City of Columbia, Missouri

Meeting Minutes

Columbia Area Transportation Study Organization (CATSO)

Council Chamber

Thursday, December 5, 2024

2:30 PM

Regular Coordinating Committee Meeting

City Hall

701 E. Broadway

Columbia, Missouri

I. CALL TO ORDER

MR. SEEWOOD: Call the Columbia Area Transportation Study Organization meeting to

order.

II. INTRODUCTIONS

MR. SEEWOOD: Do you want to do introductions? Start at that end.

MR. DEVEREUX: Andrew Devereux, Boone County Planning. I'm here for Justin

Aldred.

MR. MCCANN: Jeff McCann, Boone County Engineering Division.

MR. CREECH: Shane Creech. I'm the Public Works Director for the City of

Columbia.

MS. BUFFALOE: Barbara Buffaloe, Mayor of the City of Columbia.

MR. SEEWOOD: De'Carlon Seewood, City Manager and Chair of the CATSO Board.

MR. TEDDY: Tim Teddy, Community Development Director of City of Columbia.

MR. HENDERSON: Mike Henderson, MODOT, Central Office Transportation

Planning.

MS. WATKINS: Machelle Watkins, District Engineer with MODOT Central District.

III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

MR. SEEWOOD: All right. Let's do approval of minutes. Has everyone had a

chance to look at the minutes?

MS. BUFFALOE: Approval of agenda.

MR. SEEWOOD: Oh, I'm sorry. Approval of agenda.

MS. BUFFALOE: So moved.

MR. TEDDY: Second.

MR. SEEWOOD: All right. All in favor? (Unanimous voice vote for approval.)

IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Attachments: CATSO minutes, 8-22-24.doc

MR. HENDERSON: Move to approve as submitted.

MR. SEEWOOD: And a second?

MR. MCCANN: I'll second.

MR. SEEWOOD: Any questions? All in favor? (Unanimous voice vote for

approval.)

V. PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED CATSO 2055 METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION

PLAN (MTP)

Attachments: CATSO 2055 MTP Update_DRAFT W APPENDICES.pdf

Item 5 PH-CATSO 2055 MTP Staff Memo.docx

MR. SEEWOOD: Next up is a public hearing for proposed CATSO 2025 Metropolitan

Transportation Plan. Can we have a staff report?

MR. SKOV: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to turn it over to Shawn Leight and Mike

Albin from CBB, the consultants who prepared the plan for us. They have their own

PowerPoint, so I'll just switch over to that, and let them take it from here.

MR. ALBIN: Thank you. We're going to take a couple of minutes here to walk

through the presentation and happy to take any questions, any additional comments that

you might have. What we're going to go through in the presentation is since we can't

date the draft plan to this committee, there's been some comments, so we'll kind of talk

through changes that we've been working on as -- since you’ve had it. Those are

reflected in the presentation, and we would be in a -- the next version of the draft that

comes out of it. Just kind of talk through the process that we went through in preparing

the plan, through some of the major activities, the engagement, the analysis, and then I'll

walk you through the goals, recommendations, and kind of the financial statements that

we have.

MR. LEIGHT: So since we've given it over to you for review, we've made a few

changes to it since then, so there was an update to go from agency staff -- I'm sorry --

agency safety plan targets to the ones that are most recently approved. Most of the

projects were double counted, and a few were eliminated in that, which reduces project

costs within that table to -- this table is later in the presentation, so I'll go over that a little

bit more thoroughly later, but reduce the project costs down from $456 million to $372

million. The total column of the other table -- there's not any appropriately, so we

changed that accuracy, and then there's a -- a new table regarding Columbia projects

long term, and how they reflect a mission statement.

MR. ALBIN: So we just wanted to kind of point those out, so if you've given us

comments, we've addressed them. And then some of the tables, especially the financial

tables that you see today might look a little different from what was in the plan.

MS. BUFFALOE: Can I -- can I interrupt, just ask a quick question. This is the first

time you’ve come before the coordinating committee; correct? Or did --

MR. LEIGHT: Yes.

MS. BUFFALOE: So, yeah. Some of us had not seen it until it came out on this

one, just wanted to clarify.

MR. LEIGHT: So some of the just major milestones or some of the major topics that

we did go in through this, and we'll talk about these in detail as we go. We had a very

thorough engagement process we'll talk through, a lot of data analysis, a lot of

coordination with existing plans to make sure that it was flushed out, and then that

resulted in the financial planning, you'll see the recommendations. And then the last two

pieces, we are preparing a citizen's guide. This is a very -- it's a long document, there's a

lot in there, so we'll be preparing that 20-page or so easily digestible for the public so

they can get a better handle on what that looks like. But we wanted to get the plan

approved first. And then, of course, working through the review, we'll talk with you today,

and then in January we anticipate meeting with City Council and the County -- Boone

County Commission to get their approval as well. So engagement, we talked to a

number of groups. This is kind of a listing of all the groups that we talked to. What we

heard that one of the criticisms of the previous plan was it was -- it was maybe not the

level of engagement the community was looking for. But this shows that the activities

that we did, so we were -- we we’ve been on the Be Heard website of the whole process.

