Policy Board Meeting - Maui MPO...Policy Board Meeting Thursday, September 28, 2017 9:00 AM Planning Conference Room Kalana Pakui Building 250 South High Street Wailuku, Hawaii 96793

Policy Board Meeting

Thursday, September 28, 2017

9:00 AM

Planning Conference Room

Kalana Pakui Building

250 South High Street

Wailuku, Hawaii 96793

AGENDA

I. Call to Order

II. Public Testimony

III. Approval of July 27, 2017 Minutes

IV. Presentation of Honoapi‘ilani Highway realignment concept

Malama Olowalu will present a conceptual map of a proposed realignment of Honoapi‘ilani

Highway in the vicinity of Olowalu.

V. Executive Director’s Report

a. MPO Financial Update

Maui MPO has expended approximately $210,000 of FY 2017 funds and $5,000 of FY

2018 funds. An FTA reimbursement request is pending at HDOT. The Maui MPO FY

2018 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) was approved by FTA and FHWA.

County of Maui and State Department of Transportation provided FY 2018 dues of

$50,000 each. Maui MPO will notify MDOT and HDOT of the amount of FY19 dues to

request through County and State budget process. Maui MPO submitted information for

the FY18 FTA 5305 Grant Application, and responded to HDOT request for comments

on August 30, 2017.

b. Draft TAC Minutes Provide Draft Maui MPO Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) minutes from

September 14, 2017.

c. Draft Maui MPO TIP Policies and Procedures

The purpose of the Maui MPO TIP Policies and Procedures is to provide procedures to

develop and revise the multi-year budgeting document known as the Maui Transportation

Improvement Program (TIP), to ensure consultation with appropriate agencies and

stakeholders, coordination with the STIP, opportunities for public participation,

AGENDA ITEMS ARE SUBJECT TO CANCELLATION. For a confirmation of the meeting date and time, please contact the Maui MPO, 200 S. High Street, Wailuku, HI 96793, (808) 270-8216, (808) 270-7505 (fax).

ORAL OR WRITTEN TESTIMONY on any agenda item will be accepted at the beginning of the meeting and shall be limited to three (3) minutes. TESTIMONY MUST BE LIMITED TO ITEMS ON THE AGENDA. If written testimony is submitted at the meeting, 15 copies are requested. INDIVIDUALS WHO INTEND TO ATTEND THE MEETING AND WHO HAVE DISABILITIES REQUIRING SPECIAL ASSISTANCE should call the Maui MPO at (808) 270-8216 at least five (5) working days in advance of the meeting.

consistency with the Maui MPO Long-Range Transportation Plan, and compliance with

applicable Federal requirements.

VI. Potential Additional Revenue Sources for Transportation Projects

Discuss concept of potential additional revenue sources for transportation projects in Maui

County. Mechanisms may include tolling authority, State General Excise Tax (GET)

surcharge, rental car tax, and traffic impact fees.

VII. Executive Director Evaluation

The annual evaluation of the Maui MPO Executive Director will be addressed in an

Executive Session of the Policy Board on October 26, 2017.

VIII. Announcements

a. Next Policy Board meeting is scheduled for October 26, 2017

b. Confirm member availability for November 22, 2017 meeting

IX. Adjournment

1 S:\MPO\Policy Board\Minutes\ MauiMPO-PB Minutes-072717 DRAFT

MAUI METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION POLICY BOARD MINUTES

July 27, 2017

Planning Conference Room

Kalana Pakui Building Present: David Goode, Chair

Stacey Crivello, Member Ford Fuchigami, Member Don Medeiros, Member William Spence, Member

Yuki Lei Sugimura, Member

Excused: Kelly King, Member Others: Lauren Armstrong, Maui MPO Executive Director

Michael Hopper, Deputy Corporation Counsel Karen Tamaki, Maui MPO Financial Specialist

Agenda Item I. Call Meeting to Order Chair Goode called the meeting to order at 9:14 am and introduced those in attendance. Chair Goode acknowledged that Member King will not be in attendance and is excused. Agenda Item II. Public Testimony Chair Goode called the first item of business to hear public testimony and invited John Seebart to testify.

…BEGIN PUBLIC TESTIMONY… Mr. Seebart introduced himself as testifying on behalf of the West Maui Taxpayers’ Association in support of the Maui MPO’s agenda to promote multi-modal transportation. In that regard, Mr. Seebart testified that improvements to public transportation could go a long way, in particular, a hub at the airport that could transport people to all parts of the island using a hub and spoke system. Large buses on the highway, could for example in Lahaina, start at the airport with stops at Maalaea, Olowalu, Lahaina, West Maui Airport and turn

around at Napili Plaza and back. This is a general picture only. Those same stops would be served by local buses to carry people to neighborhoods and other locations. People could get off the airplanes, take a bus to a part of the island and then bus to the final destination. Bike share is also a good idea which may work in downtown Lahaina. Mr. Seebart testified that multi-modal is taken to mean linking all the forms of transportation to serve the island to allow people to get to where they are going without using a car if they so choose. Multi-modal also implies that there is an attempt to get cars off the road and that is why West Maui Taxpayers’ Association supports this policy of the MPO. There are already buses so it seems to improve the system would help to overcome some of the hurdles such as some buses carry disabled and some not and no buses carry luggage. If these items are addressed, then the bus system could be first rate and address the multi-modal system to alleviate traffic.


Chair Goode thanked Mr. Seebart and asked if anyone had any question or if anyone else wished to testify at the meeting. With no replies, Chair Goode closed public testimony

with no objections from Members.

…END PUBLIC TESTIMONY… Agenda Item III. Approval of June 22, 2017 Meeting Minutes Chair Goode referred members to the minutes from the June 22, 2017. The Chair asked if there were any questions or clarifications. Member Sugimura noted two typographical errors

in spelling her name and Wailuku.

Chair Goode asked for a motion. Member Sugimura moved, Member Fuchigami

seconded, for a motion to accept and approve the minutes of June 22, 2017, with

changes as noted. The Chair called for a vote and the motion to accept and approve the minutes, with changes as noted, was passed unanimously, 6-0.

Agenda Item IV. Executive Director’s Report The Chair requested the Executive Director, Ms. Armstrong, to provide her report. Agenda Item IV.a. MPO Financial Update Ms. Armstrong referred Members to the financial spreadsheet provided in the meeting materials and advised that approximately $146,000 has been spent to June 30th with a reimbursement request of $117,000 (80% federal share) been prepared. Maui MPO staff will be working with the State and FTA to get the reimbursement processed. Grant application for FFY17 has been submitted with continued work with State DOT to process. Maui MPO staff will relocate to 2145 Wells Street in early August with federal approval to spend FFY17 funds prior to award. FTA and FHWA has approved the FY2018 UPWP and a copy has been provided in binders provided to Policy Board Members. With no questions or comments on the financial update, Ms. Armstrong introduced to the Members a consideration of hiring a limited term planner to manage the update to the Maui MPO Long Range Transportation Plan. The benefit of hiring would permit coordination with the Kihei Sub-Area Transportation Study currently underway by CH2MHill under a $618,000 contract. Ms. Armstrong noted the significant resources that are required to complete such plans and that the MPO is limited on funding at this point. If Maui MPO issues an RFP to retain a consultant, it could take up to 6 months to contract and the budget is limited to $300,000. If the RFP is issued in Fall 2018, there would likely be $500,000 available funds, which still seems on the low side for a plan for the entire island of Maui. Ms. Armstrong recommended hiring a planner at $40,000-$70,000 per year which is a commensurate salary based on Oahu MPO transportation planner staffing. At the high end of $70,000 salary, the total cost would be $120,000 per year including fringe. This is more cost effective at this point and enables staff to coordinate with the Kihei Study and follow the framework of the long range plan. An amendment to the FY2018 UPWP would be required to move funds from consultant to staff transportation planner. An amendment would also be required to the County budget to add an LTA position funded by MDOT’s Grant Revenue


accounts. The position would be entirely funded through the MPO. Ms. Armstrong asked if there were any questions or comments. Ms. Armstrong confirmed to Member Sugimura that costs include benefits. Ms. Armstrong clarified for Member Fuchigami that all MPO staff are hired through the County pursuant to HRS279D. Further, because Maui MPO is administratively tied to Maui DOT, the position falls under MDOT budget as does the Maui MPO grant revenue. No appropriation would be required as the amendment to the UPWP would allow funding using federal grant funds. The County Council would only be required to approve an LTA. Ms. Armstrong further clarified that a consultant is currently doing a Kihei area study. Maui MPO may have funds to hire a consultant to complete smaller sub-tasks but the amount of public outreach required to update the Maui Long Range Transportation Plan will likely

exceed the amount that Maui MPO can fund purely through consultant time. A dedicated staff person to work closely with us and that can be hired sooner than a consultant would be helpful to update the Maui Long Range Transportation Plan. Member Fuchigami noted that, based on history, updating the plan was not an easy task and required significant work. He was unsure that one staff member at the MPO would be able to do the task; whereas, if a consultant was hired, consulting staff, under a contract, could add staff as needed. His concern was that a hire may be set up to fail and with limited resources the MPO already lacked administrative support. Ms. Armstrong noted that planning resources were required over administrative support at this time. Member Fuchigami suggested that further administrative support be provided and that an Executive Assistant should be considered to help given his experience of the importance of such an assistant to enable success in the organization. Such support would permit existing staff to consider big picture items rather than spend time with documenting everything. For the record, Member Fuchigami noted that he supports the work being done and believes additional administrative support is required to move the process along quicker to get things done as two years is a very short time period. Member Crivello and Member Fuchigami discussed the work required to oversee consultants with Member Fuchigami supporting a position to oversee a consultant but is mindful of the two year time frame. If other smaller consulting contracts are done, those too will require oversight. The oversight is crucial for transparency for where federal dollars are being spent. Member Spence provided some of the same concerns and confirmed that the position would be a person to update the Long Range Transportation Plan with Ms. Armstrong referring to the next item on the agenda as the adoption of the State’s Federal-Aid Highways Transportation 2035 Plan as the Maui MPO Long Range Transportation Plan. Ms. Armstrong indicated that having the strong foundational plan would mean that to update the plan to be compliant with MPO regulations – include performance measures, prioritizing projects, and a financial plan for implementation – would be the required tasks within the two year time frame. Ms. Armstrong indicated that a staff person would be able to do the heavy lifting for the administrative support as well as conducting the public meetings under her supervision. Given the financial reality of the MPO and in an attempt to leverage other efforts that are occurring on Maui within the time frame, Ms. Armstrong indicated that is why a staff person was being considered. Member Spence provided input that the task was a big one for one person – consultants have larger staff with expertise and disciplines. The Long Range Transportation Plan has a huge


scope of issues and he is not sure he knows of a person on Maui who could do this job. It is tremendous task for one person. Member Medeiros indicated that his department is $25 million with 6 people. Everybody in his department wears many hats. Trying to get another position in County government is virtually impossible and it will take a long time to get to that point. Having just gone through the budget process, positions were eliminated and moved because of the ultimate liability from bringing on a new person and not knowing what happens at the end of two years. These are the kind of questions the Budget Committee will ask and the process will take longer. The consultants are expensive but as funds are brought in, it may be possible to do the tasks based on scopes of service over a period of time. For example, MDOT contracts with Roberts of Hawaii and MEO are 5 years overall but ultimately they are one-year contracts with four years. The funds come in increments. Though Maui MPO has dedicated

funding, the amount is not yet determined. It is better to work something as a 5 year contract like Roberts as a model to move forward on. If Maui MPO hires someone, what happens if something happens to that person? There is one person responsible for the one big task. If that person is out, the position cannot be filled and things are stuck. The issue is how to move things forward and Member Medeiros indicated that a consultant with a multi-year contract is preferable to a staff position. Consultants have to make deliverables as long as it is clear in the contract the Maui MPO is covered in what it needs to do. Member Crivello added to Member Medeiros and stated that this situation was similar to Member Medeiros contract with a consultant for the short range transit plan. Member Crivello mentioned oversight and guidelines for department. Chair Goode and Ms. Armstrong thanked Members for their comments. Agenda Item IV.b. Review FFY 2015-2018 STIP Revision #10 and Revision #11 Ms. Armstrong presented the next item on the agenda as an informational item for Members. Maui will start its TIP process over the next number of months with the adoption of a TIP next June. This review of the revisions is to demonstrate how the State manages the revision process for the current STIP. Ms. Armstrong reiterated that the STIP is a management tool for Public Works and State DOT which is periodically updated for time frame and costs. Revisions are summarized in the Executive Director’s report and Ms. Armstrong reviewed those revisions with the Members. Ms. Armstrong acknowledged the assistance from Pat Tom at State DOT for his assistance in the STIP revision process and the State’s over the shoulder review of the STIP for the revisions with State and County engineers so that the STIP accurately reflects what is programmed. The STIP and revisions are on the State DOT website. Chair Goode enquired about the policies regarding the TIP and Ms. Armstrong indicated that the policies were in process for this fall. There being no further comments or questions on this agenda item, Ms. Armstrong continued with her report presentation. Agenda Item IV.c. Consider adoption of HDOT Regional Federal-Aid Highways 2035

