[00:00:03]
MORNING, EVERYONE.[1. Call to Order and Pledge]
WELCOME TO OUR BOARD MEETING.LET'S CALL IT A MEETING TO ORDER.
THANK YOU. I AM TOLD WE HAVE A QUORUM.
I HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO CALCULATE THAT, BUT I WILL AS WE CONTINUE ON.
SO THIS IS A CALL TO ORDER AND THE PLEDGE, PLEASE.
SO PLEASE RISE FOR THE PLEDGE.
[INAUDIBLE] FOR MAYOR TROAST, WHO JUST PASSED.
GOOD MORNING. MR. CHAIRMAN, IF I MIGHT, JUST SOME COMMENTS THAT WE ALWAYS ANNOUNCE.
ALL RIGHT. IF THERE ARE ANY COMMENTS FOR THOSE IN THE BOARD ROOM, PLEASE SELECT THE RTS MIC IN THE BOTTOM RIGHT HAND CORNER OF YOUR MIC TO PUT YOURSELF INTO THE QUEUE.
FOR BOARD MEMBERS IF THERE ARE ANY ON ZOOM, PLEASE RAISE YOUR VIRTUAL HAND.
FOR VOTING MEMBERS IN THE BOARDROOM WE'LL USE THE ELECTRONIC VOTING SYSTEM.
FOR MEMBERS ATTENDING VIRTUALLY IF YOU DO NOT RESPOND, YOUR VOTE WILL BE TAKEN AS CONSENT TO THE ITEM YOU MUST ADVISE US OTHERWISE.
IF YOU ARE OPPOSED TO THE ACTION BEING TAKEN ON AN ITEM, PLEASE RAISE YOUR VIRTUAL HAND.
WE'RE READY FOR ELECTRONIC ROLL CALL.
[2. Electronic Roll Call]
OKAY.ALL RIGHT. LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE A QUORUM.
AND THEN FIRST ITEM OF BUSINESS.
IF YOU'RE READY TO PROCEED, EVERYONE'S IN.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 10, 2022.
[3. Approval of Minutes - March 10, 2022]
MOTION BY VICE CHAIR GOOD.SECOND, MR. CHAIRMAN, HOLD, ONE SEC. PLEASE HOLD.
WE'RE GOING A LITTLE TOO FAST.
THE COMPUTER WIZARD IS A LITTLE BIT SLOWER TODAY THAN US.
CAN WE PLEASE HAVE THE MOTION.
OKAY NEED A MOTION? VICE CHAIR GOOD.
IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND? YEAH. IT'S NOT GOING IN ELECTRONICALLY SECOND BY MAYOR ZIADE.
WELL, YEAH, BUT IT'S NOT SHOWING UP.
ALL RIGHT, SORRY. I'M DOING IT.
[4. Approval of Agenda]
NEXT ITEM IS APPROVAL OF AGENDA ARE WE STILL LOCKED OUT.YEP. YEP. OKAY, WE'RE GOING TO GO BACK TO THE OLD SCHOOL WAY.
IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND? I HEAR A SECOND, IF YOU WOULD, ANNOUNCE YOUR NAME WHEN YOU ARE MAKING THE MOTION AND SECONDING. THE TRAIN WAS THE SECOND.
THANK YOU. YES, IT DOES SEEM THAT WAY SOME DAYS.
WHO HAD THE SECOND? ALL RIGHT. GOT THAT.
COMMISSIONER MCGEE SECOND. OKAY. REBECCA, PLEASE IF YOU ARE MISSING IT, JUST LET US KNOW.
WE CAN'T HEAR YOU IF YOU'RE SHAKING YOUR HEAD.
NO PROBLEM. OKAY, NEXT ITEM THEN, IS.
WELL, WE NEED A VOTE. ONE SECOND.
I HAVE FOR THE APPROVAL OF AGENDA A MOTION MADE BY MAYOR ZIADE AND SECONDED BY MAYOR MAYOR MCGEE.
GOOD. DO WE HAVE A VOTE? IS IT WORKING OR ARE WE GOING TO? NO, IT'S NOT WORKING YET. ALL IN FAVOR AYE.
YEAH. AND OF COURSE, IF THERE'S ANYONE WHO'S VIRTUAL, PLEASE MAKE SURE YOU ADVISE US THAT YOU VOTE CONTRARY TO WHAT THE MOTION IS MADE.
ALL RIGHT. MOVING RIGHT ALONG, WE MOVE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS.
THERE ARE NONE. ALL RIGHT, CHAIRMAN.
THEN WE GO TO APPROVAL OF EXCUSE ABSENCES.
[6. Approval of Excused Absences]
WE HAVE PEOPLE THAT DID SHOW UP.IF YOU WOULD ANNOUNCE HIS EXCUSE.
WELL, WE HAVE BOARD MEMBERS WHO WANT TO BE EXCUSED.
IRENE KIRDAHY, TIM RYAN, MICHAEL UDINE, RICH WALKER AND FELICIA ROBINSON AND BOB HARTMAN.
BRUNSON. BRUNSON, NOT ROBINSON.
DO I HAVE A MOTION? IT'S WORKING. YEP.
[00:05:02]
GOOD. ALL RIGHT, WE'RE BACK.BACK TO ACTUAL ELECTRONIC VOTING.
HEARING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR AYE.
AYE. ALL RIGHT YOU CAN. OPPOSED. AYES HAVE IT.
IT SAYS MOTION BY ZIADE, SECONDED BY WILLIAMS. YEAH. WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ON THE SAME PAGE.
SO WE'RE DOING ELECTRONIC VOTING FOR THIS ITEM.
EVERYONE HAS VOTED ANY VIRTUAL? OH, HOLD ON A SECOND.
WE NEED TO CHECK VICE CHAIR JOHNSON IN? I MISSED IT WHEN. HE'S NOT IN APPARENTLY. IS EVERYONE SHOWING? CAN WE DO THAT WITH VICE CHAIR JOHNSON? WE'RE MISSING THE CHAIR'S VOTE.
I BELIEVE FOR [INAUDIBLE]? YES, I'M ONLINE.
THE MEMBERS THAT ARE ONLINE ARE BEING TRACKED BY MYSELF AND THE ATTORNEY.
SO IF YOU ARE VOTING, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND ONLY IF YOU DISAGREE WITH THE APPROVING OF MOTION.
DOWN AS ABSENT? WE LEAVE IT AS ABSENT.
AND I ADDED IN AFTERWARDS WHEN I'M WRITING THE MINUTES FOR YOU.
EVERYONE IS GOOD. SO THE VOTE IS IN.
OKAY, SO WE MOVE TO OUR ACTION ITEMS, NUMBER ONE.
NUMBER ONE, THIS IS A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MOBILITY HUBS PROGRAM CYCLE ONE PRIORITY
[1. MOTION TO APPROVE the Mobility Hubs Program Cycle 1 Priority List]
LIST. IS THERE A MOTION? BY BEVERLY WILLIAMS SECOND BY MAYOR JOHNSON.DISCUSSION? THERE'S A REQUEST FOR PRESENTATION.
IF YOU. YES, WE'RE PREPARED TO PRESENT.
DO YOU WANT A PRESENTATION? OKAY. MR. BLUE. NEED A PRESENTATION? AND IT'S COMING RIGHT NOW.
ALL RIGHT. PLEASE MAKE SURE YOU ACTIVATE YOUR MIC IF YOU WISH TO BE HEARD.
MY NAME IS CHADWICK BLUE. I'M A PROJECT COORDINATION MANAGER HERE AT THE BROWARD MPO, AND I HELP MANAGE THE MOBILITY HUBS PROGRAM.
YOU MAY REMEMBER ME PRESENTING TO YOU RIGHT BEFORE THE HOLIDAYS ON SEVERAL DIFFERENT ITEMS. AND SO TODAY I COME BEFORE YOU TO DO A SHORT PRESENTATION ON CYCLE 1 AND THE RANKINGS THAT WE HAVE TO SHOW YOU.
SO WITH THAT, I JUST ALWAYS LIKE TO START OFF REAL QUICKLY WITH WHAT IS A MOBILITY HUB? WE DESCRIBE IT AS TRANSIT ACCESS POINTS THROUGHOUT BROWARD COUNTY THAT HAVE A HIGH TRANSIT ACTIVITY, WHETHER THAT'S TRIP GENERATION OR TRANSFERS IN AN AREA THAT'S ALREADY UNDERGOING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OR IS PRONE FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.
AND SO THAT PICTURE YOU SEE BEFORE, THAT'S OUR DOWNTOWN FORT LAUDERDALE MOBILITY HUB THAT WE RECENTLY COMPLETED.
THE PURPOSE OF OUR MOBILITY HUB PROGRAM IS TWOFOLD, IS TO OFFER MOBILITY HUB MASTER PLAN FUNDING AND ALSO DESIGNING CONSTRUCTION FUNDING.
AND SO THE AGENDA TODAY IS I WILL PRESENT THE RANKINGS AND THEN ASK FOR AN APPROVAL OF THESE RANKINGS FROM THE BOARD.
THIS JUST GIVES YOU AN OVERVIEW OF THE PROCESS FOR CYCLE 1.
SO WE OPENED UP OUR APPLICATION PROCESS IN THE BEGINNING OF DECEMBER, OUR CYCLE CLOSED AT THE END OF FEBRUARY.
THEN THAT GAVE STAFF TIME TO REVIEW THE APPLICATIONS AND THE RANKING.
AND THEN OF COURSE, WE BROUGHT THOSE BEFORE THE TAC AND CAC WHO APPROVED THOSE.
AND THEN THIS IS THE LAST STEP, BRINGING IT BEFORE THE BOARD FOR APPROVAL.
AGAIN, YOU MAY RECALL MY PRESENTATION TO YOU RIGHT BEFORE THE HOLIDAYS WHERE WE WENT OVER THE EVALUATION CRITERIA.
WE FOCUS ON THREE MAJOR THINGS NETWORK READINESS, MARKET READINESS AND SPONSOR READINESS.
AND FROM THOSE THREE THEMES, WE'VE ALSO INCORPORATED THE THEMES THAT YOU SEE IN THE BLUE BOX, WHICH ARE THE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN THEMES.
AND SO IF YOU DON'T RECALL THE EVALUATION CHART, I'LL HAVE A LINK LATER ON THAT WILL SHOW YOU WHERE YOU CAN GET THAT EVALUATION CHART ON OUR WEBSITE.
AS I MENTIONED, THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT FUNDING OPTIONS.
ONE IS FOR MOBILITY HUB MASTER PLANS.
THERE'S A $400,000 MAXIMUM FOR THOSE PLANS, AND THOSE PLANS ARE LED BY THE MPO STAFF.
WE ALSO OFFER DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION FUNDS.
WE DON'T HAVE A CAP ON THAT, BUT THERE IS A MINIMUM REQUEST OF $1,000,000 DOLLARS.
NOW, IF AN APPLICANT COMES IN FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION, WE EXPECT THAT THE MUNICIPALITY
[00:10:03]
OR THE PARTNER WILL LEAD THAT CONSTRUCTION PROCESS OR PERHAPS UTILIZE M-TECC IF THEY WISH. IN ADDITION, ALL OF THESE THINGS REQUIRE FTA APPROVAL, SO TYPICALLY THAT'S A 3 TO 6 MONTHS PROCESS ONCE AN AWARD IS GIVEN.SO WE WERE FORTUNATE ENOUGH WE RECEIVED ONE APPLICATION FROM THE GREAT CITY OF COCONUT CREEK AND THEY RECEIVED 71 POINTS OUT OF 110 POINTS.
THEY'VE ASKED FOR A MOBILITY HUB MASTER PLAN TO FOCUS AROUND THE AREA OF 441 AND SAMPLE.
THERE'S A LOT GOING ON IN THIS AREA.
YOU HAVE A CHARTER SCHOOL, YOU HAVE ABOUT 200 ACRES OF UNDEVELOPED CITY OWNED LAND AND YOU HAVE THE CASINO.
THERE'S A TRANSIT TRANSFER CENTER THAT IS POTENTIALLY LOOKING TO BE RELOCATED.
SO WE'RE REALLY EXCITED TO GET IN THERE, PRODUCE A MOBILITY HUB MASTER PLAN FOR THE CITY AND TO HELP THEM KIND OF ENVISION THEIR LONG TERM GOALS FOR THIS AREA.
WE HAVE 217,000 DOLLARS AS WELL FOR THIS PLANNING STUDY.
THE NEXT STEPS IS AWARD LETTERS WILL BE SENT OUT TO THE CITY OF COCONUT CREEK AND WE WILL START TO WORK WITH THEIR STAFF ON SCOPING THE MOBILITY HUB MASTER PLAN.
AND AS I MENTIONED, IF YOU'D LIKE TO SEE MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROGRAM OR THE EVALUATION CHART, WHICH I HAD PREVIOUSLY SHOWN THE BOARD, YOU CAN FIND IT ON OUR WEBSITE USING THIS LINK BELOW.
AND WITH THAT, IF THE BOARD HAS ANY QUESTIONS, I'D BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM.
OKAY. MAYOR WILLIAMS, DID YOU HAD YOUR NAME IN.
CAN YOU HEAR ME? I CAN'T HEAR MYSELF.
DO IT. NO, I'M SPEAKING INTO IT.
I HAD A QUESTION IN YOUR RANKING.
IS THERE A POINT MINIMUM POINT AWARDED MINIMUM WHERE YOU WILL NOT FUND A PROJECT? CURRENTLY, THERE IS NO MINIMUM SET.
THERE'S 110 POINTS OUT OF THAT THERE'S TEN POINTS FOR SPONSOR READINESS, AND THEN THE REMAINING 100 POINTS IS DIVIDED FOR THAT MARKET READINESS AND NETWORK READINESS THAT I MENTIONED. BUT CURRENTLY WE DON'T HAVE A MINIMUM.
THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING WE WILL LOOK FORWARD TO IN THE NEXT CYCLE.
