Draft Memorandum for the Record
Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization
Unified Planning Work Program Committee Meeting
November 7, 2013 Meeting
12:50 PM to 1:55 PM, State Transportation Building, Conference Rooms 2&3, 10 Park
Plaza, Boston
Sreelatha Allam, Chair, representing the Massachusetts Department of Transportation
(MassDOT)
Decisions
The Unified Planning Work
Program
(UPWP)
Committee agreed to the following:
• Approve the minutes
of
the meeting of July 25, 2013
Materials
Materials for this meeting included:
• a copy of the meeting agenda
• draft minutes for the July 25, 2013 UPWP Committee meeting
• the federal fiscal
year
(FFY) 2013 UPWP Fourth Quarter Spending Report
• the FFY 2013 UPWP Fourth Quarter
CTPS
Schedule and Staff Assignment table
• a schedule detailing UPWP and Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
development activities occurring from November
2013 through June 2014
Meeting Agenda
1. Introductions
Sree Allam, (Chair, Unified Planning Work
Program Committee, Massachusetts Department of Transportation)
called the meeting to order at approximately 9:15 AM. She explained that she is the new UPWP Committee chair, representing MassDOT,
where
she
is a program planner
and
liaison to the Boston Region, Merrimack
Valley and Old Colony MPOs. UPWP Committee, other MPO members, MPO
staff, and other attendees introduced themselves. (For attendance list, see page 7.)
2. Action Item: Approval
of Meeting Minutes from
July
25,
2013 UPWP
Committee Meeting
A motion to accept the meeting minutes
was made by Tom O’Rourke (Town of Norwood) and seconded by Eric
Bourassa (Metropolitan Area Planning Council
(MAPC)). The motion carried.
3. FFY 2013 Fourth Quarter Spending Report
Karl Quackenbush (MPO Executive Director) described the structure of the report, explaining that it
is produced every quarter and is designed to show the status of each
CTPS
project and activity in the UPWP. The report
also
includes projects that were not
expected to be worked on during FFY 2013; these include projects that have been carried over
from
the
previous UPWP or that have been added since the UPWP was endorsed. The report includes two sets of columns; the first set describes the FFY 2013
UPWP budget and spending during the UPWP timeframe. The second set describes
spending over the whole project
life, and
the
budgets in this second set have been
defined by the project work scopes.
There is also a section of this
report on the last page that summarizes expenditures for
MPO-funded and non MPO-funded projects
for the federal fiscal year. K. Quackenbush
noted that the budgeted MPO work
for FFY 2013 was $3.9 million and that $3.8 million
was
spent. He explained that fewer
dollars were spent than budgeted because there was a vacancy among staff working on MPO-funded projects. Spending on non MPO-
funded projects
was on target with what was budgeted.
A member
of
the public asked for
a clarification on the funding for
the “MPO Freight Study, Phase II project, particularly on the difference between its FFY 2013 UPWP
budget of $36,400 and its total
project budget of $30,000.” K. Quackenbush and Robin
Mannion (MPO Deputy Executive Director), explained that while $36,400 was budgeted for
the
project in the UPWP,
it was ultimately budgeted
for $30,000
when its work
program was subsequently written. R.
Mannion noted that the $6,400 in extra program
capacity provided support for
projects that unexpectedly carried over into FFY 2013. K.
Quackenbush also noted that work on the “MPO Freight Study, Phase II” project has
also
carried into FFY 2014 as the MPO and the Regional Transportation Advisory
Council continue to review the resulting work plan. Freight planning will be addressed through an ongoing program in the FFY 2014 UPWP.
A committee
member asked for a definition
of “discrete” projects. K. Quackenbush
explained that discrete projects have a defined beginning, end, and set of products.
These projects
are distinct from other
activities, such as TIP development or support to the Advisory Council, which continue from year to year.
A committee
member asked about how overruns on MassDOT-funded projects, such as
the “South Station Expansion Project,” are paid for. K. Quackenbush explained that
MPO
funds and agency funds are never
comingled and that, in any event, there have
been no such overruns. In the case of the “South Station Expansion Project”, it was found that more work
was
called upon to be completed on this project during FFY 2013 than
was
anticipated at the time the UPWP was developed. The “South Station Expansion
Project” budget covers multiple years, and the project is still within its overall
budget.
R. Mannion explained that the quarterly
spending reports show 1) FFY 2013 spending as
compared to the level of work activity anticipated during UPWP development
(as
shown in the first set of columns), and 2) how well the MPO performed in terms of managing overall project
budgets (as
shown in the second set of columns). It was
suggested that an additional
column
could provide clarifying
text explanations about the budget figures
for particular projects. K. Quackenbush and R. Mannion encouraged UPWP Committee members to continue to provide suggestions for
these reports.
A committee
member noted that MPO staff used to create reports for
the
UPWP Committee that highlighted projects
of concern. K. Quackenbush explained that these were the “Red Flag Tables,” which were
used to highlight projects with actual
expenditure
rates running significantly ahead of their budgeted expenditure
rates. He added that the quarterly spending report highlights a different issue, which tracks spending against what was
anticipated in the UPWP.
A committee
member asked about the “MBTA Rapid Transit Station Intermodal Service
Map Development” project, which is marked complete while only 27 percent of its
budget has been spent. R. Mannion explained that this project is funded by the
Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority’s
(MBTA)
American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (ARRA)
dollars, and the MBTA had not asked for the full budget’s
worth of work on this mapping project before the timeframe to use the ARRA dollars had ended.
A committee
member asked about how MassDOT
is billed for projects that MPO staff
work
on.
R. Mannion explained that invoices are
submitted to MassDOT
monthly.
