1. UCI Legislative Update
May 25, 2017
Local Assistance Division

2. Legislative Updates PASSED
HB 2023 – Payments to Cities and Towns for moving-lanes converted to bicycle lanes
Moving-lane miles converted after July 1, 2014
Requires Professional Engineer Certification
Conversion limited to 50 LM or 3% of total LM
HB 1973 (SB1591) – Economic Development Access Program – imposes a 48-month moratorium on the repayment of funds allocated to a locality for a bonded project (10 localities affected)
HB 2023 – allows maintenance payments to remain for any moving lane miles currently in the UMIS inventory that is converted to a bicycle lane after July 1, The conversion is limited to 50 moving lane miles or 3% of the localities total moving lane miles, whichever is less. The conversion must be reviewed and certified by a professional engineer to ensure the conversion doesn’t affect the level of service of the street and that the conversion is designed in accordance with the National Association of City Transportation Officials’ Urban Bikeway Design Guide.

3. Legislative Updates
HB 2448 – Provide 50 percent of urban street maintenance payments based on ratio of vehicle miles traveled on highways within the locality and the other 50 percent under current process
Bill “Left in Appropriations Committee”
HB 2070 – Amendment to the powers of certain counties – grants counties with a population density greater than 2,000 persons per square mile certain powers for taxation, borrowing and payments for highway maintenance
Bill “Left in Finance Committee”
HB 1500 (SB 900) - Budget Item 456 #2s and 2h – Changes the distribution of maintenance payments based on vehicle miles traveled in lieu of moving-lane miles
HB 2448 – a bill to change how urban maintenance payments are distributed. 50% would be distributed under the current process and the other 50% would be distributed based on the ratio of vehicle miles traveled on highways within the locality. This would have resulted in 70% of localities that are currently receiving maintenance payments would see a reduction in those payments. The bill also would have allowed any urban county that has established an urban transportation service district would receive maintenance payments similar to urban localities.
HB 1500 (SB 900) – these budget amendments would have changed the distribution of maintenance payments by using vehicle miles traveled on urban streets in lieu of moving lane miles. And not City/Town would receive less than the amount received in fiscal year To hold localities harmless would have required an additional $38M budget increase but did not show where this funding would come from.
HB 692 (2016 session) – VDOT also conducted an analysis of maintenance payment distribution based on 11-foot lane widths recommended under HB692 (2016 session). The results of the proposed distribution of maintenance payments under this scenario and other studies that have been conducted were shared with the HB692’s patron, Delegate Carr and in response to a request from Chairman Villanueva. No further analysis was recommended and the House left HB692 in the Transportation Committee.

4. 2016 Virginia Appropriations Act – Item 436 C
2016 Virginia Appropriations Act – Item 436 C.2 – Consolidation of Formula Funds
“Notwithstanding the original programmatic allocation, funds provided by the previous primary, secondary and urban construction formulas prior to fiscal year 2010 that are not committed and expected to be expended as of January 1, 2018 may be consolidated to fully fund and advance priority transportation projects within the respective district or locality. If after taking said actions and the determination of the respective locality and the Department of Transportation that formula funds will remain, the funds may be used for other transportation purposes provided by § 33.2, Code of Virginia. All unspent primary, secondary and urban formula funds allocated prior to 2010 unspent as of January 1, 2018 shall be de-allocated and transferred to the State of Good Repair Program pursuant to § , Code of Virginia, unless such funds are allocated to a fully funded and active project.”
Reminder about the 2016 Appropriations Act for consolidating formula funding
Over the past several years, the distribution of transportation dollars has transformed. Fiscal Year 2010 was the last year in which available funds were distributed through the original construction formula, 40% to the Primary System, 30% to the Secondary System, and 30% to the Urban System. Since then, the formula structure has been changed twice and the referenced original formula has been eliminated. Even though it has been seven years since funds have been provided in this manner, many localities have unspent and/or uncommitted formula funds.
The 2016 Appropriation Act included language, as shown above, pertaining to the balance of funds provided by the previous Primary, Secondary, and Urban construction formulas. The language provides an opportunity for localities and the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) to work together to use these dormant funds to advance priority transportation projects within the respective district or locality.
We are asking for your assistance to review your projects currently funded with such formula funds in the Six-Year Improvement Program (SYIP) and identify ways to consolidate dormant amounts. The consolidation effort needs to occur now and be incorporated in the FY 2018 update of the SYIP. Any remaining formula funds as of January 1, 2018 will be transferred to the new State of Good Repair program unless those funds are allocated to a fully funded and active project.

