Chapter 9: Public Participation

Transcription

1 Chapter 9: Public Participation

2 Chapter 9: Public Participation INTRODUCTION Citrus County, to support transportation planning efforts, is committed to a significant and ongoing public involvement program. Documented in this chapter are the public involvement opportunities offered during the development of the 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan, and how the feedback received has been incorporated into the plan. Recommendations are also provided for enhancing the process. Public involvement was the most significant effort undertaken in the development of this LRTP. The projects included in the 3 Tiers of the plan are direct results of a series of public workshops. These workshops are described and summarized below. The following section fulfills the Metropolitan Planning Organization s Program Management Handbook, Long Range Transportation Plan Checklist, US Code Requirements B 12 and B 14as stated below: B 12 Was the public given a reasonable opportunity to comment on the plan, and did the MPO use their public participation plan developed under 23 C.F.R (a)? [23 C.F.R (i)] B 14 Was technical information related to the plan made available to the public in electronic formats such as the World Wide Web? [23 C.F.R (a)(1)(iv)] The sections immediately following describe the public comment period, public involvement plan, and how information on the LRTP was communicated. SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS The following workshops were held for participating residents of Citrus County to identify transportation priorities to be included in the LRTP: Stakeholder Interviews: December 11 12, 2008 Stakeholder Interviews: January 29, 2009 Board of County Commissioners Meeting: February 5, 2009 Geographic Workshops: March 16, 2009 Crystal River & Inverness Consensus Building Workshop: March 26, 2009 Citrus County Resource Center, Lecanto Geographic Workshops: May 5, 2009 Crystal River & Inverness Consensus Building Workshop: May 13, 2009 Citrus County Resource Center, Lecanto Board of County Commissioners Meeting: June 23, 2009 Consensus Building Workshop: August 26, 2009 Citrus County Resource Center, Lecanto Consensus Building Workshop: December 1, 2009 Realtor s Association Building, Lecanto Board of County Commissioners Meeting: March 23, newsletters Posting of materials on the County Website Chapter 9: Public Participation 9 1

3 STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS To improve the outcome of the Citrus LRTP and to better understand the county, several key members of the community or stakeholders were identified. To obtain information from these stakeholders, Tindale Oliver & Associates, Inc., (TOA) and Citrus County staff developed a list of standard questions. Interested stakeholders in Citrus County were interviewed regarding their opinions on how they would like to see the county grow and where transportation improvements are most needed. Their input was considered during the development of the 2035 LRTP. important to consider when talking about growth. Others thought that the number of people or households is most important because it will increase the tax base. Still others say the availability of infrastructure and location of students to schools is the most important because they want the quality of life in Citrus County to remain or improve. An important issue in a growing community is funding new infrastructure and maintenance for existing infrastructure. New development can take on many forms, varying the cost of building new infrastructure or the strain on exist Process Ten stakeholder interviews were conducted over the course of three days by TOA staff members Bob Wallace and William Roll. The interview participants were provided with the questions in advance and were asked to provide a copy of their written responses at the interview, where each person was interviewed individually. The interviews were held at three different sites in Citrus County Crystal River, Inverness, and Lecanto. Table 9 1 identifies the stakeholders who participated and what organization they represent. Table 9 1: Interview Participants No. Name Organization Location 1 Randy Welker, Executive Director Citrus County Economic Development Council, Inc 2 Chuck Dixon, AICP Citrus County School Board Crystal River Council Chambers 12/10/2008, 2:30 PM Inverness Development Services Conf. Room 12/11/2008, 9:00 AM Summary The interview questions focused on four specific topics influencing the transportation network in Citrus County. The stakeholders views on growth management, municipal cooperation, the transportation network, and lifestyle choices were all discussed during the interviews. Growth When asked if growth in Citrus County was inevitable, all respondents agreed that it is; however, it was mentioned that growth in Florida is no longer guaranteed because of economic and infrastructure concerns. Nearly all agreed that growth in the county should be promoted or managed, or the rate of growth should be managed. The top three ways respondents think growth should be managed is to direct growth to specific locations and away from specific locations and to regulate the form or appearance of development. The stakeholders did not all agree on the kind of growth that should be promoted and managed. Many said that character of the county was the most 3 Linda Bega Inverness Community Redevelopment Agency 4 Randy Clark Citrus County Builders Association 5 Michelle Evans Crystal River Community Redevelopment Agency 6 Tom McMurray, President Realtors Association of Citrus County 7 Carla Groleau Progress Energy Corp 8 Tom Mize, President 9 Dave Noble 10 Avis Craig Citrus County Council Floral City Heritage Council Floral City Community Plan Property Appraiser/Central Florida Community College Inverness Development Services Conf. Room 12/11/2008, 10:00 AM Inverness Development Services Conf. Room 12/11/2008, 1:30 PM Crystal River Council Chambers 12/11/2008, 3:30 PM Lecanto Gov t Building 12/12/2008, 9:00 AM Crystal River Council Chambers 12/12/2008, 10:00 AM Phone Conference 12/12/2008, 11:00 AM Lecanto Gov t Building 12/12/2008, 2:30 PM Phone Interview 01/29/09, 10:30 AM 9 2 Chapter 9: Public Participation

