Legislative Matter

Miami-Dade Legislative Item
File Number: 132547

Clerk's Official Copy

File Number: 132547

File Type: Resolution

Status: Adopted

Version: 0

Reference: R-865-13

Control: Board of County Commissioners

File Name: GRADE SEPARATION AT SW 8 ST AND SW 107 AVE ENTRANCES TO FIU

Introduced: 12/18/2013

Requester: NONE

Cost:

Final Action: 10/22/2013

Agenda Date: 10/22/2013

Agenda Item Number: 11A8SUBSTITUTE

Notes:

THIS IS FINAL VERSION AS ADOPTED. ALSO SEE 132026

Title:

RESOLUTION SUPPORTING EFFORTS TO ALLEVIATE TRAFFIC CONGESTION ON SW 8TH STREET IN THE VICINITY OF THE FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY MAIN CAMPUS, INCLUDING THE SW 8TH STREET CORRIDOR STUDY; URGING THE FLORIDA LEGISLATURE, THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND THE MIAMI-DADE COUNTY METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION TO PROVIDE THE NECESSARY STATE FUNDING TO ALLEVIATE TRAFFIC CONGESTION IN THIS AREA

Indexes:	LEGISLATURE
	STATE FUNDING

Sponsors:	Sen. Javier D. Souto, Co-Prime Sponsor
	Juan C. Zapata, Co-Prime Sponsor
	Jose "Pepe" Diaz, Co-Prime Sponsor
	Esteban L. Bovo, Jr., Co-Sponsor
	Audrey M. Edmonson, Co-Sponsor
	Jean Monestime, Co-Sponsor
	Rebeca Sosa, Co-Sponsor

Sunset Provision: No

Effective Date:

Expiration Date:

Registered Lobbyist:

None Listed

Legislative History
Acting Body	Date	Agenda Item	Action	Sent To	Due Date	Returned	Pass/Fail

