RAC Region 3 Breakout Meeting Agenda
Seattle, WA August 8, 2007 1:30 – 5:00 pm
Participants: Roll Call
David Lippert – Illinois DOT
Monique Evans – Ohio DOT
Debra Elston – FHWA, Turner Fairbank
Heidi Liske – FHWA, Illinois Division
Doug Rice – Youngstown State UTC
Dick McReynolds – Kansas DOT
Barry Partridge – Indiana DOT
Tommy Nantung – Indiana DOT
Ann Pahnke – Wisconsin DOT
Nikki Hatch – Wisconsin DOT
Cory Johnson – Minnesota DOT
Mara Campbell – Missouri
Sandra Larson – Iowa DOT
Mark Sandifer – FHWA, Resource Center
1. Introductions (all, 10 min)
Opened the meeting with introductions all around. Sandra mentioned some house keeping items and about the region dinner tonight.
2. Integration of UTC centers in DOT research programs; how is it working? (all, 15 min)
Kansas - stated that it was going well. KUTRI has sent KDOT their proposal for peer review and the reviewers have not returned them as completely as he would have liked. They are matching on program and not project to project.
Indiana – first year to have a UTC and they are starting to work closely with them. Barry had a question on basic research for a UTC and Debra explained the difference between basic and advance research.
Missouri – struggling. Their UTCC center is a large one with a UTC Director turn over. They will be trying to work with them on fulfilling their obligations. Has checked with RITA on how to proceed.
Wisconsin – their UTC has a strategic plan submitted but not approved. They have no project as of this time but expect some soon.
Ohio – has 4 Tier II UTC and all are at different levels. Each one works differently. One has strong industry partners and has more match than they need. Two centers are in early stages of working on partnerships. One is holding their own as a stand alone.
Iowa – Iowa State UTC is fairly well integrated.
Minnesota – has fairly good integrated. They have one UTC and have a good relationship with DOT and UTC.
Illinois – same comments as Indiana. They don’t hear much from them. Spoke on a specific mine problem have and the UTC showed up.
The matching to the UTC is a myth buster and there is only one UTC in the state.
Questions were raised rhetorically on what is our and what is RITA responsibility?
3. CUTC Annual Meeting Highlights (Shashi Nambisan, CTRE, Iowa State University, 15 min)
No report was available because Shashi was not present.
4. Discuss STEP Federal Register comments opportunity (all, 10 min)
Do it if you want to. Wes really wants you to turn in your comments. Please have your comments in by August 24.
5. Pooled fund project funding discussion; new guidelines, processes and actions needed (all + Bill Zaccagnino, NazhatAboobaker, 30 min)
Bill spoke on pooled funds and the FHWA and contacted the Divisions about deobligations for this year’s fund. Bill gave a drop dead deadline of August 15. FHWA ask to provide the transfer memo of the funds. He asked for obligation from the states for just this year’s fund. Each state is subject to the limitation obligation. If you deobligate there would be no guarantee you could get the funds back. These are for only the projects that have been reconciled. This is based on the contact agreement and how much money is on the contract. Bill wants comments. The comments he receives will be forwarded to the financial office. Sandra wants to make sure you understand what you have to do. Sandra said it was very beneficial for her to meet with her FHWA Division office. If you don’t understand something feel free to contact Bill and Nazhat and cc Leni. Leni’s list doesn’t agree with Nazhat’s list. A select number of FHWA-led projects were on Nazhat’s list. Pay attention to Nazhat’s list. It’s not necessary for every state to de-obligate all of its funds from these projects and then transfer them because they can still spend down funds from the original funding codes. They only want us to focus on the money that’s needed for this FY, not future FYs. No need for every state to de-obligate a pro-rata portion to ensure the correct balance is in the fund. August 15 was the requested deadline for the transfer memo. This isn’t a really critical deadline.
New state led projects will use a transfer form to transfer the money from contributing states (and the obligation authority) to the lead states. FMIS will NOT keep track of where the money came from!!!! We should be able to upload this information into the TPF website. Need a mechanism to do this. The lead agency is required under the new process to track these contributions. Once money goes into the system it loses its original identity. Its now just funds in a big pot; not OH, IN etc. Would be helpful to see sample forms, reports etc.
States that have a problem with hand-billing may also want to de-obligate and transfer funds on state-led projects, but this effort should be coordinated with the participating states.
Send comments to Bill Z, Nazhat, cc Leni and Dick McReynolds.
6. Discuss challenges each state has with soliciting research ideas (all, 15 min)
Due to time constraint this topic was passed over.
