Mercer County Regional Planning Commission, Hermitage, Pennsylvania

 

Mercer County Transportation Planning

Mercer County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)

2004 MPO Meeting Minutes

SHENANGO VALLEY METROPOLITAN
PLANNING ORGANIZATION COORDINATING/TECHNICAL COMMITTEE
 Tuesday, October 12, 2004
10:30 A.M. - MCRPC Offices, Hermitage, PA

PERSONS PRESENT & REPRESENTING

  • Marcia Hirschmann Hermitage City

  • Daniel Gracenin MCRPC

  • Dave Ryan Mayor - Sharon City

  • Mike Wilson Sharpsville Borough

  • Kevin McCullough PennDOT, Harrisburg

  • Dave Bollebacher PennDOT, Mercer

  • Brian Yedinak PennDOT

  • Erin Wiley PennDOT, District 1-0

  • Jeanette Uhl PennDOT, District 1-0

  • Autumn Kelley PennDOT, District 1-0

  • Tom Algorn PennDOT, District 1-0

  • Mariah Hanson PennDOT

  • Joseph Fragle Sharon City Community Dvlpt. Director

  • Bob Lucas Sharon City Council

  • Fred Hoffman Sharon City Council

  • Mark Miller Mercer County

  • Bill Morocco Mayor - Farrell City

  • Pete Longiotti Greenville Borough

  • Vance Oakes Greenville Borough

  • Diane Helbig Commissioner Michele Brooks

  • Ron Faull Liberty Township

  • Mirta Reyes-Chapman Eastgate Regional COG

  • Kathy Zook Eastgate Regional COG

  • Stephen Theiss Mercer County Trails Association

  • Tom Paxton Pine Township

  • Barb Brown Springfield Township

  • Nathan S. Clark, Jr. Concerned Citizen

  • Dick Wilson Wilmington Township

  • Larry Reichard Penn-Northwest Development Corporation

  • Pat Turner Representative Rod Wilt

  • Margaret Tetuan Senator Santorum

  • Anna Loukianova Representative Rod Wilt

  • Victor S. Heutsche Sharon City Council

  • Esther McClimans Mayor - Jamestown Borough

  • Lisa Holm Hickory Engineering/HRG

CALL TO ORDER

Ms. Hirschmann called the meeting to order at 10:30 A.M.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MEETING JULY 13, 2004

Ms. Hirschmann asked for any additions, deletions, or corrections to the Minutes of the July 13, 2004 meeting. There was one correction: Nathan Clark is a resident of Greenville and not the MPO representative from Greenville Borough. There being no other corrections, Ms. Brown so moved, Mr. Ryan seconded. The motion passed.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR HOMETOWN STREETS/SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL APPLICATIONS

Ms. Hirschmann stated that we received four applications to review, rank and prioritize for funding. Mr. Gracenin distributed copies of the project description for those who did not receive one in the mail. He explained that the Hometown Streets/Safe Routes to School program is a new program and is one of the Governor’s Growing Greener Initiative program. He explained that there is $672,000 to allocate over four years. He stated that all four projects are eligible and have been cleared through PennDOT, with a few minor changes.

Mr. Wilson spoke on behalf of the Sharpsville Streetscape Improvement Project. He stated that Sharpsville Borough has already initiated a streetscape type program. Sharpsville Borough has designated and allocated their CDBG funds to Phase I of the streetscape program. Sharpsville Borough is looking at completing the four remaining phases of the Boroughs ongoing streetscape improvement project. Streetscape improvements include street lighting, signs and sidewalks in an area where none exist in the Borough. In discussion, a question was asked if this project could be broken up into different phases. Mr. Wilson stated yes.

Mr. Oakes spoke on behalf of Greenville Boroughs Downtown Streetscape Project, Phase II. He noted that back in 2000 or 2001, Greenville Borough was awarded a Transportation Enhancement Grant. That grant was originally to do the Downtown Streetscape Project, but because of a chain of events and lack of funding, the Borough was not able to do the whole project as originally envisioned. That project had been bid out and was cut in half, and they are now looking for funding to complete Phase II. Greenville Borough is looking at a continuation of something that the plans and design work are already done, the permits are in hand, and the environmental clearances are done. Streetscape improvements would complete the construction of new street curbs, handicapped access ramps and sidewalks. Also, the project would include installation of period style street lighting, traffic signals, signage, and landscaping as well as the relocation of overhead utilities. Mr. Gracenin stated that Greenville’s application was flagged by PennDOT and FHWA, there were some traffic lights that were recommended to be replaced, but are not project eligible. Some of the costs might be able to be absorbed, so if they receive funding, they will need to address this issue and straighten it out with the total dollar amount. In discussion, it was asked how large an area this project would cover. Mr. Oakes stated that the entire project area is from Mercer Street to Water Street. Phase I is the area from Mercer Street to the Bessemer railroad tracks and Phase II is from the railroad tracks to Water Street. Also, a question was asked if this project could be broken up into different phases. Mr. Oakes stated yes.