4 ing. Of the stakeholders interviewed, almost everyone agreed that costly development should pay for their level of service. Many said a combination of impact fees and taxes was the best method, while others were not sure of the exact method, only sure that the developer should pay. Cooperation and Cities All respondents agreed that coordination among the municipalities and the County is essential for cost effectiveness and efficiency. To achieve better communication, the consensus among respondents was to hold regular, joint, transparent meetings and/or workshops with all parties. Transportation System The transportation system includes new roadway corridors and maintenance of existing roadways, as well as bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and alternative modes to the single occupancy automobile. The stakeholders were asked to discuss all of these items. According to the stakeholders, the most important factors to consider when prioritizing new transportation improvements are safety and economic development. All who responded agreed that improving safety problems is the top priority, and promoting economic development is the next. The stakeholders identified the following roadways as having the highest priority for improvements: SR 200, because of frequent accidents and location in a developing area CR 491, CR 486 need widening US 41needs widening Suncoast Parkway 2 US 19 in various places Overall, most respondents did not want to see any new road corridors built except for the Suncoast Parkway 2. However, when asked what features should be included in a right of way should a new corridor be built, the following elements were considered to have high importance: Drainage 5 ft wide sidewalks Amenities for public transportation Limited driveway connections The most common improvements the stakeholders would like to see are widening existing roads, improving intersections, increasing bicycle facilities, and implementing local public transportation service. The top priorities for bicycle improvements, according to the stakeholders, were: Downtown areas of Crystal River and Inverness Schools, libraries, malls, and other facilities that children and those unable to drive use Suncoast Parkway 2 Most respondents indicated that transit is needed in areas where senior citizens live and travel to, such as medical facilities and shopping centers. Other popular responses were in Crystal River, Inverness, and Beverly Hills, as well as connecting the three areas together. Because future gas taxes already are allocated, other financing options need to be considered to address funding shortfalls for transportation, both capital and maintenance. Stakeholders were asked to choose which of the following financing options they prefer to implement: Sales tax Ad valorem Assessments (both ad valorem and non ad valorem); Tax increment financing Impact fees The preferences shown by the stakeholders were sales tax for capital shortfalls, and sales tax and tax increment financing for maintenance shortfalls. For each dollar spent on the transportation system, the stakeholders were asked what percentage should be spent on each of the following: Widening existing roads Building new roads Improving intersections Implementing regional public transportation to surrounding counties Increasing sidewalk facilities Increasing bicycle facilities Chapter 9: Public Participation 9 3

5 On average, the stakeholders thought that 27% of each dollar should be applied to implementing local public transportation, 21% to widening existing roads, 18% to intersection improvements, 13% to new roadways, 8% to implementing regional public transportation, and 7% to increasing sidewalk, and 6% to bicycle facilities. Choices and Lifestyle Transportation and land use have a direct relationship, which is why it is important to consider the kinds of land use and overall community character that is desired in a community when developing the LRTP. Many respondents agreed that the rural lifestyle is an important way of life in Citrus County and that growth should be managed to preserve it. Some stakeholders indicated the acceptance of the idea of a transition to a different lifestyle over time, and one noted that the rural lifestyle is not as important as having a prosperous economic base. The stakeholders were asked what they wanted the character of the county to look like in the future, and, although a wide variety of responses were received, the most consistent view of the future was that Citrus County will hold on to its quaint character and charm, offer high quality jobs, and be environmentally responsible. Additionally, all respondents agreed with the concept for existing cities to revitalize or develop their core areas as a way of accommodating new development, developing a more competitive marketplace, and encouraging people to live in and around those areas. 9 4 Chapter 9: Public Participation

