TBARTA Regional Public Participation Plan Working … · TBARTA Regional Public Participation Plan Working Group Meeting February 17, 2017 II. Agenda Item TBARTA RP3 Working Group

TBARTA Regional Public Participation Plan Working Group Meeting

February 17, 2017 - 10:30am to 12:00pm

Meeting Location: Hillsborough County Center

18th Floor, Planning Commission Manatee Room 601 E Kennedy Blvd

Tampa, FL 33602

Parking is provided in the Garage at 710 E Jackson St.

Teleconference Number: 1-813-273-3775 Conference ID: 227037

AGENDA

I. CALL TO ORDER (10:30a)

II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – January, 13, 2017 (10:40a)

III. RP3 MOE PROGRESS REPORT (10:45a)

IV. PRESENTATION/DISCUSSION ITEMS (10:55a)

1. Summary of Recent National Transit Institute (NTI) Public Involvement in TransportationDecision-Making Seminar (Hilary Lehman, Forward Pinellas)

2. Overview of Public Involvement Strategies and Process Measurement from SoutheastFlorida Transportation Council (SEFTC), MetroPlan Orlando, and Hillsborough County MPO(Hugh Pascoe, TBARTA)

3. TBARTA-CCC 2013 Joint Public Participation Plan Effort and Results (Rich Clarendon,Hillsborough MPO)

V. GENERAL DISCUSSION/ROUNDTABLE (11:50a)

VI. ADJOURNMENT (12:00p)

The TBARTA Regional Public Participation (RP3) Working Group provides input to the TBARTA MPOs CCC Public Involvement Plan. Specifically, the input provided relates to public participation strategies, issues, and trends at the regional level. The group convenes quarterly, and works to facilitate the communication and coordination needed to evaluate the measures of effectiveness of past regional public participation efforts, and provide guidance in the development of Best Practices that inform the objectives, recommendations, and performance targets in the next regional public involvement plan. For more information, please visit http://tbarta.com/en/rp3wg/about/rp3wg.

http://tbarta.com/en/rp3wg/about/rp3wg


February 17, 2017

II. Agenda Item

TBARTA RP3 Working Group Minutes for January 13, 2017

Recommended Action

Review and approval of meeting summary

Attachment

TBARTA RP3 Working Group Meeting Minutes for January 13, 2017

RP3 Working Group Kick-Off Meeting Friday, January 13, 2017 – 10:30 am

TBARTA Office, Meridian One 4350 West Cypress Street, Suite 700

Tampa, FL 33607

Meeting Minutes

Working Group Members Present: Michael Case, TBARTA Anthony Matonti, TBARTA Hugh Pascoe, Pascoe Planning, TBARTA Johnny Wong, Hillsborough MPO Manny Lajmiri, Pasco MPO Hilary Lehman, Forward Pinellas Dave Hutchinson, Sarasota/Manatee MPO (arrived at 10:38am) Chelsea Favero, Forward Pinellas (alternate, via phone) Steve Diez, Citrus/Hernando MPO (via phone)

Working Group Members Absent: Ronnie Blackshear, Polk TPO Ryan Kordek, Polk TPO, (alternate) Justyna Buszewski, Pasco MPO (alternate) Leigh Holt, Sarasota/Manatee MPO (alternate) Rich Clarendon, Hillsborough MPO (alternate) Dennis Dix, Citrus/Hernando MPO (alternate)

Other Meeting Attendees: Sheila Tirey, TBARTA Intern

Call to Order Mr, Case called the meeting to order at 10:30am, and thanked everyone for attending the project kick-off. He

asked attendees to introduce themselves and provide an overview of their role in public involvement with their organization. Brief discussion on this topic followed.

Overview of Working Group Mission and Purpose Mr. Case asked members if they had reviewed the stated purpose and mission of the working group as provided in

the agenda, and if anyone had changes or comments to submit.

Ms. Favero commented that the language for the joint CCC-TBARTA Regional Public Participation Plan should reflect the Chairs Coordinating Committee (CCC) as a subcommittee of TBARTA, and suggested revising to the TBARTA MPOs CCC Regional Public Participation Plan, with description that there are two plans being consolidated into one. Mr. Case agreed on reframing the language for clarity, and asked other members if they had any comments about the change. Mr. Pascoe stated that we have often struggled to define what is regional, and how to get people to pay attention when there are multiple processes involved that are occurring simultaneously. He added that the key to success will be in working together to develop a clear and cohesive process that will work on both the local and regional levels, as well as for the public. Mr. Hutchinson agreed with the revised mission and purpose language, emphasizing consistency with statute and to make sure we are not adding any new layers to an already complex process.

Presentation/Discussion Items Overview of Working Group Roles, Project Schedule and Milestones, Michael Case

Mr. Case presented background information on the structure of the CCC and the local history of regional public involvement, as well as the project scope and the details of the working group, including the roles that need to be filled in keeping the project moving forward. Members were asked to examine the listed roles and responsibilities for clarity and understanding.

Mr. Wong commented that developing performance targets that guide evaluation measures needs to be included in the scope and working responsibilities. Mr. Case agreed and spoke of reviewing research conducted by FDOT and the Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR) that recommended several methods for introducing performance targets into the public involvement process. Case added that a page will be added to the TBARTA site for easy access to recent studies and working documents, and the FDOT-CUTR Performance Measures document will be made available there. Mr. Hutchinson commented that as each MPO conducts its own evaluations and prepares its annual certification, each could look at doing something on a much smaller scale if TBARTA is working on the regional element, and to incorporate the findings and opportunities of this project into own their plans. Mr. Case noted that one of the roles of the group is to review what works and establish a process by which the identified strategies are coordinated with TBARTA.

Mr. Wong also commented that time for taking the RP3 MOE report and consolidated public participation plan to each respective MPO board for approval, as well as incorporating any changes and bringing back for review needs to be accounted for in the project schedule. Mr. Case clarified that with the plan to have the final report complete in August 2017, the TBARTA MPOs CCC Board and TBARTA Board would review and comment on a working draft at the June 16 meetings, followed by each MPO bringing to their respective boards for additional review and comment. A working group meeting would then be scheduled for July to assist in working out any required revisions. After the public notice and 45-day review and comment period, the draft would be brought back to both the CCC and TBARTA Boards with provided comments for consideration in the final approval and adoption in December.

Review of Goals and Recommendations from 2012 RP3 MOE Report, Michael Case

Mr. Case presented the goals and recommendations as outlined from the 2012 Measures of Effectiveness report, as well as the findings from the 2010 report that preceded it. During the presentation, Mr. Case pointed out that in reviewing the stated goals from 2012, it may be better to consider these as objectives, since no performance targets were attached to them. The presentation continued with comment from working group members as follows:

Ms. Favero commented on the use of the www.regionaltransportation.org domain for regional planning documents. A previous discussion in a staff directors meeting determined the site should not be renewed in the future, as all current and past documents pertaining to the TBARTA MPOs CCC are housed within the TBARTA website.

Mr. Hutchinson commented on a bullet point showing the JCAC as being absorbed by the TBARTA Citizens Advisory Committee, Mr. Hutchinson clarified that when the CCC was incorporated as a subcommittee under TBARTA, the JCAC was no longer needed and was dissolved. Mr. Matonti added that TBARTA is currently pursuing legislation this year that will add one voting member from each MPO, including Polk County, to the CAC.

Mr. Hutchinson commented that on the visibility objective, elected officials seem to view the MPO process as overly bureaucratic and we need to work as a group to effectively discern the difference between being recognized for how we solve problems and not just the agencies that plan transportation. Mr. Case agreed, and referenced an earlier comment made by Mr. Wong that developing and agreeing on performance targets and measures will help to increase the certainty that we are reaching and involving the right people and groups throughout the public involvement process. Mr. Pascoe added that the intent overall is make sure we’re making the process work for everyone. Mr. Wong related that not all press is good press, and a more nuanced approach is needed. He explained that the Hillsborough MPO utilized content analysis software that automatically categorized emails and social media comments as positive or negative during the hearing for the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) in June 2016. Mr. Hutchinson stated that the Sarasota/Manatee MPO uses email and does not engage in tracking or analysis, but was curious about cost of Constant Comment. Mr. Wong responded that he would follow up and report on the cost(s) in the next meeting.

Ms. Lehman shared the idea that TBARTA and the MPOs need to coordinate their messaging on regionally oriented topics, even if the objective is different at the individual agency level. She mentioned that when SUN Trail funding was announced, Forward Pinellas and TBARTA coordinated on a press release and other media content, which emphasized the collaborative nature of the effort. Mr. Hutchinson agreed that it is good idea, and that we can be innovative without incurring a lot of additional cost. Mr. Case stated that there have been some good examples of this practice in the recent past, but it has been a moving target. He added that in the development of the consolidated public participation plan, a process or procedure outlining how messaging could or should be coordinated may need to be included, specifically outlining whom is responsible for distribution, and where does the message go to provide for clarity and consistency.

http://www.regionaltransportation.org/

Regional Public Involvement Processes and Performance Measurement, Hugh Pascoe

Mr. Pascoe outlined the public engagement processes for TBARTA and the CCC, as well as federal requirements for public engagement. Comments throughout the presentation were as follows:

Mr. Hutchinson commented that developing programs and policies at regional level comes back to what funding is available. He added that in the Sarasota-Manatee MPO Public Participation Plan update, instead of including a long list of specific activities, they were more flexible by stating goals and how they may be accomplished. Mr. Pascoe stated that it comes down to what level of effort is expect to be incorporated into the program, and what will help us advance our identified regional goals, which need to be reasonable in terms of resources required and feasible in their completion. Covered a wide geographic area requires us to be media adept to bring the regional message forward.

Mr. Lajmiri mentioned that a previous strategy of the CCC included the distribution of newsletter’s covering various updates and stories on regional projects from each MPO. Mr. Hutchinson mentioned that these didn’t turn out to be very effective in engaging the public, and the print costs as well as time it took to put together tended to be prohibitive. He continued that a possible value added function for TBARTA would be to take material that is created at local MPO level, such as blogs, and repurpose the content into an e-newsletter. Mr. Case responded that TBARTA currently assembles stories from around the region into a weekly news brief, but there is an awareness that numerous important stories and pieces information are not being picked up by the media. He continued that TBARTA recently piloted an opportunity with Forward Pinellas whereby stories are submitted for inclusion into the weekly news brief, and that could be expanded to include every other MPO in the region as well. The focus would be on important information and stories that might not be as controversial or visible by news media standards, such as non-controversial public hearings, recent successes, and so on.

Mr. Wong commented that in addition to electronically based strategies, low-tech is important as well to include in our public engagement toolbox. He cited a recent example where yard signs were utilized to engage neighborhoods affected by the Tampa Bay Express project in the public hearing for the Transportation Improvement Program approval. The stated that the strategy seemed effective in getting the public talking and engaged in the process.

General Discussion/Roundtable Mr. Case opened the meeting to discussion on what successful public participation means to each member,

and if there are any suggestions for examples we may want to look at in developing best practices and the consolidated TBARTA MPOs CCC Public Participation Plan. Mr. Wong suggested we look at the Southeast Florida Transportation Council (SEFTC), as their Public Involvement Plan was recently spotlighted for addressing the challenges of regional coordination with an effective communication and decision making plan. Mr. Hutchinson added that he has seen the SEFTC regional documents, and think they did a great job. He continued that they also have a lot of local funding, which is believed to be nearly equal to their planning funds. Mr. Case responded that he and Mr. Pascoe will engage SEFTC staff on their process, how they funded it, and bring the information for review by the group at the next meeting. He added that given staff availability, he would like to try have a member of their public engagement team present to the working group at a future meeting.

