Recreational Trails Program and Transportation Enhancement Activities
Advisory Committee Best Practices
Recreational Trails Program
- How is your State Recreational Trail Advisory Committee structured?
- How many members do you have?
- What trail uses are represented?
- Does the Committee have representation from Tribes, the elderly, youth, youth corps, or people with disabilities?
- What other interests are represented?
- Do you have any best practices to share?
- How does your Committee review projects? Please explain.
- Do you have a voting or rating system?
- Is there point system?
- Are any of the votes weighted?
- Are there accepted criteria developed for in-kind match?
- Please provide your most recent Grant Application form, or provide a link to the website hosting your Grant Application form(s).
- Best Practices?
Transportation Enhancement Activities
- Do you have a State Transportation Enhancement Committee?
- How is your State Transportation Enhancement Committee structured?
- How does your Committee review projects? Please explain.
- Do you have a voting or rating system?
- Is there point system?
- Are any of the votes weighted?
- Are there accepted criteria developed for in-kind match?
- Please provide your most recent Grant Application form, or provide a link to the website hosting your Grant Application form(s).
- Best Practices?
Abbreviations
Recreational Trails Program
Notes:
AZ: We had existing separate motorized and nonmotorized trails advisory committees, we have them meet jointly once a year to serve as the RTP Advisory Committee.
MO: (Best Practices?) Last year which was our first year to implement this practice, we ask each board member upon their review and scoring of each RTP application to complete a cover sheet which included the application strengths, application weaknesses, and recommendations for improvements. We compiled the comments back from the board members and provided this information to those 2007 RTP grant applicants who requested feedback from the board on their application. We will continue this practice of getting additional information from the board members for the 2008 grant applicants who request additional feedback on their applications.
MT: We select STAC members who are well-rounded recreationally, not strictly one-sport enthusiasts. For example, our equestrian members may own horses, ride and pack them, but may not necessarily be members of or represent a Montana Backcountry Horsemen's group. They may also snowmobile, hike and ski, and might occasionally hop on a dirt bike. We've found that well-rounded members are probably less-inclined to argue contentiously about their favorite form of recreation than those who might represent a particular one-dimensional group.
TN: The Tennessee SRTAC is called the Commissioner Greenways and Trails Advisory Council (Council) and is an advisory council, not a policy making board. Charter and By-Laws were changed in July, 2005. The Council meets quarterly to attend to G&T business and a quorum of 6 people must be in attendance to conduct business. We usually have 10+/- members attending each meeting and a number of Ex-Officio members representing state and federal land managing agency staff also attend.
The Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC), Recreation Educational Services Division (RES) provides staff support to the Council though the Greenways and Trails Program Coordinator and with an administrative person to record and transcribe the meeting minutes.
| State | How does your Committee review projects? Please explain. | Do you have a voting or rating system? | Is there point system? | Are any of the votes weighted? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AK | Annually, each board member receives a copy of all eligible applications and scores them from 1-100. Scores are accumulated through score sheets that are developed by the board. The board meets in February (public meeting) to justify and discuss scores. Changes to scores are allowed in the meeting. Scores are averaged and the highest scoring projects, per category, are selected for recommendation to the Director of Parks and Outdoor Recreation. The Director gives final approval for projects to go to State Agency Review (our environmental review process) and Federal Highways for final determination/funding. | Yes. | Yes. The point system is gauged off of criteria that we ask for in our applications. | Certain criteria is weighted more heavily than other criteria in the scoring process. Additional points/weight is given to applicants that provide ADA access, youth development, and safety and educational components to their projects. |
| AL | Volunteer Committee members review previously rated grant applications and make recommendations to State staff based on their expertise in their focus area. | |||
