WERE TO PASS AND YOU KNOW, IT'S A BIGGER F, THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN YOU MIGHT ACTUALLY WE MIGHT BE HAVING MORE CONVERSATIONS ABOUT, YOU KNOW WHAT OUR TIP BUDGET LOOKING LIKE A BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR MAY SWELL TO A BILLION AND A HALF, MAYBE TWO BILLION A YEAR.

AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN, YOU'RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT SOME SIGNIFICANT INPUT AND IMPACT TO OUR REGIONAL ECONOMY SO THAT I WANT TO KIND OF LAY OUT THERE FOR YOU.

AND THEN WE HAVE ONE LAST PRESENTATION AFTER I'M DONE AND WE CAN DO QUESTIONS, BUT IT'S ON THE CMP PROCESS, AND I REALLY WANT YOU TO HEAR THIS BECAUSE THAT IS ALSO PART AND PARCEL OF PARTNERSHIPS WITH US AND THE GREATER FORT LAUDERDALE TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY.

WITH THAT, ANY QUESTIONS FOR [INAUDIBLE] EXCELLENT, WE'VE DONE OUR JOB.

GOOD PRESENTATION.

[02:15:01]

GENERAL COUNCIL'S REPORT THANK YOU.

[11. **General Counsel’s Report]

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, CERTAINLY ASK.

OTHERWISE, IT WAS A GOOD MEETING.

THANK YOU FOR BEING SO PATIENT WITH ALL THESE DIFFERENT ITEMS THAT WE HAVE IN THE NEW PROCESS.

THANK YOU, MR.

[1. 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) Amendment Cycle Update: A. 2045 MTP Amendment Process Overview B. Incorporating Local Projects Seeking Federal Discretionary Grants Into MPO Plans]

SO PETER IS GOING TO COME UP REALLY QUICKLY AND FLASH THROUGH THESE SLIDES FAST AND THEN GET TO THE RCMP.

NO PRESSURE, PETER.

YEAH, NO PROBLEM.

I CAN ACTUALLY GIVE YOU A VERY CLIFFSNOTES VERSION OF THIS PRESENTATION, AND IF YOU'D LIKE, YOU CAN REFER TO THE BACKUP THEN.

THIS IS MORE OF A TECHNICAL PRESENTATION THAT WAS GIVEN AT THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND CITIZEN'S ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETINGS RELATED TO OUR METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN PROCESS.

IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE DO ON AN ANNUAL BASIS.

SO FOR THE FIRST PART, THE ITEM A WE JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW THAT THE CYCLE IS OPEN NOW THROUGH NOVEMBER 10TH, AND WE RECOMMEND THAT YOU WORK WITH YOUR STAFF TO SEE IF THERE ARE ANY AMENDMENTS THAT NEED TO BE PROCESSED.

WHAT QUALIFIES AS AN MTP AMENDMENT IS ANY PROJECT THAT IS CURRENTLY IN THE MTP OR NOT CURRENTLY IN THE MTP THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDED, CHANGED OR REMOVED.

SO TAKE A LOOK AT THOSE PROJECTS OR HAVE YOUR STAFF TAKE A LOOK AT THOSE PROJECTS.

AND AGAIN, THE DEADLINE FOR THOSE REQUESTS IS NOVEMBER 10TH.

ALL THE INFORMATION IS IN THE BACKUP IN ITEM A.

BUT I'M SURE YOUR STAFF HOPEFULLY ARE PARTICIPATING AS PART OF THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETINGS AND ARE AWARE OF THAT.

SO MAYBE JUST BRING THAT UP WITH THEM.

THE SECOND PART AND THIS IS WHAT I'LL JUST FLASH.

I'M JUST GOING TO FLASH THROUGH THESE ITEMS REALLY QUICK AND GET TO ITEM B.

SO THE INCORPORATING LOCAL PROJECTS SEEKING FEDERAL DISCRETIONARY GRANTS INTO MPO PLANS.

WHAT THIS MEANS IS THAT YOU'VE HEARD A LOT OF TALK ABOUT THE REAUTHORIZATION BILL AND A LOT OF OPPORTUNITY FOR NEW FUNDING TO BECOME AVAILABLE TO THE MPO.

