Draft Memorandum for the Record
Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization Unified Planning Work Program Committee Meeting Summary
March 26, 2020 Meeting
9:00 AM–9:45 AM, Zoom Videoconferencing Platform
Benjamin Muller, Chair, representing Stephanie Pollack, Secretary and Chief Executive Officer, Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT)
The Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization’s (MPO) Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) Committee agreed to the following:
Materials for this meeting included the following:
1. Meeting Summary for the February 27, 2020, UPWP Committee meeting
2. Meeting Summary for the March 5, 2020, UPWP Committee meeting
3. Text of Amendment One to the FFY 2020 UPWP
B. Muller welcomed committee members, read the accessibility statement, and called the roll.
There were none.
A motion to approve the summary was made by Eric Bourassa (Metropolitan Area Planning Council [MAPC]) and seconded by Steve Olanoff (Town of Westwood/Three Rivers Interlocal Council subregion alternate). The motion carried unanimously.
A motion to approve the summary was made by S. Olanoff and seconded by Daniel Amstutz (Town of Arlington/At-Large Town). The motion carried unanimously.
T. Teich explained the amendment to the FFY 2020 UPWP. The intent of the amendment is to fund the CTPS strategic planning effort, which sets the groundwork for the MPO Operations Plan, as recommended in the 2019 federal certification review. The amount of funding in the amendment is $120,000, funded by extended FFY 2019 FTA Section 5303 funds. The MPO had not fully expended these funds, so they remained available. The strategic plan is intended to be a six- to nine-month process. The plan is intended to focus on CTPS’ organizational health, as well as working with external stakeholders, and secure CTPS in its primary role as staff to the MPO. As part of the plan process, CTPS will establish a steering committee. The MPO Operations Plan, assessing roles and responsibilities, will follow on the CTPS Strategic Plan.
Brian Kane (Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority [MBTA] Advisory Board) asked about his perception that CTPS’ overhead rate is quite high, and wondered if the Strategic Plan would look at that. T. Teich responded that, in fact, CTPS’ overhead rate is lower than any consulting firm, and indeed lower than that of CTPS’ fiduciary agency, MAPC. When she worked in consulting, their overhead rate was closer to 150 percent, compared to CTPS’ 105 percent. E. Bourassa weighed in that MAPC’s rate is 121 percent, and reminded attendees that overhead includes everything that an organization needs, including benefits and rent. There was additional discussion, and T. Teich noted that regardless of overhead being high or low, reviewing the overhead rate is an important part of the strategic plan. B. Muller added that the CTPS overhead rate is one of the lowest among MPO staff in the Commonwealth.
T. Kadzis asked about the intention detailed in the text of the amendment to hire consultants to help carry out the plan. T. Teich responded that CTPS is seeking a firm with external perspective and expertise in internal development and planning. The state maintains a list of qualified vendors with this type of expertise. Len Diggins (Regional Transportation Advisory Council [Advisory Council]) asked if the Advisory Council is a federally mandated entity; T. Teich and Matt Archer (Advisory Council Manager) responded affirmatively. L. Diggins asked what the Advisory Council’s role in the strategic planning process would be. T. Teich said that while her response is speculative, CTPS staffs the Advisory Council similar to the MPO, and certainly the Advisory Council will be part of the process, and in particular part of the broader outreach process. Tom Bent (City of Somerville/Inner Core Committee) expressed his support for the effort and asked if any strategic planning had been done for CTPS in the past, since there had not been any that he could recall in his 10 years on the MPO. T. Teich said that in the 1990s, CTPS both engaged a consultant to ask staff what they appreciated about the organization and engaged the JFK Center to do a report, although the latter was not nearly as thorough or comprehensive as what is currently proposed. D. Amstutz expressed his support and asked when CTPS expects to start the process. T. Teich answered that CTPS had hoped to have made some progress already; a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) had been due on Friday, March 20, but because of the emergency situation, CTPS delayed the deadline to Friday, May 3. Following the RFQ deadline, CTPS will interview several consultants and select one. The process could possibly begin one to two months after selection.
There was discussion about the need of the UPWP Committee voting on this item. The Committee recommended the MPO vote the amendment out for public comment, without taking a formal vote, in accordance with prior discussions about amendment procedures.