Transportation Plan for the District of Maui as Maui MPO Long-Range Plan Ms. Armstrong introduced the next item for the Policy Board to consider the adoption of the HDOT Regional Federal-Aid Highways 2035 Transportation Plan for the District of Maui as the Maui MPO Long Range Transportation Plan. Ms. Armstrong presented a hard copy of the report to the meeting and noted for the record that an electronic version was sent to all members. The document is an excellent planning document which used significant public


input to define goals and objectives, and applying that to the projects considered as potential solutions. Should Maui MPO adopt the Plan, it already has the federal planning factors considered and the framework can be used. The Plan is a good foundation which the TAC approved at the meeting last week. Staff also recommends adoption. Members Sugimura and Crivello indicated on record that they did not review the Plan and Ms. Armstrong noted that she would provide hard copies to them. Member Medeiros also enquired about the electronic version and Ms. Armstrong referred to the link in her email which takes the member to the Plan. Chair Goode commented that he provided input on the Plan when he participated in the

development of the Plan and the public outreach. The Plan takes a good look at all of the Maui highways and what is needed. It is exactly the document that the Maui MPO needs with amendments. The Plan is relatively recent, 2014 and will need to be updated but it is a great start. All the data is there and there is no need to go to the expense of reinventing the wheel which is so much so given there is limited budget. Chair Goode estimated that the Plan cost would have been close to seven figures. Member Fuchigami agreed that the amount of public input required is extensive and confirmed that the Executive Director did email the document to all members a week prior to the meeting but that a hard copy would be useful for members. Member Fuchigami recommended members review the document, all sub-titles and understand the document and the importance of it. Ms. Armstrong noted that the goals and objectives for project evaluation criteria in the TIP process can leverage the foundation provided by the Plan. Chair Goode also noted to the Member the importance of the fact that the TAC members recommended approval as those TAC members use the Plan in their work. Member Crivello relied on Chair Goode’s recommendation but would still like a hard copy of the Plan. Chair Goode asked if there were any other questions or comments and with there being none, Chair Goode asked for a motion to approve and adopt the HDOT Regional Federal-Aid Highways 2035 Transportation Plan for the District of Maui as Maui MPO Long-Range Plan – it was so moved by Member Sugimura and seconded by Member Fuchigami. The

motion passed unanimously, 6-0.

Agenda Item IV.d. Public outreach summary Ms. Armstrong summarized recent public outreach at the Rotary Club of Lahaina Sunset where there was discussion regarding safety and traffic issues on the Honoapi‘ilani Highway. The Club was supportive if solutions for that and supportive of the West Maui Greenway multi-modal transportation project. Ms. Armstrong also visited Hamakuapoko Alohalua which is a group convened to plan for the future of the Old Maui High School by Pa‘ia. This group has a concern about access to the site of which the Paia Bypass would assist in their project. Member Crivello requested names of the members of this group and Ms. Armstrong advised that the project manager was Jim Hammett.


Agenda Item IV.e. Review Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) development schedule Ms. Armstrong announced that the MPO staff goal is to have a list of projects from participating agencies, Maui DPW, State DOT and Maui DOT in October for review by the Policy Board in November. This list will be an unconstrained draft that will go to the public for input in February through April 2018. Work will be continued in cooperation with the State DOT with a TIP being adopted by the Policy Board in June 2018 for inclusion in the STIP without any changes. The State submits the STIP to the federal government. The framework for this process will be worked out in August and September to make the process very transparent. There being no questions or comments, Chair Goode moved to the next agenda item.

Agenda Item V. Announcements The next meeting is scheduled for September 28, 2017. Agenda Item VI. Adjournment There being no other items on the agenda, Chair Goode adjourned the meeting at 9:48 am. Approved: __________________________________ David Goode, Chair Maui MPO Policy Board

Maui MPO Executive Director’s Report – Policy Board – September 28, 2017 1

Policy Board Meeting

September 28, 2017

Executive Director’s Report

a. MPO Financial Update

Maui MPO has expended approximately $210,000 of FY 2017 funds and $5,000 of FY 2018 funds.

An FTA reimbursement request is pending at HDOT. The Maui MPO FY 2018 Unified Planning

Work Program (UPWP) was approved by FTA and FHWA. County of Maui and HDOT paid FY

2018 dues of $50,000 each.

Maui MPO will notify MDOT and HDOT of the amount of FY19 dues to request through County and

State budget process. Additional FTA and FHWA planning funds are available for obligation by the

Maui MPO. Following the 80:20 ratio, to access an additional $100,000 of planning funds, proposed

County and State dues would be increased by $12,500 each to $62,500.

Maui MPO submitted information for the FY18 FTA 5305 Grant Application, and responded to

HDOT request for comments on August 30, 2017. Timely processing of the grant application is

critical to Maui MPO cash flow in late 2017.

See attached Maui MPO Financial Updates for FY 2017 and FY 2018 funds.

b. Draft TAC Minutes Provide Draft Maui MPO Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) minutes from September 14, 2017.

c. Draft Maui MPO TIP Policies and Procedures

The purpose of the Maui MPO TIP Policies and Procedures is to provide procedures to develop and

revise the multi-year budgeting document known as the Maui Transportation Improvement Program

(TIP), to ensure consultation with appropriate agencies and stakeholders, coordination with the STIP,

opportunities for public participation, consistency with the Maui MPO Long-Range Transportation

Plan, and compliance with applicable Federal requirements.

The TIP is a short-term project implementation plan for all surface transportation projects that are

regionally significant or will use Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) or Federal Transit

Administration (FTA) funds. FHWA funds are typically programmed for highway, bicycle, and

pedestrian projects, while FTA funds are typically programmed for acquisition, operation and

maintenance of the public transit system.

HDOT manages the STIP process. With the formation of Maui MPO, all federal-aid and regionally

significant projects for State and County transportation facilities and programs on the island of Maui

are programmed through the Maui TIP. Federal-aid projects on Moloka‘i and Lana‘i are still

programmed by HDOT and County of Maui.

Maui MPO Executive Director’s Report – Policy Board – September 28, 2017 2

The TIP is a multi-year list of projects that are programmed to use federal funds, and includes

additional illustrative projects that are not currently funded. The list of projects is financially

constrained based on reasonably anticipated FHWA and FTA funds appropriated by the U.S.

Congress and allocated to the counties by HDOT. The TIP may be revised between updates, and must

be updated at least every four years. The TIP must be approved by the Maui MPO Policy Board (PB)

and the Governor or Governor’s designee before it is included in its entirety in the STIP. Maui MPO

provides the TIP to the FHWA and FTA for informational purposes. The Governor or Governor’s

designee transmits the STIP to the FHWA and FTA for joint approval.

The Maui MPO PB is the governing body that establishes a performance-based process to evaluate

projects for their consistency with the goals and objectives of the Maui MPO Long Range

Transportation Plan. The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) provides technical analysis and

recommendations to the PB. Stakeholders, agencies, and members of the public have opportunities to

provide input throughout the TIP process. Maui MPO will convene public workshops in spring 2018

and requests the participation of HDOT, MDOT, Planning and DPW.

Project selection for the TIP is based on asset management priorities from implementing agencies,

readiness to go, public input, and availability of local matching funds. Project evaluation criteria are

based on the process used to evaluate transportation solutions in the Federal-Aid Highways 2035

plan, which is documented in Appendix F.

The Maui MPO TAC reviewed TIP Policies and Procedures, but deferred making a recommendation

to the Policy Board until further discussion.

Program Adminstration

Public Participation Plan

Maui Long Range Plan

Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Total Budget

Expenditures and Accrued

Expenditures to 8/31/2017

Budget Balance Remaining

% Budget Balance

Remaining

Personnel 150,000 ‐ ‐ ‐ 150,000 110,479 39,521 26%Fringe Benefits 94,440 ‐ ‐ ‐ 94,440 72,489 21,951 23%Travel 5,000 500 300 300 6,100 4,670 1,430 23%Equipment/Software 10,000 ‐ 250 250 10,500 3,688 6,812 65%Utility 1,200 ‐ 100 100 1,400 100 1,300 93%SUBTOTAL 260,640 500 650 650 262,440 191,427 71,013 Consultant Services ‐ 10,000 195,000 ‐ 205,000 8,490 196,510 96%Other Costs 15,000 ‐ ‐ 2,956 17,956 8,221 9,735 54%TOTAL 275,640 10,500 195,650 3,606 485,396 208,137 277,259 57%

100,000 117,157

217,157

Maui MPO ‐ UPWP FY2017

Member Dues Received HDOT Reimbursement Submitted (FTA)

kt/9‐6‐207 S:\MPO\Budget\FY2017 UPWP Policy Board Budget Reports\PB9_28_2017 FY17 UPWP Budget for Month End August 31, 2017.xlsx

FY2017 UPWP

Budget Narrative: Personnel and Fringe Budget balance remaining for FY2017 at June 30, 2017 is $112,000 which will be utilized from July 1, 2017 until the FFY2017 FTA grant is drawn which is expected to be in November 2017. Travel includes Executive Director trip to Kauai and Oahu for meetings with transportation planners on each island, HDOT and FHWA. Executive Director also travelled to Seattle and Portland for a Built Environment Institute conference. Equipment/Software is for an ipad (to update FACEBOOK account), monitors and Adobe software. Items on order include a laptop (cost estimate $1,600). Consulting services reflect development of website ($7,500) and logo ($989.58). Maui MPO anticipates that the funding $195,000 Consultant Services in connection with the Maui Long Range Plan (RFP issued Fall 2017). Other costs include conference fees for the Executive Director ($2,667.03), advertisement for Executive Director recruitment ($270), business cards ($97), HOPACO office supplies ($2,667.03), APA membership ($35) and office furniture ($3,145.91). On July 20, 2017 Maui MPO submitted a draft reimbursement request to HDOT for FTA reimbursement. To date, no response from HDOT on submission.

