My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2006-190
CBCC
>
Resolutions
>
2000's
>
2006
>
2006-190
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/26/2015 6:06:05 AM
Creation date
9/30/2015 4:44:09 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Resolutions
Resolution Number
2006-190
Approved Date
12/12/2006
Agenda Item Number
No data from migration
Archived Roll/Disk#
3129
Supplemental fields
SmeadsoftID
2018
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Mr. Wolfe's comments were inaudible. <br /> Mr. Drummond stated the TCTC is supposed to adopt the projects that are a part of each county's <br /> MPO that have already endorsed them. <br /> Commissioner Neuberger made a motion to endorse the TRIP projects of each county. <br /> Commissioner Smith seconded the motion. The motion was approved'unanimously. <br /> Commissioner DiTerlizzi asked if these projects were ready-to-go projects for construction. <br /> Ms. Perrotta s comments were inaudible. <br /> Commissioner DiTerlizzi stated the three projects in St. Lucie and Martin and the two projects in <br /> Indian River; if one falls off will.they go to the next one; project three or to the other one in the <br /> other county. <br /> Ms. Perrotta's comments inaudible. <br /> Ms. Miller stated it depends on how the Boards would like FDOT to approach the list. If the list is <br /> designated on a per.county basis with in the region, if number one was dropped off in a county, it <br /> would go the number two in that county. Or if they were presented as a combined list negating <br /> where the physical county boundary was; FDOT would gothrough the list as the projects were <br /> being ineligible. It depends on how the TCTC want FDOT to approach the grouping. <br /> Mr. Drummond stated that he did not get a sense that the motion was going to create one priority <br /> list; itis by county. <br /> Commissioner DiTerlizzi stated he assumed it is the way it is presented to the TCTC. He does not <br /> mind the individual order that each county has presented them in but if full funding was gotten it <br /> would be a total of a million five plus a million one for Martin County. So then that could be put . <br /> towards Martin County's projects. The eight million dollars for St. Lucie would go to their three <br /> and the same thing for Indian River in the amount of two to three million dollars. It is new to him <br /> that Indian River is sitting at the table, they are in a different MPO region, are there separate TRIP <br /> funds in their region outside of these TRIP funds? <br /> Ms. Miller stated Indian River County is not in a separate region. They are a member of the TCTC, <br /> there are two regions within district four; while there are three MPOs that make up and comprise <br /> that region. <br /> Commissioner DiTerlizzi asked if Indian River County was part of a regional MPO,part of Brevard <br /> County. . <br /> Ms. Miller stated no, they are a stand alone MPO. <br /> Commissioner DiTerlizzi stated Indian River County's funds are the three percent total like Martin <br /> County's three percent funding total. <br /> TCTC Meeting minutes <br /> 05.18.06 <br /> Page 7 of 9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.