County Attorney	1/22/2014		Assigned	Jess M. McCarty		1/22/2014

Board of County Commissioners	10/22/2013	11A8 SUBSITUTE AMENDED	Adopted				P
REPORT:	First Assistant County Attorney Abigail Price-Williams read the foregoing proposed resolution into the record. Commissioner Diaz noted for the record that he previously requested to be listed as a Co-Prime Sponsor to the foregoing proposed resolution. It was moved by Commissioner Souto that the foregoing proposed resolution be adopted. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Zapata. Commissioner Heyman noted concern that the proposed resolution was to be considered a critical County priority; however, noted a previous decision by this body to limit the number of critical items to no more than ten. She pointed out that the item was for an appropriation and not policy legislation; that there were other countywide and infrastructure issues needing to be considered; and that this body should determine critical issues once the entire list was finalized. Chairwoman Sosa asked Commissioner Souto if he would consider modifying the foregoing proposed resolution urging the State legislature to provide the necessary funding, rather than listing it as a critical County priority. Commissioner Souto pointed out that this was a pending issue for at least twelve years; that there was a significant amount of congestion on these two state roads, SW 107 Street and SW 8 Street; and that an overpass was needed to prevent future casualties. Commissioner Bell noted she concurred with Commissioner Heyman that she supported the item; however, the Board agreed it would develop its list of critical County priorities at one time. Commissioner Diaz commented on heavy traffic conditions at this location as well as throughout the entire County. He pointed out the item was a critical priority in order for it to be included in the five year Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) study, rather than the twenty year cycle. Commissioner Diaz said that a study was necessary; that the County did not have the funds; and that the State needed to get involved. Commissioner Edmonson said there were three items designated as a critical County priority on today’s (10/22) agenda, noting that she could not support any of these items unless the critical priority was removed because the Board previously voted to consider all critical priorities at one time. She noted she would co-sponsor the foregoing proposed resolution should Commissioner Souto remove the critical priority from the item. Chairwoman Sosa noted she would also co-sponsor the item with the removal of the critical priority designation. Commissioner Jordan pointed out that the Board would be considering the County’s list of critical County priorities and narrowing them down to ten items at a later date, noting that she did not consider items submitted to the legislature prior to developing that list to be part of the final ten priorities. Commissioner Edmonson questioned the process the Board used to establish its critical priorities. Assistant County Attorney Jess McCarty responded that items voted as critical priorities would be added to the critical priorities list and would be considered by the Board when approving the legislative package. He noted the Board previously determined that it would limit this list to ten items and that any prior critical priorities did not automatically become one of the County’s final ten critical priorities. Commissioner Moss suggested that Florida International University (FIU) be considered as a single critical priority which would include all three items impacting FIU on today’s (10/22) agenda. Commissioner Bovo concurred with Commissioner Moss’ suggestion. He inquired whether political statements would be part of the ten critical priorities. Assistant County Attorney McCarty clarified that the Board would submit its critical priorities, its urging items/political statements, and the departmental items to the Miami-Dade Legislative Delegation (Delegation). He said that only the critical priorities would be included as the top ten items on the list and everything else would be forwarded to the Delegation and not be identified as one of the County’s critical priorities. Commissioner Bovo questioned and Assistant County Attorney McCarty clarified that the Board would determine whether political statements would be included among the top ten priorities. Commissioner Bovo stated that political statements should be formally communicated to the Delegation by the Board and informally communicated by Commissioners. Chairwoman Sosa commented that SW 8 Street was a State road and the responsibility of the Florida Department of Transportation, noting other priorities needed local taxpayer funding. She explained that the total number of critical priorities was limited to ten in order to give the State legislature the ability to concentrate on the items submitted; that the County should abide by its previous decision to submit only ten critical priorities; and that this request should be considered as an urging item. Commissioner Heyman said she did not support the Board revisiting a large number of critical priorities when they considered the County’s legislative priority package. She supported changing the critical priority items being considered today (10/22) to urgings. Chairwoman Sosa noted as the sponsor of Agenda Item No. 11A6, she would remove the critical County priority from the foregoing proposed resolution. Commissioner Diaz commented that the foregoing proposed resolution was a critical priority because of the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) process; so that the item was considered in a five year study rather than a twenty year study. Commissioner Zapata concurred with Commissioner Moss’ suggestion, noting that additional infrastructure improvements were needed to accommodate FIU’s growth. He also concurred with Commissioner Jordan’s suggestion to consider all critical County projects and develop a final list of recommendations. Commissioner Zapata spoke of the need to remind the State that they had a responsibility to this community. Commissioner Souto inquired whether the ten critical priority limitations was a request from the State. Assistant County Attorney McCarty explained that the Delegation requested the County limited the number of requests and that the Board approved the ten items limit at a previous meeting. Commissioner Souto noted that he did not believe it was in the County’s best interest to limit the number of critical issues and that a critical issue now might not be a critical issue later. He said this was an important State university, located at the intersection of two major State roads, with a several hundred thousand people living in that area. Commissioner Souto commented that this road improvement was an important safety issue that was needed in order to help save lives. Commissioner Barreiro noted his support for the proposed resolution. He stressed the importance of consolidating the legislative priorities into a single package; however, noted that limiting the number of items to ten may not always be the appropriate number of items. Chairwoman Sosa suggested that a vote be taken on the foregoing proposed resolution as proposed and a decision on a critical priority be made later. It was moved by Commissioner Souto that the foregoing proposed resolution be adopted. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Zapata. Commissioner Souto commented that an important problem needed to be solved and that flexibility was needed on the issue of critical priorities. It was moved by Commissioner Bell that the foregoing proposed resolution be adopted as amended to remove “identifying this issue as a critical County priority for the 2014 session”. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Heyman. Commissioner Souto accepted Commissioner Bell’s amendment as long as the item remained “a priority” rather than a “critical priority”. Chairwoman Sosa clarified that only “critical” was being removed and that the item would come back to the Board later to decide on whether to be included as a critical priority. Commissioner Diaz asked for clarification whether there would be any critical priorities considered by the Board prior to formalizing its list of critical priorities to be forwarded to the Delegation. Chairwoman Sosa said she was removing the critical priority language from any items which she sponsored on today’s (10/22) agenda, noting the decision on priorities would be made later. Hearing no further questions or comments, the Commission proceeded to vote on the foregoing proposed resolution as amended. The foregoing proposed resolution was adopted as amended to remove “identifying this issue as a critical County priority for the 2014 session” from the SUBJECT line and from any other references to critical County priority in the resolution.