Summary and Next Steps

Mr. Case reviewed the suggestions and feedback during the kick-off meeting with the group and outlined the steps to be taken prior to the next working group meeting. A staff contact from each MPO that engages in updating or analyzing website activity was also requested, in the circumstance that analyses on the TBARTA site and CCC page require any additional examination beyond their analytics account. Mr. Case also informed the working group that a page will be included on the TBARTA website for the project under “Committees,” which will include all materials and project updates.

Next Meeting Date and Location The next meeting date was discussed and tentatively scheduled for February 10, 2017, at 10:30am. Mr. Case informed the group that he will be reaching out within the next week to members to coordinate a location.

Adjournment Mr. Case adjourned the meeting at 12:06pm.


February 17, 2017

III. Agenda Item – Progress Report

RP3 MOE Progress Report – Presentation by Michael Case and Hugh Pascoe, TBARTA

Summary

Hugh Pascoe and Michael Case will present an update to the RP3 Working Group on progress of the measures of effectiveness evaluation.

Recommended Action

Based on Working Group Discussion and Direction

Attachments

None


February 17, 2017

IV. Agenda Item – Presentation/Discussion

1. Summary of Recent National Transit Institute (NTI) Public Involvement in Transportation Decision-Making Course/Seminar – Presentation by Hilary Lehman, Forward Pinellas

Summary

The National Transit Institute conducts a series of courses designed to help grantees and transportation providers understand processes and learn tools to remain or become compliant with federal regulations. This Public Involvement in Transportation Decision-making course walks the talk by employing public involvement techniques as the means of conveying the key learning outcomes. It is a joint effort among FTA’s Office of Planning, NTI, the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Office of Planning, and the National Highway Institute (NHI) and was recently updated to reflect changes in the Federal Transportation reauthorization.

Recommended Action

For Information Only

Attachment

None


February 17, 2017


2. Overview of Public Involvement Strategies and Process Measurement from Southeast Florida Transportation Council (SEFTC), Metroplan Orlando, and Hillsborough County MPO – Presentation by Hugh Pascoe, TBARTA

Summary

Following on the request of working group members to review other regional public participation efforts, specifically of the Southeast Florida Transportation Council (covering Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach Counties), Pascoe Planning has conducted interviews with public involvement professionals from the member MPOs of Miami-Dade and Palm Beach, as well as MetroPlan Orlando (covering Orange, Osceola and Seminole Counties). Public Involvement Plans for each agency were also reviewed, including for the Hillsborough County MPO.

Recommended Action


Attachment

Public Involvement Evaluation Processes Summary

TBARTA REGIONAL PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS (RP3) COMPILATION OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT EVALUATION PROCESSES

The following consists of a compilation of the process used to assess the effectiveness of four public involvement process from MPOs around Florida. Each of these MPO programs have been cited by FDOT as examples of effective and proactive PI processes. In that they represent MPOs larger than many within Florida or the Tampa Bay region, it should be noted that smaller MPOs have neither the resources or the need to engage the public in such a manner. The MPO Public Involvement processes compiled here are:

MetroPlan Orlando

Miami-Dade MPO

Palm Beach MPO

Hillsborough MPO Furthermore, the three southeast Florida MPOs; Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach, conduct a regional planning process called the Southeast Florida Transportation Council, operating under an interlocal agreement signed in 2005. In reviewing these materials, it should be noted that attitudes about the usefulness of measurement procedures also vary from MPO to MPO; however, all agree that some degree of measurement is both necessary and desirable in that it is required by State and Federal agencies, and ongoing comparisons of program activity can assist in adjusting level of effort or specific techniques.

METROPLAN ORLANDO PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROCESS MEASUREMENT Goal: To establish a comprehensive, inclusive process, through various methods, and create continuous opportunities to engage the public in transportation planning. These objectives and strategies will be used to achieve the goal, while evaluation measures ensure effectiveness. Objective #1 Increase public involvement through targeted outreach activities, executing at least two activities each month. Strategies & Tools:

1. Partner with transportation agencies, local governments, and interested parties to broaden outreach.

2. Continue to foster an active speakers’ bureau program to interact with interested community groups by providing easy access on the website to a “Request a Speaker” form and other information about getting a speaker from MetroPlan Orlando.

3. Develop interactive tools for community events and speakers’ bureau activities to encourage conversation, including such things as: public comment forms that ask for general or specific input on projects, specialized surveys to gather information for the MetroPlan Orlando Board, as well as real-time polling and other conversation starters.

4. Pay special attention to outreach for traditionally underserved populations in the region, including senior citizens, economically disadvantaged, physically disabled, young people, and people with

limited proficiency in English. Use targeted meetings, non-traditional partnerships and other tools to foster meaningful participation.

5. Capture and share citizen comments at community events in various ways, including video recording, photography, surveys and social media engagement.

6. Publish an annual report that summarizes accomplishments and outlines key issues.

7. Publish event photos to social media and invite the public to come see us at community events. Measurement Outreach event listing Objective #2 Increase website activity on MetroPlanOrlando.org by five percent each year, encouraging broader outreach and involvement. Strategies & Tools:

1. Maximize visualization and electronic publication opportunities on the website to make electronic public participation more effective. Use social media channels to drive visitors to the website. Reduce printing and related costs by incorporating more content on MetroPlanOrlando.org.

2. Provide an interactive “Contact Us” feature on the website, allowing the public to send in comments or questions about transportation plans and other issues and to submit public comments about public meetings they may not be able to attend.

3. Increase awareness of the organization’s website by adding links to

4. MetroPlanOrlando.org on partner and community websites, along with cross-promotion of the website in print and electronic communication.

5. Use statistically valid public opinion survey research as a tool to gather input and bring traffic to the website from a wider regional audience.

Measurement Website information from Google Analytics on page views and unique visitors Objective #3

Provide opportunities for round-the-clock public engagement, increase awareness of the transportation planning process, and offer information on MetroPlan Orlando activities through social media.

Demonstrate success with Facebook by adding 100 people who “like” the organization’s Facebook page annually, along with an average of 5,500 organic impressions per month (number of times users may have seen page content in news feeds, tickers or page visits).

Demonstrate success with Twitter by adding 500 Twitter followers annually, along with an average of 12,000 total Twitter impressions (number potential engagements, based on delivery of the organization’s tweets to Twitter users feeds) per month.

Strategies & Tools:

1. Position MetroPlan Orlando as the transportation planning expert in Central Florida by posting current transportation information, such as research, plan details, current industry news, and details of public meetings and events.

2. Interact with transportation agencies, local government partners, and interested parties on social media outlets to strengthen relationships.

3. Promote social media efforts during community outreach events, on the website, in community presentations and within printed materials published by the organization.

4. Solicit community feedback on various transportation issues through posting questions and opportunities to comment.

5. Use guidelines in Social Media Policy (see page 19) to monitor comments for compliance and propriety.

6. Send live Tweets and Facebook posts during events and meetings to build engagement among people outside the room.

7. Evaluate new social media tools for possible use in outreach efforts. Measurement Facebook likes and impressions, Twitter followers and impressions Objective #4 Integrate the adopted 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan in public outreach, using plain language and focusing on key concepts central to the plan. Strategies & Tools:

1. Regularly include content about efforts to implement elements of the 2040 Plan in outreach tools, including the annual report, electronic newsletter, social media, speakers’ bureau presentations, and community events.

2. Develop an outreach component appropriate for Central Florida students, with an emphasis on planning a future transportation system and preserving air quality.

3. Produce publications that are visually appealing and underscore key messages in easy-to-read formats and distribute them at events, meetings and through partnerships.

4. Maintain the 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan section of MetroPlanOrlando.org, and maintain electronic publication of the adopted plan and current efforts related to implementation.

Measurement Outreach event listing, Newsletter/Website/Social media/Collateral Content Objective #5 Keep interested members of the public informed about the transportation planning process in the region through email and continue increasing the database of contacts by 10 percent each year, through actively seeking new sign-ups for email communication. Strategies & Tools:

1. Highlight planning activities and offer information about future public involvement opportunities in an attractive electronic newsletter, produced several times during the year.

2. Increase awareness of events, such as public hearings and informational meetings through email invitations.

3. Provide links to planning documents and other information through email announcements.

4. Maintain central database for email contacts, segmented into useful groups by affiliation, geographic location or area of interest – allowing for targeted email communication.

5. Actively seek to increase the number of contacts by providing links for email communication sign-ups on the website and by soliciting sign-ups in printed collateral, and at community events.

Measurement Email communication sign-ups, Email communications sent Objective #6 Increase press coverage about the transportation planning process and principles central to the process, generating at least 10 print articles and eight broadcast stories each year. Strategies & Tools:

1. Develop and distribute targeted press releases or informative emails on key events and activities and, if appropriate, press kits that offer visual tools, such as photos, maps and graphics that help in reporting the story, as well as background on MetroPlan Orlando.

2. Provide transportation briefings for new journalists in Central Florida and those who may be

unfamiliar with planning process.

3. Generate targeted media pitches for transportation reporters, and provide contacts or information, as needed, to reporters working on transportation stories.

4. Increase outreach to community-based newspapers, including targeted outreach that features volunteers from advisory committees and board members.

5. Use community calendars maintained by partners and community organizations, as well as local blogs to help publicize events and activities.

6. Identify opportunities for appropriate social media outreach, to reporters and media outlets, including building awareness and providing information through live-tweeting from events.

7. Post and archive news on MetroPlanOrlando.org for easy access by the media and public.

8. Clarify any misinformation about the organization that makes its way into media local reports. Measurement Media clips Meet all federal and state requirements for public involvement, by having successful certifications annually by the Florida Dept. of Transportation (FDOT) and every four years by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Strategies & Tools:

1. Identify opportunities to broaden outreach beyond public meeting notice requirements, including media coverage and partner resources.

2. Document extensive public involvement efforts.

3. Keep up with federal and state guidance on public involvement. Measurement Certification by Florida Department of Transportation, the Federal Highway Administration, and the Federal Transit Administration. Public Involvement Evaluation Dashboard The purpose of the Evaluation Dashboard is to provide a process for public involvement staff to consider all activities during the past year and compare them to the goals, objectives, strategies and tools outlined in the

adopted Public Involvement Plan. This process allows the organization to adjust strategies to maximize the effectiveness of outreach to the community and refine available resources. Goal: To establish a comprehensive, inclusive process, through various methods, and create continuous opportunities to engage the public in transportation planning. Other Objectives

Increase public involvement through targeted outreach activities, executing at least two activities each month.

Increase website activity on MetroPlanOrlando.org by five percent each year, encouraging broader outreach and involvement.

Provide opportunities for round-the-clock public engagement, increase awareness of the transportation planning process, and offer information on MetroPlan Orlando activities through social media. Demonstrate success with Facebook by adding 100 people who “like” the organization’s Facebook page annually, along with an average of 8,500 organic impressions per month (number of times users may have seen page content in news feeds, tickers or page visits). Demonstrate success with Twitter by adding 500 Twitter followers annually, along with an average of 19,000 total Twitter impressions (number potential engagements, based on delivery of the organization’s tweets to Twitter user’s feeds) per month.

Integrate the adopted 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan in public outreach, using plain language and focusing on key concepts central to the plan.

Keep interested members of the public informed about the transportation planning process through email -- including regular newsletters, announcements, and surveys – and continue building a database of contacts by actively seeking new sign-ups for email communication.

Increase press coverage about the transportation planning process and principles central to the process, generating at least 10 print articles and eight broadcast stories each year.

Meet all federal and state requirements for public involvement. MIAMI-DADE MPO PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN EVALUATION METHODOLOGY To assess existing and future PI activities, the Miami-Dade MPO utilizes various evaluation methods to gauge the level of success for each strategy and ensure compliance with state and federal agency regulations. To maintain an up-to-date and effective public involvement program, the Miami-Dade MPO must continuously evaluate the effectiveness of its PI strategies. General outreach strategies such as outreach events, CAA meetings, the website, the Annual Report, etc., can be evaluated on a yearly basis. In contrast, due to their dynamic nature, applicable studies and required documents shall be evaluated at their completion, and shall meet the goals set by their specific PIP. When evaluating a strategy, it is suggested to refer to the approach depicted within the Florida Department of Transportation’s (FDOT) “Public Involvement Handbook” that recommends:

Identifying applicable performance measures and targets for each strategy that are should either be measurable, verifiable, or cost effective.

