The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10-353NOVEMBER 9, 2010 10 -353 RESOLUTION (CARRIED 7 -0 LOST LAID OVER WITHDRAWN ) PURPOSE: TO OPPOSE CENSUS BUREAU RULES WHICH IMPACT FEDERAL TRANSIT AID AND REDUCE OSHKOSH TRANSIT'S FEDERAL TRANSIT FUNDING INITIATED BY: TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT WHEREAS, the Census Bureau issued a proposed rule in the August 24, 2010 Federal Register, entitled "Proposed Urban Area Criteria for the 2010 Census," which provides criteria by which urban areas are defined, and WHEREAS, the proposed rule indicates that the City of Oshkosh may potentially be combined with Appleton- Neenah as a single metropolitan area, and WHEREAS, this definition could place Oshkosh into a large urbanized area and significantly reduce federal transit aid to the Oshkosh Transit System, and WHEREAS, the City of Oshkosh is currently a designated recipient of federal assistance for mass transportation, as defined by 49 U.S.C. § 5307(a)(2), and WHEREAS, this funding reduction could result in significant adverse impacts to the transit system's ability to meet the needs of our community, and WHEREAS, the East Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission has analyzed the impacts of the proposed Census Bureau rule from a technical perspective and confirmed that the potential loss of federal transit aid would adversely impact transit service in Oshkosh and the Fox Cities; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY the Common Council of the City of Oshkosh 1) That the Common Council together with the East Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission, join in opposition to the proposed rule. 2) That the Common Council urges its Congressional representatives to oppose the implementation of this rule due to its impact on federal transit aid. 3) The City Manager is hereby directed to send a copy of this Resolution to all Congressional representatives that may be able to assist in the change of this rule. e PLEASE NOTE PAGES 52180 & 52181 FROM THE FEDERAL O WQ H REGISTER ARE INCLUDED ON THE WATER City of Oshkosh - Transportation Department 926 Dempsey Trail, Oshkosh, WI 54902 (920) 232 -5342 (920)232 -5343 fax MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the Common Council FROM: Christopher Strong, P.E., Director of Transportation DATE: November 5, 2010 RE: RESOLUTION TO OPPOSE CENSUS BUREAU RULES WHICH IMPACT FEDERAL TRANSIT AID AND REDUCE OSHKOSH TRANSIT'S FEDERAL TRANSIT FUNDING Over the past several months, the U.S. Census Bureau has been considering the regrouping of how census data is summarized for regional purposes. They made this known through a proposed rule included in the August 24, 2010 Federal Register (please see attached). Specifically, they are looking at a process known as "agglomeration" in which cities are grouped together into larger metropolitan areas for purposes of statistics gathering by the Census Bureau. According to the Register notice, the implementation of this rule could, depending on the results of the 2010 Census, group Appleton and Oshkosh together in a single metropolitan area. Currently, these areas are grouped individually. While this may provide some value to the Census Bureau from a statistical standpoint, the problem lies in the fact that federal agencies use these metropolitan areas as a basis for distributing aid, including transit aid. Appleton is facing the potential loss of transit aid after the 2010 census is certified because their metropolitan area will exceed 200,000 population. If an agglomeration of the Appleton and Oshkosh areas took place, Oshkosh would be grouped into this new metropolitan area, in which case our transit aid would also be in jeopardy because we would be part of a larger metropolitan area. As the Oshkosh Transit System currently received over $1.5 million in Federal Transit Administration operating assistance in 2010, the effects of this proposed Census rule on service could be devastating. Other communities in Wisconsin may be similarly affected. The Census Bureau is accepting comments on this proposed rule through November 22, 2010. The East Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission will be submitting comments concerning technical concerns with this proposed rule. If it is approved, this resolution would put the Common Council on record as opposing the proposed rule, and would direct the City Manager to work with Congressional representatives to oppose implementation of this rule. City of Oshkosh — Department of Transportation 52180 Fede Register/Vol. 75, No. 1 August 24, 2010/Notices those that were defined on the basis of Census 2000 data, including Census 2000 urban area definitions; the 2010 UAs resulting from the splitting process will form the cores of metropolitan statistical areas and NECTAs. In addition, this approach will result in the movement of some territory and population from one UA to another. For example, the split between the Washington and Baltimore UAs would occur along the Howard County, MD- Prince George's County, MD boundary; territory in northern Prince George's County, MD that currently is in the Baltimore UA would be included