S. Johnston gave an update on the study selection process for the FFY 2021 UPWP. He thanked the committee members and relevant staff for filling out their respective surveys on study concept priority, noting the improved response rate relative to past years. Staff had hoped to pull together materials and select a list of studies at this meeting, but were unable because of the emergency situation. However, staff have continued to analyze survey results, and are proposing a plan to hold the upcoming UPWP Committee meeting on April 2. There is no MPO meeting planned at that time, but one had been scheduled; the UPWP committee could meet in the MPO time slot at 10:00 AM and take its time to develop a list of studies—a process that can take longer than the one-hour time slot allocated to UPWP Committee meetings. S. Olanoff asked if committee members would be able to see survey results in advance, and S. Johnston responded that he would post them before the meeting. T. Bent asked if Somerville’s response to the survey had been counted, since it had been late in responding. S. Johnston replied that Somerville’s responses had been included. L. Diggins asked S. Johnston to block out 90 minutes, and he agreed.
There were none.
The next meeting will be held April 2, 2020, at 10:00 AM, per prior discussion under Item 6.
A motion to adjourn was made by E. Bourassa and seconded by several members. The motion carried unanimously.
|
Members |
Representatives
and
Alternates |
|
Massachusetts Department of Transportation (Office of Transportation
Planning) |
Ben Muller |
|
Metropolitan Area Planning Council |
Eric Bourassa |
|
Regional Transportation Advisory Council |
Lenard Diggins |
|
At-Large City (City of Newton) |
David Koses |
|
At-Large Town (Town of Arlington) |
Daniel Amstutz |
|
City of Boston (Boston Transportation
Department) |
Tom Kadzis |
|
Inner Core Committee (City of Somerville) |
Tom Bent |
|
MetroWest Regional Collaborative (City of
Framingham) |
Erika Jerram |
|
Three Rivers Interlocal
Council (Town of Norwood/Neponset Valley Chamber of Commerce) |
Tom O’Rourke |
|
Three Rivers Interlocal
Council alternate (Town of Westwood) |
Steve Olanoff |
|
City of Framingham (Metrowest Regional
Collaborative) |
|
|
Other
Attendees |
Affiliation |
|
Name |
Affiliation |
|
Jay Monty |
MPO Member, City of Everett |
|
Brian Kane |
MPO Member, MBTA Advisory Board |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MPO
Staff/Central Transportation Planning Staff |
|
Tegin Teich, Executive Director |
|
Annette Demchur, Director of Policy and
Planning |
|
Hiral Gandhi, Director of Operations and
Finance |
|
Sandy Johnston, UPWP Manager |
|
Matt Archer, Advisory Council Manager |
|
Róisín Foley,
Administrative and Communications Assistant |
|
The Boston Region
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) operates its programs, services, and
activities in compliance with federal nondiscrimination laws including Title
VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI), the Civil Rights Restoration
Act of 1987, and related statutes and regulations. Title VI prohibits
discrimination in federally assisted programs and requires that no person in
the United States of America shall, on the grounds of race, color, or
national origin (including limited English proficiency), be excluded from
participation in, denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to
discrimination under any program or activity that receives federal
assistance. Related federal nondiscrimination laws administered by the
Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration, or both,
prohibit discrimination on the basis of age, sex, and disability. The Boston
Region MPO considers these protected populations in its Title VI Programs,
consistent with federal interpretation and administration. In addition, the
Boston Region MPO provides meaningful access to its programs, services, and
activities to individuals with limited English proficiency, in compliance
with U.S. Department of Transportation policy and guidance on federal
Executive Order 13166. The Boston Region MPO also
complies with the Massachusetts Public Accommodation Law, M.G.L. c 272
sections 92a, 98, 98a, which prohibits making any distinction,
discrimination, or restriction in admission to, or treatment in a place of
public accommodation based on race, color, religious creed, national origin,
sex, sexual orientation, disability, or ancestry. Likewise,
the Boston Region MPO complies with the Governor's Executive Order 526,
section 4, which requires that all programs, activities, and services
provided, performed, licensed, chartered, funded, regulated, or contracted
for by the state shall be conducted without unlawful discrimination based on
race, color, age, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity or
expression, religion, creed, ancestry, national origin, disability, veteran's
status (including Vietnam-era veterans), or background. A complaint form and
additional information can be obtained by contacting
the MPO or at http://www.bostonmpo.org/mpo_non_discrimination. To request this
information in a different language or in an accessible format, please
contact Title VI Specialist |