WE MET WITH ABOUT A DOZEN MUNICIPALITIES AND INTERESTED PARTNERS, AND WHAT WAS INTERESTING IS MOST WERE INTERESTED IN THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION FUNDS, BUT DUE TO NUMEROUS ISSUES WITH STAFFING OR THEM JUST NOT BEING REALLY READY DURING THE CYCLE, THEY WERE UNFORTUNATELY UNABLE TO MAKE IT.
BUT WE ANTICIPATE QUITE A FEW APPLICATIONS COMING IN IN THE FALL FOR OUR SECOND CYCLE.
I WOULD MR. CHAIR, I'M CONTINUING, I WOULD SUGGEST AS A REFLECTION OF ME SITTING ON THIS BOARD, I WOULD NOT WANT TO AWARD POINTS TO SOMEBODY WHO SCORED A 30 OUT OF 100 POINTS, EVEN IF THEY WERE THE ONLY APPLICANT.
SO I THINK WE OUGHT TO ADDRESS THAT RIGHT AWAY.
I DON'T KNOW WHICH COMMITTEE THAT ROLLS THROUGH, BUT I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO HAVE THAT RIGHT AWAY. THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT. MS. WELCH. I DON'T KNOW.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND I APPRECIATE YOUR QUESTIONS.
AND WE ARE VERY PROUD TO HAVE THIS IN THE CITY OF COCONUT CREEK AND BE CONSIDERED FOR THIS VOTE TODAY.
I DO WANT TO MAKE A [INAUDIBLE] WE DO HAVE STAFF HERE THAT CAN ADD SOME MORE CLARIFYING DETAILS IF YOU SO CHOOSE.
BUT I ALSO WANT TO POINT OUT ONE THING ABOUT YOUR REMARKS, IF YOU WILL.
THE CITY, UNFORTUNATELY, ONLY OWNS 30 OF THOSE 200 ACRES THAT YOU MENTIONED.
BUT WE'RE PROUD TO OWN THOSE THREE DIFFERENT PLOTS OF LAND IN THAT VERY LARGE SECTION THAT IS UP FOR DEVELOPMENT.
BUT IF ANYONE HAS ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PROCESS, I'M SURE MICHAEL WOULD BE GLAD TO COME AND SHARE SOME OF THOSE WITH YOU TODAY.
IS THE $217,000 DOLLARS ENOUGH TO COVER THE ENTIRE STUDY? AT THIS POINT, WE STILL NEED TO DEVELOP THE SCOPE WITH THE CITY TO FIND OUT EXACTLY WHAT COMPONENTS THEY MAY BE LOOKING AT.
IN THE PAST WE DO A TYPICALLY WE DO A MARKET ANALYSIS AS PART OF THE MOBILITY HUB MASTER PLAN, ALONG WITH A CONTEXT REPORT WHERE WE GO AND LOOK AT ALL THE EXISTING TRANSIT PLANS
[00:15:02]
IN THE AREA, WHAT THE CITY HAS PROPOSED.AND SO IT'S KIND OF LIKE THERE'S A MIX AND MATCH APPROACH.
AND SO NOT NECESSARILY WE HAVEN'T HAD THE KICKOFF MEETING QUITE YET WITH THE CITY, BUT WE DEFINITELY ARE LIMITED WITH THAT 217,000 DOLLARS.
SO WE'LL HAVE TO LASER FOCUS ON EXACTLY WHAT THE CITY IS INTERESTED IN ACCOMPLISHING WITH THE MOBILITY HUB MASTER PLAN.
WE'VE DONE QUITE A FEW OF THEM THAT ARE LOCATED ON OUR WEBSITE WITH DIFFERENT MUNICIPALITIES, AND THEY ALL TEND TO BE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT FROM EACH OTHER, JUST DEPENDING ON WHAT COMPONENTS ARE IMPORTANT TO THAT MUNICIPALITY AT THE TIME OF THE STUDY.
BUT THERE'S ALWAYS SHORT TERM AND LONG TERM IMPROVEMENTS THAT COME OUT OF THIS STUDY IN ORDER FOR ONCE THIS MOBILITY HUB MASTERPLAN IS COMPLETED.
IN THEORY, THE CITY OF COCONUT CREEK COME CYCLE TWO, COULD COME BACK AND THEN APPLY FOR THEIR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION FUNDS.
I HOPE THAT ANSWERED THE QUESTION.
I THINK THE ANSWER IS NOT REALLY.
MAYOR ZIADE. CONGRATULATIONS TO THE CITY OF COCONUT CREEK FOR WINNING THAT.
BUT I'M IN COMPLETE AGREEMENT WITH.
ARE YOU, COMMISSIONER CARN OR MAYOR? MAYOR. MAYOR CARN.
KING YOUR HIGHNESS, WITH HIS HIGHNESS.
[LAUGHTER] I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH HIS HIGHNESS 100%.
IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE COULD MAKE A MOTION RIGHT NOW OR REQUEST THAT IT BE PUT ON THE NEXT AGENDA? I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT BASICALLY THE PRIORITIES AND THE CRITERIA THAT WE'RE ACTUALLY USING AT THIS POINT WAS PRESENTED TO THIS BOARD TO HAVE THE INPUT AT THAT TIME.
SINCE THIS IS GOING TO BE AN ANNUAL PROCESS, I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT THE NEXT TIME THAT WE'RE GOING TO START LOOKING AT A NEW FUNDING FOR A NEW MOBILITY HUB AT THAT TIME IN THE CRITERIA PUT THAT THERE WILL BE A MINIMUM CRITERIA NO MATTER WHO APPLIES YOU HAVE TO SCORE 30 OR ABOVE BASED ON THE CURRENT RUBRIC.
OKAY. SO WHO IS IT THAT IS GOING TO DO THAT NEXT TIME? SO ARE YOU MAKING NOTE OF THAT? YES, MA'AM. OKAY.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
WE NEED A MOTION AND A SECOND.
OKAY, LET'S HAVE A MOTION? BEVERLY WILLIAMS. MAYOR WILLIAMS MADE THE MOTION SECONDED BY MS. MCGEE. AND LET'S VOTE.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
GO AHEAD. SENATOR. OH. NUMBER TWO.
[2. MOTION TO APPROVE a First Amendment to the Agreement Between the Broward Metropolitan Planning Organization and Alfred Benesch & Company (F/K/A Tindale Oliver & Associates, Inc.) for Speak Up Broward Phase 3 in an Additional Amount Not to Exceed $34,000]
BEEN CALLED WORSE. [LAUGHTER] OH.JUST THIS MORNING. THIS IS A MOTION TO APPROVE A FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BROWARD METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION, ALFRED BENCH AND COMPANY, FORMERLY KNOWN AS TINDALE OLIVER AND ASSOCIATES INC FOR SPEAK UP BROWARD PHASE 3 IN AN ADDITIONAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $34,000 DOLLARS.
PLEASE MARK YOUR BOX, YOUR VOTING BOX.
I COULDN'T GET IT ON. WE HAVE A MOTION MADE BY MAYOR ZIADE.
SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WELCH.
YEAH, BUT I WANT TO PUT IT IN THERE.
AND WHO ELSE? SECOND BY, I BELIEVE IT'S COMMISSIONER WELCH IS IT COMMISSIONER OR? MR. MELTZER, YOU HAVE A QUESTION? YES GO AHEAD. MIC IS ON.
THERE WE GO. THANK YOU, MAYOR.
THE $34,000 DOLLARS THAT WE'RE LOOKING TO ADD TO THE CONTRACT DUE TO EMPLOYEE TURNOVER, I UNDERSTAND IS THIS A $34,000 DOLLAR FLAT FEE OR ARE WE PAYING AS WE GO UP TO UP TO $34,000 DOLLARS? I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, ONCE YOU I ASSUME YOU'RE LOOKING TO BRING IN NEW STAFF TO HANDLE THIS OUTREACH EVENTUALLY.
SO THAT'S UNCLEAR AT THIS TIME.
IT DEPENDS ON FUNDING IN THE UPWP, WHICH YOU'LL BE APPROVING NEXT MONTH, OUR BUDGET.
WE DO KNOW THAT WE HAVE AN IMMEDIATE NEED AND THIS IS GOING TO FILL THAT IMMEDIATE NEED AND IT'S UP TO 34.
UP TO SO WE'RE PAYING THEM LIKE AN HOURLY RATE? YES. YES.
DO WE HAVE THAT INFORMATION IN THE BACK UP? BECAUSE I DIDN'T FIND IT.
BUT IF IT'S NOT, WOULD YOU PROVIDE THAT, PLEASE? YES, WE WILL. OKAY.
ALL RIGHT. IS THERE FURTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT. LET'S VOTE. PLEASE VOTE.
AND AGAIN, IF YOU'RE ON ZOOM, IF YOU WOULD, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND, YOUR VIRTUAL HAND, IF
[00:20:03]
YOU'RE NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH THE VOTE.HAS EVERYBODY VOTED THAT CAN? ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE AN APPROVAL.
ALL RIGHT. ITEM TWO IS APPROVED.
THANK YOU. NOW WE MOVE TO ITEM THREE.
NOW, ITEM THREE HAS THREE PARTS TO IT, SO THERE'LL BE THREE ITEMS THAT I'LL BRING THEM
[3. MOTION TO APPROVE: A. Agreement Between the Broward Metropolitan Planning Organization and Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. for General Planning Consultant Services in the Amount Not to Exceed $10,000,000 B. Agreement Between the Broward Metropolitan Planning Organization and Kittelson & Associates, Inc. for General Planning Consultant Services in the Amount Not to Exceed $10,000,000 C. Agreement Between the Broward Metropolitan Planning Organization and Whitehouse Group, Inc. for General Planning Consultant Services in the Amount Not to Exceed $10,000,000]
EACH SEPARATELY. BUT THEY'RE SIMILAR CONTRACTS.THE FIRST ONE IS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BROWARD METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION AND KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES INC FOR GENERAL PLANNING CONSULTANT SERVICES IN THE AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED THAT'S $10 MILLION DOLLARS.
OKAY I NEED A MOTION TO APPROVE.
THIS IS FOR ITEM A ONLY FOR KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES.
IS THERE A REQUEST FOR PRESENTATION? PLEASE HOLD.
ALL RIGHT. LET'S DO IT VERBALLY. THE ELECTRONICS ARE JUST NOT WORKING.
I THINK I HEARD. WHO WAS WHO MADE THE MOTION? I MADE THE MOTION.
ALL RIGHT MAYOR ZIADE MADE THE MOTION. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. SECOND OKAY VICE MAYOR GOOD.
YES. SO. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. SO WE HAD SOME CONVERSATIONS DURING THE EXECUTIVE BOARD JUST SO THAT THE MAIN BOARD KNOWS THAT IF SOMEONE COULD PLEASE JUST AGAIN, BRIEFLY EXPLAIN THE PROCUREMENT PROCESS, THE NUMBER OF FIRMS THAT WERE PARTICIPATED, THOSE THAT WERE INTERVIEWED, HOW THE SELECTION PROCESS WAS DONE AND VERY QUICKLY AND HOW THE WORK WILL BE ISSUED? THIS IS A SIGNIFICANT AWARD FOR EACH FIRM.
SO I WOULD LIKE THAT SHARED WITH THE MAIN GROUP.
GOOD MORNING. PAUL CALVARESI BROWARD MPO, PROJECT MANAGER FOR THE GENERAL PLANNING CONSULTING CONTRACTS.
SO THANK YOU, MADAM VICE CHAIR.
THANK YOU, CHAIR. SO, WHILE WE'RE WAITING TO PULL UP THE POWERPOINT, THE PROCUREMENT WAS A REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS.
THIS WENT OUT TO THE BREADTH OF EVERYBODY.
THERE'S A TWO PRONGED APPROACH TO THIS.
THE FIRST ONE WAS A REVIEW OF A WRITTEN PROPOSAL.
THERE WERE FIVE MEMBERS ON THE REVIEW TEAM, MYSELF, THE PROJECT MANAGER, PLUS THE FOUR DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS OF THE MPO.
BY HAVING THOSE FIVE PEOPLE ON IT, WE COVERED THE ENTIRE BREADTH OF ACTIVITIES THAT THE MPO WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR AND EVEN SOME WHICH WE MAY NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR YET BUT HOPE TO DO IN THE FUTURE.
IS THE POWERPOINT COMING UP? SO AFTER THE FIRST.
THANK YOU. SO WE'RE CLEAR ON THE PURPOSE OF THE GPC, BUT AS TO SUPPORT THE BOARD IN ITS ACTIVITIES. ADDITIONALLY, IT'S TO SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE MEMBER CITIES WHO CURRENTLY OR WISH TO ENTER INTO AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR PLANNING SERVICES WITH THE MPO. CURRENTLY WE HAVE EIGHT CITIES WITH THAT INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT AND IF ANYBODY ELSE WOULD LIKE TO JOIN ON THAT OFFER STILL STANDS AND IT GIVES OUR CITIES ACCESS TO NOT JUST MPO STAFF AND STAFF EXPERTISE TO WORK ON PROJECTS, BUT ALSO TO OUR GENERAL PLANNING CONSULTANTS. WE KNOW THAT SOME CITIES MAY NOT HAVE A SPECIFIC PLANNING GPC.
OKAY. SO QUICKLY ON THE SCOPE OF SERVICES, IT COVERS EVERYTHING IN THE PLANNING WORLD AND THEN SOME, LIKE I SAID, THINGS WE CURRENTLY DO, THINGS WE WANT TO DO AND THINGS WE MAY NOT EVEN KNOW WE WANT TO DO LATER.
YOU'RE NAME IS ON THE [INAUDIBLE].
YEAH. SO WE AFTER THE WRITTEN ROUND, OK WE WENT TO THE TOP FIVE FIRMS. AFTER THAT, THERE WERE ORAL PRESENTATIONS, SCORE ADJUSTMENTS.
AND WE HAVE THE TOP THREE FIRMS. THOSE THREE FIRMS ARE KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, WHITE HOUSE GROUP AND KITTELSON ASSOCIATES. THESE ARE THE PRIMES.
THEY HAVE A VERY DEEP BENCH OF TEAMS TO PROVIDE ALL THE SERVICES OF WHICH WE ASKED.
NOW WHAT YOU ARE APPROVING TODAY IS JUST THE CONTRACT.