Utilizing evaluation methods such as surveys in the form of face-to-face, email, mail, and phone calls.

Utilizing statistical analysis to determine the effectiveness of a strategy.

Engage in staff debriefings, especially after a study has been completed.

Improvements to the Public Involvement Program should be made to increase public

awareness and to improve the quantity and quality of information provided to the public. As per the FDOT’s “Public Involvement Handbook”, examples are shown that “…illustrate various public involvement techniques, criteria for success, and methods to achieve the public involvement goals. For the purposes of this table, performance measures are not specifically identified because these are usually determined at the planning stage of each public involvement activity. By being aware of the goals of public involvement, and knowledgeable of the project, quantifiable performance measures can be determined.”

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PLAN EVALUATION PROCESS

EVALUATION OF EXAMPLE PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT TOOLS

PALM BEACH MPO PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PLAN DEVELOPMENT, UPDATE AND EVALUATION The Palm Beach MPO has an extensive PIP evaluation process that applies several strategies and techniques, indicators, performance objectives, and strategies to achieve performance objectives. The MPO is committed to meaningful public participation in Palm Beach County and South Florida, working to encourage citizens to participate fully in the local and regional transportation planning process. The Palm Beach MPO believes that:

Public participation is a method to ensure high quality transportation planning, not a simple “add on”

Effective transportation planning must include the participation of those whose everyday lives are critically affected by how they are able to get to work, home, school, stores, and services

It is essential to solicit participation, not just wait for it; and it is essential to respect and seriously consider input that is received, not just collect it

Public participation must be about meaningful opportunities for input, not just fulfilling regulations

Educating the public about the transportation planning process is key to real participation

Additional emphasis should include underserved populations in the transportation planning process, including low-income, minority, elderly, transportation disadvantaged and limited English proficiency populations.

The Palm Beach MPO believes that transportation planning must be done with the public’s full involvement. While federal laws and regulations set a framework for public involvement in transportation planning, the Palm Beach MPO seeks to go beyond the letter of these laws to fulfill the true spirit of full public participation. Of particular note, the Broward PIP contains the following assessment of public involvement techniques done for the southeast Florida region. The Southeast Florida Transportation Council (SEFTC), serves as the formal forum for policy coordination and communication to carry out the regional initiatives agreed upon by the Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade MPO’s.

PUBLIC OUTREACH STRATEGIES, PLANS, OBJECTIVES AND GOALS - REGIONAL

HILLSBOROUGH MPO PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN PUBLIC PARTICIPATION EVALUATION Measures of Effectiveness Evaluation is necessary to determine the effectiveness of the PPP. Being responsive to the public raises questions, such as: To what degree is the community participating in public involvement opportunities? Are we reaching our target audience and key constituencies? and, Are MPO documents effective and informative tools for public awareness? Answers to these questions can be determined through an analytical evaluation process. New and improved strategies and techniques can be developed to improve the overall performance of the public involvement process. The following are measures of effectiveness considered in the bi-annual evaluation of the process. Several new evaluation criteria have recently been added to the existing measures – these new measures are italicized for emphasis. Measuring Visibility & Productivity

Number of MPO publications produced;

Number of MPO newsletters and brochures distributed, such as Bicycle Suitability Maps, Ride Guides and Citizens Guide to Transportation Planning, etc.;

Number of newspaper advertisements and public notices placed in publications with minority audiences;

Media inventory of newspaper articles, television and radio coverage;

Number of CCC brochures distributed;

Number of TMO sponsored maps distributed, as well as any other sponsorship or advertisement opportunity;

Number of meetings broadcast on Hillsborough County Television; and

Number of publications available on the MPO website, at a minimum to include the LRTP, TIP, and an annual list of obligated projects.

Measuring Participation Opportunities

Number of MPO public forums, workshops and community meetings at which displays, presentations, discussions and feedback occurred;

Number and origin of participants at such public forums, workshops and community meetings;

Number of participants at public forums, workshops and community meetings held in historically underserved areas or with such populations;

Number of participation opportunities offered to American Indian entities, such as the Seminole Tribe of Florida;

Number and origin of participants at monthly MPO and committee meetings;

Number of persons on the MPO mailing list receiving regular agendas; and

Number of draft plans, reports, other preliminary documents or surveys posted to MPO website for public comment.

Increasing Public Participation Efforts with Minorities, Low-Income Individuals, & the Transportation Disadvantaged

Ensuring the MOE report details representative public involvement;

Developing maps with updated, community-specific demographic and socioeconomic data within the MPO’s geographic boundaries at the census tract, block group or zip code level; and

Listing all MPO committee members’ demographic data, including race, ethnicity, age, and whether or not they are disabled.

Measuring Public Interest & Feedback

Number of returned comment cards distributed with Newsletters and other MPO publications;

Number of verbal comments received at open forum discussions, public hearings and at any other opportunities for public interaction;

Number of phone, fax, mail and email inquiries or comments cards received;

Number of visitors to the MPO website; and

Seeking feedback that is immediate and project specific.

Measuring Input Results

Number of issues identified through public input and responded to by the MPO;

Documented revisions to plans based on citizen input. Refining PPP Process

Periodic public involvement process surveys;

Update the PPP in conjunction with, and at the outset of, each LRTP update; and

Recommendations to enhance the PPP. Using the system measures, the PPP MOE performs a process analysis of our Public Participation Plan. The report is presented to the MPO Board every other year and posted on the MPO website. FURTHER OBSERVATIONS By reviewing the above PI programs, one can see that the activities, review/measurement process and feedback mechanisms vary widely. Based upon lengthy discussions with PI Managers from the four MPOs, the following observations can be made regarding the effectiveness of the overall PI process, the Regional PI process, and the measurement process itself.

Federal and State agencies are moving away from using a rigorous numerical computation for measuring the “effectiveness” or program activities. Rather, the PI managers know what works and can assess successes and failures in a more quantitative/subjective manner.

Most felt that at the regional level, information sharing between the member MPOs, usually through a formal working group, is the most effective way to effectively coordinate activities and events.

Regional PI is a “tough sell” since the audience is spread over a wide area, usually contains a broad message, and has multiple constituencies.

Try to link regional PI activities and events. One example was a “linear” event on Tri-Rail where events were held at different station area using local staff and officials from that area.

In general, doing numerical targets are most valuable when compared from year to year, thereby indicating trends than can guide program adjustments.

PI managers know what works in their areas and tailor community participation programs to meet these needs. Public participation is a constant effort that requires direct engagement with groups, other agencies and neighborhoods. Sometimes you need to take risks to try out new forms of engagement.

Get the message out to your Board and Committees. They need to know what’s happening in their community on a regular basis. Provide detailed lists of events/activities to these groups at each meeting.

The MPO brand is never going to be widely recognized and the message is almost always (overly) broad. The public is often either confused or uninterested by far ranging plans that don’t have an immediate impact on their lives or businesses.

To the extent possible or applicable, try to target audiences with a specific message rather than an overly broad message. Try to know your community, the makeup of sub areas, and the concerns of specific neighborhoods.

Coattail on other events, and try to make displays relevant to the overall theme of the event.

Electronic/social media outreach is an effective tool for receiving public comments, but results/comments can be skewed by the nature of persons using these methods.

Events that can engage a wide audience over a dispersed area, such as electronic/telephone town halls are usually effective. However, selection of a good vendor is critical for success.


February 17, 2017


3. TBARTA-CCC 2013 Joint Public Participation Plan Effort and Results – Presented by Rich Clarendon, Hillsborough County MPO

Summary

In 2010, the Chairs Coordinating Committee (CCC) adopted a Regional Public Participation Plan (RPPP) to encourage input from citizens, elected officials, and technical staff of the various agencies throughout the region. In 2013, the CCC and TBARTA formed a public involvement working group to develop a framework for the RPPP to collaborate on key elements of the plan such as regional branding; goals, objectives, and measures of effectiveness; public engagement toolbox; policies and procedures. The resulting product was “A Symphony: The Joint Regional Public Participation Plan for the Tampa Bay Area.”

Recommended Action


Attachment

“A Symphony: The Joint Regional Public Participation Plan for the Tampa Bay Area.”

June 2013

DRAFT Regional Public Participation Plan | June 2013 ii

Foreword

To consolidate regional transportation planning activities and simplify the regional transportation planningprocess in the eyes of the public, the West Central Florida Metropolitan Planning Organization’s ChairsCoordinating Committee (CCC) and the Tampa Bay Area Regional Transportation Authority (TBARTA)composed this Joint Regional Public Participation Plan (RPPP) as a collaborative effort. It is a symphonythat will allow the organizations to perform in concert with one voice.

The CCC and TBARTA formed a public involvement working group to develop a framework for the RPPP.The working group consisted of public involvement specialists from each of the local MPOs in the region,TBARTA, and the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). The working group developed aregional branding identity, goals, objectives, and measures of effectiveness. The working group alsodissected the regional transportation planning process to identify the best opportunities for publicengagement and identified roles and responsibilities for conducting the outreach. They also developed amenu of appropriate engagement tools and an annual budget for the program. Finally, the working groupdeveloped templates and policies that will guide the RPPP.

As the regional conversation continues, the TBARTA and CCC partnership will likely evolve. Therefore, itis important that this document is flexible and adaptable. The toolbox is not intended to limit the how the Regional Public Participation Plan is carried out. New tools may be added or existing ones dropped as needs change. To assist with the teaming of these two agencies, a number of new practiceshave been developed. The following symbol will denote new practices within this document.

The following bullet list highlights some of the recommendations of the working group:

To solidify the CCC-TBARTA partnership and present a unified regional message, a joint logoand branding was developed with one tagline: “One Region. One Plan. One Voice.” The logoand tagline should be incorporated into all the joint transportation planning and public outreachefforts and materials.

It is recommended that the CCC and TBARTA boards meet jointly at least one time per year. Ata minimum, the boards will hold an annual workshop to discuss and approve the regionalpriorities. During the Regional Long Range Transportation Plan (RLRTP) process, the boardsshould meet jointly to provide input on the draft RLRTP.

There would be a new committee that represents the federally-designated “TransportationManagement Area” (TMA) comprising the “core” urbanized areas of Hillsborough, Pasco, andPinellas counties. This subcommittee would meet regularly to discuss issues affecting the TMA.The TMA committee would be represented by MPO members from Hillsborough, Pasco, andPinellas counties.

As the CCC and TBARTA begin to merge regional activities, it is important that the publicunderstand that there is a clear approval process for jointly prepared plans. This process will be aconsecutive flow of information beginning with presentations to and a recommendation from theTBARTA and CCC committees, proceeding to a recommendation from the CCC, and ending withapproval by the TBARTA board.

TBARTA will be responsible under an agreement with the CCC for executing the joint RPPP withcontinued guidance from the public involvement working group and an annual budget supportedjointly by TBARTA and each of the CCC’s local metropolitan/transportation planningorganizations (MPOs/TPOs)

Every two years, the CCC-TBARTA will prepare a Measures of Effectiveness (MOE) report tomonitor their performance relative to the goals and objectives that our outlined in this document.Major updates to the RPPP will occur every five years; however, it is a living document, somodifications can be made to improve the process or reflect required changes.

