policy committee meeting wednesday, july 15,...

POLICY COMMITTEE MEETING Wednesday, July 15, 2015 - 10:00 AM

City of Fairbanks, Council Chambers, 800 Cushman Street

1. Call to Order

2. Introduction of Members and Attendees

3. Public Comment Period (3 minute limit)

4. Approval of the July 15, 2015 Agenda

5. Approval of the June 17, 2015 Minutes 6. Committee Reports

a. Coordinator’s Office Report and Technical Committee Action Items b. Approval of the Policy and Procedures Document (Action Item)

7. Old Business

a. Status of the 2015 – 2018 TIP – Comments to Date

8. New Business a. FFY16 Coordinator’s Office Budget and PL Funding (Action Item) b. Location Change for Future Policy Committee Meetings (Action Item) c. College Road Rehabilitation Construction Increase (Action Item) d. Gold Hill Road Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Construction Increase (Action Item) e. South Cushman Construction Increase (Action Item) f. STIP Amendment 16 Comments (Action Item) g. Date Change for the August Policy Committee Meeting (Action Item) h. Airport Way Medians i. Coordinator’s Office Reorganization Discussion j. Future Funding for the FMATS Office Discussion k. Discussion of Fox Spring

9. Public Comment Period (3 minute limit) 10. Other Issues

11. Informational Items

a. DRVE Act Summary b. Obligations/Offsets

12. Policy Committee Comments

13. Adjourn

Next Scheduled Policy Committee Meeting, 10:00 am, Wednesday, August 19, 2015 at City Hall, Council Chambers, 800 Cushman Street, Fairbanks.

agiamichael

Typewritten Text

Pg 2-8

agiamichael

Typewritten Text

Pg 9-11

agiamichael

Typewritten Text

Pg 12-35

agiamichael

Typewritten Text

Pg 36-37

agiamichael

Typewritten Text

Pg 38-40

agiamichael

Typewritten Text

agiamichael

Typewritten Text

Pg 41-42

agiamichael

Typewritten Text

Pg 43-44

agiamichael

Typewritten Text

Pg 45

agiamichael

Typewritten Text

Pg 46-50

agiamichael

Typewritten Text

Pg 51

agiamichael

Typewritten Text

Pg 52-56

agiamichael

Typewritten Text

Pg 57-61

POLICY COMMITTEE

Council Chambers, City Hall, 800 Cushman Street, Fairbanks, AK Meeting Minutes – June 17, 2015

1. Call to Order Mayor Bryce Ward, Chair, called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m.

2. Introduction of Members and Attendees Attendee Representative Organization

*Bryce Ward, Chair Mayor, City of North Pole *Kellen Spillman for Luke Hopkins, Vice Chair Mayor, Fairbanks North Star Borough *Jerry Cleworth for John Eberhart Mayor, City of Fairbanks *Judy Chapman for David Miller Northern Region Director, DOT&PF *Guy Sattley FNSB Assembly Member *Perry Walley City Council Member, City of Fairbanks *Denise Koch DEC, Division of Air Quality **+Donna Gardino FMATS MPO Coordinator **Deborah Todd FMATS Administrative Assistant **Alicia Giamichael FMATS Transportation Planner Linda Mahlen DOT&PF Planning Lee Borden DEC Randy Zarnke Citizen *FMATS Policy Committee Members, **FMATS Staff Members, +FMATS Technical Committee Members

3. Public Comment Period (3 minute limit) Randy Zarnke commented that he had noticed the renovation of Third Street had begun with tearing down a bunch of buildings and remembered when that project was projected for completion in 1986, so he was very pleased to see it getting started. Mr. Zarnke commented that the section of Cowles Street between Airport Road and the hospital was, in his opinion, one of the worst stretches of street in town and if and when funds became available, he requested that it be put on the top of their priority list. Mr. Zarnke commented that his primary comment was regarding the landscaping of the median and shoulders on Airport Road, the Steese Highway, and College Road. Mr. Zarnke stated that he spoke with DOT the other day and was told that with budget cuts they were only able to hire half the lawn mowing help that they normally had in the summer.

Mr. Zarnke stated that if the budget problems were going to be long term for DOT, as much as he as he liked green grass and trees, he would consider having textured concrete like what was done on the Illinois Street or something that looked better than what they had now.

Mr. Sattley inquired if there was any reference made about the previous maintenance disagreement between the State and the Borough for Airport Road when Mr. Zarnke spoke with DOT. Mr. Zarnke stated that Mr. Miller had not mentioned it but that he was relatively new at DOT.

June 17, 2015 Policy Committee Meeting Minutes

2

Mr. Sattley explained that the Borough had spent $100,000 taking over the maintenance of the medians because there had been a big stink and the Borough had spent money to buy a truck, a trailer, and a water tank.

Mr. Zarnke stated that he remembered the years that the median was actually being watered when it was needed and it had looked great. Mr. Zarnke commented that if the funds were not available any more to maintain that median, anything would look better than what it did now.

Mr. Walley inquired if the question was posed to DOT about how many times the median would be mowed this year.

Mr. Zarnke stated that DOT did not say how many times they would mow, but that they had started to mow some portions and were gradually going from east to west.

Ms. Chapman stated that she believed DOT mowed the Airport Way median three times a summer.

Mr. Zarnke commented that if it was only mowed three times a summer, or once a month, it was guaranteed to look pretty bad for most of the summer.

*Mr. Cleworth arrived at this point in the meeting.

4. Approval of the June 17, 2015 Agenda Motion: To approve the June 17, 2015 Agenda. (Sattley/Walley). Discussion: No discussion. Vote on Motion: None opposed. Approved.

5. Approval of the May 20, 2015 Meeting Minutes Motion: To approve the May 20, 2015 meeting minutes. (Sattley/Chapman). Discussion: No discussion. Vote on Motion: None opposed. Approved.

6. Committee Reports a. Coordinator’s Office Report and Technical Committee Action Items

Ms. Gardino apologized to Mr. Cleworth for not reminding him again the day before about the new venue for the meeting. Ms. Gardino stated that after contacting DOT, she had been informed that the construction contract for the public parking area in front of DOT would render it unavailable until at least September, so she recommended they continue to have the Policy Committee Meetings in the Council Chambers at City Hall for July and August. Ms. Gardino presented the highlights from meetings, open houses, conferences, events, and presentations she had attended since the last meeting.

7. Old Business No old business.

8. New Business a. Gold Hill Road Phase 2 Increase (Action Item)

Ms. Gardino stated that the recommendation from the Technical Committee was to approve the $75,000 funding increase for Phase 2 of the Gold Hill Road Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility project using FCTP funding.


3

Ms. Gardino stated that the funding was to support the right-of-way process during design because there were 42 parcels that had to be dealt with and their Phase 2 budget was exhausted, and they also needed the money to put together the final contract and get the project out to bid. Ms. Gardino stated FMATS had the funding, so the Technical Committee recommended funding the project.

Motion: To approve $75k for the Phase 2 increase on Gold Hill Road Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility using banked funds. (Chapman/Walley).

Discussion: No further discussion.

Vote on Motion: None opposed. Approved.

b. TIP Amendment #9 Approval (Action Item) Ms. Gardino explained the purpose behind Amendment #9 had been to add the transit funding that the Borough did not realize they had access to and the rest of the revisions were administrative. Ms. Gardino recommended the Badger Road Bike Path project and the Steese to Front Street Project also be funded.

Motion: To approve FMATS TIP Amendment #9. (Cleworth/Walley).

Amendment to the Motion: To put $1,450,000 towards the Badger Road Bike Path Project. (Cleworth/Chapman).



Amendment to the Motion: To move $20K from FFY15 to FFY16 for the Steese to Front Street Project, Ph 3. (Walley/Sattley).

Discussion: Mr. Cleworth inquired if the project was the one coming down off the bridge and whether it was going to be maintained by DOT.

Ms. Gardino stated that the sidewalk on Front Street would be maintained by the Borough and the rest would be maintained by DOT. Ms. Gardino explained that the new design DOT proposed would coordinate the bike path with the Steese bike path. Ms. Gardino stated that the design had not been set yet and DOT was still looking at alternatives.

Vote on Amendment to the Motion: None opposed. Approved.

Amended Motion: To approve the FMATS TIP Amendment #9, put $1,450,000 towards the Badger Road Bike Path Project, and move $20,000 from FFY15 to FFY16 for the Steese to Front Street project, Ph 3.

Vote on Amended Motion: None opposed. Approved.

c. Public Participation Plan for the 2015-2018 TIP (Action Item) Ms. Gardino explained the requirements, goals, and objectives for the Public Participation Plan.

Motion: To approve the FMATS Public Participation Plan for the 2015-2018 TIP for public comment. (Sattley/Walley).


4



d. 2015-2018 Draft TIP Conformity Determination for Air Quality (Action Item) Ms. Gardino explained the meetings and steps taken prior to the Conformity Determination for Air Quality on the 2015-2018 TIP.

Motion: To approve the Conformity Analysis for the 2015-2018 TIP for public comment. (Koch/Chapman).

Discussion: Discussion followed regarding non-attainment and compliance and whether Fairbanks would ever attain compliance.

Ms. Koch explained the two standards for PM2.5 and the methods that were used to determine compliance. Ms. Koch explained that the Conformity Analysis that was used was correct.

Mr. Cleworth inquired what would happen if they were not in compliance.

Ms. Koch stated that the EPA would require the State and Borough to make five percent reductions in emissions each year and there were serious implications if the Borough did not come into compliance by 2019.

Mr. Borden stated that there were other implications such as programs that were voluntary now would be mandated.

Ms. Koch stated that for the last year, Fairbanks has shown a decrease and were approaching the standard and there was potential that Fairbanks could come into compliance with PM2.5.

Mr. Cleworth inquired if Ms. Koch meant the City of Fairbanks when she said Fairbanks.

Ms. Koch stated that the Fairbanks main monitoring site was located at the top of the State office building.

Mr. Cleworth inquired what had to happen to get the State off of the EPA hit list.

Ms. Koch stated that once they reached compliance they had ten years assuming they remained in compliance during that time. Ms. Koch stated that in 2014 and so far in 2015, the State had been given a clean air designation.

Ms. Gardino inquired if the standards were going to be stricter with the new compliance laws from EPA.

Ms. Koch stated that she had not heard from EPA that they were going to reduce that clean air designation to something stricter.

Mr. Sattley inquired how the emissions standards would be enforced.

Mr. Borden explained that the State would enforce those standards.


e. 2015–2018 Draft TIP Approval for Public Comment (Action Item)


5

Ms. Gardino explained the 2015-2018 Draft TIP and the basis for how each project had been programmed and subsequently funded in order of scores received.

Motion: To approve the 2015-2018 Draft TIP for public comment (Cleworth/Wally).

