1 / 23

Highway Program Financing

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

talulah
Download Presentation

Highway Program Financing

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Highway Program Financing July 2011

  2. Michigan Allocations • Federal Law + State Law + Michigan Policy = MDOT & Local Allocations of Federal Apportionment and Allocations

  3. Federal Perspective The Federal Highway Program Focuses on • Federal Functional Classification …NOT jurisdiction • Urbanized/Non-urbanized Areas ...NOT cities, villages, and counties

  4. 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

  5. Allocation Process • Assigning Federal Highway Program Apportionments and Allocations to MDOT and Local Programs

  6. 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

  7. 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

  8. 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

  9. Metropolitan Planning MPO Process for Urbanized Areas • FY 2011 - $10.8 Million • Equals Federal Apportionment (Federal Law) • Suballocated to MPOs by base and population

  10. 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

  11. 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

  12. 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

  13. 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)

  14. 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

  15. “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

  16. “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

  17. 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

  18. 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

  19. 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

  20. 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.

  21. 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.

  22. 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

More Related