6 GEOGRAPHIC WORKSHOPS: MARCH 16, 2009 The first Geographic Workshops were held on March 16, These workshops were conducted at the following locations: Seminole Club, 135 NE 3 rd Street, Crystal River, FL City Council Chambers, Inverness Government Center, 212 W. Main Street, Inverness, FL These workshops were open to the public and served the purpose of educating the public on the LRTP Process and identifying where the public would like to see transportation improvements. Summary Workshop participants at the two locations were provided the same presentation and completed the same four exercises. Exercise 1 dealt with the SAFETEA LU planning factors. Participants were asked to identify locations or issues that they felt were in the greatest need of attention, pertaining to each of the factors. A detailed summary of the responses is in Table 9 3. The key issues identified in the exercise were: Public transportation and mobility options Americans with Disabilities Act compliance Environmental protection Interconnection of signal systems In Exercise 3, participants were given the opportunity to locate on a map where their roadway, transit, and trail improvement priorities were. The most common roadway improvement mentioned was the extension of Kensington Ave to CR 486. The participants did not desire any transit improvements other than what was already marked on the map, which were connections between Lecanto, Crystal River, Beverly Hills, and Inverness. The final exercise, Exercise 4, was a corridors exercise in which participants chose a roadway corridor and specified what elements they would like to see in the cross section, such as landscaping, sidewalks, medians, drainage, etc. Table 9 2 shows a summary of the overall consensus of the responses. Table 9 2: Corridors Response Summary US 19 Homosassa to Crystal River Tompkins Street Seminole Ave to US 41 N CR 491 S CR 44 to US 98 US 41 Inverness to Levy County CR 495 Turkey Oak to Emerald Oaks CR 491 Holden to CR 486 CR 486 CR 491 E to SR 44 Landscaping Bike Lane Directional Lane Median Drainage Sidewalks No Response Marked Bike Lane No Response Vegetation/Landscaping No Response 5 ft. Street Trees 2 Lane Vegetation/Landscaping Curb & Gutter 5 ft. No Response No Response No Response No Response 6 lanes No Response Grass Paved Shoulder 4 lanes Grass Open Swale 5 ft. Furniture Marked Bike Lane No Response No Response Street Trees Marked Bike Lanes 4 lanes Grass Open Swale In Exercise 2, participants were asked to identify on a map where they would like to see activity centers located in the future. The most common responses were the intersections of: Cardinal St and US 19 CR 486 and US 41 CR 491 and US 41 Chapter 9: Public Participation 9 5

