2007
Regional Planning Handbook
A Guide to Administering Overall Work Programs,
Regional Transportation Plans and their Funding Sources
January 2007
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION
1.01 Regional Transportation Planning 1
1.02 3C Planning: Continuing, Cooperative and Comprehensive 2
1.03 Metropolitan Planning Organizations ( MPOs) and Regional Transportation 2
Planning Agencies ( RTPAs)
1.04 The Core Regional Transportation Planning Documents and Products 3
1.05 Transportation Planning Funding Administered by ORIP 6
1.06 Authority 6
1.07 Reference Materials 7
1.08 Terms and Acronyms Frequently Used in this Handbook 7
2 OVERALL WORK PROGRAM ( OWP)
2.01 The Purpose and Contents of the OWP 10
2.02 The OWP is Part of a Funding Contract 10
2.03 The MFTA/ OWP/ OWPA Trio Only Encumbers CPG and/ or RPA 11
2.04 The Three Components of the OWP 11
2.04. a Introduction or Prospectus 11
2.04. b Work Elements 12
2.04. c Budget Revenue Summary 13
2.05 The OWPA 13
2.06 OWP Timeline 15
2.07 OWP Guidance 16
2.08 Planning Emphasis Areas ( PEAs) and Federal Planning Factors 19
2.09 District Review of the Draft OWP 20
2.10 District Staff Circulate the Draft OWP 21
2.11 The District Copies the Comment Letter to Reviewing Units and ORIP 22
2.12 ORIP OWP Responsibilities 23
2.13 District and ORIP Cooperation 25
2.14 Annual MPO meetings 25
2.15 Certifications and Reviews 25
2.16 Certifications and Assurances 27
2.17 Approving the Final OWP 28
2.18 ORIP Requests an Electronic Version of the Final Adopted and 30
Approved OWP
2.19 Accomplishing the OWP 30
2.20 OWP Amendments 30
2.21 Administrative Amendments 31
2.22 Formal Amendments 32
2.23 Concurrence is Required Before the District Approves an OWP 33
Amendment
2.24 Approving an Amendment 33
2.25 The District Provides ORIP all Amendment Information 34
2.26 The Deadline for OWP Amendments is April 1 34
2.27 Monitoring Progress 35
2.28 Quarterly Progress and Expenditure Reports 36
January 200 7
2.29 Mid- Year Reviews 37
3 THE CONSOLIDATED PLANNING GRANT ( CPG)
3.01 Metropolitan Planning, FHWA PL and FTA § 5303 39
3.02 FHWA State Planning and Research – Partnership Planning Element 40
3.03 FTA § 5305 40
3.04 California’s Implementation of the CPG 40
3.05 Local ( Non- Federal) Match 41
3.06 When to Include CPG Discretionary Grant Funds in OWPs and OWPAs 43
3.07 Unexpended Carryover 44
3.08 Reconciliation of CPG Carryover Balances 45
4 ORIP – ADMINISTERED TRANSPORTATION PLANNING FUNDS
4.01 Non- ORIP- Administered Transportation Planning Funds 46
4.02 Use of Transportation Planning Funds 47
4.03 Rural Planning Assistance ( RPA) 48
4.04 25% Limit on Use of RPA for Administrative Purposes 49
4.05 Indirect Cost Negotiation Agreement and Cost Allocation Plan ( ICAP) 49
4.06 Requests for Reimbursement ( RFRs) 50
4.07 Timely District Review of all RFRs 51
4.08 Inaccurate RFRs/ Dispute Notification Form 53
4.09 Year- End Package 53
4.10 FTA § 5305 and/ or FHWA SPR- Partnership Planning Grant Closeout 54
Package
4.11 Federal Grant Program Closeout ( for FTA 5305 Transit Planning and 55
FHWA Partnership Planning funded work elements only)
4.12 Annual MPO/ RTPA Fiscal and Compliance Audit 55
4.13 Audit Report Distribution 56
4.14 Records Retention 56
4.15 Electronic Submittals and Databases 57
5 THIRD PARTY CONTRACTS
5.01 Open and Competitive 58
5.02 Contracts Smaller Than $ 100,000 59
5.03 Contracts for $ 100,000 or More 59
5.04 Seven Contract Steps 60
5.04a Determination of How to Best Accomplish the Work 60
5.04b Contracting Methods 60
5.04c Development of the Request for Proposal 61
5.04d Consultant Selection and Contract Negotiation 62
5.04e Contract Approval and Execution 62
5.04f Contract Monitoring and Evaluation 63
5.05 Pre- Award Evaluation 64
5.06 Disadvantaged Business Enterprise ( DBE) 64
5.07 RFP Review Points 65
January 200 7
6 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN ( RTP)
6.01 The RTP Guidelines 68
6.02 RTP Purpose and Contents 69
6.02a Safety Considerations in the Regional Transportation Plan 71
6.03 Fiscally Constrained 72
6.04 Air Quality Conformity 72
6.05 The RTP Should be Consistent with Other Plans in the Region 74
6.06 Department Plans which Impact RTPs 75
6.07 Key Review Points 76
6.08 RTP Development and District Circulation of the Draft RTP 78
6.09 The RTP is a Project under CEQA 78
6.10 The Final RTP 79
6.11 The District Provides ORIP all RTPs and RTP Environmental Documents 81
7 FULL PARTICIPATION REGIONAL PLANNING
7.01 A Public Participation Plan/ Public Involvement Program 82
7.02 Native American Tribal Governments and Communities 84
Illustrations
California MPO and RTPA Map 5
Sample Other Entities’ Transportation Planning Activities Chart 9
MPO OWP Timeline 17
RTPA OWP Timeline 18
Sample Matrix for Planning Factors or Planning Emphasis Areas 19
OWP Development and Review 24
The TMA Certification Schedule Years 26
RFR Procedure 71
RTP Development and Review 80
Appendices
Sample Work Element
Sample Budget Revenue Summary
Sample MPO OWPA
Sample RTPA OWPAs
Sample RTPA Quarterly Progress and Expenditures Report
Sample MPO Request for Reimbursement
Sample RTPA Request for Reimbursement ( RPA)
Sample Certification of Expenditure by Fund Source Including the Final Statement of
Expenditures
Sample RTPA Request for Reimbursement ( FTA § 5305 and FHWA SPR- Partnership
Planning Element) Request for Reimbursement)
Sample Quarterly Progress Report for FTA 5305, Transit Planning and FHWA Partnership Planning
Grants
Sample Caltrans Transportation Planning Grant Program Close- out Report
Director’s Policy Number 19, Working with Native American Communities.
1 January 2007
1 INTRODUCTION
Within the California Department of Transportation ( Department), regional
transportation planning is done by transportation planners in the Districts and in the
Office of Regional and Interagency Planning ( ORIP), located within the Division of
Transportation Planning ( DOTP) at Headquarters, Sacramento.
This Handbook describes the respective roles and responsibilities for District
Transportation Planners with regional transportation planning duties, and for
Transportation Planners within ORIP.
The focus is Department interaction with the Metropolitan Planning Organizations
( MPOs) and Regional Transportation Planning Agencies ( RTPAs) in regard to Overall
Work Programs ( OWPs) and Regional Transportation Plans ( RTPs), with emphasis on
monitoring activities paid for with ORIP- administered transportation planning funds:
state Rural Planning Assistance ( RPA) and federal Consolidated Planning Grant ( CPG).
The Handbook will be updated as procedures change. It is supplemented annually with
Overall Work Program Guidance packages, which focus on OWP information that changes
from year- to- year. There are separate RTPA and MPO versions of the Guidance posted
on the Internet at http:// dot. ca. gov/ hq/ tpp/ offices/ orip/ orip. htm ( all other ORIP
products are also posted here). ORIP also prepares and distributes annual requests for
grant proposals, with application procedures for the two discretionary components of
the CPG.
This Handbook replaces the October 2003 version of the Regional Planning Delegation
Handbook, all earlier versions thereof, and any interim or proposed partial revisions. The
majority of the updates in the 2007 version are based on the Federal Highway
Administration ( FHWA) Interim Guidance for implementing Safe, Accountable,
Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users ( SAFETEA- LU). In
the event the Final Rule on SAFETEA- LU changes, this handbook will be updated
immediately to reflect any/ all changes.
1.01 Regional Transportation Planning
Regional Transportation Planning is long- range ( 20+ years), area- wide, developed
through formal consultation with Native American Tribal Governments, and the
involvement of federal, state, regional, and local agencies, public entities, private and
community based organizations, and individuals working together to identify future
regional transportation needs and to plan how these needs can and will be met. “ Future
… needs” means both near and long- term. “ Identify future regional transportation
needs” may also include programming specific projects to address immediate problems.
The purpose of regional transportation planning is to prepare and provide for the
region’s mobility in a fiscally and environmentally responsible manner, consistent with
the needs, preferences and sensibilities of the community.
2 January 200 7
1.02 3C Planning: Continuing, Cooperative and
Comprehensive
Regional transportation planning is based on the 3Cs articulated in federal transportation
law: continuing, cooperative and comprehensive. It is on- going, not a single completed
action. All modes of transportation, including pedestrian walkways and bicycle
transportation facilities, among others, shall be considered. [ 23 United States Code
( USC), Section 134 and Title 49, USC, Section 3004] It involves all parties in the
development of a shared mobility vision, including improving the transition among
modes in the multi- modal transportation system and incorporation of new
transportation technologies.
Another way of expressing the 3Cs is all transportation providers and users are working
together to achieve intermodal mobility in the region.
Transportation concepts and improvements are considered during the planning and
programming phases. Project development is post- planning. Examples of project
development include: purchasing buses, providing traveler information service, a
rideshare program, and construction of a bikeway/ pedestrian path. Environmental, right
of way, design, award, and construction are also considered post- planning phases. These
phases should be iterative and coordinated, but CPG and RPA may only fund planning
activities.
1.03 Metropolitan Planning Organizations ( MPOs) and
Regional Transportation Planning Agencies ( RTPAs)
Among the key regional transportation planning entities in California are eighteen
Metropolitan Planning Organizations ( MPOs). Every county in California is served by an
RTPA and every county with at least one urbanized area is also served by an MPO.
Federal law [ 23USC134] defines an MPO as a forum for cooperative transportation
decision- making. A MPO is required for urbanized areas over 50,000 in population, but
a single MPO may serve more than one urbanized area. MPOs are generally known in
California as councils of government or associations of government.
RTPAs are created pursuant to California law ( Government Code Section 29532 et seq.)
and although State law does not define RTPA, Government Code Section 65080
identifies some RTPA responsibilities: to adopt a regional transportation plan and to
prepare and adopt a regional transportation improvement program. The RTPAs are
local transportation commissions, county transportation commissions, councils of
government, and associations of government. Seven RTPAs are statutorily created
( Gov. Code Section 29532.1).
MPOs and RTPAs perform generally the same transportation planning work. For
example, both prepare an annual Overall Work Program ( OWP) and both develop
3 January 200 7
regional transportation plans ( RTPs) and program projects into transportation
improvement programs.
Some MPOs serve a single county and some serve several counties. With the exception
of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments ( SACOG) and the Association of
Monterey Bay Area Governments ( AMBAG), the boundaries of MPOs and RTPAs are
the same. Two MPOs, AMBAG and the Tahoe Metropolitan Planning Organization
( TMPO) are not RTPAs. The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency ( TRPA) is the RTPA for
TMPO. The RTPAs within AMBAG’s boundaries are Santa Cruz County Regional
Transportation Commission, Transportation Agency for Monterey County and San
Benito Council of Governments.
All non- MPO RTPAs serve only one county. El Dorado County Transportation
Commission and Placer County Transportation Planning Agency are the RTPAs for
their respective counties to the crest of the Sierra Mountains. The area east of the crest
in these two counties is part of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency ( TRPA), which has
the same boundaries as TMPO. TRPA is the RTPA and TMPO is the MPO. The
TRPA/ TMPO boundaries also include portions of Nevada. The map on page 5 shows
MPO and RTPA boundaries within California.
MPOs and RTPAs are the entities that receive state and/ or federal transportation
planning funds to accomplish regional transportation planning through the activities
detailed in their OWPs. These funds are used to identify transportation improvements
in sufficient detail in RTP action elements to model them for air quality conformity ( in
air quality non- attainment and maintenance areas), to establish fiscal constraint, and to
serve as a purpose and need foundation for environmental alternatives analysis and
project approval.
As needed, MPOs and RTPAs may enter into agreements or memoranda of
understanding ( MOUs) to accomplish their work; for example, with adjacent
MPOs/ RTPAs regarding cross- jurisdictional issues, to prepare inter- urban/ inter- area
corridor studies, to perform air quality conformity analyses if the air basin has different
boundaries from those of the MPO/ RTPA, to assess feasibility of inter- urban/ inter- area
commuter rail service, etc.
1.04 The Core Regional Transportation Planning Document
and Products
The core regional transportation planning document is the Overall Work Program
( OWP) and its core product is the regional transportation plan ( RTP).
The OWP and RTP are directly and inextricably interconnected. OWP activities support
the RTP and development of the RTP is an OWP activity. The RTP is implemented
through the Regional Transportation Improvement Program ( RTIP) and the Federal
Transportation Improvement Program ( FTIP). Development of the RTIP and FTIP are
OWP activities.
4 January 200 7
The OWP is a California variant of what federal regulations [ 23 Code of Federal
Regulation ( CFR) 450.314] refer to as a Unified Planning Work Program ( UPWP).
Federal regulations do not define it, but list what it must contain, depending on the size
of the MPO and various other factors. The least complex OWPs include a description
of what work is to be accomplished, when, by whom, and using which specific funding.
