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