| AZ | The Committee as a whole does not rate or review projects. One person from the Committee sits in on the rating meeting to oversee the process & give comments and then report back to the Committee. | The nonmotorized program does not have a rating system, projects are drawn by lottery. The motorized program has a rating system. | Points are awarded to the percentage of requested funds that go towards priorities, weighted by 1st tier & 2nd tier. | |
| FL | Scoring team of 3, as recruited from Committee. Per program audit - recommended rotation of members thru scoring team. If you are on the Committee - at some point you will be required to score. | Yes, per Chapter 62S-2, FAC | No. | |
| HI | We submit the list of all features eligible for RTP at the Statewide AC meeting; they review and accept. Currently Hawaii does not award grants with RTP - but funds internal and external projects using state procurement procedures. | |||
| IA | I allow members to score projects independently after which we meet to discuss | Yes, we have specific criteria used to score the projects. | Yes, typically 1-10 points. | No, but we award extra points. |
| IL | IL DNR evaluates & scores projects, & develops a list (the annual Project Listing) of recommended projects. The council reviews this list and almost always, approves it as is. They sometimes question projects' cost or elements, and IL DNR may change its recommendation. | There is a rating system for applications -- many factors are considered, eg, projects that are of greater Statewide significance are given more weight than locally significant projects. | There are no weighted votes. | |
| IN | After receiving applications, the review committee meets at each grant site with the locals to review the trail location, amenities, possible land acquisition, etc. The review committee then rates each grant application based on criteria developed from trail needs identified in State trail plan and SCORP. | Rating System. | Yes. | n/a |
| KS | The application process begins with Statewide news releases in July that applications are due by Aug 1. In September another news release announcing a public meeting of the Advisory Board to review all applications and letters. October public meeting of the advisory board where each applicant is given the opportunity to briefly present their proposal and answer questions from the board and public. Application being recommended by the advisory board are then presented to the KDWP Commission during a regular scheduled public meeting for final input from the public and Commission. Final recommendations are then presented to the Secretary of KDWP for final approval and submission to FHWA/Metro Planning and KDOT. | No. | A consensus is gained by all by all advisory members on an application. Votes are not weighted; each is equal. | Yes. |
| KY | I review and score the applications and send a report to the board members. They are all more than welcome to come in and review the applications before or during the meeting if they want more information. | Rating System | Yes. | The more users the trail will accommodate, the better. |
| MA | Three members review each application and rate based on published criteria. | Three members review each application and rate based on published criteria. | Yes, and then also a Recommend, Maybe, No system. | No, but the Commissioner of DCR has final approval. |
| ME | There are subcommittees that review the projects as to categories and recommend action to the full committee. | Yes, we have a Scoring System. | Yes, large vs. small grants. | |
| MN | The Motorized subgroup reviews motorized applications, the nonmotorized group reviews nonmotorized applications and both groups review joint projects. | The group votes by consensus, but with specific voting for a project's ranking. The group will take a popular vote on the priority of a project. | Yes, the nonmotorized group ranks 1, 2, or 3. | Each user group has three votes. |
| MO | The Division of State Parks, Grants Management Section reviews and approves the incoming RTP grant application before they are distributed to the Missouri Trail Advisory Board members to make sure this organization can financially complete the project. The RTP applications along with the RTP score sheet and the cover sheet are mailed to the members for review and scoring of the RTP applications. It takes a month for the MTAB members to score the RTP applications and then the scores are submitted to the Grants Management Section which are entered into an excel document in order to rank the RTP applications. The MTAB members will meet in the next week or so to discuss for the ranking and scoring of each of the RTP applications and to discuss the RTP applications. At this time, we are working with our department to create a blog for the board members to discuss this RTP application when they are actual scoring them for this coming year. | We have a point system for each RTP application question with the total maximum amount 100 points which are scored by the board members. | ||
