AMPO Survey Results: Institutional Survey

AMPO conducted this survey during the spring of 2004. It was distributed to all MPOs and received 80 responses. The survey is intended to provide general information that will assist new MPOs in their formation and development. The questions are based on our new colleagues’ most frequently asked questions, as well as other issues fundamental to operating an MPO. Below are the full results to the survey; contact Michael Montag () with any questions or requests for more detailed analysis. These results can be viewed, along with the results of all AMPO Surveys, at:

1. Are your full time staff employed by:

Other:

  • Association of Governments
  • Both City & County
  • City/County Planning Commission (jointly funded, free standing)
  • COG Employed by MPO Policy Committee but included in Fiscal Agents (city) pay schedule/benefits package
  • Exec. Dir by county; others by city federal compact planning agency
  • Metro Planning Commission
  • Regional Council, City and County
  • Transit Authority is legal "host"
  • Unified government

Breakdown by MPO size (percentages):

2. Where is your MPO housed?

Other:

  • Association of Governments
  • City/county planning commission
  • COG
  • Federal compact planning agency
  • Independent but located in the city county building
  • Independent but with support services from our largest city (serving as our paid host)
  • Metro Planning Commission
  • Planning Dept.
  • Rent space in two City Halls
  • State Dept. of Administration

Breakdown by MPO size (percentages):

3. Is your MPO insured by:

Other:

  • Association of Governments
  • California Joint Powers Insurance Authority
  • City/county planning commission
  • Federal compact planning agency
  • Health insurance provided through city, paid for by MPO, No liability insurance
  • Highway/airport authority
  • Jacksonville Transportation Authority
  • Member of a municipal pool
  • Private
  • Purchased a business insurance policy from local agency
  • Regional Insurance Trust
  • Regional Risk Management Pool
  • State
  • The MPO contributes to an insurance polity that MAPC purchases for both itself and for the MPO.
  • Transit Authority is legal "host"
  • Unified government

Breakdown by MPO size (percentages):

4. What is your MPO's tax status?

Non-Profit

  • 501c(3): 2
  • 501c(4): 3
  • 501c(6): 1
  • Not specified: 6

Exempt

  • Government: 26
  • Not specified: 25
5. How many Full Time Employees (FTE) does your MPO have?

Mean: 12.6

Median: 5.5

6. What is your UZA population?

Mean: 980,335

Median: 208,000

7. How much PL funding does your MPO receive each year?

Mean: $924,693

Median: $302,000

8. How much 5303 funding does your MPO receive each year?

Mean: $264,156

Median: $62,110

9. How do you derive your local match?

Other:

  • 75% State IKS, 25% from local contract contributions
  • Assessment of members
  • Both state & local contributions, transit authority contributions as well
  • County
  • County transportation commissions and other agencies
  • In-kind (2)
  • In-kind services from state and local agencies
  • Local Dues + $30K/year state appropriation
  • Local with some state match
  • Regional funds
  • State, local, tpke authority, transit org's
  • Toll revenue credits from state
10. Please describe:
  • State provides all local match to PL (20%) in the form of in-kind services -State provides 1/2 local match to FTA 5303 (10%) the remaining 1/2 local match (10%) is provided equally by Manatee and SarasotaCounties (Sarasota/Manatee MPO)
  • 3 participating road agencies contribute proportional share based on population (Battle Creek Area Transportation Study)
  • All of the match is provided by Lead Planning Agency - City government. (French Broad River MPO)
  • Annual dues paid by local units of government within the planning area. (La Crosse Area Planning Committee)
  • Based on % of pop in each jurisdiction (Calhoun Area MPO)
  • CA TDA and agency general funds (Tahoe Metropolitan Planning Organization)
  • City and county dues and in-kind contributions (Association of Central Oklahoma Governments)
  • City and County each pay 1/2 of 9.51% local match (Cheyenne MPO)
  • City general fund (Huntsville Area Transportation Study)
  • City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation - Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority - Orange County Transportation Authority - Ventura County Transportation Commission (Southern California Association of Governments)
  • City provides local match for 5303 (Brownsville)
  • City provides local match for Section 5303 (Ocala/Marion County)
  • City, county, state, transit authority depending on project (Corpus Christi MPO)
  • Currently the State picks up the required match. The State is, however, in the process of gradually shifting the required match to the MPOs. (Corvallis Area MPO)
  • Each city and county member of INRCOG pay dues based on their population. The dues are used for the local match requirement. (Black Hawk Metropolitan Area Transportation Policy Board)
  • Each municipality pays according to population distribution (High Point Urban Area MPO)
  • Each of the jurisdictions provide the 20% match to the 80% federal PL, CMAQ, SPR,5303 or STP funds allocated through the unified planning work program. (EvansvilleUrban Transportation Study)
  • For PL, the local match is soft match in the form of toll revenue credits granted to the MPO by the State of Florida. For 5303, local match is local funding provided to the MPO on a per capita basis, using the most current population estimate. (Pensacola, Okaloosa-Walton & Panama City)
  • From member jurisdictions (Puget Sound Regional Council)
  • Funds that support the Metro Planning Commission from local government are used as local match for federal grants (Knoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization, Jeff Welch)
  • In kind by state (Sherman - Denison)
  • In-kind (SJTPO)
  • In-kind services provided. City covers salaries of most staff positions, providing a basis for this. (Greensboro Urban Area MPO)
  • Local match is derived from each individual jurisdictional entity's local funding allocation. (South Eastern Council of Governments)
  • Local match provided under regional service agreement; some state funding used for match in specific program areas. (Bloomington-Normal, Illinois (McLeanCounty))
  • Local member governments provide match from dues. State of Kentucky provides 25% of non-federal matching share for PL funds (Kentuckiana Regional Planning & Development Agency)
  • Match Federal CPG (combined PL and 5303) with 20% local match based on per vote share of the municipalities in the Planning Boundary (Dixie MPO)
  • Match for AR funding is 20% in cash by city. Match for TX funding is by in-kind match from state at 20% statewide. (Texarkana MPO)
  • Member entities (local governments) provide match in their respective budgeting process (Macon County Regional Planning Commission Member local governments pay 25 cents per capita population. All authorities pay approx. $14,000 per year. (First Coast MPO)
  • Membership assessment (Thurston Regional Planning Council)
  • Most match come from the local but one of our two states provides state funds that are used as match (GF-EGF MPO)
  • New YorkState provides 3/4 of non-federal share (15% of total work) as part of its primary contracts with FHWA and FTA. Third party contract between NYSDOT and the transit authority (on behalf of the MPO) includes only the 85% balance. For every $80 in federal funding in the third party contract, CDTC provides $5 in locally-funded activity. CDTC has more than ample contractual work with localities to support the local match requirement. (Capital District Transportation Committee)
  • Non-Federal share is 75% State, 25% local; both delivered as in-kind services, not cash (Binghamton Metropolitan Transportation Study)
  • ODOT provides cash match for PL. Transit District provides in-kind match for 5303. (Lane Council of Governments)
  • phones and internet/email connections provided by DelDOT, participation in MPO projects by local government staff and DelDOT staff (Dover/Kent County MPO)
  • PL - State 100% of match Section 5303 - State: 61% of match; Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority: 24% of match; Metropolitan Area Planning Council: 15% of match. (Boston)
  • PL matched by state with "soft" match (Palm Beach MPO, Randy Whitfield)
  • Prorated among 4 member entities (3 cities, 1 county) based on population (Farmington MPO)
  • Smaller municipalities do not contribute to match. (Chatham Urban Transportation Study (Savannah))
  • State 10%, local 10%. Some funds passed through to transit authority which matches 10% and some to the planning commission which has matched 20%, but we hope this year it will be 10% (CCMPO)
  • State and local in-kind contributions - office space, parking pass (Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council)
  • State appropriation is $30/K per year for all regional planning organizations (MPOs and PDDs). Local dues are assessed on a per capita basis using the most recent decennial census. Currently at 85¢ per capita per annum. (Metroplan)
  • State contributes match requirement on behalf of local governments. (Laredo)
  • State DOT provides non-federal match by providing in-kind services to the MPOs. (Capital Area MPO)
  • State provides match for MPO staff and locals provide match for pass through to locals. (NYMTC(New York Metropolitan Transportation Council))
  • The City picks up entire match with local funds from the General Fund of the City. (Rockford Area Transportation Study)
  • The MPO is the City Of Lincoln (Lincoln MPO)
  • The State DOT provides in-kind match and local agencies provide both in-kind and cash match in varying amounts on each project. On the entire UPWP, the State provides 15% of the match and the local agencies provide the remaining 5%. (Genesee Transportation Council)
  • The State provides the local match for all MPOs in Texas. It is an in-kind match that is provided through assistance from the District Office's in each area. (San Antonio-Bexar County MPO)
  • The study area is now the same as the MSA boundary...dues are from local governments based on 55 cents/capita for those with professional planning staffs, and 89 cents/capita for those without staffs. We do receive $28,000 in general funds from the state legislature (not the state Dept. of Trans.). (Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning Commission
  • The Unified Government of Athens-Clarke County pays the local match since we are employed by them and at their disposal more so than the other counties we serve. (Madison Athens-Clarke Oconee Regional Transportation Study (MACORTS))
  • Two counties in MPO provide PL match. Transit Agency matches 5303 planning funds. Some state match is available for 5303. (Greenville Area Transportation Study)
  • TxDOT provides local match for our PL funding (San Antonio - Bexar County MPO)
  • We apply a portion of state regional transportation planning funds as match to federal aid "in lieu of" their membership dues and for mutually agreed upon priority projects (Tri-County Regional Planning Commission)
  • We bill the Colorado Dept. of Transportation for their 80% and our local membership for their 20% (broken down to the member governments by population for their share of the local match) (North Front Range MPO)
  • We have principally received these funds from the time contributed by our larger cities and MaricopaCounty. $919,226 (Maricopa Association of Governments)
  • We use a formula based on the motor fuel tax collected by each of the 12 communities to calculate the percentage of the match each unit of government must provide. (Peoria/Pekin Urbanized Area Transportation Study)
  • We utilize the value of locally-funded planning studies as in-kind local match for the UPWP. This requires written agreement from the sponsoring local governments, and documentation of their actual expenditures to guarantee that the local expenditures have been made. (Mid-America Regional Council)
11. Does your MPO have a source of funding other than PL/5303?
12. Is it:

