1. ACTION ITEM: Approve March 16 and April 13, 2016 Meeting Minutes (attachment)

Transcription

1 THE HONORABLE RANDALL HUTTO, CHAIRMAN DOUG DEMOSI, TECHNICAL COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN MICHAEL SKIPPER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR & SECRETARY MPO Executive Board Wednesday, May 18, 9:00 AM Second Floor Conference Room of the Nashville MTA Music City Central Station 400 Charlotte Avenue in Nashville, Tennessee 1. ACTION ITEM: Approve March 16 and April 13, 2016 Meeting Minutes (attachment) 2. Public Comment 3. MPO Chair s Report 4. ACTION ITEM: Proposed Amendments to the FYs TIP (attachment) The MPO has proposed the following amendments to the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). A 21 day public review and comment period and two public hearings are required prior to adoption by the Board. More information is available at NashvilleMPO.org/plans_programs/tip/. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS: TIP # RTP # Project Name Sponsor Action A/9961 West 6 th Streetscape Columbia New Project B West 7 th Streetscape Columbia New Project I 24E Interchange Modification Metro Nashville New Project Mt. Juliet Rd Adaptive Signal Project Mt. Juliet Add Funds MPO ITS/Ops Program MPO Shift Funds SR 6/US 31 Widening TDOT Add Funds SR 65 Widening TDOT New Project SR 96 Widening TDOT New Project SR 247 (Duplex Rd) Widening TDOT Add Funds SR 99 (US 412) Interchange Modification TDOT New Project SCHEDULE: 5/18 XB Endorsement 5/23 6/15 Public Review and Comment Period 6/1 First Public Hearing (TCC) 6/15 Second Public Hearing / Adoption (XB) RECOMMENDATION: Endorse proposed amendments for public review and comment. The Nashville Area Metropolitan Planning Organization does not discriminate on the basis of age, race, sex, color, national origin, religion or disability in access to, or operation of its programs, services, activities or in its hiring or employment practices. ADA and Title VI inquiries should be forwarded to Michelle Lacewell, Nashville Area MPO, 800 Second Avenue South, Nashville, TN 37201, (615) MPO Executive Board and TCC meetings are audio recorded.

2 May 18, 2016 MPO XB Agenda, 2 of 2 5. ACTION ITEM: Amendment to MPO Bylaws (attachment) MPO staff has prepared an amendment to the MPO bylaws in response to TCA which states that The number of votes for any local government official shall be equally weighted and shall not be based on the population of the area represented by each official. This requirement applies to MPOs located wholly within the state, not containing less than three counties. Amendments to the Bylaws may be presented for consideration at any board meeting with adoption being deferred until the subsequent meeting. The amendment was initially presented and endorsed by the board on April 16. The current MPO Prospectus and Organizational Bylaws is available at: SCHEDULE: 3/6 Executive Committee Discussion 4/16 XB Endorsement 5/18 XB Adoption RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution MPO , amending the MPO bylaws. 6. MPO Director s Report Update on Freight Planning Activities Update on the FYs TIP Development Other Comments 7. Other Business 8. Adjourn until June 15, 2016

3 Agenda Item Executive Board Minutes

4 MINUTES Of the EXECUTIVE BOARD of the Nashville Area Metropolitan Planning Organization March 16, 2016 Attendees: Mayor Jimmy Alexander, Mayor Rogers Anderson, Mayor Megan Barry, Mr. Steve Bland, Mayor Howard Bradley, Vice Mayor David Briley, Mayor Paige Brown, Mayor Ernest Burgess, Mayor John Coombs, Mayor Philip Craighead, Mayor Bonnette Dawson, Mr. Paul Degges, Mayor Rick Graham, Mr. Gerald Herman (for Mayor Michael Arnold), Executive Anthony Holt, Mayor Randall Hutto, Mr. Paul Keltner (for Mayor Dean Dickey), Ms. Pam Kordenbrock, Mr. Kenny Martin (for Mayor Ed Hagerty), Mr. Larry McGoogin (for Gov. Bill Haslam), Mayor Ken Moore, Mayor Charlie Norman, Mr. Paul Nutting (for Mayor Billy Paul Carneal), Mayor Mary Esther Reed, Mr. Matt Von Lunen, Mayor Ken Wilber Approve February 17, 2016 Meeting Minutes Mayor Randall Hutto, Chair, opened the meeting at 9:05 a.m. Mayor Jimmy Alexander moved to approve the February 17, 2016 meeting minutes with Mayor Megan Barry seconding. The motion passed unanimously. Public Comment There was no public comment. MPO Chairs Report Mayor Hutto thanked Mayor Ken Wilber for his service over the past 2 years as Chair of the MPO Executive Board. He received a plague and a round of applause. Mayor Wilber thanked the Board for their work and said he enjoyed working with everyone. He said that the groundwork has been laid for things that are ahead of us. Proposed Amendments for the FYs TIP Ms. Anna Emerson, MPO staff, said that proposed amendments to the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) have completed the required 21 day public review and comment period. She said that no comments have been received.

