![](media/image1.wmf){width="1.0833333333333333in" height="1.625in"}

**Information on Noteworthy Metropolitan**

**Planning Organization (MPO) Practices:**

**Cooperative Revenue Forecasting**

**and**

**Annual Listings of Obligated Projects**

##### November 2001

# 

# *Prepared for*

Metropolitan Capacity Building (MCB) Program

# *Under a grant from*

#### U.S. Department of Transportation

## 

## 

## Prepared by

![](media/image2.png){width="1.625in" height="0.8666666666666667in"}

# **Noteworthy MPO Practices in Cooperative Revenue Forecasting**

+-----------------+---------------+----------------+------------------+
|                 | ***Notable    |                |                  |
|                 | Features***   |                |                  |
+-----------------+---------------+----------------+------------------+
| ## MPO          | **Cooperative | **Statewide    | **Stakeholders   |
|                 | Process among | Revenue        | Consider Revenue |
|                 | MPO, DOT, &   | Estimation     | Information      |
|                 | Transit       | Process**      | Useful**         |
|                 | Operator(s)** |                |                  |
+-----------------+---------------+----------------+------------------+
| [**Community    | Yes           | Yes            | Yes              |
| Planning        |               |                |                  |
| Association of  |               |                |                  |
| Southwest Idaho |               |                |                  |
| (COMP           |               |                |                  |
| ASS)**](#DVRPC) |               |                |                  |
+-----------------+---------------+----------------+------------------+
| [**Delaware     | Yes\*         | Yes\*          | Yes\*            |
| Valley Regional |               |                |                  |
| Planning        |               |                |                  |
| Commission      |               |                |                  |
| (PA             |               |                |                  |
| /NJ)**](#DVRPC) |               |                |                  |
+-----------------+---------------+----------------+------------------+
| [**Maricopa     | Yes           | Yes            | Evolving         |
| Association of  |               |                |                  |
| Governments     |               |                |                  |
| (AZ)**](#MAG)   |               |                |                  |
+-----------------+---------------+----------------+------------------+
| [**Pima         | Yes           | Yes            | Evolving         |
| Association of  |               |                |                  |
| Governments     |               |                |                  |
| (AZ)**](#pima-a |               |                |                  |
| ssociation-of-g |               |                |                  |
| overnments-pag) |               |                |                  |
+-----------------+---------------+----------------+------------------+
| [**Puget Sound  | Yes           | No             | Yes              |
| Regional        |               |                |                  |
| Council         |               |                |                  |
| (WA)**](#PSRC)  |               |                |                  |
+-----------------+---------------+----------------+------------------+
| [**Rhode Island | Yes           | Yes            | Yes              |
| Statewide       |               |                |                  |
| Planning        |               |                |                  |
| Off             |               |                |                  |
| ice**](#RISPO1) |               |                |                  |
+-----------------+---------------+----------------+------------------+

\*Applies only to the Pennsylvania element of DVRPC's bi-state process.

# **Noteworthy MPO Practices in Annual Listings of Obligated Projects**

+--------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+
|                    | *         |           |           |            |
|                    | **Notable |           |           |            |
|                    | Fe        |           |           |            |
|                    | atures*** |           |           |            |
+--------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+
| ##                 | **MPO     | **Annual  | **Annual  | **C        |
|                    | Able to   | Listing   | Listing   | ooperative |
| ## MPO             | Access    | Pu        | Dis       | MPO/State  |
|                    | O         | blished** | seminated | D          |
|                    | bligation |           | to Public | OT/Transit |
|                    | Data to   |           | and       | Operator   |
|                    | Monitor   |           | Stake     | S          |
|                    | TIP       |           | holders** | tructure** |
|                    | Program   |           |           |            |
|                    | Impleme   |           |           |            |
|                    | ntation** |           |           |            |
+--------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+
| [**Chittenden      | Yes       | TIP       | Via TIP   | Yes        |
| County             |           | Section   |           |            |
| Metropolitan       |           |           |           |            |
| Planning           |           |           |           |            |
| Organization       |           |           |           |            |
| (VT)**](#CCMPO)    |           |           |           |            |
+--------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+
| [**Metro           | Yes       | TIP       | Via TIP   | Yes        |
| (OR)**](#metro)    |           | Section   |           |            |
+--------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+
| [**Metropolitan    | Yes       | St        | Via       | Yes        |
| Transportation     |           | and-alone | Website   |            |
| Commission         |           |           |           |            |
| (CA)**](#MTC)      |           |           |           |            |
+--------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+
| [**Rhode Island    | Yes       | St        | Limited   | Yes        |
| Statewide Planning |           | and-alone |           |            |
| Office**](#RISPO2) |           |           |           |            |
+--------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+
| [**South Central   | Yes\*     | TIP       | Via TIP   | Yes        |
| Regional Council   |           | Section   |           |            |
| of Governments     |           |           |           |            |
| (CT)**](#SCRCOG)   |           |           |           |            |
+--------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+
| [**Wasatch Front   | Yes\*\*   | St        | Upon      | Yes        |
| Regional Council   |           | and-alone | request   |            |
| (UT)**](#WFRC)     |           |           | only      |            |
+--------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+