5. 2016 Appropriations Act - Consolidating Formula Funding Update
Work with localities and District management to determine:
If the project(s) can be fully funded and advanced to construction
If the project scope can be revised to reduce costs (while still meeting “purpose and need”) and advance to construction
If formula funding on a project (surplus or not) should be transferred to advance a project within the jurisdiction or district
All unspent formula funds (impacted allocation codes are listed on a separate page) should be utilized in one of the following manners:
Fund deficits on completed projects
Cover non-participating charges on projects eligible to receive the respective formula funding (state formula only)
Fully fund active projects that will remain in the SYIP
Help fund active projects that will remain in the SYIP AND will be seeking additional funds through other programs in order to fully fund the project
Remaining funds should be transferred to the District Formula Fund Balance Entry (list provided on separate page)
Activities above began in February 2016 and the intent is to wrap up the formula funding consolidation by January 2018

6. UCI Annual Meeting LAD Programs Update
May 25, 2017
Local Assistance Division

7. Revenue Sharing Program Overview
Program Facts:
50/50 matching program
Open to Counties and Cities and Towns in the Urban System
Program allocation up to $200 million; currently budgeted at $100 million
Projects prioritized based on Code
Project previously received Revenue Sharing funds
Project meets Statewide Transportation need or receipt of funding will accelerate project in locality’s capital plan
Project addresses pavement or bridge deficiency
Largest special funding program is the Revenue Sharing Program
Applications are typically due November 1st
Wide range in amount CTB can allocate $15M-$200M (by Code § )
This year allocation anticipated = $154 million (also includes approx $4.5M de-allocated by the CTB at Jan 2016 mtg)
Based on funds available, all projects meeting the 1st priority selection criteria & 2nd priority criteria, up to $1M of locality’s request, will be fully funded. Each locality’s 2nd priority projects exceeding $1M are anticipated to be pro-rated approximately 31%.
Statewide only 3 localities will not have their request fully funded.
You cannot use other VDOT managed funds as your match to revenue sharing funds. Local match must come from non-VDOT sources. You also cannot use an “in-kind” match.

8. FY18 Revenue Sharing Program Update
FY18 Formal Application Process
Call for applications – August 4, 2016
Application deadline – November 1, 2016
78 Localities submitted applications
8 localities requested maximum $10M
Total requests – $212.9M
Priority 1 – Existing Revenue Sharing projects $99.3M
Priority 2 – Meet Statewide Transportation Need or accelerate project in locality capital plan $72.4M
Priority 3 – Address deficient pavement or bridge $8.8M
Priority 4 – All other requests $32.4M
Will come back to R.S. discussion siince I believe there is a specific request to discuss some recent activity around changes to program…

9. FY18 REVENUE SHARING REQUESTS Localities That Applied
Localities that applied for Allocations of $10 M
Localities that applied for Allocations $1 M or greater
Localities that applied for Allocations up to $1 M
FY18 applications:
Total requested is $212,969,848
Amount available will be $100,000,000
FY17 applications (for comparison if desired):
Total requested was $214,628,833
Amount available was $172,659,938

10. Revenue Sharing Program Study Committee Allocation Recommendations
Reduce the maximum a locality can apply for each fiscal year from $10M to $5M
($10M max per biennium)
Establish a lifetime allocation maximum of $10M (state match) per project, including transfers

11. Revenue Sharing Study Committee Transfer Recommendations
Surplus funds from a completed project can continue to be transferred administratively to an existing revenue sharing project
District CTB member concurrence will be required as part of documentation
Surplus funds from a cancelled project will be deallocated and go back to the statewide revenue sharing account; these funds can only be reallocated by the CTB

12. Revenue Sharing Study Committee Transfer Recommendations (cont)
All other transfers will be consistent with the current deallocation transfer process which includes projects that need funds to meet an advertisement or award date within 1 year of request or that address an existing deficit on a completed project
District CTB member concurrence will be required as part of documentation if transfer is to an existing revenue sharing project
Full CTB approval will be required if transfer is to an existing Six-Year Plan project that has not received prior revenue sharing funds and needs funds to meet advertisement or award date within 1 year of request
Any funds transferred from an existing active projects cannot backfilled with future Revenue Sharing funds