5 Mayor Hutto opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Hutto closed the public hearing. Mayor Wilber moved to adopt the resolution MPO amending the GYs TIP. Mayor Barry seconded and the motion passed unanimously. More information is available at NashvilleMPO.org/plans_programs/tip/. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS: TIP # RTP # Project Name Sponsor Action Franklin ITS Infrastructure Franklin Program Const Reserve; Add Eligible Work Type City of Lebanon 3R Program Lebanon Add Funds Consistent City of Fairview 3R Program Fairview Add Funds; Update Description Town Center Trail Mt. Juliet Program Const Reserve Consistent City of Portland 3R Program Portland Add Funds SR 166 at SR 6 Interchange TDOT New Project Middle Tennessee Boulevard Murfreesboro Add Funds Hwy 31W/SR 41 Bike/Ped Proj White House Add Funds SCHEDULE: 2/3 TCC Endorsement 2/17 XB Endorsement 2/19 3/16 Public Review and Comment Period 3/2 First Public Hearing (TCC) 3/16 Second Public Hearing / Adoption (XB) Building Resilience: Climate Adaptation Plan Mr. Wesley Rhodes and Ms. Hannah Plummer, MPO staff, presented draft recommendations from the climate adaptation plan developed through the Climate Solutions University program that kicked off in The MPO has been coordinating the effort with the Cumberland River Compact and local government partners across the area. Ms. Plummer said that four goals were established to guide the development of the plan: 1) Implement preemptive adaptation measures and responses to extreme weather events that are planned, coordinated, and timely; 2) Ensure leaders and residents of the region value and protect water resources and prioritize improved water quality and conservation for the benefit of human and natural systems; 3) The region s growth and development promotes equitable prosperity and is sustainable for people and natural resources; and 4) Ensure leaders and organizations work collaboratively and effectively in all resilience actions. The full plan includes an in depth assessment of climate and non climate risks facing the region. Highlights include conditions, projections and impacts of the following factors: extreme weather; water quality and quantity, growth and development; and land use policies, practices and governance.

6 Mr. Rhodes said the recommendations are 1) develop a regional working group to continue efforts of the Climate Adaptation Plan; 2) engage key stakeholders to craft preemptive and responsive actions to extreme weather, and water resources; 3) support the implementation and inclusion of complete streets, open space planning and identify best practices within local planning processes as they relate to climate resilience; 4) support the programmatic investments identified in Middle Tennessee Connected, the regional transportation plan; and 5) participate in the Climate Solutions University program for implementation to continue education opportunities with nation experts. Mayor Ken Moore asked about the cost of implementation. Mr. Rhodes said that the report does not currently include an assessment of the cost of implementing the various strategies, but that the effort was intended to bring together stakeholders across the region to discuss those strategies. Ms. Skipper said that he would as staff to conduct a brief fiscal impact analysis for each of the major strategies so that members could see the associated magnitude of costs and benefits. Mayor Moore asked where each community had input in the plan. Mr. Skipper said that during the process, the staff worked with staff from local jurisdictions and this is still part of the input process with no action needed today. This is simply a follow up to the introduction that was presented to the board some months ago. Until each recommended action has been thoroughly explained to the Board and the members are comfortable with them, no action will be asked of the Board. Mayor Moore asked who the local agencies were. Mr. Skipper said that they are the city and county governments, transit agencies, and environmental resource agencies. Mr. Rhodes the full list of stakeholders in full plan. Mr. Skipper said the local jurisdictions representatives on TCC worked on as well as other regional agencies. Mr. Skipper said that the next steps are to continue to seek input the Board and the TCC on the proposed actions. He said that the feedback so far has been on the actual planning process and analysis that has been done. Now, the proposed recommendations need feedback from the Board members. Mayor Rogers Anderson asked what the Department of Agriculture (TDA) is saying about this. Mr. Rhodes said that is supportive of agriculture and protecting agriculture. Mayor Anderson said he wants to see a recommendation from TDA that they are supporting this. He said that state commissioner and local commissioners should have say. Mr. Skipper said that so far there have been analyses on the risks that we are facing and looked at best practices to mitigate those risks to develop the proposed actions before asking any specific group embrace that specific action. He said that we need to go through the steps. This is the beginning of the process. Executive Anthony Holt said it is important to know costs of doing vs. not doing and the Board needs to know the implications of what we are buying into. Mr. Skipper said feedback on actions pro and con is exactly what we need. So far, we need to make sure that our stakeholder list adequately represents the region and doing a fiscal impact analysis. Proposed actions that can help address issues no funding it is all about guidance