Financial Update: Executive Director Report for September 28, 2017

Program Administration

Public Participation Plan

Maui Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)

Maui Multimodal Transporation Plan Complete Streets Total Budget

Expenditures and Accrued

Expenditures to August 31, 2017

Budget Balance Remaining

% Budget Balance Remaining

Personnel 58,500 37,500 32,000 19,500 12,500 160,000 ‐ 160,000 100%Fringe Benefits 38,025 24,375 20,800 12,675 8,125 104,000 ‐ 104,000 100%Travel 16,500 500 800 ‐ ‐ 17,800 ‐ 17,800 100%Equipment ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐Utility 1,200 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,200 ‐ 1,200 100%Rent 24,000 24,000 5,264 18,736 78%Materials & Supplies 1,500 1,200 ‐ ‐ ‐ 2,700 ‐ 2,700 100%SUBTOTAL 139,725 63,575 53,600 32,175 20,625 309,700 5,264 304,436 Consultant Services ‐ 16,000 10,000 152,100 ‐ 178,100 ‐ 178,100 100%Other Costs 12,200 ‐ ‐ ‐ 12,200 ‐ 12,200 100%TOTAL 151,925 79,575 63,600 184,275 20,625 500,000 5,264 494,736 99%

100,000 FTA ‐

FHWA ‐ 100,000

kt 9‐18‐2017 location S:\MPO\Budget\FY2018 UPWP Policy Board Budget Reports\PB 9‐28‐2017 FY18 UPWP Budget for Month End August 31, 2017.xlsx

Maui MPO ‐ UPWP FY2018Financial Update: Executive Director Report for September 28, 2017

Member Dues Received

Budget Narrative: Personnel and Fringe Benefits are budgeted for July 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018 for the Executive Director and the Financial Specialist. Maui MPO funds personnel and fringe benefits from July 1, 2017 to late fall 2017 from the balance remaining for this line item in the FY2017 UPWP and budget. Budget balance remaining at June 30, 2018 for personnel and fringe benefits will be used to pay such expenses in the FY2019 during the same period until drawdown of subsequent FFY FTA funds are available. FHWA and FTA provided written approval to expend pre‐award on expenses relating to the rental of the new office space. Travel budget includes out of state trips for training including the AMPO annual conference, mileage for Public Participation and inter‐island trips for Maui TIP process. Utility will be combined with the balance remaining from FY2017 to provide wireless network access for public participation meetings. Rent for August 2017 includes 50% of costs for leasehold improvements (paint and vinyl floor‐$3,737.84) with the balance due with September rent. Budget for materials and supplies include general office supplies plus outreach materials for public participation. Budget for consulting services include services for GIS mapping, graphic design, development of Game of Roads and a contribution to the overall cost for the Maui Multimodal Transporation Plan (FY2017 has $195,000 towards this line item). Other costs include printing, subscriptions, memberships, website hosting, software, photocopier lease (budgeted at $200/month) and other.

1 S:\MPO\TAC\TAC Minutes\ 170914 TAC Meeting Minutes

Minutes of the

Maui Metropolitan Planning Organization

TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Thursday, September 14, 2017

Kalana Pakui Building, Planning Conference Room

250 South High Street, Wailuku, Hawaii 96793

Members Present:

Pam Eaton, Planning Program Administrator, Dept. of Planning

Darren Konno, Transportation Program Coordinator, Maui Dept. of Transportation

Robin Shishido, Maui District Engineering Program Manager

John Smith, Acting Highways Division Chief, Dept. of Public Works

Nolly Yagin, Engineer, Dept. of Public Works

Cary Yamashita, Engineering Program Manager, Dept. of Public Works

Robert Miyasaki, Designated Member, State Dept. of Transportation

Members Excused:

Kathleen Aoki, Administrative Planning Officer, Dept. of Planning

Ken Tatsuguchi, Planning Branch Program Manager, State Dept. of Transportation

Others:

Lauren Armstrong, Executive Director, Maui MPO

Karen Tamaki, Financial Specialist, Maui MPO

Michael Hopper, Deputy Corporation Counsel, Dept. of the Corporation Counsel

Liz Fischer, Transportation Planning, USDOT, FHWA, Hawaii Division

I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER

Maui MPO TAC Chair Pam Eaton announced that Member Ken Tatsuguchi could not make the

meeting and Mr. Rob Miyasaki will be the State DOT Designated Member for the meeting pursuant

to an email from HDOT’s Director’s office. Member Aoki has been excused. With that, Chair Eaton

called the meeting to order at 9:05 am.

II. PUBLIC TESTIMONY

Chair Eaton opened public testimony and invited Marci Martin to speak about Agenda Item IV.b.

Pa'ia Relief Route Pre-Assessment Consultation for Draft EA.

Ms. Martin introduced herself as a resident of Pa'ia and a member of the State Pa'ia Relief Route

Committee. Ms. Martin expressed her disappointment that when she received notice of today’s TAC

meeting, the members of the Relief Route Committee were not notified. With that being said, Ms.

Martin said that she was in favor of any mitigation to relieve Pa'ia traffic.

Chair Eaton confirmed that Ms. Martin personally did receive an email from Maui MPO notifying her

of the TAC meeting. Ms. Martin’s stated that her concern is whether or not other members of the

Relief Route Committee were or were not invited. Ms. Armstrong indicated that she would look into

that question for future email notices.

Chair Eaton thanked Ms. Martin and called upon Noelani Sugata to testify about Agenda Item IV.b.

Pa'ia Relief Route Pre-Assessment Consultation for Draft EA.

Ms. Sugata introduced herself as the part-time Executive Director of the Pa'ia Town Association (also

known as the PTA). On August 23, 2017, the PTA organized a meeting with the County Planning


Department and the community and on the agenda was the future work on Hana Highway. A

representative from SSFM Consulting was also in attendance that meeting and gave a presentation on

the Hana Highway restriping options. The community, however, were interested and voiced

concerns about the status of a Pa'ia bypass. Over 50 people from the community were at the meeting

and the majority were in support of the Pa'ia Relief Route. Ms. Sugata expressed that the Pa'ia

community supported the efforts going forward. Though Pa'ia had significant roadwork done over

the summer, an alternative route in still needed. Ms. Sugata will pass the MPO website information to

her community members so that they can receive future notices. If there is a Relief Route Committee

group formed, the PTA would like to be included. Ms. Sugata apologized to Ms. Armstrong for not

inviting the MPO to the August 23rd meeting but acknowledged that Ms. Armstrong’s name was

mentioned at the meeting.

Chair Eaton asked the next testifier, Carl Friedman to testify regarding Agenda Item IV. a. Review

Maui MPO TIP Policies and Procedures.

Mr. Friedman introduced himself as representing two entities today. The first is the Hawaii Energy

Policy Forum and reported out that the Hawaii Clean Energy Day was held in Honolulu and was well

attended by over 100 participants including the Governor and many transportation people. The focus

of Hawaii Clean Energy Day was transportation. Transportation is a huge part of energy picture.

Energy, however, is a small part of transportation discussion. The State does have strong energy

policy goals. On review of the goals by the participants, there was significant emphasis on County

Planning and MPO planning. The energy community has in the past worked with electrical utilities

but is now becoming more aware that it needs to work with the transportation community as well.

Mr. Friedman also reported, as an individual, on a Performance Metrics Workshop in Honolulu that

was attended by Maui County and expressed how well prepared Maui came to that meeting. The

outcomes of that workshop tie into Agenda item IV. a. Review Maui TIP Policies and Procedures and

Appendix B: Maui MPO Project Evaluation Criteria. Mr. Friedman reviewed the criteria and

commented that the criteria measure “bang” and not “bang for the buck”. If the objective is to get a

good program together, then evaluation of “bang” will result in big projects. At the workshop, he

learned that there are a lot of smaller projects with not as much “bang” so they don’t rate as high on

the measures. Mr. Friedman asked that there be included in the criteria an evaluation by dollars so

that “bang for the buck” can be assessed. By doing so, some of the smaller projects will float up the

ranking and improve the effectiveness of the whole program. With limitations of staff time and

dollars, some of the smaller projects will work better. Finally, more specific metrics are better as

ranking needs metrics such as number of traffic accident and cost effectiveness.

Chair Eaton thanked Mr. Friedman for his testimony and advised the Mr. Hopper has indicated that

the Hawaii Energy Policy Forum report out was not on the agenda so cannot be discussed further at

this meeting. Chair Eaton added that one reason why the metrics lack specifics is because there is no

data and the effort is on getting data. Mr. Hopper added that specifics on TIP Policy and Procedure

can be discussed after public testimony but updates and what happened at other meetings will need to

be discussed when that is an agenda item.

Chair Eaton invited John Seebart to provide testimony on Agenda Item IV.c. RFP issued for update to

Maui MPO Long-Range Transportation Plan.

Mr. Seebart introduced himself as a member of the steering committee on erosion in Kahana. Over

the last 3-4 weeks, westerly swells have struck the shore and there is tremendous erosion on Lower

Honoapi‘ilani Road. Mr. Seebart urged Maui to consider this in its long-range planning process. In

addition, the measured high tides are now greater than the predicted high tides by 3”-12”. The condos


on the Lower Road are threatened. The steering committee is putting up a camera to document the

erosion and the current cliff that is scalloped out.

Chair Eaton thanked Mr. Seebart and asked if there were any questions. There being no questions or

comments, Chair Eaton closed public testimony.

III. APPROVAL OF JULY 21, 2017 MEETING MINUTES

Chair Eaton introduced the July 21, 2017 meeting minutes. Chair Eaton recommended that minutes

reflect “Staff” rather than “Guests Present” given that Ms. Armstrong, Ms. Tamaki and Mr. Hopper

are all staff as opposed to guest speakers. Mr. Miyasaki inquired as to listing those that testify as

guests and Chair Eaton confirmed that other boards currently do not do that and used the Planning

Commission and Coastal Resource Commission as examples and deferred to Mr. Hopper. Mr.

Hopper stated that there is not a legal requirement on any of this type of matter. Public testifiers

should be listed when giving testimony and stated as to what agenda item is being addressed.

Mr. Miyasaki refined the question to “listening guests” as he did attend the July 21, 2017 meeting and

is not listed. He further stated that listing MPO staff as supporting the meeting was fine. Chair Eaton

confirmed that Mr. Hopper is not MPO staff so he would require a separate heading as would others

at the meeting such as Liz Fischer from FHWA. Mr. Miyasaki enquired about ex-officio members

being listed and Chair Eaton confirmed that she has seen that in other commission minutes. Mr.

Miyasaki requested consistency in how the minutes are done and Ms. Armstrong indicated that she

would consult with the MPO federal advisors, Oahu MPO and ascertain best practices as to how to

list participants at the meeting.

Chair Eaton asked for a motion to approve the July 21, 2017 meeting minutes which was made by

Member Smith and seconded by Member Yagin. The motion passed unanimously.

IV. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S REPORT

Chair Eaton turned the meeting over to Lauren Armstrong to take the Members through the Executive

Director’s report.

a. Review Maui MPO TIP Policies and Procedures 16:55

Ms. Armstrong introduced the draft TIP Policies and Procedures that was circulated to TAC

Members two weeks prior to the meeting and thanked those that provided comments. Ms.

Armstrong stated that the purpose of the document is to provide guidance and the Maui MPO goes

through its first TIP over the next 12 months. The policy is to ensure that the consultation takes

place with appropriate stakeholders, coordination with the Statewide Transportation Improvement

Program or STIP, identify opportunities for the public to give input as projects are identified. It is

also a way for the Maui MPO to evaluate the consistency of a project with the Long-Range

Transportation Plan and compliance with federal requirements.

Ms. Armstrong walked through the sections of the document. Ms. Armstrong acknowledged Ms.

Fischer’s comment to include full citation of 23 CFR with all regulatory citation in the document.

Ms. Armstrong, in her discussion of Transportation Funding in the document indicated that the TIP

is a multi-year budget document with, currently, the first four years being constrained with

additional years presented for illustrative purposes. All federal-aid highway monies that come to the

island of Maui will go through the TIP process. Ms. Armstrong clarified that the policy document is

relevant for future TIP development and the dates indicated in the document for the upcoming year

refer to August 2017 to September 2018 and went through the timeline in Figure 1 of the draft

policy. Public workshops will be held in various locations: Upcountry, West Maui, South Maui,


Central Maui and Hana. Public input will assist the Maui MPO in decisions on which projects

should move forward as that is one of the key components of the Maui MPO. It was clarified that

projects for Molokai and Lanai would fall under the HDOT STIP process. TIP revisions will follow

Oahu MPO schedules and be consistent with federal regulations.