WELL, VERY OFTEN IF THEY'RE LOCALS WHO WANT TO SUBMIT PROJECTS FOR THOSE FEDERAL GRANTS OR PURSUE THOSE FEDERAL GRANTS, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE PROJECTS ARE INCLUDED IN A FEDERAL DOCUMENT, MAINLY THROUGH THE MPO.

SO WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAD A PROCESS IN PLACE TO MAKE SURE THAT ANY PROJECTS THAT YOU ALL, AS LOCALS ARE LOOKING TO PURSUE FOR FEDERAL FUNDING CAN AT LEAST TICK THE BOX AND MAKE SURE THAT THEY ARE IN OUR FEDERAL PLANS, WHETHER THEY BE IN OUR METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN OR OUR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.

SO AGAIN, THIS PRESENTATION WAS GIVEN AT THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETINGS, AND WE WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO ASK YOUR STAFF ABOUT THIS BECAUSE IF YOU ALL ARE PURSUING A PROJECT THAT IS ULTIMATELY GOING TO GET FEDERAL FUNDING THROUGH A GRANT, YOU NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THESE PROJECTS ARE IN A FEDERAL DOCUMENT.

OTHERWISE YOU WILL NOT BE AWARDED THESE FUNDS.

SO THIS IS A PROCESS THAT WE'VE OUTLINED IN ORDER TO INCORPORATE THOSE PROJECTS INTO OUR PLANS.

AND I'LL QUICKLY JUST LET YOU KNOW I GAVE YOU SOME BACKGROUND HERE ON WHY WE NEED TO DO THIS.

IT'S IN FEDERAL LAW.

THIS IS A VERY LONG FLOWCHART THAT I'M NOT GOING TO SPEND ANY TIME ON, BUT JUST TO LET YOU KNOW THAT THERE ARE SOME DECISION POINTS THAT NEED TO BE MADE.

AND THIS IS WHERE YOU NEED TO MEET WITH US WITH YOUR PROJECT AND BE ABLE TO SAY, YOU KNOW, IS A PROJECT REGIONALLY SIGNIFICANT MEANING? DOES IT REQUIRE RIGHT OF WAY AND DOES IT REQUIRE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW? THEN IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO GO THROUGH A MUCH MORE INVOLVED PROCESS THAT YOU SEE AT THE TOP OF THE SCREEN VERSUS A MORE SIMPLIFIED PROCESS IF IT'S, SAY, A SIMPLE BIKE LANE PROJECT WHERE YOU'RE NOT NECESSARILY LOOKING TO ACQUIRE RIGHT OF WAY OR YOU'RE NOT NECESSARILY GOING TO HAVE TO SUBMIT ANY ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION.

SO THOSE ARE THE TYPES OF CONSIDERATIONS THAT YOU NEED TO HAVE WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT YOUR OWN LOCAL PROJECTS THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO PURSUE FEDERAL DISCRETIONARY GRANT FUNDING FOR.

SO I'LL END ON THIS SLIDE AND SAY THAT THERE'S A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT STEPS THAT NEED TO BE TAKEN.

STEP NUMBER ONE MOST IMPORTANT IS IF YOU HAVE AN IDEA OF A PROJECT THAT YOU KNOW YOU'RE GOING TO PURSUE FEDERAL FUNDS FOR, PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT THEY REACH OUT TO MYSELF AND REQUEST A COORDINATION MEETING WITH MPO STAFF SO THAT WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT THAT PROJECT IS GOING TO BE SET ON THE RIGHT ROUTE, WHETHER IT'S GOING TO GO INTO THE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM DIRECTLY OR INTO THE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN, AS I SHOWED ON THE PREVIOUS SLIDE.

WE MAY ASK YOU TO PRESENT THAT PROJECT TO THE MPO BOARD SO THAT YOU ALL, AS AN ENTIRE BOARD, CAN SEE THAT PROJECT AND SAY, YES, THIS IS A PROJECT THAT WE AS A REGION WANT TO PURSUE.

YOU MUST IDENTIFY THE FUNDING AMOUNT AND TYPE IN AN ADOPTED LOCAL BUDGET.

