230 likes | 378 Views
Highway Program Financing. July 2011. Michigan Allocations. Federal Law + State Law + Michigan Policy = MDOT & Local Allocations of Federal Apportionment and Allocations. Federal Perspective. The Federal Highway Program Focuses on Federal Functional Classification …NOT jurisdiction
E N D
Highway Program Financing July 2011
Michigan Allocations • Federal Law + State Law + Michigan Policy = MDOT & Local Allocations of Federal Apportionment and Allocations
Federal Perspective The Federal Highway Program Focuses on • Federal Functional Classification …NOT jurisdiction • Urbanized/Non-urbanized Areas ...NOT cities, villages, and counties
Michigan Law TEDF Set Aside Rail Crossing Mandate 31.5% of EB to TEDF 15% to Cat. C 16.5% to Cat. D 30%<MDOT<50% Rail Crossing Funds Excluding CMAQ, Enhancements, Earmarks, and Bridge
Allocation Process • Assigning Federal Highway Program Apportionments and Allocations to MDOT and Local Programs
Transportation Management Area Program Local Roads in MPOs of Urbanized Areas Over 200,000 • FY 2011 - $88.3 million • Equals Federal Suballocation to Areas Over 200K (policy decision) • Suballocated proportionately to MPOs based on population
Transportation Econ. Dev. Fund-Category C Congestion Relief on Roads in the 5 Urban Counties • FY 2011 - $9.2 Million • Equity Bonus (Minimum Guarantee) set aside required by state law • Suballocated to counties by fixed statutory percentage
Transportation Econ. Dev. Fund-Category D System of All-season Roads in the 78 Rural Counties • FY 2011 - $10.1Million • Equity Bonus (Minimum Guarantee) set aside required by state law • Suballocated to counties by share of rural county primary mileage
Metropolitan Planning MPO Process for Urbanized Areas • FY 2011 - $10.8 Million • Equals Federal Apportionment (Federal Law) • Suballocated to MPOs by base and population
TMA Program $88.3 TEDF-C $9.2 TEDF-D $10.1 Metro Planning $10.8 ================= Subtotal $118.4 25% Target $189.1 -Subtotal $118.4 ================= Remaining $70.7 $70.7 million distributed proportionately to remaining programs “Fixed” Allocations Compared to 25 Percent Target
Small Metropolitan Planning Organization Program Local Roads in MPOs of UZAs from 50,000 to 200,000 • FY 2011 - $21.2 Million • Proportional share of $70.7 million (policy decision) • Suballocated proportionately to MPOs based on population
Small Urban Program Local Roads in Urban Areas 5,000 to 50,000 • FY 2011 - $9.2 Million • Proportional share of $70.7million (policy decision) • Granted to Urban Areas by application
Rural STP Program County Roads Outside Large UZAs • FY 2011 - $28.0 Million • Proportional share of $70.7 million (policy decision) • Suballocated to counties by FAS formula (area, miles, population)
Safety Programs Local Road Safety, Rail Crossings, and Safe Routes to School • FY 2011 - $26.6 Million • Proportional share of $70.7 million (policy decision) • Granted to Local Agencies by application
“Non-75/25” Programs MDOT and Local Allocations • Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality • Total FY 2011 - $78.4 Million • Allocation determined by project selection process • Transportation Enhancements • Total FY 2011- $28.6 Million • Allocation determined by project selection
“Non-75/25” Programs MDOT and Local Allocations • Bridge Funds • Total FY 2011 -$134.0 Million • 15% or $20.1 to Local Bridge Program • Earmarks • Allocation determined by Congress. No Earmarks in FY 2011 • Discretionary Funds • 2011 is the first year in a long time that we had a full discretionary program
Obligation Authority Allocations by Obligation Authority, NOT Apportionments • Associate apportionments with corresponding obligation authority • Exclude “Non-75/25” • Set aside amount of ceilings associated with “Fixed” Allocations • Distribute the remaining ceiling • Determine apportionments for other programs based on authority amount
Local Projects • When a project is submitted by one of the hundreds of local agencies we ask: • Is the project in the S/TIP? • Does the agency have apportionment? • Is there local obligation authority? • If all answers are “Yes” we request obligation of funds
Local Program Rules • Individual counties and MPOs may submit projects using their entire allocation balance if the projects are in the S/STIP • Obligation Authority amounts are available on a “First-come, First serve” basis • Local apportionments/allocations and obligation authority amounts are carried forward from one fiscal year to the next
Important Reminder • Differences in estimated and actual costs and changes that occur throughout the financial life of a project increase or decrease balances of apportionment / allocations and obligation authority.
MDOT Program • MDOT 5 Year Road and Bridge Program • Also STIP and TIP’s • Uses the MDOT Funding “Template” • Repair and Rebuild • Bridge • New Roads • Maintenance • Etc.
MDOT Projects • When a project is submitted by a System Manager we ask: • Is the project in the S/TIP? • Is it Federal-aid eligible? • Do we have eligible apportionment? • Is there MDOT obligation authority? • Depending on the answers, we can obligate federal funds, request “AC authorization, or use State funds