We had three rounds of stakeholder meetings. The first round of stakeholder meetings

were, like, 31 different groups, and those were, for the most part, individually. We

reserved -- we were here -- we were here for weeks, kind of reserved an hour spot for folks

and let people come in and talk to us. We did two surveys, got a lot of responses for the

first one, but, you know, 327, and then we had two public meetings. So overall, I think

people had a real opportunity to provide their input and we listened to that, and you'll see

that incorporated in the -- in the documentation. Some of the things we heard from

engagement on a bike ped standpoint, a lot of concern about things like sidewalk gaps.

You know, the City has taken a very proactive stance on getting bike facilities put it, but,

you know, it's not a complete active system yet, so it's really, you know, filling those

gaps into those systems so they get a usable system. And the great example of that is

Discovery Parkway has got a great multi-use path that runs along it, but how you get

from Discovery Parkway into downtown, and what are those connections. So those are

the things that need to be really put into place as the -- as you continue to build up the

system. From a transit standpoint, a lot of people expressed appreciation for the free

fares, but there was a lot of discussion about just the service, the service times when

routes were -- had to wait for the buses, those types of things that makes that system

hard for some people to use, hours of operation, that need to use it for work and those

types of things. When we look at parts of roads, I would say, overall, the City has, you

know, manages traffic pretty well. There are some specific areas that were brought up,

things that were talked about for improvements, and we'll get into some of these later, is,

you know, looking at downtown parking availability and the convenience of that, I would

say electrical vehicle charging stations, how does that work, and, you know, just building

that -- the rest of that system on a steep hill. In this we talked about coordinating with

additional plans. In some of these, we stated development that might be done. I think

the GoCOMO is maybe there. Boone County is in development as we're going the -- the

Boone plan was a development as we were going through. There's a lot of other plans

that are out there that we were coordinating with as they were developing, and others we

made sure that we incorporated those into our -- our work, like the sidewalk master plan.

With that, I'm going to hand it over to Mike to go through some of the analysis that we

went through.

MR. ALBIN: Yeah. So I give you an idea of how we're projecting things to -- to go by

in 2055. This is looking at the population here, so as of 2022, our population is about just

under 150,000 within the what we call the planning region. And by 2055, that's projected

to grow to about 245,022 people, depending on increase of about three thousand people

per year, and a growth rate of 1.5 percent. This shows where we are assuming the

number of and the share of different jobs within the region, what's that going to look like

by 2055. So I'm not going to go through, you know, every per job like right here, but we're

showing that overall in Boone County, about 96,000 people to be employed within the

MPA. That's going to be 94 percent of that, that in Boone County, totals about 91,297, a

jobs ratio of about .5 jobs per person, and there will be many influences on employment

including their influx and labor fairness. We're looking at and particularly in employment

growth of about 1.3 percent annually, a total of 108,310 jobs in 2055 for Boone County. It

amounts to about 142,000 within the MPA, and then the MPA increase would be about

51,182 jobs. So to accommodate these new residents and these new jobs means new

areas for development, and so land needs has come over the back here, we projected out

15,905 acres -- new acres that are needed for residential growth. As you can see in the

box there, it's probably a little bit harder to see from further back with a giant orange

rectangle there. That's -- that's wherever the amount of residential as compared to the

other uses which are commercial in red, office in blue, and industrial in purple. The

commercial, about 1,276 acres of land, office 590, and industrial 437. And you ask what

that means for commuting; this is just for 2022, the most recent numbers available. So

the majority of commuters in the Columbia region drives to work alone, 74.8 percent of

commuters travel alone, as compared to the -- it's a little small, but the blue line is

Columbia on the graph to the left, the orange line is a U.S. average. So compared to the

U.S., Columbia commuters about 75 percent drive alone, 69 percent across the U.S.

drive alone. There are fewer people who work from home in Columbia as compared to the

U.S. That's 10.4 percent in Columbia as compared to 15.2 percent across the United

States. Most of the other ones are pretty comparable in carpooling, public trans use,

bicycling, walking, or, you know, taxi or motorcycle, other pretty -- pretty similar to the

U.S. average. But if you look to the right there, the top right chart is showing percentage

of commuters without a vehicle available. And in 2022, that number was 1.9 percent in

the Columbia MPA compared to the U.S. average of 4.4 percent. And then time for travel

to work, the graph on the bottom right, that goes up and down, up and down, in the

Columbia region, it takes in 2022 an average of 17.8 minutes for people to travel to work

as compared to the U.S., which is -- it's on average about 26.4 minutes, so a few minutes

less here in Columbia. We also get safety in this -- this graph kind of tries to show our

entire City analysis in one little knot for the purpose of this visitation, but, essentially, the

green lines are -- well, all the one -- all the colored parts are where crashes have occurred

in the region. Green is a low level of density. Red kind of gets into a higher level of

density, so you can kind of see there's -- there's quite a number around the University of

Missouri campus. The three large red triangle around U.S. 63 and I-70 there, as well.