13. Next Steps CTB Policy Change presented at May workshop meeting
Seek Board concurrence of Policy Changes at June action meeting
Revise Revenue Sharing Program Guidelines to support policy changes as appropriate
Review other items that were discussed regarding future of the Program
Present Revenue Sharing Program Guidelines Update in June
Approve by July CTB meeting
Notify localities of Policy and Guidelines update

14. Access Roads Programs
Economic Development
Recreational
Airport
Provides funding to upgrade existing roads or construct new roads serving new or expanding economic development sites, recreational / historical sites, and public-use airports
Application deadline – open
New CTB Policy – New Legislation extends Moratorium
The other major state funded special funding programs Assistance Division manages are the 3 different access road programs
Names pretty much tell you what the program focus is
Access program projects-similar to subdivision/ developer initiated projects but are providing access to a certain type of qualifying development
Typically, annual budget appropriation to these access programs
$5.5 million (state-wide) for Economic Development Access, Airport Access, and Industrial Rail Access (DRPT)
$1.5 million (state-wide) for Recreational Access
State Aid Certification available for locality-administered projects
Program Basics
All programs are 100% state funded and set out in the Code of Virginia
Funds are allocated to individual projects by the Commonwealth Transportation Board
Projects are approved on a year-round as needed basis to address locality needs
All costs in excess of the allocation are the responsibility of the locality
Funds can be used for construction of a new road or improvement of existing roads that may not be adequate to serve the proposed site
Statewide Appropriation
$5.5 million (state-wide) annual budget appropriation for Economic Development Access, Airport Access, and Industrial Rail Access (latter administered by DRPT)
$1.5 million (state-wide) annual budget appropriation for Recreational/Historical Access
 Individual Access Program Information
Economic Development Access
Program assists in providing adequate road access for certain types of developments intended to attract private investment and employment
Locality can request funding for specific business (regular project) or request a bonded project and build a road to attract economic development sites
Bonded projects represent a risk to locality since allocation may have to be repaid if sufficient investment is not documented
Locality must document capital investment of 5 times the allocation request (5:1 return)
Funding available per project/locality
Maximum: $500,000 unmatched/$150,000 matched
Airport Access
Program assists in providing adequate road access to new or expanding licensed, public-use airporst
Funding available (per project/per fiscal year)
Recreational/Historical Access
Program assists in providing adequate road and/or bikeway access to public recreational or historical areas
Locality Owned/Operated Recreational/Historical area
Road Access Project - Maximum $250,000 unmatched/$100,000 matched
Bikeway Access Project – Maximum $60,000 unmatched/$15,000 matched
State Agency Owned/Operated Recreational/Historical area
Road Access Project – Maximum $400,000 unmatched
Bikeway Access Project – Maximum $75,000 unmatched

15. Surface Transportation Block Set-Aside Grant Program (Transportation Alternatives)
Intended to improve non-motorized transportation, enhance the public’s travel experience, revitalize communities and improve the quality of life.
Application Deadline – November 1st annually
From TA Guide-Mission of the Transportation Alternatives Program
The program is intended to help local sponsors fund community based projects that expand travel choices and enhance the transportation experience by improving the cultural, historical and environmental aspects of the transportation infrastructure. The program does not fund traditional roadway projects or provide maintenance for these facilities. Instead it focuses on providing for pedestrian and bicycle facilities, community improvements and mitigating the negative impacts of the highway system.
The FAST ACT [Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act] was signed into law in December 2015 creating the Surface Transportation Block Grant Program which replaced MAP-21’s Transportation Alternatives Program. The FAST ACT authorizes federal funding for five (5) years FY16 through FY20 (federal fiscal years). Fortunately, the new legislation did not include many changes to the former TA program. If anything, it gave it a little more funding.
Currently the FY17 allocation is $21.5 M
This includes $6.5 M for urban MPOs to allocate.

16. TA - FY18 Application Summary
Received November 1, 2016
98 Applications requesting ~ $36.9M
Anticipated allocations FY18 ~ $ 20.1M after Rec Trails distribution
Allocation Distribution
MPO/TMA Areas
$ 6.1M
District Members
$ 9M ($1M per District)
At-Large Members/Secretary
$5M
Total
$ 20.1M
Project Selections are on webpage.