7 Mayor Moore said that the way it is presented to stakeholder groups is important. He said that the stakeholder group is very focused on climate change but stakeholders not focused on climate change need to be part of the group before any recommendations are presented to the local jurisdictions. Mr. Rhodes said all of the proposed goals and action items are not dependent on any future projection but are needed based on things that are happening now. That being said, we have a responsibility to understand what might happen in the future. Mr. Skipper thanked Mr. Rhodes and Ms. Plummer for working on this difficult topic over the past two years. Mr. Paul Degges said that the TDOT study uses much language that stirs people up and when you are looking at resiliency and vulnerability issues you have to look at what the data is showing you investments in certain vulnerable assets. It helps to be prepared [for weather events]. A draft report is available at: More information the adaptation plans developed through the Climate Solutions University can be found online at: solutions university adaptation plans/ Amendment to MPO Bylaws Mr. Skipper said that the MPO staff has drafted a proposed to the MPO bylaws in response to TCA which states that The number of votes for any local government official shall be equally weighted and shall not be based on the population of the area represented by each official. This requirement applies to MPOs located wholly within the state, not containing less than three counties. He said that State law (Public Chapter 479) requires MPOs operating wholly in the State of TN containing no less than 3 counties must ensure that each member has an equally weighted vote regardless of community size. Also, it requires representation from county highway departments on the Executive Board. Since this law was passed last year, we have amended our Bylaw to include county highway departments. Currently, Mr. Eddie Hood, Williamson County, is the representative. This position will rotate yearly. The Executive Committee of the Board is studying the weighted vote requirement and how to come into compliance while still ensuring that this body if reflective of the population it serves. The Board had deferred this to allow for the new members to learn the MPO process before making a decision. But there is now a need to accelerate this process. Mr. Skipper said that this delay is in no way saying that we weren t going to comply with the law and eliminate weighted voting. The staff has drafted a proposed amendment, Resolution , for consideration. Mr. Skipper briefly went over the background for weighted voting. He said that the method, common among MPOs, ensures that representational equity exists within the governance structure of the Board. MPOs that don t have weighted voting tend to under represent urban communities and racial minorities. He said that MPOs are fundamentally required to represent the population in the urban areas which is the trigger for an MPO within a metropolitan area. He said that 4 out of the 11 MPOs in TN have weighted

8 voting, 4 do not, and 3 have neither. All MPOs must meet the federal codes to get any money. He said that 32% of the largest 50 MPOs in the nation have a weighted vote provision to ensure the board reflects the makeup of its region according to the Congressional Research Service. The proposed Resolution gives the body the option of eliminating weighted voting. This body is the governing body for programming federal funds. While removing the weighted voting provision, the Resolution will put in protection for each community to make sure that they are in agreement with how the money is spent. FHWA and TDOT have said that this is a State Law and that we need to address it. Ultimately, substantial changes to the official metropolitan planning area or governing board structure must be approved by the MPO s current governing board with concurrence from the Governor. In securing governing board approval, local governments representing at least 75 percent of the metropolitan area s total population, including the largest incorporated city, must also be in agreement. Vice Mayor David Briley said that he has been impressed with the sense of regionalism of this body but that this change will not promote regionalism. He said that regional transit is important to support even if it doesn t immediately help Davidson County. He encouraged the Board not to adopt this Bylaw change but we need to address the state law. He said that this region drives the economic engine for the state. Mr. Skipper said that the MPO Bylaws currently provide that each member has an equally weighted vote unless a member of the board requests a weighted vote, which then establishes that the number of votes for each member be based on their share of the region s population. Weighted votes may only be taken on matters pertaining to the Regional Transportation Plan, the Transportation Improvement Program, and Bylaws. To date, there is no record of the weighted vote provision ever being enacted by the board. Amendments to the Bylaws must be presented for consideration at any board meeting with adoption being deferred until a subsequent meeting. Upon adoption of the amendment, MPO member dues will continue to be based on population. Vice Mayor David Briley said that it is his and Mayor Barry s job to convince the Metro Council of Nashville Davidson County that regional transit is important to support even if it doesn t immediately help Davidson County. He said that if Davidson County can t be represented on this Board on a one person one vote basis on critical issues, it will make it harder to convince the Council to commit resources toward a regional goal. He encouraged this body not to adopt the Bylaw change. He said that he is convinced that cooler heads in the Legislature will prevail to help this Board to plan regionally. He said that the state law needs to be addressed. This region s economic engine drives the economy of the state. Mayor Barry asked if the Bylaws now allow for weighted voting and does the Board use it for this? Mr. Skipper said that the Bylaws state any member is allowed to call for weighted voting but it can only be used on 3 documents the Regional Transportation Plan, the Transportation Improvement Plan; and the Bylaws, and that the vote has to be deferred to the next meeting. He said that weighted voting can be used on this issue. He said that it is important to have more conversation on this.

