Agenda - Council - 11/25/1981 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

i I I I I I I I I :1 I I I I I October 21, i981 ...... is=;ippi Miss River Parkway Commission 317 Empire Building · 360 No. Robert St, · St. Paul, MN 55101 · (61'2) 224-9903 Dear MRPC Chairmen and Members: It is a pleasure to report that the U.S. Federal Highway Administration announced this week the allocation of the remaining $25 million in highway trust funds authorized in the 1978 Federal Highway Act. for the Great River Road. The $25 million will be distributed to the States as follows: Arkansas - $2°2 million; Illinois - $3.6 million; Iowa- $1.7 million; Kentucky- $1.1 million; Louisiana- $2°3 million.; Minnesota'- $4.0 million; Mississippi - $3.0 million; Missouri - $2.2 million; Tennessee - $2.9 million'; and Wisconsin , $2.0 million. FHWA indicated that the official transmittal of the allocation announcement will be forwarded to the FHWA Divisions and State transportation agencies later this week. This last $25 million allocation, combined with the expiration of the Great Ri~r Road deferral issued last March and the remaining unobligated balance from previous years, means that at the moment the States have approximately $130 million available for obligation, and approximately $20 million must be obligated during fiscal year 1982. The difference between the $20 million minimum obligation level and any amount less than than would lapse and return to FHWAo With the provisions in the 1981 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, which specifies that the States must treat the Great River Road program in the same manner as any other Federal highway program for obligation purposes, it will be increasingly difficult to obligate the available Great River Road funds. (See MRPC News-In-Brief, August 7, 1981.) It is imperative that eac. h State Parkway Commission, under the direction of its Chairm~n, immecl/ately initiate discussions with the appropriate State transportation agency officials regarding the implementation of Great River Road projects during t~he current fiscal year. F~-,~% is still, re~aired to approve acceptable Great River Road projects, regardless of President Reagan's intention to kill the program, but first the States must subm/t such projects in order for Great River Road progress to continue. If Congress rejects the Senate highway legislation provisions which kill the Great River Road program, then the possibility exists that it might be necessary to transfer funds from one State to another in order to meet the minimum obligation level. This will not be determined, however, until later in the fiscal year. if Congress accepts the Senate Great River Road provisions, we still have the opportunity between now and that ,final. Congressional action to obligate as much as possible of the existing Great River Road unobligated balance. Only a new deferral could halt current Great River Road activity, in lieu of final Congressional action, and ~ reports that no such deferral is presently being prepared. W~'~h~ve'~beeh':~orkin~'?e..'.rY~h_~..-d :to .6b~afn fav6~able Congressional legislation that ' "~11 :'iii6w" ~6r 6ontinuance of' ~he' ~a~'-Ri~e~-R6~d ~' ': ;Ke~ :Senate ~a~d ~House :members.. '~' have in'dicated that the Congressional Conference Committee, which will ultimately resolve the differences in the Senate and House highway bill, may indeed accept the positive House Great .River Road provisions. Senator David Pryor (Arkansas) has been particularly helpful on the Senate side and certainly deserves our appreciation. The