The OWP is a one- year scope of work and budget for transportation planning activities
and funding sources to be accomplished between July 1 and June 30 of the state fiscal
year. It is a statement of proposed work and estimated costs that tie specific available
transportation planning funding sources to specific transportation planning activities.
Federal law uses the term Metropolitan Transportation Plan ( MTP) and defines the term
as the official intermodal transportation plan that is developed and adopted through the
metropolitan transportation planning process for the metropolitan planning area.
California law uses the term regional transportation plan, but does not define it. Statutes
relative to legislative intent ( Gov. Code Section 65070), preparation and contents ( Gov.
Code Section 65080), and public hearing ( Gov. Code Section 65090) effectively provide
a definition.
As with most plans, the RTP has a long- term horizon ( not less than 20 years within the
entire life of the RTP) and identifies existing and future transportation needs in the
region. Although it includes rough cost estimates for the transportation proposals and is
fiscally constrained ( i. e., the total anticipated cost of the proposals is limited to the total
reasonably anticipated revenues for the term of the plan), specific fund sources are
usually not identified for the individual transportation proposals.
The RTP is defined as a project under the California Environmental Quality Act, and in
air quality non- attainment areas it must conform to the State Implementation Plan ( SIP).
( See Sections 6.04 and 6.09 for more information about air quality and CEQA.)
5 January 200 7
6 January 200 7
1.05 Transportation Planning Funding Administered by
ORIP
ORIP administers two transportation planning fund groups:
·   Rural Planning Assistance ( RPA)
·   Consolidated Planning Grant ( CPG)
RPA is state transportation planning funding included in a State Budget line item,
allocated by the Department per population formula to rural RTPAs. ( None of the rural
RTPAs are MPOs). It is provided on a reimbursement basis, after costs are incurred and
paid for using local funds. In FY 2006/ 2007, the annual RPA allocation was
approximately $ 6 million. ( Sections 4.02 and 4.03 provide additional information about
RPA.)
CPG is federal funding which totals approximately $ 55- 60 million annually. The amount
can increase or decrease contingent upon California’s federal apportionment. ( Chapter 3
provides more detail about CPG.)
Reference may be made to other funding sources, but the fund encumbrance,
monitoring, administration and reimbursement procedures described in this Handbook
only apply to RPA and CPG.
1.06 Authority
Regional transportation planning authorities are found primarily in Titles 23 and Title 49
of United States Code ( USC), and in Sections 65080 et seq., and 29532 et seq., of the
California Government Code. Governing regulations are found in the Code of Federal
Regulations ( CFR) and the California Code of Regulations.
Federal accounting and auditing requirements are as per Titles 48 and 49 USC and CFR,
and Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) and Federal Transit Administration
( FTA) Circulars and guidance. State accounting and auditing requirements are as per the
Government Code, the Public Utilities Code, the Public Contracts Code, and the Health
and Safety Code.
Some other key authorities include Government Code Section 6500 et seq., Streets and
Highways Code, Presidential Executive Orders 12372, 12612, and 12898, the State
Budget, the State Administrative Manual, the California Labor Code, the Older
Americans Act, the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987, the Americans with Disabilities
Act, the Clean Air Act Amendments, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the
California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA).
The Department Director has delegated authority for most regional transportation
planning responsibilities to the District Directors in Executive Orders, Confirmation of and
Delegation of Authority. These twelve Executive Orders reference and incorporate the
Director’s Policy for Program Management ( Number 16, effective 12- 1- 94).
7 January 200 7
ORIP provides oversight and statewide guidance relative to these authorities. ORIP may
also request additional information as needed.
1.07 Reference Materials
In this Handbook, forms and samples are interspersed with the text or are included in
the Appendix. Companion and reference documents are cited by web address.
ORIP products are posted at http:// www. dot. ca. gov/ hq/ tpp/ offices/ orip/ orip. htm
1.08 Terms and Acronyms
There are thousands of transportation and transportation planning terms and acronyms.
However, familiarity with the following terms and acronyms is essential to understanding
concepts in this Handbook.
Allocation A distribution of funds by formula or agreement.
Apportionment Distribution of federal funds ( grants) by a statutory formula
to the states’ Governors for allocation by them to the grant
recipients.
Appropriation An official action ( e. g. passage of a law) to make funds
available, with specific limitations as to amount, purpose and
duration.
Encumber The formal processes, which commit funds for a specific
purpose, e. g., commitment of Rural Planning Assistance
( RPA) to an RTPA, or FHWA Metropolitan Planning ( PL)
funds to an MPO.
FHWA, FTA The Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit
Administration are two of the modal agencies in the United
States Department of Transportation ( US DOT).
ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991;
federal transportation legislation signed into law in 1991,
succeeded by the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century ( TEA- 21) in 1998.
MPO Metropolitan Planning Organizations are the regional
planning entities in urbanized areas, usually an area with a
population of 50,000 or more. As of December 2006, there
are eighteen MPOs in California.
8 January 200 7
Although the Tahoe region does not include an urbanized
area 50,000 or larger, TEA- 21, permitted the Tahoe region to
establish a MPO.
ORIP Office of Regional and Interagency Planning in the
Department’s Division of Transportation Planning,
Headquarters, Sacramento.
Reimbursement State or federal transportation planning funds paid to the
MPO/ RTPA for transportation planning work activities in
the OWP already done by the MPO/ RTPA, or on behalf of
the RTPA/ MPO by a contractor or consultant, and already
paid for using local funds.
RTPA Regional Transportation Planning Agency, the regional
planning entity referenced in California law; e. g., a local
transportation commission, a statutorily created RTPA, or a
council of governments.
SAFETEA- LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity
Act: A Legacy for Users, federal transportation legislation
signed into law in 2005; successor to TEA- 21.
TEA- 21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century; federal
transportation legislation signed into law in 1998; successor to
ISTEA, succeeded by SAFETEA- LU.
Unexpended
Carryover Unexpended Federal CPG funding -- FHWA Metropolitan
Planning ( PL), FTA Metropolitan Planning ( § 5303), FTA
State Planning and Research ( § 5305), and FHWA State
Planning and Research – Partnership Planning Element --
need not be fully expended during the fiscal year in which they
are appropriated and allocated or awarded. The recipient may
carry over unexpended amounts to the next fiscal year. MPO’s
carryover FHWA PL and FTA 5303 via a reconciliation letter
process. Both MPOs/ RTPAs are allowed to carryover FTA
5305 and FHWA State Planning and Research- Partnership
Planning Element funds via permission from HQ Regional
Planning.
The Mineta Transportation Institute glossary of transportation planning terms:
http:// transweb. sjsu. edu/ comglos. htm
9 January 200 7
2 OVERALL WORK PROGRAM ( OWP)
Annually, each MPO/ RTPA develops and its Governing Board formally adopts an
Overall Work Program ( OWP).
The OWP introduces the agency and provides an overview of the region, with a focus
on its transportation goals and objectives, and the actions to achieve those goals and
objectives. The OWP is a scope of work for transportation planning activities, including
estimated costs, funding sources, and completion schedules.
Although the OWP reflects work to be performed by in- house MPO/ RTPA staff or
work the agency contracts out, preparation of the OWP should involve collaboration
among all transportation partners in the region. Example partners should include: the
Department, transit providers, community based organizations, railroads/ maritime
ports/ airports, bicycle and pedestrian interests, congestion management agencies, state
and federal resource agencies, city and county local governments, the public ( including
minority and low- income populations, etc.), and government- to- government
consultation with Native American Tribal Governments.
Because it is intended to provide a comprehensive overview of transportation planning,
activities to be completed by other entities within the region should also be included.
These may be shown as actual work elements, but are more generally shown in as a chart
or matrix, either in the body of the OWP or in the appendix. ( See Sample Chart)
Sample Other Entities’ Transportation Planning Activities Chart
Activity Title Activity
Description
Product( s) Comments
Regional transportation planning staff in the District is the initial and principal point of
planning contact between Department and the MPO/ RTPA. They have primary review,
monitoring, and administration responsibilities for the MPO’s/ RTPA’s OWPs. District
staff also provides the MPO/ RTPA with information about the Department’s
transportation planning activities in the region.
Regional transportation planning staff at ORIP provides tools and guidance to assist and
to support the efforts of the District regional planners.
10 January 200 7
2.01 The Purpose and Contents of the OWP
The OWP is the MPO’s/ RTPA’s transportation planning structure for the state fiscal
year, July 1 through June 30. It can also be used for other purposes, such as:
·   The MPO’s/ RTPA’s annual operations plan for the state fiscal year
·   The MPO’s/ RTPA’s planning budget for the state fiscal year
·   An activity tracking and management tool for the MPO/ RTPA Governing
Board
·   A contract and monitoring tool for local, state, and federal entities to track
the completion of annual transportation planning and expenditure of funds
·   An easy reference for members of the public who wish to know the
“ who/ what/ when/ where/ how much” of transportation planning activities
in the region
The OWP Budget Revenue Summary is an at- a- glance overview of the entire year’s
transportation planning activities and funding. The individual work elements provide
more specific information and work completion timelines. ( See Section 2.04b.)
In the OWP, there is an overview of the MPO’s/ RTPA’s decision- making, partnering,
public participation and other approaches. For example, staff accomplishes work
through technical committees, workshops, data gathering, public participation, outreach,
and information sharing efforts. Binding decisions are made by a vote of the
MPO/ RTPA Governing Board at regularly scheduled meetings based upon
recommendations and information provided by MPO/ RTPA staff and advisory
committees. Members of the public have the opportunity to present their views and
express their support or opposition at Board meetings. ( See also Section 7.02, Native
American Tribal Governments and Communities.)
2.02 The OWP is Part of a Funding Contract
In conjunction with the Overall Work Program Agreement ( OWPA) and the regional
transportation planning Master Fund Transfer Agreement ( MFTA), the OWP
constitutes the annual funding contract between the state and the MPO/ RTPA for
Consolidated Planning Grant ( CPG) and/ or Rural Planning Assistance ( RPA). It is also
the annual application for CPG formula funds and RPA. ( See Chapter 3 for more
information about CPG.)
The MFTA is an on- going, multi- year agreement, that prevails until it is amended,
updated, or replaced. The current MFTAs are set to expire December 31, 2014. The
MFTA requires that MPOs/ RTPAs submit an OWP each year that references the
MFTA. The MFTA also states that the MPO/ RTPA agrees to comply with all applicable
state and federal laws, regulations and requirements. ( See Section 2.05 for more
information about OWPAs.)
11 January 200 7
Although the MFTA is a complex legal document, it is written in sufficiently generic
terms and does not require annual reconsideration. Detail is added through the OWP
and OWPA. This three- document arrangement is straightforward and practical, and
much less expensive for the MPO/ RTPA and the Department than entering into a
completely new fund transfer contract each year.
The provisions of the MFTA are also applicable to any MPO/ RTPA contractors and
subcontractors.
2.03 The MFTA/ OWP/ OWPA Trio Only Encumbers CPG
and/ or RPA
Although the OWP is a comprehensive document that includes a wide variety of funding
sources, the regional planning MFTA and the OWPA only apply to CPG and/ or RPA.
There are different applications, agreements, and fund transfer arrangements for other
transportation planning funds, i. e., funds not administered by ORIP.
Even if there is a fully executed MFTA between the state and the MPO/ RTPA, the
current year’s CPG and/ or RPA cannot be encumbered for the MPO/ RTPA until it has
a Final OWP adopted by the MPO/ RTPA Governing Board, approved by the
Department, and a fully completed and executed original OWPA on file in ORIP.
Reimbursement can only occur after passage of the State Budget on or about July 1.
2.04 The Three Components of the OWP
Although OWPs vary in length, complexity, and format, in general, they include the
following three components:
·   Introduction or prospectus
·   Work elements
·   Budget Revenue Summary
The federal unified planning work program contents are divided into five categories 1)
tasks, 2) federally funded studies and all relevant state and local planning activities
regardless of funding source, 3) funding sources by project, 4) schedule of activities, and
5) responsible entity for each task or study. All five are included among the three OWP
components.
2.04. a Introduction or Prospectus
The OWP introduction or prospectus provides the context for understanding the work
activities proposed and gives information about the region. For example, the following
information should be provided:
·   The region’s transportation planning approach
·   Agency organizational structure and interagency arrangements
12 January 200 7
·   Decision- making steps
·   Government- to- government consultation with Native American Tribal
Governments
·   An overview of public participation and involvement
·   Significant regional characteristics and issues, demographics, transportation
needs, priorities, and goals
·   How the annual Planning Emphasis Areas ( PEAs) and the federal planning
factors are addressed in the work elements
·   Progress made toward implementing the Regional Transportation Plan
2.04. b Work Elements
Work elements identify specific planning work ( variously called “ activities,” “ tasks,”
“ steps,” “ products,” etc.,) to be completed during the term of the OWP.
There should be a separate work element for each major activity, and each work element
should include:
·   A title and work element number
·   A purpose or objective statement
·   An identification of previous, ongoing and future years’ work
·   A description of steps/ activities/ tasks/ products, etc., completion dates,
responsible entities ( including work identified as contracted, in- house, sub-regional,
etc.)
·   A table showing all fund sources, and uses of these funds ( e. g., in- house,
contracted)
For OWPs with many different work elements, reference may be facilitated if the
elements are grouped by category, e. g., Regional Transportation Plan, Air Quality
Planning, Transit Planning, Corridor Planning, Programming, Travel Forecasting, etc.