Most of them occur along major thoroughfares within the community. And so the plan

also addresses diversion technologies, so I won't go too into detail here, but we include

information about how the community address implementing electric transit vehicles, how

a future of electric cars will look in the community. You can look where charging stations

can go and -- and making sure to get the charging of those, et cetera. Similar to e-bikes

and e-scooters, you know, charging stations and then also how that would be

accommodated on different types of infrastructure, as well as autonomous vehicles, you

know. Some cities around the country are already implementing those, at least as far as

any of them as a taxi service, that kind of look like -- what that could look like in

Columbia. Current impacts on sustainability, so we found that there's a couple

challenges, you know, the dominance of motor vehicles in the community, and

departmental impacts such as air pollution, run-off, noise and a loss of green space are

some areas where we see that there's some challenges that would sort of be hard on the

environment as we go, so angles looked at, reducing personal vehicle use, promoting

walking, biking and transit, and then improving air quality, air emissions, even congestion

and that sort of thing, and that's reflected in the various angles that we have. There's

eight goals, a number of objectives for each goal. I'll get into those a little bit later. And

so the benefits of that would be, you know, cleaner air, less noise pollution, nicer streets,

and healthier citizens, as well. We also looked at sustainability of land use and

resiliency, so sustainable transportation kind of those things like sidewalks, trails and

bike lane reinvestments and fixing uncomplete streets. And with unmotorized options

and so how that would look like here in the Columbia region, carrying out with planning

strategies, so looking at how use and combat growth can coordinate with those

sustainable transportation efforts and creating a more multi-mobile and multi-use

community. Also get climate resiliency and climate adaptation, so how we can align with

the CAA emissions in some ways and then also looking more towards, you know,

redundancy, multi modals and then landscape buffers and infrastructure. So, you know,

say there's plenty of rock along Perche Creek, and there's an emergency on the west

side of that creek. If I-70 goes down and I think there's one other bridge that goes over

there currently, you know, how do we kind of provide for ensure -- ensure that emergency

services and such get over, so that would be the metropolitan area, as well. And, of

course, departmental resources, so protecting streams, wetlands, historic sites, envision

flood plans and what gives. Envision flood plans, and then soil impacts during

construction. So, and this kind of looks like -- this side looks at performance based

planning and national goals, as established by the federal agencies that oversee this

plan, and then, in some respects, so the interest of the IA establishing several

performance based -- performance measured goals. And so on PM 1, PM 2, and PM 3;

PM 1 looks at highway safety, PM 2 at pavement and bridge condition, and PM 3 as

safety -- or I’m sorry, system performance. And so there’s discussion plans of how the

region currently meets these and will continue to do so. We're doing pretty well. And

then for trans-performance, the FTA measures the NPO for open the transit - asset

management and transit safety, and doing pretty well with those, as well. So like I said,

go through some of the angles or the angles that we have, and so they're pretty wordy. I

have highlighted in yellow kind of the name, focus of each goal year. Like I said, there's

eight of them. Number 1, on the developing first-class conservation network in the

community. Number 2, I've integrated and connected system for all travel modes.

Number 3, ensure that public transportation is a viable option. Number 4, show the

coordinating. Coordinating with different governmental entities and -- and stakeholders

and that sort. And Number 5 is promoting compacts and infill development, and

redevelopment under other invested areas. Number 6 is to make sure that we're aligning

different plans, different land planning and infrastructure development. Seven, providing

state and secure transportation. And Number 8 is reducing motor vehicle pollution and

emissions. And so into the recommendations here in a little bit. So back over to Shawn

to go over those.

MR. LEIGHT: Yeah. So the first recommendation really incorporates the major

roadway plan. This plan is updated throughout by CATSO as you know, so without going

into a lot with that, it's an incorporation of that main roadway plan in the TIP was. We did

something a little different with the bike and pedestrian network plan in taking various

plans and just trying to combine those onto one map. So this take -- it says Park and

Recreation Master Plan, and then overlays additional existing facilities that you have and

additional plans that are -- that are out there right now. And then as we went through, we

came up with some, I guess, ideas for future studies that CATSO may want to undertake

to address some of the needs that we heard when we gave them. First, is we’ll call, the

