Laserfiche WebLink
FF_ <br />Given these requirements, the Technical Complement Committee <br />considered several options for an MPO apportionment plan. With an <br />objective of keeping the governing board's membership'small, the <br />committee considered apportionment plans of 7, 8, and 9 members for <br />the MPO governing board. In developing the proposed apportionment <br />plan, the Committee considered the MPO area to include all land <br />within the county's 2010 urban service area as well as the City of <br />Fellsmere. <br />Of the apportionment alternatives considered by the Technical <br />Complement Committee, the preferred option was a nine member MPO <br />governing board with membership apportioned as follows: <br />Board of County Commissioners <br />4 <br />members <br />City <br />of <br />Vero Beach <br />2 <br />members <br />City <br />of <br />Sebastian <br />1 <br />member <br />Town <br />of <br />Indian River Shores <br />1 <br />member <br />City <br />of <br />Fellsmere <br />1 <br />member <br />Town <br />of <br />Orchid <br />0 <br />members <br />However, when that option was presented to FDOT, the ,FDOT staff <br />indicated that, because the smaller municipalities were over- <br />represented on the board, the plan would probably not be approved <br />by the Governor. Consequently, the Technical Complement Committee <br />rejected that option. Instead, the committee chose a sevenmember <br />alternative, with representation as follows: <br />Board of <br />County Commissioners <br />4 <br />members <br />City of <br />Vero Beach City Council <br />2 <br />members <br />City of <br />Sebastian City Council <br />1 <br />member <br />The principal reasons for- selecting this alternative were <br />manageable size and proportional representation. <br />On June 10, 1992, the Transportation Planning Committee (TPC) met <br />and considered MPO apportionment plan alternatives. The TPC 's <br />Position was that each municipality should have representation on <br />the MPO governing board, if possible. For that reason, the TPC <br />voted to recommend approval of the nine member option which had <br />been considered and rejected by the Technical Complement <br />Committee. The population percentage, as well as voting percentage <br />for each alternative, is identified below: <br />dORi80ICcn= <br />+O APPortimment uternatives <br />1990 <br />POPOLMOB 7 9 <br />TOTJIL <br />PERCENT VUUA FK11M PT was/rSIOCB�r <br />Cauffty/MPO <br />90,208 <br />100 <br />7 <br />100 <br />9 <br />100 <br />IIninCOrPorated <br />58,175 <br />64.5 <br />4 <br />57.1 <br />4 <br />44.5 <br />City of Vera fah <br />17,360 <br />19.2 <br />2 <br />28.6 <br />2 <br />22.2 <br />C'tY of Sebastian <br />10,206 <br />11.3 <br />1 <br />14.3 <br />1 <br />11.1 <br />Tarn of Indian Rivas' Shares <br />2,278 <br />2.5 <br />0 <br />0 <br />1 <br />11.1 <br />City of POLIM ata <br />2,179 <br />2.4 <br />0 <br />0 <br />1 <br />11.1 <br />Torn of o amd <br />10 <br />0 <br />.01 <br />0 <br />0 <br />0 <br />16 <br />M <br />