THE CONTRACT IS VERY CLEAR THAT THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF WORK.
WORK WILL BE DETERMINED ON A TASK WORK ORDER BASIS.
SO WE CALL IT A TWO STEP PROCESS, FIRST ONE BEING THE RFQ, THE SECOND ONE BEING THE TASK WORK ORDER PROCESS.
STAFF INTERNALLY DEVELOPS A SCOPE.
WHAT WE ASK FOR IS THEY PACK A RESPONSE PACKAGE AND EVALUATION CRITERIA.
EACH OF THE EVALUATION CRITERIA IS UNIQUE TO THE SCOPE.
WE TRY TO TAILOR IT SO THAT WE GET THE BEST RESPONSE FOR THE WORK THAT WE ARE SEEKING TO DO. THIS FIRM SUBMIT THOSE ARE REVIEWED SCORED RANKED SENT TO THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR WHO THEN WITH THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE TOP RANK FIRM, WHO THEN DIRECTS STAFF TO ENGAGE IN NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE TOP RANK FIRM.
SHOULD NEGOTIATIONS FAIL WE GO TO THE SECOND AND THEN THE THIRD.
ONCE, THESE HAVE BEEN NEGOTIATED AND WE'RE READY, WE STILL HAVE TO FOLLOW THE BROWARD MPO
[00:25:06]
PROCUREMENT PROCESS, WHICH HAS THRESHOLDS OF WHEN CONTRACTS ARE APPROVED BY THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OR THE BOARD AT LARGE.I BELIEVE ANYTHING UNDER $250,000 DOLLARS GOES TO THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE.
ANYTHING ABOVE THAT IS APPROVED BY THE MPO BOARD AT LARGE.
DID I COVER ALL THE POINTS MADAM CHAIR? ALL RIGHT [INAUDIBLE]. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. I DON'T KNOW IF I'M ON OR NOT, BUT, THERE WE GO.
FIRST OF ALL, GREAT PRESENTATION, BUT I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS.
THERE WERE SEVEN FIRMS THAT SUBMITTED.
THEN YOU NARROWED IT DOWN TO FIVE.
AND THEN AT THAT POINT, IS THERE A PROCESS OF WHICH YOU LIMIT IT TO THREE? OR WHY WOULD YOU NOT WANT TO HAVE ALL THE CONSULTANTS OF THE FIVE FIRMS? I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHY YOU LIMIT IT TO THREE.
OKAY. YES, SIR, A GREAT QUESTION.
BASICALLY, WHEN WE ADVERTISE FOR THE QUALIFICATIONS IN THE BEGINNING, WE PUT THAT WE WOULD BE SELECTING THREE NO MORE, NO LESS FIRMS. AND SO WE GOT THESE SEVEN SUBMITTALS BASED ON JUST THE WRITTEN SUBMITTAL IS WHAT THE FIRST ELIMINATION ROUND WAS.
WE MET AND ELIMINATED THE LOWEST TWO SCORING BASED ON THE WRITTEN QUALIFICATIONS.
THEY DID THE PRESENTATION AND WE NARROWED IT TO THE TOP THREE SCORING FIRMS. SO IT WAS IN THAT YOU ONLY PICK THE TOP THREE? CORRECT.
THE SECOND THING IS, DO YOU ALLOW ANY LOCAL PREFERENCE AT ALL? IN THIS FOR INSTANCE I LOOK AT A CTS FIRM HERE, FOR INSTANCE, WHO WAS A LOCAL BROWARD COUNTY FIRM. ARE THEY GIVEN ANY PREFERENCE AT ALL? NO, BECAUSE THE FEDERAL PROCESS THAT WE MUST USE DOES NOT ALLOW FOR THAT.
IT DOES ALLOW FOR DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISES.
AND WE DO HAVE THAT AS A CONSIDERATION IN ALL OF THEM.
ALL SEVEN FIRMS MET THAT CONSIDERATION.
THANK YOU. I WANTED TO JUST CALL ATTENTION TO A PHRASE THAT I READ THAT GAVE ME A LITTLE PAUSE. AND YOU MAY BE ABLE TO CLARIFY IT, BUT I WOULD SUGGEST WHEN WE USE THE WORD MODIFIED THEIR SCORES THAT WE THAT KIND OF IMPLIES THAT WE MAY HAVE THOUGHT ONE WAY BEFORE. AND THEN WE CAME BACK AND CHANGED OUR MINDS.
BUT IT SAYS THE SELECTION COMMITTEE RECONVENED TO DISCUSS AND MODIFY THEIR SCORES.
I WOULD SUGGEST THAT YOU CLEAN UP THAT LANGUAGE OR PUT A LITTLE.
YOU KNOW WHERE I'M GOING [INAUDIBLE].
YES, SIR. AND ACTUALLY, IT IS VERY ACCURATE LANGUAGE THAT'S WRITTEN IN THEIR SCORES WERE MODIFIED. SO WE ORIGINALLY BASED OUR SCORES, OUR INITIAL EVALUATION BASED ON THE WRITTEN QUALIFICATIONS. SO EACH OF THE FIVE COMMITTEE MEMBERS RANKED BASED ON THAT PARTICULAR 500 PAGE PRESENTATION THAT THEY PROVIDED US.
WE THEN MET AND WE TOOK THE HIGHEST FIVE TO GIVE PRESENTATIONS TO IDENTIFY ANY DEFICIENCIES THAT WERE IDENTIFIED IN THAT FIRST GO AROUND.
AND IF THE DEFICIENCIES WAS MET IN THEIR PRESENTATION OR IF WE FOUND FURTHER DEFICIENCIES, A SCORE WAS EITHER MODIFIED UP OR DOWN BASED ON THEIR PRESENTATIONS IN THE SECOND ROUND. THAT'S EASY FOR YOU TO SAY TO ME, BUT JUST READING THIS, I DON'T GET THAT.
SO I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE NOT BE SO TERSE WHEN WE USE THE WORD MODIFY THAT WE GIVE A FULL EXPLANATION FOR TRANSPARENCY.
I MISSED YOU ALL. AND I'M SORRY I'M NOT THERE.
BUT I'M GRATEFUL THAT TECHNOLOGY ALLOWS ME.
SORRY. TECHNOLOGY ALLOWS ME TO BE THERE WITH YOU ALL.
AND I HOPE MY VOLUME LEVEL IS FINE.
I DON'T WANT ANYONE TO THINK I'M YELLING TODAY BECAUSE I AM NOT.
I KNOW COMMISSIONER FISHER ASKED.
I GUESS VICE MAYOR FISHER I BELIEVE, ASKED SOME PRETTY GOOD QUESTIONS.
AND THEN I JUST FOR ME, I WANT TO KNOW, LIKE, HOW MUCH ATTENTION DO WE REALLY GIVE TO LOCAL OR MINORITY OWNED FIRMS? I KNOW AT YOU KNOW IN CORAL SPRINGS AND MANY OTHER CITIES IN BROWARD THERE'S BEEN A BIGGER PUSH TO WORK WITH AND GIVE MORE OPPORTUNITIES TO LOCAL AND MINORITY OWNED FIRMS WHEN IT COMES TO CONTRACTS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE.
SO DO WE HAVE ANYTHING IN PLACE THAT KIND OF HELPS US HELP THOSE BUSINESSES? COMMISSIONER. COMMISSIONER, UNFORTUNATELY.
IT'S. GOOD MORNING, COMMISSIONER.
BASICALLY, WE MUST FOLLOW THE GUIDELINES SET FORTH BY THE FEDS.
AND THE FEDS DOES NOT RECOGNIZE A LOCAL BUSINESS, SO WE CANNOT MAKE THAT A CONSIDERATION IN OUR QUALIFICATIONS.
WE DO HAVE A REQUIREMENT FOR DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISES AND ALL SEVEN OF THE
[00:30:05]
SUBMITTALS MET THAT WE HAVE BETWEEN A NINE AND 10% REQUIREMENT FOR DBE BUSINESSES.BUT LIKE I SAID, ALL SEVEN OF SEVEN DID MEET THAT REQUIREMENT.
OKAY. ALL RIGHT, MR. JAFFE. THANK YOU, CHAIR.
SO, PAUL, THIS IS JUST BASICALLY A CONSULTING SERVICES.
IT'S AN RFQ FOR CONSULTING SERVICES, FOR FUTURE PROJECTS THAT WILL BE COMING BEFORE THE BOARD HERE. AND THEN IS THE EXECUTIVE STAFF, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND THE STAFF THEY ASSIGN WHERE THAT CONSULTING SERVICE THEY WANT, WHICH CONSULTING FIRM THEY WANT TO UTILIZE FOR THAT. AND THEN I ALSO SAW IN THE BACKUP, IS IT A THREE OR FIVE YEAR AGREEMENT? AND THEN YOU MENTIONED THE IF THE FEE IS BELOW 250,000, THE EXECUTIVE BOARD WILL VOTE ON THAT. IF NO? THAT IS NOT CORRECT FOR GENERAL PLANNING THESE AGREEMENTS BECAUSE IT CAME BEFORE THE BOARD FOR APPROVAL ANYTHING THAT'S ANY WORK GOING BEFORE ANY ONE OF THESE COMPANIES WILL COME TO THE BOARD FOR FULL APPROVAL.
SO WHAT WAS THE 250,000? HE WAS REFERRING TO A STANDALONE CONTRACT FOR THE.
WELL, WERE YOU DONE? SO I'M GOING TO ANSWER THESE IN REVERSE ORDER BECAUSE THEY STARTED HARD AND THEY GOT EASIER. SO IT IS A RIGHT NOW IS A THREE YEAR CONTRACT WITH TWO ONE YEAR EXTENSIONS.
AS FAR AS ASSIGNING WORK, WE DON'T ASSIGN WORK.
WE HAVE LIKE WHAT WE CALL A TWO STEP PROCESS.
STAFF CREATES A TASK WORK ORDER, A SCOPE THAT THEN GOES OUT TO THESE THREE PRIMES, AND THEN THEY SUBMIT A RESPONSE WHICH IS THEN REVIEWED, SCORED AND RANKED AND IS THE HIGHEST RANKING FIRMS YOU TRY TO MAKE THIS PROCESS AS OBJECTIVE AS POSSIBLE.
JUST THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR, JUST VERY QUICK.
I THINK THAT WAS ORIGINALLY WHY I ASKED THE QUESTIONS DURING THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE WAS BECAUSE THE WAY HOW THE LANGUAGE OR THE VERBIAGE WAS PHRASED IN SAYING THAT THE TABULATIONS WERE MODIFIED, JUST ADDS A BIT OF MYSTERY UNLESS, YOU KNOW, THE SPECIFICS SURROUNDING THOSE MODIFICATIONS.
MAYBE SOME ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE FURTHER EVALUATE IT, SOMETHING THAT LEADS TO THE FACT THAT THERE WAS A REASONING BEHIND THE ADDITIONAL CHANGES TO THE TABULATION.
SO I JUST WANTED TO SUPPORT HIS EFFORTS.
THANK YOU. SURE. IF YOU'D LIKE A FURTHER EXPLANATION.
AND ESPECIALLY SINCE YOU CLARIFIED IT FURTHER FOR HIM.
I JUST WANTED TO CONCUR WITH HIS COMMENTS.
THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, TOREY ALSTON.
SINCE THIS IS FOR LIBRARY SERVICES AND KIND OF NO WORK IS GUARANTEED, IS THERE? AND I THINK I HEARD THE COMMENT THAT ALL SEVEN WERE DBE'S.
IS THERE A PROHIBITION TO AWARD TO ALL SEVEN? IN THAT REGARD, I KNOW THE RECOMMENDATION IS FOR THREE.
SO IN OUR PARAMETERS THAT WE INITIALLY PUT OUT ON THE STREET, IT WAS THAT WE WOULD SELECT THREE NO MORE, NO LESS.
SOME OF THEIR SUBS ARE, TO VARYING DEGREES.
IT MIGHT BE 50%, I BELIEVE, WITH THE WHITE HOUSE GROUP THAT IS ONE OF THE THREE.
100% OF THEIR SUBS ARE DBES, BUT THEY HAD TO MEET, THEY HAD TO EXCEED THE FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS. MR. CHAIR. YES.
SO LET ME ASK THE DIRECT QUESTION.
IS THERE ANY PROHIBITION SINCE IT'S A LIBRARY OF SERVICES TO AWARD TO SEVEN? WE COULD.
IF WE WOULD HAVE INITIALLY INITIATED THAT WE SAID WE WOULD TAKE UP TO SEVEN.
WE COULD HAVE, BUT WE SELECTED THREE.
SO LET ME MAKE, SORRY, CHAIR LET ME MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND.
THERE IS NO PROHIBITION FOR US TO AWARD TO SEVEN.
LET ME. JUST CLARIFY THE STATEMENT.
WHEN WE WENT OUT TO THE STREET, WE IDENTIFIED THAT THERE WOULD BE NO MORE THAN THREE.
WE ALSO WHEN WE EVALUATED WE ALSO EVALUATED WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT WE WERE LIMITING OURSELVES TO THREE.
SO WE RANKED FIRST FIVE AND DROPPED TWO.
SO IF WE WERE GOING TO APPROVE EVERYONE, I MEAN, THAT MIGHT HAVE CHANGED THE EVALUATION OF WHAT WAS DONE. MAYBE THOSE LAST TWO THAT WERE DROPPED IN THE, YOU KNOW, THE CHANGEOVER WOULD NOT HAVE QUALIFIED IF WE WERE LOOKING AT IT FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE.
SO I WOULD SAY THAT AT THIS POINT, THIS IS THE PROCESS THAT WE WENT TO THE STREET WITH THE CONTRACTORS ALL UNDERSTOOD IT AND EXPECTED IT.
AND WE DELIBERATELY IDENTIFIED ONLY THREE FOR PURPOSES OF THEY CAN STILL COME BACK AND DO OTHER WORK WHEN WE DO SEPARATE WORK AND THEY MAY QUALIFY FOR THAT.
BUT FOR THIS PURPOSE, THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE.