West Side Transportation Study, there has been a northeast study that Boone County

did. There was an east study, and those just looked at what are the needs for the

roadway network in those areas. The concern is that there's development projects

pushing towards the west. Right now, the development stops at Perche Creek. If the

development jumps that creek, and you're going to get a roadway system on the other

side of the creek, one, to accommodate that growth and, two, you're going to have to

have a way to get across the creek. Mike was talking about resilience. Right now,

there's -- I think it Gillespie Road that floods, and there’s I-70, and that's really the only

two ways to get across that creek. So for one, you're going to have people be able to get

back and forth and, two, you know, given an emergency response situation, you're going

to need to be able to have access across there. Completely understanding that, that's an

expensive project. It's an impactful project that's a very wide flood plain. But those types

of things really need to be looked at and looked at in a serious way to make sure that

you know what that roadway expansion plan looks like if -- if that development is to occur

on -- on the other side of the creek there. The second one is looking at regional

way-finding plan. St. Louis region did that a number of years ago, so if you're driving in

St. Louis, you'll see the signs that bring you to various areas, bring you downtown, bring

you to different campuses. This is a regional project because it involves MoDOT roads

and you trying to get people to various place -- parts of the region here, so you'll just be

looking at it. There will be some signage plan for both pedestrians and people driving in a

way that all works. I know the downtown district is looking at a signage plan for the

downtown district, but that would be expanding that. The third one is the 740 extension

study. I'm going to not remember the year that this EIS was done, but there was an

environmental impact study done to extend 740 from 63 up to 70 at St. Charles Road.

The challenge, I think there's been a lot that's changed, a lot that's happened since that

study happened. There's different opinions on how far that extension should go and how

it should connect up, and it's probably not a bad idea to revisit that and see if the findings

from the previous study is still valid, or if there's a different plan that makes sense for that.

I know there's a lot of development pressure in that area, and that plan gets brought up on

a fairly frequent basis in relation to those development plans. Another one is to really

build upon the road safety audit process. Our firm actually did the road safety out at

Paris Road. I had a lot of interesting findings from that, and there’s probably some other

quarters in the City where there's road safety audit could be of value. One of the things

that had come up in our engagement and really came up in that Paris Road is the

Regional Sidewalk Maintenance Plan. There's a lot of sidewalks in the region owned by

different entities. So there's two issues; one is just, you know, people make sure that

the pavement of the sidewalk itself is maintained. The other one that we had noticed is it

can be a challenge of maintenance of just cutting the grass and keeping the sidewalks

open. So if there's a business that's adjacent, those businesses tend to make sure the

grass is cut and the sidewalks are passable. There's some areas where maybe they're

next to vacant lots and we saw this a lot on Paris Road where in the summer, it would

almost be hard to walk on the sidewalk because they're overgrown so badly. MoDOT

does do some maintenance on there, but a couple of times a year, so how do you make

sure that the gravel is not in the ADA transition areas which makes it hard for people in

wheelchairs and bicycle -- or bicyclists, how do you make sure that the grass is cut back

and those facilities are usable. The third one, and this one actually had a lot of support

through the engagement process, is consider -- is taking a look at a regional transit

authority. So you've got GoCOMO, which does a great job in the City. There's

Greyhound that runs through town. And I understand MoDOT’s looking at a study that

would put a bus service, say, between Jeff City and Columbia that would allow for people

in Columbia to get down and use the Amtrack. So what does this look like long-term?

What does the transit system look like long-term in Columbia? This isn't a let's get this

fixed now, but what are some ways you can either expand on the system that you have

or better coordinate them. In our engagement, I don't know how many, there were at

least a dozen different entities providing transportation services to people around just the

Columbia region for various reasons -- to get to work, to -- you know, for vibrance or, you

know, all kinds of different uses, and is there a better way to coordinate some of those

things? With that, there is a -- well, a couple of things. So it’s that -- it's hard for some

people to be able to navigate their way around the transit system, and then there's a lot of

different opportunities for transportation. So to have a one-stop shop public with mobility

app could be helpful to some people. And this isn't necessarily something that CATSO

or the City would have to create. If you provide the data about the service in certain

formats, other third-party providers can pick that data up and you can get on the Google

Transit. I don't believe right now the City is on Google Transit. We were trying to figure

out can we, through Google, through the travel apps figure out how to get from this house

to Columbia, and given -- so there's some gaps in there. So one of the things, I know,

Metro in St. Louis discovered in the process of creating their app is that if you provide

data in certain ways, other third-party providers can pick up that data and use it for the

apps that are already known. So I think just take a look at how can you get that

information out to the public in -- in ways that are more helpful. One is a regional freight

and delivery plan to make sure that we understand who the freight providers are and how

do those things get delivered. This came up in the context of downtown just in terms of

trucks and deliveries and the narrower streets, and what are the time that those trucks

are to trying to deliver, and how does that coordinate with parking. So looking at that on

a regional level would be one that could be looked at. A regional smart parking plan, this

tries to take a look at technologies. St. Charles recently installed a smart parking plan.