Other:

  • Capital Funds (STP, CMAQ), planning services to localities under contract; excess local cash match provided in support of consultant studies.
  • CMAQ or STP
  • Federal
  • Federal
  • Federal STP
  • Fees for service
  • FHWA/MassHighway SPR, MBTA, other
  • FTA
  • FTA 5307
  • grants and contracts
  • Not sure
  • Other FHWA, state and local
  • Project sponsor contributions & STP
  • RSTP
  • SPR or STP for projects (occasionally)
  • State & Local match
  • State and Federal
  • State and local
  • State and Local
  • State and Local
  • State, local, transit agencies, port authorities
  • STP Attributable
  • STP Metro
  • We sometimes also receive SP&R funds as a pass through, and supplement with other grant money or pass through funding as it is available
13. Please describe:

$1,218,900 - MassHighway SPR; $830,400 MBTA; $68,300 Other (Massport, USDOTVolpeCenter, City of Somerville) (Boston)

-State Transportation Disadvantaged Commission -Local funds for lobbying and other activities (Sarasota/Manatee MPO)

A portion of STP funds may be used for project planning but it does not support the MPO operation. (Dixie MPO)

A portion of the Federal STP funds are used planning programming and monitoring (Kern Council of Government)

a small amount of FTA 5307 funds for transit planning (PACTS)

Additional funding is provided by county and municipalities under regional service agreement; GIS program funding is provided by consortium participants (county, municipalities, township, E-911, etc.) under terms of separate agreement. (Bloomington-Normal, Illinois (McLeanCounty))

Annual grant from the Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged. (First Coast MPO)