| MT | Our STAC reviews all of our RTP applications and advises us on possible red-flag issues or points out problems to us that our scorers may have missed. They do not score applications and are strictly advisory. | Scoring of applications is done only by our Recreation Bureau staff. | n/a | n/a |
| ND | Online system but scoring on paper using a matrix system. | The matrix system we use is based on points. | Yes. | No. |
| NV | The committee, with State Parks, developed our procedures. | Yes. | Yes. | Yes. |
| OK | Yes. | Yes. | ||
| TN | Council does not directly review projects and recommend grant amounts to be awarded. Council does review and approve the RTP grant application manual that is used for the grant cycle. A number of changes were implemented for the 2008 grant cycle and were approved by the Council. See notes below. * | |||
| VA | Committee reviews applications and scores according to previously set scoring criteria. Trail advisory selections are recommendations for funding approval. | |||
| WA | RCFB's grant programs involve an open, highly competitive process. Funding relies heavily on an applicant's responses to the following evaluation questions. The responses are scored by a volunteer advisory body that makes funding recommendations to RCO’s director. See: http://www.rco.wa.gov/rcfb/grants/nrtp_evaluation.htm | Yes. | Yes. | Yes. |
| WV | At the close of the application period, a copy of each application is sent to each member for review prior to the meeting. At the meeting, we go down through a listing of the projects and vote. If question arise, we stop and discuss the issue. |
Yes. | Each proposed project can receive from 0-100 points. | No. |
| WY | Our committee has a review and ranking system. Different volunteers from the Council are solicited each year and they review and rank the RTP projects. The ranking sheets (point system) and applications are brought before the Council and then discussed amongst all members. | Yes. | Yes. | |
Notes:
TN: Council does not directly review projects and recommend grant amounts to be awarded. Council does review and approve the RTP grant application manual that is used for the grant cycle. A number of changes were implemented for the 2008 grant cycle and were approved by the Council. Changes include:
- $20,000 grants with minimum $5,000 match for Comprehensible Trail Master Planning for cities and counties.
- Allowing IRS 501(c)(3) nonprofits organizations who have written management agreements (MOU/MOA) with public land managing agencies to apply for grants.
TDEC-RES held 7 grant workshops state wide in October, 2007 to explain the grant process and provided attendees with a CD of the grant manuals in Word format. TDEC-RES received 39 RTP grants requesting 3.5 million, use in house RES staff to score the grants (2 people/grant), on site visits to each grant location are made by staff, scores averaged, and recommended list of grants to be awarded is reviewed by the Council. Final Approval of grants for projects is made by Commissioner Fyke and Governor Bredesen. The RTP is on a two year grant cycle with projects being awarded in even years (2006, 2008, 2010, etc.)
The RTP grant application has a 200 point scoring system which is clearly defined in Section 20 and 21 of the RTP grant manual. There is no weighting of the votes.
| State | Are there accepted criteria developed for in-kind match? |
|---|---|
| AK | Yes, we require a 20% match. The following qualifies as suitable match: personal services, labor (volunteer hours cannot exceed the value $19.51/ hr), cash donation, donation of materials and equipment, etc. |
| AZ | No criteria for in-kind. |
| FL | Per Chapter 62S-2, FAC and OGT Grant Accountability Procedures. This is basically "extra" match as all Florida RTP projects are officially matched with FDOT Toll Credits. However, our local level in-kind match does meet the RTP matching funds criteria. Match is either 50:50, 60:40 or 80:20 (more match = more points). |
| HI | Hawaii's match is 100% derived from trail program staff labor via State and Special Funds to match the RTP funds. Currently Hawaii does not use the in-kind approach to match the RTP - but have considered it for new OHV projects being implemented with volunteers using free heavy equipment. |
| IA | Yes, we allow in in-kind. |
| IL | IL doesn't accept in-kind matches that include volunteer labor, use of donated equipment/tools, use of equipment/machinery already owned by the agency, etc. We only accept verifiable costs such as local agency force account labor (where we've established per-hour labor costs), rental of equipment (again, there's a bill & proof of pmt to use the equipment), etc. Bottom-line -- all matches, other than donated real estate where the value is established by an independent appraisal certified by IL DNR, must be actual out-of-pocket costs. |
