August
17, 2005
Transportation Committee Meeting Minutes
Attendees
David Ardman, Barton & Loguidice, PC
John Armstrong, Corning Incorporated
Wayne Bonesteel, Erdman Anthony & Associates
Chris Cernik, Greenberg Traurig, LLP
Peter Cohen, Amtrak
Sid David, Northrop Grumman Corporation
Terry Everetts, Dresser Rand Company
John Griffin, Griffin Plummer & Associates, LLP
Robert Grossman, Genesee & Wyoming, Inc.
Al Haugen, NYS Association of Counties
Jessica Hulsman, Northeast Solite Corporation
Frank McEnvoy, Frank McEnvoy Associates
Tom Minnick, The Business Council of New York State, Inc.
Steve Morgan, Featherstonhaugh, Wiley, Clyne & Cordo
Norman Schneider, Griffin Plummer & Associates-Railroads of NY, Inc.
Don Smith, Urban Engineers of New York
Steve Stallmer, Associated General Contractors of America
Meeting Notes
August 17, 2005
2:00 - 4:00 PM
Call to Order & Welcome
John Armstrong, Corning, Inc., Committee Chairman
John called the meeting to order shortly after 2 PM. The purpose
of the meeting was to discuss the Memorandum of Understanding regarding
the five year transportation capital plan and the transportation
bond act which will be presented to the voters in November 2005.
Also, a review of the federal transportation bill recently signed
by the President.
Transportation Bond Act strategy session
Steve Morgan reported on a meeting that he attended in NYC just
yesterday with Assemblyman Brodsky and Senator Libous and others
to discuss a strategy to get the word out for support of the bond
act vote in November. While focusing on the MTA region, interests
from both up and downstate must come together and conduct a successful
campaign. Within a week to ten days, key personnel will be selected,
committees formed and a campaign manager named. By Labor Day a
full campaign will be underway. So far, the state AG and Comptroller
are supporting the bond act as well as the state AFL-CIO and Mayor
Bloomberg.
He then reviewed reasons why the 2000 bond vote failed and the
lessons learned that must be applied to the upcoming campaign.
He noted that of all the voters who came out to vote in the 2000
election, only half voted for or against the bond proposition.
This lack of interest is a main target of this year's campaign.
This is a grassroots effort to inform the voters of the necessity
of the bond. It is hoped that organizations such as The Business
Council will use their membership resources to get the word out
in support of the proposition. It is unlikely that large sums of
money will be spent on last minute print, television and radio
advertising. Word of mouth grassroots connections, utilizing the
resources of the internet and email should reach many more potential
voters.
Steve will keep The Business Council informed on the development
of the campaign and The Business Council will pass along the information
to the Transportation Committee members.
Discussion of the Memo of Understanding
The meeting packet contained several items related to the bond
act and they were reviewed prior to the memo itself. A Business
Council News Release from October 2000 announced the Council's
support for the 2000 Bond Act but expressed concern about the state's
high level of debt. This is still a BC concern. A financial snapshot
compared related areas from 2000 and 2005. The bond in 2000 was
$3.8 billion while in 2005 will be $2.9 billion. State debt was
$36.4 billion in 2000 while in 2005 is $47.5 billion, an increase
of 31%. Debt as a percentage of personal income is also up 22%
since 2000 while the state's overall budget is up from $77.5 billion
to $106.5 billion. Several of the meeting attendees expressed concern
about continued high state debt and spending but supported the
upcoming bond because it is an important part of overall infrastructure
improvement along with the 5 year capital plan and the recently
passed federal transportation bill.
A copy of the actual November Bond proposition wording was included
in the packet as was the July 13th press release from
the Governor announcing agreement on the five year transportation
plan.
A breakout of the 5 year plan and the bond components was reviewed.
Of the $17.9 billion of non- MTA funding, the bond will address
a total of $1.45 billion. The breakout follows:
| |
Total |
Bond |
| State Highway & Bridge Projects |
$17.3b |
$1.139b |
| Non-MTA Systems |
$235m |
$50 m |
| Rail & Port Facilities |
$235m |
$135m |
| Aviation |
$116m |
$76m |
| Canal Corridor |
$50 |
$50 |
| Total |
$17.936b |
$1.450b |
The MOU itself was then discussed with the following points highlighted:
- if the MTA capital plan changes, parity will require amendment
of the MOU
- the NYS DOT Master Plan is due out in 2005
- detailed Priority Result Area performance reports are required
throughout the 5 year agreement period
- there is a set Table of Condition goals
- Regions are defined plus projects of statewide significance
- a prevailing wage requirement is included in the document
- Rails and Ports are covered in Apps. C & D
- Aviation is covered in Apps. E & F
- Non-MTA Transit is covered in Apps. G & H
- Canal programs are covered in Apps. I & J
- MTA projects and purchases are covered in App. K
- Multimodel programs to be determined by the Governor and the
Leaders are covered in Section 8.
The MOU, 5 year and bond project lists are all posted on The Business
Council's Transportation Committee web page.
Discussion of the recently signed federal transportation
bill - the Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation
Equity Act of 2005
Steve Stallmer of Associated General Contractors led the group
in a discussion of this long overdue (2 years) piece of renewed
legislation. Using the rate of return sheet contained in the packet,
Steve pointed out that:
- New York's average annual funding change is 19%, the lowest
percentage allowable while the average percentage of all 50 states
is 30.32%. Some neighboring states were also well below average:
Connecticut at 19%; Massachusetts at 19.53%; New Hampshire at
19%; New Jersey at 29.71%; Rhode Island at 23.09%; Vermont was
above average at 39.4%.
- Under the expired bill, New York received $1.415 billion per
year while under the new bill, we will receive$1.683 billion
or about $269 billion per year more or a total of over a billion
more over the new 5 year period.
- Regarding the rate of return from New York, which is the percentage
of $ returned to us by the feds over the amount we send to Washington,
we see a declining return. For fiscal year 2003, it stood at
124.88% , declining to 123.77% in FY 2004. For the next 5 fiscal
years, the declining percentages are 114.04%, 115.68%, 112.21%,
109.79% and 109.61%.
- It is obvious that states in the South and West made out significantly
better than New York State.
- One interesting political issue that emerged involved "earmarks." These
are projects contained in the bill designated by elected officials
, rather than by the states' transportation departments, for
funding through the federal transportation bill. Apparently,
it was assumed that the funds for "earmarks" were over and above
the published allocation for each state. This is not the case
and is causing concern among some elected officials. Steve will
send a list of "earmarks" and it will be posted for Business
Council members on the Transportation Committee's web site.
The federal transportation bill is also posted on the Transportation
Committee's web page.
Other Issues
A suggestion was made that The Business Council consider sponsoring
a transportation issues conference next spring and comments from
the group were sought. It was generally thought to be a good idea
especially since a number of attendees felt that transportation
infrastructure has been shortchanged for years in NYS. The idea
of raising the visibility of important transportation issues in
NYS appealed to the group. Most in the room pledged solid support
for Business Council efforts to move forward with an event.
The meeting adjourned shortly before 4 PM.
Please contact Tom Minnick at tom.minnick@bcnys.org or
518-465-7511 for meeting questions or further information.