DRAFT Regional Public Participation Plan | June 2013 iii

Table of contents

Chapter Pages

Table of contents iii 1. Prelude 1-1

1.1. Background .................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.2. CCC-TBARTA: Joining Forces to Enhance Regional Public Engagement ............. 1-1

1.2.1. Public Involvement Working Group..................................................................... 1-1 1.3. Plan Purpose .................................................................................................................. 1-2

1.4. Target Audience ............................................................................................................. 1-2

1.5. Regional Branding and Identity .................................................................................... 1-3

2. Setting the Tempo: Consolidated Goals and Objectives 2-1 3. Music Composition and Flow: Regional Planning Process and

Engagement Opportunities 3-1 3.1. Regional Planning Activities ......................................................................................... 3-1

3.1.1. Regional Long Range Transportation Plan and Master Plan ............................. 3-1 3.1.2. Regional Public Participation Plan ...................................................................... 3-2 3.1.3. Regional Congestion Management Process ...................................................... 3-2 3.1.4. Air Quality Management Planning Process ........................................................ 3-2 3.1.5. Annual Regional Priorities ................................................................................... 3-2 3.1.6. Regional Multi-use Trails Annual Update ........................................................... 3-2 3.1.7. Special Programs and Projects ........................................................................... 3-2

3.2. Governing Boards .......................................................................................................... 3-3

3.2.1. CCC Board .......................................................................................................... 3-3 3.2.2. TBARTA Board ................................................................................................... 3-3

3.3. Advisory Committees .................................................................................................... 3-3

3.3.1. CCC Joint Citizens Advisory Committee (JCAC) ................................................ 3-3 3.3.2. MPO Staff Directors ............................................................................................ 3-3 3.3.3. Technical Review Team ...................................................................................... 3-3 3.3.4. TBARTA Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) .................................................... 3-3 3.3.5. TBARTA Transit Management Committee (TMC) .............................................. 3-4 3.3.6. TBARTA ONE BAY Livable Communities Working Group (formerly Land Use

Working Group) ................................................................................................... 3-4 3.3.7. TMA “Core” Committee ....................................................................................... 3-4

3.4. Joint Approval Process ................................................................................................. 3-4

3.5. Regional Partners .......................................................................................................... 3-6

3.6. Other Affiliates ............................................................................................................... 3-6

4. Selecting the Instruments: Public Participation Tools 4-1 4.1. Tool Box Summary ........................................................................................................ 4-1

4.2. Best Practices ................................................................................................................ 4-1

4.3. Selecting the Appropriate Tool ..................................................................................... 4-2

5. Conducting the Orchestra: Regional Roles and Responsibilities 5-0 5.1. Oversight ........................................................................................................................ 5-0

5.2. Public Involvement Working Group ............................................................................. 5-0

5.3. Budget & Funding for RPPP Implementation ............................................................. 5-0

6. Following the Sheet Music: Policies and Procedures 6-1 6.1. Public Review ................................................................................................................. 6-1

6.2. Notification and Advertisements .................................................................................. 6-2

DRAFT Regional Public Participation Plan | June 2013 iv

6.3. Public Comments ........................................................................................................... 6-2

6.4. Graphics and Style Guides ........................................................................................... 6-2

6.5. Social Media Policy ........................................................................................................ 6-2

6.6. Inclusive Engagement ................................................................................................... 6-3

6.6.1. Title VI Policy ...................................................................................................... 6-3 6.6.2. Limited English Proficiency Plan ......................................................................... 6-3 6.6.3. Regional Demographic Profile ............................................................................ 6-3

7. Practicing the Scales: Evaluation Measures 7-1 7.1. Measures of Effectiveness ............................................................................................ 7-1

7.2. Documentation ............................................................................................................... 7-3

Appendices

Appendix A – Public Involvement Technique Costs and Illustrative BudgetAppendix B-Glossary of ToolsAppendix C-Public Participation WorksheetsAppendix D-Notice and Advertisement TemplatesAppendix E-Public Involvement Plan Template and GuidelinesAppendix F-Style Guide and Writing GuidelinesAppendix G-Project Graphics GuideAppendix H-Social Media Policy (Incomplete)Appendix I-Title VI Complaint Process and Binder ContentsAppendix J-Limited English Proficiency PlanAppendix K-Measures of Effectiveness Tracking FormAppendix L-Evaluation and Documentation Worksheet

DRAFT Regional Public Participation Plan | June 2013 v

List of Tables Table Pages

Table 3-1 Boards and Committees Schedules .......................................................................................... 3-5 Table 5-1 Tool Box Summary .................................................................................................................... 4-3 Table 5-2 Approximate Costs and Summary of Potential Benefits ............................................................ 4-4 Table 5-3 Suggested Outreach Tools for the Regional Planning Activities ............................................... 4-5 Table 6-1 Public Review Periods for Major Regional Programs ................................................................ 6-1

List of Figures Figure Pages

1-1 Regional LRTP and Master Plan Schedules ............................................................................. 1-2 3-1 Regional Visioning and LRTP Process ...................................................................................... 3-1 3-2 CCC-TBARTA Partnership ........................................................................................................ 3-4 3-3 CCC-TBARTA Joint Approval Process ...................................................................................... 3-5

Prelude

DRAFT Regional Public Participation Plan | June 2013 1-1

1. Prelude

1.1. Background

With joint meetings held since 1989, the regional coordination process among the Metropolitan and Transportation Planning Organizations (MPOs/TPOs) of West Central Florida was formalized by the Florida Legislature in 2000 under Florida Statute (F.S.) 339.175. The goal of the West Central Florida MPO Chairs

Coordinating Committee (CCC) is to develop regional solutions to transportation problems and ensure a consistent regional planning approach throughout the eight county area.

In 2010, the CCC adopted a Regional Public Participation Plan (PPP) to encourage input from citizens, elected officials, and technical staff of the various agencies throughout the region. Member MPOs/TPOs provide funding, planning, and staff support for the CCC, and contract with the Tampa Bay Area Regional Transportation Authority (TBARTA) for administrative support. Implementation of the PPP is typically addressed through the public outreach programs of the MPO/TPO in each respective community, supplemented by the CCC’s

regional publications, brochures, and a website.

In 2007, the Florida Legislature established TBARTA to develop a Regional Transportation Master Plan (F.S. 343.9). Throughout the development and update of the Master Plan, TBARTA used an extensive Public Engagement and Education Program (PEEP) to inform the public about transportation technology choices and incorporate the public’s response into a widely-supported plan. The PEEP identifies objectives, methods, potential activities, and measures of effectiveness for TBARTA’s public engagement process associated with the master plan.

1.2. CCC-TBARTA: Joining Forces to Enhance Regional Public Engagement

The CCC is undertaking an update to the Regional Long Range Transportation Plan (RLRTP) to be prepared in collaboration with an update of the TBARTA Master Plan (see Figure 1-1). Producing a unified RLRTP/Master Plan will enhance both organizations’ effectiveness, combining TBARTA’s vision, leadership, and project prioritization with the CCC’s technical prioritization, modeling, and cost affordability review. It also has the potential to simplify the complex regional planning process in the eyes of the general public. To lay the groundwork for the major update of both Plans, the CCC has updated its PPP in collaboration with TBARTA’s review of its PEEP. The outreach goals and objectives of these partner agencies are consistent and would serve as the foundation for this joint Regional Public Participation Plan (RPPP).

1.2.1. Public Involvement Working Group

The CCC and TBARTA formed a public involvement working group to develop a framework for the RPPP. The working group consisted of public involvement specialists from each of the local MPOs, TBARTA, and the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). The working group met five times to collaborate on key elements of the plan such as the regional branding; goals, objectives, and measures of effectiveness; public engagement tool box; policies; and procedures.

Source: www.regionaltransportation.org

Source: www.tbarta.com


Figure 1-1 Regional LRTP and Master Plan Schedules

1.3. Plan Purpose

This plan outlines roles and responsibilities of the partner agencies to maximize the efficiency of outreach efforts; establishes a consolidated schedule and major milestones; proposes a centralized communication plan; proposes a process for public engagement in the RLRTP/Master Plan and other regional transportation planning decisions; and address regional branding strategies, thorough documentation, and comprehensive evaluation to measure the program’s effectiveness.

1.4. Target Audience

This RPPP was designed to reach as many people throughout the region as possible (i.e. everyone). Depending on the type of transportation planning activity undertaken, the target audiences may be comprised of one or more of the following groups:

Elected Officials

Agency Partners

Freight Community

Youth and Students

Residents

Commuters

Environmentalists

Bicycle/Pedestrian Advocacy Groups

Transit Advocates

Law Enforcement and Emergency Services

Ports/Airports

Young Professionals

Elderly

Business Community

Civic Groups

Traditionally Underserved Populations


1.5. Regional Branding and Identity

To solidify the CCC-TBARTA partnership and present a unified regional message, a joint logo and branding was developed. The logo is a combination of the two individual organizations’ logos connected with one tagline: “One Region. One Plan. One Voice.” The logo and tagline should be incorporated into all the joint transportation planning and public outreach efforts and materials.

Setting the Tempo:

Consolidated Goals and Objectives


2. Setting the Tempo: Consolidated Goals and Objectives

GOAL 1: EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION: Focus on proactive, effective, timely, and continuous communication, both within and outside of the CCC/TBARTA.

Objective 1.1 Prepare a checklist or guidance document to ensure that messages are conveyed concisely, consistently, and in a timely manner in plain language, using simple, jargon-free and acronym-free verbiage, clear graphics, and visual images instead of words whenever possible.

Objective 1.2 Re-introduce and promote a joint website by: a. Displaying a link to webpage on all MPO home pages. b. Including the web address in MPO and CCC/TBARTA publications. c. Including the web address on all correspondence and print materials.

Update website regularly (minimum of once per month).

Identify point of contact(s) for more information on regional issues.

Objective 1.3 Produce a PowerPoint or video overview of the regional transportation planning process.

Objective 1.4 Develop a brochure suitable for inclusion in local materials, new member orientation, and the general public explaining how citizens can participate in the regional transportation planning process.

Objective 1.5 Periodically produce and distribute newsletters in electronic (or blog-style) format to provide information concerning current and planned regional transportation activities, and how the public can participate in them (minimum of one per quarter).

Objective 1.6 Periodically distribute survey questions on regional transportation issues (preferably using Survey Monkey or other web-based platform), via the website and at regional events. Include questions about planning issues, success of the communication process, meeting convenience, etc.

Objective 1.7 Continue to post agenda packets of regular meetings and minutes of past meetings on the website at least one week prior to the meetings.

Objective 1.8 Develop and use standard timeframes, processes, and templates for public notices and advertisements.

Objective 1.9 Distribute and analyze a bi-annual questionnaire to determine if citizen representatives are satisfied with the support they receive from staff.

Objective 1.10 Maintain a database to record public engagement activities, and comments. Follow up with analysis and plan revisions as needed.

Objective 1.11 Establish and utilize a joint approval process to review and produce CCC/TBARTA documents and materials.


GOAL 2: TRUST AND UNDERSTANDING: Build public trust and understanding by producing accurate, clear information to encourage public participation.

Objective 2.1 Ensure that information is made available to agencies and the public throughout project studies, and that such information is as timely, clear, and comprehensive as possible.

Objective 2.2 Ensure that interested parties – including local governments and metropolitan, regional, state, and federal agencies, as well as the general public – know when key decisions will be made, receive advance notice, and have an opportunity to respond and participate before action is taken.

Objective 2.3 Involve the public in key aspects of the master planning process, such as thorough identification of major issues, preferences, and priorities.

Objective 2.4 Use a variety of communication methods and tailor messages to various community and stakeholder preferences.

GOAL 3: COLLABORATION: Collaborate and build partnerships with government agencies, civic organizations, and other interested parties.

Objective 3.1 Initiate a kick-off campaign to establish a regional message and branding for joint CCC/TBARTA regional planning efforts (e.g. regional long range transportation plan, regional trails, regional priorities, etc.).