Ms. Armstrong then introduced the Project Evaluation Criteria in Appendix B with suggested

revisions distributed to Members today. Project proposals received will be reviewed by the TAC

and Policy Board to evaluate which projects should go into the TIP. Ms. Armstrong reminded the

meeting that this is a tool to guide the decision making and is not the ultimate “be all – end all”. A

key factor are the initial criteria listed at the top of the form: matching funds, readiness to go;

priority in asset management system (from the agencies) and level of public support as gathered at

MPO meetings, website, and submitted testimony.

Ms. Armstrong discussed the adopted Long-Range Plan goals and objectives as the basis for the

Criteria presented today – Federal-Aid Highways 2035 Transportation Plan for the District of Maui

as adopted by the Maui MPO as its Long-Range Plan. Using Safety as an example, Ms. Armstrong

walked the meeting participants through how a project would be scored and referenced items back to

Exhibits and Tables in the Long-Range Plan as to how Maui weighted the goals and demonstrated

how that was represented in Exhibit B. Project points assigned by the TAC and SAC in the Long-

Range Plan were used with a distribution “Additional Goals” to the other categories. Agreeing with

the testimony of Mr. Friedman today, Ms. Armstrong indicated that a more specific tool should be

used to grade projects. Grading criteria was used in Appendix F of the Long-Range Plan and Ms.

Armstrong uses that as a reference to demonstrate Safety factor for the Criteria. Rather than using -2

to +2 as a score, the proposal is to use Low, Med, High with allocation of 0, 0.50 and 1.0

respectively for points.

Chair Eaton commented that the work over the last year with HDOT in workshops and meetings has

tried to create consistency between the MPO, the Planning Department (and its efforts with the

Community Plans) and HDOT’s goals. Further, Chair Eaton acknowledged HDOT’s Director Ford

Fuchigami and Deputy Director Ed Sniffen for being clear that the top HDOT goals are System

Preservation and Safety. Now, looking specifically at Environmental goals as set out in the Long-

Range Plan and which goes directly to Mr. Seebart’s testimony, in discussion with HDOT, Deputy

Director Sniffen did recognize that although these planning factors are listed under Environment and

Sustainability, clearly they are both Safety and System Preservation concerns. HDOT was open to

including these under either Safety or System Preservation.

Chair Eaton asked why the project criteria was ranked in the order it was with Safety being number

one with total possible points of 14 with Modal Integration at 20 and Environment at 21and down

the list with System Preservation at 12. Chair Eaton indicated that she understood that Ms.

Armstrong was trying to reconcile two systems; so, given the fact that HDOT has been trying to

work with Maui to include Maui concerns about resiliency of its roads and highways to the effects

and impacts of coastal erosion, storms and sea level rise, and HDOT’s indication to possibly include

these in Safety or System Preservation, how does this factor in with the proposed project evaluation

criteria? Why does System Preservation only have 12 points?

Ms. Armstrong reiterated that the Total Possible Points are based on the Maui regional priorities as

set out in the Long-Range Plan. The Maui MPO must now come up with its way of appropriately

evaluating a project. There is a benefit of keeping the same criteria and categories as far as

consistency with the Long-Range Plan but there is a point to having resiliency contribute to the

safety of the system and that safety is a priority for the State. Ms. Armstrong asked if members

would be open to moving resiliency to safety.


Designated Member Miyasaki (Mr. Miyasaki) provided comment that he thought this entire

discussion was premature because he was not clear on what Ms. Armstrong’s intent was with the

evaluation criteria. Ms. Armstrong is using criteria from the Long-Range Plan which has a

completely different purpose and intent. It needs to be coordinated and consistent but the intent and

purpose of what was developed in the Long-Range Plan and Appendix F is very different and it also

applied additional levels of research, evaluation and discussion. From what Mr. Miyasaki

understands in the Appendix F, there is significant amount of interaction with the Technical

Advisory Committee in developing the weighting criteria that came out and that is in the Long-

Range Plan. Mr. Miyasaki does not see the same level of discussion or evaluation because the

application – what is this being used for? Mr. Miyasaki has not seen that yet.

Ms. Armstrong indicated that one of the federally mandated tasks of the MPO is to evaluate the

consistency of projects proposed for the TIP with the Long-Range Plan. The criteria from the Long-

Range Plan can be used as a tool to guide decisions about which TIP projects are a priority as the list

will be longer than what the available funding can cover. Having some way to gauge how well a

project scores across multiple criteria – even if it is not an exact science – gives an indication of

which projects score high on multiple criteria. If a quantitative assessment is not appropriate at this

stage, the MPO can look to something more qualitative. For example, a project scores high or

medium in safety, low in modal integration and so forth. The criteria are a communication tool.

Mr. Miyasaki stated that different terms were being used: consistency with Long-Range Plan versus

scoring – a different application. Scoring seems to tend to prioritization which again is a different

intent. If the evaluation is for consistency, that does not need scores. It is or is not consistent. If

prioritization is the point, then TAC should have significant discussion on that point.

Ms. Armstrong indicated that the grading gives an objective way to assess the consistency. The

goals and objectives of the Long-Range Plan are very broad and this helps to see how the project

meets the different goals and planning factors. It is one tool to decide decision making and is not the

only factor to decide which project goes on the TIP. As spelled out in the draft policy and

procedure, there is an on-going conversation through TAC, the Policy Board and agencies. And

funding will be considered from the agencies and the federal government.

Chair Eaton asked for clarification from Mr. Miyasaki and Member Yamashita as to how projects

from Maui can be prioritized given that there are more projects than there is funding available? And

considering that the TIP is kept consistent with the Long-Range Plan? Mr. Miyasaki stated that the

concept that there is more need than money is not at STIP level or TIP level. At the point where

HDOT is submitting projects, it is for construction funding. Environmental, right of way and

planning have been cleared. HDOT does put in for planning activities but at that point, those

decisions have been made a long time before and the prioritization is appropriate in the Long-Range

Plan and maybe even in a mid-range plan but when at the TIP, the amount of money is already

determined and projects are submitted based on project readiness. Mr. Miyasaki added that it is

clear in federal regulation that there is a lot of asset management embedded within the TIP process

and it does not deal with modal integration.

Chair Eaton asked Mr. Miyasaki what is meant by “asset management”? Mr. Miyasaki provided an

analogy of a house that needs care for dry rot, paint and things to maintain the existing house –

repair and preservation to “keep what we got”. It would be great to have the extra bedroom but not

at the expense of having the roof fall in. Those are the things that the federal government is pushing

heavily towards HDOT in asset management – know what the conditions are and preserve what is

there. Prioritization is to take care of the most critical elements. It might be that HDOT resurfaces


H1 freeway but the number of vehicles is huge. As opposed to repairing all of Hana Highway which

is critical and important as an access but may not be used by as many people. HDOT has to look at

things differently in asset management – what is the best use of monies in many different ways – and

that is a federal requirement.

Chair Eaton reflected that given that H1 has more traffic, will it get attention at the expense of Maui

and other islands forever? At what point can HDOT balance the scale so that spending is not always

Oahu centric? Mr. Miyasaki stated that is a policy decision. Looking at volume and gas tax

collection, all the money comes from Oahu and it is actually diverted to take care of essential

services like access to these lower population areas. Those are policy decisions at the higher level

that also have to be made within this structure of the prioritization and weights. It is not an easy

answer and even as HDOT talks significantly about performance measures, it always goes back to

what are the bigger policy level discussions.

Chair Eaton opened the discussion to members after stating that she now understood from Mr.

Miyasaki that once the TIP process starts, decisions have been made and Member Yamashita has to

manage the funding of the projects, making sure projects are ready to go, out the door and

construction starts. It is also understood how critical it is to get federal funding spent. At what point

are those decisions made and does TAC need to back up to that stage? Chair Eaton is hearing from

Mr. Miyasaki that the TIP process is too late and wants to know where to back up to incorporate

project evaluation criteria to better match what Maui needs?

Mr. Miyasaki indicated project evaluation happened when Member Tatsuguchi (at HDOT) did the

Long-Range Plan – his evaluation criteria. That is why his scoring and evaluation, it says “where

are these issues” and then focusing on prioritization of projects to investigate those issues. To start

looking at the planning, to develop the concept of what that project should entail. And then go

through public involvement for project specific alternative selections – environmental documents,

right of way acquisitions, and actual project delivery. The whole project delivery process is

extensive.

Chair Eaton asked Mr. Miyasaki and Members Yamashita and Shishido, with regards to when

projects are being selected, how can it best be reflected in that project selection process things such

as modal integration and things that are being talked about in this meeting? How can that be opened

up as in the past, it has been very opaque – it was not clear what was being done or what was being

selected. For the MPO, it should be a more transparent process and look at better integration of

planning initiatives. Modal integration, environment, economic vitality, public transit, housing are

all tied to transportation – how can these now be reflected in project selection at the appropriate

time?

Mr. Miyasaki indicated that it has to happen at every level – long-range, project development – as

projects are started and then go to public involvement with the public and the agencies need to

comment and should consider the following interconnections of other modes. This needs to be

thought through at the initial conceptual development of the project – what will this project look

like? What will it include? It can be included in the alternatives to consider and then in the

environmental impact analysis done for each alternative. If you do put in or do not put in – does it

include more right of way, does it have more environmental impact taking over wetlands or anything

else? – all of those things happen throughout and some of the larger policy decisions much higher in

the process, some more specific at the project level when the projects are developed.

Chair Eaton reiterated that still some of the needs in Maui have not been met in the past in terms of

modal integration. At what point can the MPO crack in so that these are better reflected? Mr.


Miyasaki restated that that was at a policy decision level much higher than at the project delivery

level.

Ms. Armstrong added that she has followed up with other MPOs and it takes time to develop a

robust TIP process. Recognizing that Maui MPO is in the beginning, the concept of evaluation

criteria is that it is a communication tool. Even if the TIP is at the stage of implementing asset

management programs, it is a way to explain what factors the agencies are considering when they

put forward a project. When the MPO goes to the public, there can be conversation about trade-offs

on investments that can be made, show funding priorities, show projects that support system

preservation as well as modal integration. If a project can be framed to show multiple goals, it

should be considered more strongly than a project that perhaps costs a lot and does not meet as many

goals.

Member Yamashita commented that in the current STIP period, there are already other projects

planned and are currently in a six year plan before the plan is constrained. Maui DPW has several

projects that have been investigated, met requirements through inventory systems and those projects

have been prioritized. Most of the projects are system preservation, safety and capacity projects.

There are no projects for modal integration or complete streets. The project list was developed from

a grading system. It is unclear how complete streets projects can be worked into the existing list of

projects.

Ms. Armstrong asked Member Yamashita if the existing system preservation projects on DPW’s list

could incorporate complete streets principles. Member Yamashita indicated that when doing a

resurfacing system preservation project, the project period is much shorter because there is no

environmental assessment required and less permitting required.

Ms. Fischer provided comments regarding FHWA guidance. When repaving, restriping, resurfacing,

there is guidance on how to include bicycle mobility within the current national guidance. It is

possible.

Mr. Miyasaki asked Member Yamashita how to go forward if a project list is already set. Member

Yamashita indicated that the projects are grouped – pedestrian, bike can be worked in and it is

possible to take a fresh look at some of the projects on the list.

Mr. Miyasaki stated that because the project review would be a policy decision, it is a County

function and not an MPO function. Funding would have to be considered – what is sacrificed or

delayed. That is a project delivery aspect for County Planning and DPW.

Ms. Armstrong stated that the MPO is Planning, DPW and DOT. However, Mr. Miyasaki reasserted

that what is being discussed is project delivery and ultimately Planning and DPW delivers. They

report to a mayor that reports to council for funds.

Chair Eaton stated that nevertheless, revisiting the projects should happen to continue the

conversations between the County departments to break down the silos and try to work together. As

an example, Chair Eaton mentioned the Planning Department West Maui Community Plan update

that is being undertaken which has several transportation components and DPW will do a

community presentation in October on transportation and infrastructure. Community planning is all

about public transportation and roads and goes beyond simply resurfacing and hardening shorelines.

