State Transportation Building, Conference Rooms 2&3, 10 Park Plaza, Boston
Materials for this meeting included:
· a copy of the meeting agenda
· a draft summary of the June 20, 2013 UPWP Committee meeting
· the FFY 2013 UPWP Third Quarter Spending Report
· a memorandum discussing a proposed FFY 2013 UPWP budget adjustment
· the FFY 2013 UPWP Fourth Quarter CTPS Schedule and Staff Assignment Table (titled “Proposed Revisions to Certain 3C Budgets”)
Sheri Warrington (MPO Chair, Unified Planning Work Program Committee, Massachusetts Department of Transportation) called the meeting to order at approximately 9:15 AM. UPWP Committee and other MPO members and MPO staff attending the meeting introduced themselves. (For attendance list, see page 5.)
Michelle Scott (MPO Staff) reviewed the FFY 2013 UPWP Third Quarter Spending Report. She explained that spending on MPO and non-MPO projects is tracking approximately with the point in time of the federal fiscal year (which is three-quarters past).
A clarification was requested on the difference between ongoing and discrete projects, as it was noted that some projects were over budget but were labeled as “discrete” instead of “complete,” and could still incur charges. M. Scott noted that discrete projects have limited-term timeframes and are typically not expected to carry over from year to year. Karl Quackenbush (MPO Executive Director) explained that some of the projects that have exceeded their budgets are the subject of the budget adjustment item on the agenda. Other projects may appear to be over budget by a small amount due to computational estimates for operating expenditures, which will be corrected during project auditing. Still others may be awaiting contract extensions. Robin Mannion (MPO Deputy Executive Director) noted that the “% Project Budget Expended” column is the key one to look at for identifying projects that are over budget. This column is not affected by differences in how project funds may be programmed in a given UPWP, which happens months in advance of when project activities and spending actually take place.
Concerns were
expressed about the budget level for the Community Transportation
Technical Assistance Program and MPO staff
was asked whether the proposed budget adjustment would add funding to
this project. K. Quackenbush explained
that the proposed budget adjustment would not add additional funds to this
project. The work that is being conducted, and its associated cost, is being
carefully monitored by the project manager.
K. Quackenbush explained that, similar to last quarter, MPO
staff is requesting the Committee’s concurrence on a round of adjustments to
budgets for ongoing 3C planning activities. Details are provided in the
memorandum titled “Proposed Revisions to Certain 3C Budgets.” He explained that
MPO staff is making a concerted effort to track the budgets of these projects
to better understand costs and improve
project scoping. This year’s
tracking is revealing the need to make adjustments as well as the impacts of new developments
on cost experiences (such as a new
manager for the UPWP and activities continuing
the work making MPO
affairs totally accessible to people with disabilities). This set of adjustments is meant to better
tailor remaining 3C funding for this federal fiscal year to the categories of
expenses. There is no net increase or decrease in 3C activities or 3C funding.
In response to a question about previous adjustments, K. Quackenbush explained that many of the projects listed have been adjusted as part of the April 18 budget adjustment, though some are being adjusted for the first time. The “Current Budget” column in the memo reflects budgets as they were adjusted in April; changes proposed now are from that point forward.
Concern was expressed about the proposed reduction in funding for Bicycle Pedestrian Support Activities. K. Quackenbush explained that the Bicycle Pedestrian Coordinator position is been sporadically vacant during the federal fiscal year, which resulted in less spending for this account. CTPS now has a full time Bicycle Pedestrian Coordinator; however it will still not be possible to spend down the Bicycle Pedestrian Support Activities account before the end of the federal fiscal year. The Bicycle Pedestrian Support Activities budget for next year has already been approved and is not affected by this adjustment.
In response to a question about the General Graphics budget, K. Quackenbush explained that this project budget funds general graphics services for the MPO, excluding those built into discrete project budgets. In recent months, staff has not been called upon to do as much project-related work as had been anticipated; therefore more work is underway through the General Graphics budget.
Eric Bourassa (Metropolitan Area Planning Council) made a motion to approve the budget adjustment. It was seconded by Tom Bent (City of Somerville). The motion was approved, unanimously.
M. Scott explained that this document focuses on MPO staff activities from July 2013 through September 2013. She identified locations in the schedule where readers could find information on completed projects, approved work scopes, project status and spending, adjustments to project schedules, individual staff participation, and expected new projects. Of 3C funded projects, the Bicycle Network Evaluation project has been extended. The “Boston-Lowell-Nashua-Manchester-Concord (BLNMC) Data Request” is an expected new project. K. Quackenbush explained that it will provide data in support of a commuter rail extension discussion, and it is more involved than typical responses to data requests. A work scope will be developed for it.
In response to a question about the ongoing availability of information about project expenditures, R. Mannion explained that project spending information is generated on a weekly basis.
In response to a question on staff time needed for the BLNMC Data request (non-3C funded), K. Quackenbush explained that 22 days have been assigned for this project. He added that staff does not take on work that would compromise work being done for the MPO.
In response to a question on where the budget for the current Route 30 study is accounted for, K. Quackenbush explained that it is covered in Priority Corridors II. The schedule for this project accounts for all corridors currently under study.
There was none.
The next meeting will be held early in FFY 2014 to discuss quarterly reports.
A motion to adjourn was made by E. Bourassa and was seconded by T. Bent. The meeting adjourned at approximately 9:55 AM.
|
UPWP
Committee Members |
Representatives
and
Alternates |
|
At-Large City (City of Newton) |
David Koses |
|
At-Large Town (Town of Arlington) |
Laura Wiener |
|
Inner Core Committee (City of Somerville) |
Tom Bent |
|
Massachusetts Department of Transportation |
Sheri
Warrington |
|
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 |
Steve Olanoff |
|
MPO
Staff/Central Transportation Planning Staff |
|
Karl Quackenbush, Executive
Director |
|
Robin Mannion |
|
Elizabeth Moore |
|
Michelle Scott |
|
Pam Wolfe |