Rural Arterial Program Administered by The County Road

Rural Arterial Program Administered by: The County Road Administration Board - CRAB RCW 36. 79

Origin of RAP l In 1983 the Washington State Legislature created the RAP to help finance the reconstruction of rural arterial roads facing high volumes of freight traffic in the wake of rail system abandonment. (1970 s ARAB Oil Embargo and dwindling federal revenues)

RAP funding helped Rock Lake Road out of a bind

Opening the sight distance and curves allows trucks and cars to share the road safely.

Rural Arterial Program “The Basics” • Road System • Funding Source • Project Spending • Project Selection • Flexibility

Road System By Federal Functional Class: • 02 Rural Principle Arterials – 0 miles • 06 Rural Minor Arterials – 152 miles • 07 Rural Major Collectors – 6, 376 miles • 08 Rural Minor Collectors – 6, 077 miles • 09 Local Access Bridge Replacements

Road System – Collectors

Road System – Major and Minor Collectors

Road System – Some Projects Funded by RAP

Road System – Statewide total Centerline Miles • State • Interstate • Rural • Urban • • Total • DNR Roads (fed) • 764 5, 453 820 7, 037 City • • • Rural Streets Urban Collectors and Arterials Urban Local Streets • Total County • Rural Local Access Roads • Urban Collectors and Arterials • Urban Local Access Roads • Rural Collectors and Arterials • Total 11, 893 2, 273 2, 857 7, 520 12, 650 22, 144 1, 875 4, 193 12, 605 40, 817 System Emphasis: Mobility, Safety Structure (low ACC/MVM) Recreation & Forest. (Geometry, structure) Mobility & Safety (width, volume, structure) Freight Haul and Safety (Geometry, Structure, Severe Accidents/MVM) Other roads not shown above include tribal, forest service and park roads.

• Funding Source – From Statewide fuel tax – currently 37. 5 cents WSDOT: 15. 96 FERRIES: 1. 08 TIB: 3. 04 TPA: 8. 50 COUNTIES: 4. 92 CRAB 1. 03 RAP 0. 58, CAPP 0. 45 CITIES: 2. 96

Funding Distribution Factors To the five RAP regions l Based on: • Eligible System Miles - 12, 605 miles • Rural Land Area 64, 426 sq. mi. • As Per 2000 census and US Dept. of Commerce • (Updated every ~ ten years)

Funding Source Final Computation of Regional Factors: 1 part land area + 2 parts road miles [AREA % + (MILES % Regional X 2 )] / 3 = Factor

Funding Source For RAP Regions Biennial Dollars per Region: (typical $40 M distribution) NE Region: 43. 45% X 40 = SE Region: 23. 66% X 40 = SW Region: 14. 97% X 40 = NW Region: 11. 14% X 40 = PS Region: 6. 78% X 40 = 100. 00% $17. 4 M $ 9. 4 M $ 6. 0 M $ 4. 5 M $ 2. 7 M $40. 0 M

Project Spending – The slow first decade

Project Spending - Solutions to encourage spending l l l l Eliminate partially funded projects • 1995 – carry forward of partially funded projects to succeeding biennia Two biennium obligation • Adopted in 1995. Funded $72 M, borrowed another $19 M from the following biennium to complete projects that were partially funded. 2 R/3 R Projects • Summer 1996. Completed an additional $15 M worth of projects within 2 yrs. Missing links. • Closing the gaps of lower ranked road sections - NE Lapsing of projects not moving to design / construction Emergency funding and Increases to existing funding Regional routes (Multi biennium funding) – not pursued • Larger projects would be selected over multi-biennia Direct allocation – not pursued concerns over legislative pot-stirring.