You can go to their app, and their app will tell you what parking is available; right? So is

there a way that you can do that on a regional level, and what I mean by that is, you can

have signs and they give us boards that are out there, message boards, and when people

are coming in for various events, is their signage on the MoDOT routes that will help guide

people that where available parking is through these apps which you could have. The last

two, one is an electric transportation charging study. Mike had mentioned this, so in the

looking forward to being more electric vehicles and a higher demand for charging stations,

the question is where do these go, are they along 70, are they more in the City, who runs

these, are these private or public? Is there electric utility capacity for these where we

want to have them? Does that electric utility capacity needs -- need to be built up. So

this is just trying to take a really holistic look at what electric charging stations look like

in the future. What's the best way to do it? The final one is a COLT Railroad study.

We've heard a lot of opinions about possible uses for the COLT Railroad, and there's a

couple of thoughts that we have. One, you know, at some point, the -- the City -- the

City-owned asset should decide what -- what is -- what are we going to do with this asset

and what direction do we go? You might look at this separate north of 70 and south of

70; right, because there's an active part of the COLT Railroad further north. There’s a

section north of 70, but, you know, through that area where we did the art estate which is

really inactive. And one of the thoughts, for example, that we had with the section to the

south, the City is building an opportunity center near 70. There's going to be a lot of folks

that they will be walking into downtown. We've see in other areas -- in other cities, that

results in a lot of pedestrian conflicts with cars, right, and potential fatalities. Well, you've

got a potential walkway for them, a safe walkway, that if that is used in that way, that's

maybe a potential path. So break -- so maybe breaking the quarter in some segments

might help you make some decisions a little bit sooner. The other thing that has come

up through the Paris Road study is the line is elevated north of 70 for a ways. That

elevation especially at Vandiver is the driver of safety issues. And when we were doing

that, we were talking for about 15 minutes about how to we raise -- Paris Road and then

divide it so we don't have to do that. We'd never think of lowering a railroad since you

can't take a railroad out of service, but it's owned by the City and it's not being used right

now. It's a good opportunity to fix those grades and resolve some of the safety issues

along Paris Road. So I think taking a look at that corridor realistically and figuring out

what you want to do would be a potentially good investment. So with that, Mike is going

to walk through some finances, and then I think that's about the end.

MR. ALBIN: Yes. So looking at financing the plans, the projects in the plan include

the (indiscernible). So there's (indiscernible). It goes out to 2055, but then the next few

years 2050 -- or sorry. Twenty-five to 2029, that is, of course, the TIP, and so that one --

that -- that component of the project versus revenues, and see a little bit more but now.

So this kind of shows 2025 to 2029. What we're looking at here is the first column,

federal funding; second column, local revenues; and then the third column, there's just

the total of the two. And so, at the top, we're looking at a couple of projects for probably

different types, so you've got your MoDOT roadways and scoping Boone County is in

there, and then Columbia streets, sidewalks, parking, as well, and then transit. And so

that total comes up $632 million in federal and local capital projects. And below that, $21

million in total maintenance. So that brings you up to $653 million in programmed

projects. And so the line below that is the amount of revenue expected, $846 million in

revenue, so the last line there, the bottom right corner, $193 million left over in additional

projects that could be funded within the 2025 to 2029 time frame. So then you're looking

out, actually in 2054, this is a summary and forecast in terms of revenues, so what this

shows is the first, you know -- the first five columns there are within the TIP that you saw

me on the last slide. The latter four columns show the expected kind of projected out

revenues for '23 to 2034, 2034 to 2044, and 2045 to 2054, with a total at the end. So to

kind of simplify that a little bit, we're looking at the state, federal, Boone County, and

state Columbia revenues that will total about $2.7 billion over the lifespan of this plan out

to 2054 is the total amount of revenue anticipated. And so this kind of looks at transit

financial summary, so at the top there, the first line shows federal funding for the life of

the plan. The total there about $156 million in federal funding and then state, local, and

other funding would get you a total of $310 million. The lower part of that chart shows

how that $156 million in federal funding is broken down, so there's different FTA

components there that -- that go into it a little bit further. I won't go into too much of it,

but what you're looking at there is a total of $106 million in federal funding, about $3

million in state funding, $140 million in local funding, $9 million, which is categorized as

other, so we'll figure $10 million in transit funding over the -- the life of this plan. So -- and

to kind of give you a sense of what is sort of long-term projects within the region, these

are what's called ballot measure projects, so these are part of the local ballot measure

recently a number of projects here that total up to about $77.2 million. And then kind of

combined with this slide here that shows other projects that were not on the ballot, but

are also anticipated to go forth within sort of a long-term time frame, the top there are --

yeah. Those are the long-term projects that total about $178,000,166 -- I'm sorry -- $179

million in projects there. And then kind of towards the bottom, there's three projects

within some of the lesser projects less, those are ones that we’re not quite sure what the

financing is going to be yet, but that gets -- those -- those three, you know, the Broadway

extension, the 740 corridor between Stadium to I-70, and that's a coupled with the I-70

interchange. Those three round out $193 million for a total of $372 million on other

projects there, and that kind of leads to this slide where this is Columbia specific, but

shows that over the course of this plan, there's $1.3 billion in revenue expected for City of

