Share to Facebook Share to Twitter Bookmark and Share
File #: 2017-0658   
Type: Motion / Motion Response Status: Agenda Ready
File created: 9/21/2017 In control: Board of Directors - Regular Board Meeting
On agenda: 9/28/2017 Final action: 9/28/2017
Title: WE THEREFORE MOVE that the Metro Board amend the "Next Steps" portion of the State and Federal Transportation Funding Programs Receive and File Item Number 40 and request Metro Staff to: A. conduct a series of "workshops" for major stakeholders, such as the Policy Advisory Committee and the TAC, outlining the information contained in the funding documents, including specifics on the pending California Transportation Commission (CTC) SB 1 implementation rule making process; B. develop "funding targets" for pursuing the discretionary grant funding programs outlined in page 11 of Attachment B; C. prepare a series of strategic actions items associated with successfully pursuing and securing State and Federal discretionary funding contained in both SB 1 and the federal FAST Act, e.g. TIGER and INFRA; and D. asses the risks in assuming SB 1 funds knowing there is a repeal effort underway.
Sponsors: Board of Directors - Regular Board Meeting
Indexes: California Transportation Commission, Council Of Governments, Grant Aid, Jacquelyn Dupont-Walker, James Butts, Measure M, Motion / Motion Response, Policy Advisory Council, Senate Bill 1, Technical Advisory Committee
Related files: 2017-0546
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