Ms. McClimans spoke on behalf of the Borough of Jamestown Safe Routes to School Project. Their project would replace four pedestrian bridges and adjacent sidewalk sections along Liberty and Jackson Streets. These bridges provide a walking area for students that attend the Jamestown School District. A new asphalt sidewalk and drainage system would also be built along Shenango Street, north of the School. Mr. Gracenin noted that out of the four proposed projects, Jamestown’s project is the only Safe Routes to School project, the other three are the Home Town Streets projects. In discussion, Ms. Holm stated that there are some CDBG problems. Mr. Gracenin also noted that Jamestown’s application was flagged by PennDOT, there is some sidewalk work that was mentioned to be put in by the school that required some drainage. Drainage is not typically an allowable cost, but because it is needed to install a new sidewalk, some of the costs might be able to be absorbed. FHWA questioned if this project is to encourage children to walk to school. Ms. McClimans stated that there is no existing sidewalk and this project is to get more children to walk to school for safety purposes.

Mr. Ryan spoke on behalf of the City of Sharon’s Downtown Hometown Streets Revitalization Project. He noted that back in 2002, the City had started their downtown revitalization program and spent $326,000 in CDBG & their own monies to demolish some buildings and put in a new parking lot. The City received $625,000 RACT monies from the State, which the City has to match, to redo the library which will cost $1.3 Million. The City received a $1.5 Million RACT grant from the State, which the City has to match, to be used for renovations at Penn State Shenango. The City also received $250,000 for the Elm Street project. He noted that the City of Sharon’s Downtown Hometown Streets Revitalization Project would create a streetscape, including safety improvements, surrounding five intersections on East/West State Street, the main traffic arterial through the City’s downtown central business area. The total for this project is $855,000. He noted that this project could be broken up into different phases and explained that this project is critical to the downtown area. He stated that if they can’t get the whole project funded, the Sharpsville Avenue/State Street intersection would be the top priority. In discussion, it was noted that all students at the Sharon School District walk to school, since there is no busing.

Ms. Hirschmann stated that we know need to make two decisions: 1) how or if we wish to rank projects, and 2) make our recommendation. Mr. Gracenin stated that only voting members would be able to rank projects and make a recommendation. He then distributed some criteria which PennDOT provided to evaluate the projects. Mr. Gracenin stated again that all four projects are good projects. He explained that under project readiness, Sharpsville’s is in the planning stages, they need to go through design and get environmental clearance. Greenville’s project is part of a project that is ready to go, all their approvals are in place. Jamestown’s project needs to go through design and get environmental clearance. Sharon’s project also needs to go through design and get environmental clearance. There was discussion on how we might want to rank the projects. It was noted that we can split the pot of money between the four projects, since all projects can be done in phases.

Mr. Wilson stated that if Sharpsville Borough would scale back their request to $120,000 that would give them enough money to pay for one phase of their project. Mr. Oakes stated that he would have to talk with their engineer to get some figures. Mr. Ryan felt that if we can’t get the whole project funded, the Sharpsville Avenue/State Street intersection would be the top priority and it would cost about $134,000. Mr. Gracenin noted that it would be advisable to set aside some money for potential cost overruns. Committee members agreed. Mr. McCullough stated that you can hold so much of the funding back. He noted that based on project readiness, from PennDOT’s perspective, they are anxious to see a project get allocated money and move quickly.

Next, Mr. Wilson recapped on where the Committee is going with this project. He stated that we are talking about funding the City of Sharon at $134,000; funding the Borough of Sharpsville at $120,000; funding the Borough of Jamestown at $154,474 and taking and submitting the Borough of Greenville’s project for discretionary funding for the full amount of $848,000, but holding back $150,000 for Greenville if they don’t get discretionary funding, with the balance of the money to remain in that line item for any cost overruns. If Greenville would get fully funded, the $150,000 would either stay with Greenville or could be put back in that particular line item and possibly be used towards Sharon’s and Sharpsville’s projects.

After discussion, a motion was made by Mr. Morocco that we fund Sharpsville Borough $120,000; fully fund Jamestown Borough at $154,474; fund the City of Sharon $134,000; and submit the Greenville project on to the State for a State discretionary funding. If they do not get funded for the full amount, then fund the Borough of Greenville $150,000, with $114,000 balance to remain in that line item for potential cost overruns on any one of these projects. Ms. Brown seconded. The motion passed. Mr. Gracenin stated that he will work with the four municipalities in revising their applications to reflect the particular work that would actually be done.