4. FFY 2014
First Quarter CTPS Schedule
and Staff Assignment
K. Quackenbush described the table structure and notation. Schedule and budget information in bold type reflects changes since the last report; in particular,
budgets
shown in bold on this
quarter’s
report have been updated through the budget adjustment approved at the previous
UPWP Committee meeting. Projects
noted with
double-plus marks
(++)
highlight projects with approved work
scopes that are new to this
report; single plus marks (+)
denote upcoming projects.
Recently completed projects are listed in the top right-hand corner
of
the report.
Several committee members asked why the Regional
Model Enhancement project row is highlighted. K. Quackenbush explained that the formatting makes it appear
highlighted but that it
is not, in fact, highlighted.
A member
of
the public asked whether
this
report reflects information gathered as
of October. K. Quackenbush confirmed that this is
correct, and explained that there is always a lag time between the end of the quarter
and
when these reports are distributed
to the UPWP Committee.
A committee member asked whether staff vacancies are
reflected in this report. K.
Quackenbush explained that the report notes a new position in the Transit
Service
Planning group for
which MPO staff are
actively recruiting. MPO staff may also recruit
for a new staff person for the Traffic
Analysis and Design group.
5. Update on FFY 2015 UPWP
Development Activities
Michelle Scott directed attendees’
attention to the schedule of TIP
and UPWP development activities occurring between November 2013 and June 2014. She
described several
outreach activities occurring between November 2013 and January
2014, which include:
•
MPO staff attendance at MAPC subregion meetings. The dates and time of
meetings
occurring in November and December have been listed on the monthly
calendars
distributed at the MPO meeting.
• TIP-and UPWP-Building Sessions. The dates, times, and locations of these two
meetings
are still being finalized.
• The MPO’s “Be Informed, Be Involved”
sessions, which will
include discussion of TIP and UPWP Development among other
MPO
topics. These will
be
held in January in the State Transportation Building.
M. Scott encouraged members
to attend these meetings.
A committee
member asked whether
the
TIP and UPWP schedule was available on the website, and suggested that MPO staff could create a single place for
people to view information about UPWP events. Staff responded that MPO-sponsored events are listed
on
the MPO meetings calendar;
MAPC subregion meetings
are
not currently listed there
because they are
not sponsored by the MPO. MPO staff indicated that they could
explore opportunities to include these events as
well. R.
Mannion added that MPO-
sponsored events could also be incorporated into newsflashes on the MPO website.
A member
of
the public asked whether
MAPC
subregion meetings
are open to the
public. E. Bourassa explained that these meetings
are open to the public but are
specifically
advertised to municipalities. The UPWP and TIP development processes will be discussed at all subregion meetings. MPO staff were
complimented on recent efforts
to engage the MAPC subregions.
It was noted that subregions
may benefit from informed advocates participating in MAPC subregion meetings, although the mix of
types of participants tends
to
vary by subregion.
M. Scott explained also that during the November to early February period, ideas for the UPWP will be gathered from MPO staff and area transportation agencies. MPO staff will
also
work on refining the UPWP criteria. She clarified that these criteria are distinct
from the quantitative criteria used to recommend TIP projects. The UPWP criteria are qualitative, and are used to flag whether a UPWP project
might address particular
MPO visions, goals, or
policies; elements of federal guidance; state or regional priorities; and other items.
6. Member
Items
A member
of
the public asked whether
the MPO has recently reviewed the members of
its various committees, as
the Advisory Council would like to be represented on all
committees. E. Bourassa explained that every year or two, the MPO Chair requests
feedback on whether members
would
like to participate on different MPO committees, and then
he selects committee members
after
reviewing this feedback. S. Allam indicated she
would look
into
this issue.
A committee
member suggested that the MPO encourage chief elected officials to
attend the TIP
and UPWP endorsement vote meeting anticipated for
June
26, 2014.
A committee
member asked that Committee Chairs
encourage the MPO to stick to its
anticipated schedule for document approvals before July and August. Another member
asked whether the March 3 date for receiving target funding for
the TIP and UPWP was
a typical date or a best guess. K. Quackenbush explained that this
is a best guess. He
added that in recent years, the schedule had actually been moved earlier in time to support
document approvals
before
July
and August.
7. Next Meeting
The next meeting will
be
held on February 6, 2014. Topics will include the FFY 2015
UPWP Universe of Potential New Projects,
the FFY 2014 First Quarter Spending report, and the FFY 2014 Second Quarter
Schedule and Staff Assignments table.
8. Adjourn
The meeting adjourned at approximately 1:55 PM.
Attendance
|
UPWP Committee
Members
|
Representatives
and Alternates
|
|
At-Large City (City of Newton)
|
David Koses
|
|
City of Boston
|
Tom Kadzis
|
|
Inner Core Committee (City of Somerville)
|
Tom Bent
|
|
Massachusetts
Department of Transportation
|
Sree Allam
|
|
Metropolitan Area Planning Council
|
Eric Bourassa
|
|
MetroWest Regional
Collaborative (Town of Framingham)
|
Dennis Giombetti
|
|
Southwest Advisory
Planning Committee (Town of Medway)
|
Dennis Crowley
|
|
Three Rivers Interlocal
Council (Town of Norwood)
|
Tom O’Rourke
|
Other MPO Members Representatives and Alternates
Regional Transportation Advisory Council David Montgomery
|
Other Attendees
|
Affiliation
|
|
Steve Olanoff
|
Town of Westwood
|
|
Wig Zamore
|
Mystic View Task
Force,
Somerville Transportation
Equity Partnership
|
MPO Staff/Central Transportation
Planning Staff
Karl Quackenbush, Executive
Director
Robin Mannion, Deputy Executive Director
Michelle Scott