SO IF YOU HAVE THAT PROJECT IN MIND, YOU NEED TO SHOW WHERE YOUR LOCAL MATCH IS COMING FROM IN AN ADOPTED BUDGET AND SHOW HOW MUCH FEDERAL GRANT FUNDING YOU'RE GOING TO BE PURSUING.

FOR THAT PROJECT, WE NEED TO SEE THAT KIND OF IN STONE AS PART OF YOUR BUDGET.

THEN YOU NEED TO SUBMIT AN MTP REQUEST BY NOVEMBER 10TH IF IT DOES INDEED REQUIRE AN MTP AMENDMENT.

AND THEN THE FINAL STEP IS FOR US TO REVIEW THE REQUEST AND THEN BRING IT FORWARD TO THE MPO BOARD FOR FINAL APPROVAL.

IF IT DOESN'T NEED TO GO INTO THE MTP.

IF IT'S A SMALLER PROJECT AND CAN GO DIRECTLY INTO OUR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, YOU WILL SEE THAT AS PART OF THE AGENDA BACKUP WHEN WE MAKE THOSE TYPES OF MODIFICATIONS.

SO I'LL END ON THAT AND SEE IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS.

AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, YOUR STAFF SHOULD BE AWARE OF THIS PRESENTATION, SO PLEASE TALK TO THEM, BUT I'M ALWAYS AVAILABLE AS WELL.

GREAT, ANY QUESTIONS? GREAT PRESENTATION, THANK YOU, MR. GABRIEL.

[02:20:02]

SORRY.

YEAH, YEAH.

CAN WE? WE'RE GOING TO GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE.

[2. Congestion Management Process (CMP)]

AMANDA WILL ACTUALLY RUN YOU THROUGH THIS AS QUICK AS POSSIBLE.

I WILL, INDEED.

HI, MY NAME IS AMANDA KRISTEN.

I'M A PLANNER IN THE TRANSIT PLANNING DIVISION HERE AT THE BROWARD MPO, AND I'M GOING TO BE DISCUSSING VERY BRIEFLY BRIEFLY WITH YOU TODAY.

THE OUR CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROCESS 2.0 IS WHAT I'VE SORT OF COLLOQUIALLY CALLED IT.

THE CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROCESS IS A PROCESS THAT EVERY TMA OR TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT AREA IN THE COUNTRY HAS TO INVOLVE ITSELF WITH IF THEIR POPULATION IS 200000 PEOPLE OR OVER.

SOME INFORMATION ON THE SLIDE HERE, IT PROVIDES AN ACCURATE UP TO DATE LEVEL OF INFORMATION ABOUT THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PERFORMANCE, THE CMPS ARE UNIQUE TO OUR AREA.

SO WHAT WE'RE GOING TO BE DOING WITH OUR CMP IS TAKING LOTS OF INFORMATION FROM LOTS OF DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS ABOUT AREAS THAT ARE CONGESTED ON A GLOBAL LEVEL BY A CORRIDOR LEVEL AND COME UP WITH.

WELL, THERE ARE THE PROCESS MODEL IS SEVEN OR RATHER EIGHT STEPS.

WE HAVE FINISHED STEPS ONE THROUGH FOUR AT THIS POINT, DEVELOP REGIONAL OBJECTIVES TO FIND THE NETWORK, DEVELOP MULTIMODAL PERFORMANCE MEASURES AND COLLECT THE DATA.

RIGHT NOW, WE HAVE ENLISTED THE HELP OF A CONSULTANT, T.Y.

LYNN, TO HELP US WITH PRODUCING THE METHODOLOGY TO GO TO APPROACH CONGESTION IN A 21ST CENTURY SORT OF WAY WITH THE ANALYZING THE CONGESTION AND PROBLEMS AND THEN COMING UP WITH COUNTERMEASURES AND EFFECTIVE APPROACHES TO MITIGATE CONGESTION.

SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING RIGHT NOW.

STEPS FIVE AND SIX, IDENTIFYING AND ASSESSING THE STRATEGIES.

THE NEXT AND FINAL PARTS ARE PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION AND THEN EVALUATING THE STRATEGIES THAT WE HAVE IDENTIFIED TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE WORKING.

