Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20140115boardminutesMINUTES Board of Directors CAPITAL AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION January 15, 2014 12:15 p.m. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Brian Crane, Designee for Donald "Doc" Kritzer, Callaway County Larry Benz, P.E., Cole County Eric Barron, Designee for Ken Hussey, Jefferson City Rick Mihalevich, Jefferson City Janice McMillan, AICP, Jefferson City Bob Scrivner, Jefferson City Matt Morasch, P.E., Jefferson City Travis Koestner, Designee for David Silvester, P.E., MoDOT Doug Reece, St. Martins, Small Cities Representative BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Jeff Hoelscher, Chairman, Cole County Larry Henry, Jefferson City EX -OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT (Non -Voting) Michael Henderson, MoDOT Michael Latuszek, Federal Highway Administration EX -OFFICIO MEMBERS ABSENT (Non -Voting) Mark Bechtel, Federal Transit Administration Steve Billings, MoDOT Pam Murray, Callaway County Economic Development Representative CAMPO STAFF PRESENT (Non -Voting) Sonny Sanders, Senior Transportation Planner Alex Rotenberry, Transportation Planner Anne Stratman, Administrative Assistant OTHERS PRESENT Ed Siegmund, Mid -Missouri Regional Planning Commission 1. Call to order, roll call, and determination of a quorum Vice Chairman Scrivner called the meeting to order at 12:15 p.m. and asked Ms. Stratman to call roll. A quorum was present with 9 of 11 members or their designee present. 2. Public Comment No comments were received. 3. Adoption of the agenda as printed or amended Mr. Morasch moved and Mr. Benz seconded to adopt the agenda as printed. The motion passed unanimously. 4. Approval of the minutes from the meeting of November 20, 2013 Mr. Morasch moved and Mr. Benz seconded to approve the minutes from the Regular Meeting of September 18, 2013 as printed. The motion passed unanimously. 5. Communications from the presiding officer A. MoDOT Petition Initiative Process 6. Old Business None. Minutes/Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization January 15, 2014 Page 2 7. New Business/Public Hearing A. Amendment to the FY2013-2016 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) (Amendment #6) 1. TIP#2013-09: Clay Street Bike Plaza. Sponsor: City of Jefferson Department of Public Works *The Technical Committee recommended that this project be approved as an Administrative Modification Mr. Sanders explained that it was discussed at the January 9, 2014 Technical Committee meeting whether this project should be treated as a TIP amendment or an administrative modification. He stated that the total project cost is increasing from $91,000 to $163,000 with the difference coming from the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. Mr. Sanders explained that our Public Participation Plan (PPP) and TIP stipulate that if the project cost exceeds 15 percent that requires an amendment. He stated that the new TIP will require that project costs more than 20 percent or greater than $2 million in federal funds will require an amendment. Mr. Sanders explained that in the new TIP projects small in nature and not changing federal dollar amounts will require an administrative modification. Mr. Henderson explained that the use of local funds does not require approval by the Governor and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Mr. Henderson suggested revising the MPO's PPP to reflect this change. He also suggested treating this as an administrative modification at the local level. He stated that he wants to streamline the process so that it is not cumbersome and a burden on project sponsors. Mr. Sanders explained that our policy requires us to go through the amendment process. He stated that staff is making these changes in the draft 2015-2019 TIP. Mr. Sanders explained that the PPP is scheduled to be revised in early spring. Mr. Latuszek stated that he cannot recommend the MPO act contrary to federally approved processes and policies. He stated that this is a good test of the process. Mr. Sanders explained that this project has gone through the MPO's amendment process. He stated that the Board of Directors, Technical Committee and local jurisdictions were notified and the amendment was posted on CAMPO's website and sent to the jurisdictions to post for public comment. Mr. Henderson is commented that his concern is that the amendment process is not the same for an administrative modification. He explained that it would be important for a project like this to go through the public comment period at the local level regardless if it is an amendment or an administrative modification. Mr. Henderson agreed that it is a substantial change in cost because of an estimate change. He explained that it did not involve a significant change in scope. Mr. Henderson suggested that before taking these to the Technical Committee MoDOT and FHWA can review them and make a determination. He commented that the Board has the authority to make changes outside of that policy as long as it is discussed and approved by the Board. Mr. Benz commented that the Technical Committee voted to forward this project to the Board of Directors as an administrative modification. Mr. Crane inquired whether this test case could potentially take longer for approval. Mr. Latuszek explained that if the Board approves this as an administrative modification no further action is needed. Mr. Crane asked if it is possible that FHWA can come back and say they were notified that this was an amendment and never got it. Mr. Henderson explained that there are federal funds on this project and if that were to