7. Task Group Discussion, short report from all on their task group initiatives (all, 30 min)
Education and Training – Nikki Hatch, Had three recommendations for the RAC 101. 1) Have a welcome wagon for new employees. 2) Mentors for new membership people. (Deb Elston has a lot of information that she can share with Gary Frederick.) 3) Coordinate common knowledge management networks. Continue to develop RAC 101 develop education briefs/FAQ sheets on key topics and include in welcome packet for new members.
Coordination and Collaboration, Cory Johnson, Do a bubble chart of funding similar to the funding chart Leni developed while on assignment at TFHRC
Research. RIP database and all the states that updated their reports except Iowa. Debra spoke on the e-newsletter on Technology talks out of her office. Research Needs: Develop a standard that search engines could use to identify common terms.
Value of Research, Mara Campbell, They discussed a proto type template of all you need for information and how to market it and package it and have it ready for TRB 2008. Proto type will be members of committee. Bob Skinner gave a view of the cliff we will be falling off of for the funding that is there. Their group developed mission statement. They have monthly conference calls
Developing a template of information needed to show value of research and secondly how to package and market it. They will work with TRB CoR and NCHRP project on Value of Research on this.
Program Management and Quality, Dick McReynolds, Task group members redid their mission statement. They will look at management systems and what they recommend to enhancements. They are providing input into focus areas for International Scan on Research Management. Goals provided on SCOR/RAC strategic planning list were combined into four categories: 1. Balance between types and categories of projects; 2. Administrative processes for state RDT research programs including tools, software; 3. national research program coordination, strategic needs, priorities, roles of SCOR/RAC; and 4. CRP procedures and funds for management tools administrative costs, etc. They plan to decide on work tasks idea to pursue under each goal area soon. Will have monthly conference calls – may eventually become quarterly.
Peer Exchange. Tommy Nantung, Tommy reported peer exchange only with four states in the meeting. A few states do not do peer exchange because they can’t reimburse participants. Exploring pool funds study with SPR funds. Rather than peer exchange do comparative study. Fill out a survey to identify alternative for peer exchange. Meet every two or three months by teleconference. Peer exchanges have to be done periodically. That leaves it open for compliance. Requests to have training for peer exchanges and they propose to put it in RAC 101. RAC III recommends the committee revisit the guidance set by states on frequency of peer exchange. Bill Z. said there is a waiver for conducting peer exchanges; no one is checking the states for compliance, especially when a state’s division offices want to participate.
Review the guidance that was developed for interpreting the “periodic” requirement. Some states proposed teleconference for peer exchanges.
Want to identify alternatives and best practices for peer exchanges
Administration, Dave Lippert, All the task groups have been named in the by-laws. Need to revisit and reference them and not get into specifics. RAC website- the committee will put out a survey and ask what the issues are. What should and shouldn’t be on it. Survey should be out this fall. RAC By-laws: How does TKN fit into the by-laws? So they need to be listed in the by-laws? Skip Paul is going to be working on this.
Funding, Monique Evans, Monique identifies key areas on recommendation for re authorization. Five things – status quo, identification of unmet need, sustainability of SPR, success stories of SPR and other programs elements that research should review.
8. Informal state verbal report on each states’ new research initiatives (all, 5 min each, 40 min)
Mara gave a brief summary on her handout “TRACKER” They way they handle dissemination of information is through tech sheets.
Monique gave a description of research project reference guide. They update it every year. It captures their program.
Dick talked about KTRAN and ad hoc research program handouts.
Dave passed out his research report and said if you have any questions to call him.
Ann passed out her 2006 WisDOT Research Program Annual report and briefly went through it.
Tommy needs four more states to join pool funds study on permeability of concrete. They have five states already and need four more.
9. Review of bi-monthly conference calls (what's working and what needs work) (all, 10 min)
How are by monthly call going? There were no comments. Phyllis sent out new call in phone numbers. Rotating agenda. Monique will be sending out items for agenda.
10.Regional Bylaws Update Discussion, led by Dick McReynolds (all, 10 min)
Dick passed out the Region 3 bylaws with proposed changes that conflict new national bylaws for discussion. Discussion followed about whether the regional bylaws are duplicating the national bylaws. Should each region have bylaws? Consensus recommendation was to do away with all regional bylaws and incorporate any regional related language needs into the national bylaws.
11.Discuss MN DOT Research Road Map, and other similar state initiatives (all, 10 min)
Cory discussed the desktop researches. He stated he has had good success so far.
12. Other Business
Mara said she was having trouble receiving emails from the RAC national listserv and did not receive some solicitations. Not everyone knows to send it to Chris Hedges to get it posted to the website.
David Lippert will be stepping down as a representative of Region III.
Meeting adjourned at 5:10pm