7 Table 9 3: SAFETEA LU Exercise Response Summary Entry 1 Entry 2 Entry 3 Entry 4 Entry 5 Entry 6 Entry 7 Entry 8 Entry 9 Economic Vitality Shuttle scenic bus in CR connecting stopping to various beaches, parks, restaurants, etc.. Multi modal access to cities along SR44 Develop and connect activity centers The 3 most important locations or issues where Economic Vitality should be addressed are: Lack of mall growth and Hwy 41 N of Inverness - places shopping. to stop for food, clothing would No growth of business & draw traffic south from Marion as industrial parks. well. Minimal employment opportunities CR-19 Inv - 44 Inv/Hernando - 41 Downtown Crystal River Double Deck 19 between Homosassa and CR Mall Possible Double Deck 44 in Inverness area The 3 most important locations or issues where Safety should be addressed are: Safety Widening is not a solution ~ should have people at Highview & Sr44 across from designated shelters instead of on county landfill the road Intersection improvements on SR44 at Montgomery Avenue and SR581 Traffic calming on collectors Intersection of 486 (west) and Hwy 44 one lane to twoo, also Street Lighting light doesn t allow traffic to empty Evacuation planning and routes off 44 Traffic calming on CR 19, 491, 41 Sidewalks on same Crosswalks on same Re-engineer US 19 where inner lane suddenly turns to left turn lane. US 19 at Hospital, medical complex. Bike lanes 486 east from 44 The 3 most important locations or issues where Security should be addressed are: Security Hwy 19 bypass for emergency access Assure security and convenience on all transit systems Surveillance cameras Patrols Disaster Prep.(19) Hazardous Carrier Routes(waterways, ports) US 19 at Crystal River mall Present plan - taking population growth into consideration Accessibilty & Mobility New roads must comply with ADA The 3 most important locations or issues where Accessibilty and Mobility should be addressed are: Racks on bus to carry bikes ADA compliance Public transportation Public Transportation Truck Route/Car Pool Lanes LOS standards As is, with consideration for growth as needed Environment & Quality of Life Stop Sprawl Do not blur the line between rural Protect the spring sheds and and metro aquifer path Keep transportation on projects Prohibit development in the away from environmentally coastal wetlands sensitive and rural lands. Develop bicycle facilities that tie into Withlacoochee State Trail Landscape enhancements on roads & DRAs Protect historic resources The 3 most important locations or issues where Environment and Quality of Life should be addressed are: Provide shelters and seating for transit users Limit environment impacts Bypass highways Water quality and conservation Water concerns are key in all decisions Sidewalks and Bicycles in CR, Inverness, Lecanto, BH The only place I think "consistency with Florida Transportation Plan" would be 44 E-W and probably, sadly - US 41 The 3 most important locations or issues where Connectivity should be addressed are: Connectivity Park and ride connecting Drs offices, hospitals, in adjoining counties. TBARTA planning to take people to shopping in Hernando county not as important as connecting to medical services. Connect major activity centers Connections to industrial parks Multimodal opportunities Integrate bike path on road network - separate from traffic Park & Ride People transportations (mobility to those with limited auto access) Park N Ride Freight At or near the northern terminals of the existing SP-1 Park N Ride Preservation See Environment Above Landscape enhancements Sign regulations Scenic Highways The 3 most important locations or issues where Preservation should be addressed are: On roads like 41N, repair the road shoulder as well as lanes. Maintenance Resurfacing Maintenance Hazard Protection US 41 All should be preserved so as to protect the environment, possible double deck 491 south of 44 The 3 most important locations or issues where Connectivity should be addressed are: Efficient Management Coordinate traffic signals Minimize signals/stops on rural roads Travel Demand Management Interconnected traffic signal systems BMP Interconnected signal systems Incident Management Travel Demand Interconnected Signals Connection to Rail I am unfamiliar with this issue. Stop on demand signal changes. 9 6 Chapter 9: Public Participation

8 CONSENSUS BUILDING WORKSHOP: MARCH 26, 2009 The first Consensus Building Workshop for the Citrus County LRTP was held on March 26, 2009, at the Citrus County Community Resource Center at 9:00 AM. Participants were divided into three groups and completed a series of exercises, including answering a series of questions regarding land use, the economy, transportation, and funding. Summary Land Use and the Economy Participants were given a scenario that added 100,000 residents and 40,000 employees to the county by Most participants favored these additional people living in either single family housing (more than 3 dwellings per acre) or in multi family town homes or apartments in the Central Ridge area. The most desirable jobs for these newcomers would be medical or manufacturing jobs located in Central Ridge. The participants unanimously said that they would support efforts to enhance and expand existing clusters of development, as well as the formation of clusters for new communities through trade off of density entitlements from existing agriculture land uses. It was also suggested that an overlay district for mixed use land uses be created. The most critical transportation issue that would arise in Inverness if traffic were to double by 2035 is the lack of capacity on SR 44 and US 41. In Crystal River, the effect doubling existing traffic volumes would be at the intersection of SR 44 and US 19. The most critical regional roadway need in 2035 would be the widening of US 41. Locally, the most critical roadway need would be improvements to the intersection of Rock Crusher Rd and SR 44. Major issues for public transportation in 2035 would include a need for extended hours of service with more frequent trips, and a connection from Citrus County to Hernando County. It would be critical to configure sidewalks and trails to connect suburban areas to activity centers in the county to support public transportation service. In Exercise 1, the three groups were provided with a map showing existing and emerging activity centers and a list of center types and descriptions. Table 9 4: Center Types Transportation Participants were asked how transportation policy could be used to support the creation of new employment opportunities in the county, and the general response was that widening CR 491 and providing fixed bus routes would allow for easier access to potential growth areas. This solution would also be effective if, by 2035, the Suncoast Parkway 2 were not yet built. They believed that bus service and the widening of CR 491 would provide better connectivity from Citrus County to Hernando County and/or the Greater Tampa Bay area. It was expressed that planning for the impact of climate and environmental changes would be necessary because it will impact land use and transportation in the future. In addition, since Citrus County has one of the oldest populations in the country, enhancements should be made to any applicable mode of transportation to accommodate mobility impaired passengers. Chapter 9: Public Participation 9 7

