Centre County Metropolitan Planning Organization (CCMPO) Coordinating Committee ...6AD7E2DC-ECE4-41CD-B8E1... · 2011-09-20 · Centre County Metropolitan Planning Organization (CCMPO)

Centre County Metropolitan Planning Organization (CCMPO) Coordinating Committee Meeting

Tuesday, September 27, 2011

6:00 pm

Please Note the Location: Patton Township Municipal Building

AGENDA

1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance 2. Approval of Minutes: June 28, 2011 Coordinating Committee meeting. 3. Citizen Comments: For items not on the agenda. 4. Marion Township Request for Membership:

Recommendation from Membership Subcommittee Action: Decision about revising membership structure 5. Proposed Change to CCMPO Bylaws:

Recommendation from Membership Subcommittee Action: Decision about revising Bylaws 6. CCMPO Draft Calendar Year (CY) 2012 Budget:

Review draft budget Action: Comments to MPO staff 7. Ferguson Township Request to Revise the CCMPO’s Local Funding Share Formula: Options from Membership Subcommittee Action: Direction to Subcommittee and MPO staff 8. Project Update:

Status report from PennDOT District 2-0 about highway and bridge projects Action: Comments to PennDOT and MPO staff 9. Atherton Street Stormwater Drainage Study:

Report from PennDOT District 2-0 about the study results Action: Comments to PennDOT and MPO staff 10. Pennsylvania Transportation Funding Advisory Commission (TFAC) Report:

Presentation about the TFAC’s recommendations Action: Comments to Governor and legislators 11. Announcements 12. Adjourn

x:\planning\mpo\2011\agendas\ 09272011coordmeeting\ca11sept27completeagendapackage

Next Coordinating Committee meeting: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 6:00 pm Patton Township Municipal Building

Please note that a special meeting may be scheduled in late October to discuss the new 2013-2016 TIP.

SEPTEMBER 27, 2011 MEETING

ITEM 4

MARION TOWNSHIP REQUEST FOR MEMBERSHIP

Recommendation from Membership Subcommittee In 2010, the CCMPO Coordinating Committee formed a Membership Subcommittee to discuss Marion Township’s request to become a member of the MPO: Dan Klees Jadine Reese Jon Eich Bob Corman Theresa Lafer Karen Michael (for Kevin Kline) The Subcommittee developed options to address the request, which were limited to the municipalities in the Nittany Valley Planning Region, as directed by the Coordinating Committee. After discussing input solicited from Bellefonte Borough, Marion and Walker Townships, the three municipalities directly affected by the options, the Subcommittee voted 5-0 (one member was not in attendance) to forward the following recommendation to the CCMPO:

The CCMPO should implement Option A, which would add one new voting member to the Technical and Coordinating Committees to represent Bellefonte Borough, Marion Township, and Walker Township collectively. Bellefonte Borough’s individual non-voting membership would be eliminated.

Attached are:

Staff PowerPoint presentation Options for Nittany Valley Region Membership on CCMPO (revised 2/2/11) Correspondence from Bellefonte Borough, Marion Township, and Walker Township

On September 14, the Technical Committee approved a motion to not provide comments about the Subcommittee’s recommendation. The Coordinating Committee should make a decision about revising the CCMPO’s membership structure. Sections IV and A-3 of the CCMPO’s Bylaws, which specify the membership structure, would need to be amended to implement the Subcommittee’s recommendation. Section VIII.a. specifies the process for updating the Bylaws: a. Updates

The bylaws may be updated by the Coordinating Committee by a two-thirds majority vote of the entire membership (13 votes). Proposed changes to the bylaws cannot be voted upon at the first meeting at which the changes are presented. Proposed changes must be discussed at least at two consecutive meetings before action can be taken, and all Coordinating Committee representatives must be notified prior to a vote being taken.

*****

Presented by: Tom Zilla, CRPA Membership Subcommittee

Action: Decision about revising the CCMPO’s membership structure.


ITEM 5

PROPOSED CHANGE TO CCMPO BYLAWS

Recommendation from Membership Subcommittee During its discussions of Marion Township’s request, the Membership Subcommittee noted that a change in the CCMPO’s Bylaws should be made to clarify the definition of a “Planning Region” for the purposes of establishing membership. The Subcommittee voted 5-0 to approve the following recommendation to the CCMPO:

The CCMPO should amend its Bylaws to specify that a “Planning Region” must include at least two municipalities, for the purposes of establishing membership.

Sections IV and A-3 of the Bylaws, which specify the membership structure, would need to be amended by inserting the definition of a planning region as new subsection C, and revising the lettering of the succeeding subsections. Currently, there is no language in the bylaws that defines a planning region for the purpose of establishing membership. On September 14, the Technical Committee approved a motion recommending approval of the change by the Coordinating Committee. The Coordinating Committee should make a decision about revising the Bylaws. Section VIII.a. specifies the process for revising the Bylaws: a. Updates

The bylaws may be updated by the Coordinating Committee by a two-thirds majority vote of the entire membership (13 votes). Proposed changes to the bylaws cannot be voted upon at the first meeting at which the changes are presented. Proposed changes must be discussed at least at two consecutive meetings before action can be taken, and all Coordinating Committee representatives must be notified prior to a vote being taken.

Presented by: Dan Klees, Chair

Action: Decision about revising the CCMPO’s Bylaws.


ITEM 6

CCMPO DRAFT CALENDAR YEAR (CY) 2012 BUDGET

Review Draft Budget The CRPA serves as the lead staff support agency for the CCMPO. Revenue and expenditures for the CRPA’s services are detailed in the CCMPO’s section of the Centre Region Council of Governments (COG) calendar year operating budget. Attached are:

CCMPO Draft CY 2012 Comparative Detail of Revenues CCMPO Draft CY 2012 Comparative Detail of Expenditures

Key items in the Draft CY 2011 Budget include: Revenue

The base level of Federal and state funding from PennDOT is anticipated to remain the same. Centre County Government’s funding share is anticipated to increase by 1%. Centre County

also contributes the cost of a dedicated transportation planning position at the CCPCDO. The total funding share assigned to the eight municipal funding partners is anticipated to

increase by 1%. Because individual municipal shares are determined using the COG Funding Formula (modified for the MPO), the changes vary among the eight municipalities, ranging from a 2% decrease (-$470) for College Township, to a 7% increase (+$787) for Spring Township. Because a new COG Formula was implemented in CY 2010, adjustments were made in the CY 2010, 2011, and 2012 Budgets to “smooth” the impact of the new formula. In the CY 2013 Budget, the new formula will be applied without adjustments.

CATA agreed to increase its funding share over the next three years to fill the gap between the amount of federal transit planning funds received, and the cost of the MPO transit planning position. CATA’s share is anticipated to increase by 12% (+$2,486).

Expenditures

Personnel expenses (salary and benefits) are anticipated to increase by approximately 3.9%. Operating expenses are anticipated to be similar to the budgeted amount in CY 2011. Expenditures for special projects are anticipated to decrease as work on several supplemental

planning funds projects is completed. The CCMPO’s calendar year budget includes a full accounting of revenue and expenditures for the CRPA. The fiscal year budget in the Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) describes only federal and state funds provided by PennDOT, and the minimum required local matching funds. Historically, County and municipal officials have committed more than the minimum match to the CCMPO. Staff will not provide a presentation, but will answer questions from the Committee. The Coordinating Committee should provide comments to MPO staff. Presented by: Tom Zilla, CRPA

Action: Provide comments to the MPO staff.


ITEM 7

FERGUSON TOWNSHIP REQUEST TO REVISE THE CCMPO’S LOCAL FUNDING SHARE FORMULA

Options from Membership Subcommittee

In March 2011, the Coordinating Committee directed the Membership Subcommittee to consider Ferguson Township’s request to revise the formula for allocating the local funding shares in the annual MPO Budget. The formula for allocating funding shares contributed by Centre County Government, eight municipalities and CATA was established in the proposal to expand the MPO to a countywide organization that was approved in November 2003. The CCMPO’s adopted bylaws do not include references to the MPO budget or the local funding share formula. The Subcommittee discussed several local funding formula options provided by Ferguson Township, and additional options prepared by staff or suggested by Subcommittee members. Seven options were dismissed by the Subcommittee, and members agreed to present the remaining five options to the Coordinating Committee for discussion. The remaining options will be discussed by the Ferguson Township Board of Supervisors on September 19. Township Manager Mark Kunkle will provide a brief report to the Coordinating Committee about the Township’s comments. Attached are:

Description of the current CCMPO local funding share formula Funding Options – Revised September 2011

The Subcommittee is seeking direction from the Coordinating Committee about how to proceed. The Coordinating Committee should receive a report, review the options, and provide direction about how to proceed with the next steps in addressing the request. Presented by: Tom Zilla, CRPA Membership Subcommittee Mark Kunkle, Ferguson Township Manager

Action: Direction to Membership Subcommittee and staff about how to proceed with addressing Ferguson Township’s request.


