staffing and governance of mpos
TRANSCRIPT
MPO STAFFING AND
GOVERNANCE STRUCTURES
2009 AMPO Annual
Conference, Savannah, GA1
Alex Bond & Jeff Kramer
Center for Urban Transportation Research
University of South Florida
Research Problem2
MPO role is complex and responsibility is
broad
MPO role and work load have expanded over
time
MPO staffing and organizational capacity is
critical to meeting responsibilities and
expectations
Few materials comparing strategies are
available
MPO resources are relatively limited
To date, national research on MPO
organizational structure and staffing is limited
Project Scope3
Document
MPO organizational structures
Staffing profiles and practices
Case studies
Sample staffing plan for new MPOs
Project completion – March 2010
Funded through the FHWA Surface Transportation and Environment Research Program (STEP)
Methodology and Data
Collection4
Administer on-line survey using custom built tool (www.mposurvey.com)
Beta-tested survey instrument (design, content, terminology)
Survey in field for 3 months (March-May 2009)
61-72 questions, depending on MPO characteristics
Ability to save and return
Participant recruitment
Timely AMPO email blasts
Newsletters
State association and notable MPO leader solicitation
Targeted direct contact
Special Thanks5
AMPO
Beta Test Group
Jane Hayse – Atlanta Regional Commission
Rich Perrin – Genesee Transportation Council
Harold Barley – METROPLAN Orlando
Craig Casper – Pikes Peak Area COG
Thera Black – Thurston RPC
Eligible MPOs and Participation6
374 MPOs were eligible to take the survey
11 MPOs ineligible to participate
Single staff for more than one MPO board
133 MPOs responded to the survey
35% participation rate
Statistically significant sample
Margin of error: +/- 6.83%
Very high participation in FL, WA, NY, GA
Likely due to good promotion
Unlikely to affect results
Participation Rates7
95 96 96
43 44
31 29
37
13
23
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
50,000-100,000 100,000 to 200,000 200,000 to 500,000 500,000 to 1 million 1 million or more
All MPOs Participating
8
Map of Participants
9
Hosting and Administration10
Definitions11
An independent MPO provides all of its organizational needs in-house or through contractors
A hosted MPO meets its organizational needs through another agency which acts as the fiscal agent
There are a variety of dependency levels between MPOs and their hosts
Some MPOs are so intertwined with the host that MPO employees cannot be identified
In other cases, the MPO operates in a segregated fashion, but receives goods and services from the host
Hosted vs. Independent12
69% of all MPOs are hosted
More likely to be hosted if the MPO is a non-
TMA
Very large MPOs (1 million +) were the most
likely to be independent
Independent
Hosted
Types of Hosting13
There is a wide variety
of MPO organizational
structures
Regional Council is
most common host
Combined, local
governments host
40% of all MPOs
Independent31%
Regional Council
26%
County Government
20%
Municipal Government
20%
Other3%
Other Hosting Observations14
Municipally-hosted MPOs tended to be in
small regions (under 200,000)
County-hosted MPOs were tightly focused in
the 200-500,000 range
RC-hosted MPOs were common across all
ranges, but were slightly more common at
non-TMAs
Air quality attainment appears to have little
impact on hosting status or host type
Other hosting types can be found, but are rare
Advantages/Disadvantages –
Hosted15
Advantages: Lower overall cost
Administration
Benefits
Office space
Sharing of expertise
Coordinated programs
Employees
Capital float
Disadvantages:
Responsibilities blurred
Staff
Board
MPO subject to host rules, budget and oversight
Managerial authority and autonomy
Policy interference
Unfamiliarity with MPO work
Advantages/Disadvantages –
Independent16
Advantages:
Political and
administrative
autonomy
Clarity in chain of
command
Staff
Board
Agency identity
Cleaner finances
Disadvantages:
Cash flow problems
Federal reimbursements
Matching funds
High cost of operation
Administrative burdens
Staff and
administrative
versatility is required
17
Board Size, Composition and
Voting18
Laws/Rules Governing MPO
Boards19
Federal law
Local elected officials
Representatives of agencies
that operate other modes
Relevant state officials
Silent on:
Size
Composition
Voting rights
Advisory committees
Some states regulate aspects of board
composition
Board Size – Voting Seats20
2,142 voting board seats in our sample
Wide range of MPO Board sizes
5 to 73 voting members
Measures of central tendency
Median:14
Bottom quarter – 8 or fewer
Top quarter – 19 or more
High outliers tend to be RCs
Mean: 16.1
Mode: 9
Voting B
oard
Seats
Max: 73
Min:
5
Median:
14
First Q: 8
Third Q:
19
Mean: 16
Mode: 9
Board Size – By Population21
Board size seems to be related to population
8.9
13.7
16.2
21.9
25.4
50k-100k 100k-200k 200k-500k 500k-1mill 1 million +
Nu
mb
er
of
Vo
tin
g B
oa
rd S
ea
ts
Population of MPO Planning Area
Board Composition – Seat
Types22
Seat Type % of MPOs with Seat Type
Municipal Elected Officials 94.0%
County Commissioners 81.2%
State DOT 64.7%
Public Transit Agency 45.1%
Not Reserved 39.1%
Countywide Elected Official 30.1%
Regional Council 19.5%
Gubernatorial Appointee 17.3%
Aviation Authority 13.5%
Seaport Authority 12.0%
Private Sector 9.0%
Toll Authority 9.0%
School Board 6.8%
Tribal Government 6.0%
College or University 5.3%
Military Installation 3.0%
Board Composition – Percent of All
Seats23
42.2
18.2
10.6
5.3
5.3
3.5
1.9
8.0
Munipal Elected
County Commissioners
Not Reserved
State DOT
Countywide Elected
Public Transit Agency
Private Sector
All Other Types
Board Composition – Voting
Rights24
One person-one vote is the prevailing voting
structure
Common for larger jurisdictions to have more than one
seat
Weighted voting
13.5% of MPOs in the sample
Most commonly weighted by population
Many MPOs with weighted voting have never used it
“Rotating” voting seats
27% of MPOs in the sample have a “rotating” voting
seat
Typically between smaller local governments
More common among larger MPOs
Board Composition – Non-
Voting25
Board representation for those without a voting
seat
63% (84 of 133) have non-voting board
members
Mean of 5 seats at MPOs providing non-voting
seats
Examples include:
Small local govts within MPO boundary
Neighboring local govts/MPOs
Federal agencies
Chairs of MPO committees
Private sector
State legislators
Business groups
RTPOs
Modal authorities
School boards
State agencies
Advisory Committees26
Type of Committee Total Percent of all MPOs
Technical Advisory 121 91%
Bicycle and Pedestrian 59 44%
Citizens Advisory 54 41%
Transit 32 24%
Transportation
Disadvantaged
29 22%
Air Quality 27 20%
Congestion Management 25 19%
Land Use 13 10%
Freight 12 9%
Corridor Management 9 7%
Water 8 6%
27
The MPO Workforce28
Number of Employees29
Ranged from 121 to less
than one employee
Part time employees are
found at 73% of MPOs
Mean MPO: 11.7 full-time and 2.2 part-time
employees
Number of Employees30
A dozen high outliers skew the mean higher. Median is more instructive.
