Welcome to the September 16th meeting of the Petripolis and Planning Council. We have our agenda and the consent agenda. Before we get to adoption of the agenda, I'd like to say a couple of things. I'd like to move the consent item 7 which addresses the expansion of the MTPO to 15 and make that item 4B is not an action item, it's information, but we could just, I think just for discussion if someone wants to discuss. I thought some people might want to have something to say on it. All right. So with those without amendment, I'd ask for adoption of. But before we do that, I would like to move the, I would like to have item eight, the Metropolitan Planning Organization staffing and voting structure moved to right before that. We in the backup staff has some Recommendations for expenditures of UPWP so I kind of wanted to figure out what we're do if we want to move forward with that before we start going into Discussions of the UPWP if we could move that forward in the agenda right after item three So before item four correct So this would be 3a. Right. 3a. Peace. All right. Madam Chair, I make the motion. We approve the consent agenda and the meeting agenda with the changes have just been spoken about by you as the chair and commissioner. Yes, sir. Thank you. All right. All in order. I indicate by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Thank you all right all in the cake by saying aye aye Thank you any opposed like sign the motion passes and Yes, I'm getting ready to announce that commission Sockhoes attending the meeting virtually correct take a vote to allow her to participate in vote through illness We need to we need to vote to allow the mission so of soccer to participate with us by zoom. Is there what's the region for her not being here? She's ill. And what is our practice for doing that? That's not something we do at the city. Yes, you are. Oh, we make a finding that this board has based on the voice of your council, which is assistant county attorney. We've found that if somebody is are. We don't vote on that. Yeah. I mean that's fine. I would move to allow Rene Sakko to to be here virtually. And second motion and a second. Is there a discussion? All right commissioners Sakko since I don't have a light for you Just please feel free to chime in because I will not know When you want to comment so thank you. Thank you. Okay. All in favor indicate by saying aye I Those supposed like sign the motion passes before we move into our action items for today, on the consent agenda, we just approved the appointment of Mr., I don't want to mispronounce your name. Bola-Hann, down it. Okay, would you like to come forward and just say a few words? You've already been accepted, but I thought since you came down here, you might want to have something to say. Yes, my name's George Don Deenville. Don Deenville is a pretty fancy area. Thank you, thank you. Remounce it as it looks. I just want to say thank you very much of kind of stuck with it. So now I got stuck on two boards, but no, not stuck. Maybe I can help out on both boards. And just also let you know, I'll sit out here and listen, so I can get a little bit more educated, but my parking meters can run out in the butt. Two hours. Two hours. Thank you. Well, we welcome you. Thank you for taking the time to join us. Thank you. Thank you. All right Mr. Executive Director, back to you. Madam Chair item two on your agenda is an amendment to the Transportation Improvement Program from the City of Gainesville Regional Transit System. Recently received a grant of some page 133 of your packet. And it's a grant for 26 million point for $490 to purchase hybrid buses as well as construct a solar energy facility at the regional transit system. All right, thank you and this item does require a roll call vote. Correct. And Mr. Haysu says here if we have any questions about the grant. Yeah, at the bottom. All right. Got it. I had one, Madam Chair. Okay. I was just suggesting maybe re-arranging the microthorts. Brian, do you use the one further down? Yes, you're right. I'll just have a discussion going on over here on the side. No problem. So, Madam Chair, I just felt like this is one that probably deserves a little more explanation mainly because it puts us on the cutting edge of technology, emissions, the way we handle transit and transportation in Elatua County and it's a good thing. Bottom line, I know we have the director here of that area, I'm not sure who would be most appropriate, but I certainly think this would be good to put on the record as something that we probably want to see as our collective bodies in our area. Thank you. Thank you Madam Chair. Okay, Su's going through the transportation department. One of the main reasons we need to replace the all 14-year-old buses that we have on our city. That was one of the many of the, of course, dealing with the climate issues and that would be a Hexlin resource to do this. Would be the first one in the state, actually in the region, four of a federal to have a solar canopy project on the using federal dollars, so that will be interesting to have. We work on that right now. And he's also, of course, thank you for all the support, all of you going to Washington and loving for these kind of grants. So thanks a lot. Well, thank you. Thank you for your leadership in getting it. But I further questions Yes, just very quickly Mr. Wheelman Your solar canopy is that what you're saying? Yeah, we're trying to do a solar canopy in the employee parking lot Oh, good. Thank you very innovative. Okay. Thank you All right, so further discussion Thank you very innovative. Okay. Thank you. All right. So further discussion. Thank you. Madam Chair, do we have a motion? Yes. There's a receipt of the $26.000 grant. No, no. Okay. Is there a second? Yes. A motion and a couple of seconds. And I think that qualifies for a roll call. Yes, man does require a roll call. Commissioner Alfred. Commissioner Cornell Commissioner Book Commissioner Eastman. I Commissioner Prisya. I Commissioner Sman. Aye. Commissioner Prisya. Aye. Commissioner Sacco. Aye. Mayor Ward. Aye. Commissioner Wheeler. Aye. Commissioner Willits. Aye. Commissioner Wielerts. Aye. And Chair Moore Chessnet. Aye. And Chair the motion passes. Now, please. Thank you. Passes with Commissioner Duncan Walker. Absent. Correct. Thank you. Passes with Commissioner Duncan Walker absent. Correct. Thank you. All right. Let's move to item three. Item three is also an amendment to your transportation improvement program. This is something that's required each year this time to roll forward projects. This relates to the fact that the state fiscal year is July 1 to June 30. Your fiscal year is the same as the city and county which is October 1 to September 30. So at June 30 each year there are a number of projects that the Department of Transportation has not fully committed funds for and those projects need to be rolled forward into the next fiscal year into the new transportation improvement program. On page 151, 152 is the list of those projects. These are all projects that you've previously at scene in your existing plan, as well as including projects outside of the urbanized area for the first time. These projects will be rolled forward because funds will not commit it during the last fiscal year. It's a administrative amendment. And this item also requires a roll call vote. All right, thank you. Mr. Emotion? Madam Chair, I move that the bicycle pedestrian advisory board says an advisory committee, technical advisory committee, and staff recommend the, well, okay, joint recommendation that we amend this transportation improvement program to roll forward funding for fiscal year 2324 to fiscal year 2425 for the projects within the Gainesville Metropolitan area identified in except one second motion and second is their discussion all right mr. Executive Director. Commissioner Alfred. Yeah. Commissioner Book. Commissioner Cornell. Commissioner Eastman. Aye. Commissioner Prisya. Aye. Commissioner Saco. Aye. Mayor Ward. Aye. Commissioner Wheeler. Aye. Commissioner Willits. Aye. and Commissioner Moore Chessant. Aye. Motion passes with Commissioner Duncan Walker. Absent. All right, now we move to item 3A, is that correct? Commissioner Eastman? Yes. Yes, that's correct. Did staff have any presentation or anything on this particular point? No, this is an item that was previously discussed at some real or meetings. We've had a presentation from the Director of the Metropolitan Planning Advisory Council, which is our 27 Metropolitan Organizations in the state about how other Metropolitan Planning Organizations are organized and staffed around the state also provided some information provided Related to the structure that that MPOs have around the state as well as information provided by commissioner Eastman Center last meeting Miss item was continued. Yeah, so there's no information presented by me. I believe We have here and back up gains. Well T t m a designation and operational consideration for TMA certification which I believe was done by city and county staff is that correct is this who collected this data that I'm seeing in the back up here the the OT okay and then so at the last so frankly at the last meeting we had a discussion about where we wanted to go as at the last meeting we had a discussion about where we wanted to go as an MTPO. We had been under a regional planning council model in which we are contracting with the North Central Florida Regional Planning Council. And next year we're moving from a TMPA to a TMA. So we're going to have $3 million more in money that we can expend on various things and And the question is is do we want to have a staff that directly answers to the MTPO board that is More in line with how we're seeing some of the larger MTPOs move Or do we want to continue on in the current structure in which we have a consulting agreement with the North Central Florida Regional Planning Council. As I've said before, I think it's really important that we have a board, that we have staff members that answer directly to us. This is as I've seen other places that have MTPOs across the state of Florida. I see MTPOs that are very responsive to the folks that are there, places that have more stronger staffing models that allow them to get these things through. And so I think what I see in backup there is, I believe it's Exhibit three, that is the one that was put together by, is it county entity staff, the staffing and transition plan for the Metropolitan Transportation Planning Organization? Okay. This is on page 365. Am I? Oh, right. So, you're okay. Right. Thank you. The memorandum. The memorandum was put together. And this was put together by, I believe, sitting in county staff together as to what a transition would look like. How could we move from what we currently have from the regional planning council, a consulting model, into a leaning independent model in which we would have staff members and answer directly to us but would lean on either the city or the county for their back-end structure for all the insurance, for all of the pensions, for all of that work. So that you still save that money on the back end so you're able to have that administrative work that money on the back end so you're able to have that administrative work that goes on while at the same time Having one that is more responsive to what the MTPO is looking for and so their recommendation which was Different than what I had brought forward from before is having is the same way establishing a steering committee comprised of three to five board members to leave the transition hiring executive director Directing either county or city staff to hire an executive director or the MTPOs behalf, directing the county or city staff to draft an interlocal agreement, and then to really hire and you can read through the backup on 366, to really hire a general planning consultant that would be able to come in and support through this whole transition. And so I think we kind of have to make a decision as to where we want to go on this fairly quickly if we want to move forward on this. And I think it's something that we that I think would be an improvement is to the current structure that we have. And I think we would have a we would have an MTPO that is as I said more responsive. But I would leave that up to the group to have that discussion. So that's all I have. All right. I see questions and I have some questions on this. Commissioner Alff. If I remember correctly from my meeting with the with our staff, this would all of this transition would be supported by the state financially. Am I remembering that correctly, Brian? Or do you know? I'm not I'm not sure. I do know what Kai is in the room. She might be able to answer that question. Good afternoon, Madam Chair. A K-A-Brown with DOT. To fund the transition will come from your PL funds, which are federal funds to support whatever decision you guys decide today But there would be funding to support a consultant for that period of time you currently use your PL funds to To get to receive consultant services, which is the RPC. Okay, gotcha. Okay. Thank you All right Okay, Commissioner Wheeler. No, that's. It's me. Commissioner Willitz. Thank you Madam Chair. So part of this recommendation I see the word city staff on there and so I have some questions about what kind of time requirements would be required of the Gainesville City staff potentially, because we're in a situation where we have, over the course of two years, quite dramatically cut staff. And to suddenly think that we magically have staff time to devote to this without some sort of funding stream that then hires back a person on the city side, I think this isn't, I have a problem with this about saying city staff is magically going to do something when we have cut to the point that all of our staff are working all of the time and we don't we don't have near the wiggle room we used to have potentially. Now greater this is not the departments where we have cut a lot. We have cut from transportation, but driver positions in the dozens of drivers positions. On the HR side, we are down on HR one this year, one this coming year, where we down or two this year, two last year, it's quite a bit. I don't know if someone from the Gainesville City staff can remind me how many were down. Perhaps Mr. Persons can remind me how many were down in HR. But so I have some concerns about whether Gainesville City staff understands where they might be involved on the person power to achieve this because we have stuff at the city that is frankly being neglected because we've been in a tight budget this year as evidence at least in our general fund where we actually have reduced our budget By about points 7% as opposed to perhaps county budget, which is a little healthier So I want I want to know about what this what where in this proposal is staff Gonna need to help how much time Or do we not know you know the full ramifications of that on city staff? Thank you, Commissioner Eastman. Are you prepared to ask that? Should we just put together a list of questions that we want to? Well, I mean, so it says city or county staff. And I'm in agreement with you. I don't think that our city staff is in a position to take that on at the moment. My understanding is that I mean, county staff, thank you, Alison. Do you mind? So my motion would have been to really lean on the county staff. If that is comfortable, I kind of want to hear from our county colleagues, but to lean on the county staff as much as possible for this, for a lot of the details of this. Just to give you a name for the record. Allison, was transportation planning manager for the county? So I think the way that county or city staff would support a transition would be basically through assisting with interlocal agreements necessary to hire, say, a transitional consultant and interlocal agreements to look for a new executive director. If that was the choice that the board decided to make. So not to staff the MTPO indefinitely, but rather to help for a limited time period to make those transitions. Does that answer the question? Thank you. If I could jump in with the question. So do we have, is your light on? I'm sorry. You go ahead. No, no, tell me what number you are. I don't know. No, so are you number four? what number you are. I don't know. So are you number four? I thought I had asked answer number four. She's right after number four. Oh, yeah, I am number four. Okay. All right. Go ahead. I just, I mean my colleagues need to chime in on this as well, but we have a number of these types of arrangements, like career sources, another example where we have an independent entity that has its own governing board and it has its own executive director and staff and we provide services and support for them. So we're able to help with some of the fiscal oversight, making sure that money moves where it's supposed to move through the clerk's office, of course. and helping with HR efforts and things like that and interlocal legal. They do have also have their own attorney, but our legal sometimes provide some ancillary support. So I think the county has other models like that, and I could see this making a lot of sense for it to follow that same model. And if my colleagues agree, I certainly would be in favor of us being able to provide that support so that this board could have dedicated staff because I do think that the dedicated staff is important as we continue to grow and as we continue to advance our goals around you know vision zero and around our bicycle and pedestrian master plan and incorporating that into the DOTs goals. I think having dedicated staff that are working day in and day out with our transportation planners and the city's transportation planners would be really advantageous. Okay thank you. Thank you. Mr. Mayor. Thank you Madam Chair. So it seems the more I think about it kind of analogous to the library district and that a lot of backup support is provided by the county. But we're both putting in, we're both city and city of Gainesville and Allertrow County are providing members to the governing agency and then we have a whole bunch of staff at the county but the backup services, the back office are provided by Allchewa County. Okay, I think thank you. I think what is more concerning to me at this point is the budgetary implications. How do we pay our, do we have to do anything special to transfer funds to provide for an executive director. We don't have a budget presented here. And you might say, well, you don't need the budget because you're going to have the, I don't see a budget on this paper, do you? No, we don't have a budget, recommend a budget on this paper? Do you? No, we don't have a budget, recommend a budgetary recommendation. So if Ms. Brown or Mr. Koon's could tell me, what is the process then in transferring the money? Would we be transferring money from the Regional Planning Council? How do we get the money for the executive director, there are any implications from the federal government that we have to address in doing this? Madam Chair, as we've discussed previously, this organization is a completely, mostly, grant funded reimbursement organization, other than $24,000 between the city and county that's contributed to the organization. All your other revenue comes for reimbursement which means you have to have working capital up front to carry the receivables and costs that you occur over quarterly basis and then reimbursement and a couple of months later get paid. So on average it's about $500,000 of working capitals needed to operate disorganization. And historically the region planning council has used its fund balance cash reserves to carry those expenses and wait to get reimbursed till Med Promp planning organization invoices the Department of Transportation receives those federal dollars and then pays the regional planning