C.O.N.A. of South Pinellas County

What are our major neighborhood issues?

Nov 13, 2002

Major Issues in All Neighborhoods: Traffic Calming and
Policing will be the Key Topics at the November Meeting.

We are using the November C.O.N.A. monthly newsletter and C.O.N.A. meeting to address two major issues in the City of St. Petersburg: traffic calming and policing. Although the SPPD is not addressed specifically in this issue, it will be a topic at the November 20th meeting.

The traffic calming information will be provided in two separate documents. One has been included as an insert in this issue, and one will be a handout at the November C.O.N.A. meeting.

The draft of the City?’s ?“Neighborhood Transportation Management Program?”, prepared by Michael Frederick, Manager, Neighborhood Transportation, City of St. Petersburg, is included in the centerfold of this issue. The report outlines the proposed prioritization process for the Neighborhood Traffic Management Program. The City?’s Report was designed to be saved as a separate insert and used as a guideline for future reference.

Please review the City?’s Report (draft) for discussion at the November meeting. If approved by C.O.N.A., it will be submitted to City Council.

The second document, the ?“Traffic Calming Toolbox: A ?‘HOW TO?’ Guide for Neighborhoods?” was created by Cathy Wilson (Greater Woodlawn) and her Traffic Committee. This will be a handout at the meeting and will be used for future training.

Due to the length of the City?’s Report as the major focus in this issue, we did not run our regular columns this month.
Paula Engel, Editor


Coming in the January 2003 Issue:
Codes Compliance Assistance Department,
City of St. Petersburg

PLEASE NOTE!
The C.O.N.A. November Meeting Location for
Wednesday, November 20

is The St. Petersburg Times Auditorium
490 1st Ave. South

Social at 6:30 p.m. ?• Meeting Starts at 7 p.m.


TOPICS for General Board Meeting on 11/20/02

November is all about Neighborhoods!

Traffic Calming is ready for your review.

The Police Department is ready...

Your issues are the the topic of discussion.

Agenda also includes:

Nominations for 2003 CONA Officers

CONA Leadership Program

2003 Newsletter Advertising



President?’s Message

Dear Neighbors:

We are meeting this month at the St. Petersburg Times auditorium. The meeting starts at 7 p.m. with a little social time before. The Traffic and Engineering Departments of the City, and a dedicated group of neighborhood leaders, have been meeting to work for the last five months to work on the Traffic Calming guidelines. City representatives Mike Connors and Michael Frederick are coming to the November meeting to discuss how, why and what is needed to provide traffic calming in your neighborhood. I am sure that there will be plenty of questions. Enclosed in this newsletter is a draft of the City?’s proposal. It will be a handy guide for all neighborhoods and a quick reference on what is, and what is not, acceptable. We also wanted to limit the project waiting list to a five-year term with a review each year prior to the budgeting hearing.

The other November meeting topic will be policing in St. Petersburg, and how we can improve the morale, and retention of our police force. At last week?’s St. Petersburg?’s Police Department retreat, we (CONA) had many representatives who vocalized their concerns. The next two years are very important to the City and the Department. There are over sixty-five (65) experienced officers in all levels of service that are scheduled for the drop program (retirement). We need to be aware of the problem, and help the City and the Police Department address the concerns of our neighborhoods.

Nominations for the CONA Executive Board are this month. Anyone interested in running for President, 1st Vice President, 2nd Vice President, Secretary, or Treasurer, please contact Steve Plice of Jungle Terrace (344-3120) or Ed Van of Lakewood Estates (864-1238).

We approved the continuation of the newsletter in its current format for next year. However, we need to solicit new and additional advertisers to help our newsletter grow and increase our distribution. If you, or someone you know is looking to put their company name in front of the movers and shakers in neighborhood, please contact Monarch Publishers at 727-398-5866. If each neighborhood could provide one or two new advertisers, it would really help out. You can talk to Linda or Joe (or Deb, the publishing professional that makes Paula?’s great work look even better).