Whenever possible, work elements should be included in the OWP that demonstrate
efforts to enhance non- motorized transportation and provided a balanced, multi- modal
transportation system, regardless of whether or not non- motorized transportation is
included as one of the Planning Emphasis Areas ( PEAs).
Some MPOs/ RTPAs have created one single work element for each category of work,
referred to as mega- work elements. Mega- work elements are discouraged because such a
broad- brush approach defeats the OWP’s utility as a comprehensive information
document for the Governing Board, other agencies, and the public; as a transportation
planning work plan; and as a budget to monitor planning and expenditures.
In each work element, previous, on- going, and future years’ work should be identified.
For multi- year work elements, the activities to be completed, as well as the sources and
uses, are shown separately by year. For prior years, the accomplished activities are
summarized and the work element budget should shows actual expenditures. For the
current and future years, the sources and uses are estimates.
13 January 200 7
If federal funds are displayed as a funding source in the work element, the required
percentage of local match, ( i. e., non- federal local funds or local “ in- kind” contributions),
must be shown. ( See Section 3.05 for more information about local matches.)
The Appendix includes a sample Work Element.
2.04. c Budget Revenue Summary
Although each work element entry includes a breakdown of funding sources and types,
and shows the entity to which those funds will be reimbursed, all OWP sources and uses
must also be also listed in a comprehensive Budget Revenue Summary table. Some other
commonly used titles for the summary are Revenue and Expenditure Summary, Funding
Table, etc. The summary shows all funds in the OWP, itemized by work element and
funding sources and types. Prior years’ unexpended CPG carryover in the OWP must be
identified separately from the current year’s allocations and/ or awards.
Consistency of funding throughout the OWP is vitally important ( i. e. the entries in the
Budget Revenue Summary must accurately reflect the amounts in the individual work
elements). Totals for individual sources may not exceed allocations or awards. ( Sections
2.05 and 3.07 provide more information about unexpended carryover.) The total
amount for each work element should also not exceed allocation.
The Appendix includes a sample Budget Revenue Summary.
2.05 The OWPA
The Overall Work Program Agreement ( OWPA) is a one- page document signed by the
MPO/ RTPA and the District. The Directors Delegation of Authority allows the
District Deputy Director to approve annual OWPAs with RTPAs and MPOs. The
signatures on the OWPA formalize the annual CPG and/ or RPA contract, effective
upon passage of the State Budget.
The MPO/ RTPA generates an original signed OWPA and forwards it to the District.
The authorized MPO/ RTPA signatory is usually the Executive Director or the Finance
Officer, as per Governing Board delegation. Although the Board action adopting the
OWP is very specific, often the signature delegation authority for the OWPA is fairly
generic.
The District signatory is the District Director or the Deputy District Director for
Planning, as delegated by the District Director. After the District obtains the necessary
signature on the original OWPA ( signed in blue ink to more easily distinguish original
signatures from photocopies), the District makes photocopies for its file and for the
MPO/ RTPA and forwards the original to the ORIP District Liaison.
ORIP requires one original signature OWPA. The District and/ or the MPO/ RTPA
may also prefer ( or require) originals rather than photocopy versions. In such instances
14 January 200 7
the two parties need to determine how many additional original OWPAs need to be
generated.
After passage of the State Budget, ORIP’s Fund Specialist uses the OWPA to encumber
CPG and/ or RPA on behalf of the MPO/ RTPA for the term of the OWP.
The OWPA is specific to a fiscal year and must accurately reflect the OWP. This means
a new OWPA must be submitted each year with the adopted and approved Final OWP.
The CPG/ RPA funds programmed and approved in the OWP will be equal to the funds
to be encumbered by the OWPA. An OWPA amendment must be submitted each time
there is an OWP amendment that changes the total amount of CPG ( which will also
change the local match) and/ or RPA.
There are separate OWPA forms for MPOs and RTPAs. It is the District’s
responsibility to ensure the correct version of the form is used and all fill- in information
is accurate. The District should check that:
·   The CPG and/ or RPA totals in the funding columns are consistent with the
amounts in the OWP work elements and Budget Revenue Summary.
·   Allocations are not exceeded.
·   The local match for each federal fund source and type precisely reflects the
mandatory ( minimum) percentage.
For CPG, the minimum “ mandatory local match” amount entered on the OWPA is
based on the total amount of each federal funding source and type. For example: total
FHWA Metropolitan Planning ( PL) dollars in the OWP divided by the PL federal
participation rate (. 8853) multiplied by the local match rate (. 1147) = mandatory local
match. ( Section 3.05 provides more information about local match.)
Total PL = $ 100
$ 100 ¸ .8853 = $ 112.96 ( total PL divided by PL federal participation rate)
$ 112.96 ´ .1147 = $ 12.96 ( sum of federal and local match multiplied by the
local match rate)
Mandatory local match for $ 100 PL is $ 12.96
The Final OWP for the fiscal year beginning July 1 ( the next fiscal year) is usually
adopted in May or June, while the current fiscal year’s OWP is still active. Unexpended
CPG carryover from prior years that are part of the currently active OWP cannot be
included in the next fiscal year’s Final OWP and OWPA until after closeout and
reconciliation of the current fiscal year’s OWP. Any prior years’ carryover not
encumbered by the current year’s OWP may be included in the next fiscal year’s Final
OWP. After reconciliation, any remaining CPG and the activities to be funded therewith
may be amended into the OWP and the OWPA. ( See Sections 3.08, Reconciliation of
CPG Carryover Balances, and 4.09, Year- End Package.)
What some regions refer to as “ carryover work” or work not completed by June 30, is
not tied to carryover balances. All carryover work must be included in the new fiscal
15 January 200 7
year’s OWP and must be funded with amounts not encumbered in the current year
OWP. Post- reconciliation funds amended into the OWP and OWPA are for additional
work amended into the OWP.
The OWPA cannot include separate line entries for current versus prior years’ balances,
therefore the ORIP Fund Specialist requires a letter or memo from the MPO/ RTPA to
identify current year CPG versus carryover amounts when carryover funds are included
or amended into the OWP and OWPA. In the Budget Revenue Summary, CPG
carryover funds must be listed in a separate column from the current year’s funds and
must be identified by funding source and type. ( See Section 3.06 and 3.07 for more
information about unexpended carryover.)
There is no carryover of RPA.
District staff should carefully track RPA in particular, which lapses at the end of the state
fiscal year. To preclude any RPA being lost, the Districts and ORIP should work with
any RTPA that cannot expend all its RPA. It is critical to free up such funds in a timely
manner so other RTPAs can make use of any RPA funds that are in danger of lapsing.
The Appendix includes sample MPO and RTPA OWPAs.
2.06 OWP Timeline
The full cycle of an OWP from draft through audit closeout is approximately two years.
The draft portion of the cycle may begin as early as October and may continue into June
of the following calendar year. The administration and accomplishment of the OWP
spans the state fiscal year July 1 through June 30. Closeout commences with the end of
the state fiscal year and extends to January 1 of the next calendar year when the
MPO’s/ RTPA’s Annual Fiscal and Compliance Audit Report is due to the District. ( See
Timelines on pages 17 and 18.)
All of these activities should be reflected in the MPO’s/ RTPA’s current OWP.
Draft OWPs for RTPAs are due to the Districts and ORIP by March 1.
Draft OWPs for MPOs are due to the Districts and ORIP 30 days before the MPO’s
federal Annual MPO meeting or March 1, whichever occurs first. ( See Section 2.14 for
more information about Annual MPO meetings.)
16 January 200 7
2.07 OWP Guidance
Toward the end of the calendar year, ORIP prepares and distributes OWP Guidance
consistent with which the MPO/ RTPA drafts its OWP for the next fiscal year.
The OWP Guidance includes:
·   A timetable
·   A review checklist
·   The planning emphasis areas ( PEAs)
·   The current year's actual FHWA Metropolitan Planning ( PL) amounts to use
as next year’s estimated FHWA PL amounts
·   Actual FTA § 5303 appropriations
·   The current year’s actual RPA amounts to use as next year’s estimated RPA
amounts
The MPOs use the FHWA PL estimates in the OWP Guidance in their Final OWPs. If
these amounts change after passage of the federal budget, the OWPs and the OWPAs
need to be amended accordingly.
The rural RTPAs use the RPA estimates in the OWP Guidance in their Final OWPs. If
these amounts change after passage of the State Budget, the OWPs and OWPAs need to
be amended accordingly.
There is no reimbursement of CPG and RPA prior to passage of the State Budget.
In response to a request from the Rural Counties Task Force ( a committee, that consists
of the rural RTPAs), ORIP began to prepare separate RTPA and MPO OWP Guidance,
beginning with the 2001/ 2002 cycle. ORIP distributes the OWP Guidance to the Districts
with instructions to share it with MPOs/ RTPAs. ORIP also posts the OWP Guidance at:
http:// www. dot. ca. gov/ hq/ tpp/ offices/ orip/ orip. htm
17 January 200 7
MPO OWP Timeline
Overall Work Program
Close Out Prior Year
Overall Work Program
Accomplish Current Year
Overall Work Program
Draft, Review, Adopt Approve Next Year
July 1- June 30 = State Fiscal Year
Jul – 02 July 31, Q4 Progress Report due to
District.
After passage of the State Budget, Accounting
encumbers funds for MPOs using complete and
accurate OWPAs.
MPOs begin work after funds are encumbered.
Aug – 02 August 15, Q4 Progress Report due to
ORIP.
By August 31, Year End Package due to
District.
Sep – 02 September 15, Year End Package due to
ORIP.
October 1- September 30 = Federal Fiscal Year
Oct – 02 October 31, Q1 Progress Report due to District.
FHWA PL actual # s for prior fiscal year after passage
of federal budget.
ORIP notifies Districts. Districts notify MPOs.
MPOs amend OWPs/ OWPAs to show actual PL # s.
October – December,
FTA Certs and Assurances, FHWA Planning Certs.,
Tentative MPO IPG meeting schedule,
FHWA/ FTA issue annual PEAs,
FTA § 5303 actual # s ( after Federal budget passes),
FHWA PL estimate # s,
ORIP’s annual OWP Guidance.
Nov – 02 November 15, Q1 Progress Report due to ORIP. November – June MPOs draft, circulate and finalize
OWPs.
Dec – 02
Jan – 03 January 1, Annual Fiscal and
Compliance Audit Report due to
District
January 31, Q2/ mid- year Progress Report due to
District.
January- February, District mid- year OWP status
meeting with MPOs.
February - May
Individual Annual MPO meetings,
MPO draft OWPs due 30 days before IPG
meeting, but no later than March 1,
Districts review and circulate draft OWPs,
Feb – 03 February 15, Districts send Annual
Fiscal and Compliance Audit Reports to
Audits, ORIP, Accounting and FHWA.
February 15, Q2/ mid- year Progress Report due to
ORIP.
MPO Indirect Cost Negotiation Agreements and Cost
Allocation Plans due to Districts ( Districts forward to Audits)
Mar – 03
Apr – 03 April 1, deadline for current fiscal year OWP
amendments ( complete package due to ORIP).
April 30, Q3 Progress Report due to District.
April- May, District year- end OWP status meetings
with MPOs.
May – 03 May 15, Q3 Progress Report due to ORIP.
Jun – 03 Final, adopted OWPs due,
Districts recommend OWP approval to FHWA/ FTA,
FHWA/ FTA concur re approval of MPO OWPs.
Districts approve MPO OWPs.
July 1- June 30 = State Fiscal Year
Jul – 03 July 31, Q4 Progress Report due to District. Before July 1, Final approved and adopted OWP and
fully executed OWPA due to ORIP.
After passage of the State Budget, Accounting
encumbers funds for MPOs using complete and
accurate OWPAs.
Aug – 03 August 15, Q4 Progress Report due to ORIP.
August 31, Year End Pkg. due to District.
Sep – 03 September 15, Year End Package due to ORIP.
For MPOs, the Year End Package includes a Certification of Expenditure by Fund Source including,
the Final Statement of Expenditures attachment, and the last Request for Reimbursement for the
OWP cycle clearly marked “ FINAL”. ( See also Section 4.10 regarding Grant Closeout.)
18 January 200 7
RTPA OWP Timeline
Overall Work Program
Close Out Prior Year
Overall Work Program
Accomplish Current Year
Overall Work Program
Draft, Review, Adopt Approve Next Year
July 1- June 30 = State Fiscal Year
Jul – 02 July 31, Q4 Progress Report due to
District.
After passage of the State Budget, Accounting
encumbers funds for RTPAs using complete and
accurate OWPAs.
RTPAs begin work after funds are encumbered.
Aug – 02 August 15, Q4 Progress Report due to
ORIP
By August 31, Year End Package due to
District..
Sep – 02 September 15, Year End Package due
to ORIP.
October 1- September 30 = Federal Fiscal Year
Oct – 02 October 31, Q1 Progress Report due to District.
October – December,
ORIP’s annual OWP Guidance.
Nov – 02 November 15, Q1 Progress Report due to ORIP. November – June RTPAs draft, circulate and finalize
OWPs.
Dec – 02
Jan – 03 January 1, Annual Fiscal and
Compliance Audit Report due to
District
January 31, Q2/ mid- year Progress Report due to
District.
January- February, District mid- year OWP status
meeting with RTPAs.
February - May
Districts review and circulate draft OWPs,
Feb – 03 February 15, Districts send Annual
Fiscal and Compliance Audit Reports to
Audits, ORIP and Accounting.
February 15, Q2/ mid- year Progress Report due to
ORIP.
RTPA Indirect Cost Negotiation Agreements and Cost
Allocation Pla ns due to Districts ( Districts forward to Audits)?
