LOCAL MAJOR BRIDGE PROGRAM

Similar documents
Chapter 15. Transportation Improvements Financing. Ohio Kentucky Indiana Regional Council of Governments Regional Transportation Plan

UNIFIED TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM

2017 UNIFIED TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM AND HB 20 IMPLEMENTATION

Chapter 6: Financial Resources

GLOSSARY. At-Grade Crossing: Intersection of two roadways or a highway and a railroad at the same grade.

Technical Appendix. FDOT 2040 Revenue Forecast

PennDOT Rapid Bridge Replacement Project

Standard Policy No: (P) Effective: 4/17/1015 rev. 2/21/2018 Responsible Division: Finance STATE INFRASTRUCTURE BANK (SIB) LOANS AND BONDS

House Bill 20 Implementation. House Select Committee on Transportation Planning Tuesday, August 30, 2016, 1:00 P.M. Capitol Extension E2.

Fiscal Year VDOT Annual Budget June 2017

STATE OF NEW YORK OFFICE OF THE STATE COMPTROLLER 110 STATE STREET ALBANY, NEW YORK July 19, 2013

A SUMMARY OF EMERGENCY RELIEF PROCEDURES. For FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS

Corridors of Commerce DRAFT Scoring and Prioritization Process. Patrick Weidemann Director of Capital Planning and Programming November 1, 2017

Life-Cycle Cost Analysis: A Practitioner s Approach

INVESTMENT STRATEGIES

APPENDIX FOR THE METROPOLITAN LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Forecast of State and Federal Revenues for Statewide and Metropolitan Plans

Projected Funding & Highway Conditions

In addition to embarking on a new dialogue on Ohio s transportation priorities,

Project Evaluation and Programming II Programming

2017 UNIFIED TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM AND HB 20 IMPLEMENTATION

ALL Counties. ALL Districts

HigHway Carrying Bridges in new Jersey

2016 TRB Webinar. Using Asset Valuation as a Basis for Bridge Maintenance and Replacement Decisions

Genesee-Finger Lakes Regional Bridge Network Needs Assessment and Investment Strategy

Tony Mento, P.E. January 2017

STUDY SCHEDULE STUDY PURPOSE

FY Statewide Capital Investment Strategy... asset management, performance-based strategic direction

JACKSONVILLE URBAN AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION UNIFIED PLANNING WORK PROGRAM AMENDMENT 1 FISCAL YEAR 2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Prioritising bridge replacements

Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines Methodology

2016 PAVEMENT CONDITION ANNUAL REPORT

Fiscal Year VDOT Annual Budget June 2018

Fiscal Year VDOT Annual Budget June 2011

Webinar 11 August 12, 2014

Total Current Revenue: $450 million Current need: $1.12 Billion Funding Deficiency: 60%

PROJECT EVALUATION FORM

RIDOT The Ten Year Plan, Asset Management, and Innovation Moving Ahead in the 21 st Century

FEDERAL FUNDING SOURCES

SOUTH CENTRAL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION. Scope of Services. Terrebonne Parish

Florida Department of Transportation INITIAL TRANSPORTATION ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN

PENNSYLVANIA S 2017 TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM FINANCIAL GUIDANCE

NEW HAMPSHIRE HOUSING FINANCE AUTHORITY UNDERWRITING AND DEVELOPMENT POLICIES FOR MULTI-FAMILY FINANCE

CHAPTER 5 INVESTMENT PLAN

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT

OHIO MPO AND LARGE CITY CAPITAL PROGRAM SFY 2015 SUMMARY

CITY OF ALHAMBRA UTILITIES DEPARTMENT SEWER SYSTEM MAINTENANCE PROGRAM (SSMP)

OHIO MPO & LARGE CITY CAPITAL PROGRAM SFY 2017 SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION TO CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAMMING

Public Works and Development Services

FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

RIDOA STATEWIDE PLANNING PROGRAM Transportation Planning

SCDOT & MPO/COG Planning Partnership. Rebuilding our Roads Performance Management