SO WE HAVE A LIST ENLISTED TWO TYPES OF GROUPS.

ONE IS AN INTERNAL GROUP WITH PEOPLE THAT WORK FOR THE BROWARD MPO IN LOTS OF DIFFERENT WAYS.

PETER'S STAFF AND SYSTEMS PLANNING RICARDOS, STAFF WITH COMPLETE STREETS AND MOBILITY MYSELF IN THE TRANSIT DIVISION AND DATA MANAGEMENT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE UNDERSTAND WHAT EACH OF OUR DIVISIONS ARE DOING AND HOW THE PROJECTS THAT WE'RE WORKING ON CAN ALLAY CONGESTION.

AND WE'VE ALSO DECIDED TO TAKE TOGETHER AN EXTERNAL WORKING GROUP SOME PEOPLE FROM DIFFERENT FROM THE TAC AND THE CAC.

ANYONE THAT IS A, YOU KNOW, IS AN ACQUAINTANCE OF YOURS AS A BOARD MEMBER WHO YOU THINK WOULD BE VALUABLE WITH BEING A SOUNDING BOARD ABOUT OUR NEW CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROCESS, WE'RE ACTUALLY LOOKING FOR VOLUNTEERS FOR THAT, FOR THAT GROUP.

BUT WE ARE MEETING INDIVIDUALLY WITH FDOT, THE TRANSIT AGENCIES BROWARD COUNTY, S.F.

RTA TO GO OVER OUR STEPS, BASICALLY MEETING ONE TO TALK ABOUT THE DATA THAT WE'VE COLLECTED AND MAKE SURE THAT IT'S RIGHT.

MEETING TWO IS TO DISCUSS THE THE WAY WE'RE ANALYZING THIS SYSTEM, TALKING ABOUT THE PROBLEMS THAT WE'VE IDENTIFIED, MAKING SURE THAT THOSE PROBLEMS ARE THE REAL PROBLEMS FOR THOSE CORRIDORS OR GLOBAL PROBLEMS ACROSS BROWARD COUNTY.

AND THEN THE THIRD MEETING WILL BE REVIEWING THE STRATEGY.

IT'S TALKING ABOUT PROJECTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND PUTTING INTO PLACE A WAY FOR US TO FOLLOW UP ON THIS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE AFFECTING SOME CHANGE WITH OUR CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROCESS.

THE FIRST MEETING IS THIS IS WE'VE HAD THE INTERNAL MEETING.

THE EXTERNAL MEETING WILL BE IN OCTOBER.

THE NEXT MEETING WILL BE DECEMBER JANUARY.

THAT'LL BE FOR BOTH INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL.

AND THEN THE PROJECT WILL CLOSE OUT IN LATE SPRING OF 2022.

THIS IS A VERY SMALL, DIFFICULT TO READ SCHEDULE, BUT YOU HAVE THIS IN YOUR BACKUP.

WE ARE AT THAT FIRST STAR.

THIS IS A 12 TO 16 MONTH PROCESS, FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES.

[02:25:08]

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE LET ME KNOW.

AND I REALIZED THAT THAT WAS A VERY BRIEF PRESENTATION, BUT MY CONTACT INFORMATION IS THERE.

IF YOU CHOOSE TO LET ME KNOW.

OK, BRIEFLY GOOD.

THANK YOU.

OK.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION BEFORE WE GO ON? I JUST WANT TO EXPRESS OUR CONDOLENCES TO MAYOR BEVERLY WILLIAMS. HER MOTHER PASSED AWAY WITH COVID AND MR. CALETKA HAD A CARD FOR US TO SIGN IF YOU WOULD CARE TO DO SO.

SO OUR CONDOLENCES TO THE MAYOR.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION.

MR. STUART.

I JUST WANT TO THANK EVERYBODY FOR THEIR ENDURANCE TODAY, AND BRIAN AND I BOTH COMMIT TO TRY TO SHORTEN YOUR MEETINGS AS MUCH AS WE POSSIBLY DO A GREAT JOB AND WE'RE TRYING.

BUT THIS WAS A LONG ONE.

ALL RIGHT.

SEE YOU AT THE NEXT MEETING.

THANKS, EVERYBODY.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.