in the Washington UA. The split between the San Francisco - Oakland and San Jose UAs would shift northward to follow the San Mateo County, CA -Santa Clara County, CA boundary. Based on Census 2000 UAs, the Census Bureau has identified 52 potential agglomerations consisting of multiple and currently separate UAs. These agglomerations contain UAs that currently are contiguous as well as some that are in close proximity to each other and that potentially could form a continuous agglomeration when areas are redefined based on 2010 Census data (note, however, that inclusion in the list below does not necessarily mean that contiguity will exist between two UAs when redefined), The following table lists the potential agglomerations, the component UAs, and the estimated population based on the 2006 -2008 ACS 3 -year estimates (margins of error are not noted in the table below; 3 -year estimates were used because not all UAs met the 65,000 person threshold for ACS 1 -year estimates). The Census Bureau is considering applying a 1,000,000 person minimum population threshold to identify agglomerations to be split, but seeks comment on the appropriate population size threshold to determine which large agglomerations would be split. Other minimum population thresholds under consideration are 500,000 and 250,000. Based on 2006 -2008 ACS estimates, 27 of the 52 potential agglomerations have populations less than 1,000,000; 14 have populations less than 500,000; and four have populations less than 250,000, If a threshold of 1,000,000 people is chosen as the minimum for splitting large agglomerations, all formerly separate UAs in agglomerations of less than 1,000,000 people would be merged to form a single UA. If 500,000 people is adopted as the minimum threshold, then all formerly separate UAs in agglomerations of less than that threshold would be merged. Because UAs form the cores of metropolitan statistical areas, the merger of formerly separate UAs might affect the delineation of metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas. It is important to note that some of the agglomerations listed below are contained within the same metropolitan statistical area, and as a result, would not be split, regardless of the threshold chosen. The agglomerations are: Dallas - Fort Worth; Houston -Texas City; Phoenix -Mesa; San Diego- Mission Viejo; St. Louis - Alton; Pittsburgh- Uniontown- Monessen; Kansas City -Lee's Summit; Charlotte- Gastonia - Concord; Nashville - Murfreesboro; Oklahoma City- Norman; Honolulu - Kailua; Stockton -Lodi- Manteca; Boise City- Nampa; Modesto - Turlock; Santa Rosa - Petaluma; Beaumont -Port Arthur; and Fairfield - Vacaville. TABLE 2— POTENTIAL URBAN AGGLOMERATIONS 2006 -2008 Potential urban agglomeration Census 2000 UAs contained within the potential agglomeration ACS 3 year 99 estimated population New York - Philadelphia - Connecticut ...................... Los Angeles- Riverside -San Bernardino ................. Chicago- Kenosha - Racine -Round Lake Beach ...... Boston- Providence - Worcester . ............................... Baltimore - Washington ............. ............................... San Francisco - Oakland -San Jose ......................... Dallas-Fort Worth .................... ............................... Houston -Texas City ................. ............................... Detroit -Ann Arbor -Port Huron .. ............................... Atlanta - Gainesville ................... ............................... San Juan- Aguadilla -Ponce ...... ............................... Phoenix - Mesa - Avondale ........ .......•.....................•. San Diego - Mission Viejo ....... ............................... Seattle- Bremerton - Marysville ............................... Cleveland- Akron - Canton - Lorain - Elyria ................. Tampa -St. Petersburg - Lakeland - Winter Haven ... Cincinnati - Dayton- Middletown . ............................... Denver - Boulder- Longmont ...... ............................... St. Louis -Alton ......................... ............................... New York- Newark, NY- NJ -CT; Philadelphia, PA- NJ- DE -MD; Allentown- 29,028,337 Bethlehem, PA -NJ; Lancaster, PA; Pottstown, PA; Reading, PA; Trenton, NJ; Hightstown, NJ; Vineland, NJ; Poughkeepsie- Newburgh, NY; Bridge- port- Stamford, CT; Danbury, CT -NY; Hartford, CT; New Haven, CT; Nor- wich -New London, CT; Waterbury, CT; Springfield, MA -CT. Los Angeles -Long Beach -Santa Ana, CA; Riverside -San Bernardino, CA; 15,492,749 Camarillo, CA; Hemet, CA; Oxnard, CA; Santa Barbara, CA; Santa Clarita, CA; Simi Valley, CA; Temecula - Murrieta, CA; Thousand Oaks, CA. Chicago, IL -IN; Kenosha, WI; Round Lake Beach - McHenry- Grayslake, IL- 8,944,789 WI; Racine, WI. Boston, MA; Providence, RI -MA; Worcester, MA -CT; Barnstable Town, MA; 6,692,295 Leominster - Fitchburg, MA; New Bedford, MA; Dover - Rochester, NH; Manchester, NH; Nashua, NH; Portsmouth, NH. Aberdeen, MD; Baltimore, MD; Washington, DC- VA -MD; St. Charles, MD .. 6,585,315 San Francisco - Oakland, CA; San Jose, CA; Antioch, CA; Concord, CA; 5,870,212 Livermore, CA; Vallejo, CA. Dallas -Fort Worth - Arlington, TX; Denton - Lewisville, TX; McKinney, TX ....... 