ITEM 8

PROJECT UPDATE

Status Report from PennDOT District 2-0 about Highway and Bridge Projects

In October, PennDOT and the MPO staff will be preparing a Preliminary Draft 2013-2016 Centre County Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for presentation to the CCMPO in November. The Preliminary Draft TIP is tentatively scheduled to be submitted to the PennDOT Central Office in December 2011. A Final Draft TIP will be prepared for public comment in spring 2012, and the 2013-2016 TIP is tentatively scheduled to be adopted in June 2012. Because of the uncertainty regarding the future level of federal and state funding, guidance for preparing the new TIP assumes a reduction in the level of funding. Thus, the CCMPO will need to provide input about the allocation of scarce resources among highway and bridge projects. As a starting point for the discussion, PennDOT District 2-0 will provide an update about the status of highway and bridge projects on the current 2011-2014 TIP. Several projects on the 2011-2014 TIP are not fully funded, and will be competing for additional funding on the new TIP. Examples of projects that are not fully funded include:

Route 26 (Jacksonville Road) Betterment Route 26 Pine Grove Mountain Phase II - Lower Escape Ramp Route 144 Milesburg Betterment Route 322 Corridor Safety Improvement SR 3014 Atherton Street Drainage/Pavement Improvement Several bridge projects

The Coordinating Committee should receive the status report, and provide comments to PennDOT and MPO staff to help facilitate preparation of the Preliminary Draft 2013-2016 TIP. Presented by: Karen Michael, PennDOT District 2-0 Tom Zilla, CRPA

Action: Provide comments to PennDOT and MPO staff. Note: On June 7, 2011, PennDOT held a public meeting in Marion Township to display the preliminary plans for the Route 26 (Jacksonville Road) improvements. The input received by PennDOT at the public meeting was provided to the Marion Township Board of Supervisors, with a request that the Board provide comments about the next phase of the project. A representative of Marion Township will provide a brief update about the Supervisors’ position during the status report.


ITEM 9

ATHERTON STREET STORMWATER DRAINAGE STUDY

Report from PennDOT District 2-0 about the Study Results PennDOT and the CCMPO are beginning to plan for the repaving of State Route (SR) 3014 (Atherton Street), which will be scheduled for completion when funding is available. At the same time, PennDOT, College, Ferguson and Patton Townships, and State College Borough have been making temporary repairs to Atherton Street because of cave-ins and sinkholes caused by the failure of stormwater facilities (inlets, drainage pipes, etc.). To determine the extent of problems with the drainage facilities on Atherton Street, PennDOT and the CCMPO committed funding on the 2011-2014 Centre County TIP to study the system between Valley Vista Drive (Patton Township) and Villa Crest Drive (College Township). The study began in fall 2010, and was completed in summer 2011. The consultant assigned to the study completed the following work tasks:

Surveyed and plotted stormwater facilities. Completed video inspections of pipes, and established pipe condition ratings based on the video. Surveyed and plotted utility data. Completed pipe replacement designs and cost estimates. Documented specific conflicts between utilities and stormwater facilities. Prepared draft final report.

PennDOT District 2-0 will provide a presentation about the study to the Coordinating Committee. The study results and estimated cost of repairs will help PennDOT, the CCMPO, and municipalities develop a strategy for making improvements to the stormwater system and repaving the roadway. The results of the study will also provide insight about the potential cost of repairing similar drainage facilities in curbed sections of other state roadways in Centre County. At the same time as the study was initiated in 2010, the Centre Region Council of Governments (COG), on behalf of the municipalities in the Atherton Street corridor, approved a ‘Whitepaper on PennDOT Stormwater Policy’. The document outlined serious concerns about Commonwealth policy and legal statutes that assign the responsibility of repairing stormwater drainage systems under curbed sections of state roads to municipalities. On September 14, the Technical Committee discussed the study results. Although formal action was not taken, Technical Committee members commented that attempts to require drainage system improvements as part of land development plans in the corridor have not occurred to a point sufficient to make significant repairs to deteriorating sections of the system; thus, it will be important for the Coordinating Committee to include funds on the new 2013-1016 TIP to advance improvements to the system. The Coordinating Committee should receive the presentation, and provide comments to PennDOT and MPO staff about the results of the study. Presented by: Karen Michael, PennDOT District 2-0 staff Tom Zilla, CRPA

Action: Provide comments to PennDOT and MPO staff.


ITEM 10

PENNSYLVANIA TRANSPORTATION FUNDING ADVISORY COMMISSION (TFAC) REPORT

Report about the TFAC’s Recommendations

In April 2011, Governor Tom Corbett formed the TFAC to prepare options for providing more transportation funding in Pennsylvania. Hugh Mose, CATA General Manager, and Jeff Stover, Executive Director of the SEDA-COG Joint Rail Authority, served as members of the Commission. The TFAC focused on specific financing options, based on needs previously identified in the Transportation Funding Study prepared by the State Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) in May 2010. The TAC report identified a need for an additional $3.5 billion annually to maintain state and local highways and bridges, and public transit. While acknowledging the need identified in the TAC report, the TFAC adopted a target of providing an additional $2.5 billion in annual funding. The TFAC discussed a variety of options, and recommended a package of strategies to the Governor that gradually increases annual funding over a five-year period to meet the target of $2.5 billion in additional resources in year 5. Some of the more significant strategies include: Moving the costs of the PA State Police from the State Motor License Fund to the General Fund Increasing vehicle and driver fees, and indexing them for inflation Uncapping the Oil Company Franchise Tax (wholesale price of oil) Restructuring Act 44 to direct additional funding to public transit Dedicating a portion of the existing Sales Tax revenue to public transit

The additional resources would be committed to projects and programs through a “Decade of Investment” strategy being developed by PennDOT, based on needs identified by the DOT, MPOs, RPOs, and other transportation stakeholders. At this time, Governor Corbett has not introduced a specific proposal that can be considered by the state General Assembly. Attached are:

Executive Summary of TFAC Funding Report CCMPO correspondence to Senator Jake Corman in May 2010 CCMPO correspondence to Senator Jake Corman in July 2010

(The MPO’s most recent discussions about transportation funding occurred in April and June 2010.)

The Coordinating Committee should receive a staff report, and decide whether to provide comments about the TFAC recommendations to Governor Corbett and state legislators. Presented by: Hugh Mose, CATA General Manager Tom Zilla, CRPA

Action: Provide comments about the TFAC recommendations to Governor Tom Corbett and state legislators.


ITEM 11

ANNOUNCEMENTS 1. Future Meeting Dates a. Technical Committee: Wednesday, November 9, 2011, 9:30 am College Township Municipal Building

Marion Township request for membership Proposed change to CCMPO Bylaws Preliminary Draft 2013-2016 TIP LRTP 2040 update – schedule, goals and objectives, performance measures Moshannon Valley Park and Ride Study Transportation funding update FY 2012-13 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) Member updates

b. Coordinating Committee: Tuesday, November 22, 2011, 6:00 pm Patton Township Municipal Building

Marion Township request for membership Proposed change to CCMPO Bylaws Preliminary Draft 2013-2016 TIP LRTP 2040 update – schedule, goals and objectives, performance measures Moshannon Valley Park and Ride Study Transportation funding update FY 2012-13 UPWP Member updates

Please note that staff is requesting input from the Coordinating Committee about whether to schedule a special joint meeting of the Technical and Coordinating Committees in late October to discuss the new 2013-2016 TIP. Staff has discussed conducting the meeting in an open house format, with displays and information about the projects on the current TIP available for members’ review. The meeting could also be held at the PennDOT Engineering District 2-0 Office in Clearfield, in order to incorporate a brief bus tour of the projects along the route to Clearfield and a tour of the Traffic Management Center (TMC) in the District 2-0 Office.