Columbia, the top line there, with the maintenance, ballot initiative projects, sponsored

projects, and then transit operations, you are left with about $563 million in reserves for

Columbia over the life of this plan. We took the lesser projects so that last kind of gray

area there, $118 million, that's those three lesser projects that I talked about before. And

then also as a part of this plan, we looked at a local service framework for multi-local

transportation, so we have put together a framework that -- that will show -- that will allow

the region to look at pedestrian infrastructure, bicycle infrastructure, transit infrastructure,

and separately trail infrastructure, seeing provided level of service and kind of go through

and grey those different types of infrastructure and allow that to, kind of, guide upgrades

or additions. And so the methodology kind of comes in two different flavors there. We've

listed -- or we've included checklists framework that scores on for the future presence.

It's -- it's -- it's contrasted with the scaled framework where it kind of rates things on a

weighted point scale for critical features, so one is a little bit more objective than the

other. And that's all we have, so thank you, everyone. Are there questions?

MR. SEEWOOD: Do you have any questions from the committee?

MS. BUFFALOE: I have a couple. On your -- so another side I think that we

recently completed is the Boone County and the City of Columbia housing study, which

shows the need for transportation connecting the region that you discussed. In the plan,

there's some, like, recommendations around, like, transit orientated development. What

happens next with this plan? Those are some recommendations. Is the idea that those

entities sitting up here we then act on it? I haven't been through the approval of a

honoring transportation plan yet. But I don't -- maybe, Tim, that's a question for you or

Mitch?

MR. TEDDY: Yeah. I mean, the next step would be to select -- if it's a study, select

a study and allocate it to, you know, logical participants.

MS. BUFFALOE: Okay.

MR. TEDDY: And that -- yeah. Since this is usually regional, I mean, anything

that's got a regional emphasis would involve the CATSO partners. Certain things like

sidewalks, you know, might be more the City.

MS. BUFFALOE: Right. I was getting more of, like, the -- there's the

recommendations that I heard, transit orientated development, and it talks about zoning

changes and then some other things about aligning the region.

MR. TEDDY: Yeah. And I think we'll take those topics up with our comprehensive

plan when we look at forms of development, and we can look at the relationship between

land use and transportation demand.

MS. BUFFALOE: Would we do something to lure in the regional transit discussion,

because there's things in there about regional transit authority, about recommendations

for a study. I mean, would that be something that could be completed by GoCOMO

transit, which, obviously, told us we need more - yeah. Yeah. Well, I'll say that sort of

approach, yeah.

MR. CREECH: I would say so. There's also MoDOT has got something in the

works, it sounds like, on this so there's that combination of all those things.

MR. ALBIN: And let me back up just a little bit with what this plan is and what the

plan does. For the most part, all the actions would occur through either MoDOT or the

City or the County. CATSO though, that list of other studies, those are studies that

CATSO itself might decide to -- to do. The purpose of listing all these things out in here

is it makes it all eligible for federal funding.

MS. BUFFALOE: Right.

MR. ALBIN: So that's why a

VI. PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE FY 2025-2028

TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (TIP)

Attachments: CATSO FY 2025-2028 TIP Amendment PH Memo 12-5-24.docx

Proposed CATSO TIP Amendment for 12-5-2024 Public Hearing.pdf

MR. SEEWOOD: All in favor. (Unanimous voice vote for approval.) All right. Next up is

a public hearing for an amendment to the FY 2025 to 2028 Transportation Improvement

Program.

MR. SKOV: Yes, Mr. Chair. This is an proposed amendment to the fiscal year 2025

-28 Transportation Improvement Program. This is a MODOT project for their engineering

section, scoping section. Specifically, it's for new project for engineering services. It's

part of the I-70 improvement project. It includes $24.5 million in total funding. $4.5 of that

is budgeted in 2025 fiscal year, and $20 million is in fiscal year 2026. And out of that

total $20 -- over $22 million of it is from federal highway administration sources, and

there's $2.45 million in match from MoDOT and State sources. This scope of this

amendment along the entire length of the improvement project from Blue Springs to

Wentzville, which, of course, includes the CATSO area portion of the I-70 corridor. This

is how it will look in the TIP, it's just how it's laid out. It's very similar to the STIP I think

format as far as the tables. Again, it's under safety and capacity improvements from Blue

Springs to Wentzville, the entirety of the I-70 improvement project. Again, it's just for

engineering. There is no construction as part of this project. The Tech Committee did

review this at their November 6th meeting. They did pass a motion to forward the TIP to

the Coordinating Committee for approval. The suggested action is just after any review

and suggestions you might have for the revisions that might be necessary, and after

holding a public hearing, the staff suggests that you do pass a motion to give approval to

this proposed amendment to the CATSO fiscal year 2025-28 TIP. Thank you.

