Skip to main content

TAMC Strategic Planning Session Meeting Minutes May 3, 2023



May 3, 2023, at 10:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.

MDOT Aeronautics Bldg., 2nd Floor Commission Conference Room

2700 Port Lansing Road, Lansing, Michigan

Approved MINUTES

In Person Only



Members Present

  • Ryan Buck, MTPA
  • Art Green, MDOT
  • Jacob Hurt, MAR
  • James Hurt, MML
  • Joanna Johnson, CRA– Chair
  • Kelly Jones, MAC
  • Bill McEntee, CRA– Vice-Chair
  • Robert Slattery, MML
  • Rob Surber, DTMB/CSS
  • Jennifer Tubbs, MTA

Support Staff Present

  • Tim Colling, MTU/LTAP
  • Cheryl Granger, DTMB/CSS
  • Eric Mullen, MDOT
  • Gloria Strong, MDOT via Microsoft Teams

Public Present

  • David Wearsch, MDOT Finance
  • Lia Michaels, HRC
  1. Welcome – Call-To-Order
    1. The meeting was called to order at 10:00 a.m.. by Joanna Johnson Dr. Tim Colling, Director, Michigan Technological Institute, was introduced as today’s Session Moderator
  2. J. Johnson and T. Colling gave an overview of the meeting format and meeting goals.
  3. Dave Wearsch, MDOT Unit Manager, Finance Division provided a presentation on TAMC funding carryover and budgeting followed by questions and answers with the Council.  
    1. TAMC has $1.8 million in annual appropriation.  The Michigan Infrastructure Council (MIC) is over TAMC.  TAMC funds are handled in MDOT.  The funds can only be used for TAMC.  The Auditor General oversees MDOT Finance.  The Michigan Transportation Funds (MTF) are state monies used for specific purposes.  TAMC makes the decisions as to how the funds allocated to them are used as long as it conforms to the law.  MDOT and TAMC are in a partnership.  The law states money goes to the MIC but it does not conform to the law.  The functions are with MIC, but the funds are with MDOT.  Legislature must actively appropriate the money to MIC which they have not done.  Therefore, the money is within MDOT.  In 2018, the Legislature gave $2 million for culvert mapping for a one-year program funded by the MIC.  The culvert funds were converted to a work project which is old year money that is used so they can complete a project which extends that out four years.  Dave Wearsch will ask for a work project so that the money does not get lost.  Projects must give an estimated completion date, cost, program purpose, and how we are going to perform that purpose.  This will be non-statutory.  Any carry-over or unspent funds must be a qualified encumbrance.  That is when a contract must be made no later than September 15th to classify it as a work project.  Dave Wearsch reviews these case-by-case.  The Office of Financial Management (OFM) has until March 1 to close their books for the end of the fiscal year.  Work projects are due July 1 per state budget guidelines.  Dave Wearsch will look at the TAMC budget and see what TAMC has encumbered and work with the ACE Committee on a timeline.  He will also check on the status of the culvert budget.  It is believed that there are no remaining culvert funds per MDOT Contract Services Division.  It was agreed that the allocations would remain the same for FY2024 and Ryan Buck will work on language regarding reimbursement to the locals through the MPOs to be placed in the work programs. 
  4. A Review of the TAMC Vision and Mission Statement
    1. The Council agrees that the Vision Statement is still relevant.
  5. Vision Statement
    1. National leader, promoting asset management principals, and practices, Gide investment decisions among Michigan’s transportation agencies.
  6. Mission Statement
    1. Develop and support excellence in managing Michigan’s transportation assets providing advice to the Legislature, State Transportation Commission (STC), MIC, and transportation committees, promote asset management principles, provide tools and practices for road agencies, collaborate, and coordinate with the Water Asset Management Council (WAMC) and other asset owners. 
  7. TAMC Legislative Responsibilities – Appendix B – PA325, PA199, PA338, and PA499
    1. Michigan Roads and Bridges Annual Report, Transportation Asset Management Plans (TAMPs), Data Collection
  8. TAMC’s yearly cycle, key dates, and recurrent activity
    1. MIC and WAMC Coordinated Meetings, IRT data collection, dashboards, and interactive map, annual conference, educational programs, awards program, technical assistance, data collection program guides and instructions, and trainings.  The Council would like to add attending national conferences and promoting TAMC to the list. 
  9. Identification and Definition of Emerging Issues
    1. Asset Management Plan Non-compliance Provision/Process, PA325, Section 14