Discussion: Mr. Cleworth commented that with the diminishing funding in the last three fiscal years and projects like the South Cushman Street project that had all the amenities was going to be an anomaly. Mr. Cleworth stated that in future projects, we were not going to be afforded the luxury of having those same amenities.


f. PL Fund Recommendation (Action Item) Ms. Gardino explained that the reason for the recommendation was to consider choosing different projects to use the PL funds, since the projects that were recommended were ineligible.

Ms. Gardino explained that she did not think the Policy Committee needed to take action today since they did not have the full information.

Motion: To recommend postponing the PL Fund recommendation for one month until DOT receives further information about funding for FFY17. (Chapman/Sattley).



g. College Road Rehabilitation Construction Increase (Action Item) Ms. Gardino stated that this agenda item had not gone to the Technical Committee and she did not have the information for an action.

Discussion: Mr. Sattley inquired about the five bus shelters scheduled to be built on College Road this summer and was concerned about coordination between the Borough and the Contractor.

Ms. Gardino explained that there were five bus shelters going up on College Road and Adam Barth of the Borough was coordinating the effort for the bus shelters. Ms. Gardino stated that the shelters were ordered, but would probably not arrive until later this summer, and the contractor would probably be HC Contractors again. Ms. Gardino stated that HC would coordinate with the other contractors for the work that was being done on College Road so as not to interfere.

9. Public Comment Period (3 minute limit) No public comment.

10. Other Issues No other issues.

11. Informational Items Ms. Gardino explained that STIP Amendment #16 was out for public comment.

a. Obligations/Offsets


6

Ms. Gardino summarized the obligations and offsets included in the meeting packet.

12. Policy Committee Comments Mr. Cleworth commented that on the Third Street project he noticed they had

torn down all those buildings and wanted to know if the State bought the entire lot from each of those businesses. Ms. Chapman stated that she did not know if it was always the entire lot but DOT generally tried to buy the whole lot if it was a huge impact. They were were going to try to do a roundabout on Eagle and Third Street intersection where the Chowder House was located with a dedicated left turn and going through to the east. Mr. Cleworth stated that it must have cost quite a bit to acquire all that property and inquired about the status of that project. Ms. Chapman stated that the project was moving forward with construction slated for 2017. Mr. Cleworth commented that there had been a presentation in 2012 about Airport Way and several proposals were made for the median question that Mr. Zarnke had posed. Mr. Cleworth stated that DOT had a longstanding policy that they did not like taking care of grass, but if FMATS selected that option, DOT had stated that they would maintain it. Mr. Cleworth stated that he was puzzled as to the reason why DOT would not be mowing the median more than once a month and why they could not bid a contract for someone to mow that median and the City was doing that with the Clay Street Cemetery. Ms. Chapman commented that she shared Mr. Cleworth’s concern about the Airport Way median and agreed that it did not look very nice, but maintenance cuts this year would be even greater and DOT would be faced with choices of whether to spend their money to maintain major roads or medians. Ms. Chapman stated that she had been looking into drought hardy species that could be planted in that median and thought it might require looking at other options rather than grass for the medians that would look better and require less maintenance such as stamped concrete with sun tolerant plants. Ms. Chapman stated that she would like to take that on personally and one of the projects might be to find affordable landscaping features.

Mr. Walley commented that he would totally be in favor of stamped colored concrete and thought that the maintenance for that would be minimal and the life value would be much greater. Mr. Walley commented that the Goldpanners used to mow that area and did not know how they got around the liability issue to enable them to mow it. Mr. Walley commented that he


7

was also curious about the cone placement on the College Road project since they were hard to negotiate with a large vehicle pulling a trailer. Mr. Walley inquired if the hold up on the Steese project had been the Holiday Station and wondered what had happened with that.

Mr. Spillman commented that he was hoping that Ms. Chapman would address the status of the State Rail Plan during her comments.

Mr. Sattley commented that there was an email to the Assembly and the sender had used Illinois Street as an example of landscaping and his recollection was that even though they had $100,000 in the budget; DOT had opted to close out the contract and opted not to use that money for beautification. Mr. Sattley commented that he was amazed that whoever sent the email had used Illinois Street as an example of beautification since he did not think that project was beautiful.

Ms. Chapman commented that she had heard there was a movement on the State Rail Plan, but she had not yet seen the draft for that, but the Task Force had received the draft and were reviewing it and making comments so it was moving forward. Ms. Chapman stated that she was concerned about the lack of State funding and since those funds were so limited, we needed to figure out how much was required to keep FMATS going, in terms of non-federal funds. Ms. Chapman stated that in the next UPWP those that were contributing in-kind services might have to start contributing cash in order to keep FMATS funded and strong in the future.

13. Adjourn

Motion to adjourn. (Walley/Spillman). The meeting adjourned at 11:30 a.m. The next Policy Committee Meeting is scheduled Wednesday, July 15, 2015, at 10 a.m. in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 800 Cushman Street, Fairbanks, Alaska. Approved: ___________________________ Date: __________

Mayor Bryce Ward, Chair FMATS Policy Committee

FAIRBANKS METROPOLITAN AREA

TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM

DRAFT POLICIES & PROCEDURES

REVISION 8 – MAY 6, 2015

Draft FMATS Policies and Procedures R8


TABLE OF CONTENTS

FMATS POLICIES AND PROCEDURES .............................................................................................................................. 4

NO.1 Background Information .................................................................................................................................. 4

NO. 2 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) ................................................................................................... 5

NO. 3 TIP Funding Tables........................................................................................................................................... 7

NO. 4 Maintenance ................................................................................................................................................. 11

NO. 5 Scope and Funding Changes .......................................................................................................................... 12

NO. 6 Air Quality Conformity .................................................................................................................................. 14

NO. 7 Administrative Policies .................................................................................................................................. 16

NO. 8 Enhancement Policy ...................................................................................................................................... 18

NO. 9 Complete Streets ........................................................................................................................................... 19

NO. 10 Green Streets .............................................................................................................................................. 20

NO. 11 Definitions ................................................................................................................................................... 21

Appendix ................................................................................................................................................................. 24

a. Memorandum of Understanding for the Implementation of a Fairbanks Metropolitan Area

Transportation System Coordinator’s Office

b. Public Participation Plan

c. PM2.5 Conformity Hot‐Spot Analysis for Fairbanks, Alaska


FMATS POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

NO.1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION

A. The FMATS Bylaws define the structure, purpose and operation of the Policy and

Technical Committees and the meetings of both committees. Below is an illustration of

the FMATS.

The Memorandum of Understanding for the Implementation of a Fairbanks Metropolitan Area

Transportation System Coordinator’s Office lines out the duties and responsibilities of each entity. This

document is attached as Appendix A. The Public Participation Plan contains a list of commonly used

document abbreviations and acronyms and is attached as Appendix B.

Policy Committee

MPO Coordinator

Transportation Planner

Administrative Assistant

Technical Committee

FNSB

Transportation

Planner

DOT&PF

Fairbanks Area

Planner

DOT&PF

Transportation

Planner


NO. 2 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (TIP)

TIP Scoring Process

Roadway projects will be scored using the latest FMATS Policy Committee approved scoring criteria. All

publicly owned roadways, regardless of ownership (City, FNSB or State) and regardless of classification

(National Highway System or Non‐National Highway System) will be ranked and scored using the same

criteria. The scoring of FMATS’ projects will assist in prioritizing projects for the development of the TIP.

Non‐FMATS funded projects will be scored in order to convey the MPOs priority projects for the

ADOT&PF’s consideration in the STIP. ADOT&PF will consider the proposed NHS scoring and ranking, and

ADOT&PF will continue to establish the funding for NHS projects in cooperation with FMATS in

accordance with USC title 23 Section 134 (i)(4)(B).

The approved FMATS Public Participation Plan, requires all project nominations be scored by the

Technical Committee regardless of the funding type to ensure the proper vetting of all projects. Specific

projects that receive direct general funding appropriations will not be scored unless additional

appropriations are required. Nominations for projects to include in the TIP may be received at any time

and are encouraged. However, projects will be scored and ranked only during the development of a new

TIP. Any project scored between TIP cycles will be done at the direction of the Policy Committee.

The Technical Committee will score all projects, in the short‐term time frame of the MTP, using the

appropriate approved criteria. If a road is planned to be rehabilitated, the adjoining sidewalk or path

should be evaluated for rehabilitation as well. Since bicycle and pedestrian projects within the MPA

should have the same priority as Roadway projects, rehabilitation, reconstruction and maintenance of

these facilities should be similar. If the sidewalk or path is deemed to need more extensive

reconstruction under a separate effort, a project will be immediately started to correct the deficiencies

in the facility. If a new road is to be built, accommodations for a bicycle and a pedestrian facility should

be investigated and the FMATS Technical Committee and Policy Committee should be consulted.

Scoring criteria will only be modified and used prior to the development of a new TIP. Subsequent

refinement to scoring criteria will be approved and used in the next TIP cycle unless implementation of

new criteria is required by law. New projects added to the TIP by the Policy Committee that require

scoring, shall use the same scoring criteria as the other projects within the TIP. Projects that have

already been initiated with the State (approved preliminary engineering phase) will not be re‐scored, as

these are considered On‐going projects. A project that has already been scored but has a significant

scope change must be re‐scored, per the direction of the Policy Committee.

The Policy Committee may place a new project in the TIP, after the TIP has been developed. Placement

of the new project may be at the discretion of the Policy Committee after the new project is scored by

the Technical Committee. If not directed specifically by the Policy Committee, new projects added to the


TIP, after a TIP has been developed, will be the next highest ranked project from the appropriate Needs

List, if maintenance and match issues have been sufficiently addressed.

CTP and Non‐Motorized Project Scoring Criteria

Staff will provide the scores for Cost/Length/AADT and functional class in consultation with the DOT&PF.

Thus, all scores will be uniform for these two items. Each member of the Technical Committee has the

ability to score Other Considerations as they see fit up to a maximum of 10 points. Projects that receive

a score for Special Considerations must have a justification for the given score.

CMAQ Project Criteria

FMATS will not separately score CMAQ projects.


NO. 3 TIP FUNDING TABLES

80% of the FMATS STP allocation will be used for roads and associated appurtenances and 20% will fund

Non‐Motorized projects, averaged over four years. The following tables are funded with these

allocations listed above.

Surface Transportation Program (STP) Project Table

1. All items listed in the STP Project Table, except the FMATS Improvement Program, the Sidewalk

Improvement Project, the Safety and Efficiency Improvements Project, the Intersection

Improvement Project and planning efforts, will be ranked and scored with the approved scoring

criteria and projects will be prioritized according to score.

2. Once a project has been initiated, it will remain a TIP priority until it is complete or otherwise

closed.

3. The STP Project Table may include other items besides specific road projects that benefit the

road network, landscaping, beautification or may include planning efforts.