The implementing actions and policies of the community plans are being overlaid to the County

budget so it is imperative County Planning and DPW work together going forward.


Ms. Armstrong indicated that once the Long-Range Plan is updated, there will be a more solid base

of performance measures to get into the TIP process earlier and revisit the project evaluation criteria.

Ms. Armstrong suggested that she work with the TAC chair and vice-chair on the criteria and bring

it back to TAC at its next meeting.

Chair Eaton asked Mr. Hopper if it was possible to have a member of HDOT participate in the

review of the criteria with the chair and vice-chair. Mr. Hopper indicated that if the HDOT

participant is not a member of TAC then that is allowable. There can only be two members of TAC

to review the criteria or a TIG would need to be formed. Chair Eaton reiterated that the plan is to

have Planning, DPW and HDOT work together and report back. If the TAC wanted to form a TIG,

it would have to do so at its next meeting.

Ms. Armstrong indicated that the call for projects has been made and November TAC will review a

list of those projects. Today, the Policies and Procedures can be recommended to the Policy Board

without Appendix B or it can be revisited at the next TAC meeting. If the project evaluation form is

not used, then what would TAC members recommend to use to communicate to the public about

why projects are listed on the TIP?

Mr. Miyasaki asked how that would differ from the current process. Ms. Armstrong replied that the

State DOT lets Maui County know the amount of federal funds available, the County DPW and State

DOT propose projects and the statewide STIP manager makes the STIP. With the Maui MPO, there

is more opportunity for the public to review projects presented by DPW, MDOT and HDOT and

provide input on how the federal funding is to be spent. It is a more coordinated process with more

iterations, more conversations between the different agencies about the best list of projects.

Mr. Miyasaki asked if the current process is followed, would it not hurt Maui MPO? The MPO is

brand new and is trying to figure it out. He went on to state that it seems to be a lot more discussion

needed and he does not think that can be completed in the time frame being considered.

Chair Eaton stated that one of the objectives of the MPO is to have more iterations not for the sake

of such but to have the departments work together in a better integrated fashion. Chair Eaton went

on to recommend that if a TIG needs to be formed, then it should be to enable the parties to continue

with the discussion. That is the whole point - to see how County Planning, DPW and MDOT can

work with HDOT.

Mr. Hopper reminded the meeting that the TAC is a more detailed working group and if it needs

time to resolve these items, it can do so now at the meeting or schedule an extra meeting. Chair

Eaton deferred to members from County DPW on this.

Ms. Fischer further reminded the meeting that the evaluation process is to look at projects already

out there and is a tool to communicate where the priorities lie as seen by the MPO which is not just

DPW, HDOT, MDOT but also other parties including the public as to what the priorities of the

community are. This may mean that what stands in the current STIP may differ from the upcoming

TIP. There is no guarantee that what there is now will be there after the process but it could be. The

community has a voice in the decision which are ultimately approved by the Policy Board. This is a

decision making tool. It is not the final arbiter which is actually the Policy Board. The requirements

for the TIP is not just construction projects- it includes PE1 (preliminary engineering) and projects

can be in phases. The criteria link the long-range plan as developed by HDOT for Maui County

which has been adopted by the MPO, this is the next step to evaluate the long-range plan and the

first TIP for Maui. These are steps in a transition phase that makes perfect sense. Testing these

criteria in the first TIP – why not? It does not have to be 100% in agreement, it can be a transition.


It is up the MPO Policy Board to make that decision and not the implementing agencies. TAC is

only the technical advisor.

Member Yagin agreed that he is in favor of another meeting to hash out the evaluation criteria and

requirement. The concern is what happens to the projects that are almost ready to go? The draft

criteria does set out “ready to go” as an initial criteria and it is difficult to imagine prioritizing a

project over a ready to go project. Adding bike lanes can be done with stripping but is more difficult

if more width is to be added. For example, in the 106 process which starts in project development

phase, if 10 feet are added then that could add 6 months to a year to the project which would

eliminate the ready to go status. The projects on the existing STIP are getting ready to go and should

be prioritized. When projects come up from the public at community events, those projects are

prioritized by how much money is available and the budget. For example, if the public wants a road

resurfaced, DPW works on that and it is relatively easy project as there are pavement reports and

about five months of development. When capacity is added, lanes and sidewalks, all kinds of other

requirements are triggered. If we just want nice roads we can drive on, then adding lanes and

sidewalks requires further decisions to be made as to whether a fuller project be considered or go

with what is just needed now. Member Yagin does not believe that there is any danger to having

the current projects on the STIP that are ready to go from being left off the project list for the TIP.

The community clearly wanted the factors in the criteria considered but these need to be weighed

against HDOT’s planning factors. A second meeting to review further is favored.

Chair Eaton asked if any other members had comments and Member Konno stated his agreement

with Member Yagin’s comments. Ms. Armstrong indicated that she would aim to schedule another

TAC meeting. Chair Eaton stated that she would like to hear from the public on the criteria to be

transparent and accessible. Also, will DPW bring its projects to the next meeting? Member

Yamashita indicated that he has project reports ready with status on each that can inform the TAC on

project status.

Ms. Armstrong indicated that the October 12 TAC meeting was to review projects put forward by

the agencies. The evaluation criteria can be reviewed concurrently once the proposed projects are

known. A transparent objective process can be made as informed by agencies.

Mr. Miyasaki stated that he is hesitant to comment because Ms. Armstrong’s comments about the

evaluation criteria are still premature. He does not agree as to what the purpose of the evaluation

criteria is though he does understand the public involvement and transparency but is not sure the

criteria is it and he does not think that there is consensus that this is where it should be. As such, Mr.

Miyasaki indicated that he struggled as to what the next steps should be and that to keep going back

to discuss the criteria when he is not sure that the criteria should be there at all.

Chair Eaton again asked Mr. Miyasaki how can the MPO improve on what has been done in the past,

reflecting more agencies and public concerns? Mr. Miyasaki agreed that he is trying to consider the

same thing and keeps going back to the current STIP process and how well or bad are the agencies

doing with that. Then use that as the baseline to ask how and why those agencies are trying to do

that. Chair Eaton reminded the TAC that through the TIP process, project selection is to be opened

up a bit more so people understand how projects are selected and when they are selected, incorporate

some of the values of the community. Director Fuchigami at HDOT was very clear that once the

two goals of system preservation and safety are met, if additional things can be incorporated, then

yes they will be incorporated. Chair Eaton’s intention is to look at what is on the STIP and leverage

the values that are identified by the public.


Ms. Armstrong stated that the TAC could receive a presentation on the current STIP process to

better understand how the TIP fits within that process. Chair Eaton concluded that at the October

meeting the evaluation criteria would be reviewed again, the STIP manager would present on the

current STIP process, Member Yamashita can present on what Maui County has done and the

timelines that projects are under to respect those timelines so that funding is not lost.

Ms. Armstrong confirmed that there is a buffer between November and February meeting with the

public to make adjustments to the TIP process.

Chair Eaton thanked TAC members, Ms. Armstrong and Ms. Fischer for the discussion on the TIP

Policies and Procedures.

Member Smith was excused by Chair Eaton and left the meeting.

b. Pa’ia Relief Route Pre-Assessment Consultation for Draft EA

Ms. Armstrong reported that SSFM has been contracted to prepare an EA on the Pa'ia Relief Route.

Ms. Armstrong reviewed the proposed 2.5 mile roadway and the access and egress of the roadway.

Ms. Armstrong asked if TAC had any comments on the pre-assessment letter and in particular the

intersection treatments at the connection points which are currently described as signalized,

roundabout and T-intersection. Written comments are requested by September 18th.

Member Yagin commented that the regional circulation projects should consider the intersection

treatments to keep traffic moving other than signalization – interchanges and roundabouts.

Interchanges are often discussed in terms of “this is not Oahu” but there is one in Lahaina and it

keeps traffic moving. Chair Eaton asked that multipurpose shoulders or lanes be considered and any

information other than the constant signalization. Ms. Armstrong agreed to pass those comments

along.

c. RFP issued for updated to Maui MPO Long-Range Transportation Plan

Ms. Armstrong indicated that an RFP has been issued and bids are due September 15th. The bids will

be reviewed by Ms. Armstrong, Chair Eaton and Member Yagin using criteria in the RFP. The plan

needs to be updated by July 2019 and further updates will be brought forward as the work moves

ahead.

d. Public Outreach Summary

Ms. Armstrong reported that she spoke to the Kahului Rotary Club on September 11th and the MPO

was well received as a transportation planning agency. One suggestion came up to charge an entry

fee to persons when they are leaving the airport to generate revenue for transportation projects.

Ms. Armstrong also attended the West Maui Community Planning meeting on September 12th .


V. West Maui Community Plan Update

Chair Eaton updated the meeting on the West Maui Community Plan and the community meeting

held on September 12th. There was a panel presentation including Ms. Armstrong representing the

MPO and, HDOT representatives Director Ford Fuchigami and Deputy Director Ed Sniffen. The

Planning Department has a website www.wearemaui.org which is frequently updated and includes

links to presentations and information. All presentations from September 12th will be posted on the

site. The Q&A discussion was very constructive and informative.

On September 30th 10 am – 2 pm at the West Maui Senior Center there will be a workshop dealing

with complete streets, multimodal transportation, live-ability and walkability. Developers will be

invited but it is an open house with stations set up to create an interactive environment to get input

from the community and educate the community in the process. The purpose is to consider more

than cars but how to move people with bikes, walking and public transit to create a multi-modal

design.

On October 11th, also at the Senior Center in West Maui, infrastructure will be addressed by the

County Department of Public Works. Water Supply and Environmental Management will be

represented to look at infrastructure needs and carrying capacity for Lahaina and West Maui. Future

growth and development will be considered with existing capacity including transportation needs.

Water, waste-water, sewer and road demands will be discussed in context of infill, growth and

development to better address transportation needs, economic vitality, and housing. See

wearemaui.org for more details on this meeting.

On October 18th there will be meeting on coastal resilience and Lower Honoapiilani Highway will be

discussed. This meeting will look at sea level rise and climate change effect on roadways,

structures, and other critical facilities. UH Sea Grant is working with the Planning Department and

will present risk and vulnerability with respect to sea level rise and climate change.

VI. Kihei Sub-Area Transportation Study

Member Yagin next provided an update on the Kihei Sub-Area Transportation Study. It has been 20

years since a Kihei transportation plan was done. The new study kicked off on August 30 with a

meeting of its technical advisory committee and citizen’s advisory committee. For this TAC, the

representatives were from HDOT, various County agencies and Ms. Fischer from FHWA. The CAC

met at the Kihei Community Center with small attendance. The CAC meeting set out the roles of

each group in the Study process. One of the key concerns that came from the CAC meeting had to

do with drainage. Though the study is a transportation study, how is drainage being addressed?

Roadway projects need to incorporate drainage matters so cost estimates from this study will be

significantly impacted by the cost to address drainage. Large landholders have not been well

represented in the CAC but invitations have gone out to all and some declined. A&B will have a

representative at the next meeting. Member Yagin also wanted to reach out to school children that

walk and ride bikes to school to get their input. The Study is scheduled to be completed at the end of

2018.

VII. ANNOUNCEMENTS

The next TAC meeting is Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 9 am.

http://www.wearemaui.org/


VIII. ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business or announcements, the meeting adjourned at 10:40 am.

APPROVED:

__________________________

Pam Eaton, Technical Advisory Committee Chair

Maui Metropolitan Planning Organization

Transportation Improvement Program

Policies and Procedures

DRAFT

September 18, 2017

Maui MPO

200 South High St.

Wailuku, HI 96793

www.mauimpo.org

http://www.mauimpo.org/

This page intentionally left blank.