Objective 3.2 Continue to expand and update a regional mail database to include postal and electronic mail addresses of interested citizens, organizations, and agencies throughout the region.

Objective 3.3 Update the legislators' database as changes occur.

Objective 3.4 Continue to provide legislative updates on issues relevant to the concerns of the region, as they occur.

Objective 3.5 Use the website and other means, such as social media, to expand partnerships for regional information-sharing and collaboration.

Objective 3.6 Seek event co-sponsorship and cost-sharing opportunities.

Objective 3.7 Continue the working group to meet as needed to monitor public engagement activities and oversee the implementation of the RPPP.

GOAL 4: INCLUSIVE ENGAGEMENT: Provide access, be inclusive, and strive to engage all affected populations.

Objective 4.1 Prepare a regional demographic profile to identify various populations that may require special outreach.

Objective 4.2 Ensure that populations that may have been underrepresented in the transportation decision-making process in the past are informed and engaged.

Objective 4.3 Produce all web-based products and printed brochures in formats that are usable by people with limited visual and cognitive abilities wherever possible.

Objective 4.4 Translate key publications into other languages, as identified in the Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Plan.


Objective 4.5 Identify and attend community events, in which citizens might participate, and provide information, presentations, and opportunities to comment on regional planning issues.

Objective 4.6 Continue to select sites for regional events that are close to transit lines and accessible to people with disabilities.

Objective 4.7 Annually review and, if necessary, update the Title VI Policy and LEP Plan.

Objective 4.8 Continue efforts to achieve diverse representation on citizen advisory groups to reflect the demographics of the region.

GOAL 5: RESOURCEFULNESS: Be cost-conscious, economical, and resourceful.

Objective 5.1 Increase the diversity of communication methods by using social media and internet-based technologies.

Objective 5.2 Post events, agendas, and maps to meetings and events on website.

Objective 5.3 Continue to make all maps and documents available in electronic formats wherever possible and appropriate to decrease printing and production costs.

Objective 5.4 Continue to seek new technology that enables staff and citizens to participate in meetings remotely to reduce travel costs.

Objective 5.5 Identify and make use of existing resources, such as maximizing use of existing communication channels within the community, such as local MPO events and the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council’s electronic polling devices.

Objective 5.6 Monitor and record the cost-effectiveness of regional public engagement activities sponsored by the CCC and TBARTA.

GOAL 6: MEANINGFUL INPUT: Obtain meaningful public input to inform the decision making process.

Objective 6.1 Hold (or co-sponsor) annual public hearings for regional priorities, plan adoptions, and/or other purposes.

Objective 6.2 Be responsive to input received from the public, and ensure that issues raised by the public are conveyed, explicitly considered, and responded to by regional decision makers.

Objective 6.3 Prepare a public engagement strategy at the onset of each individual planning activity or project (e.g. RLRTP, regional priorities, etc.) that outlines the public engagement tools and techniques that will be applied during that planning process.

Objective 6.4 Complete a comment summary form (hard copy or web-based) that describes the nature of public comments and how they were addressed in the project.

Music Composition and Flow:

Regional Planning Process and Engagement Opportunities


3. Music Composition and Flow: Regional Planning Process and Engagement Opportunities

3.1. Regional Planning Activities

The CCC and TBARTA will coordinate numerous regional transportation planning activities. Each planning activity provides the opportunity to incorporate public engagement tools and techniques that are outlined in the RPPP. At a minimum, these transportation planning activities include:

Regional Long Range Transportation Plan

Regional Priorities

Regional Public Participation Plan

Regional Congestion Management Process (CMP)

Air Quality Management Planning Process

Annual Transportation Regional Incentive Program (TRIP) Priorities

Annual Regional Multi-use Trails Update

Special Programs and Projects

3.1.1. Regional Long Range Transportation Plan and Master Plan

The regional LRTP is typically updated every five years reflecting at least a 20-year planning horizon. This is consistent with and parallel to the local MPO, LRTP and local government comprehensive planning process. The CCC and TBARTA have also aligned the schedules of the regional LRTP and the Master Plan process. The TBARTA Master Plan reflects a 50-year planning horizon. There are numerous opportunities for public engagement throughout this process as shown in Figure 3-1. This planning activity will likely represent the most extensive public engagement program of all the planning activities and culminates with a formal public hearing. In addition, the regional LRTP may be amended from time to time, which also requires a public hearing.

Figure 3-1 Regional Visioning and LRTP Process


3.1.2. Regional Public Participation Plan

The RPPP will be updated every five years just prior to the regional LRTP update and would be reflective of changing technologies, as well as effectiveness of strategies and tools used. During the update cycle, each tool would be evaluated, so that outdated or ineffective tools can be dropped from the main list. Public engagement opportunities exist in the development and approval of the plan. The plan would be updated in coordination with the local MPOs and partner agencies.

3.1.3. Regional Congestion Management Process

The Regional CMP is an eight-step process with numerous public engagement opportunities throughout, particularly during the development of regional congestion management objectives, data collection, development of congestion management strategies and performance measures, and measuring the effectiveness of the program. In addition, this plan has outlined some public engagement opportunities within the regional coordination process. The Regional CMP is updated every five years.

3.1.4. Air Quality Management Planning Process

Transportation conformity is a Clean Air Act (CAA) requirement that serves as a bridge to connect air quality and transportation planning activities. Transportation conformity applies to areas that are designated nonattainment for particular pollutants; in the Tampa Bay Area, ozone is the pollutant of concern. Conformity must be demonstrated for LRTP and Transportation Improvement Programs (TIP). The Transportation Conformity Determinations will be developed by the CCC in consultation with the MPOs, the FDOT, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) review the CCC submittals and make a Conformity Determination. There may be public involvement opportunities throughout the process.

It should be noted that the Tampa bay region is no longer an air quality non-attainment area; however, an interagency consultation process has been prepared in the event we fall back into non-attainment status.

3.1.5. Annual Regional Priorities

The regional priorities represent the transportation projects throughout the region that provide for regional movements of goods, services and people. The regional priorities are updated annually through a collaborative process. There are opportunities for engagement at each phase of the screening process and through the final approval/endorsement process.

The TRIP was created through the state’s Growth Management Legislation to help improve regionally significant transportation facilities. By means of the TRIP program, state funds are made available to help local governments and others pay for transportation projects that benefit regional travel. TRIP funding is made available by the state; however, each year that TRIP funding is available; the CCC must provide an updated priority list of projects to FDOT District Seven. The public is invited to participate in the TRIP process during a formal public hearing.

3.1.6. Regional Multi-use Trails Annual Update

The Regional Multi-use Trails Element serves as the foundation for regional coordination and inter-jurisdictional review of bicycle and pedestrian issues. Not only are there opportunities for public engagement within the trails planning process, but the process results in helpful maps and bicycle/pedestrian safety tips that can be shared with the public. This plan is updated annually.

3.1.7. Special Programs and Projects

The CCC-TBARTA has numerous on-going programs and special projects that would also provide opportunities for public engagement, such as One Call One Click, Traffic Information Webpage, Commuter


Services, and Corridor Studies For each of these programs/projects, it is important to prepare a public engagement strategy to ensure that there are plenty of ways to exchange information with the public.

3.2. Governing Boards

3.2.1. CCC Board

The CCC Board is comprised of chairpersons from the seven member MPOs including: Citrus TPO, Hernando MPO, Hillsborough MPO, Pasco MPO, Pinellas MPO, Polk TPO, and Sarasota-Manatee MPO. In addition, FDOT Secretaries (District 1 and District 7), Florida's Turnpike Enterprise, and TBARTA are represented on the CCC in a non-voting capacity. Also, four regional planning councils, including Central Florida Regional Planning Council, Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council, Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council, and Withlacoochee Regional Planning Council, are represented in a non-voting capacity. The CCC Board meets quarterly.

3.2.2. TBARTA Board

The TBARTA Board is made up of representatives from the seven counties it serves, three largest cities, the CCC, Business Community, and FDOT. The board meets monthly. Select board members also serve on the executive and legislative subcommittees. All meetings of the board and advisory committee are open to the public. Members of the public are welcome at meetings and may express their opinions at such times as designated by the agenda or when recognized by the chair.

It is recommended that the CCC and TBARTA boards meet jointly at least one time per year. At a minimum, the boards will hold an annual workshop to discuss and approve the regional priorities. During the RLRTP process, the boards should meet jointly to provide input on the draft RLRTP.

3.3. Advisory Committees

3.3.1. CCC Joint Citizens Advisory Committee (JCAC)

JCAC members are drawn from the CACs of the member MPOs. The committee meets to discuss transportation issues such as inter-county commuting, major roadway projects, passenger transit service, freight mobility and development of a system of multi-use trails. The CCC JCAC meets quarterly.

3.3.2. MPO Staff Directors

The Executive Directors of the local MPOs, or their designees, meet every other week to coordinate on regional issues.

3.3.3. Technical Review Team

The Technical Review Team (TRT) is comprised of representatives from the local MPOs and FDOT. The team meets regularly to coordinate technical aspects of the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Model.

3.3.4. TBARTA Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC)

The TBARTA CAC may include up to sixteen citizens by law, and consists of one member appointed by each TBARTA Board member. Because the CAC is created to provide broad community engagement into the planning process and because a key responsibility of CAC members is to assist with increasing public awareness and participation, it is preferred that members be leaders of a recognized group or organization. Members may not be transportation agency staff. In general, the CAC will meet monthly prior to each TBARTA Board meeting.


3.3.5. TBARTA Transit Management Committee (TMC)

The TMC consists of the region’s transit agency directors, or their designees. In general, the TMC meets as needed prior to each TBARTA Board meeting.

3.3.6. TBARTA ONE BAY Livable Communities Working Group (formerly Land Use Working Group)

In May 2012, the TBARTA Land Use Working Group (LUWG) merged with ONE BAY to become the ONE BAY Livable Communities Working Group. ONE BAY is a diverse partnership of regional organizations, including TBARTA and the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council, aligned to facilitate a regional visioning process for the Tampa Bay region. Functions of the LUWG are being transferred to the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council staff, and TBARTA will remain actively involved as a ONE BAY partner. The group will continue to serve as an open forum to discuss strategies for improving the built environment, natural environment, and mobility in the Tampa Bay region. Meetings will occur quarterly, or as needed.

3.3.7. TMA “Core” Committee

This would be a new committee that represents the federally-designated “Transportation Management Area” (TMA) comprising the “core” urbanized areas of Hillsborough, Pasco, and Pinellas counties. This subcommittee would meet regular to discuss issues affecting the TMA. The “core” committee would be represented by MPO members from Hillsborough, Pasco, and Pinellas counties.

3.4. Joint Approval Process

As the CCC and TBARTA begin to merge regional activities, it is important for the public’s understanding that there is a clear approval process for processing jointly prepared documents and materials. Figure 3-2 illustrates the CCC-TBARTA partnership. Figure 3-3 depicts the joint approval process for the CCC-TBARTA.

Figure 3-2 CCC-TBARTA Partnership


Figure 3-3 CCC-TBARTA Joint Approval Process

Table 3-1 presents the typical schedules of the various boards and committees. In addition, the CACs for the CCC and TBARTA will meet jointly twice a year. One of these meetings will be held prior to the join board meeting.

Table 3-1 Boards and Committees Schedules

GROUP NAME DATE TIME VENUE

TBARTA Board Monthly on 4th Friday 9:30am – Noon FDOT District 7

TBARTA TMC Monthly on 3rd

Wednesday

10:00am – Noon USF

TBARTA CAC Monthly on the 3rd

Wednesday

1:30pm – 3:30pm USF

TBARTA One Bay Liveable Communities

Periodically Varies TBRPC

CCC Board Quarterly Noon – 3:00pm In rotation

CCC JCAC Quarterly 3:00pm – 5:00pm FDOT District 7 and Videoconference

MPO Staff Directors Twice monthly every other Friday

1:30pm – 3:30pm FDOT District 7

TRT Every two weeks on Thursday

9:30 am – noon FDOT District 7

TMA Core Committee TBD TBD TBD

Combined CACs Twice annually TBD TBD


3.5. Regional Partners

The CCC and TBARTA have numerous agency partners that offer joint public engagement opportunities. The following agencies serve as non-voting members on the CCC Board: FDOT Districts 1 and 7, Florida’s Turnpike Enterprise, Central Florida Regional Planning Council, Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council, Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council, and Withlacoochee Regional Planning Council.