FMATS Programs Table

1. The FMATS Improvement Program, the Sidewalk Improvement Project, the Safety and Efficiency

Improvements Project, the Intersection Improvement Project and planning efforts fall in a

separate category as these projects will not be scored. These projects will be addressed as

follows:

a. FMATS Improvement Program

i. A subcommittee will meet each April or May to develop a wish list of projects to

include in the following year’s program.

ii. DOT&PF will develop estimates for the projects nominated based on the

anticipated amount of available funding.

iii. After Scope, Schedule’s and Estimate’s (SSE’s) are developed, the Technical

Committee will review the list and make recommendations as to which projects

to bring forth to the Policy Committee for approval. All projects will be brought

forth with the recommendations clearly identified.

b. FMATS Sidewalk Improvements

i. Sidewalk improvements for the MPA will first be nominated based on those

projects included in the short‐term of the MTP. Other sidewalk improvements

can be brought forward for consideration as program funding allocations allow.

Individual sidewalk improvement projects may come directly from the MTP but

may also arise as needs are identified. These projects will be prioritized and

scored using the Non‐Motorized Scoring Criteria.

c. FMATS Safety and Efficiency Improvements


i. Safety and Efficiency improvements for the MPA will first be nominated based

on those projects included in the short‐term of the MTP. Other Safety and

Efficiency improvements can be brought forward for consideration as program

funding allocations allow. Individual Safety and Efficiency improvement projects

may come directly from the MTP but may also arise as needs are identified.

Those projects within the MTP will be given higher priority unless compelling

evidence, as determined by the Policy Committee, elevates another priority.

d. FMATS Intersection Improvements

i. Intersection improvements for the MPA will first be nominated based on those

projects included in the short‐term of the MTP. Other Intersection

improvements can be brought forward for consideration as program funding

allocations allow. Individual Intersection improvement projects may come

directly from the MTP but may also arise as needs are identified.

Non‐Motorized Project Table

1. Non‐Motorized projects will be ranked and scored using the FMATS Non‐Motorized Scoring

Criteria.

2. Projects in this section will be considered for funding using either CMAQ or STP funding.

3. The Non‐Motorized Project Table may include other items besides specific projects that benefit

the trail network including, but limited to, ADA projects, sidewalks, pedestrian signals,

pedestrian lighting, and wayfinding signs.

General Fund (GF) Project Table

1. Projects to be considered as General fund projects will be ranked and scored using the

appropriate scoring criteria.

2. General funds allocated to a specific project that has already been scored and initiated will be

added to the funding scenario of the project in the section where it is located in the TIP.

3. A project whose funding is changed to all GF will be moved to the GF Project Table.

4. A project that comes to FMATS as a specific line item appropriation need not be ranked and

scored unless there is insufficient funding to complete the project (per a decision by the Policy

Committee).

Illustrative Project Table

1. The TIP may include, for Illustrative purposes, additional projects that would be included in the

adopted transportation plan if reasonable additional resources beyond those identified in the

financial plan were available.

NHS Project Table


This project table will be provided for informational purposes to the ADOT&PF for their consideration.

These projects are not funded through FMATS.

High Priority Projects

1. Illustrating High Priority Projects. High Priority Projects are federally funded projects that are

direct appropriations to particular capital projects. The source of the Earmark requests are from

a variety of sources and typically not known to FMATS until they appear in an appropriation bill.

As a federal requirement that all federally funded transportation improvements be illustrated in

the TIP, the following will apply for an earmark:

a. The project will be illustrated in a separate table within the TIP for information and

administrative approval so that they may proceed.

b. It will be the responsibility of the source of the earmark to notify FMATS and

ADOT&PF of such High Priority Projects and to identify the source of local match.

c. If additional FCTP funds are required to complete the project, the project must be

scored by the Technical Committee, unless directed otherwise by the Policy

Committee.

Other Projects and Illustrative General Fund Projects

1. Other projects of regional significance and Illustrative General Fund projects will be listed in the

TIP for informational purposes only. These projects are not funded through FMATS.

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Project Table

1. The FTA Project Table will be developed in cooperation with the transit provider(s) and shall

reflect the short and long range transit plans.

CMAQ – Flexible

1. Any flexible CMAQ available to FMATS will be considered for use first on modeling and planning

efforts that do not directly lead to air quality benefits, as necessary.

2. Remaining funds can be used for eligible Roadway and Non‐Motorized projects

Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Table for PM2.5

1. This table is for informational purposes only as these projects are funded directly from the STIP

and are ranked, scored and recommended by the CMAQ Project Evaluation Board as defined in

the Memorandum of Agreement for the Selection and Funding of Projects Funded by CMAQ

within the Fairbanks Nonattainment Area for PM2.5.


2. Policies for project selection can be found in the MOA for the Selection and Funding of Project

Funded by CMAQ within the Fairbanks Nonattainment Area for PM2.5 and related policies

developed by the CMAQ Project Evaluation Board.


NO. 4 MAINTENANCE

Maintenance agreements for FMATS projects outline the responsibilities associated with each agency

entering the agreement. Typically these agreements are between the DOT&PF and the governmental

project sponsor. All projects require a tentative maintenance commitment before initiating PH2 with a

final agreement before PH4. (FMATS Policy Committee Action Items 03.20.13). However, the ADOT&PF

has the final determination on whether a project can move forward.

Maintenance of the sidewalks and paths, particularly snow clearing and sweeping, should occur at the

same time or as close to as practicable, as the clearing or sweeping of the adjacent roadway.


NO. 5 SCOPE AND FUNDING CHANGES

FMATS Policy Committee approval is required when projects or the program as a whole require

adjustments with Scope Changes, Deliverability or Cost Estimate Revisions as outlined below.

A. Definitions

a. Project Scope Changes: Scope changes are anything outside of the original scope of work as

defined during the nomination and ranking process, excluding those things necessary to deliver

the project as originally scoped. Examples of scope change: project expansion, change in

termini, HSIP or Repave Project becomes full Reconstruction. (FMATS Policy Committee Action

Item 05.15.13)

b. Project Deliverability Concerns: Due to ROW/Utility concerns or other unforeseen issues a

project’s ability to obligate is delayed or estimated to push back beyond ability to obligate

current year funding. The FMATS Coordinator will meet monthly with the DOT&PF

Preconstruction Engineer and Planning Chief to discuss obligations for the current year and their

status in order to make adjustments in a timely manner. The FMATS Coordinator will also attend

the full Design Status Meetings held quarterly at DOT&PF. The FMATS Coordinator will report

these concerns to the TC and PC.

c. Cost Estimate Revisions: Project needs additional funding to complete a phase in order to move

into the next phase of development. Examples of situations that may require additional funding

are unforeseen environmental, design, public involvement, survey/mapping, ROW/Utilities

costs, or estimated construction costs. Latest engineer’s construction estimates may change

because of these changes in previous phases or from the need to increase or upgrade materials

during late design phases. The Policy Committee approves all funding revisions prior to

obligation of the construction phase (PH4), regardless of the amount.

d. The following FMATS Project Development Change Order/Amendment Authority Matrix was

approved by the Policy Committee on 10.19.11 and dictates the approval changes for funding

during the construction phase:

Note: The change order and amendment authority is cumulative for phase 4.

Exception: During seasonal shutdown or after substantial completion of the project, all requests

for funding up to $250,000 in PH4 must be approved by the Policy Committee. Approved by the

FMATS Policy Committee on June 16, 2010; reaffirmed 8.24.11.

“Cumulative”: means when there are multiple change orders/amendments on a single project, the

multiple change orders/amendments are treated as a total amount and the FMATS Coordinator has a

combined authority to approve up to $250,000 of total change orders/amendments.


When there are multiple change orders/amendments on a single project, the multiple change

orders/amendments are treated as a total amount and the Technical Committee has a combined

authority to approve up to $500,000 of total change orders/amendments.

Authority Limit for Changes/Amendments

Approval Authority Maximum Dollar Amount Future authority levels will be

determined by total cost of the

change regardless of the percent

increase relative to the total contract

amount.

Staff $250,000

Technical Committee $500,000

Policy Committee >$500,000


NO. 6 AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY

Interagency Coordination

Interagency consultation is required for all TIP amendments and MTP approval (18 AAC 50.715).

A. For the TIP Amendments:

a. Compile the list of TIP changes and compare them against the exempt list of projects to see if a

conformity analysis is required.

b. If staff determines that all the projects are exempt, develop an email to the air quality agencies

(DEC, FHWA, FTA, EPA, FNSB Transportation and CC: NR Planning) to that effect. Make sure to

give them at least two weeks to comment and provide a deadline for comment. See Attachment

2 for an example.

c. Document the process in the cover letter of the TIP Transmittal. See Attachment 3.

d. If a conformity analysis is required for an amendment, during the initial interagency consultation

on conformity, the air quality agencies must agree that the planning assumptions used

previously are sufficient. Use the DEC Checklist found at:

http://dec.alaska.gov/air/anpms/conf/trans_inter.htm. Or new assumptions may need to be

developed and the process outlined for the MTP and TIP should be followed.

B. For the MTP and TIP:

a. The travel model must be updated using the latest planning assumptions, unless, during the

initial interagency consultation on conformity, the air quality agencies agree that the planning

assumptions used previously are sufficient. The projections for households, population and

employment are developed by the FNSB in consultation with FMATS, DOT&PF, and others as

deemed appropriate.

b. Hold an interagency consultation early in the process to alert the air quality agencies to any

issues that may affect the timely completion of the conformity analysis.

c. Use the DEC provided checklist for the agenda.

http://dec.alaska.gov/air/anpms/conf/trans_inter.htm.

d. Distribute the conformity analysis to the air quality agencies and offer to hold another

consultation process if there are any concerns regarding the analysis. If not, offer a deadline for

comments and a statement that no response received by the deadline will be interpreted as

concurrence.

Project Level Conformity

Project level conformity shall be performed according to the Environmental Protection Agency’s

conformity rule requiring a qualitative PM hot‐spot analysis under 40 CFR 93.123(b). FMATS and

DOT&PF, in consultation with the air quality agencies, have worked together to develop a process that


fulfills this requirements and is cited here: PM2.5 Conformity Hot‐Spot Analysis for Fairbanks, Alaska

dated November 24, 2010 and attached as Appendix C .


NO. 7 ADMINISTRATIVE POLICIES

Public Record Requests

A request for Public Records from FMATS must be made in writing to the MPO Coordinator. The request

should be as specific as possible in order to satisfy the request. After a request has been made, the

records shall be provided no later than the 10th working day. FMATS may not always be able to

accommodate requested formats. Exemptions from public records requests are established by state and

federal law. There are no fees for doing a record search.

Archival Policy

FMATS will retain all federal aid project files for three years after audit per 49 CFR 18.42b. These files

constitute the complete record documenting all expenditures and financial activity of federal projects

including contract and billing records, expenditure reports, claims for reimbursement, final voucher, etc.