| IN | Yes: appropriations, force account, donated land based on approved appraisal, donated labor based on common wage rates, donated equipment based on common rates. In-kind cannot exceed match amount. |
| KY | The more in-kind, the higher you score on a question. In-kind is minimum wage unless they are skilled/certified such as an engineer. Folks want to use a high wage for volunteers such as $15-$18 but we don't allow that: if they want or expect volunteer labor to be $15-$18, they need to hire that person and submit for reimbursement as a Force Account and not In-kind. |
| KS | Yes. |
| MA | Yes. Available on website. See below. |
| ME | Yes. |
| MN | Yes. Available on website. See below. |
| MO | Yes. We follow the federal grant guidelines. |
| MT | Yes. Available on website. See below. |
| NV | Nothing above and beyond federal. |
| TN | Yes, Tennessee allows in-kind match of cash, use of local government employees, equipment and materials, donations of materials, equipment, donated services by contractors and other vendors. Donated labor of volunteers for trail construction purposes is accounted for at $6.00 per hour using TDEC-RES forms. Hope to increase that in the future. See page 6 of Part 1 of the RTP manual at the website given below. |
| VA | At present we do not have more stringent requirements than what is allowed. |
| WA | Yes. Available on website. See below. |
| WV | We only accept minimum wage as the value of labor, unless the person who performed the donation of labor performs the same labor to make their living. Then we will accept the in-kind at the going rate for that type of labor. The services/materials must be documented on a form that the DOH provides the sponsor. |
| WY | There are accepted criteria developed for in-kind match. We go by the federal regulations, and if anything is questionable; we work with our State Federal partner to come to a conclusion. |
| State | Best Practices? |
|---|---|
| AK | Board members that have a conflict of interest when voting on certain projects (that they have assisted with in the application process) must abstain from voting on those projects. Roberts Rules provide a good guideline for carrying out meetings efficiently. Minutes should be taken for every meeting and the scoring process should be open and transparent to the public. |
| AZ | Maine ATV Trail Construction BMP |
| HI | The main difference in Hawaii is that each island has an Advisory Council, and that each council sends a representative to the mandated annual meeting. However, keeping membership at full statewide is impossible, there is always the need to fill vacancies since they are volunteers. Kauai, Molokai, and Lania do not have an active AC due to a lack of new projects over time due to land tenure and staff trail management policy. Our members get bored hearing about the magnitude of sheer maintenance - which in Hawaii is 365 days a year with rapid vegetation growth and erosion and accretion issues constantly due to tropical rainfall and soils. Oahu, Maui, and the Big Island has very active members due to monthly issues and strong public interest. |
| KY | Make sure all trail types are represented and are users. |
| KS | Keep the process open to the public all the way through the process and allow public participation. Ensure that the applicant has a multi-year plan that has been developed in open public process and that the applicant has substantial public support for the proposal. |
| TN | Best Practices are to attend meetings, be involved, represent your trail user group and recommend/ write grants for RTP projects. |
| MO | I think it would be good if members of the Trail Advisory Board could actually participate in the RTP grant workshops held statewide as a resource when working with upcoming with potential new RTP grant applicants and discussing their future trail projects. |
| WV | The Committee should work closely with the staff that administers the program on a day to day level so that they access to information such as who has been a good sponsor, what is the progress of previously awarded projects, etc. |
| WY | At the end of our meeting agenda, we go around the room and ask that each member talks about concerns of their constituents, area or agency. They usually speak five to ten minutes each and will describe all the good and bad taking place in their region. It's a nice end for all members to gain knowledge of issues taking place throughout the state and many times other members can assist with ideas or suggestions. |
Transportation Enhancement Activities
| State | Do you have a State Transportation Enhancement Committee? |
|---|---|
| AR | In 1995, the Arkansas Highway Commission elected to no longer use a TE Advisory Committee. Currently the Commission selects and approves projects from the applications that are determined to be eligible for TE funding. The Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department staff who are familiar with the TE program determine which applications are eligible, and if necessary, FHWA-Arkansas Division is consulted to determine eligibility. |