council five, six, seven months after the fact. Okay. The patient 18 has three. So there is that issue of working capital in front that will be needed. And we did just on concept past the budget for the fiscal year, so we would probably have to update that budget. That would be a budget consideration. I would think Commissioner Chestnut, but I think that- Yes, thank you. It looks like the DOT provides us 1.596 million in change. And then we have a few other contributing factors. So that money, instead of going to the regional planning council under contractual services, would come to the county and the county would administrative that money on behalf of the MTPO is how it would work. Just like we do with other entities that are funded similarly. A related to the mayor's office. Madam Chair, the budget is just adopted for this year and next year again is atypical. Remember you have those carry forward funds about $1.2 million in the past several years. Do the increased funding from the Plant Planning Organizations and the New Federal Surface Transportation Act. On an annual recurring basis, your baseline funding from Federal Highway and Federal Trans Administration combined is about 750,000 a year, not the 1.2 million or several million you have for the special projects that you're going to be undertaking for the complete street studies of the next two years as well as Funding the countywide bicycle pedestrian master plan So the recurring funding is about a quarter million But we also would be able to look for additional grant funding to do projects as You know, that'd be one of the jobs. I would assume would be to look for additional grant funding for future projects So then I'm assuming that the that the county was actually front of funds that are needed here Because the city can't front any of the funds Okay Well, can this just with our fund balance at the city. Thank you so much. Right. We've basically said our fund balance, which is healthy currently, that we will be spending it on capital one time expenditures, including things like potentially setting up our own IT. Where we just have to upfront, it's not capital capital, but it's the human and systems capital to get it going. So if we stood this up the idea that we would go back to the city budget I'm somewhat open to looking at that but that would be one of those things that had to get spent out of the fund balance but if it's something that is worth in essence just forwarding it and that it will come back to us since we are through a mostly reimbursement model That idea is not the craziest thing in the world, but to your point commissioner, Chessna, we don't have it sitting around this year in contingency to quickly be able to say, if the city needs to go in 250,000 and the county needs to go in 250,000 to have enough capital up front. But on the city side, we would have to be making a pretty strong decisions not impossible though so I just wanted to throw that out there. There are no lights down here so please identify yourself if you want to speak. Oh Commissioner Cornell thank you. Mine might say County Manager on there. Is Hitties number one. Nice if you'd say that. Miss Moss, could I ask Miss Moss just a quick question? So you had presented, we had a, I presume you had some meetings with my colleagues. And I really liked your timetable that you kind of presented, which starts in August of 2024, moves into the spring of 2025 with a transition, obviously working with the Regional Planning council and hiring a consulting company and carries us into the spring of 2026 So when you went over this with me has anything really changed from this transition? I would say we lost a couple months probably So kind of move everything back. So we're looking at sometime in the summer to the end of 2026 Yeah, which I think makes a lot of sense, commissioners. As I indicated last meeting, we talked about this. I believe standing up an independent board makes an independent staff, makes a lot of sense and utilizing the RPC staff during that transition in listening to my colleagues across the street. I'm perfectly comfortable with this recommendation. What I would just say is everywhere where it says, or city, maybe just say, with assistance from the city. So having the county have this moss and her team take the lead with assistance from the city. And I would be comfortable moving forward with that recommendation. So I'll move that. All right, we have a motion and two seconds on the floor. It's a further discussion on the motion. Commissioner Eastman. Just to be clear. So I guess what immediately, well, I guess this is sending very clear direction that that is the way we want to go, but immediately what it would do is create a steering committee of three to five board members that would, at some point, perhaps alter portions of this, I mean, we would have to decide who's gonna sit on this board. I'd imagine at this meeting, if we wanted to move forward with this fairly quickly. But so there might be some details that need to get in, whether how we're going to use the PL funds, how we're going to use the UP funds. We're voting on UP in the next section, so I don't know how that would impact all of this. But I do think my fellow commissioners that we should, that we shouldn't move forward with this thing, it's important to put together the subcommittee, I think that we will have an MTPO that is much stronger and much more fitting for a larger organization, which is where we're moving into. And so I support the motion. Yeah. Thank you. OK, so let me see. Commissioner Carnell, then if I were to look at the July 26 memorandum. The recommended board actions would be one. MTPO board to establish a steering committee comprising, three to five board members to lead the transition. Mrs. Commissioner Eastman and Commissioner Cornel. MTPO board to direct county, are with city staff to hire a new executive director on the MTPO's behalf. Direct county with City staff to hire a new executive director on the MTPO's behalf. Direct County with City staff to direct interlocal agreement to support hiring. Set a higher target date of April. So now I think you're probably looking at June 2025. Let's change that. 3, MTPO Board to direct MTPO staff, RPC, to hire new general planning consultant to assist with technical responsibilities. A, direct county or city staff to amend staff services agreement to delineate tasks for the RPC and the new general planning consultant, direct MTPO staff and the regional planning council to amend unified planning work program UPW, WP, to include new GPC, I hate all these initials, to include new general planning consultant services, see set target higher date for general planning consultant services. See, set target higher date for general planning consultant of no later than March 2025. That would probably may move to May 2025. D, establish evaluation committee including MTPO, Board members, county and city staff, four MTPO board to direct city with county, with city staff to amend staff services agreement, to terminate agreement with RPC, Regional Planning Council, and enter an employment agreement with the new executive director. Yes, Madam Chair, the only, the two comments I would have to Commissioner Eastman's comments would be, I believe the steering committee should be made up of two members of the city, two members of the county and the chair, whoever that is. It's you right now. It'll roll to the next chair. So that would be my recommendation. I would also say that we should direct staff to have the county fund the working capital and then see crew investments as indicated by okay. All right. So that would be five and six added on to this five and six. Yeah, we could add that to the motion if the seconder's approved that. Okay, with that? Two and two with the chair and then county fund and in secret embarrassment. Okay I believe once hopefully will not tell Tommy that I made that motion and the target date is set the higher target date I guess it would be no later than June of 2025 and then 3C would be May of 2022. This section of the recommended board actions appear to be kind of in a timeline in a way. I don't think we're ready to terminate the staff contract. Oh no. But that is on here and it's written as though it's happening immediately. So I would cross off section four. And frankly, I would cross off about establish evaluation committee. I think we're a little ahead of that at that point. So 3D and 4, I don't think. I think the steering committee can bring that forward when that's ready to go. It goes to or later in the timeline. The 3D we delete now. What else? And then 4. I think we need to amend the staff services agreement and work on a transition. So instead of to terminate, I think when Allison mentioned to me terminate, it wasn't immediately, it was eventually. And so... They do need to work on that. I mean, I guess we're part of the motion of be did direct staff to work on an amended agreement with a termination date. Yeah, or with a, I like the word transition. I mean, I, I, I am talking to Scott. I think this is a one and a half to two year plus commitment. And so I would, yeah, I would change forward to say to amend the staff services agreement to transition, to a transition agreement with the RPC. And then into an employment agreement with the new executive director under the timeline above. Rather than I personally that makes me feel better. Well I would personally I would like to see this come back to us clean so we can see what is here. Yeah I think if we give this direction then we we'll be I'd like to see a comeback. I don't want to delay the decision. Madam Chair, I have one comment on the question. The existing staff service agreement runs through October 2026, which will be towards this end of this transition period. Next year, runs through next year. No, October 2626. 26, two years, yes. And then the second one is we would need a little more clarity and direction about the engagement of a general planning consultant and what their duties and responsibilities would be. That's little unclear. But it's very unclear. I think that I think a lot of those details would have to get hashed out by the steering committee. I believe we directed, I mean, is mean, that's your direction, right, to amend the, no direct county staff to amend the staff service agreement to the LNAT task for RPC and the new GTC. But yeah, I mean, I think a lot of those, I think we start moving forward on this at this point and then we, and then the subcommittee can come together and sort of hash out exactly some of those details and nuances. That's F-D-O-T, a question? D-O-T? Yeah. Yes. Miss Brown? Miss Brown. So Miss Brown and I have had some discussions. I mean, we actually could terminate the agreement right now and move right into a consulting agreement with somebody else with your help finding one. Yes, with the 60-day notice. With a 60-day notice. With the 60-day notice. So, or we could do a transition like we've been talking about. Scott, I very much want to do a transition. But I'm ready today to make a decision to terminate and get a consultant with DOT's help. DOT is largely the one that started this process with their memo and they have immense resources more so than both county and city who are standing ready willing and able to help us with consultants that are ready to stand this organization up. So that's where I am commissioners. I'm good with this recommendation and 60-day termination. I don't want to do that, but I want cooperation from RPC or I intend to bring back at the next meeting that we do do that. FDOT is ready to help us. OK. And so our next meeting is in two weeks or three weeks. October 7th, correct? That's the next meeting. Yeah. Madam Chair, I'm so sorry to cut you off. I just wanted to clarify things in terms of the board right now. As you see, you guys are waiting on about two additional members. So this definitely should be decided before your new members are brought on board. Before? Before. You know, so they're not, you're not walking in with this. And DOT's memo was processed to improve staffing, support, and coordination with DOT. So I want to put that for the record as well. Thank you. Thank you. I mentioned a book. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. I kind of belong the lines of the consultant and the transition, who could answer the question is 60 days a reasonable doable time on hiring somebody? And I'm not sure who would best answer that particular question. Ms. Brown. Is that an operationally sustainable time? Is really on a mask and is that possible? That was the agreement between the MPO board and RPC. That was the notice that was included in your agreement that termination date. Yeah, my question is a little bit different. Organization yourself. Yeah, my question is, do we feel like we would have somebody on board that could assist in the transition within that 60 day period of time, you know, just based on hiring and logistics and advertising. Or there's somebody already on staff, for example, the DOT that fills that role in an interim capacity. DOT will do the best they can to support the NPO through their transition process. But as mentioned before, the best thing the first step is to find your executive director. Because that is a person that's going to leave the course and the phase into you all's growth and development your executive director who then would hire the supporting staff as AC fit so yes man so it sounds like the answer is yes we could we within 60 days that would be sufficient to do something on a transition regardless of the executive director higher regardless do you here to support and walk you all through whatever your needs may be. Thank you. One other question, a little bit of field. We talked about potentially the increase in money that we get as a result of increase in size of our metropolitan transportation planning organization up to a TPO. And I don't think we've come. I know three million is a figure we put out, but I don't think we know what that figure is at the moment, do we? Director. So the, yes, this is around three million, and that is your SU funds. Not that you've gone, particularly to TMA. You've received now, you know, set bucket of amount of about around $3 million and you all have some of those funds are already programmed to some of your projects. We do. Okay. Thank you. Thank you Madam Chair. All right. So let me, all right number four. I was wondering if our county staff that are here could speak a little bit to the working with the regional planning council around that general consulting services. If you all sort of have some sense of the activities that that consultant would undertake in this planning phase for the transition, do or county. So my understanding is Al Semon's Transportation Planning Manager again with the county is that the LRTP is currently underway. That is already in the RPC's wheelhouse so they should probably continue to work on that. There may be a couple other things that are in progress. I think the public involvement plan is something that is due soon but has not kicked off. So we kind of be looking if you wanted to transition to use a transitional consultants help to take on tasks that are not already underway with the RPC. Additionally work on data transfer, you know, other information sharing during that period, but have the majority of the work in time be transferred over to a transitional consultant. So one thing I guess I see missing from this motion and I think it would be good if somebody if our, I don't know who's clerking this meeting, but if somebody could put up the, what we have so far on the recommended board actions and then we could see the modified action that may be helpful to those of us who are following this along. But I think anyone can sit there. Well I guess RPC staff should be clerking it because I have to take the minutes. Right? Who takes the minutes of this meeting? I think please the minute. Yeah. Okay. Anyway, if we can get it up there at some point, the actual recommended board actions that we had the current motion that we have on the floor. But I guess in the meantime, what I want to say is I think that we need a direction in here that the general planning consultant, like scope of work, would come back to that steering committee for review prior to, you know, that we sort of, like scope of work would come back to that steering committee for review prior to, you know, that we sort of like that that steering committee is going to be the one that's going to review that scope of work and then making recommendations with regards to the GPC scope of work. That's not really in here. It just says RPC, a men unified work plan with GPC services. It doesn't talk about how this board would have input into those planning services. And I'm actually really happy to hear that we could have the public engagement piece kind of be part of that transition plan because I think that's going to be really critical as we're building out this new MPO, thinking about how we do community engagement differently and how we really involve the public and the conversations around our planning. I think it's really gonna be important. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. All right, three. Oh, I guess that's me. Commissioner Boek, I don't know. The 60 days seems rushed to me. I spoke with the MRHR director at the city just to kind of pick their brain about it. They have obviously nothing to do with the MTPO and said that 60 days is quick for a senior level person. I mean, what we're going to want here is this is an exciting position for someone that wants to come in and have a challenge. I mean, this is very rarely to MTPO's transfer over like this. We are a community that is on the front lines of bicycle pedestrian work or a community that is on the front line that has tremendous RTS system, bus system that we in we this is a very exciting job for someone who wants to be on the front end of transportation plan and we want to make sure we have a great executive director that can come in here that's willing to take on that challenge transfer that over and those types of people are going to be looking at it and saying, well, maybe they live in Nebraska. Maybe they live in South Florida. Maybe they're second in command somewhere else or high up in a different MTPO. They're going to have to decide to move to games of the Florida and take on this new challenge. And so just making sure that we have those lead times ready to go to make sure we have the best possible executive director in this role, I think is going to be critical, because it's a critical role at a very interesting time in the MTPO's history. I was in agreement with that. I was talking about the transition piece. And hiring in transition piece, I will basically get somebody on right away as opposed to who might be an executive director down the road. And you're right. You want to pick well. You want to pick amongst a group of candidates that shows we have the expertise to deal with something that's just moved up in scope and size and money. So we're actually in agreement with that. And as it relates to the, so maybe it's not clear within the, these recommended board actions, but I guess my thought with how the subcommittee would work is this committee would still, of course, have final approval on everything the same way that the City Commission and County Commission has final approval on everything the same way that the City Commission and County Commission has final approval on anything but Staff would be reviewing things it would go through this kind of governance subcommittee just to make sure things are going in the right direction I mean this this transition will be somewhere between the MTPO board city staff county staff the Florida Department of Transportation I want to make sure that there are folks that we have People that are on a more regular basis kind of keeping their hand firmly on the wheel as it is going forward with it being brought back here. So I can't imagine that we would just have staff reviewing something, it come back directly to this board or would just get implemented without it, you know, going through a subcommittee before coming over here. At least that's how I saw how this process would go forward. And whoever serves on the subcommitteecommittee it's going to be somewhat I mean you're going to have to take the time really make sure that all this is moving forward because it is going to be very interesting a new transition within all this so all of these things from my from my perspective will get hashed out may even switch an alter as time goes on but but the point is to get us to a good outcome here which is have executive director that has staff under them that is getting everything to F dot when they need it that is being that has sufficient staff to really move forward. And so that's how I see all this move forward. That's all I have, Madam Chair. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Me too. Yes, please. So what I've heard is let's clarify the steering committee. Let's clarify the scope of services. I think we should also ask for the assistance of FDOT if it's offered. Let's clarify, I think we need regular updates as to where we are in this transition plan. So let me just restate the motion and it's welcome to changes by the seconder. So the first one is MTA Board, so I would move that the MTA Board to establish a steering committee comprised of three to five members, board members to lead the transition, which would include the chair and two members from the City Commission and two members from the County Commission. Each of our commissions can decide on that at their next meetings. Two, MTO Board to direct county with the assistance of city staff to hire a new executive director on the MTPO's behalf. A, direct county with the assistance of the city staff to draft an interlocal agreement to support the hiring. B, set a target hiring date of June 2025 and three establish. Well, we weren't gonna do that. You're gonna take the evaluation team out. Yeah, take that out. So essentially that searing committee would bring back recommendations to this board of who we're hiring and then this board would decide. Okay, three, MTO board to direct the MTPO staff, RPC, to hire a new general planning consultant, GPC, with the assistance of FDOT, to assist with technical responsibilities and a scope of services between the RPC and the GPC during this transition. That's where I would like that the steering committee be presented the scope of work and the job description for the executive director and the general consultant prior to that being released so that that steering committee has the chance to review the work with that GPC and the job description for the ED before it goes out. Okay, so you want that up in number two? I guess I'm just saying that where it says direct MTPO staff to amend the staff services agreement. Sorry, I'm sorry, MTPO are direct. 3A. 3A. To direct RPC to hire new general planning consultant with technical responsibilities, with FDOT and steering committee input, I guess I may be at that. Okay, with the assistance of FDOT and the steering committee, so I'm on three. So MTPO board to direct MTPO staff, the RPC, to hire new general planning consultant with the assistance of the FDOT and the steering committee to assist with technical responsibilities and a scope of services between the RPC's C and the general planning consultant during this transition. A, direct county with the assistance of city staff to amend the staff services agreement to delineate tasks, propel the RPC and the new general consultant, B, direct MPO staff RPC to amend the unified work program to include new GPC services. C, set a target hiring date for the GPC of no later than may of next year, 2025. And that's it, on three. Four, empty PO board to direct county with the assistance of CitySap to amend the staff service agreement to a transitional agreement with the RPC and to enter into an employment agreement with a new executive director. Five, direct the county to provide the necessary working capital which would be reimbursed during the transition plan And six, ask the county and the RPC staff, so the new consultant, to provide an update at each future meeting on the transition plan. So we can kind of track it. We can deal with what things are coming up, what decisions we need to make. Secondors, great with all of those. That's what, so that's my wish. That does the OTC any problems with that? Do you see any problems with that? Scott, do you see any problems with that? No, at this point. But just one clarification, the working capital, those are committed funds. Those would not be reimbursed. You get reimbursed for the expenses that occur during the quarter, which are going to need to work in capital in place for the next quarter. So the working capital needs to be dedicated reserve funds with the organization. And then you get reimbursed for the expenses. Yeah, so I think I'm prepared to ask our county staff and our city staff to kind of go back to their respective OMBs and say, do we have two 50 of fund balance that we can both share in? I don't know where the city is on their fund balance. I know the county has the reserves, but I don't know how our staff feels about that. I think they would be dedicated for a period of time, but ultimately I would suspect that these funds could all be reimbursable from our planning funds with a federal government. Am I missing something on that? I'm sure what's reimbursable is the expenses that will be incurred. Okay. So if you incur expenses, you need a working capital sitting in a bank account to pay those expenses, pay roll, and other expenses. And then those expenses incurred are invoiced to floor department transportation. While that's being invoiced and being paid, you're now incurring expenses into the next quarter. Set $500,000 needs to be available for those expenses. Yes. into the next quarter, set $500,000 needs to be available for those expenses. Yes, so we're committing that the county would put up $500,000 in working capital that would be reimbursed as we make expenses out of that account. I understand that, but Scott's implying that that would never be come back to the county those would always stay in the new independent boards. Right, right. That a contribution need to be made either by the city or county or combination to the new organization. Okay I think we would initially make it and then we would have a discussion about that out of future meeting with with this board. I mean once it's reimbursed they've got capital they'll have their own working capital. Well he's saying they would just it's a timing thing is what I'm hearing But I think we will have to work through that as part of the transition for sure Yeah, I just don't think we can commit the city to any funds at this point not at this meeting. No, we cannot we cannot do that and I You know, I I understand people are urgent. They want to move things However, we will meet in another three weeks. I would rather see this written up and come back. If you want to come back with the county is going to put up, provide all of the working capital. Fine. The city can, we do not have the funds. I just don't think we're ready at this point unless you're going to provide them. No, I'm not worth millions of dollars. I'm sorry. But I'll care brown with DOT, Trump Station Planning Manager. I would like to add also that currently the, part of the memo that was recently sent, the RPC invoices for indirect costs. And while you all are going to be part, you know, working things out financially through the county or the city staff in terms of how you all are come up with that funding, it's something to also think about how to you also pay and reimburse the RPC through indirect costs because we will no longer be approving those funds. And so if you take a look at your UPWP, it doesn't outline in there, but if you take a look and request it from Scott, your invoices, you would see that you are charged for indirect cost funds, which we currently not invoice, which we currently now reimburs up until June 30th. But moving forward under your new to your UPWP, we will not be reimbursing those funds. So it's something to also think about if you're going to be retaining the RPC, how the city and the county would be paying the RPC those indirect costs. So I can possibly place one up here. I've got a lot of questions. Things are not very clear here. Yes. And I'm sorry, I'm just, you know, but I see where things could be potentially going. And I just want to make sure that if you guys also have the information, I will hate you to come back three weeks later and say, and I just open up them. You know, post-poned it again just to figure out those numbers. But while you are doing that, I think this is also to kind of convene and speak about that with your financial services. Yeah, I ask a question. Yeah, Mr. Perzi. Okay. I just want to be clear, regardless of rather or not we make this transition the RPC currently bills for indirect costs which the DOT is no longer going to be funding as of as of Joe 30 of this year so their last invoice yeah the last invoice we receive last week because they they build three months after their last invoice date so regardless regardless we're all no longer be funding that so we are going to have a deficit in our funding from DOT to cover the cost of the MTPO regardless. Technically so, yes. So I guess, but it's true. So and that is and I should mention that is up until the RPC provides DOT, basically a fiscal plan, and that could take a good year or so, so a year or so to process, because it has to go up to central office. So it could be approved and agreed rate, could be approved, and so currently, yes, so currently the RPC, the indirect cost, indirect rate is 66.5%. So that's currently what's being charged against. And in the future, once the RPC invoices, I'm sorry, once RPC submits a plan to DOT for central office to review, then we can agree on an indirect rate. At that time, then it's a proof and so on. But currently, we are no longer going that route. So we're going to no longer be reinforcing that. Okay. Okay. I think that one of our staff wanted to see something on that too? Alson Moss Transportation Planning Manager for the County. So I'm aware that we have an indirect cost allocation plan for the county. I imagine the city probably has something similar. So we have federal grants. We are invoicing them for, say, consultant work that is done for us. We don't invoice them for our indirect costs. That's just sort of a giant, very complex indirect cost allocation plan that looks at overhead and all the various things that municipal government handles. And I don't think that's something that we would be, if the management of the MTPO would be leaning on the county, I don't think that's an expense you would be seeing coming from it being housed in the county. If that makes sense. I don't think we would, I don't think indirect costs would be invoiced because it already be housed in the county or this city. My question though is, I guess my point is not even talking about this motion and about a transition, we now have a gap because the RPC is currently managing and they are currently billing for indirect costs that are no longer allowed by DOT until they come up with a negotiated rate with DOT. So we're still going to be getting bills from RPC for their services with indirect, I'm assuming with indirect costs unless Scott is wa waving those indirect costs for the time period at which he's renegotiating with DOT. Otherwise, we're gonna have a gap. And somebody's gotta cover that gap. And we haven't had that discussion up here about who's covering the gap for the services that are being provided by RPC. So I think no matter what, that's a conversation that we need to have sooner rather than later. I don't think we realized there was a good idea. No, that's something no one told us that. That's new information. I think that, or at least it's information that somehow wasn't translated in a way that I understood it until just now. So thank you. We appreciate that, Akia. And, Akia, I apologize. And, but I think, I don't think that, like you're saying, I think if it moves over to the county, we would be covering those sort of indirect costs. And that's sort of what the county is saying we're willing to do, is take on those indirect costs through our HR and supporting the work of this ED and this board to Allison's point. And I am okay with that. I mean, me as one commissioner, and I think we've got at least two, three commissioners here that are okay with that. Like I don't think the county is used to doing that. We do it with a lot of different boards. It's part of being a county government taking on county-wide responsibility. And the majority of that will be reimbursed. And once we negotiate with DOT and indirect rate, we could potentially get reimbursed for that money as well. So I'm not concerned about the county taking on the administrative costs for reimbursement for this because I I know DOT's good for it so I I feel okay with that and I understand with the city's position and where you are all where you all are and why you are not okay with that right now, so Okay, all right Cornell Did you have something to say? Okay? All right? Madam chair. Yeah, you okay see the I'm going to be reimbursing for the next 12 months. I'm going to be reimbursing for the next 12 months. I'm going to be reimbursing for the next 12 months. I'm going to be reimbursing for the next 12 months. I'm going to be reimbursing for the next 12 months. I'm going to be reimbursing for the next 12 months. I'm going to be reimbursing for direct costs that is not that is new information as of today. So that if they're not that's going to be a significant cost to be shared by the City and County of the next 12 months. Well, 100 hundreds of thousands of dollars. So again, if the decision was decided today, then everyone at the same time, including the RPC, would have found out. And I based on the conversation about you all, reconvene in the three weeks on the same topic, I thought you should have a heads up that this is no longer going to be reimbursable. So that's why I'm telling you now, just to save time and conversation, I understand there are timelines that you all are trying to meet. I think for this transition. If you could tell us October 7th, how much money we're talking about, that would be great. That's indirect costs. That would be the RPC to provide. You all could take a look. Is it under audits? Their last two-year audits that they, the shows the indirect and outline of your expenses, you can, that should be, I think that is approved by the board annually, your CPA audits. I can, you know, next meeting I can provide the invoices that shows in an aggregated amount of what annually, what the indirect cost expenses but again Scott can provide that as well to you all to review. No, no, Commissioner, I will, it's just next. Okay, so to ask her questions. Yeah, Commissioner Will, it's okay. So, some of this does sound like it's slightly new information but but I want, so come around to several things. Commissioner Cruz, I guess, I feel like the city just can't float, can't bear the kind of the invisible overhead costs, and that was kind of what we had all kind of established. Okay. My question is, does, would no matter what, would the RPC be able to continue to float us? What, you know, there's not available funds for these overheads, these previously reimbursable from F.Dot. There's not currently funding. It would require this year, upfront capital from the city and the county, no matter what. Okay, so we've got a different issue out there, good to know. And then I will, I'll stop for now because I know that Commissioner has a question. I just wanted to, why are indirect costs no longer being reimbursed? Because those indirect costs now, per the memo, I did mention indirect costs, I mentioned, the memo that was provided. Are you referring to your March memo? Yes, I'm referring to that. That's what I thought. I was referring to that so it was in there It we were trying to understand what these these costs were. I did acts for the CPA audit. I'm not a seat. I'm not a seat Not a certified Public accountant, but I did acts to review those and I did see that but however like I had mentioned the to Scott those were not approved by DOT. And because they're a consultant indirect cost, we're not taking that on no longer until it is agreed upon with the state. That was what I thought. I just wanted to clarify and make sure that I understood what was happening. That indirect cost rate was not approved by us. It hasn't been for the last 40 years, as mentioned. It has never been approved by us. So from what I can find and what Scott has presented. So it wasn't approved. However, it was reimbursed until I, you know, ask more questions about that. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. So, I'm, I'm, I'm Chair Mayer, thank you. Yeah. Thank you. So, I mean, what I'm hearing from DOT is we need to make a decision and stand up some staff as soon as possible. I very much want the RPC to help us with that. And so, I, I, I, with all due respect, Madam Chair, don't want to delay this another two months. I think that's actually what we just heard. Yeah, I think I think we need to move forward and get working with DOT as quickly as possible to get a staff. If you remember, the independent model, one of the primary components of that independent model was a dedicated financial person to help the dedicated executive director. And we're seeing why that's so important. And having a direct line with DAT with both a CPA or a financial person as well as an executive director, who all they do, all they do, morning, noon, and night is think about the transportation. MTO is I think very important and extremely necessary right now. So I'm ready to proceed. I know it's going to be a little muddy. Hopefully everyone involved will help try to get it as quickly as possible. Get a consultant on board, do a search, and get some people in here that are dedicated to the MTPO. OK, we have a motion on the floor. Is there a second? There was a second. There was a second. There was a second. All right, Commissioner Wheeler. I have a question. Commissioner Cornell, have you in light of the change that we're hearing today? Have you talked with Tommy and our finance? We are spread out all over the place financially and I'm just wondering if that is what we have to discuss with him. Yeah, I have no conversation with Tommy. What I'm hearing is in my discussion with Allison and in our discussion two months ago about kind of funding the working capital or someone's going to have to do it and the county to the commission of Prisius Point the county is kind of the the fund of last resort here in the catch all and this our responsibility so I think what I'm hearing is we're going to have to do it anyways. I understand. It feels a little wonky. Yeah. The conversation feels a little wonky today. And I'm just was worried that, you know, with the in light of the information that we're getting that, you know, maybe we're over committing. And I feel like that I'm okay with all of this. I just want to make sure that we are not putting ourselves in financial jeopardy either because we are really spread out in the county as well. It sounds like we're already in it. Yeah. Because it sounds like our RPC and at the OT are not on the same page on indirect cost. Well, okay. All right. Well, that would be my, that my main concern, you know, is that we are extending past what our phone finances are comfortable with without further discussion. Okay, I have four. Is it presi-? Five? Five? Is Alfred three? Brian. Brian. Okay. I guess I would say that given the new information that we've been given, I guess I would be in favor of us Actually having since I guess I'm just wondering how much we really want the RPC to do because we're gonna be paying for their services and not Getting reimbursed so at this stage. Maybe we should get, maybe the county should contract directly with the general Consultants Since we have to pay that anyway and then we don't have to pay indirect on top of that for managing that consultant and we should And we should shorten the transition time I mean if we're not going to get reimbursed for any of those services in the interim I just am not sure I mean I, I do think the transition is important. I think that Scott's experience and the information and the longevity and the work that he's done for this MTPO is important. It's, and I think it's going to be important for them to collaborate with, whomever comes on to lead this organization, but I don't want to strap the county alone with a big budget of basically funding the MTPO for the interim while we figure this out, if it's going to take this two-year transition period. I was prepared for us to float 500,000 in order to get it moving so that we could get reimbursed, but now that we're being told we won't be reimbursed for that. And we're one of the higher indirect costs in the state according to the charts and some of these operations documents that are in our backup, I'm concerned about that. So I guess I would wonder about the motion of the RPC hiring the GPC versus us doing that directly. I mean, if I could respond Madam Chair, she's looking at me to respond. You know, the original memo was to terminate, give 60-day notice. We changed that to transition. I would expect or suspect, expect that the first steering committee meeting, the RPC, county staff and DOT would say, hear your options, guys. And if we don't have a good plan from RPC, I would support what you're saying. But I want to give deference to 40 years, and then hopefully we have a really good working relationship with RPC that can help us with this. If we are not getting that, I agree with you. Then we just terminate and deal with this. If we are not getting that, I agree with you. Then we just termite and deal with it. I guess I just want to be clear to this for that my my being my willingness to second this motion and to move forward with the county funding the transition for reimbursement was exactly that. The county funding the working capital for reimbursement. It was not my intention for me to put the county on the hook for funding the RPC operations of the MTPO and light of the fact that DOT will not reimburse for. I agree with you 100%. Yeah. Yeah. I just want to be clear about that. Okay. Thank you. And where I want to be clear is that the city is not in a position. Absolutely. At this point, yeah. To reimburse, are to get a check, are to get a bill at the end of the day. Commissioner Alfred? Yeah, I had a question given that this wasn't the memo and I remembered it being in the memo. As I'm curious how staff have discussed these costs. I mean, it wasn't a surprise for our staff. I remember this being part of the discussion even when we had our phone calls with DOT that there would be, that this was something that was at risk and would be coming forward. So can I ask county staff what they have discussed with respect to the financial side of this that we're talking about now these indirect costs and things like that as the county discussed this is it something Tommy is aware of? Tommy is your budget director. Yes, we're all names. Yes, sorry. We're all on a first name basis. It's not very formal, I apologize. Else Mossegan, Transformation Planning Manager for the county. As far as indirect costs, not being reimbursable, we were, we county staff were not aware that that was the case. I just wanted to verify, because it was, I do remember it being part of the memo in March that this was part of the repercussions of this, what caused this whole discussion to start. Yeah. I believe it was noted that they were very high in direct costs, but I didn't know, I don't think any of us were aware. I don't think any of us. But they were not reimbursable as far as fiscal staff at the county being aware of this. The answer is no. The answer is no. OK, I just wanted to verify that. I didn't want to assume. OK. And then lastly, just if the staffing services agreement is amended, it could be amended. I believe to limit or exclude indirect costs from being, you know, billed as a part of that staffing agreement. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Eastman Willets and Book. Yeah. I mean, I, I wish I had printed off more of these. I thought about printing the F. letter off for everyone, but I mean, I think it made fairly clear back at March. The district will no longer accept invoices that do not reflect the summary budget categories for the UPWP. Sender invoices. The district will not process further reimbursements from the Gainesville M. T.P.O. until the above mentioned requested audits are provided to solve that indirect costs. I don't really know where this leaves us. I think it means that we need to have a little more flexibility in terms of how we're moving forward with this, which I think we need to just get a subcommittee together, meet in the next week or two. Hashes out before our next MTPO meeting and sort through what exactly this means. I don't know if it means that the county takes envelopes more. I have no idea what it, but I do think it means that we need to move forward on it today. Okay. Let me just do one. Thank you Madam Chair. Yeah I I pulled up that concern letter and the corrective actions letter and saw that it said you know will not until the above mentioned requested audits provided so this is a question for you Director of Council about I thought some of those had been you know there was a bunch of stuff we said point by point by point, I remember a different letter. I'm not reading it right now. We answered it and that we answered it. This, this, that and the other. But I guess I'm a little confused on the communication or lack of communication between them receiving it. And then what was, I can't remember the response back after our letter, chair's letter, why this is now sort of a surprise. We kind of knew there were issues. I thought it was more of a, we've dropped the ball on paperwork, let's go get caught up. Well, let's have Ms. Brown come back to the microphone. Because if she could answer for us, where we stand with the letter that was answered in March, the response to the March, the audit, if she could come back with us on that, where all of those issues resolved. Madam Chair, would it help if we put the particular paragraph that we've referred to a couple times, maybe up on the screen that Miss and that Miss Brown could just probably going to refer to it anyway but that way we could at least see it. That's that that March letter would that be helpful or that would be helpful. Is that Miss Brown? Elmo. Well that Elmo. Yes. Yeah. It's up there. It as soon as they put it up. Okay. This is the letter right here. It's got this. I'm just trying to wait for it to get on the board. Yes, ma'am. On the screen, rather. Yeah, you put it on the screen and then if you could walk us through it, please. Would you like this copy? Would that be helpful if you have it? I just happen to have it here and you can just take mine. OK, there we go. OK, a brown transportation planning manager with DOT. So the tip, yes. Where we are with the tip, that's a great question for Scott. We have set up a series of meetings and I would say around the March, sorry, around the June, May, June timeframe, with the consultative, as a matter of fact, the suggested, one of the suggested companies to work on making their tip more process and more electronic-fied. And we had set for that to be around June, July. And we haven't heard back from the RPC on getting or hiring the consultant to set up because when we met with the consultant, the consultant said that they will take about a year or so to even develop the new tip to have it built online and more user friendly and public friendly. And so that said, I'll take about a year process. So the upcoming tip, which is the one that we just approved, and June was not going to be able to meet that deadline. So we said for the following tip, but I haven't heard back on that, where we are with that. And voices, I did receive the CPA, and I did the two CPAs requested. I was able to identify the indirect rate cost. The, the, the, I did receive the indirect rate cost certificate. This is not the most recent one, but these are the ones from the previous indirect cost rate that was approved or rather reviewed by the US Department of Commerce, but not reviewed by DOT. And on the, it's not here, but on the cover page, it would say that thank you for the receipt, but you do not have to submit to us It's not here, but on the cover page, it would say that thank you for the receipt, but you do not have to submit to us because it does not meet the dollar amount threshold. So that's what I received from Scott and that does satisfy this requirement here and to submit to DOT. The NPO website. The NPO website. The NPO website, there are two currently right now, there are two websites. One is the old website and the one the new one that's under construction. It was said and from your letter Madam Chair that this website would be updated and furnished by May 30th. It is not. It both websites are live. One is very antiquated and the new one has documents from 2022. And so on. So it's not the most up-to-date recent information for your constituents. I did and I have at Scott first. My predecessor can't Karen Talby. You all know her very well. She gave 30 years of service to DOT and 2018 in your joint certification. You all were put as a recommendation instead of a finding. When I took the position, it was now because that was in 2018. So when I took the position, it was considered a finding. I had worked out with Scott last year to get the website updated, and now it was in 2023. And we're headed into the fall and the website is still undeveloped. So this is not addressed as well as the... In terms of staffing, the staffing was to... In terms of the staffing, it was to support the MPO overall with communication with the liaisons and myself. There are different times of the year where a lot of things are do at the same time rapid and they're overlapping and we did X4 you know an additional planner on staff and I believe you all had responded to provide some sort of support and that was back in March and we haven't heard of any new person on board that can support the RPC. And the 8020 rule that was resolved, you all rolled over about 1.2 million to your current UPWP contract. That was resolved. And contact with the NPO. I don't know if you all are aware that the RPC, due to the storm or some other on-for-seen event, their servers have been down and the phones have been down. And it was very difficult to reach the RPC. And it says here that preferred communication is cell phones. So I do contact their cell phones, and they were able to be reached. But the emails, I don't have their personal email. So there were things that I needed to follow up with them consistently that were sent last week to ensure that they received it and to ensure that I would receive those documents that were sent last week to ensure that they received it and ensure that I would receive those documents that were requested and some of them had you know deadlines that were not requested per saved by me but front financial services in their own internal deadlines. So the the contact could be still improved I believe I CCGU, Madam Chair, last week on communication because I was unable to reach or rather get the things that I needed to perform my responsibilities. So I think that as an executive director that is a lot to juggle and we're not they're only client, you would say so they could increase their staff to support and be more on hands with the planning process. Okay. That's where I am. Well, that's a mouthful. Thank you. All right. We have Will it send book? Okay. Commissioner book. All right. All right. Yes. It seems. It seems to me that in light of the situation and the fact that we don't know all of the details with the funding and like you were saying that things are a little bit more maybe muddy for lack of a better term that perhaps we should just move forward with number one and number two and ask that under number one that that board explore the opportunities to negotiate a contract with the RPC to move forward the transition plan and bring back a report to this board at our next meeting. So we have some sense of if if we're going to be able to negotiate something that won't include those indirect costs or we'll lower those indirect costs to an Acceptable level which we can continue to move forward or if we need to exercise our 60-day cause Okay, so then we would need It would be a substitute motion But I yeah, I just don't know. Yeah, we would need a substitute motion city doesn't They don't we don't use substitute motions No, I would have to let the first one fail. I know. Okay. No, no, no. No, we can go ahead. Do you want to. Do you want to modify your motion? And I mean, where I am after hearing everything I've heard is, I feel like we may need to. Get a consultant on board that can take this on. And just do it. And so I don't wanna have another group of sets of meetings. I mean, I don't. I mean, if the majority of this board does, great. But I would suspect that county staff, DOT, and hopefully the RPC can bring us back a recommendation of who can come on board to take over immediately the task at hand that have not been started, that DOT is working with. I'd like the idea of the LRTP, continue with the RPC and the public involvement plan, continue with the RPC, but I involvement plan, continue with the RPC. But I mean, I don't, after hearing everything I've heard today, I'm not even sure about that. I hope so. I really hope so. But I think we need to get a consultant on board to hire a new executive director and to move forward. And I think the longer we wait, the more expensive it's going to be. So I'm happy to support a substitute motion to fit involves all that. I'm working off of SATs recommendations because that's who we're going to be asking to do it. And I think if you ask staff, DOT, City staff, are there RPC consultants out there that we could bring on board pretty quickly? I think the answer to that is yes. We'll give you a names of a couple and I think the steering committee needs to make that decision higher than and then work on a transition plan. I'm sure it was at a modified motion that this county. No, no, no, no, he's not he's not offering a modified motion. All right. Commissioner Wheeler. did you conclude? Commissioner Cornell, you've spoken with staff. Is staff available then to share what they've shared with you in terms of feeling comfortable about that, if you all, because again, I'm concerned about the financial situation that we're asking Tommy to maneuver. We're there the right way. For us. I have my question to write here. But I just, do we have a list of RPC consultants that we could bring on board, I'm sorry, GPC consultants that you could recommend that bring on board to start splitting up the task and moving to a transition. So that's the conversation you've had with staff. So I could hear it then I would feel better about what we're asking you all to do. Allison Moss with the county. So as far as the administrative steps that would be needed to do to execute this motion, yes staff could assist with that. The financial implications as mentioned, we have not talked with finance department about fronting the seed money. So that's something that makes you nervous at all. I mean, it makes me nervous. It does it not. And you all are better informed than I am. I don't think it's a cool. Yeah. Okay. I think it's probably something that the county could bear for a period as seed money, but I cannot speak. For the ongoing, I mean, we're talking about year to year to year, right? That we would have to be filling in those holes. Maybe I should defer to my director. Okay. Your director here? Yes. Okay. Oh, Mr. Hayes. Good, Jeff, how many talk about how you've been doing this? I'm sorry. Madam Chair, I think you'd give couple of key decisions and I think one of them this board has had. If do you want to move on from the RPC in some time period, right? So that's a answer that the community needs and staff would need to know. Beyond that, there are a few details that we have to work out and there were some wrinkles that were delivered here today from DOT that we weren't prepared based on the seed money. The seed money conversation about just a working capital fund, that wouldn't be problematic. If there are unreimbursable funds that are out there that this board and organization are going to have to bear in some way and then that is something new that we have to work on and we would have to talk about with our finance folks. And Jeff couldn't this board make a decision to not move forward with some of the programming planning dollars and instead dedicate that to this transition. To a degree and I would defer somewhat to DOT as well. We've had conversations with them about the PL funds and some of the other funds, what they could be spent on and what they can't be spent on. Some of that goes to, while you have a consultant on board who's providing staffing resources, then that block and that in the, it's taken up. That line item is taken up. So you can't do it, but you know, two consultants at one time. Right. Okay. Thank you. One more question for you, Commissioner. You're usually, you know, pretty conservative when it comes to finances and that sort of thing. And I'm just, we would like some reassurance from you that you're comfortable with, that you see us going for, that we're able to come, live up to this commitment. If we get the right executive director and the right financial person with help from DOT, I think we'll be in a really good spot. Getting to that point will be painful and the sooner the better as far as I'm concerned. The relationship and what I've seen with the RPC and DOT of the last 12 to 18 months, I'm ready to change. All right. And have you discussed within the possibility or what that pool looks like? We've had some trouble finding qualified people to step into these roles that we're trying to fill. And I just didn't know how long you think it might take for us to find a qualified person to do what we're asking them to do. Yeah. What I've heard DOT say to me is they can't make a recommendation. There's a conflict of interest. But they have a list of very qualified consultants that do this around the state that they could provide to our staff to see about who could we hire. Now that's just me, that's what I heard, am I speaking correctly? Could somebody from DOT or our staff talk to the other person? Our workforce is getting thinner and thinner. You know, in the pool of experts is getting thinner and thinner, I think. Understood. We can, because of conflict of interest, we can provide a list of consultants that work on other MPO planning work, because that's what you want. You want a consultant that is more with well-versed in the Metro planning process. In terms of the transition, perhaps you can go into local agreement with the county, and these are the services that the county meaning, the UPWP, your tip, your LOPP, which is your list of priority projects, that could be the responsibility of your GPC, and then leaving the LRTP, which is your list of priority projects, that could be the responsibility of your GPC and then leaving the LRTP, which