9 Mr. Paul Degges said that issue we are faced with is a state law has been passed denying weighted voting. He said that TDOT s interpretation of the law is that it only applies to Nashville Area MPO. He said that the issue we are facing is that the MPOs allow TDOT to draw down federal dollars. When the General Assembly tells us to do something a certain way and we choose not to do it we are in violation of state law even though following this law could jeopardize federal funding not only for the Nashville MPO but the entire state. However, the state law is a law today even though TDOT tried but failed to stop the bill from becoming law. He said that that this amendment to change the Bylaws would allow the MPO to show the General Assembly that we are in compliance with the laws on the books today. He said the MPO is faced with violating either the state law or the FHWA code. If we don t do this, he s not sure how General Assembly would react. He said that it is not in best interest of region or state to defy. Mayor Hutto suggested that the Executive Committee be convened to propose alternative language. Mr. Degges asked a point of order: does presenting this resolution mean we have to vote at a subsequent meeting? Mr. Skipper said yes on the resolution itself. He said that if the Executive Committee proposes an alternative structure to the Board at the next meeting, then the vote would be held at the following meeting. Mr. Degges said that he wants to make sure the General Assembly knows that we are working on the issue and just not ignoring it. Mr. Skipper said that the Board minutes shows that the Executive Committee has been studying this issue and we need to convey to the Legislature that we are not in a perpetual deferral of the law but that this is a heavy issue that has huge implications and it is this body s responsibility to ultimately decide for itself how to accommodate the law. Mayor Anderson asked that when funding comes through at what level is it looked at. He asked if there is a chance for gaming the Legislature and therefore putting all of State in jeopardy. He said that it is the law and it has been on books since last July. He said that he was nervous about delaying this at seemingly the last minute before the Legislature goes on recess. It doesn t matter to the Legislators that we have never enacted the weighted voting option. If we don t obey the law then the rest of the State will suffer. Mayor Burgess said that, if we don t do something today, we are two months away from adopting something might be in compliance. Mr. Skipper said the Executive Committee has been working on issue for some time and it was a decision by the Executive Committee until the new members could come on board and become familiar with the MPO procedures. Mayor Barry asked a point of order that we have to notice this today but action can t be taken today. Mr. Skipper said yes, action can be taken at the next regularly scheduled meeting or a special called meeting of the Board. Mayor Barry asked if until then all questions can be answered. Mr. Skipper said that the staff recommends that we come into compliance with the law. He said that there are different options to come into compliance with this resolution representing one of these options and it is the Executive committee that will decide which to come into compliance with the least amount of burden to the local communities. Mayor Hutto said that if you have any questions, send to Executive Committee. Mr. Degges said that TDOT isn t trying to strong arm the MPO into a certain option. Mayor Ken Moore asked if there is any action we can take today that will indicate to the Legislature that we are working toward compliance.

10 Mayor Hutto said that discussing it today and setting a meeting for the Executive Committee for discussion with passage at the next meeting. Mayor Anderson said maybe there should be a motion deferring until April will send message that we be voting on it in April. Vice Mayor Briley said that the Bylaws that by having it on the agenda for today s meeting we have done the only thing that our Bylaws allow us to do and what is absolutely required for us to do to take action. Mr. Gerald Herman asked if there is a certain timeline from TDOT for cutting off funds. Mr. Degges said no, but there is a piece of legislation that would direct the funding to be withheld. TDOT doesn t want that legislation to pass and that there is an urgency to keep it from passing. He said that if there is an issue about how the MPOs vote, this would be best done outside the halls of the General Assembly. The current MPO Prospectus and Organizational Bylaws is available at: Other Business Mr. Skipper said that it has been wonderful working with Mayor Wilber over the past 2 years. He set the tone for the future in dealing with difficult issues. All further business was deferred to next meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 10:23 a.m. Date: The Honorable Randall Hutto Chairman, MPO Executive Board Michael Skipper, AICP Executive Director and Secretary

11 MINUTES Of the EXECUTIVE BOARD of the Nashville Area Metropolitan Planning Organization April 13, 2016 Attendees: Mayor Rogers Anderson, Ms. Kim Ark (for Executive Anthony Holt), Mayor Howard Bradley, Vice Mayor David Briley, Mayor Paige Brown, Mayor Ernest Burgess, Ms. Jill Burgin (for Mayor Regina Smithson), Mayor Patti Carroll, Mayor John Coombs, Mayor Philip Craighead, Mayor Bonnette Dawson, Mr. Paul Degges, Mayor Dean Dickey, Mayor Rick Graham, Mr. Gerald Herman (for Mayor Michael Arnold), Mr. Eddie Hood, Mayor Randall Hutto, Mr. Jim Kerr (for Mayor Shane McFarland), Ms. Pam Kordenbrock, Mayor Timothy Lassiter, Mr. Ken Martin (for Mayor Ed Hagerty), Mayor Ken Moore, Mayor Charlie Norman, Mr. Toks Omishakin (for Gov. Bill Haslam), Mr. Jeff Peach (for Mayor Mary Esther Reed), Mr. Doug Sloan (for Mayor Megan Barry), Mr. Matt Von Lunen, Mayor Ken Wilber Call to Order Mayor Randall Hutto, Chair, called the meeting to order at 9:04 a.m. He said that the issue for today s meeting requires a good deal of discernment. He wanted to commend this group for always working together to present a united front on issues. Mr. Michael Skipper, MPO director, said that the purpose of this meeting is to agree to a pathway to come into compliance State law TCA that requires MPOs operating wholly within the state, not containing less than three counties to include representation from the county highway officials and to ensure that each local government s vote is equally weighted and not based on the population of the area they represent regarding the weighted voting issue. Current Bylaws and Existing Voting Structure Mr. Skipper said that under the current Bylaws structure the Executive Board has 33 members with 31 having voting privileges. It consists of each county and each city over 5,000 in population. Any city with less than 5,000 in population is represented by the County mayors. It also has representatives from the Greater Nashville Regional Council (GNRC), a public transit member (MTA/RTA), a county highway representative and the Governor (who is represented by TDOT). He said that under normal conditions each member s vote is weighted equally. Most of the votes that the MPO takes are unanimous. The staff works really hard to negotiate to consensus. The Bylaws do provide the opportunity for any member to call for an item of critical issue (which then establishes that the number of votes for each member be based on their community s share of the region s population) on matters pertaining to the Regional Transportation Plan, the Transportation