3.6. Other Affiliates

There are also opportunities to partner with other organizations that share an interest in the regional conversation. The Tampa Bay Partnership and the Tampa Bay Regional Collaboration Committee are active supporters of efforts to solidify the regional vision and implement regional projects. The CCC and TBARTA will team with these organizations to extend the regional message through joint meetings and events.


Selecting the Instruments:

Public Participation Tools


4. Selecting the Instruments: Public Participation Tools

4.1. Tool Box Summary

TBARTA and the CCC use a wide-variety of traditional and non-traditional techniques to exchange information with the public. This tool box summarizes the techniques by type and highlights which goal is supported by the tool. These techniques suggest reaching the target audience through print media, events, the internet, as well as radio and television communication. The Tool box summary is represented in Table 5-1. A glossary of these tools is provided in Appendix B.

The toolbox is not intended to limit the how the Regional Public Participation Plan (RPPP) is carried out. New tools may be added or existing ones dropped as needs change.

4.2. Best Practices

Throughout this study, public involvement processes and plans of regional MPOs around the country were examined. These include MPOs in Atlanta, Baltimore, Dallas-Fort Worth, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Philadelphia, San Francisco-Oakland, Seattle-Tacoma, St. Louis, and Washington D.C., as well as the Southeast Florida Transportation Council (collaborative effort of three MPOs in southeast Florida).

There are many methods for engaging the public. For example, the Atlanta Regional Commission’s (ARC) Public Involvement Program (PIP) listed over 60 public involvement techniques, noting that the techniques chosen should be based on the planning goals, participants’ needs, and resources available. On the other hand, the Metropolitan Washington Council of Government (WASHCOG) bases their participation strategy on how to involve three different constituencies: the involved public, the informed public, and the interested public. Public involvement techniques as well as overarching goals were then tailored to best relate to one or more of these groups.

Another best practice noted was that, in many regions, MPOs are housed in multi-discipline agencies. As such, transportation planning activities can be combined with other efforts, including land use planning, housing, environmental preservation, and human services. This allows some public involvement activities to be combined, saving money and affording people the opportunity to be engaged in several efforts at the same time. It also helps inform the public on how these disciplines are inter-related, and how decisions made in one can affect the others.

For reference, a comparison of the approximate costs and summary of potential benefits for various engagement techniques is provided in Table 5-2. Generally, the following assumptions apply:

Most regional programs and projects will require a variety of techniques to reach out to a broad, diverse audience.

Large scale offerings can be expensive, but effective in reaching diverse audiences.

Social media is a very cost effective way to reach large, diverse audiences.

Online forums (including e-town halls and web blogs) are becoming increasingly popular. They are particularly effective, covering a large area for relatively low cost relative to their reach.

Appendix C includes some sample worksheets to help assist with the development of a public engagement strategy, identify barriers to participation, and development of a communication strategy.


4.3. Selecting the Appropriate Tool

TBARTA and the CCC will be thoughtful in their selection of appropriate tools to use during the diverse transportation planning activity, program, or project. Close attention will be paid to the target audience, potential reach of the tool, and associated costs. Table 5-3 provides the suggested outreach tools for each of the regional planning activities.

Table 4-1 Tool Box Summary

Goal1:Proactive,

effective,timely,andcontinuouscommunication

Goal2:Buildpublictrustandunderstanding

Goal3:Collaborateand

buildpartnerships

Goal4:Provideaccessandbeinclusive

Goal5:Cost‐conscious,

economical,andresourceful

Goal6:Obtainmeaningful

input

ThroughPrintMedia:o Brochures X X

o Citizenguides X X

o CommentForms X X X

o DirectMaiL X X

o FactSheets X X

o GeographicInformationSystemsmapping X X

o Guestcolumnsandeditorials X X X

o Interviews X X

o MailingList X X

o Newsletters X X

o NewspaperAd X X

o Postersandfliers X X

o PressReleases X X

o SchoolCurriculum X X Xo Surveys X X X

ThroughEvents:o Awardprograms X X

o Brainstorming X X X X

o Briefings X X X X

o Charrettes X X X X

o Committees X X

o CommunityEvents X X X X X

o Conferences X X

o FocusGroups X X X X

o Games&contests X X X

o HouseParties X X X X

o Interactivemapping X X X

o LivePolling/instantvoting X X X X

o Openforums/houses X X X X

o Planningacademies/leadershipinstitutes X X

o Pressconference X X

o Publicworkshops,hearings,andforums X X X

o Retreats X X

o SiteVisit X X X

o SmallGroupDiscussions X X X X

o Speakers’Bureau X X X

o StakeholderInterviews X X X X

o TransportationFairs X X X

o Visioning X X X X

o Visualization/Simulation X X Xo Workshops X X X X

ThroughtheInternet:o Blogs X X X X X

o Crowdsourcing X X

o E‐mailnotifications X X X

o eTownHallMeetings X X X X X

o Informationonpartnerwebsites X X X X

o I‐townHallforums X X X X X

o InternetNewsletter X X X

o OnlineForums X X X X X X

o Onlinephotogallery X X

o Onlinesurveys X X X X

o ProjectWebsite X X

o Simulations X X

o SocialMarketing X X X X X

o SocialMedia:Facebook,Twitter,Google X X X X X X

o VideoStreaming X X

o VirtualPublicMeetings/Summits X X X X

o Webcasts/Podcasts X X

o Wikis X X Xo Wireside(electronic)chats X X X X X

ThroughRadio,Phone,andTelevisionCommunication:

o GovernmentAccessTelevision X X X

o MobileApplications X X X

o Newsandfeaturestories X X X

o PublicServiceAnnouncements X X X

o RadioAds X X

o Telephonehotlines X X X

o Telephonetownhalls X X X X

o Telephonesurveys X X X X

o TextMessaging X X

o TownCallMeetings X X X Xo TVMessageBoardScripts X X

DR

AF

T R

eg

ion

al P

ub

lic P

artic

ipatio

n P

lan

| Ju

ne 2

013

4-3

Table 4-2 Approximate Costs and Summary of Potential Benefits

Public Participation Technique Total Cost # of People Typically Reached Average Cost per Person

MindMixer$30,000 for 3 years (Pinellas MPO‐$15k to

set‐up & $5k per year)150‐.300 $100‐$200

Surveys

Free for technology; will take staff hours to

develop survey and compile results (16 hrs =

$1,600)

Depends on mailing list (200‐300) $5 ‐ $8

$500 (includes staff hrs to create

questionaire. plus printing and mailing 100

copies)

100 $5

Video

$30K for 5‐10 min; Includes video footage,

script, narration, special graphics, and

production

Depends on where the video is used and

published

Focus Groups 6500 per group of 10‐12 persons

Direct PollingFree if barrowing TBRPC equipment; will

require staff hours to implement meetingDepends on size of meeting

Mobile Applications $5,000 (APA FL app estimate) Smartphone users

Text messaging Data plan costs vary per provider Need database of telephone numbers

BlogsFree for the technology; will take staff hours

for developing and sending message (20 150‐300 $7 ‐ $13

Project website

Host/Domain Fee‐$100 initial/$50/yr‐assume

3 years; Staff maintenance and updates (8

hr/month for 36 months = $21,600); Total‐

$21,850

Pinellas AA: 29,242 page visits w/ 3.25 pages

per visit & 8,894 site views w/ 20 visits per

day

$0.75 ‐ $2.46

Newsletters

$6200 (includes staff hrs to create graphics,

message, layout, etc. plus printing and

mailing 400 copies)

400 $15.50

E‐mail blastsFree for the technology; will take staff hours

for developing and sending message (2 hrs = Depends on mailing list (100‐200) $1 ‐ $2

Webinar 50‐1,000 $8 ‐ $160

Facebook, Twitter, etc.

MetroPlan Orlando (2011/12 one year

timeframe): Twitter‐ 430 visitors & 2,000 link

visits; Facebook‐ 345 interactions (likes or

comments) and 3500 pageviews. Pinellas AA:

Facebook‐ 174 likes and 170+ posts; Twitter‐

189 followers & 319 tweets

$0.80 per month

$8,000

Free for the technology; will take staff hours

for monitoring (16 hrs/month=$1600/month)

Speakers / Citizens Forum20‐100 (19 for stakholder forum & 12 for

citizen forum for Pinellas AA)$10 ‐ $50

Traditional Meeting $15,000 20‐100 $150 ‐ $750

$1,000 (8 hrs to prepareand present at one

meeting)

eTown Hall 200‐6000 (Pinellas AA) $1.50 ‐ $40

Town Call avg. of 3,700 (Hillsborough MPO) $2

$8,000 per meeting

$7,625 per meeting (Hillsborough County

MPO)

DR

AF

T R

eg

ion

al P

ub

lic P

artic

ipatio

n P

lan

| Ju

ne 2

013

4-4

Table 4-3 Suggested Outreach Tools for the Regional Planning Activities

RegionalLongRangeTransportationPlan

RegionalPublic

ParticipationPlan

RegionalCongestionManagement

Plan

AirQualityManagementPlanning

RegionalPriorities

RegionalMulti‐UseTrailsPlan

SpecialPrograms/Projects

ThroughPrintMedia:

Brochures X X X X X X X

Citizenguides X X

CommentForms X X X

DirectMail/MailingList X

FactSheets X X X X

GeographicInformationSystemsmapping X X X X

Guestcolumnsandeditorials X X

StakeholderInterviews X X X

Newsletters X X X

NewspaperAd X X X X X X X

Postersandfliers X

PressReleases X X

SchoolCurriculum X

Surveys X X X X

ThroughEvents:

Awardprograms X

Brainstorming/Charrettes X X X X X

Briefings X X X X

Committees X X X X X X X

CommunityEvents/Conferences X X X X

FocusGroups X

Games&contests X X X X X

HouseParties X

Interactivemapping X X X

LivePolling/instantvoting X X X

Openforums/houses X X X X

Planningacademies/leadershipinstitutes X

Pressconference X

Publicworkshops,hearings,townhalls,andforums X X X X X

Retreats X

SmallGroupDiscussions X

Speakers’Bureau X X

TransportationFairs X

Visioning X X

Visualization/Simulation X X X

ThroughtheInternet:

Blogs X

Crowdsourcing X X

E‐mailnotifications X X X X X X X

eTownHall/I‐townHallMeetings X X

Informationonpartnerwebsites X X X X X X X

InternetNewsletter X X X

OnlineForums/WiresideChats X X

Onlinephotogallery X

Onlinesurveys X X X X

Website X X X X X X X

SocialMedia:Facebook,Twitter,Google X X X X X X X

Video/VideoStreaming X X

VirtualPublicMeetings/Summits X X X X X

Webcasts/Podcasts X X X X

Wikis X

ThroughRadio,Phone,andTelevisionCommunication:

GovernmentAccessTelevision X X

MobileApplications X

Newsandfeaturestories X X X X

PublicServiceAnnouncements X

RadioAds X

Telephonehotlines X

TownCalls X

Telephonesurveys x x x X

TextMessaging X

TVMessageBoardScripts X

DR

AF

T R

eg

ion

al P

ub

lic P

artic

ipatio

n P

lan

| Ju

ne 2

013

4-5

Conducting the Orchestra:

Regional Roles and Responsibilities

5. Conducting the Orchestra: Regional Roles and Responsibilities

5.1. Oversight

TBARTA will provide oversight and staffing for the implementation of this RPPP. Since inception of the agency, TBARTA has had great success in establishing a regional presence through proactive and innovative public outreach. Building on the technical strengths of the CCC, this partnership will lend itself to a great balance of excellence in regional transportation planning and creative communication tools. An interlocal agreement between TBARTA and the CCC will be prepared to define the scope and budget for the public engagement services.