5,006,527 Houston, TX; Texas City, TX; Galveston, TX; The Woodlands, TX .............. 4,599,176 Detroit, MI; Ann Arbor, MI; Port Huron, MI; South Lyon - Howell- Brighton, MI 4,326,040 Atlanta, GA; Gainesville, GA ........................................... ............................... 4,196,670 San Juan, PR; Aguadilla- Isabela -San Sebastidn, PR; Arecibo, PR; Fajardo, 3,591,491 PR; Florida- Barceloneta- Bajadero, PR; Guayama, PR; Juana Diaz, PR; Mayaguez, PR; Ponce, PR; San German -Cabo Rojo- Sabana Grande, PR; Yauco, PR. Phoenix -Mesa, AZ; Avondale, AZ ................................... ............................... 3,328,183 San Diego, CA; Mission Viejo, CA .................................. ............................... 3,273,255 Seattle, WA; Bremerton, WA; Marysville, WA ................. ............................... 3,206,057 Cleveland, OH; Akron, OH; Canton, OH; Lorain - Elyria, OH .......................... 2,722,194 Tampa -St. Petersburg, FL; Lakeland, FL; Winter Haven, FL; Brooksville, 2,719,812 FL. Cincinnati, OH- KY -IN; Dayton, OH; Middletown, OH; Springfield, OH .......... 2,426,070 Denver - Aurora, CO; Boulder, CO; Longmont, CO; Lafayette - Louisville, CO 2,339,587 St. Louis, MO -IL; Alton, IL ............................................... ............................... 2,184,037 Fede ral Regis ter/Vol. 75, No. 163/ Tuesday, August 24, 2010/Notices 52181 TABLE 2- POTENTIAL URBAN AGGLOMERATIONS- Continued Potential urban agglomeration Orlando - Ocala- Kissimmee ...... ............................... Pittsburgh- Uniontown - Monessen ........................... Kansas City -Lee's Summit ...... ............................... Salt Lake City- Ogden - Layton .. ............................... Indianapolis- Anderson ............. ............................... Charlotte- Gastonia - Concord .... ............................... Nashville- Murfreesboro ........... ............................... Raleigh- Durham ...................... ............................... Palm Bay - Melbourne - Titusville -Vero Beach .......... Oklahoma City- Norman ........... ............................... Honolulu - Kailua (Honolulu County) ........................ McAllen - Harlingen ................... ............................... Greensboro -High Point - Winston -Salem ................. Sarasota - Bradenton -Punta Gorda .......................... Bonita Springs - Naples -Cape Coral ........................ Harrisburg- York - Lebanon ........ ............................... Greenville- Spartanburg ........... ............................... Pensacola -Fort Walton Beach ............................... Stockton -Lodi- Manteca ............ ............................... Spokane -Coeur d'Alene .......... ............................... BoiseCity-Nampa ................... ............................... Modesto - Turlock ...................... ............................... South Bend - Elkhart ................. ............................... Salinas -Santa Cruz - Watsonville ............................. Charleston- Huntington ............. ............................... Santa Rosa - Petaluma ............. ............................... Rockford - Beloit ........................ ............................... Atlantic City- Wildwood ............. ............................... Appleton- Oshkosh ................... ............................... Beaumont-Port Arthur ............. ............................... Macon - Warner Robins ............ ............................... Kingsport- Johnson City .......... ............................... Fairfield - Vacaville ................... ............................... Proposed Urban Area Criteria for the 2010 Census The proposed criteria outlined herein apply to the United States,s Puerto Rico, and the Island Areas.? The Census Bureau proposes the following criteria and characteristics for use in identifying the areas that will qualify for designation as urbanized areas and urban clusters for use in tabulating data from the 2010 Census, the American Community Survey (ACS), the Puerto Rico Community Survey, and potentially other Census Bureau censuses and surveys. 6 For Census Bureau purposes, the United States includes the 50 States and the District of Columbia. 7 For Census Bureau purposes, the Island Areas include American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the U.S. Minor Outlying Islands. The U.S. Minor Outlying Islands are an aggregation of nine U.S. territories: Baker Island, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, the Midway Islands, Navassa Island, Palmyra Atoll, and Wake Island. Census 2000 UAs contained within the potential agglomeration 2006 -2008 ACS 3 -year estimated population Orlando, FL; Ocala, FL; Kissimmee, FL; Lady Lake, FL; Leesburg- Eustis, 1,814,061 FL. Pittsburgh, PA; Uniontown - Connellsville, PA; Monessen, PA ....................... 1,792,892 Kansas City, MO -KS; Lee's Summit, MO ....................... ............................... 1,468,106 Salt Lake City, UT; Ogden - Layton, UT ........................... ............................... 