12 Improvement Program, and the Organizational Bylaws. If enacted, the item is deferred for 30 days. Then when the vote is taken each local government s vote would be based on the proportion of the population of the region that is represented. The GNRC, public transit, and county highway votes remain at a weight of one each. Any action being voted on through weighted voting must pass by 2/3 majority which essentially means that weighted voting doesn t allow any one jurisdiction to push forward a project on anyone else. He said that the largest weighted vote on this Board is Metro Nashville which has a 42% total weight which is far short of the 66% needed to pass a measure. It is there because of the board composition which has expanded beyond the Federal requirement area to include rural areas and other small urban areas. This board has chosen instead of structuring the board based on population to allow each jurisdiction a single seat at the table. This maintains the size of the Board to a manageable level. But to ensure representational equity, weighted voting is provided as an option. Not unlike other MPOs across the state and country. The bottom line is that MPOs generally have representational equity for their members through 1) weighted voting or 2) more seats for larger jurisdictions and small towns rotate representation or are represented by county mayors. He said that weighted voting is a convenient way everyone to have a seat without having large numbers of representatives from one jurisdiction. The current MPO Prospectus and Organizational Bylaws is available at: Review of Alternative Voting Structures Mr. Skipper said that the Executive Committee met to discuss alternatives Board structures that we could implement in lieu of weighted voting to ensure representational equity. All of this is in response to TCA which states that The number of votes for any local government official shall be equally weighted and shall not be based on the population of the area represented by each official. This requirement applies to MPOs located wholly within the state, not containing less than three counties. The Nashville Area MPO is the only one out of the 11 MPOs in Tennessee affected. The history of how this MPO has responded since July 2015 is: August 19, 2015 the Board met and an amendment to add highway representative to the Board was presented. There was discussion on whether or not we were in compliance with the law since we have not used weighted voting so this Board decided to defer the weighted voting issue to the Executive Committee. September 14, 2015 the Executive Committee met and decided to defer voting on the structure until the new mayors took their seats and came up to speed on the issue and structure of the MPO September 16, 2015 adopted amendment to add the county highway representative October 2015 there was no Executive Board meeting November 18, 2015 there was no discussion at this meeting because of the deferral to allow the new mayors to be brought up to speed

13 December 2015 was the annual meeting January 20, 2016 meeting cancelled due to weather February 17, 2016 discussed legislation that would defund the MPOs that aren t in compliance with state law March 16, 2016 presented draft resolution which brings us into compliance April 6, 2016 the Executive Committee met to discuss options April 13, 2016 recommendation of the Committee presented and entertain other ideas to come into compliance Mr. Skipper said that the Board has been working to address this issue since the bill was passed in July 2015 and haven t, as has been implied by some, that we are ignoring it. Mr. Skipper briefly went over the board composition of the other 10 MPOs in the State as well as those of peer MPOs. Though Chattanooga, Lakeway, and Memphis also have weighted voting in their Bylaws, the Nashville MPO is the only MPO that would be required to remove it. Mr. Skipper said that 32% of the largest MPOs in the nation have weighted voting. Mr. Doug Sloan asked Ms. Kordenbrock how removing the weighted voting from the Bylaws not be a significant change. Ms. Kordenbrock said that since weighted voting has never been used, it is not a significant change. She said that it was her understanding that weighted voting was never intended to be used since doing so would put the MPO in conflict with the state law. Mr. Sloan asked where in the federal code the re designation is. Mr. Skipper said it is found at 23CFR Mr. Paul Degges said that this issue has already been put to bed since FHWA has decided that this is not a significant change. He understands the frustration. He said that the bill was not perceived as an issue until it was passed. Vice Mayor David Briley asked if Davidson County uses weighted voting to determine whether or not we are going to change the Bylaws would this change FHWA s opinion as to the significance of the change. Ms. Kordenbrock said no. Mr. Degges said that, as point of order, weighted voting can t be used at this meeting because the Nashville MPO s Bylaws specifically state that we follow Roberts Rules of Order Article VIII states that Bylaws conflicting with state law and any vote that violates a state law is null even if unanimous. He said that as a practical matter, the MPO must ensure weighted voting is never used. He said that this body should develop a stronger relationship with the Tennessee General Assembly. He said that it would be an overstatement to say that we are in compliance with state law but the position as he sees it in the MPO Bylaws is that it would be a violation of our Bylaws to invoke a critical issue that has weighted voting. Mr. Sloan asked if he was saying we are already in compliance with the state law. Mr. Degges said the state law requires that we have to ensure that weighted voting is not used. He said that the issue is that we need to find a way to build a stronger relationship with the General Assembly because there could be other issues that might threaten federal funds to this MPO and this region. He said that the perception in the Legislature, right or wrong, is that we are saying that the General Assembly doesn t matter and this MPO is not heeding state law. Mr. Sloan said Legislature addressed this issue yesterday and the sponsor was surprised to find out from FHWA that this would not comply with federal regulations. The sponsor said that he didn t know this