| DE | All new projects are presented for review/approval to our general assembly (legislative body) as part of our FY budget presentation. |
| IA | Yes. |
| ID | Yes. |
| ME | We do not have a TE Advisory Committee in Maine, however, we do form "application review teams" to evaluate the biennial submission of TE applications. These teams usually are: Bike/Ped, Historic Restorations, Surface Water Quality, etc. See: http://www.maine.gov/mdot-stage/projects-grant-applications/qcp/ |
| MI | Yes. The Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) has a committee referred to as the TE Selection Advisory Team. The purpose of this team is to review applications, make recommendations for selection, and provide input for program goals, policies, and processes. |
| ND | Yes - North Dakota's committee is called the "Director's Task Force." |
| NY | New York State does have a State Transportation Enhancement Advisory Committee (TEAC), which is used exclusively in the project selection process. It is chaired by the Commissioner of Transportation, who appoints the other members. |
| OR | Members do not represent particular geographic areas or subject interests. Instead they are specifically charged to maintain a statewide and interdisciplinary perspective. |
| RI | Yes. |
| TN | Yes. Our Transportation Enhancement (TE) Review Committee is comprised of TDOT personnel chaired by the Transportation Enhancement Coordinator. |
| TX | TxDOT does have an advisory committee - the Transportation Enhancement Project Evaluation Committee (TEPEC). |
| VT | Yes. |
| WI | Yes, the members review all projects, divided into three groups: bike/ped, streetscaping-landscaping and historic & others like transportation museum, welcome centers, etc. |
| WS | Yes. |
| How is your State Transportation Enhancement Committee structured? | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| STATE | How many members do you have? | What uses are represented? | Does the Committee have representation from Tribes, the elderly, youth, youth corps, or people with disabilities? | What other interests are represented? | Do you have any best practices to share? |
| IA | Currently we have three sub-committees: Trail and Bicycle Facility Projects (6 members); Historical and Archaeological Projects (5 members); Scenic and Environmental Projects (6 members). | Bicycling, walking, running, jogging, in-line skating, wheelchairs. | No. | None. | No. |
| ID | Scenic, historical, bike/ped, SRTS, local agencies. | No. | We initiated an "intent to apply" application that must preceed the actual application period. This allowed me to screen projects that did not fit the program or had questionable parts. It also allowed us longer pre-communication with sponsors to hopefully get better applications. The strategy appeared to work based on the quality of applications we received this round. | ||
| IL | 20 | Bicyclists, snowmobilers, equestrians, mountain bicyclists, paddlers (water trails), OHVers, & hikers. Some trail uses have more than 1 representitive. | No, but all RTP-funded TE-type bike trails must meet ADA. | Regional and Statewide greenways & trails coalitions (eg, IL Assn of Conservation & Forest Preserve Districts, IL Assn of Park Districts). | No best practices. |
| ND | Ten members from the following: ND Tourism, ND Parks & Recreation Dept., State Historical Society of ND, ND Indian Affairs Commission, Metropolitan Planning Organizations, Counties over 5,000 pop., Counties under 5,000 pop., cities over 5,000 pop., cities under 5,000 pop, and the NDDOT. | ||||
| NY | Members come from other state agencies, local governments or not-for-profit groups with some relationship to enhancement-type projects, e.g., bike/pedestrian, environmental, historic preservation organizations, etc. NYSDOT provides the necessary technical and staff assistance to the TEAC. | ||||
| OR | 11 | Using a statewide/interdisciplinary approach instead of trying to represent all the various factions has served us well. | |||
| MI | 40 are invited to quarterly meetings, typically about 25 attend. | All. The committee is made up of MDOT employees only. Members are TE Program grant coordinators, technical experts/reviewers including nonmotorized experts, historians, a water quality expert, landscape architects, endangered species/terrestrial animal specialist, and the local agency programs engineer. | Also represented are the planners from each MDOT region (MDOT has 7 geographical regions/field offices) who help us with geographic representation. Also included are a maintenance expert and transit expert. | See below. | |
| RI | 9 | All 12 eligible categories. | The committee considers projects from all interests. | The committee considers projects from all interests. | |
