MAG Arterial Life Cycle Program: Draft Policies and Procedures

1
MAG Arterial Life Cycle ProgramDraft Policies
and Procedures
2
RTP Arterial Program (2002 dollars)

• 62 street projects _at_ 1.3 billion
• 34 intersection projects _at_ 113 million
• 50 million for arterial ITS projects
• 863 million in sales tax funds
• 105 million in CMAQ
• 497 million in STP

3
(No Transcript)
4
Life Cycle Budget

• HB 2456 requires that MAG
• shall adopt a budget process that ensures the
  estimated cost of the arterial street mode does
  not exceed the total amount of revenue estimated
  to be available for the arterial street mode.

5
Objectives

• Fiscal Integrity
• Effective Efficient RTP Implementation
• Accountability
• Transparency
• Compliance

6
Factors considered

• The life cycle program must include all of the
  arterial projects identified in the RTP.
• Resources to fund arterial projects must be
  sufficient to build the first projects as well as
  the last projects in the program.
• Many of the projects have not been fully scoped
  or designed.
• Funding from third parties should be encouraged.
• Adequate funding to complete the project must be
  identified before construction begins.
• Jurisdictions should be able to advance construct
  projects and be reimbursed according to the
  adopted schedule.

7
Overview

• Designation of lead agency
• Project agreements
• Changes approved through MAG
• Fixed regional budgets
• Reallocation of unused project funds
• Reimbursement basis
• Reporting requirements
• Audit considerations

8
Sections

• Program management administration
• Lead agency and budgets
• Project requirements
• Legal agreements
• Programming

9
I. Program management administration

• 100 Definitions
• 110 Objectives
• 120 Applicability of policies / procedures
• 130 Coordination with other modes
• 140 Reporting
• 150 Committee process
• 160 Amendment of policies / procedures

10
II. Lead agency and budgets

• 200 Lead agencies
• 210 Project budgets
• 220 Reimbursement process
• 230 Reallocation of unexpended funds
• 240 Determination of unexpended funds
• 250 Reimbursement for prior work

11
III. Project requirements

• 300 Project eligibility
• 310 Project approvals
• 320 Project amendments

12
IV. Legal agreementsV. Programming

• 400 Project agreements
• 410 Memoranda of understanding
• 500 Project priorities and programming

13
Overview of Interim Policy for Advancements
14
Overview of Interim Policy

• Set forth the guidelines for advancement of RTP
  street projects.
• Requires jurisdiction to provide funding.
• Repayments are made according to the Arterial
  Life-cycle program.
• Generally parallels freeway policy.
• Priorities maintained
• No impact on other projects in the program

15
Options

• 1. No allowance for inflation for advanced
  projects.
• 2. Full reimbursement Project costs plus
  inflation.
• Rate would be the same as that used to adjust
  arterial project costs for general inflation, ex
  3.
• 3. Sharing of the inflation savings between the
  program and jurisdiction.
• 50 / 50 sharing used for the freeway program
• Other sharing arrangements

16
Option 1 No Reimbursement

• Pro
• Most fiscally conservative for the RTP budget
• Less risk for the program.
• Street program primarily limited to sales tax.
• May be argued that inflation is not incurred or
  limited for the project once advanced.
• User pay approach Projects can still be
  advanced if the proponent pays the costs
• Avoids potential negative appearance of windfall
  reimbursements for projects long since
  completed
• Con
• Equity Budgets for other projects implemented
  in later years would be adjusted for inflation
• Lower incentive for early implementation
• Advancement of some projects may not happen.

17
Option 2 Full Reimbursement

• Pro
• More equitable since all projects programmed in
  the same years would receive the same treatment
  for inflation.
• More incentive for early implementation
• More likely to be advanced, with corresponding
  benefits to the region for early implementation
• Con
• More complex to administer
• May have negative appearance for windfall
  reimbursements in later years for projects long
  since implemented.

18
Option 3 Partial Reimbursement

• Pro
• Addresses equity issue by allowing some
  reimbursement for inflation
• Less risk than full reimbursement policy
• Consistent with the existing Highway Acceleration
  Policy with 50 / 50 sharing.
• Con
• More complicated to administer
• May have some negative appearance for windfall
  reimbursements in later years for projects long
  since implemented.