was previously mentioned, that currently is what the RPC is working on since they have the oversight and the understand where they are now, then that can be. So you can have running agreements alongside doing different activities to fulfill your responsibilities. That's an option. But in terms of your, what you submit to us is not in the weeds of where you all now are now in terms of your funding availability, but that is why we did ask for your CPA to see where funds are majority utilized and where they are provided from. So that said perhaps asking the RPC where you all now are now in terms of your reserves and then build from there. Because I don't think anyone on this board now know currently where you are financially where you are and reimburse you know so that could be possibly provided to you all from there and seeing where you all can what the county or city can support financially. Thank you. Yes. Thank you. I just had a question I think for DOT, just to clarify, I'm curious are the reimbursables, the indirect cost, not reimbursable simply because they aren't called out in the UPWP and because they weren't properly documented or is the IDC just not allowable in general? That is correct. Which is correct. Oh, that they were not outlined in the UPWP. If you look at your UPWP, it just says consultant services. That is it. And so when we're in voice from the consultant, that's when we look at, we look at their progress support was list out their activities. They're also they submit their time sheets and that's when we're reimbursing them and then within there is an indirect cost rate that is not approved. Other impiels have a 10% flat rate of minimis that is agreed upon by the state and they just use a 10% in call of the day. They don't go out and kind of formulaize their own rate and prove that this rate is reasonable to DOT. They just accept the 10%. Now the NPO can do that, do the 10% flat and update the UPWP to reflect that and that is fine. Anything above that is unapproved. So they could, you could fix this. And the UP by mending the UPWP and having proper documentation, you don't have to carry this expense going forward. Yes, up into 10%. They can amend it. And each task, it has to be outlined in part task. Thank you, Linda. I think that's very helpful. Thank you. I think that's very helpful. Thank you. Thank you. Jeff. I'm sure if I may. What I would say from a county staff perspective since there are a few of these, seems like there's a little more coordination that needs to take place, we would appreciate if it's three weeks is the next meeting. October 7th. We would appreciate that time period to come back with from our county staff as well to make sure what we feel like the county could do. And that would give you time to speak to, what's this thing? Your budget director, Tommy. You asking to fur this motion and come back with a more detailed motion? Madam Chair, that would be appreciate. I think the other conversation is with the regional planning council about what are they willing to do? Are they willing to continue under certain circumstances or amend the indirect costs in that thing? So I think that's something that needs to be discussed. I guess I would like to make a substitute motion that we move to one move for with a transition plan for our MPO to move under an independent leaning model and for our staff to work with the Department of Transportation, the RPC and city staff to come back with some recommendations at our next meeting in three weeks. Second. I will draw my motion. Okay, there's a motion. And a second. Is there further discussion? Do we need public comment on this? Public comment. Also, well I did the public. Before public comment can I ask what is this? Yes. Do we want to go ahead since we will be meeting over the next two weeks with potential transition board, whatever you call it, members so that we have that ready to go at the next meeting. Because I do feel like we need to hit the ground running when we do that. I mean, I envision the county at our next policy meeting, we could about it and then the city would could talk about it their general policy meeting We can go ahead and appoint those folks and have them ready to go. Okay, just long as everybody feels like that's something we can go forward with Okay Okay Kristen I'm going to be a little bit more patient. I'm going to be a little bit more patient. I'm going to be a little bit more patient. I'm going to be a little bit more patient. I'm going to be a little bit more patient. I'm going to be a little bit more patient. I'm going to be a little bit more patient. I'm going to be a little bit more patient. I'm going to be a little bit more patient. since I decided to come to the meeting and that has been shifted a dozen times. And I don't know where I am right now other than I think this is more urgent than what I even thought it was and I thought this is pretty urgent. So what I will do is I will move to a vision of what the MTPO can be. And I think that starts with staff and that executive director that's directly reportable to this commission. The staff that has financial staff in there a planner on staff that can augment what the city and the county are doing with their vision zero plans. Their transit plans say that when FDOT comes to you with, this is on our list, these state roads are on our list. We are ready to go with the things that are needed to make our roads safer and more functional to our community. If you look at the Broward MPOs website, it's fantastic. They have forward-facing data available to the community If you look at the Broward MPOs website, it's fantastic. They have four facing data available to the community on safety, on transportation times, commute times. It's a fantastic website. It was hard for me to find the FUT letter because the website does I have them that as I have all the minutes for in the last year, but I was able to find it in the April MTPO backup. I think it's very difficult even for, I imagine for you as commissioners. This is a very impenetrable organization and the amount of information that you have to process. The agenda today was 324 pages, I think, long. That's 360. 360. That's on top of all the other duties that you do on your respective boards. This is transportation is probably the number one area for both the county and the city to make strides in as far as funding and the needs that are and the huge needs that both the city and the county have. We have huge housing needs but local government is not equipped to meet those. I think with a responsive executive director and staff who, that the funding put forward to establish the new model could easily become back with more FUT dollars, more federal grant dollars and others. So I see that there is agreement to move forward and ask that you just do it expeditiously. Let's come back in three weeks ready to make a decision. Thank you for your time. Thank you for your comments. Okay. Question. Yeah just a question for Mr. Coons. Scott how much are in the reserves for this organization? Metropolitan County organization currently has approximately $100,000. $100,000. Yeah that's what, yeah, that's what I'm saying. Those are accumulated sitting county funds have been contributing over the past several years. That's the number. Thank you. Thank you. You have a question? I will set your question. Well, not a question, but I just, before we vote, I came today not quite sold on transitioning staff model, but I will say that after this, the amount of trying to figure out exactly what money we're talking about, which is always a little difficult. But in city meetings, I know that I'm almost always prepared for very difficult transactions. We had one recently about moving ARPA funds from revenue replacement back into our, how we're gonna fund housing. And it was difficult, but I understood it with just as much moving different targets of what our goals are, what ARPA goals are, where we're at, and in the end I got there to kind of fully understand what we're doing, and I forgot and then got reminded but that's what city staff does for us on city commission and I'm not seeing that the impenetribleness that that someone mentioned that's what I'm feeling today after this so now I'm on the we got to do something different and we got it we got to move towards it because we had to figure there are things we had to figure out and we don't have time. Multiple meetings worth to wait to find out. Oh, we're not getting the things we can't get reimbursed anymore. And we don't quite have a solution for it. And when do we need to start planning on potentially changing that into the UPWP? There are some options, right? Or when do we need to go for that 10% as opposed to the whatever right now that has to be proven and we don't have time we need staff to come find us and I know we're a big board but we're all available on on a moment's notice by phone and we're all you know within 200 feet of each other so that's where I'm at now just kind of transitional base I just wanted to to mention that thank you. OK, any more questions? Could you restate your substitute motion? Your substitute motion was for the MTPO to officially move towards a independent leaning organization and forced our county staff, our PC, DOT, and city staff to work together to come up with a plan for that transition and bring it back to us in three weeks at our next meeting. All right, and bring it back at the October 7th meeting. Yes, ma'am. Okay. I have a question too, ma'am. Mr. Bob. Yeah, thank you, Commissioner. I have a question to Madam Chair. Thank you, Commissioner. Second. Yes, thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Commissioner Prisier, for making the motion. It appears that we do need a steering committee if this motion were to go forward. While we probably wouldn't decide that here today, so we're missing a couple of members, we should probably come back with the capabilities from both County and City to have those members ready to go. Would that be something that you would want to consider in adding to your motion? Sir, are we going to add it or, yeah, we can add it for, to ask both City and County boards to consider two members for the Ste committee board that will be formulated at the upcoming meeting. Just makes it so much cleaner and if that motion were to pass, then we come back and we have those that particular committee ready to go as opposed to having debate that here. So thank you for considering that. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Is that clear for everyone? You're looking. Well, the city we can do this on Thursday. We have a meeting three days. When is the county next meeting? Next week. Next Tuesday. A week for tomorrow. All right. Well, I think the city we can we can be done this Thursday. So the mayor is saying yes, we will add it to our agenda for Thursday. I light was on to love my city colleagues know there will be talking about that on Thursday. We'll ask for that to the agenda. All right. We are. I think this Scotch you wanted to say something. All right, the city and the county will have to vote separately. Correct. Scotch you wanted to say something. All right, the city and the county will have to vote separately, correct? Are we gonna vote as one body? No, what I'm asking is, are we voting as one body on the motion? I think so. Okay. Okay. Yeah. Okay, all right then. All in favor of the motion on the floor? Hi. Hi. Thank you. Those opposed to like sign? of the motion on the floor. Hi. Hi. Thank you. Those opposed to like sign? All right. The motion passes. Well, that was good job. Good job. Quite an endeavour. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. I can find where it goes now. All right. We're at four. Yes, Madam Chair, your item four, which is now item four A. This is a resolution 2020-407 related to the Unified Planning Work Program, which started July 1st. The city staff at a recent technical advisory committee meeting requested that the complete street studies that are being scheduled this year and next year be adjusted to move the stay road 24 wall of road stay road 331 Wilson Road Carter study from the current fiscal year to next fiscal year and bring the US 441 stay road 25 South of those 13th Street to the current fiscal year. There's no impact on budget or funding. It's just swapping out the scheduling on those two studies. Other questions based on the ongoing studies related to the Citizens' Field redevelopment in order to coordinate the findings from that study with the complete street studies that would be done next year instead of the current year. And city staffs here, I speak to them if you have any questions. Move staff recommendation? All right. I just have one question for city staff. Well, this impact, I think we have information coming back to the board on, I believe, in May regarding the citizens' field proposal. Is this going to delay in any way that project? Deputy Lysner, City of Gainesville Transportation Department. No, I don't think it doesn't impact the city's current contract. It's just better aligns. So once we have the findings of that study, then we can better inform what to do next with this World of Road study funded by the MTPO. That was the resume. All right. All right. Thank you. I'm excited. All right. All right. Thank you. All right. Scott. So we need a motion. Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. All in favor. I'm supposed to like sign the motion passes. Thank you. Now we moved to 4B. Yes, Madam Chair. 4B was item 7 to the next slide. Thank you. Now we move to 4B. Madam Chair, 4B was item 7 on the consent agenda. You adopted a enforcement plan last October to have the Mittapal Plenty organizations geography go countywide and also to add three new voting members from the airport authority, from the school board, and from elected official from a rural community. The governor recently concurred and approved that plan and the letters provided in your packet. So the next step in that process is for the interlocal agreement which forms the Metropolitan Planning Organization currently a three party agreement between the county, the city, and department transportation to have those three independent organizations in addition to the airport authority and the school board and elected officials and rural communities amend that near local agreement to add those new three voting members. So, information on item, we're moving on the next step in that process. Okay, are there questions? Yeah, very quickly. Mr. Wheeler, have we already got in contact with these agencies to let them know that we're looking for some a member for this? Have that gone out yet? We've been in communication with the airport authority, the nut school board yet, or rural elect officials. Okay, well, thank you. But we'll be in their future. So we'll move forward with that and hopefully, are you looking to have? Well, to get to coordinate and get all those boards approved over the next several months for that to occur. And then there's new members would be seated. At a later date, once that agreement is amended. Thank you, Thank you. Is your light on? Yes. Commissioner Carnell. Thank you, ma'am chair. So Scott, we basically need to interlocute with the airport authority and school board. And then for the other elected official, is that your thought that we would send to each of the small cities, a memo asking them to nominate somebody that this board would then select. Currently, it's a process that's used for the Exficio Non-Voting Rural Advisor. The Reapportionment Plan and Federal Regulations and State Guidance requires that an organization make the appointment. The M. T. Metron Plano organization cannot appoint its own members. So the appointment will need to come from a third party body and the only body that exists is a body used in the past is the Electric County League of Cities. So we will go to the League of Cities. Yeah it's on the official board though. It's a compilation of I I mean, is it? People from each county. Is it a legal board? We can't have it in our local with them. Yeah. That's my question. That's what's the body that would sign the interlocal agreement. Because they're a great organization. They get together once a month. But who have they don't exist. There's not a chair that's going to sign that in a local. So how would we do that? Could the regional planning council do it? Yeah? Well, so you're planning council has members of the small city. I mean, that's kind of asking you for. So we would have seven recommendations. Then the planning council selects a rural person. Well, what Madam Chair, if I understand the regs, the airport authority appoints their member, the school board appoints their member. My question is, who appoints the other elected person? The rural representative. We just created a room meeting. The question. Right. I would be fine with the regional planning council. I believe every city is a member of the regional planning council, aren't they? Every city except across the McIntyre. Okay. But they could join if they wanted to be. I believe the RPC, the regional planning council is probably the organization to appoint that elected person because I don't know another one. The county is the county has no authority over the other electats are no membership with the well does the county is could the county appoint another elected? I got some question is each city going to recommend someone and then the county select one. We could do it that way. I like that. We've done that with other families. Yeah, okay. All right. Commissioner, we'll get them. Yeah, thank you. Similarly, Madam Mayor, I thought that since we're speaking, I'm moving forward this transition, it might be that our FDOT representative can come back in three weeks and tell us what would be the acceptable ways that we could formulate that additional member and what would be the best way to reach out so we do it in ways it's gonna Probably be in line with best practices that they because they've already been down this road in many other municipalities and Large areas so perhaps miss Brown We'll be able to provide us the information that best informs the way we move forward with that and we do that in three weeks They'll be able to tell us also. What the acceptable groups that could perhaps appoint. That's Brown could you speak to that? Did you hear the question? The question is Brown was if it would be possible within when we come back on October 7th to kind of give us the most acceptable ways to increase our expansion do that in ways that we're going to have an acceptable membership. And what organization could potentially provide that those recommendations to us? Yes. From my understanding, I can't speak to that question right now, a K-ABrown with DOT. The rule advisor was a person that you all elected to be a part of the board. The only additional board member that was required was the airport authority member. And then you all selected to have a school board member, which I think is a great idea. And having a rule board, a rule advisor. But they, yeah, and they don't have to be an elected official. From this round, if the county served as the body that signed the interlocal to elect the rural member, and we asked the elected city commissioners to submit their nomination, would that be acceptable to DOT? I think it will work. I don't see any issues with that. I mean, concerns, yeah. Okay. I'm good with that. I'm sure. You couldn't even ask for volunteers. Yeah. Okay, I'm giving that time to you. You couldn't even ask for volunteers. Yeah, didn't if I'm not mistaken Didn't John Martin at some point years ago serve as direct representative On this yes, yeah, so how did how did how did how do we get John Martin on the board? The county center letter Okay, All right. This board appointed us. Okay. At that time, Madam Chair, this board made those appointments, but