[00:35:02]
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. THANK YOU, MAYOR GANZ.WHEN IT COMES TO LOCAL PREFERENCE AND I'M GOING TO GO BACK 14 YEARS AGO WITH A PROJECT THAT CAME FROM THE MPO.
WHEN WE DID THE DIXIE FLYOVER, WE ASKED FOR LOCAL PREFERENCE.
AND WHEN DEALING WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, LOCAL PREFERENCE MEANS THE STATE OF FLORIDA. THEIR DEFINITION OF LOCAL IS VERY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT OUR DEFINITION OF LOCAL IS. SO THAT AFFECTS A LOT OF THIS, THESE TYPES OF PROJECTS.
I ALSO AGREE WITH WHAT VICE CHAIR GOODE MENTIONED AND MR. CARN'S ON THAT WORDING.
SITTING ON THE CANVASING BOARD, WE DUPLICATE BALLOTS, AND IT'S VERY HARD FOR THE PUBLIC TO UNDERSTAND WHAT, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THESE WORDS MEAN WHEN WE DO IT.
THE ONE THING I WANT TO MAKE IN CONNECTION WITH THIS IS THE WHITE HOUSE GROUP, THAT GROUP IS ALSO DOING WORK FOR THE SURTAX.
SO THEY WILL NOT BE ELIGIBLE TO DO ANY WORK ON WHEN THERE ARE SURTAX DOLLARS INVOLVED, SINCE THEY'RE ALSO THE CONSULTANT FOR THE SURTAX.
SO WE SHOULD NOTE THAT IN THE RECORD.
IT WAS NOTED FOR EACH OF THE FIRMS WERE REQUESTED, IF THEY DO ANY SURTAX WORK FOR THE CITIES. AND WHAT IT DOES IS IT PROHIBITS THEM FROM WORKING FOR ANY OF THE CITIES.
THEY'VE ACTUALLY ALREADY SIGNED THAT IN THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT THAT WE HAVE THAT THEY WON'T DO ANY SURTAX WORK FOR BROWARD CITIES.
THEY ARE LIMITED ONLY TO THE COUNTY WORK THAT WE HAVE AN AGREEMENT WITH.
FOR THE OTHER FIRMS WE DID ASK THEM, DO YOU DO ANY SURTAX WORK FOR CITIES? WHAT THAT WOULD DO IS IT WOULD EXCLUDE THEM OF ANY OF OUR TASK NINE.
SO YOU SEE WE HAVE EIGHT TASKS IN OUR UPWP.
IT EXCLUDES THEM FROM TASK NINE, BUT NOT THE OTHER EIGHT.
OK. SO I'M GLAD THAT WE PUT THAT ON THE RECORD BECAUSE I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR IT TO BE ON THE RECORD. WITH THAT SAID, SINCE WE WERE LOOKING FOR THREE FIRMS, SINCE THAT ONE WILL HAVE SOME KIND OF CONFLICT ON CERTAIN TYPE OF THINGS, WOULD IT BE PERMISSIBLE TO MAKE A MOTION TO TAKE THE FIVE SHORT LISTED ONES AND OR WE CAN'T.
I WOULD RECOMMEND AGAINST THAT AT THIS POINT.
ALL RIGHT. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE.
ACTUALLY, THERE WERE SEVERAL FIRMS THAT ACTUALLY DID SOME CITY SURTAX.
GOOD MORNING AGAIN. I ACTUALLY HAD A FOLLOW UP, BUT I GOT MUTED BEFORE I COULD SAY FOLLOW UP. SO I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY AGAIN BEING ABLE TO SPEAK TO YOU ALL.
YOU KNOW, IT SEEMS LIKE SOME OF THESE FIRMS CONTINUE LIKE THEY CONTINUE TO GET CONTRACTS.
RIGHT, OR THEY'RE USUALLY THE ONES THAT MAKE IT THROUGH.
AND AT THE CITY LEVEL, OBVIOUSLY, WE ALL DEAL WITH [INAUDIBLE] CONTRACTORS AND GROUPS.
BUT LIKE I SAID BEFORE, THERE'S BEEN A PUSH TO INCORPORATE DIFFERENT FIRMS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. SO I THINK WE REALLY GOT TO TAKE NOTICE OF AND I KNOW YOU SAID THERE'S FEDERAL GUIDELINES, BUT I ALSO KNOW THAT WE CAN ALSO PUSH FOR THE PEOPLE THAT WE WANT TO INVOLVE THESE PROJECTS INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS, INVOLVED IN GETTING AWARDED.
AND I THINK WE CAN DO BETTER WITH MAKING SURE WE GIVE MULTIPLE COMPANIES AND FIRMS THAT DON'T OFTEN GET AWARDED OR GET PASSED OVER BECAUSE MAYBE THEY'RE SEEN AS SMALLER, BUT NOT LESS CAPABLE IN GETTING AWARDED THESE CONTRACTS.
AND SO, YOU KNOW, IT DOES SEEM LIKE WE CONTINUE TO KIND OF PICK THE SAME GROUPS OF FOLKS AND NOTHING TO THEM.
BUT ANYTHING THAT WHEN YOU'RE TRYING TO BREAK INTO HOW THINGS USED TO BE AND DO THINGS DIFFERENT THINGS WILL BE SEEN.
AND SO I THINK GOING FORWARD I'M ASKING YOU ALL TO REALLY CONSIDER AND WHATEVER YOU HAVE TO DO ON YOUR END TO CONSIDER, YOU KNOW, MINORITY FIRMS AND OTHER FIRMS THAT DON'T MAKE THESE THINGS SOMETIMES, MAYBE BECAUSE THERE'S SOMETHING THAT THEY AREN'T USED TO [INAUDIBLE] ON THE APPLICATION OR, YOU KNOW, JUST ANYTHING.
BUT I THINK WE'VE GOT TO START SPREADING AROUND THE LOVE.
COMMISSIONER. I'M HAPPY TO HEAR THAT.
AND AT LEAST FOR THIS CONTRACT, I'M HAPPY TO REPORT THAT TWO OF THE SEVEN, ONE OF THEM IS A SMALL BOUTIQUE FIRM AND ONE IS ACTUALLY NEW TO THE FLORIDA MARKET ITSELF.
SO TWO OF THE SEVEN THAT APPLIED DID.
AND OF THE FINAL THREE THAT ARE BEING AWARDED, ONE IS THAT SMALL BOUTIQUE FIRM THAT DOESN'T NORMALLY SHOW UP ON LOCAL AGENDAS FOR AWARDS.
SO WE'RE HAPPY TO REPORT IN THIS INSTANCE, IT WORKED OUT AS YOU PRESCRIBED.
AND I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER SIMMONS, AND I THINK IT'S A WONDERFUL RESULT THAT WE HAD
[00:40:02]
HERE. SO HOPEFULLY MOVING FORWARD, WE'LL CONTINUE ON THAT PATH.I KNOW WE DID AN RFQ GOT THESE THREE FIRMS THEY'RE ALL THREE TOP QUALITY FIRMS. WHEN A TASK ORDER IS ISSUED AND WE CHOOSE A FIRM TO DO THE PROJECT, DO WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO SEND OUT AN RFP TO OTHER FIRMS AT THAT POINT? SO WE MAKE A CHOICE ON WHETHER WE'RE GOING TO DO AN RFP GLOBALLY OR WE'RE GOING TO GO TO OUR GPC.
GENERALLY, IT'S THE SMALLER CONTRACTS THAT WE NEED A FASTER TURNAROUND THAT WE RESULT TO THE GPC. BUT I WILL LET YOU KNOW THAT FOR LARGE PROJECTS, WE ACTUALLY GO AHEAD AND DO A GLOBAL RFP.
AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT BECAUSE, I MEAN, WE'VE ALREADY NARROWED DOWN THROUGH THE RFQ PROCESS THE BEST OF THE BEST.
NOW WE JUST HAVE TO MAKE SURE WE'RE GETTING THE RIGHT PRICE.
RIGHT. AND ACTUALLY, FOR A VERY LARGE CONTRACT THAT'S COMING UP FOR ONE OF OUR CORE PRODUCTS, WE ARE GOING TO ISSUE IT GLOBALLY AND WE MAY SEE EACH OF THOSE SEVEN ACTUALLY REAPPLY FOR THAT ONE JOB.
TERRIFIC. ALL RIGHT. THANKS VERY MUCH.
ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT. LET'S VOTE. WE HAVE A MOTION BY MAYOR ZIADE.
THIS. SO WE'RE GOING BACK TO ELECTRONIC VOTING.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION BY MAYOR ZIADE AND MCGEE ALL IN FAVOR.
THIS IS FOR THE KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES CONTRACT.
ALL RIGHT. EVERYBODY VOTED THAT WANTS TO VOTE AND THAT MOTION IS ACCEPTED.
AND THAT IS APPROVED. AND THEN IF I CAN GO TO 3B, IT'S THE SAME SIMILAR CONTRACT.
LET'S DO IT. THIS IS AN AGREEMENT WITH THE MPO AND KITTELSON AND ASSOCIATES INC, SAME $10 MILLION DOLLAR CONTRACT. IS THERE A MOTION? WE'LL GO ZIADE AGAIN AND MCGEE.
ALL RIGHT. MOTION APPROVED, AND THAT MOTION IS APPROVED.
NOW WE MOVE TO THE THIRD AND LAST.
AND THIS IS AN AGREEMENT WITH THE BROWARD MPO, WITH THE WHITE HOUSE GROUP FOR THE SAME NOT TO EXCEED $10 MILLION DOLLARS.
WE ARE NOW ON OUR NEXT ITEM, SIR.
[4. MOTION TO APPROVE an Interlocal Agreement (ILA) Between the Broward Metropolitan Planning Organization and the Municipalities of Hollywood, Plantation, and Pompano Beach for the Creation of the Metro Transportation Engineering & Construction Cooperative]
ITEM NUMBER FOUR. THIS IS A DIFFERENT ITEM.THIS IS A MOTION TO APPROVE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BROWARD MPO AND THE MUNICIPALITIES OF HOLLYWOOD, PLANTATION, AND POMPANO BEACH FOR THE CREATION OF THE METRO TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION COOPERATIVE.
WE HAVE A MOTION BY MAYOR WILLIAMS AND SECOND BY MCGEE.
THERE'S NO YOU'RE SITTING IN AS YOUR MPO POSITION.
EXECUTIVE BOARD MEETING FOR THIS PARTICULAR ITEM COMING FORWARD.
AND I JUST WANTED AGAIN FOR STAFF WHO DID GIVE A VERY DETAILED RESPONSE, TO JUST SPEAK, ON THE ISSUE OF THE TERM VARIATIONS FOR TWO OF THE THREE MUNICIPALITIES THAT ARE THE I DON'T HAVE THE AGREEMENT IN FRONT OF ME, BUT THE GOVERNING BOARD, I KNOW YOU YOU CALL IT A CERTAIN TERM IN THE AGREEMENT.
AND ALSO, IF YOU COULD JUST BRIEFLY EXPLAIN HOW IT WILL SUBSEQUENTLY OCCUR WITH WHEN THOSE INITIAL BOARD MEMBERS TERMS ARE OVER AND HOW THE MUNICIPALITIES WILL BE APPOINTED? OKAY. OKAY, GOOD.
VERY GOOD. WELL, THROUGH THE CHAIR.
GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS BILL CROSS, THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR PLANNING AND PROGRAMING. AND I'VE BEEN LEADING THE M-TECC [INAUDIBLE] TO LEAN DOWN INTO IT I THINK.
YEAH. SO A PLEASURE TO BE HERE THIS MORNING TO DIRECTLY ANSWER THE QUESTIONS.
SO THE M-TECC BOARD BY DIRECTION OF THE MAYORS AND ELECTED OFFICIALS THAT SAT ON THE SUBCOMMITTEE THAT WORKED TO DEVELOP THIS OVER THE LAST THREE PLUS YEARS, THE DECISION WAS TAKEN THAT WE SHOULD HAVE A BOARD THAT WOULD ROTATE AND NOT HAVE THE SAME DATES OF TERMINATION SO THE INITIAL TERM FOR TWO OF THE MEMBERS WILL BE SEVEN YEARS.
ONE OF THE MEMBERS WILL BE FIVE.
THAT ONE CITY IS THE CITY OF HOLLYWOOD, AND THAT WAS BY VOLUNTEER OF CHAIR BLATTNER, WHO
[00:45:01]
WAS CHAIRING THAT SUBCOMMITTEE AT THE TIME THAT THAT DECISION WAS TAKEN.I THINK I WOULD JUST THE SECOND QUESTION WAS THE ORDER.
IT WAS THE ONCE THE INITIAL TERMS ARE OVER, FOR EXAMPLE, THE FIRST FIVE, THERE'S REFERENCE IN THERE ON HOW THE SUBSEQUENT BOARD MEMBERS WILL BE APPOINTED.
AND IT'S AN ORDER OF, I GUESS, PARTICIPATION.
AS OF RIGHT NOW, YOU ONLY HAVE THREE.
BUT YOU INDICATED THAT THERE IS AN EXPRESS INTEREST FROM OTHER MUNICIPALITIES.
SO I KNOW WE DISCUSSED A LOT ABOUT THE WHAT IFS, WHAT IF THIS HAPPENS OR WHAT IF THAT HAPPENS? AND IT'S UNLIKELY THAT YOU'LL HAVE MULTIPLE MUNICIPALITIES INITIATING A CONTRACT AT THE SAME DAY ON A GIVEN YEAR.
BUT WE TALKED ABOUT HOW THEY WOULD BE APPOINTED.
RIGHT. VERY GOOD. THANK YOU FOR THE REMINDER THERE.
SO THE PROCESS FOR ADDITIONAL MEMBERS TO COME ON AND TO JOIN THE M-TECC BOARD AS THE INITIAL SET OF FOUNDING MEMBERS AS THEIR TERMS EXPIRE, IT IS BASED UPON THE DATE AT WHICH YOU YOU JOIN M-TECC.
SO, FOR EXAMPLE, THE CITY OF DEERFIELD BEACH HAS ALREADY SIGNED THEIR INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT TO BECOME A REGULAR MEMBER, NOT A FOUNDING MEMBER.