Website and Social Media Policy

To aid in public participation FMATS, will host and support a website and various social media outlets.

FMATS Website

All meetings, agendas and packets will be posted in a timely manner on the FMATS Website.

A. All attempts will be made to make these sources accessible.

B. Current copies of the required Metropolitan Planning documents will be available including:

a. Unified Planning Work Program

b. Transportation Improvement Program

c. Public Participation Plan

d. Metropolitan Transportation Plan

e. Transportation & Air Quality Conformity

f. Annual Listing of Obligated Projects

g. All planning efforts

FMATS Social Media Policy

The FMATS Social Media presence will exist to inform the public of upcoming events, planning efforts, or

other activities in conjunction with the FMATS website.


FMATS will maintain accounts with Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter. As new forms of social media arise,

FMATS will adopt new accounts as practical. This is where the most recent news stories, videos, photos

and project information will be located.

While this is an open forum, it is also a family friendly one, so comments and wall posts must be clean.

Additionally, all comments must follow the posting guidelines below. If you do not comply, your

message may be removed:

No profane, graphic, obscene, explicit, or racist comments or submissions, nor do we allow

comments that are abusive, hateful, or potentially libelous.

No solicitations or advertisements. This includes promotion or endorsement of any financial,

commercial, or non‐governmental agency.

No external links except for those linking to an FMATS website.

No comments suggesting or encouraging illegal activity.

No comments related to campaigns or elections, as Alaska law prohibits use of State equipment

or resources for campaign or partisan political purposes.

No comments that are not topically related to the posting being commented upon.

You participate at your own risk, taking personal responsibility for your comments, your

Username, and any information provided.


NO. 8 ENHANCEMENT POLICY

The FMATS Enhancement Policy is being developed by a separate committee for review and inclusion in

this effort.

*Sections in green are still in draft form and need to be updated or reworked


NO. 9 COMPLETE STREETS

These projects reflect the transportation policy and design approach that promotes streets to be

planned, designed, operated, and maintained to enable safe, convenient and comfortable travel and

access for users of all ages and abilities regardless of their mode of transportation. Complete Streets

allow for safe travel by those walking, bicycling, driving automobiles, riding public transportation, or

delivering goods, as practicable.



NO. 10 GREEN STREETS

These projects reflect the transportation policy and design approach that minimizes environmental

impact by focusing on efforts to retain and treat, or even eliminate, runoff at the source through cost‐

effective green infrastructure, improving water quality and complementing Complete Streets efforts.

This would be a collaborative process used on a case by case basis with partners such as the local

governments, Tanana Valley Watershed and the Department of Environmental Conservation, as well as

other interested parties.



NO. 11 DEFINITIONS

CMAQ: The Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality (CMAQ) Program provides funding to State and local

governments for transportation projects and programs to help meet the requirements of the Clean Air

Act (42 USC 7401). Funding is available to reduce congestion and improve air quality for areas that do

not meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone, CO or particulate matter and

for areas that were out of compliance but have now met the standards (maintenance areas).

CMAQ‐ Flexible: additional funds that a state would receive in order to reach the guaranteed CMAQ

minimum if they were not provided with the minimum quantity. These funds can be used like STP funds.

Complete Streets: These projects reflect the transportation policy and design approach that promotes

streets to be planned, designed, operated, and maintained to enable safe, convenient and comfortable

travel and access for users of all ages and abilities regardless of their mode of transportation. Complete

Streets allow for safe travel by those walking, bicycling, driving automobiles, riding public

transportation, or delivering goods, as practicable.

FMATS Improvement Program includes pavement surface rehabilitation, traffic control signal upgrades,

street light load center rehabilitation, storm drain maintenance, reclaim/double chip, seal coat, crack

sealing, roadway striping, dust control, signage replacement and intersection upgrades. These projects

may include but are not limited to the definition of Preventive Maintenance found in the Alaska

Department of Transportation and Public Facilities Preconstruction Manual.

Green Streets: These projects reflect the transportation policy and design approach that minimizes

environmental impact by focusing on efforts to retain and treat, or even eliminate, runoff at the source

through cost‐effective green infrastructure, improving water quality and complementing Complete

Streets efforts. This would be a collaborative process used on a case by case basis with partners such as

the local governments, Tanana Valley Watershed and the Department of Environmental Conservation,

as well as other interested parties.

HSIP: The Highway Safety Improvement Program is a federally funded program that constructs safety

improvements at roadway locations with an existing, identifiable accident pattern that have cost

effective engineering solutions. The specific provisions pertaining to the HSIP are defined in Section

1112 of MAP21.

Intersection Improvement Project: Funding for intersection enhancements related to capacity, safety,

and/or multimodal accessibility within the FMATS boundary.


New Road Connections: These projects should consider the complete construction of all aspects of

developing a new road link. These projects will consider all aspects of necessary road construction to

include but not limited to environmental, design, ROW, construction of the road prism, trails, transit,

Non‐Motorized facilities, utilities, lighting, landscaping, drainage and necessary civil work to complete

the project. Enhancements should be considered with these projects.

Non‐Motorized Projects: These are transportation projects that facilitate or address non‐automobile

travel such as transit, pedestrian and bicycle projects. Also included are on‐and off‐road pedestrian and

bicycle facilities, infrastructure projects for improving non‐driver access to public transportation and

enhanced mobility, community improvement activities, environmental mitigation, and safe routes to

school projects. Trails, sidewalks, and landscaping are not considered part of Non‐Roadway Projects

when being constructed as part of the road during reconstruction or rehabilitation. Any costs associated

during the road construction are not considered or counted against any Non‐Roadway percentage or

allocation FMATS develops

On‐Going Projects: are those projects where the lead federal agency (FHWA or FTA) has approved the

DOT&PF or its designee to conduct the preliminary engineering of a project (Phase 2 has been initiated).

These projects will not be rescored with subsequent project nominations unless there is a significant

change in scope. The projects will receive priority in funding based on project development needs until

closed by completion or otherwise.

Pavement Replacement Program: These projects reflect should be limited to curb to curb pavement

replacement by milling the top 2‐4 inches and replacing it with new hot mix asphalt. ADA improvements

must be included in the design study report for these projects but should be limited to the pavement.

No trail, sidewalk, landscaping, transit, drainage, lighting, traffic signal, utility, sub‐base or work outside

the curbs will be completed using these project funds. Safety issues associated with pavement

replacement projects must be considered in this program or in the HSIP program.

Road Reconstruction: These project involve the full or partial reconstruction of a road. These projects

may expand the capacity of the existing system. Improvements may include the road base/sub/grade,

right‐of way acquisition and or utility relocation. Like new connections, these projects shall consider

lighting, trails, transit, landscaping and number of lanes. These require full public process in review and

development. These types of projects are typical of ADOT&PF’s 4R projects. Any Non‐Motorized project

work will not be counted toward the percentages in Policy No. 5.

Road Rehabilitation is an improvement to preserve and extend the service life of a road, improve safety

and generally does not add or reduce lane capacity but may occur on the same, modified or relocated

alignment. They are implemented by the DOT&PF as 3R projects in their Pre‐Construction Manual.

American with Disabilities Act (ADA) improvements at the curb must be included. The following

questions should be answered prior to project authorization:


1. Is rehabilitation of the existing trail or sidewalk necessary and should it be

included in the project?

2. Should the rehabilitation or upgrades of existing traffic signals and associated

work be included?

3. Should right‐of‐way needs at intersections for turn‐lanes be included?

4. Should rehabilitation of existing transit stops be included?

5. Should Utility or installation of new utilities, such as gas lines, be included or

investigated?

Safety and Efficiency Improvements Project: Funding for low‐cost improvements to enhance the safety

and efficiency of the existing transportation system. Projects may include signing, striping, lighting

upgrades, signal timing, signal controller upgrades, and maintenance.

Sidewalk Improvement Project: Funding for improved connectivity, safety, mobility, and access for

pedestrians throughout the MPA.

SIP‐Mandated Projects and Programs ‐CMAQ: These are projects and programs that directly implement

air quality control measures commitments in the State of Alaska’s Department of Environmental

Conservation’s State Implementation Plan (SIP). “Proactively” implemented SIP contingency measures

will be included in this category if the SIP includes a commitment to implement them during the time

period covered by the TIP. Projects that simply support or enhance SIP measures are not included in this

category. These projects are prioritized and recommended by the CMAQ Project Evaluation Board (PEB)

and approved by the FNSB Mayor and submitted to the DOT&PF for funding in accordance with the

Memorandum of Agreement for the Selection and Funding of Projects Funded by CMAQ within the

Fairbanks Nonattainment Area for PM2.5.

Upgrades: These projects are road rehabilitations that may include changes in number of lanes, lane or

sidewalk width, geometry and new utilities and relocations. These differ from Road Reconstruction in

that their primary purpose may not be to increase capacity.


APPENDIX

Appendix A: Memorandum of Understanding for the Implementation of a Fairbanks Metropolitan Area

Transportation System Coordinator’s Office

Appendix B: Public Participation Plan

Appendix C: PM2.5 Conformity Hot‐Spot Analysis for Fairbanks, Alaska

Fairbanks Metropolitan Area Transportation System 800 Cushman Street • Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 • 907.459.6786

Responsiveness Summary Draft 2015 – 2018 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and Associated Conformity Analysis Public Comment Period

June 17 – July 17, 2015 The Fairbanks Metropolitan Area Transportation System completed a draft 2015 – 2018

Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and associated Conformity Analysis was released on June 17, 2015 for public comment by the FMATS Policy Committee. The public comment period was open until July 17, 2015. Two open houses were held; on June 23, 2015 in North

Pole and June 24, 2015 in Fairbanks, to inform and field questions from the public. The following is a summary of the comments from both the open house events as well as other comments that the FMATS Office has received during the 30-day public comment period.

Comment Response

Gold Hill Road – Increase PH4 by $500.0 Accommodated in the TIP

College Road Rehabilitation – Increase PH4 by $776.1 Accommodated in the TIP

Increase Coordinator’s office budget by $62.8 Accommodated in the TIP with PL funds matched with SB46 funds

“I fully support the proposed Peger Road Undercrossing project. This projects addresses all 5 of the Project Scoring Criteria and will greatly upgrade the Fairbanks area’s non-motorized commuting corridors.”

"The bridge over Cripple Creek on the bike/pedestrian path on Chena Pump Road is in terrible shape. The wood is rotting and leaving holes in the boards that create a safety hazard when traveling across it by bicycle. The bridge is also covered with all the wood shards and pieces that are coming off the rotting boards.”

Forwarded to DOT&PF M & O to see if they have any plans to replace this facility.