Mar – 03 March 1 RTPA draft OWPs due.
Apr – 03 April 1, deadline for current fiscal year OWP
amendments ( complete package due to ORIP).
April 30, Q3 Progress Report due to District.
May – 03 May 15, Q3 Progress Report due to ORIP.
Jun – 03 Final, adopted OWPs due,
Districts approve OWPs.
July 1- June 30 = State Fiscal Year
Jul – 03 July 31, Q4 Progress Report due to District. Before July 1, Final approved and adopted OWP and
fully executed OWPA due to ORIP.
After passage of the State Budget, Accounting
encumbers funds for RTPAs using complete and
accurate OWPAs.
Aug – 03 August 15, Q4 Progress Report due to ORIP.
August 31, Year End Pkg. due to District.
Sep – 03 September 15, Year End Package due to ORIP.
For RTPAs who only get Rural Planning Assistance, a Year End Package consists of the last Request
for Reimbursement for the OWP cycle clearly marked “ FINAL”. ( See also Section 4.10 regarding
Grant Closeout.)
19 January 200 7
2.08 Planning Emphasis Areas and Federal Planning Factors
Each year FHWA/ FTA jointly develop Planning Emphasis Areas ( PEAs) to promote
priority themes for consideration in transportation planning ( i. e. for integration into the
OWP). The PEAs are published in the Federal Register, usually toward the end of the
calendar year and ORIP includes them in the annual OWP Guidance. Generally, the
Department accepts the PEAs as the state planning priorities. However, the FHWA
California Division also develops state specific PEAs.
Some RTPAs/ MPOs discuss their PEAs- related work in the OWP introduction or
prospectus. Others include matrixes to indicate the PEAs- related work elements. If one
( or more) of the PEAs is not addressed, the reason should be clearly stated.
Like the PEAs, the federal planning factors in Title 23 United States Code, Section
134( f) ( revised in SAFETEA- LU section 6001( h) to separate safety and security) should
also be incorporated in the OWP. Federal Planning Factors are issued by Congress and
emphasize planning factors from a national perspective. The Federal Planning Factors
are revised with new reauthorization. With the passage of SAFETEA- LU, the federal
planning factors were expanded to eight ( safety and security were split into separate
planning factors). The eight planning factors ( for both metro and statewide planning)
are: ( See Sample Matrix below which is applicable to both PEAs and/ or the SAFETEA-LU
Planning Factors.)
Sample Matrix for SAFETEA- LU Planning Factors or PEAs
SAFETEA- LU Planning Factors
Work
Element
1
Work
Element
2
Work
Element
3
Work
Element
4
Work
Element
5
Work
Element
6
1. Support the economic vitality of the metropolitan
area, especially by enabling global competitiveness,
productivity, and efficiency.
X
X
X
2. Increase the safety of the transportation system for
motorized and non- motorized users.
X
X
X
3. Increase the security of the transportation system
for motorized and non- motorized users.
X X X
4. Increase the accessibility and mobility of people
and for freight.
X
X
5. Protect and enhance the environment, promote
energy conservation, improve the quality of life, and
promote consistency between transportation
improvements and State and local planned growth and
economic development patterns.
X
X
6. Enhance the integration and connectivity of the
transportation system, across and between modes, for
people and freight.
X X
7. Promote efficient system management and
operation.
X X
8. Emphasize the preservation of the existing
transportation system.
X
20 January 200 7
2.09 District Review of the Draft OWP
Regional planning staff in the Districts are the initial and primary points of contact for
transportation planning between the Department and the MPO/ RTPA. The draft
OWPs are submitted to the Districts for review. District staff should:
·   Review the draft OWP ( primary reviewer)
·   Identify compliance concerns ( e. g. eligible uses, funding levels, etc)
·   Prepare a transmittal memo identifying significant work elements and
activities and route the draft OWP for review and comment to other units
within the District and Headquarters, as appropriate
·   Receive comments from the reviewing units, and prepare a comprehensive
formal Department comment letter to the MPO/ RTPA, with copies to the
reviewing units and ORIP. District comment letters regarding MPO OWPs
are also copied to FHWA/ FTA
Development and adoption of the OWP is a lengthy procedure for MPOs/ RTPAs.
District Regional Planning staff should bear this in mind as they review, route and
comment on draft OWPs. They should forward OWP Guidance to the MPOs/ RTPAs as
early as possible and should send comment letters in a timely manner. Comment letters
should be comprehensive ( i. e. they should include all the Department’s comments).
The District reviews draft OWPs with two different emphases: conceptual and technical.
The conceptual evaluation focuses on the OWP as a whole to determine whether the
activities accomplish the transportation planning goals of the region. The technical
evaluation focuses on compliance.
The conceptual review considers whether the activities in the OWP:
·   Respond to District concerns
·   Consider regional mobility issues and requirements
·   Represent an inclusive planning approach to address transportation in the
region
·   Contribute to implementation of the Regional Transportation Plan
·   Include required products such as Regional Transportation Plans,
Transportation Improvement Programs, air quality conformity, etc.
·   Incorporate the applicable PEAs and the federal planning factors. If any of
these are not included, the reason for not including any of them should be
stated
The technical review of the OWP centers on points such as:
·   Are funding amounts consistent throughout?
·   Do the budget figures add up correctly?
·   Are the activities eligible uses for the regional transportation planning
funding sources? ( See Section 4.02 for a listing of eligible uses.)
21 January 200 7
·   Have federal match requirements been satisfied?
·   Has progress made in the previous year's OWP been described?
·   Do the task statements, project schedules, and costs seem realistic?
·   Are all regional transportation planning contracts, and grants listed?
·   Have Title VI, American with Disabilities Act and other compliance
considerations been included?
MPO draft OWPs are also sent to the FHWA/ FTA. The drafts may be sent by the
MPO directly or through the District, as MPO/ District preference and custom dictate,
but it is the District’s responsibility to make sure the draft is provided to FHWA/ FTA.
FHWA requests an electronic version and one hard copy of each MPO’s draft OWP.
FTA, however, prefers an electronic copy of the MPO’s draft OWP. Every effort should
be made to provide an electronic version of the draft OWP to both the FHWA and
FTA. ( See the current OWP Guidance for contact names and addresses.)
District regional planners should find the OWP review checklist in the annual OWP
Guidance a helpful review tool for both the draft and the final OWP ( also see the OWP
Development and Review Flowchart on page 2- 14).
2.10 District Staff Circulate the Draft OWP
After District staff has completed their own careful review, they circulate the draft OWP
to, and solicit comments from, ORIP and other affected units in the District and
Headquarters. ORIP is always included, but the contents of the draft OWP will dictate
which other units should participate in the review.
The OWP is comprehensive, and the regional transportation planning activities and
projects in the work elements relate to, impact, and correlate with, projects, activities and
responsibilities of various District and Headquarters units. Staff in affected units should
be provided the opportunity to review and comment. The District’s request for review
and comment transmittal memo should clearly state what is expected from these
reviewers, including:
·   Specific work elements, activities and/ or products should be referenced
·   Relevant questions should be posed
·   Related accomplishments should be cited
·   Pertinent Department activities should be mentioned
Some District units to whom District staff might circulate the draft OWP are:
·   Traffic Operations
·   Systems Planning and/ or Traffic Forecasting
·   Local Assistance Engineers
·   Project Management
·   Community Planning
·   IGR/ CEQA Coordinators
22 January 200 7
·   Title VI Liaison
·   Transit/ Public Transportation Planning
Headquarters units to whom District staff might circulate the draft OWP are:
·   The Division of Transportation Planning
o Office of Regional and Interagency Planning ( always!)
o Office of Goods Movement
o Office of Community Planning
o Office of Advanced and System Planning
·   Aeronautics
·   Mass Transportation
·   Division of Research and Innovation
·   Any other affected Division
Note: Headquarters Local Assistance does not review draft OWPs. They do,
however, request copies of Final OWPs.
Thorough and comprehensive review of the draft OWP by all affected Department areas
is of critical importance. The District needs to communicate all the Department’s
substantive concerns during the OWP draft stage when issues may be more easily
resolved. The District collects and is the repository for all Department comments and
should send them in a single comment letter. The District should not piecemeal
comments to the MPOs/ RTPAs.
Obviously if major problems are discovered after the comment letter is sent to the
RTPA/ MPO, the District still needs to work with the MPO/ RTPA to resolve them.
However, after the OWP is adopted, making changes may be more costly and could
delay OWP work.
2.11 The District Copies the Comment Letter to Reviewing
Units and ORIP
The District coordinates its own comments with input received from District and
Headquarters reviewing units in a comprehensive letter to the MPO/ RTPA. The letter is
copied to ORIP and to all reviewing units who provided comment. As the primary
contact with the MPO/ RTPA, the District determines ( consistent with state and federal
requirements) which comments will be included in the letter and which are better
handled informally.
District staff provides the FHWA/ FTA copies of the comment letters the District writes
to MPOs. ( See the current OWP Guidance for contact names and addresses.)
23 January 200 7
2.12 ORIP OWP Responsibilities
The following are among ORIP responsibilities:
·   Develop the annual OWP Guidance
·   Develop the RTP Guidelines
·   Develop and update the Regional Planning Handbook
·   Review all draft OWPs to ensure that they meet the needs of statewide
programs and/ or policies
·   Allocate RPA and CPG and reconcile prior years CPG carryover with each
MPO
·   Encumber CPG and RPA through Accounting and code Requests for
Reimbursement
·   Advise Districts of statewide transportation policy issues, proposed
legislation and new legal and regulatory requirements
24 January 200 7
OWP DEVELOPMENT AND REVIEW
The MPO/ RTPA develops a draft OWP with
input from transportation partners. The
MPO/ RTPA obtains Governing Board authority
to release draft for review and comment and
circulate the draft.
District Regional Planning reviews the draft OWP and prepares a transmittal memo to
District and Headquarters reviewing units. The transmittal includes specific concerns,
questions, and points to assist the reviewing units to key- in on work elements and
activities of particular interest to Department. The contents of the draft OWP will
dictate who needs to review it. ORIP is always a reviewer.
HQ and District reviewers provide District
Regional Planning their specific comments
and recommendations on the draft.
District Regional Planning prepares a single
comprehensive comment letter to the
MPO/ RTPA. The comment letter is copied
to ORIP and all reviewers. Letters to MPOs
are also copied to FHWA/ FTA.
MPO/ RTPA reworks the draft OWP incorporating comments and
recommendations. The revised OWP becomes the final draft,
submitted to the MPO/ RTPA Governing Board for adoption.
The MPO/ RTPA provides the adopted OWP to District
Regional Planning.
District Regional Planning reviews the adopted OWP to assure Department concerns and issues have been addressed.
RTPA: The District advises the RTPA that the OWP is approved.
MPO: The District advises FHWA/ FTA it recommends approval. The FHWA/ FTA sends a letter to Department
approving the OWP. The District approves the OWP via letter to the MPO, with the FHWA/ FTA approval letter as
an enclosure.
RTPA: The District forwards the District’s approval letter with two copies of the Final OWP to
ORIP and one copy of the Final OWP to Headquarters Local Assistance.
MPO: The District forwards the District’s approval letter, including the FHWA/ FTA enclosure, with
two copies of the final OWP to ORIP. The District forwards two copies of the final OWP with the
approval letter to FHWA, one copy to FTA, and one copy to Headquarters Local Assistance.
25 January 200 7
2.13 District and ORIP Cooperation
Every District has an ORIP liaison. The District has primary review, monitoring, and
approval responsibility for OWPs, but should work with ORIP liaison to incorporate
comments on OWPs when there are issues or concerns that jeopardize approval.
Although District and ORIP responsibilities are different, they are complementary.
The District informs ORIP about District and MPO/ RTPA staffing changes,
MPO/ RTPA successes, problems, and issues ( e. g. important accomplishments, high
profile work elements, politically sensitive or significant issues). ORIP informs the
Districts about legislation and regulations, funding, new approaches and procedures,
statewide transportation planning issues of interest to the region( s), and regional
lobbying efforts to the Department Director, the Secretary of the Business,
Transportation and Housing Agency, and/ or the Governor’s Office.
2.14 Annual MPO Meetings
Between March and May of each year, the FHWA/ FTA schedules interagency review
meetings of the MPOs, formerly known as Intermodal Planning Group ( IPG) meetings.
In addition to FHWA/ FTA, the MPO, the District, representatives from Headquarters,
and other transportation partners often attend. The purpose of the meeting is to
discuss transportation issues, trends, accomplishments, and any problems the MPO may
be experiencing. The District should complete and distribute the OWP comment letter
prior to the Annual MPO Meeting, and major concerns expressed in the letter should be
discussed at the meeting.
It is important that all attendees have time to review the OWP prior to the Annual MPO
meeting. Both the next fiscal year’s draft OWP and progress on the current fiscal year’s
OWP are included in the meeting discussion, For this reason, MPO draft OWPs must be
submitted to the District at least thirty days before the meeting, or March 1, whichever is
earlier. ( See the current OWP Guidance at
http:// www. dot. ca. gov/ hq/ offices/ orip/ orip. htm for the latest draft schedule.)
2.15 Certifications and Reviews
MPOs that include an urbanized area of 200,000 persons or larger are referred to
transportation management areas ( TMAs). TMAs are subject to a federal certification
review every four years. ( See Schedule Chart.)
The federal agency representatives review the TMA’s self- certifications compliance with
the laws listed in the FHWA/ FTA certifications and assurances. ( See Section 2.16 for
more information.)
26 January 200 7
The TMA Certification Schedule Years
* Review activities typically begin approximately 6 months prior to report due date, with some
exceptions due to staff constraints and other considerations. These schedules are subject to ch ange.