As a Planning Commission, we receive funding from the three counties that are our governing board, we solicit grants from various state agencies(Dept. of Natural Resources, IEPA, etc), and provide services for local units of government on a contractual basis. (Peoria/Pekin Urbanized Area Transportation Study)

As described above. CDTC provides project development support (traffic forecasts, diversion analysis, etc.) to NYSDOT using STP funds. CDTC provides local planning assistance (site development review, mitigation fee calculations) under contract to municipalities. Also, CDTC requires local cash contributions equal to 25% of the face value of PL-funded consultant studies in local areas. (Capital District Transportation Committee)

City general fund (Huntsville Area Transportation Study)

Demonstration grants (Palm Beach MPO)

Economic Development Administration (Rhode IslandState Planning Council)

Examples include federal TSCP funds, state non-motorized training funds, pass through 5309 funds from the transit property, SP&R funds for safety conscious planning efforts (Tri-County Regional Planning Commission--LansingMI)

Federal = State Planning and Research (SPR) - is a federal grant award from FHWA to the Arizona Depart. Transportation in the form of a two percent set-aside from a variety of other programs. ADOT may pass-through a portion of the award to any of the state's MPOs in any given year. Surface Transportation Program (STP) - a federal grant award allocated to each state by FHWA. Annual federal legislation sub-allocates by formula the STP funds to the MPOs in the State of AZ. These funds are used for construction projects and regional planning efforts. Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) - a federal grant allocated to each state by FHWA. The use of CMAQ funds is restricted to non-attainment and maintenance areas for projects related to carbon monoxide, ozone and PM-10. Local Funding = Due and assessment paid my member agencies. (Maricopa Association of Governments)

FHWA SP&R Partnership Planning - 7/1/03 - $385,000 BA1 - $712,109 FTA 5313 (b) - 7/1/03 - $880,088 BA1 - $1,203,973 Federal Other - 7/1/03 - $5,505,357 BA1 - $6,892,879 TDA - 7/1/03 - $1,000,000 State - 7/1/03 - $378,266 BA1 - $460,216 (Southern California Association of Governments)

FTA 5313(b) (Oahu Metropolitan Planning Organization)

Grants and contracts (Thurston Regional Planning Council)

Have received approval to use STP attributable funds for some special studies. (Chatham Urban Transportation Study (Savannah))

Illinois allows discretionary funds to be spent by MPO's from Special Planning & Research (SPR) as well as a State funded program called Illinois Tomorrow. (Rockford Area Transportation Study)

Local dues generate approximately 1/3 of total budget. Also generate modest earned income from investments and sales of reports and materials. (Metroplan)

Local entities pick up the difference between PL/5303 and actual costs. PL and 5303 account for about 1/3 of the MPO's basic operating costs, and I expect that percentage to go down. NMDOT has provided some one-time financial assistance through their SPR funds for the transportation model development. (Farmington MPO)

Local match is derived from local funding allocation, including but not limited to annual membership dues. (South Eastern Council of Governments)

Member entities of the RPC provide additional funds for various planning activities and purposes (Macon County Regional Planning Commission)

Most overhead expenses are covered by the City. The MPO does not pay rent, purchase vehicles, etc. (Laredo)

MPO is housed at COG - COG has urban transit grant - MPO does planning and grant management for the urban transit grant (5307) (Sherman - Denison)

One time funding made available by AHTD through State Planning Resource funds. General Transportation Planning Funds (GTPF) available from TxDOT by request with justification. GTPF monies are PL funds that have not been spent by individual MPOs after first two years of availability. (Texarkana MPO)

PL funds supplemented by some measure of City funds for certain studies, though these tend to be more city oriented in nature (i.e. pedestrian crossing treatment development. STP DA funds directed for projects & planning purposes. (Greensboro Urban Area MPO)

Primarily fees for data services (Association of Central Oklahoma Governments)

Public Lands highways (Tahoe Metropolitan Planning Organization)

Regional Surface Transportation Program (Tri-Cities Area)

SPR from State for a statewide transportation planning initiative aimed at local governments; STP is from a congressional earmark in TEA-21 for a specific study. (Berkshire Metropolitan Planning Organization)