RULES AND STANDARDS OF THE STATE PLANNING COUNCIL (150-RICR-60-05-1)

Regulation Authority:

R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-11-10

Purpose and Reason:

The purpose of the amendments is to streamline the process by which the State develops its Transportation Improvement Program (“TIP”) (Rule 5.5). Substantive revisions include: 1)reducing the length of notice required prior to a public hearing to 10 days; 2) eliminating the requirement for municipal governments to hold a public hearing on projects they intend to submit to the TIP; 3) striking the requirement for TIPs to identify the phase of work programmed for each year; 4) removing the requirement for the Division and the Transportation Advisory Committee to hold public workshops for the purpose of accepting TIP applications, and 6) reducing the required public review and comment period to 30 days. Streamlining the TIP process through these amendments will reduce the administrative burdens placed upon municipalities and reduce the time needed to complete annual updates to a 6 month timeframe. Additionally, formatting changes are proposed to comply with the new State code of regulations. Based on public comment, two changes were made between the proposed rule and the final rule: 1. Eliminating the requirement for municipal governments to hold a local public hearing on projects they intend to submit to the TIP – This proposed change was removed/eliminated from the final regulation. 2.Reducing the length of notice required prior to a State public hearing to 10 days -- The 10-day period that was proposed was extended to 20 days in the final rule. Testimony and Comments: 1. The Utility of an Annual TIP Cycle Comments Individuals specifically commented on the wider subject of the annual TIP cycle. One felt that the changes discussed were positive, because they would allow for an annual TIP cycle which would permit more public input over a four-year period than the previous four-year TIP cycle (see below). Another expressed that while four years was probably too long, the creation of a 10-year TIP with an annual update cycle would create more problems than it would solve. Others expressed a general feeling that the current four-year TIP process was acceptable, and that the change to an annual update was viewed with some skepticism. Response Updating the STIP annually allows the State to ensure project priorities align with economic development priorities, which can change with shifts in economic conditions, national policy, etc. This process would place Rhode Island among just a handful of states that solicit new projects annually and revisit the plan in a way that is above and beyond what is required by the federal government. Changes to text of final Rule based on comments: None 2. Eliminating the requirement for municipal governments to hold a local public hearing on projects they intend to submit to the TIP Comments Several commenters pointed out that local public hearings are often the primary point of contact for members of the public and the easiest forum for them to engage. This was felt to not only be due to issues of convenience, but also because issues develop locally. Such local hearings provide members of the public the opportunity to discuss these issues with local government representatives in a local context that otherwise do not exist once projects are submitted for State consideration. Response Requiring local public hearings to be held by cities and towns prior to submitting project applications to the State does provide an opportunity for a greater level of public engagement to be realized than can be achieved by the State acting alone. Changes to text of final Rule based on comments: The proposal to no longer require that cities and towns conduct local public hearings prior to submitting applications to the State has been eliminated, and as a result, cities and towns would still be required to conduct local public hearings. (Rule 1.5.5(2)(a)) 3. Removing the requirement for the Division and the Transportation Advisory Committee to hold public workshops for the purpose of accepting TIP applications Comments Several comments were heard on this theme. One commenter noted that a biannual workshop cycle would be more appropriate. Another felt that the public submittal workshops were informative and should not be eliminated. One suggested that they could be required biannually. Some misunderstood the purpose of the current requirement as written. Response Under the current rules, four public events are required to be held during the solicitation period for the specific purpose of accepting formal applications for the State’s consideration. The workshops are held after the applications have been completed and are solely for the purpose of providing a public venue where applicants may formally present their projects to the State. Submitting applications in this manner is optional. Applications can otherwise be submitted by mail or be hand-delivered to the Statewide Planning Program. As such, these events have historically proven themselves to be administrative in nature, not universally attended, and subsequently provide questionable return on the level of effort invested in orchestrating them. Removing the requirement also would not prohibit the events from happening, should the Council determine them beneficial at some point in the future. Changes to text of final Rule based on comments: None 4. Striking the requirement for the TIP to identify the phase of work programmed for each year Comments Several commentators spoke to the benefit of phasing as a planning tool. It was generally felt that including such information in the STIP helped ensure transparency by requiring updates when circumstances changed. Another advised clarification as to the Code of Federal Regulation’s (CFR) requirement that STIPs include sufficient descriptive material to identify projects or phases. Response Phasing is an extremely valuable tool and will still be relied upon by lead agencies in planning for and managing project delivery on a day-to-day basis. The proposal, however, is to remove the need for this financial programming instrument to identify the expected phase of work that each project will be in for each year that funds are being approved for expenditure. This proposal is not contrary to federal requirements as the CFR does not stipulate that individual project phases be independently listed in the TIP and identified by year. It simply requires that information be provided so that when a project or phase is individually listed it can be sufficiently identified. Changes to text of final Rule based on comments: None 5. Reducing the required State public review and comment period to 30 days Comments Commenters expressed that any reduction in opportunities for public input was not desirable. Some specifically commented that 30 days was not sufficient time to review the associated materials, while others felt that a 30-day period was sufficient. Response The intent of the regulations is to streamline the process to allow for an annual STIP review and update, which would also provide members of the public and our communities with an opportunity to comment each year rather than every four years. In essence, these changes would increase the public’s ability to be heard on the TIP and funding for projects approved under the STIP on an annual basis. Changes to text of final Rule based on comments: None 6. Reducing the length of notice required prior to a State public hearing to 10 days Comments Concern was expressed that a 10-day state public hearing notice period would not provide sufficient time for advocacy groups to mobilize affected members of the public toward effective participation. Response The desire of the public to have additional time in which to prepare for State public hearings can be accommodated within the proposed 30-day comment period. Changes to text of final Rule based on comments: The 10-day period is proposed to be extended to 20 days. (Rule 1.1.10) 7. Tolling Comments One commenter expressed strong feelings that public notification requirements prior to the authorization of tolling authority should not be reduced. In addition, the commenter felt that the use of tolls is generally a bad idea, as is the privatization of roadways. The commenter voiced his opposition to the RhodeWorks toll proposal and called for the elimination of all tolls. Response The changes under consideration relate to the process used in directing available funding sources to specific transportation improvement projects. As such, they do not otherwise impact the statutes and procedures that are required to be followed in authorizing tolling authority, generating tolling revenues or in privatizing public infrastructure. Changes to text of final Rule based on comments: None