Although in the past the Annual MPO Meetings and certification meetings have been
scheduled together, recently FHWA/ FTA began to separate the two. The reason for
splitting the two is to permit better focus at each, on OWP activities at the Annual MPO
Meetings, and certification compliance at the certification review. Generally certification
review meetings last approximately two to three days.
Those MPOs that annually receive more than $ 250,000 in FTA § 5303 funds must also
submit their Equal Employment Opportunity ( EEO) Program reports by September 30
every four years ( 2001, 2005, 2009, 2013 etc). The EEO Program reports are required
per, and must comply with, the Urban Mass Transportation Administration ( UMTA)
Circular 4704.1. The reports should be submitted to the Districts, for review to ensure
compliance with the UMTA Circular.
The Districts maintain copies of the reports for their files and submit the original to
ORIP within two weeks after receipt from the MPOs. ORIP checks the reports and
forwards them to FTA.
At present, only Southern California Association of Governments ( SCAG), Metropolitan
Transportation Commission ( MTC), San Diego Association of Governments
( SANDAG) and Sacramento Area Council of Governments ( SACOG) receive more
than $ 250,000 in FTA § 5303 funds annually.
Copies of the circular may be obtained from ORIP and information about EEO
reporting may be found at:
http:// www. fta. dot. gov/ legal/ federal_ register/ 2004/ 16290_ 17942_ ENG_ HTML. htm
TMA/ MPO Latest Report
Date
Next Report Due
Date
Begin Review
Activities*
Southern California ( SCAG) April 2002 Fall 2005 Complete
Sacramento ( SACOG) February 2003 February 2007 June 2006
Stanislaus ( StanCOG) September 2003 September 2007 February 2006
Kern ( KCOG) January 2003 January 2007 July 2006
San Francisco ( MTC) October 2003 October 2007 May 2007
Santa Barbara ( SBCAG) June 2004 June 2008 January 2008
San Diego ( SANDAG) September 2004 September 2008 March 2008
San Joaquin ( SJCOG) April 2005 April 2009 November 2008
Fresno ( COFCG) May 2005 May 2009 December 2008
27 January 200 7
2.16 Certifications and Assurances
By including the FHWA and FTA certifications and assurances in their final adopted
OWP each year, MPOs certify their compliance with the federal laws listed on the
certification, for example: the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities
Act, and others. The federal certifications and assurances are published in the Federal
Register and the latest versions are included in the MPO version of the OWP Guidance
prepared each year by ORIP.
District staff must carefully compare the certifications and assurances in the OWP. The
legal citations may change from year to year and an inaccuracy of a few letters or
numbers in the citation may have significant legal implications.
MPOs receive both FHWA PL and FTA § 5303 each year and must always include both
certifications and assurances in their OWPs annually. FTA requires the “ Federal FY –
Certifications and Assurances for FTA Assistance” and both FTA and FHWA require
the “ Metropolitan Transportation Planning Process Certification.”
In addition to the FHWA and FTA certifications and assurances, MPOs must also
submit the Debarment and Suspension certification and assurances form in their annual
OWPs. Previously, the Debarment and Suspension certification was included in the
FTA certification and assurances; however this clause was removed by FTA beginning in
FY 2004/ 2005.
RTPAs that receive RPA funds must include the State Transportation Planning Process
certification. RTPAs need to perform the following tasks as necessary: include the
planning process certification if they receive a FHWA State Planning and Research –
Partnership Planning Element grant; provide the FTA certifications and assurances when
they receive an FTA § 5305 grant; and provide Debarment and Suspensions certification
if they receive a FHWA Partnership Planning Element grant and/ or FTA § 5305 grant.
At the MPO/ RTPA level, certifications must be executed by an individual who the
Governing Board has delegated signature authority ( usually the Executive Director or
Finance Officer). The District Director or her/ his delegate signs the certification for the
Department. The FTA Certifications and Assurances also include an affirmation signed
by the MPO’s/ RTPA’s attorney- at- law.
The Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 clarified the intent of Congress to include all
programs and activities of Federal- aid recipients, subrecipients and contractors, whether
or not federal funding is used for the specific activity in question, ( i. e. recipients of any
federal funds are required to comply with non discrimination on the basis of race, color,
national origin, sex, disability and age).
All RTPAs receive some federal funding, therefore RTPAs need to certify that their
regional transportation planning efforts and processes comply with federal Civil Rights
provisions.
28 January 200 7
Government Code Section 65080 stipulates regional transportation plans shall consider
factors specified in Section 134 of Title 23 of United States Code ( USC), and the plan
shall be consistent with federal planning and programming requirements.
Beginning with the 2002/ 2003 OWP cycle, the RTPA Certification format is provided in
the annual OWP Guidance and is required to be included in all ( non- MPO) RTPA OWPs.
Please note: All Certifications and Assurances must be signed and forwarded to
the ORIP Fund Specialist in order for funds to be encumbered and repaid for that
fiscal year.
2.17 Approving the Final OWP
Prior to approving the OWP, District staff review the MPO/ RTPA Governing Board-adopted
Final OWP to assure Department concerns have been adequately addressed.
The OWP cannot be approved if it contains questionable issues that do not meet federal
regulations as outlined in the OWP Guidance Package.
The Final OWP should only include committed funds. The FHWA PL and RPA totals
included in the OWP Guidance are deemed committed amounts even though totals may
change after passage of the federal and state budgets, respectively. ( Sections 3.06 and
3.07 discuss permitted inclusion of CPG discretionary grants and unexpended CPG
carryover balances in the draft and Final OWP.)
RTPAs: The District is responsible for approving ( or disapproving) the Final
OWP. When the Department’s issues have been resolved, the
District advises the RTPA in writing of the Department’s approval of
the Final OWP.
MPOs: The District is responsible for Department approval ( or disapproval)
of the MPO’s Final OWP, once, the Department’s issues including
compliance with Title VI and related statutes have been resolved.
The District advises FHWA/ FTA that the state recommends approval.
FHWA/ FTA does not write its approval letter until after it has
received approval recommendation notification from the District.
The District’s recommendation signifies to FHWA/ FTA the
Department’s determination that the OWP complies with all of the
Department’s requirements, and that the District has completed a
thorough review and is satisfied with the OWP.
FHWA/ FTA approval only pertains to those aspects of the OWP,
that they are responsible for reviewing. Although their approval
comes later in time, it is not a substitute for careful District review
and does not supersede the District’s ability to disapprove the OWP.
29 January 200 7
FHWA and FTA may prepare a joint reply or may send separate
approval letters. Their approval may be addressed to the District
with copies to the MPO or it may be addressed to the MPO with
copies to the District. There is no statewide uniformity on this
procedure. After the FHWA/ FTA provides their written approval,
the District advises the MPO in writing of the Department’s approval
of the Final OWP and encloses the FHWA/ FTA approval letter. The
FHWA and FTA MOU require that FTA send out the approval letter
to the MPO and District.
After the OWP and the OWPA are finalized, the District transmits these to their ORIP
liaison. An OWP/ OWPA transmittal package includes the following:
ü   District OWP approval letter
ü   FHWA/ FTA OWP approval letter ( MPOs only)
ü   Two copies of the adopted and approved OWP
ü   One original OWPA bearing ( original) MPO/ RTPA and District
signatures in blue ink
ü   MPO letter indicating how much PL and/ or FTA § 5303 carryover,
if any, is included in the OWPA. ( See Sections 3.07 and 3.08 for
more information.)
ü   The MPO/ RTPA Governing Board resolution ( or equivalent)
adopting the OWP
ü   Governing Board authority for MPO/ RTPA staff to sign the OWPA
ü   Certifications and Assurances ( FHWA, FTA, Debarment and
Suspensions)
Although the Governing Board resolution adopting the OWP is very specific, the action
authorizing staff signature of the OWPA may be more generic. If the Chair of the
Governing Board signs the OWPA, no signature authority is required.
If the MPO/ RTPA is awarded an FTA § 5305 or FHWA SP& R- Partnership Planning
grant, the OWP must include the work to be performed and the products to be
completed, and the OWPA must include the grant amount. The OWPA submittal
package must also include a copy of the grant award notification letter.
ORIP requests two copies of the final adopted and approved OWP:
( 1) Official ORIP file copy
( 2) Caltrans library copy
30 January 200 7
2.18 ORIP Requests an Electronic Version of the Final
Adopted and Approved OWP
In addition to two hardcopies of each final adopted and approved OWP, ORIP requests
an electronic copy of the final OWP. Districts should obtain these from the
MPOs/ RTPAs and should e- mail them to their ORIP liaison.
2.19 Accomplishing the OWP
If ORIP has received the required documentation from the District, the ORIP Fund
Specialist works with Accounting to encumber transportation planning funds for the
MPO/ RTPA. Following fund encumbrance, the MPO/ RTPA can then proceed to do
the work and accomplish the activities in its Final OWP. Periodically the MPO/ RTPA
seeks reimbursement through the District using the Request for Reimbursement ( RFR)
form for completed OWP work for which it has paid using local funds. ( RFRs are
discussed in Sections 4.04, 4.05, 4.06, and 4.07.) Beginning in FY 2004/ 2005, the Master
Fund Transfer Agreement ( MFTA) allows two options for seeking reimbursement
defined in each MPO/ RTPA MFTA Article II, Section 1.
Throughout the year, the District monitors completion of the MPO’s/ RTPA’s OWP
regional transportation planning activities and products. District staff maintains close
communication with the MPO/ RTPA as a member of advisory committees, task forces
and working groups; by providing Department input for OWP activities and products;
by attending meetings; by reviewing Governing Board agendas and actions; by
commenting on draft documents; etc. District regional transportation planning staff also
facilitates communication between various District and Headquarters units and the
MPO/ RTPA.
District regional planning keeps the MPO/ RTPA informed about pertinent Department
matters and it keeps the Department informed about pertinent MPO/ RTPA matters.
2.20 OWP Amendments
It is critical that the OWP accurately reflects the transportation planning activities of the
MPO/ RTPA. If funding, schedules, work products, or other items change, the OWP
must be revised to reflect these changes. The significance of the changes determines
whether this can be accomplished administratively or with a formal amendment ( See
2.21 Administrative Amendments and 2.22 Formal Amendments for more
information).
Amending the OWP requires many of the same steps as development and adoption of
the original OWP. District Regional Planning staff should bear this in mind and work to
approve OWP amendments in a timely manner.
31 January 200 7
The Department receives the official FHWA PL appropriation for the current year after
passage of the federal budget, approximately October 1. Since OWPs follow the state
fiscal year, many MPO OWPs and OWPAs need to be amended to update FHWA PL
amounts and activities ( the state fiscal year begins July 1 and ends June 30, and the
federal fiscal year begins October 1 and ends September 30).
After closeout of the prior year’s OWP, the MPO/ RTPA, the District and the ORIP
Fund Specialist need to reconcile unexpended CPG formula fund carryover balances.
After reconciliation, the affected MPOs may amend their OWPs to add- in unexpended
carryover and the activities to be funded therewith. The OWPAs must also be amended
to agree with any carryover amended into the OWPs ( See Sections 3.07 and 4.09 for
more information about unexpended carryover year- end closeout).
The RPA amounts in the OWP Guidance also are estimates. If there are substantial
population changes in one or more counties, the RPA distribution may change, resulting
in an increase or decrease in the amount of RPA a rural county receives. Also, the
anticipated annual RPA funding is not committed until it is included in the State Budget,
signed by the Governor.
FHWA PL and RPA estimates in the OWP Guidance are used for the Final OWP and the
initial OWPA. If, after budget passage these estimates are too high or too low, the OWP
and the OWPA need to be amended consistent with the different amount.
2.21 Administrative Amendments
An administrative amendment is accomplished unilaterally by the MPO/ RTPA. These
amendments involve insignificant changes, that do not affect delivery of regional
transportation planning tasks, activities, steps, products, etc. One example of an
administrative amendment is the correction of errata.
There also may be changes to non- transportation planning work elements that do not
affect transportation planning funds, activities and products. These may be considered
administrative amendments so long as the changes do not result in a diversion of
MPO/ RTPA staff time or are a detriment to previously approved transportation
planning activities and products.
A copy of all changes to the OWP, whether administrative or formal amendments need
to be provided to the Districts, and to ORIP ( via the Districts). Any changes to an
MPO OWP need to be provided to FHWA/ FTA. While it is not required, ORIP
suggests that the District check with the ORIP fund specialists or District Liaison
regarding changes.
32 January 200 7
2.22 Formal Amendments
A formal amendment is required if there are substantive changes to work elements
funded with CPG and/ or RPA or if the changes ( regardless of funding type) impact
regional transportation planning activities. The MPO/ RTPA cannot change work
activities or redirect funds prior to the District’s approval, and if needed
FHWA/ FTA’s approval, of an amendment.
Given the time and effort required to amend an OWP, the Districts should first consider
if the MPO/ RTPA needs to adopt a formal amendment to the OWP. If a formal
amendment is required, an explanatory letter or memo and the affected pages, with the
changes highlighted, would be sufficient documentation of the OWP files.
The Districts need to use some discretion to determine what triggers the need for a
formal OWP amendment. If the activities and products in an existing work elements
prove to be more expensive than estimated, the MPO/ RTPA, may add in local funding
through an informal OWP amendment. This should be handled between the District and
the MPO/ RTPA. However, this does not mean the MPO/ RTPA can move local match
money from work element to work element without a formal OWP amendment.
The Quarterly Progess and Expenditure Report can be used to reflect insignificant
schedule changes that affect work activities or products. However, if there are significant
delays or deletion of some deliverables, a formal amendment is needed.