happen it would be noticed when our financial services division goes to obligate those funds. He stated that if they had some question at that time about programming they would go to Mr. Latuszek and ask him what his thoughts are. Mr. Henderson explained that if they do not get a satisfactory answer they will not obligate those funds. He stated that we would have to go back through the amendment process. Minutes/Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization January 15, 2014 Page 3 Mr. Morasch explained that this was a cost estimate change due to ADA issues that required an increase in total project costs. He stated that the scope of the project did not change. Mr. Morasch explained that the CDBG program is supplementing the project cost. He stated that this is a minor modification that was based on the need to get the maximum amount of parking that is available. Mr. Morasch moved and Mr. Benz seconded to approve this project as an administrative modification. Discussion: Mr. Latuszek reiterated that he does not recommend acting contrary to federally approved processes and procedures. Mr. Crane inquired whether this will delay the project. Mr. Morasch explained that approving this as an administration modification will expedite the process. Mr. Mihalevich inquired whether this will trigger something. Mr. Scrivner explained that it could trigger a review if the project is treated as an amendment that was not completed. Mr. Latuszek explained that if it is an amendment it triggers action on my part and the Governor's. He stated that if it is approved as an administrative modification it does not require any action. Mr. Crane commented that this is a burdensome process that needs to be changed. He inquired why this project cannot be approved as an amendment. Mr. Henderson explained that the amendment process will take longer because it requires further actions after the Board meeting. Mr. Crane stated that from a local perspective I do not see a reason to violate the policy unless there is something that will dramatically affect the project. Mr. Henderson explained that if this project is approved as an administrative modification at this meeting no further action is required. He stated that the only time this project will come up is when FHWA is asked to obligate the funds. Mr. Mihalevich commented that we are not voting to go against our policy in such that you think this is a major/minor change. He explained that it has been determined that we have followed a public process and this project has not had any scope changes. Mr. Mihalevich stated that we are determining that this is a minor change with the exception of the ADA issues. He commented that he will be voting for the determination that this is actually a minor change not to go against our policy. Vote: The motion passed 8-1. 8. New Business A. MoDOT Petition Initiative Process — Facilitation Service Providers Selection Mr. Barron left at 1:00 p.m. Mr. Sanders explained that MoDOT asked the planning partners to develop a process to select highway system and multimodal transportation projects to create a 10 year project list to present to voters. He stated that MoDOT will pay for a facilitator to support the MPO's and RPC's in developing the project prioritization process and assist in the creation of the list. Mr. Sanders explained that the Technical Committee recommended staff review the 14 firms that submitted Request for Qualifications. He stated that staff ranked their qualifications on experience with transportation, facilitation, public engagement and staff capacity. Mr. Koestner explained that MoDOT needs to have the process from each planning organization by the end of February. He stated that we are not adding projects to the STIP in this cycle and have suspended the cost share program. Mr. Koestner explained that this is the time of year that MoDOT does our financial forecast for funding for construction projects. He stated that with the uncertainty of federal funds and the reduction of state funds MoDOT feels it is not fiscally responsible to add projects to our program. MinutesrCapital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Page 4 January 15, 2014 Mr. Sanders staled that staff has made a recommendation for a facilitator. Mr. Crane moved and Mr. Morasch seconded to approve staff's recommendation for a facilitator for MODOT's Petition Initiative Process. Mr. Koestner explained that MoDOT will go through the prioritization process as well. He stated that the five planning partners and MoDOT will formulate a process to prioritize all of the projects for the region. Mr. Sanders explained that we will meet with the facilitator as soon as possible to get an idea what their approach will be. He stated that they will look at our existing projects and prioritization process. With no additional discussion, the motion passed unanimously. Mr. Mihalevich left at 1:16 p.m. 9. Other Business A. Status of Current Work Tasks Mr. Sanders gave an update on the following work tasks: • FY2015 Unified Planning Work Program — draft for February 6 Technical Committee Meeting • FY2015-2019 TIP — Technical Committee discussed an annual TIP • Limited English Proficiency Plan - draft for February 6 Technical Committee Meeting • Public Participation Plan — April 2014 • Memorandum of Understanding — May 2014 • Bylaws — July 2014 • Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan — visioning/goal setting to be done 10. Next Meeting Date - Wednesday, February 19, 2014 at 12:15 p.m. in the Boone/Bancroft Room #200. 11. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 1:26 p.m. TZbmit fc Pi- i�C�l/�� Anne Stratman, Administrative Assistant