Legislative Text

TITLE
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING EFFORTS TO ALLEVIATE TRAFFIC CONGESTION ON SW 8TH STREET IN THE VICINITY OF THE FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY MAIN CAMPUS, INCLUDING THE SW 8TH STREET CORRIDOR STUDY; URGING THE FLORIDA LEGISLATURE, THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND THE MIAMI-DADE COUNTY METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION TO PROVIDE THE NECESSARY STATE FUNDING TO ALLEVIATE TRAFFIC CONGESTION IN THIS AREA

BODY
WHEREAS, Florida International University (FIU) has a student body of 50,000 students, and was the seventh (7th) largest public university by enrollment in the United States in the fall of 2012; and
WHEREAS, it is estimated that there are more than 60,000 people on campus at FIU when students, faculty and staff are considered together; and
WHEREAS, the main campus of FIU, the Modesto A. Maidique Campus, is located at 11200 S.W. 8th Street in Southwest Miami-Dade County, bounded by S.W. 8th Street to the north and S.W. 107th Avenue to the east; and
WHEREAS, S.W. 8th Street and S.W. 107th Avenue are both state roads that are heavily traveled, with the intersection of these two roads handling about 105,000 vehicles per day; and
WHEREAS, despite being the seventh (7th) largest public university, there are traffic signals at the intersection of S.W. 8th Street and S.W. 107th Avenue near the main entrances to the Modesto A. Maidique Campus of FIU; and
WHEREAS, during the Miami-Dade County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) meeting on July 18, 2013, Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Secretary Ananth Prasad indicated that he would have FDOT staff research traffic surrounding FIU; and
WHEREAS, the MPO Governing Board has expressed concerns for some time regarding traffic conditions on SW 8th Street in the vicinity of FIU, including the intersections at SW 87th Avenue, SW 97th Avenue and SW 107th Avenue; and
WHEREAS, the Project Development and Engineering study recommended expanding the boundaries to evaluate the traffic impact of this project at other major intersections on SW 8th Street; and
WHEREAS, at the September 16, 2013 meeting, the Miami-Dade County Metropolitan Planning Organization approved the scope of work and budget for the SW 8th Street Corridor Study; and
WHEREAS, the boundaries of the SW 8th Street Corridor Study are SW 8th Street from SW 74th Avenue to SW 122nd Avenue; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of the SW 8th Street Corridor Study is to determine and document the need for corridor improvements and to develop alternative solutions to alleviate traffic flow along the SW 8th Street corridor; and
WHEREAS, this Board strongly supports efforts to alleviate traffic congestion on SW 8th Street, including the SW 8th Street Corridor Study, and would urge the Florida Legislature, FDOT and the MPO to provide the necessary state funding to alleviate traffic congestion in the vicinity of the FIU main campus; and
WHEREAS, ways to alleviate traffic congestion on SW 8th Street could include mass transportation elements, such as buses, trains and water transportation,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, that this Board:
Section 1. Supports efforts to alleviate traffic congestion on SW 8th Street in the vicinity of the Florida International University main campus, including the SW 8th Street Corridor Study, as well as study of possible mass transportation elements, such as buses, trains and water transportation.
Section 2. Urges the Florida Legislature, the Florida Department of Transportation and the Miami-Dade County Metropolitan Planning Organization to provide the necessary state funding to alleviate traffic congestion in the vicinity of the Florida International University main campus.
Section 3. Directs the Clerk of this Board to send a certified copy of this resolution to the Governor, Senate President, House Speaker, the Chair and Members of the Miami-Dade State Legislative Delegation and the Secretary of the Florida Department of Transportation.
Section 4. Directs the County's state lobbyists to advocate for the passage of legislation and funding as set forth in sections 1 and 2 above, and authorizes and directs the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs to include this item in the 2014 State Legislative Package when it is presented to the Board.