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... 1

II. Federal Requirements .................................................................................................................... 2

III. Transportation Funding .................................................................................................................. 2

IV. New TIP Development .................................................................................................................. 3

V. Revisions to an Existing TIP .......................................................................................................... 5

VI. Processing the TIP ......................................................................................................................... 6

Appendix A: Maui TIP Development Schedule .................................................................................... 7

Appendix B: Maui MPO Project Evaluation Criteria ............................................................................ 8

List of Acronyms

DPW County of Maui Department of Public Works

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

FTA Federal Transit Administration

HDOT State of Hawai‘i Department of Transportation

LPA Local Public Agency

MDOT County of Maui Department of Transportation

MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization

PB Policy Board

Planning County of Maui Department of Planning

STIP Statewide Transportation Improvement Program

TAC Technical Advisory Committee

TIP Transportation Improvement Program

STP Statewide Transportation Planning

USDOT United States Department of Transportation

1

The purpose of the Maui MPO TIP Policies and Procedures is to provide procedures to develop and

revise the Maui Metropolitan Planning Organization (Maui MPO) Transportation Improvement Program

(TIP). These policies ensure consultation with appropriate agencies and stakeholders, coordination with

the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), opportunities for public participation,

consistency with the Maui MPO Long Range Transportation Plan, and compliance with applicable

federal requirements.

As a federally-mandated metropolitan planning organization, Maui MPO coordinates with the State of

Hawai‘i and County of Maui to develop a TIP for the island of Maui. The TIP is a short-term project

implementation plan for all surface transportation projects that are regionally significant or will use

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) or Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funds. FHWA funds

are typically programmed for highway, bicycle, and pedestrian projects, while FTA funds are typically

programmed for acquisition, operation and maintenance of the public transit system.

The State of Hawai‘i Department of Transportation (HDOT) manages the STIP process. With the

formation of Maui MPO, all federal-aid and regionally significant projects for State and County

transportation facilities and programs on the island of Maui are subject to the Metropolitan Transportation

Planning Process, and programmed through the Maui TIP. Federal-aid projects on Moloka‘i and Lana‘i

are still programmed by HDOT and County of Maui. Maui MPO will coordinate with HDOT through its

STIP development process, as described in section IV and Appendix A.1

The TIP is a multi-year list of projects that are programmed to use federal funds, and includes additional

illustrative projects that are not currently funded. The list of projects is financially constrained based on

reasonably anticipated FHWA and FTA funds appropriated by the U.S. Congress. The TIP may be

revised between updates, and must be updated at least every four years. The TIP must be approved by the

Maui MPO Policy Board (PB) and the Governor or Governor’s designee before it is included in its

entirety in the STIP. Maui MPO provides the TIP to the FHWA and FTA for informational purposes. The

Governor or Governor’s designee transmits the STIP to the FHWA and FTA for joint approval.

Project selection for the TIP is based on asset management priorities from implementing agencies,

readiness to go, public input, and availability of local matching funds. The Maui MPO PB is the

governing body that establishes a performance-based process to evaluate projects for their consistency

with the goals and objectives of the Maui MPO Long Range Transportation Plan. The Technical

Advisory Committee (TAC) provides technical analysis and recommendations to the PB. Stakeholders,

agencies, and members of the public have opportunities to provide input throughout the TIP process.

The TIP process follows Federal regulations outlined by the U.S. Department of Transportation

(USDOT), as well as Title VI and Environmental Justice rules and regulations as defined in the Maui

MPO Public Participation Plan and the County of Maui Department of Transportation (MDOT) Title VI

program and HDOT Title VI and Environmental Justice program.

1 HDOT Highways Division. STIP Development Standard Operating Procedures.

2

The TIP shall include surface transportation projects proposed for funding under 23 U.S.C. and 49 U.S.C.

Chapter 53. The Maui TIP process shall comply with the following federal requirements2:

§450.326 Development and content of the transportation improvement program (TIP)

§450.328 TIP revisions and relationship to the STIP

§450.330 TIP action by the FHWA and the FTA

§450.332 Project selection from the TIP

§450.334 Annual listing of obligated projects.

§450.336 Self-certifications and Federal certifications.

FHWA Funds

FHWA administers the federal-aid funds apportioned to states for the planning, design, construction and

maintenance of public transportation roadway facilities. Each Federal Fiscal Year (beginning October 1),

Congress authorizes federal-aid transportation funds to assist the States in providing for construction,

reconstruction, and improvement of highways and bridges on eligible federal-aid highway routes and for

other special purpose programs and projects.

HDOT is responsible for the management and programming of federal-aid funds. HDOT distributes

portions of its annual apportionment to the Local Public Agencies (LPAs), which includes the County of

Maui Department of Public Works (DPW).3 Federal funds are provided on a reimbursable basis, which

means that HDOT or LPA incurs approved costs then is reimbursed by FHWA. Most highway projects

require a 20% local match to receive 80% federal reimbursement.

FHWA funds are not distributed to State DOTs in a lump sum, but in prescribed amounts to various

funding categories identified in highway enabling legislation (e.g., MAP-21 and FAST Acts), and federal

statutes (e.g., 23 U.S.C.) and regulations (e.g., 23 CFR). For funds eligibility, a project needs to meet the

conditions of funding categories. A list of the funding categories used in Hawai‘i can be found on the

HDOT website.4

Projects must be “ready to go” in order to be included in the TIP, which means that required prior phases

of the project, such as environmental review, are complete. Phases of a project typically programmed in

the TIP include: Planning (PLN); Preliminary Engineering 1 (PE1); Preliminary Engineering 2 (PE2);

Right-of-Way (ROW; and Construction (CON).

Advance Construction (AdvCon) is a financing technique that allows committing future years’ federal

funds, but accordingly reduces the future years’ funding levels. This allows agencies to spread the cost of

projects, including the local match, over several years. Another technique used by agencies is to request

2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations. https://www.ecfr.gov/ Accessed August 2017. 3 HDOT Highways Division. Local Public Agency (LPA) Manual for Federal Aid Program. February 2015. 4 http://hidot.hawaii.gov/highways/other/other-related-links/stip/general-stip-information/

https://www.ecfr.gov/

3

federal funds to “Soft Match” previously purchased or donated lands, consultant services, staff services

materials or funds, rather than use cash as the local match.

Funding of design and construction funds for work due to an emergency is not, by nature, programmed on

the STIP. Thus, upon realizing the need for federal assistance, the LPA should contact HDOT

Construction and Maintenance Branch (HWY-C) as soon as possible and follow-up with a letter to HDOT

Director requesting design and/or construction funds for Emergency Relief (ER) efforts.

FTA Funds

The HDOT Statewide Transportation Planning (STP) Office is responsible for establishing a

comprehensive, multi-modal statewide transportation planning process; for developing a balanced, multi-

modal statewide transportation plan; and for providing technical assistance to the counties in fulfilling

their respective roles in the process. STP Office manages FTA grant programs, which provide funding for

the Maui Bus, managed by County of Maui Department of Transportation (MDOT). FTA funds must be

programmed in the Maui TIP, through coordination between HDOT, MDOT, and Maui MPO.

Local Matching Funds

Availability of local matching funds from the State of Hawai‘i or County of Maui is key to including

projects on the TIP and STIP for obligation of federal funds. Maui MPO will work with member agencies

to coordinate with local budgeting processes to maximize Maui’s use of federal funds for transportation

projects that support economic vitality, healthy communities, affordable housing and environmental

protection.

Public input is critical to developing a TIP that reflects the island of Maui’s regional priorities. Members

of the public can recommend transportation projects and provide testimony on drafts of the TIP at TAC and

PB meetings, and through the online forum at www.mauimpo.org Recommendations are forwarded to the

County and State implementing agencies. The Maui TIP Development Process is illustrated in Figure 1 and

further described below. See Appendix A, Maui TIP Development Schedule.

Figure 1. Maui TIP Development Process

Agencies submit and

MPO evaluates projects

Unconstrained Draft TIP

Financially constrained

Draft TIP

Policy Board adopts Final TIP

State includes TIP in STIP

Public Workshops

Aug Nov Feb Jun Sept

Opportunities to testify at

MPO meetings


4

Maui TIP Development Process:

1. Develop Financial Estimates

HDOT provides an annual estimate of available federal funding for Maui, which is a portion of

statewide FHWA and FTA funds based on historical data, as a general target for planning

purposes. Maui MPO and its partner agencies agree upon the annual estimate and propose a target

distribution between State and County projects.

2. Existing Project Status

Maui MPO will list major projects from the previous STIP that were implemented and identify

any significant delays in the planned implementation of these projects.

3. Call for Projects

Maui MPO issues a call for projects to HDOT, DPW and MDOT. Program managers from each of

these agencies propose projects for the TIP based on asset management programs which indicate

the technical priority of projects within each program. Each project in the TIP shall meet the

ARNOLD requirements5, and shall include: 1) Sufficient description to identify the project or

phase; 2) Estimated total project cost, which may extend beyond the years of the TIP; 3) The

amount of federal funds proposed to be obligated during each program year; and 4) Identification

of the agencies responsible for carrying out the project or phase.

4. Project Evaluation and Selection

To prioritize projects for inclusion in the TIP, the Maui MPO Executive Director, TAC and PB will

evaluate the consistency of proposed TIP projects with the goals and objectives identified in the

Federal-Aid Highways 2035 Transportation Plan for the District of Maui, completed by HDOT in

2014 and adopted by the PB in 2017 as the Maui MPO Long Range Transportation Plan. The

criteria are organized by federal planning factors: environment and sustainability, modal

integration, system preservation, security, economic vitality, system efficiency, transportation

access mobility, and additional goals.

The Maui MPO TAC and PB will also evaluate project consistency with the goals of the Maui

General Plan and Community Plans (County Planning, 2012), Maui Short-Range Transit Plan

(MDOT, 2016), Hawai‘i Bike Plan (HDOT, 2003), and other relevant plans.

See Appendix B, Maui MPO Project Evaluation Criteria.

5. Agency Consultation and Public Review

Maui MPO staff will consolidate projects into a draft TIP and circulate for review by HDOT,

MDOT, DPW, and Planning Department. The TAC and PB will review the draft TIP prior to release

of a public review draft, which will be circulated to stakeholders and agencies listed in the Maui

MPO Public Participation Plan. The draft TIP and project location maps are posted on the Maui

MPO website www.mauimpo.org and announced in local news media during public review.

5 All Roads Network Of Linear referenced Data (ARNOLD) www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/hpms/arnold.cfm


http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/hpms/arnold.cfm

5

All TAC and Policy Board meetings are open to the public. Additionally, two rounds of public

workshops will be held at various locations on Maui, to present and receive feedback on the draft

TIP – first an unconstrained draft TIP, then a financially constrained draft TIP. The TIP shall

include a project only if full funding for the project is reasonably anticipated. All agency and public

comments received, and responses to the comments, are provided to the TAC and Policy Board.

6. Policy Board Action

After reviewing the results of the agency consultations and public workshops, the TAC may

recommend that the Maui MPO PB approve the TIP. A financial plan shall demonstrate how the

approved TIP can be implemented, indicate resources from public and private sources that are

reasonably expected, and recommend any additional financing strategies for needed projects. The

TIP must also include documented disposition of public comments received, and documentation of

the analysis completed for Environmental Justice and Title VI.

7. Incorporating the TIP into the STIP

Following approval by the Maui MPO PB, the TIP is sent to the Governor or Governor’s designee

for approval and incorporation, without change, as the island of Maui element of the STIP.

8. FHWA and FTA Action on the STIP

Concurrently with the submittal of the entire proposed TIP to the FHWA and the FTA as part of

the STIP approval, Maui MPO and HDOT shall certify at least every four years that the

Metropolitan Transportation Planning process is being carried out in accordance with all applicable

requirements. FHWA and FTA shall jointly find that the STIP is consistent with federal

requirements.