14 even though Mr. Degges said that his staff was made aware of it over a month ago. Mr. Degges said that this bill is on the calendar this afternoon in the finance committee. Mr. Sloan said that during the committee meeting the tenor (right word?) at the state had changed once the Legislators realized what the implications of this bill really meant. The sponsor said that he had no idea of the implication of this bill. With that information, the bill was rolled both in the House and the Senate. Mr. Sloan said he doesn t see how we can say both that we can t use weighted voting right now that our rules, as they stand today, prevent us from using weighted voting and then tell us that we have to change our rules so we can t use weighted voting. It s one or the other. Mr. Degges said that there are two issues at play here: 1) MPO rules don t allow weighted voting to take place at this time, and 2) General Assembly passed law last year and doesn t believe MPO is in compliance. He said that there are two separate issues 1) what can this body do and 2) if we do not change bylaws will the General Assembly pass legislation to impact the flow of federal funds to Tennessee. Mr. Skipper said that the General Assembly believes that we use weighted voting and that we used weighted voting on our decisions regarding the Amp and that the General Assembly believes that we have not taken it upon ourselves to address this issue. He said that since this has not been passed into law, what are our (and TDOT s) opportunities to communicate this to the Legislature through the committee process while this is being discussed. Mr. Skipper said that there are two situations 1) educating the Legislature on the implications of last year s law and 2) the realities and truth about this year s bill. Regardless of what this body does, it is important that this education happens in order to have a better relationship with them moving forward. Mr. Skipper said that it is the Board s responsibility to become compliant. Mr. Degges said we need to educate our legislators and have them be our cheerleaders. Mr. Skipper said that we should educate them prior to them passing legislation instead of afterwards. Mr. Degges said that they are in a hurry to wrap up this session. He said that his perception is that this Executive Board is saying we don t have to comply. Mayor Hutto asked what keeps the Board from passing something here stating that states we are working to be compliant. Then have resolution that states we are moving forward to have negotiations with the MPO, Nashville, the smaller cities, the Legislature and come up with a solution so that if we ever use the critical issue voting, we ll have it. We must get in line with the law and work forward. Mr. Skipper said that the Board needs representational equity and we achieve this through the critical issue provision of the Bylaws. He said that no one is trying to get around the law. No one is advocating for the protection of weighted voting except that it be an option for us to have the representational equity. There are other options that would bring us into compliance with state law that don t require weighted voting and those are the options that the Executive committee discussed. Mr. Skipper presented a brief summary of the following voting structure alternatives: a) Alt 1: Same size board, required agreement on suballocated funding b) Alt 2: Same size board, voting membership based on a strict population basis c) Alt 3: Expanded board, one seat per current member, additional seats based on population d) Alt 4: Hybrid board, one seat per member, plus an extra seat per 100K population e) Alt 5: Same size board, redefine process for votes on items of Critical Issue

15 He said that during the Executive Committee Alternative 5 emerged which is a clean removal of the weighted voting option so that every member have an equally weighted vote and redefine the critical issue vote process to mirror federal regulations on re designation which any action has to have the support of the Governor, communities representing 75% of population, including the largest city. He said that this is consistent with Federal Law. He said that MPOs exist to give the local communities particularly the urban core a voice in the federal transportation process. And by removing weighted voting and not having representational equity, I do not believe we are achieving the fundamental mission of the MPO. Mr. Toks Omishakin said that it seems like there would be a conflict between the item #1 in TN Annotated Code and Alternative 5 which doesn t seem to comply. Mr. Skipper said that every member s vote would be equally weighted, but it is the threshold for which the action passes would requires that part. Mr. Skipper said that had we gone through a re designation that formula would have to prevail because it is federal law. Mr. Skipper said that Rep. McNally has the resolution and we have not received any direct feedback yet. Mayor Hutto said that until we send them a resolution that would remove weighted voting it might be perceived as a slap in the face because the legislators really don t understand the process. Mayor Rogers Anderson moved to come into compliance with the state law to do away with weighted voting. Mayor Rick Graham seconded. Mayor Anderson said that he appreciates what has been said but it is too risky of losing money for Middle Tennessee. He said that he understands the comments made. He said that he doesn t think it is possible to negate or negotiate with the Legislators until we are in compliance with the law as it stands. Mr. Degges said that Mr. Skipper has put together a draft resolution that he, working with TDOT general counsel, to make it a pure elimination of weighted voting. He said that he has a red lined version. Mayor Anderson, as a point of order, asked Mr. Degges to read the revised version. Mr. Degges said that the in the Resolution , under the 5 th Whereas it should read on the second line the 2015 regular session not And then under Now, therefore, be it resolved, the language would be stricken a under 1) after removing the population proportionate voting option and. The language and 2) the Prospectus be updated to reflect amendments to the Bylaws and to describe any changes in process as a result Would remain the same. Mr. Skipper said that technically we don t need a resolution. We need someone to propose an amendment to the Bylaws. Vice Mayor Briley said that his opinion is that state law that was passed is pre empted by federal law and it probably violates Title VI. And with all due respect to the FHWA Administrator, she is not the ultimate arbiter of whether or not that is correct. It doesn t make sense to have this issue resolved anywhere other than with the Board but it will be if Nashville is not allowed to use weighted voting and this MPO lost representation equity. He said that he is saying this that he is not the only one here that