If an OWP amendment causes the information on the OWPA to be inaccurate, the
OWPA must also be amended.
Some examples of changes that require a formal amendment:
·   Addition/ deletion of a work element funded with CPG and/ or RPA
·   Addition/ deletion of activities, which impact regional transportation
planning
·   A change in scope of a work element funded with CPG and/ or RPA or
which impacts regional transportation planning activities
·   A change in scope of a work element that affects the OWP as a whole
·   Substitution of fund sources within a work element; redirection of CPG,
RPA or local match among work elements
·   Increase/ decrease in total CPG and/ or RPA in the OWP
A change in scope means altering the broad purpose or objective of a work element.
For FTA Section 5305 and FHWA State Planning and Research- Partnership Planning
grants, a schedule change constitutes a change, that requires amendment of both the
OWP and the grant application.
Districts provide any and all amendments to ORIP and must have ORIP’s concurrence
prior to approving formal amendments and forwarding them to FHWA/ FTA for final
approval
33 January 200 7
2.23 Formal Amendment Concurrence is Required Before
District Approval
The District has primary approval responsibility for informal amendments. Formal
amendments require ORIP concurrence before they are sent to FHWA/ FTA for
approval.
Reduction in scope- of- work, or addition/ deletion of work elements and projects funded
with CPG, or redirection of CPG, or local match among work elements all require ORIP
concurrence. Changes- in- scope are discouraged for CPG discretionary grants because
they are competitively awarded. Reduction in scope- of- work or addition of work
elements and projects funded with RPA requires ORIP’s concurrence.
Change- in- scope amendments involving discretionary state and federal grants
administered by Division of Transportation Planning, if any, require concurrence from
the administering Office, such as the Office of Community Planning, or the Office of
Policy Analysis and Research, as applicable. Such changes are discouraged because these
grants are also competitively awarded.
Offices whose concurrence is required for an OWP amendment are encouraged to
respond expeditiously, via e- mail if possible.
A ten percent ( 10%) change of CPG in an MPO’s OWP ( either 10% in one change, or
cumulatively through several smaller changes) triggers the requirement for FHWA/ FTA
amendment approval. FHWA/ FTA request copies of all changes to an MPO’s OWP.
( See the current OWP Guidance for contacts and addresses.)
2.24 Approving an Amendment
The steps for approving an amendment are similar to those for approving the OWP:
after Governing Board authorization, the MPO/ RTPA provides the District with an
amendment. The District reviews it and determines whether it is a formal or informal
amendment. If other District or Headquarters units are affected by the amendment, it is
shared with them. Amendments are always provided to ORIP.
Transportation planning activities cannot be added, deleted, or changed, and activities
affecting delivery of transportation planning cannot be changed. The CPG/ RPA or local
match cannot be added/ deleted or redirected among work elements until the District
approves the OWP amendment. Formal amendments may require FHWA/ FTA
approval.
34 January 200 7
2.25 The District Provides ORIP All Amendment
Information
Both the District and ORIP need to have current and accurate copies of the OWPs that
reflect all changes, whether they are considered correction of errata, administrative,
informal, or formal amendments. The District always provides the ORIP liaison with
the most current OWP and OWPA. FHWA/ FTA also request copies of all changes to
MPO OWPs.
An OWP amendment package includes a transmittal memo, which briefly explains the
amendment, and all affected pages of the OWP attached ( e. g. revised work element pages,
a revised Budget Revenue Summary, and a resolution from the MPO/ RTPA Board
approving the amendment). If there are CPG and/ or RPA changes, the package must
include an amended, fully executed, original OWPA ( signed in blue ink to more easily
distinguish original signature from photocopies).
The above are needed to keep the funding contract components current and accurate, to
inform ORIP about regional planning activities, to accurately track funds in the
MPO’s/ RTPA’s account, and, as applicable, for federal oversight and review.
2.26 The Deadline for OWP Amendments is April 1
The deadline for amending the current fiscal year’s OWP is April 1. The amendment
package must be received in the District and in ORIP by this date.
This deadline is established to allow time to encumber additional funds, if applicable, to
process Requests for Rebursements ( RFRs) and to allow the MPO/ RTPA sufficient time
to complete all work during the current state fiscal year funding cycle.
In extraordinary and compelling instances and on a case- by- case basis, requests for extension of
the April 1 deadline may be considered by ORIP. There is no assurance deadline
extensions will be granted.
A complete Request for Extension package from the District to ORIP consists of an
explanatory memo with attachments documenting the request.
The memo includes:
·   A summary and analysis of the proposed change( s)
·   An explanation of the special circumstances of the extension request
·   A statement of the consequences of not granting the extension
·   An assurance the work can be completed and funds expended by June 30
·   The District’s recommendation to approve or deny
The required attachments to the District’s memo include:
35 January 200 7
·   The revised OWP work element( s), and as applicable, Budget Revenue
Summary
·   Authority from the MPO’s/ RTPA’s Board to make the changes
·   Evidence of concurrence, as applicable
Due to the time required for Accounting to redirect funds ( which ma y involve the State
Controller), amendments which involve an OWPA amendment, will almost never be
considered after April 1. However, should a Request for Extension involve an
amendment of the OWPA, an amended, fully executed, original OWPA also needs to be
among the memo attachments.
2.27 Monitoring Progress
After the OWP is approved and the CPG/ RPA funds are encumbered, the District is
responsible for monitoring progress on the OWP through:
·   Participation on technical advisory committees and working groups, in
meeting attendance, and other direct interaction with the MPO/ RTPA
·   Review and circulation of any draft products ( e. g., working papers, reports,
tools, etc.)
·   Review of Quarterly Progress and Expenditure Reports, including receipt
and review of any completed products
·   Conducting Mid- year Reviews, and/ or participating in MPO annual meetings
and certification reviews
·   Review for accuracy of Requests for Reimbursement including the
supporting financial materials
Note: There can be no reimbursement of RPA and/ or CPG funds prior to:
( 1) Adoption and approval of the OWP
( 2) Submittal of a complete and fully executed OWPA, board
resolution and all certifications and assurances to ORIP and
( 3) Adoption of the State Budget
The District works closely with the MPO/ RTPA to assure that activities are being
completed on schedule, reimbursed work is accurately charged, and reimbursement is
occurring timely. If there appear to be problems, the District provides immediate
assistance.
If the delays with one work element are so significant that the MPO/ RTPA anticipates
rescoping the activity or postponing activities to the next state fiscal year, the funding
from the delayed work element may need to be redirected. If a work element is
progressing well, but is more costly than anticipated, funds from the delayed work
element may be freed up and used for an underfunded work element. This requires an
OWP amendment and District approval of the amendment before activities are changed
and funds redirected.
36 January 200 7
2.28 Quarterly Progress and Expenditure Reports
To assure effective communication of OWP progress and to provide opportunity for
timely intervention by the District, if needed, the MPO/ RTPA is required to submit a
Quarterly Progress and Expenditure Report within 30 days after the end of each quarter
( 23CFR420.117 and MFTA Article I, Section 2). These Reports are submitted to the
District, which provides copies to ORIP.
The quarterly report describes work progress ( or delays in work) and invoicing during
the quarter to accomplish the OWP. The Reports are due to the Districts within 30 days
after the end of each quarter of the state fiscal year:
1st quarter = Reports covering July 1 through September 30 are due October 31.
2nd quarter = Reports covering October 1 through December 31 are due January
31.
3rd quarter = Reports covering January 1 through March 31 are due April 30.
4th quarter = Reports covering April 1 through June 30 are due July 31.
Originally in two components ( a narrative and a spreadsheet format), the quarterly report
has been combined into a single spreadsheet format, the Quarterly Progress and
Expenditures Report. This report only needs to address regional transportation planning
related activities and work elements funded with CPG and/ or RPA.
The spreadsheet includes the opportunity for brief comments to reference MPO/ RTPA
accomplishments and/ or problems for the quarter. If work is not progressing on
schedule, this should be stated and new target dates should be provided; either the date
when activities will be back on schedule or new anticipated completion dates.
MPOs/ RTPAs are strongly encouraged to continue to prepare a more comprehensive
narrative quarterly report. Narratives provide a convenient overview and summary of
work progress for Governing Boards, transportation planning partners, members of the
public, and others.
The Quarterly Progress and Expenditure Report spreadsheet includes, for example:
·   The work element by number and title
·   Work progress, schedule slippages, etc.
·   A list of tasks and products completed during the quarter
·   Total funds budgeted and spent for the work element by funding source and
type, year- to- date expenditures of all planning funds, indirect costs, local
match, etc.
·   Total RPA and/ or CPG expended during the quarter
·   The local match dollar amount and its identification as funds or in- kind
services
37 January 200 7
The quarterly reports keep the District regional transportation planner and the District’s
ORIP liaison current with OWP progress. If OWP activities are off schedule, it may be
appropriate to amend the OWP to reflect the new schedule. If CPG and/ or RPA funds
are to be redirected, or if funding changes impact regional transportation planning
activities, an amendment is required.
After the end of each fiscal year, the District submits the MPO’s quarterly reports for the
year to the FHWA/ FTA. Although the District provides ORIP quarterly reports
throughout the year, the District also forwards ORIP the annual collection of quarterly
reports transmitted to FHWA/ FTA. ( See the OWP Guidance for current contacts and
addresses.)
Some MPOs prefer to submit quarterly and/ or end of year reports directly to
FHWA/ FTA, with copies to the District. In this case, it remains the District’s
responsibility to assure quarterly reporting is occurring, to review such reports, and to
provide copies to ORIP.
The District also obtains and reviews copies of end products funded with CPG. The
District makes these available to ORIP and/ or FHWA/ FTA upon request. Products
funded with FTA Section 5305 and FHWA State Planning and Research – Partnership
Planning grants must always be provided to ORIP.
The District also obtains and reviews copies of end products funded with RPA. These
are provided to ORIP, but are not forwarded to FHWA/ FTA.
The Appendix includes sample MPO and RTPA Quarterly Progress and Expenditures Reports.
2.29 Mid- Year Reviews
The District should schedule a Mid- Year review meeting with the MPO/ RTPA to
review OWP progress. As appropriate, the Mid- Year review may be conducted less
formally, e. g., as part of another meeting, on the telephone, etc.
District staff should carefully track RPA in particular, which lapses at the end of the state
fiscal year. To preclude any RPA being lost, the Districts and ORIP should work with
any RTPA that cannot expend all its RPA. It is critical to free up such funds in a timely
manner so other RTPAs can make use of any RPA funds that are in danger of lapsing.
Redirection of RPA, if any, would be discussed with the Rural Counties Task Force,
which is composed of the rural RTPA recipients of RPA.
38 January 200 7
3 THE CONSOLIDATED PLANNING GRANT
( CPG)
In 1997, FHWA/ FTA instituted a transportation planning funds process called the
Consolidated Planning Grant ( CPG). As per the Common Rule ( Title 49 Code of
Federal Regulations, Part 18), state procedures apply unless they are less restrictive than
federal procedures. In the latter instance, federal requirements prevail. California’s
implementation of CPG is as per the procedures described in this Handbook and in the
MPO version of the annual OWP Guidance.
In California, the four CPG fund sources and types are:
·   FHWA Metropolitan Planning ( FHWA PL)
·   FTA Metropolitan Planning, Section 5303 ( FTA § 5303)
·   FHWA State Planning and Research -- Partnership Planning Element
·   FTA State Planning and Research, Section ( FTA § 5305)
FHWA PL is a set aside, not to exceed 1.25% of a state’s authorized funds, to be
appropriated, after deductions, as per Section 104, Title 23 USC ( also see § 420.103, Title
49 CFR). California’s share of FHWA PL totaled approximately $ 43 million in
2006/ 2007. ( The actual amount of FHWA PL is contingent on the passage of
SAFETEA- LU expected sometime in 2007.) Annual estimates can be found in the
OWP Guidance packages for MPOs and RTPAs.
FTA § 5303 annual authorized appropriations are set forth in Section 5338, Title 49
USC. California’s share of FTA § 5303 totaled approximately $ 12 million in 2006/ 2007.
FHWA and FTA State Planning and Research grant funds are available as set forth in
Section 307( c)( 1), Title 23 USC, and Section 5338, Title 49 USC. In 2006/ 2007,
California’s share totaled approximately $ 1,000,000 for FHWA State Planning and
Research – Partnership Planning Element and approximately $ 2.3 million for FTA
§ 5305.
There are some key differences among these four components:
·   FHWA PL and FTA § 5303 are allocated to MPOs, per formula, from the
annual federal apportionment to California. Non- MPO RTPAs do not
receive these funds.
·   The two discretionary grants - FHWA Partnership Planning Element and
FTA § 5305 - must be applied for annually and are competitively awarded.
RTPAs and MPOs may apply.
·   FHWA and FTA funds are administered on different time lines. Around
October 1, with the federal budget, FHWA funds are appropriated and
apportioned for the current federal fiscal year, and FTA funds are
appropriated for the following federal fiscal year.
·   FHWA PL and FTA § 5303 may be carried over from year- to- year.
39 January 200 7
·   FTA § 5305 and FHWA State Planning and Research – Planning Partnership
Element may be carried over, but must be expended within three years ( one
year to encumber, plus two years to liquidate), consistent with the grant
application representations, and as shown in the OWP work elements.