Project Spending – the aggressive second decade

Project Spending – Moderated third decade RATA ACCOUNT ACTIVITY EACH CALENDAR YEAR projected to December 2010 45 REVENUE 40 YEAR-END BALANCE 35 EXPENDITURES 30 25 20 15 10 YEAR 2010 est 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 0 1983 5

5. 00 4. 50 4. 00 3. 50 3. 00 2. 50 YEARS DURATION 2. 00 % COMPLETE / 100 1. 50 1. 00 0. 50 Year approved 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 0. 00 1991 Average Duration of Completed projects, Years Duration of RAP projects and Percent Complete

Project Spending. Regional comparisons 23 years of project obligation and spending

Project Selection cycle for 2011 – 2013 Biennium WAC 136 -161 S Submit Preliminary Project List. ---- March 1, 2012 S Complete Field Reviews ---- June 30, 2012 ---- September 01, 2012 S S Done by CRAB Staff Submit Project Prospectuses S Subject to Submittal Limit. (further scope and design) S CRABoard Review Project Arrays ---- October 21, 2012 S CRAB budget proposal to OFM- November 01, 2012 S Submit Road Levy Report ---- S ---- February 01, 2013 Review Road levy and 6 Yr TIP S Approve Arrays & Fund Projects ---- April 2013 Brd Mtg S Funds Available to Projects July 1, 2013 ----

Project Selection – Competitive Factors l Projects ranked by factors listed in RCW 36. 79. 080. • • l Structural ability to carry loads; • Rated by Extent of Failure Ability to move traffic at reasonable speeds; • Design Speed in City and County Design Standards Adequacy of alignment and related geometry; • City and County Design Standards Accident and fatal accident experience; • Documented accidents last 3 years, project length AND: • Local Significance • Not required by law, but reflects the project’s importance per the required 6 Yr Program.

Rural Arterial Program - Flexibility l The CRABoard programs projects after determining availability of future funding. l Adjust rating procedures to reflect regional road needs. l Update Freight and Goods Transportation System l Account balance management, scheduling payout. l Provide Online RAP forms. • 70+ % of RATA funds spent on FGTS.

RAP Issues l l l l Diversion Project Rating Project Increases Scope Changes Waiver of Payback Lapsing of RATA funding Emergent and Emergency Funding

RAP Issues l • • • Diversion - RCW 36. 79. 140, WAC 136 -150 Annual comparison of traffic law enforcement and diverted amount (other). • Annual Certification County sheriff also submits a certification of the actual expenditure for traffic law enforcement in the previous budget year. RAP Eligible Counties: • • Diversion Those in which there has been no diversion of the county road levy; Those in which the actual expenditures for traffic law enforcement have been equal to or greater than the amount of the diverted road levy budgeted for traffic law enforcement; Those with a population of less than eight thousand; and Those expending revenues collected for road purposes only on other governmental services after authorization from the voters of that county under RCW 84. 55. 050. Constraint of Contract Execution: All Certifications must be in. Reference to valid certification is included in each RAP contract In case of improper certification - withdrawal or denial the certificate of good practice and pay back of RATA funds received by the county.

RAP Issues – Project Rating and Project Development WAC 136 – 161, 210 l Final Prospectus proposals (due September 1, even years) are checked for accuracy of scoring, ranking and level of design. l Points are granted to the extent (%) the full improvement will be accomplished. l Reconstruction projects that will not achieve full design standards require WSDOT deviation approval. Alignment and Capacity

RAP Issues – Design Standards process RCW 36. 79. 060, WAC 136 -210 l • • • Follow the LAG manual and the City and County Design Standards. • These also cite AASHTO. Full Reconstruction Design Standards, unless a 3 R application is made. • 3 R scope requires a note (CRAB form) to the engineer’s project file. Deviations must be approved by WSDOT before advertising for construction. • • Note on Final Prospectus whether or not a deviation will be needed. Deviations are reviewed by CRABoard prior to allocation of funds to projects. • If deviation is approved after funding, a scope change request is submitted to the CRABoard. • Points will be reduced if full points were claimed in the prospectus. • Projects built below standard or short of prospectus commitment will require pay back of RATA funds.

