Source: Haveseen © 123RF.com
Mission | California Local HSIP Advisory Committee is action oriented and supports the goal of to reduce fatalities and serious injuries on all public roadways in California. |
Purpose | The committee provides high-level balanced strategic guidance to California’s Local HSIP and other safety programs and efforts regarding safety on California local roadways. |
Desired Goals |
|
Members | The membership of the Committee shall consist of seven parent organizations. It is the intent that Committee members shall represent both urban and rural areas distributed geographically throughout the State, and to this end, California State Association of Counties and League of California Cities shall have two representatives. Caltrans - (3) Each representative shall have an alternate that will attend in their absence. Alternates are encouraged to attend but not required. At the discretion of the co-chairs, guests and speakers may attend for specific agenda items. The committee is co-chaired by Caltrans and a local representative. The co-chair position for the local member organization can be rotated at any time by the desire of the local representatives. |
Advisors and Support | Caltrans Federal Highway Administration Local Technical Assistance Program |
Frequency of Meetings | The committee will meet six times annually. Co-chairs may call additional meetings or workshops, as necessary. Representatives who miss three consecutive meetings may be relieved of their service to the Committee and the member organization will be asked to name a replacement prior to the next meeting. |
Roles and Responsibilities | The roles and responsibilities of committee members are as follows:
|
Reporting Structure | The Local HSIP Advisory Committee makes recommendations to the Division Chief, Local Assistance Program. |
Decision Process | It is desired that decisions by the committee should be made by general consensus. Consensus is defined as reaching a decision that all Committee Members will support after a complete discussion of the issues and differing viewpoints. If consensus cannot be reached, a vote of the committee will be the next action and seven ‘yes’ votes will be required before an action is approved. Recommendations and dissenting opinions will be captured in the meeting documentation. |
Amendments | This charter can be reviewed, evaluated, adjusted as needed. |
JESSE BHULLAR Date
Co-Chair
Office Chief, Bridge, Bond & Safety Program
Caltrans, Division of Local Assistance
TOM MATTSON Date
Co-Chair
California Transportation Cooperative Committee
STEVEN CASTLEBERRY Date
California State Association of Counties
DEAN LEHMAN Date
California State Association of Counties
ANDRW MAXIMOUS Date
California League of Cities
ADRIANN CARDOSO Date
Regional Transportation Planning Agency
ROSS MC KEOWN Date
Metropolitan Planning Organization
ROBERT PETERSON Date
Local Highway Safety Improvement Program Manager – Caltrans
RICK TIPPETT Date
Rural County Task Force
GARIN SCHNEIDER Date
Local Highway Safety Improvement Program
District Local Assistance Engineer – Caltrans
SP(s)____________ MN Proj. No(s).:____________
Project Location: (see attached project location map) ____________
Project Purpose and Need:____________
Project Type: check all that apply1
☐ Pavement Markings2
☐ Rumble Stripes
☐ Rumble Strips
☐ Signing Installation2
☐ Guardrail Installation
☐ Shoulder paving (No widening)
☐ Lighting
☐ Engibneering Studies
☐ SRTS Education/Enforcement
Project Manager
Name: ____________
Title: ____________
Address: ____________
Address2: ____________
Phone: ____________
Email: ____________
1 Any other type of work will require a project memo
2 Project will be designed in accordance with the MMUTCD
Estimated project costs
Federal amount: ____________
Federal amount other: ____________ (Enter Funding Type Here)
Other funds: ____________ (Enter Funding Type Here)
Total Project cost: ____________
Project is listed in the Select STIP Year State Transportation Improvement Program in year
Year as Sequence number ____________
Desired date to begin work: Month/Year
Method of Execution of work.
☐ County/City will let work for competitive bids.
☐ County/City will purchase materials under a competitive process and install with their own forces
(NO federal reimbursement for installation costs).
☐ County/City will hire a consultant to perform an engineering study.
Environmental Impacts: Check appropriate boxes
Section 106 (Cultural Resources)
☐ No Historic Properties are affected (see attached letter)
(No Adverse Effect or Adverse Effect will require a project memo)
☐ Engineering Studies (No letter Required)
Endangered Species
☐ Project is in a county which has no federal threatened and endangered species
☐ Project will have no impact on federal threatened or endangered species (see attached letter)
☐ Engineering Studies (No letter Required)
Federal Action Determination Statement
Based on the environmental study in accordance with 23 CFR 771.117, it is determined that the proposed improvement is a Class II Action (categorical exclusion) anticipated to have no forseeable change on the quality of the human environment.
Recommended
County Engineer ____________ Date ____________
Reviewed and Recommended
District State Aid Engineer ____________ Date ____________
Approved
Director, State Aid for Local Transportation ____________ Date ____________
Project Selection:
PROACTIVE PROJECTS:
OR
REACTIVE PROJECTS:
ATP | Applications Funded |
---|---|
1 | 12 |
2 | 6 |
3 | 10 |
4 | 2 |
6 | 9 |
7 | 8 |
7 | 3 |
Total | 50 |
Project Type | Funding Awarded |
---|---|
Chevrons | $220,050 |
Intersection Modifications | $1,550,000 |
High Friction Surface Treatment in Curves | $621,000 |
Intersection Lighting | $181,600 |
Enhanced Pavement Markings and/or Rumble Strips & Stripes | $7,980,247 |
2’ Shoulder Paving, Rumble Strips & Safety Edge | $2,300,284 |
Enhanced Pavement Markings and/or Signs at Intersections | $405,810 |
Upgraded Signs, Pavement Markings and Intersection Lighting | $422,573 |
Roundabouts | $3,476,200 |
Total | $17,157,764 |
Minnesota Department of Transportation
Northwest District
3920 Highway 2 West
Bemidji, MN 56601
Date: July 22, 2016
To: Howard Preston
Subject: HSIP Projects with multiple Counties under one contract
Howard:
This is in response in response to your inquiry on how our counties in District 2 plan and program projects that include multiple counties under one contract for the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP).