9 These centers are described in Table 9 4. The group was asked to identify where they would like to see each center type located in the county by writing on the map the letter representing the center Type. The groups agreed that Lecanto and the CR 486/CR 491 locations were most likely to become prominent activity centers. Two of the three groups added a new location for a business commerce center just southwest of Inverness on US 41. Exercise 2 was intended to obtain feedback on what elements were desired in different types of roadway cross sections. Each group selected elements they would like to see in corridors located in the following areas: Urban core Activity centers Suburban residential areas Rural areas In the urban core, participants generally agreed that most trip purposes should be for circulation or access. Five foot sidewalks and marked bike lanes were most desired in the urban core, as were four lanes of automobile traffic and local bus service. Participants indicated they would like to see street furniture in the urban core and a landscaped median. Curb and gutter were agreed upon as appropriate drainage treatment. On corridors in activity centers, the participants agreed that trips for access purposes should be the main function. Eight foot sidewalks and marked bike lanes were preferred, along with local bus service. Each group provided a different answer for the number of auto lanes desired on an activity center corridor two, four, and six lanes were mentioned. The three groups agreed on street trees for landscaping and curb and gutter drainage. A grass median was preferred by the majority. In suburban residential areas, circulation and access were the most important roadway functions to participants. They also favored five foot sidewalks for pedestrians and a paved shoulder for bicyclists. Two auto lanes and local bus service were generally preferred. Participants envisioned street trees and open swale drainage in suburban areas but differed in opinions on medians. Two groups did not believe medians were necessary in a suburban residential cross section, but one group indicated desirability for landscaped medians. The groups generally thought that rural roadways should be used for regional and access trips. They saw no need for sidewalks but agreed that a paved shoulder would be sufficient for bicycles. Each of the groups also agreed that two automobile lanes are all that are needed for rural corridors. The groups did not agree on what type of public transportation should be offered in rural areas. One group did not want any, one group specified local bus service, and one group preferred an express bus service or Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service. The three groups agreed on only grass for landscaping, no median, and open swale drainage in rural areas. Funding Exercises 3, 4 and 5 each addressed funding issues. In Exercise 3, participants were asked how they would like to see funding split among five modes: Automobile Truck Public transportation Pedestrian Bicycle For each group, the top three funding priorities included public transportation and pedestrian modes. Rounding out the top three for two of the groups was automobile, while one group placed bicycle before automobile. The two groups not choosing bicycle as a top priority put it as a low priority. Exercise 4 addressed funding sources for both capital improvements and operations and management. For capital improvements, participants were asked to rank their degree of preference for each of the following sources: Gas taxes Impact fees Local option sales tax Transfer fax Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) Municipal Service Benefit Unit (MSBU) Tax increment financing Grants Other sources 9 8 Chapter 9: Public Participation

10 Each of the groups most preferred grants as a funding source, with MSTU the least. Tax Increment financing and impact fees were generally the second most preferred, followed by a mixed response for the rest of the options. The general preference were: 1. Grants 2. Tax increment financing 3. Impact fees 4. Gas tax 5. Local option sales tax 6. Transfer tax 7. MSBU 8. MSTU Exercise 5 addressed the funding sources for operations and maintenance. The sources from which participants were to choose were the same as in Exercise 4 except impact fees, local option sales tax, and the transfer tax were removed, as they cannot be used for operations and maintenance. Again, each group most preferred grants, but also strongly preferred gas taxes. The least preferred were the MSTU and MSBU options. The general preferences were: 1. Grants 2. Gas tax 3. Tax increment financing 4. MSBU 5. MSTU Chapter 9: Public Participation 9 9