Peger Road Foot/Bike Underpass at Chena River project- “glad to hear of it being considered for improvement. The access when going down to the river from the west side of Peger is especially dangerous as it is a blind corner. These lane stripes are helpful, but they are not kept up. They are now pretty worn off and faded. I don't know how you might solve this problem, other than perhaps changing the angle of the entry so it is less steep. Another difficult spot is the steep angle of the turn when getting back onto the Peger path on the west side after coming up from the river. Partly, it's the tight angle, but also because you have to slow down to look for oncoming bike/walk traffic on the Peger path. I hope that nothing is done to close off this access and I encourage that this project be put higher in the funding process.”

Would like a bike path to connect Fairbanks and North Pole

Under the Rich. Hwy. MP 356-362 project going to construction in 2016

On College Road: “any upgrade can be and inconvenience temporarily, but I believe it is for the greater good. Thanks for all the work!”

Need for bike Path from Lathrop to Peger needed for kids accessing the soccer fields

Going to construction next year in FMATS Ped. Improvements project

On Yankovich/Miller Hill Multi-Use Path: “Great Idea!”

On College Road: Sidewalks are too wide, two feet from each sidewalk can be taken to add a foot to each lane.

The current sidewalk width is the minimally acceptable width for a shared-use path.

Need for bike/ped path on Hoselton Rd Path to be built under Airport Way West Imp. Proj. in 2017.

FMATS UPWP PL Fund Program

05.28.15

PL Funds Available

UPWP Task

100

UPWP Task

300 Notes

FFY13 $367,899 $232,534

FFY14 $368,144 $232,534 $166,400 Freight Plan

FFY15 $368,144 $330,527 $20,000 Bike and Ped Methodology

FFY16 $368,144 $330,527

$1,472,331 $1,126,122 $186,400

Available amount $159,809

Less:

Freight Plan $102,636

Additional funding approved by

PC 02.18.15

Amount Remaining $57,173

Request to add to the UPWP

Task 100 in lieu of FCTP

Fairbanks Metropolitan Area Transportation System

Coordinator's Office Proposed Budget

October 2015 ‐ September 2016

Budget Item Proposed Description FFY15 FFY15 FFY15

Budget Budgeted Actuals 3 Quarters

Personnel Services FFY16 (Projected) (Actual)

Salaries, Full‐time (2.5

positions)

398,000$ Coordinator's, Planner's

and half‐time Assistant's

Salary loaded at 1.28

average; includes all leave

liability

$337,040 $250,000 $169,670

Contractual Services 20,000$ mapping, TIP tool, other

consultant services as

required; data counts

$20,000 $5,000 $2,820

Materials and Supplies 11,000$ mailings, copies, supplies,

toner, presentation

materials, meeting

supplies; maps, additional

f

$12,000 $9,000 $6,737

Utilities

Telephones and

Facsimilie

3,400$ cell and desk phone, fax

and conference phone

$3,000 $2,900 $1,820

Meetings 3,400$ Meet with AMATS and

State HQ to discuss issues

affecting MPOs (ANC),

Juneau, Performance

Measures, Asset Mgmt

$3,500 $600 $200

Training 8,000$ NHI Courses, AMPO

Conference, APA

Conference, Transit

Conference, GIS, TRB

$8,000 $6,500 $4,436

Advertising 16,000$ Twice monthly for

meetings plus ads for

subcommittee meetings;

newsletters

$16,000 $15,000 $11,252

Subtotoal 459,800$ $399,540 $289,000 $196,935

ICAP estimated at 4.79% 22,024$ $19,138 $13,843 $11,392

Total Budget 481,824$ $418,678 $302,843 $208,328

Fairbanks Metropolitan Area Transportation System

Coordinator's Office Proposed Budget

October 2015 ‐ September 2016

FUNDING BY SOURCE

AS SHOWN IN THE TIP/UPWP Recommended Revision

46 99.4$ 99.4$

PL 181.6$ 238.8$

FEDCTP 102.3$ 102.3$

M46 28.2$ 33.9$

NP 7.5$ 7.5$

$419.0 $481.9

State of Alaska DOT&PF PDA REVISION REQUEST

To: Shelley Dykema, Chief Date:

Project Control

Thru: AKSAS / Federal #:

From: Maureen Carey Project Name:

Telephone: 451‐5405

XX Change funding per the project budget stated below.

Change scope or termini (provide details in justification) .

Change ATP level to include ATP through

Change phase cutoff date to

If any of the above items are checked, is an Environmental Re‐Evaluation/Consultation

required? If so, what is the date of the Re‐Eval. /Consultation: N/A

Have you notified Planning about this funding request/increase and do we have enough

local match funds to fund it? Yes No

PROJECT BUDGET REQUEST

PHASE CURRENT FUNDING NEW FUNDING TOTAL

PARTICIPATING

Phase 2 ‐ Design

Phase 3 ‐ ROW

Phase 4 ‐ Construction 2,205,714 $2,981,826

Phase 7 ‐ Utilities

Phase 8 ‐ PlanningTOTAL PARTICIPATING $2,205,714 $2,981,826

NON‐PARTICIPATING

Phase 2 ‐ Design

Phase 3 ‐ ROW

Phase 4 ‐ Construction $4,520,000 $4,527,700

Phase 7 ‐ Utilities

Phase 8 ‐ PlanningTOTAL NON‐PARTICIPATING $4,520,000 $4,527,700

For Local Match Projects:

Reason for Change:

62164 / 0640(007)

College Road Pavement Rehabilitation

For FHWA Projects:

$7,700

+776,112

$7,700

06/22/15

$776,112

REQUESTED CHANGE

Justification: Increase Phase 4 participating per the Construction Low Bid, Change Order #4, overruns, and associated CENG and ICAP. Increase Phase 4 non-participating for the signal poles (advance purchase). The purchase order came in slightly higher than originally estimated.

CONSTRUCTION BUDGET

Project Name: College Road Pavement RehabilitationAKSAS #: 62164 / 0640(007)

C.O. # Amount Comments (if needed)Low Bid $5,751,228

Change Order #1 - 3$0

Associated with PJ 62854 College Rd/Antoinette Ave/Margaret Ave Intersection Reconstruction

Change Order #4 $65,000Additional waterline, signals, and lighting differing site conditions.

Subtotal $5,816,228

Item Name Amount ITEM # & FA CodeTraffic Control $165,000 643(25)Removal of Sidewalk $7,500 202(3)Removal of Curb & Gutter $5,000 202(9)Crushed Asphalt $3,000 603(1)-36Storm Sewer Manhole $6,000 604(1)Concrete Sidewalk - 4" $4,000 608(1a)Curb Ramp $2,400 608(6)Curb & Gutter - Type1 $5,000 609(2)3-Person Survey $5,000 642(3)

Subtotal $202,900

Total Contract $6,019,128Less 644 Items ($20,000)

Total Construction Contract Estimate $5,999,128

CENG @ 18.0% $1,083,443

ICAP @ 4.79% $339,255

Total Construction Estimate (includes CENG & ICAP) $7,421,826

$3,028,526 Participating / $4,440,000 Non-Participating

Total Construction Budget Funded to Date $6,645,714$2,205,714 Participating / $4,440,000 Non-Participating

Total Construction Increase $776,112 Participating

CHANGE ORDERS (Copies Attached)

QUANTITY OVER/ Underruns

CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING

1

Donna Gardino

From: Anderson, Ryan (DOT) <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, June 19, 2015 9:25 AMTo: Donna Gardino; Chapman, Judy (DOT)Cc: Heim, Carl F (DOT); Hooper, Barry L (DOT)Subject: FW: Goldhill ReviewAttachments: Carl F Heim P E .vcf; 3.2M.pdf; 3.7M.pdf

Donna – Our estimate on Goldhill Road went up by approx.. $500k due to the need to strengthen our pavement structure. See Carl’s email below. I’ve attached the engineer’s estimates – but please remember that engineer’s estimates are not for public distribution. Thanks. Ryan

From: Heim, Carl F (DOT) Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2015 4:54 PM To: Hooper, Barry L (DOT); Anderson, Ryan (DOT) Subject: Goldhill Review Hey Guys, Attached are two estimates. The one done back in April of 2014 for 3.2M and the one I penciled in today for 3.7M. The biggest difference is that the first one has CABC and the second has D‐1 and ATB. You can’t make CABC out of chip seal and old base course on goldhill. So to meet the stabilized base policy I need 4‐inches of d1 and 2 inches of ATB. Lauren has rerun the model and will compute quantities and Rex and I will check them. For maintenance this should be treated like a road job not a bike path. All the best,

FMATS State Fund Tracking Log

06.25.15

Total Remaining Programmed in TIP

SB46 $47,124.5

SB160 $139,462.4

SB230 $129,867.0

SB381 $20,138.5

Subtotal $336,592.4

Reduce the State funded portion of Noble with SB46 from $809.0 to $127.0 (match only)

Subtotal $336,592.4

Bank $1523.8 from FFY15 to FFY16 (already requested in April 2015) and add an additional FCTP from

FFY16 of $626.0

1

Donna Gardino

From: Brunner, Mary E (DOT) <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2015 1:51 PMTo: Donna Gardino; Dykema, Shelley A (DOT)Cc: Gardner, Debora G (DOT); Chapman, Judy (DOT); Strobell, Amythe K (DOT)Subject: South Cushman 62532 GHU Bill

Donna & Shelley, Gail asked me to let you both know when I got the updated bill from GHU. The revised bill is $298,685.12 With 4.79% ICAP the total comes to $312,992.14 ‐Mary

Mary Brunner, P.E. | Northern Region UtilitiesSection | Alaska Department of Transportation 2301 Peger Road Fairbanks, AK 99709 | : 907.451.5403 | : 907.451.5411 | : [email protected]

FMATS | 800 CUSHMAN STREET | FAIRBANKS, ALASKA 99701 | WWW.FMATS.US

July 15, 2015 State of Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities Mr. Mike Vigue Director, Division of Program Development P.O. Box 112500 Juneau, AK 99811‐2500 RE: FMATS’ Comments on STIP Amendment #16 Dear Mr. Vigue: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on STIP Amendment #16. Below are the comments from the Fairbanks Metropolitan Area Transportation System (FMATS) Policy Committee, approved on July 15, 2015.

1. Need ID 15685, Airport Way (West) Improvements: FMATS is pleased that this project is moving forward and sufficient funding is available to cover the final design cost. Why has the construction funding been removed from this project?

2. Need ID 30150, Steese Highway MP 4.5 (CHSR) Off‐Ramp Bypass Lane: Thank you for including this project start in the STIP to complement the HSIP project in that location.