SO THEY WILL NOT HAVE A BOARD SEAT FOR THE INITIAL TERM, BUT THEY WILL BE IN FIRST IN THE QUEUE, FIRST IN LINE AND BE PROVIDED THAT OPTION TO TAKE A SEAT.
AND AGAIN, IT IS OPTIONAL WHETHER THEY TAKE THAT SEAT.
IT'S BASICALLY THE DATE AT WHICH BY WHICH YOU JOIN THAT SETS YOUR POSITION IN THE QUEUE TO HAVE A SEAT, THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE A SEAT ON THE M-TECC BOARD.
AND MY LAST QUESTION IS, AND WE ALSO SPOKE ABOUT THIS IS IF LET'S SAY, UNFORTUNATELY, IF DEERFIELD IS THE ONLY OTHER ONE THAT PARTICIPATES, THE FIVE YEARS ARE UP, WHERE IN THE AGREEMENT DOES IT SPEAK TO THAT THE FOUNDING MEMBER CAN RE, FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD, REAPPLY TO CONTINUE WITH THEIR MEMBERSHIP ON THE BOARD.
I DON'T BELIEVE IT DIRECTLY STATES THAT OR ANTICIPATES THAT.
AND OF COURSE THIS IS A FAIRLY BROAD AGREEMENT TO SET THE OVERALL STRUCTURE.
A LOT OF THAT TYPE OF AUTHORITY IS GIVEN TO THE M-TECC BOARD TO MAKE THOSE KIND OF DECISIONS. SO WE DIDN'T FEEL LIKE WE COULD ANTICIPATE EVERY SINGLE SCENARIO, NOR WAS IT REALLY SUPPORTED BY THE ELECTEDS THAT SAT ON OUR COMMITTEE.
THEY WANTED TO GIVE THAT AUTHORITY TO M-TECC.
SO I THINK IF IF WE WOUND UP IN A SITUATION WHERE THE ORIGINAL FOUNDING THREE WERE STILL THE ONLY THREE MEMBERS FIVE OR SEVEN YEARS IN THE FUTURE, THEN AGAIN, THEY WOULD HAVE THAT OPTION TO SIMPLY RESEAT THEMSELVES ON THE BOARD.
I WILL SAY FROM A PRACTICAL STANDPOINT, I DON'T THINK WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THAT PROBLEM.
WE HAVE SEVERAL CITIES THAT ARE LINED UP AND IN QUEUE AND IN PROCESS OF OF JOINING AS REGULAR MEMBERS TO M-TECC.
SO I'M VERY HOPEFUL THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE A SUCCESSFUL ORGANIZATION WITH LOTS OF MEMBERS. I CERTAINLY HOPE SO.
BUT I ALWAYS THINK OF THE WHAT IF'S.
SO I GUESS I WOULD ASK COUNSEL, IS THERE ANYTHING IN THE CONTRACT THAT PROHIBITS THE FOUNDING ONE OF THE FOUNDING CITIES FROM CONTINUING TO PARTICIPATE BEYOND THE INITIAL? NO, MA'AM. THERE IS NOTHING THAT WOULD PROHIBIT THAT.
IN FACT, THERE'S A MINIMUM OF THREE BOARD MEMBERS REQUIRED.
SO IF THEY'RE THE ONLY THREE, THEY WOULD CONTINUE BEING.
THAT'S ALL. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THERE WAS NO PROHIBITION IN THE EVENT THAT SUCH A THING WOULD OCCUR. SO THANK YOU.
I TOLD YOU THERE WAS SOMETHING WRONG WITH THIS, MIC? I'D LIKE TO.
NO SPANKING THE MIC. I HAVE A HABIT OF BEING A COMMISSIONER.
AND WHEN SOMETHING LIKE THIS COMES BEFORE US, I DON'T TAKE FOR GRANTED THAT THE PUBLIC FULLY UNDERSTANDS WHAT M-TECC IS.
SO IF WE COULD ALLOW MR. CROSS TO GIVE US THE FIRST SEVEN OR EIGHT SLIDES OF THIS PRESENTATION SO THAT THE PUBLIC WILL HAVE CONTEXT ABOUT THIS.
YOU KNOW, I REMEMBERED, OH, THIS IS WHEN I WAS ARGUING ABOUT LAP AND IT'S GOING AWAY AND BEING CHANGED.
BUT IF YOU HAD JUST TOLD ME, M-TECC, I WOULD HAVE NOT KNOWN WHAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT UNTIL I READ A FEW SLIDES.
SO IF WE COULD INDULGE, I WOULD ASK IF WE COULD HAVE THE FIRST EIGHT SLIDES OF THIS PRESENTED TO US SO WE CAN GET SOME CONTACTS TO THE PUBLIC.
YES, SIR. WE'RE GLAD TO DO THAT.
MR. CHAIR. WE DID GIVE THE FULL PRESENTATION LAST MONTH, SO HOPEFULLY MOST OF YOU HAVE HAD A CHANCE TO SEE AT LEAST PART OF IT.
BUT THIS IS A REALLY IMPORTANT DAY FOR US AND A REALLY IMPORTANT EVENT.
THIS IS WE ARE STARTING A NEW ORGANIZATION TO HELP ALL THE MUNICIPALITIES DELIVER FEDERALLY FUNDED PROJECTS OFF THE STATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM.
AND I WANT TO CALL OUT A COUPLE OF YOUR COLLEAGUES HERE WHO WERE REALLY INSTRUMENTAL
[00:50:06]
WHILE THEY'RE PULLING THIS UP.SO COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS, COMMISSIONER MCGEE AS WELL AS MAYOR STONER WERE ALL SAT ON THAT ORIGINAL BOARD.
AND REALLY, THEY PROVIDED THE LEADERSHIP.
SO I WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE AND THANK THEM FOR THAT.
ALL RIGHT. SO WHAT ARE SOME OF THE I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S THE, IS THAT THE FIRST SLIDE WE'VE GOT THERE? I GUESS THAT'S WHERE I'M STARTING TODAY.
SO IT IS A SELF GOVERNING BOARD.
THIS IS A SEPARATE ORGANIZATION.
AND JUST TO REMIND US, THIS WAS SET UP UNDER FLORIDA STATUTES 163, WHICH ALLOWS MUNICIPALITIES TO JOIN FORCES AND TO CREATE AN ORGANIZATION TO DELIVER SERVICES TO THE PUBLIC. IN THIS CASE, IT'S TRANSPORTATION, IT'S SELF FUNDING.
SO WE ANTICIPATE THAT THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE EXPENSES OF THIS ORGANIZATION ARE GOING TO BE ELIGIBLE EXPENSES FOR REIMBURSEMENT BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AS WE DELIVER SPECIFIC PROJECTS. THERE ARE A FEW ADMINISTRATIVE OVERHEAD COSTS THAT ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR FEDERAL REIMBURSEMENT, AND THAT'S WHY WE'VE ASKED FOR FEES FROM THE ORIGINAL MEMBERS AS WELL AS ANY OTHER MEMBERS THAT WANT TO JOIN TO COVER THOSE FEW EXPENSES THAT ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR FEDERAL REIMBURSEMENT.
THERE IS A MUNICIPAL MEMBER ANNUAL DUES AND AGAIN, AS I MENTIONED, THAT COVERS OVERHEAD.
DO I HAVE IT? I GUESS I'M CONTROLLING IT HERE.
ALL RIGHT. SO FOUNDING MEMBERS HOLLYWOOD, PLANTATION, AND POMPANO BEACH.
I'M EXCITED TO SAY THAT EACH OF THESE CITIES HAVE APPROVED THE INTERLOCAL AT THIS POINT.
SO IT'S JUST TO THIS BOARD NOW TO COUNTERSIGN AND TO PUT THIS INTO MOTION AND TO START THIS ORGANIZATION.
AGAIN, THE FOUNDING MEMBERS, YOU KNOW, KUDOS TO THEM.
THEY FELT LIKE THEY WANTED TO CHARGE THEMSELVES A LITTLE BIT EXTRA, THAT THEY FELT STRONGLY TO GET THIS STARTED UP.
SO THAT'S WHY THE FOUNDING MEMBERS ARE HAVE A LARGER FEE.
THE NON FOUNDING MEMBERS, THEIR CONTRIBUTION IS 50 FOR THE INITIAL SIGNUP AND THEN THE ANNUAL FEE FOR EVERYBODY IS $25,000 DOLLARS PER YEAR.
SO WHAT'S IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY ARE THE SIGNED AGREEMENTS FROM THE THREE FOUNDING MEMBER CITIES AND THE BROWARD MPO.
YOU KNOW, IF YOU ADOPT IT TODAY, IT PUTS THE ORGANIZATION INTO PLAY.
THE LAST OR THE SECOND ITEM ON THERE IS IMPORTANT.
WE WILL BE COMING BACK TO THIS BOARD TO ASK FOR THE BROWARD MPO TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH M-TECC ONCE IT'S STOOD UP TO HELP PROVIDE SOME ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES.
AND THESE ARE GOING TO BE MORE FULLY DEFINED AND WE'LL BE COMING BACK TO YOU WITH MORE INFORMATION ON THAT. BUT THINK OF IT AS YOU KNOW WE'RE GOING TO SHARE THIS BOARD ROOM WITH M-TECC. WE'RE GOING TO SHARE SOME OF THE STAFF THAT RUN MEETINGS WITH M-TECC.
SO THINGS THAT JUST DON'T MAKE SENSE FOR A SMALL ORGANIZATION THAT WE'RE TRYING TO RUN VERY EFFICIENTLY AND YOU KNOW WITH VERY TIGHT BUDGETS, YOU KNOW, THE MPO CAN PROVIDE THOSE SERVICES. WE WILL PROVIDE THEM AT COST TO M-TECC.
THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE A FREE RIDE HERE TO M-TECC FROM THE BOARD.
YOU WILL NOT BE ASKED TO DO THAT.
I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY THE OVERALL HIGHLIGHT.
AGAIN, I WILL JUST SAY THAT THE FUNDAMENTAL REASON AND WHAT STARTED THIS WAS THE FACT THAT FLORIDA DOT CAME TO US AND SAID WE'RE JUST NOT ABLE TO DELIVER THE FEDERALLY FUNDED PROJECTS THAT ARE OFF THE STATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM ANY LONGER DUE TO THEIR OWN INTERNAL STAFFING CONSTRAINTS.
THAT MEANT THAT THESE PROJECTS WERE GOING TO COME BACK TO THE INDIVIDUAL CITIES THROUGH THE LAP PROCESS, WHICH, YOU KNOW, WE ALL KIND OF KNOW THE LAP PROCESS, LOVE IT, HATE IT.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT YOU SAW LAST MONTH, WE MADE, I BELIEVE, A PRESENTATION TO THIS BOARD ABOUT MUNICIPAL CAPABILITIES.
ONE OF THE THINGS WE FOUND, THE SMALLER MUNICIPALITIES MAY HAVE SOME LIMITED RESOURCES.
IT BECOMES AN EQUITY ISSUE BECAUSE SOMETIMES THE GREATEST NEED IS WITH THE CITIES THAT ARE SMALLER AND DON'T HAVE THE RESOURCES TO THEN ACCEPT THOSE FUNDS TO DELIVER IMPROVEMENTS FOR THEIR PUBLIC.
SO THIS WAS A WAY TO KIND OF LEVEL THAT PLAYING FIELD AND PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, PROCUREMENT, MANAGEMENT SERVICES FOR ALL OF OUR CITIES.
SO EVERYBODY'S WELCOME TO JOIN AND BE PART OF THIS AND THEN YOU WILL STILL BE PARTY TO THE LAP AGREEMENTS. BUT WE'RE HOPING THAT WE SIMPLIFY AND STREAMLINE THAT ON BEHALF OF EVERYONE. SO I'LL STOP THERE AGAIN.
I'M GLAD TO ANSWER ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU. I JUST WANT TO SAY THANK YOU TO STAFF AND THANK YOU TO THE CITIES OF POMPANO
[00:55:05]
AND PLANTATION WHO ALONG WITH HOLLYWOOD MAKING THIS GET STARTED.AND A SHOUT OUT TO SOMEONE I KNOW WHO'S WATCHING RIGHT NOW IS FORMER COMMISSIONER BLATTNER, WHO IS MY PERSONAL HERO AND PERSONALLY DEVOTED A LOT OF TIME AND ENERGY TO THIS. MY QUESTION IS, AND FORGIVE ME IF THIS HAS BEEN DISCUSSED PREVIOUSLY, BUT, YOU KNOW, THERE SEEMS LIKE WE NEED INCENTIVE OVER TIME TO ENCOURAGE OTHER CITIES TO JOIN.
AND I'M WONDERING IF THERE ARE GOING TO BE A SYSTEM OF BENCHMARKS OR A SYSTEM OR A COLLECTION OF DATA OVER TIME IN THE EARLY YEARS.
AND WHAT WOULD THAT LOOK LIKE? SO THAT ON A EVERY HALF YEAR OR YEAR, WE CAN DEMONSTRATE THE IMPACT OF M-TECC IN A SALES PITCH. SURE.
SO I THINK WE'VE STARTED THAT PROCESS BY GOING OUT AND WE DID A SURVEY FOR ALL OF OUR MUNICIPALITIES TO TRY TO UNDERSTAND WHERE THEY KIND OF SELF-ASSESS THEMSELVES IN THEIR CAPABILITIES RELATED TO LAP AND DELIVERING PROJECTS.
I THINK WE'LL CONTINUE TO DO THAT.
THIS IS VERY MUCH A BIT OF A GRAND EXPERIMENT.
SO I WOULD THINK THAT THE FIRST COUPLE OF THREE YEARS, WE'RE GOING TO BE CAREFULLY MONITORING HOW IT WORKS, AND HOW THE PROCESSES WORK.
I THINK THE M-TECC BOARD WILL GET REGULAR UPDATES AND REVIEWS FROM THE STAFF ON HOW THINGS ARE GOING, WHERE CAN WE MAKE IMPROVEMENTS, WHAT'S WORKING WELL, WHAT'S NOT? THE FIRST COUPLE OF PROJECTS, YOU KNOW, WE NEED TO GET THOSE UNDER OUR BELT AND HAVE SOME EARLY SUCCESSES, HOPEFULLY.