\*Biennial TIP includes obligated project information and project
tracking information.

\*\*Focuses on Urban STP and CMAQ-funded projects.

**Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho (COMPASS)**

#### Boise (Ada County), Idaho

# **Noteworthy Features**

# 

# **Suballocation of STP funds to all MPOs in state for TIP programming**

-   **Documented state/MPO agreement on TIP funding distribution and
    negotiation process**

-   **Local transportation fees generate revenue for programming**

# 

# **TIP Revenue Forecasting Process**

About 3 years ago, the Idaho DOT decided to suballocate STP local funds
among the three MPOs in Idaho. This process is based on a mutual
agreement through a memo of understanding (MOU) among the MPOs and DOT.
The three MPOs meet at least annually to determine the split among them,
and funds are re-suballocated throughout year as needed (e.g., if one
MPO cannot use some of the suballocated funds and another needs them,
the MPOs will work together to reallocate the funds to help meet
pressing needs). Annually, the three MPOs split about \$5.5 million. As
the largest MPO, COMPASS usually receives about \$3 million. The other
Idaho MPOs often "bank" their funds over the years to accumulate enough
to undertake a project. The MPO-DOT agreement includes a "hold harmless"
provision pertaining to situations in which projects slip due to
circumstances beyond MPO's control. COMPASS characterized cooperation
among the MPOs as "phenomenal."

The agencies directly participating in the cooperative revenue
forecasting process include COMPASS, the Idaho Department of
Transportation, Ada County Highway District, ViaTrans (regional transit
agency), other MPOs in Idaho, and Local Highway Technical Assistance
Council.[^1]

In the three years this arrangement has been in effect, COMPASS has not
foregone any funds. In the 12 years prior to this, however, the
STP-local program forfeited \$32 million back to the state.

Because Ada County is a "non-classified nonattainment area," COMPASS
does not receive any direct CMAQ allocation, even though it is subject
to conformity requirements.

It is important to note that Ada County is the only one in Idaho with a
provision for local impact fees for roads, through the Ada County
Highway District, which generates about \$8 million per year. The County
also has an automobile registration fee add-on, which generates about
\$3 million per year.

[]{#DVRPC .anchor}**Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission**

#### Philadelphia, PA/Camden, NJ

**[Noteworthy Features]{.underline}**

# 

# **Statewide process for guiding and allocating TIP funding among and within MPOs (Pennsylvania)**

-   **"Planning Partners" structure in Pennsylvania guides revenue
    allocation process**

# 

# **TIP Revenue Forecasting Process**

Since 1997/98, the state of Pennsylvania has used a cooperative revenue
forecasting process known as the "Planning Partners." This group
consists of representatives from the 14 MPOs, the six Local Development
Districts (LDDs, the rural equivalents of MPOs), several independent
counties, the State DOT (Central and Districts), FHWA, FTA, EPA, SEPTA
(Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, the state\'s
largest transit operator), the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, and the
State Transportation Commission.

Prior to the beginning of a TIP update cycle and based on the consensus
of the Planning Partners and its Financial Work Group subcommittee, the
state publishes a report entitled "Transportation Program Financial
Guidance," which includes estimates of funds available for highways and
transit from Federal and state sources. Formulas are used to distribute
funds among MPOs (and rural areas). The formulas vary by funding
category. Included in the distribution rationale is a level of
discretionary funding at the state level. The Financial Guidance
reflects the consensus of the Planning Partners (see above) and
discusses revenue forecasts, methods for distribution of funds among
jurisdictions and includes numerous tables giving allocations for
various funding categories. The state also provides the MPOs with a list
of projects obligated on a quarterly basis, with a summary comparing
obligations vs. targets by region and statewide.