| TN | We currently have five members, one vacancy and 2 technical advisors. | Bicycle/pedestrian facility coordinator (position currently vacant), Historic Preservation Office and the Highway Beautification/Roadscapes/Scenic Byways/Outdoor Advertising Program Coordinator. | No. | The Office of Local Program Development, Civil Rights, Rail/Highway Safety and Traffic Engineering. | |
| TX | 6 | Texas Department of Transportation, Texas, Department of Economic Development, Texas Historical Commission, Texas Parks & Wildlife Department, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, General Land Office | Yes. | Historic, environmental, parks, tourism, economic development. | Limit your committee or it will be difficult to reach consensus! |
| VT | 12 | DOT, SHPO, Agency of Natural Resources, Dept. of Tourism, Regional Planners, Municipalities (appointed by VT League of Cities and Towns), Senate and House Transportation members. | Not specifically. | See previous. | Keep it flexible and keep applications as simple as possible. Fund "competitive" high-yield projects, rather than ones that are simply "eligible." |
| WI | 13. May increase to 15 this year; 2008. | We have 4 State legislators, 5 State agencies and 4 citizens at large, which may expand to 6 this year. | Not at this time. | The State agencies include us (WisDOT), Tourism, Commerce (Main St. program), Historical Society and Natural Resources (interest in trail projects). The citizens at large include persons with bike/ped backgrounds, such as the Bicycle Federation of WI. | |
| WS | See below: | ||||
Notes:
MI: (Best Practices) The committee was instrumental in providing input and staffing committees for our TE Process Improvement initiative a few years ago. In addition to surveying local agencies and applicants directly, the committee worked directly with them and provided insight on how we could re-engineer our grant application/approval/and award process to better accommodate their needs and get projects delivered faster.
As a result, we now have an open call for projects and accept applications year-round. Applicants can now apply when convenient for them instead of being constrained by a deadline. This has also helped ease program administration as the result has been higher quality applications and a fewer number of them since applicants are not pressured by a deadline to quickly turn in an application. The application was consolidated and shortened. Applications are submitted online - this improved customer service as we can provide one-on-one application assistance with applicants over the phone while both parties can view the application online at the same time.
We assigned grant coordinators to each MDOT region to work with applicants in providing advice as to how to best develop a competitive application. In addition, they can assist with the online application, and can help guide applicants through the application, review, and selection processes, as well as project implementation.
Most importantly, MDOT now issues conditional commitments to fund projects in future years. For example, MDOT could issue a conditional commitment to fund a project in 2009. As long as the applicant meets certain conditions including certifying any real estate needed for the project, completing the design, and certifying that matching dollars are available to match the grant award, funding will be awarded for the project in 2009. This program feature has proved valuable to applicants in order to plan TE projects with other infrastructure work such as pairing streetscape projects or nonmotorized projects with road or utility work. In addition, it has allowed local agencies time to raise matching funds for projects. Grant awards are made several times a year and project implementation occurs soon after project is approved. Thus, it has really helped us spend TE funds more efficiently and effectively. To illustrate this, Michigan's share of available TE apportionments converted to contractor reimbursements has doubled since 1999.
Process improvements for MDOT's TE Program are ongoing. Since the popularity of the program continues to grow with requests far outweighing funding available, we recently developed guidance on what types of projects are competitive for funding and to give advice on how to best compete within the TE Program process. In addition, we are currently redoing our review/scoring system.
WS: The Transportation Enhancement Committee is appointed by the Secretary of Transportation. The committee consists of representatives from cities, counties, Indian Nations, pedestrian, bicycle, trail, historic/scenic groups, and WSDOT. The committee members are: Mayor of Moses Lake, Mayor of Olympia, Douglas County Commissioner, Clark County Commissioner, Executive Director, Feet First, Executive Director, Bicycle Alliance of Washington, Methow Conservancy Board Member, State Historic Preservation Officer, WSDOT, Highways & Local Programs Division Director.
