During the 2016 National Regional Transportation Conference, Annette Fiedler, Southwest Regional Development Commission, Katie Caskey, Minnesota DOT, and Ronda Allis, Minnesota DOT, gave a presentation together. This presentation discussed improvements to the information collected in the letter of intent that local governments complete to apply for the Transportation Alternatives Program in one area of Minnesota.
2. Background and History
ISTEA & SAFETEA-LU
• Applications were conceptual ideas
• Often inaccurate cost estimates
• Projects frequently delayed or dropped after programmed
MAP-21 & FAST
• New era, new project selection process
• Letter of intent step added
• Area Transportation Partnerships were challenged to keep projects from
slipping / dropping
2
3. Letter of Intent (LOI)
• One sentence description
• Budget: total, match, requested
• Project type (capital, planning, both)
• Description of the project
• Transportation purpose
• Identify in a plan
• SRTS
• Scenic Byways
• History delivering federal projects
• Sponsoring agency support
3
4. SRDC LOI Review Process
• Started by asking – what are the typical
causes of project delays?
• Developed a check-list
• Scheduled meetings with RDC, project
applicant, project sponsor, and others
4
Boldly go where no RDC has gone
before!
5. LOI Review Process Adoption
Year 1 –
• SRDC and District 7 developed process and used it to review all projects
Year 2 –
• Two area transportation partnerships used the process
• SRDC pulled previously programmed projects into the process too
Year 3 –
• SRTS staff adopted several components of the process into their standalone
process
• Other ATPs expressed interest in the process
Year 4 –
TBD, but likely more RDCs and ATPs will use a similar review process
6. What does the LOI review process include?
• At least one hour
• All partners at the table
• Listen to what the applicant wants to do
• Take them through the check list
Result: SRDC makes recommendations to strengthen the application
Face-to-Face LOI Review
15. What issues do we usually catch?
• Connections – connections – connections
• Schools, sidewalks, street crossings, etc.
• ADA design
• Driveways, sidewalks
• Other ROW owners (roads, properties)
• Who is going to do the Preliminary Engineering and
design
• Budget
Typical Findings
16. Next Steps for Projects
After the LOI review:
• Applicants decides whether to continue to full application
• Full application submitted
• Area Transportation Partnership reviews applications
• Funding awarded to selected projects
10/1/2015 4/15/2016
11/1/2015 12/1/2015 1/1/2016 2/1/2016 3/1/2016 4/1/2016
10/1/2015 - 10/30/2015
LOI Window
11/2/2015 - 11/13/2015
LOI Review Period
11/16/2015 - 1/8/2016
Application Window
1/11/2016 - 4/15/2016
ATPs Select Projects
17. Is it working?
• Better applications
• Less time spent on applications for projects that aren’t ready
• Improved project delivery – TBD (project’s under this process aren’t constructed
yet)
Benefits of the LOI Review Process
4 outcome objectives – transportation purpose, advance projects in plans, support SRTS, ensure project delivery
1 sentence description of the work for which you are seeking support:
$$ requested from TAP:
Total project $$. Explain the total estimated amount of financing needed. Include TAP request and other sources of financing, specifically how you will obtain the 20% match (100 words maximum):
Project request type (capital, planning, both):
Describe the work you want to do for which you are seeking TAP support. Provide a description of the project development activities for this project to date (250 words maximum):
Describe how your project meets a transportation purpose (100 words max):
List any adopted plans that your project has been identified in (statewide, regional, Safe Routes to School, Scenic Byways, etc.):
Is the proposal an initiative of a local Safe Routes to School program?
Is the proposal located on a designated Scenic Byway? Yes/No
Describe your organization and/or the sponsoring agency’s history with delivering Transportation Alternatives-type projects, including background working with federal funding requirements. If not applicable, identify the key steps and strategies that will be used to deliver the project (250 words maximum):
Have you contacted representatives from the sponsoring agency, including elected officials and county engineers? If so, please describe what has resulted from this conversation and if you have written support for the project (50 words maximum):
Connect to schedule a one hour meeting
Provide electronic copy of LOI review questions
Listen – is this at what stage are they in planning and development of the project? Is everyone on the same page? For one review I had 10 people at the table, county, city, school; and the school superintendent said he did not agree with the location of the project – a school board member took him out of the room and they returned about 5 minutes later – everyone agreed on the project.
Planning? What plans – how much public involvement was there?
TE Eligibility?
Throughout you ask key questions to help them figure out who needs to take responsibility for what – in the application process, if they are funded who will take them through the development and construction of a federal project.
Resolutions and Agreements? What is “required” and beyond – between applicant and sponsor.
Where does the match come from? What if the project is more than estimates? Is there funds to pay that?
ROW – always an issue
Checklist – next page