Each year, ORIP solicits applications for FHWA State Planning and Research –
Partnership Planning Element and FTA § 5305 discretionary grants through request for
grant applications. The grant application package provides more specific information
about these grants, filing procedures and deadlines, rating criteria, etc. ( For more
information go to: http:// www. dot. ca. gov/ hq/ tpp/ offices/ orip/ grants. htm)
3.01 Metropolitan Planning, FHWA PL and FTA § 5303
MPOs receive FHWA PL and FTA § 5303 funds each year to develop transportation
plans and programs. All MPOs receive FHWA PL funds and all MPOs with an
urbanized area receive FTA § 5303 funds each year. TMPO is the only MPO, that does
not currently receive FTA § 5303 funds.
The percentage of the California apportionment of FHWA PL and FTA § 5303 each
MPO receives is determined by a formula agreed to by the MPOs, Department, and
FHWA/ FTA.
The FHWA PL formula has three components:
( 1) A base allocation
( 2) A two- part population component which distributes funds by the
proportion of the total population of each MPO based on California
Department of Finance estimates each January
( 3) An air quality component based on the proportion of federal Congestion
Mitigation Air Quality ( CMAQ) funds to total programmatic FHWA PL
funds
The FTA § 5303 formula has two components:
( 1) A base allocation
( 2) A population component, which distributes funds according to the
MPO’s percentage of statewide urbanized area population as of the most
recent decennial census.
The FHWA PL formula refers to total population, but the FTA § 5303 formula refers to
urbanized area population. Also, the FHWA PL population number is adjusted annually,
but the FTA § 5303 population number is only adjusted after each decennial census.
Per Title 23 U. S. C. § 104 ( f), an amount not to exceed 1.25% of funds authorized to be
appropriated for expenditure upon programs ( less authorized deductions as per § 104( a))
is set aside for metropolitan planning, i. e. FHWA PL.
Per Title 49 U. S. C. § 5338 ( c), ( h), and ( i) amounts authorized for FTA § 5303, and 5305
are set forth by year.
40 January 200 7
3.02 FHWA State Planning and Research – Partnership
Planning Element
Any MPO/ RTPA may compete for FHWA State Planning and Research – Partnership
Planning Element, but proposals must be jointly submitted with Department. Grants
are for Department and MPOs/ RTPAs to jointly perform and jointly fund
transportation planning studies having statewide benefit and/ or multi- regional
significance.
3.03 FTA § 5305
MPOs/ RTPAs may compete for FTA § 5305 grants, on their own behalf or on behalf of
one or more subrecipients. Examples of subrecipients are transit operators, public
agencies, private non- profit or community based organizations, universities, training
institutes, and Native American Tribal Governments.
There are three FTA § 5305 components:
·   Transit Technical Planning Assistance
·   Statewide Planning Studies
·   Transit Professional Development
Transit Technical Studies Grants fund the preparation of public transit and/ or
intermodal transportation planning efforts in rural areas.
Statewide Planning Studies Grants fund transit issue studies of statewide or multi-regional
significance to reduce urban congestion through transit, and/ or improved
transit service.
Transit Professionals Development Grants fund training for transit planning
professionals and student interns using public or private training entities ( not
MPO/ RTPA or transit agency in- house staff) with public transportation expertise.
3.04 California’s Implementation of the CPG
Implementation of the CPG in California is described in this Handbook and in the
annual MPO version of the OWP Guidance. These are the references the Districts should
use and should share with the MPOs. Both are posted on the ORIP website
http:// www. dot. ca. gov/ hq/ tpp/ offices/ orip/ orip. htm
Rather than each MPO and any RTPA recipient of a CPG discretionary grant applying
individually to FHWA and to FTA, Department makes application for all of California.
Through Headquarters Accounting, ORIP annually establishes CPG expenditure
authorizations ( EAs.)
41 January 200 7
Districts no longer need to obligate/ deobligate funds each fiscal year and ORIP has
standardized Request for Reimbursement ( RFR) and other procedures. The transfer of
CPG funds is accomplished through a single Master Fund Transfer Agreement between
Department and each MPO/ RTPA rather than several source- specific fund transfer
agreements.
To satisfy federal Intergovernmental Review, Presidential Executive Order 12372, ORIP
now files Office of Management and Budget Forms STD 424 with the State
Clearinghouses on behalf of all MPOs/ RTPAs.
3.05 Local ( Non- Federal) Match
Like most other federal funding sources, CPG requires a state or local match. The non-federal
match rate for FHWA PL, FTA § 5303, and FTA § 5305 funds is 11.47 percent.
The non- federal match required for FHWA State Planning and Research – Partnership
Planning Element is 20 percent.
The term Minimum Local Match refers to the percentage of local match required by a
specific grant program. However, the term “ Mandatory Local Match” shown on the
Overall Work Program Agreement ( OWPA) form refers to the total amount of the local
match, including both cash and in- kind contributions. The Mandatory ( or total) amount
of the local match must be shown on the Overall Work Program Agreement ( OWPA).
Upon incorporation of an approved federal grant application as a Work Element in the
OWP, the local match amount shown in the grant application, in the OWP Work
Element page, in the Budget summary table and in the OWPA must be consistent.
The ORIP Fund Specialist can provide a spreadsheet with preset calculations to assist
Districts and MPOs/ RTPAs to accurately compute local match.
·   The local match is a percentage of the total sum of the federal participation
amount plus the required non- federal participation amount. It is not only a
percentage of the federal participation amount.
·   The match is calculated work element- by- work element. It is not a
percentage of total federal funds in the OWP.
·   If different federal sources and types are among a work element’s funding
sources, local match must be calculated for each federal source and type.
Three local match calculation considerations are:
1.) The local match rate is calculated on the total sum of the federal participation amount
plus the required ( non- federal) local share amount, not just the federal participation
amount.
Assuming an 11.47% local match rate, to determine the local match amount if only the
federal participation amount and federal participation percentage rate are known:
42 January 200 7
The total of the federal participation amount ($ 88.53) divided by the federal participation
percentage rate (. 8853) equals the sum of federal participation plus the mandatory local
match.
$ 88.53 ÷ .8853 = $ 100 ( the quotient is the sum of federal participation plus the
mandatory local match)
This quotient ($ 100) multiplied by the local match rate (. 1147) yields the local match
amount.
$ 100 x .1147 = $ 11.47 ( local match amount)
2.) The local match rate is calculated work element- by- work element. It is not a
percentage of total federal funds in the OWP.
Each work element in the OWP, the OWP Budget Revenue Summary, and each RFR
must reflect the mandatory local match by work element. Including more than the
mandatory minimum local match in one work element ( sometimes called
“ overmatching”) cannot be “ balanced” with less than the mandatory local match in a
different work element ( sometimes called “ undermatching”.)
Local match, like other sources in the OWP cannot be redirected among work elements
without amending the OWP, and as appropriate also the OWPA. ( See Sections 2.20,
2.21, 2.22, 2.23 and 2.24 for information regarding OWP amendments.)
3.) If more than one federal source is among a work element’s funding sources, local
match must be calculated for each federal source.
The work element includes an $ 80 federal participation amount of State Planning and
Research – Partnership Planning Element funds, which requires a 20% local share, and
an $ 88.53 federal participation amount of FHWA PL funds, which requires an 11.47%
local share.
$ 80 ÷ .80 = $ 100
$ 100 x .20 = $ 20 ( the mandatory local match for the State Planning and Research –
Partnership Planning Element portion), and
$ 88.53 ÷ .8853 = $ 100
$ 100 x .1147 = $ 11.47 ( the mandatory local match for the FHWA PL portion)
Each work element entry on each RFR must show at least the mandatory local match
amount. A higher match amount ( overmatch) on one RFR cannot compensate for a
lower match ( under match) on a previous or subsequent RFR.
Federal participation may also be matched with services, i. e. work performed that
benefits the project, provided it is not funded with federal funds. This is called “ in- kind”
or “ soft match”. Some examples of “ soft match” are the value of community advisory
43 January 200 7
committee members’ services, the value of volunteer services, and the value of services
provided to a specific MPO/ RTPA planning work activity by a subregional agency, or
city or county staff.
In the instance of “ in- kind” or “ soft- match” local participation, the District needs to
verify such services are not funded with a different federal funding source and such
services are not also inadvertently charged as Indirect Costs. The MPO/ RTPA needs to
provide solid supporting documentation when “ in- kind” is used as the local match.
( Section 4.04 provides more information about Indirect Costs.)
If federal sources are used to fund consultant contracts, a “ hard” match, i. e. non- federal
funds, is preferred. If “ in- kind” match is to be used, the District needs to carefully
review the in- kind services match to assure it:
1. Was funded with non- federal funds ( e. g., with Planning Programming and
Monitoring ( PPM), local sales tax measure, etc.), and
2. Adds some benefit to the consultant contract, i. e. makes it better or less
expensive. For example, a local agency could provide data the consultant will
not need to be paid to collect.
3.06 When to include CPG Discretionary Grant Funds in
OWPs and OWPAs
Although for information purposes the draft OWP should include work activities to be
funded with CPG discretionary funds applied- for- but- not- yet- awarded, the Final OWP
should generally only include committed funding, i. e., fully funded work elements.
In response to requests from MPOs/ RTPAs, applied- for- but- not- yet- granted CPG
discretionary grant funds and the work activities to be funded therewith may be included
in the Final OWP. However, both the activities in the individual work elements and the
Budget Revenue Summary must clearly be marked to show there is no assurance that
CPG discretionary grant funds will be awarded and there is no assurance that the work
activities proposed to be funded therewith will be accomplished.
Only committed funds are shown on the executed OWPA. If a CPG discretionary grant
is later awarded, the OWPA must be amended to include it.
If applied- for- but- not- awarded CPG discretionary grants are not shown in the Final
OWP, after award, they and the work activities they will fund, need to be amended into
the OWP and the OWPA needs to be amended to reflect these grant funds. The OWP
work element must always be consistent with the representations in the grant
application. If there are changes as the project progresses, both need to be amended.
44 January 200 7
3.07 Unexpended Carryover
An MPO may use unexpended FHWA PL and FTA § 5303 funds in a future fiscal year
provided the following are met:
·   The MPO has submitted a Certification of Expenditure by Fund Source,
including the Final Statement of Expenditures, within sixty days after the end
of every state fiscal year, executed by an individual to whom the Governing
Board has designated signature authority ( usually the Executive Director or
Finance Officer.)
and
·   The District, MPO and the ORIP Fund Specialist have reconciled the
unexpended FHWA PL and/ or FTA § 5303 balances at the end of each
fiscal year.
FTA § 5305 and FHWA State Planning and Research – Partnership Planning Element
may be carried over but must be liquidated within three years of award. Funds must be
expended as per the grant application and schedule, and as shown in the OWP work
elements for the applicable fiscal years. If there are changes, both the grant application
and the OWP must be amended.
An MPO/ RTPA recipient may use unexpended FTA § 5305 and FHWA State Planning
and Research – Partnership Planning Element funds in a future year provided:
·   The three year time limit to expend grant funds has not been exceeded, i. e.,
year of award plus two years, and
·   Both the OWP work element and the grant application reflect the multi- year
expenditure schedule.
CPG carryover amounts and work to be accomplished therewith should be included in
the Final OWP; however FHWA PL or FTA § 5303 programmed in the current OWP
cannot be included in the next year’s Final OWP and OWPA until after balance
reconciliation. After closeout of the current year’s OWP and balance reconciliation the
MPO may amend some or all of these amounts, and the activities to be funded
therewith, into the OWP and the OWPA. ( See Section 4.08 for more information about
Closeout.)
If an MPO has FHWA PL or FTA § 5303 not programmed in the current OWP, such
amounts may be included in the next year’s Final OWP. The OWPA cannot include
separate current year and carryover entry lines. The combined total of the current year’s
amount plus any carryover amount must be entered on the respective CPG fund source
and type line. Along with the OWPA, the MPO/ RTPA must provide an explanatory
letter or memo specifying:
·   Current year amounts
·   Carryover amounts by CPG fund source, type, and allocation year
45 January 200 7
Both the original fully executed OWPA ( signed in blue ink to more easily distinguish
original signatures from photocopies) and the executed original of the MPO/ RTPA
explanatory memo or letter are filed with the ORIP Fund Specialist.
3.08 Reconciliation of CPG Carryover Balances
After the MPO has submitted its Year- end Package, the ORIP Fund Specialist
establishes the MPO’s remaining balances of prior years’ FHWA PL and FTA § 5303.
ORIP then prepares a balance reconciliation letter. Should there be disagreement about
the balance, the ORIP Fund Specialist, the District, and the MPO work together until
they achieve balance reconciliation. ( See Section 4.08 for more information about Year-end
Packages.)
Signed by the ORIP Office Chief, the MPO and the District Director, the letter
demonstrates concurrence of all involved parties.
After balance reconciliation, the MPO may amend its OWP to include some or all of this
FHWA PL and/ or FTA § 5303 carryover and the activities to be funded therewith. The
OWPA must be amended accordingly, including the required local match.
46 January 200 7
4 ORIP- ADMINISTERED TRANSPORTATION
PLANNING FUNDS
Of the various local, state and federal fund sources and types included in OWPs, this
Handbook only addresses administration of federal Consolidated Planning Grant ( CPG)
and state Rural Planning Assistance ( RPA). ( See Chapter 3 for more information about
CPG and Section 4.03 for more information about RPA.) ORIP also administers and
monitors the following grant funds: Blueprint Planning Grant, FHWA State Planning
and Research – Partnership Planning Element Grant and the FTA State Planning and
Research, Section 5303 Grant. ( See Chapter 3 for more information about the FHWA
and FTA grants.)
The State Planning and Research ( SP& R) Part 1 Regional Blueprint Planning Program
Grant was initiated in 2005 and made $ 5 million available to Metropolitan Planning
Organizations in FY 2005/ 2006 and additional $ 5 million available in FY 2006/ 2007.
