Travis County Commissioners Court
November 24, 2009,
Item 29
>> number 29.
to consider and take appropriate action on sending letters to the united states senate and house of representatives on the funding of metropolitan planning organizations for fiscal year 2010.
we have executive director mr.
joe cantalupo with us here today.
we seldom get him down here at the Commissioners court.
we thank him for coming.
he will lay out the recommendation.
>> good morning, judge, good morning, Commissioners.
first, I wanted to thank Commissioner Eckhardt for bringing this to your attention and to thank you all for considering it.
i'll -- what I'm able to do is tell you where we are with funding and let you know what the impacts are.
then if you have any questions for me I would be happy to answer them.
>> could I just set it up for a moment.
this came about because of a conversation that we had at campo and also with joe specifically about concerns in the federal funding -- not only the amount of federal funding, but the scheduling of federal funding and how it would impact us over time.
and so -- so we were -- we suggested the idea of a possible letter from the court and whether that would be helpful and that's how this all came about.
>> we received a -- our region receives, actually the entire state receives funding for transportation through the surface transportation act the one that we are under now is nicknamed safety lou.
that expired at the end of sent, so the u.s.
d.o.t.
and the federal highway administration and the federal transit administration under it -- have been operating under what are known as continuing resolutions.
the first one lasted through October.
the second one will last through I believe it's December 18th.
and that -- for us, for what we do, the issue is that continuing resolutions distribute transportation money in bits and pieces, so that's the first issue we have.
is that we don't know for transportation with the 2010 allocations what they will be, because we keep getting these continuing resolution that's only give us bits and pieces for it.
but the problem, the second problem with continuing resolutions is that, in this case, the amount of funding we are receiving goes back to 2009 number and it goes back to the number that was developed after rescissions were taken out.
safety lou had built into it returns of money that were distributed to the state back to the federal government.
those reset the funding levels for 2009.
the 2010 money we're getting under these continuing resolutions goes back to the reduced 2009 levels.
so that has -- has several implications for what we do.
and I'm going to talk for a second about the planning that we do.
but the thing to keep in mind is that it affects really all of federally funded transportation programs that the state gets money for.
the rough calculation would put the planning funds that this region receives at 30% that receive last year.
that -- that would be very, very detrimental to us.
if we had to go the entire year with 30% less funds than we received last year, several of the programs that we operate before the region that are required that we operate for the region would be in jeopardy and several of the things that we do to just put us in a better position would be in jeopardy.
we have to have our long range transportation plan done by the beginning of June.
there's no way that cannot be done.
but it would just be harder to get it done if we had less money.
for example, we're seeking help to get a technical rider to help us put together all of the different pieces that we have written so far, so it makes sense to the public and is what it should be.
if we can't count on our full portion of funds, we may have to scale back on that, we have to do a congestion management process that's mandated.
if we have to do with less money it might be more difficult for us to get to that.
and if we go the whole year, we might eat up the very modest amount of reserves that we have, would have to look into reducing first other programs like what we do for commute solutions and clean air.
and there's always the possibility if this goes again more toward the end of the year that we would have to make staffing adjustments.
we might have to, you know, unfortunately consider paring down our staff a bit if this were to go beyond the end of the year.
again, safety lou expired, we are operating under a continuing resolution.
the continuing resolution does a couple of thing.
it gives the state the money that it distributes, gives it the funds in piecemeal, when the state gets the funds in piecemeal and doesn't know what its ultimate goal is in terms of funding levels, it makes it very hard for them to exercise flexibility.
i would like to add when we were going through in 2009, txdot was very, very flexible and they were able to keep the
>> [indiscernible] whole.
now, other programs suffered.
but we were able to continue the planning work, which is the other work the state does and continue to roll.
so with that I will just stop and see if you have any questions or if I can provide you more specific information on anything.
>> I have a couple of questions.
how are you doing ??
>> good.