Have a great month, and I look forward to seeing you at the meeting.

Sincerely,
Brent


OCTOBER BOARD OF DIRECTOR'S MEETING MINUTES

The October C.O.N.A. meeting was held on October 16th, 2002,
at the All Children's Hospital Conference Center.

President Brent Fisher called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. with our Salute to the Flag.
?˜ Brent clarified an implication on our September Minutes. The CityNet One organization will involve all of the city, not just Midtown. The Minutes were then approved as published in our September newsletter.
?˜ Libby Steele made her Treasurer's Report of a cash balance of $2,641.05 with the Leadership Program account currently negative.
?˜ Tom Killian, (Leadership Recruiting Chair), offered to visit all neighborhood associations to promote our Leadership Program. The leadership alumni will share a picnic this Saturday at Gladden Park.
?˜ Mort Sherman, (Reclaimed Water Committee), reported his efforts to contact and discuss relevant issues with Patricia Anderson, (City-Public Utilities), have not been successful for several months. He opposes certain of their announced plans for our reclaimed water system.
?˜ A representative of our Supervisor of Elections distributed fliers and briefly described opportunities for early and absentee voting.
?˜ Noting our agreed trial period with Monarch Publishing would soon expire, the President asked for approval to continue printing our Newsletter there.
* Moved, (Whysong/Steele), CONA will continue our Newsletter publishing with Monarch Printing. [Approved]
-- Brent noted that CONA would be happy to extend its mailings to other interested parties in the community that request it.
?˜ Theresa McEachern, (Harbordale), noted that she has a quantity of Entertainment Coupon Books that can be sold by our neighborhoods.
?˜ There followed an extensive debate on the appropriate CONA position regarding the City Council meeting tomorrow that may include plans for the Albert Whitted Airport.
-- Though there was a consensus of approval for adding a 350 ft. runway extension as a safety feature for pilots and the adjoining neighborhood, the future plans to add 750 ft. more were condemned, (as they have been on two previous CONA votes).
-- Devoting city or federal grant monies to other airport improvements seemed acceptable.
* Moved, (Danner/Plice), CONA opposes action by the City Council to extend the airport runways until public hearings have discussed all proposed options. [Approved]
?˜ Bob Johnson, (Venetian Isles), spoke at some length urging that our CONA membership object to and challenge plans by City Development Services Staff to revise many existing ordinances relating to the Board of Adjustment and our current zoning regulations.
* Moved, (Johnson/Sherman), CONA urges City Council to reject the proposals of the Planning Commission embodied in Ordinances 29-2 and 29-50 related to the issues of variance requests, grandfathering, and non-conforming applications. [Unanimously Approved]
?˜ Pat Mason, (Pinellas Arts Council), spoke of the first of many artists?’ events, (November 2nd at the Shuffleboard Courts), being promoted by a local group FLUX, to encourage neighborhoods to celebrate and cultivate the many and varied artistic talents of our residents.
?˜ Joseph Harvey provided a brief look at the plans to bring the Amistad slave ship reproduction to The Pier from October 27th through November 4th, and again December 15th through the 22nd. It will be available for visitors.
?˜ Ann Drakeford, (Lakewood Terrace), appealed for solutions to the problem of randomly erected basketball hoops, mounted on light and phone poles, on city right of way, causing traffic hazards in her neighborhood.
?˜ Tabitha Whalen, of Manatee Watch, provided an interesting slide show that described the educational aids available to local organizations who wish to help in the program to protect our manatee population.
?˜ Bob Jeffrey, (City Development Services), offered an extensive power point presentation on the Vision 2020 Project. His program detailed many of the aspects that evolved in the project workshops participated in by neighborhood leaders as well as City staff.
-- At the conclusion of the workshop findings and their historical antecedents, his presentation addressed the issues of implementation. Among the significant milestones envisioned were: (1) City Council Adoption of the Vision 2020 findings as published. (2) Integration of the Vision's proposals with the city's existing Comprehensive Plan. (3) Integration of the Vision proposals into the current ongoing review of our Land Development Regulations. (4) Encouraging all neighborhood associations to develop compatible neighborhood plans for their area.
-- Bob also provided handouts of scheduled meetings that will continue the planning workshops over the next 18 months. He encouraged all interested residents to participate in these Land Development Regulations seminars.
?˜ Richard Grimberg, (Community Police Officer), spoke of, (and distributed flyers), of the Halloween Program planned for October 31st at Boyd Hill Park.