MR. SEEWOOD: Are there any questions from the committee? With that, we'll

head on up the public hearing.

PUBLIC HEARING OPENED

MR. SEEWOOD: Are there any comments from the public? Seeing none, we're

going to close the public hearing.

PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED

MR. SEEWOOD: Any additional comments from the committee or -- a call for a

motion?

MR. CREECH: Move to approve.

MR. McCANN: I'll second.

MR. SEEWOOD: All in favor? (Unanimous voice vote for approval).

VII. PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED TITLE VI PLAN UPDATE

Attachments: Item 7 CATSO PH-Title VI Plan.docx

Proposed CATSO Title VI Plan for 12-5-2024 PH.docx

MR. SEEWOOD: All in favor? (Unanimous voice vote for approval). All right. Next up is

a public hearing on the proposed Title VI plan update. Mitch, can you give me the staff

report?

MR. SKOV: Yes, Mr. Chair. Our present Title VI plan has been in place for ten

years now. It was adopted in May of 2014, what the Title VI plan does is outline the

policies and responsibilities of the metropolitan plan organization, in this case CATSO,

and communications with public involvement, planning and programming, and Title VI

assurances and complaint procedures. It also includes a number of additional --

additional requirements to comply with federal regulations, specifically, this -- these are

new requirements beyond what we had to do previously, specifically starting with the

identification of the locations of minority populations in the aggregate across the CATSO

Metropolitan planning area. This is done by a Census Bureau block group. We have

some demographic maps which identify the percentage of minority and non-minority

populations as identified in those specific census tract block groups. And then analysis

of any impacts from the maps. We also include some demographic maps and charts

which were prepared for the GoCOMO Conference Transit Study, which is now nearly

complete, in my understanding. This is an example. This is one of the maps that we do

have in the Title VI plan. It just shows, again, the minority population by census block

groups across the CATSO MPA. This is something that we were specifically required to

do, that's why we have it shown in this -- in this manner. Actually, I've had to deal with a

consultant. I believe a consultant was hired by MoDOT, Milligan Consulting, and they've

indicated to me that we have conditional approval for the Title VI plan, presuming that the

CATSO Coordinating Committee gives it their approval. It can be adopted as presented,

or with any revisions or amendments suggested and approved by the Committee

ultimately would be formally provided to federal highway -- Federal Transit Administration

and MoDOT after review and approval by the Coordinating Committee. The Tech

Committee did review this at the November 6, 2024 meeting. There was some general

discussion on the draft, but they did not suggest any changes. The Committee did pass

a motion recommending the Coordinating Committee get formal approval to the proposed

Title VI Plan subject to any revisions you may have. So the suggested action is after you

review and then hold a public hearing, the staff suggested that you pass a motion giving

approval to this proposed CATSO Title VI Plan. Thank you.

MR. SEEWOOD: Thank you. Are there any comments or questions from the

committee? With none, we'll open it up to public hearing.

PUBLIC HEARING OPENED

MR. SEEWOOD: Are there any comments or questions from the public? Seeing

none, we'll close the public hearing.

PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED

MR. SEEWOOD: Any comments -- additional comments from the committee?

None. Can I get a motion?

MS. BUFFALOE: So moved.

MR. CREECH: Second.

MR. SEEWOOD: All in favor? (Unanimous voice vote for approval.)

VIII. OTHER BUSINESS

MR. SEEWOOD: Other business? Anything from the committee?

MS. BUFFALOE: This would be a good time to ask my question about -- so I -- I --

the Technical Committee might have reviewed, but nothing has come back to

Coordinating on a recommendation for Ash Street designation. So I would be interested

in having something come back to Coordinating or at least go to Technical for review over

their recommendation. Included in the review, it would be good to know other streets that

have the same categorization and their -- the density of housing near, because I think

that's where the comments from the public are coming from as related to how close

houses are to --

MR. SKOV: They have not reviewed that recently in this manner.

MS. BUFFALOE: Okay.

MR. SKOV: But we can if the Coordinating Committee will direct the Tech

Committee to do so.

MS. BUFFALOE: Okay. Okay. I would like to make that recommendation, so I'll

make a motion to submit to the Technical Committee for a review.

MR. SEEWOOD: Okay. We need a second.

MR. CREECH: Second.

MS. BUFFALOE: Thank you, Shane.

MR. SEEWOOD: Are there any comments or from the --

MR. TEDDY: I'll just mention that at a Technical Committee several meetings ago,

we did hear from the public on this topic. We offered our feedback to that audience, but

didn't --

MR. SEEWOOD: Bring it back to --

MR. TEDDY: Yeah. Didn't take it on as a project. Right.