| State | How does your Committee review projects? Please explain. | Do you have a voting or rating system? | Is there point system? | Are any of the votes weighted? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| IA | After the applications are received they are distributed to the committee members to be scored individually. The committees then meet as a whole and discuss the applications with the opportunity at that time to re-score the projects based upon the discussion. The scores are averaged to arrive at a composite committee score and/or the scores are averaged by criteria. That way we have two ways of looking at the committee's results. | Rating System. | Yes. | No. |
| ID | Yes. | Yes. | No, each member is equal in the review process |
|
| IL | IL DNR evaluates & scores projects, & develops a list (the annual Project Listing) of recommended projects. The council reviews this list &, almost always, approves it, as is. They sometimes question projects' cost or elements, & IL DNR may change its recommendation. | There is a rating system for applications -- many factors are considered, eg, projects that are of greater statewide significance are given more weight than locally significant projects. | There are no weighted votes. | |
| MI | We are actually currently in the process of re-doing our review/scoring system. Program review criteria are developed and technical criteria for each category (nonmotorized, transportation aesthetics, historic preservation, animal mortality, and water quality) exist. We are re-working the numeric system and equations behind these criteria. | |||
| ND | The Director's Task Force reviews project applications for rural (counties & cities under 5,000) and urban (cities over 5,000). | Yes. | Yes. | |
| NY* | Upon successful determination of eligibility by NYSDOT Regional staff, each application will be evaluated, rated, and prioritized by the MPO, NYSDOT Regional Office, or jointly by both organizations. It is expected that each team of raters will closely follow the rating criteria factors to be used by the Transportation Enhancements Advisory Committee (TEAC). | Rating system. | ||
| OR | They score projects after DOT staff has performed technical review, allowed a public comment period, and reduced the original pool (of about 90 apps) to about 30 finalists. | Yes. | Yes. | No. |
| RI | Qualitative/Quantitative Evaluation. | Yes. | Yes. | Yes. |
| TN | All applications are field reviewed by the TE Office and evaluated for eligibility. All committee members review each application and direct questions of concern to the TE Office. Each concern is discussed individually with the appropriate committee member or, if many outstanding issues are involved, a full meeting of the committee is convened. | No. | No. | No. |
| TX | The committee evaluates the function and impact of each eligible project based on the quality of the project, the geographic scope of the project’s benefits, and the project’s transportation enhancement value. The committee prepares recommendations as to which projects are suitable for funding. | Yes - Strong, Moderate & Weak. | No. | No. |
| VT | Rating system for order of consideration for voting. | Yes, for rating . | No. | |
| WI | Each member "ranks" a project from 1 to 5 (1.5, 2.5, etc. allowed) and we average the rankings. We request that they to come to the meeting with an initial ranking based on their reading the application. After some group discussion and comments by the committee members, persons can adjust their initial rank before we log it into our spreadsheet. We look at the list of projects that results at the funding cut-off line. Small adjustments may be made for a better balance of projects by geographic distribution or other factors. Generally we avoid negotiating lower amounts than a project requests. Sponsors mostly receive amount requested. | Yes. | Yes. | No. |
Notes:
NY: The MPO, NYSDOT Regional Office, or both through joint submission will send prioritized summaries of each application to the TEAC. The TEAC will review each project summary and make selection recommendations to the Governor for final approval. Although the TEAC reserves the right to modify the rank order of the separate lists submitted to it--and even to add projects of statewide or regional importance it deems worthy, it normally follows the recommendations of the MPOs and Regional Offices in 95% or so of the cases. The Governor will act on the recommendations--normally ratifying the TEAC's selections down the line--and all applicants and sponsors will be notified of the decisions. Because past practice has been for the state to conduct a funding round every two or three years in order to accumulate enough funds to make the round worthwhile, the TEAC has to be in effect recreated for each round. Although the individual representatives may change, however, there is still a great of continuity in the particular agencies, authorities, and not-for-profit organizations invited to the table.