16 would be denied representation of their jurisdiction on this Board. He would like someone else to make this determination at some point. Mayor Hutto said that this involves the integrity of the Board. This Board has always worked together finding resolutions that will satisfy the law. Mayor Howard Bradley said that many of us have our heads in one place, hearts in another. He said that proportional representation is fundamental to what we are as a Republic. He said that we shouldn t put resources in jeopardy by being in conflict with the General Assembly. He urged the members to support Mayor Anderson s motion. Let s agree as a body to come together to work out compromise in the long run. Mayor Burgess asked doesn t the resolution as drafted point to Alternative #1 as the outcome? Mr. Skipper said it is similar to Alternative #1 but #1 in the meeting packet offers protection to suballogated funds in the region which Mr. Degges resolution does not. Mayor Burgess said that even Alternative #5 points the Board to the membership make up that is listed under Alternative #1. Mayor Hutto said the Resolution clears us up with the law and leaves us like we are today. Mr. Skipper said that Mr. Degges resolution would be current Bylaws deleting the 3 rd column on the Options Spreadsheet from the meeting packet. The only difference between Mr. Degges resolution and Alternate #1 is that Alternative #1 offered protection to suballocated funding. Mayor Burgess said that it is still the same membership as under the current Bylaws. Mr. Skipper said yes. Mayor Paige Brown said the most prudent thing the Board can do is to pass the resolution first then go to the Legislative committee and ask which alternative would be best to get proportional representation that would meet the committee s criteria. Mayor Anderson moved to adopt the resolution as per Mr. Degges red line of Resolution Mayor Graham seconded. Mr. Gerald Herman said that this resolution would effectively remove G, H, and I under Article 2 of the current Bylaws. Mr. Skipper said that there are proposed revisions to the Bylaws in the Resolution that would have to be acknowledged here that we would be doing with an amendment. We need to agree on how the proposed amendment looks like, with or without a resolution. Mr. Skipper said that the significance of no weighted voting is not inconsequential and would be changing the Board structure. We have elected to give everyone a seat at the table because of weighted voting and now we are taking away weighted voting without any further modifications. Mr. Sloan asked if the feds reduced interpretation during this meeting regarding that this is not a significant change in the voting structure. Ms. Kordenbrock said that she has provided an to Mr. Skipper and TDOT stating that this is not a substantial change. Mr. Sloan asked for a copy of the . Mr. Sloan said he liked the idea of giving the state legislators the list of alternatives and asking which

17 complies. This will show them that we are trying to come into compliance. And to let them know that we have never used the weighted voting because we always discussed issues and come to a good resolution. Mr. Degges suggested that it would be a stronger position to have the legislators representing this area to carry the message and get them to carry this message to the committee. Mr. Sloan said that representatives from this area are very supportive of us and the success that we ve had in this region. Mr. Sloan said that he hates that this wedge has been introduced and what if we took the alternatives and insert the opportunity giving the urban center has a veto power on critical power. This would protect the largest urban core s population. Vice Mayor Briley said just to clarify that we are not actually voting on this amendment today, we are making a decision to vote on it at the next meeting. Mr. Skipper said yes. Mayor Burgess said that aren t we making a recommendation that this is what we are going to vote on next time. Mr. Skipper said yes. Mayor Burgess said that he believes one man, one vote is a critical foundation that this country was founded on and am concerned that we are changing this right and privilege and the legislators would have a fit if we tried to do that to them. They make us every time the census changes we have to allocate our county commissioners to within 5% of the population. He said that what we are doing here goes against the one man one vote representation. At least Alternatives 3&4 moves us in that direction. He said he could not vote to approve the motion just on the matter of principle. Mayor Wilber said that he is torn on this and after hearing FHWA but we are faced with a state law to do this. We need to make sure that there will be dialogue in the future to work out this issue of equal representation. Mayor Anderson said if the message leaves here that the intent of the red line copy is to buy another 30 days to tweak it one more time, then the Legislature will invoke what they have over there. He asked everyone to vote with intent of resolution then work through the process to get these issues resolved. I agree that we need to work through the process but the intent of my motion is that we are going to come into compliance with the law and we want to work through the process with no strings, hooks, or nothing but to demonstrate to the Legislators our willingness to comply. He said that he believes they have the power and the votes. Mr. Degges said that it seems to him that this particular motion is an amendment to what was proposed at the last meeting. If that is the case, hasn t the 30 day requirement been satisfied. Mr. Skipper said that there was no motion made last month. It was just decided to reconvene the Executive Committee to discuss the issue. The Bylaws state in Article 9 Section C that These Bylaws may be amended by an affirmative vote of a quorum of the Executive Board (unless critical issue has been called). A Bylaws change shall be presented for consideration at any board meeting with adoption being deferred until a subsequent meeting. Mr. Skipper said that his view is that until an amendment has been present we haven t begun that process.