3. General comment: It would be helpful to identify in the public notice if any scope changes have been made to projects. It is not intuitively obvious from the PDF and that would save one the time of having to compare scopes against the approved STIP.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on STIP Amendment #16. Sincerely, Mayor Bryce Ward FMATS Policy Committee Chair CC: FMATS Policy Committee Margaret Carpenter, DOT & PF Northern Region Planning

Project Approved Funding Amd 15 Proposed Funding Amd 16

Ph Fund FFY15 After 2015 Ph Fund FFY15 After2015Program Region 2013 Election District Place Name Highway Primary Work Bridge #s 4 ILLU 0 4 ILLU 0

NHS N 93 Northern Region Richardson Highway Reconstruction 4 SM 0 4 SM 07 AC 682,275 7 AC 440,2957 NHPP 0 7 NHPP 07 SM 67,725 7 SM 43,705

750,000 37,500,000 484,000 37,500,000

Ph Fund FFY15 After 2015 Ph Fund FFY15 After2015Program Region 2013 Election District Place Name Highway Primary Work Bridge #s 7 SM 0 7 SM 4,786

CTP N 37 Shageluk System Preservation 7 STP 0 7 STP 48,2140 7,100,000 53,000 7,100,000

Ph Fund FFY15 After 2015 Ph Fund FFY15 After2015Program Region 2013 Election District Place Name Highway Primary Work Bridge #s 2 SA 0 2 SA 0

REQD N 93 Northern Region Safety 2 SM 0 2 SM 08 S148 0 8 S148 08 SA 324,000 8 SA 324,0008 SM 36,000 8 SM 36,000

360,000 720,000 360,000 360,000

Ph Fund FFY15 After 2015 Ph Fund FFY15 After2015Program Region 2013 Election District Place Name Highway Primary Work Bridge #s 4 SM 0 4 3PF 117,390

CTP N 32 Cordova New Construction 4 STP 0 4 SM 00 5,000,000 4 STP 1,182,610

1,300,000 0

Ph Fund FFY15 After 2015 Ph Fund FFY15 After2015Program Region 2013 Election District Place Name Highway Primary Work Bridge #s 2 NHPP 454,850 2 NHPP 727,760

NHS N 5 Fairbanks Traffic Management Operations 2 SM 45,150 2 SM 72,2404 AC 0 4 AC 04 ILLU 0 4 ILLU 04 NHPP 0 4 NHPP 04 SM 0 4 SM 0

500,000 8,300,000 800,000 0

Ph Fund FFY15 After 2015 Ph Fund FFY15 After2015Program Region 2013 Election District Place Name Highway Primary Work Bridge #s 4 SM 0 4 3PF 263,048

CTP N 40 Point Hope System Preservation 0 2,850,000 4 HPRL 2,649,7004 SM 0

2,912,748 2,850,000

Description: Construct intersection improvements along Airport Way between Dale Road and the Parks Hwy. Project includes bicycle/pedestrian facilities along Hoselton Road to the Boat Street path.

Need ID: 2118 Name: MP 159 to167 Reconstruction

Description: Widen and reconstruct to current standards.

Totals: Totals:

Totals:

Need ID: 6462 Name: Highway Safety Improvement Program/Safety Management

Description: Program management for support of HSIP activities.

Need ID: 3687 Name: Airport Access Road Improvements

Description: Reconstruct the 4 mile airport access road. Work will include embankment stabilization, minor realignment and resurfacing. Totals: Totals:

Totals:

Need ID: 15685 Name: Airport Way (West) Improvements

Need ID: 6617 Name: Shepard Point Road

Totals:

Totals:

Description: Construct approximately 4 miles of road from Orca Cannery to the deep water port site at Shepard Point. The State of Alaska's contribution of federal-aid funds to the Native Village of Eyak's Shepard Point Road project will be transferred to FHWA-Western Federal Lands Highway Division, pursuant to 23 USC 104(k), as a contribution to this IRR Program project. (TTIP Project #: NVE 0601).

Totals:

Need ID: 18637 Name: Evacuation Road

Description: Extend the evacuation road to a point above flood stage elevationTotals:

Totals:

Totals:

Northern Region

Project Approved Funding Amd 15 Proposed Funding Amd 16Ph Fund FFY15 After 2015 Ph Fund FFY15 After2015

Program Region 2013 Election District Place Name Highway Primary Work Bridge #s 2 NHPP 1,137,125 2 NHPP 1,137,125NHS N 9 Northern Region Parks Highway System Preservation 2 SM 112,875 2 SM 112,875

7 NHPP 546,950 7 NHPP 07 SM 38,650 7 SM 0

1,835,600 54,750,000 1,250,000 55,335,600

Ph Fund FFY15 After 2015 Ph Fund FFY15 After2015Program Region 2013 Election District Place Name Highway Primary Work Bridge #s 2 3PF 0 2 3PF 0

CTP N 40 Selawik Reconstruction 2 SM 22,575 2 SM 22,5752 STP 227,425 2 STP 227,4253 3PF 0 3 3PF 03 ILLU 0 3 ILLU 03 SM 18,060 3 SM 03 STP 181,940 3 STP 0

450,000 4,800,000 250,000 5,000,000

Ph Fund FFY15 After 2015 Ph Fund FFY15 After2015Program Region 2013 Election District Place Name Highway Primary Work Bridge #s 4 AC 0 4 AC 0

NHS N 6 Northern Region Tok Cutoff Bridge Replacement 654 4 ILLU 0 4 ILLU 04 NHPP 9,807,000 4 NHPP 8,406,0004 SM 693,000 4 SM 594,000

10,500,000 0 9,000,000 0

Ph Fund FFY15 After 2015 Ph Fund FFY15 After2015Program Region 2013 Election District Place Name Highway Primary Work Bridge #s 3 AC 272,910 3 AC 0

NHS N 4 Northern Region Elliott Highway System Preservation 3 ILLU 0 3 ILLU 03 NHPP 0 3 NHPP 03 SM 27,090 3 SM 07 AC 454,850 7 AC 07 ILLU 0 7 ILLU 07 NHPP 0 7 NHPP 07 SM 45,150 7 SM 0

800,000 30,666,000 0 30,666,080

Description: Rehabilitate the existing barge landing access road, construct a new gravel barge staging pad, install lighting, and replace sections of existing boardwalk. Will also include rehabilitation of the utility crossing at the land fill.

Description: Replace the Slana River Bridge #0654 on the Tok Cutoff at MP 75.6. The bridge has noted deficiencies including transverse cracks, abutment settlement and cracks, compression joint seal is crushed and covered with asphalt and the far end right (NE) terminal end is damaged.

Totals:

Need ID: 23675 Name: Barge Landing Access Road and Boardwalk Improvements

Need ID: 22331 Name: MP 163-183 Rehabilitation (NR Boundary to East Fork Chulitina)

Description: Rehabilitate the Parks Hwy between MP 163 and 183 including a grade separated crossing at MP 169 (Hurricane).

Totals: Totals:

Totals: Totals:

Totals: Totals:

Need ID: 24257 Name: Slana River Bridge Replacement

Totals:

Need ID: 24518 Name: MP 0-12 Rehabilitation (Fox to Haystack)

Description: Rehabilitation, restoration and resurfacing. Also includes shoulder widening in selected areas.


Program Region 2013 Election District Place Name Highway Primary Work Bridge #s 3 NHPP 280,200 3 NHPP 280,200NHS N 9 Northern Region Richardson Highway Bridge Replacement 594 3 SM 19,800 3 SM 19,800

4 BOND 0 4 BOND 04 NHPP 0 4 NHPP 04 SM 0 4 SM 07 NHPP 136,455 7 NHPP 409,3657 SM 13,545 7 SM 40,6359 BOND 0 9 BOND 09 SM 0 9 SM 0

450,000 11,300,000 750,000 11,300,000

Ph Fund FFY15 After 2015 Ph Fund FFY15 After2015Program Region 2013 Election District Place Name Highway Primary Work Bridge #s 2 SM 18,060 2 SM 18,060

1292 2 STP 181,940 2 STP 181,9401401 3 SM 9,030 3 SM 0

3 STP 90,970 3 STP 0300,000 1,100,000 200,000 1,200,000

Ph Fund FFY15 After 2015 Ph Fund FFY15 After2015Program Region 2013 Election District Place Name Highway Primary Work Bridge #s 2 3PF 22,575 2 3PF 0

CTP N 32 Cordova New Construction 2 ILLU 454,850 2 ILLU 02 SM 22,575 2 SM 03 3PF 27,768 3 3PF 03 ILLU 559,465 3 ILLU 03 SM 27,767 3 SM 07 3PF 0 7 3PF 07 ILLU 0 7 ILLU 07 SM 0 7 SM 0

1,115,000 7,382,000 0 8,497,000

Ph Fund FFY15 After 2015 Ph Fund FFY15 After2015Program Region 2013 Election District Place Name Highway Primary Work Bridge #s 4 3PF 40,000 2 FLAP 107,672

FH N 32 Cordova Copper River Highway Transportation Enhancements 4 FLAP 335,000 2 SM 10,688375,000 0 4 3PF 0

4 FLAP 334,8984 SM 33,242

486,500 0

Description: Replace the Ruby Creek Bridge #0594 at MP 234. New bridge grade and minor road realignment will address current flooding and sediment deposition problems.

Description: Rehabilitate East Fork Footbridge #1292 and West Fork Footbridge #1401. Work will include repair or replacement of surface boards, install a traction system, repair railing on the access ramps, repair steel cross bracing, and foundation repairs.

Description: Realign Whitshed Road to accomodate non-motorized traffic from the Copper River Highway intersection approximately .75 miles to the Orca Inlet Drive intersection.

Need ID: 24574 Name: Ruby Creek Bridge Replacement

Totals:

CTP N 40 Selawik

Totals:

Need ID: 26081 Name: Footbridge Rehabilitation

Totals:

Bridge Rehabilitation

Totals:

Need ID: 28475 Name: Sand Road Trail Parking Area Construction

Description: Construct a parking area for the Sand Road Trail located on the north side of the Copper River Highway at MP 9.45. Totals:

Need ID: 27049 Name: Whitshed Road Bike and Pedestrian Path

Totals:

Totals:

Totals:


Program Region 2013 Election District Place Name Highway Primary Work Bridge #s 2 FLAP 31,840 2 FLAP 63,679FH N 6 Northern Region Taylor Highway Transportation Enhancements 2 SM 3,160 2 SM 6,321

4 FLAP 650,435 4 FLAP 04 SM 64,565 4 SM 0

750,000 0 70,000 680,000

Ph Fund FFY15 After 2015 Ph Fund FFY15 After2015Program Region 2013 Election District Place Name Highway Primary Work Bridge #s 4 AC 0 4 AC 0

AHS N Northern Region Taylor Highway Bridge Replacement 1140 4 SM 1,128,750 4 SM 04 STP 11,371,250 4 STP 0

12,500,000 0 0 12,500,000

Ph Fund FFY15 After 2015 Ph Fund FFY15 After2015Program Region 2013 Election District Place Name Highway Primary Work Bridge #s 2 AKLNG 0 2 AKLNG 0

NHS N Northern Region Dalton Highway Other 2 NHPP 2,274,250 2 NHPP 02 SM 225,750 2 SM 0

2,500,000 0 8 NHPP 2,274,2508 SM 225,750

2,500,000 0

Ph Fund FFY15 After 2015 Ph Fund FFY15 After2015Program Region 2013 Election District Place Name Highway Primary Work Bridge #s 0 0 2 NHPP 227,425

NHS N Fairbanks Steese Highway New Construction 2 SM 22,5753 NHPP 90,9703 SM 9,030

350,000 650,000

Description: Design and construct two new waysides on the Taylor Highway; the Jack Wade Recreational Gold Panning Wayside between MP 82.5 and MP 85.5 and the Mosquito Fork Dredge Trailhead at MP 68.1.