2. Since the expiration of the SAFETEA-LU federal transportation legislation on September 30, 2009, a Continuing Resolution (CR) approved by Congress and President Obama has permitted federal funding to be spent for highway and transit projects. Because the most recent extension of the CR is set to expire on September 30, 2011, another extension of the CR has been approved to March 31, 2012. The extension will apparently continue to authorize the funding of transportation programs at existing levels, although actual funding amounts will be established in the Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2012 Appropriations legislation, which has not yet been approved. The House and Senate leadership previously set a goal of preparing a new multi-year transportation bill in summer 2011. At this time, no legislation has been introduced, and staff is uncertain when a new authorization bill will be discussed. Additional funding for infrastructure improvements has also been proposed by President Obama as part of the American Jobs Act of 2011. The MPO staff will continue to monitor proposals to increase federal transportation funding as part of this legislation, or other bills.

(Continued)

3. Companion bills have been introduced by the Pennsylvania delegation in the House and Senate that would restore PennDOT’s ability to use “toll credits” as a match for federal Appalachian Development Highway System (ADHS) funding. Toll credits represent an acknowledgement that state revenues are used to maintain interstate highways in Pennsylvania, such as the sections of the Pennsylvania Turnpike that carry I-70 and I-76. The use of toll credits to match ADHS funds would reduce the need for scarce state cash to be committed as a match for ADHS funding programmed for projects such as the I-99/I-80 High Speed Interchange.

4. On behalf of the CCMPO, staff welcomes back two MPO Committee “veterans.” Teresa Davis is returning as Penn State University’s representative on the Technical Committee. Also, Matt Smoker returns as the FHWA representative on the Technical and Coordinating Committees. We thank Kathy Dimpsey for her efforts as the FHWA representative over the past few years.

5. In July 2011, the Intelligent Transportation Society of Pennsylvania (ITSPA) announced that

the North Atherton Street Traffic Signal Coordination/ITS project received ITSPA’s Project of the Year award. Presentation of the award was made at the ITSPA Annual Meeting in August. The project has also been nominated for an award from the Mid-Atlantic Section of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (MASITE). Congratulations to the PennDOT District 2-0 staff and consultant team, CATA staff, Greg Kausch from the MPO staff, and the municipal partners involved in the project.

6. On August 11, 2011, a presentation about the state of the transportation system in North Central Pennsylvania was provided to the State Transportation Commission (STC) at a public hearing to kick-off preparation of the 2013 Twelve Year Transportation Program. The presentation was a collaborative effort of the North Central and SEDA-COG RPOs, the Williamsport (Lycoming County) and Centre County MPOs, and PennDOT Engineering Districts 2-0 and 3-0. A copy of the presentation is posted on the CCMPO’s website.

7. At the CCMPO’s June 2011 meetings, staff provided a report about the implementation of the

new Linking Planning NEPA project screening process. Since June, PennDOT and MPO staff have participated in training relative to implementation of the new web-based project screening process. More information will be forthcoming about training opportunities for the other persons included in the five “User Roles” categories, as presented in June.

8. CCMPO staff contact information Centre Regional Planning Agency Telephone: 814-231-3050 2643 Gateway Drive Fax: 814-231-3083 State College, PA 16801 Jim May, Director [email protected] Tom Zilla, Principal Transportation Planner [email protected] Trish Meek, Senior Transportation Planner [email protected] Greg Kausch, Senior Transportation Planner [email protected] Lyssa Cromell, Office Manager [email protected] Centre County Plng & Community Dev. Office Telephone: 814-355-6791 420 Holmes Street – Willowbank Office Building Fax: 814-355-8661 Bellefonte, PA 16823 Bob Jacobs, Director [email protected] Sue Hannegan, Assistant Director [email protected] Mike Bloom, Senior Transportation Planner [email protected] On the web at www.ccmpo.net .

PennDOT Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) information: http://www.dot7.state.pa.us/tip_visualization/?RegionID=CEN

1

Centre County MPOCentre County MPO

Marion TownshipRequest for Membership

CCMPO C di ti C itt

1

CCMPO Coordinating CommitteeSeptember 27, 2011

What is the current membership structure?

Voting Members (19):

Centre County (2) Benner Township College Township Ferguson Township

H lf T hi Halfmoon Township Harris Township Patton Township Spring Township State College Borough Penns Valley Region Lower Bald Eagle Valley Region Upper Bald Eagle Valley Region Moshannon Valley Region Mountaintop Region Centre Area Transportation Authority Centre Regional Planning Commission PennDOT District 2-0

2

PennDOT Central Office

Non-voting Members (4): Bellefonte Borough Penn State University Federal Highway Administration Federal Transit Administration

2

Background

Jan 2010 - Marion Township asked for membership on CCMPO

Feb 2010 - CCMPO agreed to consider the request

Sept 2010 - Membership Subcommittee formed to discuss requestp p q

Nov 2010 to Feb 2011 - Subcommittee prepared options

Feb 2011 - Input requested input from Bellefonte, Marion and Walker

June 2011 - Input received from municipalities

June 2011 - Subcommittee approved recommendation to CCMPO

3

What factors framed the Subcommittee’s options?

2003 MPO expansion proposal left Marion and Walker Townships without direct representation

Expansion proposal stated that Benner, Spring, and Bellefontemembers would indirectly represent Marion and Walkermembers would indirectly represent Marion and Walker

MPO limited potential options to only the Nittany Valley Region

Subcommittee focused on options that provided direct representation(voting or non-voting) to all municipalities in the Nittany Valley Region

4

3

What were the Subcommittee’s options?

Maintain current structure

Option A

Add one new voting member collectively representingMarion Walker and BellefonteMarion, Walker, and Bellefonte

Option B

Add one new voting member for Marion One non-voting member for Bellefonte and Walker collectively

Option B2

Add one new voting member for Marion

5

Add one new voting member for Bellefonte and Walker collectively

Subcommittee Recommendation

Add one new voting member to the Technical and Coordinating Committees to represent Bellefonte Borough, Marion Township, and Walker Township collectively. Bellefonte Borough’s individual non-voting

b hi ld b li i t dmembership would be eliminated.

6

AGENCY: Centre County Metropolitan Planning Organization

Acct. # Account

FUND BALANCE:Unassigned Fund Balance 33,005$ 43,867$ 7,790$ 50,054$ Assigned to Technology Replacement 1,600 1,250 1,250 Assigned to CIP 8,800 - 1,269 1,269 Assigned to HPAP Traffic Analysis - 2,500 800 800 Assigned to Travel Demand Model - 6,100 6,550 6,550 Assigned to Moshannon Valley P&R Study - - - - Subtotal 43,405$ 52,467$ 17,659$ 59,923$

OTHER REVENUE:44.341.100 Interest Income -$ -$ -$

Subtotal -$ -$ -$

INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUES:44.356.000 PennDOT - Regular 183,969$ 178,060$ 157,279$ 146,995$ 44.356.100 PennDOT - Supplemental

Transit Assessment 40,112 3,649 - - 2009 Planning Partners Meeting 25,911 - - - Travel Demand Model 40,171 1,209 28,957 27,328 HPAP Traffic Analysis - 28,415 3,200 8,148 Moshannon Valley Park & Ride Study - 14,637 77,500 80,363 FY 2011-12 UPWP Project TBD - - - - FY 2012-13 UPWP Project TBD - - - -

44.356.300 CATA 19,084 20,038 20,639 20,639 44.356.200 Centre County # 33,592 35,272 36,330 36,330

Subtotal 342,839$ 281,280$ 323,905$ 319,803$

# Centre County also provides one full-timestaff position and other staff support to the MPO,with a value of approximately $56,000.