RAP Issues – Project Increases WAC 136 -165 l • • Things to remember: The Final Prospectus estimate includes all anticipated costs – CRAB / County Contract. Request must be based on extraordinary, unforeseeable circumstances. Limited to < 50% of original RATA funding. Or request a scope change. The request shall demonstrate that: • • County considered WAC listed factors in the prospectus. The request for an increased allocation is based on extraordinary and unforeseeable circumstances. – of the type listed in WAC. It is not feasible to reduce the scope and/or project limits so the project can be substantially constructed within the initial RATA allocation; and The request is not to pay for an expansion of the originally approved project. Increase requests can be submitted twice during project development. • • After completion of preliminary (design) engineering. No later than the date of advertising the project for construction bids. Requests < 25% and $100, 000 can be acted upon by CRAB Director. CRAB may approve all or part of the requested amount. The county funding limit in the following biennium will be reduced accordingly.

RAP Issues l – Project Increases, CRAB Consideration CRAB will consider a project increase if the following have occurred: • Technical data later found to be in error, caused a significant design change. • Project permit requirements were substantially changed, or new permits were required; • Supplementary funds, such as impact fees, developer contributions, grants, etc. , which were forecasted to be available for the project, were withdrawn or otherwise became unavailable; • Design or other standards applicable to the project were changed; and/or • The start of construction will be significantly delayed or additional construction requirements will be added as a direct result of legal action; provided however, that the failure of a county to exercise its statutory powers, such as condemnation, will not be grounds for increasing RATA funds.

RAP Issues l – Project Increases, CRAB Consideration The CRABoard will ask the following: • Did the county, in preparing the prospectus consider the following. • Matching funds; technical data; permits; right of way; available contractors; utilities; Historical and projected labor, material and equipment costs; project development timetable. • Is the request based on extraordinary and unforeseeable circumstances? • Can the county reduce the scope and/or project limits so the project can be substantially constructed within the initial RATA allocation? • Is the request an attempt to expand of the project (scope creep)? • Will the increased allocation have an adverse effect on other approved or requested RATA funded projects?

RAP Issues – Scope Changes • Changes are considered if they do not drop the ranking below the array cut off line. • The main factors gaining the ranking of the project are assumed to remain in the modified project. • Safety, geometric, right of way and environmental concerns must be addressed. • RATA funding will likely be reduced unless the county can show the cost will stay at least equal to the original estimate.

RAP Issues – Waiver of Payback WAC 136 -167 • Payback of expended RATA funds on a terminated project is expected within 60 days after informing the CRABoard of a project withdrawal. • The county may request some of the funds not be reimbursed, but must explain: • • Why the project won’t proceed to completion. Amount the county wishes to retain. Justification for retaining RATA payments. If the CRABoard approves the waiver, the CRAB / County Contract is amended to reflect what was constructed.

RAP Issues – Lapsing of funding WAC 136 - 167 • • • Design must commence within 4 years of approval. • This is accomplished by: • • Expenditure of RATA funds, or CRP resolution. Construction must commence within 6 years approval. • This is accomplished by • • • Advertising for construction bids, or Commencing day labor construction Award of contract under small works roster award process. Time extensions will be: • • Based on unforeseeable delays Approved by the CRAB Director. 2 Yrs maximum Not grounds for an increase.

RAP Issues – Emergent and Emergency Funding RCW 36. 79. 040, WAC 136 -163 • Emergent Projects: • • These are projects the county would have submitted during the normal cycle if it had known conditions would change, thus making the project a priority. Conditions such as: sudden and unanticipated growth, critical access needs, legal decisions, financial crisis. An emergent project must rate well enough to be funded on the current priority array in order for the CRABoard to consider funding. Emergency Projects: • • County must declare an emergency, RAP will pay according regional match. If State declares an emergency: • • • County must submit copy of FEMA PW’s (Project Worksheets) Major Collectors normally are 100% FEMA reimbursable. RAP pays 12. 5% of repair for FEMA eligible Minor Collectors.

RAP will be able to adapt Few strings are attached to the funds. Administrative rules recognize that a professional engineer is managing each project. Local and regional needs and priorities are emphasized. Continue to be simple, unique and responsive.