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 Equity Bonus TEDF-CTEDF-D TEDF Set Aside Excluding CMAQ, Enhancements, Earmarks, and Bridge 31.5% of EB to TEDF 15% to Cat. C 16.5% to Cat. D Rail Crossing Mandate 30%<MDOT<50% Rail Crossing Funds

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

6. Transportation Management Area Program FY 2011 - $88.3 million Equals Federal Suballocation to Areas Over 200K (policy decision) Suballocated proportionately to MPOs based on population Local Roads in MPOs of Urbanized Areas Over 200,000

7. Transportation Econ. Dev. Fund- Category C FY 2011 - $9.2 Million Equity Bonus (Minimum Guarantee) set aside required by state law Suballocated to counties by fixed statutory percentage Congestion Relief on Roads in the 5 Urban Counties

8. Transportation Econ. Dev. Fund- Category D FY 2011 - $10.1Million Equity Bonus (Minimum Guarantee) set aside required by state law Suballocated to counties by share of rural county primary mileage System of All-season Roads in the 78 Rural Counties

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

10. “Fixed” Allocations 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 Compared to 25 Percent Target

11. Small Metropolitan Planning Organization Program FY 2011 - $21.2 Million Proportional share of $70.7 million (policy decision) Suballocated proportionately to MPOs based on population Local Roads in MPOs of UZAs from 50,000 to 200,000

12. Small Urban Program FY 2011 - $9.2 Million Proportional share of $70.7million (policy decision) Granted to Urban Areas by application Local Roads in Urban Areas 5,000 to 50,000

13. Rural STP Program FY 2011 - $28.0 Million Proportional share of $70.7 million (policy decision) Suballocated to counties by FAS formula (area, miles, population) County Roads Outside Large UZAs

14. Safety Programs FY 2011 - $26.6 Million Proportional share of $70.7 million (policy decision) Granted to Local Agencies by application Local Road Safety, Rail Crossings, and Safe Routes to School

15. “Non-75/25” Programs 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 MDOT and Local Allocations

16. “Non-75/25” Programs 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 MDOT and Local Allocations

17. Obligation Authority 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 Allocations by Obligation Authority, NOT Apportionments

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