C ITY OF S OUTH E UCLID

The City of Owen Sound Asset Management Plan

DRAFT. Prioritizing the Implementation of Harris County Flood Control District 2018 Bond Projects

EXHIBIT INFORMATION Financial Statements OFFERING

REQUEST FOR LETTERS OF INTEREST TO PERFORM PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES

This page intentionally blank. Capital Facilities Chapter Relationship to Vision. Capital Facilities Chapter Concepts

Community First Financial Corporation

Environmental Safeguard Monitoring Report. FIJ: Transport Infrastructure Investment Sector Project

1. identifies the required capacity of capital improvements to serve existing and future development based on level-of-service (LOS) standards;

OHIO WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY AND SUBSIDIARIES CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL REPORT. JUNE 30, 2017 and 2016

Stephen Gaj Leader, Asset Management Team Office of Asset Management, Pavements, and Construction FHWA

sources for FY , only a portion of the statedistributed revenue would be available for new capital projects.

OVERVIEW OF STATE TAXATION

Prepared by the South East Texas Regional Planning Commission-Metropolitan Planning Organization (SETRPC-MPO) December 6, 2013

HEMSON C o n s u l t i n g L t d

GASB Statement No. 34. GASB Statement No. 34. GASB Statement No. 34. GASB Statement No. 34. GASB Statement No. 34 the basics

PAGE R1 REVISOR S FULL-TEXT SIDE-BY-SIDE

Morgan County Engineer 2017 Annual Report Stevan Hook PE, PS - January 17, 2018

Glossary Candidate Roadway Project Evaluation Form Project Scoring Sheet... 17

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT

2017 Educational Series FUNDING

REQUEST FOR LETTERS OF INTEREST TO PERFORM PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES

Transportation Trust Fund Overview

Instructions for Completing the Annual Road and Street Finance Report

Assessor Tami Little, County Assessor Development Services Building 150 Beavercreek Road Oregon City, Oregon

Funding Update. House Transportation Subcommittee on Long-Term Infrastructure Planning September 10, 2015, 9:00 A.M. Capitol Extension E2.

UNIFIED PLANNING WORK PROGRAM

City of Grand Forks Staff Report

2009 Ohio Infrastructure Report Card Dams Fact Sheet Grade: C

Developing a Transportation Asset Management Plan

FEDERAL LANDS ACCESS PROGRAM PROJECT MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT

MW Bancorp, Inc. Consolidated Financial Statements. June 30, 2018 and 2017

Maine Transportation Needs and Financing

A PROCEDURAL DOCUMENT DESCRIBING THE PROCESS OF DEVELOPING THE 4-YEAR PLAN

FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

KRUNG THAI BANK PUBLIC COMPANY LIMITED

Financial Capacity Analysis

UCI Legislative Update. May 26, 2016 Julie Brown Local Assistance Division

Randy Ort Assistant Chief - Administration. Southwest Arkansas Transportation

Maintenance Funding & Investment Decisions STACEY GLASS, P.E. STATE MAINTENANCE ENGINEER ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Technical Memorandum. Finance. Prepared for: Prepared by: In cooperation with: High Street Consulting Group

Asset Sustainability Index

Hazim M Abdulwahid, MSC, MBA Hazim Consulting

PROJECT COST REPORTING

UTILITIES INTERNAL POLICIES AND PROCEDURES MANUAL

An Inclusive and Data-Rich Approach to Infrastructure Development

Contracting and Expenditure Trends

WASATCH FRONT REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN FINANCIAL PLAN. Technical Report 47 May 2007 DAVIS MORGAN SALT LAKE TOOELE WEBER

Transcription:

