Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
MTPO staff warns of UPWP funding uncertainty, outlines lean two‑year budget
Summary
Staff reported state changes to deobligated funds could reduce PL allocations in the MTPO’s upcoming two‑year UPWP cycle and presented a tightened budget with an added independent audit line and possible negative gap if federal closeout funds are not returned.
Staff updated the board on the two‑year Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and said state changes to deobligated/closeout funds create uncertainty about whether previously available funds will be returned.
The board had adopted a sixth amendment to the current UPWP; staff reported the original obligation amount and the amounts retained, then outlined a proposed FY26–28 UPWP that maintained existing tasks but added an independent annual audit line (estimated in the packet at $50,000). Staffing and administration account for a large share of PL funds in staff’s draft; the presented worksheet shows administration (three FTEs and related fringe) and a set of planning tasks (LRTP, TIP, public participation, systems planning) that together produced a potential shortfall if the state does not return deobligated closeout funds.
Staff highlighted that the local match on year‑one funding currently stands at $24,000 and that the state’s soft match of 18.07% applies across PL and complete streets funds. If the expected closeout funds are not returned, staff said they would need to consider earlier conversations about local assessments and possibly pare back consultant studies and certain projects.
Staff also noted timeline constraints: the MTPO’s new UPWP must align with federal review (FTA/FHWA comments were pending in the packet) and the board’s new UPWP period begins July 1. Members asked for a work session and interactive spreadsheet review to model alternatives; staff said the Excel files are interactive and available for that purpose.
Next steps: staff will monitor state/federal reviews, prepare scenario analyses showing impacts of different funding outcomes, and schedule follow‑up discussion about local assessments or scope reductions if required.