18 Mr. Degges said that we could propose a motion to suspend the Bylaws to vote in same meeting. Mr. Skipper said that the Bylaws specify how to amend the Bylaws. Mr. Degges said that the Bylaws also provide a provision to deviate from the rules as well as long as it is not a critical issue. Mr. Sloan said that Metro is calling for a critical issue. Mr. Degges said as a point of order that a critical issue vote violates the Bylaws of the Nashville Area MPO. Mr. Sloan said it is the process of how you vote on a critical issue that violates the state law and therefore Roberts Rules of Order. It is the process, not the call for a critical vote which allows any member to do it and not in violation to any law. Mayor Hutto said that Mayor Anderson s motion to accept red lined resolution MPO Resolution Mayor Burgess said point of order he didn t believe that we voted on the first motion. Mayor Hutto said that when Mr. Degges read the red lined version, Mayor Anderson accepted the revision and it was seconded by Mayor Graham. Mayor Hutto said that this Board has to stay together and not allow the wedge to divide us. He said that we have the intent they asked for. Mr. Sloan moved to amend the resolution to add the city representative of urban core have veto power over critical issues. Vice Mayor Briley seconded. Mayor Anderson said that what this group is going through is unusual. He asked that the amendment from Mr. Sloan be reconsidered. It sends a strong message. He gave his word that if continues on this Board he will work with the legislators, but that this amendment will cause problems and will infuriate the Legislature. Mayor Patti Carroll said that we all always try to do the right thing. We need to show the legislature that we are complying with the law then work through the process. This is a regional board and we have always acted that way. Vice Mayor Briley said that he couldn t vote to lose his vote. This law punishes the largest group of population in the region. The motion amending the red lined Resolution as moved by Mr. Sloan was defeated with all voting no except Mr. Sloan and Vice Mayor Briley. The motion to move the red line version of the Resolution forward for a final vote next meeting was passed with Mayor Burgess, Vice Mayor Briley, and Mr. Sloan voting no. Mayor Hutto encouraged the MPO staff to pull in legislators from this area as soon as possible to discuss. What this MPO really wants is to take care of each of the jurisdictions, large or small. Mr. Degges said that Commission Schroer wants to send a letter about the actions of today to the Legislature. He said that the current bill needs to go away to give us time to educate the legislators

19 Mr. Skipper agreed with communicating to the legislators and said that each member needs to take ownership of this issue. Mr. Sloan agreed. Mayor Carroll liked the idea of bringing legislators in and showing that we are working hard to comply and to have options so we don t lose any funding. With no other business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:30 a.m. Date: The Honorable Randall Hutto Chairman, MPO Executive Board Michael Skipper, AICP Executive Director and Secretary

20 Agenda Item 4. Proposed Amendments to FYs TIP

21 FY TIP Amendment June 2016 TIP Amendment # TIP #: RTP ID: 1367A/9961 Project: West 6 th Streetscape from N Garden St (SR-7/US-31) to N Main St Requested By: City of Columbia Phase: CONSTRUCTION Fiscal Year(s): 2016 Proposed Changes: Add Project Total Project Cost: $454,100 TO: $454,100 FY Type of Work Funding Total Federal State Local 2016 CONST L-STP 454, , ,820 Total 454, , ,820 Description: Improvements along West 6 th Street from North Garden Street to North Main Street consisting of street trees, landscape islands, sitting areas, stamped concrete or paver brick sidewalks, locations for public art sculptures, screening walls to obscure utility vaults and transformers, and on-street parking reconfiguration. Background: This amendment proposes to add the project to the FYs TIP with $363,280 (federal) in L-STP funds in FY This project was designed in 2011 and is one of five projects being constructed in Columbia using L-STP funds allocated to the City from TDOT s Small Cities Allocation program.

22 FY TIP Amendment June 2016 TIP Amendment # TIP #: RTP ID: 1367B Project: West 7 th Streetscape from N Garden Street (SR-7/US-31) to N Main Street Requested By: City of Columbia Phase: PE-D; ROW; CONSTRUCTION Fiscal Year(s): 2016, 2017 Proposed Changes: Add Project Total Project Cost: $1,961,252 TO: $1,961,252 FY Type of Work Funding Total Federal State Local 2016 PE-D, ROW Local 200, , CONST TAP 1,198, , , CONST HPP 562, , ,488 Total 1,961,252 1,409, ,251 Description: Construction a 10-foot wide multi-modal facility on the north side of West 7th Street and dedicated bike lanes and a 5-foot sidewalk on the south side from Beckett Street to High Street. Project also includes ADA upgrades, crosswalk signalization, utility relocation, landscaping, road diet, pedestrian amenities and pedestrian lighting. Background: This amendment proposes to add the project to the FYs TIP with $1,409,001 (federal) in TAP and HPP funds in FY The City of Columbia was awarded Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) funding from TDOT for this project in 2014 and In early 2016, the City added High Priority Projects (HPP) funding, also provided by TDOT. This project will begin where the 2009 TDOT Garden Street Project left off and continue west to Beckett Street, extending the multi-modal reach of downtown and creating a safer environment for pedestrians and motorists.