early on it was from the Electrical and Legal Cities. And then several years later, this board determined that since they were not a legal entity organized formally through an analytical agreement or as a nonprofit that this board will make that appointment soliciting nominations from all municipalities in the counties, excluding Gainesville. I think the approach of using the county to make the appointments through the similar process years now is workable. We've been in conversations with your attorney, assistant county attorney, Corbett Hanson about the situation that would be the appropriate body to make that appointment. But we'll confer with him. And I think the approach of having the Board of County Commissioners make that appointment based on nominations from each of this outlying cities is a workable approach. And the legal cities. I mean mean the legal cities could dominate people, you know, to the kind of question. It's just the interlocals with the county, MTPO and the county to appoint somebody. Okay. Can I speak to them? I'll commission all for it. I do think though the fact that it does not have to be an elected official there might be some person out there from one of the small towns that is really really qualified and I think that you know just making sure that we make it clear that you know we that this their appointment or their suggested person could be anybody. Yeah. Madam Chair, the Portion of Plain that you adopted last October specifies elected officials. Oh, it does. I thought it did not. I thought it, I thought they could nominate anyone. So, okay. Sorry for that. Thank you. All right, Madam Chair, your next item is item five. This is a recommended amendment to your list of priority projects. The city gains will staff requesting that you add the sweet water greenway multi-use trail and the Waldo Greenway Trail rehabilitation to table five which is for discretionary grants as well facilitate the city in applying for and hopefully securing federal funding for these two projects to be added to that list. I'm just doing recommendation for all advisor committees and staff to do so. I'd like to move staff recommendation. That's a motion and a second just their discussion. Discussion from the public public comment. All right. Thank you. All in favor indicate by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed like signed the motion passes. Next item. The next item is item 6 which is on page 175 of your packet is related to the state road 26 new bridge road multi-use concept plan between northwest 43rd street and south was 38th street which is the entrance to rural park Plaza shopping complex This board on three occasions with the past several seven years as Asked the Florida Department transportation to remove the on-street parking during In that road segment and replace it with on-street bicycle lanes The department has come back with an alternative of a multi-use path, basically widening the sidewalk for that segment. And they've also apparently now have it prepared a hybrid. A portion of it beyond street and portion would be multi-use. You have several recommendations before you. The staff and citizens advisory committee recommend that you advise the department that you still want them to remove the on-street parking and provide on-street bicycle lane, which is a request this board and your predecessor boards have made over the past several years. There are a couple alternative recommendations. 175. On page 175, the Tech and Advisor Committee recommends for of transportation off-street parking concept plan that the recommending the multi-use option instead of on street by single lanes and maintain the on street parking. The bicycle pedestrian advisory board basically endorsed both concepts and or continuing to ask for on street by single lanes remove the parking. And then also they were also supportive of the multi use all street option. So the joint recommendation from the citizen advisor committee and staff is to re-interrate your position to request removal, the on-street parking, and provide on-street bicycle lanes during that for that road segment. That's these recommendation, you son? The citizen advisor committee and staff. The technical advisory committee had a different recommendation. The technical advisory committee is recommending the multi-use trail option. I'd move the joint recommendation. The one that solicited its joint recommendation. The joint recommendation is SIS and advisory and staff and in are two separate recommendations, one from the Technical Advisory Committee for the Multi-Use Off-Street Option. I'm confused. And there's one from the Bi-Cicolindescent Advisory Board that adores post-concepts. I would like, I don't know, if someone from FDOT. If someone from FDOT had worked on it, why would the recommendation from F.DOT to not have the on-street parking and the removal of the bike lanes versus the, or maybe this is technical advisory committee question, I'm not really sure. I cannot answer that at this time, Mr. Commissioner Eastman, I can get that answer for you and through the RPC. Okay. But I was in part of that you through the RPC. Okay. But I was in part of that planning. That's fine. I had spoken with staff a little bit about it. It was related to the size of the right of way there. And I know that the technical advisory committee felt comfortable with the idea that there was actually funds that FDOT is actually putting into having protection there, even though it's not ideal to have people on a bike lane, going off a bike lane back into a bike lane, but it is actually money on the table for investment within our area, which is somewhat rare from the Florida Department of Transportation, but I'll let Allison speak to you. Miss Moss. So, Allison Moss from the county. We don't know exactly why FDOT came back with the multi-use path proposal as opposed to removal of parking and On-street bike lanes, but the TAC in general supported That proposal over removal of parking and on-street painted bike lanes There was not enough room to do protected bike lanes, so it would have been just a stripe of paint The alternative is two 12 foot wide traffic separated paths. So that's more consistent with best practices and all ages and abilities, bikeway design. That's why the TIC supported the plan as drafted. That had a question, Madam Chair. All right. Question, Commissioner Book. Thank you, Madam Chair. You know, when I saw the kind of divergent recommendations, I wondered the piece that we've often talked about is the community engagement piece for the MTPO and the fact that's probably something that we want to, we want to move forward with that to get far more feedback from, you know, from our pedestrian communities, from our bicycle committees and some of these things that we see here. And I just wondered, was there any community engagement that gave us feedback for any of these particular options? Thank you. Thanks. Thanks. Okay, Mr. Cope. Mm-hmm. Yes. Oh, Madam Chair, when the Florida Department of Transportation removes on-street parking, they have to go through a public engagement process and have a public meeting and solicit comments online and in person. They did conduct that engagement a few years ago and the response was that they received from those parties that responded was to maintain the on street parking. All right, so it's both dated and in conflict with some of the information here. So I would think that this is a very large recommendation for us to pick up here without the benefit of recent engagement in the community. That would be my thought. You have both large neighborhoods that border both sides of the road there. We have a large business community that borders there. I'm just not prepared to support one of these things in the absence of recent information. That would be my thought. And this might be one that in the transition we perhaps could do a little better job in getting some information here over the next several months. And also we're putting DOT on the spot and they wouldn't know because this information is data. And I don't think that would be fair as it relates to the manner in which they typically provide information on projects. So I would say this is one that is while we do have the money and we do want to spend it in a way that Benefits that particular road surface and multi use and multi path and bicycle It's an awfully big decision to make here and not have current information Thank you, madam chair. Thank you. What? Commissioner for now. Thank you, ma'am chair. So DOT is actually recommending the off-street protected and they're funding it I mean, I mean to me that makes a lot of sense technical advisory committee thinks it makes a lot of sense and It solves a problem that we've been talking about for well over a decade They do not want to remove voluntary parking. They just don't. I mean, I like the idea of having it a safe spot that DOT is recommending and funding. And so I'm prepared to move the technical advisory community recommendation. If DOT can tell me that you're going to fund it, or is this one of those that they're recommending that then goes into the long range transportation plan for 2067. I mean, is DOT prepared to do this? Madam Chair, I can speak to that process. You just have managed List of Prowdy projects and you adopt that each June and this is a high priority on your List of priority projects. With the $3 million now surface transportation funds, SU funds you'll be receiving as a transportation management area, the Department of Transpacion looks at your water, what is this board's top priorities? And the top priority is these bike lanes. They are suggesting that the three at $3 million for the surface transportation dollars that this board is now receiving from federal highway administration to use for this project. That's a $3 million project. Actually, yeah, it's probably $3 million plus, but at least to start the process, there's $400. They're using our dollars, not using their dollars. Well, that's $300. You have discretion over here. That's different than what I thought. Okay. Commissioner East. Oh, yeah, I mean, I don't really know, I mean, there is, I think there are four or five six feet of lane there. Is it? I know that there's like recent updates to the green book within there that say that I mean, it's a fast road. I don't know if it's. I don't know. I thought I heard there was a right of way issue as the reason they wouldn't want to do that. There's no issue with the amount of right away that we have there. Justing travel lanes are 12 feet wide. Okay. So post at 45 mile per hour speed zone. Yeah. We all drive that section of say road 26 new railroad. Yeah. The average travel speed is not 45 miles an hour because it's designed as a suburban four lane. Highway with 12 foot lanes. Yeah. Your initial recommendation seven years ago was to reduce the width of the travel lanes. To 11 feet. That will have an effective calming traffic of having folks slow down because they can't drive as fast and be as comfortable in a 11 foot lane as you're on a 12 foot lane. Yeah. So that is an option. Which was recommended at the department, which they have chosen not to exercise. So so from your eyes perspective there is no issue with the site like there's enough right of way in order to be able to do and there's nothing within their green book or anything else that would limit them from doing it is just a decision that they don't want to the original recommendation including evaluation of the cross section of reducing travel lanes to 11 feet with a bicycle lane and maintaining on-street parking. There's enough between existing curves to do that. Okay. And then, and just to reiterate, just so I'm clear like, when they said, when they came back and said, here's what you can do it, this, that was just a recommendation to us to spend our new. They wanted your response and comments on this concept? They're offered for the all street multi-use path. Well, I rather just I'm an area. I'm ready. That they're also suggesting that you fund with the $3 million as you funds. It is unsaid. I tried to I rode the I rode the bike lane there about a week or so ago just to see it. And like there's a little sign up that says bike lane ending, which of course when you're riding your bike you're not looking up at a sign. You come in there and there's not many cars at park there. So suddenly you're on a curved street with a car parked right there in front of you. It is, it's unsafe. I don't love the idea that you're gonna have to swoop up into here based on don't know. I'm not I'm with Mary. I think I think just go back say put the bike lanes there No, that's madam chair an initial recommendation is for is made in the past that department uses to determine post speed limits is they go out and do a speed study. And they cannot set that speed limit lower than the 80 percent of the average travel speed. As we all know, the average travel speed is over 45 miles an hour in that section. Can we hear from our technical advisory committee very quickly? Sorry, I don't mean to hijack that. Elzamas County, just point of clarification, there would not be space for bike lanes while maintaining the on street parking. It wouldn't necessitate removal of the on street parking. Madam Chair. Mr. Book. Thank you. Do we have any update information beyond seven years ago and what as it relates to what the neighborhoods or residents or the community around there would be interested in. A lot has changed in seven years. The roadways have changed. The passive change. We do want safe multimodal travel. That's the goal. Safe multimodal travel. But it has to be safe for all the modes that travel there. And it's also a main east west corridor. So I just wanted to do we have do we have anything current from anybody that might be able to speak to that here? here. I think he's going to make it speak. The most recent information is that public engagement the department performed and we don't that was at least four or five years ago. Commissioner Alfred. But we do have a citizens advisory board and I consider that you know a place another place where folks can go they can you know folks can see what I agree with that commissioner Alfred, these are valuable people that have provided engagement. So we agree with that. We were just speaking as a board. We were just speaking as a board. We were just speaking as a board. We were just speaking as a board. We were just speaking as a board. We were just speaking as a board. We were just speaking as a board. We were just speaking as a board. We were just speaking as a board and MTPO how we've lacked the capability we've talked about the term the commissioner will it's and might have talked about impenetrable we've talked about the fact that we're not getting that perhaps the the feedback to deal with our entire transportation plans and so there's no doubt doubt that constituents that have provided disavailable, but they're an extremely small percentage that are probably extremely knowledgeable about their percentage. So I would not be prepared to vote for this particular recommendation today. And it doesn't matter they don't support that it has nothing to do with support or not for the multimodal travel. It's just I think we have the monies they're committed. I believe that we're going to continue to commit them but I don't know how we would. Would there be any downside for us to figure out mechanisms for additional community engagement over the next few months? Would that put any of our monies or funding at risk? Mr. Cones. Madam Chair, clarification, there are no committed funds for this project. The department has suggested that this board consider using your $3 million annual allocation towards that project. There are currently no committed funds for the project. But we could use the $3 million. You could, yes. That to me even makes it a better argument that we do not attempt to make this decision right here in the absence Where we could get additional input? Do you have a motion? I'm not even sure Madam Chair if somebody could help me with that. I was thinking about it as we were speaking and Norman a little quicker on the on the mic, but Perhaps the motion would be as it relates to the multi-use concept plan for Northwest 43rd Street to Southwest 38th Street that we engage in community engagement and come back within what would be a reasonable period of time where we could do that, yet plans. All right, is there a second? Second for discussion. All right, we'll open this brown. Okay, a brown with FTOT. I just thought it would be important to talk about the process when we, you guys are, you know, mentioning the SU funds. So the SU funds would, they take the project into completion. So you all have to keep in mind the current projects that you have on the list that are using SU funding. Those also need to be, some funding needs to be allocated to make sure those projects are through construction. So there's a timetable that we are currently creating with the RPC so that way you all are knowing and aware of what projects are currently funded with SU when they intend on being completed so that way you guys can plug in an additional project. So technically we will only be able to, at most, do add a project each year to the SU table. Because keeping in mind your previous four projects, my five year work program, so previous four projects are still utilizing that same three million or so through completion. And so each year when we look at your LOPP, your list of priority projects, we pick a project that could be, that could be added to the work program that doesn't necessarily utilize that much money that can keep the same remaining amount funded for the existing projects if that makes sense. So if you have four projects on the list, you add a project in the fall, keeping those the same three million is for all five projects at the same time and then so on So we're under that May tricks is under works so that should be presented soon. Thank you It's mom else mom's again one of the main functions of the the MTPO and the TAC has been to provide projects for the list of priority projects among other things in the absence of a current bicycle pedestrian master plan. So for about 20 years, we've been using an old plan, but there have been new needs that come up, new development and new priorities that city and county staff have identified. And so the MTPO has served as a venue for us to try to prioritize projects, but they haven't been subjected to, I'd say, a rigorous planning process in some cases, and a strong community engagement process either. The bicycle pedestrian master plan has kicked off. We're looking to have the first community meeting in November, where we would put all sorts of projects together, shake them up, figure out which ones rise to the top, and where you'd want to spend that money. So if you would like to defer, we already have a whole framework being set up for that. And that's just something to keep in mind. In the future, the list of priority priority projects I think will be very reflective of this robust planning process. Okay. Mr. Mayor. Thank you Madam Chair. I'm a little bit of a loss and I'm not suggesting it way forward, but it strikes me that we have, I think, talked about this five block stretch of highway at every every MTPO meeting that I've been to and I've been on this board, this particular board since 2017. That's correct. We don't have a lot of of core responsibilities. I mean, there's public safety, transportation, and land use and planning. That's kind of it. At some point, we are going to have to make a choice and say, this is our choice on this five block stretch, which essentially, most of what we've talked about with this is a question of restriping. And there are consequences to that restriping, I get that, but it's not really even spending a lot of