The current Planning Partners system replaced the previous system, which
was often rancorous and resulted in frequent inter-jurisdictional
conflicts. In the mid-1990s, DVRPC took the initiative to suggest a more
cooperative and rational process, and later won state support for this
approach. The state subsequently took the lead in fostering and
developing the current approach. There are now relatively few
disagreements because mechanisms and formulas for distribution of funds
have been worked out in advance, and because regions are able to
negotiate their own solutions within known funding targets. Within the
DVRPC region, the county and transit representatives meet regularly to
discuss project and programming needs and jointly develop solutions.

In New Jersey, there is currently no analogous process, although the
state now produces a document summarizing the revenue forecasts as part
of the STIP.

[]{#MAG .anchor}**Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG)**

**Phoenix, Arizona**

**[Significant Features]{.underline}**

# 

# **Major MPO role in annual statewide revenue estimation and allocation process**

-   **Improved perception of "fair share" issues for MPO region under
    revised current revenue forecasting structure**

# 

# **Cooperative Revenue Forecasting Process**

Following TEA-21 enactment in 1998, the Maricopa Association of
Governments (MAG) conducted a "fair share" analysis that helped
facilitate development of a new cooperative planning process between the
MPOs in Arizona and the Arizona DOT, including the cooperative
development of funding estimates. In 1997, there was no cooperative
revenue estimates developed for use by MAG in the planning process. The
MPOs gave advice to ADOT regarding project selection and funding levels,
but the decision-making process was seen by MAG as a "black box."

In 1998, the USDOT conducted a recertification review of the MAG
transportation planning program and made a finding of a deficient
cooperative revenue forecasting process. This finding, along with
TEA-21's strengthening of the cooperative revenue estimation requirement
and the 90.5 percent minimum funding guarantee for Arizona, provided a
catalyst for development of revised transportation planning and
programming process in the state, known as the "Casa Grande Resolves."
Among its guiding principles are that "the Statewide Transportation Plan
and Programs will be based on clearly defined and agreed to information
and assumptions, including the resources available..." and that "the
\[statewide\] program represents an equitable allocation of resources."

To implement the revenue estimation process element of this new
approach, an entity called the "Resource Allocation Advisory Committee
(RAAC)" was convened. The RAAC includes representation from ADOT (4
officials), TMAs (2 Directors), MPO/COGs (2 Directors), and a TMA
Transit Director. The RAAC is chaired by the ADOT Deputy Director. The
RAAC operates on a consensus decision-making basis only; there is no
voting. The RAAC is to continue functioning until a statewide
needs-based allocation formula is implemented as part of adopting the
new ADOT Long Range Plan, which should be completed within two years.
MAG believes the "fair-share" situation is improving under the post-1998
cooperative revenue forecasting structure.

# **Pima Association of Governments (PAG)**

**Tuscon, Arizona**

# **Noteworthy Features**

# 

-   **Agreement among PAG, other MPOs, and state on process for revenue
    forecasting assumptions and equitable distribution**

# **Major MPO role in annual statewide revenue estimation and allocation process**

# 

# **Cooperative Revenue Forecasting Process**

**For the Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP):** PAG develops its own
long-range revenue estimates, which it believes to be more reliable that
those available through Arizona DOT (ADOT). Currently, there is no
written agreement with ADOT regarding this process. PAG's Transportation
Finance Subcommittee focuses mainly on analyzing future LRTP revenues.

**For the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP):** Following TEA-21
enactment in 1998, the Pima Association of Governments (PAG) coordinated
with the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG), the MPO for the
Phoenix region, and approached ADOT regarding rethinking the traditional
approach to allocating transportation funds in the state. Also in 1998,
the USDOT conducted a recertification review of the PAG transportation
planning program and made a finding of a deficient cooperative revenue
forecasting process. This finding, along with TEA-21's strengthening of
the cooperative revenue estimation requirement and the 90.5 percent
minimum funding guarantee for Arizona, provided a catalyst for
development of revised transportation planning and programming process
in the state, known as the "Casa Grande Resolves." Among its guiding
principles are that "the Statewide Transportation Plan and Programs will
be based on clearly defined and agreed to information and assumptions,
including the resources available..." and that "the \[statewide\]
program represents an equitable allocation of resources."