9/9/11

ANNUAL BUDGETCOMPARATIVE DETAIL OF REVENUES

273,259$

Actual Receipts 2009


Budgeted Receipts 2011

23,125

Estimated Receipts 2011

Proposed Receipts 2012

-$ -$

-

32,469$ 1,250

Q-1

- 10,000

36,693

-$

-

40,936$

23,291

CENTRE REGION COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS

5,000

-

175,150$

-

1,269 -

5,948

-$


Acct. # Account

MUNICIPAL CONTRIBUTIONS (2012): ##

44.357.100 State College (21.34%) 35,984$ 34,493$ 34,367$ 34,367$ 44.357.200 College Township (15.37%) 24,232 24,506 24,889 24,889 44.357.300 Ferguson Township (21.92%) 30,056 32,788 34,066 34,066 44.357.400 Halfmoon Township (3.78%) 5,096 5,684 5,961 5,961 44.357.500 Harris Township (8.00%) 12,272 12,599 12,821 12,821 44.357.600 Patton Township (17.54%) 24,648 26,304 27,101 27,101 44.357.800 Benner Township (4.50%) 5,720 6,776 6,886 6,886 44.357.850 Spring Township (7.55%) 8,320 10,494 11,208 11,208

Subtotal 146,328$ 153,644$ 157,299$ 157,299$

44.391.100 Sale of Used Vehicle -$ 840$ -$ -$ Subtotal -$ 840$ -$ -$

GRAND TOTAL 532,572$ 488,231$ 498,863$ 537,025$

## Based on a modification of the COG formulaadopted in 2009.

9/9/11

-$ -$



11,995

12,710

ANNUAL BUDGETCOMPARATIVE DETAIL OF REVENUES

Q-2

33,903$ 24,419 34,825

6,005

473,067$

27,866 7,149

158,872$

Proposed Receipts 2012


Budgeted Receipts 2011

Estimated Receipts 2011


Acct. # Account

PERSONNEL:44.416.135 Salaries (Full-time) 214,057$ 218,296$ 220,165$ 222,627$ 44.416.160 Salaries (Part-time) 9,371 9,507 9,602 9,697 44.416.180 Merit Pay/Achievement - - 3,234 - 44.416.190 Employee Benefits 45,878 47,632 54,036 47,260 44.416.170 Medical Waiver Reimbursement 2,865 3,332 2,349 3,467

Subtotal 272,171$ 278,767$ 289,386$ 283,051$

OPERATING EXPENSES:44.416.210 Office Supplies 1,607$ 1,565$ 1,400$ 1,200$ 44.416.215 Meeting Expenses 509 846 750 700 44.416.230 Fuel and Lubricants 197 188 250 200 44.416.241 Building Operations Supplies 572 471 430 430 44.416.305 Financial Services 5,300 5,460 5,590 5,590 44.416.311 Audit Services 765 1,125 1,160 1,160 44.416.312 Geographic Information System 22,353 24,431 20,030 20,030 44.416.320 Telecommunications 1,732 1,673 1,730 1,730 44.416.325 Postage 2,110 1,846 2,600 1,700 44.416.329 Web Site - 1,039 60 60 44.416.341 Advertising 5,373 6,497 6,800 4,000 44.416.342 Photocopying 3,044 3,141 3,500 2,400 44.416.350 Insurance 2,845 2,715 3,050 3,050 44.416.364 Building Utilities 3,473 2,919 3,150 3,500 44.416.370 System-Wide Hardware and Software 1,548 2,026 2,700 2,700 44.416.371 Regional Computer Services 2,984 4,310 4,570 4,320 44.416.372 Computer Maintenance and Repair 206 302 250 250 44.416.373 Building Operations Services 6,263 6,558 10,350 10,350 44.416.374 Office Equipment Maintenance/Repair 156 171 150 100 44.416.380 Building Rent 26,478 26,478 26,480 26,480 44.416.460 Employee Development 3,566 3,872 2,000 2,000 44.416.463 Publications/Subscriptions 32 17 300 150 44.416.469 Mileage Reimbursement 604 314 350 300 44.416.480 Relocation Expenses 4,799 - - -

Subtotal 96,516$ 97,964$ 97,650$ 92,400$ 9/9/11

- 97,935$

Actual Expend. 2009

Actual Expend. 2010

Budgeted Expend. 2011

Estimated Expend. 2011

Proposed Approp. 2012

5,000

3,350 1,390 4,500

200 11,410

100 26,480

130 350

1,730 1,500

90 6,000 2,400

3,591

2,950

200 430

5,650 930

21,195

750


227,080$ 9,891 3,367

56,630

1,200$

300,559$

COMPARATIVE DETAIL OF EXPENDITURES

ANNUAL BUDGET

Q-3


Acct. # Account

CAPITAL:44.416.760 Office Equipment 10,211$ 910$ 1,250$ 1,140$ 44.416.775 Building Major Equipment - - - -

Subtotal 10,211$ 910$ 1,250$ 1,140$

TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS: (see detailed text)

44.416.481 Special Projects/Vendor Services Annual Traffic Counting Program 4,633$ 5,235$ 5,900$ 8,100$ Transit Assessment 37,907 3,647 - - 2009 Planning Partners Meeting 20,009 - - - Travel Demand Model 32,758 2,025 32,658 34,160 HPAP Traffic Analysis 5,900 33,247 4,000 6,751 Moshannon Valley Park & Ride Study - 6,513 65,500 70,487 FY 2011-12 UPWP Project TBD - - - - FY 2012-13 UPWP Project TBD - - - - Subtotal 101,207$ 50,667$ 108,058$ 119,498$

FUND BALANCE:Unassigned Fund Balance - Operating 43,867$ 50,054$ -$ 32,469$ Assigned to Technology Replacement - 1,250 1,250 1,250 Assigned to CIP - 1,269 1,269 1,269 Assigned to HPAP Traffic Analysis 2,500 800 - - Assigned to Travel Demand Model 6,100 6,550 - 5,948 Assigned to Moshannon Valley P&R Study - - - - Assigned to FY 2012-13 UPWP Project TBD - - - - Subtotal 52,467$ 59,923$ 2,519$ 40,936$

GRAND TOTAL 532,572$ 488,231$ 498,863$ 537,025$

9/9/11

2,500 10,665$

473,067$

-$

-

3,600 4,565

- -

7,000 -

12,500 60,658$

12,000$ - -

29,158 -

3,250$ -

3,250$

Actual Expend.2009

Actual Expend.2010

Budgeted Expend. 2011

Estimated Expend. 2011

Proposed Approp. 2012

Q-4 CENTRE REGION COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS

ANNUAL BUDGETCOMPARATIVE DETAIL OF EXPENDITURES

36%

8%

5%

19%

7%

5%

7%

1% 3%

6%

1%

2%

CCMPO Revenue Sources 2012

PennDOT - Regular

PennDOT - Supplemental

CATA

Centre County

State College Borough

College Township

Ferguson Township

Halfmoon Township

Harris Township

Patton Township

Benner Township

Spring Township

63%

21%

13%

2% 1%

CCMPO Expenditures 2012

Personnel

Operating Expenses

Transportation Projects

Fund Balance

Capital

1

Lyssa Cromell

From: Tom Zilla [[email protected]]Sent: Friday, September 16, 2011 10:19 AMTo: 'Lyssa Cromell'Subject: FW: MPO membership options

From: Walker Township [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 5:05 PM To: Tom Zilla; 'Ralph Stewart'; 'Don Holderman'; 'Marion Township' Subject: Re: MPO membership options Hello Tom - From BOS meeting on June 1, 2011 - Supervisor Ronald Burd stated he was in favor of Option A which provides one combined vote for the three municipalities (Bellefonte Borough, Marion and Walker Townships) with the County paying any required dues to join. After much discussion Ronald Burd motioned to recommend membership in the CCMPO under Option A; the motion was seconded by Brian Saiers. Supervisor James Heckman voted no. Motion passed on a 2-1 vote. Supervisor Burd also stated we could 'change our mind' about being a member down the road if we so desired. If you need something more formal, please let me know. Donna Reese, Secretary ----- Original Message ----- From: Tom Zilla To: 'Walker Township' ; 'Ralph Stewart' ; 'Don Holderman' ; 'Marion Township' Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 9:20 AM Subject: MPO membership options Good morning all: We’re preparing the agenda for the MPO Membership Subcommittee meeting on June 29, and I’m interested in receiving the comments, positions, input, etc. from the three governing bodies about the options we discussed at the May 16 joint meeting. Because I will be out of the office most of next week, I’m trying to get the agenda completed in the next couple days. If you could provide me with the positions and any comments from the municipalities, that would be greatly appreciated. Also, if there was action taken to accept the minutes from the May 16 joint meeting, please let us know and I’ll forward a final signed copy to each municipality. Thanks! Tom Thomas P. Zilla, AICP Principal Transportation Planner Centre Regional Planning Agency 2643 Gateway Drive, Suite #4 State College, PA 16801 Phone: 814-231-3050 Fax: 814-231-3083 [email protected]

Municipality/County

Current 2011

Municipal

Funding

Current 2011

County

Funding

2010 Census

Less Inmates

Cash

Contribution

per person

Cash and In‐

kind

Contribution

per person

State College Borough 34,367$ 42,034 0.82$

College Township 24,889$ 9,521 2.61$

Ferguson Township 34,066$ 17,690 1.93$

Halfmoon Township 5,961$ 2,667 2.24$

Harris Township 12,821$ 4,873 2.63$

Patton Township 27,101$ 15,311 1.77$

Benner Township 6,886$ 3,836 1.80$

Spring Township 11,208$ 7,470 1.50$

157,299$

Centre County ‐ Cash 36,330$ 151,638 0.24$

Centre County In Kind 56,000$

92,330$ 0.61$

Total Cash Contributions 193,629$

Total Cash and In Kind 249,629$ 157,299$

Assumptions for Options on Page 2Option

1

1A

1B

1C

1D

1D‐CF

2 Centre Co. = 50% of value of cash & 1 staff person;

4 Centre Co. and each municipality pay equal shares.

Each voting member pays an equal share.