    2. ACE Committee will work with MDOT ACT 51 Team and Finance with creating a process and possibly update the TAMC TAMP policy and changes needed to the IRT.  They would look into the possibility of agencies doing a self-assessment as to if they met or have made progress on their realistic goals.  The agencies must show that they put in a good faith effort towards their goal and demonstrate how they made their goal.  Things such as weather conditions and adequate funding could be cause for agencies not to meet their goal.  A discussion needs to be had on what the mechanism will be to assure the agencies are following their TAMP.   
  10. Definition and Purpose of the TAMC Statewide Investment Strategy – Bill McEntee
    1. Data Committee will work with MDOT on creating a statewide investment strategy.  They are seeking to develop the tools to fix the roads and stretch the monies as far as possible.  They are looking at tactical things to do.  Joanna Johnson will contact the MIC for input.
  11. Region Planning Organization and Metropolitan Planning Organization (RPO/MPO) TAMC Workplan Items and Budget – Ryan Buck
    1. ACE Committee is to look in to adding other items to the list of approved reimbursements such as Non-federal Aid Data Collection and how to change funds allocated to one task and switch it to another.  The process will be reviewed.  The Council would like the ACE Committee to investigate how money is given to local agencies (cities/villages/townships) from the MPO/RPOs.  It was suggested that TAMC provide a guidance policy for the MPO/RPOs.  Council would like ACE Committee to update the FY 2024 Unified Work Programs activities and tasks for reimbursements from TAMC. The Council will work on the direction and expectations of the MPO/RPOs.  Eric Mullen will look at the seven elements and report out at the next TAMC meeting.  Joanna Johnson and Ryan Buck to work on a new UWP policy that includes reimbursables.  The dollars and language will stay the same.  This will go to ACE by May 17, 2023. 
    2. Motion:  Jennifer Tubbs made amotion that the TAMC Chair and the TAMC ACE Chair work on the Asset Management Unified Work Program for FY 2024 as it relates to reimbursements to the local agencies by the MPO/RPOs for TAMC related activities; Robert Slattery seconded the motion.  The motion was approved by all Council members.
  12. IRT Related to Warranties and Culverts
    1. Dave Wearsch explained approximately one year ago the Auditor General noted that counties, cities and villages were misinterpreted as given a choice to provide warranty information or not.  The Auditor General stated MDOT must track the 617 agencies for warranties.  The two systems available were ADARS and the IRT.  The ADARS too did not have the ability to do this.  Therefore, it was chosen to use the IRT.  TAMC was not notified of the final decision to use the IRT for warranties.  The addition to the IRT for warranties was only supposed to be a yes or no box, but that changed and if they click no, and the project is over $2 million in pavement costs, there is an additional question that must be answered.
    2. TAMC is not the owner of the IRT as it was done with state funds.  TAMC should be the main decision maker regarding anything being changed or done in the IRT.  The County Road Association prints a report and provides to MDOT a list of agencies that have projects under warranty.  MDOT leadership does not feel MDOT or TAMC needs to monitor the warranties.
  13. Cheryl Granger, DTMB/CSS, provided an overview of the IRT changes relative to culverts and warranties.
    1. DNR and MSU will be sending their culvert data to MGF.  The Council agreed that funds can be shifted without the Council’s approval if the funds are used by CSS for another task that was mandated by the Council.  However, they must get it approved by Data Committee.
  14. The ACE and Data Committees were assigned to identify new, complete, and discontinued items in the 2022-2024 Strategic Work Program and submit to the Council in June.
    1.  If it is not remembered what the purpose of a task is that is currently in the work program, take it off the work plan.  If possible, put a time due on tasks.  The Bridge Committee has already completed this task. 
    2. Joanna Johnson provided an overview of the intent for creating a TAMC governance document.  She has created a draft and has shared it with Todd White, MDOT Bureau of Transportation Director and Eric Mullen, AMPD Administrator.  She will share a copy with the Council later.
  15. Joanna Johnson asked for any public comments or comments from the Council.
    1. The Council and attendees appreciated Tim Colling moderating the session.
  16. Adjournment
    1. The meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m.