To implement the revenue estimation process element of this new
approach, ADOT convened an entity called the "Resource Allocation
Advisory Committee (RAAC)." The RAAC includes representation from ADOT
(4 officials), TMAs (2 Directors), MPO/COGs (2 Directors), and a TMA
Transit Director. The RAAC is chaired by the ADOT Deputy Director. The
RAAC operates on a consensus decision-making basis only; there is no
voting. The RAAC is to continue functioning until a statewide
needs-based allocation formula is implemented as part of adopting the
new ADOT Long Range Plan, which should be completed within two years.

The RAAC provides funding allocation figures to PAG by August/September
of each year. The draft STIP, which includes the MPO TIPs, is developed
in October/November of each year, with TIP adoption by July 1, which is
the start of the fiscal year.

[]{#PSRC .anchor}**Puget Sound Regional Council**

**Seattle, Washington**

# 

# **Noteworthy Features**

# 

-   **MPO maintains and applies a regional revenue forecasting model**

-   **Multiplicity of regional transportation revenue sources**

-   **MPO revenue forecasts considered sound by users**

# **Cooperative Revenue Forecasting Process**

In 1994, Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) developed a revenue
forecasting model as part of the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP)
process. A committee of high-level agency staff (PSRC, City, County,
Transit Operators, and WSDOT) cooperative oversaw the development of the
revenue forecasting methodology and model. Consistency between MPO-level
and state-level revenue forecasts is facilitated through its consistency
with the state forecasting *methodology* and through its use of the same
fuel and vehicle forecasts.

## 

The actual forecasting process employed by PSRC looks first at current
and historical financial data for the region. Then, using its model and
forecasting process, PSRC prepares long-range forecasts of "current law"
revenue and documents its financial forecast assumptions. Steps in the
long-range revenue forecasting process include tax base projections,
other revenue forecasts and assumptions, and allocation of revenues to
various uses, agencies, and locations. Tax base projections include
motor fuels, registered motor vehicles, retail sales, and vehicle value
(local motor vehicle excise tax).

## Revenue projections are produced by applying regression models to forecasted regional economic variables. A tax rate is applied to each projection to derive revenue. The Puget Sound Economic Model provides the forecast of socioeconomic variables used in local comprehensive plans, including population, employment, housing units, and personal income.

## Updates to the forecasts are reviewed as part of the document/project development and adoption by the PSRC Technical and Policy Committees. Involvement and "buy-in" by partner agencies is assured through the voting representation of transit agencies, WSDOT, Cities and Counties on the committees. The revenue forecasts are indirectly adopted as part of Regional Plan and other documents.

## Underlying PSRC's revenue forecasting process are ISTEA and TEA-21 and the Washington State Growth Management Act, which requires all Cities and Counties to prepare Comprehensive Plans, including a financial component. This law also requires these local Comprehensive Plans to be consistent with the relevant regional plan. 

[]{#RISPO1 .anchor}**Rhode Island Statewide Planning Office**

# **Providence, Rhode Island**

# 

**[Noteworthy Features]{.underline}**

-   **MPO, DOT, and transit agency are all state agencies, thus
    facilitating close inter-agency coordination and communication**

# **Involvement of non-transportation agencies, including state budget office**

-   **Integration of forecasts into Long Range Transportation Plan**

# **Cooperative Revenue Forecasting Process**

The Rhode Island Statewide Planning Program, which is an agency of the
Rhode Island state government, is also the designated MPO for the
Providence metropolitan region, which covers the entire state. Rhode
Island's "Planning Rule Number 9" governs and facilitates the MPO/state
relationship and provides a procedure by which cooperative revenue
forecasting is facilitated.

The processes by which revenue forecasts are developed for the Long
Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) and Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP) are similar. The LRTP forecast is updated on a three-year cycle.
The MPO also has a biennially-updated six-year TIP. Revenue forecasts
for the TIP are thus updated every other year. Parties participating in
the revenue forecasting process include: RI Statewide Planning Council
(MPO Policy Board), RI DOT, RI Public Transit Authority, the State
Budget Office, and the MPO Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC).