Respectfully submitted,

Conrad Weiser, Secretary


Partnership Notes

Neighborhood Association Contact Update
Please assist the Neighborhood Partnership Department in keeping the
list of associations current. Please contact Sharon Cimarik at 892-5141
when there is a change in the association president and contact
information (e.g. mailing address, phone number, E-mail).

CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG
Engineering, Stormwater & Transportation

NEIGHBORHOOD TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

FINAL REPORT TO THE COUNCIL OF NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS NOVEMBER 20, 2002

INTRODUCTION

The Neighborhood Transportation Management Program is a comprehensive City initiative to manage neighborhood traffic concerns and protect our neighborhoods. The overwhelming success of the program has stretched resources to the point that a review is required prior to implementing additional requests.

On July 19, 2000 it was determined that there were more approved traffic plans waiting for construction than could be funded in one year. Therefore all individual features within the outstanding traffic plans, at that time, were prioritized into categories A, B or C depending on their relative safety factor and providing coverage to all areas within the first year. The commitment to construct these features will be completed at the end of fiscal year 2002/2003.

The City's process for planning and developing traffic plans has evolved as a learning process and admittedly resulted in some minor conflicts. However, as the process has been refined these conflicts have been drastically minimized. The petition, voting and veto program that has developed, now addresses conflicts and or divisiveness through a democratic process. The overall proportion and relative need to implement a traffic plan is now determined with the majority of resident's approval or rejection.

The past practice of constructing complete traffic plans by neighborhood, in a chronological order however, must however, now be amended because of the limited resources to complete the work in a reasonable time. Additionally, the past method of implementation gave no consideration to the cost-effectiveness of the approved features when developing priorities. Therefore, the Council of Neighborhood Associations (CONA) has had a Committee working with City staff, to develop a method of prioritizing features within all approved neighborhood traffic plans, approved after July 19, 2000, for future construction.

This report will highlight a proposed amendment to this process that will evaluate each feature within a traffic plan based on safety, benefits, cost and funding availability, for your consideration and support.

PROPOSAL

Traffic Plans are initiated when citizens or neighborhood associations ask for help with traffic problems on their street or in their area. The Triple E approach is used to review all requests. The Police Department is first requested to conduct speed enforcement. If enforcement alone is not effective, the Transportation Division will install the Neighborhood Speed Watch Program. All traditional engineering solutions, such as regulatory or warning signs and pavement markings are also considered. Finally, a follow-up with further evaluation is conducted to determine if the concern has been corrected.
Should neither enforcement, engineering, or education adequately addresses the traffic concerns the Transportation Division will analyzes the data collected for the existing conditions on the roadway(s) of concern. The Committee is proposing that each roadway segment / feature would then be assigned a numerical score based on the following Hazard Exposure Index review:

Hazard Exposure Index
Example By Roadway Segment / Feature
Criteria Detail Number H.E.I.
Volume 1
Peak hourly vehicle volume, expressed as a percentage of the average daily traffic volume.(1 point assigned for every percent). 100 peek hr trips
1000 24-hr trips 10 %
or
10 points
Volume 1 or Volume 2 (which ever is greater)
Volume 2
Multiply the number of households by 10 trips per household.
(123 households X 10 trips per =1,230) 1,795 vpd -1,230 = 595 5 X 1 = 3
Existing 24-hour vehicle volume =1,795
(Award 1 point for every hundred vehicle trips greater than the daily trips per household, indicated above).
Speed
85th Percentile speed over 24-hours
(1 point assigned for every mile per hour) 35 MPH 35 Points
Crashes Number of crashes over a 3-year period, averaged per year, to calculate an annual rate. 6 crashes
over 3 years