11 GEOGRAPHIC WORKSHOPS: MAY 5, 2009 The second Geographic Workshops were held on May 5, One session was held in the morning at the Inverness City Council Chambers, and another in the afternoon at the Crystal River City Council Chambers. The workshops covered area types and cross sections, roadway priorities, public transportation, and trail facilities. The results of the workshop are summarized below. Summary Area Types and Cross Sections Participants were shown pictures of typical cross sections and elements that would be included in the cross section for each of the following area types: City center Activity center Suburban residential Rural/highway commercial After reviewing the area types and cross section elements, participants were then shown a map of the major roadways, which were categorized as one of the area types listed above. The participants were asked to mark on the map where they thought the area type designation was incorrect for any of the roadways. The most common responses were to create more activity centers, particularly along the following roadways: US 19 US 41 CR 486 SR 44 The second part of the Area Types and Cross Sections exercise was to look at the cross section elements for each area type and to identify appropriate changes or additions to the cross sections based on area type. The most common responses were: City center: Wider sidewalks Designated bus lanes Bus shelters/seating at stops Add street parking and cross walks to slow traffic down Activity center: Narrower sidewalks Street trees not necessary Add vegetation in median Suburban Residential: Add a bike lane and/or paved trail Rural No changes were identified Roadway Priorities The participants identified the following roadways as being the top priorities for regional roadway improvement priorities: US 19 SR 44 Suncoast Parkway 2 SR 200 US 41 The second part of the Roadway Priorities exercise was a funding question. Participants were asked the following question about the improvements identified above: If only the first project could be constructed with existing transportation revenues, what would you do to address the shortfall so that your other two priorities could be constructed (check all that apply)? The following funding options were presented as choices: Higher gasoline taxes Increase sales taxes Increase property taxes Increase transportation impact fees Assess a mobility fee Construct as a toll road Don t build the project 9 10 Chapter 9: Public Participation

12 The responses varied greatly for this question. However, all of the groups identified higher gas taxes as the most preferred funding option. However, Citrus County is currently assessing the maximum allowable gas tax under state law. Increasing transportation impact fees was the second most common choice. Public Transportation The workshop participants were asked to identify which type of public transportation service was important and to check all that apply from the following service options: Local circulator service that operates within a small area County connector service that connects Crystal River, Inverness, and Lecanto together Regional service that connects to the Ocala area Regional service that connects to the Tampa Bay area of the above are important The services that most of the participants preferred were a local circulator service and a county connector service. Regional service was noted as important but not the top priority. Multi Use Trails The most important trail or pathway projects identified by participants were: Suncoast Trail CR 486 Suncoast Connector Trail US 19 Improvements to the Withlacoochee State Trail Chapter 9: Public Participation 9 11

13 CONSENSUS BUILDING WORKSHOP: MAY 13, 2009 The second Consensus Building workshop was held on May 13, 2009, at the Citrus County Community Resource Center in Room 121 from 9:00 AM to 2:00 PM. The workshops covered area types and cross sections, regional and local roadway priorities, public transportation, bicycle facilities, pedestrian facilities, trails, the preservation of corridors and congested intersections. Participants were broken into three small groups to complete the exercises and at the end of the workshop, reported back to the large group the consensus that was reached. The results of the entire workshop are summarized below. Summary Area Types and Cross Sections The three most popular additions to the cross sections that workshop participants recommended were: Dedicated bus lanes Bus shelter/stops More lighting The major concerns were the costs of adding landscaping, the need for barriers in the medians, and marked bike lanes in all area types. Roadway Priorities The participants identified the following roadways as being the top priorities for regional roadway improvement priorities: SR 200 from US 41N to Marion County Line CR 491 from Leisure Blvd to CR 486 W Listed below are the roadway priorities identified specifically for the West, Central, and East parts of the county, split out by regional and local roadways. West County: Regional Roadways Suncoast Parkway 2 US 19 Cardinal Street Local Roadways Grover Cleveland Blvd. Crystal Oaks/Venable CR 490 from US 19 to SR 44 Central County: Regional Roadways CR 491 from SR 44 to US 41 SR 44 from Crystal Oaks to CR 491 Local Roadways Anthony Ave from CR 486 to CR 491 Hampshire Blvd from Hazelwood to CR 491 East County: Regional Roadways SR 200 from US 41 to Marion County Line CR 581 Extension to Independence Hwy Floral City Bypass from US 41 N to US 41 S Local Roadways Croft Ave from SR 44 E to CR 486 W Watson St from CR 581 to US 41 Public Transportation When asked to identify five activity centers that participants would most like to see connected with public transportation, their most popular responses were: 1. Inverness 2. Crystal River 3. Lecanto 4. Beverly Hills 5. Croft The participants unanimously agreed that a county connector service that connects Crystal River, Inverness, and Lecanto was the most important public transportation issue. It was also agreed by all participants that local circulator service that would operate within a small area would be the next most important improvement. All agreed that regional connections are important but are not top priorities Chapter 9: Public Participation

