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 Michigan Allocations TEDF Set Aside

31.5% of EB to TEDF 15% to Cat. C 16.5% to Cat. D

Rail Crossing Mandate

30%

Local MDOT

Excluding CMAQ, Enhancements, Earmarks, and Bridge Equity Bonus TEDF-C TEDF-D

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

“Fixed” Allocations

Compared to 25 Percent Target 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

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

75/25 Obligation Authority Local MDOT

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