The steps in the revenue forecasting process generally include the
following:

-   RIDOT forecasts federal and state funds receivable and develops
    trend lines;

-   The Rhode Island Public Transit Authority (RIPTA) provides input
    regarding FTA funds;

-   MPO examines federal authorization levels and projections, and
    reviews these with State Budget Office as needed;

-   The MPO examines state match capabilities; and

-   The forecasts become part of the draft LRTPs and TIPs for public
    review.

Once the MPO staff and Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC)[^2] have
received public input and reviewed and revised the forecasts, the LRTPs
and TIPs are considered and adopted by the MPO policy board (RI
Statewide Planning Program).[^3]

MPO stakeholders believe the unique relationship between the MPO and
Rhode Island state government allows very close cooperation,
communication and coordination between the two parties, and advance
resolution of problems and concerns.

[]{#CCMPO .anchor}**Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning
Organization**

#### Burlington, Vermont

# **Noteworthy Features**

# 

-   **Previous program year's TIP projects tracked directly against
    obligations**

-   **Annual obligation listing included in annual TIP Update document**

-   **Information accessible via MPO website**

# 

# 

# **The Annual Listing Process**

The Chittenden County MPO (CCMPO) noted the annual listing of obligated
projects requirement in TEA-21 and approached the Vermont Agency of
Transportation (VTrans) to determine how to satisfy the new statutory
requirement. Prior to TEA-21, obligation information was provided only
sporadically in response to specific requests. CCMPO and VTrans
determined that the best way to approach this requirement would be
through the annual TIP update process.

During the annual TIP development cycle, the CCMPO transmits to VTrans a
listing of projects in the prior year's TIP program element and requests
the actual obligation amounts for each project. VTrans completes this
form, drawing on its own and the transit operator's information, and
returns it to the CCMPO. The CCMPO then communicates with VTrans to
clear up any questions or discrepancies. Once all parties concur with
the listing, it is included in the draft and final TIP documents for
public and policy board review and approval.

During the past few years, the process has evolved to point where the
CCMPO now includes project-by-project actual obligations information in
a separate TIP section, which readily allows comparison of the prior
year's TIP program element to the actual obligation amounts.

The CCMPO believes the process works well because of good communication
and cooperation with VTrans and the regional transit operator.

TIP program monitoring information is the CCMPO's key use of the
process. The CCMPO also publishes the annual listing of obligations in
its TIP document, which is disseminated in hard copy and via the CCMPO's
website.

The agencies involved in the annual listing process are the CCMPO, which
compiles and publishes the information, VTrans, which researches,
assembles, and provides project obligation information to CCMPO, and the
CCTA (regional transit operator), which provides FTA funding information
upon request and reviews listing documents as part of TIP development
process

## Metro

#### Portland, Oregon

# **Noteworthy Features**

# 

# **Annual obligations listing used to track TIP project status**

-   **MPO moving toward "real-time" obligation tracking technology**

-   **DOT tracking now includes obligations for PE and ROW phases of
    projects**

# **The Annual Listing Process**

Metro's annual listing of project obligations is based on the Oregon
DOT's (ODOT) tracking process. The listing includes obligations of all
federal and state funds; does not include locally-funded projects. The
data are based on forms filed by ODOT to obligate projects (PR-2), and
are tracked by a software program and developed into a "Report 5", which
lists obligations by funding category and phase (PE, ROW, CON). From
this data source, ODOT produces a report of annual projects implemented
throughout the state.

There are separate lists for federal and state/local projects. Both
lists are shared with the MPO. The process is based on approved and
committed STIP/TIP and follows the actual obligations vs. estimates.
Initial obligations are later adjusted as projects are completed. This
adjustment reflects the actual federal expenditure of funds. The amount
of funds incorporated by MPOs/Locals is based on federal regulations and
funding agreements. The system works on the Federal Fiscal year,
although the state fiscal year starts on July 1.

From Metro's point of view, the current process has been in place for
only one year. The primary player is ODOT. It came about as a response
by Oregon DOT to the TEA-21 requirement. The MPO has a parallel
obligation tracking process that is currently being updated with new
hardware and software. Metro expects to track obligations in "real time"
by the spring of 2002. A recent enhancement implemented by ODOT is the
inclusion of PE and ROW phases of projects as well as Construction
phases in the listing information.

The annual listing currently appears in the TIP and STIP. Metro plans to
eventually produce a separate listing document that will be discussed at
meetings, placed on its website and distributed to interested parties.
It will be publicized through established public participation
procedures.