money, but we have kicked this down the road over and over and over and over and over and over and people still get to park there and people riding bikes have figured out how to get around it over the years. But it speaks to an inability to get the most simple things done. And we often get big things done pretty easily. But these things that are simple, that feed the neighborhoods surrounding it, that help people get from point A to point B, this is the sort of thing that people lose faith in government over. Our inability to do simple things and move forward with it. We are a representative system. This is representative democracy. And at some point we have to say, okay, we've had multiple discussions about it with the public, with staff, with many, many levels of staff actually, and say we're going to take responsibility and move forward. I don't have a recommendation for us today. I'm not interested in making a motion right now, but we're going to have to make a choice about this very soon or just stop talking about it. Thank you. Thank you for sharing that. Commissioner Cornel. Thank you for sharing that. Commissioner Cornell. Yeah, I may support Commissioner Alfred's recommendation, which is a joint recommendation. I'll second it. Our commission. Yes, so I would make that motion. Although we have a motion on the floor, which I seconded for discussion. Oh, that's right. And that's all your second on that one. Put it on your motion. All right. We have Commissioner Book's motion on the floor, which is to defer this. Except your motion. Well, I wouldn't even use the term defer because all it does is say that we need a community engagement piece and get some or an updated information, which we could do. I heard Director Moss talk about the factor about the kickoff something that allows that to do that within a very timely, within a good time frame also. So I wouldn't use the term defer, I wouldn't call it kicking the can down the road and I wouldn't call it a simple decision, mainly because it's a gigantic stretch of road that takes thousands of people in various multimodal forms of transport over time. I always do feel like sometimes we do need confidence in government. Mr. Mayor, so I know that's what you hear. And I think confidence in government says we reach out to people and get the feedback we need. And that's what generates confidence in government. and I think this fits that bill. But I certainly understand. I appreciate the second, which I think was more for discussion purposes than anything, but I do appreciate that. Thank you. Madam Chair, before you vote on the motion on the floor or the subsequent motion, if it fails, if you take no action today, the department is probably going to move forward with the multi-use option. If you choose not to endorse any of the three recommendations, I would suggest you advise the department to pause their design of this multi-use concept. If you want to have the benefit of the countywide bicycle pedestrian visor, master plan, which won't be completed until next June or July, about a little over here from now or less near from now. But if you take no action, the park is going to continue moving forward. So if you want to have the benefit of the public engagement in the countywide by sick of the western plan, I would suggest that you vise department to pause their further development of the concept that they're moving with now because that may be which you'll ultimately end up with or may not be. It may not be a top priority anymore. I have to do the county wide master plan. But if you do nothing, they're going to continue moving forward. Because it's the state road 26. It's not a city road, it's not a county road. But they are, so they're moving forward with just the design. They are going to be designing while we're still there for the construction of 3 million. They're flushing out the concept. The next phase is plim and engineering and fine engineering and moving forward. If you choose to use your S.U. fund as the fund, it's the fund. But I would suggest if you're not ready to do that today, that you do take action to ask the department to pause because you want to receive the benefit of the results of the countywide bicycle-circum-discordistic advisory plan, which may be close to a year from now. Or vote on one of the recommendations. Yeah, I appreciate that guidance and insight as far as process, even the FDOT process and moving forward with state roads does actually involve things like sharets and forms and community engagement. So by virtue of planning, unless you're telling me different, is that not a required component for compliance for their plans? The public engagement has required, there's a specified process they need to follow if they remove or propose remove all street parking. But there is no prescribed public engagement for design of a multi-use trail along a state road. So I would, but as they flesh out the concept down the road, they would most likely have voluntary public engagement, but it's not required process. Yeah, knowing that how I'm going to hold, thank you. No. Commissioner Wheeler. I know that Waldo ran into this issue because they did have public engagement and the public engagement killed the project that we had been working on over there. So I'm confused as to why it was impactful there, but would not be required or even a part of the consideration here. Because I have a hard time with this because I see the traffic in Gainesville and I know how dangerous it is to have bikes out in that traffic, particularly on that road there. So, you know, it's unfortunate that we would be on the hook for the $3 million, but I feel like that it's probably a safer way for people who are on bikes to be trying to negotiate that stretch of road. So I'm really conflicted as to what to support and how to support this. I feel like that if there's five years ago that they had public engagement, that Commissioner Book is right, that we need to look at that again and see what is needed by the community and would be willing to ask DOT to, because I know they had to put a pause on the project in Waldo that we worked so hard over there on, and they did. They took a breath, and we're willing to come back later after they'd heard the community, and then was actually killed. But I would support your motion. Okay, yes. The motion just to be doing community. So is the motion to ask for Department of Transportation to pause and then to roll this into the bicycle pedestrian master planters. It just have more community engagement. What is the actual motion on the tape? The motion was simply a community engagement piece and that we do not take action on these proposals right here. It was the director who suggested that that might be an add-on. Simply so this things don't start moving forward at the same time that we're saying get the community engagement. So I understand that, but that was not part of the motion. I don't think it's to pause for a year. Well, no, but I also don't know if I want, I mean, we're getting, even since we had $3 million in SU funds that are sort of backlogged, right? Do we currently have these SU funds? Because it's when we become a TMA, right? That's when it officially goes out. You do now have an allocation of $3 million approximately plus or minus going forward per year. Okay. Which will need to be programmed by the department in consultation with this board on an annual basis with as Mr. Brown pointed out if The project cost more than three million. It's going to be several years of the allocation and Once it's programmed for the first four years each year you'd be adding a new project new phase of a new project I'm just not convinced this is how I would spin the SU funds at the moment without getting back, you know, our holistic plan for everything. But I also, I'm happy to see the Florida Department of Transportation moving forward on something. I'm glad that they're able to work with us on it. I guess I'm kind of in the same boat where I kind of would like to know a little bit more before we start moving forward on any of the stuff. I feel I'd like to know more about where we are with what our options are for how we're using these SU funds and what exactly the these two options here are because all we kind of have in backup is a couple of paragraphs. Not like not like there's not like a map there's not like what is this thing. There is a map there's not like a what is this thing? There's just a very bad one. There is a map. I don't know about community engagement. We are in a weird place where we're going like who's going to be doing the community engagement. We have active community engagement for a bicycle pedestrian master plan, right? So we're going out asking people to engage with us starting in November and then we also have the staff transition. the RPC to do this work. It's, I mean, I would just, I guess I would just see the opposite of what the mayor was saying. And just do a pause and try to figure out, you know, how exactly we're planning on using this. And I was trying to infer, I don't put the county staff on the spot, but inferring from what they said, I heard that they have a large, they have a large master planning program that's very strategically oriented and that strategic Orient will take into effect lots of large projects. This is not a minor project. This is a large project It's on a major state road with multiple lanes multi-modal Currently with parking currently with sidewalks and so in that regard I don't see how we I don't see it as a downside for this particular pause, although that was not part of the motion. I, looking at my colleagues, I'm not certain should we add that to the, to the motion or what, what we thought as far as pause it, get the community engagement that allows us to give some direction for both county staff and even to the FDOT, who obviously would be moving forward on a state project. But I'm not certain I feel about that, but would look for maybe some guidance from you all as a board. OK, I have Mr. Cornell, Alfred and the mayor. Thank you, Madam Chair. So, commissioners, we had a lot of community engagement. We have a public right of way that is being utilized by a private corporation And this room was full seven years ago with public engagement saying why are we doing that? That private organization had connections in Tallahassee and That's why it stopped. It's turning into a really big project But if you read the Citizens Advisory Committee and our staff's recommendation, it's the implementation of the protected in-street bike lane within the state highway. Eliminate the private parking, give the public their right away back, and put a protected bike lane on five blocks. Not utilize all of our $3 million to create a big project, but we're actually trying to not do that. We want to give the public the right away that they own. Our staff, and I agree with you, Commissioner Alfred. The citizen advisory committee is a lot of public engagement, but this room was full seven years ago. And DOT didn't want to do it then. I believe DOT now will say that actually makes a lot of sense. It doesn't cost a lot of money, and we're giving the public the right away back. And our staff is recommending it as a citizen advisory committee. And I know is recommending it as is the Susan Advisory Committee. So, and I know many of you weren't here for that. You didn't see that, you didn't hear all that. I'm sorry, I remember it. You were here, you remember it. C-TAC was here, the Biker-Rider Committee, Kristen can speak to it. I believe we should move forward with the joint recommendation. We'll see if they want to remove the voluntary parking. They probably don't. But I think we can make a good public argument that's public right away, and it's not been used by the public. It's been used by a private company. So I'm here to support that recommendation and then see if we can get it into the work plan. Without us using our own safety dollars, and I mean, they're creating a very, when I saw the technical advisory boards recommendation, I was thinking, okay, DOT wants to fund that. They're not. They want us to fund it. When really, if we just put in a protected bike lane and re-striped it, I mean, it can be done pretty, I mean, either one of our county sass could do it pretty quickly if they were given the OK by DOT. Yeah, we're mose back there. He sees me. It's a curb. It's painting it and it's giving the public back there right away. That's all this. One of the cheapest bike pet projects we could do, really. All right, so can I speak? I wanted to add, I wanted to say everything that Commissioner Cornell said, plus I wanted to point out that we had COVID for, you know, of those seven years. There's two years you can just subtract, because nothing happens really. So I would like to move, despite the fact I seconded for discussion, I would like to move forward as Commissioner Cornell very well stated. I think it's time. I think it's not expensive. I think it's pretty cheap and I just like to go forward and get it done. Okay, Commissioner Willett. Oh, Mayor. Thank you, Mayor. I'm sorry. You're good. That's all good. Okay. So, let me be clear when we say protected, and I hear cheap. Thank you. What's protected? What's protected? We've had this at the city. We continue to say protected. And then we come up with something that's cheap numbers. I think of protected. some vertical cement, right? We're talking small curves in this. I forget what they're called. There's all kinds of fancy names. Okay, so yeah, taking out parking and whether you ballered it or whether you put up a very small curve, it is not the most expensive thing in the world. In three million, a couple of years, we could get towards that. If they said 100%, we'll go with your plan, but you pay for it well, then maybe those SU funds are worthwhile. Is it worthwhile for the off street in this individual location, perhaps not, particularly when they say, well, that's what we want, but we want your money. If we're going to put our money, I kind of want it to be our plan. So doing nothing or going to the joint recommendation, it keeps us in the same vein of, we don't want those parking spaces on a 45 mile an hour, but we know that more than 80% of people are going more than 45 mile. We don't want people even opening their car doors there, let alone also a bicycle somewhere in the vicinity. So I mean, I want the parking spots removed. I think it's a great opportunity for protected bike lanes. And it is within that realm that we can actually make a difference if they want to let us do what we want. If they're willing to move those parking spots, then we get serious about saying, and we're going to put some money towards it. That's what I prefer. And so I do like that joint recommendation because it keeps us on our, this is what people have traditionally wanted and we're not gonna be distracted by your off street that you still say we have to pay for. We could have moved forward with off street years ago as our recommendation. And in some places we do look at off street in the city of Gainesville and in the county as well. But here that did not rise up over, I haven't heard that rise up over the past seven years of this. I wasn't at that meeting, but I remember people just want, rid of the parking spaces, and we want, you know, we want it to be much more multimodal. And since then, we've added what was 196 units of affordable housing at Banyan, Hammock, on the north side of that. It makes it even more important to me that we protect it because that's Families live in there lots and lots of families. So anyways That's what I got I I like the the joint recommendation to keep us saying no This is what we still want because in the future we can again It's taking this many this many years But now when we say we want that somewhere in the background we've got some money that we could potentially be putting towards it. Mr. Mayor, thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you to everyone who's been a part of the process over these many years. It's not that I don't want us to have public engagement on this. Obviously, I do. That matters. I don't want us to just never take action and it feels like that's where we are. It is always possible to add more engagement, always. There's never a full process because by the time you ask all 150,000 people in the city of Gainesville, then you've got to, the new people have arrived, the old people have left and you've got to start over. There's never a complete process, ever. And there is a private entity right there that benefits from the parking that is always going to, to make sure they hire and send folks out to that public engagement process, always. Because it's in their benefit, and then you can't blame them for that. In the meantime, it's an impediment to people cycling and we have said many, many times at both the Board of Commissioner and Board of County Commissioners and the Gainesville City Commission and sitting together that we prioritize multimodal transportation and not just automotive traffic. We I'm again not saying that we have to move forward right now. I'm saying we need to be careful that we're not having the same conversation in another eight years And that's all too easy, particularly at this MTPO to happen. I mean, we have great conversations, and then, whoosh, two years have gone by, and we're having the same conversation. Literally. So I'm hopeful that whatever we do today takes the form of some kind of action that has a deadline and can actually work. So thank you. All right, so we have Commissioner Bush, two motions. We have Commissioner Bush motion on the floor, which is to, which is geared to citizen community engagement reaching out to the community, letting them hear this, getting their input again. And then we have the motion from Commissioner Alpert, which is to move forward with the joint recommendation. I'll have that. I'll go. I'll go. I'll go. I'll go. I'll go. I'll go. I'll go. I'll go. I'll go. I'll go. I'll go. I'll go. I have been a Christian young vice president against the insurrectionization also remember the public and I live near here. I've been advocating for this before I live near here. BPAB has been advocating for this since the 1990s. I've been I've taken up the mantle of people who are no longer with us. This is Chandler Otis, Julie Reiskin, Bob Carp. They have been advocating for this long before I have been in Gainesville. Commissioner Cornell's recollection is the same as mine on the process that we went through and discussing the on-street parking and receiving a notice that it would not be removed. So this here is exiting the Sugarfoot neighborhood. This is looking up the hill west. I'm at the bar, the stop bar. I can't see on-coming traffic because of the on-street parking. If I pull across the bar, I'm blocking the sidewalk. I have to look to my left for the on-street parking, but also make sure I'm looking to my right for the on-coming pedestrian bicyclists. And now what's changed, I would come to show a book, ask, in the last six years, is there's a lot more electric vehicles, e-bikes, e-scooters, there's a unicyclists and e-unicyclists that I see frequently here. I'm just going to take this down because I've seen it. What happens when you put a multi-use path outside of parking is that you have people vulnerable road users who are not seen by turning traffic turning in and out because they're coming in two directions, this is the two direction path. So if people are looking to left on coming traffic, they're not paying attention to the right. People turning into driveways from Newberry Road, they're 11 driveways, I counted them between 43 and 38. Those are conflict zones. There are 11 conflict zones in that short stretch that vulnerable road users are using. The on-screen parking is blocking the visibility for all road users, not just