Description: Rehabilitate, restore, and resurface approximately 4 miles of the Taylor Highway and replace Chicken Creek Bridge #1140. This is associated with NID's: 6173, 29431, 29432.

Need ID: 28476 Name: New Wayside Project

Totals: Totals:

Need ID: 29832 Name: Yukon River Reconnaissance Study

Totals:

Totals:

Need ID: 29430 Name: Taylor Highway MP 64-67 Rehabilitation (Mosquito Fork to Chicken Creek)

Totals: Totals:

Description: Perform a reconnaissance study evaluating alternatives to the Yukon River Bridge to support a Natural Gas Line and associated vehicular traffic.

Totals:

Need ID: 30150 Name: Steese Highway MP 4.5 (CHSR) Off-Ramp Bypass Lane

Description: Construct a bypass lane and retaining wall at the Steese Highway north bound ramp to Chena Hot Springs Road.

Totals:

Fairbanks Metropolitan Area Transportation System POLICY COMMITTEE

800 Cushman Street, City Council Chambers City Hall, Fairbanks, Alaska

Meeting Minutes – September 19, 2012

Airport Way Median Alternatives

Sarah Schacher from DOT & PF provided the committee with a PowerPoint presentation of Airport Way median alternatives as a possible preventive maintenance project. The alternatives presented included asphalt medians or stamped concrete medians, as well as a “do nothing” alternative, leaving medians as-is on Airport Way, with no maintenance agreement currently in place, effectively being the least expensive alternative. Mayor Hopkins asked if the lilac bushes would be preserved, and Ms. Schacher answered that the DOT would accommodate the lilac bushes. There would not be any additions to the number of bushes, as this is a preventative maintenance project and would not include additional beautification. Mayor Hopkins asked about the flower beds along the roadside; Ms. Schacher explained those areas would be addressed on a case‐by‐case basis, which may include paving those areas. Mr. Musick asked if artificial turf had been considered, and what would the cost be. Ms. Schacher noted that it had not been considered, and did not know how well that would be received. She estimated it would be fairly low cost, but was not sure. Mr. Titus noted that this would be more of a renewal treatment, instead of a preventive maintenance project. Ms. Schacher also noted that snow is stacked in the medians in the winter and could potentially be a problem with something such as astroturf. Mayor Isaacson asked who maintains the large grassy medians in Anchorage; thinking it was an AMATS responsibility. Mayor Isaacson said he believes this would be the best and most attractive option, and gave examples in town. He does not think there is a way to avoid maintenance on paved medians, as there would still need to be weeding done along the medians. He asked if this cannot become an FMATS project, or maintained by the Borough or Cities, or could it be approached by the business community. Mr. Titus said the federal funds required a maintenance agreement, and at this point there is no entity that has stepped forward; the Borough has not been able to continue their maintenance due to fiscal difficulties. Mr. Titus noted that the DOT is not in the business of maintenance, and he wanted to make sure the committee did not think there would not be any maintenance done to the improvements. Ms. Schacher confirmed, noting the DOT was simply trying to learn where they should focus their efforts. She asked the committee to provide feedback during today’s meeting in order to know whether or not the DOT should move forward. Mayor Isaacson asked if Ms. Schacher would be willing to give this same presentation to the Chamber of Commerce. She said if that was needed, she would, but today’s focus is to gain the opinion of the committee as to whether or not to move forward with contacting FHWA for funding on these particular improvement alternatives. Mayor Hopkins asked what her timeline was on this project. Ms. Schacher said that depended on what the committee suggested as a direction for the project, but the DOT was hoping to obligate these funds for the next federal fiscal year. Construction would occur in the summer of 2014, due to design timelines. Mayor Hopkins said he believes leaving the grassed medians for now, as the Borough has not formally withdrawn their maintenance; it is possible the Borough would be able to come back and continue with their maintenance with additional options such as community involvement. Mayor Cleworth asked if the DOT has a contract with Goldpanner to complete the maintenance. Mr. Titus said he did not know. Mayor Cleworth asked Ms. Schacher if the DOT did not want to add more landscaping. Ms. Schacher said it was not that the DOT did not want to add the landscaping; it is a matter of additional design for additional landscaping, as well as additional maintenance involved. Mayor Cleworth said his preference is with the other two mayors for the grassed medians as the most attractive option; his second choice would be tree vaults with the scored concrete. Mr. Titus reiterated that the DOT will be providing the maintenance, but likely will not be at the high standard provided in the past by the Borough. Mayor Hopkins noted again that the Borough has not surrendered the maintenance agreement, but is in discussions with the attorneys. Mr. Titus noted with a properly executed maintenance agreement, the Borough would be able to maintain the medians, but in the interim the DOT would do the maintenance. Ms. Gardino noted that the general consensus of the Technical Committee was to leave the medians as-is and focus the funds elsewhere, as a more robust beautification project is desired along the whole Airport Way corridor. Ms. Schacher noted that this is an NHS road. Mr. Titus summarized that the consensus of this committee was to keep the status quo of the Airport Way medians in hopes of a future project which would address the entire appearance of the facility.

The Developing a Reliable and Innovative Vision for the Economy (DRIVE) Act AMPO Draft Summary as of July 6, 2015

Passed by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee June 23, 2015

Apportionments

Program 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 NHPP $22b $22.8b $23.5b $23.7b $24.3b $24.8 $25.5b STP $10b $10.8b $10.4b $10.6b $10.8b $11b $11.4b CMAQ $2.3b $2.3b $2.4b $2.4b $2.5b $2.5b $2.6b Metro PL $313m $337m $344m $352m $360m $370m $379m TAP $820m $850m $850m $850m $850m $850m $850m Freight $0 $2b $2.082b $2.2b $2.3b $2.4b $2.5b Assistance for Major Projects (AMP)

$0 $300m $350m $400m $450m $450m $450m TIFIA $1b $675m $675m $675m $675m $675m $675m

Totals 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Contract Authority

$40.256b $44.077b $44b $45b $46.034b $47b $48.308b

Obligation Limitation

$40.256b $43.077b $44b $45b $46.034b $47b $48.308b

The increase in PL funds was a priority for AMPO AMPO recommended a 6-‐year bill AMPO recommended an increase in funding

CMAQ, Metro Planning, Freight Program, TAP are apportioned first then the remaining amounts are distributed to the NHPP, STP, and HSIP in the following percentages

• NHPP – 65% (63.7% under MAP-‐21)• STP – 29% (29.3% under MAP-‐21)• HSIP – 6% (7% under MAP-‐21)

Adjustments will be made to ensure that each State’s apportionment in not less than 95% of estimated tax payment attributable to highway users in the State paid into the HTF

Amendments to the STP Program (Sec. 1004)

AMPO recommended an increase in the suballocated amounts of STP

• Emergency evacuation plans are eligible• The percent of STP funds suballocated by population increased to 55% from 50% (State percent

decreased to 45% from 50%)

o The 55% would be calculated after the off-‐NHS bridge set aside in the next bulleto The new calculation is 55% of 85%o While this is an increase in the percent of suballocated STP, in actual dollars it is a step back

• Subsection (g) Bridges Off the NHS – defined as a highway bridge located on a public road, other than abridge on the NHS

o State required to obligate for Off-‐NHS bridges the greater of 15% of the State STP apportionmentor at least 110% of the amount of funds set aside for bridges not on Federal-‐aid highways in 2014

o The bridge set aside would be taken off the top before the 55% -‐ 50% STP splito According to our calculations the suballocated dollar amount would not reach the 2015 level

until 2019Amendments to Metropolitan Transportation Planning (Sec. 1005)

AMPO requested no change in MPO population thresholds

• Contents of the TIP and Plan must now also provide for the development and integrated management of“intermodal facilities that support intercity transportation, including intercity buses and intercity busfacilities, and commuter van pool providers.”

• Representatives or officials of an MPO shall be determined by MPO bylaws or enabling statutes;representative of public transportation may also serve as a representative of a local municipality;authority of the transit representative shall be commensurate with other officials

• Add improve the resiliency and reliability of the transportation system as a planning factor• The plan should include strategies to reduce vulnerability due to natural disasters• The plan should consider the role that intercity buses play in reducing congestion, pollution, energy

consumption and investments that enhance and preserve intercity bus systems• Public ports, intercity bus operators, and commuter vanpool providers are now listed as “interested

parties”

• Strikes the Congestion Management Process from law• Adds a new section for the treatment of Lake Tahoe Region to receive STP and TAP funds (included by

amendment in the committee markup)Bundling of Bridge Projects (Sec. 1008)

• Permits the grouping of similar types of bridges into one project for eligibility under NHPP or STP fundsthat may be awarded as one contract

• A bundled project may be included in the TIP or STIPFlexibility for Certain Rural Roads and Bridges (Sec. 1009)

• The Secretary may exercise all existing flexibilities and exceptions under law for rural roads and bridgesthe meet certain conditions: located in a county with a population density of 80 or fewer persons persquare mile or is the county that has the lowest population density of all counties in the State; receivesless than $5m in federal funds; totals costs under $30m and federal funds comprise less than 15% of thetotal costs.

