Final
Briefing on TEA-21

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION & ENERGY

Votes:
Action Taken:
<none><none>




12:22 PM -- Briefing on the Transportation Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21)

Ms. Diane Koller, Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), Federal Liaison, and Mr. Jim Reed, Transportation Director, National Conference of State Legislature (NCSL), introduced themselves.

Ms. Diane Koller provided a handout (TEA-21 Reauthorization, March 31, 2005 - Attachment A). She provided the following background information on the surface transportation reauthorization, and noted that one of the primary differences between the U.S. Senate and House is the amount of money to be provided by the new act. She explained that the authorization sets the funding and policy level for a six-year period. She reviewed past authorizations, the Intermodal Surface Efficiency Transportation Act (ISTEA) and TEA-21. TEA-21 provided approximately 50 percent more funding from TEA-21 than ISTEA.

Colorado received the following from TEA-21:

• greater funding from formula allocation;
• 50 percent more federal funding (Colorado receives approximately $300 million annually);
• authorization for the Transportation Expansion Project; and
• full funding grant agreement of $525 million for transit.


Ms. Koller indicated that the projects are placed in the act in the House. The high priority projects with earmarked funds decrease the amount of money for the rest of the state. She reviewed high priority projects submitted for requests by CDOT, on page 16 of the handout.

12:23 PM

TEA-21 expired on September 30, 2003. CDOT has been working under extensions since that time, which means that while the TEA-21 funding levels continue, the funding is provided incrementally. Ms. Koller noted that this reduces the department's long-term planning. She noted that there have been five extensions of TEA-21 and the most current extension terminates in May 2005. Ms. Koller reviewed the bill status in the 108th Congress related to the reauthorization. The current administration introduced its bill at a $247 billion funding level. The Senate introduced its bill at $311; the House initially introduced a bill with a funding level of $375 billion -- indicating that the $375 was probably not feasible, but was the figure needed for transportation nationwide. In the 109th Congress, the House passed their bill on March 10, 2005 in the amount of $284 billion

Representative Larson asked whether the $284 billion figure reflects an increase or decrease in funding. She believes this figure is probably about the same amount of money received from TEA-21 ($218 billion), figuring in inflation. CDOT figures 5 percent inflation, as a rule of thumb, for inflation each year.

12:29 PM

Ms. Koller discussed TEA-21 terms -- "minimum guarantee" and "donor/donnee." She indicated that Colorado was currently a donor state, sending more money to Washington than it is returned to the state. She explained that there is a minimum guarantee of money returned to states -- 90.5 percent -- but it isn't truly a dollar per dollar ratio, it is a percent of a percent. CDOT believes that for every dollar Colorado sends to Washington, Colorado receives 63 cents in return. Colorado joined with other donor states -- Texas, Florida, and other western states -- to form a coalition to increase the next authorization's minimum guarantee percent to 95 percent. With the $284 billion dollar funding level, she explained that the 95 percent level couldn't be obtained across the board. The reason this level couldn't be received is because there are "off-the-top" reductions for transit, the operation of the federal Department of Transportation, and about 12 other programs. She estimated that if the minimum guarantee level was increased to 95 percent, Colorado might receive in the high 60s to 70 cents per dollar.
She then explained the term "scope".

12:37 PM

Ms. Koller indicated that funds earmarked by Congress, for specific projects in Colorado, reduces the state's formula moneys in the reauthorization. When Congress reduces the state's formula moneys, the moneys received by CDOT have been reduced and the Transportation Commission has less funding to allocate. Committee discussion continued. Representative McFadyen indicated that she was interested in learning about how the state's earmarks or projects are determined. Ms. Koller referred to page 15 of Attachment A, which listed the high priority projects submitted for request by CDOT, approved by the Transportation Commission, and submitted to Congress for high-priority projects. From U.S. 160 to U.S. 550 on the list, these projects are Seventh Pot Projects. The remaining projects were corridors that have risen through CDOT's planning process that are considered priorities.

12:37 PM

Representative Pommer indicated that there would be a brief recess.

12:40 PM

Committee resumed. Ms. Koller responded to committee questions regarding the difference between the state and federal procedures for earmarking moneys. Ms. Koller indicated that as Rep. Larson had noted, the federal earmarks may basically trump the state's planning process. She explained that CDOT tries to educate federal representatives about the state process for setting priority projects because the federal earmarks reduce the moneys that the state would use on its high priority projects. Ms. Koller responded to questions. She explained that the congressional representatives have every right to place priority projects into the process.


12:48 PM

Ms. Koller reviewed page 18 of Attachment A. The Transit Authorization requests included the completion of T-REX, the Denver Union Station, U.S. 36 Corridor, West Corridor, Roaring Fork Valley Bus Rapid Transit, East/I-225 Corridor, Gold Line, North Metro, I-23 North, I-70 Mountain Corridor, and I-25 High Occupancy Vehicle Colorado Springs. Rep. McFadyen asked when the last time Colorado legislators were asked to go to Washington, D.C., to lobby congress on state projects. Ms. Koller indicated that she doesn't know why legislators haven't lobbied Congress for projects on behalf of the state.


12:50 PM

Mr. Reed discussed the Senate and House version of the reauthorization act (SAFETEA or TEA-LU) and their overall funding, indicating that the $284 billion is 41 percent greater than TEA-21's appropriated $218 billion, but this percent doesn't take into consideration inflation, etc. He reviewed the House and Senate similarities on the reauthorization. The similarities included:

He continued to review the similarities of each house's act listed in Attachment B.

He noted that each bill has its own provision on the study of fuel tax alternatives for the Highway Transportation Fund (HTF) and for the promotion of public-private partnerships, with the House seeking a study and the Senate offering a pilot program. He responded to a question regarding the fuel tax revenues that are declining, reducing the moneys in the HTF. This is as a result of the more cost efficient automobiles and hybrids. Mr. Reed stated that alternative means of raising revenues have been proposed, such as taxing a motor vehicle in terms of the amount of vehicle-miles traveled. This may entail an on-board computer in vehicles to measure mileage.


12:57 PM

Mr. Reed responded to committee questions.

1:00 PM

Representative Pommer adjourned the meeting.