CONCURRENCE OF FFY 2004 TIP ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION

Mr. McCullough explained that FFY 2003-2006 program finished up at the end of September and some administrative actions occurred. In FFY 2004, some changes were made to cover agreements and department costs on the Quaker Road Bridge. Also, some small changes were made to the new TIP. The District moved the line item reserved for the betterment project and they split that into two projects in order to move those projects forward to bid. He explained that under the current TEA-21, they can now flex funds from highway into transit projects. He stated that so much money is set aside each year to flex highway funds into the transit side of the TIP. He informed the Committee that he just got word that they were allowed to do this action for Mercer County. In turn, he flexed funds in order to purchase a small transit bus.

UPDATE ON 8 MONTH EXTENSION TO TEA-21 HIGHWAY/TRANSIT BILL

Mr. McCullough stated that under our current TEA-21, we have been on extensions for over a year. Beginning October 1, 2004 we received an 8 month extension to the TEA-21 Highway/Transit Bill. Along with that 8 month extension, we have 50 days of obligation authority to spend money under our new TIP. He noted that the amount of money to each region will remain unchanged. In discussion, it was noted that Senator Santorum and Senator Specter supports the existing Federal formula.

UPDATE OF STATUS OF COMP/LONG RANGE PLAN FOR MERCER COUNTY

Mr. Gracenin explained that we are currently updating our Long Range Transportation Plan and it’s in coordination with our County Comprehensive Plan update. The Long Range Transportation Plan will be incorporated into the County Comprehensive Plan. Gannett Fleming is the consultant doing the work on the County Comprehensive Plan. Various meetings with communities and different organizations have been ongoing. Upcoming meetings for the Comprehensive Plan are scheduled for November 3rd and 4th. Participation is encouraged from communities and individuals in order to make the Comprehensive Plan and Long Range Plan successful.

UPDATE ON THE STATUS OF AGREEMENT TO SPLIT FTA FUNDING BETWEEN SVSS AND WRTA

Mr. Gracenin explained that when the 2000 Census changed, we lost our urbanized area. Federal transit dollars are split by urbanized area and not be State. On the highway side, we did not have any issues. On the transit side, we are now required to split the funding with the urbanized area in Youngstown, OH. He noted that there have been many issues regarding the agreement. Between the SVSS and WRTA, they have come up with some type of agreement and it looks like they will be using the Federal formula. The amount to split will be roughly $240,000 for last fiscal year, but apparently Region V released Federal dollars to WRTA without a sign off from the SVSS. This fiscal year, Niles, OH will be included in the split of Federal transit dollars. Also, no funding will be released without an agreement and 3 signatures. Mr. Morocco asked if we had this in writing. Mr. Gracenin stated no. It was suggested that we write a convoluted letter to Senator Santorum stating that no Federal dollars would be released without an agreement and 3 signatures. Mr. Gracenin stated that he would write the letter, but asked for a motion. Ms. Brown so moved, Mr. Morocco seconded. The motion passed.

OTHER BUSINESS

---Williamson/Quaker Road Bridge – Mr. Gracenin explained that this bridge is scheduled for replacement starting at the end of 2005. The bridge currently is a one single lane thru span with a set of railroad tracks on each side of the bridge. Mr. Clark stated that he had some concerns, and would like to see the structure changed. He stated that the bridge could be used more if it was built, and felt that we should think long term. PennDOT has designed a two lane bridge that would cross over the railroad tracks, move the alignment and straighten out some curves. Mr. Clark has concerns regarding the safety between rail and cars. He would like to see a design change that would span the tracks. Mr. Gracenin stated that this would increase the cost to the bridge and possibly delay construction by about two years. PennDOT stated that a meeting was held regarding this issue. Overall, it would delay opening this bridge for at least another two years and would cost $3 Million more and other important bridge projects would get sacrificed in order to pay for this project. While PennDOT’s position is desirable to span both of the railroads or one, PennDOT plans to proceed with the bridge as designed.

---Strategy 1000 – Mr. Gracenin stated that MCRPC has been involved in Strategy 1000. He noted that Strategy 1000, the identified need for an additional 1000 acres of industrial park property, was designed to evaluate industrial sites and site development on a countrywide basis and prioritize development sites to meet both the short and long-term economic development growth objectives in Mercer County consistent with the Mercer County Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Larry Reichard, Executive Director of Penn-Northwest Development Corporation explained that an extensive amount of evaluations were done over the past 6-8 months in the County. He stated that they have received great support from PennDOT and MCRPC in working on the site evaluations. No decisions have been made yet. He noted that when looking at developing major development sites, you need to look at what improvements are needed in the transportation system. He noted that pending the decision of Strategy 1000, there may be a number of transportation issues that could be brought back before the MPO Committee to evaluate the options.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 12:20 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted,

Daniel M. Gracenin,
MPO Secretary

 

Mercer County Regional Planning Commission
2491 Highland Road, Hermitage, PA 16148
[email protected]    www.mcrpc.com

 

home    about mcrpc    planning projects    community development    transportation    zoning    subdivision