LOCAL MAJOR BRIDGE PROGRAM The Local Major Bridge Program provides federal funds to counties and municipal corporations for bridge replacement or bridge major rehabilitation projects. A Local Major Bridge is defined as a moveable bridge or a bridge having a deck area greater than 35,000 square feet. The bridge must also carry vehicular traffic. The annual allocation for the Local Major Bridge Program is established by ODOT and administered by the Division of Planning, Office of Local Programs. Currently, there are 50 bridges identified statewide as Local Major Bridges. To be eligible for funds, projects must have a General Appraisal of 5 or less. Projects must also have a completed feasibility study and must submit it with the project application. ODOT will provide up to 80% of eligible costs for construction only (including construction engineering, i.e. testing and inspection) up to a specified maximum. The local agency is responsible for the 20 percent nonfederal share of the construction costs and also for all costs associated with preliminary engineering, environmental studies and documents, final design and right of way. The local contribution for construction is required to be a cash match. In-kind contributions cannot be accepted as part of the local share. The proposed project must be publicly-owned and on existing publicly-owned property. Based on past experience, the Local Agency must demonstrate the ability and commitment to be able to oversee the project to completion. A criteria-based project selection process has been developed to focus on eliminating deficiencies, while keeping within a financial plan that utilizes existing available resources. Funding of all projects will be linked to defined deficiencies, so each dollar invested results in system improvement. A scoring system is used to prioritize projects. The scoring criteria include items currently utilized for traditional funding of bridge projects such as General Appraisal and Sufficiency Rating. Other categories used are Local Share, Economic Health and Regional Impact. Scope of project and commitment dates are as agreed to by the Local Agency, MPO if applicable, and ODOT when the project is programmed. These dates are the milestones for each phase of the project through award. The number and types of milestones differ as to whether a project is sold and administered by ODOT or by the Local Agency. ODOT reserves the right to move any project to the end of the selected project list or withdraw any funding if any commitment dates are missed by the Local Agency. Once selected projects are programmed and are at an appropriate stage of project development, a value engineering session will be required on all projects with a construction cost exceeding $20,000,000. Value engineering may be required on projects less than $20,000,000. Federal law requires that Federally-funded projects conform to the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Historic Preservation Act. To comply with these laws, projects must have an environmental review to assess and/or mitigate effects on social, economic, and environmental factors. Any property acquisition must conform to the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act, as amended. All other applicable Federal and State regulations relating to the project must be complied with.

APPLICATION PROCESS A. The applicant will complete an application for funds and submit it to the Local Major Bridge Program Manager. The application form will be made available through the district Planning offices and will also be posted on the Office of Local Programs website. Along with the completed application, the following information must be submitted: 1. Project location map 2. Photographs of project site 3. Project scope and schedule 4. Cost estimate that includes the sources of funding by phase and costs for the proposed project 5. Project Feasibility Study 6. Project plans if developed B. The application and submitted data will be verified and evaluated by a multi-disciplinary team comprised of central office, district and FHWA personnel. The Local Major Bridge Program Manager will score the applications. C. A selection committee of ODOT district and central office personnel, chaired by the Local Major Bridge Program Manager, will review and select the proposed projects based on merit and availability of Program funds. It should be emphasized that the ranking process does not require that the selection committee must fund projects in order of their ranking. The ranking is a means to help the committee generally prioritize and rank projects. Other factors ODOT determines to be relevant may be taken into consideration, such as past project delivery performance, geographic distribution and availability of MPO funds. D. Once the projects have been selected, the Local Major Bridge Program Manager will notify the applicant of the results. SELECTION PROCESS LOCAL MAJOR BRIDGE PROGRAM SCORING CRITERIA The following scoring system will be used to prioritize the funding of replacement and major rehabilitation projects for locally owned major bridges. The scoring criteria includes items currently utilized for traditional funding of bridge projects such as General Appraisal and Sufficiency Rating. Other categories used are Local Share, Economic Health and Regional