>> good.
the question that I have is all the npo's in the state of Texas, are they all under the same type of scrutiny or money not being properly appropriated so you can take care of your long-range planning which requires I guess an adequate staffing to deal with the situation.
are other npo's experience the same thing or is it just the campo, capital area metropolitan planning organization, just for this particular area, do you know of anyone else experiencing a similar situation and also are sending a letter to the united states senate and also the united states -- well the congress and also the senate, representatives, rather, in the senate, to ensure that they are recognized in the continuing resolution?
could you answer that for me, please?
>> yes, sir.
all of the npo's are -- are affected the same way.
of course at various levels.
the mpo that comes to dallas/fort worth area, a 30% reduction, if they lived with the 30% reduction for the entire year that equates to about 20 staff positions because they are very large.
if you looked at say, waco, that has one or two staff folks, they get a lot of work done through consultant contracts.
their consultant contracts would suffer.
we're just about in the middle.
all mpo's are subject to these refunding levels and we are all affected.
>> can you tell me why there was a -- there was a -- discontinuation, I guess, of adequate fundings to keep the staffing levels where they should be to continue your work as far as campo and long range plans, other folks looking at consultants, I guess that would affect them, too.
why is that.
>> this wasn't directed at mpo's specifically.
there was two reasons.
one is when the federal government implemented the rescissions in 2009 or actually through the life of the whole federal surface transportation act.
every state had to give money back.
so in 2009 the state, txdot, actually kept the mpo's whole.
the program is that the surface transportation act, the federal law that gives money to the states for transportation, including the planning that we do, the problem is that when safety lou expired, the -- the federal government didn't pass a few surface transportation act.
so what they are doing is allocating or authorizing the money a little bit at a time.
and because they have done it a little bit at a time, two things have happened.
one is that they are using the old funding levels, which -- which potentially could cost us 30%.
when I say us, I mean all of the mpo's in the state of their planning funds.
and they -- because they are getting it piecemeal, the stated really doesn't know how much we can expect to get over the course of the year.
if they don't know what to expect over the course of the year, they can't tell whether or not they can be flexible for us in 2010 like they were in 2009.
but I want to reiterate another point I'm here talking to you because I run a planning organization and I'm worried about planning.
>> I understand.
>> these funding levels affect everything that the state does.
at some point it will affect their ability to launch capital projects to launch road construction projects.
you know, throughout the state.
>> I understand.
but specifically I'm focusing on Travis County, per se, I just asked that state-wide question.
but specifically in Travis County, that 30% that -- that you are looking for them to in a continuing resolution or whatever they end up doing, federal, to distribute that money accordingly, through -- through the state, as far as Travis County is concerned, how much are you anticipating to come here to Travis County to accommodate your planning which actually involves staffing requirements?
>> I -- I don't -- I can't tell you how much of the plan is going to be devoted to Travis County because we've not completed the plan yet.
>> well, I'm just saying well let me put -- let's say the region.
in other words the region that campo represents.
how much of that money that you are requesting out of the 30% state-wide, how much of that is coming to the region for you to continue your planning efforts as far as staffing?
because it appears that staffing is something that you are asking that -- that not be cut, and then needs funding to support what you're trying to do.
my question is how much money are you talking about?
>> if we have to live the entire year.
if campo has to live the entire year with 30% less funding, it's going to equate to about $400,000 give or take of -- that's about 30% of the planning funds that we get from the federal government.
>> all right.
i guess my point, though, is how much of this is for staffing, though?
because you mentioned a -- you need a technical rider, you need other -- writer, you need other persons to do things, seems like it's all attributed to staffing.
what portion of this $400,000 that you are requesting -- that you -- that's needed for funding to actually fund the positions that's necessary for your operation as far as planning?
i'm trying to get done to the bolts and nuts of it.
>> that 300, $400,000 all goes into staffing.
not just salaries, but running the office.
>> okay.
>> so none of that or very little of it would -- is going to consultant services at this point.
>> I understand.
so it's the operational fee via f.t.e.'s and the operation of your office for planning purposes; is that correct.
>> yes.
>> okay.
i'm just trying to associate the money of this 30% for your operation and trying to get a -- an identifier as far as the amount of money that's necessary and needed for your continuation of what you are doing there.
so --
>> I go home every night hoping that the federal government is -- you know, going to extend safety lou for something more than 45 days.