5.2. Public Involvement Working Group

The Public Involvement Working Group will continue to meet regularly in the future serving as a steering committee for the RPPP. The working group will monitor the RPPP activities, ensure that proper documentation is taking place, and discuss trends, opportunities, successes, and challenges. The working group will typically meet quarterly, but no less than once a year during periods of less intense activity.

5.3. Budget & Funding for RPPP Implementation

In order to begin estimating the costs to implement this RPPP, the PI working group reviewed numerous examples of outreach programs, locally and across the nation. For large regions with diverse populations, it is common to see expenditures ranging from $300,000 to $600,000 per year. These programs include a range of tools from brochures and newsletters to leadership institutes, award programs, websites, and other special programs.

Section 5 of the RPPP describes the most appropriate tools to use within the various planning activities for this region. In addition, cost estimates were identified to help the working group prioritize these tools and determine an appropriate annual budget for the CCC-TBARTA public engagement program. The working group selected a subset of tools based on their cost-effectiveness, public reach and appeal to citizens in terms of convenience and interest. It was determined that an annual budget of approximately $168,000 would be appropriate for “peak” years when there are numerous regional transportation planning activities, such as when the RLRTP is being updated. For “off-peak” years, a budget of approximately $62,000is appropriate.

This budget should supplement the efforts of individual MPOs and TPOs to engage their constituents in the local transportation planning process. It should be supported by an allocation from their individual two-year Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) for the regional public engagement process. Equitable shares can be calculated by a variety of methods, but one way would be to base each MPO/TPO share on the federal dollars they receive each year from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) as reflected in their UPWPs. (Since Citrus County does not yet have a UPWP, their portion would be assumed as comparable to Pasco and Hernando counties’ portion.) Recognizing that the Polk TPO and the Sarasota/Manatee MPO are also coordinating their planning with the Central Florida MPO Alliance and the Charlotte/Punta Gorda MPO, respectively, under this methodology, their shares would be reduced by half. Also under this methodology, TBARTA’s portion would be 50% during years when the Joint Regional Long Range/Master Plan was updated, and in other years one-eighth of the total, based on there being eight contributing entities.

Appendix A provides a table showing the estimated cost of the public engagement toolbox, highlighting the subset of key tools used as the basis for the recommended peak year and off-peak year budgets. It also includes, for illustrative purposes, a distribution of budget shares between TBARTA and the individual MPO/TPOs based on the federal funds in their FY 14 UPWPs, as suggested above.

Regardless of the funding target and allocation proposed in this plan, an interlocal agreement is recommended between TBARTA and the CCC to define the scope and budget for the public engagement services in any given year. The total funding amount for RPPP activities, as well as the distributions, should be reviewed and updated during the development of the UPWPs for the participating MPOs/TPOs in the CCC.

Following the Sheet Music:

Policies and Procedures


6. Following the Sheet Music: Policies and Procedures

6.1. Public Review

The CCC and TBARTA are committed to ensuring that the public receives advance notice of major transportation planning activities. The CCC and TBARTA will provide plenty of time to review and comment at major project milestones and decision points. At a minimum, notices will be prepared during the transportation planning activities discussed in Section 3. Table 6-1 depicts the public review periods for major regional programs.

Table 6-1 Public Review Periods for Major Regional Programs

REGIONAL PROGRAM

REVIEW PERIOD

PUBLIC HEARING

REQUIRED

PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE

LEGAL AD

Regional Long Range

Transportation Plan (RLRTP)

30 days Yes Not more than 21 days and not less

than 10 days 2

RLRTP Amendment

15 days Yes Not less than 10

days 1

TBARTA Master Plan (To be

coordinated with RLRTP)

30 days Yes Not more than 21 days and not less

than 10 days 2

Regional Public Participation Plan

45 days No N/A 1

Regional Congestion

Management Plan 30 days No N/A None

Regional Work Program & TRIP

Priorities 30 days Yes

Not less than 10 days

1

Regional and TRIP Priority Amendments

15 days Yes Not less than 10

days 1

Regional Multi-Use Trails Plan

30 days No N/A None


6.2. Notification and Advertisements

Legal notifications and/or advertisements are placed in accordance with acceptable public review standards. At least one legal ad will be placed not less than 10 days in advance of any public hearings.

Board meetings are posted on the TBARTA web sites on the “Meetings” page. Regular committee meetings are posted online at least 30 days in advance. Additional notices and schedule changes are promptly noted. Agendas for meetings are emailed and/or mailed out and are available on the web site seven days in advance. Meeting minutes are available on the web site with the agenda packet of the next meeting.

Newspaper notices and related news articles appear in the appropriate publication throughout the Tampa Bay area. These publications may include:

Tampa Tribune (Hillsborough, Hernando, Pasco, and Pinellas)

The Tampa Bay Times (Hillsborough, Hernando, Pasco, and Pinellas)

Citrus Chronicle (Citrus)

The Lakeland Ledger (Polk)

The Sarasota Herald-Tribune (Sarasota/Manatee)

Notices may also be placed in newspapers with target minority audiences, such as the La Gaceta, The Florida Sentinel, or other local publications.

Advertisements to promote key planning workshops and special events may also be placed in the TBT*, a free paper produced by the publishers of The Tampa Bay Times.

The CCC-TBARTA has developed templates for notices and advertisements as shown in Appendix D.

6.3. Public Comments

Meaningful engagement consists of not only soliciting public comments, but also carefully considering the public comments. Particularly in regard to major documents that have been circulated for public review, such as the regional LRTP, it is the policy of the CCC and TBARTA to collect, organize, and summarize the comments, as well as our response to the comments. In addition, we will document what impact the comments had on the project. This will be executed through a simple form (hard copy or web-based) that will be completed at the end of each activity.

6.4. Graphics and Style Guides

TBARTA has prepared three documents to provide a framework for preparing graphics, reports, and other project materials. The TBARTA Projects Public Involvement Plan Template and Guidelines (October 2010) is a working document, designed to assist the individual study public engagement teams with establishing communication strategies for outreach to project stakeholders and the public-at-large. This document is included as Appendix E. To ensure the consistency of the regional message across projects, project teams are strongly encouraged to follow the PIP template guidelines, as well as those in the TBARTA Style Guide and Writing Guidelines (October 2010). This document is included as Appendix F. In addition, the TBARTA Projects Graphics Guide (October 2010) outlines the requirements for preparing project graphics. This document is included as Appendix G.

6.5. Social Media Policy

The CCC and TBARTA have developed a social media policy to provide guidance for public engagement using web-based platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and blogs. This policy is included in Appendix H.


6.6. Inclusive Engagement

6.6.1. Title VI Policy

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (as amended) prohibits recipients of federal financial assistance from discriminating on the basis of race, color, age, religion, disability, national origin, and family status. The CCC-TBARTA adheres to all of the requirements of federal agencies and to its own Title VI/Limited English Proficiency policies and procedures. The CCC-TBARTA has developed a discrimination complaint procedure to allow individuals to file a complaint if they feel that they have been discriminated against during the regional transportation process. This procedure is shown in Appendix I. The CCC-TBARTA has also created a binder that contains information on the Title VI policy and compliance issues. The binder is available at all public meetings, including those at satellite sites and offsite locations. Contents of the Title VI binder are also listed in Appendix I. In addition, the following language is incorporated into all meeting notifications and public information materials:

Funding for this report may have been financed in part through grant[s] from the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, under the State Planning and Research Program, Section 505 [or Metropolitan Planning Program, Section 104(f)] of Title 23, U.S. Code. The contents of this report do not necessarily reflect the official views or policy of the U.S. Department of Transportation.

Public participation is solicited without regard to race, color, national origin, age, sex, religion, disability, or family status. Persons who require special accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act or persons who require translation service (free of charge) should contact _________ at _________ at least 7 working days in advance of the public meeting.

6.6.2. Limited English Proficiency Plan

In accordance with Executive Order 13166, the CCC and TBARTA have developed a plan to provide meaningful access to people who are considered limited English proficient. It is included as Appendix J.

6.6.3. Regional Demographic Profile

The CCC-TBARTA will develop a regional demographic profile to become familiar with the general make-up of the population. The profile will also identify areas where populations have been traditionally underserved that may warrant special outreach. The demographic profile will be updated a minimum of every five years in association with the RPPP update.


Practicing the Scales:

Evaluation Measures


7. Practicing the Scales: Evaluation Measures

7.1. Measures of Effectiveness

It is important to develop a strong set of evaluation criteria to ensure that the goals and objectives of the RPPP are fully realized. These measures of effectiveness (MOEs) are tangible aspects of the public engagement process that can easily be monitored and documented throughout the regional planning process. Appendix K provides a form that can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the RPPP. The RPPP should be evaluated every two years and amended as needed, with major updates occurring every five years just prior to the RLRTP update process. The goals and MOEs include the following:

GOAL 1: EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION: Focus on proactive, effective, timely, and continuous communication, both within and outside of the CCC/TBARTA.

MOE 1.1 Has a checklist been prepared to apply to public documents and materials? (Y/N) How many documents have followed the checklist to ensure concise context, written in plain language, free of acronyms, and using clear graphics and visual images instead of words?

MOE 1.2 How many links are posted on MPO websites that send visitors back to the CCC/TBARTA website? Have publications been distributed that include our web address? (Y/N) How many hits and page views has our website received? Has our website been updated each month?

MOE 1.3 Has a PowerPoint or video overview of the regional transportation planning process been produced? (Y/N) How many times has the PowerPoint or video overview been shown by TBARTA and MPO Staff? How many viewers have seen the overview? If a video, is it posted on YouTube? (Y/N) How many views have been recorded on YouTube?

MOE 1.4 Has a brochure been produced? (Y/N) How many brochures have been published and distributed?

MOE 1.5 How many issues of the newsletters have been produced this year? How many electronic copies of each issue were distributed?

MOE 1.6 Have regional survey questions been made available for use by local MPO questionnaires and/or distributed in other ways? (Y/N) How many regional survey responses were collected and analyzed?

MOE 1.7 How many times were the agendas and past meeting minutes posted on website at least one week in advance of meetings?

MOE 1.8 Have standard timeframes, processes, and templates been used for public notices and advertisements? (Y/N) How many complaints were received regarding the notification process or timing?

MOE 1.9 What is the level of satisfaction of citizen representatives based on bi-annual survey?

MOE 1.10 Has the public participation database been kept up-to-date? (Y/N) How many people have participated in engagement activities, submitted comments, and received responses? How many people have been added to the USPS and electronic mailing lists?

MOE 1.11 How many documents have been prepared and approved through the joint approval process?


GOAL 2: TRUST AND UNDERSTANDING: Build public trust and understanding by producing accurate, clear information to encourage public participation.

MOE 2.1 Has clear and comprehensive information been made available in a timely way to agencies and the public throughout project studies? (Y/N)

MOE 2.2 How many opportunities for interested parties to respond to notices and participate before action is taken? What is the average number of days of notice prior to action taken on key plans/programs?

MOE 2.3 How many regional public forums, workshops, and community meetings were held where public comment was solicited? How many comments were received on regional transportation issues? How many draft plans, reports, and documents were made available on the website?

MOE 2.4 How many different techniques were used to outreach to stakeholders? How many meetings or event notifications were mailed or e-mailed? How many newspaper ads and/or press releases were distributed? How many followers on Twitter or likes on Facebook?