Centre Co. pays for County shares and rural regions' shares.

6

6‐CF

Per capita by municipality. Centre Co. pays rural regions' shares, and for one position.

Total of shares for eight existing municipal members is reallocated by the COG Formula

(removes students).

Per capita by municipality. Centre Co. pays rural regions' shares.

By formula: Population (50%); Road Miles (50%);

Road miles includes all non‐Interstate state roads, and Local

Federal Aid System roads eligible for federal funds.

Centre Co. pays for rural regions' shares.

Total of shares for eight existing municipal members is reallocated by the COG Formula

(removes students).

Each voting member pays an equal share.

Centre Co. pays only for County shares.

Rural regions are responsible for their shares.By formula: Population (50%); Road Miles (50%);

Road miles includes all non‐Interstate state roads, and Local

Federal Aid System roads eligible for federal funds.

Centre Co. pays for rural regions' shares.

Centre County MPO Funding Formula Analysis ‐ 9/16/2011

Assumptions

Centre Co. = 50% of cash + 1 staff person; Municipalities = 50% of cash

Centre Co. = current portion (37% including cash + 1 staff person).

Municipalities = 50% of value of cash & 1 staff person.

5

5B

Shading indicates options dismissed from further consideration.

Per capita by municipality. Centre Co. pays rural regions' shares, and for one position.

Municipalities = remaining portion.

Per capita by municipality.

Funding Formula Options ‐ 9/16/2011

Current

2011

Municipal

Funding

Proposed

2012

Municipal

Funding

2010

Population

Less Inmates

Basis:

Per Capita

County pays

rural regions'

shares

Per Person Cash

Contribution

Basis:

Per Capita

County pays

for one

position and

rural regions'

shares Per Person Cash

Contribution

Basis:

Per Capita

County pays

for one

position and

rural regions'

shares

COG formula used

to reallocate the

total amount due

from the existing 8

contributing

municipalities

(removes students)

Per Person Cash

Contribution

Basis: Formula

Pop (50%)

Rd Miles (50%)

(State and Local

Fed Aid System

less I‐80 & I‐99)

County pays rural

regions shares Per Person Cash

Contribution

Basis: Formula

Pop (50%)

Rd Miles (50%)

(State and Local

Fed Aid System

less I‐80 & I‐99)

County pays rural

regions shares

COG formula used

to reallocate the

total amount due

from the existing 8

contributing

municipalities

(removes students)

Per Person Cash

ContributionCentre County 92,330.00$ 92,693.00$ 151,638 79,406.91$ 117,593.32$ 117,593.32$ 122,183.48$ 122,183.48$ Centre Region 139,205.00$ 139,728.00$ 92,096

...College township 24,889.00$ 24,419.00$ 9,521 15,673.63$ $1.65 12,157.52$ $1.28 19,433.00$ $2.04 16,370.12$ $1.72 19,138.00$ $2.01

...Ferguson township 34,066.00$ 34,825.00$ 17,690 29,121.57$ $1.65 22,588.65$ $1.28 27,715.00$ $1.57 20,108.29$ $1.14 27,294.00$ $1.54

...Halfmoon township 5,961.00$ 6,005.00$ 2,667 4,390.46$ $1.65 3,405.54$ $1.28 4,779.00$ $1.79 4,061.36$ $1.52 4,707.00$ $1.76

...Harris township 12,821.00$ 12,710.00$ 4,873 8,022.01$ $1.65 6,222.41$ $1.28 10,115.00$ $2.08 8,697.54$ $1.78 9,961.00$ $2.04

...Patton township 27,101.00$ 27,866.00$ 15,311 25,205.22$ $1.65 19,550.86$ $1.28 22,177.00$ $1.45 17,921.09$ $1.17 21,840.00$ $1.43

...State College borough 34,367.00$ 33,903.00$ 42,034 69,197.07$ $1.65 53,673.89$ $1.28 26,981.00$ $0.64 38,536.50$ $0.92 26,572.00$ $0.63Lower Bald Eagle Valley 8,528 14,038.94$ 10,889.54$ 10,889.54$ 19,360.52$ 19,360.52$ ...Boggs township 2,985 4,913.96$ $1.65 3,811.59$ $1.28 3,811.59$ $1.28...Curtin township 618 1,017.36$ $1.65 789.13$ $1.28 789.13$ $1.28

...Howard borough 720 1,185.28$ $1.65 919.38$ $1.28 919.38$ $1.28

...Howard township 964 1,586.95$ $1.65 1,230.95$ $1.28 1,230.95$ $1.28

...Liberty township 2,118 3,486.69$ $1.65 2,704.51$ $1.28 2,704.51$ $1.28

...Milesburg borough 1,123 1,848.70$ $1.65 1,433.98$ $1.28 1,433.98$ $1.28Moshannon Valley 6,778 11,158.06$ 8,654.94$ 8,654.94$ 15,808.82$ 15,808.82$ ...Philipsburg borough 2,770 4,560.02$ $1.65 3,537.06$ $1.28 3,537.06$ $1.28...Rush township 4,008 6,598.04$ $1.65 5,117.88$ $1.28 5,117.88$ $1.28Mountaintop 2,950 4,856.34$ 3,766.90$ 3,766.90$ 10,147.17$ 10,147.17$ ...Burnside township 439 722.69$ $1.65 560.57$ $1.28 560.57$ $1.28...Snow Shoe borough 765 1,259.36$ $1.65 976.84$ $1.28 976.84$ $1.28...Snow Shoe township 1,746 2,874.29$ $1.65 2,229.50$ $1.28 2,229.50$ $1.28Nittany Valley 23,150 19,497.79$ 15,123.79$ 15,123.79$ 18,445.49$ 18,445.49$ ...Bellefonte borough 6,187 10,185.14$ $1.65 7,900.28$ $1.28 7,900.28$ $1.28...Benner township 6,886.00$ 7,149.00$ 3,836 6,314.89$ $1.65 4,898.25$ $1.28 5,690.00$ $1.48 8,285.06$ $2.16 5,603.00$ $1.46...Marion township 1,224 2,014.97$ $1.65 1,562.95$ $1.28 1,562.95$ $1.28...Spring township 11,208.00$ 11,995.00$ 7,470 12,297.24$ $1.65 9,538.56$ $1.28 9,546.00$ $1.28 10,538.27$ $1.41 9,401.00$ $1.26...Walker township 4,433 7,297.68$ $1.65 5,660.57$ $1.28 5,660.57$ $1.28Penns Valley 12,819 21,102.85$ 16,368.79$ 16,368.79$ 36,656.06$ 36,656.06$ ...Centre Hall borough 1,265 2,082.46$ $1.65 1,615.30$ $1.28 1,615.30$ $1.28...Gregg township 2,405 3,959.15$ $1.65 3,070.98$ $1.28 3,070.98$ $1.28...Haines township 1,564 2,574.68$ $1.65 1,997.10$ $1.28 1,997.10$ $1.28...Miles township 1,983 3,264.45$ $1.65 2,532.12$ $1.28 2,532.12$ $1.28...Millheim borough 904 1,488.18$ $1.65 1,154.33$ $1.28 1,154.33$ $1.28...Penn township 1,181 1,944.18$ $1.65 1,508.04$ $1.28 1,508.04$ $1.28...Potter township 3,517 5,789.74$ $1.65 4,490.91$ $1.28 4,490.91$ $1.28

Upper Bald Eagle Valley 5,317 8,752.93$ 6,789.36$ 6,789.36$ 21,765.42$ 21,765.42$ ...Huston township 1,360 2,238.85$ $1.65 1,736.61$ $1.28 1,736.61$ $1.28...Port Matilda borough 606 997.61$ $1.65 773.81$ $1.28 773.81$ $1.28...Taylor township 853 1,404.22$ $1.65 1,089.21$ $1.28 1,089.21$ $1.28...Union township 1,383 2,276.72$ $1.65 1,765.97$ $1.28 1,765.97$ $1.28...Unionville borough 291 479.05$ $1.65 371.58$ $1.28 371.58$ $1.28...Worth township 824 1,356.48$ $1.65 1,052.18$ $1.28 1,052.18$ $1.28

CATA 249,629.00$ 249,629.00$ 249,622.65$ 246,701.71$ 246,699.48$

OPTION 6OPTION 1C OPTION 1D OPTION 6‐CFOPTION 1D‐CF

Tom Corbett, GovernorAugust 2011

Transportation Funding Advisory Commission

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2

Transportation Funding Advisory Commission Report www.tfac.pa.gov

IntroductionPennsylvania’s transportation facilities have served as a key component of economic strength for many generations. Today, much like the rest of our nation, Pennsylvania trans-portation infrastructure is aging significantly due to decades of underinvestment. Roadways, bridges, transit, rail freight, aviation, ports, and intercity passenger rail have all suffered as a result of insufficient funding, creating significant mainte-nance backlogs and reductions in service.