>> right.
but on top of that, though, that is a reserve that you have available and I think that you mentioned the -- the reserve that you have could -- could tied you over for a certain length of time.
i don't know what length of time we're talking about because we try to normally have reserves in anything we do.
i think other governmental entities are -- any functioning thing that receive funding, we try to have reserves for the hard times.
so I guess how long would those reserves carry out for this amount of money.
>> our reserve is unobligated federal funds.
they have been obligated from the -- from the feds to the state, but the state holds them until
>> [indiscernible] request them.
so we have enough federal funds to last us, this is an approximation, we could make it almost the whole fiscal year.
but we would be down to nothing if -- if in fact we had to live with the 30% reduction for the entire year.
and then after that, if we go into a second year, at lower funding levels or receiving federal transportation funds under continuing resolution, then -- then, you know, then we -- would have to look at self things.
using capital money to keep the planning operation floating would be one.
coming back to all local governments and asking them to step up local contributions would be another.
and the third would be to make adjustments and staff to reduce our staff.
that would be the third and if I could add a couple of things before that on the list, we're going to get that one down as far as we can.
but really what's threatened here is yeah, we worry about staff and we do look at money.
but what's threatened here is our ability to carry out the planning process for the region.
if we don't have the money to do the job adequately, what ultimately gets threatened is our ability to be able to bring in or continue to let federal funds flow into the region.
you know, we don't have a long range plan that adequately addresses the needs.
we're not set up to receive federal funds as well as other regions.
if we can't continue with our outreach efforts through programs like commute solutions and work with the clean air force and on clean air act type of items, we make it more difficult to maintain attainment, which makes it difficult to do anything else that we want to do with --
>> any planning include additional toll roads?
>> our long range plan does include toll roads, yes.
>> thank you.
>> joe, is it safe to say that -- that the planning efforts of the mpo's are -- are perhaps under the species of collateral damage of a -- of indecision at the federal level about how to restructure the -- the federal funding scheme?
is that a fair statement?
>> absolutely.
again, Commissioner, we're talking about planning, but it's also everything else that the state does.
because of the unpredictability of federal funds and how they are going to flow for the state, it's really affecting the state's ability to let more projects outlet the door, really affecting the ability of the mpo's to do the projects to allow them to get out the door.
>> I think to be fair to the feds, this is kind of a watershed moment in terms of revisiting how we do transportation financing at the federal level.
so my interest in -- in considering the letter by this court is to perhaps let representatives at the federal level know the consequences that they might not be aware of as they are looking at very big issues on financing.
this is perhaps a level of detail that they would not otherwise know about.
>> every time the authorization bill expires, we do this for a while.
i can't remember when one was passed on time of the always continuing resolutions or extensions, something like that.
this one you're right is a little bit different because it comes with the recognition that the way we finance transportation throughout the country is not working as well as it used to.
so it makes it, you're right, a little bit more difficult.
it's not just the expiration of safety lou, it's the expiration of safety lou with how do we fund transportation because a lot of them say the gas tax system isn't working.
>> I don't want to lay it at the fed's feet like they haven't made up their mind and it's causing us problems.
while that's technically true, they are grappling with very large policy issues.
what we're talking about here is -- is asking them to tide us over while they have the understandable conversation about surface transportation.
>> [one moment please for change in captioners]
>> I wanted to voice my agreement with Commissioner Davis and express hopefully for others in this county just aghast at this never ending we can't seem to get those poor legislators, they've got their unfettered or uncommitted funding schemes.
what could be more obvious, I mean on the ground substantial facts that could be obtained with something like building a road or something.
it baffles my mind how it's all up in the air, we'll kind of do as we get along, get so much money and we might not use it all or I don't know, it's so -- since it's our money and there's so much of it, it breaks my heart to here these kind of nebulous, nonplans kind of shoved down our throats, oh, we will we'll go along with it and that's how they've always done it and I've been here a long time and that's how they've been doing it.
that's not good enough.
we have to tunnel the destruction of our nation, literally our economy is dissolving and because of nonthought-out planning and people who just aren't taking this seriously and following every dime we're talking about.
today we're just kind of rounding it off and throwing it here and throwing it there.
it just seems a bit on the too vague side of the equation for my taste.
i would like to -- I urge more facts.