GOAL 3: COLLABORATION: Collaborate and build partnerships with government agencies, civic organizations, and other interested parties.

MOE 3.1 Has a campaign been initiated? (Y/N) How many people were sent notice of the partnership between CCC/TBARTA?

MOE 3.2 How many individuals and entities are included in regional mail and email database? By how much has that number increased or decreased throughout the year?

MOE 3.3 Has legislators’ database been kept up-to-date? (Y/N)

MOE 3.4 How many legislative updates have been issued?

MOE 3.5 How many new partnerships have been established this year?

MOE 3.6 How many events were co-sponsored?

GOAL 4: INCLUSIVE ENGAGEMENT: Provide access, be inclusive, and strive to engage all affected populations.

MOE 4.1 Was a regional demographic profile developed? (Y/N)

MOE 4.2 How many regional events are held in areas where traditionally under-represented populations live or work? How many non-staff attendees participated in those events?

MOE 4.3 Are publications and websites produced in formats that are usable to persons with limited visual and cognitive abilities? (Y/N)

MOE 4.4 How many key publications were translated into other languages?

MOE 4.5 How many presentations were given or opportunities provided for comments on regional planning issues at community events?

MOE 4.6 How many and what percentage of meetings were held at a location that is ADA-accessible? How many and what percentage of meetings were within one quarter mile of a transit stop?


MOE 4.7 Have the Title VI Policy and LEP Plan been updated? (Y/N)

MOE 4.8 Does composition of citizen advisory groups reflect the region’s demographic make-up? (Y/N)

GOAL 5: RESOURCEFULNESS: Be cost-conscious, economical, and resourceful.

MOE 5.1 How many followers on Facebook and Twitter?

MOE 5.2 How often have major regional events, agendas, and maps been posted to website?

MOE 5.3 What were the costs for printing maps and materials compared over time?

MOE 5.4 How many webinars or other web-based meetings been used? How many attendees participated from remote locations?

MOE 5.5 How many opportunities were there to use existing resources? How many opportunities were taken to use existing resources?

MOE 5.6 How much was the cost per (non-staff) participant at regional public engagement activities?

GOAL 6: MEANINGFUL INPUT: Obtain meaningful public input to inform the decision making process.

MOE 6.1 How many hosted/co-sponsored regional priorities, and plan adoption hearing(s) were held?

MOE 6.2 How many public comments were received? How many responses were sent to public comments? How many revisions to plans were documented based on public comment?

MOE 6.3 Was a public engagement strategy developed for each of the various planning activities or projects?

MOE 6.4 How many summary forms were prepared to document the nature of the comments and how the comment was incorporated into the project?

7.2. Documentation

This RPPP provides a framework for which regional public engagement activities should be executed, but documentation of the outreach activities must take place throughout the year in order to measure the effectiveness of the plan. The CCC and TBARTA could develop an on-line database/recording system to track the engagement activities and associated participation. Appendix L depicts a worksheet that can be used to collect outreach details. Every two years, the CCC-TBARTA will prepare an MOE report to monitor their performance relative to the goals and objectives that our outlined in this document. Major updates to the RPPP will occur every five years; however, it is a living document, so modifications can be made to improve the process or reflect required changes.

Appendices



Appendix A. Public Involvement Techniques Cost and Illustrative Budget

DRAFT Regional Public Participation Plan

Toolbox Cost EstimatesJune 2013

Regional Long

Range

Transportation

Plan

Regional Public

Participation

Plan

Regional

Congestion

Management

Plan

Air Quality

Management

Planning

Regional

Priorities

Regional Multi-

Use Trails Plan

Special

Programs/

Projects Comments

Primary Techniques

Through Print Media:

Brochures & Fact Sheets $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 brief overview of process or project

Guest columns and editorials $0 $0

Newspaper Ad $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 2 ads @ $1500

Press Releases $0 $0

Through Events:

Briefings & Speakers Bureau $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 $6,400 10 briefings x 4 hrs @$100/hr

Community Events/Conferences/Transportation Fairs $2,400 $2,400 $2,400 4 events x 2 person x 3 hr @$100/hr; Assumes handouts/boards included elsewhere

Public workshops, hearings, and forums $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500

Assumes piggyback of MPO Board meeting and materials covered elsewhere in

budget

Through the Internet:

E-mail notifications $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 Labor only

eTown Hall Meetings /I-town Hall $8,000 $8,000 1 ea/$8000

Information on partner websites $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Internet Newsletter $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 Same as printed newsletter, without postage or printing

Online surveys $1,600 $1,600 $1,600 $1,600 Assumes survey monkey registration already in hand; labor only

Website $41,600 incl. in LRTP incl. in LRTP incl. in LRTP incl. in LRTP incl. in LRTP 8 hrs x 52 weeks @$100/hr

Social Media: Facebook, Twitter, Google $19,200 incl. in LRTP incl. in LRTP incl. in LRTP incl. in LRTP incl. in LRTP 16 hrs/month @$100/hr

Virtual Public Meetings / Summits $16,000 $8,000 $8,000 2@$8000/ea

Through Radio, Phone, and Television Communication:

Government Access Television $0 $0

News and feature stories $0 $0 $0 $0

Public Service Announcements $0

Total $106,300 $12,500 $17,500 $0 $21,600 $16,000 $23,900Frequency Every 5 Yrs. Every 5 Yrs. Every 5 Yrs. Annually Annually Annually

Five Year Regional PPP Programming Cycle

Annual Update& Public Engagement Activities - Yrs 1 -3 $61,500

Update Regional CMP + PPP + Annual Updates - Yr 4 $91,500

Update Regional LRTP + Annual Updates - Yr 5 $167,800

1

mailto:2@$8000/ea



Regional Long

Range

Transportation

Plan

Regional Public

Participation

Plan

Regional

Congestion

Management

Plan

Air Quality

Management

Planning

Regional

Priorities

Regional Multi-

Use Trails Plan

Special

Programs/

Projects Comments

Other Techniques

Through Print Media:

Citizen guides $8,000 $8,000 how to guide

Comment Forms $20 $20 $20 printing costs

Direct Mail/Mailing List incl. in newsletter

Geographic Information Systems mapping incl. in newsletter incl. in newsletter incl. in newsletter incl. in newsletter

Stakeholder Interviews $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 5 interviews x 4 hrs/ea x $100/hr

Newsletters $6,200 $6,200 $6,200 60 hrs x $100/hr + postage

Posters and fliers $6,000 $6,000 50 hrs @$100/hr + printing

School Curriculum $0

Surveys $1,800 $1,800 $1,800 $1,800 16 hrs x $100/hr + postage

Through Events:

Award programs $5,500 5 person committee-10 hrs each + trophy or plaque

Brainstorming /Charettes $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 1 mtg x 40 hrs @$100/hr

Committees

not incl. in this

budget

not incl. in this

budget

not incl. in this

budget

not incl. in this

budget

not incl. in this

budget

not incl. in this

budget

not incl. in this

budget

Games & contests $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 50 hrs @ $100/hr

Interactive mapping incl. in newsletter incl.in newsletter

Live Polling / instant voting $0 $0 $0 Assumes borrowing TBRPC equip.

Open forums / houses $60,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 Assumes 6 open houses at $10K/ea for LRTP; 2 sessions for all others

Planning academies / leadership institutes

not incl. in this

budget

Press conference $0

Retreats

incl. in

brainstorming/char

rettes

Small Group Discussions incl. in charettes and brainstorming

Visioning $32,000 $32,000 Assumes 4 sessions @$8000/ea

Visualization/Simulation $8,000 80 hrs @ $100/hr

Through the Internet:

Blogs $24,000 Labor only-20 hr/month @$100/hr

Crowdsourcing $30,000 incl. in RLRTP MindMixer

Online Forums/Wireside Chatsincluded in

crowdsourcing

incl. in

crowdsourcing

Online photo gallery $5,200 52 hrs to take photos (or organize public photo contest) and publish

Video/Video Streaming $30,000 $30,000 5-10 min. video w/video footage, script, narration, graphics.

Webcasts / Podcasts

not incl. in this

budget

not incl. in this

budget

not incl. in this

budget

Wikis

not incl. in this

budget

2



Regional Long

Range

Transportation

Plan

Regional Public

Participation

Plan

Regional

Congestion

Management

Plan

Air Quality

Management

Planning

Regional

Priorities

Regional Multi-

Use Trails Plan

Special

Programs/

Projects Comments

Through Radio, Phone, and Television Communication:

Mobile Applications

not incl. in this

budget

Radio Ads

not incl. in this

budget

Telephone hotlines

not incl. in this

budget

Telephone townhalls/Towncall $15,000 2 towncalls at $7.5K/ea

Telephone surveys $45,000 $45,000

Text Messaging $0 Develop list of phone numbers

TV Message Board Scripts $160 labor 16 hr @$100/hr

3

Joint Regional Public Participation Plan

Proposed Budget

DRAFT

EXAMPLE FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES

Federal Shares

Unified Planning Work Program

FY 13/14

Adj Factor Adjusted Amt

Citrus 1 653,188$

Hernando 653,188$ p.77 1 653,188$

Hillsborough 2,780,260$ p. 94 1 2,780,260$

Pasco 758,191$ p.62 1 758,191$

Pinellas 1,859,743$ p. 64 1 1,859,743$

Polk** 988,072$ A-2 0.5 494,036$

Sarasota/Manatee** 1,055,589$ p. T-3 0.5 527,795$

8,095,043$ 7,726,401$

(*) federal funding assumed to be comparable to Hernando County MPO

Percentage of Federal Allocations

Citrus 8.5%

Hernando 8.5%

Hillsborough 36.0%

Pasco 9.8%

Pinellas 24.1%

Polk 6.4%

Sarasota/Manatee 6.8%

100.0%

No UPWP*

(**) Polk TPO & Sarasota/Manatee MPO shares adjusted by 50% due to their other regional coordination

responsibilities

Joint Regional Public Participation Plan

Proposed Budget

DRAFT

EXAMPLE FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES

TBARTA-CCC RPPP Budget-Peak Year $168,000

TBARTA $84,000

$84,000

Citrus 8.5% $7,101

Hernando 8.5% $7,101

Hillsborough 36.0% $30,226

Pasco 9.8% $8,243

Pinellas 24.1% $20,219

Polk 6.4% $5,371

Sarasota/Manatee 6.8% $5,738

100% $84,000

DRAFT

TBARTA-CCC RPPP Budget-Off-Peak Year $61,500

TBARTA $7,688

$53,813

Citrus 8.5% $4,549

Hernando 8.5% $4,549

Hillsborough 36.0% $19,364

Pasco 9.8% $5,281

Pinellas 24.1% $12,953

Polk 6.4% $3,441

Sarasota/Manatee 6.8% $3,676

100% $53,813


Appendix B. Glossary of Tools


Appendix C. Public Participation Worksheets


Appendix D. Notice and Advertisement Templates

Appendix E. Public Involvement Plan Template and Guidelines

Appendix F. Style Guide and Writing Guidelines

Appendix G. Project Graphics Guide

Appendix H. Social Media Policy

Appendix I. Title VI Complaint Process and Binder Contents

Appendix J. Limited English Proficiency Plan

Appendix K. Measures of EffectivenessEvaluation Form

Appendix L. Evaluation and Documentation Worksheet

© Atkins Ltd except where stated otherwise. The Atkins logo, ‘Carbon Critical Design’ and the strapline Plan Design Enable’ are trademarks of Atkins Ltd.

Atkins

4030 West Boy Scout Boulevard

Suite 700

Tampa, Florida 33607813.282.7275

www.atkinsglobal.com/northamerica

Documents

TBARTA Regional Public Participation Plan Working … · TBARTA Regional Public Participation Plan Working Group Meeting February 17, 2017 II. Agenda Item TBARTA RP3 Working Group