14 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Bicycle and pedestrian facilities are usually added to a roadway if and when the roadway is improved. It is more unlikely for bicycle and pedestrian facilities to be added to a roadway that is not scheduled for improvement. Workshop participants were asked to identify their highest priorities for bicycle and pedestrian improvements for both roadways that are in the needs plan to be improved and for those roadways that are not anticipated to be improved. The most popular responses were: Bicycle Facilities: Priorities that would be built with roadway improvements SR 44 CR 491 between SR 44 and CR 486 Priorities that would be built without roadway improvements CR 494 CR 470 Pedestrian Facilities: Priorities that would be built with roadway improvements Downtown Crystal River Downtown Inverness Croft Avenue Priorities that would be built without roadway improvements Floral City Floral City Bypass Rock Crusher Extension Anthony Ave Suncoast Parkway 2 SR 200 Congested Intersections When asked to name the top five most congested intersections that exist in the County today, participant responses were: SR 44 and US 41 SR 44 and US 19 US 19 and CR 490 SR 44 and CR 491 Several other intersections along SR 44 Multi Use Trails The three most important new/proposed trail or pathway projects identified by participants were: Suncoast Trail CR 486 Trail Cross Florida Trail Preserving Corridors There are areas in Citrus County where future development could potentially limit the County s ability to construct roadway improvements identified in the plan due to land being developed before the road right of way is acquired. Participants were asked to identify areas where they thought this might occur and the most popular responses were: CR 491 from SR 44 to CR 486 Chapter 9: Public Participation 9 13

15 CONSENSUS BUILDING WORKSHOP: AUGUST 26, 2009 The third Consensus Building workshop was held on August 26, 2009, at the Citrus County Community Resource Center in Room 121 from 9:00 AM to 2:00 PM. The purpose of the workshop was to determine which projects were priorities for the Cost Affordable Plan. Due to the number of attendees, the participants worked together in one group. Although the workshop was intended to cover roadways, public transportation, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and implementation items, it took a different course and focused primarily on roadways and implementation items only. The results of the workshop are summarized below. Summary Roadway Priorities for the Cost Affordable Plan The group ranked the 10 top roadway priorities they preferred to see included in the Cost Affordable plan. These priorities do not include Strategic Intermodal (SIS) facilities because the participants decided they wanted to see county dollars spent on county roadways rather than SIS facilities which have their own separate funding sources. All of the priorities listed will not be included in the Cost Affordable plan because of cost feasibility. The priorities were: 1. CR 486 from Meadowcrest to Black Diamond 2. CR 491 from SR 44 to Horace Allen St 3. Watson St (entire) 4. CR 491 from Anthony/Hampshire to US CR 491 from US 41 to SR Cardinal St from US 19 to Leisure Blvd 7. Leisure Blvd (entire) 8. CR 490 (entire) 9. Rock Crusher Rd from Grover Cleveland to CR Emerald Oaks Dr (entire) Comprehensive Plan Policies 1. Transportation corridor preservation 2. Bonus densities and reduced fees 3. The following policies were equally received and ranked 3rd as they are interconnected: Mixed use development & mixed housing types Higher residential densities & non residential intensities Support local public transportation system Locate public facilities within centers with transit Land Development Code Policies 1. Access management 2. Design streets to accommodate all appropriate modes of travel 3. Alternative concurrency provisions and funding strategies 4. Transit oriented design ordinances 5. Form based codes Additional Revenue Sources 1. Sales fax 2. Impact fees/mobility fees 3. Municipal Service Tax Unit 4. Municipal Service Benefit Unit (Non Ad Valorem Assessment) Implementation Action Items The importance and applicability of several implementation actions items were also discussed during the workshop. Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code policies were discussed, as were revenue sources. As a group, the participants ranked the policies in order of importance for Citrus County. The results were as follows Chapter 9: Public Participation