| State | Are there accepted criteria developed for in-kind match? |
|---|---|
| AR | The Department does not allow in-kind match for TE projects. A cash match is required. The cash match requirement streamlines the administration of TE projects and helps to minimize the impacts to the Department's resources when administering locally sponsored TE projects. |
| DE | The in-kind match has to be agreed upon up front and be relative to the project. Examples would be donated administrative and management time, donated labor to the project, donation of material for the project, etc. |
| IA | We have developed a series of Instructional Memorandums to guide the development of projects governed by federal-aid funding. I.M. 3.050, which can be found at www.iowadot.gov/local_systems/publications/im/3050.pdf is titled In-Kind Contributions. |
| IL | IL doesn't accept in-kind matches that include volunteer labor, use of donated equipment/tools, use of equipment/machinery already owned by the agency, etc. We only accept verifiable costs such as local agency force account labor (where we've established per-hour labor costs), rental of equipment (again, there's a bill & proof of pmt to use the equipment), etc. Bottom-line -- all matches, other than donated real estate where the value is established by an independent appraisal certified by IL DNR, must be actual out-of-pocket costs. |
| FL | Most TE projects in Florida are soft-matched. So any in-kind work or fund provided by a project sponsor just serve to reduce the total cost of the TE funded portion of the project. |
| KS | No in-kind match. Cash match only. |
| MI | We looked at this as part of our process improvement. The decision made was that due to the administration and process required for the options available for in-kind match, MDOT decided to only allow donated property to be used as soft match. We will work with applicants on a case by case basis to make sure that the proper process is followed if this route is chosen. |
| ND | We try to limit in-kind. |
| OR | Yes, but it was developed by Highway Finance staff in cooperation with FHWA, not by the TE Advisory Committee. |
| TN | Yes. |
| TX | Yes. |
| VT | Program Manual outlines match and in-kind allowances. Committee has required at least a 10% cash match for all projects. |
| WI | We generally allow what FHWA allows, with exception of real estate purchased prior to project authorization. |
| State | Please provide your most recent Grant Application form, or provide a link to the website hosting your Grant Application form(s). |
|---|---|
| DE | http://www.deldot.gov/information/community_programs_and_services/te/index.shtml |
| IA | http://www.sysplan.dot.state.ia.us/trans_enhance.htm |
| ID | http://itd.idaho.gov/planning/te/ |
| IL | http://dnr.state.il.us/ocd/newrtp2.htm |
| KS | http://www.ksdot.org/burProgProjMgmt/Local/TEwebpg5-2-07/TEwebpgNEWRev5-2-07_files/frame.htm |
| MI | http://www.michigan.gov/tea |
| ND | http://www.dot.nd.gov/divisions/localgov/transenhance.htm |
| TN | http://www.tdot.state.tn.us/local/grants.htm |
| TX | http://www.dot.state.tx.us/services/design/step.htm |
| WI | http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/localgov/aid/te.htm |
| State | Best Practices? |
|---|---|
| DE | Keep it simple as possible. Don't let politics get involved even though it's impossible. |
| KS | In Kansas, we have three selection committees that review project applications submitted from all over the state. We use a weighted ranking system. |
Abbreviations
See State abbreviations at http://zip4.usps.com/zip4/welcome.jsp.
If you find an abbreviation you simply can't understand, feel free to contact the State directly:
RTP: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/rectrails/rtpstate.htm
TE: http://www.enhancements.org/contacts_search.asp?type=TE
| 4x4 / 4WD: | Four wheel drive |
| ADA: | Americans with Disabilities Act |
| Assn/Assoc: | Association |
| ATV: | All Terrain Vehicle |
| BMP: | Best Management Practices |
| D'OH!: | Homer Simpson's exclamation of surprise. |
| DOH: | Division of Highways (WV) or Department of Health (others) |
| DOT: | Department of Transportation |
| DCR: | Department of Conservation and Recreation |
| DNR: | Department of Natural Resources |
| FHWA: | Federal Highway Administration |
| FS: | US Department of Agriculture: Forest Service |
| G&T: | Greenways and Trails |
| MOA / MOU: | Memorandum of Agreement / Memorandum of Understanding |
| MPO: | Metropolitan Planning Organization |
| OHM / ORM: | Off Highway Motorcycle / Off Road Motorcycle |
| OHV / ORV: | Off Highway Vehicle / Off Road Vehicle |
| RTP: | Recreational Trails Program |
| SCORP: | Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan |
| SHPO: | State Historic Preservation Officer |
| SRTS: | Safe Routes to School [FHWA uses SRTS.] |
| STAC / SRTAC: | State [Recreational] Trail Advisory Committee |
| TE: | Transportation Enhancement Activities |