Due to increasing vehicle fuel efficiency, Pennsylvania now collects less fuel tax revenue per mile traveled than it has at any time in the past. This has led to a serious decline in the amount of money available to be spent on improvements to the transportation system, leading to a growing funding gap.

We are in need of a financial plan to allow all responsible providers to make necessary long-term improvements in all modes.

Governor Tom Corbett established the Gov-ernor’s Transportation Funding Advisory Commission (TFAC) on April 21, 2011. TFAC by Executive Order was specifically created to develop a comprehensive, strategic proposal for addressing the transportation funding needs of Pennsylvania. Chaired by the Secre-tary of Transportation, the Honorable Barry J. Schoch, P.E., TFAC has studied and prepared a comprehensive listing of potential revenue sources as well as cost-saving modernization options that will support additional funding for all transportation modes.

Transportation NeedsIn 2010, the Pennsylvania State Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) pro-duced a report that quantified the state’s unfunded transportation needs at ap-proximately $3.5 billion.

The gap is growing and will reach an estimated $7.2 billion in 10 years if we do not take action to address the transportation need. The gap is growing because of continued decline in fuel tax revenue due to vehicle efficiency, reduced buy-ing power due to inflation, and increasing costs of the Pennsylvania State Police consuming a bigger slice of the Motor License Fund.

Monthly Motor Fuel Tax Paid by the Average Driver by Yearin 2010 Dollars

$5

$10

$15

$20

$25

$30

$35

202020102000199019801970

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

3


The consequences will impact our econ-omy, environment, and quality of life as the Commonwealth will be unable to undertake new projects to relieve con-gestion and will fall further and further behind in maintenance. Service cut-backs will be unavoidable and safety will become an issue. Declining trip reli-ability will affect the economy and most aspects of everyday life for Pennsylva-nians, even those who rarely drive.

Pennsylvania’s Transportation Funding Needs

Construction cost in�ation and increased vehicle fuel e�ciency further reduce our future buying power

Unmet Needs $3.5 billion

2010

$8.3 billion

$11.5 billion

2020

Unmet Needs $7.2 billion

Impact of CAFE standards

A GROWING FUNDING

GAP!

Highway Element DescriptionAdditional Annual Funding Need (in millions)

2010 2020 2030

Safety Improvements expected to reduce fatal crashes. $75 $116 $190

Pavements Addresses the quality of pavements by getting them back on a proper cycle of preservation, along with addressing the backlog of reconstruction needs for the 40,000-mile state system.

$1,761 $2,731 $4,450

Bridges Addresses the backlog of Structurally Deficient bridges on the state system.

$370 $1,290 $920

Congestion Management Includes better operation of the system through Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)

$70 $91 $227

Capacity Addresses the need for new capacity on the Core Highway System.

$300 $465 $758

Local Highways and Bridges Addresses the backlog of local bridge and roadway projects.

$250 $388 $632

Traffic Signals Funds a collaborative traffic signal modernization and retiming program between PennDOT and local governments.

$182 $282 $460

Transit Provides assistance to the state’s transit agencies for approved operating expenses and capital improvements. State grants to transit systems are combined with federal and local dollars.

$484 $1,383 $3,063

TOTAL $3,492 $6,746 $10,700

Highway/Bridge/Transit

Source: Pennsylvania State Transportation Advisory Committee, Transportation Funding Study, May 2010.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

4


Mode DescriptionAdditional Annual Funding Need (in millions)

2010 2020 2030

Aviation Funds the state Aviation Development Program to provide funding to preserve, upgrade, and, when practicable, build new facilities.

$8 $10 $18

Rail Freight Funds the Rail Freight Assistance Program to establish or re-establish rail service or to expand/maintain existing rail service.

$12 $20 $30

Intercity Passenger Rail Subsidizes operations and capital equipment charges for the Keystone and Pennsylvanian trains operated by Amtrak, as required by the federal Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA).

$14 $18 $24

TOTAL $34 $48 $72

Other Modes

Source: PennDOT analysis

Funding Targets in millions (Highway/Bridge/Transit/Local)

Mode/Recipient (total) Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5

Highway and Bridge $460 $920 $1,070 $1,425 $1,800

Local Government $60 $130 $200 $250 $300-$400

Transit $200 $225 $275 $325 $300-$400

Total Goal $720 $1,275 $1,545 $2,000 $2,500

Funding Targets in millions (Aviation/Rail Freight/Passenger Rail)

Mode/Recipient (total) Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5Aviation $7 $8 $9 $10 $11

Rail Freight $9 $11 $13 $15 $17

Intercity Passenger Rail $13.8 $13.8 $13.8 $13.8 $13.8

Other Intermodal Investment

$24.2 $21.2 $18.2 $15.2 $12.2

Total Goal $54 $54 $54 $54 $54

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

5


Summary of Issues for TFAC

(based on TAC report and expert testimony)

1. Total annual user fee revenue goal: $2.5 billion by Year 5.

2. Long-term funding strategy for freight movement and vehicle user fees that is not based on fuel con-sumption.

3. Multimodal Freight Study to examine economic opportunity and investment needs.

4. Private sector involvement in finance.

5. Flexibility for local governments to adopt finance plans/invest in local/regional transportation.

6. Modernization strategies to embrace new technologies, reduce delivery costs, enhance customer ser-vice, promote provider cooperation to reduce overlap and costs, and ensure every public dollar for trans-portation is wisely and efficiently spent.

7. Evaluate revenue options that are user-based, provide choices for motorists where appropriate, and are inflation-sensitive.

8. Evaluate each option’s net effect on the already-stressed General Fund.

9. Estimate cost impacts to average driver.

10. Examine statewide benefits of finance plans to compare investment to taking no action in terms of trans-portation benefits for all modes.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

6


ModernizationAs a result of strategic modernization, we can better meet customer needs and save money in the process—for us and our customers. Through rigorous evaluation, a number of modernization opportu-nities internal to PennDOT were identified, from business processes to management systems that will support future project decision-making. Recommended modernization items follow.

Modernization is about using today’s tools to best serve today’s customers

within today’s financial realities.

Recommended by TFAC Description Principal Benefits

Implement biennial registrations Renew vehicle registrations every two years instead of every year.

• Registration paperwork cut in half.• Yearly savings of $5 million (PennDOT). • Yearly total customer postage savings of $1.5 million.

Issue eight-year driver’s licenses Make driver’s licenses valid for eight years, double the current four-year licenses.

• Convenience—customers only go to driver license centers once every eight years for a new photo and license.

• Yearly savings of $500,000 (beginning four years after implementation).

• Yearly total customer postage savings of $100,000.

Eliminate safety inspections for new vehicles

Require annual inspections only for cars more than two years old.

• New car buyers save time.• Statewide, owners of new vehicles save $24 million a year.

Consolidate driver license centers Consolidate driver license centers to achieve greater efficiency and improve customer service.

• Driver license centers with more convenient hours.• Yearly cost savings of $650,000.

Eliminate vehicle registration stickers

Phase out the requirement to affix a registration sticker to each license plate each year.

• One less task for vehicle owners.• Yearly savings of $1 million (PennDOT).• Potential for enhancing online registration renewal.

Optional third party non-CDL driver’s license skill testing

Currently road tests are free and conducted by PennDOT, typically with a several-week wait to schedule. This option would allow drivers to choose to pay to take a test sooner through a private testing service, or pay PennDOT a fee to take a driver test.

