Meeting_Body
REGULAR BOARD MEETING
SEPTEMBER 28, 2017
Preamble
Motion by:
BUTTS AS AMENDED BY DUPONT-WALKER
September 28, 2017
Related to Item 40: State and Federal Transportation Funding
The information contained in Attachment B of this Report is very well done and in many ways should serve as the foundation for Metro in leveraging the Measure M resources as well as the opportunity for Metro to partner with the Subregions to compete for State and Federal resources essential to meeting Subregional mobility needs.
I hope Attachment B is being shared with the Subregional COGS, members of the Policy Advisory Council and the members of the Technical Advisory Committee.
I'd like to make a few suggestions for the presentation to the full Board next week:
First, I think there is merit for Metro staff to insert an additional column on page 11 of Attachment B in the "Federal and State Discretionary Programs -- Annual Estimates" Section. I think it would be very useful to add a column that establishes aspirational Metro "funding targets" for each of the discretionary programs listed in the table.
Secondly, I've noticed in the time that I've been a member of this Board; we frequently take up the discussion about Metro receiving its "fair share" of Federal and State grant funds.
I think we should be asking ourselves what is staff's professional consensus about Metro's "fair share" of State SB 1 funds? AND, what is a realistic assumption about Subregional shares for the COGs and cities of such a "funding target", if any; and
Thirdly, with or without the establishment of any specific "funding targets," I think it would also be very useful for the Metro Board to know what are the administrative and advocacy strategies that Metro staff have in mind to successfully compete in both Sacramento and Washington, D.C., in order access the maximum amount of discretionary funding.
The strategies could serve as unifying mechanism in bringing the Subregions on board so...
Click here for full text