The agencies involved in the annual listing process are Metro, which
receives information and prepares listing, ODOT, which operates the
project tracking process and shares information with MPOs. Tri-Met, the
regional transit agency, does not directly participate as ODOT's project
tracking process covers FTA-funded projects.

[]{#MTC .anchor}**Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)**

**Oakland, California**

# **Noteworthy Features**

# 

-   **Obligation information accessible via MPO's website**

-   **Special state and regional obligation deadline requirements drive
    need to track obligation of funds**

-   **Project ID numbers used to link information across different
    agencies and databases**

# 

# **The Annual Listing Process**

MTC employs two different, but related, processes -- 1) the annual
report and 2) actual obligations information. The report is actually
from CalTrans downloaded from CalTrans's Federal Aid Database System
(FADS). This report is unmodified between FHWA and MTC. MTC requests the
data from CalTrans and then posts it, unmodified, on the MTC website.
Projects must be listed on the FADS in order for CalTrans to obligate
funds for them.

The MTC region requires that project sponsors must obligate funds within
two years or programming. For the MTC TIP, a separate obligation
reporting process exists. MTC works closely with CalTrans to match up
and track MTC projects' obligations. The federal project ID number is
the data tracking key (links information across databases and agencies).

No formal reporting agreement exists between CalTrans and MTC; it is
essentially a working relationship. MTC meets monthly with all counties
and gives them the latest state-generated project status report. The
actual obligation of funds by CalTrans (on behalf of sponsors)
automatically triggers an obligation report to MTC (at least monthly).
Although a county may submit obligation date information to MTC, MTC
does not officially consider funds obligated until the CalTrans FADS
report is received.

Obligation information from CalTrans is transmitted to MTC in both
electronic and hardcopy (PDF file) form. It was in the past difficult to
tie actual obligations back to MTC's TIP -- project descriptions and
dollar amounts often did not match. However, there now is a link between
the CalTrans and MTC databases at the project ID number level, which
makes it much easier to match projects and make databases agree.

The MTC annual listing document is posted to the MTC website in
downloadable MS-Word document formats. Information on how to access the
annual listing of obligated projects is noted in the MTC newsletter and
posted on the MTC website. MTC also maintains a monthly, more "raw"
internal report that is used for monthly meetings with counties on
project obligation deadlines and issues.

The agencies involved in the annual listing process are the MTC,
California Department of Transportation (CalTrans), and MPO member
communities and agencies.

[]{#RISPO2 .anchor}**Rhode Island Statewide Planning Program**

**Providence, Rhode Island**

# **Noteworthy Features**

# 

-   **Annual obligations listing compared with projects in TIP program
    for tracking of priorities**

-   **MPO, DOT, and transit agency are all state agencies, thus
    facilitating close inter-agency coordination and communication**

# 

# 

# **The Annual Listing Process**

The Rhode Island Statewide Planning Program, which is an agency of the
Rhode Island state government, is also the designated MPO for the
Providence metropolitan region, which covers the entire state. Rhode
Island's "Planning Rule Number 9" governs and facilitates the MPO/state
relationship. For the Rhode Island MPO, the annual listing of obligated
projects process began after passage of TEA-21. The MPO staff discovered
the new annual listing requirement in TEA-21 and contacted the Rhode
Island DOT to seek assistance with meeting this requirement.

The annual listing development process involves several steps. Once each
year, the RIDOT provides a listing of the last year's obligations to the
MPO Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC)[^4] for review and comment.
This listing mirrors the structure of the MPO Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) for easy cross-reference. Once received, the listing is
reviewed and discussed by the TAC in a public meeting. Typically, there
are only minor "typo" errors, which are quickly corrected. The TAC then
accepts the listing that is released for public access.

Using the state-provided information, the MPO produces two reports on
obligations: a detailed listing tracks authorization by project; and a
summary obligations report by TIP category available for public
consumption. While the latter document is publicized and made available,
it has not been widely distributed to date.

MPO staff believes the annual listing process is becoming more
sophisticated and accessible. For example, it is currently m

igrating from using hard-copy based data to electronic data. In
addition, the

RIDOT is developing a Financial Management Information System (FMIS),
which will be tied to project tracking information.

MPO staff noted that, a

s with the cooperative revenue forecasting process, very close state
DOT-MPO cooperation makes the annual listing process "work."