17. Urban Maintenance Program
Eligibility Requirements for Maintenance Payments:
Urban street acceptance criteria established in Code Section
CTB approves mileage additions/ deletions
Payment - General
Payments based on moving lane miles (available to peak-hour traffic)
CTB approves payment amounts to localities
Localities annual growth rate is based upon the base rate of growth for VDOT’s maintenance program
Payments to localities made quarterly
Payment Categories/ DRAFT FY18 Rates – Functional Classifications
Principal and Minor Arterial Roads: $21,061 per lane mile
Collector Roads and Local Streets: $12,365 per lane mile
Overall DRAFT FY18 Urban Maintenance Budget ≈ $374M
The Urban Maintenance Program is based on the Code of Virginia which authorizes the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) to make payments to cities and towns in the urban system for maintenance, construction and reconstruction of roads and streets meeting specific established eligibility criteria.
Each year, the CTB approves mileage additions and deletions and approves the payments to municipalities in the urban system for maintenance purposes. A copy of the approved mileage and payments are available on our website.
The payments are made to the localities quarterly and are based on moving lane miles available to peak-hour traffic
The payments are adjusted annually based upon the base rate of growth for VDOT.
Listed here are the payment rates for the FY18 maintenance program which has two payment categories
Principal and Minor Arterial Roads
Collector and Local Roads
The overall FY18 Urban Maintenance Budget was approximately $374 Million (budget went up 1.67% over last year – same increase as VDOT’s maintenance budget)

18. Urban Maintenance Inventory System (UMIS) Functional Re-Classification Overview
Functional Classification is the process by which streets and highways are grouped into classes or systems
FHWA provides guidance to determine the functional classification
Statewide review of Functional Classification occurs following the decennial census
Most recent update reviewed and approved by FHWA in 2014 using the latest guidelines
Functional Re-Classification for the Urban roadways is now complete
Statewide impact of this reclassification was an overall reduction in the arterial mileage qualifying for Urban maintenance payments
This resulted in a slight increase in the mileage rate
This did offset much of the impact of the reclassification
Changes will go into affect beginning July 1, 2017
Functional Re-Classification changes have been communicated to each locality
Functional Classification is the process by which streets and highways are grouped into classes or systems according to their character of service they are intended to provide.
FHWA provides guidance to determine the functional classification taking into account the type of trips, expected volume, what systems the roadway connects and whether the proposed functional classification falls within the mileage percentage thresholds established.
Based on the FY17 payments rates, the overall monetary change was a net reduction of $2,909,893
Represents a budget change of -0.97%
All affected localities were notified of increases or decreases to their budget.
54 localities had a negative change
16 localities had a positive change
14 localities had no change

19. Urban Maintenance Inventory System (UMIS) Project Update
The UCP project included geo-referencing all of the Urban Maintenance Inventory System (UMIS) Data for all 84 municipalities
Required reconciling the UMIS data (completed June 2016)
Compared data between VDOT’s Roadway Network System (RNS) and UMIS (Accomplished by consultant contract for phase I and Local Assistance Division for phase II)
Reviewed inventory and determined if errors or omissions exists
Corrected the data in VDOT’s UMIS system and presented changes to CTB
Next phase of project underway:
Requires correcting VDOT’s Linear Referencing System
Geo-referencing the UMIS Data
Place UMIS data on VARoads for local access and viewing
Project anticipated completion: January 2018
Reconciliation Purpose and Overview
Results (ie. thousands of adjustments, reduced the total number of lane miles, resulted in more localities reviewing eligible streets)
Next Steps (Fix LRS, geo-reference data, add to VA Roads for external viewing)

20. Primary Extensions Program Criteria
Accept applications on an annual basis to support pavement overlay, rehabilitation, or reconstruction projects
Maximum request of $1M per locality, per year
Roadway must have Combined Condition Index (CCI) rating of 60 or less
Projects must be advertised within 6 months of allocation
Maintenance of Effort Certification required
Prioritize projects for funding based on technical score that considers pavement condition, traffic volume, and past expenditures
Pavement condition (CCI) – 45%
On the National Highway System (NHS) – 10%
Traffic volume – 30%
Prior expenditures – 15%
Same criteria used to select projects for State of Good Repair funding

21. FY18 Applications: General Information
Scored 159 applications with requests over $36.5M
Applications received from 49 localities representing all 9 districts
Funding for locality’s primary extensions available from both State of Good Repair (SGR) funding and CTB formula funds
Prioritized and selected projects with SGR funds first, followed by the CTB formula Primary Extension selections
69 total projects receive funding representing 30 localities