• More choices to better serve customers.• Yearly revenue increase of $1.65 million.• New private sector jobs at third-party testing centers.

Authorize fine option in lieu of suspension for driving without insurance

Failure to maintain insurance currently results in a three-month suspension of vehicle registration. This option would allow violators to pay a $500 fine instead.

• Customers can still drive to work and be productive and independent.

Driver and Vehicle Services

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

7



Update traffic signals to LED and optimize timing

Currently, municipalities own and maintain the state’s 14,000 traffic signals. In this option, PennDOT would oversee modernizing signals and optimizing their opera-tion.

• Drivers can see LED lights better, improving safety.• Energy costs reduced by 80% for local governments.• Existing roadways can handle more traffic for a relatively

modest investment, reducing congestion and improving air quality.

• Faster transition statewide to consistent, updated signals.

Automate work zone traffic control

Installation of speed enforcement cameras in work zones could provide more hours of monitoring while reducing the assistance needed by the Pennsylvania State Police.

• Work zone speed limits would be taken seriously 24/7, reducing crashes and saving lives.

• $2 million in savings—deployment and operation would be self-funding.

Install red-light-running cameras Automated enforcement of traffic signals has proven ef-fective in Philadelphia and other states, producing a 25% average reduction in intersection crashes.

• Intersections would be monitored around the clock, improving driver behavior and reducing crashes and fatalities.

• Local police would not be stretched as thin.

Expand and update HOP permitting

Expanded use of online permit applications; aligning PennDOT fees with administrative costs.

• Streamlined application review process.• Costs and responsibilities would be more fairly allocated.• Option to pay higher fee for expedited guaranteed service

within specified timeframe.

Traffic Control, Enforcement, & Safety


Expand program management and outsourcing

Bundle individual projects into programs—such as reha-bilitating 100 to 300 bridges at one time—and engage experienced private sector program managers to pro-duce benefits for PennDOT as well as local governments. Continue to investigate and implement appropriate opportunities to outsource processes and services. Cur-rently PennDOT contracts out about 74% of its workload.

• Improved project delivery.• Lower costs.

Eliminate local cost share for ADA curb ramps

When improving state highways, PennDOT would con-struct curb ramps compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act at all affected cross-streets, and seek maintenance agreements with municipalities in lieu of cost-sharing.

• Cost savings to local governments ($238 million).• Efficient installation statewide.• Clear-cut maintenance responsibilities.

Modify review process for minor projects

PennDOT executes about 600 minor projects (such as small bridge repairs) each year. This option would streamline the required design submissions and reviews with consultants performing the work.

• Minor projects built more quickly, reducing project costs and delivering benefits sooner.

• PennDOT scrutiny more appropriately directed toward complex projects.

Streamline new technology approval

Implement faster processes for testing and verifying performance of prospective materials and technologies while mitigating risk.

• A faster road to better-performing, more cost-effective projects.• More competition among suppliers and greater sourcing

options.

PennDOT Project Delivery

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

8



Study consolidation of small transit systems to serve regions where appropriate (shared-ride and fixed-route)

Consolidation would only be done based on the out-come of a study. The studies (conducted jointly by PennDOT and the involved transit providers) will exam-ine regions to determine whether consolidation would reduce annual expenses. If the study outcome estimates annual savings, providers and local government would have the option of following the recommended actions or providing increased local funds to match the project-ed annual savings.

• $18 to $25 million in savings.• Customers dependent on transit do not lose this vital service.• Reduces pressure to increase local share of state funding.

Transit


Update the Aviation Development Program prioritization process

Place greater emphasis on project readiness, including local share availability and local permitting approvals.

• Projects could move forward quickly if funding becomes available.

Maximize opportunities to fund aviation projects with the Aviation Restricted Account

Adjust charges and reimbursement methods for PennDOT Flight Services that would reduce the burden on the Aviation Restricted Account.

• More funding available for aviation projects.

Consider aviation entitlement program with the state grant program

Guarantee funding to an annual statewide develop-ment/maintenance program for airports at a specified level year after year.

• More predictable funding levels.• Economies of scale.• Stretches available funds further for actual construction.

Aviation


Consolidate to a Statewide Traffic Management Center

Co-locate the traffic management operations of the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency, the Pennsylvania State Police, the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission (PTC), and PennDOT into one centralized statewide facility with modernized equipment and com-munications technologies.

• Motorists would receive reliable, real-time 511 information.• The highway network would be managed as a system.• More efficient and effective communication and collaboration

among entities.

Agility agreements with PTC and local governments

Formalize cooperation between PennDOT and local gov-ernments, as well as the PTC, through agility agreements. They facilitate joint planning, training, and materials de-velopment as well as shared use of materials and equip-ment and exchange of services.

• Common-sense approach to managing transportation infrastructure.

• Cost savings for PennDOT and local governments/PTC.• Better roadway maintenance and service.

Enhanced collaboration Broader collaboration among state agencies, the PTC, transportation management areas, and county and mu-nicipal governments, all with overlapping jurisdictions and goals. Efforts would align responsibilities with areas of strength, with PennDOT taking the overall lead.

• Transportation system planning, development, operation, and maintenance would be better managed.

• Streamlined methods would be more cost-effective.

Inter-Agency Coordination

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

9



Support alternative fuels Biodiesel, compressed natural gas (CNG), electric plug-ins, magnetic recharge, and other technologies could of-fer promise for the future fueling of PennDOT’s fleet and Pennsylvania’s transit vehicles, school buses, and private-ly-owned fleets. This would require an initial investment in vehicles, fueling stations, and service garages.

• Reduce emissions/improved air quality.• Potential for lower fuel costs.• Potential for more stable fuel sources.• Long-term economic benefits—job creation in Pennsylvania-

based energy.

Energy


Marketing and advertising within state right-of-way

State law does not allow any marketing or advertising within the state right-of-way. New options for advertis-ing could include 511 sponsorship signs, static sponsor-ship advertising above variable message boards, and video sharing agreements for video from PennDOT traf-fic cameras.

• $5 million in new revenue for PennDOT. • Increased customer awareness of 511 services and congestion

that will improve safety and provide better route planning.

Move PA’s Fuel Point of Taxation to the terminal (RACK)

The Department of Revenue currently collects motor fuel taxes at the wholesale distributor level. This option pro-poses imposing the liquid fuel tax at a higher point in the distribution chain, to the terminal, or “RACK.”

• $25 million in additional revenue. • The point of taxation would be consistent with the federal gas

tax.

Service patrol advertising Allowing commercial businesses to advertise on the trucks that provide service patrols in urban areas can cover the costs of this service. Currently the service is paid for directly by PennDOT.

• Save the $4.2 million per year PennDOT currently spends on this service.

• Potentially provide increased service if additional revenue is generated.

Finance

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

10


Recommended Funding PackageThis funding shortfall will not be corrected in a short amount of time. Funding will have to be enhanced over a period of years through various methods. Further, transportation investments take time to plan, design, and construct. In recognition of this fact, TFAC adopted a target of identifying $2.5 billion in additional resources through new funding sources as well as increased efficiencies and cost savings. The target is to be achieved over a five-year period, allowing time for additional funding to come on line throughout a transi-tion period and allowing a more gradual increase in fees.

Funding Source Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5Cap and move $300 million of State Police costs to General Fund $0 $17 $114 $228 $300

If PSP capped and not shifted to General Fund $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Increase vehicle and driver fees to inflation (3% per year going forward), phased in for commercial vehicles over 26,000 pounds.