Each year our District County Engineers, my staff, and I have a Spring Construction Meeting, Annual meeting, and a Federal Aid Programming meeting. In addition to those meetings, I meet informally with them at their offices throughout the year for various reasons that sometimes leads to discussions of future HSIP projects.
At our Federal Aid programming meeting each December, we discuss the possible HSIP projects that each county is considering. It is usually at this meeting that they agree to combine the same type of projects together and submit them to the MnDOT Central Office in St. Paul for the year that funding is available. They have found that making a larger contract is more efficient for everyone and is more likely to be funded sooner. For example, the first one in District 2 was a 6” wide edge line stripe that all the counties wanted as they all do some edge line striping each year. In our meeting, we discussed which county would have the time to develop the project, let it, and do the contract administration. Polk County offered and from that project we learned that it wasn’t that difficult to manage a multiple county project as long as there was a clear understanding of the costs and expectations from each county. Since that project as completed, we have had other multiple county projects. Now, often times, the counties decide between themselves in advance of our meeting, who will take the lead in the development and contract administration. We have a 10 county HSIP project for chevrons, several 2 county HSIP projects for intersection sign improvements, and 4 county HSIP project for rumble stripes and strips that have worked out very well. This is now the norm for discussion of HSIP projects at our district federal aid programming meeting.
I believe that the county engineers have developed a trusting environment among themselves that comes from our annual meetings and from doing these types of HSIP projects. These multiple county projects are very successful.
I have included with this letter a copy of the intercounty agreement used for our multiple county edge line project from 2011. If there is any other information you would like, please don’t hesitate to contact me via phone or email.
Sincerely,
L.C. Tasa
District 2 State Aid Engineer
THIS AGREEMENT made and entered on the last day of execution below, between the Eleven MnDOT District 2 Minnesota Counties of Beltrami, Clearwater, Hubbard, Kittson, Lake of the Woods, Marshall, Norman, Pennington, Polk, Red Lake, and Roseau, herein after referred to as the ‘Eleven Counties.’
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, each of the Eleven Counties is their own road authority for State Aid Highways; and
WHEREAS, the Eleven Counties desire to provide roadway safety improvements in the form of pavement markings on selected district wide Federal Aid eligible highway routes; and
WHEREAS, the Eleven Counties desire to provide these road safety improvements under one single construction contract; and
WHEREAS, the Eleven Counties wish to clearly identify their mutual duties and responsibilities with respect to the project development, contract administration and project delivery; and
WHEREAS, the Eleven Counties wish to designate Polk County Highway Department as the lead agency for the creation and coordination of activities in the area of project development including creation of final project plans, specifications, advertisements, and bid letting documents; and as the lead agency in the area of contract administration including preparation and solicitation of a contract and bonds from the approved bidder, performing required field documentation, preparation of state and federal reports, making contractor payments, providing field records retention and sustaining the final audit.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants hereinafter contained, and other good and valuable consideration, all parties agree as follows:
Beltrami County
BY: County Board Chair
DATE: 5/7/10
ATTEST: County Board Clerk
DATE: 5/7/10
Approved as to Form and Execution
Beltrami County Attorney
Clearwater County
BY: County Board Chair
DATE: 5/13/10
ATTEST: County Board Clerk
DATE: 5-11-10
Approved as to Form and Execution
Clearwater County Attorney
Hubbard County
BY: County Board Chair
DATE: 5/19/10
ATTEST: County Board Clerk
DATE: 5/19/10
Approved as to Form and Execution
Hubbard County Attorney
Kittson County
BY: County Board Chair
DATE: 6/1/10
ATTEST: County Board Clerk
DATE: 6-1-10
Approved as to Form and Execution
Kittson County Attorney
Lake of the Woods County
BY: County Board Chair
DATE: 6-10-2010
ATTEST: County Board Clerk
DATE: 6-9-10
Approved as to Form and Execution
Lake of the Woods County Attorney
Marshall County
BY: County Board Chair
DATE: 6-21-10
ATTEST: County Board Clerk
DATE: 6/18/10
Approved as to Form and Execution
Marshall County Attorney
Norman County
BY: County Board Chair
DATE: 6-22-10
ATTEST: County Board Clerk
DATE: 6/22/10
Approved as to Form and Execution
Norman County Attorney
Pennington County
BY: County Board Chair
DATE: 6/29/10
ATTEST: County Board Clerk
DATE: 6/29/10
Approved as to Form and Execution
Pennington County Attorney
Polk County
BY: County Board Chair
DATE: 7-27-10
ATTEST: County Board Clerk
DATE: 7-27-10
Approved as to Form and Execution
Polk County Attorney
Red Lake County
BY: County Board Chair
DATE: 6/20/10
ATTEST: County Board Clerk
DATE: 6-30-10
Approved as to Form and Execution
Red Lake County Attorney
Roseau County
BY: County Board Chair
DATE: 7-6-10
ATTEST: County Board Clerk
DATE: 7-16-10
Approved as to Form and Execution
Roseau County Attorney
RSPCB Program Point of Contact
Felix Delgado, FHWA Office of Safety
Felix.Delgado@dot.gov
FHWA Office of Safety
Staff and Primary Work Responsibilities
FHWA Office of Safety
Safety and Design Team
FHWA Resource Center