9. Project selection from the STIP

The first year of the STIP shall constitute an “agreed to” list of projects for project selection

purposes and no further project selection action is required for the implementing agency to proceed

with projects. Projects to be implemented in the subsequent years of the STIP shall be selected by

the State or County in cooperation with the Maui MPO PB from the approved STIP.

10. Annual list of obligated projects

On an annual basis no later than 90 calendar days following the end of the program year (by

approximately December 30), Maui MPO PB, in cooperation with State and County agencies, shall

list projects for which federal funds were obligated in the preceding year, and current project cost

estimates. The list shall be made available to the public through the Maui MPO website.

The TIP covers multiple years and a new TIP must be adopted at least every four years. The TIP and

STIP may be revised at any time, if time constraints permit. Once the TIP is adopted, Maui MPO will

coordinate with implementing agencies for the TIP and STIP revision process. Maui MPO and HDOT

will coordinate requests to agencies for project changes; Over the Shoulder Reviews; and TAC, PB, and

public review as needed.

6

There are two planned major revisions (amendments) to the TIP and STIP in each federal fiscal year.

Agencies will submit changes to Maui MPO for processing as a TIP revision, prior to submittal to HDOT

for inclusion in the STIP revision. The first round of revisions must be submitted to Maui MPO in mid-

November to be processed by March. The second round of revisions must be submitted to Maui MPO by

mid-April to be processed by August.

A minor revision is an “administrative modification,” while a major revision is an “amendment.”

Administrative modifications are considered minor and pre-approved changes, and do not require a full

public approval process. Amendments are major changes to the TIP and will require a minimum two-week

public comment period ad Maui MPO PB approved. Concurrently with the submittal of TIP and STIP

amendments to FHWA and FTA, Maui MPO and HDOT shall certify that the Metropolitan Transportation

Planning process is being carried out in accordance with all applicable requirements.

Maui MPO will follow HDOT Highways Division guidelines for “Revisions to the STIP” to identify which

revisions are administrative modifications and which are amendments.

Maui MPO will implement the following steps in the TIP process:

1. Document and respond to public and agency comments;

2. Document coordination with partner agencies;

3. Prepare record of TAC, PB and public input considerations;

4. Post PB Approval to the Maui MPO website and distribute to FHWA and FTA;

5. File Governor’s Designee’s Action to include the TIP in STIP;

6. File FHWA and FTA action on STIP.

For more information about the Maui TIP, visit www.mauimpo.org


7

September 2017 DRAFT

p. 7

8

September 2017 DRAFT

Project Name: Location: Description:

Initial Criteria: Notes:

Availability of local matching funds (Y/N):

Readiness to go (Y/N):

Priority within asset management program (low, med, high):

Level of public support (low, med, high)6:

Maui MPO Long-Range Transportation Plan Criteria7

Project Score

Grade8

Total Possible

Score (Grade x Possible)

Notes

100

Safety 14 Maintain a safe transportation system for all modes. Reduces risk and supports safe movement of people and goods. Aligned with Hawaii Strategic Highway Safety Plan: ITS synchronized traffic signals, rumble strips, visibility of pedestrians and bicyclists, install medians and traffic calming techniques, remove hazards.

0.5 7 3.5 Supports Hawaii Strategic Highway Safety Plan strategic action

Improve safety of the community through connectivity of the transportation infrastructure. Improves existing access or increases access to areas that currently have few access options. Addresses a high crash intersection.

1.0 7 7

Improves existing connectivity and/or provides a second access for emergency response

Modal Integration 20 Provides a Complete Streets transportation system. Access to destinations for users of all ages and abilities. Located within a strategic multi-modal corridor.

10

Promotes safe connections between modes. Improve connections between vehicles, transit, pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Closes gaps in network.

10

Environment 21 Preserves and enhances natural environment. Prime agricultural lands, wetlands, streams, scenic byways, coastline.

4

Preserves and enhances cultural resources. Identified in National and State Register of Historical Places.

4

Meets the relevant environmental regulations and standards set by Federal, State, and County agencies. Maintain collaborative working

4

6 Level of public support based on input at Maui MPO meetings, public workshops, and submitted via website and email. 7 Project evaluation criteria from Federal-Aid Highways 2035 Transportation Plan (Appendix F, Table 5), adopted as Maui MPO Long

Range Transportation Plan. Total possible weights based on Maui District Goal Weights (p. 2-5) set by stakeholder and technical

advisory committees. 8 Grades: low = 0, medium = 0.5, high = 1.0

9

Maui MPO Long-Range Transportation Plan Criteria7

Project Score

Grade8

Total Possible

Score (Grade x Possible)

Notes

relationships with agencies, comply with goals of relevant plans/ policies.

Promotes the use of sustainable practices. Energy efficiency, access to public transportation, telecommuting, bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

4

Promotes long-term resiliency to hazards including climate change. Adapt to effects of sea level rise and extreme weather, build resilience in transportation system.

5

Economic Vitality 8 Promote the expansion and diversification of Hawaii's economy through the efficient use of transportation facilities. Ability to effectively move people and goods.

8

System Preservation 12 Manages transportation assets and optimizes investments. If repaving before 15 years have passed, must address documented need. Aligns with bridge rehabilitation program. Upgrades route to context sensitive/ prescribed design standards.

5

Maintains safe, efficient, complete transportation system for the long- term. Preventive maintenance, or addresses major maintenance need. Provides continued service on single access to community or emergency route.

7

Security 10 Plan, maintain and operate a transportation system that supports evacuation, response and recovery for incidents. Supports Hazard Mitigation Plan access for medical assistance and supplies, reduction of property damage, operation of critical facilities.

5

Improve resiliency of the State through the transportation system. 5

System Efficiency 5 Improve capacity and efficiency of the existing transportation system for long-term benefit. Traffic operations at level intended by functional classification, access management consistent with design standards, ITS, wayfinding, transit capacity, non-motorized capacity.

5

Access Mobility 10 Provide appropriate and reliable transportation access options statewide to all users. Improves existing access or provide access options to new areas. Corrects ADA non-compliance.

5

Ensure transportation investments are balanced across modes and demographics. Improve multimodal service to low income or vulnerable populations. Gather and consider input from underserved populations.

5

Total Points 100

Maui MPO TIP Policies and Procedures

APPROVED ON: ____________________________

MAUI METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION

By _________________________________________

Policy Board Chair

Memorandum

To: Maui MPO Policy Board Members Cc: Lauren Armstrong, Executive Director From: David Goode, Chair Date: September 19, 2017 Re: Transportation Funding Alternatives As the MPO begins its important work on the allocation of Federal Highway Funds for 2019 -2022 through the TIP process, it is very likely that the amount of federal funds available will not be sufficient to meet all the needs of Maui island transportation infrastructure. Our transportation infrastructure needs funding to keep what we have in good, useable, and safe condition, as well as an increased ability to handle more users of the roadway network.

Increased users of the roadway network are causing significant delays and unsafe roadway conditions primarily on the west side, but also in Paia and Kihei. Additionally, portions of Honoapiilani Highway on the west side are in jeopardy of becoming completely unusable due to its immediate proximity to the shoreline, where high surf and high tides frequently reach the road. A large tropical storm could easily overtake the road, wiping it out in large sections and isolating the west side of Maui.

Maui MPO’s recently adopted long range transportation plan shows a deficiency of well over a billion dollars in the next 20 years with needed improvements beyond the traditional highway funding sources available.

The MPO staff has worked with DPW staff at looking at potential revenue sources that could augment existing Federal, State and County highway funds. While Maui County has been fairly progressive in increasing funding through its gas tax and vehicle weight/registration fees, the federal fuel tax has not changed since 1993. Additionally, the State of Hawaii actually reduced its gas tax last year and has not changed the vehicle weight fees since 2011.

However, the Governor recently signed Act 001 during the special session to fund rail, which gave the Counties, again, the ability to charge an additional 0.5% GET for transportation projects (excerpts from Act 001):

The purpose of this Act is to: Provide counties that have not previously adopted a surcharge on state tax with another opportunity to adopt a surcharge; …

(c) Each county that has not established a surcharge on state tax prior to July 1, 2015, may establish the surcharge at the rates enumerated in sections 237-8.6 and 238-2.6. A county electing to establish this surcharge shall do so by ordinance; provided that:

(1) No ordinance shall be adopted until the county has conducted a public hearing on the proposed ordinance;

(2) The ordinance shall be adopted prior to [July 1, 2016, but no earlier than July 1, 2015;] March 31, 2018; and

(3) No county surcharge on state tax that may be authorized under this subsection shall be levied prior to January 1, [2018,] 2019, or after December 31,[2027.] 2030. …

… Out of the revenues generated by county surcharges on state tax paid into each respective state treasury special account[,] or the mass transit special fund, the director of finance shall deduct [ten] one per cent of the gross proceeds of a respective county's surcharge on state tax to reimburse the State for the costs of assessment, collection, [and] disposition, and oversight of the county surcharge on state tax incurred by the State.

Given the recent passage of Act 001, and the short timeframe for adoption by the County (March 31, 2018), it is imperative for the MPO board to consider the funding opportunity included therein along with other potential revenue sources including but not limited to increased rental car fees, tolls, development impact fees, etc. Attached to this memo is an overview of Potential Additional Revenue Sources for Transportation Projects that each of these funding mechanisms could enjoy. It is a rough estimate, for discussion purposes and relevant as a means to compare against each other and against our needs.

I ask that the Policy Board consider these funding mechanisms, develop questions for staff follow up, and provide general direction as to whether or not the MPO should continue to look into this matter, and if so, what future role could the MPO play.

Attach: Potential Additional Revenue Sources for Transportation Projects

Potential Additional Revenue Sources for Transportation Projects

Maui MPO, September 2017

Rental Car Tax

$28 million estimated annual revenue from rental car tax

20,000 registered rental cars on Maui 1 x 85% average occupancy rate of hotel rooms2 and timeshares3 =

estimated 17,100 rental cars/day

$4.50 additional rental vehicle customer facility charge/car/day x 17,100 cars x 365 days = $28 million/yr

$386 million could be generated over a 20 year period (accounting for 4% bond interest rate)

Pros: Increases visitor contribution to cost of building and maintaining needed infrastructure.

Cons: Doubles rental car tax, which may impact visitor industry ($4.50 already goes to airports, the

proposed $4.50 addition would go to State Highway Special Fund for specific projects)

General Excise Tax (GET) surcharge

$37 million estimated annual GET ½ % surcharge revenue

$222.62 annual per capita based on O‘ahu GET surcharge4 x 165,386 population = $37 million/yr

Pros: Relatively easy to implement, since GET mechanism already exists. Strong and consistent source of

revenue. Many precedents in other locations.

Cons: Regressive tax, but could be offset by tax credits for low-income households.5

Traffic Impact Fees

$ Contingent on development 2012 Traffic Impact fee study identifies $940 million of needed transportation projects by 20356

Study identifies three alternatives for cost sharing among Community Plan areas based on potential new

development. Different rates for residential, office, retail, industrial, visitor and institutional uses per unit.

Pros: Traffic impact fees have been effectively applied in many places to help finance needed

transportation infrastructure. County Planning study provides detailed methodology and alternatives.

Cons: Would increase development costs, potentially delaying the provision of affordable housing.

Honoapi‘ilani Highway Toll Road

$47 million estimated annual revenue from toll road

$10 toll/vehicle x 12,750 vehicles (half of 25,500 Annual Average Daily Traffic AADT traveling both

directions on Lahaina Pali) x 365 days = $47 million/yr

$650 million required for 4-lane highway from Ma’alaea to Lahaina could be paid for by a toll of

$10/vehicle (accounting for 4% bond interest rate).

Pros: Private entity could finance construction, then collect toll payments. Flexible options to charge

different toll amounts based on user type and peak congestion hours (also controls demand on roadway).

Cons: Analysis does not account for profit margin of private entity or costs of toll collection technology.