22. State of Good Repair (SGR)
Each District has a set percentage of SGR funding dedicated to Locality and VDOT pavement and bridge projects
$5.6M estimated for FY18 local SGR pavement projects (Primary Extension)
Recommend funding projects in priority order until funding exhausted; based on current estimates this will:
Fully fund 19 local paving projects
Partially fund 9 local paving projects
(Note: The 9 partially funded projects also reviewed for Primary Extension Funding)

23. Primary Extensions (CTB Formula Funds)
Set aside of 14% of CTB formula funds for pavement designated for municipality maintained primary extensions
$12.5 M available ($12.3M for FY18 plus $0.2M from previous years)
Recommend funding projects in priority order until funding exhausted; based on current estimates this will:
Provide funding for the top 50 scoring applications which includes 9 carryovers from SGR (Funds all remaining total scores of 53.8 and above)
Localities in all 9 districts receive additional funding

24. State of Good Repair (SGR) – Scoring Process – Bridges (Locally Owned)
Accept applications on an annual basis to support bridge rehabilitation, or reconstruction projects
Bridge must be structurally deficient
National Bridge Inventory Only
The bridge must not have been replaced or undergone a deck and/or superstructure replacement during the ten (10) years prior to the date of application
Proposed work must take bridge out of structurally deficient status
Localities must be current on bridge inspections
Starting in 2021, the prior fiscal year bridge maintenance expenditures, as reported to the Weldon Cooper Center, to be a minimum of 2%
Project receiving funding under this program must initiate the Preliminary Engineering or the Construction Phase within 24 months of award of funding or become subject to deallocation
Prioritize projects for funding based on technical score that considers bridge prioritization and cost effectiveness

25. SGR Locally Owned Bridges – First Round Selections
Funded for 6 years (FY2017–FY2022)
Selected by formula
Funding programmed according to schedules (to the extent possible)
Localities to refine project schedules as necessary
State of Good Repair Projects well distributed
51 total structures funded (39% of total)
132 Locally Owned Structurally Deficient Structures as of July 1, 2016
21 Locally Owned Structurally Deficient Structures funded with other funding sources
20 of 39 eligible localities have structures funded
At least one structure in every district
Type of work
22 Replacement
29 Rehabilitation

26. Safety Funding Plan

27. Local Programs Workshop

28. UCI Annual Meeting Performance Reporting
May 25, 2017
Local Assistance Division

29. Statewide LAP Program Snapshot
Review yearly values (at bottom of notes) to illustrate the increasing size of the local program.
Quick statewide snapshot as of April 1, 2017:
Pie Charts- LAP Program continues to maintain around one-third of program projects and 18% of program dollars over the past several years, even through the changes in program size (and through program cuts).
Table- Breaks down individual district LAP project counts and CN dollars.
Historical statewide LAP construction advertisements (Calendar Year):
2016 = 147 projects valued at $326M
2015 = 168 projects valued at $288M
2014 = 191 projects valued at $249M
2013 = 186 projects valued at $284M
2012 = 184 projects valued at $560M (includes Dominion Blvd - $320M)
2011 = 127 projects valued at $226M
2010 = 78 projects valued at $180M
Planned for CY2017 = 189 projects valued at approximately $244M (from Commitment list)

30. Performance Reporting
On-time Advertisement of Statewide Locally Administered Projects – FY2017
Target = 70%
We measure advertised project counts in two ways - via dashboard based on the fiscal year (FY), and construction commitments based on the calendar year (CY).
The report information viewed in this slide is presented and discussed with the Chief Deputy Commissioner each quarter.
Dashboard – at the end of third quarter FY2017, localities achieved 82%, compared to 77% for second quarter FY As evidenced by historical data indicated in previous charts, this value tends to decrease over the course of the year, but comparisons of recent quarterly reports indicate this trend is improving.
Commitments – we report on progress every two weeks to the Deputy Chief Engineer. At the end of the first quarter CY2017, localities achieved 103% of planned projects for advertisement. Construction dollar values for this period were also slightly higher at 102% ($38.3M). Total CY2017 baseline values (committed advertisements) are: 189 projects valued at $244M.
Dashboard
Tracked and reported utilizing data available from the VDOT project/program management applications (Pool, iPM, Schedule, PCES, etc.)
Data accuracy reliant on close communication between VDOT PC and LPA PM.
Commitments
Interactively and independently compiled and tracked on a calendar year basis to monitor advertisements.
For cumulative CY17: 189 projects committed, having a construction value of $244M.