Impact for a total maximum score of 0 points. Projects eligible for funding must have a General Appraisal rating of 5 or less and must also have a completed feasibility study. Category Maximum Weight Factor Total 1. General Appraisal 3.0 30 2. Sufficiency Rating 2.0 20 3. Local Share Percent Amount 1.0 1.0 4. Economic Health 1.5 15 5. Regional Impact 15 1.0 15 Total Maximum Score = 0 A description and explanation of the scoring criteria follows. 1. General Appraisal General Appraisal (GA) is a composite measure of the major structural items of a bridge, such as beams, piers and abutments. It is based on the existing condition of the bridge as compared to its as-built condition. GA is rated from 0-9, with a rating of 5 or more being acceptable. The General Appraisal values are kept in the Bridge Inventory database maintained by ODOT. General Appraisal 1-2 3 9 4 8 5 5 6-9 0 Due to the significance of General Appraisal to the overall health and condition of the bridge, this category has a weight factor of 3.0 for a maximum total point value of 30. 2. Sufficiency Rating The Sufficiency Rating is calculated per the formula defined in FHWA s Recording and Coding Guide for the Structure Inventory and Appraisal of the Nation s Bridges. This Guide weighs structural adequacy, safety, serviceability and essentiality for public use. This rating is indicative of a bridge s sufficiency to remain in service. The point calculation is as follows:

= (0 Sufficiency Rating) / If the point calculation is less than 2.0, the points assigned will be 0. Due to the significance of Sufficiency Rating to the safety and serviceability of the bridge and its overall importance to the system, this category has a weight factor of 2.0 for a maximum total point value of 20. 3. Local Share This item is a measure of the bridge owner s willingness and ability to obtain funding sources other than those controlled by ODOT. It is meant to encourage the local sponsor to increase the local share of the project s cost and to decrease the total cost of the project to the Department. Locals are required to provide 0% of all project development costs and the 20% nonfederal share of construction costs. Examples of other federal and nonfederal funding sources include County Bridge (LBR), Public Works Commission (State Issue 2), MPO, SIB, or local contributions. This measure is scored by both the dollar amount and by the percentage of the total project cost. Amount Contributed % Contributed $15 million 50% $ < 15 million 8 40 < 50% 8 $7 < million 6 30 < 40% 5 $3 < 7 million 4 20 < 30% 2 $1 < 3 million 2 < 20% 0 < $1 million 0 Due to the significant impact funding can have on a project, this entire category has a weight factor of 1.0 and both of the components have a point value of, for a maximum total point value of 20. 4. Economic Health This item recognizes that Ohio local governments are not equal in their financial wealth. To achieve some measure of equity among entities, the level of economic distress is evaluated based on the unemployment rate of the project sponsor - either the municipality or the county (current rate posted on the Ohio Department of Development website). The Economic Health factor awards points to local entities having an unemployment rate that is higher than the statewide rate. Local Agency s Unemployment Rate in Relation to the Statewide Rate 30.1% or greater than statewide rate 25.1% - 30% greater than statewide rate 8 20.1% - 25% greater than statewide rate 6

.1% - 20% greater than statewide rate 4 0.1 - % greater than statewide rate 2 equal to or below statewide average 0 This category has a weight factor of 1.5 for a maximum total point value of 15. 5. Regional Impact This item accounts for the bridge s significance to the area, and consists of three components: Average Daily Traffic (ADT), Detour Length, and Functional Class which is a highway s ranking in a defined hierarchy. Affected routes in this program are typically classified as Principal Arterial, Minor Arterial, Collector or Local. ADT Detour Length Functional Class > 40,000 5 5 5 Principal Arterial (1, 2, 11, 12, 14) > 30,000-40,000 > 20,000-30,000 >,000-20,000 4 4 4 Minor Arterial (6, 16) Collector (7, 17) 3 3 3 Local (9, 19) 1 2 2 2 #,000 0 0 to 1 0 This entire category has a weight factor of 1.0 and each of the three components have a point value or 5, for a maximum total point value of 15. 5 3