16 CONSENSUS BUILDING WORKSHOP: DECEMBER 1, 2009 The fourth Consensus Building workshop was held on December 1, 2009, at the Realtor s Association Building, from 9:00 AM to 2:45 PM. The purpose of the workshop was to gain consensus on the Cost Affordable Plan and possible additional revenue sources. Participants discussed roadway, public transportation, and bicycle/pedestrian/trail priorities. The results of the workshop are summarized below. Summary Roadway Priorities for the Cost Affordable Plan Roadway improvements were divided into three groups: Tier 1 projects were all the improvements that could be built with the current projected revenues through 2035, based on current revenue sources. Tier 2 projects were the next priority projects that could be built if additional revenue sources were implemented. Tier 3 projects were all other improvements needed in the county, but not top priorities. Workshop participants were shown maps of each tier and asked if they agreed with the priorities. The groups supported both the Tier 1 and Tier 2 priorities. Public Transportation Public Transportation improvements were also categorized into tiers: Tier 1 is the current pilot program recently implemented. Tier 2 improvements are those that would be implemented between 2018 and Tier 3 improvements would be implemented between 2024 and The groups supported the Tier 1 and Tier 2 transit improvements; however, they did agree that service to the Homosassa area should be included in the Tier 2 improvements. Tier 2 originally included service on US 41 north of CR 486 up to CR 491, and on CR 491 connecting to the Tier 1 route. The consensus at the workshop was to remove service on those segments and instead provide service on CR 486 as part of Tier 2. The groups also supported Tier 3 but wanted to see SR 200 included in the regional connection to Ocala. Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Trail Facilities Workshop participants were asked to discuss bicycle, pedestrian, and trail improvements. It is assumed that the Tier 1 and Tier 2 roadway projects will include improvement to or the addition of sidewalks and bicycle facilities and/or a multiuse trail. There are also several other planned and conceptual trails that are not necessarily tied to roadway improvements. The workshop groups were asked to evaluate whether or not the combination of the Tier 1 and 2 roadway improvements and the current planned and conceptual trails were sufficient. Generally, the groups agreed with the map shown, but had some additional facilities to add: Grover Cleveland Blvd Cardinal St CR 491 CR 480 Participants also indicated a need for more and higher quality trail heads and parking and better connectivity among the larger trails in the county. Implementation Action Items The importance and applicability of several implementation actions items were discussed during the workshop. Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code policies were discussed as were revenue sources. As a group, the participants ranked the policies in order of importance for Citrus County. The results varied among groups; results of the overall consensus are summarized below. Additional Revenue Sources (Desirability High to Low) 1. Sales tax 2. Impact fees/mobility fees 3. Municipal Service Benefit Unit (Non Ad Valorem Assessment) 4. Municipal Service Tax Unit Comprehensive Plan Policies (Priority High to Low) 1. Transportation corridor preservation and mixed use development/mixed housing types (tied for 1st) 2. Higher residential densities & non residential intensities 3. Locate public facilities within centers with transit 4. Support local public transportation system 5. Bonus densities Chapter 9: Public Participation 9 15

17 Land Development Code Policies (Priority High to Low) 1. Design streets to accommodate all appropriate modes of travel 2. Alternative concurrency provisions and funding strategies 3. Access management 4. Transit oriented design ordinances 5. Form based codes BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING MARCH 23, 2010 At this meeting, the LRTP was presented to the Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) for comment before the adoption process began. The major issues mentioned by the commissioners during this meeting were: Alignment of the Floral City bypass Implementing the Tier I improvement on CR 491 in an earlier time frame Possible addition to the plan of the Cross Town Trail extension south to CR 44. The comments received at the public workshops were used directly in the Cost Affordable Plan. The workshops resulted in successfully providing a consensus of public priorities, which were then used to determine Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3 improvements all modes. Comments on a project from the public was also the heaviest weighted criteria in the prioritization process described in Chapter 8. PLAN ADOPTION The final 2035 LRTP was presented to the Board of County Commissioners on September 14, 2010, and was formally adopted. CONCLUSION The public involvement activities conducted for this LRTP resulted in positive feedback and support for the plan. Through this process, residents of Citrus County were able to share concerns and ideas, resulting in a more cohesive plan. While much feedback was received, the County should continue to strive for even more participants to ensure substantial feedback. During this meeting the final actions to be taken toward the adoption of the Plan were discussed. It was agreed upon that the Cities of Crystal River and Inverness would each hold a workshop to adopt the plan, and then the BoCC would meet one more time to adopt the plan. The following section fulfills the Metropolitan Planning Organization s Program Management Handbook, Long Range Transportation Checklist, US Code Requirements B 15 and B 14as stated below: Does the plan demonstrate explicit consideration of and response to public input? [23 C.F.R (a)(1)(vi)] The section immediately following describes how public input was incorporated into the LRTP. IMPACT OF PUBLIC COMMENTS 9 16 Chapter 9: Public Participation