BUT I THINK WE'RE GOING TO BE IN LEARNING MODE FOR SEVERAL YEARS WITH THIS I WOULD EXPECT. RIGHT.
AND I UNDERSTAND THAT WE'VE ASKED THE CITIES, THEIR NEEDS AND THEIR CAPABILITIES.
BUT JUST I WANT TO BE ABLE TO MEASURE OVER OVER TIME THE ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF M-TECC.
SO I KNOW THAT WE CAN'T DO THAT YET BECAUSE NOTHING'S HAPPENED.
BUT I THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE AN IMPORTANT THING GOING FORWARD, IS TO BE ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE VIA SOME HARD DATA WHAT CITIES WOULD SAVE OR BE ABLE TO ACCOMPLISH THAT.
I'M ON. IF YOU COULD GO BACK A COUPLE OF SLIDES AS FAR AS THE DUES.
THERE WE GO. I RECALL LAST CONVERSATION I BROUGHT UP THE FACT THAT THAT'S PRETTY HEFTY AMOUNT OF DUES FOR A SMALL CITY, ESPECIALLY ONES THAT HAVE LOWER SOCIOECONOMIC.
YOU KNOW, THERE'S THE PARKLAND AND THEN THERE'S NORTH LAUDERDALE.
SO I THOUGHT THAT WE HAD DISCUSSION AS FAR AS ALTERING FEES BASED ON NUMBERS OR POPULATION OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
IS THAT AM I THE ONLY ONE THAT REMEMBERS THAT? OR MAYBE I WAS THINKING THAT? I DON'T KNOW. WELL, I CERTAINLY REMEMBER THAT THERE WAS A DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT.
AND I WILL ALSO SAY THAT THERE WERE WELL OVER A YEAR WORTH OF DISCUSSION WITHIN THE THE MAYORS AND ELECTED COMMITTEE THAT WAS STRUCTURING THIS.
YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO THIS HAS TO BE SELF FUNDING BECAUSE NOBODY ELSE IS BRINGING MONEY TO THE TABLE. WE ACTUALLY FEEL THAT THESE FEES ARE QUITE REASONABLE AND THAT REALLY ALL THE CITIES CAN AFFORD THIS BECAUSE THESE PRICES ARE A FIRE SALE COMPARED TO WHAT IT WOULD COST THEM TO DO ON THEIR OWN.
IT IS EASILY $100,000 DOLLARS FOR A CITY TO DELIVER A LAP PROJECT ON THEIR OWN.
AND SO WE THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, AT 25,000 A YEAR, THERE'S GOOD VALUE THERE.
BUT, YOU KNOW, ABSOLUTELY, WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE THIS AS ACCESSIBLE AS WE CAN.
BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, THERE ARE EXPENSES THAT ARE SIMPLY NOT FEDERALLY REIMBURSABLE.
AND THE ONLY PLACE TO OBTAIN THAT FUNDING IS FROM THE MEMBER GOVERNMENTS.
OKAY. AND SO DO I LOOK AT THIS AS AN INSURANCE COMPANY THAT DEPENDING ON HOW MANY CLAIMS THERE ARE, IS THE FUNDING AVAILABLE? I AM NOT SURE THAT I OR ARE WE GOING TO END UP ALL, WHAT IS IT? CITIZENS, WHICH IS BACK AT THE MPO.
I SEE WHERE YOU'RE GOING WITH THIS.
ACTUALLY, THERE IS A CHANGE THAT IS AVAILABLE TO THE BOARD BECAUSE IF THAT DEMAND IS HIGH AND IT REQUIRES MORE RESOURCES, THE BOARD CAN RAISE UP THE RATES.
AND IF THERE IS PLENTY TO GO AROUND AND WE'RE COLLECTING MORE THAN WE NEED, THEN THE BOARD CAN CHOOSE TO LOWER THAT RATE.
SO YEAH, AND TO CLARIFY, IT IS THE M-TECC BOARD THAT IS EMPOWERED TO SET A BUDGET
[01:00:01]
ANNUALLY. SO THE 25,000 ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP FEE, THE REASON FOR THE ASTERISK IN THE PRESENTATION IS THAT THAT IS THE INITIAL FEE THAT'S IN THE AGREEMENT.HOWEVER, THE BOARD WILL ADJUST THAT ANNUALLY BASED UPON THE FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE.
OUR EXPECTATION AND OUR HOPE IS WE GET AT MORE CITIES TO JOIN BECAUSE AS WE GET MORE, THAT NUMBER GOES DOWN, NOT UP.
I JUST REALLY APPRECIATE THE EFFORTS BY EVERYONE, ESPECIALLY THOSE THAT HAVE PARTICIPATED IN THIS PROCESS, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, FDOT REALLY CREATED A REAL HARDSHIP TO THE MUNICIPALITIES AND ESPECIALLY THOSE OF THE SMALLER MUNICIPALITIES.
AND SO THE WAY THAT THIS CAME ABOUT SO QUICKLY WILL AFFORD AN OPPORTUNITY FOR PARTICIPATION TO SOME OF THE MUNICIPALITIES THAT COULD NOT GET LAP CERTIFICATION AND NO LONGER CAN LOOK TO FDOT TO GET THAT ASSISTANCE.
SO I APPLAUD EVERYONE WHO PARTICIPATED.
THANK YOU, CHAIR. A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.
IS THERE SOMEONE THAT WILL BE AVAILABLE IF NEED BE, TO COME OUT TO MUNICIPALITIES, INDIVIDUAL CITIES, TO DO FULL COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS TO HELP TRY TO SELL THIS CONCEPT FIRST? YES, SIR.
YOU IT? [LAUGHTER] MYSELF, BUT THERE'S A TEAM, BUT ABSOLUTELY, WE WILL BE THERE.
ALL RIGHT. AND MY SECOND QUESTION, KIND OF PIGGYBACKING OFF THE CITIZEN INSURANCE CONVERSATION, OBVIOUSLY, THIS WILL ENCOURAGE PARTICULARLY SMALLER CITIES TO GO AFTER MORE PROJECTS BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE RESOURCES.
AND YOU TALKED ABOUT THE ABILITY OF SLIDING UP AND SLIDING DOWN OF COSTS.
I CAN SEE WHERE, AGAIN, SIX OR SEVEN CITIES INVOLVED IN THIS ALL GOING AFTER SOME OF THE SAME PROJECTS BECAUSE WE HAVE A LOT OF THE SAME NEEDS.
IS THERE SOME MECHANISM IN PLACE? AND AGAIN, I KNOW UNTIL IT'S ACTUALLY FIELD TESTED, YOU REALLY DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IN A SENSE.
BUT THE CONCERN HAS BEEN KIND OF FLOATED AS TO MAKING SURE THERE ARE SOME BOUNDARIES OR BUMPERS WHERE WE'RE NOT GETTING TO EVERYBODY JUST START APPLYING FOR EVERYTHING BECAUSE YOU GOT THIS BACKING YOU UP.
RIGHT. AND THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.
I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT QUESTION BECAUSE IT HELPS CLARIFY SOMETHING THAT I FAILED TO CLARIFY EARLIER, WHICH IS THAT THE ROLE OF THE MPO BOARD IS GOING TO STAY THE SAME IN THAT THE MPO BOARD IS GOING TO BE MAKING ALL THE DECISIONS ABOUT FUNDING PROJECTS.
M-TECC WILL NOT HAVE ANY OF THAT DECISION MAKING.
SO WHAT WILL HAPPEN IS THE MPO BOARD WILL APPROVE PROJECTS AND LET'S SAY IT'S COMPETITIVE LIKE THE CSLIP PROJECT AND YOUR CITY APPLIES AND ULTIMATELY THE BOARD AWARDS FUNDING FOR THAT CSLIP PROJECT.
IF YOU'RE A MEMBER OF M-TECC, AT THAT POINT, YOUR CITY WILL HAVE THE OPTION TO ENTER AN AGREEMENT WITH FLORIDA DOT AND DO THE PROJECT YOURSELF UNDER LAP OR TALK TO M-TECC AND HAVE M-TECC, YOU KNOW, PARTICIPATE AND DELIVER THAT PROJECT FOR YOU.
BUT IT IS IMPORTANT TO CLARIFY THAT THE PROJECT SELECTION PROCESS REMAINS WITH THE BOARD.
M-TECC IS SOLELY GOING TO BE YOUR PROFESSIONAL DESIGN, ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR IN EFFECT.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. JUST MAKE SURE I GET YOUR CONTACT STUFF.
ABSOLUTELY. MS. WELCH. THANK YOU.
THE SURVEY THAT WENT OUT TO THE CITY ARE THE RESULTS PUBLISHED? THEY ARE.
AND IS IT TODAY, JAD, YOU'RE GOING TO PRESENT.
WILL PRESENT THAT BUT SO IT SHOULD BE IN YOUR BACKUP AND OF COURSE WE CAN GET THAT INTO YOUR HANDS AS WELL. WELL, GOOD.
THANK YOU. OKAY, MS. STONER. THANK YOU.
IT'S I WANTED TO ADDRESS THE CONCERN THAT THE MEMBERSHIP FEE SEEMS A BIT STEEP.
AND I THINK THAT IF YOU REALLY LOOK AT YOUR CITY STAFF AND THE PROFESSIONS AND THE ACTUAL SALARY PLUS BENEFITS IS WAY BEYOND THE THE MEMBERSHIP FEE.
IT'S MY PERSONAL BELIEF THAT M-TECC IS GOING TO BE SLAMMED BECAUSE TO TAKE THIS BURDEN OFF OF CITY STAFF IS HUGE.
IT'S ABSOLUTELY HUGE, BOTH DOLLAR WISE, WHICH IS WHERE YOU CAN SEE THE PROOF AT THE END
[01:05:06]
OF THE DAY, NOT ONLY IS YOUR PROJECT FINISHED AND EVERYBODY IS ON THE SAME PAGE, BUT YOU TRULY HAVE A SALARY SAVINGS BY NOT HAVING TO HIRE ANYBODY.AND WE ALL KNOW ABOUT HIRING PEOPLE.
SO IN MY MIND, YOU KNOW, SIMILAR TO VICE CHAIR GOOD I'M A WHAT IF'ER AND I'M FREAKING OUT TO SOME EXTENT ABOUT WHAT IF EVERYBODY JOINS WE HAVE TO DO THIS AND THIS AND THIS AND THIS TO REALLY GET THIS ON THE ROAD.
SO HALF OF IT'S ALREADY MARKED UP IN MY HEAD AS TO HOW WE NEED TO STRUCTURE THIS SO IT'S CONSTRUCTIVE FOR EVERYBODY AND EVERY DOLLAR VALUE.
BUT WITHOUT KNOWING THAT YOUR PROJECT CAN BE PROPERLY MANAGED, YOU TEND TO NOT SUBMIT BIGGER PROJECTS.
YOU TEND TO SAY, I KNOW THAT MY CITY CAN DO THIS, BUT WE HAVE 30 YEARS OF OPPORTUNITIES OF PROJECTS REACH FOR THE SKIES.
I MEAN, WE DON'T GET THIS OFTEN AND THEN WE'LL HAVE THIS SECOND PIECE COMING IN FOR INFRASTRUCTURE. PLEASE.
I'M HAVING A HARD TIME FINDING STUFF IN MY CITY AND I'M JUST LITERALLY DRIVING AROUND SOME DAYS. WHAT CAN I DO HERE AND HERE AND HERE? AND, YOU KNOW, SO I THINK THE VALUE IS ABSOLUTELY THERE, BUT YOU WON'T REALIZE IT UNTIL YOU'RE IN THE MIDST OF IT.
TO KIND OF PIGGYBACK ON WHAT MAYOR STONER WAS SAYING, THE VALUE AND THEN ALSO WITH PREVIOUS COMMENTS, I THINK THAT WOULD BE A GREAT THING TO DO IS AS WE'RE TALKING TO THE NEW MUNICIPALITIES COMING IN OR INTERESTED IS COLLECT THE DATA AND SHOW THE COST SAVINGS OF COMPARING IT SPECIFICALLY TO THE SALARIES PLUS BENEFITS THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO INCUR, EVEN IF IT'S JUST TIME OF CURRENT STAFF COST OF TIME OF CURRENT STAFF AS SUCH A HUGE MOTIVATOR. AND THEN THE OTHER PART WAS JUST THERE WAS A COMMENT ABOUT WHAT IF, YOU KNOW, MULTIPLE MUNICIPALITIES ARE ALL GOING AFTER THE SAME TYPES OF PROJECTS.
AND THAT WAS ONE OF MY FAVORITE THINGS OF THE CREATION OF M-TECC IS THAT IT WOULD ALLOW US THE ABILITY TO REGIONALLY BUNDLE AND CONTRACT NEGOTIATE FOR THE BEST PRICES OF NEIGHBORING CITIES AND ROADS THEY'RE DOING ASPHALT OR SIDEWALKS.
WE CAN GO IN AND ATTRACT BETTER PRICING, BETTER CONTRACTS BECAUSE IT'S A BIGGER PROJECT.
SO I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF BENEFIT.
I'M EXCITED TO SEE THIS CONTINUE TO GROW.
MAYOR COOPER. GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYONE.
I DON'T WANT TO BE REDUNDANT, BUT I AGREE.
I BELIEVE WITH STAFFING, ENGINEERING, ALL TYPES OF RESOURCES AND IT IS EXTREMELY COMPETITIVE MARKET OUR STAFF IS ALREADY ON THIS.
I SENT THE COPY OF THE ILA THAT'S SOON TO BE HOPEFULLY ADOPTED BY EVERYBODY ON THE MPO AND HOPEFULLY WE'LL BE IN QUEUE TO JOIN.
SO THANK YOU FOR EVERYONE THAT WORKED ON THIS.
THANK YOU, CHAIR. LET ME SAY THAT M-TECC IS A GREAT CONCEPT.
LET ME ALSO THANK THE BIG THREE OR THE FOUNDING MEMBERS.
LET ME JUST GO TO AND ACTUALLY THIS IS A QUESTION I HAD FOR STAFF.