1,439,004 Indianapolis, IN; Anderson, IN ......................................... ............................... 1,367,392 Charlotte, NC -SC; Gastonia, NC; Concord, NC; Rock Hill, SC ..................... 1,282,839 Nashville- Davidson, TN; Murfreesboro, TN ..................... ............................... 983,180 Raleigh, NC; Durham, NC ............................................... ............................... 974,582 Palm Bay - Melbourne, FL; Titusville, FL; Vero Beach - Sebastian, FL; Port 938,675 St. Lucie, FL. Oklahoma City, OK; Norman, OK ................................... ............................... 875,469 Honolulu, HI; Kailua (Honolulu County), HI ..................... ............................... 854,430 McAllen, TX; Harlingen, TX ............................................. ............................... 753,816 Greensboro, NC; High Point, NC; Winston - Salem, NC .. ............................... 741,457 Sarasota - Bradenton, FL; North Port-Punta Gorda, FL ... ............................... 726,695 Bonita Springs - Naples, FL; Cape Coral, FL .................... ............................... 659,480 Harrisburg, PA; York, PA; Lebanon, PA ......................... ............................... 651,160 Greenville, SC; Spartanburg, SC; Mauldin- Simpsonville, SC ........................ 568,737 Pensacola, FL -AL; Fort Walton Beach, FL ..................... ............................... 506,715 Stockton, CA; Lodi, CA; Manteca, CA ............................ ............................... 501,544 Spokane, WA -ID; Coeur d'Alene, ID ............................... ............................... 441,042 Boise City, ID; Nampa, ID ............................................... ............................... 422,639 Modesto, CA; Turlock, CA ............................................... ............................... 414,571 South Bend, IN -MI; Elkhart, IN -MI ................................... ............................... 408,373 Salinas, CA; Santa Cruz, CA; Watsonville, CA ............... ............................... 388,071 Charleston, WV; Huntington, WV -KY -OH ....................... ............................... 354,568 Santa Rosa, CA; Petaluma, CA ...................................... ............................... 351,752 Rockford, IL; Beloit, WI -IL ............................................... ............................... 337,215 Atlantic City, NJ; Wildwood -North Wildwood -Cape May, NJ ......................... 280,698 Appleton, WI; Oshkosh, WI ............................................. ............................... 263,213 Beaumont, TX; Port Arthur, TX ....................................... ............................... 249,716 Macon, GA; Warner Robins, GA ..................................... ............................... 232,780 Kingsport, TN -VA; Johnson City, TN .............................. ............................... 208,241 Fairfield, CA; Vacaville, CA ............................................. ............................... 207,859 A. 2010 Census Urban Area, Urbanized Area, and Urban Cluster Definitions For the 2010 Census, an urban area will comprise a densely settled core of census tracts a and /or census blocks 9 that meet minimum population density requirements, along with adjacent territory containing non - residential urban land uses as well as territory with low population density included to link outlying densely settled territory with the densely settled core. To qualify as an urban area, the territory identified according to the proposed criteria mentioned above must encompass at least 2,500 people, at least 1,500 of which reside outside institutional group quarters. Urban areas that contain 9 A census tract is made up of from one to ten census block groups within a single county. A census block group is a collection of one to 999 census blocks within a single census tract. e A census block is the smallest geographic area for which the Census Bureau tabulates data and is an area normally bounded by visible features, such as streets, rivers or streams, shorelines, and railroads, and by nonvisible features, such as the boundary of an incorporated place, MCD, county, or other 2010 Census tabulation entity. 50,000 or more people are designated as urbanized areas (UAs); urban areas that contain at least 2,500 and less than 50,000 people are designated as urban clusters (UCs). The term "urban area" refers to both UAs and UCs. The term "rural" encompasses all population, housing, and territory not included within an urban area. As a result of the urban area delineation process, an incorporated place or census designated place (CDP) may be partly within and partly outside an urban area. Any place that is split by an urban area boundary is referred to as an extended place. Any census geographic areas, with the exception of census blocks, may be partly within and partly outside an urban area. All proposed criteria based on land area, population, and population density, reflect the information contained in the Census Bureau's Master Address File /Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF /TIGER) Database (MTDB) at the time of the initial delineation. All calculations of