pedestrians and bicyclists. I don't know how there is room for a 12-foot bike lane from curb to the multiple mini-mini poles. These large cement poles are not just wooden poles, so it all have to be moved. I don't know. Plus, you only have it on one side of the roadway and not the other. You have second university coming together. the bicycle lanes in there, you want everyone to transition to the south side of the roadway till 43rd and those who need to access the other side, we need to transition back at 43rd to use those bike lanes. That's a lot of conflict in a very short area. I don't know how FUT can recommend this project if safety is one of their top priorities. It's just not a safe project to have on street parking with a bike path of two directional traffic. I request that you go back FUT with the, I believe it's Commissioner Alfred's recommendation to remove the on street parking. It is, as Commissioner Cornell said, it's two. It's primarily two businesses that use it. One on the west and one on the east end. And perhaps solutions can come up. Nobody watches movies at 9 a.m. across the street. That's one possibility of parking a range that can be made. There can be others. I just, and this is not worth spending $3.7 million on. It's just not when there are a lot of other priorities that have yet to surface the bicycle master plan. So this is just a poor plan. And I just ask that you tell FDOTE that this is the recognition we want to stick with and then proceed with the bicyclam master plan process. So thank you for your time. Thank you. All right, I think we have to come back to Commissioner books motion. See what happens with that And the book motion could you restate it? The motion on the floor is to engage. Very second to that motion, right? Yeah, there's a second. There's a second. I was drawing my second. There we go. Now we're on to Commissioner Alfred's motion. Which was the joint recommendation? Motion on a second. Is there a discussion? I have a quick question. Yes. Does this go into the pool of projects that this money is to go to? Is this part of the three million? Yeah. Do you say there were four projects that we were looking at with this, the three million dollars that we're going to be shuffling around. Does this add to it and make five projects then? I think the question is by Ms. Brown. Ms. Brown, yes, I'm sorry. Yeah, how many are on the screen? So this would be the fifth project to throw into that pot. Well, based on this motion, a care around with DOT would based on this motion passing, it's going to remove this project. And so now we're just being the current for that we have. And to look to what Scott was saying to let us know now that way we can stop the, we're already currently using some of our own planning funds to kind of develop the LREs and whatnot. So that'll be, it's not your SU, not your SU funds, but our own planning funds that we have to kind of, you know, get some of the projects off the ground in terms of concepts. All right. You know. How quickly would we be able to get this done then? To replace the project? Yes. With what we're about to vote on. So the list of priority projects, the project that you all voted on earlier this year, we utilize that list and we're entrusting and saying, OK, this is what your wish list is. Any project that we pick, you all are voted on. You've approved, you've added. So, you know, sort of a, I wouldn't say a shock, but, you know, it's kind of taken a back that this project. Now, being that it's on your, in your municipality projects packet, that you all are a little bit on the size of right now. So, I think moving forward as we, as we talk about selecting the projects, the upcoming LOPP next year, be aware that any of these projects can go that we can pick because keeping in mind currently what you have funded, currently what you have program currently has funds allocated. So we pick the next best project to be funded off of your top 10. So I just wanted to make you know make note of that as you guys consider taking this project off and then we select another project. It's like you know what would you all think about that next project that we pick. So yes sorry. Thank you Commissioner Alfred and then Commissioner Eastman. To me, this isn't taking the project away. It's just changing how it's being done. So you know, FDOTs took what a project that we had on the list and they decided how it should be done by recommending this multi-use concept plan, and that's the part that I'm not understanding, because I feel like we shouldn't be taking the project off the list, we're just asking DOT to change how they're looking at it. Because we had some folks that didn't like that one on street parking, but we're saying as a city and as a county that we want, we want this project to be done a different way. And that's why I'm confused, I guess, right now. Madam Chair, Commissioner Alfred just stated is correct. Your number one project and Mr. Prairie projects is and to remove the on street parking and replace it with On street bicycle lanes. You're not wavering You're not confused. You're reinterrating your number one priority as stated in your adopted listed party projects is to replace the on street parking Well, on street bicycle lanes. So it's still your number one project in that form. Thank you Scott for helping me clarify that. Yes, yes for thank you. To answer Commissioner Wheeler's question, it is being removed from the SU internal matrix. That's not the overall number one of your project and your list of priority lists. I'm saying the matrix that we have internally created for the SU programming, that will be if you all move forward with your motion and is approved, that will be removed and be replaced with another project potentially looking at the funding, looking at where we are that could potentially be used with SU funding To for clarification. So you may not get the time that you're thinking right in terms of Well, I think that they have funding to do a certain kind of thing and that That would be this multi-use path. We're asking them to do a different kind of thing Right, which leaves it on the list. It just the timeline is what, you know, everybody's saying, you know, what urgent, you know, what urgent if that's getting this done, that's all. I still think that can happen, but that's just me. All right, sorry. Yeah, I mean, it would be nice to hear why the Department of Transportation, I mean, this is clearly a community, like a community party project within the specific way. And then you guys came back to us. And I think I was actually, I was positively surprised. And I was happy with the fact that you guys were putting in thought as to is there some alternative ways to do that. I agree. I don't think this is necessarily pulling it back from that. But it would be much less expensive than what you guys had proposed for us to do what we originally talked about, which was just a reshriping would not be anywhere near the 3 million. And so I would like to hear from FDOT at some point why that that shift had occurred. And if there's some way we can work around it, I think this would still be a top priority for us, just not necessarily in the way that was brought forward. Okay, and I'll take that back to the team and I think that's for you. With the RPC. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All right, Commissioner Cornell. I was just going to reiterate to Ms. the DOT that exactly what Commissioner Alfred said. We want this to still be the primary project. We want to make it cheaper. And what's involved with DOT removing private parking? In a right away. Through the chair. I don't know the last question that you asked Commission Acornale. We were ready to go seven years ago, remove the parking, restripe it. I like adding the protected piece of the lane. I would be willing to as a county commissioner to say, D-O-T, you remove the parking, we'll pay to put it in and do it. I mean I, I'm ready to do that, because I think it would save us all money, and we're using, I want us to use our money the way our staff instructs us to use it. And this I think is a project that could be done relatively and expensively, and quickly with DOT's blessing of removing the private parking. That's the hang up, and that's always been the hang up of removing the private parking. That's the hang-up. And that's always been the hang-up of the community engagement senate, DOT was on board, and then they got some calls from some businesses. And then everything changed. But from this board's perspective, and what Scott said is right on, we have been very consistent that we think the public deserves the public's right away safely. And if you eliminate the voluntary parking, you heard the Christians analysis. Everything gets safer. And those businesses have to find private parking. And you know, they have to. But this city has built a lot of housing on there. I mean, there's a lot more public now that needs that right away than there was seven years ago when the public needed that right away So I don't want us to take this off the priority list. It's still our number one priority Okay, uh, Kerr Brown with DOT. We're not taking it off. Only you all can revise your list. We can't revise your list. We just look at your list and you've, that you've approved and see where we are in terms of budget. And allocate where the funding can push a project forward. And this one seems to be where we are now and it seems to be, it is your number one. So we wanted to, best. The DOT gave us the blessing to remove the private parking. We could get this project done. OK, and so I'm expecting a response in some sort of on your letterhead and asking us to take a look at that. Now I don't know what that means in the meantime, where we are in terms of the internal matrix. And I will let the team know to put a pause on it. where we are in terms of the internal matrix. I will let the team know to put a pause on it, but are you also now advising us to select a second project, a backup project that you all could potentially, you know, would like instead while we work out the details of the current project. Yeah, I would. Thank you. We'll save a bunch of money. I would add that to your motion. I would send them a letter. Yeah, I was just going to say if you all don't mind, I would add to the motion that we send to clarifying letter to FDOT with listing what our priorities are and how. And how we can move forward with removing private parking and And how we can move forward with removing private parking and allowing us to create the road that serves our residents the best. So far the record, would you just repeat your all motion? The whole motion would be to move forward with the joint recommendation, as well as provide a letter to FDOT from the MTPO clarifying what our recommendation is and asking that we that they remove the on-street parking from the segment of roads so that we can move forward with having the joint recommendation in place. We can't do the joint recommendation until they take away the on-street parking, right? So the motion is to have the joint recommendation and then send the letter explaining our joint recommendation, ask them to remove the on-street parking and move forward. Ask in DOT. Yes. Okay. Is that work? I just like clear motions. Yeah, I understand. Yeah. Okay, I understand. Yeah. Okay. All right. And you've, okay, with that. Yeah. Okay. Is that clear? Okay. Okay. It's to further discussion on this motion. Hearing none. All in favor, indicate by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed? Thank you. Those opposed to like sign. in favor indicate by saying aye. Aye. Those are the votes. Thank you. Those are supposed to like sign. There's one name. Commissioner Boehner. Okay. All right. Now our next item is to have a presentation from the county. On the county road design concepts. I'm not sure we all have the appetite for this. Yeah. To continue this afternoon. Let's hear what, let's see for Moons. Yeah, for post-pum. Yeah, I just don't know if I have the appetite because if we do, I think I'm going to have to leave and then vice chair can take that Okay, thank you if I may Ramonga Barrete Pollyworth directed for the county and you don't have the appetite. I don't have the appetite The bottom line is that if there's the agenda title change from two months ago to now, where frankly even Allison and myself were not clear exactly what the item really was up until last week. So here's my suggestion. You all can have access to my email address. Send me a few emails so I can know exactly what the issues are. It's an issue with what projects are in the list and what projects are in the list. Send me an email, I'll reply to the email. So I think that's the easiest way of doing it. Instead of going through a whole bunch of presentations that I've done 50,000 times by now. Madam Chair, I could ask for it in the first place. I can clarify real fast. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. What I'm looking for is to understand what not only which county roads are particularly within the city limits of Gainesville are going to be rebuilt and win, but what that means. And now is it, is it a, you're going to pour asphalt over it or you're going to rebuild the entire thing or there's an opportunity for, for complete streets or what your your conceptions are at the county of what these these streets are going to be and I don't expect that today. I would love to be able to go through that with you all and we originally asked for it back in not the April meeting but I think the meeting after that. So I would love to have it but yeah we've been here for three hours today. I'm not ready for it today but that's what I'm looking for. All right. If I could add to that, uh, when we do the, um, the presentation, I'm very interested in southeast 15th Street. Is that going to be a complete street? Are you just going to pour some asphalt over the rumblings on the road? So you don't have to answer that today, but I'm very interested in a complete street. So if you could tell us what the plan is. If you as a commission wants to schedule time that's fine, I can tell you all in a bright current plan is a payment management plan period. We're doing travel way for travel way. If it's a millionaire servicing, is it a crack seal or some kind of other preservation project? This the current plan because of the funding that we have available for the county, including the infrastructure surtax, the so-called Elm's nickel, which is a gas tax, and the board of the kind of commissioner did put $8 million also of general fund into the plan. We have approximately around $22, $23 million a year to do these kind of projects, but it's strictly a payment preservation, payment management plan. It is not to act capacity, it is not to do a context design. We are looking at some opportunities maybe once in a while to put a turning lane to a LVA like those issues. But this is not a program where we're going to be adding capacity or doing context design or changing the nature of adding multi-use pass. It's that the funding is not there for that. Okay, so when you bring this report back, when you make your presentation, could you tell us then what it would cost to make Southeast 15th Street, a complete street? Could you just include that in your report? I can come back with that estimate, yes. Thank you, thank you. All right. OK. Mr. Coons. Thank you very much for sitting here so patiently. Chair, next item is just to announce the next meeting. It'll be October 7 at 3 p.m. Your new Jack Durant's auditorium. Thank you. We have public comment and I have a question. We have these other items. FD of T report. I'm chair next or comments and first is from the Department of Transportation. Very quick. I have a quite a drive home so I'll keep you guys as much longer. We do currently we're in the process of updating the Florida Transportation Plan for 2055. I did leave some some cars over here. You guys can take a snapshot of the QR code and takes you to the link. We are having our first workshop this Wednesday. You all would have known sooner because of the hurricane last month. It kind of delayed everything. But yes, it's this Wednesday at 2pm, 2 to 4. And it's the first workshop that we'll have for the Northeast region. The second workshop will be in March. So there's a second opportunity and it'll be in this area so you all can attend that. The schedule is in our. Yes. We have the schedule. Okay, so I just want to let you know. Thank you. Thank you. Can I ask a quick question? I had a citizen that asked me about when they could get an update on, oh shoot, an archer state road 42, does that sound right? Anyway, I can email you, I guess that, but they wanted an update as to when that would be done or if the state was going to do anymore. Okay, all right. Thank you. Just send me an email or two, say we're 45. Say we're 45, that's what I'm trying to say. Okay. Yeah, can I get. Just send me email or through 40 say we're 45. Say we're 45. That's what I'm trying to say. Okay. Yeah. Can I get it? Can I get info on that? Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Mr. Mayor. I'm real sorry. We're not going to let you go. That's a lot for us. Yeah. I've had people ask me regularly about the progress on University Avenue, particularly in front of campus. And we can give only pieces of that information ourselves. It would be great to hear from F.Dodd updates on on where we are. I think most of the currently planned work is accomplished on University in front of campus. Do you know if that's Debbie are you able to speak to that? I'm not talking about our current planning efforts for for the rest of University Avenue. But the raised crosswalks, all the things that have been added and there have been many infrastructure improvements added. Some of them, city of municipal projects, most of them F.Dot projects and we have planning projects and the works. But the public doesn't hear about things. They just see work happening. And if not for today, if we could get a more fleshed out presentation on that next time, that would be really helpful for the community, I think. OK, we'll do. Thank you so much. Thank you, so we'll have that on the agenda, hopefully. The seventh. All right. MTPO planning organization members, anything else? Public comment. Comments. I'm sure I'll also be brief. Kristen Young, Chief Cat, Vice President. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, for bringing that up. There are gate or parents across the state interested in that topic. I hear from them, people whose children have already graduated are still interested in the project. So if you have a robust update, not just on what's already been planned in program, but also on the phases of the study for the whole width of University Avenue from the city staff at the same time to get the whole view. I think it would clarify a lot. My other thing it came to advocate for last few times I have is the school's on cameras. They've been operable in other counties starting the school year. My bidde, Hillsborough County County have been added in. I think in the first, I forgot the statistic, but like in the first 13 days in Hillsborough County, the number of drivers who chose the speed in school zones and who were, who were cited by the cameras were in the five, yeah, five figures in just 13 days. So we do have a speeding problem with our very most vulnerable members of our community, our children, where they are during the day. So I know counties I'm working on that of sweating for a sheriff's input. I don't know where the city is on that, but don't need an answer today, but your two commissions, if you can make that a priority, I'd really appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All right. I defer the comments from members. Okay. Nothing from the chair. With that, this meeting is adjourned.