SO IN THE LAST WHEREAS CLAUSE ON PAGE TWO WHERE IT REFERS TO THE FEDERAL AID PROJECTS AS WELL AS LOCAL PROJECTS OR FEDERALLY FUNDED PROJECTS, DOES THIS IMPLY ALSO SURTAX PROJECTS? NO, IT DOES NOT.
SURTAX IS NOT INVOLVED WE'RE PRECLUDED.
ALL RIGHT. I JUST WANTED TO ASK THAT FOR THE RECORD, BECAUSE I SEE IT WAS NOT DIRECT AND EXPLICIT. THANK YOU.
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND? YES, WE DO. AND I CAN'T BRING MY SCREEN UP TO VOTE.
OH, YES, I CAN. COMMISSIONER FURR JUST WALKED IN THE DOOR AND HE IS OFFICIALLY PRESENT IF HE CAN BE AUTHORIZED TO VOTE.
I DON'T HAVE A SCREEN UP TO VOTE.
VOTED? THAT SHOWS. THERE IT IS. I GOT IT.
AND THE VOTE COUNT IS NOT [INAUDIBLE] 23.
VERY GOOD. ALL RIGHT THANK YOU ALL.
NEXT. THAT'S ALL THE ACTION ITEMS WE GO TO REGULAR ITEMS AND IT'S COMMENTS FROM THE CHAIR.
[7. Comments from the Chair]
JUST THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION FOR THIS MEETING.[01:10:02]
AND I JUST WANTED TO SAY A LITTLE KUDOS FOR MYSELF.I AM VERY PROUD THAT MY COMMISSION VOTED FOR ME TO BE ON THE NATIONAL SENIOR HALL OF FAME. AND VERY GOOD.
BUT [INAUDIBLE] [LAUGHTER], BUT I'M VERY, VERY PROUD OF THAT.
THANK YOU. OKAY, SENATOR, TAKE IT EASY.
ALL RIGHT. REGULAR ITEMS AND MEMBER COMMENTS.
[8. Member Comments Click here to submit a comment to go before the Board.]
ANY MEMBER COMMENTS? YES, MS. WILLIAMS. GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE.THE CITY OF LAUDERDALE LAKES IS HIGHLIGHTED IN THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE MAGAZINE.
THIS IS FOR THE APRIL-MAY EDITION.
[APPLAUSE] GOOD FOR YOU, MAYOR GANZ.
YES. THE CITY OF DEERFIELD BEACH HAS SUBMITTED A LETTER TO THE MPO THAT DID NOT MAKE IT ONTO THIS AGENDA. AND HOPEFULLY THIS WILL BE PUT AS AN AGENDA ITEM FOR THE NEXT BOARD MEETING REGARDING 10TH STREET TO GIVE AN UPDATE AS SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT WERE MADE TONIGHT. I THINK THE COMMON REFRAIN IS FDOT WAS UNABLE TO DELIVER, AND THAT'S KIND OF WHERE WE'RE AT. IT'S AN IMPASSE WITH A SERIES OF DIFFERENT POINTS REGARDING 10TH STREET.
SINCE THIS BOARD WAS THE DRIVING FORCE TO MAKE THE CONNECTOR BETWEEN SAWGRASS EXPRESSWAY AND I-95 IT'S IMPORTANT THAT I KEEP YOU ALL IN THE LOOP AS FAR AS WHAT THE CITY'S PROGRESS IS WITH FDOT AND WHERE SOME OF THE ISSUES WE'RE RUNNING INTO.
SO I HOPE BY THE NEXT AGENDA THAT THAT WILL BE ON THERE THAT WE CAN HAVE A HEALTHIER DISCUSSION REGARDING IT.
COMMISSIONER JAFFE. IT IS ATTACHED TO THE NEXT CORRESPONDENCE.
THANK YOU, CHAIR. I JUST WANT TO RECOGNIZE AND ACKNOWLEDGE IT'S ALWAYS NICE WHEN ELECTED OFFICIALS FROM OTHER FROM THE MUNICIPALITIES COME AND VISIT US.
AND I HAVE FELLOW COLLEAGUE COMMISSIONER HENRY MEAD IS VISITING.
HE IS A BIG ADVOCATE AND SUPPORTS THE WORK THAT THIS ORGANIZATION DOES AND UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S A COUNTY WIDE ISSUE AND NOT JUST A LOCAL BACKYARD ISSUE.
SO THANK YOU FOR VISITING US TODAY, COMMISSIONER.
I WOULD JUST LIKE TO MENTION, AS MANY OF YOU KNOW, THAT OUR MAYOR PASSED AWAY AND THAT MANY OF YOUR CITIES REACHED OUT TO US WITH LETTERS OF CONDOLENCES.
AND OUR NEW MAYOR IS KYLE VAN BUSKIRK, WHO'S BEEN A COMMISSIONER FOR MANY YEARS, AND HE'S JUMPED IN AND TAKEN THE HELM, WHICH IS RATHER DIFFICULT BECAUSE WE HAVE THE STRONG MAYOR GOVERNMENT. SO HE'S GOT A LOT OF WORK TO DO.
SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR SYMPATHY AND SAY A LITTLE PRAYER FOR LIGHTHOUSE POINT.
ALL RIGHT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS REPORT.
[9. Executive Director’s Report]
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.FIRST AND FOREMOST, WE HAVE A POLICY AT THE BROWARD MPO THAT BASICALLY SAYS THAT IF YOU ARE ILL, ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OVER THE PAST TWO YEARS, OR IF YOU HAVE A FAMILY MEMBER THAT IS ILL IN YOUR HOUSEHOLD, WE ASK THAT OUR STAFF STAY AT HOME.
MR. STEWART IS IN THAT SITUATION.
SO HE IS ABIDING BY THE RULES IN HIS CONTRACT.
IT SAYS HE'LL WILL FOLLOW ALL THE POLICIES OF HIS OWN ORGANIZATION AND SO MUCH TO HIS CHAGRIN, HE IS.
I KNOW HE'S WATCHING VIRTUALLY BECAUSE HE CAN'T TAKE A SICK DAY, BUT HE WISHES HE COULD BE HERE, I ASSURE YOU THAT.
BUT HE'S FOLLOWING OUR OWN POLICIES.
ALSO, I WANT TO POINT OUT TO EVERYBODY, IN CASE YOU HAVEN'T NOTICED, WE HAVE A NEW BOARD MEMBER FROM THE TOWN OF DAVIE.
WE HAVE CARYL HATTAN OVER HERE.
AND WE NOW HAVE TWO CARYL'S WITH A Y.
THE FIRST TWO CARYL WITH THE Y THAT I EVER MET ARE ON THIS BOARD.
SO THOSE MANY OF YOU ALREADY KNOW HER.
AND I THINK THAT YOU'LL WELCOME HER INPUT AND ASSISTANCE IN MAKING THIS A BETTER ORGANIZATION.
GOING TO THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS AGENDA THAT HE ASKED ME TO REVIEW FIRST.
HE AND PAUL CALVARESI WENT TO WASHINGTON, D.C.
LAST WEEK. THE PURPOSE OF THAT WAS, NUMBER ONE, TO ENSURE THAT WE WERE GOING TO GET THE FUNDS THAT WERE REQUIRED TO RUN THIS ORGANIZATION.
AND THE SECOND WAS ALSO TO PROVIDE HAVE USDOT PROVIDE US GUIDELINES ON HOW WHAT PARAMETERS TO WRITE GRANTS FOR WITH THE NEW BILL AND IIJA LIKE WHAT ARE THE PARAMETERS THAT WE SHOULD BE LOOKING FOR SO THAT YOU HAVE A SUCCESSFUL GRANT APPLICATION MOVING FORWARD. AND THAT MEETING WAS VERY SUCCESSFUL.
SECOND, THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DID A CONTEST WHICH WAS CALLED LOVE TO RIDE, AND IT WAS STATEWIDE.
AND IT WAS BASICALLY ALL OF THE EMPLOYEES WERE ENCOURAGED TO LOG THE HOURS THAT THEY SPENT RIDING ON A BICYCLE.
MANY OF OUR EMPLOYEES RODE TO WORK WHEN IT WAS FAVORABLE CONDITIONS OUTSIDE, AND LATELY WE'VE HAD QUITE A FEW OF THOSE DAYS.
AND JUST TO LET YOU KNOW, WE WON FIRST PLACE IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA.
THE THIRD ITEM IS MOVING FORWARD WITH THE NEXT URBAN [INAUDIBLE] ITEM THAT'S COMING
[01:15:02]
FORWARD. IT'S COMING UP ON 15TH STREET IN FORT LAUDERDALE, STARTING WITH THE IT WAS SIMILAR TO THE ONE THAT WAS DONE IN DEERFIELD BEACH ALREADY SUCCESSFULLY.IT'S GOING TO BE MOVING FORWARD ON MAY 12TH THROUGH THE 14TH.
SO THAT'S OUR NEXT BOARD MEETING.
AFTER THAT, SEVERAL OF OUR EMPLOYEES WILL BE GOING OUT THERE TO ASSIST WITH THAT EFFORT.
AND FINALLY, I JUST WANT TO BE TRANSPARENT.
IN THE MAY MEETING, YOU'RE GOING TO BE APPROVING OUR TWO YEAR BUDGET.
UNFORTUNATELY, ALL OF THE FUNDS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE AVAILABLE BY OUR FEDERAL PARTNERS ARE NOT GOING TO BE AVAILABLE TO US UNTIL RIGHT AFTER YOU ADOPT OUR BUDGET, WHICH MEANS YOU'LL ADOPT OUR BUDGET IN MAY AND THEN OUR FISCAL YEAR STARTS JULY 1ST.
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO IMMEDIATELY DO AN AMENDMENT TO THE BUDGET TO INCORPORATE THOSE FUNDS THAT ARE GOING TO BE COMING DOWN TO FUND OUR ORGANIZATION OVER THE NEXT TWO YEARS.
SO IT'S NOT IDEAL, BUT IT'S PART OF THE PROCESS FOR TRANSPARENCY.
SO EXPECT OUR BUDGET TO BE APPROVED NEXT MONTH AND THEN WE'LL BE PROCESSING AN AMENDMENT AS SOON AS WE START OUR FISCAL YEAR.
AND THAT'S ALL I HAVE FOR THAT, MR. CHAIR I RECOGNIZE COMMISSIONER FURR.
TO GIVE EVERYONE AN UPDATE ON THE TACTICAL URBANISM PROJECT THAT WE HAD IN THE CITY OF DEERFIELD BEACH, WE HAVE RECEIVED COMPLAINTS.
THE COMPLAINTS THAT WE'VE RECEIVED IS THAT PEOPLE ARE NO LONGER ABLE TO SPEED THROUGH THAT CORRIDOR AND THE PEOPLE THAT ARE COMPLAINING ARE THE ACTUAL SPEEDERS.
SO IT'S BEEN A VERY POSITIVE, POSITIVE THING TO HAVE.
AND ONE THING TO KEEP IN MIND, THIS IS A TEMPORARY TEST PILOT PROGRAM.
SO YOU CAN FIGURE OUT IF THE CHANGES YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE WORK OR NOT.
THE OTHER FEEDBACK THAT WE'VE GOTTEN IS THAT THEY SAY IT'S NOT AS PRETTY AS IT COULD BE.
IT'S BECAUSE THESE ARE TEMPORARY.
AND WE KNOW THAT WHEN WE PUT IN THE TRUE CHANGES THAT WE PLAN ON PUTTING IN, IT WILL LOOK A LOT DIFFERENT. BUT IT'S A GREAT PROJECT.
SO I WANT TO THANK STAFF FOR THAT.
STATE SPECIFIC STATE CERTIFICATION UPDATE.
MONTHLY FEDERAL, FEDERAL AND STATE LEGISLATIVE REPORT.
[10. Monthly Federal and State Legislative Reports: https://browardmpo.org/13-who-we-are/13-legislative-priorities]
THANK YOU. CHAIR PAUL CALVARESI, BROWARD MPO.SO I'LL BRIEFLY GO THROUGH OUR FEDERAL UPDATE.
AND AS MR. CALETKA NOTED, GREG STUART AND I WERE UP IN WASHINGTON, DC LAST WEEK IT WAS VERY IMPORTANT TO CONVEY THE MPOS NEEDS IN THIS NEW IIJA.
A LOT OF THE BILL, ALTHOUGH IT WAS WRITTEN, A LOT OF THE TECHNICAL ASPECTS HAVE YET TO BE WRITTEN. SO WE WERE UP THERE WITH THE HOPE OF INFLUENCE, THE INFLUENCING THIS AND GETTING IN WHAT SOUTH FLORIDA NEEDS.
WE HAD A MEETING EARLIER THIS WEEK WITH USDOT'S LIKE HEAD CLIMATE PERSON, AND WE'RE EXPRESSING OUR NEEDS ON WHAT WE NEED IN ORDER TO MAKE A MORE SUSTAINABLE SOUTH FLORIDA.
BECAUSE AS WE KNOW, OUR PROBLEMS HERE ARE VERY DIFFERENT THAN THEY ARE IN OTHER PARTS OF THE COUNTRY. WHAT IT TAKES TO KEEP OUR ROADS DRY IS A DIFFERENT TECHNIQUE THAN IN CALIFORNIA. SO, LUCKY, WE HAVE TOO MUCH WATER.
THEY DON'T HAVE ENOUGH. THESE ARE VERY DIFFERENT, DIFFERENT CHALLENGES.
WE ALSO DISCUSSED SEVERAL OF THE NEW GRANT PROGRAMS AND THOSE THAT WE PLAN TO APPLY FOR.
AND ONCE AGAIN, LOOKING FOR GUIDANCE.
AND HOW DO OUR PROGRAMS ALIGN WITH THOSE OF THE USDOT? AND WE ALSO HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET WITH SEVERAL MEMBERS OF CONGRESS.
AND AS YOU SEE, YOU HAVE AN INVITATION ON THE DAIS TO THE TACTICAL URBANISM EVENT.
OK. WHAT WE ACTUALLY HEARD FROM THE FEEDBACK IS THIS BOARD DOES SUCH GOOD WORK WE NEED TO TAKE A SECOND AND START CELEBRATING THAT.