Median MPO: 5 full-time and 1 part-time employees (6 total) Three-quarters of MPOs have
less than 11 total staff
A quarter of MPOs have 3 or fewer total staff
Tota
l
Em
plo
yees
Max: 121
Min:
1
Median: 6
First Q: 3
Third Q:
11
Median Staff Size by Population
Class31
Population in Planning
Area
Total Employees (median) Maximum Total
Employees
50,000-100,000 3 16
100,000-200,000 5 19
200,000-500,000 7 20
500,000-1,000,000 13 33
1 million or more 37 121
All MPOs 6 121
Staff Size Metrics32
Analysis shows staff size is correlated to population and planning area square mileage
One employee per 47,963 people
OR
One employee per 665 square miles
Approximately 4,200 MPO employees nationwide
About 860 (20%) work at non-TMAs
51% of MPOs are non-TMAs
Large MPOs employ a large majority of MPO workers
Specialties on Staff33
MPOs were asked if any staff member spent
more than half of his/her time in a specialized
areaSpecialty Percent of MPOs
with this
Specialty
Median Staff Size
GIS 44% 9
Travel Demand Modeling 39% 12
Transit 36% 10
Bicycle and Pedestrian 31% 8.5
Public Involvement 25% 12
Safety 13% 10
*Only selected results are shown*
General Tasks34
Time spent on general agency administration
Hosted MPOs: 21.3%
Independent: 28.1%
More than 20 employees: 12.5%
Less than 3 employees: 29.6%
Time spent on public involvement- 15.3%
Time spent on committee management- 21.7%
Consultants35
Consultants are an important source of MPO labor
All but one MPO reported using consultants
25% of all UPWP funds are spent on contractors
$1 spent internally : 40¢ to contractors
Non-attainment areas spend more money on consultants
MPOs over 500,000 population spend more money on consultants than smaller MPOs
The LRTP/MTP is the only “core” document that frequently is authored by consultants
Consultant Tasks36
19.5 21.1 23.3 39.1 82.70
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
General Services Public Involvement
Core Documents Modeling Special Studies
Perc
en
t o
f A
ll M
PO
s
Type of Work Performed by Consultant
Supplement
al
Labor
Substitute
Labor
Specialize
d
Labor
Position Creation37
Over the period 2007-2008,
a third of MPOs created
positions
Some MPOs reported:
Technology tasks were
moved in-house
Increased emphasis on certain planning areas
like bike/ped, transit, or safety
Created33%
Eliminated18%
No Change
49%
Employee Turnover38
MPOs with smaller staffs experienced higher
rates of employee turnover
MPOs in smaller regions experienced higher
turnover rates
MPO universe experiences 12.5%
turnover/year
Twenty or more employees: 4.1%
Less than three: 20.1%
Is MPO Pay Competitive?39
Yes63%
No20%
No Respon
se17%
Most say yes
All sizes of MPOs respondwith similar answers
Narrative responses indicate:
MPO competitive interms of total compensation package
Competitive with other transportation agencies
Unable to match offers due to fixed pay scales
Where Employees Go40
188 professional staff
departures 2007-2008
40% left transportation
sector
Just over a quarter
went to consulting firms
Consulting Firm26%
Other Transportation Agency
22%
Another MPO12%
Non-Transportati
on Government
30%
All Other Jobs10%
New Employers of Specialists41
Engineers and modelers tend to stay in transportation
Engineers and modelers are more often hired by
consultants
Planners tend to land at other transportation agencies
Other professionals often leave transportation entirely
Type of Profession Percent to
Consultants
Percent to Other
Transportation
Agencies
Planner 20% 40%
Other 26% 10%
GIS 21% 32%
Modeler 50% 39%
Engineer 54% 37%
Other Topics in the Survey42
Salary Scales
Employee Benefits
Organization
Funding
State Governance
MPO Directors
Aging Workforce
Intergovernmental
Efforts
Indirect Rate
Employee Tenure
43
Contact Us44
Report due for release around March 2010
Alex Bond Jeff Kramer
(813) 974-9779 (813) 974-1397