31. Performance Reporting
Construction Advertisement Commitments
Non-UCI Localities
UCI Localities
Combined # $
CY2013
99%
110%
115%
102%
104%
106%
CY2014
118%
77%
81%
88%
CY2015
141%
108%
122%
61%
117%
93%
CY2016
98%
116%
73%
95%
90%
109%
CY (thru May 15)
174%
146%
472%***
124%
288%***
Percentages indicate year-end results for CY2013, CY2014, CY2015, CY2016; and current CY2017 (through May 15, 2017).
CY2017results were derived by comparing the advertisement commitments (Jan 1 thru May 15), to the actual advertisements (Jan 1 thru May 15).
Note that UPC 4483 (Atkinson Boulevard) in Newport News ($60.5M Construction estimate at advertisement) boosted the numbers for CY2017 significantly.
CY 2017 Baseline – 189 Projects valued at $244 Million (Construction estimate)
Project count (#)
Dollar value ($)
***UPC 4483 in Newport News represents a $60.5 million increase

32. VDOT Business Plan Local Assistance Division Action Item
May 25, 2017

33. VDOT Business Plan – LAD Action item
Began in FY2015:
“Establish a District Local Projects Advisory Group to complement the Local Project Stakeholders Group and establish a joint subcommittee from both groups to identify strategies for improving local project delivery”
The official VDOT Business Plan tasked LAD to develop a stakeholder committee that would identify areas of improvement for delivering local projects. These areas of improvement were the “strategies” that became the focus of efforts for the division and the two corresponding stakeholder groups.
The development cycle stage is “Develop” – to develop strategies…

34. VDOT Business Plan – LAD Action item
Continues in FY2016 and FY2017:
“The District Local Projects Advisory Group will work with the Local Assistance Division to lead the implementation of strategies previously identified to improve local project delivery”
Moving into actual implementation, the strategies were organized by anticipated length of time to complete and level of effort required. All strategies were started in FY2016, with the understanding that some would take longer to conclude than others.
The development cycle is “Implement” - implementing the identified strategies.

35. VDOT Business Plan – LAD Action item
Strategies Identified:
Strengthen project scheduling and accountability for project timelines
Develop a Schedule Template for Local Government use
Implement Hampton Roads District Tracking Database
Include a Project Delivery Plan as a part of the RtA
Implement District Locality Days
Develop a “LAP Starter Pack” (quick-start guide to local project administration)
A list of three of the seven strategies.
Note that some strategies had multiple parts.

36. VDOT Business Plan – LAD Action item
Strategies Identified (continued):
Streamline Procurement
Consultants
Contractors
Local government access to VDOT applications
Improve consistency among VDOT project coordinators
Knowledge and application of policy statewide
Clarification/identification of VDOT roles
Resource/workload alignment
Continue Local Government Stakeholder Groups
The additional four of seven strategies.
Again, note that some strategies had multiple parts.

37. VDOT Business Plan – LAD Action item
Major Accomplishments:
Establish District Advisory Group
Establish Joint Subcommittee
Roll-out LAP schedule template
Implement tools to facilitate District Locality Days
Recommend best option(s) for streamlining consultant procurement
Publish LAP Starter Pack
Identify VDOT applications beneficial for LPA access
Analyze effectiveness of LAP Schedule Tool usage
Ongoing: Continue meetings and partnerships with Local Government Stakeholders groups
Strategy Accomplishments.
Conclusions and in-progress.
Note: new items completed since last year’s UCI meeting start with the thru items.
Three additional items are due by end of this fiscal year.

38. VDOT Business Plan – LAD Action item
And extends into FY2018:
(Proposed)
“The District Local Projects Advisory Group (DLPAG) in partnership with the Local Government Stakeholders Group will continue to work with the Local Assistance Division to conclude implementation, and institutionalize and monitor strategies identified to improve local project delivery.”
Continuing into FY18.
This is the proposed, but not approved, objective statement.
For FY18, the remaining unfinished strategies will conclude the implementation cycle, while most will enter the “Institutionalize” or “Monitor” cycle.

39. VDOT Business Plan Local Assistance Division Action Item
May 25, 2017