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
>> mr.
priest.
>> thank you, judge, Commissioners, morris priest speaking on my own behalf.
one of the reasons why txdot was so lenient with campo and these metropolitan planning organizations, previously any people in this community remember txdot lost track of $1.1 billion.
we're dealing with a state agency that loses $1.1 billion so therefore they think they have the money for these metropolitan planning organizations.
then with these regional mobility authorities, we have them come into our campo meeting and I agree 100% with Commissioner Davis, we have regional mobility authorities come into our campo planning organization and slit them in their terms and conditions on an overbuilt 290 east toll road, four flyovers that are going to be tolled.
and in addition txdot wants to build a gas ramp on sh 130 with 100% funded gas tax dollars to build a toll ramp.
so one of the things that I would ask the court to do is to look at three separate things.
first of all, it's relationship with campo.
and one thing that I'm not sure of and I would like to have an answer and it may be something that you have to answer in executive session with your attorneys, we have a joint powers agreement with campo.
Travis County is -- has a joint powers agreement, and I would like to know if it's been stated on the record if mr.
cantelupo has talked to other entities of this joint powers agreement, and if not if he intends to because I don't think when we have a joint powers agreement with other municipalities and cities, I don't think we should be going out and sending a letter without expressly having them involved in this type process.
but I do think that -- and they haven't changed that in the bylaws.
some of these funding things that many people in this community have been fighting down at the state capitol, I think as long -- and as well at the federal level, the second thing I would like you to look at is your role, and your role as a county government body shouldn't be going to circumvent the public's will.
and it's been stated time and time again the lowest survey has been in the lower 60% and some as high as 92% and higher against these toll roads.
and safety is not -- it's the poor planning.
and the third thing I would like y'all to look at is when we have these things come before our county government, I would rather have these things brought up at the campo meeting where people are being engaged and dealing with these issues and how could something that will affect the capital metro planning organization come before our county court without first having to come before the campo board.
thank you.
>> can I address a couple of things, though.
>> there's a whole thought he said that's really not posted today.
what we have before us is whether we do a letter to congress asking for restoration of planning dollars for m.p.o.s in the nation.
and if we want to do that, then we need to table this letter to be a Travis County letter.
so the question is whether we want to do it.
either we're going to do it or we're not.
>> if that's a motion, I'm going to vote no against it.
>> not a motion yet.
your item.
>> I move that we send a letter to the chairs of the senate and house -- relevant chairs -- relevant committees of the federal and -- house and senate to make the impact on Travis County known of the continuing resolution with regard to federal transportation funding.
>> second.
>> is it friendly that if we do this, then we tailor this letter to Travis County so we basically refine it.
>> that's perfectly fine.
>> I've asked joe to give us those and give us a document hopefully before we adjourn this afternoon.
>> the motion -- I want to make some clarification here.
the way the letter is written it's specific to planning funds.
the motion on the table is all transportation funding.
so you were directing me to redraft the letter addressing all the -- the impact of all the transportation funding, not just planning funds.
>> that's a good point.
no, I would prefer for us to stick to planning because this is not about the specific projects such as a toll road.
this is about the planning necessary to ostensibly planning could also be used to combat projects you don't like.
so this -- this is an issue of planning dollars so that we can make mindful decisions with regard to how we spend the federal funding that we do get and how we prioritize projects.
without the planning, we won't know.
>> this is a -- it's a letter bringing back before we adjourn today and tell the feds we need restoration of planning dollars.
all in favor?
show Commissioners Gomez, Huber, Eckhardt and yours truly in favor.
>> Commissioner Davis voting no.
>> thank you all very much.
joe is available for whatever assistance you need to give him, joe.
now we did post an item for 10:30 today.
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Last Modified:
Tuesday, November 24, 2009 1:40 PM
