Skip to navigation Skip to content
click here to view our 'Why' videos

Conferences and Workshops

Transit Security Grant Program Tier I FY 2006

Home | Grant Guidance and Application Kit | Dates and Timelines
Conferences and Workshops | Questions and Answers | Conference Calls

Worshop Content/Information

San Francisco, California - October 19
Washington, DC - October 13

San Francisco, California - October 19

Opening Comments:

Doyle Raines

Questions and Answers:

For the FY05 grants, will we have a full two years?

You have 30 months from September 29th to complete the project.

When can we get award money?

Tier 1 projects still need to have projects reviewed. The state has the money at this time (as of yesterday, October 18).

What kind of timelines can we expect both for FY06 and FY07?

Guidance will be out by December of this year. Then there will be a period after that to get in the project, 45-60 days to do the applications. With this period of time, it is then reasonable to give in project plans along with applications.

When you release the guidance, please have some kind of conference like this.

We are committed to that. When?

Comment: Second week in January.

Back to '06. I would like clarification. When the project proposal gets paneled and a portion of the project is dismissed, what happens?

We have no desire to keep money from where it needs to go. The panel is going to meet and give feedback. We will panel the project plans as soon as you are ready to have us panel them. I do not have the answer to that question if the project is submitted at the end of the period, December 29th.

What is an estimated time that we would hear back so that we can tweak it?

Two week turnaround is what we are hoping to hold ourselves to. The IB says that we have to have feedback to folks no later than December 15.

What would be the nature of the feedback? How extensive will the feedback be?

The feedback will tell the transit agency if the project is ineligible for some reason and/or if the priorities are not in line with the national priorities.

Will feedback go through the SAA or go straight to the transit system?

My preference is to give feedback directly to the transit agency and simultaneously to the SAA.

Regarding the secure portal, can the transit systems all have direct access to the portal (rather than just the SAA)?

We will see what we can do along those lines.

How do we request a review rather than an official paneling? Does the agency state this to their SAA?

Agencies let their SAAs know. The SAA will then submit an email to G&T/TSA via the secure portal.

How many back and forth interactions can we have about project plans?

I hope that we can get it worked out in one go around. From our feedback, you can modify the project plan or choose not to and just have the project(s) go through paneling.

How do we view TSA's security grants website?

It is at www.tsa.gov, there are tabs across the top, select "join us," there will be a list of things, one will say grant opportunities. The other route is: www.TSA.gov/grants (this route may change).

Wrap Up:

Doyle Raines

We are committed to communicating. Doyle gave out his personal email and phone number. My preference is that you contact us through askcsid@dhs.gov.

We are posting things on our website (TSA). We will continue to host weekly conference calls. We will consider more of these events based on your feedback. Your comments and feedback will be considered in the FY07 guidance but we cannot guarantee that they will be included.

Back to Top

Washington, DC - October 13

Opening Comments:

Doyle Raines:

TSNI works on issues that cut across modes. Today, we are concerned with getting feedback from you. We do not intend to affect the grant guidance at this conference. Rather, we want you to understand what our feelings about risk are.

Questions and Answers:

Please describe"kill switches."

I would call it a governor reduction system. Over time it slows the engine down and the bus comes to a stop.

Talk about CCTV in stations and on rail cars.

We look at places with high concentrations of people; the technology is meant to mitigate risk. We're more concerned with installing CCTV (live feed) in stations.

Are we talking about people watching monitors all day, or smart technology?

We don't want to answer that without the looking at the list.

With TSGP Rail, 14 cities applied. How many were funded?

Twelve were funded.

After listening to how important the baseline is, down the road it seems that you may require a greater matching component, closer to 25%. I think it's important that it be a requirement. But if you're serious about getting transit agencies up to a baseline, be careful about increasing a matching funds requirement for States in fiscal crisis.

We have to report to a board and it is difficult to match funds when we're not sure which projects will be funded. Most systems would not want to do a match at all.

When you think about getting funded at a variety of different levels in different years, it's difficult to anticipate percentage-based matches.

As sub-grantees to the States, this is a difficult situation.

We understand your concern and are trying to address it.

If we could expand what we can spend the money on, it would make it easier to match funds

Regarding Regional Strategies: our strategy is good, it addresses different things and gives us a blueprint for where we need to go. We want to make sure that the Federal Government is reviewing proposals that we as a region have begun to do very well with sorting out OUR own priorities. We could use feedback because I don't think we all have the same priorities. We feel strongly that OUR priorities should stand and that the Federal Government isn't going to try and tell us what our priorities should be.

We want to empower you to get the funding. The nature of the competitive program is tough. Your concerns and issues will definitely be considered.

When the guidance is always changing, how can we continue with the same strategy from prior years? It would be nice to have a dialogue to plan what we'll be able to fund, and in which years it will be funded. Have you considered doing a formula-based allocation?

No, our allocations will be based on risk (which is kind-of a formula). I don't want to say this is out of the question, though.

If there is an issue with a project, will there be a dialogue to make changes to the proposal?

We want to make sure all the money is spent within the region to which it is allocated. We're not sure how this will happen, but we will make sure it does.

I'm trying to get my hands around the process itself. Can a line item be removed if the SAA feels it's not applicable to a proposal?

The SAA's are the POC with the federal government. The SAA's can review projects and determine which ones to submit. Once the SAA has decided which proposals will be submitted, they are forward to the federal government. This is where the federal review process begins.

But the system needs X, Y, and Z to make a project valuable, so you shouldn't remove Y. We don't want to walk away with 2/3 of a project (i.e. money will be left on the table if this happens, and you've said that you don't want to leave money on the table). If we encounter this type of situation, we should be able to have a dialogue around this issue.

Unfortunately, we can't have this kind of dialogue given the FY06 guidelines. A line item may not be funded because it's ineligible; items are not awarded funding based on a number of different factors.

Would you prefer if we had a system in place to negotiate and arbitrate?

Stakeholder: No, I would prefer to submit a project and then convince you of the value items that did not get approval.

Let's say a large region sits down and agrees on what to submit. We obviously think these are priorities for the region. We would like the opportunity to have a dialogue to determine what works and what doesn't. These projects may be dependent upon one another, so if we're expected to submit more projects than may be approved for funding, this becomes difficult.

TSA cannot tell you what you should submit. If you submit above what can be allocated, it might give the panel the freedom to fulfill the allocated funding.

If we prioritize our projects, you may not fund"all, some, or none." We feel like our regional priorities may not matter to or align with Federal priorities.

Regional projects have most-likely gone through some form of screening prior to submission. Regional projects have probably been prioritized.

Should we submit an"A" list then a"B" list, or will each individual item/project be looked at, with no regard to our prioritized list?

We cannot say until we see the situation. We support the regional strategies and will look at them to evaluate the funds. We want to find a way to push the money out faster by creating fewer boxes for you to check prior to submitting an application. The soft FY05 language on the regional approach was meant to say"we respect your approach," and want to give you more freedom and autonomy.

Can you comment on the dialogue that might take place if you have a problem with a particular project?

You have some options currently. If you choose to send in more projects than the allocation supports, it may give us options to go with other projects in case the panel doesn't approve one. If you submit projects at the allocation level, we may send them back.

Wrap Up:

Doyle Raines:

I want to reiterate, we're not telling you what to put into your projects. We want you to submit the best possibly projects to address the security fundamentals within your regions.

Thanks very much. We really appreciate this kind of dialogue and hopefully we can do a better job in the future because of it.

Back to Top