Rate = 6/3 = 2 20 Points
5 pts - 0.500 To 0.875
10 pts - 0.876 To 1.250
15 pts - 1.251 To 1.625
20 pts - 1.626 To 2.000
25 pts - 2.001 To 2.375
30 pts - 2.376 To 2.750
Pedestrians 5 points assigned for each facility in the affected project area that generates a significant number of pedestrians.
(Parks, community centers, shopping centers etc.) 1 park and
1 school =
2 generators 10 points
TOTAL 75 point



NOTE:

Volume Traffic studies over the last 50 years have determined that peak hour residential traffic has been less than 12 percent of the total twenty-four hour vehicle volume.
ITE Transportation Planning Handbook, 2nd Edition - 1999
Speed 85th percentile speed is the speed at which 85 percent of free- flowing vehicles are traveling at or below. Use of the 85th percentile speed is based on the theory that 85 percent of drivers are reasonable, prudent, and desire to reach their destination in the shortest time possible.
Crashes Points are assigned to the crashes reported over the last three years at or near the feature or roadway segment under review.
Pedestrians
Points are assigned to each of the pedestrian generators at or near the feature or roadway segment under review.

This numerical index is a standard methodology for determining the level of safety, for various risks that can be measured, for numerous disciplines. The criterion being evaluated as part of this evaluation has been determined to be the critical measurements of safety within a residential neighborhood. Therefore, the level of safety at each site, evaluated as a component of each neighborhood traffic plan using this HEI calculation, can be compared in relation with each other.
The Committee determined that the implementation of a neighborhood traffic plan should be completed within a reasonable time frame, once the plan has been voted on and approved by the residents. To date, all traffic plans have been, or will be, implemented within a five year period from their date of approval. Therefore, based on this past precedent, the Committee proposes that the City only commit to all future traffic plans, or portions of plans, that could be completed within a five year time frame. This would be based on the level of funding committed to the program in any one year, projected similarly for future years.
With the proposed restrictions on the future construction, the Committee decided that a practical approach to determining what construction is to be included needed to be developed, considering the benefits received by the neighborhood from each individual traffic feature, within each traffic plan. The fairest and most equitable method of prioritizing installation was determined to be a calculation of the Benefit / Cost Ratio (B/C R) for each feature. This review takes into consideration the relative risk or hazard (HEI) at each site and benefit of the roadway redesign being proposed, in association with the overall cost of the specific feature.
When the Committee reviewed a B/C R summary of proposed features, it was illustrated that features, mainly on arterial and collector roadways were toward the bottom of the list. With these class of roadways posing a high risk for neighborhoods, it was determined that the features being proposed shouldn't be delayed, just because of the inherent high cost of the proposed solution.
In order to equitably address the reality of this situation, while still keeping the solution simple enough to understand, a practical decision was made to split the annually allocated funding 50/50, between arterial/collector and local roadway. This would provide resources to address both the local residential and higher volume roadway components of each traffic plan.

CONCLUSION

The Committee therefore proposes that individual features within all traffic plans can be programmed using this method, in order to achieve the best return on investment, as we address the locations that present the highest potential risk. By dividing the HEI by the cost of the individual feature we are able to calculate a B/C R and prioritize all features for construction, on both arterial/collector and local roadways, for the next five years.
Features that fall outside of this five year window would remain in the queue of outstanding, unfunded construction and would be considered for funding in order of the B/C R, as resources became available. Alternatively, the neighborhood could increase their B/C R by redesigning the selected feature with an appropriate less expensive alternative, thereby reducing the time in the prioritization queue.
Should a neighborhood decide to redesign a particular feature, the same implementation process that is used initially would have to be repeated to gain approval to change that feature or features within their Neighborhood Traffic Plan. These amendments to traffic plans would have to be completed before September 30th of each year in order to be considered for funding in that fiscal years construction program.
The Committee also recognized that by implementing portions of traffic plans traffic patterns could be altered and other roadways adversely affected. Should this be reported, additional traffic data would be collected and appropriate adjustments would be made to the B/C R. Again, these amendments would have to be completed before September 30th of each year, in order to be considered for funding in that fiscal years construction program.

