Meeting Minutes

January 26, 2005




Geoff Bornemann, City of Saratoga Springs (Vice-Chairman)

Frank Commisso, Albany Port District Commission

Steve Feeney, Schenectady County

Mike Franchini, Albany County (Chairman)

Fred Howard, Rensselaer County

Steve Iachetta, Albany County Airport Authority

Barbara McHugh, Town of Clifton Park

Bruce Hidley, City of Watervliet

Phil Pearson, Town of Colonie

Marybeth Pettit, City of Rensselaer

John Poorman, Capital District Transportation Committee (Secretary)

Jack Reilly, Capital District Transportation Authority

Dave Rettig, NYS Department of Transportation Region 1

Jill Ross Schmelz, NYS Thruway Authotity

Dede Rudolph, City of Albany

Bernie Sisson, City of Schenectady

Steve Watts, Town of Halfmoon




Lee Ecker, Clough Harbour Associates

Brian Hannafin, Bethlehem IDA

Bob Hansen, NYS Department of Transportation Region 1

Mary Marsh, Capital District Transportation Authority

Fred Mastroianni, Village of Colonie

Sandra Misiewicz, Capital District Transportation Committee

Clarence Mosher, Town of Glenville

Jason Newman, Capital District Transportation Committee

Glenn Posca, Capital District Transportation Committee

Jason Purvis, Capital District Transportation Committee

Paul Tazbir, Town of North Greenbush





Chairman Franchini opened the meeting at approximately 8:40 am.  There were no visitors requesting to speak.


Action Items




Approval of the January 12, 2005 Meeting Minutes


The minutes of the January 12, 2005 meeting were approved as written.




Status of Major Projects


John Poorman reminded members that the key agenda items for this special Planning Committee meeting are the 2005-10 TIP Update agenda items that were not completed on January 12.  The first of these is discussion of the status of the list of “major” projects.  Reaching draft agreement on the treatment of these projects in the draft 2005-10 TIP is necessary to be able to consider all other proposed TIP changes and to define the funding available for new candidates. 


Members resumed discussion of project A240, the Exit 3/4 project.  Discussion had been tabled at the previous meeting.  Steve Iachetta spoke to the importance and merits of the project.  Members considered the implications on funding available for new NHS candidates if the NHS commitment to the project shown in the 2003-08 TIP is preserved.  Some funding for new candidates would still be possible if CDTC were willing to program to the full estimated CDTC share of seven years’ worth of projected allocations of future NHS funds. 


After further discussion, members agreed to preserve the NHS funding commitment to the project at the level shown in the 2003-08 TIP, showing the proposed project cost increase from Region 1’s data as “Demo”.  The action is viewed as retaining CDTC’s regional commitment to the important project while also conveying a message that the project development process needs to be cognizant of funding limitations; certain more extensive design options would require supplemental funding from a separate source.  On-system letting ceiling issues are involved in the use of NHS funds on this project, based on current annual Region 1 limits.  Dave Rettig abstained from the vote on this action.


Similar issues were raised and discussed regarding project S120/SA109, Glenridge Road.  Clarence Mosher noted that the town of Glenville has reaffirmed its high priority for the project and commended Region 1 for having scaled the project down to a feasible cost.  To address preservation of the STP funding for the project, members considered applying the balance of estimated seven-year CDTC STP funds to the project.  There also was discussion of modifying the cost share (that is, requiring more mitigation funding) or timing of phase 3 of project A372, Watervliet Shaker Rd.  After discussion, members agreed to defer construction of phase 3 to the post-2010 column of the new TIP.  This was viewed as appropriate given the service life expected from work to be let this March for phase 2; the considerable federal funding expenditure in the airport area; the limited mitigation fee balance; and the continued lack of cooperation from Memory’s Garden in agreeing to right-of-way takings.  As part of this action, the Glenridge Rd. project STP funding commitment was restored.  On-system letting ceiling issues are involved in the use of STP funds for this project, based on current annual Region 1 limits.  Mr. Rettig abstained from the vote on this action.


Discussion continued regarding the remainder of the projects on the list of major existing TIP projects.  After discussion, members concurred with the list of proposed changes. 


Changes to Other Projects on the Current TIP


Members next reviewed the list of existing projects moving into the five years, which also showed projects with entries only in the “post” column.  Members agreed to the proposed changes.


The next set of project changes reviewed was the list showing replenishing of existing regional projects.  Mr. Poorman noted that this is the list of “RG” projects; some are one-time regional projects, others are set-asides for specific uses.  Region 1’s recent information revised the requested seven-year budget for RG37A, the HELP system, to $8.5 M.  Members discussed the background for the cost increase and acknowledged the reduction in the CMAQ balance the change would imply.  After further discussion, members agreed to the list of changes/ replenishments as amended by the RG37A change.


Members reviewed the list of proposed changes to Interstate Maintenance projects.  Jill Schmelz clarified that the list does not include the Thruway Authority’s recently-supplied changes.  Members approved the requested changes on the current list.


The list of proposed changes to HBRR projects was reviewed.  Several clarifications were requested on the accuracy of the information; Bob Hansen also verified that he is still working on a full set of proposed HBRR actions.  Members deferred action on the HBRR list.


Discussion continued, with attention focused on the “major changes” proposed for existing TIP projects.  Project A289 (Lincoln Ave Grade Separation) and its link to the deferred High Speed Rail program for eligibility to CMAQ funding was discussed.  Members concurred with the proposed changes, with the exception of the change to A289, which was deferred.


The next set of changes reviewed was the “minor changes” (group 2) list proposed for existing TIP projects.  Members agreed to the proposed changes.


Similarly, members agreed to the long list of proposed “minor changes” (group 1).


Glenn Posca requested members’ careful review of the list of existing projects that will “roll off” the TIP.  There may be some projects which were scheduled to have been obligated (or were obligated) prior to October 1, 2003 than are still active, but for which CDTC has not received information.  Members should bring those to his attention.  Subject to further corrections, members approved the proposed list.


Finally, members reviewed the list of changes to existing TIP “demonstration” projects.  There was discussion regarding the difference between funds already earmarked to a project and “hoped for” future discretionary funding.  Members agreed to modify the TIP treatment of project listings to distinguish between the two types of “demo” funds.  The next TIP will show actual earmarks in the funding entry for the project and in the summary tables.  The hoped-for or needed supplemental funds will be described in the project’s description but not in project funding entries or summary tables.  With this clarification, members concurred with the list of changes to existing TIP demonstration projects.


Review of Candidate Projects


Review of the candidate projects was deferred to the next meeting.  Funding balances for new programming were clarified; regarding NHS, an agreement to program to the full seven-year reasonable share of expected Region 1 NHS allocations (that is, no deduction for Glens Falls. etc.) leaves an approximate balance of $13.5 M in NHS funds.  A similar balance remains for CMAQ funding.  Review of candidate projects’ updated screening issues and evaluations will take place at the next meeting.




The next Planning Committee meeting was deferred a week from its normal data.  The next meeting will be held at 9:30 a.m., February 9, 2005.


There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned at 12:00 p.m.


Respectfully submitted,





John P. Poorman