MR. SEEWOOD: And so this is a request from -- a motion from the Coordinating

Committee, since it's a Technical thing, for a review to bring back a recommendations to

the Coordinating Committee to decide if we move forward with that.

MR. SKOV: Yeah. We have not had a report on it.

MR. SEEWOOD: Okay. All right.

MS. BUFFALOE: I appreciate that.

MR. SEEWOOD: Any further comments?

MR. HENDERSON: I just want to clarify because are we talking about a functional

class change?

MR. SKOV: Yes.

MR. HENDERSON: Possibility.

MR. SKOV: Yes. I believe that -- I think that's the question that they would like us

to look at.

MR. HENDERSON: Well, we usually go through a functional class change?

MR. TEDDY: It's the City's street standard, so this is a collector either --

MR. HENDERSON: So it's not --

MR. TEDDY: -- way we fall on it, but the City uses a neighborhood collector and a

major collector, and there's some that is -- the difference is the design and function of the

roadway, so there's design implications and then there's functional implications. On your

functional class map, I'm not sure if it would mean the changes would be shown as a

collector.

MR. SKOV: Either way. It's a collector either way.

MR. TEDDY: Yeah.

MR. SEEWOOD: Motion and second; committee for comments? With that, we will

take a vote. All in favor? (Unanimous voice vote for approval.) Is there any additional --

MS. BUFFALOE: I guess there is one additional comment. Just listening, we're

talking about, you know, when our meetings are. It might be useful in the memo that is

attached for the different items, all of these also go to other entities, a lot of decisions we

make. It's going to go to a Council meeting, it's going to do -- if you have a public

engagement leading up to the plan coming. So I feel like that might answer some of

those is this is not the only time some of these decisions are being made in relation to

major roadway projects. So I don't know if it's just something to include in the memo

about this will also go to the City, the County, it will be held in a public hearing here, just

to help, you know, raise that.

MR. SKOV: We could say that this is a preliminary step, and that CATSO does not

actually have funding for construction with limitation of roadways, or any other

transportation project. It's just their oversight, an overview for federal funding eligibility,

but we don't make the decisions directly --

MS. BUFFALOE: Right.

MR. SKOV: -- about what projects are picked.

MR. SEEWOOD: And that's a good distinction in this policy, making it noted, so

people realize the next step for improvement would go to the -- go in line to make that

vote.

MR. SKOV: Unlike some larger MPOs where they actually have some authority as

to where they dole funding out. We don't have that authority here, so it is up to the City

of Columbia and Boone County and MoDOT to choose their own projects.

MS. BUFFALOE: Uh-huh. That would be helpful.

MR. SKOV: Okay.

MS. COCHRAN: Yes. I'm Cecily Cochran; I'm the representative from the Federal

Highway Administration. On this particular topic, I heard for them to just be able to

attend, some of the other MPOs have adopted a hybrid option for people to tune in

virtually and submit any comments that way. That way you will all have it on the record.

A 23CFR450 allows you to use federal funds for that to incorporate if you need to

purchase equipment. So I would just recommend following up with Mitch or I can send

him the regs on that, but the MPO is allowed to have those hybrid options if time

availability is set, but you know members of the public want it, too.

MR. SEEWOOD: That's terrific. Thank you. Okay. So any additional comments?

Anything from the committee?

IX. GENERAL COMMENTS BY PUBLIC, MEMBERS AND STAFF

MR. SEEWOOD: Anything from the staff?

MR. SKOV: I don't believe so.

X. NEXT MEETING DATE

MR. SKOV: The next meeting date is February 27th of 2025.

MR. SEEWOOD: All right.

XI. ADJOURNMENT

MR. SEEWOOD: Motion for adjournment?

MR. HENDERSON: That date sounds similar to our date for the MoDOT Statewide

Planning Partners Meeting.

MR. TEDDY: (indiscernible 11:57:06).

MR. SKOV: We could try to move it up.

MR. HENDERSON: It’s on a Thursday.

MR. SKOV: If we don't need to do anything, then we could cancel the CATSO

meeting to my knowledge. But we can either move it up or go back to the next month.

MS. BUFFALOE: Can we move it back, like not -- a week earlier?

MS. WATKINS: A week later?

MS. BUFFALOE: Yeah.

MR. SKOV: That's a possibility. Okay.

MS. BUFFALOE: Motion to adjourn?

MR. SEEWOOD: We're adjourned.

(Meeting concluded at 3:34 PM)

Members of the public may attend any open meeting. For requests for accommodations related to

disability, please call 573-874-CITY (573-874-2489) or email CITY@CoMo.gov. In order to assist staff in

making the appropriate arrangements for your accommodation, please make your request as far in

advance of the posted meeting date as possible.