## 

[]{#SCRCOG .anchor}**South Central Regional Council of Governments**

#### New Haven, Connecticut

# **Noteworthy Features**

# 

-   **MPO TIP includes annual project obligation information, including
    comparison to previous program year projects**

# 

# 

# 

# **The Annual Listing Process**

The Connecticut Department of Transportation (ConnDOT) takes the annual
obligation plan developed by the Bureau of Highways and submitted to
FHWA for each Federal Fiscal Year, combines it with the obligations for
FTA projects and converts it into Excel format and transmits it to the
MPOs/RPAs. The Bureau of Public Transportation provides FTA obligations.
The listing includes all FHWA and FTA funds but does not include
state-funded projects or projects funded by municipalities. The current
process has been in place for about 3-4 years, in response to TEA-21
requirements. The approach was developed by consensus between ConnDOT
and the various MPOs. The MPOs have indicated satisfaction with the
process.

The listing process is not formally documented. The TIP, which is
produced biennially, includes a section that discusses obligated
projects and compares them to previous TIPs. Discrepancies are noted,
along with reasons and proposed responses.

The MPO's annual listing is distributed via the TIP document to local
member governments, selected state agencies, and the public.

The agencies involved in the annual listing process are the MPO, who
prepares the listing as part of the TIP, the ConnDOT Bureau of Highways,
which prepares the list of obligated highway projects, the ConnDOT
Bureau of Public Transportation, which prepares a list of projects
obligated with FTA funds, and the ConnDOT Bureau of Planning, which
consolidates the list of obligated projects and transmit them to MPOs
and prepares the STIP.

## 

[]{#WFRC .anchor}**Wasatch Front Regional Council**

**Salt Lake City, Utah**

# **Noteworthy Features**

# 

# **Annual obligations listing used to track implementation of Urban STP and CMAQ projects in TIP**

-   **Established information-sharing process among MPO, DOT, and
    transit authority**

# 

# **The Annual Listing Process**

Each year, the Utah DOT (UDOT) prepares the Statewide TIP (STIP) with
funding allocations and distributes it to the MPOs. The Utah Transit
Authority (UTA) prepares a Status Report for the MPOs that details
actual obligations and discusses changes and/or needed revisions. UTA,
UDOT and the MPOs meet periodically to review current obligations of
projects and review status of available funds for future projects. The
TIP is a three-year process; therefore, the funding allocations cover
the current year plus two. The MPOs work with this database to prepare
their listings. UDOT, UTA and the MPOs meet periodically to review
current obligations of projects and review the status of available funds
for future projects.

At the end of each federal fiscal year, the Wasatch Front Regional
Council (WFRC) sends information about projects in the regional TIP to
UDOT and the UTA, both of which indicate how much funding was obligated
for each project. This process applies to federal funding obligations
only; they do not include state or local funded projects in their TIP.
The current practice has evolved over the past two years, after WFRC
noticed that such a listing was a requirement of TEA-21 and initiated
discussions with Utah DOT and UTA.

WFRC also prepares a list of obligated projects, which is generally
about three pages. It is presented and distributed to the Regional
Council members, who are generally chief elected officials. The list is
not published or disseminated to the public as a separate document, but
is available to anyone who requests it.

WFRC uses the obligations listing process to monitor implementation of
TIP projects for Urban STP and CMAQ project categories and to review
overall consistency with the TIP. WFRC concentrates on projects funded
with STP and CMAQ funds because the MPO has the most direct focus on and
control over these.

The agencies involved in the annual listing process are WFRC, which
compiles and publishes the annual listing, and the Utah Department of
Transportation and Utah Transit Authority, which share their records
concerning obligations of Federal Funds.

[^1]: The LHTAC is a statewide group that represents all non-MPO cities
    in Idaho over 5,000 in population in the transportation planning and
    programming process.

[^2]: The Transportation Advisory Committee is comprised of 25 members,
    including between six and eight planners from local jurisdictions as
    well as representatives of state agency technical staffs. Its main
    role in the revenue forecasting process is review and comment on
    staff-prepared analyses and forecasts.

[^3]: The MPO has a 15-member Policy Board, which includes local elected
    officials and representatives of state agencies.

[^4]: The Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) is comprised of 25
    members, including between six and eight planners from local
    jurisdictions as well as representatives of state agency technical
    staffs. Its main role in the revenue forecasting process is review
    and comment on staff-prepared analyses and forecasts.