$383 $431 $480 $532 $574

Fuels: Uncap Oil Company Franchise Tax (AWP) over five years $272 $544 $817 $1,089 $1,361

Fee and fine increases - Motor License Fund $17 $17 $62 $62 $172

Modernization and cost savings - Motor License Fund $10 $20 $30 $50 $66

Restructure Act 44 - Motor License Fund decrease ($200) ($200) ($200) ($200) ($200)

Restructure Act 44 - Transit increase $200 $200 $200 $200 $200

Dedicate 2% of existing Sales Tax revenue to transit $0 $22 $100 $150 $172

Total required Local Transit - 15% of new money, only if local option source enabled• Small Games of Chance (50) transit local

funding • Local Transit match - other sources

$0 $0 $45 $52.5 $55.8

Modernization - Consolidate/ regionalize transit delivery $0 $0 $5 $10 $20

Total Funding $682 $1,051 $1,653 $2,163 $2,700

If PSP capped and not shifted to General Fund $682 $1,034 $1,539 $1,935 $2,400

Recommended Funding PackageSources (in millions) Highway/Bridge/Local/Transit

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

11


Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5Vehicle and driver fees increase to inflation $14 $16 $18 $19 $21

Fuels: Uncap OCFT (AWP) over 5 years (if entire increase is passed on to the consumer)

$22 $43 $64 $83 $101

Fee and fine increases - Motor License Fund $0 $0 $0 $0 $10

Total Additional Yearly Cost $36 $59 $81 $103 $132

Weekly Cost $0.70 $1.14 $1.57 $1.97 $2.54

Impacts to Typical Driver (in actual dollars)

Mode/Recipient (total) Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5

Aviation $7 $8 $9 $10 $11

Rail Freight $9 $11 $13 $15 $17

Intercity Passenger Rail $13.8 $13.8 $13.8 $13.8 $13.8

Other Intermodal Investment

$24.2 $21.2 $18.2 $15.2 $12.2

Total Funding* $54 $54 $54 $54 $54

*Annual total funding will be based on actual revenue generated.

Recommended Funding PackageSummary (in millions) Aviation/Rail Freight/Passenger Rail

Intermodal Transportation FundingRevenue generated from surcharges on moving violation traffic tickets is currently deposited into the General Fund and could be redirected into a new Intermodal Transportation Fund. This revenue could be used to increase funding for Aviation, dedicate money for the Rail Freight Assistance Program and Intercity Passenger Rail, and provide additional funding to Pennsylvania’s Ports and Waterways.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

12


Decade of InvestmentPennDOT will be able to begin reinvesting in new capacity projects after years of “maintenance first” project planning, and is committing to reduce the backlog of projects resulting from an aging infrastructure and years of underinvestment. A decade of invest-ment will result in the following infrastructure improvements:

• System-wide safety enhancements and Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)

• Reduction in structurally deficient bridges• Improved roadway resurfacing and recon-

struction• New road and bridge capacity projects• Increased transit facilities and services• Upgrades and improvements for rail

freight network, airports, and ports

Legislative Action Recommendations• Provide enabling legislation so local governments can have the option to raise revenue to support trans-

portation investment.• Pass public-private partnership legislation.• Amend Act 44 of 2007 to shift Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission payments and expand tolling authority

to interstates. » Direct all required Act 44 payments directly to transit. » Transition all Act 44 payments currently for transit operating costs, to be used for capital projects. » Enable tolling authority on other interstates within Pennsylvania, with toll revenue dedicated exclu-

sively to the corridor from which it was collected. TFAC does not recommend tolling of any inter-state. However, recognizing that tolling is mileage-based rather than based on fuel consumption, and considering that federal laws could change in the future, TFAC recommends creating enabling state legislation now.

Follow-up Study Recommendations• Determine the feasibility of alternative highway funding for Pennsylvania including usage based charges

such as expanded tolling, logistics fees, freight charges and vehicle miles travelled (VMT) fees.• Develop a comprehensive Commonwealth Freight Movement Plan• Research opportunities to avoid delays due to utility relocation for roadway improvement projects.

CCMPO Local Funding Share Formula Prepared October 2010 Updated February 2011 (minor editorial revisions) As part of the proposal for expansion of the MPO to a countywide organization that was approved in November 2003, officials established the MPO staff size at four transportation planners. A five-year budget projection (2004-2008) was prepared based on that staff size. The following steps illustrate the process for calculating the “local” funding shares that comprise a portion of the CCMPO budget. 1. Revenue for the MPO budget is basically comprised of two elements:

a. Federal and state funds from PennDOT b. “Local” share funds

2. The local share is the difference between the total revenue needed, and the amount of

federal and state funds anticipated to be received from PennDOT. 3. For distributing the local share among funding partners, officials agreed upon a

“70%/30%” split, with 70% assigned to CATA and the eight municipalities that retained a voting membership from the old Centre Region MPO; and 30% assigned to the new rural planning regions. Centre County government agreed to be responsible for contributing the 30% share from the rural regions. The 70/30 split was based on population in the 2000 census.

4. Centre County government also agreed that a portion of its share would be provided by

adding a new transportation planning position in Centre County Planning and Community Development Office. The remaining portion of the County’s share beyond the value of the transportation planner is contributed in cash to the CRPA within the CCMPO budget.

5. From the 70% local share allocated to CATA and the eight municipalities, CATA’s portion

was originally based on the difference between the total cost of the transit planner position at CRPA and the amount of federal transit planning funds provided by PennDOT.

6. After CATA’s portion is deducted, the remaining amount of the 70% is allocated to eight

municipalities based on the Centre Region Council of Governments (COG) Funding Formula, as modified to include Benner and Spring Townships, and as updated by COG in CY 2010.

Since the expiration of the original five year budget projection after the CY 2008 budget, the 2009 and 2010 budgets increased all cash contributions from CATA, the eight municipalities and Centre County by a set percentage calculated by staff as needed to balance the budget.

4% in 2009 budget 5% in 2010 budget

3% in 2011 budget (subsequently reduced to 2% for the eight municipal shares) Preparation of a new five-year budget projection has been on hold since the MPO Expansion Performance Review Subcommittee suspended its work in 2008.

Options for Nittany Valley Region Membership on CCMPO (Revised 2/2/11) DRAFT

Membership

Structure

Voting

Members

Non-Voting

Members

Local Funding

Shares

Comments

Pros Cons

Current Structure as Countywide MPO (2004 to Present)

19

4

8 municipalities Centre County CATA

Centre County local funding share was expanded to include cash, and the value of one full-time transportation planning position in the CCPCDO.

Structure developed after extensive discussion; was supported by most municipal officials in the County; and appears to work in an acceptable manner relative to equitable representation. Holds the number of representatives “at the table” at the same number.

Does not provide Marion and Walker Township with a form of direct representation, relative to the stipulation in the expansion proposal that representation for the two townships would be addressed in the future. Does not provide an additional source of local share revenue.

Option A One new voting member

collectively representing: Marion Township Walker Township Bellefonte Borough

20

3 8 municipalities Centre County

CATA

Local funding share would continue to be provided by Centre County.

Bellefonte Borough would no longer have an individual non-voting membership. The three municipalities would select their voting representative.

Provides a form of direct representation for Marion and Walker Townships, and also

provides that all municipalities in the County are represented by a voting member. The representation approach is the same as for the rural planning regions in the County. Holds the number of representatives “at the table” at the same number.

Does not provide Marion Township with an individual voting membership, as requested by

the Township. Removes individual non-voting representation for Bellefonte Borough. Does not provide an additional source of local share revenue. The two townships are not geographically contiguous with Bellefonte Borough.

Option B One new voting member

representing: Marion Township One non-voting member collectively representing: Bellefonte Borough Walker Township.

20

4

9 municipalities Centre County

CATA

Marion Township would contribute a local funding share.

Bellefonte Borough would no longer have an individual non-voting membership. Bellefonte Borough and Walker Township would select their non-voting representative.

Provides Marion Township with an individual voting membership, as requested by the

Township. Provides a form of direct representation for Walker Township. Provides an additional source of local share revenue.

Does not provide for all municipalities to be represented by a voting member.

Removes individual non-voting representation for Bellefonte Borough. Bellefonte Borough and Walker Township are not geographically contiguous. Increases the number of representatives “at the table” by one.

Option B2 One new voting member representing: Marion Township One new voting member collectively representing: Bellefonte Borough Walker Township.

21

3

9 municipalities Centre County CATA

Marion Township would contribute a local funding share. Bellefonte Borough would no longer have an individual non-voting membership. Bellefonte Borough and Walker Township would select their voting representative. Bellefonte Borough and Walker Township’s local funding share would continue to be provided by Centre County.

Provides Marion Township with an individual voting membership, as requested by the Township. Provides representation for Bellefonte Borough and Walker Townships in the form of a voting member, which ensures that all municipalities in the County are represented by a voting member. Provides an additional source of local share revenue.

Removes individual non-voting representation for Bellefonte Borough. Bellefonte Borough and Walker Township are not geographically contiguous. Increases the number of representatives “at the table” by one.

Documents

Centre County Metropolitan Planning Organization (CCMPO) Coordinating Committee ...6AD7E2DC-ECE4-41CD-B8E1... · 2011-09-20 · Centre County Metropolitan Planning Organization (CCMPO)