1 County of Maui Department of Motor Vehicles. July 2017. 2 State of Hawaii Dept. of Business, Economic Development and Tourism. Hotel occupancy rate 75% in 2016. 3 Hawaii Tourism Authority. Timeshare occupancy rate 95% in 2016. 4 Maui County Department of Transportation with SSFM International. Maui Short Range Transit Plan. April 2016. 5 Tax Foundation of Hawai‘i. “General Excise Regressive Like Sales Tax”. August 2008. 6 County of Maui. Traffic Impact Fee Study Final Report 6 Impact Fee Schedule. March 2013.

West Maui Transportation Working Group ‐ Rental Car Tax Worksheet

Indicator Area Units 2015 2016Hotel occupancy rate Maui County Percent 74.4 75.9

Hi Lauren & Karen,

Use as Hotel Occ. Rate 75% 75% 75%Assume Car Rental Rate as % of Hotel Occ. Rate 100% 75% 65%Estimated Avg. # of Cars Rented Daily 15000 11250 9750

Cost to Construct 1,000,000,000$ 750,000,000$ 500,000,000$ 100,000,000$

Rental Car Tax $4.50/day $4.50/day $4.50/day $4.50/day# of years if 15,000 cars rented daily 41 30 20 4# of years if 11,250 cars rented daily 61 46 30 5# of years if 9,750 cars rented daily 70 53 35 6

rev 7‐24‐17

Marci Sato in our Budget Office and Lito Vila from Maui County DMV both say registered rental car count is approx. 20,000 vehicles

Note : All data and calculations on this worksheet are subject to verification and should not be distributed, duplicated, published, or copied. Does not include present value calculation. For internal use only by participants of the West Maui Transportation Working Group.

Compiled by Research & Economic Analysis Division, State of Hawaii Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism. For more information please visit: http://dbedt.hawaii.gov/economic

>>> Michael Busch 6/26/2017 10:07 AM >>>

Attachment 1

Attachment 2 ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Maui Short Range Transit Plan Chapter 5 ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

FINANCIAL PLAN

-- 5-37 --

5.4.3.1 Excise Tax Surcharge

Act 240 was approved by the Governor on July 14, 2015. Section 46-16.9, Hawaii Revised Status, was amended to read as follows:

(c) Each county that has not established a surcharge on state tax prior to the effective date of this Act may establish the surcharge at the rates enumerated in sections 237-8.6 and 238-2.6. A county electing to establish this surcharge shall do so by ordinance; provided that:

(1) No ordinance shall be adopted until the county has conducted a public hearing on the proposed ordinance;

(2) The ordinance shall be adopted prior to July 1, 2016, but no earlier than July 1, 2015; and,

(3) No county surcharge on state tax that may be authorized under this subsection shall be levied prior to January 1, 2018, or after December 31, 2027.

(f) Each county with a population equal to or less than five hundred thousand that adopts a county surcharge on state tax ordinance pursuant to this section shall use the surcharges received from the State for:

(1) Operating or capital costs of public transportation within each county for public transportation systems, including public roadways or highways, public buses, trains, ferries, pedestrian paths or sidewalks, or bicycle paths; and

(2) Expenses in complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 with respect to paragraph (1).

In fiscal year 2015, The Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transportation (HART) received a total of $220,793,293 from the GET surcharge. This equates to a per capita amount of $222.62 for Oahu's 2014 population of 991,788. Maui's population in 2014 was estimated at 163,019. At $222.62 per capita that would equate to $36,291,289 annual GET surcharge revenue to Maui.

This estimate may be low considering Maui has a greater contribution to its GET from visitors. In 2014 Oahu received 463,598 visitors arriving by air. Maui had 230,947 visitors in 2014 arriving by air. Table 5-22 includes an alternative financial plan by fiscal year that demonstrates what might be possible with approval of a General Excise Tax increase by the County Council by July 1, 2016.

The table identifies the estimated total revenue from 2018 to 2022 for a General Excise Tax. It assumes the collection would be initiated on January 1, 2018 as specified by Act 240 but the funds generated would encounter a distribution lag time of several months. Fiscal Year 2017 would have no change since collection of the excise tax would not commence until Fiscal Year 2018. The table sets the operating revenue for Maui Bus from the County Highway Fund at $0 for each of the full years that the general excise tax is collected starting in Fiscal Year 2019. It sets the County CIP required at $0 as well starting in Fiscal Year 2018.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Maui Short Range Transit Plan Chapter 5 ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

FINANCIAL PLAN

-- 5-38 --

Table 5-22: Financial Plan by Fiscal Year with a General Excise Tax Approval

ITEM 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Expenses

Administration & Marketing $246,000 $258,300 $271,215 $284,776 $299,015 $313,965

Operations $10,465,203 $11,171,968 $12,680,690 $14,093,796 $15,066,977 $16,146,647

Capital Investments $1,350,000 $12,100,000 $15,310,000 $16,565,000 $12,600,000 $13,360,000

Total Expense $12,061,203 $23,530,268 $28,261,905 $30,943,572 $27,965,992 $29,820,612

Operating Revenue

Fare Revenue & related $3,086,451 $3,224,585 $3,611,465 $4,022,448 $4,377,258 $5,012,258

Farebox Recovery Ratio 28.8% 28.2% 27.9% 28.0% 28.5% 30.5%

County Highway Fund $7,624,752 $8,205,683 $0 $0 $0 $0

Capital Funding

Federal Grants by Formula $2,620,000 $2,698,600 $2,779,558 $2,862,945 $2,948,833 $3,037,298

Federal Grants Discretionary $0 $0 $768,000 $3,200,000 $200,000 $3,744,000

County CIP $524,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

General Excise Tax Funding

Estimated Total Revenue $0 $12,084,999 $36,291,289 $36,291,289 $36,291,289 $36,291,289

Operating Subsidy $0 $0 $9,340,440 $10,356,124 $10,988,734 $11,448,354

Capital Funding $0 $9,401,400 $11,762,442 $10,502,055 $9,451,167 $6,578,702

Carryover balance $0 $2,683,599 $17,872,006 $33,305,116 $49,156,505 $67,420,738

MAUI BUS FINANCIAL PLAN BY YEAR

The amount of revenue in the Fiscal Year 2018 shows a lower estimate at one-third the estimated annual total due to the fact that this is half of a fiscal year and there could be mobilization and fluctuation issues associated with the initiation of such a new program. The full estimate is used for Fiscal Year 2019 and each year thereafter without any escalation to provide a conservative estimate of the potential total revenue. The amount of revenue produced is sufficient to fully fund all MSRTP operating and capital obligations. The last row identifies a carry-over balance ending the six year period with over $67 million available for other County transportation related needs.

County of Maui – Impact Fees Schedule March 2013

Page25

Table 12 – Distributed Program Costs by Source of Funding, 2011‐2020

BENEFIT ZONE ALTERNATIVE

LOCAL

PROJECT

COSTS ONLY

STATE

PROJECT

COSTS ONLY

TOTAL COSTS,

2011‐2020

Island‐Wide ‐ Alternative 1

$21,467,056 $65,339,239 $86,806,295

Community Plan Areas ‐ Alternative 2

West Maui $1,570,349 $34,831,454 $36,401,802

Wailuku‐Kahului $7,086,793 $17,452,776 $24,539,569

Kihei‐Makena $8,363,134 $7,289,411 $15,652,544

Paia‐Haiku $1,628,109 $1,742,848 $3,370,956

Makawao‐Pukalani‐Kula $2,763,987 $3,715,668 $6,479,655

Hana $54,684 $307,084 $361,768

TOTALS ‐ ALT 2 $21,467,056 $65,339,239 $86,806,295

COMBINED CP AREAS ‐ Alternative 3

West Maui $1,570,349 $34,831,454 $36,401,802

Wailuku‐Kahului + Kihei‐

Makena + Makawao‐Pukalani‐

Kula + Paia‐Haiku

$19,842,023 $30,200,702 $50,042,725

Hana $54,684 $307,084 $361,768

TOTALS ‐ ALT 3 $21,467,056 $65,339,239 $86,806,295

DISTRIBUTION PERIOD TOTAL

COST COMPONENT BASE YEAR 2011‐2020 POST 2020

LOCAL PROJECT COSTS ONLY $55,158,242 $21,467,056 $114,928,266 $191,553,564

STATE PROJECT COSTS ONLY $306,706,512 $65,339,239 $376,963,035 $749,008,787

TOTAL PROGRAM COSTS $361,864,754 $86,806,295 $491,891,301 $940,562,351

Table 11 reflects the distribution of program costs for Maui Island as a whole. This same distribution

has been calculated for Benefit Zone Alternatives #2 and #3 and is presented in Appendix E.

The actual impact fee cost basis will be those costs of the program attributed to the forecast 10‐year

growth. The summary of these costs is shown in Table 12.

Table 11 – Distributed Program Costs by Source of Funding

Attachment 3

County of Maui – Impact Fees Schedule March 2013

Page26

5.0 Calculation of Impact Fee Rate

The results of the impact fee calculations are basically organized as follows:

There are three (3) Benefit Zone Alternatives:

o Alternative #1 – Island‐wide

o Alternative #2 – Six individual Community Plan areas

o Alternative #3 – Three combined CP areas

There are three separate funding sources, each with their own component of impact fee for

each land use category defined for assessment.

o Total Program

o Local projects costs only

o State projects costs only

The methodology to determine impact fee rates is very straightforward; the capital cost element for the

10‐year period (Table 12) will be divided by the number of 10‐year period growth units determined

(Table 7).

An example of the calculation for the Island‐wide Benefit Zone alternative and the program costs for the

local projects only is shown in Table 13:

County of M

aui – Impact F

ees Schedule

March

2013

Page27

ROW I.D.

SOURCE MEASURE Sin

gle

-Fam

ily

&

Du

ple

x R

esid

enti

al

Mu

lti-

Fam

ily

Res

iden

tial

Off

ice

Ret

ail

Ind

ust

rial

Vis

ito

r A

cco

mm

od

atio

n

Inst

itu

tio

nal

- P

ub

lic

To

tals

[A] From Table 9 Unit of Development DU DU KGSF KGSF KGSF VU KGSF

[B] From Table 12 Total Program Cost (2011‐2020)21,467,056$

[C] From Table 5 Trips (2011‐2020) 16,229 10,475 23,009 39,318 2,777 4,798 3,102 99,708

[D] Calculated Pct. Of Total Trips 16.28% 10.51% 23.08% 39.43% 2.78% 4.81% 3.11% 100.00%

[E]Calculated,

[B]*[D]Share of Total Program Cost $3,493,990 $2,255,363 $4,953,831 $8,465,218 $597,791 $1,033,099 $667,765 $21,467,056

[F] From Table 7No. New Development Units,

2011‐20208,161 5,011 1,531 2,678 1,853 1,780 474

$428.13 $450.08 $3,236.53 $3,160.55 $322.61 $580.39 $1,408.79

per DU per DU per KGSF per KGSF per KGSF per VU per KGSF[G]

Calculated,

[E]/[F]

Impact Fee Rate

($/Unit of Development)

Table 13 – Example of Impact Fee Calculation ‐ Island‐wide Benefit Zone

Local Projects Costs only

# cars per day AADT 2016 25,500

12,750

Cost to construct1,000,000,000$ 750,000,000$ 500,000,000$ 100,000,000$

# of years at $1/trip 215 161 107 21# of years at $4/trip 54 40 27 5# of years at $10/trip 21 16 11 2

rev 7-24-17

Note : All data and calculations on this worksheet are subject to verification and should not be distributed, duplicated, published, or copied. Does not include discount rate for present value or inflation adjustments. For internal use only by participants of the West Maui Transportation Working Group.

Attachment 4

West Maui Transportation Working Group ‐ Toll Road Worksheet

Trip is one‐way only

Documents

Policy Board Meeting - Maui MPO...Policy Board Meeting Thursday, September 28, 2017 9:00 AM Planning Conference Room Kalana Pakui Building 250 South High Street Wailuku, Hawaii 96793