The Blueprint grant is a State initiative designed to ( 1) link land use, transportation,
housing, environment, economic development, equity; ( 2) establish consensus on a
preferred growth scenario; ( 3) a more efficient and effective transportation system; and
( 4) provide sufficient housing supply to accommodate population growth in each region.
The desired outcomes will:
Ø   Improve mobility
Ø   Reduce auto dependency and congestion
Ø   Increase transit use, walking and bicycling
Ø   Encourage infill development
Ø   Accommodate sufficient housing supply
Ø   Minimize impacts on farmland and habitat
Ø   Establish process for public engagement in planning
The Regional Blueprint Planning Program Grants are managed by the Collaborative
Planning Branch in ORIP and are administered through the OWPs.
4.01 Non- ORIP- Administered Transportation Planning
Funds
Non- ORIP administered transportation planning funds are not covered by the regional
transportation planning MFTA and the OWPA and their application and encumbrance
procedures are not addressed in this Handbook. More information is available at the
listed websites:
The Division of Aeronautics administers aviation planning funds:
http:/ www. dot. ca. gov/ hq/ planning/ aeronaut/
47 January 200 7
Planning, Programming and Monitoring ( PPM) funds are administered by Division
of Local Assistance:
http:/ www. dot. ca. gov/ hq/ LocalPrograms/
Transportation Development Act ( Local Transportation Fund and State Transit
Assistance) funds are administered by the Division of Mass Transportation:
http:/ www. dot. ca. gov/ hq/ MassTrans/
When there is funding for non- CPG Division of Transportation Planning ( DOTP)
grants, e. g., Environmental Justice ( EJ)/ Context- Sensitive Planning or Community
Based Transportation Planning ( CBTP) grants, there will be a combined DOTP grant
application solicitation package, which includes:
·   FHWA State Planning and Research ( SP& R) – Planning Partnership Element
·   FTA § 5305 Elements
·   Any other DOTP grant, e. g., Environmental Justice/ Community
Empowerment, Community Based Transportation Planning, etc.
Despite the combined grant application solicitation package, only ORIP- administered
grants are encumbered through the regional transportation planning MFTA and the
OWPA, and MPOs/ RTPAs may only use the Request for Reimbursement ( RFR) for
ORIP- administered funds.
CBTP and EJ grant programs are discussed within this section. In 2006/ 2007, CBTP
and EJ grants each made $ 3 million of state funding available to MPOs/ RTPAs.
However, the Office of Community Planning and the Office of Policy Analysis and
Research have been routinely working with District Staff to have local agency staff
( MPOs/ RTPAs, Cities, and Counties) make sure that awarded CBTP and EJ projects are
included as either Work Elements or Information Elements in a region’s OWP
depending on the local match fund source. They have been working with other entities
such as Tribal Governments, CBO’s, universities, and other public entities to ensure that
the projects are included in the OWP’s Information Elements.
While information on these grants should be included in the OWP’s, ORIP is not
involved with the funding and administration of these grants.
4.02 Use of Transportation Planning Funds
As the name indicates, transportation planning funds ( FHWA PL, FTA Section 5303
and State RPA) are to be used for transportation planning. They cannot be used for
project development such as project initiation documents ( PIDs), and project study
reports ( PSRs); or project implementation, such as rideshare activities or transit
administration. For example, studying whether a traffic impact fee would benefit
transportation in the region and even determining appropriate fee levels are acceptable
uses, but implementation of the traffic impact fee program goes beyond planning and is
not an acceptable use.
48 January 200 7
Some examples of eligible uses for transportation planning funds include:
·   Development of regional transportation plans ( RTPs), transportation
improvement programs ( RTIPs and FTIPs), needs assessments, corridor and
corridor preservation studies, major investment studies; environmental
compliance of RTPs and TIPs; involvement of federal permit and approval
agencies early and continuously in the planning process.
·   Adoption of policies and strategies to enhance movement of people, goods,
services, and information; planning integration of intelligent transportation
systems ( ITS); and inclusion of multimodal solutions such as transit, bicycle,
pedestrian and intermodal facilities in plans and programs.
·   Coordination of transportation planning with land use, open space, jobs-housing,
environmental, and growth management planning; smart growth/
alternative scenario/ context sensitive solution planning.
·   Involvement of the public in planning activities, with periodic evaluations of
outreach effectiveness; participation plan updates and enhancements;
consensus building, and efforts to extend transportation planning to
communities previously not engaged in the process; interagency consultation.
·   Development of transportation planning, travel forecasting, and
transportation- related air quality tools, models and modeling activities.
·   Establishment and conduct of government- to- government formal
consultation with Native American Tribal Governments.
·   Ensuring compatibility of local, regional, statewide and interregional plans;
and identification of mobility and access needs and system continuity within
and between areas and regions.
·   Preparation of Overall Work Programs, Overall Work Program Agreements,
Amendments to OWPs and OWPAs, and planning Fund Transfer
Agreements.
·   Identification of ground transportation issues at and related to interstate and
international border crossings, freight hubs, parks and recreation areas,
monuments, historic sites, and military installations; closed military base
reuse transportation issues; and ground access to seaports and airports.
·   The study of methods to reduce vehicle travel and enhance mobility options.
·   Identification of policies, strategies, and programs to preserve transportation
facilities and optimize transportation infrastructure utility.
4.03 Rural Planning Assistance ( RPA)
RPA is part of a line item in the State Budget, which ORIP annually allocates to the
rural, non- MPO, RTPAs. RPA must be fully expended during the one- year term of the
OWP. It can not be carried over from one state fiscal year to another. Expenses incurred
prior to June 30 can be reimbursed for up to sixty days after June 30. ( See Section 4.09
for more information about Year- End Packages.)
District staff should carefully track RPA since it lapses at the end of the state fiscal year.
To preclude any RPA being lost, the Districts and ORIP should work with any RTPA
49 January 200 7
that cannot expend all its RPA. It is critical to free up such funds in a timely manner so
other RTPAs can make use of any RPA funds that are in danger of lapsing.
4.04 25% Limit on use of RPA for Administrative Purposes
Not more than twenty- five percent of RPA money may be expended for the rural
RTPA’s administrative purposes. This limitation imposed on State Subvention funds,
carries over to its successor, RPA. District staff should review the draft OWP for
adherence to this limit.
To distinguish an “ administrative use” from a “ planning use”, the District may need to
request clarification from the RTPA, particularly if activities in the OWP are grouped
into broad and generic categories.
For example the terms “ clerical support” and “ photocopies” might appear to be
administrative. If, however, “ clerical support” means mailing invitations to a transit
planning round table meeting, this would be a component of a transit planning activity.
Likewise, if “ photocopies,” means reproducing these mailers, this too would be a
component of that same transit planning activity. District staff should work with the
RTPA partners to ensure OWP language is sufficiently descriptive to avoid confusion.
4.05 Indirect Cost Negotiation Agreement and Cost
Allocation Plan ( ICAP)
If an MPO/ RTPA wishes to receive reimbursement for indirect costs ( i. e., overhead,
which is defined as costs benefiting more than one work activity or causing
disproportionate efforts to assign to specific work attributable to its planning program),
it must submit an Indirect Cost Negotiation Agreement and Cost Allocation Plan
( ICAP) along with a copy of last years Single Audit report to the Chief of External
Audits, Audits and Investigations, with a copy to the Districts prior to May 1, for the
fiscal year to begin July 1. Headquarters Audits and Investigations review the
MPOs/ RTPAs Single Audits and approved the MPOs/ RTPAs Indirect Cost
Negotiation Agreement and Cost Allocation Plan ( ICAP) for those MPOs/ RTPAs who
request reimbursement for indirect costs.
It is the District’s responsibility to ensure the MPO’s/ RTPA’s proposed ICAP is sent to
Headquarters Audits and Investigations ( Audits), even though some MPOs/ RTPAs may
submit their ICAP directly to Audits. If the MPO/ RTPA charges indirect costs in their
RFRs, the District must ensure that an ICAP had been approved by Audits and that the
proper Indirect Cost Rate is being applied. If the District is unsure if an ICAP has been
submitted and/ or approved, the District should contact the ORIP Fund Specialist.
Two ICAP references are Office of Management and Budget Circular A- 87:
http:// www. whitehouse. gov/ omb/ circulars/ a087/ a087- all. html
50 January 200 7
and Local Programs Procedure 04- 10, LPP 04- 10:
http:// www. dot. ca. gov/ hq/ LocalPrograms/ lpp/ LPP04- 10. pdf
The exhibits to LLP 04- 10 include an ICAP worksheet. If the MPO/ RTPA has
questions about ICAPs, the District should direct them to Audits.
4.06 Requests for Reimbursement ( RFRs)
Once the MPO/ RTPA has an adopted and approved OWP, has a fully executed original
OWPA filed with the ORIP Fund Specialist, and the State Budget has been signed by the
Governor, the MPO/ RTPA can request reimbursement for eligible OWP expenditures.
To be reimbursed for OWP work, the MPO/ RTPA submits a Request for
Reimbursement ( RFR).
Unless the MPO’s/ RTPA’s MFTA provides differently, RFRs may not be submitted
more frequently than once per month and may not be submitted less frequently than
quarterly.
ORIP has developed Request for Reimbursement forms for:
·   MPOs seeking reimbursement for CPG funds
·   RTPAs seeking reimbursement only for RPA
·   RTPAs seeking reimbursement for § 5303 and/ or SPR- Partnership Planning
funds
·   MPOs seeking reimbursement for Blueprint Planning Grant Funds
To assist the MPOs/ RTPAs, the Districts, and ORIP to accurately monitor CPG
expenditures, RFR forms are multi- page documents; page one summarizes the request
and the subsequent page( s) provides supporting financial information. The RPA- only
RFR does not require supporting financial information pages. Districts may also request
supplemental information or documentation if there are concerns.
ORIP Regional Planning liaisons can provide electronic versions of these forms to the
Districts.
The Appendix includes sample RFRs.
51 January 200 7
4.07 Timely District Review of RFRs
It is the District’s responsibility to review all RFRs to ensure expenditures are bona fide,
accurate, for eligible activities, for delivered products, and completed in accordance with
work elements in the OWP.
For CPG and the Blueprint Planning Grant, the District also verifies that the RFR
reflects the appropriate local match amount. ( Section 3.05 provides information about
local match). Please note, RFRs can not be approved for payment when there is no
supporting documentation or the supporting documentation is not adequate. RFR’s
should contain invoices with supporting documentation ( i. e. breakdown of labor costs,
travel costs etc.) to support all costs requested for reimbursement. ( Please refer to the
Appendix for minimum required support documentation).
RPA and NON- FHWA PL RFR’s:
For RPA and non- FHWA PL RFR’s, the District will forward the RFR to the ORIP
Fund Specialist for coding within 10 days after receipt in the District, to allow time
further review and coding. The District ( including coding through ORIP) has a total of
15 calendar days from date of receipt in the District to send the approved RFR to
Accounting.
If there are problems with the RFR, within 15 calendar days from receipt in the District,
the District must formally notify the MPO/ RTPA, both by phone and in writing, of an
error in the RFR ( Section 4.07 provides information about Inaccurate RFRs).
Accounting has another 15 days to authorize payment and the State Controller’s Office
has fifteen days to issue the actual payment check. The maximum turnaround time on
any non- FHWA PL RFR should not exceed 45 calendar days.
RFR Flow: The District date stamps and reviews the RFR for accuracy and, if
accurate, faxes the RFR to the ORIP Fund Specialist who further
reviews and codes the bottom of the RFR.
The ORIP Fund Specialist faxes the coded RFR to the District with a
coversheet ( Form 100) advising Accounting the coding is consistent
with the processes agreed to between ORIP and Accounting. The
District should make no changes to the Form 100 from the ORIP
Fund Specialist. Accounting has directed its staff to only process
RFRs that include the Form 100.
The District’s Senior Transportation Planner whose unit is
responsible for regional planning, and for OWP administration and
monitoring, signs the RFR. If the District signs the RFR prior to it
being faxed to the ORIP Fund Specialist, the District’s signature
affirms the District’s agreement with, and approval of, the RFR. If
52 January 200 7
the District elects to sign the RFR only after the ORIP Fund
Specialist provides coding information, the act of faxing the RFR to
the ORIP Fund Specialist signifies the District’s agreement with, and
approval of, its content.
The District sends the RFR and the ORIP Fund Specialist’s Form
100 to Accounting via interoffice mail or fax.
FHWA PL RFR’s:
SAFETEA- LU, section 1107 amended 23CFR104( f), requiring that reimbursement for
FHWA PL funds be not later than 30 days after the date of receipt. This change in
23CFR104( f) supersedes Assembly Bill 2275 ( California Prompt Payment Act) and has
required ORIP to institute a unique RFR process for RFR’s that contain FHWA PL
funds.
For FHWA PL RFRs, the District ( including coding through ORIP) has a total of 7
calendar days from date of receipt in the District to send the approved RFR to
Accounting.
If there are problems with the RFR, within 5 calendar days from receipt in the District,
the District must formally notify the MPO/ RTPA, both by phone and in writing, of an
error in the RFR ( Section 4.07 provides information about Inaccurate RFRs).
Accounting has 8 days to authorize payment and the State Controller’s Office has 15
days to issue the actual payment check.
RFR Flow: The District date stamps and reviews the RFR for accuracy and, if
accurate, faxes the RFR to the ORIP Fund Specialist who further
reviews and codes the bottom of the RFR.
The ORIP Fund