SO YOU'LL SEE THAT THERE'S AN INVITATION ON THERE.
I BELIEVE IT'S FOR MAY 13TH FROM 10 TO 11.
AND WE ARE ACTIVELY TAKING THIS TIME TO PAUSE, REFLECT AND REALLY CELEBRATE OUR SUCCESSES. I'M SORRY MAYOR GANZ WALKED AWAY BECAUSE IT'S REALLY THIS IS IN PART OF HIS ENTHUSIASM FOR THE TACTICAL URBANISM PROJECT.
SO OUR FIRST ONE IS TACTICAL URBANISM PROJECT IN FORT LAUDERDALE.
WE INVITE EVERYBODY TO COME DOWN BECAUSE IF THESE PROJECTS, YES, THEY MIGHT BE IN SPECIFIC DISTRICTS OR CITIES OR REGIONS OR AREAS, BUT NONE OF THESE ARE POSSIBLE WITHOUT THE WILL OF THE BOARD. SO WE'RE INVITING EVERYBODY TO COME DOWN FOR THAT.
ON THESE SO NOW CHANGING GEARS IN STATESIDE.
MARCH 14TH WAS THE BILL SIGNING FOR THE STATE.
THANKFULLY, MOST OF THE TRANSPORTATION POLICY BILLS DID NOT MAKE IT THROUGH.
THAT IS GOOD FOR US BECAUSE IT WOULD HAVE BEEN DETRIMENTAL TO THE BOARD'S DIRECTION.
AS SOME OF YOU MIGHT BE AWARE, THERE IS A NEW FDOT SECRETARY, JARED PERDUE.
HE'S THE CURRENT DISTRICT FIVE SECRETARY THAT'S IN ORLANDO.
AND WE ARE NEXT WEEK WE ARE LOOKING AT A SPECIAL SESSION FOR THE REDISTRICTING MAPS,
[01:20:04]
WHICH WILL HAVE MINOR IMPACTS IN SOUTH FLORIDA, BUT WIDER THROUGHOUT THE STATE.AND THERE IS POTENTIAL FOR ANOTHER SPECIAL SESSION TO TALK ABOUT HOMEOWNERS INSURANCE.
ANY QUESTIONS? SORRY FOR MY RUDENESS.
ITEM 11 GENERAL COUNSEL'S REPORT.
[11. General Counsel’s Report]
THAT WOULD BE ME. OKAY.THANK YOU ALL FOR THE COOPERATION AND EFFORTS THAT YOU PUT FORWARD WHEN WE SIT HERE AND HAVE THE ELECTRONIC ISSUES AND WHATNOT.
IT'S SOMETIMES DIFFICULT TO MANAGE THE GROUP, BUT YOU ALL ARE UNDERSTANDING AND WE APPRECIATE THAT. MY MATTERS REPORT IS BEFORE YOU.
YOU KNOW, IT'S ALWAYS GOOD WHEN THE ATTORNEY DOESN'T HAVE A PARTICULAR ITEM IN WHICH TO DISCUSS BECAUSE IT'S USUALLY AN ISSUE OR A PROBLEM IF THAT'S THE CASE.
AND GENERALLY WE'RE LUCKY, KNOCK WOOD, THAT THAT IS THE CASE IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE.
SO THANK YOU. HAVE A GOOD DAY.
ITEM ONE STATE CERTIFICATION UPDATE.
[1. State Certification Update]
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. BRYAN CALETKA OF BROWARD MPO.I AM PRESENTING TO YOU THE STATE CERTIFICATION.
ONE OF THE REASONS WHY THIS IS BEING PRESENTED TO YOU, IT'S NOT BEEN PRESENTED TO YOU BEFORE IS JUST BECAUSE IT'S ONE OF THOSE THINGS WHERE WE SUCCEEDED.
AND I FELT THAT WE SHOULD SHARE OUR SUCCESS WITH YOU, BECAUSE YOUR GUIDANCE IS WHAT ULTIMATELY LEADS US TO DO EVERYTHING THAT WE NEED TO DO FOR THIS ORGANIZATION.
AND SO BASICALLY OUR STATE PARTNERS, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, REQUIRES US TO UNDERGO AN ANNUAL CERTIFICATION.
AND BASED ON THAT CERTIFICATION, THEY RANK US INTO A CATEGORY OF YOU'RE DOING FINE, WE'RE GOING TO PUT YOU ON AUTOPILOT DOWN TO WE HAVE CONCERNS AND WE'RE GOING TO REVIEW WITH YOU MONTHLY, IF WE HAVE TO, TO GET YOU BACK ON TRACK.
AND SO THIS YEAR WITH OUR STATE CERTIFICATION, WHICH IS REQUIRED ANNUALLY BY STATE LAW, WE DID WELL.
AND SO I DIDN'T WANT TO HAVE A LONG PRESENTATION, BUT I WANTED TO CONVEY TO YOU THE GENERIC RESULTS OF IT.
AND SO BASICALLY IF YOU'RE DOING WELL, THEY PUT YOU ON AUTOPILOT AND YOU ONLY HAVE TO GET CERTIFIED ONCE A YEAR.
IF THERE ARE SOME CONCERNS BY ANNUAL CERTIFICATION AND MEETINGS AND TRI-ANNUAL.
AND THEN IF THINGS IF THE WHEELS ARE COMING OFF, THEN YOU HAVE TO MEET QUARTERLY UNTIL YOU GO BACK UP TO PAR AGAIN.
AND JUST SO YOU KNOW, WE ALWAYS STRIVE FOR PERFECTION IN THIS AGENCY, BUT WE'RE ALSO HAPPY JUST TO GET THE 85 AND BETTER.
AND SO WE ACHIEVED PERFECTION IN THIS AGENCY.
SO WE ACTUALLY GOT 100% THIS YEAR.
[APPLAUSE] SO WE'RE PUTTING IT ON AUTOPILOT AND WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE FOLLOWING THE BOARD'S PARTICIPATION MOVING FORWARD.
AND I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE ABOUT THE STATE CERTIFICATION PROCESS. ALL RIGHT.
ANY QUESTIONS, MR. CARN? OH, GOOD. THANK YOU.
MR. CHAIR I'M SORRY. BOARD MEMBER LEWELLEN.
HOW OFTEN DOES IT HAPPEN THAT CITIES GET OR MPOS GET 100%? SO I ACTUALLY DON'T KNOW STATEWIDE.
I DO KNOW IT'S NOT UNCOMMON TO BE IN THE TOP CATEGORY, BUT 100% I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE I KNOW THAT WHEN I WENT THROUGH THE PROCESS, I WAS KIND OF FISHING AROUND SAYING LIKE, WHAT DO YOU THINK IT'S GOING TO BE? AND THEY WERE LIKE, WELL, IT'S GOING TO BE GOOD.
YOU'RE ONLY GOING TO NEED ANNUAL.
AND IT WAS ONLY AT THE VERY END THAT THEY'RE LIKE, OKAY, YOU GOT 100, YOU KNOW? SO I CAN'T TRUTHFULLY ANSWER YOUR QUESTION.
[2. Broward MPO Municipal Grants Management Assessment Survey]
GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE. JAD SOLLOUM, BROWARD MPO INTERGOVERNMENTAL TEAM.TODAY I'M GOING TO PRESENT TO YOU THE RESULTS OF THE MUNICIPAL GRANTS MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT SURVEY.
SO THE PURPOSE OF THIS SURVEY, INTERGOVERNMENTAL TEAM AND THE PLANNING AND PROGRAMING TEAM IDENTIFIED A NEED FOR THIS SURVEY TO KIND OF ASSESS OUR MEMBER GOVERNMENTS ABILITY TO APPLY FOR AND ADMINISTER BOTH FEDERAL GRANTS AND LAP PROJECTS.
THROUGH THIS SURVEY, WE WERE ABLE TO GAUGE THE CAPACITY OF OUR MUNICIPAL PARTNERS IN ORDER TO BETTER ASSIST THEM IN THE FUTURE TO DELIVER FEDERALLY FUNDED PROJECTS.
THE WAY THAT WE CONDUCTED THIS SURVEY, OUR PROCUREMENT TEAM, ALONG WITH THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL TEAM DESIGNED ONLINE SURVEY THAT WENT OUT TO CITY MANAGERS.
WE SENT OUT THE INVITATIONS IN DECEMBER.
WE GAVE THEM A TWO MONTH PERIOD TO SUBMIT THE APPLICATIONS, AND THE TWO FOCUS AREAS WERE ON FEDERAL GRANT CAPABILITIES AS WELL AS THE LOCAL AGENCY PROGRAM OR LAP CAPABILITIES OF
[01:25:01]
CITY STAFF. THE RESPONDENTS, THE RESPONSES THAT WE RECEIVED.WE RECEIVED 17 RESPONSES AND WHEN THROUGH ANALYSIS WE IDENTIFIED THREE DIFFERENT GROUPS BASED ON THE POPULATION SIZE, AND THAT'S HOW WE CONDUCTED OUR ANALYSIS OF THE RESULTS.
HERE WE HAVE AN EXAMPLE QUESTION FROM THE FEDERAL GRANTS CAPABILITIES FOCUS AREA SECTION AND THEN ANOTHER EXAMPLE QUESTION FROM THE LAP SECTION.
SO YEAH, FROM THE RESULTS, WE HAD 17 UNIQUE RESPONSES, 17 DIFFERENT CITIES RESPONDED, ALL FIVE MPO MUNICIPAL DISTRICTS WERE REPRESENTED AND SATISFACTORY KIND OF SPREAD OF SMALL, MEDIUM AND LARGE CITIES WERE REPRESENTED RELATIVE TO THE CITY SIZES IN BROWARD COUNTY.
SO THIS IS KIND OF A GENERAL OVERALL RESULTS FROM THE SURVEY.
IT SHOWED THAT ON AVERAGE, SMALL CITIES SHOWED A LOWER KIND OF LOWER CAPACITY IN BOTH FOCUS AREAS.
HOWEVER, OUR MAIN TAKEAWAY THAT WE WANT TO SHOW TO THE BOARD IS THAT ACROSS THE BOARD, NO ONE CITY WAS ABLE TO PROVIDE FULLY PROVIDE ALL THE CAPABILITIES THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR IN EITHER FOCUS AREA. TO KEEP IT SHORT, WE HAVE KIND OF THE OVERALL RESULTS AND THE MAIN TAKEAWAYS AND THE FULL REPORT IS INCLUDED IN THE BACK UP IN THE AGENDA.
THREE. ONLY THREE OF THE 17 RESPONDENT CITIES ARE CURRENTLY LEFT CERTIFIED.
SO THAT KIND OF SHOWS A NEED WHERE CITIES AREN'T ABLE TO DELIVER THESE LAP PROGRAMS ON THEIR OWN. AND THEN HERE'S THE KIND OF GENERAL OVERALL OF THE LAP CAPABILITIES AND THE MAIN TAKEAWAYS FROM THOSE SURVEYS.
SO THIS STUDY INDICATES DEFICIENCIES ACROSS MEMBER GOVERNMENTS AND THEIR ABILITY TO APPLY FOR AND ADMINISTER BOTH FEDERAL GRANTS AND LAP PROJECTS.
NO SINGLE CITY THAT THEY COULD PROVIDE 100% OF THEIR REQUIRED CAPABILITIES IN EITHER FOCUS AREA. MOREOVER, ONLY THREE OF THE 17 RESPONDENT CITIES ARE CERTIFIED CURRENTLY, AND SO THE RESULTS DO SHOW A LESSER CAPACITY AMONG SMALLER CITIES VERSUS MEDIUM AND LARGE CITIES IN BOTH OF THE FOCUS AREAS.
BUT WHAT THE RESULTS SHOW ABOVE ALL IS AN INCOMPLETE ABILITY ACROSS CITIES OF ALL SIZES TO FULLY IMPLEMENT THESE COMPLEX TYPE OF FEDERALLY FUNDED PROJECTS.
SO SOME NOTES, A COPY OF YOUR CITY SUBMISSION CAN BE SENT TO YOU, IF YOU'D LIKE, WITH YOUR CITY SPECIFIC RESULTS.
THE FULL REPORT WAS ANONYMIZED SO THAT NO ONE CITY COULD BE SINGLED OUT OR YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO SEE THE EXACT RESULTS FOR EACH CITY.
BUT THEY ARE INDICATED BASED ON THE SMALL, MEDIUM AND LARGE.
AND AGAIN, IF YOU WANT SPECIFIC DETAILS, REACH OUT TO EITHER ME OR OR PAUL CALVARESI AND WE CAN SEND YOU THE FULL REPORTS.
AND AGAIN, THIS STUDY WAS FOR RESEARCH PURPOSES ONLY.
IT'S TO HELP THE MPO KIND OF BETTER INTERACT AND UNDERSTAND OUR MEMBER GOVERNMENTS NEEDS.
AND IT'S NOT GOING TO HAVE ANY EFFECT ON RANKING OR SCORING OF PROGRAMS IN THE FUTURE.
ANY QUESTIONS? [INAUDIBLE] QUESTIONS? YOU DID A GOOD JOB. THANK YOU.
[ FINANCIAL REPORTS - for information purposes ]
THESE ARE JUST ATTACHED FOR YOUR REVIEW.ALL RIGHT, HOW ABOUT CORRESPONDENCE? ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. COMMITTEE REPORTS, ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS, HEARING NONE.
[2. City of Fort Lauderdale Walking Audit - April 14, 2022]
WE DO HAVE A WALKING AUDIT FOR THE CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE THAT IS ACTUALLY TODAY.AND ALSO JUST TO LET YOU KNOW THAT THE BTACTICAL LAKE RIDGE COMMUNITY BUILD DAY IS MAY
[3. BTactical Lake Ridge Community Build Day - May 12-14, 2022]
12TH THROUGH 14TH, AS I HAD ALREADY MENTIONED.ALL RIGHT. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSIONS? I THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP.
GREAT MEETING. MAY 12TH IS THE NEXT MEETING.
HAVE A GOOD DAY. MEETINGS ADJOURNED.
11:00. MEETINGS ADJOURNED.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.