Retro Metro -- March 28, 1986 -- P.G. County funding of Metrorail

[coneyraven]

COUNTY PROTESTS NEW METRO FUNDING PLAN
Prince George's Journal

Prince George's officials, angry over a modified plan to fund Metro that they say runs counter to recent regional efforts to raise funds on Capitol Hill, are threatening suit.

The plan, approved in principle by the board yesterday, combines $400 million in federal funds being withheld by the Urban Mass Transit Administration with $68.7 million collected from Maryland, Virginia and Washington to build from Fort Totten to Prince George's Plaza, Gallery Place to U Street, L'Enfent Plaza to Anacostia, Silver Spring to Wheaton and King Street to Van Dorn.

The $400 million was appropriated by Congress in 1985 and 1986, but the bulk of it has been withheld by UMTA until it receives assurances from Metro that the money will be used to build contiguous, "operable segments."

Slinging words like "draconian, " "artifice," "premature" and "dangerous" at the plan, developed by Metro staff at the request of the board, Prince George's representatives Robert Ostrum and Richard Castaldi stood alone in their opposition.

The major issue is the departure of Metro ofiicials from the Fourth Interim Capital Contributions Agreement, or ICCA-4, which lays out use of federal funds to be appropriated through 1989.

Ostrum and Castaldi also oppose use of $40.5 million released by UMTA earlier this month for construction of the Shaw station in Washington, which the jurisdictions could be required to supplement;  and award a construction contract for the U Street station in Washington because they said funds for it were improperly programmed.

"This (new) plan is premature, incomprehensible," Castaldi said.

"We've got the wrong plan, ladies and gentleman.  And we've given up our resolve to have the right one," Ostrum said.

The modified plan is the first official authority action that responds to threats from UMTA chief Ralph Stanley to withhold 1985 and 1986 grants until a new plan to build only "operable segments" is devised.

Ostrum said the new plan sends "mixed signals" to Congress, which he said has shown strong support for the system, and puts the burden of payment of as much as $500 million on the region.  "The state of Maryland has substantial difficulties with the program on the financial side.  Prince George's County has the difficulties with the program on the financial side," said Ostrum.  He added that the Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority could complete the 89.5 mile system with "reasonable" federal funding through 1989 as laid out in ICCA-4.

Metro board members from Washington and Virginia viewed the plan as favorable to Prince George's and dismissed the arguments Ostrum made.  Frank Smith, who represents Washington, went so far as to advise Ostrum that his threat to sue would impede sale of the new plan to the other jurisdictions.  The plan would protect Prince George's "so they can have their cake and eat it too," said Joseph Alexander of Fairfax City.

While Ostrum would not comment specifically on when, how or against whom the suit would be filed, he did acknowledge that UMTA and WMATA are among the obvious candidsates for sut.

Metro officials said that the maximum debt incurred by the jurisdictions would be $90.4 million and that the plan woul not significantly alter the order or timing of construction.

Metro officials and regional representatives have been beating the bushes around Capitol Hill for funds since the presidential budget proposal included no funds for the rapid rail.  And, as she presented the new plan, Metro General Manager Carmen Turner said that the authority was "guardedly optimistic" there would be funds in 1987.

The plan has to be reviewed by the jurisdictions before it is returned to the Metro board for a final vote.  No date has been set for a final vote.