Highway Safety Improvement Program (Sec. 1011)

• Expands what a HSIP project includes: vehicle-‐to-‐infrastructure communications equipment; pedestrianhybrid beacons; projects to separate pedestrians and vehicles

Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (Sec.1013)

• Requires that CMAQ funds be used for projects likely to contribute to attainment of a NAAQS “in thedesignated nonattainment area”

• Adds that the project or program is likely to contribute to the attainment “or maintenance” of a NAAQSby reducing VMT, fuel consumption, or other factors

• Adds that CMAQ funds may be used for port-‐related freight operations in non-‐attainment ormaintenance areas for ozone, PM10 or PM 2.5

• Allows CMAQ to be used on projects using transit funds for diesel retrofits, port-‐related freightoperations, and other allowed uses

• Funds used for electric vehicle charging stations or natural gas station are prioritized to corridors underthe new National Electric Vehicle Charging and Natural Gas Fueling Corridors program under Section1024

• Directs that CMAQ funds prioritized for PM 2.5 shall be obligate to projects that reduce “directly emittedfine particulate” matter in the areas instead of current law “such fine particulate” matter in the areas

• States with a population density of 80 or few persons per square mile of land are not required toprioritize CMAQ funds for PM 2.5 in nonattainment or maintenance areas if there are no projects that area part of the emissions analysis of a TIP or Plan and if regional motor vehicle emissions are an insignificant contributor to the air quality problem for PM 2.5 The State set-‐aside for PM 2.5 shall be reduced accordingly

NEW National Freight Program (Sec. 1014)

• USDOT Sec designates the primary freight system, which includes all NHS freight intermodal connectors• State may increase the mileage by no more then 10% of the miles already designated in the State• States may designate critical rural freight corridors

AMPO recommended a freight program with it own funding

AMPO recommended the establishment of Critical Urban Freight Corridors established by MPO in consultation with States

• MPOs over 500,000 in population, in consultation with the State, may designate a critical urban freightcorridor when conditions are met

• In urbanized areas under 500,000 in population the State, in consultation with the MPO, may designate acritical urban freight corridor when conditions are met

• Funds are apportioned to the State based on total primary highway freight miles in the State comparedto total primary highway freight miles in all States

• No more the 10% can be used within the boundaries of public and private freight rail, water, andintermodal facilities

NEW Assistance for Major Projects Program: All Major Projects (AMP) (Sec. 1015)

• Funding for major projects that are critical high cost surface transportation projects• Eligible project must meet one or more of the criteria such as reducing congestion and increase global

competitiveness• Funds are discretionary through USDOT• States, local government, tribal government, transit agencies, and others

o MPO are not specifically eligible• An eligible project needs to have a total cost of $350M• The Secretary takes measures to distribute funds equitably across the country• Grant shall be at least $50M (exception for rural areas)• Cap of 20% per year to one State• Projects must be consistent with Metro and State transportation planning• Jan 1 of each year, USDOT provides the list of applicants that meet the criteria to Senate EPW;

Committees have 90 days to approve a list of projects; Congress has 90 days to adopt of a JointResolution of the Committees action; failure by the Committees or Congress results in the Secretaryawarding projects

Transportation Alternatives Program (Sec. 1016)

• $850M per year 100% suballocated by population• Adds a non-‐profit entity responsible for the administration of local transportation safety programs to the

list of eligible entities• MPOs may further suballocate within the boundaries of the planning area in a competitive process• States and MPOs required to report to the Secretary about TAP• Secretary shall issue guidance or regulation to improve TAP project delivery

NEW National Electric Vehicle Charging and Natural Gas Fueling Corridors

• Secretary will designate corridors; seek input and corridor nominations from State and local government

Categorical Exclusion for Projects of Limited Federal Assistance

This was an AMPO recommendation

• Indexes the current amounts ($5M in Federal funds or estimated projects cost of not more than $30M)to CPI for All Urban Consumers

Research Technology and Education (Sec. 2001)

• New eligibility for MPOs – The Secretary must use at least 50 percent of funds available for the“Technology and Innovation Deployment Program” for grants and contracts

• MPOs are added to the list of eligible grant recipients for demonstration projects that will acceleratedeployment and eventual adoption of transportation research activities

Every Day Counts (Sec. 2201) • Incorporates in to legislation the USDOT EDC initiative• Directs the FHWA Administrator to continue the initiative• Working with stakeholders – every two years, identify new innovations and best practices to be deployed

to stakeholders

FMATS' FFY 15 Offset List

07.09.15

PROJECT FEDERAL TOTAL

Available Offset Funding (does not include earmarks)

FMATS Streetlights Conversion Stage III $103,735.00 $114,032.0 Reduce to awardFMATS ADA Curb Corner and Sidewalk Upgrades $26,440.65 $26,583.65 Project Closure

FMATS Area Surface Upgrades FFY2011 $69,172.49 $76,038.78 Project Closure

FMATS LED Streetlight Conversion Stage II $208,855.00 $229,587.00 Project Closure

FMATS Street Light Conversion Stage III $20,465.00 $22,496.00 PH2 Closure

FMATS MTP Update $34,773.00 $38,225.00 Project Closure

North Pole Interchange Pedestrian Facilities $150,286.00 $165,204.00 Phase 3 Closure

Total Offset Funding to Date $613,727.14 $672,166.43 Available for other uses

Committed Offsets:

Metropolitan Transportation Plan Amendment 1 $61,860.00 $68,000.0 PC Approved 09.17.14

South Cushman Resurfacing $68,604.12 $75,414.0 PC Approved 02.18.15

Tanana Drive Intersection Improvements $174,700.00 $174,700.0 Per Amendment 9

FMATS LED Stage III $113,957.21 $125,269.0 Approved by Coordinator 05.20.15

College Road Rehabilitation $92,303.62 $101,466.0 Coordinator Approved to low bid 04.30.15

Total Committed Offsets $511,424.9 $544,849.0

Remaining Funds to be Obligated $102,302.19 $127,317.43

1

FMATS ALLOCATIONS PHASE AMOUNTFFY15

OBLIGATIONSPERCENT

OBLIGATED

FMATS CTP ALLOCATION All $8,073.5 $708.6 9%

BANKING $5,053.2 $2,635.9 52%

FMATS CMAQ ALLOCATION All $800.0 $285.0 36%

OFFSETS All $633.9 $268.7 42%

GENERAL FUND (Informational) All $18,910.3 $18,910.2 100%

TOTAL $33,470.9 $22,808.4 68%

AKSAS CTP/TRAAK PHASEOBLIGATION

DATE ESTIMATE

TIP AMOUNTFFY15

OBLIGATIONSPERCENT

OBLIGATEDCOMMENTS

62164College Road Rehabilitation & IntersectionImprovements: Fairbanks

4 2/26/2015 $1,999.9 $1,999.9 100%Banked Funds - moved banked funds to 61324


4 2/26/2015 $205.8 $205.8 100% FCTP

62838 McGrath Rd Upgrade: FNSB 2 06.04.15 $265.0 $265.0 100%

61725 Noble Street Upgrade: Fairbanks 2 8/5/2015 $200.0 0% submitted

61324 FMATS Improvement Program 2 07.15.15 $300.0 $70.0 23% FCTP

61324 FMATS Improvement Program 4 6/15/2015 $1,572.4 $691.3 44% $1,441.0 Banked

63768 Birch Hill Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility: FNSB 7 7/1/2015 $100.0 0% FCTP - submitted

63293 Gold Hill Road Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility: FNSB 4 8/1/2015 $3,200.0 0% FCTP

63293 Gold Hill Road Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility: FNSB 2 07.01.15 $75.0 0% Banked

61661 FMATS Pedestrian Improvements - Stage I 4 08.15.15 $2,085.0 $0.0 0% FCTP

Tanana Loop and Alumni Drive Intersection Improvements 2 07.15.15 $189.1 $0.0 0% FEDCTP

62836 Steese Expressway to Front Street Bicycle/Pedestrian Path 7 7/1/2015 $150.0 0% Banked and M381

61676 FMATS Coordinators Office 8 2/19/2015 $112.5 $112.5 100% FEDCTP

CTP Totals $10,454.7 $3,344.5 32%

$2,635.9

FMATS TIP OBLIGATION STATUS REPORT - FFY15 07.08.15

CTP FUNDING

FMATS ALLOCATION TOTALS

Banking Total

Page 1 of 8


AKSAS DEOBLIGATIONS (Not Including Earmarks) PHASEOBLIGATION

DATE STATUSAMOUNT

FFY15 OBLIGATIONS

Percent Obligated

COMMENTS

62536 South Cushman Street Resurfacing 4 2/28/2015 $75.4 $75.4 100%

61954 FMATS Street Light Conversion-Stage III 4 6/8/2015 $125.3 $125.3 100%

Tanana Loop and Alumni Drive Intersection Improvements 2 7/15/2015 $174.7 0%

62164 College Road Rehabilitation & Intersection Improvements 4 4/30/2015 $101.5 0%

62536 FMATS Metropolitan Transportation Plan Update - AMD 1 8 10/23/2014 $68.0 $68.0 100%

OFFSET TOTALS $544.9 $268.7 49%

Offsets/Deobligations

Page 2 of 8


AKSAS CMAQ PHASEOBLIGATION

DATE STATUSTIP AMOUNT

FFY15 OBLIGATIONS

PERCENT OBLIGATED

COMMENTS

62838 McGrath Rd Upgrade: FNSB 2 06.04.15 $135.0 $135.0 100%

61661 FMATS Pedestrian Improvements - Stage I 2 10/28/2014 $150.0 $150.0 100% CMAQ

61661 FMATS Pedestrian Improvements - Stage I 4 5/21/2015 $515.0 0% CMAQ

CMAQ TOTALS $800.0 $285.0 36%

CMAQ FUNDING

Page 3 of 8


AKSAS GENERAL FUNDS/OTHER FUNDED PROJECTS PHASEOBLIGATION

DATE STATUSTIP AMOUNT

FFY15 OBLIGATIONS

PERCENT OBLIGATED

COMMENTS


4 3/15/2015 $4,440.0 $4,440.0 100% College = SB230 $4.5M

77248 Plack Road Bike/Pedestrian Facility: FNSB 4 3/31/2015 $3,000.0 $3,000.0 100% GO-P

77194 Cushman Street/Gaffney Road Reconstruction 2 4/15/2015 $90.0 $90.0 100% 381

77194 Cushman Street/Gaffney Road Reconstruction 4 4/15/2015 $2,202.7 $2,202.7 100% SB46

77194 Cushman Street/Gaffney Road Reconstruction 4 4/15/2015 $822.1 $822.0 100% SB230

77194 Cushman Street/Gaffney Road Reconstruction 4 4/15/2015 $4,890.0 $4,890.0 100% GF-GC

77194 Cushman Street/Gaffney Road Reconstruction 4 4/15/2015 $1,357.0 $1,357.0 100% 381

61676 FMATS Coordinators Office 8 11/1/2015 $99.4 $99.4 100% 381

61676 FMATS Coordinators Office 8 11/1/2015 $7.5 $7.5 100% NP

62532 South Cushman Sidewalk and Drainage Improvements 4 2/18/2015 $171.6 $171.6 100% SB160

76707 Yankovich / Miller Hill Rd Multi-Use Path: FNSB 4 10/27/2014 $1,050.0 $1,050.0 100% SB160

76707 Yankovich / Miller Hill Rd Multi-Use Path: FNSB 4 10/27/2014 $780.0 $780.0 100% SB230

GF/OTHER FUNDED PROJECTS TOTALS $18,910.3 $18,910.2 100%

GENERAL FUNDS/OTHER FUNDED PROJECTS

Page 4 of 8

policy committee meeting wednesday, july 15,...

Documents