ACTION PLAN

This report illustrates the Neighborhood Transportation Management Program and the proposed amendments recommended for implementation, including the Triple E review, development of a Hazard Exposure Index, Benefit Cost Ratio, a split of available funding for the program between arterial/collectors and local roadway and limiting our commitment to construct to a five year horizon.

The Committee of the Council of Neighborhood Associations has participated in the development of this proposed program and the approval by the whole Council is now sought. With the approval of CONA, this report will be submitted to City Council for their consideration.

Michael J. Frederick, Manager. Neighborhood Transportation, City of St. Petersburg








The View from My Front Porch
by Chris Kelly, President, Roser Park

Publication of the Vision 2020 book and the Albert Whitted debate and are two recent developments that have caught the attention of my neighbors and others who care about the future of St. Petersburg's Midtown Area. These developments illustrate the best and worst of City planning and political decision making in St. Petersburg.

The first, release of the Vision 2020 book(http://www.stpete.org/pdf/ vision2020book.pdf), reports to every St. Petersburg resident the results of a broad community driven initiative to guide the City's future development. Over a period of months the Vision initiative developed an educated and informed group of decision makers, as hundreds of City residents attended seminars, workshops and presentations designed to recap the history and potential of City planning in St. Petersburg. With that common body of knowledge, participants were able to map out the informed goals and objectives found in the Vision book. The Vision process was conducted in a transparent and inclusive fashion, and residents citywide can have confidence.

The second, more troubling development concerns the Albert Whitted Airport debate, where an utter lack of process and transparency has led to a bitterly fractionalized debate. As airport backers and redevelopment interests compete for primacy in Council hearings and Op-Ed page column inches, the residents who will be most affected have not been consulted. From my front porch, both of the two primary plans for Albert Whitted have detrimental effects on Midtown, and more study of these effects is warranted. If the airport goes and 3,000+ new housing units go on the market, Midtown property values will suffer just at the time that they're starting to creep back onto the tax rolls. If the airport stays and runway 6/24 expands as proposed, the noise and environmental impacts to those neighborhoods under the southwest approach will be equally detrimental, even with an expensive soundproofing program.

The subtext to all the concerns voiced to me is that should the residents of St. Petersburg see the airport debate tabled or resolved without a full airing more than Midtown will suffer, as confidence in government is more easily lost than regained.

Editor?’s Note: Chris Kelly is proud father of two and President of the Historic Roser Park Neighborhood Association, and Webmaster of RoserPark.net. He sits on the board of St. Petersburg Preservation Incorporated and is Manager of Sales and Marketing at Great Outdoors Publishing. You can contact Chris at ChrisKelly@RoserPark.net.


?“We make a living by what we get, but we make a life by what we give.?” -- Winston Churchill



Plan Ahead! Reserve Your Ad Space for 2003 NOW!

Call Linda or Joe at Monarch Publishing to place your ad for next year.

Monarch Publishing, Inc.

Phone: 398-5866

FAX: 398-5669

E-Mail: monarch976@aol.com

2003 Membership Fees Due in January

Please pay your 2003 dues promptly. They are due on January 1st, 2003. CONA dues are $35.00 a year for each association. If you wish to use the Bulk Main Permit No., please add $15.00 to your dues. Mail dues, along with the membership form in the newsletter, to C.O.N.A., P.O. Box 3529, St. Petersburg, FL, 33731.
As of 11/11/02, there are